SPE
Society of Petroleun Engineers of "IME
SPE 10988
The Deep Propagation Tool (A New Electromagnetic Logging Tool)
by G.S. Huchital, * R. Hutin, Y. Thoraval, and B. Clark, Etudes et Production Schlumberger
~Member SPE
©Copyright 1981, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper was presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in
San Antonio, Texas, October 5·7,1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75206.
ABSTRACT
This paper will discuss a new well logging tool, the
Deep Propagation Tool (DPT*). The device radiates elec-
tromagnetic energy into the formation surrounding the
well bore. Measurements of the attenuation and velocity
(wavelength) of this electromagnetic wave will yield the
resistivity and dielectric constant of the formation.
The use of an accurate measurement of formation
resistivity is well known. The measurement of formation
dielectric constant has recently been shown to be of use in
formation cvrluation for cases of variable formation water
resistivity. 1
Previous devices used to measure the dielectric
constant of the formation have had relatively shallow
depths of investigation. The Deep Propagation Tool uses a
unique antenna array in order to return formation elec-
trical parameters characteristic of the un invaded forma-
tion.
The device operates at a frequency in the tens of
megahertz range and performs accurate measurements of
signal level and relative phase at four receivers locations.
These eight measurements can then be used to return a
value for the formation resistivity and dielectric constant.
The theoretical basis for the design of the tool will
be presented. This will be applied to predict the envi-
ronment effects on the response of the device. Attention
will be paid to the effect of the borehole on the measure-
ment, the depth of investigation of the device, and its
vertical resolution.
Measurements have been made in wells in both
Europe and South America. Results of these measure-
ments are qUite interesting and show that the measure-
ment of formation dielectric constant can be used to
determine the presence of hydrocarbons in zones of vari-
able connate water resistivities where traditional resis-
tivity measurements are not easily applied.
* Mark of Schlumberger
References and illustrations at end of paper.
1.0 INTRODUCfION
The purpose of this paper will be to present an
overview of the The Deep Propagation (DPT*) Tool and
summarize the results achieved to date.
The DPT Tool radiates electromagnetic energy into
the formation surrounding the borehole. Measurements of
the attenuation and velocity (wavelength) of this electro-
magnetic wave will yield the resistivity and dielectric
constant of the formation.
The use of an accurate measurement of formation
resistivity is well known. The measurement of formation
dielectric constant has recently been shown to be of use in
formation evaluation for cases of variable formation water
resistivity.
Previous devices used to measure the dielectric
constant of the formation have had relatively shallow
depths of investigation. The DPT Tool uses a unique
antenna array in order to return formation electrical
parameters characteristic of the un invaded formation.
The theoretical basis for the DPT Tool is similar to
that for induction devices. This theory will be presented in
Section 2 in conjunction with the design of the tool (Sec-
tion 3).
Measurements have been made in wells in both
Europe and South America. Results of these tests are
quite interesting and show that the measurement of forma-
tion dielectric constant can be used to determine the pres-
ence of hydrocarbons in zones of variable connate water
resistivities where traditional resistivity measurements are
not easily applied. This will be discussed in Section 4.
However, it should be pointed out that the interpre-
tation of the measurements of the DPT Tool is in its
infancy. Work is continuing at Schlumberger centers in
order to better understand the electrical properties of
complex mixtures such as make-up, hydrocarbon, and
water bearing sedimentary rocks.
Section 5 will summarize this paper.
2 THE DEEP PROPAGATION TOOL
2.0 THEORETICAL BASIS OF THE DEEP
PROPAGATION TOOL
The basic theory for the DPT Tool is the same as for
all electromagnetic tools. One begins with Maxwell's
equations, adds a model for the source and then models
the geometry of the formation. The operating frequency
of the DPT Tool is midway between that of the standard
induction tools (20 Khz) and the Electromagnetic Propa-
gation (EPT*) Tool (1.1 GHz). As such, the tool can be
thought of as a mixture of some aspects of both the induc-
tion tools and the EPT Tool.
The basic measurements performed by the DPT
Tool are the same as those performed by the EPT Tool.
In both cases an electromagnetic wave is launched and its
signal level and relative phase are measured at axially
spaced receivers. These measurements are then trans-
formed into attenuations and phase shifts. (For the EPT
Tool the quantity Tpl, log travel time, is in reality a phase
shift measurement of a continuous wave signal). The com-
puted attenuations and phase shifts are then used to com-
pute the dielectric constant and resistivity of the
formation.
The DPT sonde itself is more like an induction tool.
The sensors are loop antennas mounted on a mandrel, and
the tool is run as a mandrel device. Therefore, much
of the theoretical modeling of the DPT Tool has been done
with the modification of induction modeling with skin
effect.
The results of the mathematical simUlations for the
environmental effects of the DPT Tool will be summarized
below.
2.1 THE INVERSION TECHNIQUE
The present inversion technique used by the DPT Tool
is similar in principle to that used by the EPT Tool. Both
tools measure the phase shift and attenuation of high
frequency waves. The EPT Tool is assumed to launch plane
waves (with a small correction factor on the attenuation
measurement.) A model of the propagation of plane waves
in a homogeneous medium is used to return the dielectric
constant and resistivity of the invaded zone. For the DPT
Tool the source is modeled as a vertical magnetic dipole in
a homogeneous medium. As such, the measurements of
attenuation and phase shift will uniquely determine the
resistivity and dielectric constant. (The assumption of
constant magnetic permeability is made throughout.)
2.2 BOREHOLE EFFECTS
The first effect to be examined is the effect of the
borehole on a centered DPT Tool. This can be modeled bv
assuming a two media cylindrically symmetric problem
with vertical magnetic dipoles used to model the
source.(2) Or, this can be extended to assume that the
tool uses single turn loop antennas with uniform current
surrounding a center conductive mandrel. The second
model is closer to the actual antennas of the DPT Tool.
Both these models show the same effects. The DPT Tool
has need of little or no borehole corrections when run in
very high resistivity muds. Thus, it should be possible to
use the DPT Tool in oil based muds and air filled holes.
This has yet to be verified in the field.
For boreholes on the order of 8 inches in diameter,
the DPT Tool will return a dielectric constant and resis-
tivity measurement with an error of less than 20%. A
SPE 10988
simple algorithm has been found which theoretically has
been shown to correct the above effects for Rm less than
0.5 ohm-meters. With this correction, the effect can be
reduced to less than 10% in wells of up to 12 inches in
diameter. (Figure 1)
The effect of tool eccentricity (3) and tool tilt have
also been examined and yield similar results as with the
tool centered in the hole. A t present the DPT Tool is run
with centralizers.
A theoretical study of the effect of borehole rugosity
on the response of the DPT Tool has also been made. The
results show that the effect of small borehole rugosity will
be less than that of the borehole itself.
2.3 VERTICAL RESOLUTION
The modeling for the vertical resolution of the DPT
Tool has been done assuming a vertical magnetic dipole for
the antennas. In addition, only horizontal boundaries have
been treated.
The present inversion technique of the DPT Tool will
yield a 10% error on the apparent dielectric constant in
the center of a ten-foot bed. The response of the tool is
also prone to horns as it passes bed boundaries. (Figure 2)
Both of these subjects are presently being studied.
2.4 RADIAL RESOLUTION
The response of the DPT Tool in an invaded
formation has been modeled using both the vertical mag-
netic dipole source as well as the full loop antenna model
discussed above. Various shapes of the invasion profile
have been investigated. In these numerical studies it has
been observed that the measurements of phase shift and
attenuation performed by the DPT Tool do not have the
same depth of investigation when taken from the same
pair of receivers. Of the two, the attenuation measure-
ment is always deeper. To compensate for this effect
there are four receivers in the tool and the basic measure-
ment is taken to be the attenuation measured by the pair
of receivers closest to the transmitter plus the phase
difference measurement performed at the pair of receivers
farthest from the transmitter.(4)
With this approach, the diameter of investigation of
the DPT Tool is predicted to be four feet. Like induction
tools, this number is skin effect dependent. But for the
DPT Tool this effect is greatly magnified. It should be
possible to improve significantly the radial resolution of
the DPT Tool. At this time the inversion technique is
based solely on a model of a homogeneous medium. Other
techniques have been proposed and are presently being
investigated. (5) These approaches use the other measure-
ments performed by the tool (attenuations and phase
differences from other receiver pairs) which at the present
time serve simply to confirm or deny that the measure-
ment may be effected by invasion.
2.5 MEASUREMENT LIMITATIONS
The DPT Tool has some restrictions as to its use.
Both the mud and formation resistivities will limit the
utility of the measurements of the tool. The lower the
mud resistivity, the lower the received signal levels. This
is also true for the formation resistivity. In addition, the
lower the formation resistivity the less resolution one has
on the measurement of dielectric constant. The goal for
the DPT Tool is to return a measurement of dielectric
3 THE DEEP PROPAGATION TOOL
constant, accurate to 10%, for mud resistivities 0.2
ohm-meters and higher and formation resistivities 10
ohm-~eters or more in 8-inch diameter boreholes. If full
?per~tIon of the tool is not required (i.e., little or no
mvasIon), only the near pair of receivers can be used to
return the dielectric constant and resistivity. In this case
the formation resistivity limit can probably be extended to
5-7 ohm-meters for an accurate measurement of the
dielectric constant. For this pair of receivers the resis-
tivity measurement should be accurate' down to
1.0 ohm-meters.
3.0 THE TOOL CONFIGURATION
The DPT Tool is made up of four separate sections.
Starting downhole and working up there are the power
supplies for t,he transmitte~ electronics, the high frequency
(RF) transmItter electronIcs, the sonde section and the
receiver electronics. The sonde is not located at the
bottom of the tool due to the need for high isolation be-
tween the receivers and the transmitter. The goal is to
have 190 dB of isolation between the lowest received
signal level and the power delivered to the transmitting
a~tenna. ~herefore no high frequency high power cable
(slgnal delivered to the transmitter) passes near high
frequency low power cables (received signals). The trans-
mitted RF signal is created below the sonde and the signal
processing is done above. (Figure 3)
3.1 THE SONDE
The sonde section of the DPT Tool contains one
transmitting antenna and four identical receivers. The
transmitter is impedance matched to present a load of
approx~mately 50 ohms when the tool is placed in a bore-
hole wIth Rm = 0.1 ohm-meters. The antenna itself is a
loop antenna.
The four receivers are also loop antennas. The
dimensional characteristics of the antenna are carefully
controlled in order to have temperature stable sensors.
The receivers are also impedance tuned. In this case
the tuning is done to minimize the impedance of the
antennas. Each antenna is switched on and off continu-
ously as the receiver electronics is shared by the receiving
antennas.
The electronics that is associated with each of the
five sensors is placed in a metallic tube that runs the
length of the sonde section. With the presence of this
metal tube, all of the interior electronics as well as all
the through wiring is shielded from the radiated signal.
The material for this metal tube is chosen in order to
minimize differential expansion between the antennas.
Each antenna is housed in a metallic cage which is
shorted to the tube down the center of the sonde in order
to reduce parasitic signals to an acceptable level. With-
out the presence of these shields (Patent Pending) the
slightest imperfection in the antennas would launch unac-
ceptably large parasitic signals within the sonde itself.
All the sensors are placed in a non metallic pressure
tight housing.
Coaxial cables carry the signal from the near pair of
receivers and the far pair to the RF (radio frequency) and
IF (intermediate frequency) electronics. These electronics
are housed in the receiver cartridge.
SPE 10988
3.2 THE RECEIVER ELECTRONICS CARTRIDGE
The signals which come from the sonde are
amplified. Then an RF switch selects the antenna to be
applied, to ,the m~asurement electronics. The resulting
SIgnal IS mIxed WIth a reference derived from a voltage
contr?lled crystal oscillator to produce an IF signal in the
low kIlohertz frequency range. This IF signal then passes
through several stages of automatic gain control before it
is filtered and its levels detected or relative phase mea-
sured through the use of a zero crossing teChnique.
The timing is such that all four receivers are interro-
gated every 0.5 seconds. Thus in order to have a complete
set of receivers every 6 inches, DPT logging speed is
recommended to be about 2000 ft/hr.
4.0 STATUS
The experimental prototype has logged wells in both
Europe and South America.
The following observations have been made concern-
ing the results of these tests:
1. The Deep Propagation Tool shows excellent re-
peatibility in both its measurements of resistivity and
dielectric constant. (Figure 4)
,2., The full operation of the tool can be observed by
exammmg the response of the tool using various pairs of
receivers in a well with little or no invasion. (Figure 5)
With no invasion the measurement from each pair of re-
c~ivers should ~e approximately the ,same with the largest
diff erence commg from somewhat dIfferent vertical reso-
lutions for each combination of measurements.
3. Test in Venezuela
The tool has been shown to indicate the presence of
hydrocarbon even when the application of standard resis-
tivity teChniques appears to have some difficulty. This can
be seen by comparing the resistivity (R 20-40 ohm-meters)
in zones A and B of Figures 6 and 7 at the same time as
the dielectric constant. It can be seen that in the water
zone (A) the dielectric constant is a factor of 2 greater
than in the hydrocarbon zone (B).
By applying a quick-look interpretation similar to
what is used for the Electromagnetic Propagation Tool the
hydrocarbon bearing zone versus the upper water section is
readily apparent. (Figures 8 and 9)
Figure 10 demonstrates the possible use of the two
dielectric constant measurement devices (EPT ,DPT) simul-
taneously. The water bearing porosities derived from
these two tools are presented in the first track along with
porosity derived from the CNL-FDC crossplot. The second
track is the R xo value (MSFL) along with the DPT Tool
and Laterlog Tool measured resistivities.
It can be seen that both the EPT and DPT Tools show
hydrocarbons in reservoirs 1 and 2. However, it is appar-
ent that there has been some displacement of hydrocarbon
in reservoir 1, while on the average the hydrocarbon in
reservoir 2 appears not to have moved. It can also be seen
that for the most part, the DPT Tool resistivity follows
that of the LLD* measurement. In clean water sands the
4 THE DEEP PROPAGATION TOOL SPE 10988

dielectric constant of the DPT Tool is very close to that of 6. Sen, P.N., "The Dielectric and Conductivity Response
the EPT Tool. This is not true in the shales (Figure 11). of Sedimentary Rocks," presented at SPE of AIME
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
This leads to the discussion of the tests performed by Dallas, September 21-24, 1980. Paper SPE 9379.
the DPT Tool in Europe.
7. Sen, P.N., "Relation of Certain Geometrical Features
4. Tests in Europe to the Dielectric Anomaly of Rocks," Geophysics, Vol.
46, No. 12, pg. 714, 1981.
Tests were performed in the Paris basin. Typical
results are shown in Figure 12. No hydrocarbons are
present in these wells. However, there are some striking
differences between these wells and the ones logged in
Venezuela even regarding only water bearing zones. The
DPT Tool resistivity and that from standard resistivity
measuring devices is not the same. There appears to be
almost a constant factor of 1.6 between the two measure-
ments. In addition, the DPT Tool measurement of dielec-
tric constant, while it correlates well with the EPT Tool is
significantly higher. Why the two testing locations have
yielded such vastly diff erent results is presently under
study. A number of possible explanations have been pro-
posed and are under investigation. (6.7)

5.0 SUMMARY

A new electromagnetic propagation tool has been

constructed, and tests are under way. The purpose of this
device is to measure the resistivity and dielectric constant
of the formation unaffected by invasion.

Results from tests show that while some questions

still remain concerning the interpretation of these bulk
measurements, the measurements performed can deter-
mine the presence of hydrocarbons even when standard
resistivity measurement techniques fail due to unknown or
varying connate water resistivities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank a great many people who

have contributed to the success of this program:
M. Gouilloud, J. C. Picard, P. Lacour Gayet, R. Porter, and
J. Tabanou for their direction, and C. Clavier, S. Gianzero,
D. Palaith, J. Samodai, J. Tomanic, A. Erlich, H. Ohmer, J.
L. Bonnet, and G. Cerdan for their technical contributions.

REFERENCES

1. R.P. Wharton, G.A. Hazen, R.N. Ray, D.L. Best,

"Electromagnetic Propagation Logging: Advances in
Technique and Interpretation," presented SPE of
AIMEAnnual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, September 21-24; 1980. Paper SPE 9267.

2. Moran, J.H., and Kunz, K.S., ''Basic Theory of

Induction Logging and Application to Study of Two-
Coil Sondes," Geophysics, Vol. XXVII, No.6, Part I, pp.
829-858, December, 1962.

3. Gianzero, S., ''The Effect of Sonde Eccentricity on

Response of Conventional Induction Logging Tool,"
IEEE Trans Geo-Sci, Vol. GE-16, No.4, October, 1978.
4. Huchital, G.S., Apparatus and Method for Determina-
tion of Subsurface Permitivity and Conductivity, U. S.
Patent No. 4,209,747.

5. Chew, W.C., "Response of the Deep Propagation Tool

in Invaded Boreholes," presented at SPE of AIME
Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, September, 1982. Paper SPE 10989.
 RESISTIVITY

.....-.
DI
r-T-1-~-+-+~--b-+-4-~1'#
...... r-~-+~~~-+~~~~~~ •

DI ELECTRIC CONSTANT

......
cn~':
.... ....

100
DIELECTRIC CONSTANT
50.0

For borehole diameter .f .,10,12.14,16 inchs

MUD RESISTIVITY ;; 0.20 •• ".

Fig. 1-8orehole effects corrected.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ij 'v IV V 'V

0.0
N II V \ V\ V ~ V V V ~ \ V
O. 225.
DEPTH (FEET)

RESISTIVITY
1100
AI f\f Af AI tJ Ai ,,~ A~ f\

"

...
~
..
E

.....e
e

V ~ \ \.
0.0
o. DEPTH (FEET)
225.

Fig. 2-Vertical resolution of deep propagation tool computed results. Alternate

zones of 10 and 100 ohm-meters with dielectric constants of 30 and 5. Beds
of 100 ohm-meters 17 ft thick Bed of 10 ohm-meters from 17 It to 3 ft thick.
 -.-----,---'---,
t TO TELEMETRY
D1electr1c ConJlltant Resistiv1ty

,--
::~-~
1--

--
- ,'-
.-

- I--

SONDE 5" DIA

_1----=-='-'-'---.- ..-
":::f-

-f=-
:=:1=:

~f= =~
f--

._.f-.
...

'1-
-=-~
--
-
Fe
F
f-

f--
1-1--

1=1=
.- I--

~~ t:::; • 1-.

f- e-
:::.
1-.=1'= i---:
c_
-- :::.
:=.-
....
I=f--
!:::f:::" - '-

:= :=
-r--= ~;:. -=
.-+-_ _ _TC-R
___ANSMITTER__ HIGH FREQUENCY
=1=
-
'==
t= ==
;:=
3 3/a" DIA
-'1- -"1 t= ==
DEN (1982) DM (1982,
100 a Q.2 2000.0
_____ Ct:lll_!l28U __ ___________ CBlll_l.l98ll ____
100 0 Q.2 2000.0
DPT Repeat1b1l1ty - Log. run 5 month. Apart at
SchlurnJ:>erger Test well.

Fig. 3-Deep propagation tool.

Fig. 4-Deep propagation tool repeat Nov. 1981. April 1982

DiElECTRIC CONSTANT RESISTIVITY

Dielectr ic constant: Resistivity

-----.~.~.
:-

-~
1--
~
=~.r-
-
~r-

-
-
=
I-- ,. :--

- -
-
FAR NEAR
NEAR
CROSSED FAR

DEN OM (Near)
100 0
••••••• PM ••••••••••
100
______ DtE _______ _0 DEN
•••••••••••.•••• P.'W .................... ..
100 o 100 0.2 2000.0

OPT log (Neg ible Invasion) water zone

Fig. 5-Deep propagation tool April 1982. Fig. 6-Dcep propagation tool December 1981.
Dielectric constant Resistivity

Porosity Resi stivity

-
..:-=:--:=:~>. -

=~-+-~I' --==t
-.~~
T
~-~:::: .. oo

f---------'--:~=

'_. c .... '

-+-- - ,~

DEN DRN 0ND ORN

100
10:2:····················· .. ··· .... · .. -iooo.o .~. _.---·--1

JlQ1'l __ _
• 0; 1 lone

Fig. 7-Deep propagation tool December 1981 Fig. 8-Water zone·QlDPT based on water filled formation

DEEP PROPAGATION TOOL

DECEMBER 1981
DECEMBER 1981 LITHOLOGY : SANDSTONE '" 30 pu.
RW ~ 2 11.11\
Parosi ty Resistivity
POROSITY RESISTIVITY

0.2 2000.

-------------------_.__._-.....
LLD

0.2 2000.
DRN
IISFL
0.2 2000.

Fig. 9-0il zone·Q)DPT based on water filled formation. Fig. 10-Deep propagation tool.
 LITHOLOGY LIliESTONE 6 P.H. < f6 < 24 p.u.
P.!" '" 0.6 lI.m
DIHECTRIC CONSTANT RESISTIVITY
H---f--*-~~~ r-+- ' I I I';
r' ,j ,
I I J II'! 'J '"
LITHOLOGY SANDSTONE' : ~5 p. u. '\ I I

RW '" 5 Q.m ~ I
'>! I
..... ! . "1
DIElECTRIC CONSTANT RESISTIVITY I I I
~ I

-
~-: !

-.J..
,---+,.---
-- -- --
- -. ," - .
-'.
--
.
.
:i' -:___~
:t _-:-: - <.:-::-l_±trI --
.._-i.,....~-'~,-r- :J±.~
j.r
--
-- f--

-;-at- ;_ _ . .- -1i( t--

l

.-t _ - :\....\.- I f- r

,-;:~:i:c'" ~ -3 . .
Ii i " .
-- ,+ -I--t:::r ,I I r I I
-= :r:::± :=:-~-c-J. I ' . t--
-
.-.=: -..---.--' §; PT
f-t-+t--+ttt---+-+-f+H*"-+-ff+j +H1-1+---+-++II+H4+-----l _ R0PT.
CALIPER OPT 1300
I.
I
I--'~
f- -

f--
f--
f--
f--
t--
f--

---
f--

)
I
I

-I-

1-

DEN DRN DEN DRN

100 o 0.2 2000.0 50 0.2 2000.0
EPT (E) LLD EPT (d LLD
100·...·.... ··------.------------.0· -0.-2----------------------2000-.:'"0 ·5·0 .. ·........ ······ .. ·_·· .... _.... '0· f------------------------------------
0.2 2000.0
CALI CALI
------------------1
6 16 6 16

Fig. 11-Deep propagation tool. Fig. 12-Deep propagation tool.