SPWLA 35th Annual LoggingSymposium, June 19-22,1994
Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
1. Abstract
Pickett plots, over the years, have become a time-
honoured formation evaluation technique used by
petrophysicists and geologists around the world in
their search for hydrocarbons. This powerfd
technique has gained wide acceptancebecauselong
sections of wells, especially exploration wells, are
evaluated quickly with a minimum of petrophysical
data.
Pickett stated that “the apparent porosity-resistivity
plotting technique is not a panacea” but his message
has not always been heeded. The pitfalls of Pickett
plots can be broken down into four areas:
uncertainty in Rw, errors in Rt, errors in the
determination of porosity, and the grouping of all
carbonate depositional environments on one log-log
plot.
Often, the result is an erroneous ‘m’ value that has
serious consequenceson the calculation of water
saturation. Casing/abandonmentdecisions as well as
volumetric reserve estimates are strongly inlluenced
by the ‘m’ used in the water saturation calculation.
Once ‘m’ becomes established for a formation, it
becomes difftcult to change it unless a significant
amount of work is completed.
This paper provides examples of where thesetypes of
pitfalls have occurred in the evaluation of carbonates
and how they infhrenced the abandonment/
completion decisions made at that time. It also
provides guidelines for improved use of Pickett plots
and how to apply them more judiciously.
2. Introduction
Pickett plots are an extremely valuable petrophysical
technique and are used by geologists/petrophysicists
to make important decisions in both exploration and
development wells. They are usually used to assist
in the following:
(i) casing/abandonmentdecisions,
(ii) volumetric reserveestimatesby correctly
estimating ‘m’ and consequently SW,
(iii) better estimatesof OWCYGWCYFWL(Free
Water Level), and
(iv) developing new geological/petrophysical plays.
Even such a powerful technique as the Pickett plot
can produce the correct results only if the proper
stepsare followed. During the processof construct-
ing a Pickett plot, attention must be paid to each of
,l-
the stepsif a meaningful result is to be achieved &
believed.
BecausePickett plots are so easily constructed, it is
sometimes easy to fall into the pitfalls without
knowing that anything has gone wrong. With the
simplicity and power of the Pickett plot, quick results
often are achieved. By plotting log Ra versus log +
(with Rw as the intercept) and drawing a ‘best fit’ or
regressedline through the 100 percent wet points, a
slope defined as ‘m’ is obtained. This ‘m’ value,
Archie’s cementation exponent, then is used to
evaluate other wells in the area or the remainder of
the zone. A series of SW lines parallel to the 100
percent wet line then are drawn to determine
potential hydrocarbon-bearing zones (see Figures la
and lb).
Two questions remain, “How good is the derived ‘m’
value?” and “How reliable is it?”
The following are steps that should be followed to
check its reliability:
(1) learn as much as possible about the various rock
properties,
(2) attempt to find/derive a reliable Rw from water
chemical analysis,
(3) understand the differences between laterologs/
induction logs in hydrocarbon-bearing and wet
zones,
(4) understand the principles of capillarity for the
rock types present, and
(5) establish a proper open-hole log/core porosity
relationship (don’t neglect stress).
3. Rock Properties
Before even beginning to construct a Pickett plot, the
petrophysicist must stop and think about the rock
properties that correspond to a particular
depositional environment. 1 With the aid of a
geologist and petrographer, valuable geological
information that ultimately will affect the Pickett
plot can be learned at this early stage.
Furthermore, if time and resources (i.e., drill
cuttings and core) are available, the petrophysicist
should examine them with the assistance of the
geologist and petrographer. Even if they are
unavailable, or you are working alone, the brief time
spent looking at the rocks will not be wasted. With
some training, perseverance, and learning on-the- GGG
job, the rocks will provide invaluable information in
the construction of the Pickett plot. Some of the
types of information to be found are:
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
(i) How are the pores connected?
(ii) Are there both matrix and vuggy porosity types
present?
(iii) Are the vugs touching?
(iv) Visualize what the rock would look like in 3D
in the subsurface.
(v) Imagine what a capillary pressurecurve would
look like for the rock.
(vi) Are there any infill materials such as calcite,
anhydrite, or solid hydrocarbonsthat might
reduce permeability?
(vii) Are limestone and dolomite interbedded?
(viii) Are the grains large, small, or mixed in sizes?
Both broken and slabbedsurfacesshould be
examined.
A lot of what will be seen will be a function of the
depositional environment and any diagenesis that
has taken place.
In carbonates,the depositional environments can be
broken down very basically into the following:
(i) ramp/platform
(ii) fringing reef, bank barrier reefs,patch reefs,
barrier reefs, atoll reefs (after James)*O
Many variations of these depositional environments
are possible as water depths will vary (i.e.,
transgressive versus regressive) over geologic time
(see Figure 2). As water depths vary, so will living
conditions for the many organisms; in other words, a
borehole may penetrate a formation that is composed
of numerous cycles that may or may not readily be
apparent to the petrophysicist at a first glance
because of the apparent uniform gamma-ray
character. These cycles may be small or large,
depending on the geologic history of the area. For
example, a formation might have a sequencewhere
grainstones are found on top, packestones in the
middle, and the wackestones on the bottom (a
regressivesequence;seeFigure 2). The rocks in each
of these cycles likely will be very different. The
grainstone might be an Archie Type III; the
packestone an Archie Type IIIBcz, with some
associated non-touching vugs; and the wackestone
an Archie Type 1-111~~~ in a tighter, muddier matrix.
Each cycle will have its own ‘m’ or variable ‘m’
relationship. Each one of these might constitute
reservoir rock if diagenesis, fracturing, etc., has
preserved enough permeability for them to be
productive.
Capillary pressures,$/k crossplots, thin sections,and
SEM work can be used later in the evaluation
-2-
processto break out rock types and better understand
log responses.
Sometimes,depending on the thickness of the zone,
only one cycle (or one dominant rock type) may be
present. In moving laterally, updip, or downdip, the
rock types may change completely so that a ‘new’ ‘m’
must be applied or derived.
At this point, it is sufllcient that the petrophysicist/
geologist is aware how depositional environments
can inthrence the Pickett plot. Figure 3a illustrates
schematically how this might look. Figure 3b shows
some of the possible problems if a reservoir with a
variety of rock types is evaluated as if only one rock
type was present.
4. Water Resistivity, Rw
The water resistivity, Rw, is the intercept on the log
Rt versus log Qplot. It is the tie point that is used to
establish the 100 percent wet line on the Pickett plot.
At 100 percent porosity, only formation water will be
present and Rt = Ro.
Note: If hvo separate water resistivities are believed
to be present, then hvo separate Pickett plots must
be constructed.
The water chemistry of a formation is a unique
fingerprint that can only be determined directly by a
wireline MDT, DST, or production test. In many
cases, a significant amount of drilling fluid or
production fluid must be flowed before a true
formation water is obtained. All too often, a
contaminated fluid sample and its corresponding
resistivity are used mistakenly in the Pickett plot.
Precautions or checks on fluid samples must
carefully be made before the fluid resistivity is
determined to be the Rw of the formation. Some of
thesechecks are:
(i) construct a Stiff diagram (compareit to other
produced formation waters available in the
area and the drilling mud); seeFigure 4a and
4b;
(ii) check the drilling mud properties;
(iii) check the Cl/Na ratios (should be 1.1 to I.7
depending on water type)
(iv) check the pH (should be between 6.0 and 8.0);
(v) check for the presence/absenceof secondary
cations/anions that will provide clues to the
reliability of the sample being formation water.

Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
If the petrophysicist is fortunate, the formation is
permeable enough and the DST will have had long
enough flow times to produce a true formation water.
Now, a water resistivity at surface temperature will
be available but for the bottomhole, one must still be
determined. What is most commonly done is to pick
up the first log available and read the BHT. The
water resistivity at surface conditions is them simply
corrected to that BITT. The log measuredBHT may
be in error for many reasons:
(i) the mud may not have reachedthe formation
temperature;
(ii) less emphasis(care) is paid to reading
temperaturesin wireline logging,
(iii) temperaturesmay sometimesbe recorded
according to regional geothermal gradients.
To try to overcometheseproblems, Homer-type plots
using temperatures plotted against time since
circulation has stopped,can be used in many cases.5
Furthermore, temperaturesrecordedfrom DST’s may
be more reliable and much higher (20-50°F) than log
recorded BHT; however, the temperature recorded
on the resistivity log should be used for Rw
corrections and the calculation of SW.~ Finally,
supervision of logging jobs at the wellsite should
emphasize the importance of accurately recording a
BHT.
In many instances, no nearby formation tests of the
zone in question will be available. An attempt at this
time should be made to determine the Rw from the
SP log. A couple of variations are possible; such as,
(i) the Schlumberger method,16or
(ii) the Silva-Bassiouni method.l7
In many cases, limited success is realized in
determining Rw from the SP in carbonates. The
currents in many carbonate zones travel deep into
the formation and often will produce a ‘wandering’
look to the SP log. Nevertheless, these methods
must be attemptedas a last resort.
Looking at the SP log aboveand below the formation
may provide some clues. The SP log responsein a
known tested wet zone may provide some limits or
ranges of what the Rw may be. Finally, the Rw in
the hydrocarbon-zone may be different than that in
the wet or aquifer zone (check the Cl/Na ratios).
5. Porosity
The porosity values that will be used in the Pickett
plot generally will be derived from open-hole logs.
-3-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
Open-hole logs are subject to borehole nrgosity
effects, mudcake effects, pore-filling with secondary
minerals, and thin-bed effects so they must be
calibrated to core wherever possible. Core analysis
can also be in error due to sampling biases, plug
versus whole core measurements, insufficient
cleaning of the rock, etc. In my experience, the
errors in core porosity on average are + 0.05 - 1.0
p.u., whereas errors in log derived porosities can
range from + 2.0 to 5.0 p.u. Usually, core porosity
values are more reliable than open-hole, even though
the volumes investigated are quite different.
Depending on rock types and borehole conditions,
open hole logs and core usually have excellent
agreement, but these checks must be made if a
meaningful Pickett plot is to be obtained.
Before constructing the core porosity versus open-
hole log porosity plot (seeFigure 5a), core or sample
examination may reveal heterogeneities. Further
evidence of this is present in porosity/permeability
plots (see Figure Sb). For example, a wackestone
may have vugs in a tight matrix, whereas a
grainstone has primarily interctystalline porosity.
These two rocks would have their own characteristic
core porosity versus log porosity relationship. These
derived relationships would then be used to
determine the formation porosity using open-hole
logs Again, by using a Pickett plot variation such as
Figure lb, errors in Atm or an incorrect sonic-At
relationship will produce errors in porosity and
consequentlyerrors in ‘m.’
For example (for Rw = .025):
Method At * Ro m
(ohm-m)
Wyllie 180 11.0% 6 2.48
Raymer Hunt 180 12.5% 6 2.64
Packstone 180 18.0% 6 3.20
Grainstone 180 9.5% 6 2.33
Mudstone 180 5.0% 6 1.83
One further step might be necessarybefore open hole
logs can be used to determine formation porosity,
and that is to correct for stress. This step is often
neglected because it is often assumed that stress is
insignificant. It may be insignificant but that
assumption should not be made until it is checked.
Based on rock compressibility studies and core
measured porosities at stressed conditions,
atmospheric porosities will be reduced by 0.5 to 1.0
p.u. or typically stressedQ = atmospheric + x 0.9 to GGG
0.95.13
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
Total porosity is plotted on Pickett plots. Neutron
and density logs will measurethe total porosity, and
sonic logs are believed to measure only the matrix
porosity. Other investigators, such as Nurmi,12 have
found that the sonic log in carbonates does not
always behave according to commonly believed
principles of just measuring geological secondary
porosity but it can be atfected by pore geometry.
Nonetheless, the total versus effective question can
yield valuable clues regarding ‘m.’ If the ineffective
porosity is due to vugs, then ‘m’ will be increased as
the effective/total porosity ratio is decreased.11
6. Resistivity
Many Pickett plots are believed to be “true
resistivity” Pickett plots because the apparent
resistivity, Ra, is taken directly from the resistivity
log and crossplotted against porosity becauseRa is
thought to be proportional to Rt. Often this is not
the case. A Pickett plot may incorrectly be labeled
true resistivity because of the proportionality that
sometimes exists between Ra and Rt. This, is the
secondlargest contributor to the misinterpretation of
Pickett plots (after mixing geological environments).
Resistivity logs measure Ra, and with careful
corrections and understanding of resistivity log
principles, the petrophysicist must try to establish Rt.
The true resistivity, Rt, may be as much as 2-5 times
less or 2-5 times greater than Ra, depending on the
resistivity tool used, bed effects,borehole effects,and
the saturation of the reservoir. Rt, in most instances,
is not proportional to Ra.
Pickett plots serve many purposes but two of the
most basic are as follows:
(i) establish Ro (the resistivity of the rock 100%
saturated with formation fluid), and
(ii) identify potential hydrocarbon zones (by comparing
it to the established Ro values).
The aim of the petrophysicist should then be to
establish Ro in the wet zone and Rt in the
hydrocarbon zone. This may seema trivial exercise
at times, but many generations of tool design have
strived to overcome the single largest nemesis of
petrophysicists: invasion.
Large strides have been made in recent years to
better estimate Rt. Some of the tools and their
principles are as follows:7
Measur-t Type Tool Types
Measure Rt before invasion has MWD
occurred
Measure a&r invasion has occurred Laterolog/induction log
with multiple resistivity logs open-hole devices
Measure beyond invaded zone MPI
-4-
All of these new tools have added tremendously to
our knowledge of formation resistivities. In some
cases,it has even forced us to rethink our original
conceptsof invasion. For example, what happensto
the resistivity of the wet or hydrocarbon-bearing
formation with time after it is invaded? How do
induction logs and Iaterologs (MAD - made after
drilling) compare to MWD logs? Cunningham4
described how the laterolog agreed best with the
MWD in hydrocarbon-bearing zones to resistivities
as low as 10 ohm-m, whereas the induction log best
agreedwith MWD in wet zones. This leads into the
next discussion on resistivity log principles.
The service companies have worked hard to provide
us with two types of resistivity logs (in the lower
frequency range 25-250 Hz): (i) induction logs, and
(ii) Iaterologs. What could be simpler? Only two
types of resistivity logs, but still the elusive answer to
the Rt question is not easily attained because of a
host of other factors that are sometimesbeyond our
control:
(i) geology - rock types, fractures, bed thickness,
surrounding beds, etc.
(ii) mud design - type, weight, fluid loss, days of
open-hole.
(iii) formation pressure- over, under, normally-
pressured.
(iv) drilling operations - coring, number of trips,
surge pressures.
These are someof the factors beyond our control, but
what about the ones we do control? We do, for
instance, control which resistivity tool we run and
use for Rt.
Let us quickly examine the principles of resistivity
logs. Very simply, the induction devices will seek
out anything conductive in the formation
(electrolytic or electronic). Many deep induction
tools are designed to obtain 50 percent of their
reading 100 inches from the borehole but in fact this
may not always be the case. The induction tool,
measuring currents in parallel, may find the largest
conductive loops only 30-40 inches from the
borehole and this will dominate the recorded
resistivity, Ra. The laterolog, on the other hand, is
designed to be a resistivity-seeking device and will
be dominated by resistive substances in the
formation. This may be mud filtrate, (especially
when Rmf > Rw), hydrocarbons, residual
hydrocarbons, calcite/ anhydrite/solid hydrocarbon-
filled pores or anything else resistive. The laterolog
tool is designed to read approximately 100 inches
from the borehole, but its depth of investigation may

Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
also suffer. It is a series-typedevice and if sufficient
resistive barriers such as mud filtrate (Rmf >>Rw)
are encountered in this area near the borehole, then
the voltage drop and consequently the resistivity will
be dominated by this area and will not be influenced
by what is further away from the borehole.
Combining induction log and laterolog apparent
resistivity readings on a single Pickett plot will
simply add to the confusion of determining a proper
‘m’ value or values. Only after the apparent
resistivity readings, Ra, are corrected to read the true
resistivity, Rt, can they carefully be combined.
Even in his original paper, Pickett points out an
anomalous plot (Pickett - Figure 7) that had an
induction log that looked wet but “was completed for
one of the better oil wells in the area.” This may be
largely due to invasion as well as other effects.
In this paper, two examples are given where both
induction log and laterolog resistivity logs were run
on the samewells. The first example (Figure 6a) has
an old set of logs (IFS and LL7) in a wet well
whereas the secondexample (Figure 7a) has modem
logs (DITE and DLL) in a gas well. In the first
example, LL7 is approximately 3-5 times greater
than the IFS. If only the LL7 had been run, the ‘m’
determined from the Pickett plot would have been
3.1. The core description and permeability
measurements from the well would not have
supported such high ‘m’ values. In this wet case
@ST tested 2300’ salt water) the IFS log would have
been the correct log to use to determine ‘m’ values of
2.4 in a fossil moldic rock. In the second example,
both a DITF (phasor) and laterolog were run. The
phasor resistivities of 150 ohm-m fall into the “gray”
area (i.e., will it produce water or hydrocarbons?)of
carbonate resistivities, whereas the laterolog read Ra
values of 1500-2000 ohm-m = 10 times greater than
the deep phasor. The rock type was a micritic (20-
50 micron grain size) limestone that was deeply
invaded (seeFigure 15).
Note: Tornado chart corrections would further
reduce Ra. In the second case, Rxo is less than Rt
and the tornado charts cannot be used in a
hydrocarbon zone. This was confirmed bv the DLL-
MSFL combination, where Ra (DLL) was greater
than Rxo (MSFL). The principles of induction log
and laterolog responses in wet and hydrocarbon-
bearing zones are summarized by Souhaite et al. la
Figure 8, by Souhaite best illustrates these invasion
principles and their effects on induction logs and
laterolog devices. After 30” of invasion, the 6FF40
-5-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 1994
induction tool will be adversely affected by invasion
in a hydrocarbon-bearing zone (i.e., Rt > Rxo). Ra,
as measuredby the 6FF40, will be too pessimistic in
the invaded hydrocarbon-bearing zone but will read
much closer to Rt in an invaded wet zone (i.e., Rt <
Rxo). Conversely, the laterolog will be too
optimistic in the wet zone when Di > 10” but will
read closer to Rt in the hydrocarbon zone. Other
people such as Wyllie24 described this same
principle of laterolog devices being affected by
invasion. Summarizing their work leads us to the
following:
(i) use the induction log for Rt in wet zones,
(ii) use the laterolog for Rt in hydrocarbon zones,
(iii) be careful of both logs when Di > 30 inches.
Note: the high resistivity recorded on the laterolog
may be due to invasion and not a high ‘m.
Corollary: correct the resistivity log for invasion, but
do not raise the ‘m’ to explain why the zone flowed
salt water.
7. Capillary Pressures
Although capillary pressuresare not plotted directly
on Pickett plots, their effects can determine the
behaviour of one. A basic understanding of capillary
pressures is mandatory because in a hydrostatic
system, the fluid distribution of the reservoir is
governed by this simple principle. Furthermore,
pore geometry effects, as measured by capillary
pressurecurves, will strongly affect the ‘m’ values.
Figure 9 illustrates the capillary pressure principles
and how they manifest themselves on a Pickett plot.
They are as follows: (i) the FWL, (ii) the OWC, and
(iii) the top of transition. The capillary pressure
curve of a grainstone will have the sameFWL but a
different OWC and a different top of transition than
a packstone. In other words, the FWL will be flat
but the OWC and top of transition will vary
according to rock types and their corresponding
permeabilities and pore size distribution. In very
highquality reservoirs, with high permeabilities, the
top of transition, OWC and FWL may almost be the
same. The differentiation of these three interfaces
will be further affected by the fluid types present in
the reservoir.
The two basic fluid types discussedwill be:
GGG
(i) gas-brine system,and
(ii) oil-brine system.
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
Becauseof larger density differences in the gas-brine
system (gas = 0.20 gm/cc and water 1.00 - 1.20
gmkc) water saturation changes will OCCUT more
quickly, over a shorter height, in the reservoir. In an
oil-brine system(oil *: 0.65 - 0.80 gm/cc) the density
differences are not nearly as large. Therefore, in
comparable rock types, the height will be much
larger betweenthe top of transition, OWC, and FWL
in an oil-brine systemcomparedto gas-brine.
This adds further complications, or pitfalls in the use
of Pickett plots. For example, in a carbonatewith 10
percent porosity and 5-20 mD in an oil-brine system,
the top of transition (zone of water-free production)
may exist at a considerable height above the FWL
(i.e., 100 - 150’). Any wells drilled into a formation
that is above the OWC but below the top of
transition will flow essentially all salt water with
varying amounts of oil flecked mud, oilcut mud, etc.
The relative permeability to oil will not become
significant in many carbonate formations until a
water saturation less than 20 percent is reached.
Further changes to the relative permeability of the
formation are causedby the drilling process, which
makes it easier for formation water and mud filtrate
to flow and harder for oil to flow in the “transitional”
20-60 percent SW range. Even with fracing the
damagecausedby drilling is often irreversible.
The petrophysicist in establishing the 100 percent
wet line, must first try to find wells (or zones) that
are located below the OWC or FWL. Wells that are
below the top of transition but above the OWC must
ncJ be used to establish the 100 percent wet line.
This will result in erroneously high ‘m’ values that
would not be supportedby rock examination work.
The top of transition, or the first break/decreasein
resistivity, is often incorrectly identified as the
OWUGWC. This is incorrect. And, as Willinklg
points out, it leads to many misinterpretations
including the plotting of resistivities below this
depth as being below the OWC. To avoid these
types of problems, the capillary properties of the
rocks in the area of study must be understood and
measured.
Another simple check, if available, is the core
analysis. In many cases,fluid saturations will have
been measured as part of the routine analysis. if
residual oil, So, is present (5 - 10 percent) and the
water saturations are low (30-50 percent) then there
is a very strong likelihood that the formation in
question is above the OWC even though it may have
produced all salt water on the drill stem test.
-6-
One additional comment about capillary pressures
and Pickett plots must be made. Pore geometry
effects will strongly a&ct man rock pro t-ties
including ‘m.’ Work by Towle,2a Wardlaw,R and
Stout19 emphasize the variability of pore geometry
systems in carbonates. Many times in lower
porosities (i.e., < 10%) the + versus Rt (in a 100%
wet zone) will produce a culved and not a linear
relationship. This has been documented by other
investi ators such as Focke and Mutut,* B~rai,~ and
Wotfa.s3 It is my belief that the observedbend is not
due to just tortuousity effectsbut can be explained by
the shape of the sheet-like pores (Wardlaw), pore
connections (Towle) and surface area. In lower
porosities, the pore throats are mostly the same size
and becauseof the uniformity of the cross-sectional
areas and the sheet-like connecting pores, a low ‘m’
will result. These effects will be present in Archie
Type I and micritic rocks.
8. Examples
Three examples from Western Canada will be given
illustrating some of the variations in Pickett plots
and their relationships to depositional environments.
They are:
(i) pinnacle - formations include the Devonian Keg
River, Winnipegosis, Nisku, and Leduc.
(ii) ramp - formations include the Devonian
Wabamun, Devonian Blueridge, Mississippian
Elkton, Triassic Charlie Lake.
(iii) bank margin - formations include the Devonian
Swan Hills, Leduc, and Nisku.
The first example is a pinnacle from the Keg River
formation. Figure 10a illustrates a cloud of points
with a best fit line of m = 2.04. This is the
petrophysicist’s common fallback value (i.e., in
carbonates,when in doubt, use m = 2.0). A more
careful examination of samples and capillary
pressures from the area reveals an Archie Type
IB3C2D2 carbonate with tremendous variations in
matrix and vug proportions. A single ‘m’ value is
not justified. Returning to the original Pickett plot
in Figure 10a and calculating an ‘m’ value for each
and every point results in a plot such as Figure lob.
The ‘m’ value, in fact, ranges from 1.8 to 3.2. Using
a low value of m = 2.0 would result in unnecessary
testing of this zone. Furthermore, if a nearby
pinnacle did contain hydrocarbons and if the same
rocks were present, the use of a low ‘m’ would
incorrectly predict the OWC/FWL and significantly
overestimatethe reservesin place.

Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
The second example is a ramp from the Triassic
Charlie Lake. In the ramp environment, mudstones
are dolomitzed to form microcrystalline rocks that
form the primary reservoir; however, many
variations of rock types can occur in the
supratidallintertidalisubtidal environment (see
Figures 16, 17, 18). Leaching of organisms can
cause vuggy porosity to be found in fine to coarse
dolomite matrix porosity. Figure lla illustrates a
Pickett plot from this environment. The grouping of
100 percent wet points is quite ‘tight’ compared to
the previous one. Constructing an ‘m’ versus Q plot,
as in Figure lla verifies this. The range of ‘m’
values is from 1.9 to 2.25. Again, the Pickett plot is
governed by the rock types present. In this case, an
Archie Type IIIBC, or Dunham dolomitized
grainstone/packstone as revealed from samples, 4/k
crossplots and capillary pressure curves reveals the
relative uniformity of the. rocks. With the good
matrix permeability provided by the coarser Type III
dolor&es, the ‘m’ will be low provided no infill
materials such as anhydrite, solid hydrocarbons, and
calcite are present in the pore throats. Crystal sizes
are significant in this environment becausea coarser
dolomite (> 200 microns crystal size) with some
intill materials may not significantly affect the ‘m’
value; however, a finer dolomite with infill materials
may significantly reduce the permeability and
increase the ‘m’ value > 2.2. This is due to the
greater surfacearea per pore volume.
The final example is from the Devonian Swan Hills.
This is a bank margin example where a tremendous
variation in rock types is possible over short
distances (i.e., % to % mile). In bank margin areas,
many depositional environments such as the lagoon,
bank margin, upper/middle/ lower foreslope and
micritic basin may be present. These sediments may
vary rapidly both laterally and vertically. In other
words, this may lead to a wide variety of rock types
in one wellbore or in nearby wells. Some of the
rocks may become dolomitized while others remain
as limestone. Figure 12a illustrates the Pickett plot
from one wet well. This rock flowed salt water from
higher resistivities (as measured by the induction
log) and confirmed the higher ‘m’ values of
approximately 2.65.
Another nearby updip well was drilled that led to a
discovery. The resistivities were extremely high and
even using the high ‘m’ values of 2.65 calculated
from the downdip wet test the zone calculated to be
hydrocarbon bearing. It was hydrocarbon bearing as
confirmed by DST and production tests. Later work
revealed that the rock types in the discovery area
were much better than the nearby wet wells. The
-7-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
rock types in the wet wells were Archie Type IBCDS
with abundant intlll materials and non-touching
vugs, whereas the rock types in the discovery area
were Type III B2C3D4 with excellent matrix and
touching vugs. The latter rock had excellent
permeabilities of 500 mD to 2D. This rock from
visible rock examination would support a much
lower ‘m’ value than the previously used ‘m’ value of
2.65. Special core work confirmed the ‘m’ value to
be from 1.8 to 2.1. This was significantly lower than
the previously used ‘m’ value of 2.65. In this case,
no 100 percent wet zones were found in the
dolomitized grainstone so the Pickett plot could not
be used to independently determine ‘m’ from logs.
By using the lower ‘m’ values of 1.8 to 2.1, it resulted
in a significant increase in the original reserves.
Furthermore, by using the correct ‘m’ values a better
determination of the top of transition, GWC, and
FWL were possible. In many hydrocarbon zones, a
FWL is often not evident9 and the transition zone
produces water with little or no hydrocarbons. As
mentioned previously, wells encountering a zone in
transition (i.e., above the OWC but below the top of
transition) cannot be used to determine the 100
percent wet line.
The three examples were from crystalline dolomite
reservoirs. Although dolomitization at times
increases porosity and usually permeability, the
processcan often create a greater variety of rock and
pore types than was previously present in limestone.
The greater the variety of rock types, the greater the
likelihood of a variety of ‘m’ values. Another way to
attempt to understand carbonate ‘m’ values is to
think in terms of order and disorder (personal
communication - H. King, Canadian Hunter). The
more ordered or uniform the rock, the lower the ‘m’
value. This is often evident in limestone and
dolomites present in the samereservoir. A limestone
of the samerock type will generally have a lower ‘m’
value than the dolomite becausethe dolomitization
process may create a variety of crystal sizes. These
kinds of differences in ‘m’ values for dolomites and
limestones have been reported by Pitch. l5
Furthermore, diagenesis can continue to further
reduce the better permeability that was created
during initial dolomitization.
9. Summary of Pickett Plots
Figure 13 summarizes some of the ‘m’ versus +
relationships seen to date in Western Canada.
Figure 14 attempts to summarize the underlying GGG
factors that affect Pickett plots that may not readily
come to mind when a Pickett plot is first constructed.
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba
Stepsto a better Pickett plot:
1. Look at the rocks.
2. Understand the geology and depositional
environment (consider making a separate plot
for each rock type or depositional environment).
3. Use a porosity/permeability crossplot to guide
you on the variability of rock types.
4. Carefully check drill stem tests, production tests,
and SP logs to determine a proper Rw (Note:
two different Rw’s may be present in the same
zone; one in the hydrocarbon zone and the other
in the wet zone).
5. Correct resistivity logs from an apparent
resistivity reading, Ra, to a true resisitity, Rt.
(Note: errors can be significant if Di is large
and resist&y logs are adversely affected in
hydrocarbon and wet zones.
6. On the first attempt at a Pickett plot, use only
the 100 percent wet points. Do not mix zones of
lower water saturations.
7. Understand the concepts of capillary pressures
and how the resultant ‘m’ value may be affected.
8. Calibrate open hole porosity logs to stressedcore
porosities.
9. Consider variable ‘m’ relationships where +/k
plots, rock types, and capillary pressuresjustify
it.
10. Rememberto consider lithology (i.e., limestone
versus dolomite), fractures, grain sizes, and pore
intill materials.
11. Iterate! Do all the stepsyou went through make
sense? Is the resultant ‘m’ value(s) supported by
your original rock examination? If not, make
the necessarychangesto honour all the data.
CONCLUSIONS
Pickett plots in carbonates can be subject to large
variations in porosity, porosity types, resistivity, Rw,
and depositional environments. Be careful how they
are combined to arrive at the elusive ‘m’ value or ‘m’
values.
Look at the rock. It will lead you to the correct ‘m’
value. The corresponding capillary pressure curve,
when measured, will support your observations (or
the petrographer’s) on the proper ‘m’ value (i.e., Does
the resistivity increase according to the rock types
present above the FWL?) Good pore connections
will lead to lower ‘m’ values and quicker changesin
resistivity. Archie and Pickett14 both cautioned us
on the variability of carbonates. Rememberthey are
rarely uniform; consequently, ‘m’ does not always
equal 2.0.
-8-
As petrophysicists and geologists, all the information
in newly drilled carbonate formations must first be
observed and then interpreted. Use all available
wells, cored, drill cuttings, logs, and capillary
pressures to arrive at ‘m’rm’s. The Pickett plot in
carbonateswill rarely be one straight line.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Canadian Hunter Exploration
Ltd. for allowing me to publish this paper, the
petrographers and carbonate geologists for their
many useful discussions, Donna Pidgeon for typing
the manuscript, Ruth Nixon for preparing the
figures, and Jon McGovern for his SEM work.
Furthermore, the author would like to thank E.T.
Connolly, D.F. Hunter, and H. Ring for reviewing
the manuscript and their helpful suggestions.
REFERENCES CITED
1. Archie, G.E., 1952, “Classification of Carbonate
Reservoir Rocks and Petrophysical
Considerations,” AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 36, No.
2. pp.278-298.
2. Borai, A.M., 1985, “A New Correlation for
Cementation Factor in Low-Porosity
Carbonates,”60th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Las Vegas, Paper SPE
14401.
3. Connolly, E.T., 1972, “Geothermal Survey of
North America, ProgressReport and Associated
Data - Gathering Problems,” 4th CWLS
Symposium,May 1972 - Paper F
4. Cunningham, A.B., Gpstad, E.A., Sep.&t.
1992, “Use of MWD Formation Evaluation in
the Endicott Reservoir North Slope,” Alaska,
USA, The Log Analvst. pp. 439-449.
5. Dowdle, W.L., Cobb, W.M., Nov. 1975, “Static
Formation Temperature From Well Logs - An
Empirical Method,” Journal of Petroleum
Technoloav, pp. 1326-1330.
6. Dziuba, T.T., 1986, “Mud Filtrate Effects on the
Laterolog in Alberta Foothills Carbonates,” 37th
Annual Petroleum Society of ClM Meeting,
June 8-11, 1986. pp. 211-235.
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging’Symposium, June 19-22,1994

Pitfalls of Pickett Plots in Carbonates, T.T. Dziuba

7. Dziuba, T.T., 1993, “Improved SW 19. Stout, J.L., March 1964, “Pore Geometry as
Determination in Sour Gas Carbonates,” Related to Carbonate Stratigraphic Traps,”
Evaluation of Sour Gas Wells Without DSTs -- AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 329-337.
A Synergy Workshop, Calgary.
20. Towle, G., May 1962, “An Analysis of the
8. Focke, J.W., Munn, D., March 1985, Formation Resistivity Factor -- Porosity
Cementation Exponents (m) in Middle Eastern Relationship of Some Assumed Pore
Carbonate Reservoirs, SPE 13735 SPE Middle Geometries,” 3rd Annual SPWLA Symposium,
East Oil Technical Conference, pp. 43 l-442. Houston, Texas.

9. Herrod, W.H. Gardner, P.S., 1988, “Upper
Ismay Reservoir at Tin Cup Mesa Field, Rocky
Mountain Association of Geologists” -- 1988
Carbonate Symposium. pp. 175-192.
10. James, N.P., July 1985, Carbonate Depositional
Environments - Part 1: Reefs, Colorado School
of Mines Ouarterlv, pp. l-30.
11. Lucia, F.J. 1981, “Petrophysical Parameters
Estimated from Visual Descriptions of
Carbonate Rocks: A Field Classification of
Carbonate Pore Space,” SEP of AIME Annual
Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Oct. 1981.
21. Wardlaw, N.C., Feb. 1976, AAPG Bulletin, V.
60, No. 2, pp. 245-257.
22. Willink, R.J., 1989, A Methodical Approach to
Critical Well Re-evaluation, The APEA Journal,
pp. 269-286.
23. Wotfa, M., Nov. 1987, “Part 1: Current Affairs
in Saturation, Part 2: Seeking the Saturation
Solution,” Middle East Well Evaluation Review.
pp. 49-57.
24. Wyllie, M.R.J., 1957, The Fundamentals of
Electric Log Interpretation, Academic Press
Inc., New York.

12. Nurmi, Frisinger, M.R., 1983, 58th Annual ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, SPE
11969.

13. Pickett, G.R., June 1963, “Acoustic Character

Logs and Their Applications in Formation
Evaluation,” Journal of Petroleum GeoloPv, pp.
659-667.

14. Pickett, G.R., Nov. 1966, “A Review of Current

Techniques for Determination of Water
Saturation from Logs,” Journal of Petroleum
Technolonv, pp. 1425-1433.

15. Ritch, H.J., Sept-Ott 1968, Petrophysical

Evaluation of the Smackover Formation in East
Texas, 43 Annual Fall Meeting of AIME -
Houston, SPE 2285.

16. Schlumberger, 199 1, Log Interpretation Charts.

17. Silva, P.L., Bassiouni, Z., March/April 1983,
“Improved Rw Determination from SP Logs,”
SPWLA.
18. Souhaite, P., Misk, A., Poupon, A., “Rt
Determination in the Eastern Hemisphere,” 16th
SPWLA Symposium, June 1975.
Taras T. Dziuba is a Senior Petrophysical Engineer
with Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd. working in
exploration. Before joining Canadian Hunter in
1991, he worked for Shell Canada where he was
involved in both operational petrophysics and special
core work at the Calgary research centre. He GGG
graduated in 1978 with a B.Sc. in mining
engineering from Queen’s University in Kingston.

-9-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

I I I I I II slov=--m I I I I IN,

1.00 10.00 lw.w

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure la. Pickett Plot (Apparent Resistivity vs. Porosity)

010 loo lo.w lw.w

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 1b. Pickett Plot (Apparent Resistivity vs. At - A&-n)

-lO-
 Regressive Sequence Transgressive Sequence
(energy highest at top) (energy highest at bottom)

0 0 M M
0 0 M M
0 0 0 Increasing “M”
towards top f, M M
vv Decreasing “M”
vvv towards top
v v /

vvvv
vv v
vvvv
000000
00000
000000

Legend

880~0~ Grainstone 11 Wackestone

la
v,~~ Packstone
I” I~M:M:M~Mudstone

Figure 2. Carbonate Depositional Environments

SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 1994

1 .oo
100 10.00 lW.00

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 3a. Pickett Plots and Depositional Environments

Grainstones cannot be used for

1000

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 3b. Pickett Plots and Depositional Environments

-12-
 10000 1000 100 10 1 10 100 1000 10000 meq/l
Na Cl

Ca - Total Solids ( mgl ) - HC03

Calc’d : 246293.0
RW: 0.047 Q 25.0” C
pH: 6.60
\
4 SO4

Fe CO3

Figure 4a. Stiff Diagram - Formation Water

10000 1000 100 10 1 10 100 1000 1OOOOmeqA

Na - Cl

I
K

Ca HC03
/

Total Solids ( mgl )

Mg . \ Calc’d : 16616.0 - SO4
RW: 0.406 @I 16.0” C
pH: 9.00

I
Fe CO3

Figure 4b. Stiff Diagram - Mud Filtrate

SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

n-

20. Flock Type: Dolomite

16 -

16 -

6-

, . . . . , I I 01, I I I I (
140 150 160 170 180 190 200

At Q.wc/m)

Figure 5a. Core Porosity vs. At Rode Type Variations

5 00 10.00 1500 2000 2500

Porosity (%)

Figure 5b. Permeability vs Porosity Variations

-14-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

SP (mv) IES (ohm - ml LL7 (ohm - m) CORE

POROSITY
20 (%I 0

Lithology: DOLOMITE
Rmf/Rw: 19

Figure 6a. Conductivity (IES) and Resistivity (LL7) in wet zone

I I

.i? lo.w ! I
8
ij
a

1.00
a1.01 0.10 1.w 10.00 lw.w
GGG
Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 6b. Pick&t Plot for IES / LL7 resistivities

-15-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

CORE
DITE LLd / LL8 POROSITY
(ohm - ml (ohm - ml (%I
1 10 100 1000 ioo 1000 10000 30 13 0

Lithology: Limestone
RMF/Rw: 13

Figure 7a. Induction log and Laterolog in hydrocarbon - bearing zone (Gas)

x Induction Log in gas zone

I I I I-N I
.
I I1111111 0 LLD in gas zone Ml

r\I I I IIII 1\
I \I
I I I
IT
lllll
III,

100.00 10,ooo.00

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 7b. Pickett Plot of Induction log and Laterolog in gas zone
-16-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

20 40 60 80 100

di (Inches)

Figure 8. Invasion effects on Laterolog and Induction log

(after Souhaite, Misk and Poupon - 16th SPWLA, 1975 - Paper LL)
GGG

-17-
 ii! ii!
0
E0 :
5 sz
Y
.-e 8 8
i3 n 3
/ Hydrocarbon zone
I

Top of Transition
f (i.e.1 st resistivity drop)
,
,
, Al/
,
. ;’ --a
\
. 0 \
, \
\
\
I
&
Points used to establish ,’
owe
Ro line (Sw=lOO%) owe
must be below OWC owe
\ Zone of Transition
FWL
Ra

Figure 9. Pickett Plots and Cap Curves

 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

1.00

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 1Oa. Pickett Plot - Pinnacle Environment

3.6

34

3.2

E 2.6

I3K 2.6

5 2.4
'.m

fE 2.2

3
2.0

1.6

1.6

I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
GGG
Porosity (%)

Figure 1Ob. ‘m’ versus porosity - Pinnacle Environment (100% wet zone)
-19-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

1.00
001 a10 1.W 10.00 lOO$O

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure lla. Pickett Plot - Ramp Environment

24r

23 -

2.2 -

2.1 -

E 2.0 -
no wgs orinfillmaterial)
E

14 _

1.3 ,
2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 26 30

Porosity (%)

Figure 11b. ‘m’ versus porosity - Ramp Environment (100% wet zone)
-2o-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

‘iiii i i jj jjjjj ---j j j i j jjl,

1 10 100 loo0

Apparent Resistivity (ohm-m)

Figure 12a. Pickett plot - Bank Margin Environment

3.6

32

3.0

2.8
E
E
K 2.6

I.3 2.4
5
'P
f 22

E
8 2.0

1.6

2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 26 30
GGG
Porosity (%)

Figure 12b. ‘m’ versus porosity - Bank Margin (100% wet zone)
-2l-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994
 Foreslope Margin Back Bank Lagoon intertidal

-cI
is
.o E
-5 E
0 .L-
8z
nul

5 $ Wackestone Grainstone Packstone Wackestone Grainstone/Packstone

r? $ Archie Type I Type III Type Ill BC4 Type I BC2 Type Ill - Ill/l BC

3 - 7% 8 - 20% 6-15% 3-10% 5-12%

. - . -
iY iii
&EC
m-z:- ‘AID 1;; ;I.; I_

SW SW SW SW SW
Figure 14. Underlying factors affecting Pick&t Plots