SPE 148073

Reservoir Rock Typing of a Giant Carbonate Field

Mohamed B. Al Ameri and Hesham Shebl, Zakum Development Company (ZADCO)

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9–11 October 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

Reservoir Rock Types of Kharaib reservoirs have been defined as an interval of rock within which the geological and
petrophysical properties that effect fluid flow are consistent and predictable. Lithofacies classifications are a purely geological
grouping of reservoir rocks, which have similar lithology, texture, grain size, sorting etc. Each lithofacies indicates a certain
depositional environment with a distribution trend and dimension. Petrophysical groups are classified by Porosity,
Permeability, Capillary Pressure and Pore throat size distribution.

A Rock Type combines both these classifications by linking petrophysical properties and lithofacies as part of the reservoir
rock type definition. It has been previously shown that the static rock types are not always representative of multi-phase flow
behavior in the reservoir. In this paper, we will present evolution of the rock type scheme within ZADCO. We discuss criteria
used to define reservoir rock types in the current unified scheme. The objective of the proposed rock type scheme is to address
shortcomings identified with the previous one in use and is based on the following criteria: a)

each Rock Type can be characterized by similar depositional environment and diagenetic process; b) Porosity/Permeability
overlap is minimal between different rock types; c) each rock type has a typical and unique set of Pore Throat Size
Distribution; and d) each rock type has similar set of Capillary Pressure/ Relative Permeability curves at a given wettability.

The recognized Reservoir Rock Types have been assigned to reservoir layers were built within a framework based on
sequence stratigraphic concepts to ensure that the spatial 3D distribution of each rock types is predictable within a well-
defined geological framework and finally to be used in history matching simulation models.

Introduction

Reservoir characterization embraces a unique set of properties that define the hydrocarbon productivity of a reservoir. These
properties provide a link between geological theory and reservoir engineering/ management. Two scales of reservoir
properties are recognized: (i) microscale and (ii) macroscale. Microscale properties include pore types, pore connectivity, and
capillary and electrical properties, etc., whereas macroscale properties include such things as the lateral and vertical
connectivity of reservoir layers, flow units, etc. Ultimately however, all of the properties of a reservoir are controlled by three
geological inputs: (i) depositional texture, (ii) diagenesis and (iii) tectonic features. Depositional texture describes the size and
shape of the grains, their packing and sorting characteristics, and the nature of any mud matrix. Together these variables
define individual lithofacies and the nature and distribution of primary porosity. Diagenesis modifies the depositional texture
to either enhance or reduce reservoir potential through dissolution and cementation (including lithification and compaction)
respectively.

Classifying rocks into groups having a specific set of geological and petrophysical characteristics allows a better definition of
porosity/permeability relationships and a detailed reliable description of the reservoir. Combining this with the facies
distribution and layering from the geological model that based on sequence stratigraphy, leads to a refined reservoir model.
2 SPE 148073

Current Schemes

One of the main challenges of 3D Geological/Reservoir modelling is to integrate data of different scales and different sources
to build a consistent picture of the field at the reservoir scale. 3D modelling always starts with the definition of Reservoir
Rock Types, that will be defined here as groups of rocks having similar lithological and petrophysical properties, leading to
similar responses to the fluid flow.

The main issues with the current Reservoir Rock Type Schemes (Table 1). can be summarized as follows:

• No field-wide, unified Reservoir Rock Type scheme for all reservoirs

• Multiple Reservoir Rock Type schemes defined for each reservoir by different contractors.
• Rocks with similar properties assigned as different Reservoir Rock Type designations.
• Data used to define Reservoir Rock Type’s was not properly QA/QC’d
• Reservoir Rock Types distributed as single entities in geologic model (not a component-based modeling process)

The above-mentioned limitations led us to conclude that our rock type schemes need to be improved.

Quality control basic inputs to determining reservoir rock types

Conventional Core Analysis Data

Porosity/permeability crossplots were reviewed on a well by zone basis. Characteristics used to identify anomalous
relationships are 1) large standard deviations in porosity for a given permeability, 2) unusually low permeabilities at higher
porosities, and 3) horizontal bands of sparse or missing data values, i.e., few plugs measured in the permeability range between
0.1 and 1.0 mD.

The suspected Conventional core analysis data was reviewed to determine the magnitude of the problem. Few wells were
prioritized in terms of the severity of the problem. Plugs from the highest priority wells have been re-measured. The original
measurements were compared to the re-measurements (Fig. 1). Composite plots for each well show vector plots indicating the
direction and magnitude of change on a plug by plug basis (Fig. 2).

Core Description Assignments

Attributes from core descriptions were assigned to core plug measurements in the Database by core depths. These assignments
were screened on a foot by foot basis to ensure that they represent the attribute described by the core describers as opposed to
an erroneous assignment caused by the core description digitizing process. Errors of this type were encountered so an effort
was made to review all assignments. However, descriptive data may still not accurately describe the plug since descriptions
are based on core and thin sections rather than a description of the plug itself. This was shown to be a major issue, particularly
in intervals with thin, potentially high permeability floatstones.
Core Plug Assignments
Following quality control of the core description assignments to plug values, a non-intuitive, apparent non-correlation
remained between rudist-dominated and/or algal-dominated floatstones and high permeability plug values. Most of ZADCO
wells are deviated and plug sampling of old wells has been to take plugs horizontal and vertical to the core rather than
horizontal and vertical to bedding (Fig. 3). Because of this, in intervals where algal-dominated floatstones and rudist-
dominated floatstones occur in thin intervals, plugs from deviated wells are more often than not either 1) not from the facies
described from the one-third slabs or 2) composed of both floatstone and matrix facies and therefore not representative of
either. To adequately characterize the potentially high permeability algal-dominated floatstones and rudist-dominated
floatstones, the plugs need to be examined in relationship to the one-third slabs and two-third cores to ensure they are
representative of the facies described from the slabbed core.

Log Data
The petrophysical database used was constructed and quality controlled by the Petrophysicists team. The database contains
log, core analysis, formation tester pressures and directional data. Quality control of the digital log data included 1) curve
verification based on log hardcopies and 2) log editing including depth shifts, normalizing, applying environmental corrections
and reconstructing bad data. Following the quality control procedures, logs were computed for mineralogy, porosity and water
saturation, integrating new core porosity and SCAL data.
SPE 148073 3

MICP Data
The MICP data in nine wells with valid core plug porosity and permeability data and core descriptions was reviewed to
identify quality issues that impact use for pore throat size distribution analysis. The data was screened for issues with
conformance, entry pressure, equilibrium measurements and sample or laboratory measurement errors.

Methodology

Core analysis and description data compiled in the Database was interrogated to determine the controls on reservoir quality in
Kharaib reservoirs. Porosity versus permeability crossplots were constructed using a subset of the data; wells with valid core
plug measurements and core and thin section descriptions. These crossplots were used to examine the relationships between
reservoir quality and all lithologic, depositional, diagenetic, stratigraphic and geographic variables in the core analysis and
description database.

Reservoir Rock Types (RRTs), defined as grouping of rocks that have similar petrophysical properties and can be predicted in
three dimensions based on geologic principles. Emphasis was placed on recognizing relationships between reservoir quality
and predictable depositional and diagenetic features (and/or proxies for depositional and diagenetic features). Parameters such
as relative percentages of given pore types have been successfully used in other studies to differentiate between different
Reservoir Rock Types on a single well basis where all samples had detailed thin section descriptions. While these are valid
parameters upon which to base a Reservoir Rock Type scheme, the probability of accurately predicting such parameters on a
field wide basis without the benefit of core is low. Because predictability is a critical element defining RRTs in this study,
emphasis was placed on define Reservoir Rock Types using geologic parameters that could be defined field wide with an
acceptable level of accuracy.

The depositional and diagenetic parameters having the most impact on reservoir quality are 1) lithology (limestone vs.
dolomite), 2) cementation and compaction and 3) texture (mud-dominated vs. grain-dominated) and 4) composition (algal-
dominated floatstones vs. rudist-dominated floatstones). Twenty candidate RRTs have been defined based on the parameters
noted above. To further reduce the variability in petrophysical properties, properties associated with each Reservoir Rock
Type (excluding the non-reservoir and cemented RRTs) should be derived based on reservoir zone (or stratigraphic interval to
be modeled).

Subdividing the grain-dominated Reservoir Rock Types into a matrix Reservoir Rock Type and floatstone Reservoir Rock
Types linked to grain composition is warranted based on MICP data. Floatstones generally exhibit a wide range of pore throat
size distributions whereas the grain-dominated matrix usually exhibits a more unimodal distribution of pore throat sizes.
MICP data also supports binning within the primary Reservoir Rock Type designations based on porosity classifications.
(Table 2).

The integration of core description work with the petrophysical data shows the apparent non-correlation between rudist and/or
algal floatstones and high permeability plug measurements is due to core plug sampling issues. Because plugs have
historically been taken horizontal and vertical to the core rather than to bedding, plugs from highly deviated wells, more often
than not plugs are either 1) not from the facies described from the one-third slabs or 2) composed of both floatstone and matrix
facies and therefore not representative of either.

Based on description of the core plugs themselves in a limited number of wells, there does appear to be a correlation the
floatstones and high permeability. In general, algal-dominated floatstones and rudist-dominated floatstones have higher
permeabilities than the grain-dominated matrix. These two facies are also characterized by large, pencil-size cavities. The
algal-dominated floatstones have lower levels of permeability but may still be higher than the surrounding grain-dominated
matrix. In the limited number of wells examined, the large, pencil-sized cavities were significantly less common in the algal-
dominated floatstones. Targeted plug and whole core samples are being measured to further evaluate permeability of the
floatstones.

Relate existing Kr/Pc measurements to unified RRTs.

Limited Capillary Pressure (Pc) and Relative Permeability (Kr) experiments have been carried out under reservoir conditions.
Only three Relative Permeability experiment results obtained under full reservoir conditions are currently available. Based on
the unified RRT scheme, one sample is RRT24-Packstone Matrix (Fig.4); one sample is RRT37-Grainstone (Fig.5) with
Abundant Interpartical Porosity; and one sample is RRT22-Mud-dominated RRT (Fig. 6). Each RRT has a distinct Relative
Permeability character suggesting that these three rock types will have different dynamic behavior (MEOS; SPE93477).

By examining the Kr/Pc characteristics of each reservoir rock type, it may be possible to group multiple geologically-defined
rock types into fewer dynamic reservoir rock types with distinct, identifiable dynamic characteristics.
4 SPE 148073

When additional Kr/Pc measurements are available, the following characteristics should be examined to distinguish between
different dynamic rock types:

• Relative Permeability Data. Compare the relative permeability data from two different rock types. Examine the
end point saturations as well as end point relative permeability values. Examine the wet ability characteristics to see
if the two different tock types have similar wetting characteristics. If the end point values, irreducible saturations and
the wetting characteristics are similar for two rock types, they can be combined into a single dynamic reservoir rock
type.

• Capillary Pressure Data. Capillary pressure data are useful in characterizing rock types because it is an indication
of pore throat size distribution within a rock type. Wet ability also plays a role in determining the capillary pressure
characteristics. Important characteristics worth examining include threshold or displacement pressure, maximum
value of capillary pressure, the irreducible saturation, and the values of instantaneous and forced imbibition. If such
information is available, the capillary pressure data for two distinct rock types can be compared using some statistical
criterion to determine if the two rock types are from the same population. If the answer is yes; the two rock types can
be combined into a single dynamic reservoir rock type.

Assess the ability to predict the RRTs from petrophysical log responses.

To assess the ability to predict Reservoir Rock Types from petrophysical log responses, the petrophysical data was
interrogated in two phases, 1) unsupervised clustering and 2) supervised analysis based on eleven candidate RRTs identified as
part of this study. During the petrophysical investigations, grain-dominated rocks were considered a single Reservoir Rock
Type.

Early integration of petrophysical data involved unsupervised clustering in multi-dimensional log space to identify useful log
combinations and to provide guidance for rock type determination. During this phase, the dataset was limited. Only a few
wells in the in-house petrophysical database were in the oil leg, had reliable core plug data, a modern log suite and showed no
water breakthrough. Basic logging suites were able to distinguish only limited rock type information. Resistivity logs, subject
to fluid and porosity changes, were needed to determine any pore type or permeability changes. Initial investigations did
suggest that previous approaches used to identify high permeability streaks of a particular reservoir could possibly be applied
to all reservoirs using an adjusted approach based on microresistivity and porosity.

After first order Reservoir Rock Types (i.e., all grain-dominated rocks grouped together) were identified, the supervised
analysis phase looked to associate natural petrophysical clusters to RRTs identified from core plugs. Depth trends were
developed to normalize both porosity and saturation and remove their dependence on depth. Seven curves were used as input
to the cluster analysis: 1) gamma ray, 2) log-derived porosity, 3) the ratio between log-derived porosity and the porosity
expected from the porosity depth trend, 4) water saturation (Sw), 5) the ratio between log-derived Sw and Sw expected from
capillary pressure model, 6) log-calculated dolomite volume and 7) log-derived limestone volume. High RRT recognition
rates were possible when the petrofacies method was applied to robust training sets of core and log data. A requirement for the
log data in the training set wells was that it be high quality, consistently processed and normalized. Training sets were also
restricted to relatively homogeneous intervals; high-frequency changes in log character were omitted from the training set.

When the petrofacies method was applied to a limited set of unfiltered data from other wells, recognition rates fell to
unsatisfactory levels. This is attributed to differences in sample size between core plugs and logging tool resolution; testing
was limited by the fact that the RRT data were specific to core plugs. An additional phase of petrofacies analysis may be
warranted after RRTs are assigned via core examination thereby allowing integration over 2- or 3-foot intervals and
minimizing the scaling issues.

Based on the low success rates achieved in predicting RRTs from petrophysical log responses, the Petrophysicists involved in
the RRT study recommend that core examination, as opposed to petrophysical assignment, be the preferred means for
assigning RRTs. The findings of this study are that only the denses (RRT1) and the dolomites (RRT10, RRT20 and RRT30)
can reliably be predicted from petrophysical log responses in non-cored wells.
SPE 148073 5

Conclusions:
The following conclusions can be drawn from the rock typing study of the studied reservoir sediments:

• Reservoir quality in the Kharaib reservoirs is largely controlled by depositional and diagenetic features. In specific
intervals, reservoir quality is further enhanced by tectonic features, i.e. fracturing.
• The proposed rock type scheme is based on the following criteria: 1) each Rock Type can be characterized by similar
depositional environment and diagenetic process; 2) Porosity/Permeability overlap is minimal between different rock
types; 3) each rock type has a typical and unique set of Pore Throat Size Distribution; and 4) each rock type has similar
set of Capillary Pressure/ Relative Permeability curves at a given wettability.
• Twenty candidate Reservoir Rock Types (one non-reservoir RRT and nineteen reservoir RRTs) are defined for the
Kharaib reservoirs based on depositional and diagenetic parameters: cementation and compaction (three reservoir
quality (RQ) regions), lithology (limestone vs. dolomite), texture (mud-dominated vs. grain-dominated vs. framework),
composition (algal-dominated vs. rudist-dominated floatstone) and pore type (well-sorted grainstones with high
interpartical porosity). The coding scheme associated with the candidate RRTs is designed to allow further subdivision
within each of the major categories.
• Diagenetic processes or events impacting matrix reservoir quality include 1) microporosity development, 2)
cementation and compaction off structural flanks of the field and in the western area, 3) cementation associated with the
major graben feature (and perhaps other faults), 4) cementation at the boundaries between reservoir and dense intervals
and at major stylolitic intervals, 5) dissolution of unstable grains (rudists), 6) stratigraphic-controlled dolomitization and
7) preferential dolomitization of burrows and Lithocodium framework grains.
• Petrophysical differences between the Kharaib RRTs are extremely subtle. At this time, core examination, as opposed
to petrophysical assignment, is the preferred means for assigning RRTs. Based on the petrophysical work done during
this study, only the denses (RRT1) and the dolomites (RRT10, RRT20 and RRT30) can reliably be predicted from
petrophysical log responses in non-cored wells.

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), Zakum Development Company (ZADCO),
ExxonMobil Abu Dhabi Offshore Petroleum Company, Ltd. (EMADOPCL) and Japan Oil Development Company (JODCO)
management for granting permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture. In: Classification of Carbonate Rocks, Vol 1.
(Ed. W.E. Ham), p.108–121. AAPG, Tulsa. By R.J. Dunham, R.J. (1962).
2. A late Devonian reef tract on northeastern Banks Island, N.W.T. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol., 19, p730-781. By A.F.
Embry, and Klovan, J.E. (1971).
3. Capillary pressure techniques: Application to exploration and development geology. Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol. Bull., 71,
p.1196–1209. By J.B. Jennings, (1987).
4. Reservoir Rock Typing Definition in a Giant Carbonate by S. Varavur, Shibasaki, T., Kutty, A., Shebl, H., Salman,
M., and Urasaki, D., ZADCO – MEOS - SPE-93477
6 SPE 148073

Lithotype Basic Texture Lithotype Description

Family
• Cemented with Micro-Porosity.
LT11 • Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, normal to about 1
Lime µm or less
LT10
Mudstone/Wackestone • Weakly Cemented with micro-porosity
LT12 • Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peaking between
1 to 2 µm
• Strongly Cemented with Micro-Porosity.
LT21 • Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peaking around 1
µm
• Moderately Cemented with micro-porosity
LT22
• Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peaking between
1 to 2 µm
LT20 Lime Packstone • Weakly Cemented with well-connected Micro-Porosity,
locally enhanced by grain dissolution and patchy
LT23
intergranular pores.
• Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peak around 2 µm
• Weakly Cemented with significant dissolution porosity
LT23D • Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peak between 3-4
µm
• Strongly Cemented with Porosity generally < 10% and
Permeability < 0.1 md.
LT31
• Pore Throat Size Distribution is scattered with most values
below 0.1µm or less
• Moderately cemented with cemented intergranular pores
and significant intragranular porosity.
LT32 • Pore Throat Radius maxima occur between 1-1.5 µm. The
distribution curves for these rocks are typically broader
than those for the muddier texture lithotypes, indicating
a larger range in Pore sizes
• Fine Grained, Poorly Sorted
LT30 Lime Grainstone LT33.1 • Pore Throat Size Distributions are typically narrow to
sharply unimodal with peak values about 1.5 µm
• Fine Grained, Well Sorted
LT33.2 • Pore Throat Size Distributions are bi-to polymodal with
main peaks around 1.5-10 µm
LT33
• Coarse Grained, Poorly Sorted
LT33.3 • Pore Throat Size Distributions are bi-to polymodal with
main peaks around 1.5 – 10 µm
• Uncemented Coarse Grained, Well Sorted
LT33.4 • Pore Throat Size Distributions are bi-to polymodal peaks
in excess of 20 µm
• Xenotopic texture, mosaic of inter-locking non-planar
dolomite crystals.
LT51
• Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peaking around 1
µm
• Idiotopic texture, mosaic of inter-locking planar dolomite
LT50 Dolostone rhombs
LT52
• Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peaking around 2
µm
• Sucrosic texture dominated by planar rhombic crystals
LT-53 • Pore Throat Size Distribution unimodal, peaking around 4
µm

Table1: Previous Lithotype Scheme for the Upper Reservoirs

SPE 148073 7

Fig. 1. Composit plots for different reservoirs indicate the different result after re-measured the core data

Fig. 2. Composite plots for one well show vector plots indicating the direction and magnitude of change on a plug by plug basis
8 SPE 148073

Fig. 3. Plugs obtained horizontal and vertical to core rather than horizontal and vertical to bedding.

Table2: Unified Reservoirs Rock type Scheme

SPE 148073 9

Packstone – RRT24

d Sv / d Log Pore Throat Radius vs Pore Throat Radius [Linear Interpolation]

Primary Drainage
4 d Sv / d Log r

Samples
Upp(100-051)-8
Upp(101-051)-8

d Sv / d Log Pore Throat Radius

3 Upp(106-096)-8
Upp(107-425)-8
Upp(110-051)-8
Upp(112-096)-8
Upp(113-425)-8
Upp(114-425)-8
2 Upp(115-051)-8
Upp(115-425)-8
Upp(116-051)-8
Upp(117-425)-8
Upp(120-096)-8
1 Upp(122-096)-8
Upp(128-425)-8
Upp(133-051)-8
Upp(134-051)-8
Upp(136-051)-8
0 Upp(137-051)-8

10
-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 10
3 ... more UZ105-02D
Pore Throat Radius (µm) Th2A – 9523. ft.
φ = 27.9% k(air) = 15.657 mD

Porosity and Permeability at Reservoir Stress

THIA0 THII & THIII A

Permeability Permeability

RRT 14 RRT 14
RRT 24 Porosity RRT 24 Porosity
RRT 34 RRT 34

Note: No High RQ Packstones identified in current data set.

Fig. 4. RRT24-Packstone Matrix.

Mud-lean Packstone / Grainstone – RRT37

d Sv / d Lo g Pore T hroat Rad ius vs Pore T hro at Radius [ Linear Interp olation]
Pr m
i ary Drainage
3 d Sv / d Log r

Samp les
Upp (144 -105 )-8
Upp (321 -288 )-8
d Sv / dL og Pore Throat Radius

Upp (409 -432 )-8

Upp (410 -432 )-8
2 Upp (418 -288 )-8
Upp (707 -144 )-8

0
10
-3 0 .01 0 .1 1 10 10 0 10
3 UZ421-01D
Por eT hroat Radius (µ m) Th2A – 7641 ft .
φ = 30. 78% k(ai r) = 121. 182 mD

Porosity and Pe rme ability at Re ser voir Stres s

THIA0 THII & THIII A

Pe rmeab li ity Pe rmeab li ity

RRT 1 7 RRT 17
RRT 2 7 Por osity RRT 27 Por osity
RRT 37 RRT 37

Fig. 5. RRT37-Grainstone.

Mud-dominated – RRT22

d Sv / d Log Pore Throat Radius vs Pore Throat Radius [Linear Interpolation]

Primary Drainage
4 d Sv / d Log r

Samples
Upp(10-425)-8
Upp(1-14A1-429)-8
d Sv / d Log Pore Throat Radius

3 Upp(1-14C1-429)-8
Upp(127-430)-8
Upp(132-430)-8
Upp(148-430)-8
Upp(149-430)-8
Upp(1-4B1-429)-8
2 Upp(152-430)-8
Upp(177-425)-8
Upp(178-051)-8
Upp(180-096)-8
Upp(198-096)-8
1 Upp(199-096)-8
Upp(205-438)-8
Upp(206-096)-8
Upp(210-425)-8
Upp(213-425)-8
0 Upp(215-096)-8

10
-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 10
3 ... more UZ375-01D
Pore Throat Radius (µm) Th1AL1 – 7926.1 ft.
φ = 28.29% k(air) = 3.22 mD

Porosity and Permeability at Reservoir Stress

THIA0 THII & THIII A

Permeability Permeability

RRT 12 RRT 12
RRT 22 Porosity RRT 22 Porosity
RRT 32 RRT 32
Note: No High RQ Mud-dominated RRT’s identified in current data set.

Fig. 6. RRT22-Mud-dominated.