Factors Affecting the Responses of Laterolog-Type Logging Systems (LL3 and LL7)
Authors: Guyod Hubert 
Published: December 2007

Abstract
The response of the Guard Electrode sonde (LL3) and the Laterolog (LL7) can be mathematically computed only for cases that do not represent realistic conditions. A resistance network analogue that simulates a number of typical-although idealized-formations was used instead to obtain, for both devices, a large number of resistivity logs and current distribution maps. From these data, charts were prepared for estimating true resistivities under a number of conditions. Some of these charts and current distribution maps are presented.

Introduction
Two main benefits are expected from a resistivity log:
- obtaining geological information for mapping and other purposes, and
- obtaining petrophysical data, based on true rock resistivity.
The geological information can be derived from any resistivity curve having sufficient vertical detail, but true rock resistivities frequently are difficult to determine with desired accuracy because we do not have sufficient interpretation data. This is particularly true for the records given by the Laterolog tools. The object of this paper is to throw some light on the factors affecting the responses of these tools so that better resistivity data can be obtained from Laterologs.

LATEROLOGS
Laterlog measuring systems are of two types: the LL3 sonde, frequently called "Guard", and the LL7 sonde. Both measure the resistance between a single exploring electrode placed in the borehole and a faraway return electrode whose influence will be assumed here to be negligible. Although the principles of these tools have already been outlined, it is desirable to review them briefly in this article.
LL3Fig. 1, left side, represents a long cylindrical, vertical current electrode placed in a medium of uniform resistivity. The current leaving the center section of the electrode flows essentially along horizontal lines, delineating a surface having the shape of a biconcave lens. It is the electrical resistance offered to this particular group of current lines that is measured by the Guard tool. This is done in practice by having a long cylindrical electrode consisting of three sections physically and electrically separated by thin insulating washers, as shown in the center of the figure, and keeping the three sections at the same potential. It is obvious, for all practical purposes, that the current and potential distributions about this electrode are the same, as if we had a continuous electrode of same dimensions. Because the three sections are electrically separated, the resistance seen by the center section E can be independently measured. This section will be called the exploring electrode, or E electrode. Its height generally is from a few inches to 1 ft. The outer sections are the guards G, which are several feet long. The combined length of the three sections is from 10 to 12 ft for the tools currently used in the petroleum industry. Let V denote the potential difference between E and the faraway return electrode, and I be the current flowing between these two electrodes. The resistance (Re) seen by the exploring electrode is V/I, and the corresponding apparent resistivity is
(1)
where k is the tool calibration factor. The previous description establishes that the Guard tool uses that central portion of the sonde from which, in a uniform medium, the current follows essentially horizontal paths.
JPT
P. 211ˆ