4.6 Article

Capacitive conductivity logging and electrical stratigraphy in a high-resistivity aquifer, Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site

Journal

GEOPHYSICS
Volume 74, Issue 3, Pages E125-E133

Publisher

SOC EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICISTS
DOI: 10.1190/1.3106760

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [X-970085-01-0]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We tested a prototype capacitive-conductivity borehole tool in a shallow, unconfined aquifer with coarse, unconsolidated sediments and very-low-conductivity water at the Boise Hydrogeophysical Research Site (BHRS). Examining such a high-resistivity system provides a good test for the capacitive-conductivity tool because the conventional induction-conductivity tool (known to have limited effectiveness in high-resistivity systems) did not generate expressive well logs at the BHRS. The capacitive-conductivity tool demonstrated highly repeatable, low-noise behavior but poor correlation with the induction tool in the lower-conductivity portions of the stratigraphy where the induction tool was relatively unresponsive. Singular spectrum analysis of capacitive-conductivity logs reveals similar vertical-length scales of structures to porosity logs at the BHRS. Also, major stratigraphic units identified with porosity logs are evident in the capacitive-conductivity logs. However, a previously unrecognized subdivision in the upper portion of one of the major stratigraphic units can be identified consistently as a relatively low-conductivity body (i.e., an electrostratigraphic unit) between the overlying stratigraphic unit and the relatively high-conductivity lower portion - despite similar porosity and lithology in adjacent units. The high repeatability and resolution and the wide dynamic range of the capacitive-conductivity tool are demonstrated here to extend to high-resistivity, unconsolidated sedimentary aquifer environments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available