SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

by AM. SI13BIT Schlumberger Technical Services, Inc. , Singapore.

O.FAIVRE Schlumberger China S. A., Beijing.

In fractured rocks, large separations are observed between shallow and deep
Laterolog* curves . These separations arise through the invasion of a
conductive fluid, mud, into the fracture system . Using a finite-element
resistivity model of the formation, borehole and tool the Dual Laterolog
response was reconstructed for a wide variety of format Ion condlt ions .
Characteristic features of low-angle and high-angle fractures were
discovered and the results were extended to networks of intersecting or
non-intersecting fractures.

In high-contrast formations (Rt >> I&J the Dual Laterolog response @

controlled byfour parametet%
the resistivity of the formation blocks,
the resistivity of the invading fluid,
the extent of invasion
and the fracture opening.
With a few simplifying assumptions the Dual Laterolog measurement may be
used to solve the inverse problem and determine the fracture opening . A
computer program has been written to perform the computation.

The application of this method is illustrated with field examples and the
results are compared with core data and product ion test results.

Since the resistivlty response of the fracture network and the formation
blocks can be decoupled by this technique, a simple way to carry out
interpretations of fractured reservoirs is proposed.

*Mark of Schlumberger

-1-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

Much has been, and will cent irtue to be written about the detection of
fractures around wellbores [1 ls[zls~31DIdls[51 . Our aim is not to rehash any of
this material, so we will assume that the reader has a passing familiarity
with the reference documentation.

Many of the fracture indicators from well logs are highly influenced by
near-borehole effects which can be mistaken for, or can mask anomalies
caused by fractures . One “far-sighted” indicator sees deeper into the
formation - the Dual Laterolog - and can give insights into that most elusive
of quantities, the productivity of fractured reservoirs , Zones exhibiting
spectacular near-borehole fracturing often turn out to be poor producers .
Analysls of the Dual Laterolog response, however,can give us not only an
evaluation of the opening of fractures but also the extension of fracturing
into the formation.

In reference [d], Boyeldieu and Winchester developed a theory to compute

fracture porosity from the separation between deep and shallow Laterologs.
In their analysis they looked atthe conductivity difference, AC= CLLs-CLLo,
where CLLsand CLLDare, respectively, the conduct ivit ies measured by the
shallow and deep Laterologs. Looking at this same quantity we will show .,

that it is proportional to the total fracture opening (denoted below by the

Greekletter epsilon,e), of “vertical”fractures . Moreover the conductivity
CLLD,compared to the conduct lvlty cb of unfractured rock, gives a measure
of the depth of penetration (related to the diameter of invasion, df) of mud
into the fracture system and consequent ly of the penetration of the fracture
Itself.

Figure 1, shows a Dual Laterolog over a severely fractured zone (This

example is also discussed in reference [61). The television picture alongside
indicates along “sub-vertical’’ (high angle relativeto the borehole) fracture
from 118 metres to 98 metres and “horizontal” (low angle relative to the
borehole) frdctures can be seen at 84, 88, 93 and 111 metres . The
fractures have been enlarged by the circulation of ground waters . Over the
vertically fractured interval the LLD (deep Laterolog resistivity) is much
higher than the LLS (shallow Laterolog resistivity) . It may be argued that
this separation is due to other factors, such as invasion. This is partly true,
but the heterogeneity of the formation is the major reason, Mud resistivity,
R~, in this zone is 0.5 (1.m. and a quicklook computation (explained below) of

-2-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

the total aperture of the fractures shows them to be between 3 and 5 mm. .
We can also compute the block resist ivlty, %, of the rock between fractures
and obtain a value of S00 to 600 ().m. which compares well with the highest
values observed over the log section.

In front of the horizontal fractures, sharp reductionsin the Dual Laterolog

resistivities are observed .These Iowresistivity anomalies area littleness
than 1 metre wide and the separation LLS, LLD may be reversed i.e. LLS
higher than LLD,as is the case of the fracture at 84 metres.

In the following we set out to model these situations to arrive at

explanations for the observed phenomena and to quantify certain fracture
parameters. The density and orientation of fractures are best determined by
high-resolution logs such as dipmeters and televiewers . Together with
apertures, determined from the Dual Laterolog we may estimate the
porostty and permeability of a fractured zone [~1. It 1s Important to note,
figure 2, that fractures are not necessarily planar and maybe very irregular.
Dissolution of material along fractures may result in a series of vugs
connected by fractures [6j~lTl; in such cases the aperture estimation willbe
some sort of average of the openingal ong the fracture.

Figure 3 shows the conf iguration used in model ling. The Dual Laterolog tool
(DLT) is centred in an 8 inch mud-filled borehole, in turn centred in a zone
of high resistivity, ~. The high resistivity zone is a cylinder of radius
5000 inches (127 m.) and height 4000 inches (102 m.) . The surrounding
shoulder-beds have a negligible effect on the Dual Laterolog response,
provldlng merely a conductive path for the LLD current to the surface
electrode. The electrode dimensions and positions were those of a DLT type
D or E sonde.

The resistivity of the unfractured formation was assumed constant and high
relative to the mud resistivity . A resistivity contrast Rb/R~ > 104 was
maintained in the early models . This is consistent with many reservoir
models where low-porosity homogeneous blocks are separated by fracture
net works. Note that Rb may be different from Rt, the overall resist ivity of
the formation. We argue below that Rt is not a useful formation descriptor
in fractured rocks.

...

-3-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

Fractures intersect ing the borehole were discontinuous planar boundaries of ..,.

infinitesimal thickness . Vertical fractures not intersecting the borehole

were cyllndrica] boundaries , By adjusting the lateral and transverse
boundary conditions, different fracture apertures and f Md conductlvitles
could reentered.

The finite-element grid used, made it difficult to examine the effect of

dipping fractures . Qua]itat ively, however, it was established that
horizontal behaviour is dominant for angles up to 60” with the horizontal,
and vertical behaviour for angles in excess of 75*.

Superposition of vertical and horizontal fracture results were in good

agreement with the results of networks of fractures . This enabled us to
limit the number of models to be constructed . Initially we used a block
resistivityof 1000O(?.m. and amudresistivity ofO.1 (?.m, implying low
porosity of the order of one porosity unit. This covers most of the examples
analysed in this paper .Wewill show that these results maybe extended to
block resistivities roughly one order of magnitude higher or lower . So our
conclusions apply toa wide variety of low porosity reservoirs.

It was also assumed that mud invades fractures, not mud filtrate, and that
all formation fluids would be displaced by the invading mud front . Severe
dri ]1ing mud losses across fractured zones tend to support the first
assumption and since capillary pressure in fractures is generally reduced
the latter is also plausible . Should these assumptions be invalid R~ in the
following may be replaced by R~f or the resistivity of a mixture of filtrate
and residual hydrocarbon.

Figures 4A and 46 show the effect of increasing the fracture aperture but
keeping the mud and block resistivities constant. Both LLD and LLS decrease
with increasing fracture aperture, this is an important characteristic of
open fractures . At the same time their separation increases and the
conductivity difference AC is to a good approximation proportional to the
fracture opening ,e . Varying R~ and keeping e constant produces a 1inear
relationship betweenAC andC~(= l/RJ.Therefore,

-4-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

AC =4X 10-4s. C~ .-. (1)

where unit of AC is mmhdm.
c is ~m.
and Cmis mho/rn,

Changing R~ has no effect on the conductivity difference, provided that the

contrast Rb/R~ remains high.

Figure 4C demonstrates the effect of shallow invasion of mud into the

fracture system. LLS decreases more sharply than LLD and, for all practical
purposes, AC is constant for invasion radi i in excess of 100 inches (2.5LI m.).
In the event that the formation fluid is water in place of hydrocarbon
(formation fluid resistivity << 1 000 (?.m) the effect of shallow invasion
will much less marked . Since LLD decreases steadily as invasion radius
increases itmay be used to estimate the invasion extent.

To construct figure 4D, we varied the vertical extension of the fracture. For
fractures longer than 7 metres, AC is constant . As the length of the
fracture decreases, LLS and LLD are squeezed together; this is similar to the
behaviour of horizontal fractures.

So far we have discussed single vertical fractures. We also found that two
fractures of combined aperture c are equivalent to a single fracture of
aperture 6 . So, reasoning by induction, we conclude that AC/C~ is a
measure of the combined opening of vertical fractures intersecting the
borehole.

In figure 5A, conductivities from the Dual Laterolog are plotted for various
horizontal fracture apertures, the centre of the tool in each case being the
plane of the fracture. The separation ACis much smaller in magnitude than
in vertical fractures and for the larger apertures is reversed . The
relationship between cLL@b and e is almost linear, but that of CL@b is
noticeably curved .Reasoning asabove wefind:
c l.LO-Cb= 1.2X lo-4&. cm . . . (2)
where unitsofCLLDandCbaremmho/m. and the others as above.

-5-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

Figure 56 gives us a means of identifying horizontal fractures . Here

Laterolog resistivities are plotted against the vertical distance of the
fracture from the centre of the & electrode . The tool reads the fracture
while the current electrodes are across it, then reads the block resist ivit y.
Consequently isolated horizontal fractures can be identified by a sharp
decrease in resistivlty with a total widthat the inflection points of around
0.8 metres, and may show negative separations.

The effect of invasion on a large horizontal fracture is plotted in figure SC.

The infinite invasion approximation of figures 5A and 5B is appropriate
where invasion radii exceed 300 inches (7.62 m.) for hydrocarbon bearing
formations, less when the fractures contain water. For deeper invasion the
separation of the Laterologs reverses .Figure5D contains thesame dataas
figure 5A but emphasises the non-linearity of the smal 1 fracture data. When
the fractures are small RLLDand RLLstend to Rband for large fractures (&.C~>
100 ~m.mho/m.) equation (2) is a good approximation.

So far we have examined single fractures and a single surrounding rock

resistivityof 1000OO.m. . Equations (l)and (2) are written in such away
as to suggest that they could be applied to blocks w lth other reslstivities
but this has yet to be demonstrated. We mentioned above that two vertical
fractures of w idth e generate the same response as a fracture of width 2.6.
Similarly two horizontal fractures within 0.4 metres of each other are
equivalent toone fracture oftwice the aperture, except that the anomaly on
the log will cover an interval in excess of 0.8 metres . Where the fractures
are more than 0.4metres apart each event will be distinct . Intersecting
horizontal and vertical fractures behave as if individual horizontal and
vertical fractures were superimposed . For completeness we modelled a
cylindrical fracture centered on the hole axis, figure 6, in order to
understand fracture networks where the vertical components do not
intersect the borehole .Thecieep Laterol og impractically unaffected by the
presence of such fractures but the shallow reads sharply lower if the
fracture is sufficiently close to the borehole (< 2m. ). Again the principle of
superposition could be used to predict the response of intersecting
horizontal and cylindrical fractures.

All these network models assumed fractures f il led with conductive fluid.
Since, in evaluating fractured reservoirs, we are looking primarily for large
open fractures this is not really a drawback. Interesting fractures tend to

-6-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

be deeply invaded by mud, flushing the formation fluids and in the process
destroying our chances of determining whether they originally contained
water or hydrocarbons. When lnvaslon is Hmited, figures 4C and 5C may be
usedto detect this condition. In general LLD wouldbe less affected by the
fracture than LLS and consequently the separation of the curves would
increase. This in turn leads to exaggerated estimates of F$ and e when we
come to solve the inverse problem, andcan be easily detected.

Reexwation of Vertical Fractures

Replotting the data of figure 4A on a logarithmic grid gives figure 7. AC

varies linearly with aperture for large fractures, as the fracture becomes
smaller AC deviates from the line. If there were no fractures LLD = 11 626
C).m. and LLS = 10715 ().m. in front of a 10000 ().m.formation . This
separation, small in conductivity terms, is due to boreholeeffect andcould
easily be corrected by departurecurves. Practically there isllttle needto
make borehole correcti ons as interesting fractures donot fall inthisregi on
of the chart preferring back to figure5D we observe the same behaviour in
front of horizontal fractures . Correcting for borehole effect removes the
posit ive separation between the curves . When there is no invasion in the
reservoir blocks the separation would be negative (LLS > LLD) for all
fracture apertures.

Summarizing the results of modelling we have

ACoc~, when Cband C~are constant.
AC oc C~, when Cband c are constant.
If Cm and cb are multiplied by a factor B, and e is constant, then CLLD
and CLLsare increased by the same factor fi. (For thoseof unfamiliar
with saturation equations thlsls not surprising, the Laterolog sees
the two porous systems; blocks and fractures; in parallel).

This latter result permits us to make a simple construction. Figure 8 shows

the relationship between the Laterologs and the product &C~ for a given
value of Rb(=lOOOOO.m). The shape of the curves is preserved and we can
map these curves along 1lnes where the qUantity - ~.C#Cb - is kept
constant .Twoother members of this family of curves are shown in figure
9, one with Rb = 100000 f).m. and the other with ~ = I 000 O.m. . The
validity of this construction was examined through additional models and
found to be accurate in the range Rb = 500 (?.m. to 40000 O.m. . Two log

-7-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

overlays, figures 10A and 106 were made to use on well-s~te logs . The
overlays are used as follows:
Slide figure 10A over the Log until the LLS, LLD separation matches,
keeping the axes parallel to the grid lines.
Slide figure 105 such that the point of convergence lies on the
diagonal line and that the i?esistivity grid matches that of the log. R~
may be read off on the x-axis grid at the point of convergence, and
e.C~onthe y-axis grid atthe depth of the log separation .

This quick-look procedure assumes deep invasion, and if this condition is

not met the estimates of ~ will be to high . By comparing with the
resistivities of nearby (unfractured) rocksit is relatively straightforward
to detect shallow invasion.

Using a procedure similar to the one discussed above, we can construct a

quick look chart for horizontal fractures, figure 11 . In essence we have
assumed that for constant pore geometry (e constant), multiplying Cm and cb
by J3results in CLLsand CLLDbeing increased by the same factor 13, From the
original curve, Rb = 10 000 (?.m. we have constructed the curves to
approximate Rb= 1000, 2000, 5000, 20000 and 50000 O.m. . Intermediate
values can be interpolated .Theshape of the curves are easyto understand:

When 6 is smal 1 CLLD~ CLLss cb (the fractures are negligible), and

when eis large CLLDZCLLSOCe.C~(the fractures dominate).

The constant of proportionality has the dimension length and turns out to be
close to 0.8metres (cf. equation (2)) .The validityof the constructed lines
were verified by further model ling. It can be seen from figure 1 ! that as
the block resistivity is further reduced the contrast between fractures and
blocks are reduced . Limits of observable fracture aperture for a given
resistivity contrast,Rb/R~,mayalsobederived from this chart.

Figures 12A and 12B are from a well in northern China . From the GLOBAL*
results we see that the porosity is small, rising to a maximum of 10
porosity units between zones A and B . Most of the poros~ty is secondary
(vugs) and the reservoirs depend on fractures to produce. Examining zones A

-8-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

and B we see that the shear waves are attenuated compared with similar
low-porosity format ions a little deeper in the well . LLS increases from
2000 f?.m. to 10000 O.m. in zone A, while LLD increases from 6000 O.m. to
40000 (l.m. . As a conductivity difference, AC 0.3 mmho/m. at the bottom
❑

decreasing to 0.075 mmho/m. at the top . Since R~ = 0.3 (1.m. applying

equation (l) gives a fracture aperture of225flm. at the bottom of the zone,
decreasing to 60 ~m. at the top . The curve shapes of the porosity logs in
figure 12B suggest a lowering of porosity towards the top, so probably the
fracture is pinching out.
In zone B and zone C the separation of the Laterologs appear constant
on the logarithmic scale .LLS= 5000.m. andLLD= 1 300(?.m. leads toAC=
1.23 mmho/m. and c = 900 pm. . In zone C we can clearly see four horizontal
fractures marked by arrows . In the uppermost, LLD decreases from 1 500
(?.m. to less than 200 (?.m. . Applying chart 11, e.C~ is 3000 and
consequently the fracture opening is around 900 Mm. . Couldthese huge
events bedueto some other conductive anomaly ?ln-filling with conductive
minerals (clays or iron-bearing minerals) may give a similar response . Two
of the events show spikes in P~ (Photoelectric absorption index from the
Lithe-Density* Tool), as the mud was weighted with barite this is most
likely due to invasion. Note also the behaviour of the sonic waveforms over
this zone . Cores confirm the presence of vertical fractures and production
was 120000ms/daygas, making the well one of the most prolific in the
field.

The second example, figures 13A, 136 and 13C is from southern China and
we are looking at three zones of horizontal fracturing configure 13A zone
A shows an interval of attenuated shear; zone B criss-crossing patterns
between the compressional and first shear arrivals, an increase in At over 4
metres(thetransm itter-receiverspac ing)and disappeari ngStoneley waves
immediately above; zone C shows sharp discontinuities in the waveforms
over 4metresw ith corresponding increases in compressi onalandshearAt”s.
All these events are characteristic of fracturing, and porosity in all three
zones is small .Looking at the Laterologs, figure 135, we see a clusterof
three spikes on the from 80 to 85 metres in zone A, and distinctive single
spikes in zones Band C. On unexpanded scale, figure 13C(depthlines 0.1 m.
apart), we seethe characteristic hori zontal fracture response of figure5B.
In zone C there is a negative separation between LLS and LLD at the
fracture, the width - 0.8 m. - at the inflection point implies a single
fracture. At the shouldersLLD=50000 (?.m., and across the fracture LLD x
1000 O.m. . Referring to the quicklook chart, figure 11, we find e.C~ = 800,

-9-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

and since R~ = 0.3 O.m., c = 240 ~m. . The dip of this fracture is around 5“
from dipmeter results.
In zone B there is a positive separation and LLD = 130 (1.m. , in this
case referring to chart 11 the block resistivity has a negligible effect on
the aperture computation, e.Cm= 7000 and e = 2 mm.. Againthe dipmeter
processing gives a low-angle high-quality dip result.
In zone A there are a cluster of Laterolog anomalies somewhat wider
than 0.8 m. implying closely spaced horizontal fractures . The separation
within the anomalies is positive but is also positive at the shoulders
perhaps due to borehole . Returning to figure 136, zone A has small
horizontal fracture responses throughout the interval and this was
confirmed bycore analysis . The fractures between 83and 84metres have a
combined opening of600 ~m. .During drilling the well blew out in each of
the zones A,B and C . Selective testing of these intervals was not carried
out, but combined they produce 450 000ms/daygas the highest producer in
this region.

In the third example, figures 14A, 148 and 14C, zone A looks intensely
fractured on most logs . In particular detection of conductive anomalies
from dipmeter results, show a long consistent trend of vertical fracturing,
azimuth N-5 atthe bottom goingto NW-SE at the top . The CLUSTER* arrow
plot shows a few scattered high angle dips . Shear waves are severely
attenuated andthe Stoneley waves disappear . The Laterolog separation is
enormous.
Applying the vertical fracture quicklook overlays, figures 10A and
IOB, we find R~ = 200000 (?.m. and 6.C~ = 1 500. Since R~ = 0.2 ().m. this
gives c = 300 ~m. . Alternatively using equation ( 1) gives e = 833 ~m. .
Clearly the interpretation is more complex, the estimate of R~ is too high
even though the blocks may be tight, Looking at the Laterologs individually,
LLD is reduced from 40000 (1.m. at the shoulders of zone A to 10000 (1.m.
in the middle , This is a much smaller reduction than LLS which reaches a
resistivity of 50 t060(?.m. . Localized fracturing is the most likely cause
of this, the LLS’is strongly infWenced but LLD shows that their penetration
is small . Another possible explanation is that of figure 8, that there are
nearby fractures which do not intersect the borehole . In either the event
the productivity potential of such a zone would be low . Production tests
confirmed this there was no recovery .

Jmm@Lim QLmactucmIlfwmim

-1o-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

These results suggest flaws {n many of the current methods of interpreting

resistivity in fractured reservoirs . Porosity and true resistivity, Rt , are
meaningless unless we tie them to a given depth interval within a reservoir.
Inthe vicinity of afracture, porosity maybe 100% ornearly O% depending
on the depth interval to which we are referring . We have shown that the
Dual Laterolog does not measure Rt (whatever that may be in a fractured
reservoir) but measures Rb and e . If in addition we can determine the
fracture spacing, orientation and areal extent then the porosity of the
fracture system may be computed by integrating over a suitable reservoir
layer.

If we accept a reservoir model where the reservoir blocks contain the

reserves and the fractures provide the means of production then ~ is a
critical parameter . For a complete evaluation of reservoir blocks the
anomalies that permit us to detect fractures area nuisance. We should use
all the available techniques, such as short-axis logging, which minimize the
ef feet of fractures on the standard evaluation measurements . Mandrel
devices such as sonic and Dual Laterolog w ill still see the fractures as will
high resolution dipmeters (HOT* or SHDT*) and televiewers . If we can
compute the porosity of the formation blocks then a conventional saturation
equation will enable us to determine the saturation from Rb.

To discover the fluid originally in a fracture has proved elusive to date . If

the fractures are fluid-f illed and open, the formation fluid tends to be
flushed away from the borehole beyond the range of the resist ivity device .
If the fluid remains then the fracture is not open. In many (but by no means
all) reservoirs, fracture porosity is small compared to the porosity of the
formation as a whole. The fluid in the fractures may then be inferred from
that of the surrounding blocks using, for example, pressures from an RFT*[81.

The Dual Laterolog enables us to decouple the resistivity behaviour of the

fracture system from that of the intervening formation blocks. To complete
the analysis we must do the same for the other logs used in evaluation or at
least minimize the log anomalies caused by fractures. In addition a detailed
geometry of the fracture system is necessary preferably through high
resolution devices with good borehol e coverage.

In many reservoirs, fractures are vital to the productivity of the well .

Product ive f ~actures are deeply invaded by mud during the dri 11ing process,
..-

-11-
SPWLA TwENT’f-slxTH ANNUAL LOGGING syMpOsllJM, JUNE17-20,1985

andthis conductive fluid causes anomalies in the Dual Laterolog readings .,.
Such anomalies fall into two categories: “vertical” (high-angle relative to
the borehole) and “horizontal” (low-angle relatlve to the borehole).

Vertical: the two Laterolog curves separate (LLD>LLS) and the difference in
conductivity is proportional tothe productof the fracture opening and the
conductivity of the invading fluid. When invasion is deep, the resistivity of
the formation between fractures may be computed and this may, in turn, be
used to compute the saturationof the reservoir blocks.

Horizontal: both Laterolog curves decrease sharply over an interval of 0.8 m.

of the wel 1. The separation between curves may reverse (LLD<LLS) . At the
shoulders of horizontal fractures the curves read the resistivlty of the
surrounding medium. The level of the resistivlty opposite the fracture is,
again, related to the product of the fracture opening and the conductivity of
the invading fluid.

In general, the Dual Laterolog used to determine the openingof

may be
fractures and the true resist lvity of the surrounding(unfractured)blocks,
whenever the resistivity contrast between this resistivity, and that of the
mud, is sufficiently high. Together with a knowledge of the geometry of the
fracture system, estimates (on a reservoir scale) of the porosity, and
permeabi 1ity of the fracture system maybe made.

The finite-element program was developed by the Electrical Department of

Etudes et ProductIons Schlumberger in Clamart,Franceand was adaptedby
Pierre Grimaldl for our use . The structure of our fracture models,
verification of the early results, andsome of the results stated in the text
are his work. In addition some of the data points were repeats of earlier
work. Although different boundary conditions had been used the agreement
with our data was within one percent.

Jean-Claude Minne contributed his feel for Laterologs to shape some of our
conclusions.

We would also like to thank several organizations in the People’sRepublicof

China, who provided the enclosed log examples and product Ion f Igures , They
also provided the impetus for the original study.

...

-12-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

,.

[1] Van Golf -Racht T.D.: “Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir

Engineering”, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Oxford,
New York (1982).

[2] Aguilera R.: “Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”, Penn Well Publishing

Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1980).

[3] Minne J.-C., Gartner J.: “Fracture Detection in the Middle East”, Middle
East Oil Technical Conference, SPE 7773 (March 1979).

[4] Boyeldieu C., Winchester A.: “Use of the Dual Laterolog for the
evaluation of the Fracture Porosity in Hard Carbonate Formations’’, Offshore
South East Asia Conference (February 1982).

[5] Paillet F.L.:''Acoustic Propagation inthe Vicinity of Fractures which

Intersect a Fluid-Filled Borehole”, SPWLA (July 1980).

[6] YuZhuangjing, LiGongzhi: "'Development of Re~iu Fractured

Carbonate Oil Pools by Water Injection”, international Meeting on Oilfield
Development Techniques, Daqing, China (September 1982).

[7] WuJiyu: ''AStudyof Gas Resewe Estimation by Conventional Logging

for Fracture-Porosity Carbonate Reservoirs in the Sichuan Basin” (March
1982).

[8] Stewart G., Wlttman M., Van Golf -Racht T.D.:'' The Application of the
Repeat Format ion Tester (RFT*) t o the Analysis of Natural ly Fractured
Reservoirs”, SPE 10181 (October 1981).

-13-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

8C —

:::

85 .. ... . ... . . .;...:.,. . . . . . . . . . . . ....

.::: :::,

90 Legend ....

. LLD
—— .
s 11S
--------- . . .
u) ,. ::’ :: . .
~ ........
95 . ... . . .. . ....8
:.
. ;. :;... .
:.:
....
% :::::. . .
E :::::::
. . :.,
:...:;
. .
.-c . . :..
:,
:. :.:
:,. . .
.

x ::::::
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
~ 100 . . . . ... . . . :..:.::,
.: ....
::.:::
. .
. . :,. . ..
.,
n .. ::.
:..
, .,
.,
:::
. ...:
,. ,: :.. ..8 .
:.,.::
... .).

:.:::::

::
:.:::

,.
.

:..
.
::

. .

.
::
105 . .:. . . :

,..
. ; .:.:.<.:.

.: .: .:.: .....
~:::
:::

.,,

. . .
.

.
:.
. . .:
.,. : ::. :
:.::: ::

::, :. ::::
:.
...
.,.
.4 .
.. .. :.
:: :,:

.
:..:.

. ::::
. .
:.:.
:. ..:

. .
~: . . .

110 . . . . . . . . . ;.

:..::
;.;.:.: .

....
:. :..

. .

.. :.::

.:, O
::
.:

:: ;.: :.
,.
:.:
,.
. .
::::.
::.
.
.. .. .. .. .. ..
:.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .,
.,
:.,
.:. . . . . . .. ,. ...,
::::. :: :,.
,:. :::. :
:. .,.
115
... ,,.

t I c t 1 1 —
2’ 1 100 1000
Resistivity in ohm.m

FIGURE 1 Dual Lmerolog Responsein Severely Fractured In?ervd

( haWi~Q b6seci on hrek)[r? ~e!evkion $icture )

-.

-14-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

FIGURE 2 Schematic of Fractured Rock

Borehole
Rm: 0.1 ohm.m

Fractured Block
= 10000 ohm.m
‘t)

R~= 1.0 ohm.m

FIGURE 3 Configuration of tool in finite element model

(Not to scele)

-15-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

1 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vertical Fractures
I
I I 1 i 1 1 I [
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1(
FRACTURE APERTURE in microns
Conductivity Difference proportional to Frecture Opening
Fl~URE4A (When block resistivity and mud reSistiVity are Constant)

. . . . . . . . I ,.. . . . . .

10000 .... ..
.... .. , LLD ;
. . . . . . —— ..
. . . . . .
■ LLS
. . . . . .
I 1,:
:::
. . . . . . . . .:::. . . . . . . . . , . . ... . . . ...,
:.. . . . .
. . . . .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .. .
. . :::: . . . .

1000
. . . . . . . . ... . . .
. . . . . . . . ... . .%
. . ..
.......... ........Y
.

200 -
.
I 10 D lC
FRACTURE APERTURE in--microns

FIGURE 4B Resistivity Separation in Vertical Fractures

-16-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

..
2000C . ..
.::::. . . . . .. .. .
:.
. .
;.”
. .
. . .: . . .:.
. .. .
..,
..!
.
.
. . .
,. fracture aperture = 600 microns
. :: block resistivitv = 10000 ohm.m
10000 M
..................
. . . . . . . . ..; ..~.; .:.:
-...:. ..:..j..i rnud
. .. .......
*}-:"{
reiistivity”= 0.1 ohm.m
'i-" -----' --!--' -!`-! -:-: -l--------; -----: ---{-
:

,. ..;... :...>.:. ;. :.;

. . . . . ... . .. . ... .... ...
. . . .,..
.. . .. . . ... . .... . ... . ... .... ... k......:....:...:. -.:--:-:-:.:J--.-.-..: -...:...:.
. . . . . .. .:
. . . . . . . . . .; .;.;.;; k. .,... ,. .:.,. . . .. .“1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
.,. . . . . . . .!. . .

.. . . .. . . . .. . ...:. .. . .:.
. . . . . . .

. .. .
.,
.,,
:. ., ..,! .. ..
:: .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . ,.
. . . . . . .
1000 .

:. L
..
,- ● ——.
__ ~..: . . . .. . . ...,. . . .
.. , LLS l..{ ....j .... ..j ....j.i...~....... .. ..... .. ... . ..... .. ....l . .... ........ .....
Information fluid resistivity = 1000 ohm.ml
200 , z , 1; ,1 . . , 1 r , 1I i 1 1 # I I 1 I 1
E

10 100 1000 GJ
2
RADIUS OF INVASION in inches

FIQURE 4C Effect of Invasion on Vertical Fractures

200(

1000

Legend . . .. .. ..
,.. :.. . ..

.. ... ... ..
... . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B LLD
. ,..
:.. . . .

1:
.
J: i:::
200 I I 1 1 1

1 :
2“
FRACTURE LEN in metres

FIWRE 4D Effect of Vertical Extension on Vartical Fractures

-17-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

-,
3

2.5

2
e--~--/---~O$’
- block reslsjlylty =

.-. --..: .. .. ... .... .... .................... ... ........ ... ....... ... ....... . .. ... .......... ...
c
.- ,, +“: :
:/ :
1.5 “-””-”--:
----”:
--””””””””>
>#:””;
#:””; -“”:-”-”--;--”””””

1 -“”””-: ””””j--#:.” >:::::

-””-”””: -“”””:
”””--:
---;
Legend -
0.5 ............ ...................................................... ● LLD .
——
❑ LLS
~
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
FRACTURE APERTURE in microns
Conductivity of LLD is approximately proportional
FIGURE 5A
to the opening of Horizontal Fractures

-.,
2oooi3

—&_ _
10000 .................v .............................................................................

““”””-:’ I:“”-”---:’”-”:
”-’”-:------””-:-: Legend
-------------.--;--.... ...............................................

mm!
............... .. ....... ......... .............. ...... ................. Q LLD
.— -
.............. .......... ...................... .......... ... ... .... . E LLS .,
H. I
.........
I

...” ......................... ...

J
~< j ; j
fracture aperture = 50 microns
infinite invasion
block resistivitv = 10000 ohm.rn
mud resistivity ’= 0.1 ohm.m
-

1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1,6 1.8 z
DISTANCE FROM FRACTURE in meh-es
F,~u~~ ~B Characteristic Response. CIO:e to ~ ~~rizontal Fracture
Width of Anomaly at inflectmn $omt is 0.8 m.

,-

-18-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

,.-
2000

.,
..
:: ::...
...
::..... .
..... .,,
.,,
..,. .
. . . ..
. ... ... ... ... ... ,.,
,..
:;:::
::.
.:.
.. ..
::
.. ,.. ... ... ...
..:.
.. .:.. .. ,.
.. ...
Legend

+’ o
:.:1 :.; .:.
..
*:! : : :::::: LLD
10000 ..........................
: : . : .................................
.....
.,. .
......................,..
.:. : k-----; ----.;---;-.-;-.;.;.;.;

...........:......
..-... ~ ,,. . .. ..
~+ . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..:::. . . . ... . . .. . . :::.
. . ... .. .
;.. . . . ..”.;. . . . .. ..
. . . . . . . . ..

........
.::.
.......
.

...........:.
.,.
:::
.:.
.

.. ....
.

,.. . ...
,

.
....
:.
: .: .,.
:: I .,. . . . . .

I
. .:1 .. . . . . . . ...,.. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . .... . ... . ... ....
\\ . . . . . .
:.;. . . “ -%..:.:..:.:.:

“’%%
.,.

“
.,
..,. . :::’: .,
., :!. :
..!
., :: ..:::. .
. . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . ... . . .. . ....,.
.. .. ...
. . :: . . . . . . . .
:<::

tool centred on fracture .,.

. . ..,, ,,, ,., . . ..:
, ,. ,,
aperture = M microns
block resistivitv = 10000 ohm,ml ~ ; ;;~ .,
. . .., :. :,:
. :.,
. .,., . . :::
.. .,: .
I , , 1 I I f

1 10 D lC
INVASION RADIUS In inches

FIGURE SC Effect of Invasion on Horizontal Fractures

2000( . . . ,. . .,. .
::. . . .. .. .. 1:
:.. . . . . ~ :~

10000

..... ..

. .......

1000 .... ....

.......
~

.... ....
.... ....
1 , . . . .,. ,

200 .
( 5 1 10 100 z
FRACTURE APERTURE In microns

Resistivity Separation in Hcwizcmta! Fractures

“GURE 60 (Non-iinearity emphasised by log. scaie)

T
-19-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

200{

Legend :
● LLD
——

10000

.... ............................................
..... .. .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ----------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..&..............................................
“-”’--------”!”-””
i 2 3 4
-!
5
DISTANCE OF FRACTURE FROM AXIS in metres
Cylindrical Fracture Centred on Hole Axis
FIQURE 6 (fracture does not intersect the borehole)

. . . . . . . . ...
. . . .,. , )
- infinite invasion
. block resistivity
. . . . . . .. ,.. .,1. . .. .. .. .. .. ,.
.......
......... ..... ......... ........... .. ......
.. .. .... ...... ....
... .....
.... ............ ......
............. ...... .... ..
......+........
------- . .... ......... ...... .. .... .... ...................... ...... ..... . .. .. .. ...... .... .... .. ..... ... .. . ...... .. ..
.. ......
,,. . . . .. .. .. .. ...... .... .. .. ... ..... . ...
. . . . . . . . ““””””””” :---’-:”” -:”-”:-”:--:--:-” ..... ..... ... ..... ...:. ..;....., . . . ... ...
... .. ...... .... .. .. .. ..,. .:..,. :..,
.:.
,.. :,:::
,, .,.
. ..... ....... .. ... ... .... .. ....
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ,. ,..
,.. ,,,
. . . ,. ..
.. .. .. .. :::: ... . .. .,
. . ::::: :
.....
.-....... .. ....... . .... ... .. ...... ....................... ... ... ..... ........... ... ...... .. ..
...-........
... ..... .. ... ..............
.. ...... .. ...... ..
. . ..
.. .. .... .......... ... ...... ..... ...... .... ... ... . ... ...... .......
.... ................ ...!.-.
.. .................. ........... ... ...... .... ... ........ ... ...... .. ..
.. ..... ................. . ... ..,
........ ..----}.-..
...... .:-.-:--!..:-!
.... . .......... .... ..... .:.;
.. ..
,/, , . . . ...... .... .... ..
. .... ..;.
. . . . . , , . .. ... ................,.:..:
.,. ...
. . . .. ..... ,.. . .... ....
. . ...
.-.... ..-------.:
. . ..... .... ......
. . .}-:
..
. . . . ..
,.. . . . . . ,.,
,., .
.: :::
.,.,
. .. .. :::::. . . ..
,..
:::
. . . ..
:::::
......
.. .........
.. ..... .. ..
...... ...................
......... ........... ....., .... .............
......... .......... ...... ..... ... .......
........ .. ......
. ...... . ...
.... .... .. .. ....
......... .. ....
.. . . .......... ... ..... .. ... -------------
.... .. ... ..............
...... .. ...... ..... ... ....... .... .. .... ...... ....
......// .. .....,. ..;.. ,. .}.... ... . . ..... .... ...... . ..................:. . . . . ---------:. ...-.:...>.- :..}-:.}.:
0.005 1 r I 1 1 1 1 1 8 I 1 r I , 1 I r I I 1 1 r f

1 )0
FRACT&?E APERTURE in’”; icrons
As the Vertical Fracture Aperture decreases, Borehole Effect
FIQURE 7
causes the conductivity difference

-20-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

,.-
; . . . . . ... ~ . . . . . .. .
,,. , .,. .
block resistivity = 10000 ohm.m I
: ::”:”;:
......................<..:.:... : ““:”:: .: .:.... .... ........
.............<...}...

........................................
...... ... .. ... .
. ...... .. ............
: ................. ........7.. .. .. ..... ..
,., ......,.%.. ... .... ............... ..... .. . .-------- ;.. .
~:::.--’”’’”-
----..:..---:..%-;-:.:.:- .-.. ---.:. ---; ....--.-.;.:-:-i ..------: --

1::::~-~.llm%ii:’i’i;l -------
>
lodi%!!nd
~ n
,...;..;.:.
. . . .....-.
——. ..............................................
..........--
.....<
L1.......i.........i

................
....i...
-..-L---.....-. ""'""-""-""--`-"' X:::::::
....<-.
i!.
h.......

...
41 LLS
.W Ilwt!u

trend “ ...-”--{--. -.~{”~”~~{.

II
,., ....
””””~-~”””~
t ~--~””
. . ...

-----
.,..I
“Y ~-.l-!‘-.”-~”-

)00

The relationship between Resistivity and epsilcm * Cm

FIQURE 8
in vertical fractures

..
2.000. . ,: ::::> ~ ~ . . . . . .. . .:.:. . . . .. .. .. . .
. . .. .. .. .. ..
\
10000:-... . ;.-—
.. .....-.......
.:
.,.
.,.
,.. ,..
:. . ...:
.. ... ... ... ...
. . .. . . . .
. . . . . ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .. L
.... ................:..,.. .-:--
.....’ ..,,,..........’ :.:
,.
........... . .... .......-
: ‘--------“””-”-~’:’~’’:’~’: . .. .. ‘-yL
. ......... ........... ....:\
E . . . . . ..x.x.ij.l...'.&.j...i
.....i.i...il
........i...
e ........;...... ..:...:...:..:.;..:.........:.
Y.7 ~ .
............l...LL : ...........’...E.E..-----.:.-.
.
....
.:
..
...;<.
:
u
1.......,:. . . ..Lx.i...l

1000---
&
ti ,.:.....;...:..
........;. . .... . .. ... .. ......
;....
,..............1...\. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..- .
. . . . . . . . ,..
. . . . . . . . ... . .. . ...,..... . ..., .. . . . . . . . . . . .. -. . . . . . . . . . . . .
,.. . . . ..

10 100 ,jOoo 10000 5“ )00

epsilon * Cm in micron.mho\m

Mapping of Resistivity function for different values of Rb

FIQURE 9 (basis for vertical fracture overiay)

T
-21-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

VERTICAL FRACTURE QUICK-LO(2K

,,.,.

El“
Legend
“ LLD
——.
LLS
I
1

I
I

FIWJRE IOA Moving section of quicklook overlay

...

-22-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

.“

VERTICAL FRACTURE QLJKX-MX3K

3000( .,, ... .,.. . . ., ..,.. . ..

,,, .,, . .. .. .. .. .. ., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
I......
..:...:.
.;.:..:.;
.,, ... ;........;....:..
.,. .:
. .:..;.:.:.:.
. . . .. ......... ...<......;.:..:. ;:........;....:..
.:..:..;.:.;.:. .0. . . . . ... . .,, .
. . . . . . .,. . . . . . . :. .!.. . . . . ,,. .
. . . . . . . ,, :., . . ,.. . . . . . . . . . ,., .
. . . . . . ,. . . . . . . ,.. . . . . . ... , . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ... . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. :::::: .,. : . . . .

10000

:,..., . ...,.,
..... :..
....., ::::.... . . ......
.....
..... I ...............:.
~ :~:~:~:1
.............:.:..:.:.
. .
:\ . . . ..
.... :::. I
.. ...............:.
.:. .,.:..:...
. 1“
.,.
.. ...............}.;.:.:.
.. ... ... ..
..
, .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. :.:.
..
...
... i
.:.
.,.
. . .
.,.:...:...
:.. :,.
.
.
... .....
....
... t
1000 . . ...
,..,...:..
..;..;..
. .
.
,,. ..< . ....
.
. . ... ....
.,..
. ....................;..:.
. . ..
.
I
.
,... . . ....
......{
. . . . ....
. . . ....1
...
.....................
....:...<.
...;.,
.:.:.:.:
.,.,....
..1....:,
.+
.. .:....;
..,.., ....-........:...,..;.
....:.,. ...:..........:.;.....:.:.....
.. : ::; :;; :1

, ..:...:.. ;. :.>.:.: .
1’ {..------!. ---. ---:--:-:
. . . . . . . . . . . :...:..;.
. .
.:. : ---------
;.;.:.:.
. . . .
-: -- .-:......
. . . . . . . . . . .:...;.;.
. . .
: . : . .. . .. . . . . . ---

.
; .:.;.:.:..
. . . .
.. .

:“:”x::”!{-l-..”:-”: ....................
: .: .:.,......................
: :...............
:.:[
. . ..... .. :. .. ...,
.. .. .. .. ,,. . ... ... ... ... ...
.. ..:.:::..
. . . .. ,:.

.. ....
.
!.. . . . . . . . . . . . ,,. . .4. .

...........:..:.
..........:
....
..
,.. . . . . .

....
. ..
y...l ....l..
. ...j..!..
. . . . . .

..
100 . . . . . . ,

....~....
........j.!. ......j..:j::;::;j; .j.j.:::::

.....
..... :. ., ,. .:. ,... . ..........
. . . . . . . . . . . .} .:.:;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...} .; .:.;.:.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

. ..0..... .
. . .
. .
...... . . . . . . . . . . ... .. :.$. ..
.
. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
. . .. . . . . . . .. .: ,: .:.. . . . ... . . . . . .. , . .:. .;.:...:, .:.
.. ...
. . . . . . . . ..:. . . ...

“1\
. . .
. . . .. . . . . . . .
...
.,.
.. .. .. .. ..
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . .
. ..!.

. . .
. . . . . . . .

.
. . . . .

.
. . . .

.
. .

.
. .

.
. .

.
.

.
. .

.
. . . . . . .

. . . . . ... . .:
,,. ... . .... .
... . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .

. . .. . . . ,..
.. . . . . . ..
.
, ..:....:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . ,.
.,.. . . . .
.,

. .
.,,

. . .
. . . . . .
. ...,

‘
. . .,

.. ... . ... . ...,. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . ....

:.:: :.
. . . . . . :: .,: :::
. .

. . ... .,, . .
.

. . .
.

. .
.

.
.

. .
.

.
.

. . . . . . . . .
.

. . . .
.

. . . .
.

. .
.

. .
.

.
.

. .
.

.
.

. .
. . . . . . .
,..

. . . . . . . . . . .
.

. ,.
...

.,.,,
,

. . . . . .

:.. .:.. .. ,.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.:. , . . . .

::. .;. . ... ... .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
. .

.
.

.
.

. .
. .

.
::.

.,.
.

.
::::

. . . .

. . . . .. ,,
.... .............;:. ............
.................
....,........ ...........}. ..........
...;:....
.......-.:. -..- ..:.
. . . . . . .,. . . . . .
. . . . . .

. . ;--....;-;.:-
10
. . . . . . . .

.............................
. . . . . .

.....,.
. . . . . . .

-I-.....
.......*..
.. . ............>......
1 . [ . . h . . . ,..
...1..
. .
. .. .
. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. . . . . . . .
. .
,. .;....: . . ...
I.:..:.
...”. . :.:.:.1... . . .

..:-”
.. ... . ..+-:.: -:::l-.. ---: --”+.
. . ... . ... .... ........ . . . . . . .,:.
-:--:
. . . ... ..~.-:!::
..t .. .”1”---
. . . . . .:“:-:”-:.
. . . . ...} .i.:i:”l-””-i:::::.:
... . .. ...> . .... . . . . . . ?-:!::::”::
. . . .. .. . . ... . .. ~::j::
. . . . . .. . . .
.. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .I
........,.;..:..
................. .......~
. . . .
..:...:. .........................................................................
.. .. .. .. .. .. t .. .. .. .. .,,.. ... t . . .. .. .. .. .. . :..:..; .:.:.:;.l ......
.. I \: :::::!!

I ................~
.........i
. ... ..... ...! .: ..:.. . . . . . . . . . . ....”- . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ..4. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
.
. .
.
. . . . .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
t: . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .
.
. . . . .
.
. .
.
. .
.
. ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . .

1
10 100 1000 10000
R in ohm.m

FIQURE 10B Grid for quicklook overlay

-23-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

-.,

HORIZONTAL FRACTURE QUICK-LOOK

R in ohm.m

m.;...’’mli
d

illi u

f, 1/
,,.
!,,
., ,:::
1: S ,,. .
,.. :. ...
.,, ,,, ,,

::;.

.;. .

: . . . . . .

. . . . . . . ..,,. . . . ... . . ... . ... . .... .... ... .. .,...fy . . ..y . . . . . . .....}
:::
,,, :..:: ,..
.,, ,,., :., ..
,. ...,.. .. . . . . . . . . ... . .!. .,...! .!

.:: :::::
* ,,, ,. .,.
. . . .
.,,
.

.,,
. . . . . . . .
...
. .. . .
. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . ....:. . .. . .....
.. . . . . . . ...,.. . .. ...
9 . . . . . . . .. . . . . ....... . ... . .. . .. . ... ...,
. . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . ...
. . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . ... . .. . . . ... ... ..
. .
.. . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . : . . ... . . . . .; .:.
,., .,, . .
,. . .,.
.::. . . ,,, . . ., .
. . . . . . . ....,.. . . . . . . . . . . ... . .,.. . . .
.
,,. ,,: :”:
\
::: :: :,,:
. . . . . . . .: . . ...! . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .
,: :,:
::, ,:. .
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.,,
.,, . .
. ..
. . .
. /
.!’.

. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .;

:.:. ... . . .,
!. :.. ,
:.: . .
:.. ::.
:,. . ::: ,.
,. .,, . ,.. :
. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .. .. .“1
!. :: ... .
,., . .
.. 1 . . . .
. . ,..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

y/..:...; -.;.;.:.: ...... ..... ..

.... ........
.......... ..

FIGURE 11 Chart to determine Fracture Aperture from Rb and LLD,LLS

,..

-24-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

...

SONIC WAVEFORM IGLOBAL

12FT VARIWIGGLE FORMATION ANALYSIS
BY VOLUME
I

D
v
5
:“
INCREASING TIME 8
00. 0

FIGU
,,..

-25-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

,.,,
.,

COMPOWTE
— — PLAYBACK 1
EPIM OR ,SC* w LDT-CNL EPT D@BPL

u??
“---”~~-ss---ss ir””-”------”----z-------”-””----% * * z tb
“ ““””’”””””’’”””’””:b“ X“””’-’wbw

Cql nno- m
b . . . . . . . ..&~ . . . . . ..d6=5
hm. “’”””’”~”””’””{i
““””””””””’”’”””” t.w *b* I.w 14 .*/m s 18

w MYrk
tw m. o 0 ————’CL———% ?0 ● hm. m 100000

m ., . . ,...,, D,~,~, . ... . .... . .

io ..oo/r! 4e -b.bt */.* 4:s

#1 1 N. 1> 1 1. I
....> I I I
I 1 ..... ..... -~ AA ~ i
I II .,. # / -. 11 I
. ...... ....1. / e I 1 1 # m
I {I ,..- ., =. rt- JA 1[
,.,’
J ~i”!’+,-~ ‘Y I

,
I
1
I
,
1
n
I I
, ,
I 1

—.- . .
1.

FIG URE 12BI

?L ct- .-

-26-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

DEPTH
c! L! .2----------- --------- -------- ,10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,.”’”1 i ohm m 200.00

5, ,~s
m. 00 Mel,. 20 ‘“’” ““ ““””””’ “oh-- ‘“’ 200000

I I II !, II I 1 - I 1 i“
0

c
I
1!1!111 1
,,, !,,,,,-
w

50

FIGURE

-28-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

DEPTH I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAL1
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LLD
In.

k
4 !4 z5--------- "----------- ;;;.;-------------- "---> 5;0%5

t
5P
............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I.LS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . .
0 m“ 100 20 ohm. m 200000
Metre
1:40

r ,,.
!, 1
,,, f
i 1 I
I !

c
I

I I ! !
1
% )
1
,:’
1
n
? I 1 :’ I
\ 1 1
I I )

\ I 1
1 1 ,, I 1
, :,
, 1 I I I
I
1 ,. n 1 ,,,
I

. ,f 1 r T
1 80
iL ! , *
J
~
1 1 I I
J !

[ 1 , I
1 f r I I I
1 1 1 1 ! i
1 1 .4
I 1 I I
I ,., !
i
1 1 1 I I
P 1
r T
r t f
I I I
[ [ 1 r ,
I i 1 1 1 ) [
t 1 I A
I [ I I r
J

rEEElzE%
-.
FIG! JRE 13C
=EEE ,
85

T
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

.,,,,,

CLUSTER DCA
ARROW PLOT :ALIPER CONDUCTIVE
iZIMUTH ANOMALIES
XPPTH
IETERS
DIP ANGLE

0. t- rn. 0. ..................m,
..............ml ..,

mL m+ 0. 8. m Z&b m

F!(3UR E
-.

-30-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

SONIC WAVEFORM GLOBAL

12 FT VARIWIGGLE ‘ORMATION ANALYSIS
BY VOLUME
----L L

% “
s :
r

INCREASING
TIME

F‘1G 1J
.

-31-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

‘,. .!,

DEPTH
CALI LLD
. ... . ... . ... . . ... . . . . .. . -------- . . . . . . . ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ -
4 In. 1 20 ohm. m 20000
1
5P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................
..... . . ............ ....... .... . ....... . LLS
o mv 10 ohm. m 20000
Metre 20
MSFL
0.2 ohm. m 200

-,.

I I
+ t-t-h+ L

1 ..
1 1 I [
11-”
1
I
I , I
I ~–tH

J--l ..,.

-32-
 SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

ture

Tools: BHC* Borehole Compensated Sonic Log

CNL’ Compensated Neutron Log
DLL* Dual Laterolog*
EPT* Electromagnetic Propagation Tool
LDT* Lithe-Density* Tool

Programs: CLUSTER* Computer program for Dip Evaluation

DCA Detect ion of Conductive Anomalies
GLOBAL* Interpretat ion Process for Formation Evaluat ion
Variwiggle Presentation of borehole sonic waveforms

Logs: LLD Deep Laterolog* resistivity (0.m.)

LLS Shallow Laterolog resistivity(~.m.)
MSFL MicroSFL* resistivity(().m.)
TPL Propagation time from EPT (ns.m-l )
EATT Attenuation from EPT (db.m-l )
CALI Caliper (inches)
PEF Photoelectric Absorption Factor (barns/electron)
RHOB Bulk Density from LDT (gm.cm-3)
.
NPHI Neutron Porosity from CNL (Limestone PAJ.)
DT Transit Time from BHC (Bs.ft-l )
5P Spontaneous Potential (rev.)
GR Gamma Ray (API units)

Quantities: C Conductivity (mmho/m or mhoim)

R Resistivity ((1.m.)
6 Fracture aperture or opening (j.im. or mm.)
di Diameter of invasion (inches)
0 Porosity (porosity units)
AC Conductivity Difference (CLLs-CLLD, mmho/m)

Subscripts: LLD DeepLaterolog

LLS Shallow Laterolog
m Mud
t True, as in Rt
b Block
s Shoulder Bed

*Mark of Schlumberger
.. ,. ‘ Registered Mark of Schlumberger

-33-
SPWLA TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL LOGGING SYMPOSIUM, JUNE 17-20, 1985

Alan Sibbit graduated with a B.A., in mathematics,

from the University of Cambridge in 1974 . After a
brief period teaching, he joined Schlumberger
Overseas in 1975 and worked as a field engineer in
the Middle East . An interlude of three years in
Interpretation Development In Paris was followed
by a further field assignment in Africa . He came
to Singapore in October 1982, where he has worked
in Reservoir Description and Interpretation
Development .

Ollivier Faivre graduated from Ecole Polytechnique

fn 1974 and obtained a further degree in
telecommunications from the E.N.S.T. in 1976 . He
then joined Schlumberger and worked as a field
engineer in various Asian countries . In 1982 he
entered the Reservoir Description Group at the Log
interpretation Centre in Singapore and now is
manager of the Beijing Log Interpretation Centre.

- 34 -