See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282433880

A Newton-Raphson Approach for Geophysical Well Logs Interpretation in

Complex Lithology Formations

Conference Paper · October 2015

DOI: 10.3997/2214-4609.201414199

CITATIONS READS

0 2,605

2 authors, including:

Bogdan Mihai NICULESCU

University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geology and Geophysics
42 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Romania's Unconventional Hydrocarbon Resources View project

Environmental Geophysics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bogdan Mihai NICULESCU on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

26719
A Newton-Raphson Approach for Geophysical
Well Logs Interpretation in Complex Lithology
Formations
B.M. NICULESCU* (University of Bucharest) & A. NEGUT (University of
Bucharest)

SUMMARY
The paper presents a numerical algorithm that performs accurate lithology corrections for thermal (CNL/
TNPH, CNL/NPHI) and epithermal (SNP) neutron logs, in the whole range of porosities normally
encountered in practice. It is known that neutron logs respond not only to a formation’s true porosity, but,
to some extent, also to its lithology (the so-called "matrix effect"). Because the matrix effect is nonlinear
and varies with true porosity, which is unknown beforehand, an iterative process is needed in order to
carry out proper lithology corrections and obtain formation's porosity.
The relationships between measured neutron porosity and true porosity for the common reservoir
lithologies (sandstones, limestones and dolomites), at different formation water salinities, are
approximable via suitable regression polynomials. Nonlinear neutron responses thus expressed are
combined with the responses of density and sonic velocity logs, together with the volumetric unity
constraint, into a system which is solved using a Newton-Raphson root finding routine. The algorithm,
implemented as a set of Matlab™ codes, provides optimal petrophysical models for the interpretation of
neutron-density-sonic log suites and is easily adaptable in order to include additional linear or nonlinear
log response equations. A case study regarding its applicability is also presented in the paper.

8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society

5-8 October 2015, Chania, Greece
Introduction

Complex lithologies, represented by geological formations with a multimineral matrix, are a classical
but sometimes difficult to solve problem for the geophysical logs interpretation. The common
"porosity logs" (neutron, density and sonic methods) are affected both by porosity and lithology, so
that a reliable volumetric solution at each depth level may be obtained using a joint interpretation of
these logs, together with a unity equation ensuring that the computed volumetric fractions
permanently add up to 1 (100%). This approach is employed by all commercial log analysis software
applications.

Mathematically, one equation is needed for each volumetric component of the formations, in order to
set up a system whose solution may be derived via numerical solvers. A petrophysical model for a
clean water-bearing formation which includes a monomineral matrix and the pore space requires a
single porosity log, plus the unity equation. Models comprising three volumetric components (e.g., a
bimineral matrix and the pore space) may be solved by including two porosity logs, while more
complex models with four components would require the combined responses of neutron, density and
sonic logs, together with the unity equation. Even more elaborate petrophysical models are possible if
additional measurements, such as apparent resistivities, gamma ray and the photoelectric factor from
the LDT (Litho-Density Tool), are taken into consideration. Clay may be included in the system of
equations as an unknown mineral component or its volume may be estimated independently, from
logs which are sensitive to this parameter (spontaneous potential, total or spectral gamma ray etc.).

The presence of residual hydrocarbons in the flushed zone of reservoir formations induces further
difficulties in deriving accurate fluid and mineral volumetric fractions, especially in the case of light
hydrocarbons. Neutron and density logs responses are affected in opposite directions and the
determination of formation's true porosity, as well as the mineral and clay volumes, requires an
estimate of the hydrocarbons volumetric fraction (Vhr = Φ Shr, where Φ is the true porosity and Shr is
the residual hydrocarbons saturation), by using auxiliary data from a microresistivity log. Because the
saturation Shr itself depends on the unknown true porosity Φ, an iterative process is needed to carry
out hydrocarbons effect corrections upon the neutron and density logs, until all volumetric fractions of
the petrophysical model become convergent.

A similar problem occurs even in the case of water-bearing formations, due to the nonlinear response
of neutron log with respect to lithology. The responses of density and sonic velocity logs (assuming
Wyllie's time-average equation for compacted formations) may be considered as linear functions of
porosity and the mineral fractions, while the neutron log matrix effect is nonlinear and varies with the
porosity. So, in order to perform proper lithology corrections upon the neutron log the formation's true
porosity should be known, but, on the other hand, true porosity cannon be determined without
applying these corrections. The mentioned interdependency can be overcome by using an iterative
numerical algorithm, which is briefly presented in the paper.

Description of the petrophysical problem

The responses of neutron, density and sonic logs in the general case of shaly water-bearing formations
with the matrix represented by a mixture of n minerals are given by
ΦN = Φ ΦNf + Vcl ΦNcl + V1 ΦN1 + … + Vn ΦNn (1)
δb = Φ δf + Vcl δcl + V1 δ1 + … + Vn δn (2)
Δt = Φ Δtf + Vcl Δtcl + V1 Δt1 + … + Vn Δtn, (3)
where:
ΦN = formation's neutron (apparent) porosity relative to a limestone matrix [V/V];
δb = formation's bulk density [g/cm3];
Δt = formation's sonic compressional transit time [μs/ft];
Φ, Vcl, V1,… , Vn = true porosity, clay volume and volumetric fractions of the matrix minerals [V/V];
ΦNf, ΦNcl, ΦN1,… , ΦNn = neutron porosities of the pore fluid (mud filtrate), clay and the matrix
minerals [V/V];

8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society

5-8 October 2015, Chania, Greece
δf, δcl, δ1,… , δn = apparent densities of the pore fluid (mud filtrate), clay and the matrix minerals
[g/cm3];
Δtf, Δtcl, Δt1,… , Δtn = sonic transit times of the pore fluid (mud filtrate), clay and the matrix minerals
[μs/ft].

All volumetric fractions from equations (1) to (3) are linked by the unity equation
1 = Φ + Vcl + V1 + … + Vn. (4)

For a petrophysical model with three (e.g., porosity + clay + monomineral matrix) or four (e.g.,
porosity + clay + bimineral matrix) components, the system represented by equations (1) to (4) is
determined and can be exactly solved for the unknown vectors [Φ, Vcl, V1] or [Φ, Vcl, V1, V2], by
combining two or three log responses with the unity equation. A necessary condition for valid
solutions is that each volumetric fraction should be ≥ 0 and ≤ 1.

Neutron logs are calibrated in clean water-bearing limestones, for which ΦNf = 1 and the matrix effect
ΦNma = 0. For other commonly encountered lithologies, such as sandstones and dolomites, the neutron
matrix effect is nonlinear and depends on the true porosity range, i.e., ΦNma = f(Φ) (Fig. 1).
Consequently, the system of equations (1) to (4) may be solved only by means of an iterative process,
starting with an initial solution vector and updating its components until convergence is obtained.

Figure 1 Thermal neutron logs (CNL/NPHI and CNL/TNPH) porosity equivalence curves for the
commonly encountered reservoir lithologies (SCHLUMBERGER, 2009).

The matrix effects for thermal and epithermal neutron tools of various geophysical logging companies
are tool-specific and are available either as charts or as tabulated values for true porosities ranging
from 0% to 60% and formation water salinities from 0 to 250 kppm. It should be mentioned that
petrophysical software applications such as Interactive Petrophysics™ (SENERGY Ltd.) perform the
neutron lithology corrections using an interpolation from look-up tables, but no details are provided
regarding the correction method's practical implementation.

8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society

5-8 October 2015, Chania, Greece
Description of the proposed iterative algorithm

The apparent porosity recorded by neutron logs in clean formations saturated with fresh water
(ΦNf = 1) can be written
ΦN = Φ + (1 - Φ) ΦNma (5)

and, consequently, the neutron matrix porosity is

ΦNma = (ΦN - Φ) / (1 - Φ). (6)

The lithological response curves for quartz and dolomite, shown in Fig. 1, are approximable by best-
fit regression polynomials as functions of true porosity, i.e., ΦN = f(Φ), for both types of thermal
neutron porosity logs (CNL/NPHI and CNL/TNPH). In this case, the neutron log response in a shaly
water-bearing formation with a bimineral matrix can be expressed as
Nq
ΦN = Φ + Vcl ΦNcl + Vq ( q 
i 0
i
i
- Φ) / (1 - Φ) (7)

(calcite-quartz mixture, with ΦNma = 0 for calcite)

Nd
ΦN = Φ + Vcl ΦNcl + Vd (  di  i - Φ) / (1 - Φ) (8)
i 0
(calcite-dolomite mixture, with ΦNma = 0 for calcite)
Nq Nd
ΦN = Φ + Vcl ΦNcl + Vq (  qi i - Φ) / (1 - Φ) + V (  di i - Φ) / (1 - Φ),
d (9)
i 0 i 0
(quartz-dolomite mixture)

where Nq and Nd are the regression polynomials degrees for quartz and dolomite (Nq = 5 and Nd = 6,
for 0 kppm formation salinity), while qi and di are the polynomial coefficients corresponding to these
lithologies. A similar approach is employed for other formation salinities (ΦNf ≠ 1), by a suitable
selection of the best-fit polynomials which approximate the ΦN = f(Φ) relationships.

The system represented by the neutron, density and sonic responses, together with the unity equation,
may now be solved for the unknown volumetric fractions. Because the neutron log lithological
response is represented via high-degree polynomials, an iterative solver based on the Newton-
Raphson root finding method (Moler 2004) was elaborated and used in this study. For systems of
nonlinear equations and functions of multiple variables
f1(x1, x2,…, xn) = 0, f2(x1, x2,…, xn) = 0, … , fn(x1, x2,…, xn) = 0, (10)
the Newton-Raphson iteration is given by
xi+1 = xi - J-1 fi, (11)
where xi is a current estimate of the solution vector corresponding to iteration i, xi+1 is the improved
solution vector, fi = [f1(xi), f2(xi), … , fn(xi)] is the functions vector in iteration i and J is the Jacobian
matrix of first-order partial derivatives, with elements
f j (x i )
J jk  ; j = 1, …, n; k = 1, …, n. (12)
x k
The iterative process starts with an initial estimate of the volumetric solution's vector and is carried
out for a predetermined number of iterations or until the solution is found with a user-imposed
precision ε. In order to avoid possible non-convergence situations, a backtracking routine was
incorporated, allowing the repeated halving of any interval xi+1 ÷ xi where inflection points, division
by zero, root jumping or local maxima/minima oscillations may occur. Also, an optimal petrophysical
model routine was developed and included in the algorithm, allowing the automatic choice of the best
interpretation model at each depth level, using a reconstruction of the model's response and a
comparison with the measured geophysical logs. Generally, the interpretation model is determined by
simultaneously solving equations (1) to (4); if no valid volumetric solution is found, only the neutron-
density combination is used, selecting the model which offers the best sonic log reconstruction.

8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society

5-8 October 2015, Chania, Greece
Case study and results

The elaborated algorithm was implemented through a set of Matlab™ codes and used for processing a
dataset comprising neutron (CNL/TNPH), density and sonic velocity logs. Figure 2 presents a result
of logs interpretation for a water-bearing section of a borehole, by imposing a petrophysical model
porosity + clay + quartz + calcite. The numerical parameters used at each depth level were: initial
volumetric solution = [0, 0, 0, 0], maximum number of iterations = 10, solution's accuracy ε = 10-6,
the model being well solved over the entire depth interval. Interpretation's quality is checked using a
reconstruction of the geophysical logs, the solutions convergence and the maximum (positive or
negative) bias of the solutions with respect to the valid volumetric interval 0 ÷ 1. Same log suite
interpreted using a petrophysical model porosity + clay + quartz + dolomite shows non-convergence
problems at several depth levels and a much higher logs reconstruction misfit, indicating that dolomite
is not a likely volumetric component in this borehole section.

Figure 2 Optimal interpretation of a neutron-density-sonic dataset in a water-bearing section of a

borehole, for a porosity (Φ) + clay (Vcl) + quartz (Vq) + calcite (Vc) model.

Conclusions

The iterative numerical algorithm presented in this paper may provide a useful tool for geophysical logs
interpretation in complex lithologies, allowing accurate neutron log matrix corrections for the whole range
of formation porosities normally encountered. The algorithm is easily adaptable to include the case of
hydrocarbon-bearing formations and to integrate additional linear or nonlinear log response equations.

References

Moler, C. [2004] Numerical Computing with MATLAB. Society for Industrial and Applied
Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA.

SENERGY Ltd. [2010] Interactive Petrophysics ™, Users Manual, Version 3.6.

SCHLUMBERGER Ltd. [2009] Log Interpretation Charts.

8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society

5-8 October 2015, Chania, Greece

View publication stats