4.5 Article

Comparative Study of Models for Predicting Permeability from Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Logs in Two Chinese Tight Sandstone Reservoirs

Journal

ACTA GEOPHYSICA
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 116-141

Publisher

VERSITA
DOI: 10.2478/s11600-013-0165-6

Keywords

Chinese tight sandstone reservoir; nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) logs; mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) data; comparative study; permeability prediction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41302106]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project [2012M520347, 2013T60147]
  3. National Science and Technology Major Project [2011ZX05044]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2652013036]
  5. Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Geo-detection (China University of Geosciences, Beijing), Ministry of Education [GDL1204]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on the analysis of mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experimental data for core plugs, which were drilled from two Chinese tight sandstone reservoirs, permeability prediction models, such as the classical SDR, Timur-Coates, the Swanson parameter, the Capillary Parachor, the R10 and R35 models, are calibrated to estimating permeabilities from field NMR logs, and the applicabilities of these permeability prediction models are compared. The processing results of several field examples show that the SDR model is unavailable in tight sandstone reservoirs. The Timur-Coates model is effective once the optimal T (2cutoff) can be acquired to accurately calculate FFI and BVI from field NMR logs. The Swanson parameter model and the Capillary Parachor model are not always available in tight sandstone reservoirs. The R35 based model cannot effectively work in tight sandstone reservoirs, while the R10 based model is optimal in permeability prediction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available