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

net/publication/236234426

Permeability-porosity relationships in interbedded limestone-dolostone

reservoirs

Article in AAPG Bulletin · January 2006

DOI: 10.1306/08100505087

CITATIONS READS

176 3,265

4 authors:

Stephen Ehrenberg Gregor P. Eberli

none University of Miami
95 PUBLICATIONS 5,209 CITATIONS 613 PUBLICATIONS 10,566 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marzieh Keramati Nojedeh Sadat Seyed Ali Moallemi

Islamic Azad University Research Institute of Petroleum Industry (RIPI)
9 PUBLICATIONS 306 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 1,627 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregor P. Eberli on 19 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Porosity-permeability AUTHORS
S. N. Ehrenberg  Statoil, Stavanger, Nor-
relationships in interlayered way, and Department of Geology, United
Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box 17551, Al
limestone-dolostone reservoirs Ain, United Arab Emirates; sne@uaeu.ac.ae
Steve has a Ph.D. from the University of Cali-
S. N. Ehrenberg, G. P. Eberli, M. Keramati, and fornia at Los Angeles (1978). He has worked
S. A. Moallemi at Shell Development Company’s Bellaire
Research Center (1981 – 1985) and Statoil
(1985–2005) and has recently begun teaching
at the United Arab Emirates University.
ABSTRACT
G. P. Eberli  Rosenstiel School of Marine
Porosity and permeability data from five carbonate platform succes- and Atmospheric Sciences, University of
sions of different settings, ages, and burial depths are examined Miami, 4600 Rickenbacher Cswy., Miami,
to identify overall similarities and differences in the reservoir quality Florida 33149; geberli@rsmas.miami.edu
of interlayered limestones and dolostones. Each succession consists Gregor Eberli received his Ph.D.s from the Swiss
mainly of limestone and dolostone, with subordinate proportions Institute of Technology (ETH), Zürich, Switzer-
of intermediate, partly dolomitized compositions. In the three land, in 1985 and the University of Miami in
deeply buried platforms, the key features are that limestones have 1991. With his colleagues at the Comparative
much lower average porosity than associated dolostones, and Sedimentologic Laboratory, he conducts re-
that limestones and dolostones show little difference in average search in sedimentology, stratigraphy, geo-
permeability-for-given-porosity. In contrast, the shallowly buried chemistry, and petrophysics of modern and
platforms show little difference in average porosity between lime- ancient carbonates. In several projects, he
investigated the influence of sea level changes
stones and dolostones and also display higher average permeability-
on sedimentary architecture. He was an AAPG
for-given-porosity in dolostones than limestones.
Distinguished Lecturer in 1996–1997 and a Joint
These data suggest the following general guidelines for depo- Oceanographic Institutions/U.S. Science Ad-
sitional and diagenetic controls on reservoir architecture in carbon- visory Committee Distinguished Lecturer in
ates consisting of interlayered limestone and dolostone. 1998 – 1999.
(1) Reservoir compartmentalization by the formation of tight
limestone barriers is largely a burial diagenetic process involving cal- M. Keramati  Research Institute of Petro-
leum Industry, National Iranian Oil Company,
cite cementation locally produced by chemical compaction. (2) Both
P.O. Box 1863, Tehran, Iran
the pattern of early dolomitization and the distribution of clay min-
erals ( because they influence the localization of chemical compac- Keramati holds an M. Tech. degree and a Ph.D.
tion) are key factors that determine the distribution of tight lime- in petroleum geology from Roorkee University,
India (1990). He joined the Research Institute of
stone barriers separating flow units. Thus, the pattern of eventual
Petroleum Industry in 1990 as a petroleum ge-
burial compartmentalization follows a template that is hardwired
ologist and has led several research projects in
into the stratigraphic architecture by depositional mineralogy and
petroleum exploration and reservoir studies.
early diagenesis. (3) After burial (2 – 3 km; 1.2 – 1.8 mi), dolostones His area of interest is reservoir geology and
should not be expected to have higher permeability-for-given- characterization. He is currently the head of
porosity than associated limestones. the Institute of Reservoir Studies at the Research
These rules assume dolomitization to occur early relative to Institute of Petroleum Industry.
chemical compaction, which will commonly be the case because
of combined hydrologic and mass-balance constraints. Dolomitiza- S. A. Moallemi  Research Institute of Pe-
troleum Industry, National Iranian Oil Com-
tion and concentration of clay appear linked to cycle and sequence
pany, P.O. Box 1863, Tehran, Iran
Ali holds an M.Sc. degree in sedimentology
(1994) from Azad University of Tehran and is a
Copyright #2006. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Geology
Manuscript received May 14, 2005; provisional acceptance June 1, 2005; revised manuscript received
at Shahid Beheshti University. He is a senior
August 5, 2005; final acceptance August 10, 2005.
DOI:10.1306/08100505087

AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 1 (January 2006), pp. 91 – 114 91

 research scientist at the Research Institute of
Petroleum Industry, working on carbonate
reservoir characterization research. His major
interests include carbonate sequence stra-
tigraphy, depositional systems, and diagenesis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The manuscript benefited from suggestions by
F. J. Lucia, C. T. Feazel, and P. A. Bjørkum. D. A.
Katz is thanked for the advice and practical
help on the Madison data set. We thank Statoil
and the National Iranian Oil Company for
permission to publish this article.
92 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs
architecture in the present examples and thus may have a useful
degree of predictability, at least in terms of statistical parameters,
such as net/gross and probability of flow-unit thickness distribution.
INTRODUCTION
A major theme throughout the history of carbonate reservoir re-
search has been the effect of dolomitization on reservoir quality
(Powers, 1962; Davies, 1979; Allan and Wiggins, 1993; Sun, 1995;
Warren, 2000; Moore, 2001; Braithwaite et al., 2004). Probably
the most significant and commonly reported finding has been that
deeply buried dolostones tend to have higher porosity and per-
meability than associated limestones (Landes, 1946; Hohlt, 1948;
Chilingar and Terry, 1954; Institut Français du Pétrole, 1959; Murray,
1960; Lucia, 1962; Schmidt, 1965; Glover, 1968; Hull and Warman,
1970; Choquette and Steinen, 1980, 1985; Sears and Lucia, 1980;
Schmoker and Halley, 1982; Longman et al., 1983, 1992; Lindsay
and Kendall, 1985; Morgan, 1985; Ruzyla and Friedman, 1985;
Choquette et al., 1992; Amthor et al., 1994; Purser et al., 1994; Qing
and Mountjoy, 1994; Saller and Yaremko, 1994; Watts et al., 1994;
Brown, 1997; Mountjoy and Marquez, 1997; Zempolich and Hardie,
1997; Saller and Henderson, 1998; Eichenseer et al., 1999; Hopkins,
1999, 2004; Mancini et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2004; Westphal et al.,
2004; Zhao et al., 2005). However, quantitative information on the
nature and magnitude of such differences tends to be sparse, and
there is an understandable tendency to focus on the porous dolo-
stones and ignore the limestones.
Despite the preponderance of case studies showing higher po-
rosity in dolostones, a few examples to the contrary have also been
reported. Saller et al. (2004) describe an upper Paleozoic buildup
reservoir from the Horeshoe Atoll complex, Texas, where dolo-
stones are both less porous and more permeable than associated
limestones. The Upper Jurassic Arab reservoirs of Saudi Arabia and
Qatar also show overall decreasing porosity with increasing do-
lomitization (Powers, 1962; Cantrell et al., 2004; Clark et al., 2004).
Thus, the relationships observed in this study cannot be claimed to
be representative of all partially dolomitized carbonate reservoirs,
and appropriate cautions must be recommended.
Furthermore, Schmoker et al. (1985) reported lower average
matrix porosities and permeabilities for dolostone as opposed to
limestone reservoirs in a compilation of data for several thousand
United States carbonate reservoirs. Dolostone reservoirs were also
found to be statistically both deeper and considerably larger in
equivalent oil volume than limestone reservoirs. Schmoker et al.
(1985) suggested that dolomitization may locally improve reser-
voir properties, partly by fracturing, relative to adjacent limestones
that would otherwise make poor reservoirs.
This article reexamines the question of limestone versus
dolostone reservoir quality by comparing petrophysical, petrograph-
ic, and geological data from five shallow-water carbonate platform
Figure 1. Locations of carbonate porosity-permeability data sets studied. The background map shows the global distribution of
petroleum reservoirs with production from carbonate strata (modified from Ehrenberg and Nadeau, 2005).
successions that consist mainly of interbedded lime-
stones and dolostones (Figure 1). Three of these cases
have been deeply buried, whereas two have never
been deeper than their present range of 0 –700 m
(0– 2296 ft). Comparisons in each data set allow the
evaluation of the effects of dolomitization, whereas
comparisons between the deeper and shallower data
sets may be relevant to understanding the effects of
burial diagenesis. Details of stratigraphy and geologic
setting for each example have been described in pre-
vious publications. The purpose of this article is to
compare these data sets and point out overall similari-
ties and differences of possible general significance.
Our five data sets represent very diverse and dis-
similar assemblages of depositional facies and strati-
graphic patterns, so it is relevant to question whether
comparison is meaningful. It is also uncertain to what
degree the dolostones of each data set represent the
same precursor lithofacies as the associated limestones.
These are valid concerns for which we have no clear
answers. However, we suggest that these five data sets
are each so unique and complexly heterogeneous that
the commonalities observed potentially carry broad
significance for carbonate reservoirs worldwide. Nev-
ertheless, a key issue that we discuss further in this ar-
ticle is the degree to which the two shallowly buried
data sets represent valid analogs for interpreting the
three deeply buried data sets as they may have been
at an earlier stage before burial diagenesis.
Reservoir quality is examined here using three
types of data display: (1) histograms of porosity fre-
quency distribution (Figures 2 – 7), (2) porosity-depth
profiles showing the vertical stratigraphic organization
of porosity with respect to lithology and depositional
cyclicity (Figures 8 – 12), and (3) permeability-porosity
crossplots (Figures 13 – 16). These simple visual repre-
sentations facilitate a rapid comprehension of overall
similarities and differences between complex data sets.
METHODS
The porosity, permeability, and grain-density data pre-
sented here are from 1-in. (2.5-cm) plugs that were
drilled from cores and outcrops. The measurements
were made by various laboratories but used similar
techniques that are more or less industry standard. Data
and analytical techniques are available for the shal-
low data sets in Anselmetti and Eberli (2001), Melim
et al. (2001a), and Ehrenberg et al. (2004a). Analytical
techniques for the deeply buried data sets are similar:
porosity by helium injection and weight-volume rela-
tionships and permeability by pressure differential dur-
ing nitrogen flow.
Ehrenberg et al. 93
Figure 2. Frequency distribution of DI values estimated from mineralogic analyses for each data set examined. Bar fill indicates
limestone (open), intermediate (gray), and dolostone (black) for each data set examined.

Proportions of calcite, dolomite, and noncarbonate
minerals have been estimated in each plug sample by
various methods using whatever information is avail-
able for each sample group. For the Finnmark samples,
bulk rock x-ray diffraction analyses, bulk chemical anal-
yses, and thin sections were made for approximately
every third plug over most cored intervals, and the
results were then interpolated to intervening plug sam-
ples using information from grain density, core descrip-
tions, and, in cases of particular uncertainty, exami-
nation of the actual plug samples. For the Madison
samples, relative dominance of calcite and dolomite was
estimated from grain-density values, assuming negli-
gible contents of noncarbonate minerals. X-ray dif-
fraction analyses were also available for many plugs,
but in all other cases, plug mineralogy was confirmed
by either testing for reaction with HCl or from thin-
section petrography. For Asmari plugs, calcite, dolo-
mite, quartz, clay, and anhydrite contents were esti-
mated first from qualitative thin-section examination
(roughly one per meter, approximately equivalent to
every third plug), with reference to grain-density values
(available for most cores). These estimates were then
checked against a set of bulk chemical analyses for 478
of the samples. Finally, these results were then inter-
polated to intervening plug samples using information

Figure 3. Frequency distribution of plug

porosity measurements in cores from
the Great Bahama Bank (late Miocene–
Pleistocene; boreholes Unda and Clino),
burial depth 33 –670 m (108–2198 ft).
Only platform samples are included.

94 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs


from grain density and core descriptions. For the Baha-
mas plugs, the mineralogic data reported in Anselmetti
and Eberli (2001) and Melim et al. (2001a) were used.
For the Marion Plateau plugs, mineral abundances were
estimated from a combination of petrographic obser-
vations and bulk chemical analyses of selected plugs
(Ehrenberg et al., 2004a) and interpolation using grain-
density values, shipboard core descriptions, and x-ray
diffraction data (Isern et al., 2002).
Figure 4. Frequency distribution of plug
porosity measurements in cores from
carbonate platforms of the Marion Pla-
teau (Miocene; ODP Leg 194, Sites 1193,
1196, and 1199), burial depth 0–650 m
(0–2132 ft).
GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The locations of the five data sets studied are shown in
Figure 1. Miocene–Pleistocene platform-to-slope strata
of the Great Bahama Bank were sampled in boreholes
Unda and Clino at depths of 33–670 m (108–2198 ft)
below the mud pit in 7 m (23 ft) of water depth (Eberli
et al., 2001; Melim et al., 2001a). Parts of the cores from
these locations that consist of fine-grained slope facies
Figure 5. Frequency distribution of plug
porosity measurements in cores from
the Finnmark platform (Gipsdalen Group,
Pennsylvanian –Lower Permian, offshore
north Norway), maximum burial depth
2400 –3300 m (7874 – 10,826 ft).
Ehrenberg et al. 95
Figure 6. Frequency distribution of plug
porosity measurements in outcrops and
cores of the Madison Formation (Missis-
sippian, Wyoming and Montana), maxi-
mum burial depth 3300–7500 m (10,826–
24,606 ft).
are excluded from the present comparison involv-
ing platform carbonate facies. Dolomitized platform
(reefal) facies occur only in the Unda core at 293 –
360-m (961 – 1181-ft) depth, where fabric-preserving
to microsucrosic dolomite is interpreted to have
formed shortly after deposition from slightly altered
seawater (Swart and Melim, 2000; Melim et al.,
2001b).
Miocene platform strata from two carbonate plat-
forms on the Marion Plateau, offshore northeast Aus-
tralia, were sampled at depths of 0 – 650 m (0 – 2133 ft)
in three boreholes drilled by Ocean Drilling Program
(ODP) Leg 194 (Isern et al., 2002; Ehrenberg, 2004a;
Ehrenberg et al., 2004b). As in the Bahamas cores, do-
lomitization of the Marion Plateau strata is interpreted
to have occurred by circulation of normal to slightly
altered seawater at low temperature with essentially
no influence of evaporative concentration (Ehrenberg,
2004a; Ehrenberg et al., in press).
The Pennsylvanian –Lower Permian Finnmark car-
bonate platform was cored in two exploration wells,
offshore north Norway (Ehrenberg et al., 1998a, b,
2002; Ehrenberg, 2004b). The present burial depth is
1410 –1750 m (4626– 5741 ft), but maximum burial in
the early Tertiary was probably 2400 –3300 m (7874 –
10,827 ft).
The Mississippian Madison Formation was sam-
pled in outcrop sections and cores from the Big Horn
and Wind River basins of Wyoming and Montana,
96 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs
United States (Smith et al., 2004; Westphal et al., 2004).
The maximum burial depth is believed to have been
3300 – 7500 m (10,827 –24,606 ft). Early dolomitiza-
tion is interpreted to have occurred by both reflux of
hypersaline brine and circulation of normal-marine sea-
water (Moore, 2001; D. Katz, 2005, personal commu-
nication), but stable isotope data have been viewed as
indicating subsequent recrystallization of most Madi-
son dolomite in mixed meteoric-marine waters (Budai
et al., 1987). Later hydrothermal dolomitization oc-
curred during Laramide thrusting (Katz et al., in press).
Data compiled in this study include outcrop samples
from the Benbow Mine Road, Shoshone Canyon,
Sheep Mountain, Wind River Canyon, Casper Moun-
tain, Freemont Canyon, Hartville Canyon sections, and
subsurface samples from the Lysite, Madden Deep, and
Beaver Creek cores (Smith et al., 2004; Westphal et al.,
2004).
The Oligocene – lower Miocene Asmari Forma-
tion is represented by cores from five wells in two
giant oil fields of southwest Iran (Aqrawi et al., 2004;
Ehrenberg et al., 2004a). Published information on
the Asmari Formation is sparse, but general reviews
are given in Hull and Warman (1970) and McQuillan
(1985). The present burial depth in the studied oil
fields ranges from 1660 to 3700 m (5446 to 12,139 ft),
but the maximum burial was probably 500 –1500 m
(1640–4921 ft) deeper. Variable dolomitization of both
the Asmari and Finnmark strata is suggested to have

occurred mainly by the shallow circulation of evapo-
ratively concentrated seawater based on the ubiqui-
tous association between dolostones and anhydrite
nodules and cements, the common presence of high-
salinity fluid inclusions in these dolomites, and the
general increase in dolomitization toward shelf-interior
settings.
Figure 7. Frequency distribution of plug
porosity measurements in cores from the
Asmari Formation (Oligocene–Miocene,
Iran) in the (A) Marun field, burial depth
3000–3700 m, (9842 – 12,139 ft) and
(B) Bibi Hakimeh field, burial depth
1660 – 2130 m (5446 – 6988 ft).
MINERALOGY
Key parameters used in this study are the dolomiti-
zation index (DI), defined as 100 times the ratio of
dolomite to total carbonate, and the siliciclastic index,
defined as the weight percentage of the bulk sample
composed of siliciclastic minerals. The weight percent
Ehrenberg et al. 97
Figure 8. Depth-porosity
profiles in two bore-
holes of the Bahamas
Drilling Project. Distance
between locations is
8.5 km (5.2 mi). Hori-
zontal lines indicate bases
of seismic sequences a
to h (Eberli et al., 2001).
Plotting symbols indicate
the dominant mineralo-
gy and depositional set-
ting (large symbols =
platform; small symbols =
slope). The bar to the
right of the porosity data
shows the division of
each sequence into low-
stand + transgression
(black) and highstand
(white).

anhydrite is another key parameter related to
porosity in the Finnmark and Asmari data sets. Cal-
cium sulfate minerals are not present in the Bahamas
and Marion Plateau sections because of nonarid depo-
sitional conditions and are absent from the Madison
outcrop samples because of surficial leaching. Both the
Finnmark and Asmari cores contain subordinate beds of
dominantly siliciclastic composition, but samples from
these beds have been excluded from Figures 2 – 7 and
13–16 because this study concerns only carbonate rocks.
Figure 2 shows histograms of DI values from sam-
ples for which mineral abundances have been estimated
from direct analytical control (based on petrography,
x-ray diffraction, bulk chemistry, or some combination
of these, as opposed to mineralogic estimation by inter-
polation between analyzed samples or from grain den-
sity alone). Most samples in each data set are com-
posed mainly of either calcite or dolomite, with partly
dolomitized samples of intermediate composition (DI =
25–75) being subordinate in all cases. In each data set,
a large proportion of the samples with DI less than
100 but greater than 75 are dolostones in which the
calcite occurs only as late cement, postdating do-
lomitization. Samples with DI greater than 0 but less
than 25 are commonly wackestones and packstones,
in which the mud matrix is partly replaced by dolo-
mite. The relative paucity of intermediately dolomi-
tized rock has been reported previously (Steidtmann,
1917; Chave, 1954; Institut Français du Pétrole, 1959;
Schmidt, 1965) and may be a general characteristic
of carbonate strata, reflecting some intrinsic aspect of
the dolomitization process (Blatt et al., 1980, p. 517).
This characteristic may largely reflect the process of
dissolution of the remaining calcium carbonate during
or after partial dolomitization, as discussed below.
Only for the Finnmark, Bahamas, and Marion Pla-
teau data sets are the constraints of analytical control
tight enough to define an intermediately dolomitized
grouping of plugs throughout each data set (for ex-
ample, Ehrenberg, 2004b). For the Asmari and Madison
data, it has proved impractical to consistently distin-
guish intermediately dolomitized samples from either
more pure limestones or more pure dolostones for the
majority of plugs where either a thin section or a bulk-
chemical analysis is not available. Throughout the re-
mainder of this article, therefore, ‘‘limestone’’ and

98 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs

Figure 9. Depth-porosity profiles in three boreholes on the Marion Plateau (ODP Leg 194). Site 1193 is on a separate carbonate
platform, separated by 140 km (87 mi) from sites 1196 and 1199, which are separated by only 5 km (3.1 mi) (Isern et al., 2002).
Horizontal lines indicate bases of sequences labeled B1 to C (Ehrenberg et al., in press). Plotting symbols indicate dominant mineralogy.
The bar to the right of the porosity data shows the division of each sequence into transgression (black) and highstand (white).

‘‘dolostone’’ are defined as referring to carbonate-
dominated rocks with DI < 50 and DI > 50, respectively.
This convention lumps relatively pure limestones to-
gether with subordinate numbers of partly dolomitized
limestones and lumps relatively pure dolostones with
subordinate numbers of dolomite-dominated carbonates
of intermediate composition. We feel that such simpli-
fication is nevertheless preferable to working with an in-
termediately dolomitized grouping that would likely in-
clude significant proportions of both pure limestones and
pure dolostones. In any case, the uncertainties involved
in the classification of intermediately dolomitized sam-
ples are believed to be relatively insignificant with regard
to the overall differences observed in comparing the lime-
stones and dolostones defined by the simple 50% rule.
POROSITY
Limestone versus Dolostone
Porosity histograms for the two shallowly buried data
sets show only modest differences between limestones
and dolostones (Figures 3, 4). In each case, the lime-
stones and dolostones have similar average porosity,
although the Marion Plateau dolostones are distinctly
skewed toward higher frequency at lower porosities.
Porosity histograms comparing limestones and do-
lostones of the three deeply buried data sets show
important features in common (Figures 5–7), which
contrast sharply with the histograms of the shallowly
buried strata (Figures 3, 4). In each case, the deeply
buried limestones have strongly positively skewed po-
rosity distributions with the highest frequency of val-
ues, or mode, in the range 0–5%, whereas deeply
buried dolostones have more symmetrical distributions
with the mode about 8–15% and relatively few values
less than 5%. For Asmari reservoirs in other oil fields,
Lees (1933) found no relationship between dolomi-
tization and porosity, whereas Chilingar and Terry
(1954) reported a strong relationship.
A degree of uncertainty exists for the samples from
the Madison Formation because surficial weathering
appears to have leached anhydrite from the outcrop
samples, which make up the major part of this data
set, and deep penetration of meteoric water is reported
to have leached anhydrite throughout the subsurface
of the Wind River basin (Moore, 2001). Anhydrite is,

Ehrenberg et al. 99
Figure 10. Depth-
porosity profiles in cores
from two exploration
wells on the Finnmark
platform, penetrating
the Gipsdalen Group
(shallow-water carbonate-
dominated section of se-
quences 1 to 4). Hori-
zontal lines indicate the
bases of sequences 1 to 5.
Plotting symbols indicate
the dominant mineralo-
gy. The bar to the right
of the porosity data
shows the division of
each sequence into
transgression (black)
and highstand (white).

however, commonly present in subsurface Madison
samples from the Big Horn basin (Sonnenfeld, 1996).
Insofar as anhydrite may be more abundant in dolo-
stones than limestones, the leaching could have the
effect of enhancing the porosity contrast between Ma-
dison limestones and dolostones.
Pore Types and Mechanisms of Porosity Loss
To better understand the comparisons in Figures 3 – 7,
it is necessary to examine the range of lithofacies and
diagenetic fabrics characterizing the following key groups
from each of the three deeply buried platforms: (1) tight
limestones, (2) porous limestones, and (3) porous do-
lostones. It is especially pertinent to enquire why the
tight limestones of each data set have low porosity.
Finnmark Platform
Limestones with porosity less than 5% comprise 24% of
this data set. Of these 311 plugs, most of the 87 samples
represented by thin sections can be grouped into two
petrographic categories: (1) grainstones and mud-poor
packstones in which formerly abundant intergranular,
intrafossil, and moldic macropores have been mostly
filled by coarse calcite cement; and (2) mud-supported
facies that have lost porosity by tight cementation of
the mud matrix (dominant process) by filling of intra-
fossil spaces with coarse calcite spar and by mechanical
compaction.
Limestones with porosity greater than 10% com-
prise 21% of this data set. Of these 268 plugs, 57 samples
represented by thin sections reveal that most macro-
porosity consists of primary intergranular and intra-
fossil pores that have been partly but not completely
filled by calcite cement.
Dolostones with porosity greater than 10% com-
prise 17% of the Finnmark data set. Of these 215
plugs, 59 samples represented by thin sections con-
tain two dominant pore types: intercrystalline pores
between dolomite crystals (replacing matrix and bio-
clasts and, to some degree, also infilling relict inter-
granular pore spaces) and moldic pores representing
former bioclasts.

100 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs

Figure 11. Depth-porosity profiles in three outcrop sections through the Madison Formation. Localities are separated by distances
of 90 –110 km (56 –68 mi) (Smith et al., 2004). Horizontal lines indicate bases of sequences labeled I to V. Plotting symbols indicate
the dominant mineralogy. The bar to the right of the porosity data shows the division of each sequence into transgression (black) and
highstand (white).
Madison Formation
Limestones (including partly dolomitized limestones
with DI < 50) having porosity less than 5% com-
prise 16% of the Madison data set. Thin sections were
made from a selection of 18 of these plugs (plus another
11 limestones with porosity of 5–10%) to examine the
causes of low porosity. All samples examined are from
the outcrop sections shown in Figure 11. These samples
are dominantly grainstones to packstones but also in-
clude a few mudstones to wackestones. A few of the
samples examined have textures (dolomite rhombs
with calcite cores or corroded edges) suggesting dedo-
lomitization, as described by Budai et al. (1984). In
most cases, the dominant cause of porosity loss is ce-
mentation by coarse, blocky calcite spar, which post-
dates dolomite, wherever dolomite is also present.
Limestones with porosity greater than 10% com-
prise only 2% of the Madison plugs. Thin sections were
made from 5 of these 26 plugs. In two cases, the po-
rosity consists of preserved intergranular macropores.
In two other thin sections, impregnation reveals the
porosity to exist mainly as very small pores in unce-
mented mud matrix, and in the final case, no porosity
is visible in thin section and is thus microporosity.
Dolostones with porosity greater than 10% com-
prise 43% of the Madison plugs. Pore types include pri-
mary interparticle, moldic, intercrystalline, and fracture
(Westphal et al., 2004). Primary porosity is preserved
exclusively in dolomitized grainstones, where early
dolomitization inhibited compaction. Moldic porosity
is present in about 57% of dolostones and occurs in
both tight and porous samples (Westphal et al., 2004).
Intercrystalline porosity is most common in dolomi-
tized mudstone and wackestone and peloid grainstone
facies (Smith et al., 2004).
Asmari Formation
Limestones with porosity less than 5% comprise
22% of the plug measurements. Of these 1694 plugs,
63 samples represented by thin sections consist, in most
cases, of mud-rich textures that have lost porosity by
tight cementation of the mud matrix combined with
complete filling of open (not mud-filled) spaces by coarse
calcite spar.
Limestones with porosity greater than 10% com-
prise 13% of this data set. Of these 980 plugs, 41 sam-
ples represented by thin sections reveal that most
macroporosity consists of primary intergranular and in-
trafossil pores that have been partly but not completely
filled by calcite cement. Microporous mud matrix also
accounts for a large part of the total porosity.
Dolostones with porosity greater than 10% com-
prise 34% of the Asmari data set. Of these 2618 plugs,
110 samples represented by thin sections contain 2 domi-
nant pore types: intercrystalline pores between dolomite
crystals and moldic pores representing former bioclasts.
Ehrenberg et al. 101
Figure 12. Depth-porosity profiles in five wells through the Asmari Formation. The vertical scale is the depth below the top Asmari,
corrected for bedding dip and wellbore deviation. Distances between wells from Marun field (MN-68, MN-30, MN-8) are 13 and 51
km (8 and 31 mi). The distance between Bibi Hakimeh wells (BH-18, BH-51) is 11 km (6.8 mi). The distance between Marun wells
and Bibi Hakimeh wells is roughly 140 km (87 mi). Plotting symbols indicate the dominant mineralogy. The bar to the right of the
porosity data shows the suggested positions of transgressive (black) and highstand (white) systems tracts.

Although not shown in Figure 7, the porosity distribu- Finnmark Platform

tions of Asmari limestones and dolostones both show an
overall relationship to depositional texture, with grain-
dominated fabrics being somewhat more abundant at
higher porosities and mud-dominated fabrics making
up a higher percentage of the low-porosity samples.
Stratigraphic Patterns of Dolomitization and Porosity
Bahamas and Marion Plateau
These strata are characterized by extreme variability of
porosity in narrow depth ranges, although sequence-
scale depth trends are also apparent within some in-
tervals (Figures 8, 9). Limestones and dolostones in the
Bahamas and Marion Plateau cores are segregated into
distinct zones, the occurrence of which has been inter-
preted as reflecting the combination of platform ar-
chitecture and the hydrology of subsurface seawater
circulation (Swart and Melim, 2000; Eberli et al., 2001;
Ehrenberg, 2004a).
The key petrophysical groupings described in the pre-
vious section (tight limestones, porous limestones, and
porous dolostones) occur clustered in distinct strati-
graphic intervals (Figure 10), the significance of which
varies in different parts of the section (Ehrenberg,
2004b). In sequence 1, tight limestones (highstand
cycle tops) form a series of barriers separating po-
rous dolomitic sandstones (transgressive cycle bases).
Sequence 2 represents higher accommodation and
more distal depositional conditions than the underly-
ing sequence 1, resulting in finer grained, more clay-
rich siliciclastic intervals and paucity of dolomite,
but tight limestones again form the highstand cycle
tops.
Sequence 3 began with a major long-term trans-
gression in which siliciclastic influx was shut off and
a thick, aggradational section of algal buildups was
deposited. These are largely preserved as porous lime-
stone, reflecting paucity of clay laminations that could

102 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs

 Figure 12. Continued.

serve to initiate stylolitic dissolution. However, bar-
riers are formed by thinner intervals of argillaceous
limestones that formed during transgressions marking
the bases of the high-frequency sequences comprising
sequence 3. The late-highstand phase of sequence 3 cor-
responds with the deposition of dolomitic mudstones
and wackestones of a proximal inner-platform setting,
where high porosity reflects preservation of intercrys-
talline and moldic pores.
Sequence 4 consists mainly of limestones, which
preserve high porosity in the lower, transgressive part
of the sequence, but become tightly calcite-cemented

Figure 13. Semilog

plot of permeability ver-
sus porosity from cores
through two shallowly
buried carbonate suc-
cessions: (A) the Baha-
mas transect and (B) the
Marion Plateau.

Ehrenberg et al. 103

Figure 14. Semilog plot of
permeability versus porosity
from cores through the Finn-
mark platform: (A) limestones
and (B) dolostones.

upward because of increasing frequency of stylolite-
prone clay laminations. Sequence 5 consists of bryozoan-
echinoderm grainstone and packstone and is not in-
cluded in the photozoan carbonate strata that are the
subject of this article. Uniformly low porosity in
sequence 5 reflects the combination of frequent stylo-
lites and abundant echinoderm sites for syntaxial cal-
cite cement growth.
Madison Formation
The Madison platform evolved from a ramp profile in
its lower composite sequence (including sequences I,
IIa, and IIb of Figure 11) to a flat-topped shelf during
the deposition of its upper composite sequence (se-
quences III to VI) (Sonnenfeld, 1996). Smith et al. (2004)
and Westphal et al. (2004) recognized how the distri-
bution of both dolomitization and porosity are related
to platform paleogeography in the lower composite
sequence. In the most downdip (seaward) part of the
ramp (Benbow Mine Road and Shoshone Canyon sec-
tions), dolomitization affected mainly mud-dominated
strata, whereas less than 5% of grain-dominated strata
are dolomitized. Further updip, in the midramp part of
the platform (Wind River Canyon and Lysite core sec-
tions), there is pervasive dolomitization of all rock types,
whereas the most landward locations (Casper Mountain,
Freemont Canyon, Hartville Canyon) have a patchy do-
lomite distribution with both muddy and grainy litholo-
gies preserved as limestone in parts of the succession.
Figure 11 compares porosity and dolomitization
profiles through three sections from the relatively down-
dip (seaward) part of the ramp. Benbow Mine Road and

Figure 15. Semilog plot of per-

meability versus porosity from
the Madison Formation (mainly
outcrop samples): (A) limestones
and (B) dolostones.

104 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs


Shoshone Canyon are located in the most downdip
position, where sequence I shows strong differentiation
into an entirely dolomitized and porous transgressive
tract and a variably dolomitized highstand tract with
generally low porosity. Sequences IIa and IIb (as defined
by D. Katz, 2005, personal communication) have low
dolostone porosity, whereas sequence III has a high do-
lostone porosity throughout. Sheep Mountain is located
farther updip, in a position transitional to the pervasively
dolomitized midramp setting. Higher proportions of
grain-dominated strata were dolomitized in this loca-
tion, and there are higher proportions of porous dolo-
stone in both the highstand tract of sequence I and
throughout sequences IIa and IIb. In all three locations
in Figure 11, porous dolostone occurs mainly in the
muddy, transgressive parts of sequences and cycles
(Smith et al., 2004). The other localities included in
Figure 16. Semilog plot of per-
meability versus porosity from
cores through the Asmari plat-
form: (A) limestones of Marun
field, (B) dolostones of Marun
field, (C) limestones of Bibi
Hakimeh field, (D) dolostones
of Bibi Hakimeh field.
the Madison data set are not shown in Figure 11 but
are located farther updip ( landward), where se-
quences I, IIa, IIb, and lower III are pervasively dolo-
mitized. In all localities, sequences IV and V consist
mostly of tight limestone, where porosity loss has oc-
curred mainly by chemical compaction during burial
(Crockett, 1994).
Asmari Formation
The principal barriers to matrix flow in the Asmari
Formation consist of tight limestones (Figure 12), al-
though the extent to which these are fractured and,
thus, open to flow between adjacent porous layers is
largely unknown. Fractures are important for Asmari
oil production (Hull and Warman, 1970; McQuillan,
1985). A striking feature is the development of tight
Ehrenberg et al. 105
limestone horizons underlying surfaces C, D, and E,
where core observations and stable isotope analyses re-
veal the presence of major subaerial exposure horizons.
Factors Controlling Porosity
All of the five carbonate platforms studied show evi-
dence of major heterogeneity in porosity and perme-
ability related to the preburial factors of depositional
texture and eogenetic diagenesis, including the crea-
tion of moldic porosity by early leaching. Certainly,
these factors are solely responsible for the wide hetero-
geneity in the Bahamas and Marion Plateau strata. Su-
perimposed on this early heterogeneity, however, the
deeply buried platforms display an important, strati-
graphically focused phase of burial calcite cementa-
tion that dominates their ultimate petrophysical dif-
ferentiation and resulting reservoir architecture.
Stratigraphic Controls
In each of the deeply buried platforms, the porosity-
depth profiles show that the tight limestones are clus-
tered in distinct zones alternating with more porous
intervals. In large parts of the sections, these porosity
alternations are linked with the high-frequency depo-
sitional cyclicity that is a fundamental characteristic of
these strata, and much of the total porosity variance
therefore lies within the scale of the high-frequency
cycles (Ehrenberg, 2004b). This cycle-scale control of
porosity variation may be a general characteristic of
carbonate reservoirs, whatever the degree of dolomi-
tization (Eisenberg et al., 1994; Jennings et al., 1998).
There is commonly strong porosity partitioning be-
tween transgressive and regressive hemicycles, but
both the polarity of this partitioning (whether the tops
or bases of cycles are porous) and the facies involved
vary greatly both between and within the different
platforms. Based principally on the Madison example,
the nature of cycle-scale partitioning is believed to de-
pend on both the location within the platform paleo-
geography and the position within the lower order
system tracts (Smith et al., 2004).
Larger scale trends of porosity variation appear re-
lated to both third-order and second-order sequences.
Thus, groups of successive parasequences tend to have
overall higher or lower porosity depending on their posi-
tion with respect to transgressive and highstand systems
tracts. Once again, however, the polarity of these larger
scale porosity trends is highly variable from case to case.
Because of the inferred link between porosity and
stratigraphic cyclicity, it is apparent that the tight lime-
106 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs
stones form laterally extensive flow barriers that divide
the formations into stratigraphic compartments. Under-
standing the diagenetic processes within a sequence-
stratigraphic context is therefore important to produc-
tion strategy and reservoir modeling ( Watts et al.,
1994; Smith et al., 2004; Westphal et al., 2004).
Origin of Tight Limestone Barriers
In the Finnmark Platform strata, geochemical and
fluid-inclusion data indicate that porosity-occluding
calcite cementation of grain-dominated limestones
and buildup facies occurred mainly during burial (Eh-
renberg et al., 2002). Furthermore, correspondence of
low-porosity intervals with both higher bulk rock alu-
mina contents and greater frequency of stylolites indi-
cates that the burial cementation responsible for porosi-
ty loss was sourced mainly from chemical compaction
along stylolites (Ehrenberg, 2004b).
Madison outcrops and cores have not been exam-
ined in this study to evaluate the presence of stylolites
and their distribution relative to limestone and dolo-
stone intervals. Petrographic study of a selection of
low-porosity Madison limestones, however, suggests
that cementation by coarse calcite spar is the major
cause of porosity loss, consistent with an origin by
chemical compaction during burial, as also concluded
by Crockett (1994) for the tight limestones of Madison
sequence IV. Late-stage calcite cementation, however,
can also be attributed to precipitation following hy-
drothermal brecciation during the Laramide orogeny
(Westphal et al., 2004; Katz et al., in press).
For the Asmari data set, stylolite counts done using
core photographs show a strong relationship between
stylolite frequency and the low-porosity limestone
intervals (Ehrenberg, 2004, personal observations).
Petrographic examination of low-porosity Asmari lime-
stones shows that the dominant causes of porosity loss
in most samples are (1) tight calcite microcementation
of lime mud matrix, combined with (2) precipitation
of coarse calcite spar. This coarse spar is interpreted
as a burial cement based on fluid-inclusion data (N. H.
Oxtoby, 2004, personal communication) and because it
postdates all associated dolomite. It displays uniformly
dull, commonly sector-zoned cathodoluminescence, as
is characteristic of burial-related calcite cements.
Spatial coincidence of low-porosity, mud-dominated
beds with abundant stylolites suggests that chemical
compaction causes cementation of the mud matrix in
addition to cementation by coarse spar.
We suggest that chemical compaction of lime-
stone is, in general, activated by increasing temperature
in the same general way as in quartzose sandstone
(Bjørkum et al., 1998) but at much lower temperatures
(Dunnington, 1967; Meyers and Hill, 1983). Intensity
of cementation is expected to be proportional to the
abundance and proximity of stylolites, as has been ob-
served in several previous case studies ( Wong and
Oldershaw, 1981; Purser, 1984; Koepnick, 1987). Fur-
thermore, stylolite frequency and consequent intensity
of cementational porosity loss in the limestone intervals
is determined in large degree by the stratigraphic dis-
tribution of clay minerals, which act to facilitate and
localize chemical dissolution in carbonates (Weyl, 1959;
Oldershaw and Scoffin, 1967; Marshak and Engelder,
1985; Choquette and James, 1987; Brown, 1997; Saller
et al., 1999) as in quartz sandstones (Bjørkum, 1996).
In the three deeply buried examples, porous dolo-
stone intervals are interlayered with tight limestone
barriers, where calcite cementation reflects chemical
compaction along stylolites. Most of the dissolved car-
bonate released along the stylolites therefore appears
to have precipitated locally within the same beds where
it was generated. Precipitation occurred before the dis-
solved calcite was able to diffuse outward into the sur-
rounding dolostones. The resulting compartmentali-
zation of carbonate reservoirs by formation of tight
limestone barriers during burial is a fundamental dif-
ference from quartzose sandstone reservoirs, where bar-
riers are mainly formed by shaly layers present from the
time of deposition and where quartz cementation (also
a temperature-dependent burial process related to
stylolitization) tends to result in relatively uniform po-
rosity loss throughout the reservoir interval ( Walder-
haug and Bjørkum, 2003). The spatial association be-
tween stylolite occurrence and calcite cementation in
the same beds (also noted by Wong and Oldershaw,
1981) suggests that the solutes released by stylolitiza-
tion tend not to be exported far from their point of
origin, implying that solute supply, instead of transport
or precipitation (as in quartzose sandstones), may be
the rate-limiting step for burial cementation of lime-
stones (Oelkers et al., 1996).
Origin of Dolostone Porosity
Explanations that have been advanced over the past
45 yr and more for the porosity present in dolostones
can be summarized in terms of three ideal models:
1. The Mole-for-mole-replacement model assumes con-
servation of CO2 during the formation of dolomite by
the replacement of roughly half the calcium present in
calcium carbonate by magnesium that is transported
into the rock as ions in solution. Because of the lower
molar volume of dolomite, porosity increases by
roughly 12% of the volume of the calcium carbonate
replaced. This is probably the oldest explanation for
dolostone porosity but was first advanced cogently by
Weyl (1960), who noted that most subsurface water
analyses contain abundant dissolved magnesium
(facilitating the supply of Mg and the removal of
Ca) but relatively little bicarbonate (limiting mass
transport of carbonate).
2. The dissolution-of-undolomitized-calcium-carbonate
model envisions overall porosity increase caused by
the dissolution and export of residual, undolomitized
calcium carbonate during or after partial dolomiti-
zation. This dissolution may occur either as an integral
part of the dolomitization process (Morrow, 1982,
2001; Sun, 1995) or by later meteoric or marine cir-
culation unrelated to dolomitization (Moore, 2001).
3. The dolomite-cementation model regards the bulk-
volume porosity present in dolostone as being equal
to or less than that of the precursor limestone (Lucia
and Major, 1994; Lucia, 2004). Precipitation of do-
lomite cement from carbonate transported into the
rock in solution counters any porosity gain resulting
from the lower molar volume of dolomite and com-
monly reduces porosity further.
All three models acknowledge that a major component
of dolostone porosity is inherited from the precursor
limestones. Such inherited pores may be either pre-
served in their original shapes during fabric-preserving
dolomitization or rearranged during fabric-destructive
dolomitization. The differences between the models
concern the nature of the dominant process that either
increases or decreases this inherited pore volume.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to devise meaningful
tests for distinguishing between the above models,
either in general or with respect to any particular doc-
lostone sample or reservoir. This is partly because the
processes involved are not mutually exclusive, and the
models are thus differentiated only on the basis of which
process is dominant. Dolomitization is closed to car-
bonate mass transport in model 1 and open in models 2
and 3, but textural evidence is of little help in differ-
entiating between these alternatives. Murray (1960)
described evidence for extensive dissolution of resid-
ual, undolomitized calcium carbonate components in
dolostone reservoirs and apparently viewed this as re-
sulting from local redistribution instead of export of the
carbonate. Others have viewed similar textural evidence
and inferred porosity increase by carbonate export
Ehrenberg et al. 107
(Dawans and Swart, 1988; Choquette et al., 1992;
Vahrenkamp and Swart, 1994; Saller and Henderson,
1998; Eichenseer et al., 1999; Ehrenberg, 2004a, b). In
this study, textural evidence for dissolution of residual
calcium carbonate in the Marion Plateau, Finnmark,
and Asmari dolostones includes (1) the common pres-
ence in the dolostones of molds after bioclast types that
rarely show signs of dissolution in the associated lime-
stones (especially large benthic foraminifers and echi-
noderms) and (2) the occurrence of sucrosic dolomite
fabric, which has been interpreted as the product of
leaching of partly dolomitized lime mud (Murray, 1960;
Dawans and Swart, 1988). It is impossible to determine,
however, whether the dissolved calcite was mainly
precipitated locally as dolomite or mainly exported.
A fundamental problem with attempting to test
the relative correctness of the above models is uncer-
tainty regarding the porosity of the precursor lime-
stones. Even in fairly large limestone and dolostone data
sets, such as for the Seroe Domi Formation of Bonaire
(Lucia and Major, 1994) or the Marion Plateau cores
(Figure 4), few real constraints exist regarding the
degree to which the limestones analyzed are statis-
tically representative of the limestone precursors of
the presently associated dolostones.
Despite these uncertainties, the similar porosity
distributions in limestones and dolostones of the shal-
lowly buried strata (Figures 3, 4) are at least broadly
consistent with the conclusion that shallow dolomi-
tization does not result in significant overall increase
in carbonate porosity (Lucia and Major, 1994; Lucia,
2004). The contrastingly much higher porosity distri-
butions of the deeply buried Finnmark, Madison, and
Asmari dolostones, compared with their respective as-
sociated limestones (Figures 5 –7), therefore indicate
that dolostone porosity was either (1) increased or
(2) preferentially preserved during burial diagenesis.
As described above, paucity of low porosity values
in the dolostones of the deeply buried data sets is caused
by the ubiquitous presence of intercrystalline macro-
porosity and the common presence of moldic pores.
These two types of secondary porosity are interpreted
as being predominantly of near-surface origin in the
studied strata because of a general lack of evidence for
dissolution during burial. For example, the dolostones
commonly contain both coarse dolomite cement and
subsequent (postdolomite) coarse calcite cement but
rarely, if ever, show signs of late dissolution of these
cements. Consequently, it is the relative preservation of
dolostone porosity during burial that is important for
producing the contrasts shown by Figures 5–7.
108 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs
Preferential preservation of dolostone porosity may
primarily reflect a greater resistance of dolostone to
chemical compaction and resulting cementation, as has
been variously suggested by Choquette and Steinen
(1980), Schofield (1984), Ruzyla and Friedman (1985),
Railsback (1993), Amthor et al. (1994), Purser et al.
(1994), and Brown (1997). Such differential resistance
is tentatively supported in the Finnmark and Asmari
cores by the common presence of stylolites in the tight
limestones compared with the relatively infrequent
stylolite occurrence in dolostone intervals. However,
other factors besides carbonate mineralogy could be
critical for controlling stylolite frequency, in particular
the distribution of depositional clay. Differential resis-
tance to mechanical compaction is also a possible ex-
planation for the lower porosities of deeply buried
limestones (Lucia, 2004). Few limestones in the Finn-
mark and Asmari cores, however, show petrographic
evidence of extensive mechanical compaction, possibly
because of effective inhibition by early calcite cement.
PERMEABILITY
Data
Permeability distributions of associated limestones and
dolostones have not been examined independently from
porosity because permeability is fundamentally depen-
dent on total porosity in sedimentary rocks (Nelson,
1994). It is more meaningful to compare different sam-
ple groups in terms of permeability-for-given-porosity
and overall permeability-porosity trends, instead of dis-
cussing permeability independently from porosity (Eh-
renberg and Nadeau, 2005). Variations in permeability-
for-given-porosity depend on factors such as surface area
per unit volume and tortuosity (Nelson ,1994), which
are, in turn, determined by rock fabric and pore geome-
try (Lucia, 1995; Anselmetti et al., 1998).
The two data sets from shallowly buried carbonate
platforms both show distinctly higher permeability-
for-given-porosity in dolostones compared with as-
sociated limestones (Figure 13). In each case, this has
been interpreted as reflecting the replacement of
microporous lime mud by dolomite having intercrys-
talline macroporosity (Melim et al., 2001a; Ehren-
berg, 2004a). In contrast, the three deeply buried
data sets do not show major differences between
limestones and dolostones in terms of either overall
trends of permeability-porosity correlation or average
permeability-for-given-porosity (Figures 14 – 16).
Trends of permeability-porosity correlation (diagonal
lines in Figures 14–16) were calculated after excluding
samples with permeability of 0.01 md because these are
assumed to represent noneconomic zones whose con-
tribution to the overall porosity-permeability relation-
ship is of no interest. For the Asmari trends, samples with
porosity less than 4% were also excluded because many
of these have exceptionally high permeabilities, believed
to reflect the presence of fractures in the plugs measured.
Interpretation
It might easily be concluded from the comparisons
in Figures 13 – 16 that dolomitization has improved
porosity-permeability relationships in the shallowly
buried platforms but had no such effect in the deeply
buried strata. These comparisons are potentially mis-
leading, however, because it is, in most cases, im-
possible to know the degree to which the dolostones
were originally similar to the associated limestones.
Therefore, it may not be warranted to conclude from
Figures 14 – 16 that dolomitization does not improve
permeability. This would not be true if, for example,
the dolostones in the deeply buried examples were
systematically muddier, lower permeability sediments
to begin with than the strata that escaped dolomiti-
zation. Similarly, it may not be correct to infer from
the comparison in Figure 13 that dolomitization was
necessarily an effective agent for permeability increase
in the shallowly buried data sets. This would not be
true if, for example, the dolomitized strata in these
cases were generally more reefal or coarser grained than
the presently associated limestones.
All that can be reasonably concluded from the
present comparisons, therefore, is the purely empirical
recommendation that dolostones should not be ex-
pected to have a better permeability-porosity rela-
tionship than associated limestones in deeply buried
reservoirs. Nevertheless, a possible explanation for the
obvious contrast between the shallowly buried and
deeply buried data sets (Figures 13–16) is that lime-
stones already having a lower permeability at shallow
depth are systematically prone to severe porosity and
permeability loss during burial, such that they end up
with essentially zero reservoir quality in the deeper
subsurface and are thus effectively removed from the
comparisons in Figures 14–16. The result would be
that the deeply buried carbonates with greater than 4%
porosity and greater than 0.01-md permeability include
only those limestones that had relatively high perme-
ability to begin with, along with nearly all of the do-
lostones (Figure 17).

Figure 17. Hypothetical model for the effect of burial diagenesis on permeability-porosity relationships in interlayered limestones
(circles) and early-formed dolostones (diamonds). At shallow burial depth (A), the limestones and dolostones do not have notably
different porosity distribution, but all dolostones have high permeability (black diamonds), whereas the limestones are divisible
into strata with high permeability (black circles) and low permeability (green circles). After deep burial (B), the limestones initially
having low permeabilities have been most strongly affected by burial diagenesis, resulting in postburial permeabilities of 0.01 md
or less. Limestones initially having high permeabilities have been less severely affected because of more grain-supported textures
relatively resistant to permeability loss. As a result, those limestones and dolostones having greater than 0.01 md permeability in
the deeper subsurface do not have notably different overall porosity-permeability relationships.

Ehrenberg et al. 109

Figure 18. Cartoon illustrating concepts of differential porosity development in interlayered limestone-dolostone reservoirs.
Responses of five different lithologies are schematically shown as beds or intervals: (1) limestone prone to stylolite development
because of depositional clay distribution; (2) limestone with little potential for stylolitization (minor depositional clay content, assumed
to be necessary for the initiation of stylolite development); (3) early-formed dolostone with high initial porosity; (4) dolostone having
low to medium porosity because of early dolomite cementation; (5) dolostone with extensive early calcium-sulfate cementation. Before
burial deeper than about 1 km (0.6 mi) (left), these depositionally heterogeneous, shallow-water carbonate strata have widely varying
but generally high porosity. Dolomitized layers may have overall higher or lower porosity than limestones, depending on various factors
that are, for the most part, not subject to testing with empirical data (absence of carbonate mass transport during dolomitization, amount
of dolomite cement imported, amount of calcium carbonate removed after partial dolomitization). After deeper burial, the stratigraphic
variation in porosity loss is shown by the difference (shaded) between the before and after porosity curves in the far-right column.
The most severe porosity loss has occurred in limestone beds prone to chemical compaction and associated local calcite cemen-
tation (1). Certain limestone intervals, however, retain primary porosity because of limited chemical compaction (2). Stylolite
formation also causes porosity loss in dolostone intervals but to lesser degree than in most limestones. Dolostones with both high (3)
and low (4) early porosity form flow units, although some intervals with especially low early porosity and beds cemented by calcium
sulfate (5) form barriers. The ultimate architecture of barriers and flow units is thus largely dependent on the distribution of prestylolite
dolomitization, as well as clay and calcium sulfate.

CONCLUSIONS buried examples and three deeply buried examples.

Compilations of porosity-permeability data have been
examined to compare associated limestones and dolo-
stones from five carbonate platforms of widely varying
ages and geographic settings, including two shallowly
The results support the often-reported pattern of
preferential porosity preservation in dolostones during
burial cementation. A conceptual model for the key
processes involved is shown in Figure 18, illustrat-
ing the hypothetical porosity response of different

110 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs

lithologies to burial diagenesis. Flow barriers consist-
ing of tight limestone are created during burial by
chemical compaction and resulting cementation. This
process is stratigraphically focused by factors related
to sequence architecture, including the occurrence
of intervals with clay laminations ( promoting chemi-
cal compaction and associated cementation) and the
distribution of early dolomitization (promoting po-
rosity preservation during burial). Despite higher per-
meability because of higher porosity, however, the
deeply buried dolostones do not, in general, have higher
permeability-for-given-porosity than associated lime-
stones (Figures 14 – 16).
REFERENCES CITED
Allan, J. R., and W. D. Wiggins, 1993, Dolomite reservoirs —
Geochemical techniques for evaluating origin and distribution:
AAPG Short Course Note Series 36, 129 p.
Amthor, J. E., E. W. Mountjoy, and H. G. Machel, 1994, Regional-
scale porosity and permeability variations in Upper Devo-
nian Leduc buildups: Implications for reservoir development
and prediction in carbonates: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1541 –
1559.
Anselmetti, F. S., and G. P. Eberli, 2001, Sonic velocity in
carbonates — A combined product of depositional lithology
and diagenetic alterations, in R. N. Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface
geology of a prograding carbonate platform margin, Great
Bahama Bank: Results of the Bahamas Drilling Project: SEPM
Special Publication 70, p. 193 – 216.
Anselmetti, F. S., S. Luthi, and G. P. Eberli, 1998, Quantitative
characterization of carbonate pore systems by digital image
analysis: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1815 – 1836.
Aqrawi, A. A. M., M. Keramati, N. Pickard, G. Darke, A. Moallemi,
and T. A. Svånå, 2004, Dolomitization of the subsurface Asmari
Formation (Oligocene – lower Miocene), SW Iran: Suggested
models and reservoir quality controls (abs.): GeoArabia, v. 9,
p. 40 – 42.
Bjørkum, P. A., 1996, How important is pressure in causing dis-
solution of quartz in sandstones?: Journal of Sedimentary Re-
search, v. 66, p. 147 – 154.
Bjørkum, P. A., E. H. Oelkers, P. H., Nadeau, O. Walderhaug, and
W. M. Murphy, 1998, Porosity prediction in quartzose sand-
stones as a function of time, temperature, depth, stylolite fre-
quency, and hydrocarbon saturation: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82,
p. 637 – 648.
Blatt, H., G. Middleton, and R. Murray, 1980, Origin of sedi-
mentary rocks: New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 782 p.
Braithwaite, C. J. R., G. Rizzi, and G. Darke, eds., 2004, The
geometry and petrogenesis of dolomite hydrocarbon reservoirs:
Geological Society (London) Special Publication 235, 413 p.
Brown, A., 1997, Porosity variation in carbonates as a function of
depth: Mississippian Madison Group, Williston basin, in J. A.
Kupecz, J. Gluyas, and S. Bloch, eds., Reservoir quality predic-
tion in sandstones and carbonates: AAPG Memoir 69, p. 29 – 46.
Budai, J. M., K. C. Lohmann, and R. M. Owen, 1984, Burial dedolo-
mitization in the Mississippian Madison Limestone, Wyoming
and Utah thrust belt: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 54,
p. 276 – 288.
Budai, J. M., K. C. Lohmann, and J. L. Wilson, 1987, Dolomitization
in the Madison Group, Wyoming and Utah overthrust belt:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 71, p. 909 – 924.
Cantrell, D. L., P. Swart, and R. M. Hagerty, 2004, Genesis and
characterization of dolomite, Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field,
Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 9, p. 11 – 36.
Chave, K. E., 1954, Aspects of the biogeochemistry of magnesium:
2. Calcareous sediments and rocks: Journal of Geology, v. 62,
p. 287 – 599.
Chilingar, G. V., and R. D. Terry, 1954, Relationship between po-
rosity and chemical composition of carbonate rocks: The Pe-
troleum Engineer, v. 26, p. 341 – 342.
Choquette, P. W., and N. P. James, 1987, Diagenesis 12. Diagenesis
in limestones: 3. The deep burial environment: Geoscience
Canada, v. 14, p. 3 – 35.
Choquette, P. W., and R. P. Steinen, 1980, Mississippian non-
supratidal dolomite, Ste. Genevieve Limestone, Illinois basin:
Evidence for mixed water dolomitization, in D. H. Zenger, J. B.
Dunham, and R. L. Ethington, eds., Concepts and models of
dolomitization: SEPM Special Publication 28, p. 163 – 196.
Choquette, P. W., and R. P. Steinen, 1985, Mississippian oolite and
non-supratidal dolomite reservoirs in the Ste. Genevieve For-
mation, North Bridgeport field, Illinois basin, in P. O. Roehl and
P. W. Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reservoirs: New
York, Springer-Verlag, p. 207 – 225.
Choquette, P. W., A. Cox, and W. J. Meyers, 1992, Characteristics,
distribution and origin of porosity in shelf dolostones: Burlington-
Keokuk Formation (Mississippian), U.S. mid-continent: Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, p. 167 – 189.
Clark, D., J. Heaviside, and K. Habib, 2004, Reservoir properties of
Arab carbonates, Al Rayyan field, offshore Qatar, in C. J. R.
Braithwaite, G. Rizzi, and G. Darke, eds., The geometry and
petrogenesis of dolomite hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geological
Society (London) Special Publication 235, p. 193 – 232.
Crockett, J., 1994, Porosity evolution of the Madison Limestone,
Mississippian: Wind River basin, Wyoming: M.S. thesis, Loui-
siana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 103 p.
Davies, G. R., 1979, Dolomite reservoir rocks: Processes, controls,
porosity development, in C. H. Moore, ed., Geology of car-
bonate porosity: AAPG Continuing Education Course Note
Series 11, p. C1 – C17.
Dawans, J. M., and P. K. Swart, 1988, Textural and geochemical
alternations in late Cenozoic Bahamian dolomites: Sedimen-
tology, v. 35, p. 385 – 403.
Dunnington, H. V., 1967, Aspects of diagenesis and shape change in
stylolitic limestone reservoirs, in Proceedings of the Seventh
World Petroleum Congress, Mexico City: New York, Elsevier,
v. 2, p. 339 – 352.
Eberli, G. P., F. S. Anselmetti, J. A. M. Kenter, D. F. McNeill, and
L. A. Melim, 2001, Calibration of seismic sequence stratigra-
phy with cores and logs, in R. N. Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface
geology of a prograding carbonate platform margin, Great
Bahama Bank: Results of the Bahamas Drilling Project: SEPM
Special Publication 70, p. 241 – 265.
Ehrenberg, S. N., 2004a, Porosity and permeability in Miocene car-
bonate platforms on the Marion Plateau, offshore NE Australia:
Relationships to stratigraphy, facies and dolomitization, in
C. J. R. Braithwaite, G. Rizzi, and G. Darke, eds., The geometry
and petrogenesis of dolomite hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geologi-
cal Society (London) Special Publication 235, p. 233 – 253.
Ehrenberg, S. N., 2004b, Factors controlling porosity in Upper
Carboniferous – Lower Permian carbonate strata of the Barents
Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1653 – 1676.
Ehrenberg, S. N., and P. H. Nadeau, 2005, Sandstone versus car-
bonate petroleum reservoirs: A global perspective on porosity-
depth and porosity-permeability relationships: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 89, p. 435 – 445.
Ehrenberg et al. 111
Ehrenberg, S. N., E. B. Nielsen, T. A. Svånå, and L. Stemmerik,
1998a, Depositional evolution of the Finnmark carbonate plat-
form, Barents Sea: Results from wells 7128/6-1 and 7128/4-1:
Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, v. 78, p. 185 – 224.
Ehrenberg, S. N., E. B. Nielsen, T. A. Svånå, and L. Stemmerik,
1998b, Diagenesis and reservoir quality of the Finnmark
carbonate platform, Barents Sea: Results from wells 7128/6-1
and 7128/4-1: Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, v. 78, p. 225 – 251.
Ehrenberg, S. N., N. A. H. Pickard, T. A. Svånå, and N. H. Oxtoby,
2002, Cement geochemistry of photozoan carbonate strata
(Upper Carboniferous – Lower Permian), Finnmark carbonate
platform, Barents Sea: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 72,
p. 95 – 115.
Ehrenberg, S. N., J. M. McArthur, M. F. Thirlwall, N. A. H.
Pickard, and G. V. Laursen, 2004a, Strontium-isotope dating
of the Asmari Formation (Oligocene – Miocene) in Ahwaz,
Bibi Hakimeh and oil fields, southwestern Iran (abs.): Geo-
Arabia, v. 9, p. 61.
Ehrenberg, S. N., G. P. Eberli, and G. L. Bracco Gartner, 2004b,
Data report: Porosity and permeability of Miocene carbonate
platforms on the Marion Plateau, ODP Leg 194, in F. S.
Anselmetti, A. R. Isern, P. Blum, and C. Betzler, eds., Pro-
ceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results,
v. 194, available at: http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications
/194_SR/007/007.htm.
Ehrenberg, S. N., J. M. McArthur, and M. F. Thirlwall, in press,
Growth, demise, and dolomitization of Miocene carbonate
platforms on the Marion Plateau, offshore NE Australia: Journal
of Sedimentary Research.
Eichenseer, H. T., F. R. Walgenwitz, and P. J. Biondi, 1999,
Stratigraphic control on facies and diagenesis of dolomitized
oolitic siliciclastic ramp sequences (Pinda Group, Albian,
offshore Angola): AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1729 – 1758.
Eisenberg, R. A., P. M. Harris, C. W. Grant, D. J. Goggin, and E. J.
Conner, 1994, Modeling reservoir heterogeneity within outer
ramp carbonate facies using an outcrop analog, San Andres For-
mation of the Permian basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78, p. 1337 –
1359.
Glover, J. E., 1968, Significance of stylolites in dolomitic lime-
stones: Nature, v. 217, p. 835 – 836.
Hohlt, R. B., 1948, The nature and origin of limestone porosity:
Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, v. 43, no. 4, 51 p.
Hopkins, J. C., 1999, Characteristics of reservoir lithologies
within sub-unconformity pools: Pekisko Formation, Medicine
River field, Alberta, Canada: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1855 –
1870.
Hopkins, J. C., 2004, Geometry and origin of dolomudstone
reservoirs: Pekisko Formation (Lower Carboniferous), western
Canada, in C. J. R. Braithwaite, G. Rizzi, and G. Darke, eds.,
The geometry and petrogenesis of dolomite hydrocarbon res-
ervoirs: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 235,
p. 349 – 366.
Hull, C. E., and H. R. Warman, 1970, Asmari oil fields of Iran,
in M. T. Halbouty, ed., Geology of giant petroleum fields:
AAPG Memoir 14, p. 428 – 437.
Institut Français du Pétrole, 1959, Relations entre mode de gise-
ment et propriétés physicochimiques des dolomies: Revue de
l’Institute Français du Pétrole, v. 14, p. 475 – 518.
Isern, A. R., et al., 2002, Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Pro-
gram, Initial Reports: Ocean Drilling Program, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, v. 194, 88 p.
Jennings, J. W., S. C. Ruppel, and W. B. Ward, 1998, Geostatistical
analysis of petrophysical data and modeling of fluid-flow
effects in carbonate outcrops: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
September 27 – 30, SPE Paper 49025, 16 p.
112 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs
Katz, D. A., G. P. Eberli, P. K. Swart, L. B. Smith, Jr., and J. Kislak,
in press, Hydrothermal brecciation associated with calcite
precipitation and permeability destruction in Mississippian
carbonate reservoirs, Montana and Wyoming: AAPG Bulletin.
Koepnick, R. B., 1987, Distribution and permeability of stylolite-
bearing horizons within a Lower Cretaceous carbonate reser-
voir in the Middle East: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper
14173, SPE Formation Evaluation, v. 2, p. 137 – 142.
Landes, K. K., 1946, Porosity through dolomitization: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 30, p. 305 – 318.
Lees, G. M., 1933, Reservoir rocks of Persian oil fields: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 17, p. 229 – 240.
Lindsay, R. F., and C. G. St. C. Kendall, 1985, Depositional facies,
diagenesis, and reservoir character of Mississippian cyclic
carbonates in the Mission Canyon Formation, Little Knife
field, Williston basin, North Dakota, in P. O. Roehl and P. W.
Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reservoirs: New York,
Springer-Verlag, p. 175 – 190.
Longman, M. W., T. G. Fertal, and J. S. Glennie, 1983, Origin and
geometry of Red River dolomite reservoirs, western Williston
basin: AAPG Bulletin, v. 67, p. 744 – 771.
Longman, M. W., T. G. Fertal, and J. R. Stell, 1992, Reservoir
performance in Ordovician Red River Formation, Horse Creek
and South Horse Creek fields, Bowman County, North Dakota:
AAPG Bulletin, v. 76, p. 449 – 467.
Lucia, F. J., 1962, Diagenesis of a crinoidal sediment: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 32, p. 848 – 865.
Lucia, F. J., 1995, Rock-fabric/petrophysical classification of car-
bonate pore space for reservoir characterization: AAPG Bulle-
tin, v. 79, p. 1275 – 1300.
Lucia, F. J., 2004, Origin and petrophysics of dolostone pore space,
in C. J. R. Braithwaite, G. Rizzi, and G. Darke, eds., The
geometry and petrogenesis of dolomite hydrocarbon reser-
voirs. Geological Society (London) Special Publication 235,
p. 141 – 155.
Lucia, F. J., and R. P. Major, 1994, Porosity evolution through
hypersaline reflux dolomitization, in B. Purser, M. Tucker, and
D. Zenger, eds., Dolomites, a volume in honour of Dolomieu:
International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publica-
tion 21, p. 325 – 341.
Mancini, E. A., T. A. Blasingame, R. Archer, B. J. Panetta, J. C.
Llinás, C. D. Haynes, and D. J. Benson, 2004, Improving
recovery from mature oil fields producing from carbonate
reservoirs: Upper Jurassic Smackover Formation, Womack
Hill field (eastern Gulf Coast, U.S.A.): AAPG Bulletin, v. 88,
p. 1629 – 1651.
Marshak, S., and T. Engelder, 1985, Development of cleavage in
limestones of a fold-thrust belt in eastern New York: Journal of
Structural Geology, v. 7, p. 345 – 359.
McQuillan, H., 1985, Fracture-controlled production from the
Oligo-Miocene Asmari Formation in Gachsaran and Bibi
Hakimeh fields, southwest Iran. in P. O. Roehl and P. W.
Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reservoirs: New York,
Springer-Verlag, p. 511 – 523.
Melim, L. A., F. S. Anselmetti, and G. P. Eberli, 2001a, The
importance of pore type on permeability of Neogene carbo-
nates, Great Bahama Bank, in R. N. Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface
geology of a prograding carbonate platform margin, Great
Bahama Bank: Results of the Bahamas Drilling Project: SEPM
Special Publication 70, p. 217 – 238.
Melim, L. A., P. K. Swart, and R. G. Maliva, 2001b, Meteoric and
marine-burial diagenesis in the subsurface of Great Bahama
Bank, in R. N. Ginsburg, ed., Subsurface geology of a prograd-
ing carbonate platform margin, Great Bahama Bank: Results of
the Bahamas Drilling Project: SEPM Special Publication 70,
p. 137 – 161.
Meyers, W. J., and B. E. Hill, 1983, Quantitative studies of com-
paction in Mississippian skeletal limestones, New Mexico:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 53, p. 231 – 242.
Moore, C. H., 2001, Carbonate reservoirs porosity evolution and
diagenesis in a sequence stratigraphic framework: Amsterdam,
Elsevier, 444 p.
Morgan, W. A., 1985, Silurian reservoirs in upward-shoaling cycles
of the Hunton Group, Mt. Everettte and Southwest Reeding
fields, Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, in P. O. Roehl and P. W.
Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reservoirs: New York,
Springer-Verlag, p. 107 – 120.
Morrow, D. W., 1982, Diagenesis 1. Dolomite — Part 1: The chem-
istry of dolomitization and dolomite precipitation: Geoscience
Canada, v. 9, p. 5 – 13.
Morrow, D. W., 2001, Distribution of porosity and permeability in
platform dolomites: Insight from the Permian of west Texas:
Discussion: AAPG Bulletin, v. 85, p. 525 – 529.
Mountjoy, E. W., and X. M. Marquez, 1997, Predicting reservoir
properties in dolomites: Upper Devonian Leduc buildups,
deep Alberta basin, in J. A. Kupecz, J. Gluyas, and S. Bloch,
eds., Reservoir quality prediction in sandstones and carbonates:
AAPG Memoir 69, p. 267 – 306.
Murray, R. C., 1960, Origin of porosity in carbonate rocks: Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 30, p. 59 – 84.
Nelson, P. H., 1994, Permeability-porosity relationships in sedi-
mentary rocks: The Log Analyst, May-June, p. 38 – 62.
Oelkers, E. H., P. A. Bjørkum, and W. M. Murphy, 1996, A petro-
graphic and computational investigation of quartz cementation
and porosity reduction in North Sea sandstones: American
Journal of Science, v. 296, p. 1 – 28.
Oldershaw, A. E., and T. P. Scoffin, 1967, The source of ferroan and
non-ferroan calcite cements in the Halkin and Wenlock
limestones: Geological Journal, v. 5, p. 309 – 320.
Powers, R. W., 1962, Arabian Upper Jurassic carbonate reservoir
rocks, in W. E. Ham, ed., Classification of carbonate rocks — A
symposium: AAPG Memoir 1, p. 122 – 192.
Purser, B. H., 1984, Stratiform stylolites and the distribution of
porosity: Examples from the Middle Jurassic limestones of the
Paris basin, in Stylolites and associated phenomena: Relevance
to hydrocarbon reservoirs: Abu Dhabi National Reservoir
Research Foundation Special Publication, p. 203 – 217.
Purser, B. H., A. Brown, and D. M. Aissaoui, 1994, Nature, origins
and porosity in dolomites, in B. Purser, M. Tucker, and D.
Zenger, eds., Dolomites, a volume in honour of Dolomieu:
International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publica-
tion 21, p. 283 – 308.
Qing, H., and E. W. Mountjoy, 1994, Formation of coarsely
crystalline, hydrothermal dolomite reservoirs in the Presqu’ile
barrier, Western Canada sedimentary basin: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 78, p. 55 – 77.
Railsback, L. B., 1993, Lithologic controls on morphology of
pressure-dissolution surfaces (stylolites and dissolution seams)
in Paleozoic carbonate rocks from the mideastern United
States: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 63, p. 513 – 522.
Ruzyla, K., and G. M. Friedman, 1985, Factors controlling porosity
in dolomite reservoirs of the Ordovician Red River Formation,
Cabin Creek field, Montana, in P. O. Roehl and P. W.
Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reservoirs: New York,
Springer-Verlag, p. 39 – 58.
Saller, A. H., and N. Henderson, 1998, Distribution of porosity and
permeability in platform dolomites: Insight from the Permian
of west Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 82, p. 1528 – 1550.
Saller, A. H., and K. Yaremko, 1994, Dolomitization and porosity
development in the middle and upper Wabamun Group,
southeast Peace River arch, Alberta, Canada: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 78, p. 1406 – 1430.
Saller, A. H., J. A. D. Dickson, and F. Matsuda, 1999, Evolution and
distribution of porosity associated with subaerial exposure in
upper Paleozoic platform limestones, west Texas: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 83, p. 1835 – 1854.
Saller, A. H., S. Walden, S. Robertson, R. Nims, J. Schwab, H.
Hagiwara, and S. Mizohata, 2004, Three-dimensional seismic
imaging of an upper Paleozoic ‘‘reefal’’ buildup, Reinecke field,
west Texas, United States, in G. P. Eberli, J. L. Massaferro, and
R. F. Sarg, eds., Seismic imaging of carbonate reservoirs and
systems: AAPG Memoir 81, p. 107 – 122.
Schmidt, V., 1965, Facies, diagenesis, and related reservoir
properties in the Gigas beds (Upper Jurassic), northwestern
Germany, in L. C. Pray and R. C. Murray, eds., Dolomitization
and limestone diagenesis; a symposium: SEPM Special Pub-
lication 13, p. 124 – 168.
Schmoker, J. W., and R. B. Halley, 1982, Carbonate porosity versus
depth: A predictable relation for south Florida: AAPG Bulletin,
v. 66, p. 2561 – 2570.
Schmoker, J. W., K. B. Krystinik, and R. B. Halley, 1985, Selected
characteristics of limestone and dolomite reservoirs in the
United States: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p. 733 – 741.
Schofield, K., 1984, Are pressure solution, neomorphism and
dolomitization genetically related? in Stylolites and associated
phenomena: Relevance to hydrocarbon reservoirs: Abu Dhabi
National Reservoir Research Foundation Special Publication,
p. 183 – 202.
Sears, S. O., and F. J. Lucia, 1980, Dolomitization of northern
Michigan Niagara reefs by brine refluxion and freshwater/
seawater mixing, in D. H. Zenger, J. B. Dunham, and R. L.
Ethington, eds., Concepts and models of dolomitization:
SEPM Special Publication 28, p. 215 – 235.
Smith, L. B. Jr., G. P. Eberli, and M. Sonnenfeld, 2004, Sequence
stratigraphic and paleogeographic distribution of reservoir-
quality dolomite, Madison Formation, Wyoming and Montana,
in G. M. Grammer, P. M. Harris, and G. P. Eberli, eds.,
Integration of modern and outcrop analogs in reservoir
modeling: AAPG Memoir 80, p. 67 – 92.
Sonnenfeld, M. D., 1996, Sequence evolution and hierarchy within
the lower Mississippian Madison Limestone of Wyoming, in
M. W. Longman and M. D. Sonnenfeld, eds., Paleozoic systems
of the Rocky Mountain region: Rocky Mountain Section SEPM,
p. 165 – 192.
Steidtmann, E., 1917, Origin of dolomite as disclosed by stains and
other methods: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 28,
p. 431 – 450.
Sun, S. Q., 1995, Dolomite reservoirs: porosity evolution and
reservoir characteristics: AAPG Bulletin, v. 79, p. 186 – 204.
Swart, P. K., and L. A. Melim, 2000, The origin of dolomites
in Tertiary sediments from the margin of the Great Ba-
hama Bank: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 70, p. 738 –
748.
Vahrenkamp, V. C., and P. K. Swart, 1994, Late Cenozoic dolo-
mites of the Bahamas: Metastable analogs for the genesis of
ancient platform dolomites, in B. Purser, M. Tucker, and D.
Zenger, eds., Dolomites a volume in honour of Dolomieu:
International Association of Sedimentologists Special Publica-
tion 21, p. 133 – 153.
Walderhaug, O., and P. A. Bjørkum, 2003, The effect of stylolite
spacing on quartz cementation in the Lower Jurassic Stø
Formation, southern Barents Sea: Journal of Sedimentary Re-
search, v. 73, p. 146 – 156.
Warren, J., 2000, Dolomite: Occurrence, evolution and economi-
cally important associations: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 52,
p. 1 – 81.
Watts, N. R., M. P. Coppold, and J. L. Douglas, 1994, Application
of reservoir geology to enhanced oil recovery from Upper
Ehrenberg et al. 113
 Devonian Nisku reefs, Alberta, Canada: AAPG Bulletin, v. 78,
p. 78 – 101.
Westphal, H., G. P. Eberli, L. B. Smith, G. M. Grammer, and
J. Kislak, 2004, Reservoir characterization of the Mississippian
Madison Formation, Wind River basin, Wyoming: AAPG Bul-
letin, v. 88, p. 405 – 432.
Weyl, P. K., 1959, Pressure solution and the force of crystalliza-
tion — A phenomenological theory: Journal of Geophysical
Research, v. 64, p. 2001 – 2025.
Weyl, P. K., 1960, Porosity through dolomitization: Conservation-
of-mass requirements: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 30,
p. 85 – 90.
Wong, P. K., and A. Oldershaw, 1981, Burial cementation in the
114 Porosity-Permeability Relationships of Interlayered Limestone-Dolostone Reservoirs
View publication stats
Devonian Kaybob reef complex, Alberta, Canada: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 51, p. 507 – 520.
Zempolich, W. G., and L. A. Hardie, 1997, Geometry of dolomite
bodies within deep-water resedimented oolite of the Vajont
Limestone, Venetian Alps, Italy: Analogs for hydrocarbon res-
ervoirs created through burial dolomitization, in J. A. Kupecz,
J. G. Gluyas, and S. Bloch, eds., Reservoir quality prediction in
sandstones and carbonates: AAPG Memoir 69, p. 127 – 162.
Zhao, W., P. Luo, G. Chen, H. Cao, and B. Zhang, 2005, Origin and
reservoir rock characteristics of dolostones in the Early Triassic
Feixianguan Formation, NE Sichuan basin, China: Significance
for future gas exploration: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 28,
p. 83 – 100.