Comparative analysis of sonic and neutron-density logs for porosity determination in the South-eastern Niger Delta Basin, Nigeria

O. Horsfall, E. Uko, Iyeneomie Tamunobereton-ari
{"title":"Comparative analysis of sonic and neutron-density logs for porosity determination in the South-eastern Niger Delta Basin, Nigeria","authors":"O. Horsfall, E. Uko, Iyeneomie Tamunobereton-ari","doi":"10.5251/AJSIR.2013.4.3.261.271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A comparative analysis of porosity values computed from sonic and neutron-density logs obtained from the same well is here presented. The aim is to identify the more reliable logging tool between sonic and neutron-density in the estimation of porosity values in a formation. Two wells from different parts of Niger Delta were logged for Transit times, bulk density and hydrogen index of the formation as a function of depth. The analysis of sonic, density and neutron porosity values shows a conventional trend of decrease in porosity with depth. Sonic porosity values of well A, and well B varies from 1 to 17%, and 27 to 60% respectively while Neutron-Density Porosity values of well A, and well B varies from 24 to 45%, and 21 to 37% respectively. The Coefficient of Variation for sonic porosity data are 56%, and 23%of well A, and well B respectively , similarly the Coefficient of Variation for Neutron-Density porosity data are 15%, and 14% of well A, and well B respectively. Coefficient of variation of Neutron-density log derived porosities is less than sonic log derived porosities; therefore Neutron-density log derived porosity is more reliable tool for porosity data estimation than sonic log derived porosity. Neutron and density logging tool is here recommended for determination of a reliable porosity value of a formation.","PeriodicalId":7661,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research","volume":"51 1","pages":"261-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5251/AJSIR.2013.4.3.261.271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

A comparative analysis of porosity values computed from sonic and neutron-density logs obtained from the same well is here presented. The aim is to identify the more reliable logging tool between sonic and neutron-density in the estimation of porosity values in a formation. Two wells from different parts of Niger Delta were logged for Transit times, bulk density and hydrogen index of the formation as a function of depth. The analysis of sonic, density and neutron porosity values shows a conventional trend of decrease in porosity with depth. Sonic porosity values of well A, and well B varies from 1 to 17%, and 27 to 60% respectively while Neutron-Density Porosity values of well A, and well B varies from 24 to 45%, and 21 to 37% respectively. The Coefficient of Variation for sonic porosity data are 56%, and 23%of well A, and well B respectively , similarly the Coefficient of Variation for Neutron-Density porosity data are 15%, and 14% of well A, and well B respectively. Coefficient of variation of Neutron-density log derived porosities is less than sonic log derived porosities; therefore Neutron-density log derived porosity is more reliable tool for porosity data estimation than sonic log derived porosity. Neutron and density logging tool is here recommended for determination of a reliable porosity value of a formation.
声波测井与中子密度测井在尼日利亚尼日尔三角洲盆地东南部孔隙度测定中的对比分析
本文对同一口井的声波测井和中子密度测井计算的孔隙度值进行了对比分析。目的是在声波和中子密度之间确定更可靠的测井工具,以估计地层的孔隙度值。对尼日尔三角洲不同地区的两口井进行了测井,测量了地层的传输时间、体积密度和氢指数与深度的关系。声波、密度和中子孔隙度值的分析表明,孔隙度随深度的增加而减小。A井和B井的声波孔隙度值分别为1 ~ 17%和27 ~ 60%,而A井和B井的中子密度孔隙度值分别为24 ~ 45%和21 ~ 37%。A井和B井声波孔隙度数据的变异系数分别为56%和23%,A井和B井中子密度孔隙度数据的变异系数分别为15%和14%。中子密度测井孔隙度的变异系数小于声波测井孔隙度;因此中子密度测井孔隙度比声波测井孔隙度估算更可靠。这里推荐使用中子和密度测井工具来确定地层的可靠孔隙度值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信