See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/293496388

Effective-medium resistivity models for calculating water saturation in shaly

sands

Article · May 1996

CITATIONS READS

26 548

1 author:

Charles Berg
ResDip Systems
11 PUBLICATIONS   113 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The relationship between P10, P32, and size of natural fractures in boreholes. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Charles Berg on 20 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water
Saturation in Shaly Sands
Charles R. Berg
ResDip Svstetns
Abstract: A saturation equation is derived from effective-
medium theory (the Hanai-Bruggeman equation) for calculat-
ing water saturation from resistivity and porosity measure-
ments. That saturation equation is then incorporated into dis-
persed-clay and laminated-shale models. The 1-ive basic vari-
ables needed for the saturation fomiula include whole-rock
porosity, true fomiation resistivity. water resistivity. cementa-
tion exponent, and grain resistivity.
In the dispersed-clay model. whole-rock porosity, true for-
mation resistivity, and water resistivity are calculated by stand-
ard log-analysis methods. Next, cementation exponent and
grain resistivity are calculated for the whole rock. These five
variables are then used in the saturation equation to calculate
whole-rock saturation that is, in turn, used to calculate effective
saturation. Intermediate variables used in calculation include
clay volume and effective porosity in addition to sand and shale
counterparts for porosity. cementation exponent, and grain re-
sistivity.
In the laminated-shale model, shale resistivity is subtracted
from the whole-rock properties by resistors-in-parallel treat-
ment and effective saturation is then calculated directly from
the saturation equation using only sand input variables.
The shaly sand models are proved accurate and stable by
calculations on some published log data, including low-resis-
tivity, low-contrast examples. Saturations can be detemiined
from standard log suites. The variables used are calculated in a
straightforward manner, while the calculation sequence is flex-
ible to allow for unusual conditions such as nonclay micro-
porosity.
INTRODUCTION
Effective-medium theory has been a strong contender for
the study of rock resistivity, but analytical problems have
limited its use in log analysis. This article combines ele-
ments of effective-medium theory with widely used log-
analysis relationships to derive a relatively simple
calculation sequence for water saturation in shaly rocks.
This adaptation of effective-medium theory is intended as a
first-pass technique similar to the dual-water model of Best
et al. (1978). 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 crossplot-
16 The Log Analyst
ting techniques or by improving calculation of input vari-
ables. However, this study is intended as an introduction of
the basic framework, and it leaves fine-tuning to a later
date.
Why Use a Theoretical Model?
Many log-analysis techniques are necessarily empirical.
A good example is the neutron-density crossplot. As long
as such an empirical model appears robust there is no
compelling reason to replace it with a theoretical one. How-
ever, shaly sand analysis is one of those areas where empiri-
cal models run into trouble. The sheer number of empirical
shaly sand techniques is an indicator that perhaps another
approach is needed.
The accuracy of an empirical model may decline when
conditions differ from the conditions under which the
model is derived. A classic example of the problem is
Waxman and Thomas’ ( 1974) rederivation of Waxman and
Smits’ (1968) empirical constant B. Waxman and Thomas
found that using a wider range of rock samples for deriva-
tion improved the basic Waxman and Smits model. Al-
though they used a fairly large data set, it still included only
an extremely small fraction of shaly sands in the world.
Clearly, measuring all the rocks in the world is not a solu-
tion. In addition, a little-known side effect of the new
Waxman and Thomas B was that use of the new B degraded
the accuracy of the Waxman and Smits model on the origi-
nal Waxman and Smits data set.
The desirability of theoretical solutions in general is that
as long as the original assumptions apply to the phenomena
being studied, they should accurately describe those phe-
nomena. Theoretical assumptions are very similar to em-
pirical conditions except that assumptions are usually stated
explicitly, while the restrictions imposed by empirical con-
ditions may not readily be apparent. The basic assumptions
set forward for this shaly sand model may at first seem
restrictive, but in fact they cover the vast majority of reser-
voir conditions.
MayJune 1996
 Effective-MediumResistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands
EFFECTIVE-MEDIUM THEORY
The Hanai-Bruggeman Equation
The Hanai-Bruggeman (HB) equation was originally de-
veloped by Hanai (1960a, 1960b) for describing the con-
ductivity of colloidal suspensions. These suspensions
consisted of a “disperse” or nonwetting phase and a “con-
tinuous” or wetting phase. The theory was developed be-
cause the Maxwell-Wagner theoretical model, which was
developed for this type suspension, did not work for con-
centrated mixtures of disperse phase. In the original experi-
ments to test his equation, Hanai used both water-in-oil and
oil-in-water mixtures. He found that his relationship
worked well even as the concentration of the disperse phase
approached 100%. The analogue to rocks, of course, is the
concentrated disperse phase because, for example, a mix-
ture with 85% disperse phase is equivalent to rock with 15%
porosity. The fact that oil-in-water mixtures were used by
Hanai is good justification for treating hydrocarbons (oil
and gas) as part of the matrix fraction in the development of
a saturation model.
Bussian (1983) demonstrated the usefulness of the HB
equation for modeling rock conductivity. He demonstrated,
in the case of shaly sands, that the curvature of the rock
conductivity (oo)versus water conductivity (D,) plots ex-
hibited by shaly sands are well modeled by the HB equa-
tion. He also set forth a saturation relationship based on a
binomial-expansion approximation to the HB equation
combined with De Witte’s (1957) empirical relationship.
Following is a resistivity version of Bussian’s [1983,Equa-
tion (7)] adaptation of the HB equation for conductivity:
where 4 = porosity, R, = water resistivity, Ro = mixture
(rock and water) resistivity, R, = matrix (disperse phase)
resistivity, and rn = cementation exponent or geometric
factor.
Note that when R, is large in relation to Ro and R,, the
right-hand factor approaches 1 and the relationship reduces
to Archie’s “law” [ 1942, Equation (3)]. This property of the
HB equation has been observed many times before (Sen et
al., 1981; Bussian, 1983). Although some may rightly argue
that the term “law” may not be entirely appropriate for
Archie’s equation, that terminology will be retained here
because of its ease of use and recognizability.
Part of the desirability of the HB equation stems from the the following expression:
fact that it introduces only one new variable, R,, to describe
rock conductivity and that it does not introduce any other
new constants or variables. Many shaly sand methods, in-
cluding the dual-water (Clavier et al., 1984) and Waxman-
Smits (1968) models, use empirical correction factors in
May-June 1996 The Log Analyst
addition to a rock-conductivity variable to fit their respec-
tive 100% water-saturated equations to experimental data.
The main problem with these types of correction factors is
that they may not be valid outside of the conditions (or data
sets) for which they were derived. Although the dual-water
model does not use these correction factors in log analysis,
the substitution of these variables for the log analysis vari-
ables makes experimental verification of the model used on
logs questionable.
The HB equation works well on rocks, which are not
suspensions but which are grain supported. I believe that
the HB equation works successfully on rocks because water
carries the bulk of the current and the matrix is only pas-
sively involved. This passive involvement of the disperse
phase is sometimes referred to as “induced polarization” or
“interfacial polarization.” In cases where the rock grains, as
a whole, become as conductive as the water the relation-
ships may not hold, but these kinds of conditions are ex-
tremely rare in the subsurface, and it is very likely that other
rock conductivity models would not hold either under such
conditions. Even in cases where there are highly conductive
constituents, such as pyrite, moderate amounts should not
appreciably affect the HB equation because the constituent
grains would be “floating” or dispersed in the other matrix
elements and water. The main problem with minerals such
as pyrite is how to estimate their amount and distribution
from logs.
Derivation of the Saturation Equation
A more thorough derivation and theoretical treatment of
the following saturation model can be found in Berg (1 995).
In that paper, a general conductivity equivalent to the satu-
ration equation is derived and the applicability of the model
to all frequencies is demonstrated.
Also in that paper are experimental results demonstrat-
ing the accuracy of the saturation relationship compared to
the dual-water, Waxman and Smits, and Bussian shaly sand
models.
The assumption underlying the derivation of the satura-
tion equation is that matrix and hydrocarbon can be treated
together (Figure 1). Further, the relationship between those
elements can be treated as resistors in parallel, which
mathematically is a volumetric weighted average of con-
ductivities. To derive the equation it is necessary to associ-
ate the matrix and hydrocarbon. The easiest part of setting
up the equation is the association of water saturation (S,)
with porosity. Such an adaptation of Equation (1) results in
17

Figure 1: Diagram showing how hydrocarbons are related to
the matrix and water. In a water-wet system such as this,
surface tension will keep a thin film of water (exaggerated
here) between the oil and the grains (Berg, 1975). Both matrix
and oil are the dispersed phase while water is the continuous
phase. The matrix grains are definitely connected and the
hydrocarbons can be connected but are not necessarily
connected. The connectedness probably does not matter,
however, because the more resistive dispersed elements react
passively to current in the more conductive water.
where S, = whole-rock water saturation, R, = partially
saturatcd, whole-rock resistivity, and R, = disperse-phasc
resistivity (thc combination of matrix and hydrocarbons).
Note that this equation, in a relationship similar to that of
Equation ( I ) and Archie’s law, will reduce to Archie’s
saturation equation [ 1942, Equation (6)] if Archie’s satura-
tion exponent ( n ) is allowed to equal the cementation expo-
ncnt (m).Note also that Equation (2) is vcry similar to
Sherman’s dielectric saturation equation [ 1987, Equation
(6)], except that in his equation the matrix “resistivity” was
not ad.justed by adding the hydrocarbons. Before we can go
on to derive a saturation equation we have to define the
combined resistivity of hydrocarbons and matrix (Rd).An
assumption common to ncarly all shaly sand models,
whether expressly stated or not, is that various elements
making up rocks can be treated as resistors in parallel. In
this model the mixture of disperse-phase elements for both
saturation calculation and for mixing grain resistivities is
accomplished by assuming resistors in parallel. Following
is the relationship for the composite dispersed phase ( R J :
18 The Log Analyst
We now substitute this expression into Equation (2) to
obtain the following quadratic equation with respect to S,:
0 = Rrn .$ + S; + [R, - R,, . ( H + 1)].$. S, + H . (Rrn- R,) ,
where
and
Solution for S, yields
-R-,/B2 + 4 . H . Rrn.(R,- R r n )
s, = > (6)
2 ‘ 4 . Rrn
where
B = R, - R,., * ( H + 1) (7)
There are, in essence, only five variables needed for
input for calculating water saturation: R,”, R,, $, m , and R,..
Therefore, the calculations leading up to finding saturation
will be aimed at determining the best possible values of m
and R,., since R,, R,, and $ are usually known.
ADAPTATION TO THE SHALY SAND PROBLEM
Basic Assumptions
Equation (6) is general and can be used for more than just
shaly sand analysis. To adapt a general equation to a spe-
cific purpose, it is necessary to define the model to fit the
problem at hand. Below are three sets of assumptions: the
first set is true for most shaly sand methods, while the
second and third sets are true for the dispersed-clay and
laminated-shale models introduced here.
The following assumptions are common to most shaly
sand models:
1 Capillary-bound water - Water in the clay pore spaces
is mechanically bound to the clay and will admit hydro-
carbons (the nonwetting phase) only under extremely
high entry pressure if at all. A corollary of this is that clay
will release this bound water only with great difficulty.
In this respect, the important physical property of the
clay that controls the bound water is the small grain size
and not necessarily the mineralogy. In fact, any other
extremely fine-grained rock will exhibit similar proper-
ties. A recent quantitative discussion of the reasons for
the phenomenon of capillary-bound water can be found
in Zemanek (1 989).
May-June 1996
 Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands

2. Effective porosity - Because of the capillary-bound

water, oil and gas saturations are usually related to the
sand grain
porosity of the larger sand pore spaces. The fraction of
this porosity to the total rock is called the effective
porosity (I$e), and water saturation relative to only the
effective porosity is called the effective saturation (Swe).
3. Clay conductivity - Clay minerals lower the resistivity
filling sand
of shales.
Assumptions unique to the dispersed-clay model are as
follows:
1. The cementation exponent (m)can be calculated for a
sand-shale mixture as a volumetric weighted average of
sand and shale cementation exponents.
2. Matrix or grain resistivity (R,) can be calculated as
resistors in parallel of the component grain resistivities.
3. Shale is rock, with measurable electrical properties, and
these parameters can be used in combination with sand
parameters to find whole-rock saturation. Of course, Figure 2: Schematic diagram showing a sand pore space
nearly all shaly sand methods assume this is true for filled by clay grains. In this case, the clay maintains its porosity
while the effective porosity is zero. This demonstrates why
rock-conductivity-type variables, but this has not been
accurate estimation of clay porosity is critical and how splitting
the case with the cementation exponent (m).Since m can the total porosity equally between clay and sand can go
have a strong effect on resistivity, it is important that this wrong. Overestimation of effective porosity will cause
physical parameter be determined along with rock resis- underestimation of effective water saturation (excessively
tivity. pessimistic calculations).
4. Decreased resistivity caused by clays can be associated
with the matrix instead of the “bound” water. Inherent in
this assumption is that the R ,of the water in the sand empirical methods derived under similar conditions. With
pore spaces is the same as the R, of the bulk of the water these assumptions in mind, the models can now be set up in
in the clay pore spaces. a straightforward manner.
The last assumption might seem unusual to some, but it
is justified for several reasons. Clay, although relatively A Working Definition of “Clay”
impermeable to gas and oil, has permeability with respect
to water, and over geologic time the water in the clay and From a practical standpoint, it is difficult to determine
sand pore spaces should equilibrate. In addition, the amount from logs the amounts of clay minerals in shale rock. For
of excess conductivity should be directly dependent on the that reason, in the following discussion, the term “clay” will
amount of clay cations, which, in turn, is directly dependent be used to describe the shaliest end-member of a given set
on the amount of clay. Therefore, anomalous resistivity of logs. As the model becomes more refined it may be
caused by the clay counterions can be treated as a surface
possible to use crossplotting or laboratory techniques to
effect associated with the clay grains and the bound water
define the true, pure-clay end-member.
can be treated as the “far water’’ of Clavier et al. (1 984).
The last two assumptions, for the laminated-shale model,
are as follows: Effective Porosity, Effective Saturation, Clay Porosity, and
Sand Porosity
1. Interbedded shale and sand can be treated as resistors-in-
parallel. It is standard practice to calculate effective porosity from
2. Current from the tool measuring resistivity travels par- crossplot techniques and the method described here takes
allel to bedding; in other words, the tool used should be advantage of them. This usually works well, but cases
an induction tool.
might arise where other methods are needed. The distribu-
Although the above assumptions, at first glance, may
seem to restrict the applicability of the methods described tion and porosity of the clay within the rock greatly affect
next, close inspection will reveal that the conditions cover the sand porosity and, in turn, the effective porosity (Figure
a large majority of subsurface conditions encountered by 2). Effective porosity can be calculated from an assumed
log analysts. Indeed, subsurface conditions that limit the clay porosity (+=,),usually from a nearby shale; whole rock
application of this method will also limit the application of porosity (I$); and volume of clay ( Vcl).Following are stand-

MayJune 1996 The Log Analyst 19

 Berg

ard log-analysis equations for effective porosity ($&,),sand A more quantitative calculation method for msa has been
porosity (4sa),and effective saturation (Sn,e): derived from a linear relationship from Bussian’s (1983)
and Samstag’s (1992) data of those samples in which R,. was
greater than or equal to 100 ohm-m, on the assumption that
the higher values are indicative of fairly clean sands. Fol-
(9) lowing is the formula:
mso = 1.994 - 0.752 * (1 1)
and The above formula appears to work well, but if satura-
tions are pessimistic for unconsolidated sands, a lower
value of ms, might be tried because, as discussed above,
experimental samples that Equation (1 1) is based on are
necessarily biased toward consolidated rock. Another quan-
The equations for the different porosity variables and V,,
titative possibility for calculating ms, would be to use the
permit differing scenarios for solving different problems.
HB equation solved for msa:
For example, the standard solution set forward in the sec-
tion “Application to Log Analysis” incorporates crossplot
techniques using V,, to calculate $ e . In f ~ Rw ’I
In some instances there might be reason to expect that
log-derived Vc/ might be suspect. In that case, if the log
analyst can acquire Oe from some other means, Vc.,could be
determined from O,, 4e, and 4 using Equation (8) solved for
I. ;./. where the “sa” subscript denotes sandstone variables.
This approach requires an accurate knowledge of R, and
Finding Cementation Exponent ( m ) Ros,,and, in higher R , regimes (more than about 1 ohm-m),
of Rrsa.
With saturation methods a common, arbitrary approxi- Experimental verification of m,! is difficult because the
mation is that the cementation exponent (m)is equal to 2. varying salinities used in the experiments from which ?)I is
In the days before hand calculators and computers, this was calculated tend to cause high-clay samples to disaggregate.
understandable, but today it is easy to calculate exponen- For pure clay, a good value for cementation exponent (m,,)
tials and logarithms. Therefore, make an attempt to deter- would be about 3 or higher judging from the Bussian’s,
mine in as closely as possible. It is possible to calculate and Samstag’s, and Waxman and Smits’ analyses of the
apply 11 to the results of Equation (6) in a manner similar to Waxman and Smits data. I have found that 2.7 usually
the usual methods, but from a practical standpoint this is works well. probably because shales are not usually pure
rarely done. A good approximation for n therefore is m , clay. If one assumes that pure clay has an m of 3 and that
remembering the similarity of Equation (2), the precursor to pure sand has an m of 1.8, then m of 2.7 would represent a
the saturation equation, to Archie’s saturation equation. shale with about 78% clay. In any case, because the volume
The problem remains of calculating m. Let us start with the of shale used in log analysis is generally less than one-third,
sandstone cementation exponent (m,). The fact that clean relatively large variation in m,,will result in a much smaller
sandstones generally have values of m lower than 2 has variation in whole-rock m. In fact, the using 2.7 for m,,is at
been documented as far back as Archie (1942), who stated: least as accurate if not more accurate than using constant 2
“From a study of manly grotips ofdata m has been joiind for m ,a very common approximation. Furthermore, allow-
to range between I .8and 2.Ojor consolidated sandstones. ing m to change with clay content will allow a more realistic
For clmn. unconsolidated sands packed in the laboratory, representation of how m changes in nature, thus giving a
the value of m appears to be about 1.3.” more realistic picture of relative changes in saturation
Although Archie used m of 2 for practical reasons, he
caused by changes in clay content. In any event, the value
clearly understood that this was only an approximation.
of 2.7 is usually adequate, but a double check for accept-
Experimentally, it is not practical to use real unconsolidated
ability is that the associated value for RrCIbe reasonable (see
sands, and so experimental data are necessarily biased to-
the next section on estimation of clay grain resistivity or
ward consolidated rock. It follows from Archie’s statement
Rrc/).
that a reasonable value of nz for an unconsolidated sand-
The mixing formula used to calculate the whole-rock m
stone might be 1.6, because even an unconsolidated sand-
is
stone may be more compacted than loose sand studied
under laboratory conditions.

20 The Log Analyst May-June 1996

 Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands
where mcl is the clay cementation exponent.
Again, this appears to be reasonable based on plots of QV,
which varies roughly with clay content, versus m of the
Bussian and Samstag data (see also Clavier et al., 1984;
Figure 8a).
Of course, when laboratory-derived cementation expo-
nents are available, it is probably best to use those.
Estimating Grain Resistivity (Rr)
Sarid-grain resistivity
Bussian (1983) found Waxman-Smits’ (1968) “clean”
sands to have a grain resistivity of around 83 to 125 ohm-m.
These values may seem somewhat low for clean sands, but
the rocks may actually have had a small amount of clay.
Calculation of R, and m from the data of Herrick and
Kennedy (1993, 1994) yielded clean-sand R, from 90 to
10,000 ohm-m. In this article, it is assumed that since all the
sections studied are shaly, there will be some contamination
of the clean sands with small amounts of clay; hence, R, of
100 ohm-m is used. Because all these resistivities are high
in relation to the common values of R,, even the lower
values generally have little effect on calculated saturations.
On the other hand, sand cementation exponents (m,) can
have a strong influence on saturation calculations, even
with very low R,.
Cla.v-grainresistivity
The remaining problem for the dispersed-clay method is
that of finding the clay grain resistivity (Rrcl).In experimen-
tal data, Bussian (1983) and Samstag (1992) estimate the
range of laboratory-measured clay grain resistivity of be-
tween 1 and 10 ohm-m. Log-derived apparent RrC1is usually
in that range, but in low-resistivity low-contrast situations
it can be as low as 0.1 ohm-m. It is reasonable that the very
low derived resistivity could be a temperature or salinity
effect and is within the order of magnitude of shale resistiv-
ity change with temperature (Waxman and Smits, 1968).
When clay porosity, water resistivity, and clay cementa-
tion exponent are known and with a clay resistivity from an
adjacent shale, the HB equation can be used to find the clay
matrix resistivity as follows:
where
Ad
and the cl subscript denotes clay.
May-June 1996 The Log Analyst
When Rrcl is negative, it is sometimes necessary to raise
or lower mcl until RrC1comes to within a more reasonable
range (between 0.1 and 50). Similarly, when R,, is too high
(above 50), it might be necessary to adjust incl. I find that
there are negligible differences in calculated saturations as
long as Rrcl and mcl are “balanced” (one is used to calculate
the other) and Rrcl and mClare within reasonable ranges. A
reasonable range formcl is 2.5 to 3.5. Possible recourses in
situations where a balance cannot be found are discussed in
the “Discussion” section.
Now that we have the resistivity of the individual matrix
components, the total matrix resistivity can be calculated
from the following equation:
Rrsu
For a derivation of Equation (16) refer to derivation of
Equation (1 1) in Berg (1995).
Subtracting Shale Resistivity
for the Laminated-Shale Model
This model is the effective-medium equivalent to the
laminar model of Poupon et al. (1954). The model starts
with the resistors-in-parallel relationship
where V,, = shale volume and R , = partially saturated sand
resistivity.
Substituting Vclfor VSh and rearranging we obtain
This equation will be used to calculate effective satura-
tion in the laminated-shale calculation sequence.
APPLICATION TO LOG ANALYSIS
Many of the variables needed to enter into the model are
the same ones used in standard shaly sand analysis; there-
fore, they will not be discussed in detail. Some of the
variables can be calculated in different ways and the goal in
calculating saturation is to use the values that most ade-
quately represent the physical properties of the rocks. If the
cursory descriptions in the following steps are not clear,
refer to the previous more detailed discussions.
When neutron and density logs are available, use the
techniques in the dual-water method for calculating clay
porosity, effective porosity, and whole-rock porosity
(Asquith, 1990a). If only a density log is available, calcu-
21
 Berg

late the whole-rock porosity as the density porosity and In most cases the linear approximation for msa [Equation
effective porosity from Equation (8). These calculations (1 l ) ] should be adequate.
may be somewhat conservative compared to calculations 5. Calculate clay resistivity:
using crossplotted porosities.
Rcl = Rsh, or RcI = 0.4 * Rsh.
The approach toward using the saturation methods de-
scribed next should be flexible. The general equation con- The second relationship is an empirical relationship
tains all the variables necessary for S, calculations, but the commonly used when the dispersed clays are assumed to be
exact procedures used to arrive at S, should not be written “purer” clay than the adjacent shales and will thus have
in stone, because there may be different or better ways to lower resistivity (Asquith, 1990a).
determine the input variables. 6. Determine clay cementation exponent:
mcl= 2.5 to 3.5, usually around 2.7.
Dispersed-Clay Calculation Sequence
7. Calculate clay grain resistivity using the HB equation
1. Define, by standard log-evaluation procedures, the fol- solved for RrcI:
lowing variables:
R,. -water resistivity
R, - true (uninvaded) resistivity
V,, - clay volume
$cl - clay porosity ($rsh in the dual-water method)
4e - effective porosity and
(I - whole-rock porosity (4, in the dual-water
method)
RsI, - adjacent-shale resistivity
Effective porosity can alternatively be calculated by the
relationships If Rrcl calculates negative or greater than 50, adjust m,:
(step 6) until RrcI is within reasonable bounds, usually be-
4e = 4 - 4 c r . vc, 1 (8)
tween 0.1 and 50.
or 8. Calculate the whole-rock cementation exponent:
4e = 4sa . (1 - J’cd 9 (9) nt = insa * (1 - Vcl)+ ntcl. V,., .
when needed. 9. Calculate whole-rock grain resistivity:
2 . Calculate sand porosity:

(9)
Rrsa R,,
3 . Determine sandstone grain resistivity: 10. Calculate whole-rock water saturation:
R , = 100 ohm-m, or higher if desired. I
-

4. Determine or calculate sandstone cementation exponent: H=(+lrn 9

msa = 1.6 to 2 ,
or
mso = 1.994 - 0.752 . $sa , (11)
or B=R,-R,.(H+l),
and

11. Calculate effective saturation:

22 The Log Analyst MayJune 1996

 Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands
Q * (1 - s,,,
swe=l-
Qe
Laminated-Shale Calculation Sequence
The laminated-shale sequence assumes that beds can be
treated as resistors in parallel. Inherent in this assumption
is that current flow is parallel to bedding. This means that
to use this method two conditions must be fulfilled: 1) the
physical configuration of the clay should be exclusively as
laminated shales; 2) current from the tool used to measure
true resistivity (R,) should flow parallel to bedding. In other
words, the tool should be an induction tool.
The laminated-shale method uses steps (1) through ( 5 )
except that no correction factor for dispersed clay should be
used in step ( 5 ) . The following steps complete the sequence
for the laminated-shale model:
6 . Calculate partially saturated sand resistivity (Rss):
7. Calculate effective water saturation from the saturation
equation substituting R, for R, and sand variables for
whole-rock variables:
(4)
(5)
B = R,,, - R, * ( H + 1) , (7)
and
-B-,/B2+4.H.R,.,,.(Rss-Rn,)
Snse= . (6)
2.4 sa Rnr
8. If whole-rock saturation is needed, calculate it from
Equation (10) solved for S,,,:
Discussion on Calculation Sequences
If a clean, 100% water-saturated sand is available for
calculation of R,, it is more accurate to use the HB equation
than Archie’s law, especially in areas of higher R,. The
main problem in using the HB equation is that it is not
directly solvable for either R , or R,. Equations such as these
can be solved by using iterative computation techniques
such as the Newton-Raphson method.
May-June 1996 The Log Analyst
The calculation sequences given here should work in
most cases. However, sometimes situations arise where the
models do not work for one reason or another, and this may
be because some of the original assumptions are violated.
One example of this is if the shale has such high resistivity
that a reasonable value for clay grain resistivity (RrcI)can-
not be found with reasonable values of mcl. This could be
caused by shale S,,, less than 100% caused by active hydro-
carbon generation. Another possibility might be that the
“shale” being studied has a low clay content. The first
problem might be solved by assuming a reasonable Rrci,
while the second could be solved simply by using the
unusually high value of Rrci. Another example of invalid
assumptions is a case where the adjacent shale is predomi-
nantly kaolinite (relatively nonconductive), while the dis-
persed clay is montmorillonite (relatively conductive). One
solution is to assume a value for Rrcibased on reasonable
values for the formation. Another problem area could arise
in situations where effective porosity is reduced by silt or
other finely crystalline rock that is undetected or underde-
tected by the usual ways. It might be possible to calculate
an effective porosity and “clay” volume on the basis of
other methods such as from electromagnetic propagation
logs or shallow resistivity curves. Under such circum-
stances it would also be advisable to revise upward the
“clay” grain resistivity (Rrci).
To adapt the dispersed-clay method to CEC data, further
investigation is needed into the relationships between grain
conductivity (Rr),cementation exponent (m),and CEC-type
measurements such as Q,,. The theoretical background for
such adaptation could come from de Lima and Sharma’s
(1992) work. Other possible sources for adaptation include
Sen and Goode (1988 and 1992).
If water saturations for clean zones are coming out un-
reasonably low in fresher water environments, the sand may
have a higher grain resistivity. As stated earlier, clean-sand
grain resistivities can be 10,000 ohm-m and higher. In
higher resistivity environments, knowledge of produced-
water resistivity is highly desirable, because that knowl-
edge enables more precise determination of sand grain
resistivity.
Adaptation of the dispersed-clay shaly sand method to
high water-resistivity environments will require investiga-
tion into calculation of accurate clay-grain resistivity (Rrci)
when the water resistivity (R,,,) approaches or exceeds wet-
clay resistivity ( R J . Possible routes to solution of this
problem could be from de Lima and Sharma’s (1 990) paper.
With shaly sand methods in general, much of the error
comes from the estimate of Vc/.There are some log exam-
ples where shaly sands will calculate as negative satura-
tions. In those cases it is likely that V,, has been
overestimated. In many of those cases Archie’s (1942)
saturation methods are adequate. In fact, a quick check with
23
 Berg

Archie’s method might save time and is advisable before Dispersed-Clay Model on the Asquith (1990a, 1990b) Data
expending time and effort on any shaly sand method, espe-
The ultimate test of how well a saturation method works
cially when a high degree of accuracy is unnecessary.
is to try it on log data. Table 1 is a compilation of effective
It is possible to create a hybrid dispersed-clay/laminated-
saturations (S,,e) calculated on the data sets of Asquith
shale model by first removing the laminated shale and then
(1990a and 1990b) by the dispersed-clay model set forth in
treating the remainder of the clay as dispersed. First, calcu-
this article and by some other saturation models. As with all
late Vs,land V,, and then correct the calculated hybrid satu-
log examples, there is no right answer because the satura-
ration to either whole-rock saturation or effective
saturation. tions cannot be measured except through log analysis-cor-
When laboratory-derived saturation exponent ( n ) is rectness can only be inferred through production history.
available, apply it with the following equation: The example labeled “Eagle” is from Asquith (1990b);
the rest are Asquith (1990a). The saturations in the column
labeled “this article” were calculated with the standard
dispersed-clay sequence except for example 3, the
Cenientation exponent (in) is calculated in this way be- Spraberry data, and example 5, the Mississippian Chester
cause the derivation of the saturation relationship assumes data (these will be discussed in detail later). The saturations
labeled “Archie” were calculated from standard Archie
that 111 is equal to n.
( 1942) saturation calculations using cementation exponent
Although the methods have been set up for shaly sands,
and effective saturation calculated the same as “this arti-
they can easily be adapted to work on any two-component
cle.” In other words, the Archie calculations use the same
rock. They could also be extended to even more compo- sequence as this model except that R, is infinite. The sahi-
nents. For example, if a rock has sandstone interbedded rations from the other methods were calculated based on
with shale and chalk, the volumetric identities used to de- Asquith’s (1990) descriptions of those methods.
rive the effective porosity, clay porosity, and sand porosity In the Spraberry example (example 3), the adjacent shale
could be extended by including the chalk along with the shown on the log was extremely high, possibly indicating
shale fraction. The calculation of cementation factor would active hydrocarbon generation or another anomalous condi-
still be a simple volumetric weighted average, but of three tion. In lieu of a good shale resistivity (Rsl1),reasonable
components. The matrix resistivity could be extended in a guesses were made as to clay grain resistivity (R,/) and clay
similar manner. The main problem in this scheme would be cementation exponent (ni,/)of 5 ohm-m and 2.7, respec-
how to determine chalk versus clay volume. This might tively, and these were substituted directly into steps 8 and 9
require using a method such as that used by Guillotte et al. above. For the methods requiring Rshrthis was back-calcu-
( 1979) to calculate effective porosity and then using the
lated using the HB equation and the known R,, and oc, and
the same RVc/and ?n as above.
results to calculate the overall fraction of fine-grained ma-
On the Mississippian Chester (example 5) V,, calculated
terial. Apply methods such as these with caution, however, from the garnma and SP curves reportedly did not ade-
when calculating reserves near the top of large columtis of quately represent the change in effective porosity at depths
gas or oil. because chalk or other finely crystalline material of 5,728 and 5,736 ft (1745.9 and 1748.3 m), so Asquith
may be coarse enough to admit hydrocarbons when the used Guillotte et al.’s (1979) method for determining a
pressure from the buoyancy of the hydrocarbon column coinbined Archie ( 1942) cementation and saturation expo-
becomes great enough to overcome the entry pressure of the nent (I49and also effective saturation ($,,). Because V,, was
small pores. On the other hand, the high entry pressure not available this was back-calculated from 4,!. 4, and
means that the fine-grained material is likely to forcefully [Equation (8)]. V,, and $,, were then substituted into all the
expel its hydrocarbons. methods. On the “this article” colutnn, clay cementation
exponent and grain resistivity were made the same as their
CALCULATIONS ON LOG DATA sand counterparts, while in the “dual water” column Rsh was
arbitrarily set to 2 ohm-m. In addition, in the “this article”
These calculation sequences were used verbatim for and “Archie” columns, saturations were recalculated at
most of the results in this section. Except as noted in the 5,728 and 5.736 ft (1,745.9 and 1,748.3 m) using both $ e
descriptions below, m,/was set to 2.7 and ins0 was calcu- and the W exponent (to match Asquith’s calculations).
lated from the linear porosity relationship [Equation ( 1 l)]. All these shaly sandstones were productive. Overall, the
Other deviations from the calculation sequences are also dispersed-clay model seemed to work as well as or better
noted in the text. than the other models. One surprising result was that the
Eagle sandstone example appeared to calculate correctly
without the special correction for microporosity proposed

24 The Log Analyst May-June 1996

 Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands

Table 1 : Swe calculations by the dispersed-clay model and various other models on examples from Asquith (1990a) and
Asquith (1990b).
Example Depth Depth This Archie Dual Simandeaux Fertl Alger Asquith
(ft) (m) article water

1 6550 1996.4 0.38 0.61 0.54 0.5 1 0.40

1 6566 200 1.3 0.5 1 0.66 0.63 0.57 0.51
1 6580 2005.6 0.43 0.59 0.57 0.53 0.42
1 6614 2015.9 0.3 1 0.63 0.49 0.48 0.36

2 3684 1122.9 0.35 0.65 0.5 1 0.58 0.48

2 3710 1130.8 0.2 1 0.93 0.47 0.65 0.62
2 3716 1132.6 0.23 1.11 0.50 0.7 1 0.69
2 3728 1136.3 0.32 0.81 0.54 0.65 0.57

3 7724 2354.3 0.41 0.58 0.39 0.54 0.48

3 7732 2356.7 0.30 0.41 0.33 0.45 0.38
3 7738 2358.5 0.42 0.50 0.44 0.53 0.46

4 9730 2965.7 0.42 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.58

4 9750 2971.8 0.37 0.54 0.49 0.53 0.56
4 9770 2977.9 0.3 1 0.59 0.45 0.54 0.55
4 9790 2984.0 0.39 0.5 1 0.50 0.52 0.55

5 5706 1739.2 0.16 0.24 0.28 0.25 0.23

5 5712 1741.0 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.29 0.28
5 5728 1745.9 0.66 0.74 0.92 0.70 0.67
5 5736 1748.3 0.68 0.78 0.83 0.72 0.60
'5 5728 1745.9 0.37 0.40 0.24 0.65 0.3 1
'5 5736 1748.3 0.46 0.48 0.39 0.72 0.34
"5 5728 1745.9 0.23 0.30 - - -
**5 5736 1748.3 0.36 0.4 1 - - -

Redfork 6680 2036.1 0.28 0.39 0.44 0.49 0.38

Eagle 1736 529.1 0.47 0.72 0.65 0.68 0.74

Eagle 1750 533.4 0.33 0.78 0.54 0.66 0.73
Eagle 1760 536.4 0.25 0.78 0.47 0.64 0.68
Eagle 1770 539.5 0.27 0.78 0.48 0.64 0.70

*Calculation using $, from Guillotte et al. (1979)

**Calculation using $, and Wfrom Guillotte et al. (1979)
~ ~

by Asquith. This might possibly be because the other meth- than the Archie calculations. It is important to remember
ods did not work well with the relatively high R, of 0.25 that sandstone matrix resistivity will have increased influ-

I>
'
ohm -m.
The Archie calculations are a good yardstick for the
dispersed method. They should be the upper bound of cal-
culation since the Archie equation is essentially a reduction
ence as R, gets higher.
Another interesting point about the clean sands in exam-
ple 5 is that the other saturation models calculated higher
than Archie. This is probably because they assume m = 2.
of the new model with infinite grain resistivity. It is inter- Indeed, when m was set to 2 the Archie saturations came out
esting to note that at low water saturations, the amount of to 28% and 32% at 5,706 and 5,712 ft (1,745.9 and 1,748.3
water is small enough that the grain resistivity of clean m),respectively, and were identical to the dual-water and
sands (Vcr= 0) comes into play. A good example of this is Fertl calculations.
example 5 on Table 1 at 5,706 and 5.712 ft (1,739.2 and
1,741 m). V,, was zero for these two zones, yet the calcu-
lated saturations by the new method were 5% to 8% lower

May-June 1996 The Log Analyst 25

 Berg

Table 2: Swe calculations by the dispersed-clay model from this article on log examples of low-resistivity sandstones
from Moore (1992). Rw was calculated in most cases from wet sands.

D-5 8540 2603.0 0.47+ D-39 10530 3209.5 0.41+

8566 2610.9 0.5 1+ 10544 3213.8 0.46
8585 2616.7 0.45+ 10548 3215.0 0.79
870 1 2652.1 1.oo 10594 3229.1 1 .oo
D-7 11520 351 1.3 0.29+ 10705 3262.9 0.93
11650 3550.9 0.5 1+ D-50* 10098 3077.9 0.25+
11750 358 1.4 0.28+ 0085 3073.9 0.19+
11830 3605.8 1.oo 0220 31 15.1 0.50
D-15 9790 2984.0 0.45+ 0276 3132.1 0.63
9810 2990.1 0.25 D-66 5920 1804.4 0.30+
9850 3002.3 0.62 5970 1819.7 0.26
9886 3013.3 0.68 5990 1825.8 0.30
9988 3044.3 1.oo 6030 1837.9 0.66
D-17 7388 225 1.9 1.oo 6044 1842.2 1.00
7448 2270.2 0.58+ D-79 73 14 2229.3 0.97
7482 2280.5 0.20+ 7354 2241.5 0.5 1+
7500 2286.0 0.05+ 7378 2248.8 0.49+
D-18 7130 2173.2 0.34+ D-113 8575 2613.7 0.97
7160 2 182.4 0.47 8600 2621.3 1 .oo
7180 2188.5 0.7 1 8650 2636.5 0.02+
7260 2212.8 1 .oo D-115 11050 3368.0 0.60+
D-29 7790 2374.4 0.72 11070 3374.1 0.47+
7820 2383.5 0.43+ 11095 3381.8 0.2 1
7840 2389.6 0.46+ 11124 3390.6 1 .oo
7890 2404.9 0.80 D- 120 9516 2900.5 0.70+
7900 2407.9 0.77 9526 2903.5 0.3 1+
7960 2426.2 0.99 9550 29 10.8 0.53
D-35 9034 2753.6 1.oo 9624 2933.4 0.50
9104 2774.9 0.43+ 9640 2938.3 0.46
9110 2776.7 0.69+ 9650 2941.3 0.60
9140 2785.9 0.85 9680 2950.5 0.76
9190 280 1 . 1 1.02 D-136 7055 2 1 50.4 0.54+
D-3 8 10142 3091.3 0.52+ 7062 2152.5 0.3 I +
10154 3094.9 0.45+ 71 10 2167.1 1.oo
10290 3136.4 0.98 7120 2 170.2 0.84

* R,,, calculated from SP

+ Within perforated interval

Dispersed-Clay Model on Low-Contrast,
Low-Resistivity Data
Because all Asquith’s (1990a, 1990b) sandstones were
productive, there could be some skepticism that the dis-
persed-clay method might always calculate low ,SUje.To
investigate that possibility, some of the wells in Productive
LOW Resistivity Well Logs of the OJfikore Gulf of Mexico
(Moore, 1992) were worked using the new model (Table 2).
The criteria for choosing these examples were that they
appeared to have wet sands along with proven productive
sands in the logged section. In most cases R , was calculated
from the wet sands using the HB equation, but in two cases
R , was calculated from SP. The model appeared to work
well and generally calculated high water saturations for the
nonproductive sands and low saturations for the productive
ones. The results for other saturation methods were similar
to the results of example 4, the offshore example, on Table
1.

26 The Log Analyst May-June 1996

 Effective-MediumResistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands

:I
0.7
While the calculation sequences defined here may be a
little more lengthy than most shaly sand techniques, the
variables and the concepts behind their calculation are easy
to understand. There are also few arbitrary constants or
approximations. By nature, constants must be derived em-
pirically, and empirically derived quantities can have prob-
lems when applied outside the conditions for which they

+-I:' I-,
0.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5
_I+

Sample No.
--Lanhted-shak
Figure 3: Calculations of Swe by the laminated-shale model
from this article and by the dual-water model on the data from ent models for different conditions. Because the saturation
Etnyre (1993).The log example was originally published in model derived here is theoretical, it should be applicable
Vajnar et al. (1977).
Laminated-Shale Model on the Etnyre (1993)
Low-Contrast, Low-Resistivity Data
The data from the Etnyre (1993) data set (originally
published in Vajnar et al.; 1977) are a good test of the theory and for his review of the manuscript and encouragementon
laminated-shale model because, according to Etnyre, R, is the project.
from an induction log and the clays are contained in lami-
nated shale. Figure 3 is a plot of the Entyre (1993) data set
with S, calculations from the dual-water model and the
laminated-shale model presented here. The standard error
between the two, relative to S,, of loo%, was 7%; the
average difference between the models was 5.9%, with the Asquith, G. B., 1990a, Log evaluation of shaly sandstone reser-
laminated-shale model usually being smaller.
CONCLUSIONS
Effective-medium theory can be successfully applied to
published log examples using fairly simple calculation se-
quences. Although the results compared favorably with
current shaly sand models, further work is needed to de-
velop crossplot techniques and empirical relationships for
calculating input variables. For example, the mixing rela-
tionship for mCland msa [Equation (13)] might be improved
by using a nonlinear empirical relationship similar to that of
Sen and Goode (1988). Similarly, when integrating labora-
tory measurements, it is important to correct measurements
gathered at surface temperature and pressure for pressure
and temperature at depth.
The assumptions set forward in the derivation of the
dispersed-clay model, although fairly lengthy, imply that it
should be valid for the vast majority ofreservoir conditions.
Indeed, although empirical saturation models have no such
broad explicit assumptions, they necessarily have similar
restrictions on their application because of the ranges of
conditions encountered during their derivation.
were derived. Similarly, arbitrary approximations such as
setting m equal to 2 can erode the ability of a model to
change with changing conditions. The method described
here allows the log analyst to determine the variables in a
&el straightforward manner and to change those variables as
conditions demand.
Ideally, the log analyst should not have to choose differ-
under a much wider range of conditions than the present
models, thus freeing the log analyst from having to use
different models for different areas.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Robert R. Berg for introducing me to effective-medium
REFERENCES
Archie, G. E., 1942, The electrical resistivity log as an aid in
determining some reservoir characteristics: Petroleum Tech-
nologv, v. 1, p. 55-62.
voirs: a practical guide: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists continuing education course note series 31,59 p.
Asquith, G. B., 1990b, NWSE.BAS: BASIC<program for deter-
mining effective water saturation in shaly sands using percent-
age of clay-bound water-tilled microporosity: Geobyte, v. 5,
no. 3, p. 43-50.
Berg, C. R., 1995, A simple effective-medium model for water
saturation in porous rocks, Geophysics, v. 60, no. 4, p.
1070-1080.
Berg, R. R., 1975, Capillary pressures in stratigraphic traps:
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 59,
no. 6, p. 939-956.
Best, D. L., Gardner, J. S., and Dumanoir, J. L., 1978, A computer-
processed wellsite log computation, paper 2, in 19th Annual
Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Professional
Well Log Analysts.
Bussian, A. E., 1983, Electrical conductance in a porous medium:
Geophysics, v. 48, p. 1258-1268.
Clavier, C., Coates, G., and Dumanoir, J., 1984, Theoretical and
experimental bases for the dual-water model for interpretation
of shaly sands: Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, v. 24,
p. 153-168.
de Lima, 0. A. L. and Sharma, M. M., 1990, A grain conductivity
approach to shaly sandstones: Geophysics, v. 55, p. 1347-1356.

May-June 1996 The Log Analyst 21

 Berg
de Lima, 0. A. L. and Sharma, M. M., 1992, A generalized
Maxwell-Wagner theory for membrane polarization in shaly
sands: Geophysics, v. 57, p. 43 1 4 4 0 .
Etnyre, L. M., 1993, Comparative performance of a dual water
modcl equation in laminar shaly sands, paper I, in 34th Annual
Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Professional
Well Log Analysts, p. 11-25,
Guillotte, J. G., Schrank, J., and Hunt, E., 1979, Smackover reser-
voir: interpretation case study of water saturation versus pro-
duction: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies,
Transactions, v. 29, p. 121-126.
Hanai, T., 1960a, Theory of the dielectric dispersion due to the
interfacial polarization and its application to emulsions: Kol-
loid-Zeitschrift, v. 171, p. 23-31.
Hanai, T., 1960b, a remark on “Theory of the dielectric dispersion
due to the interfacial polarization and its application to emul-
sions: Kolloid-Zeitschrqt, v. 175, p. 61-62.
Herrick, D. C. and Kennedy, W. D., 1993, Electrical efficiency: a
pore geometric model for the electrical properties of rocks,
paper HH, in 34th Annual Logging Symposium Transactions:
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts ,p. HH1-HH9.
Herrick, D. C. and Kennedy, W. D., 1994, Electrical efficiency-a
pore geometric theory for interpreting the electrical properties
of reservoir rocks: Geoph-ysics,v. 59, p. 918-927.
Moore, D., 1993, ed., Productive low resistivity well logs of the
offshore Gulf ofMexico: Houston Geological Society and New
Orlcans Geological Society, A-1 to D-154.
Poupon, A,, Loy, M. E., and Tixier, M. P., 1954, A contribution to
electrical log interpretation in shaly sands: AIME Transactions,
V.201, p. 138-145.
Samstag, F. J., 1992, An effective-medium model for complex
conductivity of shaly sands in the salinity, frequency, and
saturation domains: Texas A&M University Department of
Geophysics Rock Physics Consortium, v. 4, 16 1 p.
Sen, P. N. and Goode, P. A., 1988, Shaly sand conductivity at low
and high salinities, paper F, in 29th Annual Logging Sympo-
sium Transactions: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts,
p. FI-10.
Sen, P. N. and Goode, P. A , , 1992, Influence of temperature on
clectrical conductivity of shaly sands: Geophysics, v. 57, p.
89-96.
Sen, P. N., Scala, C., and Cohen, M. H., 198 1, A self-similar model
for sedimentary rocks with application to the dielectric constant
of fused glass beads: Geophysics, v. 46, p. 78 1-795.
Sherman, M. M., 1987, A model for the determination of water
saturation from dielectric permittivity mcasurements: The Log
Analyst, v. 28, p. 282-288.
28 The Log Analyst
View publication stats
Vajnar, E. A., Kidwcll, C. M., and Haley, R. A., 1977, Surprising
productivity from low-resisistivity sands, paper EE, in 18th
Annual Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Profes-
sional Well Log Analysts, p. EEI-10.
Waxman, M. H. and Smits, L. J. M., 1968, Electrical conductivi-
ties in oil-bearing shaly sand: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal, v. 8, p. 107-122.
Waxman, M. H. and Thomas, E. C., 1974, Electrical conductivities
in shaly sands: I. The relation between hydrocarbon saturation
and resistivity index; 11. The temperature coefficient of electri-
cal conductivity: Journal of Petroleum Technology, Transac-
tions AIME, v. 257, p. 213-225.
Zemanek, J., 1989, Low-resistivity hydrocarbon-bearing sand res-
ervoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation Evaluation,
December, p. 5 15-52 1.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Charles R. Berg was graduated from the University of Texas
at Austin in 1974 with a BSc degree in geology and from the
Colorado School of Mines in 1981 with an MSc in geology. Until
1987, most of his work was as a seismic interpreter with Phillips
Petroleum Co.; Terra Resources, Inc.; Trend Exploration, Ltd.; and
Adobe Resources, Inc. He also spent a few years from 1981 to
1985 as a consultant. In 1987, his interest in the water saturation
problem led to development geology work in the south Louisiana
area, including subsurface structural mapping and log analysis. At
that time, Charles developed a strong interest in dipmeter interpre-
tation. Since 1992, he has been involved in dipmeter interpretation
and the development of dipmeter interpretation software. Readers
may contact Charles by mail at 4747 Research Forest Dr. #l80-
221, The Woodlands, Texas 77381; his e-mail address is
crberg@ix.netcom.com; his telephone is 713-367-0843.
May-June 1996