Question 12 of 12: Static SP — Ideal and Non-Ideal Shale Membrane
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
National Exams, 98-Pet-B1, Well Logging and Formation Evaluation — May 2014, 3 hours, closed book (calculators permitted), 12 questions, all marked, 100 marks total.
Reference texts: Bassiouni, Theory, Measurement, and Interpretation of Well Logs (SPE Textbook Series Vol. 4); Asquith & Krygowski, Basic Well Log Analysis, 2nd ed. (AAPG); Ellis & Singer, Well Logging for Earth Scientists, 2nd ed.; Schlumberger, Log Interpretation Charts / Log Interpretation Principles and Applications.
Find. (a) ESSP for an ideal shale membrane. (b) Rsh, the adjacent shale's own resistivity, given the reduced (non-ideal) SP reading.
Approach. Since both Rmf and Rw exceed ≈0.1 Ω·m (the range in which the equivalent-resistivity chart converges toward the actual value), take (Rmf)eq≈Rmf and (Rw)eq≈Rw directly in the ESSP formula; then use the (Rmf/Rw) vs. ESP chart (parameterized by Rsh/Rmf) to back out Rsh for the reduced, non-ideal reading.
Part (b) — non-ideal membrane, back out Rsh. With a non-ideal (partially conductive) shale membrane, the measured SP is reduced in magnitude below the ideal ESSP ( −60 mV vs. the ideal −61.4 mV) by an amount that depends on how resistive the adjacent shale is relative to the mud filtrate. Compute the fixed ratio
$$\frac{R_{mf}}{R_w} = \frac{0.6}{0.12} = \boxed{5.0}$$
and locate the point (ESP=−60 mV, Rmf/Rw=5.0) on the family of Rsh/Rmf curves of the departure chart (source page 16). At ESP=−60 mV the printed curves read Rmf/Rw = 11.4 (curve 1), 8.5 (curve 2), 6.0 (curve 4), 5.0 (curve 6) and 4.3 (curve 8), so the point falls essentially exactly on the $R_{sh}/R_{mf}=6$ curve, and
$$R_{sh} = 6\times R_{mf} = 6(0.6) = \boxed{3.6\ \Omega\cdot\text{m}}$$
Quantity
Result
K (200°F)
87.9
ESSP (ideal membrane)
−61.4 mV
Rmf/Rw
5.0
Rsh/Rmf (chart, non-ideal)
≈ 6
Rsh (adjacent shale)
≈ 3.6 Ω·m
Check: (i) the Rwe-vs.-Rw conversion chart IS supplied (source page 18), but both resistivities here exceed 0.1 Ω·m, where that chart reduces to Req≈0.85R for both fluids; the common factor cancels in the ratio, so (Rmf/Rw)eq = Rmf/Rw = 5.0 and ESSP is unaffected. (ii) Rsh/Rmf=6 comes from reading the printed departure chart against its own log grid at ESP=−50, −60 and −70 mV; the two neighbouring printed curves at −60 mV read 6.0 and 4.3, so a ±1 tolerance on the curve parameter puts Rsh in 3.0–4.2 Ω·m.