Determination of Lithology From Well

Logs by Statistical Analysis

J.M. Busch, SPE, Arco Alaska Inc.
W.G. Fortney, Boeing Computer Services
L.N. Berry, SPE, Neal Berry & Assocs.

Summary. This paper presents a method of predicting lithology by statistical analysis of wireline log measurements with
calibration to a core lithology standard. Although an example of the technique applied to the Shublik formation of the Prudhoe Bay
area, North Slope, AK, is developed and presented, the method can be applied to any field where some core has been taken. The
Shublik, a complex mixture of seven clastic and carbonate rock types, presents a common problem: how can the rock lithology
best be identified ftom wireline logs? During recent work on the reservoir description of the Shublik, it became necessary to
answer this question.
A lithology standard must be available to calibrate against during development of a log model of lithology. For the Shublik, the
core available provided an excellent sample of the total formation. Using the statistical technique of discriminant analysis, we were .
able to evaluate a number of log models and to choose the most appropriate one. ThG final log model chosen for the Shublik
formation works quite well and correctly predicts lithology 75% of the time.

Introduction Statistical Analysis

In sedimentary basins with primarily sandstone and shale sequences,
mud-log cuttings descriptions are usually adequate for most log in-
terpretation. Log interpretation in complex reservoirs with both clas-
tic and chemical rocks requires better means of lithology
identification. Lithology is a necessary first step in any complex
log-analysis program. Conventional porosity-log crossplots scaled
to mixtures of sandstone, limestone, or dolomite are usually ade-
quate to identify single or dual mineral mixtures. As reservoir li-
thology becomes more complex and heterogeneous, log crossplots
are inadequate in classifying lithology variations. The works of
Burke et al. 1 and Clavier and Rust 2 broadened the use of the well
log in lithology identification.
With the advent of computers for computational work at the well-
site and in the office, the use of more complex methods of litholo-
gy prediction can be attained. Delfiner et al. 3 have recently shown
how statistical analysis can be applied to the prediction of litholo-
gy from well log data. Their method uses a library of identified
lithologies to classify well log response into discrete lithologies.
Our approach is made more specific to a given field by using only
the core data available from that field in building a calibrated well
log model.
Database Preparation
The data base used for modeling the Shublik contains matched core
lithology determinations and log data from 32 wells cored com-
pletely through the formation. Available logs include sonic, neu-
tron, bulk density, and gamma ray. The Shublik formation has been
divided into three zones. Starting from the top, they are Zones A,
B, and C. The boundaries have been determined in all wells by
characteristic gamma ray log responses; Zone B is marked by high
radioactivity. Not all of the seven lithologies occur in every zone;
Table 1 shows which lithologies are found in each of the three zones.
To be useful, the core data must be depth-matched to the log data
in each well. This matching process consisted of using the core gam-
ma log to shift the core into close approximation of its position to
the gamma ray log. The second step includes fine-tuning the match
by comparing the core laboratory porosities with the sonic transit
time and the core grain density with the density log. The resultant
pairing of core depth with its associated geologic lithology descrip-
tion and the various wireline log responses at 1-ft [0.3-m] inter-
vals for all 2,303 ft [702 m] of core are then maintained as a data
base. · The lithoporosity function, M, 1 is a natural candidate to be a li-
Copyright 1987 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Discriminant analysis is an established method for-classifying each
observation in a data set into one of a set of mutually exclusive,
exhaustive categories (i.e., each observation is classified into only
one category) on the basis of numerical data values. In our appli-
cation, the categories are the lithologies existing in the Shublik,
and the numerical data are the several available well logs and func-
tions of them. Each 1-ft [0.3-m] interval of each well will provide
one observation. It is assumed that a calibration data set is availa-
ble that consists of intervals that have been both cored and logged.
It is important that the match of log and core data be as accurate
as possible.
Discriminant anaiysis is explained in a number of references 4· 6 ;
however, even the most elementary references assume a working
knowledge of the application of matrix algebra to the geometry of
, multidimensional Euclidean space. In this paper, we emphasize (1)
an intuitive understanding of how discriminant analysis achieves
its goal and (2) practical considerations in using discriminant anal-
ysis in log modeling. Additional discussion of statistical consider-
ations is included in the Appendix.
It is useful to compare discriminant analysis with the more familiar
technique of multiple regression. In the latter technique, continu-
ous data (e.g., sonic or density logs) might be used to calibrate a
single function from which porosity, say, could be calculated from
the logs. In discriminant analysis, a separate function is estimated
for each of the several categories. Each function is evaluated through
application for every observation, and the observation is assigned
to the category having the largest function value. In summary, mul-
tiple regression uses numerical data to predict values of a numeri-
cal variable; discriminant analysis uses numerical data to predict
discrete categories.
Simple Example Applications
The method of discriminant analysis can be understood best through
an example. For this purpose, a simple example will be developed
with data from only one zone of the Shublik. For simplicity, only
three lithologies (limestone, shale, and sideriticmudrock) are used.
Available logs include bulk density, sonic, neutron, and gamma
ray. For this example, the data base has 811 observations for which
core lithology and the several log values have been determined.
Using One Variable
thology discriminator. M is a function of sonic transit time and bulk
density, defined to be independent of porosity. In theory, M should

412 SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987

 TAI;:ILE 1-LITHOLOGICAL COMPOSITION TABLE 2-MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF M
OF SHUBLIK ZONES
Lithology Mean -Standard Deviation
Zone Sideritic mudrock 0.6010 0.0317
Lithology A B c Shale 0.6717 0.0382
Sandstone X Limestone 0.7394 0.04~5
Shale X X ·x
Limestone X X X
Siltstone X X X
Phosphatic limestone X X
Phosphatic-mudrock X X X
Sideritic mudrock X X

0.9

0.9 0.9

Fig. 2-Distribution functions of M.

tively estimated means. The distribution curves (probability density

Fig. 1-Histograms of M: (a) sideritic mudrock; (b) shale; and
(C) limestone.
functions) are shown in Fig. 2a. Each curve has the saine shape,
a consequence of assuming that each distribution has the same stan-
dard deviation. The three curves divide the Maxis into three regions
according to which lithology has the greatest distribution curve
value. If we use the notation II (M), f2(M), and f3(M) to repre-
sent the respective distribution curve functions for sideritic mudrock
shale, and limestone, then these regions can be determined algebrai~
cally; the boundary points are the values of M where II (M) = h (M)
and where h (M) = f3 (M). [The boundary between the regions for
sideritic mudrock,and limestone would occur whereii (M)=f3(M),
·
but as Fig. 2a shows, this point is dominated by shale.] These points
turn out to be M=0.6363 and 0.7055, so the regions where each
curve is dominant are

vary with lithology. In practice, we hope that each lithology w·ill
be clearly differentiated from the others by its distribution of M
values. · /
Figs. la through lc display histograms of the distributions of M ·
within the sideritic mudrock, shale, and limestone lithologies, re-
spectively. It is immediately apparent that the distributions center
around different points. Table 2 shows the means and standard devi-
ations for the three lithologies. Unless the standard deviations differ
greatly, it is customary to use a pooled estimate of an assumed com-
mon standard deviation; for the example data, the estimate is 0.0412.
The pooled estimate is a weighted root mean square of the respec-
tive group's standard deviations.- See Ref. 4, Page 464, for details.
Normal (Gaussian) distributions are completely determined· by
their means and standard deviations. It is thus possible to fit three
normal distributions, one for each lithology, to the data by assum-
ing that they have a common standard deviation and the respec-
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987
M < 0.6363 sideritic mudrock
0.6363 < M < 0. 7055 shale
0. 7055 < M limestone.
It is thus possible to use this division of the Maxis as a classifi-
cation rule to determine lithology from the iogs. If we apply the
rule to the same data, we can compare the lithology classifications
derived from the logs with the core classifications. The most con-
venient comparison is a simple cross-classification table that shows
the frequency with which each interval of rock is classified into
every possible combination of core and log lithology. Table 3 shows
these sample data.
Verification "~:echniques
A single measurement of how well the log model matches the data
is the percent agreement, the proportion of all the data that are
413
 TABLE 4-CROSS-CLASSIFICATION USING M
TABLE 3-CROSS-CLASSIFICATION USING M WITH LITHOLOGY PROPORTIONS
Log Lithology Log Lithology
Sideritic Sideritic
Core Lithology Mud rock Shale Limestone Total Core Lithology Mud rock Sh;:~.le Limestone Total
·-·~.-. -- - -
Sideritic mudrock 102 14 0 116 Sideritic mudrock 75 41 0 116
Shale 64 2Q1 79 424 Shale 15 354 55 424
Lithology limestone 9 60 202 271 Lithology limestone 4 78 189 ' 271
Total 175 '355 281 811 Total 94 473 244 811
Percent agreement= 100 x [(102 + 281 + 202)/811] = 72.13%. Percent agreement= 100 x [(75 + 354 + 189)/811] = 76.20%.

matched correctly. In this single case, using only Mas a discrimi-
nator, the percent agreement is 72. ~ 3% . Note that the percent agree-
ment is lower in the shales than in either the sideritic mudrocks
or limestones. Because the shales by themselves constitute more
than half of the data, the effect is to depress the overall percent
agreement. c,
By accounting for the proportion each lithology constitutes of the
total, we can improve the overall match by weighting each distri-
bution curve by the corresponding proportion. Our classification
rule is to assign a given observation to the category for which the
weighteq distribution function is largest. 1Fig. 2b shows a graph of
the proportion" weighted· distribution curves·.
By solving the equations 1f Ift (M) = 1r2h (M) and 1r2f2 (M) =
1r 3f3'(M), where 1r 1 ; 1r 2 , and 1r 3 represent the respective propor-
tions of sideritic pmdrock, shale, and limestone (from the core~).
we find the points that divide theM axis iota three regions. The
resultant classification rule is
M<0.6052 sideritic muqrock
0.6052<M<0.7167 shale
0.7167 <M limestone.
Note that tpe interval of the Maxis for which shale is the log
lithology is wider than in the case where lithology proportions were
disregarded. As a result, the revised log model will designate more
observations as shale, and fewer observations as either sideritic
muqrock or limestone. Table 4, the cross-classification table of core
with log lithologies, shows the re'sults. The percent agreement has
risen to 76.20%.
Use of Two Variables
The ability to discriminate can often be improved by the use of more
than one discriminating variable, just as the use of several explana-
tory variables can often improve the predictive ability of a regres-
sion model. As the next step, consider the lithoporosity variable,
N, 1 a function of neutron and bulk density logs that, again, should
vary only with lithology, and not with porosity. Proceeding as be-
fore, but using two variables, we begin with Figs. 3a through 3c,
which are crossplots or scatter diagrams showing the joint distri-
butions of M and N for each of the three example lithologies. It
may be observed that sideritic mudrock generally has low values
of both M and N, limestone has high values of both variables, and
shale has intermediate values. Spedfically, the mean values of M
are 0.6010 for sideritic mudrock, 0.6717 for sbale, and 0. 7394 for

0.90 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
a a

SIDERITIC

......• .·-: ...

M M MUDROCK

,.·
·., :,b~t;
•• •• :•.!!"•': •: •.
·.
0.50 L--------~----,------------1
I

0.25 N 0.65
0.90 r - - - : - - - - - - - - - - c - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ , 0.50-+"'--:------=--=---<----------------i
b 0.25 N 0.65

0.90,---~-~----------------,----,

..· ...)"!;,... ~.··.

.
b LIMESTONE

M
~ ....,.

. ~ .'::·• ::~.
~ ~-:··
··:· ..
.. ' M
SIDERITIC
MUDROCK

0.50-l-----------------------1
0.25 N 0.65
0.90 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . , - - - . - - - . - - - - - ,
c

::.~·:· N
0.65

. . ."*-~'•r.•. . .
.. ·'.:~·~
.. ,..,.•"Pt.'
M
-. Fig. 4-Distribution functions of M and N as contour plots.
.
' .
0.50 L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
0.25 N 0.65

Fig. 3-Crossplots of M and N.

414 SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987

 TABLE 5-CROSS-CLASSIFICATION USING M AND N

Log Lithology
Sideritic
Core Lithology Mud rock Shale Limestone Total
Sideritic mudrock 101 13 2 116
Shale 17 320 87 424 0.90
Lithology limestone 7 57 207 271
Total 125 390 296 811
Percent agreement= [(100 x 101 + 320 + 207)/811] = 77.44%.

TABLE &-CROSS-CLASSIFICATION USING M AND N

WI~H LITHOLOGY PROPORTIONS

Log Lithology
Sideritic
Core Lithology Mud rock Shale Limestone Total
-- --
Sideritic mudrock 94 22 0 116 0.90
Shale 7 361 56 424
Lithology limestone 5 76 190 271
Total 106 459 246 811
Percent agreement= 100 x [(94 + 361 + 190)/811] = 79.53%.

limestone. Mean values for N are 0.3589 for sideritic mudrock,

0.4798 for shale, and 0.5195 for limestone. Pooled standard devi-
ations are estimated to be 0.0412 forM and 0.0409 for N. The Fig. 5-Distribution functions of M and N in isometric
pooled correlation coefficient is 0.6880. projection.
With these estimates, it is possible to fit distribution surfaces to
the data, one surface for each lithology. A contour plot of the sur-
face (displaying only the highest of the three at each point) is provid- ogies from log data. It has also suggested that taking lithology
ed in Fig. 4a. Fig. 5a is a three-dimensional (3D) representation proportions into account is generally advantageous and that the use
of the same surface. By determining which of the three distribu- of several variables may be expected to improve the discrimina-
tions has the greatest distribution function value for any pair (M,N), tion over using ,only one.
we can determine that the classification rule divides the M-N plane
into three regions bounded by straight lines, which are shown in; Full Shublik Model
Fig. 4a. If we classify each observation according to the classifica-
When more lithologies are added, increasing the complexity of the
tion rule induced by these lines, we obtain log lithologies deter-
task, we gener-ally expect the percent agreement to decline. To coun-
mined from the two variables M and N. Table 5 is the cross-
ter this model deterioration, it is often useful to increase the num-
classification table of core with log lithology. Percent agreement
ber of discriminating variables in a model. With more than two
is 77.44%. ·
variables, geometric display ofdata is no longer possible, but the
Because shale is the predominant lithology, and because it is un-
analytic geometry does not present any added difficulties. Analo-
derpredicted by this model, we can improve our overall core-to-
gous to multiple regression, multiple discriminant analysis can be
log agreement by weighting the probability surfaces by lithology
carried out with any reasonable number of variables.
proportions. Contours of the weighted surfaces are shown in Fig.
In addition to the raw logs available (sonic, bulk density, neu-
4b; Fig. 5b is a 3D view of the same surfaces.
tron, and gamma ray), certain functions of them were considered
A log lithology classification rule based on the weighted proba-
as potential discriminators. Such functions included M, N, and a
.bility surfaces assigns observations to lithologies by defining a region
variable called proportional heightin zone, defined by
for each lithology in the M-N plane. As before, the regions are
bounded by straight lines. The region for shale has grown larger, ha
however, reflecting the greater proportion that shale constitutes of h=- . .................................... ·, ..... (1)
the zone. The cross-classifications obtained with this classification d
rule are given in Table 6. Percent agreement is 79.53%. Thus defined, h is between 0 and 1. The importance of h lies
This example has shown that a simple-case discriminant analy- in the fact that some lithologies are found predominantly at the top
a
sis can produce reliable model enabling the determination of lithol- of a zone (h near 1), and others lie mostly at the bottom (h near 0).

TABLE ?~CROSS-CLASSIFICATION BEST LOG MODEL FOR CALIBRATION DATA SET

Log Lithology
Phosphatic Phosphatic Sideritic
Core Lithology Sandstone Shale Limestone Siltstone Limestone Mud rock Mud rock Total
-- --
Sandstone 5 1 7 13
Shale 1 1'88 38 13 7 5 252
Limestone 1 27 297 9 15 4 2 355
Siltstone 4 24 16 61 105
Phosphatic limestone 11 1 84 14 110
Phosphatic mudrock 4 10 91 9 114
Sideritic mudrock 2 1 7 80 90
Total 11 242 363 95 109 I
123 96 1,039
Percent agreement= 77.57%

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987 415

 TABLE 8-CROSS-CLASSIFICATION BEST LOG MODEL APPLIED TO VALIDATION DATA SET

Predicted Log Lithology .

Phosphatic Phosphatic Sideritic
Core Lithology Sandstone Shale Limestone Siltstone Limestone Mud rock Mudrock Total
Sandstone 0
Shale 3 233 45 18 2 4 5 310
Limestone 3 61 374 30 13 1 - 4 486
Siltstone 12 45 64 121
Phosphatic limestone 16 115 6 137
Phosphatic 'mud rock 25 88 5 118
Sideritic mudrock 3 2 13 74 92
Total 6 309 482 112 155 112 88 1,264
Percent agreement= 75.00%

Because we wanted to test many models, we randomly divided

l(XXXXXXX
SIDERITIC MUDROCK :<:XXXXXXX the data into two groups. Group 1, consisting of 16 wells with 1,039
PHOSPHATIC MUDROCK
HJI+.33JE+EIE
1- +:m:::+ +:m:::++: ft [317 m] of data, was used for selecting and calibrating a model.
SIOERITIC MUDROCK ..........- .................................... PHOSPHATIC LIMESTONE ~
~
Because it is easy to err by overfitting a model (choosing an un-
PHOSPHATIC MUDROCK·------------..!'
PllOSPHATIC LIMESToNE :: SILTSTONE
justifiably complicated model), we used data in Group 2 to vali-
SILTSTONE--------- date the model actually selected. Group 2 comprised 16 wells with
;:n~~N_E_______ -------------- ________ ' :: LIMESTONE
1,264 ft [385 mJ of data. The model selected from Group 1 data
SANDSTONE '' SHALE
was applied to the Group 2log data. The lithologies predicted from
the model were compared with the actual lithologies to determine
LOG CORE
how well the model would match lithologies in uncored wells.
PROBABILITY
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 LITHOLOGY LITHOLOGY Because it is easier to match log to core data on a calibration
:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:.·:·:·:·:·:-:.:-:.:-:
~~ -7 data set than it is to make predictions on a validation data set, we
) expect percent agreement to be lower on Group 2 thc:j.n on Group
10040
( 1. Nevertheless, if the model chosen is good, we hope that the per:-
~-------- cent agreement will be nearly as high for the validation as for the
,-._ ------~ calibration data set.
/ ~~~~~~~=?~!
/ ~ We tried 15 models on the calibration data set for each of the
11050 .:'
three zones. The models differed only in the selection of log varia.,.
f\ >
,. r-
I< -
"-.__
[__
·.
bles. In each zone we selected the model that best matched the core
on the calibration data set (Group 1 wells). In Zone A, the varia-
bles used were M, N, bulk density, and gamma ray. In Zones B
and C, the variables were M, N, proportional height, and sonic tran-
sit time. Table 7 shows the resultantcross-classification data.
By summing the diagonal elements, we can see that the model
matched the core description on 806 out of 1,039 ft [246 oUt of
317m] (percent agreement=77.57%). When the calibrated model
was applied to the validation data set, we obtained the results sum-
marized in Table 8. The agreement is 948 out of 1 ,264 ft [289 out
of 385 m], or 75 % . As expected, this is slightly lower than for
the calibration data set, but it is remarkably high, proving that the
log model does an excellent job of determining lithologies.
One feature of discriminant analysis is that for each 1-ft [0.3-m]
interval, aprobability is assigned to each lithology. (This proba-
bility is calculated by use of the Bayes theorem.) These probabili-
ties have the properties that, for each interval, their sum over all
lithologies is equal to one and the lithology that has the highest prob-
ability is always the lithology into which the log model will classi-
fy the interval.
Fig. 6 shows a convenient way of displaying the results of ap-
plying the discriminant analysis. For One well in the validation data
set, the left side shows, as functions of depth, the plots of the prob-
abilities assigned to each of the seven defined lithologies. On the
right side, two tracks show the log-.model-determined lithology and
the geologist-described core lithology, respectively. Note that the
log lithology is always that lithology for which the probability is
the highest of the seven. The good agreement between core and
log is readily apparent.

Analysis of Misprediction
'""~_-,····
It is instructive to investigate the reasons why 316 ft [96 m], or
25%, of the core in Group 2 wells did not match.
There are intervals within the Shublik in which lithology interbed-
Fig. &-Comparison plot of lithology probabilities and pre- ding occurs, and there are some lithologies that may grade into
dicted vs. actual lithology. others. Thus, it is of interest to study the misclassified feet to learn
what lithology probabilities were assigned for them.
Thin beds exist within the Shublik. Log resolution problems, core
nonrecovery intervals, and occasional log/core misalignment proq-

416 SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987


TABLE 9-EXPLANATIONS FOR
MISMATCHED FEET IN VALIDATION DATA SET
Reason % 3. Core lithology probability greater
1. Matches 1 ft above or below 43.0
2. Matches 2ft above or below 54.4
3. Core lithology probability greater than 0.2 48.4
4. Core lithology probability greater than 0 .. 1 76.5
5. Shale/siltstone mismatch· 9.5
6. Limestone/phosphatic limestone mismatch 9.2
7. Shale/limestone mismatch · 33.5
8. Siltstone/limestone mismatch 23.7
lems also create the possibility that the log response for a given
point may match the core at a nearby interval.
Finally, certain lithologies are similar in properties and are easi-
ly confused. In many cases, these confusions are innocuous. Lithol-
ogies that are occasionally confused include shale with siltstone,
and limestone with phosphatic limestone. In addition, as a result
of thin-bed effects and intergrading, limestone and shale and lime-
stone and siltstone are sometimes confused.
We distinguished eight possible explanations for mismatched in-
tervals: (1) the log-determined lithology agreed with the core li-
thology either 1 ft [0.3 m] above or below the interval being
classified; (2) the log lithology matched the core 2ft [0.6 m] above
or below the interval in question; (3) the core lithology for the in-
terval was assigned a probability greater than 0.2, so the logs evi-
denced some ambiguity concerning the classification; (4) the core
lithology was assigned a probability greater than 0.1; (5) a shale
was classified as a siltstone or vice versa; (6) a limestone was clas-.
sified as a phosphatic limestone or vice versa; (7) confusion be-
tween shales and limestones; and (8) confusion between siltstones
and limestones. · of Lithology from Well Logs," SPEFE (Sept. 1987) 303-10.
Table 9 shows the proportion of the mismatched 316 ft [96 m]
that fell into the categories defined by the eight reasons. Because
more than one reason might serve as an explanation for the same
mismatch, the percentages total more than 100. Table 10 presents
the information in a hierarchical fashion, showing the proportion
of mismatches attributable to Reason 1, then the additional mis-
matches attributable to Reason 2, and so forth.
It is readily seen from Table 9 that the first four reasons, reflect-
ing resolution, bed boundary problems, possible core/log misalign-
ment, etc., account for 95% of the mismatches, leaving only 8ft
[2 .4 m], or 2. 5%, to be explained by shale/ siltstone or shale/lime-
stone confusions.· In the end, only 7ft [2.1 m], accounting for 2.2%
of the mismatches and 0. 6% of the validation data base, remained
unexplained. The overall conclusion again is that the log model is
working extremely well.
Conclusions
This paper demonstrates that with statistical discriminant analysis,
it is possible to find a log model that accurately predicts lithology
for a formation as lithologically complex as the. Shublik. The method
requires only that a competent geologist describe a statistically rep-
resentative amount of core. In the case of the Shublik, not only
was it possible to find a model for which the log lithology agreed
with the core very well, but the overwhelming majority of the mis-
matched data could plausibly be explained as thin-bed effects, log
resolution problems, and core/log misalignment problems. In sum-
mary, discriminant analysis applied to log lithology determination
is a promising technique for reservoir description.
Nomenclature
distribution curve functions for the three lithologies
/ 1,2 ,3 =
thickness of zone, ft [m]
d =
h = proportional height-in-zone variable
ha = height above zone bottom, ft [m]
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987
TABLE 10-EXPLANATIONS FOR
MISMATCHED FEET AS CUMULATIVE PROPORTIONS
Reason Cumulative %
1. Matches 1 ft above or below 43.0
2. Matches 2 ft above or below 59.2
than 0.2 86.1
4. Core lithology probability greater
than 0.1 95.2
5. Shale/siltstone mismatch 95.6
6. Limestone/phosphatic-limestone
mismatch 95.6
7. Shale/limestone mismatch 97.8
8. Siltstone/limestone mismatch 97.8
M = lithoporosity function
N ·= lithoporosity variable
1r 1,2 , 3 = proportions of sideritic mud rock, shale, and lime-
stone, respectively
Acknowledgments
We thank B.E. Hunter, D.K. Davies, and D.B. Schafer for their
invaluable help in the geologic portion of this work. We also thank
Arco Alaska Inc., Exxon Co. USA, and Sohio Petroleum Co. for
their permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Burke, J.A., Campbell, R.L. Jr., and Schmidt, A.W.: "The Litho-
Porosity Crossplot,'' Trans:, SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium
(1969) paper Y. ,
2. Clavier, L. and Rust, D.H.: "MID-PLOT: A New Lithology Tech-
nique;" The Log Analyst (Nov.-Dec. 1976) 16-24.
3. Delfiner, P.C., Peyret, 0., and Serra, 0.: "Automatic Determination
4. Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D. W.: Applied Multivariate Statistical
Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1982) 461-531.
5. Anderson, T. W.: An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis,
John Wiley Publishing Co., New York City (1958) 126-53.
· 6. Gnanadesikan, R.: Methods For Statistical Data Analysis of Multivariate
Observations, John Wiley Publishing Co., New York City (1977)
82-103.
7. Boutemy, Y., Simond, R.G., and Clavier, C.: "Field Studies: A Prog-
ress Report On The Contribution of Logging," paper SPE 8178
presented at the 1979 SPE Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen,
Sept.3-7.
8. Haslett, J.: "Maximum Likelihood Discriminant Analysis On the Plane
Using a Markovian Model of Spatial Content,'' Pattern Recognition
(1985) 18, 287-96.
Appendix-Statistical Considerations
In the work reported in this paper, except for the pedagogic exam-
ples, actual lithology proportions were used to obtain weighted clas-
sification probabilities. This procedure is justifiable in any situation
in which the available core may be reasonably considered to be a
random sample from the reservoir. In our case, because only wells
whose cores completely penetrated the Shublik were used, we con-
sidered this to be the best thing to do. Situations are conceivable
in which this proportion weighting would not be indicated. For ex-
ample, if a geologist examined core only until reaching a certain
quota of samples for each of several lithologies, rather than until
completely describing available core; if a number of the wells had
core only from the top or bottom of the formation; or if wells had
been cored in some region of the field specifically for the purpose
of obtaining data on what was considered a possible geologic anoma-
ly, then the existing data would be subject to sampling bias. In such
cases, the appropriate weights are not obvious and would have to
be determined on a case-by-case basis.
An additional factor that might be used in a more complex weight-
ing scheme is that of transition probabilities. If deposition is con-
sidered to be a first-order Markov process, then the lithology
probability at any depth depends on the actual lithology at the next
417
 lower depth. The transition probabilities (the probabilities that a
given observation is of Lithology x when the next lower observa-
tion was of Lithology y) for all pairs (x,y) of lithologies can be eas-
ily estimated. A method for incorporating this additional information
into discriminant analysis has recently been given by Haslett. 8 This
method promises to be especially valuable in formations where (1)
there is a pronounced tendency for lithologies to persist from one
observation to the next or (2) the classic discriminant analysis shows
evidence (through probability vs. depth plots) of considerable am-
biguity in' the d~termination of lithology. · One further topic should be mentiop.ed, although space limita-
Another matter that needs careful study in an actual application
is the metric in which the data are measured. Well-to-well varia-
,tion in log response may suggest calibration offsets, 7 although the
usefulness of these in applications to uncored wells is slight. In many
cases, the distribution of the variables used may be nonnormal (non-
Gaussian). Although the nonnormality frequently does not damage
the inference from the analysis, in extreme cases it is worth con-
sidering a transformed variable. In this study, the logarithm of the
gamma ray, rather than the gamma ray itself, was used for this rea-
son. The gamma ray was also calibrated, or normalized, by stan-
dardizing its response in known shale markers. The neutron logs
available included several tool types, which were also standard-
ized before use in the analysis.
The discriminant analysis used in this study.js simple linear dis-
criminant analysis, which wefelt was preferable to more compli-
cated alternatives in the absence of indications from the data that
such were called for. Its mathematical derivation rests on the as-
sumption, among others, that the variances of the variables (actu-
ally, their variance/covariance matrix) do not differ from one
population (lithology) to another. This assumption can be formally
418
tested by use of Bartlett's test, for example, but this test is known
to l:>e extremely unreliable in the absence of nonnormality of dis-
tribution, and we have chosen to rely on a simple comparison of
intrapopulation (within lithology) standard deviations and correla-
tion coefficients. More complicated kinds of discriminant analysis
have been proposed, but software to perform them is not readily
available, and their properties are not as well known. In any event,
a primary purpose of this paper is to suggest that a relatively sim-
ple technique is available and deserves wider application.
tions preclude an adequate discu~sion. Discriminant analysis clas-
sifies each observation into some lithology, and the assigned
classification probabilities are predicated on the ass~mption that
some of the stated lithologies are in fact correct. It may be, of co~rse,
that none of the assumed lithologies matches the log response, either
because one or more of the logs is anomalous or because an un-
cored well has penetrated a lithology different from any examined
by the geologist. In this event, a statistic known as the Mahalano-
bis distance may reveal the· situation. This statistic· will have ap-
proximately a x2 distribution, and thus observations that are
incompatible with the known lithologies may be detected.
Sl Metric Conversion Factor
ft X 3.048* E-01 m
·conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 22, 1985. Paper accepted for publica-
tion July 11, 1986. Revised manuscript received Dec. 8, 1986. Paper (SPE 14301) first
presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Las Ve-
gas, Sept. 22-25.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1987