SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
GEOCHEMICAL PHOTOELECTRIC (PE) LOGGING
James Galford and Nicholas Garrison, Halliburton; Jerome Truax, Linn Operating
Copyright 2017, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 58th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, June 17-21, 2017.
ABSTRACT
Photoelectric logs from lithodensity tools have
become a mainstay of modern logging and are
valuable to petrophysical interpretation and miner-
alogy identification. Like most measurement tech-
niques, they are not without limitations. Reliable
lithodensity photoelectric (PE) logs can only be
obtained in wells drilled with modest mud densi-
ties because the additives used to achieve high-
density muds contain high Z materials that com-
promise the PE measurement. In addition, because
they are often obtained with pad devices, lithoden-
sity PE logs can be compromised by loss of con-
tact between the pad and the borehole wall. Mud-
cake between the pad and the formation can also
adversely affect lithodensity PE measurements. A
useful substitute can be obtained from neutron-
induced gamma ray spectroscopy logs when bore-
hole conditions are not suitable for lithodensity PE
tools.
The paper describes how a PE log that is compati-
ble with lithodensity PE logs can be obtained from
geochemical logs. Example logs from wells drilled
with low-density muds demonstrate and validate
this technique. Additional examples illustrate how
geochemical PE logs can replace compromised or
missing lithodensity PE logs in wells drilled with
16 lbm/gal or greater mud density. A macroscopic
photoelectric absorption cross section (U) log can
be constructed when this occurs by combining
bulk density and geochemical PE logs. A U log
derived from a geochemical PE log can be a valua-
ble aid to advanced petrophysical analysis in com-
plex reservoirs by providing an additional response
equation that would otherwise not be available.
INTRODUCTION
The first tools capable of making photoelectric
measurements became available in the late 1970s.
They quickly gained favor in the early 1980s,
largely because they provided an easy-to-
1
understand lithology identification output (Felder
1979 and Gardner 1980). Shortly afterward, PE
logs were available from all major service compa-
nies, and their value to petrophysical interpretation
was quickly recognized. The rapid acceptance of
the PE measurement was not without problems or
limitations. It was quickly recognized that logging
conditions affected the accuracy of PE logs; vari-
ous correction methods and improved measure-
ment techniques were developed to address the
problems (Moake and Schultz 1987, Moake 1991,
and Allioli, et al., 1997). Improved measurement
techniques and correction algorithms have un-
doubtedly led to more reliable PE logs for modest
logging conditions. However, high Z mud addi-
tives containing barium and cesium adversely af-
fect PE measurements and decrease the reliability
of PE logs for mud densities greater than 11-12
lbm/gal.
Modern geochemical logging tools (Pemper, et al.,
2006, Galford, et al., 2009, and Radtke, et al.,
2012) make it possible to produce PE logs ob-
tained from elemental concentrations that compare
favorably with lithodensity logs in wells drilled
with low-to-modest weighted muds. In wells
drilled with heavy muds in which PE logs from
lithodensity tools may not be practical or availa-
ble, geochemical-based PE logs can be substituted.
PE FUNDAMENTALS
Gamma-gamma density tools whose instrumenta-
tion supports the collection of pulse-height spectra,
also known as lithodensity tools, can be used to
obtain a PE log. The measurement technique relies
on counting gamma rays from two distinct energy
regions of the measured spectra: a low energy re-
gion affected by photoelectric absorption and a
higher energy interval comprised of Compton-
scattered gamma rays. Calibrated transformation
functions are used to convert the ratio of the low
energy and Compton-scattered counting rates into
a PE log.
Gamma rays interact with matter by way of three
types of reactions. Pair production can occur if the
energy of the gamma ray exceeds 1.022 MeV.
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Compton scattering can occur over the entire of Z where σpe is the integrated cross section from 40 to
gamma ray energy range. Photoelectric absorption 80 keV, i.e.,
can occur at low energy in which the gamma ray is
absorbed, and its energy is transmitted to a bound σ pe 80
= 12.1 = Z 3.6 ∫ Eγ−3.15 dEγ 0.0015669 Z 3.6 . (3)
electron. In earth formations, photoelectric interac- Z 40

tions are the dominant process for gamma ray en-

80
ergies less than approximately 100 keV.
70

Integrated σpe/Z Ratios (b/e)

As shown by Bertozzi, et al. (1981), the probabil-
60
ity of a photoelectric interaction occurring with an σpe = 0.0015669Z3.6
atom is expressed in terms of a photoelectric ab- 50
sorption cross section, σpe, in barns/atom, which is 40
proportional to the atomic number, Z, and gamma
30
ray energy, Eγ,
20
12.1Z 4.6
σ pe = (1) 10
Eγ3.15
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
across the energy range from 40 to 80 keV. The photoe-
Atomic Number
lectric absorption cross section varies substantially by
Fig. 2 Integrated photoelectric absorption cross sec-
atomic number, as shown by Figure 1.
tion/atomic number ratios for various elements.
100
40 keV
Figure 2 shows integrated σpe/Z values vs. Z for most
50 keV of the elements from hydrogen to calcium. The inte-
60 keV grated σpe/Z values are rather large for rock-forming
Photoelectric Cross section (b/atom)

10 80 keV elements; Bertozzi, et al. (1981) rescaled the data as a

100 keV matter of convenience by choosing a constant of pro-
150 keV portionality, 1/6.237986, for equation 2 that effectively
rescales the σpe/Z ratio for Z=10 to 1. Ultimately, the
1 customary definition for the photoelectric factor is ob-
tained from
3.6
0.0015669 Z 3.6 Z 
0.1 =Pe = 0.000251 =Z 3.6   . (4)
6.237986  10 

Table 1: PE values for several important elements

0.01
in petroleum exploration.
1 10 100
Atomic Number
Element Z Pe
Fig. 1 Photoelectric absorption cross sections for sever- H 1 0.000251
al elements are a power function of atomic number and C 6 0.158981
gamma ray energy. O 8 0.447841
Na 11 1.409333
Bertozzi, et al. (1981) and Ellis and Singer (2008) de- Mg 12 1.927758
fine the customary photoelectric index, or factor, Pe, in Al 13 2.571556
terms of the proportional relationship Si 14 3.357847
S 16 5.430401
σ pe Cl 17 6.754856
Pe ∝ . (2) K 19 10.08122
Z
Ca 20 12.12573
A suitable constant of proportionality for equation 2 can Ti 22 17.0892
be found by calculating σpe/Z values for several values Mn 25 27.07597
Fe 26 31.18201
2
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
Equation 4 can be used to calculate PE values for ele-
ments important to petroleum logging, some of which
are listed in Table 1. PE values for mixtures can be
computed by summing individual elemental PE values
according to their mass fractions,
n must be considered. For example, some tools
Pe = ∑ Wi Pe,i (5)
i =1
where Wi is the mass fraction of constituent i, and
Pe,i is the photoelectric factor of constituent i.
GEOCHEMICAL PE RESPONSE
Working with equation 5, it is easy to calculate the
1.81, 3.14, and 5.08 PE values linked to quartz
sandstone, dolomite, and limestone, respectively,
that became the most common usage of PE logs
during the 1980s. Similarly, equation 5 is the start-
ing point from which PE values can be obtained
from geochemical logs that are compatible with
lithodensity PE logs. The focus of geochemical
logs is on information related to the elemental
composition of the formation matrix, whereas the
=
influence of fluid-filled pore space is implicitly
included in lithodensity PE logs. Thus, for compat-
ibility purposes, PE logs derived from geochemi-
cal measurements must also take into account for-
mation fluid contributions. This can be achieved
by separating equation 5 into two terms: one that
represents the fluid-filled pore space, and a second assumption is the sum of the measured elemental
term that represents the formation matrix,
= ( )
Pe W f Pe, f + 1 − W f Pe, m (6)
where Wf is the formation fluid weight fraction,
Pe,f is the formation fluid photoelectric factor, and
Pe,m is the formation matrix photoelectric factor.
Pe,f depends on the near wellbore fluid composi-
tion. For reservoir rocks, a good estimate can be
made by assuming the pore fluid is comprised of
invaded mud filtrate. Pe,f can be approximated by
0.125 b/e for oil-based muds; for water-based
muds, it can be estimated according to mud-filtrate
salinity, or alternatively, mud-filtrate density, ρmf,
=Pe, f 5.0551ρ mf − 4.6828 . (7)
Wf depends on formation bulk density, ρb, porosi-
ty, f, which can be estimated from a neutron-
density crossplot, and ρmf,
fρ mf
Wf = . (8)
ρb
To derive the matrix contribution, the measure-
ment capabilities of the geochemical logging tool
measure total formation carbon and oxygen con-
tent, and other embodiments of neutron-induced
gamma ray spectroscopy do not. Regardless, equa-
tion 5 can be used to calculate a matrix PE value
by summing matrix weight fraction and elemental
PE value products for measured matrix elements,
and then adding contributions to account for inor-
ganic matrix carbon and matrix oxygen. Total car-
bon measurements can be separated into organic
and inorganic (matrix) carbon concentrations using
a variety of techniques. For tools that do not
measure total carbon content, the inorganic carbon
weight fraction can be computed from a relation-
ship that assumes that magnesium is associated
with dolomite, and any excess calcium beyond the
amount needed to satisfy the dolomite requirement
is associated with calcium carbonate,
WC 0.299683WCa − 0.494166WMg (9)
where WC is the matrix carbon weight fraction, and
W Ca and WMg are the matrix calcium and magnesi-
um weight fractions, respectively. Another useful
weight fractions plus inorganic carbon and matrix
oxygen equals 1.
LOG EXAMPLES
Example 1. To test the PE from elemental concen-
trations concept, the method outlined in the previ-
ous section was applied to a set of inductively
coupled plasma (ICP) spectroscopy measurements
performed on 114 core plugs. These core plugs
were taken from a whole core spanning a 234-ft
interval of a Haynesville shale well. The ICP data
also includes approximately 17 samples from an
upper portion of the underlying deep Cotton Val-
ley limestone. The well was drilled with an 8.5-in.
bit and an 11.5 lbm/gal oil-based mud system.
This mud density is near the lower end of the
aforementioned mud density window at which the
reliability of lithodensity PE measurements may
begin to deteriorate, especially if borehole condi-
tions are less than ideal.
3
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
Figure 3 is a crossplot of PE values from the litho-
density log vs. PE values computed from the ICP
elemental concentrations. Agreement between the
two values is quite good among core samples tak-
en from the deep Cotton Valley limestone (PE
values ~4 – 5). Several points from the Haynes-
ville shale interval also agree quite well. However,
the lithodensity PE log readings tend to be some-
what larger, as compared to the calculated ICP PE
values for several points. A single point at (3,5.4)
and small group of points near (3,4.2) coincide
with activity on the caliper log that may indicate
that the lithodensity PE values were affected by
poor pad contact.
4
LDT PE (b/e)
0 Fig. 4 Geochemical log PE values are consistent with
0 1 2 3 4 5
ICP PE (b/e)
Fig. 3 PE values calculated using ICP elemental con-
centrations from core samples are compared with values
from a lithodensity log recorded in a Haynesville shale
well.
The effect of borehole rugosity and barite laden
mud and/or mudcakes is not an issue for geochem-
ical logs because signals from high Z elements,
such as barium, are not included in the PE calcula-
tion as a rock-forming element. A clear, unskewed
correlation exists between PE results obtained
from the geochemical log and the ICP values de-
rived from core samples, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 5 shows a display of the PE logs together
with values computed from the laboratory ICP
measurements. Track 1 contains a caliper log
(black dashed curve) and total gamma ray log
(green curve). Track 2 shows dry rock elemental
concentration data from the geochemical tool, pre-
sented in a cumulative manner beginning from the
right edge of the track. Color shading is used to
identify the elemental weight fractions according
to the legend. Track 3 provides an overlay of the
lithodensity and geochemical PE logs, blue and
red curves, respectively. Track 4 contains a neu-
tron porosity log (magenta trace), a bulk density
log (black curve), and the PE log from the geo-
chemical tool (red curve); black circular symbols
show PE values computed using ICP elements ob-
tained from core samples.
6 results derived from ICP elemental concentrations ob-
tained from core material.
The geochemical and lithodensity logs compare
well in the deep Cotton Valley limestone and
through the transition into the lower part of the
Haynesville shale where the caliper log gradually
increases to approximately 8.5 in. at a depth of 140
ft. Above this depth, caliper activity increases, and
the lithodensity PE log tends to read somewhat
larger values, as compared to the geochemical PE
log. At the same time, good fidelity exists between
the geochemical log PE and the values computed
from the core samples, as shown in Track 3. These
results indicate that geochemical PE logs are less
sensitive to borehole rugosity and the influences of
high-Z mud materials in the borehole.
Example 2. Figure 6 shows logs from a West Tex-
as well with a dolomitic interval near the top of a
carbonate section. The presentation layout is the
same as the previous example, except for the core
and geochemical log PE overlay in Track 4, which
is not applicable to this example.
4
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
The borehole was filled with a high-salinity, 9.2
lbm/gal brine. As shown in Track 3, the geochem-
ical PE log agrees rather well with the lithodensity
PE measurement throughout the interval. In this
instance, because no adverse effects caused by
high-Z mud additives were expected, the agree-
ment between the two PE values gives confidence
to the quality of the geochemical data.
Example 3. Much like the previous example,
strong adverse effects from high-Z mud compo-
nents were not anticipated in this well (Figure 7),
which was drilled with an 8.75-in. bit and 9.4
lbm/gal, low-salinity, water-based mud. The inter-
val includes several lithologies, beginning with a
dolomitic interval at the bottom and followed by
intervals of carbonate mudstone, shale, mudstone,
an interval of mostly clean limestone, and a shale
formation at the top.
Excellent agreement is noted between the geo-
chemical and lithodensity PE curves in Track 3
throughout the entire interval. These results are
somewhat surprising because of the significant
borehole enlargement in the shale at approximate-
ly 1,200 ft where the possibility for poor density
pad contact or mud encroachment between the pad
and formation could have occurred. More im-
portantly, this example shows that geochemical PE
logs are equally sensitive to mineralogical varia-
tions as conventional lithodensity PE logs.
Example 4. Sometimes, it may not be easy to de-
termine whether or not a lithodensity PE log is
affected by small occurrences of borehole rugosi-
ty. Figure 8 shows logs that include a shale for-
mation at the bottom, followed by a nearly clean
limestone and a thick clean sandstone interval,
capped with a sequence of shale and hematite rich
layers. The well was drilled with a 12.25-in. bit
and 10.4 lbm/gal oil-based mud.
Across the shale at the bottom of the log and the
limestone formation, the caliper log indicates a
smooth borehole, and the overlay of the lithodensi-
ty and geochemical PE logs is excellent. From 700
to 400 ft, obvious discrepancies occur between the
two PE logs in Track 3 in which the lithodensity
PE readings are larger than the geochemical PE
log. Without the geochemical PE log for compari-
son, the lithodensity PE log readings greater than
~2 in this interval could be interpreted to indicate a
calcite cemented sandstone. However, based on
the dry rock elemental weight fractions from the
5
geochemical tool, it is clear this is not the case
because calcium was not detected in this interval.
The alternative conclusion is that lithodensity PE
readings in this interval are slightly affected by
deteriorating pad contact associated with the in-
creased hole size and caliper activity shown in
Track 1. To avoid a misinterpretation of the min-
eralogy in this zone, the geochemical PE log could
be substituted for lithodensity PE in an integrated
formation volumetric analysis.
Example 5. Unlike the previous example, the
lithodensity PE log shown in Figure 9 is obviously
compromised above 1,000 ft where numerous
readings greater than 10 b/e were recorded. These
spurious responses occur in concert with increased
caliper log activity; they are a consequence of the
borehole conditions in this well drilled with a 16.3
lbm/gal water-based mud system.
More reasonable lithodensity PE responses are
observed in a laminated sand sequence below
1,000 ft. Above this depth, the neutron porosity,
bulk density, dry rock elemental concentration,
and total gamma ray logs suggest a sequence of
thicker clean sandstone and shale formations. Con-
sistency among the neutron porosity, bulk density,
gamma ray, and geochemical elemental concentra-
tion logs suggest that the geochemical PE log ac-
curately portrays the mineralogical variations
through the entire interval.
In this type of situation, the geochemical PE log
may be helpful when performing advanced petro-
physical analyses in complex reservoirs by provid-
ing an additional response equation that would
otherwise be unavailable because of mud weight
or borehole conditions. First, a macroscopic pho-
toelectric absorption cross section log (U log)
would be constructed by combining the geochemi-
cal PE and bulk density logs. Then, the U log
would be used as input data to a commercially
available formation volumetric analysis software
program where it would be combined with a for-
mation analysis model to compute formation min-
eral and fluid volumes.
Example 6. The effects of high-Z mud additives on
lithodensity PE responses are not always obvious
in wells drilled with high-density muds. The well
shown in Figure 10 was drilled with a 6.75-in. bit
and 17 lbm/gal water-based mud. All but a few of
the PE readings from the lithodensity tool occur
within a numerically reasonable range, unlike the
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
previous example. A few readings of 5 and great-
er, as well as correlations with the caliper log, in-
dicate that the log may be affected at some depths,
but it is unclear whether or not the entire log is
affected.
Though there are indications that the PE log quali-
ty suffers from borehole conditions and is less than
ideal, an attempt was made to salvage the log by
applying a local “calibration.” A comparison of
the resulting calculated mineral volumes (not
shown), however, did not agree with those deter-
mined by means of elemental spectroscopy, mud
logs, or geologic understanding.
Consistently lower PE values from the geochemi-
cal data further confirm the unreliability of the
lithodensity PE curve throughout the entire inter-
val. As shown in this example, a geochemical PE
log in heavy muds can be a useful Q/C evaluation
tool to assess the quality of lithodensity PE read-
ings in wells drilled with heavy muds.
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY
The PE measurement from lithodensity tools is rec-
ognized as a valuable contributor to formation eval-
uation, whether used as a standalone indicator or as
a component of computed answers (U log). It is also
apparent that the measurement is more sensitive to
borehole conditions of mud weight, mudcake, and
rugosity than most other logging measurements.
A means has been devised to determine formation
PE from elemental spectroscopy measurements,
with confirmed accuracy by comparison with
measurements on cores. Overall, this measurement
is far less sensitive to borehole conditions than the
PE measurement of the lithodensity tools. This
secondary means of determining the formation PE
by means of elemental spectroscopy will add value
to log analysis in a number of ways.
When a lithodensity PE is valid, confirmation of
the measurement through an independent means
provides confidence. As a general rule in log anal-
ysis, obtaining the same answer by two different
methods improves the result.
When borehole rugosity or high-Z mud ruins the
lithodensity PE measurement, whether in patchy
portions of the log or wholesale, the geochemical
log PE can be used as a supplement or direct re-
placement.
6
Examples provided in this paper illustrate the va-
lidity and utility of the technique in a variety of
adverse borehole conditions.
REFERENCES
Allioli, F., Faivre, O., Jammes, L., and Evans, M.,
1997, A New Approach to Computing Formation Den-
sity and Pe Free of Mudcake Effects, presented at the
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts 38th Annual
Logging Symposium, 15-18 June, Houston, Texas,
USA. SPWLA-1997-K.
Bertozzi, W., Ellis, D.V., and Wahl, J.S., 1981, The
Physical Foundation of Formation Lithology Logging
with Gamma Rays, Geophysics, 46(10): p. 1439-1455.
Ellis, D.V. and Singer, J.M., 2008, Well Logging for
Earth Scientists, 2nd Edition, Springer, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands. ISBN 978-1-4020-3738-2.
Felder, B. and Boyeldieu, C., 1979, The Lithodensity
Log, presented at the Society of Professional Well Log
Analysts 6th European Formation Evaluation Symposi-
um, 26-27 March, London, UK. Paper O.
Galford, J., Truax, J., Hrametz, A., and Haramboure,
C., 2009, A New Neutron-Induced Gamma-Ray Spec-
troscopy Tool for Geochemical Logging, presented at
the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
50th Annual Logging Symposium, 21-24 June, The
Woodlands, Texas, USA. SPWLA-2009-40058.
Gardner, J.S. and Dumanoir, J.L., 1980, Litho-Density
Log Interpretation, presented at the Society of Profes-
sional Well Log Analysts 21st Annual Logging Sympo-
sium, 8-11 July, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA. SPWLA-
1980-N.
Moake, G.L. and Schultz, W.E., 1987, Improved Densi-
ty Log Lithology Identification using a Borehole-
Compensated Photoelectric Factor, presented at the
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts 28th Annual
Logging Symposium, 29 June-2 July, London, UK.
SPWLA-1987-FF.
Moake, G.L., 1991, A New Approach to Determining
Compensated Density and Pe Values with a Spectral-
Density Tool, presented at the Society of Professional
Well Log Analysts 32nd Annual Logging Symposium,
16-19 June, Midland, Texas, USA. SPWLA-1991-Z.
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Pemper, R., Guo, P., Jacobi, D., Longo, J., Bliven S.,
Rodriquez, E., Mendez F., and Han, X., 2006, A New
Pulsed Neutron Sonde for Derivation of Formation Li-
thology and Mineralogy, presented at the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 24-27 September, San Antonio, Texas,
USA. SPE-102770-MS
Radtke, R.J., Lorente, M., Adolph, B., Berheide, M.,
Fricke, S., Grau, J., Herron, S., Horkowitz, J., Jurion,
B., Madio, D., May, D., Miles, J., Perkins, L., Philip,
O., Roscoe, B., Rose, D., and Stoller, C., 2012, A New
Capture and Inelastic Spectroscopy Tool Takes Geo-
chemical Logging to the Next Level, presented at the
Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts 53rd
Annual Logging Symposium, 16-20 June, Cartagena,
Columbia. SPWLA-2012-103.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
James Galford serves as a chief scientific advisor of
the nuclear physics team in the Hal-
liburton LWD and Wireline Sensor
Physics group. Before assuming this
role, he worked on petrophysical
applications and interpretation
methods in the Formation Evalua-
tion Technology group. Galford holds a BS degree in
physics from West Virginia University. He has written
several technical papers on various logging applications
for conventional nuclear and magnetic resonance imag-
ing logs. In addition, Galford has contributed to a num-
ber of patents related to conventional nuclear logging
methods and NMR logging applications. He is a mem-
ber of SPWLA and SPE.
petrophysics, engineered completions, and tight rock
horizontal development workflows. Garrison is a
member of SPE and SPWLA.
Jerome Truax is a petrophysics advisor for Linn
Operating in Oklahoma City, Ok-
lahoma. Before joining Linn in
2013, he was a Halliburton Tech-
nology Fellow and manager of the
LWD & WL Sensor Physics group.
Truax holds a BS degree in geologi-
cal engineering (1978, University of
Minnesota), a MA degree in oceanography and limnol-
ogy (1991, Western Connecticut State University), and
a PhD degree in petrophysics (1995, Delft Technical
University). His experience includes field operations,
engineering, research, and log interpretation in both
wireline and logging while drilling, primarily specializ-
ing in pulsed neutron logging technology and other nu-
clear applications. Truax has written or contributed to
several patents and many technical papers, and is a
member of SPE, SPWLA, OCGS, and OIPA.

Nicholas Garrison is a petrophysicist in the Halli-

burton Formation and Reservoir
Solutions (FRS) group in Hou-
ston. He began working with Hal-
liburton as a field engineer in
2012 after earning a BS degree in
petroleum engineering from Tex-
as A&M University. Garrison
joined the FRS team in 2014; the primary focus areas
of his work include optimizing lateral well placement
and hydraulic fracture design through the integration
of wireline petrophysical and geomechanical data.
Garrison is also closely involved in the petrophysical
characterization of conventional and unconventional
reservoirs, incorporating various types of logs, in-
cluding elemental spectroscopy and pulsed-neutron
data. His published works include unconventional
7
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Correlation Depth Dry Elemental WF Photoelectric Logs Density / Neutron

Magnesium

Aluminum

Silicon

Sulfur

Potassium

Calcium
Neutron Limestone Porosity
Titanium 0.45 decp -0.15
Bulk Density
Manganese
1.94 g/cc 2.97
Gamma Ray PE Geochemical PE
Iron
0 api 150 Depth 0 b/e 10 0 b/e 10
Caliper Geochemical PE ICP PE From Core
6 in 16
Feet 0.6 decp 0 0 b/e 10 0 b/e 10

100

200

300

Fig. 5 The PE values calculated from ICP measurements performed on core samples, shown in Track 4, agree with
the geochemical PE log.

8
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Correlation Depth Dry Elemental WF Photoelectric Logs Density / Neutron

Magnesium

Aluminum

Silicon

Sulfur

Potassium

Calcium

Titanium

Manganese
Gamma Ray PE Neutron Limestone Porosity
Iron
0 api 150 Depth 0 b/e 10 0.45 decp -0.15
Caliper Geochemical PE Bulk Density
6 in 16
Feet 0.6 decp 0 0 b/e 10 1.94 g/cc 2.97

4900

5000

5100

5200

Fig. 6 Geochemical and lithodensity PE responses obtained in a brine-filled borehole of a West Texas carbonate
well.

9
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Correlation Depth Dry Elemental WF Photoelectric Logs Density / Neutron

Magnesium

Aluminum

Silicon

Sulfur

Potassium

Calcium

Titanium

Manganese
Gamma Ray PE Neutron Limestone Porosity
Iron
0 api 150 Depth 0 b/e 10 0.45 decp -0.15
Caliper Geochemical PE Bulk Density
6 in 16
Feet 0.6 decp 0 0 b/e 10 1.94 g/cc 2.97

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Fig. 7 This example, from a well drilled with a 9.4 lbm/gal water-based mud, shows the geochemical and lithodensi-
ty PE logs are equally sensitive to mineralogical variations.

10
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Correlation Depth Dry Elemental WF Photoelectric Logs Density / Neutron

Magnesium

Aluminum

Silicon

Sulfur

Potassium

Calcium

Titanium

Manganese
Gamma Ray PE Neutron Limestone Porosity
Iron
0 api 150 Depth 0 b/e 10 0.45 decp -0.15
Caliper Geochemical PE Bulk Density
6 in 16
Feet 0.6 decp 0 0 b/e 10 1.94 g/cc 2.97

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Fig. 8 Comparison of lithodensity and geochemical PE logs highlight an interval between 700 and 400 ft where
borehole conditions have affected the lithodensity PE log.

11
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Correlation Depth Dry Elemental WF Photoelectric Logs Density / Neutron

Magnesium

Aluminum

Silicon

Sulfur

Potassium

Calcium

Titanium

Manganese
Gamma Ray PE Neutron Limestone Porosity
Iron
0 api 150 Depth 0 b/e 10 0.45 decp -0.15
Caliper Geochemical PE Bulk Density
6 in 16
Feet 0.6 decp 0 0 b/e 10 1.94 g/cc 2.97

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Fig. 9 The lithodensity PE log in this well drilled with a 16.3 lbm/gal water-based mud is seriously compromised by
borehole conditions above 1,000 ft.

12
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

Correlation Depth Dry Elemental WF Photoelectric Logs Density / Neutron

Magnesium

Aluminum

Silicon

Sulfur

Potassium

Calcium

Titanium

Manganese
Gamma Ray PE Neutron Limestone Porosity
Iron
0 api 150 Depth 0 b/e 10 0.45 decp -0.15
Caliper Geochemical PE Bulk Density
5 in 15
Feet 0.6 decp 0 0 b/e 10 1.94 g/cc 2.97

100

200

Fig. 10 Consistently larger PE readings from the lithodensity tool compared to the geochemical PE log confirm that
the lithodensity PE measurement was affected by high-Z mud additives in this well drilled with 17 lbm/gal mud.

13