A NEW APPROACH TO COMPUTING FORMATION DENSITY

AND Pe FREE OF MUDCAKE EFFECTS

F. Allioli, O. Faivre, L. Jammes, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing
M. Evans, Anadrill

ABSTRACT

attenuation of an incident monoenergetic photon

flux. In the borehole, this technique has to be
modified due to the geometrical constraints
imposed by a pad-mounted source-detector
system, which is applied to the borehole wall by a
backup arm. In such geometries, gamma-rays
scatter several times in the formation before being
detected by the crystal and the detector spectra are
analyzed in order to estimate the physical
properties that govern photon interaction with
matter.

Density measurements are generally affected by

the presence of mudcake against the formation. In
order to correct for such environmental effects, a
density device comprises several detectors having
different depths of investigation. Algorithms in
current use combine the different sensor
measurements in order to derive corrected
formation density as a function of the detector
count rates.

In the real world, borehole conditions often dictate

the need for compensation due to poor pad
application caused by standoff or the presence of
mudcake. As a result, density devices use several
detectors with different depths of investigation.
The resulting differences in sensitivity to mudcake
or standoff are used to eliminate this
environmental
effect.
Traditional
density
algorithms perform the correction using the
difference in apparent densities measured at near
and far spaced detectors via the so-called spine &
ribs algorithm, fully described by Tittman and
Wahl, (1965).

In this paper, we discuss a measurement analysis

technique based on physical response models of
the sensors. These models predict the tool
response as a function of various physical and
geometrical
parameters
affecting
the
measurement. Given a set of measurements with
different depths of investigation, the inversion of
the response equations using iterative techniques
will allow the computation of formation
parameters free of mudcake effects. The use of a
forward model-based inversion brings the
following advantages compared to previous
analysis techniques; optimal estimation, error
characterization and solution control.

INTRODUCTION

The density algorithm discussed in this paper

introduces a new approach, based on a physical
response model of the sensors. It has been
developed for the three detector density device of
*
the PLATFORM EXPRESS , already presented by
Eyl et al, (1994). A schematic drawing of the
device, shown in figure 1, indicates the relative
positions of the detectors (backscatter, shortspacing and long-spacing), with respect to the
Cesium-137 logging source. The energy spectra
measured by the three detectors are binned into
energy windows for data analysis. A non-linear
response model, linking count rates to formation
parameters, is established for each energy
window. The set of equations so formed is

Gamma-gamma density measurements are

traditionally made by measuring the exponential

The first part of the paper details how the

parametric forward model is established and
calibrated, using reference experimental data and
a priori knowledge of the physics of Compton
scattering and of the photoelectric effect. In the
second part, the inversion algorithm based on the
minimization of a cost function is presented. The
minimization technique, the computation of errors
in formation parameters, and the constraints and
control of the solution are discussed and
illustrated by several examples.

Mark of Schlumberger

inverted in order to derive the formation and

mudcake physical properties.

source, the second at a distance x2 from the first

collision, leaving a distance x3 between this last
collision location and the detector (see figure 2).
In this case the probability of detecting this
photon can be expressed by the relation:

There are a number of advantages to inverting a

set of nonlinear response equations. This approach
permits the optimal treatment of measurement
errors, and provides the optimal estimation of
formation density and photoelectric factor from
the acquired measurements. In addition,
confidence outputs on the estimations of the
physical properties can be easily computed and
serve as indicators of the log accuracy.

W e 1 ( E1 ) x1 e 2 ( E2 ) x2 e 3 ( E3 ) x3 (2)

where i(Ei) is the total mass attenuation

coefficient (due to Compton scattering plus
photoelectric absorption) for a photon of energy
Ei, and is the formation density. More generally
the count rate in a small energy window centered
around En+1 can be written in the form:

FORWARD RESPONSE MODEL

n +1

(E )x
n i =1 i i i

W e

The forward model expresses the energy window

count rates as a function of formation and
mudcake properties, according to the physical
laws that govern photon interactions with matter .

where n is the number of collisions. The detector

sensitivity to density can be derived from the
above expression:

Homogeneous formations and mudcakes are

generally assumed corresponding to a step radial
profile in density and Pe as indicated in figure 1.
With this formation model, the three different
detector responses depend on five state
parameters: , the formation electronic density, Pe
the formation photoelectric factor, m, the
mudcake electronic density, Pem, the mudcake
photoelectric factor and hmc, the mudcake
thickness or standoff.

dW
W

n +1
d
= (n i ( E i ) x i )

i =1

(4)

As can be seen in this formula, the sign of the

sensitivity to density can be either positive or
negative, depending on the relative importance of
the two terms. For the backscatter detector, the
photon track length xi is very small and the
second term is smaller than the first, leading to a
positive sensitivity to density. For the longspacing and short-spacing detectors, the second
term is predominant compared to the average
number of collisions and the sensitivity to density
is thus negative. The function chosen to model the
response follows this form for the sensitivity to
density.

PARAMETRIC FORWARD MODEL

An "ideal" forward model would be given by the
solution of the Boltzmann transport equation,
which has no simple analytic form for the
complex sensor environment. In order to get a
tractable expression of the forward model, the
detector responses are parametized as non-linear
functions of formation and mudcake properties:
Wij = f ij ( , Pe, m , Pe m , h mc )

(3)

In equation (3), the attenuation term is dependent

on density and Pe and, as such, both terms are
included in the forward model. Since the mean
collision number is close to 1 for the photons
detected in the backscatter crystal, a single
scattering term, linear in , is introduced in the
forward model:

(1)

for energy window i of detector j.

In the case of no mudcake, the analytical
expression of the sensitivity to density can be
derived from physical considerations. Lets
assume that a detected photon has two collisions
in the formation, the first at a distance x1 from the

BS: W = a1e

a 2 a 3 Pe

+ a4

(5)

For the short and long-spacing detector responses,

the attenuation is dominant. The linear term in
can even be omitted for the long-spacing detector
response.
SS: W = b1 5 e
b

LS: W = c1e

b2 b3 Pe

c 2 c3 Pe

+ b4

the computed values of density and Pe, obtained

by an inversion of the measurements using the no
mudcake model. In this case where the properties
of the formation can be determined from each
sensor separately, their different values have to be
consistent, within a specified accuracy which
depends on the detector sensitivity. Note that the
accuracy computed with the three sensors is less
3
than or equal to 0.01 g/cm .

(6)

+ c4

(7)

a2, b2 and c2 are proportional to the Compton

scattering cross-section and the average track
length of the photons in the formation; a3, b3 and c3,
are proportional to the photoelectric absorption
cross-section and a1 ,b1 and c1 are related to the
total photon flux output by the logging source, the
source-detector spacing, the detector collimation,
etc.

The remaining parameters needed to account for

the mudcake effect are determined separately for
both non-barite and barite mudcakes The physical
properties of formation blocks and mudcakes
present in the database vary over the following
range:

1.70
1.2

When mudcake is present in front of the

formation, a more complex relation takes into
account mudcake density, Pe and thickness. The
general form for the forward model is shown
below:
W = 1 5 e

( )

2 3Pe 6hmc 7 hmc Pe

Non-barite mudcakes
Barite mudcakes
3
3
1.25<m < 2.35 g/cm 1.48 <m < 1.98 g/cm
1.57<Pem< 1.91
10 <Pem< 100
0 <hmc< 1.5 in
0 <hmc< 0.5 in

)
(8)

1+ f + g

In addition, the response in a water tank was

recorded and entered as a reference point, to
ensure correct model behavior at low density.

where f and g are only functions of mudcake

properties, and the two exponential terms
h

( )

Formations
3
< < 3.03g/cm
<Pe< 6.0

Figure 4 shows the results of the three sensor

inversion on a subset of the database
measurements, as a function of mudcake
thickness. The full database comprises 420 and
660 points for non-barite and barite conditions
respectively. They are presented for three different
formations and two different mudcake types .

(Pe)

e 6 mc
and
e 7 mc
express
the
difference in attenuation between the mudcake
and the formation, with = m and

Pe = Pe m Pem .
MODEL PARAMETER DETERMINATION

Any limitations in mud weight and mudcake

thickness for the barite algorithm are due to the
limited range of the database for these conditions.
Extension of the database to the domain of thick
barite mudcakes permits use of the model and the
algorithm under more extreme conditions.

All of the model parameters are determined by a

weighted least-square fit to a database of reference
measurements performed in well defined
formation and mudcake conditions. This database
was recorded in the Environmental Effect
Calibration Facility in Houston which was
designed for the characterization of nuclear
logging tools.

INVERSION ALGORITHM

A first fit was carried out on measurements

without mudcake, in order to optimize the model
under these conditions. Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show

The inversion algorithm permits estimation of the

formation density and photoelectric factor,
together with the mudcake properties, from the

calibrated count rates. It can be briefly described

as a recursive solution of an inverse problem
(Tarantola, (1987)) and its output is the vector of
physical parameters at each depth level.

measures the relative difference between the

actual measurement W and the theoretical
response F().
C1 = (W F ( )) T R 1 (W F ( ))

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION

EACH DEPTH LEVEL

AT

(9)

where

W is the vector of the measurements ,

W = (WBS , WSS , WLS )

F is a nonlinear multi-dimensional forward

model,
p is the vector of physical parameters (,
Pe, m, Pem, hmc)
b is a centered Gaussian noise, with
covariance matrix R.

WSi is the measurement error or statistical

noise, a function of the logging speed.
(Wi + Bkgi )V
WSi =
dz
where Bkgi is the background of energy window i,
V is the logging speed and dz is the depth
sampling interval.
The second term C2 is a regularization term,
which measures the distance from the solution to
the a priori estimate pap. The a priori estimate of
the solution is taken as the previous depth
estimate so this regularization term can be
understood as a smoothness condition.

(10)

pap is also regarded as a realization of a random

vector with multivariate normal distribution,
centered around the true value p, of the physical
parameters and with covariance matrix P.
Moreover b and b are considered as independent
realizations.

C2 = ( pap ) T P 1 ( pap )
5

( p previous ) 2

j =1

p 2

COST FUNCTION

(13)

P (or p ) is determined to provide formation

density and Pe at a resolution consistent with the
resolution of the measurements (BS, SS and LS),
after filtering, depth- and resolution-matching.

Following the maximum likelihood estimation

method detailed in appendix 1, the solution is
given at each depth level by the minimum of the
quadratic cost function C:
C( ) = C1 + C2 + C3

2
with Wi2 = WMi
+ WSi2
where:

WMi is the forward model error

State equation:
It is also assumed that we have a current (a priori)
estimate of the physical parameter vector, denoted
by pap.
pap = p + b

(12)

Wi
where it is assumed that
W12
0

R=
...

0
Wn2

i =1

Measurement equation: The problem to be solved

at each depth level is of the form:
W = F ( p) + b

(Wi Fi ( )) 2

In addition to the two usual terms, a third term C3

is added to control the stability of the solution
when formation and mudcake parameters are far
from the database range - mainly in the case of
large standoff.

(11)

where Ci are defined below.

The first term of the cost function, denoted by C1,
is a measurement reconstruction error term, which

C3 = ( p ) T Q 1 ( p )
5

( p )2

j =1

C3 =

LOG PROCESSING SEQUENCE

(14)

The processing sequence is presented in figure 5.

Each detector energy spectrum is measured downhole and then divided into energy windows. After
dead-time correction, these count rates are
transmitted up-hole for processing. Their depth
index is adjusted to correct for irregularities in the
tool motion, as discussed in Belougne et al,
(1996).

p is an average value of the parameter vector.

The importance of this term in the cost function is

adjusted on line. When the solution is well within
-1
the database Q is taken to be zero.

Hi = F (i )

After background subtraction, the three detector

count rates are calibrated, in order to reconstruct
the reference tool response corresponding to the
forward model.
The algorithm uses as inputs the calibrated energy
window count rates. They are first filtered at their
individual resolutions, then depth- and resolutionmatched. Corrections for hole size and fluid
effects are made, taking into account any
differences from
the reference borehole
conditions. The second phase of the processing
performs the inversion of the measurement
equations as described in the previous section.

Ki = PHiT ( Hi PHiT + R) 1

CALIBRATION

MINIMIZATION
The minimization of the cost function is
performed using a quasi Gauss-Newton method
and consists of finding a root of the gradient
function. At a given depth n, the minimization
algorithm equations are the following:

0 = p
i +1 = pap + Ki (W F (i ) Hi ( pap i )) (15)
where

Writing i = when convergence is achieved, we

have:

The aim of the calibration is to transform the

response of a given tool to match that of the
reference tool used to estimate the forward model
parameters.

p$ + (n) =

(
)1
= (I K H )P

P+ = H t RH + P 1

(16)
A minimum of two points is required to determine
accurately the calibration gains and offsets which
have to be applied to the count rates. These points
are provided by measurements in aluminum and
magnesium blocks, with and without an iron
sleeve inserted between the tool and block.
Measurements with the sleeve are needed to
calibrate low energy window count rates.

p$ + is the maximum likelihood estimate and P+ ,

the a posteriori covariance matrix which provides
the errors on estimations.

If the forward model is accurate and the errors

well identified, such an inversion technique gives
an optimal estimation of the physical properties.
All available information is analyzed, and both
measurement and model errors are introduced
through the measurement covariance matrix, in
order to properly define the weight of each
measurement in the cost function. Another
advantage of this method is an excellent quality
control of the solution, as described in the next
section.

The use of four points for the determination of

calibration coefficients provides some level of
redundancy and permits erroneous calibration
measurements to be identified. Results are
displayed in a calibration report.
BOREHOLE EFFECT
A few photons scatter through the borehole fluid
before reaching the detector. This component of
the spectrum is linked to the borehole size and

fluid properties. Since the response model is

established in an 8-in. diameter water-filled
borehole, a correction is necessary for different
borehole conditions. This correction is performed
on the calibrated count rates prior to computation
of the formation properties.

set on the reconstruction errors and database

range.
Global error computation
An accurate estimation of the diagonal elements
of the covariance matrix R is not critical for the
minimum definition. Only their relative values
have to be respected. To get an accurate
estimation of the errors on the estimations, the
covariance
matrix
is re-estimated
after
minimization.
The C1 term, as a sum of gaussian variables,
2
should follow a distribution with a number of
degrees of freedom, , equal to the number of
measurements minus the number of unknowns,
with the resulting property:

VERTICAL RESOLUTION
With three detectors, two different sets of
estimates can be computed. One is a highresolution estimate which uses the backscatter and
short-spacing measurements, whereas the other
has a standard resolution and uses all three
detectors. The reconstruction errors obtained at
low resolution are used as an estimation of low
frequency varying offset errors on the count rates,
and are subtracted from high-resolution depthmatched measurements. This is described in detail
in Chapellat et al, (1996). Such an offset
recalibration procedure ensures that the highresolution estimates follow, on average, those at
low-resolution. However, the necessary trade-off
between robustness and resolution must be
appreciated as robust measurements in bad
borehole conditions will only be obtained by use
of all three detector measurements

+
1 n Wj Fj ( p )
=
j =1
W 2j

=1

(17)

The covariance matrix R is adjusted to verify this

property. In other terms, the measurement errors
( Wj ) are modified - and generally increased - to
be consistent in magnitude with the reconstruction
errors (residuals).
W j =

LOG QUALITY CONTROL

C1
W j

(18)

The a posteriori covariance matrix P+ is recomputed using the modified matrix R.

Reconstruction errors
Reconstruction errors, defined as the relative
difference between reconstructed and measured
count rates are computed for each energy window.
Wmeas Wmodel
W =
Wmeas

The advantage of this technique is that it translates

all sources of errors - on the measurements
(statistical errors or offsets due to calibration), on
the forward or the formation models (offsets) - to
errors in density and Pe. These outputs permit a
very quick check of the log quality and provide
the right level of confidence on density and Pe
estimates that can be entered in later petrophysical
analyses.

A plot of these errors allows a quick check of the

log quality- large reconstruction errors can
indicate a poor or bad calibration (in particular
when the logging source is different from the
calibration source) or bad convergence due to
forward model limitations. Large errors can also
be obtained when the algorithm selected (barite or
no-barite) does not correspond to the logging
conditions.

EXAMPLES
All the experimental results discussed in this
paper have been recorded with the PLATFORM
EXPRESS density tool.

Quality Control Processing Flags

Two synthetic processing flags are computed in
real-time, to allow a check of both density and Pe
measurement quality. They are triggered by limits

Figure 6 shows a comparison run with the LithoDensity* tool in an anhydrite-shale sequence.

High count rates of the backscatter detector

together with the new processing allow a marked
improvement in the statistical precision in dense
formations, both in density and Pe.

level of quality control on the

processing for each measurement.

inversion

CONCLUSION

Global error computation takes into account all

sources of error, especially those related to
inherent statistical fluctuations and calibration. To
study only the influence of statistical fluctuations,
these errors in density and Pe can be computed in
a simulated log for different logging speeds.
Figure 7 presents the results, computed in the case
of diabase. The density and Pe errors increase
with the logging speed, following the value of the
C1 term of the cost function. The table below gives
the mean value of the errors. Their evolution
reflects the change in statistical fluctuations.

Logging
speed
(ft/hr)
900
1800
3600

()
-2
3
(10 g/cm )

(Pe )
(Pe unit)

0.55
0.94
1.51

0.04
0.06
0.09

The basic principles of a forward model based

inversion technique and its application in density
logging have been discussed. This method
presents the following advantages:

The forward model is based on knowledge of

the physics of photon propagation in matter
(Compton scattering and photoelectric
absorption). Its accuracy can be controlled.
The entire spectrum from each detector is
used in the inversion. All density, Pe and
standoff information contained in the window
count rates is automatically taken into
account by the forward model and inversion
technique.
Both measurement and forward model errors
are considered in the inversion through the
measurement covariance matrix.

Within this framework, the estimation of

formation and mudcake properties is optimized as
all types of information (measurements, errors,
and a priori solutions) are introduced and
automatically weighted according to their relative
importance. In addition, true measurement errors
can be computed that take into account all sources
of uncertainty. This is in part due to the strong
degree of redundancy in the information available
from new generation logging tools, such as the
PLATFORM EXPRESS density device where
eleven measurements from three detector spectra
are used to solve for the five unknowns (formation
and mud properties).

Figure 8(a) shows computed errors in density and

Pe when the logging source was different from the
calibration source. The high error level shows the
lack of confidence on the density and Pe
estimates, confirmed by the large values of the
resulting reconstruction errors, particularly for the
backscatter and short-spacing detectors (figure
8(b)). These results have to be compared with the
corresponding figures 9(a) and 9(b), obtained with
the correct calibration where the reconstruction
errors fluctuate around zero for all sensors and the
error values on estimations are small.
The PLATFORM EXPRESS density device is colocated on the same pad as the micro-resistivity
device described by Eisenman et al., (1994). A
mudcake thickness (hmc) can also be derived from
this sensor and the comparison of the two
standoffs improves the degree of confidence on
each estimate. Figure 10 shows
such a
comparison with good agreement between
mudcake thickness estimations computed from
both density and resistivity measurements. The
two estimations compare very well with the
caliper measurements. This provides an additional

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the oil companies
involved for permission to present examples of
their data.

REFERENCES
Belougne V., Faivre O., Jammes L. and Whittaker
S., Real time speed correction of logging data,

SPWLA 37th Annual Logging Symposium, New

Orleans, June 16-19, 1996.

tools. In 1986 he joined the Logging While

Drilling project and is involved in the design of
nuclear tools.

Chapellat H. and Jammes L., Logging method

and apparatus using a pad to measure density, US
Patent 5,528,029, June 18, 1996.

Ollivier
Faivre
graduated
from
Ecole
Polytechnique in 1974. He joined Schlumberger in
1976 and worked as a field engineer in Asia. In
1982, he entered the Reservoir Description group,
in Singapore. After various field positions in
interpretation, he joined Engineering in 1991 to
work on the interpretation of new tools. Since
1994, he has been developing real-time
interpretation answer products for PLATFORM
EXPRESS. He is presently Sensor Physics &
Interpretation metier manager in the Schlumberger
Product Development Center in Clamart, France.

Eisenmann P., Gounot M-T., Juchereau B.,

Trouiller J-C. and Whittaker S, Improved Rxo
measurements through semi-active focusing,SPE
Paper 28437, presented at the 69th Annual
Convention, New Orleans, September 25-28,
1994.
Eyl K.A., Chapellat H., Chevalier P., Flaum C.,
Whittaker S., Jammes L. and Becker A. J. and
Groves J., High-Resolution Density Logging
Using A Three Detector Device, SPE Paper
28407, presented at the 69th SPE Annual
Convention, New Orleans, September 25-28,
1994.

Laurent Jammes graduated from Ecole Centrale

de Paris in 1984, prior to receiving a doctorate in
Nuclear Physics at the C.E.A. in Saclay. He joined
Etude et Productions Schlumberger in Clamart in
1988 and worked as a nuclear physicist on density
measurement. Since 1992, he has been managing
the Physics and Data Integration Program for
the PLATFORM EXPRESS project.

Moake G. L., A new approach to determining

compensated density and Pe values with a spectralnd
density tool, SPWLA 32 Annual Logging
Symposium, June 16-19, 1991
Tarantola A. Inverse Problem
ELSEVIER, New York 1987

APPENDIX 1
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION

Theory,

Tittman J. and Wahl J.S., The physical

foundations of formation density logging (gammagamma), Geophysics, (1965) Volume 30 No. 2
pp.284-294.

Measurement and state equations can be rewritten

as:

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

The problem can now be formulated to compute a

W~

pap ~

( F ( p ), R )

( p, P )

better estimation of p, p$ + , knowing pap and W.

The solution retained is the Maximum Likelihood
estimate which maximizes the Likelihood function
L( ), defined as:

Francoise Allioli received a doctorate in Nuclear

Physics from the University Paris-VII Jussieu in
1994. She joined Etudes et Production
Schlumberger in Clamart in 1994 and worked as a
nuclear physicist on the PLATFORM EXPRESS
density measurement algorithm.

L ( ) =

Mike Evans is presently a senior development

engineer in the Nuclear Tools group for Anadrill
in Sugar Land, Texas. He worked as a staff
member at Los Alamos National Laboratory after
graduating from Texas A&M University in 1976
with a Ph.D. in physics. He joined Schlumberger
in 1981 at the Houston engineering center where
he worked on several wireline nuclear logging

e
e

1
(2 ) m R 1

1
( 2 ) n P 1

1
(W F ( ) ) T R 1 (W F ( ))
2

1
( pap ) T P 1 ( pap )
2

The Maximum Likelihood estimate p$ + for p is

given by:
p$ + = arg max L( )

Or equivalently
problem:

p$ +

solves the minimization

p$ + = arg min C( )
where
1
C( ) = [(W F ( )) T R 1 (W F ( ))
2

+ ( pap ) P 1 ( pap )]

LS

Formation
SS

Detector

x 3 , 3 (E3 )

BS
Source

x 2 , 2 (E 2 )

Formation
density

Mudcake
density
Mud density
hmc
(Mudcake thickness or standoff)

Source

x1 , 1(E1 )

Figure 1. Platform Express density device and density radial

profile.
Figure 2. Example of a photon scattered twice in
the formation before being detected .

De ns ity
model-theoretical
(g/cc)
model-theoritical
(g/cc)

0.06
0.04
Series1

0.02

3 sensors

Series2
BS

Series3
SS

-0.02

Series4

LS

-0.04
-0.06
1.6

1.8

2.2
2.4
2.6
th e o ri ti ca l de n s i ty (g /cc)

2.8

theoretical density (g/cc)

Figure 3a: Density estimation errors on the whole database measurements without mudcake. The
accuracy of the density estimated by each sensor separately depends on its sensitivity. The accuracy of
density computed with 3 sensors is less than or equal to 0.01g/cc.
Pe

0.5

model-theoretical

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
1

theoretical Pe (Pe unit)

Figure 3b. Pe estimation errors on the whole database measurements without mudcake. Accuracy of Pe
computed with 3-sensors is less than or equal to 0.1.

Inversion results: Density

2.9

Mg/mc1
Mg/mc2

Computed density (g/cc)

2.7

B-lime/mc1
B-lime/mc2

2.5

Dol/mc1
Dol/mc2

2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Mudcake thickness (inch)

Figure 4. 3 detector inversion results for three formations as a function of the mudcake thickness. The
table below lists formation and mudcake properties:
Formation

Density
3
(g/cm )
Mg=Magnesium
1.75
B_lime= Bedford lime 2.44
Dol=Dolimite
3.03

Pe

Mudcake

2.55
4.85
3.14

mc1- No barite
mc2- barite

Density
3
(g/cm )
1.51
1.48

Pe
1.67
48

Raw data
(count rates)
Depth-matching
Res.-matching

Dead time

Borehole
correction

Calibration
Background

Hole diameter
Mud density

Measurement
inversion

Physical properties
(Density, Pe, Standoff)

Figure 5. Sequence of processing modules.

10

Figure 6. PLATFORM EXPRESS/LDT density and Pe comparison in anhydrite/shale sequence.

11

Figure 7. Log simulation at three different logging speeds together with statistical uncertainties (one
standard deviation error).

Figure 8a. Density and Pe estimations in case of a wrong logging source.

12

Figure 8b. Corresponding reconstruction errors.

Figure 9a. Density and Pe estimations obtained with the correct calibration.

13

Figure 9b. Corresponding reconstruction errors.

14

Figure 10 . Comparison between density and micro-resistivity estimations of standoff.

15