1887
Volume 12 Number 2
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The accuracy of NMR‐derived permeability estimates in sands and gravels are examined through simulations on numerical grain packs composed of uniform spherical grains. The packs consisted of randomly packed grains, with grain sizes set to represent a range corresponding to sands and gravels. The material properties for each pack were quantified through numerical analysis and the NMR response was simulated for a range of surface relaxivity values. The agreement between the numerically‐derived permeability estimates and the permeability estimates derived using the Schlumberger‐Doll Research (SDR) and Seevers equations was evaluated. Use of the SDR equation assumes that the relaxation of the bulk pore fluid can be neglected. The NMR‐derived permeability estimates were calculated using each equation for the cases where relaxation was assumed to occur in one of the two major diffusion regimes. We found that permeability is most accurately estimated in all packs through use of the Seevers equation with the empirical constant set equal to 1. We showed that the contribution of bulk fluid relaxation should be accounted for in materials with grain radii greater than 1.2e‐4m (fine sand) and surface relaxivity values less than 1.0e‐3 m s−1. In practice, this range of surface relaxivity values and grain sizes corresponds to situations where the measured relaxation time is greater than approximately one‐third the value of the bulk fluid relaxation time .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013042
2013-07-01
2020-02-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BanavarR. and SchwartzL.M.1989. Magnetic resonance as a probe of permeability in porous media. Physical Review Letters58(14), 1411–1414.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BowersM.C., EhrlichR., HowardJ.J. and KenyonW.E.1995. Determination of porosity types from NMR data and their relationship to porosity types derived from thin section. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering13, 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BrownR.J.S. and FantazziniP.1993. Conditions for initial quasilinear T2‐1 versus tau for Carr‐Purcell‐Meiboom‐Gill NMR with diffusion and susceptibility differences in porous media and tissues. Physical ReviewB47, 14823.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BrownsteinK.R. and TarrC.E.1979. Importance of classical diffusion in NMR studies of water in biological cells. Physical ReviewA19, 2446–2453.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BryarT., DaughneyC. and KnightR.2000. Paramagnetic effects of Iron(III) species on nuclear magnetic relaxation of fluid protons in porous media. Journal of Magnetic Resonance142, 74–85.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CarmanP.C.1956. Flow of Gases Through Porous Media. Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CoatesG.R., XiaoL. and PrammerM.G.2000. NMR Logging: Principles and Applications. Halliburton Energy Services.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DlubacK.I., KnightR., SongY.Q., BachmanN., GrauB., CanniaJ. et al. 2013. Use of NMR logging to obtain estimates of hydraulic conductivity in the High Plains aquifer, Nebraska, USA. Water Resources Research. (in press)
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DlugoschR., Müller‐PetkeM., GüntherT. and YaramanciU.2011. An extended model for predicting hydraulic conductivity from NMR measurements. Near Surface European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Leicester, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DunnK.J., BergmanD.J. and LatorracaG.A.2002. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance: Petrophysical and Logging Applications. Elsevier Science Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. EllisD.V. and SingerJ.M.2007. Well Logging for Earth Scientists. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FinneyJ.L.1970. Random packings and the structure of simple liquids. I. The geometry of random close packing. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences319, 479–493.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. FreezeR.A. and CherryJ.A.1979. Groundwater. Prentice‐Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GloverP.W.J. and WalkerE.2009. Grain‐size to effective pore‐size transformation derived from electrokinetic theory. Geophysics74, E17‐E29.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GrunewaldE. and KnightR.2009. A laboratory study of NMR relaxation times and pore coupling in heterogeneous media. Geophysics74, E215‐E221.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GrunewaldE. and WalshD.2012. Novel surface‐NMR pulse sequences for improved estimation of relaxation times and hydrogeologic properties. Presented at Magnetic Resonance in the Subsurface, Hannover, Germany, 25‐27 September.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. GueguenY. and PalcaiuckasV.1994. Introduction to the Physics of Rocks. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HeathR.C.1983. Basic ground‐water hydrology. In: Basic ground‐water hydrology, (ed. U.S. Geological Survey Water‐Supply), 2220, 85.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HidajatI., SinghM., CooperJ. and MohantyK.K.2002. Permeability of porous media from simulated NMR response. Transport in Porous Media48, 225–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. KeehmY.2003. Computational rock physics: Transport properties in porous media and applications. In: Computational rock physics: Transport properties in porous media and applications, Vol. PhD. Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KenyonW.E., DayP., StraleyC. and WillemsenJ.F.1988. A three‐part study of NMR longitudinal relaxation properties of water saturated sandstones. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Formation Evaluation3, 622–636.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. KozenyJ.1927. Ueber Kapillare Leitung des Wasser im Boden. Wein Akad Wiss, 136.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LonnesS., Guzman‐GarciaA. and HollandR.2003. NMR petrophysical predictions on cores. Trans SPWLA 44th Annual Logging Symposium,13.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LorensenW.E. and ClineH.E.1987. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. Computer Graphics21, 163–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. NewmanW.A. and WatkinsonR.J.1991. Dissolved oxygen mapping: A powerful tool for site assessments and groundwater monitoring. Proceedings of the 5th National Outdoor Action conference on Aquifer Restoration, Groundwater Monitoring, and Geophysical Methods, Las Vegas, Nevada, 103–117.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. RamakrishnanT.S., SchwartzL.M., FordhamE.J., KenyonW.E. and WilkinsonD.J.1999. Forward models for nuclear magnetic resonance in carbonate rocks. The Log Analyst40, 260–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. SeeversD.O.1966. A nuclear magnetic method for determining the permeability of sandstones. SPWLA 7th Annual Logging Symposium, 14.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SilinD. and PatzekT.2006. Pore space morphology analysis using maximal inscribed spheres. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications371, 336–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SimpsonJ.H. and CarrH.Y.1958. Diffusion and Nuclear Spin Relaxation in Water. Physical Review111, 1201–1202.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. StorkH., GadkeA. and NestleN.2006. Single‐sided and semisingle‐sided NMR sensors for highly diffusive samples: Application to bottled beverages. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry54, 5247–5252.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. TorquatoS. and KimI.C.1989. Efficient simulation technique to compute effective properties of heterogeneous media. Applied Physics55(18), 1847–1849.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. ToumelinE., Torres‐VerdinC. and ChenS.2003. Modeling of multiple echo‐time NMR measurements for complex pore geometries and multiphase saturations. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering6, 234–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. WentworthC.K.1922. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology30, 177–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. ZhengL.H. and ChiewT.C.1989. Computer simulation of diffusion‐controlled reactions in dispersions of spherical sinks. Journal of Chemical Physics90(1), 322–327.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013042
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2013042
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error