You are on page 1of 18

RESPONSE OF NEUTRON

AND FORMATION DENSITY LOGS I N

HYDROCARBON BEARING FORMATIONS


by
R. GAYMARD and A. POUPON
SPE Schlumberger - P a r i s

trons before they have reached t h e thermal l e v e l


(Neutron-Epithermal Neutron tool). For all tools, the
slowing down of t h e fast neutrons by hydrogen nuclei is
t h e predominant phenomenon, and t h e reading, for given
hole conditions, depends mostly on t h e hydrogen index
of the formation, proportional t o the quantity of hydrogen
per unit volume of formation near the bore hole.

EDITORS NOTE: In this interesting paper the authors


consider the effect of residual hydrocarbons on the res p o n s e of the Neutron a n d Formation Density logs. I t
should be o f interest to those working with t h e s e porosity tools. P o s s i b l e applications a r e included for both
shaly formations o r complex lithologies.

In clean water bearing formations, the hydrogen is


found in the water only, and with a concentration which
is practically independent from the combined effects of
temperature and pressure; in t h e s e conditions t h e Neutron
reading is directly related to porosity. Hydrocarbons,
like water, contain hydrogen, but a t variable concentrations which depend mostly on the density of the hydrocarbons in situ. For some oils, the hydrogen concentration will be practically the same a s in water; but g a s
and light oil have substantially lower hydrogen concentrations. As a result the presence of gas, or light oil, in
t h e volume of formation near the bore hole, is likely to
have a substantial effect on the Neutron reading.

ABSTRACT
I t is usually assumed that, in oil bearing formations,
the Neutron and Formation Density logs are not significantly affected by the residual oil in the invaded zone
and that they respond as if t h e volume investigated was
entirely filled with mud filtrate. However when porosities
a r e fairly high, t h e effect of t h i s residual oil is not
always negligible, particularly if the oil is light.
Computations have been made t o evaluate t h i s effect.
Formulae have been developed for clean oil or g a s
bearing formations. T h e s e formulae permit a more accurate evaluation of the porosity. Some of the formulae may
a l s o have application in the cases of shaly formations
and of complex lithologies.

Let

If the Neutron log is calibrated in fresh water bearing


formations, we can write:

EFFECT OF HYDROCARBONS
ON THE NEUTRON LOG

Neutron log porosity =

In Neutron logging, a source emits fast neutrons into


the formation. T h e s e neutrons a r e slowed down through
collisions, mostly with hydrogen nuclei of t h e surrounding medium, and after reaching the so-called thermal
level of energy, a r e absorbed by nuclei of the formation,
usually hydrogen or chlorine nuclei; e a c h capture of a
thermal neutron is followed by t h e emission of gammarays of capture. A detector, a t some distance from the
neutron source, measures either t h e gamma-rays of
capture (Neutron-Gamma type of tool) or the thermal
neutrons (Neutron-Thermal Neutron tool) or the neuTHE L O G A N A L Y S T

Srh : residual hydrocarbon saturation in invaded


zone
= : hydrogen index of the hydrocarbons
: hydrogen index of t h e mud filtrate.

+ [ a s , h + p (1 - S,, ) ]

(1)

T h e hydrogen index of fresh water is 1, by definition;


the hydrogen index of a sodium chloride solution i s
somewhat smaller than 1.
It will be assumed in t h e following that the Neutron
log is calibrated through cross-plots Neutron-Formation
Density or Neutron-Resistivity in water bearing intervals; then one can write:
4 N

a
= $ [pS,h + 1

- s,,]

(2)

EFFECT O F HYDROCARBONS
ON THE FORMATION DENSITY LOG

T h e . r a t h e r large departure from 1 which a p p e a r s for


o i l and water i s d u e t o t h e p r e s e n c e of hydrogen, t h e C
of which is almost e q u a l to 2.

Gamma rays of fairly high energy l e v e l a r e emitted


by a radioactive s o u r c e . T h e i r intensity i s gradually
attenuated through c o l l i s i o n s with t h e e l e c t r o n s in t h e
formation (Compton effect). T h e Schlumberger Formation
Density log i s b a s e d on t h e measurement of the gamma
ray decayed intensity a t a given d i s t a n c e from t h e
source.

To c o p e with t h i s problem t h e tool r e s p o n s e is


calibrated in c l e a n fresh water bearing limestones with
porosities ranging from z e r o t o 40%; in fresh water
bearing dolomites or s a n d s t o n e s , t h e error resulting from
t h i s calibration is very s m a l l , and entirely negligidle.
F o r fresh water bearing limestone t h e standard formula
relating density to porosity c a n b e written both for true
density and for electronic density:

As t h e Compton effect i s proportional to the number of


e l e c t r o n s per unit volume and as, in first approximation,
t h e number of e l e c t r o n s per unit volume i s proportional t o
t h e d e n s i t y of t h e formation, i t i s c l e a r that t h e log
responds t o t h e density of t h e formation.

Actually t h e number of e l e c t r o n s per unit volume i s


not exactly proportional to t h e density. In t h e case of an
element, if w e c a l l p b t h e true density and p e the ((electronic density)) t o which t h e s o n d e responds, i t c a n b e
shown that:

(5)
By virtue of formula (3), equation (5) writes:

By eliminating 4 between (4) and (6), then replacing


p L s , p w , C I S and C w by their numerical v a l u e s , we get:

with C

Z
2- where

pb

atomic number

A = atomic weight

Plog

1.008
12.011
16.000
22.99
28.09
35.46
40.08

C
0
NO

SI

CI
Ca

Compound

11
14

5 - 2 1
1.9841
,9991
1 .oooo
,9569
,9968
,9588
,9980

f'b

510,
CaCO,

2.654
2.710

0.9985

Calc1tc
Dolomite

CaCO,!MgCO,

2.870

0.9977

Anhydr i t e

CaSO,

2.960

0.9990

1.000

1.146

1.1101
1.0797

0.850

1.1407

F r e s h water

H, 0

Salt water

200,000

01I

flog

II(CH2)

ppm

(7)

1.07

p,

0.188

(7)

where C m a p,,, Cm,p m f and C h ph are respectively the


electronic d e n s i t i e s of t h e matrix, of t h e mud filtrate and
of t h e hydrocarbons.

-~

Quartz

0.188

L e t u s now revert to our problem and consider a c l e a n


hydrocarbon bearing formation. T h e fluid in t h e investigated z o n e i s made up of Srh % of hydrocarbon and
(1 - Srh) % of mud filtrate. Equations (7) and (6) write:

1
6
R

Formula

________

= 1.07 p , -

T h i s , then, i s the relationship, between t h e electronic


density and t h e reading of t h e Formation Density log.

For most of t h e e l e m e n t s and compounds found in


sedimentary formations C i s very c l o s e to one, a s shown
in t a b l e s herebelow:

1.07 p , - 0.188

Since t h e log i s calibrated in s u c h a way that p


log
p b in fresh water bearing limestones, it r e s u l t s that:

Similar relationships e x i s t for compounds. pe differs


from pb only to t h e extent that C i s not e x a c t l y e q u a l
t o 1.

Element

0.9991

By eliminating p , between (7) and (8), and noticing


that:

pmo

= 1.07 Cma p,,

- 0.188

S E P T E M B E R - OCTOBER, 1968

and assuming the heaviest components to have a density


of 0.9, we have obtained the following empirical formula:

derived from the Density

For methane which h a s a density of 0.2 f 25% under


most of reservoir conditions, t h e formula gives nH =
0.25, the correct figure, if one t a k e s ph = 0.2.

w e get the relationship between pb (log reading) and


(true porosity):

T h e apparent porosity $,
log, by definition:

4D

pma=
pma

pb

is given by:

For heavy oil, i.e. p h

Pmf

0.9, the formula gives nH

0.15, which is a good approximation s i n c e the lower


l i m i t . for heavy saturated hydrocarbons is:

INFLUENCE O F MUD SALINITY

-- - 0,143

T h e following parameters, used in formulae (2) and


(lo), depend on mud filtrate salinity:

By eliminating nH between (14) and (15), we obtain


= as a function of p,only:

mud filtrate hydrogen index,


a =

p m f mud filtrate density,


C, pd mud filtrate electronic density.

p,

f0.15 + 0.2 (0.9- p,) 2 1

In the formulae the filtrate salinity will b e given a s

- if 0.25

a function of the parameter:

ph

< 0.9,

i.e. practically for oil, we can write:


a

N a C l Concentration (ppm)
1,000,000

= 1-.4P

pmf=

+ 0.30

p,

(17)

- if p,< 0.25, i.e. practically for gas, we can write:

T h e following approximate formulae have been esblished:

1+.7P

Cmf pmf = 1.11 + .65 P

2 2.2

(18)

ph

(11)

b. On

( 12)

In formula (lo), C, p h is the electronic density of


the hydrocarbons. C, is related t o nH through the following simple formula:

(13)

Formation

Density log

Ch = 1 +

INFLUENCE O F HYDROCARBON DENSITY

rIH

( 19)

Taking (14) into account, we get:

a. On Neutron log

c,

In formula (2) above (Neutron equation)


is the
hydrogen index of the hydrocarbons or, more precisely,
t h e ratio of the hydrogen content per unit volume of
hydrocarbons over that of water. It c a n b e shown that
is given by the following formula:

p,

- (1

+ rlH)

p,

D(

x+
9

i f 0.25

ph

4 p h < 0.9

D(

using the expression of


chph

where nH is the proportion of hydrogen by weight in the


hydrocarbons.
By plotting nH v s ph for a number of saturated hydrocarbons (C,H,, + ,) under average reservoir conditions,
THE LOG ANALYST

(16)

Graphical study of t h i s third degree function shows


that i t can reasonably b e assimilated to two different
linear functions, depending on t h e range of P, values
( s e e fig. 1):

We s h a l l l i m i t our study t o the case where the mud


filtrate c a n be considered as a pure N a C l solution.

P =

- if ph

< 0.25

with

0:

given by (17), we find:

= 1.11

ph

+ 0.03.

2 . 2 p h , we find:

C,

O(

ph

= 1.24 p ,

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DENSITY OF HYDROCARBONS A N D THEIR HYDROGEN INDEX

( H index)

.1

.2

.25

.3

.5

.4

.a

.7

.6

.9

FIGURE 1
G E N E R A L F O R M U L A E EXPRESSING T H E E F F E C T
OF R E S I D U A L H Y D R O C A R B O N S A T U R A T I O N O N
N E U T R O N A N D F O R M A T I O N D E N S I T Y LOGS

b.

I t is assumed in t h e following t h a t t h e Neutron l o g


i s calibrated t o give t h e true porosity in c l e a n i n t e r v a l s
where there is mud filtrate only, with no residual hydrocarbons. If a n interval c o n t a i n s residual hydrocarbons,
t h e apparent Neutron porosity + N will n o longer b e e q u a l
t o t h e true porosity 4 :

v a l u e of A&

Formation

Density log

T h e p r e s e n c e of residual hydrocarbons i n s t e a d of
mud filtrate c a u s e s a variation Ap, of t h e log reading,
and a s a result t h e apparent porosity q5D differs from
t h e true porosity 4 .

a. Neutron log

The

f h

T h e e x p r e s s i o n s of Apb and ApD are found by combining e q u a t i o n s (9) or (19), (12), (13), (21) or (22), and

(26).
for oil:

i s readily found by combining

relationships (2), i l l ) , (17) or (18), and (23):

A+D

p,.

for oil:

- ph) +
- 1 - .7 P

+ 1.07 4 Srh [1.11 (1

.65 P - .031

(28)

for g a s :
Apb

for g a s :

A4D =

- 1.07 4
+ 1.07

Srh

[1.11 + .65 P - 1.24

4 S , h [ l . l l + .65 P - 1.24
,p,

- 1 - .7 P

phl
ph

(29)
(30)

F i g u r e s 2 and 3 are a graphical representation of t h e


and Ap, relationships.

SEPTEMBER - OCTOBER, 1968

EFFECT OF

HYDROCARBON ON NEUTRON LOG


A@,,, CHART

TRUE POROSITY 4 = 28%


HYDROCARBON DENSITY Qh = 0-2
EXAMPLE RESIDUAL HYDROCARBON SATURATION srh
FILTRATE SALINITY 200.000 P P M

0
0

H
0
0

THE NEUTRON LOG READS

28

8.5

19.5 %

50 100

40

10

= 60 % "N

80

-s*5%

60

20

srh(%) 40

FIGURE 2

From (29):

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

pb =

The final Neutron and Formation Density formulae


(24), (25), (27), (28), (29) and (30) look somewhat complicated, but charts based on these formulae are easy
to use, a s will be illustrated on a few typical cases.
a. Clean sands ( p g =

4 S,,

(32)

On a cross-plot of r,bN versus pb, the lines for constant values of


and for constant values of Srh are
straight line. The chart (fig. 4) is practically the same
a s chart 40-1 in the Schlumberger Paris Chart Book of
1966.

2.65) containing hydrocarbons with

known p h

Let us assume, for example, that the density of the


mud filtrate pf = 1, and that ph = .114 (this is the c a s e
of gas with a hydrogen index of .25).

Similar charts can be made for other values of ph (see


fig. 5 for ph = S ) .

From (25) we derive:

T H E LOG ANALYST

2.65- 1.65 4-1.04

Similar charts can also be made for clean limestones


(pma = 2.71) or dolomites (pma = 2.87).
7

EFBECU OF HYDROCARBON OM FORMATOOM DENSITY LOG


AQb CHART

TRUE POROSITY 6 = 21%


EXAMPLE HYDROCARBON DENSITY ph ~ 0 . 6
RESIDUAL HYDROCARBON SATURATION S,h= 75%
FILTRATE SALINITY 150.000 P P M

"4 b = - 0.09

FIGURE 3

b.

Clean Sands containing hydrocarbons of unknown

for g a s :

ph

I t c a n b e shown that, to a good approximation, regardl e s s of t h e value of ph:


T h e whole p r o c e s s i s s o l v e d graphically by figure 6.
T h e more a c c u r a t e v a l u e of Srh which is n e e d e d to
derive p h from t h e s e c o n d part of t h e chart is c a l c u l a t e d
from:

Therefore, t o e v a l u a t e 4, we need to make an assumpabout Srh. Fortunately t h i s assumption i s not critical.


We can then c a l c u l a t e a value of ph which is e x p r e s s e d
a s a function of Srh and 0 = C , S ~ / + , in t h e following
equations:

.62 Rm,
Rxo

= 62.15 (1

SrJ2

c. Hydrocarbon bearing shaly sands

for oil:
Formulae (24), (25), (27) and (29) remain valid in
s h a l y formations. T h e s e formulae s h o w that t h e often
u s e d method of deriving a value of s h a l e content V s h

S E P T E M B E R - O C T O B E R , 1968

FIGURE 4
EFFECT O F GAS ON N-FDC C O M B I N A T I O N

1.65
1.25
30%

1.114
I .o

40%,
\

a
I

20%

60;

'.

--.
10%

1.7

2
1.8

2.0

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.4

2.7

FIGURE 5
EFFECT O F LIGHT OIL ON N - F D C COMBINATION

SANDSTOb

2.65

30%
HYDROCAfi

D N DENSIlY

FRESH M U

(X

-- a .e
=

0.5

Pf =

1.0

fh

20%

I
z

10%

1.7

THE LOG ANALYST

1.8

1.9

2 .o

2 .I

2.3

2.4

2.5

2 .?

2.6

10

SEPTEMBER

- OCTOBER,

1968

SYMBOLS USED

ABOUT T H E AUTHORS

T h i s paper h a s been written using a new set of


symbols which follows as closely as possible the
standard API list. We apologize for t h e inconvenience
t h i s will certainly c a u s e those who are accustomed to
t h e old system, but we felt that the change had to b e
made:

Physical Parameters:
R
p
q5
S

V
a

P=

resistivity
density
porosity
fluid saturation
proportion by volume
hydrogen index of hydrocarbons
hydrogen index of t h e mud filtrate

Mr. R. Gaymard graduated in 1947 from Ecole Polytechnique,


Paris, and in 1948 from Ecole Nationale Supgrieure du P&role, near Paris, with a Petroleum Engineering degree. During
1948-1951 he was drilling and Production Engineer for SN
REPAL, Algeria. He joined Schlumberger in 1951 and was
assigned successively to SWSC (U.S.), Surenco (South America), SPES (Europe and Africa) and Schlumberger Overseas
(Libya).

ppm N a C l

1,000,000

He is presently working a t the Sales Interpretation Department


of Schlumberger, Paris, headquarters where he is in charge of
Computer Processed Interpretation.

Subscripts:
w
h
mf
ma
1s
sh

water
hydrocarbon
mud filtrate
matrix
limestone
shale

b
e
r
N
D

bulk
electronic
residual
Neutron l o g
Formation Density log

Under t h i s system we have t h e following equivalence


t o the old list:

Former

symbols:

New

symbols:

ROS

Sro Residual oil saturation

RGS

Srg Residual g a s saturation


Srh Residual hydrocarbon sat.

p,
P

p m a Matrix (Grain) density


Vsh Proportion of s h a l e by volume
of formation

Andre Poupon graduated in 1933 from Ecole Polytechnique in


Paris. After one year of military service and three years with
the French Railroad, he joined Schlumberger at the end of
1937. He worked in the field in Trinidad, France, and Venezuela and was transferred to Schlumbergers research center
i n Ridgefield in September, 1948.

REFERENCES
Mr. Poupon moved to Paris in September, 1955, to work in the
Interpretation Department of S.P.E. Schlumberger. He is at
present head of this department.

J. Tittman and J. S. Wahl: The physical Foundations of


Formation Density logging (Geophysics, April 1965).

12

SEPTEMBER

- OCTOBER,

1968

i
P

<

I
I

chart indicates a porosity of 25% and the probable


lithology is 50% h e s t o n e + 50% dolomite, with a grain
density of 2.79.

through a cross-plot of q5N versus pb gives Vsh values


that are too low in formations containing light oil. In
gas beaiing formation the error on Vsh could be quite
large. On the other hand, i f a reliable value of shale
content can be estimated independently of the Neutron
and Density logs (Gamma Ray, or SP, or Resistivity),
q5N and C$D can be corrected. Then:

if ph is known the clean sand charts (such a s those of


fig. 4 and 5) can be used to derive q5 and Srh;

i f ph is not known the chart of fig. 6 can be used to


estimate q5 and ph.

d.

If that same formation contains hydrocarbons, both


the Neutron and Density readings will be affected. Let
us assume ph = .55 and Srh = 40%.
From (24) we find, for P = 0 (fresh mud):

Complex lithologies: determination of q5 and p,,

the apparent Neutron porosity then is .26 - .015 = .245


or 24.5%.

In wate'r bearing mixtures of sand, limestone and


dolomite, with no shale, the porosity and approximate
grain density can be derived from a cross-plot of pb
versus q5N, such a s that of fig. 7 which corresponds to
pf = 1 (chart 42 of the Schlumberger Paris Chart Book of
1966). For example, for C$N = 26% and pb = 2.34, the

From (27).
Apb

- 1.07

.25

.40 (.S- .033) =-.05

the bulk density reading is .05 gr/cc too low, and is


equal to:
2.1

2.34 - .05

2.29

2.2

The point for q5N = 24.5% and pb = 2.29 on the chart


of fig. 7 falls exactly on the line corresponding to pure
limestone, and indicates an apparent porosity of 24.5%.

2.3

f
2.4

2.5

Due to the effect of the residual hydrocarbons, then,


the estimated porosity is very slightly in error, and the
estimated grain density is appreciably off, 2.71 instead
of 2.79. At low porosities the hydrocarbon effect would
be negligible.

2.6

2.7

2.8

From this example, it can be concluded that in formations containing light oil, when the porosities range
from medium to high, the residual hydrocarbons are not
likely to have much effect on the porosity determination,
but lithology cross-plots cannot be satisfactorily interpreted without taking into account the effect of the
residual hydrocarbons. The correction for residual
hydrocarbons, needed for a correct determination of the
lithology can be made only if ph is known and if an R x o
log is available to give an approximate value of Sr,

porosity )

2.9

30
0

10

20

30

40

50

COMPLEX LITHOLOGY
FIGURE 7
THE LOG ANALYST

11

A STATISTICAL STUDY

O F THE FORMATION FACTOR RELATION


by
JAMES E. CAROTHERS
Phillips Petroleum Co., Bartlesville, Oklahoma

Sandstone

A1 1
A1 1

A1 1

Data Point (793 samples)

% POROSITY
FIGURE 1
13

.Y ST

__

.
.

i:
i

.:

EDITOR'S NOTE: T h i s study is the culmination of a


s t a t i s t i c a l evaluation on what may b e the most extensive
collection of formation factor-porosity-permeability data
published to date. The empirical relations computed from
t h e formation factor and the porosity and/or permeability
d a t a should find widespread application in log analysis.
Such relations should prove especially useful in a r e a s
having the same lithology a n d age as those analyzed.

of formation factor to porosity is evident. T h i s method


of averaging and plotting is used in this report.
It must be recognized that the differences in formation factor measurements due to permeability are natural
differences, and averaging may not b e advantageous when
a group of samples from one formation are to b e considered. However, when samples are from a broad coverage
in area, and time periods, i t is f e l t that t h e s e differences
are more random and averaging will give a better generalized relationship.

T h e results of a statistical study of measured formation factor d a t a are presented. T h e b a s i c data measurements are from analyses made in the Phillips Petroleum
Company Reservoir Engineering Laboratory, and from
other sources. A total of 981 measurements were used;
793 in sandstones and 188 in carbonates.

Figure 1 is the plot of all 793 sandstone formation


factors versus porosity values. It can b e s e e n that the
abundance of data h a s obscured a single line relationship. When t h e s e data were averaged and plotted, as in
Figure 2, a definite relationship is observed. T h i s plot
s u g g e s t s that a general formation factor-porosity relation of:

Differences in formation factor measurements for a


given porosity are due to at least three factors: permeability of the sample, error in porosity measurement, and
error in resistivity measurement. Averaging all formation
factors for a given porosity range minimizes t h e s e differences. When t h e s e averaged values are plotted a t the
midpoint of the porosity range, a very good relationship

10-

e-

should b e used in sandstones.

01-

a-

.ITHOU)GYi

I4-

sa-

Sandstone

\o

'ORMATION: A l l

LREA

A1 I
Average F by

fl

Class

?\

Y
m POROSITY

Ye POROSITY

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3
14

SEPTEMBER

- OCTOBER,

1968

-/j

I l l 1

ITHOLOGYl Sandstone

. J ~ o u ) G ySand
~ s t one

GE:
Cretaceous
MMATION: All

,a:

REA:

REA

-F

ORMATIOIY: A l l

41 1

Averaqo F by

Eocene

@ Class

-wk
1.66

41 I
Average F by

-F=

Class

"
1.5
1.57

4
FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

As the above relation includes the effects of shaly


s a n d s as well as calcareous s a n d s , and as each of
t h e s e h a s a predicted effect on the resistivity measurement, two more general relations are suggested. Averaging a l l points which have values higher than, and a l l
points which have values lower than the

Data from Cretaceous, Eocene, and Pennsylvanian


s a n d s are presented in Figures 4, 5, and 6. E a c h of
t h e s e plots agrees with t h e general s a n d s t o n e relation.
T h e Eocene sand h a s a change in relationship indicated
below 15%. T h i s change is a l s o noted in t h e Gulf Coast
Oligocene and in most of t h e low porosity limestones.

1.45
=61.45

California sands, which a r e generally shaly, are


shown in Figure 7. Again there is agreement with the
general shaly s a n d relation (Figure 3).

relation, we can assume that the higher s l o p e represents


calcareous s a n d s while the lower s l o p e represents shaly
s a n d s . Figure 3 is a plot of t h e s e suggested relationships.

=-

1.45

T h e only sand plotted which did not agree with the


above relations was the Gulf Coast Oligocene, shown on
Figure 8. Samples from t h i s formation ranged from 3-38%
porosity. Lithology descriptions of the samples indicated
both calcareous and shaly sands. Note t h e strong indication of a change in the relationship in the porosity
range below 15%.

Calcareous Sand

$1.33

1.65
=-

Shaly Sand

$1.33

THE LOG ANALYST

15

% POROSITY

Ye POROSITY

FIGURE 7

FIGURE 6
O

\\\

ITHOLOGYI Limestone
DRMATION: A l l
herage F by

@ Class

i
I

Ye POROSITY

O a T O

OOTOO1oo

Ye POROSITY

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 9

16

SEPTEMBER

- OCTOBER,

1968

% POROSITY

% POROSITY

FIGURE 11

8780-

Limestone
Pennsylvania

ITHOLOGYI Limestone

DRMATIffl:

L-KC. Marv.

MMATlON: Undcf i ned

REA

Kansas

RE&

ITHOLOGYi

4-

8-

N. C e n t r a l Texas

1-

iL

8 3

Yo POROSITY

Yo

POROSITY

FIGURE 13

FIGURE 12
17

THE LOG ANALYST


,n

R e l i a b l e formation factor measurements in carbonate


rocks were not as plentiful as t h o s e in sandstone. Figure 9 represents t h e averaged d a t a for 188 points. Most
of t h e s e d a t a points represent limestone s a m p l e s , with
intergranular texture. However, a number of t h e points
a r e dolomitic and/or, vugular in structure. In t h i s figure
two straight l i n e relations a r e presented. T h e r e is very
l i t t l e difference between t h e apparent b e s t fit of t h e
data;

F=-

F i g u r e s 10, 11, 12, and 13 a r e p l o t s of t h e averaged


d a t a for Creatceous, J u r a s s i c , Pennsylvanian, and Devonian carbonates. T h e r e is less general agreement in
t h e relationships from e a c h individual plot to t h e gene r a l carbonate relation. P e r h a p s t h i s is due t o wide
differences in rock fabric.

F i g u r e 14 is a summary of t h e four general equations


found i n s a n d s t o n e s . It w a s noted that with t h e exception
of t h e Gulf C o a s t Oligocene s a n d s , all formation factorporosity relations plotted s u g g e s t that a i n t h e Archie
relation is greater than 1.0 through t h e range of porosit i e s normally encountered in well l o g a n a l y s e s .

.85
62.14

a n d a forced fit of t h e d a t a ;

=-

1
62.04

A nomograph h a s been constructed, F i g u r e 15, to


s o l v e t h e Archie relation,

I t should also b e noted that there is an apparent


c h a n g e i n t h e relation below approximately 10%.

when i t i s d e s i r e d to vary both a and m.

While preparing t h e d a t a for t h e a b o v e study, i t w a s


noted that s a m p l e s from t h e s a m e core with identical
porosity measurements would h a v e different permeab i l i t i e s and formation factors. It w a s also noted that in
almost every case formation factor i n c r e a s e d with a
d e c r e a s e in permeability. F i g u r e 16 is a plot of formation
factor-permeability measurements from t h e s e samples.
E a c h c o r e is identified with connected points and
labled with percent porosity and lithology. F o r v a l u e s
above 10 millidarcies permeability there is an indicated
relation between formation factor, permeability, and
lithology. F o r limestone t h e permeability-formation factor relation i s :

K=

4.0 x lo8
F3.65

F o r s a n d s t o n e t h e permeability-formation factor relation


is:

More d a t a a r e needed to confirm t h e s e observations.

FIGURE 14
18

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER, 1968

- Formation
--3ooo

- - 2500
NOMOGRAPH FOR SOLVING

F=

Porosity

--2000

Brn

-- Ixx)

-0

I'

---loo0

100-

-- 900

-- 800
-- 700

--

600

-- xx)

00--

---m

40

-3.0

I5

350

-- 300

--

2%

--

200

--

--

I50

-- loo

lo--

-- 90

6-

-- 80
-- 70
-- 60

5-

-- 50

4-

-- 40

8l--

-3-

-- 30
A

2-

35

--

25

-- 20

'05
l.5-

--

IS

--

10

--

--

-- r
_PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY
R.L.Woods

J.E.Corothers

--

_--

3.5

- 3

FIGURE 15

THE LOG ANALYST

19
..
.

FORMATION FACTOR- PERMEABILITY RELATION

'3s

Samples from sane f o r m a t i o n having i d e n t i c a l p o r o s i t y and


1 ithology.

PERMEABILITY- MD.

FIGURE 16

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

J a m e s E. Carothers received h i s B.S. degree from the


University of Houston in 1950, majoring i n Geology. He h a s
been a n employee of the Exploration & Production Department
of Phillips Petroleum Company s i n c e 1945, having served on
the exploration staff a s a n exploration and development geolo g i s t and a s a well logging specialist. H e is currently Senior
Formation Evaluation Specialist i n Phillips' home office in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
Mr. Carothers is a member of S P E and the T u l s a Geological
Society. He is a charter member of SPWLA and is currently
V i c e President-Membership of t h i s Society.

20

SEPTEMBER

- OCTOBER,

1968