1-Introduction and literature review:

In the realm of oil and gas exploration, the presence of shaly sandstone formations in oil wells holds both
challenges and opportunities. Shaly sandstone, characterized by the coexistence of sandstone and shale
properties, introduces complexities that significantly impact various stages of hydrocarbon recovery.
This sedimentary rock, composed of sand grains intermingled with clay minerals, poses challenges in reservoir
evaluation, drilling operations, and the optimization of hydrocarbon recovery mechanisms. Understanding the
petrophysical attributes of shaly sandstone is essential for accurate reservoir characterization. The composition of
clay minerals, such as illite, kaolinite, or smectite, alongside sand grains, influences the rock's porosity,
permeability, and mechanical behavior. Accurate assessment of these properties is crucial for estimating water
saturation and determining the reservoir's hydrocarbon potential.
Presence of shale in the formation has been considered as a very disturbing factor and shown severe effects on
petrophysical properties due to reduction in effective porosity, total porosity and permeability of the reservoir.
Moreover, the existence of shale causes uncertainties in formation evaluation, proper estimation of oil and gas
reserves, and reservoir characterization
For shaly sandstone reservoirs, different models have been developed depending on different factors, such as; (1)
input parameters and their sources such as; routine core analysis, special core analysis and well logging data, (2)
development approach such as; field or laboratory based, empirical or theoretical correlation, and (3) shale
distribution and the model's dependency on types as laminar, structural or dispersed.

Different shale distributions inhibit different electric conductivity, permeability, and porosity. The
distribution of clay within porous reservoir formations can be classified into three groups,:
1. Laminated: Thin layers of clay between sand units.
2. Structural: Clay particles constitute part of the rock matrix, and are distributed within it.
3. Dispersed: Clay in the open spaces between the grains of the clastic matrix.
The distribution of clay within porous reservoir formations can be classified into three groups (Glover, 2014), as
illustrated in Fig. 1:

Fig. 1. Different shale distribution modes (Glover, 2014).

Development of shaly reservoirs represents a real challenge in the oil industry due to their severe heterogeneity
and complex nature.
The calculation of irreducible water saturation (Swi) is essential to calculate the oil saturation (So= 1- Swi), which is
imperative in calculating hydrocarbon volumes. The existence of clay minerals in oil and gas reservoirs complicates
the calculation of water saturation using Archie's equation’ This is because the behavior of the clay particles
depends mainly on shale type and its distribution in the pore space which contributes to the electrical conductivity
of the formation.
In shaly sandstone reservoirs, water saturation calculations are notably affected by the mixed lithology. The Archie
equation, a standard method for estimating water saturation, encounters challenges due to the presence of
conductive clay minerals, variable saturation exponents, and capillary pressure effects. The dynamic behavior of
clay minerals, complex pore structures, and changing formation conditions further complicate accurate
assessments. Adjustments to traditional petrophysical models, continuous monitoring, and adaptive approaches
are crucial for reliable water saturation predictions in these intricate formations.

The Archie equation assumes that the rock framework has no electrical conductivity. The presence of clay,
however, adds a conductivity contribution that causes the Archie equation to overestimate water saturation. Many
shaly sandstones equations have been published to account for conductive shale during sandstone analysis.

In this research, we dive into a comprehensive comparison sensitivity analysis of water saturation models in shaly
sandstone reservoirs, employing well logging data as a crucial investigative tool. This study aims to scrutinize and
discern the varying degrees of sensitivity exhibited by different water saturation models, shedding light on their
efficacy in accurately characterizing subsurface conditions. Through a meticulous examination of well logging data,
we seek to enhance our understanding of water saturation dynamics in shaly sandstone reservoirs, ultimately
contributing valuable insights to reservoir characterization and management strategies.

1.1. Water saturation model for clean-sand reservoirs:

Archie (1942) proposed the most popular and widely used model to determine water saturation in clean sand
zones. This model was mainly developed using a theoretical approach for clean sandstone and carbonates having
zero shale volume.
Therefore, application of Archie's model requires special consideration for the resistivity data used.
Archie's model is given by the following equation:

1
𝑎 𝑅𝑤 (𝑛)
(
𝑆𝑊𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑒 = 𝑚 . )
𝜑 𝑅𝑡

Where:
the tortuosity factor (a): is a dimensionless parameter that represents the winding and interconnected nature of
the pore channels within a rock formation. It essentially captures how much the path length of electric current is
increased due to the tortuous nature of the pore network, as compared to a straight path through the same
volume of rock.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
• Pore structure and tortuosity: The shape, size, and connectivity of pores within a rock have a significant impact
on its electrical conductivity. Straight, well-connected pores would offer a direct path for current flow, while
tortuous, winding pores create a more complex path, increasing the resistance to flow.
• Effect on electrical conductivity: The tortuosity factor (a) is directly proportional to the formation resistivity
factor (F), which relates the rock's resistivity to its porosity. A higher a value indicates a more tortuous pore
structure, leading to higher resistivity and lower conductivity.
• Typical values:
• Clean, well-sorted sandstones often have a values close to 1, indicating relatively straight and interconnected
pores.
• Rocks with more complex pore structures, such as carbonates, shales, or vuggy rocks, typically have a values
greater than 1, reflecting their more tortuous pore networks.
Key considerations:
• Empirical nature: The tortuosity factor is an empirical parameter, meaning it is determined through
experimental measurements and analysis of specific rock types.
• Laboratory measurements: Accurate values of a are often obtained through laboratory measurements of
resistivity and porosity on core samples.
• Correlations: In the absence of core data, correlations based on similar rock types and geological settings can be
used to estimate a.
Importance in petrophysics:
• Water saturation: The tortuosity factor plays a crucial role in the calculation of water saturation in hydrocarbon
reservoirs using Archie's equation.
• Reservoir characterization: Understanding the tortuosity of the pore space is essential for accurate reservoir
evaluation and prediction of fluid flow behavior.
the cementation factor (m): is a dimensionless parameter that reflects the complexity and tortuosity of the
pore space within a rock formation. It essentially describes how efficiently electricity can flow through the rock,
taking into account factors like:
• Shape and size of grains: Smaller and more angular grains create a more complex pore network, increasing the
tortuosity and decreasing m.
• Shape and size of pores and pore throats: Elongated, narrow pores and throats make it harder for current to
flow, reducing m.
• Presence of dead-end pores: Pores that don't contribute to fluid flow or electrical conduction decrease the
effective porosity and, hence, reduce m.
The value of m typically ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 for clean sandstones, but can be lower for more complex rocks like
carbonates or highly consolidated sandstones. Knowing the cementation factor is crucial in various applications,
including:
• Hydrocarbon reservoir evaluation: Estimating porosity and fluid saturation.
• Groundwater resource assessment: Calculating aquifer properties and flow rates.
• Mineral exploration: Identifying potential zones for resource extraction.
It's important to note that Archie's equation has limitations and may not be accurate in all situations. The
cementation factor is just one parameter in the equation, and additional factors like clay content and salinity can
also affect the electrical conductivity of rock formations. However, understanding the concept of cementation
factor and its role in Archie's equation is essential for many geoscience and engineering applications.

the saturation exponent (n): is a dimensionless parameter that accounts for how the distribution of water
within the pore space of a rock affects its electrical conductivity. It essentially captures how the presence of water,
as a conducting fluid, influences the rock's ability to conduct electricity.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
• Water saturation and conductivity: More water in the pores generally leads to higher electrical conductivity, as
water is a good conductor. However, the relationship is not always linear, and the saturation exponent describes
this non-linearity.
• Effect on resistivity index: The resistivity index (I), a ratio of the rock's resistivity at a given water saturation to its
resistivity when fully saturated with water, is related to water saturation through the saturation exponent: I =
Sw^(-n).
• Typical values:
• Common values for n range from 1.8 to 4, with a typical value of 2 for many sandstones.
• Lower values of n indicate a less pronounced effect of water saturation on conductivity, while higher values
suggest a stronger dependence.
Factors influencing n:
• Pore geometry: The shape and size of the pores play a role. Interconnected pores with larger diameters tend to
have lower n values, as water can more easily form continuous pathways for conduction.
• Clay content: Clay minerals can significantly impact n due to their surface conductivity and ability to bind water.
Rocks with higher clay content often have higher n values.
 • Wettability: The wettability of the rock, or its preference to be water-wet or oil-wet, can also affect n. Water-
wet rocks typically have lower n values than oil-wet rocks.
Importance in petrophysics:
• Water saturation estimation: Accurate determination of n is essential for reliable estimation of water saturation
in hydrocarbon reservoirs using Archie's equation.
• Reservoir characterization: Understanding the saturation exponent helps in characterizing the pore structure
and fluid distribution within a reservoir, which is crucial for reservoir evaluation and production forecasting.
• Formation evaluation: n is also used in other petrophysical equations and models to assess properties like
porosity, permeability, and fluid saturations.

Rw: is the brine water resistivity at formation temperature (ohm-m).

Rt: is true resistivity of uninvaded deep formation (ohm-m) and φ is the total porosity (%).

Shale is defined as a clay-rich heterogeneous rock which contains variable content of clay minerals (mostly illite,
kaolinite, chlorite, and montmorillonite) and organic matter (Brock, 1986; Mehana and El-Monier, 2016).
The absence of shale characteristics in the above-Archie's equation, equation (1), reveals that Archie's equation
wasn't designed and cannot be used for shaly sand formations.
The presence of clay in the formation complicates the interpretation and may give misleading results if Archie's
equation is used because the clay is considered to be a conductive medium.
Therefore, several models were developed for calculating water saturation in shaly formations.
These models are evaluated and compared in this study.

1.2. Water saturation models for shaly sand reservoirs:

Presence of shale in the formation has been considered as a very disturbing factor and shown severe effects
on petrophysical properties due to reduction in effective porosity, total porosity and permeability of the
reservoir (Ruhovets and Fertl, 1982; Kamel and Mohamed, 2006).

Moreover, the existence of shale causes uncertainties in formation evaluation, proper estimation of oil and gas
reserves, and reservoir characterization(Shedid et al., 1998; Shedid, 2001; Shedid-Elgaghah et al., 2001).
For shaly sandstone reservoirs, different models have been developed depending on different factors, such as;
(1) input parameters and theirsources such as; routine core analysis, special core analysis and well
logging data.
(2) development approach such as; field or laboratory based, empirical or theoretical correlation,
(3) shale distribution and the model's dependency on types as laminar, structural or dispersed.
Different shale distributions inhibit different electric conductivity, permeability, and porosity.

In this study, the five popular shaly sand water saturation models are evaluated and compared using actual field
well logging data. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis of the effects of coefficients (a, m, and n) involved in these
models on computed water saturation is undertaken.
1.2.1. Simandoux's model:
Simandoux (1963) developed a model for estimating water saturation in shaly sand formation.
The model was a result based on laboratory studies performed on a physical reservoir model composed of artificial
sand and clay in the laboratories of the Institute of French Petroleum(IFP).
The Simandoux model remains one of the most popular, shaly sand water saturation models, and a highly
influential framework for later studies in this field.
The Simandoux equation works regardless of shale distribution and is given by the following equation:
0.5
0.4. 𝑅𝑤 5𝜑 𝑚 𝑉𝑠ℎ 2 𝑉𝑠ℎ
𝑆𝑊𝑠𝑖𝑚 = 𝑚
[{( )+( ) } −( )]
𝜑 𝑅𝑤. 𝑅𝑡 𝑅𝑠ℎ 𝑅𝑠ℎ
All parameters involved in the above equation are defined above for the previously-listed models/equation.
1.2.2. Indonesian equation:
(Poupon and Leveaux (1971) developed a model to determine water saturation in laminated shaly formations. This
model is widely known as the Indonesian equation. The Indonesia model was developed by field observation in
Indonesia, rather than by laboratory experimental measurement support.
The Indonesian equation remains as a benchmark for field-based models that work reliably with log-based analysis
regardless of special core analysis data.
The Indonesian equation also does not particularly assume any specific shale distribution.
The Indonesian model also has an extra feature as the only model considered the saturation exponent (n).
This model is given by the following equation:
2
𝑛
𝑉𝑠ℎ (1−0.5𝑉𝑠ℎ) 𝑅𝑡 0.5
𝑆𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 = [ 𝑅𝑠ℎ 0.5
+ (𝑅𝑜) ]
( )
𝑅𝑡

1.2.3. Wax-Man equation:

Waxman–Smits proposed a model which was based on the understanding that “one” water (saturating brine) was
present in the reservoir (Waxman and Smits 1968).
The Waxman–Smits model is based on laboratory measurements of resistivity, porosity and saturation of real
rocks, and due to the model being backed-up heavily by laboratory data, the model was generally accepted in
equation:
1
𝑛
𝑅𝑤 0.77 0.5
𝑆𝑊𝑤𝑚 = [ ] , 𝐵 = 4.6 [1 − 0.6𝐸𝑥𝑝 (− )] 𝑜𝑟 𝐵 = 3.83 [1 − 0.83𝐸𝑥𝑝 (− )]
𝑄𝑣 𝑅𝑊 𝑅𝑤
𝜑𝑚 . 𝑅𝑡 (1 + 𝑅𝑤. 𝐵 𝑆𝑊 )

Where:
Qv: is effective concentration of clay counterions;
B: is equivalent conductance of clay counterions.
The major assumptions of the Waxman–Smits model about clay formation and its properties are as follows:
Clay surface conductivity is assumed to share a directly proportional relationship with the factor Qv (defined as the
milli-equivalents of exchangeable clay counterions per unit volume of pore space).
The constant of proportionality in this relationship was referred to as B, which is defined as the equivalent
conductance of the clay counterions.
The Waxman–Smits equation assumes that “the electric current is transported by the clay counterions that travels
along the same tortuous paths as the current attributed.

1.2.4. Dual‑water model:

In the dual-water model, it is proposed that the impact of clay minerals on the resistivity of reservoir rock is caused
by the presence of two waters in the reservoir:
the free water within the pore spaces of the reservoir rock and the bound
water within the clay matrix (Clavier et al. 1977).
The dual-water model was developed with the basic aim of accounting for the conduction that occurs within the
volume at the surface of the clay mineral. The idea was to account for the conductivity that occurs near and within
the double layer and the conductivity that occurs in the layer free from the effects of clay.
Though the dual-water model was developed with the aim of modifying the Waxman–Smits model for water
saturation, it contains within itself the premise that the conduction geometry of the free water and the clay
counterions is the same (Herrick and Kennedy 2009).
The dual-water model is represented by Eq.
 (𝑆𝑤𝑡−𝑆𝑏) 𝑅𝑤 𝑅𝑤
𝑆𝑊𝑑𝑤 = (1−𝑆𝑏)
, 𝑆𝑤𝑡 = 𝑏 + √𝑏2 + 𝑅𝑡.𝜑2 , 𝑏 = 𝑠𝑏 (1 − 𝑅𝑏
) /2,
𝑉𝑠ℎ. 𝜑𝑠ℎ
𝑅𝑏 = 𝑅𝑠ℎ. 𝜑𝑠ℎ2 , 𝑠𝑏 = , 𝜑𝑡 = 𝜑. 𝑉𝑠ℎ. 𝜑𝑠ℎ
𝜑𝑡
Where:
Rw : resistivity of the free water.

1.2.5. Poupon-Aguilera model:

Saturation estimation is quite accurately done by Archie's equation and therefore; (Roberto Aguilera
1990) made a generalization over Poupon by replacing exponent of Sw with n and exponent of Ø with m
in the above formulae and thus used m-1 that did not appear in the Poupon's formulae.

The equation according to Aguilera is:

𝑎𝑅𝑤 1 𝑉𝑠ℎ
𝑆𝑤 𝑛 = ( − ) (1 − 𝑉𝑠ℎ)
𝜑𝑚 𝑅𝑡 𝑅𝑠ℎ
Where:
Vsh=shale volume per unit volume of the formation.
Rsh= Resistivity of shale
Vsd=Sand volume per unit volume of the formation
(1 - Vsh).
Rsd= Resistivity of sand.

2.The area of study:

2.1. Halfaya oilfield:

Halfaya oilfield is placed in Maysan governorate, 35 km southeast Amara city, The Halfaya oil field was discovered
in 1976 by the state-owned Iraq Petroleum Company, Its oil reserves are estimated at about 3.5 billion barrels.
In 2009, China National Petroleum Corporation (Petro China) won the contract to develop the Halfaya field, and
the French company Total and the Malaysian Petronas Company entered into a partnership with Petro China to
develop the field.
Production from Halfaya field began in 2012, and daily production in that year reached 100 thousand barrels.
Thanks to the modern technologies used by the developing companies, production increased to 200 thousand
barrels per day in 2014. The goal of developing the field is to reach a production of 400 thousand barrels per day.

The structure, which is composed of two domes, runs along a northwest–south- east coordinate east (E 726,000–
739,000) and north (N 3,500,000–351,400) and has a gentle elongated anticline of about 38 km long and 12 km
wide. Halfaya oilfield is located in the Maysan region, southeast of Iraq, around 400 km from its capital, Baghdad.
Tectonically, it is located at the unstable continental shelf in the northern Persian/Arabian Gulf basin at the
northern brink of Gondwanaland and at the east side of the unstable continental shelf zone, Mesopotamian main
belt, and the south section of the Tigris sub-belt (Zhong et al. 2018).
The Mesopotamian basin has a great deep buried area with thick sediments, somewhat stable tertiary tectonic
units, and a well-presented platform environment (Ameen 1992; Azzam and Taher 1993).
Is a giant oilfield with bioclastic limestone as the main producing zone, The basement is composed of Precambrian
crystalline metamorphic rock, Lower Cam- brian metamorphic rock and pyroclastic rock. Since the Cam- brian
Period, Halfaya Oilfield has been in the northern margin of Gugangwanaland for a long time, where platform
deposits mainly develop. During the Cretaceous Period, shallow shelf carbonate developed due to weak tectonic
movement, espe- cially large-scale bioclastic limestone. There are seven sets of oil-bearing strata in vertical there,
among which, the lime- stone of Lower Cretaceous Sadi Formation and Middle Cre- taceous Mishrif Formation are
the main oil-producing zones, contributing 80% of the total production. The Mishrif Forma- tion, the most
important producing zone in Halfaya Oilfield, 400 m thick is characterized by development of grain shoal
reservoirs, which can be further divided into 15 sublayers. Its top surface is a regional unconformity surface
formed in Late Cretaceous Laramide orogeny, its bottom surface is weath- ering crust residual breccias of 20 m
thick, mainly composed of limy gravel and gray-green mudstone, with grain size fin- ing downward from
unconformity surface to tight cementation zone.

The stratigraphic sequence of this field consists of the following layers: Upperfars, Lowerfars, Jeribe, Kirkuk,
Jaddala, Aliji, Shiranish, Hartha, Sa'adi, Tanuma, Khasib, Mishrif, Rumila, Ahmadi, Mauddud, Nahr Umr, Shu'aiba,
Zubair, Ratawi, Yamama, Sulaiy, Gotnia, Najma, Sargelu and Allan were discovered as oil reservoirs, As shown in
table (1) below.

Formation Top(M) Base(M) Thickness (M)

Upperfars 13 1388 388
Lowerfars 1388 1983 595
Jeribe 1983 1990 7
Kirkuk 1990 2314 324
Jaddala 2314 2528 214
Aliji 2528 2572 44
Shiranish 2572 2644 72
Hartha 2644 2693 49
Sa'adi 2693 2821 128
Tanuma 2821 2837 16
Khasib 2837 2916 79
Mishrif 2916 3311 395
Rumila 3311 3357 46
Ahmadi 3357 3375 18
Mauddud 3375 3540 165
Nahr Umr 3540 3796 256
Shu'aiba 3796 3990 194
Zubair 3990 4174.5 184.5
Ratawi 4174.5 4326 151.5
Yamama 4326 4414 88
Sulaiy 4414 4750 336
Gotnia 4750 5170 420
Najma 5170 5570 400
Sargelu 5570 5720 150
Allan 5720 5730 10
Total Depth 5730

Table 1- Formation tops and thickness at Halfaya oil field.

2.1.1. Kirkuk formation:

The Kirkuk Formation is a geological formation in the Halfaya Oilfield, It is part of the wider Kirkuk
Group, which is a sequence of sedimentary rocks dating back to the Paleocene and Eocene epochs
(between 66 and 41 million years ago).
The Kirkuk Formation is primarily composed of sandstone and dolomite, with shale and some limestone
intervals. It is a significant reservoir rock in the Halfaya Oilfield, containing hydrocarbons that have
migrated from deeper source rocks. The formation is also an important seal rock, preventing the upward
movement of hydrocarbons into shallower formations.

The Kirkuk reservoir is about 2000 m deep. The strata encountered from top to bottom are Tertiary
Upper Fars and Lower Fars.
Upper Kirkuk: This unit has a variable thickness ranging from 200 to 400 m. The three sand sub layers
(Sand 1, 2 and 3) within the Upper Kirkuk record rather consistent thickness.

The sandstone sub layers maximum porosity within the Upper Kirkuk unit is to 32%. The surrounding
limestones of the Upper Kirkuk have lower porosity values, below 10 %.

The Kirkuk Formation typically lies at a depth of 2,000 to 3,000 meters below the surface, the
permeability of the formation varies from 10 to 100 millidarcies(md), The hydrocarbon saturation of the
formation can be as high as 50%.
The Kirkuk Formation is an important part of the Halfaya Oilfield's petroleum system where It is divided
into five units: -
1- Unite B1: - the upper part of it consists of pure sandstone, whilst, the bottom consists of alternate
sandstone with shale with interfere limestone layer. The sandstone part has reservoir characteristic at
some wells.
2- Unit B1-B2: - consists of limestone with thin layer of shale.
3- Unit B2:- consists of pure sandstone.
4- Unite B2-C: - consists of limestone with layer of shale.

3.