Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (MICP) A Useful Tool for Improved Understanding of Porosity and

Matrix Permeability Distributions in Shale Reservoirs*

By
Robert K. Olson and Murray W. Grigg1
1

Search and Discovery Article 40322 (2008)

Posted October 1, 2008

*Adapted from oral presentation at AAPG Annual Convention, San Antonio, TX, April 20-23, 2008

1
Kerogen Resources, Inc., Houston, TX. (bob.olson@kerogenresources.com)

Abstract

Those involved in the exploitation of shale gas reservoirs are acutely aware of the need for accurate porosity estimates. Most error
associated with calculation of the free gas component of OGIP (original gas in place) is attributable to its over- or under-estimate.
Throughout the shale gas industry, companies generally rely on porosity values derived from tight rock analysis of conventional and
sidewall cores. Those values are then used to calibrate porosity logs through shale reservoirs. The purpose of this paper is to
demonstrate the utility of another laboratory method - Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure analysis (MICP). This tool provides data
that are equally suitable for the calibration of porosity logs and has the added advantage that the analysis can be done on fresh or
archived cuttings samples as well as core. This allows for gathering of porosity data where none was previously available. MICP
analysis is performed by placing a tarred sample in the instrument chamber which is then evacuated and flooded with mercury.
Pressure on the mercury is incrementally increased forcing mercury through progressively smaller pore throats. By the end of the
experiment (at 60,000 psia) pores accessible through throats as small as 36Å in diameter are intruded. The volume of mercury forced
into the sample is equivalent to the volume of porosity accessed. Comparison of porosities derived by this method are in very good
agreement with TRA porosities. A recent study on over 2400 samples representing twenty-five shales from thirteen basins shows that
shale porosity averages 3.90% and ranges from less than 1.00% to in excess of 10%. Lower Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous shales
from the Gulf Coast and several Cretaceous shales from western basins in the US and Canada consistently exhibit higher porosities
then Paleozoic shales.
 Resources, Inc.

Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure

(MICP)-
(MICP)
A useful tool for improved understanding of porosity and matrix
permeability
p y distributions in shale reservoirs

Robert K.
K Olson
Murray Grigg

Kerogen Resources, Inc.

Turning Resources Into Reserves ™

1
 Talk Outline
 Overview of gas shale evaluation.
 Th role
The l off porosity.
it
 Laboratory methods for porosity.
 Results- 614 MICP analyses in 19 potential shale
gas reservoirs.
 Compare laboratory measured porosity with logs.
 Calculated Swanson ppermeabilityy from MICP.
 Conclusions.
Critical Factors for Shale Gas Evaluation

 O i i l Gas
Original G In
I Place
Pl (OGIP)

 Reservoir Rock Suitable for Hydraulic

Fracture Stimulation

 Fracture Barriers
 Original Gas In Place (OGIP)
 Two components:
 Free gas resides in the pore space and is

controlled by Tr, Pr, Φ, So, Sw and

maturity.
y
 Adsorbed gas is held on the surfaces of

the kerogen and is controlled by Tr, Pr,

TOC and maturity.
 Total OGIP is sum of these two

components.
 Free Gas
Free Gas = Φt (1-Sw) (Bg) k Eq. 1

where: Free Gas = bcf / section foot

Φt = Total porosity (fraction)
Sw = Water saturation (fraction)
Bg* = Gas formation volume factor (scf/cf)
k = Converts scf/cf to bcf/section foot (0.27878)

(Assumes sample is in the dry gas window)

Source for most error is the estimate of porosity.

 Lab Methods for Porosity Determination
 Density Method  Injection Method
 Measures grain and bulk  Directly measures

density values then pore volume by

derives porosity (Eq. 2). forcing Hg into pore
 Requires core plug for space.
bulk density  Requires cuttings or

 Crushed core or cuttings crushed core.

for grain density.

ρ
(ρ )
Bulk

Φ=1- Eq. 2

Grain
MICP Analysis
Vacuum
MICP Analysis
Hg
Pressure
MICP Analysis
Pressure

Pore Volume
 Mercury Porosimetry (MICP)

 Measures pore volume

M l by
b forcing
f i mercury iinto t
the pore space.
 Pressure controls the size of the intruded pore
throat.
 At 60,000
60 000 psia mercury is forced through pore
throat diameters as small as 36 Å.
 Methane molecular diameter is 2.16
2 16 Å.
Å
 MICP Injection Curve
0.0015

Sample Porosity = 3.32 %

ntal Intrusion (ml/g)

0.0010
Incremen

0.0005

0.0000
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0
Pore Throat Diameter (µm)
 Density Versus MICP Porosity
‘As Received Porosity’ in high maturity shales measures ‘Gas Filled Porosity’ (BVG).
14.00
Reasonable agreement between ‘Gas Filled Porosity’ and ‘MICP Porosity’ suggesting
MICP is approximately
pp y equivalent
q to ‘Gas Filled Porosity
y ((BVG)’.
)
12.00 Water Filled Porosity
Oil Filled Porosity
10.00
y%

+ Gas Filled Porosity

P Porosity

8.00
Total Porosity
6.00
y=0
0.8953x
8953x + 0
0.5073
5073
MICP

2
4.00
R = 0.7109

2.00

0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Gas Filled
As Received Porosity
Porosity (BVG)
% [1 - (BD / GD)] x 100
 Point Forward Assumption

MICP porosity measured on a sample from a

thermally mature shale (dry gas window) is
equivalent to gas filled porosity (BVG).
 Shale Porosity Distribution
All Basins

45%
45%
40%
40%
35%
Count

35%
ount

30% 94% Barnett and 57% of all

30% shales analyzed have between 1
alized Co
C

25% and 4% MICP porosity.

malized

25%
20%
20%
Norm
Norma

15%
15%
Ft. Worth- Lower Barnett (n=77)
10%
10% Ft. Worth- Lower Barnett (n=77)
All Shale Reservoirs (n=614)
5%
5%
0%
0%
<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 >10
<1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 >10
% MICP Porosity (Gas Filled Porosity)
% MICP Porosity (Gas Filled Porosity)
 Average MICP Porosity
6.00
sity) .

Most formations analyzed have average MICP

5 00
5.00
orosity (Gas Filled Poros

porosity values >2.5%.

4.00

3.00
age MICP Po

2.00
Avera

1 00
1.00

0.00
4 9 6 7 2 8 3 13 18 16 17 19 10 5 15 14 1 11 12

Formation/Basin Code
 Average MICP Porosity

 Average MICP Φ for 19 shales 0.84% and 5.65%.

 Range demonstrates significant variation in gas
storage capacity.
 The Lower Barnett shale averages 2.59% MICP Φ.
 Demonstrates that shales with 2.0 to 3.0% MICP Φ
can be successful shale gas reservoirs.
 Shale Porosity Distribution By Age
0.35
54% 69%
54% of the Paleozoic shales have
0.30
<2% MICP Φ.Φ
equency

0.25 69% of the Upper Cretaceous

shales have > 3% MICP Φ .
Normalized Fre

0.20

0.15
Paleozoic (n
(n=347)
347)
0.10
Mesozoic (n=267)
0.05

0.00
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 >10

MICP Porosity Range (%)

Common Wireline Porosity Tools

 Sonic

 Ne tron
Neutron

 Density
 Sonic Porosity Contrasted With MICP
30.0

Equation
q used to
25 0
25.0
convert sonic transit
time to porosity over
20.0 estimates porosity
onic Porosity

relative to MICP
MICP.
15.0
So

10.0

5.0

0.0
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0
MICP Porosity
 Neutron Porosity Contrasted With MICP
50.0

45.0

40.0
Neutron tool: conversion
35.0 of hydrogen
sity

concentration to
utron Poros

30.0
porosity equivalent over
25.0 estimates porosity
20.0 relative to MICP.
Neu

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0
MICP Porosity
 Density Porosity Contrasted With MICP
25.0
stone Matrrix

20.0
Conversion of bulk
density to porosity
significantly over
osity Limes

15.0
estimates porosity
relative to MICP.
10 0
10.0
ensity Poro

5.0
De

0.0
00
0.0 30
3.0 60
6.0 90
9.0 12 0
12.0 15 0
15.0
MICP Porosity
 Common Wireline Porosity Tools

 Sonic

 Ne tron
Neutron

 Density
Logs fail to accurately derive porosity because the general log equations do
not account for the kerogen and heavy mineral content of organic rich shales.
Our challenge is to develop log equations that take these complex mixtures of
silt and clay size materials and arrives at a more reasonable estimate of
porosity.
 Resources, Inc.

Permeability

23
 Permeability

 Numerous models are in the literature that relate

permeability to MICP measurements.

 Excellent review: Comisky, et al., 2007, SPE

110050.

 We chose Swanson (1981) model to derive

permeability estimates.
 Swanson Permeability- All Reservoirs Relative to Barnett
0.8

0.7
While the absolute Swanson
permeability may be questionable-
questionable
0.6
Comparison relative to the Barnett
ndance

should be reasonable.
0.5
alized Abun

0.4
Norma

03
0.3
Lower Barnett (n=42)
0.2 All Reservoirs (n=486)

0.1

0
-5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0
<10
<1x10-5 10 to 10
10-5 10-4 10 to 10-3
10-4 10 10 to
10-3 to 10
10-2 10 to 10
10-2 10-1 10 to to
10-1 101 >10
>1 mD

Swanson Permeability (μD)

 Swanson Permeability (By Reservoir Age)
0.6

05
0.5
dance

0.4
malized Abund

0.3
Paleozoic Reservoirs (n=265)
Upper Cretaceo
Cretaceous
s Reser
Reservoirs
oirs (n
(n=221)
221)
Norm

0.2

01
0.1

0
-5 -5 -4 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0
<10
<1x10-5 10
10-5 to
to 10
10-4 10 to 10-3
10-4 10 10
10-3to
to 10
10-2 10
10-2to
to 10
10-1 1010-1
to to
101 >10
>1 mD

Swanson Permeability (μD)

 Average Permeability
1.000

12/19 reservoirs have similar or better

.

0.900
arcy)

permeability
p y than the Lower Barnett.
(μD)
(microDa )

0.800
eability

0.700 7/19 reservoirs may be permeability

challenged.
Permity
n Permeabili

0.600

0.500
anson

0.400
Swanson
Swa

0.300
Average
age

0.200
A
Avera

0.100

0.000
9 6 4 7 3 8 18 17 5 11 1 13 15 2 12 10 14 16 19

Basin/Formation Code
 Conclusions
 MICP provides estimate of gas filled porosity.
 The average MICP Φ for 19 shales are
between 0.84% and 5.65%.
 That wide range demonstrates significant
variation in gas storage capacity.
 The Barnett shale averages 2.59% MICP Φ
which shows that shales with 2.0 to 3.0%
MICP Φ can be successful shale gas
reservoirs.
 Conclusions (Cont.)
( )
 MICP advantage- can be done on cuttings.
 Logs respond to kerogen and heavy minerals
which must be accounted for in equations
q
used to convert log measures to porosity.
 Swanson ppermeabilityy estimates can be
normalized to Barnett for comparison
between prospective plays.
 References

Comisky, J.T., K.E. Newsham, J.A. Rushing, and T.A. Blasingame, 2007, A comparative study of capillary-pressure-based empirical models for estimating
absolute permeability in tight gas sands, in Innovate a Golden Opportunity for People and Technology: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 11-14
November, Anaheim, California: CD-ROM, SPE 110050.

Swanson, B.F., 1981, Simple correlation between permeabilities and mercury capillary pressures: Journal of Petroleum Technology, v. 33/12, p. 2498-2504.