SPE 81077
The Quantification of Hydrocarbon Reserves in Thinly Laminated
Shaly-Sandstone Formations.
Tim Pritchard, Nick Colley (BG Group). Jonathan Bedford (Schlumbegrer Oilfield Services)
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27–30 April 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Many deltaic and turbidite reservoirs contain significant
hydrocarbon reserves within thinly laminated sand-shale
intervals, often poorly characterized using conventional
wireline technologies. This paper reviews the problems and
existing methods of quantifying hydrocarbon reserves in these
formations, and proposes a flexible integrated interpretation
strategy used to both quantify hydrocarbon reserves and
associated errors.
Introduction
Within many soft-sediment deltaic and turbidite reservoirs a
significant proportion of the hydrocarbon reserves may be
contained within thinly laminated sand-shale intervals, where
the bed thickness is at or below the resolution of conventional
wireline and LWD technologies (Figure 1). These intervals are
often poorly characterized using conventional sensor
measurements, leading to problems in both the detection of the
thin-bed pay, and the quantification of hydrocarbon reserves.
Furthermore, within such formations sensitivity of shales to
borehole fluids, and the unconsolidated nature of the sands,
can often give rise to problems with the quality of the borehole
and core.
Modeling studies provide an insight into the commercial
significance of the challenge. Figure 2 illustrates a simple
clean-sand/shale model, where the sand and shale laminae are
assigned the properties detailed in Figure 3. Using this model
the corresponding neutron porosity, density and resistivity
wireline responses were simulated firstly assuming there was
no invasion in the near well-bore region, and then assuming
complete invasion of water based drilling mud in the near
well-bore region.
The simulated responses were then analysed using a
conventional wireline interpretation strategy (Figure 4), to
compute hydrocarbon volumes, and results compared with the
model values.
Using a conventional interpretation strategy to compute
hydrocarbon volumes, even with the correct formation and
fluid parameters, the computed hydrocarbon volumes are
significantly lower than the original model values when there
is no near wellbore invasion. This under-estimation of
hydrocarbon reserves becomes increasingly significant when
there is invasion in the near wellbore region (Figures 5 and 6).
The conventional interpretation strategy uses single equation
to describe the relationship between water-
saturation/resistivity (e.g. Archie, Simandoux, or Indonesian
equations). However, the use of a single water-
saturation/resistivity relationship is inappropriate in thinly
laminated sequences. The measured (horizontal) resistivity is
determined by the harmonic average of the resistivity of the
sand and shale layers, and then by a separate water-
saturation/resistivity relationship for the sand laminae. The
harmonic averaging of sand and shale resistivity values
ensures that measured resistivity values are dominated by the
presence of shale.
Figure 7 presents gamma ray, density, neutron porosity and
resistivity data acquired over one such thin-bedded interval.
These data provided little evidence that this is actually a
productive interval, which when tested flowed
22.15 mmscf/day.
Fundamental to quantifying hydrocarbon volumes within such
formations is knowledge of the nature of the shale distribution.
In principal, there are three ways in which shale may be
distributed within a shaly-sandstone formation (Figure 8). The
shale may be laminated, dispersed (pore filling) or structural
(grain replacing). The nature of the shale distribution has a
profound impact on the relationships between
petrophysical properties [1,2,3].
2 SPE 81077
For example, it is well known that the nature of the shale
distribution directly influences the relationship between total
porosity () and the fractional volume of shale (VSH).
 If shale is distributed as laminae, then changes in shale
volume do not affect the effective-porosity or
permeability of the sand laminae, although as the volume
of laminar shale increases the amount of the porous
medium is reduced in proportion.
Considering the formation to be composed of clean
sandstone layers of porosity  inter-bedded between
layers of shale of porosity C the total porosity of the
formation may be described by the equation:
 =  - VL .(   C ) [1]
Where VL is the fraction of laminated shale.
 If shale is distributed in dispersed (i.e. pore-filling) form,
then changes in shale volume have a far more significant
impact on the effective-porosity and permeability of the
sand laminae. Considering the formation to be composed
of clean sandstone of porosity   where dispersed shale
of porosity C is present filling the inter-granular
porosity, the total porosity of the formation would be
described by the equation:
 =  - VD .( - C ) [2]
Where VD is the fractional of dispersed shale, and
0 <= VD <= 
 If shale is present in structural (i.e. grain replacing) form,
then changes in shale volume do not affect the effective-
porosity or permeability of the formation. Considering the
formation to be composed of sandstone of porosity  
where structural clay of porosity C replaces a proportion
of the original sand-grains, the total porosity of the
formation would be described by the equation:
 =  + VST .C [3]
Where VST is the fractional volume of structural shale, and
0 <= VST <= (1-).
The total fractional volume of shale within a formation (V SH )
may be described as:
VSH
= VL + VD + VST [4]
Using these arguments Thomas et al [1] first demonstrated that
plots of against VC (Figure 9) provide an insight into the
manner in which shale is distributed within a formation [1].
These models can be further developed to illustrate the impact
of shale distribution on relationships between irreducible
water saturation (Figure 10), permeability (Figure 11),
acoustic properties, and water-saturation/resistivity
relationships [1,2,3,4,5].
In particular, these models indicate that often there exists no
simple relationship between petrophysical properties (e.g.
porosity and permeability) can be used without an a priori
knowledge of the nature of the shale distribution.
However, it is noted that the relationships between
permeability and free fluid index (FFI, where FFI = ..(1-
Swir))), suggest a lower sensitivity to changes in shale
distribution (Figure 12).
Therefore, to accurately quantify hydrocarbon reserves within
formations containing sand-shale laminae, and predict the
petrophysical properties, it is important to establish the
relative proportion of each type of shale within the formation.
Knowledge of the shale distribution is also important for
reservoir modeling, when one is seeking to propagate
formation properties away from the wellbore. In addition,
however, the nature of the shale distribution also induces
changes to the manner in which any random errors are
propagated in any interpretation scheme. Both factors need to
be considered.
This paper reviews a number of existing thin bed
characterization methods, before presenting an integrated
wireline interpretation strategy for quantifying hydrocarbon
reserves. It seeks to exploit the advantages inherent in these
methods, and presents a method for the evaluation of the
uncertainty intrinsic in these computations. The application of
this method to field data is demonstrated, and the benefits and
limitations of the approach are discussed.
Integrated Wireline Interpretation
In this section we firstly review a number of technologies or
methodologies used to quantify hydrocarbon reserves within
thin bedded shale-sand sequences, highlighting the advantages
and limitations of each method, in order to demonstrate the
complementary nature of the methods and how they may be
combined in a flexible interpretation procedure. As highlighted
above, any robust interpretation must explicitly address the
issue of shale distribution within the formation.
In particular, before presenting an integrated wireline
interpretation procedure, it is instructive to firstly review
conventional wireline, Electrical Anisotropy, NMR, and
Borehole Image or Log Activity methods for quantifying
hydrocarbon reserves within laminated formations.
Conventional Wireline Interpretation in Thin Beds
These methods seek to make use of the methodology
developed by Thomas et al [1] to define shale distributions.
However, the measurement of total or effective porosity ( or
) and fractional shale volume (V SH) alone provide
insufficient information to unambiguously define the nature of
the shale distribution. Although it has been suggested that by
combining density, neutron and acoustic measurements it is
possible to resolve this problem [5], and quantify the fractional
volumes of laminated, dispersed and structural shale within a
formation, these methods are not widely used. It appears
common practice to implement a simplifying assumption
originally proposed by Ruhovets et al [6].
SPE 81077
From computations of the total porosity () of the formation
at a particular depth, the theoretical fractional volume of
laminated shale required to yield the total porosity is
computed as (VL*) using the equation:
VL* = ( -   / ( - C ) [5]
Where  is the porosity of the clean sandstone, and c is the
porosity of the shale. The theoretical value (VL*) is then
compared with the measured fractional volume of shale (V C)
to define the three rock-types:
 If VC = VL* , then the formation is assumed to contain
only laminated shale (i.e. VD = 0, VS =0), such that
the total porosity of the sand laminae (TO) may be
computed as:
TO = ( - VL C ) / (1 - VL ) [6]
 If VC < VL* , then the formation is assumed to contain
only dispersed and laminated shale, such that the true
volume of laminated shale may be computed as:
VL = ( - + VC .(1 - C )) / (1 - ) [7]
In turn, the fraction of dispersed clay/shale, within
the sand laminae may be computed as:
VDO = VD / (1 - VL) [8]
Where VD = VC - VL [9]
 If VC > VL* , then the formation is assumed to
contain only structural and laminated shale, such that
the true volume of laminated shale may be
computed as:
VL= ( - + VC .C ) /  [10]
In turn, the fraction of structural clay/shale within the
sand laminae may be computed as:
VSO = VS / (1 - VL) [11]
Where VS = VC - VL [12]
The effective porosity of the sand laminae (), and the
formation ( ), may then be computed using Equations 13 and
14, respectively.
 = TO- ( VDO C ) [13]
 = (1-VL ). [14]
It is implicitly assumed the petrophysical character of the
shale does not change, regardless of the manner
of distribution.
Resistivity Anisotropy Methods
More recently, it has been demonstrated that resistivity
anisotropy measurements can provide information concerning
the nature of the shale distribution. These methods take
advantage of the different ways in which the resistivities of the
sand and shale laminae are averaged together, to compute the
overall formation horizontal and vertical resistivity [7,8,9]. The
measured horizontal resistivity is determined by the harmonic
3
average of the resistivity of the sand and clay/shale layers. In
contrast, the vertical resistivity is determined by the arithmetic
mean resistivity of each of the sand and shale layers. As a
result the vertical resistivity values are inherently more
sensitive to changes in the fluid saturations within the sand
laminae (Figure 13). This method provides a means of
improving the accuracy with which hydrocarbon volumes may
be computed [8]. Furthermore, from measurements of the
horizontal and vertical resistivity the fractional volume of
laminated shale may be computed; provided both the sand and
shale layers are not electrically anisotropic. However, this
techniques appears to have a number of limitations:
 The determination of the horizontal and vertical
resistivity values themselves implicitly assumes the
formation is transversely isotropic, an assumption
that requires verification from the inspection of core
data, image logs and/or computations of laminated
shale volumes (as discussed earlier).
 Computation results rely on assumptions regarding
the electrical anisotropic character of the sands and
shales, in that the water-saturation/resistivity
relationships used to interpret results also contain
parameters that are tensor properties, which are often
only characterized in the laboratory using horizontal
core plug samples.
 These methods do not, as yet, provide information
regarding resistivity anisotropy in the near the
wellbore region. Consequently, corrections for
invasion effects are problematic. Invasion corrections
can have a significant impact on hydrocarbon
reserves computed.
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)
NMR logging tools in water and oil-bearing formations
provide direct measurement of the total porosity, effective
porosity, clay bound water volume, capillary bound water
volume and free (mobile) fluid volume (i.e. Free Fluid Index).
More advanced methods still, exist to characterize the nature
of the hydrocarbon fluid [10]. However, there are particular
challenges presented by low-pressure gas reservoirs.
NMR logging tools typically offer a shallow depth of
investigation. In low-pressure gas reservoirs, the shallow
depth of investigation can be an advantage. In good hole
conditions, and circumstances where there exists full mud-
filtrate invasion in the near well-bore region, NMR is
particularly well suited to quantifying Free Fluid volumes (i.e.
measuring the Free Fluid Index) within the formation. In these
conditions, the Free Fluid volume provides a direct
measurement of the hydrocarbon pore volume above any gas-
water contact, without it being necessary to know the nature of
the shale distribution.
However, when there is little invasion in the near well-bore
region, one can no longer just rely on direct measurements of
the Free Fluid Index, since the NMR signal from the gas is
suppressed by hydrogen index and (in some circumstances)
polarization effects.
4 SPE 81077
The polarization characteristics of natural gas are very
different from that of water, such that although the NMR
wireline data may have been acquired under conditions where
there is complete polarization of the hydrogen nuclei in the
water molecules, the acquisition parameters may be
insufficient to allow complete polarization of hydrogen nuclei
within the gas molecules. Consequently, measurements of the
Free Fluid Index can be relatively insensitive to changes in
hydrocarbon volumes in these circumstances (Figure 14). The
lack of signal also precludes the application of more advanced
NMR measurements that rely on exploiting differences in
NMR relaxation characteristics between gas and drilling fluid
filtrate. Nevertheless, even in such conditions NMR provides a
measure of the minimum effective porosity and Free Fluid
Index, within the formation.
However, it is possible to circumvent the low-invasion
problem, to a certain extent, by simultaneously analyzing the
NMR and density wireline data using the so-called DMR
(Density-Magnetic-Resonance) method [10], since NMR and
density logging measurements have a similar depth of
investigation. To perform this calculation requires knowledge
of the grain density of the matrix is required. In clean
sandstone intervals, the DMR analysis method is easily
implemented. However, in shaly-sandstone or more
geologically complex intervals ideally an independent measure
of grain density is required to implement a VDMR (Variable-
Density-Magnetic Resonance) interpretation procedure. In
principal, this additional grain density information could be
provided from geochemical logging data [11], or from the
simultaneous computation of grain density and total porosity
by solving the density, neutron porosity and NMR porosity
wireline log response equations. However, in the latter
approach it is necessary to correct for invasion effects using
the shallow reading resistivity logs, and to do that requires an
accurate knowledge of the shale distribution.
Borehole Image and Log Activity Measurements
Borehole Image logs provide high resolution images of the
formation, from which net sand volumes are usually
determined; typically based on the assignment of resistivity
thresholds to the borehole image data or examining the
statistical variability of the high resolution resistivity data
acquired by the image logs (Figure 1). Alternatively,
techniques have been developed to derive net sand volumes
based upon the examination of the activity of high-resolution
resistivity/conductivity/electromagnetic-propagation logs. In
turn, hydrocarbon volumes are estimated by attributing
petrophysical properties to the sand volumes derived by such
methods (e.g. porosity, irreducible water saturation etc).
However, in utilizing such methods considerable caution is
required. Net sand determinations can yield high volumes of
sand in the thin-bedded intervals. In particular, image log
methods have the potential to overestimate sand volumes in
intervals of poor borehole conditions, in irregular mass-flow
deposits and where there are thin cemented-beds.
Consequently, manual picking of sand layers is generally
considered to produce the most defensible values of net sand,
where the validity of the sand pick can be verified with
reference to available core analysis data, core photographs and
additional log information. This is, however, a very laborious
and time-consuming process. Furthermore, once completed it
may still be unclear how to assign petrophysical properties to
each of the sand laminae; unless there is a wealth of high
quality core analysis data. Consequently, these methods often
suffer for want of an independent check on the hydrocarbon
volumes that can be computed. The importance of high-quality
core data, particularly in this context, cannot be over-
emphasized.
However, borehole image data can be used to independently
measure volumes of laminated shale, which together with
conventional wireline data, can be used to compute volumes
shale present in each form. Furthermore, additional wireline
data, with the assistance of core data, can be used to define the
petrophysical properties of the sand laminae.
An Integrated Wireline Interpretation Procedure
In reviewing existing methods for quantifying hydrocarbon
reserves in thinly bedded shaly-sandstone formations, it is
evident that in many ways existing methods complement each
other. In the integrated wireline interpretation procedure
proposed here, we have sought to take advantage of the
complementary nature of the existing evaluation methods to
develop a single flexible interpretation scheme illustrated in
Figure 15.
If only conventional wireline data is available, then an
interpretation is undertaken where the density, neutron-
porosity and gamma ray information is used to compute total
porosity and shale volume. From these data, the shale
distribution is evaluated using the Rohovets simplifying
assumption, and the resistivity response equations solved to
compute hydrocarbon pore volumes.
If NMR log data is available, then the results from the above
conventional interpretation are used to compute a grain
density, which is then used in a VDMR interpretation
procedure to determine a corrected porosity values and a near
well-bore water saturation at approximately the same depth of
investigation as the density and NMR tools measure. NMR
logs define the minimum effective porosity and Free Fluid
Index of the formation.
If geochemical log data is available then the manner in which
both the NMR and conventional wireline log response
equations are solved may be further constrained through the
direct input of a matrix grain density.
Finally, if either borehole (or activity) log information is
available or resistivity anisotropy information, then this
information can be used to establish the volume of laminated
shale, thereby allowing the volumes of structural and
dispersed shale to be evaluated.
The shale-distribution information is then used to define the
nature of the water-saturation/resistivity relationships existing
for the formation, and solving these relationships (subject to
the boundary conditions imposed by the available wireline
data) allows the hydrocarbon reserves to be quantified.
SPE 81077
However, as noted earlier, the implementation of an
interpretation scheme that explicitly addresses the issue of
shale distribution is only half the problem. It is also important
to consider how changes in shale distribution impact upon
error propagation and uncertainty.
Error Propagation and Uncertainty
Using a single interpretation scheme, it is possible evaluate the
impact of uncertainties or errors associated with every single
input log and parameter used for the interpretation. In this way
it is possible to establish the most critical parameters driving
the uncertainty in any evaluation, and focus additional work
upon reducing uncertainty in these parameters.
The best way of establishing the uncertainties associated with
the quantification of hydrocarbon reserves is via Monte Carlo
simulation. However, in reality the implementation of Monte
Carlo simulation methods is very time-consuming, requiring
the use of special software. However, an alternative method
that may yield comparable results in favorable conditions is
provided using the General Theory for the Propagation of
Errors.
The Hydrocarbon Pore Volume (i.e. HCPV) computed within
the formation at a given depth is a function of all the wireline
data inputs and parameters used in the
interpretation procedure:
HCPV = f (a1, a2, a3….aN) [15]
Provided that the each of the above parameters are
independent, and any errors in the values of the parameters
random and normally distributed, then the General Theory for
the Propagation of Errors shows that the standard deviation of
the computed hydrocarbon pore volume can be calculated as:
HCPV = {  ((HCPV/ai). ai ) 2
1/2 [16]
}
Where Freedman et al defined the best estimate of the
uncertainty associated with each parameter as:
ai = (+/- q).ai [17]
Where ai is the best estimate of the parameter and q is the
estimate of the uncertainty of the value of the parameter
expressed as a ratio. A further extension of this argument is
that provided the distribution of errors is normal, then the
normal error integral can be used to allow P10 and P90
estimates of hydrocarbon pore volume to be computed:
P10, P90
= +/- 0.8225.  HCPV [18]
P50
The same methodology may also be applied to evaluate
uncertainty in the computation of other petrophysical
parameters (e.g. porosity, water saturation, permeability etc)
[18]
. parameters at the time. This allows operational decisions to be
In seeking to make use of this method, however, it is
important to note that there are significant problems with the
assumptions inherent in the method In particular; the method
assumes that the errors associated with each parameter are
randomly distributed. However, logging tools make
measurements over overlapping volumes as they move along
5
the borehole, and may be subject to systematic errors when
boreholes are rugose. Furthermore, the parameters themselves
may be subject to boundary conditions. For example, the
hydrocarbon pore volume is determined by both the porosity
and water saturation of the formation. Water saturations must
lie between zero and one, and may be further constrained by
the information provided from other wireline tools (i.e.
irreducible water saturation). If the P10 and P90 estimates of
water saturation are less than zero or greater than one then
they must be set to either zero or one if the values are to have
any physical meaning. Similarly, when NMR data is available
the porosity of the formation is constrained by the minimum
effective porosity measurement made by the NMR logging
tool. In view of these limitations the results are best seen as
being semi-quantitative.
Applications of the interpretation methodology
The application of the integrated interpretation methodology is
illustrated with data from three unconsolidated low-pressure
gas reservoirs.
In the first example, the volumes of hydrocarbon in place had
initially been evaluated using a conventional wireline
interpretation methodology. The wireline or LWD data
available for the interpretation work was of limited quality.
After several-years production, however, it became evident
that the reservoir gas pressure remained consistently higher
than that predicted from the original reservoir model. There
were additional gas reserves unaccounted for by the
conventional wireline interpretation. Utilizing the above
integrated interpretation methodology, where the nature of the
shale distribution was determined, 20% additional gas volume
was computed throughout the reservoir interval for the P50
cases (Figure 16). However, an analysis of the errors involved
in the computational procedure also demonstrated a significant
increase in uncertainty associated with the increased
hydrocarbon pore volume arising as a direct consequence of
changing the nature of the water-satruation/resistivity model
(Figure 17). Overall, the increase in computed hydrocarbon
pore volumes appeared to be statistically significant, but the
increase in uncertainty was also a crucial factor that needed to
be taken into account.
In the second example, the integrated interpretation procedure
was used to compute P10, P50 and P90 estimates of
hydrocarbon volumes within the formation. This information
can be used to identify intervals where there is potential for
low resistivity pay, that could be subsequently tested (Figure
18). The utility of this method is that it could be used as a
first-look well-site procedure to estimate the probability of
hydrocarbons being present within the formation at particular
depths, taking into account the uncertainties in formation
made in order to reduce that uncertainty, for example to make
more reservoir pressure tests at specific intervals. These
calculations also facilitate the evaluation of the contribution of
the uncertainty of each parameter to the over-all computation
of hydrocarbon pore volumes. This information may be used
to focus subsequent core analysis studies to reducing the
uncertainty associated with particular parameters.
6 SPE 81077
In the final example, the integrated interpretation procedure is
used to evaluate the impact of including NMR and resistivity
anisotropy measurements in the interpretation scheme.
Permeability data was computed on a depth-by-depth basis
utilizing NMR data, and a laboratory calibrated permeability
algorithm, and P10, P50 and P90 cases were computed for the
cumulative hydrocarbon pore volumes as a function of
permeability cutoff (Figure 19). Figure 20 demonstrates the
decrease in uncertainty resulting from the introduction of the
electrical anisotropy data into the integrated interpretation
methodology. Calculations of this nature facilitate appraisals
of the value of additional information, and the optimization of
wireline logging programs.
CONCLUSIONS
 The accurate quantification of hydrocarbon volumes
within thinly bedded shaly-sandstone formations, and the
subsequent prediction of petrophysical properties,
requires a knowledge of the manner in which clay/shale is
distributed within the formation. Failure to consider this
can result in hydrocarbon volumes being significantly
underestimated.
 A number of conventional and advanced wireline
measurement and interpretation strategies have been
developed to address this problem. Individually, each
method has strengths and weaknesses. When combined in
an appropriate integrated interpretation methodology the
results from one method may be seen to constrain the
range of results that may be computed via another
method, thereby facilitating a more robust evaluation of
hydrocarbon volumes.
 The development of a single, integrated, interpretation
scheme capable of utilizing conventional and advanced
wireline measurements allows one to evaluate uncertainty
in computations of hydrocarbon volumes using the
general theory for the propagation of errors.
 The method has been successfully applied to: demonstrate
the statistical significance of additional pay identified in
thinly laminated shaly-sandstone reservoirs; identify
intervals that may contain additional gas reserves as
potential targets for future reservoir tests, and evaluate the
impact of deploying new measurement technologies in
the field.
REFERENCES
1. Thomas, E.C., Steiber, S.J., "The Distribution of Shale in
Sandstone and Its Effect Upon Porosity", SPWLA 16th
Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7, 1975, Paper T.
2. Schoen, J.H., Mollison, R.A., Georgi, D.T., "Macroscopic
Electrical Anisotropy of Laminated Reservoirs: A Tensor
Resistivity Saturation Model", SPE 56509 presented at the
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas. 3-6 October.
3. Dvorkin, J., Gutierrez, M.A., “Grain Sorting, Porosity,
and Elasticity”, Petrophysics Vol 43, No 3 (May-June)
2002. pp 185 – 196.
4. Worthington, P.F., "The Influence of Formation
Anisotropy upon Resistivity-Porosity Relationships",
Petrophysics, Vol 42, No 2 (March-April) 2001.
5. Asakura, S., Ashida, Y., Eida, H., Brie, A., Kida, M.,
Imayoshi, A., Fujikawa., "A New Saturation Equation for
Thinly Laminated Formations", 5th Well Logging
Symposium of Japan. September 29-30, 1999. Paper D.
6. Ruhovets, N., Fertl, W.H., "Digital Shaly Sand Analysis
Based on Wasman-Smits Model and Log-Derived Clay
Typing", SAID's 7th European Logging Symposium
Transactions. 1981.
7. Kriegshauser, B., Fanini, O., Forgag, S., Itskovich, G.,
Rabinovich, M., Tabarovsky, L., Yu, L., "A New
Multicomponent Induction Logging Tool to Resolve
Anisotropic Formations", SPWLA 41st Annual Logging
Symposium. 2000.
8. Olesen, J.R., "Formation Evaluation of Thin Laminated
Pay", SPWLA European Symposium 2002. Paper T3B.
9. Shray, F., Borbas, T., "Evaluation of Laminated
Formations using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and
Resistivity Anisotropy Measurements".
10. Freedman, R., Minh, C.C., Gubelin, G., Freeman, J.J., Mc
Ginness, T., Terry, B., Rawlence, D., "Combining NMR
and Density Logs for Petrophysical Analysis in Gas
Bearing Formations", SPWLA 39th Annual Logging
Symposium. 1998.
11. Herron, M.M., Herron, S.L., Grau, J.A., Seleznev, N.V.,
Phillips, J., Al Sherif, A., Farag, S., Horkowtiz, J.P.,
Thomas, J.N., Hsu, K., "Real-Time Petrophysical
Analysis in Siliciclastics From the Integration of
Spectroscopy and Triple-Combo Logging", SPE 77631
presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 th
September - 2nd October.
12. Theys, P.H., "Log Data Acquisition and Quality Control",
1991 Editions Technip, Paris.
SPE 81077 7

Figure 1 Figure 4
Example of borehole data acquired within a
thin-bedded gas reservoir Schematic diagram of a conventional wireline
interpretation strategy

Figure 2

Schematic diagram illustrating the definition of the

term “fraction of resolved sand laminae” Figure 5

Schematic diagram illustrating the results of a

conventional wireline interpretation when there is no
invasion in the near wellbore region

Figure 3

Summary of simulated formation properties

Figure 6
Schematic diagram illustrating the results of a
conventional wireline interpretation when there is full
invasion in the near wellbore region
8 SPE 81077
Figure 7
Wireline data acquired over a thin bedded reservoir
interval that was subsequently tested and flowed dry gas
Figure 8
Schematic diagram illustrating the three different
modes of shale distribution
Figure 9
Schematic diagram illustrating the dependence of total
porosity with shale volume for different modes of shale
distribution
Figure 10
Schematic diagram illustrating the dependence of the total
irreducible water saturation with shale volume for
different modes of shale distribution
Figure 11
Schematic diagram illustrating the dependence of
permeability with shale volume for different modes of
shale distribution
Figure 12
Schematic diagram illustrating the dependence of
permeability with free fluid index for laminated and
dispersed shale modes of distribution
SPE 81077 9

Figure 13 Figure 16
Diagram illustrating the enhanced sensitivity of vertical Example 1: Computation of additional thin bed pay using
resistivity measurements to the presence of hydrocarbons limited quality log data.
within thinly laminated formations

Figure 17

Figure 14 Increases in uncertainty arising from changes in the nature

of the water-saturation/resistivity relationship
Schematic diagram illustrating the impact of invasion in
low-pressure gas reservoirs in the capability of NMR to
quantify hydrocarbon volumes

Figure 18
Figure 15
Analysis of errors can be used to identify potential
Schematic diagram illustrating an integrated procedure intervals for subsequent reservoir pressure tests
for the quantification of hydrocarbon reserves in thinly
laminated shaly-sandstone formations
10 SPE 81077

Figure 19

Net Hydrocarbon Column Thickness as a function of

permeability cutoff

Figure 20

The reduction in uncertainty for sands with permeabilities

below 1 Darcy, arising from the use of both NMR and
Resistivity Anisotropy measurements