Oilfield ma X ‘Oetober 1991Foc u s The Dolomite Transform Enigma N ulron logging, the measurenient of cap- ‘ture gamma rays or neutrons to determine porosity, hhas a 45-year history checkered with unexpected elfects. One that persisted until recently was a Problem withthe dolomite porosity transform of the ‘compensated neutron tool, which uses two det tors to reduce borehole effects and increase depth of investigation. A porosity transform, or response curve, relates porosity tothe ratio of counting rates ofthe two detectors in dolomite formations. Using the appropriate dolomite transform can make or break the assessment of potential reservoirs. Based on lab data, the or form gave porosities that were too high in the field. Log analysts, following the adage, “the truth is in the field,” rejected the so-called lab dolomite ‘transform in favor of afield dolomite transform. ‘This transtorm was based on core analysis and logs {rom the uncompensated sidewall neutron porosity Buk density, g/om® aol Buk denaty, g/oms ol ld Transforms 0 a Neutron porosily indo, pu 1.038) Denslty porosty,p.u.(metrix= 2.71, fuis 2.71, fuid.098) Density porosity, pu. Data crossplots mado with the field dolomit transform (above) and the new dolomite transtorm (below). Oilfield Review{ool The field dolomite transform, however, unex- pectedly fll shor: it underestimated porosity sub- stantially and could procuce significant erors in thology prediction when neutron and density data were combined in 9 neutron-densiy crossplat Following its widespread acceptance, the eld dolomite transtorm underwent piecemeal mocitica- tions during the 1970s, which included “straighten Ing” at high porosities and “bending” at low porost- ties, The need for improved accuracy and better Interpretation in complex reservoirs led toa major Investigation of transforms and environmental fects, starting in 1980. New transforms developed in 1998 correctly represented the neutron tool response under a variety of conditions. Only slight ‘changes in the od transforms were required for limestone and sandstone, but the new dolomite transform departed significantly from its predeces- sor, Comparison of neutron-density crossplots shows the dramatic diference between the old and new transforms (previous page) A recent evaluation of dolomite reservoirs pro- vides a striking example of the problem and the eco- pact of its solution. The diference in neu- tron porosity estimates produced by the old and new dolomite transforms is obvious (above, right. The reservoir represented inthis log contains ce dolomite wit slight amounts of quartz, residual ol nd fresh invasion water. The lft rack af hel ‘generated withthe old dolomite transform fr con October 1991 Dept, ft (Old Neutron Porosity Doloite Density Persity Dolomite Now Nautron Porosity Dolomite Density Porosity Dolomite = 770 Comparison of old and new dolomite trans! tron and density porosities. rms for neu verting neutron count-rate ratios into porosities, shows a discrepancy between the compensated neu- ‘ron and density logs. “Ola” ‘as much as 7 porosity units (p.u.) lower than those derived from the density log. The right track shows how “new” neutron porosities agree much better. (Enhanced vertical resolution of he right track rosults from alpha processing and is unrelated to use of the new dolomite transform.)