N = saturation exponent (unitless)

The exponent, n, in the relation of water saturation, Sw, to resistivity index, I (I = Sw-n) for a
sample of rock. It expresses the effect on the resistivity of desaturating the sample, or replacing
water with a non-conductive fluid. In petrophysically simple,water-wet rocks (Archie rocks), n is
constant for different values of Sw, and a single average n can be found for a
particularreservoir or formation. A typical value is 2. In more complex rocks, n changes with Sw,
although often being about 2 near Sw = 1. In rocks with conductive minerals, such
as shaly sands, n becomes increasingly lower as Sw is reduced. This change is negligible for highsalinity waters, but increases as the salinity is reduced. In shaly-sand saturation equations, such
as Waxman-Smits, dual water, SGS and CRMM, n is the intrinsic n, determined with highsalinity water or with the clay effects removed. The variation of I with Sw is then predicted, with
varying success, by the different equations. In carbonates with multiple pore types, such as
fractures, vugs, interparticle porosity and microporosity, n may change as each pore type is
desaturated. A different n may be used for a different range of Sw. In all cases, n increases if any
pores are oil-wet. Values up to 8 have been reported in very oil-wet rocks.
Archie used an N of 2 and the usual range is from 1.3 to 2.6, depending on rock texture. It is
often taken to equal M, but this is not supported by core data in all cases. A, M, and N are called
the electrical properties of the rock. They are found usually from laboratory measurements.

A = tortuosity factor
The value a in the relation of formation factor (F) to porosity (phi): F = a / phim. The value a is
derived empirically from best fits of measured values of F and phi on a group of rock samples. It
has no clear physical significance, although it has been related to grain shape and tortuosity. In
the saturation equation, it always occurs associated with the water resistivity as (a * Rw). It is
sometimes claimed that a must be 1 since at phi = 1, F must be 1. However, a material with phi =
1 is not a rock: a is essentially an empirical factor for rocks and as such can take any value. A
wide range of values has been found, from 0.5 to 5.
The effective diffusivity of the porous media (between 0 and 100), represents the percentage of
the diffusivity of the pure fluid. For an empty structure it is 100%, whereas 0% means that no
empty path exists connecting opposite sides of the structure. Porosity of the structure and shape
of
its
pores
influence
effective
diffusivity.
The tortuosity factor of the porous media is the quotient of the porosity divided by the effective
diffusivity. With large and straight pores, the tortuosity factor is close to 1. A small deviation

from 1 is due to boundary effects, and large deviations are a result of the presence of winding
paths through the pore system.

For a tank of water, R0 = RW. Therefore F = 1. Since PHIt = 1, then A must also be 1.0 and M
can have any value. If porosity is zero, F is infinite and both A and M can have any value.
However, for real rocks, both A and M vary with grain size, sorting, and rock texture. The normal
range for A is 0.5 to 1.5 and for M is 1.7 to about 3.2. Archie used A = 1 and M = 2. In fine
vuggy rock, M can be as high as 7.0 with a correspondingly low value for A. In fractures, M can
be as low as 1.1. In some rocks, M varies with porosity.

M = cementation exponent (unitless)

The exponent of porosity, m, in the relation of formation factor, F, to porosity, phi. In the Archie
equation, F = 1 / phim, H. Guyod termed m the cementation exponent because m was observed
to be higher in cemented rock. The more general term is porosity exponent.

Pickett Plot:

Determination of Saturation Parameters A, M, and N

Archie initially proposed that A = 1.0, M = 2.0, and N = 2.0; later it was found that these values
varied with rock type. When electrical properties are available, they should be used, provided they
fall within reasonable ranges and the data set is large enough to be valid. Data is usually
presented in tabular as well as graphical form, as in Figures PP8.23 and 8.24.
In Figure PP8.23, the slope of the best fit line through the formation factor data is the cementation
exponent, M. The best fit line can be forced through the origin (a pinned line) which makes the
tortuosity factor A = 1.0 exactly. The intercept of the best fit (un-pinned) line will give A; in this
example A = 0.60. Data should be grouped by rock type, porosity type, or mineralogy before the
best fit lines are determined.

Pickett plot showing different slopes (M) for dolomite (red) and limestone (blue) in a single
reservoir
A cross plot of the deep resistivity versus porosity on a log-log scale made in a clean obvious
water zone will provide the slope M. The intercept of the line at PHIe = 1.0 is A * RW. This is called
a Pickett Plot and is often a product of computerized log analysis. Shaly zones should be
excluded because the shale corrected water saturation equations correct automatically for
varying A and M.

The M value in fractured rock can be quite low and compensates for the invasion of drilling fluid
into the fractures. These plots are also made with shallow resistivity versus porosity. All zones are
assumed to be wet due to invasion, but of course this is not true. The slope M may still be valid
but the intercept is no longer A * RW, and is generally meaningless.

Pickett plot showing low values of M in fractured reservoir and higher values in unfractured intervals

The value for the saturation exponent N is usually found in the laboratory as in
Figure PP8.24. It is a plot of resistivity index ( I ) versus water saturation. Several
partial saturations are taken on each core plug and N is determined from the slope
of the line through these points. N can be varied by defining lithofacies for each
core plug and relating this to some log signature. There is no equivalent crossplot to
find N from log data.
The best fit line on this plot is always pinned at the origin, since resistivity index
must equal 1.0 when SW = 1.0 by definition.

Figure PP5.24: Resistivity Index versus Water Saturation to determine saturation exponent N

PARAMETERS:
for sandstone A = 0.62 M = 2.15 N = 2.00
for carbonates A = 1.00 M = 2.00 N = 2.00
for fractured zones M = 1.2 to 1.7
NOTE: A, M, and N should be determined from special core analysis if possible.

ARCHIE'S LAWS EXTENDED TO SHALY ROCKS

The extensions of the Archie resistivity equations for formation factor and water saturation to the
case of shaly sands has been undertaken by many investigators over the last 45 years. More than
30 different water saturation models have been proposed over that period, of which three or four
are more popular than the others.
The following material, which summarizes the scene very effectively, has been condensed from
"The Evaluation of Shaly-Sand Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation", by P. E. Worthington, published
by SPWLA in the Log Analyst for Jan-Feb, 1985.
"The emergence of the shaly-sand problem as it affects resistivity data can be more readily traced
by considering only conditions of full water saturation in the first instance. A convenient starting
point is the definition of formation factor F which was first of three equations proposed by Archie,
namely:
18: F = Ro / RW = CW / Co
WHERE:
F = formation factor (unitless)
Ro = resistivity of a rock filled with water (ohm-m)
RW = resistivity of water (fractional)
Co = conductivity of a rock filled with water (ohm-m)
CW = conductivity of water (fractional)
A plot of Co vs CW for a given sample should furnish a straight line of gradient 1/F provided that
Archie's experimental conditions of a clean reservoir rock fully saturated with brine are
completely satisfied. Subject to these conditions the formation factor is precisely what the name
implies; it is a parameter of the formation, more specifically one that describes the pore geometry.
It is independent of CW so that a plot of CW/Co vs CW for a given sample should furnish a straight
line parallel to the CW axis, as in the left hand illustration below.

Effect of conductive minerals on resistivity - clean sand (left) and shaly sand (right).
However, around 1950 there was increasing evidence from various formations to suggest that the
ratio CW/Co is not always a constant for a given sample but can actually decrease as CW
decreases. The relative decrease in CW/Co at a given level of CW appeared to be more
pronounced for shalier specimens. Since CW was presumed to be known, the only possible
explanation for this phenomenon lay in the effect of the shale component of the reservoir rock
upon Co. This effect was essentially to under reduce Co as CW decreased or, to put it another

way, to impart an extra conductivity to the system at lower values of CW. For this reason the
electrical manifestation of shale effects has been described in terms of an "excess of
conductivity." It became advisable to regard the ratio CW/Co as an apparent formation factor Fa
which is equal to the intrinsic formation factor F only when Archie's assumptions are satisfied.
Since the Archie equation was not found to be valid for all formations, a more general relationship
between Co and Cw was sought in order to accommodate the excess conductivity. By rewriting
the Archie equation and incorporating the excess conductivity within a composite shaleconductivity term X, it was proposed that an expression of the following form is valid for all
granular reservoirs that are fully water saturated.
20: Co = CW / F + X
WHERE:
Co = conductivity of a rock filled with water (mS/m)
CW = conductivity of water (mS/m)
F = formation factor (unitless)
X = excess conductivity term (mS/m)
For a clean sand, X approaches 0.0 and the equation reduces to Archie's. If CW is very large, X
has comparatively little influence on Co and again it effectively reduces to the Archie definition.
Conversely, the ratio CW/Co is effectively equal to the intrinsic formation factor F only if X is
sufficiently small and/or CW is sufficiently large. Thus, although the absolute value of X can be
seen as an electrical parameter of shaliness, the manifestation of shale effects from an electrical
standpoint is also controlled by the value of X relative to the term CW/F.
During the period 1950-1955 evidence began to accumulate that the absolute value of the quantity
X is not always a constant for a given sample over the experimentally attainable range of CW but
can vary with electrolyte conductivity. The most widely accepted behavioral pattern, which has
continued to be supported, was that for a given sample, the absolute value of X increases with CW
to some plateau level and then remains constant as CW is increased still further. This pattern is
illustrated for hypothetical data in the right hand illustration shown above. Here the terms "nonlinear zone" and "linear zone" have been adopted for the regions of variable X and constant X,
respectively.
It was often the practice to estimate porosity from the ratio CW/Co using a standard version of
Archie's second equation in conjunction with resistivity logging data from nearby water zones. In
so doing it was essential to have sufficiently clean conditions for there to be a well defined
relationship between porosity and CW/Co. Where this condition was satisfied it was still possible
to proceed even if the ratio CW/Co actually represented an apparent formation factor Fa instead of
the intrinsic formation factor F. In the former case A and M would be pseudo-parameters which
would compensate for any departure of Fa from F when calculating porosity.
The advent of porosity tools has resulted in a change of usage of Archie's second equation. It is
current practice to infer porosity from porosity tool response(s) and then to calculate F using predetermined values of A and M. In this case the resulting value of F will be wrong if the parameters
A and M do not themselves relate specifically to effectively clean conditions, but have
inadvertently been established on the basis of a correlation of Fa with porosity. This error can be
readily transmitted to subsequent estimates of water saturation.
The shaly-sand models introduced since about 1960 have been divided into two groups:

1. Concepts based on the shale volume fraction, Vsh. These models have the disadvantage of
being scientifically inexact with the result that they are open to misunderstanding and misuse. On
the other hand they are applicable to logging data without the encumbrance of a core sample
calibration of the shale related parameter.
2. Concepts based on the ionic double-layer phenomenon. These models have a more attractive
scientific pedigree. If strictly applied, they require core-sample calibration of the shale related
parameter against some log derivable petrophysical quantity. Otherwise their field application
might involve approximations which effectively reduce the shale term to one in Vsh.
Although Vsh models are being progressively displaced by models of the second group, this
process will not be complete until there exists an established procedure for the downhole
measurement of X.
Vsh models gained credence because of earlier experimental work which showed potentially
useful relationships between the amount of "conductive solids" present within a saturated
granular system, such as a clay slurry, and the conductivity of the solid phase. These early data
did not relate to typical reservoir rocks and they have subsequently been extrapolated far beyond
their original limits. Attempts to explain the physical significance of the parameter X in terms of
Vsh have had either a conceptual or an empirical basis.
Apart from the unavailability of a "universal" Vsh equation there is one other major disadvantage
of Vsh models; the Vsh parameter does not take account of the mode of distribution or the
composition of constituent shales. Since variations in these factors can give rise to markedly
different shale effects for the same numerical shale fraction, improved models were sought which
did take account of the geometry and electrochemistry of mineral-electrolyte interfaces.
The term "double layer model" is used here to describe any conceptual model which draws
directly or indirectly upon the ionic double-layer phenomenon.
Waxman and Smits explained the physical significance of the quantity X in terms of the composite
term BQv/F*, where Qv is the cation exchange capacity per unit pore volume, B is the equivalent
conductance of sodium clay exchange cations (expressed as a function of CW at 25 degrees C)
and F* is the intrinsic formation factor for a shaly sand. Thus, the Waxman-Smits model assumes
that the conducting paths through the free pore water and the counterions within the ionic double
layer are subject to the same geometric factor F*. The dependence of B upon CW allowed X to
vary with CW so that both the non-linear and the linear zones of thr CW/Co graph could be
represented through one parallel-resistor equation.
Clavier et al. sought to modify the Waxman-Smits equation to take account of experimental
evidence for the exclusion of anions from the double layer. This was done in terms of a "dual
water" model of free (formation) water and bound (clay) water. It was argued that a shaly
formation behaves as though it were clean, but with an electrolyte of conductivity CWE that is a
mixture of these two constituents. Thus the Archie definition was rewritten:
21: Co = CWE / Fo
WHERE:
Co = conductivity of a rock filled with water (mS/m)
CWE = effective conductivity of water and shale (mS/m)
Fo = apparent total formation factor (unitless)

This equation forms the basis of the dual water model.

It can be inferred by rearranging the dual water equation that the geometric factors associated
with the two "parallel" conducting paths are not equal. Furthermore, the presence of the variable
parameter in the shale term allowed X to vary with CW at low salinities. This meant that both the
non-linear and the linear zone could be represented through this one equation.
The extension of these shaly-sand equations to take account of the hydrocarbon zone requires
that terms in water saturation be inserted into the relationships. This has generally resulted in one
of two distinct outcomes, a change in only the clean sand term of the corresponding water-zone
equation or a modification of both the clean and shaly terms.
Changes to the clean term have been based upon Archie's third equation for clean sands If only
the clean term is changed, the general water-zone equation can be transformed to:
22: Ct = CW / F * (SW ^ N) + X
WHERE:
Ct = conductivity of a rock filled with water and oil (mS/m)
CW = conductivity of water (mS/m)
F = formation factor (unitless)
N = saturation exponent (unitless)
SW = water saturation (fractional)
X = excess conductivity term (mS/m)
so that when X is very small or CW is very large, this equation reduces to the clean sand equation.
Changes to the shale term have usually had the effect of introducing a factor SW ^ S where S can
be loosely regarded for our purposes as a "shale-term saturation exponent." Thus, if both the
clean and the shale terms are changed, the general water-zone equation can be transformed to:
23: Ct = CW / F * (Sw ^ N) + X * (Sw ^ S)
WHERE:
Ct = conductivity of a rock filled with water and oil (mS/m)
CW = conductivity of water (mS/m)
F = formation factor (unitless)
N = saturation exponent (unitless)
S = saturation exponent for shale term
SW = water saturation (fractional)
X = excess conductivity term (mS/m)
Again, this reduces to Archie in clean formations.
Specific examples of these equations are grouped into four categories in Worthington's paper,
and are reproduced below. These are not "solution " equations - you would have to solve for Sw
using quadratic or iterative methods. Go to CPH Indes to find Sw solutions in Chapter Thirteen.