Energy Exploration & Exploitation· 2026Q2
Evaluating water saturation models for the Middle Bakken
- 0citations
- Q2SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Water saturation models (Archie, Simandoux, DW, ILM) showed similar predictive accuracy (MAE 0.102-0.115) in the Middle Bakken, with interwell variation being 4-6 times larger than intermodel differences.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Four water saturation models (Archie, Simandoux, DW, ILM) were evaluated for the Middle Bakken.
- Calibrations were performed separately for the upper and lower Middle Bakken using Dean-Stark core data from eight wells.
- Mean absolute error (MAE) for blind-well predictions ranged from 0.102 to 0.115 across models and zones.
- Interwell variation in water saturation was 4-6 times larger than the differences between the evaluated models.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Water saturation ( S w ) estimation in the Middle Bakken is affected by low porosity, hypersaline formation water, mixed siliciclastic–carbonate mineralogy, clay-bound water, and mixed wettability. Archie, Modified Simandoux, Dual-Water (DW), and the Interlocked Lattice Model (ILM) were evaluated against Dean–Stark core measurements from eight wells. Separate upper (UMB) and lower (LMB) Middle Bakken calibrations were performed within leave-one-well-out cross-validation. A binary-coded genetic algorithm minimized mean absolute error (MAE), and every model predicted effective water saturation on the same pore-volume basis. Mean blind-well MAE ranged from 0.104 to 0.111 in the UMB and from 0.102 to 0.115 in the LMB. These intermodel ranges, 0.0069 and 0.0136, were much smaller than the average within-model standard deviations among held-out wells, 0.0419 and 0.0562. Interwell variation was therefore 6.1 times the intermodel range in the UMB and 4.1 times the range in the LMB. The model with the lowest error also changed among held-out wells. Sensitivity tests further show that input uncertainty, especially porosity in the LMB, can change MAE more than the observed differences among model means. These results support multi-well calibration and explicit reporting of interwell variability. They do not establish statistical equivalence among the equations or a common high-salinity asymptote.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Mechanics of Materials
Mechanics of MaterialsEngineering