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
This paper demonstrates that high-quality LWD
acoustic data can be obtained over intervals where
wireline data may be unreliable. Early-time data
acquisition and special tool technology contributed to
this LWD capability. In some instances, the high
quality of the LWD data has resulted in improved time-
to-depth correlations.
The paper analyzes data from LWD and wireline
acoustic tool runs in a Gulf of Mexico well drilled with
oil-based mud. Consistent differences between data
from the two tools suggest pronounced shale alteration
may have occurred between LWD and wireline runs. In
zones where the borehole was washed-out above 14
inches, sonic data quality decreased for both wireline
and LWD tools. In good hole conditions, the
systematic differences observed between LWD and
wireline in sandstones may be explained by different
pore fluids (resulting from invasion) at the various
times of logging.
The LWD acoustic tool used on the well employed
dense sampling and downhole semblance processing.
These features allowed lower-quality waveform data to
be discarded and only higher-quality waveform data to
be stored in tool memory for supplementary uphole
processing. Because only higher-quality data were used
downhole to determine ∆t values, higher confidence
could be placed in the ∆t values transmitted uphole
while logging. As an added benefit, the efficient use of
memory via selective storage of data permitted longer
intervals to be logged before tripping was needed to
retrieve memory data.
INTRODUCTION
The basic design of an acoustic logging-while-drilling
(LWD) tool has been described in previous papers
1
(Minear et al, 1995, 1996; Heysse et al, 1996). Since its
introduction in 1995, the tool has been distributed to a
large number of locations world wide and experience
has been gathered in quite a number of areas and
environments. Traditional applications of acoustic logs
include the generation of synthetic seismograms for
seismic time-to-depth correlation (Boonen et al. 1997),
pore pressure prediction while drilling and acoustic
porosity computation. While the tool was originally
described as a compressional wave slowness LWD tool,
we have been able to record shear slowness (∆ts) in
formations where ∆ts is faster than the borehole fluid.
The availability of a shear slowness opens applications
such as rock mechanical analysis for hydraulic
fracturing design, borehole stability and sanding
potential prediction.
In this paper we want to expand on the proposition that
the acoustic LWD tool is a valid replacement for
wireline acoustic logs for a series of applications and
environments. A comparison between the
compressional slownesses from an acoustic LWD and a
full waveform wireline log from a North Sea chalk
formation was shown by Heysse et al. 1996. The two
data sets are virtually identical. Similar data from
onshore Texas well (Figures 3 and 4 in Minear et al.
1996) show the effects of borehole washout and
borehole rugosity on both type of logs. The data
presented in this paper show a comparison between
LWD and wireline sonic logs in an offshore well in the
Gulf of Mexico. Here there are definite differences
between the travel times measured by the two tool types
that have a major impact on the interpretation of the
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
Miocene deltaic sands that had been previously
penetrated within the same major fault block. Nearby
wells had established that the section to be drilled was a
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998
normally pressured sand/shale sequence. Sands of
interest were thick-bedded and correlate well across the
area. The wellpath was designed as an S-curve with a
maximum hole angle of 47 degrees.
The wellpath was designed to penetrate 3D seismic
amplitude anomalies separated from previous wells by
a small fault. Similar seismic anomalies were
associated with pay in previous wells. High-quality
sonic data was desired to make synthetic seismic traces
from the log data. Both LWD sonic and wireline sonic
logs were run to compare responses and gain
confidence in the accuracy of LWD sonic logs for
future high-angle well work.
The section of this well used in the wireline/LWD sonic
comparisons was drilled with a 12 1/4-in. bit, and
covers the interval from 8700 ft MD to 11140 ft MD.
The well was initially drilled from 6974 ft MD to 9055
ft MD with a 9.7 lb/gal water-based fluid, but before the
LWD sonic tool was put in the hole the mud system
TM
was swapped over to NOVADRIL *. Therefore, sands
and shales in the interval from 8700 ft MD to 9055 ft
MD were exposed to the water-based mud before any
logging. This interval logged with a Measurement-
After-Drilling pass when the oil-based drilling
commenced (Table 1). Over the next six days, the well
was logged and deepened to 11225 ft MD where the
LWD sonic tool was taken out of the toolstring. During
this drilling, mud weight was raised from 10.5 lb/gal to
11.2 lb/gal. The well was subsequently drilled to 13030
ft MD. Wireline logging was performed seven days
after the last of LWD logging with a mud weight of
12.1 lb/gal.
Time Lapse Logging Our data set in the Gulf of
Mexico presents a case of time-lapse acoustic logging
using LWD and wireline tools. Three sonic data sets are
available. The slowness from the LWD tool is a
semblance-processed ∆t across a four-receiver array.
Details of the LWD compensated long-spaced sonic log
and the data acquisition and processing are presented in
Appendix 1. The full waveform wireline acoustic tool
provides a real-time slowness computed using a first-
motion threshold/zero-crossing technique and a post-
logging semblance-processed compressional slowness
(Minear and Fletcher, 1983; Minear, 1986). The LWD
tool and the wireline tool operate with similar source
frequencies (Minear et al. 1995).
To study the effect of time-lapse on the acoustic
logging response in relation to lithology and fluid
content, we have separated the log in 39 short interval
representing shales, oil sands, gas sands, wet sands,
* Trade mark of M-I Drilling Fluids
2
shaly wet sands and washed-out borehole sections.
Figures 1, 2 and 3 show such sections of representative
lithologies. Track 1 shows the wireline gamma ray and
caliper, Track 2 the wireline resistivity, Track 3 the
wireline density/neutron logs and Track 4 an overlay of
the acoustic slowness from the LWD and the wireline
logs.
Both LWD and wireline data show much poorer quality
data when hole size is greater than 14 in. LWD
repeatability decreases between the travel-times as
recorded by the upper and lower transmitters. The
wireline first-motion slowness curve has much cycle
skipping/stretching, and the wireline semblance
slowness curve shows lower peak semblance numbers.
An example of this poor quality data is shown in Figure
1. The zone from 8700 ft MD to 9055 ft MD was
already washed-out at the time of recording LWD sonic
data, three days after drilling. Note the poor
repeatability between LWD and wireline in this
interval.
Comparing the acoustic log response from the LWD
and the wireline tools are three crossplots of LWD
versus wireline slowness (Figures 4, 5, and 6).
Discriminator parameters for these crossplots are the
wireline caliper reading and the volume of shale,
separating washed-out boreholes in shale (caliper > 14-
in, Vsh > .6), wet and hydrocarbon-bearing sandstones
(caliper < 14-in., Vsh < .1) and shales (caliper < 14-in.,
Vsh > .6).
Systematic differences exist between LWD and the
wireline data. In all cases, the semblance wireline data
are slower than the LWD data. In clean sands and good
hole conditions, the differences are small (2 to 3
microseconds/ft, Figure 3 and Figure 4). At travel-times
in the 100-110 microsecond/ft range, the percentage of
difference equals 2 to 3 %. In shales with good hole,
the differences are significantly greater (4 to 7
microseconds/ft, Figure 5 and Figure 6). This represents
a 4 to 6 % difference. Since initial comparisons
between LWD and wireline sonic data often use field
threshold/zero crossing wireline data, Figures 7, 8, and
9 were constructed. The differences are larger when
comparing the LWD and the threshold/zero-crossing
wireline data than using the semblance-processed
wireline data. The crossplots in Figures 7, 8, and 9
compare the slowness from the threshold/zero-crossing
wireline acoustic log with the semblance-processed
wireline data. There is a slight shift toward slower
measurements with threshold/zero-crossing wireline
data, and consequently larger differences with the LWD
data.

Figure 10 shows the crossplot of LWD versus
threshold/zero-crossing wireline slowness for the 39
intervals selected earlier to be representative of zones
identified as bad hole, gas sand, oil sand, wet sand,
shaly sand and shale. The shale sections show a
consistent shift of about 7 microseconds per foot. The
four shaly sand sections exhibit a 4 to 5 microseconds
shift. The wet sands tend to get closer to the equality
line, but the hydrocarbon bearing sands don’t seem to
exhibit a consistent correlation. Figure 11 shows the
same crossplot for the semblance correlated wireline
data. It shows as mentioned previously, that the
semblance-processed data are much more consistent
with the LWD data. Shales and shaly sands are closer
to the equality line and the hydrocarbon bearing sands
show less scatter.
Blakeman (1982) and Hornby and Chang (1985) have
addressed time-lapse acoustic wireline logs. They show
that the acoustic slowness in the shales increases with
alteration over a certain period of time. Our data seem
to be consistent with this observation. Before
concluding, however, that the greater difference
between LWD and wireline travel times in shales is due
to alterations of the shales by drilling fluids, we would
like to study a data set with LWD density and sonic and
wireline density and sonic.
The LWD and wireline data in the clean sands correlate
fairly well (Figure 4), but as mentioned above, the
wireline travel-times are consistently slower than the
LWD travel-times. An explanation of why the wireline
velocities are slower than those computed from the
LWD data could be related to invasion effects.
Invasion profiles within the formation and their effect
on the log responses over the time frames when each
data set was acquired cannot be easily quantified;
however, approximations of the effects of invasion can
be made by modeling the effects of fluid substitutions
on sonic travel-times. The Gassmann equation is
commonly used to predict the changes in sonic travel-
times by substituting one pore fluid for another ( e.g.
start with a log run in a clean, high-salinity wet sand,
then substitute a fresh mud filtrate to predict the effect
of drilling invasion on travel-times ).
Vp 2 ρb = K + (4 / 3)G
(1 − K A / K M ) 2
K=
ϕ 1 − ϕ KA
+ −
Kf KM KM 2
where
Vp = Compressional wave velocity
3
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998
ρb = Bulk density
K = Bulk Modulus
G = Shear Modulus
KA = Bulk modulus of dry rock (frame)
KM = Bulk modulus of matrix (solid)
φ = Porosity
Kf = Bulk modulus of pore fluid
In clean wet sands, the increased slowness of the
wireline sonic data may be due to greater invasion of a
drilling filtrate which has a lower Kf than the high-
salinity formation water. In this well, clean wet sands
have a porosity near 33%, bulk density near 2.11 gm/cc,
∆tc around 110 microseconds/ft (9100 ft/sec), and Kf of
formation water approximately 30 Kbar (temperature =
185°F, pressure = 4500 psi, salinity = 140,000 ppm
NaCl). While the Kf of the oil-based mud in this well
was not measured, it is estimated to be in the 15 to 25
Kbar range. Leaving porosity, temperature and pressure
the same and substituting an invasion fluid with Kf of
25 Kbar leads to a predicted increase in sonic travel-
time of about 3 microseconds/ft. If a 15 Kbar fluid is
substituted, the predicted increase in sonic travel-time is
about 10 microseconds/ft. The fluid-substitution
modeling is consistent with the magnitude of difference
observed between the LWD sonic measurements
(presumably in high-salinity formation water before
much invasion) and the later wireline sonic logs
measured after much more drilling fluid invasion had
occurred.
The increased slowness (lower velocity) of the wireline
sonic data in the gas zones may indicate an increase in
gas saturation in the pore space near the borehole
several days after drilling. Previous LWD resistivity-
profile studies have shown that gas zones tend to invade
more rapidly while drilling than oil or wet zones (Beck
et al, 1992). In this scenario rapid filtrate invasion
would occur in the gas sand while drilling (‘spurt-loss’)
and the LWD log would, therefore, be measuring across
an invaded formation due to flushing ahead of the bit.
By the time the wireline acoustic measurements were
made (12 to 14 days after drilling) the formation gas
will have had time to slowly return to the borehole by
displacing the filtrate. The wireline resistivity logs do
not provide conclusive support to this assumption.
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
separate slightly in the gas zones, the medium reading
higher values than the deep induction, pointing toward
a possible shallow invasion at the time of the wireline
logging. LWD resistivity data was not acquired on this
well so invasion responses approximately 1 hour after
drilling were not available. The rapid ‘spurt-loss’
scenario is only valid if the invasion fluid completely
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998
replaces the formation gas. Gassmann modeling shows
that small amounts of gas saturation (3 to 7 %) cause
significant slow down in compressional velocity.
Theoretically, 93 to 97 % of the gas in the pore space
within the depth of investigation of the acoustic tool
needs to be replaced by the mud filtrate to cause the
acoustic velocity at LWD time to be faster than after the
gas migrates back into the near-wellbore region at
wireline time. Based on nuclear magnetic resonance
tool response observatons, Akkurt et al. (1997)
describe changes in the properties of oil-based mud
filtrate (OBMF) caused by formation gas going in to
solution with the OBMF. This should reduce the free
gas concentration in the pore space and its effect on the
acoustic velocity.
Acoustic Log Applications As mentioned previously,
the objective for sonic logging in this well was to
generate synthetic seismic traces for well-to-seismic
correlations. Our results show the differences between
LWD and wireline travel times produce synthetic
seismic traces with no discernible differences. Figure
12 shows three synthetic seismic traces for this well,
each using the wireline density combined with a
different sonic curve. The synthetics using the LWD
and semblance-processed wireline are virtually
identical. The synthetic using threshold/zero crossing
wireline data shows a few artifacts from the cycle-
skipping/bad data in the shallow logged section.
Looking at the integrated travel time over the entire
logged section (2440 ft) reveals differences of
approximately 10 milliseconds between the LWD and
wireline data sets.
Another important objective for sonic logging,
especially in today’s deepwater wildcat wells, is to
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
the observed differences between LWD and wireline
data are systematic, a gradient break is expected in the
LWD sonic data at the onset of supernormal pressure,
similar to the observed sonic curve trends documented
with wireline data.
CONCLUSIONS
We have compared LWD acoustic logs and wireline
acoustic logs. In general both logs match the very well.
Without reflection on economical considerations, these
LWD logs can provide nearly equivalent quality data as
wireline acoustic logs.
Both wireline and LWD acoustic logs are affected by
washed-out borehole conditions. In our example, in a
12.25-in. borehole, any borehole enlargement over
4
about 14-in deteriorated the acoustic measurements.
However, when the borehole wash-out occurs after the
LWD tool has passed by the unstable formation, this
tool will provide the higher quality slowness data.
Systematic differences exist between LWD and
wireline acoustic data in an offshore Gulf of Mexico
well, drilled using an oil-based mud. Shales display the
largest discrepancy (4 to 7 microseconds per foot)
between the two data sets. Shale alteration over time,
even in an oil-based mud, may be the reason for this
difference.
In the clean sandstones, the 2-3 microseconds/ft
differences between LWD sonic and wireline logs may
be due to invasion of oil-based mud filtrate by wireline
time. In the gas sands, increased wireline slowness
may be caused by rapid "spurt-loss" invasion at LWD
time, then migration of gas back towards the borehole
by wireline logging time.
The differences between LWD and wireline travel
times produce synthetic seismic traces with no
discernible differences. Since the differences are
systematic, we expect that use of LWD sonic to predict
onset of supernormal pressure will be equal in quality
to wireline data.
The wireline waveforms were often of higher quality
due to the LWD challenge of correcting for tool mode
signal by downhole filtering, and performing downhole
semblance matching prior to the ∆t computation from
the LWD waveforms. The timing of the data
acquisition process for both fullwave sonic systems
appears to give LWD the quality edge particularly
where hole conditions are suspect and when shale
alteration becomes a prominent occurrence over time.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Chevron USA and Halliburton
Energy Services for the permission to publish this
paper. We like to thank Jim Fogal for processing the
wireline log data.
REFERENCES
Akkurt, R., Moore, M.A., Freeman, J.J., 1997 : “Impact
of NMR in the Development of a Deepwater Turbidite
Field”, SPWLA 38th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun
6-9, Houston, paper SS.
Beck, G.F, Oberkircher, J., Mack, S., 1992 :
“Measurement of Invasion Using an MWD Multiple
Depth of Investigation Resistivity Tool”, paper
presented at the 67th SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Oct 4-7, Washington, SPE 24674.

Blakeman, E.R., 1982 : “A Case Study of the Effect of
Shale Alteration on Sonic Transit Times”, SPWLA
23rd Annual Logging Symposium, Jul 6-9, Corpus
Christi, paper I.
Boonen, P., Edwards, T., Logan, R., Tepper, R., 1997:
“Synthetic seismogram allows time-to-depth drilling
precision”, World Oil, August 1997, p. 191-192.
Heysse, D., Robbins, C., Minear, J., 1996 : “Field Tests
of an Acoustic Logging-While-Drilling Tool in Various
Borehole Environments”, SPWLA 37th Annual
Symposium, Jun 16-19, New Orleans, paper EE.
Hornby, B.E., Chang, S.K., 1985 : “A Case Study of
Shale and Sandstone Alteration Using a Digital Sonic
Tool”, SPWLA 26th Annual Symposium, Jun 17-20,
Dallas, paper H.
Hsu, K., Minerbo, G.N., Bean. C.L., Plumb, R., 1997 :
“Sonic-while-drilling tool detects overpressured
formations”, Oil & Gas Journal, Aug 4, 1997, p. 59-67.
Minear, J.W, and Fletcher, C.R., 1983: “Full Wave
Acoustic Logging”, presented at the Annual CWLA-
SPWLA Symposium, Jun 27-30, Calgary, paper EE.
Minear, J.W., 1986: “Full Wave Sonic Logging: A
Brief Perspective”, SPWLA 27th Annual Symposium,
Jun 9-13, Houston, paper AAA.
Minear, J., Birchak, R., Robbins, C., Linyaev, E.,
Mackie, B., 1995: “Compressional Wave Slowness
Measurement While Drilling”, SPWLA 36th Annual
Symposium, Jun 26-29, Paris, paper VV.
Minear, J.W., Heysse, D., Boonen, P., 1996 : “Initial
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
Velocity Determination from Full Waveform Digital
Acoustic Logs”, Geophysics, 48, 12, 1631.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Paul Boonen is a Lead Log Analyst in the Reservoir
Applications Development group at Halliburton Energy
Services in Houston, specializing in applications of
acoustic logs such as natural fracture identification,
rock mechanical properties analysis, borehole stability
evaluation and hydraulic fracture modeling. He holds a
Ph. D. in geology from the University of Leuven in
Belgium. He started his career in the field of log
analysis in 1981 with Geofiles consultants in Brussels
5
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998
(Belgium) and joined Halliburton in 1983. He worked
as field engineer, log analyst, computing center
manager, area marketing manager in a variety of
countries in Europe, North Africa, the Far East and
North America. He is a member of SPWLA, SPE and
AAPG.
Clark Bean is a Senior Geologist/Formation
Evaluation Specialist for Chevron U.S.A. Production
Company in New Orleans. His current assignment
involves interpretation of all types of open and cased-
hole logging tools. He holds a B.A. in geology from
Albion College in 1978 and an A.M. in geology in 1981
from Indiana University.
Rob Tepper is a logging-while-drilling Technical
Specialist with Halliburton Energy Services in New
Orleans, Louisiana. He assumed this position in April
of 1996 after consulting as a petrophysical specialist for
a variety of operating companies and consulting firms
between 1993 and 1996. Prior to consulting Rob
worked as a petrophysical engineer for Greenhill
Petroleum Incorporated, a subsidiary of Western
Mining of Australia for three years. Rob was a
Formation Evaluation Specialist for Chevron USA in
New Orleans from 1981 to 1990. He started in the oil
and gas industry with Schlumberger Well Services in
Wichita Falls, Texas in 1979 as a field engineer for 2
years.
Ron Deady is a Technical Services Engineer at
Halliburton’s Houston technology center. His current
duties include the support of LWD acoustic services
and Halliburton’s Desktop Petrophysics software. Ron
has a total of 17 years of MWD/LWD experience with
various companies. Ron holds a geology degree from
Northern Illinois University.
APPENDIX 1. THE LOGGING-WHILE-
DRILLING COMPENSATED LONG
SPACED SONIC LOG
The LWD acoustic tool consists of a slick drill collar
containing two transmitters 4 feet above and below an
array of four receivers at a one-foot spacing. A single
axis standoff transducer is in the center of the receiver
array. This standoff is an important quality indicator for
the acoustic waveform processing because it may be
used to identify borehole rugosity.
The LWD acoustic tool has a large nonvolatile
downhole memory that can be configured for a variety
of logging scenarios. Waveform data can be acquired,
SPWLA 39th Annual Symposium, May 26-29, 1998

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

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