SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

RADIOACTIVE LOGGING PARAMETERS FOR COMMON MINERALS

by

H. Edmundson, L. L. Raymer
Schlumberger-Doll Research Center, R idgefield, Connecticut

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a list of about seventy minerals encountered in

sedimentary formations together with their associated radioactive logging
parameters. A procedure to calculate the radioactive parameters is
given, and exact details are furnished for all logs but the neutron, which
requires extensive and complex computation. It is significant that without
considering rare elements such as boron, the computed neutron porosities
assuming a thermal detecting device are consistently higher in shales,
micas and zeolites than with an epithermal detecting device. This con-
firms our experience in the field.

It is hoped that this compilation will serve as a qualitative aid in

gauging the effect of most common minerals on the usual radioactive log-
ging devices.

INTRODUCTION

Although the physical properties of a small number of very common

minerals, such as quartz, limestone, etc. , are quite well known and
documented in both the in-situ and laboratory environments, the vast
majority of minerals encountered in sedimentary formations pose a rather
uncertain element in the log interpreters trade. This paper presents a
compilation of seventy minerals together with their associated radioactive
logging parameters. Our list is by no means exhaustive, and for certain
depositional environments it may not be that relevant. However, it re -
presents a preliminary attempt to compile some information that has been
difficult for log interpreters to find or even calculate. In the past, com-
pilations of this sort have been made, 1 but they have either been smaller
in scope or internal to an organization and unpublished.

An ideal list would include all logging parameters besides just the
radioactive ones. However, the difficulties involved in that greater task
are enormous. To a reasonable degree of accuracy, the effective radio-
active properties of a compound can be simply calculated from knowledge

References listed at end of paper.

-1-

.-. -
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

of its atomic constituents; but this is unfortunately not the case for the
acoustic, electrical and most other gross physical properties of either a
single compound o r mixture of compounds. In fact solutions to these lat-
ter problems very quickly bring one to the forefront of theoretical physics,
where there are more unsolved problems than solved.

An alternative course of action is to measure properties in-situ, for

example identify a given mineral in a depositional sequence and then note
the corresponding logging responses. As we noted above, this procedure
has long been a common approach for the very common sedimentary
minerals, because they frequently occur in fairly pure states; but for the
bulk of the minerals on our list, pure occurrences are rare if they are
found at all. This makes a systematic compilation by empirical means
practically impossible , and forces us to use some kind of theoretical esti-
mate. At the state of the art today we are therefore limited to just the
radioactive parameters.

THE MINERALS

We have grouped the minerals into the following categories:

Silicates Clays
Carbonates Zeolites
Oxidates Micas
Phosphates Evaporates
Feldspars Coals

When minerals are uniquely defined and occur in fairly pure states (e. g. ,
anhydrite - CaS04), it is possible to take the chemical formula, the bulk
density and calculate the required radioactive parameters. Good sources
for simple mineral data are References 2 and 3. Commonly, however,
minerals are not precisely defined (e. g. , chlorite - (Mg, Fe, A1)6 (Si,
A1)4 01 o(OH)8), have a rather variable density and occur in impure states.
In these cases we have taken average chemical analyses using Reference 6
for most clays, Reference 7 for zeolites, micas and chlorite, and Ref-
erence 5 for coals. The minerals for which we have used such analyses
are asterisked in the main table, and the analyses are tabulated separately
by weight fraction in the following tables. It will be seen in these analyses
that two states of water are listed, notably H20+ and HzO-. H20- refers
to that water that leaves the mineral when the sample is heated to 11 OC;
and H20+ refers to the water that remains. W e have computed the radio -
active parameters for each analysis twice- - once including the H20- which
we call the wet state, and a second time leaving out the H20- which we
call the dry state. Of course, this nomenclature should not be inter-
preted too literally.

-2-
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

Zeolite Analvses
.
Constituents Heulanditez Laumonitez Mordenitez Analcinez

Si02 57.12 50.74 65.83 54.81

A1203 17.03 21.95 12.20 23.23
Fe203 ,04 .81 .63
MgO . .13 .54
CaO 6.45 12.06 3.48 .09
SrO .95

Na20 1.77 .49 2.96 13.37

K20 1.18 .25 ,29 .30
H20+ 12.00 8.21 9.19 8.18
H20- 3.60 .8 4,68 .09

Clay Analyses
-
Mixed Layer Aggregate
KaoliniteG ChloriteT llliie6 MontmorilloniteG
1 2 3
Si02 45.25 27.10 54.72 38.73 53.43 67.51 54.35
A1203 37.82 19.06 20.05 14.90 21.59 15.09 17.40
Fe203 1,08 2.89 7.30 3.58 1.04 4.29 2.64
FeO 19.70 4.25 1.26
MgO .01 18.15 2.06 6.80 4.17 1.55 3.71
CaO .27 .25 .78 8.04 .53 .11 1.39
Na20 .34 .03 .31 .11 .40 .55
Tioz 1.21 .01 1.01 1.28 .28 .97 .13
K20 .52 .07 5.83 1.62 7.00 2.77 .26
P205 .50 . .09
MnO .36 .13 .04 .06
H20+ 13.46 11.09 6.49 6.78 6.67 4.43 7.71
H20- .71 .51 2.92 7.73 5.70 1.36 12.48
Co, 5.43

Mica Am rses
I Biotitez Glauconitez
lstituent Sample 1 Sample 2
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
(Metamorphic) (Igneous)
Si02
Ti02
38.22
2.96
36.22
3.02
49.29
.12
49.07
.15
47.42
.10
0
AlzOa 14.71 16.39 3.17 10,95 7.19
Fe203 3.83 3.92 21.72 15.86 22.64
FeO 13.44 14.41 3.19 1.36 3.39
MnO .52 .16
MgO 13.45 11.11 3.85 4.49 2.28
CaO 1.46 .74 .07 .27
Na20 .50 .37 .12 .13 .05
K20 7.90 8.97 6.02 7.51 7.46
P205 .32 .19 ,22
H20 1.89 4.00 7.21 6.63 6.07
H20- .60 .75 4.60 3.66 3.01

-3-

.. . ..
.
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

cALCULATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PARAMETERS

We will use the following nomenclature to describe in each compound

the ith atom type:

n. is the number of such atoms

1

Zi is the atomic number

A. is its atomic weight

1

o- is its microscopic thermal neutron capture cross-

i
section in barns

7. is the photoelectric cross-section

1

Ti =
Note tl-iat (zi/lo)3!

th
For the j compound in a mixture of compounds:

is its volumetric fraction

j
is its weight fraction
j
For a single compound or a mixture of compounds we write with or
without subscript j:

M for molecular weight

GRk for the effective gamma ray response due to potassium 40

P for the bulk density

Pe for the electron density

PFDC for the density as measured by the FDC~ density tool

z for the macroscopic thermal neutron capture cross-

section in c. u.

Pe for the effective photo-electron cross-section

z for the effective atomic number

* Mark of Schlumberger.

-4-

,.... . -,.,- ---

 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

Note that as before:

P ~ = (z/lo)36

that for a compound

M = Sum n.A
Ii

and that for a mixture

w.

P= l/Sumd =Sumv. p.
JJ
j
and

5P*
j = Pj

The table below gives the atomic data for a list of atoms commonly
found in minerals. Data for other atoms may be found in Reference 3. The

Microscopic Thermal
Atomic
Element Abbreviation ;:my;r Neutron Capture
Weight
Cross-section - barns

Hydrogen H 1 1.00800 0.33200

Boron* B 5 10.81000 759.00000
Carbon c 6 12.01100 0.00340
Nitrogen N 7 14.00700 0.00000
Oxygen o 8 16.00000 0.00027
Fluorine* F 9 19.00000 0.00980
Sodium NA 11 22.99000 0.53000
Magnesium MG 12 24.30500 0.06300
Aluminum AL 13 26.98200 0.23000
Silicon SI 14 28.08600 0.16000
Phosphorous P 15 30.97400 0.01900
Sulphur s 16 32.06000 0.52000
Chlorine CL 17 35.45300 33.20000
Potassium K 19 39.10000 2.10000 0
Calcium CA 20 40,08000 0.43000
Titanium* TI 22 47.90000 6.41000
Manganese* MN 25 54.93800 13,30000
Iron FE 26 55.84700 2.55000
Copper* Cu 29 63.54600 3.82000
Zinc* ZN 30 65.38000 0.50490
Strontium SR 38 87.62000 0.08600
Zirconium* ZR 40 91.22000 0.29000
Barium 8A 56 137.34000 0.06500
Lead* PB 82 207.20000 0.18800
1
*F.!... .,,.; I. I.I.. 4.. ., ..... . . .. .... . .. .
lYUL dVdlld UIC I(JI ll~U1l Ull L61LUld11Ull

-5-
.. .. . .
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

densities of those compounds generally found in a mineral analysis are also

tabulated.

We will now discuss the calcula-

tion of each radioactive pa ram -
eter in turn. An appendix illus -
Quartz Si02 2.650 trates the hand calculation of
Rutile Ti02 4.250
each parameter except the neu-
Corundum A1203 3.988
tron porosities.
Hematite Fe203 5.274
Eskolaite Cr203 5.245
Zincite ZnO 5.675
Gamma Ray
Wuestile FeO 5.745
Mangosite MnO 5.365
MgO 3.584
The counting rate at the de-
Penclase
Lime CaO 3.345 tector in a Gamma Ray logging
Barium Oxide BaO 5.720 s onde is naturally influenced by
Sodium Monoxide Na20 2.270 the tool itself and the borehole
Potassium Monoxide K20 2.320 environment. To a first approxi-
Water H20 1.000 mation, however, we can say
Phosphorus Pentoxide P*05 2.39
that the response will be related
to the number of atoms emitting
gamma rays per unit mass. We
will assume that all natural radioactivity is produced by potassium 40 (K40),
which is to ignore other common naturally radioactive elements such as
uranium and thorium. Although the contribution of these other elements is
not insignificant, they exist as impurities and their relative abundance is
usually minute, a few ppms typically; and they are not cataloged in the
typical chemical analysis. Ignoring these components we may therefore
express the effective gamma ray response due to potassium 40, GRk, for
a single compound as:

602.2nka ~1
GRk = ~ 10 atoms Of K40/gm

where nk is the number of atoms of potassium and a is the percentage

natural abundance of K40 which we take from Reference 5 to be . 0011 8~0.

For a mixture of compounds we can write:

GRk = Sum Wj GR
kj

In Reference 4, Crain and Anderson derived an empirical relationship

between effective potassium content and gamma ray API units. We repro -
duce in Figure 1 their results for the standard gamma ray logging condi-
tions of 8 borehole, 10 lb/gal mud and 3 5 /8 scintillation NaI detector

-6-

- . ..-.. ..
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

type tool. For other borehole environments refer to Chart Per-7 in

Reference 8.

Compensated Formation Density

g 500 - When the formation density

.-
3 tool is correctly calibrated, the
_ 400 -
density reading, pFDC, is re-
%
c. 300 -
lated to the electron density in-
.-0 dex, pe , by:
%
Q 200 -
& FDC
a = 1.0704 Pe - .1883
I 00 - P
C
c)

o 100 200 300 400 Soo 600

The two constants in this equa-
K40 Concentration, atoms/gram
tion are chosen to ensure the
correct bulk density reading in
Figure 1 fresh water filled limestone.

For a single compound

Sum niZi
Pe =2 f-J ~

For a mixture of compounds we have the usual equation

P = Sum p.v.
JJ

Thermal Decay Time (TDT~)

The macroscopic thermal neutron cross-section of a compound can be

expressed in terms of its atomic microscopic cross-sections as follows:

= _ 602.2
p Sum ni~i capture units
M

For a mixture we weight volumetrically thus:

Z = Sum v..Z
Jj

It is well known that minute quantities of a few rare-earth elements,

for example boron, can contribute significantly to the macroscopic

>KMark of Schlumberger.

-7-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

cross-section of a mixture. Because these elements are considered to be

impurities, they will generally not appear in a chemical formula or even in
a chemical analysis unless it is an unusually thorough one. However, their
potential occurrence should not be forgotten. References 9 and 10 provide
a useful guide to the presence of boron in sedimentary conditions.

TM
LITHO-DENSITY

For the density, the computation is identical to that described above

for the FDC tool. The LITHO-DENSITY toolrs additional measurement, the
effective photoelectric cross-section - Pe - may be characterized for a
single compound by

Sum ni Zi T.
1
P=
e Sum n.Z.
ii

For a mixture of compounds it can be shown that

Sum pe. v. P
ej
P=

e
Sum pe v.
JJ

Of course, the equivalent Z value may always be calculated by

1/3. 6
Z=1OP
e

Neutron

The neutron response of a given mineral for either the SNP~X tool
which is an epithermal device, or the CNL~ tool which operates in the
thermal energy region as well, presents the most difficulty of all the radio-
active parameters. The first step is to find a (l-1) correspondence be-
tween each tools basic measurement (counting rate for the SNP tool or
ratio for the CNL tool) and some attribute of the mineral. We use as a
suitable attribute the neutron slowing down length, Ls, for the SNP tool,
and migration length, LM, for the CNL tool. The slowing down length is
defined as the square root of one- sixth the mean square crow-flight
distance the neutron travels in slowing down from the source energy to
epithermal energy. The migration length is similarly defined except that

~ Mark of Schlumberger.
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

the neutron is allowed to travel further until finally captured in its thermal
states.

Accurate values of LS and LM can probably be only calculated using

time-consuming and costly Monte Carlo methods or numerical solutions
to the transport equation. However, a reasonable approximation is possible
using a method called the Goertzel-Greuling procedure. It should be
stressed that the correspondences we use are entirely empirical being
based on measurements in sandstone, limestone and dolomite formations
only. There is, therefore, no a priori reason why other compounds or
minerals should conform. An interesting comparison can be made, how-
ever, between some conditions on CNL porosity values assumed by the
C ORIBAND* calculation and calculated values for a few minerals.

@ CORIBANO Computed
CNL

Salt <2 3
Trona >35 35
Anhydrite <2 2
Gypsum >45 >60
Coal >50 33-60

IS I
It can be seen that there is a
good consistency between the
SNP hesponse
Etin. water-filled
two sets of data.
a
% - bOre*ote
9
$andslone : Not all the elements shown in
8 0 Llmestbne
the table of elements can be used
7 a Dolomite
for the neutron calculations. In
particular there is no cross-
,. section data for elements marked
with an asterisk. When a com -
i :..
pound contains any of these ele-
ments, they are simply omitted
in the neutron calculations. Final
values of porosity are always in
equivalent limestone porosity
units assuming an 8 borehole
with fresh water in both the for-
mation and borehole.

o
1
10 20 30 40
SideWall Neutron Porosity (SNP)
Porosity, Percenl
Figure 2 shows the relation-
Figure Z ship between count rates at the

>XMark of Schlumberger.

-9-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

detector and porosity for the

I !
I
I
$
I /1 three prima ry lithologies. These

14
Sandstone
A Dolomije- , -- Y ,
i
results were obtained in the
laboratory with quarried rock

I
O ;Limest&e samples, and constitute the
O [Water{ ~00/~) I Y
basic data for calibrating the
tool in terms of porosity. Fig-
ure 3 shows the same count rate
data plotted against Ls - slowing
down length - as calculated by
the Goertzel-Greuling procedure.
We chose a linear best fit to
describe the hypothesized (1 -1)
correspondence between count
rates and Ls. It can be seen,
particularly at low poro sities,
that there is some lithological
effect. Different rocks with the
same count rat e have cliffe r ent
L~ , Slawing-down length, cm slowing down lengths. Also for
some reason, the water point
Figure 3 does not conform; fortunately
this is not relevant to our needs.

Neverthelesss the Goertzel-Grueling calculation of Ls together with the

data shown in Figures 2 and 3 allows us to estimate tisNp for an arbitrary
mineral or mixture of minerals.

Very similar types of data exist for the CNL measurements. Figure 4
shows the relationship between ratio versus porosity for the three primary
minerals, the data again being
made in laboratory formations.
C N L Porosity Response Figure 5 shows the same ratio
5 #-in, Open Hole
data plotted against calculated

migration length - LM. The fit
is excellent and even takes in the
3
water point. 4CNL is thus cal-
z
culable for an arbitrary mineral
. Sandstone
0 Ltmesiona
or mixture of minerals.
! A Dolmrli t ,

,0203040,0 so7080so co
Through the years since the
Porosity, Percent introduction of the Compensated
Neutron (CNL) tool, some minor
Figure 4 changes have been made in the

-1o-
.,,.... ., ., .,.
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 36, 1979

response of the tool. The effect

has been to alter slightly the
CNL Response
6 limestone response of the tool
D Sandsione
5
O Limestone in very high porosity ( >3070) and
.9 6 Dolomite
in very low porosity ( - O~O)o
z O Water f 100%)
=4

J
The values of ~CNL recorded in
z
c1
3
the table apply to one version
t of the tool. Conversion to other
1
tool versions, namely Mod 6 or
I
Mod 8, can be made using Fig-
25 30 35
7.5 KI 15 20
ure 6. Most Schlumberger CNL
LM , Migrotion length, cm
logs run today employ the Mod 8
tool version. To use Figure 6,
Figure 5 the ~CNL from the table is
entered in ordinate; and the
LCtUal ~GNL value for the particular v rsion of the CNL tool used is ob -
tained in abscissa.

60r
Future Neutron Tools
/
50 - /

Similar procedures will MOD 8 CNL TOOL ~ /

/
of course be applied to new
40 -
neutron tools as they are u
J
developed. m
a 30 -
1-

E
0
Already we have data for
z 20 -
an epithermal version of the A

CNL tool. Very similar po - SE

10 -
rosities to the SNP measure- /

ment have been found, and it

is anticipated that this info r - o -

mation will be released as

soon as the tool is available .,0
-lo
-
0
1
10
,
20 30
I a
40
1
50
1
so
0
in its commercial form.
ACTUAL +CNL

Figure 6

COMMENTS AND C OCCLUSIONS

Although this compilation is by its nature quantitative, its usefulness

is probably qualitative, more directed for example at indicating a trend on

-11-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

a crossplot than exactly specifying a point that would correspond to one

particular mineral. We are all familiar with the difficulty of choosing a
shale point on a 4N/4D crossplot.

There are two sources of error in our tabulated values. First, the
calculation or methodology may only be approximate- - examples are gamma
ray result where only the potassium contribution is used and the neutron
logs where a (1 -1) correspondence was assumed. Second, the mineral in-
situ may be an impure or uncertain variant of the pure chemical examples
chosen for our list. Dolomite is an example of this. Good quarried ex-
amples of dolomite are purer than almost all those found in-situ, thereby
causing much debate in the past on the validity of the neutron response in
dolomite.

Nevertheless some interesting trends appear. II-Ithe clays, micas and

zeolites the CNL porosity is consistently higher than the SNP porosity.
This may partially resolve a dilemma that has existed since the introduc -
tion of the CNL tool.

The CNL measurement from its introduction showed much higher po -

rosities in shales than the SNP tool. One explanation for this effect was
that whereas the SNP tool basically just responds to the slowing down of
neutrons by hydrogen atoms, the CNL measurement is also affected by the
neutron capture process. since the tool measures both thermal and epi -
thermal neutrons. It was suspected that boron and other high absorbers
were mainly responsible. We can now say, with the present tabulation, that
the thermal effect is strongly present (i. e. , 4CNL> #sNp) even when only
the common elements are considered.

Finally, these radioactive parameters were calculated using the ap-

propriate physical properties of the elements comprising the mineral com-
pounds and using the calibration procedures of the individual logging tools.
As such, the tabulated values apply only to the Schlumberger Compensated
Formation Density (FDC ), Compensated Neutron (CNL), Sidewall Neutron
(SNP), and LITHO-DENSITYTM (LDT) tools. Because of tool design and
calibration differences, the parameters may or may not apply to tools of
other service companies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many thanks are due to John Wahl, Harold Sherman and Stan Locke,
who guided us on nuclear matters, and to Carl Scala, Roy Nurmi, and Joe
Schrank, who guided us on mineralogy.

-12-
..-.
_____,_
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

GR~
NAME FORMULA M 1(P4 J ~;P +CNL
gjc PFDC Pcff z
atoms
/g p
CLAYS*

Kaolinite W Al&Si4010(OH)B 2.42 11.83 7.79 14.12 34. 37.

Kaolinite D 2.44 * 11.85 7.85 13.98 33. 36.

Chlorite w (Mg, Fe, Al) G(Si, AI)4010(OH)S I I 2.77 2.76 I 6.30 16.67 1.06 24.87 37. 52.

Chlorite D l I 2.79 2.79 ] 6.33 16,70 1.07 24.91 36. 51.

K1.1.5Aio(SiT-G.S,
Illite w 2.53 2.52 I 3.45 14.10 86.68 17.58 20. 30.
AI I-I.5)020(OH)4

Illite D 2.65 14.22 89.26 17.22 15. 24.

Mixed Layer
Aggregate 1 W II 2.37 2.37 I
1
3.96 14.66 25,91 18.80 35. 44.

Mixed Layer
Aggregate 1 D I 2.70 2.70
I 4.32 15.02 28.23 17.98 20. 29.
I
Mixed Layer 2.36 2.35 I 2.23 12.50 105.07 15.22 25. 33.
Aggregate 2 W

Mixed Layer
Aggregate 2

Mixed Layer
D
2.57
a= ,
12.69 111.38 14.14 16. 22.

----+-E
2.61 I 3.01 13.58 41.84 13.60 13. 19.
Aggregate 3 W

Mixed Layer
13.63 42.42 13.29 10. 15.
Aggregate 3 D
(Ca, Na).+Al, Mg, Fe)A(Si, ADa
t
Montmoril- _ 2.12 I 2.04 12.19
2.12 3.89 14.12 40. 44.
Ionite w 02 fJ(OH)4(HzO)II
Montmori 1- 2.53 12.61 4.45 11.23 20. 24.
Ionite D

ZEOLITES*
Heulandite W (Ca, Naz)AlzSi701B (HZo)G 2.23 2.23 2.86 13.39 18.44 11.77 25. 30.
Heulandite D 2.34 2.34 2.96 13,52 17.78 12.61 31. 36.
Laumonite W CaA12Sio01z(H20) s.s-o 2.53 2.53 2.64 13.10 3.94 11.23 22. 26.
Laumonite D 2.56 2.56 2,67 13,13 3.99 11.00 20. 24.
Mordenite W [Na~, K2, Ca)AlZSi100zo(HzO)7 2.24 2.24 1.91 11.97 4.39 11.55 27. 31.
Mordenite D 2.39 2.38 1.9912.11 4.60 10.30 23.

Analcine W NaAlSi206H20 2.45 2.43 1.5611.31 4.52 11.79 17. 23.
Analcine D 2.45 2.44 1.56 4.53 11.77 17. 23.

MICAS
Muscovite KA12(Si3A1010)(OH)2 398.32 2.83 2.82 2.40 12.76 178.40 16.85 12! 20,
I Sample 1 W K2(Mg, Fe)2A16(Si4010) 3(oH) ~z 2.51 2.49 6.77 17.01 90.51 25.31 26. 42.
I

Sample 1 D 2,71 2.69 7.11 17.25 94.86 25.71 18. 33.

E=
.X
.: Sample 2 W K2(Mg, Fe)2A16(Si4010) 3(OH) ~z . 2.53 2.52 5.32 15.91 113.22 22.37 23. 37.
~
~ Sample 2 D 2.69 2.67 5.53 16.08 117.53 22.39 16. 29.

U Sample 3 W K2(Mg, Fe)2A16(Si4010) 3(OH) ~z 2.65 2.63 7.04 17.2 112.44 26.70 21. 37.
I
I Sample 3 W 2.80 2.77 7.27 17.35 115.92 27.09 16. 30.
1

I Sample 1 W K(Mg, Fe)s(AISisOIO)( OH)z 3.08 3.06 6.22 16,61 119.81 29.63 8. 16.
.%
~ r
I
Sample 1
Sample 2 W
D

I
K(Mg, Fe)3(AlSi3010)[OH)z

3.12
2.95

3.00
3.10
2,93

2.97
6.26
6.32

6.37
16,64
16,69

16.73
120.54
136.25

137.29
29.77

30.04
30.22
6.

14.
12.
13.
26.
23.

DC, SNP, and C 4L are Marks of Schlumbe er Copyright @ 1979 Schlun Ierge

-13-
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

GRK
1014 ~ ~;l> +CNL
NAME FORMULA M Jc Pmw F.ff z
atomslg Cu Pu

SILICATES
Quartz Si02 60.09 2.65 2.64 1.81 11.78 4.26 1. 2.

p-Cristobalite Si02 60.09 2.19 2.15 1.81 11.78 3.52 2. 3.

3.5% H20 Si02(H20).120g 62.26 2.16 2.13 1,75 11.68 5.03 4. 2.

g 6.33% H20 Si02(H20) .2253 64.15 2.10 2.07 1,70 11.60 6.12 7. 6.

8.97% H20 Si02(H20) ~~s~ 66.00 2.04 2.01 1,66 11.52 7.05 11, 11.
Garnet Fe3 Alz (Si04)3 497.76 4.32 4.31 11.09 19.51 44,91 3. 7.

Hornblende Ca2NaMg2 Fe2AlSi80 ~2(0, OH) ~ 900.13 3.2 3.2 5,99 16,44 18.12 4. 8.

Tourmaline NaMg3A16B3Si602 (OH)4 558.78 3.03 3.02 2.14 12.35 7449.82 16. 22.

Zircon ZrSi04 183.31 4.67 4.5 69.10 32,43 6.92 1. 3.

CARBONATES
Calcite CaC03 100,09 2.71 2.71 5.08 15.71 7.08 0. 1.

Dolomite CaC03MgC03 184.41 2,87 2,88 3.14 13.74 4.70 2, 1!

Ankerite Ca(Mg, Fe)(COS)* 240.25 2,9 2.86 9.32 18.59 22.18 0. 1.

Siderite FeC03 115,86 3.94 3.89 14,69 21,09 52.31 5. 12,

OXIDATES
Gibbsite AI(OH)3 78.01 2.44 2,49 1.10 10.28 23.11 50+ 60+
Hematite Fe203 159.69 5.27 5.18 21.48 23.44 101.37 4. 11.
Magnetite Fe304 231.54 5.18 5.08 22.24 23.67 103.08 3. 9.
Geothite FeO(OH) 88.86 4.37 4.34 19.02 22.66 85.37 50+ 60+
Limonite FeO(OH)(H20)2 ~q 125.79 3.5 3.59 13.00 20.39 71.12 50+ 60+

PHOSPHATES
Hydroxyapatite Ca5(P04)30H 502.33 3.15 3,17 5.81 16,30 9.60 5. 8.
Chlorapatite Ca5(P04)3Cl 520.78 3.18 3.18 6,06 16.50 130.21 1. 1.
Fluorapatite Ca5(P04)3F 504.32 3.20 3.21 5.82 16.31 8.48 1. 2.
Carbonapatite (Cas(PO~)s)zCOsH*O 1048.67 3.11 3.13 5.58 16.20 9.09 5. 8.

FELDSPARS Alkali
Orthoclase KAlSi308 278.34 2.55 2.52 2.86 13.39 255.29 15.51 2. 3.
Anorthoclase KAlSi308 278.34 2.62 2.59 2.86 13.39 255.29 15,91 2, 2.
Microcline KAlSi308 278.34 2.56 2.53 2.86 13.39 255.29 15.58 2. 3.
i
FELDSPARS Plagioclase

Albite NaAlSi308 262.23 2.62 2.59 1.68 11.55 7.47 1. 2.
I I I I
Oligoclase 10-30% Anorthite
Interpolate linearly
Andesine 30-50% Anorthite
between Albite and
Labradorite 50-70% Anorthite Anorthite.
1
Bytownite 70-90% Anorthite )

Anorthite CaA12Si208 278.22 2.76 2,74 3.13 13.73 7.24 1. j 2.

I I 1
DC, SNP, and CNL are Marks oi Schlumberger CoPy right @ 1979 Schlumberger

-14-
.. ,,...-----
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

GR.
FORMULA M 1014 J $3;1 &xrJ
NAME ggc Pmc Peff z
atomslg p

EVAPORATES
Halite NaCl 58.44 2.17 2.04 4.65 15.33

Anhydrite CaS04 136.14 2.96 2.98 5.05 15.68

t 1

Gypsum CaS04(H20)2 172.17 2.32 2.35 3.99 14.68

Trona Na2C03NaHC03H20 208.02 2.12 2.08 0.71 9.08

Tachydrite CaC12 (MgC12)2 (H20)12 517.60 1.68 1.66 3.84 14.53 I 406.02 I 50+ I 60+

Sylvite KC I 74.55 1.98 1.86 8.51 18.13

Carnalite KClMgC12(H20)6 277.86 1.61 1.57 4.09 14.79

, 1 1

Lang beinite K2S04(MgS04)2 414.99 2.83 2.82 3.56 14.23 342.46 24.19 I 1. I 2.
1 I I

Polyhalite K2S04MgS04 (CaS04)2 (H20)2 602.94 2.78 2.79 4.32 15.01 235.72 23.70 I 14. I 25.
,
Kainite MgS04KCl(H20)3 248.97 2.13 2.12 3.50 14.17
Kieserite

Barite
MgS04H20

BaS04
138.38

233.40
2.57

4.48
2.59

4.09
1.83

266.82
11,82

47.20 =l%M , 1 I

+t%t+H-
Celestite SrS04 183.68 3.97 3.79 55.19 30.47
Sulphur s 32.06 2.07 2.02 5.43 16.00
,
Pyrite FeS2 119.97 5.0 4.99 16.97 21.96 I 90.10
I 2. I 3.
1 1 t

Marcasite FeS2 119.97 4.89 4.87 16.97 21.96

88.12 I 2. I 3.
1 I I
Pyrrhotite Fe7S8 647.41 4.6 4.53 20.55 23.16 94.18 I 2. I -3.
, I

Sphaterite ZnS 97.44 4.0 3.85 35.93 27.04

Chalcopyrite CuFeS2 183.51 4.2 4.07 26.72 24.91
Galena PbS 239.26 7.5 6.39 1631.37 78.05

COALS*
Anthracite CH.358N .0090 .022 1.51 1.47 0.16 6.0 8.65 37. 38.
Bituminous CH.793N ,ol~o .078 1.27 1,24 0.17 6.09 14.30 5(H 60i-
Lignite cH849N.0150.211 1.23 1.19 0.20 6.41 12,79 47, 52.

FDC, SNP, and CNL are Marks of Schlumberger Copyright @ 1979 Schlumberger

-15-

. . . . .. .-- .
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

REFERENCES

1. Serra, O. : Interpr~tation G<ologique des Diagnophies Diff#ri6s en

S6ries Carbonates, Bul. Centre Rech. Pan, 7, 1, 265-284, June,
1973.

2. Clark, S. P. (editor): Handbook of Physical Constants, Memoir 97

of the Geological Society of America, 1966.

3. Weast, R. C. : Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 58th Edition

CRC Press.

4. Crain, E.R. and Anderson, W. B. : Quantitative Log Evaluation of

the Prairie Evaporite Formation in Saskatchewan, Jour. Canadian
Pet. Tech. , July-September, 1966.

5. Lange, N. A. : Handbook of Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, 1961.

6. Reference Clay Minerals, A. P. I. Research Project 49, 1951.

7. Deer, W. A., Howie, R. A., and Zussman, J. : Rock Forming Min-

erals, John Wiley and Sons, 1962.

8. Log Interpretation Charts, Schlumberger Limited, New York, 1977.

9. Fertl, W.H. : Occurrence of the Neutron Absorbing Trace Element

Boron, Part I: Boron in Rocks, The Log Analyst, September-
October, 1971.

10. Fertl, W. H. : Occurrence of the Neutron Absorbing Trace Element

Boron, Part II: Boron in Oil Field Waters, The Log Analyst,
January-February, 1972.

APPENDIX

Example of Hand-Calculations

We choose orthoclase feldspar - KAl Si308, density 2.55 gm/cm3, as

our example. Note that for any mineral it is not possible to hand-calculate
the neutron porosities.

-16-
.,. -.
. .
 SPWLA TWENTI ETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE S6, 1979

Element z A 0-

K 19 39.10 O. 0000118 2.10

Al 13 26.982 0 0.23

Si 14 28.086 0 0.16

o 8 16.00 0 0.00027

Molecular Weight

M = Sum niAi

M= 39.1 0+26.982+3X28. O86+ 8x16

= 278.34

Gamma Ray

602.2 n,- u ~,

GRk= M K 10L

602.2 X 1 x.0000118x 1021

GRk =
278.34

255.291014 atoms of potassium 4 O/gin

Using Figure 1, this is equivalent to 200 API units in the normal condi.
tions of an eccentered 3 5/8 sonde in an 8 hole filled with 10 lb/gal mud.

FDC

Sum niZi
e
P =2f) M

2x2.55x(19+13+3x14+8 x8)
Pe = 278.34

-17-
..... . .
SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

= 2.5286

FDC
P = 1.0704pe - 0.1883

FDC
P = 1.0704x2.5286 - .1883

= 2.518 gm/cm3

TDT

602.2
z= ~ p Sum ni~i

~ = 602.2 x2.55 x(2. 10 + .23+3X.16 +8x.00027)

278.34

= 15.51 capture units

FDC II

First we calculate T for each element:

3.6
T=;
()

= (19/10)36
K

= 10.0812

Similarly

T = 2.5716
Al

-18-
..,..
-----
 SPWLA TWENTIETH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 3-6, 1979

T = 3,3578
Si
and

o = .4478
Then we can calculate

Sum ni Zi T
i
P=
e Sum niZi

19x1 O. 0812 +13X2.5716+3X 14x3.3578+8x8x.4478)

Pe=~
(19+13+3x14+8x8)

= 2.860

1/3.6
z = loPe

z= 13.39

-19-