SPWLA 40h Annual Logging Symposium, May 30-June 3,1999
PERMEABILITY DERIVED FROM STONELEY
WAVES
Stoneley waveform attributes versus permeability: A
Stoneley wave is an interface wave that propagates along
a fluid/solid interface. In the borehole configuration the
Stoneley wave becomes a guided wave, i.e., the borehole
acts as a wave guide. Guided waves can bridge long
distances while undergoing minor attenuation
(geometrical attenuation) because their energy is
predominantly contained in the borehole, i.e., there is
almost no geometrical spreading of the wave field. The
best way to imagine Stoneley wave propagation in a
fluid-filled borehole is to consider the borehole to
alternately contract and expand, while the bulk of the
energy propagates parallel to the borehole direction, away
from the source. The expansion and contraction of the
borehole wall allows formation fluid to flow in and out
of the surrounding porous formation. Since the ability of
fluid to flow in and out of porous rock highly depends on
the permeability of that rock, Stoneley wave attributes are
influenced by the permeability of the subject rock . This
has been verified by theoretical and experimental studies.
Two Stoneley wave attributes are influenced by
permeability:
. The Stoneley wave speed: The Stoneley wave
speed decreases with increasing permeability .
. The Stoneley wave attenuation: This attenuation
occurs due to the oscillatory motion of the
formation fluid relative to the formation matrix.
This gives rise to energy losses (dissipation).
The Stoneley wave attenuation increases with
increasing permeability.
Permeabilityversusnonpermeabilityrelated eflects:If we
consider a Stoneley wave propagating along the borehole
wall through different types of formations, it is evident
that the Stoneley wave velocity and attenuation is not
only influenced by permeability but also by other effects,
e.g., formation change and borehole radius change.
Consequently, the physical phenomena that influence the
Stoneley wave attributes have to be broken down into
permeability and nonpermeability related phenomena. To
find out the effect of nonpermeability-related phenomena
on Stoneley wave attributes, we model the borehole
configuration as accurately as possible, but we replace the
surroundmg (elastic) porous and permeable rock by an
equivalent nonpermeable (elastic) porous rock (Tezuka et
al., 1997, Gelinsky et al., 1997, Tang et al., 1997). Input
to this model are the acoustic slownesses of P- and S-
waves obtained from full waveform monopole logging,
formation density, and caliper. In this way we obtain a
Stoneley wave data set that is free of permeability effects
and is directly comparable with the measured wave (also
obtained from full waveform monopole logging). The
differences between model and measurement in terms of
Stoneley wave speed and attenuation are directly related
to permeability. The Stoneley wave speed difference can
be measured as a travel time difference ( A T,,,,), and the
attenuation difference can be most efficiently measured
by using the centroid frequency difference ( Afmsd),
between measured and modeled Stoneley waveforms,
respectively. Consequently, if we observe an increase in
both A Tmsdand Afmsd,at a given depth we can be
confident that this increase is related to formation
permeability.
The next major step is to map the attribute difference pair
(AL Afmsd) into a permeability value k [mD]. In order
to do so, we need not only to have a nonpermeable
(elastic) model but also a permeable elastic model, where
the latter is used to represent the measurement. Tang et al.
(1991) established a link between the propagation and
attenuation characteristics of a nonpermeable (porous)
elastic rock and a permeable porous elastic rock with
a
exactly the same properties as the nonpermeable one,
except for the permeability. Basically the result of his
work is that 111terms of Stoneley wave travel time and
attenuation the permeable (porous) elastic Stoneley
wavetrain can be obtained from the nonpermeable
(porous) elastic wavetrain by applying a permeability and
frequency dependent exponential decay and time delay
to the latter one. This work shows at low frequencies the
frequency (due to attenuation) and time shift are
approximately proportional to the parameter combination
( k(p) K % (Tang et. al, 1998), where p [cp] is the
formation fluid viscosity and K [Pa-] is the formation
fluid compressibility.
Just as we compared the Stoneley wave measurement
with the nonpermeable elastic model , we can also
compare the (theoretical) permeable elastic model with
the nonpermeable elastic model , and obtain the
waveform attribute difference pair ( AT,,, , A&,,), where
AT,/ A&,, are representative of the travel time
differencelcentroid frequency difference between the
permeable and non-permeable elastic model. Note again
that the waveform attribute difference pair ( A Trh, A&,,)
is approximately linearly related to the parameter
combination (E&) K.
2

Permeability inversion: The final step in obtaining the
permeability is an inversion step. In this step we try to
find the optimum value for the parameter combination
(vi!) K that fits both the measured travel time and
frequency differences, as
The formation permeability k can then be estimated from
(lo,,) ic for given K and p.
Practical considerations: From the above it is evident
that the accuracy of permeability estimation from
Stoneley waves depends on the formation fluid property
ratio(rc 2/p). However, the formation fluid
compressibility and viscosity may be difficult to estimate
given the unknown saturation states in the sensitive
volume surrounding the borehole. For example, the
sensitive volume may contain connate water,
hydrocarbons, and/or invaded drilling fluid. Therefore,
m the Stoneley wave permeabihty estimation the pore
fluid parameters are treated as apparent or effective
parameters with respect to the fluids contained in the
sensitive volume. These parameters can be estimated or
adjusted by calibrating the Stoneley-derived permeability
with those derived from other measurements (e.g.,
formation testing, core, NMR, etc.).
PERMEABILITY DERIVED FROM NMR
Although the NMR tool does not directly measure
permeability or a quantity proportional to permeability (as
in Stoneley-derived permeability), it measures a quantity
that can be indirectly related to permeability by empirical
means. The NMR signal amplitude is proportional to the
hydrogen proton index associated With oil, gas, and water
in the formation. Modem NMR tools utilize a Carr-
Purcell-Meiboom-Gill pulse sequence to collect a time
series of echoes.
The T, decay of a single fluid in a pore depends on the
fluid properties, pore matrix surface properties and the
pore structure. The T2decay can be expressed as follows:
1
-=-+- 1 3, -,s
T2 T2bulkT2su~acc
(2)
0 permeability. In comparing the three methods we will
where /z/T2swjhce
is treated as a single parameter called
3
SPWLA 40thAnnual Logging Symposium, May 30-June 3,1999
surface relaxivity, p. Surface relaxivity varies as a
function of the strength of fluid-matrix interaction and is
affected by the wetting characteristics of the system. In
most porous rocks, the second term in Eq.(2) dominates
the T2 decay, thus the first term can be dropped.
Consequently, T;,is proportional to the V/S ratio of a pore
and therefore is proportional to the characteristic pore
dimension (pore radius). This proportionality is treated as
linear for simple pore geometries.
Porous rocks consist of a large number of different size
pores. Relaxation in porous media saturated with a single-
phase fluid can be considered as the relaxation of a
collection of isolated pores with different sizes, provided
that the effects of interpore exchanges are neglected.
Therefore, the relaxation spectrum is the superposition of
the relaxation rates of individual pores. The
superposition of the different relaxation rates can be
partitioned into two sections by estimating a typical time
boundary between the smaller pores where capillary
pressure retains the saturating fluid and the larger pores
where the saturating fluid is movable. These portions of
the pore space are called BVI (bulk volume irreducible)
and B I44 (bulk volume moveable) respectively.
Various formulas are used to derive a permeability index
from the information we gather from the TZ distribution.
Two of the most commonly used equations are the bound
water model and the geometric mean formula. The bound
water model uses the bulk volume irreducible information
with empirical coefficients and exponents as follows:
k=($)(E.$,
By manipulating C, m, and n, a permeability index
profile can be transformed into a permeability profile if
the time boundary (T,,,,&) for determining the BVI is
derived from core capillary pressure and/or core NMR
data.
Next, we will discuss and compare the permeability
results obtained from Stoneley, NMR, and core for all
three wells. In doing so we will first focus on those zones
where we observe a good match between all three
methods. Subsequently, we will discuss and explain the
discrepancies between StoneleylNMR and core
assume that permeability values obtained from core data
are representative of the YruW.
SPWLA 40Annual Logging Symposium, May 30-June 3,1999
OBSERVATIONS FROM MEASUREMENTS
As explained in the introduction, travel time delay
( ATmsd)and centroid frequency shift (At;,,) derived
from Stoneley waves is a direct measure of permeability.
These Stoneley wave attributes are both proportional to
WP)K I29 which implies that a change in both these
quantities results in an increase/decrease in permeability.
Of course, this only holds if formation fluid properties do
not change from one depth point to another. The extent to
which the depth- dependent features of ATmsdcorrelate
with those of Afmsdgives a quality indication for the
Stoneley wave-derived permeability. An example of this
correlation, that zooms in on the cored section of well C,
is shown in Figure 3.
Track 2 shows a good correspondence between ATm,
ad Afmsd>which means that the changes in these
waveform attributes correspond with permeability
changes. The extent to which we can model these changes
is reflected in the permeability inversion outputs ATth,
Ad,,, which should be close to ATmsd and Afmsd,
respectively, and the Stoneley permeability (track 3).
Track 3 shows Stoneley derived permeability, NMR
derived permeability, and core derived permeability
profiles. The fit between them is reasonably good
considering the heterogeneity of the formation in this
part of the logged interval. There is a difference in
vertical resolution between core permeabihties and
Stoneley permeabilities. The vertical resolution of
Stoneley permeability is determined by the distance from
source to the midpoint of the array, which is
approximately 12.5 ft, while the core data is very densely
sampled. In an attempt to match the vertical resolutions of
both measurements, we applied a median filter to the core
data using a 12.5 ft filter window. The result is plotted as
solid dots. Also plotted in track 3 is the NMR derived
permeability. Both NMR and Stoneley permeability
were obtained without calibrating on other permeability
sources. NMR permeability was obtained from the
Coates equation (Eq. (3)) using the default values for m,
iz and C (m=4, n=2, C= 10) while Stoneley permeability
was obtained by using a p and K Of a light oil (,LL=O. 12cp,
~3.2 lo- Pa-) . Both methods show a reasonable good
match with thecore data.
Figure 3, track 4 and track 5 show the measured and
calculated (synthetic) direct Stoneley wave. The raw
measured and raw synthetic Stoneley waves were
separated into a direct, down- going, and up-going
4
Stoneley wave by means of a wave separation procedure.
This procedure is used to suppress road noise and
scattering in the wave data.
The measured and synthetic down-going Stoneley wave
reflections are displayed in tracks 6 and 7, respectively.
Also displayed in these tracks are the reflectivity curves
(raw and measured) that are indicative of the reflected
Stoneley wave amplitude relative to the direct Stoneley
wave amplitude. The raw reflectivity curve shows the
reflection coefficient as a continuous curve, while the
reflectivity shows the position (in depth) of the associated
reflector. Its magnitude is the reflection coefficient at that
point. An increase in reflectivity is predominantly
determined by borehole washouts rather than lithology
changes . The impedance contrast caused by fluid-filled
fractures (density effect) gives rise to Stoneley wave
reflections. These reflections can sometimes be
distinguished from lithology and borehole related
reflections by comparing the modeled reflections (track
7) with the measured reflections (track 6). Of course,
reflections caused by fluid-filled fractures will not show
up in the elastic modeling.
Figure 4 shows a comparison, similar to figure 3. Here we
also zoom in on the lower Tilje and Aare formation, but
now from well B. Both NMR and Stoneley permeability
were obtained without calibration. Equivalent to well C,
the same fluid properties for Stoneley permeability
estimation and NMR permeability estimation were used.
Core, NMR, and Stoneley permeability match reasonably
well. The match might be improved by further calibration
on core permeability.
Figure 5 shows the upper Tilje formation of well B.
Again Stoneley and NMR permeability were obtained in
the same fashion as discussed before. We observe a very
good match between NMR and Stoneley permeability.
However there is a strong mismatch between
NMRLStoneley and core permeability (four orders of
magnitude). From the Stoneley permeability perspective
this mismatch can never be accounted for by calibration,
i.e., by changing the fluid properties. The fluid property
ratio ti-l,u has the most dramatic influence on
permeability when we consider a change from a liquid to
a gas (O/G or WIG contact). In that case we can show
that this ratio decreases by a factor of 100, equivalent to
two divisions on a logarithmrc scale. Such a change is not
justified by what we know regarding the fluid content in
this part of the reservoir- water with residual gas and/or
oil. Even if such a change could be justified, it would still

not explain the low core permeability.
As mentioned in the introduction, petrographic analysis
of this part of the reservoir revealed the presence of illite,
which is notorious for its ability to dramatically increase
the flow resistance (or decrease the permeability) of the
originally porous and permeable formation. This happens
because the clay mineral illite will swell dramatically if in
contact with fresher water than the formation brine. This
explains the low core permeability obtained after
applying an illite correction in addition to an overburden
correction.
A possible explanation for the systematically higher
Stoneley permeability in this section of the reservoir
might be related to drilling induced borehole damage. In
this scenario we conjecture that a damaged zone is
formed directly adjacent to the borehole wall due to the
wear and tear of the drill bit. This damaged zone is
unconsolidated relative to the undamaged formation and
impregnated with drilling induced fractures.
Consequently, this altered zone will have much higher
permeability than the unaltered formation. Because the
Stoneley wavefield rapidly decays horizontally into the
formation, the argument can be made that Stoneley
permeability is strongly influenced by this damaged zone,
giving rise to a high Stoneley permeability. Since the core
samples were extracted before the drill bit altered that
part of the formation, the assumption that core
permeability will be representative of the undamaged
formation seems reasonable. Potential evidence of
formation damage is given by the caliper curve as shown
m figure 5 (Track 7), which shows considerable variation.
This is in agreement with the lower Tilje and Aare
formation (Figure 4). Here the caliper shows very little
variation with core, Stoneley, and NMR permeability
being in agreement.
Since petrographical &&es also revealed the presence of
micro porosity and most likely the presence of CBW
(clay bound water), it can be argued in view of the default
interecho time of 1.2 ms used during the NMR pulsed
echo measurements that NMR derived total porosity (@ in
Eq.(3)) is too low. This has been confirmed when core
porosities were compared with NMR derived porosities.
The under estimation of NMR porosity relative to core
porosity due to the presence of micro porosity and CBW
implies that the estimated BVI is too low. Assuming the
constants in the Coates equation (Eq.(3)) to be the same
as in all previous cases, this implies that the computed
permeability is too high. So only a dramatic change in the
5
SPWLA 40thAnnual Logging Symposium, May 30-June 3,1999
Coates parameters would be able to decrease the NMR
permeability. Since no core NMR and core capillary
pressure measurements are available, we have to refrain
from quantifying the effect of micro porosity on NMR
permeability. However, the increased NMR permeability
may also be due to formation alteration because the
sensitive volume associated with the NMR measurement
contains this zone.
Figure 6 shows the comparison between core, Stoneley,
and NMR permeability in the lower Tilje and Aare
formation of well A. NMR permeability was obtained
without calibration, using the same parameters as used in
wells B and C, while Stoneley permeability was obtained
by using a viscosity and compressibility value close to
water.
In both the Tilje and Aare formations we observe a good
fit between Stoneley, NMR, and core derived
permeability.
Figure 7 shows part of the upper Tilje section of well A.
We observe the-same systematic mismatch between core
and NMR/Stoneley permeability as in well B. As in well
B, we observe a relatively rough caliper as compared to
the lower Tilje and Aare formation (Figure 6). The reason TT
for the systematic Stoneley permeability over estimation
relative to core permeability therefore is most likely the
same as the one proposed for well B, i.e., borehole
damage due to the wear and tear of the drill bit. As far as
NMR total porosity is concerned, the same observation
was made as in well B, i.e., a systematic under estimation
of NMR porosity relative to core porosity. As in well B it
has been confirmed by petrographical studies that this
part of the Tilje formation also shows micro porosity.
Because we do not have core capillary pressure and core
NMR data, we have to refrain from further speculation on
the effects of micro porosity on permeability.
CONCLUSIONS
Stoneley wave attributes can give realistic estimates for
permeability if a qualitative description of reservoir fluids
is given. A sufficient condition is that a distinction can be
made between liquid and gas. From this, ball park
numbers for the formation fluid parameters, viscosity, and
compressibility can be derived to give realistic
permeability estimates. To further fine tune the results,
Stoneley permeability can be calibrated on core or NMR
permeability.
SPWLA 40thAMIKII Logging Symposium, May 30-June 3,1999
Even in very heterogeneous formations as discussed ,
with permeability changes over a distance considerably
smaller than the Stoneley permeability vertical resolution
(12.5 ft), realistic permeability estimates are obtained
when compared to resolution matched core and/or NMR
permeability.
A potential problem for Stoneley permeability estimation
(but also for NMR permeability estimation) is formation
damage, which gives rise to an increased permeability
estimation relative to the undamaged formation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Authors wish to thank Statoil a.s. and the Asgard
Unit partners (Saga Petroleum a.s., Mobil Expl. Norway
Inc., Total Norge a.s., Neste Petroleum a.s., Norsk Agip
and Norsk Hydro a.s.) for permission to publish this
paper.
The views presented are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of the unit owners.
REFERENCES
Ehrenberg, S.N., 1993, Preservation of anomalously high
porosity in deeply buried sandstones by grain coating
chlorite: Examples from the Norwegian continental shelf:
AAPG, 77, 1260-1286.
Tang, X.M., Cheng, C.H., and Toksoz, M.N., 1991,
Dynamic permeability and borehole Stoneley waves: A
simplified Biot-Rosenbaum modeI: J. Acoust. Sot. Am.,
90, 1632-1646.
Tezuka, K., Cheng, C.H., Tang, X.M., 1997, Modeling of
low-frequency Stoneley-wave propagation in an irregular
borehole: Geophysics, 62, 1047-1058.
Gelinsky, S., Tang, X.M., 1997, Fast forward modeling
of Stoneley waves for irregular boreholes and
heterogeneous formations: Exp. Abstracts, 67th SEG
Annual Mtg.
Tang, X.M., Gelinsky, S., Chunduru, R., and Cheng,
C.H., 1997, Permeability from borehole acoustic waves:
An overview with recent advances: 67th Ann. Intern.
Mtg., Sot. Explor. Geophys., Expanded Abstracts, Dallas,
TX.
6
Tang, X.M., Alttmbay, M., Shorey, D., 1998, Joint
interpretation of formation permeability from wireline
acoustic, NMR, and, image log data, 39th annual logging
symposium transactions: Society of Professional Well
Log Analysts, 14 p.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Tim Geerits is a research scientist in the borehole
acoustic research group of Baker Atlas Logging services.
He received his MS (1988) in petroleum engineering and
his PhD (1993) in petrophysics from the faculty of
Applied Earth Sciences at the Delft University of
Technology. In 1994 he was with Shell exploration and
production research where he worked on algorithm
design and implementation for the interpretation of pulsed
neutron measurements. He joined Baker Atlas in 1996.
He is responsible for deployment/training of/in new
borehole acoustic technologies and is actively involved in
borehole acoustic research. His current interests include
borehole acoustic theory and acoustic log data
interpretation.
Mehmet Altunbay is a scientist in the reservoir
technology group at Baker Atlas Logging Services. He
works on petrophysical interpretation of NMR log data.
He previously worked for Core Laboratories, Pal-Mix
Inc., and the Turkish Petroleum Corp. Mehmet holds MS
and BS degrees in petroleum engineering from the
University of Southwestern Louisiana and the Middle
East Technical University.
Xiaoming Tang is a senior scientist and project leader for
borehole acoustic processing and interpretation software
development with Baker Atlas Logging Services. He
received his Doctor of Science degree from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1990, and then
worked as a scientist at New England Research, Inc.,
from 1990 to 1994. He joined Baker Atlas in 1994. His
current interests include algorithm development for
estimating formation properties from acoustic log data.
He has authored or co-authored more than 40 technical
papers and several patents.
Marl Audun Lehne is currently working as a
petrophysicist at Statoil, with special interest in
geological well-logging. He is also working as assistant
professor at Rogaland University Center in Stavanger.
Previous employment includes the Norwegian Geodetic
Survey, Elf Acquitaine, and Rogaland Research Institute.
 SPWLA 40thAnnual Logging Symposium, May 30-June 3,1999

He has a MS in Geophysics from the University of Oslo

(1973) and has served as vice president and president of
the Norwegian chapter of SPWLA.

Oscar Kelder is a petrophysicrst in Statoil, Norway. His

work currently focuses on the use of logs in time-lapse
seismic projects and witnessing offshore logging
operations. He received his MS (1992) in petroleum
engineering and his PhD (1997) in petrophysics from the
faculty of Applied Earth Sciences at the Delft University
of Technology. His doctoral research applied to the
acoustic determination of reservoir properties. He is a
member of SEG and SPWLA, including SPWLAs
international chapters DPS and NPES.

TT