THE EVOLUTION OF SHALY-SAND

CONCEPTS IN RESERVOIR EVALUATION

PAUL F. WORTHINGTON
The British Petroleum Company
Sunbury-onThames, England

ABSTRACT
A wide variety of procedures are currently in routine
use for the evaluation of shaly sands. Each of these can
furnish a significantly different reservoir evaluation.
Yet, no one method predominates within the industry.
As a means of investigating this unsatisfactory state
of affairs, the development of thinking about the shaly
sand problem has been mapped up to the present day.
In so doing, attention has been focused on the
manifestation of shale effects in electrical data, since
this remains the most contentious area through its
bearing on the determination of water saturation and
thence hydrocarbons in place. By considering the basic
characteristics of the underlying petrophysical models,
it has become apparent that the multifarious equations
for determining water saturation from electrical data
can be ordered into type groups. Thus, seemingly
dissimilar models can be related from a formationevaluation standpoint. This subject area is therefore
more systematic than it might initially have appeared.
Using this type classification as a basis, an assessment has been made of further developments in this
complex subject area. It is concluded that the shalysand problem will only be truly solved from an electrical standpoint when the requirement of a flexible,
representative algorithm, based on a sound scientific
model, which can be applied directly to wireline data,
has been fully met.

INTRODUCTION
This paper is based upon earlier technical presentations by the author to several chapters of the SPWLA.
The text has been prepared in response to requests for a
transcript of those presentations.
The object is to provide an insight into the origins of
some of the resistivity equations currently used for the
determination of water saturation S, in shaly sands, a
far reaching aspect of the shaly-sand problem and one
which remains controversial. This is attempted by
examining the growth of understanding from the
emergence of shaly-sand concepts through to the present day. It is not proposed to advance a comprehensive
treatise on the S, component of the shaly-sand probTHE LOG ANALYST

23

lem, but rather to identify key stages in the development of ideas. The treatment is therefore based very
much on a personal interpretation of this evolutionary
process; other petrophysicists would no doubt chart
these trends differently. Furthermore, it is not the intention to underwrite or refute a particular conceptual
model, but rather to seek an ordering of what might
appear, at first sight, to be an uncoordinated collection
of equations. Thus, the inclusion or omission of a particular method does not imply approval or disapproval,
respectively, of the technique in question.
Confronted at the outset with over 30 S , models
from which to choose, this treatment has been given
greater poignancy by focussing on those conceptual
models wherein the shale parameters are notionally
determinable from downhole wireline measurement.
Despite this self-imposed direction, it is hoped that this
appraisal will help to clarify some of the thinking that
underlies the application of the available S, options in
the evaluation of shaly reservoirs.
The words shale and clay are used synonymously
here. To draw upon the distinctions that have been
made elsewhere would not be helpful for present purposes, since the stated objectives of this work require a
simplification of what is already an exceedingly complex problem. Furthermore, primary emphasis is given
to dispersed shales, rather than laminated or structural
shales, since these have received by far the greatest
attention in the literature. The word shale will therefore relate to dispersed shalelclay unless otherwise
qualified.

EMERGENCE OF THE SHALY-SANDPROBLEM

The period prior to 1950 can be seen as a shalefree period from a petrophysical standpoint; it is only
since this date that the shaly-sand problem has been
fully recognized and addressed.
Selected petrophysical developments during the
shale-free period are itemized in Table 1. Surface
resistivity prospecting, pioneered by Wenner in North
America and by the Schlumberger brothers in Europe,
was the precursor of geophysical well logging fifteen
years later. The development of the first quantitative

TABLE 1

actually decrease as C, decreases (Patnode and Wyllie,

1950).The relative decrease in C,/C, at a given level of
C, appeared to be more pronounced for shalier
specimens (Fig 1). Since C, was presumed to be known,
the only possible explanation for this phenomenon lay
in the effect of the shale component of the reservoir
rock upon C,. This effect was essentially to under
reduce C, as C, decreased or, to put it another way, to
impart an extra conductivity to the system at lower
values of C,. For this reason the electrical manifestation of shale effects has been described in terms of an
excess conductivity (Winsauer and McCardell,
1953). It became advisable to regard the ratio C,/C, as
an apparent formation factor F, which is equal to the
intrinsic formation factor F only when Archies
assumptions are satisfied. Throughout this paper the
symbol F identifies the formation factor as defined by
Archie while F, represents no more than a salinitydependent approximation thereto.
Since the Archie definition of equation (1) was not
found to be valid for all formations, a more general relationship between C, and C, was sought in order to
accommodate the excess conductivity. By rewriting
equation (1) as

CHRONOLOGICAL LANDMARKS OF THE

SHALE FREE PERIOD
(PARTIALLY EXTRACTED FROM JOHNSON, 1961)
Electrical phenomena measured in the walls
of Cornish tin mines
1869 Downhole temperature measurements
1883 In-situ determination of rock resistivity by
measurement at the earths surface
1912 Resistivity prospecting established
1927 First electric log
1932 Quantitative resistivity tool (Normal device)
1939 Natural gamma tool*
1942 Archies laws
1947 Induction log
1947 Recognition of interface conductivity in
reservoir rocks*
1948 Determination of R, from the SP log
1949 Appreciation of SP response in shaly
sands*
*denotes shale-related development
1812

resistivity tool, the Normal device, and the publication

of Archies empirical laws ten years afterwards, provided the basis for the quantitative petrophysical
evaluation of arenaceous reservoirs. Although Archies
laws were established specifically for clean sands, the
increasing number of shale related developments during the last 10-12years of the shale-free period is indicative of a growing awareness of the interpretative complexities associated with the shaly-sand problem.
The emergence of the shaly-sand problem as it
affects resistivity data can be more readily traced by
considering only conditions of full water saturation in
the first instance. A convenient starting point is the
definition of formation factor F which was the first of
three equations proposed by Archie (1942), viz.

c, =

C,
F

and incorporating the excess conductivity within a

composite shale-conductivity term X, it was proposed
that an expression of the form
(3)
is valid for all granular reservoirs that are fully water
saturated.
For a clean sand, X 0 and equation (3) reduces to
equation (2). If C, is very large, X has comparatively

where R, is the resistivity of a reservoir rock when fully

saturated with aqueous electrolyte of resistivity R,, and
C, and C, are the corresponding conductivities. A plot
of C, vs C, for a given sample should furnish a straight
line of gradient 1IF provided that Archies experimental conditions of a clean reservoir rock fully saturated with brine are completely satisfied. Subject to
these conditions the formation factor is precisely what
the name implies; it is a parameter of the formation,
more specifically one that describes the pore geometry.
It is independent of C, so that a plot of C,/C. vs C,
for a given sample should furnish a straight line parallel
to the C, axis, Figure 1.
However, around 1950 there was increasing evidence
from various formations to suggest that the ratio C,/C,
is not always a constant for a given sample but can

Clean sand

cw

Figure 1 Schematic variation of the ratio C,/C,, (=Fa)

with C, for shaly sands.
24

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

little influence on C, and again equation (3) effectively

reduces to the Archie definition. Conversely, the ratio
C,/C, is effectively equal to the intrinsic formation factor F only if X is sufficiently small andlor C, is sufficiently large. Thus, although the absolute value of X
can be seen as an electrical parameter of shaliness, the
manifestation of shale effects from an electrical standpoint is also controlled by the value of X relative to the
term C,/E
During the period 1950-1955 evidence began to
accumulate that the absolute value of the quantity X
is not always a constant for a given sample over the
experimentally attainable range of C,, as equation (3)
would appear to imply, but can vary with electrolyte
conductivity (Winsauer and McCardell, 1953: Wyllie
and Southwick, 1954: Sauer et al., 1955). The most
widely accepted behavioural pattern, which has continued to be supported (Waxman and Smits, 1968;
Clavier, Coates and Dumanoir, 1977, 1984),was that for
a given sample, the absolute value of X increases with
C, to some plateau level and then remains constant as
C, is increased still further. This pattern is illustrated
for hypothetical data through Figure 2. Here the terms
non-linear zone and linear zone have been adopted
for the regions of variable X and constant X,
respectively.
The implications of changes in C,, and thence in the
relative (but not necessarily the absolute) value of X,
are illustrated in Figure 3 for the formation factor vs
porosity relationship. Data are from the Triassic Sherwood Sandstone of northwest England. For each core
sample the value of X is known to be constant over the
particular range of C, represented here. Figure 3a
depicts a plot of intrinsic formation factor F vs porosity
9 for conditions corresponding to a high C, and
thereby a relatively insignificant X. The data distribu-

Non
linear
zone

tion supports the generalized form of the formation factor-porosity relationship, a variation of the second
equation proposed by Archie (1942), viz.

F =--a

(4)

where a and m have usually been assumed constant for

a given reservoir. In contrast, Figure 3b relates to conditions of sufficiently low C, that the same absolute
values of X represented in Figure 3a have now become
highly significant even though the sample population
remains unchanged. Because of this, the ratio C,/C,
now represents merely an apparent formation factor Fa.
These departures from the Archie assumptions result in
a breakdown of the linear trend of Figure 3a to such a
degree that there is no longer a useful relationship.

0.

0.
+Ilr

-c

4
10

15

20

30

1%

Porosity

Linear
zone

t
CO

6
a

I
0

1-

0
I

Porosity

Io/ol

Figure 3 Comparison of (a) F vs 4 and (b) Fa vs 6

crossplots for 19 sandstone samples (data
from Worthington and Barker, 1972).

Figure 2 Schematic variation of C, with C, for watersaturated shaly sands.

THE LOG ANALYST

25

Although Figure 3 contrasts extreme cases, the

implications of this disparity are of general significance.
Prior to the development of reliable porosity tools it
was often the practice to estimate 4 from the ratio
C,/C, using a standard version of equation (4)in conjunction with resistivity logging data from nearby
water zones. In so doing it was essential to have sufficiently clean conditions for there to be a well defined
relationship between C#I and C,/C,. Where this condition was satisfied it was still possible to proceed even if
the ratio C,/C, actually represented an apparent formation factor Fa instead of the intrinsic formation factor
E In the former case a and m would be pseudoparameters which would compensate for any departure
of Fa from F when calculating porosity. This approach
required that the input value of F, related to the same
C, as that used to establish the relationship between F,
and in the first place.
The advent of porosity tools has resulted in a change
of usage of equation (4).It is current practice to infer
4 from porosity tool response(s) and then to calculate
F using pre-determined values of a and m. In this case
the resulting value of F will be wrong if the parameters
a and m do not themselves relate specifically to effectively clean conditions but have inadvertently been
established on the basis of a correlation of F. with 4.
This error can be readily transmitted to subsequent estimates of water saturation.
The development of suites of porosity tools has
brought with it an entirely different aspect of the shaleysand problem, that of correcting radiometric and sonic
tool responses for shale fraction. However, the resulting
shale corrections for porosity have rarely been as contentious as the various procedures adopted in the
ongoing quest for reliable shale-corrected water saturations. Therefore although uncertainties in log-derived
porosities are capable of inducing a significant error in
subsequently estimated values of S,, the porosity component of the shaly-sand problem is not considered
further here even though it remains a potentially difficult area. Instead, attention will be concentrated on the
S, problem much of which is concerned with the
physical significance of the quantity X in equation (3).
For the time being these considerations will continue to
be restricted to water zone conditions for, as implied
earlier, the premature inclusion of an S, term would
unnecessarily complicate the treatment of what is
already a very complex problem.

EARLY SWALY-SAND CQNCEPYlS

Prior to 1950 it had been the convention to regard a
water saturated reservoir rock as comprising two components, a nonconducting matrix and an electrolyte.
Where these specifications were satisfied the ratio
C,/C, was not a function of C, and the Archie conditions were met. In other cases, these simple specifica-

tions were inadequate to account for the excess

conductivity phenomenon which gave rise to a nontrivial value of X in equation (3).
In an attempt to account for this electrical manisfestation of shale effects Patnode and Wyllie (1950)proposed a
two-element, shalysand model comprising conductive
solids and an electrolyte. In this case the quantity X
was described as the conductivity due to the conductive solids as distributed in the core. Since X was
found to be a constant over the range of C , considered,
this model can be identified retrospectively with the so
called linear zone of Figure 2.
L. de Witte (1950) observed that the Patnode-Wyllie
model is equivalent to two parallel resistances, one
representing the resistance of the water phase and the
other equal to the total resistance of the conductive
solids as distributed. He argued that this would
require the electrolyte and conductive solids to be electrically insulated from one another; since they were
not, the Patnode-Wyllie model was untenable. L. de
Witte did, however, draw upon Patnode and Wyllies
work on clay slurries to propose that a homogeneous
mixture of conductive solids and electrolyte behaves
exactly as a mixture of two electrolytes. The resulting
two-element, conceptual model comprised a nonconducting matrix and a clay slurry electrolyte.
Because one of these elements is actually a composite
system, the corresponding resistivity algorithm does not
conform to the generalized equation (3). However, it is
of linear form and therefore describes the linear zone of
Figure 2.
Winsauer and McCardell (1953) ascribed the abnormal conductivity of shaly reservoir rocks to the electrical double layer in the solution adjacent to charged
clay surfaces. This abnormal, or excess, double-layer
conductivity was attributed to adsorption on the clay
surface and a resultant concentration of ions adjacent
to this surface. The Winsauer-McCardell model takes
the form of equation (3) with X = z/F where z is the
excess double-layer conductivity. Thus the same
geometric factor F was supposed for both the free electrolyte and the double-layer components of the parallel
resistor model. Furthermore the quantity z was shown
to vary with C,. The variability of X in the non-linear
zone of Figure 2 was therefore accommodated but little
evidence was presented for the constancy of X in the
linear zone. Nevertheless by proposing a variable X the
Winsauer-McCardell model differed fundamentally
from the earlier linear representations.
In order to account for the non-linear zone of Figure
2 without having to postulate a variable shale-conductivity-term Wyllie and Southwick (1954) extended
the Patnode-Wyllie model to a three element system.
This comprised conductive solids and electrolyte components as before, with a third component consisting of
electrolyte and conductive solids arranged in series.

26

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

This additional component admitted some electrical when the shale-conductivityparameter is insignificant.
interaction between the solid and liquid phases. This This is true even for those models which cannot be repthree element model gave rise to an additional interac- resented by equation (3).
tive term on the right hand side of equation (3). The
At this point we can close the discussion of early
quantity X was set equal to the intrinsic conductivity shaly-sandconcepts. Despite the considerable attention
of the solid phase qualified by an appropriate geo- given to the shaly-sand problem during the 1950s, the
metrical factor. In this way the Wyllie-Southwick model models described above collectively suffered from one
could be used to represent both the linear and non- fundamental drawback - in no case could the shale
linear zones of Figure 2 without having to vary X.
related parameter be determined directly from logging
L. de Witte (1955)formulated the concept of astrongly data. Efforts therefore continued to be directed towards
reduced activity of the double layer counterions present finding a conceptual model which did not suffer from
in a shaly sand. This resulted in a two element model this shortcoming.
in which the total rock conductivity was taken to be the
sum of conductivity terms associated with the double
CONTEMPORARY SHALYSAND CONCEPXS
layer and with the free (or far) water. The model was
For the purposes of this discussion the shaly-sand
represented by a linear relationship and therefore
models
introduced since about 1960 have been divided
described only the linear zone of Figure 2. Yet the
into
two
groups.
development is an interesting one for it lends support
to the Winsauer-McCardell model as a conceptual (i) Concepts based on the shale volume fraction, V s h .
These models have the disadvantage of being scienforerunner of the contemporary double-layer models.
tifically
inexact with the result that they are open
Hill and Milburn (1956) showed that the effect of
to
misunderstanding
and misuse. On the other
clay minerals upon the electrical properties of a reserhand
they
are
at
least
notionally applicable to logvoir rock is related to its cation exchange capacity per
ging
data
without
the
encumbrance of a core
unit pore volume QY. The measurement of Qy therefore
sample
calibration
of
the
shale related parameter.
provided an independent chemical method of determin(ii)
Concepts
based
on
the
ionic double-layer pheing the effective clay content. Hill and Milburn
nomenon.
These
models
have a more attractive
developed an exponential equation to relate C, to C,;
scientific
pedigree.
If
strictly
applied, they require
in so doing, it was presumed that when C, = 100 Sm-
of
the
shale related paramcore-sample
calibration
for a fully saturated reservoir rock, the electrolyte coneter
against
some
log
derivable
petrophysical quanductivity is sufficiently high to suppress any shale
tity.
Otherwise
their
field
application
might involve
effects. This equation contained a b-factor which was
approximations
which
effectively
reduce
the shale
empirically related to QY and which was constant for a
v
s
h
.
term
to
one
in
given lithology. Thus, although the Hill-Milburn equaAlthough V , models are being progressively distion did not conform to the generalized equation (3),
placed
by models of the second group, this process will
the shape of the C.-C, curve in Figure 3 was approxinot
be
complete until there exists an established promately represented through the use of an exponential
cedure
for
the downhole measurement of X.
function without having to suppose variations in the
shale term, b. However, a major drawback of this V s h Models
approach is that the C, function passes through a
The quantity v s h is defined as the volume of wetted
minimum at some small value of C,. The model
shale per unit volume of reservoir rock. This definition
therefore predicts that C, would increase as C, is
takes account of chemically bound waters; in this
decreased below this value. It is physically untenable
respect, it is analogous to that of total porosity.
that C, should increase as C, decreases, and it is probv s h models gained credence because of earlier exably for this reason that the Hill and Milburn method
perimental work which showed potentially useful relawas not taken further.
tionships between the amount of conductive solids
A. J. de Witte (1957)observed that Hill and Milburn present within a saturated granular system, such as a
were unnecessarily complicating the issue, since their clay slurry, and the conductivity of the solid phase (e.g.
data could be equally well represented by equation (3), Patnode and Wyllie, 1950). These early data did not
if one made allowance for some irregularity of the relate to typical reservoir rocks and they have subseplotted points. A. J. de Witte defined the product XF quently been extrapolated far beyond their original
as the shaliness of a reservoir rock, a composite limits. Attempts to explain the physical significance of
parameter which was independent of C,. Thus it was the parameter X in terms of v s h have had either a conthe linear zone of Figure 2 that was being represented ceptual or an empirical basis.
by A. J. de Wittes model.
Hossin (1960) approached the problem from a conIt should be noted that all these early models can be ceptual standpoint. The development can be traced by
described by equations which reduce to equation (2) drawing upon the aforementioned analogy between v s h
THE LOG ANALYST

27

._

and total porosity. It involves specifying a clean, fullysaturated, granular system which satisfies the original
form of Archies law, viz. equation (4) with a = 1 and
m = 2. With these specifications the equation can be
rewritten in the form

The linear form of the Hossin and Simandoux equations means that they provide only a partial representation of the behavioural pattern of Figure 2. They do
not represent data from the non-linear zone. However,
a V,, equation which does admit non-linear trends on
c, = 42 c,
( 5 ) a C, vs C, plot is that ascribed to Doll (unpublished) by
various authors (e.g., Desbrandes, 1968; RaigaSuppose now that the interstitial electrolyte is pro- Clemenceau, 1976). Because of the lack of published
gressively displaced by wetted shale. When this process documentation, the precise reasoning behind the Doll
is complete the volume that was previously pore space equation remains unspecified. However, it can be seen
is now the volume of shale. Thus 4 is analogous to V s h . from Table 2 that the Doll equation can be written
Furthermore the conductivity of the material occupy- down by separately taking the square root of each term
ing this volume has changed from C, to wetted shale of the Hossin equation. Whether this was the intention
conductivity csh. The term @C, of equation ( 5 ) is is unclear, but the effect is to impart a non-linearity
therefore analogous to V,: C s h . The quantity C, is now which might allow the equation to be used for data
equivalent to X since there is no free electrolyte in the from the non-linear zone of Figure 2. Furthermore, by
squaring the Doll equation we have
system. Thus

Csh
(6)
Where both shale and electrolyte are present, equation
(6) defines the shale-related term of equation (3). Note,
however, that in these intermediate cases, the porosity
of the system is an effective porosity since the
chemically bound waters are included within v&.Since
there is no provision for X to vary with C,, the Hossin
model relates specifically to the linear zone of Figure 2.
The Hossin equation and other V,h relationships are
listed in Table 2.
=vs:

Equation (7) is partly of the form of the generalized

parallel resistor equation (3), but there is an additional, interactive term on the right hand side which
can be seen as representing any cross linkage between
the electrolyte and shale components. Interestingly,
Poupon and Leveaux (1971)noted that Doll did indeed
suggest such a cross-linkage term some 20 years ago.
The published work of that period (Wyllie and
Southwick, 1954) furnished an equation of the form

TABLE 2

SHALY-SAND RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING V,,

(WATER ZONE)

where a, b and c are geometric factors. There is an

obvious correspondence between the terms of equations (7) and (8).Neither equation allows any variation
in the parameters of shaliness with C,.
Poupon and Leveaux (1971) proposed the so called
Indonesia formula (Table 2), an expression which is
similar to the Doll equation but with V , h having an
exponent that is itself a function of V s h . This equation
was developed for use in Indonesia because there comparatively fresh formation waters and high degrees of
shaliness had exposed the shortcomings of other equations. It has subsequently found an application elsewhere. As with the Doll equation, the Poupon-Leveaux
relationship accommodates the non-linear zone of
Figure 2.
It is worth emphasizing that none of the four equations of Table 2 allows a complete representation of
rock conductivity data over the experimentally attainable range of C,. Figure 4 compares the two types of
V,h equation considered here, the two and three element, parallel resistor equations. The two element
equation can provide a reasonably correct data
representation only in the linear zone of Figure 2. If it
is desired to improve the mismatch over part of the

Hossin (1960)
Simandoux (1963)

Doll (unpublished)
Poupon and Leveaux
(1971)

Simandoux (1963) reported experiments on homogeneous mixtures of sand and montmorillonite. He proposed an expression of the form of equation (3) with
the quantity X represented as the product v , h Csh. This
equation (Table 2) also relates specifically to the linear
zone of Figure 2. The V,h term in the Simandoux equation does not strictly correspond to the wetted shale
fraction of the Hossin concept, since the natural
calcium montmorillonite used by Simandoux was not
in the fully wetted state when the mixtures were made.
Subject to this qualification, the Simandoux and
Hossin equations differ only in the exponent of v s h .
28

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

non-linear zone, this can only be accomplished for a

given Vah by decreasing c s k so that a mis-match is introduced in the linear zone. Similarly, a good representation through a three element equation in the non-linear
zone can only be attained at the expense of a mismatch in the linear zone. This mis-match can be
improved for a given Vshby decreasing C,, but in so
doing, the fairly accurate representation in the nonlinear zone must be partially sacrificed. Figure 4,
therefore, summarizes the physical implications of
enforced changes in C,,, which are made in order to
improve the consistency of a particular log evaluation
exercise.

Non
I
linear I

Linear
zone

t
CO

Waxman and Smits (1968)explained the physical significance of the quantity X in terms of the composite
term BQ,/F*, where Qvis the cation exchange capacity
per unit pore volume, B is the equivalent conductance
of sodium clay exchange cations (expressed as a function of C, at 25C) and F* is the intrinsic formation
factor for a shaly sand, Table 3. The product BQy is
numerically equivalent to the excess conductivity z of
Winsauer and McCardell (1953). Thus, the WaxmanSmits model also assumes that the conducting paths
through the free pore water and the counterions within
the ionic double layer are subject to the same geometric
factor F*. The dependence of B upon C, allowed X to
vary with C , so that both the non-linear and the linear
zones of Figure 2 could be represented through one
parallel-resistor equation.
Clavier et al. (1977, 1984) sought to modify the
Waxman-Smits equation to take account of experimental evidence for the exclusion of anions from the
double layer. This was done in terms of a dual water
model of free (formation)water and bound (clay)water.
It was argued that a shaly formation behaves as though
it were clean, but with an electrolyte of conductivity
C,, that is a mixture of these two constituents. Thus
the Archie definition of equation (2) was rewritten

c, =-

C,.

(9)

Fo

where F, is the formation factor associated with the

entire pore space (i.e. both free and bound water). Equation (9) forms the basis of the dual water equation
cw
(Table 3). It can be inferred fmm Table 3 by rearranging
the dual water equation that the geometric factors
Figure 4 Schematic comparison of C, - C, data rep- associated with the two parallel conducting paths are
resentations by (1) two element and (2) three not equal. Furthermore, the presence of the variable
element V, conductivity models.
parameter vQin the shale term allowed X to vary with
C, at low salinities. This meant that both the nonApart from the unavailability of a universal Vsh linear and the linear zones of Figure 2 could be repreequation there is one other major disadvantage of vsk sented through this one equation.
models; the v&parameter does not take account of the
mode of distribution or the composition of constituent
TABLE 3
shales. Since variations in these factors can give rise to
SHALY-SAND RELATIONSHIPS FOR
markedly different shale effects for the same numerical
DOUBLE-LAYER MODELS
shale fraction, improved models were sought which did
(WATER ZONE)
take account of the geometry and electrochemistry of
Waxman & Smits
c,=-+c,
BQ
mineral-electrolyte interfaces.

F*

c , = -c,
+
F

Double-Layer Models
The term double layer model is used here to
describe any conceptual model which draws directly or
indirectly upon the ionic double-layer phenomenon,
as described for reservoir rocks by Winsauer and
McCardell (1953). In this respect, their work can be
seen as a conceptual forerunner of the models described
below, all of which furnish an expression of the same
general form as equation (3).
THE LOG ANALYST

c,

+
c,
F,

F*

(1968)

s,

u6
Rink & Schopper (1974)
x2F
(Cbw-CW)v,Q, Dual-water model:
Clavier et al. (1977,
F,
1984)

It is important to note the distinction drawn between

F* of the Waxman-Smits equation and F, of the dual
water model. For a clean sand F* = F., and both are
29

...~

..

. . .-

equivalent to the Archie formation factor F. For a shaly

sand F* is notionally the formation factor that the
reservoir rock would possess, if the solid clays were to
be replaced by geometrically identical but surficially
inert matrix, the bound water being grouped with the
free water as a uniform equivalent electrolyte. However,
Clavier et al. (1977, 1984) note that measured values of
F*, obtained from multiple salinity determinations of
rock conductivity, are affected by the presence of
bound water. The quantity F, is claimed to be an
idealized formation factor expressed as the product of
F* and a correction factor for the geometrical effect of
the bound water.
An important point of qualification is that the
Waxman-Smits and dual water models are specifically
based on the cation exchange properties of sodium
clays in the presence of an NaCl electrolyte as observed
for those reservoir rocks represented in the underlying
experiments (Waxman and Smits, 1968). In particular,
both models are specific in their prediction of the effective transition from the non-linear to the linear zone
(Fig. 2), an occurrence which was not presented as a
function of lithology. Extrapolation to other formations requires careful verification that the basic
assumptions of these models continue to be satisfied,
especially with regard to the concomitant representation of data from the non-linear and linear zones.
Another suite of double layer models, which has
received much less attention in the literature, is that
involving the surface area of pore systems. Rink and
Schopper (1974) proposed a model based on the specific
surface area of shaly reservoir rocks in which

(10)
where Spor is the surface area per unit pore volume, u
is the surface density of mobile charges, 6 is the effective mobility of these carrier charges within the double
layer, and X is a tortuosity associated with the double
layer (Table 3). Since the product a6 was proposed to be
approximately constant for a given cation, X was also
taken to be constant; therefore, the model was intended
to represent only the linear zone of Figure 2. Similar
comments can be applied to the related surface-conductance model of Street (1961) and to the surfacestructure model of Pape and Worthington (1983).

Discussion
The field application of V , h models usually requires
that V , h be estimated at each designated level using one
or more shale indicators. A shale indicator is simply a
conventional log or log combination whose response
equation(s) can incorporate a shale fraction term. Each
shale indicator is calibrated so that under ideal conditions it furnishes a reasonable estimate of vsh.Where
there are departures from the ideal conditions for a par-

ticular indicator, the resulting v , h is an over-estimate. It

is the usual practice to obtain several estimates of v s h
from different shale indicators and then to select the
lowest value as the best estimate at a particular level.
This means that a log derived V s h might, for example,
have resulted from measurements of natural gamma
activity, thermal neutron population or sonic transit
time, quantities that bear little physical resemblance to
the resistivity-compatible parameter X of equation (3).
Furthermore, as conditions change with depth, one
must expect the ideal shale indicator to change irregularly. Thus, not only might the derived v , h be physically
incompatible with the parallel resistor equation (3), but
the degree of incompatibility can be expected to vary
erratically. Yet again, there is no guarantee that conditions will be favourable at a given level for any of the
shale indicators used. It is, therefore, small wonder that
the V s h approach is widely regarded as deficient. Its saving grace has been that V s h is at least notionally log
derivable; and for this reason, it has continued to retain
an important role in formation evaluation.
It has been argued that it is not V s h that should be
sought as a physical interpretation of X, but rather an
effective shale volume fraction that takes account of
the composition, mode of distribution, and surface
geometry of constituent shale. These characteristics are
accommodated by models based on the ionic double
layer.
The double layer models do offer physical interpretations of X that are electrically compatible, at least
in theory. Unfortunately, however, there are no established techniques for the direct downhole measurement
of X as interpreted in these models, although a ray of
promise in this direction lies in the recent application
of frequencydomain induced polarization to Q. determination (Waxman and Vinegar, 1981).Nevertheless, because
these models represent X through electrochemical and
geometrical parameters that can be measured in the
laboratory, they would appear to afford a means of
calibrating a log-derivable petrophysical parameter in
terms of an appropriate shale related quantity. Indeed,
the field application of the double layer models has
followed this very philosophy of indirectness. For
example, Lavers et al. (1974)correlated Qv with porosity
for North Sea reservoirs. Johnson and Linke (1976)correlated cation exchange capacity with gamma ray
response. They used laboratory CEC data to derive a
method of determining effective shale volume from
gamma-ray response using a non-linear relationship. In
this way a double layer model was used to control the
input to a v s h model. Yet again, Juhasz (1981) proposed
obtaining Q. from the dry clay fraction, a parameter
which was determined using the neutron and density
log responses. In general, the need to correlate empirically QY or some related quantity with a log-derivable
parameter constitutes the major weakness of the
30

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

double layer models, which consequently have not had

the extensive impact within the industry that might
have been expected solely on scientific grounds.
While it is recognized that both the vsh and the
double layer models suffer from deficiencies as regards
field application, both approaches are also seriously
affected by problems concerning laboratory measurement. A determination of X in the laboratory can be
accomplished in two ways, by direct measurement of
the constituent parameters or by the multiple-salinity
indirect approach, whereby values of C, recorded at
several different values of C, are used to determine F,
and thence by calculation X. The direct laboratory
determination of vsh is theoretically possible, but even
if it were meaningful there remains the problem of
C,. The indirect approach will provide a quantitative estimate of some function of vsh and C,,,
but it will not separately resolve these quantities. The
direct measurement of Spar and Qy is feasible, but it is
well known that different techniques furnish different
results (e.g., Van den Hul and Lyklema, 1968; Mian and
Hilchie, 1982). A decision is required as to which
measurement is likely to be the most meaningful in the
light of the intended application. Even if an appropriate measurement of Spor or QVcan be made, the formation in question might not satisfy the chosen model
and might therefore preclude a useful calculation of X.
In this event, recourse can again be made to the
multiple-salinitymethod whereby X can be determined
as a composite term. Thus, for example, Kern et al.
(1976), recognizing that X-values based upon direct
measurements of were incorrect for certain tight gas
sands, concluded that these formations could not be
represented through the Waxman-Smitsmodel and proceeded to determine X from an equation of the form of
(3).
The foregoing might appear as an unduly pessimistic
appraisal. Yet, it must be mentioned again that we have
up to now confined this treatment as far as possible to
cases of full water saturation. In the presence of hydrocarbons, shale effects become more pronounced and
consequently the shaly-sand problem assumes even
greater degrees of significance and complexity.
QY

APPLICATION TO THE HYDROCARBON ZONE

The extension of the shaly-sand equations of Tables
2 and 3 to take account of the hydrocarbon zone
requires that terms in Sw be incorporated into the relationships. This has generally resulted in one of two distinct outcomes, a change in only the clean sand term
of the corresponding water-zone equation or a modification of both the clean and shaly terms.

S, Equations for Shaly Sands

Changes to the clean term have been based upon
THE LOG ANALYST

31

Archie's well known water saturation equation for

clean sands, viz.
"

c' ---ss,
F

c w

(11)

where C , is the conductivity of a reservoir rock that is

partially saturated to degree S, with electrolyte of conductivity C,, and n is a clean sand saturation exponent
often taken to be two. Thus, if only the clean term is
changed, the general water-zone equation (3) can be
transformed to

c, =c-s,"
F
+x

(12)

so that when X is very small or C, is very large, equation (12) reduces to the clean sand equation (11).
Specific examples of equation (12)are the Hossin (1960)
and Simandoux (1963) equations, Table 4, the latter
relating explicitly to values of S, above the irreducible
water saturation (Bardon and Pied, 1969).
TABLE 4

SHALY-SAND RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING V,

(HYDROCARBON ZONE)

c =%s" w % csh
'
F
c
, Sl + xhcsh
Ct = F
c, = !$ sl

+Vsh

csh

Hossin (1960)
Simandoux (1963)

s,

=&si? v h c
< & s;/* + y;-v+
-k

Bardon & Pied (1969)

Doll (unpublished)

s":
Poupon and Leveaux
(1 971)

Changes to the shale term have usually had the

effect of introducing a factor S;where s can be loosely
regarded for our purposes as a "shale-term saturation
exponent." Thus, if both the clean and the shale terms
are changed, the general water-zone equation (3) can
be transformed to

c, =G
F s: + x s:,

(13)

Again, this equation reduces to equation (11) when X

is very small or C, is very large. Specific examples of
equation (13) are the modified Simandoux equation
(Bardon and Pied, 1969) of Table 4 and the A. J. de
Witte (1957), Waxman-Smits (1968) and Clavier et al.
(1977, 1984) equations of Table 5. Although not a
double layer model, the A. J. de Witte equation has
been placed in Table 5 because of its correspondence to
the Waxman-Smitsequation, as noted by Waxman and
Smits (1968) themselves.

A specific example of equation (14) is the unpublished

Doll equation of Table 4 (cited by Desbrandes, 1968;
Raiga-Clemenceau, 1976).
Where both clean and shale terms are changed we
can modify equation (13) to give

The remaining equations of Table 4 can be reached

by initially taking the square root of each term in equations (12) and (13), just as in the water-zone case.
Where only the clean term is changed, we can modify
equation (12) to give

c=

s;I2 + Jx

J,=

(14)

6 s,"/' +

V'XS:12

(15 )

A very small X or a very large C, causes equation (15)

to reduce to equation (1 1). A specific example of equation (15) is the Indonesia formula of Poupon and
Leveaux (1971) in Table 4.

Note that a very small X or a very large C, still causes

equation (14)to reduce to the clean sand equation (11).
TABLE 5

Classification of S, Equations
Equations (12)-(15)represent a four part family of S,
equations for shaly sands. Most of the equations proA. J. de Witte (1957)
posed over the past 30 years can be identified with one
of these four groups. Noteworthy exceptions are proWaxman & Smits (1968) cedures which draw upon exponential functions (e.g.
Krygowski and Pickett, 1978) and certain equations of
strictly local application (e.g. Fertl and Hammack,
1971).
Clavier et al. (1977,
In using equations (12)-(15) as the basis for a
1984)

SHALY-SAND RELATIONSHIPS FOR

"DOUBLE-LAYER" MODELS
(HYDROCARBON ZONE)
C
W
C, = -S:
F
c, = C
W s;
F*

+ AS,
+BQ" s;-'
F*

TABLE 6

TYPE EQUATIONS FOR S, RELATIONSHIPS

TYPE

EQUATION

NO.

COMMENTS

c, = ff S," + y

(16)

2.

c, = ff s.,

(17)

c, = ff

(18)

c, = ff

No interactive term, S, does not

appear in both terms
No interactive term, S, appears
in both terms
Interactive term, S, does not
appear in all terms
Interactive term, S, appears in all
terms

+ y s.,
S," + p s; + y
S," + p s; + y s.,

(19)

a-denotes predominant sand term; P-denotes predominant interactive term; ?-denotes predominant shale term.

TABLE 7a

S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 1
REFERENCE EQUATION
POUPON
et al (1954)

HOSSIN
(1 9601
SIMANDOUX
(1 963)

c, =

(l

COMMENTS

Xh)
F

cw

s: +

cw
c, = F

sw

C, = %.
F

S
: + EV,hCsh

+%

Laminated shale model;

F = formation factor of clean-sand
streaks;
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space of clean sand streaks

vshcsh

csh

E
E

S,
c 1 for low S,
= 1 for high

F relates to free-fluid porosity unless otherwise stated; S, relates to free-fluid pore space unless otherwise
stated; Equations are written with n = 2.
32

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

classification scheme for S , equations, it is helpful to

rewrite equations (14) and (15) without the square root
function of C,. This not only facilitates comparisons
between the various expressions, but it also emphasizes
the presence within these equations of an interactive
sand-shale term encompassing S:, where r can be
regarded as an "interactive-term saturation exponent."
On this basis we can use equations (12)-(15)as the foundation for the four generalized type equations (16)-(19)
listed in Table 6.

The four type equations (16)-(19)describe categories

of relationships to which most of those S, expressions
reported in the literature can be assigned. Examples of
Types 1-4 are grouped in Tables 7a-7d, respectively.
Some of these expressions have been rearranged from
their conventional presentation in an effort to minimize
variations in format. Comments on certain points of
interest now follow.
The laminated shale model of Poupon et al. (1954)in
Table 7a might be classified as Type 3 when the com-

TABLE 7b
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 2
REFERENCE
L. de WlTTE

(1955)

A. J. de WlTTE

(1957)

CLAVIER et al.

(1977,1984)

JUHASZ (1981)

EQUATION

c, =

COMMENTS

2.15 k m,
F

c, = cwF S,'

s.

msh

m, = molal concentration of
exchangeable cations in formation
water
msh = molal concentration of
exchangeable cations associated
with shale
k = conversion from m,.,, to
conductivity
F relates to total interconnected porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space
F = maximum formation factor
FA = shaliness factor
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space
C, = conductivity due to shale ( # Csh)
F relates to total interconnected porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space
F* relates to total interconnected
porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space
Modified Simandoux equation

S,

+ A S,

c, sw2 +
c, = FO

cw
c, = s,2 +
F

(C*W -

C,) v, Q" s,
FO

[ :; c, ]
--

vsh 4 s h sw

See notes at foot of Table 7a.

THE LOG ANALYST

33

F relates to the free fluid porosity of

the total rock volume, inclusive of
intraformational (laminated) shales
Dual-water model
F
,, relates to total interconnected porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space
Normalized Waxman-Smits equation
where 4 is the porosity derived
F = l/p
from the density log and corrected
for hydrocarbon effects
Fsh = 1/42where qjSh is the shale
porosity derived from the density log
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space

The dual water model of Clavier et al. (1977, 1984)

in Table 7b might be classified as Type 4 with the composite term in (Cb,-C,) fully expanded. There are two
reasons why this expression has been retained as Type
2. Firstly, this bracketed term represents a conceptually
meaningful excess water conductivity. Secondly, expansion of the bracket would introduce a discrete negative
term which would be at variance with the concept of
resistors in parallel. A similar line of reasoning can be
formulated for the Juhasz equation, also in Table 7b.

posite bracketed term is fully expanded into two components. This has not been done primarily because in
this laminated model with clean sand streaks the quantity (I - Vsh)relates to the volume fraction of clean sand
within the rock as a whole. It would be meaningless to
break this term down to yield an interactive term in C,,
F and V,, since the first two parameters relate to zones
which are stipulated to exclude altogether the shale
laminations.

Table 7c
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 3
REFERENCE

EQUATION

ALGER
et al (1963)

c, =

HUSTEN &
ANTON
(1981)

c, =

c w (1-q)2 s,

c, =

+ q(l-

9)(csh + cw) S,

C,
F

+ :v
PATCHETT &
HERRICK
(1982)

COMMENTS

s, +

q2sh

2 vsh

Clay slurry model

F relates to total volume occupied by
fluid and clay
S, relates to fluid-filled pore space
F = 1/4; where is total interconnected

c,

{ -E[

csh

( l -&h)
F

cw

Si

( SJ- F

BQ~
sw +

c,

S, relates to total interconnected pore

space
vsh c s h

See notes at foot of Table 7a

Laminated sand-shale model

= volume fraction of laminated
shales only
F relates to total interconnected porosity
within shaly-sand streaks
S,= relates to total interconnected
pore space within shaly-sand streaks

v,

TABLE 7d
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 4
R EFER ENCE

EQUAT I0N

POUPON &
LEVEAUX
(1971)

cr

WOODHOUSE
(1976)

C,
F
Vi-

= - s$

c,=-s,
C,

csh

JV
s,

COMMENTS
Indonesia formula

si

Modification of Poupon & Leveaux

equation for tar sands

+ 2

34

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

The quantity B in the Waxman-Smits equation

(Table 7b) is a function of the bulk electrolyte conductivity C,. The product BQYis therefore intuitively an
interactive term. However, for classification purposes it
has been regarded strictly as a shale term since variations in B effectively determine the degree of manifestation of the cation exchange capacity and do not affect
the sand term directly.
The equation of Patchett and Herrick (1982)in Table
7c does not contain an interactive term in the sense of
the other equations in this group. It is in fact a combination of the Waxman-Smitsequation (Table 7b) and
the expression of Poupon et al. (1954) in Table 7a. The
effect of this combination is to produce an equation of
Type 3.

of water needed to saturate the double layer. This

reduction takes account of shale being isolated from
the conducting circuit as S, reaches very low values,
especially for reservoirs which are partially oil wet.
Equations of Type 2 are based on both vh models
and doublelayermodels (Table 7b). The shale term contains s, and can therefore vary with water saturation.
In absolute terms, this variation is such that a reduction in S, leads to a reduction in the shale component.
In relative terms, however, a reduction in S, leads to an
increase in shale effects, since the sand component is
also reduced, but in proportion to S,. This projected
increase in shale effects with decreasing S, is not at
variance with Simandoux (1963), provided it is identified with values of S, greater than Simandouxs critical
water saturation. It is only as S, decreases below this
critical level that the Simandoux model predicts a decreasing shale effect.
In the case of Type-2 v s h models Bardon and Pied
(1969), recognizing the difficulties of Simandouxs
approach, substituted S, for the coefficient E (Table 7a)
and thereby produced an equation of the form of A. J.
de Witte (1957). The object was to simplify the Simandoux equation so that greater ease of use compensated
for any resulting loss of accuracy. The development of
Type-2 equations does seem to have been guided by de
Wittes earlier work, especially since de Witte did not
restrict the approach by specifying a physical interpretation of the general shale term A.
For Type-2 double-layer models, it has long been
recognized that a decrease in the amount of water
within the free fluid pore space causes an increase in
the relative importance of potential phenomena associated with the double layer. This happens because
when free water is displaced by hydrocarbons, the
counterions must remain to ensure electro-neutrality.
The effect is to increase the shale term X to a new level
X where
X
X = S,

Discussion
We have introduced hydrocarbon zone equations by
considering initially relationships for water saturated
sands and then describing how these expressions have
been modified in order to arrive at the S, equations
that have been proposed in the technical literature. As
implied earlier, this two stage breakdown was imposed
to facilitate the treatment and its understanding. However, some authors have proceeded directly to an S,
equation, and in these cases, it has been necessary to
reduce their equations to water zone conditions retroactively, in order that the pattern of development might
be consistent within the overall scheme adopted here.
Thus, all S, equations are presumed to have been established initially under water zone conditions and subsequently modified for use in the hydrocarbon zone.
In describing how these water zone equations have
been conceptually extended to take account of S, we
did not examine the reasoning behind each modification. In certain cases the reasons have not been stated
explicitly, in others the approach has been solely empirical. Despite these shortcomings the following is an
attempt to piece together in skeletal form the thinking
behind the generalized family of equations (16)-(19),
using as a basis those cases where clear reasoning has (L. de Witte, 1955; Hill & Milburn, 1956; A. J. de
Witte, 1957; Waxman & Smits, 1968; Waxman &
been presented.
Equations of Type 1 are usually based on v s h models Thomas, 1974). Thus, the enhancement of reservoir
(cf. Table 7a). The adoption of a fractional shale volume rock conductivity, due to shale effects, can be expected
and an intrinsic shale conductivity as the physical to be more pronounced for greater hydrocarbon saturainterpretation of the shale parameter X does not make tions. It is further reasoned that in the presence of
any conceptual provision for the shale term to vary hydrocarbons, the geometric factor F must be replaced
with S,. This is because V,, is not an effective shale by an analogous factor G which is related to F as
volume (as per the modification of Johnson and Linke, follows:
1976), but it is an absolute quantity. It is presumably
for this reason that the shale term is not a function of
S, in, for example, the equation of Hossin (1960). Yet
Simandoux did introduce some dependence on S, by Thus, the general water-zoneequation (3), rewritten as
making provision for c s h to reduce through a coefficient E , which falls below unity for saturations less than
c, =- FI (C, + FX)
some critical value of S,, corresponding to the amount
THE LOG ANALYST

35

sound scientific conceptual model. The development of

any given S, equation has sometimes been dominated
by one of these factors at the expense of the other.
Predictive performance seems to have been the main
prerequisite governing the emergence of v s h equations,
which have been progressively modified in an effort to
improve local accuracy. In this latter respect, a classic
development is the Indonesia formula of Poupon and
Leveaux (1971). Because V s h equations lack a sound
scientificbasis, and because they are necessarily founded
on some localized control data, considerable disparities
can be expected between the estimates of S, that they
provide. As an example, Figure 5 contains comparisons

where the bracketed term denotes the equivalent water

conductivity C,, as in equation (9), must be replaced by
Ct = 1

(C,

+ FX)

(23)

Substituting for X from equation (20) and for 6 from

equation (21) yields

c, =- F s, + x S Y
cw

(24)

which, with n = 2, reduces to the form of the Type-2

double layer equations.
Equations of Type 3 (Table 7c) offer no consistent
reason why the shale term does not contain S,. For the
equations of Doll and of Husten and Anton (1981) the
absence of S, can be traced to its absence in the squarerooted equation (14). Since this equation was notionally
linked to equation (12)the reasons for the absence of S,
in the shale term are likely to be similar to those proposed for the equations of Type-1. The form of the
equation of Alger et al. (1973) is a direct consequence
of the clay slurry model (L. de Witte, 1950) upon which
this expression is based. For the Patchett and Herrick
(1982) equation the shale term actually relates to
laminations, as per Poupon et al. (1954) whose model
made no provision for the inclusion of S, in the shale
term (Table 7a).
The Type-4 equations involving v s h (Table 7d) all
have empirical origins. The dual porosity model of
Raiga-Clemenceau et al. (1984) is partly based upon an
empirical determination of the shale term saturation
exponent. This exponent turned out to be nontrival, an outcome which has resulted in a Type-4
classification.
Despite the diverse origins of the equations of Table
7 the classification into type groups allows some ordering of what has hitherto been a highly disjointed subject area. As a consequence, apparently dissimilar
models can be seen to have common links from a
formation-evaluation standpoint. Thus, although Table
7 contains only a proportion of those S, equations that
have been proposed over the years, there are grounds
for supposing that the interrelationship and correspondence of the various S, equations might form a
basis for further developments leading towards an
improved conductivity model with a much wider and
more direct application.

,\

80 -

600

0
(P

40-

v,

20-

v)

20

40

60

SW Hossin

80

[%I

la1

FURTHER DEVEUlPMENaS

20

40

s w Doll

Before a prospective way forward can be meaningfully identified, even in broad terms, it is important to
be aware of the general reasons for the multiplicity of
S, equations that is exemplified in Table 7. There are
two principal factors that have influenced the development of these equations, (i) predictive performance
often in localized applications, and (ii) the need for a

Ibl

60

10/J

80

100

100

Figure 5 Comparisons of predicted water saturations

(a) for the Simandoux and Hossin equations,
and (b) for the Simandoux and Doll equations
(from Fertl and Hammack, 1971).
36

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

of the Simandoux and Hossin equations, both of

Type-1 (Table 7a), and of the Simandoux and Doll equations, of Type-l (Table 7a) and Type 3 (Table 7c), respectively. It can be seen from Figure 5a that the Simandoux and Hossin equations show fair agreement at low
values of S,, i.e. around 20 saturation units. Yet, at high
values of S, there is a consistent disparity with the
Hossin equation furnishing values of S, that are some
20 saturation units greater than the Simandoux estimates. In contrast Figure #5b indicates that there is
generally good agreement between the Simandoux and
Doll equations for low values of v s h . However, for shale
fractions of 30% the Simandoux equation consistently
provides higher estimates of S, by some 15 saturation
units. All this illustrates that the disparity between
estimates is variable, and is strongly dependent on the
equations used and the prevailing values of v s h and s,.
These disadvantages can be partially compensated by
using C, as a tuning parameter to improve predictive
performance in the water zone in the expectation that
better estimates of S, will thereby be obtained in the
hydrocarbon zone.
The quest for a sound scientific conceptual model
has been responsible for the development of the double
layer equations. In this case certain aspects of predictive performance have sometimes had to be sacrificed
in the interests of retaining a reasonable working
theory. Where inexactness has had to be admitted, it has
often been confined to petrophysical situations that are
less important from a formation evaluation standpoint
or are less likely to be encountered in practice, e.g. cases
of very high degrees of shaliness or exceedingly fresh
formation waters. An interesting example is to be found
in the reported mismatch of the dual water model to
experimental data for a very shaly sand, fully saturated,
with low salinity electrolyte (Clavier et al., 1984). In
this case the curvature associated with the calculated
trend of the dual water equation is actually opposite to
that of the experimental data trend, Figure 6. This is
partly a consequence of the dual water models inability
to track the data points corresponding to low values of
C,. The reason for this is that the model self-imposesa
lower limit of C, which corresponds to the case in
which the entire pore volume is occupied by bound
water of calculated conductivity 7.6 S m-l at 25C.
It is expected that the same influencing factors will
continue to govern the development of further S, equations, which will inevitably evolve especially as more
extreme environments are encountered. However, a
true solution to the shaly-sand problem will only be
achieved from an electrical standpoint when a sound
scientific theory gives rise to an S, equation which is
capable of a universally consistent predictive performance. There is a further requirement that must also
be satisfied: the shale term(s) in an electrical S, equation must comprise log derivable parameters. These
THE LOG ANALYST

37

requirements are not met by any of the S, equations in

routine use today.
The very nature of the type groups of Table 7 indicates that many of the published S, equations are interrelated and provides some basis for postulating the
existence of a shaly-sand algorithm with practically a
universal application. An encouraging indication of the
possible existence of an electrical relationship with a
potentially wide application can be gleaned from
Figure 7. This diagram shows plots of F,/F vs C, for
four water-saturated sands of widely varying degrees of
shaliness. The significance of the ratio F,/F can be
appreciated from the following re-write of equation (3):

It follows that F,/F is equal to the fraction of the total

conductivity that cannot be attributed to shale effects.
When this fraction is low, F,/F is low and shale effects
predominate. When this ratio is high, F, = F and shale
effects are not significant. For a shaly sand FJF can be
expected to vary with C,, decreasing as C, decreases
and free fluid conduction thereby becomes more
inhibited.

3o

1.47 meq cm-3

Fz40.9

QV=

l-

EXPANSION OF
DIFFUSE LAYER

I
015

EXPERIMENTAL DATA
I

C,ISm

-1

1-

Figure 6 Comparison of the dual-water model with

experimental data for a very shaly sand (from
Clavier et al., 1984).

The four data plots of Figure 7 all show this trend

but are offset from one another within the range of
values of C,. Strong similarities are evident despite the
wide range of Qv represented, viz. 0.001-1.47 meq ~ m - ~ .
Furthermore, it can be envisaged that lateral displacement of these curves could make them all virtually
coincident. This would appear to suggest that these data
distributions might all be described by a single algorithm, provided that flexibility exists to account for
their different positions within the C, spectrum.
Moreover, the extension of these ideas to the hydrocarbon zone follows directly (Worthington, 1982).
It is much more difficult to envisage how one might
satisfy the further requirement of log-derivable param-

1.0
0-95

t
Fa
-

0.1

0-01

Figure 7 Variation of F,/F with C, for four diverse sandstone samples of very
different Q, (meq cm-9. Data from (1) Patnode and Wyllie (1950); (2)
Wyllie and Southwick (1954); (3) Rink and Schopper (1974); (4) Waxman and Smits (1968).

eters that characterize the electrical manifestation of

shaliness. The current lack of such a facility based on
a sound scientific theory constitutes one of the major
gaps in well logging technology. The industry is pursuing alternative strategies that might circumnavigate the
problem, e.g. induced gamma spectral logging and
dielectric logging, but neither of these has attained the
objective of furnishing a reliable, salinity independent
estimate of water saturation in shaly sands. As indicated earlier, a most promising but physically difficult
approach to the fundamental problem of downhole
measurement of electrical shale parameters might be
found in induced polarization techniques, whose relevance to formation evaluation continues to be emphasized (Worthington, 1984; Vinegar and Waxman,
1984).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank William R. Berry 11,
AndrC Hossin and Robert R. Kewley for helpful comments during the preparation of the manuscript.
Publication of this work has been sanctioned by The
British Petroleum Company pic, whose support is
gratefully acknowledged.

NOMENCLATURE
shale term, A. J. de Witte model (S m-l).
equivalent conductance of sodium clayexchange cations as a function of C,,
Waxman-Smits model (S m2 eq- x 10 -.
conductivity of bound water (S m-l).
conductivity of free or far water (S m-).
conductivity of fully water-satura ted rock
(S m-l).
conductivity due to shale, Patchett-Rausch
model (S m-l).
conductivity of wetted shale (S m-l).
conductivity of partially water-saturated
rock (S m-l).
conductivity of (free) water (S m-l).
equivalent conductivity of total pore water
(S m-l).
cation exchange capacity (meql lOOg rock).
formation factor.

CONCLUSIONS
In 1953 H. G. Doll wrote, the most important problem that has received thus far no satisfactory solution
is that of shaly sands. Dolls comment is equally
applicable today. The shaly-sand problem as we know
it will not be solved until electrical shale parameters,
determined directly from downhole measurements, can
be input to a reliable and generally applicable predictive
algorithm for S,, that is based on a sound scientific
shaly-sand model. Fortunately, there are encouraging
signs that some progress is being made towards the
attainment of this recognized objective.
38

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985

apparent formation factor.

formation factor, dual-water model.
formation factor of shale.
formation factor, Waxman-Smits model.
geometric factor for the electrical measurement of effectively clean partially watersaturated rock.
cation exchange capacity per unit pore
volume (meq ~ m - ~ ) .
resistivity of fully water-saturated rock@ m).
resistivity of shale (0m).
resistivity of partially water-saturated rock
(Q

4.

resistivity of (free) water (Q m).

pore surface area per unit pore volume (m-l).
fractional water saturation of pore space.
fractional wetted shale volume of rock.
generalized electrical parameter of shaliness
(S m-l).
generalized electrical parameter of shaliness
in partially water-saturated rock (S m-l).
coefficient in generalized Archie F - 4
equation.
shale factor, Hill-Milburn model.
conversion from mshand m, to conductivity,
L. de Witte model (S m-I mole -l kg solvent).
exponent in Archie F - 4 equation.
molal concentration of exchangeable cations associated with shale, L. de Witte
model (moles/kg solvent).
molal concentration of exchangeable cations
in formation water, L. de Witte model
(moles/kg solvent).
saturation exponent, sand term.
shale volume fraction of pore space, clay
slurry model.
saturation exponent, interactive term.
saturation exponent, shale term.
amount of clay water associated with one
milliequivalent of clay counterions (meq-
cm3).
excess double-layer conductivity, WinsauerMcCardell model (S m-I).
predominant clean-sand term, type equations (S m-l).
predominant sand-shale interactive term,
type equations (S m-l).
predominant shale term, type equations
(S m-l).
charge mobility in double layer (m2V- s-1.
shale-term coefficient, Simandoux model.
tortuosity associated with the double layer,
Rink-Schopper model.
surface charge density of rock (C m-2).
fractional porosity.
bound-water porosity.
THE LOG ANALYST

39

4e
4sh

4t

effective (free-fluid)porosity.
total porosity of shale, Juhasz model.
total interconnected porosity.
REFERENCES

ALGER, R. P.,RAYMER, L. L., HOYLE, W. R., and TIXIER,

M. P. 1963. Formation density log applications in liquidfilled holes. J. Pet. Tech. 15, 321-332.
ARCHIE, G. E. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid
in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans.
AlME 146, 54-62.
BARDON, C. and PIED, B. 1969. Formation water saturation
in shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 10th Ann. Logging Symp.,
21-19.
CLAVIER, C., COATES, G. and DUMANOIR, J. 1977. The
theoretical and experimental bases for the dual water
model for the interpretation of shaly sands. SPE Paper No.
6859.
CLAVIER, C., COATES, G. and DUMANOIR, J. 1984.
Theoretical and experimental bases for the dual-water
model for interpretation of shaly sands. SOC.Pet. Engrs. J.
24, 153-167.
DESBRANDES, R. 1968. Theorie et interpretation des
diagraphies. Editions Technip, Paris, 545 pp.
DE WITTE, A. J. 1957. Saturation and porosity from electric
logs in shaly sands. Oil & Gas J. 55, 4 March 89-93, 15
April 115-121.
DE WITTE, L. 1950. Relations between resistivities and fluid
contents of porous rocks. Oil & Gas J. 49, 24 August
120-132.
DE WITTE, L. 1955. A study of electric log interpretation
methods in shaly formations. Trans. AlME 204, 103-110.
FERTL, W. H. and HAMMACK, G. W. 1971. A comparative
look at water saturation computations in shaly pay sands.
Trans. SPWLA. 12th Ann. Logging Symp., R1-17.
HILL, H. J. and MILBURN, J. D. 1956. Effect of clay and
water salinity on electrochemical behavior of reservoir
rocks. Trans. AlME 207, 65-72.
HOSSIN, A. 1960. Calcul des saturations en eau par la
methode du ciment argileux (formule d Archie
generalisee). Bull. Assoc. Francaise Tech. Pet. 140, 31
March.
HUSTEN, P. and ANTON, H. 1981. The porosity surface concept. Oil Gas 7(1), 40-42.
JOHNSON, H. M. 1961. A history of well logging. Trans.
SPWLA 2nd Ann. Logging Symp., Paper 1.
JOHNSON, W. L. and LINKE, W.A. 1977. Some practical
applications to improve formation evaluation of sandstones in the Mackenzie Delta. Trans. CWLS 6th Formation
Evaluation Symp., R1-19.
JUHASZ, 1. 1981. Normalised Q, - the key to shaly sand
evaluation using the Waxman-Smits equation in the
absence of core data. Trans. SPWLA 22nd Ann. Logging
Symp., 21-36.
KERN, J. W., HOYER, W. A. and SPANN, M. M. 1976. Low
porosity gas sand analysis using cation exchange and
dielectric constant data. Trans. SPWLA 17th Ann. Logging
Symp. PP1-17.
KRYGOWSKI, D.A. and PICKETT, G. R. 1978. The prediction
of water saturation and recoverable hydrocarbon volumes
in shaly sand reservoirs. Trans. SPWLA 18th Ann. Logging
Symp., 881-15.
LAVERS, B. A., SMITS, L. J. M. and VAN BAAREN, C. 1974.
Some fundamental problems of formation evaluation in
the North Sea. Trans. 3rd European Formation Evaluation
Symp., SPWLA London Chapter, G1-15.

MIAN, M. A. and HILCHIE, D. W., 1982. Comparison of

results from three cation exchange capacity (CEC)
analysis techniques. The Log Analyst 23(5), 10-16.
PAPE, H. and WORTHINGTON, I? F. 1983. A surfacestructure model for the electrical conductivity of reservoir
rocks. Trans. 8th European Formation Evaluation Symp.,
SPWLA London Chapter, 21-19.
PATCHETT, J. G. and HERRICK, D. C. 1982. A review of
saturation models. In: Shaly Sand Reprint Volume,
SPWLA, Houston, pp 111 1-7.
PATCHETT, J. G. and RAUSCH, R. W. 1967. An approach to
determining water saturation in shaly sands. J. Pet. Tech.
19, 1395-1405.
PATNODE, H. W. and WYLLIE, M. R. J. 1950. The presence
of conductive solids in reservoir rock as a factor in electric
log interpretation. Trans. AlME 189, 47-52.
POUPON, A. and LEVEAUX, J. 1971. Evaluation of water
saturations in shaly formations. Trans. SPWLA 12th Ann.
Logging Symp., 01-2. (Full text in Shaly Sand Reprint
Volume, SPWLA, Houston, pp IV 81-95).
POUPON, A., LOY, M. E. and TIXIER, M. F? 1954. A contribution to electric log interpretationin shaly sands. Trans.
AlME 201, 138-145.
RAIGA-CLEMENCEAU, J. 1976. A quicker approach of the
water saturation in shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 17th Ann.
Logging Symp., El-16.
RAIGA-CLEMENCEAU, J., FRAISSE, C. and GROSJEAN, Y.
1984. The dual porosity model, a newly developed interpretation method for shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 25th
Ann. Logging Symp., F1-16.
RINK, M. and SCHOPPER, J. R. 1974. Interface conductivity
and its implications to electric logging. Trans. SPWLA 15th
Ann. Logging Symp., J1-15.
SAUER, M. C., SOUTHWICK, F! F., SPIEGLER, K. S. and
WYLLIE, M. R. J. 1955. Electrical conductance of porous
plugs: ion exchange resin-solution systems. Ind. Engng.
Chem. 47, 2187-2193.
SCHLUMBERGER. 1972. Log Interpretation, Volume 1 Principles. Schlumberger Ltd., New York, 113 pp.
SIMANDOUX, P 1963. Dielectric measurements on porous
media: application to the measurement of water saturations: study of the behaviour of argillaceous formations.
Revue de I Institut Francais du Petrole 18, supplementary
issue, 193-215. (Translated text in Shaly Sand Reprint
Volume, SPWLA, Houston, pp IV 97-124).
STREET, N. 1961. Surface conductance and the conductive
solids effect. Illinois State Geol. Surv. Circ. 315, 16 pp.
VAN DEN HUL, H. J. and LYKLEMA, J. 1968. Determination
of specific surface areas of dispersed materials: comparison of the negative adsorption method with some
other methods. J. Am. Chem. SOC.90, 3010-3015.
VINEGAR, H. J. and WAXMAN, M. H. 1984. Induced polarization of shaly sands. Geophysics 49, 1267-1287.
WAXMAN, M. H. and SMITS, L. J. M. 1968. Electrical conductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands. SOC.Pet. Engrs J. 8,
107-122.

WAXMAN, M. H. and THOMAS, E. C. 1974. Electrical conductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands: 1. The relation between hydrocarbon saturation and resistivity index. II. The
temperature coefficient of electrical conductivity. SOC.Pet.
Engrs J. 14, 213-225.
WAXMAN, M. H. and VINEGAR, H. J. 1981. Induced polarization well logging. U.K. Patent Application GB2068563A,
Patent Office, London.
WINSAUER, W. 0. and McCARDELL, W. M. 1953. Ionic
double-layer conductivity in reservoir rock. Trans. AlME
198, 129-134.
WOODHOUSE, R. 1976. Athabasca Tar Sand reservoir properties derived from cores and logs. Trans. SPWLA 17th
Ann. Logging Symp., T1-13.
WORTHINGTON, P. F. 1982. The influence of shale effects
upon the electrical resistivity of reservoir rocks. Geophys.
Prospect. 30, 673-687.
WORTHINGTON, f? F. 1984. Relevance of induced polarization to quantitative formation evaluation. Marine and
Petroleum Geology 1, 14-26.
WORTHINGTON, I? F. and BARKER, R. D. 1972. Methods for
the calculation of true formation factors in the Bunter
Sandstone of northwest England. Eng. Geol. 6, 213-228.
WYLLIE, M. R. J. and SOUTHWICK, I? F. 1954. An experimental investigation of the S.P and resistivity phenomena
in dirty sands. Trans. AlME 201, 43-56.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul E Worthington is Head of Formation Evaluation
at the BP Research Centre, Sunbury-onThames, England.
Prior to this he held the position of Senior Log Analyst
in the London office of BP Exploration. He holds
Ph.D. and DSc. degrees in engineering geophysics and
geology, respectively, and is the author of some 40
technical papers and monographs. He is a Chartered
Engineer in the United Kingdom and is Past President
of the SPWLA London Chapter. He is currently Vice
President Technology of the SPWLA.

40

JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1985