An Integrated Reservoir Characterization Analysis in A Carbonate Reservoir: A Case Study

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 27 November 2013, At: 04:44

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Petroleum Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpet20
An Integrated Reservoir Characterization

Analysis in a Carbonate Reservoir: A
Case Study
a b
M. Chekani & R. Kharrat
a
Petroiran Development Company , Tehran , Iran
b
Petroleum University of Technology; Petroleum Research Center ,
Tehran , Iran
Published online: 30 May 2012.
To cite this article: M. Chekani & R. Kharrat (2012) An Integrated Reservoir Characterization Analysis
in a Carbonate Reservoir: A Case Study, Petroleum Science and Technology, 30:14, 1468-1485, DOI:
10.1080/10916466.2010.497786
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.497786
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Petroleum Science and Technology, 30:1468–1485, 2012
© Petrorian Development Company
ISSN: 1091-6466 print/1532-2459 online
DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2010.497786
An Integrated Reservoir Characterization Analysis

in a Carbonate Reservoir: A Case Study
M. CHEKANI1 AND R. KHARRAT2

1
Petroiran Development Company, Tehran, Iran
2
Petroleum University of Technology; Petroleum Research Center, Tehran, Iran
Downloaded by [New York University] at 04:44 27 November 2013
Abstract Reservoir characterization is one of the most challenging subjects in

carbonate reservoirs. In this study flow zone index (FZI), Winland, and initial water
saturation methods were used to classify rock typing in an Iranian oil field. In addition,
stratigraphic modified Lorenz plots were generated for the purpose of identifying the
flow zone and barriers in each well. The results were consistent with Winland result
and FZI. The scanning electron microscopy photomicrographs, pore throat radius,
grain size distribution data, and thin section of the obtained rock type were studied
and found to be consistent with the findings of this work.
Keywords carbonate reservoir, flow zone index, reservoir characterization, rock type
Introduction
Reservoir rock typing is a process for the classification of reservoir rocks into distinct
units. If the rocks are properly classified and defined, the real dynamic characteristics
of the reservoir will be provided in the reservoir simulation model. Several investigators
(Slatts and Hopkins, 1990; Jennings and Lucia, 2001; Porras and Campos, 2001; Guo
et al., 2005a) have noted the inadequacy of the classical approach and have proposed
alternative models for relating porosity to permeability. From the classical approach it can
be concluded that for any given rock type, the different porosity/permeability relationships
are evidence of the existence of different hydraulic units. In fact, several investigators
(Guo et al., 2005b) had come to similar conclusions about porosity/permeability relation-
ships.
Various quantitative rock-typing techniques are presented in the literature: the Win-
land method, reservoir quality index (RQI), and Swi methods are used more frequently
(Winland, 1972; Fujii and Fujimoto, 1996; Abbaszadeh Soto et al., 2001; Biniwale, 2005;
Obeida et al., 2007; Shenawi et al., 2007; Svirsky et al., 2004). However, the RQI method
appears to be more widely used (Kharrat et al., 2009). In cooperation of log data with
this statistical and neural network modeling has enhanced the RQI application (Kharrat
et al., 2009; Mahdavi and Kharrat, 2009). Conventional cores are correlated to the log
data for purposes of prediction the uncored intervals. This approach is very useful for
fields with limited data.
The available core and log data were screened and correlated based on a statistical
approach. The reservoir under study is a Cretaceous carbonate formation located in
Address correspondence to Mitra Chekani, Petroiran Development Company, No. 102 Zafar
St., Shariati Ave., Tehran, Iran. E-mail: m.chekani@petroiran.com
1468
Reservoir Analysis 1469
southwestern Iran. The field is under development and has limited core and log data.
The routine and scale data are reviewed and analyzed in the following sections for the
purpose of rock typing.
Routine Core Analysis

The plot of porosity permeability for the studied reservoir core data is shown in Figure 1.
The plot shows a relatively good relation between porosity and permeability data. The
range of porosity is between 5 to 40% and the permeability range is 0.01 to 150 mD.
Different approaches are considered for permeability prediction and rock typing in
this work. These methods will be discussed in the following sections.
Classical Method
The classical method for rock typing is based on simple logarithmic regression, evalu-
ating permeability from log-derived porosity. Usually a linear relationship between log
permeability and the porosity coordinate system is obtained. However, in the studied case,
in which heterogeneity and nonuniformity characterize the carbonate rocks, no unique
correlation was obtained. In addition, this approach has little or no physical or geolog-
ical background. The simple correlations obtained deliberately ignore the experimental
scattering in the data and predict a smoothed permeability distribution.
Winland Method
The quality of a reservoir can be characterized by flow units that are controlled by
hydrocarbon storage and flow capacity. Flow units define the intervals of similar and
predictable flow characteristics. Flow units can be identified from an interrelated series
Figure 1. Porosity/permeability plot of the studied reservoir. (color figure available online)
1470 M. Chekani and R. Kharrat
of petrophysical cross-plots and from the calculation of pore throat radii (R35, pore size)
at the 35% pore volume using the following Winland equation:
log.R35/ D 0:732 C 0:588 log.K/ 0:864 log./ (1)
where R35 is the calculated pore throat radius at 35% mercury saturation from a mer-
cury injection capillary pressure test (m), K is permeability (mD), and is porosity
(percentage). The core samples of a given rock type will have similar R35 values, which
are utilized to define petrophysical units as given below:
Megaport: units with R35 values greater than 10 m.
Macroport: units with R35 values between 2 and 10 m.
Mesoport: units with R35 values between 0.5 and 2 m.
Microport: units with R35 values between 0.1 and 0.5 m.
Nanoport: units with R35 values smaller than 0.1 m.

The Winland R35 plot for the core data of wells A, B, and D are shown in Figure 2.
The diagonal lines represent equal pore throat sizes (pore size). Points along the contours
represent rocks with similar flow characteristics, which are the flow units. As Figure 2
shows, well D is more heterogeneous than the first two wells. However, all three wells
follow the same unit flow. In fact, macroports, mesoports, microports, and nanoports are
present in the formation of these wells. A summary of these observations is provided in
Table 1.
Based on this method of rock classification, four rock types are needed to char-
acterize the studied reservoir. Tables 2–4 show statistical views of Winland rock type
determination for wells A, B, and D sequentially.
To show the variation in rock quality for each well through depth, strip charts were
generated for porosity, permeability, permeability/porosity, and rock type from R35 and
Winland. The results for the three wells are shown in Figures 3–5. As can be seen from
Figure 2. Winland R35 plot for the core data of all wells. (color figure available online)
Table 1
Type of ports of the studied reservoir
Well Megaport Macroport Mesoport Microport Nanoport

number (>10 m) (2–10 m) (0.5–2 m) (0.1–0.5 m) (<0.1 m)
Well A — x x x x
Well B — x x x x
Well D — x x x x
Table 2
Summary of Winland rock type for well A
Upper part Lower part

Count Count Count percentage percentage
Upper part 19 Lower part 38 Total 57 33 67
Cutoffs for RTs

Percentage of the different rock types
Min Max
RT cutoff cutoff RT %RT H, m K, mD Phi
1 2 5 1 12.1 4.12 76.6 30

2 0.5 2 2 73.2 24.89 6.9 26.8
3 0.1 0.5 3 13.3 4.53 1.4 25.2
4 0 0.1 4 1.4 0.47 0.028 25
Table 3
Summary of Winland rock type for well B

Cutoffs for RTs

Min Max
1 2 5 1 0.2204 0.07 23.2 24.2

2 0.5 2 2 74.874 23.78 4.6 28.9
3 0.1 0.5 3 23.898 7.59 0.4 21.9
4 0 0.1 4 1 0.32 0.1 25.7
Table 4
Summary of Winland rock type for well D

Cutoffs for RTs

Min Max
1 2 5 1 12.4 10.04 65.3 32.8

2 0.5 2 2 30.1 24.39 12 30.6

3 0.1 0.5 3 57.5 46.57 1.3 23.3
4 0 0.1 4 0 0 0 0
Figure 3. Strip chart, quick scan evaluation—changing property and rock typing vs. depth for well
A. (color figure available online)
B. (color figure available online)
D. (color figure available online)
the charts, the porosity, permeability, K/Phi ratio, and R35 are almost decreasing from
the top to bottom of the wells through depth. Hence, Winland rock type is increasing
through the depth. Of course, these data are more obvious in well D than the two other
wells due to the greater number of core samples.
Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plots

A stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot (SMLP) is a plot of the percentage flow capacity
versus percentage storage capacity ordered in stratigraphic sequence. It offers a guide as
to how many flow units are necessary to honor the geologic framework. Coupled with a
stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot (SMLP), the R35 method can be used to define major
flow units existing in reservoirs. This method has been proven to be suitable for both
clastic and carbonate reservoir descriptions.
Based on the available data for the three wells, the SMLP plot was implemented and
the results are shown in Figures 6–8. There are seven flow units and three barriers for
well A, three flow units for well B, and seven flow units for well D. Most of the high-flow
units are located at the top of studied reservoir. The number of core data available in
each well might be one of the reasons for the difference in the number of flow units in
different wells.
RQI Method
The RQI method is an approach for classifying rock types and prediction of flow
properties. This method is based on sensible geological parameters and the physics of
flow at pore scale. The main idea of the RQI approach is to group data according to the
FZI values. The method is based on a modified Kozeny-Carman equation and the concept
of mean hydraulic radius (Kozeny, 1927; Carman, 1937). It is an effective technique for
rock type classifications and excellent permeability/porosity relationships can be obtained
once the conventional core data are grouped according to their rock types.
By defining z as the normal porosity:
e
z D (2)
1 e
Figure 6. Stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot for well A. (color figure available online)
FZI then is defined as follows:

RQI
FZI D (3)
z
By taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. (3), the following equation is obtained:
log RQI D log z C log FZI (4)
The equation indicates that for any hydraulic unit, a log-log plot of RQI versus a
normalized porosity index, z should yield a straight line with a unit slope. The intercept
Figure 7. Stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot for well B. (color figure available online)
Figure 8. Stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot for well D. (color figure available online)
of the unit slope line with z D 1, designed as the FZI, which is a unique parameter for
each hydraulic unit.
Because FZI is a continuous variable, it can be distributed throughout a 3D geological
model. To provide rock type transfer to the simulation model, the 3D FZI model can be
converted to a 3D discrete rock type model using a simple tool such as Eq. (5).
DRT D Round.2 log.FZI/ C 10:7/ (5)
The permeability for each cell of the geological model can be estimated using the unique
permeability/porosity equation for each discrete rock type.
The RQI values are calculated for the available core data from wells A, B, and
D. The FZI values of all data are generated. The semi-log plot of permeability versus
porosity as classified by district rock type (DRT) is shown in Figure 9. The plot shows the
existence of at least five distinct hydraulic units with the cored interval. Each hydraulic
unit is characterized by a different average FZI value, ranging from 0.03 to 2. The most
populated data are in DRTs 4–9. This range covers 0.03 to 0.44 m of FZI.
Swi Method
Initial water saturation (Swi) is a reservoir parameter that is relevant to porosity. In fact,
different rock types have different initial water saturations.
Water saturation data obtained from petrophysical logs were used for this method of
rock type classification. A 50% cutoff for initial water saturation was considered for the
studied reservoir.
The rock types were determined by plotting Swi versus porosity. Based on the
available log data, three major groups were determined for the three wells, as can be
seen from Figure 10. Different initial water saturations were categorized in different
groups as given in Table 5.
Figure 9. Permeability vs. porosity (based on DRT). (color figure available online)
Regarding this approach, saturation is divided to low, medium, and high, representing
good (RT1), fair (RT2), and poor (RT3) rock quality, respectively. As Figures 11 and 12
(based on combinable magnetic resonance [CMR] log) depict, most rock types on the
top of the studied reservoir formation are RT1 and RT2 and for the lower part of this
formation, the rock quality decreases to RT3. Based on available core data, the categorized
rock types were collaboratedwith porosity data presented in Table 6.
Figure 10. Swi vs. Phi from log of wells A, B, and D for studied reservoir formation. (color figure
available online)
Table 5
Swi range definition for studied
reservoir formation
Rock
type no. Swi range
RT1 12.6 Swi 19

RT2 19 < Swi 28
RT3 28 < Swi 50
Rock Quality Based on Petrofacies

There are thin section data for wells A and B. The results of the petrofacies based on
the thin sections show there is good collaboration of the rock typing methods with thin
section description results. As Figure 13 shows, there is a thin section (A) of orbitolina
bioclastic wackestone–packstone that is comparible with rock type number 2 in Winland
Figure 11. Rock type classification based on initial water saturation for wells A (left), B (middle),
and D (right) for the studied formation. (color figure available online)
Figure 12. CMR log shows best quality at the top and decreasing toward the bottom. (color figure
available online)
Table 6
Rock types properties for studied
reservoir formation
RT
Swi Porosity number
0.44 26 3
0.27 27 2
0.18 30 1
and SWi methods and DRT equal to 9 in the FZI method, which is fairly good rock type
and at the first 10 m of the top of the reservoir. At the 30 m of the top of the reservoir,
there is another thin section A showing bioclastic mudstone, which is categorized as

poor rock type. It is rock type number 3 in SWi method and DRT equal to 8 in the FZI
method.
For well B there are two thin section descriptions available. As Figure 14 shows,
there is a thin section (A) of pelagic bioturbated fossil ferrous mudstone and wackestone
that is comparible to rock type number 2 in the Winland method and DRT equal to 9
in the FZI method, which is fairly good rock type and at the first 10 m of top of the
reservoir. At the 30 m of the top of the reservoir, there is a thin section C showing
fossiliferrous mudstone, which is categorized as poor rock type. It is rock type number
3 in the Winland method and DRT equal to 8 in the FZI method.
Rock Quality Based on Pore Size

In addition to the routine and special core analysis (SCAL) data, the pore throat distri-
bution, grain size distribution, capillary pressure semi-log plot of mercury injection, and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for the all of the mentioned plugs (Table 7) was
investigated. The results of the analysis are presented in Figures 15 and 16. As can be
Figure 13. Comparing rock type methods results with petrofacies analysis—well A. (color figure
available online)
Figure 14. Comparing rock type methods results with petrofacies analysis—well B. (color figure
available online)
seen from the figures, the rock quality depends on the pore throat diameter and grain size
distribution. Poor quality is observed for small pore throat diameter and a wide range
and different grain sizes and good quality rock depicts in large pore throat diameters and
homogeneous grain size.
As an example of good rock, in sample number 76 from Table 7, a dual pore throat
diameter trend of 1 and 10 m with homogeneous coarse grain size and low threshold
pressure (about 8 psi) were observed for DRT11 and RT1, showing high rock quality. In
SEM results, the photomicrographs provide some geological description of the rock. For
example, in Figure 15, photomicrograph A shows a general view of the micritic matrix,
which at higher magnification shows abundant pores (photomicrograph B, red arrows).
Photomicrograph C displays another view of the porous micritic matrix. Photomicrograph
D shows micrite (smaller crystals) and larger calcite crystals that are likely the result of
micrite recrystallization (yellow arrows).
Considering an example of a poor rock (sample number 92 in Table 7), the quality
of rocks decreases as the size of more popular pore throat diameter decreases to less than
1. Based on the available data, poor quality rocks have a small pore throat diameter of
about 0.5 m, wide variation in grain sizes, high threshold pressure (about 91 psi), and
interparticle porosity occurring in a micritized bioclast in SEM description.
In Figure 16, based on SEM results, photomicrograph A shows intraparticle porosity
occurring in a micritized bioclast (yellow arrow). Micrite is the dominant component of
this sample (photomicrograph B). Dispersed in the micritic matrix are micro-vuggy pores
that are variably occluded with microcrystalline calcite cement (photomicrographs C and
D, red arrows). In fact, the variation in pore throat diameter and grain size distribution
and threshold pressure and SEM pictures illustrate DRT and RT changes in practice.
Comparing the Different Methods

Three different methods were used to classify the rock quality of the studied reservoir.
In DRT classification, which is based on FZI, DRT4, and DRT12, rocks are classified as
poor to good quality. In the Winland method, RT1 corresponds to the best quality rock
Table 7
High pressure mercury injection (HPMI) data analysis for well C of the studied reservoir formation
Mean Surface
Core Helium Mercury Grain Emp. hydraulic Pore Threshold area
Sample depth, porosity, porosity, density, klinkenberg Theoretical radius, throat Reservoir pressure, per unit DRT RT
ID m % % g/mL K, mD K, mD m sorting grade psia Vp Remark FZI Winland
53 1,249.5 33.8 33.3 2.71 19.4 21.2 1.22 2.2 19 25 25.86 9 2

57 1,251.53 34.3 35.6 2.71 9.78 8.2 0.746 2.1 25 40 30.78 8 2
1480
64 1,255 32.2 34.2 2.71 31.8 16.4 1.122 1.9 17 25 19.54 10 1
73 1,260.5 34.5 35.7 2.72 19.8 249 4.091 1.9 15 4 16.21 Vuggy 9 2
76 1,262 33.6 32.8 2.73 141 231 4.055 2.7 16 8 15.78 11 1
83 1,265.5 38.7 29.9 2.72 25.3 845 6.718 1.7 17 2 18.14 Vuggy 9 2
92 1,276 29.9 31.4 2.71 2.08 1.26 0.336 1.4 26 91 18.16 7 3
94 1,277 36.2 31.5 2.71 6.02 6.98 0.653 1.7 20 40 16.49 8 2
111 1,285.5 27.4 24 2.7 2.67 68.4 2.7 1.5 26 7 19.56 8 2
1481
Figure 15. Grain size distribution, SEM, mercury capillary pressure for DRT D 11 and RT D 1 (sample 76). (color figure available online)
1482
Figure 16. Grain size distribution, SEM, mercury capillary pressure for DRT D 7 and RT D 3 (sample 92). (color figure available online)
Figure 17. Comparing different rock type determination for well A in the studied reservoir. (color
figure available online)
and RT4 to poor quality rock. In the Swi method, RT1 represents the best quality rock
and RT3 the poor quality rock. In addition, because Swi is obtained from log data, it
covers a wider range of reservoir depth and might be more representative. Figures 17–19
present all variations in rock type versus depth for the three methods presented in this
study.
Conclusions
Rock type classification was done based on the available information using different
approaches. Three major rock types were extracted for the studied methods. The results
were almost consistent with pore throat diameter and grain size distribution, threshold
pressure, thin sections–petrofacies analysis, and SEM results. Initial water saturation was
predicted based on correlation estimated from SCAL and log data between Swi and FZI.
Figure 18. Comparing different rock type determination for well B in the studied reservoir. (color
Figure 19. Comparing different rock type determination for well D in the studied reservoir. (color
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the management of Petroiran Development Company (PEDCO) for
permission to publish this article. We also would like to take this opportunity to express
our sincere appreciation to members of geoscience and reservoir simulation study team
for their suggestions.
References
Abbaszadeh Soto, B. R., Garcia, J. C., Torres, F., and Perez, G. S. (2001). Permeability prediction
using hydraulic flow units and hybrid soft computing system. Paper No. SPE 71455. SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 30–October 3.
Biniwale, S. (2005). An integrated method for modeling fluid saturation profiles and characterizing
geological environments using modified FZI approach. Australian fields vase study. Paper No.
SPE-99285. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 9–12.
Carman, P. C. (1937). Fluid flow through granular beds. Trans. AIChE 15:150–166.
Fujii, M. H., and Fujimoto, F. (1996). Permeability prediction by hydraulic flow units—Theory
and applications. SPE Formation Evaluation 11:263–271.
Guo, G., Diaz, M. A., Paz, F., Smalley, J., and Waninger, E. A. (2005a). Rock typing as an effective
tool for permeability and water saturation modeling: A case study in a clastic reservoir in the
Oriente Basin. Paper No. SPE 97033. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, October 9–12.
Guo, G., Diaz, M. A., Paz, F., Smalley, J., and Waninger, E. A. (2005b). The use of routine and
special core analysis in characterizing Brent group reservoirs, U.K. North Sea. J. Pet. Tech.
44:704–713.
Jennings, J. W., Jr., and Lucia, F. J. (2001). Predicting permeability from well logs in carbonates
with a link to geology for interwell permeability mapping. Paper No. SPE 71336. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, September 30–October 3.
Kharrat, R., Mahvadi, R., Bagherpour, M. B., and Hejri, S. (2009). Rock type and permeability
prediction of a heterogeneous carbonate reservoir using artificial neural networks based on
flow zone index approach. Paper No. SPE 120166. SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Bahrain, March 15–19.
Kozeny, J. (1927). Uber kapillare leitung des wassers im Boden. Stizurgsberichte [About capillary
line of the water in the soil]. Royal Academy of Science, Vienna, Proc. Class 1 V. 136,
271–306.
Mahdavi, R., and Kharrat, R. (2009). Integration of 3D seismic attributes and well logs for
electrofacies mapping and prediction of reliable petrophysical properties. Paper No. SPE
121214. EUROPE/EAGE Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 8–11.
Obeida, T. A., Al-Jenaibi, F., Rassas, S., and Serag Eldin, S. (2007). Accurate calculation of
hydrocarbon saturation based on log data in complex carbonate reservoirs in the Middle East.
Paper No. SPE 111112. SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference,
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, October 28–31.
Porras, J. C., and Campos, O. (2001). Rock typing: A key for petrophysical characterization
and definition of flow units, Santa Barbara field, Eastern Venezuela Basin. Paper No. SPE
69458. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, March 25–28.
Shenawi, H. S., White, J. P., Elrafie, E. A., and Kilany, K. A. (2007). Permeability and water
saturation distribution by lithology. SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference,
Kingdom of Bahrain, March 11–14.
Slatts, R. M., and Hopkins, G. L. (1990). Scaling geologic reservoir description to engineering
needs. J. Petrol. Tech. 42:202–211.
Svirsky, D., Ryazanov, A., and Pankov, M. (2004). Hydraulic flow units resolve reservoir description
challenges in a Siberian oil field. Paper No. SPE 87056. SPE Asia Pacific Conference on
Integrated Modelling for Asset Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 29–30.
Winland, H. D. (1972). Oil accumulation in response to pore size changes, Weyburn field, Saskatche-
wan. Amoco Production Research Report No. F72-G-25.
Nomenclature
C curvature of the limiting curve
Fs shape factor
FZIm minimum value of FZI for the limiting curve
k permeability (mD)
Sgv surface area per unit grain volume
Swi limit curve for interval i
Swim minimum Swi for the limit curve, which is 0.15 based on estimated lowest Swi
Greek Letters
i regression coefficients
tortuosity factor
porosity, fraction
e effective porosity

An Integrated Reservoir Characterization Analysis in A Carbonate Reservoir: A Case Study

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

An Integrated Reservoir Characterization Analysis in A Carbonate Reservoir: A Case Study

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 27 November 2013, At: 04:44

Petroleum Science and Technology

An Integrated Reservoir Characterization

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.2010.497786

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

An Integrated Reservoir Characterization Analysis

M. CHEKANI1 AND R. KHARRAT2

Abstract Reservoir characterization is one of the most challenging subjects in

Routine Core Analysis

log.R35/ D 0:732 C 0:588 log.K/ 0:864 log./ (1)

 Nanoport: units with R35 values smaller than 0.1 m.

Well Megaport Macroport Mesoport Microport Nanoport

Summary of Winland rock type for well A

Upper part Lower part

Upper part 19 Lower part 38 Total 57 33 67

Cutoffs for RTs

1 2 5 1 12.1 4.12 76.6 30

Upper part Lower part

Upper part 10 Lower part 49 Total 59 17 83

Cutoffs for RTs

1 2 5 1 0.2204 0.07 23.2 24.2

Upper part Lower part

Upper part 16 Lower part 98 Total 114 14 86

Cutoffs for RTs

1 2 5 1 12.4 10.04 65.3 32.8

2 0.5 2 2 30.1 24.39 12 30.6

Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plots

FZI then is defined as follows:

log RQI D log z C log FZI (4)

DRT D Round.2 log.FZI/ C 10:7/ (5)

RT1 12.6  Swi  19

Rock Quality Based on Petrofacies

there is another thin section A showing bioclastic mudstone, which is categorized as

Rock Quality Based on Pore Size

Comparing the Different Methods

53 1,249.5 33.8 33.3 2.71 19.4 21.2 1.22 2.2 19 25 25.86 9 2

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

log.R35/ D 0:732 C 0:588 log.K/ 0:864 log./ (1)

Nanoport: units with R35 values smaller than 0.1 m.

log RQI D log z C log FZI (4)

RT1 12.6 Swi 19