Shier

source, depositional environment, compaction, and other lies or to introduce artifacts. These pernicious tendencies
regional patterns. can be reduced if certain guidelines are followed.
Even if some adjustments are minor, it is usually easier to In many wells, different depth intervals were logged
normalize all gamma ray curves except those of the type independently at different times. The various logging runs
well(s), than it is to adjust only those wells that need a large frequently involved different instruments, with different
amount of adjustment. calibration histories, different logging crews, and different
service companies. This lack of standardization dictates that
Spontaneous potential (SP) curves each logging run should usually be normalized separately.
Shier (1997) showed that there is a tendency for the size
SP curves are normalized by conversion to a Volume of
of the normalization corrections to be smaller with modern
Shale curve. This involves editing “by hand” to remove
instruments. This is somewhat balanced by a marked
“mechanical shifts,” followed by definition of a shale base-
increase in the introduction of new tools with different
line (a maximum) and definition of a clean sand line (a min-
response characteristics. When first introduced, new tools
imum). Care should be taken to allow for hydrocarbon sup-
may experience initial reliability problems. Normalization
pression of the SP as much as possible, based on the gamma
is needed for both old and new datasets.
ray, resistivity, and other curves that reflect the volume of
Hole rugosity affects log response. Histograms,
shale in the reservoir.
crossplots, and other data displays that do not allow the user
The raw SP curve (Figure 12) is not helpful. It shows the
to simultaneously assess the associated caliper curve may
effects of both run changes and changes in formation water.
be misleading and lead to inaccurate normalizations. An
In Figure 12, a shale baseline was defined for the SP curve, alternative method is to define a bad-hole curve, which may
using the caliper and resistivity curves (not shown) as addi- be based on curves in addition to the caliper. The bad-hole
tional references. The straightened SP curve has the shale
baseline set to zero. A clean sand baseline was defined for
the straightened SP curve, again using the caliper and resis-
tivity curves for reference. This was then used to create the
Volume of Shale curve.
Cook Inlet of Alaska is a place where SP normalization is
vital; volcanic clasts frequently make the sandstones more
radioactive than shales, rendering the gamma ray curve
nearly useless for distinguishing sand from shale.

Resistivity curves
Resistivity curves are usually handled with standard
borehole-correction procedures. They are not normalized at
all unless there is some compelling reason to do so. If nor-
malization is necessary, the zero is generally accepted, and
only values of Wmax are needed. Unfortunately, a suffi-
ciently consistent Wmax is almost impossible to define in
most datasets.
Some of the early resistivity curves have negative values
because of incorrect registry of the galvanometer to the
film. The solution here is to shift the entire resistivity curve
for that run so that the minimum value is compatible with
nearby wells. However, this will produce its own inaccura-
cies if the galvanometer adjustment was not the same for the
entire log run but was arbitrarily adjusted at some unknown
depth.

GUIDELINES
The purpose of curve normalization is to remove system-
atic inaccuracies, not to remove genuine lithologic anoma- FIG. 12 Creation of a Volume of Shale curve from an SP curve.

278 PETROPHYSICS May-June 2004

 Well Log Normalization: Methods and Guidelines
curve can be used as a filter prior to selection of a type well
or other normalization tasks.
Reducing the noise but not the signal
Avoid very small adjustments. If it cannot be clearly
demonstrated that an adjustment will improve the accuracy
of the data, it should not be made. Set a minimum level for
adjustments to be made for each of the curve types based on
the consistency of the lithologies that are available. An
exception is made for the gamma ray curve, the values for
which are not related to an absolute standard but are simply
relative to the other wells in the study.
Look for map patterns. As an initial test, map the adjust-
ments that appear to be needed. If the polarity and magni-
tude of the adjustments are more or less random, the adjust-
ments are likely to be legitimate. If there are nonrandom
areas, check possible causes. Are they real geologic anoma-
lies? Are they the result of the consistent use of a particular
logging contractor in a small area? Are they clumps of older
vintage logs and younger vintage logs from successive
exploitation episodes?
Check for lithologic trends. Detect regional gradients by
making trend surface maps of the unadjusted log data.
Consider other information before finalizing normaliza-
tion work. Don’t pursue the normalization work in isolation
from what is known about the geology and production tests.
Methods and results need to be discussed with the project
team. Any study that covers a large area and does not
include the efforts of a geologist/stratigrapher usually con-
tains unacceptable artifacts.
Do not overwork the data. There is little to be gained by
attempting to wring the last tiny bit of accuracy from the
data by slightly revising the normalization parameters time
after time.
Some curves cannot be repaired. Most curves can be
converted to reliable data. However, if normalization can-
not give the curve the correct response characteristics, the
curve should be discarded.
Improve the data if you can. If it is clear that a particular
adjustment will reduce the noise level, make the adjustment
even if it is also clear that an undesirable amount of noise
will remain. Consider the case of a gamma ray curve
penetrating mechanically competent 15 API unit limestones
and caving 120 API unit shales. There is no caliper curve.
Normalizing the data as if they had been borehole corrected
will tend to correct for the hole enlargement in the shales in
that well.
Cases without optimum lithologies
Study areas with nonideal lithologies are frequently
encountered. In these cases, it may be necessary to pursue a
May-June 2004 PETROPHYSICS
“lesser of two evils” strategy. Consider the case where thin
shaly, possibly arkosic sands are developed in a section that
is 90% shale and there are no rocks in the study wells that
have a gamma ray of less than 65 API units. There will be
no problem using a gamma ray histogram to establish the
maximum gamma ray normalizer from the pervasive shale
facies. The problem lies in defining the minimum normal-
ization rock type. Three less-than-perfect approaches are
suggested below.
Wmin can be picked from the low-side shoulder of the his-
togram as shown in Figure 4b. It can be argued that as long
as the Wmax and Wmin values that are used form an envelope
around the data to be analyzed, there should be no concern
about the effect of the normalization parameters on nonex-
istent values less than 60 API units. This approach is based
on the assumptions that each gamma ray curve has the same
thin-bed resolution characteristics and that the lowest vol-
ume of shale in typical sandstones in each well is the same.
If sandstones are actually better developed in one part of the
area than in another, use of this procedure by itself will
erase the very geologic changes that are most important!
This source of error will be reduced if the trial normaliza-
tion method is used and regional trends are considered.
Zero can be assumed correct. The analyst adopts zero as
Rmin and Wmin for each well. As indicated in Figures 10 and
11, the amount of noise in the uncorrected gamma ray val-
ues decreases markedly at lower gamma ray values.
A hybrid approach uses the zero assumption initially.
Then histograms or crossplots are used to check the results
of the preliminary normalization for an anomalous low-side
data pattern. For example, check the log headers for potas-
sium chloride muds, look at the local stratigraphy more
carefully, and adjust Wmin in anomalous wells. Experience
suggests that this hybrid approach is the most efficient way
to proceed.
Another way to handle nonideal lithologies is to start
with the most inherently reliable curves and work toward
the least reliable. For example, in a thick clastic sequence
that is only partly consolidated, it may be possible to nor-
malize the gamma ray quite accurately but the neutron
response varies greatly. The procedure in this case would be
to first normalize the gamma ray and then crossplot the nor-
malized gamma ray versus the unnormalized neutron curve.
Using trial and error, a Wmax is found that produces the
desired crossplot pattern for each well. Similarly, the com-
pensated sonic curve (which rarely needs adjustment)
might be crossplotted against the density curve in a carbon-
ate play.
Software considerations
Effective normalization software has different impera-
279
 Shier
tives than software designed specifically for log analysis. It
must be possible to view normalized and unnormalized
curve data as histograms, crossplots, and depth plots on the
screen simultaneously. The effect of any changes in the
normalization parameters should be displayed almost instan-
taneously and easily compared with the data patterns of
nearby wells, without requiring paper copies. All normaliza-
tion information must be integrated with formation tops and
available for mapping. The system must be capable of han-
dling different normalizers for different log runs seamlessly.
All of the work discussed here was performed using a
software system that can store normalization parameters
and apply them to log data as required. The parameters
themselves are available for statistical analysis or mapping.
It has a complete capability for comparing crossplot, histo-
gram, and depth-plot data displays between wells, and with
regional norms. Data displays can be confined to any stra-
tum that is delimited by formation tops or other strati-
graphic markers. All operations except looking at the data
and making decisions, including printing of standardized
screen displays, can be batch-processed as needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Approximately 20% of neutron, density, and uncompen-
sated sonic curves require normalization before a dataset is
consistent enough to produce reliable results in batch-pro-
cessed log analysis. Virtually all SP, gamma ray, and
GNT-type neutron curves require normalization. Reasons
for the need for normalization include miscalibrated instru-
ments, instruments of different design, varying borehole
effect, and other factors. Curve normalization is accom-
plished using a standard linear equation. The most critical
part of the normalization process is determination of rea-
sonable curve values at various points in a study area, tak-
ing into account any stratigraphic or compaction trends.
Techniques that combine data from multiple wells into one
histogram or crossplot tend to blur any real stratigraphic
and/or fluid differences across the area. Also, these meth-
ods may not highlight incorrect data if they are present in
the majority of the wells in the study.
Normalization is best regarded as a process that reduces
systematic noise within the dataset. The noise contains
some random elements, including the statistical nature of
the nuclear tools and small changes in the rocks. A major
challenge in normalization work is the recognition of which
data inconsistencies are systematic (and correctable) and
which are random (and better left alone). Not all curves can
be handled in the same way. Each curve has its own opti-
mum set of normalization techniques.
280 PETROPHYSICS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank W. David Kennedy for his extensive work with
this paper and for his helpful suggestions.
REFERENCES
Doveton, J. H. and Bornemann, E., 1981, Log normalization by
trend surface analysis: The Log Analyst, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 3–9.
Hilchie, D. W., 1979, Old (pre-1958) electrical log interpretation,
published by the Author in Boulder, Colorado, USA., 164 p.
Lang, W. J., 1980, SPWLA Ad hoc calibration committee report:
The Log Analyst, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 14–19.
Neinast, G. S. and Knox, C. C., 1973, Normalization of well log
data, Paper I in 14th Annual Logging Symposium
Transactions: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts.
Patchett, J. G. and Coalson, E. B., 1979, The determination of
porosity in sandstone and shaly sandstone, Part 1—Quality
control: The Log Analyst, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 3–12.
Reimer, J. D., 1985, Density-neutron cross plot discrepancies
through the Swan Hills Member, Swan Hills Unit #1, Alberta,
in Transactions of the 10th Formation Evaluation Symposium:
Canadian Well Log Society and in Vol. 3 of the CWLS Reprint
Volumes, Canadian Case Histories.
Schlumberger, 1969: Log Interpretation Charts, Schlumberger
Ltd., 76 p.
Shier, D. E., 1997, A comparison log response between logging
companies and different vintages of tools: The Log Analyst,
vol. 38, no. 3, p. 47–61.
Shier, D. E. and Sponable, D. M., 1997, Correcting drift in GNT
neutron log data from West Texas: The Log Analyst, vol. 38, no.
3, p. 16–19.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dr. Daniel E. Shier is a consulting geologist and
petrophy sicist. He was employ ed by Shell Oil as a
micropaleontologist and stratigrapher from 1969 to 1974. During
his tenure for Scientific Software from 1974 to 1981, he worked
with sets of digital well logs that encompassed entire exploration
plays and developed the normalization methods needed to obtain
accurate mapping parameters for regional studies. He was associ-
ated with Energy Data Services from 1981 to 2001. There he
developed and taught a workshop on log normalization. He
received his BA degree in geology from Rice University and his
PhD degree in geology from Florida State University. Dr. Shier is a
member of SPWLA, AAPG, Rocky Mtn. Assoc. of Geologists and
Denver Well Log Society.
May-June 2004