Está en la página 1de 48

1

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance


(NMR)
T2 Spectrum

Pore body distribution

Porosity

Bound water-Free water

Capillary Pressure-NMR spectra

Permeability

Wettability
2
Hydrogen nuclei behave as though they are tiny bar magnets; aligned with the
spin axis. In the absence of a field they are randomly oriented.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
3
42.58 /
2
!
"
# # f MHz Tesla
1 Tesla= 10
4
Gauss Earth's fieId = 0.5 Gauss at
temperate latitudes
Precessional frequency, f, depends on field strength and gyromagnetic
constant,!,
of a nuclei.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
4
Net magnetization produced by aligned magnetic moments.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
1
n
i
i
Net M m
#
# #
$
5
Degree of proton alignment as a function of time
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
T
1
decay
1
/
(1 )
t T
z o
M M e
%
# %
6
Absorbs energy from B
1
field at frequency, f
o
, change resonance states.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
7
Tipping the nuclei
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
8
Free Induction Decay (FID)
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
9
1. Tipping

2. Precession

3. Flip 180

4. Precession

5. realignment
At a time 2& only those left in the plane realign.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
CPMG Pulse sequence (Carr, Purcell, Meiboom, and Gill)
10
A 90
o
pulse followed by multiple 180
o
pulses creates a series of echo-spins.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
11
A single decaying exponential.
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
12
Intercept = Porosity
Observed decays in real rocks. While they looks as if they can be fit with a
single exponential, they cannot!
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
13
Primary Controls on T
2
Decay

2 2B 2D
1 S 1 1
= + +
T V T T
Surface Relaxivity
Pore Fluid Viscosity
Temperature
Pore Fluid Diffusivity
Magnetic Field Gradient
Mineralogy
Pore Surface to Volume Ratio
'
sandstones
~ 9- 46 (m/s
14
Material '((m/s)
Glass beads 5 - 11
Sandstone 0.37- 2.39
Quartz sand 0.013
Quartz 0.83
Silica sand 2.89 - 3.06
Sandstones 9.0 - 46
Fontainebleau ss 16
carbonate 5
clays 1.8-3.3
NMR Surface relaxivities
Dunn et al., 2002; Cheng and Vinegar, 1994; Matteson et al., 1998
15
BVI (Bulk Volume Irreducible)

The fractional part of the formation volume occupied by immobile ,
capillary-bound water.
FFI (Free Fluid Index)

The fractional part of the formation volume occupied by fluids free ,
to flow.
NMR-Fluid Partitioning
16
NMR-response
Coates et al., 1999
Pore body T
2
T
2
-spectrum
Composite
2_1
/
0
t T
x
M M e
%
#
2_ 2
/
0
t T
x
M M e
%
#
2_3
/
0
t T
x
M M e
%
#
2_ 4
/
0
t T
x
M M e
%
#
2_
/
0
1
i
n
t T
x i
i
M M f e
%
#
#
$
17
Typical NMR Interpretation
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
T
2
,msec
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y

[
p
u
]

C
a
p
i
l
l
a
r
y

B
o
u
n
d

F
l
u
i
d

-

B
V
I

C
l
a
y

B
o
u
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

-

C
B
W

Solid
Rock
Matrix
Movable
Water
Clay-
Bound
Water
Hydro
Carbon
Dry
Clay
Capillary-
Bound
Water
FFI BVI
)
Effective
)
Total
Fluid
Porous Media
T2_cut_off
33ms clastics
100-190 ms carbonates
18
NMR T
2
Distribution- Ambient P&T
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

T
2
, msec
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Brine (25000 ppm NaCl)
Berea, S
w
= 100%
Brine (25000 ppm NaCl)




T
2
= 1 sec
Bulk Relaxation/ Surface Relaxation
Total Area = Porosity
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y

19
Porosity Comparison
y = 0.99x
R
2
= 0.99
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Saturated Porosity, %
N
M
R

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,
%
NMR-Porosity
20
NMR-Porosity
Straley et al., 1995
21
NMR-Porosity
Coates et al., 1999
22
Coates et al., 1999
T
2_cutoff
clastics = 33ms
carbonates = 100-190ms
FFI
BVI
NMR- T
2_cutoff
23
NMR T
2
Distribution- Ambient P&T
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

T
2
, msec
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Brine (25000 ppm NaCl)
Berea, S
w
= 100%
Brine (25000 ppm NaCl)




T
2
= 1 sec
Bulk Relaxation/ Surface Relaxation
Bound
water
Free
water
capillary
24
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
,

a
.
u


Free Fluid
Capillary
Bound
Clay
Bound
Water wet!
2
1 2
T r
' #
Let '*range 10-40 (m/s
2
4
3
2
2 (10 ) (4 10 )
8 10
8
%
%
#
# + + +
# +
#
r T
m
s
s
m
nm
'
(
(
200 nm
25
NMR-Determining T
2_cutoff
Straley et al., 1995
Centrifuged
26
T
2
Distribution (Berea - 33H)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
T
2
, msec
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Saturated Desaturated
NMR-Determining T
2_cutoff
27
T
2
distribution (Berea 33H)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
T
2,
msec
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,

%
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,

%
Incremental saturated Incrementa desaturated Cumulative saturated Cumulative desaturated
T
2cutoff
= 14.22 msec
NMR-Determining T
2_cutoff
28
Estimation of T
2
Cutoff (Centrifuge)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
Incremental Porosity Cumulative Porosity
T
2
Cutoff = 6 msec
100% Saturation
S
wirr
T
2
, msec

I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,

%

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

P
o
r
o
s
i
t
y
,
%

29
5.5 - 5.8 s
Methane in Berea
Gas in Place
30
Pore Characterization
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Pore Body
Grain
Pore Throat
Pore Body
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
NMR
Mercury Injection
2D Random porous networ k
pore bodies
pore throats
31





P 0
P 5
P2
P 10
R O C K
M E R C U R Y
R O C K
M E R C U R Y
R O C K
M E R C U R Y
R O C K
T H R O A T
P O R E
P O R E
M E R C U R Y
100 8 0 60 4 0 20 0. 0
M
E
R
C
U
R
Y

I
N
J
E
C
T
I
O
N

C
A
P
I
L
L
A
R
Y

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E
M E R C U R Y S AT U R A T I O N ( % P O R E V O L U M E )
P 0
P5
P2
P 10
Traditional Mercury Injection- Concept
32
Kleinberg 1996
33
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
NMR Hg Hg_Mod.
T
2
, msec
Capillary Pressure, psi
W
a
t
e
r

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
r
a
c
.

H
g

S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
r
a
c
.

Comparison of Cum.T
2
& Hg Injection
34
Comparison of T
2
distribution & Inc. Hg Injection
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
T2, sec
, -
. /
0 1
0 1
0 1
2 3
. /
0 1
0 1
0 1
2 3
NMR T Relaxation:-
2
1 S
=p
T V
2
1 2
=p assuming cyIindricaI pore body
r
T
b
2
1 2
= p *
e r
T
th
2
r
th
where p Effective SurfaceReIaxivity =p
e r
b
2
Washburn equation:-
2yCos0
P =
c r
th
yCos0
p =
e
P T
c
T
2
distribution
Inc. Hg Injection
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
P,psi
35
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
T
2
, sec or (2.21 psi.sec)/P
NMR HG Inv. HG
Mercury Injection rotated
about a vertical axis and
Shifted.
NMR T
2
Distribution
Inc. Mercury Inj.
(2.21 psi.sec)/P
= 48 (m/s
36
NMR
Coates et al., 1999
37
Schlumberger Doll Research
2 4
2_gm
k aT ) #
4 4 a
k = md when ) is decimal and T
2
is in msec.
NMR-Permeability
** a = 0.13 for carbonates Kenyon et al. 1995.
38
2
2
FFI
k
C BVI
)
5 6
7 7 . / . /
#
8 9
0 1 0 1
2 3 2 3
7 7
: ;
Timur_Coates
10 4 C
Timur
4.5
4
2
10
wirr
k
S
)
#
wirr
BVI S ) #
(1 )
wirr
FFI S ) # %
Where FFI and BVI are in porosity units (p.u.), ) is porosity as a percentage
and k is permeability in md.
NMR-Permeability
39
NMR-Permeability
4
/ k
40
Klinkenberg Permeability, md
N
M
R

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

m
d

0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
0. 0001 0. 001 0. 01 0. 1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Fr ee Fl ui d Model Mean T2 Model
k
NMR
= 1.08k
Core
0.94
R
2
= 0.90
k
NMR
= 0.54k
Core
1.08
R
2
= 0.88
NMR-Permeability
41
NMR-Permeability
42
NMR-log
43
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
w o
w bw o bo
nmr
w o
w bw o bo
S C S
T T T T
W
S C S
T T T T
'
'
. / . /
% % %
0 1 0 1
2 3 2 3
#
. / . /
% < %
0 1 0 1
2 3 2 3
T
w
and T
o
are peak relaxation times for water and oil saturated rock

T
bw
and T
bo
are peak relaxation times for water and oil


w
o
C
'
'
'
#
and S
w
and S
o
are the water and oil saturation
NMR Wettability Index
44
Conceptual affect on NMR
45
Carbonate sample saturated with water, then crude oil
46
NMR-wettability-carbonates
_ _
_
wet water wet oil
w nmr
total
S S
I
S
%
#
47
Allen, D., C. Crary, B. Freedman, M. Andreani, W. Klopf, R. Badry, C. Flaum, B. Kenyon, R. Kleinberg,
P. Gossenberg, J. Horkowitz, D. Logan, J. Singer and J. White, 1997, How to use borehole
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Oil Field Review, 9, p34-57.

Chang, D. and H. Vinegar, 1994, Effective Porosity, Producible Fluid and Permeability in Carbonates from
NMR Logging, SPWLA 35th Annual Logging Symposium, June 19-22, 21pp.

Coates, G. R., L. Xiao and M. G. Prammer,1999, NMR Logging Principles and Applications, Gulf Publishing Co.
Houston, TX, 234 pp

Dastidar, R., C. Rai and C. Sondergeld, 2004, Integrating NMR with other petrophysical information to
characterize a reservoir, SPE89948.

Dunn, K. J., D. J. Bergmann and G. A. Latorraca, 2002, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance: Petrophysical and
Logging Applications, Handbook of Geophysical Exploration, Vol 32, Pergamon, New York, 293 pp

Ellis, D. V. and J. M. Singer, 2007, Well logging for Earth Scientists, Springer, The Netherlands, 692 pp.

Kenyon, W. E., H. Takazaki, C. Straley, P. N. Sen, M. Herron, A. Matteson and M. J. Petricola, 1995, A
laboratory study of nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation and its relation to depositional texture
and petrophysical properties-carbonate Thamama group, Mubarraz, Abu Dhabi, SPE-29886.


References
48

Kleinberg, R. L., 1966, Utility of NMR T
2
distributions, connection with capillary pressure, clay effect, and
determination of the surface relaxivity parameter '
2
, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 14, 7/8, 761-
767.

Lootestijin, W. and J, Hofman, 2006, Wettability-Index determination by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, SPE
Resrv Eval. And Eng.,146-153.

Matteson, A., J. P. Tomanic, M. M. Herron, D. F. Allen and W. E. Kenyon, 1998, NMR Relaxation of Clay-Brine
Mixtures, SPE49008, pp205-211.

Schlumberger, 1997, CMR Combinable Magnetic Resonance Tool: User's Guide, SMP-7059, Schlumberger
Wireline and Testing, Houston,

Sigal, R., 2002, Coates and SDR permeability:Two variations on the same theme, Petrophysics, 43, 1, 38-46.

Straley, C. D. Rossini, H. J. Vinegar, P. N. Tutunjian and C. E. Morriss, 1994, Core analysis by low field NMR
Paper 9404 Soc. Core Analysts., 43-56.
References