SOLUTIONS TO END-

OF-CHAPTER
PROBLEMS
for
Well Logging for Earth Scientists
by
Darwin V. Ellis and Julian M. Singer
Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17,
3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands
2007
Solution to Problems
Chapter 2: Introduction to Well Log Interpretation
2.1 47.6%
2.1.1 85.8%
2.1.2 grain size variations, overburden compaction, cementation, clay-plugging
2.2 80.3%
2.3 39%
2.4
2.5 2.8 ft or 1.15 ft into formation.
2.6 114.6 ft
Chapter 3: Basic Resistivity and Spontaneous Potential
3.1
3.1.1 less saline
3.1.2 greater
3.1.3 Both GR and SP indicate shale, so
n
>
d
3.1.4 1) 9320 9362 ft where R
xo
R
t
, and 2) 9363 9394ft where R
xo
> R
t
.
Both probably have hydrocarbons because R
t
has increased above that of
lower zone. Possible reasons include, decrease in porosity, presence of hy-
drocarbons or a change in water resistivity.
3.1.5 Lower, since R
xo
/ R
t
suggests invasion.
3.2 An exercise in using Chart SP-4. Interpolate between results obtained for
charts with R
xo
= R
t
and R
xo
= 5 R
t
in row for R
t
/R
m
= 5 to obtain
E
SP
/E
SPcorr
= 0.675. So E
SPcorr
= 33.33 mV.
3.3 R
w
= 0.172 ohm-m. Using the uncorrected value, R
w
= 0.245 ohm-m.
3.4.1 Using relation between resistance and resistivity; 46.5 k-ohm.
3.4.2 24.2 k-ohm. See chart Gen-6 for handy approximation.
3.4.3 1.26 k-ohm
3.5
3.5.3 The resistivity changes by nearly a factor of two but the temperature only by
10

F, so the salinity must change.

3.6 Deviation below 200

F negligible, but 50% at 350

F.
Chapter 4: Empiricism: The Cornerstone of Interpretation
4.1
4.2
4.3 1) For any value of Sw the core with the greater porosity should be less
resistive
2) Curve separation can be predicted using Archies relation at any Sw, but
separation is not as predicted.
4.4
4.41 R
w
for sea water = 0.23 ohm-m (chart Gen-9). Use formation factor
(1/(0.2)
2
) to nd R
o
= 5.75 ohm-m, so resistance = 0.46 ohm.
4.4.2 Using lower limit of marble resistivity from Table 3.1; resistance = 4 x 10
6
ohm.
4.5
4.5.1 From log nd R
t
= 0.2 ohm-m, so F = 12.5. If S
w
= 0.9, then R
w
= 0.013
ohm-m
4.5.2 300 kppm.
4.6
4.6.1 Obtain R
t
4 ohm-m from the log; implies =8%. For S
w
=50%, m = 1.63.
4.6.2 = 12.6%
4.7
4.7.1 1316% depending on porosity.
4.7.2
4.8
4.8.1 At = 0.1, T = 10. At = 0.2, T = 5.
4.9 R
h
= 9.8 ohm-m. R
v
= 450 ohm-m. R
h
is closer to R
sh
while R
v
is closer to
R
sd
4.10 39.3

or only 5.7

above horizontal.
Chapter 5: Resistivity: Electrode Devices
5.1.1 From givens deduce R
t
= 1.11 ohm-m and R
xo
= 22.22 ohm-m. Then, from
geometric factors: R
LLd
= 5.966m ohm-m and R
LLd
= 10.19 ohm-m
5.2
5.2.1 1%
5.2.2 R
w
= 8 ohm-m.
5.3 The separation between the curves indicates invasion below 12540 ft and
above 12470 ft. Elsewhere it is indeterminate.
5.4 R
t
= 1.6 ohm-m. (All corrections are small). S
w
from logs is >100%. S
w
with correct R
t
is 50%.
5.5 Hint given with problem.
5.6 85 m.
5.7 269 m and 0.08 ohm.
Chapter 6: Other Electrode and Toroid Devices
6.1
6.2
6.2.1 78.6%
6.2.2 10% uncertainty in porosity > 10% uncertainty in S
w
; 10% uncertainty in
R
w
or in R
t
> 5% uncertainty in S
w
.
6.3
6.3.1 Taking R
xo
to be 1 ohm-m yields = 23%.
6.3.2
6.3.3 If = 30%, then S
xo
= 1, but 78%.
6.4
6.4.1
Interval R
t
, ohm-m D
i
, in.
1 0.21 100
2 Av 1.2 Indeterminate
3 2.55 20
6.4.2 R
w
= 0.019 ohm-m.
6.5
Depth, ft R
xo
/ R
t
Fluid S
w
Comment
12550 2.86 Water 100%
12450 5 Water >100% Uncertain invasion
effect
12400 1 Mainly residual oil 51%
12200 0.34 Movable oil 26%
11800 0.02 Movable oil 44%
6.6 S
w
= 58%
6.7 In top panel of Fig. 6.12, D
i
= 21 in. In bottom panel D
i
= 25 in.
In the top panel at J = 0.5, the apparent resistivity from the ring R
t
= 0.55
R
t
while in the bottom panel R
t
= 5.5 R
t
. Therefore the ring reads closer to
R
t
in the top panel (conductive invasion).
Chapter 7: Resistivity: Induction Devices
7.1
7.1.1 Note minimum at mid-bed.
7.1.2 Using Fig. 7.10 nd that 25% of response from below bed and 25% above
bed of 40 in. thickness. R
a
= 9.09 ohm-m.
7.1.3 9.09 ohm-m as above, but closer to correct value for sand bed.
7.1.4 For case of R
shale
= 5 ohm-m, max. reading for detection is 5.5 ohm-m. Find
that central bed must contribute 18% of response which corresponds to 10
in. thick bed
7.2 Use Eq. 6.7 and log data from water zone at 5306 ft to get S
w
52%.
7.2.1 Use chart Rcor-5 which is very sensitive to bed thickness. Charts are presented
for values of shoulder bed resistivity, 1.7 ohm-m in this case, so interpolate.
Find R
t
6.4 ohm-m instead of 5.5 ohm-m. Then S
w
65%.
7.3 Assuming that the residual oil saturation (ROS) is the same after invasion as
after water ooding, ROS would be 27%.
7.4
Interval R
t
, ohm-m R
xo
, ohm-m Comment
A 1.8 10.8 In bottom half
B 11.7 129
C 2.9 46
The chart depends on R
xo
/R
m
because the radial response of ILd and ILm
depends on resistivity level and is less at lower R
xo
. The SFL reads less than
R
xo
by up to 35% because it sees beyond the invaded zone.
7.5 ILd should read closer at 30 ft, LLd at 120 ft. (Calculate R
xo
/R
t
and refer to
Fig. 719.)
7.6 Using denition from Eq. 7.35 and noting that for z>>0 Eq. 7.33 can be writ-
ten as g(r,z) = (r
3
)/(
6
), where
2
= z
2
+r
2
. Change variable of integration
to u = rmz
2
+r
2
and integrate over appropriate limits.
Chapter 8: Multi-Array and Triaxial Induction Devices
8.1 The error is 20% since R
t
reads 0.4 ohm-m instead of 0.5 ohm-m.
The error in S
w
is 11% from Archies equations.
8.2 The integrated vertical factor, G
sh
, for the two shoulders is 0.00625.
8.2.1 The apparent resistivity in the center of the bed equals G
sh
* C
sh
+
(1 G
sh
) * C
t
, which gives 61.8 ohm-m.
8.3 From the D
i
given in the gure and from Fig. 8-9, the integrated radial
response of the 10 in. curve is 0.96 so that it should read 1.5 ohm-m.
8.3.1 When R
t
<< R
t
.
8.4 Radial prole of water saturation and conductivity with an annulus (above).
8.4.1 The maximum possible annulus thickness is 3.6 in. Calculate the volume of
formation water originally in the ushed zone up to 48 in., and assume all this
water goes into the annulus. Assume also that the original formation water in
the annulus remains.
8.4.2 The conductivity is 0.055 S/m, which is higher than that in the ushed zone
and the uninvaded zone.
Axial Response of 2 Two-Coil Arrays
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Depth, in.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,

1
/
i
n
.
36" 40"
Difference Between 2 Two-Coil Arrays
-0.004
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
Depth, in.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
,

1
/
i
n
.
diff
8.5 Vertical (axial) responses above.
8.6 There is an error in Eq. 8.6. in the text: k should be written as k
h
. Then:
V = K
_
2i
L
2
+
v

v
L

h
(1 i )
v
L
2
v
3
3
h
(1 i ) .....
_
8.6.1 6.9 S/m
8.7
Depth, ft Rv, ohm-m Rsd, ohm-m Vsh, %
X420 1.1 2 49
X430 1.1 1.8 42
X440 1.8 2.5 30
8.7.1 R
sd
=
_
(R
v
+R
h
2V
sh
R
h
) +
/

_
_
R
2
v
2R
v
R
h
_
1 2V
sh
+2V
2
sh
_
+ R
2
h
_
_
_
2 (1 V
sh
)
R
sh
can then be written out using Eq. 8.8.
Chapter 9: Propagation Measurements
9.1 Prove by direct comparison of the real and imaginary parts.
9.2 Write as ( + i/
0
) from Eq. 9.10 and below, and ignore .
9.3 At induction frequencies e ranges from 10
3
to 10
7
, while e rarely reaches
10
3
. At laterolog frequencies e ranges from 10
5
to 10
9
, while e rarely
reaches 10
5
. (see Bona et al., reference 4)
9.4 R
t
= 40 ohm-m, = 40.
9.4.1 R
ps
= 39 ohm-m, R
ad
= 40 ohm-m from Fig. 9-14.
9.4.2 R
ps
= 40 ohm-m, R
ad
= 40 ohm-m.
9.5
R
xo
> R
t
R
ad
> R
ps
Resistive invasion, tool close to resistive boundary
R
xo
> R
t
R
ad
< R
ps
Resistive invasion
R
xo
< R
t
R
ad
> R
ps
Unlikely
R
xo
< R
t
R
ad
< R
ps
Unlikely
R
xo
= R
t
R
ad
> R
ps
Tool close to conductive boundary
R
xo
= R
t
R
ad
> R
ps
Large dielectric effects
9.5.1 With conductive mud, the uncorrected short-spaced measurements may read
too low for both R
ps
and R
ad
. The table is still valid except that there could
also be resistive invasion for the case of R
xo
> R
t
and R
ad
< R
ps
.
Oil-base mud can cause the long-spaced measurements of an eccentered tool
to read higher than the short-spaced. The effect on the table is therefore similar
to that of a conductive mud.
9.5.2 If the uncorrected short-spaced measurements read higher than the long-
spaced, then the corrected measurements would read even higher and the
same table remains valid.
9.6 Anisotropy. R
ps
> R
ad
, which could be resistive invasion except that the
deeper readings read higher.
Chapter 10: Basic Nuclear Physics for Logging Applications: Gamma Rays
10.1 Hint: use Sterlings approximation.
10.2
10.2.1 dN/N = x d
10.2.2 1 p.u. uncertainty corresponds to = 0.0155 g/cm
3
. Estimate from
Fig. 10.8 for Al; dN/N = 4.6%
10.2.3 475 cps
10.3 N(CsCl) 1.4 x 10
22
; Vol 1.8 x 10
3
cm
3
.
10.4
10.5
10.6
Chapter 11: Gamma Ray Devices
11.1 A/ N
o
, where A is atomic weight of isotope and N
o
is Avogadros number.
11.2 Use Eq. 11.3 to compute particle ux from U, T, and K. Estimate from
Fig. 10.8 and average gamma ray energy (1 MeV) to be 006 cm
2
/g. Use
Eq. 10.2 and known half-lives to compute partial count rates: K20.4 cps;
U2.5 cps; Th1.5 cps.
11.3
Depth, ft Vcl(GR) Vcl(SP)
8530 0 0
8549 50% 70%
8560 10% 50%
Thin bed at bottom?
11.4 10% & 60%
11.5 Use only W
4
and W
5
to get two simultaneous equations:
W
4
= a
41
Th +a
42
U
W
5
= a
51
Th +a
52
U
after assuming that the K contributions a
43
and a
53
are zero.
11.6 Evaluate coefcients of prob. 11.5 using givens.
Chapter 12: Gamma Ray Scattering and Absorption Measurements
12.1 Find porosity =26.2%. Nave hydrocarbon density =0.32 g/cm
3
. Instead,
compute electron density of hydrocarbon to be 0.48 g/cm
3
. Use data from
Table 12.1 to nd
b
= 0.87
e
for CH
2
, so
HC
= 0.42 g/cm
3
.
12.1.1
log
= 1.07
e
0.1823
12.2
12.2.1 Density varies between 2.30 2.37 g/cm
3
. Formation might be limestone or
dolomite so maximum spread of porosity is 21.1 p.u. to 31.2 p.u.
12.2.2 Cross plot density and P
e
using chart CP-16 or Fig. 12.19 to nd 24 p.u.
12.2.3 From crossplot limestone fraction varies between 40% 95%.
12.3
12.3.1
12.3.2 For salt-plugged formation,
b
= 2.73 g/cm
3
& P
e
= 3.37. Similar to a 5-6
p.u. water-lled limestone-dolomite mixture.
124
12.5.1 2.82 g/cm
3
12.5.2 0.08 v/v (8 p.u.)
12.5.3 7.7% pyrite
12.5.4 1.195 g/cm
3
Chapter 13: Basic Neutron Physics for Logging Applications
13.1
13.1.1 Note from conservation of momentum that He
4
velocity is
1
/
4
neutron veloc-
ity. 14.08 MeV.
13.1.2 13.2 MeV.
13.2
13.2.1 Use data from Table 13.1 or Table 15.1, and Fig. 13.16. (water) = 22
cu, note that 10
3
times capture unit (cu) has dimension of cm
1
(it is the
probability of being absorbed per cm). So Eq. 13.30 has proper units (4.5
cm).
13.2.2 4.2 cm for 0 p.u. and 3 cm for 20 p.u.
13.3 From data of Table 13.1 and weight fractions of H and Cl, contribution of H
is 21 cu and Cl is 33 cu.
13.3.1 See Fig. 13.7
13.3.2 43.7 cu
Chapter 14: Neutron Porosity Devices
14.1
14.1.1 Epithermal tool responds to L
s
, so use Fig 13.10 or Fig 14.14 to construct
chart.
14.1.2 The correction is not a constant but a function of porosity as found above.
14.2
14.2.1 From Fig. 14.6 deduce a 7 p.u. shift from sand to limestone. Apparent lime-
stone porosity 33 p.u.
14.2.2 Compute L
m
(after computing
f or
to be 53 cu with inclusion of salt
water);
li me
55 p.u.
14.2.3 After recomputing apparent L
s
and combining with the previously deter-
mined L
d
, the L
m
value yields an apparent porosity of 43 p.u.
14.3 See Fig. 14.14
14.4 33 p.u.
14.4.1 Using the data of Fig 14.12 (with a magnifying glass) or a chartbook, esti-
mate that the temperature correction at 33 p.u. is on the order of 11 p.u., so

n
will read 11 p.u. too low, showing cross-over at the two cleanest zones.
14.5 Using data from Reference 7 (Chapter 50) or estimating neutron response on
the basis of hydrogen index, the cross-over is found to be 6-7 pu.
14.6 Hydrocarbon density, for one.
14.7 26pu, see Section 21.3.2.
Chapter 15: Pulsed Neutron Devices and Spectroscopy
15.1 Solution density increases with addition of NaCl.
15.2 See Eq. 13.5
15.3 Use data of Table 13.1
15.4
15.4.1 Make a S vs
b
cross-plot using three end points:
Water: 65 cu, 1.1 g/cm
3
Oil: 21 cu, 0.8 g/cm
3
Limestone: 9 cu, 2.71 g/cm
3
Scale in S
w
between water and oil points.
15.4.2 Find R
w
@ 100

C. Then S
w
from LLD is 48%. However, from , S
w
is
15%. Fresh water has diluted the formation water.
15.4.3 Iterate on values of salinity, computing S
w
from and LLD until values
agree. Find salinity 45 kppm and S
w
70%.
15.5
15.5.1 From hydrocarbon zone (not the low-density gas) estimate 12.6 cu.
15.5.2 Putting line frommatrix point through the cloud of water points, nd 19
cu. Deduce
w
= 34 cu.
15.6 From Fig. 3.5 or chart book nd 0.18 ohm-m @ 115

F implies 30 kppm.
From slope of Fig. 15.1 determine
w
= 32.2 cu.
15.6.1 No change. R
w
gives consistent estimate.
15.6.2 Invasion must be shallow.
15.7 Use data from Table 13.1
15.7.1 See prob. 13.3.1
15.8 Insufcient data on the log. The value of
f or
is necessary but we can as-
sume a reasonable value. From log at depth X150, = 15 cu, g = 20 pu
of which
oil
= 3 pu. From dening equation: = 15 = 0.8
ma
+.03
21 +0.17
mi x
, the maximum value of 13.2 cu can be determined for the
matrix. If
ma
is assumed to be 5 cu, then show
mi x
= 61 cu. If connate
water volume is 2 pu then its salinity will be 140 kppm from Fig. 15.1.
Chapter 16: Nuclear Magnetic Logging
16.1 5580 Gauss
16.2 5000
16.3
16.4 Look at variation of /T. From Prob 3.6 , varies as
o
exp(1825/T). Find
that increase of T2 of water with increase in temperature is predicted by /T
when viscosity variation is taken into account. For change from 50100

C,
graph shows x2 increase and /T predicts x2.5.
16.5 An exercise in applying Eq. 16.32 (and 16.31).
16.6
16.6.1 22 time units
16.6.2 110 x P
down
= 11xP
up
by substitution.
16.7 The position sought is for the same (but unspecied) resonant frequency for
the two species.
16.8 Taking T1 to be proportional to correlation time leads to T2 a
2
/bD. Show
that D = kT/(6a) to conrm the use of /T to scale the x-axis of Fig.
16.4.
Chapter 17: Introduction to Acoustic Logging
17.1
17.1.1 37

, 17.4

17.1.2 Neglecting tool diameter, 2.37 ft.

17.2
17.2.1 1.25 sec/ft
17.2.2 66.7 kHz.
17.2.3 18 kHz.
17.3 for t
mud
> t
f or;
3.9 ft.
17.4 304.8
Chapter 18: Acoustic Waves in Porous Rocks and Boreholes
18.1
18.2 Use compressibility = 1/V(dV/dP)=1/K. For each volume V
1
C dp =
dV
1
, to arrive at: K
t
= [V
1
/K
1
= V
2
/K
2
]
1
.
18.3
18.3.1 From Eq. 18.2 use (k
c
)
1
=
S
w
k
w
+
1S
w
k
oil
and substitute into Eq. 18.21.
18.3.2 Use relation k = (V
2
p
4/3V
2
s
); determine k at two different saturations
(and densities)
18.4 From V
2
s
= 3/4V
2
c
3/4B/ , see upper limit is for ; 6.75 km/sec.
18.5
18.5.1 240 s/ft.
18.5.2 Using Fig. 18.2, 32 p.u.
18.5.3 Using V
s
=
_

, when density decreases V

s
increases, so V
s dr y
>
V
s bri ne
. Expect V
s dr y
/V
s bri ne
=
_

bri ne

air
= 1.06
Chapter 19: Acoustic Logging Methods
19.1 Plot selected values of t vs
d
for upper and lower zones using lithology
identied from text.
19.2 Assume tube wave can be identied. V
t ube
(Eq. 18.20) can be rewritten in
terms of V
mud
, formation density, , and mud density. Solve for , and com-
bine with V
p
and V
s
to get elastic constants.
19.3
19.3.1 Average t 100 s/ft, corresponds to 33 pu for Vp
ma
= 18, 000 ft/sec.
Variation is from 95105 s/ft corresponding to 29.5 36.5 pu.
19.3.2 Correlation between increase in resistivity and t increase.
19.3.3 The gas effect may be masked by invasion.
19.3.4 Hole size change inducing cycle skip(?).
19.3.5 Shale.
19.3.6 t
ma
= 45s/ft, t
f l
= 218s/ft
19.4 From plotting data on Fig. 18.12, nd t
ma
= 49s/ft, t
f l
= 218 s/ft.
Middle and lower zones are consistent; upper is shale(?).
19.5 At 25 kHz, = 0.48 ft, so depth of investigation is about one wavelength.
Chapter 20: High Angle and Horizontal Wells
20.1 Taking the transition from sand to shale as 42 ft, and using Fig. 20.2, the dip
angle is 3.5

.
20.1.1 9.8

.
20.1.2 Looking downhole the shale is approaching from above.
20.2 See, for example, the website: www.scacompanies.com/publications/
newsletters/archives/winter03.html
20.3 Taking the thickness of the sand as 100 ft MD, TVT = 6.47 ft and TST =
6.45 ft.
20.3.1 TVT = 11.73 ft, TST = 11.67 ft.
20.4 3 ohm-m. The induction tools.
20.5 88.6

.
20.6 The relative deviation is approximately 88.6

. The beds are thin enough

that a density log perpendicular to them would read the average density,
2.25 g/cm
3
.
Chapter 21: Clay Quantication
21.1 150 cm
2
/cm
3.
21.1 6.9 x 10
4
cm
2
/cm
3
.
21.3 2.52 g/cm
3
.
21.3.1 Q
v
= 0.02 meq per pore volume. V
cbw
= 0.2%.
21.4
Effect of Shale Distribution
with Effective Porosity
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fractional Response to Sand
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,

p
.
u
. Structural
Laminated
Dispersed
21.4.1 Above, relationship between effective porosity and fractional sand volume.
21.4.2 Shale volume decreases with depth while total porosity also decreases, indi-
cating structural shale.
21.5 Taking GR
mi n
at 1870 ft = 19.5 gapi, and GR
max
at 1665 ft = 96 gapi, then
Vsh at 1700 ft = 5%. (Note: the clay weight % in Fig. 21.8 corresponds to
GR
mi n
at 1890 ft = 10 gapi, and GR
max
at 1665 ft = 130 gapi, contrary to the
numbers in the text.)
21.6 Expand the partial U
i
contribution as P
e,i

b,i
. Divide both sides by density,

b
. Each terms is P
e,i
times weight fraction (
b,i
/
b
) and then use P
e,i
=
(Z
i
/10)
3.6
.
21.7 Calculate MW of kaolinite as 231. Weight fraction Al is 11.7% MW of
illite 254. K weight fraction is 7.8%.
21.8 From the log the weight % of Al is 10% and Fe wt% is 5%. Approximate
MW of Illite (using Al) is 700. Reduce Al
5
to Al
2.5
. Fe
0.6
will produce
5% Fe by weight.
21.8.1 Limestone from high P
e
and low Al and GR.
21.9 0.5%
Chapter 22: Lithology and Porosity Estimation
22.1 Should nd (from top to bottom): Anhydrite, dolomite streak, mixed
limestone-dolomite, a shale streak, mixed lime-dolomite, dolomite streak
and nally limestone at 15380ft.
22.2 Assume
n
in sandstone units, so rst correct to limestone to use in cross
plotting (correction can be done with charts like Fig. 21.1). Exercise in using
Fig. 21.1 and Fig. 21.2. For computation of t
ma
, use t
f
= 187s/ft.
22.3 Compute Pe from U or short-cut of Eq. 2113.
22.4 At e.g. 9900 ft,
maa
= 2.71 g/cm
3
and U
maa
= 12. The percentages of
quartz, calcite and dolomite are 17%, 77% and 6%.
22.5 Density-sonic or density-neutron. For neutron-sonic the 5 pu lithology shift
could be masked by a t shift of only 4 s/ft.
22.6 Weight fraction of Ba in BaSO
4
is 58% so mud is 27% Ba by weight.
P
e,mud
493x0.27 = 133. The mud is only 12% of formation density
so P
e
19.9.
Chapter 23: Saturation and Permeability Estimation
23.1 a. From the cross plot, S
w
= 100% can be drawn through the up-
permost points (7, 2, 11,14,9). For construction of graph can show

C
t
=
S
w

R
w
_
t t
ma
t
f
t
ma
_
. Assuming t
f
= 187s/ft, take a conduc-
tivity point off 100% saturation line to compute R
w
= 0.085 ohm-m.
b. From graphical inspection, 57 s/ft
c. 16,19,3,5,6
d. 29 p.u.
23.2 First compute porosity from t in previous problem, then plot log vs log
R
t
.
a. Intercept at = 100 gives R
w
0.88 ohm-m.
b. From graphical inspection and Eq. 23.6, m = log(90)/log(9) = 2.04.
c. From graphical inspection zone 340%; zone 1450%, zone 1750%,
and zone 1930%.
23.3 a) F* = 34.5. b) F = 18.5.
23.4 R
w
= 0.017 ohm-m. C should produce oil (B has gas).
23.5 From Fig. 213 the total volume of water is
t
S
wt
=
t
V
hyd
. Similarly
the volume of effective water is
e
S
we
=
e
V
hyd
with V
hyd
the same in
both cases.
23.6 S
w
with silt water is 48%, without silt water 25%. From Archie and R
h
,
S
w
= 49%.
23.6.1 S
w
= 44%. (Use Eq. 23.16 with silt instead of shale).
23.7 A reasonable approximation for log
10
K in mD is (17.1
t
2.29).
23.7.1 The Timur relation predicts much higher permeability than the correlation
using
t
. If
e
is used the prediction is better, but still high.
23.8 S
p
= S
o

ma
(1 )
_

http://www.springer.com/978-1-4020-3738-2