SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition 2000
DOI: 10.2118/64406-ms
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Log Evaluation of Low-Resistivity Sandstone Reservoirs By-Passed by Conventional Logging Analysis

Abstract: TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Then the correlation result in the following transform. 2 1 708 T Pc = C=708 Average C =800 is considered as the arithmetic mean of the above two values in case of OBM. So the average correlation between PC and T2 is…”
Section: Model Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Then the correlation result in the following transform. 2 1 708 T Pc = C=708 Average C =800 is considered as the arithmetic mean of the above two values in case of OBM. So the average correlation between PC and T2 is…”
Section: Model Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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) .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While each method is a powerful subsurface-mapping tool, they do have limitations such as overlapping range of resistivity values of different materials such as clay and shale, but in this case, the materials could be differentiated using seismic refraction method due to different density of the materials. 2 In contrast, when the higher density upper subsurface layer is underlain by a lower density layer, seismic refraction method cannot distinguish the between the two layers but these layers could be distinguished by resistivity method. 3 A way to play around the limitations is by combining inversion data from both methods via closure coupling to generate an enhanced model where one model influences the other model.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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 beyond the actual well performance. Therefore, integration of nonstandard tools such as nuclear magnetic resonance (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 (Coates et al, 1997;Minh et al, 1998;Hamada et al, 2000). Freedman et al (1998) proposed a combination of density porosity and NMR porosity (f DMR ) to determine gas corrected formation porosity and flushed zone water saturation (S xo ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%