Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Log Analysis School
Log Analysis School
Log Analysis 1
History
Log Analysis 2
History
Log Analysis 3
History
Log Analysis 4
History
Log Analysis 5
History
Log Analysis 6
History
Log Analysis 7
History
First Elog
Log Analysis 8
History
Log Analysis 9
History
Log Analysis 10
History – Halliburton Logging
1930s
• In the mid-1930’s Schlumberger dominated the market
• In 1936 Dr. Blau (Humble Oil) developed single cable logging system.
• In 1936, encouraged by a number of major oil companies, Halliburton enters
logging business.
• In 1937 Halliburton signed an agreement with Humble Oil, to use Dr. Blau’s
patents.
• Schlumberger sued and wins case in Houston courts.
• Halliburton appeals to the federal courts and wins
• Schlumberger decides not to appeal to the supreme court.
• In 1938, Halliburton begins commercial caliper logging.
• In 1939, Halliburton developed the “Russian Gun” for export.
Log Analysis 11
History – Halliburton Logging
1930s
Log Analysis 12
History – Halliburton Logging
1930s
Log Analysis 13
History – Halliburton Logging
1940s
Log Analysis 14
History – Halliburton Logging
1940s
• Halliburton cement and stimulating business continues to grow.
• Halliburton develop FM logging system.
• FM system featured SP and three resistivity curves.
• First commercial logs run in 1949
1950s
• The first guard log introduced (1950)
• Entered radiation logging business through a license with the Texas Company
• Logging trucks of the period were four wheel drive, painted red and silver.
• Approached Paul Charrin of PGAC, in hopes of penetrating the logging
market in 1955.
• Purchased Welex for $28,000,000
Log Analysis 15
History – Halliburton Logging
1940s
Log Analysis 16
History – Halliburton Logging
1950s
Log Analysis 17
History – Halliburton Logging
1950s
Log Analysis 18
History – Halliburton Logging
1950s (continued)
• Welex became surviving logging unit after the merger, 1957
1960s
• In 1961, Welex facility in Forth Worth was closed
1970s
• In the fall of 1977 Halliburton began an aggressive plan to improve logging
training and technology.
• W.D.M. Smith was recruited from Dresser Atlas in Canada
• Multi-conductor cable and digital data transmission introduced.
Log Analysis 19
History – Halliburton Logging
1980s
• 1988, Halliburton buys Gearhart
1990s
• 1997, Halliburton buys Numar (and your instructor)
Log Analysis 20
History – Halliburton Logging
1970s
Log Analysis 21
History – Halliburton Logging
1980s
Log Analysis 22
Theory
Log Analysis 23
Basic Formation Model
(No Hydrocarbons)
Rock
Matrix Porosity
Volume of Volume of
Rock Matrix Water
Volume of
Hydrocarbons
Volume of
Rock Matrix
Volume Volume of
of Shale Water
Log Analysis 25
SAND SHALE POROSITY A More Complete
Model
Movable
Quartz Clay
Fluids
Solids Fluids
Clay- Capillary-
Rock Dry Free Hydro-
Bound Bound
Matrix Clay Water Carbon
Water Water
Log Analysis 26
Shale ≠ Clay
Shale: a type of rock
– formed in a low-energy environment
– mixture of clay-sized & silt-sized particles
Basic Al – Si - O layer
• Clays: a grain size
– very fine grains of certain minerals (< 4 mm)
– hydrous aluminum silicates that tend to form in very thin sheets
(1mm or less), with minor amounts of potassium (K), magnesium
1 – 2 nm
(Mg), iron (Fe), and other trace elements (often radioactive)
– bind water inside the sheets and on their surfaces (relatively large)
– detrital clays: deposited with sand and silt grains as thin
laminations, clasts or even individual grains
– authigenic clays: chemical crystallization in the pore spaces after
deposition
• Silts: a grain size
– fine grains of minerals, often quartz or feldspars
– bind water on their surfaces (relatively small)
Layered structure of a smectite clay
Quartz 0 2.65 -
K-Feldspars 0 2.53-2.60 much K
Log Analysis 27
Shales and Clay Distributions
Laminated Shale
– Thin layers of detrital clay (less than 1 cm thick to
several cm) – very low energy environment
– Thin layers of larger, silt-sized grains of quartz or
feldspars – slightly higher energy deposition
– Often about 2 parts clay to 1 part silt (rule of thumb)
Structural Clays
– Sand with some larger clumps of detrital clays
Dispersed Clays
– Sand with very fine authigenic clay crystals overgrown
on larger sand grains, in the pore space
Log Analysis 28
Resistance
R resistance
L
R A cross sectional area
A L length
resistivity – R per
unit volume
Area
Length
Log Analysis 29
Electrical Conductance in Rocks
Log Analysis 30
Formation Resistivity as
Resistance of unit cube
1 meter
Resistivity
1 W-m2/m
- +
1 Volt
Log Analysis 31
Calculating Resistivity
- +
L - +
1 Volt 1 Volt
L A
R L
A
Log Analysis 32
Calculating Resistivity (cont.)
L
R
f
Log Analysis 33
Calculating Resistivity (cont.)
low porosity
.62
L0.16 2
f
L 1 f f
a
fx
1
Lsandstone
f
fractures
L fractures 1
Log Analysis 34
Calculating Water Wet
Resistance (Ro)
L
R = Rw
A
a Rw = resistivity of
connate water
fx
f
a a a
1 x Ro Rw
f x
f f m
a
m
f
Log Analysis 35
Calculating Total Resistance (Rt)
(formations with hydrocarbons)
A Swf
a
L f
x
Swf Rw = resistivity of
connate water
L
Rt
A a
Rt Rw n m
a Sw f
Swf
x
a Rw
Swf Sw m
n
f Rt
a
Sw x 1 ( x 1 )
a
Swnf m
Log Analysis 36
Water Saturation
Log Analysis 37
The Archie Equation
a Rw
Sw n m
Rt
Saturation Exponent
Porosity Uninvaded Zone Resistivity
Log Analysis 38
Archie Water Saturation Variables
• a
– Related to the rock conductivity
– Usually 1
• m
– Cementation or Porosity exponent
– Usually 2
• Lower in rocks containing hydraulically connected
pores (fractures)
• Higher in rocks containing hydraulically isolated
pores (vugs)
• n
– Saturation exponent
– Usually 2
– Varies by degree of wetability - Oil Wet = high “n”
Log Analysis 39
Tortuosity Factor and
Cementation Exponent
SANDSTONES
CARBONATES
Porosity > 16% Porosity < 16%
(Humble) (Tixier)
Log Analysis 40
Archie’s Equation
Clean Formation Model
Matrix
Vw V fluid
Sw fT
V fluid Vtotal
Free Water
Rw f ([Cl ], Temp) Rw
fT
FRw aRw
Sw n Sw n m
fT Rt
Hydrocarbon
Rt
Log Analysis 41
Quick-Look
Rt = 5 W-m =
0.28
Lithology is sandstone
a = 0.62
m = 2.15
Sw = ?
Log Analysis 42
Ro/Rt method
a Rw a Rw
Sw m
n
Sw m
n
f Rt f Rt
aRw 1 aRw 1
Sw m
n
1 m
f Rt f Rt
Sw Ro
n 1 aRw
Rt m
Rt f
Ro Ro Rt ( sw 1)
Sw n
Rt
Log Analysis 43
Rw- Water resistivity
Log Analysis 44
Exercises
Chapter 7:
Question #2
(avg phi)
Question #3
(sw from Ro/Rt -figure 7-8)
Question #4
(Rw from Ro and Phi)
Question #5 – discuss problem!
(sw from F, Rw and Rt - @ 5350)
Question #8
(gas crossover)
Log Analysis 45
Practical example 1
Log Analysis 46
Practical example 1 – Ro
f m
Rwa Rt
a
a
Ro Rw
f m
Log Analysis 47
Practical example 1
Log Analysis 48
Practical example 1
Log Analysis 49
Archie and Dual Water Models
Clean formation
Shaly formation
FRw aRw
Sw n n m
Matrix
Rt f Rt
Matrix
aR f m
Solid
1 m W A RW A RT
n
f RT a
Dry Clay
Vsh RW
Capillary Bound Water
SW n
Clay Bound Water RW A
fw Capillary Bound Water
Free Water
If a=1, m=2, then
Free Water
fe ft Liquid RW A f 2 RT
Hydrocarbon fh
Hydrocarbon fh
R0
SW n
Archie Model
Dual Water Model RT
Log Analysis 50
Dual Water Model
Swb Swb
Ct ft .S Cw 1 Ccw
w w
wt
Swt Swt
Ct : Total Conductivity of the Formation { 1 / Rt }
ft : Total Porosity { Free Fluid f + Capillary Bound Water f + Clay Bound Water f }
Log Analysis 51
Processing Flow
Log Analysis 52
Basic Concepts of Log Analysis
Flow Chart
• Total Porosity Determination
• Shale Volume Determination / Lithology
• Determine Effective Porosity
• Determine True Resistivity
• Water Resistivity
• Water Saturation, Bulk Volume Water
• Identify Potential Pay Zones
• Summarize Porosity and Permeability in Pay
Zones
Log Analysis 53
TPOR
Total Porosity
Log Analysis 54
General Rock Model
Shaly formation
Matrix
Solid
Dry Clay
Vsh
Clay Bound Water
Free Water
fe ft Liquid
Hydrocarbon fh
Log Analysis 55
Basic Concepts of Log Analysis
fT T
– MRIL 3 2
– Local crossplot method
Log Analysis 56
Total Porosity
Log Analysis 57
Density - Neutron
Log Analysis 58
Spectral Density - Pe Log
• Principle of Measurement
– Measures Borehole-Compensated Electron Density
– Far and Near Scintillation Detector Count Rates and a Medium
Energy Gamma Ray Source
– Bulk Density conversion from Electron Density
assuming 2Z/A = 1
• Uses
– Bulk Density and Porosity
– Lithology and Gas Identification when combined with Neutron
– Overburden Stress
– Synthetic Seismic
Tool Spec
Log Analysis 59
Compton Scattering photoelectric effect
Log Analysis 60
Table of Nuclides
Log Analysis 61
A and Z values
Log Analysis 62
Z and A ratios for
common minerals
Log Analysis 63
Density Correction
Spine & Ribs Method
b f fl 1 f ma
ma b
fd
ma fl
Log Analysis 65
Density Porosity Equation
bulk f f d ma 1 fd
bulk ma
fd
f ma Rhob/Phi chart
Log Analysis 67
Tool Specs
Log Analysis 68
Exercises – Density – Chapter 17
• Question #2– 3
Log Analysis 69
Dual Spaced Neutron
• Principle of Measurement
– Measures Borehole-Compensated Formation Hydrogen
Index
– A High Energy Neutron Source, Far and Near He3 Detector
Thermal Neutron Count Rates
• Uses
– Porosity
– Lithology Identification when Combined with Density
– Gas Detection when Combined with Density or Sonic
– Through Casing Evaluation
– Open Hole -Cased hole comparisons can be used for basic
reservoir monitoring - indicate movable gas
Log Analysis 70
Dual Spaced Neutron
• Limitations
– Rarely used as a stand alone porosity device except in
cased holes – for correlation
– Porosity is Lithology Sensitive
– Rugose boreholes degrade the Measurement
– Shale Increases Porosity
• Environmental Correction
– Sensitive to almost everything
• Temperature-Pressure
• Borehole & Formation Salinity, Mudcake Thickness,
Mud Weight
ECL1
• Standoff, Borehole Size
• EC usually offset each other <200 F ECL2
Log Analysis 71
Dual Spaced Neutron Log
Log Analysis 72
Density – Neutron Xplot
Log Analysis 73
Density Neutron Crossplot
Log Analysis 74
Chart based on assumed
limestone logging matrix
Log Analysis 75
Exercises – Neutron
chapter 18
• Questions #2 – 5
Log Analysis 76
MRIL
Log Analysis 77
MRIL Tool
Borehole
9 Sensitive MRIL Probe
Volume
Cylinders
(each 1 mm thick 760kHz
at 1 mm spacing)
580kHz
~1”
24”
Log Analysis 78
MRIL Measures Fluid
Log Analysis 79
T2 and Pore Size
100
80
Incremental Porosity %
Phi 60
40
20
0
0 100
T2
200
Time (ms)
300 400 500
Log Analysis 80
MRIL Log Example
Log Analysis 82
Acoustic (Sonic)
– Formation porosity
– Fracture detection
– Formation mechanical properties
– Tie-in to seismic data
Log Analysis 83
Compressional Waves
(P waves)
Longitudinal
Energy transport
Log Analysis 84
Shear Waves
(S waves)
Energy transport
Transverse
Log Analysis 85
Modern Array Sonics
Log Analysis 86
Compressional Waves
Log Analysis 87
Shear Waves
Log Analysis 88
Flexure Mode
(dipole mode)
Log Analysis 89
Log Analysis 90
Sonic Porosity Equation
tlog t flf s t ma 1 f s
tlog t ma
fs Wylie
t fl t ma Time Average
Sandstone 51.3-55.5
Limestone 47.6 f2 fT fSonic
Dolomite 43.5
Fresh Water 189
Salt Water (120kppm) 185
Oil 220
Log Analysis 91
Log Analysis 92
Porosity Transforms
0.40
0.30
Porosity
0.20
0.10
Wyllie
Mod. Chapman
0.00
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
DTc (us/ft)
Log Analysis 94
Important Sonic Equations
1 t t
f s c ma
Wyllie
C
p t f t ma
t ma
1
t c Raymer-Hunt-Gardner
fs
t ma t f
Vc t s
VpVs VpVs
Vs tc
2
t s
2
c2
t Poisson’s ratio
t
2 s 2
t c
Bulk modulus
b
G
t s
2
t s
2
4 3
b
c
t Young’s modulus
2G 1 2 2
t s t s
1
tc
Log Analysis 95
Sonic Curves
DTc
DTs
Sonic Porosity
Log Analysis 96
Compute TPOR
Log Analysis 97
We have TPOR
We now need Epor
Log Analysis 98
VSH
Log Analysis 99
Basic Concepts of Log Analysis
• Principle of Measurement
– Measures Total Scintillation Response to Natural Gamma
Radiation Emitted by the Formation
– Measures Spectral Scintillation Response of Natural Gamma Ray
Emitters (K, U, Th)
• Uses
– Shale Volume GRlog GRCL
VSH
GRSH GRCL
– Correlation
• Well to Well, Open Hole to Cased Hole
– Lithology Identification
– Combinable with nearly all other Logging Tools
– Clay Typing
• Uranium-corrected GR Curve
• Limitations
– Vertical Resolution Degrades at High
Logging Speed (> 6000 feet/hr)
– Spectral tools run at (900 feet/hr)
• Environmental Corrections
– Hole Size & Mud Weight
– KCL Mud
e-
40Ca
40Ar
Cement
API Shale
U 13 ppm + 200 API units
Th 24 ppm
K 4%
Cement
48 in.
diameter
60%
40%
20%
0%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Gamma Ray Index, I
Gr Gr
I Vsh
Grmax Grmin
1
VshClavier 1.7 3.38 ( I .7) 2 2
I 0.5 I
VshSteiber
N N 1I 1.5 I
(N=3)
I GR facto r
VshBateman I
Grfactor
(1.2-1.7)
K-feldspar
Thorium, ppm
12 mixed
glauconite layer clays
2
illite, muscovite
8 illite
0.8
mixed layer clays micas
montmorillonite (illite-montmorillonite)
glauconite
4 0.6
kaolinite/chlorite
feldspars 0.5
bauxite
potassium evaporites
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 10 100
Potassium, %
Th/K ratio x 104
Log Analysis 109
Minerals
• Principle of Measurement
– The SP is a Naturally Occurring DC Potential Relative
to a Surface Ground and Measured in the Borehole
Mud
– The Measured Potential is Created by Chemically
Induced Electric Current flow
• Liquid Junction, Membrane, and Streaming
Potential
• Uses
– Quantitative Rw Determination
• Clean, Wet, Thick Beds, Sand / Shale Sequences
– Well to Well Correlation
– Define Bed Boundaries
– Qualitative Indicator
• Shale Content
• Identify Permeable Zones
V V
fish
electrode
bridle
electrode - +
SP log
Shale
+ - Sand
Connate Mud + -
water filtrate
+ -
Current
+ -
Shale
Na+
Na+
Cl- Na+ Na+ Cl-
Cl- Cl-
Na+
Na+ Na+
Cl- Cl-
Mud
SP
Eliq junction
Mud
• Limitations
– Fresh Mud Systems Only
– Works Best in Clean, Wet, Thick Beds, Sand / Shale
Sequences
– Suppressed by
• Hydrocarbons
• Shale, Silt and Clay
– Distortion in Highly Resistive and Low Permeability Beds
• Environmental Corrections
– Bed Thickness
• Vsh = (SP-SPcl) / (SPsh-SPcl)
SP SPclean
Vsh
SPshale SPclean
Distributary Channels
Turbidites
Uniform Cylinder
Coarse
Regressive Funnel
Delta Marine Fringe
Shoreline Deposit
Offshore Bars
Fine
More examples
Log Analysis 122
Litho Track
t f t 1
M
100
b f
f Nf f N
N
b f
U maa 7
ma 2.68
a
Matrix
Solid
Dry Clay
Vsh
Clay Bound Water
Free Water
fe ft Liquid
Hydrocarbon fh
fE fT 1 VSH fE fT VSHfSH
1 meter
Resistivity
1 W-m2/m
- +
1 Volt
Log Analysis 142
Lateral Devices
Receiver
Transmitter ~
Alternating Oscillating Transmitted
Signal, I(wt) Magnetic Field, B(wt)
Borehole
Invaded Zone
Uninvaded Zone
3 30
0
20 20
Porosity (%)
Porosity (%)
Induction
Preferred
HRI
Use either Use either
method
Preferred
10 10 method
Laterolog
Preferred Laterolog
Preferred
0 0
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Rm/Rw Ratio Rm/Rw Ratio
Dual Induction Log
• Principle of Measurement
– Induces Current Flow within the Formation
– Measures Formation Conductivity
• Uses
– True Formation Resistivity (Rt) Determination in Low
Conductivity Mud
• Fresh- and Oil- Based Mud, Air Filled Holes
– Water Saturation
– Flushed Zone Resistivity (RX0)
– Diameter of Invasion
– Combinable with Porosity Logs
– Well-to-Well Correlation
• Limitations
– Conductivity Measuring Device
• Works best when Rt < 50 Ohm–M and Rmf > 2.5*Rw
– Thick Beds
• Deep Induction Vertical Resolution
– ILD 5 ft
• Environmental Corrections
– Borehole Corrections
– Bed Thickness Corrections
– Invasion Corrections
R mf
SP K log( ) theoretical
Rw
K
T f 505
Tc 226
8 5
Rmfe
SP K log “activity corrected”
Rwe
Rmfe
SSP
Rwe
Rmfe Rmf
Rmfe
Rwe
Rmfe
Rwe
Rw Rwe
• Questions 1 – 7
Matrix
Solid
Dry Clay
Vsh
Clay Bound Water
Free Water
fe ft Liquid
Hydrocarbon fh
Pc = h * f h
re
Swirr xPHIE y
BVI
k permeability
L
Q fluid flow rate
m fluid viscosity A
A flow cross-section
mQ L Q permeability, k Q
k
L flow length
P pressure drop along flow length
P A
P
P2
A
P1
P
Where:
Q = rate of flow, cm3/sec
A ( P1 P2 ) A = cross sectional area, cm2
QK L = Length, cm
r
· Permeability is controlled by:
Packing
Grain size
Grain size distribution
f = 47.6 % · Porosity is independent of grain size
K = 5.00 md
r = 0.5 m
Direct Measurement
Method Approximate Radius of
Investigation
Core Analysis (plug or whole core) 0.1 ft
Log Analysis Methods 0.1 to 5 ft
Formation Tester (draw-down) 0.01 to 1 ft
Formation Tester (build-up) 10 to 100 ft
Drill Stem Test 100 to 10,000 ft
Extended Well Test 10,000 ft +
0.5 2
Cf 3
K
0.4
S wir
Where: C = 250
0.3
Porosity
1000
Also - Timur
0.2 100
Equation:
f 4.4
10
0.1
1.0
K, mD K 0.136 2
S wir
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Swir
Log Analysis 178
Permeability and Porosity
Higher rock porosity is generally associated with higher permeability
But the relationship is not consistent across all formations.
Examples of some
porosity-perm trends,
from lab studies
Three Popular
Poro-Perm Models
Carmen
Timur
Wyllie-Rose
2
250f 3
k oil
S wi
2
79f 3
k gas
S wi
KH_air = 0.003705(10^(14.881902*PHI_core))
r=0.77
1.0 1.0
for Non-Wetting Fluid
Relative Permeability
Relative Permeability
for Wetting Fluid
Irreducible Water Saturation
Total permeability
Water Oil
0 0 (wetting phase) (non-wetting phase)
Swirr 1-Sor
Wetting Fluid Saturation (Water, Sw)
Relative Permeability
Relative Permeability
for Wetting Fluid
Irreducible Water Saturation
• But, Sw-irr will vary with porosity.
Local rules of thumb for BVW irr can help identify water-
free production:
0 0
Swirr 1-Sor
Wetting Fluid Saturation (Water, Sw)
Hi-perm Sands BVIirr = .015 – .030
f = 25 – 35% k = 1000 – 5000 md (oil)
krw = kw/k relative perm to water
kro = ko/k relative perm to oil
Low-perm Sands BVIirr = .03 – .06
f = 12 – 18% k = 10 – 50 md (oil) krg = kg/k relative perm to gas
any water is
Sw = Sw-irr Oil
Oil capillary-bound, immobile
Water
Water
Sw = 100%
• Gas transition zones are generally shorter than oil-water transition zones. Why?
• Sw-irr is normally lower in the gas zones than in the oil zones. Why?
Column height h
2T cos
h
rg ( water air )
Inter-facial tension T
Wetting angle θ
Tray of water
250
200
C
C
150
B
Pc, psi
oil
100
water
oil
50
oil
water Free Water Pc = 0
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Water Saturation, %
0.5 2
Cf 3
K
0.4
S wir
Where: C = 250
0.3
Porosity
1000
Also - Timur
0.2 100
Equation:
f 4.4
10
0.1
1.0
K, mD K 0.136 2
S wir
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Swir
Log Analysis 197
CVX Perm
Core Perm
Oil Perm
Net Sand on
UPRR-LETTERLY
1 BOX ELDER HH
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22-3J 22
FARMER LEECH
1 1
Structure Map
BERGMAN 1 41-20 1 41-22
1
ROCK
REBA-SHAW HECKENDORF 1 MILHEIM TRACY AMOCO AMOCO CHAMPLIN AMOCO C STEVENS
PETE ROCK
1 1 1 1 24-17 44-17 1-78 34-15
1 STATE
1 AMOCO STATE
16 15 14 13 18 17 16 43-16 15
DIEDRICHS G U
90
AMOCO STATE GRAND BROMLEY ESTATES
Demonstrates
2-
1 42-16 1
JOHN ROCK 1
HECKENDORF
1
0 PUTNAM FAIL
099
1 41-18 41-15
05
2-
Stratigraphic
92-
0982-
KALLSEN
-
MELISSA KALLSEN
GREEN EDNA KALLSEN
0392
SHAW A 14-10
1 1 1 A-1
SHAW - E U 24-9-1 KALLSEN
1
0792-
0492-
1 14-10X
TIPPERARY
2-
9 10 11 12 29 7 8 1
UPRR P A NAV 1
9 10
-
2 33
089
0
0692
Trapping
VAN AYR
2-
STEVENSON 1 KALLSEN 12-9 KALLSEN
1 3 32-9 2
088
0682-
078
MH D C-TRACY RAINBOW BERGMAN WAGNER
KREITZER - C UNIT
0192-
1 1 1 41-10
1
2-
UPRR-PENROD
1
MH D C-PASCOE DREYER PENROD
CIMARRON-PENROD
BERGMAN H S R - MILE HIGH 1 1 4-15
1
2 10-1 PASCOE - HH
BRIGHTON CO. ADAM 10 B U DREYER
6-3J
4
00
2
3 1 2 1 6 1
5 CIMARRON-PENROD 4 3
2
92
HASKINS
-
4-12
BAILEY H S R - DREYER
EPPINGER CH. AM. D
1 EPPINGER 5-5
6-1 1-78 UPV
BRIGHTON CO. 1-1 HSR-MH ADAM 10 LTD PENROD
BERGMAN 3-2M5
2 6-6 1 4-3
1-3
-299
0
0982-
SAWYER JORDAN
ADAM 10 A 32-2 34-9 34-5 JORDAN
UPRR 50 PA M STATE CG STATE 1
EPPINGER SACK-HIETT
1 2-36 1-36CG CH. AM. 1
1 1
SAWYER 365
SAWYER 32-34 JORDAN
C G STATE IVAR JORDAN JORDAN
33 34 35 36
C. G. STATE 31DREYER 32-3
32 33 34-6
4-36 SAWYER POWELL
34-3 34 34-4
08
07
6-36 STATE CG
1
04
92
JORDAN
JORDAN
2
0592-
0292-
34-8
0392-
SACK-DREYER 34-7
-
LUTZ
-
-
C. G. STATE DREYER
WILLARD G U 1A 1 32-1
7-36
2-
1
-
CH. 365 AM. A
01
IVAR JORDAN
088
SPACE CITY JORDAN
2 1
0782
32-1 KILKER 34-2
9
LUTZ 1
1 LOCHBUIE
2-
0692-
0682-
KILKER
00
1
UPRR PAN AM 1
KILKER
92
50 LEHL NECKIEN
1 1
WENZEL 2
SAM
-
1 LEHL STRAWDER
1
DREYER 28 27 26 25 1 30 29 1
28 27
1
MB LEHL YOUNG
M B LEHL A
2
JON FRAIZER G U 11-A
BEIERLE PICKERING G U
1
1-A 1
GLEN YOUNG
GILMORE
TEMPLIN 1
1-30
1
ELLS XX
19-15
BREWSTER LAWS
CRONIN-RITCHEY DECHANT ELLS XX UPRR-LANGE
1 BROWN G U
STITT GU 1 1-19 1
19-4D 1
MADRIGAL
2 JOHNSON
2-22
21 22 23 24 ELLS XX ELLS XX 20-1
21 22
19-10 19-9
19 20
ROSKOP XX ROSKOP XX
LUEVANO XX
19-5 19-7 19-8
SUTTON CRONIN C U.
12-21 ALFALFA ACRES 1 MAUL
MADRIGAL ELLIOTT-CRONIN LUEVANO XX
1-21 20-2
1-22 19-2D
1
STITT G U APOLLO
LUEVANO XX
1 1
19-4 APOLLO
1A
BENNETT
15-13 BENNETT
15-14 BENNETT
BENNETT MATHEWS
HANSEN
15-4J15-4J 2 LEN D PETTINGER GAS UNIT STATE
16-1
UPRR 50 PAN A U G 1 VANTAGE ACRES 5
MATHEWS 24-17
16 BENNETT BENNETT
15 BENNETT MATHEWS 14-11 14 13 1
18 17
15-11 15-10 15-9 14-12 16 15
MATHEWS
14-5
MATHEWS
F C ZADEL G U
1 14-2J
STATE 70-7896-S
EDSTROM GU MATHEWS VANTAGE ACRES 39
1 14-4 2
MATHEWS
1
J3 Sandstone