SPE 56767 Sonic-Magnetic Resonance Method: A Sourceless Porosity Evaluation in Gas-Bearing Reservoirs

Chanh Cao Minh, SPE, Greg Gubelin, SPE, Raghu Ramamoorthy, SPE, Schlumberger Stuart McGeoch, SPE, Shell Company of Australia

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999. 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.

(SMR) technique to estimate total porosity and flushed zone gas saturation in gas-bearing formations. The technique is successfully applied to an offshore gas well in Australia. In this well, the porosity in the well-compacted sands is in the 20-25 p.u. range and the compaction factor is around 0.77. The sonic-magnetic resonance results compared favorably to the established density-magnetic resonance results and also to core data. In another offshore gas well from the North Sea, the porosity in the highly uncompacted sands is in the 35-40 p.u. range and the compaction factor is around 1.85. The SMR technique was able to produce a very good porosity estimate comparable to that estimated from the density-neutron logs.

Abstract For environmental reasons, there are times when the use of radioactive chemical sources for density and neutron logging is not possible. The inability to use these logging tools seriously affects porosity determination in gas-bearing reservoirs. Several tools, such as the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) tool, the sonic tool or a minitron-based tool, determine porosity without using a radioactive source. These tools, however, are influenced by many effects and, when used alone, cannot deliver an accurate gas-independent porosity. A new methodology that combines sonic and NMR logs for improved porosity evaluation in gas-bearing reservoirs is proposed. The first variant of the method uses the sonic compressional transit time and the total NMR porosity (TCMR) to determine the total porosity, corrected for the gas effect, and the flushed zone gas saturation. In this approach, a linear time-averaged equation corrected for compaction is applied to the sonic compressional log. The simplicity of the solution (much like the previously published DMR1 DensityMagnetic Resonance Interpretation Method) allows fast, easy computation and a complete error analysis to assess the quality of the results. In the second variant of the method, we show that the rigorous Gassman equation has a very similar response to the RaymerHunt-Gardner (RHG) equation for a water-gas mixture. This allows substitution of the complex Gassman equation by the much simpler RHG equation in the combined sonic-NMR

Introduction Many authors have discussed the applications of Sonic logs in gas-bearing formations.2-4 Stand-alone sonic techniques that use Wyllie equation or Raymer-Hunt-Gardner equation are based on empirical observations on water-saturated samples that are extended to water-gas mixtures.5, 6 Stand-alone sonic techniques alone that involves Gassman theory are generally too complex for the petrophysicist to consider the effects of many moduli parameters on the sonic measurements and to solve for porosity 7- 9. Other authors have discussed the applications of NMR logs in gas-bearing formations. 10, 11 Porosity logs derived from NMR alone suffer from the low hydrogen index of the gas and the long T1 polarization time of the gas when the data is acquired with insufficient wait time. To provide a robust estimate of total porosity in gas-bearing formations, a combined densityNMR technique has been proposed. However, density logging uses a radioactive chemical source, and in certain environments, it is not used because of fears of the radioactive source being lost in the hole. The sonic-magnetic resonance technique has been developed to provide an accurate porosity in these situations. This paper will demonstrate that a) The Gassman and RHG methods predict very similar

C. CAO MINH, G. GUBELIN, R. RAMAMOORTHY, S. MCGEOCH

SPE 56767

sonic responses. b) Both Gassman and RHG sonic porosities are quite insensitive to fluid type, and hence to water saturation. c) The solution of the Gassman approach is more complex, requiring five parameters compared to only one for the RHG method. RHG is therefore more practical. d) Combining TCMR and RHG provides a good estimate of porosity in gas bearing formations. e) Combining TCMR and a modified Wyllie scheme gives a simple analytic solution analogous to the DMR method. The TCMR/RHG and TCMR/Wyllie schemes are applied to two field examples. The results are compared to those from DMR, core data and density/neutron analysis.

tf = 304.8 n Eq. 4, ( g):

f

Kf

.
w)

(4) and gas

is the composite fluid density of water ( + (1 Sxo )

= Sxo

(5)

Kf is the composite fluid bulk modulus of water (Kw) and gas (Kg), given by Woods law:13 1 Sxo 1 S xo . = + Kg K f Kw
Gassman Method

(6)

Sonic Porosity Equations The three methods (in order of increasing complexity) to compute sonic porosity from the compressional slowness are based on the Wyllie, Raymer-Hunt-Gardner and Gassman formulae. In this section, each approach is analyzed, and the predictions from each compared.
Wyllie Method

The third method involves Gassman theory and requires more parameters: tc = 304.8 . (7)

4 K + G 3

The Wyllie equation is tc t ma 1 . t f t ma C p

(1)

G is the shear modulus of the rock. The composite bulk density ( ) can be obtained from the density log. The composite rock bulk modulus (K) is at the core of the Gassman theory: K df 2 ) K ma . + K 1 + df 2 K f K ma K ma (1

Eq. 1 can be re-arranged into tc = (1 )t ma + with tf* = Cp (t f tma ) + tma . In these equations, is porosity, tc is the sonic compressional slowness, tma is the matrix compressional slowness, tf is the fluid compressional slowness, Cp is the compaction factor needed to correct the sonic porosity to true porosity.
Raymer-Hunt-Gardner Method

K = K df (2a) (2b)

(8)

tf*

In Eq. 8, the dry-frame bulk modulus (Kdf) varies with porosity. The shear modulus (G) in Eq. 7 also varies with porosity. For quartz samples, it has been shown that ( 3.39 + 1.95 K df = K ma 1 and G = Gma(1 3.48 + 2.19
2 2

(9) (10)

The Raymer-Hunt-Gardner equation is 1 (1 )2 . = + tc t ma t f (3)

where the subscript ma denotes the matrix properties.3, 9 Applicability of the above equations to sandstones can be achieved by calibrating the matrix properties in a known water zone. The moduli of the matrix and the fluid are constant for a given rock and fluid type. Some typical values are shown in table 1. For the fluid mixture, the shear modulus is zero at low frequency. For complex lithology, the effective matrix moduli can be estimated from the average of the generalized HashinShtrikman bounds.12

If the fluid is a mixture of gas and water at a saturation Sxo, then its slowness is computed from

SPE 56767 SONIC-MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHOD: A SOURCELESS POROSITY EVALUATION IN GAS-BEARING RESERVOIRS

The shear slowness (ts) is defined by ts = 304.8 . (11)

Sonic Magnetic Resonance Method Using RGH The total CMR porosity ( TCMR), from the CMR * Combinable Magnetic Resonance tool, is defined by TCMR = Sxo HIw (1 e where WT is the wait time, HIw, HIg are the hydrogen index of water and gas respectively, T1w, T1 g are the longitudinal relaxation time of water and gas respectively. In gas-bearing formations logged with insufficient wait time, the long T1 and the low hydrogen index of the gas cause TCMR to read too low. The modeling above suggests that the RHG model can be used instead of the Gassman model to determine porosity. However, when tc exceeds about 120 s/ft, the RHG model gives unrealistic porosity as shown in Fig. 7. In this case, a more realistic modification of the RHG is the Cyberlook* equation: tc t ma tc or the first order approximation of the RHG equation: = 0.625 1 (1 1.9 ) . = + tc tma t f (13)
WT T1w

) + (1 Sxo ) HI g (1 e

WT T1g

) (12)

Eqs 1 to 11 allow the compressional slowness of a water-gas mixture in a porous system to be modeled.
Predictions from All Sonic Models

Fig.1 shows the model predictions for three porosity cases: 15 p.u., 22 p.u. and 30 p.u.The parameters used in the modeling are listed in table 2. Three observations can be made. First, the Wyllie result varies considerably with the water saturation and differs drastically from the RHG or Gassman results. Second, the RHG and Gassman results are quite insensitive to the water saturation when the water saturation is less than 95%. Third, in average-to-high porosity, the RHG result is almost identical to the Gassman result. Fig. 2 shows that the fluid mixture slowness as predicted by Eq. 4 is responsible for the behavior of the Wyllie response curves in Fig. 1. Fig. 3 shows the RHG porosity variations with tc for two tf values that correspond to a 100% water case and a mixed water-gas case. There is little error in the porosity estimation even if tf of water is used instead of tf of a water-gas mixture. Fig. 4 shows the Wyllie porosity variations with tc for the same two tf cases above. It is apparent that an error in tf leads to a large error in the porosity estimation. It is instructive to study the sensitivity of the sonic porosity determination to tf and tma. Fig. 5 shows the RHG and Wyllie porosity variations with tf assuming tc = 90 s/ft. It confirms that the RHG results are little affected by tf whereas the Wyllie results are strongly dependent on tf. Fig. 6 shows the RGH and Wyllie porosity variations with tma assuming tc = 90 s/ft. The plot suggests that both models are sensitive to tma. The above observations lead to a strategy to combine the sonic RHG porosity (which is insensitive to gas but sensitive to matrix) and the NMR total porosity (which is sensitive to gas but insensitive to matrix) for the determination of total porosity in gas-bearing formations. The relative insensitivity of the RHG porosity to gas also alleviates the problem of different depths of investigation (10 in. for the sonic and 1.1 in. for the CMR) which could cause the two tools to see different gas volumes.

(14)

Both Eq. 13 and Eq. 14 are plotted in Fig. 7 together with the original RHG equation. The coefficients 0.625 and 1.9 might be changed to suit the local conditions.

Sonic Magnetic Resonance Method Using Wyllie The modeling results also suggest that the Wyllie model dependence on the gas-water mixture can be minimized by introducing an equivalent gas slowness (tg) given by the equation: tg = 300 +185 and recasting Eq. 2b with a linear fluid mixture law :
. tc = (1 )t ma + S xo t w + (1 Sxo ) tg

(15)

(16)

Eq. 15 is specific to the modeling and the case studies discussed in this paper. The superscript indicates that both tw of water (generally mud filtrate) and tg of gas need to be corrected for compaction as per Eq. 2b. The compaction factor
*

Mark of Schlumberger

C. CAO MINH, G. GUBELIN, R. RAMAMOORTHY, S. MCGEOCH

SPE 56767

can be determined in a known porosity zone, or in a waterbearing zone where TCMR is equal to total porosity. If none of the above conditions applies, the compaction factor might be estimated from a nearby shale as tshale/100. Eq. 16 is attractive because it has the same functional form as the density equation. Hence the DMR equations for determining a gas-corrected porosity and flushed-zone water saturation can be readily used in the sonic-magnetic resonance method by merely substituting the density parameters by their corresponding sonic parameters.1 = tw tg t ma tw
WT T1 g

the bottom at around 690 ft by a long shale section interspersed with some tight streaks and shaly sands sections. Note that gas identification from the T2 distribution displayed in track 4 is impossible. Gas identification is much more obvious from the large density-neutron separation (and large tc -TCMR separation) displayed in track 3. The sonic compressional slowness (tc) is scaled to read 0 p.u. when tc = 55 s/ft (matrix) and the correct porosity in the water zone, yielding a full scale of 30 p.u. when tc = 85 s/ft. It follows from Eq. 1 that the compaction factor is Cp = (8555)/(184-55)/0.3 = 0.77, where the fluid slowness estimated from the mud salinity, temperature and pressure is 184 s/ft. (As a comparison, the compaction factor determined from the nearby shale is ~ 0.78.) The expected porosity is around 20 p.u., hence the estimated gas slowness as per Eq. 15 is tg = 300*0.2+185 = 245 s/ft. Since Cp = 0.77, the gas slowness corrected for compaction as per Eq. 2b is tg = 0.77*(245-55)+55 = 201 s/ft. Similarly, the water slowness corrected for compaction is tw = 0.77*(184-55)+55 = 154 s/ft. The SMR (Wyllie) equations 17 can then be solved to give the gas-corrected total porosity and the flushed zone gas saturation. If the RHG equation is used, there is no need to determine Cp and tg. The mathematics to solve simultaneously the TCMR and RHG equations is more complicated and has been implemented in the ELAN* Elemental Log Analysis program as the SMR (RHG) method. Fig. 10 shows the results of the SMR (RHG) method. Tracks 1 to 4 show the measured logs (dash) and the reconstructed logs (solid). Track 5 shows the volumetric results. As expected, SPHI (RHG) is little affected by the gas and reads only a few p.u. higher than SMRP. Fig. 11 shows the comparison of SMRP (RHG), SMRP (Wyllie) and DMRP with core porosity. For clarity, the sonic porosity and density porosity are limited to TCMR in the shales. All three methods give excellent results. Furthermore, a simple rule of thumb can be derived at this point: DMRP is 60% DPHI + 40% TCMR, SMRP (Wyllie) is 50% SPHI + 50% TCMR, and SMRP (RHG) is 80% SPHI + 20% TCMR. The above rules of thumb assume full polarization of the liquids in the pore space. Fig. 12 shows the comparison of Timur-Coates permeabilities using SMRP and TCMR respectively with core permeability. The results show that underestimating the correct porosity can lead to an order of magnitude error in the computed permeability in gas-bearing formations. Fig. 13 shows the comparison of the volume of water in the flushed zone computed from the SMR (RHG) method, SMR (Wyllie) method and DMR method respectively with the volume of water computed from the Rxo tool. All are in good agreement.

Pg = 1 e

SPHI (1SMRP =

HIg Pg ) HI w

+TCMR

HIw . (17)

HI P + (1- g g ) HIw TCMR HIw +TCMR HIw

SPHI Sxg = SPHI (1HIg Pg HIw

In the above equations, SPHI is the sonic porosity assuming 100% water and corrected for compaction, SMRP is the total porosity corrected for the gas effect, and Sxg is the flushedzone gas saturation. Fig. 8 shows the modeling results of Eq. 16. Compared to Fig. 1, the variation of the recasted Wyllie equation with respect to water saturation is greatly reduced. Note that Eq. 15 provides an estimate of tg for the expected porosity range and is not to be used to solve for porosity. For example, if the expected porosity is around 40 p.u., then tg = 300*0.4+185 = 305 s/ft for Cp = 1. If the expected porosity is around 20 p.u. then tg = 300*0.2+185 = 245 s/ft for Cp = 1. It follows that as porosity decreases, the estimated tg conforms to frequent field observations that the gas effect on the compressional slowness becomes negligible.14 The estimation needs not be very accurate since for a given error in the sonic porosity equation, the final error in the gas-corrected porosity (SMRP) is reduced by roughly half after combining with TCMR.

Examples
Australia well compacted sands

Fig. 9 shows the openhole logs. The top reservoir from 360 ft to 320 ft is gas-bearing, separated from the water zone near

SPE 56767 SONIC-MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHOD: A SOURCELESS POROSITY EVALUATION IN GAS-BEARING RESERVOIRS

Fig. 14 shows the ELAN results with different set of logging measurements. Track 1 shows the ELAN with TCMR, R xo and GR. Theoretically, the gas-corrected porosity can be determined from the TCMR (Eq. 12) if Sxo, in turn, can be estimated from the Rxo log. In practice, this result is quite sensitive to an error in Sxo or the input NMR gas parameters as seen in track 1. Combining TCMR and tc has the benefit of compensating the individual errors in the final result, thereby providing a robust estimation of the gas-corrected porosity (track 2). Track 3 shows the ELAN result with TCMR, tc, R xo and GR. It is essentially the same as the ELAN result with only TCMR, tc and GR. The parameters used in the processing are listed in table 3.
North Sea well uncompacted sands

procedure requires the least sonic input parameters but does not have a simple analytical solution. A quick approximation of total porosity is 80% SPHI + 20% TCMR. Alternatively, the sonic Wyllie equation with the compaction factor and the fluid parameters chosen as explained in the paper can also be used in conjunction with the TCMR equation. The linear equations give simple analytical solutions analogous to the DMR technique. A quick approximation of total porosity is 50% SPHI + 50% TCMR. Both methodologies have been tried successfully on two wells with very different porosity and compaction history.

Fig. 15 shows the openhole logs. The gas-bearing section is unmistakably shown by the large separation between densityneutron or TCMR-tc separation. The sonic compressional slowness (tc) is scaled to read 0 p.u. when tc = 55 s/ft (matrix) and the correct porosity in the water zone, yielding a full scale of 60 p.u. when tc = 205 s/ft. It follows from Eq. 1 that the compaction factor is Cp = (205-55)/(190-55)/0.3 = 1.85. (As a comparison, the compaction factor determined from the nearby shale is ~ 1.7.) The expected porosity is around 40 p.u., hence the estimated gas slowness as per Eq. 15 is tg = 300*0.4+185 = 305 s/ft. Since Cp = 1.85, the gas slowness corrected for compaction as per Eq. 2b is tg = 1.85*(305-55)+55 = 517 s/ft. Similarly, the water slowness corrected for compaction is tw = 1.85*(190-55)+55 = 305 s/ft. These values are quite different from the values used in the first well. The SMR (Wyllie) equations 17 can then be solved to give the gas-corrected total porosity and the flushed zone gas saturation. Fig. 16 shows the ELAN results of the SMR (RHG) technique in track 1 and SMR (Wyllie) technique in track 2. Both agree well with the total porosity estimated from the density-neutron logs. The quick rule of thumb whereby SMRP (Wyllie) is 50% SPHI + 50% TCMR, and SMRP (RHG) is 80% SPHI + 20% TCMR can also be verified. Again, full polarization of the liquids is required for these thumb rules. The parameters used in the processing are listed in table 4.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the operators for releasing the data used in this paper. We would like to thank Dylan Davies of Schlumberger for reviewing the manuscript, Nick Heaton of Schlumberger and Joel Turnbull of Fina (U.K.) for helping with the field data.

References
1 Freedman, R., Cao Minh, C., Gubelin, G., Freeman, J., Terry, R., McGinnes, Th., Combining NMR and Density Logs for Petrophysical Analysis in Gas-Bearing Formations, Paper II, SPWLA Symposium Transaction, 1998. 2 Brie, A., Pampuri, F., Marsala, A.F., Meazza, O., Shear Sonic Interpretation in Gas-Bearing Sands, paper SPE30595, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, 1995. 3 Ramamoorthy, R., Murphy, W.F., Fluid Identification Through Dynamic Modulus Decomposition in Carbonate Reservoirs, paper Q, SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, 1998. 4 Murphy, W.F., Acoustic Measures of Partial Gas Saturation in Tight Sandstones, Journal of Geophysical Research, n. 89, pp. 11549-11559, 1984. 5 Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., Gardner, L.W., Elastic Wave Velocities in Heterogeneous and Porous Media, Geophysics, n. 21, pp. 41-70, 1984. 6 Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E., Gardner, J., An Improved Sonic Transit Time-to-Porosity Transform, Technical Review, vol. 28 - n. 28., also in SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Lafayette, La., 1980. 7 Gassman, F., ber die Elastizitat Porozer Medien, Vierteljahr der Naturforschenden Gessellschaft in Zrich, n. 96, pp. 1-23, 1951. 8 Dutta, N.C., Od, H., Attenuation and Dispersion of Compressional Waves in Fluid-Filled Rocks with Partial GasSaturation (White Model) Part I:Biot Theory Part II: Results, Geophysics, n. 44, pp, 1777-1805, 1979. 9 Ramamoorthy, R., Murphy, W.F., Coll, C., Total Porosity Estimation in Shaly Sands from Shear Modulus, SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, paper H, 1995. 10 Akkurt, R., Vinegar, H.J., Tutunjian, P.N., Guillory, A.J., NMR Logging of Natural Gas Reservoirs, SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium Transactions, paper N, 1995.

Conclusions Combining sourceless sonic and NMR measurements improves the petrophysical evaluation of gas-bearing formations in cases where no density log is available. Two approaches have been demonstrated, using the Raymer-HuntGardner formula and a modified Wyllie scheme. It has been shown that the RHG equation gives a similar response to the Gassman equation. Therefore, the recommended procedure to combine sonic and NMR logs is to solve for the RHG equation and the TCMR equation. This

C. CAO MINH, G. GUBELIN, R. RAMAMOORTHY, S. MCGEOCH

SPE 56767

11 Flaum, C., Kleinberg, R.L., Hrlimann, M.D., Identification of Gas with the Combinable Magnetic Resonance (CMR), SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium Transactions, paper L, 1996. 12 Berryman, J.G., Mixture Theories for Rock Properties, in A Handbook of Physical Constants, Ahrens, T.J., ed., American Geophysical Union, Washington, 236 pp., 1995. 13 Wood, A.W., A Textbook of Sound, The MacMillan Co., New York, 360 pp., 1955. 14 Suau, J., Boyeldieu, C., A Case of Very Large Gas Effect on the Sonic, Technical Review, vol. 26 - n. 3, 1980.

Table 1 Bulk and shear modulus of some minerals and fluids. K (Gpa) G (Gpa) Quartz 38 42 Calcite 77 32 Dolomite 95 45 Water 2.2-3.2 Oil 1.7-2.7 Gas 0.01-0.1 Table 2 Parameters used in the modeling of sonic responses (g/cc) tc (s/ft) K (Gpa) G (Gpa) Rock 2.65 55.5 38 42 Water 1 190 2.6 Gas 0.15 1180 0.01 -

Table 3 Parameters used in the Australian well (g/cc) tcRHG tcWyllie (s/ft) (s/ft) Rock 2.65 55 55 Water 1.04 184 154 (Cp= 0.77) Gas 0.15 201 (Cp= 0.77) NMR pulse parameters Wait time: 4 (s) 5000 echoes

HI 0.97 0.5

T1 (s) 4

Nomenclature TCMR Total NMR porosity (v/v) DMRP Gas-corrected total porosity using DMR method (v/v) SMRP Gas-corrected total porosity using SMR method (v/v) DPHI Density porosity assuming 100% water (v/v) SPHI Sonic porosity assuming 100% water (v/v) Porosity (v/v) tc Sonic compressional slowness (s/ft) ts Sonic shear slowness (s/ft) tma Matrix compressional slowness (s/ft) tf Fluid compressional slowness (s/ft) tshale Shale compressional slowness (s/ft) Cp Compaction factor (unitless) Sxo, Flushed-zone water saturation (v/v) Composite fluid density (g/cc) f Water density (g/cc) w Gas density (g/cc) g Kf Composite fluid bulk modulus (Gpa) Kw Water bulk modulus (Gpa) Kg Gas bulk modulus (Gpa) G Rock shear modulus (Gpa) Gma Matrix shear modulus (Gpa) Rock bulk density (g/cc) K Rock bulk modulus (Gpa) Kdf Dry-frame bulk modulus (Gpa) Kma Matrix bulk modulus (Gpa) WT Wait time (s) HIw Water hydrogen index (unitless) HIg Gas hydrogen index (unitless) T1w Water longitudinal relaxation time (s) T1g Gas longitudinal relaxation time (s) T1 Longitudinal relaxation time (s) T2 Transverse relaxation time (s)

TE: 0.2 (ms)

Table 4 Parameters used in the North Sea well (g/cc) tcRHG tcWyllie (s/ft) (s/ft) Rock 2.65 55 55 Water 1.0 190 305 (Cp = 1.85) Gas 517 (Cp = 1.85) NMR pulse parameters Wait time: 4 (s) 3000 echoes

HI 1 0.5

T1 (s) 2.5

TE: 0.2 (ms)

SPE 56767 SONIC-MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHOD: A SOURCELESS POROSITY EVALUATION IN GAS-BEARING RESERVOIRS

A
200

300

B =0.22

=0.15
180 160

Wyllie
250

Wyllie

tc - s/ft

140 120 100 80 60

tc - s/ft

200

150

RHG Gassman
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

100

RHG Gassman

50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sxo
Fig 1A. Sonic responses for a water-gas mixture in a 15 p.u. sandstone.

Sxo
Fig 1B. Sonic responses for a water-gas mixture in a 22 p.u. sandstone.

C
350

1000

=0.30
300 250

900 800 700

Wyllie

tc - s/ft

200 150

Gassman
100 50

RHG
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

tf - s/ft

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Sxo
Fig 1C. Sonic responses for a water-gas mixture in a 30 p.u. sandstone.

Sxo
Fig. 2 Slowness of the composite water-gas mixture. It affects strongly the Wyllie equation, but has little effect on the RHG or Gassman equation.

C. CAO MINH, G. GUBELIN, R. RAMAMOORTHY, S. MCGEOCH

SPE 56767

RHG
0.5

Wyllie
0.5

0.4

tf=190 s/ft tf=380 s/ft

0.4

tf=190 s/ft tf=380 s/ft

Porosity

0.3

Porosity
60 80 100 120 140

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0 40

60

80

100

120

140

tc - s/ft
Fig. 3 The RHG sonic porosity is little affected by the fluid slowness.

tc - s/ft
Fig. 4 The Wyllie sonic porosity is strongly affected by the fluid slowness.

tc=90, tma=55.5
0.40 0.25 0.20

tc=90, tf=190 RHG

RHG

0.35 0.30

Porosity

Porosity

Wyllie
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10

0.15 0.10

Wyllie
0.05 0

400

600

800

tf - s/ft
Fig. 5 Porosity responses of the RHG and the Wyllie equations as a function of the fluid slowness for tc = 90 s/ft.

50

tma - s/ft

60

70

Fig. 6 Porosity responses of the RHG and the Wyllie equations as a function of the matrix slowness.

SPE 56767 SONIC-MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHOD: A SOURCELESS POROSITY EVALUATION IN GAS-BEARING RESERVOIRS

0.5

A RHG
150

=0.15 simplified RHG 1 simplified RHG 2 tc - s/ft

100

0.4

0.3

0.2

Wyllie RHG Gassman

0.1

0 50

100

150

200

250

50

tc - s/ft
Fig. 7 The RHG porosity is abnormally high when compressional slowness exceeds about 120 s/ft. In this case, both the simplified RHG Eq. 13 and RHG Eq. 14 give more realistic porosity estimation.

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sxo
Fig. 8A Response of the Wyllie equation with the proposed fluid mixture law and gas slowness in a 15 p.u. sandstone.

150

B =0.22
150

C =0.30 Wyllie

Gassman RHG

tc - s/ft

100

Wyllie RHG Gassman

50

tc - s/ft
0.6 0.8 1

100

0.2

0.4

50

Sxo
Fig. 8B Response of the Wyllie equation with the proposed fluid mixture law and gas slowness in a 22 p.u. sandstone

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sxo
Fig. 8C Response of the Wyllie equation with the proposed fluid mixture law and gas slowness in a 30 p.u. sandstone.

10

C. CAO MINH, G. GUBELIN, R. RAMAMOORTHY, S. MCGEOCH

SPE 56767

Depth (ft)

GR

Rt Rxo 0.3

DPHI TCMR NPHI tc 0 55 0.3

T2

ms 3000

0 300

200

0.1

1000 85

400

Fig. 9 Australian well openhole logs. The gas zone is shaded and separated from the water zone by a long shale section interspersed with tight streaks and shaly sands.

500

600

700

10 Depth (ft) TCMR raw-reco 0.25 300 0

20 Rxo raw-reco 0.2 20 0 GR raw-reco 200 1 Sand Shale Flushed Gas TCMR SPHI (RHG) SMRP (RHG) SMR Vxo 0

Vp raw-reco

400

Fig. 10 Australian well ELAN results from combining TCMR, Vp (1/tc) using RHG equation, GR and Rxo logs.

500

600

700

SPE 56767 SONIC-MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHOD: A SOURCELESS POROSITY EVALUATION IN GAS-BEARING RESERVOIRS

11

.
Depth (ft) 0.25 300 SPHI (RHG) SMRP (RHG) TCMR Core Porosity SPHI (Wyllie) SMRP (Wyllie) TCMR Core Porosity DPHI DMRP TCMR Core Porosity
Depth (ft) SMRP K TCMR K Core K 0.1 300 (md) 10000

0 0.25

0 0.25

400

400

500

500

600

600

700

700

Fig. 11 Comparison of SMRP(RHG), SMRP(Wyllie), DMRP and core porosity. The sonic porosity SPHI was limited to TCMR in the shales.

Fig. 12 Comparison of permeability derived from SMRP, fromTCMR and core permeability.

12

C. CAO MINH, G. GUBELIN, R. RAMAMOORTHY, S. MCGEOCH

SPE 56767

Depth (ft) 0.25 300

SMR (RHG) Vxo Archie (Rxo)Vxo 0 0.25

SMR (Wyllie) Vxo Archie (Rxo)Vxo 0 0.25

DMR Vxo Archie (Rxo)Vxo 0

400

Fig. 13 Australian well Comparison of the flushed-zone water volumes from the SMR (RHG) technique, the SMR (Wyllie) technique, the DMR technique and the water volume determined from the Rxo log.

500

600

700

ELAN with TCMR-Rxo-GR

Depth (ft)

ELAN with t-TCMR-GR Sand Shale Gas 0 1

ELAN with t-TCMR-Rxo-GR Sand Shale Gas TCMR SPHI (RHG) SMRP (RHG) SMR Vxo 0

Sand Shale Gas 1

TCMR PHI ELAN ELAN Vxo

TCMR SPHI (RHG) SMRP (RHG) SMR Vxo 0 1

300

400

500

Fig. 14 Australian well Comparison of the ELAN results using different subset of logs. The ELAN results with TCMR-Rxo-GR shows unstable results. The ELAN results with t-TCMR-GR are practically the same as the ELAN results with t-TCMR-Rxo-GR.

600

700

SPE 56767 SONIC-MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHOD: A SOURCELESS POROSITY EVALUATION IN GAS-BEARING RESERVOIRS

13

Depth (ft)

GR 0 6 Cali 16 120

Rt Rxo 10 0.6 205

DPHI TCMR NPHI tc 0 55 0.3

T2 ms 3000

750

Fig. 15 North Sea well openhole logs. The gas zone is identified by the large separation between the density-neutron logs. It is separated from the water zone below by a heavy oil zone.
800

850

Depth (ft)

Gas Oil 1 Water

SPHI (RHG) Phi D-N (dash) SMRP (RHG) TCMR (dot) Vxo SMR (RHG)

Gas Oil 0 1 Water

SPHI (Wyllie) Phi D-N (dash) SMRP (Wyllie) TCMR (dot) Vxo SMR (Wyllie)

750

Fig. 16 North Sea well ELAN results with SMR (RHG) and SMR (Wyllie). Both SMRP porosities agree with porosity estimated from density-neutron logs (Phi D-N).

800

850