A Review, of Current Techniques for Determination

Of Water Saturatio'n From Logs

G. R. PICKETT*
MEMBER AIME

Abstract

where 810

The basic saturation and log response equations are

reviewed. It is concluded, that conventional saturation calculations account for lithology and rock-type changes, but
that they are susceptible' to uncertainties in water resistivity (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. Knowledge' 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. Advantages 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

(1)

(2)

'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

= the fractional part of the pore volume filled

with water of resistivity Rw

= resistivity index

n = saturation exponent
Rt
F

= true formation resistivity

= formation

resistivity factor*

= fractional porosity
m = ce~entation exponent.
'Cp

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 techniques for determining I: (1) conventional saturation calculations, (2) Ra vs 'CPA plots, (3) Rwa plots, and (4) SO VS
RD. relations.

Conventional Satur,ation Calculations

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

F =

SHELL OIL CO.

DENVER, COLO.

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 appropriate 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 established and, therefore, relatively easily discussed with management 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 disadvantage of being susceptible to errors in a number of
quantities which are med in the three equations. In the
author's experience, the principal culprits leading to significant errors in water saturation are uncertainties in
knowledge of water resistivity, errors in the determination
of porosity and errors in determination of R I On occasion, errors in determination of the quantity m can also
lead to significant errors in ~ater saturation determination.
To minimize these errors in water saturation estimates,
a number of cross checks on the calculated water saturations sometimes can be used. These cross checks usually
consist of comparing the calculated water saturations with
fluid saturations measured in cores, by making the calculated water saturations equal 100 per cent water in what
are believed _to be water-bearing intervals, by comparing
the calculated water saturations with fluid recoveries from
drill-stem or production tests and by making _calculated
fluid saturations compatible with shows or lack of shows
in cutting samples.
Apparent Resistivity ys Apparent Porosity Plots"
Another method for estimating resistivity index I consists of making a log-log plot of apparent resistivity vs apparent porosity-. The technique is based on manipulation
of Eqs. 2 and 3to obtain
log R t = - m log

+ log RIO + log I

(4)

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

exhibit a straight line of slope minils m for zones with
constant water resistivity and constant 1. If this type of
plot (Fig. 1) is made for a long series of intervals, a linear group of points can usually be found to define the
100 per cent water-saturated intervals. Then, for a fixed
porosity, any points on the plot whiCh fall at higher resistivities have I's equal to the ratio of their resistivities
to the resistivity on the water-bearing line at that porosity.
Eq. 4 shows that it is not necessary to ]mow R,vor m
in advance to estimate water saturation. In fact, they are
defined, respectively, by extrapolation of the water-bearing portion of the plot to 100 per cent porosity and by
the slope of the water-bearing portion of the plot.
The term "apparent resistivity vs apparent porosity" was
chosen for this technique because apparent resistivities
can be used (to determine saturation but not necessarily
R
providing they are proportional to true resistivities
1V )

I Rw ' 02

100

=H=if-l\--

!--\--

1-

&

10

Log RI ' -m log

-;L~

-s:: r'b..

~I-

m' -1.
x I

I--

I
.'
==t=-~-:-++H

I-

Ii

log Rw

%~
70

II'~'75ii

/Y4,..<'~-j---t+,
1:1/
,0
~
1/4"/0

fl\l(11\I1:

I
I

+ B

(5)

In Eq. 5, ,~t is the response of the sonic log in microseconds per foot, ~tln is the va:ue of .6.t at zero porosity (matrix _,~t) and B is slope of the linear relation between I~t
and porosity. Solution of Eq. 5 for porosity and substitution in Eq. 4 leads to:
log R t = -m log (6.t- .6.t + m log B
+ log R + log I "
lll )

(6)

II)

Eq. 6 shows that a log-log plot of R t vs ,6.t- .6.t ln

(Fig. 2) is also linear with a slope of - tn, and further
shows that I can be calculated from such a plot -even if
the values of B,
or m are unknown. In fact, the
slope of the water-bearing line defines m.
The use of a plot of a reciprocal function of resistivity
vs ,~t has also been described:'! This method does not re,.
quire a knowiedge ofR w or ,6.tm , but does require a knowledge of m. The technique was apparently first advocated by
A. T. Hingle of Magnolia Petroleum Co.
Similarly, the corresponding equations for using the
resistivity log with the neutron log or with the compensated density log are:
R1V

log

m
me
j)ND +n+-IogRw

Rt =

+ log1

(7)

and
log R t

-em log (DLD-E-Fps)

+mlogF(Pf-p,) +logR 1V +logl,

(8)

where

ND

= C+ Dlog

(9)

+ Fpb

(10)

and
DLD

. are the response equations of the neutron and density

(compensated) devises'l r~spectively.
Inspection of Eqs. 6 through 8 shows that the resistivity-sonic log combination can be expected to be one of
the most diagnostic log combinations for this method
(since the slope of the plot for water-bearing intervals is

100Effffil~~~.
0Log R, ' -m Log (81

~'m) +

m Log B + Log Rw + Log I

:-~~~~-+4-~~---+--J~I-r14-++

1---\--\--l-++-H-\-~~~~~++-t+tH---r I ' ~ , 75 \-

10

m '-y

-,
! I

,~,

-,

1t

'

ttl~-

Hili

100

Rt

Fig. l~-Schcnwt.ic diagram, resistivil.y vs porosity plot.

1-1:':6

!:"t.n

mJni
r-:r

~'" ~

0.1

- - - - - -I-~-

~t

log I:

~,-HI I

--

~~!'--

---r--r-ttn
-~-f-tt _

and because the technique is also applicable to measurements which allow either the calculation of porosity explicitly or the derivation of a quantity from a log which
is proportional to porosity. For example, for the sonic log
the appropriate response equation can usually be expressed in the following form: 2

1.0

100

Rt

Fig. 2-Schematic diagram, resistivity vs (~t-~tln) plot.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

equal to 117), that the resistivity-neutron combination can

also be expected to be one of the most diagnostic (since
the 10Karithm of resisti,yity can. be directly plotted vs tool
response) and that the resistivity-compensated density
comparison is probably the least useful (since constants E
and F in the density log -response equation must be known
to define the water-bearing plot).
Fig. 3 is an example of the application of the technique.
with the resistivity-sonic log combination to a several
thousand foot sand-silt-shalesequence. This well was a
wildcat and neither Rw nor the sonic log porosity re.lation
was known in the section of interest. Intervals A, Band
C shown on Fig. 3 had good gas shows and were obviously hydrocarbon-bearing, although volumetric reserves were
too small to make the well commercial. Intervals D and E
were much thicker but lacked clear-cut gas shows. The
plot indicates that Interval D had greater than 50 per cent
hydrocarbon saturation, but that Interval E had less than
50 per cent hydrocarbon saturation. Intervals D and E
were both thick enough to be of more interest. Interval
D, therefore, was opened and produced gas. This interval
was later abandoned since the gas flow could not be controlled, but the example shows how such an interval can
be distinguished even in the absence of water resistivity
and definitive sonic log-porosity information.
Fig. 4 is an example where the method by itself was
not diagnostic. If the water-bearing trend is taken as shown
by the dashed line, then the two points of interest (A and
B) are indicated to have about 30 per cent hydrocarbon
saturation. However, a core which was taken through
100

--+---I100t~~~E~~'~f=f=f'~l-~~~~~~~-!I~~~~~~t!~
r-'
I--r
-'
----1"--1--1--1 ~H-_I +
....I~=---_~-=-== =~=~= ~
=A,s,+ _wlTER'I-+~I!'-'++ 1

-I-

1--

I~--

~~r0..2..~

~~~ ~

~~o

~- L.I-

00'

..

=__

6 1-

IQ~
0

some of the intervals represented by points on the dashed

line had residual oil saturations of about 20 per cent. If
the water-bearing line is shifted so as to make the dashed
line represent a hydrocarbon saturation of 20 per cent,
then Points A and B are indicated to have a hydrocarbon
saturation of 45 per cent. The extrapolation of this new
water-bearing trend to a 100 per cent porosity indicates
an Rw of 0.05 ohm-m at bottom hole. Later, the fluid recoveries from this formation yielded a water resistivity of
0.03 ohm-m. This would indicate a water-bearing trend
(solid line) and would now make the hydrocarbon saturations for Points A arid B about 55 per cent. These results imply that some residual oil was lost from the cores
representing points' on the dashed line in bringing the
cores to the surface, and that the actual in situ residual
oils were about 30 per cent. Intervals A and B were later
completed for a marginal oil well.
.
Fig. 5 is an exani.ple where .this. technique by itself
failed completely. Flow meter tests established that Intervals A, Band C were producing only water, but that Intervals D and E were producing gas. The plot indicates
no apparent contrast in apparent resistivity index between
the gas- and water-producing int~rvals. Comparison of
the density log and spnic log responses in .the section containing these zones indicated the presence of two significantly different sonic log-porosity relations. When these
two relations were accounted for, the plot shown in Fig.
6 was then obtained. Intervals D and E again represent
the gas-producing zones, arid Points A, Band C the water-producing zones. The apparent porosity-resistivity plots

~ i'---

I ____ ..

i"--

- - - ---- -.~

/'-...
Sw

--

~--

~~_ _ ~I_ :-""1'

--

- ----- - 0 - --;;-~.

1-,-

""-------

J%

100%

+==RfT Ft
I

~-.-

1 '

...

-j-r-

~-I=mtt.
!

- - - - - . ----- - i - - r -

- - - - 1-----

I i , II

100

10

Fig. 5-Ra

10

-I-+=~-:-H-c

-~
-

A, B, C. - WATER PROD.
D, E, - GAS PROD

"-

~~
&V>

(At-At",), Wildcat No.3.

1000

100

VB

100

------f----I--+---+-I-H-t-I

10

1000

Fig. 3-R a vs (At-Arm)' Wildcat No. 1.

...... '

+ . . __~D,_E+_,----t'-I-

..........

r--.
~ ..........

~A
el'-

0-6
~
C't' ~

'-.-

Sw

50 %

.....

11~--~~~-LUi~ ~-L~Ll'~'~il~I~~__i-LJ~~
__

10

100

1000

-"""""""Sr

100

10

10~';'

1000

RA (lL)

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

NOVEM'!.ER, 1966

Fig. 6-R a vs

sonie,

Wildcat No.3.
1427

indicate' that Intervals D and E have gas saturations greater than 50 per cent, while Intervals A, Band C have gas,
saturations greater than 50 per cent. The solid curve was
drawn to represnt the 100 per cent water-bearing inter:"
vals, and extrapolation of this trend to 100 per cent porosity 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 combination is used, the slope of the sonic log-porosity relation does not have to be known, providing there is. only
one slope in effect in the section plotted; (3) if the nutron-resistivity log' combination is used, the constants in
the neutron response equation do not have to be known;
(4) a great amount of section can be quickly evaluated
for significant hydrocarbon saturations without the time
consuming process of calculating water saturations by use
of Eqs. 1 through 3; and (5) once the plot has been made,
parameters such as ,D.tm and m can be easily varied without tedious recalculations.
, 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
concerning petrophysicai relations can often be derived
from these plots in addition to delineating the hydrocarbon zones.
Fig. 7 is a plot from a carbonate section which indicated no resistivity anomalies of consequence and an average trend which extrapolated to a value of. Rw that
agreed with the resistivity of waters produced in other
wells in the area. However, the section for which this plot
is made was completed for one of the better oil wells in
the area.
Fig. 8 shows a plot of the same data' plus additional
points from zones of lower porosity. Fig. 8 indicates that
there is a significant resistivity anomaly in the intervals
which pf.oduced the oil and, further,the water saturations
decrease precipitously at a porosity corresponding to a
(D.t - ,D.t m) between 4 and 6 microsecl ft. The water-bearing trend established in this way for the lower porosity

intervals extrapolates to an Rw much lower than observed

for the area. Consultations with other operators have revealed that this is a commonly observed phenomenon in
this area, presumably explained by calibration of the resistivity 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 cutoff 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

R,va is defined by the equatiQn: 3

R ,va

100

.-

- - - - .-~

~
E

<iI
<i

10

t"

r" r--......

r--'
i--~

~-;--.. ......

-t-

'"

--

--

~
?.......
,

.......

-$
""05.

...........

.,.!:y.;;----

100 'Yo......... _

rr:

CUT OFF
PORO.SITY ?

1I'4 1c-7/
$47:

II/f/c-o?

r---

III10

0.1

r--......

1'-]'
100

RA

Fig. 8-R a vs (At-At m ) , including lower porosities,

Wildcat No.4.

......

,,,
~

10

:;:j

I"--

0.1

10

RA (Ill

Fig. 7-Ra vs (At-At m), Wildcat No.4.

1'-"

1428

-i-I-

~--

100

~ I"--b,

<i

(12)*

'i'See footnote on page 1425.

1'1"-

10

=~
.cp-7n

R 'ma

1'--..0

(11)

so that from Eqs. 2 and 3

100

=~
F

100

I
0.1

10

100

RA (LL)

Fig. 9-R a vs (At-At m ), dry hole.

JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM fl'ECHNOLOGY

and
Rwa = I Rw .

(13)

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
water saturation (most likely 100 per cent). If the Rwa for
any interval has a ratio to the minimum R,oa of four or
greater, then that interval probably has a water saturation
of less than 50 per cent. For values of the Rwa ratios between one and four, the method merely. indicates that
some of the intervals contain hydrocarbons.
.-~

GAMMA RAY
.. CALIPER

SONIC LOG

.6t in mierosee/ft
70

100

40

Fig. 1o shows an example of the application of this

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 hydrocarbons 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 saturation. Since hydrocarbon shows had been observed in Interval C, these inferred that hydrocarbon saturations for
Intervals A an<l B had to be considered pessimistic. If Interval Chad 25 per cent hydrocarbon saturation or greater, then Interval A must have at least 50 per cent hydrocarbon saturation. An interval including A was drill-stem
. tested and gave up over 6,000 ft of oil.
So vs Ros Relations

It has been observed4 that a relation can often be found

for a given rock type between initial non-wetting fluid

saturation So and residual non-wetting fluid saturation ROB
SP

DUAL Il, Ll-8

mv

ohms m2/m
10
100

-10

'-

1000

---

SAND

. ~::-

D5T*1
Ree 6000' Oil
RWA=4.10

1-

!
f--

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

... t-..
--f--

.;~r"'

....

~ .~

_-

..

-:..-

..

~~:
.~:i.

:.=:=~ =-

SAND

..

~ ~ ..

0== t= -.fJ.f-fjn.-~-t~~.,-rrmm

KwA=1.78
--

.-~.::

:.~=.:-:
.. ..~-~ .-

{~ ....~:

.~.~t'
~~r-:

@
Fig. IO-Example of Rwa plot, Wildcat No.5.
NOVEMUER, .1966

11429

after flushing with a wetting fluid. There are two situations 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 determined.
It foHows that if a relation between So and R o " can be
established for a reservoir of interest and if ROR in thezone flushed by mud filtrate adjacent to the borehole can
be measured, then So (hydrocarbon saturation in the uninvaded 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
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 saturated locations and the saltier waters with the oil-bearing locations. 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 adjacent 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,

70

60

lZ'----- ogoo~~OC

o~o ~

o-'? 40
I

30

20 1 - -

10

l? 0
lL 0:;-0000V-0
'<'c>'"

0::

I~
00

~oo

10

20

'

j.SV'

30

o~

80

70

00

000

d?
o

50

V
./

30

V:;,~V
V.
/- ~

20

10

70

80

90

100

",,-"~

\\",'l'-~

V"~~~~?~

o~

0::

v.~~

en
(

~
~~'-"'~~k

o-'? 40

GO

40

(15 \)ELLSl
i

60

Fig. II-So vs Ros (cap. curves).

1/1,30

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 appreciably 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 lithologies. The bottom part of the core contained an apparently porous sand with good oil staining which prompted
the running of the drill-stem test (Fig. 13). Several thousand 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 explain 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 resistivity 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-

7l/--~--0 -;;-0-

50

en

Example Application of the Techniques

For Estimating I

r7fl '-

~I

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 measuring R"o should make these techniques even more diagnostic than in former years. However, the author considers the application of So vs Ros relations the least reliable
of the techniques in common use because (1) it is dependent 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.

,-\~\~\",r"

60

70

~",,-'"

10

20

30

40

80

90

100

Fig. 12-So vs ROB (logs).

JOURNAL OF \PETROLEUM TECTINOLOC,l'

z
o
~
/.!fj

lATEROlOG

~
/.!fj

~
1-1

NEUTRON

SP

DUAL It, ll-8

A P I UNITS

mv

ohms m2/m
10
100

SONIC lOG

-GAMMA RAY
-_. CALIPER

LH in microsec/ft

10

100

QI
QI

70

40

2400

1600
IS

3200

f.-l.

~ -l~+--l~'\'+-l:-j-

.+-

+_ ..

1-+-

~ 1-++-1--1-+ +_..
-~~.

1-V

m
z

Rec 6000' Oil

RWA=4.1O

IW=s
~tm
1-'-+"-.

a::
.....
:

.. H: ..

(.y

z~

~:

>:
t

c5:
::c:

.+'-

::::;=

RWA=2.96

f I f

+ FFt

Rw A'1.78

.,

==u;

-r-prrr
frt,--r=-r-l'

.~

.-

-:~~

:..~:-"'r

..:.'+I

:t=+tl11+~

'ilMEBiJll
:Tl.

1-1

t=

.~::..

Frt:

!_~tf

-F-I-+-

.~

Ilf:!.~
~

.=+=+.+= ..

... - ..::: -=.

-~F..

-m~

:~~U':::F:
~....

''C

I-~.

m.tttf-=t: .

-1... .:..

..

.j.C

~-,rlE

~~~:

..... :~:

~.
.tlilI1111t I
_ttfft
.:r=t=L.

c5:~:

(,C

-u-:l-'

-.::.c+.::. .

--

..

_.+-

~:::

>:z:
g:~~

II

+-~.=t+~+ .

f:=L~L

:i.:.tttltFtntbU+

~:

SAND

f.

-~lJ=i~:ti=

~:

0:

SAND

1=

._.\.-_.

c=

~tJa

lS

1#tt_flitm'
.-rtH.

~:

Q.

,.];

j.-

SAND

1000

to::::

f:-++-f.=+:-1'::'+--J:-' .

13DST *1

10

200
2000
20,000

0
0

-r::w::t=f="F ...

1--++-=

1-1

ohms m /

t;Q

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

~t:
f~

. ...

- -

: . . --

--

.-

EW

_.

..

...-...

:---

..

.
+=!=-

tionable value. Water salinity data were completely lacldng

and the SP log did not appear to be definitive for calculating water salinity. The calculation for the sand interval
which was drill-stem tested used the shale immediately
above the objective top for a shale base line and indicated
an Rw of about 0.13 ohm-m at bottom-hole conditions.
This is considerably fresher than Rw in the same formation at the nearest location, but not fresher than Rw observed at some locations. Using the calculated Rw (0_.13
ohm-m), an m of 2.0 and an n of 2.0, all of the porous intervals were calculated to have water saturations less than
40 per cent if the induction log were used, and less than
30 per cent water saturation if the Laterolog were used.
The So vs R08 technique was not applicable even though
hysteresis capillary pressure curves had been run because
the short spaced resistivity devices did not function
properly.
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 saturations, 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
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 residual oils and the corresponding. core porosities, both resistivity 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

Interval
-AB
C
D

TABLE' 1-PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION, WILDCAT NO.5

Average
Porosity
Lithology
~
Dolomite 'and sand
12.5
Sand
14..0
Sand
8.0
Dolomite
13.0

SW
(%J

34
45

60
15

value calculated from the Laterolog for R,w was three

times the value calculated from the induction log. When
these values of Rw were used to calculate saturations in
the entire section (with the appropriate resistivity log) the
values shown in Table 1 were obtained. These estimates
left no doubt that the well should be completed, and explained the favorable drill-stem test recovery.
Because of the uncertainty regarding the effects of lithology ~n the sonic log (reflected in the failure of apparent
porosIty vs apparent resistivity plot to be diagnostic), a
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 analysis 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 concerning the effects of lithology on the sonic log. Production 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 techniques with additional petrophysical data to obtain a diagnostic interpretation.

Conclusions

,Conventional water saturation calcuhitions have the advantage of accounting for changes in rock types and litho- .
logies through the use of three basic equations. This technique has the- disadvantage of being susceptible to errors
in water saturation determination due to uncertainties in
90
80
70

en

60

,.

a:: 50
0

~
~

40

en

30

:0

20

00

10
1000

100

RA

Fig. I4-Ra vs (.6.t-.6.t".), Wildcat No.5

1432

10,000

10

o%

12

14

16

18

20

Fig. IS-So (cores) vs porosity, Wildcat No.5.

JOURNAL OF IPETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

40
44

48

~66
6"'-

52 \

56

.........

e60
Q)

(.)

'E

\\

o - FROM CORES

6 -

'""'"

1\\\ ~

\\ \
\~

FROM NEUTRON LOG

G'G')-

~O
~O

~l:

,,~

68

1\\\
~~ ~;,

72

~~

.~~ ~

76

\~
<3-

12

-10

16

20

24

28

10 %
Fig.

16-~t

vs , Wildcat No.5.

knowledge of water resistivity, errors in determination of

R t , errors in the determination of porosity and, occasionally, errors in the val pes used for n' and m.
Plots of apparent porosity vs apparent resistivity for
the determination of the resistivity index I are particularly
useful for a quick evaluation of long sections in wells
where there is a minimum of petrophysical data. The
principal advantages of this technique are (1) a large
amount of section can be quickly evaluated for significant
hydrocarbon saturations without the time-consuming process of calculating water saturations by the basic equations;
(2) a knowledge of water resistivity and the cementation
factor are not necessary (but they must be constant for
the method to be applicable); and (3) once the plot has
been made, parameters such as the cementation factor m
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 porosity) is constant over the section of interest, since the slope
of the appropriate plot in water-bearing intervals is equal
to the cementation factor m. This log combination also
has the advantage of not requiring a knowledge of the
slope of the sonic log-porosity relation. The resistivityneutron log combination is also particularly useful for this
technique because a knowledge of the constants in the
response equation for the neutron log is not required. The
resistivity-compensated density log combination is not as
appropriate as the other log combinations for this technique because a knowledge of the constants in the density

N.oVEMBElt, 1966

log response equation is reqUIred to define the water saturated part of the plot.
.
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
sonic log) vs apparent resistivity plots may be misleading.
If the ratio of the Rwa for any interval has a ratio to the
minimum Rwa of four or greater, then that interval probably has a water saturation of less than 50 per cent. If
this ratio has a va~ue between one and four, the technique
merely indicates that the interval probably contains some
hydrocarbons. The technique has the disadvantage of requiring a constant water resistivity, and of requiring a
knowledge of the cementation factor m for all lithologies
involved.
When the previous techniques cannot be applied suc. cessfully, the use of Ro. vs So relation defined by capillary
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 determinations and of being sensitive to factors which affect the
degree of invasion.
Experience has shown that anyone of the foregoing
techniques for estimating water saturation will often not
be sufficient by itself, but that frequently a combination
of two or more of the techniques must be used before a
diagnostic interpretation canbe derived. Even then, additional petrophysical data beyond that required for straightforward application of these techniques may be necessary.
Acknowledgment

The author expresses his appreciation to Shell Oil Co.

for permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Archie, G. E.: "The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in
Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics", Trans., AIME
(1942) 146, 54-62.
2. Wyllie, M. R. J., Gregory, A. R. and Gardner, 1. W.: "Elastic
Wave Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous Media", Geophysics (Jan., 1956) 21, No. 1,'41.
3. Tixier, M. P., Alger, R. P.andTanguy, D. R.: "New Developments in Induction and Sonic Logging", Trans., AIME (1960)
219, 362-370.
.
4. Pickell, J. J., Swanson, B. F. and Hickman, W. B.: "The Application of Air-Mercury and Oil-Air Capillary Pressure Data in
the Study of Pore Structure and Fluid Distribution", Soc. Pet.
Eng. Jour. (March, 1966) 55-61.
5. Tixier, M. P.: "Electric Log Analysis in the Rocky Mountains", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1949) 316-328.

***

GEORGE R. PICKETT received BS and

MS degrees in mathematics and physics from The U. of Oklahoma in 1952
and a DSc degree in geophysical engineering from Colorado School of
Mines in 1955. Until recently he was
associated with Shell Oil Co. in formation evaluation research and operations. Pickett is presently an assistant
professor of geophysics at Colorado
School of Mines.

1433