Proceedings Eighth Workshop Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University. Stanford, California.

December 1982

SGP-TR-60

RESISTIVITY LOGGING OF FRACTURED BASALT

f

V. Stefansson, G. Axelsson and 0 . Sigurdsson

Orkustofnun Grensdsvegi 9 Reykjavik, Iceland

I "

.
Consider an idealized model for f r a c t u r e d rock i n order t o estimate t h e on effects of f r a c t u re s resistivity-porosity relations. This model is presented in f i g u r e 1 and c o n s i s t s of cubes representing t h e rock and the spacing between the para1lelepipeds representing waterf i l l e d fractures. Similar models have been presented before (Towle 1962, Aguilera 1974 and 1976, Hirakawa and Yarnaguchi 1981), but t h e present approach is somewhat d i f f e r e n t . The following parameters a r e used i n t h e model: Pw = r e s i s t i v i t y of water i n pores and f r a c t u r e s 43 = r e s i s t i v i t y of rock matrix e , porosity of rock matrix ( r e l a t i v e t o m t r i x volume only) x = length of each matrix cube, fraction 1-X Width of f r a c t u r e s , f r a c t i o n

The electric log has been used for about half a century a s a t o o l for studying t h e formations penetrated by a borehole. A t e a r l y s t a g e , comprehensive s t u d i e s of sedimentary rock established the dependence of formation r e s i s t i v i t y f a c t o r upon porosity. Archie (1942) pioneered this e f f o r t by suggesting h i s well-known empirical formula c o r r e l a t i n g t h e formation f a c t o r and porosity. Ever since, Archie's law has been a c e n t r a l point i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n methods for e l e c t r i c a l logs. Despite the simple empirical dependance of rock conductivity on porosity a s expressed by Archie's law, t h e r e does not exist a simple theoretical this phenomenon. explanation for Mathematical modeling t o prove the v a l i d i t y of an Archie type r e l a t i o n s h i p has been c a r r i e d out by Greenberg and Brace (1969), Shankland and Waff (1974) and Hadden (1976). However, a l l models depend on simplistic geometrical assumptions of pore space d i s t r i b u t i o n s be and t h e degree of realism can
disputed.

During t h e l a s t decade, i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on geothermal reservoirs have accentuated t h e r o l e of f r a c t u r e s i n r e s e r v o i r physics. Various types of geophysical logs have been applied i n order t o d i s t i n g u i s h between fractured and i n t e r g r a n u l a r reservoirs. One of t h e strong candidates for t h a t is t h e e l e c t r i c l o g (Towle 1962, Aguilera 1974 and 1976). The main reason f o r t h a t i s t h e f a c t t h a t the exponent <la> in Archie's law seem t o be 1.0 i n the case of fractured rock (Brace and Orange 1968), where a s a value of 2.0 seems t o be v a l i d f o r non-fractured rock (Brace et.al. 1965). I n t h i s paper a simple lumped double p o r o s i t y model is studied i n order t o estimate the e f f e c t s of f r a c t u r e s on t h e resistivity-porosity relationship. Further, t h e r e s u l t s of r e s i s t i v i t y and p o r o s i t y logging i n Icelandic b a s a l t i s presented, and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of it o r is i t y i n these t rocks p o s shown t h a are dominated by f r a c t u r e s .

convenient t o introduce lumped resistances in approximating the r e s i s t i v i t y of t h e model as i s shown i n f i g u r e 1. Thus the r e s i s t a n c e of an u n i t cube is approximately given by
It i s

and t h e r e s i s t i v i t y of t h e model is
p t R
(2)

Referring t o f i g u r e 1
(3)

R2 =

-x 1
X2

PW

(4)

R3

1-x*

PW

(5)

-189-

Figure I

Equation 8 is used t o estimate formation r e s i s t i v i t y f a c t o r for double porosity model. Here it assumed t h a t

the the is

The use of an exponent of 2 is supported by the r e s u l t s of Brace and Orange (1968b). From t h e i r experiments with d i f f e r e n t rock samples, saturated with brine and measured a t 4 kbar t o close up most of t h e crack porosity, an exponent of 2 dependence of r e s i s t i v i t y upon residual porosity was obtained. These r e s u l t s were confirmed by t h e simulation s t u d i e s of Shankland and Waff (1975). Equation ( 1 2 ) has been recognized as an empirical law i n t h e petroleum industry and is v a l i d for normally cemented sandstone. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the porosity gnd the formation f a c t o r according t o equation 8 i s presented i n f i g u r e s 2 and 3. The r e s u l t s for horizontal f r a c t u r e only (equation 11) a r e presented i n f i g u r e 4.

I
Figure 1 Schematic f i u r e of the double porosity and the equvalent r e s i s t i v i t y calculated f o r each u n i t cube.

Ael

and t h e r e s i s t i v i t y of the fractured rock is according t o equation 1

Introducing t h e f r a c t u r e porosity

tJf =

- x3

(7)

an a >proximation for the formation resis :ivity factor for t h e double p r o s i t y model is obtained as:

where F =
P/P,

(9)

Equation 8 is somewhat simpler than the one presented by Hirakawa and Yamaguchi (1981), but gives s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . The s a m e approach can be used to estimate the formation f a c t o r for models with e i t h e r v e r t i c a l f r a c t u r e s only or horizontal f r a c t u r e s only. Omitting t h e d e t a i l s of the d e r i v a t i o n one obtains f o r v e r t i c a l f r a c t u r e s only:

Figure 2 Relation between formation resistivity factor and total porosity as calculated from t h e double p o r o s i t y model. Curve B represents v e r t i c a l f r a c t u r e only with m a t r i x porosity equal t o zero. Other curves a r e for cases where both vertical and horizontal f r a c t u r e s a r e present.

-190-

ki
VerlicoI ond horizOnlol froslurel

E uations 8, 10 and 1 can be combined 1 wfth Archie's l a w (Archie 1942)

where

i s t h e t o t a l porosity. The double porosity model i n t h e presence of v e r t i c a l and horizontal f r a c t u r e s , when $bf 0 and ot <30% then yields, a = 1.4 and m = 1.0. This compares favorably w i t h the values a = 1.5 and m = 1.0 obtained by Towle (1962) for h i s plane model, but it is i d e n t i c a l t o the model used here. Similarly for vertical f r a c t u r e only, a = 1.0 and m 1.0 when obP 0 . A m = 1.0 dependence upon t o t a l porosit is a l s o seen t o be v a l i d when the ratlo

io

io

ioou

Figure 3 Relation between formation resistivity factor and total porosity f o r v e r t i c a l and horizontal f r a c t u r e s , given various values of the ratio between fracture porosity and matrix porosity.

__-

1.101 C*I..lI,

is constant and t o t a l porosity is small ( f i g u r e 31, b u t the values for <a> increase with decreasing k-values.

__

These results a r e d i f f e r e n t from the r e l a t i o n s h i p s commonly used i n t h e . petroleum industry. A exponent of 10 n i s however i n an agreement with t h e r e s u l t s of Brace and Orange (1968a), who observed t h a t s t r e s s i n g rock samples i n t o t h e d i l a n t region of new crack formation produced an esponent of 1.0 dependence upon crack porosity.
I t can be seen from t h e d i f f e r e n t values for <a> estimated above, f o r v e r t i c a l and horizontal fractures, and for vertical fracture only, that resistivity-porosity relations, for fractured rock, a r e highly dependent on t h e r a t i o of v e r t i c a l t o horizontal i e. f r a c t u r e orientation. fractures, Different ratios of vertical to horizontal f r a c t u r e s can be modeled using t h e simple lumped approach used above. Space does not permit a d e t a i l e d discussion, but results i n d i c a t e a rapid increase in resistivity, at near constant t o t a l porOEity, with decreasing importance of v e r t i c a l f r a c t u r e s ( f i g u r e 4).

The r e s u l t s from the above discussion can be summarized as follows.

1) Even though the present r e s u l t s a r e only a f i r s t order approximation it can be seen t h a t the empirical r e l a t i o n F = $" is not v a l i d f o r fractured rock. An exponent of 1.0 is probably more cor r e c t

IO

mmu

Tola1 C O t O t i l l +I

2) The r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s i s t i v i t y and porosity for fractured rock is i n general not simple (figures 2, 3 and 41, but depends on t h e amount of matrix porosity as well as the f r a c t u r e or ientation. 3) R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t porosity of fractured rock should not be determined form r e s i s t i v i t y data based on a F = a$'" r e l a t i o n alone.

Figure 4 Relation between formation resistivity factor and total porosity for horizontal f r a c t u r e only.

-191-

4) Assuming t h a t the r a t i o of vertkcal t o horizontal f r a c t u r e s is a s i n t h e model of f i g u r e 1 with t o t a l porosity and formation factor known from geophysical logging data, one can estimate roughly t h e r e l a t i v e importance of fracture- and m a t r i x porosity by the use of the approximate model presented above.

F IOum 6

a
2.-

L!
I

2.00

BESISTIVITY-WROSITYBELATIOWSPPB

BASALT

Extensive geophysical logging has been performed in s e v e r a l . deep ( 2 km) boreholes in Iceland. Among the parameters observed were r e s i s t i v i t y (16" and 64" normal) and porosity Examples of (neutron-neutron) resistivity (formation resistivity f a c t o r ) -porosity c r o s s p l o t s from two boreholes i n b a s a l t i c environment are presented in f i g u r e s 5 t o 7. These f i g u r e s show only few, but representat i v e examples.

.so

I.m 0

JHDBY-9000 G A x @ZOO 1067 11% J

F IO"..

1.500

Figure 6 Formation resistivity factor porosity c r o s s p l o t for Basalt dikes i n t h e depth i n t e r v a l 1360-1500 m i n t h e IRDP hole i n Eastern Iceland.

::Dd::bY50T/z

Flqui. 7

,zT \
LOO0
2.500

0.600

I .ax,

!.W

Dolrlt.

1800-18701

\
)a, .x

Figure 5 R e s i s t i v i t y porosity c r o s s p l o t for D o l e r i t e a t 1900 1970 m depth i n w e l l KJ-16 i n t h e Kraf l a high temperature geothermal f i e l d . The b e s t l i n e a r f i t t o the d a t a points is shown along with its cor r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t

Figure 7 Formation resistivity porosity c r o s s p l o t for factor Basalt flows i n the depth i n t e r v a l 1700-1800 m i n the IRDP hole i n Eastern Iceland.

Well KJ-16 is a production hole d r i l l e d inside the Krafla geothermal area (StefSnsson 1981) i n the neovolcanic zone of Iceland. The IRDP-hole (Fridleifsson e t . a l 1982, Robinson e t . a l . 1982) is d r i l l e d i n approximately 10 M old b a s a l t p i l e y in Eastern Iceland. The pore water r e s i s t i v i t y (Pw) is f a i r l y well known, a s a function of depth, for t h e IRDP-hole, which enables t h e estimation of t h e formation r e s i s t i v i t y factor ( f i g u r e s 6 and 7).
A

figures. An equation of this form has a l s o been f i t t e d t o d a t a from other i n t e r v a l s , n o t presented here, and weighted average for t h e exponent <m> calculated for the two different areas. The r e s u l t s a r e presented i n t a b l e I.

Kraf l a (0-1 My)

IRDP

rather good correlation between r e s i s t i v i t y and porosity is seen f o r the examples i n f i g u r e s 5 to 7. A relationship of the form P = a pW$" has been f i t t e d t o these d a t a and the results are presented in t h e

(-10 My)

-192-

+++\

:\

t.m
r*-0.93

I .Q

I.m

* ,

tm> 1.02 2 0.07 1.10 & 0.04 205 m out of 2 x 1300 m 430 m out of 1100 m
d

cd

w
t

These results a r e i n good agreement with reEUlt6 for b a s a l t from Rawaii (Kellcr e t . a l , 1974) and result8 from .the Atlantic Ridge a t 2' 3N (Kirkpatrick 1979) R w do w i n t e r p r e t an exponent <m> o e close to 1.0 1 This indicates, according t o the double porosity model presented before and the r e s u l t s of Brace and Orange (1968a), t h a t f r a c t u r e s c o n s t i t u t e an important p a r t of the porosity for the basalt6 studied. However, w can not determine, on t h e e b a s i s of t h e values f o r <m> alone, how important f r a c t u r e s are in the o v e r a l l porosity. According t o the double p o r o s i t y model an exponent of 1.0 is possible, even though matrix porosity is considerable.

2.m

.m

I .m

more complete i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of formation r e s i s t i v i t y factor-porosity cross-plots can be attempted on t h e b a s i s of t h e double porosity model. The model can be used t o estimate the r e l a t i v e - importance of f r a c t u r e - and matrix p o r o s i t y when the pore water e r e s i s t i v i t y is known. W w i l l take as examples t h r e e cross-plots from the IRDP-hole presented i n f i g u r e s 8 t o 10. The two extremum cases ($b = 0 and Qf = 01, f o r v e r t i c a l and horizontal fractur.es, as well as one or two l i n e s f o r constant k-ratios a r e superimposed on these cross-plots. W s e e from the e figures that these d a t a can be i n t e r p r e t e d on t h e b a s i s of the double porosity model. A n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h a t kind is of course approximate, requires an exact knowledge of the value for and is limited by t h e underlying assumption of f r a c t u r e orientation.
A

0.m
D

I.'<+>

Figure 9 Relation between formation r e s i s t i v i t y f a c t o r and t o t a l p o r o s i t y for Basalt flows i n t h e depth i n t e r v a l 1500-1600 m i n t h e IRDP hole i n Eastern Iceland. Superimposed a r e l i n e s for t h e two extremum cases $ = 0 and = 0 along w i t h a t i n e for constant r a t i o between f r a c t u r e porosity and matrix porosity.

rn2r,oY;;;&

Figure 10 Relation between formation r e s i s t i v i t y f a c t o r and t o t a l porositv for Basalt dikes I n t h e depth i n t i r v a l 1700-i 1800 m I n t h e IRDP hole i n Eastern Iceland. Superimposed a r e l i n e s f o r the two extremum cases ob = 0 and Qf 0 along with l i n e s f o r constant r a t i o between fracture p o r o s i t y and matrix porosity,

looVJ

'

Figure 8 Relation between formation resistivity factor and total porosity f o r Basalt flow6 i n t h e depth i n t e r v a l 0-300 m i n t h e IRDP hole in Eastern Iceland. superimposed are lines for the two extremum cases $ b = 0 ana $f = 0 and one l i n e for constant r a t i o between fracture porosity and matrix porosity.

e Using f i g u r e 3 w can estimate roughly the ratio of f r a c t u r e - t o matrix porosity. For t h e cases from the IRDP-hole presented i n f i g u r e s 8 t o 10 the following results are obtained ( t a b l e 11):

-193-

CONCLUSION
6

Interval

-0-300 m Basalt flows

Basalt flows

f+ '
.-

-0.7
=0.5

1500-1600 m

1700-1800 m Basalt d i k e s

=0.2-0.3

been s t u d i e d i n o r d e r t o estimate t h e e f f e c t porosity of f r a c t u r e s on r e s i s t i v i t y relations. It is found t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s i s t i v i t y and porosity for f r a c t u r e d rock is i n g e n e r a l n o t simple and depends both on t h e amount of m a t r i x p o r o s i t y as w e l l as t h e f r a c t u r e o r i e n t a t i o n . However, when f r a c t u r e s dominate over m a t r i x p o r o s i t y t h e exponent <m> is close t o 1.0.

A lumped double p o r o s i t y model h a s

The a p p a r e n t decrease in fracture p o r o s i t y with depth is noteworthy, b u t t h e underlying assumptions mentioned above should be kept i n mind. A d e c r e a s e i n f r a c t u r e p o r o s i t y c o u l d be t h e r e s u l t of i n c r e a s i n g p r e s s u r e w i t h depth c l o s i n g up some f r a c t u r e s . This e f f e c t could on t h e o t h e r hand also result from changes in fracture o r i e n t a t i o n with depth. To conclude t h i s d i s c u s s i o n we p r e s e n t one example f o r a n o n - b a s a l t i c u n i t i n f i g u r e 11, where formation r e s i s t i v i t y factor porosity crossplot for a d i o r i t e (55% S i 0 ) unit from the IRDP-hole is shown. Here w e see a r e l a t i o n s h i p which is q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r t h e b a s a l t p r e s e n t e d above. I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e data i n f i g u r e 1 a c c o r d i n g t o the double 1 p o r o s i t y model w f i n d t h a t f r a c t u r e e p o r o s i t y should be i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s d i o r i t e unit.

R e s i s t i v i t y - p o r o s i t y r e l a t i o n s have been determined f o r l a r g e amount of b a s a l t i c formations i n Iceland. An exponent c l o s e t o 1.0 is found i n a l l cases i n v e s t i g a t e d . T h i s is i n t e r p r e t e d as f r a c t u r e s c o n s t i t u t e a c o n s i d e r a b l e part of t h e p o r o s i t y of t h e b a s a l t s . I n the IRDP-hole i n E a s t e r n I c e l a n d it is found t h a t t h e r a t i o of f r a c t u r e p o r o s i t y t o t o t a l p o r o s i t y d e c r e a s e s w i t h depth. I n c o n t r a s t t o t h e exponent of 1.0 found f o r b a s a l t i c f o r m a t i o n s i n I c e l a n d , many interbedded formations i n t h e b a s a l t i c p i l e r e v e a l a n exponent of approximately 2.0. T h i s is i n t e r p r e t e d as m a t r i x p o r o s i t y dominates f r a c t u r e p o r o s i t y i n these cases. The study of resistivity-porosity r e l a t i o n s h i p presented demonstrates t h a t tommon g e o p h y s i c a l l o g s can d i s t i n g u i s h between f r a c t u r e d and porous r e s e r v o i r s .

O.Oo0 2: 600

0.600

.ow

9.500

We thank Rafnragnsveitur RfkisinsKriifluvirkjun f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o use d a t a from t h e K r a f l a f i e l d .

2.ow

BEFERENCES
Aguilera, R. (19741, "Analysis of N a t u r a l l y F r a c t u r e d R e s e r v o i r s From Sonic and Resistivity Logs", J. Pet. Tech., 26, p. 1233-1238.
R. (1976Ir "Analysis of Aguilera, N a t u r a l l y F r a c t u r e d R e s e r v o i r s From Conventional Well Logs", J. Pet. Tech., 28, p. 764-772.
m
I ,000

I,600

Figure 1 1 Relation between formation r e s i s t i v i t y f a c t o r and t o t a l p o r o s i t y f o r 10 m thick Diorite f o r m a t i o n a t 1710 m depth i n t h e IRDP hole in Eastern Iceland. Superimposed are l i n e s f o r t h e two extremum cases * b = 0 and + f = 0. The d a t a p o i n t s f a l l c l o s e t o and p a r a l l e l with t h e l i n e = 0 indicating t h a t fracture g r o s i t y is n e g l i g i b l e .

Archie, G.E. (19421, "The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid i n Determining Some Reservoir Characteristics., Tran. AI=, 146, p. 54-67.

Brace, W.F., Orange, A.S. and Madden, T.R. (1965), "The Effect of Electrical Pressure on the Resistivity of Water-Saturated Crystalline Rocks", J. Geophys. Res., 70, p. 5669-5678.

-194-

Brace, W.F. and "Electrical

Orange, A.S. (1968a), R e s i s t i v i t y Changes i n S a t u r a t e d R o c k s d u r i n g F r a c t u r e and Fri'ctional s l i d i n g " , J. Geophys. R e s . , 73, p. 1433-1445.

Brace, W.F. and Orange, A.S. (1968b), " F u r t h e r S t u d i e s of t h e E f f e c t s of Electrical R e s i s t i v i t y Pressure 73, of Rocks , J. Geophys. Res., p. 5407-5420.
F r i d l e i f s s o n , I.B., Gibson, I.L., Hall, J.M., Johnson, H.P., C h r i s t e n s e n , N.I., Schminck e , H.U. and G. (1982), "The Schonharting, I c e l a n d Research D r i l l i n g P r o j e c t " , J. Geophys. Res., 74, p. 635 9-63 62. and Brace, W.F. (1969), Greenberg, R.J. "Archie's Law for R o c k s Modeled by Simple Networks , J. Geophys. Res., 74, p. 2099-2102. . Hirakawa, S. and Yamaguchi, S. (1981), 'Geothermal W e l l Logging and Its Interpretation", Proceedings Geothermal Seventh Workshop R e s e r v o i r Engineering, Stanford, p. 115-119.

Keller, G.V., Murray. J.C. and Towle, G.H. (1974), 'Geophysical Logs From Research t h e Kilauea Geothermal D r i l l Hole", paper p r e s e n t e d a t F i f t e e n t h Annual Meeting of SPWLA, McAllen, L .
K i r k p a t r i c k , R.J. (19791, 'The Physical Crust: State of the Oceanic R e s u l t s of Downhole Geophysical Logging i n t h e Mid-Atlantic Ridge a t 23ONa, J Geophys. Res., . 84. p. 178-188.

Madden, T.R. (1976), "Random Networks and Mixing Laws", Geophysics, 41, p. 1104-1125.
,

Robinson, P.T., Hall, J.M., Christensen, N.I., Gibson, I.L., F r i d l e i f s s o n , I.B., Schmincke, HU . . and G. (1982), "The Schonharting, I c e l a n d Research D r i l l i n g P r o j e c t : Results and Synthesis of I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e Nature of Icelandic and Oceanic Crust", J. Geophys. R e s . 87, p. 6657-6667. Shankland, T.J. and Waff, H S . . (1974), "Cond:ctivity in Fluid-Bea r i n g Rocks , J. Geophys. Res., 79, p. 4863-4868. Stefansson, V (19811, . "The Krafla Geothermal Field, Northeast I c e l a n d " , i n Geothermal Systems: Case Histor ies, Principles and L. Ryback and L.J.P. Muffler ( E d i t o r s ) , p. 273-294. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Towle, G. (1962), "An A n a l y s i s of t h e Formation Resistivity Factor of Some porosity Relationship Assumed Pore Geometries", paper p r e s e n t e d a t T h i r d Annual Meeting of SPWLA, Houston.

-195-196