24 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
little influence on C, and again equation (3) effectively tion supports the generalized form of the formation fac
reduces to the Archie definition. Conversely, the ratio torporosity relationship, a variation of the second
C,/C, is effectively equal to the intrinsic formation fac equation proposed by Archie (1942), viz.
tor F only if X is sufficiently small andlor C, is suffi
ciently large. Thus, although the absolute value of X F =a (4)
can be seen as an electrical parameter of shaliness, the 9”
manifestation of shale effects from an electrical stand where a and m have usually been assumed constant for
point is also controlled by the value of X relative to the a given reservoir. In contrast, Figure 3b relates to condi
term C,/E tions of sufficiently low C, that the same absolute
During the period 19501955 evidence began to values of X represented in Figure 3a have now become
accumulate that the absolute value of the quantity X highly significant even though the sample population
is not always a constant for a given sample over the remains unchanged. Because of this, the ratio C,/C,
experimentally attainable range of C,, as equation (3) now represents merely an apparent formation factor Fa.
would appear to imply, but can vary with electrolyte These departures from the Archie assumptions result in
conductivity (Winsauer and McCardell, 1953: Wyllie a breakdown of the linear trend of Figure 3a to such a
and Southwick, 1954: Sauer et al., 1955). The most degree that there is no longer a useful relationship.
widely accepted behavioural pattern, which has con
tinued 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
“nonlinear zone” and “linear zone” have been adopted 0.
Non  Linear
linear zone
zone
t
CO b
m I
6 0 0
a
a 1 1 I I
Porosity Io/ol
26 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
This additional component admitted some electrical when the shaleconductivityparameter is insignificant.
interaction between the solid and liquid phases. This This is true even for those models which cannot be rep
three 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 shalysandconcepts. Despite the considerable attention
of the solid phase qualified by an appropriate geo given to the shalysand problem during the 1950’s, the
metrical factor. In this way the WyllieSouthwick 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
represented by a linear relationship and therefore For the purposes of this discussion the shalysand
described only the linear zone of Figure 2. Yet the models introduced since about 1960 have been divided
development is an interesting one for it lends support into two groups.
to the WinsauerMcCardell model as a conceptual (i) Concepts based on the shale volume fraction, V s h .
forerunner of the contemporary doublelayer models. These models have the disadvantage of being scien
Hill and Milburn (1956) showed that the effect of tifically inexact with the result that they are open
clay minerals upon the electrical properties of a reser to misunderstanding and misuse. On the other
voir rock is related to its cation exchange capacity per hand they are at least notionally applicable to log
unit pore volume QY. The measurement of Qy therefore ging data without the encumbrance of a core
provided an independent chemical method of determin sample calibration of the shale related parameter.
ing the “effective clay content.” Hill and Milburn (ii) Concepts based on the ionic doublelayer phe
developed an exponential equation to relate C, to C,; nomenon. These models have a more attractive
in so doing, it was presumed that when C, = 100 Sm’ scientific pedigree. If strictly applied, they require
for a fully saturated reservoir rock, the electrolyte con coresample calibration of the shale related param
ductivity is sufficiently high to suppress any shale eter against some log derivable petrophysical quan
effects. This equation contained a “bfactor” which was tity. Otherwise their field application might involve
empirically related to QY and which was constant for a approximations which effectively reduce the shale
given lithology. Thus, although the HillMilburn equa term to one in v s h .
tion did not conform to the generalized equation (3), Although V , models are being progressively dis
the shape of the C.C, curve in Figure 3 was approxi placed by models of the second group, this process will
mately represented through the use of an exponential not be complete until there exists an established pro
function without having to suppose variations in the cedure for the downhole measurement of X.
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 prob
v s h models gained credence because of earlier ex
ably for this reason that the Hill and Milburn method
perimental work which showed potentially useful rela
was 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 subse
plotted 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 con
the linear zone of Figure 2 that was being represented ceptual or an empirical basis.
by A. J. de Witte’s model. Hossin (1960) approached the problem from a con
It 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
._
1
.
and total porosity. It involves specifying a clean, fully The linear form of the Hossin and Simandoux equa
saturated, granular system which satisfies the original tions means that they provide only a partial representa
form of Archie’s law, viz. equation (4) with a = 1 and tion of the behavioural pattern of Figure 2. They do
m = 2. With these specifications the equation can be not represent data from the nonlinear zone. However,
rewritten in the form a V,, equation which does admit nonlinear trends on
c, = 42 c, ( 5 ) a C, vs C, plot is that ascribed to Doll (unpublished) by
various authors (e.g., Desbrandes, 1968; Raiga
Suppose 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 nonlinearity
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 nonlinear zone of Figure 2. Furthermore, by
system. Thus squaring the Doll equation we have
x =vs: Csh (6)
Where both shale and electrolyte are present, equation
(6) defines the shalerelated term of equation (3). Note, Equation (7) is partly of the form of the generalized
however, that in these intermediate cases, the porosity parallel resistor equation (3), but there is an addi
of the system is an effective porosity since the tional, interactive term on the right hand side which
chemically bound waters are included within v&.Since can be seen as representing any cross linkage between
there is no provision for X to vary with C,, the Hossin the electrolyte and shale components. Interestingly,
model relates specifically to the linear zone of Figure 2. Poupon and Leveaux (1971)noted that Doll did indeed
The Hossin equation and other V,h relationships are suggest such a crosslinkage term “some 20 years ago.”
listed in Table 2. The published work of that period (Wyllie and
Southwick, 1954) furnished an equation of the form
TABLE 2
SHALYSAND RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING V,,
(WATER ZONE) where a, b and c are geometric factors. There is an
obvious correspondence between the terms of equa
Hossin (1960) tions (7) and (8).Neither equation allows any variation
in the parameters of shaliness with C,.
Simandoux (1963)
Poupon and Leveaux (1971) proposed the so called
Doll (unpublished) “Indonesia formula” (Table 2), an expression which is
similar to the Doll equation but with V , h having an
Poupon and Leveaux exponent that is itself a function of V s h . This equation
(1971) was developed for use in Indonesia because there com
paratively fresh formation waters and high degrees of
shaliness had exposed the shortcomings of other equa
tions. It has subsequently found an application else
Simandoux (1963) reported experiments on homo where. As with the Doll equation, the PouponLeveaux
geneous mixtures of sand and montmorillonite. He pro relationship accommodates the nonlinear zone of
posed an expression of the form of equation (3) with Figure 2.
the quantity X represented as the product v , h Csh. This It is worth emphasizing that none of the four equa
equation (Table 2) also relates specifically to the linear tions of Table 2 allows a complete representation of
zone of Figure 2. The V,h term in the Simandoux equa rock conductivity data over the experimentally attain
tion does not strictly correspond to the wetted shale able range of C,. Figure 4 compares the two types of
fraction of the Hossin concept, since the natural V,h equation considered here, the two and three ele
calcium montmorillonite used by Simandoux was not ment, parallel resistor equations. The two element
in the fully wetted state when the mixtures were made. equation can provide a reasonably correct data
Subject to this qualification, the Simandoux and representation only in the linear zone of Figure 2. If it
Hossin equations differ only in the exponent of v s h . is desired to improve the mismatch over part of the
28 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
nonlinear zone, this can only be accomplished for a Waxman and Smits (1968)explained the physical sig
given Vah by decreasing c s k so that a mismatch is intro nificance of the quantity X in terms of the composite
duced in the linear zone. Similarly, a good representa term BQ,/F*, where Qvis the cation exchange capacity
tion through a three element equation in the nonlinear per unit pore volume, B is the equivalent conductance
zone can only be attained at the expense of a mis of sodium clay exchange cations (expressed as a func
match in the linear zone. This mismatch can be tion of C, at 25°C) and F* is the intrinsic formation
improved for a given Vshby decreasing C,, but in so factor for a shaly sand, Table 3. The product BQy is
doing, the fairly accurate representation in the non numerically equivalent to the excess conductivity z of
linear zone must be partially sacrificed. Figure 4, Winsauer and McCardell (1953). Thus, the Waxman
therefore, summarizes the physical implications of Smits model also assumes that the conducting paths
enforced changes in C,,, which are made in order to through the free pore water and the counterions within
improve the consistency of a particular log evaluation the ionic double layer are subject to the same geometric
I factor F*. The dependence of B upon C, allowed X to
exercise.
vary with C , so that both the nonlinear and the linear
zones of Figure 2 could be represented through one
parallelresistor equation.
Non  I
Linear Clavier et al. (1977, 1984) sought to modify the
linear I zone
WaxmanSmits equation to take account of experi
mental evidence for the exclusion of anions from the
double layer. This was done in terms of a “dual water”
t model of free (formation)water and bound (clay)water.
It was argued that a shaly formation behaves as though
CO
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,.
Fo
(9)
where F, is the formation factor associated with the
cw  entire pore space (i.e. both free and bound water). Equa
tion (9) forms the basis of the dual water equation
(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 non
Apart from the unavailability of a “universal” Vsh linear and the linear zones of Figure 2 could be repre
equation there is one other major disadvantage of vsk sented through this one equation.
models; the v¶meter 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
markedly different shale effects for the same numerical SHALYSAND RELATIONSHIPS FOR
shale fraction, improved models were sought which did DOUBLELAYER MODELS
(WATER ZONE)
take account of the geometry and electrochemistry of
mineralelectrolyte interfaces. c,=+ c, BQ” Waxman & Smits
F* F* (1968)
DoubleLayer Models
c , = c,
+
F
s, u6
x2F
Rink & Schopper (1974)
The term “double layer model” is used here to
describe any conceptual model which draws directly or (CbwCW)v,Q, Dualwater model:
indirectly upon the ionic doublelayer phenomenon, c, = c,
F,
+ F, Clavier et al. (1977,
as described for reservoir rocks by Winsauer and 1984)
McCardell (1953). In this respect, their work can be
seen as a conceptual forerunner of the models described It is important to note the distinction drawn between
below, all of which furnish an expression of the same F* of the WaxmanSmits equation and F, of the dual
general form as equation (3). water model. For a clean sand F* = F., and both are
equivalent to the Archie formation factor F. For a shaly ticular indicator, the resulting v , h is an overestimate. It
sand F* is notionally the formation factor that the is the usual practice to obtain several estimates of v s h
reservoir rock would possess, if the solid clays were to from different shale indicators and then to select the
be replaced by geometrically identical but surficially lowest value as the best estimate at a particular level.
inert matrix, the bound water being grouped with the This means that a log derived V s h might, for example,
free water as a uniform equivalent electrolyte. However, have resulted from measurements of natural gamma
Clavier et al. (1977, 1984) note that measured values of activity, thermal neutron population or sonic transit
F*, obtained from multiple salinity determinations of time, quantities that bear little physical resemblance to
rock conductivity, are affected by the presence of the resistivitycompatible parameter X of equation (3).
bound water. The quantity F, is claimed to be an Furthermore, as conditions change with depth, one
idealized formation factor expressed as the product of must expect the ideal shale indicator to change irregu
F* and a correction factor for the geometrical effect of larly. Thus, not only might the derived v , h be physically
the bound water. incompatible with the parallel resistor equation (3), but
An important point of qualification is that the the degree of incompatibility can be expected to vary
WaxmanSmits and dual water models are specifically erratically. Yet again, there is no guarantee that condi
based on the cation exchange properties of sodium tions will be favourable at a given level for any of the
clays in the presence of an NaCl electrolyte as observed shale indicators used. It is, therefore, small wonder that
for those reservoir rocks represented in the underlying the V s h approach is widely regarded as deficient. Its sav
experiments (Waxman and Smits, 1968). In particular, ing grace has been that V s h is at least notionally log
both models are specific in their prediction of the effec derivable; and for this reason, it has continued to retain
tive transition from the nonlinear to the linear zone an important role in formation evaluation.
(Fig. 2), an occurrence which was not presented as a It has been argued that it is not V s h that should be
function of lithology. Extrapolation to other forma sought as a physical interpretation of X, but rather an
tions requires careful verification that the basic effective shale volume fraction that takes account of
assumptions of these models continue to be satisfied, the composition, mode of distribution, and surface
especially with regard to the concomitant representa geometry of constituent shale. These characteristics are
tion of data from the nonlinear and linear zones. accommodated by models based on the ionic double
Another suite of double layer models, which has layer.
received much less attention in the literature, is that The “double layer” models do offer physical inter
involving the surface area of pore systems. Rink and pretations of X that are electrically compatible, at least
Schopper (1974) proposed a model based on the specific in theory. Unfortunately, however, there are no estab
surface area of shaly reservoir rocks in which lished techniques for the direct downhole measurement
of X as interpreted in these models, although a ray of
(10) promise in this direction lies in the recent application
of frequencydomain induced polarization to Q. determina
where Spor is the surface area per unit pore volume, u tion (Waxman and Vinegar, 1981).Nevertheless, because
is the surface density of mobile charges, 6 is the effec these models represent X through electrochemical and
tive mobility of these carrier charges within the double geometrical parameters that can be measured in the
layer, and X is a tortuosity associated with the double laboratory, they would appear to afford a means of
layer (Table 3). Since the product a6 was proposed to be calibrating a logderivable petrophysical parameter in
approximately constant for a given cation, X was also terms of an appropriate shale related quantity. Indeed,
taken to be constant; therefore, the model was intended the field application of the double layer models has
to represent only the linear zone of Figure 2. Similar followed this very philosophy of indirectness. For
comments can be applied to the related surfacecon example, Lavers et al. (1974)correlated Qv with porosity
ductance model of Street (1961) and to the surface for North Sea reservoirs. Johnson and Linke (1976)cor
structure model of Pape and Worthington (1983). related cation exchange capacity with gamma ray
response. They used laboratory CEC data to derive a
Discussion method of determining effective shale volume from
The field application of V , h models usually requires gammaray response using a nonlinear relationship. In
that V , h be estimated at each designated level using one this way a double layer model was used to control the
or more shale indicators. A shale indicator is simply a input to a v s h model. Yet again, Juhasz (1981) proposed
conventional log or log combination whose response obtaining Q. from the “dry clay fraction,” a parameter
equation(s) can incorporate a shale fraction term. Each which was determined using the neutron and density
shale indicator is calibrated so that under ideal condi log responses. In general, the need to correlate empiri
tions it furnishes a reasonable estimate of vsh.Where cally QY or some related quantity with a logderivable
there are departures from the ideal conditions for a par parameter constitutes the major weakness of the
30 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
double layer models, which consequently have not had Archie's well known water saturation equation for
the extensive impact within the industry that might clean sands, viz.
I have been expected solely on scientific grounds. "
While it is recognized that both the vsh and the
c' ss,
F
c w
(11)
double layer models suffer from deficiencies as regards where C , is the conductivity of a reservoir rock that is
field application, both approaches are also seriously partially saturated to degree S, with electrolyte of con
affected by problems concerning laboratory measure ductivity C,, and n is a clean sand saturation exponent
ment. A determination of X in the laboratory can be often taken to be two. Thus, if only the clean term is
accomplished in two ways, by direct measurement of changed, the general waterzone equation (3) can be
the constituent parameters or by the multiplesalinity transformed to
indirect approach, whereby values of C, recorded at
several different values of C, are used to determine F, c, =cs,"
F +x (12)
and thence by calculation X. The direct laboratory
determination of vsh is theoretically possible, but even so that when X is very small or C, is very large, equa
if it were meaningful there remains the problem of tion (12) reduces to the clean sand equation (11).
C,. The indirect approach will provide a quanti Specific examples of equation (12)are the Hossin (1960)
tative estimate of some function of vsh and C,,, and Simandoux (1963) equations, Table 4, the latter
but it will not separately resolve these quantities. The relating explicitly to values of S, above the irreducible
direct measurement of Spar and Qy is feasible, but it is water saturation (Bardon and Pied, 1969).
well known that different techniques furnish different
results (e.g., Van den Hul and Lyklema, 1968; Mian and
TABLE 4
Hilchie, 1982). A decision is required as to which
measurement is likely to be the most meaningful in the SHALYSAND RELATIONSHIPS INVOLVING V,
light of the intended application. Even if an appro (HYDROCARBON ZONE)
priate measurement of Spor or QVcan be made, the for c =%s" w % csh Hossin (1960)
mation in question might not satisfy the chosen model ' F
and might therefore preclude a useful calculation of X. c
Ct = , Sl + xhcsh Simandoux (1963)
In this event, recourse can again be made to the F
multiplesalinitymethod whereby X can be determined c, = !$ sl +Vsh csh s, Bardon & Pied (1969)
as a composite term. Thus, for example, Kern et al.
(1976), recognizing that Xvalues based upon direct
measurements of were incorrect for certain tight gas
QY
=&si? v h c k Doll (unpublished)
F s: + x s:,
c, =G (13)
APPLICATION TO THE HYDROCARBON ZONE
The extension of the shalysand equations of Tables Again, this equation reduces to equation (11) when X
2 and 3 to take account of the hydrocarbon zone is very small or C, is very large. Specific examples of
requires that terms in Sw be incorporated into the rela equation (13) are the modified Simandoux equation
tionships. This has generally resulted in one of two dis (Bardon and Pied, 1969) of Table 4 and the A. J. de
tinct outcomes, a change in only the clean sand term Witte (1957), WaxmanSmits (1968) and Clavier et al.
of the corresponding waterzone equation or a modifi (1977, 1984) equations of Table 5. Although not a
cation of both the clean and shaly terms. double layer model, the A. J. de Witte equation has
been placed in Table 5 because of its correspondence to
S, Equations for Shaly Sands the WaxmanSmitsequation, as noted by Waxman and
Changes to the clean term have been based upon Smits (1968) themselves.
TABLE 6
TYPE EQUATIONS FOR S, RELATIONSHIPS
TYPE EQUATION NO. COMMENTS
1 c, = ff S," + y (16) No interactive term, S, does not
appear in both terms
2. c, = ff s., + y s., (17) No interactive term, S, appears
in both terms
3 c, = ff S," + p s; + y (18) Interactive term, S, does not
appear in all terms
4 c, = ff S," + p s; + y s., (19) Interactive term, S, appears in all
terms
adenotes predominant sand term; Pdenotes predominant interactive term; ?denotes predominant shale term.
TABLE 7a
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 1
REFERENCE EQUATION COMMENTS
POUPON (l  Xh) cw s: + Laminated shale model;
et al (1954) c, = F vshcsh F = formation factor of cleansand
streaks;
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space of clean sand streaks
HOSSIN cw
c, =  sw
2
+% csh
(1 9601 F
SIMANDOUX C, = %. : + EV,hCsh
S E = 1 for high S,
(1 963) F E c 1 for low S,
F relates to freefluid porosity unless otherwise stated; S, relates to freefluid pore space unless otherwise
stated; Equations are written with n = 2.
32 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
classification scheme for S , equations, it is helpful to The four type equations (16)(19)describe categories
rewrite equations (14) and (15) without the square root of relationships to which most of those S, expressions
function of C,. This not only facilitates comparisons reported in the literature can be assigned. Examples of
between the various expressions, but it also emphasizes Types 14 are grouped in Tables 7a7d, respectively.
the presence within these equations of an interactive Some of these expressions have been rearranged from
sandshale term encompassing S:, where r can be their conventional presentation in an effort to minimize
regarded as an "interactiveterm saturation exponent." variations in format. Comments on certain points of
On this basis we can use equations (12)(15)as the foun interest now follow.
dation for the four generalized type equations (16)(19) The laminated shale model of Poupon et al. (1954)in
listed in Table 6. Table 7a might be classified as Type 3 when the com
TABLE 7b
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 2
REFERENCE EQUATION COMMENTS
L. de WlTTE 2.15 k m, s. I msh S, m, = molal concentration of
(1955) c, = F F 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
A. J. de WlTTE F = maximum formation factor
(1957)
c, = 
cwF S,' + A S, 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
Table 7c
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 3
REFERENCE EQUATION COMMENTS
TABLE 7d
S, EQUATIONS OF TYPE 4
R EFER ENCE EQUAT I0N COMMENTS
POUPON &
LEVEAUX cr
C,
=  s$
F
+
JVs,’ “Indonesia” formula
WOODHOUSE c,=s,’
C, + 2 Modification of Poupon & Leveaux
(1976) F equation for tar sands
34 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
The quantity B in the WaxmanSmits equation of water needed to saturate the double layer. This
(Table 7b) is a function of the bulk electrolyte conduc reduction takes account of shale being isolated from
tivity C,. The product BQYis therefore intuitively an the conducting circuit as S, reaches very low values,
interactive term. However, for classification purposes it especially for reservoirs which are partially oil wet.
has been regarded strictly as a shale term since varia Equations of Type 2 are based on both vh models
, tions in B effectively determine the degree of manifesta and double’layermodels (Table 7b). The shale term con
! tion of the cation exchange capacity and do not affect tains s, and can therefore vary with water saturation.
the sand term directly. In absolute terms, this variation is such that a reduc
The equation of Patchett and Herrick (1982)in Table tion in S, leads to a reduction in the shale component.
7c does not contain an interactive term in the sense of In relative terms, however, a reduction in S, leads to an
the other equations in this group. It is in fact a com increase in shale effects, since the sand component is
bination of the WaxmanSmitsequation (Table 7b) and also reduced, but in proportion to S,’. This ’projected
the expression of Poupon et al. (1954) in Table 7a. The increase in shale effects with decreasing S, is not at
effect of this combination is to produce an equation of variance with Simandoux (1963), provided it is identi
Type 3. fied with values of S, greater than Simandoux’s critical
water saturation. It is only as S, decreases below this
Discussion critical level that the Simandoux model predicts a de
We have introduced hydrocarbon zone equations by creasing shale effect.
considering initially relationships for water saturated In the case of Type2 v s h models Bardon and Pied
sands and then describing how these expressions have (1969), recognizing the difficulties of Simandoux’s
been modified in order to arrive at the S, equations approach, substituted S, for the coefficient E (Table 7a)
that have been proposed in the technical literature. As and thereby produced an equation of the form of A. J.
implied earlier, this two stage breakdown was imposed de Witte (1957). The object was to simplify the Siman
to facilitate the treatment and its understanding. How doux equation so that greater ease of use compensated
ever, some authors have proceeded directly to an S, for any resulting loss of accuracy. The development of
equation, and in these cases, it has been necessary to Type2 equations does seem to have been guided by de
reduce their equations to water zone conditions retro Witte’s earlier work, especially since de Witte did not
actively, in order that the pattern of development might restrict the approach by specifying a physical inter
be consistent within the overall scheme adopted here. pretation of the general shale term A.
Thus, all S, equations are presumed to have been estab For Type2 doublelayer models, it has long been
lished initially under water zone conditions and subse recognized that a decrease in the amount of water
quently modified for use in the hydrocarbon zone. within the free fluid pore space causes an increase in
In describing how these water zone equations have the relative importance of potential phenomena asso
been conceptually extended to take account of S, we ciated with the double layer. This happens because
when free water is displaced by hydrocarbons, the
did not examine the reasoning behind each modifica
tion. In certain cases the reasons have not been stated counterions must remain to ensure electroneutrality.
explicitly, in others the approach has been solely empiri The effect is to increase the shale term X to a new level
cal. Despite these shortcomings the following is an
X ’ where
X‘ =  X
attempt to piece together in skeletal form the thinking
S,
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
been presented. Witte, 1957; Waxman & Smits, 1968; Waxman &
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 satura
interpretation 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 waterzoneequation (3), rewritten as
making provision for c s h to reduce through a coeffi
cient E , which falls below unity for saturations less than
some critical value of S,, corresponding to the amount
c, = FI (C, + FX)
THE LOG ANALYST 35
where the bracketed term denotes the equivalent water sound scientific conceptual model. The development of
conductivity C,, as in equation (9), must be replaced by any given S, equation has sometimes been dominated
by one of these factors at the expense of the other.
Ct = 1 (C, + FX’) (23) Predictive performance seems to have been the main
prerequisite governing the emergence of v s h equations,
Substituting for X ’ from equation (20) and for 6 from which have been progressively modified in an effort to
equation (21) yields improve local accuracy. In this latter respect, a classic
development is the “Indonesia formula” of Poupon and
c, = F s,“ + x S Y
cw (24) Leveaux (1971). Because V s h equations lack a sound
scientificbasis, and because they are necessarily founded
which, with n = 2, reduces to the form of the Type2 on some localized control data, considerable disparities
double layer equations. can be expected between the estimates of S, that they
Equations of Type 3 (Table 7c) offer no consistent provide. As an example, Figure 5 contains comparisons
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 square
rooted 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 pro
 80 
,\“
posed for the equations of Type1. The form of the I

The Type4 equations involving v s h (Table 7d) all v)
have empirical origins. The dual porosity model of “0 20 40 60 80 100
RaigaClemenceau et al. (1984) is partly based upon an
empirical determination of the shale term saturation SW Hossin [%I
exponent. This exponent turned out to be non la1
trival, an outcome which has resulted in a Type4
classification.
Despite the diverse origins of the equations of Table
7 the classification into type groups allows some order
ing of what has hitherto been a highly disjointed sub
ject area. As a consequence, apparently dissimilar
models can be seen to have common links from a
formationevaluation 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 corres
pondence 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.
FURTHER DEVEUlPMENaS
Before a prospective way forward can be meaning
fully identified, even in broad terms, it is important to
be aware of the general reasons for the multiplicity of
Ibl
0 20 40
s w Doll
60
10/J
80

100
S, equations that is exemplified in Table 7. There are Figure 5 Comparisons of predicted water saturations
two principal factors that have influenced the develop (a) for the Simandoux and Hossin equations,
ment of these equations, (i) predictive performance and (b) for the Simandoux and Doll equations
often in localized applications, and (ii) the need for a (from Fertl and Hammack, 1971).
36 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
of the Simandoux and Hossin equations, both of requirements are not met by any of the S, equations in
Type1 (Table 7a), and of the Simandoux and Doll equa routine use today.
tions, of Typel (Table 7a) and Type 3 (Table 7c), respec The very nature of the type groups of Table 7 indi
tively. It can be seen from Figure 5a that the Siman cates that many of the published S, equations are inter
doux and Hossin equations show fair agreement at low related and provides some basis for postulating the
values of S,, i.e. around 20 saturation units. Yet, at high existence of a shalysand algorithm with practically a
values of S, there is a consistent disparity with the universal application. An encouraging indication of the
Hossin equation furnishing values of S, that are some possible existence of an electrical relationship with a
20 saturation units greater than the Simandoux esti potentially wide application can be gleaned from
mates. In contrast Figure #5b indicates that there is Figure 7. This diagram shows plots of F,/F vs C, for
generally good agreement between the Simandoux and four watersaturated sands of widely varying degrees of
Doll equations for low values of v s h . However, for shale shaliness. The significance of the ratio F,/F can be
fractions of 30% the Simandoux equation consistently appreciated from the following rewrite of equation (3):
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,. It follows that F,/F is equal to the fraction of the total
These disadvantages can be partially compensated by conductivity that cannot be attributed to shale effects.
using C, as a tuning parameter to improve predictive When this fraction is low, F,/F is low and shale effects
performance in the water zone in the expectation that predominate. When this ratio is high, F, = F and shale
better estimates of S, will thereby be obtained in the effects are not significant. For a shaly sand FJF can be
hydrocarbon zone. expected to vary with C,, decreasing as C, decreases
The quest for a sound scientific conceptual model and free fluid conduction thereby becomes more
has been responsible for the development of the double inhibited.
layer equations. In this case certain aspects of predic
tive performance have sometimes had to be sacrificed
in the interests of retaining a reasonable working  QV=1.47 meq cm3
3o
theory. Where inexactness has had to be admitted, it has Fz40.9
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 l
t

Fa
F 0.1
001
Figure 7 Variation of F,/F with C, for four diverse sandstone samples of very
different Q, (meq cm9. Data from (1) Patnode and Wyllie (1950); (2)
Wyllie and Southwick (1954); (3) Rink and Schopper (1974); (4) Wax
man and Smits (1968).
38 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985
apparent formation factor. 4e effective (freefluid)porosity.
formation factor, dualwater model. 4sh total porosity of shale, Juhasz model.
formation factor of shale. 4t total interconnected porosity.
formation factor, WaxmanSmits model.
geometric factor for the electrical measure REFERENCES
ment of effectively clean partially water ALGER, R. P.,RAYMER, L. L., HOYLE, W. R., and TIXIER,
saturated rock. M. P. 1963. Formation density log applications in liquid
cation exchange capacity per unit pore filled holes. J. Pet. Tech. 15, 321332.
volume (meq ~ m  ~ ) . ARCHIE, G. E. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid
in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans.
resistivity of fully watersaturated rock@ m). AlME 146, 5462.
resistivity of shale (0m). BARDON, C. and PIED, B. 1969. Formation water saturation
resistivity of partially watersaturated rock in shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 10th Ann. Logging Symp.,
(Q 4. 2119.
resistivity of (free) water (Q m). CLAVIER, C., COATES, G. and DUMANOIR, J. 1977. The
theoretical and experimental bases for the “dual water”
pore surface area per unit pore volume (ml). model for the interpretation of shaly sands. SPE Paper No.
fractional water saturation of pore space. 6859.
fractional wetted shale volume of rock. CLAVIER, C., COATES, G. and DUMANOIR, J. 1984.
generalized electrical parameter of shaliness Theoretical and experimental bases for the dualwater
(S ml). model for interpretation of shaly sands. SOC.Pet. Engrs. J.
24, 153167.
generalized electrical parameter of shaliness DESBRANDES, R. 1968. Theorie et interpretation des
in partially watersaturated rock (S ml). diagraphies. Editions Technip, Paris, 545 pp.
coefficient in generalized Archie F  4 DE WITTE, A. J. 1957. Saturation and porosity from electric
equation. logs in shaly sands. Oil & Gas J. 55, 4 March 8993, 15
shale factor, HillMilburn model. April 115121.
DE WITTE, L. 1950. Relations between resistivities and fluid
conversion from mshand m, to conductivity, contents of porous rocks. Oil & Gas J. 49, 24 August
L. de Witte model (S mI mole l kg solvent). 120132.
exponent in Archie F  4 equation. DE WITTE, L. 1955. A study of electric log interpretation
molal concentration of exchangeable ca methods in shaly formations. Trans. AlME 204, 103110.
tions associated with shale, L. de Witte FERTL, W. H. and HAMMACK, G. W. 1971. A comparative
look at water saturation computations in shaly pay sands.
model (moles/kg solvent). Trans. SPWLA. 12th Ann. Logging Symp., R117.
molal concentration of exchangeable cations HILL, H. J. and MILBURN, J. D. 1956. Effect of clay and
in formation water, L. de Witte model water salinity on electrochemical behavior of reservoir
(moles/kg solvent). rocks. Trans. AlME 207, 6572.
saturation exponent, sand term. HOSSIN, A. 1960. Calcul des saturations en eau par la
methode du ciment argileux (formule d ’ Archie
shale volume fraction of “pore” space, clay generalisee). Bull. Assoc. Francaise Tech. Pet. 140, 31
slurry model. March.
saturation exponent, interactive term. HUSTEN, P. and ANTON, H. 1981. The porosity surface con
saturation exponent, shale term. cept. Oil Gas 7(1), 4042.
amount of clay water associated with one JOHNSON, H. M. 1961. A history of well logging. Trans.
SPWLA 2nd Ann. Logging Symp., Paper 1.
milliequivalent of clay counterions (meq’ JOHNSON, W. L. and LINKE, W.A. 1977. Some practical
cm3). applications to improve formation evaluation of sand
excess doublelayer conductivity, Winsauer stones in the Mackenzie Delta. Trans. CWLS 6th Formation
McCardell model (S mI). Evaluation Symp., R119.
predominant cleansand term, type equa JUHASZ, 1. 1981. Normalised Q,  the key to shaly sand
evaluation using the WaxmanSmits equation in the
tions (S ml). absence of core data. Trans. SPWLA 22nd Ann. Logging
predominant sandshale interactive term, Symp., 2136.
type equations (S ml). KERN, J. W., HOYER, W. A. and SPANN, M. M. 1976. Low
predominant shale term, type equations porosity gas sand analysis using cation exchange and
(S ml). dielectric constant data. Trans. SPWLA 17th Ann. Logging
Symp. PP117.
charge mobility in double layer (m2V’ s‘1. KRYGOWSKI, D.A. and PICKETT, G. R. 1978. The prediction
shaleterm coefficient, Simandoux model. of water saturation and recoverable hydrocarbon volumes
tortuosity associated with the double layer, in shaly sand reservoirs. Trans. SPWLA 18th Ann. Logging
RinkSchopper model. Symp., 88115.
surface charge density of rock (C m2). LAVERS, B. A., SMITS, L. J. M. and VAN BAAREN, C. 1974.
Some fundamental problems of formation evaluation in
fractional porosity. the North Sea. Trans. 3rd European Formation Evaluation
boundwater porosity. Symp., SPWLA London Chapter, G115.
40 JANUARYFEBRUARY, 1985