| 
					
					
					 WAXMAN-SMITS Saturation (CEC) Method Another popular method, based on laboratory measured values of
                cation exchange capacity versus shale content, was developed by
                Waxman and Smits. It uses the same response equation as in other
					saturation models, but finds the value for 1/Fsh differently. The method requires
                a formula for the value of cation exchange capacity, such as the
                one below:
 1:
                IF PHIe > 0.0
 2: THEN CEC = 10 ^ (1.9832 * Vsh - 2.4473)
 The
                above relationship must be derived for each particular area by
                curve fitting the laboratory data. Some authors have related CEC
                to porosity in certain areas, but there is no physical reason
                why this should be true, since specific CEC values depend on shale
                volume and clay type, and not porosity. The only time this might work is when
                porosity is strictly a function of shale volume and there are
                no other mineral variations. Others have tried to relate CEC to
                some other log data, such as the SP (which of course is a shale
                indicator), with limited success.  CEC data from laboratory
				measurements are now routine. 
 The balance of the equations
                do not need further modification.
 3: RW2 = (RW@FT) * (FT + KT1) / KT5
 4: B = 4.6 * (1 - 0.6 exp (-0.77 / RW2))
 5: F* = A / (PHIe ^ M*)
 6: Qv = CEC * (1 - PHIe) * DENSMA
                / PHIe
 7: Swc = 0.5 * ((- B * Qv * RW2) + ((B * Qv * RW2) ^ 2 + 4 * F*
                * RW@FT /
                RESD) ^ 0.5) ^ (2 / N*)
 8: OTHERWISE Swc = 1.0
 Where:KT1 = 6.8 for English units
 KT1 = 21.5 for Metric units
 KT5 = 83.8 for English units
 KT5 = 46.5 for Metric units
 A = tortuosity exponent (unitless)
 B = equivalent conductance of clay cation (mS/m)
 CEC = cation exchange capacity of shale (meq/gm)
 DENSMA = matrix density (gm/cc or kg/m3)
 F* = formation factor (unitless)
 FT = formation temperature (degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius)
 M* = cementation exponent (unitless)
 N* = saturation exponent (unitless)
 PHIe = effective porosity (fractional)
 Qv = counter ion concentration (meq/gm)
 RESD = deep resistivity log reading (ohm-m)
 RW2 = water resistivity at 77 degrees Fahrenheit (ohm-m)
 RW@FT = water resistivity at formation temperature (ohm-m)
 Swc = water saturation from CEC method (fractional)
 Vsh = shale volume (fractional)
 
 
  COMMENTS: When 
				Vsh = 0, then CEC = Qv = 0 and equation reverts to the Archie 
				model.
 
 The product B * Qv is available on modern lab reports of 
				electrical properties, but a relationship between BQv and a well 
				log property such as Vsh is still needed.
 
			
			 This set of electrical properties is very detailed but is not 
			sufficient to apply to a log analysis without many more data samples 
			covering a wider spread of reservoir properties.
 
				 An 
			alternative is to calculate CEC from a clay 
			mineral analysis based on elemental capture spectroscopy (ECS) log:9: CEC = Sum(CECi * Vclayi)
 Reference:1. Electrical Conductivities in Oil Bearing Shaly Sands, M. Waxman, L. Smits, SPEJ, June 1968.
 
 Review the references on this method before attempting to use
                it.
 Good
                CEC data is still hard to come by. CEC measured on core and sample
                chips often do not correlate well with either effective porosity
                or shale content, most likely due to the fact that more than one
                clay mineral is present, each in varying  proportions. Thus a pragmatic
                fit of CEC to a log derived porosity or shale volume is usually
                necessary. This field specific approach is commonly applied by
                those who insist on using the Waxman-Smits approach even when
                the lack of data does not support its use. Some
                analysts use density porosity (PHID), uncorrected for shale, to
                predict CEC. Some use PHID in the saturation equations instead
                of PHIe. Others call PHID the “total porosity”, which
                is wrong, since the standard definition of total porosity is (PHIN
                + PHID) / 2. These terminology problems stem from shortcuts used
                in specific areas before sophisticated computer programs made
                it easy to do better work. Unfortunately, younger analysts learn
                the tricks of the trade from older analysts who have long forgotten
                that the shortcut was ever taken. 
					
					 RECOMMENDED
                PARAMETERS: In the 
				absense of measured shaly sand electrical properties, use A = 
				1.00 
                M* = 2.00 
                N* = 2.00.
 
 
 
  NUMERICAL
                EXAMPLE: Data for Sand "D"
 RESD = 1.0 ohm-
 PHIe = 0.11
 Vsh = 0.33
 A = 0.62
 M = 2.15
 N = 2.00
 RSH = 4.0 ohm-m
 RW@FT = 0.015 ohm-m
 DENSMA = 2650 kg/m3
 FT = 43 degrees Celsius
 CEC = 10 ^ (1.9832 * 0.33 - 2.4473) = 0.0161
 RW2 = 0.015 * (43 + 21.5) / (83.8 - 37.3) = 0.0208
 B = 4.6 * (1 - 0.6 * exp(-0.77 / 0.0208)) = 4.6
 F = 0.62 / (0.11 ^ 2.15) = 71.35
 Qv = 0.0161 * (1 - 0.11) * 2.650 / 0.11 = 0.3452
 Swc = 0.5 * ((-4.6 * 0.3452 * 0.0208) + ((4.6 * 0.3452 * 0.0208)^2+
                4 * 71.35 * 0.015 / 1.0)^0.5)^(2 / 2.0)
 = 0.5 * (0.0330 + (0.0011 + 4.281) ^ 0.5) ^ (2 / 2)
 Swc = 1.05
 If
                Qv or Vsh were higher the saturation would be lower.
 |