URTeC: 2569

Unconventional Reservoir Water Saturation Quantification with NMR

and Resistivity Logging
Wei Shao*, Songhua Chen*, Ron Balliet*, Halliburton.
Copyright 2020, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2020-2569

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference held in Austin, Texas, USA, 20-
22 July 2020.

The URTeC Technical Program Committee accepted this presentation on the basis of information contained in an abstract
submitted by the author(s). The contents of this paper have not been reviewed by URTeC and URTeC does not warrant the
accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information herein. All information is the responsibility of, and, is subject to corrections by
the author(s). Any person or entity that relies on any information obtained from this paper does so at their own risk. The information
herein does not necessarily reflect any position of URTeC. Any reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper by
anyone other than the author without the written consent of URTeC is prohibited.

Abstract
Saturation quantification in unconventional reservoir is very challenging using resistivity-based analysis
because of the complex lithology and mixed wettability in organic/inorganic pore systems. On the other
hand, the challenges with NMR based saturation determination methods are the reliance of adequate
contrast of transverse relaxation time T2, and the ratio of T1/T2, among bound water, free water, oil in
organic pores, and inter-granular oil, as well as the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of acquired NMR logging
data. Because NMR and resistivity measurements involve different physics, ambiguity of saturation by
either technique can be greatly mitigated if we integrate the data acquired by both techniques. This paper
presents a method of using NMR and resistivity logging to quantify unconventional reservoir water
saturation.

To circumvent the difficulty of using resistivity based water saturation models for unconventional
reservoirs, often, a so-called pseudo-Archie model, using core data to calibrate the porosity and
saturation exponents m and n, has been adopted for interpreting water saturation in unconventional
reservoirs. However, due to heterogeneous and complex unconventional reservoirs, it is often
questionable if the core analysis calibrated exponents are applicable to log data interpretation.

Instead of using the m and n exponents calibrated from core data, this paper presents a data driven method
which optimizes the pseudo-Archie with three unknowns: water saturation, porosity, and saturation
exponents. The optimization is constrained by the water saturation ranges obtained from NMR logging.
To improve the reliability of NMR based saturation, an inversion-forward modeling-inversion method is
applied to ensure the signatures of organic vs non-organic fluids are adequately separated on 2D maps,
and the stacking window on the NMR log is selected such that the vertical resolution of NMR and
URTeC 2569

resistivity logs match. The heterogeneous and complex nature of unconventional reservoirs can be readily
taken into account, because the NMR log can generate lithology layer-dependent m and n.

The new method was applied to several West Texas shale oil wells containing multiple lithological units.
The NMR logging yielded m and n exponent values, which clearly indicate these parameters vary
according to different formation lithology and mineralogy layers. The subsequently optimized pseudo-
Archie model improves resistivity based saturation, especially for the low-resistivity layers that were
previously considered too pessimistic with the core based calibration.

Introduction
Total porosity and water saturation are two key petrophysical parameters for accurate reservoir
evaluation. For conventional reservoirs, water saturation is primarily with the resistivity-based models.
However, the conventional resistivity-based water saturation models do not work well for the
unconventional reservoirs. Due to the unconventional reservoirs’ complex lithology, mixed wettability,
and organic/inorganic nano-pore system, it is difficult to determine Archie’s “m” and “n” and
consequently water saturation.
Another viable approach for estimating water saturation and total porosity involves using a nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) based fluid typing interpretation technique. Unlike conventional logging
measurements, NMR directly measures the fluids in the pore space. Hence, NMR total porosity is
independent of the reservoir’s lithology and mineralogy. On the other hand, NMR relaxation times, T1
and T2, can be affected by pore structure and mineralogy through the surface relaxivity, and the
significance of the surface relaxivity effects to T1 and T2 are different for water, oil, gas, and organic
matters. The differences can be depicted in a T1-T2 map, which shows unique fluid footprints in terms of
the contrast between the ratio of their T1 and T2, and T2. Therefore, the T1-T2 map can be used for fluid
typing and fluid volume estimation for unconventional reservoirs.
This paper discuss the challenges of using the resistivity based water saturation model, and NMR based
water saturation model for unconventional reservoir interpretation and present an integrated solution with
resistivity and NMR to provide a more accurate and reliable estimation of water saturation.

Pseudo Archie Water Saturation Model

Compared with traditional shaly sand formations, the composition of unconventional reservoir formations
is much more complex and usually mixed with sand, clay, and carbonate mudstones. For unconventional
reservoirs, there are additional components, organic matter, and fluids in organic pores whose degree of
maturation varies. Also, the water salinity may vary across the unconventional reservoirs. Hence, it is
very challenging to determine Archie’s “m” and “n” for applying the resistivity based water saturation
model to unconventional reservoirs.
The Archie equation and its variations, such as Simandoux equation, model the resistivity responses with
brine, hydrocarbon, and/or clay. However, it is still unclear how to incorporate organic matters into the
resistivity models. It would be intuitive expect that organic matter would make resistivity higher. But, in
West Texas mudstone reservoirs, it is common that resistivity responses are seen very low, hence, the
water saturations derived from the resistivity models are almost 100% water. However, the corresponding
NMR T1-T2 maps clearly show the signatures of hydrocarbon.
URTeC 2569

Despite the issues of using the conventional resistivity models for the unconventional reservoirs, they
were used nevertheless to derive the water saturation. Often the resistivity models were used in a
simultaneous inversion process with constrains of many other logging measurements and core data if
available. The criteria for the accuracy of the computed water volumes is the fitting errors between the
measured resistivity and the computed resistivity from the resistivity models. However, based on data
analytical theory, the fitting errors may be an indication of overfitting especially for the complex
resistivity models with many unknown parameters for fitting, such as Simandoux equation.
To circumnavigate the difficulty of determining “m” and “n”, and the unsuitability of the conventional
resistivity models for the unconventional reservoirs, a pseudo-Archie approach is adapted to solve the
water saturation problem (Bust, et al, 2013). The pseudo-Archie approach used Archie’s equation to
derive water saturation, but “m” and “n” are adjusted to match the core-derived water saturation in their
own data-driven levels. Hence, “m” and “n” can be quite different from their respective defaults of two.

NMR Water Saturation Model

A unique advantage of using NMR response in unconventional reservoirs is that the organic and inorganic
pore fluids exhibit distinguished T1/T2 ratio contrast, which has been used to differentiate organic filled
pores from water-filled pores in shales (Chen, et al, 2013; Sun et al, 2016; Anand et al, 2016; Xie, et al,
2018; Venkataramanan, L., 2018). However, due to relatively low porosity of unconventional reservoirs,
signal to noise ratio (SNR) of NMR logging was often low causing overlapping of fluid signatures on T1-
T2 maps. Fig. 1 is an example of T1-T2 map with poor resolution due to poor data quality.

Figure 1. An example of T1-T2 map with poor resolution due to poor data quality
URTeC 2569

In literature, several machine learning based methods, such as blind source separation (Anand, et al,
2016), have been reported that can effectively separate difficult-to-resolve fluid signatures in some
formations. One of the challenges of applying such approaches to our formations and reservoirs is the
lack of sufficient verified prior NMR fluid separation examples in many formation layers from the same
area to build the fluid interpretation model. On top of that, the large variations of the mineralogy
composition, pore texture, and fluid content in complex thin layers make the fluid signature sometimes
non-unique. The non-uniqueness discourages the use of data analytic approaches for NMR fluid typing.

Lately, the advance of NMR logging technologies (Ye, et al, 2019, Balliet, at el, 2018.) has improved
NMR logging measurement quality significantly. The NMR activation sequences are specifically modeled
and tailored for unconventional reservoirs and over 30,000 high-quality echo measurements per foot can
be produced.

In addition, an inversion-forward modeling-inversion (IFMI) data processing method is used to improve

the T1-T2 map resolution (Chen, et al, 2016). Fig. 2 is an example of T1-T2 map by the IFMI method with
the high quality-echo measurement (Balliet, at el, 2018). It clearly resolves the differences among various
fluids, especially the difference between clay bound water and organic hydrocarbons.

Figure 2. An example of T1-T2 map using IFMI inversion and high quality echo NMR logging

However, there are still many cases where fluids cannot be accurately quantified from IFMI T1-T2 maps.
Fig. 3 is such an example where there is no clear separation between water and oil signatures on the T1-T2
map even though water and oil signals can be easily identified. Still, the range of fluid quantities (water or
oil) can be estimated of using the fluid partition methods. For example, the green box in the left plot gave
the upper limit of oil volume estimation, while the green box in the right plot gave the lower limit of oil
volume estimation.
URTeC 2569

Figure 3. T1-T2 map fluid partition and upper and lower limits of NMR water volume estimations

Water Saturation Model based on NMR and Resistivity

To use pseudo Archie model, the ‘m’ and “n” are mainly determined with core samples, which is time
consuming and costly. Moreover, the heterogeneous nature of shale reservoirs require a large amount of
core samples for an accurate description of the reservoirs.
We propose an integrated approach of using NMR and resistivity to reduce the needs of using core
samples for “m” and “n”. In this approach, the upper limit and lower limit of NMR water volume are used
as constraints to a least square minimization problem between measured resistivity and pseudo Archie
computed resistivity.
Let 𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 as the measured resistivity, 𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 as pseudo Archie resistivity as defined in the following:
1 𝜙𝜙𝑡𝑡𝑚𝑚 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤
𝑛𝑛
=
𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑅𝑅𝑤𝑤
where 𝑅𝑅𝑤𝑤 is the resistivity of formation water, a is generally set to a value of 1, 𝜙𝜙𝑡𝑡 is the total porosity,
and 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 is the total water saturation.
The least square minimization problem is formulated as the following:
min (log 𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 − log 𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 )2
𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤,𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 ≤𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 ≤𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤,𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛,𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
1≤𝑚𝑚≤3
1≤𝑛𝑛≤3

where 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤,𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 and 𝑆𝑆𝑤𝑤,𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛,𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 are the estimated upper and lower limits of NMR water
saturation. “m” and “n” are constrained between 1 and 3 if there is no prior knowledge about the
reservoir, otherwise they shall be constrained in the range suitable to the reservoir for more reliable
results.
Water saturation, “m”, and “n” are derived from the minimization problems.
URTeC 2569

Results
A west Texas mudstone oil well logging data is used to illustrate the method. Two sections of this well are
used for the integrated NMR and resistivity interpretation model. Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 show GR, NMR, neutron,
density, resistivity logs in these two sections. Tracks 6, 7, and 8 in Fig.4 and Fig. 6 are T1-T2 maps, and T1
and T2 distributions, respectively. The three red dashed lines in Tracks 7 and 8 correspond to 1, 10, and 60
ms. The left and right T2 boundary used for partitioning the oil are 2 and 60 ms, respectively.

Track 2 of Fig. 4 and Fig. 6 plots the estimated upper and lower limits of NMR logging-derived water
volume (black), as compared to the ShaleExpert workflow (Murphy et al. 2013) derived water volume
(green). The two water volumes match very well for the section in Fig. 4, while very poor for the section
in Fig. 6.

We have studied over 20 wells in the west Texas region, and observed that the NMR and conventional log-
derived water volume match reasonably well in the higher resistivity zones but do not always match for the
low resistivity zones. The low resistivity zone can be an organic, pore-rich zone or a high illite content
formation where the distribution of the clay mineral is complex. For the low resistivity zones, the resistivity-
based saturation may be affected due to inaccurate assumptions within the conductivity-saturation model.
In such case, resistivity based models are not adequate for computing water volume, but it is found that
NMR 2D T1 -T2 map based fluid interpretation is more useful.
URTeC 2569

Figure 4. A section of unconventional reservoir formation with higher resistivity

URTeC 2569

Figure 5. Average 2D T1-T2 map for the section in Fig. 4

Figure 6. A section of unconventional reservoir formation with lower resistivity

URTeC 2569

Figure 7. Average 2D T1-T2 map for the section in Fig. 6

Fig.5 and Fig.7 are the averaged T1-T2 maps of the two sections. The fluids in the green boxes are organic
hydrocarbons. Notice the T2 distribution of hydrocarbon of Fig. 5 are much longer than the T2 distribution
of Fig. 7, It could be an indication that the section with higher resistivity is more hydrocarbon mature than
the one with lower resistivity. Hence, it could explain why the resistivity-based saturation model might
work for the high resistivity zones.

Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 are the results from the integrated NMR and resistivity model for the sections in Fig. 4
and Fig. 6 respectively. The first tracks in Fig.8 and Fig. 9 are the comparisons of NMR water volumes and
resistivity water volumes. The second tracks are the comparisons of measured resistivity and computed
resistivity from the pseudo Archie model, which indicate whether the results from the pseudo Archie model
are reliable. The third tracks show the computed water volumes from the integrated NMR and resistivity
model, along with NMR water volumes for comparison. The forth tracks are the computed “m” and “n”.

With the constraint of NMR water volume, resistivity water volume is in consistence with NMR water
volume. Noticed, computed “m” and “n” are quite different for the section with higher resistivity and the
section with lower resistivity. This behavior of “m” and “n” indicate that the conventional resistivity models
cannot be simply used for the unconventional reservoirs as it is.
URTeC 2569

Figure 8. Integrated model results for higher resistivity section

URTeC 2569

Figure 9. Integrated model results for lower resistivity section

Discussion
This paper only discussed the integration NMR and resistivity measurements for water saturation. The
integration model can be improved further with inclusion of other measurements, such as, density and
neutron measurements

As observed, the computed “m” and “n” are in distinct ranges for different sections of unconventional
reservoirs. Hence, “m” and “n” may be used for reservoir characterization and their correlations with
patrol-physical parameters through data analytic approach.

Conclusions
This paper discussed the challenges of using resistivity models for computing water volumes of
unconventional reservoirs, and the latest advancement of NMR techniques for fluid typing. By integrating
URTeC 2569

NMR and resistivity measurements, a data driven approach is presented to compute unconventional
reservoir water volume. A field example shows that the integrated model gave reliable results especially
for the lower resistivity sections.

References
Anand, V., Ali, M. R., Abubakar, A., Grover, R., Neto, O., Pirie, I., & Iglesias, J. G. 2016. Unlocking the
Potential of Unconventional Reservoirs through New Generation NMR T1/T2 Logging Measurements
Integrated with Advanced Wireline Logs. SPWLA 57th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Balliet, R. Chen, S., Beard, D., Calliorgos, M., and Li, L. 2018, New Magnetic Resonance Wireline
Sensor for High-Resolution, Faster Logging, and Better Fluid Typing. SPE-191506-MS, presented at SPE
ACTE, Dallas, TX.
Bust V. K., Majid, A. A., Oletu, J. U. and Worthington P. F. 2013. The Petrophysics of Shale Gas
Reservoirs: Technical Challenges and Pragmatic Solutions. Petroleum Geoscience, Vol. 19, pp. 91-103
Chen, S., Li, L., Shao, W., Reiderman, A., and Balliet, R., 2018, Systematic Optimization Approach For
High-Resolution NMR Logging, Presented at 59th Annual Logging Symposium of SPWLA, London, U.K.

Chen, S., Shao, W., and Balliet, R., 2016, “New approaches of 3D nuclear magnetic resonance inversion
for improving fluid typing,” Interpretation, Vol. 4, No. 2; p. SF67–SF79.

Chen, S., Miller, D., Li, L., Westacott, D., Murphy, E., and Balliet, R., 2013, “Qualitative and
Quantitative Iinformation NMR Logging Delivers for Characterization of Unconventional Shale Plays:
Case Studies,” presented at 2013 SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, LA.

Murphy, E. E., Praznik, G., Quirein, J., Galford, J. E., Witkowsky, J. M., & Chen, S. 2013. A Workflow to
Evaluate Mineralogy, Porosity, TOC, and Hydrocarbon Volume in the Eagle Ford Shale. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, SPE 167012

Newsham, K., Comisky, J., and Chemali, R. 2019. Organic-Mudstone Petrophysics: Workflow to
Estimate Storage Capacity.Petrophysics, VOL. 60 (February 2019), NO. 1, pp 4-15
Sun, B., Yang, E., Wang, H., Seltzer, S. J., Montoya, V., Crowe, J., & Malizia, T. (2016, June 25). Using
NMR to Characterize Fluids in Tight Rock Unconventional and Shale Formations. SPWLA 57th Annual
Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Venkataramanan, L., Evirgen, N., Allen, D. F., Mutina, A., Cai, Q., Johnson, A. C., Jiang, T. 2018. An
Unsupervised Learning Algorithm to Compute Fluid Volumes From NMR T1-T2 Logs in Unconventional
Reservoirs. Petrophysics, VOL. 59, NO. 5 (October 2018), pp 617-632

Xie, Z. H., & Gan, Z. 2018. Value of 20Mhz NMR Core Analysis for Unconventional Mudstones. SPWLA
59th Annual Logging Symposium, Jun 2-6, 2018

Ye, S. J., Scribner, A., Mclendon, D., Ijasan, O., Chen, S., Shao, W., Balliet, R., 2019, Method of
Determining Unconventional Reservoir Saturation with NMR Logging, 2019 ATCE, SPE-196069-MS