American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research 3 (2): 172-177, 2008

ISSN 1818-6785
IDOSI Publications, 2008

A Fortran Programme for Computing Formation (Connate)

Water Resistivity from Spontaneous Potential Logs
P.A. Enikanselu and A. Adekanle
Department of Applied Geophysics, Federal University of Technology,
P.M.B. 704, Akure, Nigeria
Abstract: A computer programme in Fortran language for computing formation water resistivity, Rw, from
Spontaneous Potential (SP) log has been designed, coded and tested. The aim was to develop a fast alternative
approach of measuring Rw devoid of the use charts. The input data - bed thickness, flushed zone and mud
resistivities, mud-filtrate resistivity, surface and formation temperatures and the static self potential (SSP) - were
derived from digitized wireline logs from widely located sedimentary basins. The output was tested using
borehole and laboratory data from pre-existing wells and the results were compared. The maximum percentage
deviation was less than 5%. The programme has therefore provided a fast technique of estimating Rw, correcting
for formation (bed) thickness/cleanliness and thus reducing the subjectivity inherent in the use of charts.
Key words: Fortran % Formation-Water-Resistivity % Spontaneous Potential % Log % Mud Filtrate
INTRODUCTION

techniques of determining Rw. The Spontaneous or Self

Potential (SP) log is a self-induced, natural potential that
occurs spontaneously between reservoir rocks and a
fluid-filled borehole. This natural voltage originates from
electrochemical and electrokinetic actions, Tenchov [2]
and causes an electrical current to flow in conductive
borehole fluids. A record of this potential versus depth in
a borehole is known as the SP log. The log is highly
invaluable in geoenvironmental studies, Radhakrisna. and
Gangadhara Rao [3,4]. The SP log is often subject to
corrections for bed thickness and shaliness, [5, 6] after
which it becomes highly valuable to the log analyst in the
segregation of permeable strata from impermeable
horizons, determination of formation water resistivity,
estimation of lithofacies description of stratigraphic
formations, Coudert et al. [5] etc.
Formation water resistivity, Rw, is one of the most
important parameters in open hole log analysis. It is
required to calculate fluid or gas saturation in the pore
spaces of reservoir rocks. Its value can range from
0.01 ohm-m to several ohm-metres at reservoir
temperature. Sodium Chloride (NaCl) is usually the
dominant salt in solution and the resistivity of the
electrolyte normally decreases with increasing salt
concentration. Rw can be determined, Bigelow [7], by the
following methods: catalogued water resistivity

The earth, especially in sedimentary areas, is highly

stratified. The constituents of the various strata
(rock and fluid contents) often have diverse physical and
geologic properties. These properties include porosity,
permeability, density, velocity etc. The porous and
permeable layers often form the reservoir or aquifer unit
and hydrocarbon reservoir rocks in which water, oil and
gas could accumulate in commercial quantity.
Formation water resistivity, Ushie [1], represents the
resistivity value of the water (uncontaminated by drilling
mud) that saturates the porous formation. It is also
referred to as connate water or interstitial water. It
constitutes the free water which supplies the energy for
the water drive in reservoirs and its resistivity is variable
depending on the salinity, temperature and whether or not
the formation contains hydrocarbons.
In
the
quantitative
evaluation
of
such
reservoirs/aquifers, the value of Rw needs be determined
with reasonable accuracy. The Rw value is a necessary
input to the evaluation of water saturation for this
purpose. Even in aquifers, the value of Rw (inverse of
salinity) serves as a veritable safety guide in the
categorization of potable water for human consumption.
Apart from lithologic indication, the SP log is one of the

Corresponding Author: P.A. Enikanselu, Department of Applied Geophysics,

Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure, Nigeria

172

Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 3 (2): 172-177, 2008

information, measured resistivity and temperature of a

produced water sample from the reservoir horizon,
chemical analysis of a water sample produced from the
reservoir, calculation from the SP trace and Bassiouni [8],
calculation from a reliable Ro and porosity values in a
known water-bearing horizon etc. A most simplistic
procedure of determining Rw from SP log, using charts, is
undertaken by Asquith and Krygowski [9].
Several factors do influence the SP process and
therefore the Rw calculated from it. Such factors include
thin beds, adjacent beds, shaliness within the reservoir
body (cleanliness), hydrocarbons, adequate permeability,
drilling mud density etc. McConnell [6, 10] have carried
out extensive studies on corrections for groundwater
salinity calculations and SP logs in groundwater
respectively. However, under favourable conditions
(clean water-bearing horizons, moderate mud resistivity,
saline formation water, appreciable formation permeability,
hole size (less than 25cm) etc., the SP method can be used
to compute acceptable Rw values.
The overwhelming majority of reservoir rocks contain
enough NaCl that standard charts and equations can be
used to determine Rw. In most cases, usage of these charts
is often slow, prone to human error of judgment and as
such leads to varied and subjective results. This paper, an
adaptation of Bateman and Konen [11], is therefore
intended to develop a computer programme capable of
computing Rw with precision and improved speed and
reduced subjectivity. The algorithms are based on
standard empirical equations from which the charts are
coded. The programme has been tested and the results
found reasonably comparable to those from even
laboratory techniques.

k = T + 505 / 8

(2)

where T is the formation temperature in EF.

The mud filtrate resistivity, Rmf, can be estimated from
direct measurement on a drilling mud sample usually
prepared by placing a circulated sample in a mud press.
Rmf is the least well-defined parameter in SP log analysis.
These data are usually entered on the log heading. In the
absence of any reported value of Rmf, the following,
Schlumberger [12], can reasonably suffice:
Rmf = (Rm)1.065 * 10 (9 W )/13
(3)
where W = mud weight in lb/gal; Rm = mud resistivity.
The actual development of SP is controlled by the
relative chemical activity of the formation water and mud
filtrate solutions. Thus equation (1) can be written as:
SP = - k log ( Aw / Amf)

(4)

Where Aw and Amf are the activities of the connate water

and the mud filtrate respectively. The solution resistivity
is roughly inversely proportional to the activity at low salt
concentrations. At high concentrations, there is marked
departure. To compensate for this, we define the effective
or equivalent resistivities (Rwe) for salt solutions, which
are inversely proportional to the activities:
Rwe = 0.075/ Aw (at 77EF)

(5)

A conversion chart is normally used to convert Rwe to

the actual formation water resistivity, Rw. The SP equation
can then be rewritten to the strictly accurate formula:

Theory: In order to perform quantitative analysis of the

SP, the relationship between it and the resistivities of the
mud filtrate and the formation water is necessary.
Analysis based on various laws of physical chemistry has
led to the equation:

SP = - k log (Rmfe/Rwe)

The subjectivity attached to the usage of standard

charts for the above has inspired the development of this
programme.

SP = -k log (Rmf/Rw)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

(1)

where SP is measured in millivolts and k is a temperaturedependent constant. The SP value can be read in a waterbearing clean and thick sandy formation. The k value can
be estimated from the equation:

(6)

The basic material needed for the running of the

programme is the Spontaneous Potential (SP) log from
which the various input parameters, see Figure 1, can be
extracted.

173

Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 3 (2): 172-177, 2008

Start
Read Input Data
Z, h, Ri, Rm, Rmfs, Tms, Tf, and SP.

T + 6.77
Rmff = Rmfs ms

Tf + 6.77

R we = Rmff 10SSP (60 + 0 .133 Tf )

SSP = SP

NO

Ri Rm >5 and
3<h <50,(hinft)

YE
PSP = SP

Rw =

Rwe + 0.131 x 10 [1/ log(Tf 19.9)] 2

0.5 Rwe + 10 [ 0.0426/ log(Tf 50.8 )]

SPcor =

Ri

4 Rm + 2

1 / 3 .65

Ri

h
+ 11 / 0.65

Rm

1 .5
+ 0.95

1 / 6. 05

0 .1

SSP = PSP x SP

Sto

Definition of Terms
Z = Depth (ft), h = Thickness (ft)
Ri, Rm, Rmfs, Rmff, Rwe, and Rw = Resistivities of invaded zone, mud, surface mud filtrate,
formation mud filtrate, water equivalent, and formation water respectively.
Tms, and Tf = mean surface and formation temperature (0 F) respectively.
SP, PSP, and SSP = Self potential, pseudostatic potential and static self potential values
respectively.

Fig. 1:

Flowchart for the Computation of Formation Water Resistivity (Rw) from SP Log. Below: definition of
terms

Information on these parameters such as reservoir

depth (z), reservoir thickness (h), flushed zone
resistivity (Ri ), mud resistivity (Rm), mud filtrate
resistivity at surface temperature (Rmfs) are either
provided on the log header or easily readable on the log
proper.
According to Bateman [13], the procedure for
using the SP equation (equation 6) is as follows:
Establish the formation temperature; find the
value of Rmf at formation temperature; convert Rmfe at
formation temperature to an Rmfe value; compute the

Rmfe/Rwe ratio from the SP; Compute Rwe; and convert

Rwe at formation temperature to an Rw value.
Essentially, the algorithm involves:

174

Reading-in the above listed input parameters;

Calculating the mud filtrate resistivity at formatio
temperature, Rmff;
Conversion of the observed SP value to SSP
depending on the reservoir thickness (h<3 metres);
Conversion of the pseudostatic potential (PSP) to
Static self Potential (SSP), Tabanou et al. [14],

Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 3 (2): 172-177, 2008

Table 1: Input parameters and computed Rw (Rwform) for twelve wells
S/N

Z(ft)

h(ft)

Ri/Rm

Rmfsurf(S-m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

3590
3780
7446
3960
3990
3155
4236
4320
4390
4490
4550

10
12
8
20
5
7
14
25
40
52
60

0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
*****

10.200
0.700
0.510
0.710
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012

C
C

Tms(EF)
60
100
60
68
70
65
80
75
82
68
78

Tf(EF)
140
250
130
135
140
155
170
135
155
172
148

depending on the thickness and cleanliness (degree

of shaliness) of the formation;
Calculation of equivalent (effective) formation water
resistivity (Rwe ); and
Conversion of the computed Rwe to formation water
resistivity, Rw.

SSP(mV)
-71
-100
-40
-68
99
100
110
120
115
88
105

Rmfform(S-m)

Rwe(S-m)

Rwform(S-m)

0.54592
0.29107
0.24898
0.37446
0.00659
0.00590
0.00564
0.00773
0.00702
0.00489
0.00663

0.06824
0.02464
0.07562
0.05025
0.11971
0.10265
0.12112
0.26759
0.18755
0.05642
0.13774

0.07247
0.03095
0.07918
0.05761
0.11730
0.10228
0.11933
0.25616
0.18121
0.06103
0.13387

parameters are often read from log headers or

measured from the SP log proper. It is capable of
automatically correcting for bed thickness (where
thickness is less than 3 meters) as well as converting
pseudostatic potential to static self potential (for dirty
sands). Data from twelve wells, scattered over four
sedimentary basins, have been employed in test-running
the programme. The computed Rw values were compared
with standard previously determined field and laboratory
measurements. In all the wells, the maximum deviation
between computed and other methods of measurement
was less than 5%. This closeness suggests that the
programme is accurate, sufficiently reliable and could
serve as a quicker option to the method of determining Rw
from SP logs, using charts.

Figure 1 is a flowchart depicting the road map for

the coding process.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The programme has been successfully run and tested
with input data from twelve wells obtained from both field
and laboratory measuring techniques in basins across
continents. The computed results were compared with
those earlier determined using other standard field and
laboratory techniques, Bigelow [7] and Bateman [13].
Table 1 shows the various input parameters as well as
the computed output, (Rwform).
The maximum percentage deviation between field and
computed Rw is less than 5%. It could be observed that
the computed values of Rw - ranging from a few
hundredths of an ohm-metre (brines) to several ohm-metre
for fresh water, Bateman [13] - are reasonably in the range
of values normally observed in the field. This result is
sufficiently reasonable and reliable for any scientific
purpose. This lends credence to the suitability of the
programme as a faster and highly viable option to the use
of charts for determining formation water resistivity from
SP logs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to the department of Applied
geophysics, Federal University of Technology, Akure for
allowing us the use of geophysical well logs employed in
the running and correlation of the results of the
programme.
REFERENCES
1.

2.

CONCLUSION

3.

In this study, we have developed a Fortran

programme for computing formation water resistivity
from SP logs. It can be run in both the Disk Operating
System (DOS) or Windows environments. The input

4.

175

Ushie, F.A., 2001. Formation water resistivity (Rw)

determination: the SP method. J. Applied Environ.
Manage., 5(1): 25-28.
Tenchov, G.G., 1992. Streaming potential and
Spontaneous Potential logs in shaly sands.
J. Petroleum, Sci. Eng., 7(3): 309-318.
Radhakrisna, I. and T.J. Gangadhara Rao, 2001. Saline
Dresh Water Interface in Mahanadi Delta Region,
Orissa, India. Environ. Geol., 40(3) : 369-380.
Radhakrisna, I. and T.J. Gangadhara, 1990. Evaluation
of hydrogeochemical parameters with Spontaneous
Potentials logs. J. Hydrol., 114(2-4): 245-257.

Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 3 (2): 172-177, 2008

5.

6.

7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Coudert, L., M. Frappa and R. Arias, 1994. A

statistical method for litho-facies identification.
J. Applied Geophy., 32(2-3): 257-267.
McConnell, C.L., 1988. A general correction for
Spontaneous Potential well logs in fresh
water. J. Hydrol., 101: 1-13.
Bigelow, E.L., 1995. Introduction to Wireline Log
Analysis. Western Atlas International Inc.
Silva, P. and Z. Bassiouni, 1981.A New Approach to
the Determination of Formation Water Resistivity
from the SP log,. Society of Petroleum Well Log
Analysts, 22nd Annual Logging Sympossium, Mexico
City.
Asquith, G. and D. Krygowski, 2004. Basic Well Log
Analysis. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists: AAPG Methods in Exploration Series 16,
pp: 21-30.
McConnell, C.L., 1983. Spontaneous Potential
corrections for groundwater salinity calculations.
J. Hydrol., 65(4): 363-372.
Bateman, R.M. and C.E. Konen, 1977. The log
Analyst and the Programmable calculator: The Log
Analyst, 18: 3-11.
Schlumberger, 1989. Log Interpretation Principles/
Applications: Houston (Schlumberger Educational
services), SMP-7017.
Bateman, R.M., 1988. Open Hole Log Analysis and
Formation Evaluation. D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Tabanou, J.R., R. Glowinski and G.F. Rouault, 1988.
SP Deconvolution and Quantitative Interpretation in
shaly sands. The Log Analyst, 29(5): 332-343.

ENIKANSELU & A. ADEKANLE'

WRITE(*,*)' FUT, AKURE, ONDO STATE,
NIGERIA'
WRITE(*,90)
WRITE(*,*) 'GeoResist IS A SOFTWARE THAT
ENABLES YOU TO COMPUTE
1 HE RESISTIVITY OF FORMATION WATER (Rw)
FROM THE SPONTANEOUS
2 POTENTIAL (SP) LOG'
WRITE(*,50)
PAUSE
WRITE(*,60)
OPEN(UNIT=1,FILE='GRes.Dat',ERR=95,STATUS='
OLD')
OPEN(UNIT=2, FILE='GRes.Out', ERR=95,
STATUS='NEW')
C READ(1,15,ERR=95)WELLNAME, NUM, Tms
READ(1,15,ERR=95)WELLNAME, NUM
C15 FORMAT(/////T20,A60/19X,BNI30/19X,I30///)
15 FORMAT(/////T20,A60/19X,BNI30///)
READ(1,18,ERR=95)WELLNAME
C18 FORMAT(///T20,A60)
C READ(1,20,ERR=95)NUM
C20 FORMAT(20X,BNI30)
C READ(1,22,ERR=95)Tms
C22 FORMAT(20X,I30///)
WRITE(2,25)
25 FORMAT(/,30X,'*GeoResist 1.0*'/)
WRITE(2,27)
27 FORMAT(30X,'COPYRIGHT @ 2002'//)
WRITE(2,28)
28 FORMAT(10X,'___COMPUTATION RESULT___')
WRITE(2,30) WELLNAME
30 FORMAT(/15X,A60,/)
WRITE(2,33)
33 FORMAT(2X,'____________________________
1______________________________________
__________________')
WRITE(2,35)
C35 FORMAT(1X,'',1X,'S/N',1X,'',1X,'Z(Ft)',1X,'',1X,'h(
Ft)',1X,
C 1 '',1X,'Ri/Rm',1X,'',1X,'Rmfsurf(m)',1X,'',1X,'Tms(
F)',1X,
C2 '',1X,'Tf(F)',1X,'',1X,'SSP(mv)',1X,'',1X,'Rmfform(
m)',1X,
C 3 '',1X,'Rwe(m)',1X,'',1X,'Rwform(m)',1X,'')
35 FORMAT(1X,'',1X,'S/N',3X,'Z(Ft)',3X,'h(Ft)',3X,'Ri/
Rm',3X,
1'Rmfsurf(m)',3X,'Tms(F)',3X,'Tf(F)',4X,'SSP(mv)'
,2X,

PROGRAM GeoResist
C DIMENSION
COMMON h, SP, INVAMUD, Tf, Tms
CHARACTER WELLNAME*60
INTEGER Tms, Tmf, SP, SSP, Tf, Z, h, ENT
REAL INVAMUD, KEM, NUME, NUMETERM1,
NUMEINDEX
EQUIVALENCE (Tmf, Tms)
REM(L) = 0.131 * 10**((1/(LOG10(L/19.9)) - 2))
KEM(M) = 10**(0.0426/(LOG10(M/50.8)))
RK(N) = 60 + 0.133 * N
WRITE(*,60)
WRITE(*,10)
10 FORMAT(/20X,'*GeoResist 1.0*'/)
WRITE(*,55)
WRITE(*,*) ' COPYRIGHT @ 2007 BY P.A.

176

Am-Euras. J. Sci. Res., 3 (2): 172-177, 2008

2'Rmfform(m)',3X,'Rwe(m)',3X,'Rwform(m)',1X,'')
DO 40 ENT = 1,NUM
READ(1,*,ERR=95) Z, h, Ri, Rm, Rmfsurf,Tms, Tf, SP
C READ(1,*,ERR=95) Z, h, Rmfsurf, Tms, Tf, SP
C45 FORMAT(////I5,2X,F5.2 = 375.56
Rmfform = Rmfsurf * TRATIO(Tms,Tf)
C Rmfform = Rmfsurf*(Tms + 6.77)/(Tf + 6.77)
C RK = 60 + 0.133 * Tf
IF(Rm .EQ. 0.0) GOTO 96
IF(Ri .EQ. 99.5 .OR. Rm .EQ. 99.5) GOTO 62
INVAMUD = Ri/Rm
IF(INVAMUD.GT.5 .AND. (h.GT.3 .AND. h.LT.50))
THEN
C CALL CORFACTOR
C IF(INVAMUD .GT. 5) THEN
C CALL CONDIT
PSP = SP
NUMETERM1 = 4*(INVAMUD + 2)
DENOTERM1 = (INVAMUD + 11)/0.65
NUMEINDEX = 1/3.65
DENOINDEX = 1/6.05
NUME = (NUMETERM1**NUMEINDEX) - 1.5
DENO = h - 0.1 - (DENOTERM1**DENOINDEX)
SPCOR = (NUME/DENO) + 0.95
SSP = PSP * SPCOR
ELSE
SSP = SP
ENDIF
GOTO 63
62 SSP = SP
63 Rwe = Rmfform*(10**(SSP/RK(Tf)))
C Rwe = Rmfform*(10**(SSP/RK))
Rwform = (Rwe + REM(Tf))/((-0.5*Rwe) + KEM(Tf))
WRITE(2,65)
65 FORMAT(1X,'___________________________
1______________________________________')
WRITE(2,70)ENT,Z,h,INVAMUD,Rmfsurf,Tms,Tf,S
SP,Rmfform,Rwe,Rwform
70 FORMAT(1X,'',I3,3X,I5,1X,I5,6X,F5.2,4X,F5.3,9X,I
3,7X,I3,7X,I4,
15 X,F7.5,6X,F7.5,4X,F7.5,3X,'')
40 CONTINUE
WRITE(2,75)
-75 FORMAT(1X,'___________________________
1______________________________________
___________________')
50 FORMAT(//''/)
55 FORMAT(/''//)

177

60 FORMAT(//////////''//////////)
90 FORMAT(//,''///)
CLOSE (1)
CLOSE (2)
GOTO 99
WRITE(*,*)' '
95 WRITE(*,*) 'ENSURE THAT YOU ABIDE BY THE
INPUT FORMATS
1 STIPULATED BY *GeoResist* 1.0'
96 WRITE(*,*) 'Rm MUST NOT EQUAL ZERO'
99 WRITE(*,100)
100 FORMAT(////, 10X, 'BYE FOR NOW', ///)
STOP
END

FUNCTION TRATIO(J,K)
DIMENSION
TRATIO = (J + 6.77)/(K + 6.77)
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE CONDIT
DIMENSION
INTEGER h
COMMON h
IF(h .GT. 3 .AND. h .LT. 50) CALL CORFACTOR
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE CORFACTOR
DIMENSION
INTEGER h, SP, PSP, SSP
REAL INVAMUD, MER
COMMON INVAMUD, h, SP
PSP = SP
WRITE(*,*) SP, PSP
NUMETERM1 = 4*(INVAMUD + 2)
DENOTERM1 = (INVAMUD + 11)/0.65
NUMEINDEX = 1/3.65
DENOINDEX = 1/6.05
NUME = (NUMETERM1**NUMEINDEX) - 1.5
DENO = h - 0.1 - (DENOTERM1**DENOINDEX)
SPCOR = (NUME/DENO) + 0.95
SSP = PSP * SPCOR
WRITE(*,*) SP, SPCOR, SSP
RETURN
END