Affiliation:
1. Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA..
Abstract
We performed an integrated multidisciplinary study for reservoir characterization of a Utica Shale field in eastern Ohio covered by a multiclient 3D seismic data set acquired in 2015. Elastic seismic inversion was performed in-house for effective reservoir characterization of the Utica Shale, which covers the interval from the top of Upper Utica (UUTIC) to the top of Trenton Limestone. Accurate, high-fidelity inversion results were obtained, including acoustic impedance, shear impedance, density, and VP/VS. These consistent inversion results allow for the reliable calculation of geomechanical and petrophysical properties of the reservoir. The inverted density clearly divides the Point Pleasant (PPLS) interval as low density from the overlying UUTIC Shale interval. Both Poisson's ratio (PR) and brittleness unmistakably separate the underlying PPLS from the overlying Utica interval. The PPLS Formation is easier to hydraulically fracture due to its much lower PR. Sequence S4 is the best due to its higher Young's modulus to sustain the open fractures. The calculated petrophysical volumes indisputably delineate the traditional Utica Shale into two distinctive sections. The upper section, the UUTIC, can be described as having 1%–2% total organic carbon (TOC), 3.5%–4.8% porosity, 10%–24% water saturation, and 40%–58% clay content. The lower section, PPLS, can be described as having 3%–4.5% TOC, 5%–9% porosity, 2%–10% water saturation, and about 15%–35% clay content. Both sections exhibit spatial variation of the properties. Nevertheless, the underlying PPLS is obviously a significantly better reservoir and operationally easier to produce.
Publisher
Society of Exploration Geophysicists
Reference7 articles.
1. Chopra, S., R. Sharma, M. Nemati, and J. Keay, 2017, Seismic reservoir characterization of Utica-Point Pleasant Shale with efforts at quantitative interpretation — A case study: 77th Annual International Meeting, SEG, Expanded Abstracts, 4007–4011, https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2017-17734260.1.
2. EIA, 2017, Utica Shale play: Geology review, https://www.eia.gov/maps/pdf/uticashaleplayreport_april2017.pdf, accessed 20 January 2018.
3. Patchen, D. G., and K. M. Carter, 2015, A geologic play book for Utica Shale Appalachian Basin exploration: Final report of the Utica Shale Appalachian Basin exploration consortium, http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/utica, accessed 20 January 2018.
4. Rickman, R., M. J. Mullen, J. E. Petre, W. V. Grieser, and D. Kundert, 2008, A practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: All shale plays are not clones of the Barnett Shale: Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE, 115258-MS, https://doi.org/10.2118/115258-MS.
5. Wickstrom, L., 2013, Geology and activity of the Utica-Point Pleasant of Ohio, http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2013/10490wickstrom/ndx_wickstrom.pdf, accessed 16 December 2017.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献