WELL SURVEYS AND THE CALIBRATION OF VELOCITY LOGS *

BY

T. SCHWAETZER **

ABSTRACT
In the last two years several double-receiver Velocity Logs (V-Logs) have come into
service. Theoretically, in this type of log the effect of the travel time in the mud and in
the invaded or altered formations, responsible for the “Lag” (or delay times) in single
receiver V-Logs, could be eliminated. Thus the integration of the interval times would
give the “real” vertical time as a function of depth. In practice, several authors have
already noted that even for V-logs with two receivers the integrated times differ from
the results of the conventional well surveys.
We consider here some of the geometrical, geological and instrumental factors that
affect the time measurement of double receiver Velocity Logs, as well as the possibility
that the discrepancy between the V-logs and the conventional well survey could in some
cases be due to faults, dip, folding, or the intrusion of high velocity layers near the well.
Some examples are given, and the question of the polarity of first arrivals in well surveys
is discussed.
At present the discrepancies between the integrated times of even double receiver
V-Logs and the results of the well surveys remain too great to permit us the economy of
eliminating the well survey. Furthermore, for the study of these discrepancies we must
continue to shoot a considerable number of calibration points. We have, however, succeeded
in reducing greatly the cost of the conventional survey by reorganising our well shooting
methods. These methods, as well as the problems of surface corrections and the choice
of datum plane they entail, are discussed.

INTRODUCTION AND RECAPITULATION

One of the principal problems faced by geophysicists using single receiver

Continuous Velocity Logs (V-Logs) (Fig. I) has been the “Delay Time” or
“Lag”, the difference between the times measured by the well survey and the
integration of the times measured by the V-Log. This delay time, mostly
caused by the segments of the ray paths in the mud and the altered formation,
can vary from between o *** and 80 microseconds per meter (Fig. z), not only
from one well to another, but also within one particular well.

* Presented at the Seventeenth Meeting of the European Association of Exploration

Geophysicists, held in Copenhagen, g-11 December 1959.
** Compagnie d’Exploration Petroliere, Chambourcy, Seine et Oise, France.
*** We have several times found delay times approaching o, or even with negative
values, on single-receiver Logs. Up to now, no quantitavely satisfactory explanation has
been found for this phenomenon.
86 T. SCHWAETZER

A very interesting paper by Manchee (1959) shows that it is possible to

correct, at least partially, the “lag” by considering the diameter of the well
and the position, known or estimated, of the logging device. However, as far
as I know, this method, which implies the use of an electronic calculator, has
not yet been used in Europe.

Mud’ ‘\ Altered zone

Pm : Path in mud and altered zone

Tronsm.: Transmitter
Rec.: Receiver
r: Effective distance device-formation

Fig. I. Diagram of a single receiver

velocity logger in well.

We have not tried too hard to perfect the single-receiver V-Log. One could
almost say that many of us had, for the time being, resigned ourselves to this
delay time, calculating only the approximate size of the error it implied
(Schwaetzer, 1958). The principal reason for this attitude was, I think, the
hope that the question would be solved almost automatically with the intro-
duction of the double-receiver V-Logs (Fig. 3).
The double-receiver V-Log measures the time difference between two ray
paths, both supposed identical outside of the formation. Ideally, the effect
of the varying ray paths in the mud and in invaded or altered formations on
the total time should be eliminated; the integration of the interval times
 WELL SURVEYS AND THE CALIBRATION OF VELOCITY LOGS 87

measured should give the “true” travel time from the beginning of the Log,
which might be run from the surface. Some even thought that it would be
possible to eliminate the conventional well survey.
In practice we rapidly came to the same conclusion as the authors of several
papers published in “Geophysics” (Hicks, 1959; Kokesh and Blizard, 1959).
Even for double-receiver V-Logs the integrated interval times differ, in varying
proportions, from the results of the conventional well survey; in other words,
the “lag” is still with us.

Fig. 2. Distribution of time delays of a single receiver velocity logger for 54 operations
(L = I.80 m)

The quantitative analysis of the delay time for double-receiver V-Logs

was in the beginning somewhat complicated by the fact that the first of these
instruments to come into service in France had initially been conceived more
for the determination of porosity than as a geophysical instrument. It had
no automatic integrator and it was necessary to integrate the interval times
manually, with a planimeter. When we studied differences between the well
survey results and those of the manual integration, we hesitated to build too
many hypotheses on data which, several times, turned out to be based on
88 T. SCHWAETZER

mistaken planimeter readings. Today all V-Logs used by our company in

France and in the Sahara include automatic integrators, whose precision seems
satisfactory.
It is perhaps necessary here to digress a little “in the defense of the V-Logs.”
Some think that the observation of the fact that these instruments measure
an “apparent” velocity differing by several percent from the so-called “true”
velocity, is an attack against, or even a condamnation of the principle of

Transmitter
I

Altered &I of tow velocity

Pm: Path in mud ond altered zone

dT : Differwxa between paths
r: Effectfvo distance device-formation

Fig. 3. Diagram of a double receiver velocity logger in well.

continuous velocity logging. We must remember that, amongst all the different
types of physical parameters measured in bore holes, by well logging, the velo-
city is the only one that allows an independent control. (It is, for instance,
highly probable that the sum of the resistivities of the formations, measured from
the surface to the bottom of a well, would differ considerably from that attained
by integrating the resistivity logs.) We should rather appreciate the fact
that with present instruments, the normal difference between various velocity
measurements has been reduced to IO or 20 microseconds per meter, i.e. less
than 5 %. Furthermore, the study of the causes of what we could call the
 WELLSURVEYSANDTHECALIBRATIONOFVELOCITYLOGS 89

normal difference or “normal delay” has already enabled us to obtain some

rather interesting data in wells where this “normal” delay, varying suddenly,
becomes “abnormal”.

NORMAL DELAY

Geometrical, Geological and Instrumental Factors

By “normal delay” we designate that difference which remains between
the integration of the V-Log and the results of the conventional well survey
when we consider the well survey to be without “cumulative error.” (In this
case we suppose that the well survey measures the true vertical velocities
through the same formations traversed by the V-Log, and that its results
are not influenced by anisotropy, dip, faults, etc.)
If we eliminate the non-systematic errors of the well survey, this delay is
then due to the difference between the measurement of the V-Log and the
“true vertical velocities” of the formation.
This delay is the product of divers interdependent factors which we could
class as geometrical, geological and instrumental.
If, for instance, for a given formation velocity VF (VF > VM mud velocity),
the ratio of the distances:

Logging device to unaltered formation I

Signal Transmitter to first receiver = G

becomes too big (Y > r critical), the direct wave, passing through the mud,
arrives at the tirst receiver before the refracted wave, passing in part through
the formation (Hicks, 1959; Kokesh and Blizard, 1959). In this case the veloci-
ties measured are intermediary between those of the formation and that of
the mud; the times measured are too long. This phenomenon characterises
centered logs run in low velocity formations, where the hole diameter is large
(upper part of a well and/or badly caved formations). It should be remembered
that for I < I critical, integrated times on double-receiver V-Logs are in
principle, not a#ected by caving.
However, r is not determined solely by the geometrical dimensions of the
bore hole. It seems almost certain that certain formations, in particular argila-
ceous rocks, are “altered” in the immediate surroundings of the bore hole,
much as is the “weathered zone” encountered in seismic prospection. The
velocity (VA) in the altered (or “damaged”) section is lower than VF of the
non-altered formation. In theory, the computation of yC should consider the
thickness of the altered layer, as well as its velocity, which probably varies in
function of the distance from the bore hole. In practice, these quantitative
90 T. SCHWAETZER

determinations hardly seem possible under present conditions. We can only

state that in low-velocity, argilaceous, badly caved and/or large diameter-
drilled formations, formations which are also probably “altered” or damaged
for a certain distance from the well, double-receiver V-Logs have a tendency
to measure velocities inferior to the true formation velocity I’F; the integrated
times are then too long. *
Two methods can be used to compensate for this factor; the distance L,
can be increased; I can be decreased. That is, we can use instruments with a
longer distance from the transmitter to the first receiver, and we can, instead
of centering, push the logging instrument against the wall of the bore hole.
Unfortunately, the increase of L decreases the Signal/Noise ratio. Errors
directly due to “Noise Spikes” hardly affect the integrated times, but when
the signal amplitude diminishes too much, the second receiver sometimes lags,
either by a whole phase (“cycle-skipping”) or, although still registering on the
same cycle as the first receiver, retards part of a phase (dephases). Just as the
increase in r, the decrease in signal amplitude is characteristic of argilaceous
and other low velocity, badly consolidated, formations.
While we can practically neglect the errors due to the automatic integrators,
it seems however that certain instruments have “circuit delays”, particular
to each logging device. Once known, these delays, which sometimes result in
negative “Lags”, can be compensated.
Apart from these “circuit delays” and the cases, limited to the surface
strata, of formation velocities inferior to mud velocity, all “normal” delays
of double-receiver V-Logs are positive ; times measured by the V-Logs are
greater than “true” times. In argilaceous strata this “normal” delay reaches
20 microseconds per meter; in high velocity, consolidated formations, it
approaches o. On the average, the delay seems to oscillate around IO micro-
seconds per meter (Fig. 4, 5).

“ABNORMAL” DELAY
However, in some wells the differences between the integrated V-Log times
and the well survey results can scarcely be produced entirely by the “normal”
causes cited above. These differences express themselves by unusual, even
negative, “delay times” (Fig. 6), by sudden discontinuities, and/or by trans-
lations of the calibration curve (Fig. 7). They apparently indicate that the
ray paths followed by the energy of the calibration shots can no longer be
assimilated to those of the ray paths followed by the V-Logs. We cannot, in
this case, impute a “cumulative error” to the conventional well survey-whose
relative accuracy, poor between closely spaced points, increases with the
* Apart from those superficial strata where VP < VM ; here the V-Log measures mud
velocity, too high.
WELL SURVEYS AND THE CALIBRATION OF VELOCITY LOGS 91
 T. SCHWAETZER
92

interval measured. For IOOO meters it is of the order of I y0 (Schwaetzer, 1958).

Figure 6 shows a negative calibration constant (delay time): -18,6 micro-
seconds per meter-for a single-receiver V-Log (two separate operations) at
St. ILLIERS I. We have not been able to find a quantitative explanation for
this phenomenon, *but the fact that this well is one of the rare bore holes in the
Paris Basin which has been drilled through strongly dipping formations,
(average dip over 35”) may indicate that the V-Log here measures anisotropic

Fig. 6. Calibration of a single receiver velocity log (well

St. Illiers I, two operations); example of negative
delay in steep dip formations.

“diagonal” velocities, higher than the more “vertical” velocities obtained by

the well survey. It is, however, important to note that even the times obtained
from shots fired at Shot-Point No. 5 (IOO meters up-dip) confirm the negative
delay time.
Figure 7 gives an example of a sudden positive translation of the calibration
curve. The 27 milliseconds separating the z segments correspond very well to
assumed differences in the ray paths-between those of the V-Log passing
through the Oxford Shale formations (velocity circa 3,500 m/s) immediately
 WELL SURVEYS AND THE CALIBRATION OF VELOCITY LOGS 93

surrounding the well, and those of the well survey which pass through the
Lusitan Limestone (velocity circa 6,000 m/s). By such assumptions it was
possible to deduce the presence of a vertical fold, (independently confirmed
by other methods) from the discontinuity in the calibration curve.
In other wells we have been able to observe “Abnormal Delays” linked
to faults, dip discontinuities or intrusions of high velocity strata-in particular
Dolerite, at 5,700 m/s.
The quantitative interpretation of these “Abnormal Delays” is usually
rather difficult with single-receiver V-Logs. The variations of their delay times,
which could be considered as “Normal” ;, are of such a size (Fig. 2) that they

Fig. 7. Calibration of a single receiver velocity log (well Mirabeau 2) ;

example of a positive discontinuity of the calibration curve caused by
vertical folding.
tend to mask all but the largest of the “Abnormal Delays”. It would perhaps
be possible to apply the “Direct Integration” (calibration) method based on
caliper-log readings, proposed by Mr. MANCHEE (rg5g), not in order to eliminate
the well survey, but rather to try and determine the causes of abnormal
differences between well survey and V-Log results found in some wells.
Up to now none of the wells V-logged by the Compagnie d’Exploration
Petrol&-e with double-receiver logs has been sited in geologic conditions that
could be expected to produce “Abnormal Delays”. I.e., all of these wells have
been drilled in formations showing little dip, without folding; no major fault
existed near the wells.
* Due to the geometrical, geological and instrumental factors acting in the bore hole
and its immediate vicinity (described above).
94 T. SCHWAETZER

Differences between well-survey and double-receiver V-Log (Delays) of

about IO microseconds per meter, although too large to allow us to eliminate
the well survey, can be considered as “normal”. It will be interesting to study
the delays, considerably larger, that are obtained in the calibration of double-
receiver V-Logs run through strongly dipping formations.

THE CALIBRATION WELL-SURVEY

Today our Company no longer uses single-receiver V-Logs. “Normal Delay”
for double-receiver instruments, once “circuit delays” have been eliminated,
vary between o and 20 microseconds per meter. Even if we suppose that there
is no “Abnormal Delay”, this would imply a possible error in the integrated
times of f I ms. for IOO meters of Log. Furthermore, often the upper part
of the well is cased without it having been possible to run a V-Log. *
In order to obtain the f 2 milliseconds accuracy which is asked for in
Paris Basin work, we are therefore obliged, for the present at least, to
calibrate every V-Log with a conventional well survey. If we wish to continue
the study of the “Normal and Abnormal” Delays, the well survey must give
a fairly large number of calibration points. (Approximately I every 200 meters,
as well as one at every major discontinuity of lithology or of dip, at every
fault passage, etc.). On principle every level should be “doubled,’ (i.e. shot
up and down dip) for even slight dips, uncontrolled, could cause differences
between well-survey and V-Log. Furthermore, we believe that the velocity
in the upper part of the bore hole, above all if this part could not be V-logged,
must be studied as carefully as possible by the well survey. It is, in effect,
in the first few hundred meters that normally the biggest lateral velocity
variations take place. (Acheson, 1959). Thus, the complete exploitation of the
z-receiver V-Log, far from permitting the elimination of the well survey,
necessitates its execution with a considerable number of shots.
We have, however, succeeded in reducing considerably the cost of well-
surveys in rationalising working procedure by:
- Using a light recording unit, specially adapted for well surveys, which
avoids the one day work-loss of a seismic field party.
- Combining, when possible, the transport of the V-Log with the well-
logging seismographic unit.
- Running the well survey together with the V-Log.
- Reducing drilling costs: shots, originally fired in deep, cased, holes,
then in ” Warsop”” * holes, are, where possible, at present shot from hand-augered
* The low accuracy of V-Logs, particularly if L, (Distance: Transmitter-First Recei-
ver) is small, in low-velocity, superficial layers, has been discussed on page 3. We have
never been able to run a V-Log up to the surface (practical upper limit, under favorable
conditions, is about 20 meters).
** Hammer drill mounted on jeep.
 WELLSURVEYSANDTHECALIBRATIONOFVELOCITYLOGS 95

holes. This practice is now applied to the majority of our well surveys, and has
been proved successful even in wells of over zooo m depth.
- Using two shooters simultaneously. The well geophone once at the
desired depth, the two opposing shot-points are fired with an interval of several
seconds. The results are registered on one record. This practice has allowed
us to double the shooting cadence which now normally reaches 12 to 15 shots
per hour.
- Eliminating weathering and uphole shooting. We no longer have deep
holes for weathering corrections, but use a method of “shooting the Datum
Plane”. This implies the choice of a datum plane low enough to be under
the weathered layer. The well geophone * is placed at this depth, and small
charges are shot in hand-auger-drilled holes, close up to the well and also in
the middle of each of the two opposed shot-point groups. The correction:
“Base of Charge-Datum Plane” thus obtained is then applied to the other shots.
We have found that this correction gives much more coherent “Average
Velocity” results than the correction to the Rotary Table or to ground level
used previously.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In conclusion, I particularly wish to thank Messrs. Cholez, Conte and Ka-

mowski of the Compagnie G6nCrale de Geophysique, Messrs. Casariego,
Lecompte and Louis of the Compagnie Francaise de Prospection Sismique,
and Messrs. Delfolie, Rooker and Traffard of the Societe de Prospection
Electrique, for their ideas and suggestions which have greatly helped me in the
elaboration of this paper.

REFERENCES &BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ACHESON, C. H., 1~59, The correction of seismic time maps for lateral variations in
velocity beneath the low velocity layer, Geophysics, XXIV, P. 706.
HICKS, Warren G., 1959, Lateral velocity variations near boreholes, Geophysics, XXIV,
P. 451.
KOKESH, F. P. and BLIZARD, R. B., 1959, Geometrical factors in Sonic Logging, Geo-
physics, XXIV, P. 64.
LEVIN, Franklyn K. and LYNN, Ralph D., 1958, Deep hole geophone studies, Geophysics,
XXIII, P. 639.
MANCHEE, E. B., 1~59, Direct integration of Continuous Velocity Logs, Geophysics,
XXIV, P. 335.
SCHWAETZER, T., 1958, La mesure de la vitesse verticale par le carottage continu (C.V.L.).
Precision des mesures et discussions de quelques resultats, Geoph. Prosp., VI, p. 257.
WOOD, A. B., 1959, Comparison of well velocity methods in South Texas, Geophysics,
XXIV, P. 443.
* Pressure Geophone, relatively insensitive to cable and casing breaks.
96 T. SCHWAETZER

DISCUSSION
Mr. K. H. SEELIS: Mr. Schwaetzer, I believe, the abnormal values on the
calibration curves, which you have shown in your Fig. 6 and 7, can be ex-
plained in the following manner:
The used logger may have worked with his normal drift, which is known
from the other calibrations. But the values of the conventional velocity log
are surely influenced by refraction effects, because the layers near the borehole
(see Fig. 6) show a remarkable inclination. The presence of refraction effects
appears by comparing the measured travel times from the different shotpoints
in Fig. 6. Also the abnormal values shown in Fig. 7 may be produced by re-
fraction and eventually anisotropy, which have influenced the conventional log.
I have measured similar effects by shooting in mine galleries using a large
geophone spread on the ground surface. The measured travel time differences
in direction of the inclination of the layers were of the same order as shown
in your Fig. 6 and 7.
In other cases we have determined the direction of faults by shooting from
several shotpoints around the borehole and we have used for interpretation
the individual travel times received by the borehole geophone.
Mr. T. SCHWAETZER: I agree, theoretically at least, with Mr. Seelis in his
analysis of the causes of the “abnormal (negative) Delay” in the calibration
of the V-log of St. Illiers I (Fig. 6-not Fig. 5-which shows no dip effects).
However, the fact that the geophone interval times, from shotpoints down
and also zq5 dip, remain consistently longer than the V-log integrated times,
makes it difficult, in this particular well, to explain the negative Delay en-
tirely as a result of refraction and anisotropy.
It is highly probable that shooting across a fault would give “abnormal”
trajectories and times (V. also the paper by Mr. Brewer of Esso-Rep.-Bordeaux
(13th) Congres of the E.A.E.G.). The calibration of a V-log in such a case
would tend (for some of the calibration shots at least) to be “abnormal”.
Mr. G. TAIT: In the calibration shots of Mirabeau 2 was any variation in
amplitude noted on passing through the contorted zone shown in Fig. 7?
Mr. T. SCHWAETZER: Shot no. 15 at 1950 meters. Charge: 3 kg at 7-g meters.
Displacement of trace no. 7-Gain 100-10 mms in 6 milliseconds (First
trough) (6 traces on the Gulf Geophone).
Shot no. 24 at 2190 meters. Charge: 1,5 kg at 14 meters. Displacement of
trace no. 7-Gain 100-14 mms in 6 milliseconds (First trough) (4 traces
on the Gulf Geophone).
In other words, no strong variation in energy can be found between the
shots above and below the contorted zone. The apparent gain in amplitude
for 2rgo meters is probably due to the greater shot depth and the reduction
of the number of traces branched on the Gulf. These factors seem to be
 WELL SURVEYS AND THE CALIBRATION OF VELOCITY LOGS 97

sufficient to compensate for the increased depth of the geophone and the
geophone and the decreased charge.
Following Mr. Tait’s suggestion, I have looked for, and found, a second
energy arrival at zrgo meters, 27 milliseconds after the first break.
Mr. R. VAN NOSTRAND : I thank Mr. Schwaetzer for having presented concisely
the problems found in velocity logs, together with certain means of overcoming
these difficulties. He has also demonstrated a commendable effort at reducing
the price of calibration well surveys without sacrificing the necessary accuracy.
I suggest that in many instances the costly well survey might be eliminated
altogether by using to advantage information from seismic surveys and infor-
mation from conventional well surveys in the same geologic province. Obvious-
ly, the first velocity log in a given region should be accompanied by a thorough
and accurate well survey for calibration. Further velocity logs in the same
region would be accompanied by limited calibration shooting or none at all
as the circumstances dictate. The governing conditions are the quality and
quantity of existing information on one hand, compared with the compromise
that may be permitted between economy and accuracy on the other.
I have already used this technique successfully in one limited situation and
hope to exploit it further in more general applications.
Mr. T. SCHWAETZER: While in some cases it may be possible to eliminate
the well survey (for instance, if the structures are so important that they would
not be greatly affected by velocity variations) most of our * work has been in:
a) The Central and South Eastern Sahara-where wells, to date, are so
widely separated that at each one should, in my opinion, “shoot the works”-
as well as velocity surveys-to obtain all possible data.
b) South East France-where dip, faulting and folding are on such a scale
that the “abnormal Delay” between V-log and well survey may often yield
valuable information (See Fig. 7).
c) The Paris Basin-where structures are usually of the same order as
velocity variations.
In these particular cases I do not believe that we can, at present, consider
non calibrated V-Logs as sufficiently accurate.

*) Compagnie d'Exploration Pktrolikre.

Geophysical Prospecting, VIII