SPE

%cietg of Peti@eum Engineers

SPE 15030 Determination of Formation Water Resistivity Using Shale Properties

Copyright 1986, Society of Petroleum Engineere Thie paper was prepared for presentation at lha Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conference of Ihe Society of Pefroleum Engineers held in Midland, , TX, March 13-14, 1986. Thie paper wae selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abatract submilted by the author(s). Contente of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject 10Correction by the author(e). The material, as prasen!ed, doee not neceeearily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, ita officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetmgs are subject to publication raview by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may rmt be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment Ofwhere and by whom the paper ia presented. Write Pubficafions Manager, SPE, P.O. Box S33836, Richardson, TX 75063-3636. Telex, 730969, SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT A new method is presented to determine formation water reststivfty (Rw) in sandstones. This procedure does not use the Spontaneous Potential (SP) log* Instead formation Rw is obtained from the overlying shale zones. To understand the correlationbetween shale and sandstone waters, consider that during deposition their salinities are approximately equal. After compaction the waters in both ehales and aandatones are in equilibriwo. Because shales are impervious to drilltng fluids a true value of water resistivity and salinity in the shale can be obtained from ArchLes equations. The formationwater resistivity ia determined from the shale salinity and a relationshipdeveloped from core data. The shale method is simple to use requiring only the shale reaiativityand porosity. This makes it ideal for field use. It also is accurate for both normal and geopressuredwells. The presented technique is compared to other interpretation methods on several wells. The results compared well with other data. INTRODUCTION Conventional log analysis techniques were developed for clean, high porosity and permeability rock. Unfortunately,much of this oil has already been discovered. With improved technology and higher prices, reservoirs that one time were considered uneconomical are now being developed. The challenging nature of these reservoirs can have a dramatic impact on logging tool response, making determination of reservoir parameters difficult at best. New techniquesara needed that ara simple to use and provide accurate answers for a large variety of reservoirs. References and illustrationsat end of paper,

One such technique uses the Archie saturation equation which requires an accurate value of the formation water resistivity (R ). The value of R can vary widely in a given r&ervoir. ParamaterX that affect it include salinity, temperature, freshwater invasion and changing depositional. environments. Using conventions. interpretation techniques and the Spontaneous Potential (SP) log, R can be determined in permeable beds. Because man~ factora affect the shape of the SP curve, this technique cannot alwaya be relied upon for a trustworthyvalue ofR. Thin beds, shale, low permeability, md varia%le invasion profiles are among the culprits that can cauae errors in water resistivity calculations. Correction factors have been proposed, but they are tedious and in many caaes magnify small errors. The othsr cottmton technique is the R or apparent water resiativity method. This ~$thod tries to normalize the porosity and resistivitylogs in the water zones. The theory uaea Archies saturation equation and solves for R in a 100% water saturated zone. This procedure !lSO has its problems. For example, the reservoir may not contain a 100% water saturatedzone. The best source of Rw is from a produced water sample. However, a sample may exhtbj.t dilution or be commingled with drilling fluid. Another consideration is in the measurement of bottom hole temperaturesand resistivities. The method presented herein derivea R from the shale beds associated with the forJwation of interest. Because shales are imperviousto drilling fluids, no invasion effects are encountered. The shale method is demonstratedon several wells, both normal and geopreasured. Wells included in this group are three geopressuredwater sands, a Colorado gas well and two in the Gulf of Mexico.
-an7 ,

. 2 THEORY Most reservoirs can be classified into one of two types, geopressured or normally pressured. Geopressured can be defined as any pressure exceeding the hydrostatichesd of a column of water extending from the surface to the subsurface formation of interest. Normal pressure is relsted to the reservoir water salinity, rock types, and geologic deposition. It can also be thought of as the pressure equal to the hydrostatichead of the column of water mentioned above. Dickinson reporta that fluid pressures within sediments are controlled by the compression, as a result of compaction, and the resistance to explusion of water. Compaction begins with sedimentation and deposition of soft muds composed mainly of water. As deposition continues, gradual compaction occurs and the muds become shales. The shales are primarily clay minerals with flat grsin shapea. With additional overburden the pressure packs the grains closer together, expelling water from the pore spaces. This expelled water often flows to areas of lower resistap.ce such as porous sands. The porosity and permeability of shale decrease until an equilibrium is approached and the pressure in all directions is equal. In many geopressured reservoirs, the water fs not able to move freely from the pores as the weight of the overburden increases, and it cannot be squeezed out. Compaction of the sediment grains will not occur, and the water in the pores will begin to assume the extra weight of the overburden. When this occurs the formation fluid pressure increaaes above th% hydrostatic pressure gradient. The abnormally higt preasurer associated with shale deposita of large extent and thickness,although not impervious, have such low permeability that they significantlyretard fluid movement. Deposition and sedimentation of sand are somewhat different because sand grains are in contact tnitially and aand compaction is ?early complete with deposition. However, reduct~on of porosity can occur by wear of the sand grains at contsct points and rearrangement of sand graina caused by very high pressures. It has been determined that shale waters are less saline that sandstone watera. This has been attributed to ionic filtration. With most of the water absorbed within the shale, hydrodynamic flo~ from sh.jtle beds is ~;~ikely. According to Hinch, Schmidt and othera the low salinity of shale waters is due to the preferentialexnvlaion of ions from the shales during comb. m ~.sed by osmotic imbalances. The demonstrationof osmotic diffusion is that of the flow of water through a semipermeable membrane, separating two solutions of different salin+*ies. This flow is in the direction from highe~. to lowest activity unt%l the salinity of the two aqueoua systems are equal. The osmotfc relationship between shale and sandstone pore water can be understood by observing that a water molecule absorbed on a shale grain surface is the same_ as a water molecule associated DETERMINATION OF FOwTION WATER RESISTIVITYUSING SHALE FROpERTIES SPE 15030

with a dissolved ion. The shale pore water activity ramains low due to the bonding on the grain surfaces. The bonding of water molecules on the large surface of the shale graina compensates for the bonding of water molecules on the additional dissolved ions in the sandstonewaters. During d-position, the salinities of the shale and sandstone waters are approximately equal. Due to adsorption of water molecules on the shale grain surfaces, the activity of the shale-water system is lower than that of the sand-wster system. Sandstone pore wster would therefor~: tend to diffuse into the shale, but diffusion of, sandatone waters is overbalanced by increasing overburden pressure aa the shale compacts. Both water and dissolved ions can move from the shale into the sandstone. However, the movement of some water molecules is inhibited by their adsorption on the shale grain surfaces while dfssolved ions are free to move into the sandstone. This process lowers the activity of the sandstone water by increasing ita salinity and brings the two aystema to activity equilibrium. Since in geopressured sections there is no water expelled from the shales, the aaliniti~ of the shale and sandstonepore waters are equal. Figure 1 ia a plot of Total Dissolved So;ids (T.D.S.)of shale and sandstonewater systems versus depth. This data waa obtained by Schmidt jn hia study of Gulf Coaat shales and sandstones. The salinitiesof the formationwaters in sandstonewere calculated from the spontaneous potential (SP) cuNe . The calculationswere confirmed byanalysis of water samples taken from producing zones. TO determine the salinity of the ahale pore watera, the soluble salta were leached from shale cores. The equilibriumof the shale and sandstonewater systems is apparent between 3500 and 9500 feet. At least aquared fit of the two water systems ahow essentiallyparallel lines separated by a factor of 7.0. This means that if the shale water had a salinity of 10,OOO ppm, the associated sandstone would have a salinity of 70,000 ppm. At a depth of about 10,000 feet where the geopressured zon? begins, the shale and sandstone water systems have almost identical concentrations of dissolved solids. Therefore, if a zone is geopressured it will he.vethe same salinity as its associatesahale. PROCEDURE Using the shale method to determine the formation water resistivity (R ), only two log parameter are needed. The fi%at ia the shale resistivity from the Deep Induction Log, and the second the porosity of the shale. The preferred porosity log to use ia the Compensated Neutron Density Log, (CNL-FDC). If this log is not een constructed to obtain available, graphs Id Bulk Density Logs. porositles from ~ ible values of R exist From theory. first is for a zo%e wfth for a given zone. normal pressure where R is related to Rw h ~e by a factor of 7.0 times th~salinfty of the al?a?e. The second case, for a geopressuredzone, R is equal to Rw shale because the salinitiesare equ!=!l.

SPE 15030 R.A. Dusenbc To cletenmine the water resistivityof the shale one must assume the bound water of the shale completely occupies the total pore space of the shale. Then from Archies saturationequation, Sw = 1. SW = F shale x w shale . R t shale I?w
shale =

.(1]

~ , or if the CNL-FDC log is not available, Figures 2aand 3 and the sonic and bulk density logs can be used to obtain a value of ~z for the shale section of interest. The two figure~ were constructedusing the CNL-FDC, sonic, and density logs. Pcwosities from the CNL-FDC log were plotted against either the shale travel time or the bulk density. Apparent linear porosity was then determined from a regressionof the data.

Once a value of Rw the formation water resistivity can ha%e ~~te%~~;. As previously stated, two values of R are poaaible. Fshale To aacertain which valueJ requires knowledge of the pressure gradient or comparisonof the calculatedSP The shale formation factor (F ) is determined using Archies equation forshf%;rnation to the recorded SP using the relationship factor. . . . . , . . . .(~) SP -KxlogRmf =1 ...,... . .(3) F shale Rw Rt shale . . . . . . . .(2) p Where ~ is the apparent purostty of the shales, and m is th~ cementationexponent for shales. The exponent used in this method is 1.57. This value was determinedby H.L. Over%jn in his analysis of shales for resistivitylogging. The number 1.57 can be consideredan average value, much the same as the velue of 2.0 is used in Archiea equation for Simestonea. Overtons method involved drying in the shale samplea at 90@C, then crushing them so they would pass through an 80 mesh screen. Ten grams of dry shale were then mixed with 10 ml of distilled water to form a slurry. The resistivity of the slurry and its filtrate were then determined. Overtonls work is summarized in Table 2 in Appendix B. The apparent porosity (~a) of the shsle is In areas with defined in one of two ways. porositles on the order of 10% or greater K= 70.7 ~460+T ) 537 (7)

where: T = Temperaturein Fahrenheit. is equal to the If the zone is geopressuredR ~J~~en ormal pressured R of the zone of interest. z%e the salinity is required. The salinity is found using Schulumbergerfe General Chart 9 or the equivalent. It can also be calculatedusing the followingrelationships: T+? =R R w shale ( 8 ) w shale 75 where: = CorrespondingRw shale @ ?5 F. F w shale 75 T.D.S.=IOX x= . . . . . . . . . . .(9) .(10) . , . .(8)

3.562 - log(Rw shale ,5 - 0.0123) 0.955

Where $d is the density porosity, and ~n is the neutron porosfty taken from CNL-FDC log. This relationshipis used because crossplot of the core porosity versus density log and neutron log porosities show that the density log underestimates the log porosity while true the neutron overestimates it. Clay is the cause for both logs reading erroneous values. The density log undereattmates porosity because clay causea the matrix den~ity to increaae. Porosities from the neutron log are overestimated because the neutron log interprets the bound water of the clay as porosity. In low noroaity regions, those with less than 10%

The value of T.D.S. for shale is then multiplied by 7.0. If only the salinity value ia available, R can be solved with General Chart 9 or using th! equation, for normal pressured zones, . ,= = 0.0123 + 3647.5 R.
w r>

.(11)

(T.D.S. X 7.0)0955 For geopressuredzones, = 0.0123 -I3647.5 R w 75 (T. D.S.)0*955 . .(12)

ta=!d**(5)
An average value of porosity Is not used because at lower porositiea the clay content is greater, causing the neutron log to grossly overestimate the porosity. Averaging the porosities would then skew the average to the high aide. To check the value of

Converting the value of Rw to formation temperature is done with the equation, RW=RW75( 82 T+7) .(13)
q

DETERMINATIONOF FORMATIONWATER RESISTIVITYUSING SHALE PROPERTIES DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS Example calculations using the shale method were performed on two types of reservoirs? The first were normal pressured wells from the Gulf of Mexico and Colorado. Tha second set of wells were geopressuredwater sands. The value of Rw obtained from the shale method were checked using the Rwa method, SP log, and, when available, produced water samplea. Main Paas Area Gulf of Mexico: The first well presented is located offshore Louisiana. The sand studied is located at 5900 ft. and is completely water wet. R was calculated metho~and the SP log. using the shale. method, R All data is given in Tabl#al. The logs used appear in Figure 4. Usfng Figure 4, a shale section at 5830 ft. waa chosen. The neutron and densfty porosities for thfs zone are 47Z and 302, respectively. Use of equation 4 gives an apparent porosity ($a) of 38.5%. The formation factor ia then: F shale & 157 = 4.47 West Cameron Area Gulf of Mexico:

SPE 15030

The Jacond example is from a normal pressured wet sand at 10,550 ft. The logs used are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Agatn, the shale method was compared to both the R technique and the SP log. Additionally,a produce~awaterwas available. Table 2 lists all data used in this example. From Figure 5, a shale from 10,505 ft. to 10,515was used for comparison. Density and neutron porosities determined an apparent shale porosity of 32%. From equation 3, a formation factor of 5.98 was obtained. Using Arch%ea equation and a R of 0.8 ohm-m the shale water resiativitywas a?!33? . ohm-m or 0.321 ohm-m at 75F. Utilizing equations 9 and 10 determined a shale salinity of 18,366 ppm. Once again because the zone was normal pressured, formation salinity was 7 times the shale value. With equations 11 and 13 Rw waa 0.025 ohm-m. The shale method agatn compared favorably with the R value of 0.0225 ohm-m and the produced water sampy~ of 0.024 ohm-m. However, the uncorrectedvalue from the SP 10S differed giving a value of 0.06 ohm-m. DOE Well MWX #l The DOE negotiated with the Superior Oil Company to acquire a 640 acre lease in Garfield County, Colorado. The first of two planned wells was drilled, core and extensively tested. For the purpose of this paper the well provided a chance to evaluate the shale method in a dj.fferent geological area and examine the Rw variation with depth. The results were compared to conventional techniques, but none gave reasonable results. Eventually, the shale method was checked against a technique developed sp~cifically for thfs type of well by In brief, Kukals techntque computes Gerry Kukal. an effective porosity uafng the flushed zone saturation (S ). In uninvaded formations,Sw should equal S . fifth S , Rt and ~ known, R can be rierivedxfrom the Ar~hie saturation equatto~. Sw ia then recalculatedwith the current value of R and compared to the old value until it does not c%ange within a specified tolerance. Figure 7 is a plot of R veraus depth. The upper portion of the well haswa variable R due to the influx of fresh water. At about 4900 ~eet the fresh water influx ceaaes and the shale method can be used, At approximately 5000 feet a drill stem teata was compared, with good results, to Kukals calculated R . The first recorded shale section ocurres aroun$ 5300 feet, and both methods predicted the same value of Rw. Several other sections were compared again with excellent results. In addition, a water sample from a nearby well recorded a R which is in good agreement with the estimate~ values. GeopressuredExamples: Three geopressured wells were examined for a single interval. Each was located onshore Louisiana and were turned over to the DOE becauae no oil or gaa were found. Al~were part of the DOEs Wells of Opportunity Program . Extensive testing of each well was performed by Eaton Industries of Houston, Texas. The stiale method was compared to other

The reaiativity of the shale zone is 0.9 ohm-m, therefore, 0.9 = = 0.201 ohm-m R w shale 4.47 To determine the value of R at 5900 ft. requires uae of equations 8 to 13, & a nomagraph such as Schlumbergers Chart Gen 9. For consistency the equations are used for this example. To determige salinity, first convert Rw shale to Rw shale at 75 F using equation 8 R = 0.201(140+ 7 75+7)= w shale 75 0.36 ohm-m

Shale salinity is found using equations 10 and 9 aa follows: X = 3.52 - log(O.36 - 0.0123) = 4.21 0.955 T.D.S. = 10421 = 16228 ppm Because the zone is normal pressured, the formation R at formation temperature can be obtatned with e{uations 11 and 13 R = .0123 + W75 3647.5 (T.D. s. Rw = .0665
x

= 0.0665 ohm-m

7.0) 955

75 + 7 = 0.037 ohm-m (140 + 7)

This value is in agreement with the 1? value of 0.038 ohm-m and the Rw from the SP ~~g of 0.03 ohm-m.

wan ---

~.-

-----

L. . . .

u-=.,=.

.-1.

Wovu=

-I

determining formation water for techniques resistivity. The resulte compared well with other methods and are summarizedin Table 3. All data and the calculations used for these examples are given in Appendix A. CONCLUSIONS following conclusions can be drawn from The this study on use of the shale method to determine formationwater resiativity. 1. The method presented ia very eaay to use and should always be used to obtain an estimate of All the necessary informationcan be found R. OH a porosity log and an Induction log. The aimpllcityof this techniquemakes it ideal ior day-to-dayuse. The shale method comparee very well with other R techniques for the normal pressured wells e~amined. The method did not prove to be limited to Gulf Coast reservoirs. Close agreement waa obtained on the three wells that were examined. The geopressured! large amount of data available on these wells help to confirm the validity of the shale method. The shale method can be used to find R profiles of wells. l%is Information can the% be used to construct field contour maps.

REFERENCES Aspects of Abnormal 1. Dickinson,G., tteeological Pressures in the Gulf Coast Region of Louisiana, U.S.A., MPG Bullentin,Vol. 37, 410-432. 2. Hfnch, H.H., The Nature of Shales and Dynamics of HydrocarbonExpulsion in the Gulf Coast Tertiary Section,Problems of Petroleum Migration,AAPG Studies tn Geology No. 10, 1-18. 3. Schmidt, G.W., InterstitialWater Composition and Geochemistryof Deep Gulf Coast Shales and Sandstones,AAPG Bullentin,Vol. 57, No. 2, 321-331. of Geopressured n he 4. Jones, P.H., l~Role Hydrocarbonand Water System, Problems Of PetroleumMigration, AAPG Studies in Geology No. 10, 207-216. 5. Logging rem hale Overton, H., t~Resiativity Slurries!, SPWLA Eleventh Annual Logging Symp osium Transactions,Paper C, May 3-6, 1970.

2.

3.

Determinationof Fluid Corrected 6. Kukal, G.G., Porosity in Tight Gas Sanda and in Formation ExhibitingShallow Invasion Profiles,Paper SPE/DOE 9856 Presented at 1981 SPE/DOE S~p osium On Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs, (May 27-29, 1981). 7. Wells of OpportunityProgram, Final Contract Report, 1980-1981,Testing Geopressured GeothermalReservoirs in Existing Wells, Report No: DOE-ET-27081-8. APPENDIX A Data for GeopressuredWells: Riddle Oil Company Well: Shale Method: ~d ~n fa F -=939 R t shale = 1.2 ohm-m = 0.12 = 0.36 = 0.12+0.36 2 = 0.24 Saldana,No. 2

4.

Nomenclature Formation factor in shale Formation factor Cementationexponent m Apparent porosity a Porosity from density log Effectiveporosity 1 Porosity from neutron log 4: Rn Reeistivityof mud filtrate, ohm-m Rmf True formationresistivity,ohm-m True shale resistivity,ohm-m Rt Rt shale Formationwater reaistivity,ohm-m R Shale water resistivity,ohm-m ~w shale Formationwater resistivityat 75F, w 75 ohm-m R = Shale water resistivityat 75F, ohm-m Rw shale75 = Apparent water reaistivity,ohm-m sl$a - Reading from SpontaneousPotential log, mv s = Water saturation = Water saturationof flushed zone S:. = Temperature,F ;T = Sonic travel time,Jtsecs. T.D.S. = Total Dissolved Solids, ppm F Fshale = = = = = = = = = = = = =

1.2 = = .1277 ohm-m =R R w shale w 9.39 T.D.S. = 12,000 ppm

LaboratoryAnalysis: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authora thank Texas A & M University permission to publish this paper. Also, thanks given to Charles Eorris of Texas A & M for contributions, and to Conoco Inc. for help preparing this manuscript. for are his in T.D.S. = 11,121 ppm = 0.13 ohm-m Rw

!lQl

DETERMINATIONOF FORMATIONWATER RESISTIVITYUSING SHALE PROPERTIES Lear Petroleum Company Well: Keolemay #l Shale Method: AT Oa F = 106 Asecs (Figure 2) = 0.27 . 0.2;57 = 781 R t shale = 0.49 ohm-m

SPE 15030

ConventionalSP Method: Maximum SP = = Temp. R @ 300F = Rmf = = T~D.S. Ra Method: $ Rt F R wa = 0.143 = 10 ohm-m = . ~ F .62 0.143215= 40
-250DW

300 F 0.09 ohm-m 0.052 ohm-m 35,000 ppm

0.95 = = 0.122 ohm-m R =R w shale w 7.81 T.D.S. = 15,800 ppm

10 = 0.25 ohm-m m LaboratoryAnalysis:

T.D.S. = 6000 ppm T,D.S. = 15,000 ppm Rw = 0.15 Ohm-m Houston Oil and Mineral Well: Prairie Canal #1 Shale Method: AT ~a F = 95 qaecs. = 0.205 (Figure 2) . 0.20;57= 1204 = 0.60 ohm-m R t shale R~raMethod: = 0.6 = .049 ohm-m R w shale 12.04 T.D.S. = 39,000 ppm 4 Rt F LaboratoryAnalyais: T.D.S. = 43,400 ppm = 0.041 ohm-m :xw R wa = 0.24 = 1.8 ohm-m . 0.62 0.24215 = 1736 1.8 ==0.104 17.36 ConventionalSP Method: Maximum SP = Temp. = R @ 240F = Rmf = T~D.S. = -10 mv 240F 0.14 ohm-m 0.32 ohm-m 6100 ppm

T.D.S. = 19,500 ppm ConventionalSP Method: APPENDIX B Maximum SP = = Temp. R @ 294F = Rmf = = TyD.S. -400mv 294 F .13 ohm-m .05 ohm-m 37,000 ppm Summary of Overtona Work on Shale Cuttings The cementationexponent can vary considerably. Table 4 summarizes Overtona work, and was used to find an average value of the cementationexponent,m.

RWa Method: 4 Rt F R wa = 0.204 = 0.83 ohm-m 0.62 = = ~2.15 18.9

;0.83 = = 0.044 ohm-m 18.9

T.D.S. = 42,500 ppm

392 ---

$ #

WE
TABLE 2 - DATA FROM WEST CAMERON EXAMPLE Shale Method Depth = 10,505 to 10,5I5 ft. as. d = 0.25 n = 0.39 $ $a = 0.32 (equation4) F = 5.98 (equation3) = 0.1337 ohm-m R w shale Rw = 0.025 ohm-m Shale Method Depth = 5830 ft. S.S. $d = 0.30 ~n = 0.47 ba = 0.38.5 (equation4) F = 4.47 (equation3) = 0.9 ohm-m R ~t shale = 0.201 ohm-m w shale Rw = 0.037 ohm-m RWa Method R~,aMethod Depth = 1.0,550 ft. S.S. $= 0.29 (crossplot) F = 8.87 (Humbleeq.) R = 0.2 ohm-m t shale = 0.0225 ohm-m R wa LaboratoryAnalysia T.D.S. = 19,500 ppm Rw = 0.024 ohm-m Maximum SP = -45 mv Formation Temp. = 140 F F @ 140F= 0.099 ohm-m R~f= 0.03 ohm-m

15030

TA.BLE1 - DATA FF.OM MAIN PASS EXAMPLE

Depth = 5900 ft. S.S. Q- 0.37 (crossplot) F = 5.26 (Humbleeq.) R = 0.2 ohm-m t shale R = 0.038 ohm-m wa

SP Log Maximum SP = -85 mv FormationTemp. = 190F Rmf @ 190F = 0.595 ohm-m Rw = 0.06 ohm-m TABLE 3 - COMPARISON OF RESULTS FOR THE GEOPRESSUREDEXAMPLES iddle Oil Co Houston Oil Lear and Mineral: Petroleum Prairie Can; KeoLenay !11 Well #l

TABLE 4 - CEMENTATIONFACTOR FROM ELECTRIC LOGS

epth
ft. 1800 2250 2850 3350 4170 4800 5100 5450 570G 5950 6500 6900 7500 8000 8500

$Shale ~
.34 .327 .267 .293 .24 .213 .22 .20 .?33 .22 .187 .167 .153 .147 .133

Rhale

Fshale m 5.19 1.52 7.24 1.77 8.77 1.64 8.40 1.73 8.45 1.49 7.88 1.33 8.13 1.39 10.1 1.43 10.7 1.62 11.3 1.60 16.0 1.65 19.8 1.67 14.9 1.44 14.9 1.41 14.9 1.34 Average ~

$sha~e h;~m ohw-m 2.94 3.06 3.75 3.41 4.17 4.7 4.54 5.0 4.29 4.54 5.36 6.0 6.54 6.82 7.5 .665 .128 .115 .833 .833 .095 .085 .714 .625 .074 .067 .528 .528 .065 .062 .625 .645 .060 .6(j5 .059 .057 .91 .056 1.11 .056 .833 .056 .833 .833 .056

Saldana #2

Shale

Method ~ ~ S . . !

Lab

x
Rw Itw R w
I

.1277 ohm-m

.049 ohm-m

.~2~ ~hm-=

12,000 ppm

39,000 ppm

15,800 ppm

.13 ohm-m

.041 ohm-m

.15 ohm-m

Anal.

T.D.S 11,121 ppm

43,400 ppm

15,000 ppm

.052 ohm-m

.05 ohm-m

.32 ohm-m

SP Log T.D.S 35,000 ppnl + R wa 37,000 ppm 6100 ppm

I
Method ~.D.S 6,OOO ppm

-K

Rw

.25 ohm-m

.044 ohm-m

.104 ohm-m

42,500 ppm

19,500 ppm

2 3 -\

0.s

,,

0.4
c1 D
m
0 D

0.3

D D 0.2 1 c1
u

cl

10 -

1112 -

t.!
%2 = Cf3NCENTRRTION 1N SRNOSTONE5 C13NCENTFIRTION IN SHRLES D 20. go. , 60. t 80. # t 100.120. I , , 1 IYo. 160.180.200.220.21 PPM

D 0.1
u

ax%
,
65. 7s.

13 -

0.

0.01
5s.

f
es.

t
9s.

105.

115.

125.

135.

1L5.155.

TBTRL DISSOLVED W3L1!3S X 1000 Ffg. I-Total dissolved sollds vs. depth.

SCiNIC TRRVEL TIME- #sECS/FT. Fig. 2-2onlc travel time vs. eppfrrent shele porosity.

Q
9

Q
Denclty = 2.71

9cIa

0.00

2.~0 2.kk 2.K5 2.S2 2.5S 2.60 2.6u 2.68 2.72 ;

shale porodty.

SPE
C!i,:. ] t-.------it

1.5r-j3(-J

I_______
0,: CAL, 111:1+)

FILCI(CiJtl,

---

+ z,)

&!iI!ta:i+

71>

1.;--... -... --- \2--\2

. .. .. ........ .......... ... ... I. .0,1 20

:=:.:.:.0..:1
} 0.2

l;,-------):.,

x!

}>;;;

I .------ ------- ....... -%2.$

TEll~LE51

Fig. 4Openhcde logs for Exemple 1.

15030

10500

J i?

10500

0s00

WE

15030

1.0 0.9

O.B
0.7

u--a o--c) + A

SliRLE HE THtlD flfiCHIES EO. USING EFFECTIVE PURtlSITY OHILL SIE}I TEST }llllER SR}lPLE FfiOM }lERflBY HELL

0.-

0.1 0.[ Uooo.

U500.

5000.

5500.

6000.

6500.

7000.

7500.

8000.

B500.

DEFTH-FT.
Fig. 7Flw profile for MWX1.