See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307941014

Rock Typing Classification and Hydraulic Flow Units Definition of One of the
Most Prolific Carbonate Reservoir in the Onshore Abu Dhabi

Conference Paper · January 2016

DOI: 10.2118/181629-MS

CITATION READS

1 389

7 authors, including:

Kevin Michael Torres Bhanu Priyadarshini Bethapudi

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
14 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High Resolution Sequence stratigraphy of Aptian Shuaiba Fm, UAE View project

High Resolution Sequence stratigraphy of Baremian Kharaib Fm, UAE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kevin Michael Torres on 13 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-181629-MS

Rock Typing Classification and Hydraulic Flow Units Definition of one of

the most prolific Carbonate Reservoir in the Onshore Abu Dhabi.
N.F. Alhashmi, K. Torres, M. Faisal, V. Segura Cornejo, B.P. Bethapudi, S. Mansur, A.S. Al-Rawahi, Abu Dhabi
Co For Onshore Petroleum Operations Ltd

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dubai, UAE, 26–28 September 2016.

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
Defining the flow and distribution of fluids in porous media has always been of key importance in
modeling and predicting the performance of oil and gas reservoirs. Based upon the rock-fluid interactions,
reservoir rocks have to be classified into separate flow units called rock types. This task is particularly
complex in carbonates as they are generally impacted by diagenesis and cannot be represented by a single
porosity permeability relationship per litho-facie.
Establishing accurate rock types in carbonates, therefore, requires integration of various petrophysical
data with the available rock, fluid and geological information. Various techniques have evolved in the
industry for formulating rock-types (Pittman, RQI, FZI, Lucia, Winland, etc.), each technique offering its
benefit depending on the nature and variety of data available.
This paper presents a newly adopted workflow to formulate an RRT definition for a carbonate reservoir
by integrating data from MICP, CCA, petrophysical logs and lithofacies information. The workflow
involves associating the pore throat size distribution evaluated using MICP data with the measured
porosity and permeability values utilizing the Winland R35 equation. Hydraulic flow units are identified
using the Stratigraphic Lorenz Plot, based on the change of flow and storage capacity slopes. Pc, PTR,
Phi and K discriminators were established and were used to as cut-offs for defining intervals representing
good and poor facies.
The new methodology helped to achieve a very good match (>80%) of water saturation from the initialized
model with the log derived saturations in all wells drilled thus far in Reservoir-A. The methodology further
helped optimize the number of effective rock types required to effectively delineate the field dynamic
characteristics, helping reduce run time and anticipated convergence issues.

Introduction
The reservoir system needs to be subdivided into flow units to understand the reservoir rock-fluid
interaction and to accurately predict the reservoir performance. In most cases, rock typing depends on
availability of special core analysis (SCAL), core facies analysis and Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
(MICP) data. The definition of rock types involves clustering the rock depicting similar flow
characteristics, rock fluid behavior, capillary pressure curves, K & Ø relationship, and distinguished facies
groups. When properly applied, the process can help better predict permeability for non-cored wells and
ultimately help achieve a better saturation match.
2 SPE-181629-MS

Motivation and Objectives

Proper porosity-permeability modeling, reservoir rock typing and interpretation of hydraulic-flow-units
using sedimentological and stratigraphical sequential analysis as background are crucial parts of an
integrated reservoir characterization/modeling and dynamic simulation study. This integration controls
the quality of modeling which consequently effect well production/injection behavior and prediction
performance. The relationships between lithofacies with their sedimentological interpretations, the
building of a stratigraphic sequential framework and reservoir rock types (RRTs) is a complex function
of the relationship between facies, diagenetic processes and the rock-fluid interaction in the reservoir.
Similar lithofacies, deposited under the same depositional environments, may present different
petrophysical properties due to diagenesis resulting in different petrophysical groups with distinct
porosity-permeability relationship, capillary pressure profile and water saturation (Sw). On the contrary,
lithofacies deposited in different depositional environments, might exhibit similar petrophysical properties
and dynamic behavior. Thus, a representative RRT schematic is needed to well define the different flow
units available in the reservoir and better reservoir flow performance prediction.

Data acquired from extensive mercury injection capillary pressure tests performed in almost 580 samples
of Field X can provide a better approximation of the initial fluid distributions if the identified saturation
patterns are grouped according to the different petrophysical and geological rock properties, which can
provide a more reliable initial fluid distribution for the calculation of the initial volumes in place.

Historic method to classify rock types

The petroleum industry has adopted several methodologies utilizing the integration of various data to
classify rock types (Pittman, RQI, FZI, Lucia, Winland, etc.). In most cases, the method selected depends
on the type of data available. Special Core Analysis (SCAL), Conventional Core Analysis (CCA) and
Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (MICP) data are all ‘good to have’ when setting about the task of
rock typing.

Winland Method:
An empirical equation relating permeability, porosity, and a capillary pressure parameter is referred to as
Winland’s equation. Based on laboratory measurements on 312 samples, Winland’s regression equation
is:
…………………………………….(1)

where:

 r35 is the pore throat radius at 35% mercury saturation

 k is air permeability
 Φ is porosity in percent

Pittman Method:
Pittman also established regression equations for pore aperture sizes ranging from 10% to 75% mercury
saturation. His expressions have been rearranged and displayed in below table to show the exponents
of r and Φ required to predict k. (Because r was used as the dependent variable in Pittman’s regressions,
the coefficients in table below differ somewhat from what would be obtained if k were the dependent
variable; however the changes would not invalidate the point of this discussion.) Note that, with increasing
mercury saturation:
SPE-SPE-181629-MS-MS 3

 r exponent decreases
 Φ exponent increases

That is, the porosity term contributes relatively less to k than does r for mercury saturation values <35%.
In fact, Pittman noted that the porosity term was statistically insignificant for r10 through r35.

Flow Zone Indicator (FZI):

Flow Zone Indicator is a unique and useful value to quantify the flow character of a reservoir and one that
offers a relationship between Petrophysical properties at small-scale, such as core plugs, and large-scale,
such as well bore level. In addition, the term of FZI provides the representation of the flow zones based
on the surface area and tortuosity.
It is mathematically represented

FZI = RQI / NPI = {(.0314√K/Φ)} / {Φ / (1- Φ)} ………………………..…………. (2)

Where,

FZI=Flow Zone Indicator, μm, K=Permeability, md

Stratigraphic modified Lorenz Plot:

Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot Modified Lorenz Plots (SMLPs) were constructed after Gunter et al.
in order to define petrophysical flow units within wells. SMLP illustrate cumulative flow capacity
(cumulative %Kh) versus the cumulative storage capacity (cumulative % KU) ordered in the stratigraphic
sequence of the reservoir.

Case study- Field X, Abu Dhabi, UAE

The study was conducted in one of the most prolific reservoirs in the Middle East, located in the
southwestern part of Abu Dhabi. Structurally the field is plunging north-northeast trending anticlinal
structure with a small closure corresponding to the Southern extension of a giant oil field.
Sedimentology wise, Reservoir-A represents the Aptian upper most section of the Lower Cretaceous
Thamama Group and locally forms carbonate buildups. It is composed of thick, porous shelf carbonates
which show considerable subsurface lateral and vertical lithofacies change.

Depositional Environment
X-Field is found to have two different depositional environments, Shelf and shelf Embayment. These
two environments are separated by Shelf- shelf Embayment Boundary. Reservoir rock quality wise, the
quality of the rocks is degrading from the north (Shelf environment) being the best to the south (shelf
Embayment environment) being the worst. Shelf environment is characterized by rudist-rich rudstone to
boundstone and floatstone, however, shelf Embayment environment is mainly characterized by skeletal
4 SPE-181629-MS

wack to mudstone.
The vast variation of lithofacies reflects the complex depositional setting and the sub environment that
eventuated during depositional time and indicates the heterogeneity of A-Formation.

Workflow
To enhance the definition of the RRT, a comprehensive workflow was adopted as following:

1. Data QC

2. Testing
different
9. RRT groups
Clustering
methods

8. data validation 3. R35 by

with Pc, PTR Winland

7. Data
4. R35 from MICP
integration

5. Stratigraphic
6. Flow Units Modified Lorenz
plot

Data availability & Quality control

Table 1states the total number of available data used to conduct the study.

Type of data # of available data

Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure (MICP) 530
Routine Core Analysis (RCA) 2195
Core data 8 wells
Table 1— Data Availability.
SPE-SPE-181629-MS-MS 5

The first step was gathering and quality control of lab measurements data. This essential step was
conducted with caution aiming for precise input data. MICP derived properties measurement was
compared with RCA derived properties in order to capture any outliner points. Cross-plots of Φmicp vs
Φrca, Kmicp vs Krca, Entry pressure vs Kmicp, and Kkling vs Kswanson can be seen in the figure below
(Figure 1).

Entry Pressure vs Permeability Ø MICP vs Ø Plug

2 2
R =0.8 R =0.9
1 1

Kair MICP vs Kair RCA K Klinkenberg vs K Swanson

2
R =0.9
2 3
R =0.8
7

Figure 1: Quality control of lab measurement data using cross plots of well X-1.

Onother essential quality check to check the representatively of the sample is the relationship between
parent and chip samples (figure 2). 398 out of 530 samples were included after applying a 2% porosity
cut-off, while the rest were addressed as outliers due to rock heterogeneity.

Different petrophysical Rock Type methods and technique were tested prior to proceeding with the Rock
Typing clustering. Three equations that calculate the radius @35 Saturation were implemented to the data;
Winland 35, Pittman R35, and Flow Zone Indicator FQI. All of them were plotted against laboratory
measured R35 giving the following relationships (Figure 3). It worth to mention that using Winland
equation and by incorporating 379 samples resulted in a good relationship of 0.936 capturing large and
small radiuses. Table 2 summarizes the results.
 6 SPE-181629-MS

MICP vs Plug Poro comparision

35

y = 0.7549x1.0837
30
R² = 0.9848

Plug He Poro (%)

25

20

15

10

0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
MICP Poro (%)
Figure 2: Parent to chip relationship of 379 samples of porosity values.

PTR - WR35 vs. Lab R35 PTR - PR35 vs. Lab R35
100 100
Predicted PTR - Win-land R35 - Microns

Predicted PTR - Pittman R35 -

y = 0.8026x1.1261 y = 0.7098x1.1211
10 R² = 0.9362 R² = 0.9229
10
Microns

1 1

0.1
0.1

0.01
0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Lab observed PTR - R35 - Microns Lab observed PTR - R35 -

Microns

Figure 3: Laboratory R35

relationship with PTR@35 PTR - FZI vs. Lab R35
Saturation at different Petrophysical 100
Rock Type methods: Windland 35,
Pittman R35, and Flow Zone y = 0.4692x0.8416
R² = 0.8684
Predicted FZI - Micrometer

Indicator FQI.
10

0.1

0.01
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Lab observed PTR - R35 - Microns
SPE-SPE-181629-MS-MS 7

Equation Correlation Ranking

Method
Winland R35 y = 0.8026x1.1261 R² = 0.9362 1
Pittman R35 y = 0.7098x1.1211 R² = 0.9229 2
Flow Zone Indicator y = 0.4692x0.8416 R² = 0.8684 3
Table 2— MICP laboratory testing of reservoir A.

Pore throat R35 from empirical winland equation

Winland R35 equation was used to calculate R35 from RCA dataset as following:

PTR Cut-off definition stage came next and 6 Cut-offs were defined according to formation Permeability
and porosity variation. The grouping criteria were defined, so as to differentiate between the high
permeability samples and the dense ones. Figure 3 shows CPOR vs CKH with the PTR cut-off. Resulting
cut-offs are stated below:

1- If 6.5< R35 <25 then RRT 1

2- If 1< R35 <6.5then RRT 2
3- If 0.7< R35 <1 then RRT 3
4- If 0.45< R35 <0.7 then RRT 4
5- If 0.2< R35 <0.45 then RRT 5
6- If 0< R35 <0.2 then RRT 6

Figure 4: Permeability vs porosity Cross plot displays

R35cut-offs.

MICP based Pore throat R35

Transformation was performed to MICP data to generate R35 which is the Pore Throat Radius (PTR)
when the rock is saturated by 35% of Mercury (Figure 5). Afterward, both results were compared ensuring
that RCA and MICP data are consistent (Figure 6).
 8 SPE-181629-MS

Figure 6: Well section of well X-7-V shows the

match between ‘RCA data’ R35 (black) and
‘MICP’ R35 (red points).

Hydraulic flow units using (Stratigraphic Lorenz plot)

Hydraulic flow units were interpreted based on the change of the flow and storage capacity slope
(Stratigraphic Lorenz plot). The stratigraphic Lorenz plot was constructed from porosity-permeability data
for the reservoir A (Figure 7). Corbett (2009) defines Lorenz plot as “an ordered crossplot (essentially
from high permeability to low permeability) of cumulative permeability (called transmissivity) versus
cumulative porosity (storativity)”. It defines and quantifies the high capacity flow units and the high
capacity storage units in the reservoir. Plotting this graph for the Reservoir A formation will indicate the
best flow units in term of flow and storage capacity. The importance of such plot arises from the fact that
it can provide a link between the static descriptions of a reservoir such as for example a series of core
plugs to a dynamic description such as a flow profile (Corbett, 2009).

As can be seen in Figure 7 some correlation between pore throat sizes R35 with flow capacity (flow units
are color coded based on Winland classification). The interval where a sharp change is observed on the
cumulative normalized flow capacity (Cum Kh Norm) corresponds to a high pore throat size (R35)
interval. As example, in flow unit 9, the R35 shows pore throat size is > 6.5 microns and shows a sharp
cumulative normalized flow capacity indicating a good rock quality. In contrast, flow unit 10 and flow
unit 1, which have R35 <1 micron, show a stable cumulative normalized flow capacity. Hence, intervals
where good facies is expected can easily be assessed as well as the ability to evaluate facies characteristic
in term of flow capacity and storage capacity.
SPE-SPE-181629-MS-MS 9

Figure 7: Stratigraphic Lorenz plot of well X-1. A good correlation was observed, flow
unit with big pore throat size are likely to have good flow capacity / good rock quality.

Evaluation of Facies and rock quality based on pore throat radius size
Texture Facies vs. Rock Quality
The task of identifying a representative rock types especially in carbonate reservoirs is difficult as the
carbonate rocks normally do not represent a single porosity permeability relationship per Litho-facies
(Figure 8). However, after it got reassessed using pore throat, the grouping is no longer impossible
(Figure 9).

Histograms of frequency for lithofacies is used to show relation between rock qualities with texture facies
and the number of appearance of certain texture facies in different rock type or rock quality can be seen
in below example (Figure 10). Each bar of histogram represent the number of appearance of certain facies
in one well. The black line is cumulative total sample which corresponds to total depth of A- formation in
each well.

Figure 8: Permeability vs porosity Cross plot Figure 9: Permeability vs porosity Cross plot
displays Lithofacies definition. displays R35cut-offs
10 SPE-181629-MS

Figure 10: Histogram/statistic work to see the “number of appearance” of

certain texture facies in different rock type or rock quality.

It can be concluded that:

 In general, good agreement between good quality rock types with reservoir facies and vice versa.
 It is difficult to relate good rock type into certain texture facies but in general good rock type tends
to associate with presence of texture facies; Rudstone, Floatstone, and Boundstone.

Capillary Pressure and Pore Throat Radius vs. Rock quality

Plot of capillary pressure vs mercury saturation showing PSD and PTR from nearly 580 core/MICP
records are plotted (Figures 11 and 12). The lines are color coded based on the rock quality. Please note
that at this stage, the work was done for quick look without detail selection or control on capillary pressure
and Pore throat size curves tuning. However, by quick look, we can clearly see that entry pressure for
mercury capillary pressure curves are gradually increasing following the rock quality. Good rock quality
(rock type-1 as color coded in red), are showing the minimum entry pressure. In contrary, poorest rock
quality (roc k type-6 as color coded in yellow) are showing very high entry pressure or very tight rock.

Finally, based on the flow units distribution, the below Table 3 summarizes the keys findings when
characterizing the Rock Types.
SPE-SPE-181629-MS-MS 11

Figure 11: Capillary pressure vs mercury saturation plot before and after color coded by RRT cut-offs.

Figure 12: PSD vs PTR plot before and after color coded by RRT cut-offs. Good rock types are laid down
under the Macro porous zone and vice versa.

Permeability Porosity & Morpho Lithofacies

type

Rock type-1 Average K is very high ≈680 Average Ø is ≈20% Mainly RCnBR and RCpBF
mD Maximum Ø ranges between
R35>12 um Maximum K is very high, 24% to 26 %
ranges between 1 to 2 Darcy Minimum Ø ranges between
Minimum K ranges between 13%-17%
300-400 mD Morpho type is Macro porous
Rock type-2 Average K ≈160 mD Average Ø is ≈22% Major=RCnBR and RSR
Maximum K is relatively high, Maximum Ø ranges between Minor=BBSP and SPP
R35>5 um ranges between 250mD to 380 30% to 34 %
mD Minimum Ø ranges between
Minimum K ranges between 4%-10%
0.5mD-150 mD Morpho type is mostly Macro
and minor of macro-meso
porous
Rock type-3 Average K ranges between Average Ø is ≈22% Major=RCnBR
≈30mD to ≈50mD Maximum Ø ranges between &AStFB&RSFR
R35>1 um Maximum K is ranges between 33% to 37 % Minor=OSP and SPP
80 mD to 117 mD Minimum Ø ranges between
Minimum K ranges between 1.5%-19%
0.01mD-12 mD Morpho type is mostly Meso
and minor of macro-meso
porous
12 SPE-181629-MS

Rock type-4 Average K ranges between Average Ø is ≈20% Major=OSP& SPP &AStFB
≈2mD to ≈3mD Maximum Ø ranges between Minor=BBSW
R35>0.5 um Maximum K is ranges between 30% to 33 %
5 mD to 7 mD Minimum Ø ranges between
Minimum K ranges between 0.2%-15%
0.01mD-3 mD Morpho type is mainly Meso
porous
Rock type-5 Average K ranges between Average Ø is ≈11% Major=BBSP&BBSW&ASFB
≈0.6mD to ≈1mD Maximum Ø ranges between Minor=OSP
R35>0.2 um Maximum K is ranges between 20% to 28 %
2 mD to 2.5 mD Minimum Ø ranges between
Minimum K ranges between 0 0.4%-5%
mD-1 mD Morpho type is mainly Meso
porous and minor of meso-
micro porous
Rock type-6 Average K ranges is ≈0.05mD Average Ø is between ≈8% Major=BBSW & SPWP
Maximum K is ranges between and ≈10% Minor=OSP & BBSP
R35<0.2 um 0.2 mD to 0.3 mD Maximum Ø ranges between
Minimum K ranges between 0 18% to 22 %
mD-0.5 mD Minimum Ø ranges between
1.5 %-5%
Morpho type is mainly Micro
porous and minor of meso-
micro porous
Table 3— PSD vs PTR plot before and after color coded by RRT cut-offs. Good rock types are lying down
under the Macro porous zone and vice versa.

J-Function Generation Workflow

151 MICP data samples from the main producing core area have been used to generate J-function curves.
10 rock types have been defined using r35 equation and based on capillary pressure, pore throat radius
and J functions curves. In order to define J-functions for each rock type, firstly, capillary pressure at
laboratory conditions is converted to capillary pressure at reservoir conditions using the following
equation:
Pcres = Pclab* (σCosθ) res

Where:
Pcres = capillary pressure at reservoir conditions
Pclab = capillary pressure at laboratory conditions
(σCosθ) res = interfacial tension multiplied by cosine angle at reservoir conditions (oil-water, oil-gas)
Secondly, height above free water level is calculated using the following equation:
Hafwl = Pcres/ (water gradient – oil gradient)
Thirdly, initial water saturation, Swi was estimated for each core sample against the maximum possible
transition zone in each well
Fourthly, normalized water saturation, Sw* is calculated using the below equation:
Sw* = (Swlab-Swi)/ (1-Swi)
Fifthly, Leverett J-function is calculated using the following equation
J = 0.21645* (√ (k/φ)*Pcres)/σCosθ
Sixthly, J vs. Sw, J vs. Sw* equations are generated for each rock type defined by Petrophysicist and also
for low and high cases. Charts for good and bad rock types are given below:
SPE-SPE-181629-MS-MS 13

. Figure 12: Pc, J-function, PTR curves for RRT1 – Good Figure 13: Pc, J-function, PTR curves for RRT2 - Good
Rock Type Rock Type

Figure 13: Pc, J-function, PTR curves for RRT3 - Good Rock Figure 14: Pc, J-function, PTR curves for RRT9 - Bad
Type Rock Type.

Conclusions
1. Reservoir Rock Typing study for A Reservoir in X field was conducted by following and integrated
Workflow based on: MICP, RCA, lithofacies, and logs data.
2. Three petrophysical Rock Type techniques were tested prior to proceed with the Rock Typing
clustering: Winland 35, Pittman R35, and Flow Zone Indicator FQI.
3. Winland 35 methods provide a good relationship with laboratory R35 with a correlation of 0.936
using 379 samples.
4. The method shows compatibility with heterogenetic carbonate reservoirs.
5. In general, good agreement between good quality rock types with reservoir facies and vice versa.
6. It is difficult to relate good rock type into certain texture facies but in general good rock type tends
to associate with presence of texture facies; Rudstone, Floatstone, and Boundstone.
7. Entry pressure for mercury capillary pressure curves are gradually increasing following the rock
quality. Good rock quality (rock type-1) is showing the most minimum entry pressure. In contrary,
poorest rock quality (rock type-6) is showing very high entry pressure or very tight rock.
8. Total of 6 Reservoir Rock types have been identified utilizing total of 530 MICP samples and over
2000 RCA samples; three RRT considered being good quality rock types and the rest were
considered as moderate to bad quality rock types.
9. Saturation height functions were generated based on the MICP data set and well logs data. In total,
10 J-Functions were generated per each RRT. As a result, 10 Power regression functions were
extracted and implemented into the 3D geo grid building the water saturation model.
 14 SPE-181629-MS

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the senior management of ADNOC and ADCO-Opco for the permission
to publish this work.

Nomenclature
CCA: Conventional Core Analysis
FZI: Flow Zone Indicator
MICP: Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure
Pc: Capillary pressure
PTR: Pore Throat Radius
RQI: Reservoir Quality Index
RRT: Reservoir Rock-Types
SCAL: Special Core Analysis
Sw: Water saturation
K: Permeability
Ø: Porosity

References
Corbett, P. Petroleum Geoengineering: Integration of Static and Dynamic Models. SEG and EAGE
Distinguished Instructor Short Course 2009.
Tucker, M.E., (2001) Sedimentary Petrology. 3rd edn. Blackwell Science, 262 p.
Lucia F. J. (1995): Rock-fabric / Petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir
characterization. AAPG Bull., v. 79, n°9, 1275–1300.
Leverett MC (1941): Capillary pressure Behaviour of Porous Solids. AIME, vol. 142, 151–169.

View publication stats