Permeability is a crucial input to any simulation effort to forecast production. It is available from different sources: core, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), wireline formation tester (WFT) and drill stem test (DST). These sources are different in many aspects: the type of permeability they measure, e.g. absolute or effective, the scale of measurement in the vertical and the lateral directions and the degree of inconvenience caused by the data acquisition process in terms of operational constraints, costs, safety issues, etc.

Much effort has been invested by the industry to be able to use the most cost effective tools, NMR and WFT, for permeability measurement as substitute for the less convenient ones: core and DST. Results of these efforts are still mostly qualitative.

This work is a summary of the senior author's MSc thesis1  which reviewed the different sources of permeability and their limitations using field data from, an oil bearing, clastic reservoir that included core, NMR, WFT and DST. All these data were analyzed and interpreted for permeability evaluation. The objective of the study was to develop an approach for calibrating the static NMR permeability log with the WFT dynamic data and to compare the results with the traditional approach of calibrating with cores. Permeabilities from both approaches were upscaled for comparing with DST-derived permeabilities.

It was found that the upscaled WFT-calibrated NMR permeabilities match the DST permeabilities as satisfactorily as the upscaled core-calibrated NMR permeabilities.

You can access this article if you purchase or spend a download.