1887
Volume 42, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0812-3985
  • E-ISSN: 1834-7533

Abstract

Abstract

The volume of shale calculation based on naturally occurring gamma rays frequently overestimates shale volume when radioactive material other than shale is present, for example where sand appears to be shale. In this situation, shale volume calculations from other methods are highly recommended in order to avoid overestimation or underestimation of shale volume. This paper introduces an equation relating shale volume to porosity logs (neutron, density and acoustic logs), which takes into account the effect of matrix, fluid and shale parameters. This equation, which is based on the effective porosity definition and the Dresser Atlas (1982) equation, has been successfully applied to many shaly formations, regardless of the type and distribution of shale. Solved examples are used to test and compare this equation and the results come close to what actually exists, with the amount of error ranging from –5 to +5%.

The advantages of the proposed equation can be summarised as: (1) it is a function of several parameters that affect the determination of shale volume in one formula; (2) it collects the three porosity tools for a more accurate calculation; and (3) it works best where radioactive material other than shale is present.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1071/EG10014
2011-06-01
2026-01-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Clavier C. Hoyle W. R. Meunier D. 1971Quantitative interpretation of TDT logs. Parts I and II: Journal of Petroleum Technology 23 743 763 10.2118/2658‑A
    https://doi.org/10.2118/2658-A [Google Scholar]
  2. Dresser Atlas, 1979, Log interpretation charts: Dresser Industries.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dresser Atlas, 1982, Log interpretation charts: Dresser Industries.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fertl W. H. 1987Log-derived evaluation of shaly clastic reservoirs: Journal of Petroleum Technology 39 175 194 10.2118/14061‑PA
    https://doi.org/10.2118/14061-PA [Google Scholar]
  5. Hilchie, D. W., 1978, Applied open hole log interpretation: Golden, Colorado: D. W. Hilchie.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Kamel M. H. Mabrouk W. M. 2003Estimation of shale volume using a combination of the three porosity logs: Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering 40 145 157 10.1016/S0920‑4105(03)00120‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(03)00120-7 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ruhovets N. 1990A Log analysis technique for evaluating laminated reservoirs in the Gulf Coast area: The Log Analyst 31 294 303
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Schlumberger, 1975, A guide to wellsite interpretation of the Gulf Coast: Schlumberger Well Services.
  9. Steiber R. G. 1973 Optimization of shale volumes in open hole logs: Journal of Petroleum Technology 31 147 162
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Tenchov G. G. 1998Evaluation of electrical conductivity of shaly sands using the theory of mixtures: Journal of Petroleum Science Engineering 21 263 271 10.1016/S0920‑4105(98)00072‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-4105(98)00072-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Waxman W. H. Smits L. J. M. 1968Electrical conductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands: Transactions AIME 243 107 122
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Worthington P. F. 1985The evaluation of shaly-sand concepts in reservoir evaluation: The Log Analyst 26 23 40
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1071/EG10014
Loading
/content/journals/10.1071/EG10014
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error