SPWLATWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.

1979

THE CENTRAL ROLE OF QV AND FORMATION-WATER SALINITY IN

‘THE EVALUATION OF SHA LY FORMATIONS
by
I. Juhdsz

Koninkli
jke/ShellExplora Rijswijk
tieen ProduktieLaboratorium, (ZH), the Netherlands

ABSTRACT

A new evaluation approach, covering both the fluid saturation and

producibility aspects of shaly formations, is presented. The approach is based
on the combined use of the ‘total’ and ‘effective’ pom sity systems linked via
the parameters Qv (cation-exchange capacity per unit total pore volume) and
AA
formation-water salinity.
The quantity Qv is calculated from the FDC /CNL on the basis of clay-
mineralogical data obtained from cores or sidewall samples. Qv is then used
to calculate both the total water saturation, via the Waxman-Smits equation,
and the amount of clay-bound water (C BW), via the Hill, Shirley and Klein
equation. The latter parameter, in turn, facilitates
a) estimation of the effective porosity and, if desired, the effective
water saturation,
b) correction of air-mercury capillary-pressure curves for CBW
c) conversionof airpermeabilities
intobrinepermeabilities.
In thisapproachallinputparametersrequiredforthe evaluation
are
obtained
from the interval
under study; the use of ‘clay parameters’ obtained
from adjacent shale beds (with all inherent uncertainties of such approaches)
is thus avoided.
Furthermore, all quantities playing a role in the evaluation are
interdependent via the parameters Qv and formation-water salinity. This
enhances internal consistency and reliability of the results obtained.

1. INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of shaly formations is commonly based on and presented in

either the ‘total’ or the ‘effective’ porosity system. The difference between
total and effective porosity is the amount of ‘clay-bound water’ (CBW).
C BW contributes to the electrical conductivity of the formation, but - being
essentially immobile - it does not contribute to its hydraulic transmissibility
(producibility).

-1-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

ln orderto be able to reliably

evaluate
boththe fluidsaturation
and
producibility
characteristics
of shalyreservoirs,
the dual-porosity
aspectsof
the formationmust be takenintoaccount.This can, however,onlybe done
ifthe totaland the effective-porosity
models employedin the evaluation
are
linkedtogetherin a compatibleand quantitative
way.
This paper is aimed at demonstrating
thatthe shaliness
parameter,Qv
(cation-exchange
capacity
per unittotalpore volume) and the formation-water
salinity together constitute the required basic link between the two models.
Reliable determination of QV is,however,oftenproblematic.
A novel
techniqueof Qv assessment,which shouldalleviate
the problem,is also
discussedin thispaper. Subsequently,
thebasicsteps,facilitating
optimum
use of thetotaland effective-porosity
conceptsand leadingto a completeand
internally
consistent
formationevaluation,
willbe discussed.
An example from Oman will be used to illustrate the approach.

2. DEFINITIONS AND BASIC RELATIONSHIPS

The conceptsof totaland effective

porosityandtheirrecommended use in
formationevaluation
are schematically
illustrated
in Fig. 1. The basic
definitions and petrophysical relationships on which this paper is based are
highlighted below.

Def init ions

Total porosity (Ot, fraction bulk volume) is the total (and - at 100%
water saturation- for the electric current accessible) pore space available for
fluids, including ‘clay-bound water’ (CBW).
Effective porosity (@e, fraction bulk volume) is the total porosity
minus the fraction of the bulk volume occupied by CBW (0 ~Bw), i.e.

4e = @t - @cBw (1)

Clay-bound water (CBW) is the water immobilised by the clay present

in the formation. We assume (and later demonstrate) that CBW is, in fact,
the ‘clay-hydration’ water (sorbed water and the hydration water of the
exchange cations) surrounding the clay particles in equilibrium with an
electrolyte. It contains the clay countercations which compensate for the
negative charges of the clay particles. The countercations constitute
the cation-exchange capacity of the rock, which is commonly referred to as
CEC (meq/g dry rock) or CJv (meq per cm3 total pore volume).

*
-2-
. ........
—-...—.
.-.
-.-.
—
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

Clay-hydration
water - withrespectto volume - is equivalent
to the
‘anion-free’
water,which can be measured by the so-called
‘anion-exclusion
by Hill,Shirleyand Kleinl,
This was done (among others)
technique’.
who alsoprovidedsupporting
evidenceconcerning
the essentially
immobile
nature of this anion-free water in fluid-flow processes. This essentially
immobile nature of CBW was also confirmed by the work of van Olphen2 (1963).
We shall, therefore, proceed in this paper on the basis of the assumption that
C BW can neither
be displaced
by hydrocarbonsat capillary-pressure
differentials
normallyprevailing
inthe reservoirnor be moved by pressuredifferentials
createdin the reservoir
by production
or injection
of reservoirfluids.
It should be stressed that for the description of the electrical behaviour
(conductivity, electrochemical potential) of shaly formations a rigid distinction
betweenCBW and freeelectrolyte
is notnecessary;
thiswas demonstrated
by
Waxman and Smits3(1968)and Smits4(1968).
A cleardistinction
betweenthesetwo aqueousphasesis,however,
indispensable
forthe descript
ionof the hydraulic
transmissibility.
Hereinwe
shallfollowHill,Shirleyand Kleinand considerthe ‘anion-f
reefwater as
definedby them to be equivalent
to the ‘immobile’,
clay-bound
water.

Basic relationships

Of the parameters defined above only @t and CEC (and thus Qv) can be
obtained by ‘direct’ measurements on cores, Routine core-porosity
measurements (based on Boyle’s law of gas expansion, buoyancy, or
‘ summation of fluids’ techniques) represent otal porosity. They can thus be
used to calibrate the density log which also reflects total porosity, since
.
may be assumed to be unityl and P (in sands at least) is about
‘CBW cl(dry)
equal to pma.
No adequate laboratory technique exists, however, at present for
measuring OCBW and/or @e in a direct way. These can only be estimated by
indirect methods.
by experimentsthatthe amount of
Hill,Shirleyand KleinLdemonstrated
clay-hydration
water,Ws (g water/gdry rock),isproportional
to the cation-
exchange capacity of the rock, CEC (meq/g dry rock),and inversely
proportional to the salinity, Co (meq/cm3), of the NaCl solution
in equilibrium
with the sample:

Ws = (0.084Co% + 0.22)CEC (2)

-3-

- --.
——._.. .—. ---
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

They arrivedatthisrelationship
on thebasisof measurements(usingthe
anion-exclusion
teekique)on 28 formationsamplesfrom sixdifferent
fields
and coveringa salinity
rangefrom about13 gflNaCl to saturated
saltsolution
at 25°C.
ExpressingWs interms of volume waterper volume dry rock
(WS x ‘m/pcBW)) dividing
the expression
by @t and combiningitwithequ. (1),
the effective porosity can be expressed as follows:

@e =@t
[
l-(0.084C_$ + 0.22)Q 1
v ‘CBW 1 (3)

where the density of CBW, PCBW may be assumed to be unityl. We also

assume that the volume of CBW, and hence the above relationship, is
independent of temperature in the temperature range we normally deal with
in log evaluation (say 20-200°C). This assumption is based on unpublished
work of Shell investigators (e.g. Hartemink9 ). Actual measurements
of the amount of ‘ anion-free’ water carried out by Hartemink at 21 and 70°C
on 20 samples (Qv range: O. 01-1. 5) did not indicate any dependence of the
volume of anion-free water on temperature in the indicated temperature range.
(This, we may note, contradicts the relationship of decreasing CBW with
increasing temperature postulated by Clavier et al. on the basis of their
10
‘dual water’ model .)
The contribution of the clay countercations to the electrical conductance
3 5
of a shaly formation was defined by Waxman and Smits and Waxman and Thomas
to be a function of the concentration of the clay counterions (Qv/~t) and their
equivalent conductance, B which - in turn - depends on salinity and temperature.
This resulted in the well-known Waxman-Smits equation
1

1
Rt (1+ RwBQv/~t) -7
~t . * (4)
[ a @t‘m Rw

which facilitates reliable evaluation of the total water saturation, ~t, in .

terms of fraction total pore volume.
Equations (3) and (4) show that the basic parameters which quantitatively
link the total and the effective -porosity systems, and thus the fluid-saturation
and producibility characteristics of shaly formations, are Qv and formation-
water salinity.
How Qv can be determined and used in combination with formation-water
salinity in an evaluation employing both porosity models is discussed below.

-4-
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

3. DETERMINATION OF Qv

The from empiricalrelationships

parameterQV is normallyobtained of
the form Qv = a@t~~established
forthe reservoirin questionon the basis of
laboratory
measurements6.
There are, however, many reservoirs
for which such a relationship
cannotbe adequately
defined.
These are reservoirs
where theporosity
variations
are governednot onlyby the type and amount of clayin the
formationbut alsoby otherfactors,such as the degreeof cementation/
variations
pressure-solution, in texture,grain-shapes
and -sorting.
A case of thistype,encountered
in an oil-bearing
shalyelastic
reservoirin
in Oman, is shown in Fig. 2.
The logsand the finalevaluation resultsacrossthe reservoirin question, AA
givenin Figs. 3 and 4, reapectively,willhelpin appreciating the geological
factorscontributing
to the largescatterof datapointson the QV -%. plot:
a) the reservoiris made up from two gen~ically different’ units:
Formation ‘H’ and ‘M’,
b) formation ‘H’ is a glacial complex with rock types varying from
fluviatile sands through conglomeratic outwash deposits to tight
tillites, all with varying amounts of clay composed of
kaolinite, illite, chlorite and traces of montmorillonite (in this order),
c) formation ‘M’ is a fluviatile subarkosic sand with varying amount of
clay consisting of mont morillonit e, kaolinite, illite and chlorite
(in order of their abundance); in addition, 3-5% mica (muscovite
which affects the GR log) was observed in most samples of this
formation,
d) in both formations, over 50% of the clay is ‘dispersed’ and/or
‘structural’ and is of authigenic origin,
e) porosity variations are governed by several factors, e.g. clay
content, cementation by carbonates and pressure solution and
variations in grain shapes and sorting.
It should be added that the formation water salinitv in this reservoir is
low (5-8 g/1 NaCl eq), under which condition, reliable e~aluation of the effect
of shaliness on the various formation parameters (resistivity/water saturation
and permeability in particular) is imperative. For this, the parameter Qv
must be known at any point in the formation.
The technique developed to facilitate a reliable assessment of Qv also in
complex cases like that given above is based on the following equation:

. CECC1
‘cl(dry) ● Pc1 (dry)
Q, = cmeq/cm3] (5)
‘t

where V = the ‘dry clay’ content of the formation in terms of

cl(dry)
fraction BV
= the average density of the dry clay-mineral mixture
‘cl(dry)
(g/cm3) present in the formation

-5-
..——.. —-....
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 2-6, 1979

CECCI = the cation-exchange

capacityof the averageclay-mineral
mixturepresentinthe formation(meq/g dry clay)
Ot = the totalporosity(fraction
BV) derivedfrom the
density log calibrated against core data, i.e.
Ot=c? = !3D
core(in-situ)
Equation (5) is self-explanatory. The ‘dry clay’ parameters required to

calculate Qv from this expression can be obtained as follows:

f$N -0=
(i) (6)
‘cl(dry)= HIcI(dry)

where BV) correctedfor

the neutron(CNL) porosity(fraction
‘N =
(e.g.limestone,dolomite,sand,but notfor
lithology
shale!) and hydrocarboneffects
0= = the totalporosityas definedbefore
HIcl(dry)= the hydrogenindex(fractionHIwater)of the average
dry clay-mineral mixturepresentinthe formation.

The reasoningbehindeq. (6)is as follows:a)the (calibrated)

FDC
‘sees’allthe water presentinthe formation,b) the (calibrated)
neutronlog
alsosees allthe waterpresentinthe formationand, in addition,
it
respondsto the hydrogenatoms builtintothe lattice
ofthe solidclay
minerals(e.g. inthe form of OH- groups),c)the difference
ON -@D isthus
the increment
al hydrogenindex(4HI)of the formationresulting
from the (dry)
claymineralspresentin it;d) the hydrogenindexof the clay-mineral
mixture(HICl(dry))
can be calculated
on thebasisof the claymineralogy
definedby core or SWS analyses(e.g.X-ray diffraction)
and the HI of the
individual
claymineralsgivenin Table 1 (after
Lutz7),e) the ratio
thereforerepresents
the amount of dry clay(fraction
BV)
‘H1’HIC1
(dry)
present in the formation.

(ii) ‘c~(dry) in eq. (5) can be estimated on the basis of the clay mineralogy

and the density values shown for the various clay minerals in Table 1 (after
Lutz7 and Grim8); in most cases, however, a value of 2.65 g/cm3 is
considered to be an adequate assumption for this parameter.

(iii) the parameter CECC1 can best be obtained by calibration of eq (5)

against Qv values measured in the laboratory.

-6-
. .— ..-.
—..
-— .——.-.—
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

averageHIc(ry
The ~~ ~ and CECcl valuesthusdefinedforformations‘H’
and ‘M’ in our example are shown in Table 2.
Figure 5 is a graphic representation of eq (5) for formation ‘H’.
Similar graphs can easily be constructed for any specific value of HI
cl(dry)
and CECC1 defined for a certain unit of formation.
Advantages of this approach are the following:
a) it facilitates obtaining a continuous Qv profile using the pertinent
(log and core) data reflecting the formation properties.
b) representative Qv values can be obtained over the full range of
shaliness, regardless of the factors effecting porosity variations.
Applicability of the above approach is, however, limited to
a. well sect ions of approximately constant clay mineralogy (genetic units)
AA
b. absence of hydrogen-containing non-clay minerals (e. g. mica); if the mica
content of the formation is more or less constant, the estimated Qv will
still be correct @y calibration), but the estimated V will also
cl(dry)
include the mica present (as in the case of Formation ‘M’ of our example).
It should also be pointed out that the effect of hydrocarbons on the
density and neutron logs certainly complicate the evaluation procedure and
increase the uncertainty in the derived Qv values. In medium- and heavy-oil-
bearing reservoirs (as in our example), hydrocarbon effects are normally
negligible and the procedure described above can be followed. In light-oil
and gas-bearing formations, however, either the density and neutron logs
have to be corrected first for hydrocarbons before using eqs (6) and (5),
or the required parameters (0 , S and Qv) have to be calculated
t x%’ ‘cl (dry)
by solving simultaneously the response functions of the density and neutron
logs, the Qv equation [ eq. (5)] and the Waxman-Smits equation [ eq. (4) for
Sxo] via iteration procedures.

4. THE USE OF Qv AND FORMATION-WATER SALINITY IN FORMATION

EVALUATION

4.1 Determination of E&t

Having defined Qv [and of course,alsothe otherrelevant

parameters
appearingin eq. (4)]thetotalwater saturation,
~ (fraction totalpore volume)
can be calculated
from the Waxman-Smits equation[eq. (4)
~. Figure4 shows
the ~t and ~% profiles
obtainedin our example.

-7-
. .....-—..-— ---- .- ——
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

Below itwillbe shown how the resultsobtainedcan be checkedagainst

and reconciledwithotherlog and core data usingthe effect
ive-porosit
y concept.

4.2 Determination
of @e

As discussed in Chapter 2, the equation of Hill, Shirleyand Klein,as

transcribed in the form of eq (3), can be used to convert total porosities (@t)
into effective porosities (Oe).
In orderto betterappreciate between@t,@e,Qv and
the relationship
@e
salinity, the ratio ~ from eq (1)

Oe ‘C BW
=1-— (7)
~ @t

and from eq (3)

@e
=1 - (O.084Co% + 0.22)Qv (8)
~

is shown graphically in Fig. 6.

The ratio @e/@t, as will be shown later, constitutes the basic conversion

factor required to convert data from the total into the effective-porosity system
and vice versa. ‘I’he effective-porosity profile calculated on the basis of the
above relationships in our example is shown together with the total-porosity
profile in CO1. 2 of Fig. 4. The Vcl(dry) profile (col. 1 of Fig. 4) was
obtained on the basis of eq. (6).
It may be of interest to mention that the effective porosity can also be
calculated via V as follows:
cl(dry)
6
cI(C BW)
@e=@t-v cl(dry) 1-0
(9)
c1(C BW)

where = the porosity of a pure, hypothetical clay containing

‘cI(CBW)
clay particles and CBW only (thus, no free electrolyte!)

The expression @ i.e. volume CBW per volume dry

C1(CBW)’(l ‘@cl(CBW)) ‘
clay on the basis of eq (2) is

@
c1(CBW) = (0.084 C$ + 0.22) CECC1 k (lo)
1-0 ‘CBW
c1(CBW)

where CECCI is as defined before in connection with eq (5).

-8-

..—
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

It is clearthatsubstituting
eq.(1O) intoeq. (9)and dividing
the
resulting expression by @t, W. (8) will be arrived at.
An interesting aspect of the above-mentioned hypothetical clay is that it
can be compared directly
with the so-called ‘perfect’ shale described by
10
Clavier, Coates and Dumanoir on the basis of their ‘dual water’ model of
shaly sands: thereby facilitating a comparison of the amount of CBW per meq
countercations
resulting
from thetwo approaches.
By extrapolation
of eq. (8)
(seeFig. 6)to@e/@t theQv
= O (i.e.@CBW/@t = I)one arrivesat(Qv)c~(C~~),
valueofthehypothetical onlyCBW [i.e.(QV)C1(CBW) = C~C c1. (1 -@c Bw).
claycontaining
/@CBW~” From eq. (8)itisclearthatl/(Qv)cl(cBw = 0.084 C; + 0.22
‘cl(dry~
(in cm /meq), which may be compared with Clavier et al.’s 1 /(Qv)sh = ~ VQ
expression for ‘perfect’ shale. AA
Making a detailed comparison is, however, beyond the scope of this
paper. Suffice it to say that the agreement between the term cm3 CBW per meq
countercations
as a function
of salinity
is onlyqualitative,
and, at elevated
the ‘dualwater’model predictslessCBW thanwe
temperaturesin particular,
arriveat on the basisof the Hill,Shirleyand Kleinequation
combinedwith
the assumptionthatthe amount of C BW is nottemperature
— dependentbut is
solelya function
of CEC and salinity.

4.3 Determination of ~
e
If desired, the total water sat urat ions (~t, ~%) calculated via the
Waxman-Smits equation in the total-porosity system may be converted into
effective water saturations (he, ~oe) in the effective–porosity system on
the basis of the obvious fact that the amount of hydrocarbons in place should be
the same, whichever porosity system is used, i. e,

(11)

and consequently,

(12)

Two compatible sets of porosity and saturation values can thus be

obtained and presented within one evaluation: one in the total and the other in
the effective~orosity system.

-9-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

In orderto avoidany confusion as to which set of data should be used

for certain studies, we may add the following:
a) either set of data may be used for hydrocarbon-in-place estimate [see
eq. (11)!
b) normally, in numerical reservoir simulation studies the total pmosities
and related total water saturation values should be used, since all relevant
reservoir parameters measured on cores in the laboratory (e. g. capillary-
pressure vs saturation relationships, absolute and relative permeabilities,
end-point saturations, etc) are expressed in or related to the total porosity
measured on the cores. Notwithstanding the above, in certain types of
fluid-flow calculations, where OCBW must be taken into account explicitly,
the effective-porosity and saturation values may be of more practical use.
c) in the definition of cut-off values (to distinguish between pay and non-pay)
and in the prediction of hydrocarbon-producing potential of shaly intervals,
the effective-porosity and saturation values are more useful then the total
porosity and saturation values. In this respect, the distribution of clay in
the formation is another important factor requiring a caref uI assessment.

4.4 Reconciliation of unrealistic saturation and @e values

The combined use of the total and effective porosity concepts offers the
possibility of recognizing and correcting unrealistic saturation and @e values.
The consequence of our assumption that CBW cannot be displaced by
hydrocarbons at capillary pressure conditions normally prevailing in the
reservoir is that the maximum amount of hydrocarbons should not exceed the J
available effective pore space, i. e.

@t (1 - %t) = de (13)

If the above condition is not fulfilled, the input parameters must be in

error and should be adjusted. The cause of anomalies Ii. e. @t (1 - ~t) > @e]
can normally be traced back to too high an estimate of the Qv value; this
causes underestimation of @e [ref. eq. (8)] and overestimation of the
hydrocarbon saturation [1 - ~t, ref. eq. (4)]. Lowering the Qv value for
these intervals until eq. (11) is satisfied will eliminate the anomaly and
compatible, realistic @e and @t (1 - ~t) will result; note that we will become
zero in these cases, implying that practically all the ‘free electrolyte’ is
displaced by hydrocarbons. Although some free electrolyte will undoubtedly
remain, the ~ = O value in such cases is probably a close approximation of the
actual condition at high hydrocarbon-water capillary-pressure differentials in a

-1o-
.........--_..
.-,,.,,
_.,, ,,
,.,
_._-,+p..
.,.,
... —-.
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36.1979

formationcontaining
a largeamount of dispersedand/orstructural
clay.
It should be remarked that a similar check and reconciliation of the data
may (and should) be carried out in known water-bearing sections based on
the obvious criterion that &t should be 1.0.
Apart from the above two extremes of the ~t range (i.e.

‘t min
=0 CBW/@t and ‘%t ma~ = 1. O), the combination of the total and
effective-porosity
conceptsdoes not offerany possibility
of checkingand
verifying
the ~t valuescalculated
betweenthe two extremes.This can only
be done on the basisof capillary-pressure
curvesobtainedon core samples
inthe laboratory.
-pressure
Comparisonof ~t datafrom logswiththosederivedfrom capillary
curves.
AA
viathe Waxman-Smits equationinthetotal-porosity
~t valuesobtained
system can be compared directly
with~t dataderivedfrom oil-water
capillary-pressure
dataobtainedon core plugs using brines of the same
salinity as that of the formation water.
Frequently,
however, only air-mercury capillary-pressure data are
available, which can be obtained more quickly and cheaply. A meaningful
comparison of the total water saturations derived from logs and those
derived from air-mercury capillary-pressure data can, .however, only be
made after correction of the air-mercury capillary-pressure data for CBW.

y-pressurecurvesfor CBW
4.5 Correctionof air-mercurycapillar

Assuming thatCBW is uniformlydistributed

over allpore surfacesand
thatthisCBW couldbe preservedduringthe air-mercurycapillary-pressure
measurements,a greatermercury pressure(PcHg) wouldbe requiredat any
givensaturation
valueto forcethe mercury intothe sample,and a lower
(~g, interms of fraction
mercury saturation of @t)wouldbe attainedat
anY givenpcHg valuethan observedinthe case of a dry sample (seeFig. 7).
Simplegeometrical as alreadysuggested
corrections, by Hill,Shirleyand
Kleinl,can be applied
to the air-mercurycurveto taketheseeffects
into
accountifthe amount of CBW and thusthetotaland the effective
porosity
of the sample are kIIOWII. AS illustrated in Fig, 7, the mercury Capillary-

pressure and mercury-saturation values can be corrected for CBW as follows:

*
‘C Hg = u‘CHg ~
@e -i
(14)

-11-
...
——. -—-
. . .-——. - .—.
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

* ‘o
sHg ‘ sHg ~e
() (15)

The asterisk indicates that correction was applied for shaliness.

An example of a corrected air-mercury capillary-pressure curve and
corresponding toluene -water capillary-pressure data obtained on the same
sample and converted into the air-mercury sy~tem is shown in Fig. 8; there is
good agreement between the two sets of data . These, and similar
data (available at KSEP L, Rijswijk, the Netherlands) on some 40 samples
from various fields support the general validity of the above approach.
since @e/@t in eq. (14) and (15) is a function of Qv and formation-water
salinity [eq. (8)], the reliability of the above correction procedure and
interpretation
of air-mercurycapillary-pressure
data,in,
general,willbe
greatlyenhancedifthe Qv valueof the sample is alsomeasured when air-
mercury dataare obtainedon shaly-formation
samples.

4.6 Conversionof airpermeabilities

intobrinepermeabilities

The permeability profiles shown in Fig. 4 in the case of our example

represent air-permeabilities measured on cores. The permeability of shaly
formations to brine (especially to low-salinity brine) may be significantly
lower than their permeability to air measured on dry samples. It will be
demonstrated below that, knowing the @e /@t ratio, air permeabilities can be
corrected to represent brine permeabilities. Swansonll recently proposed the
following empirical correlations between air- and brine-permeability, on the
one hand, and air-mercury capillary-pressure data, on the other, for clean
formations (carbonates and sands):

%Hg 1“
691
k=
air
399

()‘CHg A

2.005
(16)

bi2 (17)
% (clean)
= 355 ()PcHg A

where k = air permeability (mD)

air
= brine permeability (mD)
%(clean)
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

*
() C Hg
A-
– the ratioof mercury saturation
(% BV) to mercury
capillary
pressure(psia)
atthe point(A) of greatest
curvatureofthe capillary-pressure
curveplotted
on
log-logpaper (Fig.9).

two functions
The intersect
at a permeability
of about750 mD and an
) valueof about1.45.Although,on theoreticalgrounds,one
‘% Hg’pcHg A
would expectthetwo functions
to approacheach otherasymptotically
with
increasing permeabilities, we accepted Swanson’s correlations as adequate
in the permeability range below 750 mD. Above 750 mD we assumed that,
for clean formations, k air = k
b (clean)”
Applying corrections to Swanson’s capillary-pressure term, b
()PcHg A’ AA
in eq. (17) in accordance with eqs. (14) and (15), and expressing
in terms of corresponding kair values [from eqs. (16) and (17)],
% (clean)
the following expressions result:

a) if kair > 750 mD

d3
*_
(18)
‘b - ‘air ()~

b) if kairs 75o mD

03
k.; = 0.292 kai;” 186 ()&
t
(19)

where k and k* are in millidarcies; the asterisk indicates

air -b
shale-corrected value
@e/@t is a function of Qv and salinity [ eq. (8)].

The relationship
betweenk; , kairand QV [eqs.(18)and (19)]at a
salinity
of 5.5 g/1 is shown in Fig. 10.
We recallatthispointthatthe Hill,Shirleyand Kleinequation,
from
whichthe ratio@et
/0 was derived,is based on measurementsof the anion-free
water at 13-316g/1NaCl concentration
(at25°C);hence,the dottedlinesat
lower salinities
in Fig. 6. In our example, we successfully applied the
relationship to match oil-water and air-mercury capillary pressure data (Fig. 8)
and to convert air permeabilities into brine permeabilities at a salinity of
5.5 g/’l NaC1.

-13-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

The comparisonof brinepermeabilities

measured on 24 samples
(threerocktypes)from our example reservoir (Oman) using a 5.5 g/’l
NaCl
solution
and brinepermeabilities
calculated
from measured kair and log-
derivedOe/@tratios (since no Qv measurements were available) is shown
in Fig. 11; detailed information on the data set is given in Tables 3 and 4.
The agreement between the measured and calculated brine permeabilities
is good* and implies the validity of both the Hill-Shirley-Klein relationship
and the permeability conversions [ eqs. (18) and (19)] , even at the low

(5. 5 g/’l) salinities used.

In orderto appreciate
the difference
betweenairand brinepermeabilities
intheseformations,
the averagerelationship
betweenkairand the ratio
established ‘H’ and the (’
forthe (’kaolinitic’) montmorillonitict
)
%rinekair
‘M’ formations is shown in Fig. 12. As expected, the ~~air ratios in the
‘ montmorillonitic’ (higher Qv) sands are significantly lower than in the
‘kaolinitic’ sands. The derived brine permeabilities are in good agreement
with production test results.
The clay in these formations is present in all possible modes of
occurrence: predominantly dispersed and/or structural at V values of
cl(dry)
less than about O. 5 and predominantly laminated (in fact, shale beds) at higher
clay contents. Equations (18) and (19) are expected to yield realistic brine-
permeability values for formations with predominantly dispersed and/or
structural clay distribution. In the case of laminated clay distribution (with
laminations beyond the resolving power of logging tools), however, the
producibility of the formation may be grossly underestimated if “average” log
readings (OD and ON) are used to evaluate V
cl(dry)’ Qv , @e/@t and finally
brine permeability.

*
Both the airand brinepermeabilitieswere measured in a triaxial
cellat an all-directional
stress
of 50 kg/cm2. The measuredbrinepermeabilities of foursampleswere much lower than the
calculated ones(seeFig.11).The measured valuesare, in thesecases,unreliable as a resultof
plasticdeformationof two of thesesamplesduringthe experimentand/orchange in the
measuringtechniqueused in the case of the other two samples.

-14-
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

5. CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. The shaliness
parameterQV can be estimatedin a continuous
form
from the FDC /CNL on thebasisof clay-mineralogical
dataobtained
from
cores or sidewallsamples.
2. The parametersQv and formation-water salinity constitute the basic .
link between the total and the effective-porosity systems.
3. The W axman-Smits equation, for calculating the total water saturation
in the total-porosity system, and the Hill, Shirley and Klein equation, for
talc ulating the amount of clay-bound water and effective porosity, provide
a sound basis for the integration of the two porosity systems and
AA
conversion of core and log amlysis data from one system to anbther.
4. Combined use of the total and the effective-porosity concepts facilitates
optimum use of core and log data.
5. All quantities playing a role in the evaluation are interdependent via the
parameters Qv and formation-water salinity; this enhances internal
consistency and reliability y of the results obtained.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to thank Petroleum Development (Oman) Ltd for
their kind permission to use their well data, and Shell International
Petroleum Maatschappij for permitting publication of this paper.

-15-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

REFERENCES

1. Hill,H.J., Shirley,
O.J. & Klein,G. E. (1979), Bound water in
shaly sands - its relation to Qv and other formation properties
(Ed. : by M.H. Waxman & E.C. Thomas).
in Log Analyst,May-June 1979.
Submittedforpublication

2. Van Olphen, H. (1963), Compaction of clay sediments in the range of

molecular particle distances.
Clays and Minerals, ~, pp. 178-187; Pergamon Press, London,
New York.

3. Waxman, M. H. & Smits, L. J. M. (1968), Electrical Conductivities in oil

bearing shaly sands.
SPE Journal, June.

4. Smits,L.J.M. (1968),SP log interpretation

in oil-bearing
shalysands.
SPE Journal,June.

5. Waxman, M. H. & Thomas, E.C. (1974),Electrical

conductivities
in
shalysands.
SPE Journal,February.

6. Lavers,B.A. , Smits,L.J.M. & van Baaren,C. (1974),Some

fundamental
problems of formationevaluation
inthe North Sea.
Third EuropeanSymposium Transactions
of SPWLA.
October14th-1
5th,London.

7. Lutz,M. B.K., Personalcommunication.

8. Grim, R.E. (1962),Appliedclaymineralogy.

Mc Graw-HillBook Co Inc., New York.

9. Hartemink,W. , Personalcommunication.

10. Clavier, C. , Coates, G. & Dumanoir, J. (1 977), The theoretical and

experiment al bases for the ‘dual water’ model for the interpret ation
of shaly sands.
SPE 6859, October.

11. Swanson, B. F. (1979), Improved estimates of permeability from

capillary pressure measurements.
Submitted for publication to SPE 54th annual technical conference,
Las Vegas, Nevada, 23-26 September 1979.

-16-

. . . . . . .. .-—. . ...-— . ,..—..- ..—..— —.. -——

 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979

Table 1 - HYDROGEN INDICES AND DENSITIES OF CLAY MINERALS AND MICAS

Mineral Formula HI P
cI.(
dry) c1( dry)
(ref. 7) (ref.7,8)
CLAYS
kaolinite
group 0.36 2.61
’14 ~i40d‘0H)8
chlorite
group (Mg, A14,
Fe)12
[(si,08020
1 (OH)16
0.34 2.6-2.96
*
montmorillonite
group (ACa,Na)o +A1,
~-
Mg,
Fe)4(Si
,ADA020(oW4 0.13 2.2(?)-2,7

1-1.5Alpi7.6i
5AlI-I.
illite
group K 5°20 (OH), 0.12 2.64-2.69
4 1
(glauconite) (o.13) 2.4-2.95

fICAS
+3
K (Mg,Fe+2)6-4(Fe ,Al,Ti)oz
-2 -{ /
biotite 0.12 2.7-3.3
{ .L
Si6 .-
5A12 3020 00 2(OH, F)4 z
1 )
muscovite K Al
24
Si Al O
[ 6 220 ‘0H”)4 1-
0.13 2.77-2.88

* = n.H20 of adsorbed
/interlayer
waterexcludedin calculation
ofHI.

Table 2 - CLAY-MINERALOGICAL DATA FOR THE EXAMPLE RESERVOIR(OMAN)

1 Clay mineralogy
I
kaolinite
& chlorite montmorillonite
& illite HI
Formation CECCI
H1 c1(
dry)
= 0.35 H1 = 0.125
Cl(dry) cl(dry)

‘H’ 6010 407. 0.26 0.06

‘M‘ 4070 6010 0.21 0.12

-’17 -
 TABLE 3 - MEASURID kair,\ AND CALCULATED ~ DATA - ‘H’FORMATION

MEASUREI) DATA LOG DATA CALCULATED DATA

(6) “(3) J4) (5)

Well/Sampleno , kair @ ON @
\ %’kair core D cl(
dry) e % kb!kair
(mD) (mD) (in-situ) (mD)

B/ 22 300 230 0.76 0.275 0.315 0.265 0.192 0.26 214 0.713
29 360 280 0.77 0.275 0.315 0.240 0.288 0.252 241 0.670
44 380 320 0.84 0.270 0.300 0.250 0,192 0.252 282 0.742
51 180 150 0.83 0.273 0.350 0.260 0.34 0.246 100 0.555
56 28 12 0.43 0.250 0.325 0.270 0.21 0.233 12 0.439
60 2900 2800 0.96 0.276 0.34 0.285 0.21 0.26 2423 0.835
78 550 470 0.85 0.263 0.33 0.27 0.23 0.245 419 0.762
123 45 N~ 1, 00186 0.22 0.15 0.27 0.165 18 0.410
A/ 6 20 13 0.65 0.179 0.29 0.255 0.135 0.168 8.4 0.421
7 7.9 4 0.51 0.164 0.28 0.235 0.173 0.150 2.6 0.328
45 di 3.4 0.01(2) 0.003 0.148 0.195 0.163 0.123 0.138 1.0 O.mo
47 di 0.21 0.015 0.071 0.112 0.18 0.15 0.076 0.106 0.038 0.185
66 di 51 43 0.84 0.148 0.17 0.17 0.148 31 0.607
77 7.1 1.9 0.267 0.185 0.2 0.19 0.038 0.181 2.8 0.394
85 di 4 2.1 0.525 0.160 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.145 1.1 0.275
86 860 750 0.87 0.197 0.30 0.24 0.23 0.179 645 0.750

Remarks:
-------
(1) ~ couldnot be measured;sample disintegrated
in brine.

(2) Measuredkb questionable;

sample became soft/plastic
upon saturation
withbrineand was deformed duringhandling.

(3) v ‘(~- @D)/o.26.

cI( dry)
(4) @e = @ -0.078 V at 5.5 g/1 NaCl solution used for brine-permeability measurements.
cl(dry)
(iS”A?u)

(5) k; = 0.292k 1“186 (de/dIt)3if kair ~ 750 mD, and ~ = kair (~e@t)3 if k air > 750 mD.
air
(6) ‘di’ denotes diamictite; the other samples are sands.
 TABLE 4 - MEASURED kair,~ AND CALCULATED ~ DATA - ‘M’ FORMATION

MEA SURED DATA LOG DATA CALCULATED DATA

(4) (5) (6)
k k kb/kair
Well/Sampleno, air b %’kai, @core ‘N ‘D ‘cl(d,y) ‘e ‘b
(mD) (mD) (in-situ) (mD)
ND(1) .
B/ 131 78 0.195 0.36 0.27 0.428 0.14 18.9 0.240
140 420 360 0.86 0.201 0.34 0.27 0.33 0.159 186 0.440
220 990 740 0.75 0.304 0.35 0.305 0.214 0.276 740 0.7’47
232 1000 950 0.95 0.286 0.325 0.290 0.166 0.265 795 0.795
ND(1)
Ai101 80 0.276 0.340 0.265 0.357 0.213 24 0.303
126 1500 1200 0.80 0.210 0.315 0.28 0.166 0.184 1008 0.672
170 30 9.9 0.43 0.114 0.26 0.18 0.38 0.053 1.6 0.053
172 14 1.1 0.078 0.128 0.30 0.195 0.50 0.048 0.35 0.025
184 390 43(2) 0.11 0.251 0.285 0.22 0.31 0.202 180 0.460
ND(1)
185 460 0.252 0.293 0.23 0.30 0.204 222 0.484
ND(1)
189 10 0.250 0.33 0.235 0.452 0.178 1.61 0.161
0 011(3)
191 18 . 0.0006 0.255 0.33 0.235 0.452 0.183 “ 3.3 0.180
193 270 N~ 1) 0.248 0.33 0.235 0.452 0.176 80 0.295
ND(1)
195 11 0.271 0.34 0.24 0.476 0.195 1.86 0.169
ND(1)
206 28 0.270 0.345 0.255 0.428 0.202 6.3 0.226
208 140 1.9(3) 0.014
- 0.270 0.365 0.2% 0.45 0.199 40 0.289
209 180 ND(1) 0.302 0.335 0.25 0.40 0.238 67 0.375

Remarks:
(1) $ couldnot be measured;sample disintegrated
in brine.

sample became soft/plastic

(2) Measured~ questionable; upon saturation
with brineand was deformed duringhandling.

(3) Measured$ questionable;

measuringtechniquewas changed in an attemptto overcome the difficulties
mentionedunder(2).

(4) v - (ON- %)/0.21.

cl( dry) -
(5) @e = (#l - 0.127 V in well B
cl(dry)
(irSR) at 5.5 g/1 NaCl SolutiOn
1

@ in well A )
@e= (i~~[fu) - 0.159 v Cl( dry)
and ~ = kair(@e/623 ifkair
>750 mD.
(6) j = 0.292 ‘air 1.186 (d e /@t? if kairs 750 mD!
I SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

About the author

Istv5n Juh5sz is a Senior Petrophysical Engineer with Shell Internationale

Petroleum Maatschappij (SIPM), The Hague, the Netherlands. He joined
Shell on graduating from the Technical University of Delft, the Netherlands,
in mining engineering, in 1962. First he worked with Brunei Shell (Borneo)
in various capacities until 1969, then with Shell-BP, Nigeria as Senior
Petrophysical Engineer until late 1975. The last three years he spent with
Shell’s Exploration and Production Research Laboratory in Rijswijk, the
Netherlands, participating in various integrated studies and working -inter alia -
on shaly-sand evaluation problems before taking up his present position with
SIPM in The Hague. Istv5n is married and has three children.

-20-
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979
k
‘E
L
If 1
,-
eJ
II
d“
o
>
a x — .
id
--!
s
-21-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979
<
-1
iii
3
DEPTH IN FT
H. NO11VIWJ04 + .W. NO11VNM04
w
-1
L
E
u
x
Lu
<
w
LO
z
0
a
L/l
w
a
1333 NI Hld30 (
“22-
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6.1979
?5 0
o
r
q
o
.—
--
-l—
LLl
0
-23-
 @tot =0.257
KW . 76mD
1500 - Qv = 0.1 meq/cm3 I

I
Salinity brine 55g/1
‘C Hg NaCl I
w .0,951
( psia) @ tot I I
I

1
IzMEELl I
I
I
I I
I
I
1000 - Air-Hg I
a- Hg(dry) 1
uncorrected I
+ 1’ I
I
a- Hg(CBW)~
I
I I
‘C Hg I I

‘1 1’
1 500 - I
t
‘: Hg I
I CBW
c *
‘C Hg
I
)
I
I

o
0 20 LO 60 80 100
t
Hg _+sHg(~opv)

Field VX’ (Oman) Well:B Sample: 52

FIG. 7 CORRECTION OF AIR-MERCURY CAPILLARY PRESSURE FIG.8 : COMPARISON OF CORRECTED AIR-MERCURY CAPILLARY
CURVES FOR CBW PRESSURE DATA WITH TOLUENE-WATER CAPILLARY
PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS
 ratio ‘$eff/ @tot .

[ olong the Qv Ihe indcatedl

[ log) (log)

k
. 103

b-l
t Hg kair
I
(psia ) ., , lmD) [mDl
75!________ 0-

I?T+--i’”’t
N
Q-1
L
/’ \ t air I
1
t / 9
/ ‘\ yz”l ‘[line of wreenwntl } ‘
brine r b 1 -! --410’
k ‘is” ~1.~s [
( log) log]
+Sb Hg (“~ BV) ‘bHg
~ -4 ,.-3 ,0-2 ;.-! ;.O ,.l ,.2
() ‘C Hg A 103 10’
_ kbrine [mOl

FIG.9 PRINC!fLE OF SWANSON’S PERMEABILITY CORRELATIONS FIG.1O:RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN kair , Clv AND kbrlne
FOR CLEAN FORMATIONS ( SAND AND CARBONATES)

‘e
z
m
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979
.-
* m m
0 0
t
a
c L
I t< .C .-
& J
v
●
\
❑
\
❑
-0
●
N
o
x
\
●
ax
❑
N 0
o 0