Geomechanical studies of the Barnett shale, Texas, USA [electronic resource]

This thesis presents five studies of a gas shale reservoir using diverse methodologies to investigate geomechanical and transport properties that are important across the full reservoir lifecycle. Using the Barnett shale as a case study, we investigated adsorption, permeability, geomechanics, microseismicity, and stress evolution in two different study areas. The main goals of this thesis can be divided into two parts: first, to investigate how flow properties evolve with changes in stress and gas species, and second, to understand how the interactions between stress, fractures, and microseismicity control the creation of a permeable reservoir volume during hydraulic fracturing. In Chapter 2, we present results from adsorption and permeability experiments conducted on Barnett shale rock samples. We found Langmuir-type adsorption of CH4 and N2 at magnitudes consistent with previous studies of the Barnett shale. Three of our samples demonstrated BET-type adsorption of CO2, in contrast to all previous studies on CO2 adsorption in gas shales, which found Langmuir-adsorption. At low pressures (600 psi), we found preferential adsorption of CO2 over CH4 ranging from 3.6x to 5.5x. While our measurements were conducted at low pressures (up to 1500 psi), when our model fits are extrapolated to reservoir pressures they reach similar adsorption magnitudes as have been found in previous studies. At these high reservoir pressures, the very large preferential adsorption of CO2 over CH4 (up to 5-10x) suggests a significant potential for CO2 storage in gas shales like the Barnett if practical problems of injectivity and matrix transport can be overcome. We successfully measured permeability versus effective stress on two intact Barnett shale samples. We measured permeability effective stress coefficients less than 1 on both samples, invalidating our hypothesis that there might be throughgoing flow paths within the soft, porous organic kerogen that would lead the permeability effective stress coefficient to be greater than 1. The results suggest that microcracks are likely the dominant flow paths at these scales. In Chapter 3, we present integrated geological, geophysical, and geomechanical data in order to characterize the rock properties in our Barnett shale study area and to model the stress state in the reservoir before hydraulic fracturing occurred. Five parallel, horizontal wells were drilled in the study area and then fractured using three different techniques. We used the well logs from a vertical pilot well and a horizontal well to constrain the stress state in the reservoir. While there was some variation along the length of the well, we were able to determine a best fit stress state of Pp = 0.48 psi/ft, Sv = 1.1 psi/ft, SHmax = 0.73 psi/ft, and Shmin = 0.68 psi/ft. Applying this stress state to the mapped natural fractures indicates that there is significant potential for induced shear slip on natural fracture planes in this region of the Barnett, particularly close to the main hydraulic fracture where the pore pressure increase during hydraulic fracturing is likely to be very high. In Chapter 4, we present new techniques to quantify the robustness of hydraulic fracturing in gas shale reservoirs. The case study we analyzed involves five parallel horizontal wells in the Barnett shale with 51 frac stages. To investigate the numbers, sizes, and types of microearthquakes initiated during each frac stage, we created Gutenberg-Richter-type magnitude distribution plots to see if the size of events follows the characteristic scaling relationship found in natural earthquakes. We found that slickwater fracturing does generate a log-linear distribution of microearthquakes, but that it creates proportionally more small events than natural earthquake sources. Finding considerable variability in the generation of microearthquakes, we used the magnitude analysis as a proxy for the "robustness" of the stimulation of a given stage. We found that the conventionally fractured well and the two alternately fractured wells ("zipperfracs") were more effective than the simultaneously fractured wells ("simulfracs") in generating microearthquakes. We also found that the later stages of fracturing a given well were more successful in generating microearthquakes than the early stages. In Chapter 5, we present estimates of stress evolution in our study reservoir through analysis of the instantaneous shut-in pressure (ISIP) at the end of each stage. The ISIP increased stage by stage for all wells, but the simulfrac wells showed the greatest increase and the zipperfrac wells the least. We modeled the stress increase in the reservoir with a simple sequence of 2-D cracks along the length of the well. When using a spacing of one crack per stage, the modeled stress increase was nearly identical to the measured stress increase in the zipperfrac wells. When using three cracks per stage, the modeled final stage stress magnitude matched the measured final stage stress magnitude from the simulfrac wells, but the rate of stress increase in the simulfrac wells was much more gradual than the model predicted. To further investigate the causes of these ISIP trends, we began numerical flow and stress analysis to more realistically model the processes in the reservoir. One of our hypotheses was that the shorter total time needed to complete all the stages of the simulfrac wells was the cause of the greater ISIP increase compared to the zipperfrac wells. The microseismic activity level measured in Chapter 4 also correlates with total length of injection, suggesting leak off into the reservoir encouraged shear failure. Numerical modeling using the coupled FEM and flow software GEOSIM was able to model some cumulative stress increase the reservoir, but the full trend was not replicated. Further work to model field observations of hydraulic fracturing will enhance our understanding of the impact that hydraulic fracturing and stress change have on fracture creation and permeability enhancement in gas shales.

Keywords: Geophysics
Advisor: Zoback Mark D. primary advisor. Thesis advisor
Beroza Gregory C. (Gregory Christian) advisor. Thesis advisor
Kovscek Anthony R. (Anthony Robert) advisor. Thesis advisor