Skip to content
Brent$117.6Gas TTF$1,192USD453.87 ₸
MunaiHub

Equations: Formation evaluation from well logs

The equations of the “Formation evaluation from well logs” lessons with their conditions and units, and what each symbol means in this discipline.

Sampling interval of LWD curves transmitted in real time
Δz=v b3600 R\Delta z = \frac{v\,b}{3600\,R}

vv in m/h, bb in bits, RR in bit/s, Δz\Delta z in m; 3600 is the number of seconds in an hour

Holds when: The whole channel carries the logging curves. In practice the directional survey and service data take part of it, and the interval is then larger. The rate of penetration and the telemetry rate are constant. We ignore data compression.

Open-hole logging: why, how and when →
Reading in the middle of a thin bed (uniform-window model)
xc=hL xb+(1−hL)xs,h<Lx_c = \frac{h}{L}\,x_b + \left(1 - \frac{h}{L}\right) x_s, \qquad h < L

any units of the measured quantity, the same for all; hh and LL in metres

Holds when: The tool averages the property evenly over a window of length LL. The real response is smoother: the middle of the window counts for more than the edges. The bed lies between thick enclosing rocks that are identical. The quantity mixes linearly. This is reasonable for GR and density, but not for resistivity, where the mixing depends on the type of sonde. For h≥Lh \ge L the reading in the middle of the bed is xc=xbx_c = x_b.

Open-hole logging: why, how and when →
Statistical noise at a different logging speed and after averaging
σ2=σ1v2v1,σk=σ1k\sigma_2 = \sigma_1\sqrt{\frac{v_2}{v_1}}, \qquad \sigma_k = \frac{\sigma_1}{\sqrt{k}}

noise in the units of the curve (g/cm³, API, or porosity units: one porosity unit is 0.01, or 1%, of porosity); speeds in the same units

Holds when: Counting statistics set the noise: the number of pulses per sample is proportional to Δz/v\Delta z/v. We ignore other interference. Adjacent samples are independent and the sampling interval Δz\Delta z is the same. The bed is uniform over the averaged samples.

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Equivalent window of a tool after averaging
Leq≈L2+w2,w=k ΔzL_{\text{eq}} \approx \sqrt{L^2 + w^2}, \qquad w = k\,\Delta z

m

Holds when: The tool and the filter are uniform windows, as in the thin-bed model (vertical resolution). We replace the two windows by one window with the same second moment (a measure of spread): when two averagings are applied one after the other, their variances (squared spreads) add. Compared with the exact calculation of two windows, the approximation slightly exaggerates the loss of contrast (in the example below, 0.149 against 0.152).

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Checking the repeat section from the differences
Δˉ=1N∑i=1NΔi,sΔ=∑i(Δi−Δˉ)2N−1,sΔ≈σ2\bar\Delta = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\Delta_i, \qquad s_\Delta = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_i (\Delta_i - \bar\Delta)^2}{N - 1}}, \qquad s_\Delta \approx \sigma\sqrt2

units of the curve being checked

Holds when: Both recordings are depth-matched. We choose the depths in uniform parts of beds, not at boundaries. The errors of the two recordings are independent and equal: the difference then has a standard deviation of σ2\sigma\sqrt2. The standard error of the mean difference is sΔ/Ns_\Delta/\sqrt N. A mean that is several times larger than this error is a systematic offset.

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Shift of a run between two markers
s(z)=s1+z−z1z2−z1 (s2−s1),zref=z−s(z)s(z) = s_1 + \frac{z - z_1}{z_2 - z_1}\,(s_2 - s_1), \qquad z_{\text{ref}} = z - s(z)

m

Holds when: Between markers the shift changes smoothly (cable stretch, thermal elongation). Interpolation does not correct jerks of the tool at ledges in the hole. Above the uppermost marker and below the lowest one we take the shift as constant, equal to the shift at the nearest marker.

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Reading on a logarithmic grid
R=Rmin⁡⋅10 Nx,x=lg⁡(R/Rmin⁡)NR = R_{\min}\cdot 10^{\,N x}, \qquad x = \frac{\lg(R/R_{\min})}{N}

resistivities in the same units; lg⁡\lg is the decimal logarithm (logarithm to base 10)

Holds when: The grid is logarithmic across the whole width; on a split grid the formula applies only to the logarithmic track.

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Depth of an LWD sensor from the time of the sample
zs=zb(t)−ds,δz=v δtz_s = z_{\text{b}}(t) - d_s, \qquad \delta z = v\,\delta t

m, h

Holds when: We know the bit depth from the surface record. Its own errors (pipe stretch, heave at sea: the up-and-down motion of the rig) are not included here. The second formula holds as long as the rate of penetration is constant within the clock disagreement.

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Correlation coefficient of two curves at a trial shift
r(τ)=∑i(xi−xˉ) (yi(τ)−yˉ)∑i(xi−xˉ)2 ∑i(yi(τ)−yˉ)2r(\tau) = \frac{\sum_i (x_i - \bar x)\,\big(y_i(\tau) - \bar y\big)}{\sqrt{\sum_i (x_i - \bar x)^2\,\sum_i \big(y_i(\tau) - \bar y\big)^2}}

curves in the same units; shift in metres

Holds when: The window contains distinct beds. On a uniform stretch rr hardly depends on the shift, and the maximum cannot be trusted. The shift is constant within the window. The curves were recorded by tools of similar resolution.

Log acquisition, processing and presentation →
Diameter of the invaded zone from the volume of filtrate
di=dh2+4 Vfπ h ϕ Sxod_i = \sqrt{d_h^2 + \frac{4\,V_f}{\pi\,h\,\phi\,S_{xo}}}

any consistent system (here SI)

Holds when: Piston-like displacement (the filtrate pushes the fluids ahead of it like a piston): beyond the filtrate front the formation is unchanged, and we neglect the transition zone. Invasion is uniform around the circumference and over the thickness of the bed, without gravity segregation. The filtrate displaces the formation water and the moveable hydrocarbons rather than mixing with them. We take the volume of filtrate as given. In reality the mud, the cake, the overbalance and time determine it.

Borehole environment: invaded zone and mudcake →
Ratio of the resistivities of the flushed zone and the uninvaded formation
RxoRt=RmfRw(SwSxo)2\frac{R_{xo}}{R_t} = \frac{R_{mf}}{R_w}\left(\frac{S_w}{S_{xo}}\right)^{2}

any, the same for all the resistivities (usually Ω·m)

Holds when: A clean formation with intergranular porosity (pores between the grains): only the water in the pores conducts current. Archie's law with a saturation exponent n=2n = 2 and the same formation resistivity factor in both zones. A step profile. We obtained RxoR_{xo} and RtR_t after corrections for the borehole, the cake and invasion. RmfR_{mf} and RwR_w have been brought to formation temperature.

Borehole environment: invaded zone and mudcake →
Static filtration through a growing cake
V=A2 kmc Δp tμf cV = A\sqrt{\frac{2\,k_{mc}\,\Delta p\,t}{\mu_f\,c}}

SI (any consistent system)

Holds when: Filtration at rest, without circulation. The cake is incompressible, and its permeability and composition are constant. The resistance of the formation is small compared with the resistance of the cake. The cake is thin compared with the borehole radius (a planar problem). We neglect the instant initial filtration (spurt loss). In practice an initial volume VspV_{sp} is added to the formula.

Borehole environment: invaded zone and mudcake →
Laterolog reading with step invasion
RLL≈J Rxo+(1−J) RtR_{LL} \approx J\,R_{xo} + (1 - J)\,R_t

any resistivity units, the same for all

Holds when: A step invasion profile. Corrections for the borehole and the enclosing rocks have already been applied. A conductive mud (the laterolog does not work in oil-based muds).

Borehole environment: invaded zone and mudcake →
Induction sonde reading with step invasion
1RIL≈GRxo+1−GRt\frac{1}{R_{IL}} \approx \frac{G}{R_{xo}} + \frac{1 - G}{R_t}

any resistivity units, the same for all

Holds when: A step invasion profile. Corrections for the borehole, the enclosing rocks and the skin effect have already been applied.

Borehole environment: invaded zone and mudcake →
Converting salinity from g/L to ppm
Cppm=1000 Cg/LρC_\text{ppm} = \frac{1000\,C_{\text{g/L}}}{\rho}

as indicated; Cg/L/ρC_{\text{g/L}}/\rho is grams of salt per kilogram of solution

Holds when: The density and the salinity refer to the same temperature. The density formula is an approximation for NaCl solutions at room temperature. For waters of complex composition we measure the density.

Formation water and formation temperature →
Temperature at depth for a constant gradient
T(z)=T0+GT z,GT=TTD−T0zTDT(z) = T_0 + G_T\,z,\qquad G_T = \frac{T_{TD} - T_0}{z_{TD}}

°C and metres; 1 ∘C/100 m=0.549 ∘F/100 ft1\ ^\circ\text{C}/100\ \text{m} = 0.549\ ^\circ\text{F}/100\ \text{ft}

Holds when: The gradient is constant over the section. This is a good approximation for a uniform sedimentary sequence without thick salt layers and without active groundwater movement. TTDT_{TD} is the stabilised formation temperature, not the temperature measured immediately after circulation.

Formation water and formation temperature →
Recovery of the bottom-hole temperature after circulation stops
Tbh(Δt)=Tres−mlg⁡tc+ΔtΔtT_{\text{bh}}(\Delta t) = T_{\text{res}} - m\lg\frac{t_c + \Delta t}{\Delta t}

°C; tct_c and Δt\Delta t in the same units; lg⁡\lg is the decimal logarithm

Holds when: The cooling of the bottom of the hole is like the removal of heat by a line source of constant power (a thin line that takes away heat) during tct_c. The readings are taken at one depth, and the time Δt\Delta t is not too short (usually more than a few hours). We need at least three readings (two points cannot show whether the data lie on a line), recorded together with the time circulation stopped.

Formation water and formation temperature →
Resistivity of an NaCl solution at 24 °C from its concentration
R24≈0.0123+3647.5Cppm 0.955R_{24} \approx 0.0123 + \frac{3647.5}{C_\text{ppm}^{\,0.955}}

empirical: RR in Ω·m, CC in ppm

Holds when: An empirical approximation (a formula fitted to tables of measurements) for NaCl solutions, from hundreds of ppm to nearly saturated. The error is usually within a few per cent, and larger for nearly saturated brines. For a water of another composition, CC is the equivalent NaCl concentration.

Formation water and formation temperature →
Converting the resistivity of a solution to another temperature (the Arps formula)
R2=R1 T1+21.5T2+21.5R_2 = R_1\,\frac{T_1 + 21.5}{T_2 + 21.5}

°C; the resistivities in any identical units

Holds when: An empirical approximation for NaCl solutions in the usual range of formation temperatures. In logging we apply it to all aqueous solutions: formation water, filtrate and drilling mud. For mudcake and for waters of complex composition the accuracy is lower.

Formation water and formation temperature →
How an error in saturation leads to an error in the hydrocarbon pore thickness of a bed
δHH=−δSw1−Sw=−Sw1−Sw⋅δSwSw\frac{\delta H}{H} = -\frac{\delta S_w}{1 - S_w} = -\frac{S_w}{1 - S_w}\cdot\frac{\delta S_w}{S_w}

dimensionless (relative changes)

Holds when: The thickness and porosity of the bed do not change; only SwS_w does. The error is small (linear approximation). The bed stays on the same side of the cut-offs. Otherwise its pore thickness changes in a jump, all at once.

Log interpretation workflow →
Sonde reading as a mixture of the responses of the rock components
L=∑iVi Li,∑iVi=1L = \sum_i V_i\,L_i, \qquad \sum_i V_i = 1

units of the method: g/cm³ for density, barn/cm³ for the volumetric photoelectric absorption UU, µs/m for interval transit time, fraction for the hydrogen index

Holds when: The sonde sees a uniform volume, the bed is thicker than the vertical resolution, and the borehole corrections have been applied. For bulk density the rule is exact, because it is a mass balance. For photoelectric absorption, it is not PeP_e that mixes but the product U=Pe ρeU = P_e\,\rho_e. For the neutron method the rule is approximate: the matrix mineral, neutron absorbers and gas all have an effect. For interval transit time it is the empirical time-average equation, valid for compacted, cemented rocks. For resistivity the rule does not hold: current flows only through the water in the pores, and the relationship is nonlinear (Archie's equation, Archie's equation and saturation of clean reservoirs).

Overview of logging tools →
Gamma ray reading and the content of radioactive minerals
GR=∑iρi Vi AiρbGR = \frac{\sum_i \rho_i\,V_i\,A_i}{\rho_b}

API; densities in any units, the same for all terms

Holds when: Corrections for the hole diameter, the mud and the casing have already been applied. The contributions of the minerals are independent and add up. The bed is uniform within the volume the tool sees and thicker than the tool's vertical resolution.

Gamma ray log and natural gamma ray spectrometry →
Gamma ray index
IGR=GR−GRclGRsh−GRclI_{GR} = \frac{GR - GR_{cl}}{GR_{sh} - GR_{cl}}

any consistent gamma ray units; the index is dimensionless

Holds when: The radioactivity of the bed is created only by shaly material. The shales in the bed are the same as in the reference shale packages, and the clean part is the same as in the reference clean bed. The baselines are chosen in the same hole, on the same record and close in depth.

Gamma ray log and natural gamma ray spectrometry →
Total gamma ray from the potassium, uranium and thorium contents (approximate)
GR≈16 K+8 U+4 ThGR \approx 16\,\mathrm{K} + 8\,\mathrm{U} + 4\,\mathrm{Th}

GR in API; potassium in mass per cent, uranium and thorium in g/t

Holds when: The coefficients are approximate and depend on the tool and its calibration. Radioactive equilibrium holds in the uranium and thorium series. Borehole corrections have been applied.

Gamma ray log and natural gamma ray spectrometry →
Statistical error of a sample
σNN=1N,N=n Δzv\frac{\sigma_N}{N} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}, \qquad N = n\,\frac{\Delta z}{v}

SI; for a logging speed in m/h, N=3600 n Δz/vN = 3600\,n\,\Delta z/v

Holds when: The count rate is constant within a sample (a uniform bed). The background radiation and the dead time of the detector (the short pause after each count, when it cannot count) are ignored. The samples are independent, with no filtering over depth.

Gamma ray log and natural gamma ray spectrometry →
Static SP of a clean bed
SSP=−Klg⁡awamf=−Klg⁡RmfeRwe\mathrm{SSP} = -K\lg\frac{a_w}{a_{mf}} = -K\lg\frac{R_{mfe}}{R_{we}}

mV; resistivities in any consistent units; lg⁡\lg is the base-10 logarithm

Holds when: A clean (shale-free) water-bearing bed between thick shales that behave as ideal cation membranes. The solutions are close in composition to an NaCl solution; with a large share of other salts the coefficient at 25 °C differs from 71 mV. The streaming potentials are small or cancel each other. Both resistivities and the coefficient KK refer to formation temperature.

Spontaneous potential (SP) log →
Recorded SP deflection in the equivalent circuit
SP=SSP⋅rmrm+rsd+rsh\mathrm{SP} = \mathrm{SSP}\cdot\frac{r_m}{r_m + r_{sd} + r_{sh}}

mV; resistances of the sections in ohms

Holds when: This is a qualitative equivalent circuit. The currents in the bed and in the shales spread in a complicated way, and we do not measure rsdr_{sd} and rshr_{sh} directly. The electrochemical EMF is concentrated at the shale–mud and filtrate–formation water boundaries.

Spontaneous potential (SP) log →
Equivalent formation water resistivity from the static SP
Rwe=Rmfe⋅10 SSP/KR_{we} = R_{mfe}\cdot 10^{\,\mathrm{SSP}/K}

Ω·m; SSP and KK in mV

Holds when: The SSP was taken in a thick clean water-bearing bed or corrected for the thickness and resistivity of the bed. RmfeR_{mfe} and KK refer to formation temperature. The water and the filtrate are close to NaCl solutions, and the streaming potentials are small.

Spontaneous potential (SP) log →
Electrochemical coefficient in terms of the transport numbers
K=(1+t−−t+) 2.303 RTF=2 t− 2.303 RTFK = (1 + t_- - t_+)\,\frac{2.303\,RT}{F} = 2\,t_-\,\frac{2.303\,RT}{F}

SI: KK comes out in volts, multiply by 1000 for millivolts; 2.303=ln⁡102.303 = \ln 10 converts the natural logarithm to the base-10 one

Holds when: The shales are an ideal membrane: they pass only cations. The bed is clean and is not itself a membrane. Both solutions are solutions of the same salt, NaCl; the transport numbers are constant over the range of concentrations considered.

Spontaneous potential (SP) log →
Interval transit time and wave velocity
Δt=106V\Delta t = \frac{10^6}{V}

Δt\Delta t in µs/m, VV in m/s

Holds when: The factor 10610^6 converts seconds to microseconds. The velocity and the interval transit time refer to the same wave, the compressional one unless stated otherwise.

Sonic log →
Velocities of the compressional and shear waves in an elastic medium
Vp=K+43Gρb,Vs=GρbV_p = \sqrt{\frac{K + \tfrac{4}{3}G}{\rho_b}}, \qquad V_s = \sqrt{\frac{G}{\rho_b}}

SI: moduli in Pa, density in kg/m³, velocities in m/s

Holds when: A uniform, isotropic medium (the same in all directions) that behaves elastically (it springs back after it is deformed). The wavelength is much greater than the grains and pores, and the rock behaves as a continuous medium with averaged properties. For a liquid and a gas G=0G = 0: there is no shear wave in them, and Vp=K/ρV_p = \sqrt{K/\rho}, where KK and ρ\rho are the bulk modulus and the density of the fluid itself.

Sonic log →
Travel time of the head wave from the transmitter to the receiver
t=L Δt+(aT+aR) Δtmcos⁡θc,sin⁡θc=ΔtΔtmt = L\,\Delta t + (a_T + a_R)\,\Delta t_m\cos\theta_c, \qquad \sin\theta_c = \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t_m}

times in µs, distances in m, interval transit times in µs/m

Holds when: The ray approximation: the wave travels along straight segments, from the transmitter to the wall, along the wall and from the wall to the receiver. The rock is faster than the mud (Δt<Δtm\Delta t < \Delta t_m); otherwise there is no head wave. The wall in the path of the wave is smooth and parallel to the tool, and the rock along it is uniform.

Sonic log →
Interval transit time from two receivers
Δt=t2−t1s\Delta t = \frac{t_2 - t_1}{s}

times in µs, span in m, Δt\Delta t in µs/m

Holds when: Both receivers trigger on the same oscillation of the same wave, the first arrival of the compressional head wave. The gaps between the tool and the wall at both receivers are equal. The rock is uniform within the span: the measured Δt\Delta t is the average over an interval of length ss.

Sonic log →
Distance from which the head wave overtakes the mud wave
Lc=2a Δtm+ΔtΔtm−ΔtL_c = 2a\,\sqrt{\frac{\Delta t_m + \Delta t}{\Delta t_m - \Delta t}}

distances in m; interval transit times in the same units

Holds when: The ray approximation; the gap is the same at the transmitter and at the receiver. The rock is faster than the mud: Δt<Δtm\Delta t < \Delta t_m.

Sonic log →
Travel time through an interval and the average velocity
t=∑iΔti hi,Vˉ=106∑ihitt = \sum_i \Delta t_i\,h_i, \qquad \bar V = \frac{10^6\sum_i h_i}{t}

Δt\Delta t in µs/m, hh in m, tt in µs, Vˉ\bar V in m/s (the factor 10610^6 converts microseconds to seconds)

Holds when: The wave travels vertically; in a deviated well, vertical thicknesses are used. The velocity at logging frequencies (kilohertz) is usually somewhat higher than at seismic frequencies (tens of hertz), and the tool sees only the rock at the wall. So we calibrate the integrated time against a check-shot survey or vertical seismic profiling (VSP). Both are direct measurements of the travel time from the surface to a receiver in the well.

Sonic log →
Dynamic shear modulus and Poisson's ratio from the sonic log
G=ρbΔts2,ν=12R2−1R2−1,R=ΔtsΔtpG = \frac{\rho_b}{\Delta t_s^2}, \qquad \nu = \frac{\tfrac{1}{2}R^2 - 1}{R^2 - 1}, \qquad R = \frac{\Delta t_s}{\Delta t_p}

SI: density in kg/m³, interval transit time in s/m, modulus in Pa

Holds when: A uniform isotropic elastic rock. The moduli are dynamic: they describe the small, fast deformations in a sound wave. Static moduli, which are measured by loading core slowly, are usually lower. For engineering calculations we obtain them from relationships checked on core. Δts\Delta t_s is measured, not estimated from Δtp\Delta t_p.

Sonic log →
Detector count and electron density (calibration relationship)
ln⁡N=a−b ρe\ln N = a - b\,\rho_e

NN in counts/s (natural logarithm), ρe\rho_e in g/cm³

Holds when: An approximate relationship found by experiment, for a fixed tool design, energy window and pad contact. The distance to the detector is greater than a few photon mean free paths (the average distance a photon travels between collisions). Right next to the source the relationship is reversed: a denser rock scatters more photons to the detector. The rock is uniform in the volume of investigation, with no mudcake or standoff.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Electron density index
ρe=ρb 2∑ZM\rho_e = \rho_b\,\frac{2\sum Z}{M}

densities in g/cm³; the ratio 2∑Z/M2\sum Z/M is dimensionless when MM is in g/mol

Holds when: For a mixture of minerals and fluids the indices add in proportion to the volume fractions, as the densities themselves do.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Apparent density, which the tool reads
ρa=1.0704 ρe−0.1883\rho_a = 1.0704\,\rho_e - 0.1883

g/cm³

Holds when: Calibration on limestone saturated with fresh water: for calcite and for water ρa\rho_a coincides with the true density. The constants 1.0704 and 0.1883 come from requiring ρa=ρb\rho_a = \rho_b for these two substances. So for other substances the equality is approximate.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Photoelectric factor of an element
Pe≈(Z10)3.6P_e \approx \left(\frac{Z}{10}\right)^{3.6}

barn/electron

Holds when: An approximate relationship for the photon energies at which the tool measures photoelectric absorption.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Photoelectric factor of a molecule (mineral)
Pe=∑iAiZiPe,i∑iAiZiP_e = \frac{\sum_i A_i Z_i P_{e,i}}{\sum_i A_i Z_i}

barn/electron

Holds when: The factor of a mineral is the average of the factors of its elements, weighted by the number of electrons.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Volumetric photoelectric cross section and its mixing
U=Pe ρe,U=ϕ Uf+(1−ϕ) UmaU = P_e\,\rho_e, \qquad U = \phi\,U_f + (1 - \phi)\,U_{ma}

barn/cm³; for several minerals U=∑iViUiU = \sum_i V_i U_i by volume fractions

Holds when: Pores and minerals are distributed uniformly in the volume of investigation; there is no barite in the mud or the mudcake.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Apparent density of methane for the density tool
ρa,g≈1.334 ρg−0.188\rho_{a,g} \approx 1.334\,\rho_g - 0.188

g/cm³

Holds when: The gas is methane (1.334≈1.0704⋅1.24671.334 \approx 1.0704\cdot 1.2467). For a heavier gas the coefficients are slightly different. The calibration formula is linear, and the fractions of the components add up to one. So the apparent densities of the components mix by volume in the same way as the true ones. The apparent density of gas is a calculated quantity for such mixing, not a physical density. It can even turn out negative.

Density log and photoelectric factor (Pe) →
Largest fraction of energy that a neutron loses in a single collision
ΔEmaxE=4A(A+1)2\frac{\Delta E_{max}}{E} = \frac{4A}{(A + 1)^2}

energies in the same units; the fraction is dimensionless

Holds when: An elastic collision (the colliding bodies keep their total energy of motion) with a nucleus at rest. In a glancing collision the loss is smaller, on average half the largest.

Neutron log →
Number of collisions needed to slow a neutron
n=ln⁡(E0/Eth)ξ,ξ=1+(A−1)22A ln⁡A−1A+1n = \frac{\ln(E_0/E_{th})}{\xi}, \qquad \xi = 1 + \frac{(A-1)^2}{2A}\,\ln\frac{A-1}{A+1}

energies in the same units; natural logarithms

Holds when: Elastic scattering that is isotropic (equal in all directions) in the centre-of-mass frame. This is a good approximation for light nuclei at the energies of logging sources. For A=1A = 1 the second term vanishes and ξ=1\xi = 1. A medium made of nuclei of one kind. In a rock, the contributions of the nuclei add up according to their number and the probability of scattering on each.

Neutron log →
Hydrogen index of a hydrocarbon
HIh=9 ρh x12+x\mathrm{HI}_h = \frac{9\,\rho_h\,x}{12 + x}

ρh\rho_h in g/cm³; the index is dimensionless

Holds when: The atomic masses of carbon and hydrogen are rounded to 12 and 1. The hydrocarbon is described by the average formula CHx\mathrm{CH}_x.

Neutron log →
Hydrogen index of salt water
HIw≈ρw (1−P)\mathrm{HI}_w \approx \rho_w\,(1 - P)

ρw\rho_w in g/cm³; the index is dimensionless

Holds when: The salt contains no hydrogen; hydrogen belongs only to the water in the solution.

Neutron log →
Neutron porosity of a clean formation (simplified model)
ϕN≈ϕ [Sxo HImf+(1−Sxo) HIh]\phi_N \approx \phi\,\bigl[S_{xo}\,\mathrm{HI}_{mf} + (1 - S_{xo})\,\mathrm{HI}_h\bigr]

fraction

Holds when: A clean formation without shale. The curve is converted to the matrix of the formation and corrected for the borehole. The excavation effect is ignored: in a gas-bearing formation a real tool shows an even lower porosity (advanced section). Neutron absorbers have no influence (or the tool is epithermal).

Neutron log →
Quick estimate of the porosity of a gas-bearing formation
ϕ≈ϕN2+ϕD22\phi \approx \sqrt{\frac{\phi_N^2 + \phi_D^2}{2}}

fraction

Holds when: An empirical rule (it comes from experience) for clean gas-bearing formations. Both curves are corrected for the borehole. For formations with liquid on limestone scales, we use the arithmetic mean (ϕN+ϕD)/2(\phi_N + \phi_D)/2. It depends little on whether the formation is sandstone, limestone or dolomite. Charts and calculations give an accurate estimate, with the excavation effect and the gas saturation of the flushed zone (Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs).

Neutron log →
Larmor frequency
f=γ2π B0f = \frac{\gamma}{2\pi}\,B_0

ff in MHz when B0B_0 is in tesla

Holds when: Hydrogen nuclei: other nuclei have a different gyromagnetic ratio and do not respond at the frequency of the tool. The design of the tool sets the field in the sensitive zone. In a non-uniform field, different distances from the tool correspond to different frequencies.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Polarisation of protons
M=M0(1−e−TW/T1)M = M_0\left(1 - e^{-\mathrm{TW}/T_1}\right)

TW\mathrm{TW} and T1T_1 in the same units

Holds when: One fluid with a single value of T1T_1. In a rock, T1T_1 has a spread of values, and we apply the formula to each part. There is no magnetisation before polarisation starts: the rock has just entered the field of the tool, or the previous cycle has completely “erased” it.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Echo train as a sum of exponentials
A(t)=∑iai e−t/T2,i,t=TE, 2 TE, 3 TE, …A(t) = \sum_i a_i\,e^{-t/T_{2,i}},\qquad t = \mathrm{TE},\ 2\,\mathrm{TE},\ 3\,\mathrm{TE},\ \dots

amplitudes in porosity units (p.u.), times in ms

Holds when: The fluids are fully polarised and have a hydrogen index of 1. Otherwise the amplitudes are too low (see the section on hydrocarbons). Components with T2T_2 comparable to TE\mathrm{TE} or shorter die away before the first echoes, so they are poorly determined. The amplitudes of the late echoes are small compared with noise. So for a reliable decomposition, we stack the signal over several cycles (add the cycles together).

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Transverse relaxation rate
1T2=1T2B+ρ2 SV+D (γ G TE)212\frac{1}{T_2} = \frac{1}{T_{2B}} + \rho_2\,\frac{S}{V} + \frac{D\,(\gamma\,G\,\mathrm{TE})^2}{12}

SI; it is convenient to take ρ2\rho_2 in µm/s and S/VS/V in µm⁻¹, and their product comes out in s⁻¹

Holds when: Fast diffusion: a molecule travels around the pore many times during the relaxation time, ρ2r/D≪1\rho_2 r/D \ll 1. The pore then relaxes as a whole. The surface term refers to the wetting phase. A non-wetting phase (oil in a water-wet rock, or gas) does not touch the walls and relaxes only by bulk and diffusion relaxation. The diffusion term is written for unrestricted diffusion in a uniform gradient. In small pores the walls limit the movement, and the term is smaller. Neighbouring pores do not exchange molecules during the measurement. Otherwise their times average out.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Logarithmic mean time T2T_2
T2LM=exp⁡ ⁣(∑iailn⁡T2,i∑iai)T_{2LM} = \exp\!\left(\frac{\sum_i a_i \ln T_{2,i}}{\sum_i a_i}\right)

ms

Holds when: The sum is taken over an agreed part of the distribution. In this lesson it is the effective porosity, T2>3T_2 > 3 ms. Use the same convention in the calculation and in the calibration on core.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Total and effective porosity from NMR
ϕNMR=CBW+BVI+FFI,ϕe=BVI+FFI\phi_\text{NMR} = \mathrm{CBW} + \mathrm{BVI} + \mathrm{FFI},\qquad \phi_e = \mathrm{BVI} + \mathrm{FFI}

fraction of bulk volume (or per cent, that is, porosity units)

Holds when: The hydrogen index of all fluids is about 1, and polarisation is complete. Otherwise parts of the distribution are too low. The echo spacing is short enough to see clay-bound water. At a TE\mathrm{TE} of about 1 ms the tool gives only effective porosity. The cutoffs are chosen for this rock (typical values are in the table below).

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Coates model (free-fluid model)
k=[(ϕeC)2FFIBVI]2k = \left[\left(\frac{\phi_e}{C}\right)^{2}\frac{\mathrm{FFI}}{\mathrm{BVI}}\right]^{2}

empirical: kk in mD, ϕe\phi_e in per cent; with another way of writing porosity, CC changes

Holds when: This is an empirical relationship proposed for sandstones. We choose CC (one often starts from a value of 10) and the exponents from the core of the formation. The cutoff separating BVI and FFI is calibrated for this rock. BVI is water only, and FFI is all the mobile fluids, with corrections for the hydrogen index and incomplete polarisation.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
SDR model (mean-T2T_2 model)
k=a ϕe4 T2LM2k = a\,\phi_e^{4}\,T_{2LM}^{2}

empirical: kk in mD, ϕe\phi_e as a fraction, T2LMT_{2LM} in ms

Holds when: This is an empirical relationship. We choose aa and the exponents from the core of the formation. Without core, one often starts from aa of about 4 mD/ms² for sandstones. In carbonates the coefficients are different (aa is much smaller). The pores are filled with water, and the distribution reflects pore sizes, not fluid properties. T2LMT_{2LM} is calculated over the same part of the distribution as in the calibration.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
NMR porosity with hydrocarbons in the flushed zone
ϕNMR=ϕ[Sxo+(1−Sxo) HIh(1−e−TW/T1h)]\phi_\text{NMR} = \phi\left[S_{xo} + (1 - S_{xo})\,\mathrm{HI}_h\left(1 - e^{-\mathrm{TW}/T_{1h}}\right)\right]

porosity and saturation as fractions; TW\mathrm{TW} and T1hT_{1h} in the same units

Holds when: Water-based filtrate with a hydrogen index of 1, fully polarised. The hydrocarbon signal is not lost because T2T_2 is too short (for heavy oil this does not hold). The hydrogen index of water is taken as 1; for salt water it is slightly lower.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Porosity and gas volume from the density log and NMR
Vg=ϕD−ϕNMRkD+kM,ϕ=ϕD−kDVg,kM=1−HIg(1−e−TW/T1g)V_g = \frac{\phi_D - \phi_\text{NMR}}{k_D + k_M},\qquad \phi = \phi_D - k_D V_g,\qquad k_M = 1 - \mathrm{HI}_g\left(1 - e^{-\mathrm{TW}/T_{1g}}\right)

fraction; TW\mathrm{TW} and T1gT_{1g} in the same units

Holds when: A clean formation with a known matrix density; both tools see the same flushed zone. Water is fully polarised, and the hydrogen index of the filtrate is 1. The properties of the gas (ρg\rho_g, HIg\mathrm{HI}_g, T1gT_{1g}) are estimated for reservoir pressure and temperature.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Limits on the NMR logging speed
v≤LmTW,v≤Δz−LaN (TW+NE TE)v \le \frac{L_m}{\mathrm{TW}},\qquad v \le \frac{\Delta z - L_a}{N\,(\mathrm{TW} + N_E\,\mathrm{TE})}

SI

Holds when: A tool with one working frequency. A multi-frequency tool, which measures several shells in turn, gathers data faster by about as many times as it has frequencies. The cycle time is polarisation plus the echo train. Service pauses are ignored. The distance the tool moves during stacking is simply added to the antenna length. This is a rough estimate of the vertical resolution.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Inversion of the echo train with regularisation
min⁡ai≥0 ∑k(Ak−∑iai e−tk/T2,i)2+α∑iai2\min_{a_i \ge 0}\ \sum_k\Bigl(A_k - \sum_i a_i\,e^{-t_k/T_{2,i}}\Bigr)^2 + \alpha\sum_i a_i^2

amplitudes in porosity units

Holds when: The noise is random and the same for all echoes. The time grid is set in advance and covers the whole possible range, from fractions of a millisecond to several seconds. A penalty in the form of a sum of squares is one common option. Penalties on the curvature of the distribution are also used.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logging →
Resistivity and conductivity
R=UI⋅AL,C=1RR = \frac{U}{I}\cdot\frac{A}{L},\qquad C = \frac{1}{R}

SI. In logging, conductivity is usually given in mS/m: C=1000/RC = 1000/R with RR in Ω·m

Holds when: The sample is uniform, and the current flows along it evenly. Resistivity and conductivity refer to one temperature: in solutions and rocks they change a lot when the temperature rises.

Resistivity logs: electrical and induction tools →
Apparent resistivity of an electrode sonde
Ra=K ΔUI,K=4π AM⋅ANMNR_a = K\,\frac{\Delta U}{I},\qquad K = 4\pi\,\frac{AM\cdot AN}{MN}

SI

Holds when: The electrodes are points, and the return electrode BB is infinitely far away. The constant KK is derived for a uniform medium. A borehole is not uniform, so here the formula only defines what we call apparent resistivity. By the reciprocity principle, the current and measuring electrodes can swap places, and the reading does not change.

Resistivity logs: electrical and induction tools →
Skin depth
δ=2Rω μ0≈503 Rf\delta = \sqrt{\frac{2R}{\omega\,\mu_0}} \approx 503\,\sqrt{\frac{R}{f}}

SI (RR in Ω·m, ff in Hz, δ\delta in metres)

Holds when: A uniform non-magnetic medium. It is an estimate for a plane wave. The field of a real sonde is more complicated, but the order of magnitude is the same. Displacement currents (the part of the current that comes from a changing electric field) are neglected; at frequencies of tens of kilohertz this is justified.

Resistivity logs: electrical and induction tools →
Readings of sondes with different depths of investigation in the step-invasion model
Rk=Jk(di) Rxo+[1−Jk(di)] Rt,k=1,2,3R_k = J_k(d_i)\,R_{xo} + \bigl[1 - J_k(d_i)\bigr]\,R_t,\qquad k = 1, 2, 3

any consistent units of resistivity, the same for every term

Holds when: The profile is a step: a flushed zone with RxoR_{xo} out to the diameter did_i, and beyond it the formation with RtR_t. There is no transition zone and no annulus. This form is for the laterolog, where resistances add up. For induction logging the conductivities 1/R1/R are added in the same way, with geometric factors. The bed is thicker than the vertical resolution of the sondes. Corrections for the borehole and the enclosing rocks have already been made.

Resistivity logs: electrical and induction tools →
Potential of a point current source in a uniform medium
U(r)=∫r∞R I4πr′2 dr′=R I4πrU(r) = \int_r^{\infty} \frac{R\,I}{4\pi r'^2}\dd r' = \frac{R\,I}{4\pi r}

SI

Holds when: The medium is uniform, isotropic (the same in all directions) and infinite. The electrode is a point, and the return electrode is infinitely far away.

Resistivity logs: electrical and induction tools →
Reading of a focused microresistivity sonde in the step model
Rpad=Jmc Rmc+Jxo Rxo+(1−Jmc−Jxo)RtR_\text{pad} = J_{mc}\,R_{mc} + J_{xo}\,R_{xo} + \left(1 - J_{mc} - J_{xo}\right) R_t

any identical units of resistivity

Holds when: A focused sonde: the measuring current crosses the zones one after the other, so the resistivities add up. The model does not suit the unfocused sondes of the microlog. A step profile: mudcake of thickness hmch_{mc}, the flushed zone up to the invasion front, and beyond it the uninvaded formation. JmcJ_{mc} grows with the thickness of the mudcake, and the share of the formation grows as the front comes closer to the wall. The factors depend on the design of the tool and, to some extent, on the resistivity contrast, so real corrections come from the charts of the tool maker.

Microresistivity tools and flushed-zone resistivity →
Water saturation of the flushed zone
Sxo=(a Rmfϕm Rxo)1/nS_{xo} = \left(\frac{a\,R_{mf}}{\phi^{m}\,R_{xo}}\right)^{1/n}

dimensionless; resistivities in the same units

Holds when: A clean formation (one without shale). In a shaly one we use models of shaly reservoirs with the same substitutions (Water saturation in shaly sands). The water in the flushed zone is practically only filtrate. If the filtrate is mixed with formation water, the resistivity of that water is lower than RmfR_{mf}, and a calculation with RmfR_{mf} gives SxoS_{xo} too high. A water-based mud: the filtrate conducts current. RmfR_{mf} is brought to formation temperature.

Microresistivity tools and flushed-zone resistivity →
Moveable and residual hydrocarbons
Vhm=ϕ (Sxo−Sw),Vhr=ϕ (1−Sxo)V_{hm} = \phi\,(S_{xo} - S_w),\qquad V_{hr} = \phi\,(1 - S_{xo})

fraction of rock volume

Holds when: SwS_w and SxoS_{xo} are calculated with the same porosity and the same coefficients. The filtrate displaced the formation fluids as in waterflooding (water pushing oil out of the rock). The hydrocarbons it moved are counted as moveable. Before the invasion, the flushed zone was the same as the uninvaded formation: the same bed and the same saturation.

Microresistivity tools and flushed-zone resistivity →
Formation resistivity factor from the resistivity of the flushed zone
F=RxoRmf=aϕmF = \frac{R_{xo}}{R_{mf}} = \frac{a}{\phi^{m}}

dimensionless

Holds when: A clean water-bearing bed completely flushed by the filtrate: Sxo=1S_{xo} = 1, and the water in the flushed zone is filtrate. The invasion front is deeper than the depth of investigation of the microresistivity sonde, and the mudcake correction has been applied. In shaly beds, the conductivity of the shales makes FF too low.

Microresistivity tools and flushed-zone resistivity →
Time-average equation (Wyllie)
Δt=ϕ Δtf+(1−ϕ) Δtma⇒ϕS=Δt−ΔtmaΔtf−Δtma\Delta t = \phi\,\Delta t_f + (1 - \phi)\,\Delta t_{ma} \quad\Rightarrow\quad \phi_S = \frac{\Delta t - \Delta t_{ma}}{\Delta t_f - \Delta t_{ma}}

the interval transit times in the same units, µs/m or µs/ft; porosity as a fraction

Holds when: A clean rock without shale, with a known mineral composition. The rock is compacted and cemented. In loose sands the equation gives porosity that is too high. The pores are small and evenly spread, either intergranular or intercrystalline (between grains or between crystals). Vugs and fractures hardly enter the result. The pores in the zone of investigation are filled with liquid: the mud filtrate. The equation is empirical. It is not derived from the mechanics of elastic waves. It describes experimental data for such rocks.

Porosity from the sonic log →
Correction for undercompaction in the time-average equation
ϕS=Δt−ΔtmaΔtf−Δtma⋅1Cp,Cp≈Δtsh328\phi_S = \frac{\Delta t - \Delta t_{ma}}{\Delta t_f - \Delta t_{ma}}\cdot\frac{1}{C_p}, \qquad C_p \approx \frac{\Delta t_{sh}}{328}

Δtsh\Delta t_{sh} in µs/m; if Δtsh\Delta t_{sh} is in µs/ft, the divisor is 100

Holds when: Estimating CpC_p from the neighbouring shales is a rough rule of thumb. Shales compact together with sands. A Δtsh\Delta t_{sh} above 328 µs/m (100 µs/ft) is taken as a sign of undercompaction. At smaller values we apply no correction (Cp=1C_p = 1). It is more reliable to find CpC_p in a reference bed where the porosity is known independently (see the calibration section below). The bed is clean, and its pores are filled with liquid.

Porosity from the sonic log →
Empirical transform of interval transit time to porosity
ϕS=C Δt−ΔtmaΔt\phi_S = C\,\frac{\Delta t - \Delta t_{ma}}{\Delta t}

the interval transit times in the same units; porosity as a fraction

Holds when: A clean rock, with the pores filled with liquid. The formula approximates an experimental relationship in the range of ordinary porosity, up to about 35–37%. In looser rocks the grains no longer make a rigid framework, and the relationship is different. For gas-bearing beds we reduce the constant (see the section on oil and gas).

Porosity from the sonic log →
Effective porosity of a shaly bed from the sonic log
ϕe=ϕS−Vsh ϕS,sh,ϕS,sh=Δtsh−ΔtmaΔtf−Δtma\phi_e = \phi_S - V_{sh}\,\phi_{S,sh}, \qquad \phi_{S,sh} = \frac{\Delta t_{sh} - \Delta t_{ma}}{\Delta t_f - \Delta t_{ma}}

the interval transit times in the same units; porosity and shale volume as fractions

Holds when: Laminated shale: the wave crosses the sand and shale layers one after the other, and the travel times add up. For thin layers this is an approximation. The shale layers are the same as the neighbouring shales from which Δtsh\Delta t_{sh} was taken. The shale volume VshV_{sh} was found independently (Determining shale volume). The rock is compacted, with liquid in the pores. Shale material dispersed in the pores of a compacted sandstone changes Δt\Delta t little. For it the correction is too large.

Porosity from the sonic log →
Reducing correction of sonic porosity for oil and gas
ϕ=khc ϕS\phi = k_{\text{hc}}\,\phi_S

fraction

Holds when: A rough rule of thumb for high-porosity sands with shallow invasion. The multiplier depends on the saturation of the zone of investigation and on the stiffness of the rock, so it cannot be exact. We apply the correction only when the overestimate is obvious, for example by comparison with the water-bearing part of the same bed or with density porosity. In the empirical transform, for gas-bearing beds we take a smaller constant, C=0.6C = 0.6, instead of a multiplier.

Porosity from the sonic log →
Estimating secondary porosity by comparing methods
ϕ2=ϕt−ϕS\phi_2 = \phi_t - \phi_S

fraction

Holds when: A clean rock of known mineral composition, with liquid in the pores. Gas and shales distort the three methods in different ways. The parameters for calculating ϕS\phi_S have been checked in an interval without vugs. There ϕS\phi_S must agree with ϕt\phi_t. Otherwise the error of the equation itself enters the difference. Vugs are not quite invisible to the wave, and they increase Δt\Delta t a little. So the difference is usually somewhat smaller than their true volume. We exclude from the calculation the points with cycle skipping, which fractures often cause. This is an index, not a measurement: the errors of the two methods add up.

Porosity from the sonic log →
Raymer–Hunt–Gardner relationship
1Δt=(1−ϕ)2Δtma+ϕΔtf\frac{1}{\Delta t} = \frac{(1 - \phi)^2}{\Delta t_{ma}} + \frac{\phi}{\Delta t_f}

the interval transit times in the same units

Holds when: An empirical relationship for clean water-bearing rocks. The porosity is less than about 37%. In looser rocks the grains no longer make a rigid framework, and the relationship is different.

Porosity from the sonic log →
Bulk density of a rock as the sum of the contributions of its components
ρb=∑iVi ρi,∑iVi=1\rho_b = \sum_i V_i\,\rho_i, \qquad \sum_i V_i = 1

g/cm³ or kg/m³: any density units, the same for all terms

Holds when: All components are included: the volume fractions add up to one. The rock is uniform within the volume the tool sees: 10–15 cm from the borehole wall and 15–45 cm along the borehole. The reading is corrected for the mudcake (the layer of mud solids on the borehole wall) and the borehole. For ordinary minerals and liquids the tool reads practically the true density; for gas, salt and gypsum it does not (why).

Porosity from the density log →
Matrix density of several minerals
ρma=∑jfj ρj,∑jfj=1\rho_{ma} = \sum_j f_j\,\rho_j, \qquad \sum_j f_j = 1

g/cm³

Holds when: The fractions are volume fractions, as thin sections give them (thin slices of rock studied under a microscope). Mass fractions from X-ray analysis must first be divided by the mineral densities and then normalised (scaled so that they add up to one). The composition is constant throughout the formation for which the value is adopted.

Porosity from the density log →
Filtrate density at reservoir conditions (estimate)
ρmf≈(1+0.73 P) kT,p\rho_{mf} \approx (1 + 0.73\,P)\,k_{T,p}

g/cm³

Holds when: The factor 1+0.73P1 + 0.73P is an approximation for NaCl solutions at 24 °C and atmospheric pressure. We assume that brine expands when heated and compresses under pressure roughly like fresh water. The uncertainty of the estimate is up to 0.01 g/cm³. For filtrates of complex composition and for oil-based muds, the density is measured or taken from the mud data.

Porosity from the density log →
Fluid density of the flushed zone with residual hydrocarbons
ρf=Sxo ρmf+(1−Sxo) ρh\rho_f = S_{xo}\,\rho_{mf} + (1 - S_{xo})\,\rho_h

g/cm³

Holds when: The zone of investigation contains only filtrate and residual hydrocarbons; no formation water is left, or it cannot be told from the filtrate by density. For gas, use the apparent density (the value the density tool shows, which differs from the true density of gas). For methane, ρa,g≈1.334 ρg−0.188\rho_{a,g} \approx 1.334\,\rho_g - 0.188 (derivation).

Porosity from the density log →
Error of density porosity
δϕD≈(1−ϕ) δρma+ϕ δρf−δρbρma−ρf\delta\phi_D \approx \frac{(1 - \phi)\,\delta\rho_{ma} + \phi\,\delta\rho_f - \delta\rho_b}{\rho_{ma} - \rho_f}

densities in g/cm³; porosity as a fraction

Holds when: The errors are small compared with the difference ρma−ρf\rho_{ma} - \rho_f (linear approximation). Independent random errors add in quadrature (as the square root of the sum of their squares). Systematic errors add with their signs.

Porosity from the density log →
Effective porosity of a shaly formation from density
ϕe=ϕD−Vsh ϕD,sh,ϕD,sh=ρma−ρshρma−ρf\phi_e = \phi_D - V_{sh}\,\phi_{D,sh}, \qquad \phi_{D,sh} = \frac{\rho_{ma} - \rho_{sh}}{\rho_{ma} - \rho_f}

densities in g/cm³; porosity and shale volume as fractions

Holds when: The shale in the formation is the same as in the reference shale unit; for dispersed shale this holds less well. The shale volume VshV_{sh} has been found independently (Determining shale volume). There is no gas in the zone of investigation.

Porosity from the density log →
Density of the sand laminae of a laminated formation
ρb,sd=ρb−Vsh ρsh1−Vsh\rho_{b,sd} = \frac{\rho_b - V_{sh}\,\rho_{sh}}{1 - V_{sh}}

g/cm³

Holds when: The shale is laminated: the laminae are thinner than the vertical resolution of the tool (the thinnest bed it can separate), so the tool averages them over the volume. The shale laminae have the same density as the adjacent thick shales.

Porosity from the density log →
Porosity of a gas-bearing formation from density and flushed-zone resistivity
ϕ=ρma−ρb+Wxo (ρmf−ρa,g)ρma−ρa,g,Wxo=RmfRxo\phi = \frac{\rho_{ma} - \rho_b + W_{xo}\,(\rho_{mf} - \rho_{a,g})}{\rho_{ma} - \rho_{a,g}}, \qquad W_{xo} = \sqrt{\frac{R_{mf}}{R_{xo}}}

densities in g/cm³, resistivities in Ω·m

Holds when: The formation is clean; the flushed zone contains only filtrate and residual gas. Archie's equation is applied to the flushed zone with a=1a = 1 and m=n=2m = n = 2. With other coefficients the filtrate fraction itself depends on porosity, and the problem has to be solved by successive approximations. RxoR_{xo} is measured with a microresistivity tool and corrected for mudcake. For light oil, use its density in place of ρa,g\rho_{a,g}.

Porosity from the density log →
“Density porosity of shale” in terms of its composition
ϕD,sh=ϕsh+(1−ϕsh) ρma−ρdclρma−ρf\phi_{D,sh} = \phi_{sh} + (1 - \phi_{sh})\,\frac{\rho_{ma} - \rho_{dcl}}{\rho_{ma} - \rho_f}

densities in g/cm³

Holds when: The density of the bound water equals the fluid density used in the calculation. The composition of the shale is constant.

Porosity from the density log →
Neutron porosity as the sum of the contributions of fluid and shale
ϕN≈ϕ HIfl+Vsh ϕN,sh\phi_N \approx \phi\,\mathrm{HI}_{fl} + V_{sh}\,\phi_{N,sh}

fraction

Holds when: The contributions add up in proportion to the volumes. This is an approximation that suits fluid and shale. The matrix itself contributes nothing when the reading is in units of its own matrix. If the matrix is different, first convert the reading using the tool's conversion curve. Gas lowers the reading further because of the excavation effect (see the section on gas). There are no hydrogen-bearing minerals, such as gypsum or coal, in the formation.

Porosity from the neutron log →
Effective porosity of a shaly formation from the neutron log
ϕe≈ϕN−Vsh ϕN,sh\phi_e \approx \phi_N - V_{sh}\,\phi_{N,sh}

fraction

Holds when: The pores are filled with water or oil (hydrogen index about 1); there is no gas. The shale material in the formation is the same as in the reference shale unit. The shale volume has been found independently, for example from the gamma ray log (GR) or SP (Determining shale volume).

Porosity from the neutron log →
Neutron porosity of a clean gas-bearing formation
ϕN≈ϕ SwH−Δϕex,SwH=Sxo HImf+(1−Sxo) HIg\phi_N \approx \phi\,S_{wH} - \Delta\phi_{ex}, \qquad S_{wH} = S_{xo}\,\mathrm{HI}_{mf} + (1 - S_{xo})\,\mathrm{HI}_g

fraction

Holds when: The formation is clean; the reading has been corrected for environmental conditions and converted to the formation matrix. The zone of investigation contains only filtrate and residual gas. The hydrogen index of methane is HIg=2.25 ρg\mathrm{HI}_g = 2.25\,\rho_g, with the gas density in g/cm³ (derivation).

Porosity from the neutron log →
Excavation-effect correction (approximate formula)
Δϕex≈K (2 ϕ2SwH+0.04 ϕ) (1−SwH)\Delta\phi_{ex} \approx K\,\bigl(2\,\phi^2 S_{wH} + 0.04\,\phi\bigr)\,(1 - S_{wH})

fraction

Holds when: It approximates the results of neutron transport calculations. The numbers 2 and 0.04 are fitted to those results. Enter porosity and SwHS_{wH} as fractions. The formula describes the additional lowering. The lack of hydrogen itself is accounted for by the factor SwHS_{wH}.

Porosity from the neutron log →
Hydrogen index of a hydrocarbon from its density
HIh=9 ρh x12+x,x≈4−2.5 ρh\mathrm{HI}_h = \frac{9\,\rho_h\,x}{12 + x}, \qquad x \approx 4 - 2.5\,\rho_h

ρh\rho_h in g/cm³; the index is dimensionless

Holds when: The first formula is derived in the topic on the neutron log, with atomic masses rounded to 12 and 1. If the composition is known, take xx from it. For dry gas (almost pure methane), x=4x = 4 and HIh=2.25 ρh\mathrm{HI}_h = 2.25\,\rho_h. For oil, x≈2x \approx 2 and HIh≈1.29 ρh\mathrm{HI}_h \approx 1.29\,\rho_h. The estimate x≈4−2.5 ρhx \approx 4 - 2.5\,\rho_h is empirical (it comes from experience, not from theory). It reduces light hydrocarbons to methane, and oil with a density of about 0.8 g/cm³ to the formula CH2\mathrm{CH}_2.

Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs →
Apparent density of a hydrocarbon for the density tool
ρa,h=1.0704 2 (6+x)12+1.01 x ρh−0.1883\rho_{a,h} = 1.0704\,\frac{2\,(6 + x)}{12 + 1.01\,x}\,\rho_h - 0.1883

g/cm³

Holds when: The tool is calibrated on limestone saturated with fresh water: ρa=1.0704 ρe−0.1883\rho_a = 1.0704\,\rho_e - 0.1883 (electron and apparent density). The fraction is the ratio 2∑Z/M2\sum Z/M for the group CHx\mathrm{CH}_x. The group has 6+x6 + x electrons (six from carbon and xx from hydrogen), and its molar mass is 12+1.01 x12 + 1.01\,x. For methane the formula becomes ρa,g≈1.334 ρg−0.188\rho_{a,g} \approx 1.334\,\rho_g - 0.188 (apparent gas density), and for oil with x=2x = 2 it becomes ρa,h≈1.222 ρh−0.188\rho_{a,h} \approx 1.222\,\rho_h - 0.188.

Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs →
Density and neutron porosity of a formation with residual hydrocarbons
ϕD=ϕ+kD ϕShr,ϕN=ϕ−kN ϕShr−Δϕex\phi_D = \phi + k_D\,\phi S_{hr}, \qquad \phi_N = \phi - k_N\,\phi S_{hr} - \Delta\phi_{ex}

fractions; densities in g/cm³

Holds when: The formation is clean and its matrix is known. Both curves have been corrected for environmental conditions and brought to the formation matrix. Both tools see the same zone, the first 10–30 cm behind the wall, with filtrate and residual hydrocarbons. The hydrogen index of the flushed-zone fluid SwH=1−kNShrS_{wH} = 1 - k_N S_{hr} is the same as in the excavation formula (more detail), with HImf=1\mathrm{HI}_{mf} = 1.

Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs →
Porosity and residual gas saturation from density and neutron porosity
ϕ=kN ϕD+kD ϕN′kD+kN,ϕShr=ϕD−ϕN′kD+kN\phi = \frac{k_N\,\phi_D + k_D\,\phi_N'}{k_D + k_N}, \qquad \phi S_{hr} = \frac{\phi_D - \phi_N'}{k_D + k_N}

fractions

Holds when: The formation is clean and its lithology is known. Both porosities are calculated for one, correct matrix and corrected for environmental conditions. In a shaly formation, they are used after the corrections for shale volume (next section). kDk_D and kNk_N are calculated from the gas density at reservoir conditions. The excavation correction depends on the unknowns ϕ\phi and ShrS_{hr}, so repeat the calculation with the new correction until the result stops changing. Two or three repetitions are usually enough. Both tools see the same zone with the same saturation.

Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs →
Density and neutron porosity corrected for shale volume
ϕD,c=ϕD−Vsh ϕD,sh,ϕN,c=ϕN−Vsh ϕN,sh\phi_{D,c} = \phi_D - V_{sh}\,\phi_{D,sh}, \qquad \phi_{N,c} = \phi_N - V_{sh}\,\phi_{N,sh}

fraction

Holds when: The shale material in the formation is the same as in the reference shale unit. The contributions add in proportion to the volumes, as in the topics on each method. The gas shifts and the excavation effect apply to the pores outside the shale, so the solution for gas is applied to the corrected values.

Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs →
Shale porosity from density and its normal trend
ϕsh=ρgr−ρshρgr−ρw,ϕsh(z)=ϕsh(z1) e−cz (z−z1)\phi_{sh} = \frac{\rho_{gr} - \rho_{sh}}{\rho_{gr} - \rho_w}, \qquad \phi_{sh}(z) = \phi_{sh}(z_1)\,\e^{-c_z\,(z - z_1)}

densities in g/cm³, depths in km

Holds when: The same shales are compared; the borehole in the shales is smooth and density is reliable. The exponential trend follows from the compaction law ϕ=ϕ0 e−c σ′\phi = \phi_0\,\e^{-c\,\sigma'} at normal pressure, when the effective stress grows in proportion to depth. We build the trend from the normally compacted part of the section and extend it downwards. The error of the extrapolation grows with distance.

Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs →
Reading of a clean formation whose matrix is a mixture of two minerals
L=(1−f) L1(ϕ)+f L2(ϕ)L = (1 - f)\,L_1(\phi) + f\,L_2(\phi)

units of the method

Holds when: The formation is clean, the pores are filled with liquid of known density, and environmental corrections have been applied. For density the formula is an exact mass balance. For neutron porosity and interval transit time it is an approximation. The contributions of minerals do not add up in a strictly straight-line way, and on real charts the mixture lines are slightly curved.

Lithology and porosity from crossplots →
Density porosity on the limestone scale
ϕD,ls=2.71−ρb2.71−ρf\phi_{D,ls} = \frac{2.71 - \rho_b}{2.71 - \rho_f}

densities in g/cm³; porosity is dimensionless

Holds when: This is not a statement that the formation is limestone. It is only a scale common to all the lines. Choose the chart by the filtrate: for fresh and salty muds the lines are different.

Lithology and porosity from crossplots →
Shift of the point of a gas-bearing formation on the neutron–density crossplot
ΔϕD,ls=kD,ls ϕShr,ΔϕN=−kN ϕShr−Δϕex\Delta\phi_{D,ls} = k_{D,ls}\,\phi S_{hr}, \qquad \Delta\phi_N = -k_N\,\phi S_{hr} - \Delta\phi_{ex}

fractions

Holds when: The coefficients are the same as in the topic on gas, shale and carbonates, but density porosity is calculated for limestone. We estimate the gas volume ϕShr\phi S_{hr} from the saturation of the flushed zone (found with microresistivity tools) and a first estimate of porosity, and then refine it. For oil, kD,lsk_{D,ls} is about 0.15 and kNk_N is close to zero: the point shifts one or two units upwards.

Lithology and porosity from crossplots →
Photoelectric factor of a mixture as an average over electrons
Pe=∑iVi ρe,i Pe,i∑iVi ρe,i=Uρe,U=∑iViUiP_e = \frac{\sum_i V_i\,\rho_{e,i}\,P_{e,i}}{\sum_i V_i\,\rho_{e,i}} = \frac{U}{\rho_e}, \qquad U = \sum_i V_i U_i

PeP_e in barn/electron, UU in barn/cm³, ρe\rho_e in g/cm³ (as a measure of the number of electrons per unit volume)

Holds when: The components are mixed uniformly in the small volume behind the borehole wall that the tool sees. We take the electron density of each component from the calibration of the tool (limestone with fresh water), so the volumes mix the way the tool sees them. There is no barite or heavy minerals in the mudcake and the mud.

Lithology from the photoelectric factor and spectral gamma ray →
Porosity and two minerals from density and PeP_e
ρb=V1ρ1+V2ρ2+ϕρf,Peρe=V1U1+V2U2+ϕ Uf,V1+V2+ϕ=1\rho_b = V_1\rho_1 + V_2\rho_2 + \phi\rho_f, \qquad P_e\rho_e = V_1U_1 + V_2U_2 + \phi\,U_f, \qquad V_1 + V_2 + \phi = 1

densities in g/cm³, UU in barn/cm³, PeP_e in barn/electron

Holds when: The formation is clean, both minerals are known, and the pores are filled with liquid of known density and composition. The readings have been corrected for environmental conditions, and there is no barite in the mudcake or the mud. With gas in the flushed zone, porosity will come out too high (see the example with a gas-bearing limestone below).

Lithology from the photoelectric factor and spectral gamma ray →
Apparent matrix density
ρmaa=ρb−ϕta ρf1−ϕta\rho_{maa} = \frac{\rho_b - \phi_{ta}\,\rho_f}{1 - \phi_{ta}}

g/cm³; porosity as a fraction

Holds when: The formation is clean, and the pores are filled with liquid of known density. The apparent porosity must be correct: an error of 0.01 shifts ρmaa\rho_{maa} by about 0.02 g/cm³ (see below).

Lithology from the photoelectric factor and spectral gamma ray →
Apparent volumetric cross section of the matrix
Umaa=Pe ρe−ϕta Uf1−ϕta,ρe=ρb+0.18831.0704U_{maa} = \frac{P_e\,\rho_e - \phi_{ta}\,U_f}{1 - \phi_{ta}}, \qquad \rho_e = \frac{\rho_b + 0.1883}{1.0704}

barn/cm³

Holds when: The same as for ρmaa\rho_{maa}; in addition, there is no barite in the mud and the mudcake.

Lithology from the photoelectric factor and spectral gamma ray →
Potassium and thorium of a rock as mass averages
K=∑jwj Kj,Th=∑jwj Thj,ThK=∑jwjThj∑jwjKj\mathrm{K} = \sum_j w_j\,\mathrm{K}_j, \qquad \mathrm{Th} = \sum_j w_j\,\mathrm{Th}_j, \qquad \frac{\mathrm{Th}}{\mathrm{K}} = \frac{\sum_j w_j\mathrm{Th}_j}{\sum_j w_j\mathrm{K}_j}

potassium in mass %, thorium in g/t (ppm)

Holds when: The readings have been corrected for the borehole; there is no potassium chloride in the mud. The components have a constant composition. Natural minerals differ in contents several times over.

Lithology from the photoelectric factor and spectral gamma ray →
Organic carbon content from uranium (local calibration)
TOC≈a U+bTOC \approx a\,\mathrm{U} + b

TOC in mass %, uranium in g/t

Holds when: Uranium is associated with organic matter, not with phosphates, fractures or secondary deposits. The calibration is valid for one unit and one depositional environment (the setting where the sediment settled). Do not transfer it to other units. Average the uranium curve over the interval, because individual readings are noisy.

Lithology from the photoelectric factor and spectral gamma ray →
Parameter MM: the slope on the sonic–density plane
M=0.003048 Δtf−Δtρb−ρfM = 0.003048\,\frac{\Delta t_f - \Delta t}{\rho_b - \rho_f}

Δt\Delta t in µs/m, density in g/cm³; MM is a conventional quantity (µs/ft per 1 g/cm³, divided by 100)

Holds when: A clean bed with liquid in the pores, and the readings corrected for environmental conditions. The interval transit time is linear in volumes (the time-average equation). With the empirical transform, MM changes slightly with porosity. The multiplier is a conventional scale: 0.01 with Δt\Delta t in µs/ft, that is, 0.01⋅0.3048=0.0030480.01\cdot 0.3048 = 0.003048 with µs/m. The calculation and the chart must use the same multiplier.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
Parameter NN: the slope on the neutron–density plane
N=ϕNf−ϕNρb−ρfN = \frac{\phi_{Nf} - \phi_N}{\rho_b - \rho_f}

neutron porosity as a fraction, density in g/cm³; NN in cm³/g

Holds when: A clean bed with liquid. The neutron curve is in limestone units of the same tool for which the mineral points were built. NN does not depend on porosity only if the neutron reading is linear in volumes. For sandstone and dolomite it is not linear, and their NN changes by 0.02–0.04 between 0 and 30% pores.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
Secondary porosity from the rise of the point on the M–N plot
ϕ2=(1−ϕt)(MMma−1)\phi_2 = (1 - \phi_t)\left(\frac{M}{M_{ma}} - 1\right)

fraction

Holds when: A clean bed with liquid, made of one known mineral. The sonic log sees only the intergranular porosity ϕ1\phi_1 and follows the time-average equation. The density and neutron logs see the total porosity ϕt=ϕ1+ϕ2\phi_t = \phi_1 + \phi_2.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
Apparent matrix density
ρmaa=ρb−ϕta ρf1−ϕta\rho_{maa} = \frac{\rho_b - \phi_{ta}\,\rho_f}{1 - \phi_{ta}}

g/cm³

Holds when: A clean bed with liquid of known density; the apparent porosity is correct.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
Apparent matrix transit time
Δtmaa=Δt−ϕta Δtf1−ϕta\Delta t_{maa} = \frac{\Delta t - \phi_{ta}\,\Delta t_f}{1 - \phi_{ta}}

µs/m (or µs/ft: the same for all quantities)

Holds when: This form is for the time-average equation. The empirical transform has its own form (below). The mineral points on the chart were built with the same transform as the calculation.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
Sensitivity of the apparent parameters to the apparent porosity
∂ρmaa∂ϕta=ρmaa−ρf1−ϕta,∂Δtmaa∂ϕta=−Δtf−Δtmaa1−ϕta\frac{\partial\rho_{maa}}{\partial\phi_{ta}} = \frac{\rho_{maa} - \rho_f}{1 - \phi_{ta}}, \qquad \frac{\partial\Delta t_{maa}}{\partial\phi_{ta}} = -\frac{\Delta t_f - \Delta t_{maa}}{1 - \phi_{ta}}

g/cm³ and µs/m per unit of porosity (as a fraction)

Holds when: Small porosity errors; the derivatives were obtained by differentiating the formulas of the apparent parameters.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
M and N of a mixture of minerals
M=∑iwiMi,N=∑iwiNi,wi=fi (ρma,i−ρf)∑jfj (ρma,j−ρf)M = \sum_i w_i M_i, \qquad N = \sum_i w_i N_i, \qquad w_i = \frac{f_i\,(\rho_{ma,i} - \rho_f)}{\sum_j f_j\,(\rho_{ma,j} - \rho_f)}

wiw_i and fif_i are fractions; MM and NN are in their own units (see above)

Holds when: The responses of all three methods are linear in volumes. For sandstone and dolomite, which have a non-linear neutron response, we take the mineral points at the porosity of the bed.

M–N and MID plots for complex lithologies →
Formation resistivity factor
F=R0Rw=aϕmF = \frac{R_0}{R_w} = \frac{a}{\phi^m}

dimensionless; R0R_0 and RwR_w in the same units

Holds when: A clean rock: only the water in the pores conducts current, and the surface conductivity of the grains and of the shale is negligible. Intergranular porosity, more or less uniform through the volume. aa and mm are fitted for the given rock, and they are used in the range of porosity where they were found. R0R_0 and RwR_w refer to one temperature. For a bed, this is the formation temperature.

Archie's equation and saturation of clean reservoirs →
Resistivity index
I=RtR0=Sw−nI = \frac{R_t}{R_0} = S_w^{-n}

dimensionless

Holds when: A clean rock, and only water conducts. The water forms a connected system: films and filled small pores (a water-wet rock). RtR_t and R0R_0 refer to one rock, one water and one temperature.

Archie's equation and saturation of clean reservoirs →
Archie's equation for water saturation
Sw=(F RwRt)1/n=(a Rwϕm Rt)1/nS_w = \left(\frac{F\,R_w}{R_t}\right)^{1/n} = \left(\frac{a\,R_w}{\phi^m\,R_t}\right)^{1/n}

dimensionless; all resistivities in the same units

Holds when: A clean (shale-free) bed with intergranular porosity. Only the formation water conducts current. RtR_t is the resistivity of the uninvaded part of the formation, with corrections for the borehole, the enclosing rocks and invasion (Borehole environment: invaded zone and mudcake). RwR_w is at formation temperature. aa, mm and nn suit the rock (from core or from a checked analogy). The rock is water-wet.

Archie's equation and saturation of clean reservoirs →
Archie's equation for the flushed zone
Sxo=(a Rmfϕm Rxo)1/nS_{xo} = \left(\frac{a\,R_{mf}}{\phi^m\,R_{xo}}\right)^{1/n}

dimensionless

Holds when: The same as for SwS_w. The water in the flushed zone is practically only filtrate. A water-based mud (with an oil-based mud the filtrate does not conduct current).

Archie's equation and saturation of clean reservoirs →
Relative error of water saturation by Archie's equation
δSwSw≈1n(δaa+δRwRw−δRtRt−m δϕϕ)−ln⁡ϕn δm−ln⁡Swn δn\frac{\delta S_w}{S_w} \approx \frac{1}{n}\left(\frac{\delta a}{a} + \frac{\delta R_w}{R_w} - \frac{\delta R_t}{R_t} - m\,\frac{\delta\phi}{\phi}\right) - \frac{\ln\phi}{n}\,\delta m - \frac{\ln S_w}{n}\,\delta n

dimensionless

Holds when: The errors are small compared with the quantities themselves (a linear approximation). The errors are independent. When we count them together, we add them with their signs, or, for random errors, in quadrature (as the square root of the sum of squares).

Archie's equation and saturation of clean reservoirs →
Estimating the filtrate and mudcake resistivities from the mud resistivity
Rmf≈0.75 Rm,Rmc≈1.5 RmR_{mf} \approx 0.75\,R_m, \qquad R_{mc} \approx 1.5\,R_m

Ω·m; all three quantities at the same temperature

Holds when: A statistical relationship for water-based muds in which NaCl is the main salt. It is unreliable for gypsum muds, for muds treated heavily with chemicals, and for heavily weighted muds (muds made dense with added solids). The scatter is large: tens of per cent. The heavier the mud, the smaller the ratio Rmf/RmR_{mf}/R_m usually is. Correlations that take the mud density into account exist. If a sample has been measured, use the measurement.

Determining formation water resistivity →
Converting the equivalent resistivity of a brine to the true one (a formula fitted to the chart)
Rw,24≈77 Rwe,24+5146−337 Rwe,24R_{w,24} \approx \frac{77\,R_{we,24} + 5}{146 - 337\,R_{we,24}}

empirical: both resistivities in Ω·m at 24 °C (75 °F)

Holds when: The water is close to a NaCl solution. The formula applies when Rwe,24R_{we,24} is not greater than 0.12 Ω·m, that is, when the salinity is above about 50 g/kg. The procedure is: bring RweR_{we} from formation temperature to 24 °C, convert it, and bring RwR_w back to formation temperature. The real chart for different temperatures is more complicated. At formation temperatures up to 150–200 °C the formula differs from it by up to about 10%, and at higher temperatures by more. The numbers 77, 5, 146 and 337 are fitting coefficients. They were chosen to make the curve fit the chart, and they have no physical meaning. When Rwe,24R_{we,24} is greater than 0.12 Ω·m, take Rw≈RweR_w \approx R_{we} for NaCl-type waters, to within about 10%. For fresh waters of complex composition the relationship is different (see the advanced section).

Determining formation water resistivity →
Apparent water resistivity
Rwa=RtF=Rt ϕmaR_{wa} = \frac{R_t}{F} = \frac{R_t\,\phi^m}{a}

Ω·m; the result refers to the bed temperature

Holds when: A clean bed with intergranular porosity (pores between the grains). Shale and conductive minerals distort the result. RtR_t has been corrected for the borehole, the enclosing rocks and invasion (Resistivity logs: electrical and induction tools). With shallow invasion, take the reading of the deep sonde. Use the same porosity and the same aa and mm that will later go into the saturation calculation. The rock type (lithology) and the water are the same in all the beds that we compare.

Determining formation water resistivity →
Water saturation from the apparent water resistivity
Sw=(RwRwa)1/nS_w = \left(\frac{R_w}{R_{wa}}\right)^{1/n}

fraction; the resistivities in the same units

Holds when: The same as for RwaR_{wa}. We find the exponent nn from core; without core data we usually assume 2. RwR_w and RwaR_{wa} refer to the same temperature. If the depths differ a lot, convert RwR_w to the temperature of the bed.

Determining formation water resistivity →
Water saturation with a wrong cementation exponent, calibrated on a water-bearing bed
Sw,calc=Sw(ϕ1ϕ2)(m−m0)/nS_{w,\text{calc}} = S_w\left(\frac{\phi_1}{\phi_2}\right)^{(m - m_0)/n}

dimensionless

Holds when: Both beds are clean, with the same water and the same relationship between the formation resistivity factor and porosity. The coefficient aa is the same in both calculations, and we have taken the exponent nn correctly. We take as RwR_w the RwaR_{wa} of the reference bed, calculated with the same mm.

Determining formation water resistivity →
Archie's equation in logarithmic form
lg⁡Rt=lg⁡(aRw)−mlg⁡ϕ−nlg⁡Sw\lg R_t = \lg(a R_w) - m\lg\phi - n\lg S_w

resistivities in Ω·m; lg⁡\lg is the base-10 logarithm

Holds when: Clean beds of one rock type (lithology) with the same water. RtR_t and porosity are corrected in the same way as for the calculation of RwaR_{wa}.

Determining formation water resistivity →
Converting the equivalent resistivity to the true one for fresh formation waters (a formula fitted to the chart)
Rw,24≈10 0.69 Rwe,24−0.24−0.58R_{w,24} \approx 10^{\,0.69\,R_{we,24} - 0.24} - 0.58

empirical: both resistivities in Ω·m at 24 °C (75 °F)

Holds when: Rwe,24R_{we,24} is greater than 0.12 Ω·m, and the water is an “average” fresh formation water with a noticeable share of divalent ions. The formula averages over waters of different composition, so for one particular water the error may be large. The numbers 0.69, 0.24 and 0.58 are fitting coefficients. The difference from the chart is about 10%.

Determining formation water resistivity →
Archie's equation in logarithmic coordinates
lg⁡Rt=lg⁡(aRw)−mlg⁡ϕ−nlg⁡Sw\lg R_t = \lg(aR_w) - m\lg\phi - n\lg S_w

resistivities in Ω·m; lg⁡\lg is the base-10 logarithm

Holds when: Clean beds of one lithology (aa and mm are the same) with the same formation water at a close temperature. RtR_t is corrected for the borehole, the enclosing rocks and invasion, and the porosity is corrected for environmental conditions and lithology. The exponent nn is the same for all the beds of the interval.

Resistivity–porosity crossplots →
Lines of water saturation on the Pickett plot
Rt=aRwϕm Sw−n=R0(ϕ) Sw−nR_t = \frac{aR_w}{\phi^m}\,S_w^{-n} = R_0(\phi)\,S_w^{-n}

Ω·m

Holds when: The same as for Archie's equation in logarithms. nn is the chosen value (from core or by analogy).

Resistivity–porosity crossplots →
The Hingle plot for the density log
ρb=ρma−(ρma−ρf) (aRw)1/m Sw−n/m Rt−1/m\rho_b = \rho_{ma} - (\rho_{ma} - \rho_f)\,(aR_w)^{1/m}\,S_w^{-n/m}\,R_t^{-1/m}

densities in g/cm³, resistivities in Ω·m

Holds when: The exponent mm is chosen in advance: the horizontal scale is built for it. The matrix, the fluid and the water are constant through the interval. The reading of the porosity method is linear in porosity: exactly for the density log, for the sonic log with the time-average equation, and approximately for the neutron log. The beds are clean, and RtR_t is corrected.

Resistivity–porosity crossplots →
A line of constant bulk volume water on the Pickett plot
Rt=aRw (ϕSw)−n ϕ n−mR_t = aR_w\,(\phi S_w)^{-n}\,\phi^{\,n - m}

Ω·m

Holds when: The same as for the lines of water saturation.

Resistivity–porosity crossplots →
Ratio of the resistivities of the flushed zone and the uninvaded formation
RxoRt=RmfRw(SwSxo)n\frac{R_{xo}}{R_t} = \frac{R_{mf}}{R_w}\left(\frac{S_w}{S_{xo}}\right)^{n}

any identical units of resistivity (usually Ω·m); RmfR_{mf} and RwR_w at the same temperature

Holds when: A clean bed with intergranular porosity: only the water in the pores conducts current. Archie's equation with the same formation resistivity factor and the same exponent nn in both zones. The water of the flushed zone is filtrate, and that of the uninvaded formation is formation water. The mud is water-based. RxoR_{xo} and RtR_t are the resistivities of the zones after corrections for the borehole, the mudcake, the enclosing rocks and invasion, not the readings of the sondes.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Normalised resistivity ratio and the moveable hydrocarbon index
Q=Rxo/RtRmf/Rw=(SwSxo)nQ = \frac{R_{xo}/R_t}{R_{mf}/R_w} = \left(\frac{S_w}{S_{xo}}\right)^{n}

dimensionless

Holds when: The same as for the ratio of the resistivities of the zones.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Water saturation from the resistivity ratio, with the empirical relation between the saturations of the zones
Sw=Q5/8=(Rxo/RtRmf/Rw)5/8S_w = Q^{5/8} = \left(\frac{R_{xo}/R_t}{R_{mf}/R_w}\right)^{5/8}

dimensionless

Holds when: The empirical relation Sxo=Sw1/5S_{xo} = S_w^{1/5}: an oil-bearing bed, moderate invasion, an ordinary residual oil saturation. It has not been checked for gas, heavy oil, carbonates with vugs and oil-wet rocks. The saturation exponent is n=2n = 2. At another nn the power is 5/(4n)5/(4n) (advanced section). All the assumptions of the ratio of the resistivities of the zones.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Water saturation from the resistivity ratio, with a known residual saturation of the flushed zone
Sw=(1−Shr) Q1/nS_w = (1 - S_{hr})\,Q^{1/n}

dimensionless

Holds when: ShrS_{hr} belongs to this bed and to the same process: displacement by filtrate during drilling. The value from waterflooding experiments can differ. All the assumptions of the ratio of the resistivities of the zones.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
The curve from the resistivity ratio and its separation from the SP
ER=−Klg⁡RxoRt,ΔE=ER−ESP=−nKlg⁡SwSxoE_R = -K\lg\frac{R_{xo}}{R_t},\qquad \Delta E = E_R - E_{SP} = -nK\lg\frac{S_w}{S_{xo}}

mV; TT in °C

Holds when: Clean beds with the same formation water. The SP is not distorted by the bed thickness and by streaming potentials (voltages caused by the flow of filtrate through the rock), or it is distorted in the same way in the beds that we compare. We shift the curve ERE_R so that in a bed that is certainly water-bearing it coincides with the SP. The shift absorbs the difference between the equivalent and the true water resistivities, and constant errors of the ratio. The mud is fresh (Rmf>RwR_{mf} > R_w), and Rxo/RtR_{xo}/R_t was found with a correction for invasion. The second formula follows from the ratio of the resistivities of the zones, if the SP of the bed equals the SP of the water-bearing bed.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Resistivity of the water of the flushed zone with incomplete flushing
1Rz=zRw+1−zRmf\frac{1}{R_z} = \frac{z}{R_w} + \frac{1 - z}{R_{mf}}

Ω·m; zz is a fraction

Holds when: The conductivity of the mixture equals the volume-weighted conductivity of the waters. This is an approximation for solutions of one salt. Real mixtures conduct a little better, and the effect is slightly stronger. The share zz is the same through the whole flushed zone. Its values in the example are assumed.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Normalised ratio of a water-bearing bed with incomplete flushing
Q=RzRmf=1z Rmf/Rw+1−zQ = \frac{R_z}{R_{mf}} = \frac{1}{z\,R_{mf}/R_w + 1 - z}

dimensionless

Holds when: A water-bearing bed (Sw=Sxo=1S_w = S_{xo} = 1), and the waters mix by the formula above.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Porosity from the saturation found by the resistivity ratio
Fc=SwR n RtRw,ϕc=(aFc)1/mF_c = \frac{S_{wR}^{\,n}\,R_t}{R_w},\qquad \phi_c = \left(\frac{a}{F_c}\right)^{1/m}

dimensionless; RtR_t and RwR_w in the same units

Holds when: A clean bed, and the coefficients aa, mm and nn are known. The porosity ϕt\phi_t that we compare with is independent: from the density or neutron log, or from core.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
An empirical estimate of water saturation with an annulus
Sw≈SwA(SwASwR)1/4S_w \approx S_{wA}\left(\frac{S_{wA}}{S_{wR}}\right)^{1/4}

fraction

Holds when: An empirical correction without a rigorous derivation. We use it only when the disagreement is really caused by an annulus. SwAS_{wA} and SwRS_{wR} were found from the same corrected RtR_t and RxoR_{xo}.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Water saturation with the empirical relation at any saturation exponent
Sw=Q54nS_w = Q^{\frac{5}{4n}}

dimensionless

Holds when: The empirical relation Sxo=Sw1/5S_{xo} = S_w^{1/5} and all the assumptions of the resistivity ratio. The relation was published for ordinary sandstones, and at an unusual nn its applicability is also in doubt.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Ratio of the resistivities of the zones from the readings of two sondes
RxoRt≈A RsRd−(A−1),A=1Js\frac{R_{xo}}{R_t} \approx A\,\frac{R_s}{R_d} - (A - 1),\qquad A = \frac{1}{J_s}

dimensionless

Holds when: A step profile. The deep sonde hardly sees the flushed zone, and JsJ_s is the same for all the beds. In practice AA is chosen so that the formula agrees with the invasion correction chart in the chosen range of diameters. This also absorbs the contribution of the flushed zone to the deep sonde.

Resistivity ratio methods and movable oil →
Gamma ray index
IGR=GR−GRclGRsh−GRclI_{GR} = \frac{GR - GR_{cl}}{GR_{sh} - GR_{cl}}

any GR units, the same for all three readings (API, the standard gamma ray unit, or µR/h); the index has no units

Holds when: Only the shale material makes the bed radioactive. The shale material in the bed is the same as in the reference shale bed, and the clean part is the same as in the reference clean bed. The bed is thicker than the vertical resolution of the tool (the thinnest bed the tool can read correctly). We cut off values outside the baselines: we use 0 if IGR<0I_{GR} < 0, and 1 if IGR>1I_{GR} > 1.

Determining shale volume →
Larionov relationship
Vsh=2 C IGR−12 C−1V_{sh} = \frac{2^{\,C\,I_{GR}} - 1}{2^{\,C} - 1}

dimensionless; VshV_{sh} and IGRI_{GR} as fractions

Holds when: It is an empirical relationship: the coefficient CC reflects the rocks it was fitted to, and we refine it with core. The index uses correctly chosen clean-formation and shale baselines. The radioactivity comes from the shale material.

Determining shale volume →
Stieber relationship
Vsh=IGR3−2 IGRV_{sh} = \frac{I_{GR}}{3 - 2\,I_{GR}}

dimensionless; fractions

Holds when: It is an empirical relationship fitted to Tertiary sand–shale deposits. It is a special case of a family of curves with the curvature parameter A=3A = 3. The general form is in the advanced section.

Determining shale volume →
Clavier relationship
Vsh=1.7−3.38−(IGR+0.7)2V_{sh} = 1.7 - \sqrt{3.38 - \left(I_{GR} + 0.7\right)^2}

dimensionless; fractions

Holds when: It is an empirical relationship. Geometrically, it is an arc of a circle with its centre at the point (−0.7; 1.7)(-0.7;\ 1.7), passing through (0; 0)(0;\ 0) and (1; 1)(1;\ 1).

Determining shale volume →
Index that corresponds to a given shale volume (the Larionov relationship inverted)
I∗=1C log⁡2 ⁣[1+V∗(2 C−1)]I^{*} = \frac{1}{C}\,\log_2\!\left[1 + V^{*}\left(2^{\,C} - 1\right)\right]

dimensionless; log⁡2\log_2 is the base-2 logarithm, log⁡2x=ln⁡x/ln⁡2\log_2 x = \ln x/\ln 2

Holds when: The same as for the Larionov relationship.

Determining shale volume →
Shale volume from the SP
Vsh≈1−PSPSSPV_{sh} \approx 1 - \frac{\mathrm{PSP}}{\mathrm{SSP}}

mV; the ratio has no units

Holds when: The bed is water-bearing. Hydrocarbons also reduce the SP amplitude, and then the estimate is too high. The bed is thick enough, or the amplitude is corrected for its thickness and resistivity. The resistivities of the mud filtrate (the liquid that seeps from the drilling mud into the rock) and of the formation water differ clearly. The water in the bed is the same as in the reference clean bed. The mud conducts electricity: the SP is not recorded in oil-based muds.

Determining shale volume →
Shale volume from the gap between neutron and density porosity
Vsh≈ϕN−ϕDϕN,sh−ϕD,shV_{sh} \approx \frac{\phi_N - \phi_D}{\phi_{N,sh} - \phi_{D,sh}}

fractions

Holds when: The pores of the bed are filled with liquid. Gas brings the curves together or swaps them, and then the estimate is too low. The matrix is chosen correctly. In dolomite and in rocks with heavy minerals, the gap appears even without shale. The shale in the bed is the same as in the reference bed. The readings have been corrected for the effect of the borehole.

Determining shale volume →
Mixing by mass, and the general form of the Stieber relationship
Vsh=IGRA−(A−1) IGR,A=ρshρclV_{sh} = \frac{I_{GR}}{A - (A - 1)\,I_{GR}}, \qquad A = \frac{\rho_{sh}}{\rho_{cl}}

dimensionless; the densities are in the same units

Holds when: The index equals the mass fraction of shale: the shale in the bed is the same as in the reference bed, and only shale is radioactive. The densities of the components are constant.

Determining shale volume →
Larionov coefficient from the shale volume at an index of 0.5
C=2log⁡2 ⁣(1V0.5−1)C = 2\log_2\!\left(\frac{1}{V_{0.5}} - 1\right)

dimensionless

Holds when: The shale volume from core is defined in the same way as from logs: the volume of shale material, not only of clay minerals. The index in the core intervals is calculated with the same baselines as in the whole zone. One point gives only a first approximation. With all the data, we fit CC by the least-squares method (the method that makes the sum of the squared errors as small as possible).

Determining shale volume →
Cation exchange capacity per unit of pore volume
Qv=CEC (1−ϕt) ρgr100 ϕtQ_v = \frac{\mathrm{CEC}\,(1 - \phi_t)\,\rho_{gr}}{100\,\phi_t}

QvQ_v is in meq per cm³ of pores. The 100 converts the CEC from 100 g to 1 g of rock.

Holds when: The CEC is measured on a sample of the same rock. Chemical methods can do this (for example, the uptake of methylene blue, a dye). So can electrical measurements at several salinities (salt contents of the water), described in the advanced section. All the exchangeable cations are in the pore water, that is, they belong to the whole pore volume ϕt\phi_t.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
General form of shaly-sand models
1Rt=α Sw2+γ Sw⇒Sw=−γ+γ2+4α/Rt2α\frac{1}{R_t} = \alpha\,S_w^2 + \gamma\,S_w \quad\Rightarrow\quad S_w = \frac{-\gamma + \sqrt{\gamma^2 + 4\alpha/R_t}}{2\alpha}

conductivities in siemens per metre, S/m =1/(Ω⋅m)= 1/(\text{Ω·m})

Holds when: The saturation exponent is n=2n = 2. For another nn, we solve the equation numerically (by repeated trial calculations). α\alpha and γ\gamma do not depend on water saturation. At γ=0\gamma = 0 we get Archie's equation.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Total porosity for three forms of shale distribution (the Thomas–Stieber diagram)
laminated:ϕt=ϕsd−Vsh (ϕsd−ϕt,sh)dispersed:ϕt=ϕsd−Vsh (1−ϕt,sh),Vsh≤ϕsdstructural:ϕt=ϕsd+Vsh ϕt,sh,Vsh≤1−ϕsd\begin{aligned} &\text{laminated:} && \phi_t = \phi_{sd} - V_{sh}\,(\phi_{sd} - \phi_{t,sh}) \\ &\text{dispersed:} && \phi_t = \phi_{sd} - V_{sh}\,(1 - \phi_{t,sh}), \quad V_{sh} \le \phi_{sd} \\ &\text{structural:} && \phi_t = \phi_{sd} + V_{sh}\,\phi_{t,sh}, \quad V_{sh} \le 1 - \phi_{sd} \end{aligned}

fractions

Holds when: The clean sandstone has the same porosity throughout the interval, and the shale material in the bed is the same as in the neighbouring shales. Dispersed shale fills the pores between the grains without pushing the grains apart. At Vsh=ϕsdV_{sh} = \phi_{sd}, the pores are completely filled. Structural shale replaces grains without touching the pores between the grains. Shale volume and total porosity are found independently, for example from the gamma ray log and the density log (Gas, shale, carbonate and pressure effects on porosity logs).

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Total and effective porosity of a shaly sand
ϕt=ϕe+Vsh ϕt,sh,Swb=Vsh ϕt,shϕt\phi_t = \phi_e + V_{sh}\,\phi_{t,sh}, \qquad S_{wb} = \frac{V_{sh}\,\phi_{t,sh}}{\phi_t}

fractions

Holds when: All the porosity of the shales is filled with bound water: the shales have no effective porosity. The shale material in the bed is the same as in the neighbouring shales. VshV_{sh} is the volume of shale material together with its water, as in the topic Determining shale volume.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Total and effective water saturation
Swe=Swt−Swb1−Swb,ϕt (1−Swt)=ϕe (1−Swe)S_{we} = \frac{S_{wt} - S_{wb}}{1 - S_{wb}}, \qquad \phi_t\,(1 - S_{wt}) = \phi_e\,(1 - S_{we})

fractions

Holds when: Hydrocarbons do not push out the clay-bound water, so Swb≤Swt≤1S_{wb} \le S_{wt} \le 1.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Laminated-sand model (parallel conductors)
1Rt=(1−Vlam) ϕsdm Swna Rw+VlamRsh\frac{1}{R_t} = \frac{(1 - V_{lam})\,\phi_{sd}^m\,S_w^n}{a\,R_w} + \frac{V_{lam}}{R_{sh}}

conductivities in S/m, resistivities in Ω·m

Holds when: The layers are parallel to the bedding and thinner than the vertical resolution of the sonde (the measuring part of the logging tool), and the current flows along them. In a vertical borehole, an induction sonde (a resistivity tool that works with magnetic fields) measures this resistivity RhR_h (more). The sandy layers are clean and obey Archie's equation, and the shale layers are the same as the neighbouring shales. In a deviated borehole, or with dipping beds, the sonde sees a mixture of resistivities along and across the layers, and the model must be extended.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Simandoux equation
1Rt=ϕem Swna Rw+Vsh SwRsh\frac{1}{R_t} = \frac{\phi_e^m\,S_w^n}{a\,R_w} + \frac{V_{sh}\,S_w}{R_{sh}}

resistivities in Ω·m, conductivities in S/m

Holds when: It is an empirical equation: the shale term is proportional to shale volume and water saturation. For n=2n = 2, it is a quadratic equation of the general form with α=ϕem/(aRw)\alpha = \phi_e^m/(a R_w) and γ=Vsh/Rsh\gamma = V_{sh}/R_{sh}. We take RshR_{sh} from the neighbouring shales. In practice people often adjust it so that water-bearing shaly beds give Sw≈1S_w \approx 1. Then it is a parameter of the model, not the resistivity of the shales.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Modified Simandoux equation
1Rt=ϕem Swna Rw (1−Vsh)+Vsh SwRsh\frac{1}{R_t} = \frac{\phi_e^m\,S_w^n}{a\,R_w\,(1 - V_{sh})} + \frac{V_{sh}\,S_w}{R_{sh}}

resistivities in Ω·m, conductivities in S/m

Holds when: The same as for the Simandoux equation. The factor 1/(1−Vsh)1/(1 - V_{sh}) comes from the laminated-sand model at m=2m = 2: the effective porosity is concentrated in the share 1−Vsh1 - V_{sh} of the rock volume. In the version with m=n=2m = n = 2 it is also called the total shale equation: it does not assume a particular form of shale distribution.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Indonesia equation
1Rt=(Vsh 1−Vsh/2Rsh+ϕem/2a Rw)Swn/2\frac{1}{\sqrt{R_t}} = \left(\frac{V_{sh}^{\,1 - V_{sh}/2}}{\sqrt{R_{sh}}} + \frac{\phi_e^{m/2}}{\sqrt{a\,R_w}}\right) S_w^{n/2}

resistivities in Ω·m

Holds when: It is an empirical equation fitted to sections with fresh and slightly salty formation waters and high shale volume. The exponent 1−Vsh/21 - V_{sh}/2 changes from 1 at low shale volume to 0.5 in pure shale. It can be solved directly for SwS_w: Sw=[Rt−1/2/(…)]2/nS_w = \left[R_t^{-1/2}/(\ldots)\right]^{2/n}.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Waxman–Smits model
Ct=Swt n∗F∗(Cw+B QvSwt),F∗=aϕt m∗C_t = \frac{S_{wt}^{\,n^*}}{F^*}\left(C_w + \frac{B\,Q_v}{S_{wt}}\right), \qquad F^* = \frac{a}{\phi_t^{\,m^*}}

conductivities in S/m

Holds when: The exchangeable cations carry current in parallel with the pore water. When hydrocarbons push the water out, the cations stay in the water that remains, and their concentration grows as Qv/SwtQ_v/S_{wt}. m∗m^* and n∗n^* are measured on core with a correction for shale (advanced section). They are larger than the “apparent” Archie exponents of the same core. BB grows with temperature and falls in fresh water. At 25 °C in salty water it is about 4 (S/m)/(meq/cm³), and at 80 °C about three times larger. For the formation, we take it from published correlations for the formation temperature, not from the value at laboratory temperature. QvQ_v is taken from the CEC of core, or from log estimates calibrated to core.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Dual-water model
Ct=ϕtm Swtna[Cw+SwbSwt(Cwb−Cw)]C_t = \frac{\phi_t^m\,S_{wt}^n}{a}\left[C_w + \frac{S_{wb}}{S_{wt}}\left(C_{wb} - C_w\right)\right]

conductivities in S/m

Holds when: There are two kinds of water in the pores: clay-bound water (volume SwbS_{wb}, conductivity CwbC_{wb}) and free formation water. Hydrocarbons displace only the free water, so Swt≥SwbS_{wt} \ge S_{wb}. From logs, we take SwbS_{wb} and CwbC_{wb} from the neighbouring shales: Swb=Vshϕt,sh/ϕtS_{wb} = V_{sh}\phi_{t,sh}/\phi_t, Rwb=1/Cwb=Rsh ϕt,shm/aR_{wb} = 1/C_{wb} = R_{sh}\,\phi_{t,sh}^m/a. In very fresh water the layer of bound water becomes thicker, so we increase its share. In the examples of this lesson the water is salty enough to ignore this.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Conductivity of a water-saturated shaly sample against the brine conductivity
C0=1F∗ Cw+B QvF∗C_0 = \frac{1}{F^*}\,C_w + \frac{B\,Q_v}{F^*}

conductivities in S/m at the measurement temperature

Holds when: The sample is fully saturated with brine, Swt=1S_{wt} = 1. BB is constant. This holds for brines that are salty enough. In fresh brines BB decreases, and the points fall below the line, so we find the slope from the salty brines.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Dispersed-shale model
1Rt=ϕim2 Sima(qRshd+Sim−qRw),Sw=Sim−q1−q\frac{1}{R_t} = \frac{\phi_{im}^2\,S_{im}}{a}\left(\frac{q}{R_{shd}} + \frac{S_{im} - q}{R_w}\right), \qquad S_w = \frac{S_{im} - q}{1 - q}

resistivities in Ω·m

Holds when: The shale is spread evenly in the pores and conducts current together with the water, like a mixture of electrolytes. The cementation and saturation exponents equal 2. We estimate ϕim\phi_{im} from the sonic log, which records the speed of sound in the rock (ϕim≈ϕS\phi_{im} \approx \phi_S). For the sonic log, the dispersed shale “looks like” pore water. We estimate qq from the gap between density and sonic porosity. If the density of the shale is close to the density of the matrix, the density porosity is close to the effective porosity ϕim(1−q)\phi_{im}(1 - q), and so q≈(ϕS−ϕD)/ϕSq \approx (\phi_S - \phi_D)/\phi_S.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Dispersed-shale model for Rw≪RshdR_w \ll R_{shd}
Sw≈aRwϕim2Rt+q24−q21−qS_w \approx \frac{\sqrt{\dfrac{a R_w}{\phi_{im}^2 R_t} + \dfrac{q^2}{4}} - \dfrac{q}{2}}{1 - q}

resistivities in Ω·m

Holds when: The resistivity of the dispersed shale is several times larger than RwR_w, and the bed is not too shaly. The other assumptions are the same as for the full model.

Water saturation in shaly sands →
Induction sonde reading with the mud in the borehole
1Ra=GmRm+1−GmRt\frac{1}{R_a} = \frac{G_m}{R_m} + \frac{1 - G_m}{R_t}

Ω·m; GmG_m has no units

Holds when: This is the geometric-factor theory: the skin effect (a weakening of the signal in conductive rock) is negligible or already corrected. The bed is thicker than the vertical resolution of the sonde (the thinnest bed it can read correctly), and there is no invasion. These are handled by the later corrections. GmG_m belongs to a particular tool, borehole diameter and tool position. The values in the example are assumed.

Interpretation charts: how to read them →
Borehole correction factor of an induction sonde
RtRa=1−Gm1−Gm Ra/Rm\frac{R_t}{R_a} = \frac{1 - G_m}{1 - G_m\,R_a/R_m}

dimensionless

Holds when: The same as for the reading with the borehole. The formula makes sense only for Ra/Rm<1/GmR_a/R_m < 1/G_m.

Interpretation charts: how to read them →
Coordinates of a point on the invasion chart for a pair of laterologs
x=RLLDRLLS=Jdc+1−JdJsc+1−Js,y=RLLDRxo=Jdc+1−Jdcx = \frac{R_{LLD}}{R_{LLS}} = \frac{J_d c + 1 - J_d}{J_s c + 1 - J_s},\qquad y = \frac{R_{LLD}}{R_{xo}} = \frac{J_d c + 1 - J_d}{c}

dimensionless

Holds when: A step profile. The bed is thicker than the vertical resolution of the sondes. The corrections for the borehole and the enclosing rocks have been applied. Laterologs: the zones add up in series, like resistances. For induction sondes the conductivities add up, and the chart is different. The microresistivity tool shows RxoR_{xo}. The factors JJ do not depend on the resistivity contrast (for real sondes they depend on it only weakly).

Interpretation charts: how to read them →
Position and marking of the middle scale of a nomogram with parallel scales
x3=μ1μ1+μ2 L,y3=μ1μ2μ1+μ2(f1(u)+f2(v))x_3 = \frac{\mu_1}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}\,L,\qquad y_3 = \frac{\mu_1\mu_2}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}\bigl(f_1(u) + f_2(v)\bigr)

any units of length on paper

Holds when: The scales are parallel, and heights are measured from a common horizontal line. f1f_1, f2f_2 and f3f_3 are any monotonic functions (functions that only rise or only fall).

Interpretation charts: how to read them →

Symbols

SymbolMeaning and context
Δz\Delta z
δz\delta z
δt\delta t
Δp\Delta p
Δt\Delta t
δH\delta H
Vˉ\bar V
  • average velocity in the interval, m/sSonic log
∑Z\sum Z
ΔU\Delta U
ΔE\Delta E
xˉ, yˉ\bar x,\ \bar y
δm, δn\delta m,\ \delta n
Δt, Δtf\Delta t,\ \Delta t_f
Δt, Δtm\Delta t,\ \Delta t_m
  • interval transit times of the rock and of the mud, µs/mSonic log
Δt, Δtma, Δtf\Delta t,\ \Delta t_{ma},\ \Delta t_f
1−Vsh1 - V_{sh}
aa
AA
aia_i
AiA_i
AkA_k
aT, aRa_T,\ a_R
  • gaps between the tool and the wall at the transmitter and at the receiver, mSonic log
aw, amfa_w,\ a_{mf}
  • chemical activities of the formation water and the filtrate at formation temperature, the “effective” ion concentrations, —Spontaneous potential (SP) log
a, ba,\ b
a, ma,\ m
a, m, na,\ m,\ n
A(t)A(t)
AM, AN, MNAM,\ AN,\ MN
aRwaR_w
aRw, m, naR_w,\ m,\ n
bb
BB
B0B_0
B QvB\,Q_v
cc
CC
C0C_0
Cg/LC_{\text{g/L}}
CpC_p
CppmC_\text{ppm}
Ct, CwC_t,\ C_w
CwC_w
Cw, a, m, nC_w,\ a,\ m,\ n
CwbC_{wb}
czc_z
CBW, BVI, FFI\mathrm{CBW},\ \mathrm{BVI},\ \mathrm{FFI}
CEC\mathrm{CEC}
DD
dhd_h
did_i
dsd_s
EE
  • energy of the neutron before the collision, eVNeutron log
E0E_0
ERE_R
ESPE_{SP}
EthE_{th}
  • thermal energy, about 0.025 eV at 20 °C, eVNeutron log
ff
Δtf\Delta t_f
  • interval transit time of the fluid in the pores of the zone of investigation (the part of the rock that the tool reads), which is the mud filtrate, µs/mPorosity from the sonic log
  • interval transit time of the fluid in the zone of investigation (the part of the rock that the tool measures): 620 µs/m (189 µs/ft) for fresh filtrate (the liquid that enters the rock from the drilling mud), about 607 µs/m (185 µs/ft) for salty filtrate, µs/mM–N and MID plots for complex lithologies
FF
F∗F^*
F∗, m∗, n∗F^*,\ m^*,\ n^*
  • formation resistivity factor (the ratio of the resistivity of the fully water-saturated rock to that of the water), cementation exponent and saturation exponent, found with allowance for shale and based on total porosity, —Water saturation in shaly sands
FcF_c
fif_i
fjf_j
f, ω=2πff,\ \omega = 2\pi f
FFI, BVI\mathrm{FFI},\ \mathrm{BVI}
GG
GmG_m
GTG_T
GRGR
GRclGR_{cl}
GRshGR_{sh}
hh
HH
hih_i
  • vertical thickness of the ii-th layer, mSonic log
HIfl\mathrm{HI}_{fl}
  • hydrogen index of the fluid in the zone of investigation (its hydrogen content relative to water): about 1 for water and oil, less for gas, —Porosity from the neutron log
HIg, T1g\mathrm{HI}_g,\ T_{1g}
HIh\mathrm{HI}_h
HImf, HIg\mathrm{HI}_{mf},\ \mathrm{HI}_g
HImf, HIh\mathrm{HI}_{mf},\ \mathrm{HI}_h
  • hydrogen index of the filtrate and of the residual hydrocarbons, —Neutron log
ϕShr\phi S_{hr}
Δti\Delta t_i
  • interval transit time of the ii-th layer, µs/mSonic log
II
I∗I^{*}
IGRI_{GR}
JJ
Jd, JsJ_d,\ J_s
Jk(di)J_k(d_i)
Jmc, JxoJ_{mc},\ J_{xo}
  • pseudo-geometric factors of the mudcake and the flushed zone: their shares in the reading. The remainder 1−Jmc−Jxo1 - J_{mc} - J_{xo} belongs to the uninvaded part of the formation, —Microresistivity tools and flushed-zone resistivity
JsJ_s
kk
K\mathrm{K}
KK
kDk_D
kD, kNk_D,\ k_N
kD,lsk_{D,ls}
  • sensitivity of density porosity on the limestone scale: (ρmf−ρa,h)/(2.71−ρmf)(\rho_{mf} - \rho_{a,h})/(2.71 - \rho_{mf}), —Lithology and porosity from crossplots
khck_{\text{hc}}
  • empirical reducing multiplier for hydrocarbons (hc): about 0.9 for oil-bearing beds and about 0.7 for gas-bearing beds, —Porosity from the sonic log
Kj, Thj\mathrm{K}_j,\ \mathrm{Th}_j
kMk_M
kmck_{mc}
kNk_N
kT,pk_{T,p}
  • ratio of the density of water at reservoir temperature and pressure to its density at the surface: about 1.00 at 50 °C and 15 MPa, 0.97 at 100 °C and 30 MPa, 0.94 at 150 °C and 45 MPa, —Porosity from the density log
LL
L1(ϕ), L2(ϕ)L_1(\phi),\ L_2(\phi)
LaL_a
LcL_c
  • the smallest distance from the transmitter to the receiver at which the head wave arrives before the mud wave, mSonic log
LeqL_{\text{eq}}
LiL_i
LmL_m
lg⁡\lg
ln⁡\ln
mm
Δtm\Delta t_m
  • interval transit time of the drilling mud, µs/mSonic log
MM
M0M_0
Mi, NiM_i,\ N_i
m, nm,\ n
m, m0m,\ m_0
M, MmaM,\ M_{ma}
Δtma\Delta t_{ma}
  • interval transit time of the matrix, that is, of a tight rock with no pores (table below), µs/mPorosity from the sonic log
  • interval transit time of the matrix for this transform: 184 µs/m (56 µs/ft) for quartz sandstone, 161 (49) for limestone, 144 (44) for dolomite, µs/mPorosity from the sonic log
Δtma, Δtf\Delta t_{ma},\ \Delta t_f
Δtmaa\Delta t_{maa}
ΔEmax\Delta E_{max}
  • energy that the neutron loses in a head-on collision, eVNeutron log
nn
NN
NEN_E
PP
PeP_e
Pe,iP_{e,i}
Pe,i, UiP_{e,i},\ U_i
Δtp, Δts\Delta t_p,\ \Delta t_s
  • interval transit times of the compressional and shear waves, s/mSonic log
PSP\mathrm{PSP}
qq
QQ
QvQ_v
rr
RR
R0R_0
R0(ϕ)R_0(\phi)
R1, R2R_1,\ R_2
R24R_{24}
RaR_a
Ra/RmR_a/R_m
RILR_{IL}
RkR_k
RLLR_{LL}
RLLD, RLLSR_{LLD},\ R_{LLS}
RmR_m
rm, rsd, rshr_m,\ r_{sd},\ r_{sh}
  • resistances of the sections of the current path: the mud in the borehole, the bed with its invaded zone, the enclosing shales (resistances of bodies, not resistivities), ΩSpontaneous potential (SP) log
RmcR_{mc}
Rmc, Rxo, RtR_{mc},\ R_{xo},\ R_t
RmfR_{mf}
Rmf, RwR_{mf},\ R_w
Rmf, RxoR_{mf},\ R_{xo}
Rmf/RwR_{mf}/R_w
RmfeR_{mfe}
  • equivalent filtrate resistivity at formation temperature; for ordinary fresh muds ≈0.85 Rmf\approx 0.85\,R_{mf}, Ω·mSpontaneous potential (SP) log
Rmfe, RweR_{mfe},\ R_{we}
  • equivalent resistivities of the filtrate and the formation water at formation temperature, which are inversely proportional to the activities, Ω·mSpontaneous potential (SP) log
Rmin⁡R_{\min}
RpadR_\text{pad}
Rs, RdR_s,\ R_d
RshR_{sh}
RshdR_{shd}
RtR_t
Rt−1/mR_t^{-1/m}
  • the horizontal coordinate of the plot (the abscissa); at m=2m = 2 it is 1/Rt1/\sqrt{R_t}, that is, the square root of the conductivity, (Ω⋅m)−1/m(\text{Ω·m})^{-1/m}Resistivity–porosity crossplots
Rt, RwR_t,\ R_w
Rt/RaR_t/R_a
RwR_w
Rw, a, m, nR_w,\ a,\ m,\ n
Rw, RmfR_w,\ R_{mf}
Rw, RtR_w,\ R_t
Rw,24R_{w,24}
RwaR_{wa}
RweR_{we}
Rwe,24R_{we,24}
RxoR_{xo}
Rxo, RtR_{xo},\ R_t
Rxo, Rt, Rmf, Rw, nR_{xo},\ R_t,\ R_{mf},\ R_w,\ n
Rxo/RtR_{xo}/R_t
RzR_z
ss
  • span of the tool, the distance between the receivers, mSonic log
s1, s2s_1,\ s_2
ShrS_{hr}
SimS_{im}
SwS_w
Sw,calcS_{w,\text{calc}}
Sw/SxoS_w/S_{xo}
SwAS_{wA}
SwbS_{wb}
SweS_{we}
SwHS_{wH}
SwRS_{wR}
SwtS_{wt}
Swt, ϕtS_{wt},\ \phi_t
SxoS_{xo}
sΔs_\Delta
S/VS/V
Δtsh\Delta t_{sh}
SP\mathrm{SP}
SSP\mathrm{SSP}
tt
TT
t−, t+t_-,\ t_+
  • transport numbers of the Cl⁻ anion and the Na⁺ cation in an NaCl solution, t−+t+=1t_- + t_+ = 1; for a dilute solution at 25 °C t−≈0.60t_- \approx 0.60, —Spontaneous potential (SP) log
T0T_0
T1T_1
t1, t2t_1,\ t_2
  • first-arrival times at the near and far receivers, µsSonic log
T1, T2T_1,\ T_2
T1hT_{1h}
T2T_2
T2,iT_{2,i}
T2BT_{2B}
T2LMT_{2LM}
Tbh(Δt)T_{\text{bh}}(\Delta t)
tct_c
tkt_k
TresT_{\text{res}}
TTD, zTDT_{TD},\ z_{TD}
T(z)T(z)
TE\mathrm{TE}
Th/K\mathrm{Th}/\mathrm{K}
TOCTOC
TW\mathrm{TW}
TW, TE\mathrm{TW},\ \mathrm{TE}
UU
U\mathrm{U}
U1, U2, UfU_1,\ U_2,\ U_f
UfU_f
UmaaU_{maa}
U, Uf, UmaU,\ U_f,\ U_{ma}
U, Th\mathrm{U},\ \mathrm{Th}
U(r)U(r)
vv
VV
V∗V^{*}
V0.5V_{0.5}
v1, v2v_1,\ v_2
V1, V2V_1,\ V_2
VfV_f
VgV_g
VhmV_{hm}
VhrV_{hr}
ViV_i
VlamV_{lam}
Vp, VsV_p,\ V_s
  • velocities of the compressional and shear waves, m/sSonic log
VshV_{sh}
Vsh, RshV_{sh},\ R_{sh}
ww
δSw\delta S_w
ϕSw\phi S_w
wiw_i
wjw_j
WxoW_{xo}
δSw, δa, δRw, δRt, δϕ\delta S_w,\ \delta a,\ \delta R_w,\ \delta R_t,\ \delta\phi
xx
x3x_3
xbx_b
xcx_c
xix_i
xsx_s
y3y_3
yi(τ)y_i(\tau)
zz
ZZ
z1, z2z_1,\ z_2
zb(t)z_{\text{b}}(t)
ZiZ_i
zrefz_{\text{ref}}
zsz_s
z, z1z,\ z_1
α\alpha
γ\gamma
δ\delta
Δˉ\bar\Delta
Δi\Delta_i
δρb\delta\rho_b
δρma, δρf\delta\rho_{ma},\ \delta\rho_f
δϕD\delta\phi_D
ΔϕD,ls, ΔϕN\Delta\phi_{D,ls},\ \Delta\phi_N
Δϕex\Delta\phi_{ex}
θc\theta_c
  • critical angle between the ray in the mud and the perpendicular to the wall, —Sonic log
μ0\mu_0
μ1, μ2\mu_1,\ \mu_2
μf\mu_f
ν\nu
  • dynamic Poisson's ratio (the ratio of the sideways shortening to the lengthening when the rock is stretched), —Sonic log
ξ\xi
  • mean logarithmic energy loss per collision, —Neutron log
ρ\rho
  • density of the solution; for NaCl solutions near 20 °C, approximately ρ≈1+0.73 w\rho \approx 1 + 0.73\,w, where ww is the mass fraction of salt, g/cm³ (= kg/L)Formation water and formation temperature
ρ1, ρ2, ρf\rho_1,\ \rho_2,\ \rho_f
ρ2\rho_2
ρa\rho_a
ρa,g\rho_{a,g}
ρa,h\rho_{a,h}
ρb\rho_b
ρb, ρf\rho_b,\ \rho_f
ρb,sd\rho_{b,sd}
ρcl\rho_{cl}
ρdcl\rho_{dcl}
ρe\rho_e
ρe,i\rho_{e,i}
ρe=∑iViρe,i\rho_e = \sum_i V_i\rho_{e,i}
ρf\rho_f
ρf, Δtf\rho_f,\ \Delta t_f
ρg\rho_g
ρgr\rho_{gr}
ρgr, ρw\rho_{gr},\ \rho_w
ρh\rho_h
ρi\rho_i
ρj\rho_j
ρma\rho_{ma}
ρma, ρb\rho_{ma},\ \rho_b
ρma, ρf\rho_{ma},\ \rho_f
ρma,i, ρf\rho_{ma,i},\ \rho_f
ρmaa\rho_{maa}
ρmaa, Δtmaa\rho_{maa},\ \Delta t_{maa}
ρmf\rho_{mf}
ρmf, HImf\rho_{mf},\ \mathrm{HI}_{mf}
ρsh\rho_{sh}
ρw\rho_w
σ\sigma
σ1\sigma_1
σ2\sigma_2
σk\sigma_k
σN\sigma_N
τ\tau
ϕ\phi
ϕ1, ϕ2\phi_1,\ \phi_2
ϕ2\phi_2
ϕc\phi_c
ϕD\phi_D
ϕD, ϕN\phi_D,\ \phi_N
ϕD,c, ϕN,c\phi_{D,c},\ \phi_{N,c}
ϕD,ls\phi_{D,ls}
ϕD,sh\phi_{D,sh}
ϕe\phi_e
ϕe, Sw\phi_e,\ S_w
ϕe, Sw, Vsh, Rsh\phi_e,\ S_w,\ V_{sh},\ R_{sh}
ϕim\phi_{im}
ϕim, q\phi_{im},\ q
ϕN\phi_N
ϕN, ϕD\phi_N,\ \phi_D
  • neutron and density porosity calculated for the same (correct) matrix, fractionNeutron log
  • neutron and density porosity of the bed, calculated for the same matrix, fractionDetermining shale volume
ϕN,sh\phi_{N,sh}
ϕN,sh, ϕD,sh\phi_{N,sh},\ \phi_{D,sh}
ϕN′\phi_N'
ϕNf\phi_{Nf}
ϕNMR\phi_\text{NMR}
ϕS\phi_S
ϕS,sh\phi_{S,sh}
ϕsd\phi_{sd}
ϕsh\phi_{sh}
ϕt\phi_t
ϕt, ϕe\phi_t,\ \phi_e
ϕt,sh\phi_{t,sh}
ϕta\phi_{ta}