IPA05-E-145

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirtieth Annual Convention & Exhibition, August 2005
INTEGRATED PETROPHYSICAL FORMATION EVALUATION USING CAPTURE
SPECTROSCOPY AND NMR ON AN EXPLORATION WELL, SOUTH SUMATRA
ZhanGuo Shi*
Mario Petricola*
PingZai Wang**

ABSTRACT
This paper presents an integrated petrophysical
formation evolution on two complicated geology
settings penetrated by an exploration well in South
Sumatra region. The rich information from the
capture spectroscopy and nuclear magnetic resonance
provides tremendous applications on fluid typing on
the low resistivity contrast sandstones in a fresh
formation water environment; and the lithology
identification plus other reservoir properties
characterization on an unconventional reservoir. The
interpretation guided the selection of test candidates
and has been confirmed by the test results.
The first formation is a clastic sequence where fluid
typing was the main challenge. On conventional logs
most of the sands have similar petrophysical
characters, in terms of the resistivity reading, lack of
Density-Neutron cross over, etc. In addition, a
dubious clay volume derived from gamma ray and
fresh formation water made the interpretation even
more challenging.

top of massive water-bearing sand, raising

expectation that more gas can be found higher in the
structure for the same sand.
At the bottom of the same well, a very radioactive
massive formation was discovered, the natural gamma
ray spectrometry showed that both thorium and
potassium readings are very high; neutron and density
logs cannot provide conclusive lithology and porosity
as well. Capture spectroscopy identified one clean
sand at the top of the formation. The permeability
from NMR is also high. Very long T2 relaxation
times are suggesting that there is big potential of
existing very light oil.
The detailed mineralogical information derived from
the comprehensive measurements of gamma ray
capture spectroscopy and NMR implies that the
sedimentary environment for this formation is most
probably an alluvial deposition and the source rock is
weathered granite. This log-based conclusion helped
in calibrating the existing reservoir model.
INTRODUCTION

In view of these difficulties, The Company decided to

acquire capture spectroscopy and NMR logs in order
to reach a solid conclusion for the first exploration
well in this structure. All hydrocarbon-bearing zones
were clearly identified. The sedimentary sequence for
the main gas-bearing sand was clearly revealed by the
spectroscopy-NMR combination; for another zone,
the spectroscopy log showed a much lower clay
volume compared to the traditional GR estimation,
and the Density-NMR combination revealed this zone
to be gas bearing, even though there was no DensityNeutron cross-over. A gas cap was identified on the
*
**

Schlumberger
PetroChina International

With a traditional simple logging program, has any

hydrocarbon been left behind in an abandoned
exploration or development well? For some wells, the
answer is probably yes. We often hear that the target
formation is well known either based on the regional
geological setting or knowledge from nearby fields.
Under this hypothesis, a similar simple evaluation
program is normally implemented.
This article presents a petrophysical case study on an
exploration well in Central Sumatra basin where the
new measurements give more information on
lithology, pore texture and finally fluid type. It also

33

presents the difference compared to a standard

logging program.
The gamma ray or gamma ray spectrometry logs have
been used as the main measurements for lithology
evaluation and the density, neutron or sonic are the
traditional tools for porosity evaluation. With the
advent of new lithology and porosity measurements,
such as gamma ray capture spectroscopy and nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR), the reservoir can be
characterized more clearly and easily.
These two measurements have been in service for
quite some time; their principles and applications
have been widely documented in various published
papers. The article will review the basic principle of
those measurements and focus on describing their
applications, explaining how the measurements help
on identifying low contrast low resistivity pays, fluid
typing and evaluating an unconventional reservoir.
By demonstrating the applications, the purpose of this
paper is to help oil companies select the fit-forpurpose
petrophysical
formation
evaluation
technology and design a tailored logging program to
reduce the overall exploration or development cost.
With the detailed information for a new reservoir, the
success ratio for an exploration project will be
maximized and hence potentially shorten the
development cycle by reducing the number of
appraisal wells.

LITHOLOGY CHARACTERIZATION FROM

CAPTURE SPECTROSCOPY
The Evolution of Lithology Evaluation
GR is the basic log used for correlation and for
lithology control, in certain conditions the shaliness
can be derived from it; besides the gamma ray, the
neutron and density combination has also been well
used for clay volume and porosity estimation,
especially for radioactive shaly sands. Gamma rays
are bursts of high-energy electromagnetic waves that
are emitted spontaneously by some radioactive
elements. Nearly all of gamma radiation encountered
in the earth is emitted by radioactive potassium
isotope of atomic weight 40 (K40) and by radioactive
elements of the uranium and thorium series. The
natural Gamma ray log (GR) is a recording of the
natural radioactivity of the formation.

There are two main types of gamma ray logs, the

standard GR log measures only the total radioactivity,
whereas the spectral GR such as the NGS (Natural
Gamma Ray Spectrometry) log, measures not only
the total radioactivity but also the concentrations of
potassium, thorium and uranium producing this
radioactivity.
Lithological analysis from well logs made a giant leap
forward with the development of neutron-induced
gamma ray spectroscopy. The technique is based on
the prompt emission of characteristic gamma rays
when neutrons emitted from a source in the tool are
scattered or captured by formation nuclei after they
have slowed down to thermal energy level.
Spectroscopic detection of these gamma rays allows
the identification of the nuclei that emitted them and
the quantification of their abundance.
The purpose of induced gamma ray spectroscopy
logging is to obtain elemental concentrations of the
formation, a procedure sometimes refer to as
geochemical logging. This is achieved by emitting
high-energy neutrons from a source in a tool, which
then interact with the borehole mud and the
formation. Only one of the interactions is of interest,
the capture of thermal neutrons by formation nuclei
during which characteristic gamma rays are emitted.
The energy spectrum of those gamma rays is
recorded, and analyzed and concentrations of some
elements in the formation are obtained.
The measured spectrum is decomposed into its
components using standard spectra (Figure 1-1 and
Figure 1-2) for each of the elements. At each depth,
the linear combination of those standards is
determined through a best-fit procedure, and
elemental yields are obtained, the sum of which is one
by definition. Elemental concentrations are obtained
from the yields by rewriting each element as an oxide
and putting their sums to unity in a so-called closure
model. Because of the complexity of nuclear
interactions and imperfect resolution of commercially
feasible detectors, there are a limited number of
elements that can be quantified in this manner.
The Schlumberger elemental capture spectroscopy
sonde (ECS) has a standard americium-beryllium
(AmBe) chemical source, which is also used in
neutron porosity tools. It emits neutrons at a relatively
low energy such that there are practically no inelastic
interactions and thus the gamma ray spectrum is
34

dominated by capture reactions. It is recorded by a

cooled bismuth germanate (BGO) detector. The good
efficiency of this detector allows a high logging speed
of up to 1800 ft/hr, and the good spectral resolution
provides the element Si, Ca, S, Fe, Ti, and Gd with
good repeatability.
The comparison of elemental concentrations obtained
from the ECS with chemical laboratory analysis on
core samples show generally good agreement
between log and core data.
Mineral Concentrations
The principal use of elemental concentration logs is to
transform them into quantitative logs of mineralogy.
ECS solves for mineral groups instead of minerals.
The latest approach is sequential and relies on the
relationship of the major measurable elements with
the major rock-forming mineral groups found in type
reservoirs.
Herron and Herron (1996) have proposed to calculate
only four minerals, or rather mineral groups from
ECS, namely,

Clay
Quartz-feldspars-mica
Carbonates (calcite and dolomite)
Evaporates (anhydrite and gypsum)

As input they use the major rock forming elements

measured from ECS, Si, Ca, Fe and S. Magnesium
can be calculated from an estimation of dolomite
using other open-hole logs, notably the photoelectric
factor. Since no aluminum measurement is available,
Al concentration is estimated from a combination of
measurable elements which correlate or anti-correlate
with Al. From their study on 12 wells, the good
correlation with a coefficient of 0.99 between the
core-derived aluminum and other minerals (SiO2,
CaCO3, MgCO3 and Fe) essence states that whatever
is not tied to silicon oxide, carbonates or iron, must
correlate with clays and hence with aluminum. It has
been observed that average clay contain 20%
aluminum. So with accurate aluminum, the weighed
dry clay volume can be estimated.
With recent acquisition and software development,
combining ECS with conventional logs, a suite of
complete answers can even be delivered at the well
site directly, include lithology, porosity and

saturation, which will help operators make real time

decisions on selection of sampling or testing intervals.
KEY RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FROM NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance is isotopically selective:
at a given magnetic field strength and operating
frequency, only a single nuclear species can be
detected. Borehole logging tools select 1H, the
hydrogen nucleus, or proton, as the species resonated
in the formation. The strength of the signal is
proportional to the amount of hydrogen in the
formation. NMR measures signal amplitude and a
signal decay curve. For the modern tools, the signal
amplitude is proportional to the formation total
porosity, including the clay bound water, the capillary
bound water and free fluid. The signal decay curve
provides information about the types of fluids and
their interactions with the pore space. After the
inversion, NMR measurements are normally
presented as the transverse relaxation (T2)
distribution curve.
NMR characterizes the relationship between
permeability and porosity, pore size distribution,
bound water saturation that is independent on
resistivity, formation water salinity, porosity
cementation exponent (m) and saturation exponent
(n). Above the hydrocarbon-water contact, NMR free
fluid saturation is equal to the hydrocarbon saturation
and it is probably the most accurate saturation we can
get from logs, provided the correct T2 cutoff is used.
A NMR T2 distribution is controlled by bulk, surface
and diffusion properties, the relaxation for surface
and bulk can be expressed as,

1
S 1 Visc
=
+
T2
V Sw
A

(1)

Where:
T2
= relaxation time, second

= surface relaxivity of the grain surface, in

microns/second
S/V = pore surface-to-volume ratio, in 1/microns
A
= coefficient, 1.2 in cp-second
Visc = the viscosity of fluid in pore space, in cp
The NMR has no borehole effect under normal
conditions. When the measurement volume does
intersect the borehole, the problem is usually obvious
35

K SDR = a1(T2,log ) b1 ( CMR ) c1 ,

on the logs and the measurement is irretrievably

ruined. Thus the NMR borehole effect is in essence a
go-no go decision instead of a myriad of routine but
complicated environmental corrections.

and

Free Fluid Cutoffs

K TIM = a 2(10 4 )(

NMR T2 cutoff distinguishes the free fluid from the

bound water volume in the total porosity. The cutoff
heavily depends on the minerals that constitute the
formation. The default cutoff for sandstone is 33ms,
and for carbonate it is 100ms, which are based on
laboratory tests with brine-saturated samples. The
principle behind this difference is that, compared to
carbonates, sandstones have more paramagnetic
material in the matrix. This paramagnetic material
increases the surface relaxivity of the grain surface,
which in turn delivers a shorter T2 distribution. The
cut off varies with rock composition, which is
controlled by source rock and depositional
environments or facies. For some very clean
sandstones, paramagnetic material might be less than
normal level, and free fluid cut off will increase
accordingly.

Permeability Estimation
Permeability from NMR is a function of both porosity
and pore size, which is a great improvement over
traditional permeability estimation technology, which
is based on a transform between porosity and
permeability only. It should be noted that both
producible porosity and permeability are expected to
increase with pore throat diameter, whereas NMR
responds to pore body diameter. Fortunately, the
throat/body ratio is approximately constant for most
sandstones. However, it is recommended to have core
permeability for coefficients calibration in order to
build a robust local permeability model, to minimize
the uncertainty on throat/body ratio.

NMR permeability estimation is based on an

expectation that permeability increases with both
porosity and pore size. NMR and brine permeability
measurements on core samples have resulted in
several empirical correlations. The following
permeability models are included in the GeoFrame
CMR (Combinable Magnetic Resonance sonde, a
Schlumberger NMR tool) processing software:

FF b 2
) ( CMR ) c 2
BF

(2)

(3)

Where:
KSDR : Permeability transform developed by
Schlumberger Doll Research
KTIM : Permeability transform from Timur-Coates
ff
: CMR free fluid porosity
bf : CMR bound fluid porosity
CMR : CMR total porosity
The default values for the multiplying factors and
exponents are: a1=4, a2=1, b1=2, b2=2, c1=4, c2=4.
The two transforms are referred to as the SDR and
Timur/Coates models, respectively.
Gas Identification from Density-Magnetic
Resonance (DMR)
The total porosity is underestimated by the CMR
when gas is present in flushed zone. This is due to
the low hydrogen index of gas (the concentration of
hydrogen in the gas relative to water), and possible
under-polarization. To correct for this, the density
measurement, which is also affected by gas, is
combined with the CMR, and following simultaneous
equations are solved for total porosity (t), and the gas
saturation in the invaded zone (Sxg). (After Flaum C,
Kleinberg RL and Hurliman MD. 1996). This
technique works well because the CMR and the
density tool measure similar volumes.

b = (1 t ) gn + t S xg g
+ t (1 S xg S wi ) f + t S wi w

(4)

CMR = t (1 S xg S wi ) HI f
+ t S wi HI w + t S xg HI g Pgas

(5)

Pgas = 1 e

PT

T 1gas

(6)
36

Where:
PT
=
*
=
HI*
=

polarization time
density
hydrogen index

LOW RESISTIVITY AND LOW CONTRAST

PAY IDENTIFICATION
The first formation is a clastic sequence, including
several shaly sands where fluid typing was the main
challenge. Most of the sands had similar
petrophysical characters on conventional logs, in
terms of the resistivity reading, lack of DensityNeutron cross over, etc. In addition, a dubious clay
volume derived from gamma ray and fresh formation
water made the interpretation even more challenging
(Figure 2).
The traditional methods used for fluid typing in this
area are resistivity and neutron-density cross over.
Based on the neutron-density, resistivity, GR and SP
curves, five sands can be easily identified by their
lower GR reading, positive SP deflection and
separations on shallow and deep resistivity curves.
With its obvious neutron-density crossover the lowest
sand (A) is clearly gas bearing, the high resistivity
reading also supports this interpretation.
It is difficult to assess what kind of fluids exist in the
upper four sands (B to E), because there is no
neutron-density cross over observed, similar
resistivity reading, and analysis is also complicated
by the deep mud filtrate invasion. The positive SP
deflection implies formation water is fresh. The
effective porosity and clay volume are unknown.
Compared to the lowest sand, GR readings for upper
four sands are higher; there is possibly more clay in
those sands.
In view of these difficulties, the oil company decided
to acquire capture spectroscopy and NMR logs in
order to reach a solid conclusion for the first
exploration well in this structure.
Dry weight fractions of the main formation minerals
(or groups of minerals) were obtained from
spectroscopy processing, including clay minerals,
quartz-feldspars-mica, and carbonate. Pyrite and
siderite can also be evaluated if required, but were not
included here.

NMR provided the total, effective, free, capillary

bound and clay bound porosity and a more accurate
permeability that takes into account the pore size
distribution as expressed in equations 2 and 3 above.
A further Density-NMR processing was applied to
evaluate the gas volume in the flushed zone.
NMR has several advantages compared to neutron
tools. Both measurements are sensitive to the
hydrogen density, but there are number of differences
between the response to reservoirs. NMR tools are
sensitive to hydrogen, while other strong neutron
scatterers and absorbers, such as chlorine and some
rare earth metals, also affect neutron tools; on the
other hand, neutron tools respond to all hydrogen, not
only hydrogen in water and hydrocarbon but those
that form part of clay matrix and those that are
associated with crystalline waters of hydration, such
as in gypsum, this is the reason why the neutron
reading in shales is usually very high. NMR tools are
sensitive only to fluid protons. Thus the NMR
measurement is a more consistent indicator of the
porosity than the neutron measurement; and there is
no matrix effect at all on the NMR signal amplitude.
(Kleinberg RL and Vinegar HJ., 1996)
A coarsening-up sequence in Zone A is clearly
revealed by the ECS-CMR combination (Figure 3). In
track 1, ECS shows clay volume decreasing upwards
and CMR T2 distribution shows the pore size
increasing upwards. Large residual gas volume is
identified by DMR processing in Zone A, a gas flag is
also observed for bottom section of this sand,
implying the whole sand is most probably gas
bearing. The resistivity reading for this sand ranges
from 15 to 40 ohm-m.
For Zone B, the resistivity reading is only about 4
ohm-m, a big difference with the gas-bearing sand
below. ECS shows much less clay volume than the
GR, which can be easily overestimated from its high
GR reading. With the advantage of NMR over
neutron as mentioned above, the Density-CMR
(DMR) processing results clearly reveal that residual
gas exists in the invaded zone. Zone B is a gas
bearing sand. One solid vertical line representing
permeability of 1 mD is displayed in track 5 in
Figure3. The DMR gas corrected permeability for
zone B is about 10 mD; for the top section, the
highest permeability is around 100 mD. Zone A has a
much higher quality, the highest permeability is close
to 1 Darcy.
37

For zone A and zone B, because both sands are above

the Gas-Water contact, the free fluid volume from
CMR is actually equal to the gas volume. The gas
saturation is simply given by the ratio of free fluid
volume to effective porosity.

The interpretation guided the candidates selection for

testing, Zone A, B and top of zone C have been
tested, following are test results (choke size 40/64).

Zone A, condensate 345 BCPD and gas 8

MMSCF/D

The contents of the Figure 3 are listed in below, a

composite plot of minerals from ECS, GR, resistivity
and CMR processing results.

Zone B, condensate 100 BCPD and gas 2.6

MMSCF/D

Track 1, Minerals or mineral groups from ECS.

Top of Zone C, gas 1.2 MMSCF/D and water

1298 BWPD

Track 2, Depth track.

Track 3, Gamma ray, SP and caliper.

EVALUATING THE HOT SAND

Track 4, Shallow and deep investigation lateral

resistivity curves, microresistivity.

In the lower section of the same well, a new hot

formation, with a character of very high radioactivity,
is discovered. The total GR reading for the formation
is roughly 400 GAPI; this is not only due to uranium
accumulation, the thorium and potassium from NGS
measurements are also very high (track 3, Figure 5).
Displayed in a sandstone scale, the neutron porosity is
much higher than density porosity (far right track,
Figure 5). One top of this massive radioactive
formation, the array lateral logs identify that there is a
potential permeable zone, as the large separations can
be observed on array resistivity logs due to the deep
saline mud filtrate invasion (track 4). The deep
resistivity is flat on upper section of the permeable
sand and the borehole with big washout (track 2).

Track5,

Permeability
curves.
Uncorrected permeability from TimurCoates equation (KTIM.CMR); Highresolution permeability from SDR equation
(KSDR_HR.CMR); Gas corrected TimurCoates permeability (KTIM.DMR).

Track 6, CMR total porosity, free fluid volume

(yellow), gas volume identified by DMR
processing (Gas from DMR); capillary and
clay bound water volume (light yellow and
gray); Density log.
Track 7, Eight CMR binary porosity derived from
following cutoffs, 1,3,10,33,100,300,1000
ms.
Track 8, CMR T2 distribution with straight cutoff
of 33 ms.
The three massive sandstones on upper section are
mainly fresh water bearing sands. However, a gas cap
was identified on top of Zone C (Figure 4), which
raises the expectation that more gas can be found
higher in the structure for the same sand. Lateral
resistivity shows there is almost no contrast between
the water and gas-bearing sands, hence the saturation
from Archie type of equation will be the same for
them. In side the massive sands, there are several tight
beds with characters of high micro resistivity, low
porosity and low permeability on CMR. The good
match is a benefit of the pad type CMR design and
high resolution permeability processing.

Considering the unusual response on logs and good

hydrocarbon show on the mud log, and taking account
the heavy washout, to verify the measurements the
GR, NGS and Resistivity were repeated for the whole
high GR interval; the good repeatability confirmed
that an unconventional reservoir had just been
discovered.
Various cross plots can be used for describing the
petrophysical characters of this unconventional
reservoir. The Neutron-Density cross plot and the
Thorium-Potassium cross plot are presented in
Figure 6. The Z-axis is the total gamma ray. The dark
green clusters represents shales, which are located
above the hot formation, and the red and blue points
are for the sand. On the N-D cross plot, the red points
are far below the overlay of the line of clean
sandstone, based on which a high clay content tends
to be computed. On the NGS cross plot, the sands
show that the concentration of thorium and potassium
38

for the sands are several times higher than the reading
for clays above.
With a quick evaluation on all conventional logs, it
was realized that several reservoir properties were
difficult to estimate, including lithology, particularly
clay volume, the effective porosity due to the
unknown matrix on neutron-density and finally the
fluid type. There was suspicion that the high NGS
reading was not from clay minerals only.
The oil company decided to run the ECS and CMRPlus (an enhanced CMR tool) to get additional
properties for the new reservoir. Even though the hole
was far out of gauge, thanks to its pad-type design,
the CMR-Plus gave excellent results over most
washout intervals.
Based on the clay volume from ECS, which is derived
in the way elaborated in the ECS principal section and
has nothing to do with the major natural GR sources,
i.e. the Thorium, Potassium and Uranium, a clean
sand is found on top of the massive formation. The
integrated petrophysical formation evaluation results
for the whole of this unconventional reservoir are
presented in Figure 7. CMR permeability for this top
sand is the highest, ranging from 10 mD to 100 mD
(Red bar in Figure 7). A very long T2 relaxation is
also observed over this sand, which implies a
potential of light oil existing in the bigger pore space.
Compared to the top sand, the sand just beneath has
more capillary and clay bound water, Clay volume
from ECS is also high (highlighted with a yellow bar
in Figure 7); Considering the long T2 distribution,
this section is most probably a light oil bearing low
permeability sandstone.
Most sands below the tight barrier (labeled with a
black bar) have a faster relaxation time and large
variations on the pore size, giving an indication of
poor sorting, hence poor reservoir quality. The CMR
permeability for those sands is generally less than 10
mD. For some intervals in the lower section, the
micro resistivity is much higher than deep resistivity
reading, indicating that some big resistive features,
most probably boulders, were penetrated by the
drilling bit, meaning that the rock in this interval is a
near source deposition.
Detailed mineralogical information has been derived
from the comprehensive measurements of the natural

gamma spectrometry, density-neutron, resistivity,

capture spectroscopy and NMR. ELAN, which is a
simultaneous log analysis software, was used for this
transform. The interpretation results are presented in
the far right track in Figure 7. The formation is
described in terms of volumetric fractions of minerals
and fluids. The minerals or mineral group used in the
model are Quartz, Orthoclase, a Thorium rich heavy
mineral, Pyrite, Illite, Montmorillinite, Kaolinite; the
fluids are Water and Oil. It comes out that the major
clay minerals in the sand are montmorillinite and
kaolinite, illite is rare, orthoclase is about 30%, and
the percentage of the thorium rich heavy mineral is
generally very low. Oil is accumulated on upper
section of the formation.
Based on the logging response and formation
constitutes from ELAN and respecting the local
geology setting, the sedimentary environment for this
formation is most probably an alluvial deposition and
the source rock is weathered granite; the new
unconventional sand can be classified as arkose.
The permeable sand on top of the massive formation
has been successfully tested, Oil production is 297
BOPD, with gas of 0.21 MMSCF/D, the choke size is
24/64, Oil API Gravity is 41 Degree at 60 DegF, a
new reservoir with light oil accumulations, supported
by the slow transverse relaxation observed on its
CMR T2 distribution.
CONCLUSIONS
Low resistivity contrast sandstones in a fresh
formation water environment and an unconventional
reservoir discovery by an exploration well in central
Sumatra were successfully evaluated by the
combination of capture spectroscopy and NMR.
Multi-facies applications of ECS and CMR in this
exploration well have been observed,
1. Compared to the standard GR or even spectral
GR log, ECS provides superior and more accurate
lithology information for both shaly sands and
high radioactivity formation. Knowing the matrix
properties, the porosity and saturation can then be
better estimated from conventional logs.
2. CMR gives rich information on porosity, pore
texture and fluid type, including:
T2 distribution - pore size and fluid viscosity
information
39

Free fluid volume - Giving accurate

hydrocarbon saturation above the H.C-water
contact

International and Schlumberger for permission to

publish this work.

Density-CMR processing- Fluid typing and

porosity, permeability correction

REFERENCES

The traditional technology tends to solve the simple

problems; to reveal the mystery of some hidden
reservoirs new evaluation techniques are needed. In
many cases, the reservoir challenges identified from a
real time quick-view of the conventional logs, during
or immediately after the logging, may be very helpful
in choosing the appropriate measurements for a more
sophisticated and meaningful evaluation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank the management of PetroChina

Flaum, C., Kleinberg, R.L., and Hurliman, M.D.

1996. Identification of gas with the Combinable
Magnetic Resonance tool CMR: SPWLA 37th Annual
Logging Symposium, paper M
Herron, S.L., and Herron, M.M. 1996. Quantitative
lithology: An application for open and cased hole
spectroscopy: SPWLA 37th Annual Logging
Symposium, Paper E
Kleinberg RL and Vinegar HJ., 1996, NMR
properties of reservoir fluids: The Log Analyst, v. 37,
p. 6.

40

Gd
H
Fe

Si
Cl
Inelastic
0

50

100

Energy

150

200

250

Figure 1.1 The diagram of the standard gamma ray inelastic and capture.

Silic

Calci

Iron

Sulf

Titani

Gadolin

20

40

60

Capture Spectra

Relative
Yields
80

Si
Ca

Oxides
Closure
100

Fe
120

S
0

Elemental Standards

50 2 40 1 20 1 2 30

50 1 3

Elemental Concentrations

Lithology

Figure 1.2 The processing chain of capture spectroscopy. From the raw spectra to elemental concentrations
to the minerals.
41

E
X

D
X

C
X

B
X

A
X

Figure 2, Composite of conventional logs for the shaly sands complex, intermediate logging interval

Figure 2 - Composite of conventional logs for the shaly sands complex, intermediate logging interval.

42

Figure 3, Composite plot of ECS minerals, GR, resistivity and CM R processing results for gas bearing
FigureThe
3 Composite
plotR of
ECS minerals,
GR,are
resistivity
andin
CMR
processing
results for
sands.
sands.
Density-CM
processing
results
presented
track
6, pink shading
is gas
the bearing
residual
gas after
Density-CMR
processing
presented
in track
6, pink .shading
is the residual gas after
mud filtrate The
flooding.
The resistivity
forresults
Zoneare
B is
only about
4 ohm-m
Test results:
flooding. The
resistivity
only
about 4 ohm-m. Test results:
9 mud
Zonefiltrate
A, condensate
345
BCPD for
andZone
gas B8 is
MM
SCF/D

Zone
A,
condensate
345
BCPD
and
gas
8
MMSCF/D
9 Zone B, condensate 100 BCPD and gas 2.6 M M SCF/D
Zone B, condensate 100 BCPD and gas 2.6 MMSCF/D
43

Figure 4, Composite plot of ECS minerals, GR, resistivity and CMR permeability, porosity and T2
distribution
for threeplot
massive
sandstones.
processing
results,permeability,
a low resistivity
contrast
Figure
4 - Composite
of ECS
minerals,From
GR,DMR
resistivity
and CMR
porosity
and T2
gas-bearing
sand
is
identified
on
top
of
the
lowest
massive
sandstone
(Zone
C),
raising
expectation
distribution for three massive sandstones. From DMR processing results, a low resistivity contrast
that moregas-bearing
gas can besand
found
higher in on
thetop
structure
for the massive
same sand.
is identified
of the lowest
sandstone (Zone C), raising expectation
Test results
the gas
top can
of Zone
C: higher
Gas 1.2inMMSCF/D
1298
BWPD
that of
more
be found
the structureand
for water
the same
sand.
Test results of the top of Zone C: Gas 1.2 MMSCF/D and water 1298 BWPD.

44

Figure 5, the response of conventional logs on an unconventional sandstone, which is labeled with
the
yellow
the lower
section, thelogs
upper
is mainlysandstone,
shales. Track
Track
Figure
5 - bar
Theatresponse
of conventional
on section
an unconventional
which1,iscaliper;
labeled with
the2,yellow
nature gamma
spectrometry;
3, high
resolution
lateral
array;
track 4,Track
density,
neutron
barray
at the
lower section,track
the upper
section
is mainly
shales.log
Track
1, caliper;
2, nature
gamma
and photoelectrical
capture factor
ray spectrometry;
track(PEF).
3, high resolution lateral log array; track 4, density, neutron and
photoelectrical capture factor (PEF).
45

TNPH / RHOZ
Interval : 4500. : 5150.
HSGR
500.

40

2.

40

400-500
40

30

2.2

30

300-400

30

20
20

RHOZ

2.4

10

200-300

20

10

2.6
SS 0
10

100-200

LS 0

2.8
DOL 0

0-100

(SWS) Density Neutron(TNPH) overlay, Rhofluid = 1.0 (CP-1e 1989)

3.
-0.05
0.06
0.17
0.28
TNPH

0.39

0.5

0.

721 points plotted out of 1301

Well
Depths
4500.F - 5150.F
Discriminators
Figure 6.1 - Neutron
HCAL vs.
< 10Density cross plot for the unconventional sandstone, the cluster of dark green is for
shale, the red and blue clouds are for hot sand, the Z-Axis is total gamma ray. TNPH: Neutron;
RHOZ: Density

HTHO / HFK
Inte r val : 4500. : 5150.
HSGR
500.

0.1

400-500

0.08

300-400

HFK

0.06

200-300

0.04

100-200

0.02

0-100

0.

0.

20.

40.

60.

80.

100.

0.

HTHO
7 7 8 points plotte d out of 1 3 0 1
W e ll
D e pths
4 5 0 0 .F - 5 1 5 0 .F
D is c rim ina tors

H CA L vs.
< 1 0 Potassium cross plot, the cluster of dark green is for shale, the red and blue clouds
Figure 6.2 - Thorium
are for hot sand, the Z-Axis is total gamma ray. HTHO: Thorium; HFK: Potassium.

46

Heavy
washut

Figure 7, Integrated display of reservoir properties from ECS, CMR and the volumetric analysis results
for the unconventional sandstone. Test result of the top sand, Zone A: Oil production is 297 BOPD, with
Figure
- Integrated
display
reservoir
from
ECS,
CMRisand
volumetric
analysis
for
gas of7 0.21
MMSCF/D,
the of
choke
size isproperties
24/64, Oil
API
Gravity
41 the
Degree
at 60 DegF.
Theresults
light oil
the unconventional sandstone. Test result of the top sand, Zone A: Oil production is 297 BOPD,
is supported by the long and consistent T2 distribution over this sand.
with gas of 0.21 MMSCF/D, the choke size is 24/64, Oil API Gravity is 41 Degree at 60 DegF.
The light oil is supported by the long and consistent T2 distribution over this sand.

47