SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

CLAY ESTIMATION FROM GR AND NEUTRON -DENSITY

POROSITY LOGS
K. Bhuyan and Q.R. Passey
Exxon Production Research Company, Houston, Texas.

ABSTRACT In the neutron-density crossplot, Schlumberg-

er’s (1989) ‘Clay Point’ is redefined as a ‘Wet
Clay estimations from gamma-ray logs and Shale Point’. The area between the clean sand
neutron-density porosity logs are commonly line and the Wet Shale Point is resealed from
used techniques. However, failure to recognize 0 to 60 volume percent dry clay, and a new ‘Clay
the difference between shale and clay leads to Point’ is established to represent 100 percent
confusion when comparing weight percent clay wet clay. A neutron-density crossplot shows
estimated from well logs with weight percent the locations of the Wet Shale Point, the new
clay estimated by x-ray diffraction analysis. Wet Clay Point, the Dry Clay Point, and the Dry
Shale Point.
The principal error in clay estimation stems
from the assumption that shales are composed INTRODUCTION
of 100 percent clay. Our study shows that shales
are commonly composed of 50 to 70 percent The estimation of “shale volume” in reservoir
clay, 25 to 45 percent silt- and clay-sized rocks based on gamma-ray logs and estimation
quartz, and 5 percent other minerals that include of clay volume based on neutron and density po-
feldspars and carbonates. The non-clay miner- rosity logs are common techniques. The term
als in the shale do not commonly affect the total “shale volume” (Vshale) often is used inter-
gamma-ray count or the neutron-density log changeably with the term “clay volume”
separation. The estimation of weight percent (Vclay). Vshale is not the same as Vclay. These
clay can, therefore, be corrected by multiplying terms should not be used interchangeably. The
the GRI (gamma ray index) by a factor (C), term “Vclay” as used here, refers to clay miner-
which is weight percent clay of average shale al volume and not clay-sized sedimentary
adjacent to the zone of interest. Typically this grains.
factor ranges from 50 to 70.
Several commonly cited non-linear calibration
This approach will significantly improve the curves have been developed to predict Vshale
weight-percent clay estimations from the gam- from well logs. The reasons cited for non -linear
ma-ray log, but will not correct for the inaccura- behavior of these curves include: (1) geologic
cies associated with the distribution of heavy age of the rock (Larionov, 1969), (2) different
minerals. We developed empirical relationships distribution of clay in sandstones versus that in
that will account for errors associated with clay shales (Steiber, 1970), and (3) density differ-
content of shale as well as distribution of heavy ences between clays in sandstones and clays in
minerals. shales (Dewan, 1983). DDD
A similar approach is applicable to clay estima- The failure to clarify the difference between
tion from neutron and density porosity logs. Vshale and Vclay can lead to confusion when
Neutron porosity is unaffected by the common comparing log-derived to core-derived mea-
non-clay minerals such as quartz, feldspar, car- surements. Analytically, Vshale is difficult to
bonates and pyrite, which are present in shales. quantify from core samples, whereas weight
Therefore, the estimation of volume percent percent clay which can be converted to volume
clay can be corrected by multiplying the con- percent clay, can be determined by convention-
ventional clay-estimation equation by the fac- al techniques (e.g., x-ray diffraction). In this
tor C as discussed above. paper we will compare weight percent clay de-

- l-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

termined by x-ray diffraction analysis to weight average gamma ray response of shale, CLAY60
percent clay estimated from the gamma-ray is weight percent clay estimated by multiplying
log; gamma ray counts are proportional to GRI by the a constant factor C. The constant C
weight percent clay and not volume percent represents average weight percent clay in
clay. In the case of clay estimation from the neu- shales. We used a constant of 60 percent for this
tron and density logs, we will compare volume study. .
percent clay derived from x-ray diffraction
analysis to the volume percent clay estimated Figure 1A is a crossplot of weight percent clay
from the logs. from x-ray diffraction analysis (WT%CLAY)
First, we will discuss weight percent clay es- and GRI. The dots represents measured
timation from the gamma-ray log (GR) and the WT%CLAY from core samples. The dashed
non-linearity between GR and weight percent curvilinear lines adjacent to the Linear Scale are
clay. We will also present empirical solutions different calibration curves proposed by Clavier
that resolve the problems associated with the et al. ( 197 l), Larionov (1969) and Steiber
non-linearity. Second, we will discuss volume (1970). The CLAY60 line represents weight
percent clay estimation from neutron and densi- percent clay estimation by the method illus-
ty porosity logs. trated by equation 2. Although clay estimation
using equation 2 results in improved estimates
of weight percent clay, as compared to Larionov
Weight Percent Clay Estimation From and others’ methods, considerable inaccuracies
GR log remain in the shaly sand region. Figure 1B is a
depth plot showing comparisons of
When shale volume is calculated from the gam- WT%CLAY with GRI (dashed line), and
ma ray log two assumptions are commonly be- weight percent clay estimation using equation 2,
ing made. These assumptions are 1) shales are CLAY60 (solid line). This figure also shows
composed of 100% clay, and 2) increase of total that clay estimates by equation 2 are fairly accu-
gamma-ray counts from clean sand to shale is rate in the cleaner sand and the shale regions, but
due to increase of clay content only. Several au- are higher than the WT%CLAY in the inter-
thors have discussed the problem with the first mediate region. These over-estimations are
assumption (Heslop, 1974; Kukal and Hill, caused by the non-linear relationship (dotted
1986), but the practice continues. We analyzed line in Figure 1A) between weight percent clay
shale samples from different areas and different and GR. From these figures it is apparent that
ages and found that total clay content in shales although the use of the equation 2 will signifi-
ranges from 50 to 70 percent (Table 1). Non- cantly improve weight percent clay estimation,
clay minerals in shales range from 30-50 per- it will not correct the errors associated with
cent. non-linearity between weight percent clay and
GR.
The simplest method for estimating weight per-
cent clay from gamma-ray log is to use the fol- From our investigations we found that the prin-
lowing equations: cipal cause of non-linearity between weight
percent clay and GR is the unequal distribution
of non-magnetic heavy minerals in sedimentary
GRI = GR-GRcl rocks. Figures 2A, 2B and 2C illustrate the dis-
GRsh-GRcl ( 1) tributions of heavy minerals in elastic sedimen-
tary rocks. Figure 2A shows concentration of
CLAY60 = GRI * C t 2) non-magnetic heavy minerals in different size
fractions of three samples from the Frio Forma-
tion in Texas. This figure shows that as the grain
Where GRI is gamma-ray index, GR is total size decreases from fine-grained sand to silt the
gamma-ray at that depth, GRcl is average gam- concentration of non-magnetic heavy minerals
ma-ray response of clean sandstone, GRsh is (zircon, pyrite, ilmenite, apatite and monazite)

-2-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

first increases and reaches its maximum at the From the above discussion it is clear that multi-
very-fine-grained sand fraction and then de- plying the GRI by factor C will significantly im-
creases at the silt sized fraction. prove the clay estimations from the GR log, al-
though this will not resolve the problem
Figure 2B illustrates that a common heavy min- associated with the contribution and distribu-
eral, such as zircon, is also concentrated in the tion of the heavy minerals which results in a se-
very-fine-grained-sand fraction. Zircon is cond order, non-linear relationship.
most common in the very-fine-grained sand In order to more accurately estimate weight per-
fraction. Table 2 shows potential U and Th con- cent clay, empirical relationships between
tributions of common heavy minerals towards weight percent clay and GRI were developed
total gamma ray counts. This table shows that through two-term regression analysis between
a very small change in the concentration of WT%CLAY and GRI. One relationship devel-
heavy minerals such as zircon and monazite can oped from the Frio Formation, and was also suc-
significantly affect the GR log response. Figure cessfully applied to the Frio Formation in other
2C is a crossplot of parts per million (ppm) zir- wells in Texas and Louisiana. The relationship
conium from chemical analysis of rock samples, is as follows;
against weight percent clay. This shows that as
the clay content increases the zirconium con- CLAY = 5 + 8GRI + 34GR12 ( 3)
centration first increases, and then decreases. In
Here CLAY represents weight percent clay es-
elastic sedimentary rocks, as the clay content in-
timation by equation 3, and GRI is the gamma
creases the grain size commonly decreases. ray index from equation 1.
Shaly sand samples can have as much 500 ppm
zirconium. Zircon, the principal source of zir- Similarly, a different empirical relationship was
conium, contains 51 to 67 percent zirconium. developed for Cretaceous rocks from a cored
Therefore, 500 ppm zirconium can account for well in Utah. The relationship for this study is as
approximately 0.1 percent zircon. Since zircon follows;
commonly contains as much as 1.0 percent
ThO2 or 9000 ppm Th, 0.1 percent zircon can CLAY = 5 + 12GRI + 36GR12 ( 4)
account for approximately 9 ppm Th, or 36 API
units. Figure 3A shows comparisons of common shale
volume estimation, GRI (equation l), CLAY60
Figure 2D is a crossplot of ppm thorium as de- (GRI multiplied by factor C, equation 2) , and
termined from a spectral gamma-ray log, CLAY, an empirical relationship that accounts
against weight percent clay. The triangular area for both the clay content of shale and heavy min-
labeled ‘Th Clay’ represents contributions of eral distributions (equation 3), with
clay minerals towards total thorium content. WT%CLAY, in a Frio Formation example. This
Chemical analysis of clays extracted from this figure shows a very good agreement between
well also show that the clays contain 12 ppm WT%CLAY and CLAY, while GRI over esti-
thorium. The contributions of heavy minerals to mates weight percent clay. Although weight
total thorium is represented by the area labeled percent clay estimation by equation 2
‘Th Heavy Minerals’. This figure illustrates (CLAY60) significantly improves the estima-
that a significant part of the the non-linearity tion, the method overestimates clay in the shaly DDD
between weight percent clay and GR can be at- sand beds because of the presence of radioactive
tributed to the distribution of heavy minerals. heavy minerals.
The height of the maximum thorium content
samples above the ‘Th Clay’ line is approxi- Figures 3B, 3C and 3D are crossplots of GRI,
mately 9 ppm in Figure 2D, which supports the CLAY60 and CLAY, respectively, against
argument that the excess Th in addition to the WT%CLAY. These figures show that CLAY is
contributions from the clay minerals are con- the best estimation of WT%CLAY.
tributed by the heavy minerals. Figure 4A shows comparisons of weight per-
cent clay estimations from equation 1 (GRI),

- 3-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 1994

equation 2 (CLAY60), and equation 4 (CLAY), diffraction analysis. Figures 5B and 5C are
with WT%CLAY, in the Cretaceous formations. crossplots of NDVSH and NDVCL against vol-
This figure also shows very good agreement be- ume percent dry clay as determined through x-
tween WT%CLAY and CLAY, while GRI over ray diffraction analysis (VOLCLAY).
estimates weight percent clay. As before, al-
though weight percent clay estimation by equa- The implications of this approach for clay vol-
tion 2 significantly improves the estimation, the ume estimation from neutron-density crossplot
method overestimates clay in the shaly sand are discussed below.
beds because of the presence of radioactive
heavy minerals. Figure 6A is a neutron-density frequency cross-
plot illustrating the shaly sand model in Sara-
Figures 4B, 4C and 4D are crossplots of GRI, band processing, and Figure 6B is a neutron-
CLAY60 and CLAY, respectively, against density crossplot scalings in terms of porosity
WT%CLAY. These figures also show that
and Vcl (Schlumberger, 1989). From these two
CLAY is the best estimation of WT%CLAY. figures it is clear that the clay point (Cl) is as-
sumed to be composed of 100 volume percent
Volume Percent Clay Estimation clay. Since the present clay point does not rep-
From Neutron and Density Porosity resent 100 percent clay, we have renamed the
clay point in figure 6B as the wet shale point
Logs ‘WSh’, (Figure 6C) which typically represents
Volume percent clay estimation from neutron 50 to 70 volume percent dry clay. We have also
and density porosity logs is more straightfor- renamed the dry clay point as dry shale point
ward. If shale beds and sandstones do not con- (DSh), and added a new wet clay point repre-
tain hydrated iron oxides, the clay volume es- senting 100 volume percent wet clay (WCl), and
timation can be achieved fairly accurately by a dry clay point representing 100 volume per-
multiplying the conventional clay volume equa- cent dry clay (DCl). Note rocks representing
tion by the factor C (50-70). these two points (WCl, DCl) are unlikely to oc-
cur in nature. In figure 6C we have also resealed
Equation 5 is a conventional Vsh equation and the distance between clean sand line and WSh
equation 6 is based on results from this study. point to represent 0 to 60 volume percent dry
clay.

CONCLUSIONS
NDVSH = pHqHNIsNh
1 ;;:;sh ( 5)
The recognition that most shales are composed
of between 50 to 70 percent clay significantly
improves the weight percent clay estimation
NDVCL = NDVSH * C from the gamma-ray log. Accurate weight per-
t 6) cent clay estimation from the gamma-ray log
requires that the contributions of heavy miner-
Where PHIN is neutron porosity, PHID is den-
als towards the total gamma ray count be taken
sity porosity, PHINsh is neutron porosity of
into consideration. Application of empirical
shale and PHIDsh is density porosity of shale.
equations 3 and 4 which accounts for these con-
For clay volume estimation, we used 60 as the
tributions will improve the weight percent clay
value of C. NDVSH is conventional Vsh cal-
estimation from the gamma-ray log. However,
culation from neutron and density porosity logs,
a local regression equation is recommended if
and NDVCL is dry clay volume estimation us-
sufficient x-ray diffraction analysis data is
ing equation 6.
available for determining the relationship be-
Figure 5A shows comparisons of volume per- tween weight percent clay and GRI. In the case
cent clay estimations derived from equation 5 of neutron and density porosity logs, multiply-
(NDVSH) and equation 6 (NDVCL), with vol- ing NDVSH by a factor C significantly im-
ume percent dry clay (VOLCLAY), from x-ray proves the volume percent clay estimation. If a

- 4-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

neutron-density crossplot is used for clay vol- Heslop, A., 1974, Gamma ray log response of
ume estimation, we recommend that the wet shaly sandstones: The Log Analyst, Septem-
clay point in a conventional neutron-density ber-October, 1974, pp. 16-2 1.
crossplot be renamed as wet shale point, and this
point should represent about 60 volume percent Kukal, G. C. and Hill, R. E., 1986, Log analysis
clay. The distance between the clean sand line of clay volume: An evaluation of techniques and
and this point should also be resealed, from 0 to assumptions used in an Upper Cretaceous sand-
60 volume percent dry clay instead of 0 to 100 shale sequence: SPWLA Twenty-seventh
percent wet clay. Annual Logging Symposium, June 9-13,1986.
Paper RR.
REFERENCES
Baldwin, J. and Quirein, J., 1980, Theory, inter- Larionov, V. V., 1969, Borehole radiometry,
pretation and practical applications of natural Nedra, Moskwa.
gamma ray spectroscopy: SPWLA Twenty-
first Annual Logging Symposium, July 8-l 1, Schlumberger, 1989, Log interpretation prin-
1980. Paper Q. ciples/applications: Schlumberger Education
Clavier, C., Hoyle, W., and Meunier, D., 197 1, Services, Houston.
Quantitative interpretation of Thermal Neutron
Decay time logs: Part 1. Fundamentals and tech- Stieber, S. J., 1970, Pulsed Neutron capture log
niques: Journal of Petroleum Technology, June evaluation in the Louisiana Gulf coast (SPE
1971, pp. 743-755. 296 1): Paper presented at SPE 45th Annual Fall
Dewan, J. T., 1983, Essentials of modern open- Meeting, Houston, Texas, October 4-7, 1970.
hole log interpretation: PennWell Books, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

DDD

- 5-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 1994

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kamaluddin Bhuyan is a Senior Technical Associate at

Exxon Production Research Company. He has 12 years
experience as field geologist and petrographer with
Geological Survey of Pakistan and Geological Survey of
Bangladesh. For the last eight years he has been working with
the shaly sand research group at Exxon Production Research
Company. He has also published a paper on Geochemical
Logging Tool (GLT) in AAPG. He holds M.Sc in Geology
from the University of Dhaka and M.S. in Geology from the
University of Houston.

Quinn R. Passey is a Senior Research Specialist and group

leader in the Formation Evaluation section at Exxon
Production Research Company (EPR). He joined EPR in
1982, after receiving a PhD from the California Institute of
Technology. Since that time, he has been involved in
numerous petrophysical projects including shaly sand
research, integration of sequence stratigraphy and petro-
physics, and source rock evaluation from well logs. He
recently returned to EPR after a 2 year assignment in
Anchorage, Alaska for Exxon Co. USA, where he was the
lead petrophysicist in a multi-company multi-discipline
project to revise the reservoir description of the lower part of
the Prudhoe Bay Field (the BP/Exxon/ARC0 RAZOR
project). Dr. Passey has been a SPWLA Distinguished
Speaker on the topic of source rock evaluation from well logs
and has numerous publications in various journals.

-6-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

Table 1 - Mineral composition from various shale samples

Clay Minerals ( Non-clay minerals

I- Asia I Miocene I

1 Texas 1 oliaoane 1 754e

76 I
7625' 1 72 [ 15 1 32 1 25 0 ) 18 8 I 0 I 0 I
7895' 1 68' 1 17 1 32 1 16 3 1 18 ,9)2/2)1
1 7840' 1 56 1 36 1 18 1 2 tr 1 24 I 14 I 4 I 1 I 0
Cretaoeous I 90'

81416121
I I I

t 546' 52 i 4 1 31 1 14 1 ii I I n 1

1181 2 12714 13171 2 1

Table 2. Thorium and Uranium Contents of Common Heavy Minerals.

Name ThOz @pm) U (ppm)

Zircon 10,000 300-3ooo
Mona&e 4o,ooo- 120,ooo mo-3ooo DDD
I

Apatite ’ I 20 - 150 I 50 - 150

- 7-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

Figure 1A. Crossplot of weight percent clay from x-ray diffraction analysis (WT%CLAY),
against GRI. The dashed lines are calibration curves proposed by Larionov, Clavier, and
Stieber. The CLAY60 line represents equation 2. The dotted curve underneath the
CLAY60 line represents a more accurate relationship between WT%CLAY and GRI.

,~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.~.~.~.‘.~.’.’.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’.’.’.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~.~.~.~.~.~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘,‘.‘.‘,’,~,~,~.~,~.~.~.’
~.....~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~,~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.‘,’,’,~.~.~.‘.~.~.~
~...~.~.~,~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~,‘,‘,~,’,~,’,~.~.~.~.‘.~
:.~~:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:
,~.~.~.~_:~.~_~_~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.’.~.’.~.‘.‘.~.‘.‘.’.’.~.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’.’.’.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.
,~.~.~.~.~.~.~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.’.’.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’.’.~.~.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’.’.’.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.
. . . . :, :, :, :, :, :, :,:, :, : ,:,:,:,
.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’
.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’
.‘,‘.‘.~.‘.‘.‘.‘_‘.‘.‘.‘.’
.‘,‘,‘.‘,‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’
,‘,‘,‘,‘.‘,‘.‘.‘.‘_‘.‘.‘.’
. . . . . . . .
WT% CLAY 10

Figure 1B. Depth plot showing gamma ray in track one, and comparison of WT%CLAY
with GRI and CLAY60 in track two.
- 8-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

0.10 Very fine

Fine sand Silt
sand
4
a 0.08
.= -
5
% 0.06 -
X
z
#

.r(

0.02 -

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

Grain Size in mm
Figure 2A. Weight percent heavy minerals as a function of grain size.

DDD

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00

Grain Size in mm
Figure 2B. Frequency distribution of zircon grains by grain size.

-9-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

. +
.. +.++
+ +b .
.
. . . . .

. + 20
l . . ++
. .
c
c. .++.
- +c
. . .
“”
.
.
+. 8%

+ s++
l

. I I I I
50 100

Weight Percent Clay

Figure 2C. Distribution of zirconium as a function of clay content.

58

Weight Percent Clay

Figure 2D. Shows contributions of clay minerals and heavy minerals towards total
thorium content. The area labeled “Th Clay” represents contributions of clay
minerals towards total thorium in ppm, and the area labeled “Th Heavy Minerals”
represents the contributions of heavy minerals towards total thorium in ppm.

-lO-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

.............. ... ....... -:::::

:::::
.~.‘.‘.~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.’.’.’
.~.‘.~.~.~_~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.’.’.’.’.’.’
.~.‘.~.‘.~_~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.’.’.’.’.’
.................. .. ... .
:::::
::::: 3
_~_~_~_~_~
L
WT% CLAY
b b
1OC
._._~_~_~_~_~_~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~...~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~:.:.:.:.:.:. :::::
_~_~.~_~_~
:::::
.~_~.‘.‘.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::
..::::,
::::: I CLAY 101
.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
.:. ‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.
. .._~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
:::::,
_~_~_~_~.~
_~_‘_~_~_~
.,...........
:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~
:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i~
:::::,
..,.,.......
:::::
:::::
.:. ~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~. .
~.~.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.~.’.’.~.~.~.~.’.
:::::
:::::
:::::
0 GRI
--------------------------
:.~:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.~~~~~~~
........................ :::::
:::::
:::::
GR 150 :::::
:::::
::::: 3 CLAY60 1oc
I
:::::
::::: ___-----
m

1651 I I I I I I I I I

0 WT%CLAY 108
Figure 3B. Crossplot of GRI
against WT%CLAY.

0 WT%CLAY 100
;851 Figure 3C. Crossplot of CLAY60
against WT%CLAY.

DDD

8
Figure 3A. Comparisons of WT%CLAY with GRI I
0 100
(equation l), CLAY60 (equation 2) and CLAY WT%CLAY
(equation 3), in the Frio Formation. Figure 3D. Crossplot of CLAY
against WT%CLAY.

-ll-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

WT% CLAY

&VW
WT%CLAY
Figure 4B. Crossplot of GRI
against WT%CLAY.

0 WT%CLAY 100
Figure 4C. Crossplot of CLAY60
against WT%CLAY.
100 I I I I I I I I I

100
Figure 4A. Comparisons of WT%CLAY with GRI WT%CLAY
(equation l), CLAY60 (equation 2) andCLAY Figure 4D. Crossplot of CLAY
(equation 4), in Cretaceous Formations. against WT%CLAY.

-12-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

VOLCLAY 100

0
0 100
VOLCLAY
Figure 5B. Crossplot of NDVSH
against VOLCLAY.

3> 50
2

0 100
VOLCLAY
Figure 5C. Crossplot of NDVCL
against VOLCLAY.

Figure 5A. Comparison of volume percent clay DDD

(VOLCLAY), from x-ray diffraction analysis with
NDVSH (equation 5) and NDVCL (equation 6),
in Cretaceous Formations.

-13-
SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

Figure 6A. Neutron-density frequency crossplot illustrating the shaly

sand model used in Saraband processing (Schlumberger, 1989)

50

40

4D 30 olo
(PU)

20

10

!
-.
Q

Figure 6B. Neutron-density crossplot scaling in terms of porosity

and Vcl(Schlumberger, 1989).

-IS-
 SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22,1994

Neutron Porosity

Figure 6C. Neutron-density crossplot with revised scaling for volume

percent clay, and new Wet Shale Point (WSh), Wet Clay Point (WCI),
Dry Clay Point (DCl), and Dry Shale Point (DSh). W represents water DDD
point and Q represents quartz point. Note 100 volume percent clay in
Figure 6B is represented by 60 volume percent dry clay at WSh point.

-1%