Resistivity-velocity transforms revisited

PINAR HACIKOYLU, JACK DVORKIN, and GARY MAVKO, Stanford University, California, USA

V elocity and density measured in a well are crucial for syn-

thetic seismic generation which is, in turn, a key to interpret-
Downloaded 06/24/14 to 132.203.227.62. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

ing real seismic amplitude in terms of lithology, porosity, and

fluid. Because velocity and density curves are sometimes of
poor quality, or simply absent in older wells, it is important
to be able to reconstruct these curves from reliable measure-
ments, such as resistivity and gamma-ray (GR). Arecent exam-
ple of this approach is by Xu et al. (2003) where mechanical
compaction curves and velocity-porosity relations are used to
reconstruct a full suite of the needed log data. The earliest
attempt to reconstruct a sonic curve from resistivity is by
Faust (1953), where both the velocity and resistivity are empir-
ically related to depth and lithology. From these two relations
an equation follows that links the sonic velocity to the depth
and formation factor, where the formation factor is defined,
as usual, as the ratio of the resistivity of water-saturated rock
to the resistivity of water. We revisit Faust’s equation and use
the currently available rock physics transforms between the
velocity, porosity, and mineralogy together with existing
empirical and theoretical resistivity-porosity models to deter- Figure 1. Velocity versus porosity for brine-saturated rock according to
mine the ranges of its applicability in terms of rock type and equation 1, colorcoded by clay content. Black symbols are data from Han
lithology. We offer extensions of this equation for rock types (1986), and blue symbols are data from Salem (2001).
that apparently were not included in original analysis.

Applicability of Faust’s equation. A physical basis for a rela-

tion between velocity and resistivity to exist is a dependence
of both these parameters on the total porosity.
A number of rock physics models relate velocity to poros-
ity depending on mineralogy and rock texture. One model
commonly used in consolidated sands is by Raymer et al.
(1980):

(1)

where φ is the total porosity; Vm is the velocity in the mineral

phase; and Vf is the velocity in the pore fluid. Dvorkin and
Nur (1998) showed that this empirical equation accurately pre-
dicts the velocity in consolidated sandstone with varying clay
content. Figure 1 displays VP versus φ according to equation
1 for 0–0.25 clay content. The pore fluid is water of salinity
36 000 ppm at temperature 75° C and the pore pressure is 30
MPa. The bulk modulus and density of this fluid, according
to Batzle and Wang (1992), are 2.73 GPa and 1.01 g/cc, respec- Figure 2. Formation factor versus porosity for brine-saturated rock
tively. The velocity in this fluid is 1.64 km/s. according to equation 4, with tortuosity and cementation factors given by
In the same figure we also display velocity-porosity data Table 1. The light blue-colored curve comes from equation 5.
for consolidated sandstone from Han (1986). The clay con-
tent range in these samples is between 0 and 0.25. These (2)
velocity data come from ultrasonic pulse-transmission mea-
surements on dry samples. To calculate the velocity in the where γ = 2.2888, VP is in km/s, and Z is in km. F is defined
brine-saturated samples, we used fluid substitution (Gass- as follows:
mann, 1951). The brine properties used were the same as
listed above. In addition to these data we display the veloc- (3)
ity-porosity data from Salem (2001) which come from off-
shore wells from consolidated shaly sandstone intervals where Rt is the electrical resistivity of the formation and Rw
saturated with brine, oil, and gas. Notice that some of these is the resistivity of water. The relation between the forma-
data points fall below the velocity range as predicted by tion factor and velocity, as expressed by Equation 2, is most
Equation 1. The reasons may be that the samples contain likely due to the dependence of both material properties on
large volumes of clay or, most likely, that the reported veloc- porosity.
ity comes from oil- and gas-saturated intervals and has not Archie (1942) shows that the formation factor is a func-
been corrected for 100% water saturation. tion of porosity, F = φ-m, where m is the cementation factor.
The original Faust (1953) empirical equation relates the P- The general form of this equation, including the tortuosity fac-
wave velocity, VP, to the formation factor, F, and depth, Z, as tor, a, is:
1006 THE LEADING EDGE AUGUST 2006
Downloaded 06/24/14 to 132.203.227.62. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

Figure 3. Velocity versus formation factor for brine-saturated rock accord- Figure 4. Velocity versus porosity for brine-saturated rock for two data
ing to equation 2, colorcoded by depth. The black curves are for clean sets (two wells). In both data sets, the velocity is calculated for 100%
consolidated sandstone (a) and shaly sandstone (b) as described in the brine-saturated conditions. The sand data are colored blue, and the shale
text. The data are from Salem (black) and unconsolidated well data from data are red. The model curves on the left come from the soft sand model
the Gulf of Mexico (red). while on the right they come from the stiff sand model. Each curve is
calculated for a fixed clay content. The top curves are for zero clay con-
(4) tent, and the bottom curves are for 100% clay content. The curves in-
between are for a 20% clay increment that progressively increases from
top to bottom.
Various values have been proposed for a and m depend-
ing on the lithology. Some examples are given in Table 1
(Asquith, 1984). The corresponding curves for F versus φ are
plotted in Figure 2. It is apparent that three of the expressions
listed in Table 1 produce essentially identical curves. In Figure
2 we also plot in light blue the curve from Salem (2001) who
used a best-fit to relate the formation factor to porosity by the
following equation:

(5)

Next we use Equation 2 to plot the velocity versus for-

mation factor for a depth range between 1 and 4 km (Figure
3). We calculate the velocity versus porosity according to
Equation 1 for zero clay content, and the formation factor ver-
sus porosity according to Equation 4 with a = 0.81 and m = 2
(consolidated sandstone in Table 1). These velocity and for-
mation factor are crossplotted in Figure 3 as curve “a.” The Figure 5. Velocity versus normalized resistivity. In each figure a different
log data set (only shale) is plotted. Equation 2 is used to plot Faust curve
curve “b” in Figure 3 is computed in a similar fashion but for (colorcoded by depth), and model curves are shown in black.
clay content 0.25 and using a = 1.65 and m = 1.33 (shaly sand-
stone in Table 1).
In the same figure we also display unconsolidated shale
data from the Gulf of Mexico (red symbols). These data points
fall below Faust’s prediction and the curves “a” and “b.” It is
apparent from Figure 3 that a close match between the Faust
velocity prediction and that, according to Equation 2, occurs
only in a depth range between 1.0 and 2.5 km, for consoli-
dated sandstone with small clay content and for formation
factor ranging from 11 to 70. This range approximately cor-
responds to a porosity range between 0.05 and 0.25. This is
the apparent applicability range for Equation 2.

Factors that affect velocity. The velocity in water-saturated

porous rock depends not only on porosity and clay content
but also on the texture. Specifically, at the same porosity and
mineralogy the velocity may drastically differ between
cemented (stiff) clastic rock and uncemented (soft) rock (Mavko
et al., 1998). Dvorkin and Nur (1996) show that two types of
a velocity-porosity behavior may be present in clastic sediment,
depending on texture. In the same porosity range, the
cemented (stiff) sediment has velocity much larger than in
uncemented (soft) sediment (Gal et al., 1998). This difference
can be mathematically described by two models which we call
the stiff sand and soft sand models. Within each model the
velocity still depends on porosity and clay content. For the
AUGUST 2006 THE LEADING EDGE 1007
 same porosity, the larger the clay content the smaller
the velocity.
In Figure 4 these model curves are superim-
posed upon the log data to implicitly differentiate
the texture. Although both data sets consist of sand-
stones and shale, the stiffness of the sediment is dif-
ferent and so are the models which are used to
describe the data. On the left, the soft sand model
Downloaded 06/24/14 to 132.203.227.62. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/

accurately describes one data set while, on the right

side, the stiff sand model accurately describes the
other data set. The sand data in both data sets fall
between the zero-clay-content and 20% clay-content
curves while the shale data fall below the 20% clay-
content curves. We use these two models to analyze
well data and derive relations between the nor-
malized resistivity and velocity.

Analysis of well data. In this analysis we concern

ourselves only with the shaly part of the intervals.
We feel that this approach is appropriate because
shale constitutes the predominant part of the sub-
surface.
In Figure 5 we display several log data sets from
the Gulf of Mexico (GOM). Amodel curve for veloc-
ity versus normalized resistivity is superimposed
upon these data. In this curve, the velocity is cal-
culated from the soft sand-shale model which is the
modified lower Hashin-Shtrikman elastic bound
while the normalized resistivity is calculated from
the Hashin-Strikman lower bound for resistivity
given by the following equation:

(6)

This equation is a modification of the original

lower Hashin-Shtrikman bound as given by
Berryman (1995), HSR– = (RHS /Rw) = 1.5φ–1– 0.5,
where φ is replaced by the difference φ - φP. φP is
a percolation porosity at which the conductivity
becomes zero. Here we assume φP = 0.4.
This newly introduced model curve appears to
conform with the data while the Faust curve (also
added to these plots) grossly overestimates the
velocity. In Figure 5 black curves are the model
curves, and the Faust curves are color-coded by Figure 6. 1/VP versus Rw/Rt. Model curves (red) and the curves from equation 7
depth. Each frame is for a separate data set. (blue) are superimposed on the log data (only shale) for each data set.
Resistivity data have different depth trends in each
figure. On the left, resistivity is increasing with increasing tions in the input parameters to the soft-sand model. In
depth while, on the right, it is decreasing with increasing Figure 6 six different log data sets (only for the shale part of
depth. The reason for these different trends may be: (a) poros- the intervals) are plotted, and the model curves as well as
ity decreases with increasing depth, fluid connectedness, the curves given by Equation 7 are superimposed on the data.
and thus the conductivity decreases (the trend on the left fig- Figure 7 displays a summary crossplot for all six data sets.
ure), (b) with increasing depth the overpressure and/or dis- The range, 0.25
c
0.35, apparently bounds the available
solution of clay increase conductivity (the trend on the right log data.
figure) (H. Yin, personal communication, 2005).
Conclusions. Faust’s velocity-resistivity equation is only
Linear fit. The equation for the model curve, which was cal- applicable to consolidated sandstones but not to shale with
culated from Equation 6 and the soft sand model, is not high clay content. It is only valid within a porosity range
shown here due to its length. For each new data set, the inputs between 5% and 20%. It should not be used for unconsoli-
in the soft sand model, such as the clay content and coordi- dated and/or uncemented sandstones and shales. We offer
nation number, have to be adjusted to better fit the data. For a new transform between resistivity and velocity, which is
convenience, we offer a simpler equation that links velocity based on a rock physics model appropriate for unconsoli-
to resistivity which is the best linear fit to this model curve: dated shales. Although the scatter in our estimate is notice-
able, the range of predicted velocity is much closer to
(7) measured data than estimated by the Faust equation.

The variations of the coefficient c depend on the varia- Suggested reading. “The electrical resistivity log as an aid in deter-

1008 THE LEADING EDGE AUGUST 2006


Downloaded 06/24/14 to 132.203.227.62. Redistribution subject to SEG license or copyright; see Terms of Use at http://library.seg.org/
Figure 7. 1/VP versus Rw/Rt according to equation 7 with c=0.25 and c=0.35 (red curves)
are superimposed on log data sets (only shale data).
mining some reservoir characteristics” by Archie (Petroleum
Development Technology, 1942). Basic Well Log Analysis for Geologists
by Asquith (AAPG, 1994). “Seismic properties of pore fluids” by
Batzle and Wang (GEOPHYSICS, 1992). “Mixture theories for rock
properties” by Berryman (in Rock Physics and Phase Relations: A
Handbook of Physical Constants, AGU, 1995). “Time-average equa-
tion revisited” by Dvorkin and Nur (GEOPHYSICS,
1998). “Elasticity of high-porosity sandstones:
Theory for two North Sea data sets” by Dvorkin
and Nur (GEOPHYSICS, 1996). “A velocity function
including lithologic variation” by Faust
(GEOPHYSICS, 1953). “A physical model for poros-
ity reduction in sandstones” by Gal et al.
(GEOPHYSICS, 1998). “Uber die Elastizitat poroser
Medien” by Gassmann (Vier. Der Natur. Gesellschaft
in Zurich, 1951). “Effects of porosity and clay con-
tent on acoustic properties of sandstones and
unconsolidated sediments” by Han (PhD disser-
tation, Stanford University, 1986). The Rock Physics
Handbook: Tools for Seismic Analysis in Porous Media
by Mavko et al. (Cambridge University Press,
1998). “An improved sonic transit time-to-poros-
ity transform” by Raymer et al. (Trans. Soc. Prof.
Well Log Analysts, 21st Annual Logging Symposium,
1980). “Relationship among formation resistivity
factor, compressional wave velocity, and poros-
ity for reservoirs saturated with multiphase flu-
ids” by Salem (Energy Sources, 2001). “Using rock
physics for pseudo well log construction” by Xu
et al. (International Geophysical Conference,
Moscow, 2003). TLE
Acknowledgments: We thank Matt Carr of Rock Solid Images for provid-
ing the data and Kyle Spikes of Stanford University for valuable discus-
sions. This work was supported by the Stanford Rock Physics and Borehole
Geophysics (SRB) project.
Corresponding author: phacikoylu@stanford.edu
AUGUST 2006 THE LEADING EDGE 1009