Petrophysical Analysis Workflow

Clastics, Carbonates, Clay

Volume Methods, and Common
Cautions
Prepared By
Tarek Abdellatif

Formation evaluation: Importance, types, tools used, & challenges

 Overview of Petrophysical Workflow

1) Data acquisition and QC

2) Environmental correction

3) Lithology identification

4) Clay volume estimation

5) Porosity evaluation

6) Water saturation calculation

7) Permeability estimation

8) Net Pay determination& Hydrocarbon Typing

9) Core-Log Integration & Validation

10) Final Report & Interpretation

1) Data Acquisition & QC
Ø Collect well logs (gamma ray, resistivity, neutron, density, sonic, etc.), core data, mud
logs, drilling reports, and MDT, etc.
Ø Check for depth mismatches, tool malfunctions, and validate log quality.

2) Environmental Corrections
Ø Apply corrections for borehole effects, tool standoff, mud invasion, etc.
Ø Ensure accurate responses especially for RHOB, NPHI, and resistivity.

3) Lithology Identification
Ø Use crossplots (RHOB-NPHI, M-N, etc.)
Ø Supplement with core/XRD if necessary.
Ø In carbonates, spectral gamma ray (U, Th, K) may help identify clay types.
4) Clay Volume Estimation
Ø Start with GR-based methods (linear, non-linear).
Ø Validate using spectral GR, or neutron-density separation.

Aspect Linear Methods Non-Linear Methods

Assume a straight-line relationship between Use empirical or mathematical models to account for the non-
Basic Concept log response (usually GR) and Vclay. linear response of clays in logs.

- Linear GR Index: GR log - GR min

V = - Larionov (Tertiary/Russian)
Common Equations cl - Clavier Equation
GR max - GR min - Steiber Equation

Simplicity Very easy to apply, quick estimate. More complex, but generally more accurate in shaly formations.

Reasonable when shaliness is low and GR Better suited for moderate to high clay content or older
Accuracy responds linearly. formations with radioactive minerals.

- Overestimates Vcl in high-GR formations

- Requires choosing the right equation for formation age/type.
Limitations with radioactive sands or non-clay minerals.
- May underestimate in some extreme cases.
- Assumes GR is only due to clay.

Use Cases Quicklook analysis or clean sands. Detailed analysis, shaly sands, or complex lithologies.
5) Porosity Evaluation

Ø Clastics: Use density-neutron crossplots (Wyllie or Raymer-Hunt-Gardner

equations).
Ø Carbonates: Account for dual porosity (matrix + vugs/fractures) using
sonic, neutron, and density logs.
Calibrate with core where possible.
6) Water Saturation Calculation
Ø Use Archie for clean formations.
Ø Use Simandoux, Dual Water, etc. for shaly sands.

Feature Archie Simandoux Dual Water

Shaly Sands (complex

Reservoir Type Clean Sands Shaly Sands
clays)

Clay Conductivity Not Considered Explicitly Included Explicitly Modeled

Complexity Simple Moderate Complex

Data Requirements Basic Logs (RT, PHI) + Vsh, Rsh + Bound Water Salinity

Best For Clean formations Moderate shale High shale, mixed clays
7) Permeability Estimation
Ø Use empirical models like Timur-Coates or Wyllie-Rose.
Ø Refine with core or NMR data
.
8) Net Pay Calculation & Hydrocarbon Typing
Ø Apply cut-offs to PHI, Sw, Vcl to determine net reservoir and net pay.
Ø Differentiate oil, gas, and water using resistivity and neutron-density separation.

9) Core-Log Integration & Validation

Ø Calibrate log-derived properties with core data (porosity, permeability, saturation).
Ø Perform uncertainty analysis.

10)Final Report & Interpretation

Ø Generate petrophysical summaries (net pay, hydrocarbon pore volume).
Ø Provide recommendations for further perforating and testing
(DST, production logging).
 Cautions in Petrophysical Analysis
1) Data Quality and Calibration
Ø Poor log quality due to washouts, tool failures, or bad hole conditions can mislead
interpretation.
Ø Calibration with core data is essential to validate log-derived properties like porosity, Sw, and
permeability.
2) Depth Mismatch

Ø Always depth-match logs: sometimes there is depth shift within logs(GR,ND) and
(especially core depths vs. log depths) to avoid errors in correlating zones.
3) Incorrect Environmental Corrections

Ø Logs must be corrected for borehole effects, mud filtrate invasion, and tool standoff—
especially in deviated or horizontal wells.

4) Misidentification of Lithology

Ø Using default lithology assumptions (e.g., sandstone matrix) in mixed lithologies (carbonates,
volcanics) may lead to incorrect porosity and Sw.

Ø Use crossplots and core/XRD for accurate mineral identification.

5) Inappropriate Water Saturation Models
Ø Archie’s equation works effectively in clean formations.

Ø Shaly sands require appropriate models (e.g., Simandoux, Waxman-Smits, Dual Water).

Ø Wrong assumptions about Rw, m, n, salinity lead to major Sw errors.

6) Assumption of Constant Rw

Ø Formation water resistivity (Rw) may vary with depth or fluid type, avoid using constant Rw
without verification.

7) Ignoring Reservoir Heterogeneity

Ø Petrophysical properties vary laterally and vertically, where single-well analysis may not
capture this unless supported by core, seismic, or multi-well analysis.
8) Cut-off Selection
Ø Arbitrary cut-offs for porosity, Vclay, Sw, etc., may exclude pay zones or include non-pay.

Ø Use sensitivity analysis or calibrate with test and/or production data.

9) Over-reliance on Software Defaults

Ø Default values in software (e.g., IP, Techlog) can be misleading—always customize

parameters based on formation and regional knowledge.

10) Lack of Integration

Ø Failing to integrate core data, mud logs, production tests, or seismic interpretation leads to a
narrow view of the reservoir.
 Clastic vs. Carbonate Reservoirs In Petrophysics
Ø Clastics: Uniform lithology, intergranular porosity, Archie’s model often suitable.
Ø Carbonates: Complex pores (vuggy, moldic, fractures), diagenetic effects, need core/NMR support
Aspect Clastic Reservoirs Carbonate Reservoirs
More complex: requires crossplots, PE log,
Lithology Identification GR, SP, RHOB-NPHI crossplots
image logs, and sometimes core/XRD.
Complex pore systems (vugs, moldic,
intercrystalline) make log-derived porosity
Porosity Estimation RHOB, NPHI, and Sonic logs
less accurate—often requires core
calibration.

Multiple pore types: vuggy, moldic,

Porosity Types Intergranular porosity; fairly uniform. intercrystalline, fractures—requires dual-
porosity models.

Archie can be problematic due to tortuosity

Archie for clean sands; Simandoux or and cementation—often needs modified
Saturation Models Indonesian for shaly sands exponents or dual porosity saturation
models.
Requires more advanced techniques like
Rock Typing GR and log responses.
SCAL, capillary pressure, and image logs.
Poor correlation between porosity and
Permeability Prediction Log-based empirical models (e.g., Coates) permeability due to pore complexity—core
data or NMR often required.
PHIe, Vclay, and Sw cut-offs are more Cut-offs are less predictable, often require
Cut-off Determination standardized. core calibration and test data.
Strong diagenetic overprint (cementation,
Diagenesis Impact Less diagenetic variability in many cases. dissolution) greatly affects petrophysical
properties.
Fractures may dominate permeability—
Fracture Presence Often unfractured or minor influence.
image logs or FMI critical.
Highly scattered—requires rock typing and
Porosity-Permeability Relationship Often linear or predictable.
advanced statistical techniques.
Lithology Identification Cross-plots
M-N Plot
Matrix Identification Plot
Clay Mineral Determination with Spectral Gamma ray
Th/K Plot
K/PEF Plot
Th/K ratio /PEF Plot
 Computer Processed Interpretation(CPI)
Petrophysical analysis of well logs and core samples for reservoir evaluation, Emad A. Abd El Aziz 2022
 Computer Processed Interpretation(CPI)
Sequoia reservoir evaluation through conventional petrophysical analysis in Eastern Mediterranean, Hassan M. El Shayeb2019
 Petrophysical properties
Destribution

Sequoia reservoir evaluation through conventional petrophysical analysis in Eastern Mediterranean, Hassan M. El Shayeb2019