ARMA 08-208

Elastic, Geomechanical and Petrophysical Properties of Shales

Dewhurst, D.N., Siggins, A.F., Kuila, U., Clennell, M.B.
CSIRO Petroleum, Kensington, Western Australia, Australia
Raven, M.D.
CSIRO Land and Water, Urrbrae, South Australia, Australia
Nordgård-Bolås, H.M.
StatoilHydro Research Centre, Trondheim, Norway
nd
This paper was prepared for presentation at San Francisco 2008, the 42 US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd U.S.-Canada Rock Mechanics Symposium, held in San Francisco, June 29-
July 2, 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an ARMA Technical Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted earlier by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by ARMA and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers,
or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA 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 must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

ABSTRACT: Shale properties impact significantly on exploration, development and production costs through the effect of
seismic anisotropy on imaging and depth conversion and the role of shales in 4D seismic response, in addition to associated issues
such as wellbore stability, seal integrity and pore pressure prediction. Shales are often not cored or preserved properly, rendering
geomechanical testing all but impossible. The goals of the research reported here is to look to predict geomechanical properties of
shales from more easily measured physical and petrophysical properties and to record the rock physics response of shales to the
imposition of anisotropic stress fields. Ultrasonic tests were carried out to evaluate the full elastic tensor and its variation with
stress. Ultrasonic tests evaluating the full elastic tensor on single shale core plugs show smooth responses in terms of velocity,
elastic coefficients and anisotropy over a large stress range and are interpretable in terms of composition and the orientation of
microfabric anisotropy with respect to stress anisotropy. Dielectric properties appear to be well correlated to both static and
dynamic properties of shales. Some reasonable correlations were found between physical and geomechanical properties of shales,
given their geologic variability in time and space.

fluid which can alter rock properties through desiccation

1. INTRODUCTION
Shale properties are important from a petroleum industry
perspective as inputs for basin models, seal evaluation,
pore pressure prediction, for interpretation of 4D seismic
response and with regard to wellbore stability and
drillability of rocks. However, shale cores are rarely
taken due to cost of acquisition and the perception that
little value can be gained from knowledge of their
properties. However, a recent study by [1] indicated
savings of ~US$2.5M on one well through knowledge of
shale properties and given that the field had a further 50
wells to drill, total savings would be in excess of
US$100M!
In recent years, some data have become available
detailing shale physical properties (e.g. [2]) and other
studies have evaluated the influence of diagenesis,
compaction and lithology on geomechanical properties
of shales [3-7]. Shale properties have been shown to be
sensitive to factors such as composition, organic content,
pore pressure and stress history. However, shale cores
are rarely recovered and even when they are, rarely are
they preserved during storage to ensure no loss of pore
and fracturing. As such, sparse information is available
concerning physical properties and geomechanical
behaviour of these rocks. Some of the aforementioned
shortcomings (lack of core and/or preservation) have
been overcome through preservation of selected shale
cores for this project, which have allowed laboratory
evaluation of the static and dynamic properties of these
shales.
Brief objectives of the study can be summarised as
follows:
a. Characterization of preserved shales with regard to
composition, cation exchange capacity, pore size
distribution, porosity, grain size and geomechanical
properties.
b. A series of geomechanical tests on preserved shale
cores to determine the failure behaviour of a range of
caprock lithologies
c. Correlate laboratory-measured geomechanical prop-
erties of well-characterized shales with petrophysical
and physical properties.
Velocity is one of the obvious dynamic parameters that
can be correlated to rock strength (e.g. [8-10]) and
previous attempts to do this are covered below.
However, our understanding of dynamic elastic
behaviour in shales is limited, due in part to lack of well
preserved samples [11] and also to the time involved for
testing due to their low permeability (e.g. [12]). In
addition, many velocity measurements previously
acquired on shales have been made without control of
pore pressure which is critical if relating velocities to
changes in effective stress conditions.
Shale anisotropy has been known to be a significant
problem for many years in terms of depth conversion for
seismic exploration [13-14], imaging of structures in
both seismic and cross-hole tomography domains [15-
16] and also for amplitude variation with offset (AVO)
analysis [17]. This latter technique can be used for gas
identification but failure to account for anisotropy may
lead to mis-identification of fluid type. In addition,
anisotropy can cause significant error in estimating
dynamic Poisson’s ratio [13]. Few laboratory
determinations of the full elastic tensor and resultant
anisotropy have been made for shales [11, 18-24] and
many of these had no pore pressure control or were
‘dry’. Such studies generally show shales to be
transversely isotropic [11, 18, 22], with the degree of
anisotropy dependent on a number of factors such as
porosity, kerogen content and microfractures. High
anisotropy is noted for example in tight, low porosity
organic shales [25]. Stress effects in shale overburden as
a result of reservoir depletion also have a significant
effect on time-lapse (4D) seismic response in these low
permeability rocks and are not well understood at
present [26-27].
Factors affecting velocity and anisotropy in shales
include stress state, stress history, smectite content,
organic content, microstructure and physicochemical
interactions with pore fluids [25, 28]. While it is difficult
to know all these parameters in situ, controlled
laboratory experiments on well-characterized shales
under in situ stress and pore pressure conditions can
shed light on the influence of some of these factors on
shale velocity and anisotropic response. This study has
characterised the deformational and ultrasonic response
of Officer Basin, Bass Basin and North Sea shales plus
used previous work done on the Muderong Shale [5, 29],
to the undrained loading conditions used to derive failure
envelopes for these shales.
2. SHALE STRENGTH PREDICTION
A number of empirical correlations to elastic and
strength properties (unconfined compressive strength –
UCS) of rocks were derived from extensive
geomechanical and rock physics testing on North Sea
shale cores [10]. Primary inputs to these correlations
were porosity and compressional wave velocity. The
latter was utilised across different frequencies, including
sonic wireline, sonic logging while drilling and
ultrasonics on core plugs and cuttings. It was noted that
such correlations can be complicated by stress history,
geological history, pore pressure and compositional
issues. Friction coefficient did not generally correlate
with the more easily measured properties [10] and the
author rightly questions the validity of trying to correlate
dynamic elastic properties with properties relating to
mechanical failure. Intuitively however, rock strength
can be tied to compaction, i.e. rocks get stronger the
deeper they are buried, be this by mechanical or
chemical mechanisms. Hence, many of the techniques
that are used for strength estimation are related to
compaction dependent wireline measurements such as
porosity, bulk density plus compressional and shear
wave velocity.
From an extensive (and unpublished) shale database, a
number of relationships were developed between
compressional wave velocity and rock strength,
including friction coefficient [8]. This author observed
that of the three factors considered that accounted for
shale strength correlations, clay mineralogy, clay content
and compaction, the primary controlling factor was the
degree of compaction (characterised in terms of porosity,
bulk density and velocity).
Methods to predict brittleness/ductility in top seals,
under the assumption that ductile shales do not fracture
to create permeability whereas brittle shales do, were
investigated by [9]. Their methods are based on dilation
dependence being related to rock mechanical properties,
effective stress and shear zone geometry and that strong
rocks are more likely to exhibit brittle and dilatant
behaviour than weak rocks. Their concepts involve an
integration of concepts in both soil and rock mechanics,
through the use of overconsolidation ratio, unconfined
compressive strength ratios and surface area estimates.
A significant amount of recent work has concentrated on
soil mechanical theory and its application to shallow to
moderately buried overburden mudrocks, under the
assumption of little diagenetic alteration at these depths
[e.g. 30]. These authors developed and used a number of
correlations between soil mechanical properties and
strength. For example, sediment plasticity index is
known to correlate with strength in shallow sediments
[31]. A correlation was also noted between plasticity
index and friction angle [32]. These equations were used
by [30] to correlate properties derived from cuttings in
North Sea Tertiary shales although they found that
corrections were needed to account for non-linear
strength envelopes of these uncemented clays and such
corrections were made from core plugs where available.
The derived UCS showed good correlation with other
methods of estimating UCS to depths of 2300m and
reasonably matched actual core plug measurements.
However, estimates of friction angle in this study gave
consistently different results. Values derived from the
sonic log [8] were always lower and always increased
with depth, whereas plasticity index-derived friction
coefficients were high (similar to hard, non-shaly rocks)
and generally decreased with depth.
The above review is a brief skim of the recent literature
regarding strength correlation in clays and mudrocks in
recent years. While some good correlations seem to exist
for UCS, it should be borne in mind that most of the
methods use dynamic properties to estimate static
properties, with the attendant strain rate issues. Friction
coefficient seems to be more difficult to obtain from
standard logging methods [10,30]. Again, some methods
use dynamic elastic properties (e.g. velocity) to estimate
deformational behaviour and fundamentally there is no
reason why such properties should directly correlate.
Such correlations have generally been practical due to
the ready availability of such data, rather than
necessarily theoretically probable.
3. SAMPLE CHARACTERISATION
Shales from four different basins (North Sea, Carnarvon,
Bass, Officer) have been tested, ranging in age from
Proterozoic to Cretaceous/Tertiary.
The North Sea shale is a kaolinite and quartz-rich, fine
grained tight, laminated shale. Generally, it is clay
matrix supported, even in clay-rich laminations. It has a
porosity of ~15%, with a low specific surface area (SSA
= 8 m2/g), moderate clay fraction (40%) and high clay
content (65%).
The Officer Basin shale is illite-rich with significant
quartzo-feldspathic components and has alternating
coarse and fine grained laminations. It has a porosity of
~6-8%, with moderate SSA (10-16 m2/g), clay fractions
of ~25-50% and clay contents of 30-60%.
The Bass Basin shale is quite silty and is dominated by
quartz and kaolinite. It is laminated and also contains
coaly streaks. It has low porosity (4-6%), low SSA (1-3
m2/g), with clay fractions of ~25% and clay contents
~40%.
The Carnarvon Basin shale, the Muderong Shale, is
dominated by mixed layer illite-smectite and quartz,
with significant amounts of kaolinite. It has a porosity of
~18%, SSA of ~30 m2/g, clay fraction of ~45% and clay
content of ~65%. This shale has been studied extensively
for physical, geomechanical and rock physics properties
[5, 29, 33].
4. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
Consolidated undrained (CU) multi-stage triaxial tests
have been performed on shale core plugs at successively
increasing confining pressures to determine a failure
envelope. For CU tests, samples are consolidated
isotropically in a drained state to a set level of confining
pressure with drainage at both ends to ensure pore
pressure equilibration throughout the sample. As
saturation may be affected by core recovery, a pore
pressure of 5 MPa was applied during the isotropic
consolidation stage to ensure full sample saturation.
Having achieved the desired consolidation state, the pore
pressure lines were closed and the sample loaded axially
in an undrained state at low strain rate (1.22 x 10-7 s-1), to
ensure even pore pressure change through the sample,
while stress, strain and pore pressure changes were
monitored. Deformation in each stage was allowed to
reach within ~10% of peak strength before unloading,
except for the last stage where samples were taken
through to failure.
The equipment used for shale testing comprises a high
stiffness load frame, a triaxial cell and systems for cell
and pore pressure control. Long-term stability of the
control systems and instrumentation transducers is
crucial for testing of shales due to their low
permeability. The rig has independent control of pore
pressure, confining pressure and axial load, to the
operational upper limits of 70 MPa, 70 MPa and 400
MPa respectively. The inner diameter of the cell is
considerably larger than the sample, allowing the
installation of internal instruments such as a load cell,
axial displacement transducers, acoustic transducers and
temperature sensors. The sample stack assembly
includes:
• A specimen mounted between top and base platens,
encased in a flexible, impermeable Viton membrane
(0.75 mm thick), separating the confining fluid from
the specimen,
• Two steel platens housing ultrasonic P- and S-wave
elements with provision for pore pressure
measurement at both ends of the specimen. The
diameter of the platens is the same as that of the
specimen (within ±0.05mm),
• Two diametrically positioned linear variable
differential transformers (LVDT) clamped on the top
and bottom platens to measure axial displacements,
• A load cell located underneath the bottom platen.
Figure 1. Core plugs cut parallel to bedding were tested for
the North Sea shales and Muderong Shale (left). The Officer
Basin and Bass Basin shales were cut normal to bedding
(right). Associated rock physics nomenclature is shown.
Typically, measurements for velocity anisotropy (i.e.
velocities normal to and parallel to bedding) in shales
required the use of multiple core plugs thus further
increasing time required for such tests to be performed.
We designed and have used for several years an
experimental configuration that allows the full elastic
tensor to be calculated from a single core assuming that
the shale is a TI medium. P-wave and S-wave velocities
can be measured through the end platens that house 1
MHz, PZT-5H piezo-ceramic P-wave and S-wave
elements to measure velocity down the core axis. In
addition, orthogonal P- and S-wave transducers are
located on the membrane for measurements of velocity
across the core diameter. A post on the aluminium shear-
wave transducer housing penetrates through the Viton
membrane to rest against the sample and improves
identification of S-wave arrivals, sometimes a major
difficulty in shales. Also, a pair of P-wave elements (set
in cylindrical wedges of acrylic resin and directly facing
one another) transmits and receives pulses at 45° to the
core axis. This configuration of wedges was necessary in
order to make all necessary measurements for the
determination of the stiffness tensor on a single core
with the shale principal axes aligned with the cell rather
than using a number of cores cut at varying angles to the
principal axes. Calibrations of the array were performed
using aluminium, acrylic resin and phenolite cylinders of
similar geometry to the test samples.
Ultrasonic tests were run on core plugs cut both parallel
and normal to bedding (Figure 1). Ultrasonic parameters
measured during the shale triaxial testing programme
included Vpv, Vph, Vs1, Vsh and quasi-P (qVp45) at nominal
centre frequencies of 0.6-1.0 MHz (for P-waves) to 0.2-
0.4 MHz (for S-waves). Arrival time picks were based
on first breaks estimated from approximately 1% of the
first peak amplitude. Uncertainties were ±0.1 μ seconds
for P-wave arrival times and ±0.2 μ seconds for S-
waves, corresponding to velocity errors of ±0.4%.
Picking errors are reduced as effective stress increases,
especially for S-waves. Errors in elastic constants are
generally < 1%, with the exception of c13 where errors
are estimated as ~2%, while errors in the anisotropy
parameters are higher due to the use of ratios of elastic
constants. Here, errors in ε and γ may range up to 2%,
while δ has the least accuracy, with errors of typically
±13%.
The dielectric measurement system is built around an
Agilent ENA-E5070B network analyzer. The measure-
ments we present here use a simple terminated coaxial
probe against which the sample is pressed during
measurement. The electromagnetic signal travelling to
the probe is reflected partially at the termination, and the
reflection coefficients depend on the conductivity,
permittivity and magnetic permeability of the volume of
material surrounding the tip region. Software supplied
by Agilent converts the reflection coefficients into real
and imaginary parts of the effective dielectric constant.
An internal calibration unit (ECAL) is connected
between the cable and the probe to compensate for the
effects of short term instability and cable movements.
The region of investigation of the probe is small and the
signal is very sensitive to the exact placement of the
probe against the shale sample. We found that maximum
repeatability was achieved by grinding away surface
contamination from the preserved shale core, placing a
water drop on the smooth surface, and placing this
against the fixed probe with a firm and constant pressure
in such a way that any air was completely excluded and
the water itself expelled from the tip region. Even so, the
repeatability of measurements on solid samples was not
very good compared with the specification of the
analyzer and the excellent repeatability obtained on
standard liquids where probe positioning and pressure is
not important. We therefore made at least five repeats at
each measurement point.
5. RESULTS
5.1 Rock Physics Results
Due to length considerations, a snapshot of the rock
physics results will be provided here, along with a
couple of failure envelopes, before looking at
correlations between geomechanical and other properties
in more detail. The results should be considered in the
light of the test methodology used, in particular, the use
of multi-stage tests. The use of such tests is a trade off
with both pros and cons as follows:
• Normally, failure envelopes would be determined
through performing a number of single stage triaxial
tests to failure on multiple core plugs. This leaves the
results at the mercy of sample heterogeneity and is
especially critical in terms of rock physics results.
• The multi-stage test on a single core plug is used
where core plug material is in limited quantity but also
to avoid heterogeneity between core plugs. The trade
off here is that the multi-stage nature of the tests is
likely to result in some fatigue of the core plug and
may cause errors in the strength measurements.
Through considerable experience of testing such
samples, it was felt that the multi-stage test was the Figure 3. Velocity-mean effective stress plot for the North Sea
lesser of two evils in regard to getting reliable rock shale.
physics results.

Figure 2 shows geomechanical data for a multi-stage

triaxial test on the North Sea shale with the core plug cut
parallel to bedding. The shale is shown to be extremely
weak, with low cohesive strength and low friction
coefficient (< 2 MPa and 0.38 respectively). The fifth
point lies below the designated failure envelope as this
test was likely stopped too early.

Figure 4. In the North Sea shale, P-wave anisotropy (ε) is

scattered but relatively unchanged with increasing mean
effective stress. The six separate clumps of S-wave anisotropy
data clearly define the six loading stages used. S-wave
anisotropy (γ) decreases with application of confining pressure
(isotropic stress conditions at the lowest blue point from each
stage) but increases with rising stress anisotropy.

Figure 2. Failure envelope for a North Sea shale core plug cut
parallel to bedding.
Rock physics measurements on North Sea shale were
made during the various deformation stages on a
horizontal core plug; thus the maximum principal stress
direction is parallel to the shale fabric. Vpv increases
from about 3300 m/s to ~3800 m/s over the mean
effective stress range measured of 10-70 MPa. It is also
noticeable that within most of the individual axial stress
increments, Vpv either remains constant or falls as
differential stress increases. Vph is generally slightly
higher than Vpv (Figure 3), indicating slight P-wave
anisotropy and in general, within the individual axial
loading stages, Vph either remains almost constant or
increases. As there is little seeming P-wave anisotropy, it
is not surprising that qVp45 is of a similar magnitude to
Vph and Vpv.
Anisotropy for the North Sea shale is shown in Figure 4,
with ε being slightly scattered although this is likely due
to its proximity to zero (i.e. almost isotropic). However,
γ is moderately high (~10%) and generally decreases as
confining pressure increases. It flattens off at mean
effective stresses higher than ~40 MPa, but increases
during each individual loading cycle.
Figure 5 shows geomechanical data for a multi-stage
triaxial test on Officer Basin shale (with reference to
later data, this is sample L1/905) with the core plug cut
normal to bedding. The shale has a high cohesive
strength but a low friction coefficient (~16 MPa and 0.31
respectively).
Vp and Vs were measured for two Officer Basin shale
samples under varied confining pressures with a
differential load applied normal to bedding (Figure 1)
under undrained pore pressure conditions. The results of 2800

the P-wave velocity measurements on these two samples

are shown as a function of effective stress in figure 6 and 2700

Velocity (in m/sec)

S-wave velocities are in Figure 7. The velocities in
L1/905 are greater that that of sample L1/1114 (in line 2600
Vs1_1114
with lower porosity) but both samples show similar Vs1_905

trends. With increasing effective stress, Vpv and Vs1 in 2500 Vsh_1114
Vsh_905
both samples generally rise in an almost linear fashion.
Vph and Vsh in both samples show more scatter than their 2400

vertical counterparts and appear to decrease within

2300
individual loading cycles. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Mean effective stress (in Mpa)

Figure 7. S-wave velocity plotted as a function of mean

effective stress in two Officer Basin shale samples. Vpv
increases in a linear trend with increasing effective stress. Vsh
is more scattered than Vs1.

L1/905

0.20

0.15

ε, γ 0.10
Figure 5. Failure envelope for an Officer Basin shale core plug
(L1/905) cut normal to bedding. 0.05

5000 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mean effective stress (MPa)
Velocity (in m/sec)

4500 L1/1114
Vpv_1114
Vpv_905 0.20
Vph_1114

4000 Vph_905 0.15

ε, γ

0.10

3500
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mean effective stress (in MPa)
Figure 6. P-wave velocity plotted as a function of mean
effective stress in two Officer Basin shale samples. Vpv
increases in a linear trend with increasing effective stress. Vph
is more scattered than Vpv.
The Officer Basin shales are moderately anisotropic and
the anisotropy factors [13] are sensitive to differential
stress change (Figure 8). The effects of different levels
of confining pressure and differential stress on the
ultrasonic anisotropy are shown by colour coding the
plots in figure 8. Each colour represents a particular
confining pressure level. It is evident that both ε and γ
are unaffected by confining pressure, but during each
cycle of axial loading, they decrease with increasing
differential stress.
60 70 80 90 100 0.05
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mean effective stress (MPa)
Figure 8. Influence of mean effective stress on the ε
(diamonds) and γ (circles) for two Officer Basin shales.
Different colours represent different loading stages. Note that
anisotropy is almost independent of confining pressure but ε
especially decreases with increasing differential stress.
5.2 Geomechanical Correlations
The rationale behind this work was to evaluate methods
of predicting geomechanical properties of shales from
other more easily measured physical properties and
eventually from properties that can be garnered from
wireline logs or LWD/MWD. To that end, the shales we
have examined so far (Bass, Carnarvon, North Sea and
Officer Basins) have been thoroughly characterised in
terms of composition, microfabric, specific surface area,
cation exchange capacity, seal capacity, rock physics
response, NMR spectra and dielectric properties as well
as their geomechanical properties such as cohesive
strength and friction coefficient. These properties have
been compared statistically to the geomechanical
properties in just simple analyses of individual
parameters. Many different comparisons were made,
some with reasonable correlation coefficients and some
with extremely poor correlation coefficients. These latter
relationships will generally not be shown in any detail,
although it will be noted in the text as to which
properties correlated poorly with geomechanical
properties.
Figure 9: Plot of clay content from XRD analysis against
measured cohesive strength for shales from the Bass, North
Sea, Officer and Carvarvon Basins. Exponential fit for
regression line shown in blue.
The analyses we discuss are where a single variable was
correlated with either cohesive strength (C) or friction
coefficient (μ). Correlation coefficients are moderate as
might be expected with experimental data on rocks with
a wide range of compositions, geological histories and
age. The presence of clays is known to significantly
affect rock strength and compressibility, with both
composition (clay content) and grain size (clay fraction,
e.g. [34]) previously noted as important controls.
Clay content affects cohesive strength (C) broadly
speaking (figure 9) with C falling in general with
increasing clay content as might be expected. A couple
of outliers from the Officer Basin shales lie well off the
regression line, somewhat detracting from a good
correlation. An exponential fit was made to these data as
follows:
C = 219.6e −0.07 CC (R = 0.80; R2 = 0.65).
where C is cohesive strength in MPa and CC is clay
content as a percentage. The exponential equation was
preferred in this case to linear and logarithmic fits, even
though it had a lower correlation coefficient, as the latter
two tend to zero cohesive strength at clay contents
>70%.
Similar relationships can also be found for clay fraction
(Figure 10). This is defined as the < 2 μm fraction in the
rock and is not a compositional term. It includes all
grains of all compositions, whether clay or other more
rigid grains. As such, this factor can govern rock
strength (and other properties such as permeability and
wave velocity) when rigid grains interlock as opposed to
float in a clay matrix. An exponential relationship is also
shown for this parameter as linear and logarithmic fits
tended to zero cohesive strength at clay fractions of
~50%. The exponential relationship is:
C = 50.47e −0.07 CF (R = 0.86; R2 = 0.73).
where CF is clay fraction as a percentage.
Figure 10. Plot of clay fraction from centrifuging against
measured cohesive strength for shales from the Bass, North
Sea, Officer and Carvarvon Basins. Exponential fit for
regression line shown in blue.
Porosity has previously been correlated to shale
unconfined compressive strength [e.g. 10, 35]. UCS is
related to cohesive strength via friction coefficient. The
correlation here (Figure 11) is of similar exponential
form to that of [10], such that:
C = 50.88e −21.28φ (R = 0.86; R2 = 0.75).
where φ is porosity as a fraction.
One of the important parameters in terms of estimating
strength properties in situ is wave velocity. At this stage,
only correlations between strength and P-wave velocity
normal to bedding (Vpv) and S-wave velocity propa-
gating normal to bedding but with particle motion
parallel to bedding (Vs1) have been evaluated (at 60 MPa
confining pressure, isotropic stress conditions). Neither
correlates particularly well with cohesive strength alone
as might be expected as many other factors affect
velocity in shales, including stress state, stress history,
porosity, lithology, organic content, microstructure and
physicochemical interactions with pore fluids [25, 28].
As the main variables between these shales that
influence velocity are porosity and lithology, it was
decided to use P-wave impedance (product of velocity
and bulk density and widely used in the industry)
normalised to lithology (using both clay fraction and
clay content). This improved the correlations as follows
(although they are still not good):
C = −5.78 + (7.77 × 10 −5 ) Z pcc (R = 0.81; R2 = 0.66).
C = −2.10 + (2.99 × 10 −5 ) Z pcf (R = 0.84; R2 = 0.70).
where Zpcc and Zpcf are P-wave impedances in kg/m2/sec
normalised to clay content and clay fraction respectively.
While using the same method for S-waves did improve
R2 from the simple velocity measurement, these were
generally ~0.6 or lower and so are not discussed here.
Figure 11. Plot of porosity against measured cohesive strength
for shales from the Bass, North Sea, Officer and Carvarvon
Basins. Exponential fit for regression line shown in blue.
The last correlation here with strength is that of
normalised cation exchange capacity (CEC) to clay
fraction. The reasoning behind the normalisation is that
the CEC is actually measured on the < 2 μm fraction of
the rock but the strength is measured on the whole rock.
Hence to realistically compare CEC data between
samples with varying clay fraction, such a normalisation
needs to be made but also assumes that the CEC of the >
2 μm fraction is negligible. This is a reasonably good
assumption as the finest grained clay minerals are those
with the highest surface areas and thus CEC. The
exponential correlation is shown in Figure 3.46 and is
seemingly the best of the simple correlations to cohesive
strength:
C = 29.65e −0.24 ( CEC×CF ) (R = 0.91, R2 = 0.83).
where CEC is in cmol/kg and clay fraction is taken as a
fraction (i.e. not in percent).
It should be noted that in Figures 9 to 12 that there are
essentially two clusters of data, which could be fitted by
more than just an exponential trend. The clustering is a
function of the preserved shale cores that were available
to the project and also of the data that can currently be
released from this ongoing project. Exponential trends
were chosen based on known rock behaviour as noted
above.
Figure 12. Plot of cation exchange capacity normalised to clay
fraction against measured cohesive strength for shales from
the Bass, North Sea, Officer and Carvarvon Basins.
Exponential fit for regression line shown in blue.
One might note at this point that all these simple
correlations so far suggested have been to cohesive
strength and that there have been none to friction
coefficient. None of the parameters investigated
correlated well with friction coefficient. These include
all the parameters used above to correlate with cohesive
strength plus specific surface area, Vp/Vs ratio and P-/S-
wave anisotropy. It should also be noted that cohesive
strength did not correlate with CEC alone, specific
surface area, Vp/Vs ratio or P-/S-wave anisotropy.
Correlations were also made between petrophysical
properties and both physical and geomechanical prop-
erties. In this case however, only five different shale
samples were tested and in some circumstances, one
shale point had to be omitted due to issues surrounding
the presence of pyrite and its effect on the dielectric
probe. While in most cases these correlations appear
much better than those presented above, caution must be
exercised due to the small sample size available. not the crux of the paper, they will be detailed briefly
However, we felt the correlations were of enough here. Dielectric constant correlates well (R2 > 0.94) with
interest and have considerable future potential and so water content in non-smectitic clays at all frequencies
have presented them here. The results discuss but with porosity only at high frequency. Reasonable
correlations made at three different frequencies along the correlations (R2 from 0.86-0.95) were noted between
dielectric sweep, namely 3 GHz, 100 MHz and 10 MHz. dielectric constant and cation exchange capacity but poor
Two shales were analysed from the Officer Basin and correlations were observed with specific surface area by
one each from the North Sea, Bass and Carnarvon nitrogen adsorption (R2 < 0.30). Moderate correlations
Basins. were noted between dielectric constant and clay content
(R2 from 0.74 to 0.94), with R2 decreasing with
decreasing frequency. In all these briefly described
80
100 MHz DC

70 10 MHz DC

3GHz DC
correlations, sensitivity increases with decreasing
60
frequency.
Dielectric Constant

50

y = -4.79x + 85.23 80
R2 = 0.96
100 MHz DC
40 y = -2.27x + 44.13
R2 = 0.98 10 MHz DC
70
30 3GHz DC
60
20

Dielectric Constant
50
y = -1.03x + 25.05
10
R2 = 0.92
40
y = -1.78E-02x + 8.75E+01 y = -3.34E-02x + 1.61E+02
0 R2 = 9.84E-01 R2 = 9.35E-01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
30
(Secant) Young's Modulus E
20

y = -8.07E-03x + 4.46E+01
Figure 13. Relationships between dielectric constant and 10
R2 = 9.73E-01

Young’s Modulus at three different frequencies in five shale 0

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
samples from four different basins. Vp (ms-1)

Excellent correlations (R2 from 0.92-0.98) were obtained Figure 15. Relationships between dielectric constant and P-
between dielectric constant and Young’s Modulus in the wave velocity at three different frequencies in four shale
samples from three different basins.
five shales tested (Figure 13). Additionally, the
sensitivity appears to increase with decreasing
frequency, a factor common throughout these tests. 6. DISCUSSION
80

70
100 MHz DC

10 MHz DC
6.1. Rock Physics Response
3GHz DC
60

In the North Sea shale, where axial stress is parallel to

Dielectric Constant

50

40
microfabric, Vph and Vsh increase with both increasing
mean effective stress across the whole stress range and
y = -2.39x + 69.51
R2 = 0.94
y = -1.12x + 36.54

also within each individual test stage (Figure 3).

30 R2 = 0.94

20
10 y = -0.51x + 21.60
R2 = 0.88
0
0 5 10
Cohesive strength (MPa)
Figure 14. Relationships between dielectric constant and
cohesive strength at three different frequencies in five shale
samples from four different basins.
Reasonable correlations (R2 from 0.88-0.94) were
obtained between dielectric constant and Young’s
Modulus (Figure 14) and also P-wave velocity (Figure
15). Again, the sensitivity appears to increase with
decreasing frequency. However, no correlation could be
found between dielectric constant, dielectric loss or the
loss tangent and friction coefficient.
Good correlations were also noted between physical and
petrophysical properties with some provisos. As they are
However, while Vpv and Vs1 generally increase with
increasing mean effective stress, within each test stage,
15 20 25
they either remain constant or decrease slightly as
differential stress is applied (Figure 3). These responses
are significantly reflected in the ultrasonic anisotropy
measured for these samples and how that anisotropy
responds to changing differential stress (Figure 4). S-
wave anisotropy increases within each individual
loading stage as differential stress increases. As
confining pressure increases from stage to stage, S-wave
anisotropy decreases at any given differential pressure
up to mean effective stresses of about 40 MPa and then
becomes approximately constant. It would appear
therefore that application of an isotropic stress field (i.e.
confining pressure) serves to close pre-existing cracks in
the shale, which reduces S-wave anisotropy to that
resulting from fabric alignment alone at mean effective
stresses above 40 MPa. However, increasing the
differential stress causes γ to increase through opening
and propagation of bedding-parallel fractures which are
exactly aligned with the maximum stress direction
(Figure 1). It is also noticeable that the S-wave
anisotropy increases throughout each loading stage,
including the early stages of loading which are normally
thought to be linear elastic (i.e. at low axial strains, the
stress-strain curve is linear) and associated with fracture
closure. However, in these tests the bedding-parallel
fractures are oriented in such a way to the stress field
that they are likely to remain open and grow, even
during the low strain elastic loading phase.
In the case of the Officer Basin Shales, the maximum
principal stress is acting perpendicular to bedding
(Figure 1) and has different effects on vertical and
horizontal velocities. Within each cycle of loading, Vpv
and Vs1 increase slightly or remain constant with
increasing differential stress. However, Vph and Vsh
remain constant initially at low axial loads but start to
decrease as the load increases. Microcracks present
inherently in shales are generally bedding-parallel and in
these tests are oriented normal to bedding and are likely
to close with increasing load. This can account for the
general increase seen in Vpv and Vs1 and the constancy of
Vph and Vsh at low stress. However, continued
deformation and increased stress anisotropy tends to
initiate fracture planes perpendicular to the minimum
stress [36]. Within individual loading cycles, vertical
cracks start to open and propagate above a given
differential stress level which reduces Vph and Vsh
(Figures 6 and 7). With increasing differential stress,
these fractures continue to grow and connect via shear
fractures, eventually leading to a through going shear
fracture.
The contrast between the anisotropy results on core
plugs deformed normal and parallel to bedding thus
emphasize the importance of the fabric and structural
anisotropies relative to the prevailing stress field for
wave propagation in inherently anisotropic media such
as shales.
6.2. Geomechanical Correlations
Some uncertainties should also be noted regarding the
correlations presented in addition to the sources of
measurement error outlined above. It has been noted
above that the tests run are multi-stage triaxial tests and
as such, the points where individual stages are stopped
(except the last point of the test) are human decisions,
not exact points of failure. Hence, each point on the
failure envelope (except the last) slightly underestimates
the actual peak strength of the material at failure. This
has the effect of slightly raising the friction coefficient
and slightly lowering the cohesive strength as compared
to samples run in single stages, although the latter type
of test can also suffer considerably through sample
heterogeneity. The nature of the multi-stage test means
that sample fatigue may also be an issue, which would
serve to lower friction coefficients. The very linear
nature of all the failure envelopes in this study (R2 >
0.98 in almost all cases) tend to argue against this and
samples that do fail early in a test cycle are usually
obvious and have been removed from the correlations.
The effects of unloading are also ignored for these
samples, although it is likely minimal in these cases as
most samples are low porosity, high stiffness shales
which undergo a large degree of elastic deformation and
much smaller amounts of plastic deformation as
compared to higher porosity shales. The issue was not
specifically investigated in these tests though. A third
issue to be aware of is that the tests were conducted at
room temperature but both static and dynamic properties
of shales are likely to be temperature dependent [4, 37].
Finally, the jury is still out on the nature of velocity
dispersion in shales [38, 39], heterogeneity and rock
volume may be issues with correlation between
ultrasonic laboratory measurements and wireline/LWD
logging frequencies. One should also be wary of
anisotropy and deviated wells in terms of using velocity
[10] as the work to date is specifically for Vpv and Vs1.
A number of methods for predicting rock properties
were reviewed briefly above. Most of these were
velocity based as this is a practical parameter to use in
terms of wireline logs for giving continuous mechanical
property logs downhole and possibly even in real time
from LWD/MWD. Empirical correlations were docum-
ented for shale mechanical properties noting relation-
ships with velocity and porosity [10]. The author noted
similar issues to those documented above in that
unconfined compressive strength (UCS, directly related
to cohesive strength through the friction coefficient) had
good correlations to velocity and porosity but friction
coefficient was much more difficult to relate to any
parameter he measured (maximum R2 = 0.59, most <
0.4). The major difference between Horsrud’s work [10]
and the shales tested here, composition aside, is porosity.
Most of his samples have φ > 30%, with only one <
10%, whereas all samples documented above have
porosity < 20%, with a significant number < 10%.
Recently, strength data on 100 shales were examined
[40], but unfortunately most of these were tested “dry”
which basically renders that data invalid. The only data
from pore pressure controlled tests was that of [10]
noted above. Examining variance of laboratory data
from published and proprietary correlations [40] for
shale strength (mainly UCS), the authors note that the
correlations generally formed a lower bound to the
laboratory data. They suggest that this would provide a
conservative strategy for wellbore stability risking but
do not address the “dry” shale issue which would have
considerable impact on the laboratory data. The authors
also note that little work has been done on correlating
friction coefficient and that the few published attempts
likely suffer from the complexity of the relationships
between microstructure, micromechanics and friction
coefficient [40].
Horsrud [10] noted that all the shales he tested were
from the North Sea Tertiary and so suggested caution
when applying his empirical correlations to shales as a
whole. He did note that other shales tended to fit the
empirical correlations presented. The implication of the
data and correlations presented above is that reasonable
correlations can be obtained (for cohesive strength) for
shales from four different basins (Bass, Officer, North
Sea and Carnarvon) widely separated in space and time
(Proterozoic to Tertiary).
7. CONCLUSIONS
We have deformed a significant number of preserved
shales from the Carnarvon, Bass, Officer and North Sea
basins in a triaxial testing rig. Rock physics
measurements comprising the full elastic tensor were
taken during undrained loading of these samples. A
North Sea shale exhibited slight P-wave anisotropy and
moderate S-wave anisotropy, associated with both a
compaction fabric and microcracks. In this case,
isotropic stress fields decreased velocity anisotropy to
that intrinsic to the clay fabric, whereas anisotropic
stress fields significantly increase the observed S-wave
anisotropy. In the Officer Basin shales, velocity normal
to bedding generally increased with both increasing
confining pressure (isotropic stress) and axial load
(stress anisotropy). The orientation of fabric elements
with respect to the stress field appears critical in
understanding the evolution of velocity anisotropy
during rock deformation.
Simple empirical correlations have been suggested for
the shales tested so far, although further additions to the
dataset are required to cover a wider range of shale types
and to provide more certainty in the data. A number of
reasonable correlations (R2 ~ 0.8) to cohesive strength
have been suggested and these appear to be most
sensitive to elastic properties and porosity. So far, no
good correlation of physical or elastic properties to
friction coefficient has been found. The correlations to
cohesive strength are of a similar form to those
suggested by previous authors, although there are few
measurements in the literature of use as generally
preservation and pore pressure control were not used
during mechanical testing. Additionally, the absolute
porosity of samples properly tested in the literature is
significantly larger than the samples tested here. Further
thought is required as to which properties might best
correlate with friction coefficient.
REFERENCES
1. Stjern, G., A. Agle,. and P. Horsrud, 2003, Local rock
mechanical knowledge improves drilling performance in
fractured formations at the Heidrun field. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 38, 83-96.
2. Aplin, A.C., A.J. Fleet, and J.H.S. MacQuaker, (eds.),
1999. Muds and Mudstones: Physical and Fluid Flow
Properties. Geological Society of London, Special
Publication, 158, 190pp.
3. Marsden, J.R., R.M. Holt, S.J. Nakken and A.M. Raaen,
1992, Mechanical and petrophysical characterisation of
highly stressed mudstone. In: Hudson, J.R., (ed.), Rock
Characterisation, Proceedings of the ISRM Conference,
Europe 92, 51-56.
4. Horsrud, P., E.F. Sønstebø and R. Bøe, 1998, Mechanical
and petrophysical properties of North Sea shales. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 35, 1009-1020.
5. Dewhurst, D.N. and A. Hennig, 2003, Geomechanical
properties related to top seal leakage in the Carnarvon
Basin, Northwest Shelf, Australia. Petroleum Geoscience,
9, 255-263.
6. Nygard, R. and M. Gutierrez, 2002, Undrained shear
behaviour of some UK mudrocks explained by petrology.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 41, 37-46.
7. Nygard, R., M. Gutierrez, R. Gautam, and Høeg, K.,
2004, Compaction behavior of argillaceous sediments as
function of diagenesis. Marine and Petroleum Geology,
21, 349-362.
8. Lal, M., 1999, Shale stability: drilling fluid interaction
and shale strength. SPE paper number 54356, 10pp.
9. Ingram, G.M. and Urai, J.L, 1999, Top-seal leakage
through faults and fractures; the role of mudrock
properties. In: Aplin, A. C., Fleet, A. J., & MacQuaker, J.
H. S., (eds.), Muds and Mudstones: Physical and Fluid
Flow Properties, Geological Society, London, Special
Publications, 158,125-135.
10. Horsrud P, 2001, Estimating mechanical properties of
shale from empirical correlations. SPE Drilling and
Completion, 16, 68-73.
11. Wang, Z., 2002a, Seismic anisotropy in sedimentary
rocks, part 2: Laboratory data. Geophysics, 67, 1423-
1440.
12. Dewhurst D.N., Y. Yang and A.C. Aplin 1999, Fluid flow
through natural mudstones. In: Aplin, A.C., Fleet, A.J.
and Macquaker, J.H.S. (eds.), Muds and mudstones:
physical and fluid flow properties. Geological Society of
London Special Publication, 158, 23-43.
13. Thomsen, L., 1986. Weak elastic anisotropy:
Geophysics, 51, 1954-1966.
14. Banik, N.C., 1984, Velocity anisotropy of shales and 29. Dewhurst, D.N., and A.F. Siggins, 2006, Impact of fabric,
depth estimation in the North Sea basin. Geophysics, 49, microcracks and stress field on shale anisotropy:
1411-19. Geophysical Journal International, 165, 135–148.
15. Carrion, P., J. Costa, J.E.F. Pinheiro, and M. Schoenberg, 30. Kågerson-Loe, N., M.G. Stage, H.F. Christensen and O.
1992, Cross-borehole tomography in anisotropic media. Havmøller, 2004, Application of overburden strength and
Geophysics, 57, 1194-1198. deformation properties derived from drill cutting Ip data.
Proceedings of the 6th North American Rock Mechanics
16. Meadows, M.A. and W.L. Abriel, 1994, 3-D post-stack
Symposium, Houston, Texas, 12pp.
phase-shift migration in transversely isotropic media.
Proceedings of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 31. Skempton, A.W. and D.J. Henkel, 1953, The post-glacial
64th Annual Meeting, Expanded Abstracts, 1205-1208. clays of the Thames estuary at Tilbury and Shellhaven.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Soil
17. Wright, J., 1987, The effects of transverse isotropy on
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1, 302-308.
reflection amplitude versus offset. Geophysics, 52, 564-
567. 32. Lambe T.W. and R.V. Whitman, 1979, Soil Mechanics, SI
version. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 553 pp.
18. Jones, L.E.A. and H.F. Wang, 1981, Ultrasonic velocities
in Cretaceous shales from the Williston Basin. 33. Dewhurst, D.N., R.M. Jones, and M.D. Raven, 2002,
Geophysics, 46, 288-297. Microstructural and petrophysical characterisation of
Muderong Shale: Application to top seal risking.
19. Jakobsen, M. and T.A. Johansen, 2000, Anisotropic
Petroleum Geoscience, 8, 371-383.
approximations for mudrocks: a seismic laboratory study.
Geophysics, 65, 1711-1725. 34. Aplin A.C., Y. Yang, and S. Hansen, 1995. Assessment of
β, the compression coefficient of mudstones and its
20. Johnston, J.E., and N.I., Christensen, 1994. Elastic
relationship with detailed lithology. Marine and
constants and velocity surfaces of indurated anisotropic
Petroleum Geology, 12, 955-963.
shales. Surveys in Geophysics, 15, 481-494.
35. Lashkaripour, G.R. and M.B. Dusseault, 1993, A
21. Johnston, J.E., and N.I. Christensen, 1995, Seismic
statistical study on shale properties: Relationships among
anisotropy of shales. Journal of Geophysical Research,
principal shale properties. In: Probabilistic Methods in
100, 5991-6003.
Geotechnical Engineering, Li, K.S. and Lo, S-C.R., (eds.),
22. Vernik, L. and A. Nur, 1992, Ultrasonic velocity and Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
anisotropy of hydrocarbon source rocks. Geophysics, 57,
36. Paterson, M.S., 1978, Experimental Rock Deformation:
727-735.
The Brittle Field. Springer, Berlin, 254pp.
23. Hornby, B.E., 1998, Experimental laboratory deter-
37. Johnston, D.H., 1987, Physical properties of shales at
mination of the dynamic elastic properties of wet, drained
temperature and pressure. Geophysics, 52, 1391-1401.
shales. J. Geophys. Res., 103/B12, 29,945-64.
38. Liu, X., Vernik, L., and Nur, A., 1994. Effects of
24. Domnesteanu, P., C. McCann and J. Sothcott, 2002,
saturating fluids on seismic velocities in shales. SEG
Velocity anisotropy and attenuation of shale in under- and
Annual Meeting Expanded Abstracts, 64, 1121-1124.
overpressured conditions. Geophysical Prospecting, 50,
487-503. 39. Duranti, L. and Ewy, R., 2006, Constitutive relationship
for elastic anisotropy of shales: High frequency model.
25. Vernik, L. and X. Liu, 1997, Velocity anisotropy in
Abstract and presentation to FORCE conference on
shales; a petrophysical study. Geophysics, 62, 521-532.
Seismic Imaging in Shales, Stavanger, Norway.
26. Kenter, C.J., A. van den Beukel, P.J. Hatchell, K.P.
40. Chang, C., Zoback, M.D. and Khaksar, A., 2006,
Maron, M.M. Molenaar and J.G.F. Stammeijer, 2004,
Empirical relations between rock strength and physical
Geomechanics and 4D: Evaluation of reservoir
properties in sedimentary rocks. Journal of Petroleum
characteristics from time shifts in the overburden.
Science and Engineering, 51, 223-237.
Proceedings of the 6th North American Rock Mechanics
Symposium, ARMA/NARMS paper no 04-627, 7pp.
27. Molenaar, M.M., P.J. Hatchell, A.C. van den Beukel, N.J.
Jenvey, J.G.F. Stammeijer, J.J. van der Velde and W.O.
de Haas, 2004, Applying geomechanics and 4D: “4D in
situ stress” as a complementary tool for optimizing field
management. Proceedings of the 6th North American
Rock Mechanics Symposium, ARMA/NARMS paper no
04-639, 8pp.
28. Holt, R.M., E. Fjær A.M. Raaen and C. Ringstad, 1991,
Influence of stress state and stress history on acoustic
wave propagation in sedimentary rocks. In: Hovem, J.M.,
Richardson, M.D., Stoll, R.D., (eds.), Shear Waves in
Marine Sediments, Kluwer, The Netherlands, 167-74.