Mapping Dips

Are there any techniques that can be used to bring the borehole-scale and seismic scale interpretations together in a more meaningful way? Or will the dip log be pushed to the back of the filing cabinet?

Perhaps one method to assist is to simply post dipmeter data on a depth contour map generated from seismic.

The best method of doing this is to choose a suitable map contour interval, say 20m. The convention for plotting dip is for the dip arrow to be equal to the contour interval. When the dip reading (e.g. well data) is steeper than the contour map (e.g. seismic data), the arrow will be less than the contour interval (and vice versa). The length of the dip arrow can be easily calculated (see attached spreadsheet). Such maps are very useful as a first stage in the interpretation of the dip readings together with any lineaments visible on the seismic map.

Map with dips posted

KM Geoscience Ltd
mapping dipsmapping dipsmapping dips
mapping dipsmapping dipsmapping dips
   
    There are several reasons why the dip readings might not being equal to the mapped contours. In areas with very small fault blocks, there may be several adjacent blocks with steep dips, but the seismic only sees the average of the blocks merged together. Near to faults, the dipmeter sometimes shows drag features that are much below seismic resolution. When looked at in detail and with seismic attribute analysis, there is usually more than one interpretation of faults in a given area and the dipmeter results may assist in improving the overall interpretation.

In reservoir modelling, it is important to ensure that the structure is locally correct at the wellbore, yet fits in with the larger-scale mapping. This is a key part of the interpretation, especially at producing wells that will be used for dynamic simulation.