Handbook of Log Evaluation Techniques

For Carbonate Reservoirs

By
George B. Asquith
Pioneer Production Corporation

Methods in Exploration Series No. 5

Published By:
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
Published by
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, USA

Copyright © 1985 by
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
All Rights Reserved

For AAPG:
Editor: Richard Steinmetz
Science Director: E. A. Beaumont
ProjectEditor: R. L. Hart

Published March 1985

Revised September 1985

Asquith, George B.
Handbook of log evaluation techniques for carbonate
reservoirs.

Bibliography: p.
L Carbonate reservoirs-Eval_uation. 2. Oil well
logging, Electric. 3. Petroleutn..Geology--United States­
Case studies. 4. Petroleum-Geology-Canada-Case
studies. I. Title.
TN87l.A$28 1985 622'.182 85·6212
ISBN 0-89181-655.0
Author s Note:
This handbook is designed for explorationists who work in the real world and who, therefore, aren't always
lucky enough to have textbook-type evaluation problems in their everyday work, especially when working in
carbonate reservoirs. This book is largely devoted to explaining and then illustrating a variety of techniques
which can be brought to bear on carbonate-related problems. I hope you find this book useful, but that you apply
these techniques with caution. They may not work every time.

George B. Asquith
Pioneer Production Corporation
Amarillo, Texas
March, 1985
Publisher's Note:
Wherever the dagger symbol t appears next to a log abbreviation, it signifies a specific log package that car-
ries the mark of Schlumberger. Hereafter all references to this mark in the text will be understood by the reader
as such.

IV
 "

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction . . .. . . .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... ......... .. ... .. ...... .. . .. ..... ..... ..... . . . . . . . . . .. . 1

General . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 1
Resistivity Variations as a Function of Pore Geometry and Hydrocarbons . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 .Detennination of Cementation Exponent (m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Case Study 1: Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef, Scurry County, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 7

3. Use of Bulk Volume Water . . .. .

. . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case Study 2: Ordovician Red River Formation, Williston Basin, North Dakota ................ 13
Case Study 3: Devonian Zama Reef, Alberta, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Production Ratio Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Case Study 4: Lower Permian Council Grove B-zone, Ochiltree County, Texas . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . . . 19

5. Combining Water Saturation/ Ratio Method, Moveable Hydrocarbon Index,

Bulk Volume Water, and Archie Water Saturation . . . 22 . .

1I..·
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Case Study 5: Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City Formation, Northwest Shelf, Anadarko Basin . . 22

6. Use of Single Textural Parameter, W, for Solving Microporosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Case Study 6: Jurassic Smackover Oolite, Gulf Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . 29

7. Use of Dielectric Constant Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Case Study 7: Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone, Northwestern Kansas . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

8.Fracture Porosity and the Cementation Exponent (m) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

I�
Summ ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Appendix . . . . .. .. . .. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Review of Essential Logging Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 46

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

I•

.,

v

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
General
Will a reservoir produce hydrocarbons? This is a
particularly troublesome question in carbonates
because, frequently, the answer is anything but
straightforward.
Despite the best geology put together from
carefully crafted depositional and seismic models,
only after a well is drilled into a carbonate reservoir,
can a geologist decide whether or not the well will
give up commercial quantities of hydrocarbons or,
indeed, any hydrocarbons at all. Besides information
from surrounding wells, data from drill stem tests,
cores, cuttings, and open-hole logs ensure the best
basis for making a decision about a well's
productivity; unfortunately, drill stem tests or core
data are not always available so the geologist is
forced to fall back on open-hole logs for most of his or
her information.
Because of unique pore characteristics in carbonate
rocks and their affect on resistivity logs, geologists
can easily make some incorrect judgements. They
sometimes decide a well is productive when it's not,
or they sometimes overlook a good well.
Problems occur because carbonate reservoirs can
have several types of porosity which include
intergranular, intercrystalline, vuggy, moldic, and
fracture. In addition to these different types of
porosity, the pore size may be large (megaporosity) or
very small (microporosity). The different pore types
and sizes result from both depositional and
diagenetic processes.
If a carbonate reservoir contains only intergranular
or intercrystalline porosity, accurate water
saturations (Sw) can be calculated from the standard
Archie equation (Sw = -Jlltf x B^IRJ. But, in
carbonates with moldic or vuggy porosity, water
saturations calculated by the standard Archie
equation often appear too low because of the more
complex pore geometry. The reverse is true when
microporosity or fracture porosity is present; then,
calculated water saturations will appear too high.
This happens if, as is found with microporosity, there
is a high bound-water content or, if, as is found with
fracture porosity, there is a less complex pore
geometry than in intergranular and intercrystalline
porosities.
Regardless of which factors distort the data, a
geologist is faced with a difficult log evaluation
problem if a reservoir contains carbonates having
varying pore types and sizes. Fortunately, by using a
multiple technique approach encompassing some
newly developed strategies, the geologist can
minimize judgement errors. Also, by a judicious
INTRODUCTION
application of these techniques to logs from
abandoned wells, new exploration opportunities may
be revealed. Since the possibilities for mistakes are
greatly enhanced in carbonate reservoirs, we can
conclude that many of the older hydrocarbon
provinces with limestones or dolomites may, in fact,
contain some excellent opportunities for discoveries
in previously drilled zones.
The following discussion is designed to help the
explorationist avoid costly mistakes and to suggest
techniques which can be used to evaluate potential
carbonate reservoirs. It begins by reviewing how
resistivity measurements are affected by both pore
geometry and the presence of hydrocarbons. Then,
seven case studies from different ages and areas are
used to illustrate the various methods which help a
geologist determine a well's productive potential.
These methods include: (1) modification of
cementation exponent m; (2) calculation of moveable
hydrocarbon index (SW/SM); (3) calculation of water
saturation by the Ratio Method; (4) determination of
bulk volume water (Sw x <j>); (5) determination of
Production Ratio Index (PRI); (6) use of the single
textural parameter, W, in the Archie water saturation
equation; and (7) dielectric constant logs.
One word of caution: an important requirement for
using any of the methods presented here is that the
geologist should first have a solid knowledge about
the rocks being analyzed. This means, whenever
possible, combining information about an area with
data obtained from cuttings or core examination. We
will emphasize repeatedly that application of these
techniques depends upon the available log suite and
the type of porosity in a reservoir; the case studies
are designed to provide some helpful application
guidelines.
Resistivity Variations as a Function of Pore
Geometry and Hydrocarbons
In this section, we discuss how resistivity (and its
inverse, conductivity) is influenced by the presence of
hydrocarbons, and how resistivity plays an integral
role in determining water saturation. First of all, the
reader is reminded that resistivity logs are electric
logs whose primary use is in helping determine
hydrocarbon- versus water-bearing zones. (For a
review of how resistivity logs are used to determine
hydrocarbon- versus water-bearing zones, see
Asquith, 1982.) Resistivity varies with the presence
of hydrocarbons and with changes in the pore
geometry of a reservoir. Although resistivity is also
INTRODUCTION

FRACTURE POROSITY

saE

^W*^^U±M± Sw= 1.0

Cb=0mCf M^I.O

INTERGRANULAR OR (INTERCRYSTALLINE) POROSITY

P*^rrr

B.
^ § c>
^ § 9Ck S„,= 1.0
'w

Cb = 0 m C f M^2.0

VUGGY POROSITY

Sw= 1.0

Cb=0mcf M>2.0

PATH OF ELECTRICAL FLOW

 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Schematic showing three different types of porosity in water-bearing (where Sw = 1.0) carbonate reservoirs,
and the paths taken by an electric current flowing through these reservoirs.
This figure is designed to illustrate how pore geometry affects the flow of an electric current through the rock, and
how the cementation exponent (m) varies with changes in pore geometry.
The following examples show how changes in the pore geometry and the cementation exponent (m) affect the conduc-
tivity (Cb) and resistivity (Rt) measured by the electric log.
Legend: Stippled area depicts rock matrix; white area depicts water.
Given: Conductivity of formation water (Cf) = 25 mho/meter; porosity ($) is 0.10 (or 10%).
Figure 1A: Example of plane fracture porosity (where Sw = 1.0); cementation exponent (m) = 1.0.
Cb = 0mCf
Cb = 0.101 x 25
Cb = 2.5 mho/meter
Rt = 0.4 ohm-meter (Rt = true formation resistivity, or the reciprocal of Cb such that Rt = 1/Cb)
Figure IB: Example of intergranular or intercrystalline porosity (where Sw = 1.0); cementation exponent (m) = 2.0.
Cb = 0mCf
Cb = 0.102 X 25
Cb = 0.25 mho/meter
Rt = 4.0 ohm-meters
Figure 1C: Example of vuggy porosity (where Sw = 1.0); cementation exponent (m) = 4.0.
C = 0mcf
Cb = 0.104 x 25
Cb = 0.0025 mho/meter
Rt = 400 ohm-meters
Note: ohm-meter and mho/meter are defined in the appendix.

3
INTRODUCTION
affected by the salinity of formation water (Rw), we
assume for the purposes of this discussion that
salinity remains constant.
How resistivity responds to both hydrocarbon
saturation and pore geometry is illustrated in the
following equations:
Equation 1:
R
Equation 1 demonstrates that conductivity is the
reciprocal of resistivity.
Equation 2:
Assuming that no hydrocarbons are present and
reservoir water saturation is 100 percent (Sw = 1.0),
then:
Cb = ( l - 0 ) C m + 0Cf
Equation 2 demonstrates that the bulk
conductivity (Cb) of the rock, measured by the electric
log, is equal to 1.0 minus the porosity ($), times the
conductivity of the rock's matrix (Cm, which is
limestone or dolomite in carbonates), plus porosity (4>)
times the conductivity of the water in the pores (Cf,
formation water). Because the rock's matrix is a
non-conductor of electricity, conductivity of the
rock's matrix (Cm) equals zero (Cm = 0), and Equation
2 reduces to Equation 3.
Equation 3:
Assuming that no hydrocarbons are present and
reservoir water saturation is 100 percent (Sw = 1.0),
then:
C b = 4>Cf
The bulk conductivity (Cb) of the rock is equal to
the porosity (4>) times the conductivity of the water in
the pores (Cf). Equation 3 is only valid when plane
fractures are present (Aguilera, 1980; and Ransom,
1984).
With a more complex pore geometry than plane
fractures, the equation is modified by the addition of
a cementation exponent (m). Figure 1 illustrates three
wet(S w = 1.0) reservoirs with (A) plane fracture
porosity, (B) intergranular porosity, and (C) vuggy
porosity. You can see that, as the path of electrical
flow becomes more skewed and the reservoir is said
to have greater tortuosity, then the value of m
changes. With greater tortuosity, the cementation
exponent (m) increases and the measured bulk
4
conductivity (Cb) decreases. Because the resistivity is
a reciprocal of conductivity, an increase occurs in
resistivity. For most carbonate reservoirs the
following relationship is valid:
Equation 4:
Assuming that no hydrocarbons are present and
reservoir water saturation is 100 percent (Sw = 1.0),
then:
Q> = </>mC,
The bulk conductivity (Cb) is equal to porosity (<t>) to
the m power times the conductivity of the water in
the pores (Cf). Equation 4, with an m value of greater
than 1.0, is applicable to most carbonate reservoirs
whose pore geometry is normally more complex than
plane fractures.
Figure 2 shows a reservoir with intergranular
porosity that is filled with water and hydrocarbons,
and therefore has a water saturation of less than 100
percent (Sw < 1.0). Because hydrocarbons, like the
rock matrix, are non-conductors, electricity is forced
to flow around both the grains and hydrocarbons
creating increased tortuosity.
When hydrocarbons are present, the equation for
bulk conductivity (Cb) is:
Equation 5:
Assuming a reservoir with both hydrocarbons and
water (Sw < 1.0), then:
Cb = </>mCf x Swn
Bulk conductivity (Cb) is equal to porosity (<f>) to the
m power times conductivity of the water in the pores
(Cf), times the water saturation (Sw) of the pores to the
n power. The n exponent is called the saturation
exponent. Although this exponent is derived from
laboratory core data and varies from 1.8 to 2.5, log
analysts mostly use an n value of 2.0. We see in
Equation 5 that as the water saturation (Sw)
decreases (indicating more hydrocarbons), the
conductivity also decreases, and resistivity increases.
This occurs as the flow path becomes more tortuous
(Figure 2).
Study of Figures 1 and 2 and Equations 4 and 5
helps us understand that conductivity can be lowered
and resistivity increased, not only when the value for
m is increased, but also when there is a decrease in
water saturation (Sw).
A major problem confronting geologists working
with carbonates is determining which factor is
affecting the conductivity/resistivity values, either m
 INTRODUCTION

INTERGRANULAR OR (INTERCRYSTALLINE) POROSITY

S w < 1.0

Cb = 0 m C f x S w n Mr-2.0

PATH OF ELECTRICAL FLOW

Figure 2. Diagram of a hydrocarbon-bearing (where Sw < 1.0) carbonate reservoir with intergranular porosity.
This figure shows how the presence of hydrocarbons affects the flow of an electric current. Hydrocarbons, like the
rock matrix, are non-conductive and divert the electric current flow so that it flows entirely through the formation's
connate water and around the matrix and hydrocarbons.
The following two examples show how changes in water saturation (Sw) can affect the conductivity (Cb) and resistivity
(Rt) measurements.
Legend: Stippled area depicts rock matrix, black area depicts hydrocarbons; and white area depicts water.
Given: Conductivity of formation water (Cf = 25 mho/meter; porosity (<A) = 0.10 (or 10%); cementation exponent (m)
= 2.0; and saturation exponent (n) = 2.0.
Example A: Find resistivity (Rt), given water saturation where (SJ equals 0.50 (50%).
Cb = <TCf x Swn
Cb = (0.102 X 25) X 0.502
Cb = 0.0625 mho/meter
Rt = 16 ohm-meters
Example B: Find resistivity (Rt), given water saturation where (SJ equals 0.10 (10%).
Q, = <j>mC{ x Swn
Cb = (0.102 x 25) x 0.102
Cb = 0.0025 mho/meter
Rf = 400 ohm-meters

5
INTRODUCTION
or Sw. Because without this knowledge, it is difficult
to tell whether the reservoir has hydrocarbons or,
because of a complex pore geometry, is water-bearing.
When Equation 5 is rewritten in terms of
resistivity, all terms are inverted since resistivity is a
reciprocal of conductivity, and the following occurs:
Equation 6:
Rt = a 0 m R w x SWn
Where:
Rt = true formation resistivity (uninvaded
zone);
a = tortuosity factor (a = 1.0 in carbonate
reservoirs). See Footnote 1, below;
<j> = porosity;
m = cementation exponent (usually 2.0 in
intergranular or intercrystalline
porosity but varies with other porosity
types);
Rw = formation water resistivity;
Sw = water saturation (uninvaded zone); and
n = saturation exponent (n varies from 1.8
to 2.5; normally 2.0 is used).
When Equation 6 is solved for water saturation (SJ,
it yields the Archie (1942) water saturation equation
which is:
Equation 7:
Swn = (a/0m) x Rw/Rt
See Footnote 2, below.
6
Equations 1 through 7 illustrate how resistivity
measurements are affected by changes in pore
geometry as well as by hydrocarbon saturation
(where Sh = 1.0 - S J . Furthermore, changes in
resistivity are related to the percentage of water in
the pores by the Archie water saturation equation
(Equation 7). If a geologist uses the wrong
cementation exponent (m) value, the Archie
calculated water saturation (SJ value is invalid.
When a reservoir contains mtergranular or
intercrystalline porosity, water saturations calculated
using Archie's formula are reliable. However, in the
presence of different porosity types, other evaluation
methods need to be used. Some involve adjusting the
standard Archie equation by modification of the
cementation exponent (m), and by use of the single
textural parameter W. And some methods are based
upon calculating log-derived parameters such as
determination of bulk volume water, calculation of
Moveable Hydrocarbon Index, calculation of water
saturation by the Ratio Method, and determination
of a Production Ratio Index (PRI). Finally, a new tool
called the dielectric log can sometimes assist us with
evaluating less than straightforward carbonate
reservoirs.
The next step in our discussion is to examine the
different methods through a case study approach. We
can then better understand when and where to apply
them and can establish some procedures for their
implementation.
1
Although a is related to tortuosity, it is not the same as m.
2
The quantity a/<Am is called the formation factor (F).

CHAPTER II: DETERMINATION OF CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)
Case Study I—Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef,
Scurry County, Texas
Elliott (1983) reports an interesting case history of
a vuggy Canyon Reef zone in Scurry County, Texas.
The resistivity and density logs from this zone are
illustrated in Figure 3. Log analysis, shown on the
bottom of Figure 3, indicates water saturations of 22
percent and porosity of 24 percent.
Although the logging company rated the zone as
possible oil or gas (Elliott, 1983), when the operator
asked for another opinion, a second log analyst
concluded that the zone was wet (i.e., water-bearing).
Despite the differing opinions of the log analysts,
casing was run and the zone perforated. Upon
production testing, only water was recovered,
proving the second judgement correct.
The problem with the well's Canyon Reef zone is its
complex pore geometry resulting from vuggy
porosity. If no changes are made in the cementation
exponent (m) value and the standard 2.0 value for
intergranular and intercrystalline porosity is used,
the calculated water saturation is 22 percent (Figures
3 and 4), and the zone appears productive. This is
undoubtedly the mistake made by the first log
analyst. The vuggy porosity, known to occur in the
Canyon Reef zone, is a "flag" that cementation
exponent (m) values will be greater than 2.0.
By using a Pickett (1972) crossplot and applying
the technique to this example, a correct m value can
be determined. A Pickett crossplot is based upon the
observation that true resistivity (Rt) is a function of
porosity (<£), water saturation (SJ, and cementation
exponent (m). It is constructed by plotting porosity
(<£) values with deep resistivity (RILd or RLLd) values
on two-by-three cycle log-log paper. On the plot, a
zone with constant Rw, m, and S„ equal to 100
percent will have data points plotted along a single,
straight-line trend. This straight-line trend
represents the R0 (wet resistivity) line (see Footnote
3, below), and its slope is equal to m, the cementation
exponent (Asquith, 1982). The wet resistivity R0 line
is always drawn through the most southwesterly
data points (Figure 4), because these points are the
least likely to contain any hydrocarbons.
Figure 4 is a Pickett resistivity/porosity crossplot
based on the logs from Figure 3. The slope of the Rc
line is 3.7 and is equal to the cementation exponent
(m). Note on Figure 4 that the calculated water
saturation, using an m value of 3.7, is 74 percent
indicating a wet zone. The higher water saturation is
verified by the well's production test which recovered
water.
CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)
We have applied the Pickett technique here after the
fact, since production testing had already confirmed
a water-bearing zone. However, in the initial
evaluation of the Scurry County, Canyon Reef well, if
other, nearby wells had been drilled into the same
formation, and had these wells recovered nothing but
water, then an R0 line and m value could have been
established for comparison. This underscores the
point that, in order to use the Pickett crossplot to
determine m in a zone of interest, you must first
determine m from the same formation in nearby wells
where you know the zone is wet, and then use that
value of m in the well you are evaluating. In other
words, although Pickett crossplots are one of the
most accurate and useful techniques for evaluating
complex carbonates, they are not a panacea and can
be used only with the proper data Unfortunately, this
limits their application since a large range of porosity
values in water zones is required to properly define
the slope of the R0 line (Figure 4), and, in many areas,
a large range of porosity values from a particular
water zone is simply unavailable.
An alternate method which could have been used
for finding the correct m value in the Scurry County,
Canyon Reef well involves using both a neutron
and/or density log for total porosity (<f>t\
measurements, and a sonic log for measuring matrix
porosity (4>s). Too bad the Canyon Reef well didn't
have a sonic log! This is a timely reminder that sonic
logs often play a very important role in evaluating
carbonate reservoirs and should be included in a
company's logging program.
With a logging suite containing a neutron and/or
density log and a sonic log, the sonic porosity (0S) and
total porosity (</>t) can be used in the following
formula to calculate a value for m:
Nugent (1984):
2(log4>s;
m >
log0 t
The author has found that the Nugent (1984)
formula works well in carbonates with vuggy and
fossilmoldic porosity, but gives too low a value for m
3
R0 = wet resistivity or resistivity of the reservoir when Sw = 1.0
(100%).
CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)

4 (1M_1_ 4 W >imr
«it-»i hoss oil
T
T
Determined by logging engineer
from chart using Humble Formula
 CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)

Figure 3. Dual Induction—SFLf log (left) and density log (right) from Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef, Scurry County,
Texas (after: Elliott, 1983).
Arrow at bottom of chart points to water saturation value of 22 percent determined by the logging engineer from a
chart using the Humble Formula.

9
CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)
o
1
CO
<
CO., TEX

o
LVANIAN

Hi
1 REEF

• 1 > z >
?• J* CO O cc
-t»7 z >• cc
•7 z Z D o
o/ LU < O
/•
a. O CO
M=3.7
3.7 in.

Q
_l
CC
c o
N
© S U
o n t- »- »
DC » H • s in
cc|cc d
2 LL U- (0
X
--it

OTE: Sw=l
in
^ CO #
/ ° co # o S ^ w
o ® •* 9 ® ^ CNJ
» 7 <M CM ^ ,- 1
trS Ja.. MS J 2J . u.
H I u. co
S z
i / t i 1
c> o o o o Q o to © ^ (M
o
O 00 <D * tM q
Q -• 9 9 9
10
 CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)

Figure 4. Pickett crossplot of deep resistivity (R IL D) versus density porosity (0d) from Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef,
Scurry County, Texas.
The slope of the R0 (wet resistivity; where Sw = 1.0) line gives a value for cementation exponent (m) of 3.7. In the lower
left-hand comer are water saturation calculations using m values of 2.0 (as in intergranular porosity) and 3.7 (as in
vuggy porosity).
Note. An m of 3.7 results in a much higher water saturation, indicating the zone is wet. This is the correct interpreta-
tion.

11
CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)

in oomoldic carbonates. The reason the Nugent
formula does not work well in oomoldic reservoirs
happens because the sonic porosity is not a function
of matrix porosity but, instead, is a function of the
very tortuous path traveled around the oomolds by
the compressional sound wave.
When oomoldic porosity is present, Nurmi (1984)
has found that the percentage of vuggy and matrix
porosity can be determined by:
Nurmi (1984):
<t>mg = 2 ( 0 t - <t>s)
Where:
<f>a = percent sonic porosity;
<t>t = percent total porosity from neutron
and/or density logs; and
</W = percent vuggy porosity
Matrix porosity is therefore equal to:
<t>m = 4>t ~ 4>vug
Where:
If the values for total porosity (0t) and matrix
porosity (<t>m) are put into the Nugent (1984) equation,
then:
2(log^m)
m >
log<£t
By using this formula, we can determine a more
accurate value for the cementation exponent in
oomoldic reservoirs. The author has tried this
technique in several Permo-Pennsylvanian oomoldic
carbonates where m has been determined by a
Pickett crossplot. The results show good agreement.
If this relationship holds true elsewhere, then an
added benefit of Nugent's (1984) formula is that it
can also be used to verify the accuracy of Pickett
crossplot determined values for the cementation
exponent (m).
Finding the correct value for m is, however, only
one method for evaluating carbonates. And, as you
can see, the geologist is frequently limited by
inadequate data. Obviously, other approaches need to
be brought to bear on the carbonate problem. These
will be presented in subsequent case studies.

<j>m = percent matrix porosity;

<t>t = percent total porosity from neutron
and/or density logs; and
4\mg = percent vuggy porosity

12
 BULK VOLUME WATER

CHAPTER III: USE OF BULK VOLUME WATER

Case Study II—Ordovician Red River
Formation, Williston Basin, North Dakota
The bulk volume of water (BVW) in a reservoir is
simply the product of the water saturation (SJ times
the porosity {4>), or stated mathematically: BVW =
Sw x 4>. It is often one of the most important
parameters that we can use to evaluate a carbonate
reservoir's potential. This is true because bulk
volume water indicates whether or not a reservoir is
at irreducible water saturation (Swirr). Remember that
at irreducible water saturation, a reservoir produces
water-free hydrocarbons because all the formation's
water is held through surface tension or capillary
pressure by the grains.
A reservoir at irreducible water saturation (Swirr)
exhibits bulk volume water values that are constant
throughout (Dewan, 1983). This means that when
BVW is calculated at different points through an
interval, the values should be the same or very close
to the same for an essentially water-free completion.
Besides mathematically determining BVW, it can
also be determined by crossplotting. Selection of the
technique used is a matter of personal preference.
When you are constructing a crossplot, porosity (<£)
and water saturation (Sw, calculated by standard or
modified Archie equation) are crossplotted on a bulk
volume water chart. The bulk volume water chart has
hyperbolic lines representing lines of constant BVW
values. (BVW charts with hyperbolic lines already
printed on them are available from different logging
companies.) Data should crossplot on or parallel to
one of the hyperbolic lines when a zone is at or near
irreducible water saturation, and completion should
be mostly water-free. If the data points exhibit
scatter from the lines, then the reservoir is not at
irreducible water saturation and will produce water,
possibly with some hydrocarbons.
An example of how bulk volume water works is
provided by a series of bulk volume water crossplots
(Figure 5) from the Ordovician Red River B-zone in
Beaver Creek field, Golden Valley County, North
Dakota (Jaafar, 1980). The lithology of the field's
B-zone reservoir is a dolomite with very fine-grained,
intercrystalline (sucrosic) porosity. Three wells are
illustrated by the crossplots in Figure 5, and are from
high to progressively lower structural positions from
the top crossplot to the bottom one. Note in the top
crossplot (i.e., from the structurally highest well),
how the points plot almost parallel to the 0.04
hyperbolic line, indicating a reservoir at or near
irreducible water saturation (Swirr). The well,
represented in the top crossplot, initially flowed 292
barrels of oil (BO) plus 13 barrels of water per day
(BWPD), or 96 percent oil. The middle crossplot in
Figure 5 has some data points plotting non-parallel to
the hyperbolic line, indicating a well not at irreducible
water saturation. This well initially flowed 212 BO +
100 BWPD or 68 percent oil. The last, and
structurally lowest well in the series of crossplots,
exhibits data scattering up and down from the
hyperbolic lines, indicating a wet reservoir. And,
indeed, the last well produced no oil and only water,
for 100 percent water completion.
Table 1 is a list of bulk volume water values as a
function of grain size and the type of carbonate
porosity, assuming the reservoirs are at or near
irreducible water saturation (Swirr). This is an
extremely useful table because, by comparing bulk
volume water values for a given rock type and grain
size (note: grain size affects pore size), we can tell if a
reservoir should be at or near irreducible water
saturation. An examination of Table 1 shows us that
for any type of carbonate, a 0.04 value is a critical
cut-off level. Carbonates with higher bulk volume
water values are either wet or have very low
permeabilities. Also in Table 1, we can see that the
presence of vuggy porosity requires very low values
of bulk volume water in order to be at irreducible
water saturation. An explanation for this is vuggy
porosity holds little water by surface tension and
capillary pressure.
Table 1. Bulk Volume Water at Irreducible Water Saturation
as a Function of Grain Size (Pore Size) and Type of Carbon-
ate Porosity (modified after Asquith, 1982).
Grain Size (millimeters) Bulk Volume Water (BVW)
0.02 to 0.025
coarse 1.0 to 0.5 mm
medium 0.5 to 0.25 mm 0.025 to 0.035
fine 0.25 to 0.125 mm 0.035 to 0.05
very fine 0.125 to 0.0625 mm 0.05 to 0.07
silt < 0.0625 mm 0.07 to 0.09
(after Fertl and Vercellino, 1978)
Carbonate Porosity Bulk Volume Water (BVW)
Vuggy 0.005 to 0.015
Vuggy & Intercrystalline 0.015 to 0.025
(intergranular)
Intercrystalline 0.025 to 0.04
(intergranular)
Chalky 0.05

13
BULK VOLUME WATER

.70

3BWPD
.60-

.50-

.40-
X
CO
.30-

.20-

.10-

POROSITY . J0
.70

.60

.50

.40

2 .30

.20-

.10-

—I— -J—
.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40
POROSITY , 0

.70

.60-

.50-

.40

*
in
~ .30

.20

10

0 — I — i -1— -1— — i —
.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40
POROSITY , 0

14
 BULK VOLUME WATER

Figure 5. Bulk volume water crossplots of water saturation (SJ versus porosity (<t>) from the Ordovician Red River B-
zone, Beaver Creek field, Golden Valley County, North Dakota.
Observe the increasing percentage of water production as the data becomes less parallel to the 0.04 hyperbolic line
(after: Jaafar, 1980).
Note on the left vertical line of the crossplot that S ^ , is written. Although the logging company B VW charts use this
term, the S ^ identification really refers to an Archie formula calculated Sw value.

15
BULK VOLUME WATER

16
 BULK VOLUME WATER

Figure 6. Bulk volume water crossplot of water saturation (Sw) versus porosity (0) from Devonian Zama Reef, Canada.
The solid circles (i.e., points 1 through 5) are the only data with BVW values of 0.015 or less. Because the reservoir has
vuggy porosity, only the interval from 1 through 5 should be hydrocarbon productive (see Table 1).

17
BULK VOLUME WATER

Case Study III—Devonian Zama Reef,

Alberta Basin, Canada

Porosities and water saturations are listed in Table the Zama Reef data is shown in Figure 6. Notice that
2 from a thick, Devonian Zama Reef in Canada. The only points 1 through 5 plot less than the 0.015
porosity in the reef is predominantly vuggy. Carefully hyperbolic line. Using the vuggy carbonate cut-off
examine Table 2. If you were faced with making a values established in Table 1 as a guideline, we can
decision about where in the sequence to perforate, conclude that this is the only interval which should
what would you decide? Would you decide to be perforated.
perforate the entire sequence, part of the sequence, or Table 3 is the same list of porosities and water
none of the sequence? You are reminded that since the saturations from the Devonian Zama Reef shown in
porosity is predominantly vuggy, only bulk volume Table 2. However, along the right side of Table 3 is a
water values of less than 0.015 are at irreducible series of drill stem tests confirming that the interval
water saturation (Table 1). 1 through 5 produces hydrocarbons (Figure 6). The
lower intervals are wet as is predicted by the
crossplotted BVW values.
Table 2. Porosity (0) and Water Saturation (Sw) Data from
Devonian Zama Reef, Canada. Table 3. Porosity {<j>), Water Saturation (SJ, and Drill Stem
Depth Porosity (4) Water Saturation
Test (DST), Data Devonian Zama Reef, Canada.
(Sw) Depth 4> s„ DST Results
1 (Highest) 6 10
2 5 13
3 4 13
1 (highest)
2
6
5
10
13 } DST GTS* No Water
4
5
6
15
9
25
9
10
9
3 4 13
I
4 15 9 DST Oil No Water
7 7 22
8 14 19
5 9 10 }
9 22 19
6 25 9
10 (Lowest) 23 22
7 7 22 } DST Oil & Water

8 14 19
9 22 19 DST Water
The question of where to perforate is answered by
using the bulk volume water formula to calculate a
value for BVW or by crossplotting porosity versus
10 (lowest) 23 22
I
water saturation. A bulk volume water crossplot of *GTS—gas to surface.

18

CHAPTER IV: PRODUCTION RATIO INDEX (PRI)
Case Study IV—Lower Permian Council
Grove B-zone, Ochiltree County, Texas
The lower Permian Council Grove B-zone in the
northern Texas panhandle is an oomoldic carbonate
reservoir. Log evaluation based on the standard
Archie equation, using an m value of 2.0, gives water
saturations in the 25 to 35 percent range (Figure 7).
With such low water saturations, we are led to expect
only hydrocarbon production; however, when the
zone is tested, it produces water.
Although the Council Grove B-zone evaluation
might have been carried out by making adjustments
to the cementation exponent m with either the
Pickett crossplot method or by formula, the zone can
also be analyzed by a technique called Production
Ratio Index (Nugent et al, 1978). Production Ratio
Index can only be applied to the Council Grove
B-zone well we are analyzing because there is a sonic
and a density log available (a neutron log, in
combination with a density log plus a sonic log, can
also be used as a basis for applying the Production
Ratio Index).
The Production Ratio Index method is based upon
the assumption that vuggy porosity does not
contribute significantly to formation resistivity, but
rather, reservoir resistivity is controlled primarily by
matrix porosity (Nugent et al, 1978). Since the sonic
log mostly measures matrix porosity, Nugent et al
(1978) combine a resistivity log with a sonic log to
calculate water saturation. The water saturation
value is then multiplied by total porosity from the
neutron and/or density log.
Nugent etal (1978):
P R I = S w s X 4>n-A
Where:
PRI = production ratio index;
0n-d = total porosity from the neutron-density
log; and
= water saturation using both the Archie
equation and sonic porosity.
PRODUCTION RATIO INDEX
A special aspect of the Production Ratio Index is
its use to predict the expected water-to-oil production
in carbonate reservoirs. Table 4 is a list of PRI values
and predicted water-to-oil production for carbonates
with vuggy or moldic porosity. If the carbonate has
intercrystalline or intergranular porosity, a PRI value
of 0.04 or less indicates water-free production.
We can use this information to examine the Council
Grove B-zone. On the right-hand side of Figure 7,
there is a plot of the PRI values through the B-zone.
Observe that all the PRI values are much greater
than the 0.04 value, the upper cut-off level for water
and oil production in vuggy or oomoldic reservoirs
(see Table 4). We conclude, then, that PRI values
definitely show the Council Grove B-zone to be water
productive, or wet.
Table 4. Production Ratio Index (PRI) and Predicted Pro-
duction for Carbonate Reservoirs with Vuggy and Moldic
Porosity (after Nugent et al, 1978).*
Condition Prediction
PRI < 0.02 Oil
0.04 > PRI > 0.02 Water and oil
PRI > 0.04 Water
Note, if only intergranular or intercrystalline porosity is present,
then PRI < 0.04 for water-free production.
*The values in this table have been established based on the Mid-
land Basin area. Experience can establish their validity in your area.
PRODUCTION RATIO INDEX

LOG ANALYSIS COUNCIL GROVE B-ZONE

Use of Production Ratio Index for Determining Production Potentials in Carbonate Reservoirs

PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

'w-sonic % w-den. % * PRI
C. E. Harr No. 1
Sec. 39 Blk. 11 W. Ahrenbeck Survey
0 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.(
Ochiltree Co., Texas

SPGR
i
\
I

WATER +OIL

WATER
/
OIL

/
\
\
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 0.06 0.08
H3-Secondary 0
c Archie Water Saturations
w - W a t e r Saturation * PRI = S
w-sonic x 0 den.

20
 PRODUCTION RATIO INDEX

Figure 7. Log analysis of the Lower Permian Council Grove B-zone, Texas panhandle.
The low water saturations calculated from the standard Archie equation (m = 2.0) using both density and sonic poros-
ities are illustrated in the middle two columns. The PRI (Production Ratio Index) values are shown in the right-hand
column.
Note, that the PRI values for the Council Grove B-zone are much greater than the 0.04 cut-off for oil plus water pro-
duction (see Table 4), indicating the zone is definitely wet.

21
COMBINING TECHNIQUES
CHAPTER V: COMBINING WATER SATURATION/RATIO METHOD, MOVEABLE
HYDROCARBON INDEX, BULK VOLUME WATER A N D ARCHIE WATER SATURATION
Case Study 5—Pennsylvanian
Lansing-Kansas City Formation,
Northwestern Shelf, Anadarko Basin
Figures 8 and 9 are resistivity and neutron-density
porosity logs through a 150-foot interval (4,800 to
4,950 ft) in the Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City
Limestone. There are four porous zones at 4,810,
4,900,4,924 and 4,932 feet. Petrographic analysis at
these depths indicates three different types of
porosity (Table 5).
Table 5. Types of Porosity in Lansing-Kansas City Lime-
stone, Northwestern Shelf, Anadarko Basin.
Depth (ft) Rock Type Porosity
4,810 (ft) oolite grainstone oomoldic
4,900 (ft) oolitic grainstone intergranular
4,924 (ft) oolitic grainstone intergranular
4,932 (ft) dolomite intercrystalline
The presence of multiple porosity types within a
150-foot limestone interval and from the same
formation illustrates why careful petrographic
analysis and thorough log evaluation procedures are
necessary when we deal with carbonate reservoirs.
Also, as we will see later at the end of our discussion,
this well represents a mistake. It has been declared
dry and abandoned when it may, in fact, be
productive.
Before we undertake an evaluation of the
Lansing-Kansas City well, it is necessary to
introduce the reader to two techniques which help us
arrive at a conclusion that this is a good well. These
techniques are Moveable Hydrocarbon Index and
water saturation by the Ratio Method. Both of the
techniques detect the presence of hydrocarbons from
the difference in water saturations in the flushed (S,J
and the uninvaded zone (SJ. A particular asset of the
Ratio Method is that we can find a value for water
saturation without either the cementation exponent
m, or porosity. The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index
gives us a quick look method for the presence of
hydrocarbons and also helps detect permeable zones.
The Ratio Method and Moveable Hydrocarbon
Index are derived by dividing the water saturation of
the uninvaded zone (SJ by the water saturation of
the flushed zone (Sxo). Then, the following results:
FxRJRt R»/Rt Rx</Rt
FxRmf/Rxo Rmf/Rxo Rmf/Rw
22
Where:
F = formation factor;
= water saturation, flushed zone;
Sw = water saturation, uninvaded zone;
= resistivity flushed zone (shallow
Rxo reading log);
= resistivity, uninvaded zone (deep
Rt reading log);
= resistivity of mud filtrate; and
Rmf = resistivity of formation water.
R„
If we divide Sw by Sxo, formation factor (F) cancels
out, and it becomes no longer necessary to know
porosity or a value for the cementation exponent (m)
to determine water saturation.
The formula for calculating Moveable
Hydrocarbon Index is:
1/2
Rxc/Rt
Sw/Sx„ —
Rmf/R
mr " w
Where:
SJSX0= Moveable Hydrocarbon Index;
RTO = flushed zone resistivity;
Rt = uninvaded zone resistivity;
R^ = resistivity of mud filtrate; and
R„ = resistivity of formation water.
Schlumberger (1972) reports that if the ratio of SJSxo
is 1.0 or greater, no hydrocarbons were moved during
invasion. This is true regardless of whether or not the
zone contained hydrocarbons. Whenever the ratio of
SJS^ is less than 0.7 for sandstones and less than 0.6
for limestones, moveable hydrocarbons are indicated.
If a carbonate reservoir has a Moveable Hydrocarbon
Index of less than 0.6, you can conclude that
hydrocarbons are present (although not necessarily
in commercial quantities) and that the reservoir has
enough permeability so that hydrocarbons have been
moved during the invasion process by mud filtrate
(Rnrf)-
In order to determine water saturation (Sw) by the
Ratio Method, the water saturation of the flushed
zone (Sx0) must be known or estimated. In the flushed
zone (Sx0) of formations with moderate invasion by
 COMBINING TECHNIQUES

mud filtrate (Rm{), and with an average residual correct and all values determined (i.e., Sw, Rt, Rx0 and
hydrocarbon saturation (residual hydrocarbon dj are correct.
saturation or RHS = 1.0 - SXJ, the following is
normally true: (2) If S„ (Archie) > Sw (Ratio) then the value for
RJRt is too low because invasion is very shallow, or
Sxo — Sw Rt is too high because invasion is very deep. Also a
transition type profile may be indicated and Sw
By substituting the above equation in the (Archie) is considered a good value for Sw.
relationship:
(3) If Sw (Archie) < Sw (Ratio) then the value for
/ Sw 1 RIO/Rt Rx0/Rt is too high. Rxo is too high because of the affect
of adjacent high resistivity beds or RILD (Rt) is too low
Rmf/Rw because Rx0 is less than Rt (wrong drilling mud for a
dual induction log). Also, an annulus-type invasion
The following results: profile may be indicated and/or Sxo < SWU5. Sw
(Archie) is considered the more reliable value for Sw.
Sw o 8/5 Rx</Rt
2/5
(4) If Sw (Archie) < Sw (Ratio), the reservoir may
Rm/Rw be a carbonate with moldic or vuggy porosity, and
may be water bearing, and/or have low permeability.
Therefore: Sw (Ratio) is considered the more reliable value for Sw.

Rxc/Rt Now that we have shown how to calculate

b-„ —
Rmf/R,
'mf ^ w
Then we arrive at the formula for water saturation
derived by the Ratio Method:
RJM 0 - 626
S™ —
Rm/RW
Where:
Sw = water saturation Ratio Method;
Rxo = resistivity, flushed zone;
= resistivity, uninvaded zone;
Rt
= resistivity of mud filtrate; and
Rmf
R„ = resistivity of formation water.
After you calculate water saturation by both the
Archie and Ratio methods, the values should be
compared using the following rules: (modified after
Schlumberger, 1977).
(1) If Sw (Archie) « Sw (Ratio), the assumption of
a step-contact invasion profile is indicated to be
Moveable Hydrocarbon Index and water saturation
by the Ratio Method, we can use them along with
other logging data, to evaluate the potential of our
porous zones illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. As we
will see, they provide valuable information about the
Lansing-Kansas City reservoir.
Table 6 is the log analysis from the four porous
zones in the Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City
well. The logs over these zones are illustrated in
Figures 8 and 9. The top zone at 4,810 feet (shown by
uppermost arrow) is oomoldic with high porosity (25
percent), and low Archie water saturation (38
percent). However, we find that the Moveable
Hydrocarbon Index (Sw/Sxo = 0.61) is greater than
0.60 and the water saturation calculated by the Ratio
Method (S^) is high (53 percent). These calculations
indicate that the zone may be wet and have low
permeability. A calculation that definitely shows that
the zone at 4,810 feet is wet is the very high bulk
volume water value (0.095). Remember from Table 1
that carbonate reservoirs with a bulk volume water
value greater than 0.04 are usually wet.
At 4,900 feet (second arrow from top) there is an
intergranular porosity zone with good porosity
values (15 percent) and fairly low Archie water
COMBINING TECHNIQUES

SPWSUKOUS-POTWTUl HSlJIITUT OHM*. M'/M

VHRICAUT FOCUUD LOO
2J !A_ JBfJB
- |&j + Mmiwxra MEDIUM MOUCTION

m Moucnx
H_ '* '• _'«l ! " • J*>

BIO/IT

24
 COMBINING TECHNIQUES

Figure 8. Dual Induction—Spherically Focused Log (SFL)t with SP and RK0/Rt curve. Pennsylvanian Kansas City-
Lansing Formation, northwestern shelf, Anadarko basin.
Legend: (From the top) 1st arrow at 4,810 feet; 2nd arrow at 4,900 feet; 3rd arrow at 4,924 feet; and 4th arrow at
4,932 feet.
Note: The RI0/Rt quick look curve deflects to the left, toward the SP curve at 4,810 and 4,900 feet (from the t o p -
first two arrows) indicating a wet zone, and deflects to the right away from the SP curve from 4,924 to 4,932 feet
(lower two arrows) indicating the presence of hydrocarbons.

25
COMBINING TECHNIQUES

uurat POtOSfTY M B ft UMBTO* MAIHJI

>*• COMKNSATfO KMMATON KNOTT POtOSITY
M 10 0 -10
GMMIAIAY MINI*
• !»

26
 COMBINING TECHNIQUES

Figure 9. Combination neutron-density log with gamma ray log and caliper from Pennsylvania Kansas City-Lansing
Formation, northwestern shelf, Anadarko basin.
Note. The four porosity zones are at 4,810, 4,900,4,924, and 4,932 feet. Each is marked by an arrow.

27
COMBINING TECHNIQUES

Table 6. Log Analysis, Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City Formation, Northwestern Shelf of the Anadarko Basin in Okla-
homa (logs illustrated in Figures 8 and 9).

Depth (ft) <A Rt Rxo Swa SW'SKO ^wr BVW

4,810 (ft) (oomoldic) 0.25 3.5 12 38% 0.61 53% 0.095

4,900 (ft) (intergranular) 0.15 9 25 40% 0.54 47% 0.060
4,920 (ft) (intergranular) 0.11 19 32 37% 0.42 34% 0.041
4,924 (ft) (intergranular) 0.13 14 30 37% 0.48 40% 0.048
4,932 (ft) (intercrystalline) 0.17 22 45 22% 0.47 39% 0.037
4,936 (ft) (intergranular) 0.09 30 60 36% 0.46 38% 0.032
Where:
Rw = 0.032
Rmf = 0-30
Swa = Archie water saturation
SM. = Ratio water saturation

saturation (40 percent). If we examine the Moveable
Hydrocarbon Index (0.54) which is less than 0.6, and
also the water saturation by the Ratio Method which
is fairly low (47 percent) but still close to the Archie
water saturation of 40 percent, we might conclude
that the zone is productive. However, if we analyze
the bulk volume water values which are 0.06 and
recall that in carbonates this figure should not exceed
0.04, we conclude that the zone is wet.
The zone from 4,920 to 4,924 feet (third arrow
down) also has intergranular porosity like the one
above it. The porosity of 11 to 13 percent is fair, but
there are low, Archie water saturations of 37 percent.
If the Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (0.42 to 0.48)
and low water saturations by the Ratio Method (34 to
40 percent) are taken into account, they suggest an
oil productive zone. Since the bulk volume water
values (0.041 to 0.048) are relatively low, we might
conclude that this zone should produce oil and
probably some water.
The final zone (bottom arrow) from 4,932 feet
(intercrystalline porosity) to 4,936 feet (intergranular
porosity) has good (17 percent) to fair (9 percent)
porosity, and low Archie water saturations (22
percent at 4,932 feet, and 36 percent at 4,936 feet). In
addition, there is a low Moveable Hydrocarbon Index
(0.47 to 0.46) and low water saturation by the Ratio
Method (39 to 38 percent). If we look at the bulk
volume water values at 4,932 feet (0.037) and at 4,936
feet (0.032), we find both lower than the critical
cut-off point of 0.04. Our evaluation, therefore,
suggests to us that this zone should be
oil-productive.
At the present time, the well, just described, is
plugged and abandoned. It is the author's opinion,
based on evaluating the well using Archie water
saturation, Moveable Hydrocarbon Index, water
saturation Ratio Method, and bulk volume water,
that it should be re-entered and completed from 4,920
to 4,924 feet, and from 4,932 to 4,936 feet.
A similar evaluation approach is described in the
literature for the Jurassic Smackover oomoldic
reservoirs (these reservoirs are similar to the
oomoldic—4,810 feet—zone in the Lansing-Kansas
City reservoir we have described.) Mitchell-Tapping
(1983) concludes that the Jurassic Smackover cannot
be properly evaluated by the standard Archie
technique. But, when Moveable Hydrocarbon Index,
water saturation Ratio Method, and bulk volume
water are used, then correct judgements about the
productive potential can be made.

28
 USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

CHAPTER VI: USE OF THE SINGLE TEXTURAL PARAMETER W FOR SOLVING THE
MICROPOROSITY PROBLEM
Case Study VI—Jurassic Smackover Oolite,
Gulf Coast
Oolitic grainstone reservoirs, such as the Jurassic permeability data on log-log paper with lines of equal
Smackover (Guillotte et al, 1979), the Cretaceous W values superimposed on it (Figure 11).
Sligo (Mitchell-Tapping, 1981), and the Cretaceous The W value, plotting on the 1.72 line in Figure 11,
Rodessa (Keith and Pittman, 1983) can be is from a southern Arkansas Smackover Limestone
diagenetically altered so that the oolites are reservoir at a depth of 8,962 feet (Figure 12), in the
micritized and microporosity forms. Because of the Crystal Oil and Land #3 Nations well (Guillotte et al,
very high capillary pressures associated with 1979). By using a conventional Archie approach
microporosity in the oolites, hydrocarbons cannot where m and n both equal 2.0, Guillotte et al (1979)
enter the very small pores which, then, contain only calculated the following:
immoveable, bound water. The water saturated
microporosity results in the grains, which are the Depth
micritized oolites, acting as conductors of electric (ft) <$> Sw BVW Rw Rt
current (Figure 10). When this occurs, the path of
electric current is less tortuous since it is flowing 8,962 ft 12.5% 47% 0.06 0.017 4.92
through the micritized oolites rather then around
them. This causes resistivity logs to read erroneously where
1/2
low resistivities when microporosity is present. When
water saturation, based on resistivity measurements, A2
R,
is calculated in a hydrocarbon-bearing zone with
microporosity, the values will be too high suggesting
These log calculations, most particularly, the high
a reservoir which will produce water. The water
bulk volume water value, indicate this zone should
saturation values are merely reflecting the lower
produce, at best, a great deal of water with only
resistivity due to the very high bound-water content,
limited amounts of oil.
and are not giving correct information about the
However, when a W value of 1.72 for both m and n
hydrocarbon content of a reservoir.
is used (Guillotte et al, 1979), the following is
Keith and Pittman (1983) developed a logging
calculated:
technique for differentiating bimodal (mega and
microporosity) from unimodal (megaporosity) Depth
carbonates in the Cretaceous Rodessa Limestone. To
(ft) BVW R, Rf
do this, they plot true formation resistivity (Rt)
versus the ratio of the flushed zone's resistivity to
8,962 ft 12.5% 29.6% 0.037 0.017 4.92
the resistivity of the mud filtrate (Rxo/Rmf). They
found that a plot of Rt versus Rx0/Rmf differentiated where
facies with bimodal porosity from facies with R . | m -™ 1
unimodal porosity. Consistently, oolitic carbonates
with mega and microporosity (bimodal) have a much
lower ratio of Rxo/Rmf than do carbonates with only
mega porosity (unimodal). The lower ratio of Rxo/Rmf These revised log calculations make the zone look
in oolitic carbonates with bimodal porosity is the productive. And, indeed, when the zone was
result of the high bound-water content in the perforated, it had an initial production of 65 BO +
microporosity (Figure 10) which can't be flushed 209 MCF + 108 BWPD (Guillotte et al, 1979).
during invasion. The presence of large amounts of Values for W can vary from one area to another.
bound formation water in the flushed zone lowers the This is shown in Figure 13 which is a crossplot of core
resistivity of the shallow reading resistivity log (Rxo). derived porosity and permeability from the
Guillotte et al (1979) have designed a method to Cretaceous Sligo oolite (Mitchell-Tapping, 1981).
correct for microporosity which uses a single textural Notice that for the Sligo, the W parameter is 1.83 and
parameter W for both the cementation exponent (m) not the 1.72 used by Guillotte et al (1979) in the
and the saturation exponent (n) in the Archie water Jurassic Smackover oolite. It is very important that
saturation equation. A value for W can be obtained a value for W be first identified by core data in your
by crossplotting core derived porosity and area before you use this method.
USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

OOLITIC RESERVOIR WITH

INTERGRANULAR POROSITY AND MICROPOROSITY

Sw<I.O

PATH OF CURRENT
FLOW

MICROPOROSITY
WATER FILLED

30
 USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

Figure 10. Hydrocarbon-bearing oolite grainstone reservoir with water saturated microporosity in the micritized
oolites.
Legend: Stippled area depicts oolites; black area depicts hydrocarbons; and white area depicts water.

Because the oolites are water saturated, they are conductive and the path of electrical flow is less tortuous. This
causes resistivity to be lowered.

Example: The following example demonstrates the great contrast of results when calculating water saturation using
megaporosity only versus calculating water saturation using water-filled microporosity and megaporosity.

Definitions: m = cementation exponent; n = saturation exponent; Cm = conductivity of matrix (grains); C{ = con-

ductivity of formation water; Sw = water saturation; <j> = porosity; Rt = true formation resistivity; Cb = bulk con-
ductivity of formation.

Megaporosity Only Water-filled Microporosity and Megaporosity

Given: Given:
m = 2.0 n = 2.0 m = 2.0 n = 2.0
Cm = 0 Cm = 0.25 mho/meter
C{ = 25 mho/meter Cf = 25 mho/meter
Sw = 0.10 (10%) Sw = 0.10 (10%) megaporosity only
<i> = 0.15 (15%) <j> = 0.15 (15%) megaporosity only

Then: Then:
Cb - <j>mC{ x Swn Cb = C J 1 - *) + 0mCf x Sw" (t see below)
C„ = (0.152 x 25) x 0.102 Cb = 0.25 (0.85) + (0.152 X 25) X 0.102
Cb = 0.0056 mho/meter Cb == 0.22 mho/meter
Rt = 178.6 ohm-meters Rt = 4.5 ohm-meters
(Rt = 1/Cb)

Using the Rt value of 4.5 ohm-meters, the calculated water saturation (Sw) is 62.8%. However, the actual water sat-
uration in the megaporosity is 10%.

* Cm( 1 - (/>) is the amount of excess conductivity added to the rock by the water-filled microporosity in the grains.

31
USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

CROSS PLOT OF POROSITY AND PERMEABILITY

TO OBTAIN " W : JURASSIC SMACKOVER FORMATION
(MODIFIED AFTER : GUILLOTTE, et al., 1 9 7 9 )

1000

•o 100
E

m
<
W
2
oc
UJ
a

0.1
30 40
POROSITY (%)

32
 USING WTO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

Figure 11. Log-log crossplot of core-derived porosity and permeability from the Jurassic Smackover Formation, Crystal
Oil and Land #3 Nations well from the Dorcheat-Macedonia field in southern Arkansas (modified after: Guillotte et al,
1979).
This log-log crossplot is used to determine a value for the single textural parameter W. By using the crossplot, a W
value of 1.72 is obtained for the Jurassic Smackover Formation at a depth of 8,962 feet in the Crystal Oil and Land #3
Nations well (see Figure 12).
Slanting lines on figure are lines of constant W values.
The W parameter is the exponent in the equation relating bulk volume of water (Sw x <j>) to the resistivity ratio (RJRt)
assuming cementation exponent (m) and saturation exponent (n) are equal.
Therefore: S w x <j> = (R w /R t ) l/w
Where:
Sw = water saturation of the uninvaded zone;
<j> = porosity;
Rw = resistivity of formation water;
Rt = resistivity of the uninvaded zone; and
W = a p a r a m e t e r d e t e r m i n e d from core-
derived porosity and permeability.

33
USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

LL8 g R
0 .50 H3C
I I I I I I I I I I |

4! CAL 14"
—I—r—r—i 1

45 30

-GR

-CAL

FDC-
—BIT
SIZE

OUAL INDUCTION - SONIC COMPENSATED NEUTRON-FORMATION DENSITY

34
 USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

Figure 12. Dual induction—SFLf and neutron-density logs of the Jurassic Smackover Formation in the Crystal Oil and
Land #3 Nations well from the Dorcheat-Macedonia field (Guillotte et al, 1979).
The arrow indicates a depth of 8,962 feet where a W value of 1.72 was determined (see Figure 11).

35
USING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

TEXTURAL PARAMETER W
Range = 1.75 to 2.20
Mean = 1.83
1000 1000

31 Samples

>- 100 100

H
-J
m
<
LU 10

DC
LU 0 S w = (R w / R , ) '
Q.
III 10
O
<
DC
LU
< 01

0.01 0.01
10 5.0

AVERAGE POROSITY

Plot of o o l i t e s a m p l e s t o o b t a i n a t e x t u r a l p a r a m e t e r value.
(Modified after: Mitchell-Tapping, 1981)

Figure 13. Log-log crossplot of core derived porosity and permeability from the Cretaceous Sligo oolite (modified after:
Mitchell-Tapping, 1981).
This log-log crossplot is used to determine a value for W from the Cretaceous Sligo oolite of 1.83.

36
 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS

CHAPTER VII: USE OF DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS

Case Study VII—Pennsylvanian Lansing
Limestone, Northwestern Kansas
Standard resistivity tools, such as the deep Where:
laterolog and the deep induction log, generate an
electromagnetic wave which operates in a frequency = water-filled porosity;
range of 35 to 20,000 hertz (where hertz = ft = dielectric constant from the log;
cycles/second). At these frequencies, the predominant = dielectric constant of the rock matrix;
influence on the wave is the conductivity of the = dielectric constant of the formation
substance it is traveling through. In a reservoir, water; and
conductivity is strongly influenced (of course) by the = a constant that varies with water
salinity of formation water. salinity. A value of 1.2 can be used, or
At higher frequencies in the 30 megahertz (million the value for p can be calculated from a
hertz) to 1.1 gigahertz (billion hertz) range, the nearby porous water zone.
dielectric properties of a substance become very
important to wave propagation (Hilchie, 1982). High EPTf log (Dewan, 1983):
dielectric constant values are associated with polar
compounds like water. Since water is a polar 0EPT —

compound, it requires energy to orient all its dipoles. tpf —

tpm
Thus, an electromagnetic field moving through water
is weakened. Rock matrix and hydrocarbons are both Where:
non-polar compounds with very low dielectric
constants, and weaken an electromagnetic field less <£EPT= water-filled porosity from EPTf log;
than water does. tpl = travel time from log in ns/m (nanno
The Gearhart and Dresser Atlas logs measure seconds per meter);
dielectric constant and operate at frequencies of 30 A = attenuation from the log in decibels/meter;
MHZ and 47 MHZ, respectively. Schlumberger's log tp0 = loss free travel time from zone of interest
is called an electromagnetic propagation tool (EPT)t in ns/m, where tpo calculated by:
and operates at 1.1 gigahertz. It measures the 1/2
propagation time of the electromagnetic wave by tpo = {tpl2 - (A-60)73,600}
reduction in wave amplitude and by shifts in the
phase of the wave (Serra, 1984). = travel time of reservoir matrix; and
Table 7 lists dielectric constants and propagation = travel time of water in the pores.
times for various materials. It is apparent that water
has a much greater wave travel time and dielectric
constant than any other material on the list. Because Table 7. Dielectric Constants and Propagation Times for
Various Materials (modifed after Dewan, 1983).
of this, the dielectric log can be used to detect water-
versus hydrocarbon-bearing zones (for a detailed Material Dielectric constant Propagation time*
discussion of the dielectric and EPTf logs, see Serra, Ur) (tp) ns/m
1984; Dewan, 1983; and Hilchie, 1982). Sandstone 4.65 7.2
The most common way of presenting dielectric Limestone 7.50 9.1
Dolomite 6.80 8.7
logging data is in the form of a computer generated Shale 5 to 25 7.5 to 16.6
quick look log which displays neutron-density Oil 2.2 4.9
crossplot porosity and water-filled porosity Gas 3.3 6.0
Fresh Water (25°C) 78.3 29.5
calculated from the dielectric log. Equations for
calculating water-filled porosity from the dielectric Where:
constant logs and the travel time logs (EPT)t are: *ns/m = nanno seconds/meter
tp = (11.U)1fe

Dielectric log:

1/2 1/2

<Aw = 1/2P _ V2
DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS

I
38
 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS

Figure 14. Computer generated Cyberlookf logs in the Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone in northwestern Kansas.
Note, the two porosity zones (at 3,456 feet, top and 3,618 feet, bottom). Both of these zones have high porosities (18%
right-hand side of track 3) and low water saturations (30% left-hand side of track 3) indicating both zones are
hydrocarbon-bearing.
Legend (Track #3|: SW equals water saturation (SJ, and PHIE equals porosity (</>) taken from neutron-density cross-
plot values.

39
DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS

CAUAIP..J.
6.0000 26.000
CGR <GOPI) ERFfKOHMh)
0.0 300.00 0.0100 100.00
5?__<1!Y__> RFft <HHHH)
-160.0 240.00 0.0100 100.00
ILM <QHflH>
2.0000 3.0000 0.1000 1000.0
MieiG/Ci) JULlfiHrnii _Efl£PJ_
2.0000 3.0000 0.1000 1000.0 0.4000 -0.100
SFLU<DHMI1) _PH.W<_

40
 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS

Figure 15. Computer generated Cyberlookf logs from Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone in northwestern Kansas.
Top: The porosity zone at 3,456 feet has EPTf porosity (i.e., water-filled porosity) equal to the neutron-density porosity,
indicating a water-bearing zone (see track 3, right side of log).
Bottom: The porosity zone at 3,618 feet has EPTf porosity (i.e., water-filled porosity) less than the neutron-density
porosity, indicating a hydrocarbon-bearing zone (see track 3, right side of log).
Legend (Track #3): EMCP equals EPTf porosity; and PHI A equals neutron-density crossplot porosity.

41
DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS
If a zone is wet, water-filled porosity calculated from
the dielectric or EPTt log will equal the porosity derived
from the neutron-density porosity logs. If, however,
hydrocarbons are present, then water-filled porosity will
be less than the porosity calculated from the porosity
logs. This occurs because hydrocarbons and rock matrix
have such low dielectric constants and travel times
(EPT)f when compared to water (Table 7). The measured
dielectric constant or travel time (EPT)f will be lowered
by the presence of hydrocarbons, causing the calculated
water-filled porosity value to also decrease (see
water-filled porosity equations).
The case study offered here illustrates how dielectric
logs are used to detect hydrocarbons. The log, an EPTt,
is from a Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone reservoir in
northwestern Kansas.
Figure 14 (top and bottom of page) shows computer
generated logs of two oomoldic porosity zones at 3,456
and 3,618 feet in the Lansing Formation. On the
right-hand side of track three, both at the top and bottom
of the page, the two porosity zones (denoted by arrows)
42
have porosity values around 18 percent and have water
saturations of about 30 percent (water saturations are in
the left-hand side of track three). Using conventional
logging techniques, both zones are identified as
hydrocarbon-bearing and should be tested. But, another
conclusion is developed when the EPTt log is examined.
Figure 15 (top and bottom) illustrates porosity derived
from the neutron-density porosity log and water-filled
porosity from the EPT log (see track 3). If we examine
Figure 15, we see that water-filled porosity and porosity
from the porosity logs are the same at a depth of 3,456
feet (top of page). This indicates the zone at 3,456 feet is
wet instead of hydrocarbon-bearing.
However, at 3,618 feet (Figure 15, bottom of page),
because water-filled porosity is less than the porosity
from the porosity logs, we can conclude that this zone is
hydrocarbon-bearing. When the well was perforated
from 3,617 to 3,620 feet, it had an initial production of
12 BOPD + 12 BWPD, verifying the result of the EPTt
log. After six months the production stabilized at 10
barrels of oil per day plus 2 barrels of water per day.

CHAPTER VIII: FRACTURE POROSITY AND THE CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M)
Fracture porosity is ubiquitous in some carbonate
reservoirs and can pose problems, since, whenever
fractures are present, the cement exponent (m) is
often less than 2.0. Aguilera (1980) and Ransom
(1984) demonstrate that if the fractures are plane
fractures, the cementation exponent (m) can be as low
as 1.0 (i.e., F = —). In most reservoirs, however, the
fractures are not plane and so the cementation
exponent (m) is between 2.0 and 1.0.
Rasmus (1983) developed the following relationship
for calculating a value for (m) in fractured carbonate
reservoirs.
Log[0 s 3 + 0 / ( 1 - <t>t) + (4>t - <t>,)]
m =
Log<f>t
Where:
m = cementation exponent;
0S = matrix porosity from sonic log; and
0t = total porosity from neutron and/or
density logs.
In order to use this formula, you must know that a
reservoir is fractured. You can verify the presence of
fractures from a fracture identification log, from
cores, or by knowledge of the reservoirs in the area
you are evaluating. It is necessary to know whether
or not fractures are present because otherwise the
value for m derived from the Rasmus formula will be
too low. For example, whenever sonic porosity (03) is
less than total porosity (<£t), the Rasmus (1983)
formula will always give an m value of less than 2.0,
and calculated water saturation values will be
lowered. Besides fractures, vuggy porosity also has
sonic porosity {<t>s) less than total porosity (0t). But,
the value of m for vuggy porosity without fractures
should be greater than 2.0, not less, as it would be if it
were calculated by the Rasmus (1983) fractured
carbonate formula. The following is an example of
what would happen if the type of reservoir porosity
was not taken into account.
Given: Rw = 0.04, Rt = 20; <j>a = 0.05; and </>t =
0.15.
Case 1: Vuggy Porosity Assumed-
2(log4>s)
m >
log & (Nugent, 1984)
FRACTURE POROSITY AND (M)
Using the Given to solve the formula, then:
m =3.16
F = l/<t>t3A6
F =401.4
Sw = (F X | w ) ' / 2
Sw = 89.6% '
Case 2: Fracture Plus Vuggy Porosity Assumed:
Logfo3 + 0S2(1 - 0t) + (0t - *,)]
m =
Log<^t (Rasmus, 1983)
Using the Given to solve the formula, then:
m = 1.20
F = l/<AtL2°
F =9.7
Sw = (F x |*) 1 / 2
Sw = 13.9% '
From the above calculations, it should be clear that
if you assumed that the difference in sonic porosity
(<t>e) and total porosity (<£t) was due to fractures and
there were no fractures, but rather vuggy porosity in
the reservoir, then you would calculate a water
saturation of 13.9 percent (productive) when the true
water saturation was 89.6 percent (wet). Conversely,
if you assumed that the difference in sonic porosity
(4>8) and total porosity (<A)t was due to vuggy porosity
only, but fracturing was present, then you would
calculate a water saturation of 89.6 percent (wet)
when the true water saturation was 13.9 percent
(productive).
If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now, just
how important it is to look at the rocks first and
determine porosity type before you undertake an
evaluation of carbonate reservoirs.
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
1. In carbonate reservoirs with intergranular
(carbonate grainstones) and intercrystalline (sucrosic
dolomite) porosity, reliable water saturation (SJ
values can be obtained using the standard Archie
equation: Sw = (F x RJRt)172 with F = l/<£2 (i.e., m =
2.0).
2. In carbonate reservoirs with vuggy or moldic
porosity, the standard Archie equation often gives
overly optimistic water saturations because of the
more complex pore geometry (i.e., m > 2.0).
3. In carbonate reservoirs with more complex
pore geometry, different evaluation techniques can be
used: (a) modification of the cementation exponent
(m) either by a Pickett crossplot or by formula
(Nugent, 1984; and Nurmi, 1984) using matrix (sonic)
porosity and total porosity from the nuclear logs; (b)
examination of bulk volume water (BVW = Sw x <$>)
values; (c) examination of Moveable Hydrocarbon
Index (SW/SI0) and Ratio water saturation (Sm) values;
(d) use of Production Ratio Index (PRI) to determine
oil, oil plus water, or water only production; and (e)
use of one of the new dielectric constant logs.
4. In carbonates with microporosity, in addition
to megaporosity, the Archie water saturation values
are often overly pessimistic because of the high
bound-water content of the micritized carbonate
44
grains. However, if a single textural parameter W is
used for both m and n in the standard Archie
equation, corrections can be made for the
microporosity. Unfortunately, core-derived porosity
and permeability data are required to determine W.
5. In carbonates with fracture porosity, the
standard Archie water saturations will commonly be
pessimistic because the cementation exponent (m) is
less than 2.0 due to the simple pore geometry.
Rasmus (1983) suggests the following formula be
used to correct m for fracture porosity:
Log[4>s3 + 4>s2(l - *J + (<t>t - *,)]
m =
Log</>t
6. In all carbonate reservoirs, it is important to
look carefully at the rocks (cores and cuttings) to
determine the type or types of porosity in the
reservoir.
7. It is important to use sonic logs in addition to
neutron and/or density logs in a logging program
designed for carbonate reservoirs.

REFERENCES CITED
Aguilera, Roberto, 1980, Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Petroleum
Publishing Company, 703 p.
Archie, G. E., 1942, The electrical resistivity log as
an aid in determining some reservoir
characteristics: Petroleum Technology, v. 5, p.
54-62.
Asquith, G. B., with C. R. Gibson, 1982, Basic well
log analysis for geologists: AAPG Methods in
Exploration No. 3,216 p.
Dewan, J. T, 1983, Essentials of modern open-hole
log interpretation: Tulsa, Oklahoma, PermWell
Publishing Company, 361 p.
Elliott, H. W., Jr., 1983, Some "pitfalls" in log
analysis: The Log Analyst, v. 24, no. 1, p. 10-24.
Fertl, W. H., and W. C. Vercellino, 1978, Predict water
cut from well logs, in Practical log analysis, Part 4:
Oil and Gas Journal, (May 15,1978-Sept. 19,
1979).
Guillotte, J. G., J. Schrank, and E. Hunt, 1979,
Smackover reservoir: interpretation case study of
water saturation versus production: Gulf Coast
Association Geological Societies, Transactions, v.
29, p. 121-126.
Hilchie, D. W., 1982, Advanced well log
interpretation: Golden, Colorado, Douglas W.
Hilchie, Inc.
Jaafar, I. B., 1980, Depositional and diagenetic
history of the B-zone of the Red River Formation
(Ordovician) of the Beaver Creek field, Golden
Valley County, North Dakota: Master's thesis,
West Texas State Univ., 68 p.
Keith, B. D., and E. D. Pittman, 1983, Bimodal
porosity in oolitic reservoirs—effect on
productivity and log response, Rodessa Limestone
(Lower Cretaceous), East Texas basin: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 67, p. 1391-1399.
REFERENCES CITED
Mitchell-Tapping, H. J., 1981, Petrophysical
properties of the Sligo Formation of northern
Louisiana and Arkansas: Gulf Coast Association
Geological Societies Transactions, v. 31, p.
155-165.
, 1983, Petrophysical evaluation of the
Smackover oomoldic porosity of East Texas and
southern Arkansas: The Log Analyst, v. 24, no. 4,
p. 3-13.
Nugent, W. H., G. R. Coates, and R. P. Peebler, 1978,
A new approach to carbonate analysis: Transcript
19th Annual Logging Symposium, Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts, paper 0 .
, 1984, Letters to the Editor: The Log Analyst,
v. 25, no. 2, p. 2-3.
Nurmi, R. D., 1984, Carbonate pore systems:
porosity/permeability relationships and geological
analysis (abst.); AAPG Annual Meeting, San
Antonio (May 20-23).
Pickett, G. R., 1972, Practical formation evaluation:
Golden, Colorado, G. R. Pickett, Inc.
Rasmus, J. C , 1983, A variable cementation
exponent, M, for fractured carbonates: The Log
Analyst, v. 24, no. 6, p. 13-23.
Ransom, R. C , 1984, A contribution toward a better
understanding of the modified Archie formation
resistivity factor relationship: The Log Analyst,
v. 25, no. 2, p. 7-11.
Schlumberger, 1972, Log interpretation
manuaiyprinciples, v. 1: Houston, Schlumberger
Well Services, Inc.
Schlumberger, 1977, Log interpretation/charts:
Houston, Schlumberger Well Services, Inc.
Serra, O., 1984, Fundamentals of well-log
interpretation: New York, Elsevier Publishers,
423 p.
45
APPENDIX

APPENDIX Archie water saturation equation for the formation's

uninvaded zone:
Review of Essential Logging Terms
Sx0 — Water saturation of zone very close to the Vn
well bore that has been flushed by invading ow —
mud filtrate (RmJ). Called the flushed zone. R,

Sw — Water saturation of the zone beyond the Where:

influence of the invading mud filtrate (R,,,,).
Called the uninvaded zone.
Rw — Resistivity of the formation water. Obtained
from a table of Rw values or calculated from
the Spontaneous Potential log or by the Rwa
method (see Asquith, 1982).
Rnj — Resistivity of the mud filtrate that invades
the formation during drilling. Obtained from
the log header.
RHS — Residual hydrocarbon saturation in the
flushed zone (RHS = 1.0 - S J .
Sw water saturation uninvaded zone;
a tortuosity factor (1.0 used in
carbonates);
4> porosity;
m cementation exponent m. Varies with
the complexity of the pore geometry.
Greater complexity results in a high
value for m;
formation water resistivity;
Rt resistivity of the uninvaded zone; and
n saturation exponent which varies from
1.8 t o 2.5, normally 2.0 is used.

SH — Hydrocarbon saturation in the uninvaded Archie water saturation equation for the formation's
zone(S h = 1.0 - S J . flushed zone:
Vn
RM — Resistivity of the formation's flushed zone
measured by a very shallow reading
resistivity log.
Where:
Rt — Resistivity of the formation's uninvaded
zone measured by a deep reading resistivity S xo = water saturation, flushed zone;
log. Rmf = resistivity of m u d filtrate; and
R xo = resistivity of t h e flushed zone.
4>t — Total porosity of the formation measured by
one of the nuclear logs (i.e., neutron and/or
density logs). ohm-meter =
A unit of electrical resistivity. Also
4>s — Sonic porosity of the formation measured by written as ohm meter 2 /meter. The
a sonic log. Sonic porosity is matrix porosity. resistivity of a cubic meter of material
which offers a resistance of one ohm to
<t>i — Density porosity (<t>d = 0t) t h e flow of an electric current between
two opposite faces. The reciprocal is
4 D — Neutron-density porosity also called mho/meter (conductivity).
crossplot porosity (<£xp).
mho/meter =
F - Formation factor (F = a/cjT) A unit of electrical conductivity which
is equal t o the reciprocal of an
ohm-meter (resistivity).

mmho/meter =
Millimho/meter. A unit of electrical
conductivity which is 1/1000 of a
mho/meter.

46
 INDEX

MT 0� I� B U L K VOLUME WATER. CROSSPLOTS

Index: MT 0� ll BUlK VOLUME Y.:>\TER, USI! OF
\iT OS 1 CANYONJUiEf, PC:-;NSYLVANIAN.CEMENl'ATIONEXPONENT
A reference is indexed according to its important, or MT OS I CARBONATE RESERVOIRS, LOO EVALUATIONTECHNIQUUS
Mf OS 7 CASE STUDY, CANYON REEF. SCURRY CO., TEXAS
"key" words. MT OS 19 CASE STUDY, COUNCil CROVF R·ZOKI:., OCII)LTREECO., TX.
Three columns are to the left of a keyword entry. The MT OS 39 CASE STUDY. LANSING LM., NORTHWESTERN KANSAS
MT OS CASESTUDY, LANSINO-KANSA S CITY I'M., ANADARKO
22
first column , a letter entry, represents the AAPG book Ml' OS C ASE STUDY, RED RJV BK FM .. WJL.I.ISTON RAS I N
13
MT OS CASE STIJDY, SMACKOVER FM . . OUJ F COAST
29
series from whlch the reference originated. ln thls case, MT OS CASE STUDY, ZAMA REEF, ALBERTA BASIN
18
MT stands for Methods Series. Every five years, AAPG MT 0� CEMENTATION EXPON\oNT (M), OETERMINATfON
7
MT 05 4
CONDUCTIVITY VARIATIONS
wiJJ merge all its indexes together, and the letter MT will MT OS COUNC£l GROVC 8-ZONI!. TX.. PRODUCTION RATIO INDEX
19
differentiate this reference from those of the AAPG Stud­ MT OS CYBERLOOK LOG.LA"SINO LM.• EXAMPLE
41
MT 05 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS. USE OF
39
ies in Geology Series (S) or from the AAPG Bulletin (B). MT OS 45
FRACTURE POROSITY/CEMENTATION EXPOI'ENT. COMPARISON
II''TERGRANUI.AR POROSITY, EXAMPlE
The foUowing number is the series number. l n this case, MT 0� S
1111 OS 39 LA:-<SINGLM.. PENNSYLVANIAN. DIEU!CfRlC CONSTA''T
5 represents a reference from AAPG Methods in Explora­ MT OS 22 LANSING-KANSAS CITY FM., ARCHIE WATERSATURATION
MT 05 I 1.00 EVALUATION, SPECIAL PROBLEMS, CARBONATES
tion 5. The third column lists the page number of this vol­ MT OS 29 MICROPOROSITY,CARBONATC, EXAMPLE
ume on which the reference can be found. MT 05 22 MOVE:ABL E.HYDROCARBON INDEX. DETERMINATION
MT OS 27 NEUTRON-DENSITY LOO. CARBONATE EXAMPLE, ANADARKO
MT 05 II PTCKEIT CROSSPLOT. CANYON REEF. SCL/RRY CO., TEXAS
MT OS 19 PRODUCTIONRATIO INDEX, DllTERMINATION
MT OS IJ RED RIVER fM.. WILLISTON BASIN, aU Lie VOLUME WATER
MT OS 4 RESISTIVITY VARIATIONS. HYDROCARBONS
MT OS 4 RESISTIVITY VARIATIONS, PORE GEOMETRY
MT OS 2S RXO/RTQULCK LOOK CURVE, EXAMPLE
MT OS 29 SMACKOVER f'l-1.. OUl.FCOAST,MICROPOROSITY
MT OS 2S SPHERICALLY FOCUSf!D LOO, CARBONATE EXAl"'PLE
MT 0 5 22 WATER SATURATTON/RATIO MEfHOD. DETERMINATION
MT OS 22 WATERSATURATION, ARCIIIE METHOD
MT OS 18 ZAMA REEF. ALBERTA BASIN, BULK WATER VOLUME

47