Geology - An Extension to Moore's Method of Interpretation of Earth Resistivity Measurement

Interpretation of earth resistivity data involves not only obtaining depth to interfaces but also determining the nature of formations from their resistivity characteristics. Moore's method of interpretation envisages obtaining depths to the interfaces alone. A simple method of estimating the true resistivity values of formations by applying Hummel's formula of average resistivities is proposed. The method would increase the interpretative value of Moore's method as originally proposed. For most of the earth resistivity measurements, the four-electrode configuration developed by Wennerl is employed. In principal, the method consists of energizing (Current I) the ground through two outer electrodes and measuring the resultant potential (v) between the two inner electrodes. The configuration is such that the separation (a) between any two successive electrodes is equal. The apparent resistivity (pa) for such a configuration is given by 2p- a (V/I). By increasing the electrode separation (pa vs a) curves are obtained. Ideally, a homogeneous isotropic formation underground has a characteristic resistivity. However, the field conditions do not present such ideal cases. Almost invariably, even in the same geological bed, the physical conditions are widely different at different parts in the bed. It is further shown that the penetration of the current into the ground for a given horizontal electrode separation, a, is roughly down to a depth, equal to a. It is therefore, evident that the apparent resistivity calculated from the field observations is a weighted average of the resistivities of the materials present down to this depth. With some prior knowledge about the relative dispositions of the geological formations and their physical conditions, it would be possible, by resistivity surveys, to obtain characteristic resistivities for these formations. It is, thus, that the apparent resistivity-electrode separation curves enable one to decipher the resis- tivity distribution at various depth levels and therefore the nature of the geological formations present. Both empirical and theoretical methods have been developed for determining resistivity characteristics of the various formations. The theoretical methods proposed by Tagg2 and Roman3 are derived from studies of the potential distribution on the surface due to the presence of layers of widely differing resistivities underground. The more recent methods of Wetzel and McMurry4 and Wetzel and Mooney5 are but extensions of the original Roman method of superposition. These methods suffer from lack of similarity of the actual field conditions with those of assumed conditions in developing the theory. The empirical methods such as the one developed by Gish and rooneY6 depend purely on personal observation and local peculiarities, and are applicable only for those limited areas. Out of the empirical methods, moore's7 cumulative resistivity method is still found to be applicable in several localities of differing conditions. While Reudy in 1945 adduced some theoretical justification for the method (Eve and Keys),8 Muskat9 and Mooney 10 tried to show the lack of theoretical basis for the same. It is, however, observed that the method in practice "forms a valuable means of successfully attacking the apparent resistivity curves which fail to respond to the Gish-Rooney, the Tagg or the Roman logarithmic methods" (Ramachandra Rao). 11 Comparatively good results are also reported by Melbyel2 by employing Moore's method in interpreting the resistivity results obtained for ground water in the city of Gunnison, Colo. MOORE'S METHOD As has already been pointed out, the application of the theoretical methods is time-consuming, laborious and sometimes not applicable for quick and accurate interpretation of the field data. moore7 has developed a quick method for obtaining depths to interfaces by plotting the cumulative sums of resistivities, against the corresponding electrode separations a instead of plotting the usual Pa — a curve. In this process of continuous integration, corrections for small variations in resistivities, arising due to local surface conditions or adjacent layers, are made, while large consistent variations are brought out