Journal of Applied Geophysics, 30 ( 1993 ) 215-228 215

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

The uses and abuses of the Archie equations,

1" The formation factor-porosity relationship

Paul F. Worthington
Consultant, Ascot, SL5 9HP, UK
(Received March 16, 1992; accepted June 9, 1992)

ABSTRACT

Worthington, P.F., 1993. The uses and abuses of the Archie equations, 1: The formation factor-porosity relationship. J.
Appl. Geophys., 30:215-228.

Model studies of the first Archie equation, which relates the formation resistivity factor and porosity specifically for
effectively clean (shale-free) porous media, have quantified the changes to this relationship caused by latent shale effects.
The scales of these departures correspond to the ranges reported by experimental investigators on the basis of empirical
studies of supposedly clean formations, for which some of the experimental data would actually be physically untenable.
Thus, many of the published versions of this equation do not, as is claimed, definitively relate porosity to an intrinsic
formation factor but merely to an apparent formation factor, which shows an incidental relationship to porosity that is
salinity-dependent and can even become inverted.
The primary implication of departures from clean conditions, illustrated using field data from reservoirs with varying
degrees of shaliness, is that the relationship between (apparent) formation factor and porosity can remain well defined
even though the numerical form changes significantly with variations in salinity. The inadvertent use of such an arbitrary
relationship to estimate formation factor from porosity can transmit errors of over 30 saturation units to the subsequent
determination of water (and thence hydrocarbon ) saturation.
On this basis, the "standard" practice of determining the form of the first Archie equation from measurements of"tbr-
marion factor" that use simulated formation water must be viewed with extreme caution. There is no guarantee that a
well-defined linear trend on a bilogarithmic scale actually reflects effectively clean conditions. This is contrary to conven-
tional thinking, which predicts a curvilinear trend where shale effects are manifest. Apart from the demonstrable effect on
the determination of hydrocarbon saturation, these observations also have a direct bearing on the concept of reservoir
zonation and on evaluation approaches that use the Archie exponent as an indicator of lithology, pore geometry, degree of
induration, or permeability.

Introduction tionship provided a vital means of estimating

The relationship between the electrical
properties of a reservoir rock and its intercon-
nected porosity has always been fundamental
to quantitative formation evaluation in the pe-
troleum industry. Prior to the development of
radiometric and sonic logging tools, this rela-
Correspondence to: Dr. P.F. Worthington, Consultant in
Reservoir Evaluation, Charfield House, Acot, Berkshire,
SL5 9HP, UK.
water-zone porosity from a downhole mea-
surement of an electrical parameter. More re-
cently this role has been reversed and the cur-
rent practice is to use porosity-tool response to
evaluate specified electrical parameters which
are than used in the determination of water
saturation. In this reverse mode the relation-
ship is applicable to both water and hydrocar-
bon zones.
Sundberg ( 1932 ) postulated a relationship
between interconnected porosity ~ and a "re-

0926-9851/93/$06.00 © 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.

216 P.F. WORTHINGTON

tOO0
sistivity factor", defined as the ratio of the re-
sistivity Ro of a fully-saturated granular reser-
voir rock to the resistivity Rw of the saturating
electrolyte. Archie (1942) presented strong
F= I
empirical evidence in support of this relation- ¥.7
ship but without reference to Sundberg. Archie
restyled the resistivity ratio as the "formation tO0

resistivity factor" or formation factor F be-

I
cause it did not vary with electrolyte salinity
and therefore was seen to be determined by
formation properties rather than by fluid char-
acteristics. Archie proposed that:
1
F = -¢m
- (1)

where m has been termed the "cementation

exponent" for the reservoir in question. Ar-
chie further noted that m = 2. It is Archie's ter-
minology that has been universally adopted.*
Equation ( 1 ) has been called the "first Archie
equation". Equation ( 1 ) has usually been es-
tablished through a regression analysis of an F
vs ~ bilogarithmic crossplot for a statistically
significant population of core data. An exam-
ple of such a plot is shown in Fig. 1, where the
value of m departs from the Archie specifica-
tion. If the sample population is representative
of a reservoir unit, and the degree of correla-
tion is high, the resulting value of m can be ap-
plied throughout that unit. I adopt the conven-
tion of a numerically positive m when the
gradient on a log F vs. log ~ crossplot is nega-
tive. Thus a "negative m" describes a positive
gradient.
Some recent investigators have preferred a
variable-m approach whereby a single-point m
is calculated from the equation:
log F
m. . . . (2)
log
Equation (2) is mathematically equivalent to
*In 1970, almost by way of a belated apology to Karl
Sundberg on behalf of the petrophysics community, the
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts reprinted Sund-
berg's original paper in their house journal The Log
Analyst.
0.01 0 1 10
Fig. 1. Bilogarithmic crossplot of formation factor vs po-
rosity for data from a North Sea field, with a regression
fit according to eq. ( 1 ): data from Hook (1983).
eq. ( 1 ) but it differs in that m is a definition
rather than the product of a regression analysis.
In establishing the empirical eq. ( 1 ) Archie
assumed that his suite of samples were effec-
tively clean, i.e. virtually free of clay minerals
or shale (these terms are used synonymously
here), and he used a high-salinity brine that
would suppress the electrical manifestation of
any minor shaly constituents. For these con-
ditions, eq. ( 1 ) has been supported theoreti-
cally but only for unconsolidated sands (Ac-
cerboni, 1970), a paradoxical situation in view
of the early physical interpretation of the ex-
ponent m. The term "cementation exponent"
has subsequently lost much of its credibility,
with later investigators preferring to interpret
m as a grain-shape (Jackson et al., 1978) and/
or pore-shape (Ransom, 1984) indicator.
Since 1942 the formation factor-porosity
relationship ha been confirmed empirically in
USES AND ABUSESOF ARCHIE EQUATIONS 217

numerous formations. However, in many cases mental conditions. Therefore, unless shale ef-
the reported equation has taken the form fects can be properly accounted for, no mean-
ingful assessment is possible of the other
a
F- (3) causative factors.
~b'n
This paper re-examines the formation fac-
where the coefficient a is regarded as a reser- tor-porosity relationship with particular ref-
voir constant that can depart from unity (Car- erence to the influence of clay-mineral content
upon the quantities a and m. The object is to
others, 1968; Porter and Carothers, 1970). Al-
identify in the context of shale effects possible
though eq. (3) does not satisfy the obvious
reasons for the marked variations in these pa-
boundary condition that F ~ 1 as ~ 1, it is ar-
rameters that have been reported in the litera-
gued to be an empirical relationship that is
valid only over the range of porosity repre- ture. It is hoped that this treatment will lead to
a better appreciation of the physical signifi-
sented by the data points. Thus the boundary
cance of this most fundamental interpretative
condition can be seen as irrelevant. On this ba-
equation.
sis eq. (3) has come to be regarded as a gener-
alised form of eq. ( 1 ).
The quantities a and m have been reported Model studies
to vary widely for different formations. The re-
ported ranges are exemplified in Table 1, which
is based upon separate compilations of differ- In order that a consistent analysis might be
ent investigators. A summary of the reasons for made of the influence of shaliness upon the pa-
such variations has been given by T i m u r et al. rameters a and m, an idealised petrophysical
model has been specified for a hypothetical
(1972) as follows: degree of cementation;
reservoir rock. In this way the related "data"
shape, sorting and packing of grains; type of
porosity; tortuosity; pressure; wettability of are free of observational errors and can be rep-
resented by exact functions.
rock surface; pore geometry; and clay content.
The last item is especially significant because
it directly infringes Archie's original experi- The model
TABLE1
(i) Formation samples are fully saturated
Reported ranges of the Archie exponent a and coefficient m with an NaCl-electrolyte of resistivity Rw
Lithology a m Investigator (s)
and maintained at a temperature of
25 °C.
Sandstones 0.47 -1.8 1.64-2.23 Hilland Milburn
(ii) Where the Archie assumptions are sat-
(1956)
0.62 -1.65 1.3 -2.15 Carothers(1968) isfied and the formation behaves as a
1.0 -4.0 0.57-1.85 Porter and Carothers clean sand, the ratio Ro/Rw defines the
(1970) intrinsic formation factor F, which is re-
0.48 -4.31 1.2 -2.21 Timuretal.(1972)
0.004-17.7 0.02-5.67 Gornez-Rivero lated to effective porosity ~ through eq.
(1976) (1).
(iii) Where the Archie assumptions are not
Carbonates 0.73 -2.3 1.64-2.10 Hill and Milburn
(1956)
satisfied and the formation does not be-
0.45 -1.25 1.78-2.38 Carothers (1968) have as a clean sand, the ratio Ro/Rw
0.33-78.0 0.39-2.63 Gornez-Rivero merely defines an apparent formation
(1976)
factor Fa, which varies with Rw and is
0.35 -0.8 1.7 -2.3 Schon (1983)
not related to porosity through eq. ( 1 ).
218
(iv) Where the formation shows shale ef-
fects, the quantities Fa and F are related
through the equation of Waxman and
Smits ( 1968):
Fa=Ro/Rw=F(I+BQvRw) -I (4)
where Q~ is the cation-exchange capac-
ity (CEC) per unit pore volume of the
rock in units of equiv litre- l, an electri-
cal measure of shaliness, and B is the
equivalent conductance of (sodium)
clay-exchange cations expressed (Wax-
man and Thomas, 1974) as a function
of Rw by the equation:
B=3.83[1-O.83exp(-O.5/Rw)] (5)
The units of B are mho m - ~litre equiv- l
so that the product BQ~has units of con-
ductivity. The composite term BQJF is
sometimes called the excess conductiv-
ity of the rock, because it represents the
effects of surface conduction, primarily
due to clay minerals, which imparts to
the rock a conductivity over and above
that due to bulk electrolytic conduction
within the free pore space.
(v) The formation shows a porosity range of
0.035-0.35.
(vi) The quantity Qv varies with porosity ac-
cording to the equation:
log Q~ = - 3 . 5 6 - 2.74 log 0 (6)
Equation (6) was established through
the realistic specifications that
Qv=0.005, 1.0 equiv litre -1 when
0=0.35, 0.05, respectively. The postu-
late of an inverse relationship between
Q~ and 0 would be valid even for a con-
stant cation exchange capacity within the
hypothetical reservoir since the refer-
ence of CEC to porosity within Q~ means
that Q~ would still increase as 0 de-
creased. Equation (6) is broadly com-
patible with reported data trends (Lav-
ers et al., 1974; Juhasz, 1979; Hook,
1983).
P.F. WORTHINGTON
Computations
Values of F and Qv have been calculated for
each of 14 logarithmically-incremental levels of
effective porosity over the stated range of 0,
through eqs. ( 1 ) and (6), respectively. The re-
suiting formation factors vary from 8.16 at high
porosity to 816 at the lower limit of 0. The
quantity Qv occupies the range 0.005-2.69
equiv litre- ~. Thus, in accordance with the de-
scriptive classification of Waxman and Smits
( 1968 ), the hypothetical formation is clean at
high porosities and very shaly (high clay-min-
eral content) at low porosities. It is therefore
ideal for studying the effect of shaliness upon
the formation factor-porosity relationship.
For each pair of values o f F and Q~ the ratio
Ro/Rw has been computed for each of seven
selected values of electrolyte resistivity within
the range 0 . 0 5 < R w < 5 . 0 0 m . This range
broadly corresponds to that adopted by Wax-
man and Smits (1968). From earlier com-
ments it might be expected that the ratio Ro/
Rw will correspond to F at high porosities where
Qv is small, but will represent merely an appar-
ent formation factor F~ at low porosities where
high Q~ values are indicative of shaly
conditions.
These expectations are validated in Fig. 2,
which compares the bilogarithmic plot o f F vs
0 with those of Ro/Rw vs 0 for three specified
levels of Rw in accordance with our model. It
is apparent that all four plots converge at higher
porosities. This means, in this case, that pro-
vided Rw < 5 I2rn, the hypothetical formation
will be satisfactorily represented at high poros-
ities (i.e. greater than about 0.2) by the
equation:
Ro 1
Rw - 0 2 (7)
Equation (7) defines a "clean-sand line", of
gradient 2, on the bilogarithmic plot of Fig. 2.
As porosity is decreased the Ro/Rw curves de-
part from the clean-sand line: the ratio Ro/Rw
now represents an apparent formation factor
USES AND ABUSES OF ARCHIE EQUATIONS 219

Qv
1000
° e0,,ro'
O.05(~m F vs 0

0.5C~m ! 10

100-

t
5.0/~m
\
0
12O" 01 I z, 'o;
2

uS
Fig. 3, Variation ofFa/Fwith Rwfor four specified values
10- of Qv (in equiv litre- ~), according to the hypothetical pe-
\ trophysical model.
\
\\
\
\
\ 20
xx
\
\
\
x
\
I 1
0.01 011 10

Fig. 2. Bilogarithmic plots of (i) F vs ~ and (ii) Ro/R, vs

1.0
¢~for three specified values of Rw (in ~2m), according to
the hypothetical petrophysical model.

Fa. The departures are greater for higher val-

ues of Rw. Furthermore, the curves are evi-
dently not monotonic. The variable gradient of
an Fa vs ~ bilogarithmic plot is here designated 0.0

ma. This quantity is equal to m only where ef-

fectively clean conditions prevail, i.e. on the
clean-sand line which, for our particular model,
is attained only at higher porosities.
The features of Fig. 2 can be more fully ap-
~1.0
preciated by reference to Fig. 3 which provides 0.01
I
0.1
q
1.0
a graphical representation of eq. (4). This chart
depicts four plots of the ratio Fa/F as ordinate q l l l I
against Rw as abscissa, each of which corre- 100 I 0 01 001 0001

sponds to a specified Qv. When Fa/F<< 1 the Qv (equiv litre ~)

formation shows shale effects. For practical Fig. 4. Variation of apparent Archie exponent rna With
purposes the limiting requirement for clean and Qv for Rw = 5.012m, according to the hypothetical pe-
trophysical model.
conditions might be specified as Fa/F> 0.90.
Figure 3 primarily illustrates that for a given
Q , the manifestation of shale effects is con- is determined by Qv. Using these complemen-
trolled by Rw. This observation complements tary figures it is possible to ascertain whether
Fig. 2 which principally indicated that for a any given pair of values of Rw and Qv will give
constant Rw, the manifestation of shale effects rise to shale effects in the electrical sense. These
220
oo c1 lO
Fig. 5. Variation of apparent Archie exponent m~ with Rw
for 0= 0.085 and Qv= 0.24 equiv litre- ~, according to the
hypothetical petrophysical model.
comments do, of course, relate specifically to
conditions of full water saturation.
Thus far, it is apparent that the quantity m~
can assume both positive and negative values
that correspond to negative and positive gra-
dients, respectively, in Fig. 2. The variation of
analytically-determined values of m~ with ef-
fective porosity, and therefore (for this model)
with Q~, is shown in Fig. 4 for the particular
value ofRw= 5 ~ n . It can be seen that m~ var-
ies from - 0 . 8 to 1.94 for the adopted range of
O and that m~ = 0 when ~ = 0.061, the so-called
iso-conductance point at which the resistivity
of the fully-electrolyte-saturated (model) po-
rous system is equal to that of the saturating
electrolyte (e.g. Sauer et al., 1955). Figure 5
depicts the variation of ma with Rw for the
specified porosity of q~=0.085 which, through
our model, corresponds to Q~=0.24 equiv
litre- 1. It is apparent that m~ varies from 0.57
to 1.89 over the range 0.05 <R5 E2rn and, for
this example, will not attain negative values
until Rw attains some value above 10 g2m.
Discussion
Previous illustrations of hypothetical F~ vs
plots have taken the form of monotonic curves,
which progressively depart from an appropri-
ate form of the Archie relationship as Rw is in-
creased (e.g. Patchett and Rausch, 1967; Bus-
sian, 1983 ). However, by specifying Q~ to be a
realistic function of porosity, Fa vs 0 plots have
been generated which pass through a maxi-
mum at some low value of ~ determined by the
P.F. wORTHINGTON
exact form of this function and by the resistiv-
ity of the fully saturating electrolyte. This phe-
nomenon is not an analytical artefact. Indeed,
the same pattern emerges using alternative
forms of the Q~ vs ~ relationship, e.g.:
t30
Qv=~-q (8)
when p and q are reservoir constants (Juhasz,
1981).
The following physical explanation of Fig. 2
relates to a fixed value of Rw. For sufficiently
high porosities and therefore, according to our
model, sufficiently low values of Q~, the plot of
Ro/Rw conforms to the Archie relationship to
within the specified tolerance f 10%. As q~de-
creases and Q~ increases, shale effects become
increasingly significant and the ratio Ro/Rw
gradually departs from its asymptotic clean-
sand level (F). As these departures increase,
the negative gradient becomes shallower. Dur-
ing this phase the predominant influence upon
Fa is still the clean-sand term ofeq. (4). While
these conditions prevail, the gradient remains
negative. However, at some sufficiently low
porosity, and therefore sufficiently high Qv, the
shale term starts to predominate. This causes
the gradient to become even shallower and then
to reverse. In the region of positive gradient the
conductivity is associated primarily with the
ionic double layer at the mineral-electrolyte
contact rather than with the free electrolyte of
resistivity Rw. The amount of conduction
through the clay-exchange counterions in the
double layer is a function of Q~. As Q~ in-
creases the double-layer conductivity in-
creases and this manifests itself as a reduction
in Ro. Because this effect now predominates
over the opposing consequence of a decreasing
and thence an increasing F giving rise to a
higher formation resistivity, the overall effect
is to reduce Fa.
With the exception of the negative values of
ma, which are given separate consideration, the
range of ma (Figs. 4 and 5) is consistent with
the range of values of " m " compiled by other
USES AND ABUSES OF ARCHIE EQUATIONS
investigators (Table 1 ) notwithstanding the
cut-off at m = 2 imposed by the idealised pe-
trophysical model. Since the theoretical lower
limit of m is unity for a minimum-tortuosity
system of parallel capillaries, and since both ma
and reported values o f m (Table 1 ) have taken
values less than unity, this raises the obvious
question as to what extent those reportedly low
m-values reflect shale effects that were not re-
cognised at the time. In this respect it is worth
noting that formation samples for which
Q,,>0.5 equiv litre-l might never behave as
electrically clean under ambient conditions.
Even when saturated with an electrolyte of sal-
inity in excess of 250,000 ppm (Rw=0.04 £2m
at 25 °C) there can still be insufficient ions in
the free pore water to suppress the ionic dou-
ble-layer conduction at the mineral surface (cf.
Fig. 3). It is also worth noting that if Qv=0.1
equiv litre -~, effectively clean conditions can
only be assured at 25°C ifRw<0.1 g-2m (cf. Fig.
3 ). Thus, even for such a slightly shaly forma-
tion, insignificant shale effects can only be pre-
sumed if the NaC1 salinity is greater than
70,000 ppm. In the light of these examples it is
perhaps inevitable that the widespread prac-
tice of using simulated formation water for the
laboratory measurement of "formation fac-
tor" has given rise to departures from Archie's
conditions and that these are reflected to some
extent in Table 1. The implications of these de-
partures will be examined later in the context
of real data.
Negative values o f " m " reported for low-po-
rosity sands have been attributed to fracturing
(Gomez-Rivero, 1977, 1980). However, Fig.
2 indicates that negative values of m~ can be
generated for low porosity, shaly sands with-
out introducing fractures. In the light of the
earlier comment that m-- 1 for a parallel cap-
illary model, it is possible that the reportedly
negative values of " m " are, in fact, apparent
quantities m~ and are therefore caused by shale
effects. It is presumably coincidental that they
have been identified with fracturing since tight
formations with low ~ and high Q~ would not
221
normally be subjected to a detailed petrophys-
ical evaluation unless secondary permeability
was present. These observations are supported
by theoretical studies of a cubic fracture model
which predicts that m > l . 1 (Towle, 1962;
Aguilera, 1974), by the modelling of conduc-
tor networks which furnished m-~ 2 (Green-
berg and Brace, 1969 ), and by the verification
of Archie's law for fractured systems (Brace et
al., 1965) and for intergranular porosities as
low as 0.001 (Brace and Orange, 1968).
Field studies
Figure 2 has illustrated that an Fa vs ~ plot
shows progressively greater departures from
the F vs ~ (clean-sand) relationship as Rw in-
creases. When using idealized data that repre-
sent wide ranges of ~ and Q~,and that can be
described exactly by simple functions, it is easy
to diagnose the electrical behaviour of a given
reservoir from single-salinity measurements of
Ro/Rw. However, in a real situation the ranges
of ~ and Qv are comparatively low, significant
observational errors are associated with the ra-
tio Ro/Rw, and F and Qv are not exact func-
tions of ~ because of lithological and pore-ge-
ometry effects. Under these conditions it can
be extremely difficult to decide whether a given
bilogarithmic plot of Ro/Rw vs ~ conforms to
a truly linear trend as per the Archie equation
or whether the scatter of data points is con-
cealing a gentle curve induced by shale effects.
The implications of this ambiguity are now ex-
amined with reference to selected field
examples.
Example I
Figure 6a depicts the variation of intrinsic
formation factor F with porosity for 31 sam-
ples of diverse sandstones from England and
Saudi Arabia. Values of F have been calculated
from multiple-salinity determinations of F,
(Zaafran, 1981 ) through eq. (4). Regression
analysis has furnished the relationship:
222 P.F. WORTHINGTON

100 50- Rw = 0.18~m is shown in Fig. 6c. Regression analysis has

furnished the expression:
50- 0.93
Fa--01.51 (12)
F Fa
"L
and a correlation coefficient of -0.93. Again,
10-
this is marginally better than that for the F vs.
e, • correlation.
10 5 Figure 6d depicts the plot of Fa vs ~ for
01 0'.s 01 o'5 Rw= 4.5 g?m. It is evident that there is no well-
a) *~ b) *
defined relationship between F~ and ~ at this
50- 10-
electrolyte resistivity.
R w = 1.50[~.m R w = 4.50 A m

• Example 2
5-
° o e** •

Figure 7a shows the variation of F with q~ for

Fa Fa
15 samples of shaly sandstone of the (Eocene)
10- lower Wilcox sand, Sheridan, Texas, as re-
II
ported by Waxman and Smits ( 1968 ). As with
Example 1, the values of F have been calcu-
5-
01 01s
1¸
01 015 lated from multiple-salinity measurements of
¢ -----~ 0 > conductivity. The data can be represented by
c) d)
the equation:
Fig. 6. Plots o f ( a ) F v s 0 a n d ( b ) - ( d ) F , vs 0, for sand-
stones from England a n d Saudi Arabia ( d a t a from Zaaf- 0.5
ran, 1981). F:--02.31 (13)

and they show a correlation coefficient of

1.04 -0.99.
F=~2.,--5 (9)
The relationship between Q~ and 0 has taken
with log F and log ~ showing a correlation coef- the form:
ficient of - 0 . 9 2 . The relationship of Qv to 0 log Q~= - 2 . 9 6 - 2 . 7 5 log ~ (14)
has taken the form
with a correlation coefficient of -0.87.
log Qv= - 0 . 6 7 - 0 . 8 8 log 0 (10) Figure 7b depicts an Fa vs ~ plot for Rw = 0.12
g2rn. Regression analysis has resulted in the
with a correlation coefficient of - 0.49.
expression:
Figure 6b shows the variation of F~ with 0
for Rw = 0.18 g2m. The data can be represented 0.59
by the equation: Fa--0zl6 (15)

1.11 with a correlation coefficient of - 0 . 9 9 .

Fa-ol.81 (11) Figure 7c shows the Fa vs 0 plot for Rw=0.47
12m. The data can be represented by the
and show a correlation coefficient of - 0 . 9 4 , equation:
which is numerically greater than that for the
F vs ¢ plot. 0.87
Fa--q~l.89 (16)
The variation of F~ with 0 for Rw= 1.5 g2m
USESAND ABUSESOF ARCHIEEQUATIONS 223

100- 100- Rw = 0 . 1 2 ~ m 100-

Rw =0.47A m

50- 50- 50-

f
F
•%
• m
t
Fa ,%°
t
Fa
% #•

10- 1 10 5"
o.1 0.2 o.1 o'.~ o.~ o's
a) ~ > b) ~~ c) o

Fig. 7. Plots of (a) F v s 0 and (b), (c) Fa vs ¢, for Eocene sandstones from Texas (data from Waxman and Smits, 1968).

with a correlation coefficient of - 0.97. (Triassic) Sherwood Sandstone aquifer of

northwest England. This formation has been
Example 3 reported to be only slightly shaly with a range
of clay content from 0.5-5.2% by weight
The plots of Fig. 8 relate to data from the (Worthington, 1977b). Analysis of multiple-
salinity data for some 350 core samples (Wor-
thington, 1976 ) has resulted in the following F
vs O relationship:
1.1
30-~ " F= ~.161 F--01.61 (17)

By assuming that the Waxman-Smits equa-

tion applies to this formation it can be further
shown through the manipulation of published
relationships (Worthington, 1976) that the
expression relating Qv and 0 takes the form:
lo- B--'ff"~'s'la,
log Qv= - 3 . 5 4 - 2 . 8 5 log ~ ( 18 )
olo %'% \ This expression is similar to eq. ( 6 ) which was
established on the basis of data from elsewhere.
5- 2
It is interesting to compare eq. (17) with
o,/o i those established for individual well sites
~, "-o1~,o
~-O 3 within the study area. For populations of at
least 13 data points (Table 2) the ranges of the
3
0.1
n
0.3 01.5
Archie coefficient and exponent are, respec-
tively, 0 . 2 6 < a < 1.62 and 1.30< m<2.30.
Figure 8 compares the graphical representa-
Fig. 8. Comparisonof F vs ~ relationshipwith plots of F~
vs 0 for values of Rw of (1) 3.8, (2) 7.0, and (3) 13.5 tion ofeq. ( 17 ) with F, vs q~plots for Rw= 3.8,
Qm, for Triassicsandstonesfrom northwestEngland (data 7.0 and 13.5 g2rrl (Worthington, 1977a). Be-
from Worthington, 1977a). cause the samples are only slightly shaly, higher
224 P.F. WORTHINGTON

TABLE 2 There are, however, significant changes in the

Values of a and m for core samples of Sherwood Sandstone
quantities "a" and " m " with Rw for each of
from seven well sites in northwest England Examples 1 and 2. This variation is a conse-
quence of shale effects and it has been ob-
Well No. of a m Correlation
served even for the slightly shaly formation of
samples coefficient
Example 3 with Rw sufficiently high.
1 13 0.66__+0.20 1.81__+0.20 -0.94 A plot of Fa vs ~ might therefore be mistak-
2 26 1.04-+0.21 1.50__+0.12 -0.93
3 14 1.61 -+0.80 1.30__+0.31 -0.78 enly interpreted as an F vs ~ trend. In earlier
4 14 1.62-+0.60 1.41__+0.21 -0.89 years when eq. (3) was applied in the "for-
5 22 0.53-+0.26 1.99__+0.39 -0.77 ward mode", i.e. with F being used to predict
6 16 1.29__+0.46 1.44__+0.46 -0.89
7 13 0.26_+0.15 2.30__+0.33 -0.89
in the water zone, the unwitting deployment
of an Fa vs ~ relationship made little difference
provided that Rw was constant and that the
water resistivities are needed for shale effects correlation remained strong. In that case the
to be manifest. In this aquifer, typical ground- use of F~ in conjunction with pseudo-values of
water resistivities are 20 £2rn (Worthington, "a" and " m " was virtually self-compensating
1972 ). Each data point in Fig. 8 represents an and the predicted ~ was therefore no less use-
average for samples whose porosity lies within ful. However, the current practice of using eq.
a specified incremental range. Because poros- (3) in the "reverse mode", whereby ~ deter-
ity is broadly related to Qv, this approach has mined from porosity-tool response is used as
the effect of ordering the influence of Qv upon input to estimate F, can be invalidated if "a"
Fa. This, in turn, renders the manifestation of and " m " have not been determined for effec-
shale effects more systematic and thereby tively clean conditions. In many cases "a" and
makes it easier to identify data trends. This ap- " m " are calculated from a formation factor-
proach to data refinement has been adopted by porosity plot based upon core analysis involv-
other investigators to good effect (e.g. Caroth- ing a single determination of Ro at full satura-
ers, 1968). tion with simulated formation water of resis-
Figure 8 clearly shows the progressive tivity Rw. It has already been demonstrated that
emergence of a non-monotonic relationship an experimental approach of this kind can fur-
between F~ and 0 as Rw is increased. This is nish merely an F~ vs 0 relationship which, in
particularly interesting because the formation turn, provides estimated values of F, from
is only slightly shaly. Indeed, according to eq. measured porosities. These values of F, might
(18), Q,<0.15 equiv litre -1 for the entire then be used inadvertently as intrinsic forma-
range of porosity represented in Fig. 8. Since it tion factors in subsequent determinations of
is apparent that the linear trend is breaking water saturation Sw, a substitution that can give
down, no regression analysis has been made of rise to substantial error.
the Fa vs 0 plots. As an illustration of the potential pitfalls as-
sociated with this practice, Tables 3 and 4 draw
Discussion upon the results of Examples 1 and 2, respec-
tively, to compare Sw values calculated by us-
The preceding examples show that a bilogar- ing an F v s ~ equation correctly on the one hand
ithmic plot of apparent formation factor and an F~ vs ~ relationship "inadvertently" on
against porosity for sandstone samples can ap- the other. In each case the formation water re-
pear linear with a correlation coefficient which sistivity is assumed to be that to which the Fa
for all practical purposes is numerically as high values relate. In the "belief" that clean condi-
as those for corresponding F vs 0 correlations. tions prevail, the formation factors are input
USES AND ABUSESOF ARCHIE EQUATIONS 225

TABLE3 100-
Example 1 (Zaafran, 1981)
Example2 (Waxman & Smits, 1968)
Influence of latent shale effects upon the predicted water sat-
I ....
uration Swa obtained using Fa with Rw= 1.50m from eq. (12)
relative to the reference water saturation Sw obtained using
80-
the intrinsic eq. (9), from Example 1

Input Parameters Intrinsic System Apparent System

0 Rt 1.04 Sw 0.93 Swa • 60-

(.Qm) F ' - - ¢ 2.13 F a = ~ TM

0.1 585 140 0.6 30.1 0.28

r
0.2 134 32.1 0.6 10.6 0.34 ~,
0.3 56 13.5 0.6 5.7 0.39 =g 40-
g

TABLE 4

Influence of latent shale effects upon the predicted water sat- 20-

i---J
uration Swa obtained using Fa with R,---0.47 g2m from eq.
(16) relative to the reference water saturation Sw obtained
using the intrinsic eq. (13), from Example 2 I .... ]
I
Input Intrinsic Apparent ,
Parameters System System 000 0.03 0.06 0.125 0.25 0.5 1.0 20
Qv ( equiv litre 1 )

0 R, 0.5 Sw 0.87 Swa

(~n) F=(~2.3~ Fa=¢1.89 Fig. 9. Comparison of ranges of Qv for data of Examples 1
and 2.
0.1 133 102 0.6 67.5 0.49
0.2 27 20.6 0.6 18.2 0.56
0.3 11 8.1 0.6 8.5 0.61 erally decreases as porosity increases. This, too,
is a consequence of shale effects since Qv de-
creases as ¢ increases. Note that these dispari-
into the basic (second) Archie equation for ties would have been greater if we had fol-
partially saturated conditions, namely: lowed the practice of allowing n to assume the
=[FR,~] '/" value o f " m " in the prediction of Sw.
Sw L R, d (19) Figure 8 has provided further evidence for a
gradient reversal in Fa vs ¢ plots as was pre-
where n is the saturation exponent. For sim- dicted from the model studies. This trend
plicity R, has been specified to yield Sw= 0.60 might have been especially difficult to recog-
when the intrinsic formation factor is used with nize had these data not been refined, because
the conventional exponent of n = 2. they do not include low porosities which would
It can be seen from Example 1 in Table 3 that presumably correspond to high Q~ values that
the use of an Fa vs ¢ relationship for Rw= 1.5 would have emphasized the negative gradient.
g-2m renders the resulting values of Sw ex- For this same reason high values of Rw have
tremely optimistic. In contrast Example 2 been used in order to accentuate the manifes-
(Table 4) shows a much better agreement for tation of shale effects. Since all these samples
Rw=0.47 g2m. This is a consequence of the were unfractured, the postulate of a fractured
lower electrolyte resistivity and of the lower m e d i u m in order to explain negative values of
range of values ofQv (cf. Fig. 9 ), both of which " m " is again seen to be unnecessary.
lead to reduced shale effects. Tables 3 and 4 There is considerable overlap between the
show that the disparity between Sw values gen- ranges of m and ma reported here. Although
226
Table 2 indicates that the quantity m can vary
significantly for different sample populations
from the same formation, this intrinsic varia-
tion might be confused with that in ma which
is due to shale effects. For this reason the pres-
ence of significant shale effects might go un-
recognized. Clearly, in any correlation exercise
where m is to be interpreted quantitatively in
terms of the degree of cementation (Archie,
1942; Keller and Frischknecht, 1966), grain
shape (Atkins and Smith, 1961; Jackson et al.,
1978), porosity (Sethi, 1979), permeability
(Raiga-Clemenceau, 1977) and tortuosity
(Jackson et al., 1978), any influence of shale
effects must be eliminated for if it is not, " m "
becomes a function of salinity (Fig. 5 ).
The r e c o m m e n d e d procedure for deciding
whether a particular formation has to be
treated as shaly in an electrical sense is the
multiple-salinity determination of excess con-
ductivity (BQJF) using preserved core. Reli-
able values of excess conductivity can then be
used to estimate shale effects using a chart such
as Fig. 3. This estimate will relate specifically
to the water zone. Extension to the hydrocar-
bon zone follows directly (Worthington,
1982).
On a cautionary note, comparison of eq.
( 17 ) with Table 2 suggests that some of the re-
ported variations of a and m might be due
solely to a non-representative sample popula-
tion. It is, however, noteworthy that this same
comparison reveals site-specific values of rn
that are never less than the theoretical value of
m proposed by Accerboni (1970) for uncon-
solidated media. This is in contrast to Table 1,
which incorporates values of m that are even
below the physically-tenable lower limit of
unity.
Conclusions
The relationship between formation resis-
tivity factor F and interconnected porosity ~ is
most fundamental to formation evaluation.
The mathematical expression, the so-called
P.F. WORTHINGTON
first Archie equation, is valid only for effec-
tively clean (i.e. effectively shale-free) forma-
tions and has usually taken the general form of
eq. (3). Widely varying values of a and m have
been reported in the technical literature. Some
of these are physically untenable and this sug-
gests that the basic assumption of clean condi-
tions has not always been satisfied.
A realistic petrophysical model has been de-
signed for a hypothetical reservoir rock in or-
der to investigate the effect of shaliness upon
the first Archie equation. Guided by the tech-
nical literature, this model separately specifies
that ~ is an exact function of F o n the one hand
and Qv, the cation exchange capacity per unit
pore volume, on the other. The quantity Q~ is
an electrical measure of shaliness. Considera-
ble variations in "a" and " m " can be gener-
ated solely by taking account of shale effects.
These ranges correspond to those reported by
other investigators on the basis of empirical
studies. The variation in " m " extends below
the theoretical m i n i m u m of unity for a clean
sand. This finding supports the belief that
many of the published empirical equations do
not definitively relate porosity to an intrinsic
formation factor F but merely to an apparent
quantity Fa which shows an arbitrary relation-
ship to porosity.
The implications of these departures from
clean conditions have been illustrated for data
from three groups of reservoirs with widely
varying degrees of shaliness. In these cases the
Fa vs ~ relationship can remain well-defined
but the associated values of "a" and " m " are
not definitive in that they vary with electrolyte
salinity. The "inadvertent" use of such a rela-
tionship to estimate " F " from ~ can result in
erratic errors of over 100% when this value of
" F " is used in the subsequent determination
of water saturation.
On this basis the standard practice of deter-
mining a and m from service measurements of
porosity and "formation factor" using simu-
lated formation water must be viewed with
caution. There is no guarantee that any result-
USES AND ABUSES OF ARCHIE EQUATIONS
ing relationship is independent of shale effects.
This independence can only be verified by
more extensive measurements preferably in the
form of multiple-salinity determinations of
formation factor.
Attempts to use the quantity m as an indi-
cator of lithology or pore geometry strictly re-
quire that this parameter be intrinsic. These
exercises are futile if "m" has been obtained
from an Favs q~plot and can therefore vary with
electrolyte composition.
In particular, it has been proposed by others
that negative values of "m" serve to indicate
fracturing. However, data from both field and
model studies have shown that negative "m-
values" can be encountered for unfractured
formations when high shale effects prevail. It
is considered much more likely that it is inter-
granular shale effects which have caused these
reportedly negative quantities and that the for-
mations in question just happened to show a
predominantly secondary permeability.
It has been demonstrated that a failure to re-
cognise and compensate for shale effects upon
the first Archie equation can result in a misuse
of petrophysical parameters which can, in turn,
lead to a gross misinterpretation of reservoir
characteristics. The key to improvement lies in
a greater understanding of the underlying rock
physics. This objective seeks to remove the
empiricism that has formed the cornerstone of
reservoir evaluation over the past 50 years.
These comments apply equally to the second
Archie equation which will be considered in a
subsequent paper.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on presentations by the
author to various chapters of the Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts over the past
few years. It also formed part of the author's
annual presentation to the London student
section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
during the 1980s. The author acknowledges BP
227
Research for their support in bringing this for-
mulation of ideas to fruition.
References
Accerboni, E., 1970. Sur la correlation existant entre po-
rosit6 et facteur de formation dans les sediments non
consolidrs. Geophys. Prospect., 18:505-515.
Aguilera, R., 1974. Analysis of naturally fractured reser-
voirs from sonic and resistivity logs. J. Pet. Tech., 26:
764-772.
Archie, G.E., 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid
in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans.
AIME, 146: 54-62.
Atkins, E.R. and Smith, G.H., 1961. The significance of
particle shape in formation resistivity factor-porosity
relationships. J. Pet. Tech., 13: 285-291.
Brace, W.F. and Orange, A.S., 1968. Further studies of
the effects of pressure on electrical resistivity of rocks.
J. Geophys. Res., 73: 5407-5420.
Brace, W.F., Orange, A.S. and Madden, T.R., 1965. The
effect of pressure on the electrical resistivity of water-
saturated crystalline rocks. J. Geophys. Res., 70, 5669-
5678.
Bussian, A.E., 1983. Electrical conductance in a porous
medium. Geophysics, 48:1258-1268.
Carothers, J.E., 1968. A statistical study of the formation
factor relation. Log Anal., 9 (5): 13-20.
Gomez-Rivero, O., 1977. Some considerations about the
possible use of the parameters a and m as a formation
evaluation tool through well logs. Trans. SPWLA 18th
Ann. Logging Symp., pp. J 1-24.
Gomez-Rivero, O. and Tovar, V.M., 1980. Comporta-
miento electrico de rocas de baja a muy baja porosi-
dad. Pet. Int., 134: 53-56.
Greenberg, R.J. and Brace, W.F., 1969. Archie's law for
rocks modelled by simple networks. J. Geophys. Res.,
74: 2099-2102.
Hill, H.J. and Milburn, J.D., 1956. Effect of clay and water
salinity on electrochemical behaviour of reservoir
rocks. Trans. AIME, 207: 65-72.
Hook, J.R., 1983. The precision of core analysis data and
some implications for reservoir evaluation. Trans.
SPWLA 24th Ann. Logging Syrup., pp. Y 1-18.
Jackson, P.D., Taylor-Smith, D. and Stanford, P.N., 1978.
Resistivity-porosity-particle shape relationships for
marine sands. Geophysics, 43:1250-1268.
Juhasz, I., 1979. The central role of Qv and formation-
water salinity in the evaluation of shaly formations.
Trans. SPWLA 20th Ann. Logging Syrup., pp. AA 1-
26.
Juhasz, I., 1981. Normalised Qv--the key to shaly sand
evaluation using the Waxrnan-Smits equation in the
absence of core data. Trans. SPWLA 22nd Ann. Log-
ging Symp., pp. Z 1-36.
228
Keller, G.V. and Frischknecht, F.C., 1966. Electrical
Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. Pergamon, Ox-
ford, 517 pp.
Lavers, B.A., Smits, L.J.M. and van Baaren, C., 1974.
Some fundamental problems of formation evaluation
in the North Sea. Trans. 3rd Eur. Formation Evalua-
tion Symp., SPWLA London Chapter, Pap. G,
Patchett, J.G. and Rausch, R.W., 1967. An approach to
determining water saturation in shaly sands. J. Pet.
Tech., 19: 1395-1402.
Porter, C.R. and Carothers, J.E., 1970. Formation factor-
porosity relation derived from well log data. Trans.
SPWLA 11 th Ann. Logging Syrup., pp. A 1- 19.
Raiga-Clemenceau, J., 1977. The cementation exponent
in the formation factor-porosity relation: the effect of
permeability. Trans. SPWLA 18th Ann. Logging
Syrup., pp. R 1-13.
Ransom, R.C., 1984. A contribution towards a better un-
derstanding of the modified Archie formation resistiv-
ity factor relationship. Log Anal., 25 (2): 7-12.
Sauer, M.C., Jr., Southwick, P.F., Spiegler, K.S. and Wyl-
lie, M.R.J., 1955. Electrical conductance of porous
plugs-ion exchange resin-solution systems. Ind. Eng.
Chem., 47:2187-2193.
Schon, J., 1983. Petrophysik. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin,
405 pp.
Sethi, D.K., 1979. Some considerations about the forma-
tion resistivity factor-porosity relations. Trans.
SPWLA 20th Ann. Logging Syrup., pp. L 1-12.
Sundberg, K., 1932. Effect of impregnating waters on
electrical conductivity of soils and rocks. Trans. AIME
97: 367-391.
Timur, A., Hemkins, W.B. and Worthington, A.E., 1972.
P.F. WORTHINGTON
Porosity and pressure dependence of formation resis-
tivity factor for sandstones. Trans. CWLS 4th Forma-
tion Evaluation Syrup., 30 pp.
Towle, G., 1962. An analysis of the formation resistivity
factor-porosity relationship of some assumed pore ge-
ometries. Trans. SPWLA 3rd Ann. Logging Symp., Pap.
3.
Waxman, M.H. and Stairs, L.J.M., 1968. Electrical con-
ductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands. Soc. Pet. Eng. J.,
8: 107-122.
Waxman, M.H. and Thomas, E.C., 1974. Electrical con-
ductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands: I. The relation
between hydrocarbon saturation and resistivity index.
II. The temperature coefficient of electrical conductiv-
ity. Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 14: 213-225.
Worthington, P.F., 1972. The use of resistivity logging to
estimate borehole yield from a matrix-conducting
sandstone. Q. J. Eng. Geol., 4: 263-279.
Worthington, P.F., 1976. Hydrogeophysical properties of
parts of the British Trias. Geophys. Prospect., 24: 672-
695.
Worthington, P.F., 1977a. Influence of matrix conduc-
tion upon hydrogeophysical relationships in arena-
ceous aquifers. Water Resour. Res., 13: 87-92.
Worthington, P.F., 1977b. Reply to discussion by W.E.
Kelly. Water Resour. Res., 13:1024.
Worthington, P.F., 1982. The influence of shale effects
upon the electrical resistivity of reservoir rocks. Geo-
phys. Prospect., 30: 673-687.
Zaafran, Z.M., 1981. Studying the effect of sandstone an-
isotropy on the quantitative interpretation of resistiv-
ity sounding and logging. Trans. SPWLA 22nd Ann.
Logging Symp., pp. BB 1-13.