RESERVOIR ROCK TYPING

For better reservoir characterization

Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar

Reservoir Engineer & Petrophysicist

Budapest, 9 September 2022

ABOUT PRESENTER
EDUCATION
University of Miskolc, Hungary
MSc Petroleum Geoengineering
Institut Teknologi dan Sains Bandung, Indonesia
BSc Petroleum Engineering

WORK EXPERIENCE
Reservoir Engineer at MOL Hungary (now)
Reservoir Engineer and Petrophysicist Consultant at LEMIGAS, Indonesia
Lecturer Assistant at Bandung Institute of Technology and Science, Indonesia
Reservoir Engineer Consultant at LAPI ITB, Indonesia

AWARDS
Winning more than 15 international and national awards for petroleum engineering and geoscience specializations
• Best papers of SPWLA Annual Symposium 2022, Norway.
• 2nd Runner-up World Championship SPE ATCE Paper Contest, Canada.
• 1st Place SPE paper contest for Europe region 2019, Poland.
• 1st Place ISZA 2019 (Meeting of Young Geoscientist), Hungary.
• 1st Place Petro-tournament SPE ASEC 2019, Croatia.
• 1st Place paper contest at 11th Geosymposium of Young Researchers „Silesia 2018, Poland.
• 1st Place the Scientific Research Conference of the University of Miskolc (TDK), Hungary

Over 20 publications Including four peer-reviewed journals have been published and presented in various well-known international conferences of
SPE, AAPG, SPWLA, EAGE, IPTC and URTeC in the USA, Asia, and Europe.

The result works are available in ResearchGate, OnePetro, and Google Scholar.
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 2
RULES OF THE HOUSE
NICE AND EASY
Recording
~45 minutes presentation, ~15 QnA
Muted your AUDIO and camera during presentation.
CHAT is available.
Question and answer after the presentation

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 3

Agenda

Session 1 – Introduction to RRT Session 2 – Case Study

• Introduction to Rock Typing • PGS vs. FZI

• Rock Typing Methods Comparison
• Pore Geometry and Pore Structure (PGS) Concept
• PGS Case Studies
• Case Study: Saturation Height Function &
Permeability Prediction (Carbonate-karst &
Sandstone)
• Application in Elastic Properties
• Summary

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 4

 INTRODUCTION
General Issues of Rock Typing Methods in Reservoir Characterization

“Rock types are units of rock deposited under similar conditions

which experience similar diagenetic processes resulting in a unique
porosity-permeability relationship, capillary pressure profile and water
saturation for a given height above free water in a reservoir.”
-- Archie GE,1950, Introduction to Petrophysics of Reservoir Rocks --

“Reservoir rock typing is a process of analyzing and integrating

geological and petrophysical data to characterize a reservoir and
dividing it into groups, each of which has a certain relations among rock
properties and the same dynamic rock properties needed for estimating
the initial hydrocarbon in place and forecasting the reservoir
performance”
FACT
► Many inconsistent reservoir rock typing in connection to
geological facies and petrophysical properties.
► Challenge of permeability prediction and saturation
height model especially in carbonate reservoir rocks.
► Well understanding of interrelationship of reservoir rock
typing to petrophysical, geological, rock physical, and
rock mechanical properties.

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 5

Introduction to Rock Typing
The Differences ???
Rock Type
‘units of rock deposited under similar conditions
which experienced similar diagenetic processes
resulting in a unique k- relationship, capillary
pressure profile and water saturation for a given
height above free water in a reservoir’.
Rock Class
(a term commonly used for carbonates): ‘units of
rock characterized by similarity in rock fabrics
and/or pore type.
Petrofacies
(Petrophysical rock type) ‘intervals of rock with a
similar pore throat radius, thus having similar fluid
flow characteristics.
Reservoir Rock Type
unit of rocks having similar geological features
and both similar static and dynamic physical
properties
Rock Typing Definitions
Lithofacies
‘mappable stratigraphic units, laterally distingusihable
from the adjacent intervals upon lithologic characteristics
such as mineralogical, petrographical, and
palaentological signatures that are related with the
appearance, texture, or composition of the rock’.
(similarly defined: geological facies or just facies)
Electrofacies
‘a similar set of log responses that characterizes a
specific rock type and allows it to be distinguished from
other’.
Hydraulic rock types
(Flow Unit) ‘units of rock, each of which is characterized by
a measure of pore throat and flow & storage capacities.
Hydraulic Flow Unit
a unit of rock that has a certain flow zone index (FZI)
representing specific physical properties (similar pore
throat attribute, a hydraulic unit).
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 6
Methods of Rock Typing Carbonate Facies & Porosity Classification

FACIES POROSITY

➢ Archie, G.E. 1952 ➢ Archie, G.E. 1952

➢ Dunham, 1962
➢ Embry & Klovan, 1970
➢ Lucia, J. F., 1995
➢ Lonoy, 2006
➢ Ahr, 2008
➢ Choquette & Pray, 1970
➢ Lucia, J. F., 1995
➢ Lonoy, 2006

► Common textural grouping used for reservoir rock

typing.
► Usually porosity has good connection with
depositional textural of the rock, but not with
permeability

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 7

Methods of Rock Typing Archie, 1950
Perm-Porosity-Saturation
Relations

[Archie (1950)]

Archie : The trend exists at all; the formation as a

whole was deposited under a similar environment;
individual parts (local environ’t) may differ from the
whole.

Advantage: Simple and considers both geological and petrophysical characteristics.

Disadvantage: May be in-appropriate for very heterogeneous reservoir and limited SCAL data.

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 8

Methods of Rock Typing Capillary Pressure Based
Capillary Pressure

All cores Limestone

cores

J-Fumction
Dolomite Microgranular
cores Limestone cores

Water
Saturation

Coarse - Grained
J-Fumction

Limestone cores
Advantages: account for pore structure/geometry, rock texture, and
pore sizedistribution, which all these may characterize specific
geologic meanings.
Disadvantages: when SCAL Pc data are limited, RCA data are also
limited.
(From Owen & Archer, 1989)
Water Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 9
Saturation (After Amyx et al., 1960)
Methods of Rock Typing Winland R35

Advantage: Fast and easy way to group porosity and permeability by using RCA data
Disadvantages: Potential misuse of SCAL data sets
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 10
Methods of Rock Typing Rock Fabric Based, Lucia 1983, 1999

Rock Fabric Class and associated k- transform

(for non-vuggy carbonates)

(Lucia,
1999)

Advantages: rock fabric controls pore size distribution relating to φ and k.

Disadvantages: mainly used for carbonates, needs information on pore types
(separate and/or touching vugs), potential misuse of SCAL data sets. Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 11
 Modified Lorenz Flow Unit
Methods of Rock Typing and Stratigraphic Flow Profile
➢ Use of flow and storage capacities
Interpreted Stratigraphic Flow Unit
➢ Combined with empirical Pittman pore throat radius. (Gunter et al., 1997)

➢ Plot of percent flow capacity vs. percent

storage capacity ordered in stratigraphic
sequence
➢ It offers a guide as to how many flow units
are necessary to honor the geologic
framework
➢ Changes in slope represent change in
reservoir process “speed”, indicative of
flow unit boundaries

R35 = 0.732 + 0.588log(k) - 0.864log(PHIE)

Advantages: May be used to characterize ‘productivity’ and differentiate stratigraphic sequence/units.

Disadvantages: Ignores Sw and capillary pressure. (Note: one can assign Pc data for each unit, averaging, when the data available).
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 12
Methods of Rock Typing Hydraulic Flow Unit

➢ Developed by use of Kozeny-Carman equation.

➢ Rocks are grouped on the basis of flow zone indicator (FZI).

Data points distributed on (Abbaszadeh et al., 1996)

(k/)0.5 = (/(1 - )(1/(2Sgv)) and around a 45o line is a Mean FZI
(@ z = 1.0)
RQI = 0.0314(k/)0.5 Hydraulic Unit (HU). for a HU

RQI in micron,  in fraction, and k in md.

RQI
FZI =1/(2Sgv)
z = /(1 - ) Mean FZI assumes
45o that all members
FZI = 1/(2Sgv), micron. of a given HU have
the same average
RQI = z  FZI → log(RQI) = log(z) +
Log scale
value of Sgv.
log(FZI)

0.01 0.1 1.0

z
(Abbaszadeh et al., 1996)

Advantage: Need only RCA data, fast, relates to geological characteristics, can be used to predict k.
Disadvantages: Potential misuse of SCAL data sets
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 13
Methods of Rock Typing Cluster Analysis, Electrofacies
Default 14 Facies Clustering from MRGC Rock Typing Prediction in Well (ZUF-5)

Grouping into 7 Facies Clustering from MRGC

Perm core vs Perm log Clustering

• Permeability prediction for each

Rock Type generated by Poro-
Perm transform in core well
Grouping Final into 6 Facies Clustering from MRGC
• Relationship between permeability
log transform VS permeability
from core show good trend
Perm core vs Perm log Clustering

Advantage: Fast and accurately distribute in uncored intervals (supervised case)

O pe n
Disadvantages: Distributed based on statistically, no physical meaning if no data
Kusuma, 2017
Reservoir
training (unsupervised case), Potential Rock of
misuse Typing
SCAL– data
Muhammad
sets Nur Ali Akbar 14
Methods of Rock Typing Pore Geometry Structure (PGS)

➢ Transform Kozeny-Carman equation to Power Law

equation (behavior of the nature ➔ Fractal Concept).
➢ Rocks are grouped on the basis of similarity in pore
geometry and structure.

Wibowo and Permadi, 2013

Advantage: Need only RCA data, fast, relates to geological characteristics, can be used to predict k, conform with J-function, may help diagenetic
studies, can utilize the result from NMR for porosity and Permeabily.
Disadvantages: Have to use the standard Type Curve (but available) Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 15
 INTRODUCTION
A big data set was used to generate rock type curves of PGS method.

► 1342 Sandstone and 1973 Carbonate Core Samples

was used from various basins in Indonesia.
► All data from RCA, SCAL, Thin Section, XRD, SEM are 1000
PGS Rock Type Curve
RT-1 RT-2 RT-3 RT-4 RT-5
RT-6

considered during the investigation. RT-7

RT-8

RT-9
100

► Integrated petrophysical, geological, and engineering

RT-10

RT-11
RT-12

study. RT-13

√(k/ɸ)
10 RT-14

RT-15

► Implemented in various case studies with good

RT-16

RT-17

RT-18

quality results in petrophysics, static, and dynamic 1 RT-19

RT-20

model.
0.1
1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08

(k/ɸ3)

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 16

PGS Case Studies Carbonate “A” - cont’d

200 300 P, f – m, m-hard, vug, abd

chalky, abd biomold, sli lime 125 126
180 mud, mic-sparatite, skel
micriitized.
P, f – m, m-hard, vug, abd 250 233 234
chalky,160abd biomold, sli lime
mud, mic-sparatite, skel
235 239
micriitized.
140 W-P, f – m, m-hard, abd chalky,

J_Func (dimensionless)
110
200 re-x lime mud, mold, mic-
125 143 212
sparatite, skel hvy
120 W-P, micro x-ln – 126
W-P, f – m, m-hard, abd chalky, micriitized.
fine, hard, x-ln, re-x- 143
re-x lime mud, mold, mic- ln, skel hvy micr’ed, W-P, micro x-ln – 110 231
212
Pc 100 sparatite, skel hvy micriitized. sli frac, sli frag, tr 150 fine, hard, x-ln, re-x-
231
siderite, sli clay. ln, skel hvy micr’ed,
233 sli frac, sli frag, tr 246 256
80 234 siderite, sli clay.
235
100 259
P, micro x-ln – 239
60
fine, h-vh, x-ln, P, micro x-ln –
246
re-x-ln, skel fine, h-vh, x-ln,
40 micr’ed, sli
256
re-x-ln, skel 1. J-Function grouped has
259 50
frac, sli frag, tr micr’ed, sli certain similarity in
siderit, sli frac, sli frag, tr
20 siderit, sli microscopic geological
pyrite.
pyrite. characteristics.
0
0 2. J-Functioned grouped
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 represents a similar
Sw Sw (%) tortuosity (El-Khatib, 1995).

Wibowo and Permadi, 2014

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 17

 PHYSICS BACKGROUND
Derived from Kozeny-Carman Equation
𝟎.𝟓 𝒃 k : Permeability, ɸ : Porosity, 𝝉 : Tortousity,
𝒌 𝒌
Kozeny Equation: =𝒂× 𝟑 Fs : Shape factor, Sb : Internal specific surface area
ɸ ɸ
ɸ𝟑 𝑘 1 Exponent of self similarity
𝒌= =
𝝉𝑭𝒔 𝑺𝒃 𝟐 ɸ3 𝜏𝐹𝑠 𝑆𝑏 2 𝟎.𝟓 𝒃 𝟎.𝟓
𝒌 𝒌 𝒌 𝒌
=𝒂× 𝟑 ⇒ 𝒍𝒐𝒈 = 𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝒂) + 𝒃 × 𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝟑
0.5
ɸ ɸ ɸ ɸ
𝑘 ɸ
= 0.5
ɸ 𝜏𝐹𝑠 𝑆𝑏 2
Pore geometry Pore structure
(dependent variable) (independent variable)

𝟎.𝟓 𝟎.𝟓
𝒌 𝒌
= ɸ× 𝟑 Plot (k/) vs (k/3) on log-log graph
ɸ ɸ yields a straight line.
b representing complexity of pore
The above equation is for structure. b = 0.5 is maximum
cylindrical capillary pipes (capillaric pipes, 1);

Natural porous media (b < 0.5, >1). Capillary bundle Tortuous Capillary bundle Variably pore shapes

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 18

 PHYSICS BACKGROUND k : Permeability, ɸ : Porosity, 𝝉 : Tortousity,
Definition of each rock group of PGS method Fs : Shape factor, Sb : Internal specific surface area
log scale

𝟎.𝟓 𝒃
Similar 𝝉1 𝒌 𝒌
Sb varies =𝒂× 𝟑
ɸ ɸ
(k/ɸ)0.5

Similar 𝝉2
Sb varies

Similar 𝝉3
Sb varies

log scale
k/ɸ3

Each RT line has same Fs and 

but different Sb from one
sample to the others.
(Wibowo and Permadi, 2013)

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 19

RESERVOIR ROCK TYPING
Application of PGS Rock Typing

SESSION-2 COMPARISON & CASE STUDY

Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar

Reservoir Engineer & Petrophysicist

Budapest, 9 September 2022

Agenda

Session 1 Session 2
• Introduction to Rock Typing • PGS vs. other RT Methods
• Rock Typing Methods Comparison • Case Study: Saturation Height Function &
• Pore Geometry and Pore Structure (PGS) Concept Permeability Prediction (Carbonate-karst &
• PGS Case Studies Sandstone)
• Rock Typer Software Tutorial • Application in Elastic Properties
• Summary
Goal
1. To show some relations between geological aspects and engineering aspects.
2. To show some examples of rock typing and Permeability prediction using core data.
3. To provide some examples of rock typing and saturation height model using well logs
data.
4. To show consistencies of rock typing dealing with the behavior of acoustic wave
velocity.
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 21
PGS vs other Rock Typing
Methods

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 22

HFU vs. PGS vs. Lucia (J-Function comparison) Carbonate “A”
After Wibowo and Permadi, 2014

HFU or FZI PGS Rock Fabric

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 23

HFU vs. PGS Carbonate “A”
After Wibowo and Permadi, 2014

HFU or FZI

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 24

 Carbonate “X” (Indonesia & China)
HFU vs. PGS vs. Lucia (Pc & NMR - comparison) Akbar and Garcia, 2021

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 25

 Carbonate at Minahaki
HFU vs. PGS vs. Lucia (J-Function comparison) Formation
Akbar et al. 2016. An Analysis of Rock Typing Methods in Carbonate Rocks For Better Carbonate Reservoir Characterization : A Case Study of Minahaki Carbonate Formation, Banggai Sula Basin, Central Sulawesi

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 26

Permeability Prediction by PGS 1

0,9
V. fn -Fn/fn-occ fn med or occ crse grn, subrnd-
subang, v/arg, loc foram, clay mtrx, sndy
clay, w/fnly dissem pyr, loc. plant frag, w/thin
strks clay throut.

0,8

Rock Type Equation SCAL: Swirr vs. k K prediction eqs.

0,7 V/fn-fn grn, well srtd, clay/silt mtrx, fm-
hd, carb, calc, w/thin silt lam mass, tr

Sw @Pc 50 psia
Fn-med-crse grn, fn-occ pyr, sl/glauc, tr foss.
0,6 fn grn, silt mtrx, well
srtd, med-hd, calc, sli
0,5 glau, w/fnly dissem pyr. y = 0,827x-0,17
R² = 0,939
0,4
V. fn - crse grn, qrtz, well srtd, w/thin silt
lam, fm-hd, clay mtrx, fri-med
0,3 firm, mass, clay mtrx, , v/sl calc, sli
foss, sli/loc arg, pyr.
0,2 Fn-med to med-cse grn, poor - well
srtd, subang, subrnd, fm-hd, w/thin
0,1 carb lam or tr carb, med
hd/hd, foss rich, loc pyr.
0
0,1 1 10 100 1000 10000
k (md)

∅𝑒2
𝑘 = 𝑒1
𝑆𝑤𝑖𝑟𝑟 𝑒3

K measured (mD)
FZI Permeability Prediction

K predicted (mD)

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 27

Perm vs. Swirr in Carbonate
In many cases, K vs Swirr has excellent correlation for both sandstone and carbonate!

After Wibowo and Permadi, 2014

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 28

Saturation Height Model
by PGS Rock Typing

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 29

Saturation Model Basic Concept
Pc

Free air
Pc
h=
0,433( w −  hc )
End of transition zone
height?

Water – air – contact

Sw Free Water Level (FWL)

Saturation Height Function (SHF)

Capillary pressure (Pc) relates to height H Combining Eqs. (1), (2), and (3)
measured from FWL results in the equation below :
𝑏
= …… (1) 1× × 𝑆
=
𝑘 ∅
Pc will be used to generate the J-Function:
or
1 𝑏
𝑏 𝑠 2× ∅
= …(2) and = 𝑆 …(3) 𝑆 =
𝑠 ∅ 𝑠

Each rock type has its own equations for H and Sw

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 30
Saturation Model Basic Concept

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 31

Saturation Model Basic Concept
SHM – Idea

Sw Sw

Pc
h=
0,433( w −  hc )

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 32

 Saturation Model by PGS Rock Typing Sandstone (Indonesia)
M.N. Ali Akbar and P. Permadi (2016) IPTC-18807-MS •Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low Contrast Resistivity Zone

Typical low contrast high resistivity (LCR) Capillary pressure (Pc) relates to height H
measured from FWL
= …… (1)

Pc will be used to generate the J-Function:

𝑏
= …(2) and = 𝑆 …(3)
𝑠 ∅

Qo = 1,004 bopd
WC = 6%

Combining Eqs. (1), (2), and (3)

results in the equation below :
𝑏
Transition zone??? 1× × 𝑆
=
Where is the fluid-fluid 𝑘 ∅
contact ???
or
1 𝑏
𝑠 2× ∅
𝑆 =
𝑠

Each rock type has its own equations for H and Sw

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 33

Saturation Model by PGS Rock Typing Sandstone (Indonesia)
M.N. Ali Akbar and P. Permadi (2016) IPTC-18807-MS •Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low Contrast Resistivity Zone

J – Function in each Rock Type

Permeability prediction equation by multivariate regression

o 𝑘= 1. +1 . × 1 1 . × . 1 × 1

ND : (Neutron –porosity from density)

The equations for J-function and saturation-height function for all the rock types.
Rock
J Sw, fraction H, ft
Type

7
Once the FWL is determined, Sw
at any depth above FWL can be
8 determined by using equation in
the 3rd column.

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 34

OWC and FWL Estimation Sandstone (Indonesia)
M.N. Ali Akbar and P. Permadi (2016) IPTC-18807-MS •Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low Contrast Resistivity Zone

• Determine the distance vertically down from the midpoint

By using this Equation, based on of the dominant rock type.
𝑘 flow test data
= M-01, WC = 47% ➔ krw /kro = 0.224 • RT -4 is the best rock type and expected to dominantly
𝑘 1 contribute to the fluids flow within the tested interval.
M-02, WC = 6% ➔ krw /kro = 0.016
• OWC was determined by this equation when Sw = 100%
3.53
. 6 × 𝑆𝑤
= Above FWL
𝑘
∅
(M-02) Well
3.53
. 6 × 𝟎. 𝟐𝟖𝟏 cos( )
= k & ɸ was Taken FWL =
1 6 from 4128.5 ft
1. 1 . . 8 TVDSS 4176.3 ft
= 47.80 ft M-02

(M-01) Well
3.53
. 6× . cos( )
= k & ɸ was
1. 1 . Taken from FWL =
. 6 4156 ft TVDSS
= 21.49 ft (M-01) M-01
4177.5 ft

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 35

IPTC-18807-MS •Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low Contrast Resistivity Zone • M.N. Ali Akbar
Saturation Model by PGS Rock Typing Sandstone (Indonesia)
M.N. Ali Akbar and P. Permadi (2016) IPTC-18807-MS •Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low Contrast Resistivity Zone

• FWL & OWC are estimated based on

calculation in the previous slide

• Log permeability is formed by using

multilinear regression (track #8) Resistivity Porosity Permeability RT Sw

• PGS Rock type established (track #9).

• Water saturation distribution above

Free Water Level and Oil-Water Contact
(track #10) for M-02 well.

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 36

IPTC-18807-MS •Estimation of Fluid-Fluid Contact and the Transition Zone: A Case Study of Low Contrast Resistivity Zone • M.N. Ali Akbar
 PGS Rock Typing in
Elastic Properties
► This approach could help of how the elastic
properties connected with the pore geometry and
pore structure.

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 37

 WHY P-WAVE VELOCITY?
Vp

Core Well Seismic

Scale: 10-1 m Scale: 103 m

Core Vp Sonic Log VSP/Checkshot

Experiment done -- All work in different resolution --– Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar
Reservoir Rock Typing 38
 Study Workflow Cross-plot based on Rock Type Dependent

Critical Porosity
P-wave Velocity (Vp) Quality Factor (Qp)
Porosity ɸc Concept (Vp) vs. (k) (Qp) vs. (k)
(Nur et al.,
Perm. 1995)
(Vp) vs. (ϕ) (Qp) vs. (ϕ)
(Vp) vs. (k/ɸ)0.5 (Qp) vs. (k/ɸ)0.5
(Vp) vs. (k/ɸ3) (Qp) vs. (k/ɸ3)
Vp ,
Qp
Correlation ɸc
Sb and Vp Determination

Rock Typing PGS Empirical Equations Empirical Equations

Vp= f (k , ɸ) Qp= f (k , ɸ)
(k/ɸ)0.5 vs. (k/ɸ3) ɸ = f (Vp , ɸc)
k = f (Vp , ɸc)

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 39

 DATA USED
CARBONATE Middle East SE Asia

✓ 120 samples with P-wave velocity, porosity,

permeability data.
✓ The samples are saturated with distilled water.
✓ Effective pressure is 20 MPa. Australia

Permeability vs Porosity P-wave velocity vs Permeability

100000 P-wave velocity vs Porosity 7000
7000
10000 6000
6000
Permeability, mD

1000

P-wave velocity, m/s

5000
P-wave velocity, m/s
5000
100 4000
4000
10 3000
3000
1
y = 1040.7x2.3107 2000 y = 4167.3x0.0142
2000
y = -9578.2x + 6702.6 R² = 0.0359
0.1 R² = 0.118 1000
1000 R² = 0.5431
0.01 0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Porosity, frac Porosity, frac Permeability, mD
Reservoir RockEberli,
(Weger and Typing2009)
– Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 40
 DATA USED
SANDSTONE UK & Europe China

✓ 71 samples with measurements of the P-

wave velocity, seismic quality factor (Qp),
porosity, permeability
✓ The samples saturated with distilled water. USA
✓ Effective pressure was 40 MPa.

Permeability vs Porosity P-wave velocity vs Porosity P-wave velocity vs Permeability

10000 6000 6000

1000 5000 5000

Permeability, mD

100

P-wave velocity, m/s

P-wave velocity, m/s
4000 4000
10
3000 3000
1
2000 2000
0.1
y= 11781x4.1239 y = -7626.6x + 5483 y = 4049x-0.012
1000 1000
0.01 R² = 0.0022 R² = 0.7692 R² = 0.0744
0.001 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Porosity, frac Porosity, frac Permeability, mD

(Prasad, 2003) Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 41

 ROCK TYPING RESULT
CARBONATE 8 (Eight) Rock Types are established
RT03: Completely recrystallized rocks with ix and vug pore type
RT04: Packstone, grainstone and less recrystallized rocks
with ip, moldic, vug and less ix pore type

RT05: Grainstone-Packstone and less recrystallized rocks

with ip, moldic, vug and less ix pore type

RT06: Grainstone-Packstone and less recrystallized rocks

with ip, less moldic, vug, less ix and less micro moldic and
less intraframe pore type

RT07: Grainstone-Packstone and less recrystallized rocks

with ip, moldic, vug, less ix and less intraparticle pore type

RT08: Recrystallized rocks and grainstone with ip, moldic,

vug, less ix and less intraparticle pore type

RT09: Grainstone, Packstone and recrystallized rocks with

moldic, vug, ix intraframe pore type

RT10: Grainstone, Packstone and Wackestone with moldic

and intraparticle pore type

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 42

 Vp vs. Permeability
CARBONATE
Correlation among P-wave velocity and Very good correlations when the rock
Permeability is too weak samples are grouped based on PGS
Ungrouped Data Grouped by PGS cross-plot
7000 8000
R² = 0.8141 R² = 0.7491 R² = 0.8302
6000 7000
R² = 0.8801 R² = 0.7403
6000
5000 R² = 0.8957
R² = 0.9919
5000

Vp (m/sec)
4000
Vp (m/sec)

4000
3000 R² = 0.9005
3000
y= 4167.3x0.0142
2000 R² = 0.0359 2000
RT03 RT04 RT05 RT06
1000 1000
RT07 RT08 RT09 RT10
0 0
0.01 1 100 10000 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000
Permeability (mD) Permeability (mD)

Vp increases with Permeability in each Rock

Reservoir Type
Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 43
 Vp vs. Permeability
CARBONATE

Vp increases with Permeability in each Rock Type

ɸ𝟑
After Weger and Eberli, 2009 𝒌=
𝝉𝑭𝒔 𝑺𝒃 𝟐
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 44
 Vp is Grouped by PGS
CARBONATE
y = 2128.1x0.0586
Vp vs. Pore Geometry y = 2231.3x0.1314 Vp vs. Pore Structure R² = 0.9301
8000 R² = 0.9126 8000
y = 2233.5x0.0627
Vp= c[(k/)0.5]p y = 2400.3x0.1459 Vp = d(k/3)]q R² = 0.9271
7000 7000
R² = 0.9105
y = 2211.2x0.0743
y = 2492.5x0.1786 6000
6000 R² = 0.7937
R² = 0.7648
y = 2396.8x0.0812
5000
Vp (m/sec)

5000 y = 2791.1x0.211

Vp (m/sec)
R² = 0.8437
R² = 0.8389
4000 4000 y = 2674.1x0.0806
y= 3218.2x0.2144
R² = 0.787
R² = 0.7673
3000 3000 y = 2871.6x0.0909
y = 3668.2x0.2602
R² = 0.8246
2000 R² = 0.8211 2000
y = 3072.7x0.1097
y = 4458.8x0.3365 R² = 0.9488
1000 R² = 0.9201 1000
y = 3114.1x0.1172
y= 4992.4x0.3869
0 0 R² = 0.9917
R² = 0.9947
0.01 1 100 0.001 1 1000 1000000
(k/Ф)0.5 k/Ф3
Vp increases with Tortuosity (τ) Vp decreases with Specific internal surface
& Shape factor (Fs) area (Sb) in each RT
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 45
 ROCK TYPING RESULT
SANDSTONE
Vp vs. Permeability
Based on PGS plot, 9 Rock Types are Established
6000
R² = 0.867 R² = 0.9469 R² = 0.8046 R² = 0.9925 R² = 0.9947

5000 R² = 0.9811
R² = 0.9421

4000 R² = 0.8525

Vp (m/sec)
R² = 0.8515
3000

2000

1000
RT04 RT05
RT06 RT07
RT08 RT09
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

k (mD)

Vp increases with Permeability in each Rock Type

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 46
 Vp is Grouped by PGS
SANDSTONE
y = 2109.8x0.0489
Vp vs Pore Geometry Vp vs Pore Structure R² = 0.8576
6000 y = 2236.4x0.1161 7000 y = 2197x0.0523
R² = 0.8541 R² = 0.9012
y = 2399.6x0.1236 y = 2257.6x0.0695
5000 6000
R² = 0.8732 R² = 0.9678
y = 2562.3x0.1792 y = 2411.3x0.0792
R² = 0.9583 5000 R² = 0.9858
4000

Vp (m/sec)
Vp (m/sec)

y = 2916.8x0.2185 y = 2467.7x0.0803
R² = 0.9925 4000 R² = 0.9873
3000 y = 3062.4x0.2302 y = 2703.5x0.0951
R² = 0.9901 3000 R² = 0.9895
2000 y = 3698.6x0.292
y = 2788.9x0.0943
R² = 0.9902 2000 R² = 0.8202
y = 4063.6x0.3109
1000 R² = 0.8164 y = 2954.5x0.1036
Vp= c[(k/)0.5]p y = 4899.1x0.3744
1000
Vp = d(k/3)]q R² = 0.9425
R² = 0.9725 y = 3058x0.1045
0 0 R² = 0.8891
y = 6421.8x0.4487 0.001 0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 R² = 0.8975
(k/ɸ)0.5 k/ɸ3
Vp increases with Tortuosity (τ) Vp decreases with Specific internal surface
& Shape factor (Fs) area (Sb) in each RT
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 47
 Vp Prediction Results
CARBONATE

General Equation Vp= c[(k/)0.5]p General Equation Vp = d(k/3)]q

Derived from Pore Geometry Derived from Pore Structure
8000 8000
7000 7000
6000 6000
Vp Lab (m/sec)

Vp Lab (m/sec)
5000 5000

4000 4000

3000 3000

2000 2000
• Avg. Relative Error : 8.3% • Avg. Relative Error : 7.9%
1000 • Avg. Absolute Error : 373.6 m/s 1000 • Avg. Absolute Error : 351.85 m/s

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Vp Predicted (m/sec) Vp Predicted (m/sec)

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 48

 POROSITY PREDICTION
Basic Velocity Equation: Substitution Equations 2 and 3 to Equation 1, then
ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ
+ 𝑉𝑝 2
= 1 𝑚+ + 1 𝑚+
𝑉𝑝 = or 𝑉𝑝 2 = + (1) ϕ ϕ ϕ ϕ

Based on Nur et al. 1995 ϕ

𝑉𝑝 2 𝑚 𝑚 = + 𝑚 𝑚
ϕ
ϕ ϕ
= 1 𝑚+ (2) 𝑉𝑝 2
ϕ ϕ 𝑚 𝑚
ϕ=ϕ
+ 𝑚 𝑚
Based on Mavko et al. 2009
ϕ ϕ Because ≈ , then porosity equation can be simplified as
= 1 𝑚+ (3)
ϕ ϕ

ɸ Porosity (v/v) 𝜇 Shear Modulus (GPa)

𝑉𝑝 2 𝑉𝑚 2 𝑚
ɸc Critical porosity (v/v) 𝜇m Matrix Shear Modulus (GPa)
ϕ=ϕ 2
B
Bm
Bulk Modulus (GPa)
Matrix Bulk Modulus (GPa)
𝜇c
Vp
Shear Modulus @ɸc (GPa)
P-wave velocity (km/s)
𝑉𝑚 𝑚
Bc Bulk Modulus @ɸc (GPa) 𝜌 Density (gr/cc)
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 49
 POROSITY AND PERMEABILITY PREDICTION
Porosity Equations Vp has good correlation with pore geometry and structure.
S can be predicted by the cross plot Vp vs. S (rock type
𝑉𝑝 2 𝑉𝑚 2 𝑚 dependent)
ϕ=ϕ
𝑉𝑚 2 𝑚 𝑆 = α. 𝑒 β.𝑉𝑝×1000

Permeability Equation (Kozeny, 1927) Then Permeability can be formulated as:

𝜙3 3
𝑘 = . 86 2 2
𝑆2 𝑉𝑝 𝑉𝑚 𝑚
ϕ
𝑉𝑚 2
𝑚
𝜙3 𝑘 = . 86
𝑆= . 86 (β.𝑉𝑝 ×1000) 2
𝑘 α. 𝑒
Kozeny Constant (Mortensen et al., 1998) ɸ Porosity (v/v) Vp P-wave velocity (km/s)
ɸc Critical porosity (v/v) 𝜌 Bulk Density (gr/cc)
Bc Bulk Modulus @ɸc (GPa) 𝜌m Matrix Density (gr/cc)

k Reservoir(Darcy)
Permeability Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 50
 Determine ϕc
CARBONATE EXAMPLE Critical porosity is rock type dependent which can be obtained at
the intersection of Nur’s and Reuss curves in each rock types.
𝑉𝑝 2 𝑉𝑚 2 𝑚
ϕ=ϕ 2 Bm = 76.8 GPa (Calcite) 1
= 1 ϕ
1
+ϕ
1
𝑉𝑚 𝑚 Bf = 2.12 GPa (Distilled Water) 𝑚 𝑓

8000
RT03
7000
RT04
Rock Types 𝛟𝐜 Bc
6000 RT05 3 0.55 3.77
5000 RT06 4 0.45 4.56
5 0.38 5.34
Vp, m/s

RT07
4000
RT08 6 0.34 5.92
3000 7 0.3 6.64
RT09

2000 RT10
8 0.28 7.07
9 0.27 7.31
1000 Voigt UB
ϕ 10 0.25 7.83
Reuss LB
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Porosity, v/v
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 51
 Porosity Prediction Results
CARBONATE AND SANDSTONE

Carbonate Sandstone
0.6 0.6
y = 0.9978x Y = 1.0017x
R² = 0.977 R2 = 0.9934
0.5 0.5

Predicted Porosity ɸ, v/v

RT04
0.4 RT03 0.4 RT05
Predicted Porosity ɸ, v/v

RT04 RT06
0.3 RT05 0.3
RT07
RT06 RT08
0.2 RT07 0.2
RT09
RT08 RT10
0.1 RT09 0.1
RT11
Avg. Relative Error : 9.8% Avg. Relative Error : 6.4%
RT10 RT13
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Measured Porosity ɸ, v/v Measured Porosity ɸ, v/v

Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 52

 Permeability Prediction Results
CARBONATE AND SANDSTONE

Carbonate Sandstone
100000 100000
y = 0.9794x0.9572 y = 1.0314x0.9923
10000 R² = 0.9297 10000 R² = 0.9769

Predicted Permeability k, mD
1000
Predicted Permeability k, mD

1000
RT03 RT04
100
100 RT04 RT05
RT05 10 RT06
10 RT06 RT07
1
RT07 RT08
1 RT09
RT08 0.1
RT10
0.1 RT09
0.01 RT11
Avg. Relative Error : 14.2% RT10 Avg. Relative Error : 9.3%
RT13
0.01 0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Measured Permeability k, mD Measured Permeability k, mD
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 53
ROCK MECHANICS AND T2 NMR
PGS Rock Typing in Connection with bulk modulus, shear modulus, young modulus, and poison ratio. ++ T2 NMR
Rock mechanics - Summary
► young modulus (E), Bulk Modulus (B), shear
modulus (µ) , and first lame constant (λ), all
these parameters tend to increase with an
increase in permeability and pore geometry in
each rock group.
► Elastic Properties increase with Tortuosity (τ) &
Shape factor (Fs)
► Elastic properties decrease with Specific internal
surface area (Sb) in each RT

T2-GM NMR - Summary

► T 2 -NMR Geometric mean increases with increasing
porosity and permeability. Also T 2- GM decreases
with increasing irreducible water saturation.
► T 2 -NMR Geometric mean can be used for reservoir
rock typing and permeability prediction, and further
investigation is needed for better understanding of
this parameter.
► Recommendation to use different T 2 Cut-off in
different rock types.
► Possibility to identify the rock wettability based on
T2 geometric mean (further study is needed).
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 54
 Petrophysics
Core Analysis PGS rock typing has developed for better saturation
Reservoir Engineering (SCAL & RCA)
Image height model and permeability prediction.
Well-assist to distribute capillary pressure and Log Strong connection between T2 NMR and pore
relative permeability geometry and por structure parameters
Improved and accelerated the history matching NMR
process and quality Log & Core
Reservoir
Simulation Petroleum Geoscience
Geostatistics Well Logging
PGS rock typing inline with microscopic geological
Opportunity to connect with clustering features (grainsize, sorting, packing, etc.)
methods, ANN, and SOM Well correlated between PGS result and geological
Fracture Facies
Possibly support the interpretation rock facies. Improve static geomodel quality.
result of well logging inversion
Machine Learning Lithofacies

Rock Physics
Geomechanics Porosity & Permeability prediction based on P-wave
well understood in term of connection between velocity and critical porosity.
rock elastic properties and PGS parameters Seismic
Interpretation Possibility to support the seismic inversion to well
predict porosity and permeability distribution in
spatial space.

Conclusion & Opportunity

Current and Future Research and Case Study
Reservoir Rock Typing – Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar 55
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
Reservoir Rock Typing
Muhammad Nur Ali Akbar
Reservoir Engineer & Petrophysicist
Budapest, 9 September 2022
Training Opportunity and consultancy for further detail explanation
and tutorial of reservoir rock typing with hands-on.
► Integrated RCA & SCAL for reservoir rock typing.
► How to build saturation height function and permeability
prediction from core & well logs to 3D reservoir model.
► RT implementation to static and dynamic models.
► Electrofacies (machine learning based) with hands-on
► Reservoir Rock Typing in Naturally Fractured Carbonate and
Basement.
► Application of acoustic wave velocity on rock typing and
porosity-permeability prediction.
Feel free to contact me or SkillUp Training and Consultancy!