SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

SHALY SAND ANALYSIS IN DEVELOPMENT WELLS

Walter H. Fertl

Continental Oil Company

ABSTRACT

A simplified shaly sand analysis which uses a resistivity-one porosity

log combination is discussed. The method involves estimation of shali-
ness by conventional techniques and, if necessary, porosity corrections
for gas effects. A pseudo-q factor, which compares favorably with q-
values from the Density-Sonic combination, provides a basis for deter-
mining cutoff permeability. Computed water saturations compare well
with the SW - and Simandoux equation.
q
The method, which is applicable to minimum logging combinations as
frequently run in development wells, is illustrated on field examples
from several areas.

INTRODUCTION

Well log analysis of shaly pay sands has received considerable attention
by log analysts. In many of these investigations, the clays and fluids
occupying the interstices of the sand matrix are treated as a slurry,
and the effect of both clay and hydrocarbons is taken into account.
Based upon the dispersed clay model, the formation water saturation
(SW ) has been successfully estimated in the U.S. Gulf Coast area for
many years (Alger et al, 1963; Tixier, 1968). i

It is also known that resistivity of the disseminated clay (R,) is not

exactly constant. However, an average value should be useable for a
given geological area, since under most circumstances even relatively
large changes in the value of R, cause only small variations in the
computer water saturation.

It is generally assumed that the resistivity of clays dispersed in the

pore space of a reservoir rock is less than that of adjacent shales.
Poupon et al (1954) have given a value of R, = 0.5 R,h for the shallow
Wilcox of Louisiana and Mississippi. In recent years an approximate
value such as R, = 0.4 R,h has usually been adopted. Tixier (1968)
suggested as a first approach a value of Rc % 10 Rw for the Gulf Coast.
Recent research has led to a method giving experimentally the R, value,
provided the values for Rw and CEC's (cation exchange capacities) are
known (Atlan et al, 1968). For the Gulf Coast we recommend the use of
= 0.4 R,h, which closely agrees with the concept of multiple Rw-
RC
values proposed by Tixier (1968).

-l-
SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

Furthermore, if Rc is much greater than Rw, the expression for Sw

greatly simplifies (Tixier, 1968). 9

BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

Considering the response of porosity tools, such as the Density and

Sonic, to the "shaliness" of a formation, it is possible to compute
water saturation, requiring one porosity tool only. In addition, it is
then possible to derive a "pseudo-q" value. The latter gives an indication
for the amount of clay in the formation and, therefore, estimates the
likelihood of effective permeability for production. Response of Density
@DC) and Sonic (BHC) logs in shaly waterbearing sands can be expressed
such as:

FDC --_-- +D = 9e + xl ’ ‘,h

BHC _---- 9s = @e + x2 ’ vsh

where +D, 0s = log derived porosity readings from Density and

Sonic.

@e = effective porosity of the formation, i.e., only

the fluid filled fraction of the reservoir rock.

V sh = amount of shale, obtained from Gamma Ray, SP-curve,

or Induction log.

oma - ash = shale correction factor for Density response;

x1 =
oma - of1 a function of the sand matrix density coma),
shale density (p,h), and fluid density (pfl)
of the mud filtrate.

Atsh-Atma =
shale correction factor for Sonic response; a
x2 = At function of sand matrix travel time (At,,),
f -Atma
shale travel time (At,,), and the fluid travel
time (At,,).

Practical experience indicates that usually x2 > x1. On the Gulf Coast
the value of x1 is commonly very small, since extensive data indicate
the Density derived porosity to be a close approximation of effective
porosity. With the shale density differing only little from the matrix
density, such a shale correction becomes negligible. This is especially
true in not too shaly formations. Influence of shaliness on the Sonic
is larger, with the value of x 2 frequently ranging between 0.2 and 0.4.

Equations (1) and (2) are written assuming the Sonic and Density responses
to laminated and dispersed shale to be the same. Based upon this assumption,
V sh is a bulk-volume total shale measurement regardless of the type of

- 2 -
 SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

clay distribution. Vsh is estimated from the Gamma Ray, SP curve,

and/or Resistivity log. Then the smallest value of V,h is recommended
in further interpretations.

For simplicity the following methematical manipulations have been carried

out for a waterbearing shaly sand. Corrections necessary for the effect
of the presence of gas on the Density response should be applied before
entering the value of porosity into the final equations to compute water
saturation and the pseudo-q value.

DENSITY-INDUCTION LOG COMBINATION

Equations (1) and (2) show the generalized response of both Density and
Sonic in waterbearing shaly sands. Subtracting Equation (1) from (2),
we can write

4s - +D = a vsh (3)

where a = (x -x) = log derived combined effect of density and

2 1
acoustic data of the reservoir rock and its
fluid content, an empirical formation - or
area value. In several areas the value 0.25
has been found satisfactory. However, "a"
may be as low as 0.15 or as high as 0.36.

Furthermore, by definition we can express the fraction (q) of the total porosity
occupied by disseminated clay such as

= OS - (+Jj
q (4)
@S

In practice, Equation (4) is solved without regard for the manner of

clay and shale occurrence. Computations can be made in sands containing
shale laminations, and even in shales. In compacted shales on the Gulf
Coast, the values of q may be as high as 0.8, whereas in undercompacted
shales a value of 0.6 may be approached. This q-value may provide a
basis for determination of cutoff permeability in adjacent pay sands.
For example, if the q-value computed in sands exceeds one-half the value
in adjacent shales, the sands are probably too "tight" for production.
To our knowledge, no commercial production has been obtained to date
from U.S. Gulf Coast zones in which q ' 0.4.

Substituting Equations (3) and (4), we obtain

a-V a-V
= sh = sh
4 (5)
@S +D + a * Vsh

-3-
SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

Thus, Equation (5) provides a solution for a "pseudo-q" value from the
Density and Gamma Ray only. Basic requirement is the knowledge of
porosity (if necessary, corrected for gas), the amount of shale present,
and the empirical value of "a."

Substituting this q-value (Equation 5) into the classic Sw -equation

proposed by Alger et al (1963) previously and where Rc >> qRw, the
following simplified equation is obtained 7

, (6)

In Equation (6) the relation between porosity and the formation re-
sistivity factor is assumed to be F = $-2. Application of the Humble
equation, probably more suited for high porosity sands on the Gulf
Coast, yields the following expression.

sw = ;[/Ti - a>h] (7)

COMPARISON WITH SIMANDOLJX APPROACH

Studies by Simandoux (1963) on artificial media composed of sand, the

clay have shown that the conductivity can be expressed by an equation of
the form y = bx + cx2. U.S. Gulf Coast experience indicated that this
equation gives satisfactory results over all ranges of SW and shaliness
V
sh'
Comparison of the Simandoux approach with Equation (7) under "typical"
Gulf Coast conditions [$I= 3O%, Rw = 0.04, Rsh = 1.01 indicates (1) the
Simandoux equation to be slightly higher in not too shaly formations
('sh Q low), (2) for pay sands containing about 30% shale,the difference
becomes about 5 saturation percent over the saturation range of interest,
and (3) decreasing "a"-values decrease the difference between the
computations of the water saturation.

SONIC-INDUCTION LOG COMBINATION

Similar mathematical manipulations can be carried out when a Sonic-

Induction combination is available. Since both Equations (3) and (4)
are still valid, we can express the q-factor as follows:

= $s - @e a 'sh
q (8)
9, = $s

- 4 -
 SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

Substitution of Equation (8) into the classic Sw -expression (Alger et

al, 1963), relating F = Q

Applying the Humble equatikn, the above equation simplifies to

sw =

It is of interest to note that for practical purposes Equation (10) may

be substituted by a straightforward application of Archie's equation,
provided the formation is not too shaly. This can be done, because the
resistivity values are decreased by shaliness, but the formation factor
from the Sonic tends to compensate for this detrimental effect.

FIELD EXAMPLES

Notwithstanding recent advances in sophisticated computerized shaly sand

analysis, log analysts may be faced with minimum logs such as a Density-
Induction log combination. This situation frequently is the case in
development wells. Often knowledge of the q-factor is desired for cutoff
permeability.

Table I shows comparative results using the conventional Density-Sonic

method and the proposed Density-Gamma Ray approach in several logs
located offshore Louisiana. These results are considered encouraging.

An example of a high porosity pay sand in the Gulf Coast area is shown
in Figure 1. Note the very good agreement of the conventional q- and
the pseudo-q factor. Based upon the commonly accepted cutoff of q = 0.4
as a function of reservoir permeability for commercial production,
both q-values lead to identical conclusions over entire subject interval.

Figures 2 and 3 show a field case from Colorado. This gasbearing

reservoir rock consists of complex lithology, being a very tite, hard,
and limy sandstone with numerous shale laminations. The pay is indicated
by qualitative "quick look" log overlays using comparable scaled porosity
logs (Figure 2).

Both q-logs are almost identical in the lower, waterbearing sandstone

and in the shale section. In cleaner gasbearing intervals, the q-logs
differ, but the major features are the same. Reason for this discrepancy
is the fact that the conventional q-factor, using the Sonic-Density
combination, was obtained without any gas correction, whereas the pseudo

-5-
SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

q-log, using the Density-Gamma Ray combination, was based on a gas

corrected density log. Note the excellent agreement of SW-values using
the Simandoux equation (with 6 from Density-SNP) and the proposed method.
S -data and the SNP-Sonic overlay all indicate the presence of water in
&e lower part of the reservoir rock. This has been also confirmed by
test data.

Finally, Figure 4 illustrates the method for the medium porosity Sussex
formation in a Wyoming well. Again one observes satisfactory agreement
of both the q-values and water saturation data.

CONCLUSIONS

1. A technique to evaluate shaly pay sands is proposed which uses the

Density-Gamma Ray-Induction log combination. This minimum logging
suite is commonly run in development wells.

2. A pseudo-q factor can be computed. It compares well with the q-

value from the Density-Sonic log combination and thus provides a
basis for determination of cutoff permeabilities in pay sands.

3. Field case studies using the proposed method in high, medium, and
low porosity formations compare favorably with results based on the
conventional SW equation.
q
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alger, R. P., et al, "Formation Density Log Application in Liquid

Filled Holes," J. Petrol. Tech., March, 1963.

2. Atlan, Y., et al, "Conductive en milieu poreux argileux. Interpretation

des Diagraphies," Colloque de 1' ARTFP, Pau, Sept. 23-26, 1968.

3. Poupon, A., et al, "A Contribution to Electric Log Interpretation

in Shaly Sands," J. Petrol. Tech., August, 1954.

4. Simandoux, P., "Mesures dielectriques en milieu poreux. Application

a la mesure des saturations en eau. Etude du comportement des
massifs aryileux," June 10-14, 1963.

5. Tixier, M. P., "Log Evaluation of Low-Resistivity Pay Sands in the

Gulf Coast," Trans. SPWLA, June, 1968.

- 6 -
 SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

TABLE I

COMPARATIVE SBALY SAND CALCULATIONS

OFFSHORE U.S. GULF COAST

sw q-factor Reservoir
Area Depth, ft Conv.* Prop.** Conv.* Prop.** Type

E. Cameron 9958-9966 95.0 94.6 .214 .254 Water

14853-14868 20.0 22.2 .350 ,288 Gas

Ship Shoal lQ271-10280 34.0 45.5 .508 .358 Gas

10540-10564 35.0 37.6 .200 .187 Oil
7930-7950 42.0 41.1 .329 .376 Gas
6143-6150 80.2 72.5 .243 .309 Water

S. Marsh Isl. 6475-6502 32.7 38.9 .326 ,248 Gas

* Conv. = conventional approach, Density-Sonic

** Prop. = proposed method, Density-Gamma Ray

*** Calculations of "a" for subject wells gave an

average value of 0.244.

- 7 -
SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

HIGH POROSITY DEVELOPMENT WELL, OFFSHORE LOUISANA

IO Q*(DEN-GRI 100,
SP - CURVE
I I

96X

FIGURE 1

- 8 -
 LOW - PERMEABILITY GASBEARING SANDSTONE , COLORADO
,50 GAMMA RAY 170, SONIC-DENSITY OVERLAY DENSITY- SNP OVERLAY SONIC-SNP OVERLAY

2500

2550

27001 I F-

*?

2800

28!!0

FIGURE 2
 LOW PERMEABILITY GASBEARING SANDSTONE, COLORADO

L50_^___GAMMA
---------RAY lfq
o OVERLAY 0fQ-L06S,00 1;; SW (DEN-GR) 0,
,O Q (SON -DEN 1 100, I 1 , SW (SIMANDOUXX),

FIGURE 3
 MEDIUM POROSITY WELL, WYOMING
------mm-------
,O Q-FACTORS - 100
100 $iDEN-GRI 20,
-___-___--_-
20_________________
GAMMARAY 200,
0 I LO 20 ,a POR (DEN) 0 I 100 SW(SON-DEN) Xl,
t20 SP 100,

Q (SON-DEN 1
/ Q*(DEN-GR) 1
--_
__-- -s

&
---__
w’ ~~~_~~ -y
&’
> -7
_c--
r
_ y.:.,.>:.:.:.>>... .._(
1 md
)

FIGURE 4
i
SPWLA SIXTEENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 4-7, 1975

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Walter H. Fertl is at present a Senior Research Scientist in

the Production Research Division of Continental Oil Company
in Ponca City, Oklahoma. A native of Vienna, Austria, he
holds a Dipl. Ing. and a Dr. mont. degree from the University
of Mining at Leoben, Austria, and }!.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
petroleum engineering from the University of Texas. He was
associated with the Austrian Petroleum Company as assistant to
the manager for well completions and workovers and has taught
in formation evaluation seminars at the University of Texas,
University of Southern California, and the University of Zulia,
Venezuela. His working experience also includes Germany and
the Middle East prior to joining Conoco. A member of several
technical and honorary societies, he is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Oklahoma, has authored over 60 technical
papers and holds several patents on oil well drilling and produc-
tion technolocty. He is listed in American Men of Science,
Personalities- if the South, Who is Who in the South and Southwest,
Dictionary of International Biography, and Men of Achievement.

Walter is the outgoing President of the local SPWLA chapter in

Tulsa and has served on the Board of SPWLA as Secretary-
Treasurer for the term 1974-75.

-12-