Technical Notes - A Relation Between Gamma Radiation and Permeability Denver-Julesburg Basin

The Muddy and Dakota sands, more commonly known as the "D" and "J" sands, respectively, of the Denver-Julesburg Basin are correlative over a large area. It is reasonable to believe, therefore, that depositional environment throughout the Basin was comparable. Local variations in sand development do occur, however, and productivity is often governed by permeability as well as structural position. Experience indicates permeability is commonly a function of cementing material. While cases of siliceous or calcareous cementing have been observed, the bonding material is, for the most part, clay. Under the latter circumstance, clay should bear some relation to permeability. Similarly, gamma radiation should bear some relation to the amount of clay. This study was undertaken to determine if a cross relation exists between gamma radiation and permeability. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION A qualitative relation does exist between gamma radiation and permeability for clay-bonded Muddy and Dakota sands of the Denver-Julesburg Basin. This is illustrated graphically by Fig. 1, which shows corrected gamma ray deflection vs permeability for five wells over an area approximately 50 miles long and 8 miles wide. The "corrected" gamma ray deflection cannot be read directly from the gamma ray survey in all cases. It became apparent early in the investigation that methods would have to be developed for converting all gamma ray surveys to a common deflection scale and to correct for thin bed effects. COMMON SCALE DEFLECTION Because all logs are not recorded in the same calibration units or at the same sensitivity, it was felt they could be most readily converted to a common scale by measurement of deflection in inches from zero. Initially, four wells in the Jacinto field of Nebraska were carefully correlated, and selected intervals were planimetered to obtain average deflections. Average deflections of planimetered intervals from three of the wells were plotted vs those of the fourth well which was to be used as a common reference. The plots are shown in Fig. 2. While results obtained by this method in the Jacinto field were relatively good, the planimetered intervals were not easily correlated with logs from other fields. Furthermore, the planimetric method is laborious and not readily adapted to routine operations. Deflection of the "Bentonite marker" was found to