SPE 59699

Historical Use of m and a in Well Log Interpretation: Is Conventional Wisdom

Backwards?
P.S. Adisoemarta, G.A. Anderson, S.M. Frailey, and G.B. Asquith, Center for Applied Petrophysical Studies, Texas Tech
University
SPE Members
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, 2123 March 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Archies laboratory experiments established a relationship
between the formation resistivity factor and porosity, which
set forth the use of two constants: m and a. From Archies
work these constants were regression constants representing
the slope and intercept, respectively. Subsequent researchers
used the general form of Archies relation, but they found
differing values for m and a. The terms cementation factor
and tortuosity factor have been used to describe each of these
terms. Conventional wisdom believes that a higher m relates
to vuggy porosity and a lower m suggests fracture porosity.
This is generally true if the tortuosity factor is assumed
(typically 0.81 or 1.0) and the cementation factor is calculated.
However, if m and a are found simultaneously, theory and
many laboratory observations suggest the opposite may be
more likely. This study shows that the tortuosity factor, a, is a
function of the average angle of electrical movement with
respect to the bulk fluid flow, and cementation factor m is
related to the flow area contrast between pore throat and pore
body.
Historical Background
In 1942, Archie published the results of his investigations on
the relationship of true formation resistivity and certain
characteristic physical properties of a reservoir rock. The
impetus for his work was the challenge to develop methods
and relationships that could be used in the quantitative
application of electrical resistivity log information in the
detection and evaluation of a subsurface hydrocarbon

accumulation. He reasoned that in order to be able to

recognize a reservoir formation containing hydrocarbons and
connate water, it is first necessary to be able to recognize the
resistivity of a formation when all its pores are filled with
connate water (Sw =100%). Without this understanding, it
would not be possible to appreciate the resistivity added to a
formation when some connate water in the pore system of a
reservoir rock is replaced by hydrocarbons.
Archies work established the following simple
relationship:
F = Ro R w
where:
F = Formation resistivity factor
Ro = Resistivity of rock/formation with pores filled with
brine
Rw = Resistivity of the brine

The concept of the formation resistivity factor was

straightforward. If the resistivity of a brine is measured, then
the resistivity of a reservoir rock whose pores are 100%
saturated with that brine is also measured, the rock-saturated
measurement will be larger than the first. The difference in
these resistivity values is the result of the effects of the
formation on the path of the electrical current travelling
through the electrolytic brine in the rock pore system.
An empirical investigation of the relationship between
formation resistivity factor and porosity led Archie to the
following relationship between a reservoir rock and its
formation resistivity factor, when all pores are brine-saturated,
is as follows:

F = m
where is porosity and m is the slope of the average trendline
representing the plotted relationship using log-log coordinates.
The factor, m, is related to the type of rock being investigated.
Archie reported that m ranged in value from 1.8 to 2.0 for
consolidated sandstones and for clean, unconsolidated sands
packed in the lab, the value for m was about 1.3. He

ADISOEMARTA, ANDERSON, FRAILEY, AND ASQUITH

concluded that Gulf Coast sandstone reservoirs could be

expected to exhibit values for m ranging between 1.3 and 2.0.
Archies equation can also be written as:
1
F= m .

This is a commonly accepted form of his relationship (e.g.

Schlumberger Chart Book, 1994, Chart Por1). It is important
to notice that this relationship emphasizes the assumption
implicit in Archies work that in plotting formation resistivity
factor against porosity (on log-log coordinates), at the yintercept (fractional porosity = 1.0) the formation resistivity
factor and a are equal to 1.0. Theoretically, this is an
unreasonable assumption.
Archies work demonstrated that he recognized that, in
addition to the resistivity of the saturating connate water,
various rock properties affect formation resistivity. He also
reasoned that these rock properties must be related to the
depositional history of a rock formation, as such the
depositional history is inferred by the concept of sedimentary
facies, and thus these properties should be expected to vary
with geographic and stratigraphic changes in sedimentary
facies. He further recognized that his experiments on Gulf
Coast sandstones dealt with quite uniform, less complicated
formations. He included the caveat that much care must be
exercised in applying the relationships he established to
more complicated formations.
In a further investigation on the relationship of the
resistivity of brine-saturated sands and pore geometry,
Winsauer, et al. (1952), examined a suite of sandstones
ranging in age from Ordovician to Oligocene of broad
geographic extent and representing a wide range of textures.
One part of this effort was duplicating Archies experiment
relating formation resistivity factor and porosity. Winsauer
produced the following relationship:

F = 0.622 .15
which, when rewritten becomes
0. 62
F = 2 .15

In this new relationship, Winsauer referred to Archies m

factor as a Cementation Factor. Present usage includes both
cementation factor and cementation exponent for this
exponential parameter. Present usage further refers to the
numerator in this equation as the tortuosity factor (e.g. Etris, et
al., 1989) and the Archie relationship is given in the general
form:
a
F= m

The form of Archies formation resistivity factor

relationship Winsauer developed, which became known as the
Humble Equation, introduced the concept that the notion
implicit in Archies relationship, the intercept of F at 100%
porosity is a constant factor fixed at 1.0, may not be correct

SPE 59699

for a range of textures of sandstones outside the Gulf Coast

Tertiary section. Gomez Rivero (1976), reported values of a
ranging from less than one to greater than eight and values of
m from less than one to greater than 6. With the assumption
of variability comes the concern for physically realistic
boundaries to the values for these elements.
Hilchie (1982), refers to both m, and a as constants related
to pore geometry, emphasizing once again the importance of
Archies initial recognition that the structure of the rock pore
system is a fundamental control of true formation resistivity.
Archies formation resistivity factor relationship, in its
general form, is applied broadly in the analysis of the full
spectrum of reservoir rock lithologies and textures in the
detection and evaluation of subsurface hydrocarbon
accumulations. However, the true fundamental physical
nature of these two elements, m and a, and consequent natural
constraints on their values in this equation, has not been
developed in the same breadth as its application. This paper
will examine these questions on the nature and magnitude of
these two pore structure elements.
Others have noted the difficulty in developing appropriate
values for m and a, and have sought analytical methods that
obviate any assumptions for these two elements. Herrick and
Kennedy (1993 and 1994,) examined formation resistivity
from the standpoint of the efficiency with which electrical
current pathways through a reservoir can be compared to the
efficiency of conductive pathways through a straight, brinefilled tube. They used numerical models to characterize
conduction paths through rock pores and discovered that
current density varies through the pore system, and that pore
throats are the controlling elements in current density
distribution. They propose that this view permits rock pore
conduction paths to be modeled as tubes (Herrick and
Kennedy, 1993, figure 4). Etris et al. (1989) and Ehrlich et al.
(1991) also make use of the tube models for electrical
conduction through a reservoir rock, and build a geometrical
model using pore type families developed through
petrographic image analysis and associated pore throat sizes
developed through mercury porosimetry. In each case, the
investigators are dealing with the effects of complex
heterogeneity of reservoir pore structure on formation
resistivity that Archie initially anticipated in 1942.
Theoretical Derivation
The formation resistivity factor relation, F = a m , has
theoretical derivation in some of the early literature and
textbooks on well log analysis and core analysis. Most all
published derivations start with the fundamental definition of
the formation resistivity factor, F = R o / R w , where Ro is the
resistivity of the porous media 100% saturated with a
conductive fluid and Rw is the resistivity of the conductive
fluid. Each derivation requires a simplified model of the
porous media using geometric shapes of pores, pore throats,
and bulk volume that are easily described in terms of length
and cross-sectional area for the conduction of ions through the
model.

SPE 59699

HISTORICAL USE OF M AND A IN WELL LOG INTERPRETATION: IS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM BACKWARD?

A general derivation similar to Amyx et al. (1960) is

shown here. The definition of resistivity (R) of any material is
rA
R=
L
where:
r = resistance of the material
A = the cross-sectional area perpendicular to ionic flow
L = length of the ionic flow path
Using a cube of salt water, the resistance of the cube could be
defined as rw =Rw L/A, where L and A describe the dimensions
of the cube of water. A cube of porous media of the same
dimensions of the cube of water would have a lesser volume
available for water. The matrix is assumed to be an insulator
as such the portion of the cube that can conduct ionic flow is
only the pore space. Therefore, an apparent cross-sectional
area (A a) and apparent flow path length (La ) are used. The
resistance of the cube is r2 =Rw La/A a. By definition the
resistivity of the cube of core saturated with water is
Ro =r2 A/L. Substituting the last two equations yields:
Ro = Rw La A

A aL

Using this definition of Ro in the F equation results in:

L L
F= a
Aa A
which is the ratio of the apparent flow path to the length of the
cube compared to the ratio of the apparent cross-sectional area
to the cross-sectional area of the cube. The ratio of the lengths
is proportional to tortuosity and is given the symbol a, the
tortuosity factor. The apparent cross-sectional area is assumed
to be equal to the product of the actual area and the porosity of
the porous media (A). Using this definition yields F=a/.
Note that m is not defined. Porosity has no power as such m
can be seen as one.
Other derivations are similar to the Amyx et al. (1960)
derivation and are only discussed conceptually in this paper.
Wyllie and Spangler (1952) used a model with pore and pore
throats with different cross-sectional area, such that A varied
with L. They found F=a/.
Cornell et al. (1953, as presented by Tiab et. al., 1996)
used a single continuous pore with a constant cross-sectional
area that was oriented such that La was greater than L. (Their
diagram shows the flow path at about 45 to the direction L is
measured; however, this exact orientation is not necessary to
repeat their results.) They found F=a/. (Amyx et al., 1960,
show Cornell et al. to find F=a 2 /; the original paper could not
be found by the deadline of this publication.)
Tiab et al. (1996) used a bundle of straight capillary tubes
to represent the porous media that resulted in F=1/ . They
extended this to a case where the tubes are not straight, which
also resulted in F=a/.
Using the porous media model of Wyllie and Spangler
(1952), the statistical method of Wyllie and Gardner (1958)
suggests F=a/2 . This is the only non-laboratory and non-field

publication that suggested that porosity should have an

exponent greater than one.
All of these models result in the general form of F=a/,
where a is found as 1.0 or , the square-root of tortuosity,
. It very important to notice that m is not present in most of
the derivations, or mathematically it is defined as 1.
Applications of the Formation Resistivity Factor
Relationship to Actual Field and Laboratory
Measurements
Primarily, in laboratory or field observations the equation
F = a m gives the best representation of the electrical
properties of porous media. Generally, the accepted practice
(in the absence of core data or a reliable correlation) is to use a
value of a as 0.81 and 1.0 for granular and carbonate
formations, respectively, while a value of 2 is used for m
regardless of the lithology.
Tortuosity Factor, a. Theoretically it is impossible to
have a less than 1.0, and should only approach 1.0 for a nearly
linear ionic flow path through the porous media. (A fracture
plane may be close to this.) Looking at the equation for Ro , a
is equal to La/L. The minimum value of La is L; consequently,
La L such that a 1. Many published data sets show
values of a greater than 1.0. With a theoretical minimum
value of a, a maximum value of a is desired.
Carman (1939, as referenced by Perkins et al., 1963)
shows that the microscopic flow path through a porous media
is approximately at 45 with respect to the direction of the
bulk ionic current through saturated unconsolidated material.
Figure 1 depicts this scenario where the arrows show the
microscopic flow path thorough the porous medium. This
causes the apparent length to be as follows:
L
La =
= 2 L = 1.414L
cos45
Using the previous derivations of formation resistivity factor,
a is 1.414. This calculation is repeated for other angles in
Table 1.
Table 1 suggests that a reasonable maximum of a is 1.4,
while a range of a is 1.0 to 1.4. Higher values are possible,
but reflect a microscopic flow path with a larger component
perpendicular to bulk ionic flow compared to the component
parallel to flow. Larger values of a should be suspected of
error unless a very tortuous path can be inferred from another
source such as thin sections or SEM experiments.
Furthermore, figure 1 assumes linear geometry. In well
logging environments where electrical flow may be radial,
hemispherical or spherical, this range of a may be different.
Cementation exponent, m. The derivations using the
apparent cross-sectional area, Aa, as A, yielded formation
resistivity factor equations showing without an exponent (or
m was equal to 1.0). However, core and well log analysis
shows m>1.0 and conventional usage assumes m=2. Looking
closely at the relation F = a m for the case of m=2,
mathematically 2 is the same as . As an example, if the

ADISOEMARTA, ANDERSON, FRAILEY, AND ASQUITH

porosity is 20% and m is 2, 2 =0.04. Going back to the

apparent cross-sectional area concept, instead of the Aa=0.2A,
A a=0.04A. This poses the question: Why does the electrical
resistivity see an apparent cross sectional area to ionic flow
significantly less than A?
The smallest cross-sectional area to flow should restrict the
bulk flow of ions, which in porous media would be pore
throats. Therefore, the apparent cross-sectional area should be
strongly influenced by the cross-sectional area of the pore
throats (A pt ). The primary component, possibly >90%, of the
is from the pores, not the pore throats. Consequently, using
the product of A to represent the Aa may be too large
depending on the relationship between the Apt and Ap (cross
sectional area of the pores).
A simple resistivity model of a linear sequence of a large
number of pores and pore throats illustrates the apparent crosssectional area to be much closer to the cross-sectional area of
the pore throat. Total resistance of a series of resistors is the
sum of the resistance of each resistor. If each pore and pore
throat are considered a single resistor an equation,
ra=rpt +rp +rpt +rp +rpt ++rptn . If the pores and pore throats are
described with a cross sectional area (A p and Apt ) and length
(Lp and Lpt ,) the resistivity of each can be defined as follows:
R a L a R pt L pt R p L p R pt L pt R p L p R pt L pt R p L p
=
+
+
+
+
+
Aa
A pt
Ap
A pt
Ap
A pt
Ap
... +

R ptn L ptn
A ptn

Making a few assumptions, the relationship between the A a

and Apt can be shown. Because the pore and pore throat
model has the same conductive fluid (e.g. Rw ) in the pores, the
resistivity of the pore and pore throats should be the same such
that all Rs cancel. If the number of pores and pore throats are
approximately the same and set to n, the resistivity
relationship can be simplified to
L pt L p
La
.
= n
+
A pt A p
Aa

Two limiting cases, Ap =A pt and Ap >>>A pt for Lp =Lpt show

that A a=Apt and Aa=1.5A pt . The former case (A a=A pt =A p ) is
important because an ionic flow path of constant Aa is
accurately represented by A which is a m=1. So, m=1 as a
minimum value seems reasonable because of constant crosssectional area not because of a non-tortuous path. In the latter
case (A p >>>A pt ), the A a is closer to Apt than the
mathematically infinitely large A p . This suggests that a larger
contrast in A pt and A p gives a larger value of m.
To study the relation between A a and Apt , other
combinations of Apt and Ap with Lpt and Lp are tabulated as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2 reflects A p =A pt to Ap =A pt for 4Lp =Lpt to Lp =4Lpt .
As expected, the larger values of m occur at large values of Ap

SPE 59699

and Lp compared to A pt and Lpt , respectively. The significance

is that at the extreme case of Ap =A pt , the Aa is much closer
to Apt than a very large (infinite) Ap . This simple model
shows that Aa is much closer to Apt such that A may not
adequately describe A a, except in the case when A a is constant
with L.
Simple Geometric Porous Media Arrangement to
Compare Ap and Apt.
To check the relationship between Aa, Ap and Apt , simple
geometric models of spheres of constant size with different
packing were studied. Figure 2 shows eight grains in contact
with each other in a simple cubic packing arrangement. The
difficulty of studying the pore and pore throats between
arrangements of spheres is defining quantitatively Ap , Apt , Lp
and Lpt . In other words, where does the pore start and the pore
throat end. The maximum area between spheres was assumed
to A p while the minimum area between spheres was assumed
to represent Apt .
For cubic packing of spheres the porosity is 47.6%. For a
cube equal to d3 , each corner of the cube has 1/8 of a spheres
volume in each corner. Because the ionic flow path is linear,
L=La so a=1. The minimum and maximum areas are 0.858r2
and 4r2 , respectively. This corresponds to Ap =4.66A pt . The
product of A is 1.90r2 , such that A a=1.90r2 =0.475A p =2.22A pt .
Looking in the previous table, these area ratios correspond to
Lp 3Lpt . If the Aa/A is calculated using Apt as Aa, the ratio is
0.215, which when set equal to m, m=2.07. The cubic
arrangements of spheres would be expected to have a m=2.
Likewise, using A a as A results in m=1, which the theoretical
derivation and the series of resistors model both predicts.
Another simple model using six spheres and L=La so a=1
has a porosity of 39.5%. The model is defined by 1/12 of each
sphere with a total bulk volume of 3.464r3 . The minimum and
maximum areas are 0.161r2 and 1.73r2 , respectively. This
corresponds to Ap =10.7A pt . The product of A is 0.685r2 ,
such that A a=0.685r2 =0.396A p =4.25A pt . If the A a/A is
calculated using A pt as Aa the ratio is 0.0931, which when set
equal to m, m=2.56. This shows m increasing with larger
disparity between A pt and Ap .
These examples provide two cases when a=1, and shows
variation of m. The larger difference between A pt and Ap gave
greater values of m. The cementation exponent is dependent
on changes in A a not tortuosity and Aa is closer to the value of
A pt not A. This is somewhat consistent with conventional
use of m. A greater degree of cementation would cause
smaller pore throats relatively to pores; however, there are
many formal and informal inferences to relationship between
m and tortuosity. This inference is primarily due to the
association of m=1 corresponding to a fracture which has little
tortuosity. It is not the lack of tortuosity that causes m=1, it is
the constant cross-sectional area of the fracture.
Schwartz and Kimminau (1987) indirectly observed this in
their grain growth study.

SPE 59699

HISTORICAL USE OF M AND A IN WELL LOG INTERPRETATION: IS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM BACKWARD?

Graphical Relationship Between m and a

From a graphical perspective of a plot of log y vs. log for a
given data set, a line with a larger slope through the data has a
smaller y-intercept. Likewise, a relatively lower slope through
the data, has a larger y-intercept. Consequently, through
graphical interpretation of core or well log data, the tortuosity
factor, (a) and the cementation exponent (m) are inter-related,
as when a is increasing, m has to be of a lesser value so that
the formation factor F can still pass through the data points.
Graphically this interrelation is shown in Figure 3. In other
words, for a given data set, as a slope (m) is selected, the yintercept (a) is set. This is not a theoretical relationship, but a
direct consequence of fixing the intercept of a = 1 compared to
allowing a to change based on the measured data.
The effect of these two methods on the water saturation
(Sw ) via Archies water saturation equation is demonstrated in
the next section.
Calculated Sw Sensitivity to Variable and Fixed a
Values
The effect of fixed a at 1.0, as opposed to allowing it to vary
freely with m, on calculated water saturation values is
illustrated by the results listed in Table 3. The calculations
behind these results were completed using a and m values
determined from formation resistivity factor plots published
by Archie (1942, 1950, 1952) and Winsauer et al. (1952). In
addition, a series of synthetic formation samples were
constructed with values of a ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 and m
ranging from 1.0 to 3.0. The results show the deviation in
values for calculated water saturation using either fixed a =
1.0 or variable a values.
For both the published and synthetic data sets, values of
Sw = 0.25 and Sw = 0.75 were applied to the variable a case.
A value for Rt /Rw was determined and this value then applied
to the m, a pair in which the value of a is fixed at 1.0.
Examination of Table 3 indicates that for the synthetic data
set, calculated water saturation values with a = 1.0 vary
between 10% low to 10% high compared to the values
developed from the variable a case. For the published data
sets, the deviation ranges from 4% low to 30 % high.
A high recalculated Sw means that fixing a to one made the
calculation too pessimistic, as it would show less oil in-place
than it should be and in some cases would leave the formation
unproduced.
Conclusions
Using values of m and a directly from core or well log
analysis is very important compared to using traditional values
based on specific geographic regions, especially when
considering that the traditional values may be physically
impossible based on theoretical concepts. The specific
conclusions are as follows:
1. The value of a has a theoretical minimum value of 1 and
a reasonable maximum of 1.4.

2. The value of m has a theoretical minimum value of 1

and goes up as the contrast in cross sectional area of pore and
pore throat increases.
3. Cementation factor m of a fracture reservoir is 1 due to
the lack of changes in cross-sectional area along the fracture
length, not the lack of a tortuous path.
4. Letting the tortuosity factor, a equal to one can be
detrimental to the oil in place calculation.
5. The deviation in recalculated water saturation by setting
tortuosity factor a to unity is between 5% less to 30% more
than the actual assumed water saturation.
Nomenclature
F = formation resistivity factor
m = cementation factor
a = tortuosity factor
= tortuosity
= porosity
r = resistance of the material
L = length
A = area
Aa = apparent cross-section area
Ap = cross-section area of a pore
Apt = cross-section area of a pore throat
d = grain diameter
Ro = formation resistivity when 100% saturated with water
of resistivity Rw , .m
Rw = water resistivity, .m
= angle between fluid path and the bulk fluid direction,
degrees
La = apparent length
Lp = pore length
Lpt = pore-throat length
References
Amyx, J.W., Bass, Jr., D.M., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York (1960).
Archie, G.E.: The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in
Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics, Trans., AIME,
(1942) 146.d
Asquith, G. B.,: Handbook of log evaluation techniques for carbonate
reservoirs: Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists, Method in
Exploration Series (1984), No. 5, 47 p.
Bassiouni, Z.: Theory, Measurement, and Interpretation of Well
Logs, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (1994) 4.
Carman, P.C.: Permeability of Saturated Sands, Soils and Clays, J.
Agri. Sci. (1939) 20, 262.
Carothers, J.E.: A Statistical Study of the Formation Factor
Relation, the Log Analyst, Sept-Oct 1968, p.13-20.
Cornell, D. and Katz, D.L.: Flow of Gases Through Consolidated
Porous Media, Ind. Engr. Chem., (1953) 45.
Ehrlich, R., Etris, E.L., Brumfield, D., Yuan, L.P., and Crabtree, S.J.:
Petrography and Reservoir Physics III: Physical Models for
Permeability and Formation Factor, AAPG, 75, no. 10, October
1991, pp. 1579 1592.
Etris, E.L., Brumfield, D.S., Ehrlich, R., and Crabtree, S. J.:
Petrographic Insights into the Relevance of Archies Equation:
Formation Factor Without m and a, SPWLA thirtieth
Annual Logging Symposium, June 11 14, 1989.

ADISOEMARTA, ANDERSON, FRAILEY, AND ASQUITH

Focke, J. W. and D. Munn: Cementation Exponents in Middle

Eastern Carbonate Reservoirs, SPE Formation Evaluation
(1987) 2, no. 2, p. 155-167.
Gomez-Rivero, O.: A Practical Method for Determining
Cementation Exponents and Some Other Parameters as an Aid
in Well Log Analysis, the Log Analyst, Sept-Oct 1976, p. 8-24.
Herrick, D.C., and Kennedy, W.D.: Electrical Efficiency: A Pore
Geometric Model for the Electrical Properties of Rocks,
SPWLA/CWLS Symposium, Paper HH, Calgary, 1993.
Herrick, D.C., and Kennedy, W.D.: Electrical Efficiency: A Pore
Geometric Theory for Interpreting the Electrical Properties of
Reservoir Rocks, Geophysics, 59, no. 6, June 1994, pp. 918
927.
Hilchie, D.W.: Advanced Well Log Interpretation, D.W. Hilchie,
Inc., Golden, Colorado, 1982
Lucia, F. J.: Geological and engineering aspects of the San Andres
reservoirs in the Lawyer Canyon, Algerita Escarpment outcrop
and Seminole, Subsurface Field,: final report prepared by
Reservoir Characterization Research Laboratory, The University
of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, (1991) p.
117-174.
Nugent, W. M., Letters to the editor: the Log Analyst, Soc. of
Professional Well Log Analysts, (1984) 25, p. 2-3.
Nurmi, R.D.: Carbonate pore systems: porosity/permeability
relationships and geological analysis [abstract], Am. Assoc. of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin (1984) 68, no. 4, p. 513-514.
Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C.: A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media, SPEJ (March 1963) 70-81;
Trans., AIME, 228.
Porter, C.R. and Carothers, J.E.: Formation Factor-Porosity Relation
Derived from Well Log Data, SPWLA Eleventh Annual
Logging Symposium, May 3-6, 1970.
Schlumberger Log Interpretation Chart Book, 1994.
Schwartz, L.M., and Kimminau, S.: Analysis of Electrical
Conduction in the Grain Consolidation Model, Geophysics 52,
p. 1402-1411.
Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C.: Petrophysics: Theory, and Practice
of Measuring Reservoir Rock and Fluid Transport Properties,
Gulf Publishing, Houston (1996).
Yang, F. P. and Lucia, F. J.: Comparison of empirical models for
calculating the vuggy porosity and cementation exponent of
carbonates from log responses, The University of Texas at
Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular
(1993) 93-4, 27 p.
Winsauer, W.O., Shearin, H.M., Masson P.H., and Williams, M.,
Resistivity of Brine-Saturated Sands in Relation to Pore
Geometry, AAPG Bull. (February 1952), 36, p. 253-277.
Wyllie, M.R.J., and Gardner, G.H.F.: The Generalized KozeyCarman Equation, World Oil (March and April 1958).
Wyllie, M.R.J., and Spangler, M.B.: Application of Electrical
Resistivity Measurements to Problem of Fluid Flow in Porous
Media, Bull. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geologists (February 1952) p.
359.

SPE 59699

SPE 59699

HISTORICAL USE OF M AND A IN WELL LOG INTERPRETATION: IS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM BACKWARD?

TABLE 1. VALUES OF a AS A FUNCTION OF AVERAGE

PATH DIRECTION.
Angle,
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
,
a

1.035

1.155

1.414

2.000

3.864

TABLE 2. VALUES OF m AS A FUNCTION OF Ap / Apt

AND Lp / Lpt
Values of
Values of Lp / Lpt
A p / Apt

0.25

0.5

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.11

1.20

1.33

1.50

1.67

1.18

1.33

1.60

2.00

2.50

1.21

1.41

1.78

2.40

3.33

16

1.23

1.45

1.89

2.67

4.00

32

1.24

1.48

1.94

2.82

4.44

1.25

1.50

2.00

3.00

5.00

Fig 2. Sketch of Cubic Packing (after Schwartz and Kimminau,

1987).

TABLE 3. DEVIATION IN RECALCULATED WATER

SATURATION DUE TO SETTING a TO ONE
Source
Sw , fraction
Deviation,
Assumed
Recalculated
percent
Synthetic
High (0.75)
0.68 0.82
(+/-) 9.5%
Low (0.25)
0.225 0.275 (+/-) 10%
Archie & High (0.75)
0.71 - 0.96
(-5%) (+30%)
Winsauer Low (0.25)
0.24 0.32
(-4%) (+28%)

Fig. 3 The Inter-Relation of m and a, overlaid on Carothers Data

(Carothers, 1968).

Fig. 1 Sketch of Fluid Movement in a Porous Medium. Fluid is

Generally Flowing at About 450 With Respect to the Average
Direction of Flow (after Carman, 1939).