S. N. Ehrenberg
Statoil,N-4035Stavanger, Norway; firstname.lastname@example.org
Steve has a Ph.D. from the University of Cali-fornia at Los Angeles. He works on sandstoneand carbonate reservoir studies for explorationand production projects.
P. H. Nadeau
Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; email@example.com
Joining Statoil in 1986, Paul now serves as aspecialist in global exploration working on basinevaluation and petroleum systems analysis.Originating from Maine, Paul received a B.S.degree from Boston College and a Ph.D. fromDartmouth College. He received the Schlum-berger Medal from the Mineralogical Society and the Brindley Award from the Clay MineralsSociety.
Statoil,N-4035Stavanger, Norway; present address: Statoil ArabianGulf, Samarqand Street, Hai Al-Ssalam, Al- Rabia, Amman, Jordan; firstname.lastname@example.org
Adnan works as a business development man-ager for international exploration and pro-duction. He has more than 25 years of inter-national geological experience in the MiddleEast, southeast Asia, and northwest Europe, with various geological research institutes andoil companies. He has published many articlesand has recently completed a book, together with J. Goff, A. Horbury, and F. Sadooni, onthe petroleum geology of Iraq. Adnan receivedhis B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the Uni- versity of Baghdad and his Ph.D. and D.I.C.from Imperial College, London. He is a mem-ber of the AAPG, the International Associa-tion of Sedimentologists, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the Iraqi Geological So-ciety, and the Norwegian Petroleum Society.
We thank David E. Eby, Stephen E. Laubach,and Bradford E. Prather for helpful reviews.
A comparison of Khuff and Arab reservoir potential throughout the Middle East
S. N. Ehrenberg, P. H. Nadeau, and A. A. M. Aqrawi
A compilation of average porosity and permeability data for petro-leum reservoirs in the Permian–Triassic Khuff Formation and theJurassic Arab Formation shows that most Khuff reservoirs have anaverage porosity of less than 12%, whereas most Arab reservoirshave an average porosity of 12–26%. Higher porosity correlateswith shallower depth, suggesting that burial diagenesis is the maincauseoftheoverallporositydifferencebetweentheseunits.Deeperburial of Khuff reservoirs is inferred to have resulted in greaterporosity loss by chemical compaction and associated cementation.A broad correlation also exists between average porosity and aver-age permeability, suggesting that deeper burial and the resultingporosity decrease are also a primary cause of the lower permeabil-ities of the Khuff reservoirs. In addition to greater burial depth,however, a combination ofdepositionaland early diagenetic factorsis also reflected in the lower average porosity and permeabilityvalues of the Khuff reservoirs. Khuff strata were deposited on anextensive,poorlycirculated,verylow-reliefshelfandconsistinlargepartofinterbeddedmudstonesandgrainstoneshavingrelativelyfinegrainsize,withmajoramounts ofdepositionalcalciumsulfate pres-ent. Arab reservoirs were deposited under better circulated condi-tions near platform margins facing deep, intracratonic basins and,thus, have coarser, more grain-dominated fabrics and lesser overallcontent of chemically precipitated grains, calcium sulfate, and do-lomite. Khuff deposits were likely composed of less stable miner-alogy than Arab sediments because the Late Permian was a time of aragonite seas, whereas the Late Jurassic was a time of calcite seas.ThecombinedresultofthesefactorsisthatArabreservoirsarecharac-terized by greater preservation of primary depositional pore types,more coarsely crystalline dolomite fabrics, and lesser plugging by an-hydrite. Finally, a possible factor affecting the average porosity and
AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 3 (March 2007), pp. 275–286
2007. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.Manuscript received May 21, 2006; provisional acceptance July 6, 2006; revised manuscript receivedSeptember 5, 2006; final acceptance September 14, 2006.DOI:10.1306/09140606054