Handbook of Log Evaluation Techniques

For Carbonate Reservoirs

By
George B. Asquith
Pioneer Production Corporation

Methods in Exploration Series No.5

Published By:
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
Published by
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, USA

CopYright © 1985 by
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists
All Rights Reserved

Published March 1985

ISBN: 0-89181-655-0

ForAAPG:
Editor: Richard Steinmetz
Science Director: E. A. Beaumont
Project Editor: R. L. Hart
 This handbook is designed for explorationists who work in the real world and who, therefore, aren't always
lucky enough to have textbook-tyPe evaluation problems in their everyday work, especially when working in
carbonate reservoirs. This book is largely devoted to explaining and then illustrating a variety of techniques
which can be brought to bear on carbonate-related problems. I hope you find this book useful, but that you apply
these techniques with caution. They may not work every time.

George B. Asquith
Pioneer Production Corporation
Amarillo, Texas
March, 1985
 Wherever the dagger symbol t appears next to a log abbreviation, it signifies a specific log package that car-
ries the mark of Schlumberger. Hereafter all references to this mark in the text will be understood by the reader
as such.
1. Introduction 1
General 1
Resistivity Variations as a Function of Pore Geometry and Hydrocarbons 1

2. Determination of Cementation Exponent (m) 7

Case Study 1: Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef, Scurry County, Texas 7

3. Use of Bulk Volume Water 13

Case Study 2: Ordovician Red River Formation, Williston Basin, North Dakota 13
Case Study 3: Devonian Zama Reef, Alberta, Canada 18

4. Production Ratio Index 19

Case Study 4: Lower Permian Council Grove B-zone, Ochiltree County, Texas 19

5. Combining Water Saturation! Ratio Method, Moveable Hydrocarbon Index,

Bulk Volume Water, and Archie Water Saturation 22
Case Study 5: Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City Formation, Northwest Shelf, Anadarko Basin .. 22

6. Use of Single Textural Parameter, W; for Solving Microporosity 29

Case Study 6: Jurassic Smackover Oolite, Gulf Coast 29

7. Use of Dielectric Constant Logs· 37

Case Study 7: Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone, Northwestern Kansas 37

Appendix 46
Review of Essential Logging Terms 46
 Will a reservoir produce hydrocarbons? This is a
particularly troublesome question in carbonates
because, frequently, the answer is anything but
straightforward.
Despite the best geology put together from
carefully crafted depositional and seismic models,
only after a well is drilled into a carbonate reservoir,
can a geologist decide whether or not the well will
give up commercial quantities of hydrocarbons or,
indeed, any hydrocarbons at all. Besides information
from surrounding wells, data from drill stem tests,
cores, cuttings, and open-hole logs ensure the best
basis for making a decision about a well's
productivity; unfortunately, drill stem tests or core
data are not always available so the geologist is
forced to fall back on open-hole logs for most of his or
her information.
Because of unique pore characteristics in carbonate
rocks and their affect on resistivity logs, geologists
can easily make some incorrect judgements. They
sometimes decide a well is productive when it's not,
or they sometimes overlook a good well.
Problems occur because carbonate reservoirs can
have several types of porosity which include
intergranular, intercrystalline, vuggy, moldic, and
fracture. In addition to these different types of
porosity, the pore size may be large (megaporosity) or
very small (microporosity). The different pore types
and sizes result from both depositional and
diagenetic processes.
If a carbonate reservoir contains only intergranular
or intercrystalline porosity, accurate water
saturations (Sw)can be calculated from the standard
Archie equation (Sw = .JlIql x Rw/Rt). But, in
carbonates with moldic or vuggy porosity, water
saturations calculated by the standard Archie
equation often appear too low because of the more
complex pore geometry. The reverse is true when
microporosity or fracture porosity is present; then,
calculated water saturations will appear too high.
This happens if, as is found with microporosity, there
is a high bound-water content or, if, as is found with
fracture porosity, there is a less complex pore
geometry than in intergranular and intercrystalline
porosities.
Regardless of which factors distort the data, a
geologist is faced with a difficult log evaluation
problem if a reservoir contains carbonates having
varying pore types and sizes. Fortunately, by using a
multiple technique approach encompassing some
newly developed strategies, the geologist can
minimize judgement errors. Also, by a judicious
application of these techniques to logs from
abandoned wells, new exploration opportunities may
be revealed. Since the possibilities for mistakes are
greatly enhanced in carbonate reservoirs, we can
conclude that many of the older hydrocarbon
provinces with limestones or dolomites may, in fact,
contain some excellent opportunities for discoveries
in previously drilled zones.
The following discussion is designed to help the
explorationist avoid costly mistakes and to suggest
techniques which can be used to evaluate potential
carbonate reservoirs. It begins by reviewing how
resistivity measurements are affected by both pore
geometry and the presence of hydrocarbons. Then,
seven case studies from different ages and areas are
used to illustrate the various methods which help a
geologist determine a well's productive potenti.al.
These methods include: (1) modification of
cementation exponent m; (2) calculation of moveable
hydrocarbon index (Sw/Sxo);(3) calculation of water
saturation by the Ratio Method; (4) determination of
bulk volume water (Sw x 4»; (5) determination of
Production Ratio Index (PRI); (6) use of the single
textural parameter, W, in the Archie water saturation
equation; and (7) dielectric constant logs.
One word of caution: an important requirement for
using any of the methods presented here is that the
geologist should first have a solid knowledge about
the rocks being analyzed. This means, whenever
possible, combining information about an area with
data obtained from cuttings or core examination. We
will emphasize repeatedly that application of these
techniques depends upon the available log suite and
the type of porosity in a reservoir; the case studies
are designed to provide some helpful application
guidelines.
Resistivity Variations as a Function of Pore
Geometry and Hydrocarbons
In this section, we discuss how resistivity (and its
inverse, conductivity) is influenced by the presence of
hydrocarbons, and how resistivity plays an integral
role in determining water saturation. First of all, the
reader is reminded that resistivity logs are electric
logs whose primary use is in helping determine
hydrocarbon- versus water-bearing zones. (For a
review of how resistivity logs are used to determine
hydrocarbon- versus water-bearing zones, see
Asquith, 1982.) Resistivity varies with the presence
of hydrocarbons and with changes in the pore
geometry Ofa reservoir. Although resistivity is also
 ": : : :':: : ~~
:: " ::::: : : : : :: ':;;:":::'::'; : :::::: ::::::

--. ..•. . .......•......•...........•...••..•...•••.....•..•••••

·.I·•••••••••
········.·•·.···
·.·..••.·.·.·
::: : :::::: ::;: :::;;:: :::::-.•

.. ::::::'.: :::::: :::::: :: ::::: :::::: ::: ::::::::::::::

c. Sw=1.0
Figure 1. Schematic showing three different types of porosity in water-bearing (where Sw = 1.0) carbonate reservoirs,
and the paths taken by an electric current flowing through these reservoirs.
This figure is designed to illustrate how pore geometry affects the flow of an electric current through the rock, and
how the cementation exponent (m) varies with changes in pore geometry.
The following examples show how changes in the pore geometry and the cementation exponent (m) affect the conduc-
tivity (~) and resistivity (~) measured by the electric log.
Legend: Stippled area depicts rock matrix; white area depicts water.
Given: Conductivity of formation water (Ce) = 25 mho/meter; porosity (¢) is 0.10 (or 10%).
Figure 1A: Example of plane fracture porosity (where Sw = 1.0); cementation exponent (m) = 1.0.
~ = ¢mCf
Cb = 0.101 X 25
Cb = 2.5 mho/meter
Rt = 0.4 ohm-meter (~ = true formation resistivity, or the reciprocal of Cb such that Rt = 1/Cb)
Figure 1B: Example of intergranular or intercrystalline porosity (where Sw = 1.0); cementation exponent (m) = 2.0.
~ = ¢mCf
~ = 0.102 X 25
~ = 0.25 mho/meter
Rt = 4.0 ohm-meters
Figure 1C: Example of vuggy porosity (where Sw = 1.0); cementation exponent (m) = 4.0.
~ =¢mCf
Cb = 0.104 X 25
Cb = 0.0025 mho/meter
Rt= 400 ohm-meters
Note: ohm-meter and mho/meter are defined in the appendix.
·affected by-the salinity of formation water (Rw)'we
assume for the purposes of this discussion that
salinity remains constant.
How resistivity responds to both hydrocarbon
saturation and pore geometry is illustrated in the
following equations:
1 reservoir water saturation is 100 percent (Sw = 1.0),
C=-
R
Equation 1 demonstrates that conductivity is the
reciprocal of resistivity.
Assuming that no hydrocarbons are present and
reservoir water saturation is 100 percent (Sw = 1.0),
then:
Equation 2 demonstrates that the bulk
conductivity (Cb) of the rock, measured by the electric
log, is equal to 1.0 minus the porosity (1'/», times the
conductivity of the rock's matrix (Cm, which is
limestone or dolomite in carbonates), plus porosity (1'/»
times the conductivity of the water in the pores (Ct,
formation water). Because the rock's matrix is a
non-conductor of electricity, conductivity of the
rock's matrix (Cm) equals zero (Cm = 0), and Equation
2 reduces to Equation 3.
Assuming that no hydrocarbons are present and
reservoir water saturation is 100 percent (Sw = 1.0),
then:
The bulk conductivity (Cb) of the rock is equal to
the porosity (1'/» times the conductivity of the water in
the pores (Cf). Equation 3 is only valid when plane
fractures are present (Aguilera, 1980; and Ransom,
1984).
With a more complex pore geometry than plane
fractures, the equation is modified by the addition of
a cementation exponent (m). Figure 1 illustrates three
wet (Sw = 1.0) reservoirs with (A) plane fracture
porosity, (B) intergranular porosity, and (C) vuggy
porosity. You can see that, as the path of electrical
flow becomes more skewed and the reservoir is said
to have greater tortuosity, then the value of m
chan~s. With greater tortuosity, the cementation
exponent (m) increases and the measured bulk
conductivity (Cb) decreases. Because the resistivity is
a reciprocal of conductivity, an increase occurs in •
resistivity. For most carbonate reservoirs the ~
following relationship is valid:
Assuming that no hydrocarbons are present and
then:
The bulk conductivity (Cb) is equal to porosity (1'/» to
the m power times the conductivity of the water in
the pores (Cf). Equation 4, with an m value of greater
than 1.0, is applicable to most carbonate reservoirs
whose pore geometry is normally more complex than
plane fractures.
Figure 2 shows a reservoir with intergranular
porosity that is filled with water and hydrocarbons,
and therefore has a water saturation of less than 100
percent (Sw < 1.0). Because hydrocarbons, like the
rock matrix, are non-conductors, electricity is forced
to flow around both the grains and hydrocarbons
creating increased tortuosity.
When hydrocarbons are present, the equation for •
bulk conductivity (~) is: •
Assuming a reservoir with both hydrocarbons and
water (Sw < 1.0), then:
Bulk conductivity (Cb) is equal to porosity (1'/» to the
m power times conductivity of the water in the pores
(Cf), times the water saturation (Sw)of the pores to the
n power. The n exponent is called the saturation
exponent. Although this exponent is derived from
laboratory core data and varies from 1.8 to 2.5, log
analysts mostly use an n value of 2.0. We see in
Equation 5 that as the water saturation (Sw)
decreases (indicating more hydrocarbons), the
conductivity also decreases, and resistivity increases.
This occurs as the flow path becomes more tortuous
(Figure 2).
Study of Figures 1 and 2 and Equations 4 and 5
helps us understand that conductivity can be lowered
and resistivity increased, not only when the value for
m is increased, but also when there is a decrease in
water saturation (Sw)'
A major problem confronting geologists working
with carbonates is determining which factor is
affecting the conductivity/resistivity values, either m
 Sw < 1.0

Figure 2. Diagram of a hydrocarbon-bearing (where Sw < 1.0) carbonate reservoir with intergranular porosity.
This figure shows how the presence of hydrocarbons affects the flow of an electric current. Hydrocarbons, like the
rock matrix, are non-eonductive and divert the electric current flow so that it flows entirely through the formation's
connate water and around the matrix and hydrocarbons.
The following two examples show how changes in water saturation (Sw)can affect the conductivity (Cb) and resistivity
(Rt) measurements.
Legend: Stippled area depicts rock matrix, black area depicts hydrocarbons; and white area depicts water.
Given: Conductivity of formation water (Cf = 25 mho/meter; porosity (et» = 0.10 (or 10%); cementation exponent (m)
= 2.0; and saturation exponent (n) = 2.0.
Example A: Find resistivity (Rt), given water saturation where (Sw)equals 0.50 (50%).
~ = et>mef X Sw D

~ = (0.102 X 25) X 0.502

Cb = 0.0625 mho/meter
Rt = 16 ohm-meters
Example B: Find resistivity (~), given water saturation where (Sw)equals 0.10 (10%).
~ = et>mCf x Sw D

~ = (0.102 X 25) X 0.102

~ = 0.0025 mho/meter
Rt = 400 ohm-meters
ot'Sw.Becausewithout this knowledge, it is difficult
to tell whether the reservoir has hydrocarbons or,
because of a complex pore geometry, is water~bearing.
When Equation 5 is rewritten in terms of
resistivity, all terms are inverted since resistivity is a
reciprocal of conductivity, and the following occurs:
Where:
Rt = true formation resistivity (uninvaded
zone);
= tortuosity factor (a = 1.0 in carbonate
reservoirs). See Footnote 1, below;
= porosity; . textural parameter W. And some methods are based
= cementation exponent (usu~y 2.0 m
intergranular or intercrystalline
porosity but varies with other porosity
types);
= formation water resistivity;
= water saturation (uninvaded zone); and
= saturation exponent (n varies from 1.8
to 2.5; normally 2.0 is used).
When Equation 6 is solved for water saturation (Sw)'
it yields the Archie (1942) water saturation equation
which is:
Equations 1 through 7 illustrate how resistivity
measurements are affected by changes in pore
geometry as well as by hydrocarbon saturation
(where Sh = 1.0 - Sw).Furthermore, changes in
resistivity are related to the percentage of water in
the pores by the Archie water saturation equation
(Equation 7). If a geologist uses the wrong
cementation exponent (m) value, the Archie
calculated water saturation (Sw)value is invalid.
When a reservoir contains intergranular or
intercrystalline porosity, water saturations calculated
using Archie's formula are reliable. However, in the
presence of different porosity types, other evaluation
methods need to be used. Some involve adjusting the
standard Archie equation by modification of the
cementation exponent (m), and by use of the single
upon calculating log-derived parameters such as
determination of bulk volume water, calculation of
Moveable Hydrocarbon Index, calculation of water
saturation by the Ratio Method, and determination
of a Production Ratio Index (PRI). Finally, a new tool
called the dielectric log can sometimes assist us with
evaluating less than straightforward carbonate
reservoirs:
The next step in our discussion is to examine the
different methods through a case study approach. We 4
can then better understand when and where to apply
them and can establish some procedures for their
implementation.
1Although a is related to tortuosity; it is not the same as m.
2The quantity aI</Jm
is called the formation factor (F).
Case Study I-Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef,
Scurry County; Texas
Elliott (1983) reports an interesting case history of
a vuggy Canyon Reef zone in Scurry County, Texas.
The resistivity and density logs from this zone are
illustrated in Figure 3. Log analysis, shown on the
bottom of Figure 3, indicates water saturations of 22
percent and porosity of 24 percent.
Although the logging company rated the zone as
possible oil or gas (Elliott, 1983), when the operator
asked for another opinion, a second log analyst
concluded that the zone was wet (i.e., water-bearing).
Despite the differing opinions of the log analysts,
casing was run and the zone perforated. Upon
production testing, only water was recovered,
proving the second judgement correct.
The problem with the well's Canyon Reef zone is its
complex pore geometry resulting from vuggy
porosity. If no changes are made in the cementation
exponent (m) value and the standard 2.0 value for
intergranular and intercrystalline porosity is used,
the calculated water saturation is 22 percent (Figures
3 and 4), and the zone appears productive. This is
undoubtedly the mistake made by the first log
analyst. The vuggy porosity, known to occur in the
Canyon Reef zone, is a "flag" that cementation
exponent (m) values will be greater than 2.0.
By using a Pickett (1972) crossplot and applying
the technique to this example, a correct m value can
be determined. A Pickett crossplot is based upon the
observation that true resistivity (Rt) is a function of
porosity (<1», water saturation (Sw),and cementation
exponent (m). It is constructed by plotting porosity
(<1» values with deep resistivity (R1Ld or RLLd) values
on two-by-three cycle log-log paper. On the plot, a
zone with constant Rw,m, and Swequal to 100
percent will have data points plotted along a single,
straight-line trend. This straight-line trend
represents the Ro (wet resistivity) line (see Footnote
3, below), and its slope is equal to m, the cementation
exponent (Asquith, 1982). The wet resistivity Ro line
is always drawn through the most southwesterly
data points (Figure 4), because these points are the
least likely to contain any hydrocarbons.
Figure 4 is a Pickett resistivity/porosity crossplot
based on the logs from Figure 3. The slope of the Ro
line is 3.7 and is equal to the cementation exponent
(m). Note on Figure 4 that the calculated water
saturation, using an m value of 3.7, is 74 percent
indicating a wet zone. The higher water saturation is
verified by the well's production test which recovered
water.
We have applied the Pickett technique here after the
fact, since production testing had already confirmed
a water-bearing zone. However, in the initial
evaluation of the Scurry County, Canyon Reef well, if
other, nearby wells had been drilled into the same
formation, and had these wells recovered nothing but
water, then an Ro line and m value could have been
established for comparison. This underscores the
point that, in order to use the Pickett crossplot to
determine m in a zone of interest, you must first
determine m from the same formation in nearby wells
where you know the zone is wet, and then use that
value of m in the well you are evaluating. In other
words, although Pickett crossplots are one of the
most accurate and useful techniques for evaluating
complex carbonates, they are not a panacea and can
be used only with the proper data Unfortunately, this
limits their application since a large range of porosity
values in water zones is required to properly define
the slope of the Ro line (Figure 4), and, in many areas,
a large range of porosity values from a particular
water zone is simply unavailable.
An alternate method which could have been used
for finding the correct m value in the Scurry County,
Canyon Reef well involves using both a neutron
and/or density log for total porosity (<I>t)
measurements, and a sonic log for measuring matrix
porosity (<1>.). Too bad the Canyon Reef well didn't
have a sonic log! This is a timely reminder that sonic
logs often playa very important role in evaluating
carbonate reservoirs and should be included in a
company's logging program.
With a logging suite containing a neutron and/or
density log and a sonic log, the sonic porosity (<1>.) and
total porosity (<I>t) can be used in the following
formula to calculate a value for m:
2(log <1>.)
m~---
log<l>t
The author has found that the Nugent (1984)
formula works well in carbonates with vuggy and
fossilmoldic porosity, but gives too Iowa value for m
3Ro = wet resistivity or resistivity of the reservoir when Sw = 1.0
(100%).
 •••••• lU _'Il'll'BL .~._
1':0", "2;0' .v~.~o~.~~~~~
i", '2;0
____ RU04L __ .1. _ _ ..P~~J.i__ J .
·i·i·i.i ·····..···JJ.~..Ul~MI
-17,., II." . .r, .,~,.
.._.•~
.•.... _......•••• ~.:\
"....
.. 1
, .•••
'-'II.1.1J1I._ L
,r.••• , \
_
..,... -I.U
•• 'ow 11".:. 16 •••
'M"O,.?,') .......
.:-.::#~,.-
~~ .. - _ ..

.-
3=· .-
~ ;s=_ .. -..
=-
.-,
-,
--4

']' ::~~.
'--

:.-:-~
-'--

j~~': .: .=.: . .:
~
--"'lo::a.....,,- - ---
.-

- ~
.._===
::..:.... ::s=:=

...•... -
:'"1-

~ ~ ~l~'-~

III
~I : w !ri-Iw~! -
~-+=ri T~~~~_~I_L_
Determined by logging engineer
from chart using Humble Formula
Figure 3. Dual Induction-SFL t log (left) and density log (right) from Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef, Scurry County,
Texas (after: Elliott, 1983).
Arrow at bottom of chart points to water saturation value of 22 percent determined by the logging engineer from a
chart using the Humble Formula
 1.00

.80

.60

.40
Ro
1 in.
.20

00 3.7 in.
.10 Rw"'O.045 M=3.7
Rt-16
.08
0=24%
.06
M=2.0 M"'3.7
2
F=1/0 F-1/03.7
.04
F-17.36 F-196.4
SW-22% Sw-74%
PENNSYLVANIAN
.02 CANYON REEF
NOTE: Sw=v'F x =~ SCURRY CO., TEXAS
lI"
0.1 0.5 1.0 5
RILO
Figure 4. Pickett crossplot of deep resistivity (R1LD) versus density porosity (4)d) from Pennsylvanian Canyon Reef,
Scurry County, Texas.
The slope of the Ro (wet resistivity; where Sw = 1.0) line gives a value for cementation exponent (m) of 3.7. In the lower
left-hand comer are water saturation calculations using m values of 2.0 (as in intergranular porosity) and 3.7 (as in
vuggy porosity).
Note. An m of 3.7 results in a much higher water saturation, indicating the zone is wet. This is the correct interpreta-
tion.
'in oo'Dloldiccarbonates. The reason the Nugent
formula does not work well in oomoldic reservoirs
happens because the sonic porosity is not a function
of matrix porosity but, instead, is a function of the
very tortuous path traveled around the oomolds by
the compressional sound wave.
When oomoldic porosity is present, Nurmi (1984)
has found that the percentage of vuggy and matrix
porosity can be determined by:
Where:
et>. = percent sonic porosity;
et>t = percent total porosity from neutron
and/or density logs; and
= percent vuggy porosity.
If the values for total porosity (et>t) and matrix
porosity (et>m) are put into the Nugent (1984) equation,
then:
2(loget>m)
m~---
loget>t
By using this formula, we can determine a more
,accurate value for the cementation exponent in
,oomoldic reservoirs. The author has tried this
technique in several Permo-Pennsylvanian oomoldic
carbonates where m has been determined by a
Pickett crossplot. The results show good agreement.
If this relationship holds true elsewhere, then an
added benefit of Nugent's (1984) formula is that it
can also be used to verify the accuracy of Pickett
crossplot determined values for the cementation
exponent (m). .
Finding the correct value for mis, however'c0nly
one method for evaluating carbonates. And, as you
can see, the geologist is frequently limited by .
inadequatedata~ Obviously; other ~pproaches need to
be brought to bear on the carbonate problem. These
will be presented in subsequentcas~ studies.

et>m = percent
matrix porqsity;
et>t = percent
total porosity from neutron
and/or density logs; and
= percent vuggy porosity
et>VUg
Case Study II -Ordovician Red River
Formation, Williston Basin, North Dakota

The bulk volume of water (BVW) in a reservoir is (BWPD), or 96 percent oil. The middle crossplot in
simply the product of the water saturation (Sw)times Figure 5 has some data points plotting non-parallel to
the porosity (<1», or stated mathematically: BVW = the hyperbolic line, indicating a well not at irreducible
Sw x <1>. It is often one of the most important water saturation. This well initially flowed 212 BO +
parameters that we can use to evaluate a carbonate 100 BWPD or 68 percent oil. The last, and
reservoir's potential. This is true because bulk structurally lowest well in the series of crossplots,
volume water indicates whether or not a reservoir is exhibits data scattering up and down from the
at irreducible water saturation (Swirr)'Remember that hyperbolic lines, indicating a wet reservoir. And,
at irreducible water saturation, a reservoir produces indeed, the last well produced no oil and only water,
water-free hydrocarbons because all the formation's for 100 percent water completion.
water is held through surface tension or capillary Table 1 is a list of bulk volume water values as a
pressure by the grains. function of grain size and the type of carbonate
A reservoir at irreducible water saturation (Swirr) porosity, assuming the reservoirs are at or near
exhibits bulk volume water values that are constant irreducible water saturation (Swirr)'This is an
throughout (Dewan, 1983). This means that when extremely useful table because, by comparing bulk
BVW is calculated at different points through an volume water values for a given rock type and grain
interval, the values should be the same or very close size (note: grain size affects pore size), we can tell if a
to the same for an essentially water-free completion. reservoir should be at or near irreducible water'
Besides mathematically determining BVW, it can saturation. An examination of Table 1 shows us that
also be determined by crossplotting. Selection of the for any type of carbonate, a 0.04 value is a critical
technique used is a matter of personal preference. cut-off level. Carbonates with higher bulk volume
When you are constructing acrossplot, porosity (<I» water values are either wet or have very low
and water saturation (Sw'calculated by standard or permeabilities. Also in Table 1, we can see that the
modified Archie equation) are crossplotted on a bulk presence of vuggy porosity requires very low values
volume water chart. The bulk volume water chart has of bulk volume water in order to be at irreducible
hyperbolic lines representing lines of constant BVW water saturation. An explanation for this is vuggy
values. (BVW charts with hyperbolic lines already porosity holds little water by surface tension and
printed on them are available form different logging capillary pressure.
companies.) Data should crossplot on or parallel to
one of the hyperbolic lines when a zone is at or near
irreducible water saturation, and completion should Table 1. Bulk Volume Water at Irreducible Water Saturation
be mostly water-free. If the data points exhibit as a Function of Grain Size (Pore Size) and Type of Carbon-
ate Porosity (modified after Asquith, 1982).
scatter from the lines, then the reservoir is not at
irreducible water saturation and will produce water, Bulk Volume Water (BVW)
possibly with some hydrocarbons.
coarse 1.0toO.5mm 0.02 to 0.025
An example of how bulk volume water works is medium 0.5 to 0.25 mm 0.025 to 0.035
provided by a series of bulk volume water crossplots fine 0.25 to 0.125 mm 0.035 to 0.05
very fine 0.125 to 0.0625 mm 0.05 toO.07
(Figure 5) from the Ordovician Red River B-zone in silt < 0.0625mm 0.07 toO.09
Beaver Creek field, Golden Valley County, North
Dakota (Jaafar, 1980). The lithology of the field's
B-zone reservoir is a dolomite with very fine-grained, Bulk Volume Water (BVW)
intercrystalline (sucrosic) porosity. Three wells are
illustrated by the crossplots in Figure 5, and are from Vuggy 0.005 to 0.015
Vuggy & Intercrystalline 0.015 to 0.025
high to progressively lower structural positions from (intergranular)
the top cross plot to the bottom one. Note in the top Intercrystalline
crossplot (i.e., from the structurally highest well), (intergranular)
Chalky
how the points plot almost parallel to the 0.04
hyperbolic line, indicating a reservoir at or near
irreducible water saturation (Swirr)'The well,
represented in the top crossplot, initially flowed 292
barrels of oil (BO) plus 13 barrels of water per day
 .70

.60
IPF' 292 BO l' 13BWPO
96 % Oil
,
.50

~
~ .40

~• .30
.10 ""--.
.12

.08~

.20 .06~
.04 ____

.10 .02--.!:!..W. ~. S.

0
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40
POROSITY • ~
.70
IPF· 212 B01' 100 BWPO
68% Oil
.60

.50

~
~
~•
.40

.30
.12
.10 ""--.
.J
----
.08~

.06 ~ ~
.20 .04 ____
~

.10 .02--.!!.:!..W. ~. S•
.01_
.005
0
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40
POROSITY • 13

.70
IP· WATER OaA
.60 O%Oll

.50

~
~ .40

""--.
.12
••
CII
.30
./0

----
.08~

.06 ~
.20 .04 ____

.10 .02~W.;.S •
.01_
.005
0
0 .05 .10 .15 .20
POROSITY.
.25
13
.30 .35 .40 0
Figure 5. Bulk volume water crossplots of water saturation (Sw) versus porosity (4))from the Ordovician Red River B-
zone, Beaver Creek field, Golden Valley County, North Dakota
Observe the increasing percentage of water production as the data becomes less parallel to the 0.04 hyperbolic line
(after: Jaafar, 1980).
Note on the left vertical line of the crossplot that Swirr' is written. Although the logging company BVW charts use this
term, the Swirr identification really refers to an Archie formula calculated Sw value.
*c: 50
o
-
~
~
-
:;,40
~
en .12

.10 '"

"-=:::--
.08 ~

en~ 20

.04 •••••

o
o 15 20 25
0, Porosity. p.u.
Figure 6. Bulk volume water crossplot of water saturation (Sw) versus porosity (4))from Devonian Zama Reef, Canada.
The solid circles (i.e., points 1 through 5) are the only data with BVW values of 0.015 or less. Because the reservoir has
vuggy porosity; only the interval from 1 through 5 should be hydrocarbon productive (see Table 1).
Case Study III-Devonian Zama Reef,
Alberta Basin, Canada

Porosities and water saturations are listed in Table the Zama Reef data is shown in Figure 6. Notice that
2 from a thick, Devonian Zama Reef in Canada. The only points 1 through 5 plot less than the 0.015
porosity in the reef is predominantly vuggy. Carefully hyperbolic line. Using the vuggy carbonate cut-off
examine Table 2. If you were faced with making a values established in Table 1 as a guideline, we can
decision about where in the sequence to perforate, conclude that this is the only interval which should
what would you decide? Would you decide to be perforated.
perforate the entire sequence, part of the sequence, or Table 3 is the same list of porosities and water
none of the sequence? You are reminded that since the saturations from the Devonian Zama Reef shown in
porosity is predominantly vuggy, only bulk volume Table 2. However, along the right side of Table 3 is a
water values of less than 0.015 are at irreducible series of drill stem tests confirming that the interval
water saturation (Table 1). 1 through 5 produces hydrocarbons (Figure 6). The
lower intervals are wet as is predicted by the
crossplotted BVW values.
Table 2. Porosity (</» and Water Saturation (Sw)Data from
Devonian Zama Reef, Canada. Table 3. Porosity (</», Water Saturation (Sw),and Drill Stem
Depth Porosity (<I»
Test (DST), Data Devonian Zama Reef, Canada.
Water Saturation
(Sw)
Depth <1>. Sw DSTResults
1 (Highest) 6 10
2 5 13 1 (highest) 6 10
3
4
5
4
15
9
13
9
10
2
3
5
4
13
13 } DST GTS· No Water

6 25 9
7
8
7
14
22
19
4
5
15
9
9
10 } DST Oil No Water

9 22 19
10 (Lowest) 23 22
6
7
25
7
9
22 } DST Oil & Water

8
}
14 19
9 22 19 DSTWater
The question of where to perforate is answered by
10 (lowest) 23 22
using the bulk volume water formula to calculate a
value for BVW or by crossplotting porosity versus
water saturation. A bulk volume water crossplot of
Case Study IV-Lower Permian Council
Grove B-zone, Ochiltree County, Texas
The lower Permian Council Grove B-zone in the
northern Texas panhandle is an oomoldic carbonate
reservoir. Log evaluation based on the standard
Archie equation, using an m value of 2.0, gives water
saturations in the 25 to 35 percent range (Figure 7).
With such low water saturations, we are led to expect
only hydrocarbon production; however, when the
zone is tested, it produces water.
Although the Council Grove B-zone evaluation
might have been carried out by making adjustments
to the cementation exponent m with either the
Pickett crossplot method or by formula, the zone can
also be analyzed by a technique called Production
Ratio Index (Nugent et al, 1978). Production Ratio
Index can only be applied to the Council Grove
B-zone well we are analyzing because there is a sonic
and a density log available (a neutron log, in
combination with a density log plus a sonic log, can
also be used as a basis for applying the Production
Ratio Index).
The Production Ratio Index method is based upon
the assumption that vuggy porosity does not
contribute significantly to formation resistivity, but
rather, reservoir resistivity is controlled primarily by
matrix porosity (Nugent et al, 1978). Since the sonic
log mostly measures matrix porosity, Nugent et al
(1978) combine a resistivity log with a sonic log to
calculate water saturation. The water saturation
value is then multiplied by total porosity from the
neutron and/or density log.
Nugent et al (1978):
PRI = Sws X ¢n.d
PRI = production ratio index;
¢n-d = total porosity from the neutron-density
log; and
Sws = water saturation using both the Archie
equation and sonic porosity.
A special aspect of the Production Ratio Index is
its use to predict the expected water-to-oil production
in carbonate reservoirs. Table 4 is a list of PRI values
and predicted water-to-oil production for carbonates
with vuggy or moldic porosity. If the carbonate has
intercrystalline or intergranular porosity, a PRI value
of 0.04 or less indicates water-free production.
We can use this information to examine the Council
Grove B-zone. On the right-hand side of Figure 7,
there is a plot of the PRI values through the B-zone.
Observe that all the PRI values are much greater
than the 0.04 value, the upper cut-off level for water
and oil production in vuggy or oomoldic reservoirs
(see Table 4). We conclude, then, that PRI values
definitely show the Council Grove B-zone to be water
productive, or wet.
Table 4. Production Ratio Index (PRI) and Predicted Pro-
duction for Carbonate Reservoirs with Vuggy and Moldie
Porosity (after Nugent et al, 1978).*
Prediction
PRI :5 0.02 Oil
0.04 > PRI > 0.02 Water and oil
PRI ~ 0.04 Water
Note, if only intergranular or intercrystalline porosity is present,
then PRI :5 0.04 for water-free production.
·The values in this table have been established based on the Mid-
land Basin area. Experience can establish their validity in your area.
PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Sw-sonic % Sw-den. %
C. E. Herr No. 1
Sec. 39 Blk. 11 W. Ahrenbeck Survey
Ochlltree Co., Texas Depth 10 20
-,
30 40 10 20 30 40

/::
DIL·LL8
i /\ /'
3750
,,--'
i I
i \
3788 .,i /
i
i
'''''.
\ \ "'-.
3792
\ '", ..J
/
(5
3800
\ "'\ ..J
(5
+
a:
a:
~
W

«
i
~"" NON-POROUS
w
~
«
;:
;:
3800
'"
3804
i i ./.
\ I
"'\ \
i\
10 20
\.
30 40 10 20
\
"'.
30 40
./. '"
CJ - Secondary I<'
Archie Water Saturations
Sw_ Water Saturation
Figure 7. Log analysis of the Lower Permian Council Grove B-zone, Texas panhandle.
The low water saturations calculated from the standard Archie equation (m = 2.0) using both density and sonic poros-
ities are illustrated in the middle two columns. The PRI (Production Ratio Index) values are shown in the right-hand
column.
Note, that the PRI values for the Council Grove B-zone are much greater than the 0.04 cut-off for oil plus water pro-
duction (see Table 4), indicating the zone is definitely wet.
"'CHAPTER V: 'COMBINING WATER SATURATION/RATIO METHODt MOVEABLE
HYDROCARBON INDEX BULK VOLUME WATER AND ARCHIE WATER SATURATION
t e
Case Study 5-Pennsylvanian
Lansing-Kansas City Formationt
Northwestern Shelft Anadarko Basin

Figures 8 and 9 are resistivity and neutron-density

porosity logs through a 150-foot interval (4,800 to
4,950 ft) in the Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City F =
formation factor;
Limestone. There are four porous zones at 4,810, 8xo =
water saturation, flushed zone;
4,900,4,924 and 4,932 feet. Petrographic analysis at 8w =
water saturation, uninvaded zone;
these depths indicates three different types of Rxo =
resistivity; flushed zone (shallow
porosity (Table 5). reading log);
Rt = resistivity; uninvaded zone (deep
Table 5. Types of Porosity in Lansing-Kansas City Lime- reading log);
stone, Northwestern Shelf, Anadarko Basin. Rmf = resistivity of mud filtrate; and
Rw = resistivity of formation water.
Depth (ft) Rock Type Porosity

4,810 (ft) oolite grainstone oomoldic If we divide Swby 8xo'formation factor (F) cancels
4,900 (ft) oolitic grainstone intergranular out, and it becomes no longer necessary to know
4,924 (ft) oolitic grainstone intergranular
4,932 (ft) dolomite intercrystalline porosity or a value for the cementation exponent (m)
to determine water saturation.
The formula for calculating Moveable
The presence of multiple porosity types within a Hydrocarbon Index is:
150-foot limestone interval and from the same
formation illustrates why careful petrographic
analysis and thorough log evaluation procedures are
necessary when we deal with carbonate reservoirs.
Also, as we will see later at the end of our discussion,
this well represents a mistake. It has been declared
dry and abandoned when it may; in fact, be
productive.
Sw/Sxo=Moveable Hydrocarbon Index;
Before we undertake an evaluation of the Rxo = flushed zone resistivity;
Lansing-Kansas City well, it is necessary to Rt = uninvaded zone resistivity;
introduce the reader to two techniques which help us Rmf = resistivity of mud filtrate; and
arrive at a conclusion that this is a good well. These Rw = resistivity of formation water.
techniques are Moveable Hydrocarbon Index and
water saturation by the Ratio Method. Both of the
Schlumberger (1972) reports that ifthe ratio of Sw/Sxo
techniques detect the presence of hydrocarbons from is 1.0 or greater, no hydrocarbons were moved during
the difference in water saturations in the flushed (8xo)
invasion. This is true regardless of whether or not the
and the uninvaded zone (Sw).A particular asset of the
zone contained hydrocarbons. Whenever the ratio of
Ratio Method is that we can find a value for water
Sw/Sxois less than 0.7 for sandstones and less than 0.6
saturation without either the cementation exponent for limestones, moveable hydrocarbons are indicated.
m, or porosity. The Moveable Hydrocarbon Index
If a carbonate reservoir has a Moveable Hydrocarbon
gives us a quick look method for the presence of
Index of less than 0.6, you can conclude that
hydrocarbons and also helps detect permeable zones.
hydrocarbons are present (although not necessarily
The Ratio Method and Moveable Hydrocarbon
in commercial quantities) and that the reservoir has
Index are derived by dividing the water saturation of
enough permeability so that hydrocarbons have been
the uninvaded zone (Sw)by the water saturation of
moved during the invasion process by mud filtrate
the flushed zone (8xo)'Then, the following results:
(Rmf)'
In order to determine water saturation (Sw)by the
Ratio Method, the water saturation of the flushed
zone (Sxo)must be known or estimated. In the flushed
zone (Sxo)of formations with moderate invasion by

mud filtrate (Rmf),and with an average residual
hydrocarbon saturation (residual hydrocarbon
saturation or RHS = 1.0 - Sxo),the following is
normally true:
By substituting the above equation in the
relationship:
_ S 8/5 _ RxjRt
-w----
Rmf/Rw
Then we arrive at the formula for water saturation
derived by the Ratio Method:
Swr = water saturation Ratio Method;
Rxo = resistivity, flushed zone;
Rt = resistivity, uninvaded zone;
Rmf = resistivity of mud filtrate; and
Rw = resistivity of formation water.
After you calculate water saturation by both the
Archie and Ratio methods, the values should be
compared using the following rules: (modified after
Schlumberger,1977).
(1) If Sw(Archie) = Sw(Ratio), the assumption of
a step-contact invasion profile is indicated to be
COMBINING TECHNIQUES
correct and all values determined (i.e., Sw,Rt, Rxoand
<1;) are correct.
(2) If Sw(Archie) > Sw(Ratio) then the value for
RxjRt is too low because invasion is very shallow, or
Rt is too high because invasion is very deep. Also a
transition type profile may be indicated and Sw
(Archie) is considered a good value for Sw'
(3) If Sw(Archie) < Sw(Ratio) then the value for
RxjRt is too high. Rxois too high because of the affect
of adjacent high resistivity beds or R1LD (Rt) is too low
because Rxois less than Rt (wrong drilling mud for a
dual induction log). Also, an annulus-type invasion
profile may be indicated and/or Sxo < Sw1/5. Sw
(Archie) is considered the more reliable value for Sw'
(4) If Sw(Archie) < Sw(Ratio), the reservoir may
be a carbonate with moldic or vuggy porosity, and
may be water bearing, and/or have low permeability.
Sw(Ratio) is considered the more reliable value for Sw'
Now that we have shown how to calculate
Moveable Hydrocarbon Index and water saturation
by the Ratio Method, we can use them along with
other logging data, to evaluate the potential of our
porous zones illustrated in Figures 8 and 9. As we
will see, they provide valuable information about the
Lansing-Kansas City reservoir.
Table 6 is the log analysis from the four porous
zones in the Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City
well. The logs over these zones are illustrated in
Figures 8 and 9. The top zone at 4,810 feet (shown by
uppermost arrow) is oomoldic with high porosity (25
percent), and low Archie water saturation (38
percent). However, we find that the Moveable
Hydrocarbon Index (SjSxo = 0.61) is greater than
0.60 and the water saturation calculated by the Ratio
Method (Swr)is high (53 percent). These calculations
indicate that the zone may be wet and have low
permeability. A calculation that definitely shows that
the zone at 4,810 feet is wet is the very high bulk
volume water value (0.095). Remember from Table 1
that carbonate reservoirs with a bulk volume water
value greater than 0.04 are usually wet.
At 4,900 feet (second arrow from top) there is an
intergranular porosity zone with good porosity
values (15 percent) and fairly low Archie water
COMBINING TECHNIQUES

IE5ISTIYI1\' _ M'/M
••.••• ICAU 'f I'OCUIID LOG
I

_NlUCTION
__ _ .•.... ~•.. ~._ __ __ !,CII! ~ __
_ NlUCTION

U ~~ -~-----~~-----~-

=
 COMBINING TECHNIQUES

Figure 8. Dual Induction-Spherically Focused Log (SFL)t with SP and R"jRt curve. Pennsylvanian Kansas City-
Lansing Formation, northwestern shelf, Anadarko basin.
Legend: (From the top) 1st arrow at 4,810 feet; 2nd arrow at 4,900 feet; 3rd arrow at 4,924 feet; and 4th arrow at
4,932 feet.
Note: The R.j~ quick look curve deflects to the left, toward the SP curve at 4,810 and 4,900 feet (from the top-
first two arrows) indicating a wet zone, and deflects to the right away from the SP curve from 4,924 to 4,932 feet
(lower two arrows) indicating the presence of hydrocarbons.
 POIOSlTY /IIlEX" WlISTOHE MATIIX
COMP£NSATfO fOIMATION DEH$ITT I'OIIOSITT
• 211 10 0 -10
,
COMfINSAnD NEIIl1IOH I'OIIOSITT

lJI----,-- ----!f-----l--.~
Figure 9. Combination neutron-density log with gamma ray log and caliper from Pennsylvanian Kansas City-Lansing
Formation, northwestern shelf, Anadarko basin.
Note. The four porosity zones are at 4,810,4,900,4,924, and 4,932 feet. Each is marked by an arrow.
Table ·6.Log Analysis, Pennsylvanian Lansing-Kansas City Formation, Northwestern Shelf of the Anadarko Basin in Okla-
homa (logs illustrated in Figures 8 and 9).

Depth (ft) </> Rt Rxo SW8 SwlSxo Swr BVW

4,810 (ft) (oomoldic) 0.25 3.5 12 38% 0.61 53% 0.095

4,900 (ft) (intergranular) 0.15 9 25 40% 0.54 47% 0.060
4,920 (ft) (intergranular) 0.11 19 32 37% 0.42 34% 0.041
4,924 (ft) (intergranular) 0.13 14 30 37% 0.48 40% 0.048
4,932 (ft) (intercrystalline) 0.17 22 45 22% 0.47 39% 0.037
4,936 (ft) (intergranular) 0.09 30 60 36% 0.46 38% 0.032
Where:
Rw = 0.032
Rml = 0.30
Swa = Archie water saturation
Swr = Ratio water saturation

saturation (40 percent). If we examine the Moveable
Hydrocarbon Index (0.54) which is less than 0.6, and
also the water saturation by the Ratio Method which
is fairly low (47 percent) but still close to the Archie
water saturation of 40 percent, we might conclude
that the zone is productive. However, if we analyze
the bulk volume water values which are 0.06 and
recall that in carbonates this figure should not exceed
0.04, we conclude that the zone is wet.
The zone from 4,920 to 4,924 feet (third arrow
down) also has intergranular porosity like the one
above it. The porosity of 11 to 13 percent is fair, but
there are low, Archie water saturations of 37 percent.
If the Moveable Hydrocarbon Index (0.42 to 0.48)
and low water saturations by the Ratio Method (34 to
40 percent) are taken into account, they suggest an
oil productive zone. Since the bulk volume water
values (0.041 to 0.048) are relatively low, we might
conclude that this zone should produce oil and
probably some water.
The final zone (bottom arrow) from 4,932 feet
(intercrystalline porosity) to 4,936 feet (intergranular
porosity) has good (17 percent) to fair (9 percent)
porosity, and low Archie water saturations (22
percent at 4,932 feet, and 36 percent at 4,936 feet). In
addition, there is a low Moveable Hydrocarbon Index
(0.47 to 0.46) and low water saturation by the Ratio
Method (39 to 38 percent). If we look at the bulk
volume water values at 4,932 feet (0.037) and at 4,936
feet (0.032), we find both lower than the critical
cut-off point of 0.04. Our evaluation, therefore,
suggests to us that this zone should be
oil-productive.
At the present time, the well, just described, is
plugged and abandoned. It is the author's opinion,
based on evaluating the well using Archie water
saturation, Moveable Hydrocarbon Index, water
saturation Ratio Method, and bulk volume water,
that it should be re-entered and completed from 4,920
to 4,924 feet, and from 4,932 to 4,936 feet.
A similar evaluation approach is described in the
literature for the Jurassic Smackover oomoldic
reservoirs (these reservoirs are similar to the
oomoldic-4,810 feet-zone in the Lansing-Kansas
City reservoir we have described.) Mitchell-Tapping
(1983) concludes that the Jurassic Smackover cannot
be properly evaluated by the standard Archie
technique. But, when Moveable Hydrocarbon Index,
water saturation Ratio Method, and bulk volume
water are used, then correct judgements about the
productive potential can be made.
CHAPTER VI:'USE OF THE SINGLE TEXTURAL PARAMETER W FOR SOLVING THE
MICROPOROSITY PROBLEM

Case Study VI -Jurassic Smackover Oolite,

Gulf Coast

Oolitic grainstone reservoirs, such as the Jurassic permeability data on log-log paper with lines of equal
Smackover (Guillotte et al, 1979), the Cretaceous W values superimposed on it (Figure 11).
Sligo (Mitchell-Tapping, 1981), and the Cretaceous The W value, plotting on the 1.72 line in Figure 11,
Rodessa (Keith and Pittman, 1983) can be is from a southern Arkansas Smackover Limestone
diagenetic ally altered so that the oolites are reservoir at a depth of 8,962 feet (Figure 12), in the
micritized and microporosity forms. Because of the Crystal Oil and Land #3 Nations well (Guillotte et al,
very high capillary pressures associated with 1979). By using a conventional Archie approach
microporosity in the oolites, hydrocarbons cannot where m and n both equal 2.0, Guillotte et al (1979)
enter the very small pores which, then, contain only calculated the following:
immoveable, bound water. The water saturated
microporosity results in the grains, which are the Depth
micritized oolites, acting as conductors of electric (ft)
current (Figure 10). When this occurs, the path of
electric current is less tortuous since it is flowing
through the micritized oolites rather then around
them. This causes resistivity logs to read erroneously
low resistivities when microporosity is present. When
water saturation, based on resistivity measurements,
is calculated in a hydrocarbon-bearing zone with
microporosity, the values will be too high suggesting
These log calculations, most particularly, the high
a reservoir which will produce water. The water
bulk volume water value, indicate this zone should
saturation values are merely reflecting the lower
produce, at best, a great deal of water with only
resistivity due to the very high bound-water content,
limited amoUIits of oil.
and are not giving correct information about the
However, when a W value of 1.72 for both m and n
hydrocarbon content of a reservoir.
is used (Guillotte et al, 1979), the following is
Keith and Pittman (1983) developed a logging
calculated:
technique for differentiating bimodal (mega and
microporosity) from unimodal (megaporosity)
Depth
carbonates in the Cretaceous Rodessa Limestone. To Rw
(ft) c/> Sw BVW Rt
do this, they plot true formation resistivity (RJ
versus the ratio of the flushed zone's resistivity to
8,962 ft 12.5% 29.6% 0.037 0.017 4.92
the resistivity of the mud filtrate (RxJR,m).They
found that a plot of Rt versus RxJRmf differentiated

I
where
facies with bimodal porosity from facies with
unimodal porosity. Consistently, oolitic carbonates
with mega and microporosity (bimodal) have a much
Sw=- a.
ltt
fU'
x
1

<f>

lower ratio of RxJRmf than do carbonates with only

mega porosity (unimodal). The lower ratio of RxJRmf
in oolitic carbonates with bimodal porosity is the
result of the high bound-water content in the
microporosity (Figure 10) which can't be flushed
during invasion. The presence of large amounts of
bound formation water in the flushed zone lowers the
resistivity of the shallow reading resistivity log (Rxo)'
Guillotte et al (1979) have designed a method to
correct for microporosity which uses a single textural
parameter W for both the cementation exponent (m)
and the saturation exponent (n) in the Archie water
sa~uration equation. A value for W can be obtained
by crossplotting core derived porosity and
These revised log calculations make the zone look
productive. And, indeed, when the zone was
perforated, it had an initial production of 65 BO +
209 MCF + 108 BWPD (Guillotte et al, 1979).
Values for W can vary from one area to another.
This is shown in Figure 13 which is a crossplot of core
derived porosity and permeability from the
Cretaceous Sligo oolite (Mitchell-Tapping, 1981).
Notice that for the Sligo, the W parameter is 1.83 and
not the 1.72 used by Guillotte et al (1979) in the
Jurassic Smackover oolite. It is very important that
a value for W be first identified by core data in your
area before you use this method.
 OOLITIC RESERVOIR WITH
INTERGRANULAR POROSITY AND MICROPOROSITY

~ PATH OF CURRENT
FLOW

MICROPOROSITY
WATER FILLED
Figure 10. Hydrocarbon-bearing oolite grainstone reservoir with water saturated miicroporosity in the micritized
oolites.
Legend: Stippled area depicts oolites; black area depicts hydrocarbons; and white area depicts water.
Because the oolites are water saturated, they are conductive and the path of electrical flow is less tortuous. This
causes resistivity to be lowered.
VSING W TO SOLVE MICROPOROSITY

CROSS PLOT OF POROSITY AND PERMEABILITY

TO OBTAIN ·W· : JURASSIC SMACKOVER FORMATION
(MODIFIED AFTER: GUILLOTTE, et aI., 1979)

,; 100
E

...
~
..J

lXl
<
W
~
a::
w 10
~
•..

0.1
1 10
POROSITY (%)
Figure 11. Log-log crossplot of core-derived porosity and permeability from the Jurassic Smackover Formation, Crystal
Oil and Land #3 Nations well from the Dorcheat-Macedonia field in southern Arkansas (modified after: Guillotte et al,
1979).
This log-log crossplot is used to determine a value for the single textural parameter W. By using the crossplot, a W
value of 1.72 is obtained for the Jurassic Smackover Formation at a depth of 8,962 feet in the Crystal Oil and Land #3
Nations well (see Figure 12).
Slanting lines on figure are lines of constant W values.
The W parameter is the exponent in the equation relating bulk volume of water (Sw x ¢) to the resistivity ratio (Rw/RS
assuming cementation exponent (m) and saturation exponent (n) are equal.
Therefore: Sw x ¢ = (Rw/RJl/w
Where:
Sw = water saturation of the uninvaded zone;
¢ = porosity;
'Rw = resistivity of formation water;
R = resistivity of the uninvaded zone; and
t

w = a parameter determined from core-

derived porosity and permeability.
o R.a
r-------, I --,.----.,-----.,
ILM I-I -i-I~i..--'....
o
~i
GR I~
1
LO
SP
2
-..,---,---,
ILD 4" CAL
.,.--r-,--,I~

-~+
15
Figure 12. Dual induction-SFL t and neutron-density logs of the Jurassic Smackover Formation in the Crystal Oil and
Land #3 Nations well from the Dorcheat-Macedonia field (Guillotte et al, 1979).
The arrow indicates a depth of 8,962 feet where a W value of 1.72 was determined (see Figure 11).
 TEXTURAL
Range
Mean
PARAMETER
=
1.75 to 2.20
=
1.83
W
,e
1000 1000

31 Samples
r....
~
>- 100 /I
~
100
I-
~
en
«
w 10 10
~
a: r:>Sw = (Rw /R,)'/W
W
a..
W 1.0 1.0
CJ
«
a:
w
~ 0.1 0.1

0.0 1
1.0

Plot of oolite samples to obtain a textural parameter value.

(Modified after: Mitchell-Tapping, 1981)

Figure 13. Log-log crossplot of core derived porosity and permeability from the ~etaceous Sligo oolite (modified after:
Mitchell-Tapping, 1981).
This log-log crossplot is'used to determin~ a value for W trom the Cret~~us Sligo'oolite of l:8~..
Case Study VII-Pennsylvanian Lansing
Limestone, Northwestern Kansas

Standard resistivity tools, such as the deep

laterolog and the deep induction log, generate an
electromagnetic wave which operates in a frequency ¢w = water-filled porosity;
range of 35 to 20,000 hertz (where hertz = Et = dielectric constant from the log;
cycles/second). At these frequencies, the predominant Ema = dielectric constant of the rock matrix;
influence on the wave is the conductivity of the Ew = dielectric constant of the formation
substance it is traveling through. In a reservoir, water; and
conductivity is strongly influenced (of course) by the p = a constant that varies with water
salinity of formation water. salinity. A value of 1.2 can be used, or
At higher frequencies in the 30 megahertz (million the value for p can be calculated from a
hertz) to 1.1 gigahertz (billion hertz) range, the nearby porous water zone.
dielectric properties of a substance become very
important to wave propagation (Hilchie, 1982). High
dielectric constant values are associated with polar
compounds like water. Since water is a polar
compound, it requires energy to orient all its dipoles.
Thus, an electromagnetic field moving through water
is weakened. Rock matrix and hydrocarbons are both
non-polar compounds with very low dielectric
constants, and weaken an electromagnetic field less ¢EPT= water-filled porosity from EPTt log;
than water does. ~l = travel time from log in ns/m (nanno
The Gearhart and Dresser Atlas logs measure seconds per meter);
dielectric constant and operate at frequencies of 30 A = attenuation from the log in decibels/meter;
MHZ and 47 MHZ, respectively. Schlumberger's log tpo = loss free travel time from zone of interest
is called an electromagnetic propagation tool (EPT)t in ns/m, where tpo calculated by:
and operates at 1.1 gigahertz. It measures the
propagation time of the electromagnetic wave by
reduction in wave amplitude and by shifts in the
phase of the wave (Serra, 1984). tpm = travel time of reservoir matrix; and
Table 7 lists dielectric constants and propagation tpf = travel time of water in the pores.
times for various materials. It is apparent that water
has a much greater wave travel time and dielectric
constant than any other material on the list. Because Table 7. Dielectric Constants and Propagation Times for
Various Materials (modifed after Dewan, 1983).
of this, the dielectric log can be used to detect water-
versus hydrocarbon-bearing zones (for a detailed Dielectric constant Propagation time·
discussion of the dielectric and EPTt logs, see Serra, (er) (t.,> nalm
1984; Dewan, 1983; and Hilchie, 1982). Sandstone 4.65 7.2
The most common way of presenting dielectric Limestone 7.50 9.1
logging data is in the form of a computer generated Dolomite 6.80 8.7
Shale 5t025 7.5 to 16.6
quick look log which displays neutron-density Oil 2.2 4.9
crossplot porosity and water-filled porosity Gas 3.3 6.0
Fresh Water (25°C) 78.3 29.5
calculated from the dielectric log. Equations for
calculating water-filled porosity from the dielectric Where:
constant logs and the travel time logs (EPT)t are: • nslm = nanno seconds/meter
tp = (11.1 e,) 1/2

1/2 112
Et - Ema

1/Zp 1/2
Ew - Ema
 :::::::::
-;,;.
:<
K ;:

<.
il=
l--

.~
~ I-

1=
~~ ----:-

....••... ~ (~

i ~3500<

.<::.. <;'7.
..... ~ .

. :~ :-
PHIE( )
0.5000 o.0
ESXO( )
1.0000 -1.000
V\.l ( ).

0.5000 0.0
V\.lXO ( )
0.5000 0.0
MST ( ) S\.l ( )
0.0 1.0000 1.0000 -1.000
-i> - ;"-n- n (/.~tif_
\ ti!J;~\ -;'-0'- 0- ~20-.' Ii0- )19}'\(, LI.tj - - -'.;;; - - n -,-n-
Figure 14. Computer generated Cyberlookt logs in the Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone in northwestern Kansas.
Note,.the two porosity zones (at 3,456 feet, top and 3,618 feet, bottom). Both of these zones have high porosities (18%
right-hand side of track 3) and low water saturations (30% left-hand side of track 3) indicating both zones are
hydrocarbon-bearing.
Legend (Track #3):SW equals water saturation (Sw), and PHIE equals porosity (<<p) taken from neutron-density cross-
plot values.
.•...... !=J'!\.J.Utt. .. ) .
6.0000 26.000
C R ........ J:.~ffl.<O!iJ'!~) .
0.0 300.00 0.0100 100.00
____ ~ __ (.!!'L_L _ RrA ( HP1P1>
-160.0 240.00 0.0100 100.00
R > ILP1 (DHP1P1>
2.0000 3.0000 ·0: ·.-000·············· i00·0:O·
___ J>JiU!.iGl.k~.L _ _ .1ULLD.MIi.P12 _ __ EP1CPL_> __
2.0000 3.0000 0.1000 1000.0 0.4000 -0.100
......... ~ij};3.<Y/J~n . sr U( HP1P1> ........ J~!U.ll~ ~ .
Figure 15. Computer generated Cyberlookt logs from Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone in northwestern Kansas.
Top: The porosity zone at 3,456 feet has EPTt porosity (i.e., water-filled porosity) equal to the neutron-density porosity;
indicating a water-bearing zone (see track 3, right side of log).
Bottom: The porosity zone at 3,618 feet has EPTt porosity (i.e., water-filled porosity) less than the neutron-density
porosity; indicating a hydrocarbon-bearing zone (see track 3, right side of log).
Legend (Track #3): EMCP equals EPTt porosity; and PHIA equals neutron-density crossplot porosity.
 If a zone is wet, water-filled porosity calculated from
the dielectric or EPTt log will equal the porosity derived
from the neutron-density porosity logs. If, however,
hydrocarbons are present, then water-filled porosity will
be less than the porosity calculated from the porosity
logs. This occurs because hydrocarbons and rock matrix
have such low dielectric constants and travel times
(EPT)t when compared to water (Table 7). The measured
dielectric constant or travel time (EPT)t will be lowered
by the presence of hydrocarbons, causing the calculated
water-filled porosity value to also decrease (see
water-filled porosity equations).
The case study offered here illustrates how dielectric
logs are used to detect hydrocarbons. The log, an EPTt,
is from a Pennsylvanian Lansing Limestone reservoir in
northwestern Kansas.
Figure 14 (top and bottom of page) shows computer
generated logs of two oomoldic porosity zones at 3,456
and 3,618 feet in the Lansing Formation. On the
right-hand side of track three, both at the top and bottom
of the page, the two porosity zones (denoted by arrows)
have porosity values around 18 percent and have water
saturations of about 30 percent (water saturations are in •
the left-hand side of track three). Using conventional •
logging techniques, both zones are identified as
hydrocarbon-bearing and should be tested. But, another
conclusion is developed when the EPTt log is examined.
Figure 15 (top and bottom) illustrates porosity derived
from the neutron-density porosity log and water-filled
porosity from the EPT log (see track 3). If we examine
Figure 15, we see that water-filled porosity and porosity
from the porosity logs are the same at a depth of 3,456
feet (top of page). This indicates the zone at 3,456 feet is
wet instead of hydrocarbon-bearing.
However, at 3,618 feet (Figure 15, bottom of page),
because water-filled porosity is less than the porosity
from the porosity logs, we can conclude that this zone is
hydrocarbon-bearing. When the well was perforated
from 3,617 to 3,620 feet, it had an initial production of
12 BOPD + 12 BWPD, verifying the result of the EPTt
log. After six months the production stabilized at 10
barrels of oil per day plus 2 barrels of water per day.
 Fracture porosity is ubiquitous in some carbonate
reservoirs and can pose problems, since, whenever
fractures are present, the cement exponent (m) is m = 3.16
often less than 2.0. Aguilera (1980) and Ransom F = 1I<Pt3,16
(1984) demonstrate that if the fractures are plane F = 401.4
fractures, the cementation exponent (m) can be as low Sw = (F X ~wt2
as 1.0 (i.e., F = ~ ).In most reservoirs, however, the Sw = 89.6% t

fractures are not plane and so the cementation

exponent (m) is between 2.0 and 1.0.
Rasmus (1983) developed the following relationship
for calculating a value for (m) in fractured carbonate Log[<p,3 + <p,20 - <Pt) + (<pt - <p,)]
reservoirs. m=
Log <Pt (Rasmus, 1983)
Log[<p.3
+ <p. (1
2
- <Pt)+ (<pt- <p.ll
Log<Pt
= 1.20
= 1I<Pt1.20
= 9.7
m
<P. =
= cementation exponent;
matrix porosity from sonic log; and
= (F x ~wt2
= 13.9070 t
<Pt = total porosity from neutron and/or
density logs. From the above calculations, it should be clear that
if you assumed that the difference in sonic porosity
In order to use this formula, you must know that a (<p.) and total porosity (<pJ was due to fractures and
reservoir is fractured. You can verify the presence of there were no fractures, but rather vuggy porosity in
fractures from a fracture identification log, from the reservoir, then you would calculate a water
cores, or by knowledge of the reservoirs in the area saturation of 13.9 percent (productive) when the true
you are evaluating. It is necessary to know whether water saturation was 89.6 percent (wet). Conversely,
or not fractures are present because otherwise the if you assumed that the difference in sonic porosity
value for m derived from the Rasmus formula will be (<p.) and total porosity (<pt)was due to vuggy porosity
too low. For example, whenever sonic porosity (<p.) is only, but fracturing was present, then you would
less than total porosity (<pt),the Rasmus (1983) calculate a water saturation of 89.6 percent (wet)
formula will always give an m value of less than 2.0, when the true water saturation was 13.9 percent
and calculated water saturation values will be (productive).
lowered. Besides fractures, vuggy porosity also has If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now, just
sonic porosity (<p.) less than total porosity (<pt).But, how important it is to look at the rocks first and
the value of m for vuggy porosity without fractures determine porosity type before you undertake an
should be greater than 2.0, not less, as it would be if it evaluation of carbonate reservoirs.
were calculated by the Rasmus (1983) fractured
carbonate formula The following is an example of
what would happen if the type of reservoir porosity
was not taken into account.

Given: Rw = 0.04, Rt = 20; <P. = 0.05; and <Pt=

0.15.

2(log <p,)
log <Pt (Nugent, 1984)
 1. In carbonate reservoirs with intergranular grains. However, if a single textural parameter W is
(carbonate grainstones) and intercrystalline (sucrosic used for both m and n in the standard Archie
dolomite) porosity; reliable water saturation (Sw) equation, corrections can be made for the
values can be obtained usinf} the standard Archie microporosity. Unfortunately; core-derived porosity
equation: Sw = (F x R.,/Rt) 2 with F = 1/¢2 (i.e., m = and permeability data are required to determine W.
2.0).
5. In carbonates with fracture porosity; the
2. In carbonate reservoirs with vuggy or moldic standard Archie water saturations ~ commonly be
porosity; the standard Archie equation often gives pessimistic because the cementation exponent (m) is
overly optimistic water saturations because of the less than 2.0 due to the simple pore geometry.
more complex pore geometry (i.e., m > 2.0). Rasmus (1983) suggests the following formula be
used to correct m for fracture porosity:
3. In carbonate reservoirs with more complex
pore geometry; different evaluation techniques can be Log[¢S3 + ¢.2(1 - ¢t) + (¢t - ¢.)J
used: (a) modification of the cementation exponent
(m) either by a Pickett crossplot or by formula Log¢t
(Nugent, 1984; and Nurmi, 1984) using matrix (sonic)
6. In all carbonate reservoirs, it is important to
porosity and total porosity from the nuclear logs; (b)
look carefully at the rocks (cores and cuttings) to
examination of bulk volume water (BVW = Sw x ¢)
determine the type or types of porosity in the
values; (c)examination of Moveable Hydrocarbon
reservoir.
Index (Sw/Sxo) and Ratio water saturation (Swr) values;
(d) use of Production Ratio Index (PRI) to determine
7. It is important to use sonic logs in addition to
oil, oil plus water, or water only production; and (e)
neutron and/or density logs in a logging program
use of one of the new dielectric constant logs.
designed for carbonate reservoirs.
4. In carbonates with microporosity; in addition
to megaporosity; the Archie water saturation values
are often overly pessimistic because of the high
bound-water content of the micritized carbonate
Aguilera, Roberto, 1980, Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Petroleum
Publishing Company, 703 p.
Archie, G. E., 1942, The electrical resistivity log as
an aid in determining some reservoir
characteristics: Petroleum Technology, v. 5, p.
54-62.
Asquith, G. B., with C. R. Gibson, 1982, Basic well
log anaiysis for geologists: AAPG Methods in
Exploration No.3, 216 p.
Dewan, J. T., 1983, Essentials of modern open-hole
log interpretation: Tulsa, Oklahoma, Penn Well
Publishing Company, 361 p.
Elliott, H. W., Jr., 1983, Some "pitfalls" in log
analysis: The Log Analyst, v. 24, no. 1, p. 10-24.
Fertl, W. H., and W. C. Vercellino, 1978, Predict water
cut from well logs, in Practical log analysis, Part 4:
Oil and Gas Journal, (May 15, 1978-Sept. 19,
1979).
Guillotte, J. G., J. Schrank, andE. Hunt, 1979,
Smackover reservoir: interpretation case study of
water saturation versus production: Gulf Coast
Association Geological Societies, Transactions, v.
29, p. 121-126.
Hilchie, D. W., 1982, Advanced well log
interpretation: Golden, Colorado, Douglas W.
Hilchie, Inc.
Jaafar, 1. B., 1980, Depositional and diagenetic
history of the B-zone of the Red River Formation
(Ordovician) of the Beaver Creek field, Golden
Valley County, North Dakota: Master's thesis,
West Texas State Univ., 68 p.
Keith, B. D., and E. D. Pittman, 1983, Bimodal
porosity in oolitic reservoirs-effect on
productivity and log response, Rodessa Limestone
(Lower Cretaceous), East Texas basin: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 67, p. 1391-1399.
Mitchell-Tapping, H. J., i981, Petrophysical
properties of the Sligo Formation of northern
Louisiana and Arkansas: Gulf Coast Association
Geological Societies Transactions, v. 31, p.
155-165.
-- , 1983, Petrophysical evaluation of the
.Smackover oomoldic porosity of East Texas and
southern Arkansas: The Log Analyst, v. 24, no. 4,
p.3-13.
Nugent, W. H., G. R. Coates, andR. P. Peebler, 1978,
A new approach to carbonate analysis: Transcript
19th Annual Logging Symposium, Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts, paper O.
-- , 1984, Letters to the Editor: The Log Analyst,
v. 25, no. 2, p. 2-3.
Nurmi, R. D., 1984, Carbonate pore systems:
porosity/permeability relationships and geological
analysis (abst.); AAPG Annual Meeting, San .
Antonio (May 20-23).
Pickett, G. R., 1972, Practical formation evaluation:
Golden, Colorado, G. R. Pickett, Inc.
Rasmus, J. C., 1983, A variable cementation
exponent, M, for fractured carbonates: The Log
Analyst, v. 24, no. 6, p. 13-23.
Ransom, R. C., 1984, A contribution toward a better
understanding of the modified Archie formation
resistivity factor relationship: The Log Analyst,
v. 25, no. 2, p. 7-11.
Schlumberger, 1972, Log interpretation
manual/principles, v.1: Houston, Schlumberger
Well Services, Inc.
Schlumberger, 1977, Log interpretation/charts:
Houston, Schlumberger Well Services, Inc.
Serra, 0., 1984,Fundamentals of well-log
interpretation: New York, Elsevier Publishers,
423p.
 Archie water saturation equation for the formation's
uninvaded zone:

Sxo - Water saturation of zone very close to the a Rw) I/o

well bore that has been flushed by invading s=_x-
w m Rt
mud filtrate (Rmf). Called the flushed zone. ( cP

Sw - Water saturation of the zone beyond the

influence of the invading mud filtrate (Roo).
Called the uninvaded zone. Sw = water saturation uninvaded zone;
a = tortuosity factor (1.0 used in
.Rw - Resistivity of the formation water. Obtained carbonates);
from a table of Rw values or calculated from cP = porosity;
the Spontaneous Potential log or by the Rwa m = cementation exponent m. Varies with
method (see Asquith, 1982). the complexity of the pore geometry.
Greater complexity results in a high
Roo - Resistivity of the mud filtrate that invades value form;
the formation during drilling. Obtained from Rw = formation water resistivity;
the log header. Rt = resistivity of the uninvaded zone; and
n = saturation exponent which varies from
RHS - Residual hydrocarbon saturation in the 1.8 to 2;5, normally 2.0 is used.
flushed zone (RHS = 1.0 - Sxo)'

Sr, - Hydrocarbon saturation in the uninvaded Archie water saturation equation for the formation's
zone (Sh = 1.0 - Sw)' flushed zone:

Rxo - Resistivity of the formation's flushed zone S =_X~f

a R )1/ 0

xo m
measured by a very shallow reading ( cP Rxo
resistivity log.

Rt - Resistivity of the formation's uninvaded

zone measured by a deep reading resistivity
log.
cPt - Total porosity of the formation measured by
one of the nuclear logs (i.e., neutron and/or
density logs).
cP. - Sonic porosity of the formation measured by
a sonic log. Sonic porosity is matrix porosity.
cPN-D- Neutron-density porosity also called
crossplot porosity (cPxp)'
Sxo = water saturation, flushed zone;
Rmf = resistivity of mud filtrate; and
Rxo = resistivity of the flushed zone.
ohm-meter =
A unit of electrical resistivity. Also
written as ohm meter2/meter. The
resistivity of a cubic meter of material
which offers a resistance of one ohm to
the flow of an electric current between
two opposite facies. The reciprocal is
mho/meter (conductivity).
mho/meter =
A unit of electrical conductivity which
is equal to the reciprocal of an
ohm-meter (resistivity).

mmho/meter =
Millimho/meter. A unit of electrical
conductivity which is 111000 of a
mho/meter.
 MT 05 15 BULK VOLUME WATER, CROSSPLOTS
MT 05 13 BULK VOLUME WATER, USEOF
MT 05 7 CANYON REEF, PENNSYLVANIAN, CEMENTATION EXPONENT
A reference is indexed according to its important, or MT 05 I CARBONATE RESERVOIRS, LOG EVALUATION TECHNIQUES
MT 05 7 CASE STUDY, CANYON REEF. SCURRY CO., TEXAS
"key" words. MT 05 19 CASE STUDY, COUNCIL GROVE B-ZONE, OCHILTREE CO., TX.
Three columns are to the left of a keyword entry. The MT 05 39 CASE STUDY, LANSING LM., NORTHWESTERN KANSAS
MT 05 22 CASE STUDY, LANSING-KANSAS CITY FM., ANADARKO
first column, a letter entry, represents the AAPG book MT 05 13 CASE STUDY, RED RIVER FM., WILLISTON BASIN
MT 05 29 CASE STUDY, SMACKOVER FM., GULF COAST
series from which the reference originated. In this case, MT 05 18 CASE STUDY, ZAMA REEF, ALBERTA BASIN
MT stands for Methods Series. Every five years, AAPG MT 05 7 CEMENTATION EXPONENT (M), DETERMINATION
MT 05 4 CONDUCTIVITY VARIATIONS
will merge all its indexes together, and the letter MT will MT 05 19 COUNCIL GROVE B-ZONE, TX., PRODUCTION RATIO INDEX
differentiate this reference from those of the AAPG Stud- MT 05 41 CYBERLOOK LOG, LANSING LM .• EXAMPLE
MT 05 39 DIELECTRIC CONSTANT LOGS, USE OF
ies in Geology Series (S) or from the AAPG Bulletin (B). MT 05 45 FRACTURE POROSITY /CEMENTATION EXPONENT, COMPARlSON
The following number is the series number. In this case, MT 05 5 INTERGRANULAR POROSITY, EXAMPLE
MT 05 39 LANSING LM., PENNSYLVANIAN, DIELECTRIC CONSTANT
5 represents a reference from AAPG Methods in Explora- MT 05 22 LANSING-KANSAS CITY FM., ARCHlE WATER SATURATION
tion 5. The third column lists the page number of this vol- MT 05 I LOG EVALUATION, SPECIAL PROBLEMS, CARBONATES
MT 05 29 MICROPOROSITY, CARBONATE, EXAMPLE
ume on which the reference can be found. MT 05 22 MOVEABLE HYDROCARBON INDEX, DETERMINATION
MT 05 27 NEUTRON-DENSITY LOG, CARBONATE EXAMPLE, ANADARKO
MT 05 II PICKETT CROSSPLOT, CANYON REEF, SCURRY CO., TEXAS
MT 05 19 PRODUCTION RATIO lNDEX, DETERMINATION
MT 05 13 RED RIVER FM., WILLISTON BASIN, BULK VOLUME WATER
MT 05 4 RESISTIVITY VARIATIONS, HYDROCARBONS
MT 05 4 RESISTIVITY VARIATIONS, PORE GEOMETRY
MT 05 25 RXO/RT QUICK LOOK CURVE, EXAMPLE
MT 05 29 SMACKOVER FM., GULF COAST, MICRO POROSITY
MT 05 25 SPHERICALLY FOCUSED LOG, CARBONATE EXAMPLE
MT 05 22 WATER SATURATION/RATIO METHOD, DETERMINATION
MT 05 22 WATER SATURATION, ARCHIE METHOD
MT 05 18 ZAMA REEF, ALBERTA BASIN, BULK WATER VOLUME