Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Evaluation of Laminated Shaly Sand Sequences in

Saeed Parvizi Ghaleh, Mohsen Taghizadeh, Effat

PII: S0920-4105(17)30190-0
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.01.041
Reference: PETROL3850
To appear in: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
Received date: 21 June 2016
Revised date: 30 December 2016
Accepted date: 20 January 2017
Cite this article as: Saeed Parvizi Ghaleh, Mohsen Taghizadeh, Effat Rahimi Far,
Ali Kordavani and Mahmoud Mirzaei, Evaluation of Laminated Shaly Sand
Sequences in Ahwaz Oil Field using (via) Thomas Stieber method and
Conventional Petrophysical Logs, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.01.041
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Evaluation of Laminated Shaly Sand Sequences in Ahwaz Oil Field using (via) Thomas

Stieber method and Conventional Petrophysical Logs

Saeed Parvizi Ghaleh1, Mohsen Taghizadeh1, Effat Rahimi Far2, Ali Kordavani3, Mahmoud

Mirzaei2
1
Sahand University of Technology, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Tabriz, Iran
2
Arak University, Department of Physics, Arak, Iran
3
National Iranian South Oil Company, Department of Petrophysics Engineering, Ahwaz, Iran
*
Corresponding author Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Thin layers of sand between shale formations can produce hydrocarbons if the layers are studied

well. These layers are often ignored because of low thickness of layers and low resolution of

conventional petrophysical logging tools in conventional methods. These tools only calculate the

average properties of these layers, which makes a wrong prediction of amount of oil and gas in

layers. If the thin laminated shaly sand is identified accurately and the petrophysical parameters

are calculated carefully, there will be some methods to analyze the layers better which results in

enhancing the production of reservoir.

In this paper laminated shaly sand layers (LSS) are studied by using Thomas Stieber model and

conventional petrophysical logs. Thomas Stieber model was applied to the desired layer by

laminated shaly sand analysis module in Geolog 7.2 software and the results of the model and

conventional petrophysical logs were analyzed by using this software. Finally, by comparing the

results of the analysis, it was concluded that Thomas Stieber model calculates properties of

1
laminated shaly sand layers more accurately than the conventional petrophysical logs and this

model can be used in the study of these sequences.

Keywords

Laminated Shaly Sand (LSS), Thomas Stieber Model, Conventional Log, Petrophysical

Properties, Geolog 7.2 Software

Nomenclature

T_S Thomas_ Stieber

LSS Laminated Shaly Sand

NISOC National Iranian South Oil Company

OBMI Oil Base Micro Imager

FMI Formation Micro Imager

CMR Combinable Magnetic Resonance

NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

1. Introduction

Laminated shaly sand (LSS) is considered as a resource of oil in some regions of the world. The

main problem in laminated shaly sands is the recognition and exploration process. Difficulty and

complexity of petrophysical analysis of thin laminated shaly sand layer is due to influence of

2
adjacent layers of sand and shale on logging tools, which causes the output of logging tools to be

the average of all layer’s properties.

Due to effect of adjacent layers of shale and sand at the same time on logging tools, the

horizontal resistivity measured by conventional petrophysical evaluation logs is less than true

resistivity of sand in laminated shaly sand layers containing oil. This difference is due to the high

conductivity of shales in comparison to sands and in this condition the output of logging tools are

affected by shales. There are various models to investigate the impact of shale volume on the

horizontal resistance, which the most of these models have been developed for shaly sands with

dispersed shale (Dual_Water, Waxman_Smit…). These models do not provide sufficient

accuracy for shaly layers, and they predict the amount of available oil less than real. To

overcome this problem in 1954, Poupon et al, suggested a relationship between sand and

conductive shale layer. In this model, the layers of sand and shale have been assumed in

sequence of shale and sand, and perpendicular to the wellbore. Mr. Poupon et al, relationship is

as follows (Poupon et al, 1970):

( ) ( )

where δt is the overall electrical conductivity, δsh is the electrical conductivity of shale, Csh is the

volume of shale and δsd is the electrical conductivity of sand. By rearranging the equation of Mr.

Poupon and et al, based on the electrical conductivity of sand, the amount of hydrocarbon

saturation in sand layers of thin bedded laminated shaly sand can be calculated. The main

limitation of Mr. Poupon et al, relation is in horizontal wells, since this model is proposed for

vertical wells.

The main problem of thin bedded laminated shaly sand occurs when the thickness of sand and

shale layers is less than the vertical resolution of logging tools. Figure 1 shows vertical resolution

3
of some logging tools and sequences of layers based on their thickness, presented by Passey et al.

According to the figure, the layers are divided into three categories: the sequence of thin layers,

the sequence of thick layers and the sequence of laminated or very thin layers. According to the

vertical resolution of each logging tool, the perfect tool for more precise petrophysical analysis

of each sequence can be chosen (Passey et al. 2006).

Figure 1. Vertical resolution of logging tools in a variety of layer sequences based on the
thickness.

According to the figure, we conclude that conventional tools for reservoir petrophysical

evaluation respond very well in thick layers but they can be in error.

4
There are different ways for analyzing of this layers better and enhancing the production from

this reservoirs, which can be used for identifying the layers clearly and calculating petrophysical

properties. The methods for investigation of laminated shaly sands are:

 Coring (Gabriela and Lorne, 2000)

 NMR log (Coates et al, 1999)

 Thomas- Stieber model (Zhang et. al , 2007)

 Resistivity anisotropy tools (Vielma and Vandini, 2007)

 Image log and analysis of high-resolution square logs (Tabanou and Antoine , 1995)

2. Thomas Stieber Method

In 1975 Thomas and Stieber (T-S) developed a method for recognition of the model of shale

distribution in rocks (laminar-structural or laminar-dispersed) and calculation of the porosity of

sand in sequence of shaly sand beads. This method calculates the forenamed parameters by using

total volume (Vshale) and total porosity (t) of shale calculated by gamma and density logs

(Thomas and Stieber, 1975). In 1986 the T-S method was reconsidered and published by Juhasz

with more details which was modified by considering effective porosity in presence of total

porosity (Juhasz, I., 1986). It should be kept in mind that T-S method based on shale system

which calculates the laminar shale volume from total volume and the rest of shale volume will be

considered as structural or dispersed shale. The fundamental point of T-S method is vanishing

the effect of laminar shale from porosity of sand layers, and because of lack of effect of shale on

sand porosity, it will be vanished by itself and it just has effect on net to gross ratio of shale and

sand. Thomas-Stieber method needs two inputs for calculating the model of distribution of shale

and porosity of sand beads. These two inputs are maximum porosity (max) which means the

porosity of clean sand (ss =max) and the total shale porosity.
5
According to diagram of T-S the volume of laminar shale can be calculated by this formula:

( )
( )
( )

Also the volume of dispersed and structural shale can be calculated by these formulas:

For laminar-structural shale distribution

For laminar-dispersed shale distribution

According to T-S method the total and effective porosity can be calculated by these formulas:

( )
( )
( )

( )
( )
( )

And the volume of sand can be calculated by this formula:

( )

Figure 2. Shale distribution of Thomas Stieber method (Juhasz, I., 1986).

6
2.1. Advantages of T-S Method

 This is a simple method for studying shaly sand layers and the required data for using this

method are total porosity(t) and total laminar shale volume (Vshlam) which the structure

of shale (laminar,…) and its properties can be determined.

 There’s no need for developed expensive instruments and the properties of shaly sand

layers can be determined by using conventional petrophysic logs.

The onshore Ahwaz oilfield is located at the end of the folded Zagros zone near Ahwaz City in

the south/southwest of north Dezful embayment. It is one of the largest hydrocarbon bearing

structures in the world and actually it is a large northwest-southwest trending anticline with a

subsurface area of 80 by 6.5 km. Currently, Iran’s largest producing field is the onshore Ahwaz-

Asmari field which is located in Khuzestan province. An aerial map illustrating the stratigraphy

of Zagros is given in figure 3 (Memari, 2013).

7
 Figure 3. Ahwaz oilfield.

Ahwaz oilfield consists of different reservoirs including Asmari, Bangestan and Khami. There

has been observed significant variations on the rock properties, geological setting and

sedimentology history between these reservoirs. Many wells have been drilled in the field of

Ahwaz. Among of these wells, well A and well B in Asmari reservoir were chosen for

investigation in this study, due to availability of complete package of data of image and

conventional petrophysical logs for these wells. According to the survey and research on the logs

of these wells, it was become clear that in the Asmari formation, there exists laminated shaly

sand.

Asmari formation in Ahwaz oilfield is made up of fossil-bearing limestone, dolomitic limestone,

argillaceous limestone, sandstone and shale. It is the main reservoir rock for multiple oil wells of

Zagros. Asmari formation seems to date back to Miocene era. The lower limit of Asmari

formation in the studied area is Pabede formation and its upper limit is Gachsaran formation. The

lower limit between Asmari and Pabede formations and upper limit between Asmari and

Gachsaran formations are not continuous and signs of discontinuity are observed in them.

Thickness of Asmari formation is equivalent with 452m. Regarding these wells and from

lithostratigraphic viewpoint, Asmari formation in lower parts is made up of lime, shaly lime, and

sandstone which when moving from middle to upper parts, we find dolomite, lime, dolomitic

lime, shaly lime and sandstone. These variations have created significant changes in terms of

shale distribution and other properties in different parts of Asmari reservoir (Amiry Bakhtiar,

2007)..

In the present study, sequences in lower part of Asmari reservoir formation located in Ahwaz

oilfield are studied through well-logging data.

8
In this study the intervals of wells A and B which contain laminated shaly sand, have been

investigated by Thomas Stieber and the other common methods of evaluation of reservoir, and

physical parameters including: Net Hydrocarbon Column, Water Saturation and Porosity have

been calculated. It should be noted that the LSS interval of well A has less hydrocarbon content

than the interval of well B, and these two wells have been chosen for study because of their

differences. Also amount of salinity in these two wells is about 200000 ppm, which is too high

and the hydrocarbon density is about 0.86 (gm/cm3).

3. Determining the Location of Laminated Shaly Sand Using (Via) Image Log

Image log OBMI in well A and FMI in well B are used for determining the exact location of

laminated shaly sand sequences. One of the major applications of image log in laminated shaly

sand sequences is determining the exact location of sand and shale layers, since this log has a

high vertical resolution. According to investigations, these wells are located in a laminated shaly

sand layer in the depth interval of 2748-2752.2 and 2652.065 – 2659.075 meters of driller’s

recording.

9
Figure 4. Schematic of laminated shaly sand layer using image log in well A.

10
 Figure 5. Schematic of laminated shaly sand layer using image log in well B

4. Analyzing by Thomas Stieber Method

Using the T-S model, inputs must be defined to software which, this inputs have been entered to

the software according to the data of well and standards of National Iranian South Oil Company

(NISOC). Conventional well logs intervals for calculation of total porosity and vshale in Thomas

Stieber analysis are as follow:

11
 Table1. Conventional well logs intervals for well A and well B.

Well Log Type Well A Well B

Thomas Stieber method has been analyzed by the software of Geolog 7.2 and deterministic

method. The calculation process by the deterministic method is as follows: First of all the shale

volume, then porosity is calculated by specific density/ modified neutron cross plot. Finally

water saturation will be calculated using Archie’s formula.

The triangular diagrams for the two wells are as follows:

Figure 6. Triangular diagrams for the well A.

12
 Figure 7. Triangular diagrams for the well B.

The end point values in triangular diagram of Thomas Stieber method, equals to the properties of

clean shale and clean sand. In the shown triangular diagram, the end point values for well A and

well B equals to 34 (pu) and 12 (pu) for sand and clean shale, respectively. This value for

dispersed shale is 12 (pu) and for structural shale is 41(pu).

The colors on cross plots represent the type of shale in each depth. The dark blue color is for the

upper depths and the dark red color is for the lower depths. The depth is increasing from dark

blue to dark red. For example on cross plot of Well A, the dark blue color represents the type of

shale in the depth of 2740m, and the dark red represents the type of shale in the depth of 2830m

13
and the type of shale in the spaces between these two, has been represented with the light blue,

green, yellow and light red color.

Figures 8 and 9 show the results of petrophysical analysis of Thomas Stieber method (porosity,

water saturation, and lithology), the log of distribution of T2 using CMR tool and static image

using image log in the depth of 2748_2752.2 and 2652.065 – 2659.075 meters of driller’s

recording. There is no CMR log data in well B, because T2 distribution of CMR log in this well

charts is not shown.

Figure 8. Thomas Stieber model analysis in well A.

As we can see in figures 8 and 9, the layers which have been analyzed by this method, have a

great match with static image of image log. Also the T2 distribution of CMR log in figure 8 can

be seen with two or multiple humps which indicates the existence of laminated shaly sand layers.

Table 2 shows the averaging results of locations with NISOC cutoff and without NISOC cutoff

15
 (porosity ≥0.045, water saturation ≤ 0.5 and volume of shale ≥ 0.5) of the outputs of Thomas

Stieber method in the intervals which laminated shaly sand exists.

Table 2. Average petrophysical properties using Thomas Stieber method with cutoff and without
cut off in well A and well B
With NISOC Cutoff Without NISOC Cutoff
Parameter NET Porosity Water Net NET Porosity Water Net
TO )%( Saturation Hydrocarbon TO )%( Saturation Hydrocarbon
Depth GROSS )%( Column, (m) GROSS )%( Column, (m)
(m)
2748-2752.2 0 0 0 1.18 0.4482 15.2 46.0 1.88
(A)
2652.065- 0.5991 21.3 17.0 4.2 0.6122 20.2 17.1 4.21
2659.075 (B)

As we can see in table (2) without NISOC cutoff, the average effective porosity is 15.2 and 20.2

percent for A and B, water saturation is 46.0 and 17.1 percent, which indicates the presence of

hydrocarbons in these intervals.

5. Analysis by Conventional Petrophysical Reservoir Logs

In this part, the analysis has been made by using conventional petrophysical logs, which have

been run into the foresaid intervals and with the Geolog 7.2 software by deterministic method.

The calculation process by the deterministic method is as follows: First of all the shale volume,

then porosity is calculated by specific density/ modified neutron cross plot and finally water

saturation will be calculated using Archie’s formula.

Figures 10 and 11 show the results of petrophysical analysis of conventional petrophysical logs

(porosity, water saturation, and lithology), the log of distribution of T2 using CMR tool, and

static image using image log in the depth of 2748_2752.2 and 2652.065 – 2659.075 meters of

driller’s recording.

16
Figure 10. The results of analysis of conventional petrophysical logs in well A.

17
 Figure 11. The results of analysis of conventional petrophysical logs in well B.
As we can see in the figures 10 and 11, the layers which have used this method of petrophysical

analysis do not have a good agreement with the static images of image logs. Also the T2

distribution of CMR log in the figure 10 has two or multiple humps which indicates the existence

of laminated shaly sand layers. Table 3 shows the averaging results of locations with NISOC

cutoff and without NISOC cutoff (porosity ≥0.045, water saturation ≤ 0.5 and volume of shale ≥
18
 0.5) of the outputs of conventional petrophysical logs analysis in the intervals which laminated

shaly sand exists.

Table 3. Average petrophysical properties using conventional petrophysical logs with cutoff and
without cutoff in well A and well B.
With NISOC Cutoff Without NISOC Cutoff
Parameter NET Porosity Water Net NET Porosity Water Net
TO )%( Saturation Hydrocarbon TO )%( Saturation Hydrocarbon
Depth GROSS )%( Column, (m) GROSS )%( Column, (m)
(m)
2748-2752.2 0 0 0 0 0.343 8.7 86.4 1.442
(A)
2652.065- 0.083 17.7 31.4 0.581 0.092 14.8 37.8 0.643
2659.075 (B)

As we can see in table (3) without NISOC cutoff the average effective porosity is 8.7and 14.8

percent for A and B, water saturation is 86.4 and 37.8 percent, which indicates the low presence

of hydrocarbon with high water saturation in these intervals.

6. Comparing the results of applied methods

In this section the results of the two methods for the intervals are compared. Table (4) indicates

the results of analysis without NISOC cutoff in the intervals which contain laminated shaly sand.

Table 4. Comparison the results of two methods without NISOC cutoff for the well A.
Without NISOC Cutoff
Properties NET TO Porosity Water Net
GROSS )%( Saturation Hydrocarbon
)%( Column, (m)
Method
Thomas Stieber model 0.4482 2..1 64 1.88
Conventional petrophysical logs 0.343 7.8 74.6 1.442

According to table 4, the most porosity calculated refers to T_S method with number of 15.2%

and the least porosity refers to the conventional petrophysical logs with the number of 8.7%. For

water saturation, T_S method indicates 46 % and conventional petrophysical logs indicate the

19
86.4 %. For the net hydrocarbon column the T_S methods indicates 1.88 meters and the

conventional petrophysical logs indicate 1.442 meters.

Table 5. Comparing the results of two methods without NISOC cutoff for the well B.
Without NISOC Cutoff
Properties NET TO Porosity Water Net
GROSS )%( Saturation Hydrocarbon
)%( Column, (m)
Method
Thomas Stieber model 0.6122 1..1 28.2 4.21
Conventional petrophysical logs 0.092 26.7 88.7 ..468

According to table 5, the most porosity calculated refers to T_S method with number of 20.2 %

and the least porosity refers to the conventional petrophysical logs with the number of 14.8 %.

For water saturation, T_S method indicates 17.1 % and conventional petrophysical logs indicate

the 37.8 %. For the net hydrocarbon column the T_S methods indicates 4.21 meters and the

conventional petrophysical logs indicate 0.643 meters.

According to the calculated values for effective porosity and the water saturation it can be

concluded that the conventional petrophysical logs indicate hydrocarbon with high water

saturation, and T_S method indicates hydrocarbon with low water saturation.

7. Conclusion

According to the results of the above tables and figures, the following conclusions could be

obtained:

 The laminated shaly sand has the capability of storage and production of hydrocarbons.

 The low thickness of shale and sand layers in laminated shaly sands, and the low vertical

resolution of conventional petrophysical evaluation logs, making the study of these

sequences difficult or impossible. Because of the low vertical resolution of these logs, the

20
 results will be in error and the petrophysical parameters will have high inaccuracy and

finally the hydrocarbon in these layers may be ignored.

 Thomas Stieber is a method with high accuracy which can be used for determination of

petrophysical properties of laminated shaly sand such as porosity and saturation of fluids.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Mr. Shahin Parche Khari, Yahya Ghanbari and Mohammad Khalili from

department of petrophysics of national Iranian south oil company (NISOC) which helped us in

collecting petrophysical and geophysical data.

9. References

Poupon, A., Clavier, C., Dumanoir, J., Gaymard, R., and Misk, A., 1970. Log Analysis of Sand-

Shale Sequences a Systematic Approach. Journal of Petroleum technology, 22(07), pp. 867-881.

Passey, Q. R., Dahlberg, K. E., Sullivan, K., Yin, H., Brackett, B., Xiao, Y., and Guzman-

Garcia, A. G., 2006. Petrophysical evaluation of hydrocarbon pore-thickness in thinly bedded

clastic reservoirs: AAPG Archie Series, No. 1, Tulsa.

Martinez, G. A., & Davis, L. A., 2000. Petrophysical measurements on shales using NMR. In

SPE 62851, Western Regional Meeting. , 19–23 June, pp. 5-8.

Coates, G. R., Xiao, L. I. Z. H. I., and Prammer, M. G., 1999. NMR logging. Principles &

Applications, Halliburton Energy Services Publication. Houston U.S.A.

Zhang, Z., Akinsanmi, O., Ha, K. T., Bourgeois, T., Jock, S., Blumhagen, C., and Stromberg, S ,

2007. Triaxial Induction Logging - an Operations Perspective. Society of Petrophysicists and

21
Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) 48th Annual Logging Symposium held in Austin, Texas, United

States, June 3-6, pp. 2-8.

Vielma, M., and Vandini, R., 2007. Hydrocarbon Reserves and Production Increment in

Laminated Sand/Shale Reservoir from 3D Resistivity Measurements, Image Logs, and Magnetic

Resonance Technology. In Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,

SPE 107689, Argentina, 15-18 April, pp. 1-9.

Tabanou J. and Antoine J., 1995. Method and apparatus for detecting and quantifying

hydrocarbon bearing laminated reservoirs on a workstation. U.S. Patent No. 5,461,562.,

Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Houston, Tex. Oct. 24.

Thomas, E. C. and Stieber, S. J., 1975. The distribution of shale in sandstones and its effect on

porosity. In SPWLA 16th annual logging symposium. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log

Analysts, June 4-7.

Juhasz, I., 1986. Assessment of the distribution of shale, porosity and hydrocarbon saturation in

shaly sands. In 10 th European Formation Evaluation Symposium, Aberdeen.

Memari, A., 2013. Evaluation of surface subsidence in one of Iran’s oil fields using INSAR

technique. American Journal of Oil and Chemical Technologies, 1(4), pp. 9-17.

Amiry Bakhtiar Hassan, Sajadi Fereshteh, Moradi Nooshin. 2007. Curve Mathing in Bio

Stratigraphy of Asmari Formation in Ahwaz Oil field. Journal of Science Tehran University,

Vol. 33, No. 1, April, 101_106.

22
 We use Thomas Stieber method and conventional logs methods for evaluation of
petrophysical properties of the laminated shaly sand sequences.
 We compare results (evaluated petrophysical properties) of the Thomas Stieber method
with conventional logs.
 We explain the Thomas Stieber method application in studying the laminated shaly sand
sequences.