Triaxial InductionA New Angle

for an Old Measurement

Barbara Anderson
Consultant
Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Tom Barber
Rob Leveridge
Sugar Land, Texas, USA
Rabi Bastia
Kamlesh Raj Saxena
Anil Kumar Tyagi
Reliance Industries Limited
Mumbai, India
Jean-Baptiste Clavaud
Chevron Energy Technology Company
Houston, Texas
Brian Coffin
HighMount Exploration & Production LLC
Houston, Texas
Madhumita Das
Utkal University
Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India
Ron Hayden
Houston, Texas
Theodore Klimentos
Mumbai, India
Chanh Cao Minh
Luanda, Angola
Stephen Williams
StatoilHydro
Stavanger, Norway
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Frank Shray,
Lagos, Nigeria; and Badarinadh Vissapragada, Stavanger.
AIT (Array Induction Imager Tool), ECS (Elemental Capture
Spectroscopy Sonde), ELANPlus, FMI (Fullbore Formation
MicroImager), MR Scanner, OBMI (Oil-Base MicroImager),
OBMI2 (Integrated Dual Oil-Base MicroImagers) and
Rt Scanner are marks of Schlumberger.
Excel is a mark of Microsoft Corporation.
Westcott is a mark of Acme United Corporation.

64

A new induction resistivity tool provides 3D information about formations far from the
wellbore. It improves the accuracy of resistivity measurements in deviated wells and
in dipping beds, and can measure formation dip magnitude and direction without
having to make contact with the wellbore. The tools highly accurate triaxial
resistivity measurement means fewer missed opportunities and better understanding
of the reservoir.

Triaxial induction resistivity is rejuvenating an

old measurement. Formation resistivity, the
fundamental property log analysts use to evaluate
oil and gas wells, was the first measurement
acquired with wireline logging tools. As the
equipment to provide resistivity measurements
evolved, induction resistivity logging became the
standard measurement technique for acquiring
formation resistivity. However, the accuracy of
tool response at high resistivities and in deviated
wells or dipping reservoirs was limited by the
physics of the measurement. A new tool
overcomes many of the limitations of previous
induction logging techniques. This 3D triaxial
induction measurement enables petrophysicists
to better understand and evaluate the types of
reservoirs where, before the new technology,
hydrocarbons could have easily been
underestimated or overlooked.
The resistivity story began a century ago,
when Conrad Schlumberger developed a
technique for measuring the resistivity of the
subsurface layers of the Earth. His experiments
demonstrated a practical application with
commercial possibilities. The concept was
promising enough that he formed a business

venture to put the technique into practice.1 On

September 5, 1927, with equipment designed and
built by Henri-Georges Doll, the first electrical
logging experiment, a measurement of formation
resistivity, was conducted in a well in the
Pechelbronn oil region, Frances only large oil
field (next page, bottom).2
The fledgling oil and gas industry adopted
this electrode-based resistivity measurement,
and, with modifications, used it to identify
hydrocarbon deposits. Porous, permeable zones
with high resistivity indicated the potential for
oil or gas; low resistivity suggested the presence
of salt water. Then, in the 1940s, Doll introduced
the principles of induction resistivity logging to
the industry.3 This technique acquired formation
resistivity in wells without a conductive path,
notably in oil-base mud, overcoming a major
limitation of electrode-based measurements.
The process of measuring formation
resistivity is not as simple as taking a direct
reading from a tool or a measurement from
Point A to Point B; however, in the past halfcentury, great strides have been made in
accurately measuring this critical parameter.
Because induction logging tools provide

1. Gruner Schlumberger A: The Schlumberger Adventure.

New York City: Arco Publishing, Inc., 1982.
2. Oristaglio M and Dorozynski A: A Sixth Sense: The Life
and Science of Henri-Georges Doll Oilfield Pioneer and
Inventor. Parsippany, New Jersey, USA: The Hammer
Company, 2007.

3. Doll HG: Introduction to Induction Logging and

Application to Logging of Wells Drilled with Oil-Based
Muds, Petroleum Transactions, AIME 1, no. 6
(June 1949): 148162.
4. For more on induction tool response: Gianzero S and
Anderson B: A New Look at Skin Effect, The Log
Analyst 23, no. 1 (JanuaryFebruary 1982): 2034.

Oilfield Review

Transmitter

X
Rv
Rv
z
Rh

y
Rh

Receiver
x

apparent formation resistivity by taking a

measurement from a large volume of material
beyond the borehole, all the components within
that sensed region influence the final reading.
Some of these interactions can negatively impact
the quality and accuracy of the measured
resistivity value.4 This is especially true when the
layers are not perpendicular to the axis of the

tool, as is the case with dipping beds and

deviated wells. Because of the effects of adjacent
conductive layers, the resistivity measured by
induction logging tools in dipping beds may be
considerably lower than the true resistivity,
resulting in an underestimate of the hydrocarbon
in place. Heterogeneity between the subsurface
strata, and even within individual layers, also
affects tool response.

To account for these and other effects, log

analysts first used manual corrections and later
developed computer-based, forward-modeling
and inversion techniques to more closely
approximate the true formation resistivity.
However, they could not resolve all the
unknownsparticularly formation dip. Despite
these unresolved errors in the measurement, the

High resistivity

> The first resistivity log. The first carottage lectrique (electrical coring) from a well in Frances Pechelbronn oil field was recorded on September 5,
1927. The equipment to provide this resistivity log was based on tools used for surface mapping. The log is scaled in ohm.m, as are modern resistivity
logs. The high-resistivity interval correlated with a known oil sand in a nearby well, validating the use of log data to evaluate wells.

Summer 2008

65

The effects of anisotropy on the induction

resistivity measurement have been known since
the 1950s, but until recently there has been no
way to resolve the horizontal and vertical
components.6 By taking a 3D measurementin
essence a tensor rather than a scalar approach
these types of ambiguities and errors can be fully
resolved. However, sensors with the ability to
measure induction resistivity in three dimensions
in tensor form had been beyond the limits of
existing hardware. Similarly, the processing
required to model and invert the measurement
was extremely time-consuming, even when using
supercomputers or distributed networks.7
Many of the limitations inherent in induction
logging have now been overcome with the
Rt Scanner triaxial induction service. Currently
available computational-processing power has
been combined with a new tool design to create
a step change in the evolution of induction
logging. This new tool is solving problems and
providing the industry with answers to questions
that have plagued log analysts and geologists
from the beginning of well logging.
Three primary applications of triaxial induction tools are accurate resistivity measurements
in dipping formations, identification and
quantification of laminated pay intervals and a
new structural dip measurement that requires no
pad contact. This article describes how these
measurements are made and demonstrates their
applications. Also included are case studies from
Africa, India and North America.

> The concept of induction resistivity. The basic physics of the induction
resistivity measurement is represented by a two-coil array. A continuous
distribution of currents, generated by the alternating-electromagnetic field
of the transmitter (T), flows in the formation beyond the borehole. These
ground loops of current generate electromagnetic fields that are sensed by
the receiver coil (R). A phase-sensitive detector circuit, developed originally
for land-mine detection during World War II, separates the formation signal
(R-signal) from the directly coupled signal coming from the transmitter
(X-signal). The R-signal is converted to conductivity, which is then converted
to resistivity. (Adapted with permission from Doll, reference 3.)

industry has successfully discovered much of the

worlds hydrocarbon resources using induction
logging tools. Unfortunately, some reservoirs
have been overlooked or underestimated
because of the measurement limitations.
Another difficult formation property for
induction tools to contend with is electrical
anisotropyvariations in properties that change
with the direction of the measurement.5

66

Anisotropy is prevalent in shales as well as in the

parallel bedding planes of laminated sand-shale
sequences. When the beds are thinner than the
vertical resolution of the induction logging tool,
the measurement becomes a weighted average of
the properties of the individual layers,
dominated by the elements with the lowest
resistivities. This phenomenon may mask the
presence of hydrocarbons.

Induction Resistivity Basics

A two-coil array demonstrates the physics of a
traditional uniaxial induction resistivity measurement. Alternating current excites a transmitter
coil, which then creates an alternatingelectromagnetic field in the formation (left).8
This field causes eddy currents to flow in a
circular path around the tool. The ground loops of
current are perpendicular to the axis of the tool
and concentric with the borehole. They are at
least 90 out of phase with the transmitter
current, and their magnitude and phase depend
on the formations conductivity.
The current flowing in the ground loop
generates its own electromagnetic field, which
then induces an alternating voltage in the
receiver coil. The received voltage is at least 90
out of phase with the ground loop and more than
180 out of phase with the transmitter current.
Induction resistivity from the formation is derived
from this voltage, referred to as the R-signal.
Direct coupling of the tools primary transmitter

Oilfield Review

field in the receiver coil, the X-signal, combines

with the formation R-signal; however, the directly
coupled signal is out of phase with the
contribution from the formation. This phase
difference, detected using phase-sensitive
circuitry, permits the rejection of the X-signal and
measurement of the R-signal.
Conversion of the R-signal voltage to
conductivity was first accomplished by equations
based on the Biot-Savart law, which assumes the
major contribution of a single ground loop will
have a maximum value at the midpoint of the
transmitter and receiver coils.9 Schlumberger
mathematicians later developed equations
based on the complete solution for Maxwells
equationsthat provided more accurate measurements.10 This solution can be visualized using a
simplified version of Maxwells equationsthe
Born approximationwhich is an accepted
method of determining the source and location
of the formation signal. For the two-coil axial
array, the response is essentially a toroid shape
surrounding the tool and perpendicular to its axis,
with maximum values near the midpoint of the
transmitter and receiver (right).11
In vertical wells with thick homogeneous
horizontal beds, standard resistivity logging
tools, such as the AIT Array Induction Imager
Tool, work reasonably well. These uniaxial tools
measure apparent resistivity, Ra, in a horizontal
plane, which is equivalent to horizontally
measured resistivity, Rh. Resistivity measured in
a vertical plane, Rv, cannot be measured with
uniaxial induction tools in a vertical well.
Because the ground loops of induction tools
intersect a huge volume of the formation, they
may traverse a path that includes several different
layers with varying electrical properties.
Anisotropy results in a resistivity measurement
that changes based on the direction of the
measurement. This limitation in the measurement
was one of the factors that led to the development
of the Rt Scanner tool.
The Impetus for Triaxial Measurements
Although the concepts underlying triaxial
induction measurements first appeared in the
literature in the mid 1960s, the tools to make this
measurement were not developed. There were
three main reasons for the delay: a triaxial tool
could not be built with the existing technology,
the data processing required was beyond the
capability available at the time, and the tools
response to conductive fluids in the borehole
could be much larger than the signal from
the formation.

Summer 2008

> Born approximation for a uniaxial induction logging tool. The sensed region
for uniaxial induction tools is a toroid shape (red), perpendicular to the tool.
The maxima are located approximately at the midpoint between the transmitter
(T) and receiver (R). This rendering shows the Born approximation of the full
solution to Maxwells equations. The shape is valid for thick beds and
homogeneous, isotropic formations. This region sampled by the uniaxial
induction tool corresponds to only one of the nine modes measured by the
triaxial Rt Scanner tool.

Interest in triaxial induction was renewed

chiefly because of the recognized limitations of
uniaxial resistivity measurements in two areas:
anisotropic reservoirs and bedding planes that
are not perpendicular to the axis of the tool.12
Although both of these limitations were
identified in the 1950s, there was then no direct

method of measuring anisotropy with an

induction logging tool, and the solution to
negative effects of real or relative dipping beds
on induction resistivity was not trivial.13 As
technology advanced, measurement understanding, processing power and tool design all
played key roles in solving for these effects,

5. For more on anisotropy: Anderson B, Bryant I, Lling M,

Spies B and Helbig K: Oilfield Anisotropy: Its Origins and
Electrical Characteristics, Oilfield Review 6, no. 4
(October 1994): 4856.
Tittman J: Formation Anisotropy: Reckoning with Its
Effects, Oilfield Review 2, no. 1 (January 1990): 1623.
6. Kunz KS and Gianzero S: Some Effects of Formation
Anisotropy on Resistivity Measurements in Boreholes,
Geophysics 23, no. 4 (October 1958): 770794.
Moran JH and Gianzero S: Effects of Formation
Anisotropy on Resistivity-Logging Measurements,
Geophysics 44, no. 7 (July 1979): 12661286.
7. Anderson B, Druskin V, Habashy T, Lee P, Lling M,
Barber T, Grove G, Lovell J, Rosthal R, Tabanou J,
Kennedy D and Shen L: New Dimensions in Modeling
Resistivity, Oilfield Review 9, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 4056.
8. For a detailed explanation of induction theory: Moran JH
and Kunz KS: Basic Theory of Induction Logging and
Application to Study of Two-Coil Sondes, Geophysics 27,
no. 6, part I (December 1962): 829858.

9. The Biot-Savart law describes the magnetic field

generated by an electric current.
10. Maxwells equations, named for physicist James Clerk
Maxwell, are a set of four partial differential equations
that explain the fundamentals of electric and magnetic
field relationships.
11. Habashy T and Anderson B: Reconciling Differences in
Depth of Investigation Between 2-MHz Phase Shift and
Attenuation Resistivity Measurements, Transactions of
the SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, Midland,
Texas, June 1619, 1991, paper E.
12. Moran and Gianzero, reference 6.
13. For the theoretical solution to Maxwells equations as
applied to induction logging: Moran and Kunz,
reference 8.
Anderson B, Safinya KA and Habashy T: Effects of
Dipping Beds on the Response of Induction Tools,
paper SPE 15488, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
October 58, 1986.

67

ultimately resulting in the development of a

triaxial induction tool (below left).
Developing such a tool involved understanding
the effects of the borehole on the measurement.14
There is a great sensitivity to eccentricity in the
borehole: the more conductive the mud, the
greater the effect. The sensitivity results in the
formation signal being overwhelmed by the
borehole signal. This situation, the effects of
which can be two orders of magnitude greater for
triaxial tools than for uniaxial induction tools,
would have been an insurmountable obstacle
without intensive computer modeling.

Iterative modeling allowed various triaxial

tool designs to be tested without having to build
and test physical tools. Final tool design included
a sleeve with electrodes connected to a
conductive copper mandrel. This configuration
returned the borehole currents through the tool,
reducing the large signals caused by the
transverse eccentricity to a level equivalent to
that of the AIT tool. The correction for borehole
effects could then be handled in a manner
similar to that used for the AIT measurement.15
After engineers solved for borehole effects,
tool response to various geometrical scenarios
was investigated. For most of their history,
induction measurements have had to contend
with geometry, both in the borehole and in the

formation. Geometry was regarded by interpreters as a major nuisance or, at best, something
to be coped with.16 However, after the AIT tools
response was modeled, tool designers discovered
that the formation-geometry effects are the
strongest contributor to the induction signal.
When properly resolved and modeled, geometry
now provided a key to accurate measurement of
formation resistivity. In addition, dipping beds
those that are not perpendicular to the axis of
the logging toolcould be properly measured.
Dipping beds are the result of geological
tilting of formations, deviation of the wellbore
trajectory from vertical, or combinations of both.
Fast analytical codes, developed in the 1980s,
estimate resistivity in dipping beds using data
from uniaxial induction tools, but the processing

Electronics housing

Tz

Triaxial transmitter
Three short uniaxial
receivers for borehole
correction

Ty

Tx

Six triaxial receivers

Metal mandrel

Sleeve with short

electrodes

=
Rz

xx

xy

xz

yx

yy

yz

zx

zy

zz

Rm sensor
Ry

Triaxial transmitter
Triaxial receiver
Axial receiver
Electrode

> Rt Scanner triaxial induction service. The Rt

Scanner tool comprises a triaxial transmitter,
three short-spacing axial receivers for borehole
corrections and six triaxial receivers. Electrodes
on the tool and the Rm sensor in the bottom nose,
which measures the mud resistivity, are also
used for borehole corrections. An internal metal
mandrel (not visible in the drawing) provides a
conductive path for borehole currents to return
through the electrodes on the exterior of the tool.

68

Rx

> Three-dimensional arrays. The Rt Scanner service produces a nine-element

array for each transmitter and receiver pair. Traditional induction measurements
are made by passing current through coils that are wrapped around the axis
of the tool, also called the z-axis (blue), which induces current to flow in the
formation concentrically around the tool. Triaxial induction tools also include
coils that are wrapped around the x-axis (red) and y-axis (green), which
create currents that flow in planes along the tools x- and y-axes. The x, y and
z components of the transmitter couple with the x, y and z receivers. For
vertical wells with horizontal beds, only the xx, yy and zz couplings respond to
the conductivity () of the formation. In deviated wells or wells with dipping
beds, all nine components of the array are needed to fully resolve the
resistivity measurement. The multiple triaxial transmitter and receiver pairs
generate 234 conductivity measurements for each depth frame.

Oilfield Review

xx

xy
0
50
100

50
y-axis

0
50
100

100

50

50

y-axis

0
50
100

x-axis

yx

100

50

50

50

100

y-axis

yy

50
100
0
50
100

100

50

50

y-axis

0
50
100

x-axis

zx

100

50

50

0
50
100

100

50

50
x-axis

100

50
100

100

50

50

100

x-axis

zz
50

z-axis

z-axis
y-axis

x-axis

0
50
100

50

x-axis

50
y-axis

zy

50
100

100

100

50

50

50

50
100
50

100

50

100

yz

50
100
50

50
100

50

z-axis

z-axis

x-axis

50

y-axis

0
50
100

50

100

50

z-axis

50

z-axis

0
50
100

z-axis

xz

50

z-axis

z-axis

50

0
50
100

50
y-axis

0
50
100

100

50

50

100

x-axis

50
y-axis

0
50
100

100

50

50

100

x-axis

> Born approximation for a triaxial induction tensor voltage array. The Born response function for a triaxial induction tool is
much more complex than that for a uniaxial induction tool. There are nine elements, one for each component of the tensor
voltage array. Each transmitter-receiver pair has positive (red) and negative (blue) responses. The surfaces represent the
regions where 90% of the signal measured by the receiver coil originates. Each of the nine components is superimposed at
the measure point of the tool. The xx, yy and zz elements are derived from the direct coupling of a triaxial transmitter and its
associated triaxial receiver. The other six elements represent cross-coil responses. The zz response (bottom right ) is the
only one measured by the simpler uniaxial induction tool.

relies on inputs from other sources.17

Unfortunately, the uniaxial measurement may
become unreliable or provide nonunique
solutions when external data sources are used.
All these issues posed problems for uniaxial
induction tools. In most cases, there was not
enough information to fully correct the data.
Triaxial induction tools, however, make the
necessary measurements to resolve the ambiguities and properly measure the resistivity of
anisotropic reservoirs, correct for nonuniform
filtrate invasion, correct for the effects of
dipping beds and deal with geometrical effects
on the measurement.18
Triaxial Resistivity Theory
Previous induction logging tools, such as those
from the AIT family, measure horizontal
resistivity (uniaxially). The Rt Scanner tool
measures in three dimensions (triaxially).
Although the physics of measurement are
similar, triaxial tools are much more complex
(previous page, bottom right).
The Rt Scanner tool consists of a collocated
triaxial transmitter array, three short axial

Summer 2008

receivers and three collocated triaxial receiver

arrays. The triaxial transmitter coil generates
three directional magnetic moments in the x, y
and z directions. Each triaxial receiver array has
a directly coupled term and two terms crosscoupled with the transmitter coils in the other
directions. This arrangement provides nine
terms in a 3x3 voltage tensor array for any given
measurement. All nine couplings are measured
simultaneously. An advanced inversion
technique extracts resistivity anisotropy, bedboundary positions and relative dip from the
tensor voltage matrix. The receiver arrays are
located at different spacings to provide multiple
depths of investigation.
The Born approximation for the triaxial
induction tools response provides a graphical
representation for the solution of the equations
representing the sensed region (above). The
uniaxial induction tools response was shown
earlier to have a single toroid shape; the triaxial
tool delivers nine responses superimposed on
each other. The zz term from the Rt Scanner tool
is essentially the same response as that
measured by the uniaxial induction tool.

Collocation of the coils is an important

feature of the Rt Scanner tool: when the
transmitter or receivers are not at the same
position, the spacings for the cross-terms will be
different from those of the direct terms. Because
the entire ensemble of measurements is made
within a single depth frame, no measurements
14. Rosthal R, Barber T, Bonner S, Chen K-C, Davydycheva S,
Hazen G, Homan D, Kibbe C, Minerbo G, Schlein R,
Villegas L, Wang H and Zhou F: Field Test Results of an
Experimental Fully-Triaxial Induction Tool, Transactions
of the SPWLA 17th Annual Logging Symposium,
Galveston, Texas, June 2225, 2003, paper QQ.
15. For details on Rt Scanner design and modeling:
Barber T, Anderson B, Abubakar A, Broussard T,
Chen K-C, Davydycheva S, Druskin V, Habashy T,
Homan D, Minerbo G, Rosthal R, Schlein R and Wang H:
Determining Formation Resistivity Anisotropy in the
Presence of Invasion, paper SPE 90526, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, September 2629, 2004.
16. Moran and Gianzero, reference 6.
17. Barber TD, Broussard T, Minerbo G, Sijercic Z and
Murgatroyd D: Interpretation of Multiarray Logs in
Invaded Formations at High Relative Dip Angles, The
Log Analyst 40, no. 3 (MayJune 1999): 202217.
18. During the drilling process, fluids from the drilling mud
leave the wellbore and enter permeable formations. The
mud filtrate alters the electrical characteristics of the
formation around the wellbore. The depth of filtrate invasion, and its associated geometry, may be unpredictable.

69

have to be depth-shifted to form the measurement tensors. When all nine components are at
the same spacing and location, the matrix can be
mathematically rotated to solve for relative
formation dip. A change from one coordinate
system to another is also greatly simplified
because it involves a simple transformation, and
all measurements are made along the same
coordinate system as well as at the same depth.
Collocation is especially important when bedding
planes are not perpendicular to the relative
position of the tool.

Power in the Processing

Collocated orthogonal transmitter and receiver
pairs made the triaxial resistivity measurement
feasible, but advancement in processing power
was the enabler that spurred the development of
the tool. Even in the late 1990s, triaxial induction
was referred to as a theoretical concept, primarily because the computing power needed to
model and develop fast processing codes was not
readily available.19 Moores law, the observation
that computing power doubles every two years, is
evidenced in the progression that has occurred
with induction resistivity logging.

The first induction resistivity tools converted

conductivity measured downhole to an analog
voltage that was measured at the surface. The log
analyst read the resistivity from the logs and
applied corrections from charts to account for
the effects of adjacent beds and filtrate invasion,
generally ignoring borehole effects. Borehole
correction charts were then developed based on
geometrical-factor curves obtained from laboratory measurements made in plastic pipes
immersed in waters of varying salinity.20 In the
mid 1980s, these empirically derived charts were
reproduced using computer modeling.

Conductivity, mS/m
Conductivity, mS/m
Conductivity, mS/m
2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500
0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500
0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500
0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000
0
10
20

Depth, ft

30
40
50

xx
xy
xz
yx
yy
yz
zx
zy
zz
h
v

60
70
80

Resistivity, ohm.m
1

10

100

10
20

Depth, ft

30
40
50
60
70

0 ft
Rh
Rv
Rh (inverted)
Rv (inverted)

Rh = 1 ohm.m
Rv = 2 ohm.m
20 ft

80

> Modeling the triaxial induction response. A 1D horizontally layered,

transversely isotropic (TI) model was used to validate the triaxial induction
response to known conditions (bottom right ). The five layers used in the
model consist of two low-resistivity homogeneous layers, a high-resistivity
homogeneous layer, and two anisotropic layers with high- and lowcontrast beds. The first measurement is conducted with a vertical tool in
horizontal beds (top left ). The zz (blue) and yy (green) components react to
the resistivity of the beds, but the xx and all cross-components are zero.
Prior to inversion, none of the curves indicates the correct horizontal (pink
dash) and vertical (black dash) conductivity. Next, the model well is
deviated 75 () and the tool position is rotated 30 () from the high side
of the wellbore. All nine components become active (center ) and none
reads the same as the vertical model. The zz (blue) component
corresponds to a uniaxial induction measurement, and although it is similar
to the curve in the vertical response model, the curves shape and
amplitude have changed. The data are then rotated mathematically (top
right ) to zero the yx and yz (green dash) cross-coil contributions. The
angle of rotation required to zero these components corresponds to the
relative dip of the beds. Finally, the data are inverted, correcting for bed
thickness and deviation, and converted from conductivity to resistivity
(bottom left ). In the three lower layers, which are homogeneous, Rv (blue)
and Rh (red) are equal and match the input resistivity. In the laminated
layers, the curves separate as a result of anisotropy.

70

Rh = 1.9 ohm.m
Rv = 11.0 ohm.m

30 ft
Rh = Rv = 50 ohm.m
40 ft
Rh = Rv = 0.5 ohm.m

50 ft

Rh = Rv = 1 ohm.m

80 ft

Oilfield Review

Model Rt Profile

Model Rt Profile

Model Rh-Rv Profile

Horizontal Resistivity, Rh

Depth
ft

Computed Deep Induction

0.2

ohm.m

1,800

2,000

Depth
ft

Computed Deep Induction

0.2

ohm.m

2,000

Vertical Resistivity, Rv
0.2

ohm.m

2,000

1,800
Rshale

1,810

Rsand
1,810

Rsand

1,820

Rsand

Rh

1,820

Rv

Rshale

1,830

1,830

1,840

1,840

Rsand
Rshale

> Direction matters. Under the right conditions, the deep-induction response to a homogeneous, isotropic bed (left ) is the same as that to an anisotropic,
laminated bed (center ). This occurs when beds are thinner than the vertical resolution of the measurement. For the 90-in. deep-induction array, the
vertical resolution is 1 to 4 ft [0.3 to 1.2 m]. Horizontal resistivity (Rh) measurements are analogous to parallel resistor circuits, so the resistivity value of the
laminated bed is primarily influenced by the layer with the lowest resistivity, Rshale. With standard induction tools, hydrocarbon-bearing sand layers can
easily be overlooked. Vertical resistivity (Rv) is analogous to a series resistor circuit (right ), and its value is dominated by the layer with the highest
resistivity. A large difference between Rv and Rh indicates anisotropy.

The manual process of correcting induction

log data was carried out sequentially: apply
borehole corrections, correct for shoulder-bed
effects and correct for invasion. With the advent of
data recorders, log data could be processed using
computers. Codes were developed to perform 1D
corrections automatically, first at mainframeequipped computing centers and then as
processing power continued to grow, at the
wellsite using computer-equipped logging units.
Advances in computer technology rendered
the manual corrections obsolete, but there was a
problem in the methodology. The codes were
developed assuming horizontal, homogeneous
beds, and corrections were applied with the
same linear approach used by log analysts.
However, the ground loops produced by induction
tools intersect and interact with all the media
they come into contact with in a complex,
nonlinear fashion.21 The sequential approach,
used for decades, was found to be inadequate.
This situation was improved when fast 2D
asymmetric forward-modeling codes were
developed in the mid 1980s. They revealed just
how inaccurate sequential chartbook corrections
were for determining the true resistivity, Rt,
especially in thin beds invaded by mud filtrate.
Development of the AIT tool was a result of
lessons learned from those models. Since then,
various techniques have been applied to obtain
Rt, including iterative forward modeling and
inversion.22 Models have been developed that
include 1D corrections as well as corrections for
invasion and nonhorizontal bedding (2D) and

Summer 2008

nonlinear invasion in tilted reservoirs (3D). Only

recently has advanced computer-processing
power enabled inversion codes that fully correct
the induction measurement. These codes allow
simulations to be run in hours instead of weeks.
If Moores law holds true, hours for processing
induction measurements will eventually be
reduced to seconds.
Induction resistivity data, acquired with a
triaxial tool, could now be processed in a
reasonable time frame. All the pieces of the
puzzle were available; the next step was to put
the triaxial tool to the test.
Testing the Code
To test the validity of the acquisition and
inversion algorithm for triaxial induction data, a
1D horizontally layered, transversely isotropic
(TI) model was constructed (previous page).
Five layers simulated a complex reservoir
comprising two low-resistivity sands, a highresistivity sand, an anisotropic low-resistivity
shale and a laminated sand-shale sequence.
This simulated reservoir included features
that present limitations for uniaxial resistivity
tools. The testing proved that a triaxial
resistivity measurement overcomes these
limitations and provides accurate resistivity in
challenging environments.
The outputs of the processing are true
resistivity corrected for dip in the nonlaminated
layers and a shale-affected resistivity in
laminated layers. Rv is provided from the
processing, although it is equivalent to Rh in the
isotropic intervals.

For the two laminated layers, Rv and Rh are

not equal, and the curves have separation based
on the degree of anisotropy. Neither Rh nor Rv
provides the true resistivity of the modeled
reservoir in the case of laminated sections, but
techniques have been developed to provide the
resistivity of the sand layers.
True Resistivity
The true resistivity of a formation, Rt, is a
characteristic of an undisturbed, or virgin,
region. Much study and research have been
carried out in the name of acquiring this elusive
measurement. The measurement of induction
resistivity in a virgin zone is predicated on some
degree of homogeneity, consistent perpendicular
beds and isotropic reservoirs. In nature, this is
rarely the case.
The concept of vertical and horizontal
resistivities evolved early in the development of
electrical logging. Measured apparent resistivity,
Ra, of stacked rock layers differs with changes in
the measurement direction. If the measurement
is made parallel to the layers, the result is
similar to measuring resistors in parallelthe
lowest resistances dominate (above). For a
parallel resistor circuit, more current flows
through the smaller resistors, and each resistor
19. Anderson BI: Modeling and Inversion Methods for the
Interpretation of Resistivity Logging Tool Response. Delft,
The Netherlands: Delft University Press, 2001.
20. Moran and Kunz, reference 8.
21. Anderson, reference 19.
22. Howard AQ: A New Invasion Model for Resistivity Log
Interpretation, The Log Analyst 33, no. 2 (March
April 1992): 96110.

71

Rshale-v

Rshale-h
1

Rsand

Rv = 12.8 ohm.m

Rsand

Rh

Fsand
Rsand

Fshale
Rshale-h

Rv = Fsand x Rsand + Fshale x Rshale-v

Rh = 2.3 ohm.m

Rshale-v

Rshale-h

Fshale = 40%
Fsand = 60%

Rsand

Rsand

Rsand = 20 ohm.m

Rshale-v

Rshale-h

Rshalev = 2 ohm.m
Rshaleh = 1 ohm.m

Rsand

Rsand

> Hidden saturation. Rh and Rv are outputs from the Rt Scanner tool. The resistivity of the sand layers can be
resolved from these measurements in combination with fractional volumes of sand and shale. For this example,
the conventional induction tool would have measured Rh = 2.3 ohm.m. Rv from the triaxial induction measurement
is 12.8 ohm.m. The volume fractions, Fshale and Fsand, could come from an ECS Elemental Capture Spectroscopy
tool. Because shales often exhibit anisotropy without the presence of sand laminations, two different shale
values are used in this example: vertical Rshale-v is 2 ohm.m and horizontal Rshale-h is 1 ohm.m. These values should
be determined within an anisotropic shale interval. This method gives an Rv /Rh ratio in the shale of 2, compared
with the 5.6 ratio of the entire sand-shale sequence. Solving the equations (right ) for Rsand yields a value of 20 ohm.m.
The 2.3 ohm.m measured by a conventional induction tool would considerably underestimate the hydrocarbon volume.

divides the current according to the reciprocal

of its resistance.
When the measurement is made across the
stack, the measured resistance is similar to
measuring resistors in series. In an electrical
series circuit, the resistance values are added
together. Higher resistance, which is the case for
the layers containing hydrocarbon, is dominant.
The concept that the measured resistance
depends on the direction in which it is made is
referred to as electrical anisotropy. Since well
logging began in vertical wells with stacks of
more or less horizontal layers, the resistivity
parallel to the layers was called the horizontal
resistivity, Rh, and the resistivity measured
across the layers was called the vertical
resistivity, or Rv. In an isotropic, thick sand Rh =
Ra = Rv. If, however, the thickness of the bedding
layers is less than the tools vertical resolution,
the Rh measurement is analogous to the parallel
electrical circuit.

72

Most of the technology for determining

formation resistivity measured the horizontal
component, giving rise to difficulties in
evaluating thin layers comprising shale and
hydrocarbon-bearing sands. For a uniaxial
induction measurement the formation currents
flow in horizontal loops, and the resulting
sensitivity is to the horizontal resistivity. For
most laminated reservoirs, Rh Rv. Based on the
parallel circuit analogy, Ra will be similar in
value to that of the layer with the lower
resistivity, usually the shale. Therein lies the
problem with interpreting induction resistivity in
laminated reservoirs: the dominant nature of the
less-resistive layers masks the more-resistive
layers that may have hydrocarbon potential. The
result is that pay zones may be overlooked or
underestimated.23 The Rv /Rh ratio is a useful
measurement for determining the level of
anisotropy, and when the ratio is higher than 5,
it alerts the log analyst to look for potential
laminated-pay reservoirs.

For a laminated sand-shale sequence, the

portion of the reservoir that is of interest is the
sand. Although Rv does not provide the actual
resistivity of the hydrocarbon-bearing sand layer,
Rsand, it can be combined with other
measurements to derive it. The shale effects
must be removed from the volumetric
measurement to obtain the resistivity of the sand
layers (above). Calculating Rsand from Rh and Rv
requires a secondary source to determine the
volume of shale before its effects can be
eliminated. Shale volume can be obtained from
several sources, including the ECS Elemental
Capture Spectroscopy sonde. Once determined,
Rsand can be used to calculate water saturation,
Sw, using Archies equation. The full derivation of
the formula for Rsand and Sw in the presence of
anisotropy can be found in the literature.24

Oilfield Review

The calculation of Rsand and Sw in the sand

fraction is typically carried out using
petrophysical analysis software. However, Excel
spreadsheets have been developed to manually
convert Rv and Rh to water saturation, Sw.25
The two major limitations of uniaxial
induction tools, incorrect resistivity in dipping
beds and anisotropy effects, are overcome by the
triaxial induction measurement. More accurate
resistivity leads to more accurate Sw, which
enables petrophysicists to correctly evaluate
hydrocarbon reservoirs. Properly characterizing
laminated sands means fewer missed lowresistivity reservoirs. True resistivity in deviated
wells and dipping beds means more accurate
volumetric analysis. Ultimately, more oil and gas
can be discovered and produced from reservoirs.
The following case studies demonstrate how
triaxial resistivity measurements are used to
evaluate difficult-to-interpret oil and gas wells.
True Resistivity in Deviated Wells
An AIT tool was run offshore Angola in a well that
was deviated 60. The formations encountered
included two 30-ft [10-m] sands with high
resistivity. A 30-ft interval is generally within the
vertical resolution of this uniaxial tool and
therefore should provide a reasonable Rt reading
from the deepest induction measurement, the
90-in. array. However, because of effects of well
deviation on the measurement, the 90-in.
resistivity reading was lower than the actual Rt.
An Rt Scanner tool was then run over the
same interval. Inverting the data and correcting
for the effects of dip produced resistivity values
that were more accurate than those of the AIT
tool (above right). The corrected resistivity from
the Rt Scanner tool is five times greater than the
deep resistivity value from the AIT tool.
Although the water saturation calculated
with the resistivity from either tool would
indicate the presence of hydrocarbons, reserve
calculations would be substantially different.
Higher hydrocarbon saturations and volumes
calculated using outputs from the Rt Scanner
tool would affect production-facility design, longterm infrastructure planning and recoverability
decisions in the event of secondary and tertiary
recovery programs. Having an accurate Rt value
has enormous implications, especially for
marginal reservoirs, where critical go/no-go
decisions based on less-accurate data would
underestimate hydrocarbon in place.
An additional consideration is that the cost of
drilling deepwater prospects has limited the
number of wells that can be drilled to evaluate a
prospective reservoir. Petrophysicists and

Summer 2008

Caliper
6

in.
16
Depth
Gamma Ray
ft
0
gAPI 150
X,900

AIT Resistivity
ohm.m
1

10

Rt Scanner Resistivity
ohm.m

100

1,000

10

100

1,000

Y,000

Y,100

10-in. array
20-in. array
30-in. array
60-in. array
90-in. array

90-in. array
Rh
Rv

Y,200

> Correcting induction resistivity for deviation. Correct resistivity is a critical parameter for accurate
calculation of hydrocarbon in place. This 60 deviated well has two hydrocarbon-bearing zones of
high resistivity. The AIT resistivity (Track 2, green dash) from the 90-in. induction array measures
100 ohm.m in the upper lobe (X,940 to X,990) and as low as 20 ohm.m in the lower lobe (Y,000 to Y,050).
After dip correction, the resistivity values from the Rt Scanner tool (Track 3, red) are higher:
approximately 500 ohm.m in the upper sand and 100 ohm.m in the lower section. In the lower 100 ft
(Y,100 to Y,200), Rh (Track 3, blue) is significantly less than Rv (red), indicating anisotropy. This anisotropy
(yellow shading) suggests a potential laminated sand-shale sequence; further analysis of this interval
may reveal additional hydrocarbon potential.

geologists must construct reservoir models with

surface-acquired data validated by fewer actual
wells. It is absolutely crucial that these models
be calibrated to the most accurate data
available, because the luxury of drilling step-out
and infield wells to refine the models is
prohibitively expensive. It is more cost-effective
to use accurate triaxial induction resistivity data
corrected for dip and deviation to improve
reservoir understanding with the very first well.
Anisotropy in Deepwater Turbidites
E&P companies cannot afford to underestimate
reserves or miss opportunities. Unfortunately,
laminated sand-shale sequences have been
23. Boyd A, Darling H, Tabanou J, Davis B, Lyon B, Flaum C,
Klein J, Sneider RM, Sibbit A and Singer J: The
Lowdown on Low-Resistivity Pay, Oilfield Review 7,
no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 418.
24. Clavaud JB, Nelson R, Guru UK and Wang H: Field
Example of Enhanced Hydrocarbon Estimation in Thinly
Laminated Formation with a Triaxial Array Induction Tool:
A Laminated Sand-Shale Analysis with Anisotropic
Shale, Transactions of the SPWLA 46th Annual Logging
Symposium, New Orleans, June 2629, 2005, paper WW.

overlooked because of the effects of anisotropy.

Examples of laminated reservoirs are turbidite
and fluvial deltaic sediments. The term lowresistivity pay has been applied to these types
of environments.
Anisotropy-related suppression of the
resistivity values measured by traditional
induction logging tools is the predominant
reason for the low resistivity. But even when
these reservoirs are correctly identified, they are
difficult to evaluate. In practical terms, using
conventional resistivity measurements to calculate hydrocarbon reserves may result in
underestimates of more than 60% compared with
analysis using Rv and Rh.26 The Krishna-Godavari
25. Clavaud et al, reference 24.
26. Saxena K, Tyagi A, Klimentos T, Morriss C and Mathew A:
Evaluating Deepwater Thin-Bedded Reservoirs with
Rt Scanner, presented at the 4th PetroMin Deepwater
and Subsea Conference, Kuala Lumpur, June 2021, 2006.

73

Resistivity

Water

10-in. Array
0.2

ohm.m 100

Gas

Bulk Density

20-in. Array
0.2

30-in. Array

Caliper
6

in.

0.2

16

Gamma Ray
CHINA

AFGHANISTAN

Sigma

PA K I S TA N

0.2

cu

50

Depth
m
X,X45

ohm.m 100 60

ohm.m 100

Bound Water

Effective
Porosity

Crossplot Porosity
%

90-in. Array
0.2

Quartz

2.65

Neutron Porosity

ohm.m 100 60
60-in. Array

gAPI 150

g/cm3

ohm.m 100 1.65

Crossover

50

Sw
100 %

Hydrocarbon

Montmorillonite

Lithology
100

INDIA

KG-DWN-98/3

SRI LANKA

X,X50

X,X55

Anisotropic
zone

X,X60

X,X65

X,X70

X,X75

> Krishna-Godavari basin off the east coast of

India. The KG-1 well is located in the KG-DWN98/3 block. The laminations in this core example
(above ) are about a millimeter [0.04 in.] thick,
typical of the turbidite sequences found in the
Krishna-Godavari basin. The minimum vertical
resolution for induction tools is 0.3 m. Evaluation
and calculation of recoverable hydrocarbon are
difficult because of the low-resistivity, anisotropic
nature of the reservoir.

basin, off the east coast of India, is a deepwater

example of a thin sand-shale turbidite sequence
(above). Reliance Industries experienced initial
success in the area, but evaluating the reservoir
potential in the presence of anisotropy made in
situ hydrocarbon volume difficult to quantify.

74

X,X80

> Underestimated reserves. Typical of logs run in the field, the ELANPlus analysis calculates
hydrocarbon (Track 5, red) in the sands (Track 6, yellow), but the volumes are low, considering the
net footage. Above X,X65 m the water saturation and hydrocarbon volumes indicate little oil or gas
would be produced. But, this zone is known to be a laminated sand-shale turbidite sequence. A
triaxial induction tool can help determine the degree of anisotropy and the hydrocarbon potential.

Thin beds, by definition, are reservoir layers

that are thinner than the vertical resolution of
the tool. The thicknesses of the sand-shale-silt
sequences of the Krishna-Godavari basin were in
the millimeter range, well below the minimum
1-ft [0.3-m] resolution available from induction
tools, and even less than the 1.2-in. [3-cm]
vertical resolution of porosity devices. Logs

acquired using conventional tools did not provide

enough information to evaluate the anisotropic
zones (above right). The interval above X,X65 m,
where cleaner, productive sandstone sections
end, has resistivity values of 1 to 2 ohm.m. With
such low resistivity, hydrocarbon production
would not be expected.

Oilfield Review

For its KG-1 well, Reliance acquired highresolution log suites and OBMI Oil-Base
MicroImager data (below). The OBMI images
revealed thin laminations, corroborated by the
core. A synthetic resistivity log was generated
from the high-resolution OBMI data, which

indicated anisotropy. The AIT resistivity

measurement was 1 to 2 ohm.m. The Rt Scanner
tool was added to the logging program because of
the low AIT resistivity measurements in the
laminated reservoir.

The log data from the Rt Scanner tool

indicated a high degree of anisotropy in the
reservoir and provided an accurate measurement
of sand resistivity. Several promising zones,
denoted by an Rv /Rh ratio greater than 5, were
identified as areas for further evaluation. In the

Resistivity
10-in. Array
0.2

ohm.m 200
20-in. Array

0.2
Gamma Ray
0

gAPI

150

0.2

Formation Sigma
0

cu

in.
Bit Size

in.

ohm.m 200
60-in. Array

50

0.2

16

0.2

Caliper
6

ohm.m 200
30-in. Array

ohm.m 200
90-in. Array
ohm.m 200

OBMI Data
Depth
m
0.2 ohm.m 200
16

Bulk Density
1.65 g/cm3 2.65
Neutron Porosity
60

120 240 360

OBMI Image

Crossover

Conductive

Resistive

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

> Logs and core from the KG-1 well. The core at right shows fine laminations, which can be seen on the OBMI image (Track 4). All five
AIT curves (Track 2) overlay, but the spiky nature of the reconstructed resistivity from the OBMI data (green) indicates laminations. This
is because the OBMI tool has better vertical resolution. Curves from the density-neutron tools (Track 3) are separated over most of the
interval, indicating high shale content. There are a few places where the density and neutron cross (yellow shading), indicating the
possibility of light oil or gas, but these zones are less than a meter [3 ft] thick. Low resistivity measurements from the AIT tool and little
sand content would result in a pessimistic evaluation of hydrocarbon production in this interval.

Summer 2008

75

Resistivity
10-in. Array

Bad Hole

0.2 ohm.m 200

Gamma Ray
0

gAPI

20-in. Array
100

Caliper
8

in.

30-in. Array

in.

Bulk Density

0.2 ohm.m 200 0.2 ohm.m 200 1.65 g/cm3 2.65

18

0.2 ohm.m 200 0.2 ohm.m 200 60

60-in. Array

Rv /Rh Ratio
0

Rh

18

Bit Size
8

DensityNeutron

0.2 ohm.m 200

Depth
20

90-in. Array

Rv

Rsand

Neutron Porosity

Crossplot Porosity

0.2 ohm.m 200 0.2 ohm.m 200 60

80
No thin beds
are visible in
the core.

90
Thin beds are
visible in core.
From Rt Scanner
tool, the Rv /Rh
ratio = 9. This
zone has high
electrical
anisotropy.

100
The Rv /Rh ratio
is low. This zone
has negligible
electrical
anisotropy.

110

120

> Anisotropy using Rv /Rh ratio. The Rt Scanner service provides an Rv /Rh ratio (Track 1, black) that is above 5 in
several intervals (red arrow). These zones correspond to laminations in the core (left ). In intervals where the Rv /Rh
ratio is low (black arrow), the core has few or no laminations (right). Throughout this section, Rh (Track 3, blue)
rarely measures above 2 ohm.m, although the Rv (red) and Rsand (black) curves are measuring much higher. The
density-neutron logs (Track 4) indicate hydrocarbon (red shading) below 100 m but do not provide much help in
evaluating the reservoir above 100 m. Although the Rh values suggest little productive potential, the higher values of
Rsand indicate hydrocarbon.

KG-1 well, zones where the Rv /Rh ratio is below 5

lack laminations. Corroboration by core data
validated the Rt Scanner measurement (above).
The ELANPlus advanced multimineral log
analysis identified approximately 8 m [26.2 ft] of

76

quality reservoir using conventional interpretation techniques. After the triaxial induction
data over the complete logging interval were
incorporated into the analysis, the net-pay
thickness, using 7% porosity and 80% water

saturation for cutoffs, was increased by 35%.

Calculated reserves values were 55.5% higher
than those previously obtained using traditional
logs and petrophysical evaluation programs
(next page).

Oilfield Review

Water

Resistivity
10-in. Array
0.2

20-in. Array

Bad Hole
0.2
Caliper
8

in.

18

0.2

in.

18

0.2

ohm.m 200 0.2

60-in. Array

Rv /Rh Ratio
20

Depth
m

ohm.m 200 0.2

90-in. Array

0.2

DensityNeutron

ohm.m 200
30-in. Array

Bit Size
8

Gas

ohm.m 200

ohm.m 200 0.2

Rh

Quartz

Bulk Density

Bound Water

ohm.m 200 1.65 g/cm3 2.65

Rv

Neutron Porosity

ohm.m 200 60
Rsand

0 100

Crossplot Porosity

ohm.m 200 60

0 100

Rt Scanner Sw
%

AIT Sw
%

Montmorillonite
Lithology

0 100

30

40

50

60

70

> Incorporating Rt Scanner data. The AIT curves (Track 2) are approximately 1 ohm.m with a few 2-ohm.m sections. Rh
(Track 3, blue) is equivalent to the AIT 90-in. curve. Rv (red) measures above 10 ohm.m in several intervals. Rsand (black),
calculated from the Rt Scanner outputs, is used as an input for water saturation, Sw. Water saturation from the Rt Scanner
outputs (Track 5, red) is lower than the Sw from AIT data (blue). This finding indicates that more hydrocarbon is in the
reservoir than originally computed.

Summer 2008

77

Rsand
1

10

10

Rshale-v = 1
Rshale-h = 1
Shale

Water

7
6

0
0

10

10

10

Rh , ohm.m

10

10

10

20

30
Porosity, %

40

50

60

> Anisotropy in sands and shales. As compaction (red) increasesthe

typical case with deeper depositional environmentsthe clay porosity
decreases and the shale Rv /Rh ratio increases. Triaxial induction tools alone
cannot distinguish between compaction-induced shale anisotropy and that
measured in a laminated sand-shale sequence. And, while the NMR tool is
beneficial in identifying zones with movable fluids and differentiating
anisotropic shales from laminated sand-shale sequences, the volume of sand
and shale must be determined from other sources, such as the ECS tool.

The modified Klein plots are similar to

density-neutron crossplots, and an anisotropic
shale point can be graphically determined from
them (below). Because of their characteristic
shape, these modified crossplots are referred to
as butterfly plots. From them, log analysts
graphically choose parameters, perform quality

10

10

10

10

10
1

act
ion

Fshale

Rshale-v = 10
Rshale-h = 1
Shale

Rsand

Water

1
0

Co
mp

No shale anisotropy

10

Rv , ohm.m

Rv , ohm.m

10

checks and assess the potential for production

from laminated reservoirs.
Logs from an offshore West Africa well
demonstrate the modified Klein plot technique.30
The addition of NMR data further enhanced the
evaluation. The operator elected to run the
Rt Scanner tool, MR Scanner expert magnetic

10

10

Rv , ohm.m

Fshale

10

Rv /Rh

Resolving Anisotropy in West Africa

Interpretation of electrically anisotropic reservoirs has been difficult with traditional
petrophysical analysis techniques. Klein et al
were the first to propose a framework for using
graphical crossplots to evaluate these reservoirs.27
The technique was further adapted to incorporate
data from additional logging tools, including
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and triaxial
induction resistivity.28 The original Klein plots
assume a layering of isotropic, macro- and
microporous material, and layering of coarsegrain and fine-grain sandsa condition that does
not commonly occur in laminated sand-shale
sequences surrounded by anisotropic shales.
Compaction, which typically increases with depth,
has been shown empirically to increase the level
of shale anisotropy (right).
To account for the more-realistic scenario of
anisotropic shales, a modified Klein plot has
been developed that graphically solves for Rv and
Rh while adjusting for shale anisotropy.29 Because
anisotropic shales can create false expectations
of low-resistivity pay if not accounted for
properly, NMR data are also used to differentiate
laminated shales from sand-shale sequences.
NMR tools measure free-fluid volume, or porosity,
in the reservoir. Shales usually have high fluid
volumes, but the fluid is bound to the clays that
make up the shales. By incorporating the NMR
porosity, which ignores the fluids in the shales,
log analysts can identify laminated sand-shale
sequences with hydrocarbon potential while
eliminating laminated shale sequences from
the analysis.

10

10

Water

10
10

10

10

Rh , ohm.m

10

Pay

Nonpay

With shale anisotropy

1
1

Shale

10

10

10

10

10

10

Rh , ohm.m

> Klein plots. The traditional Klein plot (left ) does not take shale anisotropy into account. The modified butterfly plot (center ) includes shale anisotropy and
can be partitioned into pay and nonpay regions, pivoting at the shale point. The crossplot Rv and Rh data fall into specific regions that can be analyzed
quickly (right ). The water point (blue circle) indicates 100% water saturation. The shale point indicates 100% shale.

78

Oilfield Review

Fshale
500

0.5

Neutron Density
1.0

Rh, Rv, Rsand, Rsh

40 30 20 10

10

10

10

Anisotropy
2

10 15

Water Saturation
100

50

Sw Rsand
Sw Rh

0
Fshale

10

600
2

700

Depth, m

800

Rv, ohm.m

10

Rsand
Rshale-v = 3.27
Rshale-h = 0.51

10

Shale

10

10
900

10

10

10

Rh, ohm.m

10

10

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

> Modified Klein plot in action. The crossplot of Rv and Rh values is shown in the butterfly plot (right ). The log analyst selects the
data points that fall in the hydrocarbon region (magenta), in water-productive regions (blue) and at the shale point (green). The
color-coding along the resistivity track (Track 3) of the ELANPlus log corresponds to the data points manually selected by the log
analyst. Points that are not selected (black) are not presented. The water saturation values change (Track 5, yellow shading) when
Rsand (red) is used rather than the uniaxial resistivity, Rh (black). The interval above 700 m has significant anisotropy (Track 4, green)
but little hydrocarbon. One of the advantages of the modified Klein plots is the ability to quickly identify these nonproductive zones.

resonance service, and density-neutron and OBMI

tools. In one zone, the triaxial induction
measurement resulted in an 80% increase in netto-gross pay calculation and increased the calculated net hydrocarbon interval by 15 ft [5 m]
from 23 to 38 ft [7 to 11.6 m] compared with
calculations using conventional logs and traditional
petrophysical techniques (above).
The butterfly plots identified the shale point
and distinguished the anisotropic shales from
anisotropic sand-shale-silt sequences. Based on
their Rv /Rh ratio, nonproductive shale intervals
exhibited anisotropy that was similar to that of
the sand-shale laminated sequences. This case

Summer 2008

study demonstrates how NMR data can be used

with triaxial induction data to differentiate
nonproductive shales from potentially productive
sand laminations.

Another West Africa example featured two

very different shale types, and modified Klein
plots differentiated reservoir-quality rock from
shales. Two hydrocarbon-productive intervals

27. Klein JD, Martin PR and Allen DF: The Petrophysics of

Electrically Anisotropic Reservoirs, The Log Analyst 38,
no. 3 (MayJune 2007): 2536.
28. Fanini ON, Kriegshuser BF, Mollison RA, Schn JH
and Yu L: Enhanced, Low-Resistivity Pay, Reservoir
Exploration and Delineation with the Latest
Multicomponent Induction Technology Integrated with
NMR, Nuclear, and Borehole Image Measurements,
paper SPE 69447, presented at the SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Buenos Aires, March 2528, 2001.
29. For more on the use of modified Klein plots: Cao Minh C,
Clavaud J-B, Sundararaman P, Froment S, Caroli E,
Billon O, Davis G and Fairbairn R: Graphical Analysis of
Laminated Sand-Shale Formations in the Presence of
Anisotropic Shales, World Oil 228, no. 9 (September
2007): 3744.

30. Cao Minh C, Joao I, Clavaud J-B and Sundararaman P:

Formation Evaluation in Thin Sand/Shale Laminations,
paper SPE 109848, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim,
California, USA, November 1114, 2007.
This paper is one of a three-part series. See also:
Cao Minh C and Sundararaman P: NMR Petrophysics
in Thin Sand/Shale Laminations, paper SPE 102435,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 2427, 2006.
Cao Minh C, Clavaud JB, Sundararaman P, Froment S,
Caroli E, Billon O, Davis G and Fairbairn R: Graphical
Analysis of Laminated Sand-Shale Formations in the
Presence of Anisotropic Shales, Transactions of the
SPWLA 21st Annual Logging Symposium, Austin, Texas,
June 36, 2007, paper MM.

79

were separated by a nonproductive shale section,

but a zone with similar characteristics had
production potential (below). Triaxial induction
data were instrumental in properly evaluating
the well. In the upper interval, the sand count
increased by 54% and the net-to-gross ratio by

Phisand
Phisand NMR
0

0.5

Neutron Density
1

0.4

0.2

R v , Rh

10 100

70% compared with values obtained with

conventional techniques. In the lower interval,
the increase was not as pronounced because the
sands were not as heavily laminated. Still, the
net-to-gross ratio was approximately 20% greater
after incorporating the triaxial induction data

Anisotropy
0

10 15

10 100 1,000

OBMI

Rt Scanner Rsand
NMR Rsand

Fsand
Fsand NMR

T2
0

0.5

10

100

NMR Fluids
0

Cutoff

GR

0.2

0.4

(next page, top left). The nonproductive

anisotropic shale was identified and eliminated
from further analysis. The MR Scanner tool
provided an independent verification of net
footage of hydrocarbon.

HC Volume
0

0.2

0.4

10

OBM
X,620

Fshale

Oil
Rt Scanner
Data
AIT Data
NMR Data

Water

10

Rv, ohm.m

Rsand
1

10

Rshale-v = 1.24
Rshale-h = 0.52

X,660
Shale
0

Depth, m

40 m

10

Shale
Sand

Pay Zones

10

X,700

10

10

10
Rh, ohm.m

10

10

X,740

Phisand
Phisand NMR
0.5
GR

Neutron Density
1

0.4

0.2

Rv , Rh

10 100

Anisotropy
0

10 15

10 100 1,000

Rt Scanner Rsand
NMR Rsand

Fsand
Fsand NMR

T2
0

0.5

10

100

NMR Fluids
0

0.2

0.4

HC Volume
0

0.2

0.4

Cutoff

OBMI

Y,750

Fshale

10

Pay Zones

10

OBM

Rt Scanner
Data
AIT Data
NMR Data

Rsand

Rv, ohm.m

Oil

10

Rshale-v = 2.54
Rshale-h = 0.58

Water

Y,800

Shale

10 m

Depth, m

10

10

Shale
Y,850

10

10

10
Rh, ohm.m

10

10

Pay Zones

Sand

Y,900

> Variable shale anisotropy. These examples are from intervals with two
different shale types that were logged with Rt Scanner, density-neutron,
OBMI and MR Scanner tools. The NMR tool and the density-neutron tools
were used as sand-shale indicators (Track 1). Anisotropy is present, as
indicated by the separation between Rv and Rh (Track 3) and the Rv /Rh ratio
curve (Track 4, green shading). Rh ranges from 1 to 2 ohm.m, whereas Rsand
(Track 7, red) is consistently greater than 10 ohm.m in the upper interval.
Because higher resistivity corresponds to greater hydrocarbon volume,

80

the calculated hydrocarbon (HC) volume (Track 9) is greater when calculated

using Rsand (red) than uniaxial induction resistivity (black). In the upper log,
the anisotropy values (Track 4, green) from X,680 to X,720 look similar to
those from Y,760 to Y,820 in the lower log. Although there is high anisotropy in
both intervals, it is the result of anisotropic shales in the lower log, not
hydrocarbon. The butterfly plots quickly isolate and identify these
nonproductive zones from the pay zone (magenta) as shown on the
ELANPlus plots.

Oilfield Review

Summary of Results
Interval143 m (top)

AIT Tool

Rt Scanner Tool

NMR Tool

Hydrocarbon (HC), m

8.2

12.6

12.5

Net to gross (NTG)

0.26

0.44

Net change, HC/NTG

Interval163 m (bottom)

54%/70%
AIT Tool

Rt Scanner Tool

NMR Tool

Hydrocarbon, m

18.0

20.6

21.3

Net to gross

0.47

0.57

Net change, HC/NTG

14%/21%

In the final analysis, hydrocarbon net footage

and net-to-gross ratio were more accurately
quantified from data derived from the
Rt Scanner tool and information from the
MR Scanner service. Compared with traditional
AIT induction results, there were significant
gains in calculated reserves. Modified Klein plots
were also shown to be a powerful quicklook tool
for the log analyst.
Induction Dipmeter
The final two case studies demonstrate the utility
of dipmeter data derived from the Rt Scanner
service. Using induction measurements to
provide formation dip is not newthe concept
was first patented in the 1960sbut there had
been no practical application. Triaxial induction
tools provide dipmeter data as a natural byproduct of their standard data processing.

Traditional dipmeter tools are equipped with

several pads that measure small resistivity
changes occurring along the borehole wall.
Software programs correlate similar readings
from adjacent sensors and pads to compute the
dip magnitude and direction of the formation
bedding planes. Data from the sensors on the
pads produce an electrical image of the wellbore
from which structural dip, stratigraphic features
and fractures can be visualized and manually
identified using software applications.
Dipmeter tools have a vertical resolution less
than 0.5 in. [1.3 cm], whereas a triaxial induction
tool has a vertical resolution measured in feet.
Although fine details cannot be resolved with the
accuracy of the FMI Fullbore Formation
MicroImager or OBMI and OBMI2 tools, the
Rt Scanner service can provide structural dip.

Dipmeter imaging tools require a conductive

mud system to acquire readings, which are then
converted into images. Because the electrical
insulating properties of oil-base-mud drilling
systems create difficulty in acquiring data,
engineers developed solutions, such as the OBMI
and the OBMI2 tools, to overcome the problem.
Pad contact with the formation is critical,
especially when tools are used in oil-base muds.
Hole conditions, such as washouts and
rugosity, make pad contact difficult and degrade
the quality of the measurement. This is true in
both oil-base and water-base muds. Tools logging
in deviated wells can experience floating pads,
caused by the weight of the tool collapsing the
caliper arms and preventing the pad from
contacting the borehole wall. In addition,
irregular tool motion negatively affects the
quality of the images.
The Rt Scanner tool is insensitive to borehole
conditions such as rugosity and washouts, and it
can log up orwith a modified caliperdown.
By contrast, because of the need to push the
pads against the borehole wall, dipmeter tools
almost always log in an upward direction. The
exception is drillpipe-conveyed FMI tools run in
horizontal wells.
Conventional dipmeter tools take their
measurements at a very shallow depth of
investigation, which is the region most affected
by the drilling process (below). A triaxial

90 in

Dip

Dip
Azimuth

l diamete
Rv

Electrica

Rv
Rh

Azimuth

Rh

> Padless dipmeter. The triaxial induction measurement senses a very large volume (left ). The conventional dipmeter tool (right ) provides a high-resolution
image but sees a small electrical diameter. It must also make contact with the borehole wall to acquire usable data.

Summer 2008

81

R-signal, mS/m
500
0

500

1,000 1,500

Resistivity, ohm.m
0

10

100

R-signal, mS/m
1,000

500

500

1,000 1,500

Resistivity, ohm.m
0

10

100

Resistivity, ohm.m
1,000

10

100

1,000

25% overlap

Depth

100

200

300
xx
xy
xz
yx
yy

yz
zx
zy
zz
Square log

Rh
Rv

xx
xy
xz
yx
yy

yz
zx
zy
zz
Square log

Rh
Rv

Rh
Rv

> Steps in the process, induction to dipmeter. Dipmeter information from the triaxial induction tool is an automatic output of the processing used for dip
correction and calculating Rv (red) and Rh (blue). In block intervals, the raw data (Track 1) are corrected for borehole effects and then inverted. Bed
boundaries are identified from square logs (black curve), which are the result of a second derivative technique, output to show the bed boundaries. The dip
is calculated where resistivity changes are apparent. Homogeneous, isotropic intervals produce no dips because there are no step changes of resistivity
in the interval. After each section is fully processed, succeeding intervals are computed with a 25% overlap to eliminate bed-boundary effects.

induction tool surveys the region beyond the

near-wellbore and is less affected by the drillinginduced damage. Induction-derived dipmeter
data are also available from multiple arrays. The
ability to compare dips from different depths of
investigation is useful for quality control,
although variations in the dips may result
from distortions in the bedding planes away from
the wellbore.31
Because the Rt Scanner tool requires no
conductive fluid to acquire data, structural dip
can be obtained in wells where it was difficult or
impossible in the past. Induction-derived
dipmeter data do not replace information from
conventional dipmeter imaging tools, but
complement their measurement, as for example,
when bad borehole conditions degrade the data
acquired with pad contact devices.
The workflow for generating dip information
is part of the data inversion and correction
process. Bed boundaries are defined using
borehole-compensated raw data that have been
corrected for tool rotation. As a first-order
approximation to define bed boundaries, a
second derivative technique produces a squared
log from the induction array (above). The
squared log has sharper boundary edges than
conventional smoothed curves, and the sharp
transition points are used to determine where to
output dip information.

82

Next, the rotated, borehole-corrected curve

from a single array is output with an initial
estimation of conductivity, bed dip and borehole
azimuth. Typically a 20-ft [6.1-m] window is
inverted, but this depends on how rapidly the dip
is changing. Rv, Rh and bed boundaries are
refined with this inversion step. The software
again solves for dip and azimuth for the best fit
over the entire window. The program then moves
one-half the window length and inverts with a
generous overlap of the previous interval to
eliminate edge effects. This process continues
over the entire logged interval. The result is
borehole-corrected, dip-corrected resistivity
along with structural dip and borehole azimuth,
which are presented using conventional tadpoles
and azimuth plots.
Dipmeter in Air and Water
In the USA, an Rt Scanner tool provided
formation dip and direction in an air-drilled
prospect well. Air is used instead of drilling fluid
in formations that react with the drilling mud or
in hard-rock areas where conventional drilling
techniques are less effective. Because there is no
liquid in the wellbore, conventional dipmeter
tools do not workincluding the OBMI tool.
For the well in question, two intervals with
very different characteristics are shown (next
page). The zone from X,X00 to X,X50 ft has
consistent 15 dip oriented to the southsoutheast with little variation. Although difficult

to see, there are three independent measurements from three depths of investigation
presented. Throughout the interval, the tadpoles
from all three measurements overlay, indicating
agreement among the different datasets.
In a deeper interval, the data show very highangle formation dips, which corroborated the
geologists interpretation and expectations. Such
high-angle dipsapproaching 70might be
considered questionable were it not for core data
from nearby wells showing similar characteristics. An unconformity can clearly be
identified on the log at Y,Y40 ft. Also, despite
considerable hole rugosity in the Y,Y00 to Y,Y50
interval, the dipmeter data are available; a pad
contact tool may have been affected by the
condition of the borehole.
In a second example, the operator, drilling
with water-base mud, ran the Rt Scanner tool in a
deepwater Gulf of Mexico exploration well. The
FMI tool was run for comparison. The well was
deviated 60, and the true formation dip,
corrected for well deviation, was approximately
30. A comparison of the data derived from FMI
measurements and data from the Rt Scanner tool
31. Amer A and Cao Minh C: Integrating Multi-Depths of
Investigation Dip Data for Improved Structural Analysis,
Offshore West Africa, presented at the Offshore
Asia Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur,
January 1618, 2007.

Oilfield Review

Dip, 72-in. Array

True Dip

90-in. Array
1

ohm.m

1,000

Quality [5.15]

1,000 0

Quality [15.20]
deg

10-in. Array
Bad Hole

Rh, 39-in. Array

Gamma Ray
0

gAPI

200

ohm.m

ohm.m

ohm.m

24

Bit Size
4

in.
in.

1,000 12

ohm.m
ohm.m

1,000 12
1,000

ft

ohm.m

0
Q Flag, 72-in. Array
Density Porosity

Q Flag, 54-in. Array

30

1,000

Rv, 72-in. Array

Depth
24

ohm.m

0
Quality, 39-in. Array

Rh, 72-in. Array

Caliper
4

ohm.m

0
Quality, 54-in. Array

Rh, 54-in. Array

72-in. Array
21

1,000 12

Rv, 54-in. Array

54-in. Array
21

ohm.m

90

Quality, 72-in. Array

Rv, 39-in. Array

39-in. Array
21

ohm.m

1,000

10

Neutron Porosity

Q Flag, 39-in. Array

30

10

X,X00

X,X50

Y,Y00

Y,Y50

> The first induction dipmeter in an air-drilled well. The results of the dipmeter log from the Rt Scanner tool (Track 3, top ) in an
air-drilled well show excellent agreement at all three depths of investigation: 39 in., 54 in. and 72 in. [99 cm, 137 cm and 183 cm].
Deeper in the well, the high-angle dip data (Track 3, bottom ) rapidly transition to low-angle dip at about Y,Y40, indicating a
possible unconformity. Dip as high as 70 agrees with core data from nearby wells. The hole rugosity and enlarged hole sections
(Track 1, blue shading) do not affect the Rt Scanner measurement, but it would have been difficult to acquire valid data in this
section using tools that rely on pad contact.

Summer 2008

83

Rt Scanner
Saturation

AIT Saturation
Total Porosity
50

FMI Dip

Total Porosity
0 50

Quality

90-in. Array
0.2
Gamma Ray
Lithology

gAPI

Shale

Fsand

Sand

Depth
ft

1.5

ft3/ft3

Neutron Porosity
60

g/cm3

Water

200
50

Rv
0 0.2

Bulk Density
1.5 1.65

ohm.m

Quality

ohm.m

2.65 0.2

ohm.m

ELANPlus Sw
200

Water
0 50

0
0

Clay-Bound Water Clay-Bound Water

200

Rh

Laminated Sw

Bound Water
50

Bound Water
0 50

deg

90

Rt Scanner Dip
Quality
Quality

0 0

deg

FMI Image
90

X,750

X,800

X,850

X,900

X,950

Y,000

Y,050

Y,100

> Gulf of Mexico example. This high-angle Gulf of Mexico well had 30 dip and thinly laminated sands (Track 9). The induction-derived dipmeter data
(Track 8, green) show excellent agreement with the FMI data (red) in both direction and magnitude of dip. This zone includes a low-resistivity pay interval
from X,820 to Y,000. The conventional resistivity data used to compute water saturation indicate little hydrocarbon content (Track 6, green). Using the
triaxial induction data to compute water saturation (Track 7, green) yields considerably more oil volume.

shows excellent agreement (above). A lowresistivity laminated pay section, present in this
well, could easily be overlooked using
conventional methods. Incorporating the triaxial
resistivity data in the logging suite identified the
potentially productive zones.
Future Developments
Although many enhancements have been added to
induction logging tools since the first commercial
tool was introduced more than 50 years ago, the
basic theory of the measurement has changed
little. Advancements in computer simulations and
modeling have greatly improved the industrys
understanding of the measurement. The triaxial
32. Amer and Cao Minh, reference 31.
33. Abubakar A, Habashy TM, Druskin V, Davydycheva S,
Wang H, Barber T and Knizhnerman L: A ThreeDimensional Parametric Inversion of Multi-Component
Multi-Spacing Induction Logging Data, Extended
Abstracts, SEG International Exposition and 74th Annual
Meeting, Denver (October 1015, 2004): 616619.

84

induction measurement of the Rt Scanner tool

brings new information to the petrophysicist, such
as dip-corrected resistivity, laminated-reservoir
properties and induction-derived dipmeter data,
as discussed in this article.
This advanced technology has opened new
possibilities and presented new needs to the
industry. Development of fast inversion routines
applied at the wellsite would provide more
accurate resistivity measurements for calculating water saturation in real time. This
additional information would improve the ability
to make informed decisions, such as in
identifying optimum locations for measuring
pressure and taking fluid samples. Also,
laminated sand-shale sequences that may have
potential as hydrocarbon reservoirs could be
identified more quickly and reliably.
Potential application has been shown for
incorporating seismic data with induction
measurements.32 Although the concept is promising, it remains unclear whether multiple deep

imaging of formations can be extended to resolve

seismic structures from surface-acquired data.
Commercial processing of triaxial data is
currently limited to 1D inversion and includes
the assumption that invasion does not impact the
measurement. By using 2D and 3D inversion, the
invasion effects can be determined, including the
dip of the invasion.33 This is a nontrivial task;
currently it takes a week to process 100 ft [30.5 m]
of data on a high-end PC compared with half a
minute for 1D inversion. Commercial implementation will require time and innovation
both in the processing software and in hardware configurations.
Resistivity is the oldest wireline logging
measurement, but interest has been renewed in
this technology because of the triaxial induction
tool. This advance presents exciting possibilities
for petrophysical evaluation and the potential to
locate and produce previously bypassed pay. TS

Oilfield Review