Nuclear-Magnetic-Resonance
Petrophysics in Thin Sand/Shale
Laminations
Chanh Cao Minh, Schlumberger, and Padmanabhan Sundararaman, Chevron
Summary
We discuss the use of nuclear-magnetic-resonance (NMR) logging
in the petrophysical evaluation of thin sand/shale laminations.
NMR helps detect thin beds, determine fluid type, establish the
hydrocarbon type and volume if hydrocarbon is present, and,
finally, determine the permeability of the sand layers (as opposed
to that of the sand/shale system).
Experiments were conducted on samples of 100% sand, 100%
clay, and sand/clay layers with an NMR-logging tool at surface to
verify the characteristic T2 bimodal relaxation distribution often
observed in NMR logs that are acquired in thin beds. From the
bimodal distribution, it is often possible to determine a cutoff to
separate the productive sand layers from the shale layers and,
with it, the porosity fraction of each component. Subsequently,
the sand fraction, or net/gross ratio, can be estimated assuming
that the 100%-sand porosity is known. Because gas, oil, and water
have different NMR properties, fluid-typing techniques such as
2D NMR offer useful insights into the fluid type and properties in
thin-layer sands. Because the laminations thickness is often less
than the antenna aperture, the estimated permeability of the sand/
shale system will undercall the true permeability of the sand layers
only. In this case, their permeability can be estimated quickly from
Darcy’s fluid-flow model.
We show examples of thin sand/shale laminations that are oil-
bearing and gas-bearing. In each case, the NMR detection was
verified against borehole-imaging logs, and the fluid type in the
sands was determined from multidimensional NMR analysis. The
derived hydrocarbon volume was then compared with the results
estimated from a triaxial induction tool. Permeability of the sand
layers was also computed and compared to that of nearby thick
sands. Core data in one well was used to validate NMR detection,
porosity, permeability, and net sand thickness.
Introduction
Thin-bed-evaluation problems with well logs have long been recog-
nized, studied since the late 1970s. In the three decades since, four
techniques have evolved with time. The first is the deconvolution
of low-resolution logs, for which a good account can be found in
Looyestijn (1982). The second is the use of shallow measurements
with intrinsic high vertical resolution to enhance the deeper mea-
surements with poorer vertical resolution, as shown by Albertelli
et al. (1984) for the first evaluation of thin gas-bearing sands using
well logs and by Galford et al. (1989) on tool-response enhance-
ment, or alpha processing. The third is the sand-count approach
from a high-resolution dipmeter—later substituted for with a mod-
ern borehole-imaging log, as first shown by Schulze et al. (1985),
although one may argue that the difference from the Albertelli
et al. approach is the choice of the high-resolution log. The fourth
departs from previous ones by not seeking to resolve every single
thin bed that is present within a depth frame but, rather, accounts
for their overall effect on horizontal and vertical resistivity logs.
Copyright © 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 102435) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September 2006, and revised
for publication. Original manuscript received for review 6 June 2006. Revised manuscript
received for review 6 May 2010. Paper peer approved 25 May 2010.
June 2011 SPE Journal
This is also known as resistivity anisotropy, as shown by Klein
et al. (1997), culminating in the so-called Klein crossplot.
Knowing the sand resistivity is only half of the solution because
sand porosity also needs to be known. The problem of the shales-
distribution effect on sand porosity was first studied by Thomas
et al. (1975) and led to the well-known Thomas-Steiber crossplot.
Finally, combining resistivity and NMR to estimate the hydrocar-
bon volume of the thin sand fraction is demonstrated by numerous
authors such as Shray et al. (2001) and Nelson et al. (2005). In this
paper, we will focus on the contributions of NMR to the evaluation
of thin sand/shale formations.
The objectives are to
• Validate whether NMR can detect thin sand/shale laminations
and, if so, how thin a layer can be and still be detected
• Derive from NMR the petrophysical properties of the sand
layers such as porosity (sand); volume fraction (Fsand), or net/gross
ratio; and intrinsic permeability (Ksand)
• Investigate the fluid type in the thin sand layers
The detection of thin sand/shale laminations from NMR is
complementary with existing methods, such as observing the lami-
nations from high-resolution imaging logs or looking for resistivity
anisotropy from triaxial induction data.
The determination of sand is the main advantage of the NMR
technique because it is a direct measurement, as compared to the
classical method that derives sand from total porosity t. Another
advantage of the NMR technique is to estimate the intrinsic sand
permeability Ksand.
The ability to perform fluid typing in the sand layers is another
advantage that NMR offers. Thin beds are interesting only when
the producible fluid is hydrocarbon.
Laminated Sand/Shale NMR Signature
We first explain theoretically why NMR can recognize thin sand/
shale laminations then show the results of simple experiments. The
experiments are performed at surface with the same logging tool
that is used to log formations downhole.
Theory. A typical response function of a 6-in.-long NMR antenna
is shown at the right of Fig. 1a. Within 1 in. from the antenna
edges, the response is fairly flat (i.e., in the presence of sand/shale
laminae, as shown in the middle, the tool will measure linearly and
cumulatively all signals). Because shales generally have shorter
T2 than sands, the T2 distribution will exhibit the characteristic
bimodal distribution as seen on the left of Fig. 1a. The effect of
diffusion coupling between the two pore systems is negligible
when the laminations are visible to the eye.
The important point is that the NMR response is independent of
the lamination distribution and geometry (i.e., two or three shale layers
joined together will give the same bimodal T2 distribution as long as their
total volumetric fraction does not change, as shown in Fig. 1b).
Experiments. We measured at surface the NMR responses of a
100%-sand sample, a 100%-clay sample, and sand/clay laminations
made of the same materials as the 100%-sand and -shale samples.
Sand Only. We first filled a lunchbox container with beach
sand, saturated it with tap water, and positioned the sample on top
of the antenna face with the NMR-logging tool lying horizontally,
as shown in Fig. 2.
223
 50% shale Antenna 50% shale Antenna

4
T2 Response 50% sand T2 Response 50% sand

3
Axial Position, in.

Axial Position, in.

2

2
1

1
6 in. 6 in.

-4 –3 –2 –1 0

-4 –3 –2 –1 0
T2, ms T2, ms
Few ms Few hundreds Few ms Few hundreds
to thousand ms to thousand ms

1 0 1 0
(a) Normalized Signal Profile (b) Normalized Signal Profile

Fig. 1—(a) NMR response in thin sand/shale laminations. The T2 distribution shows a typical bimodal distribution (shale is
shaded gray). (b) NMR response is independent of the lamination distribution and geometry. The T2 distribution is the same as
in Fig. 1a.

Sand/Clay Laminations. Model Predictions. Next, we built a

Antenna Sample sand/clay model using the same samples. The model geometry is
shown in the inset of Fig. 5. The minimum sand thickness and the
minimum shale thickness were 1.6 cm each. Both are well below
the NMR-tool antenna aperture of 16.5 cm.
The cumulative sand thickness was 3+2.2+1.6+3.3 = 10.1 cm,
Magnet
and the cumulative clay thickness was 2.4+2.4+1.6 = 6.4 cm.
Thus, the sand volume fraction is Fsand = 10.1/16.5 = 0.61 and
the clay volume fraction is Fclay = 6.4/16.5 = 0.39, verifying that
Fsand+Fclay = 1.
The model also predicts the total porosity  of the mixture
to be
Fig. 2—Experimental setup.  =  sand +  clay = Fsand sand1 + Fclay clay1 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

where the subscript 1 denotes a 100%-constituent, or intrinsic

The NMR measurement returned a sand porosity of 0.344 vol-
ume/volume (v/v) and a mean T2 of 725 milliseconds, as shown
in Fig. 3. The data were continuously stacked until the measure-
ment noise reached 0.015 v/v to simulate a noise level similar to
a downhole station measurement.
Clay Only. Because it is difficult to obtain malleable shale, we
used modeling clay from craft stores to simulate the shale response.
The clay, mostly kaolinite, comes in colorful, flexible bars that can
be easily worked into a single block of clay or stacks of thin layers
of clay. The measurement of a single block of clay gave a porosity
of 0.332 v/v and a mean T2 of 8 milliseconds, as shown in Fig. 4.
The measurement noise was 0.012 v/v. The results agree with the
findings of Matteson et al. (1998).
value. Thus,  = (0.61×0.344)+(0.39×0.332) = 0.34.
Experimental Results. The NMR measurement gives a total
porosity  = 0.335. The measurement noise is 0.018 v/v. The
characteristic bimodal T2 distribution, as predicted by theory, is
also observed, as shown in Fig. 5. It is then straightforward to
use a cutoff of 100 milliseconds to separate the two modes and
compute the porosity of the clay, clay = 0.135, and the porosity
of the sand, sand = 0.2. It is important to note that these porosities
are the product of the intrinsic clay and sand porosities multiplied
by their respective fractions. By contrast, classical methods deter-
mine sand by correcting total porosity for the clay contribution.
A commonly used expression (which implicitly assumes that sand1 =
clay1 = ) is

0.1
Water T2 distribution Sand
Water T2 log mean
0.083

0.067
Amplitude, v/v

Φ=0.344
0.050 T2=725 milliseconds

0.033

0.017

0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
T2 , milliseconds

Fig. 3—NMR experimental results of the water-saturated sand.

224 June 2011 SPE Journal

 0.035
Water T2 distribution Clay
Water T2 log mean
0.031

0.026

Amplitude, v/v
0.022

0.018

0.013
Φ=0.332
0.009 T2=8 milliseconds
0.004

0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
T2 , milliseconds

Fig. 4—NMR experimental results of the water-saturated clay.

0.05

0.04
Amplitude, v/v

0.03

0.02

Φ=0.335
0.01 Clay Sand

Φ=0.135 Φ=0.2
0.0
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
T2 , milliseconds

Fig. 5—NMR experimental results of sand/shale laminations.

( )
 sand =  1 − Fclay = Fsand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
that, at prevalent downhole pressure, this cutoff value will be
greatly reduced (Matteson et al. 1998).
The results are summarized in Table 1. The model predictions
From NMR sand and clay, Eq. 1 indicates that sand1 or clay1 and experimental results are in good agreement because sand1 =
must be known in order to compute Fsand or Fclay by 0.344 is close to clay1 = 0.332 and  = 0.335.
The graphical verification of the Thomas-Steiber laminated-
Fsand = sand /sand1 sand/shale porosity crossplot is shown in Fig. 6.
Thomas-Steiber solves Eq. 1 for Fsand without assuming sand1 =
and clay1=  and, thus, can be regarded as an extension of the classi-
cal method. The graphical representation of Eq. 1 is the relatively
Fclay = clay/clay1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) straight line joining the sand point to the clay point in Fig. 6.
If sand1 ≠ , the error in computing Fsand is given by the
One can enter sand1 for the exact calculation of Fsand. Another expressions
alternative is to make the same assumption as in the classical
method (i.e., sand1 = clay1= ), then the respective sand and clay
volume fractions are derived with TABLE 1—MODEL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
SUMMARY
Fsand ≈ sand/ = 0.2/0.335 = 0.6
Model Experiments
and
Sand Clay Sand Clay
Fclay ≈ clay/ = 0.135/0.335 = 0.4. Fraction 0.61 0.39 0.6 0.4
Porosity 0.21 0.13 0.2 0.135
The 100-millisecond cutoff value was determined visually from
the T2 distribution plot at atmospheric pressure. It is anticipated Total porosity 0.34 0.335

June 2011 SPE Journal 225

 0.5 where we expect unimodal and narrow T2 distributions. In actual
Laminated model reservoirs, sands and shales display variable and wide pore-size dis-
0.45 tributions, and their respective T2 distributions might overlap. If the
Experiment
overlap is severe, the cutoff method might not work. In oil-based mud,
0.4 Prediction the separation of modes is usually strong, as seen in the examples.
Φsand1 Φclay1 Later experimental work from Rice University and the French Institute
Porosity, v/v

0.35 of Petroleum that used layered models made up of fine silica and
bentonite/kaolinite clays also concludes that a sharp T2 cutoff could
0.3 be used to separate the two modes (Anand et al. 2008).
Sand Fraction. The calculation of Fsand can be performed in
0.25
three different ways. The first method uses sand1 input to compute
Fsand by means of sand = Fsand sand1. In practice, we have found that,
0.2
over a long logging interval, sand1 often has a large scatter—for
example, the Thomas-Steiber plot in Appendix A. Fig. 7 shows
0.15
sand1 varying from 0.2 to 0.38 v/v. The second method to estimate
Fsand is from Fshale and shale1, noting that Fsand+Fshale = 1. The same
0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fig. 7 shows shale1 varying from 0.15 to 0.25 v/v with less scatter
Fclay, v/v than sand1. Finally, the third method assumes at each depth level,
 ≈ sand1 ≈ shale1, as done in Eq. 2 to compute Fsand ≈ sand / .
Fig. 6—Thomas-Steiber crossplot of model predictions and A more-complete experiment with varying sand fraction from
experimental results. 79 to 10% was performed later by Claverie et al. (2007). The
published results are in agreement (i.e., sand varies linearly with
Fsand for a given sand type).
⎛ 1 1⎞
ΔFsand =  sand ⎜ − Cumulative Net/Gross Ratio
⎝  sand1  ⎟⎠ The NMR measurement can be used to determine the cumulative
or volume fraction and porosity of each constituent in the sand/shale-
lamination system, as follows.
ΔFsand  −  sand1 At each ith depth sample, the sand fraction might be computed as
= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) Fsand,i ≈ sand,i/ i, where i is the total NMR porosity. Over a logging
Fsand 
interval comprising n depth intervals, the net sand thickness is
Experimental Results Discussions. Bimodal T2 Distribution. The n
experiment uses a well-sorted beach sand and pure modeling clay net sand thickness = ∑ FsandSI, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
i =1

Depth
ft GR (api) Porosity (v/v) Resistivity (Ω·m) Fsand (v/v) Phisand (v/v) T2 Dist (ms)
650 Fshale
0.2 0.1 0.05 0.020.01 0
0.3 2000 0.038
2 0.6
10 0.7 1000 0.063
0.8
700 50 0.075
Rsand

Rshv=3.37 20 0.12
Swt
10 1 Rshs=0.524
Rv (Ω· m)

10 0.17
750 Shale
5 0.24

2 0.38

10 0 1 0.63
800
0.6 0.75
0.3 0.97
0.2 1.2 Klein crossplot
850 10 -1 0.1 1.7

10-1 100 101 102

Rh (Ω· m)
900 0.5
Sand: 0.31 Shale: 0.19
0.45
Thomas-Steiber
0.4 crossplot
DMRP (v/v)

950 0.35
0.3
0.25
1000 0.2
0.15
0.1
1050
0 50 100 150 0.2 0 0 1 2 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.4 1033 3000 0.05
Dens 10ms 10ms 0
GR Rh 33ms 33ms T2′ ms 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Neut Rv
DMR Klein TS10 Fshale (v/v)
CBMI TS33

Fig. 7—Fsand (Track 4) and ⌽sand (Track 5) are computed for T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds (blue) and T2ⴕ = 33 milliseconds (red) respectively.
The reference Fsand (green) is computed from the Klein crossplot, and the reference ⌽sand (dashed blue and dashed red) are com-
puted from the Thomas-Steiber crossplot. The OBMI sand count is shown in magenta in Track 4. In this case, the results depend
little on T2ⴕ, as expected from visual inspection of T2 distribution over the 740- to 790-ft thin-bedded zone in Track 6 where T2ⴕ =
10 milliseconds and T2ⴕ = 33 milliseconds are plotted (white).

226 June 2011 SPE Journal

where SI is the depth sampling interval, usually a constant.
TABLE 2—TYPICAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE THICKNESS
Because the interval gross thickness is equal to n times SI, the DETECTABLE BY NMR FOR DEEPWATER TURBIDITES
sand net/gross ratio is thus
Sand Shale
n n

∑F sand,i SI ∑ sand,i i Porosity (v/v) 0.3 0.2

net/gross = i =1
≈ i =1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6)
nSI n
This provides an alternative to conventional computation from Vsh,
, and Sw cutoffs that are difficult to define in thin beds.
Minimum Lamination Thickness
The next question to answer is how thin a sand (or shale) can
the NMR tool resolve. The tool measures porosity rather than
thickness. As stated previously, the linearity between porosity and
length within the antenna aperture allows the determination of the
minimum lamination thickness, as follows.
The minimum cumulative thicknesses of all the sand and shale
layers that can be determined by the NMR method depend on
the antenna aperture and the signal/noise ratio (which is different
for each constituent). The conversion from porosity to bed thick-
ness is best illustrated by an example. For example, put a 30 p.u.
sand formation in front of the 6-in.-long antenna. Then, each p.u.
represents 6/30 = 0.2 in. of formation. If the noise is less than 1
p.u., then the tool can measure 1 p.u. reliably or, in other words,
can detect a sand as thin as 0.2 in. Note that the sand thickness is
cumulative (i.e, a 0.2-in.-thick sand or two 0.1-in.-thick sands will
look the same on an NMR log). If the noise instead is 2 p.u., then
a porosity at least twice as large is needed for the tool to measure
reliably above the noise level; thus, a minimum 0.4-in.-thick sand
can be detected. The equations are
Lant
H sand =  sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7)
 sand1
and
Lant
H shale =  shale , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8)
 shale1
where Hsand and Hshale are the minimum cumulative thicknesses
of the sand and shale, respectively; sand1 and shale1 are the
Noise (v/v) 0.008 0.015
Minimum thickness 3/16 in. (0.5 cm) 9/16 in. (1.4 cm)
porosities of 100% sand and 100% shale, respectively; Lant is the
NMR-antenna aperture length; and sand and shale are the standard
deviations of the sand porosity and shale porosity, respectively.
The latter can be approximated by FFV and BFV, which are the
standard deviations of the free-fluid volume and bound-fluid vol-
ume, respectively.
Modern NMR tools use a 6-in.-long (15.2-cm) high-resolution
antenna. With the tool moving, the effective aperture increases to
approximately 7.5 in. (19 cm). For typical sand/shale encountered
in deepwater turbidites, the minimum thicknesses are given in
Table 2.
Determination of Fluid Type in the Sands
by NMR
Determining fluid type in thin beds with a stationary fluid-sam-
pling tool is haphazard. An example is shown in Fig. 8, where
one might not have seen the thin-beds interval from conventional
gamma ray, density neutron, and resistivity logs, to take pressure
measurements or sampling.
The sands make up most of the free-fluid signal seen by the
NMR tool. Acquiring a large number of echoes provides good pre-
cision to estimate the free-fluid volume. Typically, approximately
1 p.u. of free fluid is measurable. A free-fluid signal greater than
the noise level is needed to perform continuous multidimensional
NMR-data analysis for fluids evaluation. The technique exploits all
NMR properties, such as T1, T2, and D; employs diffusion editing
sequences that are more efficient than conventional Carr-Purcell-
Meiboom-Gill sequences; and offers insights into the fluid radial
changes with invasion (DePavia et al. 2003; Freedman et al. 2002;
Cao Minh et al. 2003). The continuous NMR log of water, oil, gas,
and oil-based-mud filtrate allows fluid identification in the thin
beds, as seen in Figs. 9 and 10.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8—Thin productive sands that are not visible on conventional logs (a) are detected with NMR logging by the free-fluid signal (b).

June 2011 SPE Journal 227


Depth T1 (s)
T2 (s)
ft
650
700
750
800
850
900
–3 –2 –1 0 1 –3 –2 –1 0 1 –6
Fig. 9—Multidimensional NMR analysis showing oil in the thin sands, at 710–770 ft. The top depth of the oil is at 710 ft.
Sand Fraction, Porosity, and Hydrocarbon
Volume
Laminated-Sand/Shale Cutoff—Theory. NMR porosity might
be partitioned into different bins. For example, a 3-milliseconds
cutoff captures most of the clay-bound water, and a 33-millisec-
onds cutoff delineates the bound-fluid volume from the free-fluid
volume in clastics. Kleinberg et al. (1997) proposed a tapered
cutoff defined by the weights W(T2i):
⎡ 1 for T2 i < T2′⎤
⎢ ⎥
W ( T2 i ) = ⎢ 2T2′ ⎛ T2′ ⎞
− for T2 i > T2 ⎥. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
⎢⎣ T2 i ⎜⎝ T2 i ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
The weights can be seen as a gradational increase in pore size
from T2 minimum to T2 maximum, as seen in Fig. 11. When water
is all bound, the weight equals unity, and, when the water is all
free, the weight equals 0. T2 marks the beginning of the change in
pore size when the fluid starts to move, similar to the sand/shale
laminations in the experiments where it is reasonable to assume, at
first order, that the shale water is completely bound and that all free
fluid comes from the sand pores. Thus, T2 is defined as the laminated
sand/shale cutoff. If pores are modeled as a network of tubes, the
solution leads to T2 = T2 cutoff/2. For static formation evaluation, it
might be more appropriate to model pores as spheres, in which case
the solution leads to T2 = T2 cutoff/3. Thus, for a typical T2 cutoff =
33 milliseconds in sand/shale formations, a T2 ≈ 11 milliseconds
should, in theory, partition the T2 distribution into respective shale
and sand fractions, as observed previously in the experiments.
Incidentally, this cutoff is also higher than the conventional clay-
bound-water cutoff of approximately 3 milliseconds, implying that
228
Oil
Diffusion NMR fluids
(cm2/s) volume (cm2/s) OBM
Water
Gas
Bound
Porosity
Top oil
D(cm2/s)
T1 (s)
D(cm2/s)
T1 (s)
–4 –2 0 0.4
the shales thus defined include both clay-bound water and irreduc-
ible water trapped in very fine silts (i.e., shale = clay+fine silts).
At one stroke, the partition by T2 cutoff also determines the
sand porosity and the shale porosity directly. Irreducible water in
the shales includes clay-bound water, generally from T2 lesser than
3 milliseconds, and capillary-bound water from approximately
3 milliseconds to T2. Irreducible water in the sands conceivably
might be contained from T2 to T2 cutoff, as shown in the ideal-
ized model depicted in Fig. 12. However, possible overlaps are
expected at all cutoffs.
If the fluid type in the sands is determined from T2, T1, or D
information, and shown to be gas or oil, then the hydrocarbon vol-
ume corrected for HI is simply the cumulative sand porosity over
the interval characterized by the bimodal T2 distribution.
Limitations. Noise. High noise smears the distinct sand/shale
modes of the T2 distribution. Consequently, thin-bedded zones
might not be visible on the T2 distribution log. Noise generally
affects short T2 more than long T2 and could make the determina-
tion of cutoffs uncertain.
T2 Minimum. It is important to capture all the clay-bound water
in the shales with adequate signal/noise ratio and short echo spac-
ing. Fast-relaxing shales below 0.3 milliseconds are not measure-
able and will result in underestimation of the shale porosity.
Hydrocarbon Effect. High-gas/oil-ratio oil and gas have low
hydrogen index and long T1s and might not be fully polarized. In
this case, the sand fraction and porosity will be underestimated.
However, this can be corrected using the density-magnetic-reso-
nance method (Freeman et al. 1998).
At the other end of the viscosity spectrum, heavy oils also affect
the shale porosity determination. In this case, the shale fraction and
June 2011 SPE Journal
 Depth Diffusion NMR fluids
T2 (s) T1 (s) Oil
ft (cm2/s) volume (cm2/s)
350 OBM

Water
Gas

Bound
400
Porosity
Top oil

D (cm 2/s)
450

500 T1 (s)

D (cm 2/s)
550

600 T1 (s)
–3 –2 –1 0 1 –3 –2 –1 0 1 –6 –4 –2 0 0.4

Fig. 10—Multidimensional NMR analysis showing gas in the thin sands between 410 and 470 ft. The top depth of the significant
gas is at 410 ft. The bottom depth of the gas is at 510 ft.

1
Fixed 33 milliseconds
0.9 Taped sphere model
Tapered tube model
0.8

0.7

0.6
Weights

0.5

0.4
T2′ (sphere)
0.3
T2′ (tube)
0.2

0.1 T2 cutoff

0
–3 –2 –1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10
T2 , seconds

Fig. 11—The concept of gradational pore-size variation. When water is all bound, the weight equals unity, and, when the water
is all free, the weight equals 0. The sphere model gives T2ⴕ = 0.011 seconds for T2 cutoff of 0.033 seconds.

June 2011 SPE Journal 229

 T2 clay cutoff T2′ cutoff T2 cutoff
0.3 ~3.0 ~11 ~33 T2 (ms) 3,000

Clay Bound Water Capillary Bound Water Producible Fluids

Total Porosity

Nonclay or Effective Porosity

Bound Fluid Free Fluid

Shale Porosity (ΦSHALE) Sand Porosity (ΦSAND)

Shale Sand

Fig. 12—A laminated sand/shale NMR porosity model.

porosity will be overestimated. Further assumptions are needed to
correct for heavy-oil effects (Hewitt et al. 2006).
Invasion Effect. The NMR hydrocarbon volume is always less
than or equal to the true hydrocarbon volume in thin sands because
of invasion. Fluid radial profiling could help to distinguish oil-based-
mud-filtrate invasion from native oil (Cao Minh et al. 2008).
Measurement Scale. NMR measurements are shallow, on the
order of 1 to 4 in. (2.5 to 10.2 cm) deep, with a vertical resolution
on the order of 6 to 24 in. (15.2 to 61 cm).
Sand Permeability
The objective is to estimate the intrinsic permeability of the sand
layers. An obvious choice is to apply the Timur-Coates equation to
the sand fraction, in which case the difficulty resides in the estima-
tion of the small bound-fluid volume in the sand layer. Another
alternative is to follow a reservoir-engineering approach. The total
fluid flow to the wellbore from a laminated sand/shale system over
an interval equal to a distance H (usually the antenna aperture), as
shown in Fig. 13, is given by
Qt = ∑ Qsand,i + ∑ Qshale, j , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
i j
where Qt is the total flow, Qsand,i is the flow of the ith sand layer,
and Qshale,j is the flow of the jth shale layer.
We apply Darcy’s lawm Q = KAp/H, to the system with the
flow area A = 2rH, where r is the wellbore radius, H is a vertical
distance, K is permeability, p is the pressure drop, and  is the
fluid viscosity. Assuming that all individual ith sand layers have
the same permeability Ksand and all individual jth shale layers have
the same permeability Kshale within the distance H, the total flow
equation becomes
K t ( 2 rH ) Δp
=
( i j )
K sand ∑ hsand,i + K shale ∑ hshale, j ( 2 r ) Δp
H H
and
K t H = K sand ∑ hsand,i + K shale ∑ hshale, j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11)
i j
or
K t = K sand Fsand + K shale Fshale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
Hence, the intrinsic permeability of the sand within the system,
Ksand, can be solved for an input Kshale. This is not to be confused
with the actual permeability of all sand layers within the distance
H, which is the product KsandFsand. To the first order, Kshale is very
small, and thus

Wellbore Formation K sand ≈ K t Fsand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

r
At first order, Fsand ≈ sand/ and Ksand is simply the perme-
Qsand,i hsand,i ability of the sand/shale system boosted by the factor /sand.
Ai=2πrhsand,i The intrinsic permeability of the sand layers is an indicator of the
sand quality.

Field Examples
We show two examples of a deepwater turbiditic channel-sand/
Qshale,j hshale,j levee system of Miocene age, offshore West Africa. The first
H Aj=2πrhshale,j example shows oil-bearing thin sands, while the second example
shows gas-bearing thin sands. Core data were available in the first
example.

Example 1: Oil-Bearing Thin Sands.

Detection. The sequence of thin sand/shale laminations is
Total flow shown in Fig. 14. The thin-bedded interval from 740 to 790 ft is
area not very clear from the gamma ray results displayed in Track 1,
A=2πrH density and neutron porosities displayed in Track 2, and resistivity
displayed in Track 3. The NMR tool was logged in high-resolution
mode yielding two logs whose T2 distributions are displayed in
Fig. 13—Flow model of a laminated sand/shale system. The Track 5 [1.25-in. depth of investigation (DOI) and high-resolution]
total flow to the wellbore is the sum of the flows from the indi- and Track 6 (2.3-in. DOI). The 2.3-in. log was purposely under-
vidual sand and shale layers. polarized to highlight fluids with long T1, such as gas or light oil,

230 June 2011 SPE Journal

 OBMI

GR
Density Resistivity NMR T2 (ms)
Depth Neutron
ft (api) (Ω⋅m) 1.25 in. 2.3 in.
(v/v) DOI DOI

750
2 ft

800

850

0 100 0.5 0 0.1 100 0.3 3,000 0.3 3,000

Fig. 14—Example 1: oil-bearing thin sands. The thin-bedded zone might not be recognized from conventional gamma ray, density-
neutron, resistivity logs but stands out from the NMR bimodal T2 distribution and image logs.

when compared to the high-resolution log, which is fully polarized.
The NMR log picks out the sand/shale laminations clearly from
the bimodal T2 distribution. A 50-ft section was enlarged to show
the laminations scale seen by the oil-based-mud imager (OBMI)
tool on the right.
Fluid Typing, Volume. The multidimensional (T2, T1, D) analy-
sis shows that the fluid in the thin sands is oil. The top of the oil
column is at 710 ft, as seen in Fig. 9.
T2ⴕ Sensitivity Analysis. The openhole logs are shown in Fig. 7.
Track 3 displays the vertical and horizontal resistivities Rv and Rh,
respectively, computed from a triaxial induction tool.
Track 4 shows Fsand computed with T2 = 10 milliseconds (blue)
and T2 = 33 milliseconds (red), respectively. The reference Fsand
computed from Rv, Rh illustrated graphically by the Klein crossplot
is also displayed for comparison in Track 4 (green). Note the very
good agreement of all Fsand across the thin-bedded zone of interest,
720–790 ft. The sand count from the OBMI tool, displayed along
the left edge of Track 4 in magenta, also shows excellent agreement
between the different techniques.
Track 5 shows sand computed with T2 = 10 milliseconds (blue)
and T2 = 33 milliseconds (red), respectively. The reference sand
computed from the density-magnetic-resonance method, illustrated
graphically by the Thomas-Steiber crossplot, is also displayed
for comparison (dotted blue and red for T2 = 10 milliseconds as
TS10, and T2 = 33 milliseconds as TS33, respectively). Note the
very good agreement of all sand across the thin-bedded zone of
interest, 720–790 ft.
Thus, the results are insensitive to the choice of T2. This is not
surprising, as shown by the positions of T2 = 10 milliseconds and T2 =
33 milliseconds on the T2 distribution in Track 6. Even a T2 = 100
milliseconds will not make a substantial difference to the results.
Fsand and sand comparisons in crossplot form are shown in
Fig. 15. The statistics show that T2 = 10 milliseconds gives slightly
better correlations than T2 = 33 milliseconds.

1 1 0.5 0.5
corr=0.9899 corr=0.9912
0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4
Φsand TS

Φsand TS
Fsand Klein

Fsand Klein

0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3

0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
corr=0.7851 corr=0.792
0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4
Fsand NMR 33 milliseconds Fsand NMR 10 milliseconds Φsand NMR 33 milliseconds Φsand NMR 10 milliseconds

Fig. 15—Comparison of NMR-derived Fsand and ⌽sand with T2ⴕ = 33 milliseconds and T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds with Klein’s Fsand and
Thomas-Steiber’s ⌽sand. In this case, the statistics are similar with either cutoff, although the 10- milliseconds results are slightly
better.

June 2011 SPE Journal 231

 Depth Formation Hydrocarbon
ft analysis volume (v/v)
3D NMR
3D Induction
700
800
900
1,000
0 Very small pores 1 0 0.4
Small pores
Medium pores
Large pores
Fig. 16—Comparison of oil volumes computed from triaxial induction (black) and NMR (red) in Track 2. Track 3 shows the NMR
Timur permeability KTim (blue) and the sand intrinsic permeability Ksand (red). Ksand in thin beds is similar to Ksand in thick beds
below, indicating good-quality thin sands.
In this example, T2 optimization was simultaneously performed
with 5-, 10-, 20-, and 33-millisecond cutoffs. For clarity, only the
results of T2 = 10 milliseconds and T2 = 33 milliseconds were
shown.
Sand Intrinsic Permeability. The NMR bin porosities are dis-
played in Track 1 of Fig. 16. Comparison of oil volumes computed
from triaxial induction (black) and NMR (red) is shown in Track 2.
The NMR oil volume is the sum of native oil and oil-based-mud-
filtrate invasion. Track 3 displays the NMR Timur permeability
KTim (blue) and the sand intrinsic permeability Ksand (red). Ksand
in thin beds is similar to Ksand in thick beds. The high-resolution
permeability map in Track 4 computed from Ksand highlights the
producible thin-bedded zones.
Core Comparison. The comparison of NMR porosity and
permeability with core data is shown in Fig. 17, Tracks 1 and 2,
respectively. The agreement is excellent. A 16-ft core photograph
section from 853 to 869 ft shows fine laminations that can also be
seen by the bimodal T2 distribution displayed in Track 3. A 4-ft
section from 853 to 857 ft was digitized, the sands body contours
were traced on the computer, and the sand/shale count was per-
formed to give a cumulative sand thickness of 1.31 ft, a cumula-
tive shale thickness of 2.69 ft, or a net/gross = 32.73%. The core
result compares well with the NMR net/gross of 32.63% using
T2 = 10 milliseconds, as seen in Table 3. This further validates the
T2 optimization result using well logs, as discussed previously.
232
Permeability Permeability
(md) map (Ksand)
KTim
Ksand
0.1 1000
Sand-Count Comparison With OBMI. Sand count from the
OBMI high-resolution microresistivity log (SRES) across the same
4-ft interval is highly variable, depending on the resistivity cutoff
used (Fig. 18). Sand net/gross of 13.78, 23.8, 34.65, and 44.67%
were obtained for resistivity cutoffs of 2, 1.7, 1.6, and 1.5 ·m,
respectively. The 1.6-·m cutoff net/gross of 34.65% gives the
closest result to that of NMR (32.63%) and core photograph
(32.73%). The SRES curve has a vertical resolution of 1.2 in. (3 cm)
and was sampled at 0.2 in. (0.5 cm).
Example 2: Gas-Bearing Thin Sands.
Detection. Another sequence of thin sand/shale laminations in
a different well is shown in Fig. 19. The thin-bedded interval from
420 to 470 ft is not very clear from the gamma ray results displayed
in Track 1, density and neutron porosities displayed in Track 2,
and resistivity displayed in Track 3. Note the large gas effect in the
clean sand sections. The NMR tool was logged in high-resolution
mode, yielding two logs whose T2 distributions are displayed in
Track 4 (1.25-in. DOI and high resolution) and Track 5 (2.3-in.
DOI). The 2.3-in. log is purposely underpolarized to highlight
fluids with long T1, such as gas or light oil, when compared to
the high-resolution log, which is fully polarized. Again, the NMR
log picks out the sand/shale laminations clearly from the bimodal
distribution. A 50-ft section is enlarged to show the laminations
scale seen by the OBMI tool, on the right.
June 2011 SPE Journal
 853

(ft)

Porosity Permeability T2
Depth
(v/v) (md) (milliseconds)
ft
853
857
830

840
62°
850

861
860

870

880
857
Shale Sand 865
890
2.7 ft 1.3 ft

900
0.4 0 0.1 1,000 0.5 5,000 Core Sand/Shale 0.3273
NMR Sand/Shale 0.3263

869

Fig. 17—Comparison of NMR and core porosities (Track 1) and permeabilities (Track 2). On the right, a 16-ft core section from
853 to 869 ft shows fine laminations that verify the bimodal T2 distribution seen in Track 3. Image processing over a 4-ft section
from 853 to 857 ft gives a total sand thickness of 1.31 ft (discontinuous blue bars), a total shale thickness of 2.69 ft (black bars),
and a net/gross = 32.73%. The core result compares well with the NMR net/gross of 32.63% using T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds.

Fluid Typing, Volume. The multidimensional (T2, T1, D) analy-
sis shows that the fluid in the thin sand is gas. The top of the
significant gas column is at 410 ft, as seen in Fig. 10.
T2 Sensitivity Analysis. The openhole logs are shown in Fig. 20.
Track 3 displays the vertical and horizontal resistivities Rv and Rh,
respectively, computed from a triaxial induction tool.
Track 4 shows Fsand computed with T2 = 10 ms (blue) and T2 = 33
milliseconds (red), respectively. The reference Fsand computed from Rv,
Rh that illustrated graphically by the Klein crossplot is also displayed
for comparison in Track 4 (green). Note the good agreement of all
Fsand across the thin-bedded zone of interest, 410–470 ft.
Track 5 shows sand computed with T2 = 10 milliseconds (blue)
and T2 = 33 milliseconds (red), respectively. The reference sand
computed from the density-magnetic-resonance method, illustrated
graphically by the Thomas-Steiber crossplot, is also displayed for
comparison (dotted blue and dotted red for T2 = 10 milliseconds
as TS10 and T2 = 33 milliseconds as TS33, respectively). Note
the good agreement of all sand across the thin-bedded zone of
interest, 410–470 ft.
However, in this case, the results are sensitive to the correct
choice of T2. This is shown by the positions of T2 = 10 millisec-
onds and T2 = 33 milliseconds on the T2 distribution in Track 6,
especially over the thin-bedded zone between 410 and 470 ft.
Fsand and sand comparisons in crossplot form are shown in
Fig. 21. The statistics show that T2 = 10 milliseconds gives much
better correlations than T2 = 33 milliseconds in this case.
Sand Intrinsic Permeability. The comparison of the hydrocar-
bon volume computed from triaxial induction (black) and NMR
hydrocarbon volume (red) is shown in Track 2 of Fig. 22. The
difference is caused by an invasion effect. The gas/oil contact
is at 510 ft. The top of the significant gas column is at 410 ft,
although both NMR and triaxial induction indicate gas up to 290
ft. In this example, Ksand in the thin beds approaches Ksand in the
thick beds below.
Conclusions
NMR logging plays a key role in the formation evaluation of thin
sand/shale laminations. The petrophysical significances are
• Thin beds are indicated by a bimodal T2 distribution. Experi-
ments were performed at surface to corroborate observations on
downhole T2 logs.
• NMR cumulates sand/shale thicknesses that are below the antenna
resolution. The relationship between porosity and thickness is lin-
ear. For a 16-cm antenna aperture, the minimum thicknesses that
TABLE 3—SAND NET/GROSS AS DETERMINED FROM NMR
WITH VARIOUS T2 CUTOFF VALUES OVER THE INTERVAL
OF 853–857 FT
T2 5 ms 10 ms 20 ms 33 ms
Net/Gross 41.07% 32.63% 24.87% 24.87%

June 2011 SPE Journal 233

 SRES (Ω⋅m) SRES (Ω⋅m) SRES (Ω⋅m) SRES (Ω⋅m)
Depth
ft

2- Ω⋅m cutoff 1.7- Ω⋅m cutoff 1.6- Ω⋅m cutoff 1.5- Ω⋅m cutoff

845

850 Shale Shale Shale Shale

Sand Sand Sand Sand

855

860

865

870
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Fig. 18—Sand count from high-resolution microresistivity log (SRES). Sand net/gross of 13.78, 23.8, 34.65, and 44.67% were
obtained for resistivity cutoffs of 2, 1.7, 1.6, and 1.5 ⍀·m, respectively. The 1.6-·m cutoff net/gross of 34.65% gives the closest
result to that of NMR (32.63%) and core photograph (32.73%).

can be resolved are 0.5 cm for the total sand layers and 1.4 cm for hshale = individual shale thickness
the total shale layers in typical deepwater turbidites. Hsand = minimum sand thickness
• A laminated sand/shale T2 cutoff at approximately 11 millisec- Hshale = minimum shale thickness
onds allows the estimation of the sand porosity sand and volume Ksand = sand permeability
fraction Fsand, or net/gross ratio. The latter provides an alternative Kshale = shale permeability
to conventional net/gross-ratio computation from cutoffs of Vsh, Kt = total sand/shale permeability
, and Sw that are difficult to define in thin beds.
KTim = Timur permeability
• The hydrocarbon type in the thin beds can be estimated from
2D NMR techniques, although its volume is pessimistic because Lant = antenna length
of invasion. Qsand = sand flow rate
• The quality of the sand layers is indicated by the sand intrinsic Qshale = shale flow rate
porosity and permeability (as opposed to that of the whole sand/ Qt = total sand/shale flow rate
shale system). An estimate of the intrinsic sand permeability is Rh = horizontal resistivity
Ksand ≈ KTim/(free fluid/total porosity). Rv = vertical resistivity
T1 = longitudinal relaxation time
Nomenclature T2 = transverse relaxation time
An = nth echo amplitude T2 = laminated-sand/shale T2 cutoff
D = diffusion constant  = viscosity
Fclay = clay fraction BFV = standard deviation of bound-fluid volume
Fsand = sand fraction FFV = standard deviation of free-fluid volume
Fshale = shale fraction sand = standard deviation of sand porosity
hsand = individual sand thickness shale = standard deviation of shale porosity

234 June 2011 SPE Journal

 OBMI
NMR T2 (milliseconds)
GR Density Resistivity
Depth Neutron 1.25 in. 2.3 in.
(api) (Ω⋅m)
ft (v/v) DOI DOI

450

500

0 100 0.5 0 0.1 100 0.3 3,000 0.3 3,000

Fig. 19—Example 2: gas-bearing thin sands. The thin-bedded zone might not be recognized from conventional gamma ray, den-
sity-neutron, and resistivity logs but stands out from the NMR bimodal T2 distribution and image logs.

Depth GR Porosity Resistivity Fsand Φsand T2 Dist

ft (api) (v/v) (Ω⋅m) (v/v) (v/v) (ms)
250 Fshale
0.1 0.05 0.020.01 0200 0.036
0.30.2
102 0.6
100 0.061
0.7
0.8 50 0.072
300 Rsand
Rshv=4.69
20 0.11
Rh (Ω⋅m)

1 Rshh=0.645 Swt
10 10 0.16
Shale 5 0.23
350
2 0.36
100 1 0.61
0.5 0.72
400 0.3 0.93
0.2 1.1
Klein crossplot
10
–1 0.1 1.6
–1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
450 Rv (Ω⋅m)

0.5
Sand: 0.269 Shale: 0.161
0.45
s Thomas-Steiber
500 0.4
crossplot
DMRP(v/v)

0.35
0.3
0.25
550
0.2
0.15

0.1
600
0 50 100 150 0.4 0.2 0 100 101 102 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.3 1,033 3,000 0.05 Rv (Ω⋅m)
GR Dens Rh 10ms 10ms 0
D
Neut 33ms 33ms T2′ ms 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Rv 0 1
DMR Klein TS10 Fshale (v/v)
TS33

Fig. 20—Fsand (Track 4) and ⌽sand (Track 5) are computed for T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds (blue) and T2ⴕ = 33 ms (red), respectively. The refer-
ence Fsand (green) is computed from the Klein crossplot and the reference ⌽sand (dashed blue and dashed red) are computed from
the Thomas-Steiber crossplot. In this case, the results depend on T2ⴕ as expected from visual inspection of T2 distribution over the
410- to 470-ft thin-bedded zone, as shown in Track 6, where T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds and T2ⴕ = 33 milliseconds are plotted (white).

June 2011 SPE Journal 235

 1 1 0.5 0.5
corr=0.8637 corr=0.8851 corr=0.9914 corr=0.994
0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4
Fsand Klein

Fsand Klein
0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3

Φsand TS

Φsand TS
0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4
Fsand NMR 33 milliseconds Fsand NMR 10 milliseconds Φsand NMR 33 milliseconds Φsand NMR 10 milliseconds

Fig. 21—Comparison of NMR-derived Fsand and ⌽sand with T2ⴕ = 33 milliseconds and T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds with Klein’s Fsand and
Thomas-Steiber’s ⌽sand. In this case, T2ⴕ = 10 milliseconds gives better results than T2ⴕ = 33 milliseconds.

 = total porosity Acknowledgments

clay = clay porosity We acknowledge Pei-Chea Tran of Schlumberger for her assistance
clay1 = 100%-clay porosity in the NMR experiments. The paper has also benefited from the
comments of Steve Van Dalen of Chevron and numerous reviewers.
sand = sand porosity
We would like to thank Michel Claverie of Schlumberger for the
sand1 = 100%-sand porosity final review of the manuscript and Chevron for the permission to
shale = shale porosity use the data shown in this paper.

Depth Formation Hydrocarbon Permeability Permeability

analysis volume (v/v) (md) map (Ksand)
ft
250 GR 3D NMR KTim
3D Induction Ksand

300

350

400

450

500

550

600
0 Very small pores 1 0 0.4 0.1 1000
Small pores
Medium pores
Large pores

Fig. 22—Comparison of hydrocarbon volumes computed from triaxial Induction (black) and NMR (red) in Track 2. The difference
is caused by an invasion effect. The gas/oil contact is at 510 ft. The top of the significant gas column is at 410 ft, although both
NMR and triaxial induction indicate gas up to 290 ft. Track 3 shows the NMR Timur permeability KTim (blue) and the sand intrinsic
permeability Ksand (red). Ksand in thin beds approached Ksand in thick beds below.

236 June 2011 SPE Journal

References
Albertelli, L., Cigni, M., Suau, J., and Gragnani, U. 1984. Interpretation of
Very Thin Gas Sands in Italy. Paper A presented at the SPWLA 25th
Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans.
Anand, V., Hirasaki, G.J., and Fleury, M. 2008. NMR Diffusional Cou-
pling: Effects of Temperature and Clay Distribution. Petrophysics 49
(4): 2008-v49n4a4.
Cao Minh, C., Clavaud, J.-B., Sundararaman, P., Froment, S., Caroli, E.,
Billion, O., Davis, G., and Fairbairn, R. 2008. Graphical Analysis
of Laminated Sand/Shale Formations in the Presence of Anisotropic
Shales. Petrophysics 49 (5): 2008-v49n5a1.
Cao Minh, C., Heaton, N., Ramamoorthy, R., Decoster, E., White, J.,
Junk, E., Eyvazzadeh, R., Al-Yousef, O., Fiorini, R., and McLendon,
D. 2003. Planning and Interpreting NMR Fluid-Characterization Logs.
Paper SPE 84478 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference,
Denver, 5–8 October. doi: 10.2118/84478-MS.
Cao Minh, C., Joao, I., Clavaud, J.-B., and Sundararaman, P. 2007. Forma-
tion Evaluation in Thin Sand/Shale Laminations. Paper SPE 109848
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Anaheim, Califor-
nia, USA, 11–14 November. doi: 10.2118/109848-MS.
Cao Minh, C., Weinheber, P., Wichers, W., Gisolf, A., Caroli, E., Jaffuel,
F., Poirier, Y., Baldini, D., Sitta, M., and Tealdi, L. 2008. Using the
Continuous NMR Fluid Properties Scan to Optimize Sampling with
Wireline Formation Testers. Paper SPE 115822 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 21–24 Septem-
ber. doi: 10.2118/115822-MS.
Claverie, M., Hansen, S., Daungkaew, S., Prickett, Z., Akinsanmi, O., and
Pillai, P. 2007. Applications of NMR Logs and Borehole Images to the
Evaluation of Laminated Deepwater Reservoirs. Paper SPE 110223
presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Jakarta, 30
October–1 November. doi: 10.2118/110223-MS.
DePavia, L., Heaton, N., Ayers, D., Freedman, R., Harris, R., Jorion, B.,
Kovats, J., Luong, B., Rajan, N., Taherian, R., Walter, K., Willis, D.,
Scheibal, J., and Garcia, S. 2003. A Next-Generation Wireline NMR
Logging Tool. Paper SPE 84482 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Denver, 5–8 October. doi: 10.2118/84482-MS.
Freedman, R., Heaton, N., Flaum, M., Hirasaki, G.J., Flaum, C., and
Hurlimann, M. 2002. Wettability, Saturation, and Viscosity Using the
Magnetic Resonance Fluid Characterization Method and New Diffu-
sion-Editing Pulse Sequences. Paper SPE 77397 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 29 September–2 October. doi: 10.2118/77397-MS.
Freeman, J.J., Freedman, R., Cao Minh, C., Gubelin, G., Rawlence, D.,
McGinness, T., and Terry, B. 1998. Combining NMR and Density
Logs for Petrophysical Analysis in Gas-Bearing Formations. Paper II
presented at the SPWLA 39th Annual Logging Symposium, Denver.
Galford, J.E., Flaum, C., Gilchrist, W.A. Jr., and Duckett, S.W. 1989.
Enhanced Resolution Processing of Compensated Neutron Logs.
SPE Form Eval 4 (2): 131–137. SPE-15541-PA. doi: 10.2118/15541-
PA.
Hewitt, A., Tessier, P., Harchambois, P., and Cao Minh, C. 2006. Evaluation
of Congo Heavy Oil Reservoir With Novel NMR Logging. Paper CC
presented at the SPWLA 47th Annual Logging Symposium, Veracruz,
Mexico.
Klein, J.D., Martin, P.R., and Allen, D.F. 1997. The Petrophysics of Electri-
cally Anisotropic Reservoirs. The Log Analyst 38 (May–June).
Kleinberg, R.L. and Boyd, A. 1997. Tapered Cutoffs for Magnetic Reso-
nance Bound Water Volume. Paper SPE 38737 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
USA, 5–8 October. doi: 10.2118/38737-MS.
Looyestijn, W.J. 1982. Deconvolution of Petrophysical Logs: Applications
and Limitations. Paper W presented at the SPWLA 23rd Annual Log-
ging Symposium, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.
Matteson, A., Tomanic, J.P., Herron, M.M., Allen, D.F., and Kenyon, W.E.
1998. NMR Relaxation of Clay-Brine Mixtures. Paper SPE 49008
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 27–30 September. doi: 10.2118/49008-MS.
Nelson, R., Clavaud, J.B., and Guru, U.K. 2005. Field Example of
Enhanced Hydrocarbon Estimation in Thinly Laminated Formation
with a Triaxial Array Induction Tool: A Laminated Sand-Shale Analy-
sis with Anisotropic Shale. Paper WW presented at the SPWLA 46th
Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans.
June 2011 SPE Journal
Schulze R.P., Ives, G.L., and Etter, T.R. 1985. Thin-Bed Analysis in East-
Central Oklahoma. Paper LL presented at the SPWLA 26th Annual
Logging Symposium, Dallas.
Shray, F. and Borbas, T. 2001. Evaluation of Laminated Formations Using
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Resistivity Anisotropy Measure-
ments. Paper SPE 72370 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meet-
ing, Canton, Ohio, USA, 17–19 October. doi: 10.2118/72370-MS.
Thomas, E.C. and Stieber, S.J. 1975. The Distribution of Shale in Sand-
stones and its Effect Upon Porosity. Trans., SPWLA 16th Annual
Logging Symposium, 4–7 June, Paper T, 1–15.
Appendix A
Thomas-Steiber Crossplot Summary. An example of Thomas-
Steiber crossplot is shown in Fig. A-1.
On the y axis, total porosity is plotted. It can be determined
from density, density-neutron, NMR, or density-NMR methods or
any other method. On the x axis, total shale volume Fshale is plotted.
Laminated sand/shale points will plot along the line joining the
sand endpoint to the laminated shale endpoint. Dispersed shales
and structural shales will tend to their respective endpoints, as
shown. In general, the sand-layer porosity sand is expressed as
3
 sand =  t − ∑ Fshale,i  shale,i, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
i =1
where t is total porosity and the index i loops through the lami-
nated, dispersed, and structural shales for shale-porosity correction
(Cao Minh et al. 2007). The plot also allows the estimation of Fshale
laminated, Fshale dispersed, and Fshale structural.
Klein Crossplot Summary. An example of a Klein crossplot is
shown in Fig. A-2.
The crossplot is the graphical representation of the Rv and Rh
equations:
Rv = Fsand Rsand + Fshale Rshale,vert ,
1 Rh = Fsand Rsand + Fshale Rshale, hori ,
and
1 = Fsand + Fshale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
Thus, for each pair of Rv and Rh data points, one can determine
the sand resistivity Rsand, as represented by the red family of curves
0.5
Structural
0.4
Total Porosity, v/v
0.3
0.2
0.1
Dispersed
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Shale Volume, v/v
Fig. A-1—Thomas-Steiber crossplot showing the sand end-
point at approximately 30 p.u., the laminated shale endpoint
at approximately 20 p.u., the structural shale endpoint at
approximately 45 p.u., and the dispersed shale endpoint at
approximately 5 p.u.
237
 in Fig. A-2, and the shale fraction Fshale (or, equivalently, Fsand), as
Fshale represented by the blue family of curves in Fig. A-2 (Cao Minh
0.02 0.01 0
0.2 0.1 0.05 200 0.038 et al. 2008).
0.3
102 0.5 100 0.053
0.7
0.8 50 0.075 SI Metric Conversion Factors
Rsand
ft × 0.3048* E+00 = m
20 0.12 in. × 2.54* E+00 = cm
Swt
lbm × 4.535924 E−01 = kg
Rv, Ω⋅m

1 10 0.17
10
5 0.24 *Conversion factor is exact.

2 0.38
Chanh Cao Minh is a Schlumberger fellow and the director
100 1 0.53 of measurements for drilling and measurements. He holds an
MS degree from Liege University, Belgium, in electrical and
0.5 0.75 mechanical engineering. After graduating, he worked in
0.3 0.97 Europe, Asia, the Middle East, America, and Africa. He con-
0.2 1.2 ducted research at the Schlumberger Doll Research Laboratory
10–1 in Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA, and was an engineering man-
0.1 1.7
ager at the Schlumberger campus in Sugar Land, Texas, USA.
Padmanabhan Sundararaman retired from Chevron in 2008
10–1 100 101 102
and is now a consultant. He holds a PhD degree in organic
Rh, Ω⋅m chemistry from Florida State University and was a post-doctoral
fellow at Stanford University. He worked at Chevron as a senior
Fig. A-2—Modified Klein crossplot showing the shale endpoint research chemist, a geochemical specialist, and chief petro-
at Rh = 0.524 ⍀·m and Rv = 3.37 ⍀·m. physicist.

238 June 2011 SPE Journal