CANADIAN HEAVY

OIL ASSOCIATION

SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935
PS2005-425

Ranking Oil Viscosity in Heavy-Oil Reservoirs

J. Seccombe, BP Alaska; R.J.M. Bonnie, Halliburton Energy Services; M. Smith, BP Alaska; and R. Akkurt,
Halliburton Energy Services

Copyright 2005, SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium
staggering estimate of 20 billion barrels of stock tank barrels
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations of oil in place (STOIP) across the North Slope.
and Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1 3 November 2005.
The challenges can be summarized as finding the sweet
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA Program Committee
following review of information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of spots, i.e. zones with lighter, less viscous, more producible oil,
the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, in these reservoirs. Horizontal wells can be drilled in sands
Petroleum Societ yCanadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum, or the Canadian
Heavy Oil Association and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as containing the lighter oils , swinging the economics of the
presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE/ PS-CIM/CHOA, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA meetings are subject to publication development of these fields. But an efficient and economical
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and PS-CIM/CHOA. Electronic reproduction, way of finding these zones is critical.
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the SPE or PS-CIM/CHOA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is Traditional fluid sampling isnt a viable alternative to
restricted to a proposal of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
proposal must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was obtain oil-viscosity, but geochemical analysis of oil samples
presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax extracted from sidewall cores has successfully identified sweet
01-972-952-9435.
spots, for example in the North Slopes Ugnu formation. Fig.
1 displays in-situ oil viscosity estimates from such analysis on
Abstract samples from Milne Point field.
The Milne Point field in Alaska produces from the Kuparuk,
Schrader, and Ugnu formations. The Kuparuk formation
contains light oil, while the Schrader and Ugnu contain heavy
oil. The ranges of viscosities are 200 to 10,000 cp in the Ugnu,
20 200 cp in the Schrader, and about 3 cp in the Kuparuk.
Over 200 wells have been completed in the Kuparuk and
Schrader formations at Milne Point. The Ugnu contains the
largest oil in place in the field; however, it has not been
developed yet due to the high oil viscosities. To date, only one
well has been completed in the Ugnu.
BP is engaged in new studies to find a way to make the
Ugnu commercial. This paper discusses an attempt to identify
lower-viscosity sweet spots within the Ugnu using nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements.
In 2004, full suites of logging while drilling (LWD) and
wireline data were acquired in two newly drilled wells. The
primary goal was to compare viscosity predictions from NMR
log measurements to geochemical measurements made on
fluids extracted from core plugs. For the first time, on a foot- Fig. 1Milne Point Schrader and Ugnu Viscosities.
by-foot basis, using LWD NMR, lower viscosity sweet-spots
were identified in the viscous Schrader formation and in the However, the costs to drill or shoot sidewall cores and the
very heavy oil in the Ugnu formations. costs of subsequent geo-chemical (GC) analyses are
prohibitive. Turn-around times are too slow for near real-time
Introduction or real-time decisions to aid well placement. Sample coverage
Viscous oil is one of the largest remaining untapped resources is, generally, fairly sparse; and it is easy to miss sampling the
at Alaskas North Slope and, at the same time, poses some of sweet spot.
the biggest challenges in the industry hindering economical None of these inherent drawbacks seem associated with
development. The gains, however, are enormous with the integration (LWD-) NMR data with conventional resistivity-
2 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935
and density-derived porosity logs, offering a more economical,
continuous (foot-by-foot), almost instantaneous, alternative.
Milne Point Field
Various viscous oil targets have been identified within the
Kuparuk, Prudhoe Bay, and Milne Point oil fields at Alaskas
North Slope. For this paper, the focus is on Milne Point, which
is located approximately 12 miles west of Prudhoe Bay. The
main reservoir units of the Milne Point field are Ugnu,
Schrader Bluff, and Kuparuk, respectively.
Oil viscosity in the Schrader formation ranges from 20 to
200 cp. Significantly higher viscosities, ranging from 200 cp
to 10,000 cp, are encountered in the overlying Ugnu sands.
Any interval in the Ugnu with oil lighter than 500 cp is viewed
as a sweet spot. Several such sweet spots have been
identified in the Ugnu through geochemical analyses of oil
samples from sidewall cores. Fig. 1 presents estimates of in-
situ oil viscosity based on geochemical analysis on samples
from several Milne wells. (By the way, the two wells being
discussed in this paper did not encounter any viscosities in the
100 to 1,000 cp range in the Ugnu.)
The Ugnu reservoir, with its average depth, pressure and
temp erature of 3,500 ft (true vertical depth subsea; tvdss),
1,600 psi, and 75 F, respectively, contains two major sand
intervals : the M- and L-sands. These late-Cretaceous to lower-
Tertiary, stacked fluvial to deltaic, unconsolidated sands,
feature permeabilities ranging from a few hundred millidarcies
to several darcies. The M-sand package is ~300 ft thick and
contains individual sand bodies ranging in thickness from 30
to 80 ft, separated by shales. The L-sand package is ~200 ft
and contains thinner stacked sands
The Schrader Bluff reservoir contains three major units,
the N, OA, and OB sands (top to bottom). The average depth,
pressure and temperature are 4,000 ft tvdss, 1,800 psi, and 80
F, respectively. They are stacked, unconsolidated, shallow
marine, late-Cretaceous sandstones, with permeability ranging
from 10 to 300 mD in the O-sands and 200 to 2,000 mD in the
N-sands. Both the OA and OB sands are 25-30 feet thick,
separated by a 50-100-foot thick shale. The N-sand sequence
consists of six coarsening upward packages that each vary in
thickness. The overall package is ~100 feet thick, and the main
N-sand reservoir (NB-sand) is some 15-20 feet thick.
A complex system of faults covers the Milne Point field,
with fluid type and viscosities varying from block to block
within correlative sand units. Oil viscosity also varies
significantly vertically within a fault block, and the ability to
quantify oil viscosity on a foot-by-foot basis is critical to
viscous oil development.
What Has Been Done in the Milne Point Field?
Milne Point is a relatively old field, discovered back in 1969
by Conoco. First oil (ex Kuparuk) was not until 1985, and
production declined rapidly only two months after start-up. Oil
production did benefit from water flooding; but still, the field
was shut-in in 1987, only two short years after start of
production.
The field was restarted again in 1990 and drilling
continued to keep production up. The next year 1991 saw oil
production from the Schrader Bluff formation as well.
BP took over as operator in 1994 when it purchased
Conocos controlling interest and managed to increase
Kuparuk production significantly by (1) starting an immiscible
WAG flood in 1994, (2) investing in a facility expansion in
1996, and (3) doubling the total number of wells. Kuparuk
production peaked in 1998 and declined steadily since, despite
all before mentioned efforts. This decline has been offset by
ramping up production from the viscous Schrader formation.
The future of Milne Point is becoming increasingly tied to
the future of viscous oil production / development. Conoco
had drilled a total of 20 vertical wells into the viscous
Schrader Bluff; however, average production was only some
100 barrels of oil per day per well. In the late 1990s, BP
added another 20 vertical wells, doubling Schrader production.
Fig. 2Hydrocarbon production, Milne Point Field.
With the advent of horizontal well drilling, significantly
higher well rates are achieved. Today all new producers in the
Schrader Bluff are horizontal wells, either mono-bores or
multi-laterals . The longest horizontal section to date is 5,642 ft
with a total well length of 11,006 ft.
In 2003, the first horizontal well was drilled through the
Ugnu formation in an attempt to produce the very heavy Ugnu
oil. This well currently serves as the play-ground to test
alternative and / or new, heavy-oil production techniques.
Chasing the Sweet Spots
Only oil with a viscosity below roughly 200 cp will flow to
the surface from these reservoirs in Milne Point, so it is
critical for the field development to actually find these sweet
spots. Horizontal wells are used to optimally drain the sands
that contain the least viscous oil. This strategy requires timely
and reliable viscosity information, to maximize the potential
of all wells drilled by indeed landing them in low-viscosity-oil
sands. Real time viscosity readings while drilling is the
ultimate goal.
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935
The most obvious be it very expensive choice is to take
oil samples and analyze them for viscosity. Unfortunately, oil
at these high viscosities flows very, very slowly; and high
draw-down pressures are required. Add to that the
complication of highly unconsolidated formations in the Milne
Point area. Unconsolidation will lead to sanding problems
when trying to drain samples, and it becomes obvious that any
modern formation tester will fail. Alternative methods need to
be explored.
One such alternative is to collect side-wall cores rotary-
or percussion and perform geo-chemical (GC) analysis on
the oil that is still contained in these core plugs. The GC data
can next be correlated to in-situ viscosity. This approach has
been the proven method in the Milne Point Field to date. This
approach, however, has several drawbacks: sparse data
coverage, sample integrity, sample quality, and the long turn-
around time (weeks) for the GC analysis, to name the most
prominent ones.
NMR diffusion measurements hold the promise of
providing a continuous viscosity log. Acquiring T2 data at two
different inter-echo spacings (DTE) enables one to study the
molecular self diffusion of the individual fluids (components).
Diffusivity D0 and viscosity ? are inversely proportional, so
after proper calibration, the DTE-data can indeed be used to
generate a viscosity log:
12
T2 =
D0 ( G TE ) 2
c
=
D0
We have used forward modeling (Bonnie, et al., 2001) to
generate the NMR T2 spectra displayed in Fig. 3. These
spectra are for typical Milne Point reservoir parameters and
assume an in -situ oil viscosity of 20 cp. Comparing the spectra
at an echo spacing TE of 1.2 ms to the spectra at TE = 6 ms,
shows a noticeable shift (shortening) for the water components
(bound and moveable) and the OBM filtrate (diesel).
Fig. 3Modeled T2 spectra at different inter-echo times TE show
no noticeable diffusion effect (shortening of T2) for oil viscosities
? greater than approximately 20 cp.
However, no shortening is observed for the 20 cp oil and
the same will be true for even more viscous oil. Consequently,
3
diffusion measurements are not capable of quantifying oil
viscosity in Milne.
Both the longitudinal relaxation time T1 and the transverse
relaxation time T2 are inversely proportional to viscosity; i.e.
the relaxation time shortens at higher viscosity. This is
visualized in the modelling results in Fig. 4, again for typical
Milne conditions and under the assumption that oil is non-
wetting. The viscous oil peak shortens from just under 10 ms
for 200 cp oil to well below 1 ms for 2,000 cp oil. The low-
end detection limit for the current generation MRIL tools in
their standard set-up is about 1 ms. Faster signals are simply
not resolved; even not detected. Hence, the ultra fast
relaxation times associated with these very viscous oils will
lead to an under-call of the apparent (MRIL) porosity.
The detection limits on the MRIL tools are indicated by
the gray-shaded zones in Fig. 4. When any signature moves
into the low-end blind zone, this will show up as an under-call
in apparent MRIL porosity. Under-call or missing porosity can
be identified and quantified by comparing apparent NMR
porosity with another reliable porosity source, e.g., density-
porosity. This feature of the NMR tool has been very
instrumental before in the identification of tar mats and has
enabled us to locate the sweet spots in Milne. At Milne, NMR
porosity matches density porosity and the zones with too
viscous to produce oil when NMR porosity is less than density
porosity.
Fig. 4Modeled NMR spectra versus viscosity. T1 values decline
with increasing viscosity, and porosity is under-called for
viscosities ? greater than roughly 600 cp.
What Did We Do and What Did We Get?
At the time this paper was drafted, a total of four wells had
been logged and analyzed, but our discussions here are limited
to the first two wells only. The logging program in these two
wells was more elaborate and included LWD triple -combo,
both LWD and wireline NMR, and percussion sidewall cores,
covering the Schrader Bluff and Ugnu intervals. Details of the
LWD NMR tool can be found in Prammer, et al. (2000); and
details on the WL-NMR, in Morris , et al. (1994).
4 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935

The purpose for the Magnetic Resonance log-off was to GR DEPTH

feet LWD- NMR WL NMR
get the closest comparison of T1 NMR measurements made T1 mode T2 mode
while drilling, with T2 NMR measurements made on wireline.
The LWD-NMR tool is set up to acquire T1 data when
drilling, as its implementation of the T1 measurement is not 3600

adversely impacted by (lateral) tool motion, e.g. vibrations.

Another key difference of the T1 measurement is the absence 3700

of diffusion, which in many cases may simplify the

interpretation (Bonnie, et al., 2003). However, the absence of 3800

Ugnu
diffusion is not expected to play a role of any significance in
the Milne-setting. 3900

For both wells, LWD-NMR T1 data were recorded during

the drilling and wipe phases . These records give an excellent 4000

opportunity to evaluate the repeatability of the measurements

and to check for (early) invasion features. 4100

With the WL-NMR tools, data was collected in continuous

passes and in a series of 45-minute stationary points . They 4200

acquire both routine T2 and diffusion editing (DE) data,

respectively. The main objective for diffusion editing (see 4300

Hurlimann, 2002) was to predict oil viscosity.

Schrader Bluff
Fig. 5 shows a direct comparison of the LWD-NMR T1 4400

and WL-NMR T2 data. They are representative for both wells.

The spectral resolution of the LWD T1 logs is superior over 4500

the WL T2 logs. The main reason for this difference is the

much higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the LWD T1 logs. 4600

The T1 data was acquired while drilling the well; and, given
the relatively slow drilling progress (ROP), many echo-trains 4700

could be stacked to further improve the SNR, without

adversely affecting the vertical resolution of the logs. 4800

It is realized, though, that the timing of events has the

potential of introducing discrepancies, caused by the Fig. 5LWD-NMR T1 distributions (track #2) have superior
spectral resolution than WL-NMR T2 distributions (track #3)
differences in formation exposure time at the time of logging,
between the LWD results and the WL results. The LWD-
Both the quality- and repeatability of the LWD-NMR T1
NMR data is acquired very shortly after penetration of the
data are excellent, as can be seen in Fig. 6, which shows a
formation, i.e., well before significant invasion with mud
150-ft section of LWD-NMR data in a wet zone. This figure
filtrate has occurred. In contrast, the WL-NMR data is
contains both the drill (main) and wipe (repeat) logs. The
acquired much later; and its assumed that full invasion has
general response (i.e. comparison with the nuclear data,
occurred. However, it was not known prior to the first series of
especially density-porosity) and repeatability over a wet-zone
logging runs, what the extent of mud filtrate invasion in these
is important since the actual interpretation hinges on porosity
viscous oil reservoirs would be and whether that would indeed
diffe rences: under-call of porosity can either be caused by the
harm the interpretation.
presence of gas, the presence of very viscous oil (? > 600 cp)
Analysis of the logoff data clearly shows that the shallow-
or by tool malfunctioning. The LWD-NMR porosity does
reading WL NMR tool never saw past the invaded zone. The
indeed match the nuclear logs very well, as per our
excellent repeatability of the drilling- and wipe-passes of the
assumptions; and the excellent repeatability of both the NMR
LWD-NMR data, however, proved beyond doubt that the
porosity logs and T1 spectra adds confidence to the
LWD-NMR readings were not affected at all by invasion. This
interpretation of porosity discrepancies as high-viscosity oil
observation enables us to estimate the actual depth of filtrate
accumulations and not gas or artifacts.
invasion: deeper than about one inch (depth of investigation,
Fig. 7 reiterates the excellent repeatability. This figure
DOI, of the W L NMR tool), yet shallower than about three
shows the LWD-NMR total porosity as recorded while drilling
inches (DOI of the LWD-NMR tool, accounting for the hole
the well (blue curve) in overlay with the same while slowly
size of 8.5 inches). Furthermore, the time between LWD and
rotating out of the hole (red curve). The bottom-hole assembly
WL data acquisition (measured in days) also exacerbated the
(BHA) used to drill this highly deviated well did not include a
effects of mud filtrate invasion.
rotary steerable system, and the bars in the
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935
figure indicate whenever the BHA was sliding to point the bit,
and hence the well-path, in the right direction. The most
prominent and only real discrepancy between drilling-in
porosity and pulling out of the hole porosity (POOH-porosity)
appears in a 50-ft interval just beneath 4,000 feet md . It
coincides with a sliding / orienting interval. Furthermore,
inspection of the caliper data over this interval revealed hole-
enlargement. Here, the LWD-NMR tool was picking up bore-
hole signal when being pushed off center into the wall,
leading to the anomalously high porosity readings observed
during drilling. In contrast, the lower values during POOH
matched density-porosity. The repeat / POOH data presented
in Fig. 7 shows less activity or character. These attributes are a
consequence of the POOH speed being slightly, but
consistently, faster than the ROP while drilling in, leading to
reduced vertical resolution. The over all excellent repeatability
of the readings obtained while-drilling with those obtained
while POOH, unambiguously proves that the T1 measurement
is indeed motion tolerant and does not suffer from the adverse
effects seen on T2 -while -drilling data.
To summarize and conclude this section, the main
attractions and advantages of the LWD-NMR tool are the
greater depth of investigation and superior spectral resolution.
5
In addition, there is also the economic advantage: quality data
is collected while drilling the well, and no additional rig-time
needs to be committed to acquire this data on wireline post
drilling.
Ranking Oil Viscosity
So far we have established a robust approach to find the sweet
spots, or, more precisely, the zones containing oil too viscous
to produce. Inferring the sweet-spots is easy and
straightforward at this point, and we only need a fraction of all
available data: the porosity differences between the NMR logs
and density logs.
We have developed a methodology where, by integration
of the geo-chemical data with the spectral information from
the LWD-NMR T1 log, we can estimate the in situ viscosity of
the oil.
The backbone of this interpretation algorithm is the
correlation shown in Fig. 8 between viscosity ? and T1 LM, the
logarithmic mean of the relaxation time. The data points in
this figure represent T1 LM values (from the log) averaged
over a given interval and the corresponding averaged viscosity
(from GC analysis).
6 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935

drilling / main wipe / repeat

GR-main density / neutron T1 distribution density / neutron T1 distribution
GR-repeat NMR porosity log mean T 1 NMR porosity log mean T1

Fig. 6LWD-NMR T1 data in wet zone in Milne Point Field

 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935 7

3400

3500

3600

3700

3800

3900

4000

4100

4200

4300

4400
Fig. 7 Repeatability of LWD-NMR T1 in Milne Point
Field. The blue curve in track #1 is the porosity
reading recorded while drilling, and the red curve
is porosity during the wiper trip. The bars indicate
when the tool-string was sliding for directional 4500
drilling purposes. The porosity difference between
both passes is shown in track #2; blue represents
all data, and the sliding-sections are excluded in
the red curve. When the BHA was sliding from
3,980 ft 4,000 ft, the MRIL-WD sensor was
pushed into a wash-out (as per the caliper; not 4600
shown); and some bore-hole signal was picked
up, resulting in the inflated porosity reading.
T1Ptot (pu)
4700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -20 -10 0 10 20
8 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935

The data hints at a linear correlation (red line) between T1 LM
and ?. This transform can be used to generate a viscosity log
from the T1 distribution. Alternatively, a T1 cutoff at 30 ms
seems appropriate to differentiate intermediate-viscosity oil
from light oil.
No heavy-oil data points are shown in Fig. 8 since GC
analysis is not capable of discriminating
viscosities beyond approximately 1,000 cp. However, it has
been observed that T1 LM is consistently less than 20 ms in
those cases. Note that there is ample room for improvement of
this method: the GC-data reflects oil properties, whereas in
zones with Soil < 100%, the viscous-oil T1 LM is
contaminated with the signature from the formation water
(be it bound or moveable).

Fig 8 Logarithmic mean T1 from LWD-NMR versus oil viscosity (top) from GC-analysis on sidewall samples (bottom)
SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935
Before even starting the discussion of the automated viscosity
ranking process (its flowchart is shown in Fig. 9), it is
worthwhile to make sure everybody is on the same page by
defining light-, intermediate- and viscous-oil, in the context of
this paper. For example, whats considered light-oil on the
North Slope, is classified very heavy-oil in the Gulf of
Mexico. So, oil from the North Slope is ranked as follows:
Light oil: ? < 200 cp, T1 LM > 30 ms
Intermediate oil: 200 < ? < 1,000 cp, T1 LM < 30 ms
Heavy oil: ? > 1,000 cp, T1 LM < 20 ms .
Fig. 9Flow chart for the viscosity ranking process.
As is shown in Fig. 9, the viscosity ranking process
consists of three basic steps, the first of which is identifying
potential pay zones. The cutoffs we are currently using for the
Milne Point field, 70 api for gamma ray and 12 ohm-m for the
resistivity logs, are shaded in tracks 1 and 2 of Fig. 10,
respectively. The white areas in track #3 of the same figure
indicate zones of interest, i.e., zones that match both criteria.
The second step is to identify the heavy oil zones. As
discussed earlier on in this paper, this step requires tracking
differences between NMR-porosity and density derived
porosity (track #4). Our forward modeling results in Fig. 4
indicate that the LWD-NMR tool used in Milne only starts to
undercall porosity if in situ oil viscosity exceeds 600 cp,
which makes the method insensitive for the intermediate
viscosity range 20 600 cp. Therefore, we have added an
9
additional criterion that allows identification of oils in this
viscosity range. The dominant T1 peaks of these oils fall below
roughly 40 ms. Hence, they show up in the traditional BVI
range (i.e. capillary bound fluid) rather than in the FFI range
(moveable fluid), leading to a normal porosity reading but a
greatly suppressed maybe even zero FFI reading. Therefore,
zones are labeled as heavy in track #7 whenever the apparent
density-porosity exceeds NMR-porosity by at least 4 pu (track
#5), or when FFI is less than 4 pu (track #6). Its good to
realize that these criteria are only applied to prospective zones
identified by the first step. Shale zones, for example, will also
have zero FFI but will have already been removed in the first
step.
The third and yet final step is differentiation of lighter
versus medium / heavy (remember, all is relative) viscosity
oil. This step, as detailed before and shown in Fig. 8, is made
possible by integration of NMR- and geochemical-data and
uses the logarithmic mean T1 from the LWD-NMR log. A
relaxation time cutoff at 30 ms is used in track #8 to
distinguish the lighter viscosity oil (? < 200 cp) from the more
viscous oil. We have shaded from T1 LM up to 30 ms blue and
from 30 ms up to T1 LM in red. Combined with the previous
two steps, we now have a means to classify the pay zones into
three oil-viscosity ranges, as shown in the two right-most
tracks of Fig. 10.
What Can Be Done In Real Time and in Other Fields?
The results shown in Figs 5, 6 and 11 are all based on (post-)
processed memory data; but the ultimate goal, of course, is to
accomplish the same in real-time . This accomplishment would
open the possibility to geosteer wells through the reservoir
within the sweet spots. This is, in principle, possible even
today but is hindered by the limited bandwidth of current
(mud-pulse) telemetry systems. The minimum set of
measurements required for the viscosity ranking process, as
presented, are density-porosity and NMR-porosity, GR,
resistivity, FFI, and T1 LM. These measurements, in addition
to the directional drilling parameters that are being pulsed
uphole, are too heavy a burden on the telemetry system.
However, locating the sweet spots, or, more precisely,
avoiding the viscous-oil zones, can be accomplished with a
reduced set of variables that can be transmitted within the
available bandwidth. This information will then offer
improved well placement capabilities, and detailed assessment
of the oil quality can be postponed until after downloading and
processing the memory data. Fig. 11 demonstrates what can be
accomplished in real time: the most
10 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935

Fig. 10Viscosity ranking in Milne Point.

SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935 11

Fig. 11Identification of viscous oil zones and hence sweet spots can be done in real-time by overlying density-porosity RHOB and
LWD-NMR-porosity MSIG (red and blue curves in right-most track). Real time NMR porosity and T1Ptot from post-processed memory data
match extremely well.
12 SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA 97935

right-hand track shows the overlay of real-time density- And a Special Thanks to
derived porosity RHOB (DRILL) and real-time LWD-NMR Many people have been helpful and instrumental, and there
porosity MSIG (DRILL). isnt enough space to name them all. However, we especially
The center track of this figure shows excellent agreement want to mention Halliburtons Ron Harris, Tim Flynn and Rob
between real-time LWD-NMR porosity MSIG and post Kalish. We also note that co-author Ridvan Akkurt is now
processed porosity T1 PTOT. The vertical resolution of MSIG with Saudi Aramco.
is slightly reduced, leading to some smearing or lazy
behavior of the curve. References
The question has been asked several times whether this
viscosity ranking process can be applied in other fields as 1. Bonnie, R. J. M., Marschall, D. M., Siess, C. P. and Fam,
well. The answer is yes and no. Physics doesnt change M. Y., 2001, Advanced Forward Modelling Helps Planning
from one field to the other, and the same underlying principles and Interpreting NMR Logs, paper SPE-71735 presented at
the 2001 SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA.
apply. In other words, the same logic can be applied globally.
2. Bonnie, R. J. M., Akkurt, R., Al-Waheed, H., Bradford, C.,
Actual (cut-off) parameters, however, are field dependent and Eyvazzadeh, R. Y., Aadireddy, P. and Negm, E., 2003,
need to be changed. The cut-offs for GR and resistivity are the Wireline T1 Logging, paper SPE-84483 presented at the
easiest to understand; but correlation with geo-chemical data 2003 SPE ATCE, Denver, CO.
will, most likely, also suggest a different cut-off for T1 (or the 3. Hurlimann, M. D., Venkataramanan, L., Flaum, C., Speier,
logarithmic mean T1 , to be more precise). P., Karmonik, C., Freedman, R., and Heaton, N., 2002,
Diffusion-Editing: New NMR Measurement of Saturation
Conclusions and Recommendations and Pore Geometry, presented at the 43rd SPWLA Annual
The LWD-NMR T1 logs recorded in Milne Point prove that Symposium, Japan.
4. McCaffrey, M. A., and Baskin, D. K., 2004, Geochemical
the technology is a viable and reliable, non-radioactive
Characterization of Oil from Sidewall Cores, Milne Point
porosity measurement alternative. Data quality is excellent Field, North Slope Alaska, internal BP report.
with good repeatability, high vertical- resolution and spectral- 5. Morris, C. E., Freedman, R., Straley, C., Johnston, M.,
resolution and excellent agreement with density-derived Vinegar, H. J. and Tutunjian, P. N., Field Test of an
porosity except, of course, in the heavy oil zones. Experimental Pulsed Nuclear Magnetism Tool, presented at
Zones with very viscous oil were easily and successfully the 34th SPWLA Annual Sy mposium, Calgary, Canada
located by comparis on of NMR porosity and density-porosity. 6. Prammer, M.G., Drack, E., Goodman, G., Masak, P.,
Identification of the sweet spots followed automatically. These Menger, S., Zannoni, S., Suddarth, B., and Dudley, J.,
findings are corroborated by geochemical analysis. 2000, The magnetic resonance while drilling tool: theory
and operation, Society of Petroleum Engineers paper
Moreover, study of available geochemical data and the
62981, presented at the 75th Annual Technical Conference
NMR T1 spectral data confirmed the strong correlation and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 1 4.
between T1 LM and viscosity and has led to a first-tier
viscosity ranking process. This process can be greatly refined
and improved once more NMR-parameters and GC-
parameters and properties become available and are taken into
account. These enrichments will ultimately lead to a robust
quantitative relationship for the Milne Point field.
The addition of LWD-NMR logging to the conventional
LWD-suite is a more economical alternative to sampling and
geo-chemical analysis . It provides far better coverage and
practically eradicates the chances of missing the sweet spots.
Bandwidth limitation is the only obstacle that prevents
real-time application of this viscosity ranking process. Once
this limitation is overcome, the method can be applied to
improve well-placement and assist in geosteering. The
effective depth of investigation of the mandrel-type LWD-
NMR was on the order of three inches, substantially deeper
than the roughly one inch DOI for the side-looking WL-NMR
device. This, combined with the differences in invasion at the
time of data acquisition virtually none at the time of the
LWD-NMR and complete invasion at the time of WL-NMR
is most likely the culprit of the very disappointing diffusion
editing results measurements. For the exact same reasons,
LWD-NMR is preferred over WL-NMR.