SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1

AN EVALUATION OF A RHYOLITE-BASALT-VOLCANIC ASH SEQUENCE FROM WELL LOGS

By

S. K. Sanyal, Stanford University; S. Juprasert,

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; and M. Jusbasche, Shell Oil Co.

ABSTRACT

This paper reports an empirical and innovative approach toward evaluation

of logs from a well of “unusual” lithology: rhyolites, basalt and volcanic
ash. The study was based on Borehole Compensated Sonic, Compensated Neutron-
Formation Density, Temperature and drill cuttings logs. About 5000 ft of the
gamma ray log, and of the porosity logs were digitized and analyzed with the
help of a computer.

No standard matrix parameters were available for the lithologic components

encountered in this well. However by a careful and synergistic analysis, the
well was evaluated as regards its lithology, zonation and the location of
fracture zones. Gamma ray and neutron responses were most useful for lithol-
ogy discrimination in this well.

The well section could be divided into 36 distinct zones based on lithol-
ogic and pore geometrical characteristics. Lithologies of each zone, particu-
larly the ash content could be estimated. Several permeable zones were identi-
fied from the porosity, caliper and temperature log information and a rough
estimate of the total thickness of permeable zones-was possible. Most ap~arent
permeable zones were found to occur below 9,000 feet and were associated with
basaltic layers.

INTRODUCTION

Log analysis, particularly quantitative analysis, is usually confined to

sedimentary formations. For igneous and metamorphic formations there is no
established log analysis approach; very few logging publications have dealt
with such lithologies. The main difficulty here is the lack of matrix response
data for “unusual” lithologies encountered in non–sedimentary areas. During
the last few years many wells have been drilled in unusual lithologies in
search of geothermal energy, the well discussed here being one. In spite of
the lack of matrix response data the authors have been able to perform meaning-
ful semi-quantitative log analyses in many such cases by using innovative
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

and synergistic approaches. This paper describes such an approach.

This study consists of a preliminary analysis of the set of available

well logs from a well in a complex volcanic lithology sequence. The aim
was to obtain approximate extimates of lithology, pore geometry, porosity
and permeability in the formations penetrated by a 5000 ft section of the
well. The following well logs were available: Borehole Compensated Sonic
10g (BHC Sonic), Compensated Neutron (CNL) - Formation Density (FDC) log,
and Temperature logs (3 repeat runs). The BHC Sonic log was accompanied
by gamma ray (GR) and caliper logs; it presented both sonic transit time
(At) and porosity (assuming a sandstone matrix of At = 51.3 U sec/ft)
values. The CNL-FDC log presented porosities assuming limestone matrix
(bulk density of matrix = 2.71 gins/cc), together with GR and caliper logs.
The temperature logs presented absolute values of temperature in regular
and reduced sensitivity scales. No core analysis data were available for
this well. A drill cuttings log of the well was utilized in the analysis.
Lack of core analysis data prevented quantitative estimates of permeability;
permeable zones were identified qualitatively.

PROCEDURE

The log data were digitized and stored on a magnetic tape for computer
analysis. The traces digitized were: GR, At, sonic porosity (sandstone
matrix), density porosity (limestone matrix) and neutron porosity (limestone
matrix) . The remainder of the log data was utilized qualitatively. The
data were digitized at 2 ft. intervals. The digitized data were printed as
tabular listings to check for data consistency and accuracy. Since only a
preliminary analysis was attempted, no detailed calibration or normalization
was attempted. The data were then input into a series of statistical pro-
grams to diagnose existing trends in the data. As a part of this procedure,
the various parameters were crossplotted against one another; the frequency
distribution of each parameter was plotted. The crossplots also indicated
overplotting or frequencies - a numeral in the plot indicates the number of
data points corresponding to that point on the plot. Alphabets ‘A’ through
‘Z’ on the plots represent numerals 10 through 35, consecutively. If more
than 35 data points overplot, that point is indicated as ‘Z’. The statis-
tical approach, pattern recognition, standard crossplotting techniques, and
a close study of the drill cuttings log were combined in order to understand
the lithological characteristics and pore geometries of the formations and
arrive at the characteristic properties of the basic lithological units.
The data were then input into a log analysis computer program where para-
meters such as porosity were calculated. It should be pointed out that
conventional log analysis techniques were of little use in analyzing the
responses of a volcanic lithology. Hence an innovative, synergistic approach
was attempted.
 SPWLA TWENTI ETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 2-6, 1

RESULTS

This section summarizes the important results of this study.

Lithology: The study of the drill cuttings log as well as the other well
logs showed that the lithology was primarily rhyolite with occasional inter-
layering of basalt and volcanic ash. Rhyolite varied in color from gray, green
to pink and was sometimes porphyritic. Rhyolite was sometimes pyritic and
often altered. The rhyolite sometimes occurred as a meta–rhyolite. Minor
amounts of granite, andesite and greenstone had been reported in drill cuttings
from some sections. The ash was sometimes ferruginous and colorful. Ash
occurred both as definite beds and mixed with rhyolite. Basalt appeared
to occur as thin interlayerings in rhyolite.

A detailed statistical correlation of the drill cuttings description with

log responses allowed identification of the three most frequent rock types
(rhyolite, basalt and volcanic ash) in this sequence and their typical log
responses. Figures 1 through 4 present the frequency distribution of several
log responses in this well. Figure 1 shows the frequency distribution of normal-
ized gamma ray responses in the well. This figure allows excellent discrimination
between the three basic lithological units: rhyolite (Mean GR=147), basalt
(Mean GR=72) and ash (Mean GR=20). Figure 2 shows the distribution of interval
transit time (At). All three basic lithologies have very similar At values;
hence the distribution is unimodal. Figure 3 presents the distribution of
density porosity (assuming limestone lithology), which is unimodal. Thus sonic
and density responses were not useful in lithology discrimination. Figure 4
shows the distribution of neutron porosity (limestone matrix). Although not
obvious, neutron response is diagnostic, particularly when used in conjunction
with GR response, in unraveling the lithology. The neutron responses for the
three basic lithologic types are indicated in Figure 4.

Figures 5 through 7 present crossplots of At, density porosity and neutron

porosity, respectively, against GR prepared to help discriminate better between
the three basic lithologies and indicate zonations in the subject well. The
inferred lithologic groupings are indicated on the plots. Data points falling
outside the closed regions for the three “pure” lithologies are of “mixed”
lithologies, the terms “pure” and “mixed” being somewhat subjective. These
statistical plots proved useful in further analysis of the lithology and porosity.

Figures 8 and 9 present plots of density porosity and neutron porosity,

respectively, against At. As is obvious, Figure 8 has no apparent diagnostic
value. Figure 9 can be used to discriminate between ash on the one hand and
rhyolite and basalt on the other, as indicated. The situation is similar in
Figure 10, where neutron porosity is plotted versus density porosity. However,
with proper calibration, Figures 9 or 10 may be used to estimate the relative
abundance of basalt in rhyolite.

Besides histograms and crossplots, the computer plots of various log

responses versus depth proved useful in identifying lithologic types and
zonation in the sequence. For example, Figure 11 is a plot of GR reponse
versus depth and shows that overall GR response in general remains consistent
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE >6, 1979

throughout the section; it indicates that the section is composed of three basic
lithologic units (rhyolite, basalt, ash) with consistent log responses as
discussed before. Figure 12, is a plot of neutron porosity with depth, where a
decline in neutron porosity with depth is observed. As indicated in Figure 12,
the data points for ash zones fall above the dashed line, while those for
rhyolite and basalt fall below. The declining trend of neutron porosity with
depth is more apparent for rhyolite and basalt lithologies than for ash.

By combining all above-mentioned observations, the well section was

divided into thirty-six distinct zones, each with a distinct set of inferred
lithologic or pore geometrical characteristics (such as existence of pores
and fractures) . For example, Table 1 presents the description of a part of
the analyzed well section. This section includes zones 7 through 15 out of the
36 identified. The lithologic descriptions given in the table are based on
drill cuttings, petrographic thin section analysis of some cuttings, and log
responses. The table also shows the average values of gamma ray response and
sonic, density and neutron porosities (all in sandstone units) for each zone.
Figure 13 shows a plot of GR responses for these zones versus depth. Similarly
Figures 14, 15 and 16 present plots of At, density porosity and neutron porosity,
respectively, for the zones. Up to 9,000 ft the lithology of zones consist
primarily of rhyolite with or without ash. Below 9,000 ft, the lithology is
more complex with copious occurrence of basalt and change of rhyolite to meta–
rhyolite below about 9,000 ft. Occasional occurrence of granite, andesite,
greenstone, etc., are noted below 9,000 ft. Several zones in this depth
range show complex “mixed” lithologies.

Both GR and neutron responses have been used to calculate the percentage
of ash in the formations encountered in this well. For example, the following
empirical correlation seemed to apply to this well:
Ash content (percent) = 107.34 - 0.56 x GR response (1)
(in API units)
The above formula assumes a linear relationship between ash content and GR
response and is based on a statistical study of the GR response coupled with
correlation of drill cuttings data and a few pieces of thin–section petro-
graphic data.

Figure 17 is the conventional M vs. N plot where M and N are defined as:

M-y x 0.01, and (2)

‘b
1
N= J- – @
(3)
‘b-l

where p is the bulk density in gins/cc (calculated from digitized density

porosit~ data), @ is the neutron porosity (limestone matrix) as fraction, and
At is the sonic t~avel time (V sec/ft). In Figure 17, M and N values of each
of the thirty-six zones are plotted and the groupings of “pure” ash and rhyolite/
basalt lithologies are indicated. The arrow towards the southwest corner
indicates the direction of increasing ash content. From a study of drill cuttings
and thin-section data, it appears that in the rhyoloite/basalt region, the points
move downwards as rhyolites become Pyritic or metamorphosed. However, data were
insufficient to verify this fact.
 SF’WLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3

Porosity: Calculation of porosity from the sonic, density, and neutron

logs requires the knowledge of At, bulk density, and neutron response, respective
of the matrix material; these were not known for the lithologies encountered
in this well. An attempt was made to derive these parameters from the existing
log data. In a detailed analysis of these logs, it may be possible to obtain
the required matrix response data from the logs and to calculate lithology
and porosity by the conventional three-porosity–log analysis approach based on
the three basic lithologies in this well. However, the presence of pyrite or oth
minor minerals or rock types and the occurence of metamorphosed zones may frustra
any detailed evaluation of lithology and porosity in some zones. Also, care-
ful calibration checks and normalization of data are essential before reliable
matrix response data can be derived from logs.

Table 1 shows the average porosity values (all normalized to a sandstone

matrix basis) for each zone from the three porosity logs. Sonic log-derived
porosities presented in the log were based on Atm of 51.3 p sec/ft, a value
for pure quartz. The following observations were made from the three porosity
data sets for all zones:
1. Neutron porosity is higher compared to the other two porosities in most
zones, particularly those with ashy lithology, probably because of a
higher hydrogen index of the ash encountered.
2. Density porosity is lower than the other two in ashy zones. Ash
may have higher electron density than pure quartz.
3. Sonic porosity is lower than the other two in many suspected fracture
zones . This is to be expected as the sonic log is usually unaffected
by the presence of secondary porosity.
4. For unaltered, relatively ash-free, rhyolites the sonic and density
porosities are very close.
5. Although the data are limited, it appears that in zones containing
basalt, the density porosity is lower than the sonic porosity. The
reason for this is not understood.

Permeability: Without core analysis information, it is impossible to

quantify the permeability of each zone. A qualitative appraisal of permeability
was attempted. Rhyolite is usually dense and has very little porosity or per-
meability. However, fractures may provide sufficient porosity and substantial
permeability to rhyolite. Altered or ashy rhyolite may have significant
porosity but it is doubtful if it has any permeability. Mets-rhyolite, unless
fractured, is likely to be non-porous and impermeable. Ash, such as Zone 10
(Table l),may have some porosity, but it is unlikely to have permeability.
Basalts are likely to be porous and permeable.

With these basic understandings, the porosity, temperature, and caliper

logs were studied to detect permeable zones. An enlarged hole diameter in this
well indicates either a fractured zone or an ash bed. A temperature perturbation
(from the general temperature gradient) on the temperature log, is likely to
indicate a permeable zone. Combining these considerations, it was concluded
that portions of several zones we,re permeable; a rough estimate of total
permeable section in this well was made. Most permeable zones appeared to
be associated with basalt, and hence occurred below 9,000 ft where basalts
occur in abundance.
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

CONCLUSIONS

The important conclusions of this study are:

1. The combination of drill cuttings logs with GR, porosity, temperature
and caliper logs allowed a preliminary, semi-quantitative evaluation
of a complex volcanic sequence by the use of an empirical statistical
approach.
2. The well displayed three basic lithologic types: rhyolite, volcanic
ash and basalt. Rhyolite in some zones was pyritic, porphyritic or
metamorphosed, or altered. Ash occurred mixed with rhyolite or as
distinct beds. Basalt occurred interlayered with rhyolite.
3. Gamma ray and neutron responses were most useful for lithology dis-
crimination in this well.
4. There is a general decline in apparent porosity with depth.
5. The well could be divided into a number of distinct zones based on
lithologic and pore geometrical characteristics.
6. Lithological composition, particularly the ash content, could be
estimated.
7. Neutron porosity is higher compared to the other two porosities in
most zones, particularly those with ashy lithology, probably because
of a higher hydrogen index of the ash encountered.
8. Density prosity is higher than the other two in ashy zones. Ash
may have higher electron density than pure quartz.
9. Sonic porosity is lower than the other two in many suspected fracture
zones. This is to be expected as the sonic log is usually unaffected
by the presence of secondary porosity.
10. For unaltered, relatively ash-free rhyolites, the sonic and density
porosities are very close.
11. Although the data are limited, it appears that in zones containing
basalt, the density porosity is lower than the sonic porosity. The
reasons for this are not understood.
12. Several permeable zones were identified from the porosity, caliper and
temperature log information and a rough estimate was made-of the total
thickness of permeable zones. Most apparent permeable zones were
found to occur below 9,000 feet and were associated with basaltic layers

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to J.E. Ellithorpe for his advice on computer
graphics. A part of this work was performed in partial fulfillment of the
degree of Engineer by Mr. M. Jubasche at Stanford University. Financial support
from Stanford University is gratefully acknowledged. The bulk of this work was
originally completed by the authors while employed by Geonomics, Inc.
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

‘)

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

SUBIR K. SANYAL is the manager of the Stanford University

Petroleum Research Institute and a consultant in well log–
ing and reservoir engineering. He has worked as vice-
president of Geonomics, Inc., as a senior staff specialist
with the U.S. Geological Survey, as a consulting engineer
with Scientific Software Corporation, and as a senior
petroleum engineer with Texaco, inc. He has been a con-
sulting professor in Petroleum Engineering at Stanford
University since April, 1977. He obtained masters degrees
in applied geology from the Indian Institute of Technology
and in petroleum engineering from Birmingham University T
(England), and received a Ph.D. in petroleum engineering
from Stanford University. He is a member of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Society of Professional Well Log Analysts,
and the Geothermal Resources Council. He has published
twenty-five technical papers.

SIRISAK JUPRASERT is a Reservoir Engineer with the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

of the University of California. Before joining his current employer, Mr.
Juprasert worked as a reservoir engineer with Geonomics, Inc. He has a B.S. in
Chemistry from Chulalongkorn University is Thailand and an M.S. in Petroleum
Engineering from Tulsa University. He is a member of the SPE of AIME and has
published several technical papers.

MICHAEL JUBASCHE is a Petroleum Engineer with Shell Oil Co. in Houston. He

has obtained a B.S. in Petroleum Engineering from Texas A and M University, and
an M.S. and Engineer’s degree in Petroleum Engineering from Stanford University.
Mr. Jusbasche has worked with Geonomics, Inc. in log evaluation while carrying
on graduate studies at Stanford.

7
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION OF A TYPICAL SECTION IN THE NRLL

POROSITY (percent, Sandstone Unit)

ZONS BOTTOM (ft) LITHOLOGY .,...- “ --..”

NEUTRON
.-.

Z!MEl 3UN 1(, ULN3L1X

7 7,020 7,090 Gray rhyolite (GR = 177) 10.5 10.4 15.4

8 7,090 7,140 Same with ash (GR = 166) 16.0 16.1 24.0

9 7,140 7,300 Light gray to pink rhyolite 9.0 10.9 16.0

CGR= 173)

10 7,300 7,420 Ash, ferruginous (.GR= 26) 10.0 1.0 28.0

11 7,420 7,460 Rhyolitic ash (GR = 134) 15.0 11.9 22.6

12 7,460 7,710 Rhyolite, pyrftic in part 6.5 5.7 13.6

CGR= 144)

13 7,710 7,780 Altered rhyolitic ash CGR= 141) 13.0 11.4 22.0

14 7,780 7,900 Gray rhyolite altered to clay 8.0 10.9 16.0

in part (GR = 159)

15 7,900 7,970 Ashes of various colors, some 8.0 0.5 28.0

ferruginous (GR = 22)

Xxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxx
Xx. xxxx%x
Xxxxxxxx
X.xxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxtixx
.iE*J3 Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxrxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
XX XX KXXXXX
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX XX XXKX
XX XX XX XX XX XXYX
Xxlxixxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxkxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX XX AX XXXX
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxixxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.ic*J2 %Xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
XX X.XX XX XXh XAXXXXXXXX
XX XX XX XX YXXXXXXXXXXX
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX KXXXXX
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A$~ Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxhxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x.x Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx
.>C+#.? xx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxx
xx Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXK BASALT Xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx
lXXXXX XXNXXXXXXXXX XKXX<XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXX
Xaxxixxx Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Axxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.!>XXKXXXXX Xxxx xx xx~axxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Axxxxxxxxx X%xxxxxx xx Axxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AX XXX XX XXX XX xx Xxxxxxlxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxfixxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
.+tt$ll A> XX XX X) YXXXXXXX xx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxaxx xxxxxxxxxx xKxxxxxxxx xx
. ● ● ● ● ●
● ● * * * ●
● ● ● * * ●
. . ● *
.LL7.!c*02 .4 B24E+02 .8475E+02 .1213 E+ ’33 . 157e:+03 ,1943:.03

CA)(NA RAY (API U417SI

FIGURE 1: GR HISTOGRAM
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1

Xxxx
..S*03
Xxxx
Xxxxxx
XXxxxx
Xxxxxx
Xxxxxx
Xxxxxx
Xxxxxx xx
Xxxxxxxxxx
.’C +33 Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
>Xxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxxx
X>xxxxx?bxxx xx
Xxxxxxxxixxxxx xx
Xxxxxxxx$xxxxxxxxx
X>xxx>x; xxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxxx:xxxxxx
.LE*43 Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX. %> XX AXKKXX
Xxxxxxkx>xxxxxxx$x
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.rXxxx) >xxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxx xxx:xxxsxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX8XXX*XXX*XXXXXXX
Xxxxxxxxxx kxxxxxxaxxxx xx
Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XJX)XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxx.xx x#xxx Axxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx >xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx
Xxxx.xx xxaxxxx xxaxxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX XYX.XXXXX
xx KxYxx>zx xxxxxxx xxxxxxr. xxxx
Xxxlxxxxxx ?:xxxxxhxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxx.xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX XX> XX2XXXX XX JXXXXXXXXXXX
Xxxxxnxxxk xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.5t+”2 Xxxxx>> x:x> x>xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
XX XX XX XX XX XX XXXX
XX XXXYX Xxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxx?>xx axaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx xx
Xxxxxxxxx? zxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
XXxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xx
XX XX XX3XXXXX XX XX
XX XAXXXXXXXX XXX XX XX XX XXX XX
Xxxxxxxxxx xx; xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx txxxxxxxxxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XX XX XX X%> XX*> X> XX XX XX XX> XX
XXX Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.* E+ II XX XX XX X* XXXPXXXXXXXXX
XX XX X>xxxx.xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x
● . ● * ●
● . * ● ●
● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●

.+372. +02 .5302E +02 .6234E+02 .7165 E+.12 .8095 E*02

INTERv$L TP4Ns[T TIME [N ICRCSECOND/FCOT)

FIGURS 2: INTERVALTRANSIT TINE HISTOGRAM

.2 E*$3

Xxxx
Xxxxxx
#xx”xx
#xln Y.>xx%x
.1e*u3 XX XX XXXYXX
>X>xxxxxx”xx
Xx, ”xxx, xn, xxx
X,, xxxxxxxx, xx
X,> X*” XX XXXXXX xx
XX K,h X. XX, XXXX#X XX
Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Y.XXXIX
:Xxxxxx
IEK*SXKX<RZ
xxxxxxxx:xxax
XXX

XKxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxzx

X>lxxxx x:xxxxxxxxxx xxx xx
XXX XX XX XX XNXXXXKXXX XXX xnxx
XXxxxxxx xxxxxx” xxxxxxxxxxzxx
aaxxxa) x~xxxxxx mxx, >xxx, xxxx
Xrxxxx, xxxxxxx ”xxxxxxnxxx xxx
88> XX:lXXXX .X XX IXh XKKKKXLXXK XX

.>i ..3.?

xx
X“ix
xx XX X$ KXX, XXX KU KKXXSXRKXX. XXXXXX XX XX KZKXXXK KXXK. KXK%XXXXXKX XXX XX
.: XXKX xxxxxxx r#xxxxx xxxxx"",lx xxxxx, x,"x, xK"xxx, xxxxx"*sxxxxxxx "xx xx

ha XX XX’ X.XX XX XX XX XX XX XKXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXX XX XX XX XXX XX XXAXX4X XX XX X1 XX KXXX Xxxxxx xxx

X.X1X xrxxxxx xxxxxal xx#KKxxx xxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx ixxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
., E.”1 A*xxxxxx xxxxAxxx xKxxxx J8xxxxx u#Kxxxxbx xxx XX XYXXXXX XX XX XX XX XX XX X8 XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX IXXX Kx
, . * . .
. . ● . .
. . ● . . :
. .
.<953E.01
● . . .
. 2>> J.-O1 .+987E .01 .14925 .02 .1989 E+02 .2* B5E .02

FIGURE 3: DENSITTPOROSITYHISTOGRAM
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...+..; :......+.+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . .
: . - ::
:. { - . ; ~.
:.
.
:, . ;
::
: : --.
. .
.4.
2
---

:
.- ----- :2. .
;
--- ---- :.
. . . . . . . . . . ---- . . . . . . . . ... . . .. 0.0. . . ...- .. .. .. . . ...,”.-..
1“’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’”
. ...< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..- ::
:.
.
:.
:!
::
~-- .. -z- :.
. ... .
“,. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1

Z9.,2
.....+
. ...................+....0..............+.......L,....+.....+.].....+........,...+~+,++,,
~+,...
~
.
. ..
.. .
. ..
. .
.
. .. 1
. L
1
1
23.86. .
. 1 111
. 111 1 .
. :1 1
. .
. ‘1
+ .
11 1
211 1 .
. 412221 1 12 .
. z 2111!
11112
>222 21
1 2
1
1
1 ●
17.90-
.. 1
☞
✎
. 1 2213’ 1 1 .
+ L 1 142 2 > +
. 1 112 z +
. 211 L21G? L .
. 1 1 1124285
+

.. ..
1 Zis]tbl 1 1
11
11 .9..
. 1

+
1
.
L
?-t,,
1357. EIPMIA
Z,4CCXLV3tA
z
+
.
.1
1 .
.
.1
L
1
1,1
1
1
L LZ385YCC
,
.
.
1
+
.
5.90. 1 12:!5341’s11 .... .. .
. 2>421112+ 1 ,11,11
1;1
1
.
+ 21211111 12
11 .
. 1 21 1 131 532
.
. 1 1213? 1+ 1 1
,
. 1 11 \21i2
,
.
. 1 111
111%1
21311
.
. 11
:
.$2
,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..+ . . . . . . . ,+1,..,.,
121 11
.......... .........+..................
82.82 93.99 99.57
4s. 7?.

1.41 ERv1L lRA.511 7111E l.l CRC SECOND /FOOfl

FIGUM 8: DENSITY PoROS1= VS. INTERVAL TSMSIT T1m

...................................... ......i:.,.....,,,,
.................. . ........................................................................................................
,1

7’
,1,1,111,
,1,11111211
1 L

1,
1
.
.

‘-’) !
‘,
2,,
2,1

>, ,,
L,,
!., ,,4
1
,,
:1
,

!1, ;’
,11

ASH ‘i
,

z~
1
2

m’ ‘
L
L,

11

1 ,
11
. .
.
..
.
8 BASALT
Ii.$!.
,,.9,.
.,,1 “Y .’ ;:>!

.:1
.... .... .
,3,,1 . , ,
,, 2,, ,>,3> ,2, I
.1 1,99; ,321>6>+8 21
,.$..
,,
1
. .,, , / ‘“i”iwi /1 :

,4,, z
.,31 Y 1 .

/
....;.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.,.., ,.<.,. ......................................................................
............... \ ........?....!
+,. 7, ,, 7,.2> ,2 .,2 8,.4, $3. !9 w 1.,,
.s2 ,.90 3.., ,.’46 11.54

om( 7,
lb.*2

mm,, ,
tl. m Za. m 21... 2.. a. 1,.

FIGUW 10: NEUTRONPOROSITY VS. DENSlTY POROS1’N

FIGORE 9: NEuTRON POROSITY VS. INTERVAL TFANSIT TIKE
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979
..
L
..-.--
1
I..
1 1 1
. ... ...”
1
,.
. . .. . .

1
../
I 1
.

1
“.: I
. ..-
-..7:.

1
.:..
.

1
r...

:.
-1
..

‘:,~> ] I
1
.
8
0
0
l“:”11
I ~, .............. . .-.<%.-”
~ ;
/
/ ~~ . .. . . . : ““-:~;ig:””
.
. . .. .
. . . .--.
. . . .. ..
/ . .. -..: .-. :.’.-. . . -.:,
“., ”
..,- .
. . . .. .

..:j~:. .
—
0.
o~
1
. ..
. ....;, .,.-. .. -. .,,>:
““,.,f,,. ..> .. -,..
. . X-; ..b
. ...
‘. ,,.i.. “
..\.:.....
,..+.

. . 0)
s
(/Y
12
I . . WJ
. . . :%JK. .. .
# , : ., .:$.,: ..
<
~’<”..j’::~:: :-. ,... “ “.‘.. .; y- 0
/ .:,,.<,.-
. .. ..- . .. . . 0
.&, .:,.-.Y““--- - ““ . . .
. ..... :, ,0. ., . . .
. . 0
. . t.
,.. ,). ”. ,., -
. . : :, :.- . .. . a)
I
. . .. . . .-.,. ,A, ---
““.:;!.”3
i-. .
- , ,,:. ,, .. . .... .. . ..... ..... . .. ..-
/
.. ....-
o
.. 0
0
r.
o
I 1 1 I j 0
0
o (0
AlIS02j0d N0Hll13N
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6,

,+,. . ,, ,,, ****++.* ,,, ,+,,,0. ,+* .+*+,*,,+,+,*+,*+

.+, ++! ,,++, +.,.*.+.< .+.+. ,.
<4..29*
+ +
. ●
. ☞
● ✎
☞
I
,x
.
+ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ●

T . ✌
+ ✎
t
●
4
t4.1 R* ●
v
A + 1 ●
+ ●
L
+ ☞

r ● ✎

4 ● ✎
● + ☞
, 1 1 2 ✌
☞
: .
i + 1 1 ✌

r 14.: b*) L 1 ✎

●1 I 42 1 32 ✌
1 +1 1 1 12 I ✌

I Ii L ?’ 11 11 ☞
‘4 2 1’ 11 L+
k . 1 11 1:2’1 i 1+
* 11: 1 I ?.

1 + .? 13 1 1 1.
1! + 11 111 2 ; L 111 ,
. ill L 1 1 L 12 1 +
: (5.95. * 13 1 1 2111 1 1 21 1
n ● 1 21 1 2131
J + 2 211: ;332 1.?1? 1 31 i
s , ,1 213121 t 21 1: .11 111 3221; +

. , 2 31212+113243 12 121 1 21 +
. 1 L 1 143111121 142242] 21 +

; , “11 2 3112 12 3 .
:, + 1 +
, 1 ,
; + L ●
6 55. L!3* ●
J , 1 +
u + 11 +
r + +
1 + 1 +
. +
. il ●
. .
+ .
1 +
,.. +. ,,+ ,+,. .,,,..4 ,,. ,, . . . . . ,. . .,. , .,.,,.,,,,,+. +,~, ,, ,. +,, ,. +,,+,.. ● ,,*. ,.
7.9< 1 71.9. P> 72$*.43 13ss.22 7+ ’+9.00 75s8.80 7698.40 7790.40 1098.21 7998.00

I.EL1 DEPTH (FEEII

FIGURE 14: INTERVAL TRANSIT TI.MSVS. DEPTH

I r -i I I 1 i I 11- m 1-
1“”
I I I I I I

25 -
7 8 10 1: 12 13: 14 15
,.

t
,, ,.
2(I -

,.
.’ ... .
\..

,I(JV$
... :.
,. ,

. .. ...
L ..-

.,,
“! “, “

15 - ,,
. .. : ., .’
\
. . ,’.

.,..
*,.,. .,, .,

.
:,.
,,
.
.!
,!, ...,

. .
~

L
H
10 ? ,’ ..- “..:.,”.
,.. .
..
.. . . . .... ,.. .
.. .. . ...” ,..
. . ,! .

,.
f ~
,...
5 - ‘,,
Y

(
,,

~ .
.. .
,,
.
.

,“. ...
r
OLJIIIII. lllllll L ) I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1111, LL L

7000 7200 7400 7600 7800 Uooo

DEPTH
FIGURZ 15: DENSITY POROSITY VS. DEPTH
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

29 .96.. ,,+., ,+, ,,*.+*+,+++,+,+,.+,+*+*+

,,+ .,, *..*,**,,+.,,, ,+,,,, +,++ ,., +.+.... !+ ..+ ●☛
● ☞
+ 1 ✌
+ 1 ✎
+
.
3 11 ☞
11 2 1
+ 7 8 9 1 12 13 14 ;15 ✎
☞

. 11; 21 ✎
. 111 ✎
+ 22 1 22 ✎
23.9A* 11 21 2 ●
+ 22. Ii ☞
+ 2 1;1 ✎
+ 1 11 1 ☞
. 1 ☞
+ 1 1 ☞
1
. 11 il 1 1 ●
. :1 2 1 1: 1 1+
+ ? 21 +
+ 1 122
18. C1.
● 1
1
3 2 11
1:
.?1
. 1 1 1 12
10 1+
+: 1 ●
1 1 1.2 1 1 1 ●
. 1 1: .
1 1 1
12 1 11 2 121 1211 1
. 2 11 1 11 .
. !1 2 1 1’1 1211; +
,2.:3. 11!1 1111 11 31 2 1111 ●
. ] 1112 21 22 2 1 ,
1 131 2
. 2 21 ?1?2 11 11231 112; 11+ 1 2 .
, 1; !2 122 442 11 21 11 3 .
+ 1 1 1 12323311 .
2
. 1 1 1242112 11131 1 h +
. 1 31 4 2 12 12 21 .
. 1 13 14 ,
+ ~: 1 12 .
. 1 .
6. :(,. 1 ●
. 1 ? +
+ +
+ +
+ 1 ●
+ ●
. ●
+ 2 +
+ ●
1
+
,,, ., .+.,,,,+,+,< , . ...+..,+. .. .+*+..,,., .+*+.,+.++.+, .,... ● ✎☞☞☞☞☞☞✎☞✌
1
,+*., ,.
199.6? 72*9, 7399.20 ;+99.00 7590.80 1690.1 77q 40 7898 .2.7 7998.00

HELL Of PIH (FEET)

FIGURE 16: NEUTRON POROSITY VS. DEPTH

RHYOLITE
— 025

—& BASALT @ 14

04 026 027 029 PYRITIC &

05 013 ~3 META-RHTOLITES
11 17 16
@19CZ2 09 01 @2 036
8 12,23 24
~.20 028 031

07 034

035 ~ 18

~~1 06 033
ASH

m
@ 32 ~ 21

1
+
0,45
U ASH
.
0 10

I
0.50
I

0.55 0.60
I

0.65
“ N “ Values

FIGURI 17: M VS. N PLOT