SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FROM A COMPARISON OF LWD AND

WIRELINE ACOUSTIC DATA FROM A GULF OF MEXICO WELL

Paul Boonen, Halliburton Energy Services, Clarke Bean, Chevron USA Production Company,
Rob Tepper, Halliburton Energy Services, Ron Deady, Halliburton Energy Services

ABSTRACT (Minear et al, 1995, 1996; Heysse et al, 1996). Since its
This paper demonstrates that high-quality LWD introduction in 1995, the tool has been distributed to a
acoustic data can be obtained over intervals where large number of locations world wide and experience
wireline data may be unreliable. Early-time data has been gathered in quite a number of areas and
acquisition and special tool technology contributed to environments. Traditional applications of acoustic logs
this LWD capability. In some instances, the high include the generation of synthetic seismograms for
quality of the LWD data has resulted in improved time- seismic time-to-depth correlation (Boonen et al. 1997),
to-depth correlations. pore pressure prediction while drilling and acoustic
porosity computation. While the tool was originally
The paper analyzes data from LWD and wireline described as a compressional wave slowness LWD tool,
acoustic tool runs in a Gulf of Mexico well drilled with we have been able to record shear slowness (∆ts) in
oil-based mud. Consistent differences between data formations where ∆ts is faster than the borehole fluid.
from the two tools suggest pronounced shale alteration The availability of a shear slowness opens applications
may have occurred between LWD and wireline runs. In such as rock mechanical analysis for hydraulic
zones where the borehole was washed-out above 14 fracturing design, borehole stability and sanding
inches, sonic data quality decreased for both wireline potential prediction.
and LWD tools. In good hole conditions, the
systematic differences observed between LWD and In this paper we want to expand on the proposition that
wireline in sandstones may be explained by different the acoustic LWD tool is a valid replacement for
pore fluids (resulting from invasion) at the various wireline acoustic logs for a series of applications and
times of logging. environments. A comparison between the
compressional slownesses from an acoustic LWD and a
The LWD acoustic tool used on the well employed full waveform wireline log from a North Sea chalk
dense sampling and downhole semblance processing. formation was shown by Heysse et al. 1996. The two
These features allowed lower-quality waveform data to data sets are virtually identical. Similar data from
be discarded and only higher-quality waveform data to onshore Texas well (Figures 3 and 4 in Minear et al.
be stored in tool memory for supplementary uphole 1996) show the effects of borehole washout and
processing. Because only higher-quality data were used borehole rugosity on both type of logs. The data
downhole to determine ∆t values, higher confidence presented in this paper show a comparison between
could be placed in the ∆t values transmitted uphole LWD and wireline sonic logs in an offshore well in the
while logging. As an added benefit, the efficient use of Gulf of Mexico. Here there are definite differences
memory via selective storage of data permitted longer between the travel times measured by the two tool types
intervals to be logged before tripping was needed to that have a major impact on the interpretation of the
retrieve memory data. acoustic data.

OFFSHORE GULF OF MEXICO WELL

The case study well was a development drill located 10
miles offshore Louisiana. It was designed to test
INTRODUCTION Miocene deltaic sands that had been previously
The basic design of an acoustic logging-while-drilling penetrated within the same major fault block. Nearby
(LWD) tool has been described in previous papers wells had established that the section to be drilled was a

1
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

normally pressured sand/shale sequence. Sands of shaly wet sands and washed-out borehole sections.
interest were thick-bedded and correlate well across the Figures 1, 2 and 3 show such sections of representative
area. The wellpath was designed as an S-curve with a lithologies. Track 1 shows the wireline gamma ray and
maximum hole angle of 47 degrees. caliper, Track 2 the wireline resistivity, Track 3 the
wireline density/neutron logs and Track 4 an overlay of
The wellpath was designed to penetrate 3D seismic the acoustic slowness from the LWD and the wireline
amplitude anomalies separated from previous wells by logs.
a small fault. Similar seismic anomalies were
associated with pay in previous wells. High-quality Both LWD and wireline data show much poorer quality
sonic data was desired to make synthetic seismic traces data when hole size is greater than 14 in. LWD
from the log data. Both LWD sonic and wireline sonic repeatability decreases between the travel-times as
logs were run to compare responses and gain recorded by the upper and lower transmitters. The
confidence in the accuracy of LWD sonic logs for wireline first-motion slowness curve has much cycle
future high-angle well work. skipping/stretching, and the wireline semblance
slowness curve shows lower peak semblance numbers.
The section of this well used in the wireline/LWD sonic An example of this poor quality data is shown in Figure
comparisons was drilled with a 12 1/4-in. bit, and 1. The zone from 8700 ft MD to 9055 ft MD was
covers the interval from 8700 ft MD to 11140 ft MD. already washed-out at the time of recording LWD sonic
The well was initially drilled from 6974 ft MD to 9055 data, three days after drilling. Note the poor
ft MD with a 9.7 lb/gal water-based fluid, but before the repeatability between LWD and wireline in this
LWD sonic tool was put in the hole the mud system interval.
TM
was swapped over to NOVADRIL *. Therefore, sands
and shales in the interval from 8700 ft MD to 9055 ft Comparing the acoustic log response from the LWD
MD were exposed to the water-based mud before any and the wireline tools are three crossplots of LWD
logging. This interval logged with a Measurement- versus wireline slowness (Figures 4, 5, and 6).
After-Drilling pass when the oil-based drilling Discriminator parameters for these crossplots are the
commenced (Table 1). Over the next six days, the well wireline caliper reading and the volume of shale,
was logged and deepened to 11225 ft MD where the separating washed-out boreholes in shale (caliper > 14-
LWD sonic tool was taken out of the toolstring. During in, Vsh > .6), wet and hydrocarbon-bearing sandstones
this drilling, mud weight was raised from 10.5 lb/gal to (caliper < 14-in., Vsh < .1) and shales (caliper < 14-in.,
11.2 lb/gal. The well was subsequently drilled to 13030 Vsh > .6).
ft MD. Wireline logging was performed seven days
after the last of LWD logging with a mud weight of Systematic differences exist between LWD and the
12.1 lb/gal. wireline data. In all cases, the semblance wireline data
are slower than the LWD data. In clean sands and good
Time Lapse Logging Our data set in the Gulf of hole conditions, the differences are small (2 to 3
Mexico presents a case of time-lapse acoustic logging microseconds/ft, Figure 3 and Figure 4). At travel-times
using LWD and wireline tools. Three sonic data sets are in the 100-110 microsecond/ft range, the percentage of
available. The slowness from the LWD tool is a difference equals 2 to 3 %. In shales with good hole,
semblance-processed ∆t across a four-receiver array. the differences are significantly greater (4 to 7
Details of the LWD compensated long-spaced sonic log microseconds/ft, Figure 5 and Figure 6). This represents
and the data acquisition and processing are presented in a 4 to 6 % difference. Since initial comparisons
Appendix 1. The full waveform wireline acoustic tool between LWD and wireline sonic data often use field
provides a real-time slowness computed using a first- threshold/zero crossing wireline data, Figures 7, 8, and
motion threshold/zero-crossing technique and a post- 9 were constructed. The differences are larger when
logging semblance-processed compressional slowness comparing the LWD and the threshold/zero-crossing
(Minear and Fletcher, 1983; Minear, 1986). The LWD wireline data than using the semblance-processed
tool and the wireline tool operate with similar source wireline data. The crossplots in Figures 7, 8, and 9
frequencies (Minear et al. 1995). compare the slowness from the threshold/zero-crossing
wireline acoustic log with the semblance-processed
To study the effect of time-lapse on the acoustic wireline data. There is a slight shift toward slower
logging response in relation to lithology and fluid measurements with threshold/zero-crossing wireline
content, we have separated the log in 39 short interval data, and consequently larger differences with the LWD
representing shales, oil sands, gas sands, wet sands, data.

* Trade mark of M-I Drilling Fluids

2
 SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

Figure 10 shows the crossplot of LWD versus ρb = Bulk density

threshold/zero-crossing wireline slowness for the 39 K = Bulk Modulus
intervals selected earlier to be representative of zones G = Shear Modulus
identified as bad hole, gas sand, oil sand, wet sand, KA = Bulk modulus of dry rock (frame)
shaly sand and shale. The shale sections show a KM = Bulk modulus of matrix (solid)
consistent shift of about 7 microseconds per foot. The φ = Porosity
four shaly sand sections exhibit a 4 to 5 microseconds Kf = Bulk modulus of pore fluid
shift. The wet sands tend to get closer to the equality
line, but the hydrocarbon bearing sands don’t seem to In clean wet sands, the increased slowness of the
exhibit a consistent correlation. Figure 11 shows the wireline sonic data may be due to greater invasion of a
same crossplot for the semblance correlated wireline drilling filtrate which has a lower Kf than the high-
data. It shows as mentioned previously, that the salinity formation water. In this well, clean wet sands
semblance-processed data are much more consistent have a porosity near 33%, bulk density near 2.11 gm/cc,
with the LWD data. Shales and shaly sands are closer ∆tc around 110 microseconds/ft (9100 ft/sec), and Kf of
to the equality line and the hydrocarbon bearing sands formation water approximately 30 Kbar (temperature =
show less scatter. 185°F, pressure = 4500 psi, salinity = 140,000 ppm
NaCl). While the Kf of the oil-based mud in this well
Blakeman (1982) and Hornby and Chang (1985) have was not measured, it is estimated to be in the 15 to 25
addressed time-lapse acoustic wireline logs. They show Kbar range. Leaving porosity, temperature and pressure
that the acoustic slowness in the shales increases with the same and substituting an invasion fluid with Kf of
alteration over a certain period of time. Our data seem 25 Kbar leads to a predicted increase in sonic travel-
to be consistent with this observation. Before time of about 3 microseconds/ft. If a 15 Kbar fluid is
concluding, however, that the greater difference substituted, the predicted increase in sonic travel-time is
between LWD and wireline travel times in shales is due about 10 microseconds/ft. The fluid-substitution
to alterations of the shales by drilling fluids, we would modeling is consistent with the magnitude of difference
like to study a data set with LWD density and sonic and observed between the LWD sonic measurements
wireline density and sonic. (presumably in high-salinity formation water before
much invasion) and the later wireline sonic logs
The LWD and wireline data in the clean sands correlate measured after much more drilling fluid invasion had
fairly well (Figure 4), but as mentioned above, the occurred.
wireline travel-times are consistently slower than the
LWD travel-times. An explanation of why the wireline The increased slowness (lower velocity) of the wireline
velocities are slower than those computed from the sonic data in the gas zones may indicate an increase in
LWD data could be related to invasion effects. gas saturation in the pore space near the borehole
Invasion profiles within the formation and their effect several days after drilling. Previous LWD resistivity-
on the log responses over the time frames when each profile studies have shown that gas zones tend to invade
data set was acquired cannot be easily quantified; more rapidly while drilling than oil or wet zones (Beck
however, approximations of the effects of invasion can et al, 1992). In this scenario rapid filtrate invasion
be made by modeling the effects of fluid substitutions would occur in the gas sand while drilling (‘spurt-loss’)
on sonic travel-times. The Gassmann equation is and the LWD log would, therefore, be measuring across
commonly used to predict the changes in sonic travel- an invaded formation due to flushing ahead of the bit.
times by substituting one pore fluid for another ( e.g. By the time the wireline acoustic measurements were
start with a log run in a clean, high-salinity wet sand, made (12 to 14 days after drilling) the formation gas
then substitute a fresh mud filtrate to predict the effect will have had time to slowly return to the borehole by
of drilling invasion on travel-times ). displacing the filtrate. The wireline resistivity logs do
not provide conclusive support to this assumption.
Vp 2 ρb = K + (4 / 3)G Unfortunately, in an oil-based mud we do not have an
invaded zone resistivity like a microspherically focused
measurement. The medium and deep induction do
(1 − K A / K M ) 2
K= separate slightly in the gas zones, the medium reading
ϕ 1 − ϕ KA higher values than the deep induction, pointing toward
+ − a possible shallow invasion at the time of the wireline
Kf KM KM 2 logging. LWD resistivity data was not acquired on this
well so invasion responses approximately 1 hour after
where drilling were not available. The rapid ‘spurt-loss’
Vp = Compressional wave velocity scenario is only valid if the invasion fluid completely

3
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

replaces the formation gas. Gassmann modeling shows about 14-in deteriorated the acoustic measurements.
that small amounts of gas saturation (3 to 7 %) cause However, when the borehole wash-out occurs after the
significant slow down in compressional velocity. LWD tool has passed by the unstable formation, this
Theoretically, 93 to 97 % of the gas in the pore space tool will provide the higher quality slowness data.
within the depth of investigation of the acoustic tool
needs to be replaced by the mud filtrate to cause the Systematic differences exist between LWD and
acoustic velocity at LWD time to be faster than after the wireline acoustic data in an offshore Gulf of Mexico
gas migrates back into the near-wellbore region at well, drilled using an oil-based mud. Shales display the
wireline time. Based on nuclear magnetic resonance largest discrepancy (4 to 7 microseconds per foot)
tool response observatons, Akkurt et al. (1997) between the two data sets. Shale alteration over time,
describe changes in the properties of oil-based mud even in an oil-based mud, may be the reason for this
filtrate (OBMF) caused by formation gas going in to difference.
solution with the OBMF. This should reduce the free
gas concentration in the pore space and its effect on the In the clean sandstones, the 2-3 microseconds/ft
acoustic velocity. differences between LWD sonic and wireline logs may
be due to invasion of oil-based mud filtrate by wireline
Acoustic Log Applications As mentioned previously, time. In the gas sands, increased wireline slowness
the objective for sonic logging in this well was to may be caused by rapid "spurt-loss" invasion at LWD
generate synthetic seismic traces for well-to-seismic time, then migration of gas back towards the borehole
correlations. Our results show the differences between by wireline logging time.
LWD and wireline travel times produce synthetic
seismic traces with no discernible differences. Figure The differences between LWD and wireline travel
12 shows three synthetic seismic traces for this well, times produce synthetic seismic traces with no
each using the wireline density combined with a discernible differences. Since the differences are
different sonic curve. The synthetics using the LWD systematic, we expect that use of LWD sonic to predict
and semblance-processed wireline are virtually onset of supernormal pressure will be equal in quality
identical. The synthetic using threshold/zero crossing to wireline data.
wireline data shows a few artifacts from the cycle- The wireline waveforms were often of higher quality
skipping/bad data in the shallow logged section. due to the LWD challenge of correcting for tool mode
Looking at the integrated travel time over the entire signal by downhole filtering, and performing downhole
logged section (2440 ft) reveals differences of semblance matching prior to the ∆t computation from
approximately 10 milliseconds between the LWD and the LWD waveforms. The timing of the data
wireline data sets. acquisition process for both fullwave sonic systems
appears to give LWD the quality edge particularly
Another important objective for sonic logging, where hole conditions are suspect and when shale
especially in today’s deepwater wildcat wells, is to alteration becomes a prominent occurrence over time.
predict the onset of supernormal pressure (Hsu et al,
1997). This application could not be tested in this well
because supernormal pressure was not penetrated. Since ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
the observed differences between LWD and wireline We would like to thank Chevron USA and Halliburton
data are systematic, a gradient break is expected in the Energy Services for the permission to publish this
LWD sonic data at the onset of supernormal pressure, paper. We like to thank Jim Fogal for processing the
similar to the observed sonic curve trends documented wireline log data.
with wireline data.

REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS Akkurt, R., Moore, M.A., Freeman, J.J., 1997 : “Impact
We have compared LWD acoustic logs and wireline of NMR in the Development of a Deepwater Turbidite
acoustic logs. In general both logs match the very well. Field”, SPWLA 38th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun
Without reflection on economical considerations, these 6-9, Houston, paper SS.
LWD logs can provide nearly equivalent quality data as
wireline acoustic logs. Beck, G.F, Oberkircher, J., Mack, S., 1992 :
“Measurement of Invasion Using an MWD Multiple
Both wireline and LWD acoustic logs are affected by Depth of Investigation Resistivity Tool”, paper
washed-out borehole conditions. In our example, in a presented at the 67th SPE Annual Technical
12.25-in. borehole, any borehole enlargement over Conference, Oct 4-7, Washington, SPE 24674.

4
 SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

(Belgium) and joined Halliburton in 1983. He worked

Blakeman, E.R., 1982 : “A Case Study of the Effect of as field engineer, log analyst, computing center
Shale Alteration on Sonic Transit Times”, SPWLA manager, area marketing manager in a variety of
23rd Annual Logging Symposium, Jul 6-9, Corpus countries in Europe, North Africa, the Far East and
Christi, paper I. North America. He is a member of SPWLA, SPE and
AAPG.
Boonen, P., Edwards, T., Logan, R., Tepper, R., 1997:
“Synthetic seismogram allows time-to-depth drilling Clark Bean is a Senior Geologist/Formation
precision”, World Oil, August 1997, p. 191-192. Evaluation Specialist for Chevron U.S.A. Production
Company in New Orleans. His current assignment
Heysse, D., Robbins, C., Minear, J., 1996 : “Field Tests involves interpretation of all types of open and cased-
of an Acoustic Logging-While-Drilling Tool in Various hole logging tools. He holds a B.A. in geology from
Borehole Environments”, SPWLA 37th Annual Albion College in 1978 and an A.M. in geology in 1981
Symposium, Jun 16-19, New Orleans, paper EE. from Indiana University.

Hornby, B.E., Chang, S.K., 1985 : “A Case Study of Rob Tepper is a logging-while-drilling Technical
Shale and Sandstone Alteration Using a Digital Sonic Specialist with Halliburton Energy Services in New
Tool”, SPWLA 26th Annual Symposium, Jun 17-20, Orleans, Louisiana. He assumed this position in April
Dallas, paper H. of 1996 after consulting as a petrophysical specialist for
a variety of operating companies and consulting firms
Hsu, K., Minerbo, G.N., Bean. C.L., Plumb, R., 1997 : between 1993 and 1996. Prior to consulting Rob
“Sonic-while-drilling tool detects overpressured worked as a petrophysical engineer for Greenhill
formations”, Oil & Gas Journal, Aug 4, 1997, p. 59-67. Petroleum Incorporated, a subsidiary of Western
Minear, J.W, and Fletcher, C.R., 1983: “Full Wave Mining of Australia for three years. Rob was a
Acoustic Logging”, presented at the Annual CWLA- Formation Evaluation Specialist for Chevron USA in
SPWLA Symposium, Jun 27-30, Calgary, paper EE. New Orleans from 1981 to 1990. He started in the oil
and gas industry with Schlumberger Well Services in
Minear, J.W., 1986: “Full Wave Sonic Logging: A Wichita Falls, Texas in 1979 as a field engineer for 2
Brief Perspective”, SPWLA 27th Annual Symposium, years.
Jun 9-13, Houston, paper AAA.
Ron Deady is a Technical Services Engineer at
Minear, J., Birchak, R., Robbins, C., Linyaev, E., Halliburton’s Houston technology center. His current
Mackie, B., 1995: “Compressional Wave Slowness duties include the support of LWD acoustic services
Measurement While Drilling”, SPWLA 36th Annual and Halliburton’s Desktop Petrophysics software. Ron
Symposium, Jun 26-29, Paris, paper VV. has a total of 17 years of MWD/LWD experience with
various companies. Ron holds a geology degree from
Minear, J.W., Heysse, D., Boonen, P., 1996 : “Initial Northern Illinois University.
Results from an Acoustic Logging While Drilling
Tool”, SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Oct 6-9, Denver, SPE 36543.

Willis, M.E., Toksoz, M.N., 1983 : “Automatic P and S APPENDIX 1. THE LOGGING-WHILE-
Velocity Determination from Full Waveform Digital
Acoustic Logs”, Geophysics, 48, 12, 1631.
DRILLING COMPENSATED LONG
SPACED SONIC LOG
The LWD acoustic tool consists of a slick drill collar
ABOUT THE AUTHORS containing two transmitters 4 feet above and below an
Paul Boonen is a Lead Log Analyst in the Reservoir array of four receivers at a one-foot spacing. A single
Applications Development group at Halliburton Energy axis standoff transducer is in the center of the receiver
Services in Houston, specializing in applications of array. This standoff is an important quality indicator for
acoustic logs such as natural fracture identification, the acoustic waveform processing because it may be
rock mechanical properties analysis, borehole stability used to identify borehole rugosity.
evaluation and hydraulic fracture modeling. He holds a
Ph. D. in geology from the University of Leuven in The LWD acoustic tool has a large nonvolatile
Belgium. He started his career in the field of log downhole memory that can be configured for a variety
analysis in 1981 with Geofiles consultants in Brussels of logging scenarios. Waveform data can be acquired,

5
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

during 2 to 40 second time intervals while drilling or data using a portable in the workstation provides a
tripping into or out of the hole. The acquisition rate is number of quality control indicators to rate the tool’s
programmed for the anticipated drilling rate, the performance at the wellsite. This information is
number of hours for the bit run, and the overall logging routinely presented in a log quality control log format.
objective. The downhole tool can be configured at the
surface for multiple logging modes and can be LWD Quality Control Log Figure 14 shows a typical
switched from the surface while the tool is downhole by log presentation of the LWD processed results. Track 1
using a flow activated switch. This is incorporated into contains the standoff measurement, along with depth.
the downhole logging system and is activated by This is a single point measurement, not a quantitative
varying the mud flow with the rig’s pumps. triaxial caliper measurement as on the density/neutron
LWD tool. This measurement serves as a qualitative
Downhole Data Acquisition And Processing For every indication of the position of the tool when the
upper and lower transmitter firing, a time-based array is measurement was accepted.
recorded in memory for each receiver for a total of 8
arrays. Multi-fire methods of oversampling are The display in track 2 is the tool mode corrected
available where several transmitter firings will be waveform recorded at the near (4 foot) receiver from
evaluated and the ∆t with the highest semblance and its the upper transmitter array. The four trace semblance
associated waveforms are stored in memory. These presentation for the upper transmitter/receiver array is
waveforms contain a formation and tool mode plotted in track 3. Semblance is stored as an array of
component. The tool mode is a discernible arrival of semblance values from 0 to 1 over the length of the
acoustic energy that recoupled with the tool before processing window. The dark areas represent the
reaching the receivers. The waveforms are upsampled highest semblance while the lighter shading represents
and will undergo tool mode evaluation. Energy levels low semblance quality. The highest semblance is
from each firing are evaluated at each receiver to selected to provide the waveform set used to compute
determine and construct a tool mode array. Since the the compressional slowness measurement for the
tool mode changes slightly during the logging run the interval. This peak semblance is presented in track 4 as
array is constantly updated downhole. The an indication of the measurement quality for the upper
representative tool mode component of the waveform is transmitter/receiver array. The primary and reference
removed using downhole filtering that provides a slownesses (for the upper and lower arrays) are overlaid
waveform with a strong formation component. Figure in track 5. Tracks 6, 7 and 8 show the peak semblance,
13 illustrates the effectiveness of the tool mode removal semblance image and tool mode corrected waveform
routine. Depth is plotted in track 1. Track 2 has the for the lower transmitter/receiver data. This provides a
upsampled waveform from the near receiver with the straightforward quality control analysis presentation
tool mode component present. Track 3 shows the and a direct comparison of both slowness
upsampled waveform from the near receiver with the measurements on one log.
tool mode component removed. Track 4 contains the
output of the continuously updated tool mode filter. The
process used to derive slowness is a four trace
semblance correlation procedure (Willis and Toksoz,
1983). This is a method of reconciling acoustic arrivals
across four receivers that are located different distances
from the acoustic energy source. This downhole derived
slowness, along with the raw waveform and standoff
information is placed in the tool’s downhole memory.
Slowness and standoff information can also be
transmitted to the surface. Recent developments in the
downhole tool and surface systems have permitted the
transmission of both compressional and shear wave
slowness data provided they are discernible.
Surface Processing Once the tool is tripped out of the
hole, the memory is downloaded and transferred into a
workstation for review and quality control. Workstation
reprocessing of the raw waveform data allows
interactive editing and evaluation of tool mode removal
performance. The ability to reprocess the raw memory

6
 SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

Table 1 - Time Delay between Drilling and LWD and Wireline Acoustic Logging runs
LWD Log Wireline
Log
Run 1 Drilling water-based Gamma Ray
8675 ft - 9055 ft mud log only
Run 2 Reaming oil-based mud 3 days 15 days Severely
8675 ft - 9055 ft Washed-out
9055 ft - 9246 ft Drilling oil-based mud 1 hour 14 days
Run 3 Drilling oil-based mud 1 hour 13.5 days Washed-out
9246 ft - 10682 ft bottom 60 ft
Run 4 Drilling oil-based mud 1 hour 12 days
10682 ft - 11225 ft

7
 8
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

Figure 1 - Typical log sequences in washed out shales and in a hydrocarbon bearing sandstone Offshore Gulf of Mexico Well
9

SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

Figure 2 - Typical log sequences in clean sandstone sections Offshore Gulf of Mexico Well
 10
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

Figure 3 - Typical log sequences in a shale section and a sandstone interval Offshore Gulf of Mexico Well
 SPWLA, 39th Annual Symposium, May 16-19, 1998

Figure 4
LWD slowness - wireline slowness crossplot
in washed-out shale sections
(entire logged interval)
Caliper > 14 in., Shale Volume > .6

Figure 5
LWD slowness - wireline slowness crossplot
in clean sandstone sections
(entire logged interval)
Caliper < 14 in., Shale Volume < .1

Figure 6
LWD slowness - wireline slowness crossplot
in shale sections (entire logged interval)
Caliper < 14 in., Shale Volume > .6

11
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

Figure 7 - Wireline Semblance Processing versus

Threshold/Zero Crossing Technique
in Washed-out Borehole
Caliper > 14 in., Vshale > .6

Threshold

Figure 8 - Wireline Semblance Processing versus

Threshold/Zero Crossing Technique
in Clean Sandstones
Caliper < 14 in., Vshale < .15

Threshold

Figure 9 - Wireline Semblance Processing versus

Threshold/Zero Crossing Technique
in Shales
Caliper < 14 in., Vshale > .6

Threshold

12
 SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

140

130

120
LWD - ∆t
microseconds/ft
110

100

90
90 100 110 120 130 140
Wireline ∆t - microseconds/ft
Figure 10 - LWD versus Threshold Processed Wireline ∆t

Washed-out Borehole
Clean Gas Sand
Clen Oil Sand
Clean Wet Sand
Shaly Sand
Shale

140

130

120

LWD - ∆t
microseconds/ft
110

100

90
90 100 110 120 130 140
Wireline ∆t - microseconds/ft
Figure 11 - LWD versus SemblanceProcessed Wireline ∆t

13
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998
14
 SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

XX00

XX50

D 0 µsec 1280 0 µsec 1280 0 µsec 1280

E
P
T
UPSAMPLEDWAVEFORM UPSAMPLED WAVEFORM
H TOOL MODE REMOVED

Figure 13 - Tool Mode Identification and Removal

15
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998.

XX50

XX00

XX50

0 25 0 1.5 140 40 1.5 0

Waveform one Upper S Compressional Slowness S

Lower Waveform one
e
m Upper
µ sec / f t Lower
e
m
SO Transmitter one Semblance b b Semblance Transmitter two

Figure 14 - LWD Acoustic Quality Control Log Format

16