| 
					
					
					 DIPS FROM RESISTIVITY Image log (MICROSCANNER) With FMS and FMI data in the form of a digital image,
			several image processing operations can be used to improve the
			overall quality of the imagery. For example, systematic variations
			between electrode responses are normalized, and dynamic or user controlled gray scale compensation
                is used to enhance local image contrast and improve the fine image
                detail. An example is shown in the next Section. Stretching, squeezing,
                or clipping of the colour spectrum, or mapping of the gray
                scale to colours, are common processing functions. Edge enhancement
                or directional filters can also be applied to sharpen various
                features seen on the images.
 The
                FMS Image Examiner is an interactive computer program for image
                enhancement and dip calculation using data from the formation
                microscanner. The program provides the analyst with the tools
                to manipulate the image in many ways, one of which is to calculate
                dip angle and direction. A simple example will illustrate the
                technique. The illustration below shows the colour image from two passes
                of the microscanner. Dark colours represent shale and light colours
                are sandstone. Notice the detailed depth scale (shown in meters).
                The white area is very high resistivity, probably a limestone
                stringer. 
				
				  Image Examiner showing tight streak (white) in sand
                shale sequence on formation microscanner images
 By
                using a mouse to digitize bedding planes such as the thin shale
                laminations and the boundaries of the limestone layer, the program
                fits a sine wave to the points. The sine wave represents a plane
                slicing through the borehole, and its dip and direction can be
                calculated. These are displayed on the right edge of the screen. It
                is obvious that the sine waves shown within the white (limestone)
                layer could not have been digitized from this image. In fact,
                the image scale was enlarged, then the colour scale
                was shifted to provide greater resolution in the
                high resistivity band, turning previously bright colours into
                black, and white into distinguishable colours. Now the bedding
                planes can be digitized and dips computed. 
 
       
				 Expanded vertical scale image of tight streak
                (white) on formation microscanner
 
				 Expanded colour scale image of tight streak (light
                brown) on formation microscanner
 Dips
                can also be computed automatically by the same methods as used
                for the stratigraphic high resolution dipmeter. MSD, CSB, LOC,
                FMS, and handpicked dips over the same interval are demonstrated
                in the next several illustrations. Each plot has entirely different
                dip results, emphasizing the need to understand the different
                dip calculation methods. In particular, the MSD dips in a strongly
                cross bedded formation suffer badly from the averaging calculation.
                Compare the MSD with the CSB dips on the images. It is clear that MSD dips do not follow the bed boundaries very well and underestimate
                dip angle at the sand top and base by 7 to 10 degrees. 
				 MSD dips picked from formation microscanner
 
				 CSB dips picked from formation microscanner
 
				 FMS dips picked from formation microscanner
 
				 Hand picked dips picked from formation microscanner
 The
                FMS dips use a different form of correlation, so
                they honour the bed boundaries even better. Computed dips are
                even steeper than CSB and much steeper than the MSD, indicating
                the relative degree of averaging being done by the program. The
                hand picked data is probably the best result,
                but it is labor intensive. It takes about half a day to compute
                all FMS dips over a 300 foot interval, delete all unwanted dips
                manually, and pick additional dips not found in the original computation. You
                should appreciate these differences when using any dipmeter. Any
                form of best fit or averaged dip will probably underestimate dip
                angle unless some very dominant bed boundary exists that will
                swamp all others. The assumption made by the programmers is that
                major bed boundaries do this, but as you can see from the illustrations,
                this is not always true. If you can afford it, run FMS or televiewer
                images to help interpret dipmeter arrow plots. Since the vast
                majority of existing dipmeters cannot be augmented by FMS, BEWARE
                of averaged results. The
                borehole televiewer, an ultrasonic borehole imaging tool, has
                much resolution than the dipmeter based imaging tools. As a
				result, only the largest dip and bedding features can be seen.
				It is used mostly for fracture identification. 
 |