A comprehensive method for the fracability evaluation of shale combined with brittleness and stress sensitivity

An effective fracability evaluation on the fracture network is key to the whole process of shale gas exploitation. At present, neither a standard criteria nor a generally accepted evaluation method exist. Well log and laboratory results have shown that the commonly used brittleness index calculated from the mineralogy composition is not entirely consistent with that obtained from the elastic modulus of the rock, and is sometimes even contradictory. The brittle mineral reflects the brittleness of the rock matrix, and the stress sensitivity of the wave velocity reflects the development degree of the natural fracture system. They are both key factors in controlling the propagating fracture morphology. Thus, in this study, a novel fracability evaluation method of shale was developed combining brittleness and stress sensitivity. Based on this method, the fracability of three shale gas plays were evaluated. The cored cylindrical samples were loaded under uniaxial stress up to 30 MPa and the compressional wave velocities were obtained along the axis stress direction at each MPa stress. From the stress velocity evolution, the stress sensitivity coefficients could be obtained. Our results showed that the fracability of Niutitang shale is better than that of Lujiaping shale, and the fracability of Lujiaping shale is better than Longmaxi shale. This result is in good agreement with acoustic emission activity measurements. The new fracability evaluation method enables a comprehensive reflection of the characteristics of rock matrix brittleness and the natural fracture system. This work is valuable for the evaluation of hydraulic fracturing effects in unconventional oil and gas reservoirs in the future.

[1]  G. Simmons,et al.  Comparison of static and dynamic measurements of compressibility of rocks , 1965 .

[2]  A. Nur,et al.  Ultrasonic velocity and anisotropy of hydrocarbon source rocks , 1992 .

[3]  J. B. Walsh,et al.  Permeability of granite under high pressure , 1968 .

[4]  Yves Guéguen,et al.  Dispersion and anisotropy of elastic waves in cracked rocks , 2003 .

[5]  Carl H. Sondergeld,et al.  Petrophysical Considerations in Evaluating and Producing Shale Gas Resources , 2010 .

[6]  Xian Shi,et al.  A new method for rock brittleness evaluation in tight oil formation from conventional logs and petrophysical data , 2017 .

[7]  Michael J. Mayerhofer,et al.  What is Stimulated Rock Volume , 2008 .

[8]  J. B. Walsh.  The effect of cracks on the uniaxial elastic compression of rocks , 1965 .

[9]  Mark Kachanov,et al.  Elastic Solids with Many Cracks and Related Problems , 1993 .

[10]  Bo Zhang,et al.  Fracability Evaluation in Shale Reservoirs - An Integrated Petrophysics and Geomechanics Approach , 2014 .

[11]  Larry Kevin Britt,et al.  The Geomechanics Of A Shale Play: What Makes A Shale Prospective , 2009 .

[12]  H. Ge,et al.  Shale failure processes and spatial distribution of fractures obtained by AE monitoring , 2017 .

[13]  King Kwee Chong,et al.  A Completions Guide Book to Shale-Play Development: A Review of Successful Approaches toward Shale-Play Stimulation in the Last Two Decades , 2010 .

[14]  Michael J. Mayerhofer,et al.  The Relationship Between Fracture Complexity, Reservoir Properties, and Fracture Treatment Design , 2008 .

[15]  Behnam Jafarpour,et al.  Optimization of Hydraulic Fracturing Design Under Spatially Variable Shale Fracability , 2014 .

[16]  Mark R. Malone,et al.  Stimulation of Gas Shales: They're All the Same—Right? , 2007 .

[17]  Mian Chen,et al.  Rock Mechanical Properties of Shale Gas Reservoir and their Influences on Hydraulic Fracture , 2013 .

[18]  Shicheng Zhang,et al.  Experimental study of hydraulic fracturing for shale by stimulated reservoir volume , 2014 .

[19]  Y. Guéguen,et al.  Cracks in glass under triaxial conditions , 2011 .

[20]  Mark Kachanov,et al.  Microcrack‐induced elastic wave anisotropy of brittle rocks , 1995 .

[21]  M. Mullen,et al.  A Composite Determination of Mechanical Rock Properties for Stimulation Design (What to Do When You Don't Have a Sonic Log) , 2007 .

[22]  Y. Guéguen,et al.  Damage and rupture dynamics at the brittle-ductile transition: The case of gypsum , 2011 .

[23]  J. B. Walsh.  The effect of cracks in rocks on Poisson's ratio , 1965 .

[24]  C. Sondergeld,et al.  Fracture Permeability of Gas Shale: Effect of Roughness, Fracture Offset, Proppant, and Effective Stress , 2010 .

[25]  Y. Guéguen,et al.  Crack-induced anisotropy in crustal rocks: Predicted dry and fluid-saturated Thomsen’s parameters , 2009 .

[26]  D. Jarvie,et al.  Unconventional shale-gas systems: The Mississippian Barnett Shale of north-central Texas as one model for thermogenic shale-gas assessment , 2007 .

[27]  Peng Han,et al.  A novel experimental approach for fracability evaluation in tight-gas reservoirs , 2015 .

[28]  Christopher R. Clarkson,et al.  Pore structure characterization of North American shale gas reservoirs using USANS/SANS, gas adsorption, and mercury intrusion , 2013 .

[29]  L. Vernik,et al.  Velocity anisotropy in shales: A petrophysical study , 1997 .

[30]  R. Rickman,et al.  A Practical Use of Shale Petrophysics for Stimulation Design Optimization: All Shale Plays Are Not Clones of the Barnett Shale , 2008 .

[31]  George E. King,et al.  Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We Learned? , 2010 .