REE150886 DOI: 10.

2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 1

Total Pages: 11

Fluid Identification in Light Hydrocarbons

With Use of NMR and Downhole Fluid
AnalyzersA Case Study
Marie Van Steene, SPE, and Mario Ardila, SPE, Schlumberger; Richard Nelson, SPE, and
Amr Fekry, SPE, BP Egypt; and Adel Farghaly, SPE, RWE Dea

Summary
In hydrocarbon reservoirs, fluid types can often vary from dry gas
to volatile oil in the same column. Because of varying and
unknown invasion patterns and inexact clay-volume estimations,
fluid-types differentiation on the basis of conventional logs is not
always conclusive. A case study is presented by use of advanced
nuclear-magnetic-resonance (NMR) techniques in conjunction
with advanced downhole-fluid-analysis (DFA) measurements and
focused sampling from wireline formation testers (WFTs) to accurately assess the hydrocarbon-type variations.
The saturation-profiling data from an NMR diffusion-based
tool provides fluid-typing information in a continuous depth log.
This approach can be limited by invasion. On the other hand, formation testers allow taking in-situ measurements of the virgin fluids beyond the invaded zone, but at discrete depths only. Thus,
the two measurements ideally complement each other.
In this case study, NMR saturation profiling was acquired over
a series of channelized reservoirs. There is a transition from a
water zone to an oil zone, and then to a rich-gas reservoir, indicated by both the DFA and the NMR measurements. Above the
rich gas, is a dry-gas interval that is conclusively in a separate
compartment. Diffusion-based NMR identifies the fluid type in a
series of thin reservoirs above this main section, in which no samples were taken. NMR and DFA both detect compositional gradients, invisible to conventional logs.
The work presented in this paper demonstrates how the integration of measurements from various tools can lead to a better
understanding of fluid types and distribution.
Introduction
Hydrocarbon systems are usually defined in terms of their molar
composition and their pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) behavior [e.g., phase envelope, bubble- or dewpoint, solution gas/oil ratio (GOR), density, viscosity, and formation volume factor]. All
essential fluid properties are defined after PVT properties are
known. Properties such as gravity and GOR are derived from the
composition and the PVT analysis. On the basis of the reservoir
temperature in respect to the critical-point temperature, we can
differentiate single-phase gas reservoirs, gas/condensate reservoirs, and dissolved-gas reservoirs (volatile oil and black oil). The
definition of a reservoir fluid as wet or dry gas depends on the
conditions at surface (Whitson and Brule 2000).
Fluid differentiation on the basis of solely conventional logs
(bulk density, neutron porosity, sonic, and resistivity) can be difficult. Bulk density is sensitive to the hydrocarbon density, whereas
neutron porosity is sensitive to the hydrocarbon hydrogen index.
Hence, the comparison of the density and neutron porosities provides a qualitative differentiation of gas from oil. However, there
is no unique relationship between hydrocarbon density and hydrogen index for properties such as hydrocarbon gravity and GOR.
The sonic quicklook on the basis of Vp/Vs comparison to the emC 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Copyright V

This paper (SPE 150886) was accepted for presentation at the North Africa Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Cairo, 2022 February 2012, and revised for publication. Original
manuscript received for review 7 November 2012. Revised manuscript received for review 27
February 2013. Paper peer approved 20 May 2013.

pirical Vp/Vs wet-sand trend (Brie et al. 1995) can provide a qualitative differentiation of liquid from gas (the presence of
hydrocarbon in the reservoir is indicated when Vp/Vs falls below
the wet-sand trend; the larger the separation between Vp/Vs and
the wet-sand trend, the lower the water saturation and the lighter
the hydrocarbon). It is, however, also a qualitative method, and
some of the limitations include the effect of clay and the presence
of residual gas (which will also show separation on the Vp/Vs
quicklook method). Resistivity is indirectly sensitive to the fluid
type through the sensitivity to irreducible water saturation, but
knowledge of the rock capillary properties may be necessary to
make these inferences regarding the fluid type. In short, the analysis of reservoir fluids is best achieved by methods that are sensitive to those fluids while being relatively insensitive to rock
properties.
This explains why other measurements are required to gain
more insight into the fluid-type variations across a reservoir. A
typical method for obtaining reservoir fluid PVT information is to
acquire downhole formation-fluid samples by use of a WFT. Capturing a representative sample (i.e., the correct proportion of gas
to oil) can be challenging when the pressure falls below the bubblepoint or the dewpoint (saturation pressure). Other challenges
include reducing filtrate contamination to the lowest possible
level or acquiring enough samples to cover the fluid compositional variations within the reservoir. This latter challenge can be
lightened by acquiring saturation-profiling data from an NMR diffusion-based tool. This approach provides fluid-typing information as a continuous depth log. It can, however, be limited by
invasion because the NMR depth of investigation typically does
not exceed 4 in.
This case study illustrates how formation-tester data and samples, as well as NMR diffusion-based data, can complement each
other to describe reservoir-fluid-property variations. Technique
limitations will also be discussed.
Geological Setting
The well analyzed in this case study was the first in the structure
targeting potential gas and gas condensate reservoirs thought to
be present in the area. The structure is formed by a two-way fold
bounded by major steep extensional faults, which have throws in
excess of 200 m. The well was targeting a variety of depositional
environments including levee/sheets, channel sands, and incised
valley cuts. The primary targets were stacked levee/sheets across
the crest of the structure. There was also minor faulting, with the
faults thought to be sealing. This faulting and stratigraphic complexity increases the likelihood of numerous isolated compartments. The evaluation of these compartments and their
hydrocarbon properties is important for both petroleum-systems
understanding and evaluation of development options.
Fluid Typing From Nuclear and Sonic Logs
Preliminary understanding of fluid-type distribution is based on
bulk density, neutron porosity, and sonic data. Fig. 1 shows the
three sections of the well that are discussed in this paper.
In the reservoir section below X200 m in the left log on Fig. 1,
the presence of gas at the top of the column and oil at the base of

2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:21 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 2

Total Pages: 11

Fig. 1Conventional logs for three sections of the well. For each section, the tracks are as follows. Track 1: gamma ray, caliper;
Track 2: resistivity; Track 3: bulk density, neutron porosity, photoelectric factor, and density correction; Track 4: sonic Vp/Vs compared with Vp/Vs wet-sand trend; Track 5: lithology from spectroscopy.

the hydrocarbon column, below X237 m, can be inferred from the

conventional logs. Water is found below X256 m.
In the middle log section in Fig. 1, the reservoir below X961
m seems to contain liquid hydrocarbon on the basis of bulk density and neutron-porosity data. The density-neutron crossover
could be reduced by the presence of clay. However, the sonic
Vp/Vs quicklook seems to indicate light hydrocarbon.
In the reservoir sections displayed on the right in Fig. 1,
increased density-neutron separation and Vp/Vs quicklook separation between measured Vp/Vs and Vp/Vs wet-sand trend correlation seem to indicate dryer gas than what is found in the deeper
sections of the well.
As mentioned in the Introduction section, this approach is
qualitative at best. It depends not only on the fluid properties but
also on the effects of lithology (principally the clay content) and
porosity.
Formation-Tester Sampling and Fluid Analysis
DFA with a fluid analyzer module of a WFT tool provides fluidproperty information in real time and at downhole conditions. The
DFA techniques use the absorption spectroscopy properties of
hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide (CO2) to derive reservoir-fluid
composition on the basis of the mass percentage of methane (C1),
ethane through pentane (C2C5), hexane and heavier hydrocarbons (C6), and CO2 (Mullins et al. 2004). The GOR of reservoir
fluid is also estimated with the DFA techniques in real time without flashing the fluid sample.
Fluid-type analysis based on WFT pressure data can present
significant uncertainties, because small fluid-type variations or
fluid anomalies are undetectable in many cases. These uncertainties could be caused by, for example, depth and pressure-sensor
inaccuracy or low resolution, cable creep, and presence of laminations in the reservoir. The benefits of the use of DFA techniques
have been well-documented in the literature. With enlightened reservoir-fluid information, the sampling process is highly optimized
in terms of where and when to sample and how many samples to
take. In addition, the DFA techniques are used to monitor fluidphase separation and mud-filtrate contamination, to detect fluid
anomalies early (e.g., fluid grading, GOR inversion, and fluid-con2

tact validation), and to ensure that representative high-quality reservoir-fluid samples are acquired in single phase and with low
filtrate contamination, and to determine that these samples are
valid for accurate reservoir characterization (Dong et al. 2002).
Furthermore, fluid properties from the downhole measurement
can be a confirmation of the results of subsequent sample analysis
in a surface laboratory, because laboratory analysis results may
not be representative of formation fluids for reasons such as
improper sample handling, sample-bottle leakage during transportation, and delayed evolution or scavenging of hydrogen sulfide
and CO2. In these cases, fluid properties from DFA are particularly useful to identify questionable results, help reconcile any
discrepancy, and prevent nonrepresentative results from being
used in reservoir evaluation and management.
Fig. 2 shows the typical tool configuration used to acquire the
pressure and DFA data. The two DFA tools in the string are a live
fluid analyzer and a composition fluid analyzer. The live fluid analyzer determines GOR for black oils (0 to 2,000 scf/bbl) and
determines the percentage of oil-based-mud (OBM) filtrate contamination by use of the OBM contamination monitoring algorithm (Dong et al. 2002). The live fluid analyzer also performs
gas detection by an index-of-refraction method. The composition
fluid analyzer determines the C1, C2C5, and C6 hydrocarbon
fractions and CO2 and partial mass densities for hydrocarbons in
the range of 1,500 to 20,000 scf/bbl. GOR is also given, but this
quantity becomes less well-defined for higher-GOR fluids. The
composition fluid analyzer also detects retrograde dew formation
by fluorescence methods (Mullins et al. 2004).
The density (DV) sensor is based on the measurement of the
resonance characteristics of a vibrating rod inside a fluid. The resonator (rod) is resistant to corrosive fluids, is small and compact
in design, has no dead volume, and is easily integrated in the tool
flowline because no electrical elements are in contact with the
fluid (Ardila et al. 2008). The DV sensor can be inserted into either the probe or DFA module of the WFT.
A central feature of DFA is to make fluid comparisons from
one DFA station to the next. It is the variation of composition
with spatial location that DFA must delineate. DFA at different
stations within a well has the same tool, same calibration, same
operator, same temperature, and same time but different fluids.
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:21 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Run 1 - Pressures

Run 2,3 - Sampling

EDTA-B

EDTA-B

EDTA-A
MRPC

EDTA-A
MRPC

MRHY2
MRMS2
MRPQ2
CFA
MRHY1
MRPO
MRPQ1
LFA
MRPO
MRBA

Length - 18 m

MRMS1

MRHY1
MRPQ1
MRHY2
MRPQ2

MRP02
CFA2

Length - 35 m
Fig. 2Typical WFT tool configuration used to acquire pressure and DFA data.

Consequently, DFA is very sensitive to fluid variationseven

more so than the laboratory. And it is the real-time delineation of
fluid variations that is essential for optimally understanding the
fluid column. Furthermore, DFA acts to fingerprint the hydrocarbon fluid, enabling the validation of laboratory samples by laboratory confirmation of this fingerprint. This chain of custody
validation has been demonstrated successfully in field trials
(Betancourt et al. 2006).
To validate the fluid measurement and to collect samples with
the lowest contamination, the tool was configured with the
focused-sampling technique (Weinheber and Vasques 2006). Subsequently, the laboratory PVT analysis of the samples showed
mud-filtrate contamination levels to be less than 5% by weight
(with respect to the total reservoir fluid) for all the samples. This
demonstrates the efficiency of the focused-sampling technique for
achieving low contamination levels. In addition, the samplingtool string was configured with reverse low-shock sampling.
NMR Saturation-Profiling Principles
NMR data were acquired by the latest generation of NMR tools.
The NMR tool was run in saturation-profiling mode at two independent depths of investigation (DOIs) (in this paper, the data
from these two DOIs are called Shell 1 and Shell 4, with respective DOIs of 1.5 and 2.7 in.) and a 9-ft vertical resolution.
The saturation-profiling mode allows a model-independent
measurement of formation-fluid volumes. No external information input is required except for gas (methane) hydrogen index,
pressure, and temperature. This is possible because the saturationprofiling mode of this NMR tool not only measures longitudinalrelaxation-time (T1) and transverse-relaxation-time (T2) information, but also diffusion. Diffusion allows water, oil/OBM filtrate,
and gas signals to be differentiated, which is not always possible
with T1 or T2 information alone. The ability to compare measure-

Stage:

Page: 3

Total Pages: 11

ments at different DOIs (radial profiling) enables the quantification of fluid-property changes occurring in the first few inches of
formation away from the wellbore. Borehole rugosity and thick
mudcake can invalidate shallow NMR measurements but only
rarely affect the readings from the deeper DOIs. Radial profiling
also provides valuable insight into fluid invasion and formation
damage. Fluid-property changes resulting from mud-filtrate invasion may also be observed and quantified by use of radial profiling. Whole mud and mud solids can replace existing fluids in the
near-wellbore region. Radial profiling identifies and overcomes
these effects.
From the depth-based saturation-profiling data, 2D maps can be
produced for each shell over stacked intervals. These maps plot diffusion vs. T1 or T2 (D-T maps). The intervals are selected because
they present relatively homogeneous petrophysical properties. The
data in these intervals are stacked to reduce the amount of noise by
a factor proportional to the square root of the number of stacked
levels. Thus, the 2D maps provide a very good way to interpret the
data to determine the fluid types and to extract information from
the radial profiling by comparing shells at different DOIs.
As an aid to interpreting the 2D maps, fluid-diffusion coefficients are typically superimposed on the maps (e.g., see Fig. 3).
The magnetic-resonance fluid model for oil, gas, and water states
that the water- and gas-diffusion constants are independent of T1
or T2, and depend on temperature and pressure (for gas). The gasdiffusion values are typically represented by a red horizontal line,
and the water-diffusion values are typically represented by a blue
horizontal line (i.e., constant diffusion coefficient). The oil line
(green) is derived from the estimated dead-oil response at downhole conditions. The oil line drawn on the D-T maps shows the
theoretical position of oil at different viscosities, with the lower
left as heavy oil, trending to light oil and rich gas/condensate at
the upper right. Deviations from the ideal fluid responses are evident in the maps because the data are away from the overlay lines.
Some causes of the deviations from ideal responses are discussed
by Akkurt et al. (2009).
Formation oil and OBM filtrate both have long relaxation
times, so separating them accurately is not simple. T1 relaxation
times in excess of 2 seconds have, however, been observed in this
well, and these reveal the presence of formation oil. On the depth
log, OBM filtrate and formation oil volumes have been computed
and presented on the basis of setting a (arbitrary) cutoff of T1 2
seconds to separate them (on the log plots, OBM filtrate is shown
with black shading and formation oil is shown with green shading).
No base-oil surface T1 measurement is available. However, baseoil samples at surface measured in other wells with similar mud
types have given OBM base-oil T1 values at approximately 1 second at 80 F. This translates into T1 of approximately 1.5 seconds
at 160 F. Thus, a T1 cutoff of 2 seconds to separate OBM filtrate
and formation oil appears sensible. There is uncertainty in this
method, but it provides the identification of the zones in which the
presence of formation oil is likely. Increasing oil volumes with
DOI also give additional information of the presence of formation
oil. To the contrary, decreasing oil volumes with DOI are more
likely to indicate mud filtrate. Fluid identification in poorer-quality
reservoirs is more difficult; thus, some uncertainty exists.
In the case study that follows, the maps are presented with T1
as the horizontal axis because T1 is better suited for highly diffusive fluids such as gas and light oil (Heaton et al. 2004).
Also see Cao Minh et al. (2003) and Heaton et al. (2004) for
more information about the 2D-map principles and interpretation.
Case Study
This case study analyzes the NMR data in parallel with the formation-tester results to identify the fluid distribution in the well and
to quantify the fluid properties. The review of the data takes place
zone by zone.
Zone 1. Fig. 3 shows NMR saturation-profiling data over the bottom part of the well. The left-hand side of Fig. 3 shows the conventional logs together with the results of the NMR saturation

2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:21 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 4

Total Pages: 11

Mud fines invasion

VXOBMF_SH1

VXOBMF_SH4

Rich
Gas

Zone 3

Oil

Zone 2

OBMF

Oil

Zone 1

Mud fines invasion

Fig. 3Saturation-profiling depth log for two DOIs (shown as last two tracks on the right, on a scale of 0.4-0 v/v) and stacked 2D
maps (the stacking interval for each set of maps is shown by a red box on the depth log). Zone 1, above the OWC, shows the presence of formation oil despite the mud-solids invasion seen on both shells. In Zone 2, the formation oil is visible on both shells. In
Zone 3, gas is clearly identified, with very little invasion on the deeper shell. The gas appears as rich gas, because it has a lower
diffusion coefficient than that of methane (it plots below the red line).

profiling for the two independent DOIs at 1.5 and 2.7 in. (last two
tracks on the right-hand side). The output of the saturation profiling is the fluid volumesfrom right to left, gray is the bound
fluid, light blue is the free water, green is the formation oil, black
is the OBM filtrate, and red is the gas. The red boxes illustrate
three zones over which the data have been stacked to create the
2D maps shown on the right for the two DOIs.
The initial observation of the maps in Fig. 3 for Zone 1 reveals
the presence of a signal similar to that of water (medium T1 value
between 10 and 100 ms, diffusion coefficient similar to that of
water). This is, in fact, the invasion of solids carried by the mud.
These solids could have their origin in mud weighting agents, drill
cuttings, or in unconsolidated formation, they could be pushed by
the mud from the very near borehole into the formation. This
mud-solids invasion is partly masking the hydrocarbons seen by
the NMR. The peak with diffusion similar to that of water is
accompanied by a very high diffusion peak with a slightly longer
T1. This signature is associated with the OBM signal (it can also
been seen on the shallow shells in washed-out zones). The mudsolids invasion can also be deduced from the bound-water volume,
because it is higher than expected when considering the quality of
the sand (as indicated by the spectroscopy data). The excessive
bound-water volume is clearly visible on Shell 1. The mud-solids
invasion was also observed on the conventional core.
The mud-solids invasion occurred because of the high permeability of the sands (reaching up to several darcies) and the relatively high mud weight (11.3 lbm/gal). Although the caliper
shows some borehole rugosity, it does not appear that the signal
identified as mud solids could, in fact, be attributed to the borehole condition, because this would translate into excessive porosities, which is not the case here.
Among other sources, evidence for the downhole NMR pattern
of OBM was found in another well, in a fractured shale interval in
which losses had been observed. The NMR radial profile in this
shale over three DOIs is shown in Fig. 4. A T1 vs. diffusion pattern similar to that caused by the mud solids invasion is visible.
4

The fact that the deepest shell is unaffected by the phenomenon

confirms that it is related to the borehole fluid.
The mud-solids invasion was incorporated in the water volume
on the depth-log interpretation because water and mud-solids
invasion cannot be differentiated. The resistivity indicates that the
zone is above the oil/water contact.
OBM filtrate is seen on the shallowest shell. On the deeper
shell, the oil signal could be a mix of native formation oil and
OBM filtrate.
Fig. 5 shows the pressure and sampling results from the WFT
over the bottom part of the well, including pressure and drawdown mobility data, Timur-Coates permeability from NMR Shell
4, and DFA data from both live fluid analyzer and composition
fluid analyzer tools. The last four tracks on the right, respectively,
show the DV-rod sensor fluid density corrected by equation of
state (EOS) (see Zuo et al. 2008; Godefroy et al. 2008), EOS-corrected GOR from the composition fluid analyzer, live fluid analyzer fluid fractions, and EOS-corrected composition fluid
analyzer compositional fractions. No samples were acquired in
Zone 1, and only pressure data are available (because of the loss
of seal while attempting to sample). The pressure points acquired
at this zone fit on an oil gradient of 0.66 g/cm3.
Zone 2. In Zone 2 (Fig. 3), formation oil, with its long T1 signal
in excess of 1 second, is visible on the deepest shell. OBM filtrate
invasion is visible on the shallowest shell (or possibly a mix of filtrate and formation oil), and some mud-solids invasion is present
also. However, the invasion is not as deep as in Zone 1. The OBM
invasion is decreasing with DOI, as expected. Over Zones 1 and
2, the average oil viscosity computed on the basis of the NMR
data is approximately 0.65 cp, and the OBM-filtrate viscosity is
approximately 2.3 cp.
A fluid sample was taken in this zone (indicated by a black dot
on Fig. 3) with the formation tester. Fig. 6 shows the density measurement. The fluid density was reported as 0.676 g/cm3 vs. 0.66
g/cm3 from the pressure gradient.
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:21 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

2D Map plot (1.5 in)

Total NMR porosity:
0.51 v/v

Page: 5

2D Map plot (2.7 in)

Total NMR porosity:
0.39 v/v

Total Pages: 11

2D Map plot (4 in)

Total NMR porosity:
0.218 v/v

105
104
103
102
101
100
101
102
103
Longitudinal Relaxation Time (ms)

D-T1
Diffusion Constant (m2/s)

D-T1
Diffusion Constant (m2/s)

D-T1
Diffusion Constant (m2/s)

Stage:

105
104
103
102
101
100
101
102
103
Longitudinal Relaxation Time (ms)

105
104
103
102
101
100
101
102
103
Longitudinal Relaxation Time (ms)

Fig. 4Evidence for downhole signal associated with OBM in a fractured shale zone. OBM has a similar T1 as that of free water
(T1 ~ 10100 ms) but it is also clearly identifiable from the associated high diffusion peak with a slightly longer T1. Only the two
shallowest shells are affected by the OBM signal. Excessive porosity on the shallow shells also points towards borehole effect.

The composition fluid analyzer log station (Fig. 7) confirmed

the presence of oil. At 1,750 seconds, the bypass between the
sampling flowline and the guard flowline was closed for focused
sampling, and a jump in the GOR measurement was observed,
indicating that the OBM-filtrate fraction dropped after closing the
guard line. Especially at longer times, the GOR and fluorescence

signals (see Fig. 7) are seen to change in concert, with both tracking the flowline cleanup (reduction of filtrate contamination).
Zone 3. In this zone (Fig. 3), gas presence is very clear from the
2D maps. The gas is a rich gas, and as such, it has a lower diffusion coefficient than that of methane (it plots below the theoretical

X180
X190

Zone 3a

X200
X210

Zone 3

X220

X230
X240
X250

Zone 2
Zone 1

No samples acquired in this zone

X260
X270
X280

X290
X300

Fig. 5Pressure and sampling results from WFT runs over the bottom part of the well. DFA demonstrated the presence of oil in
samples from Zone 2 and rich gas from Zone 3. No samples were acquired on Zone 1 because of hole conditions. The red boxes
show the zonation as presented in the NMR figures (Figs. 3 and 8). Tracks 3 and 4, respectively, show the pressure and drawdown
mobility data as well as the Timur-Coates permeability from NMR Shell 4. Tracks 5 and 6 show the conventional openhole logs (resistivity and density-neutron, respectively). DFA data from both the live fluid analyzer and composition fluid analyzer tools are
shown in the last four tracks, respectively, as the DV-rod sensor fluid density corrected by EOS, composition fluid analyzer EOScorrected GOR, live fluid analyzer fluid fractions, and EOS-corrected composition fluid analyzer compositional fractions.
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ID: jaganm Time: 14:21 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 6

Total Pages: 11

g/cm3

RODRHO_PQ1(g/cm3), MRPQ 1 DV-Rod Fluid Density

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7

Mud filtrate
density of 1.35
g/cc
Oil density
of 0.676
g/cc

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500
ETIM (s)

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

Fig. 6DV-rod fluid-density data for Zone 2.

gas-diffusion line). Relatively little OBM-filtrate invasion is seen,

but a large volume of mud-solids invasion is visible on Shell 1.
This invasion is very shallow, because Shell 4 appears relatively
unaffected. The bound-fluid volume from Shell 4 seen on the
depth log appears to be in line with the amount of clay seen by
spectroscopy, unlike in the zones below. The bound-fluid volume
from Shell 1 is clearly too high, and this confirms mud-solids
invasion.
The DFA results (Fig. 5) show fluid compositional grading
from X180 to X234 m, as observed on the fluid-density variation
from 0.18 to 0.20 g/cm3 and on the GOR variations (qualitative
values, because the tool has low resolution at high GOR values,
as discussed in a previous paragraph). Assuming one hydraulic
unit and one fluid density, the fluid gradient from pressure data
was computed as 0.21 g/cm3.
The DFA confirms that the fluid is a rich gas. A sample was
taken below Zone 3 at X227 m. The composition as measured by
PVT analysis is very close to the composition of the sample at
X205 m, whereas the composition fluid analyzer fluid density and
GOR data show small variations, which is consistent with compositional equilibrium. Similarly, the diffusion coefficient from the

NMR map at this depth is the same as measured in the interval situated between Zones 2 and 3.
Zone 3a. This zone is immediately above Zone 3 (Fig. 8). Little
or no fines invasion is visible, possibly because of the lower porosity and permeability of this zone. A compositional gradient is
visible on Shell 4. In the lower part of the reservoir, very light oil
is observed, with a long T1 and a relatively low diffusion coefficient, just higher than that of water. As depth decreases, the light
oil becomes rich gas, and a mud-filtrate signal appears. OBM filtrate is clearly seen on Shell 1, in addition to a rich-gas signal.
The DFA results confirm a subtle compositional gradient: The
sample at X191.1 m has slightly less C1 and more C6 than the
sample at X182.5 m. The same trend is reported on the PVT
results. Such a compositional gradient could be consistent with
the reservoir being connected and in equilibrium (Mullins et al.
2005 and 2010).
Zones 4 and 5. In Zone 4 (Fig. 9), the presence of gas dominates
the NMR data. Formation oil is also clear on the deeper shell,

CFA
GOR_CGA(ft3/bbl), CGA GAS Ol Ratio

1350

High Quality

Medium Quality

ft3/bbl

1300

Low Quality

Flow Split
for focused
sampling

1250

Flow rates
adjusted

1200
1150

unitless

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

CHCR_CGA(0), CFA Cumulative Hydrocarbon Composition Ratio, C1

CHCR_CGA(2), CFA Cumulative Hydrocarbon Composition Ratio, C6+

FLD0_CGA(V), CGA Fluorescence Channel 0

CHCR_CGA(1), CFA Cumulative Hydrocarbon Composition Ratio, C2-C5

FLD1_CGA(V), CGA Fluorescence Channel 1

FLRA_CGA, CGA Fluorescence Ratio

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

unitless

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0

1100

3000

ETIM (s)

Fig. 7Compositional fluid analyzer station logs acquired in Zone 2. The upper part of the plot shows the GOR, the middle part
shows the fluid-composition fractions (C1, C2C5, and C61), and the lower part shows the fluorescence measurement. The data
confirm the presence of oil. At 1,750 seconds, the bypass between the sampling flowline and guard flowline was closed for
focused sampling, and a jump in the GOR measurement indicates that the OBM-filtrate fraction dropped after closing the guard
line.
6

2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:21 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 7

Total Pages: 11

X182 m

X184.6 m

X175

Zone 3a
X186 m

X187 m

Fig. 8Saturation-profiling depth log for two DOIs and 2D maps (these maps are for single depth and are not stacked). Both oil
and gas clearly coexist in this interval. A compositional gradient is visible on Shell 4. In the lower part of the reservoir, very light
oil is observed, with a long T1 and a relatively low diffusion coefficient. As depth decreases, the light oil becomes rich gas, and a
mud-filtrate signal appears. OBM filtrate is clearly seen on Shell 1. Such a compositional gradient could be consistent with the reservoir being connected and in equilibrium. The figure description is the same as for Fig. 3.

with a signal with a very long T1 (longer than that of OBM filtrate,
which is expected to have an average value of 1.5 seconds). However, the presence of gas is unquestionable because the NMR
detects a bigger volume of gas than oil (from the deep shell, gas

VXOBMF_SH1

volume is approximately 10 p.u. although the oil volume is

approximately 5.6 p.u.).
The long T1 signal observed in Zone 4 is not seen in Zone 5.
Thus, the oil observed in Zone 5 could be composed of a large

VXOBMF_SH4

Mud fines invasion

Gas
Oil

OBMF

Zone 5
Zone 4

Gas
Oil

Mud fines invasion

Fig. 9Saturation-profiling depth log for two DOIs and stacked 2D maps (the interval stacked for each set of maps is shown by a
red box on the depth log). Both oil and gas clearly coexist in this interval. This coexistence could result from capillary effects.
Zone 5 could possibly have deeper OBM-filtrate invasion, and the oil signal could contain a large fraction of OBM filtrate. Mud-solids invasion is observed in Shell 1 in both zones and in Shell 4 in Zone 4. The figure description is the same as for Fig. 3.
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ID: jaganm Time: 14:22 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 8

Total Pages: 11

X970

Zone 5
X975

X980

Zone 4
X985

Fig. 10Pressure and sampling results from the WFT runs over Zones 4 and 5. DFA provides evidence for the presence of light
oil in both zones. No density data from the DV-rod sensor were acquired in these zones. The figure description is the same as for
Fig. 5.

proportion of mud filtrate, possibly indicating a deeper invasion

than in Zone 4. Less fines invasion is seen in this zone compared
with Zone 4. It is not possible that the gas observed in Zones 4
and 5 is only associated with gas dissolved in the oil phase. In this
scenario, the presence of two separate peaks, one for the oil and
one for the dissolved gas, has been demonstrated in the laboratory
(Hurlimann et al. 2008). However, because the observed gas volume is larger than the oil volume, it is unlikely that all the gas
observed is dissolved in the oil. Thus, we have evidence that both
oil and gas are coexisting in this part of the reservoir. Capillary
effects could explain the coexistence of both phases.
OBM filtrate is seen in both shells, as well as some mud-solids
invasion, in particular in Zone 4. OBM-filtrate invasion appears
larger when oil is present in the reservoir, and one can observe
that OBM-filtrate volume is typically lower in gas zones (because
of buoyancy segregation).
Above Zone 5, a thin bed interval is present up to X918 m.
The NMR identifies a large fraction of gas in this interval. However, formation oil as well as OBM filtrate are also both identified; because of the low volumes of oil/OBM filtrate, the
uncertainty regarding the exact proportions of each is high. The
OBM imager highlights the presence of thin laminations across
the same interval. The triaxial induction tool confirms the presence of hydrocarbon by detecting high anisotropy levels.
Two DFA stations and sampling were taken. DFA results as
well as gradient results can be seen on Fig. 10. Oil was observed
in the flowline, and light oil was interpreted from both zones.
While pumping formation fluid at X980.4 m and X972 m, the
DFA (Figs. 11a and 11b) not only shows mostly oil in the flowline, but also shows spikes in the GOR and a decrease in fluorescence between strokes. This indicates hydrocarbon segregation in
the pumpout module. This also indicates that the reservoir is at
the bubblepoint and that the oil is saturated, because a small drawdown causes the hydrocarbon to segregate into two phases. The
amount of gas increases as the drawdown pressure increases.
8

The main conclusion from the analysis of this zone is that both
DFA and NMR agree on the coexistence of two phases.
Zone 6. Fig. 12 illustrates the NMR results for Zone 6. From the
NMR data, the gas appears drier than in all other zones: it plots on
the theoretical gas line, and there is very little OBM-filtrate invasion. Indeed, small invasion levels are usually observed on the
shallow NMR data in the dry-gas case, which can be linked to
buoyancy segregation. A stronger separation on the Vp/Vs quicklook is seen, also pointing toward dry gas.
As seen on Fig. 13, two DFA stations were acquired in this
zone, at X704 m and X723.5 m. For the station at X704 m (Fig.
13), the analysis revealed that the gas had a high C1 concentration
and a small fraction of C2C5, without C6. Traces of water were
observed that affected mostly the fluid-composition computation.
At this station, no density measurement was available.
The fluid-composition computation at the station at X723.5 m
was affected by window-coating effects, and thus the composition
is unreliable. However, on the basis of Fig. 14, the density sensor
computed a fluid-density value of 0.18 g/cm3, which shows a
lighter gas than what was observed on the gas sections at the bottom of the well. No valid fluid gradient from pressure points was
obtained because of data scattering.
Technology Applicability, Limitations, and
Additional Considerations
This case study demonstrated the value of combining the discrete
measurements of fluid properties by use of DFA with continuous
depth-based NMR measurement.
The DFAs provide very detailed fluid-property information
obtained directly from the reservoir fluid at downhole conditions
but only at selected depths. Capturing a representative fluid sample
can also be challenging when the pressure falls below the bubblepoint or the dewpoint (saturation pressure). The results can be
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:22 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 9

Total Pages: 11

Station @ X980.4 m

Station @ X972 m

Fig. 11DFA station logs at (a) X980.4 m and (b) X972.0 m in Zones 4 and 5. Both stations showed the presence of free gas
between strokes while pumping oil, indicating segregation in the pumpout module and that the reservoir is very close to the
bubble point.

affected by OBM contamination or by the inability to extract fluid

from the formation when permeability is low. This can result in a
data gap and the failure to recognize that a compositional gradient
exists within the reservoir. Focused sampling was applied to address
the issue of contamination and effectively resulted in low contamination levels, demonstrating the efficiency of the technique.
NMR complements DFA because it provides a continuous measurement of fluid properties vs. depth. It sees the fluid in situ, before
any pressure drawdown is applied that could change the fluid properties. It is thus ideal to highlight fluid-property variations. As a
volumetric measurement able to differentiate productive from nonproductive fluids, it is sensitive to fluid properties even in poor reservoir facies (from which it could be difficult to extract a fluid
sample). This paper illustrated this fact with an extreme case of
complex reservoir (i.e., a thinly laminated section) (see interval
above Zones 4 and 5, Fig. 9). In this latter case, uncertainties on
fluid-type determination increase, and we highlighted, in particular,
that differentiating OBM filtrate from light oil became difficult.
One of the main limitations of NMR tools is their relatively
shallow DOI, which subjects them to borehole rugosity and borehole fluid-invasion effects. This is, however, mitigated in this case
study by multiple independent measurements at different DOIs.
The technologies presented in this paper have clear applications
in the exploration phase of a field, in which the uncertainties on
fluid types are highest and in which fluid-property knowledge

VXOBMF_SH1

affects facility design, reservoir management, and production strategies, and is thus important for planning the appraisal and development stages. These technologies also have applications at the
development stage of a field, when production has caused changes
in fluid distribution and properties that require recharacterization.
Conclusions
It is generally accepted that DFA is a reliable source of information for reservoir-fluid typing. However, because of the discrete
nature of the measurement, the combination of the formation tester with diffusion-based NMR data has proved to be valuable in
this case study. The following conclusions could be obtained from
NMR and formation-tester data regarding the hydrocarbon types
present in this well.
Pressures for the oil zones are close to the bubblepointgas
segregation was observed in the pumping module while acquiring the downhole sample. This also correlated with a GOR
increase between pump strokes.
The presence of oil is confirmed by the fluid observed from the
downhole sampling process and by the presence of a long T1
signal on the NMR diffusion-based data.
Hydrocarbon-types variation has been observed across the reservoirs found in the well. Volatile oil and rich gas are found at
the bottom (Zones 1 through 3); toward the middle of the

VXOBMF_SH4

Gas

Zone 6
Mud fines invasion OBMF
X730

Fig. 12Saturation-profiling depth log for two DOIs and stacked 2D maps (the interval stacked for each set of maps is shown by a
red box on the depth log). Zone 6 indicates dry gas. The figure description is the same as for Fig. 3.
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ID: jaganm Time: 14:22 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Stage:

Page: 10

Total Pages: 11

X700

Zone 6

X720
0.18

Fig. 13Pressure and sampling results from the WFT runs over Zone 6. DFA provided evidence for the presence of a dry gas from
both DFA stations in this interval. Density data from the DV-rod sensor were acquired only at the station at X723.5 m. The figure
description is the same as for Fig. 5.

RODRHO_PQ1(g/cm3), MRPQ 1 DV-Rod Fluid Density

1.4
1.35 gr/cc mud filtrate

1.2
g/cm3

1.0
0.8
0.18 gr/cc gas

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

500

1000

1500

2000
2500
ETIM (s)

3000

3500

4000

Fig. 14Composition fluid analyzer data at X723.5 m below Zone 6fluid-density measurement from the DV-rod sensor shows
gas.

10

section (Zones 3a, 4, and 5), the coexistence of oil and gas is
seen by the NMR and the DFA. Dry gas is found at the top of
the section (Zone 6).
Compositional gradients are seen by both NMR and the DFA
across the well.
Density measurements were critical to validate the pressure gradient and to determine fluid-composition grading across the
main gas zone. Pressure-gradient analysis did not allow a similarly detailed characterization. The fluid grading and GOR
inversion were later confirmed by laboratory PVT analysis of
the samples.
Hydrocarbon in thin beds/thin layers was confirmed by the
NMR analysis, as well as high-resolution resistivity images and
triaxial induction resistivity data.
Mud-solids invasion has been observed in most of the reservoirs, with varying depths of penetration. Mud-solids invasion
seems deeper in the zones in which oil is present. The OBM-filtrate fraction is lower in the gas zones than in the oil zones.
OBM-filtrate contamination levels from PVT analysis of the
samples were less than 5% by weight, confirming the benefit of
using the focused-sampling technique to reduce contamination.
This enables quantitative fluid-composition interpretation in
real time and valid comparison between zones.

References
Akkurt, R., Bachman, H.N., Cao Minh, C. et al. 2009. Nuclear Magnetic
Resonance Comes Out of Its Shell. Oilfield Rev. 20 (4): 423.
Ardila, M., Hegeman, P., Dong, C. et al. 2008. Applications of Enhanced
Downhole Fluid Analyzer for the North Sea Operations. Paper presented at the SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, Edinburgh,
Scotland, 2528 May.
Betancourt, S.S. Bracey, J., Gustavson, G. et al. 2006. Chain of Custody
for Oilfield Samples Using Visible-Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.
Applied Spectroscopy 60 (12): 14821487.
Brie, A., Pampuri, F., Marsala, A.F. et al. 1995. Shear Sonic Interpretation
in Gas-Bearing Sands. Paper SPE 30595 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2225 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30595-MS.
Cao Minh, C., Heaton, N.J., Ramamoorthy, R. et al. 2003. Planning and
Interpreting NMR Fluid-Characterization Logs. Paper SPE 84478 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado,
58 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84478-MS.
Dong, C., Mullins, O.C., Hegeman, P.S. et al. 2002. In-Situ Contamination
Monitoring and GOR Measurement of Formation Fluid Samples. Paper SPE 77899 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 810 October. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/77899-MS.
2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:22 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

REE150886 DOI: 10.2118/150886-PA Date: 23-July-13

Godefroy, S., Zuo, J.Y., Fujisawa, G. et al. 2008. Discussion on Formation

Density Measurements and Their Applications. Paper SPE 114648 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado. 2124 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114648-MS.
Heaton, N.J., Cao Minh, C., Kovats, J. et al. 2004. Saturation and Viscosity From Multidimensional Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Logging. Paper SPE 90564 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 2629 September. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/90564-MS.
Hurlimann, M.D., Freed, D.E., Zielinski, L.J. et al. 2008. Hydrocarbon
Composition From NMR Diffusion And Relaxation Data. Paper presented at the SPWLA 49th Annual Logging Symposium, Edinburgh,
Scotland, 2528 May.
Mullins, O.C., Fujisawa, G., Elshahawi, H. et al. 2005. Identification of
Vertical Compartmentalization and Compositional Grading by Downhole Fluid Analysis; Toward a Continuous Downhole Fluid Log. Paper
presented at the 46th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2629 June.
Mullins, O.C., Hashem, M., Elshahawi, H. et al. 2004. Hydrocarbon Compositional Analysis in-situ in Openhole Wireline Logging. Paper presented at the 45th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Netherlands,
69 June.
Mullins, O.C., Zuo, J., Freed, D. et al. 2010. Downhole Fluid Analysis
Coupled With Novel Asphaltene Science for Reservoir Evaluation. Paper presented at the SPWLA 51th Annual Logging Symposium, Perth,
Australia, 1923 June.
Weinheber, P. and Vasques, R. 2006. New Formation Tester Probe Design
for Low-Contamination Sampling. Paper presented at the 47th
SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Veracruz, Mexico, 47 June.
Whitson, C.H. and Brule, M. 2000. Phase Behavior, Vol. 20, 117.
Richardson, Texas: Monograph Series, SPE.
Zuo, J.Y., Zhang, D., Dubost, F. et al. 2008. EOS-Based Downhole Fluid
Characterization. Paper SPE 114702 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Perth, Australia, 2022 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/114702-MS.
Marie Van Steene is currently Petrophysics Domain Champion
for Schlumberger Egypt. She earned MSc degrees in mechanical engineering from Ecole Centrale Paris (France) and Universite
Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium). Van Steene started in 2000
with Schlumberger as a wireline field engineer. She worked in
Australia, New Zealand, and India. In 2006, Van Steene
worked as a log analyst in Malaysia. She has been posted in
Cairo since 2007, working as a senior petrophysicist. Van
Steenes interests include formation evaluation in open hole

Stage:

Page: 11

Total Pages: 11

and cased hole, NMR interpretation, and geomechanical

studies. She is currently serving as secretary of the Society of
Professional Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) Egypt Chapter.
Mario Ardila is a principal reservoir engineer with Schlumberger
in Houston. He holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering
from the Universidad Industrial de Santander in Colombia.
Ardila spent the last 20 years with Schlumberger working in different positions/areas (production engineering, reservoir engineering, well completion, well testing, cased-hole logging and
interpretation, and WFT and downhole fluid sampling), and
he has international experience in North and South America,
Africa, Europe, and Asia. He is currently working as Director
of Curriculum-Reservoir Engineering/Production Technologies
Rapid Training Manager for Schlumberger PetroTechnical
Services Headquarters and in Houston (since August 2011).
Rick Nelson is a petrophysical consultant for BP. He is currently
in the BP Egypt office in Cairo, where he is focused on exploration prospects in the Nile delta, with emphasis on operations
petrophysics, coring and core analysis, seismic rock properties,
and general petrophysical integration. Nelsons previous
assignments for BP included BPs London Sunbury campus,
where he was working in the Azerbaijan Business Unit, and the
Technology Group in Houston involving a variety of projects in
both the US and abroad. Nelson holds a Bachelor of Engineering Sciences degree from Johns Hopkins University and has
held positions with Schlumberger/Geoquest and Oryx Energy
(formerly Sun Oil and now Kerr-McGee). He has authored several SPWLA papers on a wide range of petrophysical topics.
Nelson has previously held chapter offices in Dallas and Houston, served on the SPWLA Technology committee and Board
of Directors, and currently is one of the Petrophysics Journal
associate editors.
Amr Fekry is a petrophysicist with BP working in exploration in
Egypt. He holds a BSc degree in physics from the American
University in Cairo. Fekry held the role of wireline engineer with
Halliburton working in Saudi Arabia before joining BP in 2006.
Adel Farghaly works as a senior petrophysicist for RWE Dea
and is currently working on assignment with BP West Nile Delta
Project in Sunbury, UK. He previously worked for the Gulf of
Suez Petroleum Co (Gupco) and with Amoco Egypt. He holds
a BSc degree in geology and holds a master studies degree in
geology and a master studies degree in petrophysics from Ain
Shams University, Cairo. Farghaly specializes in thin bed and
core analysis. Farghaly has special interest and experience in
processing and interpretation of NMR, triaxial induction, neutron spectroscopy and imaging data. He is a member of
SPWLA.

2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

ID: jaganm Time: 14:22 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/130018/APPFile/SA-REE#130018

11