EyesWideShut

R.E.(Gene)Ballay,PhD
www.GeoNeurale.Com

Intodaysbusyofficeenvironment,itisalltooeasytobecomefocusedontheendproduct
(andtheassociateddeliverydeadline),attheexpenseofbasicdataqualityandinterpretation
algorithmissues:weare,inasense,workingwithourEyesWideShut.
Asoneofmanypossibleexamples,itiscommontoassociateanincreaseinGRwithanincrease
inclaycontent,indicativeoftheneedtoperformaclaycorrectiontobothporosityandSw.
Figure1istheRhobPefcrossplotacrossawellunderstoodMiddleEastlimestone,withGRin
thezdirection.Thefirstobservationtobemadeisthatmostofthewellunderstood
limestonedataisnottrendingalongthelimestoneline(Pefisoffset)?
Wehaveobservedthisshiftedbehaviorinmultiple(other)carbonatereservoirsinwhichthere
werecoreandgeologicallyestablishednormalizationhorizons:tightlimestoneandanhydrite
(Ballay1994).Theissueisfurthermorereportedintheliterature(Kennedy2002).Andsowe
realizethatwhilethePefisavaluablemineralogyindicator,itscontributioncanbeenhancedif
normalizationhorizonsareavailable.
ThenextobservationisthatGR(clay?)increasesastheRhobPefdatapairsmoveinan
increasedporositydirection.However,whenthezaxisisCGR(ratherthanSGR),the
perspectivechanges.Wenowrealizethatthelimestoneportionofthereservoirisresponding
touranium,notclay,andsoroutineporosityandwatersaturationalgorithmsareareasonable
startingpoint.
Oneexplanationforthis
behavioristhatthehigher
porosity/permeability
intervalshave(historically)
accommodatedmorefluid
flow(relativetothelower
qualityintervals)which
thenresultedinan
increaseinuranium
precipitation.Asimilar
responsecansometimes
beobservedopposite
perforatedintervals,when
theoriginalopenholeGR
iscomparedtotheGR
fromtimelapse
surveillance
measurements.

September2014

Figure 1
Reservoir known to be predominantly
limestone
Higher GR coincides with (apparently) higher
porosity and/or an increase in dolomitization
Black points are invalid data (ie ignore)

Uranium has been removed

Limestone now generally clean, throughout
LS GR activity was essentially all uranium
Dolomite is higher non-uranium GR activity
Did dolomitization occur in rock which was
depositionally different?

R. E. Ballay

An increase in GR infers an increase in clay content. Right?

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Thesamephenomenonhasbeenobservedinclasticreservoirs(Malaybasinisoneofseveral
possibleexamples),inafieldforwhichtherewasnospectralgammaray.Inthatinstanceitwas
SPdeflectionthatseparatedthereservoirrockfromtheboundingshale,bothhavinghighGR.
Aspetrophysicistsweareoftenfacedwithtightdeadlines,andanswertomanagementwho
havenotbenefitedfromhandsonpetrophysicalinterpretationsacrossnonsimplereservoirs.
AndwhilenoonewantstobetheMessengerwhobringsuncertaintytothetable,Due
DiligencerequiresthatweavoidtheEyesWideShutmentality.
Focus
Weallrealizethatourevaluationscanbenobetterthanthedata,andmodel,allow.Atthe
simplestlevelwemightselectOptimistic,ExpectedandPessimisticparameterestimates,and
therebybothboundtheuncertainty(highandlow)inthecalculatedestimate,andfurther
identifywhichoftheinputattributesaredominatingthatuncertainty.
Itis,however,relativelysimpletoaddresstheuncertaintyissueinamorecomprehensiveand
analyticalfashion,andtherebymoreefficientlyfocusourtimeandbudget,insearchofan
improvedevaluation.
Incarbonates,ourSwestimatesaretypicallycompromisedbyuncertaintyinthe(simple)
Archieequationattributes.
Swn=aRw/(mRt)
InshalysandsthesameapproachcanbeappliedtoanappropriateSw(ShalySand)relation,and
indeedthemethodologyisapplicabletoanyofthedeterministiccalculationsthatweuseona
dailybasis,farbeyondpetrophysics.
Where to focus

Right: Relative impact on Sw(Archie)

uncertainty of m & n, across a range
of porosity values, for a fixed Phi
uncertainty
Attribute Uncertainties Specified Individually
Light Green Cells require User Specification
Light Blue Cells are calculated results
Individual
Best
Relative Uncertainty
Attribute Uncertainty Estimate On Sw(Archie)
a
0.0%
1.00
0.0000
Rw
4.4%
0.02
0.0019
Phi
15.0%
0.20
0.0900
m
10.0%
2.00
0.1036
n
5.0%
2.00
0.0480
Rt
1.0%
40.00
0.0001

0.50
a

Figure 2

Rw
Phi

0.40

RelativeUncertainty

Below: Illustrative (Chen & Fang) Best

Estimate of each parameter, with
corresponding individual uncertainty,
and associated relative uncertainty on
Sw(Archie)

RelativeContribution ToSwUncertainty

m
n
0.30

Rt

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

Porosity

0.3

0.4

R. E. Ballay

Even though m and n have individually

constant uncertainties, their ultimate impact
on Sw uncertainty is a function of porosity

After C. Chen and J. H. Fang.

Sensitivity Analysis of the Parameters in Archies Water Saturation Equation. The Log Analyst. Sept Oct 1986
This spreadsheet example is intended to illustrate the concept and demonstrate consistency with Chen and Fang. In
general, this type of calculation is unique to each situation, which must be addressed with locally specific attributes.
Also, non-Gaussian distributions are not uncommon, and may be handled with Monte Carlo simulation (Ballay, Rolling
The Dice).

September2014

Bytakingthevarious
partialderivativesof
Archiesequation(orany
equationofinterest)one
isabletoquantifythe
individualimpactofeach
attributeuponthe
ultimateresult,andthus
recognizewherethe
biggestbangforthe
buck,intermsofacore
analysesprogramor
suiteofpotentiallogs,is
tobefound:Figure2.
Aspreadsheet
formulation(Chen&
Fangsresultshavebeen
codedinExcel)allows
onetonotonlyeasily
R.E.(Gene)Ballay

RelativeContribution ToSwUncertainty

Figure 3

0.50

The Porosity DependenceRw

a

At 20 pu, formation evaluation should focus on

improved porosity and m estimates, with n of
relatively less importance

Phi

0.40

RelativeUncertainty

performthecalculations,
buttoalsoconsiderwhat
theeffectofachangein
reservoirquality
(porosity,asoneof
severalpossible
examples)wouldmean
(becausetheimportance
ofmandnislinkedto
porosity),withlocally
specificvalues.

If porosity rises to 30 pu, however, improved

porosity estimates become more important with m
and n having similar, and less, impact

m
n
0.30

Rt

0.20

0.10

0.00

As porosity drops to 10 pu, it is the pore

Porosity
R. E. Ballay
connectivity (m) that begins to dominate the
accuracy
The relative importance of m and n depend not only upon their specific
uncertainty, but also upon the porosity of the interval in question; there is a link
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

At20pu,formation
Illustrative application of the concept, after C. Chen and J. H. Fang.
Sensitivity Analysis of the Parameters in Archies Water Saturation Equation. The Log Analyst. Sept Oct 1986
evaluation(withChen&
Fangsillustrative
parameters)shouldfocusonimprovedporosityandmestimates,withnofrelativelyless
importance:Figure3.

Ifporosityrisesto30pu,however,improvedporosityestimatesbecomemoreimportantwith
mandnhavingsimilar,andless,impact.
Asporositydropsbelow20pu,itistheporeconnectivity(m)thatbeginstodominatethe
accuracy.
Thinkbackforjustamoment,onhowdiscussionsofuncertaintywhichyoumayhave
participatedin,becamefixatedonasingleissuewithoutanykindofquantitativeconsideration
Light Green Cells require User Specification
orrealizationthatthe
RelativeContribution ToSwUncertainty
Light Blue Cells are calculated results
Individual
Best
Relative Un
dominateattributecan
Attribute Uncertainty Estimate On Sw(Arch
The Rw Dependence
a
0.0%
1.00
0.0000
Rw
4.4%
0.02
0.0019
changefromone
Figure 4
Phi
15.0%
0.20
0.0900
m
10.0%
2.00
0.1036
intervaltothenext.
n
5.0%
2.00
0.0480
0.50

Rw

Phi

Rt

1.0%

40.00

0.0001

If the water were fresher, say Rw = 0.2

instead of 0.02, n diminishes in
importance as compared to both the
amount of porosity & its connectivity (m)

RelativeUncertainty

0.40

m
n

0.30

Rt

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

There is a link between the individual

input parameters

RelativeContribution ToSwUncertainty
0.50

The Rw Dependence

September2014

RelativeUncertainty

After C. Chen and J. H.

Fang. Sensitivity Analysis
of the Parameters in
Archies Water Saturation
Equation. The Log Analyst.
Sept Oct 1986

a
Rw
Phi

0.40

Light Green Cells require User Specification

Light Blue Cells are calculated results
Individual
Best
Relative Un
Attribute Uncertainty Estimate On Sw(Arch
a
0.0%
1.00
0.0000
Rw
4.4%
0.20
0.0019
Phi
15.0%
0.20
0.0900
m
10.0%
2.00
0.1036
n
5.0%
2.00
0.0108
Rt
1.0%
40.00
0.0001

0.4

Porosity

m
n
0.30

Rt

Ifthewaterwere
fresher,sayRw=0.2
insteadof0.02,n
diminishesin
importanceas
comparedtoboththe
amountofporosity,
anditsconnectivity
(m):Figure4.

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

0.1

0.2

Porosity

0.3

0.4

R. E. Ballay

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Keyobservationsare:
1)theimpactofuncertainty(orvariability)inmand/orn(asanexample)uponthe
ultimateSwestimateislinkedtotheother,independentinputparameters,
2)anunfortunatebadexperiencewithapreviousevaluationmaypromptonetofocustimeand
budgetonaninappropriateattributeinthenextinterpretation.
Theissuecanalsobeaddressedwith(anExcelbased)MonteCarlosimulation.Anattractionof
MonteCarloisthatoncethespreadsheetisunderstoodandsetupforaspecificmodel,itis
straightforwardtomodifyitforacompletelydifferentquestion(coreanalyses,asoneof
manypossibleexamples).Indeed,ourSw(Archie)spreadsheetoriginatedasareservoir
volumetricexercise,kindlypostedtotheWWWbyanunidentifiedLSUfaculty.
Additionally,nonGaussiandistributions,whichdoindeedoccurintheoilfield,canbe
addressedwithMonteCarlo,andthevisualuncertaintydistributionoutputfacilitatesanother
dimensionofunderstanding.FinallyonegainsinsightintotheUpandDownsidepossibilities:
Figure5.
With95%probability,theestimatedvalueisbetterknownthanonewouldhavethought
fromthesimplemaxandminvaluecalculations.Thissituationarisesbecauseitisunlikely
(butnotimpossible)thatthevariousminimumvalueswilloccursimultaneously,nordowe
expectthatallthemaximumvalueswillbefoundinasingleinstance.

Monte Carlo simulation of Archies Equation

From MC, there is a 95% likelihood that Sw is contained within + / - 2 of the mean
0.28 < Sw < 0.43
The corresponding deterministic High / Low uncertainty estimate is
0.24 < Sw < 0.50
It is unlikely (but not impossible) that all the various input High- and Low-Side
values will occur simultaneously
MonteCarloDistribution
600

With 95 % probability, we know the

Sw

answer better than we would have estimated

500

Frequency

with a simple High/Low calculation

400
300
200
100
0
0.00

Figure 5

September2014

0.10

0.20

0.30

Sw

0.40

0.50

R. E. Ballay

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Foot-by-foot vs Layer Average Uncertainty

MonteCarloDistribution
900

700

Frequency

At the layer average level (as for reserves

estimation), there is 95 % probability that the
porosity is correct to within +/- 0.0012.

MonteCarloResults
Phi(Rhob)
Mean
Std_Dev
0.181
0.0048

Phi(Rhob)

800

600
500
400
300
200
100

So long as the noise is random, Layer Averages

(such as used for reserves estimation) are
significantly better known than individual Footby-Foot estimations.

0
0.10

0.15

0.25

DeltaAveragePorosityDistribution
10

Quantitative interpretation of petrophysical log

repeats can thus serve to QC the basic
measurement, and additionally characterize the
uncertainty in both foot-by-foot and average
value calculations.

0.20

Porosity

DeltaPhi

Frequency

Andthereisyetonemore
bitofgoodnews.Whileour
attentionistypicallyfocused
onthefootbyfoot
estimates,reservevolumes
(andthevalueofthe
Company)areusuallybased
uponlayeraverages.Solong
astheuncertaintyis
random,LayerAveragesare
moreprecisethanarethe
individualfootbyfoot
estimates:Figure6.

At the foot-by-foot level, there is 95 %

probability that the porosity calculation is correct
to within +/- 0.096 (two standard deviations).

DeltaAvgPorosity
Mean
Std
0.0002
0.0006

6
4
2

Inthisparticularillustration,
Figure 6
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
thestatisticsresultfroma
DeltaAveragePorosity
physicallyrealisticMonte
CarlosimulationofPhi(Rhob).Inpractice,onemayperformthecomparisonbaseduponthe
actuallogrepeatdata(MainvsRepeatPasses).
Insummary,theattractionofthedifferentialapproachisthatasetofanalyticalequations
result,whichmaybeeasilycodedintoafootbyfootevaluation,andthendisplayed
alongsideourbestestimateresults.
Repeatability does not ensure accuracy

Figure 7

Illustrative rules of thumb

RT > Rxo : IL affected by invasion and LL tends to read
deeper than IL
RT < Rxo : IL tends to read deeper than LL
And remember
Delaware & Groningen effects on LL

IL is Low

IL loses absolute accuracy when RT > 100

IL borehole effect large @ RT / Rm ~ > 300

Upper zone is hydrocarbon-filled limestone

IL ~ 10 & LL ~ 50 : IL will remain low even with
invasion corrections applied

Relatively Fresh Mud &

Environmental Issues

There is also a discrepancy in the water leg, where it is

now the IL that yields the better resistivity estimate
LL is High
Schlumberger Arabia Well Evaluation Conference - 1975

September2014

TheattractionsofMonte
Carloisinsightintothe
upanddownside,the
easytransitionfromone
simulationtoanother
(oncethespreadsheetis
setup)andthevisual
displayofthefinal
estimate.
Regardlessofwhich
approachisbeingused
tofocusourefforts,
wemustrememeber
thatrepeatabilitydoes
notnecessarilyensure
accuracy:Figure7.As
welookatthisresistivity
R.E.(Gene)Ballay

0.02

0.03

R. E. Ballay

comparison,letusaskourselfhowmanytimeswehaveseenSwcalculated(andreported)to
onesaturationunitprecisionwithnodiscussion(ortest)ofthebasicmeasurementaccuracy.
Finally,CarlosTorresVerdincautionsmyexperienceshowsthatthebiasingofapparent
resistivitycurvesduetopostprocessingtechniques(e.g.deconvolution)couldbemore
detrimentaltouncertaintythanArchie'sparameters.Themostconspicuouscaseistheoneofa
thin,hydrocarbonsaturatedbed,wherebedthicknessandinvasioncangiveyoumuchmore
uncertaintygriefthanArchie'sparameters.
PreconceivedNotions
Experienceandpreconceivedexpectationsgotogether,andwhilebotharevaluablewemust
alsorememberthatMotherNaturemaywellhaveasurpriseforus,atthenextforkintheroad.
Asweallknow,
molecularvolumesare
suchthatthetransition
fromcalciteto
dolomiteisexpectedto
createabout12puof
porosity..butthat
doesnotmeanthatthe
dolostonewillalways
havemoreporosity
thanthelimestone:
Figure8.

Porosity and dolomitization

Be Aware that while the calcite
dolomite chemical transition is often
expected to increase porosity, the
ultimate result is a combination of
events which may leave the dolostone
with less porosity

(core)

Figure 8

In this example, porosity tends to

decreases as dolomite percentage
increases
See also Jerry Lucias Origin and
petrophysics of dolostone pore space.
Geological Society, London, Special
Publications. 2004; v. 235; p. 141-155

(core)
Basedupon50yearsof
data,JerryLuciafound
R E Ballay. Porosity Log Quality Control in a Giant
thattheporosityin
Carbonate. SPE Abu Dhabi. 1994
dolostonecanbeless
thanthatoflimestone,eventhoughthedolostonemaybethebetterqualityreservoir,with
thelowerporevolumebeingcounteredby

dolomitecrystallizationresultedinamoreefficientporesystem,
dolostoneislesssusceptibletocompaction.

Thereare,then,countereffectsatplayandonedoesnotinitiallyknowifthelimestoneor
dolostonewillbethebetterquality.
Thereisasecondpreconceivednotionwhichcanleadtomisinterpretationsinthecarbonate
world:theeffectofvuggyporosityonthesoniclog.
Formationevaluationcomplicationsintheclasticworldoftencenteruponclayconductivity
issues,whereasinthecarbonateworldtheissueismanytimestheporesystem/geometry.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Identification of vuggy porosity

Figure 9

The vuggy group consists of samples

whose primary pore types are vuggy,
moldic, intraframe, and intraparticle
porosity.
The interparticle group consists of
samples with interparticle and
intercrystalline porosity as the
primary pore type.
Plotting the two groups in the velocity-porosity space reveals a
considerable overlap. A nearly equal amount of samples from each
group display an exceptionally high velocity at a given porosity.
Quantification of pore structure and its effect on sonic velocity and permeability in carbonates. Ralf J. Weger, Gregor P.
Eberli, Gregor T. Baechle, Jose L. Massaferro, and Yue-Feng Sun. AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 10 (October 2009).

Thereisalonghistory
ofcontrasting
Phi(Densityand/or
Neutron)versus
Phi(Acoustic)asaway
topartitionporosity
intoInterparticleand
vuggy,butarecent
detailedinvestigation
byWegeretal(2009),
whichtookintoaccount
thedigitally
determinedpore
geometry,revealed
thatthisaccepted
methodologyisinfact

highlydependentuponspecificporegeometry:Figure9.
Yes,thereareindeedgeometriesforwhichthePhi(Dt)vsPhi(DN)approachwillsuffice,butthe
situationisoneofCaveatEmptor(LetTheBuyerBeware),andneedstobeverifiedonacase
bycasebasis.
Asanotherexampleofan
issueforwhichthe
answerisobvious,let
usconsiderArchiesm
exponentasafunctionof
porosity.Intuitively,it
wouldseemthatwhen
theporositybecomes
low,mwouldtypically
increase,andindeedthis
kindoftrendcanbe
foundinsomeofthe
olderServiceCompany
chartbooks.
Yetwithaninquiring
mindandthemagicof
GoogleSearch,we
quicklyrealize:

Archies m in low porosity

Pore geometries control the interrelationship of petrophysical properties.
The three most important pore-geometry characteristics are
amount and types of pores or shape
interconnectedness of pores (tortuosity)

Chart Book

size of interconnecting pore throats

Figure 10
Three of four data sets have m
decreasing as Phi (Total) decreases
Petrophysical Characterization of Permian Shallow-Water Dolostone. M H Holtz, R. P. Major. SPE 75214, 2002
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/mainweb/presentations/2002_presentations/holtz_spe0402ab.pdf
See also
Focke, J. W. and D. Munn. Cementation Exponents in Middle Eastern Carbonate Reservoirs. SPE 1987.
Wang, Fred P. and F. Jerry Lucia Comparison of Empirical Models for Calculating the Vuggy Porosity and Cementation
Exponent of Carbonates from Log Responses. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas. 1993.
Verwer, Klaas and Gregor P. Eberli, Ralf J. Weger. Effect of pore structure on electrical resistivity in carbonates. AAPG
Bulletin, v. 95, no. 2. Feb 2011.

1)thereareanumberofsituationsinwhichmactuallydecreasesasporositydrops,
2)theChartBooktrendcanbetraced(FockeandMunn)towhatwasintendedtobea
specific(notgeneral)reservoir:Figure10.
September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Afundamentalissueisthegeometryoftheporesystem,andthefactthatasmallamountof
electricallyefficientporesremainingpresentevenasthetotalporositydecreases,cancome
todominatethenetcementationexponent.
WangandLucia(1993)documentedearlyconcernaboutusingPhi(Dt)vsPhi(DN)for
identificationofvuggyporosity,andalsoputforwardanumericalDualPorosityCementation
ExponentModelwhichnicelyillustrateshowthiscounterintuitivemvsbehavior(m
decreasesasdecreases)canoccur.
Andonefinalexample,theassumptionthatthesalinityofthebrineinthewaterlegisthe
sameasthatinthehydrocarboncolumn:Figure11.
Whilethiswouldatfirstglanceappeartobeobvious,itisinfactnotunusualtofind
exceptions.Kuttanetal(1986)illustratehowtorecognizetheproblemandthenidentifythe
followingprovincesinwhichitoccurs:MahakamDelta(Indonesia),NigerDelta(Nigeria),Lake
Maracaibo(Venezuela)plusseveralAustralianbasins(Eromanga,Surat,Canning,Bonaparte).
TheauthorencounteredthisverysituationinCentralSaudiArabia.

Variable Salinity
The oil sands are underlain by freshwater (wedge) sands of variable salinity

Figure 11
Hydrocarbon and water leg salinity differences are also present in other welldocumented examples, around the world
Freshwater Influx in the Gippsland Basin: Impact on Formation Evaluation, Hydrocarbon Volumes and Hydrocarbon
Migration. K. Kuttan, J.B. Kulla, and R.G Neumann. The APPEA Journal, 1986.

Clinchetal(2011)cautionTheassumptionthatwaterpropertiesinthewaterlegarethe
sameasthoseinthehydrocarbonlegneedstobeproved,notassumed.
Experience,andexpectationsbaseduponthatexperience,areinvaluablebutneverforgetthat
eachnewevaluationcanbealearningexperience.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

CoreData
Coredataprovidesavaluablereferenceagainstwhichtocompareourlogbasedcalculations.
Andjustastheindividuallogmeasurementsmustbeplacedondepthwithoneanother,so
toomustthecorebeadjustedtothelogs.
Inshalysands,withsignificantGRvariations,theCoreGammaRaycanfacilitateanimproved
depthmatch.Incarbonatereservoirs,whichmayexhibitarelativelysuppressedGRsignature,
CTScansthatyieldapseudobulkdensitycancontribute.
Inmanycases,however,wewillfindourselveswithcoreinformationandneitheraCoreGRor
CoreCTforcomparison.Insuchanevent,evenwithwelllabeledcoreboxesingoodcondition,
weshouldbearinmindthepotentialformislabeledboxes:Figure12.
Logs

Mislabeled Core

Core

Core was in well-labeled boxes of

good condition, but the detailed
core description does not correlate
with wire line signatures
The core has likely been
mislabeled misplaced
In this five-well field study there
were three instances of core
depths that were apparently
mislabeled
Figure 12

R. E. Ballay

Selectionofthecoredepthstobesampledisanexampleofanimportantissuethatseldom
getstheattentionitdeserves.Althoughwewillworkwithwhateverresultsareavailable,ifthe
opportunityarisesthequestionofsampleselectiondeservescarefulattentionandPatCorbett
(1992,2001andothers)hasseveralrelevantarticlesonthesubject(seereferences).Andif
conventionalcoreisnotanoption,RotarySidewallswillbesufficientforsomebasic
measurements.
ThemostcommoncoreporositymeasurementisbaseduponBoylesLaw(P1V1=P2V2),and
inherentlyincludeseverythingneededtocalculatethecorrespondinggraindensity.Yet,inthe
busyofficeenvironmentwehaveobserved,overandover,thatwhilethecoreporosityvalueis
usuallycomparedtologestimates,littleattentionisgiventothecoregraindensity.Indeed,in
manycasesthegraindensityisnotevenloaded/displayedwiththelogcalculations.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Thecoreporosityandcoregraindensitymeasurementsarelinked.Ifoneisinerror,theother
isalsolikelyinerror,andsoinanenvironmentforwhichthelowestexpectedgraindensityis
known(beit2.65gm/ccor2.71gm/ccorsomethingelse),themeasuredcoregraindensity
providesQConthecoreporositymeasurement:Figure13.
Mostproblemswiththe
BoylesLawporosity
measurementaresuch
thatthegraindensity
willbelow:incomplete
cleaning/drying
especiallywithheavyoil
andresidualsaltcrystals
insidetheplug(insaline
brineenvironments)are
twoexamples.

Core-measured Grain Density

The typical Boyles Law (gas)
porosity measurement includes
everything required to also calculate
the grain density
Most problems with core porosity
measurement are such that both the
grain density and porosity will be low

Core Grain Density Distribution

g(core) < 2.71?

If the mineralogy is known, g(core)

can then provide QC on the core
porosity measurement
In this carbonate reservoir there is
no mineral with g < 2.71

R. E. Ballay

About50%oftheField
Figure 13
Studieswehavedone,
The problem with g infers a problem with core porosity
evenwithmoderndata, About 50% of recent field studies done by the author, with modern data, exhibited
exhibitthisproblemand this same problem
itwasnotoriginally
recognizedbecausethecoregraindensitydidnotreceivesufficientconsideration(EyesWide
Shut).Nordidthecoreanalysesvendorcommentontheproblem,whenthedatawasissued
(Didtheyevennoticeit?Theytoo,arepressedfortime.).
Itisworthmentioningthatunconnectedvugporositycouldalsoleadtounrealisticallylow
coregraindensity,andsothatpossibilityneedstobeeliminatedbeforeinquiringwiththecore
vendor(examinetheplugs,asastartingpoint).Innearlyeverycase,ourgeologicalpartnerwas
abletoprovideguidanceonthisquestion(itwasveryseldomanissue).Itisalsopossibleto
simplydisaggregatethesampleandremeasurethegraindensityandaddressthequestionin
thatmanner.
NotonlydoesthecoregraindensityprovideaQConthecoreporositymeasurement,butit
shouldbefurthercomparedtothelogbasedmineralogy(byweightedvolumes).Comparing
Phi(Core)againstPhi(Log)isonlyhalfthequestion;weshouldalsocompareRhog(Core)
againstRhog(Log).
Ifthebudgetallows,wewouldliketomovebeyondtheroutinegraindensity,porosityand
permeability:CapillaryPressure.Vavraetal(1992)provideaniceoverviewofthis
measurement,whichcanbedonebythreedifferentmethods(PorousPlate,Centrifuge,
MercuryInjection).
Mercuryinjectionisthemostcommonmethod,andcomestousfromBobPurcell(1949).The
NMRenthusiastsamongstuswillrecognizethenamePurcellasthePinCPMGsequence:yes
thebrotherofthemanwhogaveusmercuryinjection,wonaNobelPrizeforhisNMRwork.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Atthesimplestlevel,MercuryInjectionprovidesuswithaSaturationHeightreferenceanda
porethroatsizedistribution,andhereagainisanexampleofhowthebusyofficeenvironment
cancauseustooverlookyetmoreapplications.ForBrownandHusseini(1977),andmany
otherssince,demonstratethatthesemeasurementscanalsobeusedtoconstructlocally
specificpermeabilitytransformsthatcanbesurprisinglyrobust(evenascomparedtomodern
NMRtransforms).
MICPcanbedoneonbothcoreplugsandthesocalledTrimmedEndfromaplug.Both
methodsyieldmercurysaturation,buttheporosityuponwhichthereportedsaturationis
based,isdeterminedverydifferently.
InthecaseofhighpressureMICPonTrimmedEnds,thereferenceporositymayverywellbe
thevolumeofmercuryinjectedintotheporesystematsomeveryhighpressure(~55,000psi),
withtheinherentassumptionthatthesamplebulkvolumewasaccuratelydeterminedpriorto
porepenetration,andthatalltheporevolumewasfilledwithmercuryatthehighpressure
limit.
Inmanycasestheavailabledatawillalsoincludeagasporosityonthecorrespondingplug,
andduediligencerequiresthatthetwobecompared.Rockheterogeneitywillresultinan
unavoidablescatter,andsosomenoiseisexpected.Asystematicshift(orbias)inthetwo
porositiesthough,relativetothe45degreeline,deservesaninquirywiththecoreanalyses
vendor:Figure14.
Mercury Injection Porosity

Phi(Gas)vsPhi(Hg)
0.3

If the budget allows one to go beyond

Figure 14

Phi(Hg)

routine Porosity, Grain Density and

0.25
Permeability, Mercury Injection Capillary
0.2
Pressure should be considered
MICP can be done on both core plugs
0.15
and so-called Trimmed Ends
0.1
The porosity from the Trimmed End
measurement is determined very different
0.05
Phi(Gas) tends to be
than is the routine plug porosity
larger than Phi(Hg)
0
Since the two measurements are made
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
on physically different pieces of rock,
Phi(Gas)
R. E. Ballay
some (random, high & low) difference is
to be expected
If however, Phi(Mercury) exhibits a systematic bias relative to Phi(Boyles Law), an
inquiry with the core analyses laboratory is appropriate
For details on the Mercury Injection method see John Shafer and John Nesham. Mercury Porosimetry Protocol for Rapid
Determination of Petrophysical and Reservoir Quality Properties. Found with Google, Publication Details n/a.
For a more detailed discussion of sample size issues, see Whole Core vs. Plugs: Integrating Log and Core Data To
Decrease Uncertainty in Petrophysical Interpretation and STOIP Calculations, by S. Serag El Din, M.R. Dernaika, I. Al
Hosani, L. Hannon and S.M. Skjveland. 2010 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Inourexperience,differentlabshavedifferentpolicies,butoneshouldatleastinquire.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

WhileitisthePressureandInjectedVolume(ofHg)thatareactuallymeasured,thecore
analyseslabwilloftenalsoreportacorrespondingPoreThroatRadii,andhereweagainhave
aQCcheck,forthemathematicaltransform[typicallyrc(microns)=107.7um/Pc(psi)]infersa
constantrelativevalueofrcandPc.
Differentpeoplemay
useslightlydifferent
parameters(andhence
theconstantcanbe
slightlydifferent,one
datasettothenext),but
forasingledatasetwe
doexpectaconstant
value:Figure15.

Mercury Injection Pore Throat Radii for QC

Pore
Throat
Radius,

Conversion
Parameters
Not Constant??

Vp

microns

Rc * Pc

0.000
0.006
0.010
0.013
0.020
0.026
0.035
0.038
0.041
0.044
0.049
0.054
0.061
0.071
0.082
0.092
0.119
0.145
0.147
0.159
0.175
0.190
0.206
0.225
0.235
0.254
0.266
0.289

50.192
44.130
38.408
34.056
30.162
26.633
23.594
20.670
18.148
16.081
14.116
12.376
10.898
9.574
8.421
7.422
6.546
5.806
5.426
5.042
4.439
3.903
3.428
3.018
2.702
2.394
2.084
1.866

95.866
97.527
96.403
95.697
96.819
96.143
96.501
97.148
96.185
96.325
97.120
96.406
96.774
96.506
96.668
96.336
96.684
95.622
91.482
96.596
96.549
96.745
96.611
96.547
94.851
97.857
96.399
94.975

Mercury
Injection Satn,
Pressure, fraction
psia

Mercury injection capillary pressures yield pore throat

radius distributions
rc(microns) = 107.7 um / Pc (psi)

This relation should be used as a first pass QC on the as

received data
In this modern example (as delivered by the core analysis
vendor), not only do we find the product of Rc and Pc is
unequal to the expected ~107.7, but it also changes across
the various pressures

1.9
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.6
4.1
4.7
5.3
6.0
6.9
7.8
8.9
10.1
11.5
13.0
14.8
16.5
16.9
19.2
21.8
24.8
28.2
32.0
35.1
40.9
46.3
50.9

Inthisillustration,the
Figure 15
productofthetwo
R. E. Ballay
numbers,asdeliveredby
thecoreanalyses
vendor,isnotconstant.Somethinghasgonewrong,andthismustbeaddressed,beforethe
datacanbeused.

Ifwethegeoscientistssometimesfindourselvesnearoverwhelmedwithtightdeadlines,then
itisnosurprisethatservicecompanypersonnelareinasimilarposition.Amabeokuetal(2011)
sentsamplestofourdifferentlabsandcomparedbothConventionalandSCALresults,tofind
thefollowing.

SomelabsdonothaveQCprotocolsinhouseandjustreportdataacquired

Thereseemstobelittlesupervisionovertechnicianswhoacquirethedata

Standardlabtemplatesfacilitatereporting,buttherearenoQCchecksforthe
validityoftheunderlyingdata

Additionalusefulcoreanalysesreferencesinclude(butarenotlimitedto)

RecommendedPracticesforCoreAnalysis,SecondEdition.February1998byAmerican
PetroleumInstitute,
SomepracticalLessonsLearnedDuring30YearsintheSCALLab.TedBraun,SCA
InternationalSymposium,September,2011.
SimpleModels

Quicklook,orSimple,evaluationsserveanumberofusefulpurposes.Firstly,forthoseinan
operationsenvironment,theyprovideafast,integratedevaluationoftherecentlyacquired
data.Thatis,whileforexampletheporosityandresistivitylogsappeartobevalidindividually,
onemustalsoensurethattheintegratedresultisreasonable,andwefurthermoreneedfirst
passreservoirattributesfordeliverytoManagement.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Laterintime,theQLresultscontinuetoserveapurposeasareferenceagainstwhichto
comparethemoresophisticated,finalinterpretation.Asanexampleapplication,probabilistic
evaluationsofLWDdata(withgenerallylargerlighthydrocarboneffects)canbevastlysuperior
todeterministicoptions,inanumberofways,butcare(withlocalexperience)mustbe
exercisedinsettinguptheprobabilisticModel.Inthepastwehaveidentifiedfaulty
(improperlyspecified)probabilisticresultsbycomparisontoQLresults.
FailuretoexecuteQLinterpretations,andtocomparethoseresultsagainstthefinal,
sophisticatedevaluation,canresultinoneworkingwiththeirEyesWideShut.
Thechoiceofdisplayscalefortheporositylogsisanimportantissue.Becausethe
environmentalcorrectionsfortheneutronlogtypicallyrequirelimestoneunitsforinput,there
ismeritishavingtheneutronporositiesdeliveredinLSunitsevenifthereservoirisclastic.And
theattractionofworkinginLSunitsactuallygoeswellbeyondthis.
Ifthebulkdensity
measurement(in
gm/cc)isconverted
toequivalent
limestoneporosity,
thesimple
arithmeticaverage
ofPhi(Neutron/LS)
andPhi(Rhob/LS)is
oftenareasonable
porosityestimatein
bothsandstoneand
dolostone(andof
courselimestone):
Figure16.

Porosity Log Display Scales

An attraction of the limestone scale for both
sand and dolostone reservoirs, is that a Quick
Look porosity and mineralogy can be estimated
by simply averaging (Rhob_LS) &(NPhi_LS)
(Formation) ~ [ (NPhi_LS) + (Rhob_LS) ] / 2
g (Formation) ~ (b f )/(1 )

When display scales are in limestone units, one

need only draw a line down the middle to
achieve a QL porosity evaluation
If local porosities are lower, select a different
(locally appropriate) set of scales to accomplish a
similar result

Ifonethenchooses
thedisplayscales
Figure 16
appropriately,a
reasonablePhi(QL)
displaycandeduced
bysimplydrawingalinedownthemiddleofPhi(Neutron/LS)andPhi(Rhob/LS).

Schlumberger

Ifwefurtherdisplaythefinal(sophisticated)porosityinterpretationalongwiththeproperly
scaledrawdataontheappropriatescale(asinFig.16),wethenexpectthatfinalporosity
valuetoroughlygodownthemiddleofthebasicrawmeasurements.Deviationsareexpected
inshalyandgasintervals,butifobservedincleanoiland/orwaterfilledrock,shouldbe
investigated.
TheaccuracyofthisshortcutvariesfromoneRhobNPhitoolcombinationtothenext,andcan
(should)betestedforaspecificsituationbycrossplottingPhi(QL)(iethesimpleaverage)
againstPhi(Final)(thesophisticatedestimate)acrossthenonshaly,nongasintervalsofan
September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Resistivity Ratios for Rw

acceptedinterpretation.
Oncevalidatedlocally,we
haveaquickanduseful
referenceagainstwhichto
quicklycomparePhi(Best
Estimate).

Figure 17

Borehole domains and nomenclature

Archies equation applies in each
domain
Flushed Zone
Un-invaded Zone

Theresistivity
Sxon = Rmf / ( m * Rxo )
measurementsarealso
Swn = Rw / ( m * Rdeep )
amenabletoquicklook
interpretations.Applying
Schlumberger 1979 Chart Book
ArchietoboththeFlushed
Determination of Rw in a Water-bearing Zone
andUnflusheddomains,
andthentakingtheratio
Swn / Sxon = 1 = ( Rw / Rmf ) * ( Rxo / Rdeep )
ofthosetwoequationsin
Rw = Rmf * ( Rdeep / Rxo )
thewaterleg,yieldsthe
apparentformationwaterresistivityasafunctionofRdeep/Rxo:Figure17.
Thissimpleequationmaybecodedintotheflowchartthatwefollowinsettingupthedigital
database.Thatis,followingtracedepthshiftingandsplicing,executethisalgorithmto
provideanestimateofRwwellbywell,therebyjumpstartingtheinterpretation(wehavea
reasonableideaofRwjustassoonasthebasicdatahasbeenassimilated).
Ifthecalculationisperformedinthehydrocarboncolumn,anartificiallyhighRwawillresult,
andweeliminatethisbyscalingthedisplayappropriatelyanddisallowingtracedisplaywrap
around.
Ingeneral,eveninanewarea,wewillhavesomeideaofthebrinesalinity:fresh,moderate,
salty.WhencombinedwiththeformationtemperaturethisgivesanRwestimate,andthe
displayscalesarechosensothatonlytheexpectedrangeofRwvaluesareactuallydisplayed
(thehydrocarboncolumnwrappingaround,withoutdisplay).
Ifadditionaldata,suchastheSPand/orbrinesamples,areavailablethenthatinformation
shouldbefactoredintotheanalyses.
Inworkingwithresistivityratios,wemustbearinmindthatoneisessentiallyassumingastep
invasionprofile.MotherNatureisnotalwayssokind,andifforexampleRxoisseeingmostlyRmf
butsomeRw,thentheassumptionswillbegintobreakdown,moreorless.See,forexample,
GoodNewsandBadNews(Ballay2009)andInvasionRevisited(Allenetal1991).

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Resistivity Ratios for Sw

Figure 18

Theresistivityratio
conceptalsohas
applicationinthe
Sxon = Rmf / ( m * Rxo)
hydrocarboncolumn:
Divide (Ratio)
Figure18.Nowwemake
n
n
twoadditional(firstpass,
Sw / Sxo = ( Rw / Rmf )* ( Rxo / Rdeep )
adjustasappropriate)
Assume
assumptions:n=2and
n = 2 and Sxo = Sw1/5
Sxo=Sw1/5.TheSxovsSw
assumptioninparticular
then
mightappeartobe
Sw2 / Sxo2 = [ Sw / Sw1/5 ] 2 = [ Sw4/5 ] 2 Sw8/5 = ( Rw / Rmf ) * ( Rxo / Rdeep )
shaky,butisinfactfairly
robustandinuse
worldwide.Andwithexperienceinaspecificlocale,onemayfinetunethisexponent.

Swn = Rw / ( m * Rdeep)

AswasthecasewiththeRw(QL)calculationdiscussedabove,wemustbearinmindthe
assumptionofastepprofileforinvasion.
TheutilityoftheSw(QL)calculationbecomesapparentwhen(asoneofseveralpossible
examples)oneisfacedwithavariablemexponent,suchasinavuggycarbonate:Figure19.
Inthisillustration,watersaturationiscalculatedfromArchiewithmtakenas2.0,andalso
fromtheresistivityratio.Inthoseintervalsforwhichsimilarsaturationsresult,thereis
confidence.ButshouldtheratiowatersaturationbegreaterthanSw(Archie),thereiscause
forconcern(havewe
Figure 19
Evaluation of Vuggy Interval
usedtheappropriate
m?).AndiftheBulk
VolumeWaterisalso
high,thatconcern
heightens.
Illustrative Application: Improved Evaluation of Vuggy Rock
Inthisparticularcasethe
From Density-Neutron.
authorhaspetrography
whichrevealsthatthe
The zone at 4810 has good porosity and low Archie Sw: is it pay??
poresystemacrossthe
But the Resistivity Ratio Sw is high (53% vs 38%): a Red Flag !
questionedintervalisin
factoomoldic.The
This suggests that the zone may be wet.
resistivityincrease,which
Sw(m=2)interpretsas
From petrography
hydrocarbon,isinfact
theresultofatortuous
poresystem,andnotthe Author, date and publication n/a. Found with Google Search. Chapter V: Combining Water Saturation by Ratio Method,
Moveable Hydrocarbon Index, Bulk Volume Water and Archie Water Saturation.
presenceof
hydrocarbons.Itisthe
resistivityratiosaturationthatraisestheRedFlag.
September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Thereareanumberofonlineresourcestowhichonemayreferforthese,andadditional,
concepts.
RossCrain'sOnlineTutorial:www.spec2000.net/index.
KansasGeologicalSurveyTutorial:www.kgs.ku.edu/Gemini.
BakerHughesTutorial:www.bakerhughesdirect.com/.
Forlocalespecificoverviewsandsuggestions,wehavefoundSchlumbergersOilFieldReview
andMiddleEast&AsiaWellReviewtobeveryuseful:www.slb.com/.
MultimodePoreSystems
Multi-mode Pore Systems
Measured MICP curve and Composite
Thomeer curve fits to bimodal sample
Dual Porosity measurements in red
Large Pores per Thomeer model
Vb = 0.035
Pd = 260
Constant = -0.31, G = 0.134
Small Pores per Thomeer model
Vb = 0.035
Pd = 3950
Constant = -0.018, G = 0.008

Hg Injection: Stressed

0.100

1000

0.010
Fractional BV(NonWet)

100
0.001
R. E. Ballay

Figure 20

For illustration application of Thomeers model, see Ballay, Split Personality.

See also Reference articles, such as following
George Hirasaki http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chbe402/. http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng571/.
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chbe671/.
Clerke, Edward and Harry W Mueller, Eugene C Phillips, Ramsin Y Eyvazzadeh, David H Jones, Raghu Ramamoorthy &
Ashok Srisvastava. Application of Thomeer Hyperbolas to decode the pore systems, facies and reservoir properties of the
Upper Jurassic Arab D Limestone, Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia: A Rosetta Stone approach. GeoArabia, Vol 13 No 4 2008.

AlthoughtheThomeerformulationisnotcommonlyusedoutsideShell(whereThomeer
worked),itprovidesaconvenientandphysicallymeaningfulrepresentationofmultimode
poresystems(Ballay,SplitPersonalityandHirasaki&ClerkearticlesintheReferences,for
illustrativediscussions).
Hyperbolicmodels(suchasThomeer)appearinavarietypetrophysicaldiscussions,witha
commonhistoricalapplicationbeingBulkVolumeWater:BVW=Phi*Sw.Abovethe
transitionzone,BVWtakesonarelativelyconstantvalueforaspecificrockquality,androckof
aspecificcategory(BVW)canbeoftenbesafely(withminimalriskofproducingwater)
perforatedinthepresenceofhighSw,solongitfallsalongtheappropriateBVWtrend.

September2014

100000

10000

Hg Pressure

IntheRealEstateworld,
itsallaboutlocation,
location,andlocation.In
theCarbonate
Petrophysicsworld,itis
oftenaboutthepore
system,theporesystem,
andtheporesystem.
Failuretorecognize
variationsinthepore
systemcancauseusto
workwithourEyesWide
Shut.Anditmaybe
mercuryinjection
capillarypressuredata
thatraisestheRedFlag
forthePoreSystem:
Figure20.

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

AlthoughtheBVWgraphicisoftenreferredtoasaBucklesPlot,Archieutilizedthisconceptat
leastasfarbackas1952(wellbeforeBucklespaper,butitwasBuckleswhonicelydocumented
themethodologywithillustrativeexamples)anditisoneapplicationoftodaysmodernNMR
measurements.
TheThomeermodelofcapillarypressureisahyperbolicrelationbetweenMercuryInjection
Pressure(Pc)andBulkVolume(Vb)Occupied(bythenonwettingmercury),expressedas
follows.
[Log(Vb/Vb)][Log(Pc/Pd)]=Constant

Vbisthefractionalbulkvolumeoccupiedbymercuryextrapolatedtoinfinite
mercurypressure:theverticalasymptote.

Pdistheextrapolatedmercurydisplacementpressureinpsi:thepressurerequiredto
enterthelargestporethroat:thehorizontalasymptote.

Constantistheporegeometryfactor,thedistributionofporethroatsandtheir
associatedvolumes:thecurvatureoftherelation.

Amultimodeporesystem,whichcanberecognizedwithmercuryinjectiondata,mayaffect
bothArchiesmandn.
Ifthetwoporosity
Dual Porosity Cementation Exponent Model
componentsforma
parallelcircuit,Wang
Type 1 dual porosity (parallel circuit) m model
andLucia(1993)deduce
whattheyrefertoas
Type1andType2
CementationExponent
av is related to the efficiency of vuggy porosity current paths
modelsthatmaybe
the connectivity between vugs and interparticle pores
usedtoestimatethe
the connectivity between various types of touching vugs
implicationsonSw.And
whiletheparallelcircuit av varies from
Figure 21
assumptioncanbe
unity for reservoirs with well connected planar fractures
questioned(isMother
to infinity for reservoirs with isolated vugs
Natureeverreallythis
Wang, Fred P. and Jerry Lucia. Comparison of Empirical Models for Calculating the Vuggy Porosity and Cementation
simple?),itisacommon Exponent of Carbonates from Log Responses Bureau of Economic Geology, UT. 1993.
approach(Waxman
Smitsshalysandmodel,forexample,andthereareothers):Figure21.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Dual-porosity m Estimates
What If Characterizations

MonteCarloDistribution

Probabilistic Estimate

600
500

Frequency

"m"DualPhi

400
300
200
100
0

Spreadsheet Implementation
of the Probabilistic Estimate

1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00
DualPorosity"m"

Figure 22
Dual Porosity / Type 1
4

Cement Exponent

At similar parameter values (av ~ 100)

Deterministic and Monte Carlo results are
similar, and complement one another
An advantage of Monte Carlo is insight into
the upside and downside
On the other hand a single Deterministic
display illustrates the range of possible m
values for various av values (connectivity)
Note that as porosity decreases, a relatively
small amount of a second, well connected pore
system can lead to a decrease in m (as
discussed earlier)

Deterministic Estimate

2
av=1
av=10

av=100
av=1000

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Total Porosity [ Phi(v)=0.05 ]

After Wang and Lucia

InWang&Lucias
model,itistheav
parameterthat
representsthe
connectivity,orlack
thereof,ofthetwo
poresystems.In
practice,onewill
seldomhaveanexact
valueforthisattribute,
andsoWhatIf(both
deterministicand
probabilistic:Ballay,
RiskyBusinessand
RollingTheDice)
calculationsareoften

usedtoboundtherangeofpossibilities:Figure22.
Fromtheprecedingwerealizethatthecompositemwillbeafunctionoftheporosity
partition.Asanexample,considerasystemofsmallandlargepores,eachofwhichhavean
individualmof2.0(FockeandMunnfordetailedinvestigationofm).
EventhoughboththeMicro&Mesoporesystemseachhavem=2,thecompositemmay
differfrom2.0.
Phi(Micro) Phi(Meso) m
0.25

0.00

2.00

0.20

0.05

2.28

0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25

2.47
2.47
2.28
2.00

AndbecausethetwodifferentsizeporesystemsdesaturateaccordingtodifferentPccurves
(ascanbenicelyenvisionedviatheThomeerPcmodel),theporositypartitioneffectsmaynot
belimitedtothemexponent.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Dual Porosity Effects in Hydrocarbon Saturated Rock

As Pc exceeds 100 psi, the small pore system just begins to contribute. At this point
Sw(Macro) ~ 0.206 and R(Macro) ~ R(0)/(Sw^n) ~ [0.05/(0.20^2)]/(0.206^2) ~ 29.5
Sw(Meso) ~ 1.00 and R(Meso) ~ R(0) ~ [0.05/(0.05^2)]/1.00 ~ 20.0
Sw(Net) ~ [0.20*Sw(Macro) + 0.05 * Sw(Meso)]/0.25 ~ 0.365
The resistivity of the charged parallel network is 1/R(Net)=1/R(Macro)+1/R(Meso) R(Net) ~ 11.9
The resistivity of the water filled parallel network is 1/R(0)=1/R(Macro)+1/R(Meso) R(Net) ~ 1.18
The effective n exponent is n ~ [Log(R(0)/R(T))]/Log(Sw) ~ 2.3, NOT 2.0, even though both
porosity partitions are described by n = 2.0.
Routine Semi-Log Format Pc Display

Figure 23

R(T)/R(0) vs Sw for Archie's "n"

1000.00

10000

Phi(Macro)=0.20
Phi(Meso)=0.05

100.00

Resistivity Index

1000

Hg Pressure

MaintainingtheDual
Porosityconcept(asput
forwardbyWangand
Luciaform),itis
straightforwardtoset
uptheThomeer
representationofany
(locallyspecific)dual
porosityPccurve,and
tothencalculatethe
correspondingnetn
exponentasthat
(locally)specificporosity
partitionisde
saturated.

n~2.3

10.00

100

Macro

10

Meso

1.00

Total

MacroPores

MesoPores

Vb

0.2

Vb

0.05

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

10

0.1
0.05
2
2
1.25

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

0.1
0.05
2
2
20

100

Macro
Meso
Total

Becausethetwo
Sw
Sw
Sw(Net) ~ 0.365
populationsdesaturate
Sw ~ 0.206
R. E. Ballay
differently,thenetn
exponentcanbenonlinearevenwheneachindividualpartitionhasannof2.0:Figure23.
1

0.10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.01

0.1

Dual Porosity in Hydrocarbon

Saturated Rock

R(T)/R(0) vs Sw for Archie's "n"

1000.00

Resistivity Index

100.00

10.00
MacroPores

1.00

0.10

MesoPores

Vb

0.2

Vb

0.05

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

10

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

0.1
0.05
2
2
20

0.01

0.1
0.05
2
2
1.25

100

0.1

Sw

Macro
Meso
Total
1

R. E. Ballay

The simulated net reservoir n

bends over at the saturation
corresponding to hydrocarbon entry
into the small pore system, as has
been reported by Diederix, Swanson,
Fleury and others
Figure 24

The Technical Review : Volume 36 Number 4.

B F Swanson: Micro-porosity in Reservoir Rocks. 1987.

September2014

The Technical Review : Volume 36 Number 4

K M Diederix: Anomalous Relationships Between
Resistivity Index and Water Saturations. 1987.

Onceagain,weall
realizethatthe
reservoiristypicallynot
asimpleparallel
network(orseriesfor
thatmatter),butthis
mathematicalapproach
isindeedrelatively
commoninboththe
clasticandcarbonate
world,andthe
resultingpredictedn
behaviorhasbeen
reportedin
independent
laboratorystudies
(Diederix,Swanson):
Figure24.

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Dual Porosity Effects in Hydrocarbon Saturated Rock

As Pc exceeds 100 psi, the small pore system just begins to contribute. At this point
Sw(Macro) ~ 0.206 and R(Macro) ~ R(0)/(Sw^n) ~ [0.05/(0.125^2)]/(0.206^2) ~ 75.4
Sw(Meso) ~ 1.00 and R(Meso) ~ R(0) ~ [0.05/(0.125^2)]/1.00 ~ 3.2
Sw(Net) ~ [0.125*Sw(Macro) + 0.125 * Sw(Meso)]/0.25 ~ 0.60
The resistivity of the charged parallel network is 1/R(Net)=1/R(Macro)+1/R(Meso) R(Net) ~ 3.1
The resistivity of the water filled parallel network is 1/R(0)=1/R(Macro)+1/R(Meso) R(Net) ~ 1.6
The effective n exponent is n ~ [Log(R(0)/R(T))]/Log(Sw) ~ 1.3, NOT 2.0, even though both
porosity partitions are described by n = 2.0.

Figure 25

Routine Semi-Log Format Pc Display

R(T)/R(0) vs Sw for Archie's "n"

1000.000

10000

Phi(Macro)=0.125
Phi(Meso)=0.125

100.000

Resistivity Index

Hg Pressure

1000

10.000

100

1.000

Macro

10

Meso
Total
1
0

0.2

0.4

Sw ~ 0.206

0.6

0.8

Sw

MesoPores

Vb

0.125

Vb

0.125

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

10

0.1
0.05
2
2
3.2

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

0.1
0.05
2
2
3.2

0.100
0.01

n~1.3

MacroPores

100

0.1

Meso
Total

Sw ~ 0.60

Sw

R. E. Ballay

Macro

Astherelativeportionofthetwo(largeandsmall,eachwithm=2.0andn=2.0)porosity
partitionsisvaried,wefurtherfindthatnotonlycannbenddownwards,itcanalsobend
upwards:Figures25and26.
Dual Porosity Effects in Hydrocarbon Saturated Rock
As Pc exceeds 100 psi, the small pore system just begins to contribute. At this point
Sw(Macro) ~ 0.206 and R(Macro) ~ R(0)/(Sw^n) ~ [0.05/(0.05^2)]/(0.206^2) ~ 471.
Sw(Meso) ~ 1.00 and R(Meso) ~ R(0) ~ [0.05/(0.20^2)]/1.00 ~ 1.25
Sw(Net) ~ [0.05*Sw(Macro) + 0.20 * Sw(Meso)]/0.25 ~ 0.84
The resistivity of the charged parallel network is 1/R(Net)=1/R(Macro)+1/R(Meso) R(Net) ~ 1.25
The resistivity of the water filled parallel network is 1/R(0)=1/R(Macro)+1/R(Meso) R(Net) ~ 1.18
The effective n exponent is n ~ [Log(R(0)/R(T))]/Log(Sw) ~ 0.33, NOT 2.0, even though both
porosity partitions are described by n = 2.0.
Routine Semi-Log Format Pc Display

Figure 26

R(T)/R(0) vs Sw for Archie's "n"

1000.000

10000

Phi(Macro)=0.05
Phi(Meso)=0.20

100.000

Resistivity Index

Hg Pressure

1000

10.000

100

1.000

Macro

10

Meso
Total
0.2

Sw ~ 0.206

0.4

0.6

Sw

0.8

MesoPores

0.05

Vb

0.2

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

10

Pd
Constant
Rw
m
n
Ro

100

0.100
0.01

1
0

MacroPores
Vb

0.1
0.05
2
2
20

0.1

Sw

R. E. Ballay

0.1
0.05
2
2
1.25

n~0.33
Macro
Meso
Total

Sw ~ 0.84

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Sincethereisoftenarelationbetweenporethroatradii(Pc)andporebodysize(NMR),one
wouldexpectthatNMRT2distributionsmightofferanalternativeillustrationoftheissue,
andthatisindeedthecase:Figure27.
RI-Sw From T2(NMR) Perspective
The relation between the slope of RI-Sw and the multimode pore system can be visualized in terms of the NMR
T2 distribution
We measured the electrical responses of different
water wet sands and carbonates and present a
numerical approach based on the "Random Walk"
technique
The carbonate sample at right exhibits a bimodal pore
size distribution
The drainage RI-Sw curve exhibits a non-Archie bend
upwards at Sw ~ 40%.
The T2 distribution was measured (at each centrifuge
step) and shows that the macro-pores are drained
progressively, with brine persisting in the micro-pores.
Han, M and V, Tariel, S. Youssef , E. Rosenberg, M. Fleury & P. Levitz. THE
EFFECT OF THE POROUS STRUCTURE ON RESISTIVITY INDEX CURVES.
AN EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL STUDY. SPWLA 49th Annual
Logging Symposium, May 25-28, 2008

Figure 27

Themorphologyoftheporesystemthusrepresentsanotherdimension,beyondsimplythe
magnitudeoftheporosity.
Adualporositysystem(largeandsmallpores)whereinmandnareboth2.0,forboth
individualporesystems,candisplayasurprisinglylargerangeofnetmandnvalues.
MercuryinjectioncapillarypressuredatacanbethemeasurementwhichOpensOurEyesto
thisphenomenon.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

TheTransitionZoneandLowResistivityPay
Inadditiontogeneralshortcomings(asabove)withmeasurementsand/orinterpretation
algorithms,wemightalsofindourselvesfacedwithintervalissues.
Consider,asoneexample,asituationinwhichwehaveconfidenceinboththehydrocarbon
columnSwcalculations(bycomparisonofSw(Archie)andSw(Pc)orsomeothercrosscheck)and
thewaterleg(RwawithappropriatemisconsistentwithmeasuredRw,orsomeother
comparison).Althoughcomforting,wedonotnecessarilyknowthatthetransitionzoneis
beingproperlyevaluated.
Transitionzonesmaypresentadditionalchallenges.Ehrenbergetal(2005)foundthat
hydrocarbonemplacementmorecommonlypreservesrockqualityincarbonates,ascompared
toclastics,andEfniketal(2006)findsneardryoilcansometimesbeproducedinwhatwould
havebydefaultbeeninterpreted(andnottested)asacarbonatetransitionzone.
PulsedNeutronLogsaretypicallyrunlongaftertheoriginalopenholeinterpretationhasbeen
completed(forsurveillancepurposes)butcaninfactcontribute(atalaterdate)toQuality
ControloftheOHevaluationinanumberofways(LaurentMoinard,personal
communication).
Asoneofseveralpossibleexamples,letusconsideradualporositysystemconsistingoflarge
andsmallpores,andtheassociatedtransitionzoneimplications:Figure28.
Complex Pore Systems and the Transition Interval
Carbonate pore structure can exhibit a wide variety of pore sizes
ranging from visible to microscopic
This creates a complex fluid
distribution in the pore network
As hydrocarbon charging occurs,
macro-pore water tends to be
displaced first
Depending upon the buoyancy
pressure and height on the
structure, a portion of the mesopores may become oil charged

Figure 28

Estimating Sw with a volume measurement

R. Griffiths, A. Carnegie, A. Gyllensten, M. T. Ribeiro, A. Prasodjo, and Y. Sallam. World Oil, October 2006

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Asonemovesupward
fromtheFreeWater
Level,capillarypressure
increasesandatsome
pointthelargeporeswill
admithydrocarbon,
whilethesmallpores
remainwaterfilled.
If,foranyreason,the
waterfilledsmallpores
formanelectricalcircuit,
Swascalculatedfrom
Archiesequationcanbe
pessimisticacrossthat
interval:Figure29.

Complex Pore Systems and the Transition Interval

While the Archie equation has had tremendous success, there are
limitations in carbonates
Archie alluded to limitations in 1942

One critical assumption is that the

measure current moves uniformly
through the formation
The presence of water-filled micropores in close proximity to the larger
hydrocarbon-filled pores may shortcircuit the currents
This causes the oil saturation to be
under-estimated

Figure 29

Estimating Sw with a volume measurement

R. Griffiths, A. Carnegie, A. Gyllensten, M. T. Ribeiro, A. Prasodjo, and Y. Sallam. World Oil, October 2006

Interestingly,thepressureprofileacrossthetransitionzonecanalsobecompromised
(Griffithsetal,2006).

Inrecentstudies,pressuredataacrosstransitionzoneshaverevealed
o Theupperpartofthezonehasanoilgradientbuttheimpliedoildensityistoo
light
Thelowerpartofthezonehasawatergradientandtheresistivityisusuallylow
o buttheuppersectionofthisapparentwatergradientwillsometimeproduceoil
withalowwaterfraction
Simplelineargradientsappliedtothepressurepointscanplacetheinterpretedoil
watercontacttoohigh
o Theresult:hydrocarboninplacemaybesignificantlyunderestimated

Pressureprofilesprovidevaluableformationevaluationandsurveillanceinformation(Ballay
2008),oftenwitharoutine(simplelinear)interpretation,butweshouldnotcloseoureyes
andoverlookpotentialcomplications:Elshahawi1999,Carnegie2006,Larson2009.
BacktoLaurentMoinardandthePulsedNeutronLog.TheoriginalOHinterpretationcanbe
usedtocreateasyntheticcapturecrosssectionaccordingtothePNLbulkvolumeweighted
responseequation,whichcanthenbecomparedtothemeasuredcapturecrosssection.

Synthetic=(1)matrix+ fluid

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Ifthe(calculated
synthetic)OHand
(measured)CH
interpretationsare
consistentwithone
another,thesynthetic
capturecrosssection
shouldagreewiththe
measuredvalue:
Figure30.

Pulsed Neutron Log

Calculated
Calculated

(TDT) Main vs Repeat (SigmTDT5

& SigmTDT6)

Measured
Measured

Good over-lay
Tool data looks good
Now compare PNL-measured and
OH-calculated
(Tot) calculated from OH results
(mineralogy, & Sw) as input
(Tot) calculated ~ SigmTDT 5 / 6

measured in oil column and water leg

Inthisexample(and
indeed,ineverysuch
Establishes confidence in basic OH &
CH data and the interpretations
comparisonthatwas
doneinthisfieldstudy,
withavailablePNLs),
Figure 30
thereisagoodmatch
betweenSyntheticand
Measuredinthe
hydrocarboncolumnandinthewaterleg.

R. E. Ballay

Inthetransitionzone,however,everysuchcomparisonfoundSynthetic>Measuredindicating
thatSw(PNL)<Sw(Archie):Figure31.

Pulsed Neutron Log

Calculated
Calculated

(Total from Archie) Greater Than

SigmTDT 5 / 6 measured in transition
zone

Measured
Measured

Suggests Sw(Archie) is high in

transition zone
The presence of water-filled micropores in close proximity to the larger
hydrocarbon-filled pores may shortcircuit the resistivity measure currents
This causes the Archie oil saturation
to be under-estimated Low
Resistivity Pay

Figure 31
Laurent Moinard: The PNL can cross-check Open Hole Sw(Archie) Interpretation
September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

SPWLAAbuDhabiregularlyhostssomeveryinterestingandpracticalconferences(withresults
postedtotheirwwwsite:http://www.spwlaabudhabi.com/).InonerecentConference
(personalcommunication,ChrisSmart)thetopicwasLowResistivityPayinCarbonates,where
theynotedFivedistinctcausesofLRPwereidentified.
Thethreemostlikelycausesallrelyonadualporositystructure.

FracturedformationsSometimes
LayeredformationsOften
DualPorositySystemsMostCommon

Inthecaseoffracturedandlayeredformations,thelargepores(fracturesbeingregardedasof
infiniteporesize)arephysicallyseparatefromthesmallerpores.Inthecaseofdualporosity
systems,thetwoporesizesarejuxtaposed.
Thethreemaincausesoflowresistivitypaycanthusresultfromlimitedentryofoilintothe
smallerpores.Itisthenexpectedthathigherinthecolumn(abovetheTransitionZone)oil
would(eventually)gainaccesstothesmallerporesandbothoilsaturationandresistivity
wouldrise.LRPcanbeaTransitionZonephenomenonandnotbeexpectedinidenticalrock
higherinthecolumn.
CasedholePNLlogs,runforsurveillancepurposes,canserveasaQCdevicefortheoriginal
OHinterpretation.
AdditionalLowResPayconsiderationsmaybefoundinthefollowingreferences:AustinBoydet
al(1995),RogerGriffithsetal(2006),AsbjornGyllenstenetal(2007).
Finally,thereisyetanotherapplicationofthePNLforOHinterpretationpurposes:asan
independentestimateofRw.ForwithmineralogyandporosityfromtheOHinterpretation,and
ameasurementinthewaterleg,oneisabletocalculateWater,andfromthatdeducethe
formationbrinesalinity.
AspointedoutbyLaurentMoinard,consolidationoftheOHandCHdataandinterpretations
canleadtoa1+1=3situation.
StatisticalIssues
Inatimewhenpocketcalculatorshavemorecomputingpowerthandidthespacecapsulethat
firstwenttoamoon,andwhendesktopPCsofferpreprogrammedstatisticalpackagesof
unprecedentedcapabilities,MarkTwainswordsofmorethan100yearsagostillringtrue:
Factsarestubborn,statisticsaremorepliable.
Petrophysicalcorrelationscommonlyencounterthefollowingpitfalls.

Failuretorecognizetheimportanceofresidualorientation,inestablishingnumerical
(leastsquares)correlations.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Establishingcorrelationsbaseduponlogarithms(permeabilityforexample),ratherthan
directlyupontheattributeofinterest.

Considerfirsttheissueofresidualorientation.ThecommonlyusedLinearLeastSquares
Regressioniswellknownandoftenutilized,butwhatiscommonlyoverlookedisthe
(implicitlyassumed)orientationoftheresidualwhosesumofsquaresisminimized.
YonXregression(typicallythedefault)yieldsthatsetofmandb(whereY=m*X+b)for
whichthesumofresidualsquaresisminimizedintheYdirection.
XonYisthesetofmandb(X=m*Y+b)forwhichthesumofresidualsquaresis
minimizedintheXdirection.
ThetwosetsofBestFitmandbcoefficientsarenotthesame,andinfacttheyformthe
extremalboundaryvaluesofaninfiniterangeofpossibleorientations.Thecommonpre
programmedleastsquaresregressionisusuallyYonX,andthismay,ormaynot,be
appropriate(Ballay,2010).
Thepotentialformisidentificationiscompoundedwhenoneisworkingwithanyproperty
thatvariesasafunctionofdepth(PressureProfiles,SaturationHeight,etc)becauseour
naturaltendencywillbetoplacedepthalongtheverticalaxis,whereasinmanyapplications
theresidualthatshouldbeminimizedisinfactalongtheXaxis(Woodhouse,2005andBallay,
2009).
Fortunately,inadditiontopreprogrammedfeatures(whichmay,ormaynot,beappropriate),
manysoftwarepackagesofferpowerfuluserdefinedcurvefittingoptions(suchasExcels
Solver).

TheSolver
featureallows
theuserto
specifythe
desiredresidual
orientationand
tothenperform
bothlinearand(a
varietyof)non
linearcurvefits.
September2014

Residuals Orientation

Saturation-Height Curve Fit

Figure 32

Saturation-Height Curve Fit

1000

1000

HFWL(DltaHFWL)

HFWL(DltaSw)

800

800

Sw(1)

Sw(1)
Sw(2)

600

Height(Ft)

Sw(2)

Height(Ft)

Theissuecanbe
illustratedby
constructingthe
Saturation
Heightrelation
basedupon
actualcapillary
pressuredata:
Figure32.

Sw(3)

400

600

Sw(3)

400
200

200

0
0.0

R. E. Ballay

0.2

0.4
0.6
Sat(Wetting)

0.8

Residuals calculated as
Sw(Model) Sw(Actual)

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Sat(Wetting)

0.8

1.0

R. E. Ballay

Residuals calculated as
HFWL(Model) HFWL(Actual)

The calibration data is identical (left and right) but the results are very different
At left, the best-fitting line visually passes through the horizontal distribution of
values, while at right the best-fitting line passes through the vertical distribution of
values

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

InFigure32oureyeisdrawntotheresultsontheleftbecausewearementallyexpectingthe
distributionofmeasuredvalues,aboutthebestfittingcurvetobecenteredinthe
horizontalsense,andnotthevertical(depth)sense.
Solveralsoallowsonetoavoidthelogarithmpitfall,whichisillustratedinFigure33.

Logarithm Pitfalls
A comparison of Avg(Permeability) and 10^Avg(Log(Perm)) illustrates the
discrepancy that Woodhouse is referring to
Woodhouse: The use of
All Data
logarithms suppresses the highAvg(Prm)
1957.5
perm values.
If arithmetic means for various
sections of the x-axis are
calculated, significantly
higher
Permeability vs Porosity
10000 of average permeability
values
are calculated
Core Data

Avg(Log(Prm)
10^Avg(Log(Prm)

Figure 33

2.53
335.2

Permeability vs Porosity

10000
Core Data

8000
Permeability

Permeability

1000

100

10

1
0.00

R. E. Ballay

6000

4000

2000

0.10
0.20
Core Porosity

0
0.00

0.30

0.10
0.20
Core Porosity

0.30

R. E. Ballay

Inthisexamplewehavesetupaphysicallyrealisticrelationbetweenporosityandpermeability,
baseduponanexponentialrelation.InonecaseitistheLog(Perm)thatisdisplayed(viathe
semiloggraph)whileintheothercaseitisthedirectPorosityPermeabilityrelation;both
graphicsarebaseduponexactlythesamesetofinputvalues.
Beforenonlinearalgorithms(suchasSolver)werecommonlyavailable,oneoftenestablished
thePorosityPermeabilitytransformbylinearleastsquaresregressionappliedto
Log(Perm).
AsWoodhouse(2005)pointsout,theaverageofasetofPermeabilitymeasurementsisnot
thesameastenraisedtothepoweroftheaverageofthecorrespondinglogarithms.
Transformingtothelogarithmdomain,determiningtheaverageandthentransformingthat
averagebackintopermeabilitytendstosuppressthehigherpermeabilitymeasurements.By
workingdirectwiththeattributeofinterest(inthiscasepermeability,ratherthanLog(perm)),
oneavoidsthispitfall.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Summary
ThatoldsayingNevercriticizeamantillyouhavewalkedinhisshoeshasrelevanceinthe
petrophysicalworld.Alltoooften(particularlyinfieldstudies)petrophysicalresultdelivery
deadlinesarehighlyinfluencedbysomeonewhodoesnothavehandsonexperienceineither
basicPetrophysicalDataQualityControl,orconstructionofamultiwelldatabase(including
welltowellcrosschecks).
Itisthendifficultforthemtoaccepttheamountoftimethatcanelapsebeforeany(firstpass)
interpretationisactuallyexecuted,andwhy(tentative)conclusionscanchange,astheproject
proceeds.Aseeminglysimpletasksuchasdepthshiftingcanbecomeverytimeconsuming,
particularlyifthevariousmeasurementsarefromdifferenttoolruns;iftooldragging/sticking
ispresenttheindividualmeasurements(attheirspecificdepths)fromasingletoolrunrequire
carefulconsideration.
IntheRealWorldoneseldomhasthetimetoworkissuesincompletedetail,butweshouldat
theveryleastrecordconcerns,andavoidtheEyesWideShutmentalityaswestrivetomeet
ourdeadline.
Acknowledgement
InthetenyearssincemyretirementfromAramco,duringwhichIdevelopedandpresenteda
CarbonatePetrophysicscourse,itwasmygoodfortunetohavemanybrightandinquiring
mindsintheaudience.ToyouallIsayThankYou,forrightuptotheverylastpresentationI
foundmyselfconsideringnewpossibilitiesasaresultofyourquestionsandcomments.
AlthoughIamnowretiring,theCarbonatePetrophysicscourseisnot:myfriendandcolleague
MartinStoreyhaskindlyagreedtocarryonwithnotonlyCarbonatePetrophysics,buthis
additionalpersonalofferingsaswell.
Martinmaybecontactedatmstorey@merantipetrophysics.com.
References
Adams,S.J.QuantifyingPetrophysicalUncertainties.AsiaPacificOil&GasConferenceand
Exhibition,Jakarta.April2005.
Allen,Davidetal.InvasionRevisited.OilfieldReview.July1991.
Amabeoku,Macleanetal.QualityControl/QualityAssuranceAssessmentsofCoreAnalysis
DatafromMultipleCommercialLaboratories.SPWLAAnnualSymposium.May2011.
AmericanPetroleumInstitute.RecommendedPracticesforCoreAnalysis.SecondEdition.Feb.
1998.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Author,dateandpublicationn/a.FoundwithGoogleSearch.ChapterV:CombiningWater
SaturationbyRatioMethod,MoveableHydrocarbonIndex,BulkVolumeWaterandArchie
WaterSaturation.
Ballay,Gene.MultidimensionalPetrophysics.SaudiAramcoJournalofTechnology.Winter
2000/2001.
Ballay,Gene.PorosityLogQualityControlinaGiantCarbonate.SPEAbuDhabi.1994.
Ballay,GeneandRoyCox.FormationEvaluation:CarbonateversusSandstone.March,2005.
www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.DoubleDutyWithTheOldandTheNew.March,2008.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.Testing,Testing,123.Sept,2008.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.2for1or1+1=3.October,2008.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.RiskyBusiness.March,2009.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.GoodNewsandBadNews.Jan,2009.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.RollingtheDice.July,2009.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.CoffeeorTea.Sept,2009.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.SplitPersonality.Dec,2009.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.FactsareStubborn,StatisticsaremorePliable.Feb,2010.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.VisualBasics.April,2010.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.TheBiggestBangfortheBuck.April,2011.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.TheLawofAverages.June,2011.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,Gene.ThemExponentinCarbonatePetrophysics.Jan,2012.www.GeoNeurale.com.
Ballay,GeneandNelsonSuarez.ArchiesnExponent:TherestoftheStory.June,2012.
www.GeoNeurale.com.
Bowers,M.C.&D.E.Fitz.AProbabilisticApproachtoDetermineUncertaintyinCalculated
WaterSaturation.Dialog;8April2003.SPWLA41stAnnualLoggingSymposium;June2000.
Boyd,Austinetal.TheLowdownonLowResistivityPay.OilfieldReview.Autumn1995.
Braun,Ted.SomepracticalLessonsLearnedDuring30YearsintheSCALLab.SCAInternational
Symposium.September,2011.
Brown,A.andS.Husseini:PermeabilityfromWellLogs,ShaybahField,SaudiArabia.SPWLA
18thAnnualLoggingSymposium,June1977
Brown,Alton.Improvedinterpretationofwirelinepressuredata,AAPGBulletin,v.87,no.2.
February,2003.
Burnie,Steve.Error/UncertaintyandTheArchieEquation.Insight:CanadianWellLogging
Society.January2004
September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Carnegie,A.J.G.UnderstandingthePressureGradientsImprovesProductionFromOil/Water
TransitionCarbonateZones.2006SPE/DOESymposiumonImprovedOilRecoveryheldinTulsa,
Oklahoma,U.S.A.2226April,2006.
CaseWesternReserveUniversity.AppendixVoftheMechanicsLabManual,Uncertaintyand
ErrorPropagation(availableonline)
Chen,CandJ.H.Fang.SensitivityAnalysisoftheParametersinArchiesWaterSaturation
Equation.TheLogAnalyst.SeptOct1986.
Clerke,Ed.BeyondPorosityPermeabilityRelationships:DeterminingPoreNetworkParameters
fortheGhawarArabDUsingtheThomeerMethod.GeoFrontier1(3).
Clerke,EdwardandHarryWMueller,EugeneCPhillips,RamsinYEyvazzadeh,DavidHJones,
RaghuRamamoorthy&AshokSrisvastava.ApplicationofThomeerHyperbolastodecodethe
poresystems,faciesandreservoirpropertiesoftheUpperJurassicArabDLimestone,Ghawar
Field,SaudiArabia:ARosettaStoneapproach.GeoArabia,Vol13,No4,2008.
Clerke,Ed.Permeability,RelativePermeability,MicroscopicDisplacementEfficiencyandPore
GeometryofM_1bimodalPoreSystemsinArabDLimestone.SPEJournal.2009.
Clinch,SimonandJohnShafer,WeiWei,PatLasswell.DeterminingFormationWaterSalinityin
theHydrocarbonLegUsingCoresandLogs.Petrophysics,Vol52,No2,April2011.
Corbett,PatrickandJerryJensen.VariationofReservoirStatisticsAccordingtoSampleSpacing
andMeasurementTypeforSomeIntervalsintheLowerBrentGroup.TheLogAnalyst.JanFeb
1992.
Corbett,PatrickandDavidPotter,KhalifaMohammed,ShujieLiu.ForgetBetterStatistics
ConcentrateonBetterSampleSelection.Proceedingsofthe6thNordicSymposiumon
Petrophysics.May2001.Trondheim,Norway.
Diederix,K.M.AnomalousRelationshipsBetweenResistivityIndexandWaterSaturationsinthe
RotliegendSandstone(TheNetherlands),TransactionsoftheSPWLA23rdAnnualLogging
Symposium,CorpusChristi,Texas,July69,1982,PaperX.
Diederix,K.M.AnomalousRelationshipsBetweenResistivityIndexandWaterSaturations.The
TechnicalReview,Vol36No4,1987.
Efnik,MohamedSalehandHafezHafez,MasoudHaajizadeh,MohamedHamawi,MaisoonAl
Mansori,MaherKenawy,FaisalAbdulla.ProducingDryOilfromaTransitionZone;ShouldThis
BeCalledaWedgeZone?2006AbuDhabiInternationalPetroleumExhibitionandConference.
Ehrenberg,S.N.andP.H.Nadeau,Sandstonevs.carbonatepetroleumreservoirs:Aglobal
perspectiveonporositydepthandporositypermeabilityrelationships.AAPGBulletin,v.89,no.
4(April2005),pp.435445
Elshahawi,H.andK.Fathy,S.Hiekal.CapillaryPressureandRockWettabilityEffectsonWireline
FormationTesterMeasurements.SPEAnnualTechnicalConference.Houston,Texas,October
1999.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

ElDin,S.Serag,M.R.Dernaika,I.AlHosani,L.HannonandS.M.Skjveland.WholeCorevs.
Plugs:IntegratingLogandCoreDataToDecreaseUncertaintyinPetrophysicalInterpretation
andSTOIPCalculations.2010AbuDhabiInternationalPetroleumExhibition&Conference,Abu
Dhabi,UAE.
Focke,J.W.andD.Munn.CementationExponentsinMiddleEasternCarbonateReservoirs.SPE
1987.
Freedman,R.AndB.Ausburn.TheWaxmanSmitsEquationofShalySands:I,SimpleMethods
ofSolution,IIErrorAnalysis.TheLogAnalyst.1985.
George,Bovan.ACaseStudyIntegratingthePhysicsofMudFiltrateInvasionwiththePhysicsof
ResistivityLogging.MSThesis.UniversityofTexas.2003.DownloadfromUTsite.
George,BovanandC.TorresVerdin,M.Delshad,R.Sigal,F.Zouioueche&B.Anderson.ACase
StudyIntegratingthePhysicsofMudFiltrateInvasionwiththePhysicsofInductionLogging:
AssessmentofInsituHydrocarbonSaturationinthePresenceofDeepInvasionandHighly
SalineConnateWater.DownloadfromUniversityofTexassite.
Griffiths,R.andA.Carnegie,A.Gyllensten,M.T.Ribeiro,A.Prasodjo,andY.Sallam.Estimating
Swwithavolumemeasurement.WorldOil,October2006
Griffiths,R.etal.EvaluationofLowResistivityPayinCarbonatesABreakthrough.SPWLA47th
Symposium.June,2006.
Gyllensten,Asbjornetal.AnewsaturationmodelforLowResistivityPayincarbonates.SPWLA
MERegionalSymposium.April,2007.
Hamada,G.M.HydrocarbonMoveabilityFactor:NewApproachtoIdentifyHydrocarbon
MoveabilityandTypefromResistivityLogs.EmiratesJournalforEngineeringResearch.2004.
Han,MandV,Tariel,S.Youssef,E.Rosenberg,M.Fleury&P.Levitz.TheEffectofthePorous
StructoreonResistivityIndexCurves.AnExperimentalandNumericalStudy.SPWLA49thAnnual
LoggingSymposium,May2528,2008
Hill,T.&P.Lewicki(2007).Statistics,MethodsandApplications.StatSoft,Tulsa,OK.
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html
Hirasaki,George.
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chbe402/.
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~ceng571/.
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~chbe671/.
Holtz,M.H.andR.P.Major.PetrophysicalCharacterizationofPermianShallowWater
Dolostone.SPE75214,2002.
http://www.beg.utexas.edu/mainweb/presentations/2002_presentations/holtz_spe0402ab.pdf
Kennedy,M.C.Solutionstosomeproblemsintheanalysisofwelllogsincarbonaterocks.
Geologicalapplicationsofwelllogs:AAPGMethodsinExploration,No13,2002.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Kuttan,K.,J.B.Kulla,andR.GNeumann.FreshwaterInfluxintheGippslandBasin:Impacton
FormationEvaluation,HydrocarbonVolumesandHydrocarbonMigration.TheAPEAJournal,
1986.
Larsen,J.andH.Urkedal,A.Lonoy.2009SPEEuropeC/EAGEAnnualConfandExhibition.
Amsterdam,June,2009.
Limpert,L.andW.Stahel&M.Abbt.LognormalDistributionsacrosstheSciences:Keysand
Clues.BioScience,Vol51No5,May2001.
LSU.WeappreciatetheunidentifiedLSUfaculty(locatedviaGoogle)whopostedtheirMonte
CarloThoughtsandSpreadsheettohttp://www.enrg.lsu.edu/pttc/.
Lucia,Jerry.Originandpetrophysicsofdolostoneporespace.GeologicalSociety,London,
SpecialPublications.2004;v.235;p.141155.
Mazzullo,S.J.OverviewofPorosityEvolutioninCarbonateReservoirs.SearchandDiscovery
Article#40134(2004)
Purcell,W.R.Capillarypressuretheirmeasurementsusingmercuryandthecalculationof
permeabilitytherefrom.AIMEPetroleumTrans.,186,3948,1949.
ElDin,S.andM.R.Dernaika,I.AlHosani,L.HannonandS.M.Skjveland.WholeCorevs.Plugs:
IntegratingLogandCoreDataToDecreaseUncertaintyinPetrophysicalInterpretationand
STOIPCalculations.2010AbuDhabiInternationalPetroleumExhibition&Conference,Abu
Dhabi,UAE.
Shafer,JohnandJohnNesham.MercuryPorosimetryProtocolforRapidDeterminationof
PetrophysicalandReservoirQualityProperties.FoundwithGoogle,PublicationDetailsn/a.
Swanson,B.F.MicroporosityinReservoirRocksItsMeasurementandInfluenceonElectrical
Resistivity,TransactionsoftheSPWLA26thAnnualLoggingSymposium.Dallas,June1720,
1985,paperH.
Swanson,B.F.TheTechnicalReview.MicroporosityinReservoirRocks.Vol36No4,1987.
Voss,David,1998,QuantitativeRiskAnalysis:JohnWileyandSons,NewYork
Wang,FredP.andJerryLucia.ComparisonofEmpiricalModelsforCalculatingtheVuggy
PorosityandCementationExponentofCarbonatesfromLogResponsesBureauofEconomic
Geology,BureauofEconomicGeology,UniversityofTexas.1993.
Weger,RalfJ.andGregorP.Eberli,GregorT.Baechle,JoseL.Massaferro,YueFengSun.
Quantificationofporestructureanditseffectonsonicvelocityandpermeabilityincarbonates.
AAPGBulletin,v.93,no.10,Oct2009.
Vavra,C.L.andJ.G.Kaldi,R.M.Sneider,GeologicalApplicationsofCapillaryPressure:A
Review.AAPGvol76no6,June1992.
Verwer,KlaasandGregorP.Eberli,RalfJ.Weger.Effectofporestructureonelectricalresistivity
incarbonates.AAPGBulletin,v.95,no.2,Feb2011.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Woodhouse,Richard.StatisticalRegressionLineFittingInTheOil&GasIndustry.PennWell.
Tulsa(2003)8,26.
Woodhouse,Richard.DevelopmentsinRegressionLineFitting;ImprovedEvaluationEquations
byProperChoicesBetweenSatististicalModels.SPEDistinguishedAuthorSeries.December
2005.

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay

Biography
R. E. (Gene) Ballays 36 years (18 homes, 15 countries) in petrophysics includes both research
and operations assignments with carbonate experience ranging from individual Niagaran reefs in
Michigan to the Lisburne in Alaska through Ghawar, Saudi Arabia (the largest oilfield in the
world).
He holds a PhD in Theoretical Physics with double minors in Electrical Engineering &
Mathematics, has taught physics in two universities, mentored Nationals in Indonesia and Saudi
Arabia, published numerous technical articles and been designated co-inventor on both American
and European patents.
At retirement from the Saudi Arabian Oil Company he
was the senior technical petrophysicist in the Reservoir
Description Division and had represented petrophysics
in three multi-discipline teams, each bringing on-line
multi-billion barrel increments.

Mississippian limestone

Subsequent to retirement from Saudi Aramco he

established Robert E Ballay LLC, which provided
physics - petrophysics consulting services.
He served in the US Army as a Microwave Repairman
and in the US Navy as an Electronics Technician: he is
a USPA Parachutist, a PADI nitrox certified Dive
Master and a Life Member of Disabled American
Veterans.

Chattanooga shale

Martin Storey started his oil and gas industry career more than 25 years ago as a logging
engineer in Venezuela. He then joined a super-major and was a wellsite petroleum engineer then
a Petrophysicist in Gabon and Brunei Darussalam.
In 1998, he became an independent consultant and a trainer, and has consulted internationally
since, including in Syria, Malaysia, Oman, Iran, Brunei Darussalam, Suriname, the Ivory Coast
and Australia. In most of these countries, he was the Petrophysicist in multi-disciplinary teams
working on carbonate as well as clastic oil and gas reservoirs, at all stages of their life cycle.
From 2001 to 2004, he was the managing director of TRACS International Australasia, a training
and consulting company. He has authored several technical articles and numerous proprietary
reports. His areas of main interest include practical Petrophysics, operations, data management
and quality.
Starting in 2013, he will be delivering Gene Ballays
Carbonate Petrophysics course (and additional
courses) in selected locations. He may be reached at
the following address.
mstorey@meranti-petrophysics.com
Originally from France and now based in Western
Australia, Martin holds a BSc in Mathematics and
Computer Science from Stanford University and an
MSc in Electrical Engineering from the California
Institute of Technology (USA). Prior to joining the
oil industry, he worked as an international aid
worker and a computer programmer.

Pleistocene limestone
Isla Baltra, Ecuador

September2014

R.E.(Gene)Ballay