Leave a comment...
Regards of methods used, normalization is meant to accentuate the geological response of the well logging tools and minimize adverse effects.
When in the process of normalization, it is important to keep an open mind and let the data trends present themselves and respond to what the trends suggest and not apply a preconceived notion of what the data is “supposed” to tell you. Rules of thumb and statements such as this tool “never works” have to be qualified with a “WHY”. Why does this not work or why am I using this rule of thumb.
Failure to demonstrably defend the ”WHY” implies a lack of a broad experiential database, a lack of the skill sets and tools to do a proper analysis and/or a lack of motivation on the part of the individual making those statements to resolve the questions.
In my experience, the statement “this tool never works” has, upon sufficient investigation, almost invariably turned to the statement “this tool always works”.
The limestone lateral tool was developed in the 1950’s as a porosity device but was found not to work that well and has subsequently vanished from the well logging world. The neutron log was developed in the 1940’s and is still in wide use.
Logging service companies are not going to provide a well logging tool if they cannot make money from it. Clients of the well logging companies are not going to run logging tools that do not provide valuable information.
Calibrated well logging data is always an accurate inference or reflection of the conditions of the wellbore and the formation rocks within the radii of investigation of the well logging tools. Our problem as analysts is how to we properly interpret these measurements. Maintain an objective perspective when analyzing well log data and you will resolve the “WHY”.
Note: All prices in US Dollars