SPE 167803

Influence Factors of Fracability in Nonmarine Shale

Changliang Fang, Mohammed Amro, Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg, Institute of Drilling and Fluid
Mining, Germany

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/EAGE European Unconventional Conference and Exhibition held in Vienna, Austria, 2527 February 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Co ntents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract mus t contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Fracability, the capability of shale that can be fractured effectively, is the most critical evaluation parameters in shale gas
production. At present, it is generally recognized that using mineral composition and rock mechanics parameters to represent
shale fracability is difficult to fully reflect the comprehensive properties of shale in hydraulic fracturing. However, so far all
fracturing research about shale gas is almost considering marine shale and the understanding of shale fracability is confined
and trapped within marine shale. Since shallow deposit of sedimentary strata in China is non-marine (lacustrine) facies
sediments, China pay increasing attention to non-marine shale, which is opposite to the situation in Europe, and with the
deepening of shale gas exploration, Europe will focus more on the non-marine shale in following decades. Due to the fact that
lacustrine shale deposits differ from marine deposits in sedimentary environment, the former are always with frequent sand
and mud interbed, interlayers development. Therefore, the influence factors of fracability in non-marine shale seemed more
complexes and the research of shale fracability becomes more significant.
After general contrastive study of sedimentary environment, gas generation, mineralogy and physical properties of non-marine
and marine shale based on literature data, this paper separately analysed the fracability influence factors (including
sedimentary environment, mineral composition, diagenesis, brittleness, nature fracture, etc.) of non-marine shale focused on
the Mesozoic Triassic Yanchang Formation shale in Ordos Basin of China. Moreover, comprehensive consideration of all
above influence factors and statement of some fracability evaluation methods have been implemented. Unified and
quantitative evaluation of fracability influence factors in non-marine and marine shale has been discussed afterwards. The
summary of main influence factors of fracability in non-marine shale not only improved the shale fracability research, but also
could guide the hydraulic fracturing practice.
Introduction
Fracability, the capability of shale reservoir that can be fractured effectively, is one of most critical evaluation parameters in
shale gas production. Chong et al. (2010) have summarized successful approaches towards shale-play stimulation in the last 20
years, and pointed out that fracability, producibility and sustainability are key factors of shale well-completion.
However, at present, fracability is considered equivalent to brittleness, low fracability is identified with ductile. Scholars
generally use brittle mineral composition and rock mechanics parameters to represent shale fracability, which only reflects
single factors, mineral composition or rock mechanics characteristic, and is difficult to fully reflect the comprehensive
properties of shale in hydraulic fracturing.
Moreover, along with the study of non-marine shale going deeper, existing understanding of shale fracability shows the new
limits that confined and trapped within marine shale. So far all fracturing research about shale gas is almost considering
marine shale. Since shallow deposit of sedimentary strata in China is non-marine (lacustrine) facies sediments, China pay
increasing attention to non-marine shale, which is opposite to the situation in Europe, and with the deepening of shale gas
exploration, Europe will focus more on the non-marine shale in following decades.
Due to the fact that lacustrine shale deposits differ from marine deposits in sedimentary environment, the former are always
with frequent sand and mud interbed, interlayers development. Therefore, the influence factors of fracability in non-marine

SPE 167803

shale seemed more complexes and the research of shale fracability becomes more significant.
This paper separately analysis the fracability influence factors (including sedimentary environment, mineral composition,
diagenesis, brittleness, nature fracture, etc.) of non-marine shale focused on the Mesozoic Triassic Yanchang Formation shale
in Ordos Basin of China, after a comparison of sedimentary environment, gas generation, mineralogy and physical properties
of non-marine and marine shale based on literature data. Afterwards, evaluation methods of fracability influence factors in
non-marine and marine shale has been discussed.
Contrastive study of non-marine and marine shale
Research on non-marine stratum is a very important field of oil and gas exploration in China, because distribution area of nonmarine sedimentation is large and more than half of oil and gas are found in continental strata in China (Wang, 2012).
Therefore, all characteristics of non-marine shale in this paper are concluded from Chinese lacustrine formations, while
characteristics of marine shale mainly come from literature of American shale strata.
Shale, extensively developed in non-marine stratum, has a distinct characteristics compared with the marine strata. Different
sedimentary histories make different tectonic and sedimentary characteristics of shale that differ from other shale. In area, the
scale of non-marine shale relatively smaller compared with marine shale. In tectonic, non-marine shale have weaker late
reformation, better preservation condition, obvious inheritance, and stronger basement relief than marine shale. In
sedimentation, non-marine shale presents frequent sand and mud interbed, developed interlayers, thick gross thickness and
changing greatly in single layer pay thickness.
In mineralogy, non-marine shale has higher mud content, lower quartz content, and higher feldspar content; brittle minerals in
non-marine shale mainly include quartz, feldspar and carbonate while quartz and carbonate mainly in marine shale (Rickman,
2008). Relatively higher content of Illite, a certain amount of chlorite, and very low content of kaolinite are indication of
continental sedimentary environment (Thomas, 1984).
Organic matter is sensitive to water depth and climate change in deposit, so deep lacustrine facies, shallow lake facies, and
limnetic facies develop different types of kerogen. Overall thermal evolution of organic matter in non-marine shale is lower
than that in marine shale, mainly in oil-generating window. In the aspect of gas generation, non-marine shale gas usually is
pyrolysis gas, and associated with oil. The phenomenon of oil and gas co-existence often appears in shale.
Though shale has low porosity and extremely low permeability compared with conventional reservoirs, many survey of
literature with mercury intrusion test, Scanning Electron Microscope, et al. indicates that lacustrine shale generally has lower
porosity and permeability than marine shale. Moreover, lacustrine shale seldom appears nature fractures with length across
core sample of Barnett shale, and micro fractures developed in non-marine shale is obvious poorer than marine shale.
Table 1 shows the comparison of marine and non-marine shale in sedimentary, organic matter, mineralogy and physical
properties. The different between marine and non-marine shale determines that influence factors of fracability in non-marine
shale cannot be completely copied of that in marine shale.
Table 1 - Comparison of marine and non-marine shale in sedimentary, organic matter, mineralogy and
physical properties

Tectonic

Sedimentation

Mineralogy

Organic Matter
Physical
Characteristics

Shale
area
late reformation
preservation condition
inheritance
basement relief
sand and mud interbed
gross thickness
interlayers
single layer pay thickness
mud content
quartz content
feldspar content
key brittle minerals
illite content
chlorite content
kaolinite content
thermal evolution
types
gas generation
porosity
permeability
nature fracture

Marine
large
strong
good
weak
seldom

lower
higher
lower
quartz & carbonate

higher
sapropel - mixture
low
low
developed

Non-marine
small, limit
weak
good
obvious
strong
frequent
thick
developed
changing greatly
higher
lower
higher
quartz, feldspar, carbonate
higher
certain amount
very low
lower
mixture - humics
pyrolysis
lower
lower
poor developed

SPE 167803

Influence factors of fracability

Fracability is capability of the reservoir to be fracture stimulated effectively which is comprehensive reflection of shale
geological and reservoir characteristics. Influence factors of fracability in shale mainly include shale brittleness, brittle mineral
content, nature fracture, diagenesis, and sedimentary environment. The fracability influence factors of non-marine shale
focused on the Mesozoic Triassic Yanchang Formation shale in Ordos Basin of China are separately analyzed in this part.
Brittleness
Shale brittleness is the most important influence factor of fracability. Higher brittleness can make more induced fractures when
reservoir takes hydraulic fracturing. The more mud shale has, the heavier plasticity shale is, and plastic deformation will be
produced in fracturing, so fracture network is forming simply. When content of brittle mineral such as quartz is relatively
higher, shale become more brittle that fracture network will be more complex. Therefore, the brittleness is higher, the fracture
network is more complex, and fracability is higher.
Shale brittleness is usually represented by Poisson ratio and Young modulus these two rock mechanical parameters. Poisson's
ratio reflects the ability of shale failure under pressure and Young's modulus reflects the ability of keeping crack after the
fracturing. The higher Young's modulus and lower Poissons ratio is, the higher brittleness is. In general, Young's modulus of
shale is 10 to 80 GPa, Poissons ratio is 0.20 to 0.40 (Tang, 2012). Rickman (2008) use brittleness index calculated by
following formulas to determine brittleness quantitatively:

where

is brittleness index, dimensionless;

is static Young's modulus, 10 GPa;
is static Poisson's ratio, dimensionless;
is normalized Young's modulus, dimensionless;
is normalized Poisson's ratio, dimensionless.

Sondergeld (2010) have concluded a Brittleness Index formula from the proportion of quartz-carbonate-clays which leads to
the observation that the most brittle section of Barnett shales have abundant quartz, the least brittle have abundant clays, and
those with abundant carbonate are moderate. He has compared two Brittle Indexes, one from the mineralogy and the other one
from the Poissons Ratio and Static Youngs Modulus, and summarized that both indexes are similar. It defined as:

Where BI is Brittleness Index, %;

is content of quartz, %;
is content of clay, %;
is content of carbonate, %.
It is obvious that Brittle Index from the mineralogy could not be used in non-marine shale, since not only quartz content is
high in shale, but also feldspar content plays a key role in brittle mineral content.
Brittle Mineral Content
Brittle mineral content is a key influence factor of pores and micro fractures development in shale matrix, gas content,
fracturing methods and so on. The higher brittle mineral content is, the stronger shale brittleness is. Quartz is the main brittle
minerals in shale reservoir, that some reports replace brittle mineral content with quartz content. Though scholars realized that
besides quartz, feldspar and dolomite are brittle components in shale reservoir as well, low content of feldspar and dolomite
are always ignored when reservoir is evaluated, especially in marine shale reservoir.
Within the perspective of rock failure mechanism, main ingredient of quartz is silicon dioxide, which has high brittleness, and
easily broken forming fractures under external force. In general, the higher quartz content of shale reservoir, the more natural

SPE 167803

fractures developed. So that in hydraulic fracturing operations, more induce fractures are produced, and fracturing efficiency
increased. It is generally recognized that minimum quartz content is 25%, optimum value is 35%.
Brittle minerals in non-marine shale mainly include quartz, feldspar and carbonate while quartz and carbonate mainly in
marine shale. Mesozoic Triassic Yanchang Formation shale in Ordos Basin of China is typical lacustrine shale, which have
16.0% ~ 44.0% quartz content, 12.0% ~ 32% feldspar content, and 23.0% ~ 64.0% clay content (Guo, 2012). This data shows
that feldspar is a main brittle mineral which should not be ignored in non-marine shale.
Nature Fracture
The existing of nature fractures is the performance of geo-stress inhomogeneity. The development zone of nature fractures is
usually the zone with weak geo-stress. Nature fracture reduces the tensile strength of shale, and changes the geo-stress near
wellbore. The change of geo-stress will influence induced fractures creating and extending. Therefore, developed nature
fractures could increase fracability.
Natural fracture is the weak links on rock mechanics. It can enhance the effect of hydraulic fracturing, and fracture pressure
can be as low as 50% of fracturing in the shale reservoir without nature fractures, research shows. Moreover, induced fractures
and natural fractures influence each other, and fracturing direction is controlled by natural and induced fractures at the same
time (Tang, 2012).
Natural fractures seem to be ubiquitous in shale gas plays. It is often said that their presence is one of the most critical factors
in defining an economic or prospective shale gas play. However, natural fractures in shale should be represented into natural
micro fractures (scale at micron or nanometer) and common bigger scale natural fractures. Natural fractures developed well
in marine shale, but not in non-marine shale. In lacustrine shale, only micron and nanometer scale micro fractures exist, no
bigger scale fractures developed.
Bowker (2008) have showed the image of mineralized natural fractures in a Barnett shale sample, the natural fractures are
across the shale core, and filled with white mineral (Figure 1).

Figure 1 - Mineralized natural fractures in a Barnett shale sample (Kent Bowker, HAPL Technical Workshop, 2008)

Figure 2 shows the micro fractures in non-marine shale sample, fractures with 2-4
organic matter. It is obvious smaller than bigger fracture in Barnett shale sample.

wide and 100

long exist in black

Diagenesis
The morphology of minerals, clay mineral composition and pore types are different in distinct diagenetic stages of shale,
which will influence fracability of shale reservoir. The vitrinite reflectance ( ) is considered as an important index reflecting
the thermo-evolution history of organic materials, and it is also the most suitable parameters to reflect the diagenesis in shale.

SPE 167803

Figure 2 - Micro fractures in Yanchang formation shale.

Table 2 shows in four diagenetic stages, reservoir features have changed with mineral changing. In low maturity stage, shale
brittleness is mainly under the influence of clay mineral composition. With the increase of maturity, Shale brittle minerals and
reservoir porosity increase, and fractures developed, so that fracability is increasingly higher. The higher mature is, the faster
fracability increase.
Table 2 - Key features bear on fracability in different diagenetic stages.
Diagenetic Stages

<
<
<
>

<
<
<

Key Features

Mesogenetic stage A period

Porosity decrease

Mesogenetic stage B period

Hydrocarbon generation and expulsion

Telogenetic stage

Brittleness increase

Over mature stage

Clay minerals stable; higher fracability

However,
in non-marine shale is generally lower than marine shale. In Yanchang shale,
is between 0.8% and 1.2%,
average is 1.0%, which is in the mesogenetic stage A period, the stage of oil and gas coexistence.
Table 3 Facies
Marine
Lacustrine

and quartz content of marine and non-marine shale (an adaptation of Chen, 2011).
Shale
Barnett
Ohio
Lewis
Yanchang
Biyang

Quartz Content
1.0% ~ 1.9%
0.4% ~ 1.3%
1.6% ~ 1.88%
0.8% ~ 1.2%
0.57% ~ 1.08%

38% ~55%
35% ~ 47%
22% ~ 52%
16.0% ~ 44.0%
14% ~ 25%

Sedimentation
Different sedimentary histories make different tectonic and sedimentary characteristics of shale. In lacustrine sedimentation,
lake has smaller area for plants and animals deposit, compared with sea in marine sediment environment. Lake also has less
organic matter than sea, but in deep lake, the amount of organic matter is considerable.
Sediment environment could influence thickness, interbed and interlayers of shale, which affect reservoir properties, ultimately
affect gas generation, storage and migration. Of cause, reservoir properties will determine fracability. But influence is so
complex that need more investigation.
Influence factors of shale fracability are not isolated from each other. Various factors influence each other, and represent
fracability characteristics together.

SPE 167803

Fracability evaluation
According to the above research, gas shale reservoir fracability correlated with every complex influence factors. It is so hard to
evaluate fracability comprehensively. Yuan (2013) put forward a method that using fracture toughness and brittleness index
identify Fracability index:

where

is Fracability index;
is brittleness index;
is type I Fracture toughness;
is type II Fracture toughness.

Fracture toughness is an important factor of representation difficulty level of reservoir fracturing. It reflects the ability of
keeping fracture extending forward after fracture formed in the hydraulic fracturing.
This evaluation method could establish spatial distribution of fracability index, according the rock mechanics parameters in
different location of reservoir. Fracability index is accurate to the certain location. However, only mechanics parameters are
taken into consideration. It is still cannot fully reflect the problem that a comprehensive problem simplified to a mechanical
problem.
Tang (2012) established a mathematical model of Fracability Index to evaluate the fracability. Calculation steps of Fracability
Index are that:
1. Normalize all parameters values with different units or different dimension;
2. Determine the weights of different factors that affect fracability;
3. Weight Standardized value and weight coefficient.
Mathematics calculating formula of Fracability Index is as followed:

where FI is Fracability Index, dimensionless;

is the standardization values of reservoir parameter, dimensionless;
is the weight coefficient of reservoir parameter, dimensionless;
c is correction coefficient, take experience value according to the different characteristics.
This method can quantitative calculate Fracability Index of shale reservoir, and obtain distribution features in the plane,
according to the distribution of different parameters on the plane, to optimize fracability zone. It is obviously more
comprehensive, but a lot of experiences are needed.
Conclusions
In hydraulic fracturing, Fracability is needed to give a representation of difficult level. Non-marine shales have more complex
properties. After analyze influence factors of fracability existing in non- marine shale, two fracability evaluation methods have
been discussed. We can conclude as follows:
1. Marine shale and non-marine shale are different in many aspects. When a non-marine shale reservoir plan to be developed,
copy the marine shale reservoir experience is inadvisable;
2. Influence factors of fracability in non-marine shale reservoir are more complex. Influence factors of shale fracability are
not isolated from each other, and various factors influence each other. So more factors need to be considered when
hydraulic fracturing is designing;
3. Fracability evaluations are not comprehensive that need more investigated, especially fracability of non-marine shale
reservoir.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Faculty of Engineering, China University of Geosciences for Chinese literatures, and Institute of
Drilling engineering and Fluid Mining, TU Bergakademie Freiberg for all help.

SPE 167803

References
K.K. Chong, W.V. Grieser, et al., 2010, A Completions Guide Book to Shale-Play Development: A Review of Successful Approaches
Towards Shale-Play Stimulation in the Last Two Decades: CSUG/SPE Paper No 133874, Presented at the Canadian Unconventional
Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 October.
X.Z Wang, J.C. Zhang, et al., 2012, A preliminary discussion on evaluation of continental shale gas resources: A case study of Chang 7
of Mesozoic Yanchang Formation in Zhiluo-Xiasiwan area of Yanchang. Earth Science Frontiers, 2012, 19(2):192-197.
Pick Rickman, Mike Mullen, Erik Petre et al., 2008, A practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation design optimization: all shale
plays are not clones of the Barnett shale: SPE Paper No 115258, Presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, USA 21-24 September.
Thomas F, Moslow, 1984, Depositional models of shelf and shoreline sandstones: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1984:
99-102.
Q.N. Zeng, B.S. Yu, et al., 2013, Reservoir characteristics and controlling factors of Yanchang formation shale in southeast of Ordos
basin: Special Oil & Gas Reservoirs, 2013(1).
Y. Tang, Y. Xing, et al., 2012, Influence factors and evaluation methods of the gas shale fracability: Earth Science Frontiers, 2012, 19(5):
356-363.
C.H. Sondergeld, K.E. Newsham, et al., 2010, Petrophysical considerations in Evaluating and producing shale gas resources: SPE Paper
No 131768, Presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 23-25 February.
Q. Guo, F. Shen, et al., 2012, Discussion on stimulation technology of shale gas reservoir in Yanchang formation, Ordos basin:
Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 2012, 26(2), 96-98.
X. Chen, et al., 2011, Study and application of fracturing techniques for continental shale reservoir in Biyang depression of Nanxiang
Basin: Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 2011, 25(3), 93-96.
J.L. Yuan, et al., 2013, Fracability evaluation of shale-gas reservoirs: Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2013, 34(3): 523-527.
T. Zhu, et al., 2012, Pooling conditions of non-marine shale gas in the Sichuan Basin and its exploration and development prospect:
Natural Gas Industry, 2012, 32(9): 16-21.