SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-! THE EXCAVATION EFFECT F, Segesman, Schlumberger Limited, and ©. Liu, Schlumberger-Doll Research Center, Ridgefield, Connecticut INTRODUCTION In Neutron Log interpretation, it has been convenient and customary to say that, when properly calibrated for formation lithology, the Neutron Log responds only to the hydrogen of the formation. This hydrogen is that present in the formation water and in the hydrocarbons. Compare two formations of the compositions shown in Fig. 1. Formation "a" has a porosity of 15%, which is 100% water saturated, and formation "b" has a porosity of 30%, which is 50% water saturated and 50% saturated with low-pressure gas. Both formations contain the same bulk-volume fraction of water. Thus, taking the hydrogen index of the gas to be zero, they have the same hydrogen content. It would therefore be assumed that they would have the same Neutron log porosity response. Some time ago, Dr. Jay Titman of Schlumberger's Research Center expressed some doubts about this. He pointed out that, in the two formations, there is a difference in the amount of matrix Fig. 1 Formations "a" and "b’ contain the same amounts of hydrogen. However, the Neutron log porosity of formation "b" is reduced because some of ite matrix Je replaced by gaa (excava- tion effect). EXCAVATED" $=30% Sq =50% Sxo =50 %SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2-5, 1971 material present. In formation "b" it is as if matrix material amounting to 15 percent of formation volume had been removed or “excavated” and low-density gas substituted in its place. Tittman pointed out that equating the Neutron responses for the two cases amounts to ignoring the effects of the "excavated" matrix rock on neutron slowing down and diffusion, neutron capture, attenuation of the capture gamma rays, etc. He made some rough calculations which indicated that the Neutron log response should be somewhat different in the two cases. This difference was termed "excavation effect". Recently, as multiple-porosity-log interpretation became more popular, discrepancies have been noted that confirm Tittman's predic- tion. It was observed in the Gulf Coast, for example, that the presence of gas lowered Neutron porosity readings more than expected on the basis of the hydrogen content of the formation.! Im response to the urgency of this question, the complex com- putations required to accurately evaluate the phenomenon were under- taken, and the results will be reported in the following. Some of these results can be used in Fig. | to illustrate the influence of excavation effect on interpretation. The Neutron porosity log reading expected on the basis of hydrogen index alone would be @Sqq = .30 x 50 = 15 p.u. For Fig. 1b, with a limestone matrix, the computations indicate an excavation effect of about 5.5 p.u., so the Neutron porosity reading will be 15-5.5 or 9.5 p.u. Assuming the actual porosity is known, a gas saturation of about 79% (instead of 50%) will be computed if excavation effect is not corrected for. If the hydrocarbon has a hydrogen index less than one, the consequence of neglecting excavation effect in interpretation involving the Neutron log is to give values of flushed-zone gas saturation that are too high and values of porosity that are too low. Fig. 2 is a log example in which a negative value is found for the density of the hydrocarbon when a correction is not made for ex- cavation effect. If the excavation-effect correction is made, a plausible value is found for the hydrocarbon density. Interval A is a zone in a relatively shallow, clean, gas-bearing sand. Log readings and interpretation parameters are tabulated under the figure. Shaliness and lithology effects can be neglected, so the response equations for the porosities from Neutron and Density logs TReferences are listed at end of paper.SPWLA TWELFTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, MAY 2 GAMMA RAY 1.7 DENSITY LOG (gm/cc) 27] PROXIMITY LOG so __ SNP NEUTRON (pu) of | ____ INDUCTION LOG _ lg CALIPER 6} liso SONIC At (usec/tt) so) 1 } = DENSITY ] Gamma} { RAY YY tcauipeR| lea y 5 y dus 15 pu. R= 48 Py = 1.93, giving $y = 42.5 pu. Rerox = 3.5 At = 138, giving $s = 38 pu. Rw = 0.28 at fm. temp. (uncorrected for compaction ) Rmmf=0.15 at fm. temp. vulte in Fig. 2 Log example in which uncorrected excavation effect 11 computation of a negative value for hydrocarbon density. can be written: eee (6) Geet o (1 She) (a) ec ie DA) sexo! 6S 8x, US) - Ob (ip) where we have tentatively shown the excavation-effect term, -Ad.# ‘Nex The hydrocarbon responses, éph and éNh, can be written in terms of pp, the hydrocarbon density.3 (Or see Appendix.) The corres- ponding relations can then be used to provide graphical hydrocarbon cor- rections on a Neutron-Density crossplot.4 Fig. 3 shows two such graphi- cal constructions, one including excavation-effect correction and one without. We shall use both charts to interpret interval A. * See Ref. 2, Eqs. 16-11 and 16-12. ** Symbols are listed at the end of the paper.