See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281145614

Research on the calculation method of shale and tuff content: Taking

tuffaceous reservoirs of X depression in the Hailar-Tamtsag Basin as an
example

Article  in  Journal of Geophysics and Engineering · October 2015

DOI: 10.1088/1742-2132/12/5/810

CITATIONS READS

0 60

9 authors, including:

Buzhou Huang Baozhi Pan

Jilin University Jilin University
3 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    63 PUBLICATIONS   467 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jiang Bici
CCTEG Xi'An Reshearch Insitute
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Electrical properties of rocks View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Baozhi Pan on 04 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Research on the calculation method of shale and tuff content: taking tuffaceous reservoirs of

X depression in the Hailar–Tamtsag Basin as an example

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2015 J. Geophys. Eng. 12 810

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-2140/12/5/810)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:
This content was downloaded by: liusihui
IP Address: 59.72.97.237
This content was downloaded on 10/11/2015 at 03:10

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 Journal of Geophysics and Engineering

J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810–819 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/12/5/810

Research on the calculation method

of shale and tuff content: taking
tuffaceous reservoirs of X depression in
the Hailar–Tamtsag Basin as an example
Sihui Liu1, Buzhou Huang1, Baozhi Pan1, Guiping Wang2, Fengxian Sun2,
Haibo Qiu2, Yuhang Guo1, Chunhui Fang1 and Bici Jiang3
1
  College of Geo-exploration Science and Technology, Jilin University, Changchun, People’s Republic of
China
2
  No. 1 Wireline Logging Company, Daqing Drilling Engineering Company, Daqing, People’s Republic
of China
3
  China Coal Research Institute Xi’an Science and Industry Group, Xi’an, People’s Republic of China

E-mail: huangbuzhou@jlu.edu.cn

Received 3 January 2015, revised 1 July 2015

Accepted for publication 6 July 2015
Published 17 August 2015

Abstract
Shale content is known in reservoir evaluation as an important parameter in well logging.
However, the log response characteristics are simultaneously affected by shale and tuff
existing in tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs. Due to the fact that tuff content exerts an influence
on the calculation of shale content, the former is equally important as the latter. Owing to
the differences in the source and composition between shale and tuff, the calculation of tuff
content using the same methods for shale content cannot meet the accuracy requirements of
logging evaluation. The present study takes the tuffaceous reservoirs in the X depression of
the Hailar–Tamtsag Basin as an example. The differences in the log response characteristics
between shale and tuff are theoretically analyzed and verified using core analysis data. The
tuff is then divided into fine- and coarse-grained fractions, according to the differences in the
distribution of the radioactive elements, uranium, thorium and potassium. Next, a volume
model suitable for tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs is established to include a sandstone matrix,
shale, fine-grained tuff, coarse-grained tuff and pore. A comparison of three optimization
algorithms shows that the particle swarm optimization (PSO) yields better calculation results
with small mean errors. The resistivity differences among shale, fine-grained tuff and coarse-
grained tuff are considered in the calculation of saturation. The water saturation of tuffaceous
reservoirs is computed using the improved Poupon’s equation, which is suitable for tuffaceous
sandstone reservoirs with low water salinity. The method is used in well Y, and is shown to
have a good application effect.

Keywords: tuffaceous sandstone reservoir, tuff content, shale content, logging response,
particle swarm optimization, improved Poupon’s equation

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction basins around the world (Khatchikian and Lesta 1973, Lev
1990, Willamsen and Schiller 1994, Khatchikian and Breda
The exploration of tuffaceous sandstone has led to consid- 1997). However, prospecting research has shown that conven-
erable hydrocarbon discoveries in a considerable number of tional logging methods are often problematic in evaluating

1742-2132/15/050810+10$33.00 810 © 2015 Sinopec Geophysical Research Institute  Printed in the UK

J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810 S Liu et al

tuffaceous formations, mainly due to the presence of tuff. Tuff

contains a certain amount of radioactive elements, negatively
affecting natural gamma-rays. Additionally, the presence of
tuff results in significant variations in reservoir pore struc-
ture and associated physical properties, thereby greatly influ-
encing the formation parameters. The presence of tuff also
affects the calculation of shale content. Therefore, tuff content
is a parameter which is equally important as shale content in
logging evaluations of tuffaceous reservoirs. As both shale
and tuff should be considered simultaneously, the log inter-
pretation of tuffaceous reservoirs with shaly sand methods
is unsuitable (Khatchikian and Lesta 1973, Itoh et al 1982,
Khatchikian and Breda 1997).
When evaluating tuffaceous reservoirs, a large number of
studies directly neglect the presence of tuff, or do not con-
sider it as an independent factor (Khatchikian and Breda
1997). Other studies have calculated tuff content by referring
to methods developed for shale content. Due to the great dif-
ferences between tuff and shale (in terms of source, compo-
sition, and log response characteristics), the determination
of tuff content using conventional calculation methods for Figure 1.  Tectonic division of the Hailar–Tamtsag Basin.
shale content often cannot meet the accuracy requirements.
Itoh proposed that tuff and shale have similar electrical con-
ductivity. On this basis, Itoh et al proposed a method of cal-
culating the saturation level of volcanic tuff using the cation
exchange capacity (CEC) (Itoh et al 1982). Khatchikian evalu-
ated tuff and tuffaceous sandstone in southern Argentina using
well logs and divided the tuff into light and heavy fractions.
Further, a method of log interpretation which used sonic, den-
sity, and neutron logs to calculate shale and tuff content was
proposed (Khatchikian and Lesta 1973). Moreover, statistical
methods and relative indications have been employed to cal-
culate tuff content (Ou et al 2009).
However, the above methods used for evaluating tuf-
faceous formations lack universality, and no studies have
conducted a detailed analysis on the differences in the log
response characteristics of shale and tuff. Itoh et al calcu-
lated saturation without the tuff content, and the equation of
saturation proposed by Itoh is more suitable for shaly tuf- Figure 2.  Distribution of shale and tuff content in 67 rock samples
from the X depression, Hailar–Tamtsag basin.
fite, in which the rock matrix is tuff. Khatchikian used sonic,
density and neutron logs to calculate the shale and tuff con-
of which 62 rock samples have had their cation exchange
tent directly, and did not analyse the differences in the log
capacity (CEC) determined.
response characteristics between shale and tuff. The present
study takes the tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs in the X
depression, Hailar–Tamtsag Basin, as an example. The differ- 2.  Geological background
ences in log response characteristics between shale and tuff
are then analyzed from the perspectives of theory and data. The Hailar–Tamtsag Basin refers to the Hailar basin and the
A volume model which is suitable for tuffaceous reservoirs is Tamtsag basin, which has become an important development
built in order to distinguish shale and tuff based on the differ- area of the Daqing Oilfield in recent years. Figure 1 shows the
ences in the distribution of radioactive elements, as well as in tectonic division of the Hailar–Tamtsag Basin. The X depres-
rock density and photoelectric absorption cross-section index sion is one of the depressions favorable for the occurrence of
(Pe) per unit volume (Ue). We improve Poupon’s equation to oil in the basin area. Owing to a combination of near-source
evaluate tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs, using the particle deposition and long-term transport deposition, the depression
swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to calculate tuff and is composed of rocks with substantial differences in composi-
shale content. The data used in this study includes core anal- tion and structure, showing complex and varied rock types.
ysis data, thin section analysis data, x-ray diffraction based Within the depression, tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs are
whole-rock quantitative analysis data and the log response formed of complex mineral components and are associated
data of 67 rock samples from eight wells in the study area, with great variations in tuff content. Figure 2 shows the range

811
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810
of variations in tuff and shale content in the study area. The
distribution of the shale content is mainly concentrated around
10–20%, while the variation range of tuff content is larger.
3.  Difference analysis of log response
characteristics between shale and tuff
Great differences exist between shale and tuff in terms of
both source and composition, which results in different log
response characteristics in the two types of rock compositions.
The present study primarily conducts a theoretical analysis on
the differences in radioactive U, Th and K distribution during
the process of shale and tuff formation based on the migration
patterns of these three elements. Furthermore, the differences
between shale and tuff in terms of rock density and Ue are
simply analyzed. The results of the theoretical calculations
are verified using the core measurement data of rock samples
from the study area.
3.1.  Radioactive U distribution differences between shale
and tuff
3.1.1.  Theoretical analysis.  U exists in rocks in the tetravalent
and hexavalent states. Tetravalent U is unstable and can be
easily oxidized to hexavalent U. In oxidizing environments, U
generally occurs in the form of water-soluble uranyl, (UO2)2+.
A portion of U will be removed by groundwater–rock inter-
actions (e.g. leaching) (Rosholt et al 1971, Gamerdinger and
Kaplan 2001, Metcalfe 2006, Tartèse et al 2013), and the
smaller the rock grain size, the stronger the groundwater–rock
interaction. During its migration in water, a portion of U will
be adsorbed on fine-grained rocks or certain adhesive miner-
als such as clays (Zhao and Zhang 1990) and titanium–iron–
manganese (Ti–Fe–Mn) oxides (Hurst and Milodowski 1996,
Michalkova et al 2014). The U element in shale is substan-
tially derived from adsorption in the sedimentary-diagenetic
process. The adsorption mechanisms include not only physi-
cal adsorption but also chemical adsorption and ion exchange
adsorption (Zhao and Zhang, 1990), which account for the
high U content in shale.
Previous studies of U in rhyolites concluded that U was
preferentially lost from crystalline rhyolites (Rosholt and
Noble 1969, Shatkov et al 1970, Kovalev and Malyasova
1971). In 1978, Zielinski also confirmed that crystallized rhy-
olites could be significantly lower in U than coexisting vitric
fragments (Zielinski 1978). Research indicates that U accu-
mulation is related to the concentrations of Ti–Fe–Mn oxides
and associated accessory minerals (Zielinski 1978, Tartèse
et al 2013). Additionally, Zielinski found that the distribution
of U is also related to grain size; U content decreases with
increasing grain size (Zielinski 1978), namely, the smaller the
grain size, the higher the U content. The possible reason is that
the decreased grain size results in an increased specific surface
area of rock grains, thereby enhancing physical adsorption.
Moreover, the distribution of U is related to lithology, and
U content increases in the order of ultrabasic rock  →  basic
rock  →  intermediate rock  →  acidic rock. In the study area,
812
S Liu et al
Figure 3.  The relationship of shale and tuff content with U level.
the tuff mostly occurs as acidic rocks with a small amount of
intermediate rocks, which contribute to the high U content. In
summary, the U content of tuff is mainly related to the pres-
ence of grain size, and lithology.
Although a portion of U will be lost from tuff during
weathering, migration, and deposition processes, the residual
U content remains high relative to the sandstone matrix. The
majority of U in shale is obtained by adsorption. Because of
their different sources, it is impossible to theoretically deter-
mine the relative content of U in tuff and shale, and data anal-
ysis is needed to draw conclusions.
3.1.2.  Data analysis.  In the study area, the formations hardly
contain any Ti–Fe–Mn oxides or associated accessory min-
erals, accounting for the significantly low U content of the
sandstone matrix. We assume that the sandstone matrix and
pore make no contribution to U content. These two factors are
neglected in the comparative analysis of U content between
shale and tuff. Figure 3 presents the relationship between tuff
(shale) content and U level with nearly constant shale (tuff)
content. It can be seen that both tuff and shale content are in
positive correlations with the U level. The trend line of the U
level versus tuff content has a slope of 25.491, while that of
the U level versus shale content is 15.99. This result indicates
that the tuff has a higher U content than the shale.
Zielinski found that the smaller the grain size, the higher
the U content. On this basis, tuff is divided into coarse-grained
and fine-grained fractions for data analysis. According to the
results of thin section analysis, silt-level tuff and fine vitric tuff
are classified as fine-grained tuff, whereas vitric fragments in
visible and pure tuff in magma fragments belong to coarse-
grained tuff. Figure  4 illustrates the relationship of coarse-
grained and fine-grained tuff content with U level. The solid
line represents the trend line of coarse-grained tuff content
versus U content with a nearly constant content of shale and
fine-grained tuff; the dashed line represents the trend line of
fine-grained tuff content versus U content with a nearly con-
stant content of shale and coarse-grained tuff. The latter has
a slope of 9.798 73, while the former has a slope of 6.238 3.
This result indicates that the U content in fine-grained tuff is
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810
Figure 4.  The relationship of coarse-grained and fine-grained tuff
content with U level.
higher than in coarse-grained tuff, consistent with the conclu-
sion of Zielinski.
3.2.  Radioactive Th distribution differences between shale
and tuff
3.2.1. Theoretical analysis.  Compared with U, Th has poor
solubility with a weak migration capability. Th is generally
accumulated in situ and the majority of this element is retained
in stable and adsorptive minerals in the residues (Hurst and
Milodowski 1996). A small portion of Th may exist in water for
migration in the form of complex, colloid or dependent on sus-
pended particles (adsorptive) (Honeyman and Santschi 1989,
Swarzenski et al 2003, Liu et al 2009). Th present in water
will undergo adsorption or co-precipitation when it encounters
clay minerals, silica–alumina gels, hydrous Fe and Mn oxides,
hydrous TiCO2, and river sediments (Swarzenski et al 2003).
In sedimentary rocks, Th content has been found to increase
with increasing clay mineral content (Zhao and Zhang 1990).
Hurst osberved in North Sea sandstones that despite the
rough relationship between Th content and the abundance
of kaolinite (Serra 1980, Fertl, 1983, Serra 1984, Hurst and
Milodowski 1996), the distribution of Th is irrelevant to the
presence of kaolinite, and Th is not involved in kaolinite struc-
tures (Hurst and Milodowski, 1996). The Th content in shale
is mainly derived from adsorption. In sandstones, Th increases
with increasing stable minerals (Abbey 1964, Boyle 1982, Liu
et al 2009). In igneous rocks, the abundance of Th increases
sequentially as ultrabasic rocks   →  basic rock  →  interme-
diate rock  →  acidic rocks (Honeyman and Santschi 1989).
Zielinski (1978) reported that the Th in a crystalline matrix
is almost identical to that in a homologous vitreous matrix.
Since hydration has no influence on the U content of acidic
glass (Rosholt et al 1971), it is inferred that Th present in
acidic volcanic rocks hardly migrates (Zielinski 1978). Two
decades later, Christidis found that Th is immobile in rhyolite
during the alteration process profile but is leached in andesite
(George 1998). The gap in Th content between intermediate
and acidic rocks is further expanded due to leaching in late
813
S Liu et al
Figure 5.  The relationship of shale and tuff content with Th level.
alteration processes. Hence, lithology acts as an important
factor influencing Th content. From the above analysis, Th has
a weak migration capability and the loss of this element will
be limited. Therefore, even if the shale has strong adsorption,
it will not obtain substantial Th content. We infer that the Th
content in tuff is higher than that in shale.
3.2.2.  Data analysis.  Stable minerals such as biotite, mona-
zite, allanite, and zircon were not found in the study area using
the experimental data. Thus, there is little Th contained in the
sandstone matrix. When analyzing the differences in Th con-
tent between shale and tuff, we consider that radioactive Th in
the rocks is substantially derived from shale and tuff. Figure 5
presents the relationship between tuff (shale) content and Th
level with almost constant shale (tuff) content. The trend line
of tuff content versus Th content has a greater slope than that
of shale content versus Th content. That is, the Th content
is higher in tuff than in shale, and this is consistant with the
results of the theoretical analysis.
During the alteration of acidic volcanic rocks, Th is hardly
lost (George 1998). In the study area, very little Th existing
in the tuff is lost with the occurrence of alteration, resulting
in the relatively high Th content. Fine-grained tuff has a cer-
tain capacity of physical adsorption, and research has also
found that fine-grained rocks have a higher Th content than
coarse-grained rocks (Hurst and Milodowski 1996). Thus, we
infer that the Th content is higher in fine-grained tuff than in
coarse-grained tuff. Figure 6 shows the relationship between
coarse-grained tuff (fine-grained tuff) and Th level with a
nearly constant content of shale and fine-grained tuff (coarse-
grained tuff). There is an obvious positive correlation between
Th level and fine-grained tuff content. However, the Th level
hardly varies with variations in coarse-grained tuff content.
The Th content is higher in fine-grained tuff than in coarse-
grained tuff.
3.3.  K distribution differences between shale and tuff
3.3.1. Theoretical analysis.  K is a typical lithophile element,
and common K minerals include K-feldspar, muscovite,
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810 S Liu et al

Figure 6.  The relationship of coarse- and fine-grained tuff content Figure 7.  The relationship of shale and tuff content with K level.
with Th level.

biotite, leucite, glauconite, and carnallite. K is soluble and

can migrate in water. K can co-exist with other elements
(e.g. sodium, rubidium, thallium, lead, and barium) through
isomorphous replacement. Zeolite and non-K alkali feldspar
contain a small amount of K. In acidic volcanic rocks, the
major K-containing minerals include potash feldspar, biotite,
and zeolite. Biotite can be easily weathered and changed into
other minerals such as muscovite and sericite, and muscovite
will be further altered to illite. There are two directions for
K-feldspar alteration: one is kaolinite containing no K, and
the other is K-containing illite (Bevan and Savaget 1989). It
can be seen that illite and alkali feldspar serve as the main K
sources in rock formations.
The altered products of tuff in the formation include mont-
morillonite, illite, zeolite, K-feldspar, and quartz. K is gener-
ally transferred into illite and K-feldspar with the occurrence
of alteration, whereas a small amount of K is transferred
to zeolite or washed away by water. K content increases in
the order of ultrabasic rock  →  basic rock  →  intermediate
rock  →  acidic rock. The tuff in the study area is mainly com-
posed of acidic rocks. A portion of K will be lost during the
processes of weathering and deposition, with a certain amount
retained.
Shale contains K-rich illite and thus has a high K content.
The majority of K in tuff is lost during the sedimentary dia-
genetic process, resulting in a low K content. It is therefore
inferred theoretically that K content is higher in shale than in
tuff.
3.3.2. Data analysis.  A sandstone matrix is rich in K-feld-
spar and other alkali feldspars, accounting for a higher K con-
tent. But the K content is higher in shale than in sandstone. In
order to compare the content of potassium in shale and tuff,
we assume that the contribution of the matrix to K content is
essentially constant. The relationship between the K level and
tuff (shale) content with a constant shale (tuff) content is then
examined.
As can be seen from figure  7, when the shale content
is almost constant, the trend line of tuff content versus K
Figure 8.  The relationship of coarse-grained and fine-grained tuff
content with K level.
content has a slope as small as 0.571 7. That is, the K content
hardly changes with the increasing tuff content. In contrast,
the shale content has a positive correlation with K level and
the trend line has a substantially larger slope of 18.824. This
result indicates that the K content in shale is higher than that
in tuff, and this is consistent with the results of the theoretical
analysis.
As mentioned above, the smaller the grain size of the rock,
the larger the specific surface area of the rock grains, and the
stronger the physical adsorption. Therefore, during sedimen-
tary diagenesis, fine-grained tuff will adsorb a portion of K.
We infer that fine-grained tuff has a higher K content than
coarse-grained tuff. Figure 8 shows the relationship between
coarse-grained (fine-grained) tuff content and K level with
a nearly constant content of shale and fine-grained (coarse-
grained) tuff. Clearly, there is a positive correlation between
the K level and the fine-grained tuff content, and the trend line
has a slope of 6.021 7. However, the K level hardly changes
with the variations in coarse-grained tuff content, and the
slope of the trend line is 1.693 7. These data show that the K
content is higher in fine-grained tuff than in coarse-grained

814
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810 S Liu et al

Table 1.  ρ b , ρe , Pe and Ue values of common minerals and fluids.

ρb/g ρe/g Pe/b Ue/b

Rock/mineral cm−3 cm−3 e−1 cm−3
Quartz 2.65 2.65 1.81 4.79
Barite 4.5 4.01 266.82 1070
Hematite 5.15 4.987 21.48 107
Kaolinite 2.41 2.41 1.83−1.84 4.14−4.44
Chlorite 2.76 2.78 6.3−6.33 17.35−17.58
Illite 2.52 2.52 3.45−3.55 8.69−8.73
Montmorillonite 2.12 2.12 2.04−2.3 4.32−4.4
Water (0 ppm) 1 1.11 0.385 0.4
Water(100 000 ppm) 1.06 1.16 0.734 0.85
Water(200 000 pm) 1.146 1.237 1.2 1.48

tuff, and this is consistent with the results of the theoretical

analysis.
3.4. Ue differences between shale and tuff
3.4.1.  Theoretical analysis.  The Pe of rocks refers to the mean
photoelectric absorption cross-section of an electron in the
rock. Pe is a microscopic definition that has no linear relation-
ship with the relative volume of each component in the inte-
rior of the rock. Thus, this parameter needs to be converted in
application. A macroscopic Pe per unit volume of rocks, Ue,
is defined, which can establish a good relationship with the
volume of rock components (Huang and Pan 2004). The sym-
bol commonly used for Pe per unit volume is U. In this study,
Ue is used as a substitute for U, so as to avoid confusion with
the radioactive element U. Formula (1) shows the calculation
formula of Ue:
2∑
Ue = Peρe =
(1)
NA
Where NA is a constant, and ρe is the electron density index of
the rock. Because ρe is similar to bulk density, ρ b , formula (1)
can be expressed approximately as:
Ue = Peρ b
(2)
Table 1 shows that illite and chlorite have significantly
greater Ue values than quartz. In the study area, x-ray diffrac-
tion data based whole-rock analysis shows that the shale is
mainly composed of illite, smectite, and chlorite, with a small
amount of kaolinite; the major components of tuff include
quartz with a small amount of feldspar. Thus, we consider that
the shale has a greater Ue value than the tuff.
3.4.2. Data analysis.  The relationship between salinity and
Ue is obtained according to the Ue values of water at three
levels of salinity (table 1). In the study area, formation water
salinity is within the range of 2200–7350 ppm. The value
used in the present study is 0.42 b cm−3, and the Ue value
of sandstone matrix is set as 4.79 b cm−3, equal to that of
quartz. We assume that the reservoirs are filled with water.
The major contributors to Ue in the formation include pore
water, the sandstone matrix, shale, and tuff. The contribution
of pore water and sandstone matrix is removed using formula
Figure 9.  The relationship of shale and tuff content with
photoelectric absorption cross-section index per unit volume (Ue1).
(3), in order to examine the differences in Ue values between
shale and tuff. Figure 9 presents the relationship between tuff
(shale) content and Ue1 with an almost constant shale (tuff)
content.
Ue 1 = Ue − VmaUe ma−Uef φ
(3)
It can be seen that Ue1 is in positive correlation with both
the tuff and shale content. The trend line of Ue1 versus shale
content (solid line) has a slope of 12.478 5, while that of Ue1
versus tuff content (dashed line) has a slope of 7.230 8. It is
concluded that the tuff has a smaller Ue value than the shale.
3.5.  Density differences between shale and tuff
3.5.1. Theoretical analysis.  The density of volcanic rocks is
gradually reduced from the basic to the acidic type (Huang
and Pan 2004). The rock density differs substantially with var-
ied lithology. In the study area, the tuff mostly occurs as acidic
rocks with a small amount of intermediate rocks. The density
of acidic volcanic rocks occurs in the range of 2.4–2.7 g cm−3,
with a relatively large variation interval. The density of shale
generally occurs around 2.55 g cm−3. Thus, there is difficulty
in the theoretical analysis on the relative levels of shale and
tuff densities. Data analysis is needed to draw conclusions.
3.5.2.  Data analysis.  We assume that the density of the sand-
stone matrix and the pore fluid are, respectively, 2.65 g cm−3
and 1.0 g cm−3 in the study area. Then, the contribution of
sandstone and porosity to rock density is removed, and the
relationship of shale and tuff content with rock density is
examined. Figure  10(a) shows the relationship between tuff
content and the residual density of rock with an almost con-
stant shale content. The Y-axis represents the density after
the contribution of the sandstone matrix and pore is removed
according to formula (4). It is clear that tuff content is in good
correlation with the residual density of rock, and the slope
of the trend line can be directly regarded as the density of
the tuff, i.e. 2.44 g cm−3. Shale density can be easily obtained
with known densities of sandstone matrix, pore, and tuff.

815
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810 S Liu et al

Figure 10.  (a) The relationship between tuff content Vtuff and the density ρb1; and (b) the relationship between shale content Vsh and the
density ρb2.

Figure  10(b) depicts the relationship between shale content

and the density after the contributions of sandstone matrix,
pore, and tuff are removed using formula (5). Similarly, the
density of the shale is obtained according to the trend line, i.e.
2.562 g cm−3.
ρ b 1 = ρ b − ρma Vma − ρf φ
(4)

ρ b 2 = ρ b 1 − ρtuff Vtuff
(5)
Figure 11.  The volume model for tuffaceous sandstone.

4.  Establishment of volume model and log
response equations
4.1.  Volume model
The reservoir can be regarded as a geological body with com-
ponents having different properties. Formation components
with similar physical properties are generally considered to
be identical items. Xiao divided tuffaceous sandstone reser-
voirs into four parts: shale, tuff, sandstone matrix, and pore
(Xiao 2006). When Zhang studied tuffaceous sandstone reser-
voirs in the Hailar Basin, reservoirs with lower shale content
were selected. Thus, the influence of shale was overlooked in
establishing the volume model to divide the reservoirs into
three parts: matrix, tuff, and pore (Zhang et al 2009). Both
the above models are established based on the major com-
ponents of the reservoirs. Neither of them involved in-depth
consideration for the possibility of subdivision within each
component, or combined the differences in log response char-
acteristics of various components. Based on the density dif-
ference, Khatchikian and Lesta et al divided the tuff into light
and heavy fractions (Khatchikian and Lest 1973). In the study
area, however, the tuff has a single lithology without substan-
tial density variations. Thus, further division of the tuff based
on density is not performed.
Instead, the tuff is further divided into coarse-grained and
fine-grained fractions based on the differences in radioactive
U, Th, and K distribution caused by the variation of grain size.
Data analysis shows that fine-grained tuff has higher U, Th,
and K content than coarse-grained tuff. A volume model for
tuffaceous sandstone is then established (figure 11).
4.2.  Log response equations
Based on the established model, the log response equations for
the selected log curves are established using formula (6):
m
Log*i = ∑ Aij Xj (i = 1, 2, …, n )
(6)
j=1
Wherein Log*i is the calculated value of the ith log response,
Xj is the content of the jth formation component, and Aij is
the ith log response value of the jth formation component. In
the volume model, the content of various components should
comply with the geological significance, namely, the sum of
the percentage content of various components is 1:
Vma + Vsh + Vtuff 1 +Vtuff2 + φ = 1
(7)
5.  Calculation of logging parameters for reservoir
components
5.1.  Determination of the theoretical values for sandstone and
pore
Research on sandstone is relatively mature, and a great many
theoretical and empirical values of logging parameters can
easily be retrieved from the literature. For pore, we first
assume that it is saturated with formation water and then
determine its theoretical values. Assuming the values for U,
Th, and K of the pore are all 0, table 2 lists part of the retrieved
log response values of sandstone matrix and pore. The blank
cells in the table indicate the parameters to be calculated next.

816
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810 S Liu et al

Table 2.  Part of the theoretical log response values for the Table 4.  Comparison of three calculation methods for estimation of
sandstone matrix and pore. shale and tuff content.
Logging curve Computational result
−3 −1 −3 −6 −6
Composition Ue/b · cm Ρ g · cm U/10 Th/10 K/% Mean relative Mean relative
Computing method error of tuff error of shale
Sandstone 4.79 2.65
matrix Genetic algorithm 46.80% 44.50%
Pore 0.42 1 0 0 0 Particle swarm optimization 37.20% 29.10%
Simulated annealing 39.40% 41.20%
Table 3.  Logging parameter values of formation components.

Logging curve function is established by combining the errors in the calcu-

Ue/ b ρ g −1 lated logging parameters using the differences between the
Composition · cm−3 U/10–6 Th/10–6 K/% · cm−3 calculated and measured log response values:
Shale 12.625 5 5.678 18.739 5.542 2.562 m Log* − Log
min g(x ) = ∑
i i
Fine-grained 8.651 4 6.188 26.341 2.732 2.44 (9) / Logi
i=1
τi
tuff
Coarse- 8.651 4 6.038 23.949 2.134 2.44 Where m is the number of curves, m = 5; and τi is the error of
grained tuff the ith log response calculated using formula (8). If the error
Sand matrix 4.79 2.43 10.962 4.848 2.65
of the log curves is relatively large, then, the corresponding
Pore 0.42 0 0 0 1
contribution rate is relatively small. Here τi is taken as the
Mean relative 8% 22.70% 13.80% 7.80% 1.60%
error
mean relative error of logging parameters presented in table 3.
Table 4 shows the mean relative errors in shale and tuff con-
tent calculated using the genetic algorithm, PSO, and simu-
5.2.  Logging parameter analysis of formation components lated annealing methods.
using quasi-Newton algorithm A comparative analysis shows that PSO yields smaller
relative errors in the calculated shale and tuff content than
The quasi-Newton method is one of the approaches for optimi- the other two methods. Therefore, the PSO method is pref-
zation analysis. The selected log curves are used to establish erentially selected for the following analysis. When PSO is
an error function to reflect a difference between the measured used to calculate the shale and tuff content, then the constraint
and calculated values. This function is taken as the objective formula (7) is taken as a penalty term. In order to balance the
function for optimization analysis: contribution rates of the penalty term and logging parameters,
p the objective function formula (9) is modified as follows:
min fi (x ) = ∑ (Cik − Log*ik )2 /Cik2 (k = 1, 2, …, p)
(8)
m Log* − Log
k=1
min g(x ) = ∑
i i
(10) /Logi + punic
Where Cik and Log*ik denote the measured and calculated values i=1
τi

of the ith log response from the kth rock sample, respectively. During the calculation progress, the tuff has been divided
Appropriate constraints are set for different logging param- into fine- and coarse-grained fractions. Considering the differ-
eters based on the differences in log response characteristics ences among shale, fine-grained tuff and coarse-grained tuff,
among various components of the reservoir. we analyze their respective resistivities in the calculation of
For sandstone and pore, the available theoretical values water saturation.
can be directly substituted into formula (8). Rock samples
are selected from those with available thin section  analysis,
and the content of various components in the volume model is 7.  Calculation of water saturation
known, i.e. Xj. Table 3 presents the calculated values of log-
ging parameters for different components. There are many methods which may be used to calculate the
The measured data of radioactive U, Th, and K are avail- saturation of the reservoir (Kurniawan et al 2007, Gupta et al
able in a small number of wells. Thus, only 15 rock samples 2012). Poupon’s equation was used to evaluate reservoirs with
from the same horizon are included for verification analysis. low water salinity, which is suitable for the area of study (Itoh
The mean relative errors between the calculated and measured et al 1982). In this paper, we improve Poupon’s equation for
log response values are relatively small, all less than 23%. the saturation calculation of tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs.
⎛ V ϕ 2 ⎞ n2
m
= ⎜⎜ sh + tuff1 + tuff2 + ⎟⎟SW
1 V V
(11)
⎝ Rsh aRw ⎠
6.  Calculation of shale and tuff content using three Rt Rtuff1 Rtuff2
optimization methods
where Rsh, Rtuff1 and Rtuff2 respectively denote the resistivi-
The genetic algorithm, PSO, and simulated annealing are ties of shale, fine-grained tuff and coarse-grained tuff. We
selected to determine the shale and tuff content. The objective assume that the relationship among Rsh and (CEC)sh, Rtuff1 and

817
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810 S Liu et al

Oil layer Water layer

Figure 12.  Log interpretation of well Y in the X depression, Hailar–Tamtsag Basin.

(CEC)tuff1, and Rtuff2 and (CEC)tuff2 may be expressed as fol- shows the log interpretation of well Y. Vtuff and Vsh respec-
lows (Itoh et al 1982). tively represent the calculation results of the tuff and shale
content. POR_1, Vtuff_1 and Vsh_1 are the core analysis data,
1 1
= K (CEC)sh , = K (CEC)tuff1, and Sw is the water saturation. It can be seen that the calcu-
Rsh Rtuff1 lated content of shale and tuff have high consistency with the
1 core analysis data. The calculated value of Sw corresponds to
and = K (CEC)tuff2
Rtuff2 the test oil conclusion at the oil/water layer. The calculations
demonstrate that this method is feasible.
(CEC )tuff1 Rsh (CEC)tuff 2 Rsh
Then, ∂1 = (CEC )sh
= , and ∂ 2 = (CEC)sh
=
Rtuff1 Rtuff2
are derived. The value of (CEC)sh can be derived using the 9. Conclusions
method proposed by Toshinobu Iton et al while the value of
(CEC)tuff1 and (CEC)tuff2 are calculated with the optimization 1. Based on a combination of theoretical and data analysis,
method. Next, ∂1 = 0.83 and ∂ 2 = 0.053 are computed. When this study analyzes the differences in the log response
the coefficient of ∂1 and ∂ 2 are places into equation (12), the characteristics between tuff and shale in terms of the
equation can be reformed as follows: U, Th, K, density, and Ue levels. The K content, density
level, and Ue value of the shale are greater than those of
⎛ ⎞ n
2

⎜ ⎟
1 tuff, while the U and Th content show an opposite varia-
Sw = ⎜ m ⎟
Rt
(12) tion trend. There are great differences in the log response
⎜ φ + Vsh + ∂1⋅Vtuff1 + ∂ 2⋅Vtuff2 ⎟ characteristics between shale and tuff. Therefore, it is
⎝ aR ⎠
2

R w sh
where m = 2, n = 2 and a = 1 are taken. The value of Rsh can
be used as the resistivity of the adjacent thick shale layer. The
information regarding the thick shale layer is obtainable from
coring reports.
8.  Application example
Well Y, with the test of oil conclusion and core data is selected
for logging evaluation using the above method. Figure  12
necessary to independently consider each of the items
when calculating their content.
2. Based on differences in the distribution of radioactive ele-
ments, the tuff is divided into two fractions, and a volume
model suitable to tuffaceous sandstone reservoirs is estab-
lished to include a sandstone matrix, shale, fine-grained
tuff, coarse-grained tuff and pore. The logging parameters
for individual components in the volume model are cal-
culated using the quasi-Newton optimization algorithm,
combined with the theoretical and empirical values.

818
J. Geophys. Eng. 12 (2015) 810
3. Based on a comparison of multiple objective optimization
algorithms, PSO is preferentially selected for the calcula-
tion of shale and tuff content. The resistivity differences
among shale, fine-grained tuff and coarse-grained tuff
have been considered in the calculation of saturation
which uses the improved Poupon’s equation. The log
evaluation is performed with well Y as an example.
The good results indicate that the proposed calculation
method is a feasible approach.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grant 41174096.
References
Abbey S 1964 Determination of thorium in rocks: the arsenazo
III reaction in perchlorate medium Anal. Chim. Acta 30 176–87
Bevan J and Savaget D 1989 The effect of organic acids on the
dissolution of K-feldspar under conditions relevant to Burial
Eiagenesis Mineral. Mag. 53 415–25
Boyle R W 1982 Geochemical Prospecting for Thorium and
Uranium Deposits (Amsterdam: Elsevier)
Fertl W H 1983 Gamma ray spectral logging: a new evaluation
frontier 1—principles World Oil 196 79–91
Gamerdinger A P and Kaplan D I 2001 Physical and chemical
determinants of colloid transport and deposition in water-
unsaturated sand and yucca mountain tuff material Environ.
Sci. Technol. 35 2497–504
George E C 1998 Comparative study of the mobility of major and
trace elements during alteration of an andesite and a rhyolite to
bentonite, in the Islands of Milos and Kimolos, Aegean, Greece
Clays Clay Miner. 46 379–99
Gupta S D, Chatterjee R and Farooqui M Y 2012 Formation
evaluation of fractured basement, Cambay Basin, India
J. Geophys. Eng. 9 162–75
Honeyman B D and Santschi P H 1989 A brownian pumping model
for oceanic trace-metal scavenging -evidence from Th isotopes
J. Mar. Res. 47 951–92
Huang B Z and Pan B Z 2004 Characteristics of log responses and
lithology determination of igneous rock reservoirs J. Geophys.
Eng. 1 51–5
Hurst A and Milodowski A 1996 Thorium distribution in some
north sea sandstones: implications for petrophysical evaluation
Pet. Geosci. 2 59–68
Itoh T, Kato S and Miyairi M 1982 A quick method of log
interpretation for very low resistivity volcanic tuff by the use of
CEC data SPWLA 23rd Annual Logging Symp. NN pp 221–32
Khatchikian A and Breda E 1997 Predicting fluid production of
tuffaceous sandstones in the San Jorge Basin with array-
type induction logs Proc.—SPE Annual Technical Conf. and
Exhibition pp 257–66
819
View publication stats
S Liu et al
Khatchikian A and Lesta P 1973 Log evaluation of tuffites and
tuffaceous sandstones in Southern Argentina SPWLA 14th
Annual Logging Symp. K
Kovalev V P and Malyasova Z V 1971 Amount of mobile uranium
in effusive and intrusive rocks of the Eastern Margin of the
South-Minusink Depression, Inst. Geol. Geophys. Novosibirsk.
USSR. 7 855–66
Kurniawan B, White C D and Bassiouni Z 2007 Experimental and
statistical analysis of shaly-sand evaluation using SPE 110986
Lev V 1990 A new type of reservoir rock in volcaniclastic
sequences AAPG Bull. 74 830–6
Liu Y J et al 2009 Element Geochemistry (Beijing: Beijing
University Press)
Metcalfe R et al 2006 A system model for the origin and evolution
of the tono uranium deposit, Japan Geochem.: Explor. Environ.
Anal. 6 13–31
Michalkova Z et al 2014 Evaluating the potential of Three Fe- and
Mn-(nano) oxides for the stabilization of Cd, Cu and Pb in
contaminated soils J. Environ. Manage. 146 226–34
Ou X et al 2009 Computation method for shale and tuff content
in reservoir with pyroclastic sedimentary rock Well Logging
Technol. 33 371–3
Rosholt J N and Noble D C 1969 Loss of uranium from
crystallized silicic volcanic rocks Earth Planet. Sci. Lett.
6 268–70
Rosholt J N and Noble D C 1971 Mobility of uranium and thorium
in glassy and crystallized silicic volcanic rocks Econ. Geol.
66 1061–9
Serra O 1984 Fundamentals of well-log interpretation I: the
aquisition of logging data Developments in Petroleum Science
vol 15A (Amsterdam: Elsevier)
Serra O, Balwin J and Quirein J 1980 Theory, interpretation and
practical application of natural gamma ray spectroscopy
SPWLA Transactions of 21st Annal Logging Symp., Paper Q
Shatkov G A, Skatkova L N and Guschin E W 1970 The
distribution of uranium, thorium, fluorine, chlorine,
molybdenum and niobium in liparites and acid volcanic glasses
Geochem. Int. 7 1051–63
Swarzenski P W et al 2003 The behavior of U- and Th-series
nuclides in the estuarine environment Rev. Mineral. Geochem.
Uranium-Ser. Geochem. 52 577–606
Tartèse R et al 2013 Uranium mobilization from the variscan
questembert syntectonic granite during fluid-rock interaction at
depth Sci. Commun. 108 379–86
Willamsen P and Schiller D M 1994 High quality volcaniclastic
sandstone reservoirs in east Java, Indonesia AAPG/Datapages
Combined Publications Database 1 101–18
Xiao D S 2006 Interpretation method study on physical property of
the tuffaceous sands reservoir of xing’anling group in Hailar
Basin Master’s Thesis Daqing Petroleum Institute
Zhang X F et al 2009 Computational method of saturation of the
tuffaceous sandstone reservoir of nantun group in Hailar Basin
Well Logging Technol. 33 345–9
Zhao X Y and Zhang Y Y 1990 Clay Minerals and Clay Mineral
Analysis (Beijing: Ocean Press) pp 44–8
Zielinski R A 1978 Uranium abundances and distribution in
associated glassy and crystalline rhyolites of the Western
United States Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 82 409–14