IPTC 12849
Comparison of Conventional Log Interpretation With Neutron Spectroscopy Log
and X-Ray Diffraction Laboratory Analysis: A Case Study
Andy Kristianto, Yulianto Jong, and Laurent Moinard, TOTAL E&P INDONESIE
Copyright 2008, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3–5 December 2008.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The Elemental Capture Spectroscopy (ECS) log measures the
concentrations of a number of elements (Al, Ba, Ca, Cl, Cu,
Fe, Gd, H, K, Mg, Na, Ni, Si, S, and Ti) in the formation by
neutron capture spectroscopy. These are used to compute mass
fractions of certain components of the formation (clay, quartz-
feldspar-micas, coal and carbonate). This log was recorded in
a cored well of a large field in a deltaic environment with a
view to checking the routine interpretation model of triple-
combo logs.
The ECS log data were first validated against X-Ray
Diffraction (XRD) measurements on 231 samples from a 166-
meter cored interval.
A standard shaly-sand interpretation was performed using
conventional logs (triple-combo) with the assumption that
shale is made up entirely of clay minerals. This interpretation
model had been used in over 600 wells in this field. XRD
laboratory analysis confirms what can be expected: the so-
called 100% shale point in fact consists of a lower clay
fraction, 57% in our case. This is also consistent with the ECS
log. An “adjusted interpretation” was performed, moving the
wet-clay point to reflect the 57% clay fraction in shale. A
third interpretation was performed using ECS clay fraction
directly into the interpretation model. The question to be
addressed was: “how are net-pay and hydrocarbon-pore-
volume values affected by the change of interpretation
parameters and the addition of the ECS log to the logging
suite?”
The main result is that there is no significant difference
between net-pay and hydrocarbon-pore-volume values
obtained from the standard interpretation (using conventional
logs), the “adjusted interpretation” (moving the wet-clay point
to reflect the XRD clay fraction in shale), and the new
interpretation (integrating the ECS log in the interpretation
model). Based on these findings, it was conclude (1) that there
is no need to re-interpret logs in all the wells using the new
wet-clay point and (2) that the ECS log should not be recorded
on a routine basis in this field.
Introduction
The “X” field is the largest and the most productive field in
TOTAL E&P INDONESIE located on the eastern limit of
present Mahakam Delta. The main reservoir types are
dominated with distributary channel and mouth bar facies. The
166 meters of cored interval, ECS log and conventional log
were performed in “A” well on 2002.
Understanding the mineralogical composition of a formation is
the fundamental of petrophysical analysis. In clastic
reservoirs, shale fraction computation from log is critical,
because its computation will be used for further computation,
such as porosity and water saturation. Shale is a mixture of
clay minerals, rock fragment, and fine-grained silicate
minerals (silt) laid down in a low-energy environment
(Adeyemo, 2005).
A standard petrophysical interpretation was performed over
600 wells in “X” field by using the assumption that shale
made up entirely by clay minerals. Unfortunately, this
assumption does not consistent with XRD laboratory analysis
which tells that shale consists of lower clay fraction than the
expected, which are 57% in our case. An “adjusted
interpretation” was performed moving the wet-clay point to
reflect the 57% clay fraction in shale.
The ECS logging is an unconventional logging which
measures the proportion of elemental concentration and
estimates the major matrix properties of a formation. The ECS
log was consistent with XRD laboratory analysis from core
data which tells that shale made up by 57% of clay minerals.
A third interpretation was performed using ECS clay fraction
directly into the interpretation model. The question to be
addressed was: “how are net-pay and hydrocarbon-pore-
volume values affected by the change of interpretation
parameters and the addition of the ECS log to the logging
suite.”
2 IPTC 12849
Theory
Elemental capture spectroscopy logging generates both of
elemental yields and lithology compositions of a formation
based on spectrum energy of captured neutrons. A chemical
radioactive source (Americium-Berilium) which produces
neutrons with low energy level continuously was used in
logging measurement.
Bombardment of low energy neutrons through the formation
causes inelastic scattering between neutrons and nucleus, and
at the time when the neutron has lowest energy level, the
neutron will be captured by formation’s nucleus. Gamma rays
were emmited from the excited neutrons due to inelastic
scattering and captured neutron, it was measured by ECS tool.
Spectrum energy of measured gamma ray can be separated
into two parts, inelastic scattering and captured neutron energy
level. The spectrum energy of inelastic scattering didn’t used
for ECS processing. Elemental concentration of a formation
was derived based on spectrum energy of gamma ray from
captured neutron. And formation’s lithology was derived
empirically from elemental yields.
Clay can be estimated with the empirical relationship:
Vcl = 1.67(100 − SiO2 − CaCO3 − MgCO3 − 1.99 Fe)
This is the general algorithm for estimating clay from
spectroscopy measurement.
Methodology
Data preparation
This study was focused in “A” well which is the only well that
performed both of ECS logging and XRD laboratory analysis
in “X” field. Data availability in “A” well are conventional
logs (Gamma ray, Resistivity, Neutron, and Density),
mineralogy composition from ECS Log and Core laboratory
analysis (both of conventional core analysis and XRD
analysis). Both of Conventional log and ECS log were
measured in deep interval in “A” well. Figure.1 shows the
illustration of data availability in this well.
The most important thing of data preparation is to perform
depth match. The objective of depth matching is to reduce the
depth uncertainty between each measurement, in other word,
at any given depth each measurements should tells same
information. The ECS log and core data should be depth
matched to the first open-hole log in the hole which is
conventional triple-combo log. Gamma ray log was used as a
reference log due to high repeatability of measurement.
Unit conversion
Dry mass fraction is the ratio between dry mass of an element
to total dry mass, there was not take into account the porosity.
The mineralogical composition from ECS log and XRD
laboratory analysis were measured in dry mass fraction,
otherwise log interpretation results were in volume fraction.
Unit conversion from mass fractions to volume fractions was
performed to unitize the unit of interpretation. Grain density,
total porosity and dry mass fraction of each mineralogy
composition were used for the inputs of unit conversion
computation. The probabilistic approach was implemented for
unit conversion computation.
The probabilistic approach for unit conversion is a
mathematical computation using weighted least square
inversion method. Model parameters must be defined correctly
to achieve the most reliable results. The validation of unit
conversion can be seen from predicted log of each mineral
Figure.2 shows the validation of unit conversion, good quality
of unit conversion was indicated by good fit between predicted
log and actual data.
Mineralogy comparison (ECS Vs XRD)
Mineralogy compositions from ECS log were derived
empirically based on elemental yields which were computed
from gamma ray’s spectrum energy of captured neutrons.
Comparison of ECS log with XRD laboratory analysis was
performed in order to calibrate the ECS data over the cored
intervals.
Figure.3a shows that in general, there is a good relationship
between clay fraction from ECS and XRD laboratory analysis.
The scattered of data points (Figure.3b) is caused by the
difference of vertical resolution between ECS log and core
data. This problem can be solved after upscaling from core to
log resolution (Figure.3c)
Petrophysical interpretations
A standard interpretation was performed using conventional
logs (triple-combo) with the assumption that shale is made up
entirely of clay minerals. This is the interpretation model that
was used in over 600 wells in “X” field.
XRD laboratory analysis confirms what can be expected, that
the so-called 100% shale point in fact consists of a lower clay
fraction, 57% in our case (Figure.4a). This is also consistent
with the ECS log. An “adjusted interpretation” was performed
moving the wet-clay point to reflect the 57% clay fraction in
shale. Figure.4b shows the comparison of standard and
adjusted interpretation in term of wet-clay point position in
Neutron-Density cross plot. The validation of the “adjusted
interpretation” to the conventional core analysis was
performed to ensure the consistency of computed total
porosity and clay fraction over the cored intervals (Figure.5).
A third interpretation was performed using ECS clay fraction
directly into the interpretation model. The question to be
addressed was: “how are net-pay and hydrocarbon-pore-
volume values affected by the change of interpretation
parameters and the addition of the ECS log to the logging
suite.”
IPTC 12849 3

Comparison Results

The standard interpretation results of conventional logging

was used as a reference for comparison in order to investigate
the difference in terms of net reservoir thickness, hydrocarbon
sand thickness (net pay), hydrocarbon pore thickness and
hydrocarbon pore volume.

Table.1 shows that the main result is no significant difference

between net reservoir thickness, hydrocarbon sand thickness
(net pay), hydrocarbon pore thickness and hydrocarbon pore
volume values obtained from the standard interpretation (using
conventional logs), the “adjusted interpretation” (moving the
wet-clay point to reflect the XRD clay fraction in shale), and
the new interpretation (integrating the ECS log in the
interpretation model).

Conclusions

Based on the discussion above, it was concluded:

1. There is no need to re-interpret logs in all the wells using
the new wet-clay point and
2. The ECS log should not be recorded on a routine basis in
this field.

Reference

1. Adeyemo, D. et al.: “Enhanced Clay Characterization and

Formation Evaluation with Wireline Spectroscopy Tool:
Examples from Nigeria”, SPWLA 46th Annual Logging
Symposium, June 26-29, 2005.

ECS Conv.
CORE
3432 mMD Log
4a
6“ PHASE

5a
#1

#2

#3
TD
3951 mMD Log
CORE Conv.
ECS
Log
Figure.1 The Conventional triple combo log, ECS log and core data which were used for this study.
4 IPTC 12849

Figure2. Validation of mass to volume fraction conversion

Vcl XRD Vs Vcl ECS crossplot Vcl XRD (upscaled) Vs Vcl ECS crossplot

Vclay ECS (V/V)

Vclay ECS (V/V)

Vclay XRD (V/V) Vclay XRD (V/V)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure.3. (a) Mineralogy comparison from ECS log over the XRD laboratory analysis (b) Clay fraction comparison from ECS log
over the XRD laboratory analysis (c) Clay fraction comparison after upscaled the XRD data to log resolution

Vsh Log Vs Vcl XRD Neutron Vs Density Cross plot

FLUID
VCl_XRD (V/V)

RHOB (G/C3)

0.57
d
ar

ste
a nd

ju
St

Ad

MA 100% WC
of Clay

Vsh (V/V) NPHI (V/V)

(a) (b)
Figure.4. (a) Shale volume from log interpretation versus clay volume from XRD laboratory analysis cross plots shows the general
relationship of 57% clay minerals in shale. (b) Neutron versus Density crossplot of standard and adjusted interpretation.
IPTC 12849 5

Table.1. Comparison of petrophysical results in terms of net reservoir, hydrocarbon sand thickness,
hydrocarbon pore thickness and hydrocarbon pore volume.
RESULTS INTERPRETATION
Standard Adjusted ECS
Net reservoir 94.47 m 94.16 m 94.46 m
Hydrocarbon sand thickness 27.67 m 27.67 m 28.43 m
Hydrocarbon pore thickness 3.50 m 3.50 m 3.54 m
Hydrocarbon pore volume 2.64 m 2.64 m 2.70 m