Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-024-01774-y

ORIGINAL PAPER-PRODUCTION GEOLOGY

Reservoir rock typing for optimum permeability prediction of Nubia

formation in October Field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt
Mohamed A. Kassab1 · Ali E. Abbas2 · Ihab A. Osman2 · Ahmed A. Eid2

Received: 13 July 2023 / Accepted: 27 February 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Permeability prediction and distribution is very critical for reservoir modeling process. The conventional method for obtaining
permeability data is from cores, which is a very costly method. Therefore, it is usual to pay attention to logs for calculating
permeability where it has massive limitations regarding this step. The aim of this study is to use unique artificial intelligence
(AI) algorithms to tackle this challenge and predict permeability in the studied wells using conventional logs and routine
core analysis results of the core plugs as an input to predict the permeability in non-cored intervals using extreme gradient
boosting algorithm (XGB). This led to promising results as per the R2 correlation coefficient. The R2 correlation coefficient
between the predicted and actual permeability was 0.73 when using the porosity measured from core plugs and 0.51 when
using the porosity calculated from logs. This study presents the use of machine-learning extreme gradient boosting algorithm
in permeability prediction. To our knowledge, this algorithm has not been used in this formation and field before. In addition,
the machine-learning model established is uniquely simple and convenient as only four commonly available logs are required
as inputs, it even provides reliable results even if one of the required logs for input is synthesized due to its unavailability.

Keywords Rock typing · Permeability prediction · Artificial intelligence · Machine-learning · Nubia formation · October
Field · Gulf of Suez
List of symbols GRshale Gamma-ray log reading for shale (API)
a Archie constant (Dimensionless) k Horizontal permeability (mD)
Accuracy Machine-learning metric score NPHIma Neutron log reading for clean matrix (Ratio)
(Dimensionless) NPHI Neutron log reading (Ratio)
BVI Bulk volume irreducible (Ratio) NPHIsh Neutron log reading for shale (Ratio)
C Constant depending on lithology NPHIfl Neutron log reading for drilling fluid (Ratio)
(Dimensionless) Precision Machine-learning metric score
F1 Score Machine-learning metric score (Dimensionless)
(Dimensionless) m Cementation exponent (Dimensionless)
FFI Free fluid index (Ratio) n Saturation exponent (Dimensionless)
FP False positive (Dimensionless) Recall Machine-learning metric score
FN False negative (Dimensionless) (Dimensionless)
FZI Flow zone indicator (mD) RHOBma Density log reading for clean matrix (g/cc)
GRlog Gamma-ray log reading (API) RHOB Density log reading (g/cc)
GRsand Gamma-ray log reading for clean and sand RHOBsh Density log reading for shale (g/cc)
matrix (API) RHOBfl Density log reading for drilling fluid (g/cc)
RW Resistivity of formation water (Ohm.m)
RT Resistivity of uninvaded formation (Ohm.m)
* Mohamed A. Kassab RQI Rock quality index (mD)
mkassab68@yahoo.com
SW Water saturation (Ratio)
1
Department of Exploration, Egyptian Petroleum Research SWindo Indonesian water saturation (Ratio)
Institute (EPRI), Cairo, Egypt TP True positive (Dimensionless)
2
Geology Department, Faculty of Pet. & Min. Eng, Suez TN True negative (Dimensionless)
University, Suez, Egypt Vp Sonic log reading (ms/ft)

Vol.:(0123456789)

Xscaled Feature scaled (According to feature unit)
X Reading of the feature (According to feature
unit)
Xmin Minimum value of the feature (According to
feature unit)
Xmax Maximum value of the feature (According to
feature unit)
α Formula empirically derived coefficient
(Dimensionless)
β Formula empirically derived coefficient
(Dimensionless)
Ø Formation porosity (Ratio)
Ø Porosity measured from core (Ratio)
∅z Normalized porosity (Ratio)
∅N Porosity derived from neutron log (Ratio)
∅D Porosity derived from density log (Ratio)
∅sh Porosity of shale derived (Ratio)
∅e Effective porosity (Ratio)
∅t Total porosity (Ratio)
ØNMR Porosity from nuclear magnetic resonance log
(Ratio)
ρ Density log reading (g/cc)
ρma Density of the rock matrix (g/cc)
ρfluid Density of drilling fluid (g/cc)
ρlog Density log reading (g/cc)
Acronyms
AI Artificial Intelligence
BOPD Barrel Oil Per Day
CALI Caliper
RD Deep Resistivity
RHOB Density
XGB Extreme Gradient Boosting Algorithm
FZI Flow Zone Indicator
GR Gamma-Ray
GUPCO Gulf Of Suez Petroleum Company
RM Medium Resistivity
MLP/NN Multi-Layer Perceptron/Neural Network
Classifier
N/G Net To Gross Ratio
NPHI Neutron
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Log
OWC Oil Water Contact
RBF Radial-Based Function
RF Random Forest Classifier
RQI Reservoir Quality Index
RCAL Routine Core Analysis
DT Sonic
SCAL Special Core Analysis
SVC Support Vector Machine Classifier
TVDSS True Vertical Depth Sub Sea
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
Introduction
October Field is located in the north-central part of the
Gulf of Suez, Egypt (Fig. 1) (EGPC 1996), with latitude
from 28° 48′ 00" N to 28° 53′ 00'' N and longitude from
33° 03′ 00'' E to 33° 08′ 00'' E. October Field was discov-
ered in 1977, the GS 195–1 well (later renamed Octo-
ber A-1) was drilled to test a large, NW-trending, fault-
bounded structure that had been identified from a 1976
regional seismic survey in the October area. The well
October A-1 was targeting Nukhul as primary target and
Nubia as secondary target. The October Field, positioned
approximately 25 km to the north of the vast Belayim
field, exhibits a structural configuration characterized by
elongated faulted blocks. These faulted blocks align in a
northwest–southeast trend and have a northeast dip. These
pre-Miocene faulted blocks extend along the strike of the
field for approximately 20 km (Zahran 1986; EGPC 1996;
Kassem et al. 2021; Khattab et al. 2023).
Nubia formation is considered as a major reservoir
in Gulf of Suez especially in October Field. It contains
around 1163 MMBO reserves yet it still possesses an
attractive hydrocarbon potential (EGPC 1996).
Machine-learning is one of the state-of-art techniques in
oil and gas industry. It represents one of the most power-
ful techniques in terms of cost, time and accuracy. Many
authors applied machine-learning techniques in different
areas in the world and achieved adequate results (Altunbay
et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2020; Rajabi et al. 2021, 2023;
Gao et al. 2023; Ali et al. 2022, 2023; Mustafa et al. 2022;
Thanh et al. 2022, 2023; Amjad et al. 2023; Manzoor et al.
2023) and for reservoir evaluation (Ehsan et al. 2019,
2023).
Rock typing is used as a tool for predicting the spatial
distribution of petrophysical and reservoir engineering
parameters on a field-wide basis from studies of control
wells (Altunbay et al. 2018; Radwan et al. 2021a, 2022;
Nabawy et al. 2021; El-Gendy et al. 2022; Marghani et al.
2023; Ismail et al. 2023). Therefore, it is an essential part
of the static and dynamic models of an asset. There are
varieties of approaches, from multidisciplinary origins
to rock typing. Rock typing plays a crucial role in both
geological and engineering studies pertaining to oil and
gas fields. It serves as a fundamental aspect of reservoir
characterization and the overall development of the field.
However, extending the classification from cored intervals
to all wells using traditional methods based on geologic
origin analysis poses significant challenges in establishing
a quantitative relationship. Rezaee and Ekundayo (2022)
and Wang et al. (2020) have attempted to predict rock
types using machine-learning algorithms, yet neither of
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
Fig. 1  Location map of the study area, Gulf of Suez, Egypt (EGPC 1996)
them has developed a simple model that only uses four
input well logging curves. Also, either of them did not
choose the same machine-learning algorithm chosen in
this paper, and of course, the hyper-parameters of this
algorithm are different than those of the one discussed
here in this paper. Finally, either of both researches were
conducted in October Field, Gulf of Suez area.
The current study aiming to apply the workflow of using
machine-learning algorithms to predict rock types in un-
cored wells and intervals in a very simple manner in terms
of features/inputs required. Also, showing the results of
such workflow and comparing them to other related per-
meability finding tools such as routine core analysis and
nuclear magnetic resonance logging tool (NMR) to find
the optimum permeability prediction. This will help to
have some sort of realization of the permeability of the
targeted reservoir, thus enhancing the choice of perforation
intervals, a crucial decision in the oil and gas industry that
has a massive effect on hydrocarbon production.

Literature review
On the contrary to physical and empirical methods for
permeability prediction whether Kozney–Carman models,
nuclear magnetic resonance or induced polarization used
in Weller et al. (2014), which use physical and geologi-
cal approaches as pore radius, tortuosity, polarization and
relaxation times along with other physical and geological
approaches. Machine-learning models are mathematical
and statistical models which are numerical in nature, even
when dealing with the physical input features, it only uses
their values to establish an array of numbers from which
it can learn and, therefore, predict.
In addition, the machine-learning model used in Wang
et al. (2020) is a mere decision tree, which is a building unit
to the random forest, which, in turn, is a building unit to the
extreme gradient boosting algorithm which is used in this
study. This reflects the superiority of the algorithm used
in the present study compared to the decision tree. Also,
the input features required for the former study are differ-
ent, and its number exceeds that of the present study as the
number of input features required for the former study is
five inputs features which are porosity, shale volume, water
saturation, density log and shallow resistivity log compared
to the four input features required for the present study which
are gamma-ray log, density log, neutron log and sonic log.
Rezaee and Ekundayo (2022) use four algorithms: multi-
layer perceptron/neural network, support vector regressor,
random forest and gradient boosting regressor, the last algo-
rithm is a similar algorithm to the algorithm used in the
present study. Input features used for this similar algorithm
were seven which are shale volume, density log, photoelec-
tric effect log, neutron log, sonic log, deep resistivity log
and effective porosity log, yet the accuracy was less than
that of the present study as the accuracy R2 correlation score
dropped from above 0.9 to below 0.7, while in the present
study, the R2 correlation score dropped from 1 to 0.728 in
the training and validation phases, respectively.
Therefore, this is a new method in predicting permeabil-
ity where it uses statistical and mathematical approaches
through machine-learning algorithms with the addition
of simplicity of the hyper-parameters, and the number of
input features required in addition to the commonality of
these input features and enhanced accuracy.
Geological setting
The Gulf of Suez region is a narrow water body situated
in a north/northwest–south/southeast direction, serving as
a natural division between the northeastern part of the
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
African continent and the Sinai Peninsula. This region is
part of the northern compartment of the Red Sea rift. The
Gulf of Suez area holds significant importance in Egypt’s
exploration efforts and stands as the most extensively
drilled and explored portion. It encompasses over 80 oil
fields, hosting reservoirs ranging in age from the Precam-
brian period to the Quaternary period (Elsayed et al. 2021;
El Nady et al. 2015). The Gulf of Suez basin is categorized
into three distinct structural provinces, determined by the
regional dip direction of its tilted fault blocks (Bosworth
and McClay 2001). The northern and southern provinces
exhibit a southwestward dip, while the central province
demonstrates a northeastward dip. Separation between
both provinces occurs via two accommodation zones that
trend in a northeast direction (Moustafa 1976; Patton et al.
1994). With a length of approximately 320 km and a width
ranging from 60 to 25 km, the Gulf of Suez basin is classi-
fied as a rift basin. It is characterized by intricate tectonic
activity, wherein faulted blocks are delineated by signifi-
cant northwest–southeast faults (Clysmic direction), along
with secondary southwest–northeast trending faults. This
region is renowned as the most prolific oil rift basin in
both the Middle East and Africa, boasting high levels of
oil production (Elsayed et al. 2021; El Nady et al. 2015).
October Field is located in the north-central part of the
Gulf of Suez, Egypt (Fig. 1) (EGPC 1996), with latitude from
28° 48′ 00" N to 28° 53′ 00'' N and longitude from 33° 03′ 00''
E to 33° 08′ 00'' E. October Field was discovered in 1977, the
GS 195–1 well (later renamed October A-1) was drilled to
test a large, NW-trending, fault-bounded structure that had
been identified from a 1976 regional seismic survey in the
October area. The October Field, positioned approximately
25 km to the north of the vast Belayim field, exhibits a struc-
tural configuration characterized by elongated faulted blocks.
These faulted blocks align in a northwest–southeast trend
and have a northeast dip. These pre-Miocene faulted blocks
extend along the strike of the field for approximately 20 km
(Zahran 1986; EGPC 1996; Kassem et al. 2021; Khattab et al.
2023). The field is bounded to the west by a sequence of
normal faults with downthrown displacement to the west, it
is also divided into a main southern block and a secondary
northern block (El‐Ghamri et al. 2002; Radwan et al. 2021b).
The Miocene Nukhul formation, which was produced
from the onshore Abu Rudeis Field, 10–15 km to the east,
was the main objective, with the Paleozoic–Cretaceous Nubia
sandstones as a secondary target (Lelek et al. 1992; Radwan
et al. 2020). The Nukhul reservoir was absent, but the Nubia
contained 541 ft of net oil pay, which tested 29.6°API oil at
4562 Barrel Oil Per Day (BOPD) on a 34/64 in. choke. Logs
showed a single oil water contact (OWC) at 11,670 ft True
Vertical Depth Sub Sea (TVDSS) (Zahran 1986). The wells
were put on production in October 1977 (Zahran 1986), and a
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
production platform was installed in 1979 (Borling et al. 1996).
The primary oil production at the October Field is derived
from the sandstones within the Paleozoic–Cretaceous Nubia
Formation (Lelek et al. 1992). In 1989, additional reserves
were discovered in a smaller, separate Nubia pool with a shal-
lower OWC in the North October Area by the discovery well,
GS172-1 (October J-1), which penetrated Nubia sandstones
at 10,723 ft TVDSS and tested at a rate of 7880 BOPD from
254 ft of net oil pay. In the October Field, the basal pre-rift
reservoir section is primarily composed of various sandstones
known as the “Nubian Sandstone.” The Nubia Formation
ranges in age from the Paleozoic to the Lower Cretaceous and
unconformably overlies the Precambrian crystalline basement
and is conformably overlain by Upper Cretaceous shales of
the Nezzazat Group (Hussein et al. 2017; Zahran 1986). Fig-
ure 2 shows the litho-stratigraphic column of the October Field
(Peijs et al. 2012).
Deaf (2009) suggested that during the late Cretaceous
period in the Gulf of Suez, there was a notable marine trans-
gression, the lower part of the Gulf of Suez sequence, which
is of the latest early Cretaceous age, appears to have been
deposited in a continental basin. The late Cretaceous sedi-
mentary record in the Gulf of Suez demonstrates a transi-
tion from continental alluvial deposits to marine carbonate
sequences.
The Nubian Sandstone can be further subdivided into
different groups based on lithological characteristics. The
Lower Paleozoic Qebliat Group, which corresponds to the
previously used terms Nubia “D” and “C,” is dominated
by sandstone lithologies. The Carboniferous Ataqa Group,
equivalent to the Nubia “B” and the lower portion of the
Nubia “A,” consists of both dolomites and sandstones.
This group exhibits a mixture of carbonate and siliciclastic
facies. The Lower Cretaceous Malha Formation represents
the upper part of the Nubia “A” and is primarily composed
of coarse-grained sandstones. These sandstones within the
Malha Formation exhibit a coarser grain size compared to
the other units.
Overall, the Nubian Sandstone in the October Field com-
prises different lithological units, including the sandstone-
dominated Lower Paleozoic Qebliat Group, the dolomites
and sandstones of the Carboniferous Ataqa Group and the
coarse-grained sandstones of the Lower Cretaceous Malha
Formation. These sandstone units form the dominant res-
ervoir section underlying the October Field (Hasouba et al.
1992; El‐Ghamri et al. 2002).
Methods and techniques
The dataset available for the current study includes the
complete set of logging data for four wells (OCT-A2B,
OCT-B8, OCT-B6 and OCT-K5). The logging data include
gamma-ray (GR), caliper (CALI) deep and medium resis-
tivity (RD and RM), neutron (NPHI), density (RHOB) and
sonic (DT). The logging data were used for formation evalu-
ation and as inputs for AI technique. As for the core data,
routine core analysis (RCAL) is available for all three cored
wells (OCT-A2B, OCT-B8 and OCT-B6), while special core
analysis (SCAL) is available for only two wells (OCT-A2B
and OCT-B6). The core data were used for the rock typing of
the formation so that the rock types are used as input for AI
technique. For the un-cored well OCT-K5, same set of logs
is available except for the sonic log is missing in its data-
set but it has nuclear magnetic resonance log (NMR) avail-
able. NMR log is used to calculate permeability to compare
it with permeability obtained from AI technique. Table 1
shows the detailed database used in the current study.
Formation evaluation for the studied wells
Well log data were used to perform formation evaluation to
obtain petrophysical parameters such as shale volume (Vsh),
porosity (Ø), water saturation (Sw), reservoir, pay flags and
the ratio between them. Shale volume is calculated by the
linear formula (Eq. 1) from gamma-ray for a pessimistic esti-
mation (Atlas 1979) and from density–neutron log (Eq. 2)
(Schlumberger 1972, 2009). Porosity determination in the
study is primarily obtained from density and neutron logs
(Wyllie 1963; Asquith and Gibson 1982; Schlumberger
1972) (Eqs. 3–6). Water saturation derived from Archie
equation (Archie 1942) (Eq. 7) and from Indonesian equa-
tion (Poupon and Leveaux 1971) (Eq. 8). For reservoir and
pay flags, standard cutoffs for shale volumes (50%), poros-
ity (10%) and water saturation (50%) were applied in order
and sequentially (Darling 2005; Kassab et al. 2020; El-Din
et al. 2013).
GRlog − GRsand
VSH = (1)
GRshale − GRsand
X1 − X0
Vsh = (2)
X2 − X0
where
X0 = NPHIma
X1 = NPHI + M1(RHOBma − RHOB)
X2 = NPHIsh + M1(RHOBma − RHOBsh )
NPHIfl − NPHIma
M1 =
RHOBfl − RHOBma
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 2  Tectonostratigraphic history and stratigraphic megasequences of Gulf of Suez (Peijs et al. 2012)

𝜌ma − 𝜌log Ø = formation porosity, fraction.

∞= (3) ρ_ma = density of the rock matrix, g/cm3
𝜌ma − 𝜌fluid
ρ_fluid = density of saturation fluid, g/cm3
where ρ_log = density log reading (bulk density), g/cm3
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 1  Detailed dataset Logging data Core data

Well/data type GR CALI PEF DRHO RHOB/NPHI DT RD RM NMR RCAL SCAL

OCT-A2B √ √ × √ √ √ √ √ × √ √
OCT-B6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ × √ √
OCT-B8 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ × √ ×
OCT-K5 √ √ √ √ √ × √ √ √ × ×

√
Rock typing/Clustering the formation
∅2N + ∅2D
∞= (4)
2 Core data were used to perform rock typing by reservoir
quality index (RQI), the normalized porosity (Øz) and flow
∅e = ∅t − ∅sh Vsh (5) zone indicator (FZI) from the helium porosity and horizontal
permeability measured using Amaefule formulas (Amaefule
𝜌ma − 𝜌sh et al. 1993; El-Sayed et al. 2021; Abuhagaza et al. 2021;
∅sh =
𝜌ma − 𝜌fluid (6) Kassab et al. 2021; Radwan et al. 2021a; El-Gendy et al.
2022; Ismail et al. 2023; Hassan et al. 2023) (Eqs. 9–11).
where The samples where then sorted in terms of FZI and grouped
∅e= effective porosity. in rock types/clusters. Validation of the rock typing process
∅t= total porosity. by comparing permeability calculated from the actual FZI
∅sh= porosity of shale derived. and the actual porosity from the core with the actual perme-
Vsh= volume of shale at formation. ability measured from core.
√ √
R k
SW = n m W (7) RQI = 0.0314 ( ) (9)
∅ .RT ∞

where Where
SW= water saturation, fraction. k is the horizontal permeability measured from core.
Ø = porosity, fraction. Ø is the porosity measured from core (preferably helium
RW= resistivity of formation water, ohm.m. porosity).
RT= resistivity of uninvaded formation, ohm.m. Also, the normalized porosity (Øz) was calculated by the
m = cementation exponent. following equation.
n = saturation exponent. ∞
∞z =
(1 − ∞) (10)
� (2∕n)
⎧ 1 ⎫
⎪ Rt ⎪ Then, the flow zone indicator (FZI) was calculated by the
SWindo = ⎨ � (1−0.5V ) � � ⎬ (8)
following equation.
⎪ Vsh
+ a.R ⎪
∅m
sh
√
⎩ Rsh w ⎭
RQI
FZI = (11)
where ∞z
SWindo = water saturation, fraction.
Rt = resistivity of uninvaded formation, ohm.m.
Rsh = resistivity of shale, ohm.m.
Using machine‑learning (ML) for rock type
Vsh =volume of shale.
classification
Ø = porosity, fraction.
In contrast with conventional programming methods, which
a =Archie constant.
typically involve creating a detailed design and implement-
Rw = resistivity of formation water, ohm.m.
ing it as a program, ML takes a different approach. Instead
m = cementation exponent.

of explicitly instructing the computer on how to solve a
problem, ML algorithms learn from data and examples to
generalize patterns and make informed predictions or deci-
sions (Rebala et al. 2019). The process of machine-learning
is divided into the following steps:
Feature engineering and data cleaning
Features is the terminology in machine-learning for the
input data to the model, while labels are the terminology in
machine-learning for the output data predicted or classified
by the model. Features were conventional logs, while the
label was the rock type.
Data cleaning was done by discovering and eliminat-
ing the plugs with bad test measurements (plug broken or
test failure), nearly impermeable plugs (less than one md)
and plugs where logs have problems while recording (noise
while data acquisition), such as washout areas in the well
where density and neutron log would give wrong readings
for the formation.
Feature engineering was represented in the choice of con-
ventional logs to be used in the machine-learning model,
which was then decided, by choosing the gamma-ray (GR),
density (RHOB), neutron (NPHI) and sonic (DT) logs. The
resistivity log was excluded as it has no relationship to the
facies, porosity or permeability of the formation as it is
mainly related to the formation fluids and not the formation
and its pore space, size and geometry due to the low to non-
collinearity between these features.
These logs were scaled and normalized for each well by
means of the min–max scaler (Dodge 2003; Freedman et al.
2020) (Eq. 12), which uses the following equation:
(X − Xmin )
Xscaled = (12)
(Xmax − Xmin )
The standard scaler was excluded, as the data did not
follow a Gaussian distribution, where the standard scaler
performs better in such data. The scaling step is essential for
the machine-learning model as most machine-learning algo-
rithms are sensitive to the input values and could be biased
toward big values and inputs with large scales (scale of GR
curve ranges from 0 to 100, while RHOB curve ranges from
1.95 to 2.95) and deteriorate the machine-learning model.
Choosing the machine‑learning algorithm
After examining the generalized buffering algorithm, which
takes the distance geometrically along with the characteris-
tics, attributes in regards (Zhou et al. 2021) and also exam-
ining the deep learning stochastic framework which aids in
the subsurface structure estimation (Zhan et al. 2022). Core
data and log data for each well were then concatenated by
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
means of measured depth. Then, the data are split based on
the wells, where OCT-A2B and OCT-B8 were the train data,
i.e., the data from which the machine-learning algorithm
will learn, and OCT-B6 was the test data, i.e., the data on
which the machine-learning algorithm will apply what it
learned. The following machine-learning algorithms were
used for the data after the wrangling:
1. Random forest classifier (RF)
2. Extreme gradient boost classifier (XGB)
3. Multi-layer perceptron/neural network classifier (MLP/
NN)
4. Support vector machine classifier (SVC) with radial-
based function kernel (RBF)
5. Support vector machine classifier (SVC) with polyno-
mial kernel
A range of hyper-parameters for each algorithm were used
by iterations and observing the results and metrics such as
the accuracy score (Eq. 13), precision score (Eq. 14), recall
score (Eq. 15), F1 score (Eq. 16) and confusion matrix. The
confusion matrix was the most important and effective met-
ric, as it clarifies how each sample has been classified and
what its classification result was (Powers 2020).
These metrics have the following equations:
(TP + TN)
Accuracy = (13)
(TP + TN + FP + FN)
TP
Precision = (14)
(TP + FP)
TP
Recall = (15)
(TP + FN)
(2(Precision)(Recall))
F1 − Score = (16)
(Precision + Recall)
where TP, TN, FP and FN are true positive, true negative,
false positive and false negative, respectively.
A true positive (TP) occurs when the model correctly pre-
dicts an instance as belonging to the positive class. It means
the model identified a positive case correctly.
A true negative (TN) happens when the model correctly
predicts an instance as belonging to the negative class. It
means the model identified a negative case correctly.
On the other hand, a false positive (FP) occurs when the
model incorrectly predicts an instance as belonging to the
positive class when it is actually from the negative class. It
means the model identified a negative case as positive.
A false negative (FN) happens when the model incor-
rectly predicts an instance as belonging to the negative
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
class when it is actually from the positive class. It means
the model identified a positive case as negative.
A true class is the event that the model is aiming to pre-
dict/classify while a negative class is any other possibility.
In our case, one of the rock types will be the true class, while
all the other rock types will be considered negative classes
by the model. The best algorithm and hyper-parameters that
produce the best accepted results shown by these metrics
is extreme gradient boosting (XGB) (Chen and Guestrin
2016). XGB is a group of random forests, which is, in turn,
a group of decision trees; it is a split-based algorithm to
predict or classify the labels of a labeled dataset by means
of the entropy and Gini index of the data after each split.
Via minimizing the entropy and the Gini index to the least
possible value as the dataset is well classified or predicted
as the entropy and Gini index decrease. These trees and for-
ests are a relatively weak predictor, and each tree and forest
work sequentially, not in parallel. This is to pass the results
of each weak predictor to the next weak predictor so that
each consecutive predictor would learn from the errors of the
previous predictor, thus minimizing the error and achieving
the best results possible. The XGB is used with its default
hyper-parameters except for Max_Depth, as the best value
for it was ten instead of the default value of six.
Calculating permeability and validating the rock
typing and machine‑learning results
Permeability from rock types was calculated from the fol-
lowing Amaefule equation (Amaefule et al. 1993) (Eq. 17):
∞3e
k = 1014(FZI) 2
(17)
(1 − ∞e )2
where
k is the horizontal permeability.
FZI is the mean flow zone indicator.
Øe is the effective porosity.
Validation of the machine-learning model by comparing
permeability calculated from predicted FZI and actual poros-
ity from the core with the actual permeability measured from
core, while validation of the predicted permeability curve by
comparing permeability calculated from predicted FZI and
calculated porosity from the logs with the actual permeabil-
ity measured from core.
Dealing with missing data and calculating
permeability from NMR log
Sonic log was absent in OCT-K5 well, this log is a neces-
sary input/feature to the machine-learning model, therefore,
it was synthesized using Gardner equation that links sonic
log to density log (Gardner et al. 1974) (Eq. 18). The best
empirically derived coefficients are found through itera-
tions of sonic and density logs in numerous offset wells. The
machine-learning model is then applied to the well, and per-
meability curve is calculated. Permeability from NMR log is
calculated by Coates formula (Coates et al. 1999) (Eq. 19).
Finally, permeability calculated from the machine-learning
model is compared to that calculated from NMR log.
𝜌 = 𝛼Vp𝛽 (18)
where
ρ is the density log in g/cm3.
Vp is the sonic log or P-wave velocity.
α is a formula empirically derived coefficient.
β is a formula empirically derived coefficient.
( )4 ( )2
�NMR FFI
k= (19)
C BVI
where
k is the horizontal permeability.
C is a constant depending on lithology.
ØNMR is the porosity from NMR log (given from the log).
FFI is the free fluid index (given from the log).
BVI is bulk volume irreducible (given from the log).
Results and discussion
Formation evaluation results
Wells OCT-A2B and OCT-B6 have core electric param-
eters obtained from special core analysis (SCAL) such as
cementation exponent (m), saturation exponent (n), Archie
constant (a) and the formation water resistivity (Rw). Table 2
shows the results of the SCAL regarding the core electric
parameters.
Formation evaluation is performed to estimate shale vol-
ume (Vsh), porosity (Ø), water saturation (Sw), gross reser-
voir, net pay thicknesses and net to gross ratio (N/G) for the
Nubia formation to all wells. Core electric parameters for
the wells with those parameters were used. While assumed
default values per the Gulf of Suez Petroleum Company
(GUPCO) were used for the wells with no core electric
properties measured (OCT-B8 and OCT-K5). The values
used for cementation exponent (m), saturation exponent
Table 2  Core electric parameters resulted from SCAL
Well/property a m n Rw
OCT-A2B 1 1.69 1.97 0.088
OCT-B6 1 1.63 1.72 0.07
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Table 3  Average formation Well/property Vsh Ø Sw Gross Net N/G

evaluation parameters
OCT-B8 0.196 0.134 0.364 495 457 0.92
OCT-K5 0.183 0.13 0.474 546 405 0.74
OCT-A2B 0.206 0.1555 0.422 539 519 0.96
OCT-B6 0.193 0.134 0.454 532 469 0.88

Fig. 3  OCT-B8 formation evaluation, the caliper log (CALI) and
gamma-ray log (GR) are in the first track. Bulk density log (RHOB),
neutron porosity log (NPHI) and bulk density correction log (DRHO)
are in the second track. The deep resistivity log (RD) and medium
resistivity log (RM) are in the third track. Sonic travel time log (DT)
is in the fourth track. Bad hole flag (BHF) is in the fifth track, final
shale volume (­Vsh) is in the sixth track, final porosity (PHI_FINAL)
is in the seventh track and Indonesian (final) water saturation (SWE_
INDO) is in the eighth track. Finally, the reservoir net flag (RES_
NET_FLAG) exists in the ninth track, and the pay net flag (PAY_
NET_FLAG) is in the tenth track
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
Fig. 4  OCT-A2B formation evaluation, the caliper log (CALI) and
gamma-ray log (GR) are in the first track. Bulk density log (RHOB),
neutron porosity log (NPHI) and bulk density correction log (DRHO)
are in the second track. The deep resistivity log (RD), deep induc-
tion resistivity log (ILD), medium resistivity log (RM) and medium
induction resistivity log (ILM) are in the third track. Sonic travel
time log (DT) is in the fourth track. Bad hole flag (BHF) is in the
fifth track, final shale volume (­Vsh) is in the sixth track, final poros-
ity (PHI_FINAL) is in the seventh track and Indonesian (final) water
saturation (SWE_INDO) is in the eighth track. Finally, the reservoir
net flag (RES_NET_FLAG) exists in the ninth track, and the pay net
flag (PAY_NET_FLAG) is in the tenth track

(n), Archie constant (a) and the formation water resistivity
(Rw) are 1.95, 2, 1 and 0.016, respectively. Table 3 shows
the results of the average formation evaluation parameters.
Figure 3 shows the formation evaluation for well OCT-B8.
Figure 4 shows the same log and curves for well OCT-A2B.
Clustering and rock typing
After removing any impermeable core samples results, i.e.,
any samples with permeability less than 1 mD, 705 sam-
ples were obtained. Then, the rock quality index (RQI),
normalized porosity (Øz) and flow zone indicator (FZI) are
calculated.
These samples were then divided into five rock types or
clusters by means of FZI. Table 4 shows the criteria for FZI
ranges and mean FZI by which these rock types were clas-
sified and the mean FZI for each rock type. Figure 5 shows
the samples after being rock typed.
To validate this clustering/rock typing process, the
mean FZI for each rock type of each sample along with
Table 4  Criteria of FZI range and mean for rock typing
Rock type number FZI range (cutoff) Mean FZI
1 0.488–1.8 1.19
2 1.8–5 3.37
3 5–9 6.9
4 9–14.92 11.73
5 14.92–46.222 21.49
Fig. 5  Samples after rock typing
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
the helium porosity measured from the core is used to cal-
culate permeability, and then, the calculated permeability
by this method is plotted versus the measured permeability
from the core in log–log scale. The R2 correlation coeffi-
cient was approximately 0.938, which is an almost identi-
cal correlation; therefore, the rock typing is valid. Figure 6
shows the measured permeability from the core versus the
calculated permeability from the rock typing process.
Machine‑learning process
Data cleaning and exploration
A filter on the core samples is applied where any point
in the wells concerning the study that has a caliper log
(CALI) reading equal to or greater than 9 inches (0.5
inches greater than the bit size as the bit size in all wells
is 8.5 inches) is eliminated. This step aimed to remove any
noisy readings with errors due to washout, as the density
and neutron logs would mostly have incorrect readings due
to their relatively shallow depth of investigation, which
would result in readings that represent the drilling mud
properties more than representing the formation proper-
ties. This step further reduced the number of samples from
705 to 623. The core samples were calibrated in depth to
match that of logs via the core gamma-ray.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
Fig. 6  Measured permeability
versus calculated permeability
100000
Calculated horizontal permeability (mD)
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.01
Feature engineering
To achieve the best inputs/features/logs to use for the
machine-learning model, two approaches were applied to
the log data. First, a physical approach to the data is used,
which results in excluding the resistivity logs and caliper
logs. The former is more concerned with the fluids inside
the formation than the lithology and facies of the forma-
tion, while the latter has no meaning in terms of facies and
lithology as it only gives an indication of the hole size, so
there is no real information from it, and it has been limited
only for the purpose of identifying washout intervals and
eliminating their associated data.
Second approach was of mathematical and statistical
nature, as correlation between the remaining logs (GR,
RHOB, NPHI and DT) was examined to identify any fea-
tures highly correlated with each other so that only one of
the correlated features is chosen. This step aims to elimi-
nate any duplication in the features, as the mathemati-
cal model would be biased toward features that are highly
correlated and would highly influence its prediction/clas-
sification. Figure 7 shows a matrix heat map that shows
the correlation between the features and each other and
between the label/output, which is rock type (RT).
It can be noticed that no feature is highly correlated
with any other, whether positive or negative correlation.
Therefore, all four features will be chosen to enter the
model and are ready for scaling. In addition, it is notice-
able that the number of features is relatively small, which
establishes a simple low-dimension machine-learning
model easy to use for prediction/classification.
Measured Permeability vs Calculated permeability
y = 1.6391x0.9267
R² = 0.938
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Measured horizontal permeability (mD)
Choosing the machine‑learning algorithm
After scaling the features (log data), each curve in each well
of the study is scaled separately as each curve has its own
range, and each well has its own unique conditions regard-
ing the hole condition, hole size and tool calibrations and
corrections. The data are split into train data that the model
will learn from and test data by which the model would be
validated through applying and comparing the predicted/
classified rock type results with the actual rock types. The
splitting was with a ratio of 90% of the samples were train
data (561 from 623 samples) and 10% were test data (61
from 623 samples). In terms of wells, the data of wells OCT-
A2B and OCT-B8 were for training, while the OCT-B6 well
was for testing.
Each algorithm had several trials with the data applying
wide ranges for the values of their respective hyper-param-
eters, and the choosing process is based on the metrics and
results. After these trials, Table 5 shows the best metrics and
results of each algorithm used, and figures from Figs. 8, 9,
10, 11 and 12 demonstrate the confusion matrix of each of
these algorithms used.
As noticed, most of the metrics of most of these algo-
rithms are similar, but the decisive metric was the confu-
sion matrix, as the confusion matrix of all the algorithms
was predicting/classifying the rock types very skewed away
from their actual rock types. Except for the extreme gradi-
ent boosting (XGB) algorithm, which although got a similar
incorrect number of samples like the other algorithms yet
what the algorithm classified incorrectly was not extremely
skewed or far away from the actual rock type (mostly a
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 7  Correlation matrix heat map between the features

Table 5  Metric score and results of different algorithms the model with the least important feature being RHOB
Metric/algo- SVM_RBF SVM_Poly XGB RFC MLP_NN
with around 22% importance and the most important feature
rithm being NPHI with around 28% importance. The importance
of the feature comes from how much it reduces the Gini
Train score 0.561 0.404 1 0.33 0.33 index and the entropy of the data with each split regarding
Test score 0.388 0.32 0.398 0.33 0.31 the feature.
Precision score 0.347 0.234 0.367 0.11 0.1
Recall score 0.388 0.32 0.398 0.33 0.31
Calculating permeability
F1 score 0.325 0.235 0.371 0.164 0.156
As mentioned previously, the mean FZI from the predicted/
classified rock types along with the helium porosity from the
difference of one rock type than the actual in either the nega- core were used to calculate the permeability by the Amae-
tive or positive direction). This could be an accepted result, fule equation then compared to the actual measured perme-
as rock types are not sharply separated and could show some ability from the core. This step is vital for the validation of
sort of interference between each rock type and the one that the machine-learning model. The R2 correlation coefficient
precedes or succeeds it. between the actual and calculated permeability was approxi-
Therefore, the best algorithm chosen for this study was mately 0.7281.
the XGB, and it was used with its default hyper-parameters Then, the same step is done, but with the porosity cal-
except for “Max_Depth,” as the best value for it was ten culated from the logs. This step is important due to the
instead of the default value of six. absence of core helium porosity in un-cored intervals and
In addition, it has been confirmed that the feature engi- wells. The R2 correlation coefficient was approximately 0.51
neering and selection was successful, as all features contrib- (exactly 0.5098). The huge difference in the R2 correlation
uted almost equally to the prediction/classification models. coefficient between estimating permeability based on helium
Figure 13 shows the feature importance of each feature to core porosity and the same estimation based on porosity
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 8  MLP_NN confusion matrix

Fig. 9  RF confusion matrix

calculated from logs is not due to any defect in the machine- from logs, as in all cases, the same mean FZI is used in the
learning model. However, it is rather in the big difference equation, and in all cases, the same predicted/classified rock
between the helium core porosity and porosity calculated types are used. Figure 14 shows both steps and comparisons.
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 10  SVC_Poly confusion matrix

Fig. 11  SVC_RBF confusion matrix

To prove that the decrease in the R2 correlation coeffi- and the porosity calculated from the logs, then compared
cient is due mainly to the porosity, another permeability was to the actual permeability measured from the core. The R2
calculated using the mean FZI from the actual rock types correlation coefficient reached over 0.66 (Exactly 0.6682).
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 12  XGB confusion matrix

Visualizing Important Features

NPHI

GR
Features

DT

RHOB

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

Features Importance Score

Fig. 13  XGB feature importance, NPHI feature has the highest importance of about 28% while RHOB feature has least importance of about 22%

Figure 15 shows this comparison. Figure 16 shows a com-
parison between actual core measurements of porosity and
horizontal and vertical permeability versus the calculated
porosity from logs and the horizontal permeability predicted
from a machine-learning algorithm.
Dealing with missing logs using Gardner equation
When attempting to apply the machine-learning model
on the un-cored well OCT-K5, it was found that it has
no sonic log, which is an essential input/feature to the
 Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

Fig. 14  Measured permeability

vs calculated permeability by
core helium porosity (red) and
measured permeability vs cal-
culated permeability by porosity
calculated from logs (blue)

Fig. 15  Measured permeability

vs calculated permeability by
Measured Permeability vs Calculated Permeability
actual mean FZI and porosity
Calculated horizontal permeability (mD)

100000
calculated from logs
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01 y = 2.9875x0.8427
R² = 0.6682
0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Measured horizontal permeability (mD)

machine-learning model. Therefore, Gardner equation was
used to estimate the sonic log from the density log.
To obtain best α and β, many trials with the density log
then comparing the calculated sonic log to the actual sonic
log of the offset wells to the well OCT-K5, it was found that
α = 0.2 and β = 3.1. The R2 correlation coefficient was approx-
imately −0.71 (exactly −0.708), the negative correlation coef-
ficient is due to the inverse relation between density (compact-
ness of the formation) and sonic velocity (travel time).
NMR permeability versus estimated core
permeability from rock typing
After the estimation of the sonic log by Gardner equation,
the machine-learning model could be applied on the well
OCT-K,5 and rock types of the Nubia formation in the well
could be predicted/classified, from which permeability could
be estimated similarly to the previous wells.
In addition, the NMR log run in the well is used to estimate
permeability using Coates method/equation with the constant
“C” value taken as 33 as this value is the correct value for
sandstone, the dominant lithology in the formation.
Finally, the permeability estimates from both sources are
compared to each other. The R2 correlation coefficient was
approximately 0.48 (exactly 0.4755). The reduction in cor-
relation coefficient and accuracy between this well and the
other cored wells is due to the synthesizing of the sonic log,
which, like any synthesizing process, leads to some error in
the estimation.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
Fig. 16  OCT-A2B measured permeability versus predicted perme-
ability, the core measurements of helium porosity (COPHI_SHIFT)
along with effective porosity calculated from logs (PHIE_ND) in
the first track, measured horizontal permeability from core (COHK_
SHIFT) along with calculated permeability from the mean flow zone
indicators (FZI) given from the predicted rock types through the
machine-learning model (COHK_CALC) in the second track and
the measured vertical permeability from core (COVK_SHIFT) in the
third track for the well OCT-A2B

Implications for petroleum exploration
and development
Implications of obtaining a reliable continuous perme-
ability curve in petroleum exploration and development
could be summarized in the following points:
• Aiding in the decision of perforation as it helps in
choosing the most productive perforation intervals
whether initial perforation or additional perforations
within the well lifetime.
• Supporting the secondary/enhanced recovery process
as it provides information about the most likely paths
where injected water would flow.
• Reducing dependency on cores for acquiring reliable
permeability data, which is more expensive, consumes
more time, requires various procedures and tests that
might fail and most crucial obtains permeability data
in discrete points not continuously in the whole reser-
voir.
Limitations
Limitations of this study that could be avoided or miti-
gated in the future work and recommendations could be
summarized in the following points:
• Impermeable samples and almost impermeable samples
were excluded from the rock typing process. Therefore,
the machine-learning model did not learn such rock
types which resulted in overestimating permeability
when predicting permeability in impermeable intervals.
• The machine-learning model was trained solely on the
Nubia formation, different formations would need re-
training of the model to achieve reliable accuracy.
• Nubia formation consists mainly of sandstone; there-
fore, it is most unlikely for the model to predict rock
types/permeability in carbonates with reliable accu-
racy.
• Stacking of various, which is a method of ensemble
machine-learning models, is likely to enhance the
model results.
• The machine-learning model aims to predict permeabil-
ity in intervals where no cores are available. Thus, no
helium porosity samples and only porosity calculated
from logs is available; therefore, it is recommended
when performing rock typing process to form the rock
types using the porosity from logs as the permeability
predicted will be calculated from this porosity, which
differs than that of helium core porosity, combined with
the flow zone indicator predicted from the machine-
learning model.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
Conclusions
The study could be concluded in the following points:
• A simple and convenient machine-learning model is
established using the commonly available four logs (i.e.,
gamma-ray, density, neutron and sonic), and reliable results
are found regarding permeability prediction in the studied
formation.
• Consistent reliable performance of the machine-learning
model is obtained as the accuracy of the model was neg-
ligibly reduced despite the deficiency of one of the input
logs required (Sonic log), provided that it is properly syn-
thesized.
• Relationships between conventional logs and permeability
have been obtained by means of machine-learning in the
Nubia Formation, October Field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt.
• To our knowledge, no similar machine-learning model has
been established in terms of the convenience of the com-
monly available inputs required, the performance if one of
the required inputs is synthesized and also in terms of the
simple hyper-parameters of the algorithm used.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Egyptian
General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) and Gulf of Suez Oil Company
(GUPCO) for supplying the data for this study.
Funding Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology &
Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyp-
tian Knowledge Bank (EKB). No funding was received to assist with
the preparation of this manuscript.
Declarations
Statements and declarations This research is solely submitted to this
journal and no other.
The paper submitted is original, never been published elsewhere re-
gardless of language or form (fully or partially).
The results and conclusions in the presented paper are demonstrated
clearly and honestly acquiring no fabrication, forgery or existence of
any improper data manipulation (this applies also to manipulation re-
lated to images).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology

References case study of source rocks in Ras Gharib oilfield, central Gulf of
Suez, Egypt. Egypt J Pet 24:203–211
El-Din ES, Mesbah MA, Kassb MA, Mohamed IF, Cheadle BA, Teama
Abuhagaza AA, Kassab MA, Wanas HA, Teama MA (2021) Reservoir
MA (2013) Assessment of petrophysical parameters of clastics
quality and rock type zonation for the Sidri and Feiran members of
using well logs: the Upper Miocene in El-Wastani gas field,
the Belayim Formation, in Belayim Land Oil Field, Gulf of Suez,
onshore Nile Delta, Egypt. Pet Explor Dev 40:488–494
Egypt. J Afr Earth Sci 181:104242
El-Gendy NH, Radwan AE, Waziry MA, Dodd TJ, Barakat MK (2022)
Ali J, Ashraf U, Anees A, Peng S, Umar MU, Vo Thanh H, Khan
An integrated sedimentological, rock typing, image logs, and arti-
U, Abioui M, Mangi HN, Ali M (2022) Hydrocarbon potential
ficial neural networks analysis for reservoir quality assessment
assessment of carbonate-bearing sediments in a meyal oil field,
of the heterogeneous fluvial-deltaic Messinian Abu Madi reser-
Pakistan: insights from logging data using machine learning and
voirs, Salma field, onshore East Nile Delta, Egypt. Mar Pet Geol
quanti elan modeling. ACS Omega 7:39375–39395
145:105910
Ali N, Chen J, Fu X, Hussain W, Ali M, Iqbal SM, Anees A, Hussain
El-Ghamri MA, Warburton IC, Burley SD (2002) Hydrocarbon gen-
M, Rashid M, Thanh HV (2023) Classification of reservoir quality
eration and charging in the October Field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J
using unsupervised machine learning and cluster analysis: exam-
Pet Geol 25:433–464
ple from Kadanwari gas field, SE Pakistan. Geosyst Geoenviron
El-Sayed AMA, Sayed NAE, Ali HA, Kassab MA, Abdel-Wahab SM,
2:100123
Gomaa MM (2021) Rock typing based on hydraulic and elec-
Altunbay MM, Gaafar GR, Ahmad M, Rafek AGM (2018) Develop-
tric flow units for reservoir characterization of Nubia Sandstone,
ment of “Hydraulic Units”(HU) concept in rock typing
southwest Sinai, Egypt. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 11:3225–3237
Amaefule JO, Altunbay M, Tiab D, Kersey DG, Keelan DK (1993)
Elsayed AG, Kassab M, Osman W (2021) Evaluation of petrophysical
Enhanced reservoir description: using core and log data to identify
and hydrocarbon potentiality for the Nubia A, Ras Budran oil
hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability in uncored inter-
field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Egypt J Chem 64:3387–3404
vals/wells. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition.
Freedman D, Pisani R, Purves R (2020) Statistics: fourth international
OnePetro. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2118/​26436-​MS
student edition. WW Nort Co Httpswww Amaz ComStatistics-
Amjad MR, Shakir U, Hussain M, Rasul A, Mehmood S, Ehsan M
Fourth-Int-Stud-Free Accessed 22
(2023) Sembar formation as an unconventional prospect: new
Gao G, Hazbeh O, Davoodi S, Tabasi S, Rajabi M, Ghorbani H, Rad-
insights in evaluating shale gas potential combined with deep
wan AE, Csaba M, Mosavi AH (2023) Prediction of fracture den-
learning. Nat Resour Res 1–29
sity in a gas reservoir using robust computational approaches.
Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining
Front Earth Sci 10:1023578
some reservoir characteristics. Trans AIME 146:54–62
Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory Ar (1974) Formation velocity and
Asquith GB, Gibson CR (1982) Basic well log analysis for geologists.
density—The diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Tulsa
39:770–780
Atlas D (1979) Log Interpretation Charts. Dresser Industries Inc., 107p
Hasouba M, Abd El Shafy A, Mohamed A (1992) Nezzazat Group—
Borling DC, Powers BS, Ramadan N (1996) Water shut-off case history
reservoir geometry and rock types in the October field area, Gulf
using through-tubing bridge plugs; October Field, Nubia Forma-
of Suez. In: 11th EGPC petroleum exploration and production
tion, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. In: Abu Dhabi international petroleum
conference. pp 293–317
Exhibition and conference. OnePetro
Hassan AR, Radwan AA, Mahfouz KH, Leila M (2023) Sedimentary
Bosworth W, McClay K (2001) Structural and stratigraphic evolution
facies analysis, seismic interpretation, and reservoir rock typing
of the Gulf of Suez rift, Egypt: a synthesis. Mém Mus Natl D’hist
of the syn-rift Middle Jurassic reservoirs in Meleiha conces-
Nat 1993(186):567–606
sion, North Western Desert, Egypt. J Pet Explor Prod Technol
Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system.
13:2171–2195
In: Proceedings of the 22nd Acm Sigkdd international conference
Hussein I, El Kammar AM, Maky AF, Elshafeiy M (2017) Compara-
on knowledge discovery and data mining. pp 785–794
tive organic geochemical studies on some Miocene and Creta-
Coates GR, Xiao L, Prammer MG (1999) NMR logging: principles and
ceous rock units in October field, Gulf of Suez, Egypt
applications. Haliburton Energy Services Houston
Ismail A, Zein el‐Din MY, Radwan AE, Gabr M (2023) Rock typ-
Corporation (EGPC), E.G.P. (1996) Gulf of Suez oil fields (a compre-
ing of the Miocene Hammam Faraun alluvial fan delta sandstone
hensive overview). EGPC, Cairo, Egypt
reservoir using well logs, nuclear magnetic resonance, artificial
Darling T (2005) Well logging and formation evaluation. Elsevier
neural networks, and core analysis, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Geol J
Deaf AS (2009) Palynology, palynofacies and hydrocarbon poten-
Kassab MA, Abbas A, Ghanima A (2020) Petrophysical evaluation
tial of the Cretaceous rocks of northern Egypt. University of
of clastic Upper Safa Member using well logging and core data
Southampton
in the Obaiyed field in the Western Desert of Egypt. Egypt J Pet
Dodge Y (2003) The Oxford dictionary of statistical terms. OUP
29:141–153
Oxford
Kassab MA, Elgibaly A, Abbas A, Mabrouk I (2021) Identification and
Ehsan M, Gu H, Ahmad Z, Akhtar MM, Abbasi SS (2019) A modi-
distribution of hydraulic flow units of heterogeneous reservoir in
fied approach for volumetric evaluation of shaly sand formations
Obaiyed gas field, Western Desert, Egypt: a case study. AAPG
from conventional well logs: a case study from the talhar shale,
Bull 105:2405–2424
Pakistan. Arab J Sci Eng 44:417–428
Kassem AA, Sen S, Radwan AE, Abdelghany WK, Abioui M (2021)
Ehsan M, Toor MAS, Hajana MI, Al-Ansari N, Ali A, Elbeltagi A
Effect of depletion and fluid injection in the Mesozoic and Paleo-
(2023) An integrated study for seismic structural interpretation
zoic sandstone reservoirs of the October Oil Field, Central Gulf
and reservoir estimation of Sawan gas field, Lower Indus Basin,
of Suez Basin: implications on drilling, production and reservoir
Pakistan. Heliyon 9
stability. Nat Resour Res 30:2587–2606
El Nady MM, Ramadan FS, Hammad MM, Lotfy NM (2015) Evalua-
Khattab MA, Radwan AE, El‐Anbaawy MI, Mansour MH, El‐Tehiwy
tion of organic matters, hydrocarbon potential and thermal matu-
AA (2023) Three‐dimensional structural modelling of structur-
rity of source rocks based on geochemical and statistical methods:
ally complex hydrocarbon reservoir in October Oil Field, Gulf of
Suez, Egypt. Geol J

Lelek JJ, Shepherd DB, Stone DM, Abdine AS (1992) October Field:
The Latest Giant under Development in Egypt’s Gulf of Suez:
Chapter 15
Manzoor U, Ehsan M, Radwan AE, Hussain M, Iftikhar MK, Arshad
F (2023) Seismic driven reservoir classification using advanced
machine learning algorithms: a case study from the lower Ranikot/
Khadro sandstone gas reservoir, Kirthar fold belt, lower Indus
Basin, Pakistan. Geoenergy Sci Eng 222:211451
Marghani MM, Zairi M, Radwan AE (2023) Facies analysis, diagen-
esis, and petrophysical controls on the reservoir quality of the
low porosity fluvial sandstone of the Nubian formation, east Sirt
Basin, Libya: insights into the role of fractures in fluid migration,
fluid flow, and enhancing the permeability of low porous reser-
voirs. Mar Pet Geol 147:105986
Moustafa AM (1976) Block faulting in the Gulf of Suez. In: Proceed-
ings of the 5th Egyptian general petroleum corporation explora-
tion seminar, Cairo, Egypt
Mustafa A, Tariq Z, Mahmoud M, Radwan AE, Abdulraheem A,
Abouelresh MO (2022) Data-driven machine learning approach
to predict mineralogy of organic-rich shales: an example from
Qusaiba Shale, Rub’al Khali Basin, Saudi Arabia. Mar Pet Geol
137:105495
Nabawy B, Abudeif AM, Masoud MM (2021) Petrophysical charac-
terization, microfacies analysis, and diagenetic attributes of the
Lower Jurassic surface analog sequence in Gebel El-Maghara
area, North Sinai, Egypt
Patton TL, Moustafa AR, Nelson RA, Abdine SA (1994) Tectonic evo-
lution and structural setting of the Suez rift: chapter 1: Part I. Type
basin: Gulf of Suez
Peijs J, Bevan TG, Piombino JT (2012) The Gulf of Suez rift basin.
In: Regional geology and tectonics: phanerozoic rift systems and
sedimentary basins. Elsevier, pp 164–194
Poupon A, Leveaux J (1971) Evaluation of water saturation in shaly for-
mations. In: SPWLA 12th annual logging symposium. OnePetro
Powers DM (2020) Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to
ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation. arXiv preprint
arXiv:​2010.​16061
Radwan AE, Kassem AA, Kassem A (2020) Radwany formation: a new
formation name for the Early-Middle Eocene carbonate sediments
of the offshore October oil field, Gulf of Suez: contribution to the
Eocene sediments in Egypt. Mar Pet Geol 116:104304
Radwan AE, Nabawy BS, Kassem AA, Hussein WS (2021a) Imple-
mentation of rock typing on waterflooding process during second-
ary recovery in oil reservoirs: a case study, El Morgan Oil Field,
Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Nat Resour Res 30:1667–1696
Radwan AE, Trippetta F, Kassem AA, Kania M (2021b) Multi-scale
characterization of unconventional tight carbonate reservoir:
insights from October oil filed, Gulf of Suez rift basin, Egypt. J
Pet Sci Eng 197:107968
Radwan AE, Wood DA, Radwan AA (2022) Machine learning and
data-driven prediction of pore pressure from geophysical logs:
Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology
a case study for the Mangahewa gas field, New Zealand. J Rock
Mech Geotech Eng 14:1799–1809
Rajabi M, Beheshtian S, Davoodi S, Ghorbani H, Mohamadian N, Rad-
wan AE, Alvar MA (2021) Novel hybrid machine learning opti-
mizer algorithms to prediction of fracture density by petrophysical
data. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 11:4375–4397
Rajabi M, Hazbeh O, Davoodi S, Wood DA, Tehrani PS, Ghorbani
H, Mehrad M, Mohamadian N, Rukavishnikov VS, Radwan AE
(2023) Predicting shear wave velocity from conventional well logs
with deep and hybrid machine learning algorithms. J Pet Explor
Prod Technol 13:19–42
Rebala G, Ravi A, Churiwala S (2019) An introduction to machine
learning. Springer
Rezaee R, Ekundayo J (2022) Permeability prediction using machine
learning methods for the CO2 injectivity of the precipice sand-
stone in Surat Basin, Australia. Energies 15:2053
Schlumberger LI (1972) Volume 1-Principles. Schlumberger Limited,
New York, p 113
Schlumberger EUM (2009) Technical description. Schlumberger Ltd,
pp 519–538
Thanh HV, Yasin Q, Al-Mudhafar WJ, Lee K-K (2022) Knowledge-
based machine learning techniques for accurate prediction of CO2
storage performance in underground saline aquifers. Appl Energy
314:118985
Thanh HV, Rahimi M, Dai Z, Zhang H, Zhang T (2023) Predicting
the wettability rocks/minerals-brine-hydrogen system for hydro-
gen storage: re-evaluation approach by multi-machine learning
scheme. Fuel 345:128183
Wang X, Li C, Chen P (2020) Rock typing from cored intervals to all
wells with method of decision tree. In: IOP conference series:
earth and environmental science. IOP Publishing, p 042003
Weller A, Kassab MA, Debschütz W, Sattler C-D (2014) Permeability
prediction of four Egyptian sandstone formations. Arab J Geosci
7:5171–5183
Wyllie MRJ (1963) The fundamentals of well log interpretation. Aca-
demic Press
Zahran M (1986) In Geology of October field. In: The 8th Exploration
International Conference, Egyptian General Petroleum Coopera-
tion, Cairo
Zhan C, Dai Z, Soltanian MR, de Barros FP (2022) Data‐worth
analysis for heterogeneous subsurface structure identification
with a stochastic deep learning framework. Water Resour Res
58:e2022WR033241
Zhou G, Zhang R, Huang S (2021) Generalized Buffering Algorithm.
IEEE Access 9:27140–27157
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.