Acoustic and Electrical Properties of Tight Rocks: A Comparative Study Between Experiment and Theory

Pang, Mengqiang; Ba, Jing; Carcione, José M.; Balcewicz, Martin; Yue, Wenzheng; Saenger, Erik H.

doi:10.1007/s10712-022-09730-3

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pore structure and mineral make-up of tight-oil rocks are complicated, with a significant percentage of clay (Lu et al, 2019;Gao et al, 2022). Pang et al (2022) analysed the heterogeneity of tight-oil reservoir rocks from cores by using X-ray diffraction and casting thin sections, to determine the rock mineralogy and pore structure. The impacts of pores, microcracks and mineralogy on the elastic-electrical properties were then investigated using ultrasonic and resistivity studies under various confining pressures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shale distribution effects on the joint elastic–electrical properties in reservoir sandstone

Aladwani

North

Falcón-Suarez

et al. 2023

Geophysical Prospecting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the effect of shale distribution on the joint elastic wave and electrical properties of shaly reservoir sandstones using a dataset of laboratory measurements on 75 brine‐saturated (35 g/L salinity) rock samples (63 samples from the literature, 12 newly measured samples). All the data were collected using the ultrasonic (700 kHz) pulse‐echo measurement technique for P‐ and S‐wave velocities (Vp, Vs), attenuations (Qp−1, Qs−1), and a four‐electrode method for resistivity under elevated hydrostatic confining pressures between 10 and 50 MPa (pore fluid pressure 5 MPa). The distribution of volumetric shale content was classified by comparing the calculated dry P‐wave modulus to the modified Upper Hashin–Shtrikman bound for quartz and air mixtures, assuming pore‐filling shale. This scheme in particular allowed us to distinguish between pore‐filling and load‐bearing shale distributions according to idealized definitions, which provides new insight into the joint ultrasonic properties and resistivity behaviour for shaly sandstones. In resistivity–velocity space, the resistivity of load‐bearing shale increases with increasing velocity which form a more distinct trend with steeper gradient compared to those for partial pore‐filling shale and clean sandstones. Moreover, the pore‐filling shale trend straddles the clean sandstone trend and meets the load‐bearing shale trend between 100 and 150 apparent formation factors. In resistivity–attenuation space, the highest attenuations exist when the volumetric shale content is close to the frame porosity (for Qp−1 in particular), at the transition between pore‐filling and load‐bearing shales. The results will inform the development of improved rock physics models to aid reservoir characterization from geophysical remote sensing, particularly for joint seismic and controlled source electromagnetic surveys.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%