In-situ Permeability Estimation:
A Comparison between Acoustic and NMR Logs
By
Wei Chen
For submission to the Department of
Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in Earth and Planetary Sciences
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
January 1999
V 1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All Rights Reserved
............................
Signature of Author............
Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
January, 1999
Certified By......
..
(2
.
M. Nafi Toksoz
Professor of Geophysics
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted By.................
Ronald G. Prinn
Department Head
CHUSETTS INSTITUTE
FROM 9
LIBRARIES
V
L
- /-- d"Ir"o
In-situ Permeability Estimation:
A Comparison between Acoustic and NMR Logs
By
Wei Chen
Submitted to the Department of Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences on January
1999, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in
Earth and Planetary Sciences
Abstract
The estimation of formation permeability from full waveform acoustic and nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) logs in petroleum well logging has improved significantly in
recent years. In this thesis, we review the methods of permeability estimation from
Stoneley waves and provide permeability comparisons between acoustic and NMR logs.
When a Stoneley wave travels along a permeable formation, hydraulic exchange between
the Stoneley wave and formation will occur. As a result, Stoneley wave travel time will
be delayed and the Stoneley wave attenuation will increase, causing a centroid frequency
shift. Therefore, these two wave attributes can be used to estimate formation
permeability. NMR logging data can also be used to estimate permeability. Permeability
estimates using Stoneley waves and NMR logging were tested using data from a section
consisting of sandstone and shale beds. The permeability results show very good
correlation for these two different methods. Data from a gas zone that is analyzed shows
high permeability values from acoustic data and low values from NMR. The difference
between these two permeability results can be used as a gas zone indicator.
Thesis Supervisor: M. Nafi ToksSz
Title: Professor of Geophysics
Co-Supervisor: Dan Burns
Title: Research Scientist
Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank my advisor, Prof. M. Nafi Toks6z, for bringing me to
MIT and for his support, Prof. Dale Morgan for sharing his opinions on doing research,
Dr. Dan Bums for numerous beneficial discussions, and Dr. Zhenya Zhu for continuous
suggestions and encouragement.
Second, I wish to thank the Western Atlas people for all the great help and
support they provided during my summer internship and with my thesis. They have
contributed to ERL the eXpress software and data to ERL, which made this thesis
possible. I am especially grateful to Arthur Cheng, who introduced me to this thesis topic,
which led me to the fabulous Acoustic and NMR world, and to Dr. Xiaoming Tang, who
used to give me the most straightforward but helpful comments. Thanks also go to Tim
Geerits, Stephen Gelinsky, Songhua Chen and Edy Purwoko for helping me with the
software and data. The summer working with them was really a pleasure. I also thank Dr.
Kurt-M. Strack, T.A. Ma for their kind concerns and help.
I also wish to extend my gratitude to my classmates and friends at MIT, Franklin
Ruiz, Jesus Sierra, Feng Shen, and Johnathan Kane. Their friendship, jokes and help
made my life at MIT much easier. I would also thank Liz Henderson, Sue Turbak, and
Kate Jesdale who made ERL a family-like place, Jane Maloof for helping me with the
Baker Atlas workstation installation, Matthias Imhof and his wife Nancy for bringing me
to a body conditioning class to keep me healthy. Thanks also go to Weiqun Shi, Jie
Zhang, Xiang Zhu and many others.
Finally, I must thank my parents who have always been there for me. Without
their love, I couldn't have gone through all the difficulties in these two years. I would also
thank my girl friends at MIT, Yang Xiaowei, Lynne Sevdberg, and Jane Brock. Their
spirit and experience in pursuing PH.D degrees are always great inspirations to me.
Contents
Chapter 1--- Introduction
5
.........................................................
--..
........ 5
--..
----. - -..
. ----. - -.
................................
1.1 B ackground
.........--------- ......... 7
...........................................--------1.2 O utline
Chapter 2--- In-situ Permeability Estimation from Acoustic Logs
-------- A Review...........9
9
..............................................
2.1 Introduction
9
.......................................
2.1.1 Biot-Rosenbaum model
10
........................
borehole
a
2.1.2 Acoustic wavefields in
10
2.2 Stoneley Waves ..................................................
10
......................................
2.2.1 Stoneley wave characteristics
............... 11
2.2.2 Sensitivity of a Stoneley wave to permeability
............... 11
2.3 Permeability Estimation from the Field Data
12
2.3.1 W avefield separation ...................................................
12
......................................
2.3.2 Stoneley wave modeling
..................... 13
2.3.3 Synthetic and measured wave comparison
.14
....................................
2.3.4 Reference depth selection
15
...............
log
2.4 Permeability results from the full waveform acoustic
Chapter 3--- A Comparison between Acoustic and NMR Log Permeability
E stim ates
.................................................................
. 21
................................. 21
3.1 Real Data Permeability Estimation Example
3.1.1 Stoneley wavefield separation results ............................... 21
22
..........................................
3.1.2 Perm eability results
23
.
.............
3.2 Gas Zone Effect
3.2.1 Gas zone effect on permeability estimation from Stoneley wave... .23
...... 24
3.2.2 Gas zone effect on permeability estimation from NMR
26
....................................
3.3 FDC-CNL Gas Zone Indication
Chapter 4---Summary and Conclusions
References
...............................................--
.......................................
39
41
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Background
Acoustic logging is one of the primary formation evaluation methods. Since the
late seventies, full waveform acoustic logging research and development have made
significant progress. Permeability estimation is among one of the major recent advances.
An acoustic logging tool generates a pressure pulse in the borehole fluid resulting
in several guided modes traveling along the borehole wall. The Stoneley wave, a low
frequency guided wave in the monopole full waveform data, can be used for permeability
estimation. During Stoneley wave propagation in a permeable formation, hydraulic
exchange between the wave induced borehole fluid motion and the formation pore fluid
system occurs at the borehole wall. This causes a travel time delay and centroid
frequency shift in the Stoneley wave relative to propagation in a non-permeable
formation. These changes can be used to estimate permeability. The first theoretical work
was done by Rosenbaum (1974), who used the Biot (1952) theory to model the formation
as a fluid-saturated porous medium. However, this work modeled acoustic waves with
frequencies around 20 kHz. This frequency was commonly used for acoustic tools in the
late 1970's. At this frequency range, however, the Stoneley wave cannot be efficiently
excited. Rosenbaum (1974) also assumed a non-permeable mudcake borehole wall. With
this assumption and the frequency used, it was shown that permeability could not be
measured from Stoneley waves.
The M.I.T. Borehole Acoustics and Logging Consortium carried out extensive
research in this area. The initial approach was to predict the velocity and attenuation for
the Stoneley wave using the Biot theory and permeability values obtained from core
measurements and then compare the model results to field data. The object was to
establish the validity of the Biot-Rosenbaum model (Burns and Cheng, 1986). Winkler et
al. (1989) of Schlumberger-Doll Research did laboratory scale experiments and
confirmed the theory. When the Stoneley data was used to invert permeability, it turned
out there were too many unknown parameters and the full Biot-Rosenbaum theory was
quite time consuming in the data processing and inversion.
Tang et al. (1991) developed a simplified model, where the Stoneley wave
interaction with a porous formation is further broken-down into "elastic" and "permeable"
parts. Later, the one dimensional wave propagation approximation for Stoneley wave
propagation across permeable zones and fractures was developed (Tang and Cheng,
1993a). Very recently, the theory was further developed to realistically model borehole
irregularities (Tezuka et al. 1994) and formation heterogeneities (Gelinsky and Tang,
1997). In the field data processing of the Stoneley waves, a wave separation technique
was also developed to separate the Stoneley wave into transmitted and reflected
wavefields. The application of the technique cleans up the transmitted Stoneley wave
from reflection and other noises in the logging environment.
Since this thesis will also use the permeability estimation from NMR, a brief
background about this technique is introduced. Detailed descriptions about NMR theory,
measurements, tools, processing and interpretation can be found in a thesis entitled
"Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Logging" by Howard F. Sklar (Master thesis, 1997,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Since Purcell and Block first discovered nuclear magnetic resonance, many
developments and applications have been established, including those in the petroleum
industry. NMR well logging has been developed significantly in the past few years.
Many commercial tools, such as the magnetic resonance imaging log (MRIL-C) tool
from NUMAR and the combinable magnetic resonance (CMR) tool from Schlumberger
are available.
Carr and Purcell (1954) developed a new fast measurement mode, and the first
NMR experiments on sand packs were done by Brown and Fatt in 1956. Four years after
this invention, Brown and Samson performed the first NMR measurements in a borehole
using the Earth's magnetic field. In 1966, Seevers observed a relation between relaxation
rate and permeability. Timur (1969) derived the concept of Free Fluid Index, which
provides a new method for estimating permeability from NMR. In 1978, Schlumberger
offered its first commercial NMR tool (NML), which used the Earth's magnetic field. In
1990, Numar Corporation introduced a prototype of a pulse-echo NMR logging tool (the
MRIL) as a commercial service. In 1991, Schlumberger designed a prototype of a
mandrel-type pulse-echo tool.
The NMR logging is based on the physical principle: the resonance of nuclei in a
magnetic field. Many nuclei in nature have a magnetic moment. When subject to a
magnetic field, such nuclei tend to align their magnetic moments parallel to the field,
corresponding to the lowest energy state. The higher the magnetic field, the more nuclei
can be polarized and the higher the magnetization of the sample. Electro-magnetic fields
at specific radio frequencies (RF) can influence the macroscopic magnetization. By
transferring energy from such fields into the sample, the magnetization can be turned
away from its aligned orientation to a different orientation. The re-oriented magnetization
generates a RF signal itself, which can be detected. For most nuclei, these signals are too
small to be detected. Hydrogen is an exception due to its large magnetic moment and
high abundance, both in water and hydrocarbon. Thus, the magnitude of the signal is a
measure for the fluid-filled porosity in the formation.
The high magnetic fields created by NMR tools result in a high signal to noise
ratio and enables application of a measurement technique called pulse-echo NMR. With
pulse-echo NMR the decay of the magnetization can be efficiently measured over a
relatively long time period, typically in the order of 0.1 seconds. The relaxation time of
bulk water can be described by a single relaxation time, ~ 3 seconds. When the fluid is
confined in a porous medium, the relaxation time is much shorter because the interaction
between the fluid and the wall of a pore introduces an additional means of relaxation. By
measuring the relaxation, information about pore sizes is obtained, which is related to the
permeability of the formation. Based on these physical principles the porosity,
permeability, and water saturation can be estimated from the NMR logging data.
1.2 Outline
Chapter 2 discusses the permeability estimation from full waveform acoustic logs.
It contains five major parts: the Biot-Rosenbaum model, wavefields in a permeable
porous borehole, Stoneley wave characteristics and sensitivities to permeability, and a
brief description of the modeling and processing methods used to estimate permeability
from the Stoneley wave. Finally, the permeability results estimated from the Stoneley
wave are presented.
Chapter 3 presents comparisons between permeability profiles derived from
acoustic and NMR logs. A real data set from a sandstone-shale formation is used for the
comparison. The effects of a gas zone on the two permeability profiles are presented and
the cause of these effects is analyzed.
Chapter 4 concludes the thesis by summarizing the results and gives a discussion
of future directions. In this thesis, only a sandstone-shale sequence formation data are
used to compare the Stoneley-wave derived permeability profiles with NMR
measurements. Other examples and tests, such as NMR permeability estimation in
carbonates and their comparison with Stoneley wave permeability results are also
interesting topics. Further research and development will lead to new applications.
In summary, chapter 2 of this thesis provides the knowledge on in-situ
permeability estimation from acoustic logging. Chapter 3 describes the original work of
this thesis, the permeability comparison and gas zone effect analysis. Chapter 4 recaps
the thesis work and suggests future research directions.
Chapter 2
In-situ Permeability Estimation from
Full Waveform Acoustic Logs
---
A Review
Fluid flow through porous rocks in underground water, oil and gas reservoirs is
controlled by permeability. Most conventional permeability estimations come from coremeasurements. Many core data are required to map permeability of a formation, and
because the core samples may be altered after coring and retrieval, the measured
permeability may differ from its in-situ values. Recent developments in full waveform
acoustic logs give a continuous and accurate subsurface permeability estimation method.
In this chapter, the methodology for deriving in-situ permeability from the Stoneley wave
of an acoustic log is described. The sensitivity of the Stoneley wave to the permeable
zone is briefly analyzed. Theoretical model and data processing methods are reviewed.
Permeability estimation results will also be presented.
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Biot-Rosenbaum model
Biot's model allows the analysis of seismic wave propagation in a fluid saturated
porous media (Biot 1952, 1955). The model assumes an isotropic two-phase medium
consisting of a solid elastic matrix permeated by interconnected pores saturated by a
compressible, viscous liquid. Rosenbaum (1974) used Biot's theory to model acoustic
logs in a fluid-filled borehole surrounded by a porous and permeable formation. Later
on_ other models and experiments were carried out based on this work.
2.1.2 Acoustic wavefields in a borehole
There are four seismic waves excited by a monopole source in a fluid-filled
borehole: two body waves and two guided waves. The two body waves are compressional
(P) and shear (S) waves. The seismic waves propagate as compressional waves in the
fluid, and refract along the borehole boundary as P and S waves at critical angles. They
are then refracted back into the fluid as a compressional wave. They are non-dispersive.
The two guided waves (Biot, 1952; Cheng and Toksoz, 1981) are the Stoneley wave and
pseudo-Reyleigh waves. The Pseudo-Rayleigh waves have phase velocity between the
formation shear velocity and the fluid velocity. Their amplitude decays exponentially in
the formation away from the borehole boundary and is oscillatory in the fluid. The
Stoneley wave has a phase velocity lower than the fluid velocity, and its amplitude
decays exponentially in both the fluid and formation away from the solid-fluid boundry.
These modes of propagation are illustrated in Fig. 2-1.
In hard (fast) formations, these four wavefields can be observed. In soft (slow)
formations, only the P wave and Stoneley (tube) wave can be seen. The hard (fast)
formation refers to the formation with shear wave velocity faster than the fluid velocity.
In such formations critical refraction is possible at the borehole wall. The soft (slow)
formation refers to the formation with shear velocity slower than the fluid velocity.
These differences are shown in Fig. 2-2.
2.2 Stoneley Waves
In this section, the Stoneley wave characteristics and sensitivities to permeability
are introduced.
2.2.1 Stoneley wave characteristics
Different waves are sensitive to different formation properties. A Stoneley wave
is especially sensitive to formation permeability. A Stoneley wave has a few important
characteristics. It is a surface wave or guided wave and is also referred to as a tube wave.
It travels along the surface between the borehole fluid and formation. Generally, it is the
slowest wave in the total acoustic wavefield. The Stoneley wave is most efficiently
excited at low frequencies (less than 3 kHz); its wave motion is axially symmetric.
2.2.2 Sensitivity of a Stoneley wave to permeability
When a Stoneley wave travels along the borehole, this axially symmetric pressure
pulse deforms the borehole wall. If the formation is hard, the deformation is small and the
velocity and frequency will not be significantly effected. When the Stoneley wave travels
through a permeable formation saturated by viscous fluid, however, velocity is reduced
relative to a non-permeable formation. The Stoneley wave energy not only deforms the
rock matrix, but also pushes the viscous fluid away from the borehole wall into the
formation. As a result, the Stoneley wave is slower in the permeable zone. Also, the
Stoneley wave is attenuated more in permeable zones than in impermeable zones. This
theoretical prediction was found to be in good agreement with field data (Williams et al.,
1984).
However, in real field data, there are several factors that contribute to Stoneley wave
velocity and attenuation. They are acquisition noise, borehole radius changes, formation
change, fluid and formation intrinsic attenuation, mudcake, and permeability. Getting the
permeability from field data affected by so many other factors is a big challenge. The
following section will briefly discuss the method for getting permeability from field data.
2.3 Permeability Estimation from the Field Data
Permeability can be estimated through the following steps in order to remove the
effects unrelated to permeability in field waveform data:
1)Wave separation to separate direct transmitted waves from reflected waves
caused by formation changes, acquisition noise, etc.;
2) Wave modeling to simulate elastic wave propagation effects in the transmitted
Stoneley wave data;
3) Synthetic and measured wave comparison;
4) Permeability estimation.
2.3.1 Wavefield separation
In order to obtain petrophysical rock properties from borehole Stoneley wave
data, it is necessary to separate the direct Stoneley wave from the reflected waves due to
the formation changes. The following description is based on the methods used by Baker
Atlas (formerly Western Atlas) (1997).
The logging tool is in the center of the borehole with transmitter at the bottom and
an array of receivers at the top. If there are fractures or bed boundaries located near the
top and bottom of the tool, the array of receivers will receive the direct transmitted
Stoneley wave first, then the reflected waves from the boundaries. The receivers, starting
at the farthest offset, will receive the reflected wave from the top bed boundary. This
wave is called a downgoing reflected wave. The receivers in increasing order starting at
the nearest offset will receive the reflected wave from the bottom boundary. This wave is
called an upgoing reflected wave. The moveouts of the waves in eight receivers and in a
common receiver plot are shown in Fig. 2-3 and Fig. 2-4.
Using the differences in wave moveouts, the array data are separated into upgoing
and downgoing waves. The waves are then shifted to the middle of the array and stacked
over the array at each logging depth. The result is depicted in Fig. 2-4.
Once the wavefields are separated, a cross-correlation between the direct
transmitted wave and downgoing reflection is performed to obtain the reflectivity. More
details of the wavefield separation can be obtained from Tang (1997).
2.3.2 Stoneley wave modeling
In the wave separation processing, effects such as acquisition noise and formation
change are suppressed. However, the wave data transmitted from the transmitter to
receiver still contains effects unrelated to permeability. These effects are mainly due to
two factors:
(1) Wave amplitude and time variation caused by borehole and formation
changes.
(2) Intrinsic attenuation in the borehole fluid and formation.
These effects must be removed from the data to isolate the permeability effect. An
elastic model with borehole changes and intrinsic attenuation was used in our model. For
this model, formation density, P and S wave slowness values, and borehole caliper are
needed as inputs. The synthetic wave response at any depth is convolved with a source
waveform to obtain the synthetic waveform. Irregular borehole and heterogeneous
formation effects were also included in this model (Gelinsky and Tang, 1997).
2.3.3 Synthetic and Measured Wave Comparison
Tang et al. (1991) showed that the total displacement of a Stoneley wave in a
porous and permeable formation could be separated into elastic deformation and fluid
flow effects. By comparing the measured Stoneley wave and the predicted Stoneley wave
in a non-porous elastic medium, we can separate the effects caused by formation
permeability. This comparison is based on two wave attributes:
*
Travel time delay;
" Centroid frequency shift.
We define the travel time, Tc, as:
x
x
T, =
t[W(t)] dt/ [W(t)] 2 dt
2
(2-1)
0
0
And the entroid frequency, fc, as:
x
x
f, = fA(f)df / A(f)df
(2-2)
0
0
Where t is Stoneley wave travel time at a particular logging depth, W(t) is the Stoneley
waveform, f is the frequency at a particular logging depth, A(f) is the amplitude spectrum
at the particular logging depth.
Applying the above two equations, the travel time delay and centroid frequency
shift can be indicated as following:
ATrm"d
-7
Af,"m"
- f''"
"Tsmsd
-
flfsd
(2 -3)
(2-4)
where msd refers to measured values, and syn refers to predicted synthetic values. These
two quantities can be used to give a good indication of formation permeability. For
example, if the travel time delay correlates with a centroid frequency shift, one can
almost be certain that this phenomenon is due to formation permeability effect.
Fig. 2-5 shows an example of permeability indication using travel time delay and
centroid frequency shift log curves. On the first track, the shaded area on the left is the
travel time delay (DELAY), the scale is set from 0-300 us from left to right. The right
shaded area is the display of centroid frequency shift (FREQSHFT). In order to highlight
correlations between these two curves, the scale for the centroid frequency shift is set
from right to left from 0-100Hz. The second track shows the measured transmitted
Stoneley wave (DWVTR). The third track shows the synthetic Stoneley wave
(DSTWVSYN) calculated from the elastic model. From the comparison of track 2 and 3,
we get the permeability indication on track 1.
The processing flow for estimating permeability from full waveform data
included several steps. The first step is to acquire borehole acoustic log data (monopole
and dipole data). Then, P wave velocities are obtained from monopole full waveform data
and S wave velocities are obtained from dipole data. After we separate the Stoneley
wavefield into transmitted and reflected wavefields, the P, S velocities, caliper, density
and some other parameters are used to build the Stoneley elastic model. Then, we
compare the modeled Stoneley waves and the measured Stoneley waves to obtain the
relative travel time lag and attenuation, which are then inverted for permeability values.
2.3.4 Reference depth selection
The selection of the reference depth is the key step to get an accurate permeability
estimate. The purposes of selecting the reference depth are: 1) to provide a source
waveform for the synthetic elastic model, and 2) to provide a permeability reference so
that permeability at other depths can be calculated relative to the reference depth.
Moreover, multiple reference permeabilities can also be used to calculate the pore fluid
parameters. The reference depth should be selected from a relatively homogeneous
interval with good caliper and good waveform coherency.
An example is shown in Fig. 2-6. Track 1 shows the Stoneley wave centroid
frequency (FCTR) and slowness (DTST), track 2 shows the raw and processed
reflectivity (REFLO), and reflector (REFL), Gamma Ray (GR), and caliper logs, track 3
shows the Stoneley wave slowness (DSTWV). As seen from this figure, in the interval
from 9200' to 9250', the centroid frequency has high values and the slowness has low
values compared to the depths below, the caliper is smooth, the reflectivity values are
very low, and the wave data has a high quality. The Gamma Ray analysis suggests that
the type of rock in this interval (shale) has very low permeability values. For these
reasons, any depth in this interval can be chosen as the reference depths and the reference
permeability is set to zero.
In order to carry on the discussion for the next chapter, pore fluid parameter
calibration should be mentioned here. Reference depths can also be used to determine
the pore fluid parameters: pore fluid viscosity, density and slowness. The pore fluid
parameters are difficult to know if multiple fluids are present and the degree of saturation
is unknown. In order to get these parameters, another reference depth from a more
permeable interval is needed along with its permeability value. Referring to Fig. 2-6, the
FCTR (centroid frequency) value at 9295' is substantially lower than those in the 9200' to
9250' interval where a reference has been chosen, and the slowness (DTST) is
substantially higher. The average permeability from the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance log
is 30md. So, a second reference depth is chosen here. The pore fluid parameters will be
estimated based on the two selected reference depths, and the parameters will be used to
estimate permeability curves for the entire processed interval.
2.4 Permeability Results from the Full Waveform Acoustic Log
Fig. 2-7 shows the final permeability estimates from full waveform acoustic log data
in a sand-shale sequence.
Track 1 shows the Gamma ray log and the quality control indicator (PERMQC) for
the permeability estimation. The PERMQC value is high when permeability value quality
is good and the theory to data misfit is low. Track 2 shows travel time delay (DELAY)
and frequency shift (FSHFT). The travel time delays are displayed from 0 to 300us from
left to right and the frequency shift is displayed from 0 to 100Hz from right to left.
Track 3 shows the permeability result derived from the Stoneley wave (STPERM), along
with the permeability estimated from the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance log
(NMRPERM). The two permeability curves agree quite well, showing the consistency of
both methods. The attenuation (ATT) and measured Stoneley wave data are displayed on
track 4. Track 5 shows the synthetic Stoneley wave (DSTWVSYN). The measured and
synthetic Stoneley reflected wave data (RWVRT, RSTWVSYN) are displayed in track 5,
6 and 7, respectively.
T
P-Lewky
T
-anoo.
31 Pes ft-R~gsg
P Wei*
T
Wewes
To"
We"
Fig. 2-1 Schematic diagram of the acoustic modes that propagate in a borehole.
T and R refer to transmitter and receiver position. (Burns, 1990)
F-
-ueS
PAST SAP0TOlM
Tun
V P
KLOW
-I
SATONE
6.71
TIME (ine)
Fig. 2-2 An example of full waveform.
acoustic log data from a "fast" and "slow" formation.(also referred to as "hard " and
"soft" formations). ( Williams et al. 1984)
ARRAY ACOUSTIC. DATA WITH REFLECTIONS
11.5
8.
1000
Downgomng reflected wave
6000
T IME (microseconds)
Fig. 2-3 Array wave separation configuration. (Baker Atlas, 1997)
COMMON REUIVERACOU1ICVAIA
Direct transmitted wave Upgoing reflected wave
X120
Wn
X100
TIME (microseconds)
Downgoing reflected wave
Fig. 2-4 Common receiver wave separation configuration. (Baker
Atlas, 1997)
FlIeview(I.73]: view(08]: * spring-new.pdft
Fig. 2-5 An example of permeability indication using travel time delay and centroid
Frequency shift between measured and synthetic data (Baker Atlas, 1997). (See text in
p.13 for definitions.)
r- .j
F1 lev ew[1.73]: v lewW-6
us
CAL
OTST
r-1
I -Dl I I I
4500
1500
( rw[1]
(kHz)(F1
0
e erence '
(impermeable)
J refrEFLT4A
referenc,-e22
(Perm = 3 md)
REFLO
j;C TR
I
Fig. 2-6
L~ I
vi
An example showing how to select the reference depths for permeability
analysis and processing (Baker Atlas, 1997). (See text in p.14 for definitions.)
RWVRT DSTWVSYN
Stoneley -Perm
5000
100 0
00!
md
us
()
RWVRT
5000 0
us
5000
us
RSTWVSYN
0
5000
us
Fig. 2-7 An example of permeability estimation from full waveform acoustic log (Baker
Atlas, 1997). (See text p.15 for defmitions.)
20
Chapter 3
A Comparison between Acoustic and
NMR Log Permeability Estimates
Petroleum well logging can be used to indicate the presence of gas or oil, the
formation lithology, or the physical properties of the formation. For example, the
difference between neutron porosity and formation density is a good indication of the
existence of gas. (This relationship will be explained in more detail below). Permeability
estimation from full waveform acoustic and nuclear magnetic resonance are two newly
developed applications. In this chapter, field data from a sandstone-shale sequence is
used to compare the permeability estimates from these two methods. The permeability
results from the two different methods are well correlated to each other. The permeability
comparison in a field data application has not been published previously.
3.1 Real Data Permeability Estimation Example
3.1.1 Stoneley wavefield separation results
Fig. 3-1 and 3-2 are the results from wavefield separation of the acoustic logging
data. The first track shows the Gamma Ray and slowness of the transmitted Stoneley
wave. The gamma Ray (on the left) is the direct measurement of radioactivity emitted by
elements in the formation. Feldspars and micas have a large share of K4O and sometimes
U-Ra and Th. Feldspars and micas decompose at a relatively rapid rate into the clay
minerals. Clay minerals have an open lattice structure (i.e. weak bonding) that
encourages inclusion of radioactive elements in their make up. Clay minerals are the
principle components of shale. So the high Gamma Ray value is an indication of the
existence of shales. Potassium often constitutes 0.3% of ordinary clays, U-Ra or Th could
be as much as 0.03%.
The second curve of track 1 is the slowness of the Stoneley wave. In a permeable
zone, the slowness values get higher. Track two shows the reflectivity and reflector, also
the centroid frequency of Stoneley wave is shown in the same track. The third track
shows lag and downgoing wave reflections. Track four shows upgoing wave reflections.
Track five shows the caliper log and transmitted Stoneley wave (which will be used in
the elastic model to compare with the modeled transmitted Stoneley wave to get the
travel time delay and centroid frequency shift). In Fig. 3-1, the caliper values may
indicate an irregular borehole for the interval X735-X760, which causes the permeability
estimated from this interval to be unreliable. In Fig. 3-2, from depth X026-X042, Gamma
ray shows high values indicating a shale zone. From X042-X063, the low Gamma Ray
values indicates a sandstone zone. This data shows a typical shale-sandstone sequence,
where Stoneley wave slowness values are relatively lower in the shale than in the
sandstone. The centroid frequency is just the opposite. These two measured curves will
be compared to the elastic model travel time and centroid frequency to get travel time
delay and centroid frequency shift (equations 2-3, 2-4). Travel time delay and centroid
frequency shift will be used to estimate permeability.
3.1.2 Permeability results
Fig. 3-3a-g shows the permeability results of this field data from the same well.
The first track shows the gamma ray and shear wave slowness. Shear wave slowness will
be used to build the elastic model. If shear wave data is not good quality, it will affect the
modeled Stoneley and yield unreliable permeability. Track two shows a travel time delay
(left) and centroid frequency shift (right). For the whole well, the correspondence is
shown between the travel time delay and centroid frequency shift. These two figures are
the permeability effects. Most of the work on Stoneley wave permeability estimation is to
obtain these two parameters. The good correspondence between these two curves
indicates good data quality and success of the processing. The scale for centroid
frequency shift starts from right to left.
Track three is the permeability results from acoustic and Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance Logs. Track four is the measured transmitted Stoneley wave, and track five is
the modeled transmitted Stoneley wave without permeability effects. Travel time delay
and center frequency shift (track two) are calculated from the comparison of these two
tracks. Track six shows the measured reflection, reflectivity and reflectors. Track seven
shows the modeled reflection, reflectivity and the caliper.
The NMR permeability estimate is based on the model shown in equation 3-3.
More detail about NMR permeability estimates can be found in Sklar (1997).
From the results in Fig. 3-3a-g, over 570 meters, it is remarkable to see that the
permeability calculated from two different methods (Stoneley wave and NMR) correlate
very well. Fig. 3-4 shows a cross-plot of the permeability estimates from NMR log versus
Stoneley wave log over 130 meters from X060-X190. This interval has good quality
permeability without any other reasons such as gas zone to cause the permeability
difference. Although the scatter is significant at very low permeability values (< 0.1 md),
most of the values distributed around the diagonal, indicating the good correlation
between the two results.
However, there are still some differences between the two permeability curves. In
Fig. 3-3a, from interval X740-X758m, the Stoneley-perm is higher than NMR-perm. This
difference is due to the bad caliper shown on track seven. Bad caliper values will cause
unreliable permeability estimation from the Stoneley wave. Another zone (Fig. 3-3e)
shows a consistent difference between the Stoneley and NMR permeability estimates.
This zone will be discussed in detail in the next section.
3.2 Gas zone effect
3.2.1 Gas zone effect on permeability estimation from Stoneley wave
The good correlation of permeability results from the two different methods
suggests that the estimated values are reliable. However, in this thesis, the demonstration
of good correlation is not the only purpose. The differences between the two methods are
also studied. The gas zone effect is one of the factors that can cause a difference between
Stoneley and NMR permeability estimates.
First, the gas zone effect on the acoustic permeability estimation is discussed. In
permeability estimation from Stoneley wave processing, the key step is the selection of a
reference depth and reference permeability. From the given permeability values,
formation fluid properties are calculated, then the Stoneley wave permeability is
calibrated.
In order to explain the permeability difference in Fig. 3-3e. The fluid parameter
calibration should be mentioned first. By performing a sensitivity analysis of the
modeling parameters, it was found that Stoneley wave time delay and frequency shift are
primarily controlled not only by formation permeability and borehole radius, but also by
the following parameters: UB 1/2, where U is the pore fluid viscosity, and B is the pore
fluid viscosity, and B is the pore fluid bulk modulus or incompressibility. Therefore the
formation pore fluid viscosity, density and acoustic speed are required to obtain the
absolute permeability value. These parameters, however, may be difficult to obtain if
multiple fluids exist and the degree of fluid saturation is unknown. As discussed above,
the calibration process includes selecting a few depth intervals whose permeability values
have been well estimated from other measures (such as core, formation testing, NMR,
etc.). By choosing one of these depths as a reference depth, synthetic wave data can be
computed for the remaining depths. Then, by comparing the synthetic data with the
measured data, we can estimate the fluid parameter combination by minimizing a misfit
function. In the minimization, the given permeability values at the calibration depth are
used as a known value. Only the pore fluid parameter combination is changed as the
fitting parameter. The value of this parameter, which minimizes the misfit function, is
taken as the desired fluid parameter for the entire zone.
However, is this "desired" fluid parameter combination calculated from, at most,
five reference depths enough to estimate permeability for a depth interval of hundreds or
thousands of meters? What happens if we miss selecting a reference depth from a gas
zone while we only use fluid parameters calculated from non-gas zone?
Generally, the value of the fluid parameter combination is larger than that of gas.
The result is that in a gas zone, the use of fluid parameter combinations whose value is
too high will yield a permeability estimate that is too high.
3.2.2 Gas zone effect on permeability estimation from NMR
Now we discuss the gas effect on NMR measurements. The phenomenon causing
reduced NMR permeability and porosity in gas reservoirs, the so-called "gas effect", is a
topic of great interest in the petrophysical community.
The main reason for the gas effect in NMR measurements is the different
relaxation mechanisms between the gas and fluids (brine, oil). Kleinberg and Vinegar
(1996) describe the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance relaxation mechanisms in detail.
The
transverse relaxation time T2 of gas is mainly affected by diffusion (T2D), in addition to
y =-r
T'2
T2D
T2 B
-+ T IS +
T3D2
2
;-(3-1)
T2 D
(-2)
2
r G DT(
bulk (T2B) and surface relaxation (T2s), resulting in
where r is the gyromagnetic ratio of hydrogen, G is the magnetic field gradient, D is the
diffusion coefficient, and Tcp is half the inter-echo time. Because gas is in the short
correlation time regime, T1=T1B=T2B. Surface relaxation is also negligible in Equation
(3-1) because gas is always a non-wetting phase. Depending on D, G and Tcp, the T2 of
the gas phase may be so short that all or some of the signal from gas may appear in the
MBVI window and result in excessively high MBVI values and an estimated porosity
value that is too low. (MBVI is the bulk volume irreducible, which is a measure of the
capillary-bound fluid volume.) The coupled effect of reduced porosity estimates resulting
from gas and shortened T2D resulting from diffusion in a gradient may also produce
incorrect permeability estimates derived from relations employing NMR logs.
There are two frequently used permeability models. The first is based on the free
fluid index (MFFI), where
K
= c'
,(M)
2
(3.-3)
And the second is based on the logarithmic mean T2L (Morriss et al. 1993), where
K
= c'pmrT2
(3-4)
Both c and c' in equation (3-3) and (3-4) are scaling constants. Although some variations
of these formulas exist, the general forms of these relations are as shown above.
Permeability estimates may be very low when equation (3-3) is used in gasbearing zones with a gradient-based logging tool. Total NMR porosity will be too low
because of the gas effect. MBVI, on the other hand, will be too high, and MFFI will be
too low, which will result in very low permeability estimation.
Equation (3-4) will also give erroneous results if used in gas-bearing zone. In this
case, the porosity will be too low and the T2L will be smaller than the true T2L because of
diffusion, which will yield low estimates of permeability (Akkurt et al. 1996).
3.3 FDC-CNL gas zone indication
From the above analysis, when the formation contains gas, permeability estimated
from the Stoneley wave will be too high, while permeability estimated from NMR will be
too low. This difference could be used as an indication of a gas zone. In order to test this
assumption, we now look at radioactive log measurement shown in Fig. 3-5.
The principle of the density log is introduced in this paragraph. A radioactive
source, applied to the borehole wall in a shielded side wall skid, emits medium-energy
gamma rays into the formations. These gamma rays collide with the electrons in the
formation. In each collision a gamma ray loses some, but not all, of its energy to the
electron and then continues with diminished energy. This type of interaction is known as
Compton scattering. The scattered gamma rays reaching the detector, at a fixed distance
from the source, are counted as an indication of formation density.
The number of Compton scattering collisions is related directly to the number of
electrons in the formation. Consequently, the response of the density tool is determined
essentially by the electron density (number of electrons per cubic centimeter) of the
formation. Electron density is related to the true bulk density, which, in turn, depends on
the density of the rock matrix material, the formation porosity, and the density of the
fluids filling the pores. An FDC, compensated formation density tool, is the primary
density log tool.
Neutron logs are used principally for delineation of a porous formation and
determination of its porosity. They respond primarily to the amount of hydrogen in the
formation. In clean formations whose pores are filled with water or oil, the neutron log
reflects the amount of liquid filled porosity. The neutrons are electrically neutral
particles, each having a mass almost identical to the mass of a hydrogen atom. Highenergy neutrons are continuously emitted from a radioactive source in the sonde. These
neutrons collide with nuclei of the formation. With each collision, the neutron loses some
of its energy. The amount of energy lost per collision depends on the relative mass of the
nucleus with which the neutron collides. Greater energy loss occurs when the neutron
strikes a nucleus of practically equal mass, i.e., a hydrogen nucleus. Collisions with
heavy nuclei do not slow the neutron very much. Thus, the slowing of neutrons depends
largely on the amount of hydrogen in the formation. Within a few microseconds the
neutrons have been slowed by successive collisions to thermal velocities, corresponding
to energies of around 0.025eV. They then diffuse randomly, without losing more energy,
until they are captured by the nuclei of atoms such as chlorine, hydrogen. The capturing
nucleus becomes intensely excited and emits a high-energy gamma ray of capture.
Depending on the type of neutron tool, either these capture gamma rays or the neutrons
themselves are counted by a detector in the sonde.
When the hydrogen concentration of the material surrounding the neutron source
is large, most of the neutrons are slowed and captured within a short distance of the
source. On the contrary, if the hydrogen concentration is small, the neutrons travel farther
from the source before being captured. The primary tool of a neutron log is a CNL,
compensated neutron log tool.
The Density and Neutron logging provide a good indication of gas zones. If gas is
present, the neutron porosity log (CNL) will show a decrease in porosity due to gas
having a lower concentration of hydrogen than water or oil. The formation density (FDC)
also measures a lower value (reduced density) in gas zones. If we plot these logs with
scales in opposite directions, the separation between the two values is a good indication
of gas.
Fig. 3-5 shows the FDC-CNL separation for the interval from X040---X060m, the
interval where the difference was observed between Stoneley and NMR permeability
estimates. The FDC-CNL separation indicates the presence of gas in the sandstone
interval. This is consistant with the permeability estimates. Based on this analysis, we
conclude that the disagreement between Stoneley and NMR permeability estimates in this
interval is due to the presence of gas.
ICustom Pt)f S-
Fig. 3-1 Wave separation results from X730-X770 m with bad
caliper. First track shows the GR (black) and transmitted Stoneley
slowness (blue), track two shows Raw Reflectivity (black),
Processed Reflectivity (red) and Stoneley Centroid Frequency
(pink), track three shows the Lag and Downgoing Reflection, track
four shows Upgoing Reflection, track five shows the Caliper and
Transmitted Stoneley wave.
Custom PD
5:
Fig.3-2 Wave separation results in a typical shale-sand sequence
from X010-X090m. In the sand formation, the Stoneley slowness
values (blue) get higher than shale formation. Centroid frequency
values are the opposite.
lCustom PDFs:
0 At1enuotip2
1us)(FI].
GR
0200
(md)(F 1]
NNR-Perv
0
0.W00 1
100
(APIF
I]
Fig. 3-3a
(1/0)(FI
II
(rou)(F1 i
(row)(F ]
Caliper
25
0
Q. 5 5
(in)[F
I
]
{raw)(F1)
Permeability results from X750-X780m with bad
caliper. First track shows GR (black), Shear wave slowness (red),
track two shows Centroid frequency shift (blue) and Travel time
delay (red). Track three shows the permeability estimated from
Stoneley wave (red) and permeability estimated from NMR (blue).
Track four shows the atteuation and measured Stoneley wave.
Track five shows the modeled Stoneley wave. Track six shows the
Reflectivity and Measured Reflection. Track seven shows the
caliper and Modeled Reflection.
Ii;
4~.
Custom PDFs:
Fig. 3-3b Permeability results from interval X780-X860m. A shale
formation is indicated by GR, the permeability values in this shale
formation are low.
DFS:
Fig.3-3c Permeability results from X860-X940m. Good correlation
is observed from this interval.
Fi.e ede
e d eebilt
me
reslP
Hx
ne
Custom PDFs:
nuRI*4
tw
sie
s:aftt
i
gel
Fig. 3-3d
ONl
I
l
Permeability results from X960-X030.
-Data
MOE
Custom PDFs:
Fig.3-3e - Permeability
results
from
Permeability difference is observed.
interval
X030-XO70m.
Icustom PDFS:
-tim-i
Fig.3-3f
1
HI
tiiiuiiI
M.. ui'
i
W
Permeability results from interval X070-X150. It is one
of the continuous intervals in a whole well profile.
Customn
PDFI
Ors
0250
I
4l. i
0 3
us.)[Fl]
GR
0200
1J.
1 5O
Stoneley-Perm
0.0001
1000
(mnd)[F I]
il
NMR-Per i
0o.000
(md)(F I )
Hz)[F1] I
1000
At1enuation
0
0.2
(1/Q)[FI]
0
gof R6M
0.2
(rov)[Fi]
Relecvi
(ra w)(f 1)]
ilv
II lil=ll.
Ill
Fig. 3-3g
""
al]||1|1
Permeability results from X140-X180 m (bottom part
of the whole well).
0
Moaii Rr
0.2
(row)[Fi]
5
Caliper
25
(in)(F ]
Fig. 3-4 NMR Permeability vs Stoneley Permeability.
100.00
0
0
~e*
10.00.0
.0
4
W30 e
*
@00
1.00
*
*.
O*
0
n' 0.10
e
*
ee
z
0.01
0
0
0.001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Stoneley Permeability (md)
10
100
Custo
PnD~s:
Fig. 3-5
FDC-CNL gas zone indication (track four).
Chapter 4
Summary and Conclusions
This thesis has described much of the basic theory and methods on permeability
estimation from Stoneley waves and also provided permeability comparisons and
interpretations between acoustic and NMR logs in a shale-sand sequence. Acoustic and
NMR logging are the two most advanced technologies for permeability estimation.
However, NMR logging is much more expensive than full waveform acoustic logging. If
acoustic permeability estimation could replace NMR in permeability estimation, it could
greatly reduce the logging cost.
When Stoneley waves travel along a permeable formation, it is attenuated and the
velocity of the wave is slower. These two responses are used to estimate permeability.
However, there are other factors that also contribute to Stoneley wave attenuation and
slowness variations, such as borehole radius changes, lithology changes and pore fluid
variations. In order to isolate permeability effects, an elastic model that includes most of
these parameters (except permeability) is used to compare with the measured Stoneley
data (Tang, et al., 1991). The centroid frequency shift and travel time delay caused by
permeability is obtained from the comparison. Then, by choosing a few reference depths,
the data are inverted for permeability (Tang, et al., 1996).
Logging data from a shale-sand sequence was used to compare the permeability
estimations from acoustic and NMR log. The raw acoustic data was processed and
interpreted in this thesis and compared to existing NMR permeability estimates. The
permeability results from NMR and full waveform acoustic wave logs, two totally
different geophysical measurements, correlate very well. A gas zone effect on
permeability estimation from Stoneley waves and NMR was also analyzed. The presence
of gas causes permeability values estimated from Stoneley wave data to be too high, and
permeability values estimated from NMR data to be too low. The difference between
these two curves can be used as a gas zone indicator.
For Stoneley wave permeability estimates, there are still some limitations. For
example, each logging depth permeability value is an average over four feet due to the
limitation of the field data acquisition system. Another limitation in Stoneley wave
permeability estimate is that the permeability value in a fracture zone is not very
accurate. Fracture permeability estimation is also a challenge for NMR logs. NMR
permeability estimate is based on equation 3-3, which is too simple for many geological
environments. A more complete new model is needed in the future.
Future research should also include acoustic-NMR permeability comparisons for
other environments, such as fracture zones, carbonates, and vuggy formations. Stoneley
and NMR logging methods can provide continuous in-situ estimates of permeability,
although both methods need calibration in order to get accurate absolute estimates.
Detailed analysis of data from a range of lithologies and permeability values is needed to
gain a full understanding of the limitations of each method. This thesis is a first step in
this process.
References
Akkurt, R., Vinegar, H. J., Tutunjian, P. N., Guillory, and A. J., 1996, "NMR logging of
natural gas reservoirs," The Log Analyst, Vol. 37, No. 6, P. 33-42.
Baker Atlas, 1997, "eXpress acoustic training material".
Brown, R. J. S. and Fatt, I., 1956, "Measurement of fractional wettability of oil fields'
rocks by the nuclear magnetic relaxation method," SPE 743-G; Society of Petroleum
Engineers,Richardson, Texas.
Biot, M., 1952, "Propagation of elastic waves in a cylindrical bore containing a fluid," J.
Appl. Phys., Vol. 23, P. 997-1005.
Biot, M., 1955, "Theory of propagation of elastic waves in a fluid-saturated porous
solid," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 28, P. 168-191.
Bums, D. R., and Cheng, C., 1986, "Determination of in-situ permeability from tube
wave velocity and attenuation," Tran. SPWLA the Twenty-seventh Ann. Logging Symp.,
Paper LL.
Burns, D. R., 1986, "Formation Property estimation from guided waves in a borehole,"
Ph.D. Thesis, MIT
Burns, D. R., 1990, "Acoustic waveform logs and the in-situ measurement of
permeability --- a review," Geophysical Applicationfor Geotechnical Investigation, P.
65-78.
Carr, H. Y., and Purcell, E. M., 1954, "Effects of Diffusion on free precession in nuclear
magnetic resonance experiments," Physical Review, Vol. 94, P. 630-638.
Cheng, C., and Toks6z, M. N., 1980, "Modeling of full wave acoustic logs," Paper
presented in the Twenty-first Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Cheng, C., and Toks6z, M. N., 1981, "Elastic wave propagation in a fluid-filled borehole
and synthetic acoustic logs," Geophysics, Vol. 46, P. 1042-1053.
Cheng, C., and Toks6z, M. N., and Willis, M.E., 1981, "Velocity and attenuation from
full waveform acoustic logs," Paper presented at the Twenty-second Annual Logging
Symposium, SPWLA.
Cheng, C., and Toks6z, M. N., 1982, "Generation, propagation and analysis of tube
waves in a borehole," Paper presented in the Twenty-third Annual Logging Symposium,
SPWLA.
Cheng, C., Wilkens, R. H., and Meredith, J. A., 1986, "Modeling of full waveform
acoustic logs in soft marine sediments," Paper LL presented in the Twenty-seventh
Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Chang, D., Vinegar, H., Morriss, C., and Straly, C., 1994, "Effective porosity, producible
fluid and permeability in carbonates from NMR logging," Paper A presented in the
Thirty-fifth Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Flaum, C., Kleinberg, R. L., and H rliman, M. D., 1996, "Identification of gas with the
combinable magnetic resonance tool (CMR*)," Paper L presented in the Thirty-seventh
Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Fukushima, E., and Roeder, S. B. W., 1981, "Experimental Pulse NMR," Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Press.
Gelinsky, S., and Tang, X. M., 1997, "Modeling of Stoneley waves in a heterogeneous
formation with an irregular borehole," Paper presented in The Fifty-ninth EAEG
conference, Geneva, Switzerland.
Hook, J. R., Basan, P. B., and Lowden, B. D., 1996, "The MRIL log in a low porosity and
permeability formation," Paper A presented in the Thirty-seventh Annual Logging
Symposium, SPWLA.
Hsui, A. T., Zhang, J., Cheng, C., and Toks6z, M. N., 1985, "Tube wave attenuation and
in-situ permeability," Paper CC presented in
the Twenty-sixth Annual Logging
Symposium Transaction,SPWLA.
Hornby, B. E., and Chang, S. K., 1985, "A case study of shale and sandstone alternation
using a digital sonic tool," Paper H presented in the Twenty-sixth Annual Logging
Symposium, SPWLA.
Kimball, C. V., and Marzetta, T. L., 1984, "Semblance processing of borehole acoustic
array data," Geophysics, Vol. 49 No. 3, P. 274-281.
Kleinberg, R. L., and Vinegar, H. J., 1996, "NMR Properties of Reservoir Fluids", The
Log Analyst, Vol. 37, No. 6, P. 20-32.
Morriss, C. E., Freedman, R., Straley, C., Johnston, M., Vinegar, H. J., and Tutunjian, P.
N., 1994, "Hydrocarbon saturation and viscosity estimation from NMR logging in the
Belridge Diatomite," Paper C presented in the Thirty-fifth Annual Logging Symposium,
SPWLA.
Morriss, C.E., Macinnis, J., Freedman, R., Smaardyk, J., Straley, C., Kenyon, W. E.,
Vinegar, H. J., and Tutunjian, P. N., 1993, "Field test of an experimental pulsed nuclear
magnetism tool," Paper GGG presented in the Thirty-fourth Annual Logging Symposium,
SPWLA.
Norris, A. N, 1989, "Stoneley wave attenuation and dispersion in permeable formation,"
Geophysics, Vol. 54, No. 3, P. 330-341.
Paillet, F. L., and White, J. E., 1982, "Acoustic modes of propagation in the borehole and
their relationship to rock properties", Geophysics, Vol. 47. No. 8, P. 1215 - 1228.
Paillet, F. L., 1980, "Acoustic propagation in the vicinity of fractures which intersect a
fluid-filled borehole," Paper DD presented in the Twenty-first Annual Logging
Symposium, SPWLA.
Rosenbaum, J. H., 1974, "Synthetic microsesmograms: logging in porous formations,
Geophysics, Vol. 39, 14-32.
Seevers, D. 0., 1966, "A nuclear magnetic method for determining the permeability of
sandstone," Paper L presented in Annual Logging Symposium Transaction:SPWLA.
Sklar, H. F., 1997, "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Logging," Master Thesis, MIT.
Tang, X. M., Cheng, C., and Toks6z M. N., 1991, "Dynamic permeability and borehole
Stoneley waves: A simplified Biot-Rosenbaum Model," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., Vol. 90, No.
3, P. 1632-1644.
Tang, X. M., and Cheng, C. H., 1993a, "Boreholes Stoneley wave propagation across
permeable structures," Geophysics Prospecting,Vol. 41, P. 165-187.
Tang, X. M., and Cheng, C. H., 1993b, "Effects of a logging tool on the Stoneley waves
in elastic and porous boreholes," The Log Analyst, Vol. 34, No. 5, P. 46-56.
Tang, X. M., Cheng C., 1996, "Fast inversion of formation permeability from Stoneley
wave log using a simplified Biot-Rosenbaum model," Geophysics, Vol. 61, No. 3, P.639645.
Tang, X. M., 1997, "Predictive processing of array acoustic waveform data," Geophysics,
Vol. 62, No. 6, P. 1710-1714.
Tezuka, K., Cheng, C. H., and Tang, X. M., 1994, "Modeling of low-frequency Stoneley
wave propagation in an irregular borehole," Expand Abstracts, Sixty-fourth SEG annual
Mtg., Los Angeles, CA, 24-27.
Tsang, L., and Rader, D., 1979, "Numerical evaluation of the transient acoustic waveform
due to a point source in a fluid-filled borehole," Geophysics, Vol. 44, No. 10, P. 17061720.
Timur, A., 1969, "Pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance studies of porosity, moveable fluid,
and permeability of sandstones," JournalofPetroleum Technology, Vol. 21, P. 775-786.
Schmitt, D. P., and Bouchon, M., 1985, "Full-wave acoustic logging: synthetic
microseismograms and frequency-wavenumber analysis," Geophysics, Vol. 50, No.11,
P.1756-1778.
Vinegar, H. J., Tutunjian, P. N., Crabtree, P. T., Raffald, F. J., DiFoggio, R., and
Edelstein, W. A., 1989, "NMR spectroscopy of tight, gypsum-bearing carbonates," Paper
HH presented in the ThirtiethAnnual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Williams, D. M., Zemanek, J., Angona, F. A., Dennis, C. L, and Caldwell, R. L., 1984,
"The long spaced acoustic logging tool," Paper T presented in Twenty-fifth Annual
Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Willen, D. E., 1986, "Travel time stacking of full waveform sonic data," Paper C
presented in the Twenty-seventh Annual Logging Symposium, SPWLA.
Winkler, K. W., Liu, H. L., Johnson, D. L., 1989, "Permeability and Borehole Stoneley
Waves: Comparison Between Experiment and Theory," Geophysics, Vol. 52, P. 66-75.
Zhao, X., 1994, "Effects of heterogeneities on fluid flow and borehole permeability
measurements, "Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.