Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Generalities
The calculation of water saturation is one of the most troublesome aspects of Shaly Sand log
analysis.
Many equations have been developed over the years based on known physical principles or on
empirically derived relationships.
SW can be determined if one or more measurements can be made that are strongly influenced by
the fluid properties.
Resistivity measurements are, by far, the most commonly used measurement to determine SW.
In the very earliest days of well logging, it was recognized that the presence of hydrocarbons was
indicated by anomalously high resistivity in porous intervals.
The presence of clay can suppress resistivity and sometime mask the hydrocarbon effect.
We will review here some of the methods used to calculate SW from resistivity data.
There are two general groups of Water saturation equation commonly used today and both have
strong suites of followers.
Equations by Group
1- Vshale or resistivity model equations (Uses PHIE)
Laminar
Simandoux
Modified Simandoux
Poupon Leveaux
Indonesia
Etc.
Waxman-Smits
Juhasz
Dual Water
Charlebois
etc.
PHIT cannot be measured without calibration with core analysis since the dry clay matrix
points does not exist in nature and is therefor not seen by the logs.
Different laboratory methods to calculate PHIT in clays will give different PHIT for the
same core.
It can take months before sufficient core results are available to determine the actual
PHIT.
Oil companies do not always take cores in the shales and the PHIT from low volume
clays in a sand do not necessarily have the same properties as in the adjacent shales.
Recommendations:
1. In a development field, and provided sufficient core results are available in the zone of
interest only, we recommend the use of a conductivity saturation equation to determine
SWT and SWE
2. Resistivity model equations should preferably be used in all wildcat wells or where
insufficient core results can be used to determine PHIT accurately.
Input Logs:
PHIE
PHIT
VCLAY
Input log should all be environmentally corrected before proceeding here below.
Output curves:
SWE
SWT
Zone parameters:
a1
m1
n1
RW
RCLAY
When a field reaches a peak in one direction, the displacement of the charged ions is set to a
maximum. As the field collapses and then builds in the reverse direction, the ion displacement is
in the opposite direction. At higher frequencies, the distance travelled by an ion between + and
-peaks becomes extremely small. Thus, it can be seen that the conductance in the formation is
due to the ability of charged ions to migrate through the water within the pore spaces.
The presence of hydrocarbon impedes the movement of charged ions.
Many electrical tools measure conductivity but, traditionally, resistivity is recorded on the log.
Thus most equations have been written in terms of resistivity instead of conductivity.
Resistivity is the reciprocal of conductivity. R = 1/C
R = resistivity in Ohm2/m
C = Conductivity in mhos
Resistivity tools measure resistivity as a series circuit
Conductivity tools measure conductivity as parallel circuits.
EQ 1
EQ 2
EQ 3
Rn
EQ 4
Various Shaly Sand models differ in the manner in which the two current paths are defined.
Generally, the formation water in the pore space is treated as one current path and the clay
network is treated as the second current path.
Basics
Archie characterized the conductivity of porous media having a non-conductive matrix as a
function of the porosity and of the conductivity of the saturating fluid.
Archies equation is in the form:
F = a/PHI^m
EQ 5
The conductivity of a clean sand saturated with a conductive brine can be defined as:
Co = CW/F
Where
Co:
PHI: Porosity
a and m are constants
EQ 6
Where electrical current can be conducted by a second path, the above equation becomes invalid.
This condition exists where the matrix is conductive of where a second conductive path exists in
the pore network. Clay provides such a conductive path. Where clays are present, the
conductivity can be expressed as
Co = K * CW/F + X
EQ 7
Where
K Interactive clay function (Unity in many models)
X The additional conductivity due to the presence of clay
Analysis of Eq. 7 will show that, for any given value of X, the magnitude of the shale effect
decreases as the formation water conductivity CW increases.
Thus, where formation waters are very saline, the contribution of the shale term becomes
relatively small.
Conversely, where formation water conductivity is low (formation water is fresh) the
contribution of the shale term is relatively large.
It is then obvious that accurate characterization of the shale term becomes increasingly important
as formation waters become fresher. It is in the brackish and fresh water applications that most
shaly sand analysis models encounter difficulties.
Nearly every shaly sand log analysis model is in basic agreement with EQ 7, however they differ
in the manner in which X and F are derived.
We address here only some of the most commonly used equations.
The V-Shale Models work reasonably well in sands where the water is very saline.
The V-Shale Models fail to account for significant non linear changes in formation
conductivity as a function of conductivity where fluid conductivity is less than a certain critical
value.
However this non-linearity can be overcome using advanced techniques such as the dual clay
resistivity option.
The -Cation Exchange Models are based on the Waxman-Smits or derivatives of it.
The Waxman-Smits and Modified Waxman-Smits equations have much in common and the
question of the value of one relative to the other has sparked lengthy and sometimes bitter
debates.
However, both equations account for non-linear changes in conductivity in the fresh to brackish
water reservoirs. Since they also account for the linear conductivity changes in the saline
reservoirs, they are more acceptable as general Shaly Sand models.
The Waxman-Smits model was the first technique to demonstrate broad application based upon
core and core data from a variety of reservoir conditions.
The Modified Waxman-Smits model was later proposed as a practical application of the lessons
learned from the Waxman-Smits model.
The Waxman Smits model can give better results but must be calibrated against core data which
is not always available. This problem will be discussed in more details further down this
presentation.
ARCHIE
The very earliest research established that for a formation with constant porosity and water
salinity, an increase in resistivity indicated the presence of hydrocarbons. Archie quantified this
relationship as:
SW^n = F * RW /RT
EQ 8a
or
SW^n = F * CT/CW
Where:
F
RW
CT
EQ 8b
RT
SW
Saturation exponent
EQ. 9
Formation Factor F
The key to this relationship is the Formation resistivity factor which is defined in equation 10
F = Ro/RW
Eq 10 or
F = CW / Co
EQ 10b
Where:
Ro Resistivity of the shale free formation 100% saturated with water of resistivity RW
Co Conductivity of the shale free formation 100% saturated with water of conductivity CW
Electrical current will flow through any conductor if there is a difference in voltage across this
conductor. Salt water is a good conductor while Quartz is a good insulator.
Thus, when a potential is applied across a clean-sand (no Clay) with salt-water filling the pore
space, all of the current will flow through the water in the pores.
High porosity sands with large pore throats will flow currents easily (low resistance) but sands
with low porosity will restrict or block off the flow of current (high resistance to currents).
This restriction of the flow path is referred as the tortuosity of sand. More tortuous flow paths
will result in higher resistivity and higher formation resistivity factor.
Water Saturation
In a clean water-wet sand, (SW =1.0) and EQ 8 and 10 become
Ro/RW * RW/RT = 1.0 = Ro/RT or CW/Co * CT/CW = 1.0 = CT/Co
EQ 11
EQ 12
EQ 12 states that the ratio of the resistivity of a wet formation Ro to its resistivity measured
while only partially saturated RT can be related to SW by an exponent n.
Determining Co or Ro from F
We can determine Co or Ro if we know RW or CW and can determine the formation resistivity
factor F from another down-hole measurement.
Fortunately there is a known relationship between F and PHI
F = a/PHI^m
Eq 13
Where
PHI
Porosity
Cementation exponent
Porosity intercept
Eq 14a, b
Figure 1
Figure 1 illustrates the cross plotting of F versus Porosity from core. The value of m is the slope
of the best fit line through the data and a is the intercept where porosity is set to 100%. The value
of m is referred to as the cementation factor or the tortuosity factor because it increases with
the complexity of the current path through the pore network.
Figure 2
Figure 2 illustrates the effect of variation in PHI, m and RW on Ro and F
Saturation exponent n
Having determined F then Ro and having measured RT and PHI we are now ready to determine
SW. This last step requires knowledge of the exponent n.
The value of n is empirically derived and can be estimated either from well logs or core studies.
In practice, n is often used as a fudge factor to satisfy the whims of management if reserves are
a little low.
The exponent n is used to take into account such variables as the electrical properties of the
water/oil interface, the wettability of the matrix and increased current paths.
If the matrix is partially oil wet so that the thin veneer of formation water is interrupted, (see
Figure 3) then n can be significantly altered. Figure 4 shows the effect or varying n on the
final SW.
Figure 3
Figure 4
The saturation exponent n can be estimated from core analysis.
Once the core porosity has been measured, it is saturated with a brine of known resistivity.
The resistivity of the fully brine saturated core sample is then measured.
Some of the fluid is then removed and the resistivity again measured.
The amount of fluid removed is carefully measured so that the partial saturation can be
calculated.
After several repetitions the measured data are plotted as in figure 4.The slope of the line is the
saturation exponent n.
Several samples representing a wide range of porosities and facies type for a particular reservoir
should be so measured in order to obtain a statistically significant value of n.
A separate n for each facies should be expected for most shaly sand reservoirs.
Waxman Smits
Hill and Milburn (1950) established the relationship of cation exchange capacity CEC and the
suppression of resistivity on water bearing shaly sands.
Waxman and Smits (1967) refined the relationship propose by Hill and Milburn and presented a
general equation for SW which required CEC data for core analysis.
Waxman and Thomas (1974) expanded the model with explanations of the influence of partial
saturation by hydrocarbons and of the influence of temperature on the resistivity of shaly sands.
Koerperich (1975) focused on the application of the Waxman-Smits model to solve for SW in
reservoirs containing fresh and brackish water.
Juhasz (1979) ties the various Waxman-Smits concepts together with modern logging
measurements to illustrate the use of the Waxman-Smits model to derive SW directly from logs.
Eq 15
Because the equation treats the two conductance paths as a mixture having a common F, SW
cannot be solved in terms of the resistivity index.
Instead, SW must be included in the body of the equation to balance the mixture relationship.
Thus the Waxman-Smits equation can be written in the familiar form:
CT = CW * SW^n1 /F1 + B * QV*Sw^(n1-1)/F1
Eq 16
Figure 5
Figure 5 is a plot of the relationship of the conductivity of a water saturated rock as a function of
the conductivity of the saturating fluid.
The solid line shows a typical shale response.
The slope of the line is the formation resistivity factor F
At higher conductivities the relationship is linear.
At lower fluid resistivity (Fresh water) the relationship is non-linear and any slight increase in
fluid conductivity results in a sharp increase in rock conductivity.
Eq 17a
or
SW^n1 = F1*CT / (CW * (1.0 + B * QV /(CW * SW)))
Eq 17b
The term QV
QV is expressed as cation concentration per unit volume of fluid in the pore space. (Equivalents
per litre or meq/m)
QV is derived from laboratory measurements of the cation exchange capacity of the rock (CEC)
CEC is expressed as milli-equivalents per gram of sample.
To determine QV, CEC must be corrected for density and porosity by the relationship:
QV = CEC * RHOMA * (1.0-PHIT) / PHIT
EQ 18
Where
PHIT
EQ 19
Where
PHIT Total Porosity which includes clay associated water
Aq Constant: Default = 0.0029
Bq Exponent: Default = -3.0590
This is the value of QV used by PETROLOG when an external QV is not supplied as an input
curve.
This relationship was used in the North Sea initially however can be modified for other locations.
The term B
B quantifies the conductance of the clay exchange cation as a specific temperature and a specific
cation concentration.
Juhasz (1981) published the expression linking B with Salinity and temperature as:
B = (-1.28 + 0.225 * T - 0.0004059 * T^2) / (1.0+RW*0.045* T - 0.27) EQ 20
Where
B
Is expressed in mho.m-1/meq.cm-3
Temperature in DegC
EQ 21
Where
F Formation resistivity factor from a single measurement of CW/Co
F1 Waxman-Smits Formation resistivity factor
The values of B and QV used in EQ 21 should be determined from the same core at the same
temperature that was used to measure F in the laboratory.
The terms a1, m1 (Waxman-Smits intercept and cementation exponent)
Once a few F1 have been calculated using cores with different porosities, the values of a1 and
m1 can be determined using the same conventional method to determine a and n. See figure 1.
The porosity values used to determine a1 and m1 are total porosity PHIT which must be
obtained by a dehumidified core analysis procedure.
The terms n1 (Waxman-Smits saturation exponent)
n1 should be measured with high conductivity water.
The practice is to saturate a core with 100% brine (SW=1.0) and then remove gradually a
percentage of the brine for partial saturations. See "Saturation Exponent" above.
Note that if RW = Rwb, the equation becomes a simple Archie formula since X = 0
Charlebois Equation
This is an alternative equation to the Waxman-Smits that computes the conductivity of the bound
water in relation to the volume of clay.
This is a dual water model that calculates RW1 as a function of the proportion of clay bound
water Rwb and formation water RW. This equation will give best results when the Rwa-vs GR
points fall on a relatively straight line in a water bearing interval. Rwa is plotted on a logarithmic
scale.
Figure 5
Rwa is computed using the PHIT apparent from the Density Neutron X-Plot assuming that SW=
1.0 and using the Archie equation
SWT = F * RW/RT = 1.0 with F = a/PHIT^n
From these two equations we then get
Rwa = (PHIT^n)/(a * RT)
The blue line in figure 1 starts at (GRclean, RW)and ends at (GRclay, Rwb)and represents the
100% water saturation line.
TABLE 1
They also report that the counter ion equivalent conductance for calcium ion (Ca) is 0.54 that for
Na+.
From this, one may conclude that B for low salinity clay water systems where calcium is the
predominant cation may be predicted by a partitioning equation based upon the sodium and
calcium content of the water. However this is not stated in their papers.
They do present an empirical method of deriving Bmax for non sodium cations.
- The slope and intercept of the Co/CW plot are determined by The Waxman-Smith multiple
salinity; method using the non sodium brine.(e.g. CaCl)
- If QV is measured independently, then Bmax for calcium can be derived from the B * QV
intercept
EQ 22
Where
PHIT:
Average CEC for clay minerals known to be in the formation. (For 100% clay of
VCLD:
EQ 23
Where
PHIN:
PHID:
Density porosity
HICLD
Hydrogen index of the average dry clay mineral mixture in the formation.
TABLE 2
Table 2 is a typical table with the hydrogen index for the major clay minerals
TABLE 3
TABLE 4
Table 3 an 4 lists a few saturation equations expressed with resistivity input
TABLE 5
TABLE 6
Table 5 an 6 lists a few saturation equations expressed with conductivity input
References:
G.E. Archie 1942 The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir
characteristics Trans AIMI 146 54-62
Paul. E. Worthington: The Evolution of Shaly-Sand Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation, The
Log Analyst, Jan-Feb 1985
Charles R. Berg: Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in
Shaly Sands, The Log Analyst May-Jun 1996
I. Juhasz: The Central Role of Qv and Formation Water Salinity in the evaluation of Shaly
Formations., The Log Analyst Jul-Aug 1979
D.I. Gravestock Behaviour of Waxman-Smits Parameter B in High Rw, High Temperature
Reservoirs, The Log Analyst, Sep-Oct 1991
H. Crocker K. Kutan: Log Interpretation in the Malay Basin , SPWLA 25th Annual logging
symposium July 8-11 1980
E. C. Thomas: Determination of Qv from membrane Potential measurements on Shaly Sands,
SPE AIME Sept 1986
Fertl W.H. and Hammack: G.W> 1971 A comparative look at water saturation computations in
shaly pay sands, Trans SPWLA 12th Annual Logging Symposium R1-17
Figure 6
Figure 6 shows the pseudo log with the GR from 20 to 120 API in track 1.
RT and the compute Rwa are in track 3
PHIT = 0.35 is in track 4.
Figure 7
Figure 7 is the Rwa vs GR Z=Plot with the Vclay, Vsand PHIE and SW shown on he right hand
track.
Figure 8 - 8a
Figure 8 shows the SW computed using the Indonesia equation. The 100% is fine at Vclay = 0.0
however this equation add oil due to the presence of clays. There are insufficient corrections due
to the presence of high resistivity clays in this example.
Figure 8A shows the SW results using the Laminar equation. SW is over corrected in this case.
Figure 98, 9a
Figure 9 shows SW computed using the Simandoux equation
Figure 9a shows SW computed using the Fertl & Hammack equation
Figure 10
Figure 10 shows the Modified Waxman Smit SW equation results
Figure 10a shows the Waxman Smits results using a, m, n and F1 instead of a1, m1, n1 and F1.
High resistivity clays can appear as oil if the BQV is incorrectly calculated.
Figure 11
Figure 11.0 shows the SW computed using the Charlebois equation. It gives the perfect fit since
this equation has been designed for logs that displays a typical Rwa vs GR as shown in figures 5
and 6
Figure 12
Figure 12 shows the different SW calculated in an example where PHIT = 0.316 and RT = 10
Using a = 1, m = 2 and n = 2 we get in the clean sand:
With Rw = 0.01 we get:
PHIT = PHIT = 0.316 and F = 1.0 / (0.316^2) = 10.0
SW = SQRT ( F* RW /RT) = 0.10
Ass saturation equations give similar results where Vclay < 30%.