IPA22-G-227

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Forty-Sixth Annual Convention & Exhibition, September 2022

APPLICATION OF BOREHOLE IMAGE-BASED POROSITY ANALYSIS IN CARBONATE

RESERVOIRS TO ASSIST IN PERMEABILITY CALCULATION AND ITS INTEGRATION
WITH RESISTIVITY INVERSION TO DISTINGUISH PRODUCTIVE VUGGY ZONES AND
TIGHT ZONES

Elvara Priyanka*
Didit Kusuma*
Budi Abrar*
Nabilah Adani**
Dian Permanasari**

ABSTRACT below the average porosity of connected-vug- and

The “C” carbonate in Bukit Tua Main, KP Field,
Northeast Java Basin is characterized by highly
heterogeneous porosity distribution. By performing
carbonate heterogeneity analysis using the input of
borehole image log in well X-2, different porosity
types were distinguishable, from matrix-porosity-
supported zones to secondary-porosity-supported
zones. The latter can further be distinguished
according to the secondary porosity types. In this
well, the predominant secondary porosity types are
connected vugs, with subordinate solution-enhanced
bed boundary and isolated vugs. Solution-enhanced
bed boundary and connected vugs are typically the
porosity types that are expected to contribute better
to permeability. When compared with effective
porosity calculated from conventional openhole logs
(density-neutron), zones with an abundance of
solution-enhanced bed boundary and/or connected
vugs showed relatively higher effective porosity
values (i.e., up to and exceeding 20%). Therefore, the
study interval can be divided into vug-dominated
zones and matrix-porosity-dominated zones to
ensure that appropriate permeability equation is
applied accordingly, depending on the textural (pore)
characteristics.
Permeability measurement during pressure buildup
analysis from well testing was performed.
Separately, permeability calculation throughout the
interval was also performed using empirical
equations for vug-dominated or karstified limestone
that was derived from core porosity and core
permeability relationship in Bukit Tua. By excluding
the zones that are not supported by either solution-
enhanced bed-boundary or connected vugs and, at
the same time, have relatively lower porosity (i.e.,
Internal
* PETRONAS
** Schlumberger
solution-enhanced bed-boundary-dominated zones
that possess relatively high porosity), a similar mean
permeability value was obtained between the two
methods. This confirms that because a borehole
image-based heterogeneity analysis result could
distinguish vug-dominated zones from matrix-
porosity-dominated zones, appropriate permeability
equations can be applied to those intervals with
different textural characteristics, which results in a
reliable permeability log as evidenced from the
similarity of mean value with the direct permeability
measurement. Both porosity heterogeneity analysis
and calculated permeability logs indicate that the “C”
carbonate has several zones of interest mainly
supported by connected vugs and solution-enhanced
bed boundary with permeability values ranging from
50 to 200 mD.
In addition, when borehole image log is combined
with another log such as the resistivity inversion, the
two are useful to indicate which vuggy zones may
have vugs connected further into the formation vs.
those that are tight despite the presence of vugs.
Zones with resistivity inversion showing green to
cyan veins spectrum; i.e., moderately high
conductivity, are typically consistent with zones that
have an abundance of solution-enhanced bed
boundary and connected vugs, as well as higher
porosity and calculated permeability values.
Conversely, zones with dark red veins; i.e., high
resistivity, albeit having an abundance of vugs,
indicate that these vugs possibly do not penetrate
deep into the formation.

INTRODUCTION
KP Field is located in the Northeast Java Basin,
bordered by the BD ridge in the south, part of the
Central Deep in the west, East Florence Trough in
the north, and North Madura High in the east (Figure
1). The Northeast Java Basin was initiated during
Eocene time because of the plate tectonic movement.
Geologically, the Northeast Java Basin was created
during concurrent uplifting and unconformity, and
further completed by other minor processes, as a
younger eustatic sea level was influenced by the
movement of the Australia and Sunda Plates.
The regional structural results were different
according to each geological time. Geological
structures of the Northeast Java Basin are dominated
by thrust faults, normal faults, strike-slip faults, and
west-east direction folding due to north-south
compression (Satyana and Darwish, 2001).
The main target in the KP Field is the Ngimbang
carbonate (“C” carbonate), which was deposited in
the Eocene to Oligocene (Figure 2). These reservoirs
are relatively thin, with the net thickness of between
10 to 35 ft. The drillstem test (DST) data from the
previous well for zone C shows 4.449 BOPD on the
BX-1 well, 3.134 BPOD on the BX-2 well, and 3.512
on the BX-4 well. It can be concluded that zone C is
proven to produce hydrocarbons, and these
reservoirs are dependent on the secondary porosity to
produce high oil rates.
The “C” carbonate in KP Field is characterized by a
highly heterogeneous porosity distribution.
However, seismic interpretation in KP Field shows
an isolated platform area that suggests a stable
depositional region. Therefore, the presence of
secondary porosity in the KP Field was likely not
triggered by tectonic activities. Diagenesis that
occurred in the field was interpreted to have taken
place in the vadose region as a process of
karstification, where meteoric water caused the
dissolution of limestone.
The degree of heterogeneity within the “C”
carbonate is expected to result in varying
permeability values throughout the interval.
Therefore, constructing a continuous permeability
log that captures and reflects the complexity of the
reservoir would be beneficial. Core-based empirical
equations to calculate permeability in KP Field have
been developed; however, their application needs to
be justified with high-resolution data that enable the
differentiation of rock types based on their porosity
characteristics.
Internal
2
Based on that, the main objective of this study was to
distinguish productive vuggy zones and tight zones
in the “C” carbonate by applying the borehole image-
based porosity analysis to assist the empirical
equation-based permeability calculation. In addition,
this study aims to integrate the porosity analysis
result with deep resistivity inversion readings to
observe the different responses in intervals whose
secondary porosity (vugs) may be more productive
compared to others.
METHODOLOGY
Borehole image data used in this study were acquired
using a commercial logging-while-drilling (LWD)
high-resolution laterolog resistivity tool. The tool is
equipped with five azimuthal laterolog resistivity
measurements, which include resistivity-at-bit,
lateral (ring) resistivity, and three azimuthally
focused button resistivities. Images along the
borehole circumference were produced from those
three button electrodes that are spaced longitudinally
along the axis of the tool (Figure 3). The tool acquires
the image as the drillstring rotates and scans the near-
wellbore formation to generate high-resolution
resistivity images with 360° borehole coverage. Each
of these three images has a different depth of
investigation for each of the shallow, medium, and
deep button. In this study, a resistivity image from
the deep-button measurement was used as it was
assumed to provide the best representation of the true
formation.
The deep-button resistivity image was then analyzed
for its textural characteristics using a quantitative
carbonate porosity analysis workflow (Yamada et al.,
2013) that is available on a commercial wellbore
software platform. This workflow is intended to not
only separate primary (matrix) porosity from
secondary porosity in carbonate intervals, but also to
distinguish the different secondary pore types and
see the contribution of each of these different pore
types to the overall porosity for each depth. Lucia
(1995) interpreted that the permeability in carbonate
formations is more affected by the secondary
porosity types than the porosity values (Figure 4),
thus it is important to be able to identify the different
pore types using a carbonate quantitative porosity
analysis workflow.
The complete steps of the workflow for LWD images
are elaborated as follows.
1. Preprocessing and dip picking

After the deep resistivity image was oriented
correctly, it was then calibrated to the resistivity
curve from the same button. The result of this
image scaling process is a conductivity image,
which will be used later as an input for the next
steps. Dips such as bed boundary and fractures
were also interactively delineated on the oriented
image to be used in a later step where vugs
connected to fractures and solution-enhanced
bed boundary will be identified.
2. Matrix extraction
This step removes any features not traversing the
image along the circumference, such as vugs,
molds, and fracture segments, which are
assumed to be nonmatrix features. The outputs
from this step are a matrix conductivity image
and a matrix conductivity curve, which later will
be used to delineate secondary porosity features
from the background image; i.e., the matrix
conductivity image. The gray-scale
reconstruction transform (Luc, 1993) was
applied in the background to run this processing
step.
3. Heterogeneity delineation
Initially, the image was segmented into mosaic
pieces using the watershed transform (Meyer and
Beucher, 1990). The user then separates the
conductive and resistive mosaic pieces based on
the conductivity values and their contrast with
the matrix conductivity image. The conductive
mosaic pieces are then further classified as
various secondary porosity types based on the
dip types associated with the vugs and the
interconnectedness between vugs; i.e., fractures
porosity, solution-enhanced bed boundary, as
well as connected and isolated vugs, while the
resistive mosaic pieces are interpreted to be
cemented (resistive) spots.
4. Image porosity analysis
The porosity map is produced by applying
modified Archie equation (1) (Newberry et al.,
1996) to each pixel of the calibrated resistivity
image. The secondary porosity type
classification from the previous step is also taken
into account to calculate the porosity values from
each porosity type for each depth and how much
the contribution of each porosity type to the
overall porosity in each depth is. This step also
requires other inputs such as external porosity
curve; i.e., effective porosity (PHIE), resistivity
from the same LWD imager tool resistivity
button, and cementation factor value.
Internal
3
𝜙𝑖 = 𝜙ext (Rext Ci)1/m ………… (1)
where 𝜙𝑖 = image porosity; 𝜙ext = external
porosity such as PHIE; Rext = resistivity curve
with similar depth of investigation; Ci = image
conductivity; m = cementation factor.
RESULTS
Comparison of LWD Laterolog Resistivity Image
and Carbonate Quantitative Porosity Analysis
Results with Deep-Resistivity Inversion
Deep-resistivity inversion from the latest generation
of reservoir mapping-while-drilling tool enables a
high-definition mapping of vuggy or karstified
intervals in well X-2 that are primarily from the “C”
carbonate. The laterolog resistivity image further
enhances the karst characterization by providing
high-resolution textural details of those karst
intervals, which are typically seen on borehole
images as intervals with abundant secondary pores
(vugs).
By comparing the image and resistivity inversion, it
can be seen that zones with resistivity inversion
showing green to cyan spectrum; i.e., moderately low
resistivity, are relatively consistent with vuggy zones
that have an abundance of secondary pores that may
contribute better to permeability according to Lucia
(1995) as well as relatively high porosity values. The
relatively lower resistivity is interpreted to be caused
by a deep invasion into those vugs combined with
mud losses of the water-based mud.
Conversely, zones with dark red spectrum; i.e., high
resistivity, albeit in a few cases may have abundant
secondary pores as seen from the LWD laterolog
resistivity image, indicate that those vugs possibly do
not penetrate deep into the formation and are only
present along the borehole wall. These intervals also
tend to correlate with zones that have relatively lower
porosity values (Figure 5).
Carbonate Quantitative Porosity Analysis Results
Secondary porosity analysis using the carbonate
quantitative porosity analysis workflow was
performed in well X-2. Overall, vugs were well-
developed throughout the entire section, particularly
in the “C” carbonate. The predominant vug types that
are interpreted to contribute considerably to
permeability (Lucia, 1995) in “C” carbonate of well
X-2 are connected vugs (Figure 6), followed by a
subordinate amount of solution-enhanced bed

boundary. However, isolated vugs are also present
moderately.
Based on their predominant secondary porosity types
and image porosity values, the “C” carbonate of well
X-2 can be divided into six different zones. They are:
1) connected vug-dominated zones with both
relatively higher and 2) lower porosity, 3) solution-
enhanced bed-boundary-dominated zones with both
relatively higher and 4) lower porosity, 5) isolated-
vug-dominated zone with low porosity, and 6)
matrix-porosity-dominated zone with low porosity.
The separation between zones with higher vs. lower
porosity are based on a cutoff of image porosity
value at around 15%. Each of these zones occurs in
multiple intervals that are interbedded with one
another.
The most common intervals encountered in well X-2
are connected-vug-dominated zones with relatively
higher porosity. However, there was a high degree of
heterogeneity in the textural characteristics of “C”
carbonate, as seen from the lateral distribution of this
zone that was intercalated with zones of lower
porosity and/or isolated-vug- or matrix-porosity-
dominated intervals, as well as cemented intervals
(Figure 7).
Therefore, in well X-2, the porosity-texture analysis
has enabled the separation of intervals that are
predominated by permeability-enhancing secondary
porosity types; i.e., connected vugs and solution-
enhanced bed boundary, from intervals whose
porosity types are predominated by isolated vugs or
only matrix (primary) porosity. This separation
mostly corresponds to higher porosity values (up to
and exceeding 20%) in intervals that are
predominated by connected vugs and solution-
enhanced bed boundary (Figure 8).
Such separation is later used to assist the
permeability calculation from an empirical equation
based on core porosity and permeability relationship
in KP Field, as explained below.
Improved Permeability Computation Result
The permeability calculation in KP Field was
typically defined based on rock-typing. The rock-
typing was performed based on the core porosity-
core permeability relationship in this field and other
nearby fields (Figure 9). The empirical equations of
this rock-typing are differentiated for reservoirs vs.
nonreservoirs intervals. Furthermore, for the
reservoirs, the equation is further divided into
matrix-porosity-supported intervals and secondary-
Internal
4
porosity- (vug)-supported intervals. However,
karstified or vuggy intervals were very difficult to
identify due to the limitation of single-measurement
logs.
Previously, the karst intervals in this field were
distinguished using the secondary porosity index
(SPI) which requires a sonic compressional (DT) log.
This method, however, has certain limitations such
as the vertical resolution, the possibility of being
overly optimistic when encountering intervals with
breakout, and certainly unable to distinguish the
formation features that the secondary porosity is
associated with, whether vugs, solution-enhanced
bed boundary, or fractures. Equally important
challenges were the calibration in shale and tight
intervals, which could be very challenging to match,
and the DT compressional labelling that in some
cases need to be reinterpreted before the log can be
used accordingly.
With borehole image data that cover the entire
wellbore circumference and have a high vertical
resolution, intervals whose porosity was
predominated by permeability-enhancing vugs such
as connected vugs and solution-enhanced bed
boundary vs. intervals having only matrix porosity or
isolated vugs, and cemented intervals, were able to
be identified with accuracy. This identification was
also supported by the comparison with deep-
resistivity inversion readings. Such separation of
intervals based on their textural (pore) characteristics
helps to define which intervals are more suitable for
the vug-dominated or matrix-dominated
permeability equations, respectively (Figure 9).
Thus, having a borehole image log and carbonate
quantitative porosity analysis results have improved
considerably the ability to generate a reliable
continuous permeability log compared to the SPI
method.
According to the carbonate quantitative porosity
analysis result, intervals with vuggy (karst)
characteristics typically contain porosity values up to
and exceeding 20%. The permeability was then
calculated using suitable equations for each interval
based on the textural (pore) characteristics and this
porosity cutoff throughout this reservoir interval,
where the resulting permeability log can be seen in
Figure 10. The average value of resulting
permeability is aligned with pressure buildup (well
testing) result (Figure 11), where image porosity
cutoff according to the average image porosity for
connected-vug- and solution-enhanced bed-
boundary-dominated intervals with better porosity
was taken at 16.7% (Figure 12). The value of

permeability from pressure buildup of around 199
mD is similar to the mean permeability calculated
from the empirical equation at 196.4 mD, whose
application was assisted by the carbonate
quantitative porosity analysis results, for the same
input of net reservoir intervals.
CONCLUSIONS
The integration of borehole image interpretation
through a carbonate quantitative porosity analysis
workflow, deep-resistivity inversion, and geological
concept, has been proven effective to map the vuggy
or karstified intervals in well X-2 that are primarily
from the “C” carbonate. Integration of deep
resistivity inversion and carbonate quantitative
porosity analysis results was able to indicate
intervals with vugs that may be more productive than
other vuggy intervals. A carbonate heterogeneity
analysis workflow was further able to separate the
vuggy intervals from matrix-porosity-supported,
isolated-vug-supported, or cemented intervals,
where the predominant secondary porosity types in
the vuggy intervals are connected vugs with
subordinate solution-enhanced bed boundary. From
this characterization, the appropriate empirical
permeability equations can be applied to each
interval with different porosity characteristics. This
resulted in a reliable permeability log as evidenced
from the similarity of its mean value with direct
permeability measurement from the same intervals of
net reservoirs, where image porosity cutoff at 16.7%
is applied based on the average image porosity in
vuggy intervals that display higher porosity. This
suggests the importance of having a borehole image
log and its quantitative porosity analysis along with
deep resistivity inversion in the next wells, not only
for better reservoir characterization in terms of
porosity distribution, but also to aid in the existing
permeability calculation method for KP Field.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank PETRONAS, Schlumberger, SKK
Migas, and Ditjen Migas management for their
support and permission to publish this paper.
Internal
5
REFERENCES
Luc, V., 1993, Morphological Grayscale
Reconstruction in Image Analysis: Applications and
Efficient Algorithms: IEEE Transactions on Image
Processing, 2(2), 176–201.
Lucia, F.J., 1995, Rock-Fabric/Petrophysical
Classification of Carbonate Pore Space for Reservoir
Characterization: AAPG Bulletin, 79(9), 1275–1300.
Meyer, F. and Beucher, S., 1990, Morphological
Segmentation: Journal of Visual Communication and
Image Representation, 1(1), 21–46.
Mudjiono, R. and Pireno, G.E., 2001, Exploration of
the North Madura Platform, Offshore East Java,
Indonesia: Proceedings of the Indonesian Petroleum
Association, 28th Annual Convention, v.1, p.707-
726.
Newberry, B.M., Grace, L.M., and Stief, D.D., 1996,
Analysis of Carbonate Dual Porosity System from
Borehole Electrical Images: SPE paper 35158-MS
presented at the Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference.
Satyana, A. H., and Darwish, A., 2001, Recent
Significant Discoveries within Oligo-Miocene
Carbonates of East Java Basin: Integrating the
Petroleum Geology: Proceedings Indonesian
Association of Geologists (IAGI) 30th Annual
Convention and Geosea 10th Regional Congress,
Yogyakarta, p. 42-46.
Yamada, T., Quesada, D., Etchecopar, A., Le Nir, I.,
Delhomme, J.P., Russel-Houston, J. and Perdana, T.,
2013, Revisiting Porosity Analysis from Electrical
Borehole Images: Integration of Advanced Texture
and Porosity Analysis. Paper E presented at the
SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium.
 6

Figure 1 - Regional tectonic setting of the Northeast Java Basin (Mudjiono and Pireno, 2002).

Figure 2 - Stratigraphy of the East Java area with Oligocene period highlighted to show the study section
(after Mudjiono and Pireno, 2002).

Internal
 7

Figure 3 - Button resistivities of LWD laterolog resistivity tool produced azimuthal resistivity and images at
three depths of investigation.

Figure 4 - Contribution of each pore space type to permeability in carbonate rocks according to Lucia (1995).

Internal
 8

Figure 5 - Comparison of LWD laterolog resistivity image with deep resistivity inversion, indicating that zones of interest with extensive vugs tend to correspond
with cyan-green spectrum, whereas vuggy zones that correlate to darker red spectrum may suggest that the vug networks are not well-connected into
the formation.

Internal
 9

Figure 6 - Example of vug-dominated zone in the study interval. Red-colored heterogeneity in the fourth track
from the left indicates connected vugs, green indicates isolated vugs, while blue indicates resistive
spots (i.e., well-cemented).

Internal
 10

Figure 7 - Example of interval where interbedded vuggy, high-porosity zones are separated by intercalation
of cemented, low-porosity intervals. The rightmost track indicates the petrophysical effective
porosity and image porosity logs where each horizontal grid indicates a value of 10%, higher to
the left.

Internal
 11

Figure 8 - The rightmost zonation track highlights intervals of high porosity dominated by connected vugs
and solution-enhanced bed boundary. It can be seen that these zones possess porosity values up
to and exceeding 20% as indicated by the yellow flag track on its left-hand side.

Figure 9 - Permeability equation based on core porosity-core permeability relationship and carbonate figures
that show karst limestone, matrix-porosity-supported limestone, and tight limestone.

Internal
 12

Figure 10 - Reservoir properties result in X-2 well. Carbonate quantitative porosity analysis evaluation to define secondary porosity types from resistivity image
data indicates karst zones where connected vugs are abundant. Resulting permeability log from empirical equations is displayed on the 8th track from
below with blue border.

Internal
 13

Figure 11 - Pressure buildup analysis in X-2 well. The well test data show that permeability (K = 199 mD) is
similar with mean permeability from log data that were aided by the carbonate quantitative
porosity analysis.

Figure 12 - Left: Histogram showing image porosity distribution and statistics in connected-vug-dominated
and solution-enhanced bed-boundary-dominated zones with higher porosity. The average value
is 16.7%. Right: Histogram showing permeability distribution and statistics in intervals where
image porosity cutoff at 16.7% is applied. The mean permeability is at 196.4 mD.

Internal