SPE 87239
3D Geological Modeling of a Carbonate Reservoir, Utilizing Open-Hole Log Response
- Porosity & Permeability - Lithofacies Relationship
K. Akatsuka, Japan Oil Development Co., Ltd.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
th
This paper was selected for presentation at the 9 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 15-18 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC Program Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper as
presented, have not been reviewed by the ADIPEC and are subject to correction by author(s).
The material as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the ADIPEC or its
members. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.
Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write ADIPEC Coordinator, P.O. Box 5546, Abu
Dhabi, U.A.E., Fax 009712-4446135.
Abstract
A lithofacies based reservoir characterization study was
conducted for a Lower Cretaceous carbonate reservoir in order
to build a numerical 3-dimensional geological model including
permeability prediction and rock typing for reservoir flow
simulation.
This paper describes a procedure for constructing a
lithofacies based geological model for reservoir flow
simulation. This is the first time a lithofacies based reservoir
characterization has been applied to the target reservoir. We
believe this model is a reasonable representation of the
reservoir as it gave a good match between predicted
permeability and well test permeability.
Nine lithofacies were identified from detailed slabbed core
observations and lithofacies of non-cored wells were predicted
from the cross plots between DT, RHOB, PHIE and MSFL of
each lithofacies.
The relationship between lithofacies and open-hole log
response was also effective in estimating the spatial
distribution of each lithofacies. A lithofacies trend map, which
shows the lateral variation of lithofacies, was produced by
applying this relationship to maps of vertically averaged log
response. A lithofacies distribution map was prepared by
incorporating a geological interpretation of thickness and
porosity variations into the trend map.
Horizontal permeability was predicted from simple core
porosity-permeability regressions for each lithofacies using
log porosity as the input. Using the lithofacies distribution
map and the relationship between porosity and permeability of
each lithofacies, the lateral variation of horizontal permeability
was predicted without direct interpolation or extrapolation of
permeability data between wells. The general trend of this
modeled permeability was similar to the permeability derived
from production tests. However, the absolute value of modeled
permeability was lower than the well test permeability across
the reservoir. This phenomenon might be due to the existence
of high permeability streaks which were not cored.
Investigation of the relationship between lithofacies and
petrophysical data, such as special core analysis, was carried
out based on pore throat size distribution curves derived from
capillary pressure data. As a result, four rock types were
identified in the reservoir.
Introduction
The studied field is located offshore Abu Dhabi, UAE (Fig.1)
and the target reservoir is composed of Lower Cretaceous
limestone succession (Fig.2). The reservoir has been divided
into two major units: the upper dense zone including a minor
porous part and the lower porous zone. The porous zone has
been further divided into five layers based on petrographics
and petrophysical characteristics. The importance of a detailed
3-dimensional geological model has been recognized for the
past decade in order to construct a reliable flow model. The
objective of this study was to construct a 3-dimensional
geological model for reservoir flow simulation. The procedure
used in the study is illustrated in Fig.3.
The first step of the study was the observation and
description of cores in 15 key wells in order to identify
lithofacies. Thin section observation was used for a more
detailed lithological characterization in one deviated well with
high core recovery. Suites of open-hole logs with computer
processed interpretation logs (CPI logs) were available in 215
wells. Conventional core analysis (CCAL) data and special
core analysis (SCAL) data were also available in 22 wells and
at 58 points from 10 wells respectively.
The reservoir layering scheme is based on a modified
version of the above-mentioned five layer model. The
reservoir was divided into 13 layers based on lithofacies, CPI
profile, open-hole log and CCAL data.
The classification of lithology type was first conducted by
rock texture following Dunhams classification (1962). Then
grain components were grouped to identify high permeability
facies within the grain-supported group. The relationship
between identified lithofacies and open-hole log response was
investigated in order to determine lithofacies at non-cored
2 K. AKATSUKA
wells. Lithofacies trend maps were prepared based on the
relationship between lithofacies and open-hole log responses.
Finally, a lithofacies distribution map was produced by
incorporating geological information - thickness and porosity -
into the lithofacies trend map. High permeability facies are
expected to be distributed in areas of the reservoir that are
relatively thin but have good porosity. This is supported by
comparison of porosity, thickness, CCAL permeability and
well test permeability data. This trend of high permeability
facies distribution was reflected on the final lithofacies
distribution map.
Horizontal permeability calculations were made for the 13
reservoir layers using CPI porosity as the input to regressions
of CCAL porosity and permeability for each lithofacies. The
horizontal permeability was refined by incorporating CCAL
permeability into the calculated permeability model. The
modeled permeability shows similar trends to well test
permeability, particularly in high permeability areas.
The relationship between lithofacies and capillary pressure
data was used to classify rock types. A total of four rock types
were determined.
Reservoir Layering
The reservoir layering scheme was first based on the five
layer model of the previous geological study. This layering
scheme was modified and further divided in this study (Fig.4).
It was noted that porosity is reduced at three intervals on
the CPI log due to condensed sections which contain stylolite.
The CCAL permeability is also low at these stylolitic
intervals. Therefore, the reservoir was first divided into five
layers so as to discriminate these stylolitic intervals. CCAL
permeability is generally high to very high just above and
below the third stylolitic interval from the bottom. In order to
identify and characterize possible high permeability layers
these five layers were subdivided into a total of 13 layers
based on lithological variation, CCAL permeability and open-
hole log response. This subdivision is described below.
1. Layer A was further divided into four layers. Lithology
changes from grain-supported facies in the lower part to mud-
supported facies in the upper part with reservoir quality
improving towards the base. CPI porosity is high in the middle
and reduces towards the top and the bottom which are
bounded by the upper dense zone and a stylolitic interval
respectively.
2. Layer B was subdivided into three layers and bounded
by stylolitic intervals at the top and the bottom. Lithology
varies from wackestone to grainstone and changes to a
mudstone texture at the base composed of stylolitic facies. CPI
porosity is higher in the middle and reduces at the top and the
bottom stylolitic intervals. CCAL permeability is good just
below the top stylolitic interval and decreases towards the
bottom.
SPE 87239
3. Layer C was further divided into four layers and also
bounded by stylolitic intervals at the top and the bottom. The
lithology of this layer is mainly mud-supported facies, such as
wackestone or wackestone/packstone. Grain-supported facies
were observed in the lower section in some wells. CPI porosity
is relatively uniform and the CCAL permeability is moderate
to poor.
4. Layer D is characterized by a condensed section with a
high density of stylolites. CPI porosity is drastically reduced in
this layer and the porosity reduction can be traced across the
entire field. Reservoir quality of this layer is bad to poor.
5. Layer E is bounded by the stylolitic interval of Layer D
at the top and the underlying formation below. The main
lithologies are wackestone to mudstone and CPI porosity
varies arealy. CCAL permeability is relatively low and
reservoir quality is poor.
Lithofacies Classification
Identification of lithofacies was based on the detailed core
description that was conducted in fifteen wells. Lithofacies
classification was first carried out by rock texture. Grain
components were then grouped to identify high permeability
facies. From the comparison of core description and CCAL
data, the facies with well preserved intergranular pore spaces
have good to excellent permeability. Conversely, the facies
with poorly preserved intergranular pore spaces show
relatively low permeability. Grain-supported facies have more
or less preserved intergranular pore spaces, but permeability is
not always high due to cementation or micritization. The
highest permeability is measured in the bioclast dominant
well-sorted packstone grading to grainstone (Lithofacies-IX)
and CCAL permeability is worst in the facies with mud-
supported texture. Descriptions of each lithofacies are
summarized in Table 1.
Lithofacies Distribution Model
Relationship between Lithofacies and Open-hole Log
Responses
Nine lithofacies were identified from core descriptions
based on texture and grain components in order to characterize
the high permeability facies as discussed in the previous
section. It was not possible to estimate the lateral distribution
of each lithofacies based on the sparse control points of the
cored wells. Therefore, an estimation of lithofacies at non-
cored wells was required. The relationship between open-hole
log response and identified lithofacies was examined to
determine the lithofacies in non-cored wells. Cross plots were
prepared using the data from four logs; they were CPI PHIE,
SONIC DT, MSFL and RHOB. A combination of two or three
of these cross plots is required to estimate the lithofacies as a
unique relationship between log response and specific
lithofacies is not available from a single cross plot.
SPE 87239 3D GEOLOGICAL MODELING OF CARBONATE RESERVOIR, UTILIZING OPEN-HOLE LOG RESPONSES
- POROSITY & PERMEABILITY - LITHOFACIES RELATIONSHIP
SONIC DT and RHOB
On the SONIC DT and RHOB cross plot (Fig.5), mud-
supported facies, such as lithofacies-I, II, and III, show
relatively high RHOB and low DT values. On the other
hand, grain-supported facies, such as lithofacies-VI, VII,
VIII and IX, show relatively low RHOB and high DT
values. Lithofacies-IV and V are plotted in the same area
as the grain-supported facies.
It is difficult to distinguish wackestone facies from grain-
supported facies on this cross plot. However the acoustic
wave velocity of grain-supported facies is slower than that
of wackestone facies even though they show the same
density. In the mud-supported facies, the acoustic wave
velocity of lithofacies-I is faster than that of the other mud-
supported facies at the same density.
This cross plot implies that acoustic wave velocity is faster
in high density and low porosity rock, and slower in porous
rock.
SONIC DT and MSFL
On the SONIC DT and MSFL cross plot (Fig.6), grain-
supported facies, such as lithofacies-VI, VII, VIII, and IX,
display relatively high DT and low MSFL values except
for lithofacies-IX. Lithofacies-IX points are restricted to
the low DT and low MSFL area of the plot. This is because
MSFL data was not available for high DT points in this
facies.
The mud-supported facies, lithofacies-I, II, and III, have
relatively low DT and high MSFL values. Lithofacies-IV
and V, both wackestone facies, have values between the
above two facies types. This cross plot implies that MSFL
and DT values vary with porosity even for facies with the
same texture.
CPI PHIE and SONIC DT
On the PHIE and DT cross plot (Fig.7), grain-supported
facies show relatively high values of porosity and DT. On
the other hand, mud-supported facies generally show
relatively low porosity and DT values. For porosity values
greater than 20%, SONIC DT varies with lithofacies. For
example, lithofacies-IV and VIII have lower DT values
than those of lithofacies-VI and VII at the same porosity. It
is presumed that this phenomenon is caused by variations
in porosity type. Generally, acoustic wave velocity is faster
in the facies with predominantly intergranular pores, and
slower in the facies with assorted porosity of intergranular
and vuggy or moldic types.
RHOB and CPI PHIE
The mud-supported facies, lithofacies-I, II and III, have
high density and low porosity values on the cross plot of
RHOB and CPI PHIE (Fig.8). The grain-supported facies,
lithofacies-VI, VII, VIII, IX, have low density and high
porosity values. The points for lithofacies-IV and V,
dominated by wackestone facies, fall between the above
3
two groups. Lithofacies-IX, which has the highest
permeability, shows relatively lower porosity and higher
density compared to the other grain-supported facies. This
cross plot does not show a distinct relationship between
individual lithofacies and log response.
RHOB and MSFL
The cross plot of RHOB and MSFL (Fig.9) shows a similar
trend as the cross plot of DT and RHOB. The grain-
supported facies have low density and low MSFL values,
while mud-supported facies have relatively high density
and high MSFL values in general. But both lithofacies and
MSFL values vary at low-densities. Unfortunately, MSFL
data is not available at low RHOB values for this facies.
Therefore, lithofacies-IX is seen only in the relatively high
RHOB and high MSFL area.
CPI PHIE and MSFL
The cross plot of CPI PHIE and MSFL (Fig.10) also shows
a relationship similar to the cross plot of SONIC DT and
MSFL. The grain-supported facies have relatively low
MSFL values with high porosity, and mud-supported
facies have relatively high MSFL values and low porosity.
Lithofacies-IV and V points fall between the grain-
supported facies and the mudstone texture dominant facies.
Lithofacies Distribution Model
Lithofacies Trend Map
To obtain the field-wide lithofacies distribution, we used
non-cored well interpretations in addition to detailed core
descriptions. Therefore, lithofacies in non-cored wells were
determined from the relationship between lithofacies and
open-hole log response as discussed in the above section.
Determination of lithofacies in non-cored wells is based on
an assumption that an averaged open-hole log response is
controlled by the dominant facies of each layer. A lithofacies
trend map was prepared before constructing the lithofacies
distribution model using averaged values of open-hole log
readings and the relationship between identified lithofacies
and open-hole log response. Since the relationship between
lithofacies and log response is known and log response can be
interpolated or extrapolated between wells, the lithofacies
distribution was determined by combining these two pieces of
input data.
The trend map was generated based on log responses
except for wells where core had been described. Due to
overlap between the cross plots, the most commonly identified
lithofacies was taken to represent the lithofacies of the layer at
the well.
Lithofacies Distribution Model
The lithofacies distribution model was constructed from
the lithofacies trend map. By overlaying CCAL and test
permeability maps on the thickness and porosity variation
maps, high permeability facies can be distributed to areas with
4 K. AKATSUKA
thin to moderate reservoir thickness and good porosity. Values
of SONIC DT and RHOB in these areas are relatively high and
low respectively. The depositional trend implied by this
comparison is from NNW-SSE to NW-SE in the studied field
(Fig11).
Permeability Model
Calculated Horizontal Permeability
Horizontal permeability was calculated using CCAL
porosity-permeability relations for each lithofacies. A cross
plot of CCAL porosity and permeability was prepared for each
lithofacies. Regression analysis was used on each plot to
determine a mathematical relationship for each lithofacies
(Fig.12). CCAL permeability reaches a plateau at higher
values of porosity in the porosity-permeability cross plot for
lithofacies-VI, VII and IX. CCAL permeability increases
linearly with porosity in the other lithofacies. The equations
defined by regression analysis reflect these two different
trends. Horizontal permeability was calculated using these
regressions with CPI porosity as the input.
Horizontal Permeability Model
The horizontal permeability model was constructed by
incorporating calculated permeability with CCAL permeability
data from the cored wells. First, the averaged CCAL
permeability was assigned to each layer in the cored wells and
the calculated permeability was assigned to each layer in the
non-cored wells. The modeled permeability was relatively low
when compared to estimates of permeability from well tests
and it was necessary to optimize the assignment of CCAL
permeability within the layers. The optimization of
permeability assignment concerned four paticular cases
where...
1. Averaged CCAL permeability across the reservoir was
much lower than the well test permeability.
2. Averaged CCAL permeability across the reservoir was
slightly lower than the well test permeability.
3. Averaged CCAL permeability across the reservoir was
slightly higher than or nearly equal to the well test
permeability.
4. Layers where CCAL permeability was not available.
The maximum CCAL permeability in the layer was
assigned to each layer in case 1. In cases 2 and 3, the average
CCAL permeability in the layer was assigned to each layer.
The calculated permeability was assigned in each layer in case
4.
As a result, the general trend of the modeled permeability
was similar to that of the well test permeability especially in
the high permeability area. In the periphery, the permeability
trend of these maps is different due to fewer control points of
well test permeability and it has been extrapolated to zero at
the flank. The absolute value of the modeled permeability was
SPE 87239
lower than well test permeability (Fig.13). This is due to the
fact that CCAL permeability was usually lower than the well
test permeability, particularly in the crestal area. Despite this
difference, CCAL data was used in the model as there were a
number of points in the reservoir where no other permeability
data was available. However, the modeled permeability will be
conditioned with test permeability for reservoir flow
simulation.
Relationship Between Lithofacies And SCAL Data
Ideally, lithofacies classification should be based on both
geological and petrophysical information. However, this
requires sufficient information from both disciplines. Due to
limited SCAL data, we used a rock typing concept after the
lithofacies distrtibution was made.
Rock texture and grain components were used to identify
lithofacies which, in turn, were used to characterize high
permeability facies. Then the relationships between lithofacies
and petrophysical data, such as CCAL or SCAL, was used to
optimize rock typing. This petrophysical data include CCAL
porosity-permeability correlations and mercury injection data.
Rock type optimization was achieved by grouping the
lithofacies (Fig.14). Lithofacies-I, II and III are combined into
rock type one which has mainly pinpoint vug or mold as the
porosity type and relatively poor permeability. The pore throat
size distribution curve of this rock type shows a single peak at
a relatively small pore throat size area (less than 1 micron).
Lithofacies-IV is defined as rock type two which has vuggy or
moldic porosity types and poor to moderate permeability. The
pore throat size distribution curve of rock type two has a
similar feature to rock type one but the peak is located at
larger pore throat size (around 1 micron). Lithofacies-V and
VII are combined into rock type three which also has vuggy
and moldic porosity types, and poor to moderate permeability.
The pore throat size distribution curve has a single peak
located at a larger pore throat size than that of rock types one
and two (greater than 1 micron). Lithofacies-VI, VIII and IX
are combined into rock type four. These facies have preserved
intergranular pores and the permeability is moderate to good.
The shape of the pore throat size distribution curve is
completely different from the other rock types. The curves are
distributed across a range of pore throat sizes with two to
three peaks.
Conclusions
l Lithofacies-based reservoir characterization was effective
for constructing a 3-dimensional numerical geological
model including permeability prediction and rock typing.
l Lithofacies classification was carried out from detailed
core description and nine lithofacies were identified
based on the rock texture and grain components.
SPE 87239 3D GEOLOGICAL MODELING OF CARBONATE RESERVOIR, UTILIZING OPEN-HOLE LOG RESPONSES 5
- POROSITY & PERMEABILITY - LITHOFACIES RELATIONSHIP

l A lithofacies distribution map was prepared using the
relationship between lithofacies and open-hole log
response. Lithofacies in non-cored wells were
determined mainly from three cross plots combined with
two types of open-hole log response.
l Rock type optimization was conducted by grouping the
lithofacies based on pore throat size distributions derived
from mercury injection data. Four rock types were
determined as a result.

l Horizontal permeability was predicted based on the Acknowledgement

lithofacies distribution using a regression of CCAL
porosity-permeability for each lithofacies directly
incorporating CCAL permeability data. The general trend
of the modeled permeability was comparable with the
well test permeability even though the absolute value of
the modeled permeability was lower.
The author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by
the management of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
(ADNOC) and Japan Oil Development Co., Ltd. (JODCO) for
permission to publish this manuscript.
References
Dunham, R. J. (1962); Classification of carbonate rocks according to
depositional texture. AAPG. Mem., n.1 p. 108-121.

Average Core Data

Grain Porosity Reservoir
Texture Type Occurrence Quality
Type
Porosity Permeability

MDST Dominate dy Middle of Layer A Poor due to

I to Algae Upper part of Layer B Pinpoint Vug 12.4% 1.22md Recrystallization
WKST Foraminifera Layer D, Layer E And Cementation
Bioclast Layer A, Layer C Mold
II MDST Rudist Layer D, Layer E Vug 21.2% 5.86md Relatively Poor
Foraminifera
MDST/WKST Bioclast Mold
III Lower part of 13.1% 1.51md Relatively Poor
to Foraminifera Vug
Layer B
WKST/MDST
Bioclast Intragranular
Mold 15.95md
IV WKST Foraminifera All Layers 21.2% Relatively Poor
Algae (Max 290md)
Vug
WKST/PKST Bioclast Intragranular
V to Algae All Layers Mold 25.4% 11.85md Poor to Moderate
PKST/WKST Foraminifer Vug
a Intragranular
PKST Predominant Layer A
VI to Rudist and Mold 26.5% 17.22md Moderate
Layer C
GRST Rudist Vug
PKST Predominant Layer A Intragranular
VII to Peloids Layer C Mold 25.2% 7.88md Relatively Poor
GRST (Algae) Layer E Vug
PKST Predominant Layer A Intergranular
VIII to Bioclast and Layer B Mold 24.2% 25.26md Moderate to Good
GRST Peloids Layer C Vug
(Shell
PKST Predominant 129.3md
Layer A Intergranular 17.48% Excellent
IX to Well Sorted (Max 382md)
Bioclast Layer B
GRST

Table 1: Summary of lithofacies description

6 K. AKATSUKA SPE 87239
SPE 87239 3D GEOLOGICAL MODELING OF CARBONATE RESERVOIR, UTILIZING OPEN-HOLE LOG RESPONSES 7
- POROSITY & PERMEABILITY- LITHOFACIES RELATIONSHIP
8 K. AKATSUKA SPE 87239
SPE 87239 3D GEOLOGICAL MODELING OF CARBONATE RESERVOIR, UTILIZING OPEN-HOLE LOG RESPONSES 9
- POROSITY & PERMEABILITY - LITHOFACIES RELATIONSHIP
10 K. AKATSUKA SPE 87239
SPE 87239 3D GEOLOGICAL MODELING OF CARBONATE RESERVOIR, UTILIZING OPEN-HOLE LOG RESPONSES 11
- POROSITY & PERMEABILITY LITHOFACIES RELATIONSHIP