Recognition and evaluation of low-resistivity pay

Paul F. Worthington
Ganey, Cline & Associates, Bentley Hall, Blacknest, Alton, Hants., GU34 4PU, UK

ABSTRACT: A systematic procedure for the petrophysical identification and

interpretation of low-resistivity and low-resistivity-contrast pay zones in intergranu-
lar reservoirs is founded upon an analysis of case histories for dierent reservoir
types in diverse areas of the world. The approach acknowledges that a reservoir rock
is a coupled physico-chemical system. The proposed method is generic and robust,
it is conceptually simple, and it is structured in a manner that is easy to understand.
The scheme is modular and it is arranged hierarchically to reflect maturing data
scenarios: therefore, it can be progressively refined during the appraisal and
development stages. The essence of the method is the definition and calibration of
reliable interpretative procedures through quality-assured reference data from key
wells by admitting only validated reservoir characteristics. Examples world-wide
illustrate how failure to recognize low-resistivity pay can result in much loss of
potential value.
A principal thrust is to facilitate the re-evaluation of other wells within the same
reservoir system without the need for excessive acquisition of additional data.
However, the proposed interpretation framework does allow the incorporation of
new logging technology as this becomes established. The end-product is a flexible
petrophysical interpretation scheme for these unconventional reservoirs that benefits
from cost-eectiveness, portability, a higher degree of exactness and consequently a
much reduced uncertainty.

KEYWORDS: reservoir performance, electrical property, resistivity, formation evaluation

INTRODUCTION programmes. The subject area therefore remains highly topical,

both technically and commercially.
In unfractured reservoirs, low-resistivity pay zones are usually
associated with one or more of the following: laminated
reservoir/non-reservoir sequences, formations with multi- Historical background
modal pore-size characteristics, sediments with anomalously Low-resistivity pay is not recognizable through conventional
high surface area, and reservoir components that extend log analysis. Historically, therefore, low-resistivity pay has not
beyond the range of applicability of interpretative algorithms, been targeted for primary completions, being discovered
e.g. electronically conducting minerals. In all these cases, through core and pressure analysis as late as a higher-risk, third
hydrocarbons have been produced with little or no water cut in completion stage. Much of the locally applicable, empirical
the presence of high interpreted water saturations, in many rationale behind the initial overlooking and the subsequent
dierent parts of the world. It is therefore important to have a discovering of low-resistivity pay has been lost to the industry
generalized facility for recognizing low-resistivity pay as early as with the passage of time. However, the parameter cut-o
possible in the life of a prospect. culture virtually guaranteed that all admitted pay intervals would
The problem of identifying low-resistivity pay through show fairly consistent reservoir properties with low-resistivity
wireline log analysis has been acknowledged for over 30 years, pay going undetected, at least initially.
with much of the early focus on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf The concept of what constitutes low-resistivity pay has
Coast of the United States (Tixier et al. 1968), although not evolved with time. Originally, it encompassed those intervals
exclusively so (Murphy & Owens 1972). During the past three with formation resistivities as low as 13
m and that
decades an increasing number of examples have come to light subsequently turned out to be commercial hydrocarbon
in the Gulf Coast region (Table 1). Today there are also producers (Gauntt et al. 1964; Murphy & Owens 1972; Tripathi
documented records of low-resistivity pay in other parts of the et al. 1984). On the basis of an increasing number of case
conterminous United States, Alaska, Brazil, Canada, Venezuela, histories, the concept has been expanded to include formations
Argentina, the North Sea, continental Europe, north Africa, the with resistivities less than 0.5
m (Zemanek 1989; Boyd et al.
Middle East, India, southeast Asia, Japan, China and Australia 1995), indicating a progressive awareness that reserves were
(Table 1). Indeed, the related petrophysical literature has being lost when higher cut-os were adopted. It is not known
become voluminous during the past ten years (Table 1), how many low-resistivity pay reservoirs have been abandoned
presumably because the market-driven requirement to add prematurely over the years.
maximum value with minimum cash outlay has re-emphasized Today, it is recognized that there are no universally
the need for the most eective and ecient well-completion acceptable bounds to the resistivity of commercial pay zones.
Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 6 2000, pp. 7792 1354-0793/00/$15.00 2000 EAGE/Geological Society, London
78 P. F. Worthington

Table 1. Examples of low-resistivity pay since 1980

Cause(s) of
low-resistivity pay Field/reservoir(s) Investigator(s)

Laminated shaly sands Miocene sands, S. Louisiana, USA Allen (1984)

Porto Corsini Mare Est Field, Italy Suau et al. (1984)
Pennsylvanian sands, E. Oklahoma, USA Schulze et al. (1985a)
Magnus Field, North Sea, UK Dyos et al. (1988)
Nelson Field, North Sea, UK Bilsland et al. (1989)
Vicksburg Formation, Texas, USA Bateman (1990)
Gulf Coast sands, USA Ruhovets (1990)
Attaka Field, Kalimantan, Indonesia Sutiyono (1995)
Charamousca Field, Texas, USA Silva & Spooner (1991)
Rodessa Hill Sands, Arkansas, USA Buller (1992)
Bokabil Formation, Assam, India Chaudhary & Vashist (1992)
Upper Interlake Group, N. Dakota, USA Clu et al. (1992)
South Timbalier Field, Gulf of Mexico Darling & Sneider (1992)
Lagunillas Formation, Venezuela Frass et al. (1995)
Misoa Sands, Venezuela Coll et al. (1996)
Fresh formation waters Midway Sunset Field, California, USA Wharton & Delano (1981)
Chubut Sands, Argentina Bateman (1984)
Tertiary sands, Beaufort Sea, Canada Spalding (1984)
Cretaceous sands, Sudan Moore (1986)
Tipam Sands, Assam, India Jain (1990)
Meruap Field, Sumatra, Indonesia Worthington & Johnson (1991)
Sangatta Field, Kalimantan, Indonesia Suwardji et al. (1994)
Potiguar Basin, NE Brazil Condessa (1995)
Gandhar Field, Gujarat, India Guru et al. (1995)
Otway Basin, South Australia Scholefield et al. (1996)
Conductive minerals Teradomari Formation, N. Japan Itoh et al. (1982)
Simpson Series, Oklahoma, USA Schulze et al. (1985b)
Trimble Field, Mississippi, USA Cook et al. (1990)
Fine-grained sands South Texas sands, USA Fett (1980)
Tertiary sands, Malay Basin, Malaysia Kuttan et al. (1980)
Tertiary sands,Gulf of Mexico, USA Heckel (1985)
Eugene Island, Gulf of Mexico, USA Austin & Faulkner (1993)
Elk Hills Field, California, USA Beacom & Kornreich (1996)
Internal microporosity Running Duke Field, Texas, USA Keith & Pittman (1983)
Triassic sandstone Swanson (1985)
Ste. Genevieve Limestone, Kentucky, USA Asquith (1986)
Limestones, Middle East Dixon & Marek (1990)
Eileen West End, Alaska, USA Cunningham & Jay (1991)
Permo-Triassic sands, Alaska, USA Worthington & Pallatt (1992)
Carbonates, Middle East Petricola & Watfa (1995)
Carbonates, continental USA Bereskin et al. (1996)
Lower Mississippian cherts, S. Kansas Montgomery et al. (1998)
Superficial microporosity Lower Cretaceous sands Bos (1982)
Rotliegend Sand, The Netherlands Diederix (1982)
South Marsh Island Field, Louisiana Morphy & Thomson (1985)
Brage Field, North Sea, Norway Grimnes (1988)
Altprerau Field, Austria Ramburger (1989)
Pleistocene sands, Gulf of Mexico, USA Zemanek (1989)
Attaka Field, Kalimantan, Indonesia Partono (1992)
B-Field, Ardjuna Basin, Indonesia Klein et al. (1993)
J Sandstone, Denver Basin, USA Weimer & Sonnenberg (1994)
J Field, Tarim Basin, China Zhang et al. (1994)

Alternative specifications have been formulated in terms of the concepts of low resistivity and low resistivity contrast can be
contrast in resistivity between the hydrocarbon-bearing reser- merged.
voir and congenital shales (Boyd et al. 1995). Low-resistivity
contrast sands have been specifically defined as, for example,
having a resistivity that is less than 1.5 times the resistivity of Contemporary definition
intraformational shales (J. T. Kulha 1998, pers. comm.). This From a global perspective, low-resistivity pay is better taken as
definition allows a range of limiting resistivities that have been a relative term rather than an absolute descriptor. It exists when
higher than 10
m in some areas. there is a lack of useful positive contrast in measured electrical
A more pragmatic basis for low resistivity contrast is the resistivity between zones that contain and produce hydro-
dierence in resistivity between the hydrocarbon-bearing carbons in commercial quantities and zones that contain and
interval and the water zone. This approach, too, is not tied to produce only water, within the same reservoir system. There-
fixed limiting resistivities. However, with this philosophy, the fore, as used here, the term low-resistivity pay also includes
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay 79

Table 2. Some reported values of low resistivity in pay zones

Typical formation resistivity Typical formation resistivity

in the water zone in the hydrocarbon zone
Field/formation (
m) (
m) Investigator(s)

Trimble Field, Smith County, Missouri, USA 0.4 0.55 Cook et al. (1990)
Upper Cretaceous sands of the Eutaw Formation
Rodessa Limestone Formation, Houston County, Texas 1 23 Kieke & Hartmann (1974)
Attaka Field, East Kalimantan, Indonesia 15 25 Partono (1992)
Layered Miocene sandstones
Tertiary sands play, Malay Basin 68 10 Kuttan et al. (1980)
Lakhmani Field, Upper Assam, India 1525 1030 Jain (1990)
Miocene sands of the Tipam group

low-resistivity-contrast pay zones and it does not distinguish on can be evaluated meaningfully using standard clean- or
the basis of absolute resistivity, in which respect this treatment shaly-sand procedures, regardless of their absolute or relative
diers from certain others (e.g. Boyd et al. 1995). formation resistivities.
The underlying rationale is that an intra-reservoir quantitative
comparison of what constitutes low-resistivity pay is more
meaningful than an inter-reservoir analysis, for it is strictly NATURE OF LOW-RESISTIVITY PAY
within the setting of the former that completion decisions are
made. The philosophy also accommodates those encountered The nature of low-resistivity pay is partly a function of the
situations in which a pay sand within one reservoir system has response characteristics of wireline logging tools. In the context
a significantly lower absolute resistivity than a clearly identi- of tool response, two definitions are important. A layer is
fiable water zone within either the same reservoir system or detected when a wireline log shows a significant deflection in
another. Table 2 lists pertinent examples. response to that layer. A layer is resolved when the deflection
of the log attains the true parametric value for that layer, after
corrections for borehole eects (Fig. 1). Following this, the
spatial resolution of a logging tool can be defined as the
Scope of the problem minimum bed thickness needed for the tool to record the true
parametric value for that bed. Table 3 lists the limits of
Although the concept of low-resistivity pay has evolved with detection or resolution, as appropriate, for a range of wireline
time, the problem itself has not diminished. This point is well logging tools, together with details of the reference sources.
illustrated by the synergetic papers of Duren (1967) and The key is to sharpen the spatial resolution of the deeper
Montgomery et al. (1998), which describe the Glick gas field of sensing logs, especially resistivity logs, relative to the thickness
Kansas, where the main reservoir rock is a highly microporous of the reservoir layers. The objective is to evaluate the porosity
tripoli chert. The low-resistivity pay problem remains centred and deep resistivity of the reservoir layers without the process
on the evaluation of water saturation Sw. More specifically, the being distorted by adjacent non-reservoir beds.
problem arises through the very high values of Sw that can be It is important to distinguish at the outset between the
interpreted from wireline logs over low-resistivity (contrast) manifestation of low-resistivity pay, i.e. how it appears in field
intervals where a reservoir does not conform to the assump- data, and its cause, i.e. the physico-chemical phenomenon that
tions made during the conventional petrophysical evaluation of gives rise to its occurrence. From a petrophysical perspective,
clean or shaly formations.
Although low-resistivity pay is evidently a world-wide prob-
lem, potential solutions reported in the literature are directed at
specific reservoirs or particular depositional environments. To
some extent, the documented approaches are exclusive in that
they may not be directly applicable to other reservoirs where
conditions appear to be similar. Yet, experience also indicates
that the problem of low-resistivity pay is not age-, formation-,
lithology- or location-specific (Table 1). All this points towards
the need to establish a generic approach.
This paper is concerned with setting the low-resistivity pay
problem within a global context with the primary objective of
formulating a generic strategy for addressing it. The approach is
directed principally at extracting greater value from existing
reservoir databases, but it should also provide a foundation for
the evaluation of new wells wherein more advanced logging
tools might be deployed. Therefore, it is especially appropriate
to the re-interpretation of data from older wells in the light of
contemporary understanding.
Two types of reservoir are specifically excluded from the
following discussion; fractured reservoirs, for which focused Fig. 1. Wireline-log response to reservoir layers. Layer is resolved
resistivity logs can read anomalously low, and reservoirs that when it is detected with a correct parametric response.
80 P. F. Worthington

Table 3. Detection (D) or resolution (R) limits of selected wireline logging tools

Sampling Spatial
interval limit Type
Log (cm) (cm) of limit Source

Gamma ray 15 31 R McCall et al. (1987)

Density 15 45 R McCall et al. (1987)
Enhanced density 5 10 R McCall et al. (1987)
Photoelectric 5 10 R McCall et al. (1987)
Neutron 15 60 R McCall et al. (1987)
Enhanced neutron 5 20 R McCall et al. (1987)
Sonic 15 60 R Allen et al. (1988)
SP 15 180 R McCall et al. (1987)
MSFL 5 12.5 R McCall et al. (1987)
SFL 15 76 R Allen et al. (1988)
Laterolog 15 60 R Allen et al. (1988)
High-resolution laterolog 2 2.5 R Khokhar & Johnson (1989)
Induction 15 180 R Ruhovets et al. (1992)
High-resolution induction 15 90 R Strickland et al. (1987)
Multi-coil induction 7.5 60 R Hunka et al. (1990)
High-resolution dipmeter 0.5 1.25 D McCall et al. (1987)
Micro-imaging log 0.25 0.6 D McCall et al. (1987)
High-frequency dielectric 0.5 5 R Ruhovets et al. (1992)

SP self potential; MSFL micro-spherically focused log; SFL spherically focused log.

low-resistivity pay can have one of four manifestations and one within the hydrocarbon leg may or may not be resolvable by
or more of six causes (Table 4). wireline logging tools. In cases where they can be resolved, the
criterion for this manifestation is applied to the individual
reservoir layers.
Manifestations
The third manifestation is encountered where the hydro-
The first manifestation is that of a reservoir rock with a carbon and water legs can be distinguished by wireline logs,
combination of physical properties that collectively result in but the quantitative petrophysical interpretation is grossly
a low measured resistivity that is indicative of water-bearing pessimistic because the physical characteristics of the reservoir
strata. The reservoir layers within the hydrocarbon leg may or rock extend beyond the range of applicability of the avail-
may not be directly resolvable by wireline logging tools. In cases able interpretative models. This outcome may not be a sole
where they cannot be resolved, low-resistivity pay is taken to consequence of the factors causing the low resistivity.
include only those formations that cannot be interpreted The fourth manifestation occurs where a (high) water
meaningfully through conventional laminated-sand procedures. saturation can be evaluated correctly from the (low) formation
Where they can be resolved, low-resistivity pay includes only resistivity, but the interpretation is incompatible with produc-
those formations that cannot be interpreted meaningfully tion characteristics, which show dry hydrocarbons or a low
through conventional clean-sand or (dispersed) shaly-sand pro- water-cut. This outcome is usually the result of high capillarity.
cedures. This is an important point because, in this context,
earlier literature on low-resistivity pay referred to the Archie
equations (Archie 1942), but it did not include the more Causes
recently developed and multifarious shaly-sand algorithms The causes of the four possible manifestations of low-resistivity
(Worthington 1985). pay take the form of coupled elements of a physico-chemical
The second manifestation is that of a reservoir rock that system that encompasses rock type, matrix properties and
cannot be distinguished electrically from water-bearing strata texture, clay-mineral properties and texture, grain size and
within the same reservoir system. The resistivities may not be shape, pore size(s) and pore geometry, and saturating water
low in absolute terms, but the resistivity contrast between the salinity. The causes can therefore be seen as components of
hydrocarbon and water legs is small. Again, the reservoir layers the low-resistivity pay problem. Attempts to understand the

Table 4. Manifestations and causes of low-resistivity pay (nomenclature at end of text)

Manifestation(s)
Resistivity of Resolution of reservoir Reason for pessimistic
reservoir layers layers by well logs interpretation of Sw Cause(s)

Rt is very low and/or Rt]Ro No Grossing of reservoir and non-reservoir log signatures Laminated sands and shales
Yes Extreme reservoir components Fresh waters
Electronic conduction
High capillarity Fine grains
Internal microporosity
Superficial microporosity
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay 81

problem should take account of all these factors, and of the

ways in which they interact, rather than select subsets for
consideration in isolation. This point is supported by the
examples of low-resistivity pay listed in Table 1. Although those
cases have been sorted according to their principal cause, many
of them also cite other causes that co-exist alongside the
primary. Further, some reservoirs show dierent causes of
low-resistivity pay over dierent intervals. For this reason, it is
especially advisable to group those reservoir intervals with
common characteristics as early as possible during a field study.
Table 4 identifies six possible causes of low-resistivity pay,
each of which can be seen as a category of the subject area from
a petrophysical perspective. The first cause is the occurrence of
laminated sand/shale sequences. Thin hydrocarbon-bearing
beds can be grouped within low-resistivity (contrast) zones
where the geometry of the reservoir layers is such that they
cannot be resolved by the logging tools that have been
deployed. The nature of the reservoir layers themselves is of
secondary consideration in this context. The foregoing illus-
trates the changing nature of the problem, because as higher- Fig. 2. Schematic interpretation for water saturation.
resolution resistivity tools are developed and deployed, some
low-resistivity pay sands might become resolvable and cease to
be low-resistivity pay. models usually comprise sand/shale sequences, and indirect
The second cause is the presence of a low-salinity formation interpretation would therefore require an appropriate laminated
water as the saturating electrolyte. Not only can a low-salinity sand/shale model.
reservoir lie beyond the range of validation of conventional Where direct interpretation is possible, this conforms to
interpretative algorithms for water saturation, but low electro- the structure of Fig. 2, which illustrates four possible avenues
lyte salinity also allows the shale term to assume relatively large of approach to the evaluation of water saturation. A nomen-
values, which make the accurate quantification of this term clature of interpretative symbols is included at the end of the
especially important. text.
The third cause is one of electronic conduction within the The first requirement is to classify the reservoir as an Archie
rock matrix. This phenomenon usually arises where the con- or a non-Archie reservoir. An Archie reservoir satisfies the
centration of a metallic mineral exceeds a critical level, beyond requirements of low clay(-mineral) content and high-salinity
which it can act as a significant additional conductor. formation water above a limiting water saturation (Archie
The next three causes, fine grains and internal or superficial 1942), and it is conventionally evaluated using classical clean-
microporosity, are all concerned with high capillarity. All three sand methods. A non-Archie reservoir does not satisfy these
give rise to a high surface area, which can appear as a shale conditions, and it is conventionally evaluated using traditional
eect, especially if the formation waters are fresh. This last shaly-sand techniques.
comment emphasizes the coupled nature of the low-resistivity Direct interpretation of low-resistivity pay zones has often
pay problem. involved variations on the classical clean-sand and shaly-sand
All these six causes are associated with reservoir charac- procedures. These variations are termed pseudo-methods, and
teristics. The concept of low-resistivity pay as adopted here they have been applied in both Archie and non-Archie situ-
does not include cases where borehole environmental eects ations, in which contexts they are described as pseudo-Archie
have artificially lowered the log-derived formation resistivity. and pseudo-non-Archie approaches, respectively. They are used
The following treatment of low-resistivity pay is structured in because traditional methods of petrophysical interpretation
terms of the causes listed in Table 4. The greatest problem is cannot accommodate low-resistivity pay.
recognizing that low-resistivity pay is actually present. Where Pseudo-Archie methods entail empirical manipulation of the
that recognition emerges through experience within a particular conventional clean-sand algorithms, primarily through the
reservoir, possibly with an element of serendipity, value has Archie porosity exponent m and the Archie saturation expo-
already been lost and only a partial restoration of cost- nent n, so that these quantities can be set without constraint to
eectiveness is achievable through a recompletion programme. strictly functional values that lead to meaningful estimates of
The thrust of what follows is therefore to identify low- water saturation. After adjustment, the exponents become
resistivity pay as early as possible in the life of a field in pseudo-Archie parameters.
order to maximize added value, with the further objective of Pseudo-non-Archie methods involve similar empirical adjust-
being able to export remedial interpretative procedures to ments to the traditional shaly-sand algorithms, primarily
other wells without incurring disproportionate data-acquisition through the intrinsic porosity exponent m* and the intrinsic
costs. saturation exponent n*. The intrinsic exponents are those
corrected for shale eects on the electrical conductivity of the
reservoir rock. After adjustment, the intrinsic exponents
APPROACH TO INTERPRETATION become pseudo-non-Archie parameters. Pseudo-non-Archie
At the outset, reservoir layers will be either resolvable or methods also include cases where a shaly-sand algorithm is
non-resolvable by wireline logs. If they are resolvable, or they applied to lithologically clean rocks with a complex pore
can subsequently be resolved through signal processing, the geometry, such as sands containing granular chert.
reservoir layers can be interpreted directly. In this sense, the Note again that where conventional clean- or shaly-sand
word direct means without reference to a laminated reservoir procedures can be used, the interpretation exercise moves
model. In the particular case of low resistivity pay, laminated outside the scope of low-resistivity pay as defined here.
82 P. F. Worthington

LAMINATED SAND-SHALE SEQUENCES

In sedimentological rock description, the word lamina

describes a layer that can vary in thickness from 130 mm
(Tucker 1991). In petrophysical parlance, the adjective lami-
nated has been used to describe any alternating sequence of
sands and shales that cannot be resolved by the available
logging tools. Thus, the term can include layers that are many
inches in thickness (Dewan 1983). This paper follows conven-
tional petrophysical practice in this respect. The more compli-
cated problems associated with undulating or dipping layers of
variable thickness are not considered here.
At the outset, laminations might be suspected but their scale
is unknown. It is therefore necessary to quantify the thickness
of the smallest significant reservoir layer. This quantification is
based on the distribution of all reservoir layer thicknesses
within the evaluation interval. If core is available, the distri-
bution can be generated from core photographs. If core has not
been cut, the response of high-resolution logging tools holds
the key. At the smallest detectable scale and in the presence of
a water-base mud, microfocused resistivity, dipmeter and elec-
trical imaging tools have all been deployed successfully. With an
oil-base mud, dielectric logs have been the preferred tools. At
this stage we are concerned only with bed identification. Tools Fig. 3. Example of wireline logs from a laminated reservoir in the
with a sharp spatial resolution that are ideal for this present South Timbalier Field, Gulf of Mexico (after Darling & Sneider
purpose might not have a suciently large depth of investi- 1992). Note that the SP and gamma logs detect laminations whose
gation for the subsequent petrophysical evaluation of partially resistivity characteristics are smoothed by the deep induction log.
invaded reservoir layers.
Having established that the reservoir is laminated and that
the laminations are smaller than the spatial resolutions of the wireline logging tools used to identify the beds, and the benefits
deeper sensing logging tools, the next stage is to enhance derived in terms of interpretation enhancement. Note that a
those resolutions where possible, so that the corresponding solution to this particular aspect of the problem can take the
logs might be evaluated directly. Several methods are available reservoir out of this low-resistivity pay category, although it
and their applicability depends on the ratio of bed thickness might then enter another category.
to unprocessed tool resolution. The following methods are
not exclusive: deployment of high-resolution deep sensing
tools if available (Strickland et al. 1987); increased digital FRESH FORMATION WATERS
sampling to bring out greater detail in the logs (Suau et al. In this and the following sections, it is assumed that direct
1984); using the short-spacing measurement of a dual-sensing evaluation of wireline logs is possible, i.e. the reservoir layers
tool to enhance the spatial resolution of the long-spacing are suciently thick to be resolved by conventional logging
measurement without reducing its depth of investigation tools. It is also presumed that standard procedures for for-
(Flaum et al. 1989); and signal enhancement through decon- mation evaluation do not allow the interpreter to distinguish
volution (Lyle & Williams 1986) and forward modelling between pay and non-pay. If they do, there is no problem to
(Dyos 1987). address in the context of low-resistivity pay.
Table 3 indicates the minimum bed thicknesses for which Fresh formation waters can render hydrocarbon-bearing
direct log interpretation might be feasible. Where a direct layers indistinguishable from water-bearing zones. Further, they
evaluation of reservoir characteristics is not possible, even with take a reservoir out of the range of formation-water salinities
signal enhancement, recourse can be made to a conventional that were used to calibrate the published algorithms for the
laminated sand/shale model. In such cases, it is especially petrophysical evaluation of water saturation from resistivity
important that the interpretation be validated against the logs, and these algorithms might therefore be inapplicable.
saturations of water extracted from low-invasion core plugs cut Most interpretation failures have arisen from the direct appli-
from reservoir rock (e.g. Dawe & Murdock 1990). cation in unmodified form of the Archie clean-sand equations
Figure 3 exemplifies the responsive signatures of the SP (Archie 1942), but there is a view that even the more compre-
and gamma ray logs in a laminated reservoir in the Gulf hensive shaly-sand models are not suited to the evaluation of
of Mexico Basin, where these logs indicate that the shaly low-resistivity pay in this category (Sneider & Kulha 1996).
and silty sand laminations vary in thickness from 0.52.5 m There is no general limiting salinity below which standard
(Darling & Sneider 1992). The deep induction log cannot interpretation methodologies break down. Indeed, reservoir
detect, let alone resolve, many of these laminations and rocks and their interstitial waters show a continuum of electrical
therefore the recorded deep resistivity is generally an inter- behaviour, whereby a given interpretative algorithm can cease
mediate value averaged over the spatial resolution of the tool, to be valid at any point within a range of formation-water
here taken to be about 2.5 m. Although the deep induction salinities, depending on the electrochemical properties of the
log measured an average formation resistivity as low as porous medium (Worthington 1995). Having stated this, most
0.4
m over the test interval, the latter was tested at problematic situations do arise when the formation water
778 BBL of eectively dry oil per day. salinity is less than about 15 000 ppm equivalent NaCl.
Table 5 lists some case histories of laminated sand/shale Reservoirs that contain fresh formation waters are described as
sequences together with the bed thicknesses encountered, the freshwater reservoirs for the purposes of this paper.
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay 83

Table 5. Case histories of petrophysical evaluation of laminated reservoirs

Bed Electrical log Spatial diagnostic Decrease in Sw

thickness used for bed limit for selected tool through use of high
Formation (cm) identification (cm) resolution tool Investigator(s)

Lagunillas Formation, Venezuela 6 Microresistivity imaging tool 0.6 0.50<0.22 Frass et al. (1995)
Bokabil Formation, Assam, India 10 High frequency dielectric 5 0.70<0.35 Chaudhary & Vashist (1992)
Gulf Coast sand, USA 30 Dipmeter 5 0.73<0.43 Ruhovets (1990)
Test well, Travis Co., Texas, USA 60 High-resolution laterolog 5 0.80<0.50 Khokhar & Johnson (1989)
Yegua Formation, Texas, USA 60150 High-resolution induction 60 0.70<0.53 Silva & Spooner (1991)

The key issue is whether or not the available shaly-sand Archie equations and shaly-sand algorithms of the type of
algorithms can function at the prevailing formation-water Waxman & Smits (1968) are likely to be valid. Outside these
salinity within the subject reservoir. If they do, the problem is ranges, the methods might break down. Therefore such a chart
solved, because the interpretation will distinguish between pay oers an overall guide to the recognition of the low-salinity
and non-pay: if they do not, an alternative procedure must be aspect of the low-resistivity pay problem in the total porosity
used. In some freshwater porous media, shaly-sand algorithms system of petrophysical interpretation. An equivalent chart can
do have an application, albeit in modified form (e.g. Guru et al. be constructed for the eective porosity system, for example
1995), but in other reservoirs they can break down even at through the modified Simandoux equation (Bardon & Peid
significantly higher salinities (Diederix 1982). 1969), by using as the shale conductivity term the product of
There are several potentially useful approaches to validating wetted shale volume fraction Vsh and wetted shale conductivity
the performance of an interpretative algorithm for water Csh. Note once again that if standard clean- or shaly-sand
saturation. The first two require core data. If low-invasion methods of interpretation turn out to be valid, fresh waters
coring has been undertaken with the quality assurance of a alone do not cause a low-resistivity (contrast) pay problem.
tracer additive to the drilling mud, a comparison of extracted As an extreme example, Fig. 5 shows wireline logs run
formation waters with log-derived water saturations oers the through the Miocene Tipam Sands of the Lakhmani Field of
soundest approach to validation (Fjerstad et al. 1993). If Upper Assam in northeastern India (Jain 1990). These fluvial
native-state water saturations are not available, another sands contain formation waters of 10002000 ppm equivalent
approach is to benchmark the predictive performance of NaCl, and this salinity corresponds to a water resistivity of
interpretative algorithms at irreducible water saturation, where about 2.55.0
m at 25C. The high water resistivity gives rise
the latter has been obtained independently, e.g. from capillary to ratios of apparent to intrinsic formation factor Fa/F* that
pressure studies (Guru et al. 1995). are generally less than 0.5 and to a shale conductivity term that
If there are no core data and the reservoir contains crude that lies within the range 0.20.4 S m
1. Therefore the reservoir
is immobile to flushing by the mud filtrate, a comparison of characteristics extend beyond the region of application of
shallow-sensed and deep-sensed water saturations can confirm conventional interpretative models for water saturation,
or otherwise the validity of a predictive algorithm in the encroaching into the pseudo-model area of Fig. 4. At these low
undisturbed zone (Wharton & Delano 1981). Finally, and more salinities, where surface conduction can become highly signifi-
generally, a comparison of predictive performance in the cant even in the absence of clay minerals, changes in rock
flushed and undisturbed zones of the water leg constitutes the texture can have a profound influence on the formation
most basic option. If, in the last two cases, the validation is resistivity. Through the surface-conduction eect, fine-grained
approached by applying the same shaly-sand algorithm to both zones that contain hydrocarbons can appear more conductive
the flushed and the undisturbed zones, rather than by applying than coarser-grained zones that are water-bearing. In freshwater
a dierent measurement technique in the flushed zone, a
prerequisite is that the mud filtrate and formation water are
dissimilar.
If the above methods confirm that the available predictive
algorithms have broken down, recourse to a pseudo-Archie
approach is the most common. This technique uses the basic
Archie equations for the evaluation of water saturation, but
the exponents that characterize these equations are allowed
to assume very dierent values from the values m=n=2
proposed by Archie (1942). The numerical values of these
exponents are often chosen so that the algorithms lead to a
correct prediction of water saturation either based on core
extraction or at irreducible conditions. The same philosophy
has been applied to shaly-sand equations, but less frequently.
An alternative method that might be attempted where the mud
filtrate is highly saline is to draw upon a broad relationship
between the predicted water saturation in the flushed zone
(where conventional interpretation might work) and that in the
undisturbed zone (where it does not). If successful, this method
by-passes low-salinity eects in the reservoir (Spalding 1984).
Figure 4 indicates broadly the ranges of formation-water Fig. 4. Estimated ranges of applicability of water-saturation
resistivity Rw and shale conductivity term BQv within which the equations (modified from Worthington 1995).
84 P. F. Worthington

conduction due to iron-bearing minerals that occur in clusters

and whose concentration exceeds a critical level, taken by
Clavier et al. (1976) for the case of pyrite as 7% by volume of
the total solids. Another mineral that has been grouped in this
category is glauconite, which can in many respects be regarded
as a clay mineral. However, here it is seen as an iron-bearing
mica with a potential excess conductivity (Cook et al. 1990) over
and above any conductivity enhancement due solely to textural
eects. Yet again, volcanic tus have been cited as showing an
excess conductivity beyond that predicted from electrochemical
phenomena (Itoh et al. 1982). Conductive minerals can co-exist
with other causes of low-resistivity pay.
In the context of conductive minerals, the low-resistivity pay
problem reduces to correctly evaluating the water saturation.
There is no generally accepted way of handling data from
electronically conducting reservoirs. A first step towards
recognizing the problem is to measure the conductivity of
oven-dried core plugs. If the dry conductivity is finite, there will
be a problem to investigate. If the dry conductivity is infinite,
there could still be a problem, because conductivity enhance-
ment by clusters of iron-rich minerals might only become
significant in the wet state. In this case, the concentration
of the metallic minerals should be investigated to see if it is
Fig. 5. Example of wireline logs from a freshwater reservoir in supracritical.
the Tipam Sands, Assam, India (after Jain 1990). The lower Figure 6 shows wireline logs from the Trimble Field in Smith
resistivity measured in the oil leg is due to the combined eect of
finer grains and a low formation-water salinity. County, Mississippi (Cook et al. 1990). The logged interval
includes the uppermost section of the Stanley Sand (with
reservoirs, this phenomenon can be accentuated by minor formation top at 7658 ft), which forms part of the Upper
changes in formation-water salinity. One such resistivity Cretaceous Eutaw play in the Mississippi Interior Salt Basin.
reversal is shown in Fig. 5, where the upper oil-producing This interval was logged with the dual induction device, whose
interval has a measured resistivity that is about half that of the deep sensor is minimally aected by the variations in borehole
underlying water zone. diameter. The interval contains two perforated zones. The
Table 6 illustrates the pseudo-Archie and variable shaly-sand lower test zone has an average deep-induction resistivity of
exponents that have been applied in studies of low-resistivity about 0.3
m: it produced only salt water. The upper test zone
pay where the formation-water salinities are low. Note that has an average resistivity of 0.6
m: it flowed gas at a rate of
the severe non-Archie eects in the Tipam Sands drive the 782106 ft3 per day with a water cut of 13 BBL per day. The
saturation exponent n below the theoretical minimum of unity low resistivity of the producing zone is largely attributed to a
for Archie rocks. Table 6 also indicates the benefits that can be supracritical content of glauconite in the pore lining of the
derived from an improved petrophysical interpretation. arenaceous rock matrix. The glauconite provides an additional
Pseudo-Archie exponents will be encountered again where conducting mechanism for electrical current from resistivity
low-resistivity pay can be attributed to one of the three causes tools and thereby lowers the resistance of the formation. In this
of high capillarity, a phenomenon that can also occur in example, there are almost certainly co-existing high capillarity
freshwater-bearing hydrocarbon reservoirs. In such cases, the eects associated with the overgrowth texture.
pseudo-Archie exponents generated here might also accommo- Table 7 summarizes the approaches to the conductive
date high capillarity, to a degree that can be ascertained only by mineral problem that have been discerned from the literature.
validating the log-derived water saturations. Our knowledge of this particular cause of the low-resistivity pay
problem is the least developed.
CONDUCTIVE MINERALS FINE-GRAINED SANDS
The presence of conductive minerals is the least cited cause of In the context of fine-grained sands, the low-resistivity pay
low-resistivity pay. The root of the problem is electronic problem has two facets. First, the fines can act as a separate
Table 6. Case histories of petrophysical evaluation of freshwater reservoirs

Water Adopted values Eect on

salinity Interpretative of Archie calculated Sw
Formation (ppm) model exponents for 25% porosity Investigator(s)

Tipam Sands, India 1500 Pseudo-Archie m=1.25 1.00<0.30 Jain (1990)

n=0.45
Chubut Sands, Argentina 500010 000 Pseudo-Archie m=1.50 0.70<0.49 Bateman (1984)
n=2.00
Meruap Field, Indonesia 11 500 Pseudo-Archie m=1.47 0.80<0.55 Worthington & Johnson (1991)
n=2.00
Gandhar Field, India 14 000 Shaly sand with variable m* m*=1.87 0.55<0.50 Guru et al. (1995)
n*=2.00 Silawat et al. (1995)
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay 85

Fig. 6. Example of wireline logs from an electronically

conducting reservoir in the Eutaw play, Mississippi (after Cook
et al., 1990). The low resistivity contrast between the water and gas Fig. 7. Example of wireline logs from a fairly clean, fine-grained
legs is due to conductivity enhancement by iron-rich minerals. reservoir in Tertiary sands, Gulf of Mexico (after Heckel 1985).
The low resistivity contrast between water and oil legs is due to
high capillarity.
mineral even if they are comprised principally of quartz. This
facet takes the form of a non-trivial surface conductance arising
from the large pore surface area (e.g. Darling & Sneider 1992) The second stage is to evaluate the free-fluid fraction of the
and giving rise to a significant excess conductivity that has to be pore space. This has usually been done by referring the
accommodated in the water-saturation algorithms (Rink & interpreted water saturation to the irreducible water saturation
Schopper 1974). Second, the fines are associated with a high for that particular group of sands or, more directly, by
irreducible water saturation, which is present as a continuous evaluating movable hydrocarbons on a level-by-level basis. The
phase and therefore raises the reservoir conductivity still further most common method for the evaluation of movable hydro-
(e.g. Vajnar et al. 1977). The latter causative factor is more carbons entails a comparison of the characteristics of the
dominant than the former. However, it is important that flushed and undisturbed zones, possibly drawing on the self
the water saturation first be evaluated correctly before it is potential (SP) log (Heckel 1985). The direct evaluation of free
apportioned into immobile and free-fluid components. fluid, which equates to movable hydrocarbons under conditions
The first stage is to validate the proposed water saturation of irreducible water saturation, is feasible through magnetic
algorithm in the same way as was discussed for freshwater resonance logging (Austin & Faulkner 1993). This last appli-
reservoirs above. Interestingly, Kuttan et al. (1980) observed cation is expected to grow in the future as the capabilities and
that shaly-sand analysis was inadequate in the presence of a limitations of the technique become established.
large silt-grade fraction and they designated silt a distinct Figure 7 shows logs run in a Tertiary sand in the Gulf of
mineral type, even though X-ray diraction showed that the silt Mexico (Heckel 1985). The formation is described as a fairly
fraction was principally quartz with only minor amounts of clean, fine-grained sand. The hydrocarbon-bearing interval is
dolomite and siderite. However, it is noteworthy that their case suciently thick to be fully resolved by the deep induction log.
study embraced fresh to brackish waters, which might have This interval has a measured resistivity of about 0.3
m with an
compounded the validation issue, emphasizing once again the implied water saturation of over 80%, and yet it flowed
interrelated nature of the causes of low-resistivity pay. 470 BBL of dry oil per day. The resistivity of the underlying

Table 7. Case histories of petrophysical evaluation of electronically conducting reservoirs

Conducting Interpretative Adopted values of Eect on calculated Sw

Formation mineral model Archie exponents for 25% porosity Investigator(s)

Sadlerochit, Alaska, USA Pyrite Correction to Highly variable Highly variable Clavier et al. (1976)
resistivity log response if log response
is uncorrected
Teradomari Formation, N. Japan Complex matrix Matrix CEC m*=2.0 0.75<0.58 Itoh et al. (1982)
n*=1.4
Simpson Series, Oklahoma, USA Pyrite, glauconite Variable textural parameter m=n 0.70<0.17 Schulze et al. (1985b)
1cnc2.5
Trimble Field, Mississippi, USA Glauconite Pseudo-Archie m=1.80 0.70<0.57 Cook et al. (1990)
n=1.77
86 P. F. Worthington

Table 8. Case histories of petrophysical evaluation of fine-grained sands

Apparent Estimated
water irreducible water Production Remedial interpretation
Formation saturation saturation characteristics methodology Investigator(s)

Tertiary sands, Malaysia 1.00 0.40 Gas Shaly-sand model with Kuttan et al. (1980)
pseudo-mineral approach
Miocene sands, Gulf of Mexico, USA 1.00 0.80 Dry oil Rxo, Rt, SP movable oil model Heckel (1985)
Pleistocene sands, Louisiana, USA 0.650.70 0.60 Dry oil Sidewall core Pc Vajnar et al. (1977)
Eugene Island, Gulf of Mexico, USA 1.00 0.80 Dry oil Magnetic resonance imaging Austin & Faulkner (1993)

Table 9. Case histories of petrophysical evaluation of internally microporous reservoirs

Cause of Interpretative Adopted values of Eect on

Formation microporosity model Archie exponents calculated Sw Investigator(s)

Reynolds Oolite, Arkansas, USA Intra-carbonate voids Variable textural m=n 0.73<0.57 Guillotte et al. (1979)
parameter 1.71cnc1.88
Middle East limestones Intra-carbonate voids Pseudo-Archie m=1.96 0.70<0.61 Dixon & Marek (1990)
n=1.45
Triassic sandstone Chert Shaly sand m*=2.0 0.40<0.30 Swanson (1985)
n*=2.0
Permo-Triassic sandstones, Alaska, USA Chert Pseudo-Archie m=1.88 0.36<0.24 Worthington & Pallatt (1992)
n=1.62

water zone is 0.2
m, the low resistivity contrast being apportioning the water into the immobile microporosity and
attributed to the high irreducible water saturation associated the movable macroporosity.
with the high pore surface area. Although a non-Archie approach to the evaluation of water
Table 8 illustrates some case histories of the fine-grained, saturation is not usually applied, the presence of dual porosity
low-resistivity pay sand problem, together with the methods of within the reservoir rock does complicate the application of
solution and the resulting adjustments to the initial estimate of the Archie equations, particularly as regards the saturation
water saturation. Table 8 illustrates that low-resistivity pay can exponent and to a lesser extent the porosity exponent. There
be indicated where irreducible water saturations are very high, are two approaches. The first is directed at establishing separate
e.g. up to 80%, and that even computed water saturations of up constant values of these exponents for the micropores and the
to 100% can be associated with the production of dry hydro- macropores (Petricola & Watfa 1995), a philosophy that can
carbons. Similar observations relate to the other forms of high also accommodate dierences in the salinity of micropore
capillarity that follow. and macropore waters. The second and more pragmatic
approach to the evaluation of water saturation draws
primarily upon the observed variation of saturation exponent
with water saturation and therefore uses a value that is dierent
INTERNAL MICROPOROSITY from the classical Archie value (Dixon & Marek 1990). In
Internal microporosity is within the rock matrix. It is some cases, the saturation exponent measured conventionally at
not associated with clay-derived microporosity, which is high water saturations can be as high as 3.0, whereas the
considered separately as superficial or overgrowth micro- value at reservoir water saturations is close to the classical
porosity because it can be distinguished petrophysically. Archie value of n=2.0 (Swanson 1985). In these cases, the
Various definitions of microporosity have been put forward, saturation exponent is sometimes taken as that which corre-
but here the literal meaning is adopted, i.e. pores with a sponds to saturations close to irreducible. The value of the
diameter less than 1 m. Documented examples of internal porosity exponent is constant for a given sample and is
microporosity are principally concerned with carbonates and generally closer to the Archie value of 2.0. Some investigators
granular chert (Table 9). The microporosity of carbonates and have specified the exponents m and n to be equal and they
chert sandstones can reach 50% of the total interconnected have evaluated them conjunctively at irreducible conditions
porosity (Dixon & Marek 1990; Worthington & Pallatt 1992). (Guillotte et al. 1979).
In many cases, conduction during the course of electrical The second part of the internal microporosity problem, i.e.
measurement has been presumed to be uniformly ionic, establishing the immovable fraction of water, follows the
with no correction being applied for surface conduction corresponding discussion of the previous section.
eects. It is, however, worth noting that excess conductivity has Internal microporosity is best investigated through pore-size-
been recorded in chalks, presumably because of the high distribution studies. A unimodal distribution of macroporosity
specific surface area (Barker 1994), as well as in cherts (modal pore diameter typically within the range 510 m)
(Swanson 1985). implies that there is no problem of abnormally high capillarity.
Once again, the low-resistivity pay problem can be broken A strongly bimodal distribution of micropores and macropores
down into two parts. The first part is concerned with correctly suggests that there is a microporosity problem and it might be
evaluating the water saturation. The second part involves one of internal microporosity. Of course, if a formation is
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay 87

Superficial or overgrowth microporosity is usually caused by

clay minerals coating quartz matrix (Hurst & Nadeau 1995).
The eects of these minerals on conduction can go beyond the
excess-conductivity phenomena for which shaly-sand algor-
ithms are intended to correct. This point is illustrated by Klein
et al. (1993), who used the model of Waxman & Smits (1968).
The additional eects are sometimes attributed to surface
roughness, and they cause a change in the (shale-corrected and
therefore intrinsic) saturation exponent, but not in a way that
mirrors the case of internal microporosity (Diederix 1982).
Further, superficial microporosity can either be distributed
throughout a homogenized rock (Morphy & Thomson 1985) or
be confined to alternating layers within a laminated sequence of
sands (Bos 1982).
Once again, the problem can be divided into two parts, the
evaluation of water saturation and the apportionment of this
water between the immobile and free-fluid regions. In this case,
the evaluation of water saturation is less straightforward,
because the Archie exponents m and n must first be corrected
for shale eects to their intrinsic values m* and n*, respect-
ively, unless the formation-water salinity is suciently high to
Fig. 8. Example of wireline logs from an internally microporous render this correction insignificant. The variation of n* with
reservoir in the Rodessa Limestone, Texas (after Kieke & water saturation then becomes the key issue. One approach has
Hartmann 1974). The presence of gas is masked by resistivity been to select n* so that the minimum calculated water
suppression due to immobile water in intragranular micropores. saturation is the value at irreducible conditions (Ramburger
1989). Of course, the calculation uses a shaly-sand algorithm, in
this case the dual water model (Clavier et al. 1984), because n*
entirely microporous, e.g. the Smackover Limestone in parts of here is a pseudo-non-Archie parameter as opposed to a
Texas, it does not flow oil (Kieke & Hartmann 1974). There is pseudo-Archie parameter. [A related approach (Grimnes 1988)
a strong potential role for magnetic resonance logging in the has taken shale resistivity as the tuning parameter in the
evaluation of flow capability. Indonesia equation (Poupon & Leveaux 1971).] Whatever value
Having established that micropores account for a significant of n* is chosen, it must take account of the increasing influence
fraction of the pore space, their eect on the saturation of the microporous region as water saturation is decreased.
exponent is best investigated through a method such as Where values of m* and n* cannot be established, the fallback
controlled-flow continuous injection, which allows suciently is the pseudo-Archie approach.
detailed resistivity index data to be gathered readily (De Waal The second part of the superficial microporosity problem, i.e.
et al. 1991). At least 20 data points are required and the establishing the fraction of immovable water, follows the
experiments should extend to water saturations that approach corresponding discussion related to fine-grained sands. How-
irreducible conditions. ever, superficial microporosity is more dicult to study,
Figure 8 shows a logged interval of the Rodessa Limestone in because pore-size distribution is usually determined through
Houston County, Texas (Kieke & Hartmann 1974). The lower mercury injection into a dry core sample, and conventional
part of this reservoir has a resistivity of less than 1
m and an drying processes can alter the pore geometry where clays are
interpreted water saturation of 0.66. The resistivity of the upper present (Worthington et al. 1988). For the same reason, detailed
part is at least an order of magnitude greater and this leads to measurements of the variation of saturation exponent with
much lower interpreted water saturations. Yet, the lower water saturation should be made on preserved core, an appli-
reservoir produced water-free gas. It was concluded that cation to which the continuous injection method can be well
the high water saturation in the lower reservoir represents suited. Again, there is a strong potential role for magnetic
immobile water in the micropores within and around the grains, resonance logging.
as indicated by scanning electron microscopy and confirmed by Figure 9 shows a logged section of thick Miocene sands in
mercury injection. Therefore, the intergranular porosity and the Attaka Field o East Kalimantan, Indonesia (Partono
microporosity contain dierent fluid phases. 1992). This reservoir has a clay-mineral content that ranges
Table 9 illustrates some case histories of the internal from 1843%. Approximately 80% of the clay minerals com-
microporosity, low-resistivity pay problem, together with the prise interlayered illite/smectite that forms honeycombed over-
methods of solution and the resulting adjustments to the growths on the quartz grains. It is the irreducible water
original estimate of water saturation. associated with these surficial clay-mineral structures that sup-
presses the resistivity of this reservoir, so that conventional
shaly-sand equations are not applicable. The eect of superficial
SUPERFICIAL MICROPOROSITY microporosity is illustrated in Fig. 9, which shows an upper
As used here, the term superficial microporosity relates to water zone above a gas-bearing, low-resistivity pay interval.
cases where the micropores are associated with mineral over- This water zone has an average resistivity of 1
m, which will
growths which are, by definition, external to the original serve as a reference. The gas-bearing unit has a suppressed
granular matrix. In this respect it complements internal resistivity of about 3
m. Below these intervals are a more
microporosity, from which it is distinguishable petrophysically. resistive oil-bearing unit and a second water zone. In contrast
In the context of low-resistivity pay, superficial microporosity to the upper gas zone, the oil-bearing unit has a formation
encompasses all the issues discussed in the previous two resistivity of around 50
m. This lack of resistivity suppression
sections. is attributed to a relative dearth of clay-mineral overgrowth
88 P. F. Worthington

and handling of low-resistivity pay zones (Fig. 10). The scheme

recognizes that a reservoir rock is a coupled physico-chemical
system. It is built around the six causes of low-resistivity pay
that have been discussed separately above. In this respect the
structure is modular, even though dierent causes of low-
resistivity pay can co-exist (e.g. Barlai 1984). The latter possi-
bility is accommodated by the facility to iterate, an option that
also takes account of maturing data scenarios. Because these six
causes encompass the vast majority of occurrences of low-
resistivity pay, the scheme is generic and, if applied to pre-
viously encountered low-resistivity pay situations, it is
demonstrably robust. It is noteworthy that at no point does
Fig. 10 raise the question: Does the reservoir have low
resistivity? Indeed, Table 2 aptly demonstrates that absolute
values of resistivity are not the issue here.
Figure 10 has the flexibility to be applied during both the
appraisal and the development phases of a reservoir. A major
potential benefit must be to return to older wells within the
same reservoir system in situations where the deployment of
more recent logging technology in some of the newer wells has
Fig. 9. Example of wireline logs from a superficially microporous revealed a low-resistivity pay situation. The key to success in
reservoir in the Attaka Field, Indonesia (after Partono 1992). Note this respect is to develop an interpretation scheme that is
the resistivity suppression in the upper microporous gas interval exportable to those earlier wells for which the database is more
relative to the lower oil interval, which has no significant
microporosity. limited.
Although core data are required for groundtruthing, the
scheme should ideally not require additional logging, but rather
structures within the oil-bearing interval, which therefore the innovative use of existing logs. For example, it is known
cannot be described as low-resistivity pay. The lower water that logarithmic displays of resistivity can mask subtle variations
zone is also comparatively unaected by resistivity suppression. with depth. A return to the linear conductivity curve would be
In fact, its resistivity of 5
m is higher than that of the upper helpful in this regard. Further, in the case of laminated sands
gas-bearing interval, another example of resistivity reversal. the application of the latest signal-enhancement processing
Table 10 illustrates some case histories of the superficial might sharpen the spatial resolution of older tools suciently
microporosity problem, and it also indicates the type of to allow the reservoir layers to be recognized. Where beds can
solution and the resulting improvements in the interpreted be resolved, appropriate pseudo-Archie parameters might be
water saturations. Interestingly, most solutions take the form of quantified and exported from key wells to uncored wells. Again,
a shaly-sand approach with variable parameters, in an attempt modern nuclear magnetic resonance logs might contribute to
to compensate for the eects of high microporosity which, the identification of free fluids in current logging programmes,
in extreme cases, cause irreducible water saturation to but an even greater added value can be derived if this success
exceed 85%. Note that glauconitic overgrowths also have a can be used to calibrate an interpretation procedure that can be
microporosity and that the associated resistivity suppression applied to conventional logs, including those in older wells. The
co-exists with and might supersede any conductive-mineral ability to export remedial interpretation strategies in this way
eects. oers a potentially enormous benefit in mature provinces
whose producing life can extend back to the 1960s, when the
INTERPRETATION STRATEGY FOR low-resistivity pay problem was first documented.
LOW-RESISTIVITY PAY
In the previous six sections a brief analysis has been made of
the dierent forms of low-resistivity pay according to the CONCLUSIONS
adopted definition and groupings. These messages have been Published occurrences of low-resistivity pay, a term that also
synthesized into a hierarchical framework for the recognition includes low-resistivity-contrast reservoirs, have been grouped

Table 10. Case histories of petrophysical evaluation of superficially microporous reservoirs

Cause of Interpretative Adopted values of Eect on

Formation microporosity model input data calculated Sw Investigator(s)

Santa Margarita Sand, California, USA Illite/smectite Shaly sand m*=2.0 1.00<0.70 Orlando et al. (1992)
n*=2.0
Rwa =Rw/10
Rotliegend Sandstone, Holland Illite, kaolinite Shaly sand m*=2.00 0.59<0.46 Diederix (1982)
n*=1.38
(Sw <0.59)
Oncophora Sand, Austria Chlorite Shaly sand m*=2.0 0.50<0.40 Ramburger (1989)
n*=1.5
J Field, Tarim Basin, China Chlorite, kaolinite, illite/smectite Pseudo-Archie m=f1(K) 0.51<0.38 Zhang et al. (1994)
n=f2(Pc)
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay

Fig. 10. Structure for the recognition and petrophysical evaluation of low-resistivity pay.
89
90 P. F. Worthington

according to their primary cause. Six causes have been ident- REFERENCES
ified for unfractured reservoirs, and all the recorded cases that ALLEN, D. F. 1984. Laminated sand analysis. Transactions of the 25th SPWLA
have been considered do fit into one or more of these groups. Annual Logging Symposium, XX120.
The case histories within each group have been analysed to , ANDERSON, B., BARBER, T., EVERETT, B., FLAUM, C. et al.
evaluate the most eective modus operandi for each causative 1988. Advances in high resolution logging. The Technical Review, 36(2), 414.
factor. This analysis has formed the basis for the development ARCHIE, G. E. 1942. The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining
some formation characteristics. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining
of a strategy for recognizing and investigating the low-resistivity and Metallurgical Engineers, 146, 5462.
pay problem. This strategy should be seen against the ever- ASQUITH, G. B. 1986. Microporosity in the OHara Oolite zone of the
present need to make optimum use of all the available data, Mississippian Ste. Genevieve Limestone, Hopkins County, Kentucky, and
whether these be from core, wireline logs, mud logs or pressure its implications for formation evaluation. Carbonates and Evaporites, 1(1),
and flow tests. 712.
AUSTIN, J. M. & FAULKNER, T. L. 1993. Magnetic resonance imaging log
Although a key target is the recognition of low-resistivity pay evaluates low-resistivity pay. American Oil & Gas Reporter, 36(8), 5257.
before primary completion, a major thrust of this initiative is to BARDON, C. & PIED, B. 1969. Formation water saturation in shaly sands.
facilitate the development of improved interpretative proce- Transactions of the 10th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Z119.
dures that might lead to cost-eective re-completions of hidden BARKER, R. D. 1994. Some hydrogeophysical properties of the Chalk of
reservoirs within the same producing system. The approach is Humberside and Lincolnshire. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 27,
therefore designed to provide exportable approaches to the S5S13.
BARLAI, Z. 1984. Determination of hydrocarbon saturation, rock
evaluation of hydrocarbons in place. Yet, it is suciently composition, porosity and permeability in clayey sandstones exhibiting
flexible to incorporate other logging technologies as these sandwich-type development. Transactions of the 9th SPWLA European
become part of established operating practice. Formation Evaluation Symposium, 26.126.16.
Because the strategy has been established from a global BATEMAN, R. M. 1984. Watercut prediction from logs run in feldspathic
perspective, it has a general relevance to the appraisal and sandstones with fresh formation waters. Transactions of the 25th SPWLA
Annual Logging Symposium, EE120.
development of reservoirs that contain low-resistivity pay. 1990. Thin bed analysis with conventional log suites. Transactions of the
There are no short cuts to this goal. Application of the strategic 31st SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, II124.
modules may require (modest) investment that is recovered BEACOM, E. K. & KORNREICH, I. S. 1996. Identification and delineation
through more ecient and eective production against the of low resistivity, low permeability reservoirs using qualitative sidewall
welcome backdrop of a much reduced uncertainty. The sample log k * So relationships in the western shallow oil zone, Elk Hills
Field, California. Abstracts Annual AAPG Convention, San Diego, California,
ultimate measure of success remains the ability to predict A12.
commercial production rates. BERESKIN, S. R., LORD, G. D. & MARIN, B. A. 1996. Carbonate
microporosity; recognizing its existence and understanding its role in
This paper is a transcript of a keynote presentation to the hydrocarbon production. In: Dolly, E. D. & Mullarkey, J. C. (eds)
Symposium on Low-resistivity Pay held under the auspices of the Hydrocarbon production from low contrast, low resistivity reservoirs; Rocky Mountain
Houston Chapter of the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts and Mid-Continent regions, log examples of subtle pays. Rocky Mountain
in Houston, Texas, on 30 April 1998. It constitutes an extended Association of Geologists, Denver, 3342.
version of a preprinted paper presented at the Society of BILSLAND, M., MOBED, R., CHERUVIER, E. & WHITE, J. 1989.
Petroleum Engineers Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference held in Predicting hydrocarbon saturations in thin sandstones drilled with oil-
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during the period 1416 April 1997. The based mud. Transactions of the 12th SPWLA European Formation Evaluation
author acknowledges Ganey, Cline & Associates for supporting Symposium, Paris, J116.
the preparation and presentation of this work. BOS, M. R. E. 1982. Prolific dry oil production from sands with water
saturations in excess of 50%: a study of a dual porosity system. The Log
Analyst, 23(5), 1723.
BOYD, A., DARLING, H., TABANOU, J., DAVIS, B., LYON, B. et al.
1995. The lowdown on low-resistivity pay. Oilfield Review, 7(3), 418.
NOMENCLATURE
BULLER, D. 1992. Locate thin, low-resistivity channel sand pay in old wells.
B equivalent conductance of (sodium) clay exchange World Oil, 213(5), 6570.
cations (eq
1 litre S m
1) CHAUDHARY, S. & VASHIST, N. 1992. Formation evaluation of a
Csh conductivity of wetted shale (S m
1) finely laminated reservoir. Transactions of the 33rd SPWLA Annual Logging
Symposium, EE124.
D detection limit of logging tool (cm) CLAVIER, C., COATES, G. & DUMANOIR, J. 1984. Theoretical and
Fa apparent formation resistivity factor experimental bases for the dual-water model for interpretation of shaly
F* intrinsic formation resistivity factor sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 24, 153167.
K permeability (mD) , HELM, A. & SCALA, C. 1976. Eect of pyrite on resistivity and other
Pc capillary pressure (bar) logging measurements. Transactions of the 17th SPWLA Annual Logging
Symposium, HH134.
Qv cation exchange capacity per unit pore volume (eq CLUFF, R. M., BYRNES, A. P., KOLVOORD, R. W., CLUFF, S. G. &
litre
1) INDEN, R. F. 1992. Thin-bedded peritidal reservoirs of the Silurian Upper
R resolution limit of logging tool (cm) Interlake Group, Nesson Anticline Area, Williston Basin, North Dakota.
Ro formation resistivity in a water zone (
m) Transactions of the 33rd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Z125.
Rt formation resistivity in a hydrocarbon zone (
m) COLL, C., CORTIULA, B., GONZALEZ, G., MEZA, E. & RONDON, L.
1996. Eect of vertical heterogeneities in a petrophysical evaluation of
Rw formation water resistivity (
m) low-resistivity pay zones, B Sands, Upper Eocene, Lake Maracaibo.
Rwa apparent formation water resistivity (
m) American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 80(8), 1282.
Rxo flushed-zone resistivity (
m) CONDESSA, L. G. 1995. Hydrocarbon identification in fresh-water bearing
Sw water saturation reservoirs using dynamic Poissons ratio: a case study. Transactions of the 36th
Swirr irreducible water saturation SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, K112.
Vsh wetted shale volume fraction COOK, P. L., SCHNEEFLOCK, R. D., BUSH, J. D. & MARBLE, J. C.
1990. Trimble Field, Smith County, MS: 100 BCF of by-passed pay at
m Archie porosity exponent
7000 feet. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 40,
m* shale-corrected Archie porosity exponent 135145.
n Archie saturation exponent CUNNINGHAM, A. B. & JAY, K. L. 1991. Field experience using the
n* shale-corrected Archie saturation exponent nuclear magnetic logging tool for quantifying microporosity and irreducible
water saturation. Transactions of the 32nd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium,
 porosity EE123.
 Recognizing low-resistivity pay 91

DARLING, H. L. & SNEIDER, R. M. 1992. Production of low resistivity, main/massive sands, B-Field, oshore northwest Java. Proceedings of the
low contrast reservoirs, oshore Gulf of Mexico Basin. Transactions of the IATPI International Symposium on Reservoir Management, Jakarta, 113122.
Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 42, 7388. KUTTAN, K., STOCKBRIDGE, C. P., CROCKER, H. & REMFRY, J. G.
DAWE, B. A. & MURDOCK, D. M. 1990. Laminated sands an assessment 1980. Log interpretation in the Malay Basin. Transactions of the SPWLA 21st
of log interpretation accuracy by an oil-base mud coring programme. Annual Logging Symposium, II127.
Proceedings of the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Vol.
, 131142. LYLE, W. D. & WILLIAMS, D. M. 1986. Deconvolution of well log data
DE WAAL, J. A., SMITS, R. M. M., DE GRAAF, J. D. & SCHIPPER, B. A. an innovations approach. Transactions of the 27th SPWLA Annual Logging
1991. Measurement and evaluation of resistivity-index curves. The Log Symposium, O117.
Analyst, 32(5), 583595. MCCALL, D. C., ALLEN, D. F. & CULBERTSON, J. S. 1987. High-
DEWAN, J. T. 1983. Essentials of modern open-hole log interpretation. PennWell, resolution logging: the key to accurate formation evaluation. Proceedings of
Tulsa. the 62nd SPE Annual Technical Conference, Vol.
, 283298.
DIEDERIX, K. M. 1982. Anomalous relationships between resistivity index MONTGOMERY, S. L., MULLARKEY, J. C., LONGMAN, M. W.,
and water saturation in the Rotliegend Sandstone (The Netherlands). COLLEARY, W. M. & ROGERS, J. P. 1998. Mississippian chat
Transactions of the 23rd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, EE123. reservoirs, South Kansas: low-resistivity pay in a complex chert reservoir.
DIXON, J. R. & MAREK, B. F. 1990. The eect of bimodal pore size American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 82(2), 187205.
distribution on electrical properties of some Middle Eastern limestones. MOORE, C. V. 1986. Saturation determination problem in the fresh
Proceedings of the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Vol.
, 743750. water environment, Sudan. Transactions of the 27th SPWLA Annual Logging
DUREN, J. D. 1967. Some petrophysical aspects of the Mississippian Chat Symposium, NNN1114.
Glick Field, Kiowa County, Kansas. The Log Analyst, 8(6), 3439. MORPHY, P. H. & THOMSON, A. 1985. Using sidewall sample thin
DYOS, C. J. 1987. Inversion of induction log data by the method of sections to evaluate the completion potential of low-resistivity Pleistocene
maximum entropy. Transactions of the 28th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, sands, oshore Loiusiana. Proceedings of the 60th SPE Annual Technical
T113. Conference, Paper 14273.
, PETLER, J. S., JONES, M. R. O., CUDDY, S. & WILKINSON, D. MURPHY, R. P. & OWENS, W. W. 1972. A new approach for low-resistivity
1988. Reconciliation of Sw from logs and core in the North Sea Magnus sand log analysis. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24, 13021306.
Jurassic sandstone reservoir. Transactions of the 11th SPWLA European
Formation Evaluation Symposium, D112. ORLANDO, R. C., HICKEY, J. J. & WYDRINSKI, R. 1992. Smectite grain
FETT, T. H. 1980. Evaluating and logging tight rocks of South Texas. World coating and low-resistivity pay sands, Santa Margarita Sand, southern San
Oil, 190(2), 6372. Joachin Valley. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 73(4), 547.
FJERSTAD, P. A., THOREBY, H., PALLATT, N. & STOCKDEN, I. 1993. PARTONO, Y. J. 1992. Low-resistivity sandstone reservoirs in the Attaka
Application of deuterium tracer in estimating native water saturation in the Field. Proceedings of the 21st Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual Convention,
Gyda Field. Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, 489503. Jakarta, 2, 2134.
FLAUM, C., GALFORD, J. E. & HASTINGS, A. 1989. Enhanced vertical PETRICOLA, M. J. C. & WATFA, M. 1995. Eect of microporosity in
resolution processing of dual detector gamma-gamma density logs. The Log carbonates: introduction of a versatile saturation equation. Proceedings of the
Analyst, 30(3), 139149. 9th SPE Middle East Oil Conference, 1, 607615.
FRASS, M., COLL, C., GAMERO, H. & BRYANT, I. 1995. Characterization POUPON, A. & LEVEAUX, J. 1971. Evaluation of water saturation in shaly
of thinly-bedded reservoirs: a new approach in a sparse logged area. formations. Transactions of the 12th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, O12.
Transactions of the 36th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, DDD17. (Full text in: SPWLA, Houston, Texas, 1982, Shaly Sand Reprint Volume,
GAUNTT, J. C., JENKINS, R. E. & KOEPF, E. H. 1964. Core-analysis and pp. IV 8195.)
electric-log data gang up on formation-evaluation problems Part 3. RAMBURGER, R. 1989. Enhancing log interpretation by core mineral
Mid-continent applications. The Oil and Gas Journal, 62 (August 17), analysis in a micaceous shaly sand. Transactions of the 12th SPWLA European
136141. Formation Evaluation Symposium, D110.
GRIMNES, J. P. 1988. Brage the invisible reservoir. Transactions of the 11th RINK, M. & SCHOPPER, J. R. 1974. Interface conductivity and its
SPWLA European Formation Evaluation Symposium, C117. implications to electric logging. Transactions of the 15th SPWLA Annual
GUILLOTTE, J. G., SCHRANK, J. & HUNT, E. 1979. Smackover Logging Symposium, J115.
reservoir: interpretation case study of water saturation versus production. RUHOVETS, N. 1990. A log analysis technique for evaluating laminated
Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 29, 121126. reservoirs in the Gulf Coast area. The Log Analyst, 31(5), 294303.
GURU, U. K., VASHIST, N., TANEJA, H. R. & SINGER, J. M. 1995. , RAU, R., SAMUEL, M., SMITH, H. Jr & SMITH, M. 1992. Laminated
Formation analysis of low resistivity sand a case study. Proceedings of the 1st reservoir evaluation using logs with dierent vertical resolution. Transactions
OGNC International Petroleum Conference (Petrotech 95), New Delhi, India, 3, of the 33rd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, CC125.
171183.
HECKEL, B. H. 1985. Enhanced hydrocarbon recognition a new approach SCHOLEFIELD, T., PARVAR, H. L. & NORTH, C. P. 1996. Reservoir
to well evaluation for sand-shale sequences. Transactions of the 10th Canadian characterisation of a low resistivity gas field Otway Basin, South
Well Logging Society Formation Evaluation Symposium, L117. Australia. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Journal, 36(1), 6281.
HUNKA, J. F., BARBER, T. D., ROSTHAL, R. A., MINERBO, G. N., SCHULZE, R. P., IVES, G. L. & ETTER, T. R. 1985a. Thin-bed analysis in
HEAD, E. A. et al. 1990. A new resistivity measurement system for deep east-central Oklahoma. Transactions of the 26th SPWLA Annual Logging
formation imaging and high-resolution formation evaluation. Proceedings of Symposium, LL112.
the 65th SPE Annual Technical Conference, Vol.
, 295307. , IVES, G. L., SMALLEY, E. A. & SMITH, W. E. 1985b. Evaluation of
HURST, A. & NADEAU, P. H. 1995. Clay microporosity in reservoir low-resistivity Simpson Series of formations. Proceedings of the 60th SPE
sandstones: an application of quantitative electron microscopy in petro- Annual Technical Conference, Paper 14282.
physical evaluation. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 79(4), SILAWAT, S. C., SAXENA, V. K., ANURADHA, A., TALWAR, R. K.,
563573. NAGAR, A. & KUMAR, A. 1995. Comprehensive studies on brine
ITOH, T., KATO, S. & MIYAIRI, M. 1982. A quick method of log chemistry of low-resistivity pay sands of Gandhar Oil Field (India).
interpretation for very low resistivity volcanic tu by the use of CEC data. Proceedings of the 1st OGNC International Petroleum Conference (Petrotech 95),
Transactions of the 23rd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, NN127. New Delhi, India, 2, 341353.
JAIN, P. K. 1990. Anomalous low resistivity Tipam Sands of Assam, India, SILVA, C. & SPOONER, D. 1991. High resolution induction logging a
and their observed petrophysical aspects. Proceedings of the 8th SPE Oshore comparison with conventional induction as used in thin sands in the Texas
South East Asia Conference, 393400. Gulf coast region. Transactions of the 32nd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium,
KEITH, B. D. & PITTMAN, E. D. 1983. Bimodal porosity in oolitic WW122.
reservoir eect on productivity and log response, Rodessa Limestone SNEIDER, R. M. & KULHA, J. T. 1996. Low resistivity, low contrast pays.
(Lower Cretaceous), East Texas Basin. American Association of Petroleum American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 80(8), 1337.
Geologists Bulletin, 67, 13911399. SPALDING, J. S. 1984. Beaufort Sea log analysis of thin turbidite sands.
KHOKHAR, R. W. & JOHNSON, W. M. 1989. A deep laterolog for Transactions of the 25th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, NNN121.
ultrathin formation evaluation. Transactions of the 30th SPWLA Annual STRICKLAND, R., SINCLAIR, P., HARBER, J. & DEBRECHT, J. 1987.
Logging Symposium, SS110. Introduction to the high-resolution induction tool. Transactions of the 28th
KIEKE, E. M. & HARTMANN, D. J. 1974. Detecting microporosity to SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, E117.
improve formation evaluation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 26, 10801086. SUAU, J., ALBERTELLI, L., CIGNI, M. & GRAGNANI, U. 1984.
KLEIN, J. D., VAVRA, C. L., SALAM, E. A. & WIEWIOROWSKI, M. C. Interpretation of very thin gas sands in Italy. Transactions of the 25th SPWLA
1993. Low-resistivity pay: the study of petrology and petrophysics of the Annual Logging Symposium, A122.
92 P. F. Worthington

SUTIYONO, S. 1995. Magnetic resonance image log use in evaluation of WEIMER, R. J. & SONNENBERG, S. A. 1994. Low-resistivity pays in J
low-resistivity pay in the Attaka Field. Proceedings of the 24th Indonesian Sandstone, deep basin center accumulations, Denver Basin. Abstracts,
Petroleum Association Annual Convention, Jakarta, 2, 167179. Annual AAPG Convention, Denver, 281.
SUWARDJI, BUHARI, A., KUKUH, K. & PRAYITNO, R. 1994. WHARTON, R. P. & DELANO, J. M. Jr 1981. An EPT interpretation
Low resistivity reservoir study: Sangatta Field, Kalimantan. Proceedings procedure and application in fresh water, shaly, oil sands. Transactions of the
of the 23rd Indonesian Petroleum Association Annual Convention, Jakarta, 2, 22nd SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, E128.
119130. WORTHINGTON, P. F. 1985. The evolution of shaly-sand concepts in
SWANSON, B. F. 1985. Microporosity in reservoir rocks: its measure- reservoir evaluation. The Log Analyst, 26(1), 2340.
ment and influence on electrical resistivity. The Log Analyst, 26(6), 1995. A continuum approach to the petrophysical classification and
4252. evaluation of reservoir rocks. Petroleum Geoscience, 1, 97108.
TIXIER, M. P., MORRIS, R. L. & CONNELL, J. G. 1968. Log evaluation & JOHNSON, P. W. 1991. Quantitative evaluation of hydrocarbon
of low-resistivity pay sands in the Gulf Coast. The Log Analyst, 9(6), saturation in shaly freshwater reservoirs. The Log Analyst, 32(4), 358370.
320. & PALLATT, N. 1992. Eect of variable saturation exponent upon the
TRIPATHI, S. N., DOMANGUE, E. J. & MURDOCH, B. T. 1984. evaluation of hydrocarbon saturation. SPE Formation Evaluation, 7, 331
Low-resistivity sand evaluation with the chlorine log. Transactions of the 336.
SPWLA 25th Annual Logging Symposium, N116. , TOUSSAINT-JACKSON, J. E. & PALLATT, N. 1988. Eect of
TUCKER, M. E. 1991. Sedimentary petrology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, sample preparation upon saturation exponent in the Magnus Field, UK
Oxford. North Sea. The Log Analyst, 29(1), 4853.
VAJNAR, E. A., KIDWELL, C. M. & HALEY, R. A. 1977. Surprising ZEMANEK, J. 1989. Low-resistivity hydrocarbon-bearing sand reservoirs.
productivity from low-resistivity sands. Transactions of the 18th SPWLA SPE Formation Evaluation, 4, 515521.
Annual Logging Symposium, EE111. ZHANG, C., MAO, Z., OUYANG, J. & LIN, C. 1994. The new technique
WAXMAN, M. H. & SMITS, L. J. M. 1968. Electrical conductivities in for evaluating water saturation of the low resistivity reservoir in J Field.
oil-bearing shaly sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 8, 107122. Transactions of the 35th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, JJJ115.

Received 23 November 1998; revised typescript accepted 16 August 1999.