New Model to Evaluate the Brittleness

of Shale Reservoir in Western Sichuan

Basin
Guo Jian-chun, Luo Bo*, Lu Cong
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation,
Southwest Petroleum University, Chengdu 610500, China
e-mail:135luobo@sina.com

Liang Hao
Zhanjiang Branch of CNOOC Ltd., Zhanjiang 524057, China
e-mail:haojing@sina.com

ABSTRACT
Because of the compact and impermeable character of shale gas reservoir, economic gas
production without large scale hydraulic fracturing is not feasible. After fracturing, a complex
fracture system is generated which enhance the flow channels of shale gas to well bore. Whether
shale reservoir has the ability to form complex fracture network is determined by geologic
factors, especially higher brittleness index. Because of some limitation, the currently brittleness
evaluation method is difficult to describe the comprehensive nature of shale reservoir in the
process of brittle failure. The proposition of a scientific evaluation methods must bases on the
failure mechanism of shale rock. After a comprehensive research of shale gas reservoir’s failure
law and failure patterns mechanism in the process of hydraulic fracturing, a new brittleness
index evaluation model is recommended. The logging data are used to calculate all the
mechanical parameters required in the model, which greatly facilitates the establishment of a
continuous brittleness cross-section and cut down the high experiment costs. The validity of the
new evaluation model is confirmed through the well logging data in western Sichuan shale gas.
In the field application, the two higher brittleness index layers in well XC32 are selected as
hydraulic fracturing formation at the help of the new evaluation model. What’s more, the
desired stimulating volume is achieved.
KEYWORDS: shale gas; hydraulic fracturing; brittleness index; fracture toughness.

INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of stimulated reservoir volume (SRV) is to break the reservoir to
[1 2]
maximize the contact area between fracture surface and matrix , . Thus, the oil and gas in the
matrix can flow into to the fractures with shortest distance. Three conditions are required to
[3 4]
generate the complex fracture network from the perspective of Geologic factors , . First is the
relatively developed fracture network, the second is the stress difference benefit to the
[5]
extension of fracture network, last is the higher brittleness index of reservoir . The brittleness
of reservoir determine whether the matrix have the ability to be fractured efficiently, which also
is one of the crucial issues in evaluating of shale reservoir. In the development of shale gas
reservoir, higher brittleness is not enough to guarantee the complex fracture network after
[6]
hydraulic fracturing . So, in the evaluation of shale gas, the ability of forming multiple
fractures should be taken into consideration.

- 16921 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16922

In this paper, a new mathematical model is established by taking the main factors affecting
the generation of shale gas complex fracture network into consideration on the basis of a
comprehensive analysis of rock failure law and failure patterns mechanism. And then, logging
data is used to calculate the parameters needed in the model. The validity of the new model is
verified in shale gas reservoir of western Sichuan basin. A continuous brittleness cross-section
is built to choose the optimal fracturing layer which is much useful to the design of hydraulic
fracturing.

EVALUATION METHOD OF SHALE BRITTLENESS

Establish brittleness index
Brittleness is a comprehensive mechanical properties of shale, which is not a single
mechanical parameters as Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. The scientific evaluation of
shale brittleness should take mechanical properties of shale and its brittle failure mechanisms
[7]
into consideration . An objective evaluation of shale brittleness is realized according to the
main factors affecting the shale brittle failure.
Dimensionless index B associated with Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio can
characterize the single layer mechanical parameters in the target formation. The expression of B
as following:
E − Emin v −v
=B a + β max (1)
Emax − Emin vmax − vmin
where, E andν are single layer’s Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, Emax and Emin are the
maximum and minimum Young’s modulus of whole formation, andν max andn min are the
maximum and minimum Poisson’s ratios of whole formation, α and β correction coefficient.
Even with the same mineral composition and mechanical properties, there exists a great
[8]
differences in shale brittleness under different mechanical environments . The reason for this
phenomenon is that shales have different capacities to resist failure under different
circumstances. Therefore, the overall evaluation of the shale brittleness should take the ability
of obtaining tensile stress and resisting failure under external mechanical environment into
consideration. According the above text analysis, the multiple fractures damage is controlled by
the mechanisms of tensile fractures failure. Hence, it is reasonable to use the model I fracture
[9]
toughness to characterize the ability of shale to resist multiple fractures failure . So, a new
mathematic formula is defined to calculation the brittleness index as following:
B
Bt =
K IC
(2)
B − Bt min
BI = t
Bt max − Bt min
where, Bt is transform coefficient, K IC is the model I fracture toughness( MPa.m0.5 ), BI is
dimensionless brittleness index. Bt max and Bt min are the maximum and minimum transform
coefficient in the research block.
As the high costs and not continuous coring samples and other disadvantages in
Conventional experimental method to get the rock fracture toughness, so, it is not convenient to
get the entire brittleness cross-section of shale. In order to extend the oilfield practical
application ability, it is necessary to take advantage of relationships between fracture toughness
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16923

and other mechanical parameters which can be calculated through well logging data. Hence, the
brittleness cross-section of shale also can be obtained by logging data.

Parameters obtained from logging data

[10, 11]
Scholars found that there exists a good relationship between rock fracture toughness
and uniaxial compressive strength, then a fracture toughness prediction model was established
by using the logging data. The relationship between model I fracture toughness and confining
pressure Pc can be expressed as following:

= K IC 0.2176Pc + K IC0 (3)

Where, Pc uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), K IC is model I fracture toughness under
confining pressure of Pc , K IC0 is model I fracture toughness without confining pressure.

Fracture toughness under uniaxial compressive strength of different rocks was tested by
[12]
Chen ,and the relationship between fracture toughness and different mechanical parameters is
shown in table1.
Table 1: Test data of fracture toughness
Lithology Vp (m/s) Vs (m/s) St（MPa） E（MPa） KIC(MPa•m0.5)
Sandstone 1806.2 1443.7 2.04 5950 0.25
Sandstone 1869.2 1351.4 1.98 7650 0.27
Siltstone 1744.7 1385.1 1.94 5630 0.35
Mudstone 2526.9 1702.9 2.46 16140 0.51
Siltstone 2054.1 1666.7 2.05 7360 0.45
Shale 4601.2 2654.9 5.08 46200 0.65
Sandstone 200.0 1666.9 2.35 1.3290 0.47
Siltstone 2718.1 1947.1 4.36 17470 0.71
Sandstone 3142.9 2135.9 2.98 2720 0.75
Shale 3083.3 1953.1 3.95 22300 0.56
Mudstone 4258.9 2453.1 4.50 39500 0.55
Sandstone 2948.7 2090.9 6.89 22320 0.80
Siltstone 2804.9 1982.8 5.38 19570 0.77
Siltstone 2941.2 2127.7 5.20 21170 0.75
Shale 4163.0 2455.1 3.60 39450 0.63
Siltstone 2825.0 2260.0 2.35 15200 0.72
Siltstone 4125.0 2690.2 8.90 44880 1.10
Shaly sand 3609.4 2357.1 5.64 56380 0.63
Siltstone 2620.2 1919.0 3.10 17200 0.60
Mudstone 3288.5 2758.1 2.83 12360 0.51
Shale 3850.2 2315.5 3.34 33920 0.60

[13]
Yuan figured out the fracture toughness calculation formula under different tensile
[12]
strength based on the test data from Chen . In this paper, the fracture toughness formula is
re-fit by using above data (Figure 1), the new formula is as follows:
K IC0 = 0.006S t3 − 0.108S t2 + 0.603S t − 0.478 (4)
where, St is tensile strength, K IC0 is model I fracture toughness without confining pressure.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16924

Figure 1: Fracture toughness at different tensile strength

It can be inferred from formula (3) and formula (4), tensile strength and confining pressure
are the required mechanical parameters to calculate fracture toughness. Therefore, prediction of
the two parameters through logging data is the key point to figure out fracture toughness.
Currently, there are many empirical formulas to obtain tensile strength and confining pressure.
The relationship between Compressive strength and Young's modulus and clay content as
following.
= Sc (0.0045 + 0.0035Vcl ) Ed (5)
where, Sc is compressive strength( MPa ), Vcl is mud content , Ed is dynamic Young's modulus(
MPa ).
The relationship between tensile strength and compressive strength is as follows:
St = S c / K (6)
where, K ranges from 8 to 15.
The dynamic Young's modulus and dynamic Poisson's ratio can be calculated through
compression wave and shear wave slowness:
Ed =ρVs2 (3V p2 − 4Vs2 ) / (V p2 − 2Vs2 )
(7)
vd =(V p2 − 2Vs2 ) / 2(V p2 − Vs2 )
where, Ed is dynamic Young's modulus, vd is dynamic Poisson's ratio, ρ is rock density, Vp is
p-wave, Vs is shear wave.
There are variety of logging methods to determine the mud content, for example, natural
gamma, natural potential, neutron density. Natural gamma method was selected in this paper,
the formula is as follows:
GR − GRmin
SH = (8)
GRmax − GRmin
where, SH is natural gamma relative value , GR is target layer natural gamma log values, GRmax
is natural gamma log values of pure sandstone formations, GRmin is natural gamma log values of
pure mudstone formations.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16925

2GCUR⋅SH − 1
Vcl = (9)
2GCUR − 1
where, Vcl is mud content, GCUR is the Hilchie index related to Geological time, generally3.7
for tertiary formation, 2 for old formation.
So the tensile strength can be calculated using formula (5) to formula (9) by taking
advantage of logging data.
The confining pressure of reservoir can be obtained by the following method:
H
Pv = ∫ ρ gdh
0
v a vd + β
= (10)
µ
=
Pc ( Pv − aPp ) + aPp
1− µ
where, H is the vertical depth(m), vd and v are dynamic and static Poisson's ratio, Pv is
overburden pressure(MPa), Pc is confining pressure(MPa), Pp pore pressure(MPa), α and β
are dynamic and static transform coefficients, a is the effective stress coefficient, when
Vcl > 0.8 , a = 0.6 ;when Vcl < 0.2 , a = 0.9 ;when 0.2 < Vcl < 0.8 , a = 0.6 + 0.3 ×
( 0.8 − Vcl ) .
0.6
Combining the formula (3) to formula (10), the required parameters can be obtained, and
the whole brittle cross-section of reservoir along the well bore can be acquired. The calculation
step of brittleness index is as follows:
(1) Calculating the Young's modulus E , Poisson's ratio ν and the tensile strength St
according the logging data of AC value, DEN value and GR.
(2) Calculating B and K IC cross-section using the above obtained mechanics parameters.
(3) The rock brittleness index cross-section is obtained according to the formula (2).

Validity Analysis of model

[14]
Take Xu5 shale gas reservoir in western Sichuan basin for instance . At this region,
Young's modulus in the range of 8 to 65GPa, Poisson's ratio is from 0.2 to 0.45, uniaxial tensile
strength is from 0MPa to 15MPa, confining pressure is form 30MPa to 50MPa. And then a
three-dimensional cross-sectional view of the block brittleness is obtained (Figure2). It can be
concluded from the figure that a higher brittleness index is acquired under the condition of
lower tensile strength and lower confining pressure and higher dimensionless index B .
[15]
Figure 3 is the comparing diagram of Rickman’s brittleness index and this paper’s
brittleness index. It not presents a clear tendency between Rickman’s brittleness index with
well depth, so, it is difficult to distinguish the higher and lower britlleness index region. But,
the method established in this paper is easy to pick out the higher brittle index formation with
the depth from 3075m to 3350m, lower brittle index at the depth of 3230m. Therefore, we can
screen the higher brittlness formation efficiently use the calculation method established in this
paper.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16926

Figure 2: Brittleness cross section of Xu5 shale in western Sichuan

Figure 3: Comparison of two Brittleness index

FIELD APPLICATION
Western Sichuan shale gas is the guide test area of exploration and development in
[16]
Southwest shale gas reservoir . The main target layer of western Sichuan basin is Xu5
formation with a great shale gas exploration area 7608km2. The shale gas resources is about
842 billion m3 to1101 billion m3. The 51 drilled wells in Xu5 discloses 138 shale gas layers
with accumulated thickness 825.6m. It has a huge exploration and development potential with
26 gas layers, 68 gas-bearing layers and 44 micro gas-bearing layers.
The early hydraulic fracturing had got some achievements, but generally is still in the
exploratory stage. It is difficult to optimize the fracturing design without better design ideas and
design methods. There is absent an unconventional methods to unconventional shale gas
reservoirs, especially, in the hydraulic fracturing layer selecting. The next paragraph in this
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16927

paper will take western Sichuan shale gas reservoirs for instance to verify the new brittleness
model’s ability to choose the optimal fracturing layer by comparing the result of brittleness
evaluation method and Field fracture monitoring data.
XC32 is a vertical well in western Sichuan basin. The well logging data of XC32 are used
to calculate the rock mechanical parameters and then the brittleness cross-section is obtained by
taking advantage of the evaluation model in this paper (Figure4, Figure 5).

Figure 4: Well logging data and mechanical parameters in well XC32

Figure 5: Brittleness profile and perforation location of XC 32

The two higher brittleness index layers are selected to hydraulic stimulation. The first target
layer at the depth of 3045m to 3115m with average brittleness index 30.5 and the second target
layer at the depth of 3310m to 3360m with average brittleness index 22.4.
The fracture monitoring of first and second target layer displayed in Figure6. The fracture
monitor results show that the stimulating volume and area of the first target layer with higher
brittleness index is 85 million m3 and 357 thousand m2 separately. Meanwhile, the stimulating
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16928

volume and area of the second target layer with lower brittleness index is 7.7 million m3 and 58
thousand m2 separately.

Figure 6: the fracture monitoring results of first (left) and second (right) target layer in
XC32

CONCLUSION
A new brittleness evaluation model is established in this paper by taking dimensionless
index and model I fracture toughness. And then the continuous brittleness cross-section is
obtained by using the new evaluation method. Finally, the following conclusions are obtained:
(1) It is more likely to generate the complex hydraulic fracture under the condition of lower
Poisson's ratio, tensile strength, confining pressure and higher Young's modulus and brittleness.
(2) Compared with the early study method, the new evaluation method in this paper has a
better applicability in the development and exploration of shale gas reservoir.
(3) The optimal hydraulic fracturing layers with higher brittleness are obtained, what’s
more the desired stimulating volume is achieved after the hydraulic fracturing.

REFERENCES
[1] Mayerhofer M J, Lolon E, Warpinski N R, What is stimulated reservoir volume?[J].
SPE Production & Operations, 2010,25(01):89-98.
[2] Curtis J B. Fractured shale-gas systems[J]. AAPG bulletin, 2002,86(11):1921-1938.
[3] Cipolla C L, Lolon E P, Erdle J C, Reservoir modeling in shale-gas reservoirs[J]. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 2010,13(04):638-653.
[4] Olson J E. Multi-fracture propagation modeling: Applications to hydraulic fracturing in
shales and tight gas sands, 2008[C]. American Rock Mechanics Association, 2008.
[5] Liu Z, Sun S Z, Sun Y, Formation Evaluation and Rock Physics Analysis for Shale Gas
Reservoir-A Case Study from China South, 2013[C].2013.
[6] Jin X, Shah S N, Roegiers J, Fracability Evaluation in Shale Reservoirs-An Integrated
Petrophysics and Geomechanics Approach: SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology
Conference, 2014[C]. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Z4 16929

[7] Rybacki E, Reinicke A, Meier T, What controls the strength and brittleness of shale
rocks? 2014[C].2014.

[8] Terzaghi K. Soil mechanics in engineering practice[M]. John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[9] Enayatpour S. Thermal Shock in Reservoir Rock Enhances the Hydraulic, 2013[C].
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTEC), 2013.
[10] Jin Y, Chen M, Zhang X. Determination of fracture toughness for deep well rock
geophysical logging data[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,
2001,20(04):454-456.
[11] Deng J. Borehole wall stability logging technology[M]. Beijing: Petroleum industry
press, 2008.
[12] Chen Z, Chen M, Jin Y. Experimental study on the relationship between rock fracture
toughess and acoustic elocity[J]. Oil Drillling & Production Technology,
1997,5(19):56-75.
[13] Yuan J, Deng J, Zhang D, Fracability evaluation of shale-gas reservoirs[J]. ACTA
PETROLEI SINICA, 2013,34(3):523-527.
[14] Kang Y, You L, Xu X. Practices of Formation Damage Control for Deep Fractured
Tight Gas Reservoir in Western Sichuan Basin, 2010[C]. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 2010.
[15] Rickman R, Mullen M J, Petre J E, A practical use of shale petrophysics for
stimulation design optimization: All shale plays are not clones of the Barnett Shale:
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2008[C]. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
[16] Chen D. Geological Characteristics and Hydrocarbon Accumulation Models of the
Tight-Sand Gas Reservoirs in Upper Triassic Xujiahe Formation in Western Sichuan
Depression of China, 2013[C]. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference
(URTEC), 2013.

© 2014 ejge