A Study of the Dual-Water
Model Based on Log Data
George R. Coates, SPE. Schlumberger Well Services
Yves Boutemy, SPE. Schlumberger Well Services
Christian Clavier, SPE. Etudes et Productions Schlumberger
Summary
This paper presents log evidence in support of the dual-
water model. Included are basic studies that illustrate the
model from the aspect of conductivity measurements,
porosity and formation factor relationship, and the con-
trast to the prediction of Waxman and Smits' cation ex-
change capacity (CEC) model (W-S model). I
Introduction
Since the introduction of the theoretical dual-water
model 2 in 1977, there has been considerable conjecture
on the scientific aspects of the CEC models.
This paper intentionally avoids theoretical areas and
concentrates instead on what can be observed from log
data with respect to the conductivity and porosity of
shales, shaly sands, and sands. In addition, the dual-
water hypothesis is expounded as a means of shedding
new light on the troublesome problem of applying a for-
mation factor relationship in shaly formations.
The Dual Water Observed
Studies of factors that influence the attenuation of elec-
tromagnetic propagation signals from EPT™ logs
revealed that plots of attenuation rate as a function of the
total porosity index always displayed similar trends, with
the shales showing the greatest uniqueness. Fig. 1,
which is a hand composite of several wells from a variety
of geographic areas with largely different conditions, il-
lustrates this characteristic.
Further study determined that the basic plot shape was
a reflection of changes in the conductivity of the forma-
0149-2136/83/0011-0104$00.25
Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
158
tion fluids. This is shown in Fig. 2, where constant fluid
conductivity trend lines have been added to a typical at-
tenuation/porosity plot. This knowledge led directly to
the idea of correcting the EPT log for shaliness by modi-
fying R w proportionally. Although this was done suc-
cessfully, a question was raised. Do other logs that react
to the volume and conductivity of formation fluids also
respond to dual waters?
Microlaterolog and Induction Log Data
The familiar Pickett 3 plot (log-log plot of conductivity
vs. porosity) is a convenient form for making this
evaluation because it allows a relatively pure look at the
data.
Pickett plots using a density/neutron-based porosity
were constructed with microlaterolog (Fig. 3) and induc-
tion (Fig. 4) log data. * Two distinct data concentrations
could be seen, one associated with low gamma ray
values and the other with high gamma ray values.
These plots have been enhanced with an illustration of
a simple Archie-type transform of some known fluid
conductivities by assuming that K R = 1. 0 and m = 2.0 in
the classic equations, FR=KR/¢m and C w =
FRC o (Ro=FRRw). The C w values chosen reflect Rw
(C w =30.0 mho), RmJ (C w =1.0 mho), and the
theoretical clay water conductivities for the existing
temperature conditions.
An interesting feature of these two plots was the cen-
ductivity trend of the shales (high gamma ray), which
grouped between the two free-fluid values, C w (30.0
'Throughout this paper the x-plot figures are z-axis displays with an outline of the
high·density areas added to reflect the data concentrations.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
mho) and C mf (1. 0 mho). This trend is more obvious 500
when the two plots are composited by hand and the cor-
1 TEX.
responding fluid conductivity transforms are added
2 CALIF.
(Fig. 5).
400 3 NO. OAK.
This trend is noteworthy because it means that the
4 CANADA

tf
shale waters are less conductive in this case than is the
5 OKLA.
connate water in the sands (C w) but are more conductive
than the mud filtrate (Cmf)' Also, no other shale trends 300
seem to be present. However, before conclusions are
drawn, porosity, the other principal component in the Ac
plot, needs to be examined.
5 ,
0

200 c;:r2

~
Porosity
The porosity value used so far has been calculated from a
neutron/density combination. Some log analysts feel that 100
the density log provides better values of total porosity in
shaly sands.
What does this mean to the study? Conceptually it may
0
be significant because the density porosity in shales 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
could be much lower. Consequently, the study was ¢ND
redone with sandstone porosity values (p g 2.65) from the Fig. 1-Comparison of EPr attenuation with neutron/density
density log. Figs. 6 and 7 are the induction log and porosity from five wells.

500 ,, ,
55445

l'
,, ,
,,
: , ,
400

300
Ac
200

100
1901 TOTAL POINTS
Z AXIS = GR

10 20 30 40 50
¢ND

Fig. 2-Apparent constant water conductivity response of attenuation porosity

data.

1.00r---------,----------,----------r-------~7r--------~

.40

.16

.06

.03
1901 TOTAL POINTS
Z AXIS = GR

.01L-________J __ _- L L -__ ____ ____L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

~ ~ ~

1.00 2.51 6.31 <t>ND 15.85 39.81 100.00

Fig. 3-Log-log plot of microlaterolog conductivity vs. neutron/density

porosity.

JANUARY 1983 159

 10.00r-________~----------,_----------r_--------~--~~----,

3.98 1901 TOTAL POINTS

Z AXIS =GR

1.58

.63

.25
55
.,.
2
.101_1 _ _ _ _ 2 1 _ 0 _ 2 - 0 ~

1.00 2.51 6.31 15.85 39.81 100.00

Fig. 4-Log-log plot of induction conductivity vs. neutron/density porosity.

3.98r----------r---------,----------~--------TT----~~__,

1.58

.63

c
.25

.10

.04~ _________ L_ _~_ _ _ _-J~~~____~_L_ _ _ _~-L~-------J

1.00 2.51 n.. 15.85 39.81 1 00.00
Y"ND
Fig. 5-Hand-composited comparison of Figs. 3 and 4.

10.00r----------r---------,----------~--------~--~----__,

3.98 190 1 TOTAL POINTS

Z AXIS = GR

1.58

C,O
.63

.25
,,
! 5 It
5
5 1

.10,- 0 2~1_,_2 (t 0 1 0 _ : 0 _ _.L-_ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _..L_ _ _ _ _~

1.00 2.51 6.31 n.. 15.85 39.81 100.00

'PO(S)

Fig. 6-Log-log plot of induction conductivity vs. density/sandstone porosity.

160 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 1.00~ ________ ~ ________ ~ _______

.40
.7

.16

C MLL
.06
,
,I
I,
190 1 TOTAL POINTS
Z AXIS - GR
.01~~----~~------ __ ____
~ ~ __ ________ ________
~ ~ ~

1.00 2.51 6.31 ~ 15.85 39.81 100.00

¥I'D (S)

Fig. 7-Log-iog plot of microlaterolog conductivity vs. density/sandstone porosity.

10.00,---------.----------,---------.----------.---------,

3.98 1901 TOTAL POINTS

Z AXIS = GR

1.58
,
.. 5 4 .
I !
.63
J ,
,
U 2 l
1 .. :
5 ....

1 2 J 1
J
1 1"
1 Ii
1 , 2

o 0 .. 2 .. 1 I ..
j
J,2 ],
j 0
e:J 1.35
.25 j i! I
.. 2 10
2100
,00

, ,
, 2

.10 LI_ _ _ _ _ _ .l-_ _.L...L.._-'-_ _ _ _ _ "

,
,,!
0

___--'_______
1.00 2.51 6.31 15.85 39.81 100.00

Fig. a-Log-Iog plot of EPT conductivity vs. neutron/density porosity.

10.00,----------,---------,----------.---------7T--------~

3.98 1901 TOTAL POINTS

Z AXIS =GR

1.58

.63
1"
,, .. 1
I: l 1 1

I 1 '"
1 t!2 l" 0 1 1
"'110
,"P'l: til
1
2

lrl2 1 3 1
1+ tHO
, ld!
, 0
0

I , ~ , 10
.10 L--":...-_ _ _-i_--'~_ _ _...L..._ _ _ _ _ , I I :.'____...L..._ _ _ _ _--'
5.62 10.00 17.78 ~ ( 31.62 56.23 100.00
¥I'D S)

Fig. 9-Log-log plot of EPT conductivity vs. density/sandstone porosity.

JANUARY 1983 161

 10.00r---------.---------.----------.---------.---------.

3.98 360 TOTAL POINTS

1.58

.63

.25

.10~--------~ __ ~~ __ ~ ________ ~ ________ ~ ________~

1.00 2.51 6.31 '" 15.85 39.81 100.00

~ND

Fig. 10-Data trend isolation using EPT conductivity and known clay water values.

microlaterolog data replotted with these density porosity
values. Obviously the grouping has changed, but not en-
tirely in the manner anticipated by the W -S model. To
the contrary, only the low-porosity, silty shales indicate
an increase in the apparent C wa values. The more clayey
shales still exhibit a lower C wa than do the sands.
The EPT log helps sort out this porosity question
because it basically responds to the formation in a
capacitance form and does not have the tortuosity sen-
sitivity of the usual low-frequency resistivity logging
devices. In other words, the Archie transform for EPT
data is not the same as for the conventional resistivity
devices. For the EPT data, the transform is
For conventional devices, it is
where m::: 2.0.
This difference in formation factor dependence allows
us to evaluate the question on porosity because all
devices should indicate a common fluid conductivity in
the same rock if they detect the same conditions. We can
examine this readily by comparing the Pickett plots from
the EPT and microlaterolog data for each porosity
method (Figs. 8 and 9), since both tools examine the
flushed zone. The comparison clearly shows that the
plots using the neutron/density crossplot porosity sup-
port the common fluid conductivity constraint and that
the plots using the density porosity do not.
A further test of the data confirmed this conclusion and
demonstrated that the microlaterolog and EPT tools in-
deed were detecting the same rocks. In this test, the data
values were isolated by depth according to where they
fell on the EPT /total porosity plot (Fig. 10) by using all
points that fell within range of the selected perfect shale
water value for the temperatures involved (with an EPT
m slope of 1.35). These same data levels then were used
to construct a microlaterolog/total-porosity plot
(Fig. II).

1.00r---------.---------,----------r----~r7-r--------_,

.40 360 TOTAL POINTS

.16

.06

.03

.01~----~--~ ______ ~~ _________ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ J

~

1.00 2.51 6.31 '" 15.85 39.81 100.00

~ND

Fig. ll-Microlaterolog/neutron/density porosity data from levels selected from pro-

cedure in Fig. 10.

162 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 100.0r---------.---------,----------r--------~--------_,

01 •
1634 TOTAL POINTS o 0 •
56.2 I •

Z AXIS = GR I"
0
1

31.6

17.8

10.0

5.6~ ________L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ ~ ~

5.62 10.00 17.78 31.62 56.23 100.00

F
Fig. 12-Log-log plot of total porosity and a formation factor based on a theoretical clay
water conductivity and log data.

80r---------.---------,----------r--------~--------_,

. .
••
60 3901 TOTAL POINTS ; 0

Z AXIS = GR 01., J', ,

"
2 I
I I I'2

40

20

20 40 60 80 100
¢NCNL
Fig. 13-Plot of density/sandstone porosity vs. CNL ™ neutron/sandstone
porosity with constant 1> lines.

100.0

56.2 1634 TOTAL POINTS

Z AXIS = GR
01
00
0 , ..,
I
I

1 ,
2

! g1f'; 5
2
31.6 '22
1 •
• 2 ,
J', •
(/>0

17.8

10.0

5.6
5.62 10.00 17.78 31.62 56.23 100.00
F
Fig. 14-Log-log plot of density/sandstone porosity and a formation factor based on
a theoretical clay water conductivity and log data.

JANUARY 1983 163

 The m slope for the microlaterolog transform varied
from 1. 72 to 2.1, with a median value of 1. 83. This is of
interest in itself because it offers evidence of the m slope
where Co is the measured value in a shale bed.
that best fits shale.
Once the formation factor is determined, it can be
compared to sources of porosity values such as those de-
Theoretical Bound-Water Conductivity scribed previously.
The conductivity of the bound water associated with The plot of Fig. 12 was constructed from a data set
perfect shales is also interesting to study, for if a shale is that used the spontaneous potential (SP) curve for shale
a perfect shale, it is possible to predict the conductivity selection, the formation factor as described earlier, and
of its water and therefore to determine a formation the porosity value from the density/neutron method. The
factor. 2 data of Fig. 12 show a well-organized trend with an ap-
parent m slope slightly greater than 2.0, much as
predicted from laboratory data for shales. Note that this
crossplot porosity is computed as shown in Fig. 13, and
is quite similar to that used in the new VOLAN™ pro-
gram but is not the same as that determined from the
.~------------~~
chart book 4 interpolation or from the simple
¢N
50 0 (1)N+1>D)!2·0.
----------- The plot shown in Fig. 14 is badly scattered, and an m
between 1.5 and 2.0 is required to cover the data spread.
50 o
This plot was constructed in the same way as Fig. 12,
but it was made with a sandstone-based porosity derived
from only the density log. Besides the poorer plot
i
, ii coherency, the values are in sharp contrast to m ~ 2.0
predicted for shales by laboratory data.
:.. ~ .... ! Thus, this evidence indicates that the density/neutron
I I'i! I

.:t·····l~~~ method is superior to the density-only method as a

measure of total porosity in shales. It also shows a good
il correspondence between the theoretical clay water value
I and the measured resistivity with the standard Archie
II solution.
I~
!. Dual-Water Model vs. W-S Model
A major difference in these two models is their account-
ing of the effects on formation factors. Basically, the
dual-water model says that the equivalent shale/sand
water conductivity is dependent on the relative volumes
of clay water and free water. The W -S model' says that
the equivalent shale/sand water conductivity is that of
the bulk water plus that contributed by the presence of
1-· -=- - ., clay CEC. In other words, the W -S model says that in
water-bearing formations the apparent water conductivi-
~ ty should increase with the addition of clay. The dual-
II water model says that the apparent values will be depen-
dent on the two water values and how much of each
water is involved.
The shallow aquifers in the U.S. gulf coast area offer
an opportunity to examine these points.
~u: :::
...
.. 1-):;-1 Fig. 15 shows a log comparing apparent water conduc-
tivity with the raw measurements of R lD, 1> N, 1> D, and
... :::~:.:-:: ~F- Ej Esp. (The neutron/density porosity method previously
.. :-~::
1..;;1=' ~
described was used to transform the deep induction data
-_.-;:::
13
i=:' into C wa by using KR = 1.0 and m=2.0) This is unusual-
..
~ ly meaningful because it illustrates classic evidence of
...
I~: ",.... li~ D~o
#
water-bearing sand/shale interplay.
h In the log in Fig. 15, two C wa trends vs. Esp are in
... ..
-.--'.:::
Track 1, R lD is logarithmically displayed in Track 2, and
. .::.
.•.
.,; .. . ~ 1> DN is in Track 3. The two C wa trends were displayed to
=:::
---.-. FF-~ permit better sensitivities in the very low conductivity Of
the shallow aquifers.
Fig. 15-Analog presentation of <PN, <Po, RID, Esp, and C wa Of interest is the stability of the trend associated with
on a Texas gulf coast water well. the shales (low Esp, 1> N > > 1> D)' It shows a monotonic
trend with depth that is very consistent with that

164 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 c c

.25 .25
155 TOTAL POINTS Z AXIS = GR

.10 .10
15.85 39.81 100.00 15.85 39.81 100.00
(/> 1 (Log Scale) (/> 1 (Log Scale)
Fig. l6-Log-log plots of induction conductivity vs. total porosity showing both fre-
quency and gamma ray data distribution from Zone A. Fig. 15.

10.00r-----____- r______r - - , 10.00r-________~------~--~

3.98 3.98

1.58 1.58

c C

Zone C
381 TOTAL POINTS Z AXIS = GR

.10~ _________ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ .10~ ________ ~ __________ ~

15.85 39.81 100.00 15.85 39.81 100.00

01 (Log Scale) (/>1 (Log Scale)
Fig. l7-Log-log plots of induction conductivity vs. total porosity showing both fre-
quency and gamma ray data distribution from Zone B. Fig. 15.

10. aa r---------~----------~ 1 0.0 a ...--________-,__________..,

Zone E
3.98 181 TOTAL POINTS 3.98 Z AXIS = GR

1.58 1.58

C C
.63 .63

.25 .25

.10L--L______- L________~ .10~~ ______ ~ __________ ~

15.85 39.81 100.00 15.85 39.81 100.00

01 (Log Scale) (/>1 (Log Scale)

Fig. l8-Log-log plots of induction conductivity vs. total porosity showing both fre-
quency and gamma ray data distribution from Zone C. Fig. 15.

JANUARY 1983 165

predicted by the dual-water theory. The sands do not C w = conductivity of formation water, mho/m
display such a trend, showing some depth salinity (S/m)
variance over a smaller portion of the well but switching C wa = apparent conductivity of formation water,
to essentially a constant salinity profile above and below mho/m (S/m)
this transitional zone. C wb = conductivity of bound water adhered to
The large zone in Fig. 15 marked with an "X" is
clay particles, mho/m (S/m)
striking evidence of an interval that contains both sands
and shales but that shows no resistivity or C wa variance. Cwe! conductivity of theoretical clay water,
This clearly suggests the need for a model that mho/m (S/m)
recognizes that clays do not always influence the Esp measured SP
formation- factorl saturation transforms. FR resistivity formation factor for clean sand
Most significant is the clear evidence that the variance (FR=RoIRw)
of C w with clay content is consistent with the dual-water KR coefficient in F R -1> relationship
model. m porosity exponent (cementation)
Of course, the observations just made deal with shale RID resistivity value from deep investigation
beds and sands and are open to conjecture, for it is well induction tool, n· m
recognized that the clays in the sand often differ from the resistivity of mud filtrate, n· m
adjacent shales.
resistivity of water-bearing formation,
Several of the sands (Zones A, B, and C on Fig. 15)
were Pickett-plotted (Figs. 16 through 18) in an attempt n'm
to discover the presence of other clay conductivity trends Rw resistivity of formation water, n· m
more consistent with those predicted by the W -S model. Rwa apparent formation water resistivity, n· m
However, it was concluded that the trends from this 1>D porosity value from density log
study had the same character as that established from the 1>N porosity value from neutron log
adjacent shales. This is obvious from noting the relative 1>NCNL apparent CNL neutron porosity sandstone
gamma ray values from each example. units
1> t total porosity
Conclusions 1> w fraction of pore space filled with water
Log evidence has been presented that demonstrates that
the dual-water model is observable and that it behaves
essentially as predicted from theory. In addition, References
evidence was offered that supports the neutron/density I. Waxman, M.H. and Smits, L.J.M.: "Electrical Conductivities in
crossplot method of total porosity determination as being Oil-Bearing Shaly Sands," Soc. Pet. Eng. 1. (June 1968) 107-22;
superior to single-source methods such as density-only Trans., AIME, 243.
2. Clavier, C., Coates, G., and Dumanoir, 1.: "The Theoretical and
values in shaly-sand applications.
Experimental Bases for the Dual Water Model for the Interpreta-
tion of Shaly Sands," paper SPE 6859 presented at the 1977 SPE
Nomenclature Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12.
3. Pickett. G.R.: "Acoustic Character Logs and Their Applications
Ac = db/m
in Formation Evaluation," 1. Pet. Tech. (June 1963) 659-67;
C = conductivity, electric, mho/m (S/m) Trans., AIME, 228.
C EPT = conductivity value from EPT tool, mho/m 4. "Log Interpretation Charts," Schlumbcrger Ltd., Ridgefield, CT
(1979).
(S/m)
C ID = conductivity for deep induction, mho/m
(S/m) SI Metric Conversion Factor
C mf = conductivity of mud filtrate, mho/m mho x 1.0* E+OO S
(S/m)
C MLL conductivity value from microlaterolog, • Conversion factor is exact. JPT
mho/m (Slm) Onglnal manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office July 29,1981
conductivity of water-bearing formation, Paper accepted for publication July 6, 1982. Revised manuscnpt received Nov 12,
1982. Paper (SPE 10104) first presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Con-
mho/m (S/m) ference and Exhibition held in San Antonio Oct. 5-7

166 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY