We propose a workflow that utilizes a well-accepted rock physics model, i.e., the Waxman-Smits model, to predict the horizontal and vertical resistivity depth trends in sedimentary basins. Petrophysical and environmental properties of a target basin are quantified from existing wells by exploiting their lithological variations among different formations. These properties are then integrated through the Waxman-Smits model to predict the electrical resistivity of sedimentary rocks. In this abstract, we use log data from the Barents Sea wells to demonstrate the workflow and to verify its effectiveness. The modelling workflow is general, in principle it can be applied to worldwide sedimentary basins. Resistivity profiles, both horizontal and vertical, can serve as initial models or constraints in CSEM inversion schemes; the resulting resistivity anisotropy depth trends can assist in interpretation of regional background geological structures, and they are a powerful tool for feasibility studies in an exploration phase.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Archie, G.E.
    [1942] The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 146, 54–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bachrach, R.
    [2011] Elastic and resistivity anisotropy of shale during compaction and diagenesis: Joint effective medium modelling and field observations. Geophysics, 76(6), E175–E186.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Duffaut, K., Hokstad, K., Kyrkjebø, R. and Wiik, T.
    [2018] A simple relationship between thermal conductivity and seismic interval velocity. The Leading Edge, 37(5), 381–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ellis, M. and Kirstetter, O.
    [2018] Resistivity anisotropy inclusion model for clastic sediments. 88th SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pp.3488–3492.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fanavoll, S., Ellingsrud, S., Gabrielsen, P.T., Tharimela, R. and Ridyard, D.
    [2012] Exploration with the use of EM data in the Barents Sea: the potential and the challenges: First Break, 30(4), 89–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gelius, Leiv-J. and Wang, Z.
    [2008] Modelling production caused changes in conductivity for a siliciclastic reservoir: a differential effective medium approach. Geophysics Prospecting, 56, 677–691.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Juhasz, I.
    [1979] The Critical Role of Qv and Formation Water Salinity in the Evaluation of Shaly Formations. The Log Analyst, 20(4), 3–13.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. [1981] Normalised Qv - The key to shaly sand evaluation using the Waxman-Smits equation in the absence of core data. SPWLA 22nd Annual Logging Symposium, June 23–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Løseth, L.O., Wiik, T., Olsen, PA. and Hansen, J.O.
    [2014] Detecting Skrugard by CSEM - Prewell prediction and postwell evaluation: Interpretation, 2(3), SH67–SH77.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Waxman, M.H. and Smits, L.J.M.
    [1968] Electrical conductivities in oil-bearing shaly sands. SPE Journal, 8(2), 107–122.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Wang, Y., Duffaut, K. and Nordskag, J.I.
    [2018] Predicting Horizontal Resistivity Trends: An example from the Barents Sea. 88th SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts, pp.2347–2351.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error