SPWLA 31~ Annual Logging Symposium. June 24-27.

1990

TI-IINBED ANALYSIS WITH CONVENTIONAL LOG SUITES

by
Richard. M. Bateman

ABSTRACT

A innovative method of log analysis has been developed for thinbed

formation evaluation. It has been successfully applied to conventional,
commonly available, log suites recorded at conventional sampling rates.
The method produces geologic and engineering answers without the
need for a dipmeter or other high resolution device. This paper
documents the steps required to perform the processing, the
;pa$icability of the method and the verification of the results obtained to

Some previously published thinbed log analysis routines include

algorithms for the enhancement of the vertical resolution of the raw logs
as a preliminary to performing a modified conventional shaly sand
analysis. Effectively these methods assume that thinly bedded sand/shale
sequences are accretions of shaly sand with continuous, but rapidly
varying, clay content. Thus standard (dispersed) shaly sand logic is
applied, but on a much finer depth scale than is used in non-laminated
rocks.

An alternative approach is to assume that individual laminae in a

sand/ shale sequence are pure and that laminated shaly sands are binary
mixtures of pure constituents, i.e., sandwiches of clean sand and shale. In
a given sedimentary environment either extreme is possible. In the
absence of direct measurements from full core or a borehole imaging
device it is recommended that both the binary approach and the high
resolution dispersed shaly sand approach be taken and an informed
judgement be made as to which one to rely on.

The current method for binary lithology analysis combines a

number of steps including:
II
-Computation of shale content and effective porosity using
conventional techniques.

-Raising the vertical resolution of the formation conductivity to that

of the neutron/density data.

-Computation of sand/shale bed boundaries based on an adaptive

filtering technique.

1
SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium June 24-27. 1990

-Computation of the petrophysical properties of the clean sand

portions of the binary mix using the enhanced conductivity,
laminated logic and the results from previous steps.

-Accumulation of a sand count, and the integration of the

hydrocarbon pore volume through the sand beds so defined.

-Preparation of an appropriate display format.

Evidence to date suggests that individual beds as thin as 3 inches

(7.62 ems) can be resolved in this manner. Comparisons with core
analysis, core photos and borehole imaging devices confirm the reliability
of the method. Disadvantages of the method include reliance on a
deconvolution process subject to error in the presence of noise. This
disadvantage is partially compensated for by the wide applicability of the
method to existing log data bases and the ease of porting the logic to
simple log analysis platforms that perform at fixed sample rates.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional dispersed shaly sand processing becomes inaccurate when

the thickness of a bed of economically valuable reservoir rock reaches the
vertical resolution limit of the logging tools used to quantify it. The onset
and severity of the inaccuracy varies with both sensor design, logging
methods and post logging signal processing. For example conventional
induction tools effectively average about 6 feet (1.83 meters) of formation
in the vertical sense. Conventional dual spaced thermal neutron tools
average about 2 feet (61 ems), spectral density and natural gamma ray
tools average about 18 inches (46 ems). Other commonly available logging
sensors have finer vertical resolution. Amongst these can be counted the
micro-resistivity devices, including the dipmeter, and the photoelectric
factor, Pe.

The effect of these vertical averaging characteristics of conventional

logging tools is to mask the presence of thin hydrocarbon bearing sands
to the point that economically valuable resources are completely
overlooked, resulting in the plugging and abandoning of otherwise useful
wells. Even in cases where thin hydrocarbon bearing formations are
correctly detected, however, reserve estimates are pessimistic.

A number of strategies have been suggested to combat the deleterious

effects of thin beds or, more properly put, the effects of thick logging
tools. In one approach’ use is made of a tool with very fine vertical
resolution to effectively drive a conventional shaly sand analysis at a
vertical resolution of 1.2 inches (3.05 ems) or 10 samples per foot. This
approach is a valuable one where two criteria are met. First the logging
suite should include a dipmeter or other super-high vertical resolution
logging device. Unfortunately such data are not recorded as a matter of

2
 SPWLA31StAmudL0gging Symposium.June 2627.1990

course in most development wells. Second, the actual depositional

sequence logged must match the model assumed, namely a shaly sand
with a shale content that is continuously, but rapidly, varying in the
vertical sense. In other approaches complex deconvolution techniques
are applied to raw measurements in order to sharpen up the vertical
resolution of logging tools2~3~4. Tools have even been redesigned with
thinbed logging in mind5 . However no commonly available tools can
measure both porosity and resistivity on a fine enough vertical scale to
completely satisfy the demands of laminated sand/shale sequences
currently of interest to the industry.

When a logging tool passes through a thin bed it convolves the properties
of the thin bed with the properties of the surrounding beds. Effectively
the “picture” taken of the formation becomes “blurred”. Figure 1
illustrates this concept. A generalized logging tool smooths out sharp bed
boundaries and distorts center-bed readings. Two examples should
suffice to place in perspective the problem facing the log analyst:-

Consider a sand shale sequence composed of alternate layers of

30% porous clean sand and shale, as shown in Figure 2. If both
sand and shale layers are 6 inches (15 ems) thick then, in typical
geologically recent sediments, an effective porosity of only 15%
might be computed. Other things being equal a computed water
saturation would be close to double the actual water saturation.

Consider a 3 foot (91 cm) thick hydrocarbon bearing sand of 20 Q-m

resistivity sandwiched between shale shoulder beds of 1 R-m, as shown
in Figure 3. Induction tool theory shows6 that in such cases about half the
conductivity contribution comes from the shale and about half from the
sand, leading to an induction tool reading of just under 2 Q-m. Other
things being equal the water saturation computed from the log reading is
3.5 times larger than the true saturation.

In summary, the first order effects of thin beds are:

Under-estimation of the true formation resbtivity.

Under-estimation of the true formation porosity in sand beds.

II
The second order effects are:

Over-estimation of water saturation.

Under-estimation of reserves.

This paper documents a method that is applicable to laminated

sand/shale sequences logged with conventional, limited, logging suites
(no super-high resolution device) where a particular model is assumed

3
SPWL.A 31~ Annual Logging Symposium June 24-27.1990

for the formations logged. This model is at one end of a continuous

spectrum where the sand beds are considered clean and the shales are
all shale. At the other end of this spectrum are fully dispersed shaly
sands. Somewhere in the middle lie sand/shale sequences where the
sands are shaly and the shales are sandy. In the absence of a super-high
resolution device it is not possible to judge from logs alone where one
lies on this spectrum. Local knowledge, full diameter coring and borehole
imaging with scanning devices may, in some cases, help to resolve the
nature of the sediments encountered in the sequence drilled.

It is not the purpose of this paper to suggest that the method described
here is the only valid method of analyzing logs run in thin beds. It is one
among many but it does fill a need to describe the envelope of possible
solutions when binary lithology is assumed and logging data is limited.

TBE CONCEPT OF BINARY LITHOLOGY

A starting point for the binary sand/shale analysis is an assumption that

conventional methods of shaly sand analysis7 produce valid shale volume
curves at the scale of the devices used to produce them. If conventional
neutron, density and gamma ray logs are used to compute porosity and
shale content at a scale of, say, 2 feet vertically, then the binary
philosophy is to honor those volumetrics but also to redistribute them to
fit the binary model. Figure 4 helps to illustrate this concept. At the
logging scale of 2 feet the storage space in unit volume of the reservoir
amounts to 10% porosity. However if half of that unit volume is in fact
shale then in a redistributed model, with binary layers of sand and shale,
the individual sand layers will have a void ratio of 20%. i.e. taken by
themselves they will act as if they were sands of 20% porosity. Note that
in Figure 4, A represents the void space, B the shale volume and C the
sand matrix. At the scale of 2 ft resolution the porosity is given by
A/(A+B+C) . However, using a laminated model A still represents the void
space but at the sand lamination scale the porosity is given by A/(A+C).
The binary method seeks to find this sand lamina porosity. It is worthy of
note that the computed porosity, A/(A+C), would be the same whether
there were 2 or 22 laminations of sand and shale within the 2 foot
resolution limit of the tools used.

DECONVOLIJTION OF BINARY LITI-IOLGGY

In order to deconvolve a given sand/shale sequence into its constituent

binary layers a number of empirical methods were investigated. The
starting point was to consider that the shale volume curve calculated
from a conventional shaly sand routine contained more information than
was conventionally used. Standard deconvolution filters (those with
“mexlcan hat” profiles) helped to accentuate bed boundaries but did not
provide the required binary output. Likewise the use of first and second
derivatives of a V-Shale curve with respect to depth proved overly

4
 SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium. June 24-27. 1990

sensitive to noise and user deflned threshold picks. The solution adopted
calls for a 4 step process including-

-Filtering the conventional V-Shale curve with a relatively short

filter.

-Filtering the conventional V-Shale curve with a relatively long

filter.

-Generating a A V-Shale curve by subtracting the short filtered

version from the long filtered version.

-Using a scaled version of the A V-Shale curve together with the

original V-Shale curve in an adaptive filtering technique to
delineate the individual sand and shale beds in the binary mixture.

This process is more easily understood with reference to Figure 5. In the

first track (counting from left to right) of the example log a conventional
V-Shale curve is shown. In the second track both the long and short
filtered versions are shown. Where the short filtered version reads less
than the long filtered version, sand coding is used to highlight sand beds.
Where the short filtered version reads more than the long filtered
version, shale coding is used to highlight shale beds. In the third track a
scaled version of the difference between the long and short filtered
versions is overlaid with the original V-Shale curve. The criteria for bed
boundary picks is now taken as the points where these two curves cross.
The resulting binary lithology sequence can be displayed as a coded trace,
as shown in the fourth track.

Filters with substantially sinusoidal shapes have been found useful. A long
filter, three times longer than the short filter, has been found most
appropriate. Depending on the rate at which the raw data is sampled in
depth these filters must be designed to maintain approximately the same
vertical sample of formation. For the long filter about 3 feet (0.91 meters)
of formation is required and for the short filter about 1 foot (0.31 meters)
is sufficient. If the actual sampling rate is 4 samples per foot then a short
filter of 5 weights and a long filter of 15 weights have been found to
optimize the process. The scheme can be used with 2, 4 or 10 samples
II
per foot data. Evidently better resolution can be expected with higher
sample rates.

When applying this algorithm the analyst can control the degree of
bedding introduced into the column logged. At the step where a scaled
version of the AV-Shale curve is compared to the original V-Shale curve
the choice of a scaling factor controls the degree of bedding. What
criteria can the analyst use to control the choice of this scaling factor in a
non-subjective fashion 7 An initial guide can be obtained by running some
simple statistical measures of the distribution of values in the AV-Shale

5
SPWLA 31s Annual Logging symposium, June?4-11.19w

curve. The standard deviation of this curve over a given depth interval has
been found useful as a guide to the analyst. However the ultimate arbiter
is the use of integrated V-Shale curves. If the scale factor has been
chosen correctly then the integration of the conventional V-Shale curve
with respect to depth should produce the same number of ‘V-Shale Feet”
as the integration of the binary shale beds. Figure 6 illustrates this
process. In track 1 an overlay is shown of the original V-Shale curve with
a scaled A V-Shale curve with an initial scale factor of 10. In track 2 the
resulting lithology track is shown together with a monitor curve that
shows the difference between the integrated V-Shale feet from the two
methods.

Monitor = j Binary shale beds - / Conventional V-Shale

Notice that the monitor curve progressively gets more negative as the
computation and integration progresses from the top down. This implies
that too many sand beds have been introduced to the binary mixture and
not enough shale beds. The scaling factor is thus changed and track 3
shows a revised overlay of the scaled AV-Shale with the original V-Shale.
Track 4 shows the revised binary lithology track and the monitor curve
that now hovers respectfully around zero.

VERTICAL ENHANCEMENT OF FORMATION CONDUCTIVITY

Of equal importance to thinbed analysis is the measurement of formation

conductivity. The design of deep reading resistivity tools, however,
precludes the direct measurement of the conductivity of individual thin
layers. To ameliorate this unhappy situation a processing algorithm has
been devised to enhance the vertical resolution of deep induction tool
measurements to the same vertical resolution as the available V-Shale
curve. Depending on the devices used, the sample rate employed and the
optional use of post logging deconvolution techniques a V-Shale curve can
be considered to have a vertical resolution of between 1 and 2 feet (30.5
and 61.0 ems).

The method used is illustrated in Figure 7. In laminated beds the total

conductivity %een” by an induction tool can be written as:

Ctotal = Vshale * Cshale + 11 - Vshale) * Csand

In the case of interest to the log analyst the first term in the equation,
representing the conductivity of the shale portion of the sand/shale
“sandwich”, is overwhelmingly larger than the second term, which
represents the conductivity of a hydrocarbon bearing sand bed. For
example a typical shale conductivity might be 1 mho/m but a typical “pay”
sand might have a conductivity of only 0.04 mho/m, a ratio of 25:l. This
opens the door for a pseudo conductivity curve to be generated from a
knowledge of the shale conductivity and the shale content of the

6
 SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium, June 24.27. 1990

formation. In as much as the shale content is known to a relattvely high

vertical precision the pseudo conductivity curve will also be of relatively
high vertical resolution.

In Figure 7 track 1 shows a V-Shale curve derived from a conventional

shaly sand routine that employed neutron, density and gamma ray logs to
compute the shale content at the 1 to 2 foot vertical resolution scale.
Track 2 shows a pseudo conductivity curve (‘CSHVSH’) derived from the
V-Shale curve by multiplying the fractional V-Shale by the shale
conductivity, found by Inspection of the raw induction log. Implicit in this
process is the assumption that the sand conductivity is small enough to
be ignored for all practical purposes.

If the vertical geometric factor of the induction device used is known,

then a “smoothed’ version of the Cshale*Vshale curve can be derived that
approximates what an induction tool would have read had it logged
through a column with the pseudo conductivity derived in the first step.
Track 3 shows this smoothed version (‘CVBAR’). For comparison
purposes the observed induction conductivity (‘GILD’) is also displayed as
a dashed line. Although the two curves are not identical, their similarities
are striking. The 4th track shows the difference (‘DELCOND’) between
the smoothed and unsmoothed pseudo conductivity curves as AC.

AC= CshaleVshale - Smoothed (CshaleVshale)

Note that in shale beds CshaleVshale is larger than its smoothed

counterpart and in sand beds CshaleVshale is smaller than its smoothed
counterpart. A final step in this resolution enhancement process is to add
back into the observed conductivity the difference curve AC, derived
above. Figure 8 illustrates this final step. In track 1 for reference, as
before, is shown the original V-Shale curve. In track 2 is shown the
conductivity difference curve AC. In Track 3 is shown the vertically
enhanced conductivity, (‘CILDSTAR’), which is simply derived as:

CIM Star = C ILd + A C

Track 4 provides the same information in terms of resistivity. The

observed induction resistiviiy curve, (‘RILD’), is plotted together with its II
enhanced counterpart, Rt Star.

The smoothing filter used to produce the pseudo conductivity curve from
the ‘CSHVSH’ curve is not critical to the success of this process as long as
it faithfully covers the closest vertical geometric factor set for the
conditions where the induction tool is used. One that covers I2 feet
(3.66 meters) of borehole has been found very satisfactory.

7
SPWLA 31sr Annual Logging Symposium. June 24.27. 1990

CLEAN SAND POROSITY AND WATER SATURATION

With the binary bedding resolved and the formation resistivity enhanced
the next step in the analysis is to estimate the porosity in the sand
laminae and to compute water saturation in those laminae. For these
purposes the outputs of the conventional shaly sand analysis conducted at
the 1 to 2 foot vertical resolution scale are used in a redistributed form.
As was shown in figure 3, it is possible transform an effective porosity,
0e, derived from the dispersed approach, to the true porosity of the
individual sand laminae, 0l_am.

OLam = 0e/(I - Vshalel

Such are the vicissitudes of practical log analysis that equations of this
sort are prone to lead to undesirable results unless tempered by common
sense limits which readers are encouraged to deduce on their own. In
most cases where danger lurks the binary lithology processing will have
already eliminated the majority of the most dangerous levels in the well,
where, for example, Vshalecl.

The computation of water saturation can now be reduced to the simple

exercise of treating each sand lamina as a perfectly clean layer of “Archie”
rock of porosity 0Lam and resistivity Rt Star. The water saturation in the
sand laminae is thus given by:

(SW LamIn = F . &/ Rt Star

where F is a conventional formation factor derived from 0Lam.

Additional petrophysical parameters may be deduced from the sand bed

porosities and saturations. These may include permeability, hydrocarbon
pore volume (0Lam*(l - SW Lam)* h, where h is the sand bed thickness),
net sand count and net pay count based on standard criteria.

DISPLAY FORMAT

To make the output of this chain of analysis steps of practical use to both
geological engineers and completion/production engineers a display
.format of the sort shown in Figure 9 may be employed.

The depth track shows a running integration of sand lamina

thickness produces small tick marks every cumulative foot of sand
and large tick marks every cumulative 10 feet of sand. The end user
may thus quickly and easily sum sand counts over any desired
interval by the simply counting a few tick marks. Still in the depth
track a pay flag marks those sand lamina passing the pay criteria

8
 SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium, June X-27, 1990

test which may be based on porosity, saturation and other cutoffs

chosen by the analyst.

Track 1 displays a binary geologic column coded to show sand and

shale beds. Testing and/or completion intervals can be picked
conveniently from this guide.

Track 2 displays the raw induction resistivity trace together with

the vertically enhanced Rt Star.

Track 3displays both water saturation and a porosity analysis

track. Where invaded zone resistivity is available a movable
hydrocarbon plot may be displayed.

Track 4 displays an estimate for sand lamina permeability.

ACCUMULATION OF ENGINEERING DATA

For the reservoir engineer and the manager a tabular listing of

engineering data on a level-by-level basis together with appropriate
integrations serves to provide reserve estimates. Figure 10 illustrates
such a listing. Where the binary lithology model fits the reservoir these
reserve estimates will be superior to those derived from a dispersed
shale model.

FIELD EXAMPLES

Analysts contemplating the use of the binary lithology approach are

justified in asking whether the scheme works. A few examples should
serve to illustrate the experience gained to date.

Bed Resolution
Figure 11 shows a comparison between a binary lithology column
and an independently derived borehole image made from a multi-
electrode dipmeter tool. Considering that one is made from the
electrical properties of the formation, and the other from a V-Shale
curve derived from poro-lithology tools measuring entirely different
formation characteristics, the agreement is striking. The II
conventional logs were sampled every 3 inches and it would appear
from this example that beds as thin as 3 inches can be resolved by
the binary lithology approach.

Porosity Resolution
Figure 12 shows a section of a sand shale sequence for which
sidewall cores were available. Note the agreement between the
measured and calculated values for both porosity and permeability
at depth X312’.

9
 Comparison between conventional shaly sand analysis & binny
analysis
Figure 13 shows a comparison between two shaly sand analyses run
in a laminated sand/shale sequence from the Vicksburg formation
in south Texas. For comparison purposes the conventional analysis
is shown on the left two tracks and the binary lithology analysis is
shown on the right two tracks. For each analysis a pay count was
made based on the same criteria for porosity and saturation. It is
notable that the binary analysis reveals more pay than the
conventional analysis.

If these formations are laminated then the conventional analysis

underestimated the pay by 35% (26.25 feet instead of 40.25), and
underestimated the hydrocarbon pore volume by 33% (2.75
hydrocarbon-pore-feet instead of 4.12). The economic impact of
such underestimation can be calculated in this case as a reduction
in hydrocarbon-in-place of over 10,000 bbls/acre of oil.

CONCLUSIONS

1. A method for petrophysical analysis of laminated sand/shale sequences

of “thinbeds” has been described that only requires conventional logging
suites as input.

2. The method uses the concept of binary lithology and an adaptive

filtering technique to classify each sampled level in the well as either a
clean sand layer or a shale. Beds as thin as 3 inches can be resolved.

3. The traditionally poor vertical resolution of deep resistivity devices

may be enhanced by a combination of log analysis wisdom and a V-Shale
curve derived from poro-lithology devices.

4. The petrophysical properties of the clean sand layers can be deduced

by the application of straight forward log analysis principles.

5. The method does not require the use of any high resolution logging
device. A simple triple combo logging suite is sufficient. This opens up
the possibility of re-evaluating old wells for which conventional logging
data is available in the files.

6. The method described can be easily ported to any conventional log

data base. “Third generation” data bases capable of handling log data
sampled at multiple sampling rates are not required.

7. Where the geometry of the sediments comprising the reservoir closely

matches the model, the calculated petrophysical properties of the sand
layers, and the reserve estimates, will be more accurate than those
deduced from high resolution dispersed shaly sand models.

10
 SPWLA 31s Annual Logging Symposium, June 24-27, 1990

REFERENCES

1. Ruhovets, N.:“A Log Analysis Technique for Evaluating Laminated

Reservoirs in the Gulf Coast Area”, Twelfth Formation Evaluation
Symposium of CWLS, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 26-28, 1989,
Paper C.

2. Quirein, J.A. and Purdy, C.C.:” Improved Resolution of Nuclear Well

Logs”, 12th Annual Logging Symposium of SAID, Paris, France, October,
1989, Paper A.

3. Jacobson, L.A., Wyatt, D.F., Gadeken, L.L. and Merchant,

G.A.:“Resolution Enhancement of Nuclear Measurements Through
Deconvolution”, to be presented at the SPWLA 31st Annual Logging
Symposium, June, 1990.

4. Smith, M.P.:“Enhanced Vertical Resolution Processing of Dual Spaced

Neutron and Density Tools using Standard Shop Calibration and Borehole
Compensation Procedures”, to be presented at the SPWLA 3Ist Annual
Logging Symposium, June, 1990.

5. Srickland, R.. Sinclair, P., Harber, J. and DeBrecht. J.:“Introduction to

the High Resolution Induction Tool”, SPWLA Twenty-Eighth Annual
Logging Symposium, June 29-July2. 1987. London, England, Paper E.

6. Anderson, B.:“The Analysis of some Unresolved Induction

Interpretation Problems using Computer Modeling”, The Log Analyst, Vol
XXVII, No. 5, September-October 1986, pp 60-73.

7. Bateman, R. M. and Perez, G.J.:“Advances in Log Analysis Lead to

Improved Productivity from Feldspathic Shaly Sandstone
Formations”,l2th Annual Logging Symposium of SAID, Paris, France,
October.1989, Paper C.

II

11
SPWLA 31~ Annual Logging Sympxium. June 24.27. 1990

Figure 1: The effect of thinbed geometry on a generalized

logging tool’s readings.

LITHO-POROSITY TOOLS “SEE”

BOTH FORMATIONS AS IDENTICAL
Laminated Sand/Shale Uniformly Dispersed
Void Ratio in Sands=30%

6 ”

Figure 2: The effect of thinbed geometry on porosity tool readings.

12
 SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium. June 24-27.19W

1.0 1.0 R Shale =l R-m

With 50% Shale
RILd reads 1.9 R-m
0.8
&

t
Rt ct
I I

2.5 0.4

5 0.2
10 -VShale-, R Sand = 20 Q-m
co 0 I I I I
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

CONDUCTMT’Y AVERAGING MAKES

THIN BEDS LOOK WATER BEARING

Seen as

Figure 3: The effect of thinbed geometry on conductivity tool readings.

13
SPWLA 31s Annual Logging Symposium he 24-11.1990

REDISTRIBUTION OF VOID SPACE

Dispersed Model Laminated Model

(be= A/(A+B+C) Q) Lam= A/(A+C)

8 Lam = 8 e /(l - Vsh)

Figure 4: The effect of redistribution of void space in a binary system.

14
 SPWLA 31% Annual Logging Sympsium. June 2627.1990

II

Figure 5: Deconvolution process used to derive binary sand/shale layers

from a conventional V-Shale curve.

15
SPWLA 31st Amual Logging Symposium. June 24-27.1990

Figure 6: Fine tuning of the binary discriminator.

16
 SPwtA 3lstANludLogging Sympsium. June 24-27.1990

II

Figure 7: Derivation of a pseudo conductivity curve from a V-

Shale curve and the computation of AC.

17
 X600

Figure 8: Derivation of an enhanced resolution Rt cwve - final steps:

computing ClM Star.

18
 SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium. June 24-27. 1990

Figure 9: Display format of binary thinbed analysis.

SPWLA31sfArmualLoggingSymposiumJune24-27.1990

WELL : LWINATEDtl 1
DATE : a-HA&SO @ 11:14:2a
DKFTH PHIIAM aNL4l HCFVIM CXllHCPVL PAM CNtPAYUl PEFM&l CuMKHLAn
____-___
0547.00 11.710 100.000 ,000 .004 .OoO .oQo .045 .m
8547.25 12.380 94.645 .ooo .OOO . 000 .OoO .075 .OOO
6547.50 15.573 53.237 .016 .01a .250 .250 .944 .236
8547.75 14.822 55.751 .ola .ola .250 .250 .640 .236
a54a.00 13.750 72.317 .ola .01a .250 .250 .242 .236
8548.25 13.907 66.835 .016 .016 .250 .250 .304 .236
8548.50 13.971 63.991 .ola .016 .250 .250 .341 .236
8548.75 14.542 60.675 .ola .ola .250 .250 .4a2 .236
8549.00 12.681 82.245 .ola .ola ,250 .250 .127 .236
6549.25 .ooo 100.000 .OOO .ola .OOO .250 .OOl .236
8549.50 .OoO 100.000 .ooo .ola .OOO .250 .OOl .236
8549.15 .ooo 100.000 .ooo .ola .OQO .250 .OOl .236
8550.00 .ooo 100.000 .ooo .ola .OQO .250 .OOl .236
8550.25 16.363 53.410 .OlS .037 .250 .500 1.262 .551
8550.50 19.613 32.063 .033 .071 .250 .750 10.383 3.147
8550.75 19.979 31.99s ,034 .105 .250 l.OQO 11.645 6.058
8551.00 19.600 34.793 .032 .137 .250 1.250 9.332 a.391
8551.25 .OOO 100.000 .OoO ,137 000 1.250 ,001 6.391
6551.50 .ooo 1oo.ocml .OoO .137 1.250 .OQl a.391
6551.75 .oOO 100.000 . 000 .137 . 000 1.250 .OQl a.391
6552.00 .OoO 100.000 000 .137 .OOO 1.250 .OOl 6.391
8552.25 la.142 39.291 .02a .164 .250 1.500 4.331 9.474
6552.50 17.265 41.438 .025 .19O -250 1.750 2.692 10.197
8552.75 15.115 57.012 .016 .206 .250 2.000 .aaa 10.369
8553.00 16.437 42.762 .024 .229 .250 2.250 2.020 10.674
6553.25 la.535 26.676 .OM .263 .250 2.500 10.525 13.505
8553.50 17.655 38.648 .021 .290 .250 2.750 3.801 14.455
6553.75 19.928 26.615 .037 .327 .250 3.000 16.579 la.600
6554.00 19.262 31.007 .033 .360 .250 3.250 9.962 21.091
6554.25 20.215 25.224 .038 .3sa .250 3.500 20.111 26.118
8554.50 22.430 16.382 .046 .444 .250 3.750 70.669 43.766
6554.75 16.283 46.106 .024 .467 .250 4.000 3.026 44.542
6555.00 .m 100.000 .000 .467 .OOO 4.000 .OOl 44.542
8555.25 22.011 29.873 .039 .506 .250 4.250 23.694 50.516
8555.50 21.637 28.289 .039 .545 .250 4.500 24.042 56.526
a555.75 23.219 22.146 .045 .590 .250 4.750 59.909 71.504
8556.00 23.022 35.134 .037 .627 .250 5.000 22.613 77.157
6556.25 .OOO 100.000 .OOO .627 000 5.000 .OOl 77.157
8556.50 .ooo 100.000 .OoO .627 . 000 5.000 .OOl 77.157
6556.75 23.334 23.107 .045 .672 .250 5.250 56.885 91.328
6557.00 21.514 27.953 .039 .711 .250 5.500 23.793 97.277
8557.25 21.693 29.168 .036 .749 .250 5.750 22.967 103.019
6557.50 21.264 31.758 .036 .786 .250 6.000 17.264 107.340
6557.75 20.896 33.262 .035 .a21 .250 6.250 14.106 110.867
8558.00 21.856 26.431 .040 .a61 .250 6.500 29.251 116.179
8558.25 19.237 42.013 .02a .689 .250 6.750 5.384 119.525
6558.50 20.559 37.230 .032 .921 .250 7.000 10.216 122.079
6558.75 22.663 23.658 -043 .964 .250 7.250 44.629 133.237
6559.00 16.638 47.40s .025 .969 .250 7.500 3.497 134.111
8559.25 000 100.000 .000 .969 . 000 7.500 .OOl 134.111

Figure 10: Level-by-level engineering listing.

20
 SPWLA 31s~ Annual Logging Symposium. June 24-27. 1990

>
>
>
t

>

>

-L 1

-- 3

-*6

>
>

II

Figure 11: Comparison of binary lithology processing with an

electrical borehole image.

21
SPWLA 31s Annual Logging Sppsiurn, Iune 24-17. 1990

I-
L.- L1

Figure 12: Comparison of porosity & permeability estimates

with measurements made on sidewall cores.

22
 SPWLA 31st Annual Logging Symposium, June 24.27. 1990

Count 40.25 Feet

II

Figure 13: Comparison of conventional and binary lithology

analysis on the same well.

23