SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
LIFTING THE FOG OF CONFUSION SURROUNDING CLAY AND
SHALE IN PETROPHYSICS
Paul Spooner – Senergy
Copyright 2014, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 55th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 18-22, 2014.
ABSTRACT
Consideration of the distinction between rocks and
minerals is of vital importance in the petrophysical
task of determining porosity and hence, water
saturation. Given the significance of this task it is
surprising how much confusion there is across the
industry over this issue. The confusion between
clay and shale is the most common, to the extent
that many books, papers, training courses and
software products still do not differentiate, or
explain these clearly or correctly.
Shale is a rock, typically defined as an indurated,
finely laminated, sedimentary rock, composed
primarily of clay, mud and silt. The important
feature to note is that this definition does not
describe the mineralogy but rather the grain size.
In this definition, clay refers to clay sized
particles, i.e. < 1/256 mm.
Whilst clay can refer to grain size it can also refer
to clay minerals, and it is the dual meaning of the
word clay that is at the heart of the confusion in
the industry. Clay minerals are a group of hydrous
aluminium silicates with a sheet-like structure
(phyllosilicates), which adsorb water on their
surfaces. It is these clay minerals that we are
concerned about when determining porosity and
water saturation.
In shale, most of the clay sized particles are
composed of clay minerals. When computing
porosity we need to account for the clay minerals,
for example when their density is different from
the matrix density. When computing water
saturation we need to account for the excess
conductivity due to the clay minerals. In both
cases it is the volume of clay minerals we need to
correct for, not the volume of shale.
Shale models are technically correct when they
1
include a relationship between volume of shale
and either volume of clay or volume of silt.
It is very important not to confuse clay and shale
models as this simple error can lead to many
problems: misunderstanding the difference
between effective porosity and total porosity; the
erroneous use of structural, laminated and
dispersed clay models when really it is a change in
the clay content of the shale; treating silt as a
mineral when it is a grain size; shale computed
with zero porosity; other low quality reservoir
layers, such as siltstones, computed with zero
porosity leading to them being modelled as zero
permeability baffles, when in reality they can store
hydrocarbons and be considered reservoir when
they are high enough above the free water level.
This paper seeks to lift the fog of confusion.
INTRODUCTION
The term „shale‟ is used to describe a finely
laminated sedimentary rock composed primarily of
clay, mud and silt sized particles. Different
technical disciplines, such as soil scientists,
geotechnical engineers, colloidal chemists etc, use
different definitions for these particle sizes.
Geologists typically use the Wentworth (1922)
grade scale which defined clay sized particles as <
1/256mm (3.9 microns, often simplified to 4
microns) and silt sized particles as > 1/256mm and
< 1/16mm (62.5 microns, often simplified to 60
microns). Silt is not defined by mineralogy at all, it
is just finer grained matrix material, e.g. in a
shaley-sand the silt is finer than „very fine sand‟.
Mud is not specifically defined as a particle size
by Wentworth (1922) but is often used as a term to
describe a mix of silt and clay sized particles, for
example Folk (1954) defined mud as having a
clay:silt ratio between 1:2 and 2:1.
Most, but not all, of the clay sized particles in
shale are composed of clay minerals, a group of
hydrous aluminium silicates with a sheet-like
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

structure (Phyllosilicates) which adsorb water on

their surfaces. Clay sized particles that are not clay
minerals are often termed mud, although this is not
a strict definition.

Clay minerals form in the presence of water,

commonly by the weathering of feldspars and
micas, and include the Kaolinite group, the
Semctite group which includes Montmorillonite,
the Illite group and the Chlorite group, although
some authors consider the Cholrite group to be a
separate group of Phyllosilicates and not true
clays. Clay minerals may be allogenic, created
elsewhere and then deposited at the time of
sedimentation, or they may be authogenic, created
in-situ through diagenesis.

The significant petrophysical features of shale are:

1. shale is a rock defined in terms of particle size and

structure, not mineralogy
2. shale has effective porosity associated with non-
clay mineral grains, primarily the silt
3. the ratio of clay and silt sized particles in shale can
vary considerably such that shale can be sub-dived
into claystone, mudstone and siltstone
Whilst most geologists and petrophysicists in the
industry are familiar with the difference between
clay and shale, there has been much confusion
over the use of the terms Vshale and Vclay, to the
extent that many use the terms interchangeably.
This is problematic because using these volumes
incorrectly can lead to the miscalculation of
effective porosity and hence, water saturation.
This paper explores common mistakes and
recommends an approach to avoid these errors.
SHALE DISTRIBUTION MODELS
Shale is frequently found in discrete beds, much
thicker than the vertical resolution of the logs,
where it can be easily identified based on its
particular log responses. However, it is also very
often present in shaley-sand formations in which
case it needs to be accounted for when computing
porosity and water saturation. In shaley-sand
formations, shale distribution models (Figure 1
and Figure 2) are frequently used to illustrate the
influence of shale on porosity.
Fig.1 Typical descriptions of shale distribution
„Structural‟ shale is typically described as grains
of sand replaced with grains of shale. However,
this description is problematic as shale is a mix of
silt and clay sized particles. If the „shale‟ is
allogenic, i.e. sourced from elsewhere and
deposited with the sand, then to replace a larger
sand grain with a „grain of shale‟ it is most likely a
„clast‟ which itself is a mix of silt and clay
containing some porosity.
„Dispersed‟ shale is typically described as
confined to the pore space such that is it is grain
coating or pore filling, which effectively means
the „shale‟ is authigenic. If this was the in-situ
conversion of minerals such as feldspar to clay,
then the shale is clay mineral. Quartz overgrowths
and precipitated carbonate cementation are also
authigenic, but they are matrix. Only if both
processes occur does the description of „dispersed
shale‟ make sense.
In the case of „Laminated‟ shale there are discrete
laminations of sand and shale, where the shale
laminations are below the vertical resolution of the
logs. If they were thicker they would be resolved
by the logs as individual „beds‟ and the
interpretation would be less problematic.

The shale distribution is often termed „Structural‟, The volume of shale, Vshale, and the distribution
„Dispersed‟ or „Laminated‟ (Figure 1). of the shale is typically considered to influence the
2
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
relationship between total porosity, t, and
effective porosity, e (Figure 2).
Fig.2 Typical description of how shale distribution
affects porosity
To consider the validity of the porosity
relationships, as a function of Vshale and the
distribution of that shale, we should first consider
what is meant by t and e. In this paper, t is
considered to be the sum of all the fluid filled pore
space, which is equal to the sum of e and the
volume of clay bound water, CBW.
t = e + CBW [1]
The volume of clay bound water is the volume of
water adsorbed, or ionically bound, to the clay
minerals, and/or trapped in nano-pores within the
clay structure. The volume of clay bound water is
determined from the volume of the clay minerals,
Vclay, and the apparent total porosity of the clay
minerals, i.e. how much water it holds per volume
of clay, tclay.
CBW = Vclay*tclay [2]
Note that Vclay is the volume of clay minerals and
not the volume of clay sized particles. If tclay is
zero the clay is „dry‟ clay and if tclay is non-zero
the clay is „wet‟ clay. Dry clay cannot exist in-situ
3
as it cannot be 100% de-watered, this condition
only exists after oven drying core samples when
all the clay bound water has been driven off. From
equations [1] and [2] we can state
t = e + Vclay*tclay [3]
Note that the relationship between t and e is a
function of Vclay and not the volume of shale,
Vshale. This definition of e follows the rock
model used in NMR interpretation of shaley-sands,
Coates, Xiao and Prammer, (1999), and makes no
reference to whether porosity is connected or
disconnected. This is a reasonable definition to use
as the standard porosity tools, density and neutron,
and even NMR tools respond to porosity without
discriminating its connectivity.
„Clean sand‟ (Figure 2) is considered to consist of
a volume of matrix grains and porosity. There is
no clay bound water so
t = e [4]
The „typical‟ explanation for „Structural shale‟
(Figure 2) is that shale replaces sand, on a grain
for grain basis, so there is no change in porosity
and equation [4] still applies. However, from
equation [3] this can only be true if the volume of
clay bound water is zero, or more specifically if
Vclay is zero as tclay cannot be zero in-situ.
Hence, the „Structural shale‟ model assumes that
shale has no porosity, shale has no clay bound
water, and that all of the shale is matrix with no
clay minerals, i.e. the shale is 100% silt and 0%
clay mineral. This is clean sandstone with some
grain sizes < 1/16mm, which could more correctly
be called siltstone.
The „typical‟ explanation for „Dispersed shale‟
(Figure 2) is that shale replaces pore space so the
porosity is reduced by the volume of shale.
t = e + Vshale [5]
Hence, the „Dispersed shale‟ model assumes that
shale has porosity, shale has clay bound water, and
from comparison with equation [1], that all of the
shale is wet clay, i.e. the shale is 0% silt and 100%
clay mineral.
The „porosity model for „Laminated shale‟ (Figure
2) shows that the shale replaces both matrix and
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

pore volume. Nsal is the neutron formation salinity correction

t = e + Vshale*tshale [6]
Hence, the „Laminated shale‟ model assumes that
shale has porosity, shale has clay bound water,
and, by comparison with equation [3] it assumes
that clay and shale are the same.
Therefore, the typical descriptions of porosity in
terms of Vshale (Figure 2) use an inconsistent
model for shale.
Porosity should be expressed in terms of Vclay, a
mineral term, and not Vshale, a rock term, as the
bulk density response is a linear volumetric sum of
the minerals and fluids in the rock. For a dual
mineral system consisting of „matrix‟ and „clay‟,
such as shale, the bulk density, b, can be
expressed as
b = Vma*ma + Vclay*cl + e*fl [7]
Vma is the volume of matrix given by 1-Vcl-e
ma is the matrix density
cl is the wet clay density
fl is the density of the fluid in e given by
fl = Sxo*w + (1-Sxo)*hc [8]
Nhc is the apparent hydrocarbon hydrogen index
By using two equations, [9] and [10], in a
deterministic solution we can solve two variables,
typically e and ma so that we account for
variable matrix mineralogy.
Equations [9] and [10] solve e using the mineral
volume of wet clay, Vclay, not the rock volume of
shale, Vshale.
100% wet clay rarely exists in-situ. Shale typically
has some silt content as well so the clay content
may be 40% to 80%. This makes the identification
of the wet clay point difficult as it lies outside the
range of measured data. However, by recognizing
trends in the data we can reduce the uncertainty in
determining the wet clay point.
NEUTRON DENSITY CROSSPLOT TRENDS

Neutron density crossplots can be used to show the
difference between clay and shale, and to pick the
wet clay point required to compute e from
equations [9] and [10].
In a „typical‟ shaley-sand we see two trends in the
data forming an „L‟ or ‟V‟ shape (Figure 3).

Sxo is the flushed zone water saturation, which the

density tool is assumed to be reading
w is the density of the water in the flushed zone,
which may be a mix of WBM filtrate, formation
water or injection water
hc is the apparent hydrocarbon density, corrected
for electron density.

e can then be solved by re-arranging equations

[7] and [8].

[9]

Similarly, we can use the neutron response

equation to solve e.

[10]
Fig.3 Neutron density crossplot trends in shaley-
sands
N is the neutron porosity log (in limestone units)
Nclay is the neutron wet clay response
The left arm (Figure 3) is the shaley-sand trend
Nma is the neutron matrix correction
with the cleanest sands at the upper left. In this
Exfact is the neutron excavation factor
4
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

example there are light hydrocarbons so the data

extends beyond the clean sand matrix line. The
shale point at the lower right of the shaley-sand
trend represents the shale distributed with the
sand. The shaley-sand trend is the linear
volumetric mix of clean sand and shale, i.e. with
50% shale by volume the data will plot half way
along this trend.

The right arm (Figure 3) is the shale trend with the

shale point at the left end and the wet clay point at
the right end. The shale point is at the intersection
of the shaley-sand trend and the shale trend. The
shale trend is important as it provides the means to
identify the wet clay point.

The mineral content of shale is a mix of matrix

and wet clay. The „shale line‟ (Figure 4) extends
from the matrix point (100% silt, 0% wet clay, 0%
porosity) to the wet clay point (100% wet clay, 0%
silt). The location of the shale point on the shale
line (Figure 4) depends on the clay:silt ratio of the
shale. If the shale is 30% silt and 70% wet clay the
shale point is 70% along the shale line from the
silt point. This reflects the general classification of
shale as siltstone, mudstone or claystone.
Fig.5 Neutron density crossplot CSR and Isilt
On a typical neutron density crossplot the shale
point is easier to identify than the wet clay point,
but the wet clay point is required to compute e.
The important feature of the shale line is that when
it has been identified we can extrapolate from the
matrix point, through the shale point to the wet
clay point, and hence we can solve e.

Fig.4 Neutron density crossplot Shale Line

The clay:silt ratio of the shale can be expressed in
terms of clay, i.e. 0.7, often termed the clay shale
ratio or CSR (Figure 5). Alternatively the clay:silt
ratio of the shale can be expressed in terms of silt,
i.e. 0.3, often termed the „silt index‟ or Isilt.
5
Fig.6 Neutron density crossplot shaley-sand trends for
shales with different clay:silt ratios
If different shaley-sand sequences contain shale
with different clay:silt ratios, then the shaley-sand
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
trends observed on the neutron density crossplot
will differ (Figure 6).
If the shale has high clay content, the shaley-sand
trend goes from the clean sand point toward the
claystone region of the shale line. The angle
between the shaley-sand trend and the shale trend
becomes very obtuse and the shale point is much
closer to the wet clay point.
If the shale has similar clay and silt content then
the shaley-sand trend goes toward the mudstone
region of the shale line. The angle between the
trends becomes close to 90deg and the shale point
is close to the midpoint of the shale line.
If the shale is very silty the shaley-sand trend goes
toward the siltstone region of the shale line. The
angle between trends becomes very acute and the
shale point is much closer to the matrix point. Silt
is not a mineral, it is matrix with grain sizes <
1/16mm, so the same principles apply and e can
be determined from equations [9] and [10] using
variable ma to account for changes in
mineralogy. If the matrix mineralogy does not fit
the standard sand-lime-dolo model then any two
minerals can be used to solve variable ma, e.g.
quartz and feldspar or quartz and mica.
Fig.8 Neutron density crossplot Clay Line and
Compaction trend
A clay line can be constructed on the neutron
density crossplot (Figure 8) in the same manner as
6
the clean matrix line, from dry clay at the bottom,
the highest density, through the wet clay point to
the water point at 100% porosity. The distance
along the clay line from the dry clay point to the
wet clay point is tclay, and can be determined
from a simple density porosity equation The dry
clay point is a function of the clay mineralogy, and
while it cannot be estimated precisely from the log
data, it can be determined from core analysis or
estimated by matching the computed porosity to
overburden corrected core porosity.
A compaction trend may also be apparent on the
neutron density crossplot (Figure 8). As the clays
de-water, tclay will be reduced and the wet clay
point will move down the clay line toward the dry
clay point, which is a fixed point based on the clay
mineralogy.
Unfortunately the shaley-sand and shale trends are
not always clear on neutron density crossplots.
This can be due to a variety of reasons.
If the clay:silt ratio of the shale is changing
throughout the shaley-sand sequence then the data
will not have one clear shaley-sand trend, it can
appear to be more of a „blob‟. However, the shale
line should still be apparent at the lower edge of
the „blob‟ and the wet clay point extrapolated.
If the shaley-sand sequence is in compaction or the
clay mineralogy is changing, then the wet clay
point will be moving and the data will again
appear to be more of a „blob‟. The interpretation
can be zoned to account for the changing wet clay
point, or, depending on the software being used,
the wet clay log values can be allowed to
continuously vary as a function of TVD or burial
depth.
If the shale beds in a laminated shaley-sand
sequence are thinner than the log resolution, the
shale point and the shale line cannot be identified
as the logs „see‟ a volumetric mix of sand and
shale. In such cases the surrounding shale beds are
often used as they will show a shale trend. The
validity of this relies on the commonly used
assumption that the shale in the surrounding beds
is the same as the shale in the shaley-sand
However, this assumption is very often false e.g.
when the nearby shale is from a completely
different depositional environment.
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

VCLAY AND VSHALE Vshale can be determined by linear interpolation,

parallel to the clean line, where Vshale is 0%, to
Vclay can be determined by linear interpolation, the shale point where Vshale is 100% (Figure 11).
parallel to the clean line, where Vclay is 0%, to the
wet clay point where Vclay is 100% (Figure 9).

Fig.11 Neutron density crossplot Vshale with

adjusted clean line in light hydrocarbon zone
Fig.9 Neutron density crossplot Vclay

Light hydrocarbons lead to the underestimation of

Vclay unless „corrected‟ for. A simple adjustment
to the slope of the clean line in the hydrocarbon
zone is a pragmatic solution (Figure 10).

Fig.10 Neutron density crossplot Vclay with

adjusted clean line in light hydrocarbon zone Fig.12 Neutron density crossplot Vshale and Vclay
7
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
Figure 12 shows a comparison plot of Vclay and
Vshale determined using neutron density crossplot
methodology. Note that in this example, Vshale is
approximately 1 in the shale while Vclay is
approximately 0.7.
The clay shale ratio, CSR, can now be defined as
the ratio of Vclay to Vshale.
CSR = Vclay/Vshale [11]
Vshale and Vclay are often confused as the shale
point and wet clay point are frequently picked
incorrectly. Consideration of the trends on the
neutron density crossplot allows the shale point
and wet clay point to be clearly identified.
If the software product used for the volumetric
interpretation solves the porosity equations, [9]
and [10], in terms of Vclay and the wet clay point,
then the user is required to make the appropriate
„picks‟ to generate a Vclay curve (Figure 10).
If the software product used for the volumetric
interpretation solves the porosity in terms of
Vshale and the shale point, then the user is
required to make the appropriate „picks‟ to
generate a Vshale curve (Figure 11).
However, as porosity equations, [9] and [10], are
expressed in terms in clay and not shale then
Vclay and the wet clay point are still required, and
therefore a parameter defining the clay:silt ratio,
such as CSR or Isilt, is still required. The shale
point can then be extrapolated to the wet clay
point, based on the shale line, and Vclay can be
determined from Vshale using equation [11].
Computing e using CSR and Vshale is
volumetrically correct in the shaley-sand trend, but
for data beyond the shale point this is no longer
true. For data in the shale trend (Figure 3) CSR is
now a variable as there is increasing clay content
within the shale. If a constant CSR is used then
Vclay will be „clipped‟ and e will be
overestimated.
This paper recommends using a Vclay workflow,
not only because that is valid in the shales as well
as the shaley-sands, but also because that
encourages the interpreter to focus on the wet clay
point. If the focus is on the shale point then CSR is
often neglected and left as „default‟. Vclay is more
8
important, not only because it is used for the
computation of e, but because in shaley-sand a
water saturation equation that accounts for the
excess conductivity of the clays should be used.
The excess conductivity is not a function of the silt
in the shale, but the clays, so Vclay should be
used. For example, the Dual Water equation,
Coates, Xiao and Prammer, (1999), is expressed in
terms of clay bound water saturation, Swb.
Swb = CBW/t = Vclay*tclay/t [12]
Care must be taken as not all software products are
thorough, and many confuse the terms Vshale and
Vclay. If Vshale is used in lieu of Vclay then e
tends to be computed too low. This is one of the
main reasons why many interpretations of shale
show zero e, when in fact most shales have non-
zero e, as shown by numerous NMR logs.
Organic shale reservoirs were overlooked for
many years, not just because they were tight, but
because they were routinely interpreted with zero
e. Confusing Vshale and Vclay can also lead to
siltstones easily being misinterpreted and e being
computed as too low.
Once the computed e reaches zero, whether it is
a siltstone or a shaley-sand, then any permeability
derived from that porosity will also be zero. This
can then have an effect on the dynamic model as
zero permeability layers act as baffles in the
reservoir simulation. Hydrocarbon storage,
STOIIP, may also be negatively impacted, as
modelled with zero e and zero permeability they
will not be able to store hydrocarbons at all. In
reality though, if high enough above the free water
level they can store hydrocarbons.
GR VSHALE AND VCLAY INDICATOR
The Gamma Ray log, GR, is very commonly used
for the determination of Vshale and Vclay as the
three main sources of radioactivity in the earth‟s
crust, potassium-40, the thorium series and the
uranium series tend to be concentrated in clays and
shales.
Clean rocks, i.e. with no shale or clay, rarely have
GR log reading zero due to trace minerals and
dissolved salts in the pore fluids. A value can be
„picked‟ to represent clean matrix, the „GRclean‟
line in the Gamma Ray track (Figure 13), and a
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
value can be „picked‟ to represent the shale, the
„GRshale‟ line in the Gamma Ray track (Figure
13). A simple linear interpolation from GRclean to
GRshale can then be used to determine Vshale.
Similarly, a value can be „picked‟ to represent
100% clay, the „GRclay‟ line in the Gamma Ray
track (Figure 13), and Vclay determined.
Fig.13 Vshale and Vclay derived from GR
As with the neutron density crossplot it is much
easier to „pick‟ GRshale than GRclay, as 100%
clay rarely exists in-situ. Hence many interpreters
prefer to work with Vshale, and historically GR is
typically referred to as a Vshale indicator.
However, when using a GRshale „pick‟ to
determine Vshale an assumption must still be
made regarding the parameter CSR or Isilt, as
Vclay is still required to compute e. If using a
GRclay „pick‟ to determine Vclay, then the same
assumption is made but this time it is the „picking‟
of GRclay to give a particular Vclay in the shale. It
is the same interpretation problem working with
Vclay or Vshale just expressed in different ways,
picking GRclay working with Vclay or selecting
CSR, or Isilt, working with Vshale.
9
There are many non-linear GR relationships
commonly used in the industry, such as Clavier
(1971), Larionov (1969) (Young Rock and Old
Rock), and Steiber (1971) (Figure 14). There are
no physical theorems or models for these non-
linear relationships, they were all empirically
derived to address the observation that linear GR
overestimated Vshale. In all cases the non-linear
relationships reduce the computed Vshale, and
have the greatest effect in the middle of the range.
Fig.14 Non linear GR relationships
The basis for the non-linearity is often considered
to be due to changes in the age of the rocks, clay
mineralogy, porosity, CSR, and to some extent
how the clays are distributed. However, it is not
that the GR response itself is non-linear, as it is a
linear volumetric sum of the gamma rays emitted
by all the radioactive elements in the measured
volume.
Due to the half life of the radioactive elements, the
older the rock becomes then the lower the GR
count rate, but by making an appropriate „pick‟ for
GRclay this effect is accounted for.
If the clay mineralogy or tclay changes then
GRclay should be zoned accordingly. If GRclay
has been picked in surrounding shale that does not
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

have the same clay as that in the shaley-sand „correct‟ it.

sequence, then it is not applicable to the shaley-
sand and Vclay will be wrong, especially if a
significantly, younger, overlying shale was used.
If the porosity is changing then GRclean may be
affected but that will depend on how much of the
radioactivity is in the matrix minerals and how
much is in the dissolved salts. GRclean should be
zoned and adjusted accordingly.
If the CSR is changing, but the clay mineralogy
and tclay are consistent, then the GRclay „pick‟
will be consistent and Vclay will not be affected,
but GRshale will be affected as there will be more
or less clay in the shale. Hence, using Vclay is
more reliable. However, GRclean may also need to
be adjusted with varying silt content, as that may
also reflect a change in porosity.
If there is a change in clay distribution then this
can affect the GR count rates, but this effect is
usually relatively small when considered alongside
the other possible reasons for variation and the
uncertainty in the GR log measurement. For
example, consider clean sand with t of 0.3
(Vmatrix of 0.7) and GRclean of 20 API,
assuming zero GR contribution from the fluids,
and a shaley-sand consisting of the same clean
sand with a Vclay of 0.2 and GRclay of 120 API.
If the clay is dispersed then the GR log will be
20 + (0.2*120) = 44 API.
With appropriate zoning of GRclean and GRclay,
a liner relationship should provide a valid Vclay,
and indeed, using equation [2] with an estimate of
tclay, a comparison with the CBW derived from
NMR often shows this to be the case.
Furthermore, the Vclay computed from neutron
density crossplot is a linear interpolation and it too
tends to match a linear Vclay from GR, if the GR
picks have been made appropriately.
THIN BED MODELS
Thin bed models, where the beds are below the
vertical resolution of the logging tools, based on
the „structural‟, dispersed‟ and „laminated‟ shale
models (Figure 1 and Figure 2) are commonly
used, Thomas and Steiber (1975), Juhasz (1986).
These rely on the identification of shale
distribution trends in a crossplot of Vshale against
porosity, sometimes using GR as a proxy for
Vshale.
If the porosity was computed from neutron and
density, then the Vshale porosity crossplot is
essentially the neutron density crossplot with the
clean matrix line rotated to the Y-axis and the
shale line rotated to the X-axis, (Figure 15). It is
also common to assume the same trend lines
indicating the „shale distribution‟

If the clay is structural then the GR log will be

(20*0.5/0.7) + (0.2*120) API = 38.3 API.

If the clay is laminated then the GR log will be

(20*0.56/0.7) + (0.2*120) = 40 API.

Another possibility for the non-linear

relationships, and potentially much more
significant, is the confusion of Vshale and Vclay.
The overestimation of the linear Vshale is
typically „verified‟ by comparison to core data,
either by comparison of the resulting porosity or
by comparison of the clay content determined
from X-Ray Diffraction, XRD. In both cases it is
Vclay that is required for the comparison and yet
frequently it is Vshale that is used. If Vclay is
determined for direct comparison to the core, but a
GRshale „pick‟ was used, then it will overestimate Fig.15 Neutron density crossplot rotated to Vshale
Vclay and a non-liner relationship might appear to  crossplot with „shale distribution‟ trend lines
10
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

The basic tool equations for the density and

neutron, [9] and [10], are expressed in terms of
clay, not shale, so any trend lines should be
defined in terms of clay distribution not shale
distribution. Equations [9] and [10] do not contain
terms for laminated, dispersed or structural clay,
so the logs do not specifically contain any
information about the clay distribution. The tool
responses are functions of the mineral and fluid
volumes and not the clay distribution. Therefore,
the porosity computed from [9] and [10] cannot be
affected by the clay distribution unless that
distribution affects the mineral or fluid volumes.

Juhasz (1986) showed how „shale distribution‟

affects the mineral and fluid volumes, and
expressed the trend lines in terms of t and e,
where e was defined by equation [6] with the
assumption that “shale-water does not contribute
to effective porosity”. Unless the shale is 100%
clay this assumption is invalid as capillary bound
Fig.17 Vclay e crossplot with „structural clay‟,
water associated with silt contributes to e. To be „dispersed clay‟ and „laminated clay‟ overlay
consistent with definitions of clay and shale, e
should be expressed in terms of Vclay, equation The trend lines shown on the crossplots (Figure 16
[3], „clay‟ substituted for „shale‟ throughout the and Figure 17) are defined by considering a
model, and the overlays for structural clay volumetric mix clean of sand with porosity max,
(Vstruc), laminated clay (Vlam) and dispersed clay with structural clay, dispersed clay, or laminated
(Vdisp) plotted on Vclay against t (Figure 16) or clay, where in each case the clay has the same
Vclay against e (Figure 17). properties, i.e. the same mineralogy and tclay.

Structural clay is considered to „replace‟ sand

grains. On the t Vclay crossplot (Figure 16), t
increases from max by the volume of clay bound
water as Vclay (=Vstruc) increases.

t = max + Vstruc*tclay [12]

On the e Vclay crossplot (Figure 17) increasing

Vclay (=Vstruc) makes no difference to e.

e = max [13]

Dispersed clay is considered to „replace‟ porosity.

On the t Vclay crossplot (Figure 16), t reduces
from max by the volume of clay but also
increases t by the volume of clay bound water.

t = max - Vdisp*(1-tclay) [14]

On the e Vclay crossplot (Figure 17) e reduces

Fig.16 Vclay t crossplot with „structural clay‟, from max by the volume of clay.
„dispersed clay‟ and „laminated clay‟ overlay

11
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
e = max - Vdisp [15]
Laminated clay is considered to „replace‟ both
sand grains and porosity. On the t Vclay
crossplot (Figure 16), t is converted from max
to tclay as Vclay (=Vlam) increases from 0 to 1.
t = max – Vlam*(max – tclay) [16]
On the e Vclay crossplot (Figure 17), e reduces
from max to 0 as Vclay (=Vlam) increases from
0 to 1.
e = max - Vlam*max [17]
A parallelogram can be constructed based on the
structural and dispersed trends with the lower
corner of the parallelogram defined as the point on
the dispersed trend where Vclay = max. This is
the maximum volume of dispersed clay that can
exist, when all of the clean sand porosity has been
filled with dispersed clay.
If e is solved from equations [9] and [10] then
Vlam can be solved from equation [17] by
assuming max, which is typically obtained by
extrapolating the shaley-sand trend on the e
Vclay crossplot (Figure 17) back to Vclay = 0.
Similarly, Vlam can be solved from equation [16]
by assuming max and tclay.
The parallelogram can then be interpolated in two
halves, the upper half for a mix of structural and
laminated clay and the lower half for a mix of
laminated and dispersed clay, (Figure 18).
Fig.18 Thin bed models solve laminated and structural
clay or laminated and dispersed clay
With the assumption that Vclay is the sum of all
the clays, then for any pair of data points, Vclay
12
and t or Vclay and e, a solution can found for
Vlam, Vstruc, Vdisp and the porosity in the sand
lamina.
Whilst this method is mathematically valid, it
relies on some basic assumptions that should be
considered.
The constructs, both the overlays and the
equations used to solve them, are only appropriate
when using Vclay and not Vshale, unless CSR or
Isilt is used to convert Vshale into Vclay.
The equations are derived from Vclay and
porosity, either t or e, and not density and
neutron logs. It is assumed that the computed
porosity is the correct volumetric average
accounting for the mineralogy and clays, equations
[9] and [10]. A simple average of density porosity
and neutron porosity will probably yield the wrong
porosity.
By comparison of the porosity Vclay crossplots
(Figure 16 and Figure 17) with the neutron density
crossplot (Figure 15) the same structural,
laminated and dispersed trends can apparently be
identified in the neutron density data. However,
such trends could easily be due to changes in the
clay:silt ratio rather than the distribution of the
clay. One of the stated assumptions by Thomas
and Steiber (1975), was that the clay:silt ratio for
the shale must stay constant, which of course it
often does not.
The model can also be interpreted wrongly when
the clay:silt ratio is constant, if the wrong
assumption is made about the nature of the shaley-
sand. For example, if the shaley-sand is very silty
with low Vclay, then this trend could easily be
misinterpreted as dispersed clay. Even when Vclay
and e have been correctly determined the
interpreter has to rely on other sources of data,
such as cuttings, core data or image logs, to
determine whether the sand lamina contain
dispersed clay or silt, in which case this model is
not appropriate. This will obviously affect the
computation of water saturation in the sand
lamina, but it is also important not to confuse silt with
dispersed clay as dispersed clays, such as Illite in pore
throats, generally have a significant effect on
permeability. There may also be scaling errors
introduced as there is a significant difference in
the vertical resolution of the density and neutron
 SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014
tools and the core data used to validate the models.
The distribution of clays in shaley-sands is not
usually as simplistic as that assumed by the model.
For example, for a given Vclay, a mix of structural
clay and dispersed clay can give the same result as
laminated clay, and this combination is not solved by
the model. The observed trend in the data often follows
the „laminated‟ trend, which is not surprising as that
represents a mix of everything which is probably the
closest to reality in most cases.
Very commonly, the deviations from the laminated
trend fall in the laminated-dispersed region of the plot,
which as discussed may be due to a change in clay silt
ratio silt, toward more silt, but it may also be due to
uncertainty in the computed porosity or Vclay as well.
The definition of structural clay is also somewhat
problematic, even when considered in the sense of
„an equivalent volume of clay replacing a volume
of matrix‟, rather than „grain replacement‟, as it
does not consider the source of the clay.
If the clay is allogenic then there is no
„replacement‟ in the geologic sense of the word, as
the clay was deposited with the sand, but in the
volumetric sense it does occupy a gross volume
that could have been matrix, as in shale models
(Figure 2) with the word „clay‟ substituted for
„shale‟. In this case, the structural model, [12] and
[13], are consistent.
However, if the clay is authigenic it is not usually
a complete „replacement‟, in the geologic sense of
the word. This can cause an increase in porosity,
for example feldspar may not fully convert to clay
and there can be extra voids and „fractures‟ within
the mineral fragments. Other processes occurring
during diagenesis, such as the precipitation of
cementation, decrease the porosity. Hence, for
authigenic clays, the structural model, [12] and
[13], may be wrong.
Due to all of these issues, the use of these thin-bed
models is very subjective. With knowledge of the
correct answer, for example from core data, they
can provide robust results, but they can easily lead
to misinterpretation, very often when silt is not
correctly interpreted as matrix and confused with
dispersed clay.
13
NMR IN THIN BEDS
Shaley-sands and thin beds in particular, are an
ideal situation for NMR logs as they can provide
t and e directly from the logs without having to
make assumptions or calculate matrix properties.
In thin beds, the standard NMR cutoff
interpretation principles still apply. If a zone can
be identified as being at irreducible water
saturation, ideally from testing, and it is water wet,
then a simple integration of the free fluid porosity
provides the hydrocarbon pore volume directly,
i.e. Sw equals the bound fluid divided by t.
If a zone is at irreducible water saturation, and
there are no conductive minerals, then the
resistivity is primarily responding to the bound
fluids, both the clay bound water and the capillary
bound water. Hence, a simple overlay plot, or a
crossplot, of the resistivity and bound fluid can be
used to identify zones at irreducible water
saturation
The key to utilizing NMR logs in this way is not to
try and resolve the thin beds by reducing stacking,
but to try and improve the accuracy of the porosity
measurement, by increasing stacking to increase
SNR.
CONCLUSIONS
Historically Vshale and Vclay have frequently
been confused and are often considered to be the
same thing. They are not. Shale is a rock term
while clay is both a grain size and a mineral term.
In Petrophysics it is the mineral term that is
needed to solve porosity and water saturation, so
we need to use Vclay. Vshale can be used in the
shaley-sand trend but only if a CSR or Isilt
parameter is utilized.
Computations of Vclay from GR logs should be
valid when using a linear relationship, as long
appropriate picks are made.
Shale distribution models are ill posed and should
be expressed in terms of Vclay.
In thin-beds it may be more reliable to use NMR
logs, but the classical method can be used if it is
well constrained by matching to core data or
image logs.
SPWLA 55th Annual Logging Symposium, May 18-22, 2014

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS years in the field as a Wireline Engineer, then latterly in

Derek Crombie, Senergy Technical & Product
Development Manager and Frank Whitehead,
Senergy IP Software Architect for numerous
discussions and invaluable help concerning the issues
raised in this paper.
REFERENCES
the office on integrated projects. During this time he
built up his Petrophysical knowledge and in particular
his expertise on NMR interpretation and core
integration. More recently, Paul has been engaged
along with others in the development and delivery of
the Petrophysics and Formation Evaluation MSc course
from Aberdeen University.

Coates, G.R., Xiao, L., Prammer, M.G., 1999, NMR

Logging Principles and Applications, ISBN 0-9679026-
0-6, Chapter 7, 135-137

Folk, R.L., 1954. The distinction between grain size

and mineral composition in sedimentary rock
nomenclature. Journal of Geology 62 (4), 344-359

Juhasz, I., 1986, Assessment of the Distribution of

Shale, Porosity and hydrocarbon Saturation in Shaly
Sands, Tenth European Formation Evaluation
Symposium, April 22-25, 1986, Paper AA

Larionov, V.V., 1969, Radiometry of boreholes,

NEDRA, Moscow.

Thomas, E.C., Steiber, S.J., 1975, The Distribution of

Shale in Sandstones and its effect upon Porosity,
SPWLA Sixteenth Annual Logging Symposium, June
4-7, 1975, Paper T

Wentworth, C.K., 1922, Scale of Grade and Class

Terms for Clastic Sediments, Jour. Geol., Vol.30 July-
Aug 1922, 377-392

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul is currently IP Product Champion for Senergy,

providing support, training and helping with the
development of Senergy's IP software product. Prior to
joining Senergy Software Paul worked on many
complex petrophysical and integrated projects within
the consultancy department of Senergy GB Ltd, and
formerly Production Geoscience Ltd. Paul spent many
14