SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME PAPER

Fidelity Union Bldg. NUMBER 1253-G

Dallas, Tex.

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Gamma Ray-Density Logging

By

Albin J. Zak and Joe Ed Smith, Junior Members AIME

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023

Core Laboratories Inc., Dallas, Tex.

ABSTRACT In the practical logging tool, a beam of

gamma rays is emitted into the formation. A
This paper presents a review of current small fraction of these photons find their way
methods of interpreting and applying gamma ray- back to the detector. Normally, the detector
density logs in evaluating fundamental reservoir used is a Geiger-Muller counter or scintillation
data. The basic theories and physical principles counter. Studies of other detecting devices,
underlying the techniques of density logging with such as cloud chambers and ionization chambers,
gamma rays are discussed along with some of the have shown them to be unsuitable for this purpose.
problems associated with the instrumentation of The most common gamma ~ay source for this tool is
such a tool. An effort has been made to evaluate radioactive cobalt (Co bO ). The source is Shielded
the instrument calibration techniques, and discus- from the detector with lead such that the majority
sion and figures are presented which describe the of the gamma rays counted by the detector are
effect of borehole conditions, pressure, tempera- those back-scattered from the formation.
ture, etc. The relationship of natural density,
grain density, and interstitial fluid density to Initial calibration of the instrument is made
porosity is presented. Field data illustrate how in special testholes in which the density of the
density logs can be correlated with porosity and calibrating material is carefully controlled.
grain density data. With the aid of adequate core These experiments are made in various hole sizes
analysis data, a reasonably accurate estimate of in each of several different mud densities. From
formation porosity can be obtained from density this, an adequate prediction has been established
log interpretation. The paper also offers a dis- as to the effect of borehole diameter and borehole
cussion of the limitations of the density log as a fluid density on the log response. To date, there
porosity tool. The current applications of the are no valid correction factors proposed for the
density log to geologic work are cited, and the effects due to poor borehole geometry. The rules
prospective uses and future developments are and limitations of logging speed, time-constant,
briefly explored. bed thickness, etc., that apply to conventional
radioactivity logs also apply to density logging.
SUMMARY The effects of temperature and pressure are those
effects that are imposed on the response of the
The principle of gamma ray absorption as a gamma ray counter, and the effects on the densi-
function of density was adapted to the logging of ties of the interstitial fluids.
petroleum formations through the utilization of a
phenomenon known as "back-scattering". This tech- The basic interpretation of the density log
nique uses a tool which contains both a gamma ray is fairly simple; the possible applications are
source and detector. The detector measures the numerous. The most prominent denSity log applica-
intensity of the gamma rays emitted from the tions are: (1) lithological eorrelations, (2)
source that have been back-scattered to the de- i determination of density grad:"ents for gravity
tector by the formation. After proper instrument , meter surveys, (3) determination of borehole fluid
calibration, the log response can be used to denSity for gradient surveys, (4) location of
compute the natural density of the formation. casing shoe and cement top, (5) location of casing
Since there is a definite relationship between leaks, (6) aid in the interpretation and evalua-
natural density and porosity, it is possible to tion of other logs, and (7) method of estimating
predict formation porosity from density logs. It formation porosity. Application 7 is probably
is necessary to correlate carefully density log the most important and most widely used.
data with core analysis data before the direct
correlation of density log response with porosity Maximum use of the density log nas not been
can be made. fully realized. Although there are some severe
limitations in its use, there are many cases where
References and illust!13,tion~~t,~~?f p_~_~~_.___ -,- ______________________________________________---'
2 GAMMA RAY-DENSITY LOGGING
the density log is an effective tool, and serves
as a valuable aid in f'ormation evaluation.
INTRODUCTION
Gamma ray-density logging has progressed far
since its original experimental stage. Numerous
major oil companies and several service companies
have made significant contributions to its ad-
vancement. Although the tool was originally con-
ceived as an al~iliary exploration device, con-
tinued research and development has created new
and improved equipment and techniques. This
paper is an analysis of the theories, modern
techniques and interpretation procedures applic-
able to formation evaluation.
Often, the reservoir geologist, petroleum
engineer, and log analyst are not familiar with
the basic theory and physical principles that
underlie a particular logging tool. This results
in the interpreter being unable, or limited in
his ability, to evaluate logs. An attempt is
made herein to "bridge the gap" between theory
and application.
The purpose of this paper is to inform the
user of the basis of gamma ray-density logging;
to describe the equipment used; present the ac-
cepted principles of interpretation; illustrate
the uses and applications; and cite the known
advantages and limitations.
THEORY AND PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES
Basic Nuclear Concepts
In order to fully understand the nuclear
processes that occur when a gamma ray-density log
is run, it will be necessary to briefly review
some basic radiochemical theory and physical con-
cepts. The discussion here will not begin with
the most elementary principles; for introductory
material on the subject of atomic PhYSicS the
reader may refer to the works of Bttter,l 3
Fermi,25 Friedlander and Kennedy,2b Lapp and
Andrews,3 1 and Semat.3 6 From the beginning, the
inquirer must realize that gamma ray-density
logging is different from conventional gamma ray-
neutron logging. The gamma ray-density log is
often referred to as the gamma-gamma log, which
means that the source emits gamma rays and the
detector counts gamma rays. This paper will
present only that material which is related and
necessary to the understanding of gamma ray-
density logging.
The definitions of nuclear terms presented
by Faul,24 will be sufficient for this paper; the
atomic number Z, or nuclear charge as it is some-
times called, is the integral number of protons
in the nucleus of an atom. The mass number A,
or atomic mass, is the total number of nucleons
in the nucleus of an atom; a nucleon can be
either a proton or neutron. The reader will
1253-G
recall that atoms with nuclei of the same Z but
different A are forms of the same element and are
called isotopes.
Beta rays (~) are believed to be physically
equivalent to electrons if the beta radiation
has a negative charge. If the beta rays have a
positive charge, they are equivalent to positive-
charged electrons and are called positrons. When
talking about positrons, the term negatron is
usually used instead of electron; negatrons and
electrons are exactly the same. Beta radiations,
positrons, and negatrons all have the same rela-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
tive charge, either plus or minus one, and they
all have the same relative mass of one. (As
shown in Table 1, a proton (p+) has a relative
charge of plus one, and a relative mass of ap-
proximately 1,836; a neutron (n) has a relative
charge of zero, and a relative mass of approxi-
mately 1,840.) Unless otherwise stated, the
charge of beta radiation is always assumed to be
negative and equivalent to an electron. Hence,
when a nucleus decays by beta emission, Z will
increase by one unit and A will remain constant.
It should be pointed out that the exact value of
mass will decrease very slightly; this is a
necessary conclusion in order to explain the re-
lease of energy.
Alpha particles (0<) are equivalent to
accelerated helium atoms that have been stripped
of their electrons. Thus, the alpha particle
will have a nuclear charge of plus two and an
atomic mass of four. Therefore, if a nucleus
decays by alpha emiSSion, Z will decrease by two
and A will decrease by four. Note that in either
beta or alpha decay, isotopes of the mother ele-
ment are not formed; the residual that is formed
is always a different element. However, the
series disintegration of an element tr~ough both
alpha and beta decay will often produce isotopes
I of the original element.
In atomic physics, it is conventional to
express energy in terms of elec~ron-volts. An
electron-volt is equal to 1.6 x 10- 12 ergs; it is
further defined as the kinetic energy required by
an electron to move through a potential difference
of one volt. Since the electron-volt is a rather
small unit, thousands of elect:ron-volts (Kev) ,
I and millions of electron-volts (Mev) have been
adopted as standard units. Occasionally, units
of electron-volts (ev), and billions of electron-
volts (Bev) are used. Alpha particles will nor-
mally exhibit energies in the range of several
Mev; beta particles have no normal energy range --
some are as low as one ev, whereas some are as
high as ten Mev. Gamma rays have energies in the
order of one Mev for naturally occurring decay.
It is interesting to note that cosmic rays have
energies in the order of several Bev, and are
capable of penetrating ten to fifteen feet of
lead.
Nuclear reactions can be expressed in a
1253-G ALBIN J. ZAK AND JOE ED SMITH
manner similar to chemical reactions. The state-
ment must involve at least four terms: target,
(projectile, product) residual. The projectile
and product particles are commonly abbreviated.
A classic example would be that of a lithium 7
atom* being bombarded with an energetic proton.
Since the proton has a positive charge, it will
experience an electrostatic repulsion as it ap-
proaches the nucleus of the lithium atom; but if
the proton is accelerated to a sufficiently high
energy level, it will penetrate inside the nuclear
radius where the strong, short-range attractive
forces are at work. At this point, the proton
will disappear into the nucleus of the Li7 atom,
forming an excited nucleus. This nucleus will
then split into the product particle (0<) and the
residual nucleus (He~). Fau124 estimates that
the time necessary for this process is in the
order of 10-12 seconds. This reaction is written:
Li 7 + p+_o<-tHe'f or more commonly, L', 7(p +,0<) He'+.
If the projectile and product particles are the
same, the process is known as scattering. The
scattered particle (product) will always have
less energy than the projectile particle because
some of the energy will be transferred to the
residual nucleus as kinetic recoil energy. This
scattering process should be carefully noted
it is the cardinal principle upon which the
gamma ray-density log is based. The process will
be discussed in detail after introductory mater-
ial on gamma radiation has been presented.
One other definition must be stated before
going into the discussion of the nuclear disin-
tegration processes. It is possible to express
the probability of a projectile particle inter-
acting with a target nucleus in terms of nuclear
cross sections. The cross section is said to be
large when the probability of a reaction is very
higb, and conversely, the cross section is said
to be low when the probability of a reaction is
remote. Nuclear cross sections vary over a wide
range; they are dependent on the type of particles
energy of particles, type of target, and type of
process. The common unit of nuclear cross section
is the barn (10- 24 cm 2 ). This concept of cross
sections will be used later to help explain
gamma ray attenuation.
It took many years to define the nuclear
disintegration processes in terms of mathematical
expressions. The first significant conclusion
was that the amount of radioactivity of a pure
substance decreases with time according to some
parabolic or hyperbolic function. It was later
observed that radioactive decay is statistical in
nature, that it could not be predicted when any
given atom would disintegrate, and that some sta-
tistical hypothesis would have to be developed to
explain the process. 28 ,3 1 Although it was a long
time before the contemporary, exponential law of
* Superscripts above names of elements are Atomic
Masses and not reference numbers in the
Bibliography.
3
nuclear disintegration was fully accepted by the
scientific world, its mathematical development is
very simple: It is observed that the1loss in
radioactive nuclei (-dN) that occurs during an
interval (Jt) is directly proportional to the
total number of nuclei (N) that is present after
the time (d t ). Thus,
. . . . (1)
where ~ is a proportionality constant. By
separation of variables,
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
jNdN =-1j\\\
Integrating Eq. 2 leads to:
dt:
.... (2)
Using algebra, Eg. 3 will simplify to: N = ce-~t
where C = some constant of integration. The
constant C can be evaluated by setting t = 0,
such that N = C; therefore, C must be equal to
No, where No is the number of radioactive nuclei
present at t = O. Hence, the classic exponential
law of nuclear disintegration is normally written:
N . . . . (4)
where'\. is a constant universally called the
disintegration constant. The time required for No
to decrease to Noh is called the half-life (T)
or decay period. By Eq.,
_~T . . . . (5)
I/,'\ ... I
T\NoJ = l'-loe
Using algebra, Eg. 5 clears to:
\T = LOSe Z. .... (6)
Eg. 6 then becomes:
. (6a)
where T is the half-life of the substance. Since
N and No are very difficult numbers to measure,
the exponential law is often expressed in terms
of:
where R is the disintegration rate or nuclear
activity of the material. (Halliday28 presents
adequate explanation of this paramet~r.) It
will suffice here to say that R- dN or something
-(ff
proportional to it. The decay period (1l) is
normally found by plotting Log R vs t. From Eq. 7
it can be seen that ~ is the slope of the straight
line through these data, thereby allowing the
4 GAMMA RAY-DENSITY LOGGING
calculation ofT with Eq. 6a. This technique is
important with respect to the calibration of the
density log. Before an instrument is put into
service, it is necessary first to calibrate the
instrument response with the radioactive source,
usually Cobalt (A = 60). Then as the tool is put
into actual use, it is necessary to know the
strength of the radioactive source at all times
in order to utilize the calibration curves. Since
the strength of the C060 is constantly decreasing
by radioactive decay, it is necessary to apply
the exponential law to predict the source strength
at any time.
An enlightening subject in the study of
nuclear radiation is the radioactivity decay
series. There are numerous series; only the
heavy end elements of the nuclear chart have been
thoroughly explored in this respect. Most of the
other radioactive elements are too short-lived to
be followed in a decay series. There are four
recognized heavy disintegration series~ Thorium,
Neptunium, Uranium-Radium, and Actinium. The
heavy end elements are best known because of their
rather long-lived radioactive members. The
Thorium series is illustrated on Fig. 1. Reac-
tions that move from left to right occur through
alpha emission, whereas reactions that move up or
down occur through some type of beta decay. Note
that isotopes are formed only through the com-
bined efforts of both alpha and beta radiation.
An excellent example of this would be Uranium-
240 decaying to Uranium-236 in three steps~
(a) U
"2.40
--. Np
7...'l-C>
+ f-
N;4\) ~ 9u '?\ r-
2 shorter wavelength which consequently explains
(b)
(c) PUL'f() ~ U U\, ~
Before discussing gamma emission, it can be
pointed out here that nuclei do not change in A
or Z due to gamma radiation; however, there is a
loss of nuclear energy.
An interesting aspect of the nuclear dis-
integration process is that a great many nuclei
decay by two or more types of radiation. An ex-
ample from Fig. 1 will illustrate this phenome-
non: Ac 224 will decay by alpha emission to Fr 220
in X per cent of the disintegrations and by
positron decay to Ra22)~ in Y per cent of the
disintegrations. X and Yare experimentally
determined; X + y: 100 per cent. By differen-
tiation of Eq. 7, rt.(l£) (~~t =- ,and
\ tv) :: - (~:)y R- \ . Also, ' \6t- ... '<) = \l)()
where ~(x), ,\(y) 'and Y\h+ y ) are the diSintegration ticles: (1) basic interaction with atomic
constants for 0<. decay, f3 decay, and the combined
decay. From the given data:
1253-G
~~
IDO \Cxt,()
I f the period (T) is known, then,\(x), '\.(y) and
\(x+y) can be calculated. Halliday28 has given
adequate treatments to this matter. He states
that the type of detector is unimportant; it can
be counting alpha particles, positrons, or both -
a plot of Log R vs t will always give the same
period rO.693 J. The period ~ is that
h(x+y) J \(y)
period which would occur if the alpha decay did
not occur simultaneously with the positron decay.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
The reader is referred to the literature for
detailed discussions of the exact nature of alpha
and beta emission. No attempt will be made to
present such information in this paper since ~
and (3 have very little direct bearing on gamma
ray-density logging. Gamma emission is the im-
portant process here and will be treated in
such a manner as to give sufficient explanation
of the behavior of the gamma ray-density log.
Gamma rays are highly penetrating radiations
that originate in radioactive materials; they are
unaffected by electric or magnetic fields. Gamma
radiation is actually a part of the classic
electromagnetic spectrum -- their wavelength is
in the order of 0.1 Angstrom Uni.t or less, an ex-
tremely high frequency. Cosmic rays have some-
what shorter wavelengths and X-rays have slightly
longer wavelengths. The differences between
gamma rays and cosmic rays are not fully under-
stood at this time. The only known difference
is that cosmic rays have a higher frequency and
their higher energy level and greater penetrat-
ing power. The only difference between X-rays
0<... and gamma rays is that X-rays originate within
the radioactive atom, outside the nucleus; where-
as gamma rays always originate from within the
nucleus. Gamma rays and X-rays are otherwise
identical. Although seldom the case, it is pos-
sible to have gamma rays existing at energy
levels less than the normal X-rays energy level.
The nomenclature of gamma rays and X-rays is
purely a matter of their atomic origin. These
definitions are greatly simplified, but are ade-
quate for the purpose of this paper. Semat's
discussion of gamma rays and X-rays offers an
academic treatment of the subject matter. Since
there is no difference in the type of inter-
actions that gamma rays and X-rays (of the same
R-' energy level) have with matter, this paper will
use the generic term "photon" to mean either or
both.
~ \l\')
Interaction of Photons with Matter
. • . . (8)
According to Fan0 22 , there are four kinds
of interaction between photons and atomic par-
electrons, (2) basic interaction with particles
within the nucleus, (3) interaction with electric
1253-G ALBIN J. ZAK AND JOE ED SMITH
field surrounding charged particles, and (4) in-
teraction with meson field surrounding the nu-
cleus. It is further observed that each of these
four kinds of interaction may produce three dif-
ferent effects: photon absorption, elastic
scattering of photon, and inelastic scattering of
photon. Referring to the basic definition of
scattering, the process is called elastic if the
projectile acts upon the target as a whole,
whereas the process is termed inelastic if the
projectile acts upon and produces some effect on
a constituent part of the target. There are
twelve possible interaction processes between
photons and matter. Some of these have never
been observed and exist only as physical hypothe-
ses. It is believed that only four of these
twelve processes have any influence on the gamma
ray-density log: photoelectric absorption, pair-
production, Compton scattering, and Rayleigh
scattering. In all of these processes, the inci-
dent photon is either absorbed or scattered away
by the atom or some part thereof.
In the photoelectric process, a photon ex-
periences a collision with an atomic electron and
immediately disappears. The electron which ab-
sorbs the photon is ejected from its orbit and
retains its own energy plus the photon energy
minus the binding energy of the electron. This
process does not occur for free electrons, and it
is reasoned that the effect is more prevalent for
the tightly bound electrons in the K-shell. Nu-
clear physicists normally treat the photoelectric
effect as an interaction with the entire atom and
not with the ejected electron. Although this
treatment is not exactly correct, it simplified
the theoretical analysis of the process. Because
of the higher energy level of the photon, the
ejected electron generally flies off in the di-
rection of the incident photon. The process is
most likely to occur for gamma ray energies less
than 0.5 Mev and for material with large values
of Z.
In the pair-production process, an energetic
photon is absorbed in or around the nucleus of an
atom, and an electron-positron pair is ejected
from the proximity of the nucleus. If it is
assumed that there is total conservation of
energy in the process,
2
where Er = energy of incident photon, mc = rest scattering. Fano points out that, insofar as the
energy of each member of the pair, E e+ = energy ferent atomic electrons seems to combine coherent-
of the ejected positron and Ee,- ==- energy of the ly. Since the effects of the process are limited
ej~cted negatron. DuMond and Cohen 20 state that to low photon energies (<.0.3 Mev) and dense
mc = 0.511 Mev*. Thus, Ey must be greater than
* mc 2 is defined as the electron energy equivalent ature to support this assumption. 22 ,29,37
2
where m = electron rest-mass, and c = mass -
energy equivalence; refer to DuMond and Cohen for
details.
5
I 1.022 Mev before pair-production can occur since
I this amount of energy is needed to supply the rest
I energy. For large values of E., Ee- is
I
i essentially equal to E_
e +· For the values of
!
I, Eyemmitted by Co "0 Er -Z>'Y\c2.may be shared
,
in any proportions between E e 1- and E e -. Ac-
cording to Halliday, the positron usually receives
more energy since it is accelerated by the nucleus
whereas the negatron is restrained by the nucleus.
The positron will eventually combine with an
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
atomic electron, probably a free electron, and
form two quanta of annihilation energy; i.e., the
positron-electron combination disappears and two
photons appear, each with the rest-mass of an
electron. The negatron is absorbed in a manner
described for beta particles by Faul. The pair-
production effect predominates for energies
greater than 2 Mev and large values of A.
The Compton effect for a single interaction
is quite simple and is mathematically well defined
A photon of moderate energy (0.5 Mev to 2.0 Mev)
collides with a presumably free electron. The
incident photon is briefly absorbed, probably less
than 10- 12 second, and is ejected into a trajec-
tory that is usually slightly different from the
incident path. Since the projectile and product
are identical, the process is called scattering,
commonly written, e-(') r ) e -. This scattering
process is normally considered to be inelastic
since a photon acts upon a constituent electron of
an atom. However, some physicists like to think
of the target electron not only as free but also
as being isolated. In this respect, the process
is elastic. The scattered photon always has less
energy than the incident photon. It can be seen
that after a sufficient number of collisions, the
photon is susceptible to photoelectric absorption.
The recoil electron flies off in the general
direction of the scattered photon.
When a photon is scattered in such a manner
that it loses only a small fraction of its inci-
dent energy, the recoil energy imparted to the
electron is very small. This is especially true
when the incident gamma ray energy is initially
low. When this situation exists, the recoil elec-
tron is sometimes absorbed by an atom or even a
whole molecule. This is a noticeable variation
from the Compton process and is known as Rayleigh
observer can tell, the scattering action of dif-
materials, it will not be discussed in detail and
will not be considered as a measurable factor in
the gamma-gamma log. There are data in the liter-
The three prominent processes that have an
influence on the gamma-gamma log are illustrated
 6 GAMMA RAY-DENSITY LOGGING
0:-;~g~~ -;: :h~- p:otoelec::~c effect, the
photon expells an atomic electron from the K-
shell. In the pair-production process, the
I gamma quantum vanishes, and an electron-positron
pair is produced. The photon is scattered by an
electron in the Compton process; the photon loses
some of its energy, and the electron is recoiled
from the atomic radius. Also, note that there is
a case where the photon passes through the atom
without having any kind of interaction. In fact,
there is always the finite possibility that a
photon will travel through an infinite thickness
of matter without experiencing a collision with
any atomic particle. Through the use of !!good
geometry!!, it is possible to construct a model
that will allow academic treatment of the gamma
ray attenuation problem. The term !!good geome-
try!! was coined by the early experimenters in
this field, and is used to describe the ideal
conditions that are necessary to measure the com-
bined effects of Compton scattering, pair-produc-
tion, and photoelectric effect of photons pene-
trating various absorber materials. Fig. 3,
which will be used to develop the gamma ray at-
tenuation concept, does not illustrate the !!good
geometry!! concept. However, Halliday28 and
Cowan* present experiments utilizing good geome-
try.
In Fig. 3, Po is the number of photons that
enter the absorber and P is the number of photons
that pass through the absorber without having an
interaction. Af is the area of the absorber
face, and x is the absorber thickness, such that
the product of x and Af is the bulk volume of the
absorber. Each dot within the absorber medium
indicates a photoelectric, pair-production or
Compton process. In the first two processes, the
photon is absorbed; in the latter process, the
photon is not absorbed but disappears as far as
the detector is concerned. The reader should be
advised that Fig. 3 is a simplified schematic
diagram of the experimental model, and that the
!!good geometry!! previously mentioned is necessary
in actually making these experiments. It is fur-
ther necessary that the incident photons be mono-
energetic and collimated into narrow beams.
The value of P will depend on the values of
Po and x. If an additional absorber thickness
(dx) is added, P will decrease by (-dP). If stil
another absorber thickness (dx) is added, (P-dP)
will decrease by (-dP). Thus, there is a definitE
mathematical pattern observed:
P C( Pc.lX .(lOa combined effects of photoelectric absorption,
-~~ C{ ~ .I
d)(. . (lOb)
- c\~' ex: (?- ~\» /
dx'
It is hence reasoned, that if P photons pass
through an absorber thickness x, the number of
* See Physics Review, Vol. 74, (1948), page
1841.
1253-G
photons (-dP) that is absorbed or scattered away
in an additional absorber thickness (dx) is pro-
portional to P and to (dx). Therefore,
- dP: k Pdx . . (n)
or
I <I; --\,. ~ clx
The integration yields:
. . . . • . (12)
p:: ?o e- k ): . • • . . .( 13)
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
For narrow, collimated, monoenergetic gamma ray
beams, k is an expression of the probability of a
process per unit thickness of absorber. The con-
cept of nuclear cross sections is immediately
suggested since the chance that a particular re-
action will occur is usually expressed by its
cross section. This may be thought of as an
imaginary disk associated with each nucleus in
the absorber material. Halliday suggests that
each target nucleus be imagined as having been
replaced by its equivalent disk area, with the
plane of the disk perpendicular to the incoming
beam of photons. 28 Hence, it is seen that the
cross section k is some function of the density
(~) of the absorber material:
. . . . . . • (14)
At this point, the theory will be greatly simpli-
fied by stating that:
• . • . . . . . (15)
where~ is the combined mass absorption coeffi-
cient, or attenuation coefficient, of the three
predominant interaction effects. It is immedi-
ately noted tha~ is a function of both incident
photon energy and atomic mass of the absorber
material. The equation of gamma ray attentuation
is now writter":
P'"
-:-pel(
D
1-0 e . . . (16)
P and P~ are normally expressed in units of Mev;
/ in cm /gmj e in gm/cm 3 , and x in cm. Numerous
narrow-beam attenuation experiments have verified
Eq. 16, and have measured values of~ .10,18,21,
29,37
Separate theories have been worked out for
each of the three absorption processes. Remember
tha~ is the attenuation constant for the
pair-production, Compton scattering, and such that:
.(lOc)
where/.. ,"p6 vVc.- are the partial attenuation co-
efficien£s due to photoelectric effect, pair-
production, and Compton scattering~ respectively.
Baker3 has pointed out that the density of the
absorber material will increase when A increases
l253-G ALBIN J. ZAK AND JOE ED SMITH
even though the number of atoms per uni t vOl~eTw~e-: (\ and-A' a~:
remains unchanged. When density increases in
this manner,~ must also increase; but the in-
crease in~is not directly proportional to the
mass number. In the Compton effect~c is di-
rectly proportioned to A; however, in the photo-
electric and pair-production processes~~ and
~ are proportional to some power function of
the value of A. Halliday develops the defini-
tions of the three values o~ in the following
manner:
/h =: n" (s)
/ c n,JS) =0
where S is the equivalent disk area of each tar-
get nucleus; l\a., Ylb , and >lc.. are the number of
atoms, nuclei, and electrons per unit volume of
the absorber.
~
Note that: hQ.'::: r}b .:: NA
V\/
and nc.. =c Z-NA ~
vV
where NA is the number of molecules in a mole of
the absorber substance, ~ is the mass density,
and W the atomic weight. This definition of at-
tenuation coefficient is essentially the same as
that previously presented.
In gamma ray-density logging, the radio-
active source emits photons with energies in the
order of 1.0 to 1.5 Mev. Most of the atoms that
constitute reservoir rocks and interstitial
fluids have nuclei of low A values; hydrogen,
carbon, oxygen, silicon, calcium, magnesium,
sodium, chlorine, sulfur, etc. Hence, the most
predominent process active during a gamma-gamma
log-run is Compton scattering. Since the varia-
tion in~is directly proportional to variations
in A, P is very nearly an exponential function of
~. (Refer to Eq. 16). The reader should note
that P is an indication of the average density
along the traversed path, not the density at the
point from which the photons are scattered. If
it were not for the small amount of photoelectric
absorption and pair-production, a plot of Loge P
vs f would be a straight line, with (~x) as the
slope of the line.
The first attempt to describe the Compton
effect was done with the classic diagram shown
on Fig. 4*. By using the relativistic laws for
conservation of momentum and total energy, an
equation has been derived that predicts the
change in quantum wavelength of the photon per
Compton collision: 18 ,2l,2b
A'_A=~(I-Cos~)
.....
*See A. H. Compton, Bulletin of National Research bers is adequately covered in the literature cited.
Council, Vol. ~, No. 20 (1922).
7
the quantum wavelengths of the
I photon radiation before and after collision, ~
is Planck's Constant, m the electron rest-mass,
c the velocity of light, and~the photon scatter-
ing angle as indicated on Fig. 4. It should be
noted that the wavelength change is not a functio
of the wavelength. By using Eq. 21 and:
\ C
1\= ~ . . . . . . (22)
II
I . . . (23)
I
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
· (100)
where v is the frequency of the photon radiation,
· (18b) and E~is the energy of the photon, the fractional
energy loss in any individual Compton collison can
· (18c) be computed from:
I I Ex:
~ y::::' I+ E("
meZ:
(r
1- vcs-G- )
. . . . (24)
This equation proves that the energy degradation
of scattered photons is quite large for energetic
· (19) photons and large scattering angles. Fig. 5 is a
graph showing the results of calculations made
.(20) with Eq. 24 for gamma ray energies up to 10 Mev
and scattering angles from 50 to 1200 . Naturally,
if -e- -= 0) E/ = E Klien and
Y
Nishima used a quantum mechanics approach to cal-
culate the nuclear cross section per electron for
the Compton process. 33 Their basic assumption is:
the gamma ray energy is so great that all elec-
trons can be considered free. The Klien-Nishima
formula has been well proven by numerous experi-
ments in this field.
'I'he theory of Compton scattering is of pri-
mary importance in the density log, and will be
used throughout the remaining discussion. By ju-
dicious choice of gamma ray source and carefully
engineered source-detector arrangement, the
response of the gamma ray-density logging tool can
be made to depend primarily on the density of the
formation rock and interstitial fluids.
INSTRUMENTATION OF LOGGING DEVICES
Gamma Ray Detection
Radiation detectors that have been used to
date in the gamma ray-density log are of three
general types: (1) ionization chambers; (2)
Geiger-Muller tubes; and (3) scintillation count-
ers. Each type has its own particular advantages
and disadvantages. The following discussion will
present a very brief statement as to the princi-
ples of operation of each, will highlight the
operational characteristics of each, and show how
they are adapted to the problem of gamma-gamma
logging.
(2l)
The theory and operation of ionization cham-
24,48,54,64 Basically, this instrument consists
1-------
8 GAMMA RAY-DENSITY LOGGING
~--~-----"-='------'1
1253-G

of a chamber containing an inert gas. Two
electrodes, usually in the form of concentric
cylinders, are placed within the sealed chamber.
As photons penetrate the wall of the chamber, the
gas molecules will ionize into charged atoms.
If an electric field is set up in the vessel, the!
ions will move toward the electrodes and cause an
electric current to flow that is proportional to
the degree of ionization produced by the radia-
tion entering the chamber. The negative ions
move toward the positive electrode, and con-
versely, positive ions toward the negative elec-
I thin wire replaces the small tube or cylinder used
in the ionization chamber as an anode. Again, the
counter chamber is filled with an inert gas but at
much less pressure (in the order of one atmosphere
or less). There is also an electrical field set-
up across the electrodes of the Geiger counter,
but the field strength is much greater than that
of the ionization chamber. As in the ionization
chamber, the photons that enter the chamber will
ionize gas molecules, but since the electric field
is very strong, the ions are greatly accelerated
as they move toward the electrodes. These highly

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023

trode. A single radiation entering the gas is energized ions will ionize more gas molecules as
capable of creating a large number of ions and they speed through the tube toward the electrode,
producing an electrical impulse; a succession and thereby cause a phenomenon called "ionic
of incoming radiations will produce a succes - avalanche". This avalanche of ions will produce
sion of these electrical impulses. The recorded an electric charge within the tube that is com-
electrical signal can be derived by: (1) count- pletely independent of the energy of the photon
ing the impulses in a given time period; (2) re- that caused it. The pulse height of a Geiger
cording the average current flowing through the counter signal is always the same regardless of
circuit. Should the detector time-constant be the type or energy of the radiation that caused
so small that the ions collect at the electrodes it. The Geiger counter merely counts the number
in less time than the interval between individual of these pulses in a given time, or it can measure
radiations, then the instrument is classified as the average current flowing in the external
a pulse chamber or differential ionization cham- circuit.
ber. In this type of chamber, each ionization
event will produce a pulse that is proportional With respect to gamma ray-density logging,
to the magnitude of the event. the Geiger counter is a desirable detector for
several reasons: (1) a fairly weak photon is
On the other hand, if the ionization chaw- nearly as capable of producing a pulse as a strong
ber has a very long time constant, the succession photon; (2) the magnitude of the output signal is
of impulses will overlap and the current produced of no significance -- only the number of pulses
will be averaged over the time interval. This per time interval are counted; (3) efficiency and
type of detector is termed an integrating ioniza- sensitivity are unaffected by elevated tempera-
tion chamber. It requires an expensive, high- tures; (4) zero reference is well-defined; and (5)
gain, direct current amplifier; its sensitivity it can be used in a small diameter logging tool
is sufficient only when the gas is under high quite readily. The Geiger-Muller tube is undesir-
pressure. As the chamber wall is thickened to able for gamma-gamma logging because short coun-
contain the higher pressures, the counting ef- ters will not give a sufficiently reliable signal
ficiency is drastically reduced. The ionization at practical logging speeds and it has a very poor
chamber is not very suitable for gamma ray-den- measuring efficiency -- less than one per cent of
sity logging for several reasons: (a) the meas- the photons that enter the tube cause the ionic
uring efficiency of integrating chambers is avalanche.
generally very poor; (b) short, small diameter
chambers will not give a sufficiently reliable The scintillation counter is an old instru-
signal at practical logging speeds; (c) an exact ment; nearly fifty years ago, physicists used
zero reference is almost impossible to determine; sphalerite crystals to observe the behavior of
and (d) the small, direct-current, output signal alpha particles. Of course, modern scintillation
requires an intricate and expensive system of counters are far removed from their ancestral
amplifiers, filters, rectifiers, etc. before the models. DiGiovanni, Graveson and Yoli,49
signal can be recorded. Hurley,53 Russell and Scherlatskay,67 Toelke,69
Youmans,71 and Lapp and Andrews31 present abundant
The Geiger-Muller tube was developed by Hans material on the theory, operation and applications
Geiger and Walther Muller in 1928. Since its of modern scintillation counters.
inception, excellent reviews of theory, technique,
and applications of modern Geiger-Muller tubes In Geiger-Muller tubes and ionization cham-
(commonly referred to as Geiger counters) have bers, an electric charge is freed when a radiation
been published by Brown,43 Curtiss,47 Peirson,62 particle creates an ion-pair by acting on the iner
Russell,66 and Slack.68 Lapp and Andrews31 also gas molecules. But in scintillation counters, the
present excellent introductory material in their radiation sets the electrons within a crystal in
nuclear physics textbook. motion (there is no electric field involved).
These excited electrons "bounce-around" within the
A Geiger counter is similar in many respects crystal lattice and cause minute flashes of light
to the ionization chamber. The electrode ar- to be emitted. These tiny light flashes are trans
rangement is the same except for the anode; a mitted through a lense to a photo-multiplier tube.
1253-G ALBIN J. ZAK AND JOE ED SMITH 9

The photo-multiplier has a series of thin,~ight-
sensitive plates mounted in a vacuum. The plates, I
or stages, of the photo-multiplier tube are nega- i
tively charged. As a flash of light strikes the '
first stage, electrons are liberated from the
metal plate. These electrons are expelled at high
velocities because of the negative charge of the
plate. The parabolic shape of the plate and high
kinetic energy of the electrons cause the elec-
trons to strike the plate of the second stage; but
they are immediately repelled and, in so doing,
cause more electrons to be expelled from the
second stage. This routine is repeated for each
'I Large volumes of literature have been writte
that explain how these three basic gamma ray de-
tectors are adapted to practical well logging
tools. (Refs. 38, 39, 48, 50, 52, 56, 66, and
68.) There is an even larger volume of informa-
tion that deals with the calibration, interpreta-
tion, and application of these gamma ray logging
tools. (Refs. 40, 42, 44, 45, 51, 57, 58, 59,
60, 61, 63, 65, and 70.) The remaining portion
of this discussion will review the specific prob-
lems of adapting gamma ray detectors to gamma-
gamma logging, the calibration of these instru-
ments, and the interpretation of the curves re-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023

stage in the tube. The electrons are finally corded by these tools.
collected at the anode near the end of the tube.
This process tremendously multiplies the number Basic Instrument Design
of electrons received at the anode as compared i
with those released from the first stage where the At this time, there are two different gamma
light flash originally fell. The authors are ray-density logging instruments available to the
familiar with a counter that has ten stages and industry: Type I, which uses a radial source and
is capable of multiplying the effect of one scin- a Geiger-Muller detector, and Type II, which uses
tillation one-half million times. a collimated source and scintillation counter.
The Type I tool is available through the Lane-
There are some very definite advantages of Wells Co., Houston, Tex.; Type II is available
scintillation counters over Geiger-Muller counters through the McCullough Tool Co., Los Angeles,
when applied to gamma ray detection: (1) The Calif. If the reader needs more details on a
counting efficiency is much higher than that of specific tool, he should write directly to the
Geiger counters. Sodium iodide crystals currently service company. It is not the purpose of this
in use have better than 90 per cent efficiency. paper to give all the details of any particular
(2) The height of the output signal is proportion- tool. They will be compared only as to type and
al to the energy of the detected photon. (3) as to the response that they give.
Sondes can be constructed that lend themselves to
logging in much thinner beds than tools utilizing Fig. 6 is a schematic drawing of the Type I
G-M counters. (4) In some logging tools, the tool. In the case of a formation logging instru-
zero reference is better defined than in G-M ment, it would be impossible to place a gamma ray
counters. (5) Scintillation counters are rela- source such that the formation would be in a
tively much less affected by cosmic ray-background direct path between the source and detector. How-
radiation. (6) Resolving time is much less than ever, this difficulty can be thwarted due to the
that of the Geiger-Muller tube. fact that most matter has the property of scatter-
ing gamma rays. With respect to the design of a
On the other hand, there are some distinct practical gamma-gamma logging tool, a strong,
disadvantages: (1) Not only is the behavior of gamma ray source can be placed below the detector
the crystal affected by temperature variations, and shielded from the intervening parts of the
but the crystal is damaged beyond restoration at instrument such that leakage radiation up the too~
temperatures above 1400 F. Hence, logging tools or up the borehole fluid, can be kept at a mini-
with scintillation counters must be insulated and mum. Photons from the source will penetrate the
refrigerated for efficient and accurate operation formation, scatter throughout the formation, and
in deep boreholes. (2) Large sodium iodide crys- be ultimately absorbed within the formation, ex-
tals are the most desirable; but the time neces- cept for a small percentage of this scattered
sary to grow such crystals is excessively long. radiation which will find its way back to the de-
Consequently, scintillation crystals are expen- tector. Insofar as the detector is concerned, the
sive. (3) The pulses generated in the photo-mul- scattered gamma rays that reach the detector
tiplier circuitry are very small compared to those appear to come from that portion of the formation
generated in the Geiger-Muller counter, thereby where the scattering occurs. ThiS, in effect,
requiring an intricate and expensive amplifier develops a gamma ray source within the formation.
component. (4) Photo-multiplier tubes create ex- By applying the information gained from the de-
traneous "noise signals" that are observed in the velopment of Eq. 16, it is seen that the Geiger
output signals. A discrimination circuit must be counter will respond to the changes in natural
employed to eliminate pulses ariSing from this formation denSity that occur between the spurious
source. (5) The scintillation crystal and photo- gamma ray source and the detector tube. As the
multiplier tube must be housed in total darkness. logging tool is moved up the hole, the Geiger-
(6) Even with the most expensive models, it is im- Muller counter responds as if a gamma ray source
pOSSible, at the present time, to manufacture were moving with the logging instrument but back
photo-multiplier tubes that operate at the same in the formation at an indeterminate, fixed dis-
noise level and same sensitivity. This compli- tance from the counter. Fig. 6 is designed to
cates the calibration roblem.
10 GAMMA RAY_::Q~~__L_OG_G_IN_G__~~~~~~~~~~~~~--=12=.,5,,-,,3'---=,G
illustrate most of these concepts. The source i large vertical angle of emission but also a large
material in the Type I tool is radioactive cobalt;!
the photons emitted from C060 are polyenergetic,
but the 1.1 Mev and 1.3 Mev gamma rays are pre- i dimensions. (2) The detector does not discrimi-
dominant. Lead is used to shield the source from I
the detector, and it appears that the efficiency I
of this shielding is quite sufficient. However,
some of the gamma rays will escape the source I 1.5 Mev. As to the depth of the effective scat-
chamber and enter the mud column. The probabilit~
that some of these photons will find their way I spacing and C060 source, it is highly probable
back to the detector through the mud is higher
than leakage across the shielding. Naturally, thel
magnitude of the error imposed on the density log i
due to this leakage is related to the mud density,'
hole diameter, and source-detector spacing. The
authors have found that the error is significant
for mud densities less than 14 lb/gal; the error
for muds heavier than 14 lb/gal is detectable but
diminishes rapidly with increasing density. The
error due to this leakage increases as borehole
diameter increases. Since the source-detector
spacing is always the same for any given instru-
ment, this factor in the leakage error is a con-
stant value. Inasmuch as this inherent leakage
affects the response of the density log, the re-
corded amplitude on the density log curve there-
fore requires a correction for both borehole
diameter and density of the borehole fluid be-
fore an accurate interpretation of the gamma-
gamma log in terms of formation density can be
made.
Some of the other features of this tool are:
strong bow-spring that holds the instrument
against the side of the borehole wall; shoulder
that wipes the mud cake from the borehole wall --
the reproducibility of the density log indicates
that this is highly effective except for sands of
extremely high permeability; and natural gamma ray
activity of the formation is eliminated from the I
detector by shielding the counter completely with I
lead. Two small "windows", consisting of a much
lighter material than lead, permit the moderate,
scattered gamma rays to enter the G-M counter, but
absorb the soft, natural gamma rays.
As a compromise between detector efficiency
and the critical relationship of source-detector
spacing to formation boundary definition, it has
been found that the most desirable spacing from
the midpoint of the detector to the source seems
to be about 18 to 20 in. for an optimum detector
length of ten in. When time-constant and logging
speed are considered, the reader will see the ad-
vantage of these suggested dimensions.
Some excellent reviews have been prepared
on the Type I gamma ray-density logging tool. The
reader will find of particular interest the works
of Anderson,l Campbell and Wilson,5 Newton,
Skinner, and Silverman,7 and Faul and Tittle. 6
There are two features of this Type I tool
that should be noted: (1) The source emits gamma
rays in a radial pattern -- not only is there a
I
polar angle. There has been no previous attempt
II to define the resulting scattering region with
nate against the photons that it receives; it
treats them all the same. A photon of 0.5 Mev
energy will produce the same result as a photon of
tering region, for the 20 in. source-detector
that gamma rays penetrating more than six in. of
formation will experience scattering at such large
values of -e- that the scattered radiation will suc-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
cumb to photoelectric absorption before it reaches
the Geiger counter. This prediction is based on
calculations made with Eq. 24 for the 1.1 and 1.3
Mev photons. The Klein-Nishina formula will pre-
dict a slightly deeper scattering region.
The Type II instrument operates with a some-
what different physical arrangement of source and
detector, and the response of the tool is conse-
quently different from that of the Type I tool.
Fig. 7 is a schematic drawing of such a logging
tool. This tool also has a bow-spring to hold the
instrument in close contact with the formation
wall, and a shoulder to wipe the mud cake from
the borehole wall. The gamma ray source in this
tool is collimated into a narrow beam; both the
vertical angle and polar angle are small. This
geometry also applies to the detector opening.
The detector and source are shielded in a manner
similar to that of the Type I sonde. As can be
seen from Fig. 7, the scattered photons that are
accepted by the scintillation counter are those
that are scattered back in "one-shot" from the
scattering region. However, some extraneous
photons will find their way into the detector
opening, but in order to do so they must undergo
multiple scattering, and thereby will have lost
more energy than those received from the "one-
'I'
shot" scattering region. Since the scintillometer
has a pulse height discriminator in its circuitry,
it is possible to "pick-out" particular photons
and record only that effect which is due to the
Compton process that occurs in the small, well-
defined scattering region. By using the physical
arrangement depicted on Fig. 8, it is possible to
calculate the average scattering angle (t8, aver-
age depth of scattering (hs ), average length of
photon path (-y.+;t,'), and energy of the scattered
photon (EY)' The only data needed for this cal-
culation is energy of incident photon (E (") ,
source-detector spacing (b), and collimation angle
(I). Of course, this calculation assumes mono-
energetic gamma radiation from the source. Since
such a borehole source is impossible, it is neces-
sary to choose the most predominant energy level
of the source photons, calculate Ey', and discri-
minate the pulse height which represents E; .
There are several articles that have been
published in recent months which describe gamma
ray-density logging tools utilizing collimated
sources and scintillometers. Of particular
12 -G ALBIN J. ZAK AND JOE ED
interest is the works of Baker,3,11 Caldwell, 4, 16 I
Sippel and Hodges,9 and Caldwell and Sippel. 1 7
The scintillation counter and its associated!
electronic components are very intricate and delil
cate. The behavior of the crystal is extremely i
sensitive to temperature changes above 80 0 F, and I
the necessity of insulating and refrigerating
the counter cannot be over emphasized. It is
felt that a large majority of the early sondes
were insufficiently protected against the temper-
atures encountered in wellbores. Photo-multi-
plier tubes are difficult to calibrate with re-
spect to a common reference due to the dissimi- i
larity of tubes even of the same make and model. I
Pulse height discrimination is a relatively new I
technique as applied in gamma-gamma logging, al- I
though it is a standard procedure in X-ray
analysis.
To the present time, the Type I sonde has
been more widely used in the Mid-Continent and
Gulf Coast areas. Consequently, calibration
curves and interpretation aids on this tool are
readily available. The Type I tool has a
limited-detail caliper that ,is run simultaneously
with the gamma-gamma curve, thus eliminating the
chance of miscorrelation of "wash-outs" on the
density log.
Calibration of Instrument
The attenuation of gamma rays using good
geometry and monoenergetic, narrow, collimated,
gamma ray beams is predicted by Eq. 16. The
Compton process is well-defined with Eqs. 21 and
24, but only for a monoenergetic photon experi-
encing a single scattering in one plane. The
complete process of gaJJllDa ray scattering and ab-
sorption is so complex that it is mathematically
prohibitive to attempt computing the response of
this instrument in a borehole. Consequently, the
preliminary calibrations were made in special
test holes of several diameters. Rocks and spe-
cial concrete mixtures of known density were used
as the scattering media. When the density log-
ging tools were used in the field with boreholes
that had been cored, values of density derived
from core analysis were correlated with density
measured with the gamma-gamma log. This combina-
tion of data has been used to construct the basic
calibration charts necessary for density log
interpretation. In the case of the Type I tool,
these charts (See Fig. 10) give density log de-
flections as a function of natural rock density
(e~) for any instrument response factor (IRF) at
various values of borehole diameter (D) and
borehole fluid density (~~). Campbell and
Wilson5 have presented an excellent review of the
calibration of this tool, source strength and
sensitivity adjustments, and mud weight and hole
size corrections.
The calibration curve for the Type II
density log instrument is much less complex than
c:=SM~IT""H,=--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-=l=-,l
I those of Type I. Baker 3 indicates that there are
I no borehole diameter effects for smooth holes
I and little or no effects due to the presence of
borehole fluid. The reason for this is that the
scintillation detector and pulse height discrim-
inator accepts and records the gamma ray energy
band that corresponds to Compton processes that
i occur in the predetermined scattering region.
iI Fig. 8 shows how the various dimensions of the
I physical arrangement of source and detector can
be controlled such that Eg. 24 will allow the
I prediction of the scattered photon energy to be
accepted and recorded. Although this tool great-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
ly reduces the number of back scattered photons
that are accepted by the detector, its statis-
tical accuracy is comparable to the Geiger
counter tool; this is because the scintillometer
I has a measuring efficiency about 100 times great-
I er than Geiger-Muller tubes. Caldwell and
Sippel1 7 present some interesting conclusions on
calibration and response of the Type II tool.
I Baker is optimistic enough to anticipate that a
I universal calibration curve will be established
in the near future for the Type II instrument.
Until better electronic components for the de-
tector system are available, it is necessary to
have an individual calibration curve for each
field tool.
Fig. 10 is an example of the density log
calibration curves for the Type I sonde. Note
that the curves are for borehole diameters of
6, 10, 16, and 26 in.; the IRF is 300.00; and
the borehole fluid density is 11.0 lb/gal. The
calibration curves are available through the
logging company for values of IRF from 100 to
350, and for the following borehole fluid den-
sities: air, 8.34, 11.0, 14.0, 16.0, and 18.0
lb/gal.
Since the amplitude of any density log curve
is proportional to the response factor of the
instrument with which the log is made, it is al-
ways necessary to calculate the instrument re-
sponse factor (IRF) for each log-run before any
interpretation can be made: From the log heading,
obtain values of source strength (6) and instru-
ment factor (F). By the method illustrated on
Fig. 9, determine the instrument sensitivity (bS).
Find the instrument response factor by:
• . (25)
The value of IRF is usually between 250 and 300.
If the log deflections of any number of logs are
adjusted to a COJJllDon IRF, the curves can be com-
pared directly with only small corrections for
borehole diameters and borehole fluid necessary.
Before interpreting for values of natural forma-
tion density, the log deflections must be cor-
rected by use of charts similar to Fig. 10. More
often than not, an interpolation between curves
and between charts will be necessary. There are
several methods of making such interpretations.
The authors have worked out an accurate but
12 GAMMA RAY -DENBITY LOGc--=-:cG-=ING'-'-'-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _l_25'--'3'---------,G
com:~~-ca-ted-tr~-p-l-e-l-·n-t-~r-p-o-l-a-t-ion-p-r-o-c-e-d-ur-~.--F-o-r- I
methods of statistical correlations, curve fit- I
ting and curve interpolation, see Ref. 75, 76, i
77,78,85,88,89. The entire interpretation isl,
programed on an electronic digital computer I tions and follow the general lithology of an
(IBM 650) thus minimizing the manual efforts.
A brief note on statistical error, sensitiv-
ity, time-constant, and logging speed is in order
A very comprehensive analysis of these parameters
is presented in literature published by Lane-
Wells Co.56 Any geologist or engineer confronted
with the analysis of radioactivity logs should
have a thorough understanding of these factors.
Assuming that the reader is familiar with this
subject matter, this paper will recognize a few
of the important points that apply specifically
to gamma ray-density logging:
(A) Make certain that the log quality is
sufficient. Experience is the best formula here,
but the "quality index number" makes a good rule
of thumb for the inexperienced. This number is
the ratio of the distance between maximum and
minimum deflections of the logged section to the
distance between maximum and minimum peaks on the
statistical recording. This index number should
be greater than five for safe interpretation.
Experience in local areas may indicate that a
much higher quality index should be expected for
reliable interpretation.
(B) The density logging instruments auto-
matically correct for lag. It is important that
the logging reference point on the sonde is under
stood in this respect.
(c) Normally, density logs are run at speed
from 20 ft/min to 50 ft/min. Logging speed is an
important parameter with regard to density log
interpretation, and logging speed and time-con-
stant should be selected such that good log
quality is assured.
(D) Repeat runs should be made over the
sections of interest along zero and statistical
checks. Instrument sensitivity should be deter-
mined both before and after the log is run.
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATIONS
Geologic Applications
It is anticipated that the density log will
have great utility to the geophysicist, petrole-
um geologist and engineer. DenSity measurements
will expedite the solution of a great number of
geophysical problems that are common in explora-
tion work. Values of natural density are im-
portant in the interpretation of gravity meter
surveys. Newton, Skinner, and Silverman 7 were
among the first to use a density logging tool for
this purpose. Geologists were later able to make
use of the concept. It has been used in several
localities as a correlation log. When a forma-
tion is known to be homogenous and non-porous, or
only slightly porous, the density log makes an
excellent log from which to construct cross sec-
area.
Estimation of Porosity from Formation Density
The density log measures the average or
composite density of the formation near the bore-
hole walls. Therefore, the fluids filling the
pore spaces are averaged into the value of forma-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
tion density that is determined from the density
log. This value of formation density shall be
referred to as "natural denSity" (~n)' The defi-
nition of "natural density" should be differenti-
ated from "bulk density". The bulk density (~" )
is the composite density of the formation grains
and the void pore spaces, whereas natural denSity
accounts for the presence of fluids in the pore
spaces. The relationship between porOSity, grain
density, fluid density, and natural denSity is
~::: eC] -€n. X 100 . . • . (26)
~~ - e-f
where e~ is the density of the individual sand
grains, and efis the weighted average density of
the fluids filling the pore spaces.
Presented below is an account of a procedure
used by the authors in estimating porosity for a
large, multi-zoned reservoir. In this applica-
tion of the density log, several modifications
were necessary. There were 39 wells having den-
sity logs, 16 of which also had core analyses in
some of the sands. Of the available density log~
34, or 87 per cent, were run in oil base mud,
with the average mud density being 10.0 lb/gal.
Also, 29 wells, or more than 74 per cent of the
wells with density logs, had 9-1/2 in. boreholes
through the productive interval. Therefore, it
was decided that density log calibrations would
first be made based on the response of an instru-
ment run in a 9-1/2 in. hole with 10.0 lb/gal oil
base mud. It was also decided that all deflec-
tion readings would be adjusted, for convenience,
to an instrument response factor (IRF) of 300.
It was first necessary to interpolate be-
tween the calibration charts to get a curve for
10.0 lb/gal mud. Using Eq. 26, and = 1.00 er
gm/cc and e~ = 2.65 gm/cc as suggested by Campbell
and Wilson, initial calculations from this chart
were consistently higher than those reported by
the core analyses. This is to be expected because
denSity log deflections are related to total poro-
sity whereas core analyses measures effective
porOSity. Using core analyses data, grain densi-
ties were calculated from the information on the
original data sheets. Several hundred of these
grain densities were calculated from the core
data, and the average value for (e~) derived from
1253-G ALBIN J. UK AND JOE ED SMITH
- I
these calculations was 2.647 gm/cc, confirming
the assumed value.
I in the form of a cross plot of borehole diameter
The influence of the type of fluid lost to
the formation on wells logged in oil base mud was
considered to be significant. It was assumed
that any infiltration that took place around the
walls of the borehole would tend to increase the
oil saturation in the invaded zone. Since the
density log investigates to about four to six in.
behind the wellbore, it is the saturation distri-
bution within the flushed zone that is of inter-
est. Standard evaluation of the oil base core I were in close agreement with core analysis data
fluid saturations provided a means for determin- I
ing So/Sw distribution within the flushed zone.
(See Ref. 82, 83, 84, 96, 97, 102, 112, 114, 119.~
Electronic digital computers were used to sort
and compute this information from the core analy-
sis data, and an average value of So/Sw = 70/30
was derived. It was then assumed that the 30 per
cent water was formation water and 70 per cent
of the total pore volume contained a mixture of
the original reservoir oil and a common diesel
fuel (drilling fluid filtrate). By using the
values of density for the water, reservoir oil,
and diesel fuel at reservoir conditions of tem-
perature and pressure, a composite or average
formation fluid density (ff) within the invaded
zone was computed as 0.795 gm/cc.
By interpolating on the calibration charts
for a 10.0 Ib/gal mud, the foregoing equation was
solved using e~ = 0.795 gm/cc and a borehole
diameter of 9-1/2 in. The results were plotted
on a semi-log graph of density log derived
porosity vs density log deflection in inches. At
this point, it is usually necessary to make em-
pirical corrections to effective porosity.
In a similar manner, the computations were
repeated for density logs run in 9-1/2 in. holes
drilled with a 10.0 Ib/gal water base mud. These
two curves were the basis of the interpretation
of the density logs, and the following set of
conditions was stipulated with respect to their
use:
(1) Bore hole diameter = 9-1/2 in. - 1/2 in.
(2) Drilling fluid density = 10.0 Ib/gal -
0.4 Ib/gal
(3) Density log deflections corrected to
IRF = 300
(4) Average grain density = 2.647 gm/cc
(5) Ef = 0.795 (oil base mud) or 0.926
(water base mud)
(6) Bed thickness ~4 ft
(7) Logging speed? 20 but.::... 50 n/min
(8) Time constant consistent with bed thick-
ness and logging speed
(9) Consistent borehole geometry
It was evident that suitable corrections were
necessary when the drilling fluid density and
borehole diameter did not fit conditions (1) and
(2). The calibration charts prepared by the
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-=1""'3
-
I logging company were used to determine the mag-
nitude of these corrections. They were prepared
- drilling fluid density - density log deflection
correction factor. The curves were then stored
in the computer and calculations of porOSity were
made in rapid order.
No interpretations were made in some sands
because of poor borehole geometry, close prox-
imity to the water table, insufficient bed thick-
ness, etc. Generally, the interpretations made
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
as is shown on the two examples of core analysis
porosity vs corrected density log-derived poro-
sity given on Fig. 11. Such consistent agree-
ment promotes the acceptance of the density log
as an effective tool for estimating porosity.
After working with density logs from many
other fields; there are several conclusions the
authors have reached in respect to porosity
estimation:
(1) The type and denSity of drilling fluid
filtrate will have a very definite effect on the
interstitial fluid density (e~) within the in-
vaded zone. Of course, hydrostatic head of mud
column, formation type, formation permeability,
drilling rate, etc. will also have an effect on
ef· One approach is suggested which uses simple
flood-pot test to determine the average residual
oil or average irreducible water saturations.
The interpreter then assumes that complete flush-
ing to residual oil occurs within the four or six
in. of formation examined by the density log.
Hence, if water base mud is used, he reasons that
the interstitial fluid denSity is determined by
connate water saturation+ residual oil satura-
tion + invaded filtrate saturation. Values of
pressure and temperature are easily estimated.
The majority of the material in Reference Group
V will be helpful in determining an accurate
value of ~f' Core analYsis data is of paramount
importance in this respect.82,84,101,102~113
Preliminary reports on displacement logging are
encouraging in this respect. lll ,120 A study of
the hydraulics of the invasion process is of
interest.97,98,112,119
(2) It is recognized that grain density has
an appreciable effect on porosity interpretation
and specific measurements should be made wheneve;
possible. When cores are taken, it is inexpen-
sive and convenient to obtain grain denSity data.
The laboratory measurement and calculation from
core analYSis of grain denSity is quite simple.
93,9 4 ,99, 10 5,110
*The authors' experience in density log interpre-
tation include Northeast Texas, Upper Texas Gulf
Coast, Mississippi-Alabama Gulf Coast, Southwest
Texas, Permian Basin, South Central Oklahoma, and
Paradox Basin.
14 GAMMA RAY-DENS:rrY LOGGING
(3) Borehole geometry is important.
Through experience the log analyst must learn to
recognize the effects of poor borehole geometry.
(4) Porosity values developed from core
analysis data should be used in the development
of field calibration curves. The analysis should
include porosity, permeability, fluid saturations,
grain density, and rock descriptions. Adequate
core data must be available to construct the
field calibration curves and to check the valid-
ity of this correlation as the field develops.
An interesting evaluation of the density log
as a porosity tool is presented by Northcote. 8
It is unfortunate that similar such investiga-
tions have not been published on other area of
activity. The work of Andersonl highlights ef-
fects of variations in grain density and inter-
stitial fluid density on density log-derived
porosity.
other Applications of Density Logging
Gamma ray-density logging instruments are
finding other useful applications. Caldwell and
Sippel1 7 give an account of a borehole fluid
density tool and a cement-top locator. The for-
mer device has application in locating casing
leaks or making gradient surveys. Sippel and
Hodges9 have presented a tool that is used to
log LPG storage wells for the location of fluid
interfaces. McLendon59 cites a density logging
device used to locate gas sands. Campbell and
Wilson5 suggest that the tool may be useful in
sulfur prospecting. The future applications of
the density log are prospectively unlimited; the
tool can be run in any borehole in any type of
fluid. Its usefulness will be limited only by
the wellbore conditions which prevent the precise
measurements of density.
REFERENCES
General information concerning the interpre-
tation and application of density logs is listed
under Group I; more specific information on the
theory, physical principles, instrumentation,
and logging techniques are listed in Groups II
and III. Research workers and log analysts will GROUP II
find literature of interest in all five groups.
The five reference groups are defined as
follows:
Group I: Direct reference to interpreta- 11. Baker, P. E.: ''Neutron Capture Gamma Ray
tion and application of density logs; brief dis-
cussions of physical principles.
Group II: Theoretical aspects of the den-
sity log; academic treatment of the physical laws
governing the behavior of gamma rays.
Group III: Detailed survey of instrumen-
tation and logging techniques involving the
1253-G
I
~--~~
detection and counting of gamma rays.
Group IV: Correlation of phenomenological
laws with mathematical expressions; elementary
and advanced theory of statistical correlations;
and methods of curve fitting and curve interpo-
lation.
Group V: Petrophysics of petroleum
reservoir materials; evaluation of interstitial
fluid properties and interstitial fluid hydrau-
lics with respect to the quantities measured by
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
the density log.
GROUP I
1. Anderson, R. H.: "Applications of the
Densilog", (Paper originally presented at the
Oklahoma Geological Society Annual Meeting,
Oklahoma City, Spring, 1958).
2. "New Logging Technique Measures Density and
Porosity", World Oil (Dec., 1954) m, 7.
3· Baker, P.E.: "Density Logging with Gamma
Rays", Trans •.• AIME (1957) 210, 289-294.
4. Caldwell, Richard L.: "Using Nuclear Methods
in Oil Well Logging", Nucleonics (Dec., 1958)
16, 12, 58-65.
5· Campbell, John L. P., and Wilson, John C.:
"Density Logging in the Gulf Coast Area",
Jour. Pet. Tech., (July, 1958) 10, 7, 21-25.
6. Faul, Henry, and Tittle, C. W.: "Logging of
Drill Holes by the Neutron-Gamma Method and
Gamma Ray Scattering", Geophysics, (1951) 16,
261-276.
7· Newton, G. R., Skinner, J. E., and Silver-
man, Daniel: "Subsurface Formation Density
Logging", Geophysics, (1954) 12, 3, 636 -
abstract. (Paper originally presented at
24th Annual Meeting of Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, St. Louis, Mo., April 12-15,
195 4 ) •
8. Northcote, K. E.: "A Preliminary Investiga-
tion of the Density Log As A Porosity Log",
Canadian Oil and Gas Industries, (April, 1958
97-106.
9· Sippel, R. F., and Hodges, D.: "Simplified
Gamma Ray Technique Used in LPG Storage Well
Logging", Pet. Engr. (1958) 3Q, 4, B-u8.
10. Aronson, R., and Goldstein, H.: "Status of
Calculations of Gamma Ray Penetration", NDA
Report No. 15C-l, (1952), Nuclear Develop-
ment Associates, White Plains, N. Y.
Spectra of Earth Formations", Jour. Pet. Tech.
(March, 1957) 2, 3·
12. Belcher, D. J., Herner, R. C., Cuykendall,
T. R., and Sack, H. S.: "Use of Radioactive
Material to Measure Soil Moisture and Den-
sity", AS'lM Tech. Paper No. 134 (1953)
American SOCiety of Testing Engineers,
Philadelphia, Pa., 10-22.
13. Bitter, Francis M.: Nuclear Physics (1950)
1253-G
14.
Addison-Wesley and Co., cambri~::::~. ANDI3:~E :lm~::.
ZAK
Blatt, S. M., and Weisskopf, V. F.: Theo-,
retical Nuclear Physics, (1952) John Wiley
and Sons, New York, N. Y.
15· Caldwell, Richard L.: "Gamma Radiation from
Inelastic Scattering of 14-Mev Neutrons in
the Common Earth Elements", Bull., Am. Phy- I
sics Society, Series II (Feb. 24, 1956)},
No.2, 90.
16. Caldwell, Richard L.: "Nuclear Physics in
Petroleum Exploration Research", World Pet.
(1956) ~, No.4, 59.
17· Caldwell, Richard L., and Sippel, Robert F.:
I~ew Developments in Radioactive Well Log-
ging Research", Bull., AAPG (Jan., 1958) 42,
No.1, 159-171.
18. Compton, A. H., and Allison, S. K.: X-Rays
in Theory and Experiment, (1935) D. Van Nos-
trand and Co., New York, N. Y.
19· Dienes, C. J.: "Radiations Effects in
Solids", Annual Review of Nuclear Science
(1953) g, 187-220.
20. DuMond, J. W. M., and Cohen, E. R.: "Least-
Squares Adjustment of the Atomic Constants",
Reviews in Modern Physics (1953) £2, 691-708.
2l. Evans, R. D., and Evans, O. R.: "Studies of
Self-Absorption in Gamma Ray Sources", Re-
view of Modern Physics (1948) 20, 305-326.
22. Fano, Ugo: "Gamma Ray Attenuation",
Nucleonics (1953) 11, No.8, 8-12 and No.9,
56-61. --
23· Fano, Ugo: "Principles of Radiological
Physics", National Bureau of Standards Report
No. 1002 (1951) U. S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D. C.
24. Faul, Henry, et al: Nuclear Geology, (1954)
John Wiley and Sons, New York, N. Y.
25· Fermi, Enrico: Nuclear Physics, (1950)
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
26. Friedlander, G., and Kennedy, J. W.: Intro-
duction to Radiochemistry, (1949) John Wiley
and Sons, New York, N. Y.
27· Glasstone, S. H.: Sourcebook on Atomic
Energy, (1950) D. Van Nostrand and Co., New
York, N. Y.
28. Halliday, David: Introduction to Nuclear
PhYSics, 2nd Edition, (1955) John Wiley and
Sons.
29· Hirshfelder, J. 0., Magee, J. L., and Hull,
M. H.: "The Penetration of Gamma Radiation
Through Thick Layers", Physics Review (1948)
1.3., 852-862.
30. Lane, D. A., Torchinsky, B. B., and Spinks,
J. W. T.: "Determining Soil Moisture and
Density by Nuclear Radiations", AS'lM Tech.
Paper No. 134 (1953) 23-34.
3l. Lapp, R. E., and Andrews, H. L.: Nuclear
Radiation Physics, (1954) Prentice-Hall,
New York, N. Y.
32. Lind, D. A., Brown, J. R., and DuMond, J. W.
M.: "A Precision Determination of the Energy
of the 1.1 and 1.3 Mev Gamma Radiations from
c060 by Direct Crystal Diffraction", Physics
Review (1949) 12, 591.
T.: "Graphs of the Compton fuer~:
Angle Relationships and the Klein-Nishina
Formula from 10 Kev to 500 Mev", National
I Bureau of Standards Circular No. 542 (1953)
U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
34. Occhialini, G. P. S., and Powell, C. F.:
"Nuclear Disintegration Produced by Slow
I Charged Particles of Small Mass", Nature
(1947) 122, 186-190.
35. Pocock, B. W.: "An Analysis of Certain
Mathematical Assumptions Underlying the De-
sign and Operation of Gamma Ray Surface
DenSity Gages", Michigan State Highway De-
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
partment Report No. 261 (July 17, 1956).
36. Semat, Henry: Introduction to Atomic Phys-
ics, (1946) Rinehart and Co., New York, N. Y.
37. White, G. R.: "X-Ray Attenuation Coeffici-
ents from 10 Kev to 100 Mev", National Bureau
of Standards Report No. 1003 (1952) U. S.
Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
GROUP III
38. Armstrong, F. E.: "A Small Diameter Transis-
tor Operated Probe for Gamma Ray Logging",
(Presented at Symposium on Applications of
Radioactivity in Petroleum Exploration and
Production, No~ 6-8, 1957, Houston, Tex.).
39· Atkins, E. R.: "Fundamental Theory and In-
strumentation of Radioactivity Logging",
AIME Tech. Paper No. 586-G. (Paper presented
at Formation Evaluation Symposium, Houston,
Tex., Oct. 27-28, 1955.).
40. Blanchard, A., and Dewan, J. T.: "The Cali-
bration of Gamma Ray Logs", Pet. Engr. (Aug.,
1953) B76-B80.
4l. Bousquet, A. G.: "Counting Rate Meters vs
Scalers", Nucleonics (1949) ~, No.2, 67-76.
42. Brannon, H. R., and Osaba, J. S.: "Spectral
Gamma Ray Logging", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Feb.
1956) 30.
Brown, S. C.: "Theory and Operation of
Geiger-Muller Counters", Nucleonics (1948)
g, No.6, 10-22; (1949) }, No.2, 50-64 and
No.4, 46-6l.
44. Bush, Robert E., and Mardock, E. S.: "The
Quantitative Application of Radioactivity
Logs", Trans. AIME (1951) 192, 191-198.
Bush, Robert E., and Mardock, E. S.: "Some
Preliminary Investigations of Quantitative
Interpretations of Radioactivity Logs",
Trans. AIME (1950) 189, 19-34.
46. Cooke-Yarborough, E. H., and Pulsford, E. W.:
"A Counting-Rate Meter of High Accuracy",
Proc., Institute of Electrical Engineers,
London, fugland (1951) 2§, Part II, 191-195.
Curt is s, L. F.: "The Geiger -Muller Counter",
USNBS Circ. No. 490 (1950) U. S. National
Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C., 1-25.
48. Curtiss, L. F.: "Measurements of Radioac-
tivity", USNBS Circ. No. 476 (1949) u. S.
National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
D. C., 1-84.
DiGiovanni, H. J., Graveson, R. T., and Yoli,
A. H.: "Scintillation Unit for Drill Hole
16 ---------- GAMMA RAY-DENSITY LOGGING
--r--
1:. Logging", Nucleonics (1953) ll, No.4, 34-39.1
Fearon, R. E.: "Gamma Ray Well Logging",
Nucleonics (1949) ~, No.4, 67-75.
Fearon, R. E., and Mardock, E. S.: "The
I 51.
Quantitative Interpretation of Radioactivity I
Logs", Oil and Gas Jour. (March 24, 1952)
188-194.
52. Guelke, R. J., Heydenrych, C. R., and Ander-
son, F.: !Measurement of Radioactivity and I
Temperature in Narrcw Boreholes and the
Development 'Jf Instruments for this Purpose!!,
Jour. of Scientific Instruments and Physics
in Industry (1949) 26, 150-153.
53· Hur ley, P. M.: !!Direct Radiometr ic Measure-
ment by Gamma-Ray Scintillation Spectro-
meter!!, Bull. GSA (1956) fil, 395, 405.
54. Korff, S. A.: Electron and Nuclear Counters,
(1946) D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, N. Y.
55· Lane-Wells Co.: !!Basic Principles of Radio-
activity!!, Radioactivity Well Logging, Lane-
Wells Publication No. LR-91-C (1956).
56. Lane-Wells Co.: "Instrumentation and Log-
ging Procedures!!, Radioactivity Well Logging,
Lane-Wells Publication No. LR-92-C (1956).
57· Lane-Wells Co.: !!Other Radioactivity Curves
and Their Uses!!, Radioactivity Well Logging,
Lane-Wells Publication No. LR-95-C (1956).
58. Loevinger, R., and Berman, M.: "Efficiency
Criteria in Radioactivity Counting", Nucle-
onics (1951) 2, No.1, 26-39.
59· McLendon, Dan H.: !!Radioactivity Logs for
Gas Location!!, World Oil (Feb., 1959) 148,
No.2, 79-84.
60. Mercier, V. J., and Redford, W. H.: "New
Calibration and Conversion Techniques for
Radioactivity Logs!!, Jour. Pet. Tech. (Sept.,
1957) IX, No·9, 11-15.
61. Muench, N. L., and Osaba, J. S.: "Identifi-
cation of Earth Materials by Induced Gamma
Ray Spectrol Analysis", Tr~ AIME (1947)
210, 89.
62. Peirson, D. H.: !!The Background Counting
Rate in a Geiger-Muller Counter", Proc.
International Physics Society, London, Eng-
land (1951) B-64, 427-428.
Pirson, Sylvain J.: "Radioactivity Well
Logging", Oil Reservoir En ineerin , Second
Edition (1958 McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, N. Y., 212-232.
64. Rossi, B. B., and Staub, H. H.: Ionization
Chambers and Counters, (1949) McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, N. Y.
Russell, William L.: !!The Total Gamma Ray
Activity of Sedimentary Rocks as Indicated by
Geiger Counter Determinations", Geophysics
(1944) 2, 180-216.
66. Russell, William L.: !!Well Logging by Radio-
activity!!, Bull. AAPG (Sept., 1941) £2., No.
9, 1775-1788.
Russell, William L., and Scherlatskoy, S. A.:
"The Use of Sensitive Gamma Ray Detectors in
Prospecting", Economic Geol. (1951) 46, 427-
446.
68. Slack, H. A.: !~ield Measurement of the
Radioact i vi ty of Rocks", Trans. AGU (1952)
897-901.
1253-G
I
I
69·
70.
Toelke, L. W.: !!Scintillation Spectrometer
Well Logging", AIME Tech. Paper No. 495-G
(Presented in Denver, Colo., May, 1955.).
Vomocil, J. A.: "In Situ Measurement of Soil
Bulk Density", Agricultural Engr. (1954) l2.,
I No·9·
I 71. Youmans, Arthur, and Monaghan, Ralph: "Sta-
bility Requirements for Scintillation Coun-
ters Used in Radioactivity Logging", Trans.
II AIME (1957) 210, 231.
GROUP IV
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
72. Aitken, A. C.: Statistical Mathematics, 7th
Edition, (1952) Oliver and Boyd Publishing
Co., London, England.
73. Churchill, Ruel V.: Modern Operational
Mathematics in Engineering, First Edition,
(1944) McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, N. Y.
74. Cowden, Dudley J.: Applied General Statis-
tics, (1940) Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York,
N. Y.
75. Crout, P. D.: "Integral Equations and Physi-
cal Problems", Jour. of Math. and Physics
(1940) 12., 34.
76. Deming, W. E.: "Some Notes on Least
Squares", Bull. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture
(1938) 136-141.
77· Ezekiel, Mordecai: !!A First Approximation
to the Sampling Reliability of Multiple Cor-
relation Curves Obtained from Successive
Graphic Approximations", Math. Statistics
Annual (Sept., 1930) 1.
78. Ezekiel, Mordecai: "A Method of Handling
Curvilinear Correlation For Any Number of
Variables", Bull. Am. Statistics Assn.
(Dec. 1924) XIX, 431-453.
79· Ezekiel, Mordecai: Methods of Correlation
Analysis, (1941) John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, N. Y.
80. Fisher, R. A.: !!Statistical Methods for Re-
search Workers", Seventh Edition (1938)
Oliver and Boyd Publishing Co., London,
England.
81. Hoel, Paul G.: Introduction to Mathematical
Statistics, (1954) John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, N. Y.
82. Kelton, Frank C., et al: "A Statistical Cor-
relation of Total Water As Measured by Core
Analyses With Actual Connate Water", (Unpub-
lished data in confidential files of Core
Laboratories, Inc., Dallas, Tex.).
Law, Jan: "A Statistical Approach to the
Interstitial Heterogeneity of Sand Reser-
voirs", Trans. AIME (1944) ill.
84. Law, Jan, and Cerini, William F.: "A Sta-
tistical Approach to Core-AnalYSis Interpre-
tation", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1946)
373-385·
85. Rachford, H. H., and Schultz, W. P.: "Some
Useful Tables for Approximating Smooth Curves
by Fifth and Lower Degree Polynominals",
Trans. AIME (1955) 204, 289-290.
86. Snedecor, George W.: Statistical Methods,
(1956) Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa.
1253-G ALBIN J. ZAK AND JOE ED SMITH
Sokolinkoff, Ivan S., and Sokolinkoff,
Elizabeth S.: Higher Mathematics for En- 105·
gineers and Physicists, (1941) McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York, N. Y.
88. Tolley, H. R., and Ezekiel, M.: "A Method
of Handling Multiple Correlation Problems", 106.
Bull. Am. Statistics Assn. (Dec., 1923)
XVIII, 994-1003.
Worthing, A. G., and Geffuer, J.: Treatment
of Experimental Data, (1943) John Wiley and 107·
Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y.
GROUP V 108.
90. Archie, G. E.: "Classification of Carbonate
Reservoir Rocks and Petrophysical Considera- 109·
tions", Bull. AAPG (Feb., 1952) .3Q, No.2,
278-298.
91. Archie, G. E.: "Introduction to Petrophys- 110.
ics of Reservoir Rocks", Bull. AAPG (May,
1950) ~, No.5·
92. Arps, J. J.: "The Effect of Temperature on
the Density and Electrical Resistivity of
Sodium Chloride Solutions", Jour. Pet. Tech. Ill.
(Oct., 1953) 2, No. 10.
93· Athy, L. F.: "Density, Porosity and Compac-
tion of Sedimentary Rocks", Bull. AAPG (1930) 112.
14, 1-24.
94. Brooks, C. S.: "An Evaluation of the Proce-
dures Used in the Determination of the Grain 113.
Densities of Petroleum Reservoir Minerals",
Trans. AJME (1957) 210, 235 -243.
95· Campbell, W. M., and Martin, J. L.: "Dis-
placement Logging", Trans. AJME (1955) 204, 114.
233-239·
96. Clark, A. P.: "A Method for Determining Re- I
sidual Connate and Drilling Water Saturations 115.
for Cable -Tool Cores", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1947) 175-185.
97· deWitte, L.: "Resistivity and Saturation
Distribution in Infiltrated Zones of Porous 116.
Formations", Oil and Gas Jour. (July 27,
1950) ~, No. 12, 246. I New York, N. Y.
98. Doll, H. G.: "The Invasion Process in High 117·
Permeability Sands", Pet. Engr. (Jan., 1955).
99· Griffiths, J. C.: "Grain Size Distribution
and Reservoir Rocks Characteristics", Bull. 118.
AAPG (Feb., 1952) 3Q, No.2.
100. Hanson, G. H., Kuist, B. B., and Brown, G.
G.: "Liquid Densities of Volatile Hydro- 119·
carbon Mixtures", Ind. Engr. Chern. (1944)
3Q, 1161.
101. Horner, William L.: "Contamination of Cores
by Drilling Fluid Can Be Estimated by Dis- 120.
solving Simple Chemicals in Mud", Oil Weekly
(1935) ]§, No·3, 29·
102. Horner, William L., and Lewis, James A.:
"Differentiation of Water in Oil Field
Cores", Prod. Monthly (Aug., 1943) 1, No.8,
45.
103. Horner, William L., and LeWis, James A.:
"Interstitial Water Saturation in the Pore
Space of Reservoirs", Oil Weekly (1936) 86,
No.6, 36.
104. Howard, W. V., and David, M. W.: "Develop-
ment of Porosity in Limestones", Bull. AAPG
17
(1936) 20, 1389-1412.
Imbt, William C., and Ellison, Sam P.: I
"Porosity in Limestone and Dolomite Petro-
leum Reservoirs", Drill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1946) 364-372.
Jones, Park J.: Petroleum Production - Me-
chanics of Production of Oil, Condensate,
and Natural Gas, Vol. I, (1946) Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York, N. Y., 30-50.
Katz, Donald L.: "Prediction of the Shrink-
age of Crude Oils", Dr ill. and Prod. Prac.,
API (1942) 137.
Kay, W. B.: "Density of Hydrocarbon Gases
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023
and Vapors", Ind. Engr. Chern. (1936) 28,
1014.
LeRoy, L. W., et al: Subsurface Geologic
Methods, Second Edition, (1951) A. B.
Hirschfield Press, Denver, COlo., 329-341.
Nafe, J. E., and Drake, C. L.: ''Variation
with Depth in Shallow and Deep Water Marine
Sediments of Porosity, Density, and Velocity
of Compressional and Shear Waves", Geophys-
ics (July, 1957) 22, No.3.
Pritchett, W. C.: "Displacement Logging -
A New Concept in Resistivity Logging", Pet.
~. (Feb., 1959) XXXI, No.2, B56-B70.
Prokop, C. L.: "Radial Filtration of Drill-
ing Mud", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Jan., 1952) ~
No. 1.
Pyle, H. C., and Jones, P. H.: "Qu8,ntita-
tive Determination of Connate Water Content
of Oil Sands", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1936) 171-180.
Schilthuis, Ralph J.: "Connate Water in Oil
and Gas Sands", Trans. AJME (1938) 127, 199-
214.
Standing, M. B.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temper-
ature Correlation For Mixtures of California
Oils and Gases", Drill. and Prod. Prac., API
(1947) 275-287.
Standing, M. B.: "Oil Field Hydrocarbon
Systems", (1952) Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
Standing, M. B., and Katz, Donald L.: "Den-
sity of Natural Gases", Trans. AIME (1942)
146, 140.
Standing, M. E., and Katz, Donald L.: "Den-
sity of Crude Oils Saturated with Natural
Gas", Trans. AJME (1942) 146, 159.
Stuart, R. W.: "Use of Oil-Base Mud at Elk
Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve", Drill. and
Prod. Prac. (1946) American Petroleum Insti-
tute, 69-75.
Winn, R. H.: "A Report on Displacement
Logging", Jour. Pet. Tech. (Feb., 1958) K, 2.
 56

1
PAIR -PRODUCTION~
54
PH OT 0 E L E C T RIC .!::E.!:FJ:F:..!E=-,CUT.---~ /
52
~'/'-

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023

a:
UJ
Gamma Ray Collimator ~e------ e-
4t~ /~
(D
::;; 50 And Gamma Ray sourcy / \ _
::>
z
/ ~/--\\e~L..'" ,,//
':: '21./ --I(" 61->.;/\
~Y I ~Ir!{~-+
Q.

( \
(
0
!

~<:~~~f--t\ V ) 1(-
>--
0
~

\~Y ---e-.----- /
-----= ~y'
Particle COMPTON SCATTERING~ 'C---_----. __ ~ __

photon e-'
MASS NUMBER, A e- electron
e+ positron DIAGRAM SHOWING THREE POSSIBLE
FIGURE I n neutron INTERACTIONS .OF GAMMA RADIATION
DISINTEGRATION CHART FOR p+ proton WITH THE SILICON+4 ATOM
THE THORIUM DECAY SERIES FIGURE 2
(AFTER HALLIDAY)

THE COMPTON EFFECT

®
e-
Erel £(1l~ hll'
GAMMA RAY DETECTOR I ~"l@
p

CD y-------.(x\:)
",r In! ~J--
~i- ..

GAMMA RAY e-'

COLLIMATOR @
FIGURE 3
SCHEMATIC OF MODEL USED
TO DETERMINE GAMMA RAY
Figure: 4 A Compton collision in which a photon of energy EtYl CD collides
ATTENUATION COEFFICIENTS
with an electron of energy E(e-l ® at ®. The scattered photon moves off at angle e
with energy Efyf @, and the electron is deflected at angle 'IV with energy E(e-)' ®.
 10

> 9 /
'"
::i<
/
V
>- 8
t9 ~
0:::
W
z 7
!/
/ V
w
],/,0"
/ /'
z
0
I-
0
6

5
/ VV
~/
I
L.----

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023

0- 1--'2.0•

---
4
/' I---""'
0
W
# /
0:::
w
l-
I-
« 2
3

1// ' -
V
f-.---
I - - _30· -
u
U)

~
I~ V ----- 45·
60· =
-
~ ::-- 12~0
-
~
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INITIAL PHOTON ENERGY, Mev

FIGURE 5
FIG URE 6
GRAPH SHOWING ENERGY SCHEMATIC OF TYPE I SONDE
LOSS OF SCATTERED PHOTONS FOR (RADIAL SOURCE AND
GEIGER - MULLER COUNTER)
VARIOUS SCATTERING ANGLES

DETECTOR REGION

REGIO N

b
b and I are known·
, b
'"'b" 2ToST
h"Z TonI
-e- " 21

,-
.! h-----I
SL SOURCE REGION
FIGURE 7
SCHEMATIC OF TYPE n SONDE
(COLLIMATED SOURCE AND
FIGURE 8
SCINTILLATION COUNTER)
GEOMETRY OF TYPE IT SONDE
 10.00

FIGURE 10
L EXAMPLE OF DENSITY LOG 9.00
CALIBRATION CURVE FOR
TYPE I SONDE
8.00

V)
w
/ '- 7.00
::r:
<..>
:z

:z
,
WITH 215 STo. SOURC£

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEPBOGR/proceedings-pdf/59PBOR/All-59PBOR/SPE-1253-G/2087146/spe-1253-g.pdf/1 by guest on 02 April 2023

STANDARD
NCALIBRATOR,400" 6.00 0
CALIBRATOR
(~ SEM1SIVITY,TIWE I-
AS '4.00" COMSUNT' 5 SEC <..>

--
w
-'
5.00 u...
'\ w
0
I\V
4 00
'"
0
-'
>-
l-
V)
of-- 300 :z
w
0

2.00

FIGURE 9 Instrument Response Factor = 300.00

Density of Bore Hole Fluid = II Olbs/gcl 1.00
METHOD OF DETERMINING
DENSITY LOG SENSITIVITY
FOR TYPE I SONDE
1.8 2.0 2.2 24 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
0

NATURAL DENSITY, ~
cc

POROSITY, %

--Pf!!~T.!.I,Q'L I)!T.!_
CORE DATA
o 2 ... ~ e ,0 ,2 14 '6 'EI 20 0 2

TABLE I

CHARACTERISTICS OF FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES

Relative Relahve Year of

Particle Synlbol Charge Mass Discovery
Electron (Negatron) I 1896
Positron e+ + I 1932
Proton + I 1836
Neutron 1840 1932
Photon y
o PI 1901
Alpha Particle +2 7352

Beta Particle (J: (J-

FIGURE II
COMPARISON OF CORE ANALYSIS
PO RO SIT Y WITH POROSITY
DERIVED FROM DENSITY LOGS