Research article Petroleum Geoscience

Published online April 12, 2016 doi:10.1144/petgeo2015-054 | Vol. 22 | 2016 | pp. 105–122

Integration of Cretaceous Morro do Chaves rock properties (NE

Brazil) with the Holocene Hamelin Coquina architecture (Shark
Bay, Western Australia) to model effective permeability
Patrick W. M. Corbett1,2*, Rayana Estrella2, Andrea Morales Rodriguez1,
Ahmed Shoeir1, Leonardo Borghi2 & Ana Carolina Tavares2
1
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh EH19 4AS, UK
2
LAGESED, Institute of Geosciences, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
* Correspondence: p.w.m.corbett@hw.ac.uk

Abstract: Coquinas are significant producing facies in the pre-salt reservoirs of Brazil and Angola. This paper describes an
analogue model study to help understand the reservoir characterization of coquina reservoirs. Porosity and permeability
measured in 39 core plugs from a single coquina bed in a Lower Cretaceous outcrop in NE Brazil have been combined in a three-
dimensional geological model for use in reservoir simulation. A training image derived from the geometry of a Holocene
coquina analogue in Western Australia controlled the distribution of the bed-scale petrophysical properties from the outcrop. A
synthetic well test showed that the effective permeability of the system lies between the geometrical and harmonic averages of
the plug data in the layer. There is also moderate flow anisotropy, with preferential fluid flow aligned along the beach ridges.
This paper demonstrates how the combination of outcrop data and an appropriate modern environment might be used to
improve our understanding of the behaviour of coquina reservoirs and to guide future reservoir studies.
Received 07 August 2015; revised 17 November 2015; accepted 22 January 2016

Approximately 50% of the known hydrocarbon reserves in the
world are contained in carbonate reservoirs (Ramakrishnan et al.
2001), and carbonates are responsible for approximately 60% of the
world’s oil production and 40% of the gas production (Akbar et al.
2008; Schlumberger 2014). Most of the production is from marine
carbonates.
Non-marine, lacustrine carbonate reservoirs were discovered in
Brazil in the 1970s, when oil was found in offshore fields such as the
Campos Basin. These reservoirs, formed by the high-energy
accumulation of shells and fragments of shells deposited from the
actions of some agent of transport (termed ‘coquinas’ by Schafer
1972), have been described by a number of authors who focused
mostly on stratigraphy and sedimentology and, to a lesser extent, on
their petrophysical properties (Baumgarten et al. 1988; Horschutz &
Scuta 1992; Horschutz et al. 1992; Carvalho et al. 2000; Castro 2006).
Following the recent discoveries of giant petroleum fields in the
pre-salt interval of the Santos Basin, the study of coquina reservoirs
has received a revived and increased interest in order to understand
their sedimentological, diagenetic and petrophysical characteristics
(Câmara 2013; Tavares et al. 2015; Thompson et al. 2015).
The Lower Cretaceous Morro do Chaves Formation has long
been considered an outcrop analogue for the pre-salt coquinas
(Kinoshita 2007, 2010; Corbett & Borghi 2013; Garcia et al. 2015),
whereas the Holocene Hamelin Coquina of Shark Bay, Western
Australia, has been proposed as a recent analogue (Jahnert et al.
2012). Figure 1 shows the locations of both study areas.
This work is based on the analysis of core plugs from the São
Sebastião (Atol) Quarry near the town of São Miguel dos Campos in
the Sergipe State, NE Brazil (Fig. 1), and relies on detailed descriptions
of the Shark Bay area and the Hamelin Coquina found in Playford et al.
(2013). Elements of both ancient and modern analogues have been
combined in the geological and reservoir engineering models.
Google Earth satellite images were interpreted at the type locality
of the Hamelin Coquina on the southern margin of the Hamelin
Pool, Shark Bay, Western Australia (Playford et al. 2013). The
satellite images were interpreted using the details of previous studies
(Jahnert et al. 2012; Playford et al. 2013) that identified a composite
beach ridge system elongated sub-parallel to the shoreline that had
been surveyed using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) by Jahnert
et al. (2012). The internal structure of the ridge had revealed
lagoonwards-dipping, storm accretionary surfaces in beds at the
metre-scale.
The satellite image was combined with the petrophysical data
from the Morro de Chaves Formation (Figs 2 and 3; Table 1) in a
geological modelling package. Various approaches were explored
with the purpose of modelling the coquina system, and a limited
number of models were taken through to flow simulation in order to
assess various engineering (well testing and production) scenarios.
Morro do Chaves Formation
The Morro do Chaves Formation, described by Figuereido (1981),
Milani et al. (1988), Fejó (1994), Winter et al. (2007) and Kinoshita
(2010), occurs in the Sergipe–Alagoas Basin in NE Brazil.
Azambuja Filho et al. (1998) defined the Morro do Chaves
Formation as a carbonate succession of Jiquiá age (Late Barremian–
Early Aptian) intercalated with siliciclastic rocks of the Coqueiro
Seco and Rio Pitanga formations. This combined unit contains four
principal facies: (1) a fan delta facies associated with the fault scarp
in the NE of the basin, containing wave-reworked conglomerates:
(2) sandstones with bivalves; (3) thick layers of coquinas; and (4)
lacustrine shales (see Fig. 4).
The coquinas of the Morro do Chaves Formation are formed by
non-marine bivalves and ostracods, with various amounts of

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE. All rights reserved. For permissions: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/
permissions. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
106 P. W. M. Corbett et al.

Fig. 1. Location maps for the two study

areas referred to in this paper. (a) Map of
the São Sebastião Quarry located near the
town of São Miguel dos Campos, Alagoas
State, NE Brazil. (b) Hamelin Pool on the
west coast of Australia.

terrigenous content and occasional cross-bedding. The bivalves
lived in shallow oxygenated water, and their shells were reworked
and deposited as washover fans and beaches by storm influence and
longshore drift.
The Morro do Chaves Formation is marked by a lacustrine
carbonate sequence preferentially deposited on relative structural
highs, tectonically and climatically controlled. Its thickness varies
from 50 to 350 m, with the thickest sections associated with fault-
block movements, and the relative distribution of lows and highs
influenced the main depositional cycles. Climate controlled the
deposition of minor cycles in response to wet–dry periodicity
(Azambuja Filho et al. 1998). The palaeo-environment created
conditions that encouraged diverse sedimentation in the form of fan
deltas and lagoons with barriers of coquinas and clays that followed
the progradation towards the depocentre (Fig. 4). Molluscan faunas
indicate occasional influxes from nearby marine waters (Thompson
et al. 2015). Tavares (2014) and Tavares et al. (2015) studied data
from the same outcrop and proposed a facies model for Morro do
Chaves coquinas based on sedimentology and taphonomy that uses
the storm and fair-weather wave base as reference levels. Further
refinement of the facies model with new core data is in progress
(Tavares, pers. com. 2016). Other workers are also developing 3D
models of these rocks (Garcia et al. 2015).
Lacustrine coquinas of Late Barremian and Early Aptian
(Jiquiá age), and their potential as reservoir rocks
During the separation of South America and Africa in the Cretaceous,
the Rift Phase on the South Atlantic continental margin (Berriasian-
Barremian) saw the deposition of coquinas into lake systems. This

Fig. 2. Outcrop face, Morro do Chaves Formation, on the eastern side of the São Sebastião Quarry. Outcrop of approximately 60 m of metre-scale beds of
coquinas (intervals of cream and light grey coloured) intercalated with shales (intervals of dark grey and greenish grey). The approximate location of Bed 2b
is indicated with a star.
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs 107

Fig. 4. Schematic section of sedimentary facies distribution for the Morro

do Chaves Formation. This shows wedges of coquina (Morro do Chaves
Formation) prograding from the flexural margin westwards towards the
basin centre. Associated with the fault, fan-deltas (the Coqueiro Seco and
Rio Pitanga formations) are shown prograding eastwards towards the basin
centre. The shales have been interpreted as representing lowstand deposits,
with evidence of sub-areal exposure provided by the presence of mud
cracks (Azambuja et al. 1998).

et al. 1986) rather than their specific reservoir properties.

Fig. 3. Stratigraphic location of Bed 2b in the Morro do Chaves
Formation, on the eastern side of the São Sebastião Quarry. The section is
taken from Tavares (2014). Note that there is almost no sandstone in this
section.
Coquinas, along with other types of lacustrine carbonates, are
uncommon reservoirs. They are generally very heterogeneous,
which is reflected in their porosity–permeability characteristics,
and, as for any carbonate rock, they can be strongly influenced by
diagenesis (Tigre et al. 1983; Bertani 1984; Bertani & Carozzi
1985a, b; Abrahão 1987; Baumgarten et al. 1988; Castro 1988;
Guardado et al. 1989; Abrahão & Warme 1990; Dale & Lopes
1990; Horschutz & Scuta 1992; Horschutz et al. 1992; Carvalho
et al. 2000; Harris 2000; Liro & Dawson 2000; Katz 2001; Castro
2006; Jameson et al. 2011; Chaboureau et al. 2013; Thompson et al.
2015). The importance of coquinas in both the Brazilian and
Angolan pre-salt reservoirs has been documented (Harris 2000;
Boyd et al. 2015).

occurred principally in the Sergipe–Alagoas, Jacuípe, Espírito Santo,

Campos and Santos basins on the Brazilian margin, and in the Congo
and Cabinda basins on the east coast of Africa (e.g. Figuereido 1981;
Guardado et al. 1989; Dale & Lopes 1990).
The discovery of the Badejo Field (Campos Basin) in 1975 was
the first hydrocarbon discovery in the coquinas of the Lagoa Feia,
defined as a Formation by Shaller (in 1972, reported by Baumgarten
1985) and promoted to Group by Winter et al. (2007). This was
followed by the discovery of the Pampo and Linguado fields in 1978
(Baumgarten 1985; Baumgarten et al. 1988; Mohriak et al. 1990).
The literature published to date addresses descriptive and
environmental interpretation approaches to coquinas (Kidwell
Bed 2b, Morro do Chaves Formation
Porosity and permeability data were acquired along a single, metre-
scale, bed (Bed 2b: Figs 2 and 3) of the Morro do Chaves Formation
in the São Sebastião Quarry. The relative positions of horizontal (33
plugs) and vertical (six core plugs) profiles are shown in Figure 5.
Close-ups of Bed 2b (Fig. 6) reveal patches of faint texture and
downlapping surfaces that guided our selection of the core plug
locations. The cross-stratification is evidence that the coquinas were
deposited as lakewards- or lagoonwards-accreting bioclastic bars on
a shallow ramp in high-energy, shallow-water environments with
wave ripples pointing to an influence by wave oscillations

Table 1. Comparison of porosity and permeability data collected from the quarry previously (Câmara 2013) and the data from the current Bed 2b study

All data Bed 2b

Porosity (%) Permeability (mD) Porosity (%) Permeability (mD)

Arithmetic average 15 100 15 263
Geometrical average 14 26 15 141
Harmonic average 13 0.76 15 36
Standard deviation 4 143 2 262
Coefficient of variation 0.28 1.43 0.14 0.98
Number of samples 48 48 33 33
Sample tolerance (%) 8 41 5 34
Optimum samples (20%) 8 206 2 97
Optimum samples (50%) n/a 33 n/a 15
Minimum 5 0.1 9 4.6
Maximum 21 742 19 1346

It can be seen that the porosities are very similar but Bed 2b has significantly better permeability. The variability (refer to the coefficient of variation) is less in Bed 2b. We can conclude
that Bed 2b is representative of the porosity in the quarry but with better than average permeability.
108 P. W. M. Corbett et al.
(Thompson et al. 2015). The porosity and permeability values
(Fig. 7) within Bed 2b are largely consistent with other material
collected from the quarry (a total of 48 plugs were collected from a
variety locations and are further described in Câmara 2013), but
have more of the better-quality rock and none of the poorer rock
types. Analysis of the clustering of the porosity revealed subtle
geological features (‘candidate’ porosity-type defined system units
or ‘pods’ sensu Kazemi et al. 2012) that could be related to the
diagenetic overprinting of a primary depositional control (Estrella
2014; Tavares et al. 2015), and these trends were consistent with
fabrics observed in a parallel, and even more detailed, diagenetic
study that included 150 samples from various beds in the same
outcrop (Tavares 2014).
The variograms of porosity and permeability along the horizontal
transect (Fig. 8) show a moderate nugget and subtle repeating
Fig. 5. Details of Bed 2b (from the Morro
do Chaves Formation, NE Brazil)
showing: (a) the top and base of Bed 2b,
the drilling hole locations of horizontal
and vertical plug profiles measured within
the bed, and the accretionary surfaces
shown in close-up in Figure 6; and (b) the
variation in porosity clusters in a single
bed, (from Estrella 2014). The porosity
clusters (medium 10–15%; high
15–20%) show lateral variation at the
scale of 1 m or so along an 11 m profile.
Plug positions are identified by drill holes.
Note that further vertical profiles were
originally sampled but have not been
measured to date.
structure (a weak hole effect) at lag 3 (lag here is a sample spacing of
0.30 m) and repeating at lag 6 and lag 9 that identify a very short
horizontal correlation (c. 1 m) along the bed on the exposed section,
which is consistent with the presence of pods of different rock
properties. Holes in the variograms are attributed to repeating
geological structures that can affect flow (Pickup et al. 1995).
In the study area, the top of Bed 2b is generally marked by a
distinct shale. This shale is missing in places and in these intervals
the overlying coquina bed is directly in connection with Bed 2b.
This discontinuous nature of the shales occurs both within, and
lateral to, the studied profile. In this work, the discontinuous nature
of the interbedded shales has been ignored to simplify the reservoir
engineering models that concentrate on flow in the horizontal
direction, so vertical connectivity is less of an issue: however, it
remains the focus of further studies as it is expected to influence
Fig. 6. Close-up photographs of Bed 2b
showing (a) a region of the bed with
textural variation (solid arrow) that was
subsequently found to be of significantly
higher permeability and (b) an oblique
view showing clear accretionary surfaces
(dashed arrows: also in a).
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs
other reservoir characterization challenges, such as larger-scale
drainage patterns and particularly the inflow into horizontal wells.
Diagenesis of Bed 2b, Morro do Chaves Formation
The porosity in the Morro do Chaves coquinas of Bed 2b is strongly
influenced by diagenesis (Estrella 2014; Tavares et al. 2015). Three
stages lead to the final porosity observed, and have a great impact on
pore connectivity and permeability: (a) primary porosity preserva-
tion; (b) creation of secondary porosity; and (c) porosity
obliteration.
The primary porosity, rare in these rocks, is mainly preserved by
the precipitation of isopachous fringing cement that contributes to
the creation of a hard framework around the shells. Partial or total
early shallow burial freshwater dissolution of shells and matrix is the
major process responsible for the creation of secondary porosity.
Porosity obliteration occurs mainly by the precipitation of blocky
cement and mechanical compaction.
Estrella (2014) found that the less-sorted rock samples with more
small shell fragments (b & d in Fig. 9) have a higher porosity and
permeability due to a greater dissolution intensity. Conversely,
samples that contain larger shell fragments have low porosity and
permeability (Fig. 9a, c), as pore obliteration by cementation is the
dominant process.
In the higher porosity rock, the micrite is estimated to be about
20%. The preferential dissolution of micrite between the shells
contributed to the generation of secondary porosity. The many
fractures observed in the shells may have provided a pathway for the
reactive fluids, and facilitated the development of intraparticle and
vuggy pore types that enhance pore connectivity and which may
explain the higher permeability in this porosity system.
In the lower porosity and permeability rocks, the shells are mostly
unbroken and are associated with a micrite content of around 35%.
The micrite is recrystallized and well preserved, whereas the fringe
cement around the shells is poorly developed. In some cases, the
109
Fig. 7. Porosity–permeability data from
the Morro do Chaves Formation. (a) Data
from samples selected throughout the
quarry (Câmara 2013). (b) Data collected
from Bed 2b and used in this study. Note
a similar range of petrophysical properties
found in the single bed as found
throughout the quarry, barring the poor-
quality GHE 3 and GHE 4 material. Bed
2b has more good-quality GHE 7
reservoir than has been found elsewhere in
the quarry and the reasons for this
intrabed variability are discussed further
in the text. The Global Hydraulic Element
(GHE) banding from GHE 1, lower left,
to GHE 10, top right, is consistent in this
and subsequent plots (Figs 12, 21) as
defined in Corbett & Potter (2014) after
Amaefule et al. 1993).
shell edges are dissolved and the shell space filled with later calcite
cement. Primary porosity is rarely preserved. The dissolution
appears to have been shell-selective as the main pore type is
intraparticle, which explains the poor pore connection and,
therefore, the lower permeability (Estrella 2014).
In these coquinas, because of this diagenetic history, there are
dramatic changes in permeability with little change in porosity, and
this is why two petrophysical rock types have been identified in
what is, essentially, one geological type of rock.
Hamelin Coquina, Shark Bay
The interpretation of Google Earth images guided by the published
work of Playford et al. (2013) was used to identify an appropriate
model for the coquina ridges at the southern end of Shark Bay
(Fig. 10a). In close-up view (Fig. 10b), the presence of ridges can be
seen and these are highlighted in Figure 10c. GPR profiles across the
same ridge system in the Hamelin Coquinas (Jahnert et al. 2012)
have shown it to be a laterally accretionary system, with storm
processes responsible for the accumulation of metre-scale sheets of
coquinas (Fig. 10c). Both the scale of the beds and the accretionary
dipping surfaces seen in the Hamelin Coquinas are similar to those
observed in the Morro de Chaves Formation. The different age and
nature of the two molluscan faunas might be significant: however,
the settings of the storm-dominated low-angle ramps share many
depositional characteristics. Complete bivalves are found in the
Hamelin Coquina, where they have been observed to seal and float
with the aid of the internal gas produced by the decay of the flesh on
death (Playford et al. 2013). Similar bivalves have been observed, as
internal moulds of intact bivalves, in the upper part of several beds
in the Morro de Chaves Formation, including Bed 2b (Fig. 11a, b).
Reservoir engineering study
The subtle lateral variability in properties observed in the field was
quantified by the plug data and the holes detected in the resulting
110 P. W. M. Corbett et al.
Fig. 8. Variogram in the horizontal direction for the porosity and
permeability in Bed 2B, Morro do Chaves Formation. Both sets of data
show similar spatial correlation, with the presence of a hole (where the
trend drops) at 1 m (i.e. at lag 3, with each lag at a distance of 0.3 m, and
the feature is repeated at lag 6 and 9), which is consistent with the
repeating pods of lateral property ( porosity and permeability) variation.
The variogram (Gamma) has been normalized by dividing by the
variance, so that porosity and permeability variogram values are
dimensionless on this plot with the sill expected at a gamma value of
unity (refer to Jensen et al. 2000).
porosity and permeability variograms (Fig. 8). Holes in variograms
of permeability suggest cyclicity and can affect fluid flow (Pickup
et al. 1995), and previous discussions have emphasized the need to
consider these characteristics carefully in reservoir modelling
(Jensen & Corbett 2001) as they indicate the presence of repeating
geological objects. Horizontal profiles of plug data are rarely
acquired, and therefore variograms and cyclicity in the horizontal
direction are rarely available for consideration – especially in
carbonates. The image shown in Figure 10c can be used as a training
image for multipoint geostatistics, but can also be modelled using an
object modelling approach with varying orientations of the objects.
Object modelling was chosen to build the geological model and to
guide the distribution of petrophysical properties (Fig. 12) because
it is better suited to capturing small-scale features, and repeating
structures, than other geostatistical models (Corbett et al. 2012a;
Kazemi et al. 2012).
Lorenz plots (Jensen et al. 2000) were used to compare
cumulative porosity v. cumulative permeability and indicated that
the system was heterogeneous, with 70% of the flow expected to
come from only 40% of the total porosity (Fig. 13a). A Modified
Lorenz Plot (Gunter et al. 1997) computed within Bed 2b along the
sampled section shows zones of high and low transmissivity to the
left and right of the line of equality, respectively (Fig. 13b).
The vertical to horizontal permeability (kv/kh) ratio at the grid
block was considered to be 0.15, which is considered a reasonable
grid-block-scale average. Where studies of kv/kh have been
undertaken in the coquinas of the Morro do Chaves Formation at
the plug scale (Câmara 2013) many samples were found to be
isotropic, except for laminated fabrics (where kv/kh = 0.2).
Two types of reservoir engineering simulation responses were
investigated: the response to a simple waterflood scheme (where
different orientations could examine the likely areal anisotropy of
the system); and the response under a well test drawdown
(omnidirectional response to a single production point).
Waterflooding: two-phase flow simulation
For two-phase (i.e. oil flowing in the presence of water) flow
simulation, a set of capillary pressure curves (Fig. 14) was used to
initialize the oil–water saturation in the model. For the engineering
model, the two main clusters of permeability (consistent with
having two contrasting capillary pressure curves) were used to
define the background and object properties (Fig. 15) – the objects
reflecting the depositional contrasts seen in Bed 2b and explained by
the diagenetic study of being primarily of diagenetic origin,
overprinting a primary structure.
We used the training image (in Fig. 10c) to guide the building of a
two-facies model (Shoeir 2014). The two ‘facies’ required by the
modelling software were defined by the two different rock type clusters
(Fig. 15).
The Global Hydraulic Element (GHE) basemap (Corbett & Potter
2004) was used to help separate petrophysical rock types for use in this
study. Two capillary pressure curves were generated from an average
laboratory J-curve (Archer & Wall 1986), determined from a set of
mercury injection curves on samples from the Morro do Chaves
Quarry, and appropriate for these two porosity–permeability clusters.
The porosity–permeability samples occurred across three different
Fig. 9. Photomicrographs showing the
variation in porosity classes in a single
bed from the Morro do Chaves Formation,
NE Brazil: (a) & (b) show coquina shells
(×1.25 magnification, scale bar 2 mm); (c)
& (d) show the space between the
bioclasts (×2.5, 1 mm). (a) & (c) Low-
porosity group (<12% porosity and
<1 mD); (b) & (d) high-porosity group
(>12% porosity and up to 1392 mD)
(Estrella 2014).
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs 111

Fig. 10. Google Earth image (May 2014) from the southern end of
Hamelin Pool, Western Australia showing: (a) the location of the training
image area; (b) details of the coquina ridge system; and (c) interpretation
of the ridge system showing an interpretation of elongate ridge bodies
aligned sub-parallel to the shoreline. Such an interpretation can be used as
a training image for object or multipoint geostatistical modelling. The
washover bar facies is identified landwards of the tabular layers/ridges
intervals, and with transgression and aggradation of the system will form
the inter-coquina facies.

GHE populations (GHEs 5, 6 and 7: see Fig. 12), suggesting the need
for a further subdivision into three or more rock types. However,
following consideration of the amount of data available, it was decided
to proceed with two. There is great potential for confusion between the
terms facies (either depositional or diagenetic, or both), petrophysical
rock typing (including GHEs) and the facies definition used in
geomodelling, particularly in carbonates, and whilst this study was
aware of the problem, it was too limited to address the problem in
detail. The two rock types used were: (1) the lower reservoir quality
with GHE 5, called the background (‘Facies’ 2 in the geological
model); and (2) the higher reservoir quality with GHEs 6 and 7 as the
high reservoir quality rock type (essentially a pod of ‘Facies 1’ in the
geological model). Assigning rock types to the ‘facies’ structure of the
Fig. 11. Details of Bed 2b of the Morro do Chaves Formation. (a) & (b)
Complete mollusc shells preserved in the upper third of the bed, and (c)
details of the shale defining the top of Bed 2b.
software is one of the challenges and is purely a petrophysical-driven
choice that is required in order to model this system as two distinct
elements. A statistical analysis of Facies 1 and Facies 2 is shown in
Table 2, and these form the basis of the reservoir modelling.
As there were no hard laboratory, two-phase flow experimental
data available for this formation, and following a commonly applied
reservoir engineering procedure in outcrop studies (Ringrose et al.
1993), the relative permeability curves were generated using the
Brooks–Corey method (Shoeir 2014).
112 P. W. M. Corbett et al.
Fig. 12 Classification of two rock type clusters for porosity and permeability
data of the reservoir engineering study of Bed 2b. Rock type cluster 1
comprises GHEs 6 and 7 (i.e. the objects in the object modelling), and GHE
5 forms the background rock type. Rock type cluster 1 (Pod 1) has an
average porosity of 15.6% and a permeability of 246 mD; rock type cluster 2
(Pod 2), 13% and 17.5 mD, respectively. These rock type clusters correspond
to the pods identified in the lower part of Figure 5 (for a definition of GHE,
refer to Corbett & Potter 2004). For more details refer to Figure 7.
The base case wettability for the dynamic model was chosen to be
oil-wet. Oil-wet was chosen as a starting point, but to evaluate the
wettability effect of the rocks on the water flooding, other curves for
water-wet and mixed-wet were also generated. Table 3 shows the
end-point assumptions for constructing the relative permeability
curves using Brooks–Corey method.
It is not possible from the training image (Fig. 10c) to determine
which element is the good-quality rock type and which was the poor
quality type. A sensitivity analysis was carried out on different
models based on exchanging the rock types whilst retaining
the depositional pattern. From the training image (Fig. 10c), the
interpreted black coloured objects will be referred to as pods (i.e. the
higher permeability rock type) in the (relatively poorer quality)
background, and this is the basis for the geological facies model
(Fig. 15). There are no shales modelled within the coquina layers.
Fig. 13. Heterogeneity within Bed 2b illustrated by (a) a Lorenz Plot and
(b) a Modified Lorenz Plot shows the cumulative porosity against
cumulative horizontal permeability thickness (normalized by total porosity
and permeability thickness, respectively) along the Bed 2b profile in the
Morro do Chaves Formation. In the Lorenz Plot (a) the data are ordered
by highest to lowest permeability, whereas in the Modified Lorenz Plot
(b) the data are ordered by location along the profile showing clusters (the
pods) of higher permeabilities (refer to Jensen et al. 2000).
The conceptual static model consisted of two 9 m layers of
coquina reservoir separated by a 2 m layer of shale. Several 3D
models were built for an area of 500 × 500 m, which was selected as
a representative inter-well scale. Model 1 contains 800 000 cells
(2.5 × 2.5 × 5 m) and then upscaled to 200 000 cells (Model 2), and
a third model was built directly with 200 000 cells (5 × 5 × 5 m)
(Model 3). The scale of the grid blocks and the scale of the model
beds were somewhat larger than the physical dimensions of Bed 2b
(Fig. 16) as they are controlled to some degree by the area selected
and the need to stay within a reasonable total number of grid cells,
with the time and computing resources available to this study.
However, the exact cell dimensions are not critical for effective
flow, except in studies to capture the effects of capillary forces,
which are beyond the scope of the current study.
Object modelling was the algorithm used to model the different rock
type distribution. The frequency of the pods chosen initially (models 1–
 different rock type clusters identified in Figure 12.

no upscaling; and (d) Model 4 has 200 000 cells with object density
Chaves Formation. Experimental mercury injection data were used to
generate two different Leverett J-curves (Archer & Wall 1986) for the

(Fig. 10). Refer to the text for descriptions of the different models: (a)
Fig. 15 The object model of a coquina ridge system showing the ridge

increased to 45%. There are no shales within the coquina layers shown.
to 200 000 cells; (c) Model 3 is a directly built 200 000 cell model with
Model 1, base case 800 000 cell model; (b) Model 2 is Model 1 upscaled
objects and background guided by the interpretation of the training image
Fig. 14. Capillary pressure curves for different rock types in the Morro do

Table 2. Breakdown of the porosity and permeability data from Bed 2b into two ‘Facies’ for geomodelling (the software recognizes them as facies but they are defined on petrophysical grounds as clusters of Global Hydraulic
Elements: Corbett & Potter 2004)

Model ‘Facies’ 1 (GHEs 6 and 7) Model ‘Facies’ 2 (GHE 5)

Porosity (%) Permeability (mD) Porosity (%) Permeability (mD)

Arithmetic average 15.6 323 13.0 56
Geometrical average 15.5 246 12.8 17.5
Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs

Harmonic average 15.4 183 12.5 9

Standard deviation 1.7 259 2 94
Coefficient of variation 0.11 0.8 0.18 1.7
Number of samples 26 26 7 7
Sample tolerance (%) 4 31 14 128
Optimum samples (20%) 1 64 2 285

Facies 1 comprises GHEs 6 and 7, and Facies 2 comprises GHE 5. Note that the sample size for GHE 5 is very small and that is why the sample tolerance is high. Sample tolerances in carbonates will always be higher and more samples required than might be seen in
sandstones (Corbett & Jensen 2000).
113
114 P. W. M. Corbett et al.
Table 3. Relative permeability parameters for end-points to water (krw) and
oil (kro)
Wettability krw max kro max
Oil-wet 0.6 0.5
Mixed wet 0.4 0.5
Water-wet 0.2 0.5
3) was 35% of the reservoir, and a trend was applied to define the
orientation that was to be representative of the training image, as shown
in Figure 15. The higher permeability elements are elongated parallel to
the shoreline, but not continuous over the scale of the model.
Model 2 was upscaled from Model 1, using the arithmetic
average by changing each cell from 5 to 10 m, but without
decreasing the layering to ensure that the vertical heterogeneities
were captured. Because of the expected low connectivity between
the pods, an additional facies model was generated (Model 4) to
evaluate the effect of the connectivity of pods on the fluid flow. The
connectivity between the pods was increased by increasing the
frequency of the pods from 35 to 45% (Fig. 15).
Two approaches were used to model porosity and permeability:
(a) each facies was assigned constant values of porosity and
permeability, according to the averages determined from the data;
and (b) Sequential Gaussian Simulation (SGS) was employed, a
pixel modelling algorithm that samples the permeability distribution
in each facies (Fig. 16). Background and pod porosities and
permeabilities (poro–perm) were alternated as one of the sensitivities.
Input data and output histograms were reviewed for quality control.
To start the sensitivity analysis, a base case was chosen for
simulation. The static model chosen for the base case was Model 3
(100 × 100 × 20 cell model) because, owing its lower number of
cells (200 000 cells), it would help in quicker simulation and due to
the property distribution was comparable to the 800 000 cell model.
The porosity and permeability models chosen for the base case were
the high poro-perm pods that are distributed using Sequential
Gaussian Simulation. The wettability chosen for the base case was
oil-wet. The oil column height above the Free Water Level (FWL)
chosen for simulation as the base case was 200 ft (60.1m) (and the
sensitivity to a different FWL). Table 4 summarizes all the
assumptions of the base case and any changes to these parameters
are mentioned individually for each case. The waterflooding scheme
for the base case is shown in Figure 17. The analysis of the base case
and the sensitivities will be discussed in the next section.
In order to evaluate the reservoir performance and the fluid flow
process, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on the recovery factor
Fig. 16. Sequential Gaussian Simulation (a) was used to produce the permeability model from a porosity base model with a 3D view showing the layered
nature of the model (b). There is a vertical exaggeration of 25-fold and the higher permeability facies are effectively modelled as narrow cylinders.
and the breakthrough time. A base case was defined, as mentioned
previously, and nine different scenarios were examined. Table 5 and
Figure 18 show the range of sensitivities of different parameters on
the recovery factor.
The descriptions of all scenarios that were simulated for the
sensitivity analysis are shown in Table 5. The location of the system
within an oil column (i.e. height above the FWL) was found to be
the most sensitive parameter on the reservoir performance, the initial
oil in place and the breakthrough time. However, the case
highlighted in this paper was to consider the sensitivity to flood
orientation. Not having a specific producing field to study, this
attempt to quantify the anisotropy is considered most relevant to
geologists as the depositional model used in the training image
suggests significant anisotropy.
To estimate the effects of the well location on the sweep
efficiency, four scenarios with vertical wells at different locations
showed that the sweeping efficiency is higher when the fluid flow is
parallel to the pods (Figs 19 and 20), but the difference in recovery
factor is just 1%: in addition, the breakthrough times are not too
different, but this difference can be much greater if low-
permeability pods were more connected, causing barriers to fluid
flow (i.e. with high-permeability pods being less connected).
Clearly, many more scenarios can be considered, but orientation
appears to be less important than high-porosity–high-permeability
pod connectivity. The models suggest that there is limited fingering
owing of the relatively small scale and high density of the high-
permeability pods. A model that assumes more diagenetic
variability and large-scale, less densely distributed pods of high
permeability would show more fingering.
Geological well testing: single-phase flow simulation
To consider well test responses to a coquina system, a slightly
different engineering approach to modelling was undertaken, and
this work is described fully in Morales (2014). Bed 2b is
approximately 1 m thick and, whilst it might be appropriate to
consider flooding a single bed, a well test is most likely to test a
package of beds consisting of alternating tabular layers and ridges
and washovers (Figs 21, 22 and 23). In the previous section, the
effect of the low-permeability washovers was not considered.
Figure 2 shows that the coquina sequence is highly layered and this
is reflected in the model (Fig. 23). Because the internal layering also
controls vertical cross-flow (Corbett et al. 2012b), it is important
also to include the beds between the coquinas, which could be either
low-permeability or shale (effectively baffles or barriers to vertical
flow).
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs 115

Table 4. Engineering property assumptions for the dynamic two-phase flow simulations

Dynamic model assumptions

Static model information Reservoir properties
Model number Model 3 STOIP (Sm3) 485 991
Number of cells 200 000
Rock and fluid properties Reservoir pore volume (Rm3) 658 014
Number of phases 2 Reservoir pressure (bar) 300
Oil density (kg m–3) 801 Bubble point pressure (bar) 10
Water density (kg m–3) 1000 Maximum BHP (bar) 400
Water compressibility (bar−1) 4.3 × 10–5 Minimum BHP (bar) 20
Rock compressibility (bar−1) 5.8 × 10–5 Reservoir depth (m) 1200
Oil formation volume factor 1.25
at bubble point pressure (m3 Sm3)
Base case assumptions and results
FWL depth (m) 1280.96 Simulation period (days) 3000
Vertical permeability ratio 0.15 Recovery factor 0.4
Wettability Oil Wet
Number of wells 2 Breakthrough time (days) 1558
Well trajectory Vertical
Injection rate (Sm3/day) 100 IPV at breakthrough 0.236
Production rate (Sm3/day) 100
3 3
BHP, bottom hole pressure; FWL, Free Water Level; IPV, injected pore volume; Rm , reservoir cubic metre; Sm , standard cubic metre; STOIP (Stock Tank Oil in Place).

The same training image for the Shark Bay area (Fig. 10) was
used to define the likely distribution of a washover facies, landwards
of the ridge system, that represents the intra-coquina bed facies and,
thereby, honours the vertical description made by Jahnert et al.
(2012). Table 6 is a summary of the values used in the facies model.
Porosity and permeability distribution in these models was
derived from the dataset from the whole quarry, combining all the
data available (Fig. 21) from outside Bed 2b (Fig. 7 left) and the data
within Bed 2b (Fig. 7 right). From these data, it was possible to
identify further petrophysical clusters with certain GHE numbers.
As previously seen in Bed 2b, but for the well testing study termed
slightly differently, the ‘tabular facies’ layers were considered high
permeability with GHEs 6 and 7, the ‘convex-up ridges’ with
medium-permeability values related to GHE 5, and the washover
facies (located shorewards of the ridges (Fig. 10c) and interbedded
with the ridges) identified with GHE 4 and GHE 3. Assigning
specific names to these facies is somewhat pragmatic and arbitrary,
and driven by observations from the Hammelin Coquina, as the
larger-scale facies variations have not yet been defined and mapped
in the Morro do Chaves Formation.

Fig. 17. The basic model configuration with wells in opposing corners and a waterflood from right to left: (a) initial condition, 0 days; (b) 750 days; (c) 1500 days;
and (d) 2250 days (c. 34% pore volume injected). Cells are 5m × 5m × 1m in x, y and z. The model is 500m square and the wells approximately 710m apart.
116 P. W. M. Corbett et al.

Table 5. Matrix showing a number of scenarios investigated for the two-phase flow simulations for waterflooding scenarios with vertical wells

Simulated scenarios for the sensitivity analysis

Base case
Base reservoir height above FWL 200ft
Wettability Oil-wet
Well trajectory Vertical
Model algorithm and heterogeneity High poro–perm pods using SGS
Grid cell number 200 000
Vertical/horizontal permeability ratio 0.15
Producer well location NE
Injector well location SW
Simulation case name Scenario
Sensitivity to height above FWL
FWL_30 Change of height above FWL to 30 ft (9.1 m)
FWL_50 Change of height above FWL to 50 ft (15.2 m)
FWL_100 Change of height above FWL to 100 ft (30.5 m)
FWL_200 Base case
FWL_300 Change of height above FWL to 300 ft (91.4 m)
Wettability sensitivity
OIL_WET Base Case
MIXED_WET Change from Oil Wet to Mixed Wet
WATER_WET Change from Oil Wet to Water Wet
Upscaling sensitivity
200K_MODEL Base Case
800K_MODEL Model built with 800 000 cells
200K_UPSCALED Model upscaled from 800 000 to 200 000 cells
Modelling algorithm and heterogeneity sensitivity
UNIFORM_LOW_PORO_PERM_PODS Pods with low reservoir quality assigned constant values
UNIFORM_HIGH_PORO_PERM_PODS Pods with high reservoir quality assigned constant values
HIGH_PORO_PERM_PODS Pods with high reservoir quality assigned using SGS
LOW_PORO_PERM_PODS Pods with low reservoir quality assigned using SGS
HIGH_PORO_PERM_PODS_MORE_CONNECTED More connected pods (45%) with high reservoir quality assigned using SGS
LOW_PORO_PERM_PODS_MORE_CONNECTED More connected pods (45%) with high reservoir quality assigned using SGS
Well location sensitivity
NE_PROD_100_1 Base case (vertical production in the NE (100,1))
NW_PROD_1_1 Base case (vertical production in the NW (1,1))
SE_PROD_100_100 Base case (vertical production in the SE (100,100))
SW_PROD_1_100 Base case (vertical production in the at SW (1,100))

Simulated Gaussian Simulation (SGS) samples a distribution of properties, rather than average values. The term pods refers to petrophysical rock type clusters being modelled using
facies option in the software – not necessarily true geological facies – as discussed further in the text.

Well testing is affected by high permeability around the well.
However, the lateral extent of these pods is very small, so the
signature response of limited high-permeability zones (negative
geoskin: Corbett et al. 1996; Lipovesky 2013) may be absent or
masked because of the limited extent, and this new work intends to
look at a multi-layered model using this new lateral profile. Porosity
and permeability properties were modelled from probability
distribution functions. Figure 22 shows the histogram for porosity
Fig. 18 Tornado diagram showing the sensitivity to various cases
evaluated (discussed further in the text). Low is to the left of a base case
40% recovery factor line and High is to the right.
and permeability of the coquina layer (tabular layer + convex-up
ridges) and the calcilutite layer (washover, Jahnert et al. 2012).
To investigate how different geological parameters affect the
transient pressure response, different model realizations were built
and a concise description of this model realization can be seen in
Figure 23. Initially, geological parameters were changed in a three-
layer model, which consists of two coquina layers with one non-
reservoir layer (washover or calcilutite) in-between to identify the
effect of each more easily (Fig. 23b). Parameters, such as size and
direction (values are displayed in Table 6), are varied to imitate the
shoreline migration, and the percentages of convex-up ridges/
tabular layers ratio were changed in the reservoir layer from 20 to
50% (Fig. 24). At the same time, the poro–perm distribution was
changed in the non-reservoir layer from washover facies distribution
to shale vertical-flow baffle (w = 5% and k = 0.0001 mD). The
variation in permeability with the changes in the aforementioned
parameters can be seen in Figure 24. Two reservoir layers were
selected based on the most heterogeneous realization from the first
step, with different a geobody direction and variable size, and one
non-reservoir layer in-between them with a washover poro–perm
distribution. The sensitivities of the number of layers and the
completion interval were then studied.
Finally, the simple geomodel was expanded to study the effect of
non-coquina layer interbeds on the average permeability and the
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs 117

Fig. 20 Production curves for the sensitivity to direction (the cases in

Fig. 19) showing the delayed breakthrough when flooding towards the
NW. The recovery of oil is similar in both directions, but the sweep is
marginally better in the SW–NE direction. FOE, field oil equivalent
production; FWCT, field water cut total; FWIT, field water injected total.

Fig. 19. Simulated reservoir engineering responses in the geological–

petrophysical models shown in Figure 15 for different injection–
production pairs at 1500 days. (a) Waterflood simulations of a coquina
system showing that a more restrained sweep will occur with flooding,
from a vertical injector to a vertical producer well at opposing corners of
the model, across the beach ridges (a), while a more fingering approach is
seen when flooding along the beach-ridge direction (b).

pressure response for the cases where the whole interval is completed
or single layers on the top and the middle of the interval are open to
flow. Likewise, an illustration of the representative cases (one-, three-
and seven-layer models) of the facies and permeability distribution, and
the pressure front distribution (south view), can be seen in Figure 23.

Geological well testing constraints

For flow simulation and transient pressure response, a commercial
black oil simulator was used. The dynamic model size was the same
as the static model due to the possibility of the upscaling process
introducing unwanted numerical dispersion. The reservoir was
Fig. 21 Porosity–permeability data for the Morro do Chaves Formation
showing definition of tabular layers and ridges with relatively high
porosity (>10%) and high permeability contrast, and the washovers, which
in these models will have relatively low porosity (<10%) and
permeability. For more details refer to Figure 7.
118 P. W. M. Corbett et al.

Fig. 22. Porosity–permeability distributions for the three elements in the model used to assign petrophysical properties (using Simulated Gaussian
Simulation) to the initial object model for the geological well testing simulations.

assumed to be 60% oil-saturated with an irreducible water saturation
of 40%: thus, only the oil phase was flowing due to it being driven
by a depletion mechanism. The initial reservoir pressure was set to
300 bar (4350 psi) and the bubble point pressure to 100 bar
(2175 psi). Oil density and viscosity was set to 801 kg m–3
and 2 cP, respectively. With the well test response constituting
the purpose of this study, a single relative permeability curve was
used. This was set to restrict water flow and to allow single-phase
flow. The total formation compressibility was calculated at
2 × 10−5 bar−1.

Fig. 23. Various layered models subjected to geological well testing simulations. For these models, a basic Bed 2b layer realization has been stacked (equal
thickness layers) as it is unlikely that a single bed would be well tested in isolation. In this way, the effect of the layers between the coquina beds with low-
permeability washover or zero-permeability shale can be tested. The top rows show the ridge/layer model for: (a) single Bed 2b; (b) double Bed 2b layer,
separated by a single washover layer; and (c) four Bed 2b layer model with three interbedded washover layers. The upper shows the facies (convex-up ridges/
Tabular/washover) distribution of each model, the centre shows the porosity and permeability distribution and the lower shows a section through the pressure field
around a single producing well. The no-flow boundaries above and below ensure that the effective flow is radial before the boundaries of the model are reached.
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs 119

Initially, the model was calibrated for a homogeneous and

isotropic reservoir, with permeability values equivalent to the
geometrical and harmonic average from core data to set the
boundaries of the expected pressure response. Likewise, the grid
area surrounding the well was refined, decreasing the cell size from
5 × 5 × 1 to 1 × 1 × 1 m in order to decrease the numerical
dispersion. Both Cartesian and radial grid refinements were
applied: however, the Cartesian grid refinement was ultimately for
a local grid chosen 10 m around the well (two coarse grid cells from
the well position). Wellbore storage and skin effect were set to zero
or negligible to replicate a downhole shut-in with no formation
damage.

Geological well testing results

Fig. 24. Variation in size and density of ridges (refer to Table 6 and
Morales 2014 for more details) in the coquina (Bed 2b) layer. These
variations are taken to illustrate how some uncertainty in these properties
in the model could be handled by a sensitivity study. Lighter shades
indicate higher permeability.
Flow simulations were performed for a well located in the centre
of the model at a fixed production rate of 500 m3/day. This was
selected based on consideration of the pore size of the model. The
well location was not changed because the purpose of the study was
not to evaluate the pressure response to a flow restriction
(boundary): in addition, the well trajectory may cross low- and
high-permeability zones at the same time owing to the distribution
of porosity and permeability in the model.
Well test simulations were performed systematically on each of the
built geomodel realizations (Figs 24 and 25). The simulations were
run for 240 h in order to see the boundaries of the model. The
transient pressure response was analysed in commercial well testing
software to define a radial homogeneous and closed-system model
in order to allow a global characterization of the reservoir response
and the influence of the averaging process of the well test analysis
(Fig. 26).
The basic objective of the geological well test analysis was the
calculation of the average effective permeability of the complete
model, which is calculated from the derivative plateau response
(Corbett et al. 2012a, b). Therefore, the primary purpose of
simulated pressure data is to determine the impact of geological
parameters.
The analysis of the effect of the variation on different geological
parameters is easiest when the reservoir heterogeneity is low. For
this reason, initial analysis was performed in a small geomodel
(three-layer model), which was modified as a series of sensitivities
(Morales 2014). Figure 25 shows the influence of reservoir

Table 6. Parameters used in the geological models for the well testing scenarios

Facies Azimuth Dip (°) Thickness (m) Major/minor ratio Minor width (m)
Tabular layers 0 10 Background
Convex-up ridges Following trend 20 3 10–40–55 (triangular) 5–5–15 (triangular)
Washovers–calcilutites 0 2 1000 1000

Fig. 25. Plan view of the well test simulation in the models of the Morro do Chaves Formation: (a) radial homogeneous case to the left and (b) a more anisotropic
areal view to the right. In each panel the pressure immediately around the well is lowest and effects of anisotropy and heterogeneity can be clearly seen.
120 P. W. M. Corbett et al.
Fig. 26. Simulated well test (WT) responses in the models of the Morro do Chaves Formation. Completion of different numbers of layers in the model
resulted in different effective permeabilities: (a) the more layers completed increases the permeability thickness but corresponds to a reduction in effective
permeability (shown by the direction of the arrow, K); (b) where there is partial completion of just the top layer; and (c) the middle layer only, the changes
in the pressure build-up (upper sets of curves) and the derivative (lower sets of curves) can be clearly seen. The pressure derivatives all turn up at the end as
the model boundaries are encountered (for more on geological well testing refer to Corbett et al. 2012a, b).
heterogeneities on the pressure-front movement. The effect of the
shape, size and distribution of the geobodies on the pressure front
can be clearly seen. For the homogeneous reservoir, pressure front
travels radially from the well location (left-hand diagram in Fig. 25),
while the presence of a high–low permeability contrast (hetero-
geneities) deviates the radial shape to an elliptic shape depending on
the size and distribution of different facies.
After analysing the small model pressure response and finding
which geological parameter had the greatest influence on the small
model, transient pressure analysis was performed on geomodel
realizations where the number of layers (from a single layer up to
seven layers) and the completion interval was changed (see Morales
2014 for more details). Figure 26 shows the average permeability
value and the derivative log–log plot for each realization case. In
addition, Figure 27 presents the permeability value variation against
the weighted geometrical and arithmetic average.
It can be interpreted that average permeability derived from the
well test analysis decreases as the number of layers increases. At the
same time, it gets slightly closer to the weighted geometrical
average value. In addition, it can be inferred that if a trend line is
plotted, the permeability flattens to a value of around 90 mD. This is
significantly lower that the arithmetic average permeability of Bed
2b (263 mD) and lower than the geometrical average (143 mD),
confirming the effects of the disconnected porosity in the lateral
direction. Coquina layers are not likely to have constant lateral
Fig. 27. Effective permeability from averaging properties compared with
calculation from the interpretation of radial flow in the geological well test
simulation. In these models, the effective well test permeability for the
washover model (identified as Washover) and no permeability between the
layers (No Perm) lies between the geometrical (Geo Avg) and harmonic
averages (Harm Avg) of the model.
properties and this will affect (negatively) the effective
permeability.
Correspondingly, when the reservoir is producing from the top
layer, then the average permeability value is dominated by the
permeability on the completed layer and decreases in the same
manner as when producing from all layers. However, if the reservoir
is producing from the middle layer, then the average permeability is
strongly affected by the number of layers in the model. It reflects the
effect of the commingled flow within the reservoir layers.
Conclusions
The modelling of a coquina beach-ridge system that combines the
petrophysical properties from an ancient analogue, the Cretaceous
Morro do Chaves Formation (NE Brazil), with the architecture of
the Holocene Hamelin Coquina (Western Australia) led to the
following summary observations:
• Well-defined lateral variability in permeability is observed at
the metre-scale in the Morro do Chaves Formation. Porosity
variation is low but permeability variation is significant,
suggesting the presence of two alternating rock types in a
single depositional facies (coquina).
• The current understanding of the diagenetic history suggests
that the existence of a subtle primary depositional control
(original finer-grained material has been preferentially
dissolved and coarser material preferentially cemented),
rather than a distinct change of facies, results in this pattern
of alternating petrophysical rock types
• Primary depositional structures are interpreted with the help
of a modern-day analogue elongated along an ancient beach-
ridge system as a series of interdigitating lenses
• If the diagenetic alteration and permeability also follow the
primary depositional trends as we have modelled, a degree
of preferential flow anisotropy (along the palaeo-shoreline)
is likely. The reservoir simulation flow models shows less
fingering than might be expected in heterogeneous carbo-
nates, and this is probably the result of the relatively
stationary (i.e. consistent over the area of the model) small-
scale variability. The presence of more extensive and less
ubiquitous elements of higher permeability would lead to
more fingering.
• Effective permeabilities, as measured in a synthetic well test
that also shows an anisotropic pressure response, will lie
between the geometrical and harmonic averages of the core
plug data. This observation could have implications for the
future interpretation of well test data in a coquina reservoir,
 Modelling characteristics of coquina reservoirs
and the positioning of production and injection wells in field
development plans.
Many issues remain to be investigated following on from such an
outcrop-based analogue study: the appropriateness of the chosen
analogue for geological depositional and diagenetic frameworks of
coquina reservoirs; the scale (i.e. lateral extension) of the preserved
high-porosity and high-permeability elements; and the nature of the
interbedded shales. All of these might have a stronger influence on
the fluid flow, even if significantly different to what we have
observed to date.
The models presented here are useful in guiding the sampling and
modelling of coquinas for reservoir simulation purposes. From the
results of this study, there does not appear to be a 1:1 mapping of
porosity and permeability variation onto primary depositional
facies. In order to distribute properties in the modelling software that
calls for ‘facies’, this study has defined pods of porosity–
permeability clusters to represent the petrophysical rock types –
and these appear to be at sub-facies scale in Bed 2b of the Morro do
Chaves Formation.
To improve the understanding of coquinas for use in reservoir
characterization requires: (1) more geological and petrophysical
data, particularly in 3D (as investigated by Garcia et al. 2015); (2)
more quantification of additional analogues, with further palaeo-
environmental studies to judge similarities and differences; (3) more
understanding of the sedimentary processes affecting coquina
fabrics; (4) more understanding of the deeper burial diagenesis of
the Morro de Chaves and extrapolation to deep subsurface where the
diagenetic sequence is likely to be different; and (5) more
understanding of the influence of oil charge on the petrophysical
properties in coquinas. These are just some of the issues from a long
list of further work required to make these models even more useful
in the development of coquina reservoirs.
Acknowledgements and Funding
This work was carried out during the ongoing SACL (Sergipe–Alagoas
Carbonate Laboratory) Project at UFRJ, registered as ‘Análise geológica
sedimentar de sucessões carbonáticas cretácias em uma bacia sedimentar
brasileira’ (Fundação Coppetec proj. IGEO 15.981; UFRJ/BG Brasil/ANP)
funded by BG Brasil under the ANP R&D levy as ‘Compromisso de
Investimentos com Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento’. Patrick Corbett was funded
by the BG Group for a 2 year assignment in UFRJ in connection with the SACL
project. The support of Cimpor Quarries was fundamental, and Christianne Acioli
and Aline Goes are thanked for their help and support. Schlumberger
Geoengineering and Research Centre in Rio (Esperanza Noriega and Eudes
Muniz) are acknowledged for their support with the plugging and carrying out the
petrophysical measurements. Schlumberger and Weatherford are acknowledged
for provision of software. Tommy Scott and David Egya assisted in the
preparation of figures. Art Saller and Donatella Astratti are acknowledged as their
contributions have greatly improved the paper.
References
Abrahão, D. 1987. Lacustrine and associated deposits in a rifted continental-
margin: The Lagoa Feia Formation, Lower Cretaceous, Campos Basin,
Offshore Brazil. Masters Degree of Science (Geology). Colorado School of
Mines, Golden, CO.
Abrahão, D. & Warme, J.E. 1990. Lacustrione and associated deposits in a rifted
continental margin – Lower Cretaceous Lagoa Feia Formation, Campos Basin,
offshore Brazil. In: Katz, B.J. (ed.) Lacustrine Basin Exploration, Case
Studies and Modern Analogs. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Memoirs, 50, 287–305.
Akbar, M., Steckhan, J., Tamimi, M., Zhang, T. & Saner, S. 2008. Estimating
cementation factor (m) for carbonates using borehole images and logs. Paper
presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, 3–6 November 2008, Abu Dhabi, UAE, http://dx.doi.org/10.
2118/117786-MS
Amaefule, J.O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D.G. & Keelan, D.K. 1993.
Enhanced reservoir description: using core and log data to identify hydraulic
(flow) units and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells. Paper
presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 3–6
October 1993, Houston, TX, USA, http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26436-MS
Archer, J.S. & Wall, C.G. 1986. Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice.
Graham & Trotman, London.
121
Azambuja Filho, N.C., Arienti, L.M. & Cruz, F.E.G. 1998. Guidebook to the Rift-
Drift Sergipe–Alagoas, Passive Margin Basin, Brazil. The 1998 American
Association of Petroleum Geologists International Conference and
Exhibition, Roteiro de Excursão. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Tulsa, OK.
Baumgarten, C.S. 1985. Evolução estrutural de Pampo, Badejo e Linguado
durante e deposição da Formação Lagoa Feia. Boletim Técnico da Petrobrás,
28, 91–101.
Baumgarten, C.S., Dultra, A.J.C., Scuta, M.S., Figueiredo, M.V.L. & Sequeira,
M.F.P.B. 1988. Coquinas da Formação Lagoa Feia, Bacia de Campos:
evolução da Geologia de Desenvolvimento. Boletim de Geociências da
Petrobrás, 2, 27–36.
Bertani, R.T. 1984. Microfacies, depositional models, and diagenesis of the
Lagoa Feia Formation (Lower Cretaceous), Campos Basin, offshore Brazil.
Ciências-Técnica-Petróleo (Petrobras/Cenpes), 14, 1–104.
Bertani, R.T. & Carozzi, A.V. 1985a. Lagoa Feia Formation (Lower Cretaceous)
Campos Basin, Offshore Brazil: Rift Valley Stage Lacustrine Carbonate
Reservoirs – I. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 8, 37–58.
Bertani, R.T. & Carozzi, A.V. 1985b. Lagoa Feia Formation (Lower Cretaceous)
Campos Basin, Offshore Brazil: Rift Valley Stage Lacustrine Carbonate
Reservoirs – II. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 8, 199–220.
Boyd, A., Souza, A. et al. 2015. Presalt Carbonate Evaluation for Santos Basin,
Offshore Brazil. Petrophysics, 56, 577–591.
Câmara, R.N. 2013. Caracterização petrofísica de coquinas da Formação Morro
do Chaves (Aptiano-Barremiano), interval Pré-Sal da Bacia de SE-AL.
Unpublished MSc thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil.
Carvalho, M.D. Praca, U.M., Telles, A.C.S., Jr, Jahnert, R.J. & Dias, J.L. 2000.
Bioclastic Carbonate Lacustrine Facies Models in the Campos Basin (Lower
Cretaceous), Brazil. In: Gierlowski-Kordesch, E.H. & Kelts, K.R. (eds) Lake
Basins Through Space and Time. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Studies in Geology, 46, 245–256.
Castro, J.C. 2006. Evolução dos conhecimentos sobre as coquinas-reservatórios
da Fomação Lagoa Feia no trend Badejo-Pampo-Linguado, Bacia de Campos.
Geociências (UNESP), 25, 175–186.
Castro, P.T.A. 1988. Fatores que Controlam a Deposição nas Coquinas nas
Sequências Rifte em Bacias da Margem Leste Brasileira. Dissertação
(Mestrado em Geologia) – Programa de Pós-graduação em Geologia.
Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil.
Chaboureau, A.C., Guillocheau, F., Robin, C., Rohais, S., Moulin, M. &
Aslanian, D. 2013. Paleogeographic evolution of the central segment of the
South Atlantic during Early Cretaceous times: paleotopographic and
geodynamic implications. Tectonophysics, 604, 191–223.
Corbett, P.W.M. & Borghi, L. 2013. Lacustrine carbonates – for the purpose of
reservoir characterisation are they different? Paper presented at the Offshore
Technology Conference, 29–31 October 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Corbett, P.W.M. & Jensen, J.L. 2000. Lithological and zonal porosity–
permeability distributions in the Arab-D reservoir, Utmaniyah Field, Saudi
Arabia: discussion. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
84, 1365–1367.
Corbett, P.W.M. & Potter, D. 2004. Petrotyping: A basemap and atlas for
navigating through permeability and porosity data for reservoir comparison
and permeability prediction. Paper SCA2004-30 presented at the International
Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, 5–9 October 2004, Abu Dhabi,
UAE.
Corbett, P.W.M., Mesmari, A. & Stewart, G. 1996. A method for using the
naturally-occuring negative geoskin in the description of fluvial reservoirs.
Paper SPE 36882 presented at the Europec, 22–24 October 1996, Milan.
Corbett, P.W.M., Geiger, S., Borges, L., Garayev, M. & Valdez, C. 2012a. The
Third Porosity System: Understanding the role of hidden porosity in well test
interpretation in carbonates. Petroleum Geoscience, 18, 73–81, http://dx.doi.
org//10.1144/1354-079311-010
Corbett, P.W.M., Hamdi, H. & Gurev, H. 2012b. Layered Reservoirs with
Internal Crossflow: A Well-Connected Family of Well-Test Pressure Transient
Responses. Petroleum Geoscience, 18, 219–229, http://dx.doi.org//10.1144/
1354-079311-008
Dale, C.T. & Lopes, J.R. 1990. Takula Oil Field and the greater Takula Area,
Cabina, Angola. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 635–644.
Estrella, R. 2014. Variation of porosity and permeability in coquinas of the Morro
do Chaves Formation (Jiquia Stage), Sergipe–Alagoas Basin. BSc
Monograph, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) (in Portuguese).
Fejó, F.J. 1994. Bacia de Sergipe e Alagoas. Boletim de Geociências da
Petrobrás, 8, 149–161.
Figuereido, A.M.F. de. 1981. Depositional systems in the Lower Cretaceous
Morro do Chaves and Coqueiro Seco formations, and their relationship to
petroleum accumulations, middle rift sequence, Sergipe–Alagoas Basin,
Brazil. PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin, TX, https://repositories.lib.
utexas.edu/handle/2152/23706
Garcia, A.J.V., Garcia, G.G. et al. 2015. Multiscale characterization of coquinas
reservoirs in analogues outcrops, Sergipe Alagoas (Brazil) and Lusitanian
(Portugal) basins. Paper presented at the AAPG International Conference &
Exhibition, 13–16 September 2015, Melbourne, Australia, http://www.
searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2015/90217ice/abstracts/2210457.html
Guardado, L.R., Gamboa, L.A.P. & Lucchesi, C.F. 1989. Petroleum geology of
the Campos Basin, Brazil, a model for a producing Atlantic type basin. In:
122 P. W. M. Corbett et al.
Edwards, D.J. & Santogrossi, P.A. (eds) Divergent/ Passive Margin Basins.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 48, 3–79.
Gunter, G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J. & Miller, J.D. 1997. Early
determination of reservoir flow units using an integrated petrophysical
method. In: Proceedings of 1997 SPE Technical Conference, 5–8 October
1997, San Antonio, TX. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX,
373–380.
Harris, N.B. 2000. Toca Carbonate, Congo Basin: response to an evolving rift
lake. In: Mello, M.R. & Katz, B.J. (eds) Petroleum Systems of South Atlantic
Margins. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 73,
341–360.
Horschutz, P.M.C. & Scuta, M.S. 1992. Fácies-perfis e mapeamento de qualidade
do reservatório de coquinas da Formação Lagoa Feia do Campo de Pampo.
Boletim de Geociências da Petrobrás, 6, 45–58.
Horschutz, P.M.C., Freitas, L.C.S., Stank, C.V., Barroso, A.S. & Cruz, W.M.
1992. The Linguado, Carapeba, Vermelho and Marimbá Giant Fields,
Campos Basin, Offshore Brazil. In: Halbouty, M.T. (ed.) Giant Oil and Gas
Fields of the Decade, 1978–1988. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Memoirs, 54, 137–153.
Jahnert, R., de Paula, O., Collins, L., Strobach, E. & Pevzner, R. 2012. Evolution
of a coquina barrier in Shark Bay, Australia by GPR imaging; Architecture of a
Holocene Reseravoir Analogue. Sedimentary Geology. 281, 59–74.
Jameson, M., Wells, S., Greenhalgh, J. & Borsato, R. 2011. Prospectivity and
seismic expressions of pre- and post-salt plays along the conjugate margins of
Brazil, Angola and Gabon. Society of Exploration Geophysicists Technical
Program Expanded Abstracts 2011: 1062–1067. http://doi.org/10.1190/1.
3627387.
Jensen, J.L. & Corbett, P.W.M. 2001. Methodology for integrating analog
geologic data in 3-D variogram modeling: Discussion. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,, 85, 749–750.
Jensen, J.L., Lake, L.W., Corbett, P.W.M. & Goggin, D. 2000. Statistics for
Petroleum Engineers and Geoscientists. 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Katz, B.J. 2001. Lacustrine basin hydrocarbon exploration - current thoughts.
Journal of Paleolimnology, 26, 161–179.
Kazemi, A., Corbett, P.W.M. & Wood, R. 2012. New approach for geomodeling
and dynamic calibration of carbonate reservoirs using porosity determined
system (PODS). Paper presented at the 74th EAGE Conference and
Exhibition, 4–7 June 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kidwell, S.M., Fursich, F.T. & Aigner, T. 1986. Conceptual framework
for the analysis and classification of fossil concentrations. Palaios, 1, 228–238.
Kinoshita, E.M. 2007. Modelagem sísmica-geométrica de fácies dos carbonatos
lacustres do Mb. Morro do Chaves, Bacia de Sergipe–Alagoas. Dissertação
(Mestrado em Geologia), Instituto de Geologia, Universidade Federal do
Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Kinoshita, E.M. 2010. Seismo-geometrical models of lacustrine carbonate facies
of the Morro do Chaves, Sergipe–Alagoas Basin. Boletim de Geociências da
Petrobrás, 18, 249–269 (in Portugese).
Lipovesky, T. 2013. Two-Phase flow pressure transient analysis of carbonate
reservoirs with high permeability lens intersected by the wellbore. MSc thesis,
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Liro, L.M. & Dawson, W.C. 2000. Reservoir systems of selected basins of the
South Atlantic. In: Mello, M.R. & Katz, B.J. (eds) Petroleum Systems of South
Atlantic Margins. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs,
73, 77–92.
Milani, E.J., Lana, M.C. & Szatmari, P. 1988. Mesozoic rift basins around the
Northeast Brazilian microplate (Reconcavo–Tucano–Jatoba, Sergipe–
Alagoas). In: Manspeizer, W. (ed.) Triassic–Jurassic Rifting: Continental
Breakup and the Origin of the Atlantic Ocean and Passive Margins.
Developments in Geotectonics, 22. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 833–858.
Mohriak, W.U., Mello, M.R., Dewey, J.F. & Maxwell, J.R. 1990. Petroleum
geology of the Campos Basin, offshore Brazil. In: Brooks, J. (ed.) Classic
Petroleum Provinces. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 50,
119–141, http://dx.doi.org//10.1144/GSL.SP.1990.050.01.07
Morales, A. 2014. Geological well testing of an analogue model for a coquina
sequence. MSc thesis, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
Pickup, G., Ringrose, P.S., Corbett, P.W.M., Sorbie, K.S. & Jensen, J.L. 1995.
Geology, geometry and effective flow. Petroleum Geoscience, 1, 37–42, http://
doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.1.1.37
Playford, P.E., Cockbain, A.E., Barry, P.F., Roberts, A.P., Haines, P.W. &
Brooke, B.P. 2013. The Geology of Shark Bay. Geological Survey of Western
Australia, Bulletin, 146.
Ramakrishnan, T.S., Ramamoorthy, R., Fordham, E., Schwartz, L., Herron, M.,
Saito, N. & Rabaute, A. 2001. A model-based interpretation methodology for
evaluating carbonate reservoirs. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 30 September–3 October 2001, New Orleans, LO,
http://dx.doi.org//10.2118/71704-MS
Ringrose, P.S., Sorbie, K.S., Corbett, P.W.M. & Jensen, J.L. 1993. Immiscible
flow behaviour in laminated and cross-bedded sandstones. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 9, 103–124.
Schafer, W. 1972. Ecology and Paleoecology of Marine Environments. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Schlumberger. 2014. Carbonate reservoirs, http://www.slb.com/services/
technical_challenges/carbonates.aspx [accessed 13 October 2015].
Shoeir, A. 2014. Modelling and evaluating different water-flooding strategies for
a coquina reservoir based on a modern day analogue. MSc thesis, Heriot Watt
University, Edinburgh, UK.
Tavares, A.C. 2014. Fácies diagenéticas em coquinas da Formação Morro do
Chaves (Barremiano/Aptiano da Bacia de Sergipe–Alagoas). MSc thesis,
Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.
Tavares, A.C., Borghi, L., Corbett, P.W.M., Lopes, J. & Câmara, R. 2015. Facies
and depositional environments for the coquinas of the Morro do Chaves
Formation, Sergipe–Alagoas Basin, defined by taphonomic and compos-
itional criteria. Brazilian Journal of Geology, 45, 415–429, http://doi.org/10.
1590/2317-488920150030211
Thompson, D.L., Sitwell., J.D. & Hall, M. 2015. Lacustrine carbonate reservoirs
from Early Cretaceous rift lakes of Western Gondwana, Pre-Salt Coquinas of
Brazil and West Africa. Gondwana Research, 28, 26–51.
Tigre, C.A., Schaller, H., Del Lucchesi JR. & Possato, S. 1983. Pampo, Linguado,
and Badejo Fields: their discoveries, appraisals, and early production systems.
Paper presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, 2–5 May 1983,
Houston, TX, USA, http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/4627-MS
Winter, W.R., Jahnert, R.J. & França, A.B. 2007. Bacia de Campos. Boletim de
Geociências da Petrobrás, 15, 511–529.