One of the greatest challenges in optimizing
development of a reservoir is placing wells
New Directions in Sonic Logging
Reaching the reservoir, and doing so safely, is made easier by recent
advances in shear-wave logs. Anisotropy measurements spotlight
more efficient ways to drill and stimulate formations and real-time
sonic-while-drilling alerts drillers to overpressured zones. These and
other developments are helping solve tough production problems.
Alain Brie
Takeshi Endo
David Hoyle
Fuchinobe, Japan
Daniel Codazzi
Cengiz Esmersoy
Kai Hsu
Sugar Land, Texas, USA
Stan Denoo
Englewood, Colorado, USA
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to
Michael Kane and Christopher Kimball, Schlumberger-
Doll Research, Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA; Philippe
Laurent and Julian Singer, Schlumberger Wireline &
Testing, Caracas, Venezuela; Frank Morris and Robert
Young, Schlumberger Wireline & Testing, Sugar Land,
Texas, USA.
CDR (Compensated Dual Resistivity), CMR (Com-
binable Magnetic Resonance), DSI (Dipole Shear
Sonic Imager), ELAN (Elemental Log Analysis), EPT
(Electromagnetic Propagation Tool), FMI (Fullbore
Formation MicroImager), GeoFrame, ISONIC (IDEAL
sonic-while-drilling), LSS (Long-Spaced Sonic Tool),
PowerPak, PowerPulse and UBI (Ultrasonic Borehole
Imager) are marks of Schlumberger.
40
Michael C. Mueller
Amoco Exploration and Production
Houston, Texas
Tom Plona
Ram Shenoy
Bikash Sinha
Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA
1. Esmersoy C, Koster K, Williams M, Boyd A and Kane
M: Dipole Shear Anisotropy Logging, Expanded
Abstracts, 64th SEG Annual International Meeting and
Exposition, Los Angeles, California, USA, October
23-28, 1994, paper SL3.7.
Shear Wave Logging with Dipoles, Oilfield Review
2, no. 4 (October 1990): 9-12.
2. In the language of sonic logging, slownessthe
reciprocal of velocityis most commonly used. It is
identical to the interval transit time, which is a basic
measurement made by sonic logging tools.
3. Armstrong P, Ireson D, Chmela B, Dodds K,
Esmersoy C, Miller D, Hornby B, Sayers C,
Schoenberg M, Leaney S and Lynn H: "The Promise
of Elastic Anisotropy, Oilfield Review 6, no. 4
(October 1994): 36-47.
4. Aron J, Chang SK, Dworak R, Hsu K, Lau T, Masson
J-P, Mayes J, McDaniel G, Randall C, Kostek S and
Plona T: Sonic Compressional Measurements While
Drilling, Transactions of the SPWLA 35th Annual
Logging Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, June
19-23, 1994, paper SS.
correctly. Getting them in the right place,
whether vertical or horizontal, not only
decreases cost but improves recovery. Today,
service companies are focusing their effort
on developing new technology to help plan
field development, optimize well location
and improve drilling safety. Solutions to the
problem require integrating many types of
data. At the forefront are measurements that
take advantage of evolving technology in
sonic logging.
During the last decade important advances
have been made in sonic logging.1 Using
dipole sources that can excite flexural
wavesshear-like vibrations of the bore-
holethese tools are capable of measuring
sonic compressional and shear-wave slow-
ness data in hard and soft formations.2 Shear-
wave anisotropy measurements are sensitive
to stress and fracture density and directions.3
This is vital information for those who want
to optimize production by drilling a bore-
hole aimed at encountering as many frac-
tures as possible.
Sonic logging is becoming a routine way to
plan well placement strategiesleading to
improvements in reservoir production.
Mechanical rock properties from sonic mea-
surements can help predict formation
strength and potential sanding problems. In
both vertical and horizontal wells, this infor-
mation allows prediction of the best direc-
tion to perforate for maximum production.
Stress magnitude derived from sonic logging
helps forecast maximum sand-free draw-
down pressures.
Logging-while-drilling (LWD) sonic tools
have been improving, too. Since the first
LWD sonic tool designed to provide com-
pressional-slowness measurements while
drilling was reported in 1994, many success-
ful real-time and memory logs have been
recorded in hard and soft rocks.4 These real-
time LWD sonic measurements bring fresh
information, obtained soon after the drill bit
penetrates the formation. This information is
vital to the driller, helping to avoid costly mis-
takes such as drilling into overpressured
zones without proper mud-weight adjust-
ments. In addition, experience is showing
that the formations around the wellbore
change when exposed to drilling fluids. LWD
sonic logs from freshly drilled boreholes
compared with wireline measurements
usually taken days after the drilling has
exposed the formationshow remarkable
differences. Both bring important, but differ-
ent, information about wellbore properties.
Oilfield Review
 Fractures

CAUTION
Overpressure

With the introduction of dipole sonic logs,

Pe

the petrophysical community has the ability to

rfo
ra

record high-quality shear and compressional

tio
ns

slownesses in a variety of formations, and for

the first time in slow formations. These mea-
surements are helping to solve some of the
mysteries in formation interpretation.
In this article we look at how sonic shear-
wave anisotropy measurements are used to
find fractures and their orientation, under-
stand stress directions in formations and
predict the best directions for perforating
or drilling stable vertical and horizontal
Maximum wellbores that yield optimum flow rates. We
stress
discuss how real-time sonic LWD measure-
ments are being used, first as a means to
avoid costly drilling mistakes, and then as an
effective way of determining unaltered for-
mation properties and pay zones in hard and
soft formations. Both formation types present
special problems for LWD measurements.
Finally, we will see how petrophysicists are
interpreting sonic logs in gas-saturated shaly
sandsone of the most difficult environ-
Minimum ments for sonic logging.
stress

Spring 1998 41
 5
Drilling
fractures
3
Borehole radii
1 properties first affect wellbore stability
Smin
-1
Damage
-3 Breakouts
Smax
-5 -3 -1 1 3
Borehole radii
Mechanical state of rock and failure
mechanisms. The annulus around the
wellbore may be damaged by drilling
and tectonic stresses on the openhole.
Damage in the form of breakouts or
washouts usually first appears in the
direction of minimum stress (Smin), and
drilling-induced fractures occur with their
strike direction along the direction of
maximum stress (Smax).
5. Fletcher PA, Montgomery CT, Ramo GG, Miller ME
and Rich DA: Using Fracturing as a Technique for
Controlling Formation Failure, paper SPE 27899,
presented at the 64th SPE Annual Western Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, California, USA, March
23-25, 1994.
6. Upchurch ER, Montgomery CT, Berman BH and
Rael EL: A Systematic Approach to Developing
Engineering Data for Fracturing Poorly Consolidated
Formations, paper SPE 38588, presented at the
1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, USA, October 5-8, 1997.
7. Fletcher et al, reference 5.
Depth
Hole deviation
Breakout
Breakouts from the UBI tool. The UBI Ultrasonic Borehole Imager tool uses a pulse-echo
reflection measurement that provides high-resolution images (left) of borehole size and
shape. The radius plot (right) shows breakouts (red arrows). Breakouts, caused by the
borehole being in compression failure, have been observed worldwide to cause ovaliza-
tion of the borehole with the ovals long axis parallel to the minimum stress.
42
Using Shear-Wave Anisotropy
to Improve Production
To produce hydrocarbons efficiently, reser-
voir engineers need to know tectonic and
wellbore stresses and their direction. These
(breakouts), and then the ability to hydrofrac-
ture the well. Permeability impairment and
sanding problems can be influenced by
stress. The presence of a borehole will influ-
ence the state of stress of the rock and the
formation strength around the borehole (left).
Sonic measurements, such as those from
5
the UBI Ultrasonic Borehole Imager tool for
breakout measurements and the DSI Dipole
Shear Sonic Imager tool for shear-wave
anisotropy, provide a foundation for under-
standing formation geomechanics. Stress
directions can be determined by measuring
the locations of wellbore breakouts (below).
Shear-wave anisotropy is a more robust
method for determining stress directions
because the measurement is in the rock and
does not rely on formation wall failure
washoutwhich may not always be present
in the well (see Dipole Shear-Wave
Anisotropy Analysis, page 44).
Natural and induced fracture orientations
are also important considerations for reser-
voir management. Since hydraulic fractures
open in a plane perpendicular to the mini-
mum stress, determining stress direction is
crucial. Consider the case of reservoir
drainage from a hydraulically fractured well
X066
Images versus depth
4
X067 Top
2
X068
X66.7m Breakout
0
37.7 degrees
138.0 degrees N
111/2 degrees top -2
0.8 in.
-4
-4 -2
Borehole radius, in.
in a low-permeability formation. Since the
drainage pattern is elliptical, optimum
reservoir drainage depends on the correct
placement of multiple wells (next page, top
left).5 Stress direction is especially important
when fracturing from horizontal wells in
which control of the fracture orientation
with respect to the wellbore is important
(next page, top right). Since shear-wave
anisotropy measurements are sensitive to
fracture orientation, they provide useful
directions for drilling a horizontal section
aimed at encountering as many natural
fractures as possible.
Even in soft unconsolidated formations,
where sonic measurements are difficult,
shear-wave anisotropy measurements are rec-
ommended reservoir engineering practices
for planning fracture treatments.6 While
enhancing productivity through fracture stim-
ulation is the primary goal, fracturing is also
used as a means of implementing effective
sand control in unconsolidated formations. It
has been shown that unprotected
(unpropped) perforations are a major cause
of sand production.7 Once stress direction is
determined, 180 phased oriented perfora-
tions can be used to optimize the fracture
treatment, as well as minimize the number of
unpropped perforations that cause sanding
problems (next page, bottom). In addition,
the use of 180 phased perforations aligned
normal to the minimum stress direction helps
minimize wellbore tortuosity after fracturing.
(continued on page 46)
N
Breakout
0 2 4
Oilfield Review
 Smin
Smin

Smin

Good Drainage Incomplete Drainage

Smin Smin

Injector
wells
Smin

Producer
wells
Good Areal Sweep Poor Areal Sweep Fracturing horizontal wells. Wells drilled along the line of
minimum horizontal stress will fracture in planes perpen-
dicular to the wellbore. Wells drilled in the direction nor-
mal to the minimum stress (Smin) will fracture along the
wellbore. Fracture placement can influence the draw-
down along extended horizontal sections. Knowing stress
directions and magnitude from formation mechanical
properties helps orient perforations to contain fractures in
the desired directions.
Fracture azimuth and geometry determination. Incomplete reservoir
drainage can occur if fracture orientation is ignored when well spac-
ing and placement are designed (top). An understanding of fracture
orientation can be useful in determining optimum well location for
waterflooding, and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) applications (bottom).
[Adapted from Lacey LL and Smith MB: Fracture Azimuth and Geom-
etry Determination, in Recent Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing, SPE
Monograph No. 12. Henry L. Doherty Monograph Series. Richardson,
Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engineers (1989): 341-354.]

Ineffective
Effective perforations Stable
perforations perforations

Fracture

Smax

Unstable
Smin perforations

Oriented perforations for sand control. In sand control, the 180 phased perforations ensure
that all the perforations connect to the fracture and are propped. This procedure eliminates the
unconnected perforations that produce sand during drawdown. The use of 180 phased perfo-
rations, oriented perpendicular to the minimum stress (Smin), is helpful in fracturing because
these perforations minimize breakout that causes borehole tortuosity.

Spring 1998 43
 Dipole Shear-Wave Anisotropy Analysis
For sonic measurements, it is well recognized that
sedimentary rocks generally exhibit some degree
of anisotropy.1 Anisotropy may arise from intrinsic
structural effects, such as aligned fractures and
layering of thin zones, or from unequal stresses
within the formation. These effects lead to differ-
ences in formation elastic properties, and if they
are on a smaller scale than the sonic wave-
lengths, then sonic wave propagation can be used
to detect and quantify the anisotropy.
Sonic waves travel fastest when the direction of
particle motionpolarizationis aligned with the
materials stiffest direction. Shear-wave particle
motion is in a plane perpendicular to the wave
propagation direction. If the formation is
anisotropic in this plane, meaning that there is
one direction that is stiffer than another, then the
shear-wave polarization aligned in the stiff direc-
tion will travel faster than one aligned in the
other, more compliant direction. As a result, the
shear wave splits into two components, one polar-
ized along the formations stiff (or fast) direction,
and the other polarized along the formations com-
pliant (or slow) direction.2
For example, in the case of vertically-aligned
dense microcracks or fractures, a shear wave that
is polarized parallel to the fracture strike will prop-
agate faster than a shear wave polarized perpen-
dicular to it (above right). In general, a shear (or
flexural) wave, generated by a dipole source, will
split into two orthogonal components polarized
along the X- and Y-directions in the formation. As
they propagate along the borehole, the fast wave
will be polarized along the direction parallel to the
fracture strike and a slow wave in the direction
perpendicular to it.
With two orthogonal dipole transmitters and
multiple receiver pairs aligned in orthogonal
directions, the DSI Dipole Shear Sonic Imager tool
can measure the components of shear slowness in
any direction in a plane perpendicular to the bore-
44
Fractures
X Formation
Formation
slow axis
Slow shear
Z
hole axis (next page). The measurement involves
recording the waveforms on receivers pointing in
directions parallel and normal to each transmitter
along the tool x- and y-axes.3
Four sets of waveforms are recorded at each
depth and receiver level. These measurements
are labeled xx, xy, yx and yy. The first direction
refers to the transmitter and the second direction
to the receiver. The direction and speed of the fast
and slow split shear waveforms traveling in the
formation can be easily determined by mathemati-
cally rotating the measured waveforms through an
azimuthal angle so that they line up with the two
orthogonal formation X- and Y-directions.
Shear-wave splitting.
Shear waves travel in an
anisotropic formation with
different speeds along the
directions of the formation
anisotropy. In this example,
anisotropy is caused by the
vertical fractures (or micro-
cracks) with a strike direction
along the formation Y-axis,
and the fastest shear
wavewith the longer
Y wavelength component
will be polarized along the
fast axis fracture strike direction as it
propagates along the bore-
hole (Z-axis). When shear-
wave splitting is the result of
Fast shear stress anisotropy, the Y-axis
corresponds to the direction
of maximum stress, and the
X-axis corresponds to the
direction of minimum
stress.
This is done by minimizing the cross-receiver
energies, xy and yx. The rotated direction of the
fastest shear wave becomes the fast-shear tool
azimuth; and the tool orientation, measured by a
magnetometer, is used to determine the fast shear
azimuth relative to true north. This rotation, called
the Alford method, uses the fact that the
anisotropy model expects the amplitude of the
cross-receiver measurements to vanish when the
measured axes x and y align with the anisotropy
axes X and Y.4
In addition to the fast and slow shear-wave
velocitiesdetermined by a slowness-time-
coherence (STC) processing on the rotated wave-
formsthree measurements of anisotropy are
computed.5 These are energy anisotropy, slow-
ness anisotropy and time anisotropy.
Oilfield Review
 Slowness anisotropy is the difference between
the fast and slow slownesses calculated by
STC on the rotated waveforms. It yields a quanti-
tative measure of slowness anisotropy, and has
the best vertical resolution at about 3 ft [1 m]
the size of the receiver array. It can be compared
directly with seismic or core measurements of
slowness anisotropy.
Traveltime anisotropy is the arrival-time differ-
ence between the fast- and slow-shear waves at
the receivers. It is obtained from a cross-correla-
tion between fast and slow shear-wave arrivals at
each receiver spacing. Time lags computed at
each receiver are referenced to the largest offset
receiver and averaged across the receiver array.
This is divided by the average of the fast and slow
arrival times to compute a percentage difference.
The traveltime anisotropy indicator is robust and
quantitative, and has the vertical resolution of the
average transmitter-receiver spacing, 13 ft [4 m].
Slowness and traveltime anisotropy indicators are
identical in formations with homogeneous beds
thicker than 13 ft.
Energy anisotropy is the energy in the cross-
component waveforms as a percentage of energy
in all four components. In an isotropic formation,
energy anisotropy reads zero. In an anisotropic
formation, the reading depends on the degree of
anisotropy. Two curves are computed from the
waveforms: minimum and maximum cross-energy.
The minimum cross-energy is the energy in the
cross-components when the tool measurement
axis lines up with the formation anisotropy axis.
Minimum cross-energy reads zero in an ideal for-
mation whether anisotropic or not. This curve is a
good relative measure of whether the assumed
model for anisotropy inversion fits the real forma-
tion. The maximum cross-energy is a measure of
the amount or strength of anisotropy. Unlike the
two previous anisotropy measurements (slowness
Spring 1998
Flexural waves induced by
dipole transmitters. During log-
ging, flexural waves are induced
by dipole transmitters fired
sequentially in two perpendicular
directions, first along the tool x-
and then the tool y-axes. In this R8 y
example, the fastest component R8x Receiver-8 pair
of the induced shear wave is R7 y
polarized along the formation Y- R7x Receiver-7 pair
R6 y
axis direction, which is aligned R6x Receiver-6 pair Receiver
along the fracture strike or maxi- R5 y
R5x array
mum stress direction. The slow- Receiver-5 pair
est component of the shear wave R4x
R4 y
is polarized along the formation Receiver-4 pair
R3x R3 y
X-axis. Projections of these two Receiver-3 pair
shear-wave components are R2x R2 y
received by each of the dipole Receiver-2 pair
R1x
sonic tool x- and y-receiver pairs. R1 y
Receiver-1 pair
The inline signals xx and yy are
the x-receiver and y-receiver
waveforms received when the x-
and y- transmitters are fired. Borehole
Undisturbed
Cross-signal components xy and flexural wave
borehole
(exaggerated)
yx are the y- and x-receiver
waveforms received as the x- and
y-transmitters are fired. The
Alford rotation angle, , is deter- Dipole
mined by minimizing the cross- transmitter
signal components. This would pair
happen automatically if the tool
axes were rotated through an
angle, , and aligned with the two Ty
orthogonal directions in the
anisotropic formation. Tx
Formation fast
shear wave axis
Y
x y
Tool orientation
X
Tool axis relative to formation
and time), energy anisotropy is a measure of both 1. Armstrong et al, reference 3, main text.
slowness and amplitude differences of the fast- 2. For compressional waves, the particle motion is the same
direction as the wave propagation.
and slow-shear waves. Large differences between
3. Esmersoy et al, reference 10, main text.
the maximum and minimum values, especially 4. Alford RM: "Shear Data in the Presence of Azimuthal
when the minimum energy is low, indicate zones of Anisotropy: Dilley, Texas," Expanded Abstracts, 56th SEG
Annual International Meeting and Exposition, Houston,
significant anisotropy. Energy anisotropy, though Texas, USA, November 2-6, 1986, paper S9.6.
qualitative, is little affected by processing, and is 5. Kimball and Marzetta, reference 8, main text.
the principal measure of anisotropy.
45
 Aiming for Minimum Stress
Sonic velocity anisotropy was used by
Seneca Oil Company in the USA to deter-
mine the most productive position and direc-
tion for a horizontal well. A pilot hole for
horizontal drilling was drilled through a
moderate-porosity10 to 15 p.u.shaly
sand interval. The operators objective was to
determine natural fracture orientation and
understand tectonic stress direction (left and
below). DSI logs were recorded for Stoneley,
monopole P- and S-wave and both crossed
receivers (BCR) dipole modes. The BCR mode
was processed for anisotropy. Three different
12,800
computations of shear-wave anisotropy are
presented, dealing with the time and energy
of the dipole shear waveform.
First, shear-wave energy anisotropythe
minimum and maximum cross-component
energy differenceis the most obvious indi-
cation of anisotropy. Large energy differ-
ences, when the minimum stays low,
indicate significant shear-wave splitting and
signal zones of interest. The interval from
12,750 to 12,870 ft contains several zones
with significant anisotropy.

8. Kimball CV and Marzetta TL: Semblance

Processing of Borehole Acoustic Array Data,
Geophysics 40 (March 1984): 274-281.
9. Sinha B and Kostek S: Stress-Induced Azimuthal
Anisotropy in Borehole Flexural Waves, Geophysics
61 (November-December 1996): 1899-1907.
10. Esmersoy C, Kane M, Boyd A and Denoo S:
Fracture and Stress Evaluation Using Dipole-Shear
12,900 Anisotropy Logs, Transactions of the SPWLA
36th Annual Logging Symposium, Paris, France,
June 26-29, 1995, paper J.

Tool orientation Fast shear wave azimuth Time anisotropy

Depth, ft 0 360 -90 0 +90 50 0
deg deg % Shear waveforms
Emax Caliper Slowness anisotropy 100

0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1000 5000
0 100 5 20 Azimuth uncertainty 0 200 s 350 360 10 20
% in. % 340 90
330 80 30
Emin Gamma ray Slow-wave slowness
0 100 0 150 250 50 Processing window 320 70 40
% API s/ft 310 60 50
Energy Fast-wave slowness 50
250 50 300 60
anisotropy s/ft 40
290 30 70
Anisotropy evaluation. The difference between the minimum and maximum 20

Frequency, %
280 80
cross-component shear energy, shown in the depth track, is an indicator of 10
anisotropy. The tool orientation (blue), track 2, is used to determine the absolute 270 0 90
fast-shear azimuthal direction (red), with its uncertainty (gray shading), track 3. 260 100
The interval between 12,750 and 12,870 ft [3886 and 3923 m] contains several
anisotropic zones. The average of the fast component of the shear-wave direc- 250 110
tion, shown in the azimuthal projection (inset, right), is between 20 and 240 120
30. Acoustic time anisotropy (black with shaded gray) is shown in track 4. This
measurement is more sensitive to acoustic properties deep within the formation 230 130
than surface effects such as drilling-induced fractures. Both fast (blue dashed) 220 140
and slow (red) components of the shear slowness are computed by STC process- 210 150
200
ing and are shown in track 4. For visual quality control, the fast (red) and slow 190 180 170 160
(blue) waveforms from the largest spacing receiver are shown in track 5. The
light yellow band shows the shear-wave processing window, which should
include the first few cycles of the shear arrival. Both moveout and energy differ-
ences between the fast and slow shear waves are easily visualized and can be
verified on the display. Both waves would be identical in an isotropic formation.

46 Oilfield Review
 Breakout Smax Energy
8 anisotropy Shear waveforms

2
Fractures
0
in.

-2

-4
7600
-6

-8
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
in.

Four-arm caliper projections as qualitative

indicators of stress direction. The zone con- Fractures
taining significant anisotropy seen by the
DSI tool also shows hole breakoutsshown
by enlarged hole size measured by the four-
arm caliperin this vertical borehole. The
breakouts occur in the direction of mini-
mum horizontal stress. Perpendicular to the
breakout direction is the principal tectonic
stress direction of 25. Bit size is shown by
the green circle, and the borehole walls are
compressed inward slightly along the max-
imum stress direction. The data inside the
bit size represent the calipers opening up
as they come off bottom.

Second, large shear-wave traveltime

anisotropy indicationsbased on arrival
time of the fast and slow wavescorrelate
well with the energy-anisotropy indications
throughout the interval.
The third anisotropy measurement, slow-
ness anisotropy, is derived from the com-
puted shear-wave, fast- and slow-component
slownessesusing slowness-time-coherence
(STC) processing to obtain slowness.8 This
deep-reading measurement suggests that the
anisotropic properties are from within the
reservoir and not from surface effects such as
shallow drilling-induced fractures.9
The fast shear-azimuth direction for this
interval is between 20 and 30 with respect
to north. This azimuth, aligned with the max-
imum horizontal stress direction, is the
direction of the current tectonic stress field
and is the orientation of any drilling-induced
fractures. This is also the direction that would
produce the least stable horizontal borehole,
and be least likely to intersect open fractures.
The oriented four-arm caliper summation
data over this zone give a qualitative overall
view of the borehole profile (above left).
Hole breakout is found in two opposing
quadrants, which straddle the axis of maxi-
mum horizontal stress. Perpendicular to the
breakout direction, the maximum horizontal
stress direction is found to be 25, which
agrees with the direction found by the fast
shear-wave azimuth.
7700
Fractures
Depth, ft Gamma ray Fast shear-wave azmuth Fast shear-wave slowness Processing window
Offline 0 API 150 0 180 0 s/ft 50 1000 s 6000
energy
0 1.0
Shear-wave splitting in cased hole. The DSI tool differential-energy measurements,
shown in the depth track, identify the zones with high shear-wave anisotropy caused by
fractures. The difference in the two shear-wave amplitude components (track 5) increases
in the fractured zones.
The operator sidetracked the horizontal leg logging was used to find the fractured inter-
of this well at right angles to the maximum vals behind casing (above). The fractured
horizontal stress, along the direction inter- zones are easily identified from the DSI dif-
secting the largest number of natural frac- ferential-energy curves shown in the depth
turesfor maximum production. track. Here the maximum in the energy dif-
In another application, shear-wave aniso- ference between the fast and slow shear
tropy was used by Louisiana Land & Explor- waves quickly identifies three zones
ation Company in southwest Wyoming, USA in which large shear-wave velocity aniso-
to find fractures in a cased well drilled in a tropy existsbecause of the fractures. These
tight gas-bearing sandstone. Openhole logs zones were perforated, and subsequent pro-
were not run because of poor wellbore con- duction logs show good gas entry from each
ditions.10 However, shear-wave anisotropy zone. This well subsequently produced
4.5 MMcf/D of gas from these perforations.

Spring 1998 47
Measuring Stress with Anisotropy 1.8
One major challenge is to distinguish
Unstressed
between stress-induced and other sources of 1.6
Fast shear wave

Velocity, km/s
shear anisotropy, such as fractures. Currently,
this distinction is difficult to make from sonic 1.4
measurements alone, and remains a topic of
ongoing research. Recently, it has been 1.2
Slow shear wave
found that borehole stress concentrations
cause a crossover in the two flexural disper-
1
sion curves (right).11 This crossover is caused
by stress-induced radial gradients in the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
acoustic-wave velocities that are different in Frequency, kHz
the two principal stress directions.
Other sources of intrinsic anisotropy 1.8
caused by finely layered dipping beds, Polarized parallel to stress
aligned fractures or microstructure found in Stressed
1.6
claysexhibit neither radial velocity gradi- 5 MPa
Velocity, km/s
ents nor flexural dispersion crossover. Polarized
Consequently, a crossover in the flexural 1.4
perpendicular
dispersion curves can be used as an indica- to stress
tor of stress-induced anisotropy. In the pres- 1.2
ence of stress-induced anisotropy, the
fast-shear direction coincides with the max- 1
imum stress direction, and the magnitude of
the shear anisotropy is proportional to the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency, kHz
stress magnitude.12
Dipole dispersion crossover. Laboratory experimental (circles) and theoretical (solid
Finding Faults with Anisotropy curves) flexural dispersion curves in Berea sandstone. The plots show the shear-wave
anisotropy velocities measured without stress (top), and with 5 MPa [725 psi] uniaxial
In fracture systems, faults are major events stress (bottom). The effects of stress on shear-wave anisotropy depend on signal fre-
that impact not only fracture distribution, but quency and stress magnitude. As stress increases, the shear-wave component polarized
also the rock stresses. Significant rock defor- parallel to the stress direction becomes the fastest component at low frequencies. The
mation, fracturing and variations of the stress reverse is true at high frequencies.
fields are found near faults (below right).
An example of fault-induced fractures is
seen in an Egyptian oil-producing well Compressional









,,,,,

drilled in granite basement rock.13 Traditional stresses
sonic techniques, such as Stoneley wave
attenuation and reflection were combined
with anisotropy using shear-wave splitting to
evaluate fractures near a fault in this hard
Fa
ult

rock formation. These techniques react in dif-

ferent ways to the presence of fractures in the



formations, and their combined analysis
reveals the complex picture of this forma-
tion. The direction of the fast shear wave pro- Prefaulting extensional Extensional
vides information on fracture orientation, but fractures stresses
the shear-wave azimuthal measurements dif-
fer somewhat from that of traditional
Stoneley fracture analysis; in particular
shear-wave anisotropy investigates a volume
of formation up to several borehole diame-
ters farther from the borehole and can sense
fractures missed by other techniques.14
Combining measurements provides addi-
tional information about reservoir character-
istics, and is especially helpful in locating
the fault.
Faults as a major disruption in stress and fracture orientation. A fault can cause a drag
zone in which rock deformation is large. Bending of the beds next to the fault causes
extensional stresses with fractures on one side of the bed, and compressional stresses
with conjugate shear fractures on the other side (inset). Measured stress directions will
change rapidly when a well crosses the fault.

48 Oilfield Review
 Major fracture events were recorded
Gamma ray Fault signature Processing window between X380 and X460 ft with Stoneley
Anisotropy
0 API 300 fracture analysis, and Stoneley permeability
100 Slowness, % 0
Energy Caliper indicators were strong down to X490 ft.
anisotropy 0 Time, % 100
6 in. 16 Porosity is 15 p.u. from X350 to X460 ft and
Shear slowness significantly less above and below this zone.
Tool azimuth Fast shear azimuth Shear waveforms
0 deg 360 270 0 +90 450 s/ft 50 1000 s 7000 Shear-wave splitting shows an abrupt rota-
tion of the fast shear azimuth from 315
Depth, ft above X400 ft to 20 below and then back to
X300
0 in the lowest part of this interval. It is
Caliper worth observing that at X400 ft, where the
Slow
Gamma shear azimuth change is taking place, there is no
ray Slowness significant evidence of anisotropy. However,
Tool anisotropy shear-wave anisotropy is present above and
azimuth Fast
shear
below this depth.
All evidence indicates that the well crossed
the fault at X400 ft. The events detected as
fractures in the Stoneley analysis are likely to
be fractures caused by the fault or the fault
Error bar
itself. Faults are common in granite, and
though faults were identified in a higher sec-
tion of this well using a vertical seismic pro-
X400
Time
file, VSP measurements were not available in
t

this interval. However, in shear-wave

ul

anisotropy
Fa

Maximum anisotropy logging, the fault signature is

energy
clearthe fast shear azimuth starts changing
slowly 70 ft [21 m] above the fault, then
quickly changes by nearly 65 across the
fault and returns to an intermediate value
100 ft [30 m] below the fault until it finally
returns to the regional trend.
Faults typically have large effects on the
Minimum producibility and stability of a reservoir and
energy must be accounted for when completing a
X500
well. The fault seen in this example exhibits
high permeability and is expected to have a
good production potential. The fast shear-
wave anisotropy indicates the presence of
Fault found with anisotropy evaluation. Fast shear azimuth (track 3) shows major rota- fractures or stress, and the directional varia-
tion of the fast shear azimuth from 315 to 20 across a relatively short depth interval cen- tion of the fast shear azimuth can be used to
tered at X400 ft, the fault location. Anisotropy indicators (track 4) are large below the
fault, indicating small cracks in the rocks, probably caused by high stress in this region.
detect faults and their associated high-
Waveforms and the processing time window used to determine shear-slowness velocities permeability, fractured zones.
are shown in track 5.
11. Winkler KW, Sinha BK and Plona TJ: Effects of
Borehole Stress Concentrations on Dipole
The trick is to identify and locate the frac- The shear-wave anisotropy analysis shows Anisotropy Measurements, Geophysics 63, no. 1
ture system associated with the fault zone. the fast shear azimuth changing gradually (January-February 1998): 11-17.
12. Sinha BK, Papanastasiou P and Plona TJ:
Many wells in the same field did not inter- from 320 to 340 below X325 ft. There is Influence of Triaxial Stresses on Borehole Stoneley
cept the fault zone and as a result never substantial shear-wave splitting at X300 ft and Flexural Dispersions, Expanded Abstracts,
reached commercial production levels. indicated by the energy, slowness and time 67th SEG Annual International Meeting and
Exposition, Dallas, Texas, USA, November 2-7,
DSI logging, using monopole P-, S-wave, differences. However, there are no indica- 1997, paper BH2.2.
Stoneley and BCR modes, was combined tions of major fractures at this depth from the 13. Endo T, Ito H, Brie A, Badri M and El Sheikh M:
with conventional openhole porosity logging traditional Stoneley analysis (not shown). The Fracture and Permeability Evaluation in a Fault Zone
from Sonic Waveform Data, Transactions of the
and FMI Fullbore Formation MicroImager FMI images confirm the anisotropy indica- SPWLA 38th Annual Logging Symposium, Houston,
measurements to locate productive fractures tions, showing primarily closed fractures Texas, USA, June 15-18, 1997, paper R.
and their orientations. The FMI fracture ori- with their strike oriented at 315. 14. Sinha and Kostek, reference 9.
entation data (not shown) agree with the
results from the fast shear-wave azimuth in
the upper zones of the well and suggest a
major tectonic stress in the area oriented in a
NW (320) direction (above).

Spring 1998 49
Early Warning While Drilling
Real-time LWD sonic data in formations
where pressures are either unknown or
known to vary rapidly can be critical.
Knowledge of expected overpressured forma-
while-drilling tool. The ISONIC tool, placed
above the PowerPulse system, was approxi-
mately 104 ft [32 m] away from the bit. At the
Normal
average rate of drilling, the LWD measure- pressure
ments were made fewer than four hours after zone

tions provides the ability to efficiently and
safely drill wells with correct mud weights.15
For example, after there were kicks attributed
to overpressured formations in two offset
wells nearby, real-time LWD overpressure
detection capability was tried in an explora-
tory well drilled offshore Angola, West Africa.
The 1338-in. casing was set down to X905 ft
and drilled out using a 1214-in. bit with the
sonic-while-drilling tool in the bottomhole
assembly (BHA).
A long single-bit run was conducted over a
7-day period that covered a depth from
X1000 to X8300 ft (below). The wellbore was
deviated 20 in this interval. The BHA con-
sisted of a PowerPak mud motor, CDR
Compensated Dual Resistivity tool,
PowerPulse MWD telemetry systemfor real-
time transmissionand an ISONIC sonic-
the formation was first cut. Wireline sonic log-
ging was run after the 7-day drilling run was
completed, and then only after circulating the
well for several hours.
The gamma ray log indicated that the entire
interval is primarily shale, with sand-shale
sequences dominating the bottom 2000 ft
[610 m] of the formation. A trend of decreas-
ing slowness with increasing depth is
observed in the upper interval from X1000 to
X4800 ft. This trend is normal and caused by
the overburden stress, which compresses the
rock and decreases the porosity with depth.
As long as slowness readings follow this
trend, formation porosities are maintaining a
normal compaction with depth. If overpres-
sured formations are encountered, the slow-
ness data points will diverge from the
expected trend toward abnormally high val-
ues (above right).
Increasing depth
Entering
overpressured
zone
Normal
compaction
trend
Increasing slowness
Real-time overpressure alert. Formation
compaction, resulting from increasing
overburden weight, causes porosity and
thus acoustic slowness to decrease with
depth. High deviation from the natural
trend is a sign of an overpressured zone.
Real-time LWD acoustic slowness measure-
ment can warn a driller of entry into an
overpressured zone, early enough to allow
mud-weight adjustmentsavoiding costly
damage to the borehole.

This is what happens at about X4800 ft. The

real-time LWD slowness diverges from the
compaction trend, indicating the approach of
Depth, ft potential overpressured formations. Similarly,
B the CDR resistivity log shows a departure
from its normal trend of increasing resistivity
X2000 Compaction with depth toward lower than normal resis-
trend
tivity values, because of increasing porosity
in the overpressured formations and resulting
X3000
higher saline-water content in shale. This
interval, showing logging values diverging
from their usual trends, extends down to
X4000
about X4850 ft. For the two wells previously
showing kicks, the tops of overpressured for-
A
mations were found at X5000 ft200 ft
X5000
[60 m] below the first sign of overpressure
encountered in this well. The LWD real-time
sonic logs provided warning that the driller
X6000 was entering an overpressured formation
hours ahead of expectations.
Another example shows the use of real-
X7000 time LWD sonic logging in soft formations
to locate a gas-sand pay zone. This vertical
well was drilled by an operator in the Gulf
X8000 of Mexico. The ISONIC tool was mounted
Attenuation resistivity Wireline slowness in a BHA 77 ft [23 m] behind the bit, and
Gamma ray 0.2 ohm-m 20 Wireline slowness ISONIC slowness 150 s/ft 50
at the average rate of penetration, the for-
0 API 150 Phase shift resistivity 150 s/ft 50 150 s/ft 50 ISONIC slowness
0.2 ohm-m 20 150 s/ft 50 mation was logged less than an hour after
the bit cut through it. The slowness projec-
Detecting overpressure while drilling. The log display shows a gamma ray, CDR phase tions on the LWD memory semblance
and attenuation resistivity and the LWD and wireline sonic slowness log comparisons in a
long 7000-ft [2134-m] bit run. The gamma ray log (track 1) indicates that the entire inter-
val is primarily shale. The wireline and LWD slowness logs are shown in tracks 3 and 4,
respectively, and are shown overlaid in track 5. Real-time LWD sonic readings detected
an overpressured zone 5 hours ahead of expectations, Zone A. There is a consistent differ-
ence of up to 10 s/ft [33 s/m] between the ISONIC reading and wireline slownesses in
Zone B attributed to formation alteration near the borehole.

50 Oilfield Review

X100
A
Wireline
LWD
X300
X500
Gas
sand B values to oscillate around the true formation
Density porosity Deep induction ISONIC slowness STC projection
Depth, ft 60 p.u. 0 0.2 ohm-m 20 180 s/ft 80 ISONIC slowness
Neutron porosity Medium induction LSS slowness 30 s/ft 210
60 p.u. 0 0.2 ohm-m 20 180 s/ft 80
Real-time gas detection in slow formations. The LWD sonic compressional slowness (red)
shows a large increase (track 4) in Zone B, a gas-sand pay zone. Comparisons with wire-
line sonic (blue) are generally good, except for a systematic difference in Zone A between
XX50 and X180 ft. This is attributed to stress relaxation in the shales caused by the drilling
process. In the gas-sand pay zoneconfirmed by the classic neutron-density gas crossover
(track 2)the wireline sonic log, track 4, is beginning to show signs of invasion (Zone B)
because its gas signature is not as strong as that of the real-time LWD sonic log.
analysisan indicator of data quality from a normal porosity variationindicating
verify the accuracy of the real-time com- gas. The gas sand appears to have a thin
pressional-slowness log (above). It is clear shale stringer in the middle, which is also
that high semblance coherence for the visible on the porosity and resistivity logs. It
compressional arrival was obtained is interesting to note that the wireline sonic
throughout the entire interval. There are log shows less response to gas in this zone,
good correlations between the sonic com- particularly in the upper section of the gas
pressional and resistivity curves, especially sand above the shale stringer. This is thought
below X400 ft, where both are responding to be due to borehole filtrate invasion gradu-
to changes in porosity. ally depletingover a few daysthe vol-
In the sand bed, Zone B, the neutron and ume of gas in the annular zone surrounding
density curves show a large crossovera the borehole, thus decreasing the gas signa-
classic gas signature. This is supported by the ture seen by the wireline tools. Details such
high-resistivity readings. The compressional as these, seen in many LWD and wireline log
slowness also reads extremely high in this comparisons, help show the value of early
zonemuch higher than would be expected real-time answers.
Spring 1998
Changing Formation
In the previous offshore Angola example,
real-time sonic LWD data helped the opera-
tor safely drill the well. However, subsequent
comparison of the LWD logs with their wire-
line counterparts sparked the curiosity and
interest of log interpretation experts.
Although LWD and wireline logs agree in
many wells, experience has shown that
sometimes there are zones, especially in
shales, where the slowness measurements
can differ. In the upper interval, Zone B, of
the offshore Angola well, the LWD slowness
log reads consistently lower than the wire-
line log by 5 to 10 s/ft [16 to 33 s/m].
Everywhere else, the agreement between the
LWD and wireline sonic logs is excellent.
The agreement in most of the well indicates
that the differences are not caused by the dif-
ferent processing methodsSTC processing
was used for LWD; and for wireline, a first-
motion-detection scheme (FMD), which is
triggered by waveform amplitudes exceeding
a selected threshold.
Other explanations were sought. Sonic
measurements are known to be affected by
borehole washouts. These borehole irregu-
larities can cause the measured slowness
slowness values. Although the LWD log was
not borehole-compensated and the wireline
was, the systematic difference between the
two observed measurements was probably
not caused by washouts.
First, the borehole should be in excellent
condition during drilling, thus making the
need for borehole compensation minimal.
This is particularly true since this borehole
was drilled with oil-base mud, which mini-
mizes washout problems. Second, the con-
sistently faster trend of the LWD slowness
values conflicts with the expected effect of
washouts, which make the uncompensated
slowness values fluctuate around the com-
pensated wireline measurements. Because
the faster trend of the LWD sonic is persis-
tent, the absence of borehole compensation
is probably not the cause of the discrepancy.
15. Hsu K, Minerbo G, Hashem M, Bean C and Plumb
R: Sonic-While-Drilling Tool Detects Overpressured
Formations, Oil & Gas Journal 95, no. 31 (August 4,
1997): 59-63, 66-67.
51
 X1,000 Borehole
Altered shale
X1,200
X1,400
X1,600
Phantom
arrival
Altered shale
LWD compressional
Wireline arrival
X1,800
X2,000
Wireline slowness STC projection
Waveform VDL 180 s/ft 80
Depth, ft
500 s 3500 ISONIC slowness ISONIC slowness
180 s/ft 80 50 s/ft 200
Time-lapse logging using sonic while drilling. Formation alteration is taking place in
the 6 to 7 days between the running of the LWD sonic and the wireline measurement.
Details in both slowness logs seen in track 2 correlate closely, but there is a systematic
shift to larger slowness in the wireline log. The reason for the shift can be seen in the
slowness-time-coherence (STC) projections from the ISONIC tool, track 3, where a sec-
ond slower coherent arrival is emerging. This phantom arrival, too fast to be a shear
arrival in these slow formations, is likely to be caused by shale alteration.
It is clear that detailed features of the two fronts in the same way that a borehole does.
slowness logs in the upper shaly zone are The extraneous second arrival in this exam-
correlated (above left). However, the consis- pleknown as a bicompressional wave
tent difference between the two measure- corresponds to a compressional wave
ments in this interval and the STC projection trapped in the altered zone (above right). In
derived from the ISONIC recorded wave- North American test wells, many early wire-
forms in track 3 provides clues to what was line digital sonic field tests recorded bicom-
happening. Specifically, the STC projection pressional waveform arrivals.
shows that there is a second coherent arrival The time delay between the LWD sonic
becoming apparent about 10 to 20 s/ft [33 measurements and the wireline sonic mea-
to 66 s/m] slower than the first arrival. This surements in the altered zone is about 6 to 7
second arrival is too fast to be the shear in days. The presence of a well-developed
such a slow formation. altered zone can cause the wireline tool to
A slow-formation phenomenon known as read slowness values somewhere between
an altered zone provides a possible explana- the altered and unaltered formation-slow-
tion for the second arrival. An altered zone is ness values, depending on the type of tool
created by the drilling process which may and spacing used. In this well LWD sonic
damage the borehole wall and cause the measured the formationonly hours after
elastic modulus in an annular zone around rock was drilledbefore any significant
the borehole to change. This is particularly alteration had occurred.
true in soft formations. Water take-up in cer- With all the evidence collected, the opera-
tain shales and shaly sands or stress relief tor concluded that the slowness difference
near the borehole can also change the elas- seen while drilling and at wireline time was
tic modulus of the annular rock, generally likely caused by changed formation proper-
reducing it. The altered zone traps wave- ties over timea time-lapse effect. Confident
in the accuracy of the sonic-while-drilling
results and realizing the potential for real-
52
Sonic Bicompressional
logging arrival. Water take-
tool Undamaged up in certain shales
formation or stress relief near
the borehole can
change the elastic
moduli of the annu-
lar rock. The altered
zone traps wave-
fronts in the same
way as the borehole
does. The extrane-
ous second arrival is
shown leading to a
second compres-
sional wave
trapped in the
altered zone.
Virgin formation
compressional
arrival
time overpressure detection, the operator
continued using the ISONIC tool in its high-
profile wells in a neighboring block, later
making a major discovery there.
In cases like this when a systematic differ-
ence is observed between LWD and wireline
logs taken some time after drilling was com-
pleted, it usually happens in shaly zones.
Experience shows that the two logs generally
agree in hard rock and clean sands. The
slowness difference can be expected to
increase with time, due to shale swelling. In
these cases, the LWD slowness would
always be less than the wireline slowness.
In some wells the opposite occurs. A well
drilled in a plastic shale can lead to borehole
deformation due to compaction from high
vertical stress. In such cases, the high mean
stresses produce a decrease in porosity and a
stiffening of the bulk-frame modulus.16 The
overall effect of this consolidation phe-
nomenon can decrease the shales slowness
with time, in an annular zone a foot or more
away from the borehole.17 The distance into
the formation will depend on formation per-
meability, magnitude of the pressure differ-
ence, rock properties and the time since the
well was drilled. In such cases, the LWD slow-
ness can be larger than the wireline slowness.
This phenomenon may have occurred in the
previous Gulf of Mexico shaly-sand example.
In this well, the wireline LSS Long-Spaced
Sonic Tool slowness shows overall good
agreement with the real-time sonic slowness.
However, close examination shows that in the
upper shale interval, Zone A, the LWD slow-
ness tends to read 3 to 5 s/ft systematically
larger than the wireline slownessagain indi-
cating shale consolidation near the borehole,
caused by the drilling process.
Oilfield Review
 Since the LWD measurement has the Stoneley waves LWD Sonic in fast
Shear waves
potential of determining unaltered formation Compressional waves formations. The ISONIC
slowness, it has significant implications for Drilling noise tool recorded waveforms
plotted in the VDL display
two seismic applications, specifically, the in track 3 show a compres-
time-depth relationship and the synthetic sional arrival near 1150
XX900
seismogram. Seismic waves, with their long s, a strong shear near
wavelength, see the bulk unaltered forma- 1700 s and a stronger
Stoneley arrival near 2500
tion and are insensitive to small features such
s. Compressional (red)
as the borehole region. However, wireline and shear (green) slowness
sonic logs are frequently affected by forma- X1000
values are displayed in
tion alteration, and under those conditions Compressional track 2. The LWD compres-
slowness sional slowness matches
they do not provide the most appropriate
the wireline results (blue)
velocities for comparison with seismic data. throughout this interval.
X1100 The formation slowness
Shear
Hard Rock LWD slowness and the amplitude of the
Although hard rock formations are consid- compressional arrival
correlate, especially just
ered routine for wireline sonic logging
below X850 m, where
because the formation signals are fast and X1200 the formation slowness
separate from the borehole mud signal drops from 95 to 80 s/ft
they present a major challenge for LWD [312 to 262 s/m] and the
A
measurements. Experience indicates that the amplitude of the compres-
sional arrival increases
level of drilling-induced noise is high in hard X1300 by about a factor of two.
Limestone bed
formations, and under these conditions, Wireline comp. In the fasterharder
downhole waveform processing requires slowness portions of this interval,
special care. 200 s/ft 50 ISONIC Zone A, increases in
Depth, Gamma ray LWD comp. slowness waveform VDL drilling noise are visible on
In such wells, waveform stacking is indis- m
s
API 200 s/ft 50 400 3400 the early part of the VDL
pensable. The stacked waveforms in the LWD shear slowness waveforms, just before
0 150
ISONIC slowness tool are filtered with a nar- 200 s/ft 50 the compressional arrival.
row band-pass filter, tuned to frequencies at
which drilling noise is minimal and drill col- The stacked and filtered waveforms are then Petrophysics: Sonic Logs in Gas Sands
lar arrivalsnoiseare highly attenuated. archived in memory, while the downhole tool After the structure of the reservoir is
microprocessor and digital signal processor knowntraps are located, faults are mapped
16. This situation would occur if the drilling fluid pres- determine the slowness of the coherent and fractures and their orientations identi-
sure was less than the pore pressure. Also, because
of the high ionic strength of the water phase in some arrivals in the waveforms using STC process- fiedpay zones must be quantified (see
drilling mud (200 to 300 kppm calcium chloride), ing and selecting the arrival that corresponds "Localized Maps of the Subsurface, page
the mud can pull water out of the formation, partic-
ularly the shales. This can lead to embrittlement of
to the compressional slownessknown as 56). Hydrocarbon identification, and deter-
the formation, and possible fracturing. labeling. Once the compressional slowness is mination of porosity and saturation are
17. Hsu K, Hashem M, Bean CL, Plumb R and Minerbo extracted downhole, it is transmitted to sur- important petrophysical applications for
G: Interpretation and Analysis of Sonic While face via the mud telemetry system. The sonic logging. The Biot-Gassmann theory is
Drilling Data in Overpressured Formations,
Transactions of the SPWLA 38th Annual Logging ISONIC slowness log is generated at surface widely used today to relate wet rock to dry
Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, June 15-18, in real time as the tool passes the formation. rock frame properties for sonic applica-
1997, paper FF.
An example in a highly deviated North Sea tions.20 With the introduction of dipole sonic
18. Aron J, Chang SK, Codazzi D, Dworak R, Hsu K,
Lau T, Minerbo G and Yogeswaren E: Real-Time well shows the current capability of LWD logs, and the ability to record high-quality
Sonic While Drilling in Hard and Soft Rocks, real-time sonic logging in hard rock shear and compressional slownesses for the
Transactions of the SPWLA 38th Annual Logging (above).18 In this well, the ISONIC logging first time in slow formations, trends can be
Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, June 15-18,
1997, paper HH. tool was attached 114 ft [40 m] behind the identified in sands and shales and matched
19. The empirical time-averaged Wyllie model is a drill bit, which put its measurements more with semi-empirical correlations based on
sonic-porosity interpretation mixing law that works than 4 hours after drilling. The recorded Biot-Gassmann theory. These trends can be
in many low-porosity applications. It is a linear vol-
umetric mix of the formation and fluid slownesses. It waveform variable density log (VDL) shows used as a quality-control check on sonic logs
does not account for the fact that real rocks are not the good compressional signal, followed by and for quicklook lithology interpretation.
homogeneous, nor microscopically continuous, or a strong shear and even stronger Stoneley However, the effects of partial saturation
isotropic and not ideally elastic.
20. The first significant model of sonic properties
arrivals. Some residual drilling noise is visi- pose special problems. Gas and liquid mix-
in fluid-filled porous rock was developed by ble in the harder sections of the formation. tures in soft formations make the interpreta-
Gassmann. See Gassmann F: Elastic Waves The compressional slowness from the LWD tion more complicated, as these can affect
Through a Packing of Spheres, Geophysics 16,
no. 18 (1951): 673-685. Then Biot developed a matches the wireline results throughout this the sonic slowness significantly, in particular
more complete model by allowing relative motion well. Many fast carbonate stringers correlate the compressional slowness. The compres-
between the fluid and rock matrix. See Biot M: between both sonic logs and the gamma ray, sional-to-shear velocity ratio, Vp/Vs, has
Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves in Fluid-
Saturated Porous Solids, Journal of the Acoustical all dipping in value as the clean hard been used in unconsolidated sands to quali-
Society of America 28 (1956): 179-191. The Biot stringers are passed by the logging tools. In tatively detect gas.
equations converge to those of Gassmann at low
frequencies. For a general review of sonic properties
the lower limestone zone at X1300 m, a The fluid distribution in the pore system
in fluid-filled porous media, see Ellis D: Well Wyllie time-averaged porosity of about at the microscopic level and the acoustic
Logging for Earth Scientists. New York, New York, 7 p.u. is computed for this limestone bed.19 frequency have a strong influence on
USA: Elsevier, 1987.
These results enable the operator to deter- the strength of the gas effect on acoustic
mine formation rock properties for planning
Spring 1998 a hydraulic fracturing program. 53
 3.50 Sonic crossplot. Wet
2.5 Unconsolidated formations, such as the

Vp, km/s
North Sea sediments Wet Sand trend (blue
shales curve), show an increase
Sonic 2.0
Malaysia in their Vp/Vs velocity
106 shaly sands ratio due to decreasing
ic
Fre
105
104 Seism 0
North Sea shear velocity, caused
que 20 water sand
3 by fluid-rock coupling.
ncy 10 102 60 40
,%
,H 80 r ation 3.00 Shales (green curve)
z 101 100 satu
Gas Porosity, show even greater effect.
p.u. The new mixing law for
Relationship of compressional velocity computing the effective
to frequency and gas saturation. Seismic fluid-bulk modulus of
frequencies lie near the front of this plot, gas-saturated formations
which shows an abrupt change in velocity successfully explains
with only a few percent increase in gas the observed trends in

Vp / Vs
saturation. Sonic logging measurements 2.50 logging data.

s
are in the center of the graph, and show

ale
a more gradual increase in velocity as gas

Sh
saturation increases.

30
slowness. Although the Biot-Gassmann
model together with Woods mixing law 90
2.00 Invaded
have been successfully used at seismic fre- 80 zone Dolomite
Limestone
quencies for geophysical interpretation, they
20 70 fluid Wet sands
give deceptive results in partially gas-satu- saturation Shales
60 Dry or gas
rated formations at sonic frequencies.21 The 50
10 sandstones
Biot-Gassmann model itself is not the prob- Gas 40 Anhydrite
lem. The effect of gas on elastic-wave slow- Salt
ness has been observed by a number of 1.50 Quartz
40 100 180
authors, and the problem lies in determining
the effective modulus of the pore-fluid mix- Compressional slowness, s/ft
ture (above).22
To evaluate gas volume from sonic logs in
shaly sands, a new mixing law for comput- The new mixing law differs from Woods indicator on the log plots by comparing them
ing the average sonic properties of gas-satu- mixing law in that it relates the effective fluid with the measured slowness values. The dry
rated fluids has been proposed recently.23 bulk modulus to the liquid and gas moduli compressional and shear slowness curves are
through a power law function of the liquid what the logging values would be if the for-
Kliquid saturation (left). The interpretation proceeds mation was completely filled with dry gas.
e
K f = ( Kliquid - Kgas) S xo + Kgas
straightforwardly from here. The apparent Similarly the wet slowness curves are what
pore-fluid bulk modulus can still be com- the logs would read if the formation was
puted from the Biot-Gassmann model, which completely filled with liquidoil or water.
K f (Fluid bulk modulus)

relates it to the formation velocity ratio mea- The quicklook gas saturation is computed
sured by the sonic logging tool; and the from the difference between the derived wet
porosity can be derived from neutron and slowness and observed slowness.
e=1
density logging. To derive the gas saturation, These dry formation parameters also find
2 the apparent fluid modulus is compared with application as inputs to rock mechanics com-
3 the one computed by the new mixing law putations. These properties are independent
5 based on the liquid saturation in the invaded of the pore fluid in the rock, and therefore
10 zone. The crossplot of the velocity ratio ver- provide a more reliable basis for rock-
sus compressional slowness illustrates how strength estimation than the moduli com-
Kgas gas-bearing formations are differentiated puted directly from the measured slowness.
0 100
Sxo (Invaded zone liquid saturation), % from liquid-filled formations (above). Finally, the dry formation properties can be
The Biot-Gassmann model along with used to estimate the acoustic response for any
Pore-fluid mixing laws. The observed openhole density, porosity and lithological pore fluid mixture as an input to amplitude-
pore-fluid bulk modulus Kf changes from
interpretations are used to derive the versus-offset (AVO) modelingknown as
Kliquid to Kgas in a nonlinear manner as
liquid is replaced by gas in the formation. expected dry formation properties, which fluid substitution.24 Woods mixing law,
Field data suggest an average mixing-law enable computing fully liquid-saturated for- which has a more dramatic effect from gas
coefficient, e, of between 2 and 5. The mation moduli and slowness values. These saturation, should be used at seismic fre-
curves are scaled according to liquid satu- results can serve as an effective quicklook gas
ration in the invaded zone, Sxo, because the
sonic properties of oil and water are similar,
and sonic measurements are mostly sensi-
tive to fluid present in the invaded zone.
For high values of the mixing coefficient
(e 40), the mixing law behavior
approaches that of Woods mixing law.

54 Oilfield Review
quencies because seismic compressional 350 Slowness, s/ft 50 Sonic ELAN
Depth,
velocities are more sensitive to gas saturation. Volume Volumes
m Dry Modulus, GPa
In practice, when gas is present, the dry 0 20 50 p.u. 0 0 100%
acoustic parameters provide a suitable XX50 Shear Clay
Compressional
approximation to the seismic response. slowness slowness
An example in a well drilled through a shaly
sand formation with oil-base mud shows the
capability of sonic logging to quantitatively dif- Wet Dry
ferentiate between liquid and gas (right). The
logged compressional and shear slownesses
fall between the expected dry-gas and wet-
liquid limits. Porosities are high, averaging Log Gas Quartz
33 p.u., in the interval shown, and the com- Log
pressional slowness shows a large gas separa- Gas
tion, often as much as 35 s/ft [115 s/m], Dry Wet
Water
which is characteristic of these soft forma-
tions. Hard formations show less separation.
The gas effect seen on the shear slowness is
small. This is expected because the shear
modulus is independent of pore fluid in the
Biot-Gassmann model, and the effect on
shear slowness is coming from density alone.
Over most of the interval shown, gas is
clearly seen in the sonic interpretation
except in the 5-m [16-ft] zone at X100 m, Moduli Liquid
where both compressional and shear slow- G
Kdry
nesses agree with the expected wet values. X100
Feldspar
The traditional ELAN Elemental Log Analysis
openhole interpretation, using resistivity and
EPT Electromagnetic Propagation Tool data,
indicates hydrocarbons in this zone. This is
the only place where there is marked dis-
agreement between the sonic logging- and
the resistivity-based interpretation. However,
this zone consists of fine-grained silt, and the Total
resistivity interpretation using Archies equa- porosity
tion did not take into account the effects of
high irreducible water saturation associated
with silt in this zone, which leads to an incor- Gas evaluation in shaly sands. The compressional and shear slowness logs are shown
rect saturation result. in track 2, and compared with the dry and wet slowness predicted by the Biot-
Sonic compressional-slowness logs are Gassmann model for fully gas- and water-saturated formations. The difference between
mostly sensitive to the fluid present in the the expected wet and observed compressional and shear slownesses are used to deter-
mine gas volume, shown in track 3. Dry bulk and shear moduli of the rock shown in
invaded zone. Compressional waves follow track 2 can be used in rock mechanics applications. The ELAN interpretation, track 4,
refraction laws, and when the invaded zone shows fluid and formation volumes.
is faster than the deep formationas in a gas
zonethen only the invaded zone is seen. compressional wave in this slower formation Sonic measurements make important con-
The slower, gas-filled, virgin zone lying deep is refracted away from the wellbore. The tributions to our knowledge of a field dur-
in the formation is not measured because the important conclusion is that fluid analysis ing every phase of reservoir lifedrilling,
obtained from the sonic logs represents completion, formation evaluation, stimula-
21. Woods law is frequently used in many geophysics invaded-zone saturation. tion, even fluid characterization and moni-
applications to compute the effective fluid compli-
anceinverse bulk modulusfrom a linear volu- These sonic interpretation techniques are toring. Sonic waves dont solve every
metric mix of the gas and liquid compliances. implemented in the PetroSonic module of the problem, but when combined with other
22. Murphy W, Reischer A and Hsu K: Modulus GeoFrame interpretation program. They can measurementsneutron-density for gas
Decomposition of Compressional and Shear
Velocities in Sand Bodies, Geophysics 58, no. 2
be used to evaluate hydrocarbon saturation identification, FMI measurements for frac-
(February 1993): 227-239. from sonic slowness, remove pore-fluid tures or CMR Combinable Magnetic
23. Brie A, Pampuri F, Marsala AF and Meazza O: effects and analyze frame properties for rock Resonance Tool readings for permeability
Shear Sonic Interpretation in Gas-Bearing Sands, mechanics evaluation, and replace the pore they strengthen our understanding of the
paper SPE 30595, presented at the 70th SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, fluid present at logging time (invaded zone) subsurface and ultimately help find and
USA, October 22-25, 1995. with another fluid combination, either to repro- produce hydrocarbons more efficiently.
24. Chiburis E, Frank C, Leaney S, McHugo S and duce the original reservoir conditions, or to sim- RCH
Skidmore C: Hydrocarbon Detection with AVO,
Oilfield Review 5, no. 1 (January 1993): 42-50. ulate other situations for AVO modeling.

Spring 1998 55