Regularity Analysis Applied to Well Log Data
Well logs are largely used for oil exploration and production in order to obtain geological information of rocks. Several parameters of the rocks can be scanned and interpreted in term of lithology and of the quantity and kind of fluids within the pores. Generally the drilled rocks are mostly sedimentary and the modelling is mainly petrophysical. Here we analyze four logs from the KTB Main Borehole, drilled for the German Continental Deep Drilling Program. The hole cuts across crystalline rocks like amphibolites, amphibolite-metagabbros, gneiss, variegated units and granites.
A multifractal model is assumed for the logs and they are analyzed by a new methodology called Regularity Analysis (RA), which maps the measured logs to profiles of Holder exponents or regularity. The regularity generalizes the degree of differentiability of a function from integer to real numbers and it is useful to describe algebraic singularities related not only to the classical model of jump discontinuity, but to any other kind of ‘edge’ variations. We aim at a) characterizing the lithological changes of the drilled rocks; and b) identifying the zones of macro and micro fractures. The RA was applied to several geophysical well logs (density, magnetic susceptibility, self potential and electrical resistivity) and allowed consistent information about the KTB well formations. All the regularity profiles independently obtained for the logs provide a clear correlation with lithology and from each log we derived a similar segmentation in terms of lithological units.
A slightly different definition of regularity, called an average-local regularity, yields a good correlation between each known major fault and local maxima of the regularity curves. The regularity profiles were also compared with the KTB “Fracture Index” (FI), showing a meaningful relation among maxima of regularity and maxima of fracture index.
KeywordsCrystalline Rock Continuous Wavelet Transform Fracture Index Geological Section Regularity Analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Behr HJ, Engel W, Franke W, Giese P, Weber K (1984) The Variscan Belt in Central Europe: main structures, geodynamic implications, open questions. Tectonophysics 190:15–40Google Scholar
- Bremer MH, Kulenkampff J, Schopper JR (1992) Lithological and fracture response of common logs in crystalline rocks. Geological applications of wireline logs II, Geological Society Special Pubblications 65 pp 221–234Google Scholar
- Feder J (1988) Fractals. Plenum Press, New York LondonGoogle Scholar
- Fedi M, La Manna M, Palmieri F (2003) Non stationary analysis of geomagnetic time sequences from Mt. Etna and North Palm Springs earthquake. J Geophys R 108: n.B10, 2493 10.1029/2001JB000820Google Scholar
- Flandrin P (1999) Time frequency/time-scale analysis. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gregg JS, Singh KSW (1979) Adsorption surface area and porosity. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Haykin S (1996) Adaptive filter theory. In: Kalaith T (ed) Info and Sys Sci Ser, Prentice Hall, pp. 365–572Google Scholar
- Hermann FJ (1997) A scaling medium representation, a discussion on well-logs fractals and wave, PhD Thesis. Faculty of Applied Physics, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Kossmat F(1927) Gliederung des varistischen Gebirgsbaues. Abhandlungen Sächsischen Geologischen Landesamts 1: 1–39Google Scholar
- Mallat S (1998) A wavelet tour of signal processing. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Mandelbrot BB (1974) intermittent turbulence in self-similar cascades; divergences of high moments and dimension of the carrier. J Fluid Mech 62:331–345Google Scholar
- Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature. W H Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Marsan D, Bewan CJ (1999) Multiscaling nature of sonic velocities and lithology in the upper crystalline crust: evidence from the main KTB borehole. Geophys Res Lett 26:275–278Google Scholar
- Pilkington M, Todoeschuck JP (1993) Fractal magnetization of continental crust. Geophys Res Lett 20: 627–630Google Scholar