Home

Quick Links

Search

 
Laboratory results in resistivity loggingNormal access

Authors: A. Roy and A. Apparao
Journal name: Geophysical Prospecting
Issue: Vol 24, No 1, March 1976 pp. 123 - 140
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1976.tb00389.x
Organisations: Wiley
Language: English
Info: Article, PDF ( 1.03Mb )

Summary:
This paper is an experimental extension of the theoretical investigations by Roy (1975) on the relative performances of the Laterolog 7, normal and some other sondes in logging of resistive formations. Only infinitely resistive formations have been simulated and placed in a tank containing tap water (true resistivity 27 Ωm) as electrolyte—representing both the mud column and the adjacent formations.

Two sets of laboratory results (Doll 1951, NN 1958, 1969), have been repeated and we find that, for both these sets, the performance of the normal device is by far the superior of the two. In addition, we have studied the effect of varying the spacings A1A2, O1O2 and AM of Laterolog 7, normal, and two new sondes—Laterolog 4 and modified unipole—for two bore hole diameters in each case. For formation thicknesses less than A1A2 or AM, the Laterolog 7 is unsuitable because its response is flat and close to the base-line value. The normal device is more diagnostic, although, in such a case, it registers a trough or a resistivity low even against a resistive formation.

For bed thicknesses clearly greater than A1A2 or AM, the normal sonde is decidedly superior to Laterolog 7, since its anomalies are sharper and larger. When the formation thickness is equal to or only slightly larger than A1A2 or AM, Laterolog 7 is somewhat better as it records a readable positive deflection while the normal does not. However, one must remember that a single run of the conventional resistivity log includes two normals and a lateral at different spacings. Laterolog 4 and modified unipole can in many instances produce better logs than normal, other considerations apart.

The results are consistent with our own theoretical predictions and experience in surface resistivity profiling. They do not, however, agree with the prevalent concepts on Laterolog 7 vis-a-vis normal sonde.


Download
Back to the article list