SPE-177603-MS

Prediction of Carbonate Reservoirs Pore Pressure and Porosity in Onshore

Abu Dhabi Using Petroleum Systems Modeling Technology
R. Mohamad, O. A. Fadipe, X. Zhang, O. Djuraev, A. L. MacGregor, A. M. Bouhlel, and N. C. Koutsabeloulis,
Schlumberger; A. Noufal, M. Sirat, and D. Popa, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Petroleum Operations LTD

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9 –12 November 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
Prediction of pore pressure and porosity in an unconventional resource assessment area of Abu Dhabi was
performed by using petroleum systems modeling techniques, combining seismic and well data and
geological knowledge to model sedimentary basin evolution. The study objective was ultimately to
reconstruct basin history and key geological structures as a basis for further geomechanical and fracture
prediction studies. Twelve surfaces were interpreted from seismic data and derived from isopach maps.
These maps were used to construct the basin model. The model was built from the top of the surface
sediment down to the Shuaiba formation. Sediment decompaction was modeled, which enabled the
reconstruction of the formation structures through time. Athy’s law, formulated with effective stress, was
used in the forward modeling simulator for the calculation of pore pressure. Information such as formation
ages, erosional events, and hiatus periods were taken into account during simulation. The evolution of
porosity, pore pressure, temperature, and thermal maturity through time were simulated and calibrated to
measured data. Model porosity is dependent on burial depth, weight of the overburden sediment columns,
and lithology properties. Porosity calibration was achieved by adjusting the compaction curve to effective
stress. Pore pressure was calibrated by adjusting lithology porosity-permeability relationships. Low-
permeability lithologies result in high pore pressure. A regional Paleocene pore pressure reduction was
observed, caused by substantial erosion of the Simsima formation. Generally, formation overpressure is
observed at greater depth. Additionally, modeled overpressures depend on the evolution of connate water
vectors over geological time; these vectors depend on multiple lithology parameters as well as the
capillary entry pressure of adjacent model layers. In the Shilaif fm, overpressure zones were identified at
the anticlinal structures. Interestingly, higher overpressure was observed in the shallower anticlinal
structure. The simulation results provide the estimated porosity and pore pressure in the unconventional
play, as well as the reconstruction of the overall basin geometry through time. The resulting models were
subsequently used as the basis for further fracture prediction studies; results were ultimately consistent
with faults derived from existing seismic interpretation. Model porosity, pore pressure, and predicted
fractures will be used for the development of static geological and dynamic reservoir models.
2 SPE-177603-MS

Introduction
Exploration of unconventional/tight reservoir means emphasis must be placed on understanding porosity and
pressure development in highly heterogeneous sediments. Qualitative understanding of lithology, pressure and
porosity distributions across a large resource area remains challenging, particularly when the source rock
interval is a complex mixture of clay minerals and carbonates. Published studies have emphasized the
widespread impact of heterogeneity on reservoirs in Abu Dhabi (Russell et al., 2002), especially in an
unconventional play. This has further raised concerns that local measurements may not reflect the true average
reservoir property in the vicinity of the well. The greatest concern is that the measurement may be precise, but
they may not be an accurate representation of the mean formation property (Gyllensten et al., 2004).
Pore pressure and porosity predictions are more complex in unconventional plays where the focus is clearly
on the details of the source rock interval itself. The authors of this paper seek to predict pore pressure and
porosity development using a petroleum systems modeling technology. This technique incorporates geological
history and significant geological events such as uplift, erosion and hiatus into the workflow and allows
geoscientists to understand how geology impacts pressures and porosity development through time.
There are many factors to be considered for this type of study. The geological history of the study area must
be well understood, although the technique does of course allow different scenarios to be easily tested. Time
must be spent to build a consistent petrotechnical model incorporating available geological, geophysical and
petrophysical information; and care must also be taken to gather and quality control temperature, pressure and
geochemical measurements. Using these type of measurements together allows petroleum systems modelers to
build, simulate and calibrate models in which we can have high confidence and which serve as a basis for
further resource evaluation.
Geological Settings
The study area is part of the Rub Al Khali basin and it is situated in the south central area of Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates. The study area covers the onshore area of Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore
Petroleum Operations Ltd (ADCO) (Fig. 1). There are a number of producing oil fields bounding the
central namely, Bab, Bu Hasa, Shah, Asab and Sahil fields.

Figure 1—Location map of the studied area in onshore Abu Dhabi. (modified after Morad et al., 2010)
SPE-177603-MS 3

In this study, 12 geological surfaces were created from seismic interpretation and isopach thickness
maps. The study area covers an approximately a surface of 14x15.5 km and corresponds to an anticline
to the Southeast (Fig. 2).

Figure 2—Geological structure model of the studied area (top left). The south-southwest (A)/north-northeast (A’) cross section (top
right) shows the geological formations in depth (bottom)

After the geological structures of the area of interest has established, the formation properties such as
porosity and pore pressure were analysed. In general, porosity and pore pressure are sensitive to
lithological parameters. It was crucial to have the correct definition of lithology for each geological
formation. Table 1 describes the lithologies used for this study.

Table 1—Lithology descriptions for each of the formation in the studied area
Average Formation
Group Model Layer Name Thickness (feet) Lithology Definition

Post Hasa Group Surface sediment 921 33% Sandstone (arkose, dolomite rich)⫹ 33% Sandstone (arkose, clay
rich)⫹ 34% Siltstone (organic lean)
Hasa Group Damman formation 952 30% Limestone (ooid grainstone)⫹ 15% Limestone (micrite)⫹ 35%
Marl⫹ 15% Dolomite (typical)⫹ 5% Gypsum
Rus formation 557 80% Limestone (micrite)⫹ 20% Anhydrite
Umm Er Radhuma formation 1965 95% Limestone (micrite)⫹ 5% Shale
Aruma Group Simsima formation 1141 65% Limestone (ooid grainstone)⫹ 20% Limestone (micrite)⫹
15% Marl
Fiqa formation 637 50% Marl⫹ 50% Limestone (Shaly)
Laffan formation 88 Shale
Wasia Group Ruwaydha formation 838 20% Limestone (micrite)⫹ 65% Limestone (ooid grainstone)⫹
15% Marl
Shilaif formation 736 50% Limestone (micrite)⫹ 40% Limestone (organic rich)⫹ 10%
Limestone shaly
Mauddud formation 92 75% Limestone (micrite)⫹ 25% Limestone (ooid grainstone)
Nahr Umr formation 592 95% Shale ⫹ 5% Limestone (micrite)
4 SPE-177603-MS

The study focused on the Shilaif formation of the Wasia group as the primary unconventional target
formation. This formation was identified and considered source rock due to its organic richness with 2 %
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Hydrogen Index (HI) of 500 mg HC/g TOC.
Principles of Modeling
The authors used the conventional petroleum system modeling workflow in this study as the primary focus is
to understand porosity and pressure development through time. Fig. 3 shows the workflow steps.

Figure 3—Simplified petroleum system modeling workflow (after Hantschel and Kauerauf 2009)

The use of petroleum system modeling technology was crucial to reconstruct the paleogeometry of the basin
and its effects on the evolution of geological properties such as porosity and pressure. Geological settings and
present day basin geometry with formation ages were needed prior to reconstruction of the basin geometry.
Lithology and facies for each of the formations were needed to be defined correctly. Lithology
parameters such as mechanical compaction and permeability were unique for each formation. These
parameters control the deformation and compaction behaviour of each formation layer at all geological
ages during simulation. Furthermore, defining boundary conditions including paleowater depth, sediment-
water interface temperature and heatflow were important to constrain the geometry and thermal evolution
of the basin at every geological age.
During model simulation steps, the model was backstripped to the oldest formation (Fig. 4). The
simulation process decompacted each layer and then proceeded to re-deposition of each of formations,
from the oldest formation to the youngest. At each of these geological time steps, parameters such as
porosity and pore pressure were calculated. These calculations were controlled by lithology parameters for
each of the layers.
SPE-177603-MS 5

Figure 4 —The simulation process of a basin model will start with decompaction of the formation layers. Then, the simulator will deposit
each layer sequentially, from oldest to youngest. All of the parameters, such as porosity and pressure, will be calculated based on the
lithology parameters at each of geological timesteps

The simulation results were analysed and compared with measured well data such as porosity and
formation pore pressure. Calibration processes were required when calculated output results were not
consistent with the well data. Model calibration is an iterative process that was repeated until a good match
with measured calibration data was achieved
Porosity Model
A simple porosity-depth relationship was first described by Athy (1930). According to Athy, porosity, ⌽
, will decrease exponentially with depth z, with a compaction factor k. Smith (1971) refined this definition
and proposed to use effective stress ␴= rather than total depth in the compaction calculation (Eq. 1):
(1)

Hantschel and Kauerauf (2009) suggested an enhancement to the Smith (1971) equation by proposing
a further extension to include non-zero minimum porosity:
(2)

However, in this equation, only one compaction factor is applied per rock type hence the result may
not have a good match with the observed data for many rock types (Hantschel and Kauerauf, 2009).
In this study, porosity and formation pore pressure data for one well (Well A) which is located in the
Shah field were considered. The authors analysed these data and derived a porosity-effective stress
relationship based on the following equation.
(3)

where ␴= is the effective stress, pz is lithostatic pressure and pu is pore pressure. This equation was
introduced by Karl von Terzaghi in 1925.
Fig. 5 shows examples of uncalibrated (in brown) and calibrated (in blue) compaction curves of the Shilaif
fm that were used during the calibration process, together with the simulation results at Well A. Pore pressure
data were available for the effective stress calculation. The data were plotted together with hydrostatic and
lithostatic pressures. Eq. 3 was used for the effective stress calculation. At each depth of the effective stress
points, the corresponding porosity points from the porosity plot were extracted in order to establish the
porosity-effective stress relationship. As a result of the established relationship, we were able to derive
calibrated compaction curves for each of the formations of interest (Shilaif, Mauddud, and Nahr Umr).
6 SPE-177603-MS

Figure 5—Pressure plot (Left) and Porosity plot (Middle) are the input data to calibrate formation compaction curve. Effective stress is
derived from the Terzaghi equation (Eq. 3). The porosity-effective stress relationship is used to calibrate the compaction curve for each
of the lithologies of interest. On the Right the calibrated compaction curve assigned to the Shilaif fm is shown

The simulated porosity model was able to predict porosity for each of the formation layers (Fig. 6) and at each
geological time step. The porosity was calculated based on the compaction curve defined for each formation.

Figure 6 —Simulated porosity model captures porosity distribution troughout the formation layers
SPE-177603-MS 7

The evolution of porosity through geological time for each formation was modelled. Fig. 7, shows the
example of porosity of the Shilaif formation at 95 Ma and at present day (top and bottom left). Based on
the porosity model, initial porosity distribution in the Shilaif formation was between 31 % and 51 %. At
present day, the porosity distribution has reduced and ranges between 6 % and 20 %. It is also seen that
there is a considerable decrease in porosity towards the depocenter (synclinal region). This can be
attributed to expected higher overburden at the basin centre, which would have consequently increased the
compaction.

Figure 7—The evolution of porosity for the Shilaif formation through time (Left). Porosity model time extraction (top Right), and burial
history plot with porosity as an overlay (bottom Right) at Well A

From the porosity model extraction at Well A (Fig. 7, upper right), it is evident that the porosity of the
Shilaif formation started to deteriorate after ca. 50 Ma (green arrow, Fig. 7, upper right). Further porosity
reduction occured after 34 Ma (red arrow, Fig. 7, upper right). This phenomenon can also be observed at
the burial plot with porosity overlay (Fig. 7, lower right). After 34 Ma, all of the thick overlying sediment
units, namely the Ruwaydha, Fiqa, Simsima, Umm er Radhuma, Rus and Dammam formations that have
been deposited are responsible for the further porosity reduction of the Shilaif formation and the units
below it.
Pore Pressure Model
Fluid static pressure is described by the weight of fluid and given by:
(4)
8 SPE-177603-MS

where p is pressure, h is the column height, ␳ is the density and g is the gravity acceleration.
Under normal hydrostatic pressure, fluid in pore spaces escapes through the column of sediment
formations to the surface via interconnected pore spaces. Pore pressure usually is smaller than lithostatic
pressure due the fluid’s ability to flow within the sediment (Hantschel and Kauerauf 2009). However in
the noncompactable rock, both lithostatic pressure and pore pressure are equal to the overburden load.
The porosity-permeability relationship was studied by Chilingarian & Wolf (1975), and they found that
the permeability of isotropic sediments is controlled by their porosity and grain-size distribution. A further
study by Tissot and Welte (1984) showed that with further compaction, porosity will be lost rapidly at
shallower depth. However, the rate of porosity loss diminishes with an increase in pressure.
In this study, pressure was calibrated by adapting the porosity-permeability relationship in each layer.
An example of multipoint curves using 3 pairs of log permeability-porosity is shown in Fig. 8. The curves
represent calibrated and default log permeability-porosity relationship in horizontal and vertical direc-
tions. By decreasing the permeability values at its corresponding porosity, fluid flow will be restricted and
pore pressure of the formation and below it will increase.

Figure 8 —Permeabilty-porosity plot (Left) and pressure model (Right)

An analysis of pore pressure taken from Well A was made and used for pressure model calibration (Fig.
8). In this region, the Laffan formation has been identified as a regional seal by a number of authors
including Hassan and Azer (1985) and Loutfi and El-Bishlawy (1986). The unit is 100 % shale and 88 ft
thickness (Table 1) with low permeability. Below this unit, pressure build up is observed and starting at
the Ruwaydha fm.
Formation pore pressure was simulated and predicted for each layer (Fig. 9). The model showed good
spatial pore pressure distribution while the pore pressure evolution (Fig. 10, left) honours the geological
events that were captured during model building. No pore pressure was observed during the formation
deposition at 95 Ma.
SPE-177603-MS 9

Figure 9 —Pore pressure model of the studied area

Figure 10 —Pore pressure distribution at the Shilaif formation (Left). Pore Pressure time extraction (top Right) and burial plot with Pore
pressure as an overlay (bottom Right) at Well A
10 SPE-177603-MS

As further deposition of the overburden units took place, porosity and permeability of the Shilaif
deteriorated due to the compaction processes. As results, at present day the pore pressure distribution in
the Shilaif formation ranges between 14.49 MPa and 38.65 MPa.
Erosion and hiatus events were incorporated into the model. The effects of these events could be observed
on the pore pressure model. When pore pressure model was extracted at Well A, we anticipated two pore
pressure reduction events at the Shilaif formation as seen in Fig. 10 below. At Palaeocene, an uplift event was
regionally evident. An uplift event would usually be accompanied by an erosional event however, in this basin,
up to 1300 ft of sediments were removed from the basin resulting to an abrupt pore pressure release.
The burial plot with pore pressure overlay that is shown by Fig. 10 (lower right) and pore pressure plot
through time (Fig. 10, upper right) captured these events. Subsequently another episode of pore pressure
reduction was recognized owing to the hiatus events during the Miocene.
Overpressure Model
Modeling overpressure is crucial for field planning and development especially for developing the drilling
strategy. Swarbrick (1994), defined overpressure as the result of the inability of formation fluids to escape
at a rate, which maintains equilibrium with column of formation water, which exit to the surface. In
general, overpressure was calculated by:
(5)

where pov is overpressure, pu is pore pressure and pz is lithostatic pressure.

Many factors contribute into the formation of overpressures in a basin. Geological factors such as
sedimentation rates, erosion and hiatus events as well as lithology parameters such as permeability and
porosity will control the location of overpressures in a basin. In this study, the authors were able to model
and identify the locations of overpressure zones in the basin.
As shown in Fig. 11, the distribution of overpressure varies within the basin. At present day, all of the
overpressured formations are located below the Laffan fm and the highest overpressure was observed in
the Nahr Umr fm with 9.83 MPa.

Figure 11—Overpressure distribution in the studied area

SPE-177603-MS 11

Fig. 12 (left) shows the evolution of overpressure distribution within the Shilaif fm. At present
day, the overpressure was concentrated at the synclinal structure of the basin. Further analysis of the
overpressure though geologic time at Well A (Fig. 12, upper right) showed that the initial formation
overpressure corresponded to the deposition of the sealing unit, the Laffan fm (Fig. 12, lower right).
However this initial overpressure was reduced due to the uplift and erosional events that happened
at 59 Ma. Further deposition of the subsequent sediment units caused the second overpressure
build up below the Laffan fm as the units below it experienced further compaction. The changes in
overpressure after ca. 34 Ma corresponded to a series of hiatus events that happened in the
basin.

Figure 12—Analysis on overpressure at the Shilaif formation (Left). Overpressure through geologic timetop Right) and burial history
plot with an obverpressure overlay (bottom Right) at Well A

The pressure network is very important for predicting overpressure in the model. The connectivity of
a low-permeability formation will have an effect on the pressure system of the formations adjacent to it
as it is shown clearly in Fig. 13.
12 SPE-177603-MS

Figure 13—A cross section shows overpressure distribution in the studied area (Above). A cross section shows permeability
distribution in the studied area (Below). Black arrows indicate fluid directions within the basin

In the southern part of the area of study, overpressure zones were observed at two anticlinal structures
in the Shilaif fm. Interestingly, the shallower anticlinal structure exhibits higher overpressure and the
difference of overpressure between these structures is 0.26 MPa.
This phenomenon is caused by the higher permeability of the Mauddud fm that is underlying the Shilaif
fm. Fluid movement within the permeable formation was not restricted and the direction of the movement
was governed by the unit pressure and permeability via interconnected pore spaces as indicated in Fig. 13.
Generally, fluid moves from higher pressure zone to the lower pressure zone. The fluid within the
Mauddud fm migrated from the basin center toward the anticlinal structures as indicated by the fluid
SPE-177603-MS 13

vectors (Fig 13). On the top of the anticlinal structures, the fluid movement was impeded by the lower
permeable overburden units. Hence further pressure build up at these structures was achieved.
Conclusions
We have demonstrated that petroleum systems modeling technology can be used to predict porosity and
pressure variation on an unconventional play.
Specifically, the used methodology have succeeded to:
● Show a better explanation/estimation regarding the effect of overburden and the basic architecture
on porosity and pressure development
● Characterize the heterogeneity of the different intervals in the model
● Predict and understand the development of dynamic pressure changes through geological time
● Quantify porosity in the interval of interest

The results show that the quality and validity of the predictions matched the limited measured well data
available, but could be further improved with more data. The model was simulated using a decompaction
approach and each geological event has been taken into account. The quality of the porosity and pressure
models reveal that they are highly dependent on the lithology parameters assigned, and were validated
against calibration data. Each analysis was carried out systematically and with a considerable knowledge
of the geological events, which were helpful to quantify and interpret the simulation results.
The simulation outputs in this study were subsequently used as a basis for further fracture prediction
studies. The results were consistent with fracture patterns and densities derived from existing seismic
interpretation. The intent is to use the modeled porosity, pore pressure, and predicted fractures for the
development of static geological and dynamic reservoir models.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of ADCO, ADNOC and Schlumberger for their support
and for allow us to publish this result.

Nomenclature
Column height ⫽ h
Compaction factor ⫽ k
Density ⫽ ␳
Gravity acceleration ⫽ g
Porosity ⫽ ⌽
Porosity, effective Stress ⫽ ⌽␴=
Porosity, initial ⫽ ⌽i
Porosity, maximum ⫽ ⌽max
Porosity, minimum ⫽ ⌽min
Pressure ⫽ p
Pressure, lithostatic ⫽ pz
Pore pressure ⫽ pu
Overpressure ⫽ pov
Stress, effective ⫽ ␴=

References
Athy, L.F. 1930. Density, Porosity and Compaction of Sedimentary Rocks. AAPG Bulletin 14 (1):
1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/3d93289e-16b1-11d7-8645000102c1865d.
Chilingarian, G. V. and Wolf, K. H., eds. 1975. Compaction of Coarse-Grained Sediments, I.
14 SPE-177603-MS

Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.

Gyllensten, A., Tilke, P., Al-Raisi, M., Allen, D., 2004. Porosity Heterogeneity Analysis Using
Geostatistics. Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 10 –13 October. SPE-88788-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/88788-MS.
Hantschel, T. and Kauerauf, A. 2009. Fundamentals of Basin and Petroleum Systems Modeling.
London: Springer.
Hassan, T.H. and Azer, S. 1985. The Occurrence and Origin of Oil in Offshore Abu Dhabi. Presented
at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 11–14 March. SPE-13696-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13696-MS.
Loutfi, G. and El-Bishlawy, S. 1986. Habitat of Hydrocarbons in Abu Dhabi, UAE, Abu Dhabi.
Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries Symposium on Hydrocarbon Potential of
Intense Thrust Zones 2: 63–124.
Morad, S., Al-Aasm, I.S., Sirat, M., Sattar, M.M., 2010. Vein Calcite in Cretaceous Carbonate
Reservoirs of Abu Dhabi: Record of Origin of Fluids and Diagenetic Conditions. Journal of
Geochemical Exploration 106: 156 –170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2010.03.002.
Russell, S.D., Akbar, M., Vissapragada, B., Walkden, G.M., 2002. Rock Types and Permeability
Prediction from Dipmeter and Image Logs: Shuaiba Reservoir (Aptian) Abu Dhabi. AAPG Bulletin
86: 1709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/61eedd5a-173e-11d7-8645000102c1865d.
Smith, J.E. 1971. The Dynamics of Shale Compaction and Evolution of Pore-Fluid Pressures.
Mathematical Geology 3: 239 –263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02045794.
Swabrick, R.E. 1994. Overpressure: cases problems and uses. Joint Association for Petroleum
Exploration Courses course notes, Issue 137.
Terzaghi, K. 1925. Erbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalischer Grundlage. Franz Deuticke, Leipzig und
Wein.
Tissot, B.P. and Welte, D.H. 1984. Petroleum Formation and Occurrence. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.