SPWLA 41Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O
A NEW TOOL FOR ELECTRO-FACIES ANALYSIS:
MULTI-RESOLUTION GRAPH-BASED CLUSTERING
Shin-Ju Ye, Halliburton Energy Services,and Philippe Rabiller, Elf Exploration Production
ABSTRACT
Log facies analysis is important for reservoir
characterization,but is made particularly difftcult by
the problem of dimensionality: log space is not
equivalentto geological space,and two points that are
close to each other in log space may not always be
similar geologically.
A classic approach to facies analysis, automatic
clustering, requires an estimate of the number of
clusters, with the results being very sensitive to this
parameter.If clustering is tightly constrained,with few
clusters, the analyst may find that, because of the
problem of dimensionality, the resulting clusters
cannot easily be used for facies analysis.If log data is
relatively unconstrained,the analyst is then faced with
the dauntingtask of linking eachcluster to a geological
descriptor. Field experience shows that a two-step
methodology provides a workable solution. First, one
chooses a large number of clusters for automatic
clustering. Second,one manually mergessmall clusters
into electrofacies to which geological characteristics
are assigned. Even with good visualization tools,
performing this task manually in high-dimensional(>3)
spaceis still difficult, slow, somewhatsubjective, and
requires a skill or expertisethat is not always readily
available.
This paper proposes a novel method for
electrofacies analysis, Multi-Resolution Graph-based
Clustering (MRGC), that solves the problem of
dimensionality and derives valuable information about
the geological facies from the structure of the data
itself. MRGC offers all the advantages, while
eliminating most of the drawbacks, of the two-step
method.
MRGC is a multi-dimensional dot-pattern-
recognitionmethodbasedon non-parametricK-nearest-
neighborand graph data representation.The underlying
structure of the data is analyzed, and natural data
groups are formed that may have very different
densities, sizes, shapes, and relative separations.
MRGC automaticallydeterminesthe optimal numberof
clusters,yet allows the geologist to control the level of
detail actually neededto define the electrofacies.
1
Patentpending
This new electrofaciesanalysistool has beentested
under real-world conditions using conventional logs
and NMR T2 distributions, and results from such
studies are presentedin the paper. In comparisonwith
the existing two-step tool, MRGC has been found to
make the work much faster and easier,and is both more
direct and more intuitive.
INTRODUCTION
In addition to evaluation of porosity and water
saturation, log interpretation helps defme three
dimensional reservoir facies models that describethe
distribution of porosity, permeability and capillary
pressurein more detail than is possible with reflection
seismology.Facies distribution is also key information
to define layering and to select the best options for
productiontest interpretation.
To set up such a 3D geological model requiresthat
sedimentaryfacies be recognized, which is complex
since the observedfacies distribution is controlled by
sedimentationand is also affected by diagenesisand
tectonism. Through the recognition of sedimentary
facies and the interpretation of their vertical
arrangement,the geologists gain the understandingof
the sedimentary processesthat controlled the initial
internal geometry of the reservoir. Whenever coring
was restricted to limited intervals of the reservoir,
electro-facies analysis is the only mean to identify
actual facies and a fortiori the sedimentaryfacies.
An efficient way to perform a facies analysis is to
set up a classification model that partitions the log data
into sets of log responsesthat characterizea sediment
and allow the sediment to be distinguished from
others, as per the definition given by Serraand Abbot
(198Cl).In a later stage of the survey, the model is
propagatedover the other wells of the same field or
basin area. Both the representativityof the cores used
to calibrate the model and the applicability of the
model to anotherwell, must be assessedby appropriate
methods(Thevoux-Chabuelet al., 1997).
Problem of Dimensionalily
None of the numerous methods (Wolff et al., 1982;
Delfiner et al., 1987, Baldwin et al., 1990; Cuddy,
1997) proposedto date and put effectively into use, to
 SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O
based on the way the individuals tend to .group in
clusters that differentiate themselvesfrom the others.
We expectedthat the capability to display and quantify
natural differentiation would help greatly in the choice
of the most suitable log combination and in the
calibration process,mostly becausethe latter is based
on the examination of discrete qualitative values
attributedto real objects.
Thus, if all these objectives could be achieved,we
felt that facies analysiswould be more acceptableto the
geological community. Defining clusters by their
differences fits both the way the geologist works and
the second proposition of the genuine definition of
Serra and Abbot: sets of log responses that
characterizea sediment and allow the sedimentto be
distinrmishedhorn others.
PRIOR WORK ON CLUSTERING
Clustering deals with the problem of detection of
clustersfrom a data set where a priori data structureis
unknown. Clustering of data has extensiveapplications
including pattern recognition, computer vision,
diagnosisof complex systems,etc. It had been studied
for a long time in different contexts,and a large number
of solutions have beenproposed.Their diversity shows
that this problem is not simple. In fact, a standard
defmition of clusters does not exist. Each method is
associated with a criterion, which is not always
consistent with the underlying structure of data. The
obtained partitions have meaning only after the
validation of the results, which is often problematic for
many applications.
The study of Mourot et al. (1993) shows that
common methods present several drawbacks which
make them difficult to use in practice:
l- Need to know the numberof clustersbeforehand:
Most methods require the number of clusters as a
parameter,which is often unknownby the user; and it
can substantiallyaffect the results.
2- Problemsof initial conditionsand narameters:
For many methods,the results are very sensitive to
initial conditions and variationsof parametervalues.
3- Problemof reliabilitv:
Most clustering methods form ellipsoidal structures
but cannot detect clusters of varied shapes.Other
methodsfavor elongateor curved structures,but do
not work for clustersclose to one another.There are
methodswithout previous limitations but needa large
number of data points and/or clusters of equivalent
sizes (in terms of number of points). Few methods
are reliable for data sets formed by clusters
possessing the following configurations
simultaneously:
- varied shapes
3
- mutually very close to eachother
- small sizes
- very unbalancedsizes
- very different densities/ volumes
Unfortunately, these combinationsoccur frequently
in real applications,aboveall for log data.
Existing multi-dimensional unsupervised clustering
methodscan be categorizedinto metric methodsand
statistical methods.
Metric. methods use the concept of similarity
betweenpoints, where the Euclidean distanceis often
used. They generally try to optimize a criterion PP
maximizing the dispersion between clusters while
minimizing the dispersionwithin clusters.
Statistical methods analyze the underlying
Probability Density Functions (PDF) of observation
distributions. Each cluster correspondsto a mode
(local maximum of underlying PDF), and these
methods try to detect the functions describing the
modes. Statistical methods are not opposite to metric
methods, they also use the distance to measurethe
similarity betweenpoints.
Metric Methods
Metric methods include Hierarchical methods
(Lukasova, 1979), and Iterative Optimization
Methods (IOM) such as ISODATA (Ball & Hall,
1965), fuzzy k-means(Gath & Geva, 1989), dynamic
clustering (Diday et al., 1979), and Self-Organizing
Map (Kohonen, 1989). With respect to statistical
methods, metric methods are simple to use and
implement. They are often used in two-step electro-
facies analysis.
IOM try to assignthe data points to somekernels
(barycenters or neurons). The number of kernels is
given by the user. At each iteration, new kernels are
calculated by minimizing a criterion of distance
betweenkernels and dam points. The algorithms stop
when the kernels are stabilized. However, the resulting
kernels do not always fit to the modesof observations,
and sometimesoccur in low data density zones.There
is no possibility to control and have the kernels fit onto
the modes. The results are sensitive to the given
numberof kernels.
Statktical Methods
Two approachescan be distinguished in statistical
methods:parametric methodsbasedon probabilistic
modeling of the analyzed data structure, and non-
parametric methods without using any model.
Parametric approach requires restrictive hypotheses
suchas the knowledgeabout the numberof clustersand
their a priori PDF. Non-parametricapproachdoes not
needany a priori knowledgeabout the structureof the
analyzed data distributions. Consequently, this
4
 SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O
be consideredas an estimationof its rank. In practice,b
is set equalto K+l .
With respectto each of its KNN, x has therefore a
limited rank a,(x), n = 1,2, . .., K. Let
The BI is defined on S and normalizedbetween0 and
1:
dx) - smin
BZ(x)
. _=
smax-sti
BI quantifies mutual neighborhood relationships
using the rank order while the classical KNN methods
estimatePDF using the radius from a point to its KNN.
In other words, BI is sensitiveto the changeof local
density of dam distribution rather than local density
itself. Hence, it is not affected by differences in
densities and volumes among clusters. The higher its
value, the closer the point to the border of a proposed
cluster.
BI is a function of K. The higher the K, the stronger
the smoothing. We observedthat BI was sensitive to
slight changeof K becauseof the window effect of the
rank function o, , where the window size is K. As we
know from the signal processing, filtering using a
function of finite window size createsadditional noise
onto the result due to the first-order discontinuous
points at each side of the window. We thus generalized
BI into Neighboring Index (NI) where o, is replaced
by a smooth exponential function and a quasi-infinite
window size (= N- 1, which is the size of data set):
a,(x) = e.xp(-mla).
Herexisthem*NNofy,mIN- l,anda>O. cr,isa
strictly decreasingfunction varied from 1 to 0. When m
= 0, o, = 1. The higher the m, the closer the o, to zero;
but o, never equalszero, i.e., [l, O[.
The rest of the formulation of NI is the sameas BI,
but with a,(x), n = 1, 2, . . . . N - 1. Becauseof the
inverse property of o, with respect to a,, the higher
the value of NI, the closer the point to the kernel
(mode) of a cluster. Instead of K in BI, the smoothing
parameterof NI is a. But NI is less sensitive to the
slight changeof a.
In Gans method, the post-processing to form
clusters from BI was very rough. He proposedusing a
relaxation process, which is, by our experienceswith
real log data sets, equivalentto a simple thresholdwith
a higher value of BI. It is, in our opinion, the origin of
the three drawbacksdiscussedabove.We proposehere
5
a new methodfor forming consistentclustersand also a
completely new concept about the number of optimal
clusters,which are detailedbelow.
Optimal Number of Clusters and Kernel
RepresentativeIndex
For data sets made of well-separatedclusters- clearly
displaying important probability density differences
betweenmodes and valleys - the optimal number of
clusters can be easily identified by humansas well as
automatically.But in most of the real applicationcases,
the clusters are often ambiguous. The closenessof PP
clusters and the local irregularity of data make
recognition difftcult. The optimal numberof clustersis
indeed a function of resolution, the resolutions at
which a userwould like to analyzethe data.
Our method MRGC introduces this new concept,
and proposesto the user several optimal numbers of
clusters corresponding to different resolutions. In
addition, the results of MRGC are organized in
hierarchical way so that the clusters of higher
resolutions are always sub-clusters of the low-
resolution clusters. Such a hierarchy correspondsto the
way that geologists organize facies. These multi-
resolutionand hierarchicalpropertieshelp a lot with the
electro-facies interpretation, which will be
demonstratedin the next section.
Local modes and local valleys in a data set can be
easily identified using NI (see sub-section KNN
Attraction). However, in order to recognize the
optimal number of clusters, it is necessaryto evaluate
the representativityof each mode relative to the whole
data set. In other words, is a mode an important mode
or just a local irregularity? Our idea is to characterize
the representativityof eachpoint to be a cluster kernel,
called Kernel RepresentativeIndex (KRI). Points with
the best values of KRI are selected as final cluster
kernels.Final clustersare then formed by merginglocal
modes(seesub-sectionWatershedMerging).
NI is an important factor for KRI, but it is just a
local indicator. Consequently,two other factors have
been introduced: the number of neighbors and the
distance at which a point finds another point with a
higher value of NI. Let NZ(x)be the NI of point x, andy
be the first neighbor of x verifying NZ@)> NZ(x). KRI
of x is calculatedas below:
whereiU(x, v) = m ify is the rn neighborof x, and D(x,
y) is the distancebetweenx andy. The factor NZ allows
us to recognizethe kernel of a mode; and M and D, the
importanceand the extensionof this mode to the whole
data set. The numberof neighbors,M, tendsto generate
clustersof equivalentsize; and the distance,D, clusters
of equivalent volume. The combination of these two
6
 SPWLA 415Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O
FIELD RESULTS AND COMPARISON WITH A
TWO-STEP METHOD
Four sets of log data recorded from very different
geological environments (shaly sands in fluvial
formation, stable platform carbonatesand evaporites,
evaporites, complex shorefacefacies with feldspathic
sandstoneand diageneticcarbonates)were usedto test
the method in its early stage of development.They
were chosen for the complexity and diversity of the
patternsshownby the data structure.
Figure 2 shows the results of data set CARBl,
which contains 1979 points. Four logs are used for the
clustering: RhoB, Nphi, GR, and DT. In this example,
we would like to show the choice of optimal numbers
of clusters on the decreasingordered KRI curve, and
the hierarchicalorganizationof MRGC.
The second example EVAPl, shown iu Figure 3,
contains2460 points. The same four logs are used for
clustering. This example is selected to show the
performanceof MRGC for the following two reasons.
First, the natural groups in this data set are well
separatedin multi-dimensional log space. Our human
eyescan easily verify if MRGC really extractednatural
data groups. Notice MRGC does an equally good job
for data structurescontainingnot well-separatedgroups
(see other examples).Second,this data set contains a
very denseand compact,small zone that contains 1045
points (more than one-third of all data points), MRGC
detectsit as one cluster (series4) while Gans method
recognizedit as many clusters.
The following two cases,shown iu Figures 4 and 5,
present two sets of results obtained on operational
surveys.The MRGC results were obtainedon the first
trial, with no apriori geological input.
Case 1: Turbiditic Silica-Clastic Reservoir(Fully
Cored) in a Deep OflshoreField
Their interpretationwas directed at setting up a model
to recognize the 15 sedimentary facies, defined by
cores, and characterizethe architectureof the reservoir
through their vertical arrangement.In this type of
reservoir, texture and structure of the rocks, grain size
distribution, and grain sorting are consideredto be the
most discriminating information to differentiate the
facies. Mineral composition is not discriminating; but,
in addition, to add to the complexity of the problem, in
such a shallow burial context, a small changein burial
has large effect on compactionand log responseof any
given facies.
The MRGC method allowed us to test different log
combinations.We present in Figure 4a the results of
threemodelsset up on the test well by clustering:
l conventional logs: GR, DT, Density, Neutron-
Density Separationand Pe
l NMR T2 bin values
7
0 NMR clustering result and conventional logs: GR,
DT, Density, Neutron-Density Separationand Pe
(most independentof compaction)
The results of thesethree models are displayed(facing
right in the electrofaciestracks: 5, 7 and 8) along with
the core descriptions(facing the left). The electrofacies
(exceptNMR) were re-orderedand color encodedafter
a quantitative contingency evaluation in order to ease
their readingand comparisonwith core data.
It is worth noting that in this particular case,using
NMR electrofacies,it is possibleto predict sedimentary
facies with a confidence comparableto that attainable pp
by using the complete set of conventional logs. In
addition to providing new insights for the detection of
very thin sandy alternationsin the shaly facies, the
electrofaciesof NMR T2 distribution hasthe additional
benefit of providing the users with a simple way to
consistently define NMR zonation for calibration on
core, core sampling,or detailedfurther processing.
Without any a priori geological knowledge of the
core and NMR processingresults, the model set up on
the test well displays the trend of facies evolution seen
on cores. The main groups of facies are recognizedin
different reservoirsas shown by the color-coding.Due
to the compaction gradient it is difficult to perfectly
recognizeeachsingle facies over such a depth interval.
This is illustrated by the comparison of Neutron-
Density crossplot showing the Core Facies (Figure 4b
upper left) with that of NMR clustering results in the
reservoir (Figure 4b lower left) that core facies are
spread over a large portion of the crossplots and
overlap significantly.
Case2: Silica-Clastic Reservoirwith Diagenetic
Carbonates(Fully Cored) in a Shallow Marine
Deposition Ei?vironment
In this example (Figure 5), porosity evolution and
mineral composition of the reservoir are more
informative of the sedimentary environment and
subsequentdiagenesis. However complex lithologies
(feldspars, sandstones, limestones, and dolomites
without pure shale beds), the occurrenceof large gas
effect, and dual porosity make recognition and
description of the sedimentary architecture difficult.
The MRGC method allows the analyst to take
advantageof the complex and highly contrasteddata
structure revealed by the crossplots and gives the
sedimentologistinformation he is unable to find in the
low dynamicGR.
The MRGC model was set up using GR, DT,
Density, and Neutron-Density Separation.The results
obtained in a single trial comparedvery well with the
results obtained previously using a two-step method
based on Dynamic Clustering and Ascending
Hierarchic Classification with a posteriori calibration
 SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O
preprocessingtime and memory requirement:Pattern
RecoghitionLetter, 15, pp. 9=17.
Mourot, G., Bousghiri, S. & Ragot, J., 1993,Pattern
recognition for diagnosis of technological systems: a
review: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf On Systems,Man and
Cybernetics,pp. 275-281,Le Touquet,France.
Rogers,S. J., Fang,J. H., Karr, C. L., & Stanley,D.
A., 1992, Determination of lithology from well logs
using a neuralnetwork: AAPG Bulletin 76,731=739
Rosenblatt, A., 1956, Remarks on some non
parametric estimates of density function: Am. Math.
Stat., v. 27, pp. 232-237.
Sehnaoui,N., 1992, Les lignes de c&es dans les
images a niveaux de gris: Contribution de la
pretopologie et de la classification automatiquea leur
detection: Taxinomie des m&odes : French Ph.D.
Thesis,National Institute of Applied Sciencesof Lyon.
Serra,0. & Abbot, H. T., 1980,The contribution of
logging data to sedimentologyand stratigraphy,SPE of
AIME, Trans. 551hAnnual Fall Tech.Con$, paper SPE
9270.
Thevoux Chabuel, H., Rabiller, Ph., & Veillerette,
A., 1997,Multiwell log data coherencecharacterization
using the similarity threshold method, SPWLA Annual
Symposium.
Touzani, A. & Postaire,J. G., 1989, Clustering by
mode boundarydetection:PR Letters, v. 9, pp. l-12.
Wolff, M., & Pellissier-Combescure,J., 1982,
Faciolog - Automatic electrofacies determination:
SPWLA annual Symposium.
Zahn, C. T., 1971, Graph theoretical methods for
detecting and describing Gestalt clusters: IEEE Trans.
On Computers,v. C-20, n. 1, pp. 68-86.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the managementof Halliburton
Energy Services and Elf Exploration Production for
granting permission to publish this paper. They also
want to expresstheir gratitude to Daniel Vallat (HES),
who greatly helped in setting up this joint project and
Jean-PierreLeduc (EEP) for his enduring support and
constructivereviewing and testing.
Figure 1: KNN attractionsets.
The numbersare Neighboring Indexes.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Shin& Ye graduatedfrom Taiwan University, and
received a Ph.D. in Image Sciencefrom University of
Bordeauxin France.Sheworked as an M.S., Ph.D. and
Post-Dot internship student at Elf in Pau for 5 years,
where she achieved 3 world patents and several
software modules for automatic electrical borehole
image analysis. Shejoined Halliburton in 1998 at the
group of Reservoir Applications in Houston. Her
research interests include pattern recognition, neural
networks,computervision, and computergraphics.
Philippe Rabiller graduatedfrom ENSPM (Institut PP
Francais du P&role) in 1975 and joined Elf in 1976,
sincethen he spent 13 years on assignmentsabroadand
led R./D projects on Basin/Prospect evaluation and
ShalesSealingEfficiency before being put in chargeof
the geological and geophysical log application team.
He is currently Geological Advisor. In addition to
training and operational works, his researchinterests
and activity are focused on the application of pattern
recognition and signal processing techniques to the
sedimentologicalinterpretationof logs.
CARBI - First 30 Cluster Kernel
Representativity Indexes (KRI)
Figure 2a: The first 30 cluster kernel representative
indexes (KRI) of data set CARBl in decreasing
order. We can observeseveralimportant breaksat 2
clusters,5 clusters, 8 clusters and 12 clusters,which
correspondto the optimal numbers of clusters at
different resolutions.
SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O
Figure 2b: The hierarchical organizatmnof MRGC of data
set CARBl shown on Nphi-RhoB and GR-RhoB crossplots
@T is not show here becauseit is not very discriminant):
the evolution of clusteringresults6om 2 clustersto 5.
Flgwe 3: Ten clustersofdata set EVAPI (2460 points)
detectedby MRGC, shown on Nphi-RboB, GR-RboB
and DT-RhoB crossplots. MRGC detected a very
compact small zone: series 4 (containing 1045 points)
as one cluster while Gans method detectedit as many
ClUSterS.
SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Sym~ Gum, June 4-?, ZOOO
Figure 4a: This is a
depth display of
result.3of case I
obtained with MRGC
method applied to
different log
combination. They are
compared with core
data, displayed on the
lett hand half of each
electiofacies tracks 5,
7 and 8. Color coding
and patterns of
electrofacies and core
description are chosen
according to
geological PP
depositional
mechanism. The blue
encoding ofthe core
description has no
equivalent in the
electrofacies column,
it is a conglomeratic
shaly facies. From left
to right. Tracks 2 to 4
display the
conventional logs: GR,
NPHI, RHO, NMR
porosity, Neutron-
Density Separation,
PEF and Sonic. Track
5 displays the MRGC
clustering of
conventional logs
only: CR, RHO,
Neutron- Density
Separation, PEF and
Sonic. To obtain
details in the reservoir
formation 22
electrofacies was
found to be the
optimal log partition.
In a final stage ofthe
wvey some ofthem
were merged to fit the
core description. Track
5 displays the NMR
r2 distribution. Track
7 display the result of
MRGC applied to the
R bins, a 29.cluster
xutition was retained
o better show the
letails. Track 8
lisplays the result of
MRGC clustering of
:onventional logs plus
he previous I2 bin
:lassitication.
SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,200O

---
TNPH-1 (VA) ECGR
o- -16 o- - 16
Core Fades Core Facies

- --
TNPH-1 (V/V) ECGR
o- -16 0- - 16
NMR + Conventional Logs Electrofacies NMR + Conventional Logs Electrofacies

d;odoooodoood
TNPH -~1 (V/VI I
o- -29
NMR Electrofacies

Figure 4b: The crossplots of Figure 4a. The two uppermost crossplots (Density/Neutron and NDS / GR) are color coded
for core description. The two crossplots in the center are color coded for Electrofacies obtained by applying MRGC to
the NMR clustering results combined with GR, NDS, Pe. Rho and Sonic. Color-coding was made aAer a quantitative
survey of correspondence between clectrofacies and core description. The lower crossplot is color coded for NMR
clustering results. only reservoir facies are displayed for convenience. The figure on the lower right is the display of a
contingency table (best reservoir facies are in the center of the plot (brown, violet, rzd and blue). Shaly facies are on the
let? of the table, coded in deep blue, dark gray and magenta; Electrofacies give more detail than seen by
sedimentologists. Shaly conglomerate are found in the right par7of the table.

12
 SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,ZOOO

PP

Figure 5x This figure is displayed ihe result of MRGC of Case 2 using GR, RIIO. Neutron-Density Separation and
Sonic. From lefl to righl are shown: .Track I to 4 the logs and the depth. Track 5 displays three curves in histogram
mode, they correspond to the 3 optimal partitions proposed by the MRCC method for B number of facies ranging from IO
to 25, the partition in 22 electrofacies was preferred. Track 6 to 8 display the electrofacies color and pattern encoding
between the Density and Rdeep log (Track 6). the Neutron and the sonic log (Track 7) and the coding for depositional
environment interpreted from cores and MRClC clustering (Track 8). Tracks 9 and 10 display the comparison of MRGC
clustering (facing the right) and a conventional two-step clustering (facing the I&). Track Ii displays the color-coding
used on cross~lots of Figure 5b.

13
SPWLA 41 Annual Logging Symposium, June 4-7,ZOOO

RHO8 vs. NPHI OR vs. Neutron Density Separation

6250.0-66,O.O
m 6250.0.BBto.0m

Figure 5b: The color-coding (identical to track 1 I of Figure 5a) on the Neutron/Density crossplot and a
GR/Neunon-Density Separation displays the results of the MRGC model set up on the well of Case 2

l
14