Compute Saturation SWE & SWT

Generalities
The calculation of water saturation is one of the most troublesome aspects of Shaly Sand log
analysis.
Many equations have been developed over the years based on known physical principles or on
empirically derived relationships.
SW can be determined if one or more measurements can be made that are strongly influenced by
the fluid properties.
Resistivity measurements are, by far, the most commonly used measurement to determine SW.
In the very earliest days of well logging, it was recognized that the presence of hydrocarbons was
indicated by anomalously high resistivity in porous intervals.
The presence of clay can suppress resistivity and sometime mask the hydrocarbon effect.
We will review here some of the methods used to calculate SW from resistivity data.
There are two general groups of Water saturation equation commonly used today and both have
strong suites of followers.

Equations by Group
1- Vshale or resistivity model equations (Uses PHIE)

Laminar

Simandoux

Modified Simandoux

Poupon Leveaux

Fertl & Hammack.

Indonesia

Etc.

2- Cation Exchange or conductivity model equations (Uses PHIT)

Waxman-Smits

Modified Waxman Smits

Juhasz

Dual Water

Charlebois

etc.

What equation to use:?
It is generally accepted that conductivity models using PHIT will give results that are more
consistent than resistivity type equations however conductivity models have inherent problems to
the users for the following reasons:

PHIT cannot be measured without calibration with core analysis since the dry clay matrix
points does not exist in nature and is therefor not seen by the logs.

Different laboratory methods to calculate PHIT in clays will give different PHIT for the
same core.

It can take months before sufficient core results are available to determine the actual
PHIT.

Oil companies do not always take cores in the shales and the PHIT from low volume
clays in a sand do not necessarily have the same properties as in the adjacent shales.

The determination of QV and the establishment of a correlation between logs and QV is
not always evident and can induce errors.

Recommendations:
1. In a development field, and provided sufficient core results are available in the zone of
interest only, we recommend the use of a conductivity saturation equation to determine
SWT and SWE
2. Resistivity model equations should preferably be used in all wildcat wells or where
insufficient core results can be used to determine PHIT accurately.

Input Logs:

PHIE

PHIT

VCLAY

Input log should all be environmentally corrected before proceeding here below.

Output curves:

SWE

SWT

Zone parameters:

a

m

n

a1

m1

n1

RW

RCLAY

B

However. traditionally. the distance travelled by an ion between ‘+’ and ‘-‘peaks becomes extremely small. As the field collapses and then builds in the reverse direction. At higher frequencies. The presence of hydrocarbon impedes the movement of charged ions.Earth electrical conductance Electrical currents can flow in various ways. The SP measurement is derived from this phenomenon. Metallic conductance is probably understood by most. It requires that a voltage potential exist across a conductor (light bulb) and that the conductor be comprised of elements which have “free” electrons that can be passed from one atom to another. Ionic conductance is not so well understood. Thus. 2. When a field reaches a peak in one direction.g. the ion displacement is in the opposite direction. it can be seen that the conductance in the formation is due to the ability of charged ions to migrate through the water within the pore spaces. R = 1/C R = resistivity in Ohm2/m C = Conductivity in mhos Resistivity tools measure resistivity as a series circuit Conductivity tools measure conductivity as parallel circuits. the displacement of the charged ions is set to a maximum. The equation for total conductance in a parallel circuit is CT = C1 + C2 + Cn EQ 1 . The Cations and Anions are still in motion but their behaviour is different. Many electrical tools measure conductivity but. when an alternating current is induced in the medium. Thus most equations have been written in terms of resistivity instead of conductivity. Resistivity is the reciprocal of conductivity. 1. the direction of the potential is constantly reversing. Current flow though a conductive ionic medium (e. salt water) requires the actual movement of charged ions (Such as Na+ and Cl-) through the medium (water). resistivity is recorded on the log.

Generally. the formation water in the pore space is treated as one current path and the clay network is treated as the second current path. Archie’s equation is in the form: F = a/PHI^m EQ 5 The conductivity of a clean sand saturated with a conductive brine can be defined as: Co = CW/F Where Co: Conductivity of a 100% water saturated rock CW Conductivity of the saturating brine F Formation resistivity factor PHI: Porosity a and m are constants EQ 6 .The equation for total conductance in a series circuit is CT = 1 / (1/C1 + 1/C2 + 1/Cn) EQ 2 For total resistance in a parallel circuit we get RT = 1 / (1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/Rn) EQ 3 For total resistance in a series circuit we use: RT = R1 + R2 + Rn EQ 4 Various Shaly Sand models differ in the manner in which the two current paths are defined. Basics Archie characterized the conductivity of porous media having a non-conductive matrix as a function of the porosity and of the conductivity of the saturating fluid.

Nearly every shaly sand log analysis model is in basic agreement with EQ 7. where formation waters are very saline. 7 will show that. for any given value of ‘X’. It is not as popular as the cost of doing the laboratory tests and the lack of core data often precludes the use of these models. the above equation becomes invalid. 2-“Cation Exchange or Conductivity Models” These models can give better results as they can be matched closely to laboratory measurements. the contribution of the shale term becomes relatively small. Thus. . Elements of the water saturation models There are two different approaches to compute SW in Shaly Sand models 1-“V-Shale or resistivity Models” These are the most commonly used today as they can use recorded logs input only. the magnitude of the shale effect decreases as the formation water conductivity ‘CW’ increases. The “V-Shale Models” work reasonably well in sands where the water is very saline. where formation water conductivity is low (formation water is fresh) the contribution of the shale term is relatively large. Clay provides such a conductive path. It is in the brackish and fresh water applications that most shaly sand analysis models encounter difficulties. however they differ in the manner in which ‘X’ and ‘F’ are derived. the conductivity can be expressed as Co = K * CW/F + X EQ 7 Where K Interactive clay function (Unity in many models) X The additional conductivity due to the presence of clay Analysis of Eq. This condition exists where the matrix is conductive of where a second conductive path exists in the pore network.Where electrical current can be conducted by a second path. We address here only some of the most commonly used equations. It is then obvious that accurate characterization of the shale term becomes increasingly important as formation waters become fresher. Conversely. Where clays are present.

an increase in resistivity indicated the presence of hydrocarbons. The Modified Waxman-Smits model was later proposed as a practical application of the lessons learned from the Waxman-Smits model. The Waxman Smits model can give better results but must be calibrated against core data which is not always available. ARCHIE The very earliest research established that for a formation with constant porosity and water salinity. Since they also account for the linear conductivity changes in the saline reservoirs. The Waxman-Smits and Modified Waxman-Smits equations have much in common and the question of the value of one relative to the other has sparked lengthy and sometimes bitter debates. This problem will be discussed in more details further down this presentation.The “V-Shale Models” fail to account for significant non linear changes in formation conductivity as a function of conductivity where fluid conductivity is less than a certain critical value. The -“Cation Exchange Models” are based on the Waxman-Smits or derivatives of it. they are more acceptable as general Shaly Sand models. However. However this non-linearity can be overcome using advanced techniques such as the dual clay resistivity option. Archie quantified this relationship as: SW^n = F * RW /RT EQ 8a or SW^n = F * CT/CW Where: F Formation resistivity Factor RW Formation water resistivity CT Conductivity of the formation EQ 8b . The Waxman-Smits model was the first technique to demonstrate broad application based upon core and core data from a variety of reservoir conditions. both equations account for non-linear changes in conductivity in the fresh to brackish water reservoirs.

(SW =1. More tortuous flow paths will result in higher resistivity and higher formation resistivity factor.RT Resistivity of the formation SW Formation water saturation (fraction) n Saturation exponent EQ 8 can be rewritten as: CT = K * CW * SW^n / F EQ. 9 Formation Factor F The key to this relationship is the Formation resistivity factor which is defined in equation 10 F = Ro/RW Eq 10 or F = CW / Co EQ 10b Where: Ro Resistivity of the shale free formation 100% saturated with water of resistivity RW Co Conductivity of the shale free formation 100% saturated with water of conductivity CW Electrical current will flow through any conductor if there is a difference in voltage across this conductor. when a potential is applied across a clean-sand (no Clay) with salt-water filling the pore space.0 = CT/Co EQ 11 For clean sands where Ro = RT and Co = CT.0) and EQ 8 and 10 become Ro/RW * RW/RT = 1. all of the current will flow through the water in the pores.0 = Ro/RT or CW/Co * CT/CW = 1. This restriction of the flow path is referred as the tortuosity of sand. Water Saturation In a clean water-wet sand. . Salt water is a good conductor while Quartz is a good insulator. High porosity sands with large pore throats will flow currents easily (low resistance) but sands with low porosity will restrict or block off the flow of current (high resistance to currents). EQ 8 can be rewritten as: SW^n = Ro/RT = CT/Co EQ 12 EQ 12 states that the ratio of the resistivity of a wet formation Ro to its resistivity measured while only partially saturated RT can be related to SW by an exponent n. Thus.

Fortunately there is a known relationship between F and PHI F = a/PHI^m Eq 13 Where PHI Porosity m Cementation exponent a Porosity intercept With F derived from porosity. knowing n we can calculate SW if we can determine Co or Ro. For most beginners. A core sample is saturated with a brine of known RW. The resulting ratio plot F is then plotted against the porosity as measured on the sample. The values of a and m are best derived by cross plotting the log of porosity versus the log of the formation factor. b Determining F from porosity EQ 13 shows that F can be determined from the porosity if the values of a and m are known. Determining Co or Ro from F We can determine Co or Ro if we know RW or CW and can determine the formation resistivity factor F from another down-hole measurement. The value of F is obtained from log or core analysis. the values of a and m can be confusing and need to be carefully explained. we can solve Co or Ro in terms of F and CW or RW by rewriting EQ 10 Ro = F*RW or Co CW/F Eq 14a. .The ratio RT/Ro is referred to as the “resistivity index” Since there is a large number of logging tools which measure RT it should be obvious that. The resistivity of the water saturated core is measures and the resistivity of the water saturated sample Ro is divided by the resistivity of the saturated brine RW.

The value of m is the slope of the best fit line through the data and a is the intercept where porosity is set to 100%. .Figure 1 Figure 1 illustrates the cross plotting of F versus Porosity from core. The value of m is referred to as the ‘cementation factor’ or the ‘tortuosity factor’ because it increases with the complexity of the current path through the pore network.

This last step requires knowledge of the exponent n. The exponent n is used to take into account such variables as the electrical properties of the water/oil interface. Figure 4 shows the effect or varying ‘n’ on the final SW. (see Figure 3) then ‘n’ can be significantly altered. In practice. The value of n is empirically derived and can be estimated either from well logs or core studies. n is often used as a ‘fudge factor’ to satisfy the whims of management if reserves are a little low. the wettability of the matrix and increased current paths. m and RW on Ro and F Saturation exponent n Having determined F then Ro and having measured RT and PHI we are now ready to determine SW. .Figure 2 Figure 2 illustrates the effect of variation in PHI. If the matrix is partially oil wet so that the thin veneer of formation water is interrupted.

Some of the fluid is then removed and the resistivity again measured. .The slope of the line is the saturation exponent n. The amount of fluid removed is carefully measured so that the partial saturation can be calculated. Several samples representing a wide range of porosities and facies type for a particular reservoir should be so measured in order to obtain a statistically significant value of n. After several repetitions the measured data are plotted as in figure 4. it is saturated with a brine of known resistivity. A separate n for each facies should be expected for most shaly sand reservoirs. Once the core porosity has been measured.Figure 3 Figure 4 The saturation exponent n can be estimated from core analysis. The resistivity of the fully brine saturated core sample is then measured.

Evolution of shaly sand models Numerous approaches have been taken over the years to predict Ro for shaly sands. the presence of trace amounts of clay minerals provides a second current path and requires alteration of EQ 8. However a growing number of dielectric constant and electromagnetic propagation tools offer means of evaluating very fresh water reservoirs. However. We will not go into details here but Table 1 and Table 2 list some of the earlier efforts to develop reliable SW equations. This model requires extensive coring and core analysis and thus is not universally accepted as an economic mean of calculating SW. For more background information we refer you to: “SPWLA Shaly Sand reprint” Section III by Patchett and Herrick “The evolution of Shaly Sand Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation” by Paul F Worthington (1985) Cation exchange models The publication in 1967 of the Waxman-Smits equation opened a new era in formation evaluation. This is due to surface conductance effects.Effect of clay and salinity on the Archie equation The Archie equation works relatively well as long as salinity is high and there exists only one current path through the formation. ‘Clavier et Al’ attempted to incorporate the concept of the Waxman-Smits approach into a general model that requires minimal core data. Reservoirs having extremely fresh water cannot properly be evaluated using conventional resistivity logs. 1984. The Archie equation will be in error in clean sands if the formation water salinity is extremely low. Ref: “The Theoretical and Experimental Basis for the Dual Water Model for the interpretation of Shaly Sands” SPE Journal. This equation removed some of the errors associated with RCLAY (from adjacent shales) techniques. Waxman Smits .

The conductivity through the cation system is expressed by the terms B and QV. B is temperature and salinity dependent. Juhasz (1979) ties the various Waxman-Smits concepts together with modern logging measurements to illustrate the use of the Waxman-Smits model to derive SW directly from logs. QV quantifies the cation concentration per volume of formation water. The conductivity of a wet shaly sand can be expressed as: Co = CW/F1 + B*QV /F1 Where F1is the formation factor for the Waxman Smits model Eq 15 . This is possible because the formation resistivity factor used in the model reflects the net conductivity from the two current paths. Waxman-Smits Overview.Hill and Milburn (1950) established the relationship of cation exchange capacity CEC and the suppression of resistivity on water bearing shaly sands. Koerperich (1975) focused on the application of the Waxman-Smits model to solve for SW in reservoirs containing fresh and brackish water. The combined term B*QV expresses the conductivity due to the presence of compensating cations in the water filling pores. Waxman and Smits (1967) refined the relationship propose by Hill and Milburn and presented a general equation for SW which required CEC data for core analysis. Knowledge of the boundary between the clay associated water and the pore water is not necessarily in this model because the equation treats the two waters as a mixture. The ion concentration is usually expressed in equivalents per litre. summary: A parallel conductance path exists in shaly sands Some of the electrical currents will flow though the cations associated with the clay and some will pass through the salt solution in the pore system. Waxman and Thomas (1974) expanded the model with explanations of the influence of partial saturation by hydrocarbons and of the influence of temperature on the resistivity of shaly sands.

Because the equation treats the two conductance paths as a mixture having a common F. At lower fluid resistivity (Fresh water) the relationship is non-linear and any slight increase in fluid conductivity results in a sharp increase in rock conductivity. SW cannot be solved in terms of the resistivity index. The slope of the line is the formation resistivity factor F At higher conductivities the relationship is linear. The solid line shows a typical shale response. SW must be included in the body of the equation to balance the mixture relationship. Water saturation less than 100% The Waxman-Smits general equation for saturation can be expressed as: SW^n1 = F1*RW / (RT * (1.0 + RW * B * QV / SW)) Eq 17a . Thus the Waxman-Smits equation can be written in the familiar form: CT = CW * SW^n1 /F1 + B * QV*Sw^(n1-1)/F1 Eq 16 Conductivity of wet shaly sands Figure 5 Figure 5 is a plot of the relationship of the conductivity of a water saturated rock as a function of the conductivity of the saturating fluid. Instead.

0590 This is the value of QV used by PETROLOG when an external QV is not supplied as an input curve. This is best achieved by obtaining matrix density values from pieces of the same core samples on which the CEC measurements are made. (Equivalents per litre or meq/m) QV is derived from laboratory measurements of the cation exchange capacity of the rock (CEC) CEC is expressed as milli-equivalents per gram of sample.0029 Bq Exponent: Default = -3. Where no CEC is available. To determine QV.or SW^n1 = F1*CT / (CW * (1.0 + B * QV /(CW * SW))) Eq 17b The term QV QV is expressed as cation concentration per unit volume of fluid in the pore space. Lavers has suggested the following relationship: QV = Aq * PHIT^Bq EQ 19 Where PHIT Total Porosity which includes clay associated water Aq Constant: Default = 0. The term B . This relationship was used in the North Sea initially however can be modified for other locations. CEC must be corrected for density and porosity by the relationship: QV = CEC * RHOMA * (1.0-PHIT) / PHIT EQ 18 Where PHIT = Total Porosity which includes clay associated water RHOMA = Matrix density EQ 18 should be applied with caution as the matrix density used in the relationship must include the proportional clay and clean matrix densities.

cm-3 RW Formation water resistivity at formation temperature T Temperature in DegC B is automatically computed as a Zone Parameter in PETROLOG whenever BHT or RW is changed in a zone. CW. The reciprocal of the slope Co/CW line is F1 It is essential to determine the slope on the linear section of Co/CW (see Fig 5) because the term B accounts for the curved portion.B quantifies the conductance of the clay exchange cation as a specific temperature and a specific cation concentration. Saturate a core is a brine of a given salinity and measure Co 2. Juhasz (1981) published the expression linking B with Salinity and temperature as: B = (-1.225 * T . .0. CW plot and derive F1 This method is often referred to as ‘The Waxman-Smits multiple salinity method’. The method to determine F1 is as follows 1. This is an expensive and time consuming exercise. Gravestock (1991) The term F1 = (Waxman-Smits Formation factor) According to Waxman and Thomas F1 is temperature independent.m-1/meq. Flush the core and replace with a brine of different salinity and measure Co again 3. B can also be modified manually by the user in the zone control file.27) EQ 20 Where B Is expressed in mho.0004059 * T^2) / (1. Repeat above as many time as necessary to trace the Co vs.045* T .28 + 0. The term F1 (Hoyer & Spann method) ‘Hoyer and Spann’ (1975) in their paper ‘Comments on Obtaining Accurate Electrical Properties of Cores’ established this simple relationship of F1 vs.0+RW*0. F where F is determined from a single measurement of Co vs.0.

Rwb Rwa where VCLAY = 100% Rwb is the bound water resistivity using PHICP from the D-N Z-Plot.F1 = F * (1. See figure 1. the values of a1 and m1 can be determined using the same conventional method to determine a and n. Modified Waxman Smits Equation This equation is based on the Juhasz model and makes do without the BQV and uses the apparent bound water resistivity. Two sets of equations are used: 1. The terms n1 (Waxman-Smits saturation exponent) n1 should be measured with high conductivity water.RW) / (2 8 Rwb) SWT = (X^2 + F * RW)/RT)^(1/n) + X .When RW <= Rwb X = VCLAY * (Rwb .0 . See "Saturation Exponent" above.0) and then remove gradually a percentage of the brine for partial saturations.When RW > Rwb Ro = F * Rwb * RW / (Rwb * (1 .0 -RW*B*QV) = F * (1.B*QV/CW) EQ 21 Where F Formation resistivity factor from a single measurement of CW/Co F1 Waxman-Smits Formation resistivity factor The values of B and QV used in EQ 21 should be determined from the same core at the same temperature that was used to measure F in the laboratory. The terms a1. The porosity values used to determine a1 and m1 are total porosity PHIT which must be obtained by a dehumidified core analysis procedure. The practice is to saturate a core with 100% brine (SW=1.VCLAY) + Vclay * RW) SWT = (Ro/RT)^(1/n) 2. m1 (Waxman-Smits intercept and cementation exponent) Once a few F1 have been calculated using cores with different porosities.

0 and using the Archie equation SWT = F * RW/RT = 1.0 with F = a/PHIT^n From these two equations we then get Rwa = (PHIT^n)/(a * RT) The blue line in figure 1 starts at (GRclean. RW)and ends at (GRclay.Note that if RW = Rwb. This is a dual water model that calculates RW1 as a function of the proportion of clay bound water Rwb and formation water RW. This equation will give best results when the Rwa-vs GR points fall on a relatively straight line in a water bearing interval. Rwa is plotted on a logarithmic scale. Figure 5 Rwa is computed using the PHIT apparent from the Density Neutron X-Plot assuming that SW= 1. the equation becomes a simple Archie formula since X = 0 Charlebois Equation This is an alternative equation to the Waxman-Smits that computes the conductivity of the bound water in relation to the volume of clay. . Rwb)and represents the 100% water saturation line.

a and m used in this cation exchange type equation are the same as those used in the resistivity type saturation equations. From this. .54 that for Na+. However this is not stated in their papers. Effect of non-sodium cations Ions of different elements have different mobilities. The relationship established by Waxman-Smits applies only to sodium chloride systems. one may conclude that ‘B’ for low salinity clay water systems where calcium is the predominant cation may be predicted by a partitioning equation based upon the sodium and calcium content of the water. “Robertson and Stokes’ (1959) and ‘Nightingale’ (1959) published a table of the equivalent conductivities of some common ions as follows: TABLE 1 They also report that the counter ion equivalent conductance for calcium ion (Ca) is 0. the value of B will be in error.RW1 can be calculated as a function of VCLAY using the following equation: RW1 = 10^(VCLAY*Log10(Rwb) + (1-VCLAY)* Log10(RW)) The Archie Equation is thereafter used to compute SWT: SWT = F * RW1 /RT The F. Where magnesium and calcium are present as anions in either of the two current paths.

g. CEC (Juhasz approach) The Juhasz paper “The central role of QV and Formation water salinity in the evaluation of shaly sands” provides a table of average CEC and density values for the more common clay minerals and suggest an equation to derive QV from logs and CEC QV = (VCLD * RHOCLD * CEC)/PHIT EQ 22 Where PHIT: Total Porosity which includes clay associated water RHOCLD: Dry clay density taken from tables or lab measurements. CEC: this type) Average CEC for clay minerals known to be in the formation. . then ‘Bmax’ for calcium can be derived from the B * QV intercept Fresh Water applications No data exists for fresh water (RW >1.PHID)/HICLD EQ 23 .If QV is measured independently. This problem is further enhanced by the fact that calcium and magnesium anions frequently occur in high concentration in fresh where RW > 1. QV vs.0) (see Figure 5). (For 100% clay of VCLD: Volume of dry clay from logs. CaCl) . More studies and data need to be supplied in fresh formation water regarding the derivation of B for the use in the Waxman-Smits equation.(e. method using the non sodium brine.The slope and intercept of the Co/CW plot are determined by ‘The Waxman-Smith multiple salinity. The proposed method to determine VCLD is: VCLD = (PHIN .0 in both the clay associated water and the free formation water.They do present an empirical method of deriving ‘Bmax’ for non sodium cations.

TABLE 2 Table 2 is a typical table with the hydrogen index for the major clay minerals Tables of saturation equations .Where PHIN: Neutron porosity corrected for lithology and hydrocarbons PHID: Density porosity HICLD Hydrogen index of the average dry clay mineral mixture in the formation.

TABLE 3 .

TABLE 4 Table 3 an 4 lists a few saturation equations expressed with resistivity input .

TABLE 5 .

Sep-Oct 1991 . Gravestock “Behaviour of Waxman-Smits Parameter ‘B’ in High Rw.E. “The Log Analyst”. Berg: “Effective-Medium Resistivity Models for Calculating Water Saturation in Shaly Sands”. “The Log Analyst” Jul-Aug 1979 D. “The Log Analyst.”.TABLE 6 Table 5 an 6 lists a few saturation equations expressed with conductivity input References: G. “The Log Analyst” May-Jun 1996 I. Juhasz: “The Central Role of Qv and Formation Water Salinity in the evaluation of Shaly Formations.I. High Temperature Reservoirs”. Jan-Feb 1985 Charles R. Worthington: “The Evolution of Shaly-Sand Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation”. E. Archie 1942 “The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics” Trans AIMI 146 54-62 Paul.

“ Trans SPWLA 12th Annual Logging Symposium R1-17 Comparative results of saturation equations: We have constructed a pseudo data set containing a constant PHI. Thomas: “Determination of Qv from membrane Potential measurements on Shaly Sands”. SPE AIME Sept 1986 Fertl W. RT and the compute Rwa are in track 3 PHIT = 0. Kutan: “Log Interpretation in the Malay Basin” . SPWLA 25th Annual logging symposium July 8-11 1980 E. C. and Hammack: G. Crocker K.35 is in track 4.W> 1971 “A comparative look at water saturation computations in shaly pay sands”.0) and a variable GR as shown in Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 6 shows the pseudo log with the GR from 20 to 120 API in track 1. .H.H. RT (water = 1 and Rclay = 60.

Figure 8 . There are insufficient corrections due to the presence of high resistivity clays in this example.0 however this equation add oil due to the presence of clays.Figure 7 Figure 7 is the Rwa vs GR Z=Plot with the Vclay. SW is over corrected in this case. . Figure 8A shows the SW results using the Laminar equation. Vsand PHIE and SW shown on he right hand track.8a Figure 8 shows the SW computed using the Indonesia equation. The 100% is fine at Vclay = 0.

. n and F1 instead of a1. n1 and F1. High resistivity clays can appear as oil if the BQV is incorrectly calculated. 9a Figure 9 shows SW computed using the Simandoux equation Figure 9a shows SW computed using the Fertl & Hammack equation Figure 10 Figure 10 shows the Modified Waxman Smit SW equation results Figure 10a shows the Waxman Smits results using a.Figure 98. m1. m.

It gives the perfect fit since this equation has been designed for logs that displays a typical Rwa vs GR as shown in figures 5 and 6 .Figure 11 Figure 11.0 shows the SW computed using the Charlebois equation.

316 and RT = 10 Using a = 1.0 / (0.01 we get: PHIT = PHIT = 0.316 and F = 1. m = 2 and n = 2 we get in the clean sand: With Rw = 0.316^2) = 10.Figure 12 Figure 12 shows the different SW calculated in an example where PHIT = 0.0 SW = SQRT ( F* RW /RT) = 0.10 .

Ass saturation equations give similar results where Vclay < 30%. .