IPTC-18231-MS

Benchmarking LWD Sourceless Neutron Gamma Density Measurements in

Southeast Asia
K. Kyi, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd; M.M. Lwin, C.J. Maeso, and I.D.B. Roberts, Schlumberger

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 –12 December 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted
to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax ⫹1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Bulk density is a key petrophysical measurement that can be obtained from gamma-gamma density
(GGD) and sourceless neutron-gamma density (SNGD) measurements. The unique SNGD measurement
is new to the industry, having been introduced in 2012. A series of multi-functional LWD tools have been
upgraded to include the option of acquiring density from conventional Cesium-137 (Cs-137) sourced
gamma rays (GGD) and from electrically controlled pulsed-neutron generator (PNG) sourced gamma rays
(SNGD). The two measurements are totally independent and can be acquired simultaneously. Multiple
SNGD – GGD datasets have been compared from different fields in Southeast Asia to validate the SNGD
measurement, providing confidence in the measurement in the study region. The extensive database
includes the data from vertical to horizontal wells; different mud systems; limestone, sandstone and shale
formations; and gas-, oil-, and water-bearing intervals. The results show excellent correlation between
SNGD and GGD measurements. The average difference between the measurements is 0.001 g/cm3 over
the whole dataset. This is well within the SNGD measurement accuracy specification of 0.025 g/cm3 for
clean formations and 0.045 g/cm3 for shale.
The SNGD measurement has applications in all wells where there is a risk of losing bottom hole
assembly (BHA) containing radioactive sources and in jurisdictions with tight nuclear regulations. There
is strong interest in the measurement in the studied region, for several reasons: firstly, in development
wells where variable depletion and shale instability are high risks; secondly, in exploration wells targeting
deep zones with pore pressure ramps and very tight mud weight windows; thirdly, in long tortuous
horizontal wells; and fourthly, wells risking total losses such as pinnacle carbonates. In addition, the
multi-functional tool provides increased operational efficiency, higher rate of penetration (ROP) capa-
bility, significantly improved reliability throughout the system, and greater ease of maintenance. Replac-
ing the Cs-137 source with a PNG significantly reduces the operational risks normally associated with the
use of traditional LWD tools. By design, the PNG can be turned on only while pumping and only when
several very restrictive safety conditions are fulfilled.
The study results justify placing confidence in the SNGD measurement in high-risk drilling conditions.
2 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 1—Tool diagram showing the multiple measurements available, including the SNGD measurement.

To date, the sourceless neutron-gamma density has been utilized standalone in more than twelve high-risk
wells in the region.
Introduction
Bulk density is a key measurement in the oilfield industry and is commonly used for lithology, porosity,
and fluid characterization. Today in the industry, bulk density is predominantly obtained using a Cs-137
chemical source for gamma ray production. This is known as gamma-gamma density (GGD) and is
commonly deployed on both wireline and LWD. The recent introduction of the pulsed-neutron generator
(PNG) based sourceless neutron-gamma density (SNGD) measurement provides an alternative to the
traditional GGD. The SNGD measurement is part of a comprehensive suite of measurements in a single
short (26-ft) logging-while-drilling collar, as shown in Fig. 1. Enabling tight integration of these
measurements, the PNG is positioned under the resistivity array. This electrically controlled source
removes the need for a traditional Cs-137 chemical source for density measurements and, in addition,
enables neutron porosity, sigma (macroscopic thermal neutron capture cross section), and elemental
capture spectroscopy measurements. The PNG also represents a significant reduction in radiation risk,
both for personnel and the environment (Weller et al. 2005). The focus of this paper is the density
measurements.
The newly developed SNGD measurement has been validated on a number of datasets globally over
several years. However, the SNGD measurement is a new approach for the critical formation density
measurement and it is considered important to confirm the measurement in detail for local conditions.
SNGD measurement has been validated in the Southeast Asia region by making comparisons of the
different density measurements in the same boreholes, using the SNGD and GGD combined service.
Comparisons were made over approximately 10,000 m measured depth (MD) of logged interval and in
different drilling environments. Eleven wells, ten in clastic section and one in carbonate, have been
IPTC-18231-MS 3

Figure 2—Left, diagram of the PNG, detector position, and SNGD measurement principle (after Weller et al. 2005). Right, diagram of Cs-137,
detector positions and GGD measurement principle (after Weller et al. 2005).

selected to highlight the similarities and differences between the two methods for determining formation
bulk density within the South China Sea region. All datasets have been acquired in 8 ½-in. hole sections
with various bottom hole assembly (BHA) configurations, and differing drilling conditions. Drilling muds
included synthetic oil-base and water-base compositions and ranged in weight between 1.19 g/cm3 (10
lbm/gal) and 1.5 g/cm3 (12.5 lbm/gal). Hole deviation ranged from 1 to 92°.
Physics of Measurement
The physics of the sourceless neutron-gamma density (SNGD) measurement is similar to that of the
traditional gamma-gamma density (GGD) measurement. The chief difference is in the source of gamma
rays used for the measurement. While the GGD measurement uses Cs-137, a chemical gamma-ray source,
the SNGD measurement uses neutrons from the PNG to generate its source of gamma rays. The magnitude
and location of this distributed source depends on the transport of neutrons into the borehole and formation
where they interact with atomic nuclei to produce inelastic gamma rays. From their points of origin, the
gamma rays travel to the detectors in an identical manner to the one that takes place in the GGD
measurement. Gamma rays arriving at the detector exhibit significant density sensitivity from undergoing
Compton scattering in the formation. Fig. 2 summarizes the source and detector configurations for the
different density measurements. The photoelectric effect is not measured as part of the SNGD acquisition
due to the high energy of the inelastic gamma rays.
The existing SNGD algorithm is based on a single gamma ray detector response. Field processed,
environmentally corrected, uncompensated bulk density measurement (RHON) is provided in both real
time and in memory.
The SNGD response is subject to a number of environmental effects, as a result of both the neutron and
gamma ray transport. Environmental corrections are applied for borehole size, mud weight, borehole
salinity and formation sigma. Details of the physics and corrections can be found in Evans et al. (2012)
and Reichel et al. (2012).
4 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 3—SNGD calculation summary.

Table 1—SNGD and GGD measurement specifications

The SNGD measurement is characterized for standard 8 ½-in. borehole size. An ultrasonic caliper
measurement built into the multi-function LWD tool is used to correct the density measurement for
borehole enlargement. Similar to GGD measurement, mud weight affects the SNGD measurement. The
SNGD mud weight correction is derived from experimental data and Monte Carlo modelling. Unlike
GGD, SNGD is affected by borehole salinity and formation sigma; this is because the process of
computing the inelastic count rate does not completely remove all capture effects, and small residual
effects due to borehole salinity and formation sigma remain. These are removed by using borehole salinity
values input by the user and sigma values measured by the multi-function LWD tool. The most important
sources of error are caliper and mud weight. Algorithm work continues to reduce the caliper dependency
of the density response (Reichel et al. 2012).
SNGD and conventional GGD measurement specifications are listed in Table 1. The SNGD measure-
ment is specified for boreholes up to 9 in. in size with the tool being run with a standard 8 ¼-in. stabilizer.
The different physics of the two types of density measurements results in some differences. The most
important difference between SNGD and conventional GGD measurements is the depth of investigation,
which is about 2.5 times greater for SNGD compared to GGD, as shown in Table 1. The SNGD has a
much larger volume of investigation compared to the GGD. Therefore, SNGD measurement is less
sensitive to borehole contact and shallow invasion. This can be important in gas intervals where invasion
often plays a significant role (the SNGD will be more sensitive to the uninvaded formation). In high-angle
wells, it is possible that the deeper-reading SNGD will be more affected by adjacent beds with a high
density contrast, although this was not observed in the studied wells. On the other hand, SNGD has a
correspondingly larger axial resolution (35 in.) compared to the GGD measurement (14 in.). As a
IPTC-18231-MS 5

Figure 4 —Well A, tracks 5 and 6 show the different axial resolution effect of SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over laminated
hydrocarbon-bearing zones. When the higher resolution RHOB measurement is resolution matched to the RHON measurement (right track) the
responses overlay.

consequence of high energy neutron and gamma ray physics focusing of the SNGD measurement is not
sufficient to provide borehole images. The SNGD accuracy is lower compared to that of the GGD,
especially over shale intervals, as presented in Table 1.
Local Validation Workflow
The introduction of new measurement requires validation at a number of levels. For the sourceless
neutron-gamma density (SNGD) measurement, extensive work has been performed during the research
and engineering phases, including comparison of the measurement in a large number of datasets from
around the globe (Reichel et al. 2012). It is also important that there is confidence in the measurement for
local conditions (geological and operational). A workflow has been developed and implemented in
Southeast Asia to compare the new SNGD with the conventional gamma-gamma density (GGD)
measurements. There are three main steps in the project workflow for SNGD validation: data collection,
preparation and processing, and quality control and density comparisons of SNGD with GGD.
Candidate well selection was based on wells in which both conventional GGD and the new SNGD
measurements have been made and where full calibrations were available for both density measurement
types. Wells were selected where the measurement range fell within the tool specifications; these are
representative of the majority of formations drilled in Southeast Asia. In addition, the wells were selected
to include a range of different drilling conditions typical of the local area. All field data were reprocessed
6 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 5—Well A, track 5 shows good correlation of SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over shale and a tight streak at xx47 m MD.

to ensure consistency of input parameters (caliper, mud weight, borehole salinity) for environmental
corrections.
All data were quality-controlled with checks made on calibrations, raw data, environmental corrections,
and the final output curves. Since borehole enlargement and variation of mud properties (mud weight and
mud salinity) could affect the accuracy of SNGD measurement, validity of caliper, mud properties, and
equivalent circulating density (ECD) measurements are important parts of the quality-control process. As
part of this step, it is important to understand operational conditions that could affect the SNGD results.
One example of this is where a motor has been used for steering the well. Over sliding intervals, the
quality of the GGD measurement depends on the direction the sensor is pointing and sensor standoff from
the borehole wall (i.e., generally worse if the sensors point to the high side in a deviated well). In contrast,
the low azimuthal sensitivity and greater depth of investigation of the SNGD measurement often results
in a better density measurement over sliding intervals. A further operational consideration for SNGD
acquisition relates to the time between turning the pumps on and the PNG providing full neutron output.
If drilling is resumed before the PNG start up cycle is complete, then poor quality data will be obtained
at the beginning of the stand. This does not occur under normal operating procedures, but has been seen
as an issue in exceptional circumstances.
The final validation step is to compare the SNGD to the GGD acquired with the same tool in the same
hole under the same conditions. All acquired density data have been plotted and examined depth by depth
IPTC-18231-MS 7

Figure 6 —Well B, track 5 shows good overlay of SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over oil-bearing sand and shale.

to check for variations or consistency in a range of different conditions. In addition, the data have been
analysed statistically on a well-by-well basis. The results are illustrated and described in the next section.

Field Examples and Results

When benchmarking sourceless neutron-gamma density (SNGD) to gamma-gamma density (GGD), the
differences and limitations of both density measurements must be taken into account. Specifications of
SNGD and GGD are described in Table 1. The acceptance criteria are based on a systematic evaluation
of measurements responses. The analysis is based on a set of numerical and interpretation criteria. Since
two independent measurements are compared, the maximum acceptable difference is defined as the sum
of the individual accuracies (Theys 1999). Thus, the total acceptable difference in clean formation
(sand/limestone/dolostone) is 0.040 g/cm3, and the total acceptable difference in shale is 0.060 g/cm3.
Figs. 4–19 display the case studies of wells A through well K. All examples were obtained in boreholes
drilled with an 8 ½-in. bit. All tools used were configured to be able to measure both the SNGD and the
GGD in the same run. All tools were configured with a standard 8 ¼-in. diameter stabilizer on the GGD
section.
Extracts of five of the wells (wells A to E) are shown in Figs. 4–11. Figs. 12 and 13, the density data
from each well are crossplotted as GGD versus SNGD, and the level-by-level differences are plotted as
histograms. The full set of data from the clastic wells has been plotted as a combined crossplot and
8 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 7— Well C, track 5 shows good correlation of SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over oil-bearing sand, shale, and shaly sand.

difference histogram (Figs. 14–17). Figs. 18 and 19 compare neutron-density crossplots from SNGD and
GGD.
Well A
The first example is a hydrocarbon-bearing laminated sand, shaly sand, shale sequence with occasional
tight streaks. Extracts are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The GGD is labeled RHOB and plotted as a solid red
curve. The SNGD is label RHON (density from neutrons) and plotted as a solid black curve. The well was
drilled using 1.32 g/cm3 (11 lbm/gal) synthetic oil-base mud (SOBM). The well deviation is building from
70 to 76°. The caliper indicates the borehole diameter is enlarged to nearly 9 in. The density correction
on GGD is less than 0.1 g/cm3 over the entire section. Sigma (SIFA) is lower than 30 c.u., and therefore
the sigma correction on SNGD is minimal. Fig. 4 shows the different axial resolutions of the two density
measurements (track 5), average gamma-gamma density (RHOB) and average neutron-gamma density
(RHON). The higher-resolution GGD measurement resolves the thin layers better. This is illustrated on
Fig. 4 just below X10 m measured depth (MD). To compare like with like, the average GGD (RHOB)
measurement was filtered to obtain 1-m axial resolution to match the resolution of the SNGD measure-
ment for display purposes. The two density measurements illustrate a better match after equalizing GGD
(RHOB) axial resolution (Fig. 4, track 6). A silty shale interval from the same well is shown in Fig. 5.
The two densities show a good match over this section of decreasing density with depth, including a tight
streak at x44 m MD. SNGD is within accuracy limits throughout the well and is of very good quality.
IPTC-18231-MS 9

Figure 8 —Well D, track 5 shows very good overlay of SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over shale and gas-bearing sand. Two
low-density coals are present near the base of the interval.

Well B
An oil-bearing sand and shale example is shown in Fig. 6. The well was drilled using 1.41 g/cm3 (11.8
lbm/gal) SOBM. The well is highly deviated, with an average inclination of 80°. The caliper indicates the
borehole is enlarged to approximately 9 to 10 in. The density correction on GGD is less than 0.1 g/cm3
except over a few high-density streaks. Over some of the shaly intervals, the density image indicates
borehole ovalization at the top of the hole. SNGD and GGD are slightly different because of the differing
axial resolutions and the borehole washout in some sections. SNGD is within accuracy limits throughout
the well.
Well C
Fig. 7 shows another clastic well example of oil-bearing sand, shale, and shaly sand. The well was drilled
with 1.4 g/cm3 (11.7 lbm/gal) SOBM. This is a horizontal well, with a maximum inclination of 92°. Fig.
7 shows an interval drilled updip through sands and shales. The caliper indicates the borehole size is
enlarged over the majority of the shaly sections. This can be seen in the RHON-RHOB crossplot (Fig. 12),
in which the SNGD quality-control flag is yellow due to borehole enlargement over some shaly zones.
SNGD and GGD are different over the interval where there is significant borehole washout, such as at
x195 m MD. Average density correction on GGD is less than 0.1 g/cm3; overall SNGD is within accuracy
limits throughout the well, and shows good overlay with the GGD measurement. Fig. 13 indicates more
10 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 9 —Well E, track 5 shows excellent overlay of SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over hydrocarbon-bearing limestone.

Figure 10 —SNGD (RHON) versus GGD (RHOB) crossplot represents all of the data from the carbonate well E, color coded by quality-control value.
SNGD is within accuracy limits throughout the well and shows excellent overlay
IPTC-18231-MS 11

Figure 11—Well E, difference between two independent SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements; the maximum acceptable difference for
limestone is red.

than 96% of data are falling within total acceptable difference, average difference is less than 0.01 g/cm3.
SNGD (RHON) average is fractionally lower than GGD (RHOB).

Well D
Fig. 8 shows a 57° inclination clastic well intersecting gas sands below x150 m MD. The well was drilled
with 1.2 g/cm3 (10 lbm/gal) SOBM. Borehole condition was good, hole size averaging approximately 8.7
in., and the density image indicates good hole. The density correction on GGD reads less than 0.1 g/cm3.
SNGD and GGD respond slightly differently because of axial resolution differences. The SNGD
measurement clearly detects, but does not fully resolve, the coal beds at x180 and x195 m MD. Note the
coals are outside the quoted measurement range for low-density formations (less than 1.7 g/cm3). Overall
SNGD measurement is within accuracy limits throughout the well and is of good quality. The RHON
versus RHOB crossplot shown in Fig. 12 demonstrates the good match between the two measurements.
Fig. 13 indicates more than 95% of data are falling within the total acceptable difference, with an average
density difference of 0.01 g/cm3. SNGD (RHON) average is fractionally lower than GGD (RHOB).

Well E
A carbonate section is shown in Figs. 9–11. The well was drilled with 1.5 g/cm3 (12.5 lbm/gal) water-base
mud (WBM). The well profile is almost vertical; well inclination does not exceed 1°. The caliper indicates
the borehole is in gauge. The density correction on GGD is generally low, although the density correction
goes up to approximately 0.1 g/cm3 over a few high-density peaks. The density image indicates good hole.
Sigma (SIFA) over entire carbonate section is less than 12 c.u., and therefore in a range in which the sigma
correction on SNGD is minimal. Overall SNGD is within accuracy limits throughout the well and overlay
very well with the GGD as shown in the RHON–RHOB crossplot (Fig. 10). The histogram in Fig. 11
shows that more than 94% of the data are falling within total acceptable difference; the average density
difference is less than 0.01 g/cm3. SNGD (RHON) average is fractionally higher than GGD (RHOB).
12 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 12—SNGD (RHON) versus GGD (RHOB) crossplots representing each of ten clastic well datasets, color coded by quality control value. SNGD
values plot within specified accuracy limits throughout the well and show very good overlay.
IPTC-18231-MS 13

Figure 13—Difference histograms for each of ten clastic wells, SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements difference is plotted, with limits
indicating maximum acceptable difference in sandstone is red and shale is blue. Data falling outside these limits is primarily caused by axial resolution
differences between the measurements
14 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 14 —SNGD (RHON) versus GGD (RHOB) crossplot representing ten clastic well datasets, color coded by gamma ray value. SNGD is within
accuracy limits throughout over the ten wells and shows good correlation. The spread is mainly caused by the different axial resolutions of the two
measurements.

Figure 15—Difference between two independent SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over ten clastic wells; maximum acceptable
difference for sand is red and for shale is blue. The graph Indicates 97% of data are falling within total acceptable difference; average difference is
less than 0.001 g/cm3. SNGD (RHON) average is fractionally higher than GGD (RHOB).
IPTC-18231-MS 15

Figure 16 —Difference between two independent SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over ten clastic wells; maximum acceptable
difference for sand is red. The graph Indicates 95% of data are falling within total acceptable difference; average difference is less than 0.001 g/cm3.
SNGD (RHON) average is fractionally higher than GGD (RHOB).

Figure 17—Difference between two independent SNGD (RHON) and GGD (RHOB) measurements over ten clastic wells; maximum acceptable
difference for shale is blue. The graph Indicates 99% of data are falling within total acceptable difference; average difference is less than 0.001 g/cm3.
SNGD (RHON) average is fractionally higher than GGD (RHOB).
16 IPTC-18231-MS

Figure 18 —Multiwell neutron-density crossplot using SNGD (RHON) across ten clastic wells, color coded by gamma ray value.

Figure 19 —Multiwell neutron-density crossplot using GGD (RHOB) across ten clastic wells, color coded by gamma ray value.

Comparisons of Clastic Well Data

Details of the ten clastic wells’ SNGD QC crossplots are shown in Fig. 12; SNGD and GGD measurement
difference histograms can be seen in Fig. 13. The QC flags exhibited in the well B data (yellow and red)
and well C data (yellow) are mainly due to borehole enlargement exceeding measurement specifications.
Multiwell
Figs. 14 to 17 display the SNGD and GGD measurement comparisons over all ten clastic wells drilled in
different lithologies, in different BHA configurations, under different drilling conditions and parameters.
IPTC-18231-MS 17

Almost 10,000 m MD of data is included in the crossplot and histograms. Overall, there is an excellent
match between the two measurements, Fig. 15 indicates that more than 97% of the data falls within total
acceptable difference and that the average density difference is less than 0.001 g/cm3. Figs. 16 and 17
show histograms of the full clastic dataset split based on a gamma ray cutoff. This broadly separates the
sand and shale intervals. Both these show differences between SNGD and GGD of less than 0.001 g/cm3
on average. As expected, there is a slightly greater spread in the data for the shalier rocks.

Neutron-Density Crossplot
SNGD interpretation techniques are identical to those developed for the traditional GGD measurement.
The neutron-density crossplot for SNGD (Fig. 18) is identical to those for GGD (Fig. 19). The
neutron-density data plotted represents data from ten clastic wells.

Conclusions
Extensive comparisons have been made between the formation density measurements derived from the
PNG (SNGD) and the traditional Cs-137 sourced GGD. The ten clastic and one limestone hole sections
have provided valuable comparisons and very good results both on a well-to-well basis and as a combined
dataset. The datasets encompass a range of the main formation and environmental conditions encountered
in Southeast Asia. Studied data includes 9,970 m MD in clastic reservoirs and 430 m MD in limestone
reservoirs. The difference of the two density measurements is within tool specifications, with the average
difference a statistically insignificant, 0.001 g/cm3. These examples show the strengths of the new density
measurement and its log response in the Southeast Asia basins. The data presented demonstrate that
SNGD is a viable alternative to conventional GGD in typical Southeast Asia geological formations and
drilling conditions. The comparisons give high confidence in the future use of the SNGD for challenging
wells, where the operating parameters are suitable. A stand-alone SNGD service has been successfully run
in more than twelve wells for different major operators in the Southeast Asia region so far, these being
boreholes where the use of chemical sources was considered a risk.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of PETRONAS, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn Bhd, and
Schlumberger for permission to prepare and present this paper.

Log Nomenclature
A16H/A28H/A40H : Attenuation resistivity (ohm.m)
BS : Bit size (in.)
DEVI : Deviation (degrees)
DRHO : Density correction applied to average gamma-gamma density
DRHB : Density correction applied to bottom gamma-gamma density
GRMA : Gamma ray average (gAPI)
P16H/P28H/P40H : Phase shift resistivity (ohm.m)
PNG : Pulsed-neutron generator
RHOB : Compensated gamma-gamma density average (g/cm3)
RHON : Neutron-gamma density average (g/cm3)
ROBB : Compensated gamma-gamma density from bottom quadrant (g/cm3)
ROP : Rate of penetration
ROSI : Density image
SIFA : Formation neutron capture cross section (c.u.)
TNPH : Thermal neutron porosity average (m3/m3)
18 IPTC-18231-MS

References
1. Evans, M., Allioli, F., Cretoiu, V., et al 2012. Sourceless Neutron-Gamma Density (SNGD): A
Radioisotope-Free Bulk Density Measurement: Physics Principles, Environmental Effects, and
Applications. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 8 –10 October. SPE 159334-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/159334-MS.
2. Griffiths, R. and Carnegie, A. 2006. Evaluation of Low Resistivity Pay in Carbonates. A
Breakthrough. Presented at the SPWLA 47th Annual Logging Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico,
4 –7 June. SPWLA-2006-E.
3. Reichel, N., Evans, M., Allioli, F. et al. 2012. Neutron-Gamma Density (NGD): Principles, Field
Test Results and Log Quality Control of A Radioisotope-Free Bulk Density Measurement.
Presented at the SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, Cartagena, Columbia, 16 –20 June.
SPWLA-2012-082.
4. Rodriguez, R., Weller, G., Evans, M. et al. 2009. A New Approach For Identifying Gas Reservoirs
Using Multiple LWD Density Measurements. Presented at the SPWLA 50th Annual Logging
Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 21–24 June. SPWLA-2009-73568.
5. Theys, P.P. 1999. Log Data Acquisition and Quality Control, second edition. France: Technip.
ISBN 9782710807483.
6. Weller, G., Griffiths, R., Stoller, C. et al. 2005. A New Integrated LWD Platform Brings
Next-Generation Formation Evaluation Services. Presented at the SPWLA 46th Annual Logging
Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 26 –29 June. SPWLA-2005-H.