Determination Formation Rw Using Shale Properties

7/28/2019 Determination Formation Rw Using Shale Properties

1/11

SPE%cietg of Peti@eumE

SPE 15030Determination of Formation Water Resistivity UsingShale Propertiesby R.A. Dusenbery, Conoco Inc., and JS. Osoba, Texas A&M U.SPE Members

Copyright 1986, Society of Petroleum EngineereThie paper was prepared for presentation at lha Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery Conference of Ihe Society of Pefroleum Engineers held in Midland, ,TX, March 13-14, 1986.Thie paper wae selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abatract submilted by theauthor(s). Contente of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject 10Correction by theauthor(e). The material, as prasen!ed, doee not neceeearily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, itaofficers, or members. Paperspresented at SPE meetmgs are subject to publication raview by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy isrestricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may rmtbe copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment Ofwhereand by whom the paper ia presented. Write Pubficafions Manager, SPE, P.O. Box S33836, Richardson, TX 75063-3636. Telex, 730969, SPEDAL.ABSTRACT One such technique uses the Archie satequation which requires an accurate valueA new method is presented to determine formation water resistivity (R ). The valuformation water reststivfty (Rw) in sandstones. can vary widely in a given r&ervoir. PaThis procedure does not use the Spontaneous that affect it include salinity, tempPotential (SP) log* Instead formation Rw is freshwater invasion and changing depoobtained from the overlying shale zones. environments.

To understandthe correlationbetween shale and Using conventions. interpretation tesandstone waters, consider that during deposition and the Spontaneous Potential (SP) log, Rtheir salinities are approximately equal. After determinedin permeablebeds. Because man~compactionthe waters in both ehales and aandatones affect the shape of the SP curve, this tare in equilibriwo. Because shales are impervious cannot alwaya be relied upon for a trustwortto drilltng fluids a true value of water resistivity ofR. Thin beds, shale, low permeabiliand salinity in the shale can be obtained from varia%le invasion profiles are among the cArchLesequations. The formationwater resistivity that can cauae errors in water resia determined from the shale salinity and a calculations. Correction factors haverelationshipdeveloped from core data. proposed, but they are tedious and in manmagnify small errors.The shale method is simple to use requiringonly the shale reaiativityand porosity. This makes The othsr cottmtontechnique is theit ideal for field use. It also is accurate for apparent water resiativity method. Thisboth normal and geopressuredwells. tries to normalize the porosity and resistivin the water zones. The theory uaea AThe presented technique is compared to other saturation equation and solves for R ininterpretation methods on several wells. The water saturated zone. This procedure!lSOresults comparedwell with other data. problems. For example, the reservoir mcontaina 100%water saturatedzone.INTRODUCTION

The best source of Rw is from a producConventional log analysis techniques were sample. However, a sample may exhtbj.tdiludeveloped for clean, high porosity and permeability be commingled with drilling fluid.rock. Unfortunately,much of this oil has already considerationis in the measurement of botbeen discovered. With improved technology and temperaturesand resistivities.higher prices, reservoirs that one time wereconsidered uneconomical are now being developed. The method presentedherein derivea RThe challengingnature of these reservoirscan have shale beds associated with the forJwa dramatic impact on logging tool response, making interest. Because shales are impervioustodeterminationof reservoir parameters difficult at fluids, no invasion effects are encounterbest. New techniquesara needed that ara simple to shale method is demonstratedon several weluse and provide accurateanswers for a large variety normal and geopreasured. Wells includedof reservoirs. group are three geopressuredwater sands, agas well and two in the Gulf of Mexico.Referencesand illustrationsat end of paper,-an7 ,


2/11

2 DETERMINATIONF FOwTION WATER RESISTIVITYUSING SHALE FROpERTIESTHEORY

Most reservoirs can be classified into one oftwo types, geopressured or normally pressured.Geopressuredan be defined as any pressureexceedingthe hydrostatichesd of a column of water extendingfrom the surface to the subsurface formation ofinterest. Normal pressure is relsted to thereservoir water salinity, rock types, and geologicdeposition. It can also be thought of as thepressureequal to the hydrostatichead of the columnof water mentionedabove.

Dickinson reporta that fluid pressures withinsediments are controlled by the compression, as aresult of compaction, and the resistance toexplusion of water. Compaction begins withsedimentationand deposition of soft muds composedmainly of water. As deposition continues, gradualcompaction occurs and the muds become shales. Theshales are primarily clay minerals with flat grsinshapea. With additional overburden the pressurepacks the grains closer together, expelling waterfrom the pore spaces. This expelled water oftenflows to areas of lower resistap.cesuch as poroussands. The porosity and permeability of shaledecrease until an equilibriumis approachedand thepressure in all directionsis equal.

In many geopressuredreservoirs, the water fsnot able to move freely from the pores as the weightof the overburden increases, and it cannot besqueezed out. Compaction of the sediment grainswill not occur, and the water in the pores willbegin to assume the extra weight of the overburden.When this occurs the formation fluid pressureincreaaes above th% hydrostatic pressure gradient.The abnormallyhigt preasurer associatedwith shaledepositaof large extent and thickness,although notimpervious, have such low permeability that theysignificantlyretard fluidmovement.

Deposition and sedimentation of sand aresomewhat different because sand grains are incontact tnitially and aand compaction is ?earlycomplete with deposition. However, reduct~on ofporosity can occur by wear of the sand grains atcontsct points and rearrangement of sand grainacausedby very high pressures.

It has been determined that shale waters areless saline that sandstone watera. This has beenattributed to ionic filtration. With most of thewater absorbed within the shale, hydrodynamic flo~from sh.jtleeds is ~;~ikely. According to Hinch,Schmidt and othera the low salinity of shalewaters is due to the preferentialexnvlaion of ionsfrom the shales during comb. m ~.sedby osmoticimbalances.The demonstrationof osmotic diffusion is thatof the flow of water through a semipermeablemembrane, separating two solutions of differentsalin+*ies. This flow is in the direction fromhighe~. to lowestactivity unt%l the salinityof thetwo aqueoua systems are equal.The osmotfc relationship between shale andsandstone pore water can be understoodby observingthat a water molecule absorbed on a shale grainsurface is the same_as a water moleculeassociated

with a dissolved ion. The shale pore wateramains low due to the bonding onsurfaces. The bonding of water molecullarge surface of the shale graina compethe bonding of water molecules on thedissolvedions in the sandstonewaters.

During d-position,the salinitiesofand sandstone waters are approximatelyeto adsorptionof water molecules on the ssurfaces, the activityof the shale-watelower than that of the sand-wstersystem.pore wster would therefor~:tend to diffusshale, but diffusion of, sandatoneoverbalanced by increasing overburden pthe shale compacts. Both water and disscan move from the shale into theHowever, the movement of some water moinhibited by their adsorption on the ssurfaceswhile dfssolved ions are free tothe sandstone. This process lowers the athe sandstone water by increasing ita sabrings the two aystema to activity eSince in geopressured sections there isexpelled from the shales, the aalinitshale and sandstonepore waters are equal

Figure 1 ia a plot of Total Disso(T.D.S.)of shale and sandstonewater sysdepth. This data waa obtained by Schmstudy of Gulf Coaat shales and sandstsalinitiesof the formationwaters in sancalculated from the spontaneous potecuNe . The calculationswere confirmedof water samples taken from producingdeterminethe salinityof the ahale poresoluble salta were leached from shale cequilibriumof the shale and sandstonewais apparentbetween 3500 and 9500 feet.aquared fit of the two water sysessentiallyparallel lines separatedby7.0. This means that if the shale wsalinity of 10,OOO ppm, the associatewould have a salinityof 70,000ppm.

At a depth of about 10,000 feetgeopressured zon? begins, the shale anwater systems have almost identical conof dissolved solids. Therefore, ifgeopressuredit will he.vethe same saliassociatesahale.PROCEDURE

Using the shale method to detformation water resistivity (R ), onlparameter are needed. The fi%at iaresistivity from the Deep Induction Losecond the porosity of the shale. Thporosity log to use ia the CompensaDensity Log, (CNL-FDC). If this lavailable, graphs een constructeporositlesfrom ~ Id Bulk Densi

From theory. ible values ofor a given zone. first is for anormal pressurewhere R is related to Rwfactor of 7.0 times th~salinfty of thesecond case, for a geopressuredzone, Rw shale because the salinitiesare equ!

)


3/11

.

SPE 15030 R.A. DusenbcI To cletenminethe water resistivityof the shaleone must assume the bound water of the shalecompletely occupies the total pore space of theshale. Then from Archies saturationequation,Sw =1.

SW = F shale x w shale . . . . . .(1]Rt shaleI?whale = Rt shale . . . . . . . .(2)Fshale

The shale formation factor (F ) isdetermined using Archies equation forshf%;rnationfactor.F =1 ...,... .shale .(3)

pWhere ~ is the apparentpurosttyof the shales,andm is th~ cementationexponentfor shales.

The exponentused in this method is 1.57. Thisvalue was determinedby H.L. Over%jn in his analysisof shales for resistivitylogging. The number 1.57can be consideredan average value, much the same asthe velue of 2.0 is used in Archiea equation forSimestonea. Overtonsmethod involveddrying in theshale samplea at 90@C, then crushing them so theywould pass through an 80 mesh screen. Ten grams ofdry shale were then mixed with 10 ml of distilledwater to form a slurry. The resistivity of theslurry and its filtrate were then determined.Overtonlswork is summarizedin Table 2 in AppendixI B.

The apparent porosity (~a) of the shsle isdefined in one of two ways. In areas withporositleson the order of 10% or greater

Where $d is the density porosity, and ~n is theneutron porosfty taken from CNL-FDC log. Thisrelationshipis used because crossplot of the coreporosity versus density log and neutron logporosities show that the density log underestimatesthe true porosity while the neutron logoverestimatesit. Clay is the cause for both logsreading erroneous values. The density logundereattmates porosity because clay causea thematrix den~ity to increaae. Porosities from theneutron log are overestimated because the neutronlog interprets the bound water of the clay asporosity. In low noroaity regions, those with lessthan 10%ta=!d**(5)An average value of porosity Is not used because atlower porositiea the clay content is greater,causing the neutron log to grossly overestimatetheporosity. Averaging the porositieswould then skewthe average to the high aide. To check the value of

I

~ , or if the CNL-FDC log is not available,F2aand 3 and the sonic and bulk density logsused to obtain a value of ~z for the shale sof interest. The two figure~were constructethe CNL-FDC, sonic, and density logs. Pcwofrom the CNL-FDC log were plotted against eitshale travel time or the bulk density. Apporosity was then determined from aregressionof the data.

Once a value of Rw ha%e ~~te%~~;ormationwater resistivity canpreviously stated, two values of R are poaTo aacertainwhich valueJ requiresknowledgepressure gradientor comparisonof the calculto the recordedSP using the relationship

SP -KxlogRmf . . . . , . . .Rw

K= 70.7 ~460+T) 537where:

T = Temperaturein Fahrenheit.If the zone is geopressuredR is equalR of the zone of interest. ~J~~en ormal prz%e the salinityis required.

The salinity is found using SchulumbGeneral Chart 9 or the equivalent. It can acalculatedusing

Rw shale 75where:

Fw shale 75

the followingrelationships=R T+? . , .w shale ( 8 )

= CorrespondingRw shale @T.D.S.=IOX . . . . . . . . .x= 3.562 - log(Rw shale ,5 - 0.0123) .

0.955The value of T.D.S. for shale is then7.0. If only the salinity value iacan be solved with General Chart 9equation,for normal pressuredzones,

R.. ,= = 0.0123+ 3647.5

multipavailaor us

.w r>(T.D.S.X 7.0)0955

For geopressuredzones,R = 0.0123-I-647.5w 75 .

(T.D.S.)0*955Convertingthe value of Rw to formation temis done with the equation,

RW=RW75( 82T+7) q q . .


4/11

4 DETERMINATIONOF FORMATIONWATER RESISTIVITYUSING SHALE PROPERTIES

DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS West CameronArea Gulf of Mexico:Example calculations using the shale method The Jacond example is from a norm

were performed on two types of reservoirs? The wet sand at 10,550 ft. The logs used afirst were normal pressured wells from the Gulf of Figures 5 and 6. Agatn, the shaleMexico and Colorado. Tha second set of wells were compared to both the R techniqueandgeopressuredwater sands. The value of Rw obtained Additionally,a produce~awaterwas availfrom the shale method were checked using the Rwa 2 lists all data used in this example.method, SP log, and, when available,produced watersamplea. From Figure 5, a shale from 1010,515was used for comparison. DensityMain Paas Area Gulf of Mexico: porosities determinedan apparent shale32%. From equation 3, a formation fa

The first well presented is located offshore was obtained. Using Arch%eaequationaLouisiana. The sand studied is located at 5900 ft. f 0.8 ohm-m the shale water resiativiand is completely water wet. R was calculated ohm-m or 0.321 ohm-m at 75F. Utilizinusing the shale.method, R metho~and the SP log. and 10 determined a shale salinity ofAll data is given in Tabl#al. The logs used appear Once again because the zone was normain Figure 4. formation salinity was 7 times the sWith equations 11 and 13 Rw waa 0.025

Usfng Figure 4, a shale sectionat 5830 ft. waa shale method agatn compared favorablywchosen. The neutron and densfty porositiesfor thfs value of 0.0225 ohm-m and the producedzone are 47Z and 302, respectively. Use of equation of 0.024 ohm-m. However,the uncorrect4 gives an apparent porosity ($a) of 38.5%. The the SP 10S differedgiving a value of 0formationfactor ia then: DOE Well MWX #l

Fshale & 157 = 4.47 The DOE negotiated with the SCompany to acquire a 640 acre leaseThe reaiativity of the shale zone is 0.9 ohm-m, County, Colorado. The first of two ptherefore, was drilled, core and extensively test

R 0.9purpose of this paper the well provide= = 0.201 ohm-mw shale 4.47 evaluate the shale method in a dj.fferarea and examine the Rw variation withresults were compared to conventiona

To determine the value of R at 5900 ft. requires but none gave reasonable results. Eveuae of equations 8 to 13, & a nomagraph such as shale method was checked againstSchlumbergersChart Gen 9. For consistency the developed sp~cifically for thfs typeequations are used for this example. To determige Gerry Kukal. In brief, Kukals technsalinity,first convertRw shale to Rw shale at 75 F an effective porosity uafng the fusing equation8 saturation(S ). In uninvaded formatiequal S . fifthS , Rt and ~ knownR = 0.201(140+ 7w shale 75 75+7)= 0.36 ohm-m rierivedxfromthe Ar~hie saturationequthen recalculatedwith the current valcompared to the old value until it doe

Shale salinityis found using equations 10 and 9 aa within a specifiedtolerance.follows: Figure 7 is a plot of R verausX = 3.52 - log(O.36- 0.0123) = 4.21 upper portion of the well haswa variab0.955 the influx of fresh water. At about 4T.D.S. = 10421= 16228ppm fresh water influx ceaaes and the shabe used, At approximately 5000 feetteata was compared, with good resultsBecause the zone is normal pressured, the formation calculated R . The first recorded sR at formation temperature can be obtatned with ocurres aroun$ 5300 feet, and both methe{uations 11 and 13 the same value of Rw. Several other scomparedagain with excellentresults.R = .0123+W75 3647.5 = 0.0665 ohm-m a water sample from a nearby well r

(T.D.s. x 7.0)955 which is in good agreement with tvalues.Rw = .0665 75 + 7 = 0.037 ohm-m GeopressuredExamples:(140+ 7)

Three geopressuredwells were exsingle interval. Each was locatedonshThis value is in agreement with the 1? value of0.038 ohm-m and the Rw and were turned over to the DOE becaufrom the SP ~~g of 0.03 gaa were found. Al~were part of the Dohm-m. Opportunity Program . Extensive teswell was performed by Eaton IndustrieTexas. The stialemethod was comparedt

wan--


5/11

L

~.- ----- L. . . . . u-=.,=. J , u .-1. Wovu=techniques for determining formation water REFERENCESresistivity. The resulte compared well with othermethods and are summarizedin Table 3. All data and 1. Dickinson,G., tteeologicalspectsof Abnthe calculationsused for these examples are given Pressures in the Gulf Coast Region of Louin AppendixA. U.S.A.,MPG Bullentin,Vol. 37, 410-43CONCLUSIONS 2. Hfnch, H.H., The Nature of Shales and Dyof HydrocarbonExpulsionin the Gulf Coas

The following conclusions can be drawn from TertiarySection,Problemsof Petroleumthis study on use of the shale method to determine Migration,AAPG Studies tn Geology No. 10formationwater resiativity. 3. Schmidt,G.W., InterstitialWater Compoand Geochemistryof Deep Gulf Coast Shale1. The method presented ia very eaay to use and Sandstones,AAPG Bullentin,Vol. 57, No.should always be used to obtain an estimateof 321-331.R. All the necessary informationcan be foundOH a porosity log and an Induction log. The 4. Jones, P.H., l~Roleof Geopressuredn he

aimpllcityof this techniquemakes it ideal ior Hydrocarbonand Water System,Problems Oday-to-dayuse. PetroleumMigration,AAPG Studies in Geol10, 207-216.2. The shale method comparee very well with otherR techniques for the normal pressured wells 5. Overton,H., t~Resiativityogging rem he~amined. The method did not prove to be Slurries!,PWLA EleventhAnnual Logging

limited to Gulf Coast reservoirs. Symposium Transactions,Paper C, May 3-63. Close agreement waa obtained on the three 6. Kukal, G.G., Determinationof Fluid Cor

geopressured!wells that were examined. The Porosity in Tight Gas Sanda and in Formlarge amount of data available on these wells ExhibitingShallow InvasionProfiles,Phelp to confirm the validity of the shale SPE/DOE 9856 Presented at 1981 SPE/DOE Smethod. On Low PermeabilityGas Reservoirs,(May1981).

4. The shale method can be used to find Rprofiles of wells. l%is Information can the% 7. Wells of OpportunityProgram,Final Contbe used to constructfield contour maps. Report, 1980-1981,TestingGeopressuredGeothermalReservoirsin ExistingWells,Nomenclature No: DOE-ET-27081-8.F = Formationfactor in shaleFshale APPENDIXA= Formationfactorm = Cementationexponent

1

Data for GeopressuredWells:a = Apparentporosity= Porosityfrom density log Riddle Oil CompanyWell: Saldana,No. 2

= Effectiveporosity4: = Porosity from neutron log Shale Method:Rn = Reeistivityof mud filtrate, ohm-mRmfRt

= True formationresistivity,ohm-m ~d = 0.12Rt shale = True shale resistivity,ohm-m ~n = 0.36= Formationwater reaistivity,ohm-mR = Shale water resistivity,ohm-m~w shale fa = 0.12+0.36 = 0.24= Formationwater resistivityat 75F, 2w 75 ohm-mR = Shale water resistivityat 75F, ohm-mRw shale75 F= Apparentwater reaistivity,ohm-m -=939sl$a - Reading from SpontaneousPotentiallog,

mv R = 1.2 ohm-ms = Water saturation t shaleS:. 1.2= Water saturationof flushed zone R =R = = .1277 ohm-m= Temperature,F w shale w 9.39;T = Sonic travel time,Jtsecs. T.D.S. = 12,000ppmT.D.S. = Total DissolvedSolids, ppmLaboratoryAnalysis:ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T.D.S. = 11,121ppm

The authora thank Texas A & M University for Rw = 0.13 ohm-mpermission to publish this paper. Also, thanks aregiven to Charles Eorris of Texas A & M for hiscontributions, and to Conoco Inc. for help inpreparingthis manuscript.

!lQl


6/11

6 DETERMINATIONOF FORMATIONWATER RESISTIVITYUSING SHALE PROPERTIES SP

ConventionalSP Method: Lear PetroleumCompanyWell: Keolemay#lMaximum SP = -250DW ShaleMethod:Temp. = 300 FR @ 300F = 0.09 ohm-m AT = 106 Asecs (Figure2)Rmf = 0.052 ohm-m Oa = 0.27T~D.S. = 35,000 ppm F .a Method: 0.2;57 = 781$ = 0.143 R = 0.49 ohm-mRt t shale= 10 ohm-m R =R 0.95= = 0.122 ohm-m.62 w shale wF = 0.143215= 40

7.81T.D.S. = 15,800ppmR . ~ 10 = 0.25 ohm-mwa F m

T.D.S. = 6000 ppm LaboratoryAnalysis:T,D.S. = 15,000ppmRw = 0.15 Ohm-mHouston Oil and Mineral Well: Prairie Canal #1

ShaleMethod: ConventionalSP Method:AT = 95 qaecs. Maximum SP = -10 mv~a = 0.205 (Figure2) Temp. = 240FR @ 240F = 0.14 ohm-mF . 0.20;57= 1204

Rmf = 0.32 ohm-mT~D.S. = 6100 ppmR = 0.60 ohm-mt shale R~raMethod:R = 0.6 = .049 ohm-mw shale 12.04T.D.S. = 39,000 ppm 4 = 0.24Rt = 1.8 ohm-m

F 0.62.LaboratoryAnalyais: 0.24215= 1736T.D.S. = 43,400ppm R 1.8= 0.041 ohm-m

==0.104:xw wa 17.36

ConventionalSP Method: T.D.S. = 19,500ppm

Maximum SP = -400mv APPENDIXBTemp. = 294 FR @ 294F = .13 ohm-m Summaryof OvertonaWork on Shale CuttingsRmf = .05 ohm-mTyD.S. = 37,000 ppm The cementationexponentcan vary consiTable 4 summarizesOvertona work, and wasfind an average value of the cementationexpWa Method:4 = 0.204Rt = 0.83 ohm-mF 0.62= 18.9= ~2.15R ;0.83= = 0.044 ohm-mwa 18.9T.D.S. = 42,500 ppm

392--


7/11

$#.

TABLE 2 - DATA FROM WEST CAMERON EXAMPLEShaleMethodDepth = 10,505to 10,5I5ft. as.$d = 0.25n = 0.39$a = 0.32 (equation4)F = 5.98 (equation3)R = 0.1337ohm-mw shaleRw = 0.025 ohm-m

RWa Method

Depth = 1.0,550ft. S.S.$= 0.29 (crossplot)F = 8.87 (Humbleeq.)Rt shale = 0.2 ohm-mR = 0.0225 ohm-mwaLaboratoryAnalysiaT.D.S. = 19,500ppmRw = 0.024 ohm-m

SP LogMaximum SP = -85 mvFormationTemp. = 190Fmf @ 190F= 0.595 ohm-mRw = 0.06 ohm-m

TABLE 3 - COMPARISONOF RESULTS FOR THEGEOPRESSUREDEXAMPLESxwShaleMethod~ ~ S. .!

Lab Itw

+

Anal. T.D.S

RwSP Log

T.D.SII

R -KwwaMethod ~.D.S

iddle Oil Co

Saldana #2

.1277ohm-m

12,000ppm

.13 ohm-m

11,121ppm

.052ohm-m

35,000 ppnl

.25 ohm-m

6,OOO ppm

HoustonOiland Mineral:PrairieCan;Well #l

.049ohm-m

39,000 ppm

.041ohm-m

43,400 ppm

.05 ohm-m

37,000ppm

.044ohm-m

42,500ppm

LearPetroleumKeoLenay !11

.~2~~hm-=

15,800 ppm

.15 ohm-m

15,000ppm

.32 ohm-m

6100 ppm

.104ohm-m

19,500ppm

WE 15030TA.BLE1 - DATA FF.OMMAIN PASS EXAMPLE

ShaleMethodDepth = 5830 ft. S.S.$d = 0.30~n = 0.47ba = 0.38.5 (equation4)F = 4.47 (equation3)R = 0.9 ohm-m~t shale = 0.201 ohm-mw shaleRw = 0.037 ohm-m

R~,aMethod

Depth = 5900 ft. S.S.Q- 0.37 (crossplot)F = 5.26 (Humbleeq.)R = 0.2 ohm-mt shaleR = 0.038 ohm-mwa

-Maximum SP = -45 mvFormationTemp. = 140 FF @ 140F= 0.099 ohm-mR~f= 0.03 ohm-m

TABLE 4 - CEMENTATIONFACTOR FROM ELECTRIepth $Shale Rhale Fshalft. $sha~e h;~m ohw-m1800 .34 2.94 .128 .665 5.192250 .327 3.06 .115 .833 7.242850 .267 3.75 .095 .833 8.773350 .293 3.41 .085 .714 8.404170 .24 4.17 .074 .625 8.454800 .213 4.7 .067 .528 7.885100 .22 4.54 .065 .528 8.135450 .20 5.0 .062 .625 10.1570G .?33 4.29 .060 .645 10.75950 .22 4.54 .059 .6(j5 11.36500 .187 5.36 .057 .91 16.06900 .167 6.0 .056 1.11 19.87500 .153 6.54 .056 .833 14.98000 .147 6.82 .056 .833 14.98500 .133 7.5 .056 .833 14.9Avera


8/11

2 [ 1 1 t , / 83 -\ %

m0D

10- t.!11- %2 Cf3NCENTRRTION 1N SRNOSTONE5= C13NCENTFIRTION IN SHRLES

12 -D13 - , t # t 1 I , ,0. 20. go. 60. 80. 100.120. IYo. 160.180.200.220.21

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

0.s

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

t , t , I , ,,

mc1D

DclD ua

1c1

Dua ax%

0.01 , f t ! , , , I5s. 65. 7s. es. 9s. 105. 115. 125. 135. 1L5SCiNIC TRRVEL TIME- #sECS/FT.

Fig. 2-2onlc travel time vs. eppfrrent shele porosity.

Q9

QDenclty = 2.71

D

9

9cIa

0.00 I , , t2.~0 2.kk2.K52.S22.5S2.602.6u 2.682.72 ; sBULK OENSITY-GM/CC

Fig. 3-Bulk denalty ve. apparent shaleorodty.


9/11

CAL, 111:1+1.;--... -... ---\2--\2(;,,4> ,

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

II}

SPE 1.5r-j3C! ,:. ]

t-.------it

FILCI(CiJ tl,_______ --- +0,: z,)

&!I!ta:i+ 71> .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0,1 20:=:.::.0..:1 I0.2

x!TEll~LE51

}>;;; .------------ .......I-%2.$

Fig. 4Openhcde logs for Exemple 1.


10/11

~ 15030

10500 . Ji ?

10500 I0s00 g


11/11

WE 15030

1.00.9O.B0.7

0.-

0.10.[

I I : I I I I I

u- -a Sl i RLEHETHt l Do-- c) fl f i CHI ESO. USI NG EFFECTI VE PURtl SI T Y+ OHI LL SI E}ITESTA }l l l l ERSR}l PLE Ff i OM}l ERf l BYHELL

1 I I 1 I I I 1

Uooo. U500. 5000. 5500. 6000. 6500. 7000. 7500. 8000. B500.DEFTH- FT.

Fig. 7Flw profile for MWX1.

Documents

Determination Formation Rw Using Shale Properties