SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
ESTIMATING FORMATION PERMEABILITY AND ANISTOROPY
FROM BOREHOLE STONELEY WAVES
X. M. Tang, and D. Patterson, Baker Atlas, Houston, TX, USA,
Copyright 2004, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and
Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 45
Annual Logging Symposium held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands,
June 6–9, 2004.
ABSTRACT
Stoneley waves in the monopole acoustic
waveform data contain important information
about formation anisotropy and permeability. The
effects of permeability and the anisotropy can be
demonstrated by analyzing the Stoneley wave
data. In an isotropic, non-permeable formation,
the Stoneley wave behavior can be well predicted
from the shear-wave log data. Permeable
formation intervals cause Stoneley attenuation
and increase the wave’s slowness, which provides
a permeability indication. Formation anisotropy,
conversely, tends to reduce the Stoneley slowness
from a value modeled using the shear data. This
happens because in a VTI formation the Stoneley
wave is controlled by the horizontal shear that is
usually faster than the vertical shear measured
from dipole logging. These data trends, therefore,
provide an effective indication of formation
permeability and anisotropy.
With advances in theoretical modeling and data
analyses, formation anisotropy and permeability
information can now be obtained simultaneously
from processing the Stoneley wave data with
other log data. Incorporating anisotropy in
permeability estimation substantially improves
the quality of permeability estimates in
formations with sand-shale sequences. Field
results show that in such formations, the Stoneley
wave data yields anisotropy in shales and
permeability in sands, confirming the above
analysis. Many data sets from various formations
have been processed and the results reveal that
VTI anisotropy is a general property of
sedimentary rocks, especially shales. Many shale
formations have a VTI magnitude in the range of
10–40 percent. The shear-wave anisotropy
obtained from acoustic logging, after relating it to
seismic propagation, can be used to enhance
th seismic processing and analysis results.
INTRODUCTION
Borehole Stoneley wave has long been sought as
a means of formation permeability estimation.
Deriving permeability from Stoneley wave data is
now a practice in acoustic logging. Another
important development in recent years is using
Stoneley wave in conjunction with the flexural
wave from dipole logging to derive formation
shear wave anisotropy estimates. The ability to
obtain the important formation petrophysical and
seismic parameters makes the Stoneley wave a
desirable acquisition mode in acoustic logging.
Many rocks in formations exhibit anisotropic
characteristics. A common scenario is the
anisotropy existing in many sedimentary rocks,
such as shales. The anisotropy is typically
described by a transversely isotropic model with
respect to the vertical axis (TI or VTI). The VTI
model has a symmetry axis (assumed to be the
vertical axis, i.e., VTI) such that along any
direction perpendicular to this axis the rock
property is the same. Between the vertical and
horizontal directions, however, the property
varies. The existence of theVTI anisotropy in
formation rock is closely related to depositional
processes of sediments over geological times. The
anisotropy plays an important role in formation
evaluation and seismic exploration (e.g., seismic
migration/imaging (Alkhalifah, 1997) and AVO
analyses (Carcione et al., 1998)). The ability to
obtain the anisotropy information allows
geophysicists to assess whether anisotropy needs
to be considered in the seismic analyses. The
shear-wave VTI-anisotropy can be estimated
using borehole Stoneley-wave logging.
In the following, we will describe the theoretical
and practical aspects of permeability and W
anisotropy analyses using Stoneley waves. We
will show how these formation properties, in
1
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
connection with the borehole and measurement
tool, affect the measured Stoneley wave data. We
will describe a procedure for estimating the
anisotropy and permeability from the data. Field
data examples will be given to demonstrate the
Stoneley wave analyses and applications.
THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL
ASPECTS OF PERMEABILITY AND
ANISOTROPY LOGGING USING
STONELEY WAVES
Borehole Stoneley waves are affected by several
controlling factors related to the measurement
system and the formation elastic and fluid-
transport properties. Being a guided wave borne
in the borehole fluid, the wave is sensitive to
borehole fluid and logging tool (tool size and
rigidity). The wave is also sensitive to the
formation elasticity, especially the shear rigidity.
When the elastic property is anisotropic, the
Stoneley wave is affected by the anisotropy. In
addition, when formation is permeable, the
hydraulic exchange between borehole and
formation (see Figure 1) changes the Stoneley
wave propagation characteristics.
The effects of permeability on borehole Stoneley
waves have been well documented by many
theoretical papers (e.g., Schmitt et al., 1988; Tang
et al. 1991). Formation permeability reduces the
Stoneley wave speed (or increases the wave’s
slowness) and causes the wave attenuation. This
situation is illustrated in Figure 2, where the
attenuation and velocity dispersion as a function
of pore fluid mobility (defined as:
permeability/viscosity = k/η) for several
frequencies are theoretically predicted. At low
frequencies, the Stoneley wave attenuation and
dispersion (or velocity change) is approximately
controlled by a parameter combination given by
Attenuation ⎫ k in affecting the (Stoneley) wave propagation.
⎬↔ (1)
Dispersion ⎭ η K pf
where Kpf is the pore fluid incompressibility. It
can thus be seen that formation pore fluid
viscosity and compressibility are needed to
calculate the absolute permeability value. With
known permeability values from other
measurements, e.g., core, well pressure test, etc.,
2
the pore fluid parameters can be calibrated and
then used for the permeability calculation (Tang
et al., 1998). In practice, the attenuation and
velocity dispersion are calculated respectively as
the frequency shift and travel time delay of the
measured Stoneley wave relative to its non-
permeable counterpart. The wave attributes are
then used to estimate formation permeability
(Tang et al., 1998).
The effects of anisotropy on Stoneley waves can
be illustrated by the simple model shown in
Figure 3. In the low-frequency limit, the Stoneley
wave can be regarded as a static pressure, P,
acting on the borehole of radius R. This pressure
deforms the borehole against the formation shear
rigidity µ. The resulting borehole deformation, or
radial displacement, U, is inversely proportional
to the shear modulus in the horizontal plane,
called the in-plane shear modulus. In the case of a
TI formation, this in-plane shear modulus
becomes the shear modulus c66 in the horizontal
plane, as compared to the shear modulus c44 in the
vertical plane. This relationship is given in
Equation (2).
TI
U= RP 2 µ ⎯⎯→ RP 2c66 (2)
Thus, the Stoneley wave is controlled by
horizontal rather than vertical shear velocity. In
comparison, other types of shear measurements in
a vertical borehole, such as dipole or monopole
shear-wave logging, measure the vertical shear
velocity. Combining the two measurements
allows us to determine formation shear-wave
anisotropy.
We use a sensitivity analysis result (Figure 4,
right figure) to show the frequency range where
the above low-frequency analysis holds.
Sensitivity defines the importance of a parameter
Analyzing the sensitivity of the Stoneley wave to
a number of controlling parameters (borehole
fluid velocity Vf, formation horizontal and vertical
shear velocities Vsh and Vsv) for a slow VTI
formation (see Tang, 2003) indicates that at low
frequencies below 2 kHz the Stoneley wave’s
sensitivity to formation is indeed primarily
controlled by horizontal rather than vertical shear
velocity. As shown in Figure 4 (dotted curves in

right figure), the sensitivity to borehole fluid is
the largest (< 2 kHz). This is understandable
because the Stoneley wave is borne in the
borehole. This shows that borehole fluid property
must be known in order to estimate the formation
parameters. Above 2 kHz, the sensitivity to the
vertical shear velocity increases. The sensitivity
analysis shows that the estimation of formation
horizontal shear velocity should be made in the
low frequency range, preferably below 2 kHz.
Important to know is that the presence of a
logging tool (see Figure 1), as well as the
borehole/fluid, also affect Stoneley waves. The
tool effect is governed by its diameter and rigidity
(Tang, 2003). In the presence of the tool, Stoneley
slowness increases relative to the case without the
tool. (See left figure in Figure 4; this is a VTI
formation.) In practice, this can be verified from
measuring the Stoneley slowness in a cased hole.
The cased-hole slowness in the absence of a tool
should be close to the fluid slowness of about 200
µs/ft. However, the measured slowness is usually
around 250 µs/ft or higher, indicating the increase
of slowness due to the logging tool. The Stoneley
sensitivity to borehole and formation parameters
is also modified. The right figure of Figure 4
compares the Stoneley-wave sensitivities with
(solid curves) and without (dotted curves) the
tool. The sensitivity to borehole fluid velocity is
reduced. (This is understandable because the tool
replaces a portion of fluid.) The sensitivity to
vertical shear increases. Fortunately, in the low-
frequency range (0–2 kHz), the sensitivity to
horizontal shear velocity is still significant. This
ensures the measurement of the anisotropy in the
presence of the tool.
With the above discussions about
permeability/anisotropy and Stoneley waves, we
give an example to show how permeability and
anisotropy affect Stoneley wave slowness. Figure
5 shows the comparison of the Stoneley slowness
for three cases: (1) an isotropic, non-permeable
formation with shear velocity Vsv = Vsh = 1000
m/s; (2) an isotropic, water-saturated permeable
formation with 1 Darcy permeability; and (3) an
anisotropy, non-permeable formation whose
horizontal shear velocity Vsh is 20% faster than
Vsv. (A logging tool is included in calculating all
three cases.) As indicated in this figure,
anisotropy and permeability generally have an
3
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
opposite effect on the Stoneley slowness. This
situation corresponds to logging in sedimentary
rocks such as shales where the horizontal shear
velocity is generally faster than the vertical shear
velocity. In this low-frequency (0–2 kHz)
example, anisotropy reduces the slowness while
permeability increases the slowness, relative to
the isotropic, non-permeable formation. The
opposite effect of permeability relative to
anisotropy is a useful property to distinguish the
anisotropy and permeability effects, especially in
sand/shale formations.
Let us demonstrate more specifically the
influence of formation and borehole parameters
on Stoneley waves using a zero-frequency result.
In the low-frequency limit, the Stoneley slowness
in an isotropic, non-permeable formation can be
found (e.g., Norris, 1990), as given below:
ρ BH
DTST 2 = DTS 2
ρ FM (1 − r )
(3)
⎧1 + r r ρ BH ⎫
+⎨ DTBF 2 + ⎬,
⎩1 − r (1 − r ) M T ⎭
where r is the tool-to-borehole area ratio and the
symbol ρ with subscripts BH and FM denotes
borehole and formation density, respectively.
Equation (3) shows that the low-frequency
slowness consists of three terms respectively
controlled by formation shear slowness DTS,
borehole fluid slowness DTBF, and tool rigidity
MT. The relative importance of each term depends
on the formation type. The first term is large in
slow formations where DTS > DTBF. In fast
formations, however, the Stoneley slowness is
dominated by borehole and tool contributions
from the last two terms in Equation (3).
For a permeable or an anisotropic formation,
Stoneley slowness increases for the permeable
case, or decreases if the latter is true, relative to
the non-permeable, isotropic case, as described by
⎛ DTSTperm
2
⎞ ρBH ⎛ DTSiso
2
+ δ S perm
2
⎞
⎜ 2 ⎟
= ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ DTSTTI ⎠ ρFM (1− r) ⎝ DTSiso − δ STI ⎠
2
(4)
⎧1 + r r ρBH ⎫ W
+⎨ DTBF + ⎬,
2
⎩1 − r (1 − r) MT ⎭
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
where the slowness increment δSperm and
decrement δSTI relate to the formation
permeability and anisotropy, respectively. In both
cases, we need to know the borehole fluid and
tool parameters to estimate the VTI anisotropy or
permeability of the formation. These parameters
can be calibrated/estimated, for example, from the
given Stoneley and shear slowness logs in a non-
permeable, isotropic zone. Sometimes the logging
depths include a cased hole section and the
Stoneley measurement in that section can be used
for the calibration, because the casing parameters
are usually known. The calibration process is
essentially adjusting the fluid/tool parameter(s)
such that the calculated and the measured
Stoneley slowness values agree in the chosen
zone. Altogether there are four (fluid and tool)
parameters that affect the Stoneley slowness:
borehole fluid slowness and density, and tool
modulus and diameter. We may not need to know
all of them accurately, because their effects on the
Stoneley wave are largely controlled by a
parameter combination (the two terms in brackets
of Equation (3)). Adjusting tool rigidity and/or
fluid slowness can make the calculated slowness
fit the data. However, the calibrated parameter
value is true only when the other (three)
parameters are accurately given. Otherwise, we
simply regard the parameter as a fitting parameter
whose value is what is needed to fit the data.
Understanding this is the key for the calibration.
INDICATING EFFECTS OF
PERMEABILITY AND ANISOTROPY
In this section, we demonstrate that the formation
TI and permeability effects can be diagnosed
using a Stoneley versus shear slowness data cross
plot. Referring to the low-frequency Stoneley
slowness formula in equation (3), we see that if
we cross plot the squared Stoneley slowness
versus the squared shear slowness, the plotted
data should exhibit a linear relationship, with a
slope related to borehole-to-formation density
ratio and an intercept related to borehole and tool
parameters. (In practice, the actual slope/intercept
of the line may deviate from those of Equation (3)
depending on the data measurement frequency
range.)
4
Figure 6 is a field data example of the DTST2
versus DTS2 crossplot for a fast formation. The
data clusters show three trends. The middle
cluster follows the line described by Equation (3),
with a slope that is close to what is predicted
using the true density ratio and tool-to-borehole
area ratio values. Data in this cluster belong to
isotropic, low-permeability formation intervals.
The cluster above the line corresponds to
permeable formation intervals and the data below
the line correspond to anisotropic intervals.
Sometimes when the borehole and mud properties
vary with depth, the cross plot may show different
linear trends. In the example shown in Figure 7,
the borehole caliper gradually shrinks from about
9 in. at the top to the middle section of the
borehole, then suddenly to become 6.5 in. in the
deep borehole. This significant borehole variation
causes the intercept and slope of the DTST2 versus
DTS2 line to change, resulting in multiple linear
trends in the cross plot. The implication is that
one needs to divide the entire depth range into
different zones in the Stoneley data processing.
Figure 8 is an example showing that the DTST2
versus DTS2 cross plot can help classify formation
TI anisotropy and permeability characteristics.
The logging depths include an upper continuous
shale formation and lower sand/shale sequences.
The data trend appears to follow a linear trend
(dotted line). The slope of the line, however,
corresponds to a value of 0.6 g/cm3 for the
borehole fluid density, which is too low for the
water-based borehole mud (ρBH ~1). Using the
correct mud density rotates the line to a higher
slope value (solid line). Because the formation
rocks are either permeable sand or anisotropic
shale, few data points follow the isotropic, non-
permeable trend line. The new line, however,
correctly splits the data into permeable sand
sequences, anisotropic shale sequences, and a
continuous anisotropic shale formation.
PERMEABILITY AND ANISOTROPY
ESTIMATION AND APPLICATION
EXAMPLES
Procedure—The permeability/anisotropy infor-
mation measured from Stoneley-wave logging, as
demonstrated above, is used in an inversion

procedure to estimate the respective formation
parameters. The VTI anisotropy estimation
method is described in Tang (2003). In this
method, the dipole-measured (vertical) shear
velocity, together with the known or calibrated
borehole fluid and tool parameters, is used to
model an isotropic Stoneley slowness, which is
then compared with the measured slowness to
determine the anisotropy. This method is now
combined with a permeability estimation
procedure described in Tang et al. (1998).
In the permeability estimation, the Stoneley-wave
travel time across the receiver array, as calculated
from the measured slowness, is compared with
the theoretical travel time value that includes the
estimated VTI effect. The measured Stoneley-
wave spectrum is also compared with a modeled
wave spectrum for a non-permeable case. The
comparison yields the travel time delay and
frequency shift of the measured data relative to
the modeled (non-permeable) data across the
receiver array. The correlation between the time-
delay and frequency-shift data indicates the
permeability effects (see Equation (1)). The two
data sets are then simultaneously fitted with the
theoretical relationship between the Stoneley
wave and permeability (e.g., Tang and Cheng,
1996) for the measurement frequency range. The
misfit between the theory and data is further used
to estimate an error for the estimated permeability
value. The major improvements of above the
permeability estimation procedure, as compared
to previous ones, are (1) TI estimation, (2)
resolution enhancement, and (3) error estimation.
The inclusion of the TI effect in the estimation
allows for estimating permeability in soft
formations, e.g., sand/shale sequences in soft
sediments, where the anisotropy effect is quite
significant.
Anisotropy and permeability estimation—Figure
9 is an example of the simultaneous estimation of
both anisotropy and permeability for a formation
with sand/shale sequences. The gamma ray and
caliper curves are given in track 1, and the
Stoneley wave data used for the estimation are
displayed as a VDL image in track 4. (The
DTST2 versus DTS2 cross plot has been shown
previously in Figure 8.) The dipole-measured
(vertical) shear slowness DTSV (dashed curve in
track 6) is used to model the isotropic, non-
5
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
permeable Stoneley slowness. The measured and
modeled Stoneley slowness curves (respectively
shown as the solid and dashed curve in track 5)
are then compared, with their difference shaded to
indicate the permeability or anisotropy effect.
When the modeled slowness is significantly
slower than the measured one, the anisotropy
effect is indicated, giving rise to the horizontal
shear slowness (solid curve labeled DTSH) and
anisotropy estimates (shaded curve denoted by
ANI, plotted left to right) in track 6. Conversely,
when the measured slowness curve is slower than
the modeled curve, it indicates the permeability
effect. The corresponding travel-time delay and
frequency shift curves and their theory-fitted
curves are shown in track 2. Track 3 displays the
estimated permeability profile (logarithmic scale
from 0.01 to 100 md), along with the error (the
shading around the permeability curve) estimated
from the data misfit in track 2. The general trends
of anisotropy/permeability estimation results can
now be assessed. The results show the dominant
anisotropy effect in the shale streaks and the
continuous upper shale formation. The anisotropy
is about 20% in the top shale. The permeability
effect dominates in the sand intervals. The results
are quite consistent with the formation lithology.
Comparison with NMR data—The Stoneley-
wave analysis can provide valid permeability
estimates which agree remarkably well with those
from other permeability measurements, e.g.,
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and core, etc.
This has been demonstrated by numerous authors
(e.g., Tang et al., 1998; Qobi et al., 2001). As a
test of the above described permeability
estimation method, Figure 10 shows a comparison
of the Stoneley-derived permeability (solid curve)
with NMR-measured permeability values
(markers) for a carbonate formation. The
corresponding Stoneley wave data and the travel-
time delay and frequency shift curves are shown,
respectively, in track 4 and track 2. Track 1 shows
the caliper, gamma ray, and porosity curves.
There is a remarkable agreement between the two
sets of permeability measurements, considering
the fact that the two results are based on
fundamentally different physics and measurement
principles. The low- and high-permeability
formation intervals and their variability are well
W
characterized by both results. This comparison
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
again demonstrates the validity of the Stoneley-
measured formation permeability.
Application with formation test data—An
application of the Stoneley-wave analysis is to
combine it with other quantitative, discrete
permeability measurements, such as core, and/or
formation pressure test, to obtain a continuous
permeability profile. The discrete permeability
values measured at representative formation
intervals provide a calibration for the Stoneley-
wave measurement. Figure 11 demonstrates this
application for a carbonate formation. The
permeability values measured from a formation
pressure testing tool (markers in track 2) are used
to calibrate the Stoneley-derived permeability
profile (curve in track 2). (The Stoneley wave and
the corresponding time delay and frequency shift
data are displayed in tracks 3 and 1, respectively.)
The Stoneley-measured profile captures the
relative variability and character of the formation
permeability. After calibration to the formation
testing permeability data sampled at several
formation intervals, a continuous permeability
profile is obtained. This profile is then continued
to other depths of interest to provide a
permeability estimate.
Anisotropy estimation example—An important
application of the Stoneley-wave anisotropy
analysis is to use it to locate anisotropic depth
intervals and assess the magnitude of the shear
anisotropy. The shear anisotropy, after relating it
seismic anisotropy properties, can then be used in
seismic data processing, such as
migration/imaging, and analyses, such as AVO,
etc. To illustrate this application, we use the data
from a formation consisting of sand/shale and
laminated sand/shale sequences and focus on the
anisotropy estimates. Figure 12 shows the results
of the anisotropy analysis for a 800-ft depth
segment. To assess the anisotropy effect, we plot
the dipole shear and Stoneley waveform data in
tracks 2 and 3, respectively. The shear and
Stoneley transit time curves in the respective
tracks are calculated from the dipole shear
slowness (curve DTSV in track 5) and the
measured Stoneley slowness (solid DTST curve in
track 4), respectively. The modeled isotropic
Stoneley slowness is shown as the dashed curve
in track 4. It is interesting to note that the
6
anisotropy effect (light shaded difference between
the modeled and measured slowness curves), and
the anisotropy estimates (shaded curve in track 5,
left to right) are mostly found in shales (see
gamma ray curve in track 1). In the shale
formation intervals the anisotropy magnitude is
on the order of 10–15%. In these intervals the
dipole shear wave, compared to the Stoneley
wave, is significantly delayed. For example,
around X300 ft, the dipole wave becomes slower
while the Stoneley is slightly faster, relative to the
depths above and below the interval. This
phenomenon is a direct indication of anisotropy
because, in the presence of VTI anisotropy, the
dipole and Stoneley waves are controlled,
respectively, by the slower vertical, and the faster
horizontal, shear velocity. The anisotropy tends to
diminish when the formation is interlaced with
sand streaks. In the sand intervals, the anisotropy
vanishes and the permeability (not shown) effect
dominates. (A similar trend is also present in the
example of Figure 9.) The results of Figure 12
delineate the anisotropy character/variation for
the depth segment. The anisotropy result may
have an important implication for a seismic
reservoir analysis. For example, if an AVO
analysis of the sand/shale contact at X190 is to be
performed, the anisotropy of the shale formation
should be considered to realistically calculate the
AVO response (see Carcione et al., 1998).
CONCLUSIONS
Borehole Stoneley waves acquired from
monopole acoustic logging contain the important
information about the formation permeability and
shear-wave anisotropy. The anisotropy and
permeability effects are predicated by theoretical
modeling and demonstrated with field data
analyses. For example, on a DTST2 versus DTS2
crossplot, the data points/clusters above and
below an isotropic, non-permeable trend line can
indicate, respectively, the effects of permeability
and anisotropy. The Stoneley waves, however, are
also affected by borehole fluid and measurement
tool parameters. By estimating/calibrating the
borehole fluid and tool parameters, the formation
permeability and anisotropy can be estimated.
Application of the estimation procedure to
various formations (carbonate, sand/shale, etc.)

has obtained valid permeability and anisotropy
estimates. In a sand/shale formation, for example,
the result shows the consistent general character
of permeable sands and anisotropic shales. The
analysis procedure can now be used in
conjunction with the Stoneley wave logging to
obtain the important formation seismic and
petrophysical parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank a number of
individuals who gave valuable comments and
suggestions to the Stoneley wave applications.
Among them are: Geoff Page, Paul Mast, Mette
Munkholm, Dan Georgi, Keith Katahara, Dave
DeMartini, and Ferdinanda Pampuri. We also
thank our colleagues Howard Glassman, Mary
Huang, and Charlie Harrison who participated in
the application development and testing. Finally,
we thank Baker Atlas for permission to publish
this paper.
REFERENCES
Alkhalifah, T., 1997, Seismic data processing in
vertically inhomogeneous TI media: Geophysics,
62, 662-675.
Carcione, J. M., Helle, H. B., and Zhao, T., 1998,
Effects of attenuation and anisotropy on reflection
amplitude versus offset: Geophysics, 63, 1652-
1658.
Norris, A. N., 1990, The speed of a tube wave: J.
Acoust. Soc. Am., 87, 414-417.
Qobi, L., Kuijper A., Tang, X. M., and Strauss, J.,
2001, Permeability determination from Stoneley
waves in the Ara Group carbonates, Oman,
GeoArabia, 6, 649-666.
Schmitt, D. P., Bouchon, M., and Bonnet, G.,
1988, Full-waveform synthetic acoustic logs, in
radially semi-infinite saturated porous formations:
Geophysics, 53, 807-823.
Tang, X. M., 2003, Determining formation shear-
wave transverse isotropy from Stoneley-wave
measurements: Geophysics, 68, 118-126.
7
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004
Tang, X.M., Altunbay, M., and Shorey, D., 1998,
Joint interpretation of formation permeability
from wireline acoustic, NMR, and image log data:
paper KK, in 39th Annual Meeting Transactions:
Society of Professional Well Log Analysts.
Tang, X. M., and Cheng, C. H., 1996, Fast
inversion of formation permeability from
Stoneley wave logs using a simplified Biot-
Rosenbaum model: Geophysics, 61, 639-645.
Tang, X. M., Cheng, C. H., and Toksöz, M. N.,
1991a, Dynamic permeability and borehole
Stoneley waves: A simplified Biot-Rosenbaum
model: J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 90, 1632-1646.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Xiaoming Tang is a senior staff scientist within
the Houston Technology Center (HTC), Baker
Atlas/INTEQ and is project leader for acoustic
processing and interpretation development. He
received a Doctor of Science degree from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1990,
and then worked as a scientist at New England
Research. He joined Baker Atlas in 1994. His
current interests include borehole acoustics,
petrophysics, and rock mechanics. He has
authored or co-authored more than 60 technical
publications, twelve patents, and a book on
borehole acoustics. He is member of SPWLA and
SEG.
Doug Patterson is the Acoustic Program
Manager within the HTC, Baker Atlas/INTEQ
where he focuses on development of both
wireline and LWD devices. Doug received his
B.S.M.E. from Memphis University in 1978 and
over his 26 years has held positions in operations,
sales, technical marketing, and technology
development. In 1992, Doug joined Acutec
Logging Services, where he focused extensively
on the development of downhole acoustic
equipment, processing software, and
interpretation methods. He was with Acutec until
May of 1996 when the company was acquired by
Baker Atlas.
W
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

Tool

Porous
Formation

Borehole

Figure 1. Stoneley-wave logging in a permeable porous formation. The arrows illustrate the wave-
pressure-induced hydraulic exchange between borehole and formation.

5 kHz
Stoneley attenuation

Stoneley velocity
2 kHz
Hz

1 kHz
1k

Hz
2k

Hz
5k

LOG Mobility (= k / η ) LOG Mobility (= k / η)

Figure 2. Skemtatic illustration of Stoneley-wave attenuation (left figure) and velocity dipsersion (right
figure) versus fluid mobility for several frequancies. Note the increase of attenuation is corresponded by
the decrease in velocity.

8
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

Stoneley-wave
pressure
P

U ∝ P / µ ⎯⎯
TI
→ P / c66
TI formation

Figure 3. Borehole deformation due to a (Stoneley-wave-induced) pressure is inversely proportional to the

formation in-plane shear modulus, which, in the case of a TI formation, is the horizonal shear modulus.

340 1

With Tool
V elocity S en sitivity

Without Tool
S lo w n e s s (µ s /ft)

Vsv
With tool Vf
Vsh

Without tool

260 0
0 2000 0 Frequency (Hz) 5000
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4. Stoneley-wave slowness (left figure) and velocity sensitivies (right figure) for a TI formation
with and without a logging tool in the borehole. The presence of the tool modifies the Stoneley wave
characteristics.
W

9
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

380

Slowness (µs/ft)

Iso-permeable

Iso-elastic
Iso-nonpermeable

TI-anisotropic
260
0 2000
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5. Comparison of the Stoneley slowness in the 0-2 kHz frequency range for three cases: (1)
isotropic (middle curve), (2) a permeable formation with 1-darcy permeability (upper curve), and (3) a
VTI formation with 20% anisotropy. Note that permeability and anisotropy have an opposite effect on
the slowness.
with low production
120000

Permeable Slope
DTST2 (µs/ft)2

~ ρBH /ρFM /(1-r)

TI-anisotropy
65000

0 DTS2 (µs/ft)2 60000

Figure 6. Cross-plotting the squared Sotoneley and shear slowness can indicate the effects of
permeability and anisotropy. Isotropic, non-permeable depths tend to form a line, with permeable and
ansotropy data points lying above and below the line.

10
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

120000
D6.5
eep in.

Deeper
8 in.

Permeable Slope
T9op
in.
DTST2 (µs/ft)2

~ ρBH /ρFM /(1-r)

TI-anisotropy
65000

0 DTS2 (µs/ft)2 60000

Figure 7. A Borehole with different sizes causes the data to fall into different trends, whose linear
portion has a different intercept corresponding to the borehole size.
120000

Deep
ρBH =1 s
Deeperence
e u
eabl ces e seq
rm en l
DTST2 (µs/ft)2

Pe sequ ha
STop
Permeablend Slope ~ ρBH /ρFM /(1-r)
Sa
ρBH=0.6? Shale formation

TI-anisotropy
45000

0 DTS2 (µs/ft)2 90000

W
Figure 8. Classify the sand/shale formation using a non-permeable line of correct slope,
which divides the formation into permeable sands and anisotropic shales.

11
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

T-delay
GR Perm Effect
50 200
0 (µs) 300 DTS
FEET

Permeability Stoneley 400 (µs/ft) 100

TI Effect
CAL F-shift
0 (in) 12 150 (Hz) 0 0.01 (md) 1000 1 (ms) 4
DTST ANI
350 (µs/ft) 250 0 (%) 100
X200

DTSH
DTSV
X400

Figure 9. Example of formation anisotropy and permeability estimation from Stoneley wave data for a
sand/shale formation. The anisotropy corresponds to (upper) shale or shale streaks and permeability is
mostly found in the sand intervals.

12
 SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

0 GR (API) 150 Time Delay

0 (µs) 150 Permeability Stoneley Wave
0 CAL (in) 16
Freq-shift
50 Porosity (%) 0 60 (Ηz) 0 0.01 (md) 100 1.5 (ms) 4.5

X400 ft

NMR Figure 10. Comparison

between Stoneley- and NMR-
measured permeability values.

Stoneley

X500 ft

Time Delay
FEET

0 (µs) 500 Permeability Stoneley

Freq-shift
150 (Hz) 0 0.01 (md) 1000 0 (ms) 4
X350

FT Perm

Figure 11. Example of calibrating

Stoneley-measured permeability
using formation test data (labeled FT
X400

perm) to obtain a continuous

formation permeability profile.
Stoneley
Perm
X450

13
SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, June 6-9, 2004

GR Perm Effect
DTS
50 200 Dipole shear Stoneley
FEET

TI Effect 400 (µs/ft) 100

CAL
0 (in) 10 1 (ms) 3 2.5 (ms) 4.5 DTST ANI
380 (µs/ft) 240 0 (%) 60
X200
X800

DTSH
DTSV

Figure 12. Formation shear-wave anisotropy estimation for a laminated sand/shale formation. The
anisotropy is mostly found in continuous shale formation intervals.

14