Arma 17 167
Arma 17 167
ABSTRACT: The Vaca Muerta formation has been under study as a potential shale reservoir since approximately 2007; however, the first
well, targeting this formation, was drilled in 2010. During the last few years, many works showing different discoveries about Vaca Muerta
mechanical rock properties have been published. All of them are an invaluable piece of work; nevertheless, they do not give a full
characterization of Vaca Muerta mechanical rock properties. Until today, many meters of core samples were recovered from Vaca Muerta
formation and a complete set of rock mechanics laboratory tests have been performed on core plugs to accurately characterize all the
parameters that governs the mechanical behavior of the rock. In addition, to further understand the variability in the mechanical response of
the rock, changes in the setting up of the laboratory tests were done in similar plugs on a same core sample (sister samples). It is the aim of
this paper to present an overview of recent Vaca Muerta research works which include mechanical laboratory characterization of the rock
and discuss about how different laboratory test parameters such as temperature, confining pressure, time, and fluid saturation among others
affects the mechanical response of the rock. To complete the understanding of the Vaca Muerta formation mechanical behavior, special
laboratory studies like Biot´s coefficient and creep test were performed in some core shale gas samples; nevertheless, in this work, the
quality and validity of these results are left as an open discussion. The most important conclusion of the analysis done in this work is that
.A , a unique correlation between many elastic
properties has been found and a simple workflow to fully characterize the rock mechanical properties of Vaca Muerta formation is proposed.
2.2 Rock Mechanical Test on Vaca Muerta Formation 𝐶 µs/ft 0.6116 𝐶 20.131 (1)
Fig. 2. Bulk density measured as received in lab from vertical Fig. 4. Laboratory to wireline acoustic measurement relationship.
ultrasonic compressional slowness measured in lab. The difference is principally due to scale and frequency effect.
Dashed line is the one to one relationship.
Figure 3 presents an excellent correlation (R2>0.8) between
vertical static Young modulus (EVsta) and vertical 3.1.2. Static Relationships
compressional ultrasonic slowness (UVCv) from laboratory For the horizontal principal stress estimation and rock
measurement (Eq. 4). mechanic behavior characterization the static elastic
properties are needed. Figure 6 presents a good correlation
.
𝐸 Mpsi 324453 𝐶 (4) (R2>0.6) of vertical static Young modulus (EVsta) and
acoustic compressional slowness (DTCv) from wireline logs
As was explained before, this correlation has the issue that if (Eq. 6). The main advantage of this correlation is that only an
it is applied directly in wireline log it will not calibrate due to acquisition of an acoustic wireline log is needed to
the ultrasonic velocity to wireline sonic log difference as can completely characterize the elastic properties of Vaca Muerta
be observed in Figure 4, laboratory and wireline acoustic formation.
velocity relationships are clearly not one to one and most of
.
𝐸 Mpsi 69845 𝐷𝑇𝐶 (6)
between vertical UCS with acoustic compressional wireline
log.
.
𝐸𝐻 Mpsi 2.4396 𝐸 (7)
Fig. 14. Vertical static Young modulus correlation, in the y axes the
4.1 Confining Pressure triaxial test with higher confining pressure (dual confining pressure
The previous results presented in this work are based on at least) and in the x axis, vertical static Young modulus with
single plug triaxial test, vertical and horizontal samples. reservoir confining pressure. Dashed line is the one to one
These samples were tested with reservoir confining pressure correlation.
estimated based on pore pressure, horizontal and vertical
stress quantification.
As it was mention before, triaxial tests with a higher
confinement pressure was done for vertical friction angle
estimation and to quantify the effect of confining pressure in
the rock behavior. Figure 14 shows the elastic response
(EVsta, vertical Young modulus) sensitivity to different
confining pressures (reservoir confinement vs dual
confinement). It is clear that the relationship between vertical
Young modulus has a good one to one correlation (red dashed
line), observing that at higher Young modulus values start to
lose the relationship, but if it is observed the black trend line
(R2>0.95) is parallel to the dashed line. This means that no
matter what the confining pressure is, the elastic response
does not change very much.
Fig. 15. Vertical Young modulus tested in 17 samples along a core.
As well as figure 14, it was observed in 16 samples tested in
One sample (#2) fails during plugging. The remaining samples were
one core along the Vaca Muerta, that for 3 different confining tested without confinement, reservoir confinement and higher
pressures (Unconfined, Reservoir confinement and Dual confinement. The variation as was shown before is similar and low
Confining pressures) that exists a small variation of stiffness variations is notice between confinements, and the highest
observing the highest variation at higher Young modulus variations are observed at higher stiffness.
values (Figure 15). So for stiffer rocks, comparisons at higher
confining pressure have higher Young modulus variation In figure 17, a relationship between UVCv Slowness and
related to reservoir confinement and no confining pressure. temperature is presented. The study was developed with 3
samples families, vertical and horizontal and this sister
4.2 Temperature samples that were tested at room and reservoir temperature. It
Triaxial test are usually done at room temperature. This is could be observed that in the sister samples at reservoir
clearly not the reservoir temperature in Vaca Muerta temperature, the ultrasonic velocity slowness measurement
formation, which is around 100°C to 135°C (215°F-275°F). increases from room to reservoir temperature. It can also be
For this reason, some tests were done on two sister samples, observed a sample (Sample #2) which is out of the typical
one of them at room temperature and the other one at value trend, this sample is composed of a stiffer mineral
reservoir temperature. Figure 16 illustrates the vertical component which has a differential diagenesis and also lower
ultrasonic velocity measurement for reservoir temperature acoustic slowness values (in the range of 55 us/ft).
(120°C) against room temperature (25°C), and could be
observed that the trend line start to deviate as slowness
increases.
The experiment was done at a constant confining pressure of
3000 psi and was performed in five stages: a hydrostatic stage
and four axial load increments; each axial load increment was
hold in order to capture creep response of the sample. The
first sample was loaded incrementally for 140 hours while the
second sample was loaded for 161 hours.
In figure 18 the axial strain and radial strain response is
shown. The radial strain response is practically the same for
both samples and a noticeable creep effect is observed up to
the second load step. The axial strain response exhibits a low
creep effect from the first load step and the same response
remains for the subsequent load step (second load step). Only
during the last two load steps the axial strain is increased.
Fig. 16. Relationship between vertical ultrasonic compressional
slowness at reservoir temperature (120°C) (y axes) and vertical
ultrasonic compressional slowness at room temperature (25°C).
Fig. 18. Axial Differential Stress vs Radial strain (to the left) and
Axial strain (to the right). Sample #1 (Blue) and Sample #2 (Red)
Fig. 19. Axial strain over Time. It is show the strain steps behavior.
Sample #1.
T B
the traditional method resulted in an over estimation of the
B (Figure 22). This overestimation may be
explained as an effect related with the loading rate (0.2
psi/sec in the first attempt). A second attempt was made with
a loading rate reduction to 0.05 psi/sec for the loading ramp
and 1 psi/sec in the unloading ramp (Figure 23). Despite
, B
remains too high to the expected results. A comparison
Fig. 20. Axial strain over Time. It is show the strain steps behavior. between the two tests is shown in Figure 24.
Sample #2. B B ,
results are non-conclusive and there is no reliable value for
4.4 Biot Measurements this poroelastic parameter.
Suarez and Fjaer, 2012 have performed Biot coefficient
measurements for different shale rocks in the U.S. In their
work they argue that if the pore saturating fluid is more
compressible that the rock, the poroelastic effect is neglible;
otherwise, if the pore fluid is incompressible in relation to the
rock the poroelastic effect could be considerable. For this
, B
have been done in four gas prone shale samples from Vaca
Muerta formation.
Two different methodologies were used to measure this
: B RSR (R S
Riv ) B .A
explained in Suarez and Fjaer, 2012.
Three parallel to bedding samples (two sister samples and a
solely sample were chosen). CT scanner readings were run in
all the samples.
Fig. 22. Biot´s Coefficient with traditional method.
Since CT reading in the first two horizontal samples showed
some high density steaks and a low density steak (soft), they
were replaced by a vertical sample. The other horizontal
sample CT analysis shows a fracture along a bedding which
could dominate the flow path; despite having some spare
samples, a suitable replacement could not been found.
Finally, the last vertical sample CT analysis verified the
quality of this sample and was declared suitable for
Regarding Young modulus values obtained for Vaca Muerta,
they do not seem to vary significantly with different
confining pressures. Nevertheless, higher variations were
noticed at higher Young modulus values.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank YPF S.A. for the permission
to publish these results.
Fig. 24. A comparison between the two loading rate tests. REFERENCES
NOMENCLATURE