IPTC-18715-MS

Core Analysis Reconciles Disparate Permeabilities Derived from

NMR, Stoneley and Formation Tester Providing Insight to Reservoir
Characterisation

S. Das and A. Bal, Baker Hughes; S. Seto, INPEX Offshore North West Sabah LTD.

Copyright 2016, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 14-16 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Acoustic and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logs are commonly used techniques to derive continuous
permeability index profiles grounded in theory (e.g. Stoneley wave attenuation and Coates – Timur
methods). A formation testing device may also be used for dynamic measurements (point or interval).
Furthermore, the permeability of side-wall-rotatory cores or conventional cores can be obtained using
conventional laboratory measurements. Of these methods, the NMR and/or the Stoneley permeability are
most useful for real-time formation testing or completion decisions. The expectation is that the NMR and
Stoneley permeability profiles will help to optimally select depths to acquire dynamic information and
rotatory coring. However on occasions there may be a significant mismatch between the permeability
profiles. This case study presents and reconciles why there is a discrepancy between the NMR, Stoneley
and the measured dynamic permeability derived from a formation testing device.
NMR permeability was calculated, with conventional parameters for this basin, using the Coates-Timur
method. Acoustic permeability was derived using the attenuation of Stoneley wave amplitude. Formation
testing points were selected at the depths with relatively high movable porosity and high permeability values
guided by the NMR data. Mobility was measured at these points with the formation tester and the dynamic
permeability was calculated using the mobility and fluid viscosity. Rotatory cores were cut with reference
to these datasets and later analysed for porosity, permeability, thin sections, XRD and SEMs study.
The dynamic permeability information proved to be lower than the NMR by almost two orders of
magnitude. These disparate results generated some doubt concerning the parameters used in the NMR Coats-
Timur method. In contrast to the NMR, the Stoneley permeability is consistently lower than the NMR
permeability and close to the dynamic measurements. The core results showed reservoir quality is affected
by the cementation (quartz overgrowth at pore throats) and diagenetic clay (illite and smectite). This means
the reservoir has a complex porosity-permeability relationship that violates the basic assumptions of the
Coates-Timur equations. The result was an overestimate of formation permeability due to the large pores
and small pore throats (cementation, quartz overgrowth and digenetic clays). The Stoneley permeability
technique involves the movement of fluid in these small pore throats and produced permeability comparable
2 IPTC-18715-MS

with the formation tester and core results. After calibration with the core, the NMR and Stoneley
permeabilities are reconciled with the dynamic test results.
In general, coherent results provides confidence in an answer, however disparate results, as in this case
study, may also provide exceptional information about the reservoir quality. The case study shows it is
critical to understand the underlying assumptions of different techniques to explain disparate results and
realise the value of the exceptional information.

Introduction
The subject well was drilled in a deep-water block of offshore Sabah to explore Miocene turbidite
reservoirs. A comprehensive logging suite comprising gamma ray-density-neutron-resistivity-acoustic-
NMR-formation testing and sampling-rotary sidewall core was deployed for detail formation evaluation.
Permeability indices were calculated using NMR and acoustic methods to help selecting formation testing
and sampling point. Generally these approaches provide comparable results in clastic reservoirs but a vast
difference was observed for the subject interval. In contrast to the NMR, the Stoneley permeability was
consistently lower and actually close to the dynamic measurements taken by the formation testing device.
Large size rotary sidewall cores were collected from the same reservoir for in-depth study which were later
analysed for petrography, porosity and permeability. A systematic approach was taken to examine all dataset
available to find the root cause of this difference, which provided useful information about the reservoir
quality.

Methodology
In this case study, permeability is calculated from four different methods viz., Acoustic, NMR, Wireline
Formation testing & sampling and laboratory measurement on rotary sidewall core plugs. A brief description
of these methods are provided below
Stoneley wave moves the formation pore fluid at the borehole interface during its propagation in a porous
borehole, resulting in travel-time delay and attenuation (Teng et al., 1998, 1999). This phenomenon is most
sensitive in the low acoustic frequency range. Based on this observation, Tang et al. (1998, 1999) developed
a methodology to calculate formation permeability using acoustic waveform data which involves three
major steps. (1) Processing: wave separation to suppress the logging road noise and scattering in the wave
data; (2) Modelling: wave modelling to account for wave propagation effects due to formation elasticity and
borehole changes; and (3) Inversion: inversion of permeability from both travel time delay and attenuation
of the measured wave relative to the modelled wave. A detailed workflow of the process is presented in
Figure 1. The permeability derived from this process acts as an index and needs to be calibrated with some
known values.
IPTC-18715-MS 3

Figure 1—Stoneley Processing workflow (after Qobi et al., 2000)

Stoneley waves measure a parameter (M) related to; permeability, pore fluid viscosity, and
compressibility. This parameter is given by:

(1)

Where, k is the permeability, Kf is the pore fluid bulk modulus and µ is the pore fluid viscosity. The
calibration process determines the value of enabling permeability to be calculated from the initial
index.
Another important source of log-based permeability is the NMR method. However, the NMR tool does
not directly measure permeability. The NMR signal amplitude is proportional to the hydrogen proton index
associated with oil, gas, and water in the formation. Modern NMR tools utilize a Carr-Purcel-Meiboom-Gill
pulse sequence to collect a time series of echoes. The rate of decay of the echo amplitudes is a measure of
4 IPTC-18715-MS

the pore space’s surface-to-volume ratio (Kenyon et al., 1986). Small pores have a large surface-to-volume
ratio, while large pores have a small surface-to-volume ratio. Hence the distribution of pore size (movable,
irreducible and clay bound) can be obtained from T2 distribution which is a key input to the calculation of
permeability. The standard method of calculating NMR permeability in clastic rock is the Coates equation.
This is based on the observation that rocks with high irreducible water generally have low permeability (or
higher movable fluid results higher permeability). The Coates equation uses the ratio of the moveable-to-
bound fluid fraction derived from the T2 distributions:

(2)

Here, k is permeability in millidarcies, φ is the porosity in present, and BVM and BVI are the bulk
volume moveable and bulk volume irreducible fluids, respectively. The permeability calculated by this
equation serves as an index without reservoir specific values of the constant C and the exponents m and n.
These values can be obtained from NMR analysis on core or by calibrating permeability index with known
permeability.
The mobility of the formation was measured by the wireline formation testing and sampling tool using
suitable drawdown tests. Appropriate filtrate viscosity is used to calculate dynamic permeability from the
measured mobility.
The large dimensional rotary sidewall core plugs were collected from several depths of the reservoir for
geological and petrophysical analysis. The standard laboratory analysis including XRD, photomicrograph,
SEM, porosity and permeability measurement was performed on the samples.

Results and Discussion

Acoustic and NMR permeability indices were calculated to serve duel purposes: (1) provide guidance to
select formation testing points during wireline logging, and (2) obtain a continuous permeability profile
across the reservoir section after calibration (with core & formation testing result) at later stage. In general
the default parameters for C m and n of Coates equation work reasonably well in the subject area. So the same
was used to calculate NMR permeability index during logging operation. High quantity of movable porosity
detected by NMR calculated higher permeability index across the reservoir (see Figure 2) zone. Stoneley
permeability index was also calculated to cross check the result of NMR. Generally these approaches
provide comparable results but significant difference was observed with this dataset (see the Figure 2), where
Stoneley permeability index was considerably lower than its NMR counterpart (two order of magnitude).
Dynamic permeability measured by wireline formation testing tool was closer to the acoustic result.
IPTC-18715-MS 5

Figure 2—NMR and Acoustic permeability analysis result and comparison with core and wireline formation testing
& sampling (RCI) permeability. Track 3 shows uncelebrated permeability indices from NMR and Stoneley. Note
that the Stoneley permeability index is closer to the dynamic permeability measured by RCI and core whereas
NMR calculates much higher values. Track 4 shows the permeability after calibrating with the core permeability.

Routine laboratory analysis of the core plugs resulted porosity comparable to the NMR measurement but
the permeability close to the index derived by the Stoneley analysis. Photo micrograph analysis suggests the
framework grains consists dominantly of quartz and plagioclase; K-feldspar and lithic fragments are also
available. Detrital clay matrix (Mdc) and quartz overgrowth (qog) partly fill the pores (see Figure 3). SEM
analysis revels abundance of quartz overgrowth (qog), Fe-calcite (fcal) and authigenic mixed-layer illite/
smectite (i/s) clays coating the grains (see Figure 4). Detrital clay (Mcd) is partly recrystallized. This shows
the reservoir quality is substantially affected by the cementation of pore throats by quartz overgrowth and
6 IPTC-18715-MS

diagenetic clay (illite and smectite). This results in a complex porosity-permeability relationship that violates
the basic assumptions of the Coates-Timur equations which equates higher movable fluid in large pores
with estimation of higher permeability. The result was an initial overestimation of formation permeability
due to abundance of the large pores, but in reality the small pore throats due to cementation reduces the
permeability as confirmed by the analysis of core and formation testing results. On the other hand, the
Stoneley permeability technique involves the movement of fluid in these small pore throats and produced
permeability index comparable with the formation tester and core results. Later both indices were calibrated
with the core result and the constant of the Coates equation was modified suitable for the reservoir to
calculate NMR permeability.

Figure 3—Primary intergranular pores (Pi) are overall minor in abundance and unevenly distributed in this well sorted
sandstone. Detrital clay matrix (Mdc) and quartz overgrowths (qog) partly fill the pores. The white framework grains
are dominantly quartz and plagioclase; the yellow-stained is K-feldspar; the dark and dull grains are lithic fragments
(RFcl; claystone fragment). Fossil fragments (Fos) mainly include foraminifers and undifferentiated type. Some organic
stringers are locally scattered and subject to the moderate to heavy compaction, showing microstylolitic feature.
IPTC-18715-MS 7

Figure 4—SEM analysis reveals minor to moderate intergranular pores (Pi) in this SEM sample. The close-up
image mainly focuses on the pore-filling constituents. Quartz overgrowths (qog), Fe-calcite (fcal) and authigenic
mixed-layer illite/smectite (i/s) are identified; the mixedlayer illite/smectite coats the grains. Detrital clay matrix
(Mdc) is partly recrystallized. The micropores (yellow arrows) tied to the clay minerals are readily visible.

Conclusion
In general, coherent results provide confidence in an answer; however in this case study, disparate
results, provided exceptional information about the reservoir quality. Higher movable porosity (and NMR
permeability index) but lower Stoneley permeability manifested the fact that the reservoir contains larger
pores but smaller pore throat caused by cementation, quartz overgrowth and digenetic clays. This also shows
it is critical to understand the underlying assumptions of different techniques to explain disparate results
and realise the value of the exceptional information.

Acknowledgements
We express our gratitude to the management of INPEX Offshore North west Sabah and Baker Hughes for
their support and permission to publish this study.
8 IPTC-18715-MS

Reference
X. M. Tang, M. Altunbay, and D. Shorey, "Joint Interpretation of Formation Permeability from Wireline Acoustic, NMR
and Image Log Data", SPWLA 39th Annual Logging Symposium, May 26-29, 1998.
T. W. Geerits, M. Altunbay, X. M. Tang, K. A. Lehne, and O. Kelder, "Comparison Between Stoneley, NMR and Core-
Derived Permeabilities", SPWLA 40th Annual Logging Symposium, May 30- June 3, 1999.
L. Qobi, A. D. Kuijper, X. M. Tang, and J. Strauss, "Permeability Determination from the Stoneley Waves in the Ara
Group", SPE 63140, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1-4 October 2000, Dallas, Texas.
X. Tang, C. H. Cheng, "Fast Inversion of Formation Permeability from Stoneleywave Logs Using a Simplified Biot-
Rosenbaum Model", Geophysics, Vol. 61, No. 3 (May - June 1996): Page 639–645
W. E. Kenyon, P. I. Day, C. Straley, and J. F. Willemsen, Compact and consistent representation of rock NMR data for
permeability estimation, paper in 61st Ann. Tech. Conf. Sot. Petr. Eng. Transactions, 22. 1986