Induction logging

Induction logging[1] was originally developed to measure formation resistivities in boreholes

containing oil-based muds and in air-drilled boreholes because electrode devices could not
work in these nonconductive boreholes. However, because the tools were easy to run and
required much less in the way of chart corrections than laterals or normals, induction tools
were used in a wide range of borehole salinity soon after their introduction.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Principles
 2 Induction response
 3 Multicoil arrays
 4 Dual-induction tools
 5 Phasor induction
 6 Array-induction tools
o 6.1 Array-induction principles
 7 Field-log examples
 8 Other array induction of tools
 9 Induction vs. laterolog measurements
 10 Nomenclature
 11 References
 12 Noteworthy papers in OnePetro
 13 External links
 14 See also

Principles
Commercial induction tools consist of multiple coil arrays designed to optimize vertical
resolution and depth of investigation. However, to illustrate induction-tool fundamentals, it is
instructive to first examine the basic building block of multiple-coil arrays, the two-coil
sonde.

Fig. 1 shows that a two-coil sonde consists of a transmitter and receiver mounted coaxially on
a mandrel. Typical coil separations range from 1 to 10 ft apart. In practice, each coil can
consist of from several to 100 or more turns, with the exact number of turns determined by
engineering considerations. The operating frequency of commercial induction tools is in the
tens to hundreds of kilohertz range, with 20 kHz being the most commonly used frequency
before 1990.
 

Fig. 1 – Schematic representation of a two-coil induction array showing the distribution of the currents induced in
the formation by the transmitter coil.

The induction transmitter coil is driven by an alternating current that creates a primary
magnetic field around the transmitter coil. The primary magnetic field causes eddy currents to
flow in a continuous circular distribution (often mistakenly called "ground loops") centered
around the borehole axis. The color contours in Fig. 1 show the current distribution. These
eddy currents are proportional to the formation conductivity, and they in turn generate a
secondary magnetic field, which induces an alternating voltage in the receiver coil. This
receiver voltage is first-order proportional to the conductivity of the formation.[2]

Because the transmitter current is alternating, there is a phase shift between the transmitter
current and the current density in the formation. This phase shift is not the same in all parts of
the formation—it increases with distance into the formation (Fig. 1). Similarly, the phase in
the receiver is even further shifted. At very low conductivities, the total phase shift is
approximately 180° and increases with increasing formation conductivity. Induction tools
have always measured the part of the voltage that is exactly 180° phase-shifted from the
transmitter current (called the R-signal). As the conductivity increased, and the phase shifted,
the voltage was a bit less than expected from a linear relationship. This difference is called
skin effect. Modern induction tools make an additional measurement at a phase shift of 270°
from the transmitter current (called the X-signal). These two measurements, being in
quadrature, allow precise phase and amplitude measurement of the receiver voltage.

Induction response
To produce adequate sensitivity to the uninvaded zone, induction tools perforce include
signals from a large volume of formation. The challenge is to determine exactly where the
measurement is coming from in the formation. Doll defined the geometrical factor as a 2D
function g(ρ,z), which defines the part of the total signal that comes from an infinitesimally
thin loop around the borehole. This definition is valid only at very low conductivities. Moran
defined a modification of the geometrical factor that is valid in low contrast formations at any
conductivity. This response is known as the Born response.[3]

The response to formation layers is given by the vertical response function gV(z), which is
defined as the integral of the 2D response function g(ρ,z) over radius ρ. The response to radial
variations in a thick bed is given by the radial response functiongR(ρ), which is defined as the
integral of g(ρ,z) over z. The response of the array to invasion in a thick bed is characterized
by the integrated radial response GR, which is the cumulative integral of gR(ρ) over radius.
Multicoil arrays
Because the direct transmitter-receiver mutual coupling of a two-coil array can produce a
voltage several thousand times that from a formation, two-coil arrays are not practical. The
simplest practical array is a three-coil array with a transmitter and two receivers. The second
receiver is placed between the transmitter and main receiver, and is wound oppositely so that
the voltages in the two receivers exactly cancel when the array is in free space. The response
is the sum of the coil-pair responses.

One of the most successful induction arrays was the 6FF40 array introduced in 1960.[4] It had
three transmitters and three receivers, with a symmetric Born response g. Figs. 2 and 3 show
its vertical and radial responses. The array was designed to achieve deep investigation,
reasonable vertical resolution, and a low borehole effect. However, the large peaks in the 2D
response along the tool resulted in sensitivity to borehole washouts, called cave effect.

Fig. 2 – Vertical response function G(R) for the 6FF40 array at several formation conductivities.

Fig. 3 – Integrated radial response function G(R) for the 6FF40 at several conductivities.

Dual-induction tools
One of the challenges of measuring formation resistivity is to sort out the resistivity of the
invaded zone from that of the virgin zone. The earliest concept to successfully solve the
problem (at least in thick beds with uncomplicated invasion profiles) was the dual-induction
tool. This tool combined a 6FF40 array as a deep-induction measurement (ID or ILD) with a
set of receivers that worked with the 6FF40 transmitters to produce a shallower measurement.
This was referred to as the medium-depth induction (IM or ILm).[5][6]

Because there are three parameters in the simplest step-profile invasion model, at least three
measurements are required to solve for these parameters. The shallow measurement was a
shallow laterolog (LL8 or SFL) colocated with the induction arrays. The radial response
function involves very complicated mathematics, and the solution offered to users of the dual
induction logs was a graphical solver called the tornado chart.

he ILD-ILM-SFL logs separate when there is invasion, and this separation is what allows
interpretation for invasion parameters.Fig 4 shows the modeled response of the dual
induction-SFL tool (DIT) in a typical Gulf of Mexico pay zone with a transition over a water
zone.

Fig. 4 – Modeled DIL logs in a typical Gulf of Mexico formation in a pay zone, a transition zone, and a water zone.

The ILm and ILd measurements do not respond linearly to the formation conductivity. This
nonlinearity is closely related to the changes in the response shape and depth of investigation
with increasing conductivity. This nonlinear response of an induction array is called skin
effect because it is related to the "skin depth" effect of AC current flowing in conductors.

Some sort of function must be applied to the tool voltages to correct for this nonlinearity. The
processing applied to the Schlumberger DIT[7] consisted of a skin-effect function ("boost")
applied to the measured R-signals from the induction arrays. This was based on computations
of the response in an infinite homogeneous medium. The ILd was further processed using a
three-station deconvolution filter to slightly sharpen the bed-boundary transition and to
correct for shoulder effect over a limited resistivity range (1 to 10 ohm•m). At other
formation-resistivity ranges, the response either produced horns or large shoulder effects. Fig.
5shows the DIT logs in a set of formation layers with the same shoulder-bed contrasts, but
centered on 1, 10, and 100 ohm•m.
 

Fig. 5 – Modeled DIT logs in a set of formation layers with the same shoulder-bed constrasts, but centered on 1, 10,
and 100 ohm•m.

Borehole correction was also hand-applied to the induction and SFL logs. The borehole
correction chart was derived from measurements made with a DIT in plastic pipes full of salt
water. The 6FF40-based dual induction-shallow electrode tool was offered by most service
companies.

Phasor induction
The DIT tool became the standard resistivity tool and remained virtually unchanged for more
than 20 years. However, as its application moved from the original Gulf of Mexico formation
contrasts to higher-resistivity formations, the shoulder-effect problem became much worse.
Although shoulder-correction charts were provided for high resistivity, they mainly indicated
that the problem was bad rather than serving as a usable correction mechanism.

The fundamental problem in induction log interpretation is to isolate the response of a thin
bed and the virgin zone from the shoulders and the invaded zone after the measurement
process has thoroughly mixed them. The Phasor induction tool was introduced in the mid-
1980s and was the first tool to automate the environmental corrections. It uses a linear
deconvolution function to correct for shoulder effect and uses the X-signal measurement to
correct for skin effect. This algorithm was the basis for Phasor Processing.[8] It can be shown
that a filter fitted at low conductivity works well at low conductivity but produces large errors
at high conductivity. The error is, however, a slowly varying function closely related to the
X-signal. An algorithm applied to the X-signal to match it to the skin-effect error allows a
single FIR filter to correct for shoulder effect over a wide range of conductivities.

Fig. 6 shows the results of Phasor processing in the formation models of Fig. 5. The
induction logs are fully shoulder-effect-corrected at all conductivity levels. Phasor logs in the
Gulf of Mexico simulation of Fig. 4 are not very different from the DIT logs. This is in part
because this formation is where the DIT logs were designed to work well. Although tornado
charts were published for the Phasor induction logs, the invasion parameters are computed in
real time at the wellsite. Borehole corrections are based on computer models of an eccentered
tool in a wide range of borehole salinities and formation conductivities.[9] Borehole
corrections are applied in real time at the wellsite. The Phasor induction tool was the first
induction tool that could provide full environmental correction and invasion parameter
determination at the wellsite. In 1987, changes to the deconvolution filters allowed induction
logs with a 2-ft vertical resolution (compared with 5 ft for ILm and 8 ft for ILd).
 

Fig. 6 – Phasor logs in the cases of Fig. 5.

Dual-induction tools that measured both R and X signals and applied automatic shoulder-
effect corrections were introduced by Atlas (the Dual-Phase Induction Tool, or DPIL) and
Gearhart (the High-Resolution Induction Tool, or HRI tool). The HRI tool also achieved a
vertical resolution of 2 ft. It was also the first dual-induction tool to be based on a different
array from the 6FF40. Its deep array had a median depth of investigation of approximately 90
in. After the breakup of Gearhart, Halliburton acquired the HRI tool and commercialized it.

However, all of these tools are based on two induction arrays—a shallow array and a deep
array. Performance in complex invasion profiles is limited by the small number of
measurements. Fig. 7 shows the Phasor logs in a simulation taken from a field log in a gas
reservoir. Here an annulus has developed, and the deep log reads much less than Rt. In this
well, the three-parameter invasion model will not return the correct value of Rt.

Fig. 7 – Phasor logs in a simulation of a gas-bearing formation where an annulus has formed.

In the case of oil-based mud (OBM), the SFL is not usable. Separation between the medium
and deep logs is only a qualitative indication of invasion and is not quantitatively
interpretable.

Array-induction tools
With the Phasor Induction tool, the dual-induction concept had reached its limits. In
particular, improvements were needed in better estimates of Rt in the presence of deep-
invasion or complex transition zones. As the grosser environmental distortions were corrected
by Phasor Processing or similar processing, annulus profiles and other transitions were
encountered more often.

These response problems, coupled with an increasing use of OBM, led to the concept of
using several induction arrays with different depths of investigation. With the problems of
applying linear deconvolution filters solved, then Doll’s approach of using a simple array was
applicable. The Schlumberger AIT was designed with eight simple three-coil arrays ranging
in length from 6 in. to 6 ft.[10]

Array-induction principles
The first step in log formation in the AIT family of tools is to correct all raw array signals for
borehole effects. This process is based on a forward model of the arrays in a circular
borehole, and it includes an exact description of the tool in the model.[11]

The signal measured by an induction sonde eccentered in a borehole can be described

mathematically as a function of four parameters. These are the borehole radius r, the mud
conductivity σm, the formation conductivity σf, and the tool position x with respect to the
borehole wall (commonly referred to as the "standoff").

The correction algorithm is designed to solve for some of these parameters by minimizing the
difference between the modeled and actual logs from the four shortest arrays. The
information content of these measurements is not sufficient to solve for all the borehole
parameters at the same time. In practice, two of the four parameters can be reliably
determined by this method. The other two parameters have to be either measured or fixed.
The equivalent homogeneous formation conductivity σf must always be solved for because no
measurement is closely enough related to it. This leaves one of the other parameters to be
determined, and the remaining two parameters must be entered as measurements. This leads
to the three borehole correction methods to compute mud resistivity, hole diameter, and
standoff. All of the AITs except the original AIT-B have integral mud resistivity
sensors,[12] and "compute standoff" is the default borehole-correction method in water-based
mud (WBM).

A method was developed[13] to combine these array measurements to focus the resulting log to
the desired depth of investigation, while at the same time doing so with a high vertical
resolution and minimizing cave effect. The log-formation process is described by the
equation

....................(1)

In this equation, σlog is the recorded AIT log, σa(n) is the measured log from the nth channel,
and N is the total number of measure channels. This process produces a log that is different
from that produced by any of the individual arrays. It is still characterized by a response
function. This response function is a weighted sum of the response functions of each of the
individual channels n. Skin effect is handled in a manner similar to the Phasor tool.

The result of this equation is a combination of the logs from the eight array that "distills" the
radial information from the eight arrays into five independent logs with depths of
investigation of 10, 20, 30, 60, and 90 in. Each of these five logs is available at a resolution of
1, 2, and 4 ft. The radial profile is identical at all resolutions, and the vertical resolution is
identical for all radial depths. The set of weights w in Eq. 1 determines which log is
produced.

If the mud is very salty, or if the borehole is very large, the signal in the AIT arrays from the
borehole will be very large. With salty mud, even normal variations in the borehole surface
from the drilling operation can cause "wiggles" on the short array data. Several years of
practice have shown that these can affect the final logs, especially the 1-ft logs. This
experience has shown that in an 8-in. borehole with 1 1/2-in. standoffs, the 1-ft logs are
normally usable at Rt/Rm contrasts up to 100; the 2-ft logs are usable up to a contrast of 450,
and the 4-ft logs are usable up to contrasts of 1000. Algorithms based on the real-time use of
a chart and "road-noise" analysis of the 6-in. array allow real-time selection of the appropriate
resolution based on actual logging conditions.

AIT logs separate in invaded zones and give a good visual indication of invasion, even with
OBM. Fig. 8 shows the AIT logs in the same formation as Fig. 4 (left). In the annulus
case, Fig. 8 (right), the AIT logs are "out of order," clearly indicating the nonstep nature of
the invasion profile.

Fig. 8 – Phasor logs in the cases of Fig. 5.

With the additional curves, the invasion profile parameters can be solved for using inverse
methods. AIT invasion processing has three models that can be selected:

 Step
 Ramp
 Annulus

All are available at the computing center, while the ramp profile is used for real-time logs.

Interpretation of logs in deviated wells or where the apparent dip is high is considerably
complicated. First, one has to recognize that the logs are at high apparent dip. Fig. 8 shows
AIT logs in a formation with an apparent dip of 85°. Although this is high, the characteristics
that appear here—horns and strange log order—appear in logs with dips as low as 40°. In
many fields, faults and slumping of young sediments can produce high apparent dips that are
not detectable on seismic profiles. Merlin processing has been developed to produce logs
fully corrected for dip effect.[14] Recently, real-time high-angle processing was made
available.[15]This processing produces logs that are independent of dip angle. However, the
resulting logs are also shallow. Fig. 9 shows dip-invariant processing (Grimaldi) on the right.

Fig. 9 – AIT dip-invariant logs.

Fig. 10 – Comparison of AIT and Phasor logs in a gas zone in Canada.

Users of induction logs should be very careful making quantitative analyses in wells that are
deviated, or if the formation is dipping. If the shoulder-bed contrast is 20 or less, then the
minimum angle where dip correction is needed is approximately 30°. At shoulder-bed
contrast of over 100, the logs will need correction at dips as low as 10°.

Field-log examples
A few field-log examples will illustrate the richness of information available in array-
induction logs. The first example, Fig. 10, is a comparison of AIT and Phasor induction logs
in a gas zone from Canada. The AIT shows a nonmonotonic curve order, indicating an
annulus profile. If the data from this zone is inverted into an annulus profile using material-
balance constraints to determine the thickness of the annulus, then the complete annulus
parameters can be recovered (Fig. 11).
 

Fig. 11 – Radial inversion of the AIT logs in Fig. 10 for invasion parameters using the annulus model.

The next example is from south Texas, and is in a well drilled with oil-based mud. Fig.
12 shows the AIT logs compared to the Phasor logs in this well. Because of the OBM, only
the induction logs from the DIT are available. In the lower zone, the AIT logs show a
conductive invasion profile, suggesting that the OBM has broken down as it has invaded into
the formation.[16] The invasion profile is much clearer with the AIT logs.

Fig. 12 – AIT and Phasor logs in a south Texas well drilled with OBM. Note the conductive invasion profile despite
the OBM.

The final example is from a deviated well in Canada in a 4 3/4-in. borehole drilled with OBM
(Fig. 13). The well was air-drilled and turned horizontal. This part was at a deviation of
approximately 60°—going "round the bend." The 2-ft field logs in the left track have a
scrambled curve order—shallow logs are higher than deep in the resistive beds and then
reversed in the conductive beds. This is a signature of high-dip response. The dip-invariant
logs in the center track do not exhibit the curve scrambling. The Merlin logs also show no
scrambling and high resolution as well.
 

Fig. 13 – Slim-access AIT logs from a well in Canada. Relative dip is approximately 60°. Field processing, dip-
invariant processing, and Merlin logs are shown.

Other array induction of tools

Baker Atlas introduced its High-Definition Induction Log (HDIL) array induction tool in
1996.[17] It is a seven-array tool that operates at eight frequencies. This information can be
processed in a variety of ways, depending on the environment. The multiple frequencies are
used for skin-effect correction. This algorithm is developed by computing the R signal
measured by a given array at each frequency at a wide range of formation conductivities. The
data at each frequency are fitted to the true formation conductivity. The resulting function is
used for the skin-effect correction.

The skin-effect-corrected conductivities are then deconvolved with filters to form six logs at
depths of 10, 20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 in., and at three matched resolutions of 1, 2, and 4 ft. An
additional presentation is the "true resolution" log set. This has the same six depths, but the
resolution of each depends on the depth of investigation. This presents the resolution
information content that actually comes from the formation region near the midpoint of the
integrated radial response function. Dip correction is provided at the computing center. Fig.
14 shows an example. Fig. 15 shows a 2D inversion available at the computing center.

Fig. 14 – HDIL logs in a formation with 45° relative dip before and after dip correction.
 

Fig. 15 – HDIL logs with 2D inversion for invasion parameters.

Halliburton introduced its High-Resolution Array Induction (HRAI) tool in 2000.[18] It is a

six-array tool based on the array layout of the HRI. Standard HRAI tool logs present
resistivities at vertical resolutions of 4, 2, and 1 ft, each with six depths of investigation (10,
20, 30, 60, 90, and 120 in.). The log resistivities are inverted to yield true resistivities of the
formation in the virgin zone, Rt, and in the invaded zone, Rxo, near the borehole. Invasion
diameters (Di) corresponding with Rt and Rxo are also presented. HRAI tool answer products
are available in real time while logging.

A variant on the array induction principle was introduced by Weatherlord (previously Reeves
Wireline).[19] The array induction donde (AIS) combines four simple induction arrays with a
shallow focused-electrode array. The induction data have been presented in two ways.
Originally, the four arrays were combined in software to match the response of the ILd and
ILm arrays. Later, the Vectar processing was introduced to produce a higher-resolution
log.[20] Data from each array is skin-effect-corrected and then resolution-matched to the
shortest array. Up to six curves are presented from the four arrays.

Induction vs. laterolog measurements

Laterolog and induction logging tools each have unique characteristics that favor their use in
specific situations and applications.

The induction log is generally recommended for holes drilled with only moderately
conductive drilling muds or nonconductive muds (e.g., oil-based mud (OBM)) and for empty
or air-drilled holes. The laterolog is generally recommended for holes drilled with very
conductive drilling muds (i.e., salt muds).

Induction tools are conductivity-sensitive devices, which are most accurate in low- to
medium-resistivity formations. Laterolog tools are resistivity devices, which are most
accurate in medium- to high-resistivity formations. In practice, both modern laterolog and
induction-logging tools are suitable for most logging conditions, and it is no longer practical
to make a specific recommendation for one type in preference to the other, except in extreme
conditions.

Laterolog devices see the more resistive zones, and induction tools see the more conductive
zones. Therefore, when Rxo is greater than Rt, an induction tool is preferred
for Rt determination because laterolog tools will be affected mostly by Rxo. Conversely, a
laterolog tool is preferred when Rxo is less than Rt. Conductivity in the borehole has a strong
influence on an induction measurement, but little influence on a laterolog measurement.

Starting with the Phasor Induction tool, borehole-corrected logs for induction tools have been
available at the wellsite. A caliper and estimate of mud resistivity is essential for induction-
borehole correction, either by hand using a chart or automatically.

The array induction imager tools (AITs) have only automatic borehole correction—no charts
exist. An analytic forward model was used to compute thousands of cases for the AIT
covering the range of each of these parameters. At the wellsite, a caliper and accurate
measurement of Rm are used as inputs, and the other two parameters are solved for in a least-
squares inversion through the computed table. This method is essential to produce an accurate
10-in. log over a wide range of borehole sizes and mud resistivities.

The following are guidelines for running induction logs, especially array-induction tools:

1. A caliper is required in the same toolstring as the induction tool.

2. Rm must be measured adequately, preferably downhole, using an accurate sensor.
There can be large errors in values of mud resistivity based on surface measurements.
3. Adequate standoff is essential. Never run slick.

If these guidelines are followed, modern AITs can give accurate estimates of Rt even
when Rxo/Rt is as low as 0.2.

The high-resolution laterolog array (HRLA) tool with its inversion of the five array logs has
extended the usability of laterolog tools further into the Rxo > Rt region. The AITs, again with
inversion of the logs, have extended the induction range in the Rxo < Rtregion. Fig. 16 shows
the range of usability of the AIT and HRLA tools. In the broad overlap region, both tools can
be used. In this region, the HRLA array laterolog tool can be combined with the AIT to
determine anisotropic resistivity— Rv and Rh in vertical wells.[21]

Fig. 16 – Chart showing the usable range of the AIT and HRLA logs.

When looking at both induction and laterolog logs from the same well or the same field, do
not expect the logs to overlay. The Rtvalues for both tools should be close, but the logs
themselves, uncorrected for environmental effects, can be quite different.[22]

When working with older logs, one must keep in mind that both laterolog and induction
measurements are influenced by the borehole and by surrounding beds. Surprisingly, thick
beds may have some effect on their measurements, depending on shoulder-bed contrast. The
measurements of both devices should always be corrected for borehole and surrounding bed
effects. Although these corrections are in many cases small, it is good practice to make them
routinely. This will ensure that they are not overlooked in the larger number of cases where
they are significant.

With either laterolog or induction deep-resistivity measurements, it is essential to record at

least three resistivity-log curves with different depths of investigation. With fewer than three
competent measurements, it is not possible to make an estimate of the invasion parameters,
and Rt and Rxo become guesses. Array-induction and array-laterolog tools make a sufficient
number of measurements to use the more rigorous inversion solutions, deriving even more
reliable values of Rt and Rxo.

Nomenclature
amf = mud filtrate chemical activity

aw = formation water chemical activity

A = area, m2

di = diameter of invasion (in., m)

g = induction-response function

G = induction integrated radial-response function

hmc = mudcake thickness

I = electrical current, Amperes

L = length, m

r = resistance, ohm

R = resistivity (ohm•m)

Rann = resistivity of the annulus

Rh = resistivity in the horizontal direction (ohm•m)

Rm = resistivity of the mud column (ohm•m)

Rmc = resistivity of the mudcake

Rmf = resistivity of the mud filtrate

Rxo = resistivity of the invaded zone

Rt = resistivity of the uninvaded formation

Rv = resistivity in the vertical direction (ohm•m)

Rw = resistivity of the formation connate water (ohm•m)

Rwa = apparent water resistivity from deep resistivity and porosity

Sxo = water saturation of the invaded zone

Sw = water saturation in the uninvaded zone

t = acoustic travel time (μs/ft)

tma = acoustic travel time of the rock matrix(μs/ft)

V = electrical voltage, volts

Vsd = fraction of the total formation volume that is sand

Vsh = fraction of the total formation volume that is shale

ρ = density

ρma = density of the rock matrix

σ = conductivity, mS/m

σm = conductivity of the mud column, mS/m

ϕ = porosity

References
1. ↑ Doll, H.G. 1949. Introduction to Induction Logging and Application to Logging of
Wells Drilled With Oil Base Mud. J Pet Technol 1 (6): 148-162. SPE-949148-
G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/949148-G
2. ↑ Moran, J.H. and Kunz, K.S. 1962. Basic Theory of Induction Logging and
Application to Study of Two-Coil Sondes. Geophysics 44 (7): 829-
858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1439108
3. ↑ Anderson, B. and Barber, T. 1995. Induction Logging. Houston, Texas:
Schlumberger.
4. ↑ Tanguy, D.R. 1962. Induction Well Logging. US No. Patent 3,067,383.
5. ↑ Tanguy, D.R. 1967. Methods and Apbrtus for Investigating Earth Formations
Featuring Simultaneous Focused Coil and Electrode System Measurements. US
Patent No. 3,329,889.
6. ↑ Attali, G. 1969. Methods and Apbrtus for Investigating Earth Formations Including
Measuring the Resistivity of Radially Different Formation Zones. US Patent No.
3,453,530.
7. ↑ Anderson, B.I. and Barber, T.D. 1999. Deconvolution and Boosting parameters for
Obsolete Schlumberger Induction Tools. The Log Analyst 40 (1): 133.
8. ↑ Barber, T.D. 1985. Introduction to the Phasor Dual Induction Tool. J Pet Technol 37
(9): 1699-1706. SPE-12049-PA.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12049-PA
9. ↑ Kienitz, C. et al. 1986. Accurate Logging in Large Boreholes. Paper III presented at
the 1986 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Houston, 9–13 June.
10. ↑ Hunka, J.F., Barber, T.D., Rosthal, R.A. et al. 1990. A New Resistivity
Measurement System for Deep Formation Imaging and High-Resolution Formation
Evaluation. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, 23-26 September 1990. SPE-20559-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/20559-MS
11. ↑ Grove, G.P. and Minerbo, G.N. 1991. An Adaptive Borehole Correction Scheme
For Array Induction Tools. Paper P presented at the 1991 SPWLA Annual Logging
Symposium, Midland, Texas, 16–19 June.
12. ↑ Barber, T., Orban, A., Hazen, G. et al. 1995. A Multiarray Induction Tool
Optimized for Efficient Wellsite Operation. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October 1995. SPE-30583-
MS.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30583-MS
13. ↑ Barber, T.D. and Rosthal, R.A. 1991. Using a Multiarray Induction Tool To
Achieve High-Resolution Logs With Minimum Environmental Effects. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6-9 October
1991. SPE-22725-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22725-MS
14. ↑ Barber, T.D. 1998. Interpretation of AIT-Family Logs in Invaded Formations at
High Relative Dip Angles. Paper A presented at the 1998 SPWLA Annual Logging
Symposium, Keystone, Colorado, 26–29 May.
15. ↑ Barber, T.D. and Minerbo, G.N. 2002. An Analytic Method for Producing
Multiarray Induction Logs That Are Free of Dip Effect. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October
2002. SPE-77718-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/77718-MS
16. ↑ La Vigne, J., Barber, T.D., and Bratton, T. 1997. Strange Invasion Profiles: What
Multiarray Induction Logs Can Tell Us About How Oil-Based Mud Affects The
Invasion Process and Wellbore Stability. Presented at the SPWLA 38th Annual
Logging Symposium, Houston, Texas, 15–18 June. 1997-B.
17. ↑ Beard, D., Zhou, Q., and Bigelow, E. 1996. Practical Applications of a New
MuItichannel and Fully Digital Spectrum Induction System. Presented at the SPE
 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October 1996.
SPE-36504-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/36504-MS.
18. ↑ Beste, R., King, G., Strickland, R. et al. 2000. A New High Resolution Array
Induction Tool. Presented at the SPWLA 41st Annual Logging Symposium, 2000.
SPWLA-2000-C.
19. ↑ Martin, D.W., Spencer, M.C., and Patel, H.K. 1984. The Digital Induction - A New
Approach to Improving the Response of the Induction Measurement. Presented at the
SPWLA 25th Annual Logging Symposium, 1984. SPWLA-1984-M.
20. ↑ Samworth, J.R. et al. 1994. The Array Induction Tool Advances Slim-hole Logging
Technology. Presented at the SPWLA European Formation Evaluation Symposium,
Aberdeen, 11–13 October. SPWLA-1994-Y.
21. ↑ Griffiths, R., Barber, T., and Faivre, O. 2000. Optimal Evaluation of Formation
Resistivities Using Array Induction and Array Laterolog Tools. Paper BBB presented
at the 2000 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Dallas, 4–7 June.
22. ↑ Crary, S., Jacobsen, S., Rasmus, J.C. et al. 2001. Effect of Resistive Invasion on
Resistivity Logs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October 2001. SPE-71708-
MS.http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/71708-MS.

Noteworthy papers in OnePetro

Use this section to list papers in OnePetro that a reader who wants to learn more should
definitely read

External links
Use this section to provide links to relevant material on websites other than PetroWiki and
OnePetro

See also
Resistivity and spontaneous (SP) logging

Electrode resistivity devices

Formation resistivity determination

Microresistivity logs

Spontaneous (SP) log

Well log interpretation

PEH:Resistivity_and_SP_Logging

Category:
 5.6.1 Open hole or cased hole log analysis
 Published by

 Read
 Main page
 Random page
 Interaction
 Toolbox
 Print

Founding Sponsor

Gold Sponsor

Gold Sponsor

Silver Sponsor
1