SPE-175673-MS

Integrated Carbonate Reservoir Characterization and Modelling with

Depositional and Diagenetic Trends
Nuno Inês, Paulo Bizarro, and Teresa Ribeiro, Partex Oil and Gas

Copyright 2015, 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, 14 –16 September
2015.

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
Carbonate reservoir characterization is often a complex task, due to the interplay between primary
processes (e.g. depositional environments, facies changes) and secondary processes (e.g. burial, diagen-
esis, faulting and fracturing, cementation). In order to properly characterize and model such a reservoir,
it is paramount to unravel the order by which such processes have affected the rock, leading to the present
day petrophysical properties.
In the presented case study (onshore dolomitized carbonate reservoir in Central Asia), a multi-step
approach was taken for its characterization and modelling. The characterization phase was focused in
understanding the key processes and controls on porosity and permeability. From the core and log data,
a detailed sedimentologic and diagenetic study was performed, to identify the depositional environments
and facies, as well as the pore system geometry, and its impact on fluid flow. Furthermore, several trends
on reservoir quality were identified, related to faults, and associated with depositional cyclicity.
From the above work, a reservoir model was built, to support field development planning and
associated uncertainties. A structural and stratigraphic framework was built, and Flow Unit Types (FUT)
were defined using seismic, cores, thin sections, logs and mercury injection capillary pressure data
(MICP). Property modelling was carried out for porosity and permeability, honouring FUT, depositional
and diagenetic trends. In particular, two trends were modelled: a fault-related trend, to introduce the
impact of diagenetic leaching related to faults (observed in core data); and a cyclicity related trend, to
introduce the impact of preferential fluid flow pathways that occur at or near cycle tops. The uncertainty
in the reservoir property models was evaluated with different FUT, driven by depositional and diagenetic
concepts.
The results indicate that a significant improvement in reservoir understanding can be achieved with the
use of an integrated study and model workflow, focusing on the key control factors that affect the pore
system and the distribution of permeability. In this way it was possible to recognize spatial trends and
capture the relationship between petrophysical properties, pore architecture and sweep efficiency.
Keywords: Carbonate Reservoir, Flow Unit Types, Pore System Architecture, Diagenetic Trends, Integrated
Modelling
2 SPE-175673-MS

Introduction
The field used in this case study is located in onshore Kazakhstan and the reservoir is a carbonate of
Valanginian age (Figure 1). The structure is an E-W oriented anticline with a western downdip, where
some faults are present. The reservoir comprises fine grained limestone, dolomite and marl. The oil
bearing unit itself occurs in the uppermost part of the interval, and is mainly composed of skeletal
dolopackstone, dolowackestone/dolopackstone, doloboundstones, with some intervals of dolomudstones
and is sealed by anhydrite (Sousa et al, 2014).

Figure 1—Stratigraphic column of the field, highlighting the Valanginian carbonate reservoir (Sousa. A etal 2014). Map view of the
model area and the position of the wells in the field.

Carbonate reservoirs are commonly heterogeneous and their reservoir quality results from complex
interactions between depositional facies and diagenetic processes. In this study, we have applied the
Diagenetic Diagram workflow (Inês et al, 2012) for a detailed analysis of facies, facies associations and
diagenesis, in orderto improve our knowledge about the impact of facies, depositional environments and
diagenesis (diagenetic environments, processes and phases) in the origin and distribution of porosity and
permeability. This has led in a first instance to a robust qualitative estimation of reservoir quality, and in
a second instance to a correlation with results obtained via quantitative methods, namely: conventional
core analysis (CCA), special core analysis (SCAL), mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP) and log
curves. This approach bridges the gap between multiscale factors affecting reservoir quality distribution
and establishes a solid link between qualitative and quantitative results. The result is a better understand-
ing of the main controls on reservoir quality at different scales. The integration of all observations assists
in the definition and distribution of different Flow Unit Types (FUT), Flow Unit Type Groups (FUTG)
and Modelling Flow Units (MFU) inside the reservoir along the field.
Property modelling was carried out for porosity and permeability, honouring depositional and diage-
netic trends and FUT and FUTG distribution. In particular, two trends were modelled: a cementation
SPE-175673-MS 3

trend, and a cyclicity related trend, with the main purpose to introduce the impact of preferential fluid flow
pathways that occur at or near cycle tops.

Objectives
The main obectives of this work are:
● improve the knowledge about the role played by facies, facies associations, cycles, fractures and
diagenesis in: genesis of porosity and permeability in order to understanding the key points
controlling their distribution and their modification along the field; detection and characterization
of potential fluid flow barriers and high-k streaks; definition of geobodies; definition and
distribution of different FUT and FUTG inside the reservoir;
● obtain a robust input into static and dynamic reservoir models, by using identified trends in facies,
porosity, and permeability distributions;
● build a reservoir model based in different FUT, driven by depositional and diagenetic concepts, in
support of field development planning and production sustainability.

Available Data
The data base consists of: seismic depth cube, well data, logs, cores, thin sections, and MICP curves for
3 wells, plus outcrop analogues. All the input data have been quality controlled.

Methodology

Workflow for qualitative analysis of reservoir quality

This workflow comprises four steps. First step: sedimentological study (facies, facies association and
cycles). Second step: identification and analysis of diagenetic processes and diagenetic enviromnents in
different diagenetic phases. Step 3: detailed analysis and characterization of the pore architecture. Step 4:
qualitative estimation of reservoir quality. The Diagenetic Diagram methodology (Inês et al., 2012) was
applied, which includes four modules: Module 1 – focuses on the study of facies/ facies associations and
depositional environments; Module 2 – looks at the diagenetic environments, stages and processes;
Module 3 – characterization of porosity; Module 4 – permeability prediction and a qualitative estimation
of reservoir quality (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

Figure 2—Diagenetic Diagram methodology for estimation of qualitative reservoir quality (Inês et al. 2012).
4 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 3—Integrated diagenetic study workflow and Diagenetic Diagram methodology (Inês et al., 2012).

This methodology allows the integration of multiscale observations, laboratory experiments, qualita-
tive classifications, and establishes a relationship with quantitative results.
In terms of porosity and permeability estimation in Modules 3 and 4, it is first necessary to identify and
characterize the different pore types with respect to shape, size range, connectivity, and degree of filling.
After that, it is required to identify and characterize the different channel types in the pore system
architecture (Figure 5). This approach results in the characterization of the pore system architecture in
terms of: minerology, percentage of primary porosity, percentage of secondary porosity, percentage of
macro and microporosity, pore geometry (size range and shape), pore throat geometry (size range and
shape). These characteristics are very important in the identification of the key factor (or factors) that
controls the increase or decrese in permeability.
It is also possible to integrate all this information with outcrop analogues, to help in the identification
of depositional and diagenetic trends or geobodies for modeling the petrophysical properties, FUT, FUTG
and pore system architecture heterogeneity (Figure 4 and Figure 5). It is also possible to evaluate the
impact of variation/modification of the pore sytem architecture characteristics in regards to: petrophysical
properties, MICP results, FUT, FUTG and fluid flow. This approach provides ample knoweledge about
their possible impact in reservoir performance and recovery efficiency.

Figure 4 —Example of definition of dolostone geobody in Châ outcrop in Lusitanian Basin-Portugal.

SPE-175673-MS 5

Figure 5—Workflow for qualitative characterization of the pore system architecture. Estimation of porosity and permeability from facies
and diagenetic evolution.

Quantitative analysis of reservoir quality

Preliminary Study A preliminary study of the distribution of porosity and permeability, based on
conventional core analysis, was carried out. This was followed by the evaluation of lateral/vertical
variations between different wells (in terms of density, minerology, porosity, permeability and shale
content).
Flow Unit Identification based on the SMLplot The focus is to divide the reservoir into flow units.
This is accomplished in three steps (Figure 6). Step 1: preliminary study of the distribution of porosity
and permeability. Step 2: determination of reservoir process speed (k/porosity ratio, Chopra et al., 1989).
Step 3: application of the Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz plot (SMLplot, Gunter et al., 1997) to identify
flow units according to the geologic framework, petrophysical characteristics, process speed, flow
capacity (k*h) and storage capacity (porosity*h). In the SMLplot each segment with a different slope
represents a separate flow unit. Segments with steep slopes have relatively high reservoir performance and
flow capacity, whereas horizontal segments show poor performance and behave like flow barriers (Gomes
et al., 2008).
6 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 6 —Wokflow to divide the reservoir into flow units using the Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz plot.

Determination and identification of the different Flow Unit Types (FUT), Flow Unit Type Groups
(FUTG) and Modelling Flow Units The objective is to determine and identify the different FUT, after
which they are grouped into FUTG (FUT with similar characteristics, see Figure 7). This methodology is
accomplished in six steps. Step 1: preliminary study of the distribution of porosity and permeability. Step
2: determination of reservoir process speed (k/porosity ratio, Chopra et al., 1989), Step 3: determination
of storage capacity and flow capacity. Step 4: determination and identification of the different FUT based
in variations of storage capacity ranges, flow capacity ranges, process speed ranges, porosity classes (same
classes used in porosity qualitative estimation (Figure 5)), permeability classes (same classes used in
permeability qualitative estimation (Figure 5)), petrophysical characteristics, textures and minerology.
SPE-175673-MS 7

Figure 7—Wokflow for determination and identification of the different Flow Unit Types (FUT), Flow Unit Type Groups (FUTG) and
Modelling Flow Units (for input into reservoir model).

Step 5: group these FUT into FUTG, with similar characteristics in terms of: flow capacity, storage
capacity, process speed, porosity, permability, pore architecture, petrophysical, sedimentology, diagen-
esis, Thomeer analysis, and typical MICP and capillary pressure curves. Step 6: Correlate FUTG at field
scale and link them with cycles, to capture their variations in terms of reservoir quality.
In the end of this process, the understanding about FUT, FUTG and MFU in the reservoir will be
improved. It is also important to incorporate information from outcrop analogues, to help distinguishing
between the impacts of sedimentological and facies processes, versus the impact of diagenetic influence
(Figure 8 and Figure 9).
8 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 8 —Example of heterogeneity that can be generated by diagenesis and its strong influence in rock appearance and in rock type
definition. Codagal outcrop in Lusitanian Basin-Portugal.

Figure 9 —Example of late dolomitization and dissolution related to faults, and their importance in porosity. Codagal outcrop in
Lusitanian Basin-Portugal.

Reservoir Study
Depositional Setting, Textures and Diagenetic Impact
Diagenesis has affected the reservoir, changing the original facies, in two phases: early diagenesis (related
to depositional setting) and late diagenesis (associated with ascending fluids through faults and condi-
tioned by cyclicity). A detailed integrated study was carried out, looking into the sedimentary structures,
textures, pore shapes, and diagenetic processes, to reconstruct the original facies and depositional model
(Figure 10). Several classifications were used, namely: Classification of Carbonate Rocks according to
Depositional Texture (Dunham, 1962); Skeletal Reef Classification (Embry & Klovan, 1971); and the
revised Classification of Limestones (Wright, 1992). Eight facies have been identified (Sousa et al., 2014),
but in this work the focus will be on four of them (the ones that are included in the reservoir):
● Dolomudstone/dolowackestone-microsparstone;
● Dolopackstone-microsparstone/sparstone;
● Dolowackestone/dolopackstone-sparstone/microsparstone;
SPE-175673-MS 9

● Doloboundstones/doloframestones-sparstone/microsparstone.

Figure 10 —Influence of depositional setting, facies, and diagenetic processes in the pore system characteristics.

These facies are located in the Upper Ramp and in the Shoal/Lagoon depositional areas, of moderate
to high energy. They have been pervasively dolomitized and have suffered different phases of dissolution,
thus enhancing porosity and permeability, leading to the best FUT, FUTG and MFU in the field. The
facies bellow the reservoir have withstand selective dolomitization and exhibit less porosity and perme-
ability.
Pore characterization for each facies association
The Choquette & Pray (1970) classification was used to identify the different pore types. The Inês et al.
(2012) classification was used for pore size range, pore shape, and channel type. The following is a brief
description of the characteristics of pore the system architecture in each facies (Sousa et al., 2014):
● Dolomudstone/dolowackestone – microsparstone (FA2)
The most common pores types are: intercrystal, moldic and vuggy. The usual size range of this
porosity is between 0.25mm-5␮m, and the dominant shapes are rhombohedral (2), ellipsoidal (4)
and irregular (8). Dominant channel types are: I, II and III, with a normal thickness size range
between 20␮m - 5␮m. The continuity is low to moderate and the connectivity is low (see Figure
5 for details).
● Dolopackstone – microsparstone/sparstone (FA3)
The most common pores types are: moldic, intercrystal, channel and vuggy. The normal size range
of this porosity is 0.5mm-5␮m and the dominant shapes are ellipsoidal (4), rhombohedral (2),
lenticular (5) and irregular (8). Dominant channel types are: I and II with the normal thickness size
range is 62.5␮m - 10␮m. C Both continuity and connectivity are moderate to high.
● Dolowackestone/dolopackstone – sparstone/microsparstone (FA4)
10 SPE-175673-MS

The most common pores types are: intercrystal, moldic, channel and vuggy. The normal range size
of this porosity is 0.25mm-5␮m and the dominant shapes are rhombohedral (2), ellipsoidal (4), and
Irregular (8). Dominant channel types are: III and II and the normal thickness size range is 62.5␮m
- 10␮m. Continuity is low to moderate and connectivity is moderate to low.
● Doloboundstones/doloframestones – sparstone/microsparstone (FA5)
The prevalent pores types are: intercrystal, moldic, channel and vuggy. The normal size range of
this porosity is 0.5mm-5␮m and the dominant shapes are rhombohedral (2), Irregular (8),
lenticular (5) and ellipsoidal (4). Pore shape 5, even though less common, contributes to reduce
connectivity. Dominant channel types are: II, I, III with the normal thickness size range of 62.5 -
5␮m. The continuity and the connecitvity are both moderate to high. Sometimes near the base of
reservoir there is occurrence of channels type V and III, which reduces connectivity.

Genetic classification of carbonate porosity and diagenetic phases

According to the genetic classification of Ahr et al. (2005), the reservoir can be classified as a hybrid 1,
meaning it is dominated by diagenesis, but has some influence from fractures (Fig. 10c). The destruction
of the primary fabric during the different diagenetic phases and evolution is clear, and has increased the
amount of intercrystalline porosity (Figure 10). The importance of the facies and early cements in
porosity, pore connectivity and permeability, is also evident. Diagenesis has occurred in several phases,
as described below (Sousa et al., 2014):
● An early diagenetic event, which is mostly controlled by the depositional setting, cyclicity and
diagenetic environments. The depositional setting plays a very important role because in areas with
more influence of supratidal and intertidal settings there is an increase in organic matter, anhydrite
(nodules and cement), gypsum and hardgrounds;
● A late diagenetic event has also led to dissolution, dolomitization, and compaction, with concur-
rent increase in porosity and permeability. This event seems to be controlled by faults and
cyclicity, generating dissolution corridors. This is very clear in the outcrop analogues (Figure 8 and
Figure 9).

Results of the quantitative characterization of reservoir quality

Preliminary study
The best properties in terms of porosity and permeability appear near the top of the reservoir and result
from pervasive dolomitization. Data analysis is provided in Figure 11. It is evident that a simple and linear
relationship between porosity and permeability does not exist. The well with less dispersion in terms of
porosity and permeability is well A1 and A2, whereas the wells with higher dispersion in terms of storage
capacity are A3 and A1. In the plot of permeability/porosity ratio vs. density, well A3 shows the highest
values.
SPE-175673-MS 11

Figure 11—Preliminary study results.

When these results are analysed together with the qualitative evaluation, the observation can be made
that these variations are due to changes in facies and diagenetic processes.

Flow Unit analysis based on the SMLplot

The cumulative flow capacity vs. cumulative storage capacity for wells A1, A2 and A3 can be seen in
Figure 12. Segments with steep slopes have relatively higher reservoir performance and flow capacity, and
horizontal segments show poor performance and behave more like flow barriers (Gomes et al., 2008). This
approach is useful to investigate the presence of vertical and lateral heterogeneities in the reservoir, at
meter-scale, and possible relationship with cyclicity. In the preliminary analysis of the SMLplot one can
identify 12 different segments or flow units, each one with a different slope.
12 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 12—Flow Unit analysis based on the SMLplot.

Determination and identification of Flow Unit Types (FUT), Flow Unit Type Groups (FUTG)
and Modelling Flow Units (MFU)
8 FUT were identified, and these can be grouped into 4 FUTG. These FUTG are: super permeable units;
normal permeable units; baffle units; barrier units (Figure 13, Figure 14, Figure 15 and Figure 16). These
are described below.
SPE-175673-MS 13

Figure 13—Typical MICP for Super k Unit (left side. In MFU-1 and in FUTG-1. Normal k Unit (at the center. In MFU-4 and FUTG-6) and
Baffle k Unit (right side. In MFU-5 and in FUTG-8).
14 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 14 —Typical MICP for Barrier Units (MFU-6 and in FUTG-9).

SPE-175673-MS 15

Figure 15—Codes used for FUT and FUTG.

16 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 16 —Definition of FUT, FUTG and MFU CCA results, process speed, storage capacity, flow capacity, log analysis, pore
architecture, channel types and texture for well A-1.

Flow unit type A – good flow capacity (values ⬎25-ⱕ50), moderate storage capacity and good values
of process speed (⬍12) (Super k Units-A). These units have porosity ⱖ20 (excelent) and permeability
k⬍250. Texture: microsparstone to sparstone.
Flow unit type B – excellent flow capacity (values ⬎ 50), high/good storage capacity and good values
of process speed (⬍12) (Super k Units-B). Very high values of porosity (ⱖ20) and very good to excellent
permeability (k ⬍ 250), directly related to: pore size range, pore type, hybrid type, degree of filling,
distance between large pores, pore shape, channel type (and their connectivity), continuity (presence of
narrow necks). Texture: microsparstone to sparstone.
Flow unit type C – excellent flow capacity (values ⬎50), low storage capacity and excellent values
of process speed (Super k Units-C). These units have very high values of porosity (ⱖ20) and excellent
permeability (k ⱖ 250), directly related to pore shape, and channel type (connectivity, continuity, and
presence of narrow necks). Texture: sparstone. These 3 FUT A, B and C can be grouped into one FUTG:
● Super permeable units group: with good/excellent flow capacity (⬎25), low to high storage and
good to excellent values of process speed (Super K Units-Gp). In general with excellent porosity
and very good to excellent permeability (ⱖ100). Characterized by:
Pore architecture: dominant pores types are intercrystal, moldic, vuggy; dominant shapes are
rhombohedral (2), ellipsoidal (4), irregular (8); size range of this porosity is 0.5mm-5␮m with very
low degree of filling. The dominant channel type is the type I with thickness size range 62.5-5␮m
(secondary type is normally is the type II and sometimes type III); continuity and connectivity are
both moderate/high, with low/moderate presence of narrow necks. Petrophysical log signature:
low GR, PEF between ⬎3.15 and ⱕ3.40 (the highest values are normaly associated with small
increase of the desnsity). Corresponds to microsparstones and sparstones of FA3 or FA4, with low
anhydrite cementation. See typical MICP in Figure 13.
This group includes the following FUTG: FUTG-1, FUTG-3 and FUTG-5. The FUTG-1, FUTG-3
corresponding to MFU-1, and FUTG-5 corresponding to MFU-3 (Figure 15 and Figure 16).
SPE-175673-MS 17

Flow unit type D – normal permeable units showing moderate flow capacity (values ⱖ12- ⱕ25), high
storage capacity and low/good process speed (⬎4-⬍12) (Nor k Units-D). These units have good/excellent
porosity (ⱖ 15) and moderate/good permeability (ⱖ15-⬍100).
Flow unit type E – normal/baffle units, showing low flow capacity (values ⱖ5-⬍ 12), moderate
storage capacity and low/moderate process speed (ⱕ4) (Nor k Units-E). These units have good/excellent
porosity (ⱖ15) and moderate/low permeability (kⱕ50).
FUT D and FUT E can be grouped into one FUTG:
● Normal permeable units group : these have moderate to low flow capacity (ⱖ5- ⱕ25) and
high/moderate storage capacity and low/good process speed (less then 12) (Nor K Units-Gp). In
general with good/excellent porosity (ⱖ15) and good to moderate permeability (⬍100). Charac-
terized by:
Pore architecture: dominant pore types are intercrystal, vuggy, moldic; dominant shapes are
rhombohedral (2), ellipsoidal (4), lenticular (5), irregular (8); size range of this porosity is
0.25mm-5␮m, with low/moderate degree of filling. The dominant channel types are type II and I
(secondary type is normally is the type III and sometimes type IV), with a thickness size range
between 20-5␮m; continuity and connectivity are moderate (sometimes moderate to low), with
moderate to high presence of narrow necks. When associated with FA5, the dominant channel type
is type III or IV, and thickness size range is 62-5␮m.
Petrophysical log signature: in general with low GR, PEF with values between ⬎3.15 and less
ⱕ4. Corresponds to sparstones and microsparstones associated with the FA4, FA5 (less so with
FA3). It shows moderate cementation by anhydrite and presence of lenticular pore shapes (channel
types IV, V and III).
This group includes the following FUTG: FUTG-2, FUTG-4 (MFU-2) and FUTG-6 (MFU-4).
Flow unit type F – characterized by low flow capacity (ⱖ1-ⱕ5), moderate to low storage capacity and
low process speed (less then 3) (Baffle k Units-Gp). These units have good to excellent porosity and low
to moderate permeability (ⱖ5-ⱕ50).
FUT-F corresponds to one FUTG:
● Baffle units group: characterized by low flow capacity (ⱖ1 - ⱕ5), moderate to low storage
capacity and low process speed (less then 3) (Baffle k Units-Gp). These units have good to
excellent porosity and low to moderate permeability (ⱖ5 -ⱕ50).
Pore architecture: the dominant pores types are intergranular, intercrystal, and vuggy; dominant
shapes are irregular (8), rhombohedral (2); common size range of this porosity is 0.25mm-5␮m,
with moderate degree of filling. Dominant channel type is VI, with thickness size range between
10-5␮m; continuity and connectivity are low/moderate; moderate to high presence of narrow
necks.
Petrophysical log signature: in general with moderate values of GR, PEF ⬎2.86- ⬍5.
This group includes the following FUTG: FUTG-8 (MFU-5) and FUTG-10 (MFU-7).
Flow type G: Very low flow capacity (values ⬍1), low storage capacity (⬎2-ⱕ7) and very low
process speed (less then 1) (Barriers Units-G). Display low to excellent values of porosity and low
permeability (kⱕ15).
Flow type H: Very low flow capacity (values ⬍1), low storage capacity (⬍2) and very low values of
process speed (less then 1), and with horizontal segments in the SMLplots, which show poor performance
(Barriers Units-H). These units have low to good values of porosity (ⱕ15) and poor permeability (⬍1).
These 2 FUT G and H can be grouped into one FUTG:
18 SPE-175673-MS

● Barrier units group: displays very low flow capacity (values ⬍1) and low storage capacity (ⱕ7)
and very low process speed (less then 1) (Barriers Units-Gp, Fig. 13) . These units have low to
excellent values of porosity and low to poor permeability (ⱕ15). Characterized by:
Pore architecture: dominant pore types are intergranular, intercrystal, and vuggy. Dominant
channel types are VI, I and II, with low continuity and connectivity (moderate to high presence of
narrow necks).
Petrophysical log signature: in general with high values in GR, PEF with values between ⬎2.83
and ⬍5.
This group includes the following FUTG: FUTG-7, FUTG-9 (MFU-6) and FUTG-11 (MFU-8).
One of the benefits from grouping the FUT as described above, was a more manageable and pragmatic
approach in terms of geomodelling (MFU column model in Figure 15 and Figure 16). It is also valid to
conclude that these MFU are controlled by cyclicity, as they generally occur at the top and base of cycles,
being less frequent in the middle of the cycles. The FUTG that occur at the base and middle of the cycles
are most likely related to ascending fluids during late diagenesis; whereas the FUTG that occur at the top
of the cycles are probably associated with sedimentary controls, coupled with early and/or late diagenesis.
Reservoir modelling
The stratigraphioc framework was defined based on MFU (at Zone level), FUTG and FUT (at Layer level)
identification and correlation (Figure 17). This correlation was based on sequence stratigraphy and
cyclicity concepts. In this section the key elements related to modelling FUT, porosity, and permeability,
will be described.

Figure 17—Zonation and layering scheme.

Flow unit input for modelling

Several hierarchies of flow units have been used for model input, as follows:
● Model Flow Units (MFU) – these were used at a larger scale, to establish a stratigraphic
framework model/zonation linked to sequence stratigraphy and cyclicity;
● Flow Unit Type Groups (FUTG) – larger scale view of dominant diagenetic processes and trends,
related to permeability and pore channel type;
SPE-175673-MS 19

● Flow Unit Types (FUT) – these capture the small scale heterogeneity inside the FUTG, used to
condition the porosity and permeability distribution in the property model wokflow.

FUT model
The FUT were modelled using Sequential Indicator Simulation in the reservoir modelling software,
incorporating Data Analysis and Variography. The resulting model shows a good match with the trends
observed from the well data, that is, the FUT-C and FUT-B (super k units) occur preferentially near the
top of the reservoir, and sometimes near the base (Figure 18 and Figure 19). This distribution is controlled
by the pervasive dolomitization process that is associated with the cyclicity. In the end, this FUT model
constitutes a diagenetic trend.

Figure 18 —FUT model inside the topmost Zone of the model (best reservoir quality).
20 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 19 —Visualization of lateral/vertical distribution of the FUT property.

This approach provides a better understanding of the distribution of the FUT inside each reservoir
zone. This is because it allows the integration of depositional environment, facies, cyclicity and diagenetic
evolution.
Colour codes for FUT, porosity and permeability models (warmer colours correspond to better
reservoir porperties):

Porosity and permeability modelling

The porosity was modelled using Sequential Gaussian Simulation in the reservoir modelling software,
incorporating Data Analysis and Variography. The porosity model was also conditioned to the FUT
model, to ensure that the diagenetic trend was incorporated in this step. As seen in Figure 20 and Figure
21, the higher values of porosity occur associated with the best FUT.
SPE-175673-MS 21

Figure 20 —Visualization of the porosity distribution at the top of reservoir.

Figure 21—Visualization of lateral/vertical distribution of porosity.

As for permeability, the model was built using the Thomeer-derived porositypermeability condition,
using Thomeer hyperbolas to decode the pore systems, facies and reservoir properties (Clerke et al, 2008).
For each FUT, one typical Thomeer hyperbola was generated.
The porosity – permeability condition is then calculated from several parameters: pore Geometry
Factor, Mercury/air capillary pressure and bulk volume. If more than one pore system is present (which
is the case), it is required to create one condition for each one; finally, these different conditions are
combined into one. The following is one example of porosity-permeability transform used in the model
for baffle units (code 7 of FUT model) based on the Thomeer hyperbola analysis:
NI_K7_mainⴝIf (FUT_Modelⴝ7,3.8068*Pow(1.1,-1.334)*Pow( PHIT_FUT*0.54*100/11,2), U)
NI_K7_SecⴝIf (FUT_Modelⴝ7,3.8068*Pow(0.65,-1.334) *Pow(PHIT_FUT*0.46*100/42,2), U)
NI k7 TotalⴝNI K7 mainⴙNI K7 Sec
The permeability model obtained using this methodology shows an excellent agreement with the
geological and diagenetic trends that were identified in the reservoir (Figure 22 and Figure 23). It is
evident that the best permeability values occur where the better FUT are present.
22 SPE-175673-MS

Figure 22—Permeability model near the top of the reservoir.

Figure 23—Visualization of lateral/vertical distribution of permeability.

Conclusions and way forward

The main conclusions of this study are as follows:
● By applying the methodology outlined in this paper, one can identify with confidence the lateral
and vertical variations in the factors that control reservoir quality, especially regarding permea-
bility and fluid flow;
● In the present case study, these key factors are related to the pore system characteristics, namely:
genetic pore types (dominant and secondary), channel types and connectivity, and diagenetic
processes;
● It is very important to establish the correct sequence stratigraphic framework, otherwise the
reservoir modelling zonation scheme will not reflect facies and diagenetic trends.
As for the way forward, it is important to improve the relationship between some FUT and the Thomeer
methodology (namely the impact of different diagenetic processes). This is particularly relevant when in
the presence of a bimodal (or even trimodal) pore system, where both have similar impact in flow
capacity. The end result will be a robust water saturation determination, in support of dynamic modelling
and field evelopment optimization.
SPE-175673-MS 23

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the following persons, for their support: Professor Silvério Prates, Pedro Pinto,
Ana de Sousa, José E. de Matos, and Dilson Lazary.

References
Ahr, W.M. (2008). Geology of Carbonate Reservoirs - The Identification, Description and Charac-
terization of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in Carbonate Rocks. A John Wiley & Sons, inc., Publication,
USA, 269 p.
Clerke, E. A., Mueller, H. W. III, Phillips, E. C., Eyvazzadeh, R. Y., Jones, D. H., Ramamoorthy, R.,
Srivastava. A. (2008). Application of Thomeer Hyperbolas to decode the pore systems, facies and
reservoir properties of the Upper Jurassic Arab D Limestone, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: A
“Rosetta Stone” approach. GeoArabia, Vol.13, no.4, p113–160.
Choquette, P. W. & Pray, L. C. (1970). Geological nomenclature and classification of porosity in
sedimentary carbonates. AAPG Bull. 54:207–250.
Chopra, A.K., Stein, M.H. and Ader, J.C. (1989). Development of reservoir descriptions to aid in
design of EOR projects. SPE Reservoir Engineering, SPE 16370.
Dunham, R. J. (1962). Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture. In:
Classification of Carbonate Rocks, W. E. Ha (Ed.). AAPG Memoir No. 1, Tulsa, OK, pp.108 –121.
Embry, A. F. & Klovan, J. E. (1971). A Late Devonian reef tract on northeastern Banks Island, NWT.
Bull. Can. Petroleum Geol. 19:730 –781.
Flügel, E. (2010). Microfacies of Carbonate Rocks - Analysis, Interpretation and Application.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 984 p.
Inés, N. (2010). Paleotipologias diagenéticas em formajes carbonatadas do Jurássico Médio da Bacia
Lusitanica: análise multiscala e aplicares á caracterizado de reservatórios. MSc. Thesis, University
of Lisbon, Portugal, 203p.
Inês, N., Azerédo, A., Bizarro, P., Ribeiro, T., Nagah, A. (2012). A Diagenetic Diagram as a Tool for
Systematic Detailed Characterization of Carbonate Rocks: Applications to the Diagenetic Evolu-
tion of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. SPE-161040-PP.
Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., Mann, S. D. (1993). Classification of lithified carbonates using ternary plots
of pore facies: examples from the Jurassic Smackover Formation. In: Rezak, R., Lavoie, D. L.
(eds.): Carbonate microfabrics. Frontiers in Sedimentary Geology, 265–277.
Gomes, J. S., Ribeiro, M. T., Strohmenger C.J., Negahban, S. and Kalam, M. Z. (2008). Carbonate
reservoir rock typing – the link between geology and SCAL. SPE 118284.
Gunter, G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J. and Miller, J.D., 1997. Early determination of reservoir
flow units using and integrated petrophysical method. Society of Petroleum Enginners, SPE 38679.
Sousa. A, Inés. N, Bizarro. P, Ribeiro. M.T (2014). Improving Carbonate Reservoir Characterization
and Modelling through the Definition of Reservoir Rock Types by Integrating Depositional and
Diagenetic Trends. SPE-171920-MS.
Wright, V. P. (1992). A revised classification of limestones. Sedimentary Geology, 76, pp. 177–185.