SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
JOINT INTERPRETATION OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE- AND
RESISTIVITY-BASED FLUID VOLUMETRICS
A FRAMEWORK FOR PETROPHYSICAL EVALUATION
Holger Thern, Geoffrey Page, Baker Hughes Inc.
Copyright 2016, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
(SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 57th Annual Logging
Symposium held in Reykjavik, Iceland June 25-29, 2016.
ABSTRACT
The accurate quantification of fluid volumes is one of
the most important tasks for determining the economic
value of hydrocarbon reservoirs. Resistivity-based fluid
saturation calculations have been established for many
decades with known benefits and challenges. More
recently, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
technology has developed as an alternative, robust
method for direct fluid volume estimation. Resistivity
logging data are used to calculate saturation of
conductive (e.g., water) versus non-conductive (e.g.,
hydrocarbon) fluids in the formation. NMR logging
data capture information about pore size in the
formation and, thus, separate movable fluids, usually
residing in large pores, from bound fluids. The bound
fluids are further sub-divided into clay-bound water
components and irreducible components held by
capillary forces. The movable water and hydrocarbon
volumes can be estimated using simple T2 cutoff
approaches or more sophisticated 2D-NMR methods
(the latter of which are generally only available for
wireline NMR applications).
As todays reservoirs are becoming more challenging,
conventional resistivity data evaluation involves
increasing difficulties and ambiguities such as in
complex lithology due to the presence of conductive
minerals, low formation water salinity, fractures and
vugs, or local variations in water resistivity. NMR data
processing and interpretation are also not straight-
forward in complex carbonates and heavy oil reservoirs,
as well as in case of wettability alteration and due to the
presence of magnetic minerals. Ambiguities in either of
the measurements can be efficaciously addressed by
combining results from both approaches. In simple
reservoirs, for instance, the combination of resistivity
and NMR reduces uncertainties and can be used to
identify and quantify effects such as invasion or water
(-free) production.
1
We present a systematic compilation and discussion of
main properties affecting resistivity and NMR fluid
volume estimations such as Archie exponents and T2
cutoffs. This includes various reservoir types with
various fluid types and measurement conditions.
Guidelines will be provided on how to combine
resistivity-based fluid volumetrics and NMR-based
volumetrics most effective. An unpublished and four
previously published log examples illustrate a wide
range of reservoir scenarios. In addition to the log
interpretation aspect, we also relate the results to their
applications ranging from real-time drilling
optimization through hydrocarbon-in-place estimates
and reservoir modeling input to production and
completion decisions.
INTRODUCTION
Porosity and saturation are critical reservoir rock
properties for the oil and gas industry. They are used to
estimate hydrocarbon (HC) volume in place, which is a
key property to determine the economic value of a
reservoirs.
The main established porosity measurements come
from density, neutron, acoustic, and NMR logging
tools. Density and neutron are run virtually always in
combination, delivering not only porosity but also shale
volume and light hydrocarbon indication. Acoustic can
also be used to estimate porosity and adds capabilities
such as identifying secondary porosity. NMR is
typically run as an additional service, but can also serve
as a density-neutron replacement in case radioactive
sources are not available or desired. NMR delivers total
porosity as well as fractions of porosity, namely
movable fluid, capillary bound water, and clay-bound
water. A more detailed review of the porosity in a rock
and the fluid components associated with certain pore
and rock types can be found in Woodhouse and Warner,
2005. It is important to be aware of the potential
differences in porosities and porosity fractions
associated with the different measurement principles.
The porosity in hydrocarbon-bearing formations is of
main interest. Hydrocarbons typically migrated into the
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

pores of a reservoir rock and replaced part of the
initially present water. The oil and gas industry deploys
various tools for determining the saturation of fluids in
rocks. Historically the first, and today still the most
important, is the resistivity tool which differentiates
conductive water from non-conductive hydrocarbon.
Another measurement for differentiating water and
hydrocarbon is NMR. It uses the contrast in T2 or T1
relaxation times of different fluids or by additionally
determining the fluids diffusivity. The latter, however,
is today only available from wireline (WL) logging
tools due to technical limitations of logging-while-
drilling (LWD) tools. Other methods used for saturation
estimation include dielectric measurements, sigma,
carbon-oxygen, and other pulsed-neutron measurements
(the latter primarily in cased wellbores).
The paper provides a framework for integrating NMR
fluid volumes with resisitivity-based fluid distributions
for assessing fluid volumetrics such as bound versus
movable fluids and water versus hydrocarbon
saturation. As there are already a large number of rock
and fluid properties that influence these two
measurements, none of the other measurement
principles is discussed. Nonetheless, other logging data
have the potential to be included for further refining the
interpretation for fluid volumetrics and saturation.
Both, NMR and resistivity provide important
information about fluid volumetrics and saturation.
Their basic principles, benefits and limitation are
reviewed in the following sections.
hydrogen locked within the inorganic matrix such as
clay hydroxyl ions or within organic matter such as
kerogen, because of too short relaxation time. One big
advantage of NMR is that the subsequent interpretation
for both, porosity and saturation, comes from a single
instrument data set and measurement volume.
Rock Properties. The rock properties affecting the
NMR measurement most are total porosity and pore
size distribution. The former determines the initial
signal strength of the measured echo train, while the
latter determines (amongst other parameters) the
measured relaxation time behavior (Fig. 1, left).
Fluid Properties. The NMR relaxation times are also
affected by the fluid type. Each fluid comes with its
specific bulk relaxation time. Bulk water has typically a
T2 time of a few seconds. Bulk hydrocarbons can
extend from very long T2 relaxation times of several
seconds for gas and light oil, down to milliseconds and
below for heavy oil and tar (Fig. 1, right).
The NMR system is calibrated to directly measure true
porosities in fresh water. Other fluids need correction
for their relative hydrogen volume, i.e., hydrogen index,
HI, compared to fresh water at ambient conditions.
Most hydrocarbons have a HI around 1. A correction is,
therefore, primarily required for gas and light oil.

NMR

NMR measures a time-dependent signal that has been

generated by spins manipulated by electro-magnetic
waves. The acquired series of data points (i.e., the echo
train) forms a decay curve over time. The initial signal
strength corresponds to total porosity, while the decay
of the echo train is associated with rock and fluid
properties. The decay is transformed into a T2
distribution of the exponential relaxation decay
components within the echo train, representing
porosity, fluid volumes, and fluid properties.1

Wellbore NMR responds to all hydrogen within fluids

in the pore spaces, but it does not capture signal from Fig. 1 Overview of the main effects on NMR T2
distribution. Left: Pore size effect of the wetting-phase
fluid (typically water) on surface T2 relaxation. Right:
1 Effect of hydrocarbon type (non-wetting-phase fluid)
More complex acquisition schemes for T1 distributions
and fluid diffusivities D are not discussed here, but can on bulk T2 relaxation. The effect due to diffusion is not
be found in for instance Hursan, 2005, and Sun, 2006. incorporated.
2
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
Rock-Fluid Interaction. The main properties related to
rock-fluid interactions are mineralogy and wettability.
The wetting phase fluid experiences interaction with the
pore surface shortening the T2 proportional to the pore
size. Thus, a pore size effect for the wetting phase fluid
is observed (Fig. 1, left). Besides the pore size, the
amount of T2 reduction is also governed by the material
itself, represented by a material constant termed surface
relaxivity, which is determined by the mineralogy of
the rock matrix. In addition, internal (magnetic) field
gradients, IFG, can be induced by local variations in
magnetic susceptibility, which also cause a shortening
of T2.
T2 Relaxation Equation. The measured T2 relaxation
time, incorporating all the above mentioned effects, is
composed of three terms:
1 1 ( ) irreducible water (= capillary-bound water = bulk
= + (1)
12 volume irreducible, BVI) is typically associated with a
It is used to evaluate the above mentioned effects
quantitatively with
= surface relaxivity
S = pore surface area
V = pore volume
D = fluid diffusivity
= gyromagnetic ratio (constant for hydrogen)
G = magnetic field gradient (due to tool hardware and
susceptibility-induced internal field gradients)
TE = interecho spacing (= sampling of the echo train)
Fig. 2 Overview of the interpretation of an NMR T2
distribution for different water volume contributions:
clay-bound water, irreducible (= capillary-bound)
water, and movable water. Rock components such as
matrix rock and dry clay are not measured by NMR.
3
Because the surface-to-volume ratio (S/V) is inversely
proportional to pore size, the pore size can be estimated
from the NMR signal of the wetting-phase fluid (Fig. 1,
left), provided the surface relaxivity is known. The non-
wetting-phase fluid is governed by its bulk relaxation
time which is proportional to the fluid viscosity.
Therefore, the hydrocarbon type and its viscosity can be
estimated from the NMR signal of the non-wetting-
phase fluid. (Fig. 1, right).
Based on a number of core studies and based on
experience with a number of NMR logging
applications, T2 cutoff times were established to divide
the NMR T2 distribution into different volume fractions
(Fig. 2). In clastics, relaxation times up to 3.3 ms are
typically associated with clay-bound water (CBW).
Depending on clay type and other factors (e.g.,
pressure) the T2 cutoff can vary. In clastic formations
T2 range of 4 to 33 ms, and movable water (BVM, bulk
volume movable) with T2 values above 33 ms. The T2
ranges can vary depending on a variety of factors such
as pore throat size, mineralogy, wettability, and others.
The sum of CBW and BVI is assigned to be the
(complete) bound water, BW. In carbonates the T2
cutoff between BVI and BVM is typically higher, e.g., in
the range of 100 to 200 ms because of the smaller
surface relaxivity of calcium carbonate (i.e., carbonate
rocks) compared to that of silicon dioxide (i.e., clastic
rocks). Independent of the mineralogy, the T2 cutoff
default values should ideally be calibrated to core data
for specific reservoirs as a wide range of T2 cutoff
values have been identified in practice. In many cases a
variable T2 cutoff based on level-to-level mineralogy
and capillary pressure changes may be most
appropriate.
RESISTIVITY
Resistivity tools measure resistivity (or conductivity) of
the formation, with resistivity being determined by both
rock and fluid properties.
Rock Properties. The most important rock property is
the fluid-filled porosity, but pore system properties such
as pore throat size, connectivity, tortuosity,
cementation, etc. also play a role. These properties are
commonly expressed via the parameters a, m, and n in
the saturation equation discussed below.
Fluid Properties. Each fluid in the pore space will
contribute to the measured resistivity according to its
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

specific resistivity. Water provides almost all the
conductivity seen, unless there are metallic conductors
present in the matrix, which occurs only rarely. The
conductivity of water depends on its ionic content,
saturation, and temperature, which must be determined
to enable quantitative interpretation of the data. In
contrast, hydrocarbons are non-conducting fluids.
INTEGRATED PORE VOLUMETRICS
Despite the large number of parameters that potentially
affect the measured NMR volumetrics and resistivity
fluid volumetrics, the two measurements can be
combined effectively for a variety of applications which
are discussed in this section of the paper.

Rock-Fluid Interaction. Wettability can play an

important role in resistivity interpretation, in particular
if the fluid-pore surface interaction leads to additional
conductive paths by the generation of some ionic
layers. The continuity of the fluid phases is also
important, with electrical conductivity through a rock
being dependent on a continuous conductive path
through the water phase.

Resistivity Equations. The most generic equation

describing an empirically-derived relationship for
resistivity including the above factors is the famous
Archie equation:

1 1 1
= (2)

with

Rt = measured formation resistivity

a = tortuosity factor
Sw = water saturation
n = saturation exponent
t = total porosity
m = cementation exponent
Rw = water resistivity

Equation (2) does not incorporate additional

conductivity due to pore surface-fluid interactions
between for instance clay particles and water. There
are, however, a large number of alternative saturation
equations that take this effect into account by including
terms like the cation exchange capacity (CEC or Qv) of
clay minerals (e.g., Waxman-Smits equation) or by
including a conductivity assigned to clay-bound water
different from the free formation water (e.g., Dual
Water equation). The majority of these equations have
been developed to more accurately describe the
resistivity responses in specific reservoirs or formation
types, and the selection of the correct equation is a
challenge and depends on formation type, clay type and
distribution, porosity range and type (e.g., total or
effective), and water salinity range. Various saturation
equations available and their uses are detailed by
Worthington, 1985.
4
Fig. 3 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom). Irreducible water saturation
condition is assumed; the presence of clay as well as
other complicating effects is not considered.
The following considerations on combining NMR and
resistivity apply for properly conducted measurements
(e.g., full polarization of NMR signal), after corrections
(e.g., HI correction for light hydrocarbons), calibrations
(e.g., for T2 cutoff and Archie parameters), and
supplementary measurements (e.g., Rw) have been
performed and incorporated in the data processing to
the extent they are known.
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
Fig. 3 represents a sketch of comparing NMR-based
fluid volumetrics (top half) and resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom half) where a known total porosity
t is assumed for the latter. Total and effective porosity
systems are not differentiated in detail, and in the
following the total porosity system is used.
The systematic behavior of NMR versus resistivity
fluid volumetrics is analyzed in the following
paragraphs for five different scenarios:
1. Reservoirs without bias on NMR and resistivity
fluid volumetrics calculation.
2. Reservoirs with heavy oil and tar components.
3. Cases where NMR-based hydrocarbon fluid
volumetrics are available.
4. Reservoirs with internal field gradients (IFG) and
wettability alteration.
5. Cases with a bias in Archie parameters or Rw.
Log examples illustrating several of the scenarios are
given in a later section of the paper.
Simple, Unbiased Reservoir Conditions. In a water-wet
reservoir at irreducible water saturation (Swir) all water
is bound in clay or by capillary forces and will not flow
during production. For the appropriate T2 cutoff and the
appropriate saturation model with known parameters, a
match of the NMR bound water fraction and the water
volume from resistivity is observed (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 NMR (top) versus resistivity fluid volumetrics
(bottom) in a reservoir at irreducible water saturation
without a bias on NMR and Archie parameters.
Introducing CBW as a separate quantity (i.e., BW =
CBW + BVI) changes the representation of BW (Fig. 5).
Also, the presence of clay can heavily impact the
determination and interpretation of reservoir properties.
It has, however, no consequence on the concept of
comparing NMR- and resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics, provided the effects of clay on the
resistivity data have been fully accounted for.
5
Fig. 5 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where bound water, BW, is
separated into clay-bound, CBW, and irreducible, BVI,
volumes.
The cases discussed in the following will investigate the
effects that can introduce a discrepancy between the
NMR and resistivity fluid volumetrics. Observing a
discrepancy and understanding the reason for it will
translate into better more accurate quantification of
reservoir properties and understanding of reservoir
behavior.
Leaving the reservoir section at irreducible water
saturation and moving into a transition zone, the NMR
volumetrics do not change but the resistivity water
volume increases (Fig. 6). The increase is easily
identified by comparing NMR and resistivity results
and will help establishing the oil-water-contact (OWC)
or gas-water-contact (GWC) as well as determining the
length and character of the transition zone.
Fig. 6 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) for a transition zone where part of
the movable fluid, BVM, is water. In a water leg, SHC
reduces to zero.
Identification of Heavy Oil and Tar. In the case of
heavy oil hydrocarbon components are found also in the
bound water range of the NMR T2 distribution
(compare Fig. 1, right). The resulting excess bound
water can be determined in comparison to the
resistivity-based water volume and used as an indicator
for heavy oil (Fig. 7). An independent validation can
come from 2D-NMR techniques, because heavy oil and
water separate by a very large contrast in diffusivities.
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
Fig. 7 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where heavy oil components
cause an overestimation of bound water, BW.
When the heavy oil components become even more
viscous, they will become (in part) invisible to the
NMR measurement (compare Fig. 1, right). So, in
addition to the excess bound water, also an
underestimation of NMR total porosity compared to
conventional total porosity is found (Fig. 8). This
serves as an indicator for tar components representing
an immobile, often not producible fluid phase. Similar
techniques can be used for substantially improving the
determination of porosity, hydrocarbon and kerogen
content in unconventional shale reservoirs.
Fig. 8 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where heavy oil components
cause an overestimation of bound water, BW, and tar
components are missed by NMR causing NMR total
porosity underestimation.
Cases with NMR-Based Hydrocarbon Volume. Under
favorable conditions, NMR can directly separate
hydrocarbon and water volumes, which can be
compared to resistivity-based fluid volumes. This
applies in particular to 2D-NMR data where not only
the contrast in T2 but also the contrast in fluid
diffusivity D and/or T1 is evaluated. Also simple T2
distributions, e.g., acquired while drilling, can show
sufficient contrast to effectively separate water and
hydrocarbon signals.
In the case of a transition zone (compare Fig. 6), a
match of the resistivity-based water volume with the
NMR-based water volume (= bound water + native
movable water) is expected (Fig. 9). Deviations will
6
point to additional effects as discussed in other
paragraphs of this section.
Fig. 9 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) for a transition zone in case NMR
separates movable water and hydrocarbon volumes.
A very important effect to be considered is the invasion
of mud filtrate. The resistivity data used for saturation
analysis are typically taken from a deep-reading
measurement, while NMR data come from the
formation within the first few inches away from the
borehole wall. Therefore, invaded mud filtrate can show
up easily in the NMR volumetrics, while it rarely
affects a deep-reading resistivity-based saturation.
Assuming a reservoir at irreducible water saturation
(compare Fig. 4) and introducing water-base mud
filtrate (WBMF) into the NMR measurement causes a
higher water volume from NMR than from resistivity
(Fig. 10). If this situation is detected, the NMR-
resistivity comparison can be used to adjust drilling
parameters such as equivalent circulating density, ECD,
in real-time for reducing the amount of invasion or to
assess variations in formation pressure, e.g., related to
reservoir compartmentalization.
Fig. 10 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where the shallow-reading NMR
measures invaded WBM filtrate while the deep-reading
resistivity measures (a higher) native oil saturation.
Oil-base mud filtrate (OBMF) invasion can be more
difficult to identify in NMR data, in particular if the
NMR signature of native hydrocarbon and OBM filtrate
are similar or if the two fluids mix. Again 2D-NMR as
applied in wireline logging can have advantagesi
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
because it uses multiple NMR properties for
differentiating fluids. Independent of the amount of
OBM filtrate invasion, the NMR bound water and
resistivity water volumes are expected to match in this
case (Fig. 11).
Fig. 11 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where the shallow-reading NMR
sees invaded OBM filtrate while the deep-reading
resistivity responds to the native pore fluid distribution.
Internal Field Gradients and Wettability. Internal field
gradients and variations in wettability may not be
common in many reservoirs. Nevertheless, they should
be identified if present and they require special
attention for interpretation. Internal field gradients
(IFG) can be caused by the presence of magnetic
minerals at the pore surface. These gradients shorten the
T2 relaxation time (compare equation 1), thus, shifting
part of the movable fluid into the bound water region.
As a result, the NMR bound water is overestimated,
requiring the adjustment of the T2 cutoff (Fig. 12) to
match NMR bound water and resistivity-based water
volume. To compensate the effect a shift of the T2
cutoff to a smaller value has to be introduced. The
amount of shift for the T2 cutoff can be calibrated
against the resistivity fluid volumetrics.
Fig. 12 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where internal field gradients
cause a shortening in T2, i.e., an overestimation of
bound water, BW. The T2 cutoff has to be reduced to
compensate for the effect.
Laboratory studies suggest that fluid components can
be shifted so far that they even cause porosity
underestimation (Ruesltten, 1998), but we have not
7
observed this situation in field data yet. Note that the
transfer of observations from laboratory to downhole
conditions deserves special attention. The conditions
for acquiring laboratory and downhole data can be
largely different, thus, potentially affecting the
measured properties.
The opposite effect, i.e., an increase of the T2 cutoff is
required in case the wettability in the reservoir changes
from water-wet towards oil-wet. This can be caused by
surfactants introduced in the pore space by the invasion
of OBM filtrate. Depending on the degree of
wettability, the bulk relaxation of water will shift its T2
to larger values, while the hydrocarbon T2 will reduce,
because the hydrocarbon now also experiences surface
relaxation (Fig. 13; Looyestijn, 2006). As a
consequence the NMR bound water is underestimated.
The required measure to take in this case is an increase
in the T2 cutoff so the NMR bound water matches the
resistivity water volume.
This situation has been suggested by lab measurements
(Chen, 2004) and observed in multiple NMR logging
data examples. Invasion of OBM filtrate containing
surfactants, (which are used to create an invert
inversion emulsion oil based mud), change the
wettability of the flushed zone. In some clastic
reservoirs drilled with OBM a shift of T2 cutoff from 33
ms to 80 ms is commonly used.
Fig. 13 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where a change in wettability
causes an increase in T2 cutoff, i.e., an underestimation
of bound water, BW. The T2 cutoff has to be increased
to compensate for the effect.
Native-state oil-wet conditions will be more difficult to
treat, because part of the water signal will further
increase its T2 (due to less interaction with the pore
wall) while part of the oil will further reduce its T2
(more interaction with the pore wall). The interaction
between the two fluids and the pore wall needs to be
described by the surface relaxivity to oil and water as
well as the capillary forces acting on the fluids in the
pore space. The quantification of wettability and its
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
effects on NMR measurements remains a challenging
topic and a more detailed discussion is beyond the
scope of this paper.
Deviations of Archie Parameters and Rw. A mismatch
of NMR volumetrics and resistivity saturation can also
indicate deviations in the Archie parameters a, m and n
or the water resistivity Rw. Too small a resistivity-based
water volume is for instance caused by too small a, too
small n, too small m, or too small Rw (Fig. 14). Too
large a, too large n, too large m, or too large Rw causes
too high resistivity-based water volume (Fig. 15). The
comparison with NMR volumetrics can, thus, lead to an
assessment and refinement of m, n, and Rw.
The same also applies for shaly sand formations where
terms associated with clay conductivity can be
evaluated by comparison to NMR volumetrics. Thus,
NMR volumetrics can either validate a shaly-sand
resistivity model or translate into an update of the
model.
Fig. 14 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where resistivity saturation is
underestimated due to too small a, too small n, too
small m, or too small Rw.
Fig. 15 NMR- (top) versus resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics (bottom) where resistivity saturation is
overestimated due to too large a, too large n, too large
m, or too large Rw.
There are a number of situations where Archie
parameters deviate from their defaults. For increasing
cementation or tortuosity of the pore system (e.g., for
disconnected vugs) m increases. A less tortuous pore
network (e.g., due to fractures) reduces m. The presence
8
of conductive clay reduces both m and n. Oil wetness
results in an increase of n, but there are more effects
coming to play such as the pore surface roughness. Rw
depends on the salinity of the formation water and can
be affected by water-flooding and other local variations.
Some more discussion on refining Archie parameters
and incorporating effects of clay conductivity can be
found in Ostroff, 1999.
Although variations in the Archie parameters can be
indicated by comparison with NMR, verification by
core analysis is highly recommended and the selection
of an appropriate saturation equation for the clay
conductivity and distribution are critical. Providing
more details on the subject is beyond the scope of this
paper.
LOG EXAMPLES
In this section log examples are shown and discussed
where the combination of NMR volumetrics and
resistivity saturation was successfully applied for
several of the above-discussed applications.
Determine Water-Free Production. In a clean,
hydrocarbon-filled, clastic reservoir at irreducible water
saturation (Swir), an appropriate T2 cutoff (e.g., 33 ms or
other) is expected to yield accurate capillary bound
water from the NMR T2 distribution. Accurate water
saturation, on the other hand, is determined from
resistivity when the Archie parameters and Rw are
known. A match of NMR bound water and the
resistivity-based water volume in a reservoir section at
irreducible water saturation indicates water-free
production which is extremely important information
for well completion decisions.
An early assessment of water-free production using the
combination of NMR and resistivity wireline data has
been published by Ostroff, 1999 (Fig. 16).
Conventional data analysis leaves the question whether
there are several segregated reservoir sections and
whether the zone from 4570 to 4595 ft is a water-
producing transition or water zone. Introducing the
NMR bound water volumes clearly indicates that all
water is bound in the zone of question and, thus, no
water production is expected. The high amount of
bound water can be associated with very fine-grained
sand with high capillary forces keeping the water in
place. After the integration of NMR and resistivity, the
presence of multiple OWCs can be eliminated and a
single OWC is established at around 4615 ft.
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
A second log example for the determination of water-
free production using NMR and resistivity logging
while drilling, LWD, data comes from a gas field in
Italy. The field is located on the continental shelf of the
Adriatic Sea and consists of thick turbidite sequences
with alternating shale and sand layers of Plio-
Quarternary age. Gamma ray, density, neutron,
resistivity, NMR and high-resolution electrical image
data were acquired while drilling the well with WBM.
A section of more than 200 m is shown in Fig. 17 with
multiple gas sand layers separated by shale intervals.
The evaluation of resistivity data yields water saturation
of 50% and more. This suggests that there is a
substantial risk of producing water together with gas.
The NMR data, however, reveal that all water
components in the top two-third of the log are bound,
i.e., the water is not producible. Thus, the combination
of the two measurements indicates water-free
production also in this example. The lower third section
of the log shows water-bearing layers in the reservoir
with the resistivity-based gas saturation dropping
towards zero.
Note that in this example NMR is reading formation
that is virtually completely invaded by WBM filtrate,
thus, delivering total porosity without the need to apply
a gas HI correction. Also the density-versus-neutron
comparison shows a reduced gas effect due to partial
invasion.
In addition, the NMR data are found to indicate fining-
up sequences in many of the sands. In conjunction with
layer characterization from an electrical image, this
offers yet another promising combination of NMR and
resistivity data. Results of this approach will be the
subject of a future publication.
Identification of Heavy Oil and Tar. The combination
of NMR and resistivity LWD data has been applied
very successfully in the development of a carbonate
field in Saudi Arabia (Akkurt, 2009). A log adopted
from the publication is shown in Fig. 18.
NMR bound water is calculated using a T2 cutoff
locally established for the carbonate field. The
comparison of water volume from resistivity with the
NMR bound water indicates zones where NMR bound
water appears to be much larger than the total water
volume from resistivity. As heavy oil components are
expected in this reservoir, the conclusion is that heavy
oil components show up in the T2 range that is assigned
to the bound water fraction, thus, causing an
overestimation of bound water. The difference between
9
NMR bound water and resistivity-based water volume
is displayed in Track 4 of the log and used as a heavy
oil indicator. In zones with immobile tar components, in
addition an underestimation of NMR total porosity
compared to conventional total porosity from gamma
ray, density, and neutron is observed. Quantification of
the porosity deficit, which is used as a tar indicator, is
shown in Track 5.
The typically expected light oil T2 response can be seen
in Track 7 at approximately x550 ft and x610 ft where
the late T2 peak signifies light oil. In other zones (e.g.,
x580 to x600 ft) faster T2 components show up
originating from the heavy oil components. An
independent validation of heavy oil and tar occurrence
is given by very low mobilities from a formation tester
tool (Track 6).
Determining Invasion Effect. NMR LWD has been
applied for reservoir characterization of a chalk
reservoir, offshore Denmark. Based on NMR log and
lab data a well-pronounced separation of water and oil
phases in the T2 distribution was established
(Christensen, 2015). A log adopted from the publication
is shown in Fig. 19.
Light oil shows up at late T2 times (reflecting low oil
viscosity), while the middle T2 times represent the water
phase (reflecting variations in pore size and saturation).
By applying a variable T2 cutoff between the two T2
peaks an NMR-based saturation and volumetrics can be
easily calculated. Comparison to resistivity-based
saturation indicates with a good match of the saturation
(Track 5) and volumetrics (Track 6) in the bottom zone
of the displayed log section, but much higher NMR
water saturation and volumetrics in the top of the log
section. The reason is that the top section is heavily
invaded by water-base mud (WBM) filtrate which
affects the shallow-reading NMR measurement but not
the deep-reading resistivity measurement. The mud
pressure applied while drilling was not changed across
the log section which indicates compartmentalization of
the reservoir section. The formation pressure in the top
zone is lower, enabling more filtrate invasion,
compared to the bottom zone, where less filtrate
invasion occurs. The amount of invasion can be
assessed while drilling in real-time and, thus, can be
used for applications such as mud pressure adjustment
and compartment identification. Pressure adjustment
was, for instance, applied in other wells of the same
field, but it was not possible in this log section due to
borehole stability concerns.
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
Furthermore, an NMR fluid substitution method that
was applied in the chalk field (i.e., yielding T2
distributions at full water saturation, Track 3) was the
basis for deriving various additional deliverables from
the NMR data. The deliverables include pore size and
an improved permeability profile which are introduced
and discussed in other papers (Thern, 2014;
Christensen, 2015).
Adjusting Archie Parameters. This log example also
comes from a North Sea chalk field, located offshore
Norway, and was published by Thorsen, 2008. Besides
observing mud filtrate invasion effects similar to the
previous example, NMR-based oil saturation was in
addition found to indicate the adjustment Archie
parameters. A log adopted from the publication is
shown in Fig. 20.
The acquired NMR LWD data provide valuable insight
into invasion characteristics, because the mud type was
changed from water-base mud to oil-base mud while
drilling the well. In general, the same interpretation for
water and oil volumes from NMR applies as in the
previous example: the late T2 peak corresponds to light
oil; the middle T2 peak corresponds to water. The effect
of mud type change can easily be seen in Fig. 20, where
in the top section the water T2 peak is very strong
(invaded WBM filtrate), while in the bottom section the
oil peak is very strong (native oil and invaded WBM
filtrate).
In the top section, the NMR data can be interpreted for
invasion effects in conjunction with resistivity. In case
of very high mud pressure, the NMR oil saturation
(after WBM filtrate invasion) can potentially be
interpreted as residual oil saturation. In the bottom
section, native oil may have been replaced by OBM
filtrate. This leaves the NMR-based oil saturation
unaltered, thus, delivering independent oil versus
irreducible water saturation. A comparison of NMR
irreducible water saturation to resistivity saturation
indicates in this case a too optimistic resistivity model.
The NMR irreducible water saturation consequently
was used for adjusting Archie parameters in this
reservoir.
Adjusting T2 Cutoff due to Glauconite. The effect of
glauconite and other magnetic minerals on the NMR T2
distribution was described by Dodge, 1995. In a core
study they validated that the presence of magnetic
minerals can shorten the NMR relaxation time, thus,
requiring also a shortening of the T2 cutoff time for
determining correct NMR bound water. They estimated
10
a range of 10 to 30 ms for the T2 cutoff depending on
iron concentration.
The behavior found in the laboratory study was also
observed in the field. The same range of T2 cutoff
variation between 10 and 30 ms was determined from
comparing NMR and resistivity fluid volumetrics.
Unfortunately, no data release was available at the time
of the writing this paper. Because the data present
several more valuable findings such as pay
identification and improved reservoir properties by
using NMR, the results will be published in a full paper
at a later time.
DISCUSSION
The log examples illustrate several benefits of
combining NMR and resistivity fluid volumetrics,
applying to various stages of data analysis and
interpretation.
In the case of LWD data, data evaluation can be
performed in real-time. Information such as T2 cutoffs
and Archie parameters and an appropriate real-time
software are required to evaluate the data. As discussed
for the fourth log example (Fig. 19), the real-time data
showed varying degrees of shallow invasion. Based on
the invasion information, the pressure in the drilling
mud column could be adjusted to stay closer to the
desired conditions avoiding an influx of formation fluid
or fracking the rock. In some applications, the borehole
needs to be rapidly completed after finishing the
drilling due to wellbore stability concerns. In this case
the described evaluation scheme can provide valuable
information to efficiently optimize the completion
scheme.
At the post-processing stage, both data from wireline
and from LWD are typically reprocessed and the
analysis and interpretation is further refined. This will
yield more accurate and robust reserve estimates, and
further helps refining completion and production
decisions, e.g., by avoiding water-producing zones or
zones rendered impermeable by the presence of tar.
Although the combination of NMR and resistivity fluid
volumetrics delivers valuable information in a number
of cases, not all effects can be identified and quantified
equally well. Some potential effects are described in the
following.
Non-Unique Interpretation. A similar discrepancy of
NMR versus resistivity fluid volumetrics can be found
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
for different scenarios. The case of NMR bound water
smaller than resistivity-based water volume is for
instance found in a transition zone, in case of internal
field gradients by magnetic minerals, and for wrong
resistivity parameters (too small a, too small n, too
small m, or too small Rw) or because of the application
of an inappropriate saturation equation. The opposite
case of NMR bound water larger than resistivity-based
water volume is found in heavy oil, for a T2 cutoff shift
due to OBM filtrate invasion, and for wrong resistivity
parameters (too large a, too large n, too large m, or too
large Rw) or because of the application of an
inappropriate saturation equation.
It is, however, rather uncommon that all these elements
occur in one formation. In most cases, it will be
possible to identify the root cause of the discrepancy by
eliminating unrealistic scenarios.
Other Limitations. The calculation of fluid volumetrics
from NMR and resistivity comes with some inherent
features and limitations which need to be taken into
account when comparing the results of the two
measurements.
A key difference between the NMR and the resistivity
measurements is their vertical resolution. The NMR
vertical resolution is well-defined by rate of
penetration, ROP, acquisition timing, and processing
settings (Coman, 2014). It is typically in the range of
0.2 to 1.5 m, i.e., 9 in to 5 ft. The vertical resolution of
resistivity measurements is less well defined and
depends on tool configuration, measurement type and
setup (e.g., the frequency of induction tools), and
formation resistivity itself. It is typically in the range of
0.3 to 3 m, i.e., 1 to 10 ft. In addition, the resistivity
measurement is potentially affected by nearby
(conductive) beds which introduce smearing of the
measured resistivity or even artefacts such as
polarization horns. NMR, however, does not suffer
from this type of effects.
Another effect playing potentially a role for resistivity
evaluation is anisotropy, e.g., due to laminated
formations, or simply intrinsic electrical anisotropy as
found in many shales. This is an effect that needs to be
considered separately. NMR is essentially a volumetric
scalar measurement and not affected by anisotropy.
Depth of investigation is a measurement property that is
discussed in an earlier paragraph. A complicating
situation, however, can occur in high angle or
horizontal (HAHz) wells, where tools with different
11
depth of investigation potentially measure different
formation volumes and lithologies. Due to its limited
depth of investigation of up to a few inches, NMR is
much less affected than the deep-reading resistivity
measurement. A prominent exception is borehole
enlargement which can introduce artefacts when the
NMR measurement reads borehole fluid. An analysis of
any available caliper data can help identifying the
potential for this scenario.
As described above, the wettability change due to OBM
filtrate invasion comes with a rather moderate shift of
water and oil T2. In case of a more radical change in
wettability (e.g., oil-wet conditions) both the T2
distribution and the Archie parameters (e.g., m) are
expected to be much more affected. This situation
deserves special consideration and is beyond the
content of the overview provided in this paper.
Other Applications. Besides the volumetrics analysis
discussed in this paper there are several other valuable
combinations available from combining NMR and
resistivity data.
An area where simple, conventional interpretation
approaches are likely to struggle is in unconventional
reservoirs. Dealing with unconventional reservoirs is
beyond the scope of this paper, but a number of
interpretation approaches using NMR or resistivity data
have been published (Korb, 2014; Passey, 1990).
Another interesting combination for NMR and
resistivity is thin bed analysis where a high-resolution
electical image is combined with the less-resolved
NMR data as suggested by Ostroff and Shorey, 2000.
Also a correlation between the cation exchange capacity
(CEC or Qv) and NMR CBW, which can be used to
refine the evaluation of resistivity log data, was
proposed (Ostroff, 1999), and later confirmed with core
measurements (Martin and Dacy, 2004).
Finally, there is a link between NMR and resistivity
with respect to flow properties through the pores
(Herrick, 2013). Resistivity measures the electrical
current flowing through the conductive fluid phase in a
pore system. NMR is used to estimate permeability
(based on porosity and pore size information), i.e., it
characterizes the fluid flow through the pore system.
Although electrical current flow and fluid flow are
different phenomena, there are basic analogies between
the two offering another promising topic for future
investigations.
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of NMR- and resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics is an extremely valuable but commonly
underused approach. A systematic investigation of the
conditions where NMR- and resistivity-based fluid
volumetrics deviate has been presented as a framework
for joint NMR and resistivity interpretation. This
includes the determination of scenarios such as water (-
free) production, the presence of heavy oil and tar,
invasion discrepancies between shallow-reading NMR
and deep-reading resistivity, the presence of wettability
alteration and internal magnetic field gradients, and
biases in Archie parameters.
Several case histories illustrate the identification of the
effects responsible for discrepancies between NMR-
and resistivity-based fluid volumetrics. Depending on
the job setup the discrepancies can be detected at both
real-time and post-processing stage. The knowledge
gained by joint evaluation of NMR and resistivity data
translates into more accurate and robust input for
drilling pressure management, reserve estimation,
reservoir modeling, as well as completion and
production decisions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Gary Ostroff for insightful
discussions and a critical review of the paper. They also
thank Baker Hughes for support and permission to
publish the paper.
REFERENCES
Akkurt, R., Seifert, D., Al-Harbi, A., Al-Beaiji, T.M.,
Kruspe, T., Thern, H.F., Kroken, A., 2009: Real-time
detection of tar in carbonates using LWD triple combo,
NMR and formation tester in highly-deviated wells.
Petrophysics, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 140-152, 2009.
Chen, J., Hirasaki, G.J., Flaum, M., 2004: Effects of
OBM Invasion on Irreducible Water Saturation:
Mechanisms and Modifications of NMR Interpretation.
SPE paper 90141 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, USA, 26-29 September 2004.
Christensen, S.A., Thern, H., Vejbaek, O., 2015: NMR
Fluid Substitution Method for Reservoir
Characterization and Drilling Optimization in Low-
Porosity Chalk. Paper HH presented at the SPWLA
56th Annual Logging Symposium, Long Beach,
California, USA, July 18-22, 2015.
12
Coman, R., Tietjen, H., Thern, H., Blanz, M.,
Christensen, S.A., 2015: Improved NMR Logging
Approach to Simultaneously Determine Porosity, T2
and T1. SPE paper 175050 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, USA, 28-30 September 2015.
Dodge, WM.S., Shafer, J.L., Guzman-Garcia, A.G.,
1995: Core and Log NMR Measurements of an Iron-
rich Glauconitic Sandstone Reservoir. Paper O
presented at the SPWLA 36th Annual Logging
Symposium, Paris, France, 26-29 June 1995.
Herrick, D.C., 2013: Pore-Geometric Controls on
Single-Phase Darcy Permeability of Porous Media.
Abstract presented at the GeoConvention held in
Calgary, Alberta, May 6-10, 2013.
Hursan, G., Chen, S., Murphy, E., 2005: New NMR
Two-Dimensional Inversion of T1/T2app vs. T2app
Method for Gas Well Petrophysical Interpretation.
SPWLA paper GGG presented at the SPWLA 46th
Annual Logging Symposium held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, United States, June 26-29, 2005.
Korb, J.P., Nicot, B., Louis-Joseph, A., Bubici, S.,
Ferrante, G., 2014, Dynamics and Wettability of Oil
and Water in Oil Shales. The Journal of Physical
Chemistry C, 118 (40), pp. 23212-23218, 2014.
Looyestijn, W.J., 2008: Wettability-Index
Determination from NMR Logs. Petrophysics, vol. 49,
no. 2, pp. 130-145, 2008.
Martin, P. and Dacy, J., 2004: Effective Qv by NMR
Core Tests. Paper HH presented at the 45th Annual
Logging Symposium held in Noordwijk, Netherlands6-
9 June, 2014.
Ostroff, G.M., Shorey, D.S., and Georgi, D.T., 1999:
Integration of NMR and Conventional Log Data for
ImprovedPetrophysical Evaluation of Shaly Sand.
Paper OOO presented at the SPWLA 40th Annual
Logging Symposium, Oslo, Norway, May 30 - June 3,
1999.
Ostroff, G.M. and Shorey, D.S., 2000: Applications of
NMR log Data For Evaluation Of Low-Resisitivity
Pay. Paper presented at the GeoCanada Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 2000.
Passey, Q.R., Creaney, S., Kulla, J.B., Moretti, F.J.,
Stroud, J.D., 1990: A Practical Model for Organic
Richness from Porosity and Resistivity Logs. AAPG
Bulletin, 74, (12), pp. 1777-1794, 1990.
Ruesltten, H., Eidesmo, T., Slot-Petersen, C., White,
J., 1998: NMR Studies of an Iron-Rich Sandstone Oil
Reservoir. SCA paper 9821 presented at the
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016
International Symposium of the Society of Core
Analysts, the Hague, Sept. 14-16, 1998.
Sun, B.Q., Olson, M., Baranowski, J., Chen, S., Li, W.,
Georgi, D., 2006: Direct Fluid Typing and
Quantification of Orinoco Belt Heavy Oil Reservoirs
Using 2D NMR Logs., SPWLA paper presented at the
SPWLA 47th Annual Logging Symposium held in
Veracruz, June 4-7, 2006
Thern, H., 2014: Examining the Fluid Film Model in
Porous Media by NMR Rock Catalog Data, paper
SCA2014-51 presented at the International Symposium
of the Society of Core Analysts, Avignon, France, 8-11
September, 2014.
Thorsen, A.K., Eiane, T., Thern, H., Williams, S.,
Fristad, P., 2010: Magnetic Resonance in Chalk
Horizontal Well Logged with LWD, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering, paper 115699, vol. 13, no. 4,
p. 654-666, 2010.
Woodhouse, R., Warner, H.R., 2005: Sw and
Hydrocarbon Pore Volume Estimates in Shaly Sands
Routine Oil-Based-Mud Core Measurements Compared
with Several Log Analysis Models. SPE paper 96618
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9-12 October, 2005.
Worthington, P.E., 1985, The Evolution of Shaly-Sand
Concepts in Reservoir Evaluation. The Log Analyst,
vol. 26, no. 1, p. 2340, 1985.
13
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Holger Thern is a Technical Lead
for NMR research at the Celle
Technology Center at Baker
Hughes in Germany working with
NMR technology for 18 years.
Holger earned a B.A. in Physics
from the University of Constance
and an M.Sc. in Geophysics from
the University of Cologne. His work experience
includes data interpretation development and technical
support for NMR wireline logging applications with
Western Atlas in Houston, Texas, and the development
of the MagTrak NMR LWD tool in Celle, Germany.
Currently he is working on new NMR applications and
interpretation methods for both wireline and LWD
NMR applications.
Geoffrey Page studied physics at
the Royal College of Science in
London. He began his oilfield
career as a Dresser Atlas field
engineer 36 years ago, moved into
Petrophysics in Aberdeen 28 years
ago, and is now Region
Petrophysical Advisor for Baker
Hughes based in Aberdeen. He is a former President of
the Aberdeen chapter of the SPWLA (AFES) and was
honoured with a life membership. He has written and
presented many papers over the years, helped organise
many of the conferences including SPWLA 2008 in
Edinburgh, and in his spare time teaches the
Petrophysics course of Aberdeen Universitys
Integrated Petroleum Geoscience MSc course.
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Fig. 16 Wireline log example from oil-bearing sandstone formation in the Gulf of Mexico for identification of
water-free production by combining NMR and resistivity data. Track 1: Rock volume with various rock and fluid
components; Track 2: Resistivity and NMR-based permeability; Track 3: Resistivity-based saturation; Track 4:
Volumetrics with NMR fluid fractions (CBW and BVI) and resistivity-based fluid fractions (water and hydrocarbon);
Track 5: NMR T2 distribution. NMR bound water indicates clearly that the whole reservoir section from 4520 to
4610 ft will produce oil without water-cut. The strong variations in the amount of bound water are associated with a
change in sand grain size. In very fine-grained sand more water volume will be kept in place due to higher capillary
forces.

Figure adopted from Ostroff, 1999.

14
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Fig. 17 LWD log example from a gas-bearing sand-shale formation in Italy for identification of water-free
production by combining NMR and resistivity data. Track 1: Gamma Ray; Track 2: Resistivity; Track 3: Resistivity
at fixed depth of investigations after removing adjacent bed effects; Track 4: Porosity from density, neutron and
NMR; Track 5: NMR T2 distribution; Track 6: Volumetrics with NMR fluid fractions (CBW and BVI) and
resistivity-based fluid fractions (water and hydrocarbon); Track 7: NMR-based permeability; Track 8: Electrical
image. The porosity data in Track 4 show a close response of density, neutron and NMR in the sand zones indicating
that NMR sees formation fully invaded by WBM filtrate and density-neutron sees formation partially invaded. The
deep-reading resistivity saturation in Track 6 quantifies the water and hydrocarbon volumes, with gas saturation
below 50%. Adding NMR bound fluid indicates water-free gas production in the top two-third of the log despite the
relatively low hydrocarbon saturation. Further down the data indicate water-bearing sand layers.
15
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Fig. 18 LWD log example from an oil-bearing carbonate formation in Saudi Arabia for identification of heavy oil
and tar by combining LWD NMR and resistivity Track 1: Resistivity; Track 2: Resistivity-based volumetrics (water
and hydrocarbon); Track 3: NMR-based volumetrics (bound water and movable fluid) and conventional total
porosity; Track 4: Porosity difference of NMR compared to conventional total porosity; Track 5: Excess bound
water; Track 6: Mobilities from formation tester; Track 7: NMR T2 distributions. Heavy oil is identified by excess
bound water from comparing NMR-based bound water volume to resistivity-based water volume. Immobile tar is
additionally identified by NMR porosity underestimation. Formation tester mobilities confirm the presence of heavy
oil and tar.

Figure adopted from Akkurt, 2009.

16
 SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Fig. 19 LWD log example from an oil-bearing chalk formation, offshore Denmark, for identification of water-base
mud (WBM) filtrate invasion by combining NMR and resistivity. Track 1: Gamma ray, caliper, bitsize, rate of
penetration (ROP); Track 2: Resistivity, NMR-baseed permeability, NMR-based pore size; Track 3: Fluid-
substituted NMR T2 distribution; Track 4: Measured T2 distribution; Track 5: Saturation from NMR and resistivity;
Track 6: Volumetrics from NMR, resistivity and conventional total porosity. Saturation from deep-reading
resistivity indicates water saturation around 30% in most of the well. Saturation from NMR indicates much higher
water saturation of up to 80% in the upper section of the log due to invasion of WBM filtrate. Shallow invasion of
WBM filtrate can easily be determined from the two measurements.

Figure adopted from Christensen, 2015. NMR fluid substitution and its results are described there in detail.
17
SPWLA 57 th Annual Logging Symposium, June 25-29, 2016

Fig. 20 LWD log example from an oil-bearing chalk formation in the North Sea for identification of deviations in
Archie parameters by combining NMR and resistivity Track 1: Gamma ray, caliper, bitsize; Track 2: Resistivity and
NMR-based permeability; Track 3: NMR T2 distribution; Track 4: Saturation from NMR and resistivity; Track 5:
Volumetrics from NMR, as well as density and neutron data. In the OBM-drilled section NMR yields a maximum
hydrocarbon saturation indicating that the commonly applied resistivity processing overestimates the hydrocarbon
saturation. Archie parameters were thus adjusted in this field. In the WBM-drilled section, NMR underestimates the
hydrocarbon volume because it is affected by shallow WBM filtrate invasion.

Figure adopted from Thorsen, 2008.

18