UNIVERSITY

OF KERBALA
t

202 IL 

Mineral COLLEGE OF
,,,,,,, ENGINEERING
identification ..

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING,,,,,,,,,
plots .DEPARTMENT
, ……,,…………………
: SUPERVISED BY
: ,,

MR. Falah Hasan

……… :PREPARED BY
Hiba
…Majid

1
University Of Kerbala
College Of Engineering
Petroleum Engineering Department

Mineral identification plots

A Report
Submitted to the Petroleum Engineering Department of the
University of Kerbala

Supervised By:

Mr. Falah Hasan

Prepared By:

Hiba Majid

2 2019/2020
 Content .
Conten page

Mineral-identification Plots 4

Introduction 4

Multimineral Identification 5

THE MID PLOT 6

Matrix identification 8

Matrix math 9

Log analysis: lithology 12

Conclusion 14

References 15

Figure page

Figure1. Determination of apparent matrix density 4

Figure2.Determination of apparent matrix

interval transit time 4

Fig. 3 Examples of M-N piots

6 )courtesy Schlumberger and SPWLA(

Fig.4 MID plot for mineral identification

7 )courtesy Schlumberger and SPWLA( )CNL Neutron(

Fig 5 . Matrix identification 8

Figure 6. UMAA determination chart. 12

.Figure 7.MID plot for mineral identification. 12

3
 Mineral-identification Plots ,
introduction

matrix values as crossplot parameters. The apparent These plots rely

on the calculation of apparent matrix values are determined (when done
graphically) through what are essentially crossplots, created to emphasize
matrix values rather than porosity. Appar- ent matrix density (ρmaa ) is
determined from an equiv- alent of the neutron-density crossplot and is
shown in Figure 1. Apparent matrix travel time ( tmaa) is determined
from an equivalent of the neutron-sonic crossplot and is shown in
Figure2. The calculation of apparent matrix values is

ρmaa = ρb - OND * ρft /1- oNs

tmaa = t – ONS * tft /1- oNs

4
Figure2.Determination of Figure1. Determination of
apparent matrix interval .apparent matrix density
.transit time
 . Multimineral Identification

In this section we consider how the relative amounts of different minerals making
up clean complex formations may be determined by combining Density, Neutron, Sonic,
.and Spectral Gamma Ray data

The principal minerals of concern are sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and anhydrite.
Perturbing components are shale and less-frequently encountered minerals such gypsum,
salt, polyhalite, and sulfur. Identification of matrix makeup is particularly important in
tight formations for several reasons. First, porosities may hover near cutoff values, about
5%, so the most accurate values obtainable from logs are desired. Dolomite and shale,
for example, cause similar separations between limestone-based Neutron and Density
porosity curves, but effective porosity is computed differently in the two cases. With
dolomite the effective porosity is close to the average of oN, and oD: with shale the
effective porosity is closer to.OD

The GR Curve may not distinguish between the two situations because dolomites
frequently are radioactive. Second, tight formations often require acidizing or acid
.fracturing to stimulate production

Optimization of this operation requires knowledge of the rock matrix. The third
reason is geologic in nature. The trend of matrix development across a field may
indicate preferential directions for offset wells. For example, dolomitization is often
accompanied by increased porosity so that the direction of increasing dolomite content
.may be favorable for production

There are many methods of combining information from the basie poros- ity tools to
.distinguish mineral composition. Which are the MID plot method

the MID plot method utilize Density, Neutron, and Sonic data

5
 . THE MID PLOT
The MID (matrix identification) plot is another method of utilizing the same log. It
is based on determining the apparent matrix density, (ρma)a , and the apparent matrix
travel time, (tma)a for a level of interest; plotting the values on the MID plot of Fig. 4;
and observing where the point falls relative to the positions of the single-mineral points.
.The latter are located at their known matrix densities and travel times

To determine the apparent matrix density at a given depth level, values of ρb,, and

oN are read from the appropriate Density-Neutron crossplo. On this chart lines of
constant (ρma)a , have been created by interpolating between and extrapolating from the
known matrix densities of sandstone, limestone, and dolomite. The (ρma)a ,  value for any
plotted point can be read from these lines. For example, ρb =2.45 g/cc and ON = 0.20
.gives (ρma)a = 2.76 g/cc

Determination of apparent matrix velocity is similar. The travel time value, t, is

read from the Sonic log and inserted along with oN in the appropriate Sonic-Neutron
crossplot. On this plot lines of constant (tma)a, have been created by interpolation and
.extrapolation from the known clean matrix values

.For t = 70 usec/ft and oN = 0.20, (tma)a, is 46 usec/ft

Fig. 3 Examples of
M-N piots (courtesy
Schlumberger and
SPWLA)

6
The coordinate point[ (ρma)a  (tma)a ] so obtained is plotted on Fig. 4 the matrix
.components are interpreted as for the M-N plot

Point B is the example case which indicates a calcite-dolomite mixture. The

same reservations on quantitative use of the chart apply as for the M- N plot. In
particular, shale pushes points downward and salt and gas shift them upward and to
.the right. No single point is very significant by itself

Grouping of points indicates trends. Fig4 MID plat for mineral identification
(CNL Neutron) (courtesy Schlumberger and SPWLA

Fig.4 MID plot for mineral

identification (CNL Neutron)
(courtesy Schlumberger and
SPWLA)

The main advantages of the MID plot over the M-N plot are that no computations
are required, the matrix points on the chart (Fig.4) are not dependent on porosity or
salinity, and the parameters plotted have a pseudophysical meaning. In contrast, M
and N are abstract quantities. Use of both plots, however, can help resolve the effects
of less common minerals-salt, gypsum, and sulfur

7
 Matrix identification .
Matrix identification (MID) refers to a lithology solution in
petrophysics where the bulk density and photoelectric factor are used to
estimate the lithologies of the rocks being logged.

When a standard triple combo log is run in a well, the tool is utterly
naive to the true identity of the rocks it encounters. The bulk density for
example really measures electron density, and the neutron log (grossly
simplified) measures hydrogen, and neither has any clue about what
lithology it is looking at. Instead it says, “this soup of solids and fluids
has these electrochemical and nuclear properties.” It doesn’t say which
specific combination of minerals and fluids are present, and indeed any
number of combinations would result in the same raw readings. It is up to
the petrophysicist to interpret the readings.

MID is one way to guess at a simple lithology. The basic idea is this:
take bulk density and subtract porosity to get the apparent matrix
density (ρmaa), and take the photoelectric factor and manipulate it to get
the (porosity-free) apparent volumetric photoelectric cross-section (Umaa).
Then you cross-plot those two parameters and see where the points plot
on a ternary diagram, defined by ideal mineral endmembers (plotted as
red dots and labeled):

Fig 5 . Matrix identification

8
 Matrix math .
How do we go from a ternary plot like the one above to a quantitative
estimate of lithology? One way is to use matrix math to identify
the, ahem, matrix. In other words, we use linear algebra to estimate
mineral volumes.

After we’ve subtracted out porosity to get ρmaa and Umaa, we can solve
for three minerals. But we should introduce the unity equation. It’s an
assumption we have to make to get the math to work. All the unity
equation says is that the volumes of these three minerals sum to make up
the entirety of the rock matrix. Traditionally the three minerals identified
with MID are dolomite, calcite, and quartz, so we use those in this
example.

1 = Vdol + Vcal + Vqtz

With that assumption, we can then say that the values we have from logs
for ρmaa and Umaa are a mix of the ρmaa and Umaa values of each mineral,
proportional to their respective volumes. That’s a mouthful– maybe the
equations make it clearer:

ρmaa = (ρdol ∙ Vdol) + (ρcal ∙ Vcal) + (ρqtz ∙ Vqtz)

Umaa = (Udol ∙ Vdol) + (Ucal ∙ Vcal) + (Uqtz ∙ Vqtz)

We know the ρ and U of each of these components from chartbooks

so just three unknowns remain: the volumes of dolomite, calcite, and
quartz. These three equations (to go with the three unknowns) can be
reframed as a linear algebra expression:

C∙V=L

where L is a vector of the log responses(measured by logging tools),

C is a matrix of component petrophysical properties (i.e. ρmaa and
Umaa from chartbooks), V is a vector of proportions of each component
(unknown). Densities of quartz, calcite, and dolomite respectively are
2.65, 2.71, and 2.87 g/cc, and the U values are 4.8, 13.8, and 9.0 b/e
respectively, so here’s we plug in those values:

9
C . V = L
2.65 2.71 2.87 Vqtz ρmaa

4.8 13.8 9.0 V

. Vcal = Umaa

1.0 1.0 1.0 Vdol 1.0

To solve for the vector V, we rearrange the equation by multiplying

both sides of the equation by the inverse of C (that is, C-1) to get:

V = C-1 ∙ L

When we invert C and do the algebra, the equation looks like this:

V C-1  ∙ L

l Vqtz - -0.641 -0.106 3.211 ρmaa

V -

Vcal = -2.106 0.125 4.980 . Umaa

Vdol -2.747 -0.018 -7.192 1.0

This expression can be rewritten as discrete equations to get the

volumes for each mineral component:

Vqtz = −0.641 ∙ ρmaa − 2.106 ∙ Umaa + 2.747

Vcal = −0.106 ∙ ρmaa + 0.125 ∙ Umaa - 0.018
Vdol = 3.211 ∙ ρmaa + 4.980 ∙ Umaa - 7.192

In some cases this may result in negative volumes or volumes greater

than 100% (when points fall outside the ternary plot). So what we
typically do is clip results to 0 and 1 and re-standardize to 100%.

10
 Log analysis: lithology .
The term difficult lithologies refers to a formation composed of two
or more mineralogies. The presence of two or more minerals significantly
increases the difficulty of determining both porosity and lithology from
wireline logs.

The MID or matrix identification crossplot uses the apparent

volumetric cross section (UMAA) and the apparent matrix grain density
(RHOMAA) to identify minerals. UMAA represents the projection of the
volumetric photoelectric absorption index, U (the product of Pe and
electronic density), to the value at zero porosity. RHOMAA results from
a mathematical projection of the bulk density of an interval to its value at
zero porosity. These projections to zero porosity effectively eliminate
.variance due to porosity, resulting in a variance mainly due to lithology

This method requires that an estimate of total porosity be determined

first. Typically, this can be done from a density-neutron crossplot. Using
this porosity, an apparent matrix density is determined from the following
:equation

RHOMAA = log - O. A / 1.0- O

UMAA can be determined from the chart in Figure 6. Start by
marking the Pe value on the photoelectric portion of the horizontal axis
(left side), then go vertically to the bulk density value. Next, move
horizontally to the apparent total porosity, and then down to the UMAA
value.
Now you can cross plot the RHOMAA and UMAA values on the chart
in Figure 7. Binary mixtures of minerals plot along a line connecting the
two mineral points.
Ternary mixtures of minerals plot in a triangle connecting the three
mineral points. Arrows indicate the affects of gas, secondary porosity,
salt, barite, and heavy minerals.

11
 Figure 6. UMAA determination
.chart

Figure 7.MID plot for mineral

..identification

12
 Conclusion .
As hinted at in the sections above, the collector needs to be careful
about depending too much on any one or two properties or tests. While a
mineral’s color, or hardness, or streak, etc., may suggest a likely culprit, a
systematic approach – followed methodically – is much more likely to
bring you to an accurate conclusion. Many collectors are well aware of
the unreliability of "sight identifications" – deciding what a mineral is
just by looking at it. Yes, many common minerals can be identified that
way with experience – but many more can’t, and every now and then
something so identified turns out to actually be something else. Even
chemical and crystallographic tests have been known to fail to identify a
mineral correctly. So it isn’t surprising that simpler techniques need to be
used carefully in order to get the best results; and sometimes, they too
.fail

Finally, while this Key should help the collector correctly identify
many minerals, it won’t work all the time. Common minerals are found in
uncommon forms. Some are closely mimicked by less-common or rare
species. And, there is always the chance that a collector will find
something that isn’t even covered by this Key. If you find yourself
correctly identifying 60% of the minerals you find, you will be doing
well. And the odds are that the other 40% are species not readily
identified with this key – worked on in the home lab with other
techniques, maybe even sent in to a professional lab in order to obtain a
.positive identification

.The trick is to do your best at each stage of the discovery process

13
 References
1. Jump up↑ Poupon, A., W. R. Hoyle, and A. W. Schmidt, A. W.,
1971, Log analysis in formations with complex lithologies:
Journal of Petroleum Technology.

2.

2. Jump up↑ Worthington, P., 1985, The evolution of shaly-sand

concepts in reservoir evaluation: The Log Analyst.

3.

3. Jump up↑ Patchett, J. G., and D. C. Herrick, 1982, A review of

saturation models: SPWLA Reprint Volume Shaly Sands, SPWLA.

4.

4. R.H. Lind "Use of Differential Sonic-Resistivity Plots to Find *

Movable Oil in Permian Formations," J. Pet. Tech. Vol. 13, No. 8
(August 1961)
5.

5. C. Clavier and D.H. Rust, "The MID Plot: A New Lithology

Technique," The Log Analyst (November-December 1976).

6.

6-https://wiki.aapg.org/Log_analysis:_lithology

7.

7-https://hallau.world/post/matrix-id-using-matrix-math/

8.

8- J. Clemenceau Raiga , " The Cementation Exponent in the

Formation Factor Porosity Relation : The Effect of Permeability ,
" SPWLA Logging Symposium Transactions ( June 1977 )

14