To estimate the resources of Permian Roseneath and Murteree gas shales in the Cooper Basin, Australia, geochemical analysis, log interpretation and core analysis techniques were combined to conduct mineralogical modelling and define petrophysical parameters of both formations. With the sedimentologic, petrographic, SEM and XRD data derived from analysis of cores and cuttings, a mineralogical model was built for target formations. Moreover, based on the results of conventional core analysis, GR logging, SEM analysis, XRD analysis, and geochemical and petrographic analysis, a petrophysical model was established for key wells. Then, these models were used to analyse the mineral composition and petrophysical properties of Roseneath and Murteree gas shales. The results show that both Roseneath and Murteree gas shales are composed of clay, quartz, carbonate and kerogen, as well as a small quantity of auxiliary minerals (e.g. feldspar and siderite). According to porosity, permeability, TOC, water saturation, mineral composition and other parameters, it is concluded that Murteree shale has higher potential than Roseneath shale within the basin, especially in the areas in and around Well Encounter 1.
JADOON Quaid Khan
,
ROBERTS Eric
,
BLENKINSOP Tom
,
WUST Raphael
,
SHAH Syed Anjum
. Mineralogical modelling and petrophysical parameters in Permian gas shales from the Roseneath and Murteree formations, Cooper Basin, Australia[J]. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2016
, 43(2)
: 253
-260
.
DOI: 10.11698/PED.2016.02.11
[1] GATEHOUSE C G. Formations of the Gidgealpa Group in the Cooper Basin[J]. Australasian Oil & Gas Review, 1972, 18(1): 10-15.
[2] FIELDING C R, BLACKSTONE B A, FRANK T D, et al. Reservoir potential of sands formed in glaciomarine environments: An analog study based on Cenozoic examples from McMurdo Sound, Antarctica[J]. Geological Society London Special Publications, 2012, 368(1): 211-228.
[3] Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. Cooper and Eromanga consolidated data package[EB/OL]. (2004-06-14)[2015-10-01]. http://www.beachenergy.com.au/IRM/PDF/ 2254/Asian PresentationHongKongandSingapore.
[4] ARCHIE G E. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics[J]. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 1942, 146(3): 54-62.
[5] WORTHINGTON P F. The petrophysics of problematic reservoirs[J]. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 2011, 63(12): 88-97.
[6] WORTHINGTON P F. The direction of petrophysics: A perspective to 2020[J]. Petrophysics, 2011, 52(4): 261-274.
[7] KENNEDY W D, HERRICK D C. Conductivity models for Archie rocks[J]. Geophysics, 2012, 77(3): 423-430.
[8] GLOVER P. Measurements of the photo-electric absorption(PEF) litho-density log for common lithologies[R]. Queensland: James Cook University, 2010.
[9] PASSEY O R, MORETTI F U, STROUD J D. A practical model for organic richness from porosity and resistivity logs[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 1990, 74(12): 1777-1794.
[10] KATHY R B, RICHARD S . A comparative study of the Mississipian Barnet Shale, Fort Worth Basin, and Appalachian Basin[J]. AAPG Bulletin, 2011, 91(4): 475-499.
[11] KRYGOWSKI D A. Guide to petrophysical interpretation[R]. Austin Texas USA: University of Texas at Austin, 2003: 47.
[12] GLORIOSO J C, RATTIA A J. Unconventional reservoirs: Basic petrophysical concepts for shale gas[R]. Australia, Vienna: SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition, 2012.
[13] BUST V K, MAJID A A, LETO O, et al. The petrophysics of shale gas reservoirs: Technical challenges and pragmatic solutions[J]. Petroleum Geoscience, 2013, 19(2): 91-103
[14] GUIDRY F K, LUFFEL D L, OLSZEWSKL A J. Devonian shale formation evaluation model based on logs, new core analysis methods, and production tests[R]. Lafayette, Louisiana: SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium, 1990.
