SPE 70040

Log Evaluation of Low - Resistivity Sandstone Reservoirs

G.M. Hamada, SPE, M.N.J. Al-Awad and M.S. Almalik, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia

Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference held in Midland, Texas, 1516 May 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the
written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
A careful examination of the mud log and sidewall cores in certain
interval of hydrocarbon anomaly, dry oil from low resistivity sands
was surprisingly discoverded and confirmed afterward by well
testing results. The problem with these sands is that the resistivity
logs indicate high water saturation, but water free hydrocarbon will
be produced.
This paper discusses the different reasons sandstone reservoirs
can have low resistivity. The mechanisms resposibles for low
resistivity phenomenon are described as being caused by the
inclusion of clay or pyrite minerals and as being due to
microporosity. Clean bearing sandstone has high resistivity, but
when this rock contains clay, or heavy minerals such as pyrite, the
resistivity can become low. Pyrite shows a good electrical
conductivity, that is usually comparable to or even higher than the
conductivity of formation water, and can therefore have a larger
effect than shale. In this work, different shaly sand models will be
discussed and applied in two field examples to correct the
calculated water saturation from shale effect to get the true water
saturation level. The contribution of NMR log in solving problems
of low resistivity
microporisity sandstone reservoirs was
iluustrated by a third field example.
Introduction
The reasons for low resistivity phenomenon are classified mainly
into two groups. The first consists of reservoirs where the actual
water saturation can be high, but water free hydrocarbons are
produced. The mechanism responsible for the high water
saturation is usually described as being caused by microporosity.
The second group consists of reservoirs where the calculated
water saturation is higher than the true water saturation. The
mechanism responsible for the high water saturation is described as
being caused by the presence of conductive minerals such as clay

minerals and pyrite in a clean reservoir rock. The

resistivity data must be corrected for the effect of these
conductive minerals to reduce the calculated water
saturation to the more reasonable levels associated with
water free hydrocarbon production. High surface areas of
certain inclusions e.g. clay minerals can cause high water
saturation , although other mechanisms described as high
capillarity can bind large amounts of water. In sandstones,
high capillarity may be due to the existence of high to
moderate surface clay minerals such as kaolinite or illite.
In carbonates, high capillarity may be attributed to
microporosity caused by recrstallization, dolomitization
or oolites that creates seconday porosity.1,2
Most formations logged for potential oil or gas
production consist of rocks which without fluids would
not conduct an electrical current. There are two types of
rock conductivity: a) Electrolytic conductivity which is a
property of for instance water containing dissolved salts
and b) Electronic conductivity which is a property of
solids such as Graphite and metal Sulfides such as Pyrite.
Pyrite is a common heavy mineral associated with
marine sedimentary rocks. It has a good electrical
conductivity that is usually comparable to, or even higher
than the conductivity of the formation water. The crystals
of pyrite may form a continuous network even at low
pyrite concentrations. Measured resistivity on dry pyrite
ranges between 0.03 and 0.8 ( m. Pyrite's conduction is of
metallic (electronic) nature and consequently any transfer
of current between water and pyrites is based on
conversion from ionic to electronic conduction and vise
versa. This lead to polarization at the water-pyrite
interfaces with the corresponding frequency dependent
electrical properties. Thus the electrical properties of
porous rocks with pyrites are strongly dependent on the
amount and distribution of pyrite and the frequency of the
measuring the electrical current. The main problem with
minerals such as pyrite is how to estimate their volume
and the distribution from well logs.3,4
The conductive properties of clean reservoir rocks are of
electrolytic origin. The presence of brine alone or mixed
with hydrocarbons in the pore spaces will allow the
passage of the electrical current. The water phase must of
course be continuous in order to contribute to the rock

G.M. HAMADA, M.N.J. AL-AWAD, M.S.ALMALIK

conductivity. Dry minerals, with the exceptions of Pyrite,

Hematite, Graphite and a few others, have extremely high
resistivities. Certain minerals appear to be solid conductors, clay
minerals are an example.5,6
The problem of low resistivity reservoir is not one of being able
to locate the presence of hydrocarbons, but it is how to predict that
little or no water will be produced even though resisivity log
analyses monitor that the foramtion has high water saturation. This
paper deals with the case of low resistivity pay zone incurred by
the occurrence of clay minerals and Pyrite. Fieldexamples will be
provided to show how to deal with this problem. For the case of
low resistivity due to micoporosity, resistivity logs fail evaluate it,
so, it is useful to use the promising NMR logging technique to
more accurately determine the required petrophysical properties.7
Clay Mineral Types
There are several clay minerals classified according to the
thickness of the platelets or the spacing of the crystals lattice. Most
clay minerals consist of platelets of alumina-octahedron and silicatetrahedron lattices as shown in Fig. 1. There is usually an excess
of negative electrical charge within clay platelets.
Clay found in sedimentary series usually include several mineral
types and may be mixed with silts and carbonates in varying
proportions. Their pore space will depend on the arrangement of
the particles and on the degree of compaction of the rock. These
pores generally contain water but it is quite possible to find solid or
liquid hydrocarbons or gases in them. Hence it is well known that
the log response to a clay depends on its composition, porosity and
hydrocarbon content.
Resistivity of Clays
Clays are composed of thin sheet like crstal structures , which
have a large surface depending on the clay mineral type as depicted
in Fig. 1. The observed deficiency of the electrical charge within
the clay sheet must be compensated to maintain the electrical
neutrality of the clay structure. The compensating agents are
positive ions (cations or counter ions) which cling to the surface of
the clay sheets. The amount of these compensating ions constitutes
the Cation Exchange Capacity which is commonly referred to as
the CEC ( meq/ 100 g dry rock) or Qv ( meq/ cm3 total pore
volume). CEC is related to the specific surface area of a clay
mineral. It has its lowest value in kaolinite and its highest values in
montmorillonite and vermiculite. When the clay particles are
immersed in water the coulomb forces holding these positive ions
are reduced by the dielectric properties of water. Part of the
counter ions leave the clay surface and move relatively free in a
layer of water close to the crystal surface and contribute to the
conductivity of the rock. The thickness of this conductive layer
expands as the salinity of the solution decreases and the
conductivity of clay is proportional to the volume of the counter
ions exclusion layer.
The conductivity of clayey sediment is thus the sum of two
terms: a) One associated with free water or the water filled porosity
and b) The other associated with the CEC. This can be expressed in
another way: a clayey sediment has a conductivity which depends
on its effective porosity on one hand and on the effective
conductivity of the water it contains on the other.3,5,6

SPE 70040

Shale Models and Water Saturation

The effect of clays on the conductivity of Mastic
sediments is the subject of several petrophysical models
as concisely reviewed by Worthington (1985). It is well
known that the dispersive dielectric behavior of shaly
sands is strongly controlled by the geometry and surface
area of the solid grains as well as by electrochemical
processes acting on the interfaces between clays and
aqueous electrolyte.5,8,9
The resistivity of a shaly formation will depend on the
shale type, the shale volume and the mode of distribution
in the rock. Ref.(10) proposed that decreased resistivity
caused by the dispersed clays can be associated with the
matrix instead of the bound water. Inherent in this
assumption is that formation water resistivity Rw, in the
sand pore spaces is the same as the Rw of the bulk of the
water in the clay pore spaces. Berg assumption might
seem unusual to some , but it is justified for several
reasons. Clay , although relatively impermeable to oil
and gas, has permeability with respect to water, and over
geologic time the water in clay and sand pore spaces
should equilibrate. In addition the amount of excess
conductivity should be directly dependent on the amount
of clay cations, which, in turn, is directly dependent on
the amount of clay. Therefore anomalous resistivity
caused by the clay counterions can be treated as a surface
effect associated with the clay grains and the bound water
can be treated as the far water.3
In the last years, a considerable number of shaly sand
models relating resistivity to water saturation have been
proposed, for details of algorithms for shale sand models
see some references ( 11-22). All these models are
composed of two terms, a clean sand term described
generally by Archie's equation and a shale term. The shale
term could be fairly simple or very complicated. All
models return to Archie' formula when the volume shale
becomes zero. For low shale volume, it is not really
recommended to run for any of these models unless very
accurate water saturation values are required.
Modes of Shale Distribution
Log analysts customarily distinguish three modes of shale
distribution. Each mode has a different effect on the
resistivity, spontaneous potential, porosity logs ,
radioactivity, permeability and water saturation.
Laminated Shales These are thin beds or streaks of
shale deposited between layers of reservoir rock ( sand,
limestone, etc). Shales do not alter the effective porosity,
saturation or permeability of each intermediate reservoir
layer, provided they do not form lateral permeability
barriers. They do, of course, impede vertical permeability
between porous beds. Laminar shales can be considered to
have the same properties as neighboring thick shale beds,
since they have been subjected to the same conditions of
compaction.

SPE 70040

LOG EVALUATION OF LOW-RESISTIVITY SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

Dispersed Shales Shales of this category adhere to the rock

grains, either coating them or partially filling the pore spaces.
Shaly sands with dispersed clays exhibit different properties from
laminar shales, being subjected to different constraints. Dispersed
shale in the pores markedly reduce the permeability, firstly
because the space available for fluid movement in the pores and
channels is now restricted and secondly because the wettability of
the clay with respect to water is generally higher than that of
quartz. The consequences are an increase in water saturation and a
reduction in fluid mobility.
Structural Shales Structural shales are shale grains forming
part of the solid matrix along with quartz and other grains. They
are considered to have many characteristics in common with
laminar shales and nearby massive shales since they have been
subjected to similar diagnostic depositional constraints. However,
their effects on permeability and resistivity resemble more closely
those of dispersed clays.

Effective-Medium Resistivity Model

Ref.(10)
proposed that rock matrix and hydrocarbons can be
treated together as a dispersive phase in a continuous
phase of water. The matrix grains are definitely connected
whereas the hydrocarbons can be but is not necessarily are
connected. The connectivines, however, probably does
not matter because the more resistive dispersed elements
react passively to current flow in the more conductive
water. The relationship between those elements can be0
treated as resistors in parallel, which mathematically is a
volumetric weighted average of conductivities. To derive
the water saturation equation it was necessary to associate
the matrix and hydrocarbon. The easiest part of setting up
the equation is the association of water saturation weith
porosity. Ref.(10) has adapted the Hanai- Bruggeman
(HB) equation for rocks. Such adaptation of HB equation
results in the following expression.

Shaly Sand Water Saturation Models

Total Shale Model Ref. (21) and Ref.(22) Have shown that in
some cases it is possible to use the following equation to calculate
water saturation, independently of the distribution of shale:

Sw . = (Rw/Rt)1/m. (Rt - Rd / Rw - Rd)

and
Rd = (Rr / (1- )) . (1-Sw . )

Sw =[ aRw/(2 Rt+(aRwVsh/22Rsh)2]0.5-(aRwVsh/22Rsh)

(1)

where Vsh is for total shale volume and Rsh is taken as the
resistivity of the adjacent
shale bed.
The above equation has been widely accepted and applied in
many areas including Nigeria, Argentina, Egypt, USA and Libya.
One limitation is that the porosity exponent is taken as 2 and the
value of aRw has to be accurately identified. To overcome this
limitation, we introduce the both cementation exponent m and
saturation exponent n as variables and rewrite equation 1. The
modified total shale equation will be found in the analysis of field
example 2.
Patchett and Rausch Model The Patchett and Rausch (1967)
model,12 can be written
as:
Swn = (aRwRmf / Rtm ( RmfRw) Ash

(2)

Ash = 1 - 10-SP/(60+0.1333T)

(3)

where T is formation temperature in oF and SP is spontaneous

potential. Equation 2 can
be rewritten as:
LogRt/Ash=- mlog + log aRmfRw/(Rmf-Rw)-nlogSw

(4)

Equation 4 indicates that cross plot of Rt/Ash versus ( on log - log

paper) should result in a straight line with a slope equal to -m,
provided that a, Rw, Rmf and Sw are constants. The intercept at
100% porosity equals to a Rmf Rw /( Rmf - Rw ) .

(5)
(6)

where Sw is the whole rock saturation , Rt is the partially

saturated whole rock resistivity, Rd is the dispersed phase
resistivity ( matrix and hydrocarbon ) and Rr, is the matrix
resistivity. We now substitute Rd in Equation 5 by the
expression of equation 6, to obtain the following water
saturation equation
Sw = [-B-(B2 + 4.H.Rm.(Rt - Rm)0.5 ] / (2 Rm)

(7)

where:
H = (Rw/Rt )1/m
Rm = Rr / (1- ) and
B = Rw - Rm (H+1)
There are only five input parameters ( Rw, Rt, , m and
Rr ) needed for calculating water saturation Sw .
Therefore, the calculations needed for obtaining the
saturation will be as good as the degree of certainty of m
and Rr values, since Rw, Rt , m and are usually known.
In fact, the effective medium model uses the same input
as the dual water model. As in the dual water model, it
may be possible to refine the model by crossploting
techniques or by improving calculation of input variables.
The desirability of this theoretical model in general is
that as long as the original assumptions apply to the
phenomena being studied, they should accurately describe
those phenomena. Theoretical assumptions are usually
stated explicitly, while the restrictions imposed by
empirical models may not readily be apparent. The
accuracy of an empirical model may decline when
conditions differ from the conditions under which the
model is derived.

G.M. HAMADA, M.N.J. AL-AWAD, M.S.ALMALIK

Field Examples
Field Example 1
This is an example of a low resistivity pay zone from tertiary
sandstones, Fig. 3 The well was drilled with oil base mud and thus
there is no short normal or SP. Water saturation in the same
interval was calculated using two shaly sand models; simplified
shaly sand model and compltete shaly sand model.
Simplified Shaly Sand Interpretation In this model we use the
average value of neutron density log readings. Rt values in
Archie's formula. Formation water resistivity Rw is calculated from
the clean water sand where Rt = 0.19 .m ( zone interval 1029010330 ft ) and it equals to 0.017 .m. From induction log data Rt
values are for zone A = 6.7 .m and for zone B = 2.9 .m. Shaly
corrected porosity for zone A was 0 .23 and for zone B was 0.19.
Water saturation value was then derived using Archie's formula for
the two zones A and B. It is found that Sw = 21.9 % for zone A and
Sw = 40.3 % for zone B, Table 1.
Complete Shaly Sand Interpretation In this model we will use
the following equation of Fertl and Hammack.
Sw=(FRw/Rt)0.5-VshRw/0.4Rsh

SPE 70040

and
Btsh = a Rw Vtsh / 2m Rtsh

(11)

For clean formation Btsh becomes zero and Atsh is being

unity. Btsh decreases with Vsh while Atsh is increasing with
the Vsh. For shale layer, Rt in Eq. 10 will equal to Rsh .
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Equation 9, we get
the following Equation.
Log Rt / Atsh = -m Log + Log (aRw) - nLog Sw

(12)

Equation (12) indicates that a log - log plot of Rt / Atsh

versus should be straight line with slope of - m,
providing that aRw and Sw are constants . Resistivity
index for shaly formation is calculated using the
following form.
Itsh = (Rt / Atsh)h / ( Ro / Atsh)w

(13)

(8)
and water saturation Sw is derived from the relation

where 0.4 Rsh is clay resistivity correspond to the adjacent shale

layer and is the porosity corrected for shale volume
For the same two zones A and B, shale volume Vsh was
calculated, for zone A was
14 % and for zone B was 34 %. Shale values for the model were
taken from the adjacent shale layer ( 10180-10200), Rsh = 0.91
.m, dsh = 0.08 and nsh = 0.33. Using Fertl and Hammack model,
the water saturation was calculated for the two zones and equals to
19.1 % for zone A and 31.9 % for zone B, Table 1.
The calculated water saturation values are relatively close from
the two approaches for zone A. In fact, in the case of low shale
volume, the use of Archie's formula is advisable before spending
time and effort on any shaly sand model. While in zone B which is
shaly sand there is a significant difference between the simplified
and more complete shale sand model.
Field Example 2
This example is taken from a shaly sandstone formation with low
resistivity. This well has been discussed and evaluated previously (
Aguilera 1990) using one of the shale sand modeling technique
developed by Schlumberger. Fig. 4 shows SP, resistivity, neutron
and density logs. In this example total shale model ( Equation 1 )
was used after modification for the evaluation. Modified total
shale model was developed to considerde a, n and m constants
together with the shale terms. Humble formula constants were
selected which were a = 0.62 and m = 2.15 and saturation exponent
n was taken as 2. Equation 1 was modified to include shale term
Atsh and Btsh to the following forms:
Rt/Atsh=aRw-mS-nw

(9)

The total shale group Atsh is given by

Atsh = 1+ mRt / a Rw [(2B2tsh - 2Btsh (aRw / (mRt + B2 tsh)0.5] (10)

Sw = I-1/ntsh

(14)

From the log-log plot, it is also possible to calculate Sw

with the use of the Equation.
(15)
Sw = ( w / h)m/n
where w is the porosity reading on 100% water saturation
line of Picket ( 1973) cross plot,23 and h is the porosity
of the hydrocarbon bearing interval. Table 2 shows the
values of Rt, ,Vtsh as reported by Schlumberger. Also
shown are values of Atsh, Btsh and Itsh values as calculated
by equations (10), (11) and (13) respectively. The last
column includes values of Rt / Atsh that are cross plotted
against ( on a log-log coordinate, Fig. 5. The slope of
straight line through points 4 and 5 gives m = 2,15 the
intersection of the porosity axis at 100 % porosity gives a
= 0.62. This validates the assumed values. If the straight
line did not go through points 4 and 5, new values of a
and m could be assumed for new try. Water saturation
was calculated using equations (18) and (19). In this
calculation. We have used Rw = 0.17 .m, Ro = 1.29
.m, Rtsh = 1.19 .m, a = 0.62, m = 2.15 and n = 2. Table
3 shows water saturation values from Archie's equation,
Schlumberger program ( Saraband, Coriband) and from
equations (14 and 15).
The difference between water saturation values derived
from Archie's formula and other shaly sand equations
indicates the importance of using a shale sand model for
this example. Also It is obvious that there is not really a
difference between Schlumberger values and picket cross
plot values. Picket plot of modified total shale equation
(12), does not need previous knowledge of m and aRw.
Based on the points pattern shown on the cross plot, these

SPE 70040

LOG EVALUATION OF LOW-RESISTIVITY SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

parameters can be determined by trial and error. But it needs the

existence of near by water section
Field Example3
This example has been taken from Pleistocene low resistivity
sandstone producing formation. The mechanism of low resistivity
in these sandstone is being attributed to microporosity. This
sandstone has also high capillarity that was caused by the
inclusions of moderate to high surface areas clay minerals. Figure
6 shows suite of logs, from one well. In the perforated interval of
the well, induction resistivity log is less than shallow normal log.
This indicates that this interval is water zone. Log calculated water
saturations (Sw) from the best shaly-sand model ranged from 50 to
80%. This well has produced oil and gas with little water less than
0.02%. This example demonstrates the failure of resistivity logs
to locate this hydrocarbon zone or to predict this little water oil
production phenomenon inspite of high water saturation. In this
well, NMR measurements on sidewall core samples were done.
From NMR measurements, it was possible to calculate irreducible
water saturation (Swir), Fig. 6a. Water saturation was calculated
using resistivity data and density porosity, Fig. 6b Water - free
hydrocarbon would be produced over the interval where Sw = Swir.
The comparison between water saturation from induction log and
density porosity and irreducible water saturation from NMR ( Swir
in Fig. 6a is gereraly greater Sw in Fig. 6b ) has shown that this
interval of low resistivity sand section will has very little water
oil production.
Conclusions
The conductivity of clean reservoir rock is of electrolytic origin.
The water phase which carries the electric current must of course
be continuous in order to contribute to the rock conductivity. When
clean reservoir rock contains clays or heavy minerals such as
pyrite, the resistivity becomes low. Clay minerals increase rock
conductivity by increasing the conductivity of bulk water in the
pore spaces. Extra rock conductivity is caused by pyrite which
creates electronic conductivity that is usually comparable to or
even higher than formation water electrolytic conductivity. These
are the most common reasons for low resistivity pay zones.
To evaluate low resistivity pay zone, we must identify the origin
of the low resistivity phenomenon. The main problem with pyrite
is how to estimate its volume and distribution and correct the
formation resistivity and then calculate water saturation by
Archie'formula or by a shale sand model. In the case of shaly
formation, there are several models to correct the water saturation
value. The choice of the model is controlled by the type, the
distribution and the volume of clay minerals in the pay zones.
In the case of low resistivity sands due to microporosity,
evaluation of hydrocarbon potential needs the use of other logging
techniques that do not depend on rock conductivity such as NMR
log. This log can help to more accurately determine the
hydrocarbon saturation and distinguish between free water and
bound water in the reservoir.

References
1. Zemanek, J., 1989, Low- resistivity hydrocarbon
bearing sand reservoir: Society of Petroleum Engineers
FE, December, p. 515-521.
2. Hamada, G.M. and Al-Awad, M.N.J., 2000,
Petrophysical evaluation of low resistivity sandstone
reservoirs: JCPT, vol. 39, no.7,p. 7-14
3. Clavier, C., Coates, G., Dumanoir,J., 1984, The
theoretical and experimental basis for the dual water
model for the interpretation of shaly sand: JPT, v. 24, p.
153-168.
4. Klimentos, T., 1995, Pyrite volume estimation by well
log analysis and petrophysical studies: The Log Analyst,
v. 36, no. 6, p. I1-17.
5. Serra, O., 1984, Fundamentals of well log
interpretation: Elsevier, NewYork.
6. Schlumberger, 1987, Log interpretation principles /
applications: Schlumberger, Limited,NewYork.
7. Hamada, G.M., Al-Blehed, M.S. and Al-Awad, M.N.J.,
1999, NMR logs find reserves by-passed by conventional
analysis: Oil& Gas Journal, Sept, 27, p. 75-80
8. Sen, P. N., Scala, C., and Cohen, M. H., 1981, A self
similar model for sedimentary rocks with application to
the di- electric constant of fiiseed glass leads: Geophysics,
v. 46, p. 781-795.
9. Schwartz, L. M., Sen, P.N., and Johnson, D. L., 1989,
Influence of rough surfaces on electrolytic conduction:
Physical Review Bulletin, v.40, p. 2450-2458.
10.Berg, C. R., 1996, Effective- medium resistivity
models for calculating water saturation in shaly sands:
The Log Analyst, v. 37, no. 3, p, 16-28.
11. Hossin, A., 1960, Calcul des saturations en eau par
l'methode du ciment argileux (formule d'Archie
generalisee: Bulletin de L' Association des Technicienes
du Petrole, p. 140.
12. Patchett, J. G., and Rausch, R. W., 1967, An approach
to determining water saturation in shaly sands: Journal of
Petroleum Technology, v. 19, p. 1395-1405.
13. Tixier, M. P., Morris, P. L., and Connell, J. C., 1968,
Log- evaluation of low resistivity pay sands in the Gulf
Coast: Transactions of 9th Annual Logging Symposium
of SPWLA, paper E.
14. Waxman, M. H., and Smits, L. J. M., 1968, Electrical
conductivities in oil bearing shaly sands: Joumal of
Petroleum Technology, v. 8, p. 107-132.
15. Fertl, W. H., and Hammack, G. W., 1971, A
comparative look at water saturation computations in
shaly pay sands: SPWLA Symposium.
16. Wiley, R. and Snoddy, M. L., 1986, Complex
resistivity of shaly sand and minerals: The Log Analyst, v.
xxvii, no. 5, p. 45-59.
17. Aguilera, R., 1990, Extensions of Pickett plots for the
analysis of shaly formations by well logs: The Log
Analyst, v. 35, no. 5, p. 304-313.
18. Hamada, G. M., 1996, An integrated approach to
determine shale and hydrocarbon potential in shaly sands:

G.M. HAMADA, M.N.J. AL-AWAD, M.S.ALMALIK

Transactions Intl.. Symposium of the Society of Core

Analysts,
Sept., 12-14, France..
19.Worthington, P. F., 1985, The evolution of shaly sand concepts
in reservoir evaluation: The Log Analyst, v. 26, p. 23-40.
20. De Kuijper, A., Sandor, R. K. J., Hofman, J. P., Koelman, J. M.
V. A., Hofstra, P., De Waal, J. A., 1996, Electrical Conductivities
in oil - bearing shaly sand accurately
described with the
SATORI model: The Log Analyst, v.37, no.5, p. 22-32.
21. Poupon, A., Loy, M. E., and Tixier, M. P., 1954, A
contribution to electric log Interpretation in shaly sands:
Transactions of the American Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, v. 201, p. 138-145.
22. Simandoux, P., 1963, Mersures diaelectriques en milieu
poreux, application a mesure des saturations en eau, etude du
comportement des massifs argileux: Reveu de L'IFP, v. IX, p.
193-215.
23. Pickett, G. R, 1973, Pattern recognition as a means of
formation evaluation: Transac-tions of 14 th Annual Logging

SPE 70040

SPE 70040

LOG EVALUATION OF LOW-RESISTIVITY SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

G.M. HAMADA, M.N.J. AL-AWAD, M.S.ALMALIK

SPE 70040

SPE 70040

LOG EVALUATION OF LOW-RESISTIVITY SANDSTONE RESERVOIRS

10

G.M. HAMADA, M.N.J. AL-AWAD, M.S.ALMALIK

SPE 70040

Table 1 Resistivity, shale volume, porosity and water saturation values for example 1.
Zone

Resistivity

Shale volume

(Rt)

(Vsh)

6.7
2.9
0.19

0.14
0.34
0.05

A
B
C

Porosity
()
0.23
0.19
0.26

Water saturation
(Sw)
Archies Eq.
0.219
0.403
1.00

Eq. 8
0.191
0.319
1.00

Table 2 Data for water saturation calculation in shaly sand formation for example 2.
Data
points
1
2
3
4
5

Resistivity
(Rt)
8.40
7.50
8.40
1.80
1.75

Porosity

Shale volume

()
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.31

(Vsh)
0.13
0.18
0.15
0.00
0.00

Btsh
0.072
0.123
0.094
0.00
0.00

Atsh
0.449
0.378
0.412
1.00
1.75

Rt/ Atsh
18.67
19.87
20.35
1.80
1.75

Itsh
6.5
5.84
6.25
1.0
1.0

Table 3 Water saturation values from different shaly sand models for example 2.
Data points
1
2
3
4
5

Archies Eq.
0.54
0.62
0.55
1.00
1.00

Schlumberger
0.39
0.42
0.37
1.00
1.00

Eq. 14
0.39
0.41
0.40
1.00
1.00

Eq. 15
0.39
0.42
0.39
1.00
1.00