See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317833456

Inversion of dielectric logging using mixing model as a regularization function

Conference Paper · June 2017

CITATION READS
1 91

4 authors:

Babak Kouchmeshky Alberto Mezzatesta

Baker Hughes Incorporated Baker Hughes a General Electric Company
17 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Roberto Arro Otto Fanini

Baker Hughes Incorporated R&D
4 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS    78 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MULTICOMPONENT INDUCTION LOGGING TOOL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Babak Kouchmeshky on 23 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
INVERSION OF DIELECTRIC LOGGING USING MIXING MODEL AS A
REGULARIZATION FUNCTION
Babak Kouchmeshky, Baker Hughes, Alberto Mezzatesta, Baker Hughes, Roberto Arro, Baker Hughes, Otto
Fanini, Baker Hughes
Copyright 2017, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 58th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, June 17-21, 2017.
ABSTRACT
Dielectric log can be used to obtain petrophysical
properties of a formation like water saturation,
water resistivity at DC, and formation texture.
Dielectric tool operates at a wide frequency range
from a few MHz to 1 GHz. Since the gathered data
is inevitably contaminated with noise, studies that
quantify the effect of noise on the interpretation of
the dielectric log are very useful.
This work provides an overview of inversion
methods used for interpretation of dielectric log.
First the classical method of inversion is
introduced in which the task of quantifying
petrophysical parameters is divided into two steps.
The first step involves inverting for the
electromagnetic properties of the formation
(permittivity and conductivity) from magnitude
and phase of electromagnetic wave recorded at the
receiver. These electromagnetic properties are
obtained for each frequency of operation to obtain
their variation with respect to frequency
(dispersion). It is this dispersive behavior of
permittivity and conductivity that is used in the
second step to obtain petrophysical properties of
the formation. For this step, valid mixing models
are required to relate petrophysical parameters of
formation and dispersive electromagnetic
properties. It is shown that the presence of noise in
the data can lead to ill-posed inverse problems
where multiple answers can be present.
In order to avoid having an ill-posed inverse
problem, use of regularization method is
suggested. An inversion methodology is proposed
that combines the two steps of inversion into one.
In doing so, only one inversion problem needs to
be solved that directly obtains the petrophysical
parameters. It is shown that the new inversion
method can seamlessly take advantage of the
1
regularization of the petrophysical parameters, and
structure the electromagnetic properties of the
formation using mixing models.
In order to compare the two inversion methods,
their performance is put into test using an
example. For a realistic example experimental data
on dispersive electromagnetic properties of a core
is used. The experimental real and imaginary part
of dielectric dispersion are further used to obtain
the relative magnitude and phase of an
electromagnetic wave travelling in the formation
and picked up by two receivers. This synthetic tool
response is then perturbed by noise. Monte Carlo
method is used to study the effect of the noise on
the inverted petrophysical properties of the
formation. The probability distribution of the
inverted petrophysical parameters obtained from
the noisy data using two different inversion
methods are compared to each other. It is shown
that the proposed method is more tolerant to the
noise, and provides a probability distribution for
each petrophysical parameter that leads to an
expected value for these parameters that is very
close to the actual values set in the lab, and also
results in a much smaller standard deviation in
comparison with the classical inversion method.
INTRODUCTION
Dielectric log can provide invaluable information
on the petrophysical parameters of a formation. It
measures the magnitude and phase of the
electromagnetic wave propagating through the
formation. This data is used to infer
electromagnetic properties of a formation (Cox
and Warren 1983, Rau et. al. 1991, Hizem et. al.
2008). Usually the magnetic permeability is
assumed to be that of vacuum (μr = 1) while the
relative permittivity is generally a complex value
and is related to the real permittivity and
conductivity of a formation through the following
equation.
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
σ(ω)
ε̃r (ω) = ε′r (ω) + iε′′
r (ω) = εr (ω) + i (1)
ωε0
where ε̃r is the complex value representing relative
permittivity, εr is the real part of relative dielectric
property, σ is electrical conductivity, ω is angular
frequency, and ε0 is dielectric constant of vacuum.
The electromagnetic properties of the formation
exhibit a variation with respect to frequency that is
called dispersion. It is this dispersive behavior that
can be used in inferring petrophysical properties of
a formation. Dielectric log uses contrast in the
permittivity of water and the other elements
present in the formation to obtain information on
water saturation, water resistivity at DC, and
formation texture. Dielectric log interpretation
provides an advantage over traditional resistivity
logging in formations where the water resistivity is
unknown or varies significantly over short
distances.
The accuracy of the petrophysical parameters
obtained from this log is affected by noise level.
The aim of this paper is to study the possibility of
increasing the noise tolerance by modifying the
inversion methods. The current paper addresses
the effect of noise in the recorded dielectric log
data on the inverted petrophysical parameters. The
existence of noise in the recorded data leads to an
ill-posed inverse problem. In order to address this
problem and make the inverse problem at hand
more tolerant to noise, usually some sort of
regularization is performed.
Two different inversion methods are presented in
this paper. The major difference between the
methods is reflected in their ability to take
advantage of the regularization methods and hence
their tolerance to the level of noise. The first
method presented is the classical method used in
inversion of dielectric log (Hizem et. al., 2008).
This method divides the task of inversion into two
steps. The first step inverts for electromagnetic
properties of the formation using the recorded
relative magnitude and relative phase of
electromagnetic wave. The results of this step at
different frequencies are used as an input to the
second step of inversion where petrophysical
properties are obtained. The second method
combines these two steps into one and in the
process enables the use of regularization leading to
an inversion problem that is more tolerant to noise
level. It should be noted that the methods deployed
in this paper can be easily applied to an array
distribution of sensors with multiple transmitters
2
and receivers where multiple depths of
investigation are studied.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, two
different inversion methods for interpretation of
dielectric log are explained in detail. The
differences between the two methods are
highlighted, emphasizing the advantage of one-
step inversion method in incorporating
regularization. Next, these two methods are
applied in an example with synthetic data
perturbed by noise. Finally, the ability of the
methods to provide accurate petrophysical
parameters from a noisy input data is discussed.
TWO-STEP INVERSION METHOD
In this method the inversion of dielectric log is
divided into two steps (Hizem et. al., 2008). The
first step involves inverting for the
electromagnetic properties of the formation,
namely permittivity and conductivity, using the
magnitude and phase response of the tool. The
inversion is done at multiple frequencies. At each
frequency the output of inversion is permittivity
and conductivity of the formation. This step can be
summarized by the following equation.
𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛𝜀𝑟(𝜔),𝜎(𝜔) ‖𝑴(𝜔) − 𝒇(𝜀𝑟 (𝜔), 𝜎(𝜔))‖2 (2)
where ‖. ‖2 is ℓ2 norm, M is a vector containing
the measured magnitude and phase at each
frequency, and f is a vector containing the
calculated magnitude and phase at each frequency
as a function of permittivity, ε, and conductivity,
σ, of formation. Usually constraints are added to
the inversion such that the obtained values for
permittivity and conductivity have the following
conditions.
𝜀𝑟 (𝜔) > 1 , 𝜎(𝜔) > 0 (3)
Collecting the inverted electromagnetic properties
of formation at multiple frequencies results in a
dispersive relation obtained for both permittivity
and conductivity. This dispersive relation is used
as the input for the second step of inversion where
the petrophysical properties of formation are
obtained as follows
𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑿 ‖𝑷 − 𝒈(𝑿, 𝜑)‖2 (4)
where P is a 2 × N vector with N being number of
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
recorded frequencies and contains permittivity and
conductivity obtained for each frequency from the
first step
𝑷 = [𝜀𝑟 (𝜔1 ), 𝜎(𝜔1 ), 𝜀𝑟 (𝜔2 ), 𝜎(𝜔2 ), … , 𝜀𝑟 (𝜔𝑁 ), 𝜎(𝜔𝑁 )]
Alternatively, X is a vector containing
petrophysical parameters of the formation. These
properties include water saturation, Sw , water
conductivity at DC, σw , relative permittivity of dry
rock, εm , and in more detailed models, the texture
of formation is included as aspect ratio of
inclusions, R ab . As it can be seen porosity, φ, is
also needed but not included as a parameter of
inversion as it needs to be measured independently
from other logging tools. If porosity is included as
a parameter of inversion for dielectric log, it can
lead to an ill-posed problem as shown by
Kouchmeshky and Fanini (2016 a). In Equation 4,
g is a 2 × N vector that contains permittivity and
conductivity values calculated for a formation with
petrophysical parameters X and following a
predetermined mixing model. For calculating the
elements of vector g from petrophysical
parameters represented by vector X and porosity φ
knowledge of the mixing model appropriate for the
formation is required. This information can be
obtained through lab measurement on rock cores
from the formation under study. As shown by
Kouchmeshky et. al. (2016 b) using the quality of
fit to logged data at frequency range of operation
for dielectric tool is not sufficient as an indicator
to choose the appropriate mixing model. For a
better judgment on the performance of a mixing
model, access to a wider frequency range through
lab measurements is required. The inversion in the
second step is subjected to the following
constraints
𝜀𝑚 > 1 , 𝜎𝑤 > 0, 0 ≤ 𝑆𝑤 ≤ 1
In reality, the collected data is subjected to noise.
This can lead to an ill-posed inversion problem. In
order to avoid this scenario, regularization
methods are typically used. Inversion for the
second step can be modified to include
regularization of the petrophysical parameters as
follows
𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑿 (‖𝑷 − 𝒈(𝑿, 𝜑)‖2 + 𝛼‖𝑿 − 𝑿0 ‖2 )
where α is the regularization coefficient and X0 is
a vector that contains expected values of
petrophysical parameters.
𝑿0 = [𝜀𝑚0 , 𝜎𝑤0 , 𝑆𝑤0 , 𝑅𝑎𝑏0 ] (8)
(5) Prior knowledge about formation or petrophysical
values obtained from adjacent depth can be used in
selecting values for elements of X0 . It should be
noted that selecting a large value for α would lead
to an optimal value of X satisfying above equation
that is very close to X0 . Conversely, selecting a
very small value for α reduces the effect of
regularization and results in the optimal value of X
satisfying only the noisy data presented in P (Eq.
5).
One drawback of this method of inversion is that
separate inversions are needed for the
aforementioned steps. This can lead to less noise
tolerance as the inherent errors associated with
numerical convergence of multiple inverse
problems add up. As noted, the results of first step
above are electromagnetic properties at different
frequencies that will be used for the inversion
problem in the second step. As such, no
regularization at the first step is recommended
because enforcing any arbitrary regularization
function at step 1 would effectively alter the shape
of dispersive function, representing variation of
electromagnetic properties with respect to
frequency. It is precisely this dispersion function
that is used in the second step to obtain
petrophysical properties. The most natural choice
for regularization function for the first step would
be the same mixing model that is used in the
second step. The difficulty with this approach is
that to be able to use the mixing model one would
require determination of the petrophysical
properties which are only taken into account in the
second step of inversion. Following this
(6) discussion, we propose a one-step inversion
method for dielectric logging in the following
section.
ONE-STEP INVERSION METHOD
As discussed in the previous section, the presence
of noise in collected data makes application of
regularization methods very appealing. These
methods increase the tolerance to noise and ensure
(7) unique answers to an otherwise ill-posed inverse
problem. We saw in the previous section that the
natural choice for regularization functions for the
first step of inversion, was the same function used
3
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
as mixing model for the second step. This led to
the following procedure for the inversion
𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑿 (‖𝑴∗ (𝝎) − 𝒉(𝑿, 𝜑, 𝝎)‖2 + 𝛼‖𝑿 − 𝑿0 ‖2 )
where h is a 2 × N vector that contains the
calculated magnitude and phase at each frequency,
M ∗ is a 2 × N vector that contains the measured
magnitude and phase for all frequencies present in
vector ω = [ω1 , ω2 , … , ωN ], vector X contains
petrophysical parameters of formation, φ is
porosity, vector X0 contains expected values of
petrophysical parameters and α is the
regularization coefficient.
In calculating the elements of vector h the
following steps should be taken. First, a predefined
mixing model is chosen. Then, the petrophysical
parameters assigned to vector X and porosity, φ,
are used to find permittivity and conductivity of
formation at angular frequencies in ω. The result
is the electromagnetic properties of the formation
represented as a dispersive relation for permittivity
and conductivity calculated for the petrophysical
parameters, X. These electromagnetic properties
are then passed to the forward model that predicts
the behavior of the tool in the formation. This can
be a model that simplifies the transmitters and
receivers as dipoles and assumes the formation to
be homogenous, or it can be a more detailed model
taking into account the effect of finite size of the
sensor, borehole effect, etc. Using the predicted
electromagnetic properties of the formation as
inputs to the forward model, leads to calculating
values for the tool response in the format of
relative magnitude and phase for each frequency.
The resulting magnitude and phase populate the
2 × N elements of vector h.
𝒉 = [𝑚𝑎𝑔𝜔1 , 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒𝜔1 , 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝜔2 , 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒𝜔2 , … , 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝜔𝑁 , 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒𝜔𝑁 ] (10)
where mag ωi and phaseωi are respectively the
relative magnitude and relative phase between two
receivers at frequency ωi . In this method the
petrophysical parameters are directly obtained
from one inversion. Reducing the number of
inversion problems would increase the tolerance to
noise. Additionally, the regularization can be
easily applied on the petrophysical parameters and
since the mixing models are used in the forward
model to generate the electromagnetic properties
of the formation from petrophysical properties, no
extra regularization on the permittivity and
conductivity values is needed. The petrophysical
parameters obtained from the inversion can be
used with the selected mixing model to generate
(9) the electromagnetic properties of the formation
(dispersive relation).
It should be noted that prior knowledge on the
formation or lab studies on the cores obtained
from formation may indicate that more than one
mixing models are applicable. In that case, both
two-step and one-step inversion methods can be
repeated for allowable choices of mixing model,
and the best fit to the recorded data can be selected
to represent the formation.
EXAMPLE
In this example synthetic data representing a noisy
tool response in a formation with known
petrophysical properties is used to study the
performance of the two different inversion
methods outlined in the previous sections. The
petrophysical parameters obtained from the
application of each of these two inversion methods
are compared with the actual petrophysical
parameters used to generate the tool response to
compare the noise tolerance of each method.
To make sure the data represent a realistic
situation, experimental data on a rock core are
used (Golikov et. al., 2015). Figure 1 shows the
real and imaginary part of dielectric dispersion for
a sandstone core at a wide frequency range. The
core’s porosity was 19% and it was fully saturated
with water. A fitted mixing model to the
experimental data is also shown in the same figure.
Our previous study (Kouchmeshky et. al. 2016b)
on this core data showed that Maxwell-Garnett can
be used as a mixing model that provides a good fit
to the dispersive real and imaginary part of
permittivity (or permittivity and conductivity) as
well as an accurate estimation of water saturation
and water resistivity at DC. Details on this mixing
model are provided in the appendix. Hence, this
mixing model is selected for the inversion in both
of the methods used in the current example.
The dispersive electromagnetic properties of the
formation are assumed to follow the results
obtained from the core data. Next, the transmitters
and receivers of the dielectric tool are simplified
as perfect magnetic dipoles in a homogenous space
with aforementioned electromagnetic properties.
4

Using these assumptions, the tool response can be
obtained from the following relation
𝐵𝑟2 𝑟 3 𝑘𝑟 +𝑖
= ( 1) 2
𝑒 𝑖𝑘(𝑟2−𝑟1)
𝐵𝑟1 𝑟2 𝑘𝑟1 +𝑖
where transmitter and receivers are represented by
points in space, k = ω(με̃)0.5 is the complex wave
number with ω as angular frequency and μ and ε̃
as magnetic permeability and complex permittivity
respectively, rm is the magnitude of the vector 𝐫m
connecting transmitter and receiver m, and Brm is
the component of magnetic field along vector 𝐫m
at receiver m. It is assumed that all transmitter and
receivers can be represented by collinear points
and that magnetic moments of transmitter and
receivers are all parallel to the direction of vector
connecting the transmitter and receivers, 𝐫m .
Figure 1, Experimental dispersive permittivity and fitted MG
mixing model for a sandstone core. Top, real part of
permittivity. Bottom, imaginary part of permittivity.
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
The response of the tool at different frequencies
from 20 MHz to 1 GHz are obtained from previous
equation and subjected to noise as below.
(11) ∗ = 𝑚𝑎𝑔 × (1 + 𝑢 )
𝑚𝑎𝑔𝜔 𝑖 𝜔𝑖 𝑖 (12)
∗ = 𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒 × (1 + 𝑣 )
𝑝ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒𝜔 (13)
𝑖 𝜔𝑖 𝑖
where mag ωi and phaseωi are the magnitude and
phase of the tool at frequency ωi , while mag ∗ωi
and phase∗ωi are the tool response perturbed by the
noise. ui and vi are independent random variables
representing the error associated with recording
the tool response and follow a Gaussian
distribution N(μ, σ) where μ = 0 and σ = 0.05.
There are totally 2 × N independent random
variables representing the noise
E = [u1 , v1 , u2 , v2 , … , uN , vN ].
Monte-Carlo simulation was used to study the
effect of noise on the inverted petrophysical
parameters using the two inversion methods
described in previous sections. 10000 realization
of the vector E were used. For each realization, the
perturbed tool response is calculated and used to
obtain the inverted petrophysical parameters σw
and Sw representing water conductivity and water
saturation, respectively.
Figure 2 shows the relative magnitude and phase
between receivers as the tool response in a
homogenous medium with electromagnetic
properties shown in Figure 1. The perturbed
response from a realization of random vector
representing noise is also shown. As discussed
before and observable from the figure, the
elements of the random vector representing noise
are independent from each other.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of petrophysical
parameters obtained from two-step inversion
method. The actual value for the petrophysical
parameters is shown as a dotted line. As it can be
seen, the inverted petrophysical parameters with
the highest probability, correspond to values that
are far from the actual ones. In the case of the
inverted water saturation, Sw , although the value
corresponding to the highest probability matches
the actual water saturation, the probability of
finding an inverted water saturation that is far
from its actual value is not negligible. As it can be
seen, the two-step inversion method results are not
satisfactory as it is not tolerant to the noisy tool
5
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017

response used in this example.

Figure 3, Inversion with 2 steps; Top, probability distribution

of the inverted water salinity, ssw. Bottom, probability
Figure 2, Relative magnitude and relative phase measured at distribution of the inverted water saturation, Sw. Dashed line
discrete frequencies. Both actual response (solid line) and a shows the actual petrophysical parameters.
realization of perturbed response (dashed line) are shown.

Also, the inverted petrophysical parameters using

the one-step method is displayed in Figure 4 where
the location of actual petrophysical parameters is
also demonstrated by a dotted line. It can be seen
that the inverted petrophysical parameters with
highest probability correspond to the actual
petrophysical parameters. Furthermore, the
probability of finding inverted petrophysical
parameters far from actual parameters is small, as
shown in Figure 4. Hence, it can be concluded
that the one-step inversion method is much more
tolerant to the error in the recorded tool response
than the two-step inversion method.

6
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
Figure 4, Inversion with one-step using mixing model as
regularization; Top, probability distribution of the inverted
water salinity, ssw. Bottom, probability distribution of the
inverted water saturation, Sw. Dashed line shows the actual
petrophysical parameters.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this paper is to increase the noise
tolerance of the inversion method for dielectric
logging. The existence of noise in the data can
lead to an ill-posed inverse problem where the
uniqueness of the solution cannot be guaranteed.
In order to avoid this problem, regularization
methods are usually incorporated into inversion.
We have discussed two different inversion
methods for dielectric logging. The first method
divides the task of inversion into two steps. The
first step uses the magnitude and phase of
electromagnetic wave propagating in the formation
to provide electromagnetic properties of formation
at different frequencies through an inversion
problem. The solution to inversion problems
would be those values of permittivity and
conductivity at each frequency that can reproduce
the measured magnitude and phase of
electromagnetic wave propagation in the
formation. Appropriate constraints on the values of
permittivity and conductivity are implemented to
guarantee values for permittivity and conductivity
that are physically plausible. The values obtained
at the end of this step for permittivity and
conductivity at different frequencies exhibit a
variation with respect to frequency that is called
dispersion. It is this dispersive behavior that would
be the input to the inversion problem in the second
7
step. The inversion in the second step provides
petrophysical parameters of the formation. In
doing so, petrophysical models (mixing laws) that
relate the petrophysical parameters and
electromagnetic properties of formation need to be
validated by experimental results on cores.
Appropriate constraints for the petrophysical
parameters are also used in the inversion problem
for the second step. Additionally, regularization of
the solution to the inversion problem of the second
step can be implemented using the prior
knowledge obtained either from past experience or
from values obtained from adjacent zones in the
borehole.
It should be noted that application of the
regularization on the solution of the inversion
problem in the first step is not recommended. The
reason for this is that the outputs from the first
inversion at different frequencies form a dispersive
behavior and it is exactly this dispersive relation
that is the subject of the inversion in the second
step. Any attempt for arbitrarily regularizing the
solution that alters the dispersive behavior of
permittivity and conductivity can add unnecessary
noise to the process and deteriorate the overall
noise tolerance of the method. The only plausible
method of regularizing the permittivity and
conductivity as the solution of the inverse problem
in the first step is to use the same validated mixing
model that relates dispersive behavior of
permittivity and conductivity to the petrophysical
parameters of the formation in the inversion
problem of the second step. However, since the
application of the mixing model requires having
the petrophysical parameters as the independent
variables and they are not available for the
inversion problem of the first step, these models
cannot be used for regularizing the solution of the
inversion problem in the first step.
Drawbacks of the classical two-step inversion
method for interpretation of dielectric log
discussed in the previous section lead us to
propose another approach for inversion problems.
In the new method, only one inversion problem
needs to be solved where the observable
parameters in the inversion problem are the
magnitude and phase of electromagnetic wave, and
the solutions are the petrophysical parameters of
inversion. The objective function is still the
difference between measured and calculated
magnitude and phase of electromagnetic wave, but
SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
the independent variables are the petrophysical
parameters. In order to provide the relation
between independent and observable variables, the
forward model in this method is divided into two
steps. The first step uses the validated mixing
model to convert the petrophysical properties of
formation to electromagnetic properties of
formation, and the second step uses the
electromagnetic properties of formation to
calculate the magnitude and phase of
electromagnetic wave. Since a mixing model is
used to generate the permittivity and conductivity,
at each frequency they follow the intended
dispersive behavior. It should be noted that
selecting the mixing model beforehand does not
impose any drawback, as the classical two-step
method of inversion also requires the selection of
mixing model for the second step of inversion. In
addition the fact that only one inversion problem
needs to be solved rather than two, reduces the
error associated with numerical convergence of the
inverse problem, and requires less computational
resources. The proposed method is also able to
provide the dispersive conductivity and
permittivity of the formation for the petrophysical
parameters of inversion as they are calculated as
part of the forward model used in the inversion.
Finally, reducing the number of inversion
problems to one imposes no drawbacks on the
number of parameters used or the type of forward
model implemented. For example, if properties of
bore-hole fluid or geometric parameters of the
formation are to be added as independent variables
in the inversion, the process can be done
seamlessly using the proposed method.
CONCLUSION
Two different methods for inverting dielectric
logging data are proposed. These methods take the
relative magnitude and phase of an
electromagnetic wave traveling in the formation
and extract relevant petrophysical properties. The
difference between methods is in their ability to
include a petrophysically based regularization
function in their search for the best parameters that
could explain the observed response. The methods
are applied to synthetic data perturbed by noise
and the advantage of the method that includes the
petrophysically based regularization (One-step
method) is shown.
8
APPENDIX
MAXWELL-GARNETT MODEL
Maxwell-Garnett (MG) is based on how
introduction of inclusions into a host material
(background) would alter the distribution of
electric field. The effective relative permittivity in
Maxwell-Garnett model is calculated as below
[Maxwell-Garnett, 1904, Sihvola et. al., 1989,
Seleznev et. al., 2004]
1 ε̃b
∑ f (ε̃ −ε̃b ) ∑i=x,y,z
3 j j j ε̃b +Nij (ε̃j −ε̃b )
ε̃f = ε̃b + 1 Nij (A1)
1− ∑j fj (ε̃j −ε̃b ) ∑i=x,y,z
3 ε̃b +Nij (ε̃j −ε̃b )
Where index j is over the inclusion types, index i
is for three principal axes, ε̃b is the permittivity of
background, ε̃j is the permittivity of inclusions, f
is volume fraction of inclusions and N is the
depolarization factor that depends on the shape of
the inclusions. It is assumed that the inclusions are
dilute and they are homogenously distributed with
random orientations. Assuming ellipsoidal shapes
for the inclusions (with the main axes of a, b=c
along local axes x, y and z respectively), the
depolarization factors for inclusion j along
principal axes can be written as
Rab ∞ −1.5
Naj =
2
∫0 (s + R2ab ) (s + 1)−1 ds (A2)
Nbj = Ncj = 0.5(1 − Naj ) (A3)
where R ab = a/b is aspect ratio of inclusion. The
parameters for this mixing model are ε̃m , SW and
σW , R ab .
REFERENCES
Cox P.T., Warren W.F., “Development and testing
of the Texaco dielectric log”, SPWLA 24th annual
logging symposium, 1983
Golikov, NA, Elcov, T.I., Melkozerova, S.N.,
Novikov,I.V., “Measurement of complex dielectric
permittivity of fluid-saturated rock samples“,
Internal report from Trofimuk Institute of
 SPWLA 58th Annual Logging Symposium, June 17-21, 2017
Petroleum Geology and Geophysics at Siberian
Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2015
Hizem, M., Budan H., Deville B., Faivre O.,
Mosse L., Simon M., ”Dielectric dispersion: A
new wireline petrophysical measurement”, SPE
annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2008
Kouchmeshky, B., Fanini, O., “Dielectric logging
for heavy oil reservoirs”, World Heavy Oil
Congress, WHOC16-400, 2016
Kouchmeshky, B., Fanini, O., Nikitenko, M.,
“Validating mixing models for dielectric logging”,
SPE Russian petroleum technology conference,
182096, 2016
Maxwell-Garnett, J.D., "Colures in metal glasses
and in metal films", Transactions of the Royal
Society, CCIII, London, 385-420, 1904
Rau R., Davies R., Finke M., Manning M.,
“Advances in high frequency dielectric logging”,
SPWLA 32nd Annual logging symposium, 1991
Seleznev, N., Boyd, A., Habashy, T, "Dielectric
mixing laws for fully and partially saturated
carbonate rocks", SPWLA 45th Annual logging
symposium, 2004
Sihvola, A., and Kong, J.A., “Effective
permittivity of dielectric mixture”, IEEE
transaction on Geoscience and Remote sensing,
26(4), 420-429, 1989
ABOUT THE AUHTOR
Babak Kouchmeshky received his PhD from Cornell
University school of Engineering in 2009. Between
2009 and 2011 he was a post doc at the national center
of hypersonic structures in UTA. He joined Baker
Hughes in 2011 where he is currently an R&D
engineer. He has worked on various aspects of sensor
development including design, simulation,
experimentation, and interpretation for acoustic and
electromagnetic tools. His current focus is on the
development of a dielectric logging tool. He is the
author of several patent applications on the sensor
design, inversion algorithms, and petrophysical
interpretation for wireline tools.
Otto Fanini currently holds the position of Global
Principal Engineer (Electrical) for Drilling &
View publication stats
Evaluation in Baker Hughes, Inc. supporting Drilling
Systems, Wireline Systems, and Drill Bit divisions.
Currently, he has responsibility over areas of product
research and development processes, technical
standards, service and product technical compliance,
performance, integrity and content, patent portfolio
management, and product and technology roadmaps.
During his career he has worked in innovation and
state-of-the-art projects in multiple industries such as
oilfield services, semiconductor, broadcast, printing,
communication, and textile industries. Fanini has
accumulated 35 years of engineering experience, over
50 patents issued, and over 60 technical publications.
He holds a Master of Science degree in Electrical
Engineering from Texas A&M University, an MBA
degree from Houston Baptist University, and a
Bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering from the
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. Fanini is a member of IEEE, SPE,
SPWLA, ASQ, and INCOSE.
Alberto G. Mezzatesta is the Manager of Research
NMR Science and Integrated Interpretation within the
BHI Houston Technology Center. With more than 35
years in the Oil Industry, Alberto has been involved
with E&P, Consulting, Technology Development, and
the Academia. During his tenure of 24 years with BHI,
Alberto has been involved with Formation Evaluation,
Interpretation Development, Logging Tool Design and
Development, Geoscience Applications, and Reservoir
Engineering. Alberto received a Petroleum Engineering
degree from the National University of Cuyo,
Argentina, and a Ph.D. degree in Chemical Engineering
from the University of Houston. He is an active
member of the SPE and SPWLA and has authored and
co-authored several publications and patents.
Roberto Arro is a Geoscientist at the Houston
Technology Center since June 2014. He received his
Telecommunications Engineer grade from the La Plata
National University, Argentina in 1980, then, he
initiated his professional career in Baker Hughes
(previously Dresser Atlas) in the same year, completing
his Field Engineering progression in 1988 as General
Field Engineer. He has acted as Operations Manager
and District Manager at various locations in Argentina.
During 2007-2008 he took a M.Sc course in Applied
Statistics in the Universidad Nacional del Comahue,
Argentina.