Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18



The British Petroleum Company
Sunbury-onThames, England

ABSTRACT lem, but rather to identify key stages in the develop-

ment of ideas. The treatment is therefore based very
A wide variety of procedures are currently in routine much on a personal interpretation of this evolutionary
use for the evaluation of shaly sands. Each of these can process; other petrophysicists would no doubt chart
furnish a significantly different reservoir evaluation. these trends differently. Furthermore, it is not the inten-
Yet, no one method predominates within the industry. tion to underwrite or refute a particular conceptual
As a means of investigating this unsatisfactory state model, but rather to seek an ordering of what might
of affairs, the development of thinking about the shaly appear, at first sight, to be an uncoordinated collection
sand problem has been mapped up to the present day. of equations. Thus, the inclusion or omission of a par-
In so doing, attention has been focused on the ticular method does not imply approval or disapproval,
manifestation of shale effects in electrical data, since respectively, of the technique in question.
this remains the most contentious area through its Confronted at the outset with over 30 S , models
bearing on the determination of water saturation and from which to choose, this treatment has been given
thence hydrocarbons in place. By considering the basic greater poignancy by focussing on those conceptual
characteristics of the underlying petrophysical models, models wherein the shale parameters are notionally
it has become apparent that the multifarious equations determinable from downhole wireline measurement.
for determining water saturation from electrical data Despite this self-imposed direction, it is hoped that this
can be ordered into type groups. Thus, seemingly appraisal will help to clarify some of the thinking that
dissimilar models can be related from a formation- underlies the application of the available S, options in
evaluation standpoint. This subject area is therefore the evaluation of shaly reservoirs.
more systematic than it might initially have appeared. The words shale and clay are used synonymously
Using this type classification as a basis, an assess- here. To draw upon the distinctions that have been
ment has been made of further developments in this made elsewhere would not be helpful for present pur-
complex subject area. It is concluded that the shaly- poses, since the stated objectives of this work require a
sand problem will only be truly solved from an elec- simplification of what is already an exceedingly com-
trical standpoint when the requirement of a flexible, plex problem. Furthermore, primary emphasis is given
representative algorithm, based on a sound scientific to dispersed shales, rather than laminated or structural
model, which can be applied directly to wireline data, shales, since these have received by far the greatest
has been fully met. attention in the literature. The word shale will there-
INTRODUCTION fore relate to dispersed shalelclay unless otherwise
This paper is based upon earlier technical presenta-
tions 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 period prior to 1950 can be seen as a “shale-
The object is to provide an insight into the origins of free” period from a petrophysical standpoint; it is only
some of the resistivity equations currently used for the since this date that the shaly-sand problem has been
determination of water saturation S, in shaly sands, a fully recognized and addressed.
far reaching aspect of the shaly-sand problem and one Selected petrophysical developments during the
which remains controversial. This is attempted by “shale-free” period are itemized in Table 1. Surface
examining the growth of understanding from the resistivity prospecting, pioneered by Wenner in North
emergence of shaly-sand concepts through to the pre- America and by the Schlumberger brothers in Europe,
sent day. It is not proposed to advance a comprehensive was the precursor of geophysical well logging fifteen
treatise on the S, component of the shaly-sand prob- years later. The development of the first quantitative


TABLE 1 actually decrease as C, decreases (Patnode and Wyllie,
CHRONOLOGICAL LANDMARKS OF THE 1950).The relative decrease in C,/C, at a given level of
SHALE FREE PERIOD C, appeared to be more pronounced for shalier
(PARTIALLY EXTRACTED FROM JOHNSON, 1961) specimens (Fig 1). Since C, was presumed to be known,
the only possible explanation for this phenomenon lay
1812 Electrical phenomena measured in the walls
in the effect of the shale component of the reservoir
of Cornish tin mines
1869 Downhole temperature measurements rock upon C,. This effect was essentially to under
1883 In-situ determination of rock resistivity by reduce C, as C, decreased or, to put it another way, to
measurement at the earth’s surface impart an extra conductivity to the system at lower
1912 Resistivity prospecting established values of C,. For this reason the electrical manifesta-
1927 First electric log tion of shale effects has been described in terms of an
1932 Quantitative resistivity tool (Normal device) “excess conductivity” (Winsauer and McCardell,
1939 Natural gamma tool* 1953). It became advisable to regard the ratio C,/C, as
1942 Archie’s laws an apparent formation factor F, which is equal to the
1947 Induction log intrinsic formation factor F only when Archie’s
1947 Recognition of interface conductivity in assumptions are satisfied. Throughout this paper the
reservoir rocks* symbol F identifies the formation factor as defined by
1948 Determination of R, from the SP log
1949 Appreciation of SP response in shaly Archie while F, represents no more than a salinity-
sands* dependent approximation thereto.
Since the Archie definition of equation (1) was not
*denotes shale-related development
found to be valid for all formations, a more general rela-
tionship between C, and C, was sought in order to
accommodate the excess conductivity. By rewriting
resistivity tool, the Normal device, and the publication equation (1) as
of Archie’s empirical laws ten years afterwards, pro-
vided the basis for the quantitative petrophysical c, = C,
evaluation of arenaceous reservoirs. Although Archie’s F
laws were established specifically for clean sands, the and incorporating the excess conductivity within a
increasing number of shale related developments dur- composite shale-conductivity term X, it was proposed
ing the last 10-12years of the shale-free period is indica- that an expression of the form
tive of a growing awareness of the interpretative com-
plexities associated with the shaly-sand problem.
The emergence of the shaly-sand problem as it (3)
affects resistivity data can be more readily traced by is valid for all granular reservoirs that are fully water
considering only conditions of full water saturation in saturated.
the first instance. A convenient starting point is the
definition of formation factor F which was the first of
For a clean sand, X 0 and equation (3) reduces to
equation (2). If C, is very large, X has comparatively
three equations proposed by Archie (1942), viz.

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

saturated with aqueous electrolyte of resistivity R,, and Clean sand
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 Archie’s experi-
mental conditions of a clean reservoir rock fully sat-
urated 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
cw -
from various formations to suggest that the ratio C,/C, Figure 1 Schematic variation of the ratio C,/C,, (=Fa)
is not always a constant for a given sample but can with C, for shaly sands.

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 tor-porosity 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 1950-1955 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
“non-linear zone” and “linear zone” have been adopted 0.

for the regions of variable X and constant X,

The implications of changes in C,, and thence in the
relative (but not necessarily the absolute) value of X, +Ilr
are illustrated in Figure 3 for the formation factor vs
porosity relationship. Data are from the Triassic Sher-
, -c 4
10 15 20
wood Sandstone of northwest England. For each core
sample the value of X is known to be constant over the Porosity 1%
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
linear zone

CO b
m I
6 0 0
a 1- 1 I I

Porosity Io/ol

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

Figure 2 Schematic variation of C, with C, for water- crossplots for 19 sandstone samples (data
saturated shaly sands. from Worthington and Barker, 1972).


Although Figure 3 contrasts extreme cases, the tions were inadequate to account for the “excess
implications of this disparity are of general significance. conductivity” phenomenon which gave rise to a non-
Prior to the development of reliable porosity tools it trivial value of X in equation (3).
was often the practice to estimate 4 from the ratio In an attempt to account for this electrical manisfesta-
C,/C, using a standard version of equation (4)in con- tion of shale effects Patnode and Wyllie (1950)proposed a
junction with resistivity logging data from nearby two-element, shalysand model comprising conductive
water zones. In so doing it was essential to have suffi- solids and an electrolyte. In this case the quantity X
ciently clean conditions for there to be a well defined was described as the conductivity due to “the conduc-
relationship between C#I and C,/C,. Where this condi- tive solids as distributed in the core.” Since X was
tion was satisfied it was still possible to proceed even if found to be a constant over the range of C , considered,
the ratio C,/C, actually represented an apparent forma- this model can be identified retrospectively with the so
tion factor Fa instead of the intrinsic formation factor called linear zone of Figure 2.
E In the former case a and m would be pseudo- L. de Witte (1950) observed that the Patnode-Wyllie
parameters which would compensate for any departure model is equivalent to “two parallel resistances, one
of Fa from F when calculating porosity. This approach representing the resistance of the water phase and the
required that the input value of F, related to the same other equal to the total resistance of the conductive
C, as that used to establish the relationship between F, solids as distributed.” He argued that this would
and in the first place. require the electrolyte and conductive solids to be elec-
The advent of porosity tools has resulted in a change trically insulated from one another; since they were
of usage of equation (4).It is current practice to infer not, the Patnode-Wyllie model was untenable. L. de
4 from porosity tool response(s) and then to calculate Witte did, however, draw upon Patnode and Wyllie’s
F using pre-determined values of a and m. In this case work on clay slurries to propose that a homogeneous
the resulting value of F will be wrong if the parameters mixture of conductive solids and electrolyte behaves
a and m do not themselves relate specifically to effec- exactly as a mixture of two electrolytes. The resulting
tively clean conditions but have inadvertently been two-element, conceptual model comprised a non-
established on the basis of a correlation of F. with 4. conducting matrix and a clay slurry electrolyte.
This error can be readily transmitted to subsequent esti- Because one of these elements is actually a composite
mates of water saturation. system, the corresponding resistivity algorithm does not
The development of suites of porosity tools has conform to the generalized equation (3). However, it is
brought with it an entirely different aspect of the shaley- of linear form and therefore describes the linear zone of
sand problem, that of correcting radiometric and sonic Figure 2.
tool responses for shale fraction. However, the resulting Winsauer and McCardell (1953) ascribed the abnor-
shale corrections for porosity have rarely been as con- mal conductivity of shaly reservoir rocks to the elec-
tentious as the various procedures adopted in the trical double layer in the solution adjacent to charged
ongoing quest for reliable “shale-corrected” water satu- clay surfaces. This abnormal, or excess, double-layer
rations. Therefore although uncertainties in log-derived conductivity was attributed to adsorption on the clay
porosities are capable of inducing a significant error in surface and a resultant concentration of ions adjacent
subsequently estimated values of S,, the porosity com- to this surface. The Winsauer-McCardell model takes
ponent of the shaly-sand problem is not considered the form of equation (3) with X = z/F where z is the
further here even though it remains a potentially diffi- excess double-layer conductivity. Thus the same
cult area. Instead, attention will be concentrated on the geometric factor F was supposed for both the free elec-
S, problem much of which is concerned with the trolyte and the double-layer components of the parallel
physical significance of the quantity X in equation (3). resistor model. Furthermore the quantity z was shown
For the time being these considerations will continue to to vary with C,. The variability of X in the non-linear
be restricted to water zone conditions for, as implied zone of Figure 2 was therefore accommodated but little
earlier, the premature inclusion of an S, term would evidence was presented for the constancy of X in the
unnecessarily complicate the treatment of what is linear zone. Nevertheless by proposing a variable X the
already a very complex problem. Winsauer-McCardell model differed fundamentally
from the earlier linear representations.
In order to account for the non-linear zone of Figure
Prior to 1950 it had been the convention to regard a 2 without having to postulate a variable shale-con-
water saturated reservoir rock as comprising two com- ductivity-term Wyllie and Southwick (1954) extended
ponents, a nonconducting matrix and an electrolyte. the Patnode-Wyllie model to a three element system.
Where these specifications were satisfied the ratio This comprised conductive solids and electrolyte com-
C,/C, was not a function of C, and the Archie condi- ponents as before, with a third component consisting of
tions were met. In other cases, these simple specifica- electrolyte and conductive solids arranged in series.

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 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 shaly-sandconcepts. Despite the considerable attention
of the solid phase qualified by an appropriate geo- given to the shaly-sand problem during the 1950’s, 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
represented by a linear relationship and therefore For the purposes of this discussion the shaly-sand
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 Winsauer-McCardell model as a conceptual (i) Concepts based on the shale volume fraction, V s h .
forerunner of the contemporary double-layer 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 double-layer 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- core-sample 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 “b-factor” 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 Hill-Milburn 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



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 non-linear zone. However,
rewritten in the form 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; 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 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
system. Thus squaring the Doll equation we have
x =vs: Csh (6)
Where both shale and electrolyte are present, equation
(6) defines the shale-related 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 cross-linkage 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

(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 Poupon-Leveaux
geneous mixtures of sand and montmorillonite. He pro- relationship accommodates the non-linear 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

non-linear 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 mis-match 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 non-linear 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 mis-match 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
vary with C , so that both the non-linear and the linear
zones of Figure 2 could be represented through one
parallel-resistor equation.
Non - I
Linear Clavier et al. (1977, 1984) sought to modify the
linear I zone
Waxman-Smits 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
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,.
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&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
markedly different shale effects for the same numerical SHALY-SAND RELATIONSHIPS FOR
shale fraction, improved models were sought which did DOUBLE-LAYER MODELS
take account of the geometry and electrochemistry of
mineral-electrolyte interfaces. c,=-+- c, BQ” Waxman & Smits
F* F* (1968)
Double-Layer Models
c , = -c,
s, u6
Rink & Schopper (1974)
The term “double layer model” is used here to
describe any conceptual model which draws directly or (Cbw-CW)v,Q, Dual-water model:
indirectly upon the ionic double-layer phenomenon, c, = c,
+ 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 Waxman-Smits 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 over-estimate. 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 resistivity-compatible 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
Waxman-Smits 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 non-linear 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 non-linear 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 log-derivable 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 surface-con- 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 gamma-ray response using a non-linear 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 log-derivable
there are departures from the ideal conditions for a par- parameter constitutes the major weakness of the

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,
c w
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 water-zone equation (3) can be
the constituent parameters or by the multiple-salinity transformed to
indirect approach, whereby values of C, recorded at
several different values of C, are used to determine F, c, =c-s,"
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
Hilchie, 1982). A decision is required as to which
measurement is likely to be the most meaningful in the SHALY-SAND 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
multiple-salinitymethod 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 X-values based upon direct
measurements of were incorrect for certain tight gas
=&si? v h c -k Doll (unpublished)

sands, concluded that these formations could not be

represented through the Waxman-Smitsmodel and pro- < & s;/* + y;-v+
= s":
Poupon and Leveaux
ceeded to determine X from an equation of the form of (1 971)
The foregoing might appear as an unduly pessimistic
appraisal. Yet, it must be mentioned again that we have Changes to the shale term have usually had the
up to now confined this treatment as far as possible to effect of introducing a factor S;where s can be loosely
cases of full water saturation. In the presence of hydro- regarded for our purposes as a "shale-term saturation
carbons, shale effects become more pronounced and exponent." Thus, if both the clean and the shale terms
consequently the shaly-sand problem assumes even are changed, the general water-zone equation (3) can
greater degrees of significance and complexity. be transformed to

F s: + x s:,
c, =G (13)
The extension of the shaly-sand 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), Waxman-Smits (1968) and Clavier et al.
of the corresponding water-zone 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 Waxman-Smitsequation, as noted by Waxman and
Changes to the clean term have been based upon Smits (1968) themselves.


The remaining equations of Table 4 can be reached A specific example of equation (14) is the unpublished
by initially taking the square root of each term in equa- Doll equation of Table 4 (cited by Desbrandes, 1968;
tions (12) and (13), just as in the water-zone case. Raiga-Clemenceau, 1976).
Where only the clean term is changed, we can modify Where both clean and shale terms are changed we
equation (12) to give can modify equation (13) to give

c= s;I2 + Jx (14) J,= 6 s,"/' + V'XS:12 (15 )

Note that a very small X or a very large C, still causes A very small X or a very large C, causes equation (15)
equation (14)to reduce to the clean sand equation (11). to reduce to equation (1 1). A specific example of equa-
tion (15) is the Indonesia formula of Poupon and
Leveaux (1971) in Table 4.
SHALY-SAND RELATIONSHIPS FOR Classification of S, Equations
"DOUBLE-LAYER" MODELS Equations (12)-(15)represent a four part family of S,
equations for shaly sands. Most of the equations pro-
C, = -S:
+ AS, A. J. de Witte (1957) posed over the past 30 years can be identified with one
of these four groups. Noteworthy exceptions are pro-
c, = -
CW s;
+-BQ" s;-'
Waxman & 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,
Clavier et al. (1977,
1984) In using equations (12)-(15) as the basis for a

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

POUPON (l - Xh) cw s: + Laminated shale model;
et al (1954) c, = F vshcsh F = formation factor of clean-sand
S, relates to total interconnected pore
space of clean sand streaks
c, = - sw
+% 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 free-fluid porosity unless otherwise stated; S, relates to free-fluid pore space unless otherwise
stated; Equations are written with n = 2.

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 1-4 are grouped in Tables 7a-7d, respectively.
the presence within these equations of an interactive Some of these expressions have been rearranged from
sand-shale term encompassing S:, where r can be their conventional presentation in an effort to minimize
regarded as an "interactive-term 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-

L. de WlTTE 2.15 k m, s. I msh S, m, = molal concentration of
(1955) c, = F F exchangeable cations in formation
msh = molal concentration of
exchangeable cations associated
with shale
k = conversion from m,.,, to
F relates to total interconnected porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
A. J. de WlTTE F = maximum formation factor
c, = -
cwF S,' + A S, FA = shaliness factor
S, relates to total interconnected pore
C, = conductivity due to shale ( # Csh)
F relates to total interconnected porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
F* relates to total interconnected
S, relates to total interconnected pore
Modified Simandoux equation

F relates to the free fluid porosity of

the total rock volume, inclusive of
intraformational (laminated) shales
CLAVIER et al. c, sw2 +
c, = - (C*W - C,) v, Q" s, Dual-water model
(1977,1984) FO FO F
,, relates to total interconnected porosity
S, relates to total interconnected pore
JUHASZ (1981)
c, = -
s,2 + [ :; c, ]
-- vsh 4 s h sw
Normalized Waxman-Smits equation
F = l/p where 4 is the porosity derived
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
See notes at foot of Table 7a.


posite bracketed term is fully expanded into two com- The dual water model of Clavier et al. (1977, 1984)
ponents. This has not been done primarily because in in Table 7b might be classified as Type 4 with the com-
this laminated model with clean sand streaks the quan- posite term in (Cb,-C,) fully expanded. There are two
tity (I - Vsh)relates to the volume fraction of clean sand reasons why this expression has been retained as Type
within the rock as a whole. It would be meaningless to 2. Firstly, this bracketed term represents a conceptually
break this term down to yield an interactive term in C,, meaningful excess water conductivity. Secondly, expan-
F and V,, since the first two parameters relate to zones sion of the bracket would introduce a discrete negative
which are stipulated to exclude altogether the shale term which would be at variance with the concept of
laminations. resistors in parallel. A similar line of reasoning can be
formulated for the Juhasz equation, also in Table 7b.

Table 7c

ALGER 9)(csh + cw) S, Clay slurry model

c w (1-q)2 s,’ + q(l- q2s‘h
F relates to total volume occupied by
et al (1963) c, = F F
fluid and clay
S, relates to fluid-filled pore space
HUSTEN & F = 1/4; where is total interconnected
c, = C,
s,’ + 2 vsh
c, c,
{ ’-E[
(1981) =
S, relates to total interconnected pore
+ :v csh space

PATCHETT & ( l -&h) Si Laminated sand-shale model

(’ SJ‘- F BQ~
sw + vsh c s h v, = volume fraction of laminated
(1982) shales only
F relates to total interconnected porosity
within shaly-sand streaks
S,= relates to total interconnected
pore space within shaly-sand streaks
See notes at foot of Table 7a

= - s$
JVs,’ “Indonesia” formula

(1971) + Vi-” csh si

C, + 2 Modification of Poupon & Leveaux
(1976) F equation for tar sands

The quantity B in the Waxman-Smits 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 Waxman-Smitsequation (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 Type-2 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 Type-2 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 Type-2 double-layer 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 electro-neutrality.
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
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 water-zoneequation (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)
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 Type-2 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 Type-1. The form of the I

equation of Alger et al. (1973) is a direct consequence 60-

of the clay slurry model (L. de Witte, 1950) upon which 0
this expression is based. For the Patchett and Herrick 0
(1982) equation the shale term actually relates to (P
laminations, as per Poupon et al. (1954) whose model E
made no provision for the inclusion of S, in the shale v, 20-
term (Table 7a).

The Type-4 equations involving v s h (Table 7d) all v)
have empirical origins. The dual porosity model of “0 20 40 60 80 100
Raiga-Clemenceau 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 Type-4
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
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 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.

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
0 20 40
s w Doll

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).

of the Simandoux and Hossin equations, both of requirements are not met by any of the S, equations in
Type-1 (Table 7a), and of the Simandoux and Doll equa- routine use today.
tions, of Type-l (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 shaly-sand 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 water-saturated 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 re-write 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 cm-3
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-

of very high degrees of shaliness or exceedingly fresh EXPANSION OF

formation waters. An interesting example is to be found DIFFUSE LAYER
in the reported mismatch of the dual water model to
experimental data for a very shaly sand, fully saturated, I - EXPERIMENTAL DATA

with low salinity electrolyte (Clavier et al., 1984). In * I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5
this case the curvature associated with the calculated -1
C,ISm 1-
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 model’s inability Figure 6 Comparison of the dual-water model with
to track the data points corresponding to low values of experimental data for a very shaly sand (from
C,. The reason for this is that the model self-imposesa Clavier et al., 1984).
lower limit of C, which corresponds to the case in The four data plots of Figure 7 all show this trend
which the entire pore volume is occupied by bound but are offset from one another within the range of
water of calculated conductivity 7.6 S m-l at 25°C. values of C,. Strong similarities are evident despite the
It is expected that the same influencing factors will wide range of Qv represented, viz. 0.001-1.47 meq ~ m - ~ .
continue to govern the development of further S, equa- Furthermore, it can be envisaged that lateral displace-
tions, which will inevitably evolve especially as more ment of these curves could make them all virtually
extreme environments are encountered. However, a coincident. This would appear to suggest that these data
true solution to the shaly-sand problem will only be distributions might all be described by a single algo-
achieved from an electrical standpoint when a sound rithm, provided that flexibility exists to account for
scientific theory gives rise to an S, equation which is their different positions within the C, “spectrum.”
capable of a universally consistent predictive per- Moreover, the extension of these ideas to the hydro-
formance. There is a further requirement that must also carbon zone follows directly (Worthington, 1982).
be satisfied: the shale term(s) in an electrical S, equa- It is much more difficult to envisage how one might
tion must comprise log derivable parameters. These satisfy the further requirement of log-derivable param-



F 0.1


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) Wax-
man and Smits (1968).

eters that characterize the electrical manifestation of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

shaliness. The current lack of such a facility based on
a sound scientific theory constitutes one of the major The author wishes to thank William R. Berry 11,
gaps in well logging technology. The industry is pursu- AndrC Hossin and Robert R. Kewley for helpful com-
ing alternative strategies that might circumnavigate the ments during the preparation of the manuscript.
problem, e.g. induced gamma spectral logging and Publication of this work has been sanctioned by The
dielectric logging, but neither of these has attained the British Petroleum Company pic, whose support is
objective of furnishing a reliable, salinity independent gratefully acknowledged.
estimate of water saturation in shaly sands. As indi-
cated earlier, a most promising but physically difficult
approach to the fundamental problem of downhole NOMENCLATURE
measurement of electrical shale parameters might be shale term, A. J. de Witte model (S m-l).
found in induced polarization techniques, whose rele- equivalent conductance of sodium clay-
vance to formation evaluation continues to be empha- exchange cations as a function of C,,
sized (Worthington, 1984; Vinegar and Waxman, Waxman-Smits model (S m2 eq-’ x 10 -”.
1984). conductivity of bound water (S m-l).
conductivity of free or far water (S m-‘).
conductivity of fully water-satura ted rock
In 1953 H. G. Doll wrote, “the most important prob- (S m-l).
lem that has received thus far no satisfactory solution conductivity due to shale, Patchett-Rausch
is that of shaly sands.” Doll’s comment is equally model (S m-l).
applicable today. The shaly-sand problem as we know conductivity of wetted shale (S m-l).
it will not be solved until electrical shale parameters, conductivity of partially water-saturated
determined directly from downhole measurements, can rock (S m-l).
be input to a reliable and generally applicable predictive conductivity of (free) water (S m-l).
algorithm for S,, that is based on a sound scientific equivalent conductivity of total pore water
shaly-sand model. Fortunately, there are encouraging (S m-l).
signs that some progress is being made towards the cation exchange capacity (meql lOOg rock).
attainment of this recognized objective. formation factor.

apparent formation factor. 4e effective (free-fluid)porosity.
formation factor, dual-water model. 4sh total porosity of shale, Juhasz model.
formation factor of shale. 4t total interconnected porosity.
formation factor, Waxman-Smits 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, 321-332.
volume (meq ~ m - ~ ) . ARCHIE, G. E. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid
in determining some reservoir characteristics. Trans.
resistivity of fully water-saturated rock@ m). AlME 146, 54-62.
resistivity of shale (0m). BARDON, C. and PIED, B. 1969. Formation water saturation
resistivity of partially water-saturated rock in shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 10th Ann. Logging Symp.,
(Q 4. 21-19.
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 (m-l). 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 dual-water
(S m-l). model for interpretation of shaly sands. SOC.Pet. Engrs. J.
24, 153-167.
generalized electrical parameter of shaliness DESBRANDES, R. 1968. Theorie et interpretation des
in partially water-saturated rock (S m-l). 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 89-93, 15
shale factor, Hill-Milburn model. April 115-121.
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 m-I mole -l kg solvent). 120-132.
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, 103-110.
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., R1-17.
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, 65-72.
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), 40-42.
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 double-layer conductivity, Winsauer- stones in the Mackenzie Delta. Trans. CWLS 6th Formation
McCardell model (S m-I). Evaluation Symp., R1-19.
predominant clean-sand term, type equa- JUHASZ, 1. 1981. Normalised Q, - the key to shaly sand
evaluation using the Waxman-Smits equation in the
tions (S m-l). absence of core data. Trans. SPWLA 22nd Ann. Logging
predominant sand-shale interactive term, Symp., 21-36.
type equations (S m-l). 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 m-l). dielectric constant data. Trans. SPWLA 17th Ann. Logging
Symp. PP1-17.
charge mobility in double layer (m2V-’ s-‘1. KRYGOWSKI, D.A. and PICKETT, G. R. 1978. The prediction
shale-term 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
Rink-Schopper model. Symp., 881-15.
surface charge density of rock (C m-2). 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
bound-water porosity. Symp., SPWLA London Chapter, G1-15.


MIAN, M. A. and HILCHIE, D. W., 1982. Comparison of WAXMAN, M. H. and THOMAS, E. C. 1974. Electrical con-
results from three cation exchange capacity (CEC) ductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands: 1. The relation bet-
analysis techniques. The Log Analyst 23(5), 10-16. ween hydrocarbon saturation and resistivity index. II. The
PAPE, H. and WORTHINGTON, I? F. 1983. A surface- temperature coefficient of electrical conductivity. SOC.Pet.
structure model for the electrical conductivity of reservoir Engrs J. 14, 213-225.
rocks. Trans. 8th European Formation Evaluation Symp., WAXMAN, M. H. and VINEGAR, H. J. 1981. Induced polari-
SPWLA London Chapter, 21-19. zation well logging. U.K. Patent Application GB2068563A,
PATCHETT, J. G. and HERRICK, D. C. 1982. A review of Patent Office, London.
saturation models. In: Shaly Sand Reprint Volume, WINSAUER, W. 0. and McCARDELL, W. M. 1953. Ionic
SPWLA, Houston, pp 111 1-7. double-layer conductivity in reservoir rock. Trans. AlME
PATCHETT, J. G. and RAUSCH, R. W. 1967. An approach to 198, 129-134.
determining water saturation in shaly sands. J. Pet. Tech. WOODHOUSE, R. 1976. Athabasca Tar Sand reservoir prop-
19, 1395-1405. erties derived from cores and logs. Trans. SPWLA 17th
PATNODE, H. W. and WYLLIE, M. R. J. 1950. The presence Ann. Logging Symp., T1-13.
of conductive solids in reservoir rock as a factor in electric WORTHINGTON, P. F. 1982. The influence of shale effects
log interpretation. Trans. AlME 189, 47-52. upon the electrical resistivity of reservoir rocks. Geophys.
POUPON, A. and LEVEAUX, J. 1971. Evaluation of water Prospect. 30, 673-687.
saturations in shaly formations. Trans. SPWLA 12th Ann. WORTHINGTON, f? F. 1984. Relevance of induced polariza-
Logging Symp., 01-2. (Full text in Shaly Sand Reprint tion to quantitative formation evaluation. Marine and
Volume, SPWLA, Houston, pp IV 81-95). Petroleum Geology 1, 14-26.
POUPON, A., LOY, M. E. and TIXIER, M. F? 1954. A con- WORTHINGTON, I? F. and BARKER, R. D. 1972. Methods for
tribution to electric log interpretationin shaly sands. Trans. the calculation of true formation factors in the Bunter
AlME 201, 138-145. Sandstone of northwest England. Eng. Geol. 6, 213-228.
RAIGA-CLEMENCEAU, J. 1976. A quicker approach of the WYLLIE, M. R. J. and SOUTHWICK, I? F. 1954. An experi-
water saturation in shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 17th Ann. mental investigation of the S.P and resistivity phenomena
Logging Symp., El-16. in dirty sands. Trans. AlME 201, 43-56.
1984. The dual porosity model, a newly developed inter- ABOUT THE AUTHOR
pretation method for shaly sands. Trans. SPWLA 25th
Ann. Logging Symp., F1-16. Paul E Worthington is Head of Formation Evaluation
RINK, M. and SCHOPPER, J. R. 1974. Interface conductivity at the BP Research Centre, Sunbury-onThames, England.
and its implications to electric logging. Trans. SPWLA 15th Prior to this he held the position of Senior Log Analyst
Ann. Logging Symp., J1-15.
in the London office of BP Exploration. He holds
WYLLIE, M. R. J. 1955. Electrical conductance of porous Ph.D. and DSc. degrees in engineering geophysics and
plugs: ion exchange resin-solution systems. Ind. Engng. geology, respectively, and is the author of some 40
Chem. 47, 2187-2193. technical papers and monographs. He is a Chartered
SCHLUMBERGER. 1972. Log Interpretation, Volume 1 - Engineer in the United Kingdom and is Past President
Principles. Schlumberger Ltd., New York, 113 pp. of the SPWLA London Chapter. He is currently Vice
SIMANDOUX, P 1963. Dielectric measurements on porous
media: application to the measurement of water satura- President Technology of the SPWLA.
tions: 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: com-
parison 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 polari-
zation of shaly sands. Geophysics 49, 1267-1287.
WAXMAN, M. H. and SMITS, L. J. M. 1968. Electrical con-
ductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands. SOC.Pet. Engrs J. 8,