Porosity and saturation in Quanti

The Techlog platform’s Petrophysics menu contains several Quanti methods that are dedicated
porosity and saturation determination. Once the user has quality controlled the inputs, they are
filled inside the methods to provide porosity, saturation, shale volume, permeability and water cut.

The Porosity and Saturation sections, separated from each other, provide two standalone
workflows. The first generation algorithm contain some assumptions that in standard conditions
were sufficient to give accurate results. However, they did not cover for particular cases such as
reservoirs with high shale fraction or gas fields. New methods have been implemented with
algorithms taking into account more varied situations in new Total and Effective combined
Porosity and Saturation methods.

Equivalent methods in renewed Porosity and

saturation algorithm
The new methods, implemented in 11.2 for Neutron-Density, and 13.1 for Density methods, provide
a single step workflow that outputs porosity as well as saturation.

Figure 1 - Client's workflow using standalones methods

Schlumberger Public 3/18

 Figure 2 - Client's workflow using Porosity and saturation section

The integrated calculation of saturation inside the same method allows some cross checks between
variables and parameters that were not otherwise performed by the user.

Both Neutron-Density methods can replace Total and effective Neutron-Density from the Porosity
section, except if no resistivity input is available. The same applies to density methods.

The fifth method Neutron-Density PEF/Sonic, included in Techlog 2013.4 version, is a combination
of Neutron-Density methods plus a lithology computation.

Figure 3 - Equivalence coverage

Schlumberger Public 4/18

Both Total Porosity and saturation methods contain Archie, dual Water and Waxman Smiths
saturation equations.

Both Effective Porosity and saturation methods contain Archie, dispersed shale, Indonesia,
Modified Total Shale, Total Shale, Simandoux and Modified Simandoux equations.

Figure 4 - Saturation equations equivalence

Schlumberger Public 5/18

Equations

Equations have been modified to remove excessive simplifications that negatively affected the
results when field conditions were not standard. Inaccuracies are thus avoided.

Neutron density methods

Core Algorithm
All neutron density methods embedded in Quanti run with the same algorithm that outputs a true
porosity out of a neutron and a density measurement for a given tool. Legacy and new methods
share the core routine below. The input Neutron Porosity measurement must be calibrated in
Limestone units.

If !" <# $%&' , !" <# (#%&'## ( >0

( * +-!
)' =
!" * +-!

Where: (: Bulk density

3
+-! : Limestone grain density, default 2.71 g/cm
3
!" : Mud filtrate density, default 1 g/cm or bulk density fluid parameter
3
$%&' : Sandstone grain density, default 2.65 g/cm
3
'.+ : Dolomite grain density, default 2.9 g/cm
)& : Neutron porosity in Limestone units – input from the tool
)' : Density porosity
The lithology line is decided as such:

- If )& / # )' , choose Limestone/Sandstone combination

- If )& > # )' , choose Limestone/Dolomite combination

A test is performed for Anhydrite:

If )& > # )' , 2193 / ( / 415#678#): / 010;

Then there is anhydrite. Computed porosity is equal to 0. If not, the computation continues.

- Convert the matrix from limestone to sandstone or dolomite, depending of the lithology
line used. This conversion depends on the used tool, according to the matrix.
- Compute apparent hydrogen index:

Schlumberger Public 6/18

 $% & $'(
! ="# )
1 & $'(

Where: $% = Neutron Porosity based on limestone unit

$'( = Neutron porosity with sandstone or dolomite matrix

- Calculate Crossplot porosity (iteration loop):

o Limestone/Dolomite combination:
! , -./02 & .3 4 5 $% , -.67/ & ./02 4
$* = + ;
! , 8./02 & .29 : 5 .67/ & ./02
o Limestone/Sandstone combination:
! , -./02 & .3 4 5 $% , -.<>%6 & ./02 4
$* = + ;
! , 8./02 & .29 : 5 .<>%6 & ./02

o The iteration continues to obtain $* %?@ & $* % A BCB1

Computation logic
The Total Porosity and saturation from Neutron-Density method compute porosity, virgin and
invaded zone water saturations, SWT and SXOT, from neutron, density true resistivity and micro
resistivity logs. The method makes shale and hydrocarbon corrections and can also use shale
volume, Vsh, input curve, Qv, borehole temperature and pressure and flushed and virgin zone water
salinities.

Here is the workflow followed with both Porosity and saturation Neutron-Density methods:

- Compute initial grain density to check whether the shale correction tends to decrease grain
density. If it does, hydrocarbon correction needs to be done on apparent grain density.
- Test whether or not the data is interpretable, that is to say whether the data falls in a logical
place on the Neutron-Density Crossplot. If not, flag is set to no and results are not
computed, and set to limiting values.
- If the shale volume exceeds the user-set limit, saturation is set to 1.
- Correct for shale, test grain density value and determine whether a hydrocarbon correction
must be made.
- Compute porosity and apparent grain density using the neutron density porosity algorithm
in Quanti (see Core Algorithm above)
- Compute water saturation using one of the total Water Saturation algorithms in Quanti.
- Compute resistivity of the water phase in the flushed zone, if a shallow resistivity is
available. If not, Sxo is derived from Sw.

Schlumberger Public 7/18

 - When deep resistivity is available, calculate Sw from either a Rw or a salinity input.
- Note that at least one resistivity (deep or shallow) must be present.
- Test whether a hydrocarbon correction is necessary, and only if necessary, proceed to the
hydrocarbon correction step.
- Compute water volume fraction, dry shale volume and bound water volume.
- If a true formation resistivity log is present, compute the unflushed zone water saturation.

Hydrocarbon correction:

- If necessary, the HC density will be reduced so that the calculated grain density meets the
minimum grain density constrain.
- Test for convergence, after making sure you have made at least one iteration.

Density methods
Algorithm for Porosity and saturation from Density
The effective porosity is calculated as:

"#$ % "&'() % *+, - ."#$ % /01+, 2

! =
"#$ % "345

Where: "&'() is the bulk density corrected for hydrocarbon

"345 is the density of water in flushed zone

"#$ is the density of clean matrix as defined in the parameter ‘Matrix density’
!"#$ is the density of wet shale, corresponding to the parameter RHOB_shale.
If shale porosity has not been entered as an input in the family selection window, then it is
computed:

&'() * !"#$
%#$ =
&'() * 1

Where: &'() is the density of dry shales and entered as a parameter ‘RHOB dry shale’ in the method
Clay bound water density is assumed to be 1.
Apparent matrix density is calculated as such:

&/ 01 * 2#$ 3 4 &#$ 2#$

&+,-. =
& 2
01 * 2#$ 3 4 #$ #$
&'()

Total porosity is derived from effective porosity and shale porosity as per equation below:

Schlumberger Public 8/18

 ! =" # + $%& ' %&

With: $%&" comes from Shale Volume input

%& has been either computed or come from shale porosity input

Computation Logic
The equations from legacy computation of porosity from Density were as follows:

The two main assumptions were that:

- Matrix density was uncorrected for shale.

- Dry shale density was considered to be equal to matrix density.

In the new Porosity and saturation from Density method, several corrections have been applied
to improve accuracy:

- Matrix density is corrected for shaliness.

- Density input is corrected for hydrocarbon only if required.
- Shale porosity is calculated from wet and dry shale density..
- No assumption made on the Sxo calculation used to run the HC correction.

Limits
There are several improvements that were introduced in the limits tab in the Porosity and
saturation methods.

Options for the Neutron Density methods

In the limits tab, there’s a switch to inform the algorithm whether to use a fixed hydrocarbon
density, or a variable one (Figure 5). This is how the program chooses between CORIBAND or
SARABAND type methodology.

Schlumberger Public 9/18

 Figure 5 - Switching between fixed or variable hydrocarbon density

CORIBAND:

This type of hydrocarbon correction is designed for complex lithologies. If hydrocarbon density in is
set to ‘fixed’, then the CORIBAND algorithm will be used. It will set hydrocarbon density and
calculate matrix density accordingly.

SARBAND:

When matrix density is assumed to be known, its range can be defined in the grain density cells.
This action will allow hydrocarbon density to vary through the hydrocarbon correction process. In
gas zones, it greatly improves the accuracy of the method.

The limits that will be declared for both the matrix density and the HC density will run the method
in a “CORIBAND type way” (HC density is considered fixed, grain density is calculated accordingly) or
in a “SARABAND type way” (HC density is considered variable, and limits are applied to the
calculated grain density).

- The HC correction is applied unless it tends to decrease the grain density.

- If the HC density is set to variable and if the calculated grain density is less than the
minimum limit, the HC density will be modified so that the calculated grain density falls
between the assigned limits.

In the cross plot below, the data is plotted with the corresponding chart. Its matrix is considered
known and defined by the user. Grain density is then constrained to a minimum. As a consequence,
any hydrocarbon corrected point ought to be displayed under input matrix density line. This means

Schlumberger Public 10/18

that if the point is above this line, a light hydrocarbon correction is applied. If the point plots below
the input matrix density line then the point is left as is which no correction applied.

Figure 5 below shows an example of a field which matrix is sandstone.

- The initial point, in red, is plotted in the cross plot

- Hydrocarbon correction is performed with the value of Hydrocarbon Density set in Invaded
zone tab. The projection displaces the point along a projection.
- If !" < 2.65#$/%&' , that is if the point is still above the chart, then the projection
continues up to the green line. In this case, grain density is equal to 2.65 $/%&' . The
hydrocarbon density is derived from this new point.
- If the corrected point falls inside the charts in the first place, then it is left as is.
Hydrocarbon density keeps its initial value set by the user in the limits tab.

Figure 6 - Hydrocarbon correction on Neu-Den cross plot

Shale Volume limit:

Whenever shale volume is greater than this limit, the fluid in place is considered to be water.
Therefore, no hydrocarbon correction is performed, and saturation is set to 1 by convention.

Constraint porosity:
Porosity for clean sandstone can be limited. This helps the computation whenever shale volume
gets high and porosity declines.

Schlumberger Public 11/18

Resistivity and Saturation logic
Available choices
The invaded zone tab allows the user to choose between several possibilities. Sxo can be computed
in three different ways regarding the inputs provided.

If both flushed zone resistivity and formation resistivity are available, the user can choose between
those four possibilities:

If Flushed zone resistivity is absent, the first choice disappears. The only choice will be to use Sw as
an input. If on the contrary formation resistivity is absent, the first choice is the only one available.

Program’s logic
Sxo is needed to run Hydrocarbon Correction. The accuracy of the computation will therefore impact
the results of the hydrocarbon corrected curves.

In legacy methods, Sxo was estimated from the Archie equations, and injected afterwards in the
Poupon Gaymard Hydrocarbon Correction. It was therefore only an estimate. In the Porosity and
saturation methods, Sxo is computed with the selected saturation equation (Archie, Indonesia,
Simandoux…). In addition, the program will compute saturations as a function of the user’s choice
and its own routine:

- If both resistivities are present (Rt and Rxo)

o Sw is computed from Rt
o Sxo is computed from Rt (empirical equations) or Rxo given the user’s choice
- If only formation resistivity (Rt) is present
o Sw is computed from Rt
o Sxo is computed from Rt (empirical equations)
- If only Flushed zone resistivity is available (Rxo)
o Sw is not computed
o Sxo is computed from Rxo
- If no resistivity is set as input, the module will not run.

Schlumberger Public 12/18

Improvements compared to legacy methods
Those methods bring many improvements compared to the first generation methods such as:

- One common skeleton:

o Neutron Density effective: TL 2011.2
o Neutron Density total: TL 2012.1
o Density effective and total: TL 2013.1
- An additional control on the process
o Results are not computed whenever the flag is set to no.
o Maximum porosity and Irreducible water constrains.
o Limits on computed matrix density (ND).
o When Flag is set to zero, no outputs computed.

- Improved shale correction (matrix density is corrected for shale content in the density
porosity methods)
o No more PHIE = PHIT – VSH * PHITsh.
o Neutron Density accounts for the shale effect on the tools.
o Density accounts for the shale effect on matrix density.
o New Sw/Sxo logic that allows proper calculation of Sw and Sxo.
o Selected saturation equation is used for both the HC loop and the final saturation
computation.
o Option for variable HC density in Neutron Density porosity methods.
o CORIBAND vs SARABAND: can be run with variable grain density and / or variable
HC density.

Schlumberger Public 13/18

Case study: Reservoir with oil and gas

Reservoir zones
The following well has five main zones. The first and last zone are very shaly, and are not considered
as reservoir formation. In the center, three regions can be distinguished:

- The upper reservoir zone with high resistivity (100->1300 ohm.m) and a large Neutron-
Density crossover. Medium resistivity is lower that deep resistivity. This zone contains gas,
hence the strong drop in neutron reading (Excavation effect). Shaly beds are visible, causing
the Neutron to approach the density.

- The middle reservoir zone still has high resistivity (~130 ohm.m), but the N-D crossover is
reduced and quite stable. This means that hydrocarbon are present with a higher neutron
reading: it contains oil.

- The lower reservoir zone reads the same neutron and density range. Resistivity curves are
however reversed, with deep resistivity dropping to a few ohm.m. This shows the presence
of saline water and invasion by a lower salinity mud filtrate.

Running the methods

The interpretation has been run on both effective porosity methods with Neutron-Density input

Inputs
Both method have the following inputs:

- Neutron NEU in v/v in Limestone units.

- Density DEN in g/cm3.
- Medium resistivity MEDR and Deep Resistivity RT_DUK in ohm.m.
- Shale volume VSH in v/v

Parameters
Shale density and neutron readings, Archie coefficients, Invasion factor and hydrocarbon
parameters are identical in both computations.

Schlumberger Public 14/18

Outputs
The method Porosity and saturation has been labelled new. The table below lists the significant
outputs to compare between methods:

Method Porosity and saturation Standalone porosity

Output
Total porosity PHIT_NDnew PHIT_ND
Effective porosity PHIE_NDnew PHIE_ND
Apparent matrix density RHOG – matrix shale corrected RHOMAA
RHGA – matrix including shale
Hydrocarbon corrected Neutron NEU_HCC_NDnew NEU_HCC
Hydrocarbon corrected Density DEN_HCC_NDnew DEN_HCC

Porosity and saturation method outputs two types of grain density. RHGA is the apparent matrix
density with shale minerals included in the rock. RHOG considers only matrix minerals, excluding
shales. It is the equivalent of RHOMAA.

Interpretation
A layout template has been created to facilitate the outputs’ reading. The results are displayed
below.

Water zone
Since the new method computes effective porosity first and derives total porosity from it, the best
way to compare them is to look at PHIE. Both curves are displayed on top of each other in the water
zone. It shows that the algorithms are consistent. Apparent matrix densities are also superimposed.

Schlumberger Public 15/18

 Figure 7 - Detail of the hydrocarbon corrected curves

The density input (in red) is strictly equal to the hydrocarbon corrected density RHOB_HCC_NDnew.
However, the hydrocarbon corrected density curve from the standalone method (RHOB_HCC) is
slightly shifted. The same can be observed on Neutron input.

As the new algorithm tests if hydrocarbon correction is needed, no correction is applied in the
water zone. In the standalone method, hydrocarbon correction is always applied.

All matrix densities are also consistent, with RHGA slightly above RHOG. This accounts for the
limited amount of shale minerals which has a density which is higher than sand density.

Finally, total porosity is nearly superimposed except in the zones where shale volume is a little more
significant. Since total porosity PHIT_NDnew is derived from effective porosity PHIE_NDnew and
takes into account shale porosity, it is higher in the shaly zones.

Schlumberger Public 16/18

 Figure 8 - Layout template of the outputs

Gas zone
The differences accentuate much in the gas zone. In the standalone method, hydrocarbon density is
fixed, even if it can be zoned. It can however be zoned provided the user knows which hydrocarbon
is present in the different sections, but it won’t be as efficient as the dynamic hydrocarbon
correction. This limitation causes the method to perform poorly in this case. Matrix density is
underestimated (2.5 instead of 2,65 g/cm3), and neutron reading is not corrected accurately.

In the Porosity and saturation method, RHOG, the matrix grain density, is set to the fixed value
2.65 g/cm3 in the whole gas zone. This comes from the limit tab where grain density has been
limited to 2.65 or above. This allows the algorithm to recompute the variable Hydrocarbon density.
In this case, it show the gas effect and take its low density into account.

Schlumberger Public 17/18

Oil zone
In the oil zone, effective porosity is larger (around 2%) with the new method than with the
standalone method. Hydrocarbon corrected inputs differ. This difference comes from the
calculation of Sxo which was simplified in legacy methods. Apparent grain density is still pretty
consistent in both cases but in some places, RHOG is once again fixed at 2.65 g/cm 3. At those
depths, the hydrocarbon corrected curves differ more between the two methods. The shale
corrections performed on the inputs in the new method can also be seen when shale volume peaks.

Conclusion

This document summarizes many of the improvements introduced by the methods of the
Porosity and saturation section. Many assumptions have been reworked to obtain better accuracy,
and the user has better control of the computation by adjusting parameters and limits.

Schlumberger Public 18/18