SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
UNDERSTANDING ACOUSTIC DATA IN UNCONVENTIONAL
RESERVOIRS
Jennifer Market, Claudia Amorocho, Nicole Harris, Weatherford, Tim McGinley, Laredo Petroleum
Copyright 2016, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log
Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 57th Annual
Logging Symposium held in Reykjavik, Iceland June 25-29, 2016.
ABSTRACT
Acoustic velocities are one of the key measurements
for production enhancement and increased drilling
efficiency in unconventional reservoirs, but the
environment can present considerable complications
to accurate data interpretation. Because these
reservoirs are often produced by way of horizontal
boreholes through shales, the sonic logs respond to
intrinsic shale anisotropy, natural fractures, drilling
induced stress, and nearby beds above or below the
target formation. These intertwined effects frequently
lead to misinterpretations such as picking a
compressional slowness from an approaching bed but
the shear slowness from the current formation,
leading to odd (and confusing) geomechanical results.
Other times, shale anisotropy is inadvertently
assumed to be linked to natural fracture networks.
Interpretations from different vendors, and even
different analysts within the same team might vary
greatly due to different processing methods. Thus,
we need to consider the various aspects of sonic
response in horizontal wellbore through
unconventional reservoirs and proscribe a workflow
and quality control regime to ensure consistent and
valid results.
We begin with a discussion of the unconventional
reservoir applications which require sonic data as key
inputs, followed by a brief review of 3D anisotropy.
The remainder of the work focuses on understanding
the complex sonic log responses in horizontal shale
reservoirs. A workflow is described, with the goal of
correctly determining the compressional and shear
velocities for the bed in which the tool resides as well
as the nearby beds. Several field examples will be
examined in detail, describing the correct methods for
interpretation and the common pitfalls. Examples of
how incorrectly interpreted results impact formation
evaluation calculations follow. Finally, operational
recommendations to optimise sonic data collection in
shale reservoirs will round out the discussion.
1
INTRODUCTION
Sonic data interpretation in unconventional reservoirs
is complex, and currently not handled in a consistent
manner throughout the industry, sometimes leading
to errors and a general lack of confidence in the data.
Since sonic velocities are a key element in production
optimisation, geosteering, and wellbore stability, it is
essential that we improve the reliability of the
measurements. To that end, this paper reviews the
special considerations of sonic logging in
unconventional reservoirs, proposes a workflow that
should ensure consistently valid results, and discusses
the applications of sonic velocities in these
environments. It should be noted that throughout this
paper, “unconventional” is primarily referring to
shale reservoirs and that much of the focus of the
discussion is on optimising production via lateral
wellbores.
APPLICATIONS OF SONIC DATA IN
UNCONVENTIONAL RESERVOIRS
Sonic velocities, particularly azimuthal sonic
velocities, are useful in understanding the expected
fracture geometry and production in shale reservoirs.
In vertical wells, sonic data can be used to calibrate
log data to seismic results, locate target reservoirs by
identifying high TOC zones (Buller et al., 2010), and
characterise the stress field to understand how natural
fractures may interact with hydraulic fracturing
programmes. In lateral shale production wells, sonic
data are key to understanding 3D geomechanics as
needed to optimise production.
Choosing the landing point: Determining where to
place the lateral section of unconventional wells
requires an integrated knowledge of petrophysical
and geomechanical properties. While petrophysical
characterization helps to recognize the areas with
hydrocarbon potential, the geomechanical
characterization will help to determine the zones with
favourable properties for hydraulic fracture
propagation. Sonic logs are the best source to
calculate Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio and
closure stress in the vertical section; these parameters
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
will allow characterization of fracture growth and
identification of formations that could act as fracture
barriers to keep the hydraulic fracture within the
target formation.
Figure 1 shows a generic vertical section in an
organic shale. Within the target formation, the
Figure 1: Example of using sonic data to aid in computing minerology, closure stress and TOC in order to select the
optimal location to place the lateral.
Wellbore stability: Sonic measurements are also
widely used in conventional and unconventional
wells in order to determine the safe mud weight
window to drill safely and reduce the non-productive
time. Most of the available equations for rock
properties pore pressure and stress calculations
depend on quality sonic velocities that capture
formation changes in the well. In many cases, the
2
prospective zone can be recognized by the high TOC
content along other rock characteristics not shown in
the plot; ideal zones are isolated by layers with high
closure stress gradient, low Young’s modulus and
high Poisson’s ratio. These layers will act as fracture
barriers promoting fracture growth within the
prospective zone.
lack of sonic log will inhibit wellbore stability
analysis since it is directly used in the calculation of
parameters such as unconfined compressive strength,
normal compaction trend for pore pressure, Poisson's
ratio and maximum horizontal stress direction.
Figure 2 shows an example of wellbore stability
analysis. Sonic data was used as a primary input for
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

mechanical properties and in-situ stress calculations. failure gradient and breakdown pressure as shown in
These values were then used to calculate the shear the mud weight window track.

Figure 2. Example of using sonic data in an unconventional well to determine the safe mud weight for optimal
wellbore stability

The shear failure gradient and breakdown pressure
also depend on the wellbore trajectory and its relative
position with respect to the maximum horizontal
stress direction. One of the most accepted methods to
determine stress direction is the analysis of shear
slowness anisotropy in a vertical well, where the fast
shear direction corresponds to the azimuth of the
maximum horizontal stress. Figure 3 shows polar
plots which illustrate the shear failure gradient (i.e.
collapse pressure) and fracture breakdown pressure
for every possible well trajectory for a given depth.
The knowledge of the safer drilling trajectories
enables optimisation of the wellbore path and mud
weight values in order to reduce the drilling risks
associated with wellbore stability, such as influxes,
wellbore collapse, and mud losses.

3
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
Figure 3. Polar plots showing shear failure gradient (right) and fracture breakdown pressure (left) for every possible
trajectory at a given depth.
3D Geomechanics: The 3D characterization of
mechanical properties and calculation of closure
stress is one of the most widely used applications of
sonic velocities in unconventional formations. In this
environment, the intrinsic anisotropy of the formation
can make a significant impact on geomechanical
characterization and in the assessment of hydraulic
fracturing. In most cases, the analysis of shear
velocities in shale formations will confirm how the
formation anisotropy overcomes stress anisotropy.
Most current models assume that this is case for the
horizontal section. Accounting for the VTI shale
anisotropy can also make a dramatic difference in
geomechanical properties, hydraulic fracture
modelling and final production assessment. In the
past, all these models used the horizontal shear
measurement, assuming that the stress anisotropy was
so much greater than the VTI anisotropy effects that
they could be ignored. More recently, 3D shear
anisotropy analysis is being integrated into the
analysis to give a much more realistic picture of the
effects of VTI anisotropy. In many of the U.S. Shale
plays, the VTI anisotropy ranges well over 20
percent, which can have significant impact on the
interactions of hydraulic fractures with the stress
field.
Figure 4 shows a rock mechanics characterization
performed in the Eagle Ford. The sonic data shows
typical behaviour of a VTI medium where the
intrinsic shale anisotropy overcomes the stress
anisotropy. Tracks 5 and 6 show the difference in
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio in the
4
horizontal and vertical directions. Track 7 compares
the closure stress gradient using an isotropic approach
(grey curve) and an anisotropic approach (black
curve). The isotropic approach consistently
underestimates the closure stress. While this
parameter should be calibrated with field data, the
differences between isotropic and anisotropic
approach can reach up to 700 psi in areas with high
anisotropy, directly affecting the calculated net
pressure and any fracture propagation model.
Characterising natural fractures: Natural fractures
are integral in many unconventional reservoirs due to
their contribution to total permeability and their
ability to connect isolated zones of the reservoir with
the main hydraulic fracture system. Sonic logs allow
natural fracture detection and can help to determine if
a more detailed characterization is required (e.g.
image log characterization). In vertical wells, sonic
azimuthal anisotropy can be used to characterise
stress variations and fractures with dips above ~ 60
degrees, while Stoneley fracture analysis can be used
to identify fractures intersecting the wellbore (dips
below ~60 degrees). (Canady et al., 2008). Figure 5
shows Stoneley fracture analysis in a horizontal shale
reservoir.
Fracture network analysis from image logs can be
combined with stress magnitudes and directions
obtained from sonic logs to determine the possibility
of natural fractures reactivation. Figure 6 illustrates
an upper hemisphere plot; warm colours show the
dips and azimuth where fractures are likely to
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

reactivate under a given stress state. Each symbol fractures, while white symbols depict the natural
corresponds to a natural fracture obtained from image fractures that are critically stressed.
logs; black symbols correspond to stable natural

Figure 4. Calculation of rock mechanical properties in a VTI medium. Tracks 5 and 6 show the difference in
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio in the horizontal and vertical directions. Track 7 compares the closure stress
gradient using isotropic approach (grey curve) and anisotropic approach (black curve); the isotropic approach
consistently underestimates the closure stress.

Depth(ft)
Figure 5. Stoneley fracture analysis in a horizontal shale reservoir, identifying events intersecting the wellbore. In
this display, the green chevron is associated with a wellbore breakout while the magenta chevrons indicate fractures
intersecting the wellbore. It should be recalled that azimuthal anisotropy (e.g. from a crossed-dipole tool) is useful
for detecting fractures parallel to the wellbore while Stoneley fracture detection is useful to identify fractures
perpendicular to the wellbore. Thus, in the horizontal wellbore, Stoneley fracture detection can help to identify
vertical fractures that may contribute to production.
5
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 6. Critically stressed fracture analysis. Sonic shear anisotropy data are used to determine the azimuthal
stresses and these data are combined with image log interpretations to understand how the stress network will be
affected by hydraulic fractures and which natural fractures will contribute to production and fluid movement.

Geosteering: In unconventional reservoirs used to measure 4 velocities: compressional (VP), fast

geosteering is most often performed using the gamma
ray to stay within the target zone. Usually, this
means staying away from a non-shale bed (often a
carbonate layer) above or below the reservoir.
However, gamma ray measurements are shallow and
thus it is mostly a reactive geosteering tool (i.e. the
wellbore has to very nearly touching the nearby bed
to detect it). Not only can sonic tools steer more
proactively away from a non-shale layer due to their
deeper depth of detection, they can also be used to
steer within the shale for the sweeter spots within the
shale. (Market et al., 2010)
UNDERSTANDING 3D ANISOTROPY:
shear (VFS), slow shear (VSS), and Stoneley (VSST) as
well as azimuthal images of the compressional and
shear velocities.
Several articles (Thomsen et al. 1986, Schoenberg et
al., 1996, Hornby et al., 2003, Walsh et al., 2007)
detail the computation of Thomsen parameters and
methods to characterise 3D anisotropy, and while the
discussions will not be repeated here, the salient
points are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1
provides a review of the common types of anisotropy
while Table 2 summarise how the sonic tool
measurements are used in vertical and horizontal
wellbores.

One of the more difficult concepts in borehole
acoustics is 3D anisotropy. Even the terminology
isn’t used consistently. However, to effectively use
sonic data in unconventional reservoir applications,
we must understand what the tool measures in a given
borehole inclination. Azimuthal sonic tools can be
Throughout this paper, we have simplified our
assumptions that the bedding is horizontal.
Considering the case of inclined beds/deviated
wellbores adds even more complexity and is
discussed in other works. (Quirein et al., 2015).

6
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Type Axis of Image Stiffness Example

Symmetry Coefficient

Isotropic All C11 = C22 = C33 Not common in downhole environments

C44 = C55 = C66

Vertical Z (C11 = C22) ≠ C33 Shale Layering (C44 = C55) < C66
Transverse
Isotropy (C44 = C55) ≠ C66 Normal Faulting (C44 = C55) > C66

Horizontal X or Y C11 ≠ (C22 = C33) Vertical Fractures or Microfractures

Transverse
Isotropy Depends on stress C44 ≠ (C55 = C66) C55 > C44 ≈ C66
direction or
C44 > C55 ≈ C66

Orthorhombic None C11 ≠ C22 ≠ C33 Stress Fractures + Overburden Pressure

Anisotropy + Shale Layering
C44 ≠ C55 ≠ C66

Table 1. Types of anisotropy

Parallel to Axis of Symmetry Perpendicular to Axis of Symmetry

Equations 𝑪𝟑𝟑 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝒑 𝑪𝟏𝟏 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝒑

𝑪𝟒𝟒 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝑭𝑺 = 𝑪𝟓𝟓 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝑺𝑺 𝑪𝟔𝟔 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝑺𝑺 ≈ 𝑪𝟒𝟒 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝑺𝑺𝑻

𝑪𝟔𝟔 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝑺𝑺𝑻 𝑪𝟒𝟒 = 𝝆𝑽𝟐𝑺𝑺

𝑪𝟏𝟏 = 𝑪𝟑𝟑 − 𝟐𝑪𝟒𝟒 + 𝟐𝑪𝟔𝟔 (𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑰𝑬) 𝑪𝟑𝟑 = 𝑪𝟏𝟏 + 𝟐𝑪𝟒𝟒 − 𝟐𝑪𝟔𝟔 (𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑰𝑬)

Shales Fast Shear = Slow Shear < Stoneley Shear Stoneley Shear ≈ Slow Shear > Fast Shear

Table 2 – Summary of how to use the observed sonic velocities to compute 3D stiffness coefficients in vertical and
horizontal shale wells (assuming horizontal shale layering and simple VTI anisotropy)

7
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
HORIZONTAL LOGGING CONSIDERATIONS
To accurately interpret sonic data in laterals, we must
consider the sonic tool response in horizontal
wellbores (Market & Canady, 2009). In addition to
the 3D anisotropic considerations already discussed,
the main complications are the proximity to nearby
beds, tool centralisation effects, and conveyance
challenges.
Nearby beds: To optimise reservoir contact, the
laterals are generally geosteered with a gamma ray.
Since the reservoir is not a thick, tidy brick of
uniform composition with perfectly horizontal
boundaries (especially in the case of a shale
reservoir), it is very likely that there will be beds
above and/or below the target formation that are
within measurement range (6 inches-10 ft) of the
sonic tool. Particularly if the well is reactively
steered, the likelihood that the sonic tool will respond
to multiple nearby beds is high (Market et al. 2010).
The effects of nearby beds can be dramatic and have
historically led to many false interpretations,
lowering the overall confidence in sonic data in
lateral wells. However, a thorough understanding of
the behaviour and careful processing can yield
consistent, reliable compressional and shear
velocities for use in geosteering, wellbore stability,
and engineered completions.
Before discussing field examples, we will consider
sonic tool responses in a simple model of a horizontal
wellbore in a shale with a nearby limestone bed such
as that shown in Figure 7a. This will help to
understand the influence of the tool configuration on
azimuthal resolution and depth of investigation/depth
of detection.
In the example case, we can see that as we progress
from left to right that a formation is approaching from
below. We then reach the point (around 300 ft)
where we cross into the approaching formation, and
then finally emerge from it on the far right. The
upper formation is a shale exhibiting VTI anisotropy,
with compressional slowness of 75 us/ft and shear
slownesses of 120 and 140 us/ft. If we were in the
shale far from any nearby bed, when we look up and
down, we would see the vertical shear slowness of
140 us/ft and when we look right and left, we would
measure the horizontal shear slowness of 120 us/ft.
The lower formation is an isotropic carbonate with a
compressional slowness of 55 us/ft and a shear
slowness of 100 us/ft. There is no anisotropy in this
8
bed, so whether we look up or down, we would
measure 100 us/ft for the shear.
The most straight-forward case to consider is that of
acquiring sonic waveform data using a directionally
focussed source/aligned receiver array acquiring
waveform data at all angles around the wellbore i.e. a
unipole imaging tool (Mickael et al. 2012). This
configuration allows for high azimuthal resolution,
and we can clearly see approaching beds above or
below the location of the tool as we get within range.
Figure 7b shows the semblance response from the
bottom quadrant. On the left, we can see only the
shale, as the carbonate is too far below to be seen, but
as the carbonate grows closer to the wellbore, it
appears as a second arrival in the “down” semblance
map of Figure 7b. The semblance grows stronger as
the carbonate approaches- this is because the
amplitude of the signal refracted from the carbonate
gets larger as it gets closer, which increases the
signal-to-noise ratio. By 300 ft, the tool is located
entirely in the carbonate, so the “down” semblance
sees only carbonate. Finally, on the far right, as the
wellbore emerges from the carbonate and into the
shale, we see a strong semblance from the carbonate,
as it is still very close below the wellbore and a
weaker response from the shale, as only the area very
near the wellbore (<1 ft) is in the shale.
Figure 7c shows the semblance response from the
upper quadrant. When surrounded by shale, we see
only the compressional and vertical shear. Since this
example uses a focused unipole source and receiver
array, very little of the signal “wraps around” the
wellbore from below and thus we don’t detect the
carbonate in the upper quadrant until we actually
cross into it. At the far right, once the tool emerges
from the carbonate and is entirely within the shale,
we see a strong semblance response from the shale in
the upper quadrant.
Figure 7d shows the semblance response from the
left and right sides of the tool. When the wellbore is
surrounded by shale on all sides (such as at the far
left), we see just two arrivals – the compressional and
the horizontal shear. As the carbonate approaches,
we begin to see the carbonate compressional and
shear arrivals, but not clearly until the sides of the
tool are within a few feet off the carbonate.
If we were using an omnidirectional monopole
source (with 4 azimuthal receiver arrays) instead of a
focused unipole configuration, we would still see
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
azimuthal variations in the semblance response on the
4 azimuthal receiver arrays, but the omnidirectional
signal would “wrap around” the wellbore to a greater
degree. For comparison, Figure 7e shows how the
“up” receiver array semblance would appear when
using a monopole instead of a focussed unipole.
Some of the azimuthal resolution is lost and thus the
picture of the wellbore location and geology is less
clear. Another common tool industry configuration
is an omnidirectional monopole source with multiple
azimuthal receiver arrays, but the waveforms from
the individual receivers are summed (the individual
arrays not stored by the tool).Figure 7f shows the
results of the semblance for this type of tool. As we
can see, it becomes more difficult to determine which
arrivals are from the near and far formations, but
there are multiple arrivals present – we just have to
attribute each one to the right place.
To better visualise the near- and far- wellbore
response, we can create compressional and shear
azimuthal images. Figures 7g and 7h show the near-
wellbore compressional and shear images – these are
the properties for the immediate wellbore
environment (approximately 6 inches – 2 ft) and are
those which will correlate most closely with density,
neutron porosity, gamma ray, NMR, and other
shallow measurements. These data should be used for
applications that require the properties of the near
wellbore, such as wellbore stability and optimised
production. Figure 7i and 7j show the compressional
and shear images for the far field (approximately 2-
10 ft from the wellbore – the exact distance depends
upon the formation and tool configuration). These
deeper measurements are the ones most useful for
geosteering and for more advanced geomechanics
and production optimisation that take into account
nearby layering to improve the accuracy of the
models.
While the azimuthal images are useful tools for
geosteering and for visualising the environment
around the wellbore, most applications require
compressional and shear slownesses curves (not
images) for computations and thus 360 degree images
need to be distilled into the essential curves. Thus, it
is recommended that the azimuthal images or
summed monopole results be reduced to include the
9
compressional and shear slownesses for the near bed
and addition compressional and shear curves (which
will only exist in those intervals where a second bed
is within range of the measurement). Figure 7k
shows the essential curves from the example
alongside the gamma ray response.
Putting this theoretical discussion into practice,
Figure 8 shows a field data example of azimuthal
unipole LWD sonic data. In this (near-horizontal)
interval, the wellbore is passing very close above a
dense layer, which is evident on the sonic images as
well as the density and gamma ray images. The well
was steered with the shallow gamma ray and density
images, with the sonic data being acquired for the
purposes of engineered completions (which explains
why the trajectory was not steered away from the
approaching bed sooner, when it was identified by the
sonic – it wasn’t being included in the geosteering
interpretation in real-time). The compressional image
shows the approaching bed (dark colour) in the lower
quadrant sooner than the density or gamma ray while
the shear image shows the effects both of the nearby
bed below and the VTI anisotropy of the shale layer
(which appears as horizontal stripes in the image).
The top track shows the five pertinent slowness
values – the near formation compressional and
fast/slow shear and the far formation compressional
and shear. For geosteering, we would primarily focus
on the far field measurements, while we would use
the near field measurements for engineered
completions applications.
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

DTC=75 us/ft DTSV=140 us/ft DTSH=120 us/ft

DTC=55 us/ft DTS=100 us/ft

Figure 7a: Cartoon of a shale/carbonate environment and penetrating wellbore

Figure 7b –Semblance response from lower quadrant

Figure 7c –Semblance response from the upper quadrant

Figure 7d –Semblance response from left & right quadrants

Figure 7e Semblance response from the upper quadrant, but using an omni-directional monopole rather than a
focussed unipole – notice how the signal “leaks” around the tool and the geometric effects are less pronounced than
with the focussed source (Figure 7c)
10
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 7f – The semblance as it would appear using an omni-directional monopole source and summing the
azimuthal waveforms before computing semblance (a common tool configuration). This summed response can
make untangling the effects of nearby beds and VTI anisotropy difficult, but using other formation evaluation data
such as gamma ray, neutron/density, etc. as well as any corresponding vertical well logs can help separate the
effects.

Figure 7g – near field compressional image

Figure 7h – near field shear image

Figure 7i – far field compressional image

Figure 7j – far field shear image

11
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 7k: Distilling the azimuthal images into essential slowness curves

DTC Near DTS_V Near DTS_H_Near

DTC Far DTS_V Far

Stacked Semblances

DTS Image

DTC Image

Density Image

Gamma Ray Image

Gamma Ray (Avg)

Gamma Ray Up
Gamma Ray Down
Figure 8. Field example of a near-horizontal geosteered interval showing the azimuthal images of compressional
and shear slownesses alongside the stacked semblances from all 16 azimuthal bins and the near- and far- slowness
curves distilled from the image plots. The vertical stripes on the shear log in the shale interval are the effects of VTI
anisotropy.

12
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
While azimuthal images like these LWD examples
are ideal for distinguishing the effects of nearby beds
and VTI anisotropy in horizontal shale reservoirs, and
allow for clear interpretation, it is more common to
acquire the data with wireline monopole or crossed-
dipole tools and thus we need to consider how to best
interpret these data.
In the case of crossed-dipole tools, one of the factors
to consider is whether we should use the shear from
the monopole (refracted) or dipole (flexural)
responses. Monopole shear is usually acquired at
high frequency (~ 10-20 kHz) while dipole data is
generally in the 1-4 kHz range. This means that the
dipole data has a longer wavelength, reading deeper
into the formation than the high frequency monopole,
and is thus more likely to be influenced by nearby
beds. However, the dipole signal-to-noise ratio is
often higher than the high frequency monopole,
which means it is easier to pick arrivals from the
dipole semblances. Finally, we must recall that we
can only measure refracted shear velocities in
formations where the shear is faster than the mud
velocity, while the dipole shear can determine shear
in fast and slow formations. Though most shale
reservoirs are well within the fast shear zone, in some
the vertical (slower) shear can be close to, or slower
than the mud speed, making it difficult to measure
with the monopole. On the other hand, the tool is
often eccentred in the laterals which can make the
subtraction of opposing receiver arrays (i.e. XA-XC)
that is used to separate the flexural from Stoneley
arrivals problematic and the monopole data may be
clearer. Flexural data must also account for
geometric dispersion effects while monopole shear
does not.
Figure 10 illustrates a simple case of an isotropic
formation with formation shear slownesses faster
than the mud, and no variation from near- to far-
wellbore (such as invasion or alteration). As
expected, we observe that the dipole and monopole
shear response are the same, with similar semblance
quality. The dipole flexural wave has been corrected
for dispersion effects. The next more complex case is
that of anisotropy (in our case, VTI anisotropy in the
shale), but with no near/far wellbore variation. In this
case, too, the fast monopole and fast dipole should be
equal to one another while the monopole and dipole
slow shears should be near-identical. Such an
example is shown in Figure 11. While the slowness
values are similar for monopole and dipole vertical
and horizontal shear, we can see that the monopole
13
shear semblance is weaker (noisier) than that of the
dipoles, though still adequate for determining the
vertical and horizontal shear velocities. In cases of
anisotropy, the dipole data are usually exhibit higher
signal-to-noise ratios than the monopole. Finally, if
we consider the case of VTI anisotropy plus a nearby
bed, we can see from the example in Figure 12 that
the monopole semblance quality becomes busy and
sometimes difficult to distinguish, as the available
energy is now being split three ways – into the fast
and slow shear for the shale and the shear for the
nearby isotropic bed. The horizontal dipole data is
more directionally focussed then the omni-directional
monopole source, so it, along with the compressional
for the nearby bed, can be as good or better quality
than picking the fast shear arrival in the monopole.
However, the vertical dipole shear response generally
does not see discrete arrivals from the vertical shear
of the near bed and the vertical shear of the far bed,
as the subtraction of opposing receivers required to
separating Stoneley and flexural arrivals can blur the
response from discrete beds. The vertical flexural
signal quality is more likely to be degraded than the
horizontal flexural as that is the axis in which the tool
is least- centralised. In track 3 of Figure 12 we can
see that the YY (vertical) shear matches well with the
fast monopole shear, while the XX (horizontal) shear
does not match the slow monopole shear as well in
the zones that are near an approaching bed.
Figure 13 shows an example of “fracability” analysis
in a zone where the wellbore is located primarily in a
shale but skims a nearby bed below. The correctly
picked data (for the near bed) are shown in red and
the incorrectly picked (using the strongest semblance
for the compressional and the strongest semblance on
the dipole shears). We can see that it makes a
significant influence on the predicted productivity of
the rock.
*** In the examples shown in Figures 10-12 and 15-
22: These field data examples were all acquired with
a wireline crossed-dipole tool oriented such that X
was the vertical axes and Y in the horizontal axis,
sitting on the low side of the wellbore with minimal
standoff such as shown in the diagram of Figure 9.
Thus, the shear from the X dipole (DTS_XX) is the
vertical shear (slow shear) and the shear from the Y
dipole (DTS_YY) is (one of) the horizontal shear(s)
(Fast Shear). The shear from the Stoneley wave
(DTS_ST) is the other horizontal shear.
The semblance “STC_MP” is semblance computed
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

from the summed (A+B+C+D) monopole waveforms,

as is standard industry practice. “STC_Stack” is
computed by summing the semblances from A, B, C,
and D (not by summing the waveforms and then
computing semblance on the sum), which is often a
better way to enhance multiple azimuthal arrivals
than performing semblance on azimuthally stacked
waveforms. The stacked semblance is shown
throughout the figures to enable us to show the
semblance quality of the multiple compressional and
shear arrivals from the individual monopole receiver
arrays without having to show all 4 semblance tracks.

Figure 9. Position/Orientation of the wireline

crossed dipole tool used in the case studies shown in
Figures 10-12 and 15-22

Figure 10. This example from the vertical pilot hole shows an isotropic interval. As expected, the monopole and
dipole shears all agree. In the third track, the monopole shear is shown in lime green while the dipole shears are in
red and blue.

14
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 11. This example is from the lateral and is in a VTI anisotropy zone with no nearby beds. As expected the
monopole and dipole fast shears match each other and the monopole and dipole slow shears agree with each other.

Figure 12. In this example, the wellbore is located within a shale only a few feet away from a denser bed below.
The near- and far- compressional are shown in track 1 to accentuate the interval of strong nearby bed influence. As
expected, the monopole and dipole fast (horizontal)shears (third track, green and blue) agree reasonably well with
each other, but the monopole and dipole slow (vertical) shears ( maroon and red) differ greatly, as the low
frequency, deep-reading vertical dipole is significantly influenced by the bed below. In this case, we should be very
15
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

wary of using the vertical dipole shear in any analysis, but should use the shallower monopole reading and correlate
with the compressional to ensure that we are using the vertical shear for the shale layer in which the wellbore is
located, not mixing in responses from nearby beds.

Figure 13. Example of “fracability” analysis using correctly picked (red curves) and incorrectly picked (blue)
curves in a zone that in skimming a nearby bed. The second from left track shows the fracability of the interval
when using the default compressional (the strongest semblance) and the dipole shears, without taking care to
separate the shale response from the nearby bed. The rightmost track shows the more accurate analysis, using the
velocities carefully chosen from the layer in which the wellbore is located.

Horizontal Logging -Tool Centralisation: It can be
operationally difficult to centralise tools in high angle
wells. In traditional wireline conveyance cases, the
sonic tool is generally run with standoffs, keeping it
at least an inch from the wellbore wall, but in
through-bit type applications, sometimes standoffs
are not present at all (in order to fit the sonic tool
through the bit). While LWD tools are notoriously
difficult to centralise in horizontal wells, due to the
16
weight of the drill collar, the annulus size is so much
smaller than that of the wireline case that the effects
are lessened. Off-centring causes different issues for
different modes. The following is a summary of the
effects of tool position on the modes that we use in
lateral shale applications.
Compressional and refracted (monopole) shear
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

 Lower signal-to-noise on the side of the tool natural stresses/fractures parallel to the
furthest from wellbore wellbore (i.e. vertical fractures near a
 Summation of multiple azimuthal receiver vertical wellbore or horizontal fractures near
waveforms can lead to low signal-to-noise a horizontal wellbore).:
(treating each receiver array separately can
be helpful) A common question asked in the well planning stage
 If the formation is anisotropic and/or there is “how eccentred can the tool be and still get good
are nearby beds, the reduced signal-to-noise data?” The amount of eccentring needed to cause
is particularly noticeable, as the available significant degradation to the data varies by mode,
signal energy is already being split two or application, and formation properties, but in a
three times into the competing arrivals practical sense, assuming that the formation is
isotropic, there is no interference from nearby beds,
Stoneley, flexural, and quadrupole shear: and the borehole is circular and not excessively
rugose, in horizontal shale reservoirs, the likelihood
 Separation of modes by combination of of getting usable data is shown in Figure 14.
azimuthal receiver waveforms (i.e.
subtracting opposing receiver waveforms to
enhance flexural, summing azimuthal
receiver waveforms to enhance Stoneley,
etc.) is less effective in separating modes
and is generally nosier.
 Dispersion curves are affected by standoff
differences on each side of the tool. (Zheng
et al., 2004)

(LWD) Azimuthal Anisotropy: (Market et al. 2008)

 Relatively little effects on unipole/monopole

azimuthal images
 Dipole images need careful dispersion
curves for each azimuthal bin given the
varying standoff

Crossed-Dipole Anisotropy

 Alford rotation challenging to correct for the

amplitude and dispersion variation due to
standoffs
 Orienting the transmitter/receiver array such
that one axis is aligned with vertical (and the
other horizontal) minimises the need to use
Alford rotation to detect VTI anisotropy
Figure 14. Summary of the effects of tool off-
Dispersion Crossover Analysis (Plona et al.. 1999) centring on sonic measurements. The colour scale
gives a general idea of the quality of the measurement
 Best option is with vertically aligned tool given the amount of standoff (in inches). The
diameter labels at the bottom are for visual reference
 Must account for the stand-off effects of the
for typical wireline scenarios – these show the
dispersion curves for fast and slow and
maximum possible off-centring for a 3” diameter
separate those effects from near-field and
wireline tool for each of the listed diameters. For
far-field anisotropy
other tool size one can calculate the maximum
 Not usually of great value in horizontal
possible off-centre amount by (Hole Diameter-Tool
shales, as this technique is mostly employed
Diameter)/2. “Rotational” Anisotropy means using a
to understand the variation in induced vs
17
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
focussed source and acquiring discrete data around
the wellbore, while “Oriented” means aligning the
transmitter/receiver axis to vertical and “Alford
Rotation” means the tool is not oriented vertically
and thus we must use Alford rotation methods to
compute the vertical and horizontal shear.
Horizontal Logging – Conveyance: The final
consideration in horizontal logging is conveyance,
and we will focus on wireline conveyance, as LWD
sonic tool conveyance in high angle wells does not
generally lead to any additional problems Whether
wireline tools are conveyed by tractor, via a shuttle or
through the bit, the factors that affect sonic data
quality in the laterals are: road noise, stick/slip,
centralisation, and azimuthal orientation.
Road noise, due to the sound of the stabilisers or the
tool itself scraping along the wellbore, the formation
signal can be drowned out in some cases. While road
noise tends to be low frequency, it often reaches the
1-5 kHz range, interfering with flexural mode signals.
In some cases it can reach 20 kHz, noticeably
degrading the monopole signal quality and leading to
problems detecting compressional arrivals,
particularly in fast formations. Higher logging speed
can increase the noise dramatically. Signal quality
should be monitored whilst logging – it is sometimes
possible to slow down to improve the signal quality.
Stick/Slip can lead to data quality issues on sonic
much as with other measurements. Sonic tools take 5-
18
40 milliseconds to acquire a data sample (depending
on the mode) and if the tool jerks during this sample
period, the data will be affected
HORIZONTAL SHALE RESERVOIR SONIC
PROCESSING WORKFLOW
As is evident from the discussions and example
above, the sonic log responses in horizontal shale
reservoirs are complex and it is easy to get lost in the
interpretation. In order to consistently determine the
correct compressional and shear slownesses, we
propose a practical workflow using a wireline
crossed-dipole tool. For applications such as
engineered completions, we want to characterise the
bed in which the wellbore is located to ensure that
we are correlating the responses of the gamma ray,
resistivity, neutron porosity, density and sonic in the
same formation. This is intentionally the opposite of
the process for geosteering, which aims to detect
approaching beds from as far away as possible.
Keep in mind that this is not a universal workflow to
be applied in the vertical section or, indeed, in
conventional scenarios. This is very specifically
designed for the special case of horizontal shale
reservoirs. If all this painstaking interpretation seems
overly complicated, consider using azimuthal
imaging tools (LWD Sonic, gamma ray, and density)
which can dramatically simplify the interpretation but
showing a clear picture of the properties all around
the wellbore.
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

1) Compressional (DTC)
 Compute the monopole semblance-time-coherence (STC). If azimuthal data exists (azimuthally binned data
or multiple azimuthal receiver arrays), process each azimuth separately. Stack the resulting semblances (do
not stack the raw azimuthal waveforms).If only a summed waveforms or a single set of waveforms exist, use
it.
 Pick the compressional arrival for the bed in which the borehole is located, using the gamma ray,
neutron/density, and/or shallow resistivity data as a guide, or a detailed geological plot if available.
 This is not meant to be an exercise in “drawing the log”, but rather using the shallower measurements to
help choose which of the sonic measurements corresponds to the near bed.
 In the case where the wellbore is within a few inches of a second bed or even straddling two beds, there
truly are two “correct” answers and both must be used in the completion model. Luckily, this is rare, as
straddling two beds tends to lead to difficult drilling conditions and poor wellbore stability.
2) Horizontal (fast) shear
 If the fast shear is clear on the monopole data, pick it from there, using the compressional and gamma ray as
guides to picking the arrival from the correct bed
 Anywhere that there is no confident result from the monopole data, use the horizontal dipole data
(dispersion corrected) to fill in the gaps. Be careful to ensure that the dipole data is not influenced by
nearby beds – if the compressional semblance shows a nearby bed, then the dipole shear is likely to be
influenced by it. Do not use the dipole to fill the gaps in these intervals.
 For any remaining gaps, run a multi-linear regression that uses the compressional, valid fast shear from
monopole and dipole, and gamma ray to build the regression model. Be careful to only use the data from the
horizontal interval when building the regression model.
3) Vertical (slow) shear
 If the slow shear is clear on the monopole data, pick it from there, using the compressional and gamma ray
as guides to picking the arrival from the correct bed
 Anywhere that there is no confident result from the monopole data, use the vertical dipole data (dispersion
corrected) to fill in the gaps. Be careful to ensure that the dipole data is not influenced by nearby beds – if
the compressional semblance shows a nearby bed, then the vertical dipole shear is very likely to be
influenced by it. Do not use the dipole to fill the gaps in these intervals.
 For any remaining gaps, run a multi-linear regression that uses the compressional, valid slow shear from
monopole and dipole, and gamma ray to build the regression model. Be careful to only use the data from the
horizontal interval when building the regression model.
4) Reality Check
 Plot the VPVS and/or Poisson’s ratios for fast and slow shears, ensuring that they make sense (no negative
Poisson’s ratio, fast and slow shear should make sense compared to each other, etc.) Unlike in
vertical/conventional wells, the VP/VS ratio does not tend to track the gamma ray in lateral shale wellbores,
but the ratio of the fast to slow shear (the indication of VTI anisotropy) generally tracks the gamma ray.

Figures 15-22 step through two case studies using
the proscribed workflow to untangle shale anisotropy
responses when the wellbore is skimming a nearby
dense formation. For ease of review, the step-by-step
commentary is shown in the figure descriptions
below each plot. It is important to recall that the goal
of this workflow is not geosteering (detecting the
nearby beds), but to accurately determine the
properties if the formation in which the wellbore is
located for use in wellbore stability, 3D
geomechanics, and engineered completions.

CASE STUDY #1:

19
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 15. Choosing the compressional from the monopole semblance using the gamma ray, neutron porosity, and
density (the shallow, near-bed measurements as a guide). Note the white circled areas in the semblance plot that
show the approaching bed.

Figure 16. Horizontal (fast) shear: First, the fast shear was picked from the monopole where it was good quality and
the compressional was used as a guide to help choose the right arrival when approaching a bed. (Track 3). Then, the
horizontal dipole (DTS_YY) was used to fill the gaps in the monopole shear (Track 4). In this example, there was
no need to use a regression to fill any gaps as the combination of monopole and dipole shear gave us a good quality
continuous horizontal shear.

20
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 17. Vertical (slow) shear: First, the slow shear was picked from the monopole where it was good quality and
the compressional was used as a guide to help choose the right arrival when approaching a bed. (Track 3). Then, the
horizontal dipole (DTS_XX) was used to fill the gaps in the monopole shear (Track 4). Finally, a multi-linear
regression was used to fill the remaining gaps

Figure 18. Reality check. The final compressional, vertical and horizontal shears are shown in the top track and
agree well with each other. The fast and slow (vertical and horizontal) VP/VS ratios are plotted alongside the
gamma ray in the bottom track, showing that there are no false readings. Note that it is the ratio of the two VP/VS
ratios that tracks the gamma ray much more than the VP/VS itself (as would be the more common case in
conventional scenarios).

21
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

CASE STUDY #2:

Figure 19. Using the shallow measurements (gamma ray, neutron porosity and density) to guide the picking of the
compressional arrival. Note that in the boxed area, the tool has entered a dense bed below the shale, and the
compressional still detects the shale as well.

Figure 20. Horizontal (fast) shear: First, the fast shear was picked from the monopole where it was good quality and
the compressional was used as a guide to help choose the right arrival when approaching a bed. (Track 3). Then, the
horizontal dipole (DTS_YY) was used to fill the gaps in the monopole shear (Track 4). Finally, a linear regression
(Track 5, gold) was used to fill the remaining gaps. In this example, the monopole shear is quite noisy and the dipole
shear and regression are very useful guides to untangle the melee of arrivals.

22
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Figure 21 Vertical (slow) shear: First, the slow shear was picked from the monopole where it was good quality and
the compressional was used as a guide to help choose the right arrival when approaching a bed. (Track 3). Then, the
horizontal dipole (DTS_XX) was used to fill the gaps in the monopole shear (Track 4). Finally, a multi-linear
regression was used to fill the remaining gaps. Note that the interval shown is but a portion of a much longer interval
(the entire interval was used to seed the MLR).

Figure 22. Reality check. The final compressional, vertical and horizontal shears are shown in the top track and
agree well with each other. The fast and slow (vertical and horizontal) VP/VS ratios are plotted alongside the
gamma ray in the bottom track, showing that there are no false readings. Note that as the tool enters the nearby
carbonate bed (boxed in black), the vertical and horizontal shears converge, as this later does not exhibit VTI
anisotropy.

OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS summarised the suitability of common industry tools

Tool Selection: Previous works (Market, 2012) give
detailed advice on the suitability of various types of
sonic tools for different applications. Table 3
23
for unconventional applications.
Wireline or LWD: While geosteering and real time
mud optimisation are LWD applications, most of the
SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

other unconventional reservoir sonic applications can

use LWD or wireline data interchangeably. Generally
cost and difficulty of conveyance in the wellbore
trajectory dictate the choice. However, in the case of
interpreting nearby beds, especially if the wellbore is
straddling the beds, it is highly recommended to run
LWD azimuthal sonic, azimuthal gamma, and
azimuthal density. This combination will reduce the
required interpretation time while providing a higher
confidence result.

Cased or open hole: For applications such as landing

point selection, acquiring sonic data in the cased hole
is suitable. Fracture/stress characterisation in the
vertical wellbore can be performed through casing if
non-magnetic navigation is used. In the lateral, the
presence of casing adds additional complications to
the separation of nearby beds; however,
compressional, horizontal, and vertical shear are
usually obtainable. Regardless of the application, the
cement bond must be reasonably good to get usable
quality compressional or shear sonic measurements.
Stoneley measurements are not recommended in
casing. Azimuthal LWD images should be acquired
on open hole, as they rely on magnetometers for the
azimuth.
Wireline horizontal data acquisition
recommendations:
1. Choose a crossed-dipole tool when possible to
improve the chances of reliable shear detection.
2. Store the individual azimuthal waveforms from
each receiver array (if the tool is so enabled).
3. Use stabilisers/centraliser when possible
4. Orient the tool such that one of the transmitter
axes is vertical and the other horizontal such as
in Figure 9. This will accentuate the VTI shear
anisotropy and make it easier to separate
bedding and anisotropy effects.
5. Take care to minimise road noise by not
exceeding the recommended logging speeds.
6. Minimise stick/slip to improve data quality.
LWD horizontal data acquisition recommendations:
1. If geosteering with the sonic as the primary
indicator, place the tool as close to the bit as
possible.
2. If acquiring azimuthal data, be sure to rotate the
tool – for this reason it is usually better to collect
the data while drilling than on a wiper trip.
Table 3: Tool suitability by unconventional
application
SUMMARY
Sonic logs provide valuable inputs to many
unconventional applications, from wellbore stability
to geosteering and engineered completions. Sonic
data in shale lateral production wells can be
extremely complex, with the effects of nearby beds,
3D anisotropy, centralisation, and conveyance all
adding to the difficulty of interpretation. However,
with a solid understanding of the tool response and a
careful workflow, reliable compressional and 3D
shear data can be determined for use in a multitude of
applications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the operators who gave
permission to publish examples of their data,
including Laredo Petroleum, Inc. and others who
wish to remain anonymous.
REFERENCES
Amorocho, C., Langford, C., Mejia, C., 2014,
“Realtime Fracture Placement and Completion
Design Using an Azimuthal LWD Sonic and
Spectral Gamma Ray Analysis for an
Anisotropic Reservoir Evaluation”, SPE 171014.
Buller, D., Hughes, S., Market, J., Petre, E.,
Spain, D., Odumosu, T., 2010, “Petrophysical
Evaluation for Enhancing Hydraulic Stimulation
in Horizontal Shale Gas Wells”, SPE 132990.
Canady, W., and Market, J., 2008, “Fracture

24
 SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
Characterisation by Borehole Logging
Methods”, SPWLA 49th Annual Logging
Symposium.
Gokaraju, D., Chen, D., Far, M., Quirein, J., 2015,
“Shale Fracturing Characterization and Optimization
by Using Anisotropic Acoustic Interpretation, 3D
Fracture Modeling and Neural Network”, SPWLA
56th Annual Logging Symposium.
Hornby, B.E., Howie, J.M., Ince, D.W., 2003,
“Anisotropy correction for deviated well sonic logs:
application to seismic well tie”, Geophysics, 68, 464-
471.
Market, J., Canady, W., 2007 “Sonic Logging in
Horizontal Wells – Applications, Challenges and
Best Practices”, SPWLA 1st Annual Regional
Conference Symposium in Mumbai, India.
Market, J., Deady, R., 2008, “Azimuthal Sonic
Measurements: New Methods in Theory and
Practice”, SPWLA 49th Annual Logging
Symposium.
Market, J., Canady, W., 2009, “Multipole Logging
in High-Angle Wells”, SPWLA 50th Annual
Logging Symposium.
Market, J., Quirein, J., Pitcher, J., Hinz, D.,
Buller, D., Al-Dammad, C., Spain, D. and
Odumosu, T., 2010, “Logging-While-Drilling in
Unconventional Shales”, SPE 133685.
Market, J., 2012, “Choosing the Right Sonic
Service”, SPWLA 54th Annual Logging
Syposium.
Market, J., Mejia, C., Mutlu, O., Shahri, M.P.,
Tudge, J., 2015, “Untangling Acoustic
Anisotropy”, SPWLA 56th Annual Logging
Symposium.
25
Mickael, M., Barnett, C., Diab, M., 2012, “Shear
Wave Anisotropy Measurement from
Azimuthally Focussed LWD Tool”, SPE162175.
Plona, T., Sinha, B., Kane, M.R., Winkler,
K.W., Frignet, B., 1999, “Stress-Induced Dipole
Anisotropy: Theory, Experiment, and Field
Data”, SPWLA 40th Annual Logging
Symposium, paper RR.
Quirein, J., Far, M., Gokaraju, D., Mekic, N., 2015,
“Rock Physics Relationships Between
Compressional, Shear, And Density Logs In
Unconventional Formations, Including Deviated
Wells”, SPE-176964.
Schoenberg, M., Muir, F., Sayers, C., 1996,
“Introducing ANNIE: A Simple Three-parameter
Anisotropic Velocity Model for Shales”, Journal of
Seismic Exploration 5, p 35-49.
Shebl, M. A.; Yalavarthi, R.; and Nyaaba, C.,2012,
“The Role of Detailed Petrophysical Reservoir
Characterization in Hydraulic Fracture Modeling of
Shale Gas Reservoirs”, SPE 160341.
Thompsen, L., 1986, “Weak elastic anisotropy”,
Geophysics 51, 1954-1966.
Walsh, J., Sinha, B., Donald, A., 2006, “Formation
Anisotropy Parameters Using Borehole Sonic
Data”, SPWLA 47th Annual Logging Symposium,
paper TT.
Walsh, J., Sinha, B., Plona, T., et al.., 2007,
“Derivation of Anisotropy Parameters in a Shale
Using Borehole Sonic Data”, SEG Annual Meeting
2007.
Zheng, Y.,Toksoz, M.N., 2004, “Effects of Tool
Eccentricity On Wave Dispersion Properties in
Borehole Acoustic Logging While Drilling”, MIT
ERL Consortium Report 2004.