A Review, of Current Techniques for Determination
Of Water Saturatio'n From Logs
G. R. PICKETT*
MEMBER AIME
Abstract
The basic saturation and log response equations are
reviewed. It is concluded, that conventional saturation cal-
culations account for lithology and rock-type changes, but
that they are susceptible' to uncertainties in water resistiv-
ity (R w), true resistivity, porosity and cementation factor
(m). It is shown that resistivity-apparent porosity plots are
useful in wells with minimum petrophysical data. Knowl-
edge' of R'M m, the slope of the sonic log-porosity relation
or the, slope and intercept of the neutron' log-porosity
relation are not necessary, provided they· are constant. Ad-
vantages and limitations are illustrated with exam Dies. It
is concluded that Rwa-depth plots are useful wher; Rw is
unknown and lithology varies, provided m is known for
all lithologies involved. ROB-SO relations may be useful
for determining water saturation when only a few porous
intervals of - constant rock type are present, and when
either Rw or formation factor (but not bOth) are unknown.
Finally, an example is reviewed to illustrate that, ojten, no
one of the above techniques by itself m(lY be diagnostic,
and also to emphasize the need to utilize all available
data.
Introduction
The determination of fluid saturations is still one of the
prime functions of the petrophysical engineer. Although
this problem has been continuously faced in day-to-day
evaluation work since the advent of petrophysics, it still
presents technically challenging problems. If is realized
that hydrocarbon saturation is the quantity of real ili-
!erest. However, with few exceptions, the problem resolves
mto determination of water saturation as defined by the
following relationships:1
(1)
(2)
F = 'cp-m (3)
A ~itg~nal manusc~ipt received in Society of Petroleum Engineers office
1146) , 966. ReVIsed manuscript received Aug. 1, 1966. Paper (SPE
D was presented at SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting held in
of~i~in~i['t Way .2~-24, 196,6. @Copyright 1966 American Institute
* ' e a :urIDcal, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
. PreseGntly assIstant' professor of geophysics., Colorado School of
Mlnes, olden, Colo. '
lReferences given at end of paper~
NOVEMBER, ~966
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023
SHELL OIL CO.
DENVER, COLO.
where 810 = the fractional part of the pore volume filled
with water of resistivity Rw
1 = resistivity index
n = saturation exponent
Rt = true formation resistivity
F = formation resistivity factor*
= fractional porosity
'Cp
m = ce~entation exponent.
Historically, the approach to this problem has been to
determine resistivity index 1 from borehole measurements,
and from I to calculate Sw using either an assumed value
for n or one established from laboratory' experiments. A
discussion of the validity of laboratory determined values
of n is beyond the scope of this paper. It will be assumed
that the appropriate value for n is known, and this paper
will discuss recent experience with the following tech-
niques for determining I: (1) conventional saturation cal-
culations, (2) Ra vs 'CPA plots, (3) Rwa plots, and (4) SO VS
RD. relations.
Conventional Satur,ation Calculations
The time-honored process for making water saturation
calculations involves the following steps: (1) porosity, is
obtained from a core or a porosity log (sonic, neutron or
density log); (2) formation factor is calculated from Eq. 3
using an estimated m or one obtained from 'laboratory
measurements or from resistivity measurements in 100
per cent water-bearing intervals; (3) I is calculated from
Eq. 2 using a true resistivity R t obtained from an appro-
priate resistivity device F,· as calculated from Eq. 3 and
an estimated Rw or one obtained from a water recovery
in a nearby zone or another well, or one calculafed from
the SP log; and (4) S10 is calculated from Eq. 1 using the
I calculated from Eq. 2 and n.
This technique has the advantages of being well estab-
lished and, therefore, relatively easily discussed with man-
agement and other log analysts. It also has the advantage
of accounting for changes in rock types and lithologies
*An equation of the form F = At/J-m is s@metimes used. For FJurposes
of this report the form given by E'q. 3 is used. The choice of forms
will not have a significant effect Qip. the conclusiop.s reached in this
paper,
1425
through the use of Eqs. I through 3 . .It has the major dis- and because the technique is also applicable to measure-
advantage of being susceptible to errors in a number of ments which allow either the calculation of porosity ex-
quantities which are med in the three equations. In the plicitly or the derivation of a quantity from a log which
author's experience, the principal culprits leading to sig- is proportional to porosity. For example, for the sonic log
nificant errors in water saturation are uncertainties in the appropriate response equation can usually be ex-
knowledge of water resistivity, errors in the determination pressed in the following form: 2
of porosity and errors in determination of R I • On occa-
sion, errors in determination of the quantity m can also ~t = !:"t.n + B¢ (5)
lead to significant errors in ~ater saturation determina- In Eq. 5, ,~t is the response of the sonic log in microsec-
tion. onds per foot, ~tln is the va:ue of .6.t at zero porosity (ma-
To minimize these errors in water saturation estimates, trix _,~t) and B is slope of the linear relation between I~t
a number of cross checks on the calculated water satura- and porosity. Solution of Eq. 5 for porosity and sub-
tions sometimes can be used. These cross checks usually stitution in Eq. 4 leads to:
consist of comparing the calculated water saturations with
fluid saturations measured in cores, by making the calcu- log R t = -m log (6.t- .6.t + m log B lll )

lated water saturations equal 100 per cent water in what + log R + log I " II) (6)
are believed _to be water-bearing intervals, by comparing

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

Eq. 6 shows that a log-log plot of R t vs ,6.t- .6.t ln
the calculated water saturations with fluid recoveries from (Fig. 2) is also linear with a slope of - tn, and further
drill-stem or production tests and by making _calculated shows that I can be calculated from such a plot -even if
fluid saturations compatible with shows or lack of shows the values of B, or m are unknown. In fact, the
R1V
in cutting samples. slope of the water-bearing line defines m.
The use of a plot of a reciprocal function of resistivity
Apparent Resistivity ys Apparent Porosity Plots" vs ,~t has also been described:'! This method does not re,.
quire a knowiedge ofR w or ,6.tm , but does require a knowl-
Another method for estimating resistivity index I con- edge of m. The technique was apparently first advocated by
sists of making a log-log plot of apparent resistivity vs ap- A. T. Hingle of Magnolia Petroleum Co.
parent porosity-. The technique is based on manipulation Similarly, the corresponding equations for using the
of Eqs. 2 and 3to obtain resistivity log with the neutron log or with the compen-
log R t = - m log ¢ + log RIO + log I (4) sated density log are:

Eq. 4 shows that a log-log plot of R t vs porosity will m me

log Rt = j)ND +n+-IogRw + log1 (7)
exhibit a straight line of slope minils m for zones with
constant water resistivity and constant 1. If this type of and
plot (Fig. 1) is made for a long series of intervals, a lin-
ear group of points can usually be found to define the log R t = -em log (DLD-E-Fps)
100 per cent water-saturated intervals. Then, for a fixed +mlogF(Pf-p,) +logR 1V +logl, (8)
porosity, any points on the plot whiCh fall at higher re-
sistivities have I's equal to the ratio of their resistivities where
to the resistivity on the water-bearing line at that porosity. ND = C+ Dlog¢ (9)
Eq. 4 shows that it is not necessary to ]mow R,vor m
in advance to estimate water saturation. In fact, they are and
defined, respectively, by extrapolation of the water-bear- DLD = E + Fpb (10)
ing portion of the plot to 100 per cent porosity and by
the slope of the water-bearing portion of the plot. . are the response equations of the neutron and density
The term "apparent resistivity vs apparent porosity" was (compensated) devises'l r~spectively.
chosen for this technique because apparent resistivities Inspection of Eqs. 6 through 8 shows that the resistiv-
can be used (to determine saturation but not necessarily ity-sonic log combination can be expected to be one of
R providing they are proportional to true resistivities
1V )
the most diagnostic log combinations for this method
(since the slope of the plot for water-bearing intervals is
I Rw ' 02
100
=H=if-l- .•
==t=-~-:-++H
I .'
---r--r-ttn 100Effffil~~~.
0-
Log R, ' -m Log (81 ~'m) + m Log B + Log Rw + Log I

\-- !--\-- Log RI ' -m log Ii • log Rw + -~-f-tt _

log I: x :-~~~~-+4-~~---+--J~I-r14-++
1---\--\--l-++-H-\-~~~~~++-t+tH---r I ' ~ , 75 \-
I -;L~ ~,-H-
I I
!

I -s:: r'b..
~I- --
II'~'75ii m '-y
-,

%~
1- y
m' -1.
x I ~~!'--
mJni ! I
.
,~, 4

& 10 I-- I-
70
I

/Y4,..<'~-j---t+,
1:1/ ,0 ~
r-:r -,
l

- - - - - -I-~-
~'" ~
1/4"/0 I 1t
fl\l(11\I1: '

I I ttl~-

I
0.1
I

10
I Hili 100 1.0 100
Rt Rt

Fig. l~-Schcnwt.ic diagram, resistivil.y vs porosity plot. Fig. 2-Schematic diagram, resistivity vs (~t-~tln) plot.

1-1:':6 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

equal to 117), that the resistivity-neutron combination can some of the intervals represented by points on the dashed
also be expected to be one of the most diagnostic (since line had residual oil saturations of about 20 per cent. If
the 10Karithm of resisti,yity can. be directly plotted vs tool the water-bearing line is shifted so as to make the dashed
response) and that the resistivity-compensated density line represent a hydrocarbon saturation of 20 per cent,
comparison is probably the least useful (since constants E then Points A and B are indicated to have a hydrocarbon
and F in the density log -response equation must be known saturation of 45 per cent. The extrapolation of this new
to define the water-bearing plot). water-bearing trend to a 100 per cent porosity indicates
Fig. 3 is an example of the application of the technique. an Rw of 0.05 ohm-m at bottom hole. Later, the fluid re-
with the resistivity-sonic log combination to a several coveries from this formation yielded a water resistivity of
thousand foot sand-silt-shalesequence. This well was a 0.03 ohm-m. This would indicate a water-bearing trend
wildcat and neither Rw nor the sonic log porosity re.lation (solid line) and would now make the hydrocarbon satura-
was known in the section of interest. Intervals A, Band tions for Points A arid B about 55 per cent. These re-
C shown on Fig. 3 had good gas shows and were obvious- sults imply that some residual oil was lost from the cores
ly hydrocarbon-bearing, although volumetric reserves were representing points' on the dashed line in bringing the
too small to make the well commercial. Intervals D and E cores to the surface, and that the actual in situ residual
were much thicker but lacked clear-cut gas shows. The oils were about 30 per cent. Intervals A and B were later
plot indicates that Interval D had greater than 50 per cent completed for a marginal oil well. .

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

hydrocarbon· saturation, but that Interval E had less than Fig. 5 is an exani.ple where .this. technique by itself
50 per cent hydrocarbon saturation. Intervals D and E failed completely. Flow meter tests established that Inter-
were both thick enough to be of more· interest. Interval vals A, Band C were producing only water, but that In-
D, therefore, was opened and produced gas. This interval tervals D and E were producing gas. The plot indicates
was later abandoned since the gas flow could not be con- no apparent contrast in apparent resistivity index between
trolled, but the example shows how such an interval can the gas- and water-producing int~rvals. Comparison of
be distinguished even in the absence of water resistivity the density log and spnic log responses in .the section con-
and definitive sonic log-porosity information. taining these zones indicated the presence of two signifi-
Fig. 4 is an example where the method by itself was cantly different sonic log-porosity relations. When these
not diagnostic. If the water-bearing trend is taken as shown two relations were accounted for, the plot shown in Fig.
by the dashed line, then the two points of interest (A and 6 was then obtained. Intervals D and E again represent
B) are indicated to have about 30 per cent hydrocarbon the gas-producing zones, arid Points A, Band C the wa-
saturation. However, a core which was taken through ter-producing zones. The apparent porosity-resistivity plots

100 D 100t~~~E~~'~f=f=f'~l±-~~~~~~~-!I~~~~~~t!~
r-'
--+---- I-
I--r
-I-
-'
~
~
IQ~
o 0
6 1- ----1"--1--1-·-1 ~H-_I +
....I~=---_~-=-== =~=~= ~ =A,s,+ _wlTER'I-+~I!'-'++ 1 =__
1-- ~~r- ~- L.I-
~~_ _ ~I_ :-""1' - ----- - 0 - --;;-~. + . . __~D,_E+_,----t'-I-
I~--

0..2..~ 0
~~~ ~
I ____ .. 1-,-

~
~~o 0
i"-- - - - ---- -.~ -- -
00' ""-------
~ i'--- J%
.

.. -
/'-...
Sw ~
r
100%

+==RfT Ft
~-- --
~-.-
I
1 ' -j-r-

...

~-I=mtt. ! I i , II
- - - - 1----- - - - - - . ----- - i - - r - ------f----I--+---+-I-H-t-I

100 1000
1
10 100 1000 10

Fig. 3-R a vs (At-Arm)' Wildcat No. 1. Fig. 5-Ra VB (At-At",), Wildcat No.3.

100 - -I-+- -~

~ =~-:-H-c
A, B, C. - WATER PROD.
-

"- D, E, - GAS PROD

...... ' ..........

. , ~~ r--.
~ ..........
, ~
&V> 10 0
~A
el'- E

0 o 0
0-6
~ '-.-
C't' ~ ~ Sw ~ 50 %
.....

-"""""""Sr 0 10~';'

11~--~~~-LUi~ ~-L~Ll'~'~il~I~~__i-LJ~~ 10
__
100 1000
I
10 100 1000
RA (lL)

Fig. 4-R a vs (At-At m ), Wildcat No.2; Fig. 6-R a vs ¢sonie, Wildcat No.3.

NOVEM'!.ER, 1966 1427

indicate' that Intervals D and E have gas saturations great-
er than 50 per cent, while Intervals A, Band C have gas,
saturations greater than 50 per cent. The solid curve was
drawn to repres€nt the 100 per cent water-bearing inter:"
vals, and extrapolation of this trend to 100 per cent poros-
ity indicates an Rw of 0.09 ohm-m at bottom hole, which
agrees with the resistivity of the produced water.
These examples were chosen specifically to illustrate
that the apparent porosity-resistivity plotting technique is
not a panacea but that, as in all petrophysical techniques,
use should be made of all available data; Experience had
indicated that this technique is a most powerful one, and
has proven diagnostic in the majority of cases where an
independent verification of the interpretation arrived at
could be obtained.
Its principal advantages are (1) a knowledge of Rill
and m is not needed; (2) if the sonic-resistivity log com-
intervals extrapolates to an Rw much lower than observed
for the area. Consultations with other operators have re-
vealed that this is a commonly observed phenomenon in
this area, presumably explained by calibration of the re-
sistivity tOQl.
Fig. 9 shows another well in the same area which shows
no significant change in water saturation with porosity,
even for porosities as small as in the previous example.
Lack of shows and lack. of hydrocarbon recovery on drill.,
stem tests confirmed the absence of hydrocarbon ~atura­
tions. This well is probably below the free water level.
The previous example illustrates the detection of a cut-
off porosity for favorable saturation. Other cases have
been observed where a relation between saturation and
porosity could be defined by this kind of plot.
R,.a Plots

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

bination is used, the slope of the sonic log-porosity rela-
tion does not have to be known, providing there is. only R,va is defined by the equatiQn: 3
one slope in effect in the section plotted; (3) if the n€u-
tron-resistivity log' combination is used, the constants in R ,va =~
F (11)
the neutron response equation do not have to be known;
(4) a great amount of section can be quickly evaluated so that from Eqs. 2 and 3
for significant hydrocarbon saturations without the time
consuming process of calculating water saturations by use R 'ma =~
.cp-7n (12)*
of Eqs. 1 through 3; and (5) once the plot has been made,
parameters such as ,D.tm and m can be easily varied with-
out tedious recalculations. 'i'See footnote on page 1425.
, The technique, therefore, is particularly useful for a
quick evaluation of long sections in wells where there is a
minimum of petrophysical data. Also, useful information 100
concerning petrophysicai relations can often be derived
from these plots in addition to delineating the hydrocar- -
- .-
bon zones.
- - - - .-~ ~-- --
Fig. 7 is a plot from a carbonate section which indi- t" ;--.. ...... 0
~-- ~
-i-I-
~ -t- - --
cated no resistivity anomalies of consequence and an av- r" r--......
erage trend which extrapolated to a value of. Rw that E ~
agreed with the resistivity of waters produced in other <iI
<i
10
r--'
i--~
'" ~

wells in the area. However, the section for which this plot ?.......

is made was completed for one of· the better oil wells in
, .......
...........
100 'Yo......... _
-$
.,.!:y.;;----
""05. rr: CUT OFF
PORO.SITY ?
the area. 1I'4 1c-7/
$47:
Fig. 8 shows a plot of the same data' plus additional r--- II/f/c-o?
points from zones of lower porosity. Fig. 8 indicates that ~
r--......
there is a significant resistivity anomaly in the intervals
which pf.oduced the oil and, further,the water saturations I
0.1
III10 1'-]'
100
decrease precipitously at a porosity corresponding to a RA
(D.t - ,D.t m) between 4 and 6 microsecl ft. The water-bear- Fig. 8-R a vs (At-At m ) , including lower porosities,
ing trend established in this way for the lower porosity Wildcat No.4.

100 100

~
1'--..0
1'1"- ...... ,,,
E ~ I"--b, E ~
K
~ 10 ~ 10
<i :;:j
?

~
I"-- 0

i 1'-"

I I I
0.1 10 100 0.1 10 100
RA (Ill RA (LL)

Fig. 7-Ra vs (At-At m), Wildcat No.4.• Fig. 9-R a vs (At-At m ), dry hole.

1428 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM fl'ECHNOLOGY

and
Rwa = I Rw .
Plots of Rwavs depth are useful evaluation techniques
where Rw is unknown and where lithology may vary so
that the apparent porosity vs apparent resistivity plot
may be misleading.
The technique is especially useful for evaluating a long
series of intervals where Rw is· believed to be constant.
From Eq. 13, the ratio of the Rwa for one interval to the
Rwa for a second interval is equal to the ratio of the I's of
the two intervals, provided Rw· is constant. Therefore, the
usual method of application for this technique is to plot
Rwa vs depth for intervals which are believed to be of the
same lithology, ·and then to compare the individual Rwa's
with the minimum R,oa within the section used. It follows
that if all the ratios are unity, the interval has a constant
Fig. 1o shows an example of the application of this
(13) technique to a section in which the lithology varies from
dolomite to sand. Sqmple descriptions had indicated that
Intervals A, Band C (Fig. 10) were sandstones. R",a's of
4.1, 3.0 and 1.8 were calculated for these three intervals,
respectively. This indicated the presence of some hydro-
carbons in at least Intervals A and B. If Interval C were
completely wafer~bearing, Interval A had to have at least
35 per cent hydrocarbon saturation (if n = 2) and Interval
B had to have at least 2$ per cent hydrocarbon satura-
tion. Since hydrocarbon shows had been observed in In-
terval C, these inferred that hydrocarbon saturations for
Intervals A an<l B had to be considered pessimistic. If In-
terval Chad 25 per cent hydrocarbon saturation or great-
er, then Interval A must have at least 50 per cent hydro-
carbon saturation. An interval including A was drill-stem
. tested and gave up over 6,000 ft of oil.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

water saturation (most likely 100 per cent). If the Rwa for
any interval has a ratio to the minimum R,oa of four or
So vs Ros Relations
greater, then that interval probably has a water saturation
of less than 50 per cent. For values of the Rwa ratios be- It has been observed4 that a relation can often be found
tween one and four, the method merely. indicates that for· a given rock type between initial non-wetting· fluid
some of the intervals contain hydrocarbons. saturation So and residual non-wetting fluid saturation ROB
- GAMMA RAY SONIC LOG SP DUAL Il, Ll-8
.-~ .. CALIPER .6t in mierosee/ft mv ohms m2/m
100 70 40
-10'-
10 100 1000

--
--

SAND
. ~®::- D5T*1
Ree 6000' Oil
RWA=4.10

1-
!
f-- -

-:~~-.
":-~E:

...• t-..

--f--
.;~r"' ....
~ .~
.. _- ..
~~:
. -:..- -
.~:i. •..
:.=:=~ =- ~ ~ ..

SAND © KwA=1.78
0== t= -.fJ.f-fjn.-~·-t·~~.,-r·rmm
-- .-~.::
{~ ....~:

:.~=.:-: - .~.~t'­

\
.. -
..~-~ .- ~~r-: •.
@

Fig. IO-Example of Rwa plot, Wildcat No.5.

NOVEMUER, .1966
11429
 after flushing with a wetting fluid. There are two situa-
tions where initial-residual relations may be of particular
use: (1) where Rw is unknown and there are not enough
porous int~rvals to apply an Ra vs apparent porosity plot,
but where formation factor F can be determined, and (2)
where R", is known but where porosity or F cannot be de-
termined.
It foHows that if a relation between So and R o " can be
established for a reservoir of interest and if ROR in the-
zone flushed by mud filtrate adjacent to the borehole can
be measured, then So (hydrocarbon saturation in the un-
invaded formation) could be estimated from the S" vs R""
relation.
This technique was applied successfully to a reservoir
where none of the other techniques previously discussed
had proven successful. Conventional water saturations
then S" and R"R can be calculated from the ratio Rtf R.T"
without having to determine F. Thus, Tixier's method
treats the second situation mentioned above.
The advent of hysteresis capillary pressure curves l and
the recent development of better logging ~dgvices for meas-
uring R"o should make these techniques even more diag-
nostic than in former years. However, the author consid-
ers the application of So vs Ros relations the least reliable
of the techniques in common use because (1) it is depend-
ent on a consistent So-Ro" relation, (2) since the SO-R08
relation (Fig. 11) exhibits a relatively large change in So
with a smaller change in R OR , the S" estimates are sensitive
to errors in R"B determination, and (3) the technique will
also obviously be sensitive to anything which affects the '
invasion of the formation of interest.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

were not diagnostic because water' resistivity changes by
a factor as high as four between adjacent well locations,
with the fresher waters associated with the water saturat-
ed locations and the saltier waters with the oil-bearing lo-
cations. R,va plots and R" vs apparent porosity plots were
not applicable because the formatioll only contains one or
two porous zones. However, capillary pressure work had
established a relatively definite So vs Ros relation which
was verified by log calculations in wells where Rw was
measured from produced fluids (Figs. 11 and 12). The
technique was applied in the following manner.
1. Ros was estimated from the equation
(14)
where Ros is residual oil saturation in the flushed zone ad-
jacent to the borehole, Rm! is mud filtrate resistivity and
R.~o is flushed Zone resistivity (obtained in this case from
the MicroLaterolog).
2. The average curve shown in Fig. 11 was entered
with the calculated ROB> and So was estimated.
This evaluation technique has been used as the basis
for an I8-well recompletion program and, as of this date,
the m.ethod has been successful in ev~ry case. This is an
example of the first situation mentioned above.
Tixier used an So vs R08 relation_ in a different way in
his Rocky Mountain interpretation technique. 5 From Eqs.
14" 1, 2 and 3, it can be shown that:
Rw (I-Rost"
(15)
Rill! (1-S,,)"
so that if Rw and a relation between So and Ros are known,
Example Application of the Techniques
For Estimating I
Fig. 13 shows the results of applying the techniques
previously discussed for estimating I. The section is the
same as that shown in Fig. 10. There was no information
about water 'salinity other than the fact that it varies ap-
preciably in this formation over the basin. The objective
in other parts of the basin was known to have a wide
range in lithologies from· vuggy dolomite to sand and silt.
The top 60 ft was cored and exhibited this range in lith-
ologies. The bottom part of the core contained an appar-
ently porous sand with good oil staining which prompted
the running of the drill-stem test (Fig. 13). Several thous-
and feet of oil was recovered indicating the presence of
at least some oil productive sand.
Fig. 14 is the (6.t - ,6.t iii,) vs apparent resistivity plot for
this section. Previous cores at shallower depths had indi~
cated a .6.t", of 55 microsec/ft for the sands in the same
formation, and this was the .6.t", used in this plot, although
the sonic log exhibited some zones with .6.t's smaller than
55 mictosecl ft. These were not included in the plot shown
in Fig. 14 and were assumed to be dolomitic intervals. Fig.
14 does not exhibit significant resistivity anomalies to ex-
plain the favorable drill-stem test recovery.
Application of the Rwa technique to this section was
discussed in the preceding section. It indicated at least two
zones with some hydrocarbon saturation, although resis-
tivity anomalies for these two zones were not of sufficient
magnitUde by themselves to explain the drill-stem test
recovery or to indicate a commercial discovery.
Conventional saturation calculations were also of ques-

70
r7fl '- 70

~- L
(15 \)ELLSl

60
7l/--~--0 -;;-0- 60 i I

lZ'----- ogoo~~OC d?
~ ",,-"~
I .
50 50 / 0

!
! o~o ~ 000 o 8 v.~~o /
~~'-"'~~k
\\",'l'-~
o-'? 40 o-'? 40
80
en
o
0:: 30
I

l? 0 '<'c>'"
Q 0
o~
V0°0 (
g
en
0
0::
30
./
V
o~
V"~~~~?~
/ 0

,-\~\~\",r"
~",,-'"

V:;,~V
/

20 1 - - lL 0:;-0000V-0 ' 0° 0

w
20

/- ~
I~
j.SV'
8
o

V.
10 10
00
~
~oo
0 V
10 20 30 40 GO 70 80 90 100
~10 20 30 40 60 70 80 90 100

Fig. II-So vs Ros (cap. curves). Fig. 12-So vs ROB (logs).

1/1,30 JOURNAL OF \PETROLEUM TECTINOLOC,l'

·z
o
~
/.!fj lATEROlOG
~
t;Q ohms m /
2
~
/.!fj
-GAMMA RAY SONIC lOG NEUTRON SP DUAL It, ll-8 200
~ 0
1-1 -_. CALIPER LH in microsec/ft A P I UNITS mv ohms m2/m 0 2000
10
QI
QI
100 70 40 1600 2400 3200 10 10 100 1000 Q. 20,000
1--++-=·· -r::w::t=f="F ... ~tJa
IS f.-l. ~ -l~··+--l~·'\'+-·l:-j- ·1·· +_ ..
.+- to::::
1-+-
lS

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

f:-++-f.=+:-1'::'+--J:-' .
~ 1-++-1--1-+ +_..
j.- ,.];
-~~.
1=

1-V f.
.+'-

1#tt_flitm'
1
- --

•
13DST *1
m Rec 6000' Oil .-rtH. ._.\.-_. +±-~.=t+~+ . · .. - ..

SAND ® RWA=4.1O IW=s ··f:=L~L _.+-

-u-:l-' I ''C
~tm
·-.::.c+.::. •. t

z·
c=

•
~: 1-'-+"-•.
a::
.....
(.y
: .. H±: ..

~
z~
~: -

>: -~lJ=i~·:ti=
~:
0:
c5: t + f I f + FFt ., 1 t 1 I-~.

::c:
~: :i.:.tttltFtntbU+
-~F..

~. .tlilI1111t I
::::;= .~ -F-I-+-

Ilf:!.~
SAND ® RWA=2.96 ··_ttfft .~::..
t=

~::: ~
>:z:
g:~~ -:~~
.:r=t=L. .j.C -m~
c5:~:
~~~: ~-,rlE .=+=+.+= .. Frt:·

..... :~: ~
• . ..-
:..··~:-"'r· : . . --

==u;
. ..•.-.-
..

SAND © Rw A'1.78
m.tttf-=t: . · - - --

:~~U':::F: ..:.'+- I ·- - .-
-

!_~tf
-1... .:.. ... - ..::: -=. .- . I EW
~t:
~.... .~ ~
_. - -
~ ..
···:··-···-·····- - -

-r-prrr :t=+tl11+~· f~
.. .
\ frt,--·r=-r-l' +=!=-

@
'ilMEBiJll :Tl. 1 1 · ·

Fig. 13-Log suite, Wildcat No.5.

1-1
II»
(,C
1-1
 tionable value. Water salinity data were completely lacldng TABLE' 1-PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION, WILDCAT NO.5
and the SP log did not appear to be definitive for calcu- Average
Porosity SW
lating water salinity. The calculation for the sand interval Interval
-A-
Lithology
~ (%J
which was drill-stem tested used the shale immediately Dolomite 'and sand 12.5 34
B Sand 14..0 45
above the objective top for a shale base line and indicated C Sand 8.0 60
D Dolomite 13.0 15
an Rw of about 0.13 ohm-m at bottom-hole conditions.
This is considerably fresher than Rw in the same forma-
tion at the nearest location, but not fresher than Rw ob- value calculated from the Laterolog for R,w was three
served at some locations. Using the calculated Rw (0_.13 times the value calculated from the induction log. When
ohm-m), an m of 2.0 and an n of 2.0, all of the porous in- these values of Rw were used to calculate saturations in
tervals were calculated to have water saturations less than the entire section (with the appropriate resistivity log) the
40 per cent if the induction log were used, and less than values shown in Table 1 were obtained. These estimates
30 per cent water saturation if the Laterolog were used. left no doubt that the well should be completed, and ex-
The So vs R08 technique was not applicable even though plained the favorable drill-stem test recovery.
hysteresis capillary pressure curves had been run because Because of the uncertainty regarding the effects of litho-
the short spaced resistivity devices did not function logy ~n the sonic log (reflected in the failure of apparent
properly. porosIty vs apparent resistivity plot to be diagnostic), a

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

Thus, the straightforward . application of the techniques
discussed did not lead to a diagnostic interpretation. One
technique (So vs ROB) was not applicable because proper
logs were not available. The apparent porosity vs apparent
resistivity plot was not definitive probably bec'ause of
lithology variations (changes in.6.t m ). The Rwa technique
exhibited the presence of hydrocarbon saturation in at
least some of the sands, but did not indicate oil saturations
greater than 50 per cent unless a significant hydrocarbon
saturation could be predicated in the interval with the least
,oil saturation. Conventional water saturation calculations
indicated the presence of significant hydrocarbon satura-
tions, but were open to some doubt because of the lack of
diagnostic water salinity data.
Residual oil saturations from the core at the top of the
formation provided the key to a conclusive interpretation;
Fig. 15 shows a plot of residual oil saturation found in
this core vs porosity. This plot shows that residuals as
high as 60 per cent existed in the porosities below 5 per
cent, and that above 5. per cent the' rocks were permeable
enough to have lost some oil in bringing the cores to the
surface. Hysteresis c,apillary pressure' curves in the low
4
,
neutron log was run after the hole was cased. The neutron
log showed another zone of good porosity (D on Fig. 13
an~ Table 1) nea: the bottom, of the section penetrated,
WhICh was not eVIdent from the sonic log. The core ana-
lysis and the sonic log response in intervals known to be
sand were used to calibrate the neutron log. After this
:vas done, the neutron log was used to estimate porosities
III the zones where knowledge of lithology was uncertain.
This procedure established the sonic log porosity trends
shown in Fig. 16 and substantiated the apprehension con-
cerning the effects of lithology on the sonic log. Produc-
tion testing subsequently confirmed that Interval D was a
highly productive oil-saturated reservoir.
This example illustrates once more the need to consider
all of' the applicable techniques possible in evaluating
wells such as this. In fact, experience has shown that it is
often necessary to use some combination of these tech-
niques with additional petrophysical data to obtain a diag-
nostic interpretation.
Conclusions

porosity cores verified that all· the oil in the rocks with
porosities less than 5 per cent was residual. Therefore, it
could be assumed, that the residual oil measured in the
core with porosity of less than 5 per cent could be
equated to total oil saturation. Using these measurec;l resi-
dual oils and the corresponding. core porosities, both resis-
tivity logs were' used in the intervals from which the cores
were obtained to calculate values of Rw. The values so
calculated from the induction log were in approximate
agreement with the value calculated from the SP. The
,Conventional water saturation calcuhitions have the ad-
vantage of accounting for changes in rock types and litho- .
logies through the use of three basic equations. This tech-
nique has the- disadvantage of being susceptible to errors
in water saturation determination due to uncertainties in
90
80

70

60
en
w
a:: 50 ,.
0
o
~
0

0°
~ 40
0
en
30
:0
20 00 0

10

100 1000 10,000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
RA o%
Fig. I4-Ra vs (.6.t-.6.t".), Wildcat No.5 Fig. IS-So (cores) vs porosity, Wildcat No.5.

1432 JOURNAL OF IPETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 40 log response equation is reqUIred to define the water satu-
rated part of the plot. .

44 ~ Plots of Rwa vs depth .are partict1rlarly useful evaluation

techniques where water resistivity is unknown and where
~ lithology may vary so that apparent porosity (from the

48
~66 sonic log) vs apparent resistivity plots may be misleading.
If the ratio of the Rwa for any interval has a ratio to the
6"'-
o - ¢ FROM CORES minimum Rwa of four or greater, then that interval prob-

52 \ ~ 6 - ¢ FROM NEUTRON LOG ably has a water saturation of less than 50 per cent. If
this ratio has a va~ue between one and four, the technique

2 56
\\ '""'"
~
6
G'G')-
~O
~O
~l:
merely indicates that the interval probably contains some
hydrocarbons. The technique has the disadvantage of re-
quiring a constant water resistivity, and of requiring a
.........
u
e60
Q)
1\\\ ~ ,,~
knowledge of the cementation factor m for all lithologies
involved.
When the previous techniques cannot be applied suc-

\\ \
(.)

'E . cessfully, the use of Ro. vs So relation defined by capillary

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/JPT/article-pdf/18/11/1425/2224429/spe-1446-pa.pdf/1 by guest on 07 September 2023

pressure measurements may be helpful. The technique has

\~ ~ the disadvantages of being dependent on a consistent So

~ vs ROB relation, of being sensitive to errors in ROB determi-

1\\\
nations and of being sensitive to factors which affect the
68
~ degree of invasion.
~~ ~;, Experience has shown that anyone of the foregoing
techniques for estimating water saturation will often not
72
~~ \ be sufficient by itself, but that frequently a combination
.~~ ~ of two or more of the techniques must be used before a

\~
76 diagnostic interpretation canbe derived. Even then, addi-
<3- -10 tional petrophysical data beyond that required for straight-
forward application of these techniques may be necessary.

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 Acknowledgment
10 %
The author expresses his appreciation to Shell Oil Co.
Fig. 16-~t vs ¢, Wildcat No.5. for permission to publish this paper.

knowledge of water resistivity, errors in determination of References

R t , errors in the determination of porosity and, occasion-
ally, errors in the val pes used for n' and m. 1. Archie, G. E.: "The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in
Determining· Some Reservoir Characteristics", Trans., AIME
Plots of apparent porosity vs apparent resistivity for (1942) 146, 54-62.
the determination of the resistivity index I are particularly 2. Wyllie, M. R. J., Gregory, A. R. and Gardner, 1. W.: "Elastic
useful for a quick evaluation of long sections in wells Wave Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous Media", Geophy-
where there is a minimum of petrophysical data. The sics (Jan., 1956)· 21, No. ·1,'41.
principal advantages of this technique are (1) a large 3. Tixier, M. P., Alger, R. P.andTanguy, D. R.: "New Develop-
ments in Induction and Sonic Logging", Trans., AIME (1960)
amount of section can be quickly evaluated for significant 219, 362-370. .
hydrocarbon saturations without the time-consuming proc- 4. Pickell, J. J., Swanson, B. F. and Hickman, W. B.: "The Appli-
ess of calculating water saturations by the basic equations; cation of Air-Mercury and Oil-Air Capillary Pressure Data in
(2) a knowledge of water resistivity and the cementation the Study of Pore Structure and Fluid Distribution", Soc. Pet.
factor are not necessary (but they must be constant for Eng. Jour. (March, 1966) 55-61.
5. Tixier, M. P.: "Electric Log Analysis in the Rocky Moun-
the method to be applicable); and (3) once the plot has
been made, parameters such as the cementation factor m
tains", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1949) 316-328. ***
can be easily varied without tedious recalculation.
The sonic-resistivity log combination is particularly
useful when lithology (as reflected by the b..t at zero poros-
ity) is constant over the section of interest, since the slope GEORGE R. PICKETT received BS and
of the appropriate plot in water-bearing intervals is equal MS degrees in mathematics and phys-
to the cementation factor m. This log combination also ics from The U. of Oklahoma in 1952
has the advantage of not requiring a knowledge of the and a DSc degree in geophysical engi-
slope of the sonic log-porosity relation. The resistivity- neering from Colorado School of
neutron log combination is also particularly useful for this Mines in 1955. Until recently he was
technique because a knowledge of the constants in the associated with Shell Oil Co. in forma-
response equation for the neutron log is not required. The tion evaluation research and opera-
resistivity-compensated density log combination is not as tions. Pickett is presently an assistant
appropriate as the other log combinations for this tech- professor of geophysics at Colorado
nique because a knowledge of the constants in the density School of Mines.

N.oVEMBElt, 1966 1433