4.7 Article

An improved model for estimating the TOC in shale formations

期刊

MARINE AND PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 174-183

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2017.03.018

关键词

Improved method; TOC estimation; Shale formations; Sichuan basin; Ordos basin

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
  2. China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) [CUG170619]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41572116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Determination of the total organic carbon (TOC) from well logs is an important step in formation evaluation of shale reservoirs. The AlogR model is one of the most commonly used methods in determining the TOC of the source rocks. Wang et al. (2016) made three revisions on AlogR model to enhance the prediction accuracy, one of which is to use a changeable slope of logioRt versus porosity logs to replace a fixed value. Based on the original AlogR model and Wang's revision, we propose an improved model for a better TOC estimation in this paper. Specifically, the approximate linear baseline is replaced by a theoretical one. Under this condition, both the slope and resistivity and porosity log values of the baselined rocks vary from depth to depth. The determination of theoretical baseline is presented, and the varied baseline log values are obtained by a simple mathematical technique. In addition to the shale play of Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, two study areas of Sichuan Basin and Ordos Basin in China, were used to assess the applications of the proposed model and its improvement over the original model. The analysis and discussions presented in this paper indicate that the improved model offers more reliable results in shale plays with large lithological variations. Also, the TOC content of the three study areas was estimated using the proposed model. The results showed that the TOC values estimated from well logs and core analysis are in good agreement. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据