Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Abstract
There are many reasons for low resistivity pay zones. It is of
crucial importance to know the origin of this phenomenon. The
problem with these zones is that the resistivity data interpretation indicates high water saturation, but oil or even dry oil will
be produced.
This paper discusses the different reasons sandstone reservoirs can have low resistivity. Clean bearing sandstone has high
resistivity, but when this rock contains shale, or heavy minerals
such as pyrite, the resistivity can become low. This resistivity
change depends on the nature, the volume of clay and heavy
minerals. Pyrite shows a good electrical conductivity, that is
usually comparable to or even higher than the conductivity of
formation water, and can therefore have a larger effect than
shale. Low resistivity pay zones are not necessarily shaly sand
problems.
In this study, different shaly sand models will be discussed, to
propose a suitable shale sand model. Field examples were
analysed using different shaly sand models.
It has been found that the modified total shale sand model
gives good results. In the case of low shale volumes, the normal
saturation equation might give acceptable water saturation
values.
Introduction
The reasons for low resistivity phenomena are classified mainly
into two groups. The first consists of reservoirs where the actual
water saturation can be high, but water free hydrocarbons are produced. The mechanism responsible for the high water saturation is
usually described as being caused by microporosity. The second
group consists of reservoirs where the calculated water saturation
is higher than the true water saturation. The mechanism responsible for the high water saturation is described as being caused by
the presence of conductive minerals such as clay minerals and
pyrite in a clean reservoir rock. The resistivity data must be corrected for the effect of these conductive minerals to reduce the
calculated water saturation to more reasonable levels associated
with water free hydrocarbon production.
Most formations logged for potential oil or gas production consist of rocks which without fluids would not conduct an electrical
current. There are two types of rock conductivity: a) Electrolytic
conductivity which is a property of water containing dissolved
salts and b) Electronic conductivity which is a property of solids
This paper is being published as a technical note and has not been peer reviewed.
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7
Resistivity of Clays
Clays are composed of thin sheet like crystal structures, which
have a large surface depending on the clay mineral type as depicted in Figure 1. The observed deficiency of the electrical charge
8
within the clay sheet must be compensated to maintain the electrical neutrality of the clay structure. The compensating agents are
positive ions (cations or counter ions) which cling to the surface
of the clay sheets. The amount of these compensating ions constitutes the Cation Exchange Capacity which is commonly referred
to as the CEC (meq/100 g dry rock) or Qv (meq/cm3 total pore
volume). CEC is related to the specific surface area of a clay mineral. It has its lowest value in kaolinite and its highest values in
montmorillonite and vermiculite as shown in Figure 1. When the
clay particles are immersed in water the coulomb forces holding
these positive ions are reduced by the dielectric properties of
water. Part of the counter ions leave the clay surface and move
relatively free in a layer of water close to the crystal surface and
contribute to the conductivity of the rock. The thickness of this
conductive layer expands as the salinity of the solution decreases
and the conductivity of clay is proportional to the volume of the
counter ions exclusion layer.
The excess of conductivity observed within clays is due to
these additional cations held loosely captive in a diffuse layer surrounding the clay particle from which counterions are effectively
excluded virtually as shown in Figure 2.
The conductivity of clayey sediment is thus the sum of two
terms: a) one associated with free water or the water filled porosity, and b) the other associated with the CEC. This can be
expressed in another way: a clayey sediment has a conductivity
which depends on its effective porosity on one hand and on the
effective conductivity of the water it contains on the other(4, 18, 15).
a) View of outer
Helmholtz plane.
recommended to use these models unless very accurate water saturation values are required.
.................................................................(1)
where Rsh and Vsh are resistivity and volume of shales and Rsd is
resistivity of the clean sand.
Water saturation Sw has the following form for this case.
)]
......................................(2)
q( Rshd + Rw ) / 2 Rshd / (1 q )
.........................................................(3)
Usually, t can be obtained from a sonic log since dispersed
clay in the rock pores is seen as water by the sonic measurement.
The value of q can be obtained from the relation q = s d/s,
where s and d are the sonic and density derived porosity.
In fact the value of the dispersed shale resistivity, R shd in
Equation (3) is difficult to evaluate. It is usually taken as equal to
Rsh in the adjacent shale layer. Fortunately, its value is not very
critical if it is several times greater than Rw. Therefore, when Rw
is small compared to Rshd and the sand is not too shaly, Equation
(3) can be simplified and being independent of Rshd to the following form.
Sw = aRw / ftRt + q 2 / 4
0.5
q / 2 / (1 q )
...................................(4)
Structural Shales
Structural shales are shale grains forming part of the solid
matrix along with quartz and other grains. They are considered to
have many characteristics in common with laminar shales and
nearby massive shales since they have been subjected to similar
diagnostic depositional constraints(18). However, their effects on
permeability and resistivity resemble more closely those of dispersed clays.
Laminar and structural shales are essentially of deposional origin, while dispersed clays evolve from alteration or precipitation.
All three shale types may be encountered in the same shaly
formation.
2
Sw = aRw / 2 Rt + aRw Vsh / 2 2 Rsh
0.5
) ...........................................................................(5)
where Vsh is for total shale volume and Rsh is taken as the resistivity of the adjacent shale bed.
The above equation has been widely accepted and applied in
many areas including Nigeria, Argentina, Egypt, the USA, and
Libya. One limitation is that the porosity exponent is taken as two
and the value of aRw has to be accurately identified. To overcome
this limitation, we introduce the both cementation exponent, m,
and saturation exponent, n, as variables and rewrite Equation (5).
The modified total shale equations will be found in the analysis of
field example 3.
Patchett and Rausch Model
The Patchett and Rausch(12) model can be written as:
Ash = 1 10 SP / ( 60 + 0.1333T )
] ...................................................(6)
...................................................................(7)
......(8)
Equation (8) indicates that cross plot of Rt/Ash vs. (on logJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
log paper) should result in a straight line with a slope equal to -m,
provided that a, Rw, Rmf, and Sw are constant. The intercept at
100% porosity equals to Rmf Rw/(Rmf - Rw).
Effective-Medium Resistivity Model
Berg(2) proposed that rock matrix and hydrocarbons can be
treated together as a dispersive phase in a continuous phase of
water. The matrix grains are definitely connected whereas the
hydrocarbons can be but are not necessarily connected. The connectiviness, however, probably does not matter because the more
resistive dispersed elements react passively to current flow in the
more conductive water. The relationship between those elements
can be treated as resistors in parallel, which mathematically is a
volumetric weighted average of conductivities. To derive the
water saturation equation it was necessary to associate the matrix
and hydrocarbon. The easiest part of setting up the equation is the
association of water saturation with porosity. Berg(3) has adapted
the Hanai-Bruggeman (HB) equation for rocks. Such adaptation
of HB equation results in the following expression.
Sw = ( Rw / Rt )
1/ m
( Rt Rd / Rw Rd )
........................................(9)
and
Rd = Rr / (1 ) (1 Sw )
..........................................................(10)
Where Sw is the whole rock saturation, Rt is the partially saturated whole rock resistivity, Rd is the dispersed phase resistivity
(matrix and hydrocarbon), and Rr is the matrix resistivity. We now
substitute Rd in Equation (9) by the expression of Equation (10),
to obtain the following water saturation equation
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7
Sw = B B 2 + 4. H . Rm .( Rt Rm )
0.5
) /(2..R ) .........................(11)
m
where:
H
= (Rw/Rt)1/m
Rm = Rr/(1-) and
B
= Rw Rm (H+1)
There are only five input parameters (Rw, Rt, , m, and Rr)
needed for calculating water saturation Sw . Therefore, the calculations needed for obtaining the saturation will be as good as the
degree of certainty of m and Rr values, since Rw, Rt, and (author
are usually known).
In fact, the effective medium model uses the same input as the
dual water model. As in the dual water model, it may be possible
to refine the model by crossploting techniques or by improving
calculation of input variables.
The desirability of this theoretical model in general is that as
long as the original assumptions apply to the phenomena being
studied, they should accurately describe those phenomena.
Theoretical assumptions are usually stated explicitly, while the
restrictions imposed by empirical models may not readily be
apparent. The accuracy of an empirical model may decline when
conditions differ from the conditions under which the model was
derived.
Field Examples
Field Example 1
Figure 4 shows field example 1 which has previously been discussed by Hilchie(9). This example is presented to illustrate the
impact of shaliness on radioactive log characteristics and interpretation. In Figure 4a, the density and neutron read essentially the
11
TABLE 1: Resistivity, shale volume, porosity and water saturation for example 2.
Resistivity
(Rt)
Zone
A
B
C
6.7
2.9
0.19
Shale volume
(Vsh)
Porosity
()
0.14
0.34
0.05
0.23
0.19
0.26
same in the clean water sand zone A and separate in gas sand
zones B and C. This case is identified by the mirror imaging of the
density and neutron logs in a gas sand zone. When the producing
section suffers from dispersed shales, we may have the case of
Figure 4b. This figure shows gas sand that becomes progressively
more shaly with depth. The gas shows separation in the upper portion of the sand zone D where DST I shows gas production. In
zone E, at a particular shaliness, the density and neutron both indicate the same porosity although gas is still present. Below that
point (8,094 fl), the density and neutron do not exhibit the gas
cross over although the DST 2 shows that this section still contains gas. To determine water saturation in this shaly sand section,
we have to use one of the shale sand models.
Field Example 2
This is an example of a low resistivity pay zone from tertiary
sandstones, Figure 5. The well was drilled with oil base mud and
thus there is no short normal or SP. At the bottom of both neutron
and density a sandstone porosity scale has been put on to ease the
calculation.
0.5
0.22
0.4
1.00
0.19
0.32
1.00
Field Example 3
This example is taken from a shaly sandstone formation with
low resistivity. This well has been discussed and evaluated previously(1) using one of the shale sand modelling techniques developed by Schlumberger. Figure 6 shows SP, resistivity, neutron,
and density logs. In this example the total shale model [Equation
(5)] was used after modification for the evaluation. This model
was modified to include a, n, and m constants. The Humble formula constants were selected which were a = 0.62 and m = 2.15.
Equation (5) was modified to include shale terms Atsh and Btsh. The
modified total shale model is deduced as:
Rt / Atsh = aRw m Sw n
Water saturation
(Sw)
Archie Equation
Equation (12)
......................................................................(13)
2
2
Atsh = 1 + m Rt / aRw 2 Btsh
2 Btsh aRw / m Rt + Btsh
0.5
.......(14)
and
Btsh = aRw Vtsh / 2 m Rtsh
...................................................................(15)
For clean formation Btsh becomes zero and Atsh becomes unit.
Btsh increases with Vsh while Atsh decreases with Vsh. For shale
layer, Rt in Equation (14) will be equal to Rsh .
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Equation (13), we get the
following Equation.
.............................................(12)
...........................(16)
.........................................................(17)
TABLE 2: Data for water saturation calculation in shaly sand formation for example 3.
12
Data
points
Resistivity
(Rt)
Porosity
()
Shale volume
(Vsh)
Btsh
Atsh
Rt/Atsh
1
2
3
4
5
8.40
7.50
8.40
1.80
1.75
0.27
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.31
0.13
0.18
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.072
0.123
0.094
0.00
0.00
0.449
0.378
0.412
1.00
1.00
18.67
19.87
20.35
1.80
1.75
Itsh
6.5
5.84
6.25
1.0
1.0
TABLE 3: Water saturation values from different shale sand models for example 3.
Data points
1
2
3
4
5
Archie Equation
0.54
0.62
0.55
1.00
1.00
Schlumberger
Equation (18)
0.39
0.42
0.37
1.00
1.00
0.39
0.41
0.40
1.00
1.00
m/n
..............................................................................(19)
Equation (19)
0.39
0.42
0.39
1.00
1.00
aRw. Based on the points pattern shown on the cross plot, these
parameters can be determined by trial and error. But it needs the
existence of a nearby water section.
Conclusions
The conductivity of clean reservoir rock is of electrolytic origin. The water phase which carries the electric current must of
course be continuous in order to contribute to the rock conductivity. When clean reservoir rock contains clays or heavy minerals
such as pyrite, the resistivity becomes low. Clay minerals increase
rock conductivity by increasing the conductivity of bulk water in
the pore spaces. Extra rock conductivity is caused by pyrite which
creates electronic conductivity that is usually comparable to or
even higher than formation water electrolytic conductivity. These
are the most common reasons for low resistivity pay zones.
To evaluate a low resistivity pay zone, we must identify the origin of the low resistivity phenomenon. The main problem with
pyrite is how to estimate its volume and distribution and correct
the formation resistivity, and then calculate water saturation by
Archies formula or by a shale sand model. In the case of shaly
formation, there are several models to correct the water saturation
value. The choice of the model is controlled by the type, the distribution and the volume of clay minerals in the pay zones.
REFERENCES
1. AGUILERA, R., Extensions of Pickett Plots for the Analysis of
Shaly Formations by Well Logs; The Log Analyst, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp.
304-313, 1990.
2. BERG, C.R., Effective Medium Model for Water Saturation in
Porous Rocks; Geophysics, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp., 1070-1080, 1995.
13
14
Authors Biographies
Gharib Hamada is a professor of well logging and applied geophysics. He is currently with King Saud University, Saudi
Arabia. Previously, he was with the
Technical University of Denmark, Sultan
Qaboos University, Oman; and Cairo
University, Egypt. He received a B.Sc. in
1975 and an M.Sc. in 1979 from Cairo
University, Egypt; a DEA in 1980 and a
Doc. DIng in 1983 from Bordeaux
University, France. He is a member of SPE, SPWLA, and SCA.
Musaed Al-Awad is an assistant professor
with King Saud University in Saudi Arabia.
He is a professor of oil and gas well
drilling engineering and petroleum related
rock mechanics. Dr. Al-Awad received a
B.Sc. in 1987 and an M.Sc. in 1990 both in
petroleum engineering from King Saud
University, and a Ph.D. in 1994 from
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
Size matters.
petroleumshow.com