Permeability estimation with NMR logging

The ability to estimate formation permeability is one of the earliest benefits of nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) logging and remains the most important application. This artcle provides an
overview of permeability estimation techniques by use of NMR logging.

Contents
[hide]

1 Estimating permeability
2 Free-fluid (Timur-Coates or Coates) model
3 Schlumberger-Doll-Research (SDR) model
4 Applications
5 Nomenclature
6 References
7 Noteworthy papers in OnePetro
8 External links
9 See also

Estimating permeability
Laboratory studies demonstrate that pore-water relaxation time is inversely related to the surface
area-volume (S/V) ratio of the pore space (Fig.1). The NMR estimate of permeability is based on
theoretical and core-based models that show that permeability increases with increasing porosity and
pore size (S/V).[1][2][3][4][5]

Fig.1 Variation in T2 decay with permeability. This plot illustrates the difference between echo trains
obtained from formations with similar porosity but different pore sizes. In terms of T2 distribution, this
difference is expressed in different FFI/BVI ratios. The permeabilities were computed using the TimurCoates model.

The measurement of formation permeability, in general, is greatly influenced by the method used, the
limitations of each, and the scale at which the measurements are made.[6] As stated previously,
mercury-injection capillary pressure (MICP) curves obtained on core samples correlate to pore-throat
size, while NMR measures pore-body size.

NMR logging does not provide direct and continuous measurement of permeability; rather, a
formation-permeability estimate, or index, is calculated from the spectral-porosity measurements
using permeability models that are based on a combination of empirical and theoretical relationships.
Several permeability models have been developed, and two are in common use:

The free-fluid (Timur-Coates or Coates) model

The mean-T2 [the Schlumberger-Doll-Research (SDR)] model.[7][8][9][10]

The free-fluid model can be applied to water-saturated and hydrocarbon-saturated reservoirs, and the
mean-T2 model can be applied to water-saturated reservoirs.[11] These permeability models assume
that a good correlation exists between porosity, pore-body and pore-throat size, and pore
connectivity. This assumption is generally valid in clastic (e.g., sand/shale) sequences, but in
carbonates or other lithologies, model-derived permeabilities may not be reliable.
Typically, a permeability model is calibrated over a particular zone of interest and verified, wherever
possible, by core or well/formation test data. Once this is done, the NMR log can provide a robust
continuous-permeability estimate within the zone of interest.
Both models treat permeability as an exponential function of porosity, 4, and include a parameter to
account for the fact that NMR measures pore-body size, not pore-throat size[12] (Fig.2). In the Coates
model, the pore-size parameter enters implicitly throughT2cutoff, which determines the ratio of FFI to
BVI. In the SDR model, the size parameter enters through the geometrical mean of the relaxation
spectra, T2gm. In water-saturated rocks, both models provide similar and good results; however, when
hydrocarbons are present, the SDR model fails because T2gm is no longer controlled exclusively by
pore size.[13]

Fig.2 NMR-permeability models. The free-fluid permeability, Coates, model (top) uses the MFFI/MBVI
ratio to describe the changes in the S/V ratio. The SDR permeability model (bottom) uses an
average T2 value to describe changes in S/V.

Free-fluid (Timur-Coates or Coates) model

In the simplest form of the free-fluid model, permeability, kCoates, is expressed as follows (Eq.1):

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

where is MSIG, MBVI is obtained through the CBVI or SBVI method, MFFI is the difference between
MSIG and MBVI (assuming that there is no clay-bound water, see Fig.3), and C is a formationdependent variable. The free-fluid model is very flexible and has been calibrated using core data for
successful use in different formations.
To calibrate the model to core, Eq.1 is solved in the form of a straight line, y = mx + b:

....................(2)
Assuming b = 0 in the equation (2), core permeability is substituted for k. The slope of the line, m
(i.e., C value in Eq.2), is determined using a least-squares regression (Fig.3).

Fig.3 Crossplot of core and NMR data used for determining the Coates permeability constant, C.
Assuming b = 0 in Eq.2, core permeability is substituted for k, and the slope of the line, m, is the C value
in Eq.1.

Despite the flexibility of this model there are formation conditions that limit the effectiveness of the
model and may require a correction (Table 1). The presence of hydrocarbons (i.e., oil, oil filtrate, or
gas) in the BVI component may result in an overestimate of BVI by either the CBVI or SBVI methods,
leading to an underestimate of permeability. An HI correction can be applied when gas is present. The
very short T2 values associated with heavy oil may be counted in the BVI component and result in an
underestimate of permeability.

Table 1

Schlumberger-Doll-Research (SDR) model

Using the SDR model, permeability is expressed as

....................(3)
where is NMR effective porosity (MPHI), T2gm is the geometric mean of the T2 distribution, and C is a
formation-dependent variable. The SDR model works very well in water-saturated zones. In the
presence of oil or oil filtrates, the mean T2 is skewed toward the T2bulk, because of the effects of partial
polarization, leading to an overestimate of permeability. In unflushed gas zones, mean-T2 values are
too low relative to the flushed-gas zone; and permeability is underestimated. Because hydrocarbon
effects onT2gm are not correctable, the SDR model fails in hydrocarbon-bearing formations. The
Coates and SDR models represent matrix permeability and, therefore, are not applicable to estimation
of permeability in fractured formations.

Applications
Table 1 compares the Coates and SDR models under different reservoir conditions, and it may be
advisable to use both methods in an effort to constrain values for permeability.
There are a number of benefits in having available NMR-derived permeability and BVI. This
information enables more-accurate quantification of reservoir heterogeneity and improves estimation
of reserves and ultimate recovery. Other applications include:

Optimizing the locations of perforations

Well spacing
Tailoring completions to maximize recovery rates and efficiencies
Improving primary and secondary recovery design schemes

Nomenclature
C

coefficient in the Coates permeability model

permeability, darcy

kCoates

permeability derived using the Timur-Coates model, darcy

kSDR

permeability derived using the mean-T2 model, darcy

T2

transverse relaxation time, seconds

T2bulk

pore-fluid bulk-T2 relaxation time, seconds

T2cutoff

T2 cutoff value, seconds

T2gm

T2 geometric mean value, seconds

porosity, %