Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

5.2K tayangan

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Basic Well Log Analysis, 2nd Edition AAPG
- Basic Well Log Interpretation
- Basic Log Interpretation
- Interpretation Log
- Geoscientists Guide to Petrophysics
- 166487649 Schlumberger Log Interpretation Charts
- Basic Formation Evaluation
- Basic Well Log Interpretation
- Reservoir Petrophysics Class Notes
- Log Interpretation Principles Applications.pdf
- Petrophysics P.glover (1)
- WELL LOGGING COURSE BOOK.pdf
- Petrophysical Engineering
- Formation Evaluation MSc Course Notes Paul Glover
- Well Log Interpretation
- Intro to Petrophysics
- Crain Book
- well logging
- Introduction to Wireline Log Analysis_baker
- Schlumberger Log Interpretation Chart

Anda di halaman 1dari 107

INTERPRETATION

(14th – 16th May 2007, New Delhi)

Name: _____________________________________

All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,

photocopying, electronic, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Basic Log Interpretation

INDEX

INTERPRETATION TECHNIQUES

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 1

Basic Analysis Concepts

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. 3

Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 3

Formation Evaluation and Log analysis…………………………………………………………. 4

The Basis for Log analysis………………………………………………………………………... 5

Water Saturation of Clean formations…………………………………………………………… 6

Archie's Equation dissected………………………………………………………………………. 10

Essential Calculations…………………………………………………………………………….. 10

Determining Geothermal Gradient……………………………………………………………….. 11

Determining Formation Temperature (Tf )……………………………………………………….. 11

Determining R m f from R m ………………………………………………………………………….. 12

Correcting Resistivity for Temperature………………………………………………………….. 12

Determining Formation Water Resistivity (Rw) by the Inverse Archie Method……………… 13

Example Application of Archie's Equation………………………………………………………. 13

Rw Calculation by Inverse-Archie Method……………………………………………………….. 15

Sw Calculations…………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Permeability Indicators……………………………………………………………………………. 17

Determining Formation Water Resistivity (Rw) by the SP Method……………………………. 19

Detailed Procedure of SP Method……………………………………………………………….. 20

Additional Notes about Formation Water Resistivity…………………………………………… 21

Additional R w Calculation Example………………………………………………………………. 21

"Quick-Look" Methods in Log Analysis………………………………………………………….. 25

References…………………………………………………………………………………………. 27

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

This section presents an overview of the basic concepts of open hole log analysis and

provides practical examples of the techniques and methods. A working knowledge of

each of these concepts is fundamental for performing a basic well-site analysis.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

§ clearly identify and mark on a log the potential water-bearing zones

§ clearly identify and mark on a log the potential hydrocarbon-bearing zones.

§ recognize potential water-bearing zones that are amenable to formation water

resistivity (Rw ) derivation by judging their cleanliness, porosity, and qualitative

permeability.

§ estimate lithology of potential water-bearing and hydrocarbon-bearing zones.

§ calculate the cross-plot porosity of a zone of interest.

§ select appropriate values for tortuosity factor (a) and cementation exponent (m)

values required for calculating formation water resistivity (Rw ) and water saturation

(S w ) in zones of different lithology and/or porosity.

§ calculate geothermal gradient (gG) for a particular well location by equation and by

chart.

§ calculate formation temperature (Tf ) for any depth of interest by equation and by

chart.

§ determine values for mud filtrate resistivity (Rmf ) and mudcake resistivity (Rmc ) from

mud resistivity (Rm) by chart and by equation.

§ convert measured and/or derived resistivity values (Rm, Rmf , Rmc ) to formation

temperature (Tf ) for any depth of interest by equation and by chart.

§ calculate value for formation water resistivity (Rw ) in a selected clean waterbearing

zone by inverse-Archie method.

§ determine value for formation water resistivity (Rw ) in a selected clean waterbearing

zone by SP method.

§ determine a reasonable and optimistic value for formation water resistivity (Rw ) by

comparing values derived from inverse-Archie and SP methods.

§ convert derived values of formation water resistivity (Rw ) to formation temperature

(Tf ) for any depth of interest by equation and by chart.

Basic Log Interpretation

equation.

§ calculate hydrocarbon saturation (S hc ) for a clean hydrocarbon-bearing zone by

equation.

§ clearly identify and mark on a log potential perforated intervals based on water

saturation (S w ) calculations.

Formation evaluation can be generally defined as the practice of determining both the

physical and chemical properties of rocks and the fluids they contain. The objective of

formation evaluation is to locate, define, and produce from a given reservoir by drilling

as few wells as possible. To this end, oil companies utilize a variety of formation

evaluation methods, some of which are outlined in Figure 1.1.

mapping

Primary Evaluation Log analysis and testing Sidewall cores, vertical seismic profile

(VSP), Wireline formation testing,

drillstem testing

Feedback Refinement of seismic model Log calibration via core analysis results,

and log analysis seismic calibration from log analysis

results

Secondary Water or gas injection and Production log analysis, flood efficiency

recovery production logging analysis, micro-rock property analysis

Wireline logs are one of the many different sources of data used in formation

evaluation. However, due to accurate depth determination and near proximity of

receiver to formation, wireline logs occupy an important position in formation evaluation.

Logging is a very small, but very important, piece of the larger puzzle. The decision to

Basic Log Interpretation

plug or complete a well is often based upon the logs response and hence a proper and

accurate acquisition and analysis of these data is a must.

Resistivity is, perhaps, the most fundamental of all measurements in logging. All

geological materials possess some amount of resistance which is inherent to the flow of

an electrical current. Resistivity (R) is the physical measurement of resistance and is

defined as the reciprocal of material's electrical conductivity (C).

Rock matrix, oil, and gas are electrical insulators. They will not conduct the flow of an

electrical current and therefore their resistivities are said to be infinite.Water, however,

will conduct electricity depending upon its salinity. This implies that any current flow

through a formation is taking place in the formation water,and not hydrocarbons or the

rock matrix. Salt water, with high concentrations of dissolved solids (e.g., NaCl, etc.),

will conduct electricity much more readily than will fresh water. Therefore, salt water

has a much lower resistivity than fresh water. In most instances, the water present in a

formation at depth will be moderately saline. Water-bearing zones, therefore, have

higher conductivity--or lower resistivity--than hydrocarbon-bearing zones.

Because oil and gas will not conduct electrical current, it is impossible to distinguish

them from rock matrix on the basis of resistivity. These fluids do, however, fill the pore

space of a formation, leaving less room for conductive formation water. The electrical

current that does flow through a hydrocarbon bearing formation is forced to take a more

tortuous path, weaving around the hydrocarbon that occupies part of the pore space.

The overall effect of the presence of hydrocarbons is an increase in resistivity.

The basis for log analysis is to compare the measured resistivity of a formation with the

calculated resistivity of that formation assuming its porosity is 100% water-filled. The

resistivity of a rock at 100% water saturation is referred to as wet resistivity (Ro). If, for a

given porosity, the measured resistivity is significantly higher than the wet resistivity,

then the presence of hydrocarbons is indicated. This relationship is the basis for

determining the percentage of porosity that is filled with formation water (water

saturation) and therefore the percentage of porosity that is filled with hydrocarbon

(hydrocarbon saturation). Water saturation (S w ) for a clean formation may be calculated

using the Archie equation.

Basic Log Interpretation

Consider a formation with a given amount of porosity and assume that porosity is

completely filled with saline formation water of a given resistivity (Figure 1.2). The

formation water resistivity (Rw ), because the saline water is capable of conducting

electrical current, is quite low. The resistivity of the formation itself (Ro, or wet resistivity,

where porosity is 100% filled with water) will depend upon the formation water resistivity

and some other factor referred to as the formation resistivity factor (Fr).

ratio of the formation's wet resistivity to the resistivity of the water (Rw ) present in that

formation.

In this example, formation water resistivity (Rw ) is defined as constant and therefore,

changes in formation resistivity factor (F r) will occur only with changes in the overall

formation resistivity (Ro). The one way in which Ro can change in a formation of

constant Rw is by changing the amount of fluid available to conduct an electrical current.

This is accomplished through changes in porosity. As porosity decreases, the amount

of water available to conduct electrical current is decreased, resulting in an increase in

formation resistivity (Ro). Therefore, formation resistivity factor (F r) is inversely

proportional to porosity (Φ).

This relationship between formation resistivity and porosity was researched by G.E.

Archie of Shell Oil while working on limestones in France. Archie had electric

(resistivity) logs from several wells, and core porosity from productive zones within

these wells. He noticed that there was some relation between resistivity and porosity,

and thus was able to identify zones of interest through the use of electric logs alone.

What he wanted to know was the existence of some relationship that makes it possible

to determine whether a zone would be productive on the basis of measured resistivity

and core porosity.

Basic Log Interpretation

Changes in the porosity of a formation may have effects other than simply increasing or

decreasing the amount of fluid available to conduct electrical current. With a change in

porosity, there may be concomitant changes in the complexity of the pore network that

affect the conductive nature of the fluids present, and formation resistivity factor (F r) can

therefore vary with the type of reservoir. These changes are expressed by the tortuosity

factor (a) and cementation exponent (m).

For the limestones of Archie's experiments, the tortuosity factors and cementation

exponents were always constant (a = 1.0, m = 2.0). However, this may not be the case

for all reservoirs. Although both parameters can be determined experimentally for a

specific reservoir, log analysts commonly use set values for tortuosity factor (a) and

cementation exponent (m) depending upon lithology and porosity. These standard

values are presented in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3. Standard values for tortuosity factor and cementation exponent.

Consider now that the porous formation discussed previously is filled with some

combination of conductive formation water of constant resistivity (Rw ) and oil (Figure

1.4). Oil is an insulator and will not conduct electrical current. Furthermore, because the

formation is filled with both water and oil, the resistivity of the formation can no longer

be referred to as wet resistivity (Ro).

The measure of formation resistivity in this instance--taking into account the resistivity

of the rock matrix and the fluids contained--is called true resistivity (Rt).

Basic Log Interpretation

True resistivity of a formation will only be equal to wet resistivity (Rt = Ro) when the

porosity of that formation is completely filled with conductive water. However, because

some of the available porosity may be filled with nonconductive oil or gas, the wet

resistivity (Ro) of that formation can now be related to the measured true resistivity (Rt)

by some additional factor, referred to as F'.

The factor F' can therefore be expressed as a ratio of the theoretical wet resistivity of

that formation (Ro) to the actual omeasured resistivity of the formation (Rt)

In this example, because both porosity and formation water resistivity (Rw ) are

considered to be constant, the resulting wet resistivity (Ro) will be constant. Therefore,

changes in the factor F' will occur with changes in measured true resistivity (Rt). Under

the given conditions, the only way in which measured true resistivity (Rt) of the

formation can change is through the addition or subtraction of conductive fluid. For

example, the addition of oil to the reservoir would result in the increase of that

formation's measured resistivity (Rt) because some amount of conductive formation

water would be displaced by the oil. Therefore, the factor F' is dependent upon the

relative proportion of conductive fluids (water) and non-conductive fluids (hydrocarbons)

in the formation.

The factor F' in the above equation represents water saturation (usually expressed as

Sw) which is the percentage of pore space within a formation that is occupied by

conductive formation water. By substitution of equations, water saturation can be

related to the physical properties of the formation and the conductive properties of the

fluids it contains.

Saturation exponent may have a range of values dependent upon specific reservoir

conditions, but generally is assumed to be equal to 2.0. With knowledge of the

production characteristics of the formation in question, it is possible to determine more

accurate values for saturation exponent.

footnote in Archie's 1942 publication and commonly referred to as "Archie's equation,"

has become the foundation of the entire industry of well logging. In its simplest form,

Archie's equation is often expressed as:

Basic Log Interpretation

where:

n = saturation exponent

a = tortuosity factor

Φ = porosity

m = cementation exponent

Rw = formation water resistivity

Rt = true formation resistivity

It is important to realize that while water saturation represents the percentage of water

present in the pores of a formation, it does not represent the ratio of water to

hydrocarbons that will be produced from a reservoir. Shaly sandstone reservoirs with

clay minerals that trap a large amount of formation water may have high water

saturations, yet produce only hydrocarbons. Water saturation simply reflects the relative

proportions of these fluids contained in the reservoir. Nonetheless, obtaining accurate

values for water saturation is the primary goal of open hole log analysis. With

knowledge of water saturation, it is possible to determine what percentage of porosity is

filled with a fluid other than water (i.e., hydrocarbons) and therefore, hydrocarbon

reserves.

Basic Log Interpretation

Essential Calculations

Log analysis calculations require values of resistivity, in particular mud filtrate resistivity

(Rmf ) and formation water resistivity (Rw ). A single measured or calculated value of Rmf

and/or Rw may need to be applied over a wide range of depths. Because resistivity

varies with temperature, this practice requires that resistivities be corrected for the

Basic Log Interpretation

appropriate temperatures at depth. Bear in mind that Rmf and/or Rw must be corrected to

the temperature at a certain depth if those values are to be used in calculations.

the geothermal gradient (gG) of the region. Temperature increases with depth, and the

temperature gradient of a particular region depends upon the geologic, or tectonic,

activity within that region. The more activity, the higher the geothermal gradient.

Geothermal gradients are commonly expressed in degrees Fahrenheit per 100 feet

(?F/100'). If the geothermal gradient of an area is not known, then it can be determined

by chart or by formula. If using a chart, it is important to use the correct chart,

depending upon your location. Instructions and an example for using these charts

accompany charts GEN-2a (international locations) and GEN-2b (North America

locations).

Geothermal gradient may also be determined by taking pertinent information from the

header and using the following equation:

Note that both the chart method and the formula method require a value for mean

surface temperature (Tms ). This refers to the average annual temperature of a region,

and not the temperature at which resistivity measurements were made during the

logging job (e.g., mud press resistivities). Mean surface temperatures for international

and North America locations are presented on charts GEN-2a and GEN-2b,

respectively. If the mean surface temperature for a region is not known, then it is

standard practice to assume 75?F as a value for Tms , and realize the potential

calculation errors that may result from this assumption.

Once the geothermal gradient (gG) has been established, it is possible to determine the

temperature for a particular depth. This is often referred to as formation temperature

(Tf ). As with geothermal gradient, Tf may be determined through the use of charts GEN-

2a or GEN-2b. It may also be calculated using the following equation.

Basic Log Interpretation

Determining R mf from R m

In some cases, a value of mud filtrate resistivity (Rmf ) may not be available from the

header, or there may be a question about the validity or accuracy of the measurement.

A value of Rmf may be obtained from the mud resistivity (Rm) through the use of chart

GEN-3. This chart requires only mud density (or mud weight) as input, and allows the

determination of both Rmf and mudcake resistivity (Rmc ) from Rm. It should be

remembered that values of Rmf obtained from this chart also require correction to

formation temperature before their use.

Resistivity decreases with increasing temperature, and therefore any value of Rmf

and/or Rw determined at one depth must be corrected for the appropriate formation

temperature (Tf ) where those values will be used to calculate water saturation (S w ). It is

vital that formation water resistivity (Rw ) be corrected for temperature. Failing to correct

Rw to a higher temperature will result in erroneously high values of water saturation

(S w). Therefore, it is possible to calculate a hydrocarbon-bearing zone as a wet zone if

the temperature correction is not applied.

Correction may be applied through the use of a chart (GEN-5) or an equation (Arp's

equation). Chart GEN-5 may be used to determine the resistivity of a solution (such as

Rm, Rmf , Rw , etc.) at a given temperature when the NaCl concentration of that solution is

known, and vice versa. It may also be used to determine the resistivity of a solution at a

given temperature when the resistivity of this same solution at another temperature is

known. Instructions and examples for these particular uses accompany chart GEN-5.

use of Arp's equation:

Basic Log Interpretation

Inverse Archie Method

Determining a value for formation water resistivity (Rw ) from logs may not always

provide reliable results; however, in many cases logs provide the only means of

determining Rw . Two of the most common methods of determining Rw from logs are the

inverse-Archie method and the SP method.

The inverse-Archie method of determining Rw works under the assumption that water

saturation (S w ) is 100%. It is necessary, therefore, that the inverse-Archie method be

employed in a zone that is obviously wet. Furthermore, it is desirable to calculate Rw

from the inverse-Archie method in a clean formation with relatively high porosity.

Once a clean and porous wet zone is located, lithological assumptions must be made

about that formation in order to select the appropriate values of cementation exponent

(m) and tortuosity factor (a) to use in the equation. This estimate should be

accomplished by quick-look means using a combination of the gamma ray, porosity,

and Pe curves. Formation water resistivity calculated by the inverse- Archie method

(Rw a) depends upon lithology; however, Rwa calculated in one lithology can be used for

water saturation (S w ) calculations in a zone of different lithology. For example, Rwa may

be determined in a sandstone, and this value may then be used in the Archie equation

to calculate water saturation (S w ) in a limestone, provided that the necessary

temperature corrections have been made. This is one of the many assumptions that

must be made in log analysis applications.

The following examples are worked with respect to the log presented in Figure 1.5. It is

assumed that any zones of interest are limestone.

By first observing the resistivity log, one can infer that the areas of high resistivity (8515

and 8610) indicate zones containing hydrocarbons. Areas with low resistivity (8535 and

8710) are more likely to contain conductive formation water. These axioms are not

always correct because high resistivity in a formation may also be caused by a lack of

porosity. Therefore, sections of higher porosity (8515 and 8710) should be of more

interest than those with lower porosity (8610). The flat-line areas, falling between the

zones of interest, are assumed to be nonproductive shale zones.

Basic Log Interpretation

For optimistic values of Rw to be obtained, a zone most likely to produce 100% water

should be chosen for calculations. This zone should have low resistivity and relatively

high porosity. There are two obvious zones fitting these criteria (8535 and 8710). The

zone at 8710 has higher porosity; however, the zone at 8535 is in close proximity to the

hydrocarbon zone just above it at 8515. The Rw value of this wet zone probably closely

matches the Rw value of the hydrocarbon zone because they occur at virtually the same

depth. On a more pessimistic note, however, this upper wet zone (8535) may contain

some hydrocarbons because both the wet zone and hydrocarbon zone occur in the

same porous lithologic unit. Because two wet zones are present, values of Rwa should

be calculated for both, and the lesser of these two values should be used in order to

obtain more optimistic water saturation (S w ) results.

Lithology of the zones of interest has been given as limestone. Therefore, for all

calculations, the appropriate values of cementation exponent (m) and tortuosity factor

(a) must be assumed. In this case, for limestone, a = 1.0 and m = 2.0.

Basic Log Interpretation

There are several possible explanations for the variance in calculated values for Rw a.

The lesser of the two values (at 8710) may possibly be the result of a cleaner wet zone.

It could also be the result of the water at 8710 having a completely different salinity than

the water at 8535. More than likely, the higher value (at 8535) results from the fact that

the wet zone probably contains residual hydrocarbons from the overlying zone.

The decision of which value of Rwa to use in water saturation calculations should be

based on experience, common sense, and logical deductions. All of the conditions

discussed above should be considered.

methods, the lowest calculated value of R w (within reason) should be used in

order to obtain more optimistic (lower) calculated values of water saturation.

This is a critical assumption!

For the purposes of this example, the lowest value of formation water resistivity from

8710 (Rw = 0.038 ? -m) will be used. This value, because it is the lesser of the two, will

produce more optimistic values of water saturation.

Once a reasonable value for Rw is established for a zone or groups of zones, it should

be temperature corrected for depth, depending upon the differences in depth between

its origin and its implementation. This is accomplished by using either GEN-5 or Arp's

equation. In this particular example, the temperature variation between the top and

bottom of the log is only 2?F, therefore no temperature correction is necessary.

Basic Log Interpretation

Sw Calculations

Potential hydrocarbon-bearing zones may now be evaluated using the value for Rw that

was previously established. High resistivity and high porosity typically characterize

hydrocarbon-bearing formations, again because of the nonconductive behavior of oil

and gas. There are two zones illustrated in Figure 1.5 that fit these criteria--8515 and

8610. The zone at 8610 has very low porosity; its high resistivity results from the fact

that there is little pore water available to conduct current. The zone at 8515 has good

porosity (~28%), and warrants further investigation.

When taking measurement values from a log for use in the Archie equation, it is

desirable to select a single depth rather than averaging values across a zone. Through

the course of actual interpretation there may be many appealing formations. In any

single formation, an analyst may choose several depths at which to calculate water

saturation (S w ). Because the zones in the example log are so well defined, only two

calculations are required--one in each zone.

Basic Log Interpretation

Permeability Indicators

Scanning a log in search of zones with high porosity and high resistivity may yield a

number of appealing formations. However, the presence of high porosity and high

resistivity does not necessarily mean that a formation that contains hydrocarbons will

actually produce those hydrocarbons (especially without stimulation or hydraulic

fracturing). Without data from a Formation Tester or Magnetic Resonance Imaging log,

quantitative estimates of permeability are lacking. Permeability refers to the ability of a

formation to transmit the fluids it contains through the existing pore network, and is a

fundamental requirement of a productive reservoir.

Some standard open hole logging services provide several means of getting a

qualitative estimate of a formation's permeability. The most commonly used

permeability indicators are the Micro Electric (or Microlog) and the Spontaneous

Potential (SP) tools. The Microlog indicates permeability when there is separation

between the Micronormal (or Normal) and Microinverse (or Lateral) curves. The

Micronormal curve will read a higher resistivity than the Microinverse curve because of

the effects of mudcake (Rmc ) on the resistivity measurements. Mudcake can only be

present opposite a permeable formation, therefore the presence of this separation is

used as a qualitative indicator of permeability. The Spontaneous Potential, apart from

providing a qualitative estimate of permeability, may also be used to determine a value

of formation water resistivity (Rw ).

A permeability indicator (in this case the SP response) for the log presented in Figure

1.5 might appear as the curve presented in Track 1 of Figure 1.6. The SP will often

respond in such a way that it reflects the same trend as the porosity device; however,

this is not always the case. Negative deflections of the SP curve are used as qualitative

indicators of permeability. Permeable zones in this example log (Figure 1.6) are

indicated at 8500 to 8535, 8595 to 8610, and 8680 to 8720. The zone responsible for

the most SP deflection (8700) is not necessarily the zone with the most permeability.

Likewise, because the zone at 8500 exhibits less SP deflection than the zone at 8700,

this does not mean that it has less permeability than the deeper of the two formations.

Whereas the presence of negative SP deflection may be an indicator of permeability in

a particular zone, the absence of any deflection does not indicate an absence of

permeability.

If permeability is not evident on a log, evaluation of the porosity and resistivity curves

can still result in low water saturation calculations. Depending upon the geology and the

type of tool used to indicate permeability, hydraulic fracturing or other formation

treatment methods may be necessary to produce hydrocarbons.

step in any "quick-look" analysis program.

Basic Log Interpretation

Figure 1.6. Example log illustrating permeability indicator (SP curve) in Track 1.

Basic Log Interpretation

SP Method

Once zones of interest are located by observing trends in their resistivity, porosity, and

permeability indicator responses, determination of formation water resistivity (Rw ) is in

order. As discussed previously, Rw can be calculated by rearranging the Archie

equation and assuming a water saturation (S w ) of 100%. An additional method of

assessing Rw is through the use of an SP versus Rmf chart (SP-4), and is referred to as

the SP method. As with the inverse-Archie method, the SP method gives best results in

clean and relative porous formations. However, because virtually anything and

everything affects the SP measurement it sometimes does not yield reliable results.

The SP method may be advantageous in certain circumstances where porosity data are

not available.

Several steps are involved in determining Rw from the SP response. These procedures

are outlined in Figure 1.7.

Basic Log Interpretation

Determine Formation Temperature (T f)

From chart GEN-2b, locate the mean surface temperature (Tms = 60oF) for the Mid-

ontinent. Using this value, determine the geothermal gradient (gG = 1.14oF/100') and

formation temperature (Tf = 159oF) from the chart or by the appropriate equation.

Determine R m f

Plot Rm = 0.88 Ω-m versus Rm reference temperature (70oF) on GEN-5. This results in a

salinity value of 7,000ppm NaCl. Following this salinity curve to the formation

temperature of the zone of interest (Tf = 159oF) results in a mud resistivity (Rm) value of

0.40 Ω-m at 159oF.

With the value of the mud resistivity (Rm = 0.40 Ω-m) at the proper formation

temperature (Tf = 159oF), use GEN-3 to determine Rmf = 0.22 Ω-m and Rmc = 0.75 Ω-m

at 8710.

Plot Rmf = 0.22 Ω-m on the X-axis of SP-4. Project a vertical line upward to an

interpolated imaginary line representing Tf = 159oF (slightly less than half-way between

150oF and 175oF). From this point, extend a horizontal line to the Yaxis to find SSP = -

132mV.

Determine SP Deflection

Assuming the SP base line to be the second division from the right of Track 1, the

deflection at 8710 is -70mV.

Re-enter SP-4 on the Y-axis at 62mV. Project a horizontal line to intersect the

interpolated imaginary line representing Tf = 159oF.

Determine R w

From the intersection determined in the previous step, project a vertical line downward

to the X-axis. This plot should fall on a value of Rw = 0.037 Ω-m. There is a 0.001 Ω-m

difference between the Rw values determined by the inverse-Archie method and the SP

method at 8710 (Rwa = 0.038 Ω-m and RwSP = 0.037 Ω-m). This minor difference is in

support of the fact that both measurements likely represent accurate values of

formation water resistivity (Rw ). Water saturation (S w ) calculations using these two

values would result in differences of less than 1%.

Basic Log Interpretation

Determining an accurate value of formation water resistivity (Rw ) from logs is often quite

difficult, and usually not as straightforward as presented in these examples. A zone that

is assumed to be 100% water saturated may, in actuality, not be. The presence of

hydrocarbons may suppress any SP deflections, resulting in erroneous calculations.

Furthermore, in a slightly shaly formation, clay minerals may result in abnormally low

resistivities. Perhaps the most dangerous situation is assuming that a particular zone is

wet when it actually contains hydrocarbons. This misinterpretation will result in

compounded errors in the process of log analysis.

When possible, it is best to calculate formation water resistivity (Rw ) using a variety of

methods at several different depths. The results can then be ranked and compared to

reveal a "best pick" for the reservoir. In an effort to be optimistic in water saturation (S w)

calculations, it is usually beneficial to pick the lowest value (within reason) of formation

water resistivity (R w). The worldwide average for formation water resistivity without

correcting for temperature is 0.05 Ω-m. Additional methods of evaluating formation

water resistivity will be discussed in later sections of this text.

The log for this example calculation is illustrated in Figure 1.8. The objective is to

determine an appropriate value for Rw from the log. It may be assumed that any zones

of interest are sandstone.

Given

Location: Santa Cruz, Bolivia

T.D.: 3,600 meters

B.H.T.: 60 deg. C

Mud weight: 13 lbs/gal

Sodium 3,000 ppm

Chloride 4,000 ppm

Magnesium 2,900 ppm

Calcium 2,500 ppm

The only worthwhile SP deflection occurs from 2775m to 2830m. Within these limits

there are two definite zones of interest. The upper zone (2790m) has low resistivity and

high porosity, and is an ideal choice for Rw calculations assuming 100% water

saturation. The lower zone (2815m) has high resistivity and high porosity, making it a

likely candidate for a hydrocarbon-bearing zone. The zone at 2900m exhibits no

indication of permeability, and has both lower resistivity and lower porosity than the

zone at 2815m. Because the SP response may be suppressed by the ratio Rmf /Rw , a

zone of this nature may still be of interest to the client, and should be evaluated.

Basic Log Interpretation

From chart GEN-2a, determine the mean surface temperature (Tms = 15oC) of Santa

Cruz. After establishing a base line, project a vertical line upward from BHT = 60oC on

the X-axis, and project a horizontal line from the right of the TD (3600m) on the Y-axis.

The intersection of these two lines should fall on a line representing the geothermal

gradient (gG = .25oC/100m). Following the geothermal gradient line upward to the depth

of the zone of interest and descending from that intersection to the X-axis yields a

formation temperature (Tf ) of 50oC at 2790m (wet zone).

Basic Log Interpretation

The equivalent NaCl concentration can lead to an estimated value of mud resistivity

(Rm) at the zone of interest. To determine this concentration, chart GEN-4 must be

used.

Add the concentrations of the four ionic constituents to obtain a total ion concentration.

Enter GEN-4 on the X-axis at a value equal to this total concentration. Project a vertical

line upward to intersect with the lines corresponding to each of the particular

constituents (Ca, Cl, Mg, Na). From the projected intersections, extend horizontal lines

to intersect the Y-axis. The Y-axis values represent corrective multipliers for each

constituent.

With the estimated total solution of NaCl = 12,596ppm, use chart GEN-5 to obtain a

mud resistivity (Rm = 0.29 Ω-m) at 2790m.

Determine R m f

Using SP-4, plot Rmf = 0.13 Ω-m on the X-axis and extend a vertical line upward to the

proper formation temperature line (Tf = 122oF). To convert between oF and oC, use the

top and bottom scales of GEN-5.

Project a horizontal line from this intersection to the Y-axis and obtain an SSP value of -

98mV.

Determine SP Deflection

From the log, the SP deflection at 2790m is roughly -62mV from the baseline.

Basic Log Interpretation

Plot ∆SP

Re-enter chart SP-4 on the Y-axis with a value of 36mV. Project a horizontal line to the

interpolated 122oF line representing formation temperature (Tf ).

Determine R w

From the intersection established in the previous step, extend a vertical line downward

to the X-axis. This plot should fall on a value of Rw = 0.035 Ω-m.

Because the lithology of formations of interest is given to be sandstone and the porosity

of the zone at 2790m is greater than 16%, the Humble values of tortuosity factor (a)

and cementation exponent (m) may be assumed.

Comparison of R w Results

The values of Rw calculated by different methods for the zone at 2790m differ by 0.091

Ω-m. This is a major difference, and will have detrimental effects on calculated values

of water saturation (S w ). The decision as to which value to use should be based on

experience as well as information taken from the log. The SP method has yielded a

more reasonable and optimistic value of formation water resistivity (Rw = 0.034 Ω-m),

and should be used in future calculations to obtain more optimistic values of water

saturation (S w ).

Basic Log Interpretation

Before water saturation is calculated for any zone, it is necessary to scan a log and

locate favorable zones that warrant further investigation. This is true not only for

potential hydrocarbon-bearing zones, but water-bearing zones as well. This is often

referred to as ”scanilizing" a log. There are certain responses that should be looked for,

and these responses may indicate whether a zone is water-bearing or hydrocarbon-

bearing.

"Quick-look" log analysis employs scanilizing to locate potential zones of interest, and

also employs the basic concepts and procedures thus far considered in this text. The

objective in performing a "quick-look" analysis is to quickly produce values of water

saturation for zones that appear interesting on a log. It is important to remember that in

"quick-look" analysis environmental corrections are not applied. Therefore, the water

saturation values obtained during "quicklook" analysis may not be as accurate as those

determined through in-depth and

detailed log analysis and interpretation.

When performing a "quick-look" analysis--which should be the first step of any detailed

investigation--six questions must be asked when considering whether a zone is

potentially productive.

What are the lithologies of the zones of interest?

Are the hydrocarbon-bearing zones "clean" (shale-free)?

Is there sufficient porosity in the zones?

Is there satisfactory resistivity in the zones?

Are the zones permeable?

The particular methodology by which an individual approaches the "quick-look" analysis

may vary, yet should address all of the questions posed above. There should be some

order and consistency to the method. A suggested "quick-look" approach is outlined in

the following paragraphs.

Scan the appropriate permeability indicators presented with the log. These may include

the SP, Microlog, Caliper, and even resistivity invasion profiles. Mark on the log all

zones that exhibit potential permeability, regardless of whether they appear water-

bearing or hydrocarbon-bearing. This should always be the first step of a "quick-look"

analysis, particularly with High Resolution Induction (HRI) logging suites.

If the customer provides this data, then the source is defined. If not, then it may be

necessary to calculate Rw from the logs. Locate a relatively clean waterbearing zone of

sufficient porosity and determine Rw using the inverse-Archie and/or SP methods. If

Basic Log Interpretation

more than one water-bearing zone is located, then Rw should be calculated for all

zones. Tabulate the results and select the lowest value of Rw for future calculations,

remembering that lower values of Rw (within reason) produce more optimistic values of

water saturation (S w ).

Once a permeable zone is located, porosity and resistivity curves should be checked to

see if the relationship between them indicates the possible presence of hydrocarbons.

These curves should be considered together, and not without respect to one another.

Recall that it is entirely possible for a zone to exhibit an increase in resistivity because

of a decrease in porosity. Therefore, without considering all the data, it is possible to

misidentify a tight zone as being potentially productive.

Most porosity logs will present two porosity curves--density porosity (Φ D) and neutron

porosity (Φ N). Both of these curves reflect formation porosity, but the differences in their

values depend upon the different ways in which the respective measurements are

made.

The Archie equation provides for only one value of porosity, therefore it is necessary to

calculate cross-plot porosity before calculating water saturation. Cross-plot porosity is a

weighted average of the two values, and is calculated by the equation below. Additional

discussion of cross-plot porosity is included in later sections of this text.

porosity. This is done by visually estimating two-thirds the distance between the

minimum-porosity curve and the maximum-porosity curve. For "quick-look" purposes,

the use of visually estimated "two-thirds" porosity is sufficient for making water

saturation calculations.

Lithology identification can be accomplished in several different ways, the most basic of

which is to examine the responses of various curves. For "quick-look purposes, the

curves most useful for lithology determination are gamma ray, Pe, resistivity, and a

combination of neutron porosity and density porosity. Once lithology of the zone is

determined, the necessary parameters (a & m) may be selected for water saturation

calculations.

An additional concern is the "cleanliness" of the formation which refers to the amount of

shale present. All types of formations--sandstone, limestone, and dolomite--may

contain clay minerals ("shale"). The presence of these clay minerals effects the

responses of certain tools--namely, resistivity and porosity tools--and may result in a

productive formation being overlooked as waterbearing The degree of shaliness of a

formation can be judged from the gamma ray response. In general, the lower the

Basic Log Interpretation

gamma ray response of a porous zone, the lesser the amount of shale ("clean

formation"). This judgement requires some amount of experience and knowledge in the

area, and a later section of this text addresses more detailed methods of shaly sand

analysis.

Water saturation may now be calculated for those zones that appear to be

hydrocarbon-bearing. Remember that this value is not a reflection of the ratio of water

to hydrocarbons that will be produced from the reservoir. It is simply the relative

proportion of water to hydrocarbons in the porosity of that formation. There are no safe

guidelines for determining what constitutes "good" and "bad" values for water

saturation. This judgement calls upon experience and local knowledge.

References

Archie, G. E., 1942, The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir

characteristics: SPE-AIME Transactions, v. 146, p. 64-62.

Asquith, G. B., 1982, Basic well log analysis for geologists: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 216 p.

Bateman, R. M., 1985, Open-hole log analysis and formation evaluation: IHRDC

Publishers, Boston MA, 647 p.

Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 361 p.

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 2

Porosity and Mineralogy

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. 29

Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………... 29

Two-Thirds Porosity……………………………………………………………………………….. 30

Cross-Plot Porosity………………………………………………………………………………… 30

Complex Lithologies……………………………………………………………………………….. 36

References…………………………………………………………………………………………. 41

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

Determining accurate values of porosity (Φ) and describe lithology of a formation based

on log responses is one of the vital step in any log analysis. Assumed values of

tortuosity factor (a) and cementation exponent (m) necessary to calculate water

saturation (S w ) are dependant on these determinations. This section presents an

overview of the different methods available for determining porosity and lithology as

well as methods for determining complex lithology composition.

To effectively use this section, the participant should have a copy of the

Halliburton Log Interpretation Charts manual. Examples illustrated in this section

will make frequent references to this Log Interpretation Charts manual.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

combination of neutron, density, and/or sonic data.

combination of neutron, density, and/or sonic data.

§ recognize the effects of gas and shale on Cross-Plot (CP) data plots.

§ apply the appropriate correction on a Cross-Plot (CP) chart to compensate for the

effects of the presence of gas.

(MIP) using a combination of neutron, density, and/or sonic data.

Basic Log Interpretation

Two of the most important uses of log data are to provide porosity and lithology

Information to the geo-scientific community and use it for calculating water saturation

(S w ). Porosity is a vital input to Archie equation. A knowledge of lithology is also helpful

because it empowers the analyst make a reasonable determination to choose

appropriate value of tortuosity factor (a) and cementation exponent (m).

Porosity measurements taken from an individual logs are rarely adequate for use in

calculating water saturation. This is because of Natures heterogeneity. Once density

and neutron porosity values are corrected for environmental effects, the analyst has two

values of porosity--neutron porosity and density porosity. Archie water saturation

calculations require only one input value for porosity. Which one to be considered for

rational saturation evaluation? This is a big dilemma and requires a step to move

forward.

Two-Thirds Porosity

One method of visually estimating a value of porosity for use in the Archie equation is

referred to as "two-thirds" porosity. This method simply involves estimating two-thirds

the distance between the lowest porosity reading and the highest porosity reading, and

taking that value as input into the Archie equation. This method may be used

regardless of which matrix (e.g., limestone, sandstone, dolomite) was used to calculate

porosity.

Regardless of matrix choice, two -thirds porosity may be assumed to reflect the

approximate porosity of a formation of any lithology. The reason for taking twothirds the

distance between porosity readings rather than a simple average is to more closely

approximate the value that would be calculated by the cross-plot porosity equation

(discussed below). Some analysts prefer to take a simple average of the two

measurements.

Because gas affects neutron porosity more than it does density porosity, any averaging

routine may contain error. Fortunately, in the presence of gas, density and neutron

porosity partially compensate one another. This limitation should be kept in mind when

applying the method. Furthermore, this approximation should be made with caution

where anhydrite is present. Because of the high bulk density of anhydrite (ρb =

2.98g/cc), density porosity will often read too low (in some cases, negative). Averaging

methods, therefore, will result in a value of formation porosity that is too low.

Cross-Plot Porosity

Another method of obtaining a single value for porosity from density porosity and

neutron porosity data is through the use of the cross-plot porosity equation.

Basic Log Interpretation

The value obtained from this equation likewise may be assumed to represent the actual

formation porosity, regardless of which matrix value was used during logging. This

weighted average results in values similar to those obtained by visually estimating the

two-thirds porosity of a formation.

Again, an important limitation in the use of this method is the presence of gas and

anhydrite. These circumstances will create a situation in which the value of crossplot

porosity is not an accurate approximation of formation porosity. In cases where density

porosity reads negative values (common in anhydritic dolomite reservoirs), some

analysts prefer to use a simple average of density and neutron values as illustrated

below.

The cross-plot porosity equation is assumed to be correct for any particular matrix (e.g.,

limestone, sandstone, dolomite) that may have been used to calculate density and

neutron porosity. However, this assumption is in error because the porosity values do,

in fact, depend upon what matrix was used in calculating porosity. For instance, a

formation consisting of 70% limestone and 30% dolomite might have two possible

porosities; one if run on a limestone matrix, and another if run on a dolomite matrix.

This condition may necessitate that crossplot porosity be determined from chart. An

added benefit of this method is that a basic lithology of the formation in question is also

obtained.

The proper Cross-Plot Porosity (CP) chart is determined first by tool type, and second

by the density of the drilling fluid. The chartbook differentiates between five types of

neutron tools: Dual Spaced Neutron (DSN); Compensated Neutron (CNT-K); Hostile

Dual Spaced Neutron (HDSN); Dual Spaced Epithermal Neutron (DSEN); and, Sidewall

Neutron (SNL).

Each of these chart sections contains Cross-Plot Porosity charts for oil-based muds (ρfl

= 0.85g/cc), freshwater-based muds (ρfl = 1.0g/cc), and saltwater-based muds (ρfl =

1.15g/cc). On these charts, neutron porosity is cross-plotted with bulk density (ρb).

Neutron porosity may also be cross-plotted with interval transit time (∆t), or bulk density

and sonic measurements may be cross-plotted together without implementing a

neutron measurement at all.

To illustrate the use of the neutron-density Cross-Plot Porosity (CP) chart, refer to the

example worked in blue on the CPDSN-II-1a chart. This chart fits the conditions where a

Dual Spaced Neutron (DSN) tool was logged in an oil-based mud (ρfl = 0.85g/cc).

Φ D = 20% on limestone matrix (ρb = 2.34g/cc)

Basic Log Interpretation

To correctly use this chart, it is important to ensure that environmental corrections have

already been applied to the recorded porosity measurements. Furthermore, notice that

both density and neutron porosity values are in units of limestone porosity. If these

conditions are not met, then the use of the chart will not yield accurate results. Neutron

porosity may be converted from one lithology to another through the use of chart POR-

12.

Using the example data above, enter the chart with the environmentally corrected value

of neutron limestone porosity (17%) on the X-axis. Extend a vertical line upward to

intersect a horizontal line that represents either the bulk density (? b = 2.34g/cc) or

density limestone porosity (? D = 20%). The resulting plot falls between the sandstone

and limestone matrix division lines.

interpolate cross-plot porosity extend a straight line (solid blue line) between equal

values of porosity on both the quartz and calcite matrix division lines (the black lines at

the top of the red shaded regions). In this example, the point plots along a line

representing a cross-plot porosity of 19% if that formation is, indeed, a mixture of

sandstone and limestone.

Relative proportions of the two end-member lithologies (sandstone and limestone) may

be estimated by normalizing a scale along the solid blue line between the two matrix

division line with each division line representing 100% of that particular lithology. The

point in question plots at approximately 65% calcite and 35% quartz (sandy limestone).

However, this is not the only possible solution for the plotted data.

Notice that the plotted point also falls between the matrix division lines of sandstone

and dolomite. Without previous knowledge of the reservoir, it is impossible to determine

from the log which lithology mixture is correct. It is therefore necessary to obtain a

second value for cross-plot porosity assuming that the formation consists of a mixture

of sandstone and dolomite. This is accomplished in the same manner as above by

extending a straight line (dashed blue line) between equal values of porosity on both

the quartz and dolomite

matrix division lines. For the assumed sandstone-dolomite mixture, cross-plot porosity

is 20%.

Again, relative proportions of the two end-members (sandstone and dolomite) may be

estimated by normalizing a scale along the dashed blue line between the two matrix

division lines. The plotted point represents a mixture of approximately 70% quartz and

30% dolomite (dolomitic sandstone).

In this particular example, cross-plot porosity differed only slightly between the two

possible lithology combinations. In other instances, the difference may be more

significant. Cross-plot porosity is relatively insensitive to the mineralogy mixture

provided that the lithology is composed of two of the three common minerals: quartz,

calcite, and dolomite. The presence of other minerals, however, will require a different

approach.

When different porosity values and different lithologies are obtained from

Cross-Plot charts, it is advisable to calculate formation water resistivity (R w )

and water saturation (S w ) for both situations, and present the results of each.

Basic Log Interpretation

free evaluation can seldom be made from one curve, or from a single chart or

evaluation technique.

The choice of basic lithology is obviously quite important. Apart from the difference in

resulting cross-plot porosities, the values for tortuosity factor (a), cementation exponent

(m) and even saturation exponent (n) may need to be altered. In the previous example,

the cross-plot lithology determination was based upon only two measurements (neutron

porosity and bulk density). At best, the Cross-Plot method can differentiate between

only two minerals. The previous example data presented two possible solutions: sandy

limestone or dolomitic sandstone. There are, however, certain effects that tend to mask

the apparent lithology of a formation, thereby making their evaluation more difficult.

The presence of gas in a formation has a profound effect on the neutron porosity

measurement. Because the tool measures hydrogen index, the low hydrogen density of

gas (compared to hydrogen density of liquids) causes the neutron tool to underestimate

porosity. Gas also affects the density measurement, causing density porosity to be

overestimated.

If gas is present, then the base lithology of the formation of interest must fall

somewhere to the lower right of its plotted point. Although not a precise method by any

means, the presence of gas may be corrected for by drafting a line parallel to and in the

same direction as the "Approximate Gas Correct" arrow. This line should extend from

the plotted point of interest to the nearest lower-right matrix division line. The base

lithology, of course, should be logically determined from cuttings, core samples, tool

response in non-gassy zones, etc..

The presence of gas may cause tremendous problems in resolving lithology from a

Cross-Plot chart. Because gas tends to pull points up and to the left, it is entirely

possible for a 100% dolomite gassy formation to plot along the matrix division line

representing 100% sandstone. For that matter, the point may also fall somewhere

between the quartz and calcite matrix division lines, giving the impression that dolomite

is not present at all.

The presence of shale will also adversely influence the interpretation of the plotted

point. In reality, the properties of shale (to be discussed in more detail later) affect all

logging responses to some degree. The primary concern on a neutron-density Cross-

Plot chart is the characteristic high porosity reading of the neutron tool.

The high porosity response of the neutron tool together with the relatively high bulk

densities typical of shales will push the plotted point of a shaly formation to the bottom

right of where it would fall if it were clean. For example, a shaly sandstone could

Basic Log Interpretation

feasibly have a point which plots along the matrix division line representing 100%

dolomite.

A 100% pure shale will typically plot within an area defined by the following limits:

30% < Φ N < 40%

2.35g/cc < ρb < 2.50g/cc

Because the presence of shale tends to pull plotted points down and to the right,

correction for shale would therefore be up and to the left. How far to the left and at what

angle the correction is to be taken would be determined by the characteristics of that

particular shale. For now, it is sufficient to realize that the presence of shale can cause

dramatic misinterpretations about the lithology of a formation when using Cross-Plot

porosity charts.

The "Sonic versus Bulk Density" and "Sonic versus Neutron Porosity" charts may be

interpolated or extrapolated in the same manner as the "Bulk Density versus Neutron

Porosity" charts previously discussed. These charts may be used as an alternative to

the neutron-density cross-plots, or as an additional method for providing solutions to the

constraints that exist on lithology front. The use of "Sonic versus Neutron Porosity"

Cross-Plot charts can help refine the estimate of lithology obtained from the neutron-

density Cross-Plot charts. When two different methods converge to a particular solution

it gives adequate weight to derived conclusions.

The "Time Average" lines represent the response of the Wyllie-Time Average sonic

porosity equation. This response is based on the premise that the travel time through a

porous formation will remain unchanged irrespective of pressure variations, this

happens when the formations have reached the terminal velocity. Porosity is commonly

calculated with the Wyllie-Time Average equation illustrated below.

The "empirical," or curved, lines represent the response from a combination of data

gathered by Raymer-Hunt and Halliburton. This is a purely emperical calculation based

upon comparisons of transit times with core porosities and porosity as derived from

other types of logs. The Raymer-Hunt equation for sonic porosity is illustrated below.

The choice of equation for computing sonic porosity should be left to the customer.

Because the customer is aware of other wells in the same region and reservoir, and

how sonic porosities were calculated from those logs.

Basic Log Interpretation

Most oil- and gas-bearing formations are composed of sedimentary rock, as opposed to

igneous and metamorphic rock. Sedimentary rock, as its name implies, is composed of

different types of sediments that have been deposited at some type of accumulation

point, possibly an ancient ocean basin or river channel. After some period of geologic

time, many such layers of sediment may accumulate. The tectonic forces imposed upon

these layers results in compaction and cementation of the loosely consolidated

sediments into a sedimentary rock.

lithosphere (the 10 mile-thick outer shell of the earth), whereas igneous and

metamorphic rocks account for 95%. However, sedimentary rocks cover 75% of the

total land area on continents, with igneous and metamorphic rocks covering the

remainder. It is evident, therefore, that sedimentary rocks must form only a thin,

superficial veneer on the surface of the earth.

For the purposes of this discussion, sedimentary rocks can be subdivided into two

primary categories: clastic and carbonate. These categories comprise the three most

common producing reservoir rock types: sandstones, limestones, and dolomites. The

composition, place of origin, and granular size of the individual sediments of a rock are

among the factors that determine the rock's identity.

Clastic sediments are those produced by the weathering and breakdown of preexisting

rocks. These particles, having been derived somewhere other than the accumulation

point, are transported, sorted, and modified by moving fluid such as water or air. Their

deposition is normally in successive horizontal layers. Clastic sedimentary formations

are typically sandstones and shales. Apart from differing in composition, these two rock

types also differ dramatically in constituent grain size. This combination of similarities

(origin) and differences (grain size) produces formations containing combinations of

both sandstone and shale. Because shaliness affects both formation characteristics

and log responses, it will be discussed in detail later in the text.

sandstone, quartz constitutes over 90% of the detrital fraction of the rock. For this

reason, many charts refer to sandstone formations simply as "quartz."

Basic Log Interpretation

Carbonate formations are usually marine in origin and composed primarily of skeletal

grains and/or seawater precipitates. These constituents are produced within the region

of accumulation, and are not derived form weathering or breakdown of pre-existing

rocks. Productive carbonate formations typically include limestones and dolomites. The

primary difference between these two types of rocks is the chemical composition. The

term "limestone" is used for rocks containing predominantly calcite: CaCO3. The term

"dolomite" implies substitution of Ca with Mg. Dolomite composition is:(CaMg(CO3)2).

Complex Lithologies

Subsurface formations may be heterogeneous e.g. a clastic may have lime marter

making it calcarious sandstone and similarly carbonate rocks.may contain high

percentage of marl commonly termed as shaly limestone. In addition, the presence of

accessory minerals may cause further confusion when determining lithology from a

Cross-Plot chart. At best, the Cross-Plot methods discussed previously can identify only

two end minerals. The methods are fairly accurate provided that the rock matrix is

composed of two of the three common minerals: quartz, calcite, and dolomite. To

address the problem of the possible presence of other minerals (e.g., clays, coals,

anhydrite, halite etc) a more rigorous method of mineralogy identification (Mineral

Identification Plots) may be used.

When complex lithologies are suspected and accuracy is of the utmost importance

inverse technique (ULTRA) is the only solution. However, there are techniques through

which mineral identification can be tried. In the previous examples of Cross-Plot chart

data from two logging measurements (e.g., ρb and Φ N, ρb and ∆t, or Φ N and ∆t) may be

used to identify lithologies limited to only two end-members. By using a chart that

handles a third measurement (e.g., Pe), a more accurate evaluation can be ascertained.

In this discussion, two techniques of "trimineral plots will be considered: Umaa versus

ρmaa, and ρmaa versus ∆tmaa.

§ Porosities may be near cut-off values (~5%); therefore, the most accurate values

obtainable from logs are desired. Dolomite and shale, for example, cause similar

separation between limestone-based neutron and density porosity curves, but

effective porosity is computed differently for each case.

§ Tight (low porosity) formations often require acidizing or acid fracturing to

stimulate production. Optimization of this operation requires knowledge of the

formation lithology.

§ Lithology distribution across a field may reveal preferential directions for the

locations of future offset wells. For example, dolomitization is often accompanied

by increased permeability, therefore the direction of increasing dolomite content

may be a favorable direction for further exploration.

Basic Log Interpretation

Spectral logging tools (Spectral Density and Spectral Gamma Ray) can be used

individually to determine simple lithologies in "pure" formations. Combinations of two

more basic tools (e.g., DSN versus CDL, CDL versus BCS) can also be utilized for

determining simple lithologies. However, when used in complex lithology situations,

such "two tool cross-plots" can be very misleading. For example, a point plotting directly

on the limestone matrix division line of a neutron-density Cross-Plot chart could

possibly be the response of a dolomitic sandstone.

The use of three different types of log responses is the next logical step in the goal of

increasing accuracy and reliability of lithology identification. Because the manipulation

of a three-dimensional chart (X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis) would be rather cumbersome

within the confines of a two-dimensional chartbook, the three tool responses must first

be incorporated into simple X-Y coordinates. These calculated X and Y coordinates

then are introduced into the respective Mineral Identification Plot (MIP), and the

complex mineralogy resolved.

charts in that they resolve three end-member lithologies.

The Umaa versus ρmaa MIP method of lithology determination requires a Spectral Density

(SDL, with Pe curve) and neutron for implementation. The Mineral Identification Plot

charts are labeled MIP XXX-8, according to the particular type of neutron tool being used.

Notice that the X-axis and Y-axis coordinates of these charts are not values that can be

taken directly from logs. The "Apparent Matrix Density (ρmaa)" and "Apparent Volumetric

Photoelectric Factor (U maa)" must first be determined using separate charts (MIP XXX-4

and MIP XXX-6, respectively).

2. Umaa determination (chart MIP XXX-6)

3. ρmaa versus Umaa MIP plot (chart MIP XXX-8)

? maa Determination

Without having actual core samples of the formation of interest, it is impossible to know

an exact value of matrix density (ρma). However, by being able to determine Cross-Plot

lithology of a formation from charts using neutron and density data, it possible to

estimate the apparent matrix density (ρmaa) from these data (Step 1).

For the purposes of illustration, the chart MIP DSN-II-4 will be referenced here. Notice that

this chart is developed for a fluid density (ρfl) of 1.0g/cc (freshwaterbased drilling fluid).

There are no charts available for use in those conditions where ρfl _ 1.0g/cc, therefore

this same chart will also apply for oil-based mud and saltwater-based mud conditions.

Furthermore, notice that neutron porosity must be in limestone porosity units. Again, the

conversion of another neutron lithology to limestone, if necessary, may be made using

chart POR-12.

Basic Log Interpretation

Use of the MIP DSN-II-4 chart is identical to the use of the neutron-density Cross- Plot

charts discussed previously. In fact, the red lines representing quartz, calcite, and

limestone are identical to the matrix division lines of the Cross-Plot charts. In this case,

however, the objective is to determine the apparent matrix density (ρmaa) of the plotted

point with respect to the known matrix densities of those three minerals (2.65g/cc,

2.71g/cc, and 2.87g/cc, respectively).

To illustrate the use of this chart, the same example data used previously in the Cross-

Plot charts will be used here as well.

Example Data for Chart MIP DSN-II-4

Φ D = 20% on limestone matrix (ρb = 2.34g/cc)

Pe = 2.41

Φ XPLOT ≅19% (as determined from CPDSN-II-1a)

Using the example data above, enter the chart with the environmentally corrected value

of neutron limestone porosity (17%) on the X-axis, and enter the Y-axis with a bulk

density (ρb) of 2.34g/cc. The result plot of the example data yields an apparent matrix

density (ρmaa) of approximately 2.675g/cc. Again, notice that chart MIP DSN-II-4 is simply

a standard neutron-density Cross-Plot chart with matrix density values interpolated

between the three primary matrix division lines (e.g., quartz, calcite, and dolomite). The

resulting value of apparent matrix density (ρmaa) may be thought of as the matrix density

of the formation that is "seen" by a combination of the neutron and density tools.

Umaa Determination

The photoelectric (P e) response is not linear with changes in formation composition. For

example, given that the Pe of sandstone is 1.81 and the Pe of limestone is 5.08, a

formation consisting of 50% sandstone and 50% limestone does not necessarily have a

Pe value of 3.44.

(Step 2) if Pe values are to be used in lithology determination. This step, considering the

use of the DSN-II in our example data, requires the use of chart MIP DSN-II-6.

The volumetric cross section (U) is a product of the electron density (ρe) and

photoelectric factor (or cross section). By substituting bulk density (ρb) for electron

density, a value of Apparent Volumetric Photoelectric Factor (Umaa) can be calculated

by the equation illustrated below. This equation is the foundation for all MIP XXX-6 charts,

regardless of the type of neutron tool used.

Basic Log Interpretation

Using chart MIP DSN-II-6, enter the lowermost scale on the X-axis with a bulk density (ρb)

of 2.34g/cc. From this point, extend a line through the value for Pe taken from the log

(2.41) on the Modified Photoelectric Factor scale to a point that plots on the bottom X-

axis of the graph. The value plotted on the bottom Xaxis of the graph represents the

Volumetric Modified Photoelectric Factor (Um), and should be approximately 5.7.

From this point on the bottom X-axis of the graph, extend a vertical line upward to

intersect a horizontal line representing a value of Apparent Total Porosity (Φ ta). A value

for Apparent Total Porosity (Φ ta) is obtained by either estimating two -thirds porosity,

calculating cross-plot porosity by equation, or by the Cross-Plot charts. From the Cross-

Plot charts worked previously, this value was determined to be approximately 19%.

Apparent Total Porosity (Φ ta) value of 19% results in a plot that falls on the line

representing an Apparent Volumetric Photoelectric Factor (Umaa) of 7.0.

For the DSN-II tool, the next chart to use in determining mineralogy (Step 3) is MIP DSN-

II-8. Enter this chart with the previously derived matrix information (ρmaa = 2.675g/cc and

Umaa = 5.7). Cross-plotting these data yields a point that plots in the vicinity of the

triangle apex labeled Quartz, implying that the predominant constituent of the formation

is, in fact, quartz. This would appear to correspond with one of the possible

combinations obtained from the Cross-Plot method illustrated earlier: 70% quartz and

30% dolomite (dolomitic sand).

Using the same method as that with the neutron-density Cross-Plot chart, normalized

scales may be constructed along lines connected the apices of the triangle. These

apices represent 100% of a particular mineralogy (quartz, calcite, dolomite). The

relative position of the plotted point with respect to these normalized scales yields a

more detailed assessment of the mineralogy of the formation of interest.

Quartz = 72%

Calcite = 21%

Dolomite = 7%

Compare these results with those determined for the quartz-dolomite possibility from

the Cross-Plot chart (70% quartz and 30% dolomite). The results of the MIP method are

strikingly comparable, and have been able to distinguish the difference between the two

carbonate end-members (calcite and dolomite) present in the formation. By comparing

these results with those of the Cross-Plot method discussed previously, it is now

possible to state with greater confidence that the formation of interest is a dolomitic

sandstone.

geological constraints, e.g. Carbonate and clastic deposition cannot take place at

the same time and same place. Therefore proclaiming the formation of interest

“dolomitic sandstone” as have been concluded above, doesn’t make sense to

Basic Log Interpretation

geologist, and so log analyst become the subject of ridicule All interpretation

therefore must take into consideration geological inputs.)

The ρmaa versus ∆tmaa MIP method of lithology determination requires a Compensated

Density (CDL, with no Pe curve), neutron, and sonic tool for implementation. The

Mineral Identification Plot charts are labeled MIP XXX-7, according to the particular type

of neutron tool being used. Notice that the X-axis and Y-axis coordinates of these

charts also are not values that can be taken directly from logs. The "Apparent Matrix

Density (ρmaa)" and "Apparent Matrix Transit Time (∆tma)" must be determined using

separate Cross-Plot charts (MIP XXX-4 and MIP XXX-5, respectively).

The same techniques are used to manipulate these charts as with the previous Umaa

versus ρmaa MIP charts. The important point of using this additional sonic method is that

different results may be obtained from different methods. The correct choice should be

based on clients input.

As was the case with the neutron-density Cross-Plot charts, gas and shale likewise

affect the results of the Mineral Identification Plots. Apparent Matrix Density (ρmaa) and

Apparent Matrix Volumetric Photoelectric Factor (Umaa) will both decrease in the

presence of gas. Therefore, points plotted on the MIP charts will move up and slightly to

the left in a gas bearing formation. Unlike the neutron-density Cross-Plot charts, there is

no correction technique for gas effect. However, the presence of gas typically causes

variance of the plotted data within the confines of the triangle.

The presence of shale will shift the points in the plot anywhere within or outside the

triangle, falling in between the triangle and the "Muscovite" point. With increasing

percentage of shale, these points plot farther and farther away from the triangle. In

shaly sandstone situations, it may be extremely helpful to plot several points on the MIP

chart representing "typical shales" within the logged interval. A new triangle may then

be drawn connecting the Quartz, Calcite, and "Shale" points. This new triangle may be

segmented accordingly, and relative proportions of these three new end-member

lithologies may be determined.

A thorough evaluation of the zone of interest requires the plotting of multiple points. The

measurement at any one particular depth may or may not be representative of the

entire zone. Analyzing a thick formation using the MIP charts with data points every foot

would be rather time consuming, and not practical for wellsite lithology determination.

Therefore, picking tool responses at a particular depth and assuming those responses

to be representative of the entire formation is acceptable. Computer-generated MIP

plots are products offered by Halliburton Reservoir Decision Centers as total analysis

packages such as ULTRA.

Basic Log Interpretation

References

Bateman, R. M., 1985, Open-hole log analysis and formation evaluation: IHRDC

Publishers, Boston, MA, 647 p.

Publishers, Tulsa, OK, 361 p.

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 3

Environmental Corrections

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………... 43

References…………………………………………………………………………………………. 58

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

Very rarely do open hole logs directly provide answers to the questions posed. Log data

must be subjected to a number of assumptions and rigorous calculations before they

are useful. For instance, neutron porosity and resistivity alone provide no useful

information about the productive capabilities of a reservoir. However, by using these

data to calculate porosity and water saturation, some of the important questions are

answered. Furthermore, before these data are used for basic calculations, the effects of

environmental conditions on the measurements must be accounted for. This section

stresses the importance of environmental corrections and demonstrates their use and

application.

To effectively use this section, the participant should have a copy of Halliburton

Log Interpretation Charts manual. Examples illustrated in the section will make

references to this Log Interpretation Charts manual.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

open hole logs before their use in calculations.

including mudcake thickness, borehole salinity, mud weight, borehole

temperature, and borehole pressure corrections.

and Dual Laterolog/MSFL measurements, including MSFL mudcake correction,

DFL borehole correction, induction and laterolog borehole correction, induction

and laterolog bed thickness corrections, and invasion corrections.

Basic Log Interpretation

In actual logging conditions, porosity (Φ) and the "true" resistivity of the uninvaded zone

(Rt) cannot be measured precisely for a variety of reasons. Factors affecting these

responses may include hole size, mud weight, bed thickness, depth of invasion, and

other properties of the logging environment and formation. Many of these effects have

strong impacts on analysis and evaluation and must be corrected for prior to evaluating

the formation. Several types of corrections and the tools for which these corrections are

necessary are illustrated in Figure 3.1.

The corrections listed in Figure 3.1 reference charts for a particular tool type. It should

be recognized that corrections may differ between tool types. For example, the charts

used to make environmental corrections on High Resolution Induction measurements

are not the same charts used to correct Dual Laterolog measurements. Depending on

the tool type and other borehole or formation conditions, appropriate charts are

selected to workout solution.

The proper matching of tool type and environmental conditions to the appropriate

correction chart is critical. Furthermore, although the charts provided by different

service companies may appear similar, the amounts of their respective corrections may

be quite different.

The use of environmental correction charts will not always be necessary. In some

situations, the effects of certain conditions will be so small that they do not warrant

correction. As familiarity with the charts is gained, their usefulness and limitations will

become apparent. For instance, applying environmental corrections for a DSN-II

neutron in an 8-inch borehole drilled with 9 lb/gal fresh water drilling mud at a depth of

2000 feet would be an exercise in futility. In this case, correction to neutron porosity

Basic Log Interpretation

would be negligible. However, until a working knowledge of the charts and the

applicability is gained, corrections should always be applied.

In relatively thin beds (1 foot to 22 feet), the deflection of the SP curve is suppressed

because of the influence of underlying and overlying formations. This is particularly true

in sand/shale sequences where sandstones are overlain and underlain by shales. In

cases such as this, the SP response in the thin formation of interest may not attain its

full deflection because of the adjacent shales. The SP deflection of the formation of

interest should actually be greater than is exhibited on the log. The intent of charts SP-

1a and SP-1b is to correct the SP response in these situations. The determination of

which chart to use is made through an estimation of the diameter of invasion.

Example Data

Observed SP deflection: - 70 mV

Thickness of formation of interest (h): 11 feet

Invaded zone resistivity (Ri): 90 Ω-m

Mud resistivity (Rm) at Tf : 1.5 Ω-m

Borehole diameter: 7.875 inches

Diameter of invasion (di) is one of the unknowns determined during invasion correction

of resistivity responses; however, it can be estimated by the separation between

Medium and Deep resistivity curves. The following rule of thumb applies: the greater

the separation, the deeper the invasion. In formations where the Medium and Deep

curves stack (e.g., shale), it is assumed that there is no invasion.

resistivity. If this ratio is less than 1.1, then invasion is considered to be less than twice

the borehole diameter (use SP-1a). If this ratio is greater than 1.1, then it is safe to

assume that invasion is greater than twice the borehole diameter (use SP- 1b).

In this example, it is assumed that the ratio of Medium to Deep resistivity was greater

than 1.1, and therefore SP-1b (moderate to deep invasion) will be used to illustrate the

process of SP correction. Realize that this is an estimate of the diameter of invasion,

and that differences in borehole size and fluid type may change the results.

The first step of the correction procedure requires borehole size. This information is

best obtained from the caliper measurement. Where no caliper is logged, then bit size

from the header may be used as a rough estimate. In this example, borehole diameter

is 7.875 inches; therefore, the 7-7/8 inch hole diameter X-axis scale can be used as a

starting point.

Basic Log Interpretation

Using the 7-7/8 inch X-axis scale of SP-1b, move horizontally to a bed thickness of 11

feet. Bed thickness is best determined by choosing the break points (or deflections) of

the tool having the smallest vertical resolution. In many cases, this is the shallowest

reading resistivity device (e.g., DFL, MSFL).

Each curve in the chart represents a ratio of invaded zone resistivity (Ri) to mud

resistivity (Rm). Resistivity of the invaded zone is generally approximated by the

measurement of the intermediate resistivity curve. In this example, Ri = 90 Ω-m and Rm

= 1.5 Ω-m at formation temperature. It is vital that the value of mud resistivity (Rm) be

corrected to the formation temperature of the depth at which the correction is being

applied. The resulting ratio Ri/Rm is 60.

From the 11 feet bed thickness mark on the X-axis, extend a line vertically to intersect

an imaginary interpolated line representing the resistivity ratio of 60. From this

intersection, extend a horizontal line to the Y-axis to determine the appropriate SP

correction factor of approximately 1.52.

formation of interest with respect to the "shale baseline." Recognizing the baseline on a

log can be rather tricky, and the entire log should be considered. In this example, the

SP deflection within the zone of interest is given as -70 mV.

To correct the SP deflection for the effects of thin beds, the SP correction factor is

multiplied by the SP deflection exhibited in the formation of interest.

Notice that through this correction the amount of SP deflection has been increased from

-70 mV to -106 mV. The corrected value of -106 mV more closely approximates what

the actual SP deflection of the formation of interest would be if it were substantially

thicker than 11 feet.

The environmental correction charts provided in the Gamma Ray section of the

chartbook correct for two separate effects: 1) the distance between the tool and the

borehole wall; and, 2) the density of the mud filling the borehole. Both of these

conditions affect the amount of natural radiation that is measured at the gamma ray

detector.

Tool diameter and tool position are both important factors to consider when using GR-1.

In a hole of given diameter, the amount of gamma radiation received by a large

diameter tool will be greater than that received by a smaller diameter tool because the

amount of mud surrounding the larger tool is less. Standard DITS gamma tools have an

Basic Log Interpretation

outer diameter of 3-5/8 inches. Furthermore, if the tool is eccentered, then some

gamma rays will be attenuated by the thicker shield of mud on one side of the tool

(Figure 3.2). With a centered tool there is still attenuation of the received gamma rays,

but it is much more regular in nature. These effects are accounted for through the use

of separate tool position reference lines on chart GR-1.

Before determining which section of GR-1 is applicable, tool type (i.e., diameter) and

tool position should be confirmed from the header information. In this case, a gamma

ray tool with an outer diameter of 4 inches was pulled, therefore the upper left section of

GR-1 applies. Furthermore, the tool was centralized, so the solid black lines

representing mud weight will be used.

To correct the gamma ray response, enter the 4 inch diameter section of GR-1 on the

X-axis with a borehole diameter of 10 inches. Extend a vertical line upward to intersect

an imaginary interpolated line representing a mud weight of 12 lb/gal (from header) for

a centered tool (solid black lines). Draw a horizontal line to the Y-axis to obtain a

correction factor for the gamma ray response. This correction factor (approximately 1.5;

note logarithmic scale) is then multiplied by the observed log response to correct for the

effects of borehole size and mud weight.

Notice that after correction the gamma ray measurement increased. This is to

compensate for the attenuating effects of the heavy mud in the borehole. In smaller

hole sizes, it is possible for the resulting correction factor to be negative; however,

Basic Log Interpretation

negative gamma ray corrections are seldom applied. It is unlikely that the presence of

mud will cause an observed gamma ray response to read too high.

An identical gamma ray correction can be applied with the logging software (result

mnemonic, GRCO). Realize that this real-time correction is rarely requested, and then

usually only in cases where gamma ray will be used as an estimate of the volume of

shale (V sh). For quantitative estimates of Vsh, gamma ray borehole corrections are

required.

The inclusion of the SDL Borehole Curvature Correction chart (POR-1) in the chartbook

is often confusing to engineers and customers alike. The pad section of the SDL is 3.25

inches in diameter and is not designed to fit flush against any particular diameter

borehole. The SDL is calibrated to read the correct bulk density (ρb) in an 8-inch

borehole filled with fresh water. The zero correction point, therefore, is an 8-inch

borehole filled with fresh water. As borehole size and fluid density vary, environmental

corrections (POR-1) become more critical as the amount of drilling fluid between the

pad and formation varies.

Borehole curvature corrections do not need to be applied to SDL responses under

normal circumstances. These corrections are performed real-time by the logging

software, and correct values already appear on the logs.

Notice that input into POR-1 is not in units of density porosity, but rather bulk density

(ρb). This is the case with many correction charts. In order to use these charts, bulk

density may either be taken from the log (if presented) or by calculating ρb from density

porosity (Φ D). The following equation may be used to derive bulk density from density

porosity, provided that fluid density (ρfl) and matrix density (ρma) are known.

Some of the most important and most complex environmental corrections include those

required for neutron porosity measurements. Neutron porosity is affected by a number

of factors, most importantly temperature. If these effects are left uncorrected, then

neutron porosity will be in error and the Archie equation will not yield accurate results.

Also, with neutron corrections, it is vital that the appropriate chart be used for the

particular type of tool run.

The neutron tools most commonly seen on modern Halliburton logs are Dual Spaced

Neutron (DSN-II) tools. Older logs may have been run with the Compensated Neutron

(CNT-K). The open hole environmental correction chart for the DSN-II is POR-4a, while

the CNT-K is corrected with chart POR-6a. Following both of these main charts is a

collection of other charts used to correct for a variety of borehole and formation

conditions. It is important to note that when correcting porosity values from a CNT-K,

Basic Log Interpretation

the borehole temperature correction should not be performed because it has already

been applied by the logging software.

In most situations a caliper tool is pulled in combination with the neutron tool. Under

these circumstances, the borehole diameter correction (or caliper correction), is applied

real-time by the logging software and it is not necessary to use this section of POR-4a.

In this example, the caliper correction was not applied real-time.

If the caliper correction was not applied during logging for some reason (as is the case

in this example), then this section of the chart is used by entering the top X-axis with

the measured value of neutron limestone porosity (32%) and extending a vertical line

downward to intersect a horizontal line representing borehole size (10.5 inches). From

this intersection, another line is plotted downward—following a curvature relative to that

of the nearest curved spine--to the red baseline. From the baseline, another vertical line

is extended downward to the bottom X-axis to read the caliper-corrected value of

neutron porosity. In this example, the caliper corrected value is 29%.

The resulting value of caliper-corrected neutron limestone porosity (29%) is then carried

to the next correction step. Again, this correction is not required if a working caliper was

used to correct the neutron porosity measurement real-time.

porosity (29%). Starting on the upper X-axis with a caliper-corrected neutron porosity of

29%, extend a vertical line downward to intersect a horizontal line representing

mudcake thickness (0.5 inches). From this intersection, another line is plotted

downward--following a curvature relative to that of the nearest curved spine--to the red

baseline. The difference between the original value (29%) and the resulting value

(28.5%) indicates the magnitude and direction of mudcake thickness correction

required (-0.5%).

It is important to note that in most cases, mudcake thickness correction will result in a

change of no more than 2% porosity. Mudcake thickness can be estimated by the

following equation:

Basic Log Interpretation

Borehole salinity may be determined from the value of the drilling mud resistivity (Rm)

and use of chart GEN-5. In this example, salinity is given as 100,000 ppm NaCl.

To use this section of POR-4a, enter the top X-axis of the borehole salinity correction

section with the value of caliper-corrected neutron porosity (29%). It is important to note

that correction factors from each step of the process are not carried into the next

correction section. Beginning with a value of 29% on the top X-axis, extend a vertical

line downward to intersect a horizontal line representing 100,000 ppm salinity. From

this intersection, another line is plotted downward-- following a curvature relative to that

of the nearest curved spine--to the red baseline to read the amount of correction

necessary. In this example, the amount of correction is approximately +0.8%.

The mud weight correction section of POR-4a has two scales: one for bariteloaded

mud, and the other for non-barite, or "natural," drilling mud. Header information would

dictate which of these two scales to use. The correction proceeds just as the borehole

salinity correction.

Enter the top X-axis of the mud weight correction section with the value of caliper-

corrected neutron porosity (29%). Extend a vertical line downward to intersect a

horizontal line representing mud weight (10 lb/gal, natural). From this intersection,

another line is plotted downward--following a curvature relative to that of the nearest

curved spine--to the red baseline. From the baseline, another vertical line is extended

downward to the bottom X-axis to read the amount of correction necessary. In this

example, the amount of correction is approximately +0.6%.

The borehole temperature correction is the most significant correction applied to the

neutron porosity measurement. Notice that the amount of correction increases

dramatically (particularly at high borehole temperatures) for higher values of neutron

porosity. In cases where other neutron corrections (e.g., mudcake thickness, salinity,

mud weight, etc.) are considered negligible, the temperature correction should always

be applied so that water saturation calculations are not adversely effected.

Enter the top X-axis of the temperature correction section with the value of caliper-

corrected neutron porosity (29%). Extend a vertical line downward to intersect a

horizontal line representing borehole temperature (125oF). From this intersection,

another line is plotted downward--following a curvature relative to that of the nearest

curved spine--to the red baseline. From the baseline, another vertical line is extended

downward to the bottom X-axis to read the amount of correction necessary. In this

example, the amount of correction is approximately +1.5%.

Basic Log Interpretation

Borehole pressure corrections are generally negligible for porosities of less than 10%,

but the slopes of the correction spines suggest that the amount of correction increases

with increased porosity. Borehole pressure at a given depth can be derived from the

following equation:

Enter the top X-axis of the pressure correction section with the value of caliper-

corrected neutron porosity (29%). Extend a vertical line downward to intersect a

horizontal line representing borehole pressure (2500 psi). From this intersection,

another line is plotted downward--following a curvature relative to that of the nearest

curved spine--to the red baseline to read the amount of correction necessary. In this

example, the amount of correction is approximately -0.3%.

Once each of the individual influences has been corrected for, the resulting correction

factors must be summed in order to obtain the total effect. This is accomplished by

adding the sum of the individual correction factors to the caliper-corrected value of

neutron limestone porosity.

Σ CF = CF + CF ?+ CF

mudcake salinity + CF

mud weight + CF

temperature pressure

If the caliper-correction was applied by chart (as in this example), then the

environmentally corrected value of neutron porosity in limestone units is obtained by the

following equation:

Φ nls-corrected = Φ caliper – corrected + ∑CF

If the caliper-correction was applied real-time, then the environmentally corrected value

of neutron porosity in limestone units is obtained simply by adding the sum of the

correction factors to the observed log response (if in limestone units).

It is important to note that neutron porosity must be in limestone units for this correction.

The chart POR-12 can be used to convert between the different lithologies assumed in

the calculation of neutron porosity.

Basic Log Interpretation

Neutron "standoff" occurs when the face of the tool is physically held some distance

from the borehole wall. This may be the result of other tools in the toolstring, or

misaligned tools. This type of situation will cause the neutron tool to measure the

drilling fluid between the tool and the formation, thus producing a neutron porosity that

is consistently high. Such standoff is usually avoided during logging by using a

bowspring decentralizer. However, if a situation arises where the tool cannot be

properly decentralized, standoff correction can be applied realtime by the logging

software. If necessary, the correction procedure takes the open hole environmentally

correct value of neutron limestone porosity from POR- 4a and proceeds in the same

manner, but using POR-4b for the DSN-II tool.

porosity can now be corrected for salinity of the formation in which the measurement

was made. Formation salinity may be obtained by considering the formation water

resistivity (Rw ) of the zone of interest, and using this value in that section of POR-4b

which coincides with the primary lithology of the zone of interest. The resulting salinity

correction is added to the environmentally corrected and standoff-corrected value of

neutron limestone porosity.

Because this formation salinity correction is based upon formation water resistivity

(which is often not a measured value), salinity corrections must be made with caution.

Most analysts tend to forego this correction when Rw is not measured, is uncertain, or

has been derived from logs by either the inverse-Archie method or SP method.

Resistivity tool responses generally must be corrected for a variety of conditions;

namely, borehole effects, thin beds, and invasion. Microresistivity measurements must

be corrected for the presence of mudcake. Just as neutron corrections were particular

to tool type, resistivity corrections also are particular to tool type. The chartbook

contains correction sections for each of the following resistivity combinations.

2. Dual Induction/Short Guard (Welex)

3. Dual Induction/Laterolog 3 (Gearhart)

4. High Resolution Induction/DFL

5. Hostile Dual Induction

6. Dual Laterolog A (Welex)

7. Dual Laterolog F (Gearhart)

one corrected value is used to make the next required correction. Each resistivity

Basic Log Interpretation

section of the chartbook is arranged in such a way that the charts appear in sequence.

For any resistivity tool, environmental corrections should be undertaken in the following

order:

for pad-mounted electrode tool (MSFL).

2. Borehole correction for deep and medium devices.

3. Bed thickness correction for deep and medium devices.

4. Invasion correction.

resistivity of the uninvaded zone (Rt), resistivity of the flushed zone (Rxo), and diameter

of invasion (di). These three unknowns are determined in the final step of the process

(i.e., invasion correction). Invasion corrections assume conditions of infinitely thick

homogeneous beds and an 8-inch borehole; therefore, both borehole and bed

thickness corrections must be applied to input measurements before this final step is

attempted.

measure of flushed zone resistivity (Rxo). However, any measure of flushed zone

resistivity by a pad-mounted device will be influenced by the presence of mudcake.

Mudcake correction charts are provided in the Microresistivity section of the chartbook.

Example Data

Mudcake resistivity (Rmc ) at Tf : 1.0 Ω-m

Mudcake thickness (hmc ): 0.175 inches

Using the Rxo-1 chart, enter the X-axis with a value of the RMSFL/Rmc ratio (14 in this

example). It is important to note that Rmc must be corrected for formation temperature at

the depth at which the correction is being applied. Extend a vertical line upward to

intersect a horizontal line representing mudcake thickness (0.175 inches). From this

intersection, extend a horizontal line to the Y-axis to read a value of the correction

factor (RMSFLcorr/RMSFL = 0.88). This correction factor is then multiplied by the observed

MSFL response to obtain a mudcake-corrected value of MSFL resistivity.

It is important to note that the corrected value (12.32 Ω-m) does not represent flushed

zone resistivity (R xo). This value merely represents MSFL resistivity that has been

corrected for mudcake. The value of mudcake-corrected MSFL resistivity should be

retained for later use in the invasion correction.

Basic Log Interpretation

The DFL borehole correction (HRI-1) compensates the DFL response for the effects of

hole size and mud resistivity (Rm). The chart is divided into three sections, each

depending upon tool position. Tool position can be determined from resistivity

equipment data in the header.

Example Data

Observed DFL response (RDFL): 31.0 Ω-m

Mud resistivity (Rm) at Tf : 0.91 Ω-m

Borehole diameter: 11.0 inches

Using the 0.0-inch standoff section of HRI-1, enter the X-axis with a value of the

RDFL/Rm ratio (34.07 in this example). It is important to note that Rm must be corrected

for formation temperature at the depth at which the correction is being applied. Extend

a vertical line upward to intersect a horizontal line representing borehole diameter (11

inches). Borehole diameter should be taken from a caliper measurement; however, it

may be estimated using bit size if no caliper is available. From this intersection, extend

a horizontal line to the Y-axis to read a value of the correction factor (RDFLcorr/RDFL =

1.11). This correction factor is then multiplied by the observed DFL response to obtain a

borehole-corrected value of DFL resistivity.

Notice that the correction was slightly positive. This is to account for the fact that the

mud contributed excess conductivity to the observed response. This excess

conductivity has been removed through the correction, and therefore the borehole-

corrected value of resistivity is slightly higher.

Again, it is important to note that the corrected value (34.41 Ω-m) does not represent

flushed zone resistivity (R xo). This value merely represents DFL resistivity that has been

corrected for borehole effects. The value of borehole-corrected DFL resistivity should

be retained for later use in the invasion correction.

Deep and Medium resistivity measurements must also be corrected for the effects of

borehole diameter and mud resistivity (Rm). For the HRI, this is accomplished through

the use of HRI-2. Again, it is important to remember that the value used for mud

resistivity (Rmc ) must be corrected for formation temperature.

Example Data

Observed Deep resistivity (RHRD): 13.0 Ω-m

Basic Log Interpretation

Borehole diameter: 14.0 inches

To correct the Deep resistivity measurement (RHRD), enter the X-axis of the chart at the

appropriate value of borehole diameter (14.0 inches) and extend a vertical reference

line upward to intersect the Deep 1.5" standoff correction line (note tool position labels

on lines). From this intersection, a horizontal line is plotted to the right edge of the

gridded graph area. From this point at the right edge of the graph, a line is projected

through the appropriate value of Rm at formation temperature (0.25 Ω-m). The value at

which this line crosses the right-side Yaxis reflects the contribution of the borehole, in

terms of conductivity, to the Deep measurement (approximately 0.75 mmhos/m).

necessary to convert the measured value of Deep resistivity (RHRD = 13.0 Ω-m) to units

of conductivity before the correction is applied. This is accomplished through the

following reciprocal equation.

Once the observed Deep resistivity is converted to units of conductivity, the correction

amount read from the right Y-axis of the graph (0.75 mmhos/m) must be subtracted

from the conductivity measurement. This effectively removes that portion of the

conductivity signal that is contributed by the borehole. Corrected CHRD = 76.92 - 0.75 =

76.17 mmhos/m

The resulting corrected conductivity value (76.17 mmhos/m) must then be converted

back into units of resistivity for use in the next step of the correction procedure. This

conversion is accomplished by simply rearranging the conductivity equation above, and

solving for the borehole-corrected value of Deep resistivity.

In this particular example, there was a minor positive correction applied to the Deep

resistivity measurement which is consistent with the borehole contribution being

removed from the total signal (i.e., removal of excess conductivity = addition of more

resistivity).

described for the Deep measurement. In the case of smaller borehole sizes and/or

higher values of Rm, it is possible for the borehole contribution in mmhos/m to have a

negative sign. In these cases, realize that the borehole contribution is being added to

the measured conductivity value (C meas - (-bh) = C meas + bh).

Values of borehole-corrected Deep and Medium resistivity should be retained for later

use in the following bed thickness correction.

Basic Log Interpretation

(HRI-3a, HRI-3b)

corrected for the effects of the resistivities of overlying and underlying formations, or

shoulder beds. This type of correction is also referred to as a thin bed correction or bed

thickness correction, and is accomplished through the use of HRI-3a or HRI-3b.

Example Data

Shoulder bed resistivity (Rs ): 1.2 Ω-m

Bed thickness (h): 13 feet

Resistivity of the shoulder bed (Rs ) determines which of the two charts applies. In this

example, shoulder bed resistivity (Rs = 1.2 Ω-m) suggests that chart HRI- 3a is the most

applicable. Corrections for both the Deep and Medium resistivity measurements are

made on the same chart. The two chart sections on the lefthand side of HRI-3a are for

shoulder bed resistivities of 1 Ω-m and 2 Ω-m. The upper-left section is for the Deep

correction, while the lower-left section is for the Medium correction.

To correct the Deep measurement for thin bed effects, enter the upper-left section on

the X-axis with a bed thickness of 13 feet. Bed thickness is best determined from the

points of deflection on the curve with the smallest vertical resolution (e.g., DFL). A

vertical line is projected upward to intersect a line representing borehole-corrected

Deep resistivity (13.0 Ω-m). From this intersection, a horizontal line is projected to the

left-side Y-axis to read the bed thicknesscorrected value of Deep resistivity

(approximately 11.5 Ω-m). Correction of the Medium resistivity measurement is

analogous to the procedure described for the Deep measurement, but uses the lower-

left section of HRI-3a.

Values of bed thickness-corrected Deep and Medium resistivity should be retained for

use in invasion correction.

Invasion corrections are the final step in High Resolution Induction/DFL environmental

corrections, and produce values of flushed zone resistivity (Rxo), uninvaded zone

resistivity (Rt), and diameter of invasion (di). To this point, it has been assumed that

resistivity of the flushed zone is reflected by the shallowest resistivity measurement,

and resistivity of the uninvaded zone is reflected by the deepest resistivity

measurement. The depth to which mud filtrate invades the formation determines the

validity of these assumptions.

The charts used for invasion correction on induction measurements are known as

"butterfly charts," while those used for invasion correction on laterolog measurements

are referred to as "tornado charts." High Resolution Induction invasion corrections are

accomplished through the use of charts HRI-4a and HRI- 4b.

Basic Log Interpretation

between resistivity of the drilling mud (Rm) at formation temperature and the resistivity

of the flushed zone (Rxo). Because a value of Rxo is a result of this invasion correction

process, it is necessary to use the previously boreholecorrected value of shallow

resistivity to approximate Rxo, and thereby determine which chart is applicable.

Example Data

Corrected Medium resistivity (RHRM): 22.0 Ω-m

Corrected DFL resistivity (RDFL): 105.0 Ω-m

DFL value is borehole-corrected

Deep and Medium values are borehole- and bed thickness-corrected

For this example it is assumed that the ratio Rxo/Rm is approximately 100; therefore,

HRI-4b is applicable.

The first step in the invasion correction process is to determine the Rt/RHRD ratio. Enter

the X-axis of the chart with a value for the ratio RHRM/RHRD (1.467 in this example) and

plot a vertical line upward to intersect a horizontal line that represents the ratio

RDFL/RHRD (7.0). Using the plotted point, estimate the ratio Rt/RHRD using the point's

relative position to the solid red lines. In this case, the estimated Rt/RHRD ratio is

approximately 0.93. This ratio is multiplied by the borehole-corrected and bed

thickness-corrected value of Deep resistivity (RHRD = 15.0 Ω-m) to determine a value for

"true" resistivity of the uninvaded zone (Rt).

The second step of the invasion correction process is to determine the Rxo/Rt ratio.

Again, using the plotted point, estimate this ratio using the point's relative position to the

solid black lines. In this case, the estimated Rxo/Rt ratio is approximately 9.9. This ratio

is then multiplied by the previously determined value of uninvaded zone resistivity (Rt =

13.95 Ω-m) to determine a value for flushed zone resistivity (Rxo).

The third step of the invasion correction process is to determine the diameter of

invasion (di). Using the plotted point, estimate the diameter of invasion from the point's

relative position to the dashed black lines. In this example, the diameter of invasion is

approximately 63 inches.

uninvaded zone resistivity (Rt) and flushed zone resistivity (Rxo) can be entered into the

Archie equation for more accurate values of water saturation (S w ). The diameter of

invasion (di) determined from this correction can be used to explain the effects of mud

filtrate on other logging measurements (e.g., porosity, etc.).

Basic Log Interpretation

In the example demonstrated, the data point plotted fall within the "butterfly," but this

will not always be the case. Sometimes, points will fall outside of the "butterfly." This

may be the result of a poor fit between the measured Rxo/Rm value and the Rxo/Rm value

used to generate the chart. Even though a point may fall outside of the "tornado," it can

still be used to determine Rxo and Rt. For points that fall to the left of the Rt/RHRD = 1.0

line, it is valid to assumed that Rt = RHRD (i.e., shallow invasion). If the point falls to the

right of the "tornado," it can be referenced back to the nearest Rt/RHRD line, although

determined values of Rxo and d i will be less accurate.

CAUTION!

Do not assume the value of R xo in Butterfly / tornado chart The initial R xo value

is simply a borehole corrected shallow resistivity measurement, and not R xo.

The R xo/R t correction lines are used to determine R xo from R t.value.

to those described for the High Resolution Induction corrections, but use other sections

of the chartbook specific to the type of Dual Laterolog tool that was run.

By now it should be apparent that there is an incredible amount of interpretation and

assumption required for the use of these correction charts. Very seldom will two people

produce the same results from the same correction charts. In many instances, the

corrections are so small that they have no effect on the original measurement. Most

importantly, any error in using these charts begins with how values are read from the

logs. Any error may then be compounded through the use of the charts, and may even

be influenced by the thickness of a pencil lead!

When using these charts, also bear in mind that they were constructed for a given set

of environmental conditions. Those conditions are often listed somewhere on the chart.

More robust environmental corrections for conditions other than those that were used to

construct the printed charts can be performed in Reservoir Decision Centers.

Fortunately, "quick-look" log analysis problems at the well-site often do not call for the

use of environmental correction charts. However, a working knowledge of these charts

is important from the standpoint that they provide a graphical means of explaining how

environmental conditions affect logging measurements.

References

Halliburton Energy Services, 1994, Log Interpretation Charts.

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 4

Clean Formation Evaluation

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………. 60

Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………... 60

Typical Approach…………………………………………………………………….……………. 60

Exploratory Wells…………………………………………………………………….……………. 61

Development Wells…………………………………………………………………….………….. 62

Infill Wells…………………………………………………………………….…………………….. 63

References…………………………………………………………………………………………. 67

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

The idea of compiling all of the information necessary for a complete analysis may

seem a bit overwhelming at first glance. This is especially true when one realizes that

calculations are typically performed at intervals of one to one-half foot throughout the

zone or zones of interest. This complex task can result in literally hundreds of data

points, all needing environmental corrections, invasion corrections, cross-plot

determinations, and lithology identification. If evaluated one depth at a time, then this

process could result in maddening hours of tedious calculations or shoddy

interpretations based on misread data points and flailing approximations. The purpose

of this section is to provide the participant with a basic outline of the steps and

procedures of clean formation evaluation, and the order in which these steps should be

accomplished.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

§ recognize the importance of having array of data when making a decision to set

pipe and perforate versus abandon a well.

A complete evaluation of a clean (i.e., shale-free) formation involvs many different and

complex calculations and adopt right techniques suitable to the conditions. Additionally,

there are a variety of assumptions that must be made during this analysis. The number

of steps involved and the order in which the steps should be performed makes it difficult

to remember at times. This section provides guidelines in a frame of an orderly

sequence, which an analysts should accomplish when analyzing a clean formation.

Typical Approach

perform environmental corrections on these data.

Basic Log Interpretation

environmental corrections on these data.

interest.

10. Make a decision on the productive capability of the potential hydrocarbon bearing

zone(s) based on all of the available information.

zone, all of the available information should be considered. Values of water saturation

(S w ) should not be the sole determining factor. Remember that water saturation is not a

reflection of the ratio of water to hydrocarbons that will be produced from the reservoirs.

It is simply the relative proportion of water to hydrocarbons that exists in the pore space

of that reservoir. There are no safe guidelines for determining what constitutes "good"

and "bad" values for water saturation. Consider the log responses and any other

information that might be available to conclude about production ability of the formation.

The choice of logging combinations will depend upon a variety of factors, including:

mud system, formation type, previous knowledge of the reservoir, hole size and

deviation, rig time and cost, equipment availability, and the type of information desired.

The types of log run also strongly depend upon the well type. Exploratory wells typically

require a comprehensive logging program, whereas infill and development wells may

only require basic services.

completion engineers, and geophysicists desire additional information for further

exploration, evaluation, completion of the well and input to other facilities. The use of

computers in formation evaluation and the availability of logging data in a variety of

formats (i.e., LIS, LAS, ACSII) has vastly increased the utilization of data recorded with

comprehensive logging programs.

Exploratory Wells

In exploratory (or "wildcat") wells, very little information, is known about the reservoir.

These situations typically demand a comprehensive logging program to gain

information about subsurface e.g. reservoir porosity, and fluid saturations. In many

cases a sonic log may be necessary for correlation to seismic sections. Formation

tester and sidewall cores may also be necessary to gain better insight into the

formation. All of this information is used to streamline further exploration plan and order

for drilling, completion and production facilities down the line.

Basic Log Interpretation

Typical Logging Suites for Medium-to-Soft Rock, Fresh Mud Exploratory Wells

Induction/Short Guard

§ Spectral Density/Dual Spaced Neutron/Compensated Spectral Gamma

Ray/Microlog

§ Full Wave Sonic

§ Magnetic Resonance Imaging

§ Six Electrode Dipmeter, Electrical Micro Imaging, or Circumferential Acoustic

Scanning Tool-Visualization

§ Formation Tester

§ Sidewall Coring

Typical Logging Suites for Hard Rock or Salt Mud Exploratory Wells

mud salinity marginal)

§ Spectral Density/Dual Spaced Neutron/Compensated Spectral Gamma Ray

§ Full Wave Sonic

§ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (for optimal borehole conditions)

§ Six Electrode Dipmeter, Electrical Micro Imaging, or Circumferential Acoustic

Scanning Tool-Visualization

§ Formation Tester

§ Sidewall Coring

Development Wells

Development wells are those that immediately follow exploratory wells; their purpose

being to "develop" a field that has recently been discovered, and to identify the limits of

the field. Most wells drilled can be classified as development. Although acquisition of

data pertaining to the characteristics of the formation is still a priority, logging suites for

development wells typically are more limited than those for exploratory wells. The

information that is gained may be "correlated" back to the data acquired on the

associated exploratory wells for a better picture of the overall field.

Typical Logging Suites for Medium-to-Soft Rock Fresh Mud Development Wells

Induction/Short Guard

§ Spectral Density/Dual Spaced Neutron

§ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (with increasing development of a discovered field,

MRIL may become the log of choice for gaining information about porosity and fluid

types within a reservoir)

Basic Log Interpretation

§ Sonic Porosity, Formation Tester, Six Electrode Dipmeter, and Sidewall Coring as

required

Typical Logging Suite for Hard Rock or Salt Mud Development Wells

§ Spectral Density/Dual Spaced Neutron/Compensated Spectral Gamma Ray

§ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (for optimal borehole conditions)

§ Sonic Porosity, Formation Tester, Six Electrode Dipmeter, and Sidewall Coring as

required

Infill Wells

In situations where a reservoir has been very well defined, perhaps by the drilling of

numerous wells, the typical logging suite becomes even smaller. Infill wells, or those

drilled to "fill in" the areas between previously drilled development wells, are typically

logged with only very basic services. Magnetic Resonance Imaging has a tremendous

application here because of its ability to gain insight on fluid types, porosity and

permeability with a single tool; something that required multiple tools and possibly

multiple runs in the past. It should be realized that the limited amounts of data typically

gathered during logging of infill wells is generally insufficient for any type of post-

processing analysis applications.

Typical Logging Suite for Medium-to-Soft Rock Fresh Mud Infill Wells

Induction/Short Guard

§ Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Typical Logging Suite for Hard Rock Salt Mud Infill Wells

§ Magnetic Resonance Imaging (for optimal borehole conditions)

§ Sonic Porosity

As is the case with any logging program, the types of logs run must be tailored to the

conditions that exist and the types of information sought. The decision about which logs

to run is typically made well before the field engineer becomes involved; however,

situations may arise during a job in which additional services should be offered to the

customer for their consideration.

Quality of the recorded data should be of the utmost concern to both the field engineer

and the customer. Very expensive decisions about the future of a well are based on log

data, and accurate data are vital to the decision making process and future

success/failure of a well. The first step in any analysis problem should be to scan the

Basic Log Interpretation

logs, searching for any anomalous or otherwise strange looking log responses. All

service companies and many customers have very detailed log quality assurance

programs in place. There are four main areas of concern that should be addressed with

any log quality assurance program.

Depth Control

Depth control is only one of the many vital components of quality data. However, it also

is one of the most difficult to assess. In exploratory situations, some assurance can be

maintained from comparisons of log depth to driller's depth and casing depth, and to

general knowledge of the region's geology. Keep in mind, however, that these are by

no means accurate references. In development and infill situations there is typically

sufficient well control to assess the correctness of depth data for a particular well. Every

effort should be made to insure that proper depth control is practiced on every well.

Many conditions beyond human control may adversely affect the quality of logging data.

The most obvious of these is equipment malfunction. Preventative maintenance

programs are the best way to minimize equipment malfunctions and the possibility of

poor quality logs. Other possible causes of poor data may include: rugose boreholes,

sticking tools, tool rotation, excessive logging speed, deviated wells, poor centralization

or eccentralization, and engineer error. Each of these possibilities should be kept in

mind when assessing the quality of log data. In some instances, it may be necessary to

make another run, perhaps with a different tool string.

Repeatability

Many of the previously mentioned factors affecting quality of a log might also apply to

repeatability. In addition, a repeat may be affected by time-based phenomena such as

changing degree of invasion. Comparing repeated log sections is an important step in

assessing the quality of log data; however, it should not be the only method of quality

control.

Comparison of log readings with known absolute values is seldom possible; however,

this positive check should be performed where it is possible. Known formations

consisting of pure, non-porous lithologies such as halite, anhydrite, or limestone can be

used to verify the accuracy of log readings. Casing may also be used to check the

accuracy of caliper and sonic measurements. Furthermore, logs of offset wells may

provide a ballpark figure of expected values, but these values can vary dramatically

between wells.

Log quality control is the responsibility of the service company performing the logging

job. However, log acceptance should always be determined from the point of view of

the customer. Will he or she be able to obtain accurate and reliable information from the

log? If an affirmative answer to this question is ever in doubt, then making another run

with a different toolstring or pursuing some other alternative should be considered.

Basic Log Interpretation

assessing intervals in terms of their porosity and resistivity, and considering any

permeability indicators presented with the logs. This "visual sifting" of data is usually

accomplished by first considering porosity. If a zone is porous, then there are fluids

present within that zone. Next, resistivity of the zone must be considered. Because

hydrocarbons are electrical insulators, porous zones containing them will have relatively

high resistivities. Porous water-bearing zones, on the other hand, will have relatively

low resistivities. This process is also aided by recognition of the various resistivity

invasion profiles associated with different types of resistivity logs.

Do not hesitate to mark logs or highlight intervals to make them more noticeable. A

practical method of doing this is to use a yellow highlighter pen to color from the middle

of Track 1 left to the Gamma Ray curve. This provides a good visual image of

potentially porous formations; those possibly containing water or hydrocarbons. Where

a Spontaneous Potential curve is present, the process of locating potentially permeable

formations (again, regardless of fluid types contained) is much faster. Those

impermeable zones that lack any SP deflection will be of less interest than those with

deflection. Keep in mind, however, that the SP response is only a qualitative indicator of

formation permeability.

order. The formation temperature (Tf ) of the interval should be determined.

Furthermore, resistivity measures such as Rm and Rmf should be corrected to formation

temperature for the purpose of determining formation water resistivity (Rw ).

Before determining formation water resistivity (Rw ), the lithology of the formation of

interest should be determined. This may be done by quick-look, or by use of one of the

lithology charts. Determination of lithology will assist the analyst in determining the

appropriate values of tortuosity factor (a) and cementation exponent (m) for inverse-

Archie Rw calculations.

log measurement. However, to be more precise in an analysis, the various influences of

borehole and invasion should be corrected before using any log measurement to

determine formation water resistivity (Rw ).

Every reasonable effort should be made to obtain an accurate and valid value of

formation water resistivity (Rw ) from the logs. If the required data is available, then both

the SP method and inverse-Archie method of determining Rw should be pursued. Keep

in mind that determining Rw from log data does not always yield accurate results. When

analyzing any log, the potential for error created by using an impractical value of Rw

should always be considered. Always use the lowest value of determined Rw , within

reason, for obtaining more optimistic values of water saturation (S w ).

qualitatively assessing the porosity and resistivity of zones, and considering

Basic Log Interpretation

permeability indicators. Again, if a zone is porous, then there are fluids present within

that zone. Porous zones containing hydrocarbons will have relatively high resistivities

because of the poor electrical conductivity of those hydrocarbons. As was the case with

water-bearing zones, permeability indicators should also be considered to determine

the priority with which a certain zone will be evaluated.

The most important thing to consider is that the value for formation water resistivity (Rw )

determined in a water-bearing zone must be corrected to the formation temperature (T f)

of the zone in which it is to be used to calculate water saturation (S w). Failing to correct

Rw for temperature at greater depths will result in water saturation values being too

pessimistic (too high). It is therefore possible, and in many cases a potential

hydrocarbon-bearing zone may be overlooked as being wet if Rw is not corrected to

formation temperature. This will, of course, require that formation temperature (Tf ) be

determined for each potential hydrocarbon-bearing zone.

Before calculating water saturation (S w ), the lithology of the formation of interest should

be determined. Again, this may be done by quick-look, or by use of one of the lithology

charts. Knowledge of lithology will determine the appropriate values of tortuosity factor

(a) and cementation exponent (m) for inverse-Archie Rw calculations.

To be more precise, environmental corrections should be applied to any log

measurement before calculating water saturation (S w ).

For clean formations, it is assumed that the Archie equation is applicable. Bear in mind,

however, that there are certain instances (such as when clay minerals are present in a

shaly sand) that alternative methods of calculating water saturation will be more

appropriate. Some of these methods will be discussed in the Shaly Sand Analysis

sections of this text.

The most difficult process in the basic evaluation of a clean formation has now been

reached; the decision of whether to set pipe and perforate or consider abandonment

still hangs. Calculated values of water saturation (S w ) only provide the analyst with

information about what fluids are present in the formation of interest. In many cases,

water saturation is not a reflection of the relative proportions of fluids that may be

produced. Therefore, when making the decision to set pipe or abandon, all available

information should be taken into account.

Water saturation (S w ) should be the basis for this important decision, but other factors

also enter into the decision making process. These factors include: volume of shale

(V sh) of the reservoir, irreducible water saturation (S wirr ) and bulk volume water (BVW),

moveable hydrocarbons, etc.. In many instances, much of the decision revolves around

a "gut feeling"; however, in all cases, there is no substitute for experience in a particular

region when making the choice. Some additional methods that may be used during the

decision making process will be addressed in the Additional Log Interpretation

Techniques section of this text.

Basic Log Interpretation

References

Asquith, G. B., 1982, Basic well log analysis for geologists: American

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 216 p.

Bateman, R. M., 1985, Open-hole log analysis and formation evaluation: IHRDC

Publishers, Boston, MA, 647 p.

Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 361 p.

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 5

Additional Log Interpretation

Techniques

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…………………... 69

Objectives…………………………………………………………………….…………………….. 69

Calculation of Reserves…………………………………………………………………….…….. 76

References…………………………………………………………………….…………………… 78

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

Calculating water saturation, whether by the Archie equation or one of the many shaly

sand equations, is the primary goal of open hole log analysis. This provides an estimate

of the relative proportion of water and hydrocarbons contained in a particular reservoir.

However, interpretation of log data does not necessarily end with a result for water

saturation. There are numerous other basic calculations that may be extremely helpful

in evaluating the productive capability of a reservoir. Analysts would also like to know

whether hydrocarbons within a reservoir are moveable and capable of being produced,

whether water saturation is low enough for water-free production, whether a particular

zone is permeable, and if so, whether there are economical recoverable reserves. This

section introduces some of these additional evaluation methods and illustrates how

they may be used in combination with a basic analysis.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

and estimate whether hydrocarbons were moved during invasion.

§ estimate grain size of a clastic reservoir from bulk volume water (BVW).

§ estimate pore type of a carbonate reservoir from bulk volume water (BVW).

§ calculate in place and recoverable reserves for oil- and gas-bearing reservoirs.

Basic Log Interpretation

One way to investigate the moveability of hydrocarbons is to determine water saturation

of the flushed zone (S xo). This is accomplished by substituting into the Archie equation

those parameters pertaining to the flushed zone.

The only tool that measures an accurate value for resistivity of the flushed zone (Rxo) is

the Micro-Spherically Focused Log (MSFL), and even then its measurement should

only be taken to reflect Rxo after all environmental corrections have been applied. By

environmentally correcting the measurements of shallow resistivity devices such as the

DFL or Short Guard, an estimate of Rxo may be obtained.

Once flushed zone water saturation (S xo) is calculated, it may be compared with the

value for water saturation of the uninvaded zone (S w ) at the same depth to determine

whether or not hydrocarbons were moved from the flushed zone during invasion. If the

value for Sxo is much greater than the value for Sw , then hydrocarbons were likely

moved during invasion, and the reservoir will produce. An easy way of quantifying this

relationship is through the moveable

hydrocarbon index (MHI).

When the moveable hydrocarbon index (MHI) is equal to 1.0 or greater, then this

is an indication that hydrocarbons were not moved from the flushed zone during

invasion of mud filtrate. Empirical studies have resulted in some guidelines that

should be used with caution.

§ sandstones

moveable hydrocarbons indicated if MHI < 0.7

§ carbonates

moveable hydrocarbons indicated if MHI < 0.6

Basic Log Interpretation

Another use of the moveable hydrocarbon index (MHI) equation is to determine water

saturation of the uninvaded zone (S w ) when no porosity logs are available. This is

known as the ratio method, or Rocky Mountain method after the geographic region in

which its use was popularized. The moveable hydrocarbon index (MHI) equation may

be rewritten as follows:

In using the ratio method, we are interested in obtaining a value for water saturation of

the uninvaded zone (S w ). Therefore, we must assume some relationship between Sw

and Sxo so that the Sxo term in the above equation can be eliminated. In most cases

where formations are moderately invaded, the following relationship holds:

By substituting this relationship into the MHI equation above, the following results:

calculated independent of porosity.

Once ratio water saturation (S w r) has been calculated, it may be compared with the

value of Archie water saturation (S w ) at the same depth to gain even more information

on the formation of interest. The following observations--which also should be used with

caution--have been made between ratio water saturation (S w r) and Archie water

saturation (S w ) of the uninvaded zone.

All values (S w , Rt, Rxo, and di) are indicated to be correct, and the assumption of a step

invasion profile is correct.

Rxo may be too low because of very shallow invasion, or Rt may be too high

because of very deep invasion. Furthermore, a transition invasion profile is

Basic Log Interpretation

value.

Rxo may be too high because of the effects of high resistivity adjacent beds, or Rt

may be too low. An annulus invasion profile may be indicated in this situation.

An alternate method of determining a value for formation water resistivity (Rw ) from logs

is the ratio method. This technique is rather easy to use because it eliminates the need

to know porosity and lithology of the wet zone, and the necessity of a Spontaneous

Potential curve. The premise behind this method is the assumption that in a 100%

water saturated zone (S w = 100%), the invaded portion of the well is also 100% water

saturated (S xo = 100%, where Sxo represents flushed zone water saturation). If deep

and shallow resistivities have been invasion corrected to Rt and Rxo, respectively, and if

reliable and accurate Rmf data is available from a full mud press, then a value of

formation water resistivity (Rw ) can be determined.

Values for true formation resistivity (Rt) and flushed zone resistivity (Rxo) must be

determined from the appropriate tornado or butterfly charts for resistivity devices. In

some instances, analysts will take approximate values directly from the logs, realizing

that shallow reading Rxo devices may be dramatically effected by the invasion of mud

filtrate. The only true Rxo device is the Micro-Spherically Focused Log (MSFL). All other

"shallow" resistivity devices will require invasion correction to obtain a reliable value of

Rxo. If reliable values for Rt and Rxo are available and a valid mud test reading of Rmf is

available, then a value for formation water resistivity (Rw ) can be determined. This

resulting value should be compared to other results in an effort to determine which is

reasonable and optimistic.

Basic Log Interpretation

Water saturation simply represents the fraction of porosity in a reservoir that is

occupied by water. In some instances, it may be beneficial to know the fraction of rock

volume that is occupied by water. This is expressed as bulk volume water (BVW).

Bulk volume water has several important applications. Within a particular reservoir,

BVW may be calculated at several depths. Where values for BVW remain constant or

very close to constant throughout a reservoir, this may be taken as an indication that

the reservoir is at or near irreducible water saturation (S w irr). Irreducible water

saturation is the value of water saturation at which all water within the reservoir is either

adsorbed onto grain surfaces or bound within the pore network by capillary pressure. If

a reservoir is at irreducible water saturation, then the water present within that

formation will be immovable and production will--theoretically--be water-free

hydrocarbons. Reservoirs that exhibit variation in values for BVW are typically not at

irreducible water saturation and, therefore, at least some water production can be

expected.

Irreducible water saturation is related to the grain size of a reservoir. As grain size

decreases, the diameters of pore throats within the reservoir will decrease, resulting in

higher capillary pressures. This condition implies a reservoir in which a substantial

amount of water may be trapped and unable to move. Therefore, when a reservoir is

determined to be at irreducible water saturation, values for bulk volume water (BVW)

may be used to estimate the average grain size of that reservoir (Figure 5.1). Realizing

the potential for error, this approximation may also be used in reservoirs that are not at

irreducible water saturation.

Basic Log Interpretation

Bulk volume water (BVW) should not be confused with "bulk volume irreducible" (MBVI)

which is a reservoir parameter determined by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Logging

(MRIL). BVW represents the percentage of rock volume that is water. MBVI, on the

other hand, represents the relative proportion of fluid within the reservoir that is bound

by capillary pressure.

The presence of clay minerals in a reservoir also has an impact on values of irreducible

water saturation (S w irr ) and bulk volume water (BVW). As the volume of clay minerals in

a reservoir (V sh) increases, both Sw irr and BVW will increase because of the inclination

of clay to trap interstitial formation water.

Thus far, permeability has been discussed only in qualitative terms. Microlog and

Spontaneous Potential responses may be used as qualitative indicators of permeability;

however, it is virtually impossible to derive a reliable and accurate value for reservoir

permeability from standard open-hole logging data. Formation tester data may help to

further evaluate permeability, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Logs (MRIL) make

another step in getting closer to an accurate value of permeability.

estimate of permeability can be made. Constant to near-constant values of bulk volume

water (BVW) within a reservoir indicate that reservoir is at (or at least near) irreducible

water saturation. Once this determination is made, logderived permeability may be

calculated. Two of the possible methods are discussed as follows.

Basic Log Interpretation

The constants used in the Wyllie and Rose method (250 and 79) are used to account

for the effects that hydrocarbon density (whether it be medium gravity oil or dry gas)

has on permeability. The use of these constants is one reason why this calculated

value of permeability should be used only as an estimate.

Basic Log Interpretation

Calculation of Reserves

The decision of whether to set pipe and perforate versus abandon a well can be made

easier if there is some estimate of the possible recoverable reserves.Economics are

therefore brought into play in the analysis. A basic part of any evaluation should be to at

least estimate the volume of hydrocarbon that may be produced from a particular well.

Calculation of reserves requires information about the petrophysical characteristics of

the reservoir (e.g., water saturation, porosity), dimensions of the reservoir (e.g.,

drainage acreage, thickness), and production characteristics (e.g., recovery factor,

"shrinkage factor").

Most of the information required for this calculation is readily available from the logs or

from simple calculations. The volumetric constant 7758 refers to the number of barrels

in a 1 acre by 1-foot thick volume. It is very easy to obtain information about reservoir

thickness from logs. However, logs do not give any indication about the drainage area

of a particular reservoir. Unless information regarding the areal extent of a reservoir is

available, then the variable A can be assumed as the allowed well spacing within the

field.

The amount of oil calculated to be in place does not reflect the amount of oil that can be

produced from the reservoir. The percentage of oil that can feasibly be recovered from

the reservoir (i.e., recovery factor) and the shrinkage experienced by oil as it comes to

the surface (i.e., formation volume factor) must also be considered.

Recoverable oil, in stock tank barrels, may be estimated by the following equation:

Basic Log Interpretation

The recovery factor (RF) deals with the fact that not all of the oil present in a formation

is capable of being produced. Oil that is "dead", trapped by capillary pressure, or

otherwise immovable contributes to the volume of oil present in a reservoir, but will not

be produced. This recovery factor depends upon reservoir type, the initial hydrocarbon

saturation of that reservoir, and the production mechanism. For a typical case where a

reservoir is produced by flowing or by pump (primary recovery), it is safe to assume a

recovery factor of 20% to 30% (RF = 0.2 to 0.3). In cases where a reservoir is under

water flood or other secondary recovery methods, a recovery factor of 40% may be

more applicable. Rarely will recovery factors exceed 50%, even in the case of

advanced recovery techniques such as steam or CO2 flood.

As oil moves toward the surface during production, gas will be evolved from solution.

This results in a volumetric difference between the amount of oil in place and the

amount of oil existing in stock tanks at the surface. The variable B ("shrinkage factor" or

formation volume factor) takes this volumetric difference into account. For oil, it is safe

to assume a shrinkage factor of approximately 1.2.

The amount of gas in place in a reservoir (in cubic feet) may be estimated in a similar

manner as with oil, and by the following equation:

The volumetric constant 43560 refers to the number of cubic feet in a 1 acre by 1- foot

thick volume. This equation yields the amount of gas existing in place at formation

temperature (Tf ) and formation pressure (P f ).

As was the case with oil, the amount of gas calculated to be in place does not reflect

the amount of gas that can be produced. The deviation factor (Z) and recovery factor

(RF) account for this volumetric difference, and are employed in the following equation

to estimate recoverable gas:

Basic Log Interpretation

When using the above equation to estimate cubic feet of recoverable gas, it is not

necessary to multiple the results by the conversion factor (CF) to yield cubic feet at

standard temperature and pressure. The conversion factor is an integral part of this

equation. Thus, the result of the equation will be cubic feet of gas at average surficial

conditions (60ºF and 14.7 psi).

References

Asquith, G. B., 1982, Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 216 p.

Bateman, R. M., 1985, Open-hole log analysis and formation evaluation: IHRDC

Publishers, Boston, MA, 647 p.

Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 361 p.

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 6

Shaly Sand Theory

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…………………… 80

Objectives…………………………………………………………………….…………………….. 80

Porosity Response…………………………………………………………………….…………... 87

Sonic Response…………………………………………………………………….……………... 88

Density Response…………………………………………………………………….…………… 88

Neutron Porosity…………………………………………………………………….…………….. 88

Resistivity Response…………………………………………………………………….………... 89

References…………………………………………………………………….…………………… 91

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

To this point the discussion of log analysis has focused on clean formations in which

the Archie equation may be used to evaluate water saturation (S w ) of the uninvaded

zone. What happens to the analysis if the formation of interest is not clean? Suppose,

instead, that the formation contains some amount of "shale," or clay minerals. These

clay minerals will have an effect on particular log responses and, therefore, the analysis

will be in error unless the presence of these clays in accounted for. This is the field of

shaly sand analysis, perhaps one of the most confusing aspects of open hole log

analysis.

This section introduces the theory and need for shaly sand analysis. The application of

specific shaly sand techniques are addressed in the following Shaly Sand Applications

section of this manual.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

§ list the different modes of occurrence of clay minerals and discuss how each may

affect reservoir properties such as porosity and permeability.

§ define the different types of bound water associated with clay minerals/shales.

§ discuss the effects of clay minerals on sonic, density, and neutron porosity.

and how shaly sand analysis "modifies" these results.

Basic Log Interpretation

The presence of clay minerals (i.e., "shale") in a reservoir may either be good or bad in

terms of reservoir quality. Small amounts of clay minerals within the pore space of a

reservoir may, because of the increased surface adhesion and capillary pressures

associated with such small particle sizes, trap interstitial water. The result can be

virtually water-free hydrocarbon production from reservoirs of relatively high calculated

water saturation (S w ). On the other hand, the presence of a large amount of clay may

result in the porosity and permeability of the reservoir being reduced to the point where

the reservoir becomes non-productive. A question, then,emerges how much clay is

present, and what effects does it have on the reservoir (and the logs)?

amount of clay minerals. More commonly, however, clay minerals are found associated

with sandstone reservoirs. Because of this, log analysts typically make reference to the

"shaly sand problem." The presence of clay minerals in a reservoir may seriously affect

some log responses, particularly resistivity and porosity. The end result is an

erroneously high value of water saturation, and in some cases a productive reservoir

may appear to be wet. Field engineers and log analysts should be able to recognize the

effects of clay minerals and be able to correct for their presence to yield more accurate

values of water saturation. This emphasizes the need for "shaly sand analysis."

"Shale," in the most basic of definitions, is a sedimentary rock consisting of both silt-

sized and clay-sized particles that were deposited in a low energy environment. Shale

itself is of little interest in log analysis because it typically is not a reservoir rock.

However, the clay-sized fraction of shale is extremely important because it is these very

fine grained particles that may be found within the pore spaces of a potentially

productive reservoir.

Clay minerals are very fine grained (< 4?m) hydrous aluminum silicates with minor

amounts of potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), and other elements. Clay

minerals may be classified on the basis of their crystalline structures, and each type of

clay mineral has particular properties that may influence wireline logs in different ways

and to different degrees (Figure 6.1).

Basic Log Interpretation

Clay minerals may either be detrital or authigenic in origin. Detrital clay minerals are

those that were deposited in low energy environments as a component of shale. During

the deposition of other sand sediments nearby, these shales may be ripped up and

deposited as laminations, clasts, or even individual grains along with the sand grains.

Authigenic clay minerals, on the other hand, are deposited within the pore space of an

existing reservoir as the result of some chemical reaction.

Both detrital and authigenic clays may influence the productive capability of a reservoir

as well as the log responses within that reservoir. However, authigenic clays tend to

cause the most problems because of their ability to partially restrict or completely block

pore throats. Furthermore, authigenic clays have the ability to trap interstitial formation

water, a trait that may be either good or bad.

In log analysis, the terms "shale" and "clay" are often used interchangeably. This

practice is confusing and should be avoided when possible. Proper reference should be

given to each; however, be aware that "shale"--although it is a rock in its own right--is

often used to refer to minor amounts of clay minerals within a

formation.

For the purpose of log analysis, it is necessary to consider clay minerals in terms of

their morphology, or mode of occurrence. Typically, log analysts use the terms

laminated shale, structural clays, and dispersed clays to refer to the distribution of clay

minerals within a reservoir.

Laminated shale (Figure 6.2) refers to thin layers of clay minerals--from a fraction of an

inch to several inches in thickness--that are interbedded with thin intervals of

sandstone. These clays are detrital in origin, and were deposited at the same time as

the sand grains of the reservoir. The presence of laminated shale tends to reduce the

porosity and permeability of a reservoir, and can be thought of simply as a ductile

material that has been squashed between the framework grains (e.g., sand grains) of a

reservoir.

Shale laminations are typically so thin that they are far below the resolution limits of

wireline tools. They do, however, influence log responses because their petrophysical

properties are averaged in with the rest of the formation. For example, even if an

induction tool cannot resolve an individual shale lamination that is 1 inch thick, the

overall resistivity of that zone will be reduced because of the presence of that shale.

Basic Log Interpretation

Structural clay (Figure 6.2) refers to detrital clay minerals that exist as individual grains,

clasts, or particles along with the framework grains of a reservoir. This type of clay

typically has little impact upon reservoir quality because it does not restrict or block

pore throats. Furthermore, structural clay is usually present in such small quantities that

it is considered to be of little importance. When present, however, structural clays will

have an influence on log responses in a similar manner as that of other clays because

their petrophysical properties are averaged in with the petrophysical properties of the

framework grains.

Dispersed clay (Figure 6.2) refers to very fine grained particles that exist within the pore

space of a reservoir and actually replace fluid volume. These types of clays, because of

their disseminated fibrous and plate-like morphologies, may be very damaging to

reservoir quality. In small amounts, dispersed clays may block pore throats and reduce

effective porosity and permeability. Furthermore, these types of clays can actually

migrate through the pore network of a reservoir causing disastrous completion and

production problems. Dispersed clays are much different than laminated shales and

structural clays in that they are authigenic in origin. These types of clays precipitated in

situ as the result of some chemical reaction. Because of the fact that dispersed clays

Basic Log Interpretation

are capable of trapping large quantities of formation water due to their large surface-to-

volume ratios, their effects on log responses may be quite significant.

One problem with shaly sand analysis is that it is based upon two rather dubious

assumptions. Rarely, if ever, is the type and amount of clays in a reservoir known

before that reservoir is logged. Nothing is known about the clays' chemical

compositions, modes of occurrence, or effects on log responses unless core data is

available. Regardless of what clay types are present, it is necessary to assume that all

clays are equal in the eyes of a log. Laminated shales, structural clays, and dispersed

clays influence log responses to different degrees; however, because of their size, they

are far below the resolution limits of logging tools. Therefore, it is necessary to assume

that the petrophysical properties of a clay measured by a log are simply averaged in

with the rest of the formation.

In addition, because clay minerals are so small and cannot be measured individually by

a log, it is necessary to assume that their petrophysical properties are identical to those

of adjacent shales. For example, the overall resistivity of a formation may be lowered by

the presence of clay. It is impossible to measure the resistivity of that clay mineral with

any logging tool, so it must be assumed that its resistivity is the same as that of a shale

(Rsh) either above or below the formation of interest. This assumption is usually valid

provided there are detrital clays within a reservoir.Laminated shales and structural clays

were likely derived from the shale below the formation or interest, or had a similar

source. However, authigenic clays were derived by some chemical reaction that was

entirely independent of any adjacent shale.

Therefore, when dealing with dispersed clays, the assumption that their properties are

identical to adjacent shales is invalid, but often necessary for lack of core data to prove

otherwise.

Much of the confusion in shaly sand analysis revolves around misconceptions about

what constitutes "bound water" within the reservoir. For a complete understanding of

the problems that logging tools encounter in these formations, it is necessary to

recognize that there are different types of "bound water," and that each type may have

a different degree of influence on log responses.

Clay minerals are hydrated sheet silicates and are very similar in crystalline structure to

mica minerals (i.e., muscovite and biotite). The basic building block of a clay mineral is

the silicon tetrahedron, and these tetrahedra are linked together in layers ("sheets")

several Angstroms thick which are separated by other cations such as K, Mg, Ca, and

Fe.

Figure 6.3 illustrates the crystalline atomic structure of the clay mineral smectite. Bound

within the crystalline structure of smectite are hydroxyl ions (OH-), and within the large

"interlayers" separating tetrahedra sheets there may be H2O molecules along with other

Basic Log Interpretation

cations (Ca, Mg, etc.). These hydroxyl groups and water molecules are part of the

crystalline structure of the clay mineral, and are referred to as structurally bound water.

This is not what is typically thought of in terms of "bound water," but adding hydrated

clay minerals to a reservoir does increase the hydrogen index of the formation because

of these hydroxyl ions and water molecules. This increase in hydrogen abundance will

produce misleading neutron porosity responses.

The typical conception of "bound water" within a shaly sand involves what may be

referred to as capillary bound water and clay bound water. Capillary bound water exists

because of increased capillary pressures in very small diameter pore throats, and may

be a characteristic of both very fine grained clean sandstones as well as shaly

sandstones. Clay bound water, on the other hand, is that water which is bound to the

surface of clay minerals by electrostatic and chemical forces.

Because of ionic substitutions within the crystalline structure of clay minerals (mainly

Mg2+ for Al3+), clay minerals are often left with a net negative charge (Figure 6.3).

Adding to this negative charge are broken chemical bonds along broken crystal edges

of clay platelets. In the dry state, this negative charge is balanced by the attraction of

positively charged Na + counterions to the clay's surface. These Na + counterions

temporarily occupy what are referred to as "exchange sites" on the surface of the clay

minerals, and are capable of exchanging themselves for one another as well as with

other ions on a charge-percharge basis.

When clay minerals exist within a solution such as water, however, these counterions

are allowed to migrate a short distance from the clay's surface because the dielectric

permitivity of that water will weaken the Coulomb forces binding them to the clay. The

counterions will not migrate far from the clay surface because they will still feel the

attractive force of the negatively charged clay crystal.

In their migration away from the clay surface, a tremendous surface area is exposed to

the water in the formation. A thin film of water will adhere to the surface of the clay

mineral because of high surface tension ("adsorbed water"). Additionally, because the

Na+ counterions are now existing within a solution, they will be hydrated by several

Basic Log Interpretation

water molecules. The attractive force of the negatively charged clay mineral that acts to

restrain the free migration of the Na + counterions will therefore bind this additional later

of "water of hydration" to the clay surface. These phenomena of electrostatically and

chemically bound clay bound water are illustrated in Figure 6.4.

clay bound--that causes problems when analyzing a shaly sand using the conventional

Archie approach. The Archie equation treats all water the same, and does not

distinguish between what is bound and what is free to move. Another method of

calculating water saturation is needed in shaly sands.

Archie water saturation (S w a) does not distinguish between bound water and free

water, and treats all water as the same.

Even more confusion in shaly sand analysis revolves around the fact that the effects of

clay minerals in a reservoir are typically not accurately represented on the logs. For

instance, even though authigenic dispersed clays actually reduce the porosity of a

reservoir, sonic and neutron logs exhibit an increase in porosity. Log responses may

reflect a condition entirely different from that actually occurring in the reservoir.

Basic Log Interpretation

Porosity Response

In order to understand how clay minerals influence log responses, it is best to begin

with a model formation consisting of a clean sandstone of given porosity at 100% water

saturation. In such a formation, if porosities are calculated for sandstone, then all

porosities (sonic, density, and neutron) will be equal. Furthermore, all of these

porosities will be equal to the effective porosity of the reservoir. Effective porosity refers

to the pore space that is interconnected, or which is available to free fluid (in this case,

100% water). In this situation, the Archie equation generally holds true and may be

used to calculate a reasonably accurate water saturation of the reservoir.

A possible limitation to using the Archie equation in even a clean sandstone is if the

grain size is so small that a high percentage of the water within the formation is bound

by capillary pressure. Again, the Archie approach does not distinguish between bound

water and free water, and therefore producible water saturation would be

overestimated.

Now consider that same model sandstone formation at 100% water saturation, but in

this case some amount of clay minerals has been added. In this situation, the clay

minerals will occupy a volume that was formerly occupied by fluid (100% water).

Therefore, through the addition of clay minerals the porosity of the reservoir has

decreased. Some fluid in the reservoir (in this case, 100% water) will be "bound" by the

clay minerals and will be immovable. The amount of porosity available to free fluids

(Φ effective) together with the porosity associated with "bound" fluids represents the total

porosity of the reservoir.

By adding clay minerals to the model formation, its total porosity has been reduced.

However, porosity logs may not reflect this decrease in porosity. They may actually

exhibit an increase in porosity (Figure 6.5). Furthermore, each porosity measurement

will be influenced to different degrees by the presence of clay minerals, and some clays

may not have as profound an effect as others. It is vital to understand how each

measurement (sonic, density, and neutron) is influenced, and this requires an

understanding of the physical and chemical properties of clay minerals.

Basic Log Interpretation

Sonic Response

When clay minerals are present in a reservoir, there may be a significant effect on ∆t

measurements. For an individual grain of quartz sand in a clean formation, ∆t of that

grain will be equal to 55.5 µs/ft. When clays are added in a shaly sand situation, ∆t

changes dramatically. The sonic tool "sees" each grain in the reservoir as a grain of

sand (55.5 µs/ft) together with the clay minerals (70 – 140 µs/ft). The overall result is

that the sonic tool "sees" a much higher "averaged" ∆t when clay minerals are present.

Through the Wyllie Time-Average equation, this increase in ∆t translates as an increase

in sonic porosity.

Density Response

Adding clay minerals to a clean sandstone will be correctly reflected on the density log

as a decrease in porosity; however, the absolute value of density porosity is often

misleading. Depending upon the density of the clay mineral present (ρclay ), density

porosity may be underestimated or overestimated when calculated for a sandstone.

The reason for this error lies in the assumption of matrix density (ρma).

In a shaly sand, the actual ρma of the formation will be some volumetric combination of

the density of the clay (ρclay ) and the density of the sand grains (ideally, 2.65 g/cc).

When ρclay > ρsand, then the actual ρma of the formation will be higher than that which we

assume to calculate porosity (i.e., 2.65 g/cc). The resulting porosity will be

underestimated. On the other hand, where ρclay < ρsand, density porosity will be

overestimated because the actual formation ρma will be less than that which was

assumed to calculate porosity. In those instances where ρclay = ρma, there will be no

appreciable effect upon density porosity.

Neutron Porosity

The response of the neutron tool is not as straightforward as that of the sonic and

density tools. By adding clay minerals to the clean formation, the porosity of the

formation is reduced. This translates as a reduction in the amount of pore water. It

follows then that as the amount of water in the formation (i.e., porosity) decreases, the

hydrogen index of the formation will decrease and, as a result, neutron porosity (Φ n) will

also decrease. However, this is not the case.

Neutron porosity actually increases when clay minerals are added to the reservoir. This

results from the fact that clay minerals are hydrated and contain structurally bound

hydroxyl ions (OH-) within their crystalline structure. The neutron tool reflects this

additional hydrogen as an increase in porosity even though the structurally bound water

is not a part of the pore space of the reservoir.

Basic Log Interpretation

Resistivity Response

The presence of clay minerals in a formation also has a strong effect on the measured

resistivity of that formation. Because of the fact that porosity decreases when clay

minerals are added to a clean formation, resistivity might be expected to increase. After

all, when the amount of pore water available to conduct an electrical current decreases

(in this case by the addition of clay minerals), the resistivity of that formation will

increase. However, this is not the case in shaly sands.

The measured resistivity of a shaly sand will, depending on the amount of clay minerals

present, be less than that of a clean formation. This change does not result from a

change in formation water resistivity (Rw ). For a clean sand and shaly sand containing

the same formation water (constant Rw ), the clean sand will still exhibit higher

resistivity. The change results from a specific property of the clay minerals.

The graph in Figure 6.6 illustrates that for two formations of identical porosity and

identical water salinity, one clean and one clay-bearing, the clay-bearing formation will

exhibit a higher conductivity (i.e., lower resistivity). The interesting part of this graph is

the non-linear relationship between shaly sand and clean sand conductivities (C o) at

lower values of formation water conductivity (C w ).

Within the range of low conductivity formation waters, the conductivity of the shaly sand

increases more dramatically than would be predicted by the increase in formation water

conductivity (Ro = Fr ? ?

Rw ; hence, Co = (1/F r) X Cw ). At some point a water salinity is

reached such that there exists a linear relationship between formation conductivity (C o)

and water conductivity (C w ) in both the shaly and clean sands with shaly sand

Basic Log Interpretation

conductivity remaining consistently higher than clean sand conductivity. Because the

only difference between these two formations is the presence of clay minerals, then

those clay minerals must be the source of the excess conductivity (i.e., lower

resistivity).

The dramatic increase in formation conductivity with increasing water conductivity can

be attributed to the mobility of the charge-balancing Na + counterions. As discussed

previously, the dielectric permitivity of the water will allow these exchange counterions

to migrate. Migration of these counterions may take place between exchange sites on

one clay crystal, between exchange sits on separate clay crystals, or through the

formation water. The migration of these counterions produces a potential that

contributes to the conductivity of the formation. The greater the clay content, the greater

the excess conductivity.

As the salinity of the formation water increases, the migrating counterions are provided

with a more energetically feasible path of least resistance. As a result, the conductance

produced by these counterions will increase even more, and the formation conductivity

will continue to increase at a faster rate than does water conductivity. Ultimately, an

equilibrating salinity of formation water will be reached such that a further increase in

salinity will have little effect on the mobility of the counterions. Beyond this value of

salinity, conductivity of the shaly sand will increase linearly with increase in formation

water conductivity. Nevertheless, there remains the condition that for all values of

moderately saline formation waters (as expected in most reservoirs), shaly formations

will exhibit higher conductivities (i.e., lower resistivities) than their clean counterparts

containing waters of identical chemistry.

This added conductance produced by the clay minerals may be quantified in terms of

the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of a particular clay. Clay minerals with high CEC

values (see Figure 6.1) result in lower formation resistivities than those clay minerals

with lower CEC values. Because the ionic concentration of the bound water is

proportional to the volume of clay bound water, CEC may also be used to quantify the

volume of clays within a reservoir. CEC must be determined from core data, however.

Where core data is absent, values of volume of shale (V sh) calculated from log

responses are commonly used as a substitute.

The combined effect of the decreased resistivity and typically increased porosity

exhibited on logs in the presence of clay results in erroneously high values of water

saturation (S w ) calculated by the Archie equation. The purpose of shaly sand analysis is

to correct for these effects and thereby reduce water saturation to what it would be if

clays were absent. Without prior knowledge of the existence of clays in a reservoir, it

must be assumed that clays are present. Thus, any analysis of a reservoir should be

approached from the standpoint that clays are present. If clays are subsequently

determined to be absent, then the analysis may be undertaken by conventional means

(i.e., Archie equation). If, however, clays are present, then modified equations must be

used to evaluate water saturation.

Basic Log Interpretation

The danger in assuming that a reservoir contains clay minerals is that the resulting

value of Archie water saturation (S w ) is expected to be too high. By performing shaly

sand analysis, this value of water saturation is reduced. If a reservoir is falsely assumed

to contain clay, then it is entirely possible to lower the water saturation of a zone to the

point that a water-bearing zone appears to contain hydrocarbons. By the same token, if

the presence of clays is not corrected for, then the resulting water saturation value will

be too high and a potentially productive zone may be bypassed. For these reasons,

shaly sand analysis should be used with caution, and not as a substitute for knowing

everything possible about the formation of interest.

Shaly sand analysis may potentially lower the water saturation of a reservoir to

the point that a wet zone appears to be productive.

References

Asquith, G. B., 1982, Basic well log analysis for geologists: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 216 p.

Asquith, G. B., 1985, Log evaluation of shaly sandstones: a practical guide: American

Association of Petroleum Geologists Continuing Education Course Note Series No. 31,

Tulsa, OK, 59 p.

Bateman, R. M., 1985, Open-hole log analysis and formation evaluation: IHRDC

Publishers, Boston, MA, 647 p.

Clavier, C., G. Coates, and J. Dumanoir, 1977, Theoretical and experimental bases for

the Dual-Water Model for interpretation of shaly sands: Society of Petroleum Engineers

Journal, v. 24, no. 2, p. 153-168, SPE-6859.

Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 361 p.

sands: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, v. 8, no. 2, p. 107-122, SPE-1863-A.

Basic Log Interpretation

Section 7

Shaly Sand Applications

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………………….………………… 93

Objectives…………………………………………………………………….………………….. 93

Procedures of Shaly Sand Analysis…………………………………………………………… 94

Determining Volume of Shale (Vsh) …………………………………………………………… 94

Vsh from Gamma Ray…………………………………………………………………….……… 94

Vsh from Spontaneous Potential………………………………………………………………... 96

Vsh from Neutron-Density Logs…………………………………………………………………. 96

Comparison of Vsh Results…………………………………………………………………….... 97

Determining Effective Porosity (Φ e) …………………………………………………………… 97

Effective Porosity from Sonic Logs……………………………………………………………. 97

Effective Porosity from Density Logs………………………………………………………….. 97

Effective Porosity from Neutron-Density Combinations……………………………………... 97

Determining Effective Water Saturation (Swe) ……………………………………………….. 98

Simandoux Method…………………………………………………………………….………... 99

Fertl Method…………………………………………………………………….………………... 100

Dispersed Clay Method…………………………………………………………………….…… 101

Dual Water Method…………………………………………………………………….………... 102

Selecting the Appropriate Method……………………………………………………………... 105

Simandoux Method…………………………………………………………………….………... 105

Fertl Method…………………………………………………………………….………………... 105

Dispersed Clay Method…………………………………………………………………….…… 105

Dual Water Method…………………………………………………………………….………... 105

References…………………………………………………………………….…………………. 106

Basic Log Interpretation

Introduction

The Archie equation often produces a value of water saturation (S w) that is too high in

formations that contain clay minerals. Where clays are known to be present, the Archie

equation must be modified to yield more favorable results. Therefore, the effective

porosity (Φ effective) and effective water saturation (S we ) of the reservoir must be known.

This section presents several methods whereby these values can be determined from

conventional open hole logging data.

Objectives

After completing this section, the participant should be able to

§ calculate volume of shale (V sh) from a standard suite of open hole logs.

§ calculate effective porosity (Φ e) from a standard suite of open hole logs.

§ calculate effective water saturation (S we ) from a standard suite of open hole logs

using the Simandoux, Fertl, Dispersed Clay, and Dual Water methods.

Basic Log Interpretation

The process of shaly sand analysis consists of three main steps, each of which should

be accomplished in a specific order. These three steps include:

2. Correcting porosity for the presence of clays (determining effective porosity of the

zone of interest).

3. Determining effective water saturation (S we ) of the zone of interest (water

saturation of the effective pore network).

Each of these three processes will be examined in more detail in the paragraphs that

follow. Realize that the overall goal of shaly sand analysis is to essentially lower the

value of water saturation (S w) to what it would be if clay minerals did not exist in the

reservoir.

The first step in shaly sand analysis is to determine the amount of clay minerals present

in the formation. There are many methods that are used to determine this, and several

are discussed below. It should be remembered that these determinations are simply

estimates of the volume, or percentage, of clay minerals within a reservoir, and do not

consider the type of clay present or its distribution.

When the volume of shale (V sh) is determined to be less than 15% of the bulk rock

volume, then it is safe to assume that clay minerals are not having a significant effect

on log responses, and analysis may be pursued by conventional means (i.e., Archie

equation). Where Vsh exceeds 15% bulk rock volume, shaly sand analysis should be

performed to obtain more accurate values of water saturation.

Many types of logs, used either alone or in combination with others, are used to

indicate shale content, although none of them is consistently reliable. Each method

discussed below is designed to give either a good estimation of Vsh in conditions

favorable to the particular tool, or to give an upper limit of V sh.

other radioactive minerals, the volume of shale (V sh) is expressed as a linear function of

the borehole-corrected gamma ray response.

GR = A + N + V sh

This condition is usually not the case, and an alternative method of determining Vsh

must be used. This alternative method requires that the Gamma Ray Index (IGR) be

calculated. By using the Gamma Ray Index as an indicator of clay content, we are

simply normalizing the gamma ray response to estimate the percentage of shale

present in a reservoir.

Basic Log Interpretation

Using Gamma Ray Index (IGR) as a linear expression of Vsh is most suitable for

laminated shales. In this case, the resulting ratio reflects the percentage of clay

minerals contained in the reservoir. Again, when this ratio exceeds 15%, then it should

be assumed that the formation is indeed a shaly sand and that the Archie equation

should be abandoned for a technique that will yield better results of water saturation in

the presence of clay minerals.

Some analysts prefer to use Gamma Ray Index (IGR) as a shale indicator in all types of

shales; however, the relationship between IGR and Vsh becomes non-linear for both

structural clays and dispersed clays. There is a wide variety of non-linear relationships

between GI R and Vsh, but none of these is universally accepted. A summary of these

non-linear relationships is illustrated below.

The choice of which equation to use depends mainly upon local knowledge. Generally

speaking, if the bulk density (? b) of the clean formation did not change as clay minerals

were added, then the linear equation will work. If the addition of clay minerals resulted

in an increase in bulk density, then the Clavier equation should be considered. For

great increases in bulk density, the Steiber equation should be used.

Notice from the previous paragraph that choosing between the Clavier and Steiber

equations requires that bulk density of the clay-bearing formation be referenced back to

the bulk density of that formation if it is considered to be clay-free. This is the same type

of approach used in determining Gamma Ray Index (IGR) itself, but can be a very

difficult and confusing task. Therefore, it is more common for analysts to calculate Vsh

using the Western Atlas equations illustrated below. Typically, Tertiary sands such as

those encountered along the Gulf Coast are unconsolidated. Formations of other ages

may be considered consolidated.

Basic Log Interpretation

the SP response by using the equation below. Though this equation works best for

laminated shales, it is commonly employed where reservoirs contain structural or

dispersed clays as well. Pseudo-SP (PSP) represents the amount of SP deflection in

the zone of interest, whereas Static-SP (SSP) represents the maximum SP deflection in

a clean formation.

When using the SP response to determine Vsh, the limitations of the SP measurement

should be kept in mind. Shaly sands may exhibit extremely suppressed SP responses

where there is very little difference between the SP response in the shaly sand and the

shale baseline. In this situation, the volume of shale (V sh) determined from the SP

method may very easily be overestimated.

use a combination of porosity measurements from neutron and density logs as follows:

Recall that neutron and density responses are both influenced by the presence of clays.

When used in estimating Vsh, neutron and density responses tend toexaggerate the

influence of kaolinite and chlorite. Kaolinite and chlorite have high neutron porosities in

comparison to montmorillonite and illite (Figure 6.1).

When gas is present in a formation, Vsh should not be determined from the neutron-

density method. Gas will not equally affect the neutron and density responses.

Basic Log Interpretation

Comparison of V sh Results

Just like formation water resistivity (Rw), volume of shale (V sh) should be determined

from as many methods as possible, and the lowest resulting value should be used in

subsequent equations for determining effective porosity. Realize that in using these

equations each may yield significantly different values of Vsh depending upon how the

particular tool response is affected by the presence of clay minerals. In majority of

cases, it has been found that the gamma ray method of determine Vsh provides useable

results.

The second step of shaly sand analysis is to determine the effective porosity of the

formation. This is analogous to correcting porosity measurements for the presence of

clay minerals, or determining porosity of the formation if it did not contain clay minerals.

Because clay minerals within a formation represent a volumetric fraction of that

reservoir, the calculated estimation of Vsh will be used to "correct" the measured

porosity. The three most common methods of correcting porosity measurements for the

presence of clay are outlined as follows:

Basic Log Interpretation

Notice that each of the above equations (sonic, density, and neutron-density) simply

subtracts the amount of clay porosity from the amount of total porosity measured by the

log to result in a value of effective porosity (Φ e). Effective porosity is that porosity

available to free fluids in the reservoir. Also, note that each equation relies heavily upon

the assumption that the clay minerals in the formation of interest are identical in

character to the clay minerals in adjacent shales.

There are many different equations by which effective water saturation (S we ) of a clay-

bearing formation may be calculated. Effective water saturation simply refers to the

percentage of effective porosity occupied by water, whereas total water saturation (S wt)

refers to the percentage of total porosity occupied by water.

should only be used if it has been determined that Vsh is greater than 15%. To apply

these techniques in a clean formation is to risk lowering the calculated water saturation

of a zone to the point that a water-bearing zone may appear to be productive.

The choice of which method of shaly sand analysis to apply will rely upon the following:

§ local knowledge

§ the availability of certain logging suites

§ whether or not the distribution of clays (i.e., laminated, structural, dispersed) is

known

The equations involved with each of the different methods of shaly sand analysis were

developed around the logging tools that were available at a particular time. Early

methods of shaly sand analysis used only input from gamma ray, SP, and resistivity

logs.

Just as there has been a transition toward more sophisticated logging tools, so too has

there been a transition toward more complex equations. In some cases, the amount of

calculations required necessitates computers in order to speed the process.

Basic Log Interpretation

With the growing popularity of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) logging, there has

been a renewed interest in shaly sand analysis. Now there is a new and accurate

method of determining the effective porosity (Φ e) of a reservoir. Therefore, in many

instances, the process of determining effective porosity by considering Vsh has been

replaced by an actual log measurement. Because of the growing popularity of these

tools, shaly sand analysis will continue to be an area of interest for years to come.

Figure 7.1 illustrates some shaly sand methods developed for certain logging suites,

and the decades during which these methods were popular. Each method has its

advantages and disadvantages, and most of them are still in use today. Only the most

commonly used methods will be considered for discussion here.

Simandoux Method

One of the most commonly used shaly sand water saturation techniques during the

1970s was the Simandoux Method, and it remains popular even today with service

companies. The Simandoux equation uses input from a typical open hole logging suite:

resistivity, and neutron-density porosity.

Basic Log Interpretation

Combination Neutron-Density porosity correction equations. The most apparent

limitation in using the Simandoux equation lies in the fact that it depends upon the

resistivity of an adjacent shale (Rsh). This implies that the petrophysical properties of the

clay minerals within the formation of interest are identical to those of adjacent shales.

While this may be true in case of laminated shales and structural clays, but is not the

case with authigenic dispersed clays.

Fertl Method

The Fertl Method of calculating effective water saturation in shaly sands also relies only

upon resistivity and neutron-density porosity data.

Basic Log Interpretation

The Fertl Method has two advantages over the Simandoux Method when calculating

effective water saturation (S we ). First of all, the Fertl equation is simpler and easier to

calculate than the Simandoux equation. Furthermore, the Fertl equation does not

require a value for resistivity of an adjacent shale (Rsh). In most instances, the resistivity

of an adjacent shale (Rsh) is usually higher than the resistivity of a shaly sandstone (Rt).

Although the reliance upon adjacent shales has been reduced in using the Fertl

equation, it is still not eliminated because porosity correction algorithms require

measurements taken from adjacent shales.

developed during the 1960s with the advent of density logs, but it remains today a

commonly used technique. Sonic logs "see" dispersed clays within pore fluids as a

slurry, and present porosity as a sum of the volumetric fraction (total porosity, ∆t).

Density logs, on the other hand, "see" only water-filled porosity. The fraction, therefore,

of the clean-sand intergranular pore space that is occupied by clay is defined as the

shaliness factor “q”.

Basic Log Interpretation

Notice that the Dispersed Clay Method does not require a value for resistivity of an

adjacent shale (Rsh) or volume of shale (V sh) within the formation of interest. This is

because the shaliness factor (q) is determined within the shaly sand itself (based on the

different responses of the sonic and density tools), thereby reducing the reliance of the

equation upon adjacent shales. The reduced dependency on the petrophysical

parameters of adjacent shales makes this method convenient for determining effective

water saturation (S we ) in reservoirs that contain dispersed clays.

During the 1980s a transformation occurred in the field of shaly sand analysis in which

analysts attempted to use cation exchange capacity (CEC) rather than volume of shale

(V sh) in determining effect water saturation (S we ). CEC is a much better measure of clay

minerals' compared to Vsh; however, CEC necessitates availability of core data and

laboratory facilities for its measurement..

The commonly used Waxman-Smits model was developed so that CEC could be

implemented in Swe calculations rather than Vsh, but was difficult to use without

laboratory data. As an answer to Waxman-Smit, the Dual Water Method was introduced

as an effective water saturation (S we ) calculation method based on CEC.

The Dual Water Method assumes that pore water is partitioned into both bound water

and free water. Both volumetric fractions of pore water will have their own discrete

values of water saturation (S b, water saturation of bound water; and, Swf, water

saturation of free water). Both of these volumetric fractions of pore water will contribute

to the measured resistivity (or conductivity) of the shaly sand; and therefore, both

components are said to have their own discrete formation water resistivities (Rb and Rw,

respectively).

Figure 7.2. The bound water of resistivity Rb and saturation Sb is closely associated with

the clay minerals that, in this case, lie in pore cavities. This water is considered to be

immovable because of the high surface tensions and capillary pressures associated

with the very fine grained clay minerals. The remainder of the water filling the formation

is free to move. This free water of resistivity Rw occupies effective porosity (Φ e) of the

reservoir and therefore has its own characteristic water saturation (S wt). One advantage

of using this method in conjunction with the MRIL is that now there is a method of

determining effective porosity (Φ e) rather than obtaining this value by correcting

conventional neutron-density and sonic measurements.

Figure 7.2 Partitioning of fluids in Dual Water Method (after Asquith, 1982).

Basic Log Interpretation

Basic Log Interpretation

The Dual Water Method is a very time consuming technique of calculating effective

water saturation (S we ), but it may be desirable in certain situations. Notice that many of

the steps involved are not necessary if MRIL data are available. Therefore, the Dual

Water Method is a desirable choice where MRIL logs are run. In these instances, the

Dual Water Method might also be applied to clean sand where water is bound by

capillary pressure rather than the presence of clay minerals.

Basic Log Interpretation

The choice of which method or equation to use for calculating effective water saturation

(S we ) in a shaly sand can be quite confusing. In some cases, more than one method

may be recommended. In other situations, there may not be a single method that

applies to the particular circumstances. More often than not, the choice of method will

be determined by historically accepted method in the region. In ambiguous situations a

judicial choice must be exercised that resembles testing data.

substitute for experience. The following are some guidelines to follow when deciding

which method to utilize. Realize that it may be favorable to use more than one method,

and then compare the results with actual testing data.

Simandoux Method

§ When clays are dispersed, and resistivity of this dispersed clay is known to be

approximately equal to the resistivity of an adjacent shale (Rsh).

§ When resistivity of the dispersed clay in the reservoir is known by

§ laboratory measurement, or it is assumed that the resistivity of the dispersed clay is

equal to 0.4 times the resistivity of an adjacent shale (Rclay = 0.4 X Rsh).

Fertl Method

§ When Rw > 0.1 Ω-m. In this case, the method must be used with caution. The

equation assumes that Rsh >> Rw, but this may not be the case in shaly sands with

high Rw values.

§ When clays are dispersed, and resistivity of this dispersed clay is known to be

approximately equal to the resistivity of an adjacent shale (Rsh).

§ When resistivity of the dispersed clay in the reservoir is known by laboratory

measurement, or it is assumed that the resistivity of the dispersed clay is equal to

0.4 times the resistivity of an adjacent shale (Rclay = 0.4 X Rsh).

§ When laboratory data on cation exchange capacity of the clays are available.

When dispersed clays are suspected in a reservoir or the distribution of the clays is

unknown, then it is desirable to use either the Dispersed Clay Method or Fertl Method

for calculating effective water saturation (S we ).

Basic Log Interpretation

References

Asquith, G. B., 1982, Basic well log analysis for geologists: American Association of

Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, OK, 216 p.

Asquith, G. B., 1985, Log evaluation of shaly sandstones: a practical guide: American

Association of Petroleum Geologists Continuing Education

Publishers, Boston, MA, 647 p.

Clavier, C., G. Coates, and J. Dumanoir, 1977, Theoretical and experimental bases for

the Dual-Water Model for interpretation of shaly sands: Society of Petroleum Engineers

Journal, v. 24, no. 2, p. 153-168, SPE-6859.

Publishing, Tulsa, OK, 361 p.

sands: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, v. 8, no. 2, p. 107-122, SPE-1863-A.

- Basic Well Log Analysis, 2nd Edition AAPGDiunggah olehElizabeth Johnson
- Basic Well Log InterpretationDiunggah olehQUrnia Wulan Cucur
- Basic Log InterpretationDiunggah olehAkadita
- Interpretation LogDiunggah olehDjibril Idé Alpha
- Geoscientists Guide to PetrophysicsDiunggah olehAlejandro Betancur
- 166487649 Schlumberger Log Interpretation ChartsDiunggah olehice_PL
- Basic Formation EvaluationDiunggah olehisnianto
- Basic Well Log InterpretationDiunggah olehShahnawaz Mustafa
- Reservoir Petrophysics Class NotesDiunggah olehginozky
- Log Interpretation Principles Applications.pdfDiunggah olehأحمد عطيه طلبه
- Petrophysics P.glover (1)Diunggah olehEstefania Rodriguez Tellez
- WELL LOGGING COURSE BOOK.pdfDiunggah olehrahulscribd007
- Petrophysical EngineeringDiunggah olehTwirX
- Formation Evaluation MSc Course Notes Paul GloverDiunggah olehhrcpemex2670
- Well Log InterpretationDiunggah olehDor So
- Intro to PetrophysicsDiunggah olehClifton Posey
- Crain BookDiunggah olehviya7
- well loggingDiunggah olehAbdulsalam Alasmari
- Introduction to Wireline Log Analysis_bakerDiunggah olehYessica Vela Soria
- Schlumberger Log Interpretation ChartDiunggah olehMartha Vinhais Gutierrez
- Training-pertamina Well LoggingDiunggah olehTarek
- Well Log FundamentalsDiunggah olehbrg268
- Wireline Log Quality Control Reference ManualDiunggah olehMohamed Abd El-ma'boud
- Geological Interpretation of Well Logs 2nd Ed m Rider PDF January 21 2012-3-31 Pm 11 4Diunggah olehIplbc BC
- Introduction to Reservoir PetrophysicsDiunggah olehNwonye Chukwunoso
- Theory, Measurement and Interpretation of Well LogsDiunggah olehLi Yawei
- Basic_Well_Logging_DesignDiunggah olehcharlessimo
- Well Log COURSEDiunggah olehvan1van
- Interpretation Well LogDiunggah olehSaurabh Sharma
- Guide to Petrophysical InterpretationDiunggah olehJD JD

- NCSE-2014-VAPA-2Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Completions Module Question Set 3Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Completions Module Question Set 1.pdfDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- 07121-1603c-TH-Design Study Flapper Style SSSV XHPHT Applications-11!01!09 PDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- 11205 3M Ceramic Sand Screens Sales Card Sales Card 9842387 RevC Celum(1)Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- NCSE 2006 Mathematics Paper 2Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Football 1Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- c21462-206_ccr_chp_4-2_well-designDiunggah olehJose Antonio Olvera Jimenez
- DEA Steve Carey 4th 2008Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- bp_08172005Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Well Planning Articles 2013 Compared to 2007 Aapl FormDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Lame Von Mises Formula PaperDiunggah olehLuis Vasapollo
- SPE-177557-MSDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Best foods for men to eat when exercisingDiunggah olehLazurca Marius
- 132055705-All-About-MudDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Taxation1-1Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Subaru XV E-BrochureDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- 2016 PEPFAR Small Grants ProgramDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Uw i Water Sector ProgrammesDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- CWI Engineering CompetenceDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffDiunggah olehNishantKumar
- Mediation Skills for InsurersDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Build Your Own VAWT by David MussellDiunggah olehMr Void
- Completions Module Questions - CM2 - HSE QuestionsDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Completions Module Question Set 1Diunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- BG Dolphin Deep_no ChangeDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- 9-112NZ-msdsDiunggah olehDavide Boreaneze
- Issue Management DocumentDiunggah olehFarisAbbas
- Leak-Off Test ProceduresDiunggah olehS Marius
- Drilling Rig Inspection ManualDiunggah olehdrillinganaco

- High Pressure High TemperatureDiunggah olehTimothy Galle
- Exon Mobile Drilling GuideDiunggah olehRoni Saputra
- Applied Petrophysics WorkflowDiunggah olehOsagie Joachim Philip
- Lithological Determination From LogsDiunggah olehKarar AL-Dahlki
- 52789Diunggah oleh1mmahoney
- MagTrak BrochureDiunggah olehjaloaliniski
- 2Deepwater Subsalt Development GERDiunggah olehgermantl1234
- TerraScopeDiunggah olehdesavinicius
- 01_density.pdfDiunggah olehshoaib akhtar
- BSP PetrophysicsManual v1 0Diunggah olehjeis
- SCALDiunggah olehRahul Pant
- Gas While DrillingDiunggah olehBAS
- Part 15 Slug Dst Mdt IpttDiunggah olehChai Cws
- Geoservices CatalogDiunggah olehAli Chouaya
- Introduction to Formation EvaluationDiunggah olehmourad_Barsoum
- AbrevieriDiunggah olehdaniel_iosif_gl
- Ch1-3Diunggah olehNguyễnTrường
- ADVANCES IN LWD SIGMA MEASUREMENTS AND APPLICATION TO REAL-TIME FORMATION EVALUATION IN CARBONATE RESERVOIRSDiunggah olehLuis Arroyo García
- Well TestingDiunggah olehRahll Raj
- Summer 2013Diunggah olehanima1982
- Extended Abstract_Oil and gasDiunggah olehbruno
- Drilling BooksDiunggah olehEngineer.Koplak
- Https Academics.ddn.Upes.ac.in Upes Components Com Course Report PrintDiunggah olehAntaryami Singh Goondi
- Modling Logs for Horizonthal WellsDiunggah olehAli Chouaya
- NFR.pdfDiunggah olehPaulina Flores
- 10.1.1.164.8779[1]Diunggah olehkiran790
- UBDDiunggah olehschl0m0
- High-Pressure, High-Temperature Well Logging, Perforating and Testing.pdfDiunggah olehWaleed Barakat Maria
- Drilling HydroulicsDiunggah olehLeopard Eyes
- Pressure Regimes.pdfDiunggah olehcatarac19

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.