SPE 152912

A New Petrophysical Interpretation Approach To Characterize The Thinly

Laminated Reservoir Using Conventional Tools
Deepak Voleti, Anil Tyagi, Amit Singh, Vidya Mundayat, Vikram Pandey, Kamlesh Saxena
Reliance Industries Ltd. (E & P) , RCP, Navi Mumbai, India

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Oil and Gas India Conference and Exhibition held in Mumbai, India, 28–30 March 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of th e paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Reservoir characterisation in laminated sand shale reservoir has always been a very challenging task. The
presence of conductive shales between the resistive hydrocarbon bearing sand reduces its resistivity drastically. It
happens as the current flows through them as resistors in parallel. Therefore, the classical shaly sand
interpretation grossly underestimates the hydrocarbon potential of laminated reservoir.
Over the years many techniques have been developed to solve this problem. The development of latest resistivity
tools like triaxial resistivity has also helped in addressing this problem. The introduction of these tools has helped
upto a great extent to unlock the reservoir potential. However, the technology is very costly and sometimes may
not be possible to run due the limited extent of the reservoirs. In those cases, it is important to find some alternate
approach to addres the problem of low resistivity by using conventional logging tools.
The current study deals with the case history from the East coast deep water field in India. The field has many
drilled wells where the latest resistivity tools have been run. Petrophysical interpretations are done using this
resistivity anisotropy data and are available for validation with the new technique. The latest approach uses the
conventional resistivity data. The critical part in the study is the type and distribution of the shale within the
reservoir. If we can find out the same then using this information true resistivity can be inverted. The approach
has been tried on several wells across the different fields and has given good results. The results from the
resistivity anisotropy data and the new technique are comparable. Thus a very cost effective method of predicting
true resistivity has been developed, which ultimately gives realistic hydrocarbon saturation in the laminated sand
shale sequences.

Introduction
In Petrophysical sense, “thin beds” are thinner than the vertical resolution of the logging devices. This means that
each logging tool has its own definition of thin beds starting from 2 – 4 ft in sonic, deep resistivity and 0.5in in
Borehole Resistivity imagers. Hence, in thin bedded reservoirs, the conventional logging tools give the average
response of the thin shale and sand laminae (Fig.1). One of the common methods to derive water saturation is
using resistivity data. The non-linear response of the resistivity to the volume and distribution of shale imparts a
2 SPE 152912

strong effect on the measured average resistivity of the formation. So, the conventional interpretation methods
lead to significant underestimation of results.
To overcome this problem, we first have to understand why the conventional logging tools are not able to identify
and quantifySPE
the152912
laminated shaly sands (Tyagi et al SPWLA-India2009); i.e,
1. Resolution of the tool is less than the thickness of the thin beds.
2. Conventional Resistivity is dominated by high conductivity shale layers.

Figure 1: Conventional and Image log data showing the presence of thin beds.

The main problem in reservoir characterization of laminated shaly sand sequences is the tool resolution, which is
less than the thickness of thin bed, due to which tool averages out the physical properties of the formation.
Therefore, we are not able to get the true properties of individual thin formation layers. One of the example
(Figure 1) shows how the thin beds can be identified using image logs whereas the same were not detected on
the conventional Resistivity, Density and Neutron logs. The increase in vertical Resistivity also indicates the
presence of thin hydrocarbon bearing sand laminae. So to solve this problem all major petroleum companies
worldwide are following two approaches (Tyagi et al SPWLA-India2009).
1. Thin Bed Analysis Using Resistivity Bore Hole Image Tools
2. Laminated Shaly Sand Analysis using resistivity anisotropy tool.
To address these short comings, number of interpretation techniques have been suggested for nearly a decade to
estimate the porosity, net thickness, net to gross and irreducible water saturation. Many people would prefer to
use the image logs as identifier of thin beds which quantitatively maximize the resistivity measured from the
SPE 152912 3

borehole heterogeneity while others would prefer to use the resistivity anisotropy technique or both. In this paper,
a new technique has been introduced in conjunction with Thomas-Stieber shale distribution Model to overcome
the above problem without using Bore Hole Image and Resistivity Anisotropy tools. The outcome of the study
assumes significance as it can be an alternet methods for the wells
SPE 152912
1. Large bore hole where anisotropy/image data can not be recorded
2. Old wells when these tools did not exist(Triaxial Resistivity/Image logs)
3. High temperature wells where Image and anisotropy data can not be recorded due to limited
temperature rating of the tools.

Thomas – Stieber Shale Distribution Model an Overview:

Shale volume, Porosity and water saturation are the three main parameters needed for resource estimation.
Volume of shale is the most critical parameter which controls rest of the two. Therefore, it needs to be calculated
using more than one method and also needs validation using external data like core. Once the Vsh and PHIT are
calculated, Thomas Stieber (Thomas, E.C., and Stieber, S.J., 1975) method can be applied to find shale
distribution within the reservoir.
According to this model, there are three types of shale distributions (Figure 2).
1. Laminated- layer of shale within the sand.
2. Dispersed shale in the sand pores.
3. Structural sand sized shale particles in load bearing position within the rock.
These shale distributions severely effect the permeability and thus productivity (injectivity). For e.g. the
permeability of clean sand having 33% porosity will be reduced to zero, if its pores are filled with shale ( Shale
Volume = 33%). But, if same amount of shale is present in the laminated form, it will not reduce its permeability,
however, productivity may go down to two third of original one.

Figure 2: Thomas Stieber Shale Distribution Model.

4 SPE 152912

The shale distribution and porosity can be computed from the Thomas-Stieber cross-plot, in which the volume of
shale is plotted on the X-axis and the total porosity on the Y-axis. Based on the position of data points in this
cross plot, laminar (Vlam), dispersed (Vdisp), structural (Vstr) shale volumes and porosity of sand can be
calculated using the following equations.

 t  (1   t )  Vsh   max
Vlam 
1   max

Vdisp  Vsh  Vlam

t  .Vlam   sh
tsd  ---------------------------------------------------------- (1)
1  Vlam

Vdis   sh
 esd  tsd 
1  Vlam

Where the Vsh is the total shale volume present in the rock, t is the total porosity sh is the shale porosity and
max is the maximum sand porosity
In the present approach first the shale volume and the total porosity are computed using standard log data. This
information is used in the Thomas-Stieber (Thomas, E.C., and Stieber, S.J., 1975) shale distribution model to
determine laminar shale volume (Vlam), dispersed shale volume (Vdisp) and structural shale volume (Vstr) and
then the laminar sand total porosity (tsd) and laminar sand effective porosity (esd) are estimated.

New Petrophysical Evaluation Approach:

This model is based on the following assumptions:
1. Thin clean sand layers have effective porosity equal to thick clean sand.
2. The resistivity response against the thin hydrocarbon bearing sand must be same to thick hydrocarbon
Bearing sand having same effective porosity.
3. Resistivity of thin hydrocarbon bearing sand has a relationship to effective sand porosity.

Workflow:
The figure 3 shows the workflow for petrophysical evaluation. In this model the first step is to compute shale
volume and total porosity using convention log and use these parameters as a input in Thomas–Stieber shale
distribution model to estimate the volume of laminar, dispersed & structural shale and also estimate the sand
laminar total and effective porosity. On the other hand the shale volume (V sh) and the total porosity (Фt) are used
to estimate the effective porosity (Фe). Afterward conventional resistivity (Rt) and Phie are plotted on the semi log
plot to established the regression analysis to create a relationship between Rt and Phie which has the following
form:
SPE 152912 5

2
Rt  10(A * e + B * e  C) ------------------------------(2)
The next step is to replace the effective porosity with laminar sand effective porosity estimated using Thomas-
Stieber shale distribution model in equation 2 to predict Rt as follow:
2
Rt Pr ed  10(A * ess + B * ess  C) ----------------- (3)
Where A, B and C are regression cofficients.

Figure 3: Work flow for new petrophysical evaluation

Final step is to compute water saturation by using either Archie’s or Waxman-Smith/Dual Water models both of
which depends upon the amount of dispersed shale present in the sand lamina.

Limitations:
For accurate estimation of Rt_lam in laminated section it is desireable to have true resistivity and effective
porosity values in a thick clean hydrocarbon bearing sand of the same well. However to overcome the limitation in
the above technique the resistivity and effective porosity values of thick clean hydrocarbon sand can be taken
from a nearby well in the same field.
Example:
The present technique is applied to a number of deep water wells drilled in east coast of India. The example of
three wells is presented in this paper.
6 SPE 152912

Well A:
This well is logged using Conventional, Anisotropy, Image and Formation tester logs. Conventional core is also
acquired in the laminated section of the reservoir. The results using resistivity anisotropy approach and new
petrophysical model are shown in the figure 5 which show a good agreement.
Shale volume is computed using Sigma log (Sigf). Total and Effective porosities are computed using Density
neutron crossplot and calibrated with core porosity. Sand laminar effective and total porosity are derived using
Thomas Stieber shale distribution model (1975) as shown in figure 4a.

PHIT_U vs VSH CROSSPLOT RT vs PHIE CROSSPLOT

Figure 4a: Thomas Stieber crossplot for Well - A Figure 4b: Rt versus Phie crossplot for Well - A

The maximum sand porosity (Phit_max) and Total shale porosity (Phit_sh) are taken as 0.4v/v and 0.33v/v
respectively based on well logs. Thomas Stieber crossplot (figure 4a) indicates that mostly shale is present in the
laminated form. Figure 4b shows the crossplot of conventional resistivity (RT) and effective porosity (Phie) on
semi log plot where relationship between Rt and Phie is established using regression analysis i.e
(8.176*ф 2 +0.463* ф -0.0034) --------------------------------- (4)
Rt = 10 e e

ф ф
As discussed above, replace e with ess in equation 3 to predict Rt for laminar sand i.e
(8.176*ф 2 +0.463* ф -0.0034)
Rt_LAM= 10 ess ess ---------------------------- (5)

The water saturation is computed using Archie equation by taking Rt_LAM as input. Raw and processed logs are
shown in figure 5. There is a good match between water saturation computed using resistivity anisotropy data
(Rv, Rh) and Rt_LAM (keeping shale volume and total porosity same in both the cases) displayed in track 6 and
track 7 respetively.Similarlly the net pay flag computed using both the techniques are in good agreement too.
Hydrocarbon saturation, hydrocarbon pore thickness and net pay from resistivity anisotropy approach are 0.88
v/v,8.76 m and 55.01 m respectively whereas the same parameters using new technique are 0.89 v/v,8.733 m
and 54m respectively.
SPE 152912 7

Figure 5: Comparison of Sw computed using Rv, Rh and new model (Rt pred) for Well A.

Well B:
The Similar approach is followed for well B (figure 6) and the results are shown below:
There is a good match between water saturation computed using resistivity anisotropy data (Rv, Rh) and Rt_LAM
(keeping shale volume and total porosity same in both the cases) displayed in track 6 and track 7
respetively.Similarlly the net pay flag (last two tracks) from both the techniques are in good agreement.
Hydrocarbon saturation, hydrocarbon pore thickness and net pay from resistivity anisotropy approach are 0.86
v/v, 4.533m and 26m respectively whereas the same parameters using new model is 0.87 v/v,4.77m and 27m
respectively.
8 SPE 152912

Figure 6: Comparison of Sw computed using Rv, Rh and new model (Rt pred) for Well A.

Well C:
Similar approach has been followed for well C (figure 7) and the results are shown below:
Hydrocarbon saturation, hydrocarbon pore thickness and net pay from resistivity anisotropy approach are 0.84
v/v,11.25m and 66.75m respectively whereas the same parameters using new model are 0.88v/v,11.95m and
66.82m respectively.
The net pay flag computed using anisotropic technique (track 12) and new Model (track 13) are in good
agreement as shown in figure 7.
SPE 152912 9

Figure 7: Comparison of Sw computed using Rv, Rh and new model (Rt pred) for Well C.
10 SPE 152912

Figure 8a: Hydrocarbon saturation of three wells computed with resistivity anisotropy and new model (RT_LAM).

Figure 8b: Hydrocarbon pore thickness of three Figure 8c: Net Pay of three wells computed with
Wells computed with resistivity anisotropy and resistivity anisotropy and new technique (RT_LAM).
new technique (RT_LAM).

The results of new model are compared with those of several wells logged with anisotropy tool (Rv &Rh) and
found to be very identical and were validated with the core derived saturation. In the present study results
(Hydrocarbon saturation , HCPT and NET) from three wells are depicted (figure 8).

Summary and Conclusion:

In a laminated reservoir resistivity measured is often low due to the low vertical resolution of measuring tool. The
average resistivity measured is even low due to its measuring principle as it measures the horizontal resistivity.
The combined knowledge of vertical and horizontal resistivity is essential for the computation of resistivity
anisotropy and true sand resistivity. Alternatively Image log due to its high vertical resolution can also compute
the net thickness and petrophysical parameters within some limitations.
However, due to non availability of above two measurements in the many of the current wells and almost all old
wells, there was a need to develop an alternate method of computation which can give good reliable results.
SPE 152912 11

The current approach is an outcome of that which can give comparable results with good confidence using the
conventional logging tools. The approach when used in conjunction with Thomas-Steiber method for shale
distribution following conclusions can be drawn.
1. The porosity and shale volume used are same in both LSSA and current approach.
2. The hydrocarbon pore volume computed is comparable to the volume computed using LSSA.
3. Net thickness is comparable in both the approach.
4. The current approach is a very good alternate method for the computation of petrophysical
parameters where high resolution data/anisotropy data is unavailable (Old wells, High Temperature
wells, Large Holes).

Acknowledgement:
The authors would like to thank the management of Reliance Industries for providing the rich data set and
permission to publish the work.

References:
Archie, G.E., 1942, “The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics”,
Transactions, AIME Vol. 31, pp. 350-366.

Anil Tyagi, Rupdip Guha, Deepak Voleti, Kamlesh Saxena, 2nd SPWLA-India Symposium, November 19-20,
2009, Challenges In The Reservoir Characterization Of A Laminated Sand Shale Sequence.

Anil Tyagi, Rupdip Guha, 2007, New Delhi, Formation Dips Computation Using Tri-Axial Induction Tool: An
Alternate To Image Logs, Petrotech.

Bastia et. al., 2005, Reservoir characterization and modeling of thin beds in a deep water gas field, offshore India,
Petro-Tech, paper 223

Bastia, R., 2004, Depositional Model and Reservoir Architecture of Tertiary Deep Water Sedimentation, Krishna-
Godavari Offshore Basin, India, Journal, GSI, vol. 64, p.11-20

Gossenberg, P., Galli,G.,Andreani, M., Klopf, W., 1996 "A New Petrophysical Interpretation Model for Clastic
Rocks based on NMR, Epithermal Neutron and Electromagnetic Logs" SPWLA 37th Annual Logging Symposium,
Paper M.

Kamlesh Saxena and Theodore Klimentos Field-Study Of Integrated Formation Evaluation In Thinly Laminated
Reservoirs SPWLA 2004

K. Saxena, Anil Tyagi, T. Klimentos, C. Morriss, A.Mathew (Schlumberger), 2006, Evaluating Deepwater Thin-
Bedded Reservoirs with the Rt Scanner, Petromin, Kaula Lumpur.

Kennedy, D.W. and Herrick, D.C., 2004, “Conductivity Anisotropy in Shale-Free Sandstone,” Petrophysics, Vol.
45, No. 1, pp. 38-58.

Kriegshauser, B., Fanini, O., Forgang, S., Itskovich, G., Rabinovich, M., Tabarovsky, L., Yu, L.,Epov, M., 2000 “A
st
New Multicomponent Induction Logging Tool To Resolve Anisotropic Formation”, 41 Annual Logging
Symposium Transactions, Paper D.

Lalaji Yadav, Tanmoy Dutta, Ashish Kundu, Neeraj Sinha 2010 “A New Approach for the Realistic Evolution of
Very Thin Reservoirs of Krishna Godavari Basin, East Cost, India SPE Annual Technical Conference, SPE
132970.

Mezzatesta, A.G., Rodriguez, E.F., Frost, E., Mollison, R. 2003. “A Comprehensive Petrophysical Model For
Laminated Shaly-Sand Reservoirs”, SPE Annual Technical Conference, SPE 81075.
12 SPE 152912

Mollison, R.A., Schön, J.H., Fanini, O.N., Kriegshäuser, Meyer, W.H., and Gupta, P.K., 1999, “A Model For
Hydrocarbon Saturation Determination From An Orthogonal Tensor Relationship In Thinly Laminated Anisotropic
Reservoirs,” SPWLA 40th Annual Logging Symposium, OO.

Mollison, R.A., Ragland, T.V., Schön, J.H., Fanini, O.N., and van Popta, J., 2000, “Reconciliation Of Waxman-
Smits And Juhasz „Normalized Qv‟ Models From A Tensor Petrophysical Model Approach Using Field Data,”
SPWLA 41st Annual Logging Symposium, Paper YY.

Sanjeev Thakur, Anil Tyagi, Anish T.K & Kamlesh Saxena, SPG 2010, Hyderabad, India, An Integrated
Petrophysical Study for deep water turbidite reservoir to improve Hydrocarbon Saturation.

Schön, J.H., Mollison, R.A., and Georgi, D.T., 1999, “Macroscopic Electrical Anisotropy of Laminated Reservoirs:
A Tensor Resistivity Saturation Model,” SPE Annual Technical Conference, SPE Paper 56509.

Thomas, E.C., and Stieber, S.J., 1975 “The Distribution of Shale in Sandstones and Its Effect upon Porosity,”
SPWLA 16th Annual Logging Symposium Transactions, Paper T.

Thomas, E.C., and Haley, R.A., 1977 “Log Derived Shale Distribution In Sandstone And Its Effects Upon
Porosity, Water Saturation And Permeability,” Canadian Well Logging Society 6th Annual Formation Evaluation
Symposium, Calgary.

Waxman, M.H., and Smits, L.J.M., 1968, “Electrical Conductivities In Oil Bearing Shaly Sands,” SPE Jour., Vol.8,
No.2, pp. 107-122.