SPE 119064
Integration of NMR with Other Open Hole Logs for Improved Porosity, Permeability and
Capillary Pressure of Gas Sand Reservoirs
G.M. Hamada, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Saudi Arabia, M.El. Oraby, Halliburton Co, M.A.
Abushanab, Bapetco, Egypt
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Saudi Arabia Technical Symposium
held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 7–8 May 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Analysis of tight gas sand reservoirs is one of the most
difficult problems. Many tight formations are extremely
complex, producing from multiple layers with different
permeability that is often enhanced by natural fracturing.
Therefore, looking for using new well logging techniques like
NMR in individual bases or in combination with conventional
open hole logs and building new interpretation methodology is
essential to well define and obtain the representative reservoir
characterizations.
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logs differ from
conventional neutron, density, sonic and resistivity logs
because the NMR measurements provide mainly lithology
independent detailed porosity and a good evaluation
hydrocarbon potential. NMR logs can be used to determine
formation permeability and capillary pressure.
This paper concentrates on three petrophysical applications
of NMR; 1) present a technical method for porosity
calculation in which density and NMR porosities are
combined and calibrated to core, 2) Use new empirical method
of bulk gas volume (BG) in the invaded zone for permeability
estimation termed BGMRK and 3) Use T2 distribution for
capillary pressure approximation and correct pore size
distribution for gas.
These applications of NMR logs have been applied in a gas
sand reservoir field of different facies and permeability varies
from less than 0.1md to more than 100md related to facies
changes. These applications result in a) The technique of using
combined NMR and bulk density data significantly reduces
uncertainty in porosity through elimination of the neutron log
down to 0.5%. b) The new approach of "BGMRK" resulted in
very simple facies independent model to calculate reliable
permeability 2. c) Capillary pressure can be approximated
from NMR T2 distribution and then the integration between
cap-curves and T2 distribution can be corrected for partial
pores fluid fill.
Introduction
The field of interest, Obaiyed is located in the western desert
of Egypt. It is Gas-Condensate field producing from the
Mesozoic Lower Safa reservoir. The reservoir is classified as a
tight gas reservoir. It is suffering from lateral and vertical
heterogeneity due to diagenesis effect (Kaolinite & Illite) and
variation in grain size distribution. The petrophysical analysis
indicates narrow 8-12% porosity range while wide
permeability ranges from 0.01 to 100 mD. As a result, the
reservoir is subdivided to six subunits.
Due to reservoir heterogeneity; many cores were acquired in
different wells covering different reservoir units to create the
proper porosity-density and permeability models for each. The
uncertainty associated with identification of the proper
porosity and permeability model for each unit is high, which
could result in high permeability estimation far below the
actual well performance.
Therefore, integration on non standard tools like NMR with
conventional tools and SCAL in the petrophysical evaluation
is essential to reduce the uncertainty beyond the limitations of
each tool in individual bases, especially in gas reservoirs. The
aiming is to establish facies independent porosity and
permeability models and avoid using lithology independent T2
cut-off(1) The advantage of NMR tool is sensitive only to
hydrogen and fluid protons and no borehole correction is
needed whenever the radius of investigation is beyond caliper
measurements specially incase of MRIL tool(2).
This work presents 1) the application of Density Magnetic
Resonance Porosity (DMRP) technique for porosity
calculation. 2) Bulk gas Magnetic Resonance Permeability
(BGMRK), new technique for permeability calculation beyond
the limits of OBM filtrate. 3) Quantify the effect of OBM
filtrate on NMR data and then calibration for approximated
capillary pressure from NMR.
Although the big challenges associated with applications on
NMR techniques like reservoir heterogeneity, gas bearing
sand and oil base mud (OBM) environment; the result are very
encourage and reduced the petrophysical parameters
uncertainties significantly.
The NMR data presented has been acquired using MRIL tool
(Halliburton). Calibration of the above mentioned techniques
is based on those hole intervals, where cores are acquired.
2 G.M. Hamada, M.El. Oraby, M.A. Abushanab [SPE 119064]

α β β +α
Α+Β = + = =1
Density-Magnetic Resonance Porosity (DMR) β +α β +α β +β
The aiming of use NMR in combination with Density log is to
compensate for the effect of gas and invasion profile variation Calibration for DMR Porosity(4) A curve fitting method
along with petrophysical properties changes (vertical has been used to calibrate the A&B constants values which are
heterogeneity). The integrated formula of DMR(3) porosity is applied to the reservoir of interest. In our case we have
based on the solution of density and NMR tools responses for selected well (A) (Both core and NMR data were available
gas corrected porosity. The derivation is as follows; over the same reservoir interval). Assuming core porosities
are equal to DMRP (Фcore =DMRP), which is the gas
• NMR Porosity Response corrected porosity.
Assume hydrogen index for liquid (HIL) =1
φ NMR = φ ∗ [1 − S gxo ( 1 − HI g P g )] The equation (5) can be written in the following form.
φ φ Core φ
NMR
= 1 − S ( 1 − HI Pg ) = A ∗ D
+ B ..…….. (6)
φ gxo g
φ NMR φ NMR
Where; It is the linear equation intercept at B value and the slope is
φ NMR : Porosity of NMR tool equal to the A value.
The following plot (Fig-1) represents this equation.
φ : Gas corrected porosity
HIg : gas hydrogen index
Curve Fitting of (Ф core /Ф NMR VS. Ф D/Ф NMR)
HIL : fluid hydrogen index (water + mud filtrate)
2.5
Sgxo : gas saturation in the flushed zone
Pg =1-exp (-W/T1, g): gas polarization factor 2 y = 0.65x + 0.35

W : wait time
Фcore/ФNMR

1.5
T1, g = gas longitudinal relaxation time.
1
• Apparent Porosity From Density Equation
ρ b = ρ m (1 − φ ) + ρ L φ (1 − S gxo ) + ρ g φ S gxo 0.5

ρm − ρb ρ m − [ ρ m (1 − φ ) + ρ L φ (1 − S gxo ) + ρ g φ S gxo )] 0
φD = = 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
ρm − ρL ρm − ρL Ф D /Ф NMR

ρ − ρ Fig-1: Фcore /ФNMR vs. ФD/ФNMR

φ = φ [1 + S )] ………(1)
L g
(
ρ − ρ
D gxo
m L
Note that at Sgxo=0, the pores is completely filled with liquid
φD ρ L − ρ g
= 1 + S gxo ( ) ........…… (2) (mud filtrate and irreducible water) so the NMR porosity
φ ρ m − ρ L reading and density-porosity should be correct and both
Where; should equal to core porosity. As a result, the trend line should
ρb : Bulk Density intersect at point (1, 1) as a control point,
ρL : liquid Density (water + filtrate) where φ Core φ NMR = φ D φ NMR = 1 . Fluid
φ D : Apparent porosity from density density for apparent ΦD estimation is best fitting at 0.9g/cc,
ρg : Gas Density which is a combination between formation water density and
mud filtrate density (OBM). The fitting trend line has a slope
• Solution For Gas Corrected Porosity φ of A=0.65 and intercepts the Y axis at B=0.35, which results
Assume constants β , α where, in DMR porosity transform as follows;
ρ − ρg
β = L and α = (1 − HI g Pg ) DMRP = 0 . 65 ∗ φ D + 0 . 35 ∗ φ NMR
ρm − ρL
Substitute in Eq. (1) & (2) Results For comparison, the fluid density RHOF of 0.82 gr/cc
φ NMR ….………. (3) is calculated from bulk density (RHOB)-Фcore cross-plot (Fig-
= 1 − α S
φ gxo
2) in well "A" and then used for density-porosity (PHID)
φ D …..……..............….. (4) calculation for the three wells "A", "B" and "C". The results
= 1 + β S
φ gxo
(fig 3, 4 and 5) show good match in "A" as expected, but it is
Solution of equations3&4 for True formation porosity (Φ) over estimated in both "B" and "C". This is the result of
α β different pore types which affect the invasion profile and
φ = ( ∗ φ + ∗ φ )
β + α D
β + α NMR
variant gas effect on density log response.
φ = A ∗ φ D + B ∗ φ NMR
DMRP = φ = A ∗ φ D + B ∗ φ NMR …. (5) The results of DMR transform applications in the three well A,
B and C show very good match between DMRP and core
A& B are constant where
porosities (Figures 3, 4, 5). As a result it is considered being
[SPE 119064] Integration of NMR with Other Open Hole Logs for Improved Porosity, Permeability, Capillary Pressure of Gas Sand Reservoirs

an independent facies porosity model. These corrected WELL "C" Density Porosity Vs Core Porosity

porosities can be used in conjunction with Timur-Coates

0.15

equation to estimate accurate permeability in gas bearing 0.1

PHID
formations. 0.05

0
0 5 10 15

C_Por

Core Porosity vs. Bulk Density

DMR Porosity Vs Core Porosity
3
0.15

0.1
2.5

DMRP
RHOB

0.05

2
0
0 5 10 15

y = -1.83x + 2.65 C_Por

1.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Ф core Fig-5: On the right hand shows PHID, NMR_Por and DMRP
with core porosity in well "C".

Fig.2 Core Porosity Vs. Bulk Density Gamma ray and Caliper curves are shown in the first track
(GR&CALI), second track shows depth in meters, the third
The DMR method has the advantage of avoiding the use of one is resistivity, the fourth one is Neutron density, the fifth
fluid density and gas hydrogen index (HI) at reservoir track shows comparison between C_Por, PHID and NMR
condition for gas correction. Another advantage is that we can porosity (NMR_Por), the sixth track shows comparison
increase logging speeds as we do not need full polarization for between DMRP and C_Por, the seventh track shows
gas. saturations of Gas (green shadow) and water (blue shadow)
The following figures (3, 4, and 5) present well logs and the last track shows core permeability in mD.
showing PHID and DMRP on the left hand side and x-plot
correlation of PHID and DMRP versus core porosity (C_Por) DMR, Conclusions
on the right hand side.
• DMR porosity method is an easy and robust tool for gas
0.15
Density Porosity Vs Core Porosity
corrected porosity because it depends on a mathematical
0.1
derivation. It combines two tools responses in one simple
transform.
PHID

• DMR porosities show minimal uncertainty because

0.05

0
0 5
C_Por
10 15 individual unknowns (RHOF and HIg) are compensated and
DMR Porosity Vs Core Porosity
eliminated in the DMRP transform.
0.15 • DMR is gas corrected and independent facies porosity
0.1 model
DMR

0.05

0
0 5 10 15
Bulk-Gas Magnetic Resonance Permeability (BGMRK)]
C_Por

Fig-3: On the right hand shows PHID, NMR_Por and DMRP Advantage of NMR tools is estimation of fluid distribution,
with core porosity in well A. especially bulk water irreducible (BVI), which is used for
permeability calculations using Coates-Timur models. BVI T2
0.15
Density Porosity Vs Core Porosity
cut-off is dependent on facies. In lateral heterogeneous
0.1
reservoirs like current case, it is difficult to use unique T2 cut-
off. OBM filtrate results in partial replacement for irreducible
PHID

0.05

0
0 5 10 15
water and result in low BVI, hence high permeability from
C_por
Coates far below well performance. Those two challenges
0.15
DMR Porosity Vs Core Porosity
complicate the application of NMR permeability models in
0.1
current reservoir.
DMRP

0.05 Bulk Gas Magnetic Resonance Permeability (BGMRK) is a

0
0 5
C_por
Fig-4: On the right hand shows PHID, NMR_Por and DMRP
with core porosity in well B.
10 15
new technique for permeability estimation in gas reservoirs. It
has the same value in OBM and WBM condition as it depends
on gas re-entry to the flushed zone after mud cake take place
and invasion stops.
It is a dynamic concept of gas movement behind mud cake
as a result of formation permeability, gas mobility, and
4 G.M. Hamada, M.El. Oraby, M.A. Abushanab [SPE 119064]

capillarity and gravity forces. Because gravity forces are

constant, capillarity depends mainly on permeability and Core Permeability VS Core Porosity
mobility depends on permeability and fluid viscosity which is
constant for gas; the gas re-entry volume is directly function in 1000
permeability.

Core Permeability mD
100
Bulk Gas Volume Calculations The gas volume in the
10 Well "A"
DPHI −
TNMR Well "B"
( HI )
V , xo = f
1 Well "C"
⎡ ⎤
g
( HI ) * P
⎢ 1 − g g
⎥ + λ
⎣⎢ ( HI ) f ⎦⎥
0.1
flushed zone can be calculated using different techniques as
follows; 0.01
0 5 10 15
• Differential spectrum (Delta Tw) Core Porosity %
Multi acquisition using different waiting times (Tw)
Fig.6 Core permeability versus core porosity for three wells A, B, C
• Diffusion measurements.
2-D fluid analysis using fluid diffusivity (D) and T2 -
spectra. The last method of bulk gas volume calculation is used. The
method is very simple and excluded from any complications.
• Freedman, et al. (3) has mathematically developed the (BG) = DMRP -ØNMR
following transform for gas volume calculation in the
invaded zone. The same method is applied for the three wells A, b and C,
and then BG are plotted versus formation permeability Fig 7.
The correlation is normalized by dividing the gas volume by
the total porosity of DMRP to be equal to Sgxo fig-8.
Vg, xo = gas volume in the flushed zone
DPHI = formation porosity from density using filtrate DMRP − φ NMR
fluid density S gxo =
TNMR = total NMR porosity DMRP
(HI)f = Fluid hydrogen index
(HI)g =Gas hydrogen index
Pg = gas polarization function = 1-exp (-W/T1, g), The result transform is as follows;
where W is the wait time and T1, g is the
(6.4∗Sgxo)
ty_md) = 0.18∗10
longitudinal relaxation time for gas.
BGMRK
( permeabili
ρ − ρ
λ = f g

ρ m − ρ f
This transform is facies independent and the statistical
• A simple transform delivered from density tool analysis of absolute error for this correlation is about a factor
response , using DMR porosity as a corrected gas of 2 this is acceptable from uncertainty assessment point of
porosity value is as follows. view compared to permeability uncertainty assessment from
core por-perm transforms in the same reservoir, where the
• Gas volume can be calculated approximately by uncertainty factor ranges from 1.5-3 depends on facies.
ignoring the gas response in the NMR measurements The resulted BGMRK formula has been applied to the three
(φ D − DMR) ∗ ( ρ m − ρ L ) wells A. Fig.9 shows its results in the the well. It shows a
Sgxo = good match between BGMRK permeability (purple line) with
DMR ∗ ( ρ L − ρ g ) core permeability using the same BGMRK transform.
especially in short TW, and then the approximated gas
saturation in the invaded zone can be estimated as BGMRK Conclusion and Benefits
follows;
• BGMRK is facies independent technique and
Bulk Gas Volume (BG) = DMRP -ØNMR
this is the most important value of this
technique.
DMRP − φ NMR • BGMRK is simple and a new concept for
S gxo =
DMRP permeability estimation in gas well.
• BGMRK avoid using BVI values and T2 cut-off
with its associated uncertainty especially in gas
BGMR Permeability Results Figure 6 below shows core reservoir and OBM conditions.
permeability versus core porosity x-plot. It reflects how the • BGMRK is valid only for gas bearing reservoir.
permeability varies between facies to other within same • BGMRK could not be valid in the transition
porosity range. zone (need further study).
[SPE 119064] Integration of NMR with Other Open Hole Logs for Improved Porosity, Permeability, Capillary Pressure of Gas Sand Reservoirs

• BGMRK is affected by fluid mobilities in the

invaded zone, so if there is significant change in
the filtrate fluid properties (viscosity, density) it
should be considered in the model calibration
process.
(BG) VS. Permeability
Capillary Pressure Approximation
Based on the assumption (5) of a) T2 is related to pore-
size, b) Pc is controlled by pore throats, c) Pore body
radius and pore throat radius are proportional and d) Pc
can be approximated by T2; the relationship between
capillary pressure and NMR T2 is as follows;

1000
Log (Pc) = Log (C) + Log (1/T2)
100
Where;
T2 : Relaxation Time
Permeability md

10
Well "A" Pc : Capillary Pressure
Well "B"

1
Well "C" C : Constant
The challenges in the current case are the gas bearing
0.1
pores which is not presented by NMR and OBM filtrate
0.01
which displace partially Swi. To avoid the risk of those
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
two changes, the calibration of the model will be based
BG %
on the formation pores which filled with liquid and
Fig-7: BG and Permeability correlation presented by NMR tools response.

(Sgxo) VS. Permeability Model Calibration To overcome the above challenges,

10000 calibration of the model will base on the NMR tool
response of the full liquid fill pores and then correlate
1000
versus SCAL capillary pressure analysis according to the
100
following sequence;
Perm eability, m d

10
Well "A" • T2 cut off for Gas Effect Regard Above equation
Well "B"
relates the relation between log (PC) and log (1/T2) is
Well "C"
1 linear under the above mentioned assumption. This is
expected to get straight fitting line only in the area where
0.1
NMR responses to liquid filled pores. Because of linear
0.01 fitting, the extrapolation of this line is valid for both area
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
of Swi and gas bearing pores.
Sgxo

• Figure 10 shows straight line in the area between T2

Fig-8 : Permeability versus Sgxo correlation. equals 8 to 125 ms. Pores where 1/T2 is less than 0.008, is
partially or completely filled with gas. Therefore the
calibration of the model will based on T2 period from 8 to
125 ms

NMR 1/T2 Vs Capillary pressure (Pc)

At one Depth Point
1
1/T2 (from log response)

0.1

0.01 End of the straight line

0.001

0.0001
1 10 100 1000
Pc (from core data)
Fig.9 BGMRK Permeability, track 6
Fig. 10 1/T2 vs. Pc
 6 G.M. Hamada, M.El. Oraby, M.A. Abushanab [SPE 119064]

Data Averaging J-Leverett function is used for data − 0 .8

averaging between T2 and equivalent Sw_eq from NMR ⎡1 κ⎤
Sw = − 0 . 01 + 0 . 06 * ⎢ ⎥
by replacing C/T2 instead of Pc equation. Same averaging
⎣ T2 φ⎦
method is used for capillary pressure saturation-height
function. In this case, the equivalent Sw from NMR data
should be increased by 0.02 as a mud filtrate
correction. Then the correlation result in the
1 perm(κ ) following transform.
J NMR = 1
T2 por (φ ) Pc = 708
C2
T2
⎡ C perm(κ ) ⎤ C=708
Sw _ eq = Swi + c1 ⎢ * ⎥ Average C =800 is considered as the arithmetic
⎣ T2 ∗ σ cos θ por (φ ) ⎦
mean of the above two values in case of OBM.
So the average correlation between PC and T2 is
Where
C1&C2: constants 1
σ : Interfacial tension & θ : contact angle Pc = 800
T2
Obaiyed Saturation/ Height Function, J-Leverett
c) Well "D"
function where σ cos θ is equal to 50 is;
The well was drilled using water base mud (WBM)
−0 .8 which is the main difference with the previous wells
⎡ Pc κ ⎤ "A" and "B", but there are no cores acquired.
Sw = 0.01 + 0.5 * ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 50 φ ⎦
The result relationship between Sw and the JNMR is as
follows;
− 0 .8
• Calibration results Data averaging has been applied ⎡1 κ⎤
Sw = 0 . 01 + 0 . 065 * ⎢ ⎥
to two wells (A&B), where OBM was using while
⎣ T2 φ⎦
drilling reservoir section and another well (D) was
drilled using water base mud (WBM)
Above equation shows no correction is needed for Sw.
a) Well "A" This makes sense as the well was drilled with WBM
The result relationship between Sw_eq and the 1/T2 is which is adequate for NMR capillary approximation
as follows; analysis.
The result transform between Pc and T2 is
− 0 .8
⎡1 κ⎤ 1
Sw = − 0 . 1 + 0 .05 * ⎢ Ρ C = 640
⎥ Τ2
⎣ T2 φ⎦
Capillary Pressure (Pc) Approximation Results
In order to get linear correlation between Pc and 1/T2 a) Well "A"
from above equations, the equivalent Sw from NMR Fig. 16 shows the correlation between NMR
data should be increased by 0.11 (11%). This makes approximated capillary pressure and capillary pressure
sense where OBM filtrate partially replaced part from from SCAL core data. The correlation presents
the formation water, which results in shift increase in relatively good match for this type of low quality
T2 spectra. So we can consider this forced increase in reservoir and OBM filtrate.
equivalent Sw by 0.11 is a correction for OBM filtrate
effect. b) Well "B"
By applying this 0.11 OBM filtrate correction, the As shown in Fig. 17, the approximated capillary
result relationship between Pc and T2 is as follows; pressure from NMR is much closed to that of SCAL
1 core data,
Ρ C = 889 c) Well "D"
Τ2 As shown in Fig. 18, the approximated capillary
C=889 pressure from NMR gives good match with that of
SCAL core data.
b) Well "B"
Capillary Pressure Conclusions
The result trend line equation is as follows; • The assumptions of capillary pressure
approximation from T2 distribution can be
[SPE 119064] Integration of NMR with Other Open Hole Logs for Improved Porosity, Permeability, Capillary Pressure of Gas Sand Reservoirs

applied in gas wells as well with some

consideration due to gas and mud filtrate effects.
• Shift correction of T2 spectra due to OBM filtrate
can be quantified using J-Leverett function Copre Pc vs NMR Pc
Well "D"

method for data averaging and regression.

• The approximate relation between Pc and T2 is 140

120
por=9.5% & perm=5 md
Pc = 640 1/T2

PC = C (1/T2). The constant C slightly depends 100

on facies or reservoir quality and the type of 80

60
NMR Pc
Core Pc

drilling fluid. In case of OBM, C value ranges 40

from 710 to 880 related to high and low quality 20

respectively. C=790 can be considered as an

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

average in case of OBM. In case of WBM, C= Copre Pc vs NMR Pc

850 is used as the average. Well "D"

• The cap curve resulted from T2 spectra can be 140

used for saturation estimations in the transition

por=10% & perm=12 md
120
Pc = 640 1/T2
100
zones. 80 NMR Pc

Pc
Core Pc
• Pore size distribution and T2 spectra can be 60
40

corrected using core cap-curves integrated with 20

0
T2 spectra. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sw (NMR)
Core Pc Vs NMR PC
Well "A"

140

120

100
Por =10% & Perm=1.35md
NMR Pc =800 1/T2
Fig. 13 NMR Pc and core Pc comparison in well C
c

80 Core Pc
P

60 NMR PC

40

20 References
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
NMR Sw

1.Oraby, M., (A new methodology to Calculate a

Lithology Independent Variable T2 Cutoff for Nuclear
Core Pc Vs NMR PC
Well "A"

140

120
Por =11% & Perm=2.6md
NMR Pc =800 1/T2
Magnetic Resonance Interpretation), SPE in Saudi
Arabia Annual, Dhahran October 10-12, 2000.
100
c

80 Core Pc
P

NMR PC
60

40

20

0
2. Hamada, G.M. and Al-Blehed, M.S. and Al-Awad,
M.N., 2000 “Nuclear magnetic resonance log
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
NMR Sw

Fig. 11: NMR Pc and Core-Pc comparison in well evaluation of low resistivity sandstone reservoir by-
passed by conventional logging analysis”: SPE paper #
A
64406, SPE Asia- Pacific oil& gas conference, 16-23
Core Pc VS NM R Pc
Oct., Brisbane Australia.
We ll "B"

140

120
3. Freedman, R., Minh, C.C. and Gubelin, G.,
Freeman, J.J., McGinness, Th., Terry, B., Rawlence,
Por=9% & Pe rm=24 md
100 NMR Pc= 800 1/T2
c

80
P

NMR Pc

60

40
Core Pc

D., 1998"Combining NMR and density Logs for

20

0
Petrophysical Analysis in Gas-Bearing Formations",
SPAWLA 39th Annual Meeting, May 26-29.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Sw (NMR)

Core Pc VS NMR Pc

4. Abushanab, M.A., Hamada, G.M., Oraby, M.E and

We ll "B"

140

120

100
Por=10% & Pe rm=71 md
NMR Pc= 800 1/T2
Abdelwaly, A.A., 2005" DMR technique improves
tight gas sand porosity", Oil & Gas Jr. Dec., 12-16.
c

80
P

NMR Pc
Core Pc
60

40

5. Carlos Torres-Verdín, "Fundamentals of Nuclear

20

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Magnetic Resonance Logging", Spring 2002 Semester,

Sw (NMR)

Fig. 12: NMR Pc and Core-Pc comparison in well B Lecture Presentation, April 2.