ch10_v3.

qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 180

180 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Case Study 2: for production of oil and gas. Your company agrees
with your suggestion to run a very complete log pack-
MISSISSIPPIAN MISSION CANYON FORMATION, age, because the well is exploratory and carbonate
WILLISTON BASIN, U.S.A.: rocks commonly are more difficult to evaluate than
sandstones. The logs are shown in Figures 10.7, 10.8,
The Problem. and 10.9.

Case Study 2 illustrates the interpretation of mixed- Well site information and other pertinent information:
lithology carbonate rock. Some lithology-porosity
crossplots are used to confirm the types of rock seen in • mean annual surface temperature = 40°F
a core. For the various crossplots the stratigraphic
• formation temperature (Tf) = 207°F
interval is divided into two zones, based on the pro-
duction potential estimated from observation of the • formation water resistivity (Rw) at Tf = 0.023
logs. ohm-m
• mud filtrate resistivity (Rmf) at Tf = 0.017 ohm-m
Background • Dtfl = 185 µsec/ft, the acoustic-wave fluid tran-
sit time of saltwater mud filtrate
A wildcat well is in progress in the Williston Basin, • RHOfl = 1.1 gm/cc, which is the density of salt-
to be drilled to the Ordovician Red River Formation. water mud filtrate
As drilling proceeds, two zones are encountered that
• tortuosity factor (a) = 1, cementation exponent
have hydrocarbon shows—the Mississippian Mission
(m) = 2, and saturation exponent (n) = 2
Canyon and the Devonian Duperow. The well has just
penetrated the Devonian Duperow, the second “show” Preliminary examination of the logs indicates that
zone. A decision is made to stop and drill-stem test several zones in the Mission Canyon are quite porous.
(DST) the Duperow. Unfortunately, the drill-stem-test Log data and core data indicate that the zone is poten-
tool is stuck in the borehole. Several attempts are made tially productive. A reliable estimate of the amount of
to remove the tool but none succeed. Meanwhile, col- oil in place is needed; but first, verify the quality of the
lapse of the borehole wall (caving) begins. log data, confirm the estimate of formation water
Now you face the choice of either halting drilling— resistivity, and calculate porosity and fluid saturations.
with hope that the first show zone, the Mississippian
Mission Canyon Formation, might be a productive Tasks required for interpretation of the logs
reservoir—or continuing efforts to remove the DST
tool. If the “fish” (the stuck DST tool) is removed from • General comparison of lithologies described
the hole successfully, the Duperow can be tested and from the core with lithologies predicted from the
the hole can be deepened to the Red River Formation. logs would give you some opinion about
However, more attempts to recover the fish undoubt- whether the logging tools operated properly. The
edly will lead to further deterioration of the hole, and neutron porosity-density porosity and neutron
logging measurements taken when walls of the bore- porosity-sonic interval transit time crossplots
hole are enlarged may be unreliable. Also, the DST would provide the necessary information. In
tool might not be dislodged. addition, a mineral identification (“MID”) plot
Because the well is a wildcat, you made a decision (apparent matrix density, RHOmaa, vs. apparent
several weeks ago to core the Mission Canyon. The matrix traveltime, DTmaa) and an M-N litholo-
Mission Canyon is at approximately 9297 ft to 9409 ft. gy plot would test the proposition that the rock
Rock was cored from 9302 ft to 9358 ft. Twenty-five is composed of more than two significant miner-
feet of oil-stained, fractured, microcrystalline dolo- als. Also, neutron-density crossplot porosity can
mite was recovered; the remaining core consisted of be estimated from the neutron-density crossplot.
microcrystalline limestone and anhydrite. After cor- This quantity (shown in the crossplots as PHIE,
ing, several drill-stem tests were tried; when none effective porosity) will be used in later calcula-
were successful, drilling was resumed. tions.
You decided that information from coring is favor-
• To confirm the estimate of formation water sat-
able enough to halt drilling, to log to the top of the fish
uration (Rw) several methods could be used.
while hole conditions seem still to be reasonably good,
Apparent water resistivity (Rwa) generally is de-
and then to assess the potential of the Mission Canyon
pendable, but in this case the most useful
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 181

Log Interpretation Case Studies 181

method is a Pickett plot, a plot of formation re- Useful equations:

sistivity against porosity. Not only would it indi- Apparent matrix density, RHOmaa:
cate the water saturations of the zones of inter-
est, it also would evaluate the number that was 10.21 (Equation 4.11)
used for formation water resistivity (Rw), and the
estimated cementation exponent (m). (Again, Apparent matrix traveltime, DTmaa:
both methods are shown in the answer section
for completeness.) 10.22 (Equation 4.12)
• Calculate water saturation of the formation (Sw),
and use Sw and PHIE to calculate bulk volume Lithology M:
water (BVW) and create a BVW plot.
• Other useful quantities are moveable hydrocar-
bon index (MHI), moveable hydrocarbon satura-
tion (MOS), and residual hydrocarbon saturation 10.23
(ROS), all of which are indicators of producibil- (Equation 4.9)
ity.
• Finally, calculate the volume of oil in place; use
Equation 10.8. Lithology N:
Because information about porosity is required for 10.24 (Equation 4.10)
the Pickett plot, and because the neutron-density
crossplot porosity is the best choice, start with litholo- Apparent water resistivity, Rwa:
gy-porosity crossplots. Work tables 10.3a, 10.3b, and
10.3c provide a start for measuring the log values. 10.25 (Equation 7.16)

Table 10.3a. Case Study 2: Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Raw data work table. The symbol “v/v” indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction.

Parameters
Ann. Mean Surf. Temp: 40°F Rw (measured): (not given)
Total Depth: 11,122 ft Rw @ fm. temp.: 0.023 ohm-m @ 207°F
Bottom Hole Temp: (thermometer failed) Rmf (measured): 0.046 ohm-m @ 74°F
Formation Depth: 9,300 ft Rmf @ fm. temp.: 0.017 ohm-m @ 207°F
Formation Temperature: 207°F
DT matrix (Wyllie): 47.6 µsec/ft DT fluid (Wyllie): 185 µsec/ft
RHO matrix: 2.71 g/cm3 RHO fluid: 1.1 g/cm3
PHIN fluid: 1
a: 1 m: 2 n: 2
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 182

182 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Table 10.3a. Case Study 2: Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Raw data work table. The symbol “v/v” indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction. (Cont’d.)

Raw data
Depth ILD ILS MSFL DT DPHI NPHI
feet ohm-m ohm-m ohm-m µsec/ft v/v decimal v/v decimal
9,310 26 20.5 1.2 63 0.090 0.260
9,322
9,326 17 8.3 3.8 53.5 0.030 0.120
9,332 9 6.1 2.4 58 0.050 0.140
9,335
9,347
9,353
9,362
9,367 22 16 8.8 52.5 -0.015 0.125
9,373 11 7.7 3.5 53.5 0.000 0.155
9,376
9,383
9,387
9,398
9,406 5.1 3.5 2.2 55 0.030 0.150

Table 10.3b. Case Study 2: Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Work table for determination of lithology. The symbol “v/v” indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction.

Lithology Calculations
Depth RHOB PhiNDxpt RHOmaa PhiNSxpt DTmaa
feet g/cm3 v/v decimal g/cm3 v/v decimal µsec/ft M N
9,310 2.57 0.170 2.865 0.145 42.3 0.833 0.505
9,322
9,326 2.66 0.075 2.788 0.065 44.4 0.842 0.563
9,332 2.63 0.095 2.790 0.090 45.4 0.830 0.562
9,335
9,347
9,353
9,362
9,367 2.73 0.060 2.838 0.060 44.0 0.811 0.535
9,373 2.71 0.085 2.860 0.070 43.6 0.817 0.525
9,376
9,383
9,387
9,398
9,406 2.66 0.090 2.816 0.075 44.5 0.832 0.544
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 183

Log Interpretation Case Studies 183

Table 10.3c. Case Study 2: Mississippian Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Work table for calculation of water saturation and other estimators. The symbol “v/v”
indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction.

Saturation and other calculations

Depth Rwa Ro Sw Sxo MHI MOS ROS
feet ohm-m ohm-m v/v decimal v/v decimal v/v decimal v/v decimal v/v decimal BVW
9,310 0.751 0.8 0.166 0.700 0.237 0.534 0.300 0.028
9,322
9,326 0.096 4.1 0.490 0.892 0.550 0.401 0.108 0.037
9,332 0.081 2.5 0.532 0.886 0.601 0.354 0.114 0.051
9,335
9,347
9,353
9,362
9,367 0.079 6.4 0.539 0.733 0.736 0.194 0.267 0.032
9,373 0.079 3.2 0.538 0.820 0.656 0.282 0.180 0.046
9,376
9,383
9,387
9,398
9,406 0.041 2.8 0.746 0.977 0.764 0.231 0.023 0.067
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 184

184 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Figure 10.7. Dual laterolog-MSFL with gamma ray log and caliper log, Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.
From 9308 ft to 9408 ft: Note the separation of the three resistivity logs, which read the following resistivities: lowest resistivity, MSFL (Rxo),
intermediate resistivity, LLS (Ri), and highest resistivity, LLD (Rt). On a Dual Laterolog-MSFL this type of resistivity profile indicates presence of
hydrocarbons (see Chapter 1).
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 185

Log Interpretation Case Studies 185

Figure 10.8. Combination neutron-

density log with gamma ray log and
caliper log, Mission Canyon Formation,
Williston Basin, U.S.A.
From 9308 ft to 9408 ft, porosities
recorded by the neutron (NPHI) and
density (DPHI) curves are high. Both are
recorded in limestone units, in tracks 2
and 3. The neutron log reads higher
porosity than the density log, indicating
that the rock is dolomite.

Figure 10.9. Sonic log with

gamma ray log and caliper log, Mission
Canyon Formation, Williston Basin,
U.S.A.
From 9308 ft to 9408 ft, note that
zones of porous rock are numerous.
(They are indicated by increase of
interval transit time (DT) in tracks 2
and 3.)
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 186

186 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Case Study 2: curves were not separated you could conclude that
either the formation wasn’t invaded, or that hydrocar-
MISSISSIPPIAN MISSION CANYON FORMATION, bons were not present.)
WILLISTON BASIN, U.S.A.: Also, note that the zones of porous rock low in the
formation (9370 ft to 9409 ft) show less separation
The Solution. between the MSFL and the deep laterolog, LLD. The
lessening of separation in the lower zones indicates
Information from the logs and cores produced the higher water saturations. (Remember: Higher water
following positive indicators: (1) 25 ft of oil-stained saturations mean lower hydrocarbon saturations.)
core, (2) porous zones, indicated on the neutron-densi- Porous and permeable zones in the interval from
ty and sonic logs, and (3) separation of curves on resis- 9308 ft to 9409 ft are identified by inspecting the neu-
tivity logs, indicative of invasion in the porous zones. tron-density log (Figure 10.8) and the sonic log (Fig-
The information also produced this negative indicator: ure 10.9); more than eleven zones of porous and per-
evidence that water saturation is greater in the lower meable rock can be identified. On the neutron-density
part of the logged interval. log (Figure 10.8), the zones of porosity and perme-
In this case, there is no significant conflicting infor- ability are evident as concurrent increase in neutron
mation; all information points to the presence of porosity (NPHI) and density porosity (DPHI). They
hydrocarbons in the rock. Therefore, the task is com- are identified on the sonic log by increase in the inter-
posed of two parts: (1) to assess the quality of the logs val transit time (DT).
and of the well site processing, so that a confident esti-
mate of the oil in place can be made, and then (2) to Information from crossplots
judge whether the Mission Canyon is a reservoir that
will produce oil and gas in volumes sufficient for a As evaluation of the Mission Canyon continues,
suitable return on investment. you decide to compare your observations of the core
lithologies with inferences about lithology, derived
from log data. Study of the core indicates that the rock
Information from the logs is microcrystalline dolomite, limestone and anhydrite.
The log package run in this well is complete; it To compare this information with log data, construct a
includes a suite for measurement of resistivity, and a neutron-density porosity crossplot, a neutron-sonic
combination neutron-density log and a sonic log for porosity crossplot, a matrix identification plot, and an
measurement of porosity and estimation of lithology. M-N lithology plot. (Ordinarily only one or two of the
Because walls of the borehole have caved, your crossplots described here would be created, but all are
assessment begins with a careful check of the caliper discussed here for experience in learning.) On the
curve, CALI (Figure 10.8). The caliper log shows rel- basis of observations from the logs, you divide the
atively constant hole diameter and no significant, dif- zone into two intervals on the crossplots: the “Upper
ferential enlargement. Consistency of the hole diame- MC,” from 9308 ft to 9370 ft, and the “Lower MC,”
ter indicates that log measurements should be reliable. from 9370 ft to 9409 ft.
The next step in evaluation includes examination of The first crossplot is a neutron-density crossplot
the resistivity logs (Figure 10.7). The salt-saturated (Figure 10.10). It is consistent with the core descrip-
drilling mud (Rmf ~ Rw) necessitated using a dual lat- tion, showing a mixture of lithologies ranging from
erolog with a microspherically focused log (MSFL). limestone to dolomite. The scatter of rock types in the
The MSFL measures resistivity of the flushed zone crossplot is more than the rock types described in the
(Rxo), whereas the shallow laterolog (LLS) and deep core, because the limits of vertical resolution of the
laterolog (LLD) measure resistivities of the invaded logging tools introduce averaging (“smearing”) of
(Ri) and uninvaded (Rt) zones, respectively. lithologic effects on signals, especially among thin
Next, scrutinize the resistivity curves to identify beds. From Figure 10.10, neutron-density crossplot
invasion profiles; they are useful for location of zones porosity (PhiNDxpt) can be estimated; it is determined
that merit detailed analysis. from the location of each point with respect to the
Between 9308 ft and 9409 ft, the resistivity curves porosity indications on each lithology line. These
(MSFL, LLS, and LLD) show different values of Rxo, numbers will be used to construct a Pickett plot, to
Ri, and Rt; the curves are separated. The separation calculate apparent water resistivity (Rwa), and to esti-
suggests that the rock is invaded, and that hydrocar- mate water saturation (Sw). Neutron-density crossplot
bons are in the porous and permeable zones. (If the porosity also will be used to calculate apparent matrix
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 187

Log Interpretation Case Studies 187

density, RHOmaa, for use in a matrix identification water resistivity is a Pickett plot (Figure 10.15). The
plot. deep laterolog (LLD) is used for plotting resistivity
The second crossplot is a neutron-sonic crossplot along the X-axis. Neutron-density crossplot porosity
(Figure 10.11). It too is consistent with core data, (PHIE: “effective porosity”), is plotted on the Y-axis.
showing scatter of points between the limestone and The water-bearing line—drawn through the lower part
dolomite lines. Neutron-sonic crossplot porosity of the lowest cluster of points—estimates formation
(PhiNSxpt) can be estimated in the same manner as water resistivity (Rw) to be 0.023 ohm-m, in agreement
neutron-density crossplot porosity was estimated; it with the published value. From the slope of the Ro
will be used to calculate apparent matrix density, line—the line signifying that water saturation is
DTmaa, one of the variables in the matrix identifica- 100%—data on the Pickett plot also indicate that the
tion plot. cementation exponent (m) is 2.
The third crossplot augments results of the first As discussed previously, deep induction resistivity
two. In the matrix identification (MID) plot (Figure of the stratigraphic section from 9370 ft to 9409 ft is
10.12) apparent matrix density and apparent matrix less than that of the upper Mission Canyon (Figure
traveltime (estimated from Figures 10.10 and 10.11, 10.7). The likelihood of production of water from stra-
and Equations 10.21 and 10.22) are used to display a ta at 9370 ft to 9409 ft also is indicated by evidence
complex model of the rock. Figure 10.12 shows that from the Pickett crossplot (Figure 10.15). Most data
most of the points are of limestone or dolomite (or a points that show water saturations greater than 0.75
mixture) with fewer points that tend slightly toward (75%) are of the “Lower MC” zone.
anhydrite. Saturation lines on the Pickett plot (Figure 10.15)
The fourth crossplot is the M-N plot (Figure 10.13). are based on the saturation exponent (n) of 2.
Like the MID plot, it is a complex model of lithology, At this juncture in your evaluation of the Mission
based on the plotting of two calculated parameters, M, Canyon from 9308 ft to 9409 ft, you have reason to be
a function of sonic and bulk density, and N, a function optimistic about the potential of the well. The interval
of bulk density and neutron porosity (Equations 10.23 shows evidence of porosity and invasion, it comprises
and 10.24). The M-N plot (Figure 10.13) shows that interbedded permeable strata and “tight” strata, and
the Mission Canyon Formation consists of limestone the rock type, dolomite, generally is a good reservoir.
and dolomite. However, you should be concerned about whether
Calculations to determine porosities, apparent completion of the lower Mission Canyon should be
matrix values, and M and N are based on raw log data attempted, especially from 9370 ft to 9409 ft. The well
shown in Table 10.4a. Porosities, apparent matrix den- site log calculation, the diminished separation of resis-
sity, matrix interval transit time, and the lithology- tivity curves with depth, and high water saturations on
dependent variables M and N are shown in Table the Pickett crossplot (Figure 10.15) all strongly sup-
10.4b. port your judgment that fluid from the lower Mission
The next step is to verify the estimate of formation Canyon will not be water-free. How much water these
water resistivity. Although a single method usually is zones will produce, relative to oil, is not known.
sufficient, two are shown here for aid in learning. The In order to support the decision to not perforate the
methods are described in detail in Chapter 7. The first lower Mission Canyon, a bulk-volume-water (BVW)
method is calculation of Rwa (apparent water resistivi- crossplot is constructed (Figure 10.16). On the bulk-
ty) from the LLD and neutron-density crossplot poros- volume-water plot, data points above 0.035 are mostly
ity (Equation 10.25). As shown in the Solution Table from porosity zones of the lower Mission Canyon;
(Table 10.4c) the two lowest values of Rwa, hence the these zones are not at irreducible water saturation, and
best estimates of Rw, are 0.033 ohm-m (at 9387 ft) and they will produce some water.
0.041 ohm-m (at 9406 ft). These numbers are only a The positions of data points on a bulk-volume-
bit higher than the reported Rw of 0.023 ohm-m. The water crossplot can indicate differences in types of
difference could be due to the manner in which logs carbonate-rock porosity. Points that are below 0.035
were read, the effects of properties of adjacent beds on generally represent rock with vuggy porosity, with
log readings, or to residual hydrocarbons. Rwa also is some intercrystalline porosity (Table 7.1).
presented in a log format (Figure 10.14), plotted in the One of the last log evaluation procedures is finding
same logarithmic track as the deep laterolog, LLD. In values for the moveable hydrocarbon index (MHI), for
some cases, Rwa plotted in this format allows for a bet- moveable oil saturation (MOS), and for residual-oil
ter estimate of Rw. saturation (ROS). Most of the moveable hydrocarbon
The second method to approximate formation- index values are less than 0.7, and these are concen-
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 188

188 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

trated in the upper Mission Canyon (Table 10.4c); so estimated recovery of oil from the Mission Canyon
oil in these beds is moveable. Moveability of oil also Formation is 376,650 stock-tank barrels (STB) (Equa-
is apparent from the high values of moveable oil satu- tion 10.8). This number is based on the following
ration and low values of residual oil saturation (Table parameters:
10.4c). • drainage area = 160 acres;
A log of water saturation, porosity, and bulk vol-
• reservoir thickness = 28 ft;
ume water is shown in Figure 10.17.
Your log evaluation of this well has been uncom- • average porosity = 0.11 (11%);
monly detailed. In part, the extensive evaluation was • average water saturation = 0.49 (49%);
necessary; the well is a wildcat well, and visual • recovery factor = 0.20; and
inspection of logs of the lower Mission Canyon sug-
• Boi (estimated) = 1.35.
gested that water would be produced. Fortunately,
because of the log package used for this well a large The Mission Canyon Formation was perforated
amount of data was available for analysis. selectively from 9308 ft to 9357 ft. After a light acid
Rather early in the evaluation the fact was apparent clean-up, the well’s production was 569 barrels of oil
that the data seemed to support a decision to set pipe. per day (BOPD), 31 barrels of water a day (BWPD),
Nevertheless, to know the correct interval for perforat- and 700,000 cubic feet of gas per day (700 mcfgpd);
ing was important, so that production of water could the gas/oil ratio was 1230:1. During the first five
be minimized. months the well produced 56,495 barrels of oil and
For the gross interval from 9308 ft to 9357 ft, the 5,802 barrels of water.
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 189

Log Interpretation Case Studies 189

Table 10.4a. Case Study 2: Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Raw data solution table. The symbol “v/v” indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction.

Parameters
Ann. Mean Surf. Temp: 40°F Rw (measured): ohm-m @ °F
Total Depth: 11,122 ft Rw @ fm. temp.: 0.023 ohm-m @ 207°F
Bottom Hole Temp: (thermometer failed) Rmf (measured): 0.46 ohm-m @ 74°F
Formation Depth: 9,300 ft Rmf @ fm. temp.: 0.017 ohm-m @ 207°F
Formation Temperature: 207°F
DT matrix (Wyllie): 47.6 µsec/ft DT fluid (Wyllie): 185 usec/ft
RHO matrix: 2.71 g/cm3 RHO fluid: 1.1 g/cm3
PHIN fluid: 1
a: 1 m: 2 n: 2

Raw data
Depth ILD ILS MSFL DT DPHI NPHI
feet ohm-m ohm-m ohm-m µsec/ft v/v decimal v/v decimal
9,310 26 20.5 1.2 63 0.090 0.260
9,322 18 10 5.7 52 0.020 0.060
9,326 17 8.3 3.8 53.5 0.030 0.120
9,332 9 6.1 2.4 58 0.050 0.140
9,335 32 6.8 13 52.5 0.035 0.085
9,347 4.8 2.4 0.8 61.5 0.100 0.230
9,353 4.7 2.3 1.6 61.5 0.045 0.250
9,362 40 17 11 53 -0.015 0.135
9,367 22 16 8.8 52.5 -0.015 0.125
9,373 11 7.7 3.5 53.5 0.000 0.155
9,376 5.1 3.3 2.1 57.5 0.075 0.165
9,383 3.3 1.5 1.2 62 0.090 0.220
9,387 3.3 1.5 1.3 62 0.080 0.135
9,398 6.4 3.2 2.2 58 0.055 0.135
9,406 5.1 3.5 2.2 55 0.030 0.150
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 190

190 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Table 10.4b. Case Study 2: Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Work table for determination of lithology. The symbol “v/v” indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction.

Lithology Calculations
Depth RHOB PhiNDxpt RHOmaa PhiNSxpt DTmaa
feet g/cm3 v/v decimal g/cm3 v/v decimal µsec/ft M N
9,310 2.57 0.170 2.865 0.145 42.3 0.833 0.505
9,322 2.68 0.040 2.744 0.035 47.2 0.843 0.596
9,326 2.66 0.075 2.788 0.065 44.4 0.842 0.563
9,332 2.63 0.095 2.790 0.090 45.4 0.830 0.562
9,335 2.65 0.055 2.744 0.075 41.8 0.853 0.589
9,347 2.55 0.160 2.825 0.125 43.9 0.852 0.531
9,353 2.64 0.140 2.888 0.130 43.0 0.803 0.488
9,362 2.73 0.065 2.848 0.065 43.8 0.808 0.529
9,367 2.73 0.060 2.838 0.060 44.0 0.811 0.535
9,373 2.71 0.085 2.860 0.070 43.6 0.817 0.525
9,376 2.59 0.120 2.792 0.095 44.1 0.856 0.561
9,383 2.57 0.150 2.824 0.125 44.4 0.840 0.532
9,387 2.58 0.100 2.746 0.105 47.6 0.830 0.584
9,398 2.62 0.090 2.772 0.090 45.4 0.835 0.569
9,406 2.66 0.090 2.816 0.075 44.5 0.832 0.544

Table 10.4c. Case Study 2: Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Calculations for solution table. The symbol “v/v” indicates volume-for-volume decimal fraction.

Saturation and other calculations

Depth Rwa Ro Sw Sxo MHI MOS ROS
feet ohm-m ohm-m v/v decimal v/v decimal v/v decimal v/v decimal v/v decimal BVW
9,310 0.751 0.8 0.166 0.700 0.237 0.534 0.300 0.028
9,322 0.029 14.4 0.894 1.000 0.894 0.106 0.000 0.036
9,326 0.096 4.1 0.490 0.892 0.550 0.401 0.108 0.037
9,332 0.081 2.5 0.532 0.886 0.601 0.354 0.114 0.051
9,335 0.097 7.6 0.487 0.657 0.741 0.170 0.343 0.027
9,347 0.123 0.9 0.433 0.911 0.475 0.478 0.089 0.069
9,353 0.092 1.2 0.500 0.736 0.679 0.237 0.264 0.070
9,362 0.169 5.4 0.369 0.605 0.610 0.236 0.395 0.024
9,367 0.079 6.4 0.539 0.733 0.736 0.194 0.267 0.032
9,373 0.079 3.2 0.538 0.820 0.656 0.282 0.180 0.046
9,376 0.073 1.6 0.560 0.750 0.746 0.190 0.250 0.067
9,383 0.074 1.0 0.557 0.793 0.701 0.237 0.207 0.083
9,387 0.033 2.3 0.835 1.000 0.835 0.165 0.000 0.083
9,398 0.052 2.8 0.666 0.977 0.682 0.311 0.023 0.060
9,406 0.041 2.8 0.746 0.977 0.764 0.231 0.023 0.067
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 191

Log Interpretation Case Studies 191

Figure 10.10. Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin,

U.S.A.: Crossplot, bulk density (RHOB) versus neutron porosity
(NPHI), for determining apparent matrix density (RHOmaa), a
variable for the matrix identification plot (Figure 10.12). See
Chapter 4 for detailed information about interpretation of the
crossplot.

Figure 10.11. Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin,

U.S.A.: Crossplot, interval transit time (DT) versus neutron porosity
(NPHI), for determining apparent matrix transit time (DTmaa), a
variable for the matrix identification plot (Figure 10.12). See
Chapter 4 for detailed information about interpretation of the
crossplot.
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:15 PM Page 192

192 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Figure 10.12. Matrix identification plot, Mission Canyon

Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Values for apparent matrix
density (RHOmaa) and apparent matrix traveltime (DTmaa)
were recorded from Figure 10.10 and Figure 10.11. Two
mineral triangles are shown: quartz-calcite-dolomite, and calcite-
dolomite-anhydrite. Scatter of points in the plot suggests that
most of the rock is a mixture of calcite and dolomite.

Figure 10.13. M-N lithology crossplot for identification of

matrix and secondary porosity, Mission Canyon Formation,
Williston Basin, U.S.A. Lithology indicators were calculated from
porosity logs: M from acoustic and density, and N from neutron
and density. Two mineral triangles are shown: quartz-calcite-
dolomite, and calcite-dolomite-anhydrite. Most points indicate a
mixture of calcite and dolomite.
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:16 PM Page 193

Log Interpretation Case Studies 193

PHIE Figure 10.14. Mission Canyon

Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.: Log
ohm-m of apparent water resistivity (Rwa) with
gamma ray log, apparent matrix density
ohm-m
log (RHOmaa), deep resistivity latero-
log, neutron-porosity log, density-
porosity log, and effective porosity log.
Apparent matrix density (RHOmaa) is
plotted in track 1 with the gamma ray
(GR). Apparent water resistivity (Rwa)
is plotted in track 2 with the deep
laterolog. Neutron-density crossplot
porosity, indicated by PHIE (effective
porosity) is plotted in track 3, with the
original neutron and density porosities.

Figure 10.15. Mission Canyon Formation, Williston Basin,

U.S.A.: Pickett crossplot of deep laterolog resistivity vs. neutron-
density crossplot porosity. Note that the “Lower MC” zones
generally have the higher water saturations; they define the water-
bearing line (Sw = 1.0). See Chapter 7 for detailed information
about interpretation of the Pickett crossplot.
ch10_v3.qxd 8/5/04 12:16 PM Page 194

194 ASQUITH AND KRYGOWSKI

Figure 10.16. Bulk-volume-water crossplot (effective

porosity, PHIE, vs. water saturation, Sw), Mission Canyon
Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A.

Figure 10.17. Mission Canyon

Formation, Williston Basin, U.S.A. Final
results in log format.
Apparent water resistivity (Rwa) is
plotted in track 1 with the gamma
ray log.
Resistivity of rock at 100% water
saturation (Ro) is plotted in track 2,
with the deep laterolog. Separation of
the two curves (shaded) indicates
hydrocarbons in the rock.
Track 3 shows water saturation (Sw),
effective porosity (PHIE), and bulk
volume water (BVW). The dark shaded
area between the porosity curve (left-
hand) and the bulk-volume-water curve
indicates the proportion of pore space
that is occupied by hydrocarbons,
whereas the light shaded area between
the bulk-volume-water curve and the
right margin of the track (scale value of
zero) indicates the proportion that is
occupied by water. DiffCal is the
differential caliper (caliper minus bit
size). Negative values indicate the
presence of mudcake.