Field-Test Results of a Three-Phase Holdup
Measurement in Horizontal Wells With a
Pulsed-Neutron Source
B.A. Roscoe, SPE, Schlumberger-Doll Research
Summary
A new method of obtaining three-phase holdup (oil/water/gas)
information in horizontal wells has been field tested. The method
uses the data available from a pulsed-neutron tool. This measure-
ment uses the inelastic near/far countrate ratio in addition to the
near and far carbon/oxygen (C/O) ratios. The inelastic near/far
countrate ratio response is dominated by gas in the borehole,
whereas the near and far C/O ratios are used to separate the water
and oil contributions of the borehole and formation. By using a
linear programming approach, this information is combined to
produce quantitative three-phase holdup answers. Calibration of the
measurement is achieved by the combined use of laboratory mea-
surements and Monte Carlo modeling predictions.
To obtain independent verification of the three-phase holdup
answer, a local probe tool was run in combination with the pulsed-
neutron tool. The local probe tool is sensitive to two phases (water
and hydrocarbon) and, hence, can be used for a partial verification
of results. Field-test results show good agreement between the two
independent measurements under various conditions of gas, oil, and
water holdup in the horizontal borehole.
Introduction
Because horizontal wells have become more prevalent, the ability
to reliably evaluate the production performance of these wells has
become increasingly important. Existing production logging tech-
niques, such as spinners, that have been successfully used in
vertical wells cannot always be applied to horizontal wells with full
confidence because of segregated flow in the borehole.1 For this
reason, new techniques must be developed to evaluate oil and water
flow rates in horizontal wells.
To determine the flow rates of the oil and water phases in a
horizontal well, one must either measure the individual oil and
water flow rates directly, or measure the individual oil and water
velocities in addition to their holdups. (It should be noted that for
most production logging applications in horizontal wells measuring
only the holdup or only the velocity of the production fluids is
usually insufficient to determine the source of production prob-
lems.) This paper will address part of the second approach, the
measurement of individual oil, water, and gas holdups. Once
determined, these holdups can be combined with velocity infor-
mation, obtained from several possible approaches2, 3, 4 to obtain oil
and water flow rates.
The Three-Phase Holdup Log (TPHL) method described is a way
of obtaining three-phase holdup (oil/water/gas) in horizontal wells
by using the data available from a pulsed-neutron tool. For this
measurement, the Reservoir Saturation Tool (RST)5, 6 is used be-
cause it has several measurements that are differentially sensitive
to the various fluids in the borehole. This tool was originally
designed to measure the oil saturation of the formation without
depending on formation water salinity. This was accomplished with
a C/O measurement. A large part of converting a C/O measurement
into oil saturation is accounting for the effect of the borehole on the
measurement. To determine the formation oil saturation properly,
the borehole composition must be known reasonably well. In
Copyright 1998 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 51362) was revised for publication from paper SPE 38704, first
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, 5–8 October. Original manuscript received for review 21 October 1997.
Revised manuscript received 1 July 1998. Paper peer approved 8 July 1998.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998
general, a 5% error on the borehole composition can cause a
15-saturation unit error in the formation oil saturation. For this
reason, the RST tool was designed with two detectors to compen-
sate for the borehole effect.
To determine the three-phase holdup in a well, the RST tool uses
the inelastic near/far countrate ratio in addition to the near and far
C/O ratios. The inelastic near/far countrate ratio response is dom-
inated by gas in the borehole, whereas the near and far C/O ratios
are used to separate the water and oil contributions of the borehole
and formation. When this information is properly combined, a
quantitative measurement of the three-phase holdup can be ob-
tained that is independent of flow rate.
Tool Characterization
One of the biggest challenges in characterizing the tool response for
a three-phase holdup measurement is the acquisition of realistic
data because of the difficulty and hazards of performing laboratory
measurements with gas under realistic downhole conditions. Air is
usually used to simulate the effects of gas for these measurements;
however, real downhole gas has appreciable density and elemental
constituents that cannot be ignored. Therefore, tool characterization
depends heavily on tool response modeling using Monte Carlo
techniques. The Monte Carlo code MCBEND,7 developed by AEA
Technology in Winfrith, U.K., has been used for this work. To
ensure that the Monte Carlo data can be used in a quantitative
manner, a careful process was followed to gain confidence in the
model and benchmark the results. The process of validating the
Monte Carlo model has been published previously8 and includes the
following: performing benchmarked laboratory measurements sim-
ulating three-phase holdup conditions in horizontal wells using air
to simulate gas; modeling the tool response using Monte Carlo
techniques under the conditions measured in the laboratory to
benchmark the model; and modeling the tool response to three-
phase holdup using realistic downhole gas characteristics.
Interpretation Algorithm
To determine three-phase holdup quantitatively, measurements of
the near and far C/O ratios and the inelastic near/far ratio must be
transformed into gas, oil, and water holdup in a reasonably robust
manner. The following equations are relevant to this process in that
they give the relationship between the measured parameters and the
formation and borehole parameters.
CN N1 1 N2 fSO 1 N3 @ yO 1 yG ~rG /rO !#
RN 5 5 , . . . . . . (1)
ON N4 1 N5 f~1 2 SO ! 1 N6 ~1 2 yO 2 yG !
CF F1 1 F2 fSO 1 F3 @ yO 1 yG ~rG /rO !#
RF 5 5 , . . . . . . . (2)
OF F4 1 F5 f~1 2 SO ! 1 F6 ~1 2 yO 2 yG !
NI
and RI 5 5 G1 2 G2 yO 2 G3 yG 2 G4 fSO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
FI
In these equations, R, RF, and RI are the near and far C/O ratios
and inelastic near/far ratio, respectively; the N1 to N6 and the F1 to
F6 coefficients are the normal C/O interpretation coefficients used
for formation saturation determination9 (calculated with the tool
centralized rather than eccentralized); yW, yO, and yG are the water,
oil, and gas holdups, respectively; rG and rO are the downhole gas
and oil densities, respectively; SO is the oil saturation, f is the
porosity; and the G1 to G4 coefficients are the parameterization for
449
 Fig. 1—Input data for TPHL model for Example 1. The well had a 6-in. barefoot completion in an
8 p.u. limestone formation. The downhole condensate and gas densities were 0.58 and 0.20 g/mL,
respectively. It was logged at 1,000 ft/hr.
the inelastic near/far ratio as a function of water, oil, and gas
holdup. These equations assume that the carbon contribution from
the gas scales with gas density. This assumption appears to be
reasonably robust if the gas is hydrocarbon. (The equation must be
reformulated if the gas is nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or steam.)
Inherent to these equations are the assumptions that the borehole
holdups sum to unity and that the formation oil and water satura-
tions also sum to unity (no gas in the formation), i.e.,
1 5 yO 1 yW 1 yG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
and 1 5 SO 1 SW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
The determination of the N, F, and G coefficients depends on the
formation properties and the borehole completion. The G coeffi-
cients are calculated from a regression to either modeled or labo-
ratory data. The derivation of the N and F coefficients is discussed
in the literature.8 For the rest of this section, we will assume that
all these parameters are known.
Given the above equations and data, there are five unknowns (yO,
yW, yG, SO, and SW) and five equations; this means that they can all
be solved for directly. If adequate statistics are available in the
measurement, this can be done straightforwardly; however, with
limited statistics, the poor orthogonality of the borehole and for-
mation response causes some problems in the solution, making it
appear very noisy. The dominating factor is the determination of the
formation oil and water saturations. Large error fluctuations in
these parameters, because of statistics, result in large perturbations
in the holdup answers. One way of addressing this is to set the
saturations to some fixed value (say 50%) and solve for the holdups
directly. This dramatically improves the precision of the determi-
nation, but it also results in a noticeable and unpredictable bias in
the answer. By letting the saturations float, the accuracy is im-
proved, but the precision is degraded.
The approach used to date is based on solving for all parameters
simultaneously. If the precision on formation saturations is poor,
they are just ignored and not reported. To make the mathematical
solution more stable in poor statistical conditions, a constrained
solution has been used that limits the range of values for the
unknowns to reasonable values. The constraints imposed are
0 # yO # 1, 0 # yG # 1, 0 # yW # 1,
0 # fSO # f, and 0 # fSW # f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
Given Eqs. 1 through 5 and the constraints of Eq. 6, the problem
can be solved by use of a linear programming technique with
450
constraints. To implement the solution, the problem has been
reformulated such that the solver tries to minimize the following
function.
S D S D S D
RN 2 R0N 2
RF 2 R0F 2
RI 2 R0I 2
z5 1 1 , . . . . . . . . . . (7)
sR N sR F sR I
where the superscript 0 on the R terms indicates the reconstructed
ratio from Eqs. 1 through 3, and the nonsuperscripted value indi-
cates the measured value from logging. The sx values in the
denominator are the standard deviations of the various measured
parameters. If none of the constraints of Eq. 6 are violated, then the
linear programming solution will be identical to the algebraic
solution.
Field Tests
The field tests were performed with the PL Flagship tool string,
which incorporates measurements of oil velocity, water velocity
(by two independent methods), and water holdup in horizontal
wells through its various sensors. In addition, the tool string usually
contains spinners and pressure and temperature sensors. Field
testing the TPHL measurement with these other measurements
provides a way of at least partially validating the measurement
based on other independent measurements.
The FloView Plus measurement, which can measure the water
holdup in horizontal wells,10, 11 is of specific interest for these field
tests. This measurement is made by using eight local electrical
probes mounted on arms of a spring-centralizer system. The arms
open automatically in the wellbore. The probes are sensitive to the
passage of oil and water. A global estimate of the water holdup can
be made and an image of the distribution of the wellbore fluids
produced by combining the information from the eight local and
spatially separated probes. This measurement is a water holdup
measurement only because the electrical probes cannot differentiate
between oil and gas. In other words, they differentiate water from
hydrocarbons.
Example 1. Gas Well. The first example is from a gas well in the
Middle East. The well was completed with two lateral sections. The
overall purpose of the logging program was to better understand the
reservoir and inflow behavior before starting a stimulation pro-
gram. This was to be accomplished by logging one of the laterals
for a production profile and logging above both laterals to obtain
the production split. This was especially important because there
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998
 Fig. 2—Holdup log showing FloView Plus and TPHL results for Example 1.
were no production data available on the well. It was decided to run
the PL Flagship tool string to obtain redundancy in the measure-
ments because it was feared that debris in the well might cause
problems for some of the tool string sensors, such as the spinner.
The TPHL measurement was added to the logging plan because of
the need to measure gas holdup.
The well was a 6-in. borehole with a barefoot completion in a 8
porosity unit (p.u.) limestone formation. At downhole pressures and
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998
temperatures, the gas and condensate densities were 0.20 and 0.58
g/mL, respectively. The well was logged at a relatively high logging
speed of 1,000 ft/hr because the primary parameter of interest was
gas holdup. (This meant that oil/water differentiation would be
highly statistical.)
Fig. 1 shows the inputs from the RST tool that are used for the
TPHL processing. The inelastic near/far ratio is running around 1.1
for most of the well with a few positive excursions to higher values.
451
This agrees well with the modeling prediction of 1.1 for a gas-filled
hole under these conditions. (A borehole filled with fluid would
have an inelastic near/far ratio of about 1.9.) There are also regions
where the near and far C/O ratios indicate the presence of oil,
especially around the areas indicating decreased gas holdup.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the final interpreted log including both
FloView Plus and TPHL results. Fig. 2 shows these data in a
standard interpretation format. This includes information on the
well trajectory, which is useful in analyzing the results from the
client perspective. Fig. 3 shows a portion of the data where the
FloView Plus and TPHL holdup data are plotted on top of each
other (5-level depth smoothing). This helps increase confidence in
the results. It is important to remember that the FloView Plus
measurement can tell the difference only between water and hy-
drocarbon and is insensitive to changes from oil to gas. The
agreement between FloView Plus and TPHL water holdups is
excellent even with these poor statistics of oil/water holdup. In
addition, the TPHL measurement has identified the presence of
some oil (condensate) in the borehole in some sections of the well.
When the TPHL data were combined with other data from the
logging run, it became clear that most of the production came from
one lateral. In addition, some production was observed at the heel
of the well.
Example 2. Oil/Water/Gas. When logged, this well was a newly
drilled horizontal well producing 95% water and had twice the
gas/oil ratio of adjacent wells. This indicated that the well may have
intersected a suspected fault that was connected to a gas cap;
therefore, the well was logged to determine entries of unwanted
fluids. The TPHL measurement was one of the measurements used
to evaluate this well in addition to the entire PL Flagship tool string.
The well was drilled with a 61⁄8-in. drillbit and completed with a
41⁄2-in., 17 kg/m casing that was cemented in place. The well was
perforated at seven different intervals. The formation was reported
to be a 14 p.u. sandstone. At downhole pressures and temperatures,
the gas and oil densities were 0.19 and 0.74 g/mL, respectively. For
the TPHL measurement, the logging program included station
measurements between the perforation intervals (to coincide with
fluid velocity measurements) and a continuous pass at 600 ft/hr
over one zone of interest.
Fig. 3—Final TPHL results for Example 1. FloView Plus data are plotted on top of the TPHL data and show
good agreement with the TPHL water holdup measurement. The FloView Plus tool is insensitive to oil vs.
gas.
452
Fig. 4 shows the inputs from the RST tool that were used for the
TPHL processing of the continuous pass. The inelastic near/far ratio
is running around 2.1 for the lower part of the well, which indicates
that it is water-filled. (If the borehole was filled with gas, the
inelastic near/far ratio would be about 1.5.) As one goes up the well
from here, the inelastic near/far ratio starts decreasing because of
a reduced hydrogen index resulting from either the presence of oil
or gas with the largest perturbation being at about 700 ft. The near
and far C/O values also increase as they approach the 700- to 800-ft
interval, indicating an increase in carbon, which is probably be-
cause of hydrocarbon.
During the analysis of the well log data, it was observed that there
was an excess of carbon in the lower part of the well that could not
be explained by oil or gas in the borehole. A closer look at the data
indicated the presence of a large amount of calcium in this section
of the well. In actuality, the lower part of the well is not a pure
sandstone as originally assumed. This was confirmed by looking at
the capture and inelastic gamma ray spectra acquired by the RST
tool (during the TPHL logging) and forming a simple lithology ratio
from
Si
RLith 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
Si 1 Ca
This ratio was formed for both the capture and inelastic elemental
yields and these two ratios were then averaged (Fig. 5). Because of
the high logging speed, the data were heavily depth averaged;
however, the results clearly indicate that the lower part of the well
has carbonate concentrations up to '50%. For TPHL processing,
a mixture of 50% sandstone and 50% carbonate was assumed for
the lower section of the well. (However, this proportion is probably
not constant over this section of the well.) This lithological analysis
was accepted by the client. If the well had been logged at a slower
speed with the RST tool, then the SpectroLith processing could
have been applied to the data to give a more detailed picture of the
formation lithology.12
The interpretation was straightforward when the data were pro-
cessed assuming the better estimate of lithology. Figs. 6 and 7 show
the final interpreted log including both FloView Plus and TPHL
results. Fig. 6 shows the data in a standard interpretation format.
This includes information on the well trajectory, useful in analyzing
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998
 Fig. 4 —Input data for TPHL model for Example 2. The well was drilled with a 61⁄8-in. drill bit and
completed with a 41⁄2-in., 17 kg/m casing that was cemented in place. The formation was a
mixture of sandstone and carbonate with a porosity of '14 p.u. The downhole oil and gas
densities were 0.74 and 0.19 g/mL, respectively. It was logged at 600 ft/hr.

Fig. 5—Average of the capture and inelastic lithology ratio for Example 2. Because of the high logging
speed, a heavy depth filter was applied to the data for this processing. This result shows the large
change in lithology in this well.

the results from the client perspective. Fig. 7 shows a portion of the
data where the FloView Plus and TPHL holdup data are plotted on
top of each other (11-level depth smoothing). This helps increase
confidence in the results. The FloView Plus measurement differ-
entiates only water and hydrocarbon and is insensitive to changes
from oil to gas. Even with these poor statistics of oil/water holdup,
the agreement between FloView Plus and TPHL water holdups is
reasonable, despite the fact that the lithology has been very roughly
estimated. If a better measure of the changing lithology had been
available for this well, the results from the two methods would
probably be in even better agreement. It should also be noted that
the stationary TPHL measurements, even though not shown, agree
well with the continuous TPHL measurement and the FloView Plus
results.
The gas entry at 730 ft coincides with the change of lithology for
sandstone to a mix of sandstone and carbonate and with a set of
perforations at this depth. This log conclusively shows that the zone
of gas production is from the upper set of perforations. If gas had
been produced from lower perforations, then it would have accu-
mulated at the high point of the trajectory at about 880 ft.
Summary and Conclusions
The ability of the RST tool to perform a three-phase holdup
measurement in horizontal wells has been demonstrated. The TPHL
measurement uses the RST tool’s near/far inelastic ratio with the
near and far C/O ratios as inputs to a linear programming solution
to obtain quantitative oil, water, and gas holdups in horizontal
wells. Because the tool responds to both the formation and borehole
(even when centered), the analysis must correct for the formation
response (lithology and formation fluid) to obtain accurate borehole
holdups. If this information is not included in the analysis, then

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998 453

 Fig. 6 —Holdup log showing FloView Plus and TPHL data for Example 2.

errors on the calculated holdups can vary from a couple of percent difficult to obtain a statistically significant formation oil volume;
up to about 20% depending on the lithology and porosity. For this however, as long as the formation oil volume is constrained to
reason, the formation lithology and oil volume are included in the realistic values in the analysis, statistically significant and accurate
analysis. At high logging speeds, insufficient statistics can make it values of borehole holdup can be obtained.

454 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998

 Fig. 7—Final TPHL results for Example 2. FloView Plus data are plotted on top of the TPHL data and show
reasonable agreement with the TPHL water holdup measurement. The differences between FloView Plus
and TPHL results are probably because of the unknown (but estimated) lithology of the formation.

Tool response calibration is derived with a combination of additional useful information to the interpretation of production
laboratory data and Monte Carlo data. This approach is necessary problems.
to account properly for oil and gas density variations under down- Finally, it is worth noting that a holdup measurement by itself is
hole conditions. This has been demonstrated from earlier work and not usually sufficient to diagnose production problems in horizontal
from the field examples cited in this report. wells. Only under some specific conditions and/or for some specific
The field examples shown here demonstrate the TPHL measure- problems will stand-alone holdup provide an adequate answer.
ment under two extremely different sets of conditions, a gas well Therefore, holdup must usually be combined with velocity infor-
with a little liquid and a liquid well with a little gas. Both of these mation to understand fully the production environment in horizon-
are important conditions for a production logging tool to work tal wells.
properly. In both examples, the TPHL water holdup results com-
pared favorably with the FloView Plus results, which is a totally Nomenclature
independent water holdup technique. Unfortunately, there are no
data available with which to validate the gas vs. oil holdup results CF 5 far carbon yield
quantitatively; however, other qualitative measures indicate that the CN 5 near carbon yield
results are quite reasonable. Fx 5 far detector sensitivity factors
Example 2 showed the importance of understanding the forma- Gx 5 near/far gas sensitivity factors
tion to interpret properly a holdup log with a pulsed-neutron tool. Nx 5 near detector sensitivity factors
In this example, the lithology change caused a large perturbation to OF 5 far oxygen yield
the amount of carbon in the formation, severely affecting the holdup ON 5 near oxygen yield
calculation. Fortunately, the RST tool can also provide lithological RF 5 far carbon to oxygen yield ratio
information to identify and correct for these effects. Because of the RI 5 inelastic near to far yield ratio
high logging speed in this example (600 ft/hr), the quality of the RN 5 near carbon to oxygen yield ratio
lithology information was marginal as a result of the heavy depth SO 5 formation oil saturation
smoothing required. If the log had been performed at a lower SW 5 formation water saturation
logging speed, the RST lithology information could have dramat- yG 5 gas holdup
ically improved, and much less depth smoothing would have been yO 5 oil holdup
required. Not only would this have improved the lithology analysis, yW 5 water holdup
it would also have improved the accuracy and precision of the f 5 porosity
borehole holdups. rG 5 downhole gas density
The examples shown here were for continuous logging passes at rO 5 downhole oil density
relatively high logging speeds. These high logging speeds (600 and
1,000 ft/hr) could be used for these wells because the primary Acknowledgments
parameter of interest was the gas vs. liquid production in these I thank Chris Lenn, Peter Hook, Khalid Azim, Syed Shakil Ahsan,
wells. This is why the oil and water holdups appear fairly noisy. To Bruce Cassell, and Kazuo Yuassa of the Schlumberger field orga-
separate water from oil with the TPHL measurement, better sta- nization for assistance in obtaining the data and releases for this
tistics, and hence slower logging speeds, are required than for study.
separating liquid from gas. For this reason, the FloView Plus and
TPHL tool combination is useful in augmenting one another’s
interpretation. In addition, the redundant measurements of water References
holdup give added confidence in the results. Another helpful feature 1. Theron, B.E. and Unwin, T.: “Stratified Flow Model and Interpretation
of this tool combination is in slotted liner completions, because the in Horizontal Wells,” paper SPE 36560 presented at the 1996 SPE
FloView Plus tool sees only what is inside the liner, whereas the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6–9
TPHL tool sees both inside and outside the liner. This can add October.

SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998 455

 2. McKeon, D.C., Scott, H.D., and Patton, G.L.: “Interpretation of Oxygen
Activation Logs for Detecting Water Flow in Production and Injection
Wells,” paper BB presented at the 1991 SPWLA Annual Logging
Symposium, Midland, Texas, 16–19 June.
3. Roscoe, B.A., et al.: “Measurement of the Oil and Water Flow Rates in
a Horizontal Well Using Chemical Markers and a Pulsed-Neutron
Tool,” paper SPE 36563 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6–9 October.
4. Roscoe, B.A. and Lenn, C.: “Oil and Water Velocity Logging in
Horizontal Wells Using Chemical Markers,” paper SPE 37153 pre-
sented at the 1996 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
Technology, Calgary, Canada, 18–20 November.
5. Scott, H.D., et al.: “A New Compensated Through-Tubing Carbon/
Oxygen Tool For Use In Flowing Wells,” paper MM presented at the
1991 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Midland, Texas, 16–19
June.
6. Stoller, C., et al.: “Field Tests of a Slim Carbon/Oxygen Tool for
Reservoir Saturation Monitoring,” paper SPE 25375 presented at the
1993 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition, Singapore,
8–10 February.
7. MCBEND: A Monte Carlo Program For General Radiation Transport
Solutions—Users Guide, AEA Technology, Winfrith, U.K. (1995).
8. Roscoe, B.A.: “Three-Phase Holdup Determination in Horizontal Wells
Using a Pulsed-Neutron Source,” paper SPE 37147 presented at the
1996 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, Canada, 18–20 November.
9. Roscoe, B.A., et al.: “A New Through-Tubing Oil-Saturation Measure-
ment System,” paper SPE 21413 presented at the 1991 SPE Middle East
Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain, 16–19 November.
10. Lenn, C., Bamforth, S., and Jariwala, H.: “Flow Diagnosis in an
Extended Reach Well at the Wytch Farm Oilfield Using a New Tool-
string Combination Incorporating Novel Production Logging Technol-
456
ogy,” paper SPE 36580 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6–9 October.
11. Didek, M., et al.: “New Production Logging Tool Enables Problem Well
Diagnosis: A Case Study,” paper DD presented at the 1996 SPWLA
Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, 16–19 June.
12. Herron, S. and Herron, M.: “Quantitative Lithology: An Application for
Open and Cased Hole Spectroscopy,” paper E presented at the 1996
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, 16–19
June.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft 3 3.048* E201 5 m
in. 3 2.54* E100 5 cm
ft/hr 3 8.466 667 E205 5 m/s
lbm/ft 3 1.488 164 E100 5 kg/m
mL 3 1.0* E100 5 cm3
Conversion factors are exact. SPEREE
Brad Roscoe is a senior research scientist at Schlumberger-Doll
Research, Ridgefield, Connecticut, where he works on appli-
cations of gamma ray spectroscopy to the borehole. His recent
work has included the Phase Velocity Log and Three-Phase
Holdup Log with the Reservoir Saturation Tool. Previously, he
was a senior product engineer with Schlumberger Wireline
Services in Houston. He worked on the design and implemen-
tation of the Reservoir Saturation Tool, the Geochemical Log-
ging Tool, and the Induced Gamma Ray Spectrometry Tool,
and he holds 14 patents. Roscoe holds a BS degree in electrical
engineering and an MS degree in nuclear science and engi-
neering, both from Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State U.,
Blacksburg, and a PhD degree in nuclear engineering from the
U. of Illinois at Urbana.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, October 1998