RST*

Reservoir
Saturation
Tool

Schlumberger
RST*
Reservoir
Saturation Tool
© Schlumberger 1993

Schlumberger Wireline & Testing

P.O. Box 2175
Houston, Texas 77252-2175

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or tran-
scribed in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying and recording,
without prior written permission of the publisher.

SMP-9250

An asterisk (*) is used throughout this document to

denote a mark of Schlumberger.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tool description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tool specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tool features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dual-detector system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Neutron generator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compact high-speed electronics . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inelastic-capture mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Capture-sigma mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sigma mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Processing the spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Carbon/oxygen ratio interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Alpha processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Sigma processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Logging speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7 RST operation through tubing
7 with the well flowing and shut in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8 Reservoir monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8 Detecting injection water breakthrough . . . . . . . 21
9 Monitoring fluid contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References and recommended reading . . . . . . . . . 24
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Log and plot mnemonics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 RST Reservoir
Saturation Tool
Introduction
Reservoir evaluation and saturation monitoring
through casing are generally performed in two
ways. One measures the decay of thermal neutron
populations (TDT* Thermal Decay Time princi-
ple), and the other determines the relative amounts
of carbon and oxygen in the formation by inelastic
gamma ray spectrometry, as used in the GST*
Induced Gamma Ray Spectrometry Tool. Because
chlorine has a large neutron capture cross section,
the TDT technique provides good results in areas
with highly saline formation waters. When the for-
mation water is not sufficiently saline or when its
salinity is unknown, the carbon-oxygen method
usually provides a more reliable answer, and the
Neutron Capture
Excited
nucleus
Slow Nucleus
neutron
g-ray
Figure 1. Neutron capture reactions are the basis for sigma measurements. Inelastic scattering reactions
are used for the carbon-oxygen measurement.
TDT data may not be interpretable. A combination
of the two methods may sometimes provide the
best results and yield additional information.
For carbon-oxygen measurements, a gamma ray
spectrometer measures the energy spectrum of
gamma rays produced by neutrons from a pulsed
neutron source. Responses of carbon and oxygen
are obtained from analysis of gamma ray spectra
produced during a short burst of high-energy neu-
trons that are scattered inelastically by formation
and borehole elements. Figure 1 compares the fast
neutron inelastic scattering process with the cap-
ture process that occurs predominantly after the
neutrons have been slowed to thermal energies.
Inelastic Scattering
Excited
nucleus
Fast Nucleus
neutron
g -ray
RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 1
 Large tool sizes, slow logging speeds and sig-
nificant sensitivity to the borehole fluid limit the
application of existing carbon-oxygen (C/O) tools.
To accommodate the large tool and to provide a
known borehole fluid, it is usually necessary to kill
the well and pull the production tubing.
The new smaller-size RST Reservoir Saturation
Tools (111⁄16- and 2 1⁄2-in. diameters) allow logging
below tubing, eliminating the need to kill the well
and pull tubing. Dual detectors bring improve-
ments in measurement precision and, in the case
of the 2 1⁄2-in. RST tool, provide the means to com-
pensate the measurement for borehole fluid com-
position. With the 2 1⁄2-in. tool, it is now possible
to measure formation oil saturation with the well
flowing and to simultaneously determine the bore-
hole oil/water fraction, or holdup.
2 Introduction
The dual-detector system and a new interpreta-
tion model with a superior characterization data
base can provide a more precise answer in less
time than existing C/O tools.
Since the RST tool also measures the thermal
neutron decay time with techniques similar to
those used with the Dual-Burst* TDT tool—and
can be combined with production logging sen-
sors—a complete reservoir monitoring operation
can be performed during one trip in the well. The
MAXIS 500* wellsite unit provides total control
of the field operation—from downhole tool func-
tions to acquisition and data processing.
Applications
The RST tool provides a vastly improved carbon- • Variable or unknown formation
oxygen measurement. The dual detector measure- water salinity
ment can provide new answers, and the precision When the formation water salinity changes
of the measurement exceeds the precision achieved between reservoirs crossed by the same well,
with previous tools. The tool is also capable of analysis of TDT-type logs is difficult. If the
measuring formation capture cross section with salinity is unknown, changes in oil saturation
better accuracy and precision than the TDT tool. cannot be directly inferred from changes in the
The carbon-oxygen and sigma measurements can sigma measurement. Combining carbon-oxygen
be made during the same trip in the well. and sigma measurements is useful in this case.
RST tools can be run on small-diameter co- • Horizontal wells
axial cables and are combinable with production Due to the detector configuration, the 2 1⁄2-in.
logging sensors for a complete reservoir monitor- RST tool provides values of oil holdup even in
ing program with only one trip in the well. The horizontal wells where standard production log-
carbon-oxygen measurements are extremely useful ging differential pressure sensors do not work.
in medium- to high-porosity oil reservoirs under
the following conditions: In lower-porosity reservoirs, carbon-oxygen
measurements can be used for monitoring gas-oil
• Formation waters of any salinity and oil-water contact movement but not for satura-
This is the basic application for inelastic spec- tion evaluation.
trometry tools since water salinity does not
affect carbon-oxygen measurements. Thermal
neutron capture cross sections of fresh water
and oil are so similar that the two fluids cannot
be distinguished with TDT-type logs. C/O tools
should be used in this case.
• Injection fluid of different salinity than the
formation water
When water of different salinity is injected into
the reservoir—through surface-fed injection
wells or by dump flooding—the analysis
of TDT-type logs becomes complex, and the
results may be misleading. A combination
of carbon-oxygen and sigma measurements
provides the best solution since both the oil
saturation and the formation water salinity
can be quantified.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 3

Tool description 111⁄16-in. RST Tool 21⁄2-in. RST Tool

The new RST tool overcomes the tool-size limi- Gamma ray
tation of existing large-diameter carbon-oxygen (optional)
tools with a 111⁄16-in. version for induced gamma
ray spectrometry and TDT logging below 2 3⁄8-in.
tubing, and a 2 1⁄2-in. version for operations below
31⁄2-in. tubing. These sizes eliminate the need to
kill the well and pull tubing—saving time and
reducing lost production. Both tools use dual Telemetry,
detectors, giving improved precision with the casing collar locator
111⁄16-in. tool and allowing compensation of the (CCL)
measured response for borehole fluid composition
with the 2 1⁄2-in. tool.
Figure 2 shows the major components of the
two RST tools. Optionally, a gamma ray and
production logging sensors can be included in
the tool string.
Acquisition
• Telemetry cartridge
cartridge
Both the 111⁄16- and 2 1⁄2-in. RST versions use the
same telemetry cartridge. This cartridge is the
interface between the logging cable and the
tool, and includes a casing collar locator.
• Acquisition cartridge
Both tools use the same acquisition cartridge
but with different pressure housings. This car-
tridge acquires gamma ray spectral and time Sonde
information from the detectors in the sonde.

Accelerator
cartridge

Figure 2. The RST tool string.

4 Tool description
 111⁄16 -in. 2 1⁄2-in.
RST Sonde RST Sonde
• Dual-detector sonde Electronics
As shown in Fig. 3, both sondes have two
detectors. The actual detectors are the same in Photomultiplier
both versions of the RST tool, but the physical tube
arrangement of the detectors is different in each GSO detector
version. The arrangement in the 111⁄16-in. tool (far)
resembles that of the Dual-Burst TDT tool. Electronics
Both detectors are on the tool axis, separated
by neutron and gamma ray shielding. With this Photomultiplier
tube
arrangement, borehole-to-formation contrast is
GSO detector
insufficient in most cases to allow simultaneous
(near)
determination of borehole fluid and formation
fluid compositions. Since the near detector Shielding
is also sensitive to the formation fluid, it con-
tributes significantly to reducing the statistical
variations of the measurement.
Neutron *
• Accelerator control cartridge *
generator
The accelerator control cartridges of both
tools are identical—containing the power
supplies and control circuitry for the pulsed
neutron generator.
In the 2 1⁄2-in. tool, the detectors are offset from
the tool axis. The near detector faces the borehole
and is shielded from the formation. The far detec- Far
tor faces the formation and is shielded from the
borehole. A bow spring must be used with this
sonde in order to orient the detectors properly. The
strong signal contrast provided by this arrange-
ment facilitates simultaneous determination of the Near
borehole fluid and formation fluid compositions.
Contrast is improved, however, at the expense of
logging speed. The logging speed of the 2 1⁄2-in.
RST tool is typically less than 50 percent of the
speed of the 111⁄16-in. tool. Figure 3. RST detector configuration and shielding.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 5

 Tool specifications
Table 1 lists RST tool specifications.
Tool features
Dual-detector system
A key feature of the Reservoir Saturation Tool
is the dual-detector spectroscopy system that
includes a new type of scintillation crystal and a
new photomultiplier tube. The detector crystal is
cerium-doped gadolinium oxy-ortho silicate
(GSO). Several properties make this material
attractive for use in carbon-oxygen logging:
• good energy resolution
• high density for improved gamma ray detection
sensitivity, particularly at high energies
• fast decay constant for a significantly higher
instantaneous counting rate during the high-
intensity neutron burst than other types of
detector
• performs well at temperatures up to 150°C
and therefore does not require a Dewar flask
for temperature stabilization (no limit to the
logging time at rated temperatures).

RST tool 111⁄16 in. 2 1⁄2 in.

Pressure rating 15 kpsi 15 kpsi
Temperature rating 300°F [150°C] 300°F [150°C]
Maximum tool diameter 1.710 in. 2.505 in.
Minimum tubing size 2 3⁄8-in. API 3 1⁄2-in. API
Minimum restriction 1.813 in. 2.625 in.
Maximum recommended casing size 7 5⁄8-in. API 9 5⁄8-in. API
Maximum recommended borehole size 10 in. 12 1⁄4 in.
Tool length 33.6 ft 32.7 ft
Tool weight 143 lbm 250 lbm

Table 1. RST tool specifications.

6 Tool description
 Crystal NaI BGO GSO
Relative light output 100 13 20
Table 2 shows a comparison of properties of
GSO with sodium iodide (NaI) and bismuth ger- Energy resolution
manate (BGO). The new, highly sensitive photo- (at 662 keV for a 1-cm3 crystal) 6.5% 9.3% 8.0%
multiplier tube helps compensate for the lower
Density (g/cm3) 3.67 7.13 6.71
light output of the GSO crystal.
Effective atomic number 51 75 59
Neutron generator
An improved neutron generator provides a stable Primary decay constant (nsec) 230 300 56
and controlled neutron burst. The almost perfectly Fragile? Yes No Slightly
square burst shape (Fig. 4) improves separation of
the carbon and oxygen gamma rays produced dur- Hygroscopic? Yes No No
ing the neutron burst from capture gamma rays Dewar system required? No Yes No
produced during and after each burst.

Compact high-speed electronics Table 2. Properties of different scintillation crystals.

New compact high-speed gamma ray pulse pro-
cessing techniques significantly boost the counting
rate for increased precision and logging speed.

Counts

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (µsec)

Figure 4. RST neutron burst profile taken with a fast neutron

monitor showing the nearly square shape.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 7

Data acquisition Time (µsec)

Burst
The RST tool has three software-selectable
logging modes: inelastic-capture mode, capture-
sigma mode and sigma mode. Each uses an opti- 100
mum timing sequence for pulsing neutrons and
acquiring the resulting gamma ray energy spectra
and counting rates as a function of time. Spectra
are recorded with 256 channels covering the C
80
energy range from 0.1 to 8 MeV.
C
Inelastic-capture mode
This mode records gamma ray spectra produced
60
by inelastic neutron scattering from formation and
borehole elements. Analysis of these spectra pro-
vides the carbon and oxygen yields used to deter- B Net inelastic =
mine formation oil saturation and borehole oil A – bB
fraction. 40
In addition, thermal neutron capture gamma Net Inelastic
ray spectra are recorded after the neutron burst. B
Element yields from these spectra provide lith-
ology, porosity and apparent water salinity
information. 20 A
The tool timing is shown in Fig. 5. Timing
gate A records inelastic spectra during the neutron Burst A
burst. Timing gates B and C record capture gamma
ray spectra after the neutron burst. A fraction ß of
0
gate B spectrum is subtracted from gate A spec-
trum to remove capture background, resulting in
Figure 5. RST timing for inelastic-capture mode. The net
the net inelastic spectrum.
inelastic spectrum is formed by subtracting a fraction ß
To obtain sufficient precision, several passes
of spectrum B from spectrum A acquired during the
over the region of interest are usually required.
neutron burst.

8 Data acquisition
Capture-sigma mode low statistical variations. The count rate spectrum
is recorded in 126 time gates of varying width,
The capture-sigma mode simultaneously records
covering the entire sequence, including the burst
capture gamma ray spectra and thermal neutron
and the “burst-off” background.
decay time distributions. Elemental yields from the
capture spectra provide lithology, porosity and
apparent water salinity information as in the Sigma mode
inelastic-capture mode. Decay time distributions The sigma mode provides capture cross-section
are used to determine the formation thermal neu- data in a fast logging pass. This mode uses timing
tron capture cross section (sigma). identical to the capture-sigma mode but records
The timing sequence is similar to that of the only the time-decay data, burst-off background
Dual-Burst TDT tool with a short neutron burst gamma ray spectra and associated quality curves.
followed by a longer burst (Fig. 6). It produces
time-decay distributions optimized for the determi-
nation of both borehole and formation sigma with

Short burst Long burst

Figure 6. RST timing

for capture-sigma and
sigma modes.
Counts

0 500 1000 1500

Time (µsec)

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 9

Processing the spectra
Each element has a characteristic gamma ray
energy spectrum; therefore, particular elements
can be identified by their signature within the total
spectrum. In addition, the magnitude of the gamma
ray contribution is related to the amount of the
element in the formation or borehole.
A large number of laboratory measurements
characterize the tool response by systematically
exploring different downhole conditions. The main
parameters of interest are
• formation fluid
• borehole fluid
• formation porosity
• lithology
• borehole size
• casing size
• casing weight.
Each point characterized consists of four sets of
data. The large data base covers more than 100
different downhole situations and consists of at
least 500 laboratory measurements for each tool.
Gamma ray spectra recorded by the near and far
detectors are analyzed with a full-spectrum proce-
dure based on a least-squares fitting technique.
The procedure uses a set of standard elemental
response spectra to determine the contribution of
each element to the measured spectrum.
Elements from the formation and borehole fluid
contributing to spectra measured during the neu-
tron burst period include carbon, oxygen, silicon,
calcium and iron. Figure 7 shows the standard
spectra of these elements and the tool background
for the far detector of the 2 1⁄2-in. tool.

Oxygen Calcium
Silicon Iron
Tool background Carbon

Figure 7. Standard
spectra for the far
detector of the 2 1⁄2-in.
RST tool.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Energy (MeV)

10 Processing the spectra

 Figure 8 displays typical spectra obtained dur-
ing the neutron burst with the far detector in a
water and an oil tank. The carbon signature in the
oil spectrum and the oxygen signature in the water
spectrum are easily identified.
The spectrum analysis procedure provides a
correction of the recorded spectra for slight gain
and offset shifts and changes in detector energy
resolution. After subtraction of the capture back-
ground component, a net inelastic spectrum is
obtained to determine the elemental contribu-
tions—expressed as elemental yields—and their
associated statistical errors.
Carbon/oxygen ratio interpretation
In addition to inelastic-capture data, carbon-
oxygen interpretation requires information on
lithology, porosity, borehole diameter, casing size,
casing weight and downhole fluid carbon density.
Hydrogen
Counts
Carbon
Oxygen
0 2 4 6
Energy (MeV)
The dual-detector RST interpretation model is
an extension of the single-detector model used for
GST interpretations. With the dual-detector system
of the 2 1⁄2-in. tool, both the formation carbon/
oxygen ratio and the borehole water fraction, or
holdup, can be determined. The model includes
the environmental response plus the partitioning of
the formation response and borehole response. A
fan chart shows the response of the tool by plotting
the ratio of carbon and oxygen yields versus poros-
ity for So = 1 (100 percent) and So = 0. Figure 9
shows fan charts for the 2 1⁄2-in. tool in limestone
formations for carbon/oxygen ratio processing.
The charts are for 5-in., 18-lbm/ft casing set in a
6-in. borehole. Data for oil- and water-filled bore-
holes are given. Figure 10 shows the fan charts for
the 111⁄16-in. tool for the same conditions.
Figure 8. Comparison of the
inelastic burst spectra
obtained with the far detector
of the 2 1⁄2-in RST tool in tanks
of oil and water.
8
RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 11
 Oil in borehole Near Carbon/Oxygen Ratio
0.6 Water in borehole So = 1

Carbon/oxygen ratio
0.4

So = 0
Figure 9. Fan charts for
carbon/oxygen ratio processing
for the 2 1⁄2-in. RST near and
far detectors in a limestone for- 0.2
mation with a 6-in. borehole, So = 1
5-in., 18-lbm/ft casing, with oil
and water in the borehole. So = 0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Porosity (%)

0.8

Oil in borehole
Far Carbon/Oxygen Ratio
Water in borehole
So = 1
0.6

So = 1
Carbon/oxygen ratio

0.4

0.2 So = 0

So = 0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Porosity (%)

12 Processing the spectra

 0.9

0.8
Oil in borehole Near Carbon/Oxygen Ratio
Water in borehole So = 1
0.7

0.6

Carbon/oxygen ratio
0.5
Figure 10. Fan charts for
carbon/oxygen ratio processing 0.4 So = 0
for the 111⁄16-in. RST near and
far detectors in a limestone for- 0.3
mation with a 6-in. borehole,
5-in., 18-lbm/ft casing, with oil So = 1
0.2
and water in the borehole.

0.1 So = 0

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Porosity (%)

1.0

Oil in borehole
Far Carbon/Oxygen Ratio
0.8 Water in borehole
So = 1
Carbon/oxygen ratio

0.6

So = 1

0.4

So = 0

0.2

So = 0

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Porosity (%)

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 13

 1.2
Dual Detector COR Model
for 111⁄16-in. RST Tool o-o
1
The interpretation process ensures that the
measured data are consistent with the interpreta-
0.8
tion model. Known formation and borehole data

l
oi
Far oil

n
are used to compute the expected values of car- le

io
carbon/
ho

at
bon/oxygen ratio for each detector using water oxygen 0.6 re

rm
Bo

Fo
saturation and borehole holdup values ranging ratio
o-w
from 0 to 1. Figure 11 shows a plot for a 43-p.u. 0.4
limestone formation with an 8 1⁄2-in. borehole and w-o
7-in. casing. All data should fall statistically within 0.2
the bounded region. After transforming the C/O
data to oil saturation and borehole holdup, the data w-w
0
are plotted for each level with porosity, φ > 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
p.u., on a template. Ideally, the data should lie Near carbon/oxygen ratio
within the box bounded by the limits on So and yo.
The RST data base provides a method for 1.2
determining the sensitivity of oil saturation and oil Dual Detector COR Model
holdup to changes in the borehole and formation 1 for 21⁄ 2-in. RST Tool
parameters. For example, Table 3 lists the change
in each model parameter to produce an increase of 0.8
10 s.u. in So, or an increase in oil holdup yo of 0.10 Far o-o
for the 2 1⁄2-in. RST tool. This tabulation is for a carbon/
ole oil
standard condition of 7-in., 23-lbm/ft casing cen- oxygen 0.6 Boreh

l
ratio

oi
tered and cemented in an 8 1⁄2-in. diameter bore- w-o

n
io
0.4
hole. The formation is a 30-p.u. limestone with an

at
yo

rm
oil density of 0.85 g/cm3 and So = 50 s.u. These So

Fo
data can be used to decide how to reconcile data 0.2 o-w
falling outside normal limits on the crossplot.
w-w
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Near carbon/oxygen ratio

w-w: water in borehole water in formation

o-w: oil in borehole water in formation
o-o: oil in borehole oil in formation
w-o: water in borehole oil in formation

Figure 11. Plots used for RST interpretation. Each pair of

near-far C/O ratios represents a formation oil saturation
and borehole oil holdup. These plots are also used to check
that the measured data are consistent with the interpretation
model.

14 Processing the spectra

 Parameter change needed
Parameter So = +0.10 yo = +0.10
Formation Porosity +3.5 p.u. –15 p.u.
Volume (lime) –0.10 –0.50
Volume (sand) +0.10 +0.50
Borehole Borehole diameter –0.5 in. < –1.5 in.
Casing OD –0.5 in. n.a.
Casing ID –0.4 in. –0.3 in.
Casing center moved 0.5 in. > 0.75 in.
closer to formation
Formation and Oil density +0.09 g/cm3 +0.09 g/cm3
borehole

Table 3. Effects of parameter changes for the 2 1⁄2-in. RST tool in 30-p.u. limestone, with
So = 0.50, 7-in., 23-lbm/ft casing, and 8 1⁄2-in. borehole.

Alpha processing method calculates the volume of oil (VUOI = φ So)

Results show that the spectral deconvolution tech-
nique may give large statistical uncertainties on the
spectral yields. A technique that produces a signifi-
cantly lower statistical uncertainty consists of set-
ting windows on broad regions of the spectrum
that contain the main contributions from carbon
and oxygen. Figure 8 shows a typical set of carbon
and oxygen windows for the inelastic spectra.
The windows technique is appealing because of
its simplicity and statistical robustness. However,
even in the simplest case with the tool surrounded
by water, the carbon window contains signals that
are largely due to oxygen. In a real environment,
additional contributions come from other sur-
rounding elements. Therefore, the ratios are depen-
dent on environmental effects—especially porosity
and near-wellbore effects such as washouts and
cement quality. The use of windows can yield a
precise, repeatable answer, but the technique is
prone to large systematic errors or inaccuracies.
Alpha processing combines the advantages of
both methods—the accuracy of the COR model
and the precision of the windows approach. This
from both COR and windows. Typically, the
volume of oil from the windows shows the correct
structure over a limited depth range, although its
absolute value may not be correct. Therefore,
determining a linear relationship between the two
VUOIs requires averaging or fitting over a large
depth interval (normally 10.5 ft):
VUOIavg (COR) = α 0 + α1 VUOIavg (windows).
Coefficients α 0 and α1 allow the determination of
VUOI from the windows ratio:
VUOI (alpha) = α 0 + α1 VUOI (windows).
This approach results in a VUOI precision that is
very close to the windows precision, and an accu-
racy that matches VUOI from COR. The present
model uses α0 only; α1 is set to 1.
Sigma processing
A new interpretation model provides an analysis
of the decay of a burst of fast neutrons. This tech-
nique provides improved accuracy over existing
TDT-type tools with faster operating times.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 15

Logging speed
Table 4 gives a comparison of logging speeds for
the GST and RST tools in various formations and
conditions. Despite the much smaller size of the
111⁄16-in. RST tool, its logging speed exceeds the
speed of the GST tool by factors varying from
1.5 to 4.
The logging speeds are for a 10-s.u. statistical
uncertainty (±1 standard deviation, or 67 percent
confidence) in the computed oil or water satura-
tion. A 95 percent confidence (±2 standard
deviations) reduces the logging speed by a factor
of 4. The 2 1⁄2-in. RST tool column shows logging
speeds for flowing (or unknown) borehole fluid
conditions.
Very slow logging speeds are difficult to attain
(< 60 ft/hr) and require multiple log passes. For
example, 4 passes at 120 ft/hr provide an effective
logging speed of 30 ft/hr.

Lithology Porosity (p.u.) Logging speed (ft/hr)

111⁄16-in. RST tool 2 1⁄2-in. RST tool 3 5⁄8-in. GST tool
(shut in) (flowing) (shut in)
Sand 16 30 8 18
Sand 33 250 110 160
Lime 16 30 10 11
Lime 41 250 70 60

Table 4. Summary of logging speeds to achieve 10-s.u. precision for So and Sw in a 10-in. bore-
hole with 7-in., 23-lbm/ft casing, at 100°C. Computations for the RST tool use a 21-level (10.5-ft)
alpha processing and a 5-level (2.5-ft) filter.

16 Logging speed
Examples
RST operation through tubing
with the well flowing and shut in
The well in this example produces from a carbon-
ate reservoir with porosity varying from 5 to
30 p.u. Production is from a 6-in. diameter open-
hole completion. The well is vertical, and when
flowing it produces oil with a water cut of about
20 percent. The objective was to determine the
oil saturation in the reservoir and to identify the
producing intervals. Data include seven logging
passes in inelastic-capture mode with the well
shut in, and five passes with the well flowing.
The carbon/oxygen ratio curves shown in
Fig. 12 are the average of all logging passes, with
the width of the line showing ±1 standard devia-
tion from the average. The sharp increase in both
the near and far detector ratios at X851 ft, with the
well shut in, indicates an oil-water interface in the
borehole. The shut-in and flowing data overlay
below that depth, indicating no oil production from
that interval. Above X850 ft, the carbon/oxygen
ratios from both detectors increase steadily, show-
ing the depths at which oil is produced.
Figure 13 shows a crossplot of the near and far
carbon-oxygen data compared with the laboratory
data for limestone saturated with either water or oil
having a density of 0.85 g/cm3. The outer bounded
area shows the dynamic range for 43-p.u. lime-
stone, and the inner bound area is for 17-p.u. lime-
stone. Data recorded with the well shut in match
the dynamic range for the near detector and are Figure 12. Comparison of near and far detector carbon/
consistent with the data recorded with the well oxygen ratio logs with the well shut in and flowing.
flowing. Some of the points fall outside the bound-
aries because of statistical variations, a borehole
slightly larger than 6 in. in diameter, and a low oil
density of 0.715 g/cm3 at reservoir conditions.
Figure 14 shows the result of processing the
data using the dual-detector interpretation model.
The porosity information came from an ELAN*
Elemental Log Analysis of openhole logs. The
plot includes all limestone and dolomite points
with porosity greater than 10 p.u. The model
matches the log data.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 17

 0.8

0.7
[

[ [
0.6 [
[ [ [
[
[[
[ Figure 13. Crossplot of near
Carbon/oxygen ratio (far)

[ [ [D[[ [[[[[[[[[
DD
[D[D [ [
[[[ [[[[
[
and far detector carbon/
D D DD DD D D [ [ [ [[ [[
[
0.5 D DDDD [ [ [[[[[ [[
[[ [[[[ oxygen ratio logs from Fig. 12
D
D DD D D DD D [ [ [[ [[[[[[[
[[
[
[[[[[[
[[[
[[ [[[[[[[ [
D
D DDDD DD D DDDD
D DDDDDD D DD D
D
[[[
[[[ [[[
[[[[[
[
[ [[ [
[[ [[ [[
D D D DDDDDDDDD D D[ [ [ [
[ [
[[ [ [[
[[ [[ [ with the well shut in and flow-
D D D D D DD D DD[D [ [ [ [[ [
[
D DDDD [ [ [[ [[
[[[[ [[[ [
D D
D DDDDDDD DD DDDDDDDD DDD [
DDD [D [[[
[D[[[[[[[ [[ [[[[[ [[[
[[[[[[[[[ [[ [
D DD DD DD D DDD D D DD [ [D[[
[ [[[[[ [[
[[[ [[
[[[[
[[[ [[[ [ ing compared to laboratory
0.4 D D D DD
D DD
DD
D D DD [ [
[ [
D[[[
[[
[ [
[[
[ [
[
[
[[[
[
[[
[ [[
[[[[
[[[
[
[ [[[[
[[[
[[ [[[[[ [[ [
[[[[ [[ data.
DD D D DD D D [[[ [[[[
[[[[[[ [[[ [ [[
DD
D D
D DDDD D D [ [[
D [
D DDD DDD D DD[D D D
D [[[
D [ DDD DD
D DD D DD
D D [ [
DD[[
[ D [D D DD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD D
0.3 [
D
D[DDDDDD
[ [
D DD[
[ D D [
[ [
DDDD [
[ [ [
D [
DD D
D
D DD DD D D
[DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
D D D
[[DD[DDDDD[[[[
D [DDDD[[[DDD[
D D
D[
D D
DDDD DD[ D D[ DDDD D[D[DDDDD
D
DD DDDDDD
D DDDDDD D
[[ DD[D[[
DD
D D[D[
D[
DD[[D[ DDD [[D[ D[DDD[[
DD
[[
[ [[
D[DDDDD[
[DD[D[
DD [[
D
DDDD [[D[ DD DDDDDD
[DDDDDDDDDDD[DDDDDDDDDDDD
[[[[[ [[[D[
D[
[[
[
D[
[D[[[
D[DD
D [[
[[
DD
D
[
D[
D[[
D D[[D
[
D[
D D[[
[ [
DD
D
D[[
[D[
D
DDD
D[ [ D
D
D
D
D
[
[
D D
DD[
D [D [DDDDDDD[D[
[DDD[DD[DDD[
D
DD
[DD[D DDD DDDD
[[D[D[[ [ [[ [ [ [[ [
DD D [
D[ [
D D D[ DD[ D [ [
[[
DD
[[ D[
D[
[[DD[D[ [
[[[ [
D[[D
[[ [ [ D[ D[
D
[D[D[ [
D
[D
[
D D[DD
[ D[ D [ DDDD D [ D D
D
[D[D[[
D D D
D D[
[[ D
[DDD[DD[[
D
[[[D[
D
[DD[
D
[DD[
D [D[DDD
D[
D [D[DD[DD[DDDDDD D DD
D
[D[ [D[[
[ [ D D
[
D D[
DD
DDD
DD[ [ [D[ [[ [ [[ Shut In
D DD
D[ [
[[[ DD[[[ [
[D[ [ [DDD[
[[ [D[
[DDD D DD
D DD D D
[
0.2 [[ [[D[ D[
D[
DD
D[ [[[
[ [D[
[ [D[
[D[DD[
[D[ [D[ [[D[
D
[[D[DDD[DDD D [
D[ [ [
[ [[[D D D[
[[ [ D D Flowing

0.1 Lab data 43 p.u.

Lab data 17 p.u.

0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Carbon/oxygen ratio (near)

120
[ D [[[
DD
D [[
D
[ [ D
D
DD
[
100 [
[ [[
DD D [[
[[ D D
[ [[
D D [ [[[
D D [ [ D DD D DD [ [[[[
[[[[[[ [ [[[
D D
[[[ D [[D [[
D D D DD
[[ [[
[[
[[[[ [
D[ D D
D
DD D
DDDD
D [ [[[
[ [[
[[[[ [[
[[[[ Figure 14. Crossplot of model
D D
D D
D D DD DDDD
DDDD DDD
DDD [[[[[[[[[[
[[
[[[[
[[[
[[[[[
80 D D D
D D
DD D D D
D D DD DD
D [[[[
[[[[[[[
[[[[ [[
[ [ D DD DDDD
D DDD
DD D
D DDDD DDDDD
DD [[[[
[[[[
[[[
[[ output data for formation oil
[ D D D D D
DD
D D D D
[[[[
[[[[ [[[
[[ [
[[[[[
D D [ [
[[
D DD D D D D D DDDD [
[D D [ D D DDDDD DDD D
D
DD DDD
D
DD [[[
[[[
[[[
[
[[
[D D [
D
D
DD
DD
DDD D
D DD D
D DD DDD [ [[[ [[[[[ [[[[
[ saturation and borehole oil
Oil saturation (%)

DDD D D D DDDDDDDD [[
[[ [[[[
D
D[DD [[ D D[D[ D
DD
DDD
D DDDDD D
DD [[[ [ [[
[[[[
[ D D[ D [ DDD DD D D D
DDDD DD [[ [[[
[[[[
[[[
[ [[ fraction in Fig. 12.
60 [D DD[D[D[ [ [ DD D D [[
[[[[[[
[ [[
[ D[[D[DDDDDDDD DD [D [DD D D D DD [ [
[ D DD
D D [ [[
[
[[[[DD[D[ DD DD D [ DD DD
DDD DD [ [[ [[[
[[ [[
[[
[[
[
[
[ [[[[ [DD[DD[DDDDDDD[DDDDDD DD D [
[[[
[ [D[[ [
D D DDDD
DD
[[[[ [[
[DD[[ [D[D[DDDDD[DDDDDD [[[[DD[ [D DDDD
[
[[ [
[[[[[[
[
[[DDDD[D[DD[DDDDD[ [ [ [ DD D [ [ DDDDD [[
[
[[ [D[[DD[ [ DD D DDD
[[DD[D[D[D D[DD[[ DDDDDD
DD D [DD DD [
[[[[
[ [[
[[[[[
D
D
[DD[DD[D[D[ [[DD[D [[D D DDD DD D D D DD
40 [[DD[[ DD D DDD
[DDD[D D[[ D DD DD D D D DDDDD D [ [[
[[D[DD[ D [
[DDDD[ D
[[ [[D[D[[D[
[ [D[[ [D[[D[DD[D[DD[[[[DD D DDD D DD
[[ [ D[ [ D [
[[[[DDDD[DD[[D[ DD DD [D[DD[DD D D D D DDD
D [[
DDD D [
[[[ [[[[ [ D[
D D
[D[DD[DDDD[DDD[ D D DDDD[D DD
[ [ [ D D D D
[
[ D [ [
[[[[D[DD[DDD[D[DDDDD DDD[ DD D[[[[D D DD D D DDDD
D D D D D D [
[[[ [ [ [[[DDDD[ D[ DD[D[ D D D D D [
20 [ [[ [[D[
[[[ [D[
[ [[
[ [D[[[DDD[ D D
[ [[ [D[[D[[DD[D[D[DDD [D D[D DD
[DD[[DDD[[[DD[ [DD [
[[ [
[D[ DD
D[ D[[ DDD
D [[
[DD[DDDDD[DDDDDD[DDDDDD[ [D[[DDD [[
[ D DD
[[[ [D[[ [
[[[[[ [[DD[ [DD[D[DD[[D[D[ [ [[D[ [[[[ [
D
[[[[ [DD[
[ D
[D[
[D[ D
[[D[[DD[[[D D[DD
[[
[
[ DDDDD [ Shut in
0 [[[ [[[D[[D[[ [D[D[[DD D
D
D D
[
[ [ D
[
[
DD [
[DD [D[D D [ [
[ [[D
[[[[D[[[ [DDD DD [[ D
[[[ [[D D D [
D Flowing
[[[[[DDD[DDDD[ [ D
[[ [D[D [D D

-20 [[
[ [[ DDDD D [[

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Borehole oil holdup (%)

18 Examples
 The final interpretation presentation (Fig. 15)
shows the borehole holdup in the left-hand track
for the well shut in and flowing. The separations of
the saturation curves in the central track, through
the interval from X770 to X850 ft, indicate that oil
from the borehole reinvaded the formation while
the well was shut in. During the subsequent flow-
ing period, the formation water flushed out the
oil—as shown by the increased water saturation
and verified by the flowing borehole holdup. The
volumetric analysis, presented in the right-hand
track, uses formation lithology from the openhole
ELAN interpretation. The green shading indicates
substantial oil saturation in the upper half of the
reservoir. The log of borehole holdup indicates
that most of the oil is produced from the interval
from X728 to X750 ft.

Figure 15. Final interpretation shows the borehole holdup in the left track,
the flowing and shut-in saturations in the center track, and the volumetric
analysis in the right track.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 19

 Reservoir monitoring The near and far COR curves, displayed on the
left, read between 0.16 and 0.3 in the limestone
Figure 16 shows the 1 ⁄16-in. RST log results
11
section but drop rapidly when the tool is in the
combined with openhole log data from a well with
shale or sand zones. The fluid analysis in the cen-
4 1⁄2-in., 9.5-lbm/ft casing set in a 6 1⁄2-in. borehole.
ter track shows some depletion in the limestone
The interval shown, logged with the well shut in,
reservoir from X290 to X350 ft. This example
consists of a clean limestone reservoir with a shaly
confirms that the interpretation handles the mixed
limestone and sandstone section below.
and changing lithology without exhibiting a bias
in the saturation answers.

Figure 16. RST log results

from the inelastic-capture
operating mode, combined
with openhole data, in a
reservoir monitoring project.

20 Examples
Detecting injection water breakthrough dual-burst sigma mode and a salinity indicator
ratio (Cl/Cl+H) curve. Track 3 displays the bulk
Figure 17 presents the RST log result from
volume analysis.
carbon-oxygen and sigma analysis, combined with
The log results indicate that the sweep of injec-
openhole data, to monitor the progress of a flood
tion water has virtually depleted the oil in the zone
project. The high formation water salinity, com-
from X320 to X375 ft. The interval above X320 ft
pared with the fresher injection water, provides a
shows little change in oil saturation but some
good contrast.
replacement of formation water with injection
The first track shows the fluid analysis. With
water.
porosity from openhole logs, oil saturation from
This full diagnosis would not be possible with
carbon-oxygen measurements, and a known for-
either carbon-oxygen measurements or thermal
mation water salinity, the sigma measurements and
decay time measurements alone. The RST tool,
the salinity indicator from capture yields provide
however, can make both measurements with only
sufficient information for determining volumes of
one trip in the well.
both injection and formation water. Track 2
displays the uncorrected sigma from the RST

Figure 17. RST presentation

of carbon-oxygen and sigma
analysis, combined with
openhole data, to determine
injection water breakthrough.

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 21

 Monitoring fluid contacts The original interpretation from openhole
logs appears in the fourth track. The change in the
Figure 18 displays both the GST and RST log
depth of the gas-oil contact—between the time of
results in a cased monitor well in a sandstone
the openhole logs and the RST monitor log—is
formation. The well has 5-in., 18-lbm/ft casing set
obvious.
in a 6 1⁄2-in. borehole. The fluid analysis from the
The left track shows the CNL neutron porosity
GST log appears in the second track and the
and the near-far inelastic count rate ratio (CRRA)
results from the RST measurements in the third
from the RST measurement. The CRRA curve
track. Both logs show the oil-water contact at
tracks a recent NPHI curve and provides an excel-
X560 ft, but the improved precision with the RST
lent gas indicator. The acquisition of CRRA and
tool is evident.
C/O data on one trip in the well makes additional
logging runs to locate the gas cap unnecessary.

Figure 18. Comparison of a GST and an RST log in a sandstone reservoir.

The oil-water contact and the gas cap are clearly visible from the fluid
analysis and from the CRRA curve.

22 Examples
Summary
The new through-tubing RST tool uses a dual-
detector spectrometry system to record carbon-
oxygen measurements for simultaneous evaluation
of the oil saturation in the formation and, with the
2 1⁄2-in. tool, the oil/water fraction in the borehole.
This evaluation is particularly important in cased
wells where the formation water salinity is very
low or unknown—conditions where TDT interpre-
tation methods are unreliable. The measurement is
also very useful for monitoring reservoirs in water-
floods of contrasting salinity, measuring residual
oil saturation and monitoring the success of
enhanced recovery methods.
The slim RST tool size eliminates the need to
kill the well and pull tubing, minimizing the asso-
ciated risks and lost production. The interpretation
is more reliable because the effect of invasion by
the kill fluids is eliminated, reducing the need for
special monitoring wells.
Two RST tool sizes are available for inelastic-
capture and sigma measurements—a 111⁄16-in. ver-
sion for logging below 2 3⁄8-in. tubing and a 2 1⁄2-in.
tool for operations below 3 1⁄2-in. and larger tubing.
The larger tool has special detector shielding that
permits its use not only in static but also in flowing
wells. Wells can be logged under dynamic condi-
tions, reducing the production lost during the
operation.
The RST tools can be run on small-diameter
coaxial cables and are combinable with production
logging sensors for a complete reservoir
monitoring program with only one trip in the well.
These capabilities result in time savings, minimum
lost production, reduced operational risks and
better, more extensive answers.
New GSO gamma ray detectors, together
with new photomultiplier tube technology and
advanced processing techniques, allow logging
speeds comparable to or better than those of
large-diameter carbon-oxygen tools that cannot
run through tubing. The detector system does not
require a Dewar flask, so there is no limit to the
logging time up to rated temperatures. With the
2 1⁄2-in. tool, the dual detectors are arranged to
allow compensation for borehole fluid, which
eliminates the need for an independent measure-
ment of borehole fluid composition.
An improved neutron generator provides a
stable and controlled neutron burst. Its almost
perfectly square output improves separation of the
carbon and oxygen gamma rays produced during
the neutron burst from capture gamma rays pro-
duced after each burst. New compact, high-speed
electronics significantly improve the counting rate
capabilities for increased precision.
Gamma ray spectra recorded by the near and far
detectors are processed with a full-spectrum analy-
sis procedure based on a least-squares technique.
Standard response spectra are used to determine
the contribution of each element to the measured
spectrum. The dual-detector system and interpreta-
tion model of the RST tool—together with the
very large characterization data base—provide a
more accurate answer than can be obtained with
any other carbon-oxygen logging tool.
RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 23
References and recommended reading
1. McGuire JA, Rogers LT and Watson JT:
“Improved Lithology and Hydrocarbon
Saturation Determination Using the Gamma
Spectrometry Log,” paper SPE 14465, pre-
sented at the 60th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas,
Nevada, September 22–25, 1985.
2. Hull RL: “The Muldoon Field: An Evaluation
of Behind-Casing Pay Zones in a Freshwater
Environment,” paper SPE 14464, presented at
the 60th SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada,
September 22–25, 1985.
3. Morgan WD and Hertzog RC: “The
Application of Induced Gamma-Ray
Spectroscopy in Cased Hole Formation
Evaluation in Sumatra, Indonesia,” presented
at the 12th Annual Convention of the
Indonesian Petroleum Association, June 7–8,
1983.
4. “Cased Hole Reservoir Evaluation,”
Schlumberger Well Evaluation Conference
Nigeria 1985, Paris, France: Schlumberger
(1985): 215–230.
5. Woodhouse R and Kerr SA: “The Evaluation
of Oil Saturation Through Casing Using
Carbon/Oxygen Logs,” paper SPE 17610,
presented at the SPE International Meeting
on Petroleum Engineering, Tianjin, China,
November 1– 4, 1988.
6. Westaway P, Hertzog R and Plasek RE:
“The Gamma Spectrometer Tool Inelastic
and Capture Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy for
Reservoir Analysis,” paper SPE 9461, pre-
sented at the 55th SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
September 21–24, 1980.
24 References and recommended reading
7. Hertzog RC: “Laboratory and Field
Evaluation of an Inelastic-Neutron-Scattering
and Capture Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Tool,”
SPE Journal 20 (October 1980): 327–333.
8. Freeman DW and Fenn CJ: “An Evaluation
of Various Logging Methods for the
Determination of Remaining Oil Saturation
in a Mixed Salinity Environment,” paper SPE
17976, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Manama, Bahrain, March 11–14, 1989.
9. Johnston J and Hook P: “The Gamma to
Sigma of Saturation,” Middle East Well
Evaluation Review 6 (1989): 24–33.
10. Gilchrist WA Jr, Rogers LT and Watson JT:
“Carbon/Oxygen Interpretation—A
Theoretical Model,” Transactions of the
SPWLA 24th Annual Logging Symposium,
Calgary, Alberta, June 27–30, 1983, paper FF.
11. Cannon DE and LaVigne JA: “Through-
Casing Reservoir Evaluation,” SPE Formation
Evaluation 2 (June 1987): 201–208.
12. Felder RD and Hoyer WA: “The Use of
Well Logs to Monitor a Surfactant Flood Pilot
Test,” Journal of Petroleum Technology 36
(August 1984): 1379–1391.
13. Neuman CH and Oden AL: “Cased-Hole
Measurement of Residual Oil—San Joaquin
Valley, California,” paper SPE 9918, present-
ed at the SPE California Regional Meeting,
Bakersfield, California, March 25–26, 1981.
14. Roscoe BA, Stoller C, Adolph RA, Boutemy
Y, Cheeseborough JC III, Hall JS, McKeon
DC, Pittman D, Seeman B and Thomas SR:
“A New Through-Tubing Oil-Saturation
Measurement System,” paper SPE 21413,
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show,
Bahrain, November 16–19, 1991.
15. Melcher CL, Schweitzer JS, Manente RA
and Peterson CA: “Applicability of GSO
Scintillators for Well Logging,” IEEE
Transactions on Nuclear Science 38, no. 2
(April 1991): 506–509.
16. Roscoe BA, Grau JA and Wraight PD:
“Statistical Precision of the Neutron-Induced
Gamma-Ray Spectroscopy Measurements,”
Transactions of the SPWLA 27th Annual
Logging Symposium, Houston, Texas,
June 9–13, 1986, paper CC.
17. Roscoe BA and Grau JA: “Response of the
Carbon/Oxygen Measurement for an Inelastic
Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Tool,” SPE
Formation Evaluation 3 (March 1988):
76–80.
18. Scott HD, Stoller C, Roscoe BA, Plasek
RE and Adolph RA: “A New Compensated
Through-Tubing Carbon/Oxygen Tool for
Use in Flowing Wells,” Transactions of the
SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium,
Midland, Texas, June 16–19, 1991,
paper MM.
19. Steinman DK, Adolph RA, Mahdavi M,
Marienbach E, Preeg WE and Wraight PD:
“Dual-Burst Thermal Decay Time Logging
Principles,” paper 15437, presented at the
61st SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
October 5–8, 1986.
20. Olesen J-R, Mahdavi M, Steinman DK and
Yver J-P: “Dual-Burst Thermal Decay Time
Logging Overview and Examples,” paper
15716, presented at the 5th SPE Middle East
Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain, March 7–10,
1987.
21. Stoller C, Scott HD, Plasek RE, Lucas AJ
and Adolph RA: “Field Tests of a Slim
Carbon/Oxygen Tool for Reservoir Saturation
Monitoring,” paper 25375, presented at the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition, Singapore, February 8–10, 1993.
22. Audah T and Chardac J-L: “Reservoir Fluid
Monitoring Using Through-Tubing Carbon-
Oxygen Tools,” Transactions of the SPWLA
34th Annual Logging Symposium, Calgary,
Alberta, June 13–16, 1993, paper LL.
RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 25
Nomenclature
BGO bismuth germanate MeV million electron volts
cm centimeter NaI sodium iodide
3
cm cubic centimeter nsec nanosecond
ft foot φ porosity
g gram p.u. porosity unit
3
g/cm gram per cubic centimeter So oil saturation
GSO gadolinium oxy-ortho silicate s.u. saturation unit
in. inch yo oil holdup
KeV thousand electron volts yw water holdup
lbm pound (mass) µsec microsecond

26 Nomenclature
Log and plot mnemonics
BHOF borehole fluid NPHI neutron porosity
CALI caliper PM photomultiplier
CALU casing collar locator PU porosity unit
CGRS gamma ray sonde RSC tool control cartridge
COR carbon/oxygen ratio RSCH cartridge housing with eccentralizer
CPLC telemetry cartridge RSS detector system sonde
CRRA near-far inelastic count rate RSSH sonde housing
CU capture unit RSX accelerator control cartridge
FBEF effective beam current RSXH accelerator housing
ILE in-line eccentralizer SBHN sigma borehole from near detector
INEL inelastic SFFD sigma formation from far detector
INFD inelastic burst count rate from far detector SIR salinity indicator ratio

RST Reservoir Saturation Tool 27