SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

THIS IS A PREPRINT – SUBJECT TO CORRECTIONS

J. A. Burke, Schlumberger Well Services, Houston, Texas

R. L. Campbell, Jr., Schlumberger Technical Services, Paris, France
A. W. Schmidt, Schlumberger Well Services, Houston, Texas

ABSTRACT

A common practice in log interpretation is to cross-plot

van”ous porosity log readings in order to determine for-
mation iithoiogy and compute porosi~ accurately. LCross-
plots of Sonic versus Densi~ logs are widely used in the
interpretation of shaly sands. For carbonates, Density ver-
sus Neutron cross-plots are commonly employed. These
plots and the calculations based on them are extremely
useful, but, when the lithology is a complex mtiture of
,m~”,q
~~g!$ i,nterpretgtie.~ OJf the drta OJfte.nMcmnes am-
bi~ous.
The “Lithe-Porosity” cross-plot is introduced for interpre-
tation in formations of complex lithology. It presents
simultaneously the data from all three of the standard
porosity tools: the Sidewall Neutron Porosity log, or the
GNT; the Formation Density Compensated log; and the
Borehole Compensated Sonic log. From the readings of
these logs two porosity-independent parameters, “M” and
“N’; are derived-M from the Sonic and Density, and N
sented by a unique point regardless of porosity. For a for-
mation of complex lithologv, the position of the log data
points on the M–N plot relative to the pure mineral points
is of great assistance in identifying various minerals in the
formation. Litho!ogical information so derived is then used
to calculate accurate values of porosity.
The computer can be programmed to produce cross-plots of
M versus N from logging data recorded on magnetic tape, or
on punched cards. The method allows detailed studies of
individual formations and compan”sons with other we[[s in
a fraction of the time required using manual methods.
The Lithe-Porosity technique has many applications in for-
mation evaluation and interpretation. Examples are shown
in the paper.

INTRODUCTION

The Sonic–Density–Neutron logging suite and the use of Today, variations of the tri-porosity calculations are being
the computer for log data processing have opened a whole used worldwide to compute rock characteristics which in-
new branch in the fieid of weii iog evacuation. Computa- ciude:
4:-s” ..C “,.1.. +:/.-. +LO tk Si~,bu.a.lAu.
Uuu> ul >Uluuuua ..ltoma .,. am, mti,-me
wybb-.IwII. Acm;hinm
UW.W.. VA..=
responses of the three porosity logs began in the Permian (1) Porosity computation in complex carbonates and
Basin in 1962.1 This work provided the first accurate shaly sands, including the detection of secondary porosity
porosity values to be routinely computed from logs in the and unflushed gas.
complex San Andres carbonate-evaporite section. 2 A by-
product of these “Tri-Porosity” calculations was fractional (2) Lithology determination for stratigraphic and en-
mineral percentages presented as a lithology log. Subse- vironmentrd studies.
quent technical developments have provided equipment to
record log data digitally on magnetic tape at the wellsite (3) Detection and evaluation of mineral deposits such as
and transmit it via dataphone to the computer for rapid sulfur, potash, coal, oil shale, and certain met allic minerals.
analysis.
If the rock characteristics can be recognized and described
1~eference~ ~Ven at encl of PaPer- to the computer, the resuiting tri-porosity Caicuiatkms are
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

quite accurate in all three areas listed above. In the past joining matrix and fluid points. Thus, in terms of the log
this information has been supplied by local knowledge and data, the slopes M and N are also given by*:
by examining cross-plots of logs such as Density versus
Sonic, Density versus Neutron, and Neutron versus Sonic.
In many rock formations, local knowledge of sufficient Atf - At
accuracy to provide the necessary rock characteristics to M= x .01 (3)
$b4e cnmmltr=r cmIIA nnlv & nhtn;nd Pb - Pf
-“...”-.”. ““-... “..., ““. U,,.WU h.,
“, . fnnt.h.,.fan+
a s“”.-”, -L””.

X-ray analysis of the formation. Analysis of the two-

dimensional cross-plots in these complex situations be-
comes quite tedious and often leads to ambiguous situa- (@N)f - @N (4)
tions even for one skilled in their use. N=—
Pb - pf

The Litho-Porosity Cross-Plot is a new method for more

accurately determining rock characteristics prior to the tri- M and N are thus seen to be dependent only on the fluid
porosity computation of the log data. In this plot of the and matrix characteristics, and independent of porosity.
parameters M and N, each rock mineral is represented by a This is strictly true for Mineral A in Figs. 1–A and 1-B be-
unique point regardless of its porosity.

Logging data plotted on the M–N grid becomes a contin-

uous map of the rock characteristics of the formation. The
use of the technique provides reliable porosity calculations
in even the most complex rocks and lithology information SONIC -OENSITY
for making detailed stratigraphic studies. CROSS- PLOT FOR MINERAL “A”
FLUID POINT
* 200 At f
——— ——— ———
DEFINITIONS OF “M” AND “N” (loo% 0)
; ,50
$$’00 1
Consider the plot of pb versus At (Fig. 1–A). The full range : ** I M = ~:a-_A~a X .01
~ 100 o?~
of porosity is covered for Mineral A. Zero-percent porosity
g 4’
is represented by the 100% matrix point (Atma, pma), and so Atmo MATRIX POINT (0.0% o)
.--— z W
1(Iu%. porosity is represented by the fluid point (Atf, pf). 0’ I
fn
o I 1P ma 1 Ipf
Describing Mineral A in terms of its slope “M” gives the 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
equation: DENSITY ~b gmlcc

Atf - Atma
M= x .01 (1) Fig. 1–A
Pma - Pf

NEUTRON- DENSITY
CROSS- PLOT FOR MINERAL “A”
The factor 0.01 is arbitrarily introduced to make the M
values compatible in magnitude with the N values. (loo% 0)

r?: - .. -—.... —.
rig. i —B sho-ws the Simiiar Irea[mem of Minerai A and
norositv
~-----., f~r th-e pi~f of ~iN
hx, vrwrslc nt
.-. ”-. ~D. ll=finina thic elnne ,4 ..-.4
- v----e -H.- -.-r- \VNima
as “N’ gives the equation: N‘ ‘y:- pf

(@N)f - (@N)nM
N= (2)
Pma - Pf

4.0 3.0 2.0 Lo

DENSITY Pb (JfII/CC

hg data (At, pb, and f#)N)taken in a formation composed

of Mineral A will plot in Figs. 1–A and 1–B along the lines
Fig. 1–B

2
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

THE LITHO-POROSITY PLOT

cause the porosity response has been taken to be linear
between the matrix and fluid points.*
Fig. 3 is an example of the Litho-Porosity plot for the salt-
mud case. Values of M are plotted in ordinate versus N in
Nonlinearity Effects abscissa. As shown, the pure mineral points fall at definite
locations in this coordinate system regardless of porosity.*
In some cases nonlinear effects on both the Sonic and The matrix coefficients and M and N values for minerals
Neutron tools must be considered when computing M and commonly found in reservoir rocks are listed in Table 1.
N values. The Sonic responds to porosity type as well as
amount. This effect is used to advantage, as will be shown Lithology T&ngles
later. For some minerals, dolomite in particular, the Neu-
tron exhibits nonlinearity with porosity. Approximations In Fig. 3, a “lithology triangle” has been drawn connecting
are used in these cases to provide representative values of the gypsum, dolomite and anhydrite points, and another
(@N)Ms for computing N. connecting the dolomite, calcium carbonate and silica
points.
Fig. 2 shows the standard FDC-SNP cross-plot on which the
fluid point and lines used to determine (’$N)ma for silica On the Litho-Porosity plot any rock matrix composed of
and dolomite have been added. It is seen here that the three minerals will lie ~“thin the triangle described by those
straight lines through (@N)ma = -.035 for silica and through three mineral points. The triangles shown on Fig. 3 would
(@N)ma = +.035 for dolomite are quite acceptable approxi- no~mally represent shale-free carbonate and evaporite zones
mations of the SNP matrix response for rocks with more respectively.
than 5% porosity. The dolomite (2) and (3) values are de-
scriptive of dense carbonates.
*As shown in Table 1, an exception is dolomite, for which the N
vahres shift shghtly at low porosity vahses.
*Another way to see this is to observe that, by use of the usual
porosity formulas:
Atf -At Pb-pf (@@f - %
W=Af .&m=-= LIT HO- POROSITY PLOT
Pma - Pf (~)f - (%)~ 1.3
(SALT MUD)
SALT
From this relation, the equivalence of Eqs. 1 and 2 to Eqs. 3 and o
4 is readily seen. [
1.2

100 —————————— ———————FLUID polNT— t

1
LINEAR APPROXIMATIONS OF 1. I
SNP MATRIX RESPONSES USEO t
90

00
IN COMPUTING “N” VALUES
/ I ‘i
GYPSUM

“w
~ , VW - Wma GYPSUM - ANHYDRITE- DOLOMITE
// !
ho-of “LITHOLOGY TRIANGLE”. TYPICAL
70 I ENVELOPE FOR POINTS FROM
[ “I
I SHALE -FREE EVAPORITE ZONE.
60- .9 I \Y
~ I
f
: 50
z
~
* 40 -
1-
-
z “.. ---------I L- 51LILA
-. .,_.
: 30 %0~03- UULUMI
9 “LITHOLOGY TRIANGLE” FOR
20 POINTS FROM SHALE-FREE
t ~ ~ monk, ATC 7?lAlr w~?~
L,mrlLl”t. m BL L“, ”r-
10 - NO SECONDARY POROSITY.

0-
I
.5
-10 ,

,T, ,,, t(, ,,,

DOL ( 1) (bhm . .035
DOL (2) l@Nho . .020
L DOL [3) lh)nm . .005
-20 - t
I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
-10 0 10 20 30 70 80 90 WI
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 I .0
$ :NP (L;iEST&’E )
“N “
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

TABLE 1

MATRIX COEFFICIENTS AND M & N VALUES FOR SOME COMMON MINERALS

MINERAL MATRIX SALT MUD FRESH MUD

COEFFICIENTS Atf = 185. Atf = 189.
Pf = 1.10 Pf = 1.00
A tm “ pm (~sNF)m“M
““’ “N “M ‘N
SILICA (1) 55.5 2.65 -.035 .835 .669 .810 .628
(V~~ = 18,000)
SILICA (2) 51.2 2.65 -.035 .862 .669 .835 .628
(Vm. = 19,500)
CaCO-4 . I 47.6 I 2.71 I 0.00 I .854 \ .621 I .827 I .585 1
--------- ,., .. . ---- . .. . . ,.
45.5 “ --
L.w . U.xl . aw .244 . im .313
~u=L ::;;: 3;44{

DOLOMITE (2) 43.5 2.87 .02 .800 .554 .778 .524

I .532
(0= 1.5%t05.5%6i >30%
DOLOMITE
0= O.o%to
(3)
1.5%
43.5
I 2.87 I .005 I .8CKI
I .561
I .778 I
E EE%ma
AN HYDRITE 50.0 2.98 O.CQ .718
GYPSUM 52.0 2.35 0.49 1.060
SALT 67.0 2.05 0.04 1.240
1 1 1 I

Shale is not included in Table 1 but a shale area is indicated increases. The actual increase in M depends not only on the
on Fig. 3 by the words “MOST SHALES” below the line amount of secondary porosity, but also on the primary
between the anhydrite and silica points. Since shales are porosity.
composed of various mixtures of clay and associated water,
silica? carbonates and other -rn-a~eria!~,they tend to varv in
LIT HO-POROSITY PLOT
. -=J ...
their characteristics. Thus no unique shale point exists on (FRESH MUD)
the Litho-Porosity plot. Pseudomineral points correspond-
_AREA B
ing to shales and other mineral mixtures, such as volcanics, 1.$?

are generally determined from constructions on M versus N

and the other standard cross-plots as described later.
1, I

DETERMINING ROCK CHARACTERISTICS

2( COC.03)-C41C03-SIL
Lo
Secondary Porosity

From the interpretation of its various lithology triangles, .9

the Lithe-Porosity plot can be used to make determinations “M”

of lithology type. It may also be used to detect “secondary
.8
porosity” in the form of vugs and fractures. This is due to DOLOMITE
the fact that the Density and Neutron respond to the total (l)(2)(3)
DOL-CaC03- S1L
formation porosity while the Sonic responds only to poros- .7
ANHYDRITE
ity which is homogeneously distributed throughout the
matrix. The much larger vugs and voids, randomly distrib- ~%f &
DOL-ANH– SIL
.6 + p
uted through the format ion, are essentially “bypassed” by
#
the sound energy traveling through the adjacent matrix. GYP- ANH-DOL
The Sonic sees the secondary porosity as if it were matrix,
which causes the measured At to be lower than would be
predicted from the total porosity.
I 1 , t I 1 I
.4 .5 .6u u.? .8 .9 1,0
Thus, secondary porosity (@2) does not affect the calcula- N
. ..– 1-.,
Tlon or IY, but hi is increased as secondary porosity
Fig. 4
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

Fig. 4 is the Litho-Porosity plot for fresh mud (see values in Such studies have been conducted for the Cook Inlet of
Table 1). The secondary porosity region is shown above the Alaska, the Illinois Basin, the Gulf Coast, the Permian
dolomite–calcium carbonate–silica line by areas B, C, D, Basin, Libya, West Africa, and the North Sea.
and E which are open ended at the top. The vertical bound-
ary lines between areas B and C and areas D and E are not In the absence of information supplied by a detailed study
meant to be rigid, merely illustrative. Actual plots of log of the rocks, a standard set of lithology triangles is used to
ging data usually indicate clearly the mineral percentages at interpret the Litho-Porosit y plot. These are shown in Fig. 4
which secondary porosity occurs. Table 2 gives the fluid lettered A through G. They represent the most likely min-
coefficients for various porosity types. eral combinations to be found in shale-free carbonate and
evaporite rocks. Many other lithology triangles can be
drawn using the mineral points in Fig. 4. For example, the
TABLE 2
dashed line between calcium carbonate and anhydrite creates
the combinations dolomite~calcium carbonate–anhydrite
FLUID COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS
PO ROSIT TYPES
and calcium Carbonate-silica-anhydrite. However, the A
—..—.
through G triangles are favored because depositionally they

F TF
FLUIDS A tf Pf (@N)f
have a higher probability of occurring.
PRIMARY POROSITY
(Liquid ‘Filled): l&hk~d 189.0 I.&l
1.00
185.0 1.10 Depositional Probabilities in an Evaporite Sequence
SECONDARY POROSITY
In Dolomite: Fresh kbd 1.00
43.5 1.00
Salt Mud 1.10 The following discussion illustrates some of the considera-
. ,.-
tions made in choosing the “Standard” iithOiOgy triangies
indicated in Fig. 4.
m
See section on Porosity
w Evaporite minerals are precipitated from saline solutions by
Determination in Gas -
Searing Formations complex mechanisms. Pressure, temperature, the interven-
tion of organisms, the concentration of the individual min-
erals in solution and the total salinity are all involved.4’5
Preferential Lithologv Triangles
From the evaporation of a solution of sea water, CaC03 is
Many factors influence the mineral composition of sedi- one of the first minerals to be precipitated, followed by
“.. ,’”f i..
mentary rocks. 3 The composition of ciasiics is reiateci to ~aM~~u3J2 ~primary doiomitej, CaS04 . 2ii20 (gypsum),
the nature of the source rock, grain size, maturity (weather- CaS04 (anhydrite), NaCl and then the magnesium salts,
ing), geologic age, the environment of deposition, the as the volume decreases. Si02 (silica) is precipitated at very
amount and kind of transport, and the changes that have low concentrations, so that any dissolved silica (quartz) be-
occurred since deposition (cementation and metamor- ing carried into the system is almost immediately precipi-
phism). to name some of the major ones. The composition tated with whatever other mineral is being deposited from
of chemical precipitates also depends on the environment of the saline solution at the time.
deposition. (Certain minerals are restricted to a limited
range of pH and Eh, while others are formed only from Silica is a common additional constituent in limestones;
solutions of higher than normal salinity or temperature). secondary dolomite is also commonly present. Therefore,
Since the precipitates are frequently soluble, many changes one logical three-mineral combination in an evaporite se-
can occur after deposition. Many of the precipitates can be quence is silica–calcium carbonate–dolomite.
found in several forms depending on thermodynamic equi-
librium. Therefore, the lithology of a reservoir may also de- Primary dolomite is precipitated from solutions consider-
pend on pressure, temperature, and water salinity. Many ably more concentrated than are present when calcium car-
sedimentary rocks are combinations
------ ..._.. - --- of detritai and ~hern.- bonate is precipitated. The calcium sulfates [gypsum and
ically precipitated minerals. anhydrite) are separated from calcium carbonate by pri-
mary dolomite in the precipitate sequence. If the origin of
To attempt to cover all of the possible three-mineral sets the calcium sulfates is primary, dolomite is more likely to
(Iithology triangles) would be an enormous task, and many be associated with them, and calcium carbonate less likely.
exceptions could be noted. However, by some careful study
in each area, preferential groupings of probable mineral sets Anhydrite and gypsum are related thermodynamically, as
can be made from which reasonable interpretations will shown in Fig. 5 .s The conditions at which these two forms
result. coexist (equilibrium) depends primarily on temperature

5
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

and the salinity of the water in which the calcium sulfate rite reservoirs. Thus, the lithology triangles dolomite–
occurs. Pressure has a minor influence. The conversion of calcium carbonate–silica, dolomite–anhydrite–silica, gyp-
anhydrite to gypsum is easily reversible if the conditions sum–anhydrite–dolomite are favored in the standard
are changed. grouping shown in Fig. 4.

Gypsum is very likely to occur at surface conditions. Equi-
librium conditions between anhydrite and gypsum can
occur in the subsurface down to about 3500 feet if the for-
mation contains fresh water. As the water salinity increases,
the equilibrium temperature decreases so that the depth at
which equilibrium occurs also decreases. In most of the
hydrocarbon reservoirs below 2000 feet deep, the condi-
tions are strongly toward the anhydrite side of equilibrium.
The deeper the reservoir, the more likely it becomes that
the anhydrite form of calcium sulfate exists. However, cal-
cium sulfate in the form of anhydrite in the reservoir is eas-
ily converted to gypsum when braought to the surface, by
absorption of water from any source including the atmos-
phere. If anhydrite and gypsum are in equilibrium with one
another in the reservoir, it should be very obvious on the
Lithe-Porosity cross-plot. Points should plot along the gyp-
sum-anhydrite line.
Based on the foregoing, dolomite–anhydrite–silica is an-
other probable three-mineral set, at least in deeper evapo-
Tm =6CPF Tm=8fYE
01 r ,
T Ill
Generating Lithe-Porosity and Companion Plots
Lithe-Porosity plots are complemented by the standard set
of companion plots: Density versus Neutron, Density versus
Sonic, and Neutron versus Sonic. The four plots are gener-
ated by the computer from log data recorded on magnetic
tape and are printed on the line printer. Two methods are
used to represent the plotted points. They are:
(1) Frequency cross-plotsb –Each number on the plot
represents the total number of points plotted at that set of
coordinates over the depth interval specified. Logging meas-
urements sampled every 6 inches of depth are plotted.
(2) Percentage cross-plots–On this new type of plot,
each number represents the percentage of the total points
from the specified depth interval which plotted at that set
of coordinates. Percentages less than 1.0 are also plotted.
The three companion plots are useful for verifying the in-
terpretation of the Lithe-Porosity plots. The correct dolo-
mite point can be estimated, shale parameters can be
determined, and unknown minerals can be identified.

Ckrbonate-Evaporite Examples *

C.. -— —l- 7 -—__ A .L- .. ..-L n ,11..-. ____ AL- 2,rr___— ___ .
Example JVJrles A umwugn rJ Uluslrdte LIN ulll HeIlrxs iii

four porous carbonate formations. In each case the Litho-

Porosity plot gives a good description of the rock character-
moo - istics. The companion plots contain all of the information
seen on the Litho-Porosity plots but the porosity develop-
+ ment makes it harder to identify some of the lithology from
~ 4000 -
u. them. Differences picked up by the Litho-Porosity plots
1
x provide additional information from which the quality of
1-
&’ 5000 - each zone as a potential producing reservoir can be evalu-
0
ated. Each example will be discussed individually.
6000 -

7000 -
Compare Zone A and Zone B. Both are shale free and are
primarily mixtures of dolomite–calcium carbonate and
6000 - dolomite-anhydrite. Note that Zone B shows a higher de-
gree of dolomitization and has secondary porosity which is
9000 -
absent in Zone A. The porosity is about twice as high in this
secondary-porosity development as it is anywhere in

10.000
.— 1
-20 0 t 20 +40
TEMPERATuRE
+60
-“F
+00 +100 +120
Zone A.

*See Example Section, page 9.

Fig. 5
(j
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969
7... r
.K.Urcc G ~~~~~VW
Now compare Zone C with A and B. Here the anhydrite is
gone and the secondary porosity in the dolomite is highly
developed. The points plotting on the anhydrite side of the
dolomite line on the Lithe-Porosity and Density-Neutron
plots are probably caused by effect of mud cake on the
SNP. (Each ?4 inch of mud cake on the SNP decreases N by
approximately .01.)
Zone D
In going from Zones A to C the characteristics of the for-
mations become more favorable for good production. Zone
D shows a less favorable situation. Here the points below
the dolomite–silica line probably reflect shale rather than
anhydrite. A study of the companion plots (especially Den-
sity versus Sonic) will always differentiate between anhy -
drite and shale even if the M–N shale point happens to
overlay anhydrite. Zone D is predominantly a limestone,
somewhat dolomitic, slightly shaly, and has no secondary-
porosity development. The possibility exists that the min-
eral combination is dolomite-calcium carbonate–silica. To
differentiate between this mixture and one which includes
shale, the Gamma Ray log should be used.
Zone E
Zone E shows calcium sulfate, with gypsum and anhydrite
in equilibrium. Note the points plotting along the gypsum–
anhydrite line, the gypsum-dolomite line, and in between.
Pure gypsum and pure anhydrite are both absent. This zone
also includes a shaly, dolomitic limestone section similar to
Zone D. E is shalier, however. No secondary porosity de-
velopment is seen and the primary porosity is associated
mostly with clean calcium carbonate. The scatter on the
Litho-Porosity plot in the direction of increasing shale
percentage is due to hole rugosity.
Determining Shale Coefficients
“Pure shales” are composed of combinations of clay min-
erals, silica, carbonates, and various other constituents.
When the borehole in a shale section is not badly washed
out or rugose, a great deal of information on the makeup of
the shale becomes available from the Litho-Porosity plot.
The technique is to use the mineral points (dolomite, cal-
cium carbonate, silica, etc.) and the M–N points plotted
from the shale to derive a “100%0 shale point”. Logical in-
terpretations can be made from lithology triangles involv-
ing such a point.
Example Zones F, G and H illustrate the use of the Litho-
Porosity plot and companion cross-plots in interpreting
Qf~~~!~-
Zone F
The shale point at M = .55, N = .50 was determined by
drawing lines from the calcium carbonate and silica points
along the edges of the group of points representing the shale
until an intersection was reached.
The dolomite-shale line was added to pick up some points
outside of the calcium carbonate–silica-shale triangle. No
attempt was made to include all of the points in the tri-
angles. Some scatter due to hole rugosity is to be expected
when dealing with shale sections.
The companion plots show that the density of the shale is
about 2.70. Using this shale density and the values of M and
N found for shale, the M and N equations were solved for
At and @N. This gives At = 95 and ON = .15. Plotting
these values on each of the other plots verifies the 100%
shale point.
Zone G
Compare the Litho-Porosity plots of Zones F and G. They
appear to be quite similar near the 100??oshale points. The
shale characteristics seem to be quite different, however,
when companion plots are compared. Porosity would be
found in Zone G if computed with Zone F shale coeffi-
cients. Zone G contains a large amount of organic material.
Zone H
This shale section exhibits a pattern quite different from
the previous two examples. As M decreases, the pattern
spreads out instead of narrowing to a shale “point”. The
Litho-Porosity plot indicates three shale types in this inter-
val, which are distinguished by their clay mineralogy.’
The “high-percent kaolinite” and “high-percent illite” were
verified by X-ray analysis of cores taken in the shales.
An advantage of the Litho-Porosity plot in being able to
characterize shale types is demonstrated. The plot is of
value, not just for porosity computation, but also for
stratigraphic and environmental studies.
Determining Unknown Mineral Coefficients
Example Zone X shows how the mineral polyhalite was
distinguished in an evaporite sequence without prior knowl-
edge of its presence. Many other minerals have also been
detected using the Litho-Porosity plot. Matrix coefficients
for their pure mineral forms have been derived from com-
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

panion plot constructions similar to those shown for shale

= 1.0-.16
and polyhalite. ‘gas -.09- 1.0 = ‘“77

The Effects of Gas on the Lithe-Porosity Plot

In consolidated rocks the response of the Sonic log is not
affected by gas saturation. The sonic At coefficient for gas
(Atgas) is equal to the fluid coefficient (Atf) being used.
The Density (pa ga~ and Neutron (HIga~ coefficients for a
gas of 0.6 specific gravity are shown for various tempera-
tures and pressures in Fig. 6.
The Litho-Porosity plot from example Zone Z includes a
sand containing gas with these M and N values. The effect
of the gas is to displace any point along a line drawn from
the gas point through the point representing its matrix.
The interpretation from the Zone Z plot is that the forma-
tion is primarily silica (2), slightly shaly, with some second-
ary porosity and gas bearing. The shale section associated
with the gas sand is characterized by M = .53, N = .51 and
is in a lithology triangle with silica and dolomite.

CALCULATING POROSITY
HI ~

- .7 Rirnary Porosity

- .6
After the Iithology triangle for a particular intervaf has been
selected the porosity and mineral percentages are com-
puted from the following equations:
- .!)

At = @Atf + VI Atmal + V2Atma2 + ‘3Atma3 (5)

- .4

@N = @(@N)f+ Vl(@N)nlal + V2(@N)ma2 + ‘3(@N)ma3

- .3 . . . . . . (6)

Pb = @Pf+ VIPKM1 + V2Pma2 + ‘3Pma3 (7)

- .2

1 =f#)+vl+v2+v3 (8)
- .1

where: @ = fractional porosity

- 0 V = bulk volume fraction
GAS PRESSURE x 1000 h P$ia
Subscripts 1,2,3 relate to the minerals
of the lithology triangle.

When equations 5–8 are solved for points plotting within

the lithology triangle, all of the V’s computed have positive
Fig. 6
values. The sum of the V’s plus@ will equal unity. In other
cases, negative solutions for V are po~sibie.

Consider calculating M and N for a gas of 0.6 specific Consider the case where only two minerals (binary mixture)
gravity at 100° and 1300 psi. are involved. Due to the statistical nature of logging meas-
urements not all of the M–N points will plot exactly on
‘tgas = 189. (Fresh mud-consolidated) the line connecting the two mineral points. This means that
some of the points will fall slightly outside of any logical
Pa gas = -.09 (Fig. 6) lithology triangle that is chosen. For these points a nega-
tive V for the mineral which is not present will be com-
‘lgas = .16 (Fig. 6) puted. The sum of the other V’s plus the porosity will be
greater than 1.0 by the amount of the negative V. In this
189- 189 case the computer program sets the negative value to zero
‘gas = -.09- 1.0 = 0“0 and distributes the statistical error making the sum of the
positive V’s and the porosity equal to 1.0.

8
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

Some of the points in this binary mixture will be com- dolomite-CaC03 has a Atf = Atma = (.5)(43.5)+(.5)(47.6)=
puted as though the third minerai were actuaiiy present. A 45.5 .
small percentage of this rhird mineral will thus appear in
the lithology calculations. For each point involving secondary-porosity “lithology
triangles” Atma is calculated prior to computing porosity.
When the lithology computation is slightly in error the Using this value as At 2 the primary and secondary poros-
porosity from equations 5–8 is quite accurate as long as: ities are solved for wit i? the equations:

(1) The data point lies inside the Iithology triangle being
At = @lAtf + @2At~2 + V1 Atma I + V2Atma2 (9)
used or within the statistical limits discussed above.

(~) N-
..”
h,, ArntA
.Lj “,a.l, u
rn%-.olo
n,,,,,b, aia
.,,,-h
au!.,’
m.
a.
mm,-.,,-
by y.tb.,
o-A
z a,,u
mhal~
m.a.ti
mr-
(l,ti

involved. @N= ‘$l(@N)f + #’2(@N)f+ Vl(@N)mal + ‘2(’$N)ma2

. . . . . . (lo)
Furthermore, if any dolomite, CaC03, silica and anhydrite
1:. L-1--- ..:._ -_l - :- .. --4 .- -- —-..4,. - --:-. . ..I.. -L :“ *-.1..
llLllUIU~ L1~dIl&C 1S USCU LU CXJI1l~ULC i! pUlll L W1llG1l 1S LIUIY

a mixture of any combination of those minerals, the

Pb = @lPf + @2Pf + VIPmal + ‘2Pma2 (11)
maximum error in porosity will be only about 1.5 porosity
units.
1 =4q+f#J2+vl+v’2 (12)
Secondary Porosity

It was previously noted that secondary porosity develop-

ment does not affect the N value of a particular point cm where: @1= fractional primary porosity
the Litho-Porosit y plot. Also, Table 2 lists the Sonic poros- @2= fractional secondary porosity
it y coefficients (At f) for dolomite, CaC03 and silica. V1 and V2 refer to the bulk volume fractions
of minerals 1 and 2.
Most secondary porosity is developed in mixtures of min-
erals. To calculate the amount of secondary porosity pres- The total porosity, ~ = 1$1 + @2, is subject to the same
ent it is necessary to consider the Atf equal to the Atma of qualifications as were discussed in the primary porosity
the mineral mixture. For instance a 50–50 mixture of section above.

EXAMPLE SECTION

The example zones referred to in the text are presented on the following pages. Each is from
actual logging data and was produced as described on page 6 under “Generating Litho-
Porosity and Companion Plots.”

n., . . . ...6.I n +h.l. 97 +ha T :th A w.a.:+. r ..In+ .“A +L. .fl..a”-,wlfl; ”” ,.Jw71n.m;fi” *1,-.+. fnr
UII pa/jti3 Lu L1ll u & I UIG J41L11 W-AuluMLy ylu L allu LILk tiullkaywlluul~ tiwlllplllul& ylv.. lU1

each zone are presented on facing pages. These are all percentage cross-plots.

A standard set of scales is routinely used for each type of plot. This allows a standard set of
overiays to be used in their interpretation (one set each for .sah and fresh mu~~. The
appropriate overlay is shown superimposed on each of the example plots.

Lithology triangles selected for use in porosity calculations from the interpretation of the
Litho-Porosity plots are listed for each zone.

Zone H is presented on page 28. This is an example of a frequency cross-plot. Only the
Litho-Porosit y plot is shown for this zone.

Conclusions drawn from the paper are presented on page 29.

9
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE A

GYP+
LITHO-POROSITY PLOT
,.o~: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... .............
. . . . .
.
.
.
. ! :Caco.
.----3
.
.
. .
.
. . SIL (2) . .
.
.
. I y ‘o . . .

d
. 211 .
. . SIL (1) :. .
.
. . DOL
I ::+=
145
.
.
. . .
.,
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.80: . (1;2,3). . . .
. . . :../”.... . . .
. . * . . .
. . . . .
‘M’ . . 22 . . .
. . 1 /“ . . . .
. . . .
.
AN#
2“
J
:
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.70: . . . . . . . . . . . . .t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . SELECTED .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . LIT HOLOG Y TRIANGLES .
. . .
. . .
. . DOL - CaC03 - SIL :
.60:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . DOL ‘ANH - SIL .
.. . . .
. . 02- DOL - CaC03 .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
.50; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a

.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90

‘N’

The Lithe-Porosity plot showsthat this sectioniscomposed

primarily of two binary mineral mixtures, dolomite–CaC03
and dolomite-anhydrite. The logical lithology triangles are
shown although little if any silica ispresent. Minor second-
ary porosity development is indicated bysome points plot-
ting slightly above the dolomite–CaC03 line.

10
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

,bL’/ ~~ VS #N PLOT
EXAMPLE ZONE A
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

‘b
~\o~ ~5 :
~o~
2,30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . .
‘//: :,q
6#
>
/- . “/
/ :&Y’t”~””’””’ 1%~
lJIQ
I;th-lfi.n,
llbllulu&Y
<C mall
1. w-l.
ria.,..;hd
Uuowlluwu
h.,
“y
+hie n.rm.-mlrmt
. ..10 Wl”os-p”.
I-Tmwiaver
. ..” ..”.”.,
~/ :

fly
“2.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is impossible to evaluate whether or not secondary poros-
Y. ity exists. It is evident that the DOL (2) point best describes
z:
e
<2.70 :.... .,::
:!
“.
4 ?,,,!

:,:
,1, ,,
,,, >
i;:.
,,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! ; the dolomite-anhydrite
dolomite-CaC03 mixture.
mixture. Porosit y occurs in the

x$ ‘0’1 ; : :
2.90;...:,:, %?$+% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
; ~o\
/, #..*:

3,10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,....,.;

–.05 .05 .1s .25 .3s .4s

@N (LIME)

.,+/
#b VSAt NOT
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...\.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+
,Gt :fjj
& ‘y
@ :

2,30: . . . . . . . .
Ji
. . . . . . . . . . .
;
. . . . . . . . . . .. .. ........ ......
{

u 2.s0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.. .................. Some confusion exists on this plot as to whether or not
Y
z:
e
silica is present. This is readily clarified on the Litho-
! .; $! Porosity.- plot.
< 2,70; . .
.yy~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :: . . . . . . . . .
:’o~:: ,, :
c.~;.< :1
; / b?
2’90;
~o~[; /’
.+J........................................
+:;
,0

3.10: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ..,,, .;,

40.0 60,0 ao.o 100,0 120,0 140.0
At jl SEC/FT

(ON vsht PLO1

.4s. ...... . . . . . . ..

.35: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~$.0~ Q<. . . ,. . . . . . . ..:

: QO ‘0$ & : @
~,b~ jjv
~,..

.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: The presence of two binary mixtures is not evident from
G:
z:
~, this cross-plot. Note that the porosity averages less than
&
; Z@ -/” .. .... nnlv a few rmintQ ac hioh ~Q 1 no!.
<%”with “..1, . .“., y“,.. .” -.. .“&L (s- .“, ”.

... ... . ..
““;””””””+2”/4”””””””””; ”””

:,fi; :
Q,
.05: .. Q’; ~’ .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:
/
;W’:
,/, : :
)
:$
$$+
–.05: . . . . . . . . . .:+! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... . . . ..>
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 130.0 140.0

At # SEC/FT
11
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE B

GYP+
LITHO-POROSITY PLOT
1.00: “ “ “ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .- .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .

. . . . .. . .I . . . .. . ... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . ....

. . . . . .
. .
.90: . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . (1) . .
. . . .
. . ., .
.80”. “ . . DOL (1,2,3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
‘M’ :. . . . .
. . . .
. . 0: . . .
. t . . . .
.
ANHI . . .
.70: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . SELECTED .
. . . .
. . .
. . . LITHOLOG Y TRIANGLES .
. . . .
. . . .
. @2 - DOL - CaC03 .
. .
.60: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . DOL-CaC03-SIL .
.
. . .
. . . DOL ‘ANH - S11 .
. .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
.50: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -

.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90

‘N’

This Lithe-Porosity plot is quite similar to the one in Zone

A. The same binary mixture exists with little silica present.
Considerably more secondary porosity can be seen, increas-
ing as the dolomite fraction increases, with many points
plotting some distance above the dolomite–CaC03 line.

12
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

.,.’/ P,
VS @N PLOT EXAMPLE ZONE B
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ,’.... .

2.30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(2) best describes the dolomite-anhydrite mixture.

Porosity develops in the dolomite-CaC03 mixture, reach-
u
u
3.50 ing nearly 20%, as the concentration of dolomite increases.
2 While the total porosity is quite accurately derived, it is
1>
not possitile to detect or evaiuate the secondary porosity
~ 2.70 fraction.

290

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3,,0 . .. . ..
—.05 .05 .15 .3s .35 ,45
fON (LIME)

.,*/ #b VS At P<OT
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ok.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-
‘? :*\
& \.J
#- ;

2.30: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:
@ ;“””””””””: ““””’” :
e [

Due to the secondary porosity effect on the Sonic, the

u 2,50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . presence of the high-porosity dolomite is completely
Q i~~~~
masked. Some lithology confusion exists between CaC03
~;
and silica.
,!”
< 2.70i . . . .:~. ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::........:
‘y;
: ~%. ;.,
:AG , ., :

Z,,ow / :{:, ~
:;O ”,: *4”’”””
... ..... .. .. .... ... ....... ..... .
/ ~Q* ;
>+ :
v’
3.10; . ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

At # SEC/FT

#)N y?~~~ p~~~

.45: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.3s: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........

Again, the presence of two binary mixtures is not evident

.. ...........
on this plot, although the ambiguity is clearly resolved with
the Litho-Porosity plot.
. .: :.... ....

.... ........

.................
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 I 20.0 140.0

At # SEC/FT
13
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM>MAY 25-28. 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE C

GYP LITHO-POROSITY PLOT

4
1.00: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ●
. . ✎ ✎
. ✎ ✎
. . . ✎ ✎

..... ...
. . . ✎ ✎
. . . . ✎ ✎
. . . . ✎ ✎
. . ✎ ✎
. . . . . . .
. . . .

I I.
.90: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . a . . .

l&A
. . Zila . . . .
. 34311 . ❑ . . .
. . . . .
. 3462 34. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .s? ,”- - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1?3 . . .
. 2 ~w . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.70: . . . . . . . . ..m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . SELECTED ~ .
. . . .
. . .
. . LITHOLOGY TRIANGLES .
. . . .
. . .
. q - DOL-CaC03 .
,60: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nnl
. . . lJUL
. .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.50; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.40 .50 .60 - .70 .80 .90

‘N’

This plot shows the absence ofanhydrite and an extensive

secondary porosity development. The primary lithology tri-
angle is dolomite–CaC03–secondary porosity. Examina-
tion of the companion plots shows that the lithology tri-
angle dolomite --CaC03-silica is associated with low poros-
ity; The silica is thus taken to be in the form of chert.
Points plotting to the left of the DOL ( 1)- secondary-
porosity line are caused by the effect ofrnudcake on the
SNP. When mud cake thicknesses are no! corrected for be-
fore generating the Lithe-Porosity plot, each !4 inch of mud
cake decreases N by about .01.

14
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

●#’ /
~~ VS (ON PLOT EXAMPLE ZONE C
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2“30i’”””””””’!””
~’”’”:”~yy:”””””””””!””””””””
m.-.
1 ne
*– . . . .-.
K) W-POIOSILY
–– -,... I,—__.-—-
llIIl~SIUIIG
--J
iiIIU

shown quite well on this plot. The effect of mud cake on

the SNP is seen to be a maximum of 3 porosity units.
L:_L -,.
lUgI1-pUIUMLy
-,.”:... ,4,.1,.-:+-
UULU1lllLG
“..-

LUG

<2.70 : . . . . .. ’ . . . . . . . .._. Q{. . ...’..”.”.”’””.””;”’’”””’”” :

,,
,,
,.
/Qo- :
/ a/ ~k>$
....................
~.qo:”””i+~”$.t”” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
::/;# #..:
?:
,,,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
–.05 .05 .15 ,25 .3s .45
#)N (LIME)

#w’#b VS At {101
2,10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . !Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\L~ q.
#-
\L~ ;
# ;
‘/
2,30: . . . ..q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
c9/;
flf

!:
,! Secondary porosity in the dolomite causes this plot to
w 2.50:.........:! 1’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Y
., represent the formation as containing more silica or CaC03
,:’!
z;
a
.:’ than it actually does. Notice that porosity interpretation
?.
from this plot alone would be erroneously low.
< 2.70; . . . ; ;:!.;.........:.........;.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:Go’3~:~, :

C9
;$ :%
:~:::
290+-- .. ..A Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.( # ;

3,,00 . . . . . . .... ...... ..... .... ..... ... ... .. .. .. ...”

40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

At // SECiFT

s-.
0 #)N vsAt PLOT
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*

.35; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+.o ~y.+>....

: 0.$ ‘F: ~\
~,.~
;L~
+>
.25: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;. .. . .... .... The secondary porosity is seen quite well on this plot. The
=. z,
z: :;:: effect in the dolomite is to cause the points to plot outside
~: ,,,
:*, ,,.
:* ‘*, the matrix-porosity lines.
a: . .... ... .. ...
.15. . . . . . . . . . . l,. ..
Q,:
Q.
g
\,
.05:. Q’ ... : . .... .... .... .... .... ..

.?</ Aa
<*, : :
Q:’ *+
‘// :$ 1
_,o,; . . ..# . . . . ..# . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50, G ----
40.0 Ov.v t“”. ”

At // SEC,FT ’20G ;,.,8

15
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE D

GYP LITHO-POROSITY PLOT

+
l.OO:””””””..”:”””””” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .

. . .
.90 :. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . •1 .
. .

,~,
.80~......”..~’-i’.
.
.

:
.
.

.70: .,......
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
P I
1

21

.
.
‘l:*..
Zlt
II
?

iti
II
i
1. /

i
.
.
.
I
......~........”~”..

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.:Q.I . . . . . . / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....-”:
.
.
.
.

. . . SELECTED .

.I
. . . .
.
. .
/
.
. LITHOLOG Y TRIANGLES
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. 1/
. .. .
DOL - CaC03 - SIL
.
.
.
.60: .
.
...................:.
,
. . . .
DOL - SIL -SHALE “.”. .:
.

. :SF14LE ! . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .
.50; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*

.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90

‘N’

The major mineral constituent in this iritervai is CaC~.

High percentage dolomite mixtures are also present but
little or no secondary porosity is developed. The primary
lithology triangle is dolomite-CaC03-silica. Points plot-
ting below this dolomite-silica line could be indicating
1-..>..:.. U1
~~lIIY UIIUS
-- .l..l:-. .”. C.,..
MltillllCt+>.
-:.. ”+:n..
LAcllllllla
-c thn ,. ,nS. ”in” ~iGtS
LIU1l wl LUG vGlllpu..vu

shows that this is definitely caused by a slight shaliness.

16
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

#~/ EXAMPLE ZONE D

p~ Vs (ON PLOT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...?
2.10
\&
S* . co%

‘M@
@ +!

2.30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..#!!Y . . . . . . . . . . . : ,q

‘
64

This plot shows that the zone is primarily a mixture with

~~,~o........ . . “-”- .,. . .. . . . --.. A-----
is
~a~u3 me major ccmsutuen~ mid that Wlhy-drite defhiite-
ly not present.

i2.70i./ky..:::::::::::i:::::::::
,,, ,.
., ~o~ :
i,
,$
~ /&
.?, .%, , .,, . . . :.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...’ ‘;.., ” . . . . . . .
2.90 ““””@
: @ ,04
:/; #+ ;

,,,~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
–.0s .05 .15 .25 .35 .45
(ON (LIME)

#../
#b Vs A?$LOT
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......~.... . . .....
,Lv +
@
\L~ ;
& ;

2.30: .” ..647:..””””””..
. . . . . . . :. ..... . ....... ..

The absence of anhydrite is also verified here. The points

“ 2,50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ............ plotting to the right of the dolomite line indicate shale.
1:
Y
z:
The shale percentage does not get high enough to allow the
0: ::
*,,
evaluation of the pure shale point.
< 2.70:~ . . . ,,:;
,: 4,,,!

, :, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........
: ‘0% :,, :
‘6 # :

\o* &.
2.90: .QO . . . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... ..... ..
<Q :
,/: -+* :
T.

~,,o:..... .. ... .. .. .. .. ...... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

40,0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0

At //SEC/FT

4!.
o #)N vsAt PLOT
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . .o>oT.& .&, . . . ............

: Q & GV:
L \ $
~,k
,& Anhydrite is impossible to separate from CaC03 using this
%*:
.25: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... plot by itself. Shaly zones generally plot to the ~ight of the
G
=; silica line on this cross-plot. Some points on this plot
~:
:,
.,
suggest minor shale concentrations.
s:
.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :: . . . . . . . . .
@ :
.!

.05: .q ..1% . . .. .
! ;’:’:, ”””’”:”””””””’”;”’”””
@/, ::.’
:&:
0; )
# ;$
–Os . . . . . . . . . . .+y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
400 60.0 800 1000 120.0 140,0

At # SEC/FT

17
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 2S-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE E

GYP LITHO-POROSITY PLOT

+
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :*@
k
1. ??”””””””””:”-.....”.:””.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
1 . . . . .
. . . . .
\
.90; ” ““ 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . .
. ‘\:: . . .
. . . .
.

..,:..:!4
. ::%
. .
. .
11: . .
. . .
. . .
,.yi!:! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. 1 . . .
. 21. . . .
‘M’ 7
:
.
1111
.Ill
.
Ilt.1
11.
1.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
111 1 . . .
..7n”?,. .,, . . .\ . . . &.. / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
1. SELECTED .
. .
. 1.
. I . LITHOLOGY TRIANGLES :
. .
. . .
. 1. GYP-ANH - DOL .
. .
.60: . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . ..11. . . . .
DOL - CaC03 - SIL “““:
.
. , HO}E RUG OSITY :
. . DOL - SIL - SHALE i
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. . . . .
. .
.50; . . . . . 11.1.1.......................................
.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
‘N’

The Litho-Porosity plot clearly shows the gypsum in this

example zone. (This data is from a section at 1000 feet
with T = 75° and Rw =0.10 which plots slightly on the
gypsum side of equilibrium on Fig. 5.) Note that neither
pure gypsum nor pure anhydrite is present in this zone. The
Iithology triangle gypsum–anhydrite–dolomite describes
the portion of the section containing gypsum.

The combination dolomite–CaC03–siIica is also seen on

the Litho-Porosity plot. The companion plots, however,
show that the points plotting below the dolomite-silica
line are shaly–not associated with anhydrite. The scatter
of points in the shale region is caused by hole rugosit y.
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAI. I.OCCINfl
---— —--- .. . . QVwDnQrrmJ,p.fAY~~.~g,
“1.... ””,.,,., i~~~

#~/
2!0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #b
. . ,,, Vs,, (ON PLOT
.,. . . . . . . . ... ,,, , .,, ,,, , ,,.
EXAMPLE ZONE E

This plot indicates the presence of gypsum. However, the

shaly carbonate section is not readily
--- - ------ ~~en~:f~e~.

310 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :,.,,.,.,,:. ,. . . . . . ... ,, . . . ..

–.05 .05 ,15 .25 .35 .45
@N (LIME)

++/-
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, ,,
. ....

,, .,.

Here the gypsum is masked by the porosity in the carbonate

u .... section. The shale is seen clearly in this plot. Matrix coeffi-
o
cients derived here were used in the interpretation of the
areii below the dolomite–stiica line in the Litho-Porosity
.... plot .

,Q$ . . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
....

3.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .,,.,,,’ . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ..
40.0 6.0.0 80,0 100.0 I 20.0 140,0
At # SEC/FT

~q
0
45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,
@N vsAt PLOT
,

!/2;
~
!,
!.
. . . . . ...,,
. ..
1.
,.

:,,
+<% !
.35 . . . . . . . . :, ..,.....
‘ ,,.0
.,! ~\.ob .@> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.,,
:oQG v:&;:
:,
,: 1: lL~\L.<,.
., & ,(’t ,
,, ~\\:
a:
2s: . . . . . ...!....
,,
: : ’, : ..,,,,.,,
. . . . . . . :. .,.. The gypsum is most apparent here. Note that the trend of
1.
z !. points plots to the right of the dolomite--gypsum and
~: ,: ,.
!: l:,
anhydrite-–gypsuln lines, indicating the mixture is also
& i “ : ‘1 / “1 :
15....!,.,!.
!;””’....,;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . slightly porous.
s~,:,l, ‘, ‘: , , ,;
Q,, ;;: ’.z: /’ ,,; :
:\, !,’
,,,1
,30+ . . . . . .: ..,., . . . . . . . ,. .,.,

,q:
~$$ ~’~::::)! i ‘ ~ : “:”””
~++ : _*
– 05. , .,.,...,. .%V. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.:
40 0 600 800 100,0 120.0 1400
At // SEC/Fl
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE F

GYP LITHO-POROSITY
+
,.~~: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
.90 :. . . . . ...”” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.......
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . •1 . . .
. . . . .
. . . .

fl
.80~-”---m”m” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. 1. . . .
. . . . . .
. 11. . . .
‘M’ :. . 263 . . .
. 36 . . .
. . 1 33. . . .
. . iz; . . . .
. 31. . . .

.1/
.70: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 s..... . . . ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 412 . .
. . 55 . .
. . a . .
. . s . .
. . 11 .
LITHOLOGY TRIANGLES .
. . 11 . .
. I . .
. CaC03 - SIL - SHALE .

I
.60: ””””””.””
:,’? . . . . . . .
.
12 r;.....:... CaC03 - DOL - SHALE .
. . . .
. ~: . . .
. a . . .
. M= .55 . . .
. : . . .
. . . . .
. . N = .50 . . .
.
.50: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0

.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90

‘N’

The Gamma Ray log in this zone showed varying amounts

of radioactivity, suggesting both 100fZOshale and much lesser
percentages. Observe the pattern of the points representing
the shale. It approximates the apex of a triangle with a base
between the CaC03 and silica points. The shale point was
found by constructing lines from these points along the
edge of the group of points representing the shale to the
intersection at M = .55, N = .50. The dolomite-shale line
was added to include some of the points outside the silica–
CaC03–shale lithology triangle. This shale point is used in
the companion plots to derive the pseudomineral shale
coefficients.
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

$N /
~~ VS @N PLOT EXAMPLE ZONE F
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

230”””””’”””~”””””M2”””””””6’~
Since lines of constant N are found on this plot, the line
N = .50 is easily constructed. Other lines constructed from
H’,O:tix/x~;
<:
.,
~&:”- the minerai points through the minimum vaiues of the data
s: ,,, .,
e ,,, ,; ;:::,, points (to eliminate porosity effects) intersect at pb = 2.70,
,. 6,.$,,, ,’,
<3.70 :.... ,:..~=2:70 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Or f#JN= .15.
,’
QN =.15 : :
9:

!q, ~o~ ; ;
~so:””” ~~’”t~t”” ”””’””:””” ““””””:””””””””’:’””’”””””:
;,/, #
#..’Q :

,,,0
....................:..............................
– 05 05 .15 .25 .3s .45
pN {LIME)

&“ #bvsht~\o~,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,, ,,

2.10~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lines of constant M are found on this plot. The line M = .55

is shown. Constructions through the lower data points from
the matrix points intersect this line at pb = 2.70, At = 95.
5 Since pb = 2.70 has been verified, the values derived are
taken as the shale matrix coefficients.

....

3.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40,0 69.0 eo. o 100.0 120.0

At //SEC/FT

s+
e ft)N vsAt PLOT
.45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

#<% :
.35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..$.0 ~%.e, . . . . . .:, . .

:Q~v:Q\
& ,L .
# <Lv
+?
.25: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . .
G This plot is used to verify the @N and At values derived
z:
~: from the other plots.
,,
5 ,,5! ,,, .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “.. .,,,
.!, ,,
@ ;
k? i>”
d

.05:. V . ...... .
: Y ::: ““:~~ ”””””””
@
0; .& ,+
v~[fl: $
–.Os: . . . . . . . . . .+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . .:
40.0 60.0 80.0 I 00.0 120,0 140.0
.. . . . ,.-
ht p 3tL/rl

21
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

GYP LITHO-POROSITY PLOT

4
I.00: . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
.90: . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
● .
. . . . . . .
.
. . .
✎ . .
. . .
✎ . .

.........
. . .
✎ . .
. . . . .

/:
✎

. . . . . .
. . . . .
.
. .
.
❑ ✚
._
❑ .
.
.
.
.
.
.80: . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . . . .
.

7
. . . . .
. .
. n- ..
.
.
●
.
.
.
.
‘M’ :. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . ‘. . . .
. . . .
.70: . . . . . . . . “ t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . 2 .
SELECTED .
. . ‘a . .
. . s . .
. . Sso .
LITHOLOGY TRIANGLE .
. . 4d9a . .
. . 63 . .
. . 4? .
DOL - SIL - SI+4LE .
32 3 . .
.i)o~.........: 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 3 . . . .
. . a . . .
. . . . .
. . / . . .
. . M= .54 . . .
. . . .
. . . .
N= .52 . . .
. .
.50; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90

This Lithe-Porosity plot is quite similar tothatof ZoneF

with M = .54 and N = .52. It might be assumed that the
matrix coefficients would therefore be quite similar. How-
ever, as seen from the companion plots, this is not neces-
sarily true.

22
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

c+~/ p~ Vs @N PLOT EXAMPLE ZONE G

2.10 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ......

... .................... . . . . *q
2.30

/25? .............
?4
On this plot, it is seen that the shale falls between the dolo-
“ 2.50
u mite and CaC03 lines. The N = .52 line is coincident with
2 the dolomite line. The construction through the minimum
0
data points yields pb = 2.55, ON= .205.
...... .

2.90
. . ..............

. .
,,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
– 05 05 .15 .25 .35 .45
@N {LIME)

JV’
~bvsA’&o:............... . . . .
2,10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Construction of M = .54 and the silica–shale line yields

Pb = 2.55, At = 105 for the shale values.

.................... ........................ . . . . ..
3J~:
400 60.0 80.0 100,0 I 20.0 140.0

At //SEC/FT

s+
C5
@N vs/jt PLOT
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

+$$<
:
.35;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :..a%o.n%.,hl. . . . . . . . . . . .

~.
“25””””””””!””””””
G
x
..
The values At = 105 and (JN = .205 derived from the other
plots seem to be verified on this plot. Thus the matrix
coefficients in this interval are quite different from those in

‘“’’:””””o$”tiY’”””’”””””””
Zone F even though the M and N values are similar.

/
$/ ///’/. ).., .........................

~eyy $’
—.05 . . . . . . . . . . :*? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:
400 600 800 I 00.0 120.0 140.0

At # SEC/FT

23
 i

SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE X

LITHO-POROSITY PLOT
1.10: . . . . . ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .
.
1.00: . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
.
. .
. . . .
. .
.
. . .
.
. . .
. . .
.90:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. POLYHALITE . . .
. . .
.
= .78 : . .
. .
. . .
. .
:N .
.80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. .1 . .
. . . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.70:“ “ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. .
.60: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90
‘N’

The Litho-Porosity plot “almost” indicates a mixture of

dolomite–anhydrite and salt in this zone. The circled
point, however, represents the potash mineral polyhalite
(K~SO~ “ MgSO~ “ 2CaS04 “ 2HzO). This was discovered
by deriving the mineral coefficients from the plots and then
looking for a radioactive mineral (noted on Gamma Ray) to
fit those coefficients.
 (ON PLOT
2.10 :... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXAMPLE ZONE X

~.,o:
... . . . . . . :, . . . . . . ... . .

“2.50 :... .. .... . .. .. .. . :. ...,. . . . .

Y
The salt-polyhalite trend is quite strong here. The point has
s;
o
an N value of .515 which matches the plot
<2,70 :... ........... .. .... value.
F0LYH4LlTE
N = .515
~ . ~.74
($N= .155
. .

3.10 .
.. . . . . . . . ................. . . . .....i
–.05 .05 .1s .25 .3s .45

(s?N (LIME)

210. . . ., ...,.
rVA+p’oT
.

!/ : :
:1

230:. . . . . . .

!!
:“

,,

“ 2.s0 :.. ,. . . . .
.,
. . . .:. . . . . . ... ... ~ven though polyhalite is almost on the salt--anhydrite line
u
the point matches the M = .78 value from the Litho-
2:
(s ,, Porosity plot.
. . . . . : fQLyHALITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ...,.
,; M= .78

; ~ = 2.74

290 :.,
:
. At=S7
... .... . . . . . . . .: .,.. .

ANH’

310:. ....... ....... . . . . :.

40.0 60.0 00.0 100,0 120.0 1400

At // SEC/FT

(ONVSAI
45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

.35; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ...

.25: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. ,.,

Here again the polyhalite is quite distinctive. The Sonic and

, ; POLYHALITE: Neutron coefficients from the other plots are verified here.
.15: . . . . . . .. . .. ... . .. .. .
!,
‘:,
\ i;
!:,
,,.,
.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* ,\
..... .. .... . .
:“””
,..
SALT :

0 ANH”

–.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,., >

40.0 60.0 80.0 100,0 120.0 140.0

At P SEC/FT

25
 .

SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE Z

GYP LITHO-POROSITY
+
I.ooy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .- .
. . T. Od-
. . . .
. . . . .
. . .
.90: . . . .
...........
....... .
. . .
. . .
.
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.
.80:””” . . . .
.
. .
. .
,~, : .
.
. .
. .
. .
.
.70:. . . . . . .

v
i/i: . . .
“1OOYOGAS POINT” : I . . .
. . . . .
M.
0.0 .
. I
1 1
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
N. -.77 . 11 . . . .
. II . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .
. 11
.60:. . . . . . . . . 11 .1 . . . .
. 231 . . . .
. . 21 . . . .
131 . . . .
. . .
.
‘ SHALE “M= .53 : . .
. . . .
. I N=.51 .. . .
. 1 . .
. . .
.50:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >

.40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90

‘N’

A trend of points to theright andupward from anymin-

era] point on the Lithe-Porosity plot is indicative of gas
saturation. This is clearly seen in this example of a gas bear-
ing sand. The trend of points falls along the line from the
gas point (calculated from Fig. 6 data in the text) and the
silica (2) point. The plot also shows that the sand may have
some secondary porosity (points above the gas–silica (2)
line) and is slightly shaly. Increasing shaliness is seen be-
tween the silica (1) point and the shale point at M= .53,
N = .51. The shale forms a lithology triangle with silica and
dolomite.

The four circles on the GAS--CaCO3 line show the in-

creasing displacement from the CaC03 point caused by
holding the gas saturation constant at 50% and increasing
the porosity from 10% to 40% in 10’ZOstages.

26
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28,
1969

5b~’/
Qb Vs @N PLOT EXAMPLE ZONE Z
2.10:. . . . .. . ---
. . . . ““A” ._.:.ii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*
1 ~A> ~ - ..7
.,,$?/
5,. - @
~N= .16 & i
01$+:
Z.30 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.. . . . . . . . ...+%....
.,, ,,
:,1
.,?!

/v//’#@ .,
.,, ....... .........:.
,!12
*3 ..!
.!,: Y ~

.. .. ....
“2.50
u

~:
:.. . . . . . . .
.:,
/’
>:
,’, ?,’:,*
‘2 !,; :’
,!

4,,,:
:
The gas effect is quite noticeable on this plot. The shale
section is separated out but plots on the dolomite line.
,:’’!’’’:” :
;:
Y

.s.
-_2.70........
;V
/
:
. . . . . . . .
; <..’:
/,
1

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ...... ..

.@’
/ / 0s

2.90 :... @l’ Q . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. .......

: #
;/’
~+,o$ ~
?’

~,,o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.
–.05 .05 .15 .25 .35 .45

q N (LIME)

## pph~o~,,,,,, .,,,,, , -
2.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “.
; GAS R’ ‘.09 : ~$.y ~~
At =189 : * &:
~+’ :

2.30: . . . .#y:
. . . . . ;;. . ; .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
‘//
:,*
1’, .
:/3 !.
,,
2.50 :........ . .
4,,
s ... ~i: i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The gas effect is not as striking here but it can still be seen
‘*. ,z, n’!las
,., ,,,
,,
,!
;::::,,!
in the vertical displacement of pb. The shale is distinguished
:,*
,,, best in this plot.
,., ,
3.70: ~l;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ ~
~o~
: ;
,.>
:A
b“
/
2.90:. CRof:,j! .......................................
;Q
;/ $+ :

3.1 O* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40,0 60.0 80.0 100.0 t30.o 140,0

At ~ SEC/FT

N+
0 mu
y..
WC
.-”s
A* Bfinr
r.”.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.35; . . . . . . . ..ob . . . . . . . . . ..oso.

4$<%
: ob .\$ . . . . . ...!.
.
:QGy. Q\;
O&:F
+- ,G
*,:
,35; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
G This plot is not as informative as the others. The gas is not
z:
~:
!*,
,, detectable because of the shale characteristics.
,,, :’
,*2
:: : M?,
.15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“. . ..!1 :!: . . . . . . . . . ‘. . . ........
:,, ,,
Q’ : ,,, !
:*I!
1,, ,,
/

.05:. Q. .................
‘
‘/, ;“” ‘“”id’”””’”” ,
$/// : :
Q; /)
$+ ;$
–.05 . . . . . . . . . . ..J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 I 30.0 140.0
,, ..- ,..
~i p >tc/rl

27
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

EXAMPLE ZONE H

LITHO-POROSITY PLOT
.902 . ..2 II. I.ll. .. II. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .1 .1....
.
. .
.
: Cat>? ‘SILICA
. .
. .
//
7 1!.
//
. .
. . . ?Ii . . .
1 . I . .
1 .
.80j ””””””””:”’””””” ““:;J ;’”””:” ““” . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . 1 . . .
. !, . 1! . . .
. .! +1 . . .
. 127 . . .
. .
. . .
. HIGH%” y~ ‘ , ,:,;!; : . .
1 ! . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
.
.-. . “70:””702E”I: :!””-””
‘M’ .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
. .
% ILLITE : .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. .
.
.‘c . .
. AVERAGE PENN” SHALE .
1 .
. .
.40: . . . . . . . . . ...1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80
‘N’

This example zone is from a Pennsylvanian coal producing

area. The Litho-Porosity plot was used to study variations
within the shale that might be correlated stratigraphically.
Initially three drill holes were logged and the Litho-Porosity
plots studied. In each case a predominant shale point was
found at M = .52, N = .39, but trends toward two other
minor shale points were also noted. Lithology calculations
showing the location of the minor shale points were made
and cores were obtained. X-ray analyses were performed
and it was found that the shale point atM= .58,N= .29
had a high kaolinite to illite clay ratio. The point at M = .49,
N = .50 was found to have the opposite ratio. The “average
Penn shale” point was fm.rnd to contain average percentages
of the various clay minerals. The lithology triangles shown
were then used to compute lithology logs in the predomin-
antly shale environment. ,

28
 SPWLATENTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM,MAY 25-28, 1969

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that the Sonic–Density–Neutron logging
suite can be used to determine rock characteristics which,
in turn, provide information concerning potential reservoir
qualities and lithology. This is done by using the porosity-
independent parameters M and N in the Litho-Porosity
cross-plot. On this plot each pure rock mineral is repre-
sented by a unique point, regardless of porosity,
Rocks which are mineral mixtures are analyzed on the
Litho-Porosity plot using the concept of preferential lithol-
ogy triangles. This technique takes into account the most
likely mineral combinations to be found in a given geologic
province. Examples illustrate ambiguities which can occur
in log analysis when using only two porosity devices; these
are immediately resolved with the plot and analysis tech-
niques.
With its companion plots the Litho-Porosity cross-plot
used to determine mineral coefficients for various minerals
and pseudominerals such as shale.
Using the information derived from the Lithe-Porosity plot,
the material balance equation and the three porosity equa-
tions are simultaneously solved to provide accurate poros-
ity data. Consistent lithology interpretations are made by
using the preferential lithology triangle logic. With this
logic the porosity values are correct even when the lithology
is doubtful.
Secondary porosity and gas-filled porosity are detected on
the Litho-Porosity plot. Many minerals of economic value
are also easily identified. As log data become available on
magnetic tape for rapid computer analysis, other areas of
application are being found for the method. This technique
opens a new era in the use of logging data for mineral
is prospecting.

1. Savre, W. C.: “Determination of More Accurate Porosity and Mineral Composition in

Complex Lithologies with the Use of the Sonic, Neutron and Density Surveys”, Jour. Pet.
Tech., Sept., 1963.

2. Burke, J. A., Curtis, M. R., and Cox, J. P.: “Computer Processing of Log Data Enables
Better Production in Chaveroo Field”, Jour. Pet. Tech., July, 1967.

3. Pettijohn, F. J.: “Sedimentary Rocks”, Harper and Bros., 1957, pp. 99– 146.

4. Deer, W. A., Howie, R. A., and Zussman, J.: “Rock Forming Minerals”, Wiley, 1962,
pp. 202–225 .

5. MacDonald, G. J. F.: “Anhydrite–Gypsum Equilibrium Relations”, Amer. Jour. Sci.,

Vol. 251 (1953), p. 884.

6. Schmidt, A. W., Tinch, D. H., Carpenter, B. N., and Hoyle, W. R.: “Computerized Log
Analysis for Efficiently Evaluating Gas Wells and Gas Storage Reservoirs”, SPWLA Logging
Trans., 1967. Revised: Jour. Pet. Tech., Sept., 1968.

7. Bond, L. O., Alger, R. P., and Schmidt, A. W.: “WeU Log Applications in Coal Mining
and Rock Mechanics”, National AIME Meeting, February, 1969.

29