Spwla 1982 T

SPWLA TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JULY 6-9, 1982
THE DETERMINATION OF POROSITY IN SANDSTONE AND SHALY SANDSTONE

PART TWO
EFFECTS OF COMPLEX MINERALOGY AND HYDROCARBONS
By
J. G. Patchett E. B. Coalson
Amoco Research, Tulsa Consultant, Denver
suMMARY
Analyses of over 2000 feet of core have been used to evaluate the appli-
cation of various porosity log interpretation techniques to shaly sand-
stones. Core descriptions, x-ray mineralogy, grain density measurements
and conventional core porosity measurements were used in this evalua-
tion. These data and a review of the literature showed that sandstone
mineralogy and grain density can be extremely variable, sometimes
exceeding the variations found in carbonates. Under these conditions,
the determination of porosity from logs is subject to large errors.
Core porosity was compared to logging measurements, utilizing regression

analysis, in such a manner that all linear equations which could be used
to derive porosity from travel-time, density, neutron porosity~’and
gamma radiation could be evaluated.
It is concluded that no cross plot or multiple porosity technique works

for most shaly sandstones. Locally, under favorable geologic condi-
tions, these techniques might be used effectively. However, in general,
the porosity in shaly sandstones is best determined by use of the den-
sity log. The porosity resolution in shaly sandstones then becomes, as
concluded in Part One, a function of the accuracy of the density log and
of the accuracy of grain density estimates.
INTRODUCTION
In Part One of this paper,l we concluded that accurate density logs

yield highly reliable porosity values for sandstones when formation
grain density is predictable and favorable hole conditions exist. We
illustrated methods of correcting log calibrations and determining for-
mation grain densities. One example involved a predominantly quartz and
$’Allneutron logs shown are either Schlumberger CNL or SNP logs. There
is no reason to believe that any other neutron log would have substan-
tially changed the conclusions reached here. The only application of
neutron logs questioned is for the determination of porosity in shaly
sandstones.
T
-1-
kaolinite reservoir; many grain densities had been measured, with a mean
of 2.65 gin/ccand a satisfactorily low standard deviation of .018 gin/cc.
In a second example, almost 600 grain densities were measured in a min-
eralogically complex shaly sandstone; they had a mean of 2.67 gin/ccand
a standard deviation of .018 gin/cc. The reservoir in the third example
was almost pure quartz. The assumed grain density of 2.65 gin/ccwas
confirmed with a plot of core porosity versus log-density. Because of
the relatively uniform mineralogies found in these examples, accurate
porosities were obtained from correctly calibrated density logs with
suitable hole conditions.
The fortunate circumstances of these examples, while not uncommon, are

not typical of shaly sandstones. Here, in the second part of this
report, we will deal with sandstones that contain highly variable
amounts of high and low density minerals. We will use core data to
demonstrate the mineralogical variations in these shaly sandstones and
their effect on grain density and log derived porosity. We will show
with field examples that serious errors can be made in density log cal-
culated porosity for reservoirs of this type, due to extreme variations
in grain density.
These examples also will illustrate that multiple porosity methods usu-
ally do not improve porosity estimates significantly. We will show that
improperly applied multi-porosity techniques can yield even less accu-
rate porosity than the density log alone by introducing systematic
-.,
errors.
Finally, we will discuss ways to account for the effect of hydrocarbons,

particularly natural gas, on density porosity calculations. Again, we
conclude that multiple porosity methods often fail in this area and sug-
gest an alternative approach.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
The bases for most of our assertions about log quality and the accuracy
of porosity calculations are simple:
1. Porosity is defined as total porosity, or the volume percentage of

void space in a formation. This is the porosity calculated from an
accurate density log when both grain and fluid density are known.
It is also the porosity measured on a dry core sample using the
Boyle’s Law (gas expansion) method. Effective porosity is the
volume percentage of void space in a formation excluding that occu-
pied by surface-bound water. This porosity, rigorously defined by
Heslop,2 can be measured on cores held under confining stress, in
controlled humidity conditions such that all surfaces are covered
by two mono-layers of water. Effective porosity defined somewhat
differently by Juhasz3 can be related to total porosity by means of
..!.,,,
-2-
cation exchange capacity. Total porosity is a necessary parameter

in formation evaluation. Effective porosity often is a desirable
addition, but will not be discussed here.
2. Accurately measured core porosities, corrected for overburden

stress if necessary, are unbiased estimates of total formation
porosity.
3. Properly quality checked and corrected well logs accurately measure

the desired formation parameters, i.e., density, travel time, etc.
4. Therefore, one important check on the accuracy of log derived

porosity is a statistical comparison of core and log porosity.
Ideally, core and log porosities should have the same scatter over
the entire porosity range, have the same mean and have a low stan-
dard error.;?
5. As discussed in Part One, a standard error in porosity calculations

of less than two percentage points (p.u.) can be considered good,
although better accuracy is extremely desirable in low porosity
reservoirs.
SANDSTONE ACCESSORY MINERALS
The mineralogy of shaly sandstones is highly variable. According to

Blatt, Middl~ton and Murray4, the average sandstone contains onl~ 65
percent quartz. Pettijohn, Potter and Siever5 state that “the average
feldspar content of North American sands and sandstones is about 14 per-
cent”. This means that the average North American sandstone contains
about 20 percent of minerals other than quartz and feldspar.
*It should be remembered that statistical comparisons of core porosity

to logging data can be misleading. For an individual well, cross-cor-
relation can be expected to cancel out systematic errors in either the
core or log data. This will tend to make any pre-existing interpreta-
tion procedure look less accurate than the cross correlation. Thus, a
good correlation between core and log data is not in itself a measure
of a good interpretation technique.
Systematic errors can be avoided by utilizing log and core data on mul-
tiple wells; this assumes systematic errors in individual logs and core
measurements are random on a well to well basis. Also, the comparison
of all types of petrophysical data to logs should be consistent. For
example, a fit of log density with core porosity should be in agreement
with measured grain density. Systematic errors should be searched out
and avoided, if at all possible.
T
-3-
Calcite and clay minerals probably are the most common minerals in sand-
stones, other than quartz and feldspar. Other minerals, generally
called accessory minerals, usually are present in smaller amounts. Some
of these are: siderite, ankerite, dolomite, pyrite, hematite, zircon,
epidote, apatite, ilmenite, magnetite, topaz, glauconite, muscovite,
biotite, fluorite and tourmaline. Coal and other organic materials also
are present in many sandstones. These have grain densities which range
from less than to 1.5 gin/ccfor carbonaceous material to over 5 gin/cc
for some of the iron oxides.
Accessory minerals are extremely common and in some places comprise a

large part of sandstones. For instance, Houston and MurphyG report that
“black sandstones”, containing up to 80 percent magnetite, ilmenite and
other dense minerals, occur in outcrops of certain Jurassic and Creta-
ceus rocks in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Montana and Utah.
Siderite commonly is seen as cement and as nodules in Upper Cretaceus
sandstones of the Rocky Mountain basins. Love’ found Bacon Ridge sand-
stones (Upper Mesaverde) containing concentrations of as much as 14 per-
cent zircon in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Phipps8 reports extremely sider-
itic sandstones of Eocene age in the Maracaibo Basin of Venezuela.
Fertlg noted large amounts of siderite and muscovite in the Permian Rot-
liegendes sandstones in the North Sea.
To emphasize the potential importance of iron minerals, siderite nodule

beds in the North Sea have log bulk densities which exceed 3 gin/cc. ‘-%
Also, Yaalonl” estimates that the average shale contains 3 percent iron
oxide.
This list could be extended almost indefinitely. Clearly, it is unsafe

to assume that sandstones generally can be treated as simple mixtures of
quartz and feldspar with perhaps some calcite and clay minerals.
MINERALOGIC EFFECT ON POROSITY LOGS
The incorrect assumption of a clean formation can lead to serious errors

in porosity calculations from formation density logs. Calcite, dolomite
and clay usually cause only minor changes in sandstone grain densities.
However, it appears that the iron minerals often are responsible for the
major variations in grain density, For instance, only five percent
siderite (FeC03) in an otherwise pure quartz sandstone will raise the
grain density from 2.65 gin/ccto 2.72 gin/cc,lowering the apparent
porosity by 4.2 percentage points. By contrast, five percent calcite
(CaC03) or dolomite ((Ca,Mg)C03) would have little effect on grain den-
sity. Only two percent hematite (Fe203), an amount difficult to detect
even in core samples, will increase grain density to 2.70 gin/cc. If
porosity is calculated from a density log assuming a grain density of
2.65 gin/cc,the hematitic sandstone will calculate 3.0 percentage points
too low. The Bacon Ridge sandstone referred to above would have a grain
density of 2.95 gin/cc.
.--u
-4-
Low density materials can also adversely effect log evaluation. The
authors have seen Muddy (Cretaceus) sandstones from the Powder River
Basin, Wyoming that contain enough coal to make a non-productive well
appear productive, based on log analysis.
Such variability is seen commonly in the field, as we will show with

examples. The problem is that current logging techniques do not signal
the presence of iron minerals.~<
The neutron tool also is affected by many non-quartzofeldspathicmin-

erals, especially the clay minerals. The important difference between
the clay effects on the neutron and those on the density tool is that
the density effects are more predictable; clay minerals have well known
and usually narrow ranges in density. By comparison, the effects of the
clay minerals on the neutron logs are both less understood and more sig-
nificant to porosity calculations. For example, the addition of 10 per-
cent kaolinite to a clean quartz sandstone will have little effect on
grain density. However, the neutron logs will read 3.5 to 5 porosity
units too high, the uncertainty being in the vagaries of the response of
neutron tools (see section on multiple porosity methods).
Porosity interpretation from travel-time can be more adversely affected

by non-quartzofeldspathicminerals than density because travel-time
depends not only on the composition of the minerals, but also on their
,.+’-
morphology 4’lS’~*and on confining pressure.16 A given percentage of
illite in a sandstone can unpredictably alter “matrix velocity”
depending on whether it occurs as elastic grains, fibrous pore filling,
replacements of other minerals, or as grain coatings. This is one
reason why travel-time, which the logging companies generally measure
with accuracy and reliability, is a less-than-reliablemeasure of
porosity in most shaly sandstones.
In summary, the more abundant clays and carbonates in shaly sandstones

have the least effect on the density log and the greatest effect on the
neutron log and travel time log. The less abundant accessory minerals
can strongly affect the density tool, when they are present in rela-
tively large amounts. Therefore, when grain density, matrix velocity
and matrix hydrogen index must be estimated, the log density is the best
‘~Thelithe-density logll might be expected to help resolve this

problem, as might the spectra112 or natural gamma ray log 13, although
the increasing use of barite in low solids drilling mud would appear
to limit the use of the litho-density log.
$’*Thisis also supported by the authors’ many comparisons of core

porosity with travel-time.
-5-
single porosity determining measurement. This is true because grain

density is almost always the most predictable factory’
A prime question to be considered here is to what extent other logging

measurements improve the accuracy of porosity determinations when used
with density logs. Multiple porosity methods which include the density
log, if effective in the improvement of porosity predictions, should
lead to the correct solution of grain density. We will illustrate
methods we have used to predict grain density, and show statistically
how multiple logging measurements often fail to improve the accuracy of
log calculated porosity.
DETERMINING GRAIN DENSITY
When analyzing shaly sandstones, the log analyst usually must estimate
grain density. We have found only one universally reliable method:
direct well-to-well measurement on cores. In practice, extrapolations
must be made from limited core data by one of several methods, In many
formations, the variability in core measured grain densities is low
enough to allow the assumption of one value for an entire study, as in
our previous Part One examples. However, where the variability in core
grain density is high, no general method has been found for its estima-
tion in the subsurface. In individual cases we have been able to
improve grain density estimates using “rock typing’’,l?or classification
into groups which have lower variation in grain density, using various ,-.,,,
combinations of stratigraphic position and log data. However, when
digital logs and cores are available, statistical analysis of all perti-
nent data is superior to rock typing for developing methods of calcu-
lating porosity. These methods are illustrated in the examples below.
The central role we assign to core measured grain density demands some
examination of their accuracy and the significance of measured varia-
tions. This is difficult; the conclusions presented are not beyond
argument. Three methods of verification have been tried:
1. One well in the Denver Basin (Spindle Field) had grain densities
measured on the whole core. Plug data also were available from this
and many other wells in this field. These data are shown in Figures
1 and 2. The means and standard deviations from both types of data
are similar, indicating that the measurements apply to the reservoir
in general and that inch-to-inch variations in the cores are repre-
sentative of larger scale changes in the formation.
‘$Inwashed-out zones, log density may be in error, which would make one
of the other porosity tools the proper first choice.
---t
-6-
2. Whole-core porosity and log measured density were used to calculate

grain density for a Sussex (Upper Cretaceus sandstone) well in the
Powder River Basin, Wyoming. The calculated grain densities had the
same mean and standard deviation as measured grain density from
seven other cored wells in this field. We conclude from this that
laboratory measured grain densities are applicable to subsurface
logging measurements.
3. The grain densities calculated from bulk mineralogy (by x-ray dif-
fraction) of various Upper Cretaceus sandstone cores using assumed
mineral densities were in good agreement with core-measured grain
densities (Figure 3). Mineralogy does control grain density.
We therefore believe that laboratory measured grain densities have

direct application to density log interpretation.
Laboratory measured grain densities require measurement of grain volume

and core weight. Core volume additionally is needed for porosity deter-
mination. Since grain volume and weight measurements are considered
more accurate than core volume, grain density measurements are consid-
ered more reliable than porosity.
MULTIPLE POROSITY METHODS
Probably the most commonly applied remedy for the problem of complex
mineralogy is the use of combinations of porosity logs,18’19’20’21 par-
ticularly the neutron-density combination. We believe that these
methods have unquestioned application to carbonates, but often are
either misapplied or are not applicable to shaly sandstones. This
results in porosity determinations that are misleading: first, because
the porosities can be less accurate than density porosity alone, due to
systematic errors, and second, because the complexity of the methods
lends undeserved credence to the results.
The widely assumed applicability of multiple porosity methods to shaly

sandstones is believed incorrect because the multiple porosity or cross
plot methods, which supply lithologic information that often greatly
improves carbonate porosity interpretation, do not supply correspond-
ingly helpful lithologic information in complex shaly sandstone. At
present, logging tools are not available to adequately define the varied
minerals associated with shaly sandstones.
As a point of comparison for our later sandstone examples, consider the

results of a proper use of the density-neutron cross plot. Figure 4
illustrates the excellent resolution of this technique, specifically the
density-SNP cross plot. This figure compares porosity from Schlumberger
Chart CP-la22 with core porosity in a clean lime-dolomite section of
Mississippian age. A standard error of 2.47 p.u. is calculated about
T
-7-
the 45 degree line, which in this example is almost the same as the
regression line, indicating little systematic error.*
The standard error of 2.47 p.u. is somewhat greater than the value of
2.0 p.u. previously stated as acceptable. The important point however,
is the improvement over results obtained using density alone. Figure 5
shows core measured grain density from this well plotted against grain
density derived from the cross plot. The good fits found in Figure 4
and 5 indicate that these logs are able to correctly resolve the litho-
logic differences to give accurate porosities and an indication of
lithology in this carbonate rock. Figure 6 is a histogram of core grain
density; note the bimodal distribution showing distinct layers of lime-
stone and dolomite in the formation. This lithologic variation necessi-
tates the ability to predict grain density.
Both Figure 4 and Figure 5 contain a priori log porosities and log grain
densities. Therefore, the good correlation with core data is more con-
vincing, as the standard errors in both figures include all systematic
errors. For instance, there is a difference of .016 gin/ccin the aver-
ages of the grain densities in Figure 5. The real need in a investiga-
tion of this type is to evaluate the ability to predict rock properties
from logs independent of cores, as this example does.
In contrast, our shaly sandstone examples will show that typically there
is no correlation between core measured grain density and grain density
calculated from cross plots for shaly sandstones and no improvement in
porosity determinations. One reason for this is shown with Figure 722
(Schlumberger Chart CP-lC for the density-CNL logs). Additional lines
have been plotted for four clay minerals. Note the variation in the
location of the 20 percent porosity lines for these four clay minerals;
knowledge of the clay mineral type is necessary to obtain the correct
porosity even for a simple combination of quartz and a single clay
mineral,>~+:
much less the more complex mixtures characteristic of shaly
sandstones. When the effect of other minerals, especially of iron min-
erals, is considered it can be seen that no unique solution for porosity
~rThegood agreement was obtained after both the density and neutron had
been gas corrected, which is a real test of this application.
~;?~Little
error in porosity would result if illite and montmorillonite
were represented with a single line. This explains why the density-
neutron sometimes can be used as a clay indicator, and may improve
porosity estimates when the reservoir is predominantly quartz and
these clay minerals. Pure montmorillonite would have a minimum of
about 33 percent porosity (2.23 gin/cc)with two interlayers of water
and data would thus not be found near the zero porosity or mineral
density point.
-8-
and mineralogy is possible. The number of variables often greatly

exceeds the number of unique types of logging measurements.
Figure 7 oversimplifies the problem, as these clay lines were con-

structed for illustration only using the hydrogen index for these clay
minerals, not the actual neutron response.+? When the effects of thermal
absorbers and density are considered, the actual clay lines would fall
considerably to the right of those in Figure 7. Certain elements with
high thermal capture cross-section, such as boron or gadolinium, may
have variable concentrations;27’28 these contribute a significant por-
tion of the total capture cross-section in some rocks. Therefore, the
actual neutron response might vary from area to area or possibly foot to
foot within a formation.
Another type of cross plot often is offered as a solution to the shaly

sandstone porosity interpretation problem.29’30’31 Locally developed
(usually on a single well) “clay” and “sandstone” responses (end-points)
are inferred from porosity log readings in sandstones and adjacent
shales. We do not believe this approach has general application to
improving porosity calculations, due (in part) to the required assump-
tion that the clay mineral suites in the sand and shales are the
same.297~::Clay minerals in shaly sandstones often are different from
clays in the surrounding shales. Consider the Muddy Sandstone in the
Powder River Basin of Wyoming where the dominant clay is kaolinite, as
The adjacent Mowry Shale i.sa major source of
reported by Baptist.32~t$<$~
montmorillonite25 (“Wyoming bentonite”) for drilling mud.
>tThegrain densities and hydrogen index values are from Johnson and
Link23 and other sources,24’25 including recent high-precision mea-
surements made for Amoco by the CET research group at the University
of Oklahoma of A.P.I.26 standard clay samples. 11.litesample API BB
2.785 gin/cc,Illite sample API 35 2.589 gin/cc,Montmorillonite sample
API 26 2.778 gin/cc,and Kaolinite sample API 05 2.627 gin/cc. These
are the average of several measurements with a typical standard devi-
ation of .003 gin/cc.
>~7~This
problem may be resolved as logging tools recently introduced are
incorporated into improved interpretation techniques, which might
isolate clay types.
*’~’~Mr.
Baptist’s observations are supported by those of the authors. We
have found over a twenty year period that the most common clay in the
Muddy Sandstone, as indicated by x-ray and scanning electron micro-
scope analysis is authigenic kaolinite.
T
-9-
There are good reasons to expect the clay mineral suites in sandstones
and the adjacent shales to differ. Some of these, given in the
literature, are:
1. Clays in shaly sandstones often are authigenic,33’34’35’36’37that

is they were formed after the sandstone was deposited. Subsurface
water circulates more readily through sandstones than through
shales. Therefore, chemical changes in formation waters through
geologic time are more likely to cause diagenetic changes of the
original clay minerals or of feldspars to clay minerals in sand-
stones than in shales.
2. Allogenic (detrital) clays can vary systematically with environment

of deposition, 38t39F40f41t42f43 possibly due to mechanical sorting
of the clay minerals or to chemical alterations to forms which are
stable in that environment. Sandstones and shales are deposited in
different depositional conditions and thus can have different
detrital clay minerals.
3. Clays deposited in close proximity can be derived from different

sources and thus have different mineralogy.44
The same argument applies to many other minerals found in elastic rocks.
This makes the clay and clean sandstone end-points determined by log
cross plots even more questionable for porosity interpretation. Cross- ,...,
plot end points should be based on the known mineralogy of the sandstone
under investigation, not inferred from surrounding shales.
REGRESSION
Due to the complex nature of shaly sandstones and the many interpreta-
tion techniques offered to obtain porosity in these rocks, a good method
is needed to analyze the available petrophysical data. Regression anal-
ysis or least squares curve fitting will be used as one method of ana-
lyzing the data included in the examples. Due to the importance
attached here to this method of analysis, a review of regression techni-
ques is appropriate.
Simple regression analysis consists of fitting a straight line through

two variables, such as travel-time and core porosity, so that the sum of
the squared distance between each data point and the regression line is
minimized. A simple regression analysis of travel-time and core
porosity should establish statistically some insight into the physical
relationship between these variables (i.e., both matrix and “fluid trav-
el-time”).
Using multiple regression (linear in this work), more complex multi-va-

riable relationships can be investigated. As an example, with three
-1o-
variables such as density, neutron and core porosity, the equation for
the plane is found which minimizes the sum of the squares of the dis-
tance between each data point (a porosity value) and the plane (repre-
senting the equation or chart for calculating porosity from the density
and neutron logs). This technique could be expanded to any number of
independent variables.
Multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) can be used to verify cross

plotting techniques in the same manner that simple regression can be
used to establish matrix and “fluid travel time”. The chart in Figure
7, while not linear, can be approximated closely with a linear equation
of the form
y = ‘o + ‘lX1 + ‘2X2
As an example, a data set can be created with data from this chart.
Starting at five percent porosity for sandstone, limestone and dolomite,
data were recorded at every five percent interval to 45 percent. When
submitted to a multiple regression program this yields an R2~<of 0.991,
a standard error of 1.31 and the equation
POROSITY = 68.66 + 0.593CNL - 25.57DENSITY
The results of this regression run are shown in Table One below.
,pf-.
Starting at five percent porosity avoids the most non-linear portion of
the chart; this lower limit is reasonable for sandstones; fitting this
chart for only two lithologies would have yielded better results, also
as shown in Table One. Any multi-porosity method represented or approx-
imated by a linear equation can thus be checked with multiple linear
regression analysis, if core porosity and the the necessary logs are
available. As an example, if the chart in Figure 7 has application to a
given set of data the regression analysis of that data should yield the
above equation within the statistical limits of the coefficients.
7~r2for a single independent variable or R2,$;45$:

where two or more inde-
pendent variable are used, is a measure of the ability to predict using
the regression equation as compared with the mean. A zero value of
R2(r2) means that the equation generated can predict the dependent
variable (y-porosity) no better than the mean y. R2 is a measure of
the improvement in the prediction, and is not a measure of the absolute
accuracy of the prediction. Standard error is, however, a measure of
the accuracy of the prediction.
Most multiple regression programs also include a “t” value for each
independent variable, with which the significance of the regression
coefficient for each independent variable can be tested.>~45$<In this
work a value of 2 will be used as the threshold of significance. If
the “t” value is over 2 that variable is considered significant.
-11-
CONB mnm STAEDAID coMrLArIoB BEQMESSIOM STD.18S01 COEPUTSD

D291ATXOS STSY COS??ICIWTOFRm. cow. T TILOI
CSL o. 2s5220+02 O. 134 S1D*02 0.950s70+00 O. 59299D*O0 0.305820-01 0. 19390D+02
DB 0.229970+01 0.24260D+O0 -.92020D+O0 -.2557 S0+02 0.169500+01 -. 1s0000+02
DBPSUDSST
?OtS?T 0.2 SOOOD+02 0.13S160+02
IHTSBCBPI 60.65500
UOLTIPLB C09BBLAS20S SQ8M8D 0.990s1
STD. BBBOB OP BSTIIHB 1.31302
o? rmnoom SOOMBS SQOA8XS

ATTSIBOTABLS TO BMSBSSIOS 0.M5060+OQ O.22293D+04 O. 12931D+04
DE?IATIOH ?S00 MGISSSIOS 2: 0.~13760*02 0.17240D+01
TOTAL 26 0.4s0000+04
T21B ?08SULA OBTUBBD M ?0SELBA0PSBATI09 IS.....
POM?X=O. 60660+02 +0.59300+00*CSL - .2557D+02*DE
l.MsloK—oowuTE
ONY
cuklE ask I D
ST A9DAE CORSSLITION
M!G3tBSSXOll
STD.Smo? COBPDTBD
DBVI
ATIOS Xwsr CO12?P2CIBBT 0? ~BG. COB?. T T~LOB
CSL 0.27709D*02 0.132830+02 0.97175D+O0 0.55166D+O0 0.226180-01 0.2C390D+02
DE 0.23S250+01 0.253470+00 -.967000+00 ‘.267250+02 0.11853D*01 ‘.225070+02
DtPSSDKST
POSSTT 0.25000D+02 O.13693D+02
IBT~RCBPT 72.27259
BULTIPLECO@EBLATIOl SQUSBBO 0.99040
STD. B~~OB OF SSTIllATPi 0.56504
ASALTSIS OP TARILECE PollTM! MGBCSS1OB
SOUBCE 0? TABIATIOS OSGRSSS son or ~BAW ??SL13E
o? m Scooll SQUA21M SQUARES
A?TRISOTASLX ?0 1213SRESSIOX 2 0.299520*04 O. 14976D+04 0.Q690SO+04
DNIRTI OS ?BO12 RBGRKSSIOB 15 0.47890D+01 0.31927D+O0
TOTAL 17 0.300000+04
?RIJFOS!lOLAOS? AIWBD ST Tlix IILRA0P2!RATIOliIS . . . . .
PORSTY=O.7227D+02 +0.5517 D+OO*CUL - .2672D+02*DR
The shaly sandstone porosit~ method discussed above (page 9) can be

represented by a linear equation and thus can be verified with regres-
sion. Applying MLRA has the added advantage of showing if any shale or
clay end point improves the accuracy of porosity interpretation from
logs; the regression method will find the best linear equation based on
only the cored interval. If the clay end-point is unknown but conceptu-
ally valid, a correct porosity interpretation would be made using
regression. This does not require the assumption that the sandstones
and shales have the same clay mineral suite, as the regression derives
the optimum equation for the actual available data. Any combinations of
logging measurements which might be related to porosity can be evaluated
easily. Non-linear curve fitting methods could also be used if neces-
sary, but will not be illustrated here.
APPENDICES
Appendix One contains the computer regression runs for Example One,
Appendix Two for Example Two and Appendix Three for Example Five. These
correlate most combinations of the available porosity logs and the gamma
ray with core porosity. The data for Example Two also contain these
combinations with the additional limitations as explained in the text.
The complete regression runs are made available to interested readers so
they can make their own judgment about the statistical significance of
various combinations of data. These runs also evaluate models which do
*This method generates a value that is often referred to as effective

porosity, but also as porosity in some articles.
-12-
not include the density log. The combination of these other logging
tools can give improved results and offer alternatives to the density
when hole conditions are poor.
CORPOR is used as an abbreviation for core porosity, AC for travel time

and DN for density. CNL, SNP and GR are so named. The data in these
appendices offer some of the best support for the conclusions below.
EXAMPLES
Example One: Upper Cretaceus Mesaverde Formation Green River Basin,

Wyoming
Severe problems in pay identification in the gas-bearing Mesaverde For-

mation in Wyoming led to a detailed petrophysical evaluation of this
formation, including the determination of porosity from logs. Ini-
tially, variability in grain densities appeared to be a problem
(Figure 8), especially because formation porosities were low, leaving
little margin for error.
The Mesaverde sandstones proved to be complex mixtures of quartz,

feldspar, calcite, dolomite, siderite and various clays (predominantly
illite). The reservoir beds graded from pure quartz sandstones to
extremely shaly carbonate cemented sandstones (up to 20 percent clay).
After examination of cores from over thirty wells and numerous measure-
ments of grain density, the Mesaverde sandstones were typed into two
groups with somewhat different grain densities, based on the gamma ray
log. Figures 9 and 10 are histograms of sandstone grain density for
these rock types selected from 2200 feet of continuous core in a single
well. Many more points are in the modal class for each group as com-
pared to the untyped data in Figure 8. The average grain densities of
the two groups differ by .02 gin/cc.
However, only marginal improvement in porosity correlation with core was

obtained using two grain densities dependent on the gamma ray.>:
The standard error in porosity calculated using the average grain den-
sity is 2.07 p.u.; this was decreased to only 1.97 p.u.~~ using two
grain densities. This small overall improvement is somewhat misleading,
~~InExample One, core porosity was reduced to 95 percent of the mea-

sured value to reflect laboratory estimates of the reduction due to
stress at reservoir confining pressure.
+*’Thelow standard error for porosity including both rock types also is
misleading as an indicator of the overall significance of the density
porosity, because the standard deviation of the core porosity is only
2.13 P.U. When the standard deviation of the porosity is small, as in
this example, the small standard error or scatter about the regression
line is not particularly impressive.
-13-
as only 20 percent of data is from the low gamma ray rock type. The
density porosity errors in the clean rock type should be small, based on
the low standard deviation of grain density (Figure 9); this is con-
firmed by the standard error of 1.26 p.u. for the porosity calculated
using the average grain density for this low gamma ray group.
These results normally would be acceptable. However, because of the

need for maximum accuracy in this low porosity reservoir additional,
methods were tried.
A correlation of log-density versus core porosity (disregarding grain

density) yielded an r2 of .487 and a standard error of 1.44 p.u. This
is not only considerable improvement, but is considered an excellent
result (Figure 11).
Next, the possibility was evaluated that this improvement was due to
canceling out some unrecognized systematic difference between log and
core data, although quality control steps to this point had suggested no
problems with the logs. Log quality was further verified by plotting
bulk density from cores against porosity from cores, as shown in Figure
12. Next, core porosity was replotted versus log density, this time
with the slope forced to the same value as in Figure 12 (Figure 13).
The intercepts were different, restated in terms of apparent grain den-
sity, by only .006 gin/cc(2.722 vs. 2.728). These two relationships can
be considered identical. This correlation had an rz of .405; the stan- - ,.,,
dard error had changed to only 1.55 p.u. from the free-fit value of 1.44
p.u. This is still considerable improvement over results obtained using
average measured grain density.$~
The slope is taken from the core data in order to eliminate sampling and
depth correlation errors. The slope determined in this manner is con-
sidered more reliable, because of the better correlation and the corre-
spondingly lower standard error of the slope. An additional advantage
is that the derived relationship is more independent of core porosity
reductions due to stress.
The intercept of 2.73 gin/ccat zero porosity and the slope of -41.07 as
compared with the expected of slope of -57.77 for a grain density of
2.73 gin/ccand a fluid density of 1.0 gin/ccsuggests a grain density
which varies systematically with porosity (bulk density). This possi-
bility was supported with a plot of core grain density versus core bulk
density (Figure 14).
‘:Thedata in Figure 14 are exactly the same as in Figure 11. However,

in this case, the relationship was predicted from core porosity and
grain density; this can be considered an a priori relationship, at
least as concerns the log data.
-14-
The next step was to compare, using multiple regression, the simple den-
sity-core porosity model (Figure 11) with more complex multi-log
porosity models. These comparisons are completely valid, even though
they are after the fact; the statistics will reflect any improvement due
to the inclusion of additional log measurements.
The results obtained with various models are included in Appendix One.
Efforts to predict grain density directly from these same logging mea-
surements are not included as all correlations were poor.
In summary, log-density is by far the most significant variable in the

prediction of porosity. Travel-time is marginally significant (based on
the “t” value). The other logging measurements investigated, the CNL,
SNP and GR, contribute no significant information about porosity. The
expected contribution of the gamma ray to grain density estimation and
thus to porosity, based on rock typing, was not significant in light of
the better results obtained with the correlation of bulk density to
porosity. In the presence of this relationship the gamma ray adds
nothing.
To emphasize the above conclusions, we include Figures 15, 16, 17 and

18. Figures 15 and 16 are plots of the CNL-density and SNP-density
cross plot porosity versus core porosity, showing the large systematic
error obtained with these methods (using the chart in Figure 7). Fig-
ures 17 and 18 show the apparent grain density obtained from these cross
plots compared with the core measured grain density. Note that the
average grain densities obtained from cores and logs are different,
indicating again that systematic errors are present. In fact, there is
no significant correlation between the log and core derived grain den-
sity. We must conclude that these models do not work; the regression
data in Appendix One prove that, on this well, no linear density-SNP or
density-CNL model gave results which are significantly better than the
density alone.
Example Two: Jurassic North Sea
Example Two is from the North Sea where the reservoirs have an extremely
wide range of grain densities. In addition to quartz and feldspar these
sandstones contain ❑ ica and siderite; kaolinite is the major clay min-
eral, with illite being of secondary importance. Calcite is present
occasionally in significant quantities, as are mixed layer clays and
dolomite. Coal is abundant locally.
Over 700 feet of core were available from three wells. The distribution
of core measured grain densities is shown in Figure 19, Over 50 percent
of the data is closely grouped about the mean. However, the rest of the
data is widely scattered, with a low of 2.46 gin/ccand a high of 3.16
gin/cc,the extremes probably being due to coal and siderite. As in
-15-
Example One, a plot was constructed of core porosity and core bulk
density to obtain the expected relationship between porosity and log
density. This is shown in Figure 20 ; note the extreme scatter at poros-
ities below about 10 percent. It is apparent from the data in Figure 20
that the wide range in grain densities is not as detrimental as could
have been expected from the grain densities shown in Figure 19. Grain
density is more predictable in the porosities above 10 percent, which is
the commercial portion of this reservoir. If the tighter sandstones
were productive, say as a “tight gas’?reservoir, serious log evaluation
problems would be expected.
To emphasize the commercial portion of this reservoir, the data in

Figure 20 was replotted excluding all core bulk densities in excess of
2.71 gin/cc(Figure 21). This eliminated the large scatter found in the
lower porosity range. Next a plot of log density versus core porosity
was made, using the slope from Figure 21. This is shown in Figure 22;
the intercept is almost identical with the core data in Figure 21, if
density values in excess of 2.71 gin/ccare excluded. The standard error
of 3.44 p.u. is inadequate, but is as good as can be expected in this
reservoir due to the extreme variation in grain density.
As in Example One, regression was used to evaluate combinations of trav-

el-time, density, neutron and gamma ray, with and without the 2.71 gin/cc
limit on the density log.* Since a legitimate argument could be made
that results obtained on data from three wells were impaired by syste-
matic variations of the logs on each well, regression analyses were also
run for one well only; any systematic errors which can be corrected with
a linear transform will have no impact on a single well. If a linear
multiple log porosity method exists, it will be apparent from the
results of the regression analysis.
Again as in Example One, the regressions show that only formation den-
sity contributes significantly to the estimation of porosity. Other
logging measurements are statistically significant with some data combi-
nations; however, the improvement in porosity estimates is marginal at
best. Compare the standard error of 3.44 p.u. in Figure 22 with the
results in Appendix Two obtained on all three wells, where only data is
used when the density log reads less than 2.71 gin/cc. Figures 23 and 24
compare the cross plot porosity and apparent grain density calculated
from Figure 7 with corresponding core measurements. Data from only one
well were used to emphasize the systematic errors of the interpretation
technique. No correlation is apparent for the grain densities and only
a fair correlation exists for porosity. Significant systematic errors
exist for both sets of data.
*onlY the results from the data where density is less than 2.71 gin/ccis
shown in Appendix Two, because the results are similar.
.%,
-16-
Example Three: Kaye Field, Upper Cretaceus Teapot Sandstone, Wyoming
There are instances where the inherent variability of a formation makes

accurate estimation of grain density impossible. If so, highly accurate
density porosity is essentially unattainable. The Teapot sandstone at
Kaye Field, in the Powder River Basin, of Wyoming is such an example.
Figure 25 displays grain densities measured on 103 plugs from eight

Teapot cores from Kaye Field. Due to high and variable content of sid-
erite and dolomite, the standard deviation of grain densities is signi-
ficantly higher than those from the case histories cited in Part One.
Because the distribution about the mean is not normal, any statistical
inference based on the normal distribution does not apply. However,
examination of the data reveals that only 64 percent of the grain densi-
ties fall within t.04 gin/ccof the average of 2.70 gin/cc. This means
that only 64 percent of the porosities calculated with a fixed grain
density of 2.70 gin/ccwould be accurate within f20 percent. Plots of
core porosity (not shown) against log density confirmed the errors
expected from the grain density histogram.
Multiple linear regression analysis failed to improve grain density

(porosity) predictions using any combination of the gamma ray, SP, den-
sity, travel-time or induction logs. This means that no linear cross
plot using these logging measurements would improve the porosity calcu-
lations. Only well-by-well measurement of grain density from cores or
samples would have made possible an acceptably accurate porosity in this
field.
Contrast this Kaye Field example with the results of cross plotting data
from the Mississippian carbonates discussed above (page 8, Figure 5).
In both cases, grain densities vary enough (approximately the same stan-
dard deviation .062-.064 gin/cc)to cause serious errors in porosity from
the density log alone. However, multiple porosity methods greatly
improve porosity calculations in the carbonate example, but totally fail
to improve results in the more complex shaly sandstone.
Example Four: Upper Cretaceus, Southwest Wyoming
Example Four illustrates the correction of the density log for gas satu-
ration in the invaded zone using only density and deep resistivity logs.
The mineralogy of this sandstone reservoir is simpler than the previous
Part Two examples, at least as it impacts grain density. The grain den-
sity averages 2.65 gin/ccexcept in porosities below 10 percent. Appa-
rently, dense minerals concentrated in the low porosity rocks cause a
somewhat higher average grain density. For this reason a variable grain
density was used, starting at 2.65 gin/ccat 10 percent porosity and
increasing linearly to 2.72 gin/ccat zero porosity. As in the other
examples cross plot porosity, based on Figure 7, yielded large syste-
matic errors and was not pursued.
T
-17-
With grain density predicted, it only remained to account for hydro-

carbon density. Figure 26 shows the theoretical error in porosity
derived from log density as a function of the saturation of zero density
gas in the invaded zone, when no gas correction is made. Since the
effect of residual gas in the flushed zone can be large, a correction to
the density log was deemed necessary in this gas reservoir.
The correction technique applied here does not require a neutron log.
Instead, an initial estimate of water saturation calculated from uncor-
rected density log porosity is used to estimate a residual gas satura-
tion in much the same manner that residual oil saturation has been esti-
mated when calculating porosity from RX0.47
Sxo = Swz
Sw” was then substituted for Sxo in the density response equation,
DENSITY = (l-$)pg+$(Swz(pw)+(l-Swz)phc)
where pw is the water density, phc is gas density and pg is the rock
grain density. This equation could be solved simultaneously with a
water saturation equation (from resistivity) to yield porosity and Sw,
but this would have required non-linear methods. Instead, the density
equation above was solved for porosity using an initial estimate of Sw
which was calculated using raw or uncorrected density porosity. Using
porosity from raw density introduces little error in the estimate of Sw
and thus Sxo. This is shown in Figure 27 for zero density residual gas,
where the error would be at a maximum. The errors in porosity are so
small as to be less than the expected overall accuracy of the method
(even this source of error could be eliminated with one additional iter-
ation).
A more serious source of error would be the improper choice of the expo-
nent z. Figure 28 shows how errors in (z) relating Sxo to Sw effect
porosity estimates. In general, the method is insensitive to errors in
z within the expected range of .2 to .5*, which has been found from
experience to apply to most sandstones.
The exponent .Z was determined for this example by iteration. It was

incremented from .2 to .5. The value used (.42) gave little systematic
error in comparing density porQsity with core porosity. This is shown
in Figure 29; standard error was calculated about the 45 degree line and
about the regression line. The small difference between these standard
$%ornpleteflushing would require a z of zero. This is considered highly

unlikely; a value of .246 is considered to approach the practical limit
for maximum flushing.
-18-
errors indicates little systematic error (i.e., the data fall on the 45
degree line). The small standard error (1.84 p.u.) about this 45 degree
line is considered excellent results.
The excellent results shown in Figure 29 were obtained without adjusting

any density logs; a satisfactory method of verifying and adjusting den-
sity logs should have given even better results. The development of
calibration checks was attempted. However, the adjusted density logs
did not correlate with core porosity as well as did the unadjusted den-
sity logs. This was interpreted to mean that, even after a great deal
of effort, the method developed to verify log calibrations did not work,
probably because poor hole conditions made the measurement of density
questionable in shales. This contrasts with Example 1 in Part One in
which every well where the density log was adjusted for an assumed cali-
bration error fit the Boyle’s Law core porosity better than did the raw
density log. Adjustments to logs for assumed miscalibrations must be
done with great care; it should be remembered that at times log quality
is superior to the methods used to evaluate calibration errors. The
verification of quality control procedures is one important use of core
porosity measurements.
Example Five: Wilcox Formation, Mississippi
In Example 4 , it was known that only gas and water were present. When
both oil and gas are present, as in this example, the problem becomes
more difficult. The neutron or some other log must be used to differen-
tiate oil from gas. This well, drilled in a partially depleted natural
water drive reservoir, had a gas cap of about 12 feet, a present oil
column of 25 feet and a depleted zone of another 25 feet which had
residual hydrocarbons of about 20 percent. The Wilcox in the hydro-
carbon bearing portion of this reservoir proved to be a micaceous,
illitic sandstone. The clay and mica were present in low to moderate
amounts. Also, some lignitic material was described in the core.
Figure 30 is a histogram of core grain density; the lignite content of
this sandstone is apparent.
The neutron log appeared a necessity for evaluating this well. The
problem was how to remove the lithologic response of the neutron log so
that the presence of clay would not mask the effect of gas on the neu-
tron log and make gas detection difficult.
The method used was derived from the work of Truman,30 et al. They sug-
gested a plot of neutron porosity minus density porosity versus gamma
ray, as shown in Figure 31.>*
T
-19-
However, this method requires the assumption that the difference between
neutron porosity and density porosity is independent of the true
porosity. This did not appear to be a good universal assumption and is
not necessary. Instead, multiple regression was used to develop a three
variable correlation between density porosity, the gamma ray and neutron
logs in wet zones. This yielded an equation for normalized neutron (NN)
of the form:
NN= AO + Al GR + A2 CNL
This normalized neutron (a synthetic density porosity curve) was then

compared with the density log to locate gas saturated sandstone. This
approach will, with mathematical certainty, fit the data in Figure 31 or
any set of similar data better than the two variable technique.
The two methods of neutron normalization can be evaluated by comparing

Figures 31 and 32. Figure 32 shows the difference (residuals) between
the normalized neutron porosity and the density porosity against the
gamma ray; the symbols represent the same Sw values as in Figure 31.
(This is one of the standard methods of verifying statistical models. A
good model will have a random distribution of the residuals about the
zero residual line at all values of each independent variable, the gamma
ray in this illustration.) The standard error, or scatter about the
regression line with data from the water zones, decreased from 3.15 p.u.
in Figure 31 (the method of Truman, et al) to 2.16 p.u. This improve-
ment is typical for the regression model (Figure 32).
In both figures, sandstones and shaly sandstones have been distinguished

from shales using the SP curve. All zones where the SP is less than 75
percent of the distance between clean sandstone and the shale base line
is called shale. The high gamma ray values seen in zones indicated as
sandstone by the SP curve are apparently due to mica, based on limited
x-ray data.
Once the neutron has been normalized as in Figure 32, it can be used to
detect gas in the same manner it would be used to detect gas in clean
sandstones. This can make the neutron a valuable qualitative gas
detector in formations where conventional methods fail, such as fresh
water sands.
>~Thepoints plotted with the symbol “O” calculate in excess of 78 per-

cent water saturation; the “X” symbol points less than 78 percent water
saturation and are thus possibly hydrocarbon bearing. In this area, 78
percent and less water saturation calculated from the density and deep
induction log is considered to have a high probability of having at
least a show of hydrocarbons.
-.,
-20-
Figure 33 is a strip chart of the log interpretation of this Wilcox

well. Shown are gas corrected porosity from the density log (GASPOR),
the raw or uncorrected density porosity (RAWPOR), gas saturation
(GASSAT), water saturation (SW), oil saturation (OILSAT), and cation
exchange capacity (CEC). The CEC and Sw were calculated using the
method suggested by Patchett.47 Both the methods illustrated with Fig-
ures 31 and 32 have the advantage of canceling out systematic differ-
ences between the density and neutron logs. Also, because the models
are built in water filled sandstones and not based on shale response,
the assumption that the shales and sandstones have the same clay miner-
alogy is not required; however, the assumption is made that the clay
mineral suite is a consistent function of gamma ray.
Appendix Three contains statistical comparisons of log and core porosity

data (taken below the gas-oil contact) from Example Five. No firm con-
clusions should be drawn from the data in Appendix Three because of the
limited data and the narrow porosity range sampled by the core. How-
ever, the average core porosity and gas corrected density porosity are
similar. The gamma ray is the only significant variable based on this
limited data. There is apparently some correlation between gamma ray
and factor controlling porosity, such as clay or lignite content.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, multiple porosity log interpretation methods utilizing the

d--
density log do not offer porosity values that are significantly better
than the density log alone. This can be considered as both condemnation
for these methods and recognition that the density is an extremely reli-
able method of obtaining porosity in a majority of shaly sandstones. In
shaly sandstones, porosity resolution becomes, as concluded in Part One,
a function of the accuracy of the density log and the accuracy of grain
density estimates. When grain density cannot be predicted from samples
or local geologic knowledge, no combination of commonly used logging
tools is likely to improve results. In the minority of shaly sandstones
where this prediction is not possible, new log interpretation methods or
logging measurements must be developed if better porosity estimates are
to be realized.
Several generalizations can be drawn from the data presented here; among
them are:
1. Both high grain density iron minerals and low grain density carbona-
ceous material can significantly affect the grain density of shaly
sandstones. This problem is not usually addressed by shaly sand-
stone interpretation techniques. Since these materials often are
concentrated in the shalier portion of sandstones, both the grain
density and variations in grain density tend to increase with shali-
ness.
T
-21-
2. The neutron is usually given zero weight by the regression results.

Interpretation techniques which give weight to the neutron will
introduce errors and thus give worse results than the density alone.
The lack of resolution of the density-neutron method is probably due
to the presence of minerals that do not affect the neutron readings,
but do affect density. The neutron is affected by minerals which
often have little effect on the density.
3. Porosity is usually best obtained from the density log alone. With
this in mind, the neutron might be better used as a clay indicator;
the difference between neutron porosity and density porosity should
have a high correlation with the product of clay content and clay
hydrogen index.
4. There are instances where travel time yields better porosity esti-
mates then does density. Usually these result from poor hole condi-
tions. However, this can also be true in relatively clay free sand-
stones containing significant amounts of high or low dense
materials.
5. It is difficult to interpret shaly sandstone from logs alone.

Petrophysical data is usually needed in addition to logs.
-22-
REFERENCES
1. Patchett, J. G. , and Coalson, E. B. , “The Determination of Porosity

in Sandstones and Shaly Sandstones Part One - Quality Control”,
Trans. of the 20th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper QQ,
(June 3-6,1979), Tulsa, Oklahoma.
2. Heslop, A., “Porosity in Shaly-Sands”, Trans. of the 16th Annual

Logging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper F, (June 4-7, 1975), New Orleans,
Louisiana.
3. Juhasz, I., “The Central Role of Qv and Formation Water Salinity in

the Evaluation of Shaly Formations”, Trans. of the 20th Annual Log-
ging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper AA, (June 3-6, 1979), Tulsa, Oklahoma.
4. Blatt, H., Middleton, G. V. , and Murray, R. C. , “Origin of Sedimen-

tary Rocks: Englewood Cliffs,” Prentice-Hall, 1972, pp. 270.
5. Pettijohn, F. J., Potter, P. E., and Siever, R., “Sand and Sand-
stone: New York-Heidelberg-Berlin,” Springer-Verlag, 1973, pp.
36-37.
6. Houston, R. S., and Murphy, J. R., “Titaniferous Black Sandstones

Deposits of Wyoming,” Bulletin No. 49, University of Wyoming, 1962,
Laramie.
7. Love, J. D., “Summary of Upper Cretaceus and Cenozoic Stratigraphy

and of Tectonic and Glacial Events in Jackson Hole, Northwest
Wyoming,” Guide to 29 Annual Field Conference WGA, 1977, pp
585-593.
8. Phipps, C. B., “Post-Burial Sideritisation of Calcite in Eocene

Beds from the Maracaibo Basin, Venezuela,” Geol. Msg., Vol 106,
No. 5, pp. 485-495, 1969.
9. Fertl, W. H., Cavanaugh, R. J., Shepler, J. and Cope, B., “Precise

Formation Data Evaluation Provides Key to Rotliegendes, Petroleum
and Petrochemical International,” Vol. 13, No. 3, March 1973.
10. Yaalon, D. H., “Mineral Composition of the Average Shale,” Clay

Minerals Bull., vol. 5, No. 27, 31-36, 1962.
11. Gardner, J. S. , and Dumanoir, J. L., “Litho-Density Log Interpreta-

tion,” Trans. of the 21st annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper N,
(July 8-11, 1980), Lafayette, Louisiana.
12. Fertl, W. H., “Gamma Ray Spectralog Data Assists in Complex Forma-
tion Evaluation,” The Log Analysts, Nov.-Dee., 1979.
-23-
13. Serra, O. , Baldwin, J. and Quirein, J. , “Theory, Interpretation

and Practical Applications of Natural Gamma Ray Spectroscopy,”
Trans. of the 21st Annual Logging Symposium, SPW_LA,Paper Q,
(July 8-11, 1980), Lafayette, Louisiana.
14. Bakamjian, B. Y., Personal Communication, 1981.
15. Domenico, N. S., “Effect of Brine-Gas Mixture on Velocity in an

Unconsolidated Sand Reservoir”, Geophysics, Vol. 41, pp. 882-894,
1976.
16. Gardner, G. H. F., Wyllie, M. R. J., and Droschak, D. M., “Effect

of Pressure and Fluid Saturation on the Attenuation of Elastic
Waves in Sands,” SPE Paper 721, Fall Meeting New Orleans, Loui-
siana, 1963.
17. Pickett, G. R., “Pattern Recognition as a Means of Formation Evalu-

ation,” Trans. of the 21st Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA,
Paper A, (May 6-9, 1973), Lafayette, Louisiana.
18. Savre, W. C., and Burke, J. A., “Determination of True Porosity and
Mineral Composition in Complex Lithologies with the Use of the
Sonic, Neutron and Density Surveys,” Trans. of the 4th Annual Log-
ging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper XI (May 23-24, 1963), Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
,,-””,.
19. Alger, R. P., Raymer, L. L. Jr., Hoyle, W. R., and Tixier, M. P.,
“Formation Density Log Applications in Liquid-Filled Holes,” Jour.
of petroleum Tech.> PP. 321-332, March, 1963.
20. Burke, J., Campbell, R. and Schmidt, A., “The Lithoporosity Cros-
splot,” Log Analyst (Nov.-Dee. 1969), pp. 25-43.
21. Clavier, C. and Rust, H. D., “MID Plot: A New Lithology Technique,”
Log Analyst (Nov.-Dec. 1976) pp. 16-24.
22. Log Interpretation Charts, Schlumberger, Ridgefield (1978).
23. Johnson, W. L. , and Link W. A., “Some Practical Applications to

Improve Formation Evaluation of Sandstones in the Mackenzie Delta,”
Trans. of the 19th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper C,
(June 13-16, 1978), El Paso, Texas.
24. Deeds, C. T, and van Olphen, H., “Density Studies in Clay-Liquid

Systems Part 1, The Density of Water Adsorbed by Expanding Clays,”
Advances in Chemistry Series, V. 33 Amer. Chem. Sot., Solid Sur-
faces and the Gas-Solid Interface, Washington, D. C., pp 332-339,
1961.
-24-
25. Deeds, C. T, and van Olphen, H. , “Density Studies in Clay-Liquid

Systems Part 2: “Application to Core Analysis,” Tenth National Con-
ference on Clays and Clay Minerals, V. 10, Pergamon Press, New
York, pp. 318-328, 1963.
26. Kerr, P. F., and Hamilton, P. K., “Reference Clay Minerals A.P.I.
Research Project 49,” Columbia University, New York, 1951.
27. Allen, L. R., Mills, W. R., Desai, K. P., and Caldwell, R. L.,
“Some Features of Dual-Spaced Neutron Porosity Logging,” Trans. of
the 13th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper G, (May 7-10,
1972), Tulsa, Oklahoma.
28. Fredrickson, A. F. and Reynolds, R. C. Jr., “How Measuring Paleo-

salinity Aids Exploration,” The Oil and Gas Jour., February 1,
1960.
29. Poupon, A., Clavier, C., Dumanoir, J., Gaymard, R. and Misk, A,
“Log Analysis of Sand-Shale Sequences; A Systematic Approach,”
Jour. of Petroleum Tech. pp. 867-881 July, 1970.
30. Truman, R. B., Alger, R. P., Connell, J. G. and Smith, R. L., “Pro-
gress Report on Interpretation of the Dual-Spacing Neutron Log
(CNL) in the U.S, Trans. of the 13th Annual Logging Symposium,”
SPWLA, Paper U, (May 7-10, 1972), Tulsa, Oklahoma.
31. Poupon, A., Hoyle, W. R. and Schmidt, A. W., “Log Analysis in For-
mations with Complex Lithologies,” Jour. of Petroleum Tech.,
pp. 995-1005, August, 1971.
32. Baptist, O. C., and Sweeney, S. A. , “Physical Properties and

Behavior of the Newcastle Oil-Reservoir Sand, Weston County,
Wyoming,’’,Bureauof Mines Investigation 5331, Laramie, Wyo., April,
1957.
33. Wilson, M. D. and Pittman, E. D., “Authigenic Clays in Sandstones:

Recognition and Influence on Reservoir Properties and Paleoenviron-
mental Analysis,” Jour. Seal.Petrology (March 1977) Vol. 47, No. 1,
3-31.
34. Neasham, J. W., “Applications of Scanning Electron Microscopy to

the Characterization of Hydrocarbon-Bearing Rocks,” Scanning Elec-
tron Microscopy, Vol. I, p. 101, 1977.
35. Neasham, J. W., “The Morphology of Dispersed Clay in Sandstones

Reservoirs and Its Effect on Sandstone Shaliness, Pore Space and
Fluid Flow Properties,” SPE Paper 6858, Fall Meeting Denver, Colo-
rado, 1977.
-25-
36. Almon, W. R. , “A Geologic Appreciation of Shaly Sandstones,” Trans.

of the 20th Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA, Paper WW (June 3-6,
1979), Tulsa, Oklahoma.
37. Almon, W. R. and Davies, D. K., “Understanding Diagenetic Zones

Vital,” Oil and Gas Journal (June 6, 1977) 209-216.
38. Weaver, C. E., “Clay Mineralogy of the Late Cretaceus Rocks of the
Washakie Basin,” Wyoming Geol. Assoc. Symposium on Late Cretaceus
Rocks of Wyoming, p. 148, 1961.
39. Pryor, W. A., and Glass, H. D., “Cretaceous-TertiaryClay M@er-

alogy of the Upper Mississippi Empayment,” Jour. Seal.Petrology,
Vol. 31, p. 38, 1961.
40. Weaver, C. E., “Possible Uses of Clay Minerals in the Search for
Oil,” AAPG Bull., Vol. 44 p. 1505, 1960.
41. Weaver, C. E., “Origin and Significance of Clay Minerals in Sedi-

mentary Rocks,” AAPG Bull., Vol. 42, p. 254, 1958.
42. Weaver, C. E., “The Clay Petrology of Sediments,” Proc. Sixth Natl.
Conf. on Clays and Clay Minerals, pp. 234-309 Pergamon Press.,
1959.
43. Brooks, R. A., and Ferrell, R. E. Jr., “The Lateral Distribution of

Clay Minerals in Lakes Ponchartrain and Maurepas, Louisiana,” Jour.
Seal.Petrology, v. 100, p. 855, 1970.
44. Milne, I. H. and Earley, J. W., “Effect of Source and Environment

on Clay Minerals,” AAPG Bull., Vol. 42, p. 328, 1958.
45. Parsons, Robert, 1974, “Statistical Analysis A Decision Making

Approach: New York, Harper and Row,” p. 736 and p. 742.
46. Poupon, A., Loy, M. E., and Tixier, M. P., “A Contribution to Elec-
tric Log Interpretation in Shaly Sandstones,” Trans. AIME, Vol.
201, 138-145, 1954.
47. Patchett, J. G., “The Use of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis to

Calculate Formation Water Saturation from Logs,” Trans. Sixth For-
mation Analysis Symp,, Canadian Well Log Sot., Paper A, October,
1977.
-“%
-26-
Thanks are extended to Amoco Production Company and American Hunter for
permission to publish. Thanks is also given to the many people who con-
tributed data and geologic input to this paper. Special thanks to G. L.
Feather, E. D. Pittman, D. E.-Powley and R. Wiley for their critical
review of the manuscript.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jay Patchett is a Special Research Associate with Amoco Production Com-

pany in Amoco’s Tulsa Research Center. He received a Degree in Geophy-
sical Engineering from the University of Tulsa in 1954. He was then
employed by Schlumberger Well Surveying Company in Mount Carmel, Illi-
nois. From July 1, 1959, to January 1975, he was employed by Amoco as a
log analyst in Casper, Wyoming, and Denver, Colorado.
Edward B. Coalson is a consulting geologist in Denver, Colorado. Before

this he was with Canadian Hunter, Davis Oil Company and Amoco Production
Company in Denver. He studied Geology at California State University at
Long Beach (B.S., 1969) and at the University of Wyoming (M. Se., 1971).
Since graduating from U.W., he has worked on a variety of projects,
including studies of petroleum reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain states,
basin analysis and prospect generation using geologic and petrophysical
methods.
JGP: ceh
81322ART0143
T
-27-
FIGURE1 FIGURE2
PLUGGRAINDENSITY WHOLE COREGRAINDENSITY
UPPERCRETACEUS COLORADO UPPERCRE’VUXOUSCOLORADO
40 400
585 POINTS 59 POINTS

MEAN 2.67 MEAN 2.68
~ STD. DEV. .018 STD. DEV. .023
30 30-
20 20”
10 10“
0, I 0-, I 1
2.4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2;8 2;9 2:4 2,5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3
CORE GRAINDENSITY gm\cc WHOLE COREGRAINDENSITYgm\cc
““....
flGURE3
COMPARISON OF GRAINDENSITIES
FIGURE4
FROMX-RAY MINERAlOGYand FROMCORE CORE POROSITY VS SNP-DENSITY POROSITY
UPPERCRETACEUSROCKYMOUNTAINS MISSISSIPPIANCARBONATE
20
,/ 339 POINTS /
STD. DEV. CORE PHI. 4.14 “/
Legend ~2 .74
#
/ 0/
x MESAVERDE STD. ERROR %.47 o 0 y
15
o TEAPOT
/
● A
A SUSSEX
ox
o / x
o
0
AO “o 10
Xm
0
% / OA
0
xx
7 x 5
51 POINTS
#/ rz .76
STD. ERROR .011
/
0 1 I
2.60 2.65 2.70 2.75 ) o 5 10 15 20
GRAINDENSITY X–RAY MINERALOGY gm~ POROSITY% SNP-DENSITY GAS CORRECTED
-28-
—
,@’-
FIGURE5 FIGURE6
CORE GRAIN DENSITY-LOG APP. GRAIN DENSITY GRAINDENSITY
MISSISSIPPIANCARBONATE MISSISSIPPIAN
CARBONATE
30
343 POINTS /
STD. DEV. CORE GR .DN, .064 /
r2.74 343 POINTS
/
STD. ERROR MEAN 2.80
~
STD. DEV. .064
20
10
/
/
/
/
/
I 1 .! 1 0
2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2:9 3 2.5 2.6 2.7 z;6 zi9
APPARENTGRAINDENSITYSNP-DENSITY gm/’cc , CORE GRAINDENSITY gm\cc
FIGURE 7
#-
POIWSITY PM) LITHOLOGYDETERMINATIONFROM FIGURE 8
FOAMATIONOENSITV LDG AND COREG~lNtF
CDWENSATEDNEUTRONLOG (CNL)
? MESAVEROE
SANDSTOWWYOMING
FRESHHATER, LIQUIO-FILLED HOLES
INCLUOINGCOMON CLAY MINERALS
40
1.8 I /
224 POINTS
MEAN 2.673
STD. DEV. .0232
30
20
10-
0-,
2.4 2.5 2;6 2:7 2:8 ‘
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
CORE GRAIN DENSITY gin/%
OCNL
T
-29-
-,
FIGLE?E
9
Ctf?E GRAINDENSITY
GAMdAfWBTtiAN44Afl
coREE&m
GAMMARAYGl?EA~ THAN44 API
MES#/fRDESAWSTONE~~ MES#EROESANDSTONEWYOMNG
50 40
46 POINTS 178 POINTS

MEAN 2.656 MEAN 2.677
40 STD. DEV. .0142 STD. DEV. .0231
30
30
20
20
10
10
o~ 2.4 2.5 2.6

1
2.7 2.8 2.9
0,
2;4
1
2.5 2.6
1
2.7 2.8 2.9
CORE GRAINDENSITYgm\cc CORE GRAINDENSITY gm\cc
,-.>
FIGURE11 FIGURE12
CORE POROSITY VS LOG DENSITY CORE BULK DENSITY-CORE POROSITY
MESAVERDESANDSTONE WYOMING MESAVERDESANDSTONE WYOMING
20
“\ 224 POINTS \
224 POINTS
GRAIN DENSITY 2.73
\ rz .49
15
\ r2 .72
\ STD. ERROR 1.44
\
\
10
5“
0-, —
2 2:2 2:4 2:6 :
LOG BULK DENSITY gmi%
--%
-30-
#-’-
FIGURE13 FIGURE14
COREPOROSITYVS LOGDENSllY CORE BULK DENSITY-CORE GRAIN DENSITY
SLOPEFORCEDTO FIGURE12 VALUE
MESAVERDESANDSTONEWYOMING MESAVERDESANDSTONEWYOMING
20-
224 POINTS
2“’~
\ :2A3~OlNTS
G$AJ DENSITY 2.72
* 2.8 .
\ b.
15- STD. ERROR 1.55 00 //
\
b //
10-
o
w
Ix (Y
0
u
c1
I&l
I
5.
~ 2.5
v
t
0.,
i 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 9
LOG BULK DENSITY gmlcc
---
FIGURE15 FIGURE16
CORE POROSITY VS CNL-DENSITY POROSITY CORE POROSITY VS SNP-DENSITY POROSITY
20
219 POINTS /
STD. ERROR= 3.11 /
ABOUT 1-1 LINE /
REGRESSION LINE
15 NOT SHOWN */
rz .25 /
10
o
0
o
PO;OSITY z l!NL-DEN4tTY ‘
-31-
-%,,
FIGURE17 FIGURE18
CORE GRAIN DEN-LOG APP. GRAIN DEN. CORE GRAIN DEN-LOG APP. GRAIN DEN.
3
/
222 POINTS /’ 223 POINTS
rz .16 REGRESSION /
r2 .06 REGRESSION
LINE NOT SHOWN / /
LINE NOT SHOWN
/ /
/ /
/- /
0 /“0 ok
~’& o o
+000
0
/ o
/0°
/ /-
/ /
/“ /
2.5 I I I I
i 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3
APP. GRAINDEN CNL-DEN (Jrtl/CC APP. GRAINDEN SNP-DEN gm\cc
IWRE19 FIGURE20 T
COREGRAINDENSITY CORE POROSITY VS CORE BULK DENSITY
JuRAsslcsA~NoRTH= JURASSIC NORTHSEA
25 30
597 POINTS
MEAN 2.66 25 b 584 POINTS
20 STD. DEV. .064
20
15 o
10
5 5
0°
00
0 0 1 1
)
I 2.6 2.8 3 . 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3
CORE GRAINDENSITYgm)cc COREBULK DENSITY gm\cc
-32-
,#-
FIGURE21 FIGURE22
CORE POROSITY VS CORE BULK DENSITY CORE POROSllY VS LOG BULK DENSITY
JURASSIC NORTH SEA THREE WELLS JURASSIC NORTHSEA
30
-\. 568 POINTS
n
DENSITY LESS THAN
25
20
o
0 ls
10’
Oo
5-
00
1 I I 0-
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
2.7 2.8 2.9 3
COREBULK DENSITYgm\cc
#“-
FIGURE23 FIGURE24
CORE POROSITY VS CNL-DENSITY POROSITY CORE GRAIN DEN-LOG APP. GRAIN DEN.
ONE WELL JURASSIC SANDSTONENORTH SEA ONE WELL JURASSIC SANDSTONENORTH SEA
256 POINTS /
STD. ERROR= 7.63 / 249POINTS 0
/’
r2 .14 REGRESSION
LINE NOT SHOWN /
/
0 /-”
/
/“ o
( /0
/
/ o
/
o
/
o~
2.6 2:7 2:6 2:9 3
POROSITY% CNL-DENSITY ‘ APP. GRAINDEN CNL-DEN gm\cc
-33-
-%
Ft gure 26
FIGURE25 EAROR IN OENSITY POROSITY

DUE TO ZERO OENSITY GAS
GRAINDENSITYKAYEFIELD
TEAPOTSAbDSTONEWYOMING - , 50
40 Ammo Sm = s“. 33 / - 402 PWSITY
103 POINTS /“
MEAN 2.70 /-
/-
40
STD. DEV. .063
t- 30
Z
u
-----
u
----------
u - 30
w
n
20
10
----
1 2oi’
20
10
0 ~o
1
2.4 o 50
CORE&AIN DENSl~gm/cc RESIOUAL G4S (lOO-Sxo) %
FIGURE 28 Errors in Ges Corrected ON Poroslt he to Errors ,--%,

In Residual Ges (Residual Gas=lOO-{wz)
FIGURE 27
ERRORIN GAS CORRECTEO OENSITY POROSITY
OUETO USE OF RM OENSITV POROSITYTO EST1M4TE %
50 ~ 50
‘“”~’”o s~. = Sw.33
9=40s i
40 -
ASSUNED
Sxo = ~“ 33
40
.2
● Sw
ACTUAL ‘XO
-— -—-—--
30 1 -.— ------- 30
----
----- ----- i
I ACTUAL Sxo = Sw”5

i
1-
.2
ACTUAL $Xo = sw
10 -- -—.
—.- ----- —.—----— --- -—- 10
-d
100 80 60 40 20 0
Sw %
-34-
FIGURE29 FIGURE30
GAS CORRECTEDDENSITYPOROSllY
vs SMOOTHEDBOYLESLAWCOREPOROSITY COREGRAIN DENSITY
% WELLSSW WYOMING WILCOXSANDSTONEMlsslssm
20 49
0
769 POINTS rz .63
STD. ERROR 1.80 51 POINTS
R ABOUT 4S DEGREELINE e?’ MEAN 2.65
STD. ERROR 1.84 ..$ .
STD. DEV. .032
15 30
0
LIJ
lx 10 20
o
u
5 10
0
0 10 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
GAS COR;ECTEDDENSITYP:ROSITY % COREGRAINDENSITYgm\cc
FIGURE31
GAS DETECTIONFROMDENSITY-NEUTRON GAS LHECTIOH~D?~rlY-~ON
s*nes pw SP
9 00 OF TRUMANETAL
MET NEUTRON&%!%%&mw~&sp~R SHALE
30 20
c x Legend
m
x x HYDROCARBONS
s!? 20- bgend x
z x HYDROCARBONS xx o WATER
:’ lo- ‘
z x
)( #x o WATER
z ‘0 x)( o
1- ‘x xxx 000
o ~oo
0 00 00 ??
70 0
o
c tmo~ @ o 0; @ 00
5 -@b* % 00 m
*O
-10-
f o
g -20- 0
o 0
(n
0
E o
0
-30 I 1 1 1
o 100 0’ 1(
G;MMA RX NOR&JZEDS:Pl GfMMA Rx NOR&LlZED8;Pl
T
-35-
FIGURE 33
WILCOXMISSISSIPPI
o.o— 5.0 —00

-180.— Ps~20. RI ohm
MVOLTS 0.0-----5.0------00
O.O-------C EC--------- -40.0 SCILD ohm
MEQI1OO gms o:------ GASPOR--------5O.
-5 F ---S CGR---–-145. POROSITY
]Uo s~TUHfITICJN o
GWSBT 01LS9T w
I
3900
.,., ,.,
...’..
...
..
.,.”...,..
,.
.,
?
.“..,
/
4000
...”
,..
.:
,,
:.
...
.,
,.,
,:.
.:
..
.’:
.:
..
,..”
..
,:
-36-
APPENDIX ONE
#-
MESAVERDE SANDSTONE WYOMING
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *************************************************
BEQUEST = 2 C&RD = 11 PROGBAE = l!AIAl
CURVE llEAIA STANDARD CORRELATIOIA REGEY.SSION STD. EEBOR COMPUTED
DEVIATIOH XVSY COEFFICIENT O? REG. COEF. T VALOE
SCDN 0.25 U51D+01 O.51O54D-O1 -.69801 D+O0 ‘.291840+02 0.20095D+01 -. l@523D+02
DEPENDENT
CORPOR 0.72UOUD+01 0.213 $6D+01
IAA’1’EBCEPr 81.54356
l!
ULTIPLE CORBELATIOB SQUABED 0.48722
STO. ERROR OF ESTIEATE 1.43627
ANALYSIS O? VABIAIACE FOB THY, EZG3AESSIOU

SOUBCE OF VABIATIOAA DEGREES sol! OF HEAM ?VALOE
OF ?BJ!EDoIY SQOARES SQOARI!S
ATTRIBUTABLE TO BEGRESSIOU 0.03513D+03 o.435130+03 O.21O93D+O3
DEVIATION FROM YIEGRESSIOU 22; 0.457960+03 0.20629D+01
TOTAL 223 0.893090+03
THE FORMULA OBTAIUED BY TEE .J4LRAOPEBATIOU IS.....
COBP08.=0.815UD+02 - .291BD+02*SCD11
TEE COB RELATION QUALITY= O.U872D+02. TEE ‘?-VALOE~ (A MEASURE 0? SISBIPICAAICE)=0. 2109D+03
TKE LEAST SIGNIFICANT OF TSE I CORVES OSED IllTEE AEALTSIS IS TEIY ~SCDU ~ (=AIO.1 OF THE X LIST)
***** *************************** **0** ********** ***** ********** ***** ***** o**** *0******************************
********** ***** ***** ***** ********** ***** ***** ********** ***** *************************************************
REQUEST = 2 CARD = 12 PBOGEAIA = MAIM
CURVE HEAIA STAMDAED COBRELATIOM REGRESSION STD. AJUBOR COIAPUTED

DEVIATION Xvsr COEF?ICXEUT 0? REG. COEF. T VALOE
SCAC O.65656D+02 0.3 U246D+01 0.461330+00 0.287550+00 0.37117D-01 O.77U72D+OI
DEPENDENT
CORPOR 0.72fb8UD+Ol 0.213 U6D+01
INTERCEPT -11.63124
MULTIPLE COBRELATIOM SQOARED 0.21282
STD. EBROE OF ESTIMATE 1.77954
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOB THE BEGRESSIOAA

SOURCE OF VARIATION DEGREES so~ OF HEAN ?VALUE
OF FREEDOH SQUARES SQOARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO REGRESSION O.19007D+03 0.190070+03 0.60020D+02
DEVIATION FROM REGRESSION 22: 0.703020+03 0.31668D+01
TOTAL 223 0.89309D+03
TEE FORMULA OBTAIUED B? TEE IALBA OPERATIOM IS.....
CORPOB=-.1163D+02 +0.2876 D+OO*SCAC
TRE COREELATIOM 00ALITY=O.2128D+02. TEE ‘F-VALUE I (A EIYAS13RE0? SIGUIFICAMCE) =o. 6o02D+02
THE LEAST sIGNIFICANT OF TEE X CURVES USED IN TEE ANALYSIS IS TEE ‘SCAC 1(-Ho. 1 or THE x LIST)
************************* ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *************************************************

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *************************************************
REQUEST = 2 CARD = 13 PROGRAM = IAAIIA
cuavE BEAM STAN DAR O COREELATIOE EEGBESSIOU STD. BRR3R COHPOTED

DEVIATION XVSY COEFFICIEAAT O? BEG. COEF. T VALUE
SCGR 0.691020+02 0.27279D+02 -.36124D+O0 ‘.28268D-01 0.489730-02 -.577220+01
DEPENDEIAT
CORPOE 0.724 BLID+01 0.213460+01
INTERCEPT 9.20177
MOLTIPLE CORRELATION SQUARED 0.13050
STD. ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1.87028
AUALYSIS OF VARIAUCE POX TEE REGRESSION

sooRci7OF VaFIIATIOM DEGREES SOAA 0? HEAU ?VALUE
OF FREEDOM SQOA17ES SQUARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO EEGBESSION 1 0. 116511D+03 O. 1165QD+03 0.33318D+02
DEVIATION FROM BEGRESSIOU 222 0.77654D+03 0.38979D+Ol
TOTAL 223 0.89309D+03
THE FOB8ULA 08TAINED BY TEE MLBA OPERATION IS .....
:oRPo R=O.9202D+01 - .2827 D-O1*SCGR
TIM CORRELATION QOALITI=O. 1305D+02. THE OP-VALUE1 (A MEASURE Or SIGBIPICAIICE) =0. 3332D+02
THE LEAST SIGNIFICAAIT OF TSE X CURVES OSIZD1S TE.S AIIALISIS IS THE ‘SCGR ! (=Eo. 1 or TEE x LIsT)
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ********** ***** ***** ********** ***** *************************************************
T
-37-
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ********************************************** ********************** ●✌
,<-----
REQUEST = 2 CIRD = 14 PROGRAM = EAIAI
cURVE MEAN ST AMDARD CORRELATION MGRESSIOU STD. ERROR COMPUTED

DEVIITrOlf Xvsr COEFFICIENT OF REG. COEF. T VALUE
SUP 0.96572D+01 0.372 E8D+01 0.172100+00 0.98520D-01 0.37848D-01 0.26030D+01
DEPEUOEIAT
CORPOR 0.724640+01 0.213 U6D+01
ItArERcEPT 6.29699
HULTIPLE CORRELArIOll SL!UARED 0.02962
STO. EBROB OF ESTIMATE 1.97579
AAi
ALYSIS OF VARIAECE FOR TEE BEGBESSIOIV
SOURCE OF VARIATION DEGREES sus 0? llEAIA FVALUl!
0? FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO EEGRESSIO1 1 0.26051D+02 0.26451D+02 0.67757D+OI
DEVIATIOU FROM REGBESSIOVA 222 0.86664D+03 0.39038D+01
TOTAL 223 0.B9309D+03
THE FOBBULA OBTAIMED BY TE.E IILRA OPERATIOU IS.....
CORPOR=0.6297U+01 ● 0.9852 D-O1*SIVP
TiiE COERELATIOIA QWALITI=0.2962D +01. TEE *P-VALUE! (A MEASURE OF SIGIVIFICAUCE)=0. 6776D+ol
THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT OF THE X CURVES USED IU TEE AHAL7SIS IS Ttil!OSIVP 0 (=MO. 1 OP T!VE X LIST)
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ****0 ***** ***** *********************************************
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *********************************************
BEQUEST = 2 CARD = 15 PROGRAM = MAIM
CURVE MEAU STAAVDARD CORRELATION REGRESSION STO . ERROR COllPUTED

DE VIATIOM Xvsr COEFFICIEIVT OF REG. COE?. T VALUE
CNL 0.11159 D+02 0.U97b9D+Ol 0.583480-01 0.250360-01 0.2874 BD-01 O. 87086D+O0
DEPENDENT
CORPOR 0.72U84D+01 0.21346D+01
INTERcEPT 6.96905
MULTIPLE CORRELATIOll SQUARED 0.003U0
STD. ERROR 0? EST12AATE 2.00230
AMALTSIS 0? VARIAUCE FOR TEE REGEESSXO1

SOURCE OF VABILTIOli DEGREES sun or EEAM FVALUE
OP FREEDOS SQUARES SQUARES
0.30405D+01
--%
LTTRIB02’ABLZ TO RJ2GBESSIOU O.30405D+01 O. 75839D+O0
OEVIATIOU FROM REGRXSSIOM 22; O.89005D+03 0.40092D+01
TOTAL 223 0.89309D+03
THE FORMULA OBTAIMED BT TEE IALRA OPERATIOU IS.....
COEPOR=O.6969D+01 +0.2504 D-O1*CNL
THE COB RELATIOIA QUALXTT=0.3U 05D+O0. TEE s?-VILUB~ (A J3t?ASUEl!

OF SIGIIIPICAECE) -0. 7584D+O0
TEE LEAST SIG NI?XCAAIZ 02 TEE X cURVE2 USED rE TE?, AUALTSIS IS TEE ~CUL ‘ (=BO. 1 Or TEE x LXST)
***** ***** ***** ***** *#*** ***** **o** ***** ***** ***** ********** ***** *****************0***************************
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ************************************************ ● ********************
REQUEST = 2 CARD = 16 PEOGEAIV = MAXI
CORVE IIEAB STANDARD COREELATXOE RJ2GRESSIOIA STD. ERROR COEPUTED

DEVIATION Xvsr COIW?ICrEMT Or REG. COl!P. T VALUE
SCDU 0.25457D+01 O.51O5UD-O1 -.698010+00 -.256 U3D+02 0.216723+01 -. 11832D+02
sClc 0.65656D+02 0.3U2460+01 0.461330+00 O. 121600+00 0.323090-01 0.37637D+01
DEPEMD8NT
CORPOR 0.724840+01 0.21346D+01
INTERCEPT 6U.5U584
MULTIPLE CORRELITXON SQUARED 0.51810
STD. ERROR OF ESTI!lATZ ‘ 1.39549
AUALTSIS OP VARIAUCE FOR TEE REGEESSIOU

SOURCE OF VAilXATX021 DEGREES SUM or lIISAI FVLLDIJ
0? FREEDOE SQOARSS SQUARES
iTTRXBUTABLE TO BEGRESSIOAI 2 0.46271D+03 0.23136D+03 0.11BBOD+03
DEVIATIOM PROM EEGRESSIOIV 221 0.43037D*03 O.19474D+01
TOTAL 223 0.89309D*03
TRE FOR HULA OBTAIUED BY THE HLEA OPERATIOM XS.. ...
cORPOR=O.6U55D+02 - .2564 D*02*SCDIA +0. 1216D+OO*SCAC
Tf2E COiiRELATIOAl QUALIT I=O.5181D+02. TEE ~?-VALUIV1(A MEASURE OF SIGIAI?XCAIVCE) =o. 1 18eD+L13
TEE LEAST SIGIIIPXCA!JTOr THE X CIJEVES USED XY S’ES AAJALISIS IS TEE ‘SCAC 1(=~o- 2 oF TRE x LIsT)
***** ***** 0**** ***** ***** ***** o**** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *************************************************
4-%.
-38-
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***o****** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **********o**********************************
,4f-
RIK2UEST = 2 C&RD = 17 PEOGRAll = SSAIM
CURVE MEAU STAIVDARD COBRELA’TIOII REGRESSION STD. ERROR CO BPUTED

DEVIA’TIO!A Xvsr COEFFICIENT 0? REG. COEF. T VALUE
SCDU 13.25U57D+01 O.51O54D-O1 -.69801D+O0 -.31511D+02 0.25088D+01 -. 12561D+02
SCGE O.691O2D+O2 0.27279D+02 -.36124D+O0 0.72353D-02 0.469530-02 0.154090+01
DEPEIVDEAIT
CORPOR 0.72484D+01 0.21346D+01
IUTEECEPT 86.96806
IVULTIPLE COBEELATION SQUARED 0.49267
STO. ERROR OF ESTIMATE 1.43185
AWALYSIS OF VIRIAUCE POR TEE IAEGRESSIOE
SOURCE OF VARIATION DEGR E= sun or IVV,AU ?VALUE
OF ?RISEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO REGRESSION 2 0.4QOOOD+03 O.22000D+03 O.10731D+O3
DEVIATION FROU REGRESSION 221 0.45309D+03 0.205020+01
TOTAL 223 0.893090+03
THE FOR HULA OBTAINED B? TEE IILRA OPERATION IS.....
cORPOR=O.8697D+02 - .3151 D+02*sco N +0.7235 D-02*SCGR
TEE CORRELATION QLVALITf=0.4927D+02. TEE ‘P-VALUEI (A MEASURE OF Significance) =0. lo730+03
TIVE LEAST SIGNIFICANT OF TEE I CURVES USED IN TEE ARALYSIS IS THE ~SCGR 1(=Xo. 2 oF THE X I,IsT)
●******************* ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *********************************************
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ********************************************* ●*****************************
REi)UEST = 2 CARO = 18 PB.

OGRAB = MAIN
CORVE BEAU STMOARD CORRELATION REGRESSION STD. ZRROR COBPUTED

DEVIATION xvsr COEFFICIENT OF REG. COEF. T VALUE
SCDU 0.25457D+01 O.51O54D-O1 -.69801 D+O0 -.29288D+02 0.20023D+01 -. 14627D+02
CNL 0.111590+02 0.49749D+01 0.58348D-01 0.34342D-01 0.20549D-01 0.16712D+01
DEPENDENT
CORP08 0.7248 UO+01 0.21346D+01
INTERCEPT 81.42412
II
ULTIPLE CORRELATION SQUA8ED 0.49362
sTD. Eli80R OF ESTIMATE 1.43051
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TEE REGRESSION

SOURCE 0? VARIATIOU DEGREES SUM or lVEAtA FVALUE
OF PREEDOIV souAaEs SQUA8ES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO 8EGRESSION 2 0.44084D+03 0.22042D+03 O. 10771D+O3
DEVIATION FROil RP,GRESSION 221 0. 45224D+03 0.20464D+01
TOTAL 223 ------ ----
o.aqmmn+nl
TE6 FORMULA OBTAIIAED By TEE IVLRA0PE8ATIOU IS .....
CORPOR=O.8142D+02 - .2929 D+02*scoN +o.3434D-131*134L
TEE CORREL&TIOY QUALITT=O. 4936D+02. TEE lF-VALDE1 (A JIA!ASUFiE

OF SIGNIFICANCE) =o. lo77D+03
THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT OF TEE X CURVES USED IN TBE ANALISIS IS TEE ?CUL i (=Ho. 2 o~ T@X X LIsfJ
****************** ● ******.**********. ● ********************.* ● ******************* ●*****************************
***** ********** ***** ***** ********** ***** ***** *************** ************************************************* *
REQUEST = 2 cAao = 19 PEOGRAIV = MAIN
CURVE llEAN STA8DARD CORRELATION REGRESSION STD. ETIROR COIVPUTED

DEVIATION xvsr COEFFICIENT OF XEG. COEF. T VALUE
SCDN 0.25457D+01 0.510540-01 -.69 B01D+O0 -.28823D+02 0.20u30D+01 -.14108D+O2
SNP 0.96572D+01 0.372 B8D+01 O. 1721OD+OO 0.27408D-01 0.27972D-01 0.98267D+O0
DEPENDENT
CORPOII 0.?24840+01 0.213 f46D+Ol
INTE8CEPT 80.35821
IvULTIPLE CORRELATION SQUA8ED 0.48945
ANALYSIS VARIAAACE FOR TEE 8EGAIESSION

OF
SOURCE OF VAIIIATION DEGREES sun OF BEAN FVALOE
FREEDOH OF SQUARES SQUARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO REGRESSION 2 0.43712D+03 0.21 B56D+03 0.105930+03
DEVIATION FR08 6!EGRESS ION 221 0.45597D+03 0.20632D+01
TOTAL 223 0.89309D+03
THE FORt!lULAOBTAINED BI THE MLRA OPERATION IS .....
coaPoa=o.8036D+02 - .2882 D+02*SCDN +0.2749 D-O1*SNP
THE CORRELATION QUALIT T=O.48940+02. ‘TEE ‘?-VALUE!(A ISEASU8E OF SIGNIFICANCE) =o. lo59D+03
TEE LEAST SIGNIFICANT OF TEE X CURVES USED IN TEE ANALYSIS IS TEE ~SNP ‘(=No. 2 OF TSi
E x LIST)
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ********** ********************************************* **************************** ●
T
-39-
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *********************************************
BEQUEST = 2 CARD = 20 PROGRAM = BAIN
CURVE azAu STAUDARD COREELATIOU BZGEZSSIOB STD. BREOR COIIPUTED

DEVIATION Xvsr COSWPICIEMT 0? EBG. COEF. T VALUE
SCDM 0.25 U57D+01 O.51O54D-O1 -.69801D+O0 -. 2U995D+02 0.31208D+01 -.80091D+01
SCGR O.691O2D+O2 0.27279D+02 -.36124D+O0 -. 15521D-02 0.53216D-02 -.29165D+OD
SCAC O. 656560+02 0.342460+01 0. Q6133D+O0 O. 12677D+O0 0.39905D-01 O. 31767D+01
CHL 0.11159 D+02 0. Q97U9D+01 0.58348D-01 0.25127D-03 0.229451kOl O. 10951D-O1
DEPSIVDEllT
cORPOR o.72Q84D+01 0.21346D+01
IUTERCEPT 62.65947
MULTIPLE COEIIELATIOM SQUARED 0.51829
s’XD. .SBROE 0? ESTIEATE 1.40157
AUALTSIS OF VARIAl!CE FOR ‘THE R3!GEESSIOE

SOURCE OF VARIATIOU DEGREES sun or lIllAll ?VALOE
O? FREEDOM SQUARXS SQUARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO llEGRl!SSIOU 0.46288D+03 O.11572D+03 O.58908D+02
DIYVIATIOM ?BOE BEG RESSIOIV 21: 0.43021D+03 O. 19644D+01
‘X02’AL 223 0.89309D*03
?HE ?OEMOLA OBTAIMED BY TEE ELBA OP.ERATIOM IS.....
cORPOE=O.6266D+02 - .2499 D*02*SCDII - .1552D-02*SCGR +0.1268 D+OO*SCAC ●O. 25 13D-03*CIIL
TEE CORRELATION QUALITX=0.5183D +02. TEE ‘?-VALUl!l (A IIEASURE 0? SIGUI?ICAIJCE) =0. 5S91D+02
TEE LEAST SIGWIPICAIT OP TEE I CURVES USED IM TEE AEALISIS IS TWA OCllL * (=Mo. 4 Op T!U X LIST)
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *o*** ***** ***** *o*** ***** ***** ***** *********************************************
***** *o*** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ********************0************************
REQUEST = 2 CARD = 21 PROGRAM = lIAIM
CURVE MEAN STAUD&RD CORBELATIOU BEGRESSIOU STD. ERnOR COEPUTEO

DEVI ATIOU XVSY COEPPICIENT OP REG. COE?. T VALUE
SCDM 0.25 U57D+01 0.51054D-01 -.69801 D+O0 -.25125D+02 0.31574D+01 -.79575D+01
SCGR O.691O2D+O2 0.27279D+02 -.361240+00 -. 12 U91D-02 O. 5UO05D-02 -.23129D+O0
SCAC 0.65656D+02 0.34246D+01 0.46133D+O0 O. 12892 D+O0 0.38054D-01 0.338780+01
sNP 0.96572D+01 0.37288D+01 O. 1721OD+OO -.733710-02 0.298190-01 -. 2S605D+O0
DEPEIiDEUT
COBPOR 0.7248 QD+01 0.213 fJ6D+Ol
INTERCEPT 62.90296
MULTIPLE CORRELATION SQUARED 0.51843
STD. ERROR OP ESTIMATE 1.40138 ,.
““%%
AUALISIS OF VARIh UCE POE TEP, BEGEESSIOM

SOURCE OP VARIATIO$ DEGREES sum OP llEAW PVALUE
OP PEEEDOM SQUARES SQUARBS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO SEGRESSIOAl u O.46300D+03 0.11575D+03 O.58940D+02
DEVIATIOAI PROM REGRESSIOII 219 0.U3009D+03 0.19639D+01
TOTAL 223 0.89309D+03
THE ?OEMULA OB’XAIIJEDBI THE llLRA OPERATIOU IS.....
cORPOR=O.62900+02 - .2513 D+02*SCDU - .1249D-02*SCGR +0. 1289D+OO*SCAC - .7337 D-02*s MP
TEE CORMZATIOtV QUALITY-O .5184D+02. TEE 0?-VAL1311~

(A EIIAsURE O? SIGIVI?ICAYC?jj
=0.5894D+02
TEE LEAST SIGMIPICAIJT OP TEE X CUEVES USED IW TE8 AIIALISIS IS TEE OSCGB ‘(=~o. 2 oP THE X LIST)
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ********** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *********************************************
***** ********** ***** ***** ********** ***** ***** ********** ***** ***** *********************************************
REQDE!ST = 2 CARD = 22 PROGRAM = BAIE
CDBVE !3EAl! STAMDARD CORRELATION REGEESSIOM STD. ERROR COIIPUTED

DEVIATION XVSI COl!PPICIEUT OP REG. COBF. T VALUE
sCDW 0.25457D+OI O.51O54D-O1 -.698010+00 -.25145D+02 0.31842D+01 -.78969D+07
SCGR O.691O2D+O2 0.27279D+02 -.36124D+O0 -. 12807D-02 0.544090-02 -.23538D+O0
SCAC 0.65656D+02 0.342 U6D+01 0.461330+00 0.128160+00 0.40372D-01 0.31745D+Ol
C ML 0.11159D+02 0.49749D+OI O. 58348D-01 O.1341OD-O2 0.23398D-01 O. 57315D-01
SUP 0.96572D+01 0.37288D+01 O.1721OD+OO -.76595D-02 0.304120-01 ‘. 25186D+O0
DEPEiiDEU1’
CORPOR 0.7248 UD+01 0.213460+01
INTERCEPT 62.99U55
lIULTIPLE CORRELATION SQUARED 0.51843
ANALYSIS OF VARIAUCZ POR THE REGRESSION

SOUBCE OF VARIITION DEGREES SUM OP HEAU PVALVP,
Or PREEDOl! SQDAI?XS SQOARES
ATTRIBUTABLE TO REGRESSIOII 0.46301 D+03 0.92601D+02 0.46938D+02
DEVIATION ?IIOIIREGRESSION 21: 0.430080+03 O.19728D+01
TOTAL 223 0.89309D+03
THE ?ORIKILA OBTAINEO BI THE MLRA OPERATION IS.....
CORPOB=O.6299D+02 - .2515 D+02*sc Du - .1281O-O2*SCGE +0. 1282D+00*scAc +0. 134 lD-02*CNL - .7659 D-02*SNP
TEg CORRELATION QUALITY= O.518QO+02. THE ~F-VALDEf (A MEASURE OF SIGNIFICANCE) =0. 46949+02
TEE LEAST SIGUI?ICAUT OF TNE X CURVES USED III TEE AMALYSIS IS TES *CUL t (=Ho. # OP TES X LXST)
-40-
-I*-
***** ****. *.*.***~.****** ***** *o***-* *"*** ******* *~**. **.*_* ***** *****
—— **_**
-— ***0*******************
———— *****************
..”-::“(lsr-11:-_*A 40 r QN..J * -lwi’i-m% .. . . ..— rm
— -~-3
Twrv:~N.1 =x4“–43Tm>14
T_$~A-mr15-R I WI I 5 1s v 37 *I ‘d
..~o~fi%~{~?.~a~~ I~.~~s VaW..Y}Qa~VA-4Q_3.H~.~.0.LC~AL IWOO NCJ11V-13MBO> 3H1
— .
NIVM . Mvlmam 011 = mlv> I 1s 3na 33
***** **** **** ***** ***** ***** ***** 9a$.*********** **** **** g*** *.*_4.**9**9.*.***** ***** **** **A*~*.*.***.*~*_*
● ***** *****M_* *l%*,****** ● ***** *=g.***O******** ***** *a.* *w*4***** ● **lJglJ***_*.** ****************************
3HL 40 I . ). U% ZIu $x Sts A7VNV Nt n ’33 mm> U 3H1 dn lNV> ldl N91 ~ 1SV31 3N1
~lsl-1 x % 03s
—. so aAo fE-=a=Z3534Vma”Tm-Is m
~_ Swnsvw Vl , ~lVA-do 3H1 Zo ~arraoz.o -Al r-w no NO11V13M am 3 Ml
~. ?~Oiii-6 1. - zo+awa . O=ncldwo>
——. —
~~:~~~~~Vm~”<~L~T’” 3M~”%A&%NTWLH0 %:... 01 . . .
Zo +Q9enlc. o :6::r&.Zz*o C04 Nai SS3M93
d UClh-J NC!11VIA36
!o+a69gtc. o Nd=52?193M
01 41*vlnm IU4Y
OC~u&V$6”o
os$;:p~+;g+a
all Vvns -w&$ A NO IIVIMVA ● 3> tmos
Nalss 3WXKI ml mad 33W1 Mv m SIS AIVNV
——. . is3n03u
NI Vw ~e!mwg t = Ouv> 1
.—. I
;**** **&** ***do********* ***. ***** .*::* **..* ********x*.***** ●**************************** ● ****************
*****.W4***-*.*9 ********* ******* ●*** ● ****.* a*A&**g******* ● *** ***** ***************************** ● ********
——
— ~wnw eo
——
***** ***** ***** ***** ***a* $~.**.0*8******* **.** .*********-***************************_******
***** ***** ***** *Ma************ ***** ***** ***** ***l**.* **.**my***#.*sM* *g?** ****** &*~*3.*_*_** *l**** *4*
.~= , ——— —_— ___ —_
.–{AS1.I.J ZNl 4 t N03SJ 3$+1 sl SIs AVW 3HA N[ a~mu~% L ja 1s v 31 Wii.
——
●o+~ .0- t m~s & -Wsvati v ~vA-sl* 3nL
.2 0 +W .* L* O-Al t NOll
1~110 V13Wm3 3iJ
NIV.W = UVM90&bd LOL = CJWV> t . —Ii
1S3
***** ***** ***-* *********c***.*****.*_*******************-**** ●***** *z*** ***ii m*–*=**mi’*–*T*=** ●*************
XI/ti lLZ ~ s= us~~ ~ ~N ~~v~
OM1 XlCJN3ddV
Z861 ‘6-9 Alilr ‘Wnl SOdWAS ‘3 N19901 lV(l NNV aHIH1-AlN3Ml VIMdS
*-**.9 *88*88 **8** *.*** *8*** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** s***8****8****** ●****8************
~FST . 1 cfi RD . 111 mDGRA M= MA1 N
CURVE MEA N sTA rma~mcssl ON STO
Q.2**130+01
EY[.A~ iU@ x v–s .v_ -___!zw@=I~
0.778430+0 ::;i8$4&~2k;4EQ %-i%:;%%:
——
o •b~m~
g~$&55’”o’ s
E~~E~ h. :.*SQ4
$iD. EWUIR OF S
ANALYSIS —..
StWRrIE OF vAR 1 ATIUN w~,~ FVALU2
0.104210 +OA
*:%:X2:R%%EZ:AF VD2 O* E1*390+OA
706 0.3232~+ OS
‘THE FOUF4UL4 m TAINE D W T+IE MLR A
R=o- 10s60 +03 - .e083Lw02*SCDN +0 .ae
F
● **-* ● * **** **** **********@3?** ?*s*5*_*_*.*31*****_*. ?*_**4****q*&** ******* ●_*!****** ● **** ** ● ** *.*~*-~*:*:*-*”~*_** ●.
●************ ***** ***0* **** **** ***** ***** ***** **-** ***** *********s***********************************.*
““”%
—. --
Cwvli WE4N
VALE-- ‘-
$CDN o.> ●4130+01
o. b91151)+ol
—.
?HE CIJ$?9?ELA tl ON a u$L=oC..=DXo&_S 9●-WWE IL!L!w!-m OF sla IF IcANcE} =0-10100 +04
. {. No.
.L.=rr. _
-—
?HE l.kAST $1 @tl FICA NT OF T* x CURVE3TU?SED IN TN’ m =1s 1s T- CmL 2 w .-—— - —.
—..—- .— .- —-
***** ********** ****~* ***** ***** ***** *-**-*mK**3 w*T***********-*w* ********* ● *●*-S****”**”************
;**** ***** **.** ***** +**** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ma*** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *;*** ************ma******
. l-cam . 114 ❑ . MAIN

-.
.-
I
Cu WRELAT ION QUA LIJ V= O-7e*~”+02. TNE •~-vAL~, ,A we A%t&S w slGNmlmoUIE) *O. TTWO+03
I EAST SIG NIFIC ANT OF TNS x CURVE S USED #N 1N2 ANALVS IS Is TNE w- , {.~, 3 OF THE x LIST)
— . .- .——. —.-. —. .——
-42-
-&t-
1
..... . ~._L__,_ —— .-—-. -———.. ——-——-
‘-{ iti-i x -A Jo c .-, , -mm 3NL SI Nv NI a3sn Sziim x JNV3141 N91S 1SV31 314~
SISAIV ZNA 341 40
—
co ●aIz@s .o*(33~141N31s do Ettmzv3R v) *3nlvA-d* 3Nl Zo +a6cl L ●O=AAI1 V(IO NOtl Vl 48G> 3M&
—-. . Hvmoad ell . OMV > .
MI VW 1 i5dnd
.—
●** *~fl~* ***** **** **** ***** 0**** ***** ***** o**** **.*_*_~**.*.*.*.*_* ***** ****q* *_*_****0* ***** ***** ***.** ****.**~
●•*~** ●::*.* ***.-* ● ** ● *** ● ******* ●*********W** ******** ●g@*gm99****** ● ***********************
{1s11 x 3N1 4* . al.). W. Ha SI SISAWW 3Nl NI a3sn ~mm3 w ml da LNv31dl WJl S 4s V31 *&
~ lVA-4. 3141 ?d-+~m>vl-a N011v13w30J *&
w Vm . twmooad Atl . Ow > I
**?** ****q@ **** ~***** ***~* ***** ****~**@ ***** *q*q*~*-*3*Z*Tm**T* m***3~***** *****
—.. ***** ***** ***.**-*i
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***.* .—-—
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
——..—— ***** iw*T*F*~*
(1s1 1 x 3NA * c Im.lo lN3 ● xl S1 S1 Srlvw Al Ml 03s ~& yn $ 3M1 do lNv2t4!N5ts 1SV51 3U4
Co +OG??3SES . V3U .
v I__S7flVA -d. 3H1 eo +Oouu -0 .AII Wno NUI 1 V1.iHN03 3WA
lNJ
Zo +O*Z9[ 1.0
co +a49z 69-o co+
.—
NOISS*93 u
NIV =
—3rx_&@_st 1 = O*V5 I = lsq~m
———
i.. *.** ..*** ****. ***** ***** ***** ..**.. ***** ..*.. **.. *m***. ***. ***:*-,r**-*z-*-*<*x*Gc* *************.****
2861 ‘6-9 Alflr ‘WfllSOdWAS 9NI!3501 lVfl NNV aHIH1-Al.N3Ml VIMdS
● ✘✘✎ *9v.98. **888* 8**** **9*v***** *88** ***** ***** ***** *v**e=m** ●***** ***** o**** ***** ****. ***** ***** ***A8_* ● 8.
SEW-T . 1 CARD = 11 9 PRoGRAM = MAIN
‘-%
. .—..
‘Tlls CORltEMT 10 N QuALITY-O-71 Q..~_*.Q2 . THE *F -VA&tE ●( A M~ASLSIE @“-S] GNtFI~E) -O*O b 130T~——”
hIE LE A>l SIGNIFICANT OF THE 8 CUUV~~EtJ I N TN2 ANAL VSt S 1s TNE .- s,~o 2 m’
OF x L lstT=----Q
.— . —-. .— . —. . . . . . ——-——
~**** ***** ***** ***** ***** 0.*_* ****.* *0**:* **6*- ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *m**-*.* **w*-*******-*.****
****mr*m***** ***** ***** ****g*~*l**** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 0**** ****0**********************
.RsQLJg’T = 1 la RO = 120 w Olm AU = RAIN

—
ONEWEU
——
!REWEST = I CARD = 121 m
—.
-“’%
-44-
'd*** ***m* **** ***** **** *v***?*_* *_**.* *?5**%?.***** =*. -?~.?Kv%*?z?z* =*8* ****mvwv**=*
**v**=w**w****88****~**
. 1 CAliD = 123 WOGRAM
—.- .—.
= MAIN
~::’ ~ ._Nr4)
Elation___
‘GR 0.43+500+02 0.198190+02
DEPENDENT
● 119 4BO+02 o.5LI*290+01 —
!9. 19350
CORRELkT 10 N Sou AME.D i *91
● TE 4.81a46
I
I AN4USEQEY.~~
SOURCE OF MEAN ●VALUE
SGU ARES
o 0. 13s940 +03
UT At 290 0.906620 +0+

2BE Fo ehtULA Ostal ~$WOPERAT 10N
mupo R-o. 19190 +02 - ~
L
TY.O.a,gwoz. THE -. CA E OF
31iE k.-a ST SIGNIFICANT OF TtuZ X ruRVES ~lS TNF o- ● (.** n w ms x LIST~ ——_
—.
● **** ●*** ●* ●*-*** ●********* !s**.*l*_*_*.*? *.*.* ***?*** ?.ql*.*m*_*_* ●.***.* .*y*_*** ● ****** ●****** qg.****** ●*** ** ●* ● * ●
● ***********m****** ***** ***** *4** ***** ***c*9****** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **>~*
T . l_CARO . 124 PROGRkH * MAIN
CLIRvF ME4N %IAm&&~R~L TION REG R wO~Jb-ERROR co WT

~E!ugJY- ~~~~ lcJEN~ti-8l-
n+oo -. 146+90+00 —
40 +02 o &mkzQtQL
Sassm
ML!LJIPLE TION sQLtMtr) 0.07179
~A* Ra M @33cL9
—. —..--___.
THE c~TIO N o~xv =0.71 ?3i5~ ● _vAL@-, (~ m~~~~~i t~r CANCF )=0 .z~ 70*OZ
●=* ~cT*, ~––.—–

ANT OF TnE Is 9 (= No. T*
WE LEAST SltWIFIC x Cua vE_s?seo IN mE U4ALY91S WE 1 ff —— .—
————
U**** *********************** S-* ~~&_~i~:5** ** * ●*** ● **** *~_* r*”6**%*~ .__.~**-*~m*5e* ************
● *********** *si-*-*i-*-*3-*-ii* ***"*z* i**** ***** =**** ****# ****"* *%*** ***** ***-* *3*-* ***** *****a 0*3** r****
-——.—— *o*******
—-—
Rti@JEsT . 1 C AR9 . 12?8 PnuGR AM = HA IN
AYALV *is l_w .VAU”iAWCE FOR T!$.-f?EoRi?ss Im_ —

SOURCE vARIA? DE::F~ ROF N FV us ——-
OM sw!!wi~
tmmuK4BL:To yirl;icw 2 0. 0.37*J?+ 04 Abl 6SD+03
OEVIA~:~LF,ROM R .GRESS]ON Zaa 0.:34%%04 .o. a14*7D+ol
290 -- 0. 9S6620+D* . .
TI’XE CO~TIDN OUA LITV =~7’230+02. TNE ,F-vAL ~Ai CE J= Oo4617D+03
THE LtA5T sIGNIFICA NT OF Tlsi x Is THE %73ic ● [.W. 2 OF T* x LISTJ

—. —--— -.—
***** mat*-******* *o*** ***.*~-gx~*F*** *****.* g**T********** *3~*&~**aw****?~***K**** ●●
—.—
***** *-*** ***** ***** ***** *?ss******* *m*** ***** **** ****l*.* **** -***= *y.*~*s@?=***** *****.*_* *.E*x:*****
—
R~@kST = 1 Cmo . 126 PROGRAM * t4Al N
f-aiaw WEAN s34.Npe9 CAWMM ION W@ ES. Q. STD. Con

— * v l.pmmm _x ‘“-3.%. ‘~p~ 7 ‘,
Sco N 0.2 4( A40+0 t
●*3 WI OO+02 o.19al$gl +02 -.S6 sblo~ 7
Ll&PkYREmL
~~~ ~o.l; 9480+02 O.* 4290+01 —
e. 4sao4
. 7s379
S?UD. ERUOR o 2.90423
T
-45-
&*********** ***** ***** **** *****

——. . ***** E*5?**.**?*.*.* *2*?*_* *ss.*-*?K*_* ***s* l**** **** ****.*s*.*-** *=***********
—-. .—— —.. .—— .——
T . 1 c ARD = 127 PNoGRAM = MAIN
! THE cm UEIAT ION WA LIT Y=o. ~*5W?132* THE “F-~~L~E m slQ41FmimcE3T = .s4000+03
I
yHE LEAST SIONIFICAN~~ TI-E x CURVES USED IN VIE ANuvsls Is T1.sI WI- ~.~. z OF ‘WE x ~_&~. ::.:.
—
***** ***** ***** ***** ***3=*m=**s****"* 6-~*-* -*~** *********************************f *4iiw**-o* *********
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***m* ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***********9*********************************
—
~UEST = 1 cARO = 128 ~Ati =---N
—
WE CWWL ATIuN OUAL IT V= O.7647D+OZ. THE ●F-vAL~ ,1A w EA Smif-m slmYFmmc21 =0.310 90+03 —— ..—
~“. .A . n
1 Slwt FICANT w lNE_4_.C@vES UsEO IN 7NE ANALW3 ~4 xVI:
.——.
●—*k~*-**** ************** ●***6m*%0*-***** **0********************* *m*************
**———. . . —.— *:*~-************
m,~vs $w*mT--*w*****? g?ms*=w*w6**=ti%* o ***-s9*”r*****w*m~B&9 cwm**** ●-***@ ”**~*** ** ● #**.*&#’
-E= . 1 CARD . 129 mOGRAM . MAIN --”%
ANALYSIS m v
Fv WI! —— .-—
sJT RISU
‘~: 0“=&D+03 ““- -f;

—— —..
.1036 WOO*CNL
~ * + A .“.33mo+03
———
Tw LEAsT SIGN ~ANT OF T- X CUR Vk ~ THE ANAL VS 1S Is T- La [ .m. 3 w 7NX x _Ly4 Tl~_–-–
——.
+z********* *************************m********* ● *** ***** ***** *m*w**m**** ***** **wv*m8**** ***88-8 "v".*
..— *we*.....
0 . 130 -AH * MA~
[ cuRvt MEAN s A~~lm

~Gv?c I EN T
CONPUTE
mu
.
SCDN 0-246 +01 o 0.
Immo+”l
+02 fit 350 0“-0 1‘— “3-. 1● 6-7 vL=i3 1
~3~$:$~ ‘-
‘ CNL o.27tato+oz ‘o 207930+00 -. 122s3D-ot 0.21 13QD41 ‘.S79620+00
RE!?ENQENT
c9m# 1I9bUJ +02 =7 -!21—_ ._
P7
‘*5U w 119. *?03*
—.
~wmw~..?!sws
~~~oF EST I N~dM!&16
. vA!3 I AME FOR T~&9.E&S 10N —.

_QEWtEES W S!S P&N us —— .
UARES ——
3wo+~rsa994 0.294020 +03
REGu~l ON 2a~z48Qzo+o~-
10TAL
Fl)k MULA
Of’1=o.1
OHTAI~
1940m - N
gigigQ’fE?:”
+
~.rb3sb=tsl
‘4
*6-ii___ - .12230-o i*LNL
——----
%E C,JRHELA
7 10N ouALll Y.0 .7552 0+02 . I* 9F-vAL W* 1A MEA!WRE w SIGNIFICANCE) =0.2940 D+ 0“3
Y*)E AST sIGNIFIC ANT UF 1* x CURVES USED IN 7NE AN4LKS

~1 . . Mx ST.l_” ----
-46-
-LtJ -
1
,.. . ..— —.. —. ———. . ——— —.-—.——.__ .. —- . . ..—
.0
_.. .— —-.
z __! N2dUJi L-.SL!U-YYW-2!I UILO .* 91. N?J 1’
MStl x.”~ N=L 3 SI-~.3A=t! 9D~
c0+a6sez=0 ={33w>t41m is 40 3mnsv3h v}. a-nvA-d. 3+4A ●ZO+fYZ*OO-O=All WOO NO IL VI WMO> 3WL
.—. —.
-“.. ezAA AA*- .-, ----- .-. ”. 6... —-s.rlA M”-.
_—— ——
-N:--” -------
● o &i
ZQ*-A*=*m-n “-n-n
——
— w.:..u.vuwa-c~anv~”r-mnnau
—.-.—
. . >**** ***.* .*~**** ***** ***** ***** ****** **o*****0* ****** ***** *****
—. *T*-* i*3**wFo=*
—-— ************************
____ ._
(1’311 x 3HA da i? @4*), w, ?xu SI SISAW w * Ml aasn S3 Ann> x *I so ANv3141N91s 1s V>l *.I
— CO+OIZUZ”O *(#mv21dlh QIs do 3MIWV3 n V)ezfwv A-d ● 314t Zo ● OIZQ6=0 =AII lvno NOILV14N Ho> 3W
.—
MI VW . lw~ . I . 1%411m$
●********************H******************** ● *** ● ************ ***** ****************************
—— ● **********
●**_****************************** ****** ●******** ● *** 3TiL**●*******************************************-
(1s8 1 x 3N1 a c m.]. -0. 3NA s: s13Awm 3N.1 NI aasn S3-Amtm x 3W do lNV31~ 1SV3 t 31U,
1s do 3wnsvdlll v) 9 ZnlvA-A lIHL Zo +Q~UI 4 s o=AII lVm NrJl 1V14BW3 *1’
-IN
co + a-s7t*z-o +0 + GVMM31M11
wvnos 38 v nos noo33w da I
ZiIWA d NV3W do nns s213k1931 NOIIVIMVA do 32 W’!0s
N01SS3U93S 3N& S04 3MV~ WA ‘~ SISAIVNV
L9e11”c 41V WI 3 dn uo8n3 “0+$
tL*o a3nvnm
C’S44.S “zs- ‘1.:<*
0 +aw~ o 20 +09961 1-0
1 N $tTt.iZd3a
WE
Zo
3A mm
N mi=-imJiE9-- M z~ . w *
-.—
*****m* *~*. ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ****$ @***.* ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **.0.?*_****_?l*fls*.*>.*3.*5.* l**`
● **.#*_*#***** *****~***** ● **a** ***** **** M**** *********u** ● *******************Z***********************
(*S 1.1 x 3NA dok cm-l: w, *1 sl ST5-Aww 3 M1 Nr-m’m S3 AUn3 x *A *I5 ~N~@ 1S lSVS1 -Ml,
CO +OA6*Z. O*(7 3NV31 Xm7s da v) ● m Uvh-* awl 20 +Ootu.t=o *U Ilvno tWtl VWL4ba~ 3U1
— 1N30[ O-0 bLS6- - ● - -m@mrre*o+
.—— — Nags ● Z0+066~b + Eu . 0=80 ~=
VUIW 3H1 A~ 03 NIVACI0 T’ltltiwl
I
ZnlvAd ‘UG*
h.=”. a -w-t
Ml VU 9-- w–v@i5mjd trt = Ow> I = 1s3 l-mm
:**** ***** ***** ***** **o** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ****m* 0************************************************
2861 ‘6-9 Alflr ‘WfllSOdWAS 9N19’301 lVllNNV akllHJ-_AlN3Ml VIMdS
APPENDIX THREE
WILCOX MISSISSIPPI
***** u**** ***** **-. ****. ****.* *.**.*~.**. e*r**=wy*g.*_*~$ ***~* ***c= *8*** ***** ***** ***** ****ti*O***c *******
RLwtsT = ___ , ~AQ~ -~ - ~+&-_p~~~~~-=---wx rr——---—--—

——
——––_-
—.
.-–-..
. —-
–. _
——.
_
. -.
-.——
CUti VE ““ MEAN– STANVA*D —s @fp& AJ.I09G”I.AKGRESS l-o-m STD.’ Efot~” -_. COMPl)yE~–-— — --- ..–
VE. VI6TIO$ -— tOEFF IC1tNc_ OF NEG. C@Fc T VALUE
tiC.5UUk (1 .2953 hV+0Z 0. 13345*_olo lJK3_og leo+o_o_’:;_ o.71T23rn+oo .,... o .3s 1 3m+oo. 0.222080+61–- ‘_
LEI+. YLIEN1
C(J .+,04 (J.2Y6VOO+U2. : Q .3s#.0.@*o 1 -— ——-— —.— .-.
IV TCALCW ——.. t?*=a___ —.. ..—___ __ ____ ._
❑ uI-T I PLE CUMRELAT 1 (IN 50_uAN_klJ o._u9r90
STU, L+IALI14 OF csTIMATE__ -3 :~70.5 ——— — _. —
AN* L~S~~ D~-”V-~ &NCE_ f ~rn~~@E~lW—--———-—— ------- – -
>UUI?CE UF VAN 141
1~N_____=~&fEE5 SUM of - -— —-—mE*.”—_ _-_T_vti.u-E— ..: ;-.
OF “FiiSiSCMM SQUARES”
—.-__–o::~5:g:~–
AT T.tl HuTAbLE to RIstIREsS~~& .~; 53i?s19*”O~— ~695s6D+”.O_J_ ___ .-
UF. V, AT ICIN F*oM blEGnt SSIO.N__ 9_..o.. s2e2lo*o3 0. 1073~+02 —
Illrhl- -% o .s 7*.*.*.0.3:ZLP. .– .--..—.— -
THL ~,lW4ULA ITS7 A lNECI SV- ~~. &R A...0P=RT@1414 ‘iS. ,.. . ... .-
CdNPU<=0.05M2D* Ol_~gO?~.2_?U*UU*~ASPti- — - —________ __ ----
—— .— ———
TME C% MELA T 1 UN @AtiT ~1~ ..? L*&*.? lL_r.&__~. _TlmjEyf K14ea-*.irQgil -a r~ rC.Ai$C~T=O”: “*9s.90+ o i. :-
THE L:A>T >IbNIFIC~N_ll OF_T~ ~R~~m_&

S. .A?JAL W 1S lli7h#&:-?GA SPOR •{=rn~-r ~:;t~ X- L* ST)
***. *.*** **w** ***** ***** ***** 9f*-*~*_* *:*** ***** ***********************************m********* ●*************
● **.***.****,***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 4**** ***_********************************.********* ●****************
—
RELK)65T = 1 CAWD = 097 PRO@i A~-:=-.Ui I“N_. . ..- —
LMh V L ML~N 3T4NVARD __l~mQELAtlti ‘“REGRESSION S10’. ERROR -- COMW720

uEVI AT ION A Vs * “-”-’:” COEFFIC t~~f OF REG. COEF. 7 VALUE
5C6N u.2ti4v5v+02 u.2u.2Y7v+c12” -.69s000+00” -.7SE1730-01 O•225 980-01 -.3357 bo+ol
645*LI* 0.2 Y>300+(12 0.1 SS25D:~~:30314 D+00- : 0,3S11340+OU- -. 0.344220+ou– o. 102210+01
Util+ xdt-NT —— . .— --— . .._— _
Cu!.
,W, ru<
=Mct@; .2*e90 t>+ u2. o.3*3ti9&ol
zr:.9i~::”-:._.–_ -._---&~+=.. .-
MULT lI+& CD MNLLAT [UN Y3u”A*E~ 0. 2b+b . .._.. — .—
STU. LMNIII+ UF ES II MATE ____ 2.9795 L!. _..: —_”: ___ ...-:_
ANA LVST5TVAR TANC~_

~Kwl~&EGRESSION
5L)d<c: UF v4k1AIItl N uEGwEti S !4riAN ‘“ ‘- “— ““ FVALUE ‘--
OF FQt@O_3-” SOUARES -- SQUARES ‘— ‘--
ArT4i-UIAdLE 10 *k GRL$, SiON-— -- ~ .0.153330+03”” ~_” 0.7h6@o+02 - 0mS63570+Or ‘-
L.:v14r10m FRfltiREw ES SICIN
:-—
—- --
i+m
so ---—–
0042613~O?l
*.57* 4**03 . ...
o.eAA77eD+ol”–– -.
rl, IAL
~Ht F“ti M,$LA Oil TA I*ED-’HY--~ WLR~-Tf~IUW Is: .-.;. ‘-—––-——-
CUKUI)I<=O. 21 SOD+U2 - .75a@ i)l SSCW-– +oo3$18D-?oo*GK @W~--–~--—-—-- ‘--- ‘––— -
— —.——
lrtc C[lQI+ELA1 ION tXJAL 1 TV~O;~20”~b~Q~~W-VAL~~~ MEAS@= ~ STGN 1~1 CANCS }=0-8636D+Or– -
Irw Lta!aT S1 @J1F[CAN7 OF ~&~g~Fi_W~_~lF?~WE _@4ALVSI$-IS .Tt6’~GAS&l:--T”( =NQ. 2 OF TNE X L15T)
● *****.********** ●*****.*****-**-***** **~****-***************** ● U*************** ● *******************I ● ☛☛☛☛

● ****.**********.* ●****. ***~***_*_*:****** ●***** +ti**-**** *y*_* ***8** ● ******************** ● **********8 ☛☛☛☛☛
—.—
REwt5t -=-– ~ cAlib_= __ o~.m .@w_R~M = tOiI~_——--”---—— -----
Lut< Vt 9!t AN btANbARb-—”– —- “CW8ff~~&~Ofi ‘---’ REGRESS ION”--’ STD. ERROR - C:hPvv:: -
LDLSI AT ION COEFF1C16NT OF REG. COEF.
SLLJ* 1)..?l 2e*o+o I__ 0.1 lbdbl.l+oo____ -. 191660+00 -. S66910+01 0.414740+01 -. 13t1690*o 1
,.,:
“L-,.
. . . .,,
I.”
..:...
L,.,
——— .— _- .
CL) *UM O.29wUU+0 2_ “~.O .S+”~-96+O-l—- —.—.—.——_
lNltuCk PT -“”—-w.75ti3r—----—-- —-::-- ----- — -.
M(JL r lPLt CUM IgCLAT 10N >UUA~Eb-—— U. 03073--”—-—--–- _____ .. _.. _
STIJ. ,.h.H.uy t5r”l
of—-——— MA7E _ — 3 .~7~i3~ ——— ——
~J&~$v:W!-E
——- —.
.- S.OUR-CE
0-6-v A#jfkT-g3-a
——-— .—_. ._ W+ 1 @AlrJF
REGRE SS~”– —”—
-------.--MEAN
__ ‘— — FVALUI __ _.
ATT K 1 .WT-A=SLE__TO ME @.ESSt ON ‘F ‘“:R~g~g-:~;—T,;::;zroF-e.in6*so+or::1-- -_

lJLV I Al 1(JP.. FRUM REGM.ES$l_QN _____ ._ .___o. 1 I 3_?lb+o~_-G—–_.
lr>TAL -— ___ o. s 7:9&lQ+.03__.-_—
TML FWWWLA OBT_AINEm tiv lx MLRA %&xmrd ls . . . . .
—— .—. -.-— ____
CUUIWM. LI. * I tq.oz-:-- .,ea’jy~LIJ_*scTirj
——.
.THE CCIKI+ELAT 10N fJUAL-i”TY=O o313m+O!.. 1!+2 9.K--V ~~:b ~ K ME ASUR15 ~ 5 IGNITTCAmJ ti~ilSMO+ o T–_–— :‘– ‘- --
Iw LEA aT ‘SIGN i F 1 CANT o~:_~i~K:.cimvES~ _~:~::.JAl-Y$ f.S_ 15-.TK: 8S_~O~ _ t=w.–~ OF TrIE x LIST] --
***** *************-*******–*** *a*s3*****-**s*-* 6***-* m**** ***** *ti*&***sa ***********************0**********
-%
-48-
-6tJ -
1
. ************* ●☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ☛☛✎☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛☛ ● ☛☛☛☛
✎✎
(1S11 X 3HL 40
.– N(K)SO 341
Z SI SISAIVW
“U4=)a 3ML- N1 137Sf’__?j3ANnsui_ ”_7Ul 40 1NV>141 M51S lSVTI 3UI
10.0806400={ 3> NV3141N91S 40 3UI%V3M V). 3nlVA-40 _3L+& !ZO+O?6*?-SOXAJ I lWITO Nnrlw13w Hm”” au!
— .-
— —
tims*Oo+a Iti L--- &3-S* IO-(l$6Z0s - ZO+06LCC. O= M,eHO,
.— -*-.-sI worlw.w::~.tjnw 341 A17 03w Ivim v-mhhn, 7HI
. CO+ O006LG. O ____ _lt. ~r3,
10*~F906. O “. CO+(190SE*-0 ___”_R*_ NOl~S=IM~qH unlid NL)I lVIA~O
lo+aL296L”9 --- ZO+QKIZZ4. O ._ fo+ac***I. o ? –-.. “~- N(IIS531+04N 01 71 CVln*I*11v
Sllklvoos ._. _ smvms _.ntia33B4 ~a _..
3117vA4 NV3W 40 wns s:43w93q N(ll lVJfiVA jE3>:&Ifw
-. -. Nalss3&msNl 3tu .aad ‘32”NVl MYA.AOs ISilYNV ___ ._-— _..
— -.
.-.–---.:.: :..—.. ESO!Q.E. 3LVW 11%7 40 WOUM7 .01s
.— ..___ OzISt.Z. Q _ _~.~>-vnQ< NO I LV11MM03 =1.+1 llnw
.- – -~esQL”x E_. le?3M-.1N1
_AQ*06GE?C”o_. ?o+oor+~fiz:o .n*,, -J
– i ~+a.b~–z, ~;~~ON-~.+ ~0
OO+cJb IZOz -- to+a Lez6c-o Oo+rl$ I*6L. -. ooioaoi 6 I ~-”~~-iin-+7K7-0-I t. n U,17<
I o+ao9e9E O- Io-acoszz. o Jo-a9*6z9. - oo+ao0*6*-- 20+0162 (12.0 zo+os66F12. o”_. N9 X
3n1v A 1 ●j30> .93n ja 1N71>144X13 ___ A $A M _ .NO1lVl A3rl ___ . __
031ndwa3 UOMU3 ..als NOl SS3U93tl Na[lw13MNO>__ _q.?iyoNv.&$ Nv_3N_ -_ 3AW>
_–NI-&M EH.VWOW” 2.OL :: 13Mv3 t__~.. L-s?no=n+
●**************** ● ******************** ● **************** ●**************** ●***************** ● *************
● **************** ● ******************** ● ****************** ●****************** **.*******.******_***** ●*****
(1S:1 X 3HI do ? “ON= ).-. Na>s, .*1 .s1 51 SA1VNV *A .N1 .a3sn. <~llyrlq b..ml 3(I JNV?l~rm~~ ~svq-1 3“*
10+ OOLSC*O={ 3> W>14JN9t S. ‘~. 3MI15V3M V1.3111VA-Ao SH1” _“i!O’+@-*Zl “O= AI IIVfi- NOl”lfi.3MMIr3 Wl
-. —. .—
——
NU>S*l O+ OS IWZ*” - ?(13N3S*OOtii16>** - ?O+0GZ6b*@=Mil#H0,
-=-= .s1 WIl VM3dfl VU W3Wl_-~U ~3Nl V_1_H_fl.V1ll WH(l+ 3Q1
fo+a9*As. o -:_-___-_oq_ . ..~.w ini
zo+d60soi. o _“l.. so+ac**oG. o .?@I~-S7H9”3q_@fl_?2 N(111 V I A-O
Jo+azo4sE” Q__ ?9+06 lCLFOQ _.__zo +asEos4.0 _._. ._.:*. ___ .___w0[ss3H37M_QL_2fl~v1 nr+ 1 ~1 1 v
.-——..s3tivnos _____ s3nvnos _wrlq13w4 do
-. I>lL-Lv!AA–– da nns—. .— Nv3iv
s33M23f —_ .No J ~iJ HVA da 3jb-nris _.
-- NO ISS3U93U 3141 W&i .3>NVI WA 40. SJSAIVW -_ _ ___
*4”J *2 -c
-——. *4–vw[~s3_da M13HH3 -01<
.- . —_
_.6w3z I .O _ 03 avn~~ qn U.v7vqgag3 31e 1 L1nw
. .3UC$Z.4* 1d27W.l WJ
_~O.+~PE.*_S...Q_ —.-—
zo+ao&”9 &?-. o U11+HC13
-.. . _lN+(ltJ-l,i70
oo+nswl~=- .“ 10+13 *017*. O .“10+60s9s2.- ‘oo+aw161 *___ 00+00701 I.o_ . ~o+a*@z Iz-o N(I>S
ro+a~t972.- OO+o O06UI .O _oa+o I Iwz**- __oo+a;zg~ ;-_~+_o Lt*c Z.o ___ EE!!fQg%2i l!! .?naN~e
3n7vh L “430> .93M 40 1N31314430> _ — ....N-CJllv1A30_..
a 31ndwa2 _.. _uonn3 .a4s___.No lss3b93u ._..t40I lv1_3.fi_m aWaEv15 Nv-3_u 3AwW
.— —— 4
—..!1vm+wv~mw I04 =-.52L–Z1S=+-W ?~
*******..*...***.**.*. ******.–*...*****. ..*i.. ** ..*. ****.*. ****. *.*... *i*”**”* ●****—* **X*.******* ***i***.***
***** ********************************** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ****** ****g.*.* ****. ****m**.********* ● ****
————
(isll x 3W do .1 ..aN&iAj-m3N3S, *L. SI SISAWW. 3FIA _Ni-a3sn mann x *i ‘4Q.JJ4Y2J ALWJ%L< v ~~_.3u 1
—. .-— —
10+alSIL9*O=(3X4V3141N!JIS ~ 2iljI_ISV3M k) .~lYA-jL 3HI.._*.zQMMZ.Z! .0=”i113XfXLf!@ L1.Y13MM12> =UL
——— .—
— —- _-. —
Nlvn = .Uvnthi 00L = anv>>__LJ S.3W3M
.—— .— _ — .
b**************** ***** **o** ****o********************** ●***-*******-*******.=** ****SO****.*.*****
●—— ●.**”*********
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *.*** 9**** ***** ***** ***** *.*:*_* *_*** **.** **.**
***** ***** ***_* *_**A$.*********
-—- ——.
(is I I x 3HA da I .s+4= )s .j-”3i72s. ~-iSI 3x-sA7vw.mfi lT1-3SKii~ilII X 3M1 do Lwvsljl )imrIsi~_* 1.
ZO +CJ I zO I ●o. ( 3~NvJ J +1-~1 ~ ~ _MI_V$ ~~ U. fi”~o #lV—h--j-q~ ~U”i~_r?~~O&Z~A i~-fi~ ~~~v%@po”_j?~ !
-- .—___ ‘- “–—-—”Z6OU6*Z”oQn*=. ~—viiixs3_—*T&g9ti
n—–----L.. 3.--” a is
aatm-ms NcLIM~&~2 >%+! ilnw
-i9&E I ●z~-– ~2W?1NI
T o+a-~6_q~ ?L@—
+-ax ~ ‘MnAo3
“iN30N3d7fl
o+a*qzo9*- ___ io-a Ie60z*o - lo-aa L**e*- j.oa+oowm**- z 0+OG66P?.. O I@% ::
3n1vA 1 :4302 .93u 40 1N~13Jd4303 ._.. _ ,-,6 .—~~-o
a31ndwo3 ._ MOWt13 ‘01S. _ .NOl SS3U931i .._!O149fl.3M&tQ ,—.s~ _-.
3AMn3 —. ‘-
. -. -. ~,
I _ Npii . Hvwmw 669 . aMv_> I . 1~ 3ril!_3n ‘“
L ***** ***** ***** ***** .**** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *"*** ****; ***** ***** *.*** ***** **E*x.zm*zzv*-;= *.* –
Z861 ‘6-9 Alflr ‘INfll SOdWAS 9N19!301 lVll NNV 0141 H1-ALN3M1 VIMdS
*.*. *.. *.** **s** ***** ***** *****

——. ***** ***** ***_*_*~.** *-*** ***** ***8* ******8******************************* ,
——.—. —. --
RcuUE>t = I CAiii~tiZ~UGRAM = Uh IN
— .—
5uMCL QR VAMI AT ION —..—— _ .__._w_gL-—--: :.
SQUARES
AT1*I ,UIAHLE jO *E GI+k5Sl@”—— —. .— _-o. 15SezD+03- ‘_– 0.77et.IX)+02---~-E 17$780+OiOi .– _;‘“
ULVIA1 1.lN FHUM. ME&k SSION
:&-——. g::;:~~:g; _._.. o.es4*m+oi_jj. _ ___ ——
Tt) iAL
. .
1-c r-l IkWLA Udl AlN51J IN THE .-@CR~”O@E~TjON IS . . . . . -
C,,”4JK=IJ. J1.43D+02.. —-::+_o.3** 1.0+00* s O@o 2: ::’:”.-__”.
–__.1Z1OI)).OU*5.CS “-:.:.:_-:_::”” __
—
lrik COHRCMT ION WAL1 lV6U-. Z–074@O~._ _. TFi~-:”:F-VAL@:
— ( A MEASURE OF SIGNIF ICAqCE )= OQt37SSD+OI “
● ***.8 s**. ****s**+ *v0*v88**988”* s3*~8”*”* *b********** ●*8**8***9+ 9**$***9** *v********* ● ***** *6*** **8*0 *****i
**. **.. ***** ****.. ***. *.*.** .**** -**** ***** ***** **** ***** .***.** *v*** ****** ***** ***** ****9 *****************#
UC UUC5T = 1 C*MD =_ ..*_O*: “@RffiFiA-m-= “MA Iii_ --— – -- -.

..— —
cu. Vc 14tAN “StAN~A~ ___CUMRELAT 10?_ - REGl?ESSI@” S1O-.” ERR”M - COMfUTED -:_ .
IJEV14TION” Xvsv COEFFICIENT UF Q(SG. COEF- 1 VALUE
>CW* u.21’?e4u+ol o.llbLOu+oo ‘-. 191 bbD+O0 -.113190+01 0.393030+01 ‘.28800D+o0
SC”,< o .zsw+5U+U2 0.202 w7u+u2~_~-. +va6O~+OO -.1201 eo+o L1 o.401 R31a-ol -.?90030+01
5CNCU? 0.32793U+02 .(J. Zaal 70.+_o~ .__.-.t3bo23o+oo 0..3s1 o 70+00 0.314*20+00 o. 111660+01
[) LPl_Nuk. f4T — -- .- —— —.. . .-
CUU-IIH 0.2’4e901J+L12_– O-343b~*~ 1
.—
luT-. HCE+T -.<-: ?–::g-g . . .. _ .
MULr IPLC CLL*UtLATl ON *uAwu
—.
S11,. EMKU~ 0Ft5Tl MATE ——-—. — .. —. ——..3.002 S2–--:- -
ANA–L”V:”ly;iM”” vaRi AN’cE_~ORJEo:EGRESS.10i4 ‘-- ‘—: ‘—-- ‘- ‘-—

>uukCt UF vAMIAI lQN _______ _-OCGREES MEAN FWALUE _ -_
OF ~REt Qu-M SOUAUES SD!.)AQES ‘_
AT T+ ILIUTAL+EE 16 tiF~RESSItiN 3P o.ls56m+03 6.S 1ab9D+02 “-0.575460+01 ___ _ :
IJ. V14111JN FQOM KtblJkssluN- 47 – b.423eoD+03 ‘“ o.90_i700+ol --
lLll AL 50 -—”” -0. s7s460+03 “-”
-.
TnE FIJH~ULA U0141NE0 UY ‘l~--ML~U~<~~TION IS . . . . . –
CUUPUU=V .L*C)70+(JZ - .1132w”i*scow
—.— - .I.?02D+oo*sc G9 L +0.35 llD+o OOSm.EO? ._._”:.. “_”_. :..
.- —
Trnt CI,M<LLATION GdALIt Y=6.2-e-@~~ 6~~ti~; rF-VAL& *(A MEA SUKS ~ 3X~I~TCANCE }=O. S755D+Ol -
lW L:AST SIIMIF I CANT OF T~i~iJRVg~ ‘uSED “TN’ 7NE ANALYSrS .IS””71’2”-rS~W-” -’” ~(=rill. i OF THE x LISTJ
● .********.*.***. *-*W*******.******** ● ***************** ● **************** ● ****************** ● *4***********
,-%.
----
-50-
.:,

Spwla 1982 T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spwla 1982 T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPWLA TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JULY 6-9, 1982

THE DETERMINATION OF POROSITY IN SANDSTONE AND SHALY SANDSTONE

Core porosity was compared to logging measurements, utilizing regression

It is concluded that no cross plot or multiple porosity technique works

In Part One of this paper,l we concluded that accurate density logs

The fortunate circumstances of these examples, while not uncommon, are

Finally, we will discuss ways to account for the effect of hydrocarbons,

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

1. Porosity is defined as total porosity, or the volume percentage of

cation exchange capacity. Total porosity is a necessary parameter

2. Accurately measured core porosities, corrected for overburden

3. Properly quality checked and corrected well logs accurately measure

4. Therefore, one important check on the accuracy of log derived

5. As discussed in Part One, a standard error in porosity calculations

SANDSTONE ACCESSORY MINERALS

The mineralogy of shaly sandstones is highly variable. According to

*It should be remembered that statistical comparisons of core porosity

Accessory minerals are extremely common and in some places comprise a

To emphasize the potential importance of iron minerals, siderite nodule

This list could be extended almost indefinitely. Clearly, it is unsafe

MINERALOGIC EFFECT ON POROSITY LOGS

The incorrect assumption of a clean formation can lead to serious errors

Such variability is seen commonly in the field, as we will show with

The neutron tool also is affected by many non-quartzofeldspathicmin-

Porosity interpretation from travel-time can be more adversely affected

In summary, the more abundant clays and carbonates in shaly sandstones

‘~Thelithe-density logll might be expected to help resolve this

$’*Thisis also supported by the authors’ many comparisons of core

single porosity determining measurement. This is true because grain

A prime question to be considered here is to what extent other logging

DETERMINING GRAIN DENSITY

2. Whole-core porosity and log measured density were used to calculate

We therefore believe that laboratory measured grain densities have

Laboratory measured grain densities require measurement of grain volume

MULTIPLE POROSITY METHODS

The widely assumed applicability of multiple porosity methods to shaly

As a point of comparison for our later sandstone examples, consider the

and mineralogy is possible. The number of variables often greatly

Figure 7 oversimplifies the problem, as these clay lines were con-

Another type of cross plot often is offered as a solution to the shaly

1. Clays in shaly sandstones often are authigenic,33’34’35’36’37that

2. Allogenic (detrital) clays can vary systematically with environment

3. Clays deposited in close proximity can be derived from different

Simple regression analysis consists of fitting a straight line through

Using multiple regression (linear in this work), more complex multi-va-

Multiple linear regression analysis (MLRA) can be used to verify cross

POROSITY = 68.66 + 0.593CNL - 25.57DENSITY

7~r2for a single independent variable or R2,$;45$:

CONB mnm STAEDAID coMrLArIoB BEQMESSIOM STD.18S01 COEPUTSD

o? rmnoom SOOMBS SQOA8XS

The shaly sandstone porosit~ method discussed above (page 9) can be

*This method generates a value that is often referred to as effective

CORPOR is used as an abbreviation for core porosity, AC for travel time

Example One: Upper Cretaceus Mesaverde Formation Green River Basin,

Severe problems in pay identification in the gas-bearing Mesaverde For-

The Mesaverde sandstones proved to be complex mixtures of quartz,

However, only marginal improvement in porosity correlation with core was

~~InExample One, core porosity was reduced to 95 percent of the mea-

These results normally would be acceptable. However, because of the

A correlation of log-density versus core porosity (disregarding grain

‘:Thedata in Figure 14 are exactly the same as in Figure 11. However,

In summary, log-density is by far the most significant variable in the

To emphasize the above conclusions, we include Figures 15, 16, 17 and