Formation Evaluation

Saturation Computation
 The ideal log 0.35

porGas 0.3
0.25
0.2
porOil 0.15
0.1

porWat 0.05

% of rock filled with gas, 0

1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 1030

% of rock filled with oil,

perm
% of rock filled with water,
10000

Gas
1000

recovery factors perm

Oil 100

relative permeability 10
perm 1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 1030
Wat

Unfortunately we currently 0.8

0.7

cannot directly measure any recGas

0.6
0.5
0.4

of these quantities
recOil
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1000 1005 1010 1015 1020 1025 1030
In reality we have to make indirect measurements

• GR
• Resistivity in various flavors
• Spectroscopy (natural or induced)
• Density and PEF
• Neutron Porosity
• Sigma
• NMR series of measurements
• etc.
Water Saturation : Volumes
Water Saturation = Fraction of porosity

Vw
Porosity, Ø
Vo

Sw = Vw / Ø

So = Vo / Ø
Archie
Water Saturation : Resistivity variation due to fluids

Resistivity is the resistance of 1 m3 of a material.

Oil has high resistivity, saline water has low resistivity.

Rt Rt
Water Saturation : Resistivity variation due to porosity

Higher porosity rock has lower resistivity

than lower porosity rock, given the same Sw.

Rt Rt
Saturation Equations:
Archie 1942

Ro a
F  m
Rw 
n a Rw
Ro
Sw  m
Sw
n
  Rt
Rt
m n
 Sw Cw
F = Formation factor Ct 
Rt = True formation resistivity
Ro = True formation resistivity when Sw=1
a
Rw = Resistivity of the formation water
Ø = Total formation porosity
m = empirical fudge factor (cementation factor)
n = empirical fudge factor (saturation exponent)
a = yet another fudge factor
 Saturation Equations:

Ro/Rw (log scale)

Archie a, m and n Slope = -m

n a Rw a
Sw  m
 Rt 0.01
Ø (log scale)
1.0

Effect of m

Rt/Ro (log scale)

(tortuosity) Slope = -n

Effect of m+n
(tortuosity) 1.0
0.01 Sw (log scale) 1.0
Saturation Equations:
Archie a & m values

General form
where a ~ 1
and m ~2

sandstones a = .81, m=2

‘Humble’ formula

carbonates a = 1, m > 2
Saturation Equations:
Archie m in carbonates

On the left, a crystalline dolomite with Ø= 47% and m = 1.95. On the

right, a moldic bioclastic packstone with f Ø = 36% and m = 3.27. This
large variation in m illustrates the importance of rock texture on
petrophysical evaluation. Environmental scanning electron microscope
images, scale bar is 100 m at left and 200 m at right.
Saturation Equations:
Archie variable m (often used in carbonates)
Water Saturation : m

m is often determined from core for

certain formations, but can vary with

Ro/Rw (log scale)

silt or clay content, or may not be Slope = -m
linear with porosity.
Shell variable m:
m = 1.87 + 0.019 / Total Porosity a
Raiga Clemenceau suggested that m must be
0.01 1.0
related to permeability (K): Ø (log scale)
m = 1.28 + 2 / (logK + 2)

Another variable m formula is from the famous

Humble data set, but forcing a=1:
m = 2.05 - Total Porosity
Clay

Clay is generally conductive

(CEC) and therefore does
not conform to Archie’s
assumptions

Depending on distribution,
clay has a great effect on
resistivity saturation
equations.
Water Saturation : Archie equation - complications

Archie’s equation assumes “clean” sand, with saline water.

In shaley sand, with fresh water, the simple Archie equation is not accurate:

There are many variations on Archie equation derived for different

environments. They all reduce to simple Archie in the case of clean sand
with various values of a, m & n.
Water Saturation : n

n is saturation dependent in
fresh water, the error due to
variation on n decreases at
higher saturations.

n measurements can be made

on core, but they are difficult
and expensive.

n may also be saturation

equation dependent.
 Saturation Equations:
Archie –
Only works in clean
saline formations

Clay coating sand

grains, current path
(m and n)
dominated by clay
Laminated shales

Laminations cause the

greatest deviation from the
Archie assumptions in
sandstones.

Vsh=0.5 Current flow

Rsand=100 Ohmm
Rshale=1 Ohmm
Lamination thickness=2”
Vertical well

What would the overall resistivity be?

Laminated shales

Vsh=0.5
Rsand=100 Ohmm
Rshale=1 Ohmm
Lamination thickness=2”
Vertical well

1/Ra=0.5/Rsand + 0.5/Rshale

Ra=1.98 Ohmm
Laminated shales
Simple laminated shale model

1 Vsand Vshale
 
Rt Rsand Rshale

m n
(1 Vshale)  S
t  w sand w
Vshale shale
a
1
  Ct
Rt
 Rv
Laminated shales
Bimodal Anisotropic model

Rh
1 Vsand Vshale
 
Rh Rsand Rshale
Rv VsandRsand VshaleRshale
t Vsandsand Vshaleshale
Rw
Rsand 

sandmSw n 
Vsand Vshale 1 Rh and Rv traditionally from LWD ARC tool at >60 deg
Rh and Rv from HRLA + AIT
Rh and Rv from OBMI, Jacques R. Tabanou et al
Works only when no invasion is present, and Archie sand
assumption is valid
Water Saturation : Archie equation - variations
m 2
1  Vcl e  n
1.4
•Nigeria Equation 2
   Sw
Rt Rcl aRw
 
2

e  2
 Vcl 
•Indonesia Equation  1 
1 V  2
  cl
 Sw
Rt  Rcl Rw 
 
•Waxman-Smits Equation 1 Sw BQvSw
2
 * 
Rt F Rw F*

tm S wtn  S wb 
•Dual Water Equation Ct   Cw  Cwb  Cw 
a  S wt 
The CCD model

 
 
m m'  1.93m'Qv  m'
Ct  (1 0.28Qv )  Cw  n 
 1.3 Qv
0.7Sw
 1 
 Cw 
1/ 2
  
m'1.79 0.27 Qv 
 1  

Clavier, Coats, Dumanoir

The SGS model
m 1.93 m µT QV m
= Swn w + -n
+  µ
0 T  QV
1+0.7 µ T Sw /w

µT =1+0.0414 T-22
1/2

m =1.62+1.37 QV
1-

Sen, P.N.; Goode, P.A.; and Sibbit, A.M.: “Electrical conduction in clay bearing sandstones at low and high salinities,” Journal
of Applied Physics 63 no.10 (15 May 1988), pp 4832‑4840.

Sen, P.N.; Goode, P.A.:”Influence of temperature on electrical conductivity in shaly sands,” Geophysics 57 no. 1 (January
1992) pp 89‑96.

Sen, P.N.; Goode, P.A.: “Shaly sand conductivity at low and high salinities,” presented at the 29th annual logging symposium
of the SPWLA (June 1988) paper F.
For this course simple Archie is enough
Rarely good enough for real life

n a Rw
Sw  m
 Rt
 Resistivity of NaCl Solutions

0.16 Ohm-m

0.052 Ohm-m

25°C 120°C

Chart Gen-9
Water Saturation : Rw

Rw depends on the water

salinity and the temperature.

Even if water salinity is know,

temperature can be an issue.

Temperature sensors in the tool

string measure the mud temperature
or the temperature inside the tool
(slightly warmer than the mud
temperature).
Formation temperature is usually
higher than mud temperature.
Formation temperature from gradient
Chart Gen-6

Formation temperature can be

estimated from a known
temperature gradient, and may
be more accurate than mud
temperature.