FACULTY OF ENERGY AND OIL & GAS INDUSTRY

Well logging

Lecture 5
General
This class of well logs to be considered is generally referred to as
porosity logs. Although each produces a porosity value from basic
measurements, none actually measures porosity directly. Two such
logs, the density and neutron, are nuclear measurements. A third log,
the sonic, uses acoustic measurements, and the fourth and newest log
senses the magnetic resonance of formation nuclei. When used
individually, each of the first three has a response to lithology which
must be accounted for, but when used in concert, two or three at a
time, lithology can be estimated and a more accurate porosity derived.

2
3
4
5
NEUTRON LOG
Neutron logs are porosity logs that measure the hydrogen
concentration in a formation. In clean formations (i.e., shale-free)
where the porosity is filled with water or oil, the neutron log measures
liquid-filled porosity (φN , PHIN, or NPHI).

6
7
 Introduction
• Neutrons are created from a chemical source in the neutron logging tool.
The chemical source is usually a mixture of americium and beryllium
which continuously emit neutrons. When these neutrons collide with the
nuclei of the formation the neutron loses some of its energy. With
enough collisions, the neutron is absorbed by a nucleus and a gamma ray
is emitted. Because the hydrogen atom is almost equal in mass to the
neutron, maximum energy loss occurs when the neutron collides with a
hydrogen atom. Therefore, the energy loss is dominated by the
formation’s hydrogen concentration. Because hydrogen in a porous
formation is concentrated in the fluid-filled pores, energy loss can be
related to the formation’s porosity.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
 Introduction
• Fig. 6.1 illustrates this relation between
hydrogen content and count rate at the
detector. Because most of the hydrogen is
part of the fluids located in the pore
space, this concentration is inversely
related to porosity. The concentration,
indicated by а detector, also varies with
tool design and borehole environment.
The representativity of the derived
porosity is affected by the variation of the
hydrogen content of pore­ space fluid and Fig.6.1-Schematic of
by the eventual presence of hydrogen the relation between
hydrogen con­tent and
within the formation matrix itself. count rate at the
detector.

15
 Types of Detectors
• Most neutron porosity tools use chemical sources containing about 16
curies of americium and produce roughly 4 x 107 neutrons/sec. The
various neutron tools differ in design by the type and number of
detectors used and the source-to-detector spacing.

16
 Gamma Ray Detectors
• Capture gamma rays can be detected by а Geiger counter or а
scintillation tube. А tool containing this type of detector is known as а
neutron-gamma (N­G) tool. An N-G tool has the advantage of а relatively
larger depth of investigation because it counts the product of the decay
of neu­trons throughout а volume extending into the formation. Neutron
detectors, in contrast, count only those neutrons that reach the tool.
• А gamma ray detector also provides а high count with moderate source
activity. Depending on the source type, an N-G tool could have the
disadvantage of also detecting gamma rays that originate in the source
itself in association with neutron generation. In general, these gamma
rays are of lower energy than the capture gamma rays.

17
 Thermal Neutron Detectors.
• Slow-neutron detectors are also available. They are predominantly sensitive
to thermal neutrons but also have varying sensitivities to capture gamma
rays, thus giving а hybrid measurement. А tool using this type of detection is
called а neutron-thermal neutron tool, or simply а thermal neutron tool.
• Because the spatial distribution of capture gamma rays in the for­mation is
essentially the same as thermal neutron distribution, ther­mal neutron and N-
G tools are similar. However, а significant difference in their responses
occurs in zones rich in efficient ther­mal neutron absorbers, such as chlorine
and boron. The count rate in these zones is reduced because а substantial
number of thermal neutrons is absorbed by the chlorine and boron. This
absorption, however, tends to increase the gamma ray count of N-G tools.

18
 Epithermal Neutron Detectors.
• Epithermal neutron detectors' count rates are less sensi­tive to lithology
and formation-water salinity than the thermal neutron detectors' rates.
Tools using this type of detection, epither­mal neutron tools, yield а
response that accurately reflects the for­mation hydrogen index and
subsequently derived porosity value. Most epithermal neutron detectors
are, in fact, thermal neutron detectors wrapped in а highly efficient
thermal neutron absorber, such as cadmium. The wrap prevents low-
energy neutrons from reaching the detector, which results in а low count
overall. То im­prove the detector's efficiency, epithermal neutron tools
are characterized by а short source-to-detector spacing and, in tum, а
more shallow depth of investigation.

19
 N-G Tool
• Early N-G tools used а hybrid measurement detector sensitive to both
high-energy capture gamma rays and thermal neutrons. Schlumberger,
for example, provided а series of N-G tools called the GNT. Several
source-to-detector spacings were available so that the best spacing could
be selected for а specific borehole condition and porosity range. The
responses of the early tools were expressed in standard counts per
second. This unit of measurement was deter­mined arbitrarily and varied
from one service company to another.

20
 N-G Tool
• Fig. 6.2 is an example GNТ log. The
neutron tool response is plotted on а
linear scale (in АРI units) that covers
Tracks 2 and 3.А natural gamma ray
log is always recorded in conjunction
with the neutron log and presented on
Track 1.

Fig. 6.2. Example of GNT log

(courtesy Schlumberger).
21
 N-G Tool
• Calibration charts, usually called
departure curves, are available for the
different tools (Fig. 6.3). The chart
gives the response in limestone
porosity index, which is equal to the
true porosity only if the formation is
limestone. If the formation is
sandstone or dolomite, the limestone
porosity index is corrected to the
proper matrix with Fig. 6.4.

Flg. 6.3. Departure curve for GNT tool run in an uncased

22hole fllled wlth fresh mud. Source­ to-detector spaclng is
19½-inch. (courtesy Schlumberger).
 Example 6.1.
• The N-G log of Fig. 6.2 was obtained with а
GNT­F tool with а 19½-in. source-to-
detector spacing in an 8-in. open hole filled
with 13-lbm/gal freshwater-based mud. The
average temperature over the interval shown
by the log is 200°F.
• а. Estimate the porosity of the most porous
interval within Sand А.
• b. Estimate the average porosity of
limestone Formation В.
• с. Estimate and comment on the value of the Fig. 6.2. Example of GNT log
(courtesy Schlumberger).
apparent porosity of Zone C.
23
 Solution
• а. The zone with the highest porosity displays the lowest response, which
is 1,280 АРI neutron units, Borehole and tool design corre­spond to the
chart in Fig. 6.3. In general, the appropriate chart to be used is selected
from а chart book according to the tool spac­ing and mud salinity.
• Entering the lower section of the chart with the mud type and borehole
diameter results, as illustrated, in а calibration line for these specific
borehole conditions. The upper section of the chart is entered with the log
response. The reading is corrected, how­ever, for temperature effects
before а limestone porosity index of 16% is read from the calibration line.
The formation is not lime­stone; therefore, а value of 19% corrected for the
actual lithology, which is sandstone, is determined from Fig. 6.4.

24
Solution

Flg. 6.4. Neutron poroslty equivalence curves for GNT,

SNP, and CNL tools (courtesy Schlum­berger).
25
 Solution
• b. The average tool response in Zone В is 2,560 API neutron units. Use
of the same calibration line as in Part “а” yields а 3% porosi­ty. Note that
no lithology correction is needed because the actual lithology is
limestone.
• с. The log reading in Zone С is 480 АРI units, and this yields а porosity
value that exceeds 50%. This is, of course, an apparent porosity and does
not reflect the true porosity. The low log response results from the high
content of thermal neutron absorbers present in shales. The shale
environment is not represented by the calibration charts.

26
 N-G Tool
• In the absence of appropriate calibration charts, an empirical rela­tionship
between the tool response and porosity саn be established by use of core
porosities for а specific well, field, or region. Once established, this
relationship can be applied to other wells with simi­lar conditions.
Eq. 6.1

• where N is the neutron tool response and α and β are complex con­stants
that involve both formation properties and tool design. Eq. 6.1 expresses а
linear relationship between porosity and the logarithm of the tool response.
Another more widely accepted em­pirical method is the logarithmic
method. This method, which has no firm theoretical foundation, states that
log φ plotted vs. tool response provides а linear relationship of the form
Eq. 6.2

27
• The neutron curves are commonly displayed over tracks 2 and 3, in
units referenced to a specific lithology (usually either limestone or
sandstone, depending on the geologic environment expected to be
encountered)

28
Neutron log responses vary, depending on:
• differences in detector types and what they detect
(gamma rays and/or neutrons of different energies)
• spacing between source and detector
• lithology (i.e., sandstone, limestone, and dolo- mite)

29
• While the variations due to detector types and tool design are fixed
(and are accounted for in the data processing), the variations in
response due to lithology must be accounted for by using the
appropriate charts (Figures 4.6 and 4.7). A geologist should remember
that the responses of different neutron logs differ from each other
(unlike all other logs) and must be interpreted from the specific chart
designed for a specific log (i.e., Schlumberger charts for Schlumberger
logs and Halliburton charts for Halliburton logs). The reason for this is
that while other logs are calibrated in basic physical units, neutron logs
are not (Dresser Atlas, 1975).

30
31
32
33
34
 Gas Effect

• Whenever pores are filled with gas rather than oil or water, the
reported neutron porosity is less than the actual formation porosity.
This occurs because there is a lower concentration of hydrogen in gas
than in oil or water. This lower concentration is not accounted for by the
processing software of the logging tool, and thus is interpreted as low
porosity. A decrease in neutron porosity by the presence of gas is called
gas effect.

35
 Shale effect
• Whenever clays are part of the formation matrix, the reported neutron
porosity is greater than the actual formation porosity. This occurs
because the hydrogen that is within the clay’s structure and in the
water bound to the clay is sensed in addition to the hydrogen in the
pore space. Because the processing software of the logging tool expects
all hydrogen in the formation to reside in the pores, the extra hydrogen
is interpreted as being part of the porosity. An increase in neutron
porosity by the presence of clays is called shale effect.

36
• The first neutron logs detected the gamma rays that were products of
neutron capture by formation nuclei. Initially, each logging company had
its own calibration system, but eventually the American Petroleum
Institute (API) developed calibration pits to provide a common standard
for measurement (Serra, 1984). Generally these logs were displayed in
counts per second (cps) or API Neutron Units rather than porosity.
Although charts to convert from displayed units to porosity exist
(Bassiouni, 1994), arbitrary conversions using core data or estimated
formation porosities have most often been used. It should be noted that
the neutron log response is inversely proportional to porosity so that
low-measurement unit values correspond to high porosities, and high-
measurement unit values correspond to low porosities.
37
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• The first modern neutron log (where porosity was directly displayed)
was the sidewall neutron log. Like the density log (and for the same
reason of limited depth of investigation), the sidewall neutron log has
both the source and detector in a pad that is pushed against the side of
the borehole. Although the sidewall neutron log was relatively
insensitive to lithologic effects, it was sensitive to borehole effects, such
as rugosity (roughness) which caused measurement difficulties.

38
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• Fig. 6.5 is an example of а sidewall neutron
porosity (SNP) log. The neutron log in Tracks 2
and 3 is scaled directly in porosity. Detector count
rate is converted to porosity by the surface panel
according to calibration curves similar to those in
Fig. 6.6. The tool was calibrated by measuring its
response in а variety of labo­ratory formations of
accurately known matrix compositions and
porosities, including sand, limestone, and
dolomite of different porosities. The anticipated
matrix, which may be sandstone, lime­stone, or
dolomite, can be set on the panel and is usually
Flg. 6.5. Example SNP log (courtesy
indicated on the log scale. Schlumberger).

39
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• The calibration curves of Fig. 6.6 were obtained
under the fol­lowing standard conditions: fresh water
in the formation and bore­hole (for gas-filled holes,
the formations contained fresh water), borehole
diameter of 7'¼ in., temperature of 75°F,
atmospheric pressure, and no mudcake. Corrections
are needed when actual log­ging conditions depart
from these standard conditions. These corrections
are usually small; most are made automatically by Flg. 6.6-SNP response under
the surface panel. standard condltions in llme­
stone, dolomlte, and
sandstone. Polnts labeled
"API" refer to API test
formatlons at the U. of
Houston.
40
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• The borehole-size effect is very small
because the source-to ­detector pad is
pressed against the wall of the borehole.
When liquid­ filled holes are logged, the
panel incorporates а borehole correc­tion
based on the reading of the
simultaneously recorded caliper. Fig. 6.7
shows the magnitudes of the correction
made by the panel for 6- and 10-in.-
diameter boreholes. The shaded areas Flg. 6.7-Corrections to be added for
borehole-size effect for 6-and 10-in.
indicate residual uncertainty. borehole

41
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• The panel also applies corrections for formation-
water salinity automatically. These corrections
assume that the formation-water salinity is equal
to that of the drilling fluid. This assumption is
sup­ported by the fact that the tool essentially
investigates only the in­vaded zone because of its
shallow radius of investigation. Fig. 6.8 presents
experimentally derived geometric factors that
help define the tool's depth of investigation.
These curves indicate that most of the tool signal
is affected by the first 10 to 12 in. from the bore­
Fig. 6.8-Experimentally derived J-factor curves
hole wall. These first inches are usually invaded for appar­ent porosity, from SNP tool for 22%
by mud filtrate and 35% porosity labo­ratory formations.

42
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• То enable an appreciation of the order
of magnitude of this correc­tion, the
effect of saturated salt water on SNP
logs is shown in Fig. 6.9.

Flg. 6.9-Porosity correction added by the SNP

раnel to overcome the effect of salt-saturated water
ln the borehole and formatlon.
43
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• The panel applies corrections for mud
weight. Because the hydro­gen contents of
natural and barite mud are considerably
different, the panel also allows the
selection of either of these two mud
types. Fig, 6.10 shows the corrections
applied automatically by the panel for 12-
and 16-lbm/gal barite mud.

Flg. 6.10. Poroslty correctlon added by the SNP раnel to

correct for mud welght departure from the standard
condition.
44
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• The temperature increase with depth results in а
decrease in hydrogen concentra­tion caused by material
expansion. Pressure increase with depth causes an
increase in hydrogen concentration because of compres­
sion of the borehole and formation material. The
combined cor­rection applied by the panel is small, as
indicated by the dotted line of Fig. 6.11. То arrive at the
formation temperature and pressure needed to calculate
the correction, temperature and pressure gra­dients of l ̊
F/100 ft and 52 psi/100 ft, respectively, are usually
assumed. The shaded band indicates the correction
required for а temperature of 175 ̊ F at atmospheric
pressure. Fig. 6.11. Correction for temperature and
pressure effects.

45
 Sidewall Neutron Log
• There is no provision for automatic correction for
the presence of mudcake because the mudcake is
squeezed away by the pad. Only а residual, very
thin mudcake is usually present. If а thick mud­
cake is suspected, а manual correction can be
applied from the nomogram of Fig. 6.12.

Flg. 6.12-Nomogram for

mudcake correction.

46
 Example 6.2
• А 20% porosity was determined from the SNP calibration curves. If the
actual measurement conditions are а bore­hole diameter of 10 in., а 16-
lbm/gal salt-saturated barite mud as the drilling fluid, а formation
temperature of 175°F, and а forma­tion pressure of 5,200 psia, estimate
the order of magnitude of the correction applied by the panel.

47
 Solution
• Using Figs. 6.7 and 6.9 through 6.11 results in а borehole correction of -
1%, а salinity correction of +2.5%, а mud-weight correction of + 3 % ,
and а temperature and pressure correction of +0.5%. This represents а
total correction of +5%.

48
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• The effect of changes in formation capture properties, caused primarily
by salinity and shaliness, on the detection of thermal neu­trons can be
minimized by the use of two detectors positioned fairly distant from the
source. Formations of interest are characterized by an epithermal
neutron slowdown length, Le, that is greater than that of thermal neutron,
Lt. Thus, when the source-to-detector radi­al distance, r, is large enough
that r>Le, then e-r/Lt < e-r/Le. Therefore, the thermal neutron flux, Eq.Ψ6.3
t(r)
can be sim­plified to

• The ratio of thermal neutron flux at two detectors located at suffi­cient

Eq. 6.4
distances of r1 and r2 from the source, F, can be approxi­mated by
49
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• The response F should accurately reflect hydrogen content and, in turn,
porosity. The advantage of this method is that ther­mal neutron detectors
are more efficient than epithermal detectors, and count rates are
increased by roughly an order of magnitude.
• Theory also predicts that F is free of borehole effect. In prac­tice,
however, source-to-detector spacing, at least for the near de­tector, is not
large enough to fulfill the condition r>Le. The measurement of F retains,
then, residual borehole and thermal ab­sorption effects.

50
The most commonly used neutron log is the compensated neutron log
which has a neutron source and two detectors. Like the sidewall neutron
log, it directly displays values of porosity. The advantage of compensated
neutron logs over sidewall neutron logs is that they are less affected by
borehole irregularities. Both the sidewall and compensated neutron logs
can be recorded in apparent limestone, sandstone, or dolomite porosity
units. If a formation is limestone, and the neutron log is recorded in
apparent limestone porosity units, apparent porosity is equal to true
porosity. However, when the lithology of a formation is sandstone or
dolomite, apparent limestone porosity must be corrected to true porosity
by using the appropriate chart

51
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• Tools based on this concept of measurement are called compen­sated
neutron logs (CNL's). An example of such а tool is Schlum­berger's CNL
tool. Figs. 6.13 and 6.14 are schematics of the CNL tool and its log
presentation. The tool is run eccentered in the hole to minimize borehole
effects. The eccentricity is accomplished in holes ranging from 6 to 16 in.
in diameter by using а bowstring (Fig. 6.13). In holes smaller than 6 in. in
diameter, the tool is assumed to follow the low side of the hole without
forced eccentralization.
• The ratio of the count rates of the near and far detectors is calcu­lated in the
surface control panel. The ratio is converted to porosi­ty value. After
appropriate borehole environment corrections are applied, the porosity is
recorded on the log on а linear scale (Fig. 6.14).
52
Dual-Detector Neutron Tool

Fig. 6.13- Flg. 6.14.

Schematic of Example of
the CNL tool. CNL (courtesy
Schlumberger).

53
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• In general, departures from these
conditions result in а small com­bined
correction. This correction can be
obtained by assuming the individual
corrections of Charts А through Н in
the nomogram of Fig. 6.15. Each
correction is determined by drawing а
line parallel to the chart trend lines.
This line is drawn from the actual
forma­tion conditions to the index axis,
which is marked by an asterisk. Fig. 6.15-Dual spaclng CNL correction
nomogram for open hole (courtesy
Schlumberger).
54
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• Chart А is used to correct for borehole size. Actually, а nominal borehole
diameter, usually 8 in., is preset in the panel. The read­ing is corrected only
for the difference between the actual bore­hole size and the nominal diameter.
The borehole size correction is built into the surface control panel and is
applied automatically when а neutron-density combination, which includes а
caliper meas­urement, is run. Chart А is used to redress this overcorrection.
The ‘’borehole size minus the panel setting'' parameter is then а negative
amount equal to the mudcake thickness. The panel setting is, in this case, the
reading of the caliper used to apply the automatic correction.
• The actual effect of mudcake properties on the tool reading is obtained from
Chart В. This chart was prepared using properties of а typical mudcake.

55
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• The salinity effect is а combination of hydrogen displacement by sodium
chloride and thermal neutron absorption by chlorine. Borehole salinity
causes а decrease in apparent porosity, whereas formation-water salinity
causes an increase in the porosity read­ing. Charts С and D are used to
correct for the salinity effect. Because of invasion, the salinity of the
formation water generally can be assumed to equal that of the mud
filtrate.
• An increase in the mud weight results in а decrease in the hydro­gen
content in the borehole fluid because the liquid phase is dis­placed by
solids. This, in turn, results in а decrease in apparent porosity. Correction
of this effect is obtained from Chart Е.

56
 Dual-Detector Neutron Tool
• Tool standoff-i.e., the distance that the tool is displaced from the
borehole wall-results in an increase in the apparent porosity value
indicated by the log. This results because the tool is affected by а zone
of 100% equivalent porosity lying between the tool and the borehole
wall. Chart F can be used to correct for the tool stand­off. Unfortunately,
it is seldom known when а tool is off the wall.
• Charts G and Н correct for the departure of measurement tem­perature
and pressure from standard calibration conditions. The or­der of
magnitude of each of these corrections could be substantial in deep
wells. Fortunately, they offset each other, resulting in а small net
correction.

57
 Example 6.3
• А 1980 CNL run in combination with an FDC indi­cates а 28 % apparent
porosity in а zone of interest. Correct this value for borehole conditions
that are different from standard calibration conditions. The measurement
environment is as follows: mudcake thickness is 1/2 in., mud weight is
12 lb./gal, drilling­fluid salinity is 100,000 ppm, formation water salinity
is 150,000 ppm, formation temperature is 225 ̊ F, formation depth is
21,000 ft, and the tool was run eccentric.

58
 Solution
• Enter the nomogram of Fig. 6.15 at 28 % porosity value. Proceed
vertically to the index line marked with an asterisk on Chart А. Follow
the trend lines to -½ in. This value of ½ in. corre­sponds to the mudcake
thickness.
• Draw а vertical baseline at this point, which corresponds to an apparent
porosity of 27 % . In Charts В through Н, move parallel to the trend
lines from the intersection of the baseline and the actu­al measurement
value to the index line, and read the value of the individual correction.

59
 Solution
• Chart B-correction of mudcake presence = + 2%.
• Chart C-borehole-salinity correction= + 0.2%.
• Chart D-formation-salinity correction= -1.4%.
• Chart E-mud-weight correction= + 1.7%.
• Chart F-standoff correction=0.
• Chart G-pressure correction= -3.4%.
• Chart H-temperature correction = +4.3 % .
• Total correction=+З.4%. Corrected porosity=27+3.4=30.4%.
• Assuming that the zone investigated by the tool is invaded with mud filtrate results
in а -1 % correction instead of -1.4 % . The total correction and corrected porosity,
in this case, would be +3.8% and 30.8%, respectively.
60
 Pulsed Neutron Tools
• The pulsed neutron tool periodically emits а burst of high-energy (14-
MeV) neutrons and then measures the time required for а cer­tain fraction
of the neutrons to be absorbed by the formation. Of the common earth
elements, chlorine is by far the strongest neu­tron absorber. In clean
formations, the tool response is determined primarily by the chlorine
present in the formation water. The tool response can be used qualitatively
to differentiate between water-, oil-, and gas-bearing formations. It can
also be used quantitatively to estimate water saturation. Because the tool
can be run in cased holes, it has become an important device for evaluating
old wells and monitoring new wells.
• In а homogeneous medium, the decay of thermal neutrons is the­oretically
an exponential function of time: Eq. 6.5

61
 Pulsed Neutron Tools
• where no = number of thermal neutrons at а time t0 following neu­tron
burst, n = number of thermal neutrons at time t measured from time t0, and
τ = thermal decay time.
• With Schlumberger's Thermal Decay Time (TDTSM) tool, τ is defined as
the time required for the number of neutrons to dimin­ish to а fraction 1/е,
which is about 37 % . The thermal decay time depends on the composite
capture cross section of the formation, ∑. ∑ and τ are related by
Eq. 6.6

• With Atlas Wireline's Neutron Lifetime Log (NLL), τ is de­fined as the

time required for а 50 % decay. In this case, Eq. 6.7

62
 Pulsed Neutron Tools
• The measured capture cross section, ∑log, is related to the con­stituents of
the formation. For а clean, porous formation contain­ing water and
hydrocarbon, Eq. 6.8

• where ∑ma, ∑w and ∑h are the capture cross sections of rock matrix, water,
and hydrocarbon, respectively.
• Solving Eq. 6.8 for water saturation gives Eq. 6.9

• For а clean water-bearing formation, Eq. 6.8 reduces to Eq. 6.10

63
 Pulsed Neutron Tools
• Fig. 6.16 shows ∑w as а function of the total sodium chloride con­tent at
temperatures of 75 and 200 ̊ F. Formation water may con­tain elements
other than chlorine and sodium. Only boron and lithium are important in
the interpretation because of their large capture cross sections.
• ∑h for oil can be derived from Fig. 6.17 when API gravity and the
solution GOR are known. A value of 21 c.u. (1 c.u. = 10-3 cm2/cm3 is a
good approximation of most field conditions.
• Gas capture cross section varies with gas composition, pressure, and
temperature. Fig. 6.18 shows the capture cross section for methane ∑CH4,
as a function of pressure and temperature. Capture cross section of other
Eq. 6.11
gases ∑g , can be approximated as
64
Pulsed Neutron Tools

Flg. 6.16-Water capture

Flg. 6.17-Oil capture cross
cross sectlon, ∑w, as а
sectlon, ∑o , as а function of
function of water
oil gravity and GOR.
equivalent salinity.
65
Pulsed Neutron Tools

Fig. 6.18. Methane capture

cross section, ∑CH4, as а
function of pressure and
temperature

66
 Example 6.4
Estimate the gas saturation in the unswept
and swept Zones G and D of the sand
formation shown in Fig. 6.19. The
following data are also available.

Flg. 6.19-Example of early

TDT log (courtesy
Schlumberger).
67
 Solution
• Using Eq. 6.11 and Fig. 6.18 yields

• From Fig. 6.17, ∑w = 120 c.u.

• Zone W is а water zone displaying а ∑log of 40 c.u. Solving Eq. 6.10 for
porosity, φ, yields Eq. 6.12

• Taking ∑ma =9 c.u. yields

68
 Solution
• Sw can now be estimated from Eq. 6.9. For the unswept Zone G where
∑log = 12.5 c.u.

• and for the swept Zone D where ∑log =28 c.u.,

69
 Reference
• Theory, Measurement, And Interpretation Of Well Logs. Zaki Bassiouni,
1994.

70
71
72