Energy Planning Innovation & Enhanced Production™

EPI

EPI provides innovations for enhanced production in the subsurface energy industry that combine economic benefits and environmental sustainability. Energy Planning Innovation, working on innovations for government and university contracts.

Micro fractures aid in mineral recovery - ISEE2024

January, 2024

2024 Conference - International Society of Explosives Engineers (isee.org)

Creating Micro Fractures in Rock Fragments for Blasting Efficiency Improvement

Dr. Ruilin Yang, Orica Limited

Prof. Sidney Green, Enhanced Production Inc.

Abstract

Blasting is a commonly used method for rock fragmentation in mining operations for mineral extraction. It involves breaking the rock mass into small pieces, and ideally creating micro fractures within the small pieces. Such micro fractures could significantly reduce the energy required for subsequent processes like crushing and comminution. Additionally, micro fractures would enhance the rock-fragments fluid permeability thereby enhancing desired chemical reactions during certain processing operations.

This paper presents recent developments of the Multiple Blasthole Fragmentation (MBF) model, which simulates blasting rockmass fragmentation. The MBF model allows estimating rock strains experienced during the blast, for various blast design parameters and geometries. The intent is to correlate these strains with created micro fractures in the blast rock fragments. Adjusting blast design parameters in the MBF model of explosive loading and delay timing allows blast optimization. Such optimizing would create desirable strains to enhance micro fractures within the rock fragments. This would improve mining operations by enhancing downstream operation efficiency, thus reducing costs. Questions? Reach out regarding this presentation.

Peak Particle Velocity for Blasting Rock Modeling - R. Yang & S. Green


New ARMA paper downloadable from OnePetro.

57th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium (June 2023)

Blasting mechanisms are a complex coupling of the rock mass properties and the explosive detonation performance as well as the blast design parameters. Both rock mass and explosive properties have parameters that are inherently not well defined. Thus, blast modeling is greatly challenging to predict rock fragmentation, blast vibration, and the broken-rock mass movement. For blast modeling, previous work has shown that near-field signature-hole blast vibration monitoring is an effective method to obtain critical blast model input. In a blast field, multiple charges create nonlinear additive strains at a given point in the rock and time, which further complicates blast modeling. This paper shows how the measured peak particle velocity ("PPV") from the signature-hole blast vibration serves as a key controlling parameter for modelling. Using PPV as the controlling parameter, pressures and strains can be approximated at a point of interest. Rock breakage is then related by simplified approximations to the pressures and strains. The modelling method described in the paper relates all blast design parameters to the PPV induced by multiple charges at a point in the rock. Therefore, using PPV as a key parameter allows blasting models to simulate all blast design parameters and significantly simplifies blast modeling.

INTRODUCTION Predicting the results of rock blasting has been a long-standing challenge since its inception. However, the complex and dynamic mechanisms of rock blasting remain unclear (Fourney, 2015). The variables affecting the blast results are numerous, including rock mass properties, explosive properties, and blast design parameters. These variables interact in a nonlinear manner, making rock blast modeling more difficult than static or quasi-static rock mechanics modeling. If a blasting model is built purely based on the first principles of physics, it must involve many parameters related to rock properties and explosives. However, these parameters are often difficult to impossible to measure, which makes it challenging to obtain relevant blast modelling input. Moreover, most of these blast models cannot simulate full blasts and design parameters. Even a single modeling prediction requires a large amount of computing time and can only simulate a small number of blastholes. This forms a major impediment to the engineering applications of blast modelling. Researchgate.

⛰️

Equilibrium newsletter Inaugural issue

Global Energy Security Institute creates Equilibrium newsletter presenting “Energy in Context”.

November 30, 2023 —EPI is among those interviewed for their inaugural issue. (jump to EPI’s article here)

…Five articles begin the conversation: First an interview with former Israeli diplomat Ambassador Yuval Rotem on how Israel’s transformation from energy consumer to exporter affected its diplomatic and security policy.

Also included are contributions from Deputy Executive Director Dr. Rich Outzen and Director of Program Development Matt Yocum, as well as from noted energy experts Dr. Brenda Shaffer from the Naval Postgraduate School Energy Academic Group and Sidney Green, president and founder of Enhanced Production, Inc.

We hope you enjoy Equilibrium and look forward to your feedback and to continuing the global energy conversation at GEST 2024 in Tokyo! – Mike Nelson, Editor, Equilibrium

SPE presentation Pacing the Change of Energy – the US and Global

April, 2023

Presentation for the Salt Lake Chapter of Society of Petroleum Engineers April 18, 2023

Energy has the attention of the world, with developments rapidly progressing. Brief highlights and updates are presented on energy production and consumption, carbon emissions, and the transition from oil-gas-coal to renewable energies and carbon capture. Comments regarding energy availability and cost, and energy and minerals security facing the US as well as other nations and other broad conclusions are noted.

Please download the presentation and facts here.🌎

O.C. Tanner Lecture “From Atomic Bombs to Nuclear Energy”

March, 2023

Sidney Green gave the Keynote Lecture for Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts, Letters annual conference. Topic was the migration of nuclear used for atomic bombs to using it as a renewable energy source for the present and for our future.

Conference facility overview image

To view the lecture click here

Conference held March 18, 2023 at the Waterford School in Sandy, Utah

Sid Green receives  thank you & award  from Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters

Daniel Poole presents Sidney Green with an award

 



New pre-print paper: Potential and Challenges of Expanded Nuclear Energy

January, 2023

Nuclear fission reactors have long been part of the world energy supply, and provide about 2-percent of total annual world energy. The contribution as steam-produced grid electricity is about 10 percent of annual world electricity and over 20 percent of US annual grid electricity. This overview-summary speaks to the potential and challenges of much-expanded nuclear energy deployment.

1st nuclear powerplant, Shippingport, PA. – May 1958

Shippingport, PA. – May 1958

The potential and challenges for nuclear energy – for electricity and more broadly heat for industry – are considered in light of the worldwide energy transition that is focusing heavily on solar and wind primary energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy – although less promoted in the on-going energy transition – has an opportunity to contribute much toward reducing emissions. Expanded nuclear energy is advocated by many, but often without complete consideration of the challenges that must be overcome to enable such expansion.

The overview-summary discusses the opportunities and challenges and draws on numerous previous publications and presentations, and most importantly on experience with nuclear technology. It seems clear that nuclear energy is a key part of the energy transition. Better public understanding based on facts can help to remove misconceptions and negative concerns and advance nuclear energy; nuclear energy is indeed important. Download paper here. 🌎

College of Engineering, University of Utah presents, Graduate Seminar: Energy Transition in Perspective

September 26, 2022

The energy transition driven by climate warming and fossil fuel carbon emissions is on the forefront technically, economically, politically, and even nation-security wise. Engineering and science contributions are essential to reduce emissions in any meaningful manner, with energy facts suggesting the enormity of the problem. The Seminar will review facts and observations of the energy transition underway and suggest broad conclusions that have emerged.

Graduate seminar given by Sidney Green, founder/president of Enhanced Production, Inc. and Research Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Utah. Hosted by University of Utah College of Engineering & the Dept. of Chemical Engineering.

Watch recorded presentation Download slides

🍁

U of Utah Chemical Engineering

Answers to the questions you asked about the Geothermal Battery Reservoir


August 6, 2020

Questions and Comments Regarding the Geothermal Battery Energy Storage Reservoir -

A B S T R A C T

              The Geothermal Battery Energy Storage (“GB”) concept has been proposed as a large-scale renewable energy storage method. This has been discussed in a previous white paper by the same authors, “Geothermal Battery Energy Storage” April 2020, (download original white paper); in reservoir calculations by Palash, McLennan, and Green, “Reservoir Temperature and Pressure Profiles for Geothermal Battery Energy Storage in Sedimentary Basins”, ARMA 54th Annual Symposium, 20-A-1411-ARMA, June 2020; and in an on-line NSF sponsored workshop conducted by University of Utah on May 19, 2020, “Large-scale Subsurface Seasonal Solar Heat Storage for Future Value”. This work has created significant interest in the use of high porosity and high permeability rock formations for subsurface large-scale and long-term heat storage. It has also led to questions and considerations naturally arising regarding subsurface heat storage, which this paper addresses. Download full “questions” paper.

Geothermal Battery Workshop Follow-up - slides, presenter info, and paper


May 19, 2020

Large-scale Subsurface Seasonal Solar Heat Storage for Future Value virtual workshop

The workshop saw over 210 participants. A big thank you to the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Utah for hosting and organizing! We thank everyone for joining and hope it was valuable!

Click below for presenter contact info, slides and their comments:

Concept Overview………………………..Sidney Green….comments John McLennan..comments

Heat and Fluid Flow Calculations …..……..…. Palash Panja & John McLennan…slides..comments

Operational Considerations and Well Layouts ……..…......…. John McLennan….slides

Challenges of Sedimentary Basins …………………………..........…..…. Richard Allis.…slides

Site Potential from an Oil & Gas Industry Perspective ….…. Richard Newhart….slides..comments

Geochemical Considerations …………………………………….....….……. Joe Moore….slidescomments

Surface Facilities …………………………………….…………....………….…...…. Kevin Kitz.…slides

Facilitated Discussion and Summary ………………………....…..…. Sidney Green ….comments

Renewable Energy, published paper available via ScienceDirect (here) or preprint below the abstract:

Published paper:

GEOTHERMAL BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE

Sidney Green1 ✉️, John Mclennan2, Palash Panja2, Kevin Kitz3, Rick Allis4 and Joseph Moore5

1 Enhanced Production, Inc., Research Professor University of Utah
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Utah, the Energy & Geoscience Institute – University of Utah
3 KitzWorks, LLC
4 Consultant, Retired Director Utah Geological Survey
5 Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Utah, DOE-GTO FORGE Project
✉️ Corresponding author (S. Green)

A B S T R A C T

The Geothermal Battery Energy Storage (“GB”) concept has been proposed as a large-scale renewable energy storage method. This is particularly important as solar and wind power are being introduced into electric grids, and economical utility-scale storage has not yet become available to handle the variable nature of solar and wind.

The Geothermal Battery Energy Storage concept uses solar radiance to heat water on the surface. The heated water is then injected deep into the earth. This hot water creates a high temperature geothermal reservoir acceptable for conventional geothermal electricity production, or for direct heat applications. Storing hot water underground is not a new idea, the unique feature of the GB is its application to sedimentary basins with formations that are water saturated and exhibit high porosity and high permeability. For certain reservoirs like these, calculations suggest that nearly one hundred percent of the stored heat can practically be recovered, and long-term, even seasonal storage is possible.

Several publications have been presented by the authors on the GB that parametrically identified desirable reservoir characteristics. This is a review of those calculations and the inferred conclusions for a viable GB system. Potential GB system well configurations, injection and production scenarios and ultimate heat recovery for economic value are noted. Download preprint publication.

🍃

"Robe Talks": US Shale Oil/Gas Recovery: A Drastic Change is Required


April 3, 2020

Gang Han’s Hydraulic Fracturing Community (HFC) "Robe Talk" series kicked off this week. The purpose of his series is to keep technical professionals engaged and stimulated while most are staying at home. The first presentation was US Shale Oil/Gas Recovery: A Drastic Change is Required, by Sidney Green.

Read the pdf. (Click on slide numbers in red to move between presentation text and slides)

Webex hosted and presented by Dr. Gang Han, @ARAMCOServices, and ARMA.

🌳

International Conference on Unconventional Geomechanics & Fall wrap up


October, 2019. We’ve been busy this fall! Sidney Green attended the US National Academy of Engineering annual meeting, presented a keynote at the 6th International Conference of Unconventional Geomechanics, and met with SINOPEC in Beijing. Bob and Jim spent time on triaxial testing services.

25th anniversary NAE members - Members in attendance elected 25 years to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE).

25th anniversary members - Members in attendance elected 25 years to the National Academy of Engineering (NAE).

This year the National Academy of Engineering’s (NAE) annual meeting highlighted 50 years of space travel, from the Apollo days to present, listen here to the NAE human space flight webcast. Sidney currently sits on the NAE Committee of Membership.

Following the early October academy meeting, in mid-October, the China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, hosted the 6th International Conference on Unconventional Geomechanics (UG6) 更多.

UG6 Attendees.

The focus of UG6 was on the recovery of minerals from stacked deposits. Sidney Green presented a keynote lecture on the Recovery of Fluids from Layered Reservoirs (you can find the presentation here). A great, informative conference …another of Professor Jishan Liu’s continuously growing symposium series.

While in Beijing, Sidney also presented at SINOPEC Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering (Sripe) on geothermal and deep hard-rock geomechanic strategies and developments. Sripe is an affiliate of Sinopec Group. It is a world leader for wellbore technique research and development - a center for state-of-the-art petroleum engineering techniques. It's always such a pleasure to have time with such an engaged audience. Thank you Sripe and CUMTB for inviting EPI to give timely lectures and for incredible hospitality.

Sidney Green & Baoping Zheng, Senior Engineer, The Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering, SINOPEC. This view from the SINOPEC petroleum offices of the Bird’s Nest stadium and the mountains in the distance -amazing.

Baoping Zheng, Senior Engineer, The Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering, SINOPEC and Sidney Green, EPI. This view from the SINOPEC petroleum offices of the Bird’s Nest stadium and the mountains in the distance -amazing.

A special thank you to Wei Wang for hosting and being a great tour guide in Beijing. Mr. Wang is a Ph.D. candidate at China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing (CUMTB).

A special thank you to Wei Wang for hosting and being a great tour guide in Beijing. Mr. Wang is a Ph.D. candidate at China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing (CUMTB).

 

Finally, Bob Griffin and Jim Marquardt continue their calibration and certification of in-vessel instruments for geomechanics tests.

A busy season!

Hope everyone is enjoying the end of fall!

🍁🍂

Changes in how project results are provided to the client.

EPI Question of the Month:

This Question-of-the-Month is about data delivery, data security, company policies and procedures, and most of all, making information available for its intended use as quickly as possible.

As the last step in the chain, what do managing all of these require to move testing & analysis results to productive applications, particularly in the current environment of big data?

Sherri Heroux, Data Management Specialist and former EPI Affiliate replies:

 
CC Image So much data.

 Final report writing or analysis formatting is the last step to move test data and analysis to a commercial product. Based on many years of experience, this step is often taken for granted.  It’s frequently just assumed that the data from tests and analyses get to a commercial product; but indeed, it doesn’t “just happen.”  Recently, the emphasis on big data draws attention to the essential step of making data available in a user-friendly easily retrieval manner.

Geo-related data (lithology, mechanical/physical properties, in-situ stress, formation pressure etc)  range from processed analog information from sensors that are converted to digital form, to qualitative observations of phenomena.  Reliable information starts with the processing of sensor signals and requires careful archiving including provenance, calibrations, upsets, and procedures for generating and acquiring those data. That’s why input from the entire team is involved in this last step. “Bridging” between the test and analysis engineers and scientists and the end user clients is required.  Quality control, data confidentiality, delivery schedules were always critical, and are even more so in the era of “big data.”

Over my experience of three decades managing and presenting geo-related data has evolved substantially. Initially, hard copy reports were prepared with appended analog presentations of data. Occasionally, an analyst made visual picks from charts. The data were usually summarized in a tabular form to emphasize key or anomalous behavior. We moved from this age of the IBM typewriter to prototype and progressively more sophisticated spreadsheets and word processing. This evolution offered improved hard copy reports and greatly facilitated rudimentary interpretive activities. Sharing and transmission of data was still laborious requiring mainly hard copies. Bandwidth was low; encryption was very basic and generally unnecessary, and transfer protocols were painful.

Lengthy data in flat files can now be provided to a client online, in color, and as 3D diagrams.

Lengthy data in flat files can now be provided to a client online, in color, and as 3D diagrams.

With time, electronic delivery of data developed, led by parallel developments of electronic transfer capabilities. Cost constraints favored transfer of tabulated information in flat files, with relational databases used only to a restricted extent. The transfer of data in this form, with implications for multi-million dollar financial decisions, caused quality assurance and data delivery security to become prime considerations.

What is the next frontier? Possibly the re-use of past data. As an example, miles and miles of rock core test data exist from past decades. That information may be available electronically, but not in a user-friendly and easily retrievable form.  The bulk of these data has likely been underutilized if utilized at all. The volume of such data and the expenditures that would be required have precluded previous interpretation or even trend assessments. However, advanced computational capabilities using AI and machine learning are now aiming at using such data for modern oil/gas play developments, enhanced recovery assessments, and for vetting investment opportunities.

The opportunities for future data utilization are unfathomable. But, it’s still all about making information available as quickly as possible. That’s what “big data” is all about. What goes around, comes around...

Sherri has extensive experience reporting and presenting rock data and analysis to end users. This requires bridging between engineers & scientists and end users while considering quality control, data management, technical writing, budget considerations, data confidentiality, delivery schedules, and other issues. For additional discussion she can be reached at sheroux @ epirecovery.com


Similar rock, different lab, different results. Why?

EPI Question of the Month:

Jim, you are certainly an expert on laboratory triaxial rock testing, with many years of experience including assisting many rock mechanics laboratories and rock mechanics test data users, what do you think --even after decades of laboratory testing-- are the biggest reasons why there are considerable differences in the apparent rock properties measured by different laboratories?

REPLY from Jim Marquardt, EPI Affiliate

 

In my experience with a number of rock testing laboratories, indeed I do see considerable variations in the rock properties measured on similar rocks.  The variations are not just rock variability, but tend to be either test problems and/or interpretation problems.  Strength, shear stiffness and bulk compressibility, and ultra-sonic velocities all at varying confining pressures are among the most common properties measured. Measuring these properties under deep earth conditions is challenging. As one of my colleagues used to say, “if it was easy, everyone would do it”!

Jim Marquardt with triaxial test equipment.

Jim Marquardt with triaxial test equipment.

One of the challenges is that rocks vary greatly in strength and stiffness, ranging from unconsolidated sandstones from the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, to quartzites encountered in the mining industry, to the all-important shale plays in North America. The first step for measuring properties over this broad range is proper testing system setup and calibration.  For example, the range of the load cell and deformation measuring gages is critical.  One would not want to use a fifty-thousand pound (50k lbf) load cell when measuring the strength of a 500 psi weak sandstone.  Load at failure on a one-inch diameter sample would only be 1% of load-cell capacity.

Equally important is calibration of the instrumentation. One would not want to use a two hundred fifty thousand pound (250k lbf) class “A” instrument to calibrate the 50k lbf load cell noted above. Typically, third party calibration labs will provide a “10-point calibration”. Therefore by using the 250k lbf instrument to calibrate the 50k lbf load cell, only three data points would be utilized, 0, 25,000 and 50,000 pounds. It goes without saying that using that 50k lbf load cell calibrated with a 250k lbf instrument, for testing the weak sandstone noted above, is almost no calibration--yet I sometimes see this.

Measuring rock deformations is more difficult than measuring loads, and may be the source of the largest machine and interpretation problems.  The entire "specimen stack" deforms under pressure and load, therefore requiring separating the sample deformation from the entire specimen stack deformation.  This leads to Pressure Effect Corrections ("PE’s") and to Load Effect Corrections ("LE’s"). PE’s and LE’s are parameters that are typically directly measured on a standard material with known properties--such as aluminum, and applied either by hand or in the test computer software.     

This is not easy, and to complicate matters, very small rock deformations can be involved, for example in measuring pore compressibility. The stiffer the rock and the smaller the sample, the more important these corrections become. And making things more difficult, PE's required for the deformation measuring transducers (inside the high-pressure environment) are not perfect.  Transducer calibration tests can be made using a material with known properties (as noted above).  But unfortunately, the small deformation of metals under pressure does not "exercise" the transducers to the extent as when deformations are made on the specimen stack.  I have had experience with both strain-gauged cantilevers and with LVDT's for measuring the rock deformation. Each has its advantage and its limitations.  Overall, rock testing laboratories must be equipped with a wide range of transducers and calibration instruments. 

Specimen stack instrumentation.

Specimen stack instrumentation.

Another area where I have seen errors has to do with the specimen stack and the test computer software aimed to "automatically" take into account the specimen stack, the rock, and the transducers.  Since many things affect PE's and LE's, it is critical to maintain a compatible specimen stack, transducer, and test software.  I have seen outright errors where something has changed in the setup (like changing transducers, changing endcaps, a repair on a strain gage, or even a different electrical connection) but no change has been made in the PE's or LE’s.  Indeed, if these corrections are not properly determined and applied, incorrect apparent properties like Young's modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and bulk compressibility will be reported.

Finally, sample preparation, construction of the specimen stack, and test machine setup are critical.  Proper techniques for all are difficult, and require trained individuals.  Parallel sample ends, parallel specimen stack metal parts, and parallel machine alignment are required.  The overall handling of the sample and placement of transducers are major aspects to be considered. Samples with voids or inclusions or fractures pose special problems as the analysis assumes that samples are statically determinant and that deformation is homogeneous throughout the sample.  CT x-ray scans are very valuable to evaluate the quality of the sample prior to and after testing.

In conclusion, testing procedures and analysis of the recorded data determine the properties that are reported. I have seen cases of basic test procedure errors that lead to incorrect apparent properties.  In other cases I have seen correct procedures but incorrect analysis of the recorded data.  Specimen jacketing, endcap and spacer optimization, sample handling including moisture and temperature conditions, strain gage behavior, pre-loading of samples, and more.... are all details that lead to test scatter or to repeatable results. Experience teaches us that the details are critical! Thoughts anyone??


How meaningful are laboratory tests at representing in-situ rock?

EPI Question of the Month:

Lab testing of rock samples is on recovered samples. Rock core that has been stress relieved, had pore fluids and temperature disturbed, and is then re-loaded in the lab to simulate reservoir conditions — How meaningful are these tests regarding representing the in-situ rock?

REPLY from Rico Ramos, former EPI Affiliate

 

In conventional reservoirs like sandstones and carbonates, decades of laboratory testing aided with field observations and history-matching, have shown good correlations between laboratory reservoir simulated tests and in-situ behavior. With unconventional shale reservoirs, laboratory tests are more challenging and need to be addressed.

Overall, the usual objective for the oil/gas industry laboratory rock testing programs has been to gather a set of values that bracket the range of expected in-situ properties. In some cases, the testing program may be as simple as to gather a property "index" representation, at an estimated reservoir simulated condition, to compare with other rock measured properties. Where time and costs are major limitations, reservoir simulation may not be made at all, particularly when the results can be scaled to certain boundary constraints.  For the latter, the aim may simply be to measure quantities that could correlate with other measurement techniques--such as seismic and/or wireline logs, and then use these inferred properties, together with petrophysical properties, as inputs to analytical and numerical in-situ simulation models.

 In all the cases, the meaningfulness, usefulness, and the value of the laboratory measured rock properties could be assessed based on three quality control (QC) criteria:

  1. Repeatability of tests,

  2. Ability to correlate with other measurements,

  3. Ability to scale, spatially and as inputs to models of wells and reservoirs.

For repeatability, the measured properties for a given lithologic unit should fall into a 'tight' statistical bell curve. For the correlation with other measurements, a cross-check of core ultrasonic to log sonic velocities, the dynamic versus the static properties, the unconfined compressive strength to moduli are compared with petrophysical properties like porosity, permeability, and mineralogy. Comparing with the equivalent wireline log values using scatter x-plots and log-plots are handy graphic correlations.  And ultimately, the laboratory results are scaled to wellbore or reservoir scale, by using the laboratory measured properties in simulator models--such as drilling, wellbore stability, subsidence, sand production, hydraulic fracturing and production simulations. 

For the unconventional reservoir rocks, like shales, complexity is magnified making laboratory testing more demanding. They contain sub-micron multi-mineral components, large quantities of platy clays, organic matter, micro- to nano-meter porosity, and complex multi-phase in-situ pore fluids. On the macro scale, the rocks contain fine layers and sub-parallel interfaces, natural fractures and inclusions. The rocks tend to be highly anisotropic with nano-Darcy matrix permeability, and thinly-layered rock fabric, leading to heterogeneity at all scales.


Generally, typical conventional types of tests are performed across all rock types, shales, sandstones, and carbonates alike; including the same reservoir simulation procedures--basically confine the sample to the estimated reservoir and pore pressure stresses and sometimes to reservoir temperatures. As with conventional samples, linear elastic properties are inferred as for sandstones and carbonates--Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio, unconfined compressive strength, ultrasonic velocities, etc. And the three QC criteria of repeatability, ability to correlate with other measurements, and scalability, are also applied,

Even cognizant of the elements that distinguish shales, simulating reservoir conditions in laboratory tests haven't changed significantly. However, the rock testing programs have become more intensive and more tests are conducted, leading to higher costs. Large test-specimens and bigger test-populations are desired. Shales are very fragile, with large sample to sample variability, with high plugging failure rates, leading to higher degrees of sampling bias where more fragile specimens are eliminated from the testing matrix. 

Because of the extremely low permeability of the shales, pore pressure equilibration during the test is difficult to impossible to achieve. To help ensure reliable and repeatable tests, longer test-periods (i.e. slower loading rates) are conducted. Rock creep trends to a patchy pore pressure distribution, particularly for the higher clay samples. Some cases require "live" pore fluids, making re-saturation more complicated.

Cross-correlations of mechanical properties (like Young's modulus, Poisson’s ratio) with other petrophysical properties show a mix of test scatter and intrinsic rock variability, all due to heterogeneity. Statistically trends of frequency scatter plots and cross plots of these mechanical properties, and of petrophysical properties (such as micro-porosity and nano-Darcy permeability), are widely dispersed with high standard deviations and low correlation coefficients. Special techniques like continuous core profiling, CT and micro-CT, penetrometers, rebound testing, and continuous core logging, have proven their usefulness in characterization and correlations. However, keep in mind that these measurements are on un-stressed samples at ambient conditions.

Sandstone core used for lab testing.

Sandstone core used for lab testing.

Scalability is a major concern because test samples are limited to plug dimensions, and the luxury of full-diameter cores are limited. Testing protocols can be designed considering rock heterogeneity, anisotropy, petrology, and petrophysics; such that the results, when used as input to gridded models, help bracket the range of expected in-situ responses.

Because of inherent rock variability and the discrepancies between laboratory capabilities and in-situ conditions, recommendations that rely on the laboratory tests may be qualified with the cautionary "P70-, P80-, P90- descriptors". These caveats are based on standard deviations, cross-correlation coefficients, and scaling modeling.

In conclusion, with any type of laboratory rock testing, there are uncertainties in results. Laboratory rock specimens are neither pristine nor restorable to exact virgin states. Even so, stringently applying the three quality control criteria of repeatability, ability to correlate with other measurement, and the ability to scale to in-situ conditions are essential. This reduces the uncertainties involved in their applications and adds confidence in their usage. This is especially true for complex formations like the unconventional shales.


Why we need Filtered Drill Cuttings Analysis

January 11, 2019

“AI and Machine Learning: Propagating Rock Properties Using Filtered Drill Cuttings Analysis”

BACKGROUND: Within the oil and gas industry, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to analyze large data sets generated by past activity are providing many advancements in exploration and production. Often this is simply referred to as "Big Data", which encompasses large amounts of data that are manipulated using AI and machine learning algorithms. At present this is primarily aimed at correlating well production with various factual data. However one refers to the subject, the end result is that large amounts of data can be used to make predictions, provide understandings of various phenomena and to solve complicated problems.

"Big Data" analysis currently most often considers clear observations such as lateral well drilling information, completion records, and well performance, with relatively little information of the details of the rock properties considered. To a large extent this is because details on the rock--particularly the rock heterogeneity--are not well known or understood, and yet can have profound influence on production. This makes integrating rock properties and heterogeneity into the "Big Data" workflow very important. Hence, propagation of formation measured rock properties to predict the rock where only limited rock data are available could be valuable and could be truly game changing.

Continue reading article...

by Sidney Green, Enhanced Production, Inc., Patrick Gathogo, Alexander Nadeev, Rock Microscopy LLC.

 

Innovations for clean, abundant, low-cost and reliable energy.

hello@epirecovery.com

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

©2016-2024 EPI all rights reserved