Logging While Tripping—A New

Alternative in Formation Evaluation

R. MATHESON*
Baker Atlas
J. WEST**
LWT Services Inc.
* Now with Accurate Technologies
**Now with Explosive Limited

Abstract
Logging While Tripping (LWT) is a recent development in
formation evaluation technology that provides a means by which
open hole logs are obtained more quickly and with less risk than
is currently possible using conventional wireline or measure-
ment-while-drilling techniques. LWT Services Inc., a Calgary-
based company, has developed this new approach to the logging
process which involves using specially modified drill collars and
memory-based logging tools positioned within the drillstring to
record log data as drillpipe is tripped out of the well. LWT tools
are deployed and retrieved from the drillstring only when log
data is required. After the data is acquired and the tools retrieved
from the well, casing can be run without an additional hole-con-
ditioning trip, saving considerable rig time. Risk is minimized
because logging tools are not exposed to the open wellbore, but
stay protected inside the drillstring.
Service quality is reviewed by showing examples dealing
with data quality and depth control. While LWT’s compensated
neutron provides an open hole quality measurement, some cor-
rection is needed to provide absolute porosity values in varying
borehole sizes. Depth control examples compare favourably to
wireline conveyed logs with an accuracy approaching +/- 1 m
per 3,000 m of total depth.
A few applications for this new technology are anticipated to
be: 1) Horizontal wells which are currently not evaluated due to
the prohibitive cost and risk associated with pipe conveyed and
MWD/LWD systems 2) Reconnaissance logging, done at any
time throughout the drilling of the well, will enable geologists to
identify zones and monitor well trajectory 3) Underbalanced,
air-drilled wells can be logged as they are drilled, thereby elimi-
nating the need to run open hole logs under pressure.
Presently, LWT Services Inc. is working on a prototype 1 FIGURE 1: LWT operation.
11/16 in. induction tool. In order to make induction measurements
from inside the drillstring, a nonconductive composite drill col- compensated neutron and gamma ray services while the dual
lar has been constructed, tested, and successfully drilled 850 ft. induction and photoelectric density are under development.
in a test well in Oklahoma. Another development includes a
While in its early stages of development, LWT’s technology is
compensated photoelectric density tool.
aimed at providing drillers with significant cost savings in the area
of open hole data acquisition. These cost savings will be realized
in two principal areas: 1) Decrease in rig time for the logging
Background process and, 2) Decrease in risk of tool loss or damage downhole.
This paper presents an overview of LWT’s operation, service
Logging While Tripping (LWT) represents a new approach in quality, and applications supported by several examples. In clos-
the process of open hole data acquisition. LWT makes use of ing, a brief review of future prospects is presented.
memory-based logging tools positioned in the drillstring to record
data as drill pipe is tripped out of the well. Unlike measurement-
while-drilling tools, LWT tools are not a permanent part of the Operation
drillstring but instead are deployed and retrieved from the drill-
string only when log data is required. Currently, LWT provides There are two basic elements required for an LWT operation as

38 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 ed wells, a packoff head can be used and tools may be pumped out
into the deviated section of the well.
LWT tools can be pre-programmed to activate and begin
recording data at a specified time when tripping is planned to
commence. Once the tools are activated, there is enough memory
to store 18 hours of data with one data sample every 250 ms.
Recommended tripping speed for LWT is 5 M/Min over zones of
interest but may be increased to 10 M/Min in uphole shales or low
porosity formations. Figure 3 provides a listing of tool specifica-
tions.
Gamma Ray Window The LWT depth system consists of a depth encoder, hookload
sensor, and personal computer. The depth encoder may be
attached either directly to the drawworks of the rig or to the cable
flange (Figure 4). The encoder responds to any motion in the rig’s
travelling block and converts this into digital signals. The signals
provided by the encoder are calibrated within the personal com-
puter to the actual distance travelled by the block. This informa-
tion is used to calculate tool depth as pipe is tripped out of the
well. A hookload sensor attached to the rig’s deadline provides an
indication of weight being pulled by the rig. By monitoring ten-
sion, the sensor identifies when pipe is being pulled vs. when the
blocks are moving empty. The personal computer provides an
accurate record of cumulative pipe motion.
Once the required zone has been logged, the LWT tools are
fished out of the drillpipe with the rig survey line. On surface, the
data files from the tools are downloaded to the personal computer
and merged with the depth file created by using the depth encoder
and hookload sensor. The data then has calibrations and correc-
tions applied to provide an open hole quality log in a standard
ASCII data format. Figure 5 provides a comparison of the time
FIGURE 2: 63/4 in. steel sub. requirements for the LWT logging process as compared to con-
ventional wireline operating times.
shown in Figure 1:
(1) The LWT logging sub
(2) The LWT slimline tools.
Service Quality
The LWT logging sub is a specially modified steel drill collar Two aspects of service quality dealing with data quality and
designed to house the LWT slimline logging tools, allowing them depth control are demonstrated below:
to make measurements with a minimal amount of signal attenua-
tion. This collar is stress relieved to decrease the wall thickness in Data Quality—Rigel Swalwell 4-26-29-26W4
the immediate area of the detectors, see (Figure 2). The LWT log-
In this application, the LWT compensated neutron/gamma ray
ging sub can be used interchangeably with other collars during the
was run to evaluate its viability as an alternative to conventional
drilling process, though it is usually added into the drillstring on
open hole logs. The well was drilled vertically to 2,295 M. For
the last bit trip into the well prior to logging. Generally, the collar
comparison purposes, the operator ran both the LWT CN/GR and
is positioned near the bit in order to get log readings close to the
conventional open hole tools. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the
total depth of the well.
data.
Once the well has been drilled to total depth, the LWT tools are The LWT compensated neutron shows very similar character to
lowered into the logging sub by using the rig’s survey line and the open hole curve, though the two are separated consistently by
positioned on top of a totco ring or other restriction. Once the about one chart division (i.e., 3% porosity). This separation is the
tools have been inserted, a specially designed overshot will result of incomplete characterization of the LWT tool for the
release enabling the survey line to be retrieved. On highly deviat- effects of borehole size. Porosity readings for open hole neutron
tools are usually corrected to compensate for variations in bore-
hole size as measured by a caliper. With the LWT neutron, the
tool response in different size boreholes has not yet been fully
characterized, and as a result, some inaccuracy in measured poros-
ity is expected with variation in borehole size. The calibration that
is currently used with the LWT neutron was derived in the
Western Atlas test pits in Houston, Texas and corrects tool read-
ing for the effects of standoff due to collar thickness. Although the
tool calibration is incomplete in this example, the data obtained in
this well does show that the LWT tools themselves have a dynam-
ic range and sensitivity that is comparable to that of the open hole
neutron.
Figure 7 shows a crossplot of LWT porosity vs. open hole
porosity as measured in this well. As expected, the data does not
show a one to one relationship but shows a general tendency for
the LWT tool to read higher than the open hole neutron. In order
to normalize the LWT tool to the open hole tool, an algorithm was
derived to provide the best fit match between these two data sets.
The results of this normalization are seen in Figure 8, where the
LWT data has now been processed. Having re-calibrated the tool
FIGURE 3: Instrument specifications.
in this manner, the log section from Figure 9 shows excellent

July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7 39

 FIGURE 4

agreement between the two tools throughout the entire range of

porosity. As a result of this example, it may be concluded that
FIGURE 5: Time comparison: conventional wireline vs. LWT.
LWT’s compensated neutron has a sensitivity similar to that of an
open hole neutron tool but requires some correction in order to
provide absolute porosity values in varying borehole sizes. ating procedure is to calculate this error and evenly correct for it
from TD to casing. Field experience has shown depth accuracy to
be very close to that of wireline.
Depth Control-Mobil Carson 11-13-61-12W5
This was a vertical well, drilled depth of approximately 2,730
M. The operator ran LWT in order to evaluate its effectiveness at
identifying porous zones. For comparison, a conventional open Applications
hole neutron was also logged.
This example provides an excellent comparison of LWT’s There are several logging environments in which the benefits
depth measurement with that of wireline. Figure 10 shows the of LWT make it particularly attractive as a means of acquiring
LWT data and the open hole data plotted together with no depth data.
correction applied. Figure 11 shows the depth file that was used to
correlate the two data sets. The depth file indicates a total dis- Horizontal/Multilateral Wells
placement of -0.4 to 2.0 M was needed over the logged interval.
This implies that LWT depth accuracy was 2.4 M over 318 M In these environments, data must currently be gathered using
logged or 0.23 M per 30 M logged interval. LWT’s standard oper- pipe conveyed logging techniques or with measurements-while-
drilling. Pipe conveyed operations are time consuming and haz-
ardous as the potential for tool damage or loss is quite high.
MWD operations require the use of downhole equipment that is
LWT Gamma Ray
expensive to lease and susceptible to loss downhole if the drillpipe
becomes stuck. With LWT, the tools are housed within the drill-
string and as a result are not subject to the hostile conditions of
the open borehole. Additionally, LWT tools may be deployed or
retrieved from the drillstring at any time during the drillling oper-
ation, even if the pipe becomes stuck.

FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7: LWT/Openhole CN.

40 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 LWT Corrected Gamma
Ray

FIGURE 8: Recalibrated LWT/Openhole CN.

Unstable Wellbores
In areas where sloughing shales or other adverse borehole con-
ditions exist, open hole wireline logging may become costly due
to bridging and possible tool loss. With LWT, the logging tools
can go anywhere the bit can, hence eliminating the need for time
consuming clean-out trips and tool losses.
FIGURE 9
Slimhole/Coiled Tubing Environments
At 111/16 in. diameter, LWT tools are much slimmer than con- cator and grease injection during the open hole logging program.
ventional open hole tools which are usually 33/8 in. diameter. If This added equipment makes the job more expensive and time
needed, LWT tools can be run in open hole on the end of coiled consuming. With LWT, logs can be run during normal tripping
tubing in order to log slimholes drilled with coiled tubing or small operations without requiring the use of any additional wellhead
bit sizes. control equipment.

Underbalanced Wells Reconnaissance Logging

When drilling underbalanced it is often necessary to use lubri- In some instances, a wellsite geologist may find that formation
correlations are not coming in where expected and as a result may
have doubts regarding wellbore trajectory. In these instances,
LWT provides a quick, cost effective means for obtaining infor-
mation about the downhole environment enabling the driller to
LWT Gamma Ray
readjust his drilling program.

Horizontal Well Application—Western Star et

al. Rain 16-25-109-5W6
This well was drilled vertically to a depth of approximately
1,700 M before kicking off into a 500 M horizontal section. The
horizontal leg of this well runs through a fractured dolomitic reef
that contains light gravity crude. The operator of this well ran
LWT’s compensated neutron/gamma ray combination over the
entire horizontal section of the well for several reasons:
1) Lost circulation zones caused fluid losses that precluded the
use of conventional pipe-conveyed techniques.
2) LWT provided an evaluation of matrix porosity along the
well path.
3) LWT’s neutron porosity data could be correlated to the
drilling penetration rates and mud log data in order to identi-
fy productive zones more accurately.
4) Variations in 3D seismic attributes could be positively corre-
lated to porosity trends.
Figure 12 provides an example of the correlation between LWT
compensated neutron data, rate of penetration data and total gas.
Over the zone 1,780 – 1,795 M, the ROP decreases while the total
gas curve shows a distinct increase, under these circumstances the
two curves are providing contradictory evidence. Over such
zones, the addition of the LWT neutron makes evaluation of the
zone significantly easier, since it clearly identifies the high porosi-
ty trend that correlates well with the total gas curve, discounting
FIGURE 10
the ROP data.

July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7 41

 FIGURE 12

function as a normal collar in drilling the well to total depth. LWT

successfully tested its composite collar by drilling 850 ft. of hole
at Amoco Drilling Technology’s Catoosa facility in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

Conclusions
When properly located within the specially designed logging
sub, the LWT compensated neutron/gamma ray tool is capable of
providing data with accuracy and depth control approaching that
of open-hole data. Customers will realize the financial benefits
resulting from the reduced time required by LWT for formation
evaluation and elimination of risk associated with losing wireline
logging tools and logging while drilling bottom hole assemblies.

FIGURE 11: LWT/Open hole depth correlation.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Howard Pitts of Rigel Energy,
Barry Hebner of Western Star Exploration, and Bill Clow of
Addendum Mobil Oil for their permission to publish data samples. Thanks are
Since this paper was initially written in 1998, LWT Instruments also extended to Mark Voghell of Griffith Oil Tools, Glen Horel
has ceased operations pending restructuring. To date, the technol- and Andrew Logan of Baker Atlas, all of whom assisted in the
ogy has advanced with the development of a 111/16 in. dual induc- preparation of the graphics for this paper.
tion tool that performed very favourably in comparison with the
Baker Atlas High Definition Induction Log. In addition, two pro- Provenance—Original Petroleum Society manuscript, Logging
totype lithodensity tools have been constructed and await further While Tripping—A New Alternative in Formation Evaluation,
testing. (98-61), first presented at the 49th Annual Technical Meeting,
In order to make induction measurements from inside the drill- June 8-10, 1998, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for
string, it was necessary to construct a nonconductive composite review January 9, 1998; editorial comments sent to the author(s)
drill collar. This collar is made of fibre and resin and meets all of November 24, 1998; revised manuscript received January 26,
the compressional, tensional, and torsional requirements estab- 1999; paper approved for pre-press January 27, 1999; final
lished for steel drill collars. Figure 13 provides illustrations of a approval June 29, 2000.
composite collar during the winding process. The final completed
collar with steel end fittings and a nonabrasive exterior surface is
shown. Also, like the steel logging sub, the composite collar will
typically be installed in the drillstring on the final bit trip and

42 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 FIGURE 13: Drill collars.

Authors’ Biographies
Rob Matheson has a B.Sc. in geology
from Dalhousie University and an MBA
from the University of Calgary. He worked
for ten years with Baker Atlas, before leav-
ing to join Accurate Technologies.

Jeff West is a Georgia Tech. graduate who

began his oilfield career with Schlumberger
where he worked for 15 years in various
management positions throughout the U.S.
Gulf Coast. From there, Jeff went to Baker
Atlas where he worked for five years,
including two years as Canadian Area
Manager. Following Baker Atlas, Jeff
served two years as president of LWT
Instruments before moving to his current
position as general manager of Explosive
Limited’s perforating division.

July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7 43