PAPER 2009-180

Lithological Determination from Logs

B. RASHIDI, G. HARELAND AND F. SHIRKAVAND
University of Calgary

This  paper  is  accepted  for  the  Proceedings  of  the  Canadian  International  Petroleum  Conference  (CIPC)  2009,  Calgary, 
Alberta,  Canada,  16‐18  June,  2009.    This  paper  will  be  considered  for  publication  in  Petroleum  Society  journals. 
Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre‐print and subject to correction. 

Abstract
In drilling simulation of wells there exists a need for
accurate determination of the percentage of the different
lithologies as a function of depth to better predict the bit wear
distribution for different drill bits. A simple approach using
Gamma Ray (GR) log readings for shallow wells in Alberta,
Canada was initially used for lithological determination. It is
generally in good agreement with shale and sand lithology
content and where there are no other probable lithological
types as in deeper formations in the area where limestone,
dolomite, coal and anhydrite exists.
It is in many cases difficult to understand the exact behavior
of log responses especially in complex lithologies. A new cross
plot approach is used in this paper to take into account all the
lithological possibilities. The cross plots are normally used in
well log analysis for interpreting both for lithology type and
quantity using two or more forms of data. It is also a convenient
way to analyze the log responses together; and set the
limitations for each curve with boundaries. In this paper, the
neutron density cross plot is used to obtain the different type
and percent lithology. All the lithological differentiations are
calibrated as mathematical models using offset wells.
The two methods (using only GR and the new cross plot
model) are compared for use in central Alberta, Canada wells.
In conclusion it is seen that the GR method match for shale and
sand sequences and mixtures but that the cross plot approach
matches both sand and shale sequences as well as formations
where limestone and dolomite exist.
Introduction
During the past years, formation evaluation methods have
been developed using log data for lithological determination.
Well logs give a continuous survey of the formation crossed by
the well and it has been shown that it gives a good idea of the
lithology. Physical parameters can be recorded by logging tools
for lithological description of the formation (i.e. Gamma ray
spectrometry and photoelectric).
A common method in log interpretation is to use different
kind of cross plots for various log readings which are useful in
simple formation types but become ambiguous for complex
lithologies. The accuracy is also dependant on the geological
history of the area. 1, 2
Different types of log data can be used for lithological
determination purposes with the help of the cross plots. Cross
plots with new boundaries are used with log data to predict
formation lithological percentages utilizing for the geological
sequences in Central Alberta, Canada. The new cross plot
approach is compared to drilled cuttings collected versus depth
from wells in the area with good agreement.

1
Technical Approach
Subsurface lithological interpretations were historically
obtained from collected drilled cuttings whereas today when
using wireline logs all the detailed data for an entire interval or
section is obtained. Different logs respond differently to matrix
minerals and the analysis of the logs can be used to estimate the
formation type and characteristics in most all lithologies.
The rocks are usually sedimentary in origin and the
difficulty of obtaining correlations is due to the complexity of
the geology as well as the number of stratigheraphic sections
and their thicknesses. In the case of dual mineral type rocks, it
is easy to interpret the formation type based on proper log cut
off values, but in the presence of more complex lithologies, the
techniques often require additional drill cuttings samples to
predict the more accurate composition.
Electrofacies Definition
Sets of log data from different wells in central Alberta were
used to determine lithology percentages using the cross plot
approach. The wells that were analyzed are dominantly
consisting of shaly-sandstone frequencies up to the certain
depth with sparse laminated coal, siltstone and anhydrite layers.
Carbonaceous lithologies are then encountered including both
limestone and dolomite.
Drilled cuttings combined with log properties analysis were
performed to obtain the lithofacies classification as shown in
Table 1. All the different lithofacies are not responding the
same to log data values. A thresholding technique was used for
electrofacies determination which is by definition defined as a
set of log responses that characterizes a bed and permits it to be
distinguished from others. These values are forming a window
for each of the electrofacies determined. Based on this
technique, each group of rock minerals with the same responses
is assumed as one electrofacies; however they may differ in
lithology composition. 3, 4
Mineral Type and Composition
Mineralogical percentage can be obtained with the help of
the existing electrofacies and cross plots. Once the electrofacies
are determined for an area, cross plots can be used to determine
lithology and volumetric lithological percentages. Log data
should be corrected for possible gas and correct shale porosity
effects which could lead to erroneous results from the cross
plots if not accounted for.
Shale corrected porosity log data can be obtained using
following equations: 5
φN Corr
= φ N − (φ N sh × V sh ) ...................................................... (4)
φD Corr
= φ D − (φ Dsh × Vsh ) ...................................................... (5)
φS Corr
= φ S − (φ S sh × Vsh ) ........................................................ (6)
2
The first step for mineralogical composition determination
is to determine percent shale from the gamma ray log. The shale
percentage determination could then possibly be checked
against the trends from the Caliper log, resistivity values or SP
deflection. The second step is to identify the zones needed to
determine the electrofacies. Lithology thickness calculation
from logs could be underestimated because of the different
lithologies zone interference effect on log values when going
from one zone to the next. Below equations are used to
calculate the corrected shale volume using gamma ray log data
with proper adjustments which comes from the experience of
the area. 6
GRlog − GRmin
I GR = .................................................................... (1)
GRmax − GRmin
Vsh = 0.33 × (22× I GR − 1) ....................................................... (2)
OldFormation
VshTertiaryYoung = 0.083 × ( 23.7 IGR − 1) .............................................. (3)
Generally; in a shale free wet limestone formation type, log
porosity responses are overlaid. Increased separation between
neutron and density porosity responses (more neutron porosity
than the density porosity) could be an indication of a wet
sandstone zone. This criterion can also be used for the gas zone
detection if the porosity units exceed 6.0 as a rule of thumb.
Density and neutron porosity curves will separate for shale and
dolomite formations as well but in the opposite direction as
compared to the wet sandstone. To verify either the existence of
gas, shale and dolomite, a third porosity detection device like a
sonic log could be used.
Photoelectric formation effect (PEF) is also another useful
mean to analyze a formation type. As an example, if PEF=2.4
and we are uncertain about lithology composition to determine
if it is either sandy limestone or sandy dolomite. Utilizing the
PEF value as an indicator will indicate a combination to be
sandy dolomite with prevalence of sandstone based on their
pure mineral PEF values (Table 2).
Cross Plot Application
Neutron-density cross-plot is used for determination of
percent lithology using neutron porosity and bulk density log
data. Neutron porosity is only valid after making appropriate
corrections and when used in a specific limestone matrix.
Below equations are used for pure mineral types (sandstone,
limestone and dolomite) using neutron porosity and formation
bulk density in a neutron density cross-plot application to
determine volumetric lithological percentages. These equations
assume the formation are filled with fresh water (ρf =1 g/cm3).
SS : ρ b = EXP (0.9580677 − 0.00761267 × φ N corr ) .................. (7)
LS : ρ b = 2.710527 − 0.0170744 × φ N corr ...............................(8) Conclusion

A new method to determine percent lithology type was

developed and verified with central Alberta wells. The
DL : ρ b = 1.69251 − 0.00512056 × φ N corr
2
..............................(9)
following conclusions can be made:

The corrected formation density in presence of shale can be ¾ A new method for predicting lithology
expressed as below. Shale density of 2.6 g/cm3 is used in all percentages from logs is presented.
calculations. ¾ The new method is based on determining
lithological type from the thresholding technique
and the percentages from the cross plots.
ρ corr = ( ρ log − Vsh × ρ sh ) /(1 − Vsh ) .................................(10) ¾ The new method is compared to a simple cut of
value method which uses GR to determine the
Neutron density cross plot application based on the above sand and shale content. It matches this method
equations is also drawn graphically for some selected well for sand–shale sequences and predicts carbonate
sections as shown in Figure 1. formation percentages more accurately.
A simple cut-off value approach can be used for ¾ The new method is compared to lithological
quantitative lithological determination when only two sequences and percentages for wells in central
lithologies exist. This simple cut-off approach was used Alberta, Canada with good agreement.
applying only the GR values for pure sand and shale ¾ This method can be used for any area but should
determination with values of 40 for sand and 110 for shale. If be recalibrated after a few well has been drilled.
the GR was between 40 and 110 a linear interpolation was used ¾ The method presented herein can be used to
to determine the percentages of sand and shale. 7 generate valuable inputs of percentage lithology
to drilling simulators.

Field Application NOMENCLATURE

To compare the results of the discussed methods, selected
zones from an offset well in central Alberta, Canada were SS = Sandstone
analyzed. The correlations of the cross plot method and cut-off LS = Limestone
method are referred to as approach 1 and approach 2. These two DL = Dolomite
methods are then compared to the drilled cutting analysis done Sh = Shale
on the well (strip log). The lithofacies thresholding technique φ = Porosity
coupled with the cross plot application was used to obtain φN = Neutron Porosity
volumetric lithological determination in sections of the Albertan φNcor = Corrected Neutron Porosity
well. φNsh = Neutron Porosity of Pure Shale
Figure 2 is a representation of a shaly sandstone section of
φD = Density Porosity
the well analyzed. The two methods are used to predict sand
φDsh = Density Porosity of Pure Shale
and shale. It can be seen that the results from the two
approaches match well for this sand-shale sequence. In Figure φDcor = Corrected Density Porosity
3, a carbonate zone is selected to compare results from the two φS = Sonic Porosity
approaches. Approach 1 is showing carbonate formation type φSsh = Sonic Porosity of Pure Shale
with small layers of sandstone. Using approach 2; the formation φScor = Corrected Sonic Porosity
is evaluated as shale and sandstone only. The two approaches ρ = Density (kg/m3)
are clearly different when carbonates are present and it is clear ρsh = Shale Density (kg/m3)
that approach 2 can not be used. A section of the same well is ρcor = Corrected Density (kg/m3)
also plotted in Figure 4 based on the cross plot approach ρf = Fluid Density (kg/m3)
determination of volumetric percent lithology and compared to IGR = Gamma Ray Index
the strip log generated from drilled cutting for the same well. In GRlog = Gamma Ray Log Reading
general there is a good agreement between the cross plot GRmin = Clean Sand Gamma Ray Value
approach and the strip log. Some layers of carbonates are GRMax = Pure Shale Gamma Ray Value
predicted in the shale-sand which are not seen on the strip log VSh = Corrected Shale Volume (v/v)
(Figure 4, 2950m). Possible reasons for these small observed
differences could be either due to the effect of some unknown
minerals (i.e. iron, siderite, barite, etc) which are not considered
herein as well as the possibility of not detecting these carbonate REFERENCES
layers by using drill cutting data on the strip log.

1. BURKE, J.A., CAMPBELL, R.L. AND SCHMIDT,

A.W., “The Litho Porosity Cross-plot”; Paper 2771

3
 Presented at SPWLA Tenth Annual Logging Symposium,
25-28 May 1969.
2. DELFINER, P., PEYRET, O. AND SERRA, O.,
“Automatic Determination of Lithology from Well
Logs”, SPE paper 13290, Society of Petroleum
Engineers Formation Evaluation 1987.
3. AL-SABTI, H.M., “Lithology Determination of
Clastic Reservoir Facies from Well Logs, Saudi Arabia”
SPE paper 21457 presented at SPE Middle East Oil
Show held in Bahrain, 16-19 November 1991.
4. SERRA, O. and , H.T., “The Contribution of logging
Data to Sedimentology and Stratigraphy”, Journal of
Society of Petroleum Engineering, Volume 22, Number
1, February 1982.
5. JOHNSON, D.E. and KATHRIYNE, E.P., “Book of
Well Logging in Nontechnical Language”, Second
Edition.
6. GEORGE, B.A. and Charles, R.G., “Book of Basic
Well Log Analysis for Geologists”; Gamma Ray Logs
Chapter V; published at 1982.
7. ANDREW, R., HARELAND, G., NYGAARD, R.,
ENGLER, T., MUNRO, H. AND VIRGINILLO, B.,
“Methods of Using Logs to Quantifying Drillability”,
Paper SPE 106571, Presented at SPE 2007 Rocky
Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium held in
Denver, Colorado, USA, 16-18 April 2007.

4
 Table 1: Log Threshold Values for Lithofacies Determination.

Minerals GR φ D (ls ) φ N (ls ) ρb PEF Sonic

Shale >110 ~15 pu ~20 pu 2.5 3-3.6 <100
Limestone <20 - ~0 pu >2.7 >4 150-160
Sandstone <25 ~15 ~3 2.65 1.8-2.8 >200
Dolomite <15 - ~5 >2.75 3-4 140-150
Dolomitic
<25 - ~1 >2.72 >3.5 >165
Limestone
Coal ~50 ~50 >40 <1.6 Low >200

Table 2: Photo Electric Effect Value for Some Pure Mineral Types.

Mineral Type Photo Electric Effect (PEF)

Quartz 1.81
Calcite (Limestone) 5.08
Dolomite 3.14
Clay (Kaolinite) 1.83
Clay (Chlorite) 6.3
Clay (Illite) 3.45
Halite (Nacl) 4.65
Anhydrite 5.05
Gypsum 3.99
Coal 0.15

Figure 1: Cross-Plot Representation for Selected Zones.

5
 Sandstone [Aprroach 1] Shale [Approach 1]

Sandstone [Approach 2] Shale [Approach 2]

Percent Lithology
Percent Lithology
0 0.5 1
1500 0 0.5 1
1500

1550
1550

1600
1600

1650
1650

1700
1700
Depth

Depth

1750 1750

1800 1800

1850 1850

1900 1900

1950 1950

2000 2000

Figure 2: Comparison of both Approaches for a Selected Shaly-Sand Formation.

6
 Limestone [Approach 1] Sandstone [Approach 1]

Dolomite [Approach 1] Sandstone [Approach 2]

Percent Lithology
Percent Lithology
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
3300 3300

3400 3400

3500 3500

Depth
Depth

3600 3600

3700 3700

3800 3800

Figure 3: Comparison of both Approaches for a Selected Carbonate Formation.

7
Figure 4: Cross plot Approach Response Compared to the Strip Log.