Theoretical and Experimental Bases

for the Dual-Water Model for

Interpretation of 'Shaly Sands
C. Clavier, SPE, Schlumberger Technical Services
G. Coates, SPE, Schlumberger Well Services
J. Dumanoir, * SPE, Schlumberger Well Services
Abstract
A simple petrophysical model proposed by Waxman and
Smits (WS) 1 in 1968 and Waxman and Thomas (WT)2
in 1972 accounts for the results of an extensive ex-
perimental study on the effects of clays on the resistivity
of shaly sands.
This model has been well accepted by the industry
despite a few inconsistencies with experimental results.
It is proposed that these inconsistencies resulted from the
unaccounted presence of salt-free water at the clay/water
interface. Electrochemistry indicates that this water
should exist, but is there enough to influence the results?
Both a theoretical study and reinterpretation of Waxman-
Smits-Thomas data show that there is.
, The corresponding new model starts from the Waxman
and Smits concept of supplementing the water' conduc-
tivity with a conductivity from the clay counterions. The
crucial step, however, is equating each of these conduc-
tivity terms to a particular type of water, 'each occupying
a representative volume of the total porosity. This ap-
proach has been named the "dual-water" (DW) model
because of these two water types-the conductivity and
),olume fraction of each being predicted by the model.
The DW model has been tested on most of the core
data reported in Refs. 1 and 2. The DW concept is also
supported by log data
3
and has been successfully applied
to the interpretation of thousands of wells. However, the
scope of this paper remains limited to the theoretical and
experimental bases of the DW model.
The Petrophysical DW Model
The purpose of this model is to account for the resistivity
behavior of clayey sands. For petrophysical considera-
tions, a clayey formation is characterized by its total
porosity, t; its formation factor, F 0; its water satura-
tion, S wT; its bulk conductivity, C
t
; and its concentra-
tion per unit PV of clay counterions, Qv' The formation
behaves like a clean formation with identical parameters
t, F 0, and S wt but containing a water whose conduc-
tivity, C we' differs from the bulk formation water. **
"Now retired.
F 0 is defined as the formation factor of a rock of pore geometry identical to that of
the clayey sand but in which the clays have been replaced by a nonconductive
mineral free of electrical surface effect. Accordingly, F 0 behaves likes the
formation factor of a clean formation. .
0197-7520/84/0004-6859$00,25
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
APRIL 1984
Neither the type of clays nor their distribution influences
the results.
Since the formation obeys Archie's laws,
C
t
= [snWTJ Cwe. . ........................ (1)
, F
o
,
The clayey sand equivalent water conductivity, C we' can
be considered a mixture of two waters.
1. A clay w a t ~ r surrounds the clay particles but has a
conductivity independent of the type and amount of clay_
Its conductivity, C cw, comes exclusively from the clay
cqunterions. The volume fraction o(clay water, V
cw
, is
directly' proportional to the counterion concentration,
Qv'
Vcw=VQQvt, ........................... (2)
where v Q is the amount of clay water associated with 1
unit (meq) of clay counterions.
2. The water further away from the clay is called far
water: Its conductivity, C w' and ionic concentration cor-
respond to the salinity of bulk-formation water. The
volume fraction of this water, V}iv' is the balance be-
tween the total water content and the clay ~ a t e r .
",
The implicit assumption is that the far water is displaced
preferentially by hydrocarbons.
The two water conductivities are combined as their
volumetric weighted averages to give the equivalent
fluid conductivity of the formation as
from which
153
CLAY FLAKE DRY CLAY CLAY IN WATER
0



AI++:!:...... Mg++

181 Ibl lei
WAXMAN-SMITS MODEL
Qv
Cwe =Cw + B Sw
Fig. 1-Schematic of clay particle.
In water-saturated formations, in which SwT=I, these
expressions are simplified to
and
Water saturation in Eq. 5 is computed as a fraction of
total porosity. Because S wT includes the clay water, sha-
Iy sands may have high water saturation and still produce
water-free hydrocarbons: A better clue to the nature of
production may be given by S fw, the fraction of porosity
cP jW filled by far water:
VjW
Sjiv=-' .............................. (8)
CPfw
CP,,,,' , comparable to effective porosity, is given by
so that
Therefore, the values of v Q and C cw must be known at
formation temperature for the interpretation model to be
solved. The determination of. these two parameters is
discussed later.
Theory of the DW Model
Clays are usually sheet-like particles characterized by a
very large surface compared to, their volume (Fig. la).
These clay-sheets are made by the stacking of two or
154
three layers of aluminum octahedra or silica tetrahedra
lattices. There is often an excess of negative electrical
charges inside the clay-sheet
4
frequently caused by the
substitution of Mg + + for some Al + + + in the oc-
tahedral lattice. Compensation for this local electrical
unbalance is necessary to maintain the electrical neutrali-
ty of the clay particle. The compensating agents are
positive ions, or counterions, clinging to the surface of
the clay-sheets in the dry state (Fig. lb). The resulting
p o ~ i t i v e surface charge, equal to the internal negative
deficit, is a constant characteristic of the clay called cat-
ion exchange capacity (CEC). It is expressed in milli-
equivalent (meq) per 100 grams [3.5 oz] of dry
material. 4
When the clay particles are immersed in an electrolytic
solution, the Coulomb forces keeping the positive
counterions at the clay surface are drastically reduced by
the high dielectric permitivity of water. The counterions
leave the clay surface and move relatively freely in the
water (Fig. lc), contributing to the electrical conductivi-
ty of the water and thereby increasing the rock conduc-
tivity. This added conductivity is proportional to the con-
centration of counterions in water. It is therefore logical
to express the surface charge in terms of counterion con-
centration in the PV or Q \,. It is expressed in meq/mL of
total porosity. I
Because of the mobility of clay counterions in water,
they may be replaced charge-to-charge by any other cat-
ion in the electrolyte, provided the electrical balance is
maintained. Refs. I and 2 deal exclusively with rocks
where counterions and cations are Na +, as does this
paper.
Despite their mobility, clay counterions do not
distribute themselves uniformly in the water. They re-
main attracted near the clay surface by the negative
charge they neutralize, but they are kept at some distance
by water molecules adsorbed at the clay surface or sur-
rounding the counterions. As a result, they are separated
from the clay by a thin water layer that ions cannot
penetrate.
The existence of this ion-free water around clay par-
ticles should not come as a surprise. The fact that the
conductivity or chlorinity of water in some shales is less
than that in surrounding sands 5,6 could be related to it,
although ion-rich shale waters have also been reported. 7
More conclusively, it has been shown experimentally
that fresh waters are squeezed out from saltwater clays at
very high pressure.
8
In addition, the "swelling clays"
are the most frequent manifestations of the expansion of
the ion-free layer under a change of water salinity.
The Diffuse Layer and Outer Helmholtz
Plane (OHP)
If one accepts as a first approximation that ions and
water molecules have negligible dimensions, the
distribution of Na + and CI - ions in the vicinity of the
clay surface would be as predicted by the Gouy model,
described in electrochemistry text books, and illustrated
in Fig. 2. The solid and dashed lines represent the local
concentrations of Na + and Cl - ions, respectively, at
distance x from the clay surface.
The zone near the clay surface where Na + exceeds
CI - constitutes the "diffuse layer." Its thickness is
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
t
LOCAL
IONIC
CONCEN-
TRATION
(n)
CI- I

-
I /-
__ --( DISTANCE FROM CLAY SURFACE
--
x ---
Fig. 2-Gouy's diffuse-layer model.
characterized by the parameter Xd related theoretically to
the salt concentration, < n >, in the bulk water at 25C
[7rF] by
...................... (II)
'Y<n>
where Xd is in angstroms (A), <n> in mol/dm
3
[mol/mL], and 'Y is the NaCI activity coefficient.
According to the Gouy model, the diffuse layer is
equivalent to (l) a layer of thickness, x d, which contains
the Na + cations necessary to balance the charge defi-
ciency of the clay but none of the Na + or CI - ions of
the salt dissolved in the water; and (2) the zone beyond
x d, with the salt concentration of the bulk water.
The definition of the clay-water zone would be com-
plete if it were not for the finite dimensions of ions and
water molecules. Actually, the Na + counterions of the
diffuse layer are kept some distance away from the clay
surface by the layer of water molecules adsorbed on the
clay surface and a shell of hydration water molecules
surrounding the sodium ion (Fig. 3).
At their closest approach, the Na + ions are located
with their centers lying on what is called the OHp
9
at a
distance XH from the surface (Fig. 3).
From Fig. 3 and Ref. 9, the distance of the OHP is
xH=2r".+J"3r".+rNa=6.18 A,
where r w, the radius of water molecule, equals 1.4 A,
and rNa, the radius of the Na ion, is 0.96 A at room
temperature.
The water salinity at which the Gouy layer thickness,
xd, matches the OHP distance, XH, may be computed
from Eq. II to be <nl>=0.35 mol/dm
3
[0.35
mol/mL). The corresponding value for 'Y I, the activity
coefficient, at this salinity is 0.71. Two situations are
then possible.
1. The water salinity exceeds < n I >. Then all the
counterions are located on the OHP. The zone of salt ex-
clusion is limited by the OHP and its thickness, x H, is
about 6.2 A at room temperature, and is independent of
bulk water salinity: xd=xH'
APRIL 1984
ADSORBED
WATER
SODIUM
ION
WATER
HYDRATION
WATER
I
I
I
OUTER
HELMHOLTZ
PLANE
Fig. 3-0uter helmholtz plane.
SCHEMATIC
WATER
MOLECULE
2. The salinity is less than < n 1 > . Then, there is tru-
ly a diffuse layer. The thickness of the zone of salt exclu-
sion, Xd, is given by the Gouy diffuse layer model and is
now salinity-dependent.
In general, we may write
where 0', derived from Eq. II, is
........................ (12)
Of course, 0' = I when the water salinity exceeds
<nl >.
Volume of Clay-Water
To determine the volume occupied by salt-free water,
one needs to know the clay surface area in contact with
the water. This surface of the clay is actually related to
the clay charge.
It has been recognized for some time that the surface
charge most clay is
stant. x ThiS pomt has been lllvestigated 5, 10-1 With
somewhat diverging results. For example, the average of
25 results from Refs. 13 through 16 leads to an area of
675 m
2
/meq [7.266 sq ft/meqJ when specific area is
greater than 100 m
2
/g [1,076 sq ft/g] and 580 m
2
/meq
[6,243 sq ft/meq) when specific area is less than 100
m 2 I g [1,076 sq ftl g). On the other hand, Patchett
4
finds
for 109 shale samples an area of 580 m 2 Imeq [6,243 sq
ft/meq) when specific area is greater than 100 m
2
/g
[1,076 sq ft/g] and 800 m
2
/meq [8,611 sq ft/meq] when
specific area is less than 100 m
2
/g [1,076 sq ft/g]. Pat-
chett's results do not apply too well here. They deal with
shale and the measured area includes the contribution of
the silt fraction, particularly significant when the specific
area is small.
155
1000
100
t
SPECIFIC
AREA
m
2
/g
MONT.
+ ILL.
o KAOL.
SPECIFIC CEC, m e q / g ~
0.1
Fig. 4-CEC vs. specific area for clays.
The data of Diamond and Kinter
5
have been used in
this study. They cover nine samples of the three main
types of clays (montmorillonite, illite, and kaolinite)
plotted on Fig. 4. These clays are API standard and the
consistency of laboratory procedures permits a mean-
ingful analysis of results. These data were also used as
reference of comparison by Patchett.
The experimental data of Fig. 4 plot on a single
straight line having a slope of one, indicating direct pro-
portionality between specific area (m 2 /g) and specific
CEC (meq/g) independent of the type of clay.
A,p = I'(CEC),p
where the constant v may be read from Fig. 4:
1'=450 m
2
/meq [4,844 sq ft/meq].
Normalizing to porosity, rather than density, the clay
surface per unit of PV is
A\,=I'Q\,.
The thickness of clay-water layer being Xd, the volume
of clay water, per unit bulk volume, is
Setting
v Ii = I'X H =450 m 2 /meq [4,844 ft2/meq]
x6.18A. =0.28 dm
3
/meq [0.28 mLlmeq] .. (13)
and
VQ=cxVIi, .............................. (14)
one derives Eq. I stated previously:
Vcw =cxvli Q\'I =VQQvl
156
Conductivity of Clay-Water
The water near the clay contains only the clay
counterions with pore space concentration Q V. Their
concentration in clay-water is then
Qvt
Qcw=-- ............................ (15)
Vcw
Let {3 be the counterion equivalent conductivity. The
clay water conductivity is then
{3Qv1 {3
C
cw
={3Qcw=---=-, ............... (16)
Vcw vQ
which is independent of the amount and type of clay.
In a NaCI environment where sodium CEC
predominates, {3 and C
cw
are universal parameters that
depend mainly on temperature and somewhat on salt
concentration. With nonsodium CEC, encountered in
some shales,
7
they also depend on the type of
counterion. The value of {3 is derived from core
measurements later.
Effect of Temperature
Counterion Equivalent Conductivity p. Temperature
decreases the water viscosity, which affects, in the same
manner, the mobility of any ion in the water. It is also
likely to lower the weak bond of counterions with the
clays. Accordingly, (3 should increase as fast as or
somewhat faster than the conductivity of a NaCI
solution.
Clay-Water Thjckness. For salinity greater than
< n I > , the clay-water thickness is x H distance of OHP.
Temperature decreases the average residence time of the
adsorbed water molecules on the clay by decreasing the
strength of dipolar bond, thus decreasing the effective
thickness of the adsorbed water layer. Consequently, v Q
should decrease with temperature. Assuming the average
residence time to be inversely related to the frequency of
jumps of adsorbed water molecules, one may use the rate
process theory
9
to predict the shape of the temperature
effect:
1 e -t!.GO/RT
v Q ::::: - = , .................. , .. (17)
f T
where T is absolute temperature and LlG
o
is free energy
change from adsorbed to free-water molecule state.
For salinity less than < n I > the clay water has the
thickness of the diffuse layer, shown by its theory9 to
vary with Til" (Tbeing the absolute temperature).
[
TJ v,
(vQh=(vQh
o
To ................... (18)
From 25C to 200C [7]oF to 392F], vQ should in-
crease by 26 % .
This discussion has presented the physical foundation
of the petrophysical model. The existence of clay water
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
WATER-SATURATED
FORMATION
CONDUCTIVITY
Co
WATER
CONDUCTIVITY
- 4 ~ - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ C w
CI
Fig. 5-C
o
vs. C
w
schematic.
has been justified and its petrophysical parameters have
been identified. The actual values remain to be deter-
mined experimentally.
The Experimental Approach
The experimental data come primarily from the pub-
lished work of Waxman and Smits! and Waxman and
Thomas.
2
In addition, Shell Development has allowed
us to use some unpublished data concerning the effect of
temperature and saturation studied in Ref. 2.
Quantification of vlj, p, arid C
cw
Waxman and Smits' experiments on water-saturated
clayey sands established that the relation between Co
(shaly sand conductivity) and C
w
(bulk water conduc-
tivity) has the characteristic shape shown in Fig. 5.
For bulk water NaCl salinity in excess of 0040
mol/dm
3
[0040 mol/L] (25C [77F]), corresponding to
C w > C!, the shaly sand conductivity Co follows a
straight line of slope s. This line intercepts the C w axis at
a value (-C
x
)' Thus, for value of <n> greater than
0040,
Co =s(C
w
+C
x
)' ......................... (19)
In this high-salinity range, a = 1 and the DW model con-
ductivity, Co, given by Eq. 7, can be written in a form
similar to Eq. 19:
_ (l-vIjQv) ( vljQv )
C
o
- C
w
+ C
cw
.
. Fo 1-vljQv
. . . . (20)
In this form Eqs. 19 and 20 may be compared term-by-
term.
Intercept.
vljQv (3Qv
--=--H::-::---CcW = H" .......... (21)
1-vQQv 1-vQQv .
The right-hand term is obtained by application ofEq. 16.
The intercept magnitude, C x' is a quadratic function of
APRIL 1984
t
10 C
x
INTERCEPT
mho/m
5
0.5 1.0 1.5
Fig. 6-Plot of C
x
vs. Qv'
2.0 2.5
Q v with parameters v Ij and (3. These parameters can be
determined by curve fitting Eq. 21 to experimental core
data.
For doing so, the C
x
intercepts for the 86 samples of
Group 1 of Ref. 1 were recomputed from the basic Co
conductivity data. The results are presented on Fig. 6.
The vertical bars represent the uncertainty caused by
departures of the Co data from a straight line at high
salinities. Curves 1 and 2 are best fits of Eq. 21 for the
majority of the data and for the most southeasterly data,
respectjvely.
From curve 1
vlj =0.30 dm
3
/meq [0.30 mLlmeq]
and
(3=2.05 (S/m)/(meq/cm3)
[2.05 (mho/m)/(meq/cm3)].
From curve 2
vlj =0.225 cm
3
/meq [0.225 mLlmeq]
and
(3=2.50 (S/m)/(meq/cm3)
[2.50 (mho/m)/(meq/mL)].
Curve Fit 1, which is statistically the most significant,
gives a value of vlj =0.30 close to the theoretical 0.28
from Eq. 13. Another independent estimate of vlj is
given under Temperature Effect. It confirms this choice.
C
cw
is computed from Eq. 16, leading to C
cw
=6.8
S/m [6.8 mho/m].
Some comments should be made at this point on the
values found for (3 and vlj(3 for Na + is found to be 2.05
(S/m)/(meq/cm 3) [2.05 (mho/m)/(meq/mL)]. This is
between the conductivity of Na + of montmorillonite in
distilled water!7 1.8 (S/m)/(meq/ cm3) [1.8
(mho/m)/(meq/mL)] and the one of Na + ions in saline
solution of same ionic strength as clay-water 2.75
(S/m)/(meq/cm 3) [2.75 (mho/m)/(meq/mL)].
157
a:
a

(J
<!
u..
Z
a
t=
<!
::!:
a:
a
LL
a
all
100
a
a
0
a
10
8
a
0
a
a
a
a
a a
a

5 10 20
POROSITY
a
8
a
100
a
a:
a

(J
<!
LL
Z
a
a
t=
<!
:2
a:
a
LL
10

5 10 20
POROSITY
Fig. 7-Formation factor VS. total porosity: (a) Waxman-Smits, (b) Dual Water.
Concerning v fj, it should be noted that it imposes a
limit to the value of Q v to be expected in shaly forma-
tions. According to Eq. 2, and with the obvious condi-
tion Vcw:
Thus, Qv should be less than 3.3 in formations at 250
[77F) and 5.5 in formations at 200C [392F). Most
Q v reported in the literature respect these limits although
these truly apply only to fully wet clays. When part of
the clay surface loses its water (desiccation, grain to
grain contact, etc.), the corresponding counterions
become fixed on the dry surface (see Theory of Dual
Water) and lose their electrical effect. However, these
ions are still counted in the CEC measured chemically.
This leads to apparent Q v that are excessively high and {3
that seem abnormally low.
The exceptional values measured by Kern et al. on
samples from low-porosity gas sands 18 (Q v::::: 20,
(3::::: 0.5) illustrate an extreme case of this situation. Still,
it may happen to a lesser degree on usual rock samples.
A way around this problem is to measure an effective
Qv, corresponding only to the mobile (conductive)
counterions. Q v is then obtained from ex through Eq. 21
using (3 and v fj at the ex temperature. Actually this
"electrical" Q v has been preferred to the chemical one
in most computations in this study. Additional justifica-
tions for this practice are given in the last section of this
paper.
158
Slope. From Eqs. 19 and 20
I I-vfjQv
s=-= ...................... (22a)
F* Fo
or the inverse form
F 0 =F*(I-vfj Qv). . ..................... (22b)
In Eq. 22b, (l-vfjQv) corrects for the presence of the
clay-water and converts the measured formation factor,
F*, to the idealized one, F o.
Accordingly, F 0 should be less distorted by clay con-
tent, and therefore more closely related to Archie's
relation:
F=,-m. . .............................. (23)
This deduction can be verified on the 136 samples of
Refs. I and 3 as shown on Figs. 7 and 8. Figs. 7a and 7b
are plots of the formation factor against , for WS and
DW models, respectively. It is seen that the large scatter
of the WS plot (Fig. 7a) has been reduced by a factor of
two by the clay-water correction (Fig. 7b). * Figs. 8a and
8b plot the values of Archie's exponent, m, computed
from Eq. 23, against the shaliness factor
Y=Qvtl(l-t) or clay counterions per unit volume of
Peter Day of SchlumbergerDoll Research has demonstrated that further
improvements are obtained by correcting F 0 for the tortUOSity added by the clay.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
3
If
0
aD
00
0
m 2
q,
o
a
a
o a 0 a
o
0010
a
0

c!ila
o 0 0
0
0
III dJ a
III
0.5
Y
a
3
If
0
m
2
0
0
o
0
0
a
o a 0
o 1l 0
\Q,:zOa
f. tilaSI
Sl 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
!Ma
0.5
Y
0
Fig. 8-Archie's m exponent vs. shalyness: (a) Waxman-Smits, (b) Dual Water.
solid. The m of WS (Fig. 8a) appears more clay-
dependent, whereas the m of DW remains close to two
even at high shaliness. The fact that the formation factor
of the DW model is more closely related to the one of
Archie's is of practical importance in log interpretation,
for which the porosity is usually the source of the forma-
tion factor.
Curvature of the CoLine
An inevitable consequence of the DW model is that the
Co line should be curved downward at salinities below
< n I >. Clay-water-layer expansion at lower salinities
displaces some of the far water without ionic
compensation.
Data from Group 2 of Ref. 1 and Fig. 9, showing a
typical sample from this group, show that a curvature ex-
ists below <n> =0.4 mol/dm
3
[0.4 mol/L]. This is
close enough to the theoretical value <nl > = 0.35
mol/dm 3 [0.35 mollL] to assume that this curvature
could be the predicted one and that the actual value of
< n I > should be
< n I > =0.40 mol/dm 3 [0.40 mollL].
Quantitatively, the formation conductivities C Oc com-
puted from Eqs. 7, 12, and 14 were compared to the
measured conductivities COm for the 15 most significant
samples of group 2, Ref. I (see Appendix). The average
of ratios COm/C
Oe
are shown in Table 1.
It 'is seen that clay-water expansion explains quan-
titatively the Co curvature to any C w down to 1 S/m [1
mho/m]. This is illustrated on Fig. 9. This limit covers
most cases of interpretation. The additional drop of COm
APRIL 1984

030 Co
mho/m
0.25
0.20
SAMPLE 26
Qv; 1.47
LINEAR
RELATIONSHIP
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
cwmho/m

Fig. 9-C
o
curvature at high Q
v
: Sample 26.
below 1 S/m [1 mho/m] must be attributed to other
causes, probably to the decrease of counterion mobility
in dilute solution as suggested by Waxman. 1,17 Then,
Table 1 would lead to approximately
{Jdil =(J(l-O.4e -2C,,). . ................... (24)
Temperature Effect
This study is based on the conductivity measurements on
the nine shaly sands described in Table 4 of Ref. 2. The
procedure used to transform it into intercept C x and
slope 1/ F* at each temperature is described in the Ap-
pendix. F* and C
x
values are listed in Tables A-I and
A-2.
159
TABLE 1-CURVATURE CORRECTION FACTOR, C
w
(mho/m)
5.25 2.8 1.5 0.78 0.41 0.21
Com
-
1.0 1.01 1.0 0.91 0.82 0.73
C
oc

13 t
COUNTERION
EQ. CONDUCTIVITY
(mho/m)
10
(meq/cc)
TEMPERATURE
50 100 150 200C
100 200 300 400 OF
Fig. 10-iJ vs. temperature.

0.25
TempoC
0.15 '------'-----""'------'------'------'
100 200
V vs Temperature
Fig. 11-v vs. temperature.
Clay-Water Volume Factor. It was predicted from the
theory that v tJ should decrease with temperature; conse-
quently F* should decrease with temperature since
F
F*= 0
I-vtfQv
160
TABLE 2-V vs. TEMPERATURE (OC)
22 80 140 200
--
VHQ,av 0.30 0,259 0.223 0.189
0.30 0.254 0.219 0.193
The effect of temperature on F* can be verified
qualitatively in Table A-lor on Fig. 10, where the
changes in F* between two arbitrary temperatures are
plotted against the shaliness Qv of the samples.
Despite some large dispersion from sample to sample,
Fig. 10 shows clearly that F* is essentially temperature-
independent in norishaly formation (Q v "'" 0) and that the
change due to temperature increases with shaliness; this
is in agreement with Eq. 22 .. Similar results were also
reported by Kern, 19 in which a different approach was
used to quantify the variations in F*.
The variations of [v tf Q v] with temperature were com-
puted from Table A-I using Eq. 22, under the assump-
tions that F 0 is invariant and that v tf (22) is 0.30.
The average values of v tf av' computed from
E( v tf . Q v )/EQ v' are listed in Table 2 and displayed in
Fig. 11.
295+25
vtf(D=0.30X TK +25' .................. (25)
where T K . represents absolute (Kelvin) temperature.
v tf (T) duplicates v tf av with only 2 % error. Notice the
close dependence of v tf avon the reciprocal of T K as ex-
pected from the rate process theory.
Counterion Conductivity. The increase of intercept C x
(Table A-2) reflects the increase of {J with temperature
since
A value of ({JQv) was computed for each Cx; using the
vtf values determined in the previous subsection. This
was the base for a weighted average {J av computed at
each temperature. Results are normalized in Table 3 and
Fig. 12.
{J av is well approximated by the function
Toe +8.5
{JTo
e
=2.05 , .................... (26)
22+8.5
where Toe is temperature in DC. It can be compared with
the conductivity C of N a + ion in salt solution of same
ionic strength as clay-water listed on the final line of the
table.
Clearly Na + ions from clays or saline solutions ex-
hibit similar dependence on temperature above 80C
[176F] (water viscosity), with the counterion conduc-
tivity growing slightly faster at lower temperatures.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
TABLE 3-1} vs. TEMPERATURE (Oc)
22 80 140 200
(3 av
2.05 5.86 10.3 13.7
(3 T.
c
2.05 5.95 10.0 14.0
CNa
2.73 6.57 10.5 13.5
These results are in fair agreement with those reported by
Kern et al., 19 who found thecounterion conductivity to
follow the same variation as NaCI solution.
Clay-Water Conductivity, C
cw
. Entering Eqs. 25 and
26 into Eq. 16 leads to
C
ew
=7.10 -4(ToC +8.5)(To
c
+298) .......... (27)
As is apparent in Fig. 13, C
ew
increases faster than
C w with temperature. The decrease of the clay-water
volume increases the concentration in counterions.
New Estimate of v {j at 2ZOC [7ZOF]. Previous
estimates of v tJ were derived from either chemistry prin-
ciples or C
t
intercept data. A new estimate will be deriv-
ed now from an independent source: the F* values
(Table A-I).
According to Eqs. 22 and 26,
. ( v tJ (22)(2;: + 25)Q v ), ............ (28)
with appropriate substitutions
Z;=B;+A; 'X;;
Z;=I/F*,
X; = I(h +25),
B; = liFo
A;lB; ;= [v tJ (22)(320)Q v], .................. (29)
A; and B; determined from regression analysis, together
witH the raw data, are listed in Table A-I for 11 core
samples.
An estimate of v tJ ;(22) could be made for each core
from
(AIB)
vtJ ;(22)= ....................... (30)
VI
To obtain a meaningful average value for v tJ (22) we
need to do better than simply take the average value of
v tJ (22), since such an average will reflect the con-
siderable uncertainty in computing (A;lB;) for samples
APRIL 1984
-30%
-20%
%
of F*change
between 35C and 185C
Sh.2
Sh.1
2.0
Change in F *due to temperature
versus Qv
Fig. 12-Change in F* due to temperature vs. Qv'
150r----------------------.
100 t
CONDUCTIVITY
C
cw
50 mho 1m C
cw
VI
TEMP. 20
//----, .....
,/ .
// C for
/ w
10
/ NaCI SOLUTION
/
TEMPERATURE-..
50 100 150 200 C

100 200 300 400 F
Fig. 13-C
cw
vs. temperature.
with low values of Q v; instead we use the form
H I:(A;lB;) 916
vQ(22)=---
320I:Qv; 320x 10.8
=0.27 meq/dm
3
[meq/mL]. . ....... (31)
This new and independent estimate compares well with
the previous ones of 0.28 (chemistry) and 0.30
( intercept).
Comparison With Core Data. The conductivity at
200C [392 OF] of the samples studied by WT have been
computed according to the dual-water temperature cor-
rection model. The results are presented in Table 4 as
161
TABLE 4-TEMPERATURE CORRECTION TEST
2830C
2797G
2799B
2830A
Shale 1
Shale 2
Core
~
0.64
0.90
0.99
1.15
2.0
2.1
(C
o
)200IC
o
(22) at 4.74 Molai Salinity
Waxman
4.71
4.81
4.85
4.90
5.16
5.19
Dual Water
4.94
5.20
5.29
5.48
6.81
7.02
Experimental
5.08
5.07
5.00
5.57
8.60
8.30
ratios of conductivity at 200C [392 OF] to conductivity
at 22C [nOF]. These ratios may be compared to the ex-
perimental ones. TJ:!e values computed acccording to
WT model are also presented for reference.
Comparison of DW and WS Models
The additional data released to us include the
measurements of the conductivities of the core samples
used by WT in their saturation experiments.
2
These
data, given in Tables A-3 and A-5, offer the opportunity
to make a comparison between the DW and WS models.
Variance of Models From Co (Water-Saturated)
Measurements. The test covers 52 Co measurements
distributed over 12 rock samples. The model parameters
have been determined by best fitting to experimental
conductivitit,s on the basis of percentage accuracy. The
basic cdnditions have been maintained that the sum of
the percentage errors for any fit is nil and the variance is
minimum. For the DW model, Fo and Qv were opti-
mized simult.aneously for a best fit with conductivities.
For the WS model, a first fit WS (1) was obtained op-
timizing F* but keeping the Q v determined by WT from
the Co conductivity data (Ref. 2, Table 2). Because of
the poor quality of results, another fit, WS (2) was also
made, optimizing both F* and Qv simultaneously as was
done for the DW model.
Best estimates of Q v' F 0, and F* are given in Table
A-4 for the 12 rock samples. They define the rock model
parameters used in the saturation study discussed later.
The variance between the corresponding models and
measured conductivities has been used to quantify the
quality of fit with experimental Co: The smaller the
variance, the better the fit. Variance computations, ex-
pressed in percentages, are summarized in Table 5.
WS (1) exhibits the greatest variarice. Apparently the
Q v determined by WT does not fit the Codata well. The
DW model gives the best fit; better than WS (2).
Archie's Formation Factor and Saturation Ex-
ponents. It is interesting to compare the values of m and
n obtained for the 12 rock samples according to the three
models. m and n are computed from
sn
_ w
F=t III and Ct=-C
weq
.
Fo
The derivation of n is more complex because each rock
sample is characterized by many computed n values,
each one coming from an experiment where either the
saturation or C w has been changed. The average n ob-
tained for each sample, and the variance from n, or the
corresponding standard deviation, (n), will characterize
the rock sample saturation exponent.
m, n, and standard deviation from n are listed for the
three models of the 12 rock samples in Table A ~ 6 . This
sample-by-sample comparison of m and n may be of in-
terest to the log analyst.
If it is true, as suggested by Waxman, that the stability
of n in relation to n is a good criterion of the quality of
the model, then the DW model seems better, as seen
from Table 6. Its variance is one-tenth of the WS (1) and
one-third of the WS (2).
The average of m and n over the 12 rock samples are
given in Table 7. One may try and express n as a func-
tion of m. An expression of this type is given under
n=j(m) in Table 7. The standard deviation of nand
j (m) are rather large particularly for Model WS (1).
There is apparently no significant advantage in using
n=j (m) instead of (n)av'
TABLE 5-VARIANCES FROM EXPERIMENTAL Co
Number of WS(1) WS(2)
Measurements DW Model Model Model
3218C 6 38.8 247.1 34.:1
3279B 4 1.2 209.1 50.5
3281 4 4.3 333.1 52.6
499C 6 15.4 93.8 19.4
521C 6 20.4 33.6 33.6
3280B 3 26.7 9.0 9.0
3282C 3 1.8 105.9 15.5
512C 6 30.8 77.8 33.2
3227A 5 12.0 10.0 10.0
3228B 5 33.4 24.5 14.9
3301B 2 0.0 2.4 0.0
3140A 2 0.0 57.3 0.0
Total Variance 52 185 1198 273
Standard
Deviation (%) 1.9 4.8 2.3
162 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
TABLE 6-VARIANCE OF n AROUND n TABLE 7-AVERAGE OF m AND n
FOR 12 ROCK SAMPLES
Dual Water WS(1) WS(2) Dual Water WS(1) WS(2)
Variance from n
!m)av
1.85 1.92 1.95
(n')av ,
1.75 1.86 1.89
(146 measurements)
n=f(m) m-.11 m-.06 m-.06
(%)2 3,424 34,858 11,071
Standard deviation (m) 0.11 0.11 0.14
Standard deviation Standard deviation (n) 0.16 0.32 0.20
from n (%) 4.8 15.5 8.7 Standard deviation [f (m)] 0.14 0.32 0.20
TABLE B-Q
v
COMPARATIVE STUDY
0
v .
(Ov) Electrical
Chemical WS (1) Model
3218 G 0.41 0.42
3779 B 0.36 0.35
3281 0.29 0.31
499(; 0.28 0.28
521 C 0.32 0.33
3280 B Q.28 0.28
3282C 0.24 0.25
512 C 0.32 0.32
3227 A 0.11 0.11
3228 B 0.12 0.13
3301 B 0.06 0.06
3130 A 0.24 0.24
Average change
from chemical
Ov (%) +2
The Qv Evaluation Problem. Table 8 compares the
electrical Q v df the three models to the chefuical Q v'
The Qv of WS (1), published in Ref. 2, is remarkably
similar to chemical Qv; however, this is at the expense
of poor fit to Co measurements and large dispersion of n
exponent. Qv ofWS (2) and DW agree very well in view
of the large differences in the basic parameters of two
models. They both read significantly in. excess of
chemical Qv (+25%).
A similar trend was noticed with the sample set of the
temperature study. These differences cannot be e ~
plained by clay dehydration, but they illustrate the
limitations of the correlation between chemical and elec-
trical Q v' They suggest that Q v inferred from electrical
measurements, whether conductivity, electrochemical
potential,20,21 or dielectric constant 18 are likely to be
more appropriate to the interpretation of resistivity logs
for saturation.
Conclusions
The conductivity model of shaly formations proposed by
Waxman and Smits has been modified to take into ac-
count the exclusion of salt around clay particles. It was
shown that, conductivity-wise, a shaly formation
behaves as if it were clean, but contains a water that is a
mixture of formation and so-called "clay" waters. The
conductivity of the clay-water is quasiuniversal and
depends mainly on temperature. The WS data were
reinterpreted in this light to obtain the parameters of this
APRIL 1984
(Ov) Electrical (Ov) Electrical
WS (2) Model OW Model
0.60 0.60
0.54 0.49
0.57 0.54
O.3q 0.38
0.33 0.31
0.28 0.28
0..10 0.36
0.39 0.37
0.11 0.10
0.12 0.094
0.044 0.046
0.143 0.135
+28 +22
rhodt;I. .Improved coherence and fit with experimental
data were obtained with this DW model.
Perhaps more significantly, the DW model has
brought unification and simplification to log interpreta-
tion by putting the evaluation of shaly formations into
the usual framework where resistivity is analyzed in
terms of total porosity and saturation.
Nomenclature
A; = [v8'(22)'320Qv]B;
Asp = specific area of clay surface, m
2
/ g
[sq ftloz]
A v = clay surface area per unit of PV,
m
2
/cm
3
[sq ft/cm3]
B = equivalent conductivity of compen-
sating counterions, WS model
(S/m)/(meq/cm 3)
[(mho/m)/(meq/mL)]
B; liFo
Bo = constant value of B at high water
salinities, B 0 = Cx/ Q v'
(S/m)/(meq/cm 3)
[(mho/m)/(meq/mL)]
C
cw
= conductivity of clay-water, S/m
[mho/m]
C
t
= true conductivity of (hydrocarbon-
bearing) formation, S/m [mho/m]
163
164
C T = total conductivity, S/m [mho/m]
C
w
== (formation) water conductivity, S/m
[mho/m]
C we = effective conductivity of water in a
shaly sand, S/m [mho/m]
C
x
intercept of linear portion of Co vs.
C w curve extrapolated to C w axis
(Cx=BoQv) S/m [mho/m]
Co = conductivity of 100 % water-saturated
formation, S/m [mho/m]
COc = computed forrpation conductivities,
S/m [mho/m]
COm = measured formation conductivities,
S/m [mho/m]
C 1 = the C w v a l u ~ above which Co varies
linearly with C
w
, S/m [mho/m]
CEC = cation-exchange capacity (dry rock),
meq/lOO g [meq/3.5 oz]
F = resistivity formation factor (for a
clean sand), F=Ro/Rw
F 0 = resistivity formation factor for a shaly
sand as used in DW shaly-sand
model
F* = resistivity formation factor for a shaly
sand as used in WS shaly-sand
model, F*=Ro/Rwe
LlG
o
free energy change
m = exponent in Archie F - cf> relationship
for clean sands
n = saturation exponent
<n> = salt concentration in water, mol/dm
3
[mol/L]
< n 1 > = salt concentration above which a = I ,
mol/dm 3 [mol/L]
Q v = concentration of clay counterions per
unit PV, meq/cm
3
[meq/mL]
(Qv)ei = value of Qv computed from conduc-
tivity measurements, meq/cm
3
[meq/mL]
rNa radius of Na + ion, A
r w = radius of water molecule, A
Ro = resistivity of formation 100%
saturated with water (Ro = l/C
o
),
Q'm
R t = true resistivity of (hydrocarbon-
bearing) formation, Q. m
R w = (formation) water resistivity, Q. m
s = slope of Co vs. C
w
curve for C
w
greater than C i
S fw = fraction of "far-water" pore space
that is water filled
S wT = water saturation in volume fraction of
total porosity
S:;, = water saturation to nth power
To
c
= temperature in C
T K = temperature in K
To = reference temperature, K
V cw = volume fraction of clay water
V fw = volume fraction of far water
v ~ = I'xH=A
v
x
H
IQv, -cm
3
/meq [mLlmeq]
v Q = volume of clay-water per counterion
at 22C [72F] when a=l,
cm
3
/meq [mLlmeq]
v /j av = I;( V /j Q )/I;Q v' cm
3
/meq [mLlmeq]
v /j (T) = same at temperature T K
v/j; (22) = (A;lB;)/320 ?lvi, (S/m)/(meq/cm3)
[(mho/m)/(meq/mL)]
Xd = thickness of diffuse layer, A
x H = distance of OHP from clay surface,
A
Xi = lIToc +25
Y = amount of clay normalized to fraction
of solids volume,
Y=Qvcf>T/(l-cf>T)
Z; = lIF*
a = expansion factor for diffuse layer
(3 = equivalent conductivity of sodium
counterions, DW model at 22C
[72 OF], (S/m)/(meq/cm 3)
[(mho/m)/(meq/mL)]
(3av = I;(3QvJr;Qv, (S/m)/(meq/cm3)
[(mho/m)/(meq/mL)]
(3 dil = value of (3 for low-salinity solutions,
(S/m)/(meq/cm3)
[(mho/m)/(meq/mL)]
(3 Le = values of (3 at temperatures T, C
[OF]
'Y = NaCI activity coefficient
I' = specific clay-area coefficient,
m
2
/meq [sq ft/meq]
cf> t = total porosity, fraction
Acknowledgments
We thank Shell Development Co. for inaking available
additional experimental data concerning the dependence
of conductivity on saturation and temperature. We
acknowledge the contribution of Peter Day in optimizing
the F vs. cf> relationship. We thank Ernie Finklea for his
patient help in the preparation of this paper for
publication.
References
1. Waxman, M.H. and Smits, L.J.M.: "Electrical Conductivities in
Oil-Bearing Shaly Sands," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June 1968) 107-22;
Trans. , AIME, 243.
2. Waxman, M.H. and Thomas, E.C.: "Electrical Conductivities in
Shaly Sands-I. The Relation Between Hydrocarbon Saturation
and Resistivity Index; II. The Temperature Coefficient of Elec-
trical Conductivity," 1. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1974) 213-23; Trans.,
AIME,257.
3. Coates, G.R., Boutemy, Y., and Clavier, C.: "A Study of Dual-
Water Model Based on Log Data," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1983)
158-66.
4. van Olphen, H.: An Introduction to Clay Colloid Chemistry, John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1963) 30-44; 251-79.
5. Ritch, H. and Pennebaker, E.: "Relationship Between the Con-
ductivities of Tertiary Water-Bearing Sands and Nearby Shales,"
paper presented at the 1978 SPWLA Symposium, EI Paso, June
13-16.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
6. Hedberg, W .H.: "Pore Water Chlorinities of Subsurface Sha,Ie,"
PhD dissertation, U. of Wisconsin; Madison (1967).
7. Weaver, C.E. and Beck, K.C.: "Clay Water Diagenesis. Duril)g
Burial: How Mud Becomes Gneiss," Special Paper 134 GSA,
Boulder (1971) 1-71. :
8. von Engelhardt, W.V. and Gaida, K.H.: "Concentration Changes
of Pore Solution During Compaction of Clay Sediments," 1. Sed.
Petrology (Dec. 1963) 33, No.4, 919-30.
9. Bockris, l. and Reddy, A.K.X.: Modern Aspect of Elec-
trochemistry, Plenum Press, New York City (1972) Chap. 7, Sec.
7.4.2.C. ,
10. Patchett, J .G.: "An Investigation of Shale Conductivity," paper
V presented at the 1975 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium,
New Orleans, June 4-7.
II. Diamond, S. and Kinter, E.B.: "Surface Areas of Clay Minerals
as Derived from Measurements of Glycerol Retention," Clays and
Clay Minerals, A. Swineford (ed.) Natl. Academy of
Science/Natl. Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1958)
334-47.
12. Overbeek, J.T.G.: "The Interaction Between Colloidal Par-
ticles," Colloid Science, Elsevier Pub. Co., New York City
(1952) 245-77. ,
13. Frippiat, J.1.: "On the Question of Constancy of Clay Mineral
Cation Exchange Capacity per Unit Area," Clays and Clay
Minerals, Proc., 12th Natl. Clay Conference,Pergamon Press,
New York City (1964). .
14. Greene-Kelly, R.: "Charge Densities and Heats ofImmersion of
Some Clay Minerals," Clay Minerals Bull. 5, MineralogiCal
Society, London (1962) 1-8.
15. Norrish, K. and Rausell-Colom, "Low Angle X-Ray Dif-
fraction Studies of the Swelling of Montmorillonite a.nd Ver-
miculite," Clays and Clay Minerals, Proc., 10th Natl. Clay Con-
ference, MacMillan Press, New York City (1963) :123-49.
16. Orinsby, W.e., Shartsis, J.M., and Woodside, K.H,: "Exchange
Behavior of Kaolins of Varying Degrees of Crystallinity," Am.
Ceramic Soc. 1. (1962) 45, 361-66.
17. van Olphen, H. and Waxman, M.H.: "Surface Conductance pf
Sodium Bentonite in Water," Clays and Clay Minerals, P;oc., 5th
Natl. Conference Clays and 'Clay Minerals, Natl. Academy bf
Science/NatL Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1958).
18. Kern, l.W., Hoyer, W.A., and Spann, M.M.: "Low Porosity Gas
Sand Analysis Using Cation Exchange and Dielectric Constant
Data," paper presented at the 1976 SPWLA Annual Logging
Symposium, Denver, June 9-12.
19. Kern, J.W., Hoyer, W.A., and Spann, M.M.: "High
Temperature Electrical Conductivity of Shaly Sands," paper
presented at the 1977 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium,
Houston, June 5-8.
20. Smits, L.J .M.: "SP Log Interpretation in Shaly Sands," Soc. Pet.
Eng. 1. (June 1968) 123-36; Trans., AIME, 243.
21. Thomas, E.C.: "The Determina.tion of Qv From Membrane
Potential Measurements on'Shaly Sands," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (June
1976) 130-36; Trans., AIME, 261.
APPENDIX
Correlation of F vs. q> t and m vs. Shaliness
The origin of the sample data is as follows.
Table 1 of Ref. 1, all samples 31
Table 1 of Ref. 3, all samples 12
Table 4 of Ref. 3, all samples 9
Table 5 of Ref. 3, ail samples 2
Table 7 of Ref. 1, all samples 27
Table 3 of Ref. 1, all samples
136
Curvature of Co. Line
This study is based on the samples of Table 7, Ref. 1,
which satisfy the criterion
Namely, these are 4,5, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19,20,21,22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27.
Temperature Study
The raw data for the nine samples of Table.4 of Ref. 2
consisted of 35 Co measurements per sample,.at seven
temperatures and five .. These. data were
smoothed by fitting a mbnptonic' curve over the seven
data points for a given salinity arid the Qrigin.
. The next step was to define the (Co," C w) straight line
from these data by linear regression em the three points of
conductivity at each temperature. Each li11e has
been characterized by its intercept ex imd F* .(slope..,.I),
which constitute the basic material for this study (Tables
A-l,and A-2).., .
The two shales of Table A-2 are described in Table 5
of Ref. 2. Their F* have been computed from their cdn-
ductivity at 22C [72F].and the ratio of conductivity vs.
temperature of Fig. 8, Ref. 2.
(
1) ( 1 )
- =A . +B
F* TK +25 .
with' WS Model
Table A-3 Experimental values of R
o
,
Table A-4 Best-fit models of Co = lIR
o
,
Table . A-5 Experimental resistivity index and
saturation, i '.
Table A-6 Formation factors and saturation exponents.
Tables A-:3 and A-5 are experimental data provided by
Shell Development Co.
TABLE A1-F* VS. TEMPERATURE
Temperature (0C) 'Linear Fit
22 50 80 110 140 170 200 Ai

--- --- ---
2863 F 8.61 8.60 8.59 8.58 8.58 8.59 8.59 -0.258 0.117
2886 G 13.3 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.1 13.1 13.1 -1.09 0.0787
2927 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.8 0.552 0.0394
Ohio E 37.3 36.5 35.5 34.8 34.3 33.9 33.7 -2.71 0.0353
2937 25.8 25.4 24.7 24.3 24.1 24.0 23.9 -2.97 0.0481
2830 C 59.5 59.3 58.0 56.2 55.4 54.5 53.9 -1.72 0.0220
2797 G 37.5 36.5 35.8 35.3 34.9 34.6 34.3 -2.15 0.0335
2799 B 23.1 22.9 22.5 22.2 21.8 21.6 21.3 -3.31 0.0534
2830 A 71.9 68.6 64.1 61.0 59.6 58.9 58.4 -3.08 0.0236
Shale 1 173 159 142 129 119 109 93.7 -4.07 0.0181
Shale 2 42.3 37.2 32.7 29.5 27.8 27.4 23.7 -15.3 0.0711
APRIL 1984 165
TABLE A-2-INTERCEPTS C x AT T.
c
(Ov)
electrical 22 50 80 110 140 170 200
2863 F 0.16 0.561 0.849 1.20 1.49 1.78 2.08 2.25
2886 G 0.16 0.730 0.995 1.39 1.78 1.92 2.27 2.34
2927 0.28 0.710 1.16 1.59 2.04 2.68 3.41 4.16
Ohio E 0.33 1.60 2.34 2.99 3.58 4.10 4.52 5.01
2937 0.68 2.31 3.67 5.05 6.72 8.37 9.92 11.0
2830 C 1.06 3.10 5.50 8.60 11.4 14.4 16.8 18.7
2797 G 1.39 4.15 7.52 12.0 16.2 20.2 23.9 26.5
2799 B 1.28 4.14 7.65 11.7 16.0 19.2 21.9 23.6
2830 A 1.32 4.93 8.33 12.3 15.6 18.9 21.7 24.6
Note: (Q,)el are computed from intercept at 200'C.
TABLE A-3-EXPERIMENTAL VALUES OF Ro (Qm)
0.0495 0.0806 0.098 0.0987 0.125 0.165 0.327 0.985 1.04
3218 C 3.63 4.27 5.27 6.63 10.8 23.1
3279 B 1.42 2.20 3.80 7.94
3281 2.32 4.31 7.30 15.2
499 C 3.32 4.05 4.95 6.36 11.0 25.7
521 C 3.30 4.03 4.77 6.16 11.5 26.8
3280 B 2.43 8.06 20.0
3282 C 1.40 4.73 10.8
512 C 3.57 4.55 5.51 6.85 12.0 27.8
3227 A 0.758 1.46 2.35 4.65 12.7
3228 B 0.485 0.932 1.51 2.82 8.13
3301 B 3.80 35.4
3130 A 1.02 8.89
TABLE A-4-BEST FIT MODELS OF Co = l/R 0
Dual Water WS-l WS-2
No. of Co Error Variable Error Variable Error Variable
Measurements Q
v Fo (%) (%)2
Ov
F* (%) (%)2 Q
v
F* (%) (%)2
---.-- ------
3218 C 6 0.60 41.07 -0.1 38.8 0.42 48.42 1.3 247.1 0.60 53.31 -0.4 34.1
3279 B 4 0.49 13.57 0.6 1.2 0.35 15.53 0.1 209.1 0.54 17.49 0.2 50.5
3281 4 0.54 26.68 0.1 4.3 0.31 29.33 -0.3 333.1 0.57 34.26 0 52.6
499 C 6 0.38 39.01 0.2 15.4 0.28 44.06 0 93.8 0.36 46.17 0.2 19.4
521 C 6 0.31 38.64 0.5 20.4 0.33 45.30 0.1 33.6 0.33 45.30 0.1 33.6
3280 C 3 0.28 28.00 0.1 26.7 0.28 31.99 0.6 9.0 0.28 31.99 0.6 9.0
3282 C 3 0.36 16.38 0.3 1.8 0.25 17.68 0.4 105.9 0.40 19.80 0.3 15.5
512 C 6 0.37 42.61 0.3 30.8 0.32 49.40 -0.2 77.8 0.39 51.27 -0.2 33.2
3227 A 5 0.10 14.68 -0.1 12.0 0.11 15.52 0.8 10.0 0.11 15.52 0.8 10.0
3228 B 5 a.09 9.27 0.1 33.5 0.13 10.00 -0.2 24.5 0.12 9.94 -0.1 14.9
3301 B 2 0.074 38.31 0 0 0.06 39.79 0 2.4 0.045 38.31 0 0
3140 A 2 0.135 10.27 0 0 0.24 11.97 -0.3 57.3 0.143 10.97 0 0
166 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
TABLE A-5-EXPERIMENT AL RESISTIVITY INDEX AND SATURATION
Rw Rw Rw Rw Rw Rw Rw Rw
0.0806 0.0987 0.0980 0.125 0.165 0.327 0.985 1.04
~
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
~
3218 C 0.473 3.98 0.463 3.94 0.463 3.88 0.471 3.68 0.482 3.12 0.499 2.44
0.654 2.19 0.569 2.75 0.493 3.47 0.655 2.09 0.591 2.20 0.669 1.74
0.868 1.31 0.750 1.69 0.665 2.04 0.765 1.54 0.860 1.24
3279 B 0.638 2.25 0.647 2.14 0.590 2.29 0.600 1.95
0.711 1.83 0.713 1.78 0.823 1.34 0.672 1.68
0.812 1.44 0.840 1.34 0.768 1.40
0.895 1.14
3281 0.570 2.70 0.601 2.34 0.609 2.12 0.610 1.84
0.730 1.76 0.685 1.89 0.706 1.74 0.695 1.59
0.512 1.46 0.747 1.65 0.842 1.31 0.730 1.50
0.867 1.30 0.813 1.44 0.861 1.21
499C 0.464 3.69 0.473 3.29 0.480 3.11 0.464 2.44
0.521 2.96 0.510 2.94 0.511 2.75 0.529 2.17
0.595 2.40 0.583 2.35 0.570 2.35 0.594 1.89
0.716 1.72 0.695 1.80 0.665 1.89 0.680 1.63
521 C 0.437 3.90 0.449 3.61 0.437 3.23 0.431 2.75
0.485 3.32 0.533 2.72 0.485 2.79 0.539 2.18
0.557 2.68 0.659 1.98 0.605 2.05 0.671 1.73
0.665 2.02 0.928 1.15 0.719 1.45 0.960 1.08
0.856 1.35
32SC3 0.570 3.14 0.540 3.15 0.421 4.40
0.628 2.60 0.594 2.65 0.535 2.88
0.716 1.97 0.678 2.10 0.800 1.45
0.807 1.53
3282 C 0.541 3.08 0.528 2.70 0.510 2.35
0.589 2.60 0.652 1.91 0.389 1.99
0.652 2.15 0.794 1.41 0.693 1.60
0.725 1.82 0.837 1.26
0.821 1.41
512 C 0.435 3.82 0.414 3.72 0.437 2.67
0.565 2.52 0.456 3.25 0.541 2.14
0.712 1.77 0.527 2.63 0.682 1.64
0.929 1.15 0.621 2.07 0.929 1.10
0.745 1.59
3227 A 0.427 4.95 0.455 3.98
0.558 3.00 0.519 3.13
0.594 2.49
0.692 1.91
3228 B 0.434 3.76 0.424 3.81
0.492 3.10 0.478 3.25
0.588 2.36 0.562 2.50
0.753 1.61 0.662 1.97
0.864 1.28
3301 B 0.275 11.6 0.213 12.4
0.385 6.38 0.274 8.95
0.460 4.60 0.370 5.61
0.542 3.25 0.431 4.29
0.685 2.06 0.521 3.07
0.655 2.10
3130 A 0.275 11.5 0.267 6.87
0.338 7.54 -0.298 5.84
0.413 5.23 0.353 4.52
0.496 3.79 0.461 3.09
0.522 2.65
APRIL 1984 167
3218 C
3279 B
3281
499 C
521 C
3280 B
3282C
512 C
3227 A
3228 B
3301 B
3140 A
168
TABLE A-6-FORMATION FACTORS AND SATURATION EXPONENTS
Dual Water
Standard
No. of Sw Deviation
Measures rna n (n)
17 1.82 1.78 0.14
12 1.96 1.72 0.05
15 2.0 1.73 0.05
16 1.75 1.63 0.04
17 1.69 1.63 0.10
10 2.02 1.99 0.09
12 1.94 1.69 0.06
12 1.73 1.58 0.08
6 1.84 1.92 0.01
9 1.83 1.64 0.12
11 1.82 1.86 0.06
9 1.83 1.78 0.07
WS-1 WS-2
Standard Standard
Deviation Deviation
m* n (n) m* n (n)
1.90 1.93 0.30 1.95 2.01 0.12
2.06 1.75 0.52 2.16 1.89 0.26
2.07 1.79 0.56 2.16 1.95 0.20
1.81 1.73 0.15 1.83 1.80 0.10
1.76 1.80 0.12 1.76 1.80 0.12
2.10 2.14 0.07 2.10 2.14 0.07
1.99 1.78 0.29 2.07 1.85 0.10
1.80 1.64 0.27 1.82 1.69 0.13
1.88 2.01 0.03 1.88 2.01 0.03
1.90 1.81 0.11 1.89 1.78 0.10
1.83 1.91 0.04 1.83 1.89 0.06
1.96 2.02 0.06 1.89 1.86 0.10
SI Metric Conversion Factors
of
(OF-32)/1.8 C
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
mL x 1.0* E+OO em
3
mho X 1.0* E+OO S
oz x 2.834 952 E+OI g
* Conversion factor is exact. SPEJ
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office Sept. 13, 1977.
Paper accepted for publication Dec. 10, 1982. Revised manuscript received Sept. 23,
1983. Paper (SPE 6859) first presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition held in Denver Oct. 9-12.
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL