You are on page 1of 6


SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS 5200 North CentralExpressway Dallas,Texas 75206 PAPER ..rnne




A Method








RobertA. Campbell,Member SPE-HME, Lone Star ProducingCo.
@Copyright 1975 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum E-ngineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for the Oklahoma City SPE Regional Meeting, to be held in Okla!loma City, Okla., March 24-25, 1975. Permission to copy is restricted t~ an abstract of not more then 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstrac’.should contain conspicuous a(>knowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Publication elsewhere after publication in ttle JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY or the SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS .JOURNALis usuall; (!ranted upon request t~ the Edit~r of the appropriate journal provided agreement t~ Eive proper (’reditis made. Discussi~n of this ,aper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should l)e:;entto tl)e Society of Petroleum Engin(ers office. Such discussi~ns may be presented at t}e above meeting and, with the paper, may tJeconsidered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.
—....—.— . . .—.———.——--—..-—.--—. —,+.-.,--..... . ...,., .. ... . .. .. . . .-.-.,.. ....-

ABSTRACT Gas and oil saturation are among the key values soughtfrom a loggingsuite. The recent introduction of the “crossplot” interpretation methodsand the sophistication of loggingtools carI allowbetter estima%esfor their values. Utilization of standardlog data in the equationspresentedherein a pear to resultin better estimatesof oil snd ?or gas saturations. INTRODUCTION

Well loggingis by far the most widely used methodof evaluating potentialreservoirs. Recentimprovements in loggingtools have resultedin very accurateand reliabledata.1-3 However,we are interpreting this “new” data with the same methodsdevelopedyears ago. This is not to say that the ~’old~’ methodsare without merit,but ratherthe accuracyend sophistication of the presentloggingtools offer better THEK)RY interpretation methods. The Compensated DensityLog, being a wall The purposeof this paper is to developan contacttool, is not effectedgreatlyby boreinterpretation methodthat yields estimatesof hole conditionsexceptwhen extremewashoutis hydrocarbon,saturations withoututilizing present. Apparentporosityin a gas zone is complexcomputerprograms. Water saturation, as alwaysoptimisticsince the calculation is calculated by conventional methods,is very based on a formationfluid density (Df)ranging sensitive to porosity,formation water from 1.0 tc 1.1 gin/cc.The densityof gas, reeistivity, and saturation exponents.4t5 which is compressible? variesLd is usually Having calculateda value for water saturation, between0.15 and 0.35 gm[cc. Thus, as gas saturation increases, the more apparentdensity we may then oniy say that hydrocarbons occupy the remainingpore space. But this-valuedoes 10gpOrOSitydiver@s from true wrosity (@T). not indicatewhetherthe hydrocarbon material References and illustrations at end of paper.

is gas or oil nor the percentageof each. 6 Rodermundet —— al, were the first ho present a method for estimating gas saturations. However,the resultingvalue can only be consideredas the minimumgas saturation and is only valid under ideal boreholeconditions. The recent crossplot presentation of the compensated densitylog porositywith porosity from eitherthe compensated neutronlog or sidewall neutronlog has alloweda new approachto 7-10 }.mong other practicallog interpretation. things,it has suppliedthe well site engineer with a “quicklook”method for evaluating potentialpay sectionsend indicateslithology, as well as the presenceof gas. However,the conceptsintroduced in this paper providean interpretation methodthat can ?ead to better values for hydrocarbon saturations in sandstones.

.true porosity(UIT .Do (l-SW) ..nearby wells. . . . o.(2:2: Gas densitywill usuallybe between0. . . 1 for Df. 2 into E&3 and obtairdrqg So=l-s-sw.~1.or if absolutely necessary.5 and 0. = (DB + $TDgr . gas. . . . When a formation containsoil. gas and obtainour working equation. 13 has been considered to be either 1. ‘gr .04329 mationbeers 100 percentwater..o. . . and water. .. (8) Df=DwSw+DgSg+ DOSO. However.(9) g ‘Wsw + ‘gsg + ‘Oso = Since Eq.~*(3 ‘f as unhowns.. we may (DB+$DDgr -Dgr)/$JD . .. Bulk density (~) has been directlymeassaturation may be calculatedas ured by the densitylog. The densityof formationwater (~) is found by The theoryof the proposedsaturation equaestimating densityat standardconditions from tions is mathematically valid. 10.. the apparentneutronporositywill approach neutronlogs shouldbe run in zero.Do) Sg = {(DB + OTDgr . . The two and converting to gramsper cubic centimeter. ..Dgr) / $T} ‘g% + ‘Oso = {(DB + ‘$T -DWSW .. . Therefore. .. These values can be subtracted from both sidesof l?q. Otherwise.35 gin/cc and oil densitywill usuallybe so we must eliminatethe formationfluid densit: between0. (6)’ At “this point all variablescan be assigned values exceptdensityof gas and oil. we would have an infinitenumber of Elimination of D is accomplished by substitut.Dgr) / ‘$T} densityporosityis not correctsince it has been estimated from erroneou ass ~ mus~~%d fro. 6. . . Table 1 leads to summarizes the basic algebraicforms of ~. . Dgr . To achievethis we must first solveEq. •.44 ~ A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING FL1 SATURATIONS FROM WELL LOGS SPE $395‘ ‘ Conversely. the densitiescen be calculatedfrom the follotig Historically. 11~12 Substitution of This generalequationhas been developedsc true porosityfor apparentdensityporosity that gas saturation may be estimated. the formatior and fluid densityshouldbe consideredto be Do = {:.Dgr) / ‘$T If only two phases are presentin the formation ‘ws~ + ‘& + ‘Oso surrounding tine wellbore... Good estimates of is known to be temperature and pressureere availablefrom @D=Dgr-DB “ .. . . Upon compilingall of the above data~ it is . the formationfluid density (Df) equations.(4 solve simultaneously. (1: drillstemtests.** . end the saturation of gas and oil. sey that application of these equations will dividingby formationvolume factor for water. . potentialgas producingreservoirseasilycould be overlooked. or by a correlation that correctsfor pressure and temperature. Therefore.. As gas saturation approaches103 percent. . neutronlog porositymeasurements are alwayspessimistic in gas zones since they tend to measureonly fluid-filled pore space-In a gas-waterreservoirthis log would record a porosityvalue lower than true porosity.5. . 9 is independent of @. These values are correctonly when the forGgPf) / (Z T~).. (7) ‘g = (0. . (5 summaryfor these two-phasesystems. .‘f Once the gravitiesare known or estimated. This is not to the approximation of water resistitity. temperature and pressure. . Gas and oil densitiesare functionsof The Compensated DensityLog is the primary tool used in determining oil and gas saturation.the equationis simplified somewhat. q q .C . . . appsren (Dg .solutions.from regionalgradientrelationships. This yields found that only oil and gas saturation remain =(DB+$DDgr-Dgr)/$D.5 / (131.15 and One never knows the respectivesaturation value: 0.8 gin/cc term from our equations. If no other relationship were available. . specificgravityand API gravity. alwaysresultin precise solutions.DWSW . eliminate So as a vartable Thus. . conjunction with the is known that ing Eq.5+ ‘API) Bo} .which requiresthe use of a neutronlog. Gas densityis also a functionof reservoir Porosity. Nevertheless. Table 2 is a convenient ***** .0 or 1.. Conventional log interpretation techniques ERROR ANALYSIS allow calculation of water saturations (~). .1 gm/ calculated from the densitylog.(10) a crossplotporositychart. . .

it was decidedto Conventional log analysisfor the Upper test the Lower Morrow. Okla. 10. Colo. Becauseof this processone is never sure of the positionof the invadedzone in relationto the depth of investigation of the porosity tools. end h c?raulic fracturing. the reservoirperformance verifiedthat the saturation equationwas more nearly correctend no furthercompletion attemptswere made in the Upper Morrow.3 MMcf D while liftingsmall quantitie 1’ percent.8 flowed 1.percent Water saturation by conventional methods (~).3 percent. ably uniformgas saturation. 10 will show that sensitivity of the resultsis witkdn acceptable limitsfor most practicaldecision purposes. No.Julesbur~Basin. No. ~e~rosity (@T) b the area. percent Apparentneutronporosity(“N)? percent True porosity (@T). water saturation.000. The resultsof these calculations indicate that the assumedformationwater resistivity wa: too low for the Upper Morrow sand. AnadarkoBasin. 1 was a Morrow Sand test tha drilledto a total depth of 13~450ft before being logged. However.on percent water resistivity is the lowestvalue measured ::. It would appearfrom tests made to date that it is no more sensitiveto error then most conventional log interpretation equations end correlations.l).1 percent that insuresthat productiveintervalswill not Apperentneutronporosity (ON). be bypassedis to assumethat the format~.8 percent. In using llq. Since both methodsindicateda reason.4 percentand 6’7. percent Water saturation byprcposed equations(S. Application of the proposed saturation equationcould have savedthe completionexpenditure for testingthe Upper Morrow sand . Substitution of numbersinto Eq. ohm-m Apparentdensity pOI’OSfLtY(OD). 1 calculated to have an averageporosi~yof 6. interval(Fig.3 percen end water saturation of 40.ically fractured.The valuesmeasuredby of water.the only procedure 11.end hydrauI. 8 The Lower Morrow send in the A.1 percent and water saturation to be 49. percent .respectively. B. Upon recoveringthe load fluids. . 10.8 biggestdisadvantages of this approachare (1) the sensitivity of the equationsto true porositysnd (2) the influenceof mud filtrate invasion. Re-evaluation of this zone with the author’sproposedsaturation equationfor gaswater systemsrevealedthat gas and water saturations were 32.3 L9. Thus. The pr~posedequationsestimatedgas saturation to be 50.percent This zone was perforated. Of course. Conventional log analysisindic?tedthat commercial quantities of gas might be present in severalof the Morrow sand sections.Compensated Density d and Dual Inductionlogs for en Upper Morrow san Denver .this usuallyresultsi Water saturationby conventional .5 percent. the well and water saturation of 8. CAMPBELL — 45 33. The valuesmeasuredby the abovementioned logs (Fig.a savingsin excessof $50.2) in a Lower Morrow send interval were: Assumedformationresistivity (~).was indicatedto be lower then true water saturation.). Upon perforating? Morrow Send yieldedvalues for averageporosity acidizing.9 percentand 33. B.t SPE “5395 q -r. the Compensated Neutron . When this occurs the resultsof the conventional techniqueshouldbe considered to be highly suspect.08 10. ROBERT A.3 40. In using l?q. t The A. resistivity.acidized.1).2) were: One great problemwith interpretation of Assum~dformationwater resistivity open-holelogs for the Muddy “J” sandsof this .it is reasonableto assunethat the water saturation calculated from the proposed saturation equationsshouldnever be less than that calculated by conventional methods (Fig.productionconsistedof smallquantitie: of gas end 3 bbl of water per hour. CASE HISTORIES Two case studiesare presentedwhereinthe method outlinedhas been appliedsuccessfully. one must also be aware of the processknown as mud filtrateinvasion.0 8 ~ea is the l~ge v~iation ~ formationwater (%. respectively. As a result.0 1. one must be aware of the sensitivity of the calculated resultsto the accuracyof the numberssubstituted therein.0Apparentdensityporosity (@D). pipe was cementedin place and testing commenced. Therefore.6 6. The open-holelogs obtainedfrom this well were the Compensated NeutronCompensated Densityend Dua% Inductionlogs. Therefore. methods (Sw). as calculated by conventional methods. These show that the methodproposeddoes have merit.

W. but they do often yield better estimates.These resultsindicate AnnualFall Meeting. J.. true reservoir IW2 Ea. Pet. Tittman. Sherman. Tech. Appreciation is also extendedto ft of heavilymud cut water and 3$5 ft of salt the U. (Dec. This (June 12.12 ohm-m.—.5 percent. fractiol in water saturation values that approached10Q *T . At the time this well was loggedthe proposedequations were ~tried and untested. is not to say that the values c~lculated from Charts? ‘7. in particular. !! is stillquestionable in limestoneand dolomite 1964)XVI. E.ature and Log as an Aid in Determining Some ResermL the largevariationti grain density. P. 1 was drilledas a Muddy “J” =bulk densityof reservotirock. be less than 40 percentby conventional methods.. Nagel. I especially sideringthe resultsof the proposedequation thank hne Sk ProducingCo. No. To confirmproductiw:ty.: “LoggingFmpty Holes? equations when viewed on a relativebasis. Pet. Schlumberger: “Log Interpretation the saturation equationsdepic.. pWCE!nt = specificgravityof formationgas % Water saturation b~ conventional . S.6 percent gin/cc Apparentneutronporosity(ON). 39*$ methods (Sw).Further3. the creditACKNOWUDGMENTS abilityof the resultswere somewhatquestionable. Uufortunatelyt the validit tion Densitybg. W. A. these equationsbecome less sensitiveas and Alger.gin/cc (~). formationpressure. Locke. If the . Tech.res bbl@fB = water formationvolume factor. Campbell drillstemtested. Dual SpacingForma more. but does so at significant additionalexpenses saturations. actualapplications of the proposedequaMethod of PredictingSaturation Exponents tions by the authorhave resultedin very In Logging..1972)~.: “The Electrical porosityvaluesdue to the vugulark’. ~ ~ Df . 1351. Even with the weshesses of this new con5. J. porosityincreases. and unnecessary and a significant sum of money woul ~al SpacingNeutron have been saved.R.” . P. fraction be 0. (Sept. end Alger. Wahl. Johnstone. snd Tittman that conclusions drawn from conventional method “ Oil and Gas J.1942 Cheracteristicst” IT. G. Having obtainedthe test data and conend.R~~~T~ operatorhad possessedconfidence in the satura tion equations.R.this well was I expressmy gratitudeto John M. W. (Jsn.A METHODFOR =TIMATING FLUID SATURATIONS FROM WELL I&W I sPlr 53$ = oL: formationvolume factor.C. Archie~. 10’7: CONCLUSIONS 2. No flow to the surfacewas for his guidanceand criticism while pursuing obtainedand drillpiperecoveryconsistedof 30 this study.”paper presentedat SP&AIME significant ~*esults.H. optimisticsaturation values for hydrocarbons.?’ J. gin/cc 13. Dw = densityof formationwater at reservoir 10* 2 percent conditions. P. fraction percentand averaged$7.. W. reliablefor most clean end limey sandswhere 1966)XVTII. true porosity.: “A cept. J. ~. Tittman. A. most operatorswill conducta drillstemtest.1969.R.: “The Sidewalll@ithermal The proposedsaturation equationsare Neutron PorosityLog. gin/cc were: Dg = densityof gas at reservoirconditions~ gin/cc Assumedformationwater resistivity 0. 1.J. for supplyingthe interpretation. . Tech. Alger. NOMENCIATUR~ B. are often inferiorto those drawn from these J.R. D.percent fraction so = oil saturation? fraction When formationwater resistivity was assumedto ~ water saturation.water saturation calculated to OR Tf = formationtemperature.Colo.psia ~ = gas saturation. (Oct. S. s 6. 1411. Sherman.: ItThe y J.J. Von Gonten. W. Alger. ‘This procedure resultsin evaluation of a reservoir. Rodermund. porosityis greaterthan 6 perceflt. gin/cc sand test in Adams County. gas compressibility factor ~: = porositymeasuredby densitylog.3) for this well mir conditions. pluggedand abandonedas a dry hole. pet. A. Pet. this well was immediately data for this study.res bbl/STE The D. Therefore. of OklahomaPetroleumEngineeringstaff water.H. Nagel.: I?The Iog. fractiol Application of the proposedequationsresulted $N = porositymeasuredby neutronlog. McCray. Shortlyafter logging.4 hWe pOI’OSity (@T). The log values = averageformationfluid densityat reserof a “J” sand interval(Fig. andoroba. a drillstemtest would have been ‘— d 1. Tech. becauseof the difficultyinobtsining good Resistivit 4. ohm-m D% = Apparentdensityporosity(“D)? = densityof oil at reservoirconditions~ 15..12 grain density. C. J. 1961). P. No.

Dg)Sw= {(DB + ‘$TDgr. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Tech. and Schmidt.Dgr) /’$’T} - Dwsw .Dgr) /OT} .L)O)SW= {(DB + $TDgr .DgSg . 9. (Sept. 1432.~New York (1962). ‘Determination of A More 10.Dgr) / ‘$T} . Jennings. ReservoirEr@neering. pet.end Density Surveys.Neutron end DensitySurveys. 1~ Society of Petrolwm R@neers of AIME.~.Harley Y.Dg(l . (Dec.Dg Solving For Oil Saturation When Gas Saturation Is Known Solving For Gas Saturation In A Gas-Water System (DO-DW)SO .Sg) (Dw .C. Pet. tion of TYue Porosityend MineralComposition in ComplexLithologies With the Use of the Sonic.1963)~.DW)SO = {(DB+ $TDgr . 995.A.A.Dgsg .Sg) (Dg .No.: Uog AnalysisIn Formations i 12 Complexfithologies. (Aug.SATURATION EQUATIONS FOR THREE PHASE SYSTEMS Solvin~or Gas Saturation When Wa~er Saturation Is Known (Dg-Do)sg = {(D~+’$TDgr .Dw)Sg = {(DB + $TDgr .Sw) TABLE 2 . Savre.{(DB+ ‘$TDgr . Schlumberger: “LogInterpretation/ Principles.Egr) / I$T}- DO Solving For Oil Saturation In A Oil-Water System (l).: 13. Tech. q Savre. R.Dw(l . T. Tech.” 1972Ed. AccuratePorosityand MineralCom~sition in ComplexLithologies with the Use of the Sonic. C.SATURATION EQUATILN FOR TWO PHASE SYSTEMS Solving For Water Saturation When Gas Saturation Is Known Solving For Water Saturation In A Gas-Water System (DW-DO)SW = {(DB+ $TDgr . 1%’3). VolumeII. SPE”5395 ROBERT A.: “Determha.Dw . Dallas (19’71) 306.Do(l .~.. CAMPBELL 4 11.: “Significant Contributions in Formation Evaluationand Well Testing.W.”J. Inc.Dgr) /$JT}..Do(l - Sw) Solving For Oil Saturation When Water Saturation Is Known tDo-Dg)so= {(DB + ~TDgr . and Timur.Dgr) J ‘$T? .W.” ReprintSeries. end BurkelJ.Dgr) /41T} .t Hoyle. Frick.Dw Solving For Water Saturation In A 011-!ater System (Dw . A.”L* ~et.Neutron.A. With w .Dwsw . 8.” J. 1971)XXIII. 945..Dgr) / $T) . Poupon. TABLE 1 .: PetroleumProduction Handbook.

2 . J. No.A.Open hole logs. “ ‘ . Anardarka Oklahoma. 1.Schematic diagram of filtrate in/asiono Basin. Fig. 1. D.Open hole logs. Fig. 3 . Coloraclo. No. 1 . B.100 Flushed Zone k B -’ion ‘=-’’”’”’”= D c Saturation o Distance From Wellbore Fig. AdemsCotitY.