http://www.discovery-group.com/pdfs/Characteristic_Tool_Responses.

pdf

Characteristic logging tool responses for various lithologies and minerals

DTS

Pe

PhiNLS

2640
2710
2850
(variable)

1.8
5.1
3.1
~3

4.8
13.8
9.0

Phiactual > PhiNLS

Phiactual = PhiNLS
Phiactual < PhiNLS
Phiactual < PhiNLS

4.7
~0.18
5.1
4.8
1.8
6.3
3.5
2.0

9.5
~0.22
15.0
14.0
4.4
17.0
0.9
4.0
0.18-0.28
111.0
1090.0

PhiNLS when actual porosity = 0.15

56.0
49.0
44.0

184.0
161.0
144.0

88.0
88.4
72.0

289
290
236

51.3 to 55.6
43.5 to 47.6
38.5 to 43.5

168 to 182
143 to 156
126 to 143

88.0
88.4
72.0

289
290
236

67.0
>105
50.0

220.0
>328
164.0

120.0

394

67.0
>105
50.0

220.0
>328
164.0

120.0

394

212.0

698.0

328.0

1078

212.0

698.0

328.0

1078

80-160
42.9
69.7
57

260-525
141
229
187

79.3
132.7

261
436

80-160
42.9
69.7
57

260-525
141
229
187

79.3
132.7

261
436

208 to 179

682 to 587

(189)

(620)

oil

230

755

algorithm that applies to the

gas

920

3018

specific tool type.

usec/ft

usec/m

usec/ft

usec/m

usec/ft usec/m

Gardner-Hunt-Raymer (GHR)
"Empirical" or "Field Observation"

>0.35: swelling clays

21.0
267.0

0.398 to

1.0 to 1.2 1000 to 1200

usec/ft usec/m

Wyllie Time-Average

g/cm3

Kg/m3

0.11
0.15
0.21

1.36

b/e

Density tool measurements

-0.03
>0.40
-0.02
~0.38
~0.37
-0.52
~0.30
~0.60
0.50 - 0.65
0.11
-0.02

Baker Atlas 2420 CN Log

Units

< 2530
2040
~1300
2980
2860
2410
2760
2520
2120
1000-1400
5180
4090

Weatherford CNS

saturated

< 2.53
2.04
~1.3
2.98
2.86
2.41
2.76
2.52
2.12
1.0-1.4
5.18
4.09

0.107 0.107 0.098

0.1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.232 0.174 0.17 0.165

Halliburton DSN II

water:
fresh to salt

2.64
2.71
2.85

Neutron

RHOgrain

Schlumberger CNL; TNPH

Matrix Values

DTC

Schlumberger CNL; NPHI

Fluid values

DTS

DTC

lithology
sandstone
limestone
dolomite
shale
gas shale
salt
coal (average)
anhydrite
glauconite
kaolinite
chlorite
illite
montmorillonite
kerogen
hematite
barite
steel

Density

Sonic/Acoustic

Mineral/

Lithology corrections vary with

~1

company and tool type, so it is

important to use the chart or

One result is not "better" than

b/cm3

v/v decimal

From

Values vary with

RHOB and

differences in tool response

company and tool

PE

version

because of tool design.

another; there are just

BakerAtlas, 2003, Atlas Log Interpretation Charts; Baker Hughes website accessed 02 February 2010.
Halliburton, (no date listed), Log Interpretation Charts, EL 1001, pp. APP-4a&4b, Halliburton, Houston, Texas.
Data Sources

Schlumberger, 2009, Log Interpretation Charts, 2009 Edition, 09-FE-0058, Appendix B; Schlumberger, Sugar Land, Texas.
Weatherford, 2007, Log Interpretation Charts Compact Tool Series, Document 4060.01, Chart Lith-3C, Weatherford, Houston, Texas.
Rick Lewis, 2010, Notes from AAPG Basic Well Log Analysis course, July.

07.2010 Dak