GeoArabia, Vol. 6, No.

4, 2001
Gulf PetroLink, Bahrain

Permeability Determination from Stoneley Waves in

the Ara Group Carbonates, Oman

Latifa Qobi, Baker Atlas,

Andr de Kuijper, Petroleum Development Oman,
Xiao Ming Tang and Jonathan Strauss, Baker Atlas
ABSTRACT

Measurement of continuous permeability profiles on a routine basis has become possible

through recent advances in wireline logging hardware and software. Continuous
permeability profiles allow geologists and reservoir engineers to better characterize their
reservoirs and to more efficiently complete and manage the production of the hydrocarbon
reserves. One of the most promising methods for the calculation of continuous
permeability information is the use of Stoneley wave data acquired using a monopole
acoustic device.

This paper presents the results of a case study conducted for Petroleum Development
Oman. In this study, permeability was determined from Stoneley wave data from the
Sarmad-1H2 and Sarmad-2H1 wells that penetrated the carbonate reservoirs of the Ara
Group of Oman. The Stoneley-wave derived profile was compared with permeability
data from other sources; such as, cores, wireline pressure tests, and the interpretation of
nuclear magnetic resonance measurements. The results demonstrated the validity of the
methodology and showed that Stoneley-wave data can be used on a routine basis to
obtain a continuous permeability indication for completion evaluation purposes. The
method has great potential in permeability prediction.

INTRODUCTION

In the late 1970s to early 1980s, Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) made several oil and gas
discoveries in the South Oman Salt Basin (Figure 1). The exploration objectives were the so-called
Carbonate Stringers with over-pressured dolomite reservoirs located within the salt of the Ara Group
(Mattes and Conway Morris, 1990) (Figure 2).

With the increased success rate of locating oil accumulations in the intrasalt carbonate reservoirs of
the South Oman Salt Basin, it has become important to understand the dynamic behavior of their flow
units. Obtaining a reliable permeability from well logs would form a powerful aid in the completion
decision process and the formulation of well test-programs.

Permeability estimation within the Carbonate Stringers is complicated by the following factors:

wide variation in permeabilities for different facies;

influence of fracturing in enhancing or degrading permeability;
frequent salt plugging of vugs, fractures, and matrix; and
complex well test responses.

GEOLOGICAL SETTING

The Ara Carbonate Stringers are of late Precambrian/Early Cambrian age. Within the overall
hypersaline and restricted setting of the basin, the carbonates mark cyclic sea-level highstands (i.e.
episodes of basin freshening), when salt deposition ceased and carbonate production was possible.
The consequence of this setting is that the carbonates form isolated bodies (Stringers) within the salt.
The salt acts as a seal and the carbonates act as their own source rock (Figure 3).

649
Qobi et al.

8 IRAN
Musandam 40
N (Oman)
0 500

km
17
Madhah
(Oman)
Arabian Gulf
Gulf of Oman

Al Buraimi Sohar 18

Al Daymaniyat 41
Islands
43
Mina Al Fahal
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 31 Muscat
44
9
Safah
42
47
Lekhwair Al Barakah 15
5 27 30 Qalhat
Dhulaima 46
Fahud W Shibkah
Maqhoul S Natih M. Huraymah
Thumayd Haban Suqtan Baqlah
Fahud
Qalah Habiba
Yibal
Al Bashair Fushaigah Rasafah
Makarem
Burhaan
Al Huwaisah
Malih Musallim Saih
3
SAUDI ARABIA Barakat
Nihaydah
Tawf Dahm
Saih Rawl
Qarn Alam
Alam
Habur
48 Mabrouk
Barik
Al Ghubar
Hassun
Sahmah Masirah
Hazar 4
45 Island
LEGEND
Hasirah Zauliyah Anzauz
Oil field Salt basins OMAN
Asfoor
Gas field Hawqa
7 Wafra
Haima
Bahja 50
Petroleum
45 Fayyadh Development
Sayyala
Oman
Zareef Rajaa 6
Safwan Mukhaizna
Ghufos
Sadad
South Oman Jawdah
49 Jalmud
Salt Basin Thayfut
Runib Rima
36 Al Noor Nimr Arabian Sea
Al Shomou Runib S
Karim W
Amin Warad
Birba Amal
Maurid Irad
Kaukab 34 Caspian
Murshid E Marmul Al Burj 23 Sea

Sarmad Rahab
Qaharir N
Ghafeer Harweel Thuleilat Med
Deep Sea IRAN
Dhiab
Dhahaban S
38 Jazal

Al Halaniyat Islands
39
Salalah UAE
Arabian
Shield SAUDI
YEMEN 24
ARABIA OMAN
Re
dS
ea

YEMEN
Arabian Sea
en 0 300
of Ad
Gulf
km

Figure 1: Location map showing the South Oman Salt Basin and the Sarmad oil field.

650
 Permeability Determination, Oman

Period
Age
(Ma) Era Epoch Group
North Chronostratigraphy South
0 Pliocene
NEOGENE
Miocene FARS
Fars Taqa
CENOZOIC
Tertiary

Oligocene
AP11
PALEOGENE

AP10
Eocene
HADHRAMAUT Dammam Rus
50
Paleocene
UER
Simsima Shammar AP10
Fiqa Arada AP9 Ara Group
ARUMA Evaporite-Carbonate Cycles
L Fiqa Shargi
AP9
CRETACEOUS

AP8
100 WASIA Natih Haima
Nahr Umr group
Mesozoic
E Shuaiba Kharaib Clastics
Lekhwair A6 stringer
KAHMAH
Salil Rayda Habshan
Arab? AP8
MESOZOIC

150 Jubaila AP7

L Hanifa
Tuwaiq
JURASSIC

M SAHTAN Dhruma Upper Mafraq

AP7
Lower Mafraq AP6
E
200

Minjur
A5 Stringer thickness
L 10s to 150m
TRIASSIC

AKHDAR A4 stringer
Jilh Sudair
M Ara
E Khuff
250 L AP6
Haushi Middle & Upper Gharif AP5
PERMIAN

Lower Gharif A3
E

HAUSHI Rahab
AP5
L Al Khlata AP4
300
CARBONIFEROUS

A2 stringer
M

E Salt
A1
350 HABUR
Carbonate stringer
L AP4 Buah A3 with stringer cycle
AP3
Misfar
DEVONIAN

Anhydrite
M
PALAEOZOIC

MISFAR Dissolution residue

400
E
SILURIAN

L
Sahmah
E
AP3
SAFIQ AP2
HAIMA SUPERGROUP

450 L Hasirah
ORDOVICIAN

Saih Nihayda
M
Figure 2: Simplified
E Barakat Ghudun chronostratigraphy of Oman
Al Bashair Barik
L
MAHATTA (H.H.J. Droste, written
HUMAID is
500 Miqrat Amin hw communication, 2001) with
M Ma
CAMBRIAN

AP2 Arabian Plate (AP) megasequence

AP1
E NIMR
Karim Haradh boundaries (after Sharland et al.,
2001) and details of the Ara Group
HUQF SUPERGROUP

ARA Ara
550 Buah and its evaporite-carbonate cycles.
Shuram
Edicara NAFUN
VENDIAN
PRECAMBRIAN (SINIAN)

Khufai
Masirah Bay
ABU Conglomerate Limestone
MAHARA
600 Veranger Ghadir Manqil AP1 Sandstone Dolomite

Siltstone Anhydrite
Stuartian Salt
Shale
~ 720 Ma ?
Volcanics Basement
850

651
Qobi et al.

West East

Clastics of the Haima Group

Dasimi

Ara Salt (seal)

Athel Simsim,
Anuq,
Thuleilat
Birba area

Harweel Cluster Hawmyat

Dhahaban (Sarmad, Carbonate stringer Oil discovery
South Ghafeer,
Sakhiya, Silicilyte Gas discovery
Zalzala, and Source rock
Harweel Deep) Non-commercial
(potential) well

Figure 3: Conceptual play model of Carbonate Stringers floating in the Ara Salt of the South
Oman Salt Basin. The salt acts as a seal and the carbonates act as their own source rocks.

The facies analysis from core and image logs reveals that the main facies present in these carbonates
are grainstone, mudstone, and vuggy thrombolite. Grainstones and vuggy thrombolites form the
main reservoir facies (Reinhardt et al.,1999).

STONELEY WAVES

The borehole acoustic waveform can be separated into compressional, shear, and Stoneley wave
components. Figure 4 shows a typical waveform measured by a monopole acoustic tool. Compressional
and shear waves, which are abbreviated as P-waves and S-waves, are body waves that travel within
the formation. In contrast, Stoneley waves are surface waves guided by the borehole fluid at the
borehole wall (Figure 5a). They are excited at low frequencies, typically 200 to 2,500 Hz. For all
frequencies, Stoneley wave velocity is less than borehole fluid velocity. Their wave motion is axially
symmetrical and can be regarded as expanding/contracting borehole waves (Figure 5b).

Figure 4: Typical borehole acoustic

1 waveform for one pulse as recorded in
a receiver array (receiver 1 is closest to
2 source of pulse). Stoneley waves are
Receiver

propagated along an internal source of

discontinuity; a P-wave (compressional)
3 involves particle motion (alternating
compression and expansion) in direction
4 of propagation; and S-waves (shear) are
P-wave S-wave Stoneley wave propagated by a shearing motion that
Travel Time involves oscillation perpendicular to
direction of travel.

652
 Permeability Determination, Oman

Receivers
Receivers P-waves
Stoneley
waves
travel
direction

Stoneley
S-waves waves
displacement
Stoneley
waves

Formation fluid
Source movement
Source

Figure 5: Borehole acoustic waves (a) wave types generated by a monopole of a logging
tool; (b) Stoneley waves propagate along the borehole wall and their velocity is always
less than that of the borehole fluid velocity. Note that they are essentially expanding/
contracting borehole waves and that their motion is axially symmetrical.

The first attempt to estimate permeability from acoustic data in hydrocarbon wellbores was made by
Rosenbaum (1974) using the theory established by Biot (1962) to model a porous rock. Although this
work had some limitations (e.g. frequencies restricted to 20 kHz; assumption of rigid mudcake), that
made the results less sensitive to permeability, it recognized the potential of using borehole acoustic
data to estimate permeability.

Williams et al. (1984) published the first convincing examples showing the possibility of obtaining
reliable permeability indication from Stoneley wave data. Several developments, including the design
of new tools that excite Stoneley waves at lower frequencies, have led to the practical application of
permeability estimation from Stoneley wave data. Tang et al. (1991) used a simple parametric model
of a porous rock developed by Johnson et al. (1987) instead of the full porosity-elastic wave theory. In
the model of Tang et al. (1991), Stoneley wave propagation is broken down into its non-permeable and
permeable components. The non-permeable part is obtained from modeling, whereas the permeable
contribution is calculated from Johnson et al. (1987).

The Tang et al. (1991) model proves that Stoneley waves are most sensitive to formation permeability
in the low-frequency range. Permeability influences both Stoneley wave velocity and attenuation as a

(a) (b) 5 kHz

Stoneley Attenuation

Stoneley Velocity

1 kHz
2 kHz
1 kHz
2

= permeability
5 kHz = pore-fluid porosity

Mobility Mobility
Figure 6: Stoneley wave attenuation and velocity is sensitive to pore-fluid mobility, which is a
function of permeability (k), and frequency (modified from Tang et al., 1991). (a) Attenuation
increases with increasing mobility and lower frequencies. (b) Dispersion, defined as the variation
of velocity with frequency, increases with increased mobility (velocity is shown as fractional velocity
decrease).

653
Qobi et al.

function of frequency. Figure 6 illustrates this

(2) Modeling
phenomenon by showing several theoretical curves of (1) Processing
the response of Stoneley wave attenuation and Caliper, Shear and
dispersion as a function of pore-fluid mobility (defined Logged Acoustic Compressional
Waveform Data Slowness,
as quotient of pore-fluid permeability over pore-fluid
Density, Borehole
viscosity) and frequency. Increasing permeability, and Band-pass filter Fluid Parameters,
therefore mobility, increases both attenuation and (Optional) Reference Waveform
dispersion, and the lower the frequency, the higher the
Filtered Wave
attenuation and the dispersion. Elastic Stoneley
Wave separation modeling
Over the years, the Tang et al. (1991) model has been
further developed to account for tool effect (Tang and
Transmitted and
Cheng, 1993a), and soft formation effects (Tang and Reflected Waves Modeled Stoneley
Cheng, 1993b). Separation of permeable and non- and Reflectance Wave
permeable effects in the Stoneley wave data remains a Map
challenge. Meeting this challenge is the critical
component in this permeability estimation approach.

METHOD (3) Comparison / Inversion

The approach to permeability estimation from Stoneley Calculate time delay and frequency shift
waves consists of (1) processing, (2) modeling, and
(3) comparison/inversion (Figure 7). Travel Time Delay and
Centroid Frequency Shift
Processing
Permeability inversion/
estimation
As discussed in the background section, theoretical
studies have demonstrated that Stoneley waves contain
permeability information. However, Stoneley Formation Permeability
waveform data measured in the field are contaminated
by Stoneley wave reflections and noise. Both reflections Figure 7: Stoneley permeability
and noise can be removed by a wave separation processing flow diagram.
procedure, giving a direct Stoneley wave (wave
traveling from transmitter directly to receiver) and a reflectance map that shows the position and
strength of different borehole/formation reflectors (fractures or lithological boundaries). Note that
the direct Stoneley wave obtained from this processing contains both permeability and non-permeability
effects (e.g., borehole caliper changes, formation changes, formation intrinsic damping, and borehole
fluid attenuation).

Modeling

This procedure models the non-permeability part of the Stoneley wave excitation and propagation.
The synthetic modeling assumes that the formation is an equivalent elastic medium that has the
properties of a poro-elastic medium (e.g. formation wave speeds of P- and S-waves and density) but
with zero permeability. Variations in borehole diameter and the presence of the logging tool are also
accommodated in the method (Tang and Cheng, 1993a; Tezuka et al., 1994). The model propagates the
Stoneley wave excited in this elastic formation through a stack of horizontal layers. Each layer has a
thickness equal to the logging depth increment, which is typically 6 inches (Figure 8). The elastic
wave response at all logged depths is convolved with a reference waveform derived from the measured
Stoneley waves at a non-permeable depth in order to account for the source signature. Note that the
properties, density, and compressional and shear slowness, are directly measured from the formation,
and thus already contain the effects of lithology, porosity, and fluid saturation.

Comparison, Inversion, and Permeability Estimation

After wave-separation processing, the measured Stoneley waves account for all attributes, whether
permeability or non-permeability related, whereas modeled Stoneley waves account for only non-

654
 Permeability Determination, Oman

permeability attributes. Permeability estimation is

based on a comparison between the modeled and the
measured Stoneley waves. As a modeled Stoneley
wave contains, in principle, all the effects unrelated to
permeability, the difference between the modeled and
6" logging increment
the recorded Stoneley wave should relate to
permeability. This difference is evaluated from two
wave attributestravel time-delay (a measure of
Stoneley wave dispersion), and centroid frequency
shift. The centroid frequency shift takes place because
some frequencies are attenuated more than others; thus
it is a meaningful measure of permeability-related
attenuation. Figure 6 illustrates that both dispersion
and attenuation are related to permeability, and can
therefore be used to indicate permeability-induced
effects and estimate permeability.

The basis of the inversion method is a fast modeling

Figure 8: Model of irregular borehole and
heterogeneous formation used in the
Stoneley wave logging simulation. The
model propagates Stoneley waves excited
through a stack of horizontal layers each
equal to the logging increment (typically
6 inches). Permeability estimation is
based on a comparison between modeled
and measured Stoneley waves. Note that
lithologies do not necessarily represent
actual rock types, but are dependent on
numerical values derived from analyses
of Stoneley waves.
procedure based on the simplified Biot-Rosenbaum
theory (Tang and Cheng, 1996), which is a simple and
effective model that describes the interaction of the
Stoneley wave with a porous formation. The
permeability estimation is made by simultaneously
fitting the time-delay and frequency-shift data using
the model theory.
In permeable formations, Stoneley wave attenuation
and travel-time delay, in addition to being sensitive to
pore-fluid mobility as shown in Figure 6, are also a
function of pore-fluid compressibility. Essentially, the
method measures a parameter combination given by:
k
M= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
Kf

where k is the permeability, Kf is the pore-fluid bulk modulus, and is the pore-fluid viscosity. The
calibration process determines the value of K f , enabling permeability to be calculated.

Calibration

For calibration purposes, reference permeabilities are required. Calibration may be either a single-
point calibration or a multiple-point calibration, depending on the available data. Single-point
calibration is typically used if other reference information (e.g. core permeabilities and formation-
tester permeabilities) is not available. In that case, as a rule of thumb, the reference depth is selected in
a section where both time delay and the frequency shift have a minimum value such as in a non-
permeable shale interval. For single-point calibration, the best estimate of effective pore-fluid
parameters and the porosity are used, and permeability is adjusted to match the measured travel-time
delay and centroid frequency shift. The best fitting permeability value is taken as formation
permeability.

Multiple-point calibration is used in cases where other reliable permeability values are available at
several depths (preferably at least two, one located in a non-permeable and another in a highly
permeable zone). Through least squares fitting, the pore-fluid parameters are adjusted to fit the
permeability values at the reference depths, thereby becoming part of the calibration process.

655
Qobi et al.

Table 1 In summary, the reference depth controls the

Approximate permeability range for permeability profile whereas the pore-fluid parameters
Stoneley wave method. control the permeability magnitude. Thus, different
pore-fluid values will affect the magnitude of the
Permeability permeability without changing the shape of its profile
Pore content
range (mD) significantly. If there are multiple fluid phases, the
method senses the mobility of the most movable phase,
Gas 0.000110 including relative permeability effects. In the absence
Gas mixture of calibration data, the estimation method presented
0.001100
(oil or water) here should primarily be used to obtain the variability
Oil 0.011,000
and an order-of-magnitude estimate of formation
permeability. The validity range of Stoneley
Water 0.110,000 permeability is, in part, dependent on the saturating
formation fluid/gas (Table 1).

Quality Control

The following procedures ensure quality control for the above described method:

(1) Evaluation of whether the measured Stoneley wave attenuation and dispersion (measured travel-
time delay and measured frequency shift) are responding to permeability variations. The degree of
correlation in character between the travel-time delay and centroid frequency shift serves as a unique
quality indicator in assessing that the variation in attenuation and dispersion present in the measured
Stoneley waves is caused by permeability changes. The wave modeling is aimed at removing non-
permeability related wave propagation effects so that both the relative time delay and frequency shift
reflect the effects of permeability; hence, if these two curves are indeed controlled by permeability
they should exhibit correlation.

(2) Consideration of the misfit between the measured and modeled travel-time delay and frequency
shift. If theory cannot fit the data, then other factors are playing a role. Misfits due to data quality can
be caused by poor-quality wave data, inaccurate caliper and/or shear slowness logs. In many cases,
the cause of the misfit can be attributed to the presence of mudcake or excessively high pore-fluid
mobility (for example, gas).

RESULTS

The results of Sarmad-1H2 (SAR-1) and Sarmad-2H1 (SAR-2) Stoneley permeability analyses are
presented in Figures 9a and 9b, respectively. In both figures, the left track shows the calculated and
inversion fitted travel-time delay and centroid frequency shift. The computed Stoneley permeability
is shown in the right track. The Stoneley waveform data used in this analysis ranges from 500 to
2,500 Hz for SAR-1 and from 200 to 2,800 Hz for SAR-2. The mud slowness and density were 660 m/
m and 2.1 g/cm3 for SAR-1, and 600 m/m and 1.5 g/cm3 for SAR-2.

Sarmad-1H2 (SAR-1)

In SAR-1, two sectors were defined and calibrated separately. They are Sector 1 from the top of the log
at 3,652 m to 3,720 m, and Sector 2 from 3,720 m to the bottom of the log at 3,800 m.

Sector 1
This was calibrated against permeabilities derived from wireline pressure tests. A viscosity of
0.5 centipoise was used to calculate permeability from the test mobilities. In Sector 1, the inversion fit
of the time delay is typically slightly lower, whereas the fitted frequency shift is typically higher than
their measured values. This phenomenon can result when a mudcake build-up inhibits the exchange
of fluid between the borehole and the formation (Tang et al., 1998). In this case, the Stoneley method
may underestimate the permeability.

656
 Permeability Determination, Oman

WELL SAR-1 WELL SAR-2

a b
0 150 0 150

Measured Frequency Measured Frequency

Shift (Hz) Shift (Hz)
120 0 Stoneley 120 0 Stoneley
Permeability Permeability
Modeled Frequency (mD) Modeled Frequency (mD)
Shift (Hz) Shift (Hz)
120 0 120 0

0.01 100 0.01 100

0 150 0 150

Average 0.2 mD
Average 0.6 mD SECTOR 1 2.8 mD

4,050 m

3,700 m
Average 1.3 mD

4,100 m

Average 0.1 mD
3,750 m
SECTOR 2

3,800 m 4,150 m

Figure 9: Stoneley permeability calculations (a) SAR-1; (b) SAR-2. Sectors 1 and 2 (Figure 9a) are
based on permeability differences; average permeabilities as shown for marked intervals.
Calibration of Sector 1 was by Wireline Pressure Test, and by core-plugged permeability in Sector
2. SAR-2 has generally low permeabilities.

Within Sector 1, two relatively permeable intervals were identified by the analysis. These were as
follows: (1) the interval from 3,664 to 3,673 m, with an arithmetic average and maximum permeability
values of 2.8 mD and 27.5 mD (located at 3,665 m) respectively; and (2) the interval from approximately

657
Qobi et al.

3,682 to 3,710 m, where the average permeability value was 0.6 mD. The rest of Sector 1 was considered
to be tight.

Sector 2
As pressure tests were not available at appropriate depths for calibration of Sector 2, core-plug
permeabilities were used instead. The match between inverted and measured time delay and frequency
shifted curves was good. Calculated results indicated a permeable interval from 3,721 to 3,762 m that
exhibited average and maximum permeabilities of 1.3 mD and 5.5 mD (located at 3,753 m), respectively.
The section below 3,762 m was considered to be tight with the exception of a few thin intervals at
approximately 3,783 m, 3,788 m, and 3,797 m, where the permeability was 4 mD and 2.5 mD, respectively.
The latter interval coincided with a fracture cluster identified from image logs. It is possible that the
Stoneley method was sensing some fracture-related permeability, either from open fractures or from
fractures that have had their salt filling washed away by the borehole fluid.

Sarmad-2H1 (SAR-2)

In general SAR-2 has a low permeability. The overall correspondence between measured and inverted
time delay and frequency-shift curves indicated a reliable permeability profile. The inversion fit of
the time delay and the frequency shift was very good. The frequency shift and travel-time delay
showed the following two intervals of relatively high permeability: (1) from the top of the stringer
(about 4,028 m) to 4,050 m with an arithmetic average permeability value of 0.2 mD; and (2) from 4,105
to 4,125 m, with the highest permeability value being 1.6 mD.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER PERMEABILITY MEASUREMENTS

Figures 10a and 10b compare the results of Stoneley and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) derived
permeabilities with core plug and build-up Wireline Pressure Test (WPT) permeabilities. In each figure,
the left track shows the computed Stoneley permeability, and the right track the NMR permeability.
Also shown are Zones 1 to 5 (Figure 10a) and Zones 1 to 6 (Figure 10b) that relate to the compatibility
or variability of Stoneley permeability with core-plug, NMR, and WPT permeabilities.

Before discussing the agreement and discrepancies between measurements, it is useful to review the
factors that need to be taken into account when making comparisons. Measured permeabilities are a
function of (1) scale dependence, (2) directionality/flow geometry, (3) saturation state, and (4) nature
of measurement (direct or indirect).

Comparison Factors

Scale Dependence
Permeability is a scale-dependent property in the sense that large-scale permeability depends on the
spatial distribution of permeability within the volume being considered. As a consequence,
measurement techniques that sample different volumes within a heterogeneous formation will give
different answers.

Directionality/Flow Geometry
Permeability is a tensor property with a magnitude that differs depending on the direction of the
measurement. The direction in which a flow measurement is made, or the flow geometry associated
with a measurement, influences the result obtained.

Saturation State
The saturation state of a rock influences its flow behavior both in terms of the viscosity of the saturating
fluids, and in terms of relative permeability effects where an effective rather than an absolute
measurement is made. The near-well region often has a different saturation state (flushed zone) from
that deeper in the formation, and thus measurements with different depths of investigation will be
affected to a different degree.

658
 Permeability Determination, Oman

(a) WELL SAR-1 (b) WELL SAR-2

Stoneley NMR Stoneley NMR
Permeability (mD) Permeability Permeability (mD) Permeability

0.01 100 0.01 100 0.01 100 0.01 100

1 1
11 1
1

4,050 m

2 2

22 3,700 m 22

33 33
3 3

4,100 m

4 4
44 44
3,750 m

5 5

Wireline
pressure- 6 6
test
derived
permeability
55 5
5

Cleaned 4,150 m
core
permeability
3,800 m

Figure 10: Comparison of Stoneley permeability calculation with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
(NMR), core plug, and Wireline Pressure Test (WPT) permeability calculations (a) SAR-1;
(b) SAR-2. Numbered circles are zones discussed in the text where Stoneley permeability is
compared and contrasted with core-plug, NMR, and WPT permeabilities.

Nature of Measurement
Measurements of permeability can be direct or indirect. Direct methods are those that measure how
the flow influences some measurable property, such as pressure. Indirect methods are based on
empirical correlations of some property that has been shown to be related to permeability.

Stoneley permeability is an intermediate-scale measurement with a depth of investigation of between

2.5 and 5 ft. It measures an azimuthally averaged permeability orthogonal to the borehole axis. The
depth of investigation is such that it typically measures permeability mostly within the flushed zone,
implying that the measured quantity is the effective permeability to water in the presence of residual
oil. Calibrating Stoneley permeability will, of course, make it susceptible to any problems inherent in
the measurement it is calibrated against.

659
Qobi et al.

Core-plug permeabilities are small-scale measurements that are normally made either in a direction
parallel to, or orthogonal to, bedding. Typically, core permeabilities are absolute values for a single
saturating fluid. They are direct measurements but are subject to any changes in core that result in
bringing the rock to surface and preparing the core plugs.

Permeabilities derived from WPT are typically based on two types of measurement; namely (1)
drawdown (pseudo-steady state) permeabilities, and (2) buildup permeabilities. Drawdown
permeabilities are typically most heavily influenced by properties very close to the well, within a few
probe radii for a probe test.

Buildup measurements have a depth of investigation that is dependent on the properties of the rock
and saturating fluids but are typically on a far larger scale than drawdown permeabilities. They give
a spherical permeability that is a geometric average of the permeability in different directions.
Calculation of build-up permeabilities also requires knowledge of the porosity of the rock and
compressibilities of the saturating fluids. The examples given in this paper are entirely based on the
analysis of build-up data acquired using a dual packer tool, and therefore represent an average over
more than 3 ft vertically.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance logs (NMR) can be used to calculate permeabilities. The method is an
indirect one relying on empirical correlations based on pore geometry and bound-fluid volumes. The
method is non-directional. It is independent of saturation fluid and is typically based on correlation
to core permeabilities. The scale of the measurement is similar to Stoneley permeability though with
a higher vertical resolution. In this study, the NMR permeability was derived from an internal Shell
correlation based on core samples from three separate wells in the carbonates.

Comparison of Permeabilities for SAR-1

In Zones 2 and 5 (Figure 10a), the Stoneley permeability curve matched the core data better than the
NMR permeability. Zone 2 also had a WPT permeability that was in good agreement with both core
and Stoneley permeability. In Zone 4, however, the NMR calculations matched the variation in

3,620

3,640

3,660

3,680
Perforation intervals

3,700
Depth (m)

NMR permeability
3,720

3,740

Stoneley permeability
3,760

3,780

3,800
PLT station measurements
3,820
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fraction of Total

Figure 11: Comparison of cumulative Stoneley, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)
permeability curves with Production Logging Tool (PLT) station measurements in well SAR-1.
Stoneley curve correctly shows that almost 40% of production enters through the lowest set of
perforations.

660
 Permeability Determination, Oman

permeabilities better than the Stoneley method. In this case, the difference in the measurements could
be partly a scale of measurement effect in that the scatter in the core values showed that permeabilities
varied on a scale of less than a meter. The NMR curve that had a higher vertical resolution was better
able to track these changes. At the top of Zone 4, the core values ranged from 0.05 mD to 60 mD within
a few meters. Stoneley and WPT permeabilities both fell well within this range, though the WPT
value was considerably higher (7 mD as opposed to 0.8 mD). In Zone 1, the WPT permeability was
also considerably higher than both Stoneley and NMR permeability. Zone 3 showed very low Stoneley
permeabilities of approximately 0.01 mD, whereas NMR permeabilities typically ranged between 0.1
mD and 1 mD. Unfortunately, no other measurements were available in this interval for comparison.
In Zone 5, the core permeabilities were higher than both Stoneley and NMR measurements, though
Stoneley permeabilities did reach similar magnitudes at two depths.

Ten separate intervals were perforated on wireline, and a successful production test was conducted on
this stringer. A Production Logging Tool (PLT) flow log gave some indication of the permeable intervals,
though the multiple perforated intervals complicated the interpretation. A comparison of cumulative
permeability curves with station PLT measurements is given in Figure 11. The Stoneley curve correctly
shows that almost 40 percent of production enters through the lowest set of perforations.

Comparison of Permeabilities
for SAR-2

In SAR-2, the match of the Stoneley permeability to the core data was excellent in Zones 4, 5, and 6
(Figure 10b). Furthermore, both the core and Stoneley permeabilities were confirmed by the wireline
pressure-derived permeability values as shown in Zone 5. Some high core permeabilities were visible
from 4,114 m to 4,120 m. Examination of the core and image logs showed that salt-filled vugs and
fractures were common in this interval (Figure 12). It is highly likely that the core values were artificially
enhanced through the inadvertent dissolution of salt during cleaning. Evidence from comparative
cleaning studies on other Stringer wells supports this hypothesis.

The NMR showed rapid variation from

values similar to the lower core
permeability values, to extremely low 4,116.2 m
permeabilities (<0.01 mD) over all three
zones. This did not appear to be caused Salt-filled
by differences in vertical resolution vugs and
fractures
between the methods, because the fine-
scale core data did not confirm the NMR 4,117.3 m
values (Figure 13). It is unlikely that salt
dissolution would universally affect all the
core permeability measurements and,
therefore, if the low NMR values were real,
one would expect the lower core
permeabilities to have similar values.

In Zone 1, where no core measurement was

4,116.4 m
available, Stoneley permeability appeared
to read less than NMR permeabilities, but
agreed more closely with WPT.
4,117.5 m
In Zones 2 and 3, neither Stoneley nor NMR
permeability was in agreement with the Figure 12: Example of natural salt-filled
highest core permeability values. NMR fractures and vugs as seen on cut surfaces of a
permeabilities occasionally reached one-third core slab in well SAR-2. Note how
permeability values similar to the lowest small, natural fractures often originate from
core values, but Stoneley permeability salt-filled vugs.
values were often an order of magnitude

661
Qobi et al.

lower. The few WPT points within these zones WELL SAR-2
did not confirm the high permeability values seen
NMR
by the core. Several of the attempted WPT tests Permeability (mD)
in these intervals were unsuccessful, giving 0.01 100
further evidence that the actual in-situ
permeabilities are orders of magnitude lower than
the core. Furthermore, the well, when subjected
to production testing, produced small amounts
of water before the tubing was plugged-off by the 1
salt dropping out of solution, which was also not
consistent with the high core permeability values.
4,050 m

In order to explain the discrepancies encountered 2

in Zones 2 and 3, a closer examination of data and
review of existing studies based on core and
image analysis were conducted. Observations
that may be related to these discrepancies were
as follows:

1. the problematic intervals showed a

particularly high degree of drilling-induced 3
fracturing on image logs (Figure 14); 4,125

2. the formation is deep (approximately 4,000 m

below surface) and highly over-pressured;
4,100 m
3. the predominant facies is a laminated
mudstone, which is not typically regarded as 4
a reservoir facies in these Carbonate Stringers;
4. many of the core permeabilities fell
outside the porosity permeability trend
defined from other Stringer wells; 5
5. numerous hairline fractures were typical of the
laminated mudstone facies, most of
which were mineralized, in some cases filled
with salt; 6
6. larger fractures and dilatational jogs were
invariably salt-filled.
4,150 m
Given these observations and the discussion
above it is highly probable that the higher core
values are not representative of the in situ Wireline pressure-
test derived
permeability. The most likely explanation is that permeability
core permeabilities in these intervals were also
Cleaned core
enhanced through the dissolution of salt during permeability
core cleaning.
Figure 13: Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)
An alternative explanation is that micro- permeability and core plug permeability:
fracturing of the core had taken place, either comparison at fine scale in well SAR-2. Rapid
during the drilling process or during pressure variations in NMR values throughout Zones 4,
release at surface. This would erroneously 5, and 6 do not correlate with core-plug
increase the measured core permeability values. permeability values (see p. 661).
The deep and over-pressured nature of this
formation implies considerable stress release and
fluid expansion at surface, both of which could potentially lead to core damage. Furthermore, the
problem intervals were probably more brittle than the rest of the stringer, as indicated by the induced
fractures, and could therefore be expected to be more prone to these problems. Microscopic examination
of the core plugs, in addition to permeability measurement of both cleaned and non-cleaned plugs, is
needed to confirm these hypotheses.

662
 Permeability Determination, Oman

It is also possible that the induced

WELL SAR-2 Acoustic Image
fracturing had created considerable
Stoneley Resistivity Image
Permeability (mD) N E S W N
near-well
N E formation damage by
promoting the invasion of drilling
0.01 100
fines. This would be sensed by the
Stoneley method, but not by the NMR,
4,052 m
thus explaining the discrepancy
m between these measurements. One
might imagine that induced fractures
would have created a near-well
enhancement of permeability, leading
4,050 m Drilling- to the Stoneley method overestimating
induced
fractures the true formation permeability. This
is, however, in direct contrast to our
observations that Stoneley
permeability typically read less than all
other methods in the intervals that had
particularly high levels of induced
4,054 m
fractures. Thus, if anything, the
Stoneley method was underestimating
permeability in these intervals. One
explanation is that a layer of mudcake
between the fracture faces had sealed
4,055 m these fractures. This could occur, if the
4,100 m fracture aperture reduced significantly
subsequent to formation by the drilling
process. It is unlikely that natural
Wireline pressure- fractures, which have a significant
test derived
permeability aperture before drilling, would be
subject to the same effects.
Cleaned core
permeability
DISCUSSION

The results presented here show that

there is no single existing method that
provides a completely reliable
Figure 14: Drilling-induced fractures measurement of permeability in the
as they appear on the resistivity Carbonate Stringers of the South Oman
image, well SAR-2. Salt Basin. Comparison between the
measurements is complicated by
factors such as the nature of the measurement, scale dependence, and associated flow geometry. In
addition, there is no absolute permeability reference for comparison. Typically, core data is regarded
as such a reference, but salt plugging of the matrix and salt-plugged fractures cause core permeabilities
to be often anomalous, or at least not representative of larger-scale in situ permeabilities.

In spite of these difficulties, the case study shows that the Stoneley method provides a useful and
valuable additional source of permeability information. In many cases, Stoneley-derived permeabilities
are in better agreement with other measurements than the only other continuous permeability
measurement, namely NMR permeabilities.

In places where both NMR-derived permeability (model calculations on a static measurement) and
Stoneley-wave derived permeability (modeled dynamic measurements) profiles agree, confidence in
the presented permeability values can be high.

In places where Stoneley measurements agree with core data, but not with NMR results, vertical
resolution differences in both methods cannot be the direct cause of the discrepancy. More likely, the

663
Qobi et al.

NMR methodwhich is based on calibration of core data from three Carbonate Stringer wellsmay
not be applicable to this particular facies and/or rock fabric.

Differences between the Stoneley and NMR permeability can also be caused by fractures contributing
to the overall permeability. The acoustic logging tool will detect fracture-induced permeability effects
since it measures the loss of acoustic energy at the borehole wall, regardless of whether the loss is into
pores or a fractures system. In contrast, core measurements that are performed on material from non-
fractured parts of the rock will not measure fracture permeability. Similarly, the NMR method will not
detect fracture permeability because (1) NMR signal responds predominantly to the pore space of the
formation matrix, and (2) the transform of the static NMR measurement to the dynamic permeability
is made through calibration on core data that lacks fracture-permeability information.

WPT buildups provide an in-situ measurement of permeability and are therefore useful for calibration
of the Stoneley permeabilities and assessing the reliability of other permeability methods. In some
cases, the WPT confirm that the Stoneley method is correctly sensing the in-situ formation permeability.
Some caution is necessary when using WPT measurements, however, as they may be influenced by
assumptions regarding the saturating fluid and degree of permeability anisotropy.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliable permeability determination in the Carbonate Stringers of the South Oman Salt Basin is
extremely difficult. None of the existing techniques can be regarded as being universally successful.
The results of this case study clearly demonstrate the potential of using Stoneley wave analysis for
permeability prediction. In several instances, the method gives better results than the NMR calculations
when compared with independent WPT estimates and/or core measurements. In other cases, the
method has proved to be more reliable than core values and to give results that are more consistent
with production tests. The additional strength of the acoustic method is that it is a direct physical
measurement. In contrast to the NMR method that derives permeability based on an empirical model,
the Stoneley method derives permeability from direct interaction of acoustic wave with the in-situ
flow properties of the formation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers conference in
Dallas, October 2000. The authors wish to thank the Ministry of Oil and Gas of Oman, Petroleum
Development Oman LLC, and Baker Atlas for permission to publish this work. In addition, we would
like to acknowledge the assistance provided by members of the PDO Stringer team and Baker Atlas
Geoscience staff in the Middle East in providing data, original figures, reviewing text, and discussing
findings. Dr. J.E. Amthor and three anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for the critical
reading of the manuscript. The design and drafting of the final graphics was by Gulf PetroLink.

REFERENCES

Biot, M.A. 1962. Mechanics of deformation and acoustic wave propagation in porous media. Journal
of Applied Physics, v. 33, p. 14821498.
Johnson, D.L., J. Koplic and R. Dashen 1987. Theory of dynamic permeability and tortuosity in fluid-
saturated porous media. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, v. 176, p .379400.
Mattes, B.W. and S. Conway Morris 1990. Carbonate/evaporite deposition in the Late Precambrian -
Early Cambrian Ara Formation of southern Oman. In, Robertson A.H.F., M.P. Searle and A.C. Ries
(Eds.), The geology and tectonics of the Oman region, Geological Society, London, Special
Publication, no. 49, p. 617636.
Reinhardt, J.W., J.E. Amthor and F. Hoogendijk 1999. Deep oil exploration in an unconventional
reservoirthe Precambrian intra-salt carbonate play of Oman. Proceedings of the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual convention, A115.
Rosenbaum, J.H. 1974. Synthetic Microseismograms: Logging in Porous Formations. Geophysics,
v. 39, p. 1432.

664
 Permeability Determination, Oman

Sharland, P.R., R. Archer, D.M. Casey, R.B. Davies, S.H. Hall, A.P. Heward, A.D. Horbury and M.D.
Simmons 2001. Arabian Plate sequence stratigraphy. GeoArabia Special Publication 2. Gulf
PetroLink, Bahrain, 371 p.
Tang, X.M. and C.H. Cheng 1993a. The effects of a logging tool on the Stoneley wave propagation in
elastic and porous formations. The Log Analyst, v. 34, p. 4656.
Tang, X.M. and C.H. Cheng 1993b. Borehole Stoneley wave propagation across permeable structures.
Geophysical Prospecting, v. 41, p.165187.
Tang, X.M. and C.H. Cheng 1996. Fast inversion of formation permeability from borehole Stoneley
wave logs. Geophysics, v. 61, p. 639645.
Tang, X.M., M. Altunbay and D. Shorey 1998. Joint interpretation of formation permeability from
wireline, acoustic, NMR, and image log data. Transactions of the SPWLA 39th Annual Logging
Symposium, Keystone, Colorado, Paper KK.
Tang, X.M., C.H. Cheng and M.N. Toksoz 1991. Dynamic permeability and borehole Stoneley waves:
A simplified Biot-Rosenbaum model. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 90,
p. 16321646.
Tezuka, K., C.H. Cheng and X.M Tang 1994. Modeling of low frequency Stoneley wave propagation in
an irregular borehole. Expanded abstracts of the 64th Society of Exploration Geophysicists annual
meeting, Los Angeles, California, p. 2427.
Williams, D. M., J. Zemanek, F.A. Angona, C.L. Denis and R.L. Caldwell 1984. The long space acoustic
logging tool. Transactions of the SPWLA 25th Annual Logging Symposium, Paper T.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Latifa Qobi is a Senior Geoscientist with Baker Atlas Geoscience in Bahrain.

She has an MSc in Applied Geophysics from Pierre et Marie Curie
University, Paris. She joined Baker Atlas in 1994 as a Geophysicist. In
1995, she was assigned to Hasi-Messaoud in Algeria, where she established
a Log Analysis Center. In 1997, she moved to Baker Atlas Geoscience in
Bahrain and has worked on various projects, mainly related to borehole image
analysis. Since 2000, Latifa has worked on, and promoted, advanced acoustic
products in the Middle East area. Her current interest is Geomechanics.
E-mail: latifa.qobi@bakeratlas.com

Andr de Kuijper is Section Head Petrophysics in the Fahud/Lekhwair

Asset Team in Petroleum Development Oman (PDO). He was awarded a
PhD in Theoretical Physics (Computer Simulations of Molecular Systems)
by the University of Amsterdam in 1991. He then joined Shell Research in
Rijswijk, The Netherlands, and worked on the development of saturation
models. Andre moved to PDO in 1997 to become Senior Exploration
Petrophysicist responsible for Carbonate Stringers. Since 2000, he has
worked on the Fahud, Lekhwair, and Natih fields.
E-mail: Andre.A.deKuijper@pdo.co.om

Xiao Ming Tang is a Senior Staff Scientist in the Houston Technology

Center of Baker Atlas/INTEQ and is Project Leader for acoustic processing
and interpretation development. He has a DSc from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (1990). After graduation, he worked for New
England Research, Inc. until 1994 when he joined Baker Atlas. His current
interests include borehole acoustics, petrophysics, and rock mechanics. Xiao
Ming has been an author or co-author of more than 50 technical publications
and ten patents. He is member of SPWLA and SEG.
E-mail: xiaming.tang@aws.waii.com

665
Qobi et al.

Jonathan Strauss is a Reservoir Engineering Consultant with Baker Atlas

Geoscience in Bahrain. He has a BSc (Hons.) in Physics from the University
of Natal, South Africa. He joined Baker Atlas in 1997. Prior to that, he was
employed by SOEKOR E&P in South Africa and by PGS Reservoir in the
UK. Jonathans professional interests are fractured reservoirs, reservoir
simulation, well test analysis and simulation, probabilistic methods, and
wireline formation.
E-mail: jonathan.strauss@bakeratlas.com

Manuscript Received January 10, 2001

Revised May 20, 2001

Accepted May 25, 2001

666