A HISTORY OF WELL LOGGING

Dr. Hamilton M. Johnson

Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Tulane University

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and are
not necessarily the opinions of the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts
or its members.

Publication Rights Reserved

This paper is to be presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the Society

of Professional Well Log Analysts, May 18-19,1961, in Dallas, Texas, and is
considered the property of the Society. Permission to publish is hereby re-
stricted to an abstract of no more than 300 words, with no illustrations, un-
less the paper is specifically released to the press by the Secretary or the
Editor of the Society of Professional Well Log Analysts.
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. The first electric log; Pechelbronn, France, September 5, 1927.

Figure 2. Early Electric Log; California. A single lateral-resistivity

curve, hand recorded August 17, 1929.

Figure 3. Potentiometric equipment in use on rig floor, Rumania.

(Credit to A.I.M.E. TP#4-62,Feb., 1932 for prior publication)

Figure 4. Potentiometric equipment in use on rig floor, Venezuela.

Figure 5. Standard lateral and inverted lateral in depth determination of

a coal seam. France, early 1931.

Figure 6. Logging truck and recording equipment; California, 1932.

Figure 7. Logging truck, with jack-up power to operate winch; about 1936.
Note that there is no separate recorder cab.

Figure 8. Hand recorder instruments used in the truck showm in Fig. 7j

instruments mounted behind seat in driver’s cab.

Figure 9. Log made with the first photographic recorder. California,

May, 1936.

Figure 10. Logging truck; separate recorder cab; braid cable; automatic
instruments. About 1945.

Figure 11. Three-galvanometer photographic recorder used in the truck of

Fig. 10. About 1945.

Figure 12. A modern logging truck, equipped for any wireline service. 1961.

Figure 13. Modern logging instruments for the truck of Fig. 12. 1961.
 A HISTORY OF WELL LOGGING

Dr. Hamilton M. Johnson

Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Tulane University

ABSTRACT

The science of well logging, begun by Conrad Schlumberger in 1927 as

an application of his work on resistivity measurements of the earth in surface
exploration, has advanced further during the intervening thirty-three years
than even its creator could have imagined. Measurement of electrical prop-
erties with normal and lateral resistivity curves, micro-devices, focused
devices, dipmeters, conductive and inductive methods; measurement of radio-
active properties both inherent and as a result of bombardment by both low
and high energy neutrons; the physical recovery of rock and fluid samples by
wireline; measurement of acoustic properties; the list could go on and on.

Each relates to a certain phase of development and is the answer to a

certain need for evaluation of a specific zone or to overcome limitations
of a prior method. It is hoped that a presentation showing the chronological
development of these tools, together with the interpretation techniques as-
sociated with them, will honor those who did the work and will inspire future
logging engineers and analysts to even greater accomplishments than have
preceded them.

ii
 CHRONOLOGY IN DEVELOPMENT OF WELL LOGGING
(bibliographic reference is source of date; not necessarily first paper on subject)

~830 -- FOX1 noticed electrical phenomena in walls of Cornwall mines; a natural

electrical potential in the rocks of the subsurface.

1859 -- Quinckz discovered and described a potential created by movement of a

liquid through a semi-permeable membrane; one of the component parts
of the present self-potential curve recorded in electric logging.

lgj) -- Lord Kelvin3 made downhole temperature measurements.

~883 -- Brown4 measured electrical resistivity of rocks in place at the surface

of the earth; earliest attempt at surface exploration using this prop-
erty.

lg12 -- Conrad Schlumberger5 began systematic studies of electrical surveying

along the surface of the earth.

1920 -- Conrad Schlumberger6 introduced the first commercial application of

his electrical exploration technique and published his book on the
fundamentals of this technique. He utilized it for tectonic studies
whereas others were still using it only in the search for metals.
.
1923 -- Conrad Schlumbergerb began to apply this surface technique to oil
prospecting as well as in mining.

1927 -- Conrad and Marcel Schlumberger~ recorded the first experimental electric
log at Pechelbronn, France, on September j. A single lateral-
resistivity curve recorded at fixed points and later plotted as a
graph against depth. Probably the most important date in well logging
history.

1928 -- Beginning in July of this year, the Schlumberger brothers had a crew
commercially operating “electrical coring” methods in France6; the
first commercial application.

1929 -- Societe de Prospection Electrique6, the parent organization of

Schlumberger methods in use today, made the first electric log in the
western hemisphere, for Shell in Venezuela. Then the following rapid
expansion of service was noted: at beginning of year, only in France;
a crew in Venezuela in March; in the United States in June; and in
Russia in August.

1929 -- Conrad Schlumberger8 received a patent on the S.P. measurement in

boreholes to locate permeable strata.

1930 -- Commercial crews were present in the previously mentioned four areas,
plus a new one in the Dutch East Indies beginning in January.6
However, work in the United States ceased in October and crew withdrawn.

iii
1931 -- The crews from the Dutch East Indies were moved from that area in
February to Rumania.

1931 -- The S.P. curve9 was introduced commercially into Venezuela.

10 was
1931 -- The two-meter lateral resistivity curve used up to this the
replaced by a short normal; the standard electric log thus became
the S.P. curve and a short normal resistivity curve.

1932 -- Operations reopened in the United States in June6 and the use of
well logs as a formation evaluation tool has been expanding ever since.

1932 -- Development of caliper logs by M. M. Kinleyll; a mechanical tool,

recording downhole rather than at the surface.

1932 -- Introduction commercially of the-electromagnetic teleclinometer and

dipmeter12 by the Societe de Prospection Electrique.

1933 -- Logging operations resumed in the Far East.6

1934 -- The long normal resistivity curve7 added to the standard log.
Schlumberger.

1935 -- Introduction of a continuously recording temperature instrument.

Schlumberger.
13
1935 -- A photoelectric device for location of points of water-entry. Dale.

1936 -- The lateral resistivity curve, with a much longer spacing7, returned
as a part of the standard electric log. Schlumberger.

1936 -- Introduction of photographic recording9 by Schlumberger and Halliburton.

1936 -- Introduction of sidewall coring. 14 Schlumberger.

1937 -- A field test of automatic drilling-time logging15; however, the

Geolograph was not generally available until 1943.

1938 -- Caliper log16; Halliburton established it as a commercial tool.

1938 -- First paper17 published on quantitative interpretation of electric

logs in terms of relating resistivity to oil productivity.

1939 -- Introduction of the gamma ray log18 by Well Surveys, Inc.; the first
cormnercialuse of radioactive properties in logging.

1939 -- Mud logging19, started by Baroid under the Hayward patents.

1940 -- Introduction of the photoclinometer9 for measurement of hole deviation

from the vertical. Schlumberger.

iv
 20
1941 -- The S.P. dipmeter , incorporating the photoclinometer. Schlumberger.

1941 -- The neutron-gamma log21, developed by Well Surveys, Inc.

1943 -- Use of a radioactive tracer (carnotite) log22; Lane-Wells.

1947 -- The induction log.23 Schlumberger.

1947 -- First departure curves24 for Rt correction in quantitative studies were

introduced in May by Schlumberger.

1947 -- The resistivity dipmeter.25 Schlumberger.

26
1948 -- The Microlog. Schlumberger.

1948 -- &velopment of an acoustic impedance log.27 Humble Research.

1949 -- Downhole camera.28 Dowell.

1950 -- Laterolog.29 Schlumberger.

1950 -- Guard log.30 Halliburton.

1950 -- Neutron-neutron log introduced, recorded simultaneously with the gamma

ray logs~; P.G.A.C. This was the first use of simultaneous recordin~
of these radioactivity curves.

1950 -- Densilog.9 Lane-Wells.

32 Schlumberger.
1951 -- Microlaterolog.

1951 -- Continuous velocity logging33, developed by the Magnolia Field Research

labs and licensed for cbmnercial application to Seismograph Service
Corp.

1951 -- Continuous physical dipmeter.34 Carter Research Laboratory.

1952 -- Microlog continuous dipmeter.35 Schlumberger.

1953 -- Pseudo-Laterolog.36 Schlumberger.

1955 -- Wireline formation fluid tester.37 Schlumberger.

1955 -- Multiple-spaced neutron log for gas detection.38 Petro-Tech Service Co.

1956 -- Induction - Electric log combination.39 Schlmberger.

1956 -- Sonar caliper log9 for measuring cavity dimensions for storage. Dowell.

1957 -- Gsmma Ray logging of cores at surface.40 Core Iab.

41
1957 -- Latero~og-8 log. Schlumberger.

v
 42
1957 -- Flowing neutron log. Creole Petroleum Corp.
43
1958 -- Salinity log. McCullough.
44
1958 -- Cemoton log. Lane-Wells.

1958 -- Induction 6FF40 log.39 Schlumberger.

1958 -- Proximity log.41 Schlumberger.

45
1958 -- Activation, accelerator, or oxygen logs ; Well Surveys, Inc.

1958 -- Nuclear magnetism log.~~47 California Research and Borg-Warner.

lg60 -- Acoustic attenuation Cement Bond Log.48 Schlumberger.

vi
 The study of subsurface geology has progressed in great strides during the
last twenty-five years, largely due to the efforts of the petrole~ industry to
find more and more oil. It is no idle boast to say that, in a very large Tart,
this increased knowledge of ow subsurface is due to the role played by the appli-
cation of various geophysical methods to subsurface determinations of lithology,
permeability, fluid content, bedding dip, porosity, and many other formational
characteristics.

These geophysical methods, as used deep within the borehole itself, can
only be the direct measurement of certain physical properties of the rocks ——
in situ;
unfortunately, the number of these measurable properties is extremely limited.
These would include the electrical characteristics of the formtions (both sec-
ondary, such as conductivity and resistivity and primary, such as electro-osmosis
and electro-filtration), radioactivity (whether residual or induced), magnetism,
acoustical characteristics, heat conductivity, temperature, hardness, resistance
to erosion, etc. To the time of the present writing, the measurement of many
of these properties has been shown to be only of academic interest and only the
electrical, radioactivity and acoustical properties are being extensively ex-
ploited in subsurface determinations of lithology and fluid content.
49
Kenneth K. Iandes , in his book Petroleum Geology, makes the blunt state-
ment:

“It would be difficult to overemphasize the importance of logs in oil-searching.

By means of the subsurface geological information obtainable in logs, it is
possible to determine the structural pattern of the rocks and to recognize
lateral changes in facies. Both of these are important in discovering oil- or
gas-bearing traps.”

In line with the above conclusion, Carl A. Moore5° says:

“The science of correlations deals with the relating of one outcrop to another,
one well log to another. And the subsurface stratigrapher has a most valuable
tool for this work; a duplicatable, impartial, mechanical record of the nature
and disposition of the rocks in a well bore, that is, the electric log diagrams.
More is being learned about the potential value of the electric log diagrams;
for here, in a mechanical record devoid of human inconsistencies, is portrayed
the electrical character of the formations that the surface geologists, or even
the microscopist who looks at the samples and cores from the well, cannot see ..
..... Electric log studies of closely drilled areas, together with the samples
and a few cores, will yield more precise information on a given formation than
if this formation were exposed in surface outcrops, because one is able to ‘see’
all the beds on the electric log diagrams, including the soft shales, and it is
possible to study the third dimension and the downdip variation.”

At the most fundamental stage, the prime aim of the petroleum industry is
to locate more and more sources of oil. Thus, in the application of subsurface
geophysical methods to this fundamental problem, probably the most needed
characteristic of any measuring instrument (regardless of the parameter measured)
will be whether it can determine the presence of oil in a subs~face horizon
traversed by the drill hole. If only a single hole is available, this infor-
mation must be direct. However, the science of petroleum exploration has

-1-
progressed to a point where the study of possible types of traps for oil
accumulation is rather thorough. It is possible, in an area wherein many drill
holes have been logged, for the correlation of beds from one hole to another,
and thus the indirect determination of the structural aspects of the area, to
rank almost equally in importance with the location of oil in a single hole.

In the earlier days of well logging, the interpretation was almost entirely
qualitative in character; the trend now is to realize more quantitative results
from the measurements made while still retaining the same, but somewhat more
refined, qualitative aspect. By this simple statement, marked advances in the
art of interpretation are indicated, for whereas it was once sufficient for a
log to show an anomaly which could be interpreted as “send, possibly oil or gas~,
it now is often possible to calculate the porosity of the sandstone, the true
resistivity, the formation factor, water saturation, hydrocarbon saturation,
etc., all from information on the log itself or supplemented by previously
determined auxiliary information concerning the area.

There were many studies of the physical nature of rocks which led up to
the actual process of recording well logs; a few of these are mentioned in the
resume and the list could easily have been expanded to dozens of items. As
noted, Conrad Schlumberger had been working with surface electrical prospecting
for a period of some years. Paul Charrin, the first field engineer hired by
the Schlumberger brothers E. G. Leonardon was already with them in a mana-
gerial capacity), relates51 how the idea of downhole electrical measurements
was conceived, as it was told to him personally by Conrad Schlumberger:

“Mr. Conrad Schlumberger had a very good friend, Mr. Meganck, manager of a
Franco-Bel.giandrilling company by the name of Foraky. One day they were talking
about their professional experiences and problems. Mr. Schlumberger, who had
the wonderful talent of making clear even very complicated things, was giving
his friend an idea of what geophysics, then in its infancy, was trying to do,
and what he especially was trying to do with electrical methods.

Mr. Meganck outlined the problems of the drillers of the day, who were operating
in the dark, not knowing where they were nor where they were going, except by
taking some very costly and time-consuming cores. From whence came the spark
I do not know, since I was not present, but I do know, since it was told to me
by Mr. Schlumberger, that that day was born the idea of applying the electrical
methods to the logging of drill holes. A few days later I received the first
assignment to try to start putting together a few cables and somekind of
primitive winch.”

However, the real birth of well logging must be considered to have occurred
on September j, 1927. On that day, Conrad and Marcel Schlumberger(probably
accompanied by Mr. Charrin) recorded the first experimental electric log in a
well in the Pechelbronn Field of France. It was an exceedingly crude “log”
in terms of the sophisticated logs of today; just a single curve,

-2-
Fig. 1. First Electric Log;
Pechelbronn, France, September 5, 1927

-3-
representing downhole resisiivity measurements made with a four-electrode
(lateral) arrangement at certain fixed intervals and these measurements then
plotted on graph paper against depth. But the resistivity variation between
formations proved that they had a new tool which could be of great value in the
correlation of beds from well to well. The detailed chronology shows that ex-
pansion of use of this measurement was almost immediate, with commercial appli-
cation in France in 1928; Venezuela, United States, and Russia in 1929; and
the Far East in 1930.

Commercial use was accompanied by mechanical improvements, such as a

collector ring and brush assembly for continuous recording rather than making
spot measurements, and the development of a better cable and method of measuring
depth. ;But the single curve recorded as Lhe standard “electrical coring” log,
was still the lateral cuve with about a two-meter spacing; it was useful
primarily for correlation and depth control.

Pierre Bayle, the early manager for Schlumberger operations in Venezuela

and Trinidad, tells10 that the existence of potentials in boreholes had been
soon reco~.lized,even though only resistivities were being recorded. It was
thought that they were caused by electrode polarization and a commutator was
used to suppress this polarization. A small source of d.c. potential was also
placed in series in order to buck-out as much as possible of the undesired
potential. Resistivity measurements were made with a potentiometric circuit
provided with a galvanometers. Several well logging operators reported that
immediately above and below oil sands the needle of the galvanometersgenerally
vibrated. The Schlumberger brothers explained this as a natural potential
within the hole and requested that the logging operators attempt to record
this potential. It was quickly found that these otentials were not due to
polarization but to the presence of sands. Guyed!?O notes that, had the logging
circuits been provided with an appropriate filter, the S.P. effect would have
been discovered only much later, Conrad Schlumberger obtained a French patent8
on the use of the S.P. curve to locate permeable strata in 192$)but it was not
until 1931 that this measurement, recorded simultaneously with the single
resistivity cuxve, was offered commercially.

The introduction of a normal resistivity curve as a substitute for the

lateral curve came about in the following way, according to Guyod:10

“In the early days of electric logging, the Lateral Curve was exclusively used.
At that time, it was assumed that Resistivity Curves gave true resistivities,
or nearly so. For this reason, the current electrode was placed either above
or under the potential measuring electrode: and the choice was generally made
from mechanical considerations.

I remember that in 1931, or thereabouts, the Schlumberger Company in France

made a log with a view to locate coal beds. The measurements were obtained with
a Lateral device in which the current electrode was above the potential elec-
trodes. The log looked more or less like the solid line curve shown on the
attached print (Fig. 5). The high resistivity in the interval 411-412-1/2
meters was interpreted as being a coal “bed. However, the customer said that
according to their records, the coal bed was approximately four meters thick.

-4-
.11:1:11 I 1 I I 1

I
.,
.. .
411}111 .4 ....,..-
I-+}i-l--ll’ I

,,. .—(
-Hl!dk
l.- . -. - .. . .——. -_—
-,
,.

-.. . . . . .,, ..- —..

.,. -
1,<
,:,
— —.
~,’ ,,
::,..q

11::’~”-

$ I I I L I I I I 1 1 1 I
. ld..l..l.l[ l!l~lilll~l~l:t:t -

I 1 I I 1“I 4 I {’1
1 I I
—

-1 4- f fl-!--ll II !1 II tl-it I 1-’-1

.)
I ;-
i- “-ji-+’tl=
I
-t- r I I I * I
!
, I
,,
I
! t--i-” 1

.! J -1--
+:j+”~ -+jl{l:. , ,,
pl:l:tl
I I ,
1
I
1 1
h I ,, I I I I I I

Fig. 2. Early electric log; California.

A single lateral resistivity curve, hand
recorded Aug. 17, 1929.

-5-
 i

Fig. 3. Potentiometric equipment in use

on rig floor, Rumania (Credit AIME, TP
#&62, Feb., 1932).

After several days of trying to unsuccessfully explain the discrepancy, they

requested that the measurements be rerun, since they felt that the log was in-
correct. The logging-truck sent for the second run had a sonde in which the
current electrode was below the potential electrodes. The log obtained had a
high resistivity interval at 408-409-l/2 meters and the logging operator told
the customer that the coal bed was at 408-409-1/2. This different answer
confused the mining officials a little more, and they decided that both measure-
ments were incorrect.

Conrad Schlumberger investigated this matter personally and realized that the
errors in interpretation were due to the now well known depressed zone near
the top or bottom of resistive beds. To remedy this, he designed the Normal
device which, he suggested, should be used for the logging of thick beds.”

-6-
 Fig. 4. Potentiometric equipment in use
on rig floor, Venezuela.

At the end of 1931, the standard electric log had become a two-curve
presentation; an S.P. and a short normal resistivity curve, and had begun more
nearly to assume its present appearance although still recorded by hand on null-
balance presentation of the completed log. The usefulness of the log was so
greatly increased with these two curves that operations were reopened in the
United States in June of 1932.... and have increased in number and scope ever
since ..... and also, as true of any new commercial success, the number of
companies engaged in supplying this service has increased constantly ever since
1932.

The electric log at this stage had certain definite limitations, some of
which were recognized and some not. One was that its greatest value lay in the
evaluation of unconsolidated to semi-consolidatedbeds; the record was very
poor in highly resistive beds of well-indurated sandstone or dense limestone.
Another was that it could be effectively recorded only in a fresh-water drilling

-(-
 Depths Resistivity (ohm-m.)
1000 2000

(meters)
—
406 –

408 –
determined from
~ ~=
Actual location inverted lateral

Of coal bed -+
\ determination from
\
412– { & / ~.
0 standard lateral
/
:
414 –
—

416 –
—

418 –
—

420 –
—

I
Fig. 5. Standard lateral and
inverted lateral; coal seam,
France, early 1931.

mud; it was poor in saline muds and impossible in cable-tool holes or holes
filled with oil. Yet another was that the degree of effect of filtrate invasion
from the drilling fluid had not been recognized and it was assumed that the
apparent resistivity shown on the short normal was at least indicative of the
true formation resistivity. And yet another was that the influence on the
apparent resistivity of such geometric factors as borehole diameter, bed thick-
ness, and electrode spacing was unsuspected. These various restrictive con-
ditions were discovered as the use of logs increased and steps were taken to
overcome them. It was recognized that resistivity measurements made with a
normal electrode arrangement but a longer spacing would represent resistivity
conditions further back from the borehole ..... and possibly behind the invaded
zone ..... while preserving am easily interpreted symmetrical curve. Therefore
the “long normal resistivity curve” was added to tineconventional electric log
in 1934. And when it was found that the depth of invasion was often greater than
had been anticipated, so that the long normal also often measured only invaded

-8-
 Fig. 6. Logging truck and recording
equipment, California, 1932.

conditions, the four-electrode lateral resistivity curve was remembered and re-
introduced (1936) as a part of the conventional electric log.

With this log (S.P.,short normal, long normal, and long lateral), there was
now the possibility of finding permeable zones in sandstones, of picking bed
boundaries fairly accurately from S.P. and/or short normal , of determining the
~~xtent of filtrate invasion from a comparison of the three resistivity curves,
and of obtaining a qualitative idea of fluid content from the long lateral in
thick beds. However, some of the disadvantages still remained. The curves
could be accurately recorded only in fresh-water muds and the logs still gave
far less than optimum results opposite beds of high resistivity.

‘During this same period of time, an electromagnetic teleclinometer and

dipmeter had been introduced in Europe and South America, measuring the non-
isotropic conductivity patterns of sedimentary beds; however, this was such a
dclicatc measurement and so time-consuming that its use never became very

-9-
 .,,

—
Fig. 7. ‘loggingtruck with jack-up
power to operate winch; about 1936.
No recorder cab.

, widespread. The fact of its existence should be noted primarily because of the
indication of an early interest in bedding dip and the astute scientific approach
to its measurement.

One of the big steps in speeding up wellsite operations, as well as in

producing measurements less subject to human frailties, was the introduction in
1936 of photographic recording by the two companies then en~a~cd in the com-
mercial logging cf wells in the United States. This required a complete change-
over of all existing surface recording equipment and so did not achieve immediate]
completion but was revolutionary in its effect upon logging operations. No future
development.could make the early logs appear so primitive and crude as did
automatic recording. The measurement technique, curves, electrode spacin~, cLc.,
changed not a whit ..... and yet, suddenly, all that had Sonc before was now
considered obsolete by the oil companies. Surprisingly enoush, even the proveil

-1o-
 }

Fig. 8. Hand recorder instruments of

truck in previous figure; about I-936.

usefulness of the earlier logs themselves was now doubted! It has taken years
even partially to overcome this attitude and for companies to realize that the
electrical parameters conscientiously recorded with the hand recorder are
entirely equivalent totlmse recorded photographically.

Even with the photographic recorder, it was necessary to record the long
lateral during the descent of the sonde and to trace this curve by hand on the
filmed record of the other three curves logged simultaneously coming up the
hole. An S.P. curve also recorded during the descent was used as a depth control
for this tracing. This was a purely instrumental disadvantage, due to the
presence of too few cable conductors and recorder galvanometerscircuits in the
existing equipment; this was later remedied and all four curves recorded
simultaneously during the ascent.

-11-
 — —..
—-
~--
E=-”

Im

5 ‘4
—.

—-

.- - -——
4 ~ .—

.-—

.- -4
4
I

.——
—
—..
.
r-

.—
.—
b
s0
_..--A&
4

12—
Fig. 9. Logging with first photograph .C
recorder, California, ~y, 1936.

-12-
 Fig. 10. Logging truck; separate
recorder cab; braid cable; automatic
instruments. About 1945.

The electric log of 1936 had achieved a standard and form that was to
continue for many years. However, as with all geophysical measurements, it was
looked on dubiously by some geologists who wanted to see some oil, feel some
sand grains, and taste the connate water. To accommodate the desire for physical
recovery of a portion of the fo~tion for hand examination, as had b:en long
possibl~ with ~oring, the sidewall sam??letaker was introduced in 1936 ‘n ‘he
Gulf Coast. This achieved immediate success in soft formations but adequate
recovery in hard formations was not attained until much later.

In 1938 a tremendous step commenced in the interpretation of the electric

log, tending to make interpretation less of am art and more of a science. The
first paper on quantitative use of the logs by relating potential productivity .
to measured and corrected resistivities was published by Martin, Murray, and

-13-
I
‘)

Fig. 11. Three galvanometersrecorder of

previous figure. About 1945.

-14-
Gillingham. Qualitative evaluations had been previously made through comparisons
of the three resistivity curves but now the objective became a definite value
of oil saturation. However, a more exact determination of the resistivity of
the uncontaminated reservoir now became of great importance ... and this was
often impossible due to the previously discussed limitations of the conventional
electric log. Unfortunately for the rapid development of this new technique,
its beginnings coincided with the beginning of the Second World War and most
technical developments in civilian life had to be subordinated to military needs.
Therefore, the development of better methods for measuring Rt was postponed
until the post-war period.

Research in well logging techniques using physical parameters other than

electrical characteristics had been proceeding apace during these early years
but commercial application had not become widespread. The use of a photo-
electric device by Dale for the localization of points of water entry into a
producing well (1935), the limited use of a mechanical drilling-time recorder
invented by Nichols (1937), the caliper log offered commercially by Halliburton
(1938) ..... all represent fringe methods of the times. But in 1939, another
major technique was offered to exploration and production personnel; this was
the gma ray log, marking the first use of radioactive properties of rocks for
their downhole identification.

This is a measurement of the rate of disintegration of radioactive elements

within the rock itself, so is not affected by any outside agency; it is a natural
phenomenon just as the S.P. effect is a natural electrical phenomenon. Another
thing the two curves have.+n common is that each is primarily indicative of
lithology. Just as the S.P. is the easiest electrical effect to measure, the
rate of gamma ray emission is the easiest radioactive effect to measure. But one
very important difference exists, for the S.P. is measurable only in uncased hole
whereas the gamma ray curve can be obtained in cased or uncased hole, in holes
filled with fresh water, salt water, c)il,or even in holes containing no liquid
fluid. Thus)a new means of identifying beds and determining depths to bed
boundaries under almost any conceivable conditions was now available. A’technique,
developed by Seismograph Service Corporation and its subsidiary Well Suxveys,
Inc., was licensed to Lane-Wells for commercial use in the United States. Research
work had been done in downhole gamma ray measurements by Howell and Frosch as
early as 1935 with an ionization chamber and point by point measurements. More
refined work was later done by them with a Geiger counter recording continuously;
a report52 on this work was published in 1939. A cross-licensing of patents
resulted from this more or less simultaneous development of gamma ray logging.

The first measuring instrument used commercially was the ionization chamber;
this has been replaced by the Geiger counter and this largely replaced by
scintillation counters as the years have gone by, all in the quest for greater
and greater efficiency at ever increasing te~eratures ... but the basic curve
itself is still what it was in 1939 when first offered on a commercial scale.

Another completely new type of logging was offered in 1939 but this was not
a downhole wireline operation. This was the introduction of mud logging by
Baroid, using a technique which had been developed by Hayward. It was evident
to him that the oil and/or gas entrapped in the volume of rock removed by the
drill must be assimilated by the circulating drilling fluid and brought to the
surface. Since, unless the volume reaching the surface was unusually large, it

-15-
was seldom visible on the surface of the mud-pits, then it followed that very
sensitive instruments had to be devised to detect the presence of this oil and/or
gas entrained in the drilling fluid. Finally, assuming that minute quantities
of hydrocarbons were brought to the surface instead of being flushed into the
formations surrounding the bit and assuming that sufficiently sensitive instru-
mentation was achieved to enable detection, then some method of determining the
depths from which the samples under study originated had to be developed. The
successful solution of these three points resulted in this particular formation
evaluation service. In later years, the techniques employed have become in-
creasingly complex and the number of fringe services provided by the crews has
grown greatly but the basic principles of mud logging remain just as they started.

Only two major advances in well logging were offered during the war years
and both of these had been under development for several years before the United
States entered the war. The first was the introduction of the S.P. dipmeter in
1941, incorporating the photoclinometer which had been offered the year before
as a photographic solution to the problem of measuming hole deviation. The
second was the introduction in 1941 of neutron-gamma logging. The former was by
Schlumberger and the latter by Well Surveys, Inc.) licensed to Lane-Wells for
field exploitation.

The S.P. Dipmeter simply placed into subsurface practice what geologists had
done for years in surface studies. Whenever a geologist makes am electric log
correlation of at least three wells not in a straight line, it may be shown that
the correlation lines passing through the same formation define the plane of that
formation. But this type of study required at least three wells ... and an
instrument was desired which would be capable of making such a measurement in a
single well. Therefore, instead of recording three electric logs from three
separate individual wells, the idea was simply to record three electric logs in
the same well, with electrodes spaced as far apart as possible but in the same
horizontal plane. A dipmeter was designed to do this, recording three S.p.
curves from single electrodes spaced 120° apart and held against the wall of the
borehole by a mandrel and hard rubber arms. However, such an apparatus can only
yield the angle of dip.

Therefore, the photoclinometer was added to the instrument assemblage to

record the deviation from vertical of the hole itself and the directional position
of the instrument at any station. The instrument could then measure both direction
and angle of bedding dip, corrected for hole deviation from normal, at many
stations in a hole; the number of stations limited only by the length of film
in the photoclinometer. One serious disadvantage was immediately obvious; it
was only satisfactory where sharp S.P. anomalies were present.

To enable dip measurements to be made in “hard rock” areas of little S.P.

differentiation, this dipmeter underwent further modification resulting, in
1947, in a “resistivity” dipmeter. A two-electrode system was placed in each
of the hard rubber arms and circuitry was arranged so that three simultaneous
resistivity curves could be recorded rather than the three S.P. curves. Even
with this tool, it was still necessary to record only at certain stations rather
than continuously, due to rotation of the tool and lack of continuous position
data.

-16-
 The neutron-gamma device was an outgrowth of work done by Italian physicists
in 1935, who in 1941 were still engaged in nuclear research which led to the
development of the first atomic bomb. Amaldi53 described experiments on the
slowing down and stopping of neutrons by a hydrogenous mass; application of this
slowing down of neutrons by hydrogenous substances (which, for oil exploration
work, would be water, oil, and gas) was developed by Well Surveys, Inc., and
was announced to the oil industry by Pontecorvo21 in the classic paper on the
subject. The property measured is the number of secondary gamma rays produced
through bombardment of the rock surrounding the borehole by a stream of neutrons.
The instrumentation is very similar to that of gamma ray logging, since it is
also a measure of gamna ray intensity; the essential difference lies in the
degree of sensitivity to be utilized, in the counter, plus the addition of a
stable source of neutrons.

The next really major development was the induction log, introducedby
Schlumberger in 1947 to measure formation resistivities when the borehole was
filled with oil or oil-base mud. This replaced attempts to measure resistivity
using “scratcher electrodes” which made physical contact with the formation to
provide conduction for current and measuring circuits; this device had been
better than no log but the contact was intermittent and the log was erratic and
difficult to interpret. Thus, the induction log, in itself, proved a very useful
tool in this regard but the use of the induction log in fresh-water muds has
become so widespread that the reason for its early development has been almost
forgotten. It is a focused measurement utilizing insulated coils to induce the
current electromagneticallyback into the formations rather than conducting it
through the drilling fluid as in conventional electric logging. With thi~ in-
strument, the drilling fluid may be completely non-conductive or the hole may
even lack any liquid flu:d; however, it must not be cased with metal, for this
would provide electrical shielding.

The use of quantitative interpretation of electric logs in the determination

of such reservoir properties as porosity and water saturation had been stimu-
lated by several excellent papers expressing empirical relationships but wide-
spread use of these techniques was still delayed by the difficulty of obtaining
a reliable value for Rt. A great step forward in interpretation was made in W-y
of 1947 when Schlumberger distributed the first resistivity departure curves.
These were to “provide graphical means by which the true electrical resistivity
Rt of a formation in situ can be deduced from the apparent resistivity Ra, ~iven
by the electric log”. Use of these curves caused a boom in quantitative inter-
pretation, while the limitations of the curves were largely ignored. It is
probable that the mistakes made during this frenzied period of log stlldydid more
to cause companies to appreciate the worth of professional log analysts than has
any other factor!

The Microlog, introduced by Schlumberger in 1948, was the first attempt to

build a tool specifically designed to facilitate quantitative interpretation by
measuring the resistivity of a specific zone of invasion, i.e., the flushed zone.
It is a non-focused tool, with electrodes linearly arranged as in the conventional
electric log but with ultra-short spacings, having a normal resistivity measure-
ment with AM = 2“ and a lateral resistivity measurement with AO . 1-1/2”. The
electrodes are slightly recessed into a pad held against the borehole wall. How-
ever, the M.icrologis often unsuccessful in measuring the resistivity of the

-17-
flushed zone in intervals of moderate to high resistivity because the mudcake
tends to short circuit the current between electrodes. The Microlog has been
an excellent tool for locating permeable zones and for extremely accurate
definition of bed boundaries. Introduction of the focused Microlaterolog in
1951 as a tool to measure Rxo in higher resistivities and where mudcakes are
thicker and/or of low resistivity has provided a tool “which really does what
the Microlog was originally designed to do”.

Now with the war years beginning to recede into past history and with
competition in the well logging industry becoming intense) research into tools
designed for many specific measurements or to overcome certain limitations
and/or disadvantages of the earlier tools became intense. Introduction of new .
tools, new techniques, new methods of interpretation has come with every year
and sometimes with every few months. The restrictions faced by conventional
electric logging were in regard to either saline or non-conductive borehole
fluids, thin beds, highly resistive beds, and potentially productive beds over-
shadowed by dense, highly resistive beds. These have all been solved: use of
the Laterolog (1950) or Guard Log (1950) as focused tools to measure fomtion
resistivi.tyeven though the borehole was filled with brine; use of the in-
duction log (1947) as a focused tool in holes drilled with oil or oil-base mud;
use of any of these focused tools to reduce or eliminate the effect of adjacent
beds, including the Induction-Electric log introduced in 1956 for this purpose
in fresh-water muds. The use of micro-device tools for porosity calculations
as well as for qualitative checks for permeability and formation boundaries has
opened a new route for quantitative analysis.

While electric logging has been advancing rapidly through these diversi-
fications, other fields of logging have been advancing at an CVC1lgreater speed.
Pro”lmblythe most rapid in the past few years has been acoustic logging.

Announcement was made in 1$)48of an acoustic impedance log being developed

by Humble Research. This technique has come from that start to a continuous
velocity 10C developed by Magnolia Research in 1951, offered cornnerciallyby
%i~mocraph Service Corporation in 1954-for the first time and now offered in
~omc form by every major log~ing company in the field. It has proved to be
pos~ibly the best method yet devised for determination of formation porosity,
is helpful in assistin~ seismic interpretation in difficult areas, and may
ea~ily have other uses not yet found. A completely different application of a
vrry zimilar acoustic technique is the acoustic attenuation cement bond log
introduced by Schlumberger in lj60. This may reduce or solve the ever present
problem of whether an unsatisfactory well completion may have been due to a poor
cement job. It also removes one more “crutch” frequently used as an excuse for
a poor job of formation evaluation!

Equally spectacular advances have been made in engineering for the dipmeter.
The S.P. and resistivity dipmeters which had to be used only for point by point
determinations have been completely replaced by continuously recording dipmeters
of much Greater accuracy. The first continuous dipmeter, developed by the
Reccarch Laboratory of the Carter Oil Company (now the Jersey Production Research
Company) in 1951, utilized a caliper tool for the 120° correlation. The orien-
tation and deviation devices were excellent but the differential erosion parameter,
while satisfactory in limestone areas , wa~ not sufficiently sharp in areas of

-18-
 Fig. 12. A modern logging truck, equipped
for any wireline service. 1961.

sand-shale sequence for dip calculations. This device was followed by the
Schlumberger Microlog continuous dipmeter in 1952, using three IW.crologpads
120° apart and by the Schlumberger Microlaterolog continuous dipmeter in 1956,
using three Microlaterolog pads spaced 120° apart. This last technique has been
adopted by some of the other companies also and appears to give the sharp breaks
necessary for optimum accuracy in dip calculations.

Another major advance has been made in the recovery by wireline of physical
samples from the formations .... but this time, it is not reservoir rock which
is being recovered but rather reservoir fluid. Drill-stem testing has been
successful in many areas in the past but it requires considerable rig-time, both
in running the tool and in conditioning the hole to run the tool. The advent of
a wireline tool which could obtain a sample of several gallons (or more) of fluid
from the packed-off formation, while measuring flowing pressure and closed-in

-19-
I
‘)

Fig. 13. Modern logging instruments for

the truck oz Fig. 12. 1961.

-20-
pressure, was eagerly awaited and the waiting has proved worthwhile. This is a
tool which has helped in evaluation of even those zones most difficult to evaluate
from logs. This tool was introduced by Schlumberger in 1955 and this service
also is now offered by most companies in the field.

The use of radioactivity measurements (these logs are now officially desig-
nated as “nuclear” logs by the A.P.I.) has progressed considerably. The early
gamma ray and neutron-gma curves had to be recorded individually, requiring
two trips in the hole for a single log. Since these logs must be recorded very
slowly due to the fluctuating nature of the emissions, this meant that the cost
of the rig-time required (already high) often became excessive. A depth problem
was also presented through separate runs for recording. The introduction of
neutron-neutron logging by P.G.A.C. in 1950, recorded simultaneously with their
gamma ray curve, immediately reduced this expense for rig-time by fifty per cent
and removed the possibility of depth discrepancies between the two curves. The
neutron-neutron log recorded the number of slowed neutrons following bombard-
ment rather than the number of secondary gemma rays. Interpretation was almost
the same as for the neutron-gamma curve but the disadvantageous effect of un-
wanted gamma rays produced within the neutron source was eliminated. siltlul-
taneous recording of these nuclear curves has now become standard practice in
the operations of all logging companies.

Other advances in the field of radioactivity logging include the gamma-gamma

curve of the Densilog, developed by Lane-Wells in 1950 to measure the density of
the formations; the multiple-spaced neutron log used in the detection of gas/oil
contacts in areas of dry gas, developed by Petro-Tech in 1955; gamma ray logging
of cores at the surface, developed “byCore Lab in 1957; the flowing neutron log
developed by Creole Petroleum Corporation in 1957 for the localization of gas/oil
contacts or points of gas entry in flowing wells; the use of radioactive isotopes
in checking cement tops (experimentally tried by Howell and Frosch in 1939 and
commercially introduced by Lane-Wells in 1943) or in checking frac operations or
in determining flow patterns in reservoirs; or the more recent developments in
neutron logging of the Salinity log of McCullough (1959) and the Cemoton log of
Lane-wells (I-958). Neutron sources have been changed through the period of use
from the low energy radium-beryllium original ones to polonium-beryllium and now
there are high energy accelerator sources in the final stages of development and
commercial use is expected in the immediate future.

New electric logging combinations by Schlumberger, popularly called the

“Grand Slam” technique, will utilize the deep induction 6FF40 curve (1958),
the Proximity curve (1958), the Laterolog-8 curve (1957) and the S.P. This is
designed primarily as an advance in the science of quantitative interpretation
and recording may revert to a logarithmic scale; this was the t-ypescale used
on the earliest continuously recorded hand recorder logs but replaced by a linear
scale because of easier field acceptance as a qualitative tool.

And, to show the shape of things to come, the introduction of the nuclear
magnetism log in 1959 as a joint effort of California Research and Borg-War r
should be mentioned although field experience is still scanty. The authors!%
say that this technique offers a way of making direct measurements on the hydrogen
in the formation fluids and not on the rock matrix. It is the only log responding
solely to the formation fluids. It operates equally well in both oil-base and

-21-
water-base muds and in empty holes and can be used in all kinds of formations
except strongly magnetic ones. A “free fluid log” not only delineates fluid-
containing zones but provides an excellent correlation curve that can be obtained
under conditions where conventional correlation logs are ineffective. It may
provide some information on permeability. Another measurement requires stopping
the logging tool for more detailed study but may yield data from which oil and
water saturations can be determined. The property measured is called the “nuclear
magnetic relaxation”.

The methods of measurement and the parameters included have now become so
numerous that a logging analyst would need a specialized knowledge of physics,
chemistry, geology, petroleum engineering, electrical engineering, mathematics,
and many sub-branches of these in order to follow developments in instrumentation.
But the reservoir properties which are the objective of the search are still the
same, i.e., porosity, permeability, whether oil, gas, or water is present and
in what quantity. Since the ultimate end of all routes is the same, it is often
possible to begin from there and work backwards in an effort to evaluate the
practicality of a method and to develop a technique of interpretation; this is
the empirical approach by which our present knowledge of interpretation has been
gained. And this is the approach which is now recommended to all analysts in an
effort to increase the information gained from past and current logging methods
and to provide more information from the logging developments certain for the
future.

-22-
 ACKNOWLED3VIENTS

I should like to thank the many friends who aided in the preparation
of this paper by supplying remembered information and anecdotes about the
early days of logging. I should also like to thank the Schlumberger Well
Surveying Corporation for furnishing most of the pictures and logs used as
illustrations and Tulane University and the Jersey Production Research
Company for permission to publish this information.

-23-
 DTi2T Tr_w-DAIYUV
JJ.LUJAL UULULK 11 J.

10 Fox, R. W.; “On the Electromagnetic Properties of Metalliferous Veins in

. the Mines of Cornwall”; Trans. Royal .—
SOC. Londonj V. 25 (1-830).

2. Quinck, G.; Annalen. der Physik; series2 V. 7 (1859)) PPO 1-47*

3* Tapper, W.; “Caliper and Temperature Logging”; Colorado School ——

of Mines
Quarterly, v. 45, 2-B (June, 1950), p. 444.

4. Brownj Fred H. ; U.S. Patent 274,882.

5* Schlumberger, Conrad; French Patent 450,7$4.

6. Anon.; “History of Geophysics”; The Petroleum Times, London, V. %,

No. 916 (August 1, 1936), p. i.

7* Tixier, M. P., and M. Martin; “History of Logging and Future Development”;

Canadian .— Gas Industries, v. 7, No. 8 (August 1954).
Oil and .

8. Rust, W. M., Jr.; “A Historical Review of Electrical Prospecting Methods”;

Geophysics, v. 3, No. 1 (January 1938), p. 2.

9* Hamilton, R. G.; “The Revolution in Well Logging”; The Oil ——

and Gas
Journal, v. 58, No. 26, (June 27, 1960),p. 187. ‘—

10. Guyed, Hubert; Personal communication? February 3, 1961.

11. Backstrom, R. C.; “Open Hole Diameter Changes Located and Measured by
Recording Calipers”; ——
The Oil Weekly, May 27, 1935.

12. Schlumberger, C. & M., and H. G. Doll; “The Electromagnetic Tele-

clinometer and Dipmeter”; World Petroleum Congress, London (July 1933).

13 ● Ikle, C. R.; U. S. Patent 2,203,720.

14. Panyity, L. S.; “New Method for Taking Core Samples at Well”; ——
The Oil
and
.— Gas Journal, v. 36, No. 16, (September 2, 1937), p. 46.

15. Nichols, P. B.; “Mechanical Well Logging”; Bull., Texas A. & M. College,
Fifth Series, v. 1, No. 8 (August 15, 194~ull=~3,-p~. 105-118.

16. Guyed, Hubert; “Caliper Well Logging”; ——

The Oil Weekly, (August 27, 1945),
PP. 32-35.

17. Martin, M., Murray, G. H., and Gillingham, W. J.; “Determination of the
Potential Productivity of Oil-bearing Formations by Resistivity
Measurements”; Geophysics, V. 3, No. 3 (July 1938),pp. 252-272.

18. Anon.; “Discussions and Communications; Radioactive Well Logging Service”;

Geophysics, v. 5, No. 4 (October 1940), p. 402.

-24-
19. Sawdon, W. A.; “Mud Analysis Used to Log Wells While Drilling”; Petroleum
Engineer, (August 1939), p. 84.

20. Schlumberger; U. S. Patent 2,176,169 on S.P. Dipneter.

21. Pontecorvo, Bruno; “NeutronWell Logging”; ——

The Oil ——
and Gas Journal,
September 11, 1941.

22. Hughes, James D.;“Radioactivity Logging Provides Valuable Eata for Gulf
Coast Operations”; Tomorrow’s Tools — Today, v. 9, No. 4, p. 4.

23. Doll, H. G.; “Introduction to Induction Logging”; ——

Petr. Tech., September 1948.

24. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp., ‘rResistivityDeparture Curves”,

May 1947.

25. Doll, H. G.; “Two Decades of Electrical Logging”; Journal Petr. Technology,
v. 5, No. 9 (September 1953), pp. 33-41.

26. Barnes, Kenneth B.; “New Logging Method”; The Oil .—

and Gas Journal,
V. 48, No. 34 (Eecember 29, 1949), p. 35= —

27. Kean, C. H. and Tulles, F. N.; “Acoustic IinpedanceLogging”; ——

The Oil —
and
Gas Journal, v. 47 (October 14, 1948), p. 95.

28. Barstow, O. E. and Bryant, C. M.; “I!eep-WellCamera”; Subsurface Geologic

Methods, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado (~$1~ 562-574.

29. Doll, H. G.; “The Laterolog; A New Resistivity Logging Method with
Electrodes Using an Automatic Focusing System”; Petr. Trans., A.I.M.E.,
V. 192 (1951).

30. Owen, J. E. and Greer, W. J.; “The Guard Electrode Logging System”; Petr.
Tech., Dscember 1951.6

31. Ileegan,Charles J.; “New Logging Method”; The Oil and Gas Journal,
V. 48, No. 43 (March 2, 1950), p. 23. ‘———

32. Doll, H. G.; “The Microlaterolog”; Journal .—

Petr. Tech., TP No. 3492
(January 1953).

33. Summers, G. C. and Broding, R. A.; “Continuous Velocity Logging”; Abstract,

The Oil ——
—— and Gas Journal, (November 22, 1951), p. 84.

34. Boucher, F. G., Hildebrandt, A. B., and Hagen, H. B.; “New Dip-Logging
Method”; Second Symposium on Subsurface Geological Techniques, School
of Geology, University of ~lahoma, March 14-15, 1951, pp. 101-110.

35. de Clmmbrier, Pierre; “The Microlog Continuous Dipmeter”; paper presented

before the Houston meeting, Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
March 23-26,1953.

-25-
36. Ruddick, C. K.; Personal communication; Ikcember 1953.

37●
Lebourg, M.j Fields, R. Q., and I!oh,C. A.; “A Method of Formation Testin
on Logging Cable”; TP No. 701-G, Fall 1956 Meeting, Sot. of Petr.
Engineers of A.I.M.E., Los Angeles.

38. Grosmangin, M., Walker, E. B.; “Gas DAection by Dual-Spacing Neutron

Logs in the Greater Oficina Area, Venezuela”; Journal ——
Petr. Tech.,
V. 9, No. 5, (May 1957),~’).140-147.

39* Tixier, M. P., Alger, R. P., and Tanguy, D. R.; “New Developments in
Induction and Sonic Logging”; Journal Petr.
—— Tech., v. 12, No. 5
(May 1960), pp. 79-87.

40. Jenkins, R. E. and Meurer, Marc C.; “Surface Gamma Ray Logging of Sub-
surface Cores”; .—
The Petr. Engineer, (February 1958), pp. B64-B70.

41. Doll, H. G., Martin, M., and Tixier, M. P.; “Review of the Progress of
Well Logging Since the Fourth World Petroleum Congress”; Sec. 1,
Paper 35, Proc. of Fifth World Petroleum Congress, New York City,
1959, pp. ~6~——

42. Bailey, B. H., Bryant, H. L., and Powell, N. L.; “Spot Those Gas Zones
with Neutron Logging”; ——
The Oil .—
and Gas Journal, (November 18, 1957),
pp. 368-370.

43. Stroud, Stanley G. and Schaller, Herman E.; “A New Nuclear Log for the
Determination of Reservoir Salinity”; Journal —Petr. —
Tech., v. 12,
No. 2 (February 1960), pp. 37-41.

44. Kirkman, C. L.; Personal conmmnication, February 27, 1959.

45. Youmans, Arthur, Hopkinson, Eric C., and Stewart, R. M.; “(D,T) Neutron
Activation Logging”; paper presented at 34th Annual Fall Meeting, Sot.
of Petr. Engineers of A.I.M.E., Dallas, 1959.

46. Brown, R. J. S. and Gamson, B. W.; “Nuclear Magnetism Logging”; Journal

Petr.
—— Tech., v. 12, No. 8 (August 1960) pp. 201-209.

47. Hull, Paul and John E. Coolidge; “Field Examples of Nuclear Magnetism
Logging”; Journal .
Petr. —
Tech., v. 12, No. 8 (August 1960), pp. 14-22.

48. Grosmangin, M., Kokesh, F. P., and Majani, Pierre; “A Sonic Method for
Analyzing the Quality of Cementation of Borehole Casings”; Journal
Petr. Tech., v. 13, No. 2 (February 1961) pp. 165-171.
——
49. Landes, Kenneth K.; “Petroleum GeologY“; published by John Wiley and Sons,
New York (1951), p. 69.

50. Moore, Carl A.; “Mistakes Can Be Costly in Geologic Correlations”;

World
— Oil, v. 137, No. 1 (July 1953), pp. 109-112.
—
51. Charrin, Paul; Personal communication, March 6, 1961.

52. Howell, L. G. and Frosch, Alex; “Gamma Ray Well Logging”; Geophysics,
v. IV, No. 2 (April 1939), pp. 106-114.

53* Amaldi,E., D’Agostino, O., Fermi, E., Pontecorvo, B., Rasetti, F., and
Segre, E.; “Artificial Radioactivity Produced by Neutron Bombardment”;
Proc. Ro 1 Sot. of London, Series A., No. 868, v. 149 (April 1935),
+
PP* 522-55 .——

-27-