Technical Note
Gamma Ray Log Response in Shaly Sands
Keith W. Katahara: ARC0 Exploration and Production Technology
Abstract: This Note addressesthe use of gamma ray logs
for deducing shale content in shaly sands and reviews implica-
tions of some old but poorly appreciated results on gamma ray
response. These results imply that a porous clean sand has a
different gamma ray response than a nonporous formation with
the same grain composition. A gamma ray response that is
proportional to radioactivityper unit volume should not be used
because it is significantly different from the more correct re-
sponse that is proportional to radioactivity per unit mass. When
shale composition is constant,the simple linear gamma ray shale
index works well for typical shaly sands regardless of how the
shale is distributed within the formation. Shale distribution ef-
fects alone cannot account for some of the curved gamma ray-
versus-shale volume relations that have been observed.
INTRODUCTION
The gamma ray log is often used as a measure of shale
content. One widely used procedure (Poupon and Gaymard,
1970) is to compute the fractional shale volume with
where G is the gamma ray response in the formation of
interest, Gcleanis the gamma ray response in the least shaly
formation, and Gshis the gamma ray response in a 100%
shale formation. Equation (1) is a simple deflection-
over-span index that is so familiar and so intuitively
satisfying to log analysts that its conceptual basis is seldom
considered in any formal way.
Equation (1) can be derived from two assumptions: a) the
gamma ray response is proportional to the shale volume,
and b) there are only two significant volume components, a
clean formation and shale. These assumptions can be ex-
pressed mathematically as
G = Gclean Vclean + Gsh vsh (2)
and
vclean+ vsh= 1 , (3)
where Vclea, is the volume of the clean fraction. Equation
(1) follows from Equations (2) and (3).
50 The Log Analyst
There are two conceptual problems in applying Equa-
tions (2) and (3), and therefore Equation (1), to shaly sands.
One is that the gamma ray response is proportional to
radioactivity per unit mass, regardless of the density, and
not to radioactivity per unit volume (see Wahl, 1983, and
references therein). Thus, Equation (2) is not strictly valid
for shaly sands or for other shale-bearing rocks,
The second problem is that shaly sands cannot generally
be partitioned into only two volume components. Lami-
nated shaly sands, in which sand and shale layers alternate,
are an exception because the shale content can vary without
affecting the porosity of the sand layers. However, when
clay is pore filling or when shale clasts form part of the
structural framework, a two-volume model may no longer
adequately account for variations in shale content. It is then
necessary to use a model with at least three volume compo-
nents. Put in terms of an operational example, if shaly sands
do not fall on a straight line between clean and shale points
on a density-neutron crossplot, more than two volume com-
ponents are needed.
In spite of these two conceptual problems, Equation (1)
has been applied with much practical success (Poupon and
Gaymard, 1970). One of the goals of the following discus-
sion is to show that Equation (1) works well regardless of
shale distribution when a simple three-component model is
used along with a more accurate gamma ray response func-
tion that is proportional to mass. This is essentially because
the effects of considering the third volume component tend
to cancel out the effects of using a more correct response
function for typical shaly sands.
For clarity, this discussion considers a very simple shaly
sand composed of nonporous sand grains, shale, and a pore
fluid. The sand grains are assumed to be rigid nonclay
mineral grains with some nonzero radioactivity. The shale
fraction is assumed here to include arbitrary proportions of
clay and nonclay minerals, as well as both chemically
bound water and water in microporosity:Although the shale
composition is not specified, it is assumed to remain con-
stant as the shale volume varies. The sand grain and pore
fluid compositions are also assumed constant. This shaly
sand model is highly idealized, but it is useful for illustrat-
July-August 1995
 Gamma Ray Log Response in Shaly Sands
ing the effects of varying shale distribution and of different
gamma ray response assumptions.
The generalization of Equation (2) to this three-compo-
nent shaly sand is
G = Gsg Vsg + Gsiz Vs/i + G ~~pI,
where Gsg is the gamma ray response in a nonporous
formation with the composition of the sand grains, V, is the
volume fraction occupied by sand grains, G j is the gamma
ray response of the fluid, and cp is the volume occupied by
the fluid. Gshis the gamma ray response in a 100% shale
formation, and Vshis the shale volume fraction.
Thomas and Stieber (1975) treated gamma ray response
in shaly sands using assumptions that, in effect, imply
Equation (4). They showed for this formulation that gamma
ray response is sensitive to how the shale is distributed
geometrically in the rock, contrary to what is implied by
Equation (1). The following discussion confirms that Equa-
tions ( I ) and (4) differ significantly in their implications for
some types of shale distribution. However, the conclusion
here is that Equation (1) is more accurate than Equation (4).
This has practical implications because equations based
on volume-proportional gamma ray response are some-
times used in multimineral analysis programs as part of a
system of log response equations.
A preferable alternative to Equation (4) is a formulation
in which gamma ray response is taken as proportional to
radioactivity per unit mass:
’ Cp ,
PG = Psg Gsg Vsg + Psh Gsh Vsh + Pfl G
where psg is the sand grain density, psa is the shale density,
pJ is the fluid density, and the formation density is
p = p s g vsg + Psh Vsh + P’ cp .
In the following, the differences among Equations ( I ) ,
(4), and ( 5 ) are explored, and their implications for log
analysis are discussed. This is done by numerically calcu-
lating the gamma ray response of the idealized shaly sand
for different shale distributions. It is assumed that Wahl
( 1983) is correct and gamma ray response is proportional to
the activity per unit mass. Thus, the response computed
from Equation ( 5 ) is taken as the most accurate, and Equa-
tions (1) and (4) are judged against it.
Four points are established for the idealized shaly sand
model.
0 Both Equations (4) and ( 5 ) imply that the gamma ray
response can be different in clean sandstones with differ-
ent porosity.
0 Equation (4) is at variance with Equations (1) and ( 5 ) for
some modes of shale distribution.
JUly-AuguSt 1995
The simple linear relation of Equation (1) agrees well
with the more rigorous results from Equation ( 5 ) .
The geometrical distribution of the shale component
cannot account for very much nonlinearity in the rela-
tionship of shale volume to gamma ray response.
(4) Little of this is new, but it is generally not well appreci-
ated.
DISCUSSION
Vsh-Gequations are derived for both the volume- and the
mass-proportional response functions. These equations are
then applied to three different shale-distribution models.
Consider first the consequences of the volume-propor-
tional response equation, Equation (4). For simplicity, the
pore fluid is assumed to be nonradioactive:
GJ= 0 . (7)
In addition, the volume fractions must add to one:
Note that when Vsh= 0, Equations (4),(7), and (8) imply
G = Gclean= Gsg (1-q~), (9)
where cp, is the clean sand porosity.
Equation (9), which has been used previously by Cannon
and Coates (1990), is a straightforward consequence of the
assumptions that the pore fluid is nonradioactive and that
the response is proportional to volume. It is a simple two-
component equation, as is Equation (l), except that it is
(5) applied to a mixture of sand grains and fluid. It is important
to keep in mind that Gsgrefers to zero-porosity material. If
Equation (4) is to be used as one of a system of log response
equations (Doveton, 1986, chapter 6), then consistency re-
(6) quires that Gsg,and not Gclemnl,be used in Equation (4).
Combining Equations (4), (7), (8), and (9) for the case
when V,, f 0 gives
Thus, the volumetric gamma ray response function im-
plies a Vshequation that generally differs from Equation (1)
when the porosity is an additional volume variable. How-
ever, as discussed below in more detail, V,,, and cp can be
coupled. In laminated shaly sands they tend to be coupled
so as to make Equations (1) and ( 1 0) yield the same result.
The more accurate mass-proportional response equation,
Equation ( 5 ) , leads to
The Log Analyst 51
 Katahara

and 07

~‘(1- 1
~p c - P clean Gclean (l-Cp) -
- PG-PsgGsg(l-Cp)
Vsh =
P sh Gsh ( 1- c 1- P clean ‘clean P sh Gsh - P sgGsg
(12)
Both Equations (9) and (1 1) indicate that gamma ray
response in a clean sand depends on its porosity. The excep-
tion to this is when the pore fluid has negligible density, in
which case pclea,,= psg ( 1 - ~ p ) and Gsg= Gclean. If Equation
(5) is to be used in an analysis, then psgGsgshould not be
confused with pcleanGclean.The difference between G,, and 0 02 04 0 6 0 8 I
Gcleancan be significant in high-porosity sands. However, SHALE VOLUME

because clean sands at about the same depth have about the
Figure 2: Effective porosity (dashed) and sand grain volume (solid)
same porosity, Gclea,,does not vary much from one clean versus shale volume for the structural shale model for a clean sand
sand to another as long as mineral composition is about the porosity of 0.35. Starting with clean sand on the left, shale replaces
same. only sand grains until all the sand has been replaced. For Vsh > 0.65
The porosity appears explicitly in Equation (12), just as shale replaces the intergranular porosity.
it did in Equation (1 0). Furthermore, p in the numerator also
depends on porosity. Some simple numerical experiments
can help to illustrate this rather complex porosity depend- and the fraction of the sand-shale mixture occupied by sand
ence. Following Thomas and Stieber (1975), three simple grains is
models are constructed for cases where the shale is lami-
nated, structural, or dispersed. For all three models the vsg=(l-Vsh) (1-Cpc). (14)
maximum clean sand porosity is taken as qc.
For laminated shale and sand layers, the fractional vol- Structural shale is assumed to replace sand grains until
ume occupied by the porous sand layers is (l-v,~). Within all the sand grains are gone; at that point it begins to fill the
each porous sand layer, the fraction of the layer volume pores:
occupied by pores is cpC and the fraction occupied by sand
grains is (1-q,). Thus, the porosity of the sand-shale mix-
ture is

and

vsg= 1 -Cpc- Vsh, Vsh < 1 - Cpc , (164

vsg= 0 , Vsh > 1 - Cpc . ( 16b)

0 5 - Dispersed shale fills the intergranular pores up to Vsh =

I ’ qC;for higher shale content the sand grains are suspended
3
in a shale matrix:
GRAIN VOLUME

mRosiiY

02

and
0 7

0 02 04 06 08
vsg= 1 - Cpc, Vsh < Cpc , (184

vsg = 1 - Vsh , Vsh > Cpc . ( 18b)

Figures 1,2, and 3 show porosity and sand volumes for

52 The Log Analyst JUly-AUguSt 1995

 Gamma Ray Log Response in Shaly Sands

0.7 zoo

0.6 --

0.5 4
~-

8
w
150

E
I2
0.1
1
-- 2
E3
0
100
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 n ,' .,.' ,,' , .. STRUCTURAL
SWLE VOLUME ., /
,'
_ ..
/' ,,/" . .. ~-~~~
IXSPERSB)
:
Figure 3: Effective porosity (dashed) and sand grain volume (solid) I
/
/'
,..I

:.
:. I' . LAMINATED
versus shale volume for the dispersed shale model for a clean sand
porosity of 0.35. Starting with clean sand on the left, shale
progressively fills intergranular pore space. When all of the pore space
I I I
is filled, at vsh = 0.35, shale begins to replace sand grains. 50 . I

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

SHALE VOLUME

Figure 5: Density-gamma ray product versus shale volume for

laminated shale (solid), structural shale (short dashes), and dispersed
shale (long dashes). These curves assume that gamma ray response is
proportional to radioactivity per unit mass. Model parameters are
given in the text. Significant differences are implied for different shale
distribution modes. Note the similarity to the curves in Figure 4, which
comes about because both figures show properties that are defined to
obey a linear volume-mixing rule.

tional, as it is in Equations (5) and (12). Figure 6 shows G

versus VSh for the three models using the mass-proportional
response assumption. These are the curves in Figure 5
divided by p. The following values were used in the calcu-

I,'
y'.
/
,.
I ,/
,' .
.
, '
,/':
'
u LAMINATED
lation: psg = 2.65 g/cm3, ps/l = 2.2 g/cm3, p~ = 1 g/cm3,
Gclea,,=25, Gsh= 80, GJ= 0, and cpc = 0.35.Because Gclean
rather than Gsghas been specified the same for both types
of gamma ray response, Equations (9) and (1 1) lead to
1 I I different values for G,: 38.5 for Equation ( 9 ) and 30.1 for
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Equation (1 1).
SHALE VOLUME Both the structural shale model and the dispersed shale
model produce significant nonlinearity in the volumetric-
Figure 4: Gamma ray versus shale volume for laminated shale
(solid), structural shale (short dashes), and dispersed shale (long
response G in Figure 4 and in pG in Figure 5 . However, the
dashes) assuming gamma ray response is proportional to radioactivity nonlinearity is much reduced when plotted in terms of the
per unit volume. Model parameters are given in the text. There are mass-response G in Figure 6 . For this example, Figure 6
significant differences in G for different modes of shale distribution. indicates that gamma ray response is a nearly linear func-
tion of shale volume regardless of shale distribution.
Figures 4 and 6 differ significantly for the dispersed and
these three simple models. Figure 4 shows G versus Vsh for structural model curves. Therefore, the volume-propor-
the three models assuming the volumetric response of tional response assumed in Equation (4) is not a good
Equations (4) and (10). Figure 5 shows pG versus Vsh for approximation to the more correct mass-proportional re-
the three models when gamma ray response is mass propor- sponse of Equation (5). This conclusion also applies to

July-AugUSt 1995 The Log Analyst 53


/
EQUATION (1)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
SHALE VOLUME
Figure 6: Gamma ray versus shale volume for laminated shale (light
solid). structural shale (short dashes), and dispersed shale (long
dashes) assuming gamma ray response is proportional to radioactivity
per unit mass. These are the same curves as in Figure 5 divided by
density. For comparison the linear shale volume of Equation ( 1 ) is
shown as the heavy solid line. All four curves agree fairly well except
for high r'sh values. Thus the mass-proportional gamma ray response
is not very sensitive to the shale distribution mode.
rocks that are mineralogically more complex. This is impor-
tant because the gamma ray log, rather than pG, has been
used as an input to multicomponent solvers (Mayer and
Sibbit, 1980; Quirein et al., 1986; Gysen et al., 1987; Ball
et al., 1987).
The photoelectric cross-section index, usually denoted
P,, is also proportional to mass rather than volume. It is
interesting to note that P, is generally used correctly in equa-
tions such as Equation (5), usually in the form of U = pP,.
Unlike the gamma ray log it is not used incorrectly in equa-
tions such as Equation (4), possibly because it does not have a
long history of being used in a deflection-over-span index.
Equation ( 1 ) agrees with all three models in Figure 6 to
within about 0.03 in Vsh. This agreement supports the state-
ment by Poupon and Gaymard (1970) that Equation (1)
works well in practice even though density effects are ig-
nored. The underlying reason for this is not that the volume-
proportional and mass-proportional response hnctions do
not differ significantly. Comparison of Figures 4 and 6
shows that this is not the case. Rather, the reason is that these
equations fortuitously give similar results for typical shaly
sands. The agreement between Equations (1) and (12) dete-
54 The Log Analyst
Katahara
80
g 6o
2
E
$ ~. _ _-~
2
a
a ~-
STRUCTUWL
w m
40 ~
-~
LAMINATED
STIEBER (1970)
20
1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 8 1
SHALE VOLUME
Figure 7: Gamma ray versus shale volume for laminated shale (light
solid), structural shale (short dashes), and dispersed shale (long
dashes) assuming gamma ray response is proportional to radioactivity
per unit mass. Model parameters are the same as in Figures 4 through
6 except that the shale density is 2.6 g/cm3. There is a little more
curvature here for low but not nearly as much as for the Steiber
(1970) relation (heavy solid curve).
riorates as the ratio GshIGcleo,,decreases,as cpc increases, and
as the difference between Psh and pclea,lincreases.
Because Equation (1) agrees well with Equation (12) for
very different shale distributions in the idealized models, it
seems probable that it will do so for more realistic shaly
sand models as well. The dispersed and structural shale
models, in particular, can be taken as extremes that delimit
possible shale distributions in real rocks.
It is worth pointing out that the nonlinearity in the dis-
persed and structural shale curves in Figure 5 implies that
pG should not be used in a deflection-over-span relation
such as Equation (1). In other words,
is not accurate for nonlaminated shaly sands.
It is possible to introduce more nonlinearity in the mass-
proportional G- Vshcurves by changing the model parame-
ters. For instance, if the shale density is taken as 2.6 instead
of 2.2 g/cm3, the curves in Figure 7 are obtained. All three
shale-distribution models show some curvature. However,
even the dispersed shale model, which departs the most
July-AUgUSt 1995
 Gamma Ray Log Response in Shaly Sands

from linearity for low Vsh, does not exhibit nearly as much ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
nonlinearity as found by Stieber (1970) or Clavier et al. Ray Eastwood, Jim Klein, Gary Myers, Chuck Neuman, Eric
(1971). Figure 7 shows Stieber’s curve for comparison. It is Pasternack, Bob Siegfried, and anonymous reviewers provided
possible to make the dispersed shale curve agree roughly helpful comments and discussions. I thank ARC0 Explorationand
with the Stieber curve by making G,JG,, -1.1 for a shale Production Technology for permission to publish.
density of 2.2 g/cm3. Such low GSdGsgratiosshould be rare.
A corollary is that nonlinear G V s h relations, such as REFERENCES
those of Stieber (1970) or Clavier et al. (1971), cannot Ball, M. S., Chace, D. M., and Fertl, W. H., 1987, The Well Data
easily be explained in terms of shale geometrical distribu- System (WDS): an advanced formation evaluation concept in a
tion as suggested by Stieber (1970). Neuman (1994) has microcomputer environment, SPE-17034: Society of Petro-
pointed out that the nonlinearity inferred by Stieber (1970) leum Engineers, presented at 1987 Regional Meeting, 25 p.
and Clavier et al. (197 1) from pulsed-neutron logs may be Cannon, D. E. and Coates, G. R., 1990, Applying mineral knowl-
edge to standard log interpretation, paper V, in 31st Annual
due to other factors such as the nonlinear response of the
Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Professional
tools available in the late 1960s. However, if a strong G- Vsh Well Log Analysts, p. V1-24.
nonlinearity is actually a property of the formation, then Clavier, C., Hoyle, W., and Meunier, D., 1971, Quantitative inter-
either shale composition or sand composition, or both, must pretation of thermal neutron decay time logs: Part 11. Interpre-
vary with shale volume. tation example, interpretation accuracy, and time-lapse
technique:Journal ofPetroleum Technology, June, p. 756-763.
CONCLUSIONS Doveton, J. H., 1986, Log analysis of subsurface geology: John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 273 p.
1. The gamma ray response of a porous shale-free forma- Gysen, M., Mayer, C., and Hashmy, K. H., 1987,A new approach
tion is not generally the same as the response of a non- to log analysis involving simultaneous optimization of un-
porous formation with the same grain composition. knowns and zoned parameters, paper B, in 1lth Formation
Consistency requires that clean formation response must Evaluation Symposium Transactions: Canadian Well Logging
be adjusted for porosity before use in response equations Society, 10 p.
Mayer, C. and Sibbit, A., 1980, GLOBAL, a new approach to
such as Equation (5). computer-processed log interpretation, SPE-9341: Society of
2. Equation (lo), which assumes gamma ray response is Petroleum Engineers,presented at 55th Annual Technical Con-
proportional to activity per unit volume, can yield sig- ference and Exhibition, 14 p.
nificantly different results from Equation (12), in which Neuman, C. H., 1994,VariableZ-matrix method to compensate for
response is assumed proportional to activity per unit the influence of shaliness on pulsed-neutron-capture log re-
mass. When volumes are to be obtained by simultane- sponse: SPE Formation Evaluation, March, p. 39-45.
ously solving systems of equations, Equation ( 5 ) is pre- Poupon, A. and Gaymard, R., 1970,The evaluationof clay content
from logs, paper G, in 11th Annual Logging Symposium Trans-
ferred over Equation (4).
actions: Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, p. G1-21.
3. Equation (1) yields results for the idealized shaly sand Quirein, J., Kimminau, S., LaVigne, J., Singer, J., and Wendel, F.,
that are close to those of Equation (12) when typical 1986,A coherent framework for developing and applying mul-
shale properties are used. Equation (1) is an approxima- tiple formation evaluation models, paper DD, in 27th Annual
tion to equations such as Equation (12) when it is applied Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Professional
to formations that must be described with more than two Well Log Analysts, p. DD1-17.
volume components. Stieber, S. J., 1970, Pulsed neutron capture log evaluation - Lou-
4. Highly curved G-VSh relations, such as those of Stieber isiana Gulf Coast, SPE- 2961: Society of Petroleum Engineers,
presented at 45th Annual Fall Meeting, 7 p.
(1970) or Clavier et al. (1 97 l), cannot be explained by
Thomas, E. C. and Stieber, S. J., 1975, The distribution of shale in
shale distribution effects alone. If the curvature is truly a sandstones and its effect on porosity, paper T, in 16th Annual
formation property, then it must be due largely to vari- Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Professional
ations in shale or sand composition. Well Log Analysts, p. T1-15.
Wahl, J. S., 1983, Gamma ray logging: Geophysics, v. 48, no. 11,
p. 1536-1550.

The Log Analyst 55

 Katahara

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Aftcr obtaining a PhD in geophysics from thc University of
Hawaii, Keith Katahara spent several years performing laboratory
research on the elastic and anelastic properties of metals, rocks,
and rock melts at the Hawaii Institute of Geophysics. Since joining
A R C 0 in 1983, he has participated in devcloping a downhole
ultrasonic casing inspection tool and in developing and running a
dipolc sonic logging tool. Rcccntly he has worked on production
logging rescarch, traditional formation evaluation, log-related
rock mechanics, and fractured rcscrvoir evaluation.
Katahara receives mail at this address: A R C 0 E&P Technol-
ogy, 2300 West Plano Parkway, Plano, Texas 7.5075. Telephone:
21 4-509-3879. c-mail: kkataha@is.arco.com.

56 The Log Analyst July-AuguSt 1995

 SPWLA Membership Survey Results 1994/1995
Compiled by Robert Y Elphick and Raj M. Damodaran: Scientific Software-Intercomp

INTRODUCTION off other options (most of these respondents did go on to

describe which parts of The Log Analyst they liked, how-
A membership survey questionnaire was sent out with
ever).
the annual dues statement in November 1994. Responses
Table 4 shows that 89% of the respondents are em-
were cut off at the end of March 1995 to give us time to
ployed on a full-time basis. This is up from 87% reported
keypunch and analyze the results before a presentation at
2 yr ago.
the annual symposium by Robert Y Elphick. A total of 977
Table 5 shows the number of hours the respondents work
responses were analyzed. The responses were keyed into an
per week. Figure 1 is a graphical representation of Table 5.
Excel spreadsheet using numerical codes to represent the
answers to the various questions (requiring 46,896 coded
entries). These data were then exported and analyzed with
a specially built computer program devised by the authors. Table 2
The output of this program became the tables in this article,
SPWLA
many of which were transferred into graphic displays.
The questionnaire was divided into three main sections.
The first was designed to get some general information AAPG 35%
about the members. The second concerned members’ opin- SEG 10%
ions about The Log Analyst journal, and the third gave Other 272 28%
members an opportunity to provide feedback on SPWLA
symposia, conferences, etc. The questionnaire was de- Table 3
signed to be similar to the previous one conducted in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~

1992/1993 so that we could look for trends in the member- The Log Analyst
ship. J.P.T.
SPE Fomiation Evaluation
THE RESULTS-GENERAL MEMBERSHIP AAPG Bulletin 292 30%
Other 134 14%
Table 1 indicates the membership is highly educated.
About 97% of those who answered this question have a
university/college degree of some sort. Table 2 indicates
Table 4
many of our members are also members of other profes-
sional societies, particularly SPE and AAPG. Apparently Full Timc
96% of our members are members of SPWLA! (This was a > half timc
trick question, but most respondents got it right.) < half ti mc
Table 3 shows which journals are read by members for Not At All
petrophysical information. I was surprised to see that not Retired 48 5%
everyone reads The Log Analyst, even though they checked Total 974 100%

Table 1
Table 5
~~ ~

Doctorate 145 15% Number less than 40 hours 19 2%

Masters 296 30% Number from 40 to 45 hours 177 22%
Bachelors 500 51% Number from 45 to 50 hours 138 17%
High School 23 2%
Number from 50 to 55 hours 210 26%
Other 8 1%
Total 972 100% Number from 55 to 60 hours 79 10%
Number more than 60 hours 200 24%

July-AuguSt 1995 The Log Analyst 51

 Survey Results

I , I

I I
c I

Figure 1 Figure 2A

Table 6

Better
Worse

Table 7

North America 47 1
World
Europe
Asia
248
69
6C
I
Other 37 I 1 1 I
I 5u llXl IM 2w 250
Australasia 28
Middle East 27
South America 19 Figure 2B
Africa 1c
ex Soviet Union 7 The numbers are up from the previous survey. The average
Arctic 1
work week is 51.3 hr compared with 47.5 2 yr ago.
Antarctica
In Table 6 are the results of two questions designed to see
whether your job situation is getting better or worse. Those
Table 8 who think it is getting worse have a slight edge. The ratio is
very close to that of 2 yr ago.
Number I Ave. Salary Table 7 shows which regions of the world the respon-
Experience (kyears<=5 : 26 $46.456 dents work in. We divided the world into continents and
Experience 5<years<= 10 : 69 $54.173 then added the Middle East and the ex-Soviet Union as
Experience l&years<=15 : 213 $64,882 separate categories. Respondents who fell into two or more
Experience 1kyears<=20 : 204 $74.1 14 of these categories were moved into the World category.
Experience 2(kyears<=25 : 90 $76.10 1 Many people put themselves in the World category anyway
Experience 2kyears<=30 : 55 $86,780 (including the one who said “The Planet”). Note that no one
Experience 3kyears : 47 $83,032 claims to work in Antarctica yet - is this a new opportu-
nity? One respondent replied “The second floor” - an
interesting location to drill a well!
Table 8 shows the numbers and average salaries for

58 The Log Analyst July-August 1995

 Survey Results

oilfield experiences in 5-yr increments. Graphic representa- or in the computer segment of our business). The third pair
tions are in Figures 2A and 2B. Figure 2C is a crossplot of of columns shows the averages for US citizens with oilfield
oilfield experience against salary. Note that the average experience.
experience seems to peak around 15 yr and the average Table 10 shows average salaries of all respondents for all
salary peaks in the 25- to 30-yr range. Both these numbers previous surveys as well as for this one. See the Referencesfor
are up a little from 2 yr ago, which indicates an aging the historical information. Figure 3 shows this data graphi-
population that is not being replenished with young talent. cally. Note the acceleration during the late 1970s and early
Table 9 shows the computed averages for income. The 1980s - a period often referred to as “the good times.”
first of the paired columns shows the results for all persons Table 11 summarizes salary (for those who gave salary
who gave salary information. The second pair of columns data) and total income (for those who gave total income) for
shows the averages only for people who claimed to have respondents by job description, rank, and emplover. The
oilfield experience (many respondents were from academia second column shows the number of respondents in the
category in the first column. The third, fourth, and fifth
columns indicate the number of respondents who gave sal-

$200.000

Table 10
$18O.O00
Year I Ave. Salary
1966 $1 3,500
$16O.O00
1976 $28,600
1982 $51,968
$140.000
1992 $66,098
1994 S 68,882
$120.000

g
n
$100.000

58O.oOo

$60.000

$4o.O00

$?O.O00

$0
1 m..

m
. . =.
.
1 SI0,am I I I I I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 I I I I I I
Years of Oillield Experience

Figure 2C Figure 3

Table 9
World with salary>$O With oilfield experience U.S.A. with oilfield exp.
Number I Ave Salary Number I Ave Salary Number I Ave Salary
Salaries: 766 $68.882 704 $70.184 453 $72,746
Bonus: 256 $13,816 248 $13,764 166 $13,199
Commissions: 20 $13,682 18 $13.647 10 $10.350
Other : 135 $45,016 111 $44.826 63 $65,275
Total: 789 $81.941 711 $84.450 458 $85,941

The Log Analyst 59

 Survey Results

Table 11

=I=
Engineers:
IPetrophysicist :
Total
96
201
w/Salary
74
169
I Ave Salary
$78.609
$76,709
I Experience
18
18
wnotal Income I Ave. Tot. Income
76
171
$87,729
$82,403
Researcher: 52 37 $74.1 19 17 37 $77,268
Other Jobs: 65 50 $71,861 18 51 $78,544
Geophysicist: 31 23 $71.309 16 24 $74,554
SalesIMarketing: 82 74 $66,246 18 74 $74.384
Geologist: 229 163 $65,871 18 172 $87,000
Logging Engineer : 79 67 $60.400 15 67 $75,326
Log Analyst: 87 76 $58.629 19 79 $92.023
Rank
Executive: 117 81 $80.955 22 86 $14 1,580
Manager: 216 186 $71,843 18 187 $82.290
Senior Professional: 472 368 $68,797 18 379 $74.953
Supervisor: 71 59 $65.485 16 59 $74,916
Junior Professional: 38 34 $50.618 10 34 $54.886
Teacher: 31 26 $48,635 15 27 $52,426
Technician: 9 8 $47,781 17 8 $48,281
Employer
Oil E&P Research: 36 29 $86,048 18 29 $87.345
E&P Operations: 323 254 $75.857 17 257 $94.636
Software Vendor: 18 14 $68.429 18 14 $77.169
Logging Service Co 283 251 $67.035 17 253 $76.479
Other: 16 12 $65,325 21 12 $69,797
Self Employed: 118 68 $64.046 23 81 $90,969
Consulting Co.: 81 61 $62.147 18 64 $72,955
Governme nt/Reg .: 39 34 $58,038 16 34 $58.894
Academia: 42 34 $53,956 14 34 $55.574
Lab. Service Co.: 9 8 $51,625 20 8 $56.750
Coal:
Mining:

Tcchnician

Teacher

I J I I I 1

Figure 4A Figure 4B

60 The Log Analyst

 Survey Results

I /I
Lab.Serv.Co.

Academia
Table 12

U.S.A.
CovernJReg.
U.K.
Consulting Co. Canada
Australia
Self Employed Noway
Japan
Other Indonesia
France
Log. Serv. Co. Holland
Germany
S o h a r e Vend.
Malaysia
Venezuela
ECP Oper.
Saudi Arabia
011E&P Res. India
Egypt
Brazil
Russia
Spain
Oman
Figure 4C U.A.E.
IdY
Switzerland
Korea
Libya
New Zealand
Austria

1
Geophysicisl Hungary
Columbia
Researcliei Ecuador
Bahrain
Otlier Jobs
Nigeria
Abu Dhabi
Log. Eng Brunai
Angola
Sales/Mark.
Thailand
Syria

I Log Analysl
Argentina
Denmark
Pakistan

I
Engineers
Ireland
China
Petrophysicist
Greece
Kuwait
Geologist SinffdPore
Qatar
I 0 50 I00 IM 200
Algeria
Belgium
Turkey
Figure 4D Mexico
lran
Trinidad & Tob.
Portugal

I
Russia I I I I I I I
India I
Malaysia I I I I
& - L A -
I I I
! ary information along with their average salary and average

=
Brazil I I I I I 1
Korea
Australia I I I
oilfield experience. The last two columns indicate the
Spain
Indonesia I I I
number of respondents who gave a total income (including
Noway
Canada
salary, bonus, commission, and other) along with the aver-
Holland
U.S.A.
age total incomes. Figure 4A shows the average salary by
U.K.
Japan job description. Figure 4B shows the average salaries by
Austria
France rank. Figure 4C shows the average salaries by employer.
Germany
Apparently the best career move is to become an executive
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 560 570 580 590 5100
Average Annual Salary (in thousands)
engineer working in E&P Research. Figure 4D shows the
number of respondents for various job descriptions -once
Figure 5 again, geologists top the list.
Table 12 is a summary of the country in which respon-
dents are currently stationed and their nationality. In order

The Log Analyst 61

 Survey Results

to simplify the table we have arbitrarily assumed that
Scotland is part of the UK, Texas is part of the United
States, and Houston is also part of the United States. The
second floor was left out of our table. We hope that this does
not offend. We also decided that “Caucasian” is not a
nationality. In the last two columns we have calculated how
many respondents were both stationed in a given country
and a citizen of that country - where more than two
respondents were identified, we calculated the average
salary. For the record the Western Europeans in their own
countries seem to be the best paid, with Germany, France,
and Austria taking the medal positions. Please note that
these average salaries are not statistically significant and
fail to take into account many international variables.
Figure 5 is a graphic representation of these suspect average
salaries by country.
them each on a scale of 1 (always read) to 4 (never read). In
the last column we have computed a point score for each
department by giving 3 points for each score of 1, two
points for each score of 2, and one point for each score of
3. No points were given for a score of 4. The points are
displayed graphically in Figure 6. Once again, we note that
the articles and technical content are the most popular,
while the SPWLA news items are less so. We have decided
to continue providing a cover because of its high popular-
ity rating!
Table 15 shows member ratings of the possible article
subjects. This time members were asked to rate them on a
scale of 1 to 5 . A similar point scoring scheme was em-
ployed. The results are shown graphically in Figure 7. We
noticed that the oil and gas related subjects were generally

THE RESULTS - THE LOG ANALYST

311
Table 13 provides answers to the question of how long M 1scd lanrous
members keep their copies of The Log Analyst. About 62%
C‘haplcr News
keep them as a permanent reference. The fact that so many
Adwrtising
members keep their copies of The Log Analyst permanently
has encouraged SPWLA to print it on acid-free quality Calendar

paper. We are assured that properly stored issues will last Annuuncenienls

for 500 yr.

Table 14 shows member ratings on the various depart-
ments of The Log Analyst. Members were asked to rate

Table 13
~

Permanent Referencc: 578 62%

More than a year: 226 24% Figure 6
Less than a year: 1 24 13%
Total: 928 100%

Rating
1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I Points
rArticles 200 516 150 30 1782
Cover 339 243 105 197 1608
Technical Notes 171 446 153 117 1558
Abstracts 183 405 174 129 1533
From the EditodPresident 1 57 301 222 209 1295
Announcements 146 290 227 224 1245
Calendar 134 246 253 251 1147
Advertising 97 280 294 2 13 1145
Chapter News 122 240 262 263 1108
Miscellaneous 53 192 338 300 88 1
Board/Comtn. Highlights 65 156 297 3 67 804

62 The Log Analyst

 Survey Results

the most popular, with a higher interest in the practical
interpretation subjects.
Table 16 shows the answers to two questions concerning
the use of theme (special) issues and the use of nonreviewed
material (such as certain Notes). Both passed; the first by a
ratio of 12.5:l and the second by a ratio of 4.6:l.Over the
past several years both of these have become quite com-
mon. Many respondents pointed out that these items were
good as long as we did not do them too often.
Table 17 shows the response to the question as to
whether the responders would be willing to submit material
for The Log Analyst. Regrettably, only 4% claimed that they
definitely would, and "No chance at all" came out the big
winner.
This time we did not ask the question as to whether
members would like to see problem log examples. Two
years ago the response was so positive that we started up a
new column to provide this new feature. The new column
(Le Log) only began at about the time the questionnaires
were mailed. Perhaps next time we run a survey, enough
time will have elapsed that members will be able to give an
opinion. Actually several responses (presumably the later
ones to be received) did write in compliments on the Le Log
column.
The questionnaire offered members the opportunity to
write comments and suggestions concerning the Society's
journal. About 25% of the respondents chose to put some
comments and ideas down. Some wrote detailed essays.
The great majority thought that the journal is fine the way
it is and needs little or no changes. Many respondents had
Table 16

Number i n favor of theme issues

I Number against theme issues

Minerals
Nonhydru. Fields Ratio
GroundwaterIEnv.

Number in favor of Non Review Articles 544

Number against Non Review Articles 119
Ratio 4.57
Nsu M W D louls
Gcolugy

Field Studies
Tool Interprcwlinii
Table 17
Neu Wireline Tnnls
Form. E \ d l Tech Definitely will: 33 4%
Possibly, If I can find time: 175 20%
Will think about it: 198 235%
Figure 7 No chance at all: 453 538
Total 859 100%

Table 15

Rating

Formation Eval. Techniques

1
454
I 2
328
I 3
61
I 4
13
I 5
37
I Points
2935
New Wireline Tools 460 272 81 25 55 2843
Tool Interpretation 273 348 121 40 107 2418
Field Studies 266 306 157 55 107 2351
Applications to Geology 23 1 310 178 72 103 2282
New MWD Tools 244 232 157 98 1 57 2084
Core Data & Analysis 173 2% 1 92 81 146 2045
Computer Techniques 136 284 201 103 162 1901
Tool Modeling 84 154 208 160 277 1374
App. to Ground WaterEnv. 68 96 130 197 393 1017
App. to nonhydro. fields 48 84 138 227 387 947
ADD.to Minerals 35 70 1 45 233 400 873

The Log Analyst 63

 Survey Results
positive suggestions and ideas to offer. The following are
the main ones ordered more or less by the popularity of the
comment:
TLA is wonderful!
More case studies / field studies
More practical / less theoretical
More basic formation evaluation and tool theory
More computer - programming - spreadsheets (example:
GEOB YTE)
More geology
Geophysics / seismic and relations to logs
Application of logs to specific problems (Le Log)
Production logging
Interdisciplinary, integrated studies
MWD
More articles per volume
Review computer software
Core I log relationships - perm from core
Technical management issues / running consulting busi-
ness
Liked “Quality” issue (SeptemberIOctober 1994)
Misinterpretation of logs - what went wrong and why
Horizontal well logging
More surveys of current technology (example: Prensky
article)
NMR
Anything but tool modeling
Whatever R Elphick thinks is appropriate!
These comments indicate the direction we have taken
with The Log Analyst is essentially the right direction. Fine
tuning will make it more useful to a wider readership,
however. We will play our part, but ultimately the quality
of the journal depends on the quality and quantity of the
material submitted for consideration. You can make a dif-
ference by putting pen to paper and contributing to the
success of our journal and to the well-being of fellow
members. What an easy way to become world famous and
well regarded amongst your peers.
THE RESULTS - SPWLA SYMPOSIA,
CONFERENCES, ETC.
In the last section of the questionnaire, members were
offered the opportunity to comment on the Society and its
symposia, conferences, and workshops. Comments on So-
ciety activities (again, in order of popularity):
0 Combine symposia with those of other societies (AAPG)
CD-ROM of all SPWLA publications
Hold symposia in large cities that “draw”
Suggestions for topics for symposia workshops:
Old E-logs
64 The Log Analyst
MWD / LWD
Internet access to TLA, etc.
Wellbore stability
NMR
Low-resistivity pay
Slim-hole logging
Log I geophysics relationships
Suggestions for future topical conference subjects:
Cased hole I production logging
Thin-bed LWD I MWD
Horizontal logging
Imaging (again)
NMR (again)
Low-resistivity pay
These suggestions and comments are only broadly sum-
marized here. There were far too many to report on in detail.
A more detailed account has been assembled for the Board
of Directors, who will undoubtedly use them as we plan the
future of the Society.
CONCLUSION
The information and suggestions provided by the survey
are all very valuable and well worth the effort to decode.
The results are required reading for all officers of the Soci-
ety - especially the Board of Directors. Previous surveys
have all had a profound influence on the direction of our
Society. The last survey inspired (in part) suggested
changes to the makeup of the Board of Directors, the ways
in which we do business, and the “look and feel” of The Log
Analyst. We have every confidence that the results of this
survey will help the Society to plan its future activities. Our
deepest thanks go to all of you who participated.
REFERENCES
Bateman. R. M. and Tibbs. D., 1983, The 1983 SPWLA member-
ship survey: The Log Ancdysr, November-December, p. 29-3 1.
Elphick, R. Y, 1993. SPWLA membership survey results - part
I: The Log Ana(iJst,July-August, p. 74-82.
Elphick, R. Y , 1993, SPWLA membership survey results - part
11: The Log AiialJ?sf,September-October, p. 13-14.
Fons, L., 1967, The arithmetic average log analyst: The Log his-
! w f , February-March, p. 35-38.
Lane. R. A., 1977. Results of the 1976 SPWLA questionnaire:The
Log A t ~ u l y ~July-AuguSt,
t, p. 3-1 I .
Pasternack, E., 1991, Results ofthe first log analyst reader survey:
The Log Aiiufvst, September-October, p. 78A-81 A .
 Chapter News
Edited by Vicki King

Corpus Christi Chapter

Speakers €or February, March, April, and May:
Randall Amen (consultant), “New Gas Referencing”
Technique Predicts Production Potential.”
Jerry Sovich (ARCO), “Accounting for and Counting
Thin Beds Using Electrical Images and Dipmeter Data.”
(joint meeting with Geological Society)
Kevin Blankenburg (Schlumberger), substituted for
scheduled speaker.
Michael Dixon (Omni Laboratories), “Sample Quality
Evaluation of Percussion Sidewall Cores.”

Dallas Chapter
Jerry Sovich (ARCO) spoke on “Accounting for and John Watson (Mobil R&D), Treasurer, collecting lunch money from
Counting Thin Beds Using FMSFMI and Dipmeter Data” at members.
the April meeting. Ed Witterholt (BP Exploration) gave a talk
in May on “Oil Industry Technology and Government
Labs-Are we on the road to America Inc.” or “going to hell
in a hand basket?”
The short course on NMR has been moved to the fall.

May speaker Ed Witterholt (BP Expl.) (center) talking to members

Dave Herrick (left) and Rod Schulze.

April speaker Jerry Sovich (ARCO) (left) and Chapter President Jon
Heber.

Members at May lunch (left to right): Steve Fremgeh, incoming

President Tony Messineo, speaker Ed Witterholt, and Dave Duff.

1994-1995 officers (left to right): John Watson (Mobil R&D), Treas- Denver Chapter
urer; Ray Wydrinski (ARCO), Secretary; and Jon Herber (consultant), April speaker David Kennedy (Mobil E&P Technical
President.
Center) presented “Induction Log Forward Modeling: A Rig-

The Log Analyst 65

 Chapter News
orous and Systematic Approach to Model Construction.”
May’s meeting featured Ed Witterholt (BP Exploration), giv-
ing his talk on “Oil Industry Technology and the Government
Labs-Are we on the road to America, Inc.” or “going to hell
in a hand basket?”
Formation Evaluation Society of Western Australia
In April John Warren (Curtin University of Technology)
spoke on “Permeability Variation, The Utility of Correlating
Minipermeametry with X-ray Computed Tomography (CT)
Analysis in the Determining of Rock Properties: Examples
from New Guinea and West Australia, Australia.” May
speaker Yves Chauvel (Schlumberger Wireline & Testing)
presented “A Review of Advances in Cased Hole Reservoir
Monitoring and Production Logging Applications.”
John Kaldi (ARCO) was the June speaker. His topic was
“Evaluation of Seal Potential.”
Speakers scheduled for July, August, and September are
Eddie Local, “MULE/ORAD”; G. Ellis/D. Thorpe, “RFT”;
and Feng Xu Jian, “Reservoir Characterization.”
An organizing committee has been formed to hold the
1997 Wireline Logging Seminar, a joint venture with SPE.
Houston Chapter
The three meetings in May presented the following speak-
ers and topics:
Westside-Dan Hartmann (DJH Energy Consulting),
“Characterization of Petrophysical Flow Units in Carbonate
Reservoirs.”
Greenspoint-Kwasi Tagbor (MPI), “Measurement of
Formation Resistivity in Formations with Thin and Dipping
Beds Using a Pulsed Extended Range High Resolution In-
duction Tool.”
Downtown-Dave Marschall (NUMAR), “Surface NMR
Measurements on Fluid and Core Samples for NMR Logging
and Log Interpretation.”
A one-day forum on field study petrophysics covered a
variety of topics related to field studies: data management,
seismic and petrophysical integration, reservoir pressure
management, and actual case histories. A workbook was
handed out. The forum and the software seminar held earlier
in the year were well attended and will probably become
regular features of the Chapter.
Lafayette Chapter
Barbara Anderson (Schlumberger-Doll Research) was the
April speaker. Her talk was on “Estimating Vertical Perme-
ability from Resistivity Logs.” The subject for the May meet-
ing was “Formation Damage Research and Control in
Horizontal Wells,” presented by Brant Bennion (Hycal En-
ergy Research Laboratories).
66 The Log Analyst
Officers of Lafayette Chapter, 1994-95 (left to right): Leonard Lee
(Unocal), Vice-president Membership; Paul Blakely (Western Atlas),
SecretaryYTreasurer; Bill Stewart (Chevron), President; Mike Archer
(Chevron), Vice-president Technology; and Brent Labat (Western
Atlas), Director.
London Petrophysical Society
Robert Truman I1 (Z&S Consultants) gave a highly infor-
mative talk in April on “Formation Evaluation in Gas Reser-
voirs,” drawing on extensive work undertaken at the US Gas
Research Institute. Tentative talks and discussion for June
will be on the acquisition of palaeomagnetic data from cores
and wireline tools. Chapter meetings are held the third Mon-
day of each month at the Geological Society, Burlington
House, Piccadilly.
New Orleans Chapter
Kevin Blankenburg (Schlumberger) talked at the April
meeting on “Estimating Initial Well Production Rates from
Wellsite Data.” Daniel Moos (Stanford University) spoke on
“Test of Acoustic Logs for Measuring Porosity and Oil Satu-
ration in a Maure Waterflood in the Wilmington Field, Cali-
fornia” at the May meeting.
Permian Basin Chapter
April speaker Jerry Lucia (Texas Bureau of Economic
Geology) presented “Defining Petrophysical/Geological
Flow Units in the Seminole San Andres Reservoir.” May’s
speaker was Dick Streeter (Computalog). His talk was enti-
tled “Determining Porosities and Current Water Saturations
using a Cased Hole Triple Combo.”
The Chapter awarded four $500 scholarships. Recipients
were Chris Allmon, a senior at Midland High who plans to
attend Harvard University and major in physical sci-
ence/mathematics; Regine Rusk, senior at Midland High who
plans to attend Andrews College in Michigan and major in
pediatric neurosurgery; Sarah McCullough, senior at Mid-
land High who plans to attend Yale University and major in
chemical engineering; and Ashley Kumar, 1992 graduate of
Midland Lee and now a junior at the University of Texas-
Austin majoring in biochemistry.
JUly-AuguSt 1995
 Chapter News

San Joaquin Chapter

The Chapter cosponsored with SPE a two-day course on
“Scanalyzing Logs and Old E-logs” given by Tony Messineo
in February. The profits were given to the SPWLA Founda-
tion Scholarship fund and SPE Scholarship fund. Tom Zalan
(Chevron) spoke at the February Chapter meeting.

1995 PBWLS Scholarship winners (left to right): Chriss Allmon,

Regine Rusk, Sarah McCullough, and Ashley Kumar.

News of Other Societies

1995 Executive of the Canadian Well Logging Society:

seated (left to right): Vice-president Glen W. Gray (BPB
Wireline Services); Secretary William F. Clow (Petrophysi-
cal Services Ltd. (Calgary); President Winston Karel (Amoco
Canada Petroleum Co. Ltd); and Past President A1 Lye
(Plains Perforating Ltd.). Standing (left to right): Member-
ship, Jim s. Prior (Computalog Ltd.); Treasurer James P.
Wood (Tucker Wireline Services); Publications, Taras Tzi-
uba (Canadian Hunter Exploration Ltd.); and Publications,
Jane Mactaggart (Shell Canada Limited).

News of Members
In Memoriam
C.E. Englehart (SM 697) passed away.

The Log Analyst 61

 New Members
ARD, Brian; Computalog Ltd, 1900,530 8th Ave. S.W., Calgary,
Alberta, CN T2P 3S8
ARTHUR, James; CH2M Hill, Inc., 502 S. Main, Tulsa, OK 74103
ARYA, Omprakash; Well Logging Sec., ONGC Ltd, Palavasana
Mehsana, Gujarat 384 001, India
ASHIH, Folo; Phillips Petrol. Co. Cameroon, SocieteNationale des
Hydrocarbures, Box 955, Yaounde, Cameroon
AUDI, Joseph; Schlumberger Logelco Inc., 7A Cornish El Nile,
Dalla Tower Maadi, Box 214/4511, Cairo, Egypt
AYOUB, Omar; Sperry-Sun Inter. Inc., 15 Road 150, Maadi, Cairo,
Egypt c PARKINSON, Dennis; 39 Sydney Rd., Richmond, Surrey, England
BANIK, Ashish; Petrol. Recovery Res. Ctr., New Mexico Tech.,
Socorro, NM 87801
BASTOS, Marketa; GeoQuest, Loirston House, Wellington Rd.,
Altens, Aberdeen, Scotland AB 1 4B;H
BRADFORD, Charles; Schlumberger Middle East S.A., Box
2836, A1 Khobar 31952, Saudi Arabia
CLINCH, Simon; Santos, 101 Grenfell St., Adelaide, S.A.
COMINI, Martin; Allegheny Wireline Servs., 1256 Mississippi
Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15216
CORIGLIANO, Mark; 1515 Engineers Rd., Belle Chasse, LA
70037
CROWE, Bruce; Chevron Petroleum Tech., Co., 1300Beach Blvd.,
LaHabra, CA 9063 1
DEMBICKI, Eugene; #279, 86 Glamis Green S.W., Calgary, Al-
berta, CN T3E 6T9
DOWELL, lain; Halliburton Energy Servs., 2135 Hwy. 6 South,
Houston, TX 77077
DUTTA, Indrajit; ONGC, 46-16-19 Well Logging Sec.,
Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry, India
ELLIOTT, Barbara; 1503 Chatelain AVe., Ottawa, Ontario, CN
K1Z 8B3
FAUST, Raymond; Schlumberger, 369 Trister Dr., Webster, TX
77598
FRANCOMBE, Timothy; Mindeveien 82,5032 Minde, Norway
GAGNON, Larry; Ampolex Argentina S.A., 1050 17th St., Denver,
CO 80265
HERMSEN, Franciscus; P.D.O., APQ/42, Box 81, 113 Muscat,
Sultanate of Oman
HOFFMAN, Michael; 3414 Chapel Square, Spring, TX 77388
HOOPER, Edward; 11 Vine St., N. Perth, Australia WA 6006
JACKSON, Dean; Western Atls, Box 1858, Hobbs, Nh4 88240
JACOBS, Steve; Resource Mrkt. Inter., 1521 Green Oak Pl., King-
wood, TX 77339
JBEILI, Terry; Western Atlas Inter., 10205 Westheimer, Houston,
TX 77251
KAMINSKAS, Barry; Computalog Ltd., 1900,530 8th Ave. S.W.,
Calgary, Alberta, CN T2P 3S8
68 The Log Analyst
1
KHAN, Mohammad; 36 Poston Rd., #58, The Plains, OH 45780
KUROKI, Shinjiro; Japan Petrol. Expl. Co., Ltd., 2-2-20 Higashi-
Shinagwaw, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan 140
MARIO, Marchi; Schlumberger GeoQuest, 50, Av. Jean Jaures, BP
362, Montrouge Cedex, France 92541
McDOWALL, David; Atlas Wireline Servs., 455 London Rd.,
Isleworth, Middlesex, England TW7 5AB
MEYER, Thomas; Halliburton Energy Servs., 5950 N. Course Dr.,
Houston, TX 77072
MORGAN, Edward; 2333 Cicily Ln., Abilene, TX 79606
TW9 1UB
PATTERSON, Joseph; Phillips Petrol. Co., Phillips Bldg., 6330 W.
Loop S., B,ellaire, TX 77401
PFLUG, Karen; Geological Survey of Canada, 601 Booth St.,
Ottawa, Ontario CN K1A OE8
PURSELL, David; 1003 Rose Circle, College Station, TX 77840
RIGGERT, Virginia; Amoco Prod. Co., Box 800, Denver, CO
80201
SALIMULLAH, A.; 6724 DeMoss, #97, Houston, TX 77074
SCHROEDER, Detlev; Innstrabe 16, 38 120 Braunschweig, Ger-
many
SMITH, Leslie; Heriot Watt Univ., Dept. of Petrol. Engr., Riccar-
ton, Edinburgh, Scotland EH14 4AS
STANDNES, Lasse; Breistolen 34, 5035 Bergen, Sandviken, Nor-
way
STEINER, Stefan; Schlumberger GeoQuest, SchlumbergerHouse,
Buckingham Gate, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex, England
RH6 ONZ
SWANSON, Donald; 510 Sandy Port, Houston, TX 77079
TETZLAFF, Daniel; Western Atlas, 10201 Westheimer, Houston,
TX 77052
THOMPSON, Laird; 3804 Wooded Creek Dr., Dallas, TX 75244
TURCO, Kevin; Expat-Egypt, Box 4381, Houston, TX 77210
VERMA, R.; ONGC, 17/3 St., No. 1, Rajendra Nagar, Dehradun,
India 248 001
VILLARROEL, Jose; Petroproduction, J.L. Mera 1741 1 Orellana,
Box 17-01-006, Quito, Ecuador
WALDER, David; 1 Earlspark Dr., Bieldside, Aberdeen, Scotland
AB19AH
WARD, Philip; Schlumberger Eval. & Prod., Servs., Anadrill Div.,
Kirkton Ave., Kirkton Ave., Aberdeen, Dyce, Scotland
WARRILOW, Ian; Brunei Shell Petrol. Co., Sdn. Bhd., Sena 7082,
Brunei Darusalah, Northwest Borneo
WHALEY, Kenneth; Western Atlas Logging Servs., 10205 West-
heimer, Suite 685, Houston, TX 77042
 Third Annual Petrophysical Software Directory

Company:

Address:

Contact:

Phone: FAX:

Product to be listed:

Computer platform:

Operating system:

Required peripherals:

Price per executable copy:

Price for source code:

Price for corporate licenses:

Would you like to advertise in the same issue as the Directory?-Y ES -NO

Please attach a brief description of the product to be listed (one or two paragraphs). Use separate
copies of this sheet for separate products. Also be sure to list contacts in all your main offices.

Send this information by July 15, 1995 to:

Robert Y Elphick
c/o Scientific Software-Intercomp
1801 California, Suite 295
Denver
Colorado 80202
USA
or FAX (303) 295-2235

July-August 1995 The Log Analyst 69

 Instructions to Authors and Guidelines for
Manuscript Preparation: The Log Analyst
(Revised 1 September 1992)
POLICY
The Log Analyst publishes original contributions on theoreti-
cal and applied aspects of formation evaluation, particularly well
logging and petrophysics. Case histories and interpretation pa-
pers are of special interest. Contributions may be in the form of
Articles, Reports, Notes, Review Papers, and Discussions or Re-
plies; they are accepted on the basis of quality and significance of
subject matter, clarity of expression, and compliance with The Log
Analysl guidelines. Letters to the Editor are also accepted.
TYPES OF CONTRIBUTIONS
Articles are comprehensive papers on new interpretations or
methods of analysis of well log data, new information or ap-
proaches to theoretical or applied topics, new instrumentation,
or new research methods. Conclusions are firmly based on work
reported in the paper. Speculation is kept to a minimum.
Notes are shorter technical reports of preliminary discoveries,
speculative hypotheses, new techniques, or new instrumenta-
tion. Based on mathematical derivations or empirically derived
data, these manuscripts are brief, to the point, timely, and of
general interest.
Discussions are comments on Articles or Notes published in
The Log Analvst and may offer useful additional information. A
copy is provided to the author of the original paper for the
opportunity to prepare a Reply.
When sending a Letter to the Editor, indicate if it is for
publication.
PUBLICATION PROCEDURE
Manuscript Submission
1. Submit four copies of the manuscript and figures (see MANU-
SCRIPT SPECIFICATIONS AND FORMAT and FIGURES
AND TABLES for requirements) to the Publication Editor or
Managing Editor.
2. Provide a mailing address, telephone number, and facsimile
(FAX) number for corresponding author.
3. Submit only papers written in English.
4. Submit only papers that are unpublished and are not under
consideration for publishing elsewhere.
5. Identify papers presented orally with date and location of
presentation.
6 . Papers appearing in preliminary (preprint) form in meeting
transactions or proceedings and not yet formally published
are acceptable.
70 The Log Analyst
Review and Copyediting Process
At least two members of The Log Analyst Publication Com-
mittee review the manuscript; review comments accompany
author notification of the decision on acceptance. Final accep-
tance is the sole responsibility of the Publication Editor.
Manuscripts that do not comply with guidelines may be
returned with a request for compliance prior to review.
Manuscripts are copyedited after acceptance; the correspond-
ing author receives one set of page proofs to check for typo-
graphic errors and to answer queries from the copy editor. The
Publication Editor reserves the right to accept or reject changes
in proof.
1 . Keep corrections in proof to a minimum; authors may be
charged for excessive proof corrections that differ from the
original manuscript. Some corrections may result in serious
delay in publication.
2 . Return proofs to the Managing Editor within 48 hours of
receipt; tardiness in returning proofs delays publication.
3. Complete and return the reprint order form, sent to authors
with page proofs, with the proofs.
Manuscripts are published in the order of receipt of an ac-
cepted final version. Manuscripts and figures are not returned.
Copyright Transfer
Copyright law requires a copyright transfer be obtained from
authors ofpapers published in The Log Analyst. Copyright forms
must be signed and returned by the corresponding author before
publication is scheduled.
Printing Costs
The Log Analyst requests voluntary page charges of $50 per
page. Costs ofany special printing, such as foldouts or color, are
borne entirely by the author.
MANUSCRIPT SPECIFICATIONS AND FORMAT
Hard Copy - Type all text (including footnotes and refer-
ences), tables, and figure captions double-spaced with a nonjus-
tified right margin and with no end-of-line hyphenation. Type
must be letter quality using typewriter-style fonts. Desktop-pub-
lished material must be at least 10-point type on 24-point leading
(3 lineshch).
Number pages consecutively from Abstract to References.
Electronic Diskette - The Log Analyst encourages contribu-
tions submitted on either 3 '/2- or 5 ' A -in. electronic diskette; also
provide four hard copies of text, figures, and tables.
July-AugUSt 1995
 Instructions to Authors

Authors should remove all tabs, formatting codes, and inden- Journals
tions. There should be no hard carriage returns except at ends of Dupree, J. H., 1989, Cased-hole nuclear logging interpreta-
paragraphs. Double space between paragraphs. tion, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska: The Log Analyst, v. 30, no. 3,
Preferably, authors should save files to PC-compatible disk- May-June, p. 162-177.
ettes in PC format. ASCII is preferred but not required. Label
Published meeting transactions or proceedings
diskettes with name of file, software, hardware, and operating
Khokar, R. W., and Johnson, W. M., Jr., 1989, A deep laterolog
system (MS-DOS or PR-DOS). Save illustrations to EPS,
for ultrathin formation evaluation, paper S S , in 30th Annual
CorelDRAW, or Adobe Illustrator files.
Logging Symposium Transactions: Society of Professional
MANUSCRIPT ORGANIZATION AND STYLE Well Log Analysts, p. S S 1-10.
Woodhouse, R., and Kerr, S . A., 1988, The evaluation of oil
1. Indicate professional affiliation for each author under the title. saturation through casing using carbodoxygen logs, SPE-
2. Organize as listed: abstract (required for Articles, but not for 17610,in SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineer-
Notes, Discussions, or Replies), body of text (introduction, ing, Proceedings: Society of Petroleum Engineers, p.
methods or techniques, results, interpretation or discussion, 621-632.
conclusions, etc.), nomenclature, acknowledgments, refer-
ences, appendices, tables, figure captions, figures, brief para- Unpublished meeting papers
graphs about author entitled “About the Author.” A glossy HSU,K., Brie, A., and Plumb, R. A., 1985, A new method for
portrait-type photograph of authors showing head and shoul- fracture identification using array sonic tools, SPE-14397:
ders must accompany the manuscript. Color or black and Society of Petroleum Engineers, presented at 60th Annual
white photographs are acceptable; passport or instant prints Technical Conference and Exhibition, 8 p.
are not acceptable. About the Author: Briefly outlines education,career accom-
Abstract: Informative statement of essential ideas, methods, plishments and contributions,professional position, and work on
and results, not lists of subjects covered in or descriptions of a current projects.
paper. Do not use the phrases “is discussed” or “is shown.” The Measurement Units: SPWLA prefers metric units but ac-
abstract must stand alone as a short version of the paper and cepts either English or metric units. When using English units,
should not exceed 250 words. provide conversions to metric units in parentheses.
Nomenclature: Papers using extensive abbreviations, acro- Style Guides: For discussions on how to prepare a scien-
nyms, and symbols require a separate section for definition. tificltechnical paper, SPWLA recommends the CBE Style Man-
Avoid extensive use of abbreviations or commercial acronyms. ual, Council of Biology Editors, Inc., 9650 Rockville Pike,
Refer to Glossay of Term and Expressions Used in Well Log- Bethesda, MD 208 14 and Geowritiizg-A Guide to Writing,Edit-
ging, 2nd ed., SPWLA, 8866 Gulf Freeway, Suite 320. Houston, ing and Printing in Earth Science, American Geological Insti-
TX 77017. tute, 4220 King St., Alexandria, VA 22302. The Chicago Manual
References: List all published works cited in the text alpha- ofstyle, University of Chicago Press, 5801 South Ellis Ave.,
betically by author and then chronologically.If there are two or Chicago, IL 60637 is an excellent reference for general writing
more papers by the same author(s) in the same year, add lower- style and grammar.
case letters after the year: Jones (1989a), (Jones, 1989b). When
FIGURES AND TABLES
citing references in text, list chronologically: (Smith, 1987;
Jones et al., 1988; Jones, 1989).Do not use abbreviations in titles Figures, together with captions, should be understandable
of articles, books, or journals. Use the following format: author, without reference to text.
year, title, volume, number, pages. Refer to manuscripts in 1. For initial manuscript submission, send photocopies of cam-
preparation and personal communicationsas such in the text and era-ready figures and tables. Hand-drawn figures and letter-
do not include in the references section. ing are unacceptable.Format individually, 20 x 25 cm (8 x 10
Books in.), without captions; do not integrate into text.
Beinkaher, K. J., 1988, Computer processing of dipmeter log 2. Number figures and tables.
data; enhancement of a subsurface exploration tool, in D. F. 3. List figure captions separately following the text.
Merriam, ed., Current trends in geomathernatics: Plenum 4. Submit originals of photographs and micrographs. They
Press, New York, p. 18 1-206. should be well contrasted; arrows, letters, and numbers
should be inserted. Micrographs must have an internal mag-
nification marker (bar scale) and magnification stated.

The Log Analyst 71

 SPWLA Publication Order Form
PLEASE SEND PAYMENT WITH ORDER
Check items you would like to order. Note option prices for orders outside the United States. Checks n o t drawn on U.S.
banks in U.S. dollars will be returned. For Texas deliveries add 8.25% sales tax.
us. Foreign With Amount
Logging Symposium Transactions Surface Air maiI
1984 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 61.00 $-.-
1985 (twovolume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 64.65 $-.
1986 (twovolume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 64.65 $-
1987 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 61.OO $
-
1988 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 66.00 $
-
1989 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 66.00 $-
1990 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 66.00 $-
1991 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 20.00 66.00 $
-
1992 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.50 42.50 83.50 $
-
1993 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.00 80.00 121.00 $
-
1994 (two volume set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.00 80.00 121.oo $-
1995 ( one volume) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.00 110.00 135.00 $
-
Reprint Volume Series
Glossaly of Terms and Expressions used in Well Logging (Revised 1985)
SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.00 11.oo 22.00 $-.-.---
Art of Ancient Log Analysis (1979)
SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 15.00 26.00 $-
Hydrocarbon Well Logging, Recommended Practice (1983)
SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.50 11.50 16.00 $
-
Geothermal Log Interpretation Handbook (revised 1982)
SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.50 25.50 50.75 $
-
1 Shaly Sand Reprint (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.00 40.00 70.00 $
-
Borehole Imaging (1990)
SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.00 45.00 70.00 $-.-.-
Nonmember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 55.00 80.00 $
-
Resistivity Logging (1992)
SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.00 70.00 90.2 1 $
-
Nonmember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.00 80.00 95.21 $
-
Measurement While Drilling (1993)
1 SPWLA Member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.00 45.00 70.00 $-
, Nonmember . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.00 55.00 80.00 $-

TOTAL QUANTITY .................... TOTAL ENCLOSED $

-
PRICES SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE

ENCLOSE CHECK OR CREDIT CARD INFORMATION Telephone: 713-947-8727

Make check payable to: SPWLA
SHIPPING INFORMATION
0Mastercard Visa
Name
Card Account Number 1 1 Address

Expiration

Signature CitylState

Mail To: 8866 Gulf Freeway, Suite 320

Houston, TX 77017
Zip Code

12 The Log Analyst

CredibiIity
The Log Analyst is the official publication of the
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) --
the original technical journal devoted to the theory and
practice of formation evaluation technology: core
analysis, wireline logging and measurement while
drilling.
Research Support
Advertising dollars help support the publication of research
data in The Log Analyst, thereby promoting the transfer of new
formation-evaluationtechnology to petrophysicists,
geoscientists, engineers and managers.
Strategic Marketing
Formation evaluation plays a critical role in the exploration
and development of oil and gas, minerals and groundwater
resources. Your marketing message in The Log Analyst, mailed
bimonthly to all SPWLA members as well as to paid
subscribers, reaches the key people who make and influence
purchasing decisions in all areas of the business.
low Advertising Rates
As a nonprofit professional society, the SPWLA offers some of
the most economical rates available so your advertising budget
goes farther. Advertising in The Log Analyst is an inexpensive
and effective way to reach formation-evaluation decision
makers.
International Exposure
Nearly 40% of SPWLA members live outside the United
States. Your products and services receive international
exposure at no extra cost.
Put your ad dollars to work in an
international market and reach the
professionals who make the critical
decisions. For ad rates and more
information, call the SPWLA at
713-947-8727 or write 8866 Gulf
Freeway, Suite 320, Houston, Texas
770 1 7, USA.
 ETROL
ADVANCED LOG ANALYSIS
DATA MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
UNIX WORKSTATIONS PERSONAL COMPUTERS (DOS)

ARCHIV1NG;;FORMAT CONVERSIONS: DLlS LIS LAS ASCII OTHERS

DIGITISING.

INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS DEPTH MATCHING LOG EDITING.

3 ADVANCED INTERPRETATION MODELS + TDT.

SYNTHETIC SEISMOGRAMS SEG-Y FILE PLOTTING.

ADVANCED GRAPHICS: ALL COMMON PRINTERS AND PLOTTERS.

REAL TIME DATA ACQUISITION AND DISPLAY.

BUREAU SERVICES: FIELD STUDIES, DATA PROCESSING,TRAINING,TECHNlCAL SUPPORT.

CDP REPRESENTATIVES OFFER BOTH SALES AND BUREAU SERWCES

EUROPE MAIN OFFICE NORTH AMERICA

PETROLOGIC LTD DIGITAL PETROPHYSICS INC,
St Johns Innovation Centre CROCKER DATA PROCESSING PTY LTD 2811 H Street,
Cowley Rd. Cambridge CB4 4WS Unit 6, R&D Centre, BAKERSFIELD,
UNITED KiNGDOM CA 93301.,USA.
TEL 44 1223421 548 1, Sarich Way, Technology Park TEL (805)322 8667
FAX: 44 1223421 546 Bentley, W.A. 6102 FAX: (805)322 8897
Louis Venneulen Rick Berry, Deborah Olsen
Australia
INDONESIA TEL: (619) 470 5004 / 470 5006
DIGITAL PETROPHYSICS INC
ELNUSA FAX: (619) 470 5003 1641 CALIFORNIA St. Suite 302
105 JL. S. PARMAN MODEM: (619) 470 4017
JAKARTA 11440 DENVER, CO 80202’
Hugh Crocker, Robert Charlebois, Ata llahi TEL (303) 620 9388
TEL 62 21 568 2441
Gerry Willis
FAX: 62 21 580 3672
MALAYSIA MIDDLE EAST LATIN AMERICA
OROGENIC RESOURCES SDN BHQ PETROLEUM ENGINEERING SERVICES DIACOMP PETROYETRICS INC
93 1,JLN 1/91, Taman Shamelin Perkasa 12 D, SNC Plaza, Blue Area CARRERA 20 No 84 8 W320 Pembina Place
Cheras, 56100 KUAIA LUMPUR Islamabad BOGOTA 1035 7th Ave. SW
COLUMBIA Calgary, Alberta
MALAYSIA PAKISTAN
TEL: 57 1 257 7299 CANADA T2P3E9
TEL: 603981 3734 TEL 92 51 210 029
FAX: 603981 3735 FAX: 92 51 220 685 FAX: 57 1 257 7364 TEk 403 265 5077
FAX: 403 265 5077 Bob Menard
Shuhaimi Othman M a d Akhtar Ray Smith