Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine and Petroleum Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo

Predicting rock mechanical properties of carbonates from wireline logs

(A case study: Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia)
Mohammed S. Ameen a, *, Brian G.D. Smart b, J.Mc. Somerville b, Sally Hammilton b, Nassir A. Naji a
a
Structural Geology and Rock Mechanics Group, Geological Technical Services Division, Exploration Technical Services Department, Saudi Aramco, P. O. Box 2817,
Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia
b
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton Campus, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Four hundred plug samples from the Arab-D carbonate reservoir, Ghawar field, were tested for acoustic
Received 15 October 2007 and mechanical properties at increasing triaxial stress. The results show that the rock mechanical
Received in revised form parameters are primarily functions of porosity and, to a lesser degree, of mineralogy, texture and pore
21 January 2009
fabric (in order of degree of impact from higher to lower). The rock mechanical parameters of the intact
Accepted 23 January 2009
Available online 31 January 2009
matrix rock show no significant changes with stress under reservoir condition.
The study enabled the generation of general and layer-specific correlation formulae of porosity with P-
wave velocity, S-wave velocity, static and dynamic constants and the angle of internal friction. The
Keywords:
Carbonate reservoirs formulae were then applied to a key well in the Ghawar using the compressional wave slowness from
Arab-D a Multipole Array Acoustic Log (MACÔ, Baker Atlas) to derive rock mechanical pseudo-logs on reservoir-
Rock mechanical logs scale (referred to here as general) and on individual reservoir zone scale (referred to here as layer-
Geomechanics specific). Comparison made between the general and the layer-specific pseudo-logs shows good
Ghawar field agreement for each of the elastic constants with matching peaks and troughs throughout the logs. In
P-wave velocity addition the laboratory derived rock mechanical constants show a good agreement with the pseudo-logs.
S-wave velocity Where there is some difference between the general and layer-specific pseudo-logs, the layer-specific log
Elastic moduli
shows better correlation with the laboratory derived constants. It can be concluded that the porosity
correlation is an accurate, representative and cost effective method of obtaining a rock mechanical profile
of the Arab-D reservoir. The derived formulae have been implemented as predictive tools in reservoir
development and management (e.g. hydrofracturing and underbalanced drilling) and new prospect
evaluation. The rock mechanical layering scheme shows higher resolution in the prolific part of the Arab-
D reservoir than the Saudi Aramco conventionally used zonation (Each of Zones 2B and 3A consists of
two rock mechanical layers). Furthermore the least prolific zones (lower part of 3A, the whole of 3B and
4) form one rock mechanical layer.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction plug measurements cannot provide a continuous strength estimate

Predictive tools for rock mechanical parameters are essential for
reservoir development, management, and prospect evaluation in
exploration areas with very sparse or no borehole-based rock
mechanical data. The need for such predicative methods is partic-
ularly critical in carbonate reservoirs which are not as well
understood or studied as clastic reservoirs. The most direct way of
determining the rock mechanical data is from laboratory tests on
plugs. A core-based test for the whole reservoir interval in each well
is expensive, and requires extensive coring. Furthermore, direct
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ966 3 874 5267.
E-mail addresses: mohammed.ameen@aramco.com, ameenms@yahoo.com
(M.S. Ameen).
as the plugs are taken from discrete points, every few feet, over
a small section of the well in question. Therefore, there is a need to
develop a quick and cost effective approach for rock mechanical
characterization.
As rock mechanical properties cannot be determined directly
from logging tools, an indirect method must be introduced. Such
method correlates the widely available Vp (P-wave velocity) log,
with the laboratory derived rock mechanical parameters, from
representative core samples to produce a set of pseudo-logs. Due to
the lack of theoretical models, most of the attempts to estimate
rock mechanical properties are based on empirical correlations. In
this study a combination of laboratory tests and empirical corre-
lations of the results with porosity are used to establish rock
mechanical pseudo-logs for the Arab-D.

0264-8172/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.01.017
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444
The rock mechanical and other rock parameters discussed in
this paper include: static Young’s modulus (Es); dynamic Young’s
modulus (Ed); static bulk modulus (Ks); dynamic bulk modulus
(Kd); static shear modulus (Gs); dynamic shear modulus (Gd); static
Poisson’s ratio (ns); dynamic Poisson’s ratio (nd); uniaxial
compressive strength (sUCS); P-wave velocity (Vp); S-wave velocity
(Vs); bulk density (r); porosity (V), and angle of internal friction
(Q ). These will be referred to in the remainder of the text and
figures using the symbols indicated.
2. The study area
The present study focuses on the Ghawar field, the largest oil
field in the world, which measures over 250 km in length and
25 km in width. It is located in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia
(Fig. 1A). All of the oil production comes from the Arab-D reservoir.
The Arab-D reservoir (Upper Jurassic) is an approximately 200–
300 ft thick platform carbonate sequence resting conformably on
the Jubaila Formation (Upper Jurassic) and is overlain by the Arab-D
Anhydrite Member. The reservoir consists of various carbonate rock
types that exhibit an overall downward decrease in porosity. Based
on the porosity log characteristics, the Arab-D reservoir is divided
into six zones (Fig. 1B and C) by Saudi Aramco (Alsharhan and
Whittle, 1995; Lucia et al., 2001; Meyer et al., 1996; Cantrell and
Hagerty, 1999; Cantrell et al., 2001; Saner and Sahin, 1999; Swart
et al., 2005).
3. Objectives
Although carbonate reservoirs hold a significant proportion of
the known hydrocarbon reserves, little work has been done to
understand their rock mechanical parameters and their predict-
ability. Previous studies focused largely on clastic reservoirs. The
Arab-D reservoir is an ideal choice to bridge the gap in our
knowledge. It is the most important and prolific oil reservoir in the
world extending across Eastern Saudi Arabia in Ghawar and in
other giant fields.
In addition to the universal need for a better rock mechanical
understanding of carbonate reservoirs, there is an operational need
for such an understanding in the Arab-D reservoir. The Ghawar field
was developed by peripheral water injection. There have been
continuous efforts in the following areas: optimizing well planning,
drilling and completion design, minimizing formation damage and
improving productivity and injectivity indices. As some parts of the
field matures such issues are becoming increasingly critical
Beyond the Ghawar field, the Arab-D sequences are exploration
targets in previously unexplored parts of Saudi Arabia. Prospect
evaluation and delineation of discoveries are primarily based on
seismic data and wirleline logs of wildcat wells. Therefore predic-
tive tools that link sonic wave velocities to petrophysical and rock
mechanical properties are essential for seismic data calibration, and
their implementation in exploration and development.
4. Previous work
Empirical correlation has been used to establish rock mechan-
ical logs since the 1950s. Wyllie et al. (1956, 1958, 1963) introduced
the use of the acoustic velocity for porosity determination with the
‘‘time-average’’ equation, which empirically relates acoustic transit
time or velocity to porosity. Similar correlations were discussed by
Gardner et al. (1974), and Raymer et al. (1980). Tixier et al. (1975),
derived mechanical properties logs based on a correlation of the in-
situ strength with the dynamic elastic constants computed from
sonic and density logs. The Schlumberger Mechpro method
(Anderson et al., 1986; Bruce, 1990) went a step further by trying to
431
predict the uniaxial compressive strength from the sonic log. It is
based on the correlation between the static Young’s modulus and
the uniaxial compressive strength with correction factor for the
shale content.
Santarelli et al. (1991), suggested that rock strength can some-
times be virtually independent of the sonic velocity, particularly in
high porosity intervals. This implies that a method that relies on the
traditional sonic log method would not produce satisfactory results
in general. Strength estimates from sonic logs have never come
close to the rock mechanical tests performed in the laboratory. An
alternative approach for estimating rock mechanical properties
would be to use the porosity as the primary parameter. Sarda et al.
(1993), presented a direct correlation between the porosity (V) and
uniaxial compressive strength (sUCS):
sUCS ¼ 258 e9F
Farquhar et al. (1994) derived a geomechanical index for
carbonates that enabled rock mechanical properties to be esti-
mated using general and field specific correlations. Edlmann et al.
(1998) used laboratory measured porosity and rock mechanical
parameters for North Sea reservoirs to establish direct correlations
between the porosity and the rock mechanical parameters and to
produce continuous rock mechanical logs.
Bastos et al. (1998), established relationship between
compressional and shear wave velocity and petrophysical proper-
ties for an offshore Brazilian field using laboratory tests on 120
limestone samples. Widarsono et al. (2001) presented a new
approach for the estimation of the elastic properties of clastic rocks
in boreholes with limited log suites.
5. Methodology
We acquired four hundred core plugs from the Arab-D reservoir
in five key wells, covering different parts of the Ghawar field (Wells
A, B, C, D and E in Fig. 1A). The sampling rationale honors
progressive changes in rock type and porosity across the six
reservoir zones (Fig. 1B and C). Right cylindrical plugs were cut with
a diameter of 37.5 mm and trimmed to the required length for
triaxial tests. The plugs were tested using a triaxial multistage
testing technique for a range of acoustic and rock mechanical
properties. A general empirical correlation between the laboratory
measured Vp and ambient porosity was obtained to generate
porosity pseudo-logs from Vp logs. Logs of static and dynamic
elastic constants were generated from the porosity correlations
using simultaneous laboratory measurement of static and dynamic
elastic constants. The strength parameters were also determined in
the laboratory and correlated with porosity. The data set from each
suite of tests was then analyzed considering porosity distribution
across the Arab-D to derive layer-specific correlations. The corre-
lations were then applied in a key well, Ghawar field, using the
compressional wave slowness from a Multipole Array Acoustic log
(MACÔ, Baker Atlas), and comparisons were made between the
general pseudo-logs and the layer-specific pseudo-logs.
The validity of the testing methods and the repeatability of the
results were assessed from a second set of plug samples that were
not used in the multistage tests and the derivation of the rock
mechanical pseudo-logs.
6. Derivation of porosity and rock mechanical parameters
6.1. Sample preparation and ambient tests
The plugs were cleaned of salts and crude oil using the hot
Soxhlets reflux technique. The cleaned samples were dried
432 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444

Fig. 1. A. Location map of the Ghawar field and the studied key wells (oil fields: green; gas fields: red). B. Generalized Stratigraphy of the Upper Jurassic (left) and the Arab-D
reservoir (center) from Cantrell et al. (2004). C. A typical porosity and flowmeter log, Arab-D, Ghawar field (right) and the rock mechanical layering established in this study. Note
that rock mechanical layering scheme shows higher resolution in the main part of the reservoir than the Saudi Aramco conventionally used zonation (Zone 2B consists of two rock
mechanical layers (layers 3 and 4) and Zone 3A consists of two rock mechanical units (layer 5, and part of layer 6)). Furthermore the least prolific zones (lower part of 3A, the whole
of 3B and 4) form one rock mechanical layer.
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444 433

overnight and their dimensions and weight were measured. Ed ¼ 2  ð1 þ nd Þr V2s

Porosity was determined using a Boyle’s law helium porosimeter
and permeability was measured using a nitrogen gas permeameter.
To determine the static elastic constants electrical strain gauges
were bonded to the outside of the plugs. The gauges were arranged
in a rosette of two gauges aligned at 90 to each other. The rosette
was bonded to the surface of the plug at the mid-point of its length
using epoxy resin. Diametrically opposed, a second rosette was
bonded to the surface. The electrical connections of the gauges
were soldered to plastic coated electrical foil, and the whole
assembly coated in epoxy resin to protect the gauges during testing.
The plugs were then 100% saturated in Multipar, a light mineral oil,
in preparation for the triaxial tests.
6.2. Triaxial tests
The static and dynamic constants and strength parameters were
determined over a range of effective stresses (Table 1) which
represent the estimated stresses experienced in-situ by the reser-
voir. At the first stress level, the static elastic constants and P- and
S-wave velocities were determined, and the stress increased to the
next stress level. The measurements were repeated at each stress
level until the highest stress was reached. The stress was then
reduced back to the lowest stress level, and the strength parame-
ters determined on steps (at each stress level) as the stress was
incrementally increased to failure.
6.3. Static elastic constants
Static elastic moduli were measured using a standard Hoek cell
mounted into a stiff testing machine where confining stresses
(Table 1) were applied hydrostatically. The strain gauges monitored
the axial and radial displacement of the plugs. The axial stress
(measured load divided by the cross sectional area of the plug) was
plotted versus the axial and radial strain. The static Young’s
modulus (Es) was determined from the tangent to the stress–strain
slope. The static Poisson’s ratio, (ns) was derived from the ratio of
radial to axial strain. The static bulk modulus (Ks) and shear
modulus (Gs) were determined from the modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio as follows:
Ks ¼ Es =ð3ð1  2ns ÞÞ
Gs ¼ Es =ð2ð1 þ ns ÞÞ
 2 . 2 
Vd ¼ 0:5  Vp =Vs 2 Vp =Vs 1
 
Kd ¼ r V2p  4=3V2s
Gd ¼ rV2s
6.5. Multistage testing
The failure criteria for broken or intact rock are represented by
a 2nd order polynomial equation. However, Wilson (1980) has
shown the error in assuming a linear relationship to be negligible. A
non-linear failure criterion introduces complexities that make the
application difficult. The failure criterion, the triaxial stress factor,
and the unconfined compressive strength are determined from
laboratory tests on broken or intact rock. Adequate derivation of the
failure envelope and triaxial stress factor ideally requires discrete
tests on a set of identical samples from the formation of interest.
However rocks are inherently heterogeneous, and therefore it is
very difficult to retrieve identical samples. In addition retrieving
sufficient number of samples for discrete tests is usually impracti-
cable due to the limited core available from reservoirs. Therefore
the multistage testing technique is used. This technique enables
measurements of rock mechanical parameters at successively
increasing confining pressures, on the same sample (Smart et al.,
1991).
In the current work a series of multistage tests were performed
on the samples to determine the failure criteria describing the
development of rock strength with increasing confining pressure. A
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion and the angle of internal friction Q
were determined from the data.
7. Correlation of rock mechanical properties
7.1. Correlation of Vp versus Vs and static versus dynamic rock
mechanical properties
The cross plot of the laboratory measured Vp and Vs (Fig. 2)
shows a good correlation between these measured velocities. The
correlation formula is essential to enable the calculation of Vs
pseudo-log from in-situ, Vp logs. In addition well logs give us

6.4. Dynamic elastic constants tests at 27.6 (MPa)

5000

An acoustic transmitter and receiver were placed on either side 4500

of the plug within the Hoek cell and the generated wave was
recorded. The P-wave and S-wave travel times, through the plug, 4000
were picked from the recorded wave and used to calculate Vp and
3500
Vs. The dynamic elastic constants were determined from Vp, Vs and
Vs (m/s)

r as follows: 3000

2500
Table 1 y = 0.52x + 252.51
The stress levels (hydrostatic pressures) used in the triaxial tests. 2000 R2 = 0.87

Effective Stresses Applied in the Triaxial Tests 1500

MPa psi
1000
3.5 507.6 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
6.9 1000.8
Vp (m/s)
13.8 2001.5
27.6 4003.01
Fig. 2. Cross correlation chart and formula of Vs and Vp measured under reservoir
41.4 6004.6
pressure.
formula of static versus dynamic bulk modulus under reservoir pressure.
versus dynamic shear modulus under reservoir pressure. C. Cross correlation chart and
modulus under reservoir pressure. B. Cross correlation chart and formula of static
Fig. 3. A. Cross correlation chart and formula of static versus dynamic Young’s

show that:
lation formulae and correlation coefficients (Table 2 and Fig. 4)
plugs, to derive a reservoir-scale correlation. The resulting corre-
(4000 psi), were correlated with the ambient porosity for all of the
under the dominant in-situ reservoir pressure of 27.6 MPa

porosity (general formulae)

7.2. Correlations of rock mechanical properties with reservoir-scale

correlation formulae.
ratory. Fig. 3 shows three cross plots of these properties and their
formulae of the static and dynamic moduli measured in the labo-
derive static moduli from such logs we need to have correlation
continuous measurement of dynamic rock mechanical moduli. To

434
Static Young's Modulus
Static Bulk Modulus (GPa) Static Shear Modulus (GPa)

The rock mechanical parameters determined from the tests,

(GPa)

100
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10

20

30

40

50

10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0

0
0

A
B
C

y = 0.537x + 5.311
20

20

y = 0.541x + 12.852
R2 = 0.58
10

Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa)

R2 = 0.6
Dynamic Shear Modulus GPa
Dynamic Bulk Modulus (GPa)
40

40
20

at 27.6 (MPa)
at 27.6 (MPa)

at 27.6 (MPa)
60

60
30
80

80

M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444

40
100

100
y = 0.4792x + 10.213
R2 = 0.43

50
120

120
140

60

140
Table 2
Reservoir-scale (general) and layer-specific correlation formulae (correlation coefficients in brackets). The rock mechanical layers are listed in the first column with their equivalent conventional zones indicated between brackets.

Layer Vp (m/s) Vs (m/s) Es (Gpa) Ks (Gpa) Gs (Gpa) Ed (Gpa) Kd (Gpa) Gd (Gpa) Q (Degrees)
General 6560.84  106.03V (0.69) 3742.49  58.7 V (0.68) 82.127e0.050 V (0.69) 50.662e0.0463V (0.60) 29.45e0.0445V (0.71) 102.21e0.0546 V (0.85) 72.37e0.0554 V (0.77) 40.515e0.0544 V (0.82) 49.03  1.26 V (0.78)
1 (1) 6948.2  117.16 V (0.92) 4024.6  65.8566 V (0.91) 66.948e0372 V (0.88) 56.515e0.05 V (0.80) 25.834e0.0349 V (0.89) 115.48e0.0561 V (0.94) 76.26e0.0 592 V (0.87) 46.483e0.0552 V (0.93) 48.418  1.3729 V (0.89)
2 (2A) 7332.3  137.56 V (0.79) 4021.1  73.663 V (0.88) 78.992e0488 V (0.74) 78.992e0.0488 V (0.74) 31.528e0.0485 V (0.73) 137.22e0.0688 V (0.90) 104.96e0.0708 V (0.72) 53.553e0.0684 V (0.90) 56.487  1.6482 V (0.80)
3 (Upper 2B) 6950.4  123.66 V (0.71) 3714.7  59.755 V (0.71) 99.754e0.0616 V (0.90) 60.536e0.061 V (0.78) 39.893e0.0611 V (0.93) 115.01e0.0616 V (0.76) 95.283e0.0694 V (0.70) 44.398e0.0603 V (0.75) 53.051  1.4937 V (0.95)
4 (Lower 2B) 6909.1  118.38 V (0.80) 4121.1  74.338 V (0.69) 120.0e0.067 V (0.77) 64.911e0.0572 V (0.61) 42.844e0.0616 V (0.77) 139.5e0.067 V (0.83) 83.148e0.062 V (0.78) 57.481e0.0683 V (0.79) 49.369  1.2234 V (0.81)
5 (Upper 3A) 6722.6  113.96 V (0.82) 3693.5  57.016 V (0.67) 67.213e0.0348 V (0.50) 44.356e0.0305 V 26.984e0.0355 V (0.49) 102.06e0.0529 V (0.80) 79.133e0.0594 V (0.88) 39.643e0.0515 V (0.74) 48.393  1.2413 V (0.70)
6 (Lower 3A, 7119.8  151.29 V (0.76) 4083.7  87.967 V (0.68) 66.111e0.0326 V (0.31) 39.9e 0.0224 V (0.11) 27.441e0.0352 V (0.30) 117.33e0.0656 V (0.82) 80.158e0.0648 V (0.81) 47.022e0.0661 V (0.79) 50.701  1.3888 V (0.78)
3B and 4)
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444 435

at 27.6 (MPa) at 27.6 (MPa)

9000 160
P-Wave Velocity Static Young's Modulus Dynamic Young's Modulus
8000 140
S-Wave Velocity

Young's Modulus (GPa)

Wave Velocity (m/s)

7000
y = -106.03x + 6593.84 120
6000 R2 = 0.69 y = 82.127e-0.0496x y = 102.21e-0.0546x
100 R2 = 0.69 R2 = 0.85
5000
80
4000
60
3000
2000 40
y = -58.707x + 3742.5
2
R = 0.679 20
1000 A B
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity (%) Porosity (%)

at 27.6 (MPa) at 27.6 (MPa)

120
60
Static Dynamic Static Dynamic
Shear Modulus (GPa)

Bulk Modulus (GPa)

100
50
y = 29.45e-0.04x y = 40.515e-0.0544x 80
40 R2 = 0.71 R2 = 0.82 y = 50.662e-0.0463x y = 72.374e-0.0554x
R2 = 0.60 R2 = 0.77
30 60

20 40

10 20
C D
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity (%) Porosity (%)

at 27.6 (MPa)
50
Dolomite
Angle of Internal Friction

y = -1.3407x + 50.849 Limestone

40 R2= 0.74
y = -1.3077x + 49.543
R2 = 0.69
(Degrees)

30

All Data, Irrespective of

20 Rock Type:
y = -1.26x + 49.03
10 R2 = 0.78
E
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ambient Porosity (%)

Fig. 4. Correlation charts, formulae and correlation coefficients of rock mechanical parameters versus ambient matrix porosity: A. Vp and Vs; B. Static and dynamic Young’s
Modulus; C. Static and dynamic shear modulus; D. Static and dynamic bulk modulus; E. Angle of internal friction in limestone, dolomite, and all rock types .

a. Vp and Vs decrease with increasing porosity with best fit curves layers. The results confirm the validity of general trends in indi-
as simple linear least square regressions, or negative expo- vidual layers. In addition, the layer-specific correlations show
nential curves (Fig. 4A). better correlation coefficients than those of the general correlations
b. The static and dynamic moduli (Es, Ks, Gs, Ed, Kd, and Gs), apart from the static elastic constants of layers 5 and 6. In these two
decrease with increasing porosity, with negative exponential layers which are considerably tighter than the other layers, there is
best fit curves (Fig. 4B–D). a sharp decline in the correlation coefficient of the static elastic
c. The angle of internal friction, Q decreases with increasing constants. Table 2 gives a summary of the mechanical layers
porosity with a best fit curve as a simple linear least squares established in this study versus the Arab-D zones, general and
regression (Fig. 4E). layer-specific correlations and their respective correlation
coefficients.
7.3. Correlations of rock mechanical properties with reservoir-scale
porosity (layer-specific formulae)
8. Derivation of the rock mechanical properties from
The Arab-D reservoir layers are primarily based on the porosity wireline logs
profile (Fig. 1B and C). Therefore the test results are analyzed to
assess the rock mechanical layering, and the repeatability of the The above correlations were used to derive the rock mechanical
general correlation criteria when derived from data in individual properties from wireline log porosity. This is done in two stages:
436 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444

Wireline Log Porosity (%) a. The general empirical correlation formula between the labo-
Core-Based Porosity Log ratory measured Vp and the ambient core porosity was applied
Ambient Porosity (Core) before Depth Shift to the wirleline Vp log to calculate core-based, ambient porosity
Ambient Porosity (Core) after Depth Shift log.
0 ft
b. The calculated core-based, ambient porosity log is plotted with
the in-situ wireline porosity log.
c. Individual, laboratory measured porosities were added to
the plot as a calibration, to assess the core to wireline log
depth shift, and the level of agreement of the individual
laboratory measured porosities with the ambient core
porosity log.

Fig. 5 shows an example of the calibration for Well C, in which

Relative Depth ft

a depth shift of 5 ft was applied. There is a good agreement

between the core-based, calculated porosity log and the in-situ
wireline porosity log, and individual laboratory measured
porosity. The apparently higher core-based porosity than the in-
situ wireline log porosity is due to wireline logs obtained under
down-hole stresses whereas the core-based, calculated porosity
log is based on the laboratory measurements under ambient
condition.

8.2. Implementation of the correlation formulae to derive general

and layer-specific pseudo-logs of rock mechanical parameters

Pseudo-logs of the static and dynamic elastic constants, and

150 ft angle of internal friction were derived using the general and the
5 10 15 20 25 30 layer-specific correlation formulae between porosity and rock
Porosity (%) mechanical parameters. The resulting logs were plotted against
depth, with the laboratory measured parameters added for cali-
Fig. 5. Wireline porosity log and the correlated ambient core-based porosity log in
well C. Individual, laboratory measured ambient porosities (from plug samples) are bration (Figs. 6–8). The results show that:
shown at their un-shifted and shifted depths.
a. There is a good agreement between the general and layer-
8.1. Calibration of wireline log porosity with the specific pseudo-logs for each of the constants with matching
core-derived porosity peaks and troughs throughout the logs.
b. Where there is a difference, between the general and the layer-
Prior to the derivation of the rock mechanical pseudo-logs from specific logs (mostly minor differences in magnitude), the
‘‘in-situ’’ wireline porosity logs the latter were calibrated against layer-specific log correlates better with the laboratory derived
core-derived ambient porosity logs, as follows: values than the general logs.

general layer lab general layer lab general layer lab

0 ft 0 ft 0 ft
Layer 1 Layer 1 Layer 1
A B C

Layer 2 Layer 2 Layer 2

Layer 3 Layer 3
Relative Depth ft

Relative Depth ft

Relative Depth ft

Layer 3

Layer 4 Layer 4 Layer 4

Layer 5 Layer 5 Layer 5

Layer 6 Layer 6 Layer 6

150 ft 150 ft 150 ft

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 7 14 21 28
Static Young's Modulus (GPa) Static Bulk Modulus (GPa) Static Shear Modulus (GPa)

Fig. 6. Pseudo-logs of general and layer-specific static elastic constants for Well C: A. Young’s modulus; B. Bulk modulus; and C. Shear modulus. The mechanical layers 1–6 are
indicated.
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444 437

General Layer Lab General Layer Lab General Layer Lab

0 ft 0 ft 0 ft
A B C Layer 1
Layer 1 Layer 1

Layer 2
Layer 2 Layer 2

Layer 3
Layer 3
Relative Depth ft

Relative Depth ft

Relative Depth ft
Layer 3

Layer 4 Layer 4
Layer 4

Layer 5 Layer 5 Layer 5

Layer 6 Layer 6
Layer 6

150 ft 150 ft 150 ft

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dynamic Young's Modulus (GPa) Dynamic Bulk Modulus (GPa) Dynamic Shear Modulus (GPa)

Fig. 7. Pseudo-logs of general and layer-specific dynamic elastic constants for Well C: A. Young’s modulus; B. Bulk modulus; and C. Shear modulus. The mechanical layers 1–6 are
indicated.

9. The geological impact on the derived rock mechanical Table 3

properties, and the correlation formulae Comparison of the median values of the rock mechanical parameters in the dolomite
and limestone samples.
The cross correlation of the rock mechanical properties and Rock mechanical parameter Dolomite Limestone Difference%
matrix porosity show that rock samples with the same porosity P-Wave Velocity (m/s) 5344 4238 26
have a range of values of rock mechanical properties. The range in S-Wave Velocity (m/s) 3150 2454 28
Static Young’s Modulus (Gpa) 49 33 50
Static Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 30 18 64
Static Shear Modulus (Gpa) 20 11 72
general layer lab Dynamic Young’s Modulus (Gpa) 57 32 80
0 ft Dynamic Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 33 22 45
Dynamic Shear Modulus (Gpa) 24 13 85
Layer 1 Angle of Internal Friction (Degrees) 33 23 46
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 45 32 40

Layer 2

values of elastic moduli, Vp and Vs becomes progressively accen-

tuated as porosity diminishes to approach zero (Fig. 4A–E) with
Layer 3 a widening gap between an upper and lower bound of the rock
mechanical parameters. This indicates that as porosity declines,
Relative Depth ft

other rock properties (in addition to porosity) are impacting the

rock mechanical parameters. Such an argument is also supported
Layer 4

Table 4
Correction formulate and correlation confficient (R2) of rock machanical parameters
with matrix porosity in the limestone and dolomite samples (Correlation charts are
Layer 5 shown in Fig. 9).

Rock Mechanical Parameter Dolomite R2 Limestone Formulae R2

Layer 6 Formulae
P Wave Velocity (m/s) 6815.8e0.0175V 0.50 6529.1e0.0206V 0.65
S Wave Velocity (m/s) 4025.1e0.0181V 0.48 3864.1e0.0219V 0.71
Static Young Modulus (GPa) 92.612e0.0475V 0.56 86.094e0.0534V 0.77
Static Bulk Modulus (GPa) 72.707e0.0651V 0.70 64.62e0.0593V 0.69
150 ft Static Shear Modulus (GPa) 38.581e0.0523V 0.67 34.795e0.0536V 0.82
Dynamic Youg Modulus (GPa) 118.54e0.0545V 0.65 104.75e0.0579V 0.84
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Dynamic Bulk Modulus (GPa) 76.852e0.0542V 0.73 72.887e0.0571V 0.71
Angle of Internal Friction (degrees) Dynamic Shear Modulus (GPa) 47.746e0.0545V 0.61 41.62e0.0579V 0.83
Unconfined Compressive 62.567e0.0203V 0.09 89.432e0.0546V 0.33
Fig. 8. Pseudo-logs of general and layer-specific angle of internal friction, for Well C. Strength (MPa)
The mechanical layers 1–6 are indicated.
 8000

P Wave Velocity (m/s)

S Wave Velocity (m/s)

Dolomite 4500
7000 Limestone
4000 Dolomite
6000 Limestone
3500
5000
3000
4000
2500
3000
A 2000
B
2000 1500
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ambient Porosity (%) Ambient Porosity (%)

Static Bulk Modulus (GPa)

70.00
Static Young's Modulus

90
80 60.00 Dolomite
Dolomite Limestone
70 Limestone 50.00
60
(MPa)

40.00
50
40 30.00
30 20.00
20
10.00
10 C D
0 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Ambient Porosity (%) Ambient Porosity (%)

40.00
Static Shear Modulus (GPa)

Dolomite 100
Dynamic Young's

Limestone 90
Moudulus (MPa)

30.00 Dolomite
80 Limestone
70
20.00 60
50
40
10.00 30
20
E 10 F
0.00 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ambient Porosity (%) Ambient Porosity (%)
Dynamic Bulk Modulus (GPa)

70.00 40.00
Dynamic Shear Modulus

60.00 Dolomite
Dolomite
Limestone
50.00 30.00 Limestone
(GPa)

40.00
20.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
10.00 G H
0.00 0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Ambient Porosity (%) Ambient Porosity (%)

50.00
Angle of Internal Friction

Dolomite
40.00 Limestone
(Degrees)

30.00

20.00

10.00
I
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Ambient Porosity (%)

Fig. 9. Reservoir-scale correlation charts of rock mechanical parameters versus ambient matrix porosity for limestone and dolomite: (A) Vp; (B) Vs; (C) Static Young’s Modulus (Es);
(D) Static bulk modulus (Ks); (E) Static shear modulus (Gs); (F) Dynamic Young’s modulus (Ed); (G) Dynamic bulk modulus (Kd); (H) Dynamic shear modulus (Gs); (I) Angle of
internal friction (Q). Correlation formulae and correlation coefficients (R) for these charts are given in Table 4.
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444 439

Table 5 different static elastic moduli are impacted by texture in different

Comparison of the median values of the rock mechanical parameters in the tested ways. However the best fit curves of Ed and Gd have highest values in
samples according to the rock texture.
crystalline rocks and lower values in grainstones, mud-lean pack-
Rock mechanical parameter Crystalline Grainstone Mud-lean Packstone stones and packstones respectively. The best fit curve of Kd has
packstone highest value in crystalline rocks and mud-lean packstone and lower
P-Wave Velocity (m/s) 5344 4127 4256 4374 values in grainstones and packstones respectively.
S-Wave Velocity (m/s) 3150 2409 2457 2545
Static Young’s Modulus (Gpa) 49 28 24 33
Static Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 14 22 22 19
9.3. Rock pore type
Static Shear Modulus (Gpa) 20 11 9 13
Dynamic Young’s Modulus 57 30 30 36
(Gpa) The median values of all the rock mechanical parameters have
Dynamic Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 33 20 26 23 maximum values in rocks with dominant intercrystalline pore
Dynamic Shear Modulus (Gpa) 24 12 12 14
fabric (Table 7). The difference in the magnitude of the rock
Angle of Internal Friction 33 20 24 26
(Degrees)
mechanical parameters between rock samples with different types
Unconfined Compressive 45 31 30 39 of non-intercrystalline pore fabric (e.g. intergranular, interparticle,
Strength (MPa) moldic, and vuggy) is considerably smaller than the contrast
between rocks with intercrystalline pore fabric and those with
other pore types. Samples with micropore fabric have higher static
by the apparent difference in the degree of agreement between the moduli than those with moldic, intergranular, interparticle and
general and layer-specific derived properties of the reservoir in vuggy pore fabrics (Table 7). Samples with moldic pore fabric have
certain layers, particularly the tighter layers (e.g. layers 5 and 6, higher dynamic moduli than those with vuggy, micropore, inter-
Figs. 6–8). Therefore the geological impact (particularly mineralogy, granular and interparticle pore fabric. The trend for Vp amongst the
rock texture, and pore type) on the rock mechanical properties is non-intercrystalline pore fabric is different from that of the Vs
investigated. (Table 7). The analysis of the pore fabric influence on the correlation
between the elastic moduli, Vp and VS with rock porosity shows no
9.1. Rock mineralogy clear consistent trends.

There are two main mineral constituents of the studied samples,

dolomite and calcite, occurring in various proportions and result in
two main rock types, dolomite and limestone. The median values of
the rock mechanical parameters for dolomite have higher values
than limestone (Table 3). The relationship of the porosity and the
rock mechanical parameters are analyzed considering rock type.
The best fit curves show that on average dolomite has higher values
of rock mechanical parameters than limestone for rocks with the
same porosity (Table 4 and Fig. 9).
10. Verification of the results
We assessed the repeatability of the results and the impact of
the application of multistage triaxial tests, to derive the rock
mechanical parameters, in stead of the discrete failure tests. For this
purpose we acquired a second set of samples beside that used to
derive the rock mechanical parameters. The second set of samples
was taken from Well-A and Well-D close to the plugs from the first
set and cover representative range of porosities.

9.2. Rock texture

The Dunham classification (Dunham, 1962) is used to charac-
terize the texture of the studied samples. The median values of the
elastic moduli, Vp and Vs (Table 5) have maximum values in the
crystalline rocks followed by packstones (mud-lean packstone for
dynamic bulk modulus). Static bulk modulus differs in having the
highest median value in the grainstones and mud-lean packstones
followed by packstones and crystalline rocks.
The rock texture of the samples was also considered in the analysis
of the relationship of the porosity and rock mechanical properties. The
correlation formulae are summarized in Table 6. The best fit curves of
Vp and Vs have highest value in crystalline rocks followed by mud-
lean packstones, grainstones and packstones respectively. The
10.1. Verification of the multistage testing technique
We subjected the additional set of samples to discrete tests,
which involved loading the samples hydrostatically to its test stress
and allowing the axial load to increase until the sample failed. The
results from the discrete tests were processed in the same manner
as the multistage tests i.e. Mohr-Coulomb analysis. The comparison
of the results with those acquired from the multistage tests indi-
cates an adequate repeatability evident from a very good correla-
tion between the discrete and multistage tests, with the triaxial
stress factors being within 6% (Fig. 10). This verifies multistage
testing as a viable technique where there is a lack of homogeneous
samples from the same depth.

Table 6
Correction formulate and correlation confficient (R2) of rock machanical parameters with matrix porosity in the tested sample according to the rock texture.

Rock Type Crystalline Grainstone Mudlean Packstone Packstone

Rock Mechanical Parameter Formulae R2 Formulae R2 Formulae R2 Formulae R2
P Wave Velocity (m/s) 6815.8e0.0175V 0.50 6781.9e0.0219V 0.66 7091.5e0.0239V 0.62 5471.2e0.017V 0.45
S Wave Velocity (m/s) 4025.1e0.0181V 0.48 3931.7e0.0225V 0.67 4040.9e0.0236V 0.70 3775.5e0.0212V 0.80
Static Youg Modulus (Gpa) 92.612e0.0475V 0.56 88.303e0.0546V 0.79 69.135e0.0452V 0.61 91.138e0.055V 0.74
Static Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 72.707e0.0651V 0.70 57.286e0.0533V 0.58 52.75e0.0564V 0.86 77.668e0.066V 0.72
Static Shear Modulus (Gpa) 38.581e0.0523V 0.67 30.18e0.0468V 0.82 44.065e0.067V 0.88 35.797e0.0534V 0.77
Dynamic Youg Modulus (Gpa) 118.54e0.0545V 0.65 120.36e0.0634V 0.86 113.46e0.0594V 0.91 99.908e0.0556V 0.95
Dynamic Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 76.852e0.0542V 0.73 77.248e0.0589V 0.70 82.527e0.0598V 0.72 66.484e0.0533V 0.75
Dynamic Shear Modulus (Gpa) 47.746e0.0545V 0.61 48.637e0.0642V 0.85 44.676e0.0593V 0.92 39.957e0.0559V 0.95
Angle of Internal Friction (Degrees) 60.811e0.049V 0.64 70.859e0.0624V 0.45 72.428e0.0567V 0.51 64.337e0.0514V 0.66
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MPa) 62.567e0.0203V 0.09 79.008e0.0496V 0.28 88.379e0.0561V 0.31 176.4e0.0814V 0.48
440 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444

Table 7
Comparison of the median values of the rock mechanical parameters in the tested samples according to the pore fabric type.

Rock mechanical parameter Porosity type

Intercrystal Intergranular Interparticle Microporosity Moldic Vuggy

P-Wave Velocity (m/s) 5161 4130 4047 4448 4274 4450
S-Wave Velocity (m/s) 2918 2408 2569 2591 2486 2510
Static Young’s Modulus (Gpa) 45 28 26 34 29 24
Static Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 29 18 17 20 18 14
Static Shear Modulus (Gpa) 19 11 9 12 12 9
Dynamic Young’s Modulus (Gpa) 52 30 26 31 35 34
Dynamic Bulk Modulus (Gpa) 33 20 18 22 26 23
Dynamic Shear Modulus (Gpa) 21 12 10 12 14 13
Angle of Internal Friction ( ) 32 20 23 26 27 20
Unconfined Compressive Strenght (Mpa) 38 32 27 41 33 11

10.2. Verification of the repeatability of the results

The rock mechanical parameters derived from the discrete

350
failure tests of the second (additional) samples are plotted versus
porosity and correlated with the values predicted from the corre-
A
300 y = 4.4014x + 92.108 y = 4.6352x + 109.49
lation formulae established from the multistage tests. There is

Axial Stress (MPa)

a good agreement between the two values with the discrete test 250
results mostly within 10% of the predicted values (Fig. 11).
200

11. Stress sensitivity of rock mechanical parameters 150

Multistage Failure of Sample 2V

To understand the impact of changes in reservoir pressure (e.g. 100
Discrete failure points from Samples 3Va-3ve
due to depletion, or water injection as in water flooding) on the
50
rock mechanical properties and petrophysical properties these
parameters were assessed from tests at a wide range of effective 0
stresses (Table 1). During these tests, the porosity, permeability, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
elastic constants, acoustic velocities (compressional and shear) Confining Stress (MPa)
were determined. A multi-variant analysis was performed on each
of the parameters with regards to ambient porosity and stress. The 350
correlation equations and their coefficients of correlation are given B
300
in Table 8. Once generated the equations were used to produce y = 5.8573x + 72.853 y = 5.5062x + 98.198
Axial Stress (MPa)

three-dimensional surfaces in porosity-stress space with the 250

empirical data used to generate the correlations included in the
200
plots (Fig. 12). The measured reservoir properties show no signifi-
cant variation with stresses, within the range of the Arab-D reser- 150
voir stresses. Porosity seems to have a considerably more
pronounced impact on these properties than stress variation. 100 Multistage Failure of Sample 7V
Discrete failure points from Samples 6Va-6ve
50
12. Geological influence on stress sensitivity
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Although the rock mechanical and petrophysical properties
Confining Stress (MPa)
show low levels of stress sensitivity (Fig. 12) the impact of rock
properties on the stress sensitivities are investigated. The results 120
show no consistent and clear impact of mineralogical, textural, and C
y = 1.5202x + 44.973 y = 1.5271x + 41.742
pore fabric type on the stress sensitivity of the rock mechanical 100
parameters.
Axial Stress (MPa)

80
13. Operational application of the findings of this work
60
The results of this study are used in many aspects of the operational
exploration and development activities targeting the Arab-D reservoir 40
in Ghawar field and beyond. Some examples are listed below.
Multistage Failure of Sample 22V
20 Discrete failure points from Samples 23Va-23ve
13.1. Designing the first underbalanced borehole drilling
experiment in the Arab-D, Ghawar field 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
The underbalanced drilling utilizes drilling fluids with weight Confining Stress (MPa)
Fig. 10. A–C. Examples of the comparison of failure criteria measured by multistage
(borehole pressure) that is less than the fluid pressure in the drilled failure tests of the main sample set with the failure criteria obtained from the discrete
formation (Bieseman and Emeh, 1995; Gleitman, 1997). The failure tests of the second (additional) set of samples. Note that the plot shows samples
objectives are to minimize the risk of drilling fluid losses and taken from the same core section (rock type) and similar porosity values.
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444 441

5500 3200

P-Wave Velocity (m/s)

S Wave Velocity (m/s)

Repeat Test
5000 3000 Predicted from Pseudo-log

2800
4500
2600
4000
2400
3500 Repeat Test
2200
A Predicted from Pseudo-log B
3000 2000
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Porosity (%) Porosity (%)
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

35

Angle of Internal Friction

50
45 Repeat Test Repeat Test
Predicted from Repeat Test 30 Predicted from Pseudo-log
40

(degrees)
35 25
30
25 20

20
15
15 C D
10 10
15 17 19 21 23 25 27 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Porosity (%) Porosity (%)

Fig. 11. The rock mechanical parameters derived from the discrete failure tests of the second (additional) samples (repeat test) plotted versus porosity and correlated with the
values predicted from the correlation formulae established from the multistage tests.

formation damage (by mud filtrate and fines invasion); increase In addition to acid treatment, a combination of hydrofracturing
rate of penetration (reduce rig time); lengthen the bit life, and and acid treatment was used to assess the feasibility of using such
increase injectivity index for injectors and productivity index for a stimulation method in vertical wells to substitute for horizontal
producers. The underbalanced drilled wells in the Arab-D, Ghawar, or highly deviated drilling in the Arab-D, Ghawar. The predicted
were completed successfully using an optimum design with rock mechanical properties from the current formulae show
maximum drawdown of 200 psi at the bit in contrast with the excellent agreement (within 10%) with those derived from the
200 psi overbalanced drilling conventionally used in the field. Up to minifracturing and the main hydrofracturing stimulation (Ameen,
date a total of twenty six wells (twenty three injectors and three 2002).
producers) have been completed successfully. In terms of drilling
performance these wells have a considerably higher rate of pene-
13.3. Seismic data acquisition design
tration (three folds), longer bit life (five folds) and considerably less
formation damage than the conventionally drilled wells. The
The rock mechanical formulae are being implemented to
reduced formation damage diminished the need for acid clean up,
design seismic acquisition, through estimates of expected
and achieved higher injectivity index (two folds), greater produc-
seismic velocities of the Arab-D targets. The rock mechanical
tivity index (with uniform flow along the entire well length). The
layering scheme established in this study (Fig. 1C) shows higher
results were comprehensively reported by Muqeem et al. (2006)
resolution in the main part of the reservoir than the Saudi
and Hallman et al. (2007).
Aramco conventionally used zonation (Zone 2B consists of two
rock mechanical layers (layers 3 and 4) and Zone 3A consists of
two rock mechanical units (layer 5, and part of layer 6)).
13.2. Designing acid treatment, and acid-fracturing treatments
Furthermore the least prolific/non-reservoir zones (lower part
of 3A, the whole of 3B and 4) form one rock mechanical layer.
Acid treatment of the Arab-D is used to remove or bypass
This finding should be considered in future seismic data
formation damage, and to enhance the natural permeability of the
acquisition.
reservoir around the wellbore, by pumping alternating acid stages
into reservoir formation below fracturing pressure. The formulae
established in the current study were applied to derive rock 13.4. Seismic data interpretation for mapping reservoir quality
mechanical parameters for the design of acid stimulation of hori-
zontal and vertical open-hole injectors and producers in the Arab-D The formulae are applied for the prediction of rock porosity
reservoir in the Ghawar field (Al-Harbi et al., 2006). from existing seismic data for prospect evaluation. This applies

Table 8
Summary of stress sensitivity equations for selected rock mechanical and petrophysical parameters.

Parameter Equation Correlation coefficient

Porosity 4s ¼ 0.48 þ 0.965  4a  0.017  s 0.74
P-wave velocity Vp ¼ 5934  105  4a þ 196.95LN(s) 0.74
S-wave velocity Vs ¼ 3532  60  4a þ 6.47  s 0.72
Static modulus of elasticity Es ¼ 50.5s0.148/e0.054a 0.71
442 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444
Fig. 12. Three-dimensional plots showing: A. Porosity V; B. P-wave velocity Vp; C. S-wave velocity Vs; D. Static Young’s modulus (Es) in porosity-stress space.
for the whole Arab-D reservoir, as one unit. However dealing
with individual layers is more challenging due to the seismic
resolution being coarser than individual layer thickness. Using
such coarse seismic scale is complicated further by the wide
range of pore fabric types, and their different impact on rock
mechanical parameters (including acoustic properties). For
example, vuggy and moldic pore fabric give different properties
from intergranular pore fabric (Table 7). This creates uncer-
tainties in the predicted porosity, e.g. the underestimation of
porosity in rocks dominated by secondary porosity. This
uncertainty also limits the predictability of permeability, which
is strongly linked to porosity. Further studies dealing with these
aspects are under way. The higher resolution rock mechanical
layering of the prolific part of the Arab-D compared to the
conventionally used zonation poses further challenges to
mapping these layers (Fig. 1C).
Dolomite tends to play an important role in reservoir quality.
The current study shows that dolomites are distinctive in their
impact on the rock mechanical parameters. Their pronounced
impact is accentuated by their intrinsic link to the intercrystalline
pore type, and crystalline texture (Fig. 9 and Table 5). The thickness
of individual dolomite layers and their ratio to that of other rock
types (e.g. limestone and/or anhydrite) within the Arab-D is
generally too small to be predicted with high certainty from seismic
imaging (below seismic data resolution).
14. Conclusions
A representative set of samples from the Arab-D carbonate
reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia was tested. The tests allowed
the derivation of good, general empirical correlations between the
porosity and rock mechanical properties, including Vp, Vs, static and
dynamic constants and angle of internal friction. The best fit curves
of the porosity–elastic moduli correlation are negative exponential
equations. Analysis of the test data according to the porosity
distribution across the Arab-D reservoir generated six layer-specific
correlations. The general and layer-specific formulae were used to
derive general and layer-specific rock mechanical pseudo-logs,
calculated from the wireline porosity logs. The comparison of the
pseudo-logs with the experimentally acquired parameters proves
a good degree of correlation. The layer-specific pseudo-logs
matched the laboratory data more closely than that of the general
pseudo-logs and where possible the layer-specific correlations
should be used. It can therefore be concluded that the porosity
correlations are an accurate, representative and cost effective
method of obtaining a rock mechanical profile of the Arab-D
reservoir. The rock mechanical layering established here shows
higher resolution in the main prolific part of the reservoir than the
Saudi Aramco conventionally used zonation (Zone 2B consists of
two rock mechanical layers (layers 3 and 4) and Zone 3A consists of
two rock mechanical units (layer 5, and part of layer 6)).
 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444
Furthermore the least prolific zones (lower part of 3A, the whole of
3B and 4) form one rock mechanical layer. This should be consid-
ered in future seismic data acquisition and interpretation.
The improvement of the pseudo-logs when created from layer-
specific porosity correlation formulae compared to the general
formulae, and the wide range of rock mechanical values for rocks
with the same porosity prompted us to investigate the impact of
other rock properties, apart from porosity, on the rock mechanical
parameters. The results show that although porosity is the key
controlling factor on rock mechanical properties, geological rock
properties, namely mineralogical composition, texture and pore
fabric also impact the rock mechanical parameters in this respec-
tive order. Therefore the correlation formulae of porosity with rock
mechanical parameters (elastic moduli, Vp and Vs) used to derive
the pseudo-logs can be rewritten to incorporate a geological factor
‘‘A’’ to take the generic format:
Y ¼ C  e AF
where Y is the rock mechanical parameter; C is a constant depen-
dent on the rock mechanical parameter; V is porosity (%); and A is
the geological factor. The geological factor is the combined index of
the impact of mineralogical, textural and pore fabric properties, on
rock mechanics as follows:
a. Dolomite has higher magnitudes of rock mechanical parame-
ters than limestone for rocks with the same porosity (Table 4
and Fig. 9).
b. The Ed, Es, Gd, Gs, Kd, Vp and Vs have highest median values in
the crystalline rocks followed by packstones (mud-lean pack-
stone for dynamic bulk modulus). However, Ks differs in having
the highest median value in the grainstones followed by mud-
lean packstones.
c. Rocks with intercrystalline pore fabric have higher median
values of all the parameters (Table 7) than rock with non-
intercrystalline pore-fabric. In addition the contrast in the
parameters between rocks with different types of non-inter-
crystalline pore-fabric (e.g. intergranular, interparticle, moldic,
and vuggy) is minuscule, and inconsistent.
d. It is worth noting that in the studied sequences crystalline
texture and intercrystalline pore fabric are dominantly associ-
ated with dolomites, leading to an enhanced impact on the rock
mechanical parameters observed in dolomite versus limestone.
The repeatability of the results and the impact of the application of
multistage triaxial tests, to derive the rock mechanical parameters, in
stead of the discrete tests is assessed. For this purpose we acquired
a set of samples, beside that used to derive the rock mechanical
parameters, and subjected those to discrete tests. The results indicate
an adequate repeatability and close correlation of the results of the
discrete testes with those derived from the multistage tests.
We investigated the impact of development-induced stress
changes in the reservoir (due to oil production or fluid injection) on
rock mechanical parameters and the derived porosity correlations.
This assessment of the stress sensitivity of the geomechanical
parameters was conducted using effective stresses ranging from
3.5 MPa to 41.4 MPa in the tests (Table 1). Such levels of stresses
estimated to occur under operational reservoir condition in the
Arab-D, Ghawar field. During these tests, the porosity, permeability,
elastic constants, acoustic velocities (compressional and shear)
were determined. A multi-variant analysis was performed on each
of these parameters with regards to ambient porosity and stress.
The results show low level of stress sensitivity of porosity and rock
mechanical properties of the intact matrix rocks under reservoir
conditions. The findings are supported by the lack of significant
443
production-related subsidence in the Ghawar field throughout the
several decades of operational history, both prior to, and post water
flooding program. In addition in spite of the several thousands of
wells drilled in the Arab-D, including vertical, highly deviated, and
horizontal (long-reach) producers and injectors, none of these
wells was impaired by casing-shear, a symptomatic phenomenon of
stress sensitive reservoirs as observed in Ekofisk field (Munns,
1985; Schwall and Denney, 1994 and Nagel, 1998; Dusseault et al.,
2001).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco for sponsoring
this project and the permission to publish the results. The manu-
script benefited from invaluable reviews and comments by Dr.
Joyce Neilson, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, and Prof. Janos L.
Urai, RWTH Aachen University, Germany. Thanks are due to
Abdullah AL-Qarni, Saudi Aramco’s Core Laboratory, Dhahran, for
his support in core preparation and sampling.
References
Al-Harbi, M.S., Al-Dhafeeri, A.M., Al-Rufaie, Y.A., Mohammed, S.K., 2006. Evaluation
of acid treatment results for water-injector wells in Saudi Arabia: SPE paper
101344. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
Alsharhan, A.S., Whittle, G.L., 1995. Carbonate-evaporite sequences of the Late Jurassic,
southern and southwestern Arabian Gulf. AAPG Bulletin 79 (11), 1608–1630.
Ameen, M.S., 2002. Fracture, In-situ Stress, and Rock Mechanical Characterization of
Arab-D, HRDH-713. Saudi Aramco Internal Report Number 01072002, Reservoir
Characterization Department, 16 pp.
Anderson, R., Coates, G.R., Denoo, S., Rsines, R., 1986. Formation collapse in
a producing well. The Technical Review 34, 29–32.
Bastos, A.C., Dillon, L.D., Vasquez, G.F., Soares, J.A., 1998. Core derived acoustic,
porosity and permeability correlations for computation pseudo-logs. In:
Harvey, P.K., Lovell, M.A. (Eds.), Core-log Integration, Geological Society, Lon-
don, Special Publications, vol. 136, pp. 141–146.
Bieseman, T., Emeh, V., 1995. An Introduction to underbalanced drilling. In: Paper
Presented at the First International Underbalanced Conference and Exhibition,
Held at The Hague, Netherlands, 2nd–4th October, 1995.
Bruce, S., 1990. A mechanical stability log. In: Proceedings of the 1990 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference, Houston, Texas, February 27–March 2, 1990. Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, pp. 275–282.
Cantrell, Dave L., Hagerty, R.M., 1999. Microporosity in Arab formation carbonates,
Saudi Arabia. GeoArabia 4 (2), 129–154.
Cantrell, D., Swart, P., Hagerty, R., 2004. Genesis and characterization of dolomite
Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia. Geo-Arabia 9, 11–36.
Dunham, R.J., 1962. Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional
texture. In: Ham, W.E. (Ed.), Classification of Carbonate Rocks. American Asso-
ciation of Petroleum Geologists Memoir, vol. 1, pp. 108–121.
Dusseault, Maurice, B., Bruno, Michael S., Barrera, John, 2001. Casing shear: causes,
cases, cures. Drilling & Completion SPE paper 72060, 98–107.
Edlmann, K., Somerville, J.M., Smart, B.G.D., Hamilton, S.A., Crawford, B.R., 1998.
Predicting rock mechanical properties from wireline porosities. SPE paper
47344. In: Proceedings of the EUROCK 98 SPE/ISRM Rock Mechanics in Petro-
leum Engineering Meeting, vol. 2. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson,
Texas, pp. 169–175.
Farquhar, R.A., Somerville, J.M., Smart, B.G.D., 1994. Porosity as a geomechanical
indicator: an application of core and log data and rock mechanics. SPE paper
28853. In: Proceedings of the European Petroleum Conference, London,
England. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, pp. 481–489.
Gardner, G.H.F., Gardner, L.W., Gregory, A.R., 1974. Formation velocity and density –
the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps. Geophysics 39, 770–780.
Gleitman, Daniel, D., 1997. Integrated Underbalanced Directional Drilling System.
Sperry-Sun Drilling Services Interim Report, DOE FETC Contract: DE-AC21–
95MC31103, 23 pp.
Hallman, John H., Cook, Iain, Muqeem, Muhammad A., 2007. Fluid customization
and equipment optimization enable safe and successful underbalanced drilling
of high-H2S horizontal wells in Saudi Arabia. In: IADC/SPE Paper 108332, IADC/
SPE Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference and
Exhibition, Texas, 28–29 March 2007, pp. 2–11.
Lucia, F.J., Jennings, J.W., Rahnis Jr., M.A., Meyer, F.O., 2001. Permeability and rock
fabric from wireline logs, Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia. Geo-
Arabia 6 (4), 619–646.
Meyer, Franz O., Price, Rex C., Al-Ghamdi, Ibrahim A., Al-Goba, Ibrahim M., Al-
Raimi, Saleh M., Cole, John C, 1996. Sequential stratigraphy of outcropping strata
equivalent to Arab-D reservoir, Wadi Nisah, Saudi Arabia. Geoarabia 1 (3),
435–456.
444 M.S. Ameen et al. / Marine and Petroleum Geology 26 (2009) 430–444
Munns, J.W., 1985. The Valhall field: a geological overview. Marine and Petroleum
Geology 2, 23–43.
Muqeem, M.A., Al-Jeffre, A.M., Jarrett, C.M., Al-Khanferi, N.M., Killip, D.R., Abdul, H.J., 2006.
Underbalanced drilling in Saudi Arabia; start-up experience. SPE paper 102026.
Nagel, N.B., 1998. Ekofisk Field Overburden Modelling, Eurock ’98, SPE/ISRM Rock
Mechanics in Petroleum Engineering. The Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway, pp. 177–186.
Raymer, L.L., Hunt, E.R., Gardner, J.S., 1980. An improved sonic transit time to
porosity transform. In: 21st Annual Society of Professional Well Log Analysts
Logging Symposium, Transactions, Paper.
Saner, S., Sahin, A., 1999. Lithological and zonal porosity–permeability distributions
in the Arab-D reservoir, Uthmaniyah Field, Saudi Arabia. AAPG Bulletin 83 (2),
230–243.
Santarelli, F.J., Dusseault, M.B., Yassir, N.A., 1991. Estimating Rock Mechanics Prop-
erties in Petroleum Engineering Practice: Problem Statement. Report of the
ISRM/SPE Joint Commission on Rock Properties for Petroleum Engineers.
Sarda, J.P., Kessler, N., Wicquart, E., Hannaford, K., Deflandre, J.P., 1993. Use of
porosity as a strength indicator for sand production evaluation: SPE paper
26454. In: Proceedings of SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, pp. 381–388.
Schwall, G.H., Denney, C.A., 1994. Subsidence Induced Casing Deformation Mecha-
nisms in the Ekofisk Field, Eurock ’94, SPE/ISRM, Rock Mechanics in Petroleum
Engineering. Balkema, Delft, Netherlands, pp. 507–515.
Smart, B.G.D., Somerville, J.Mc., McGregor, K.J., 1991. The prediction of yield zone
development around a borehole and its effect on drilling and production. In:
Roegiers, J.C. (Ed.), Rock Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science. A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 961–970.
Swart, P.K., Cantrell, D.L., Hildegard, W., Handford, C.R., Kendall, C.G., 2005. Origin of
dolomite in the Arab-D reservoir from the Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia; evidence
from petrographic and geochemical constraints. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 75 (3), 476–491.
Tixier, M.P., Loveless, G.W., Anderson, R.A.,1975. Estimation of formation strength from
the mechanical properties log. Journal of Petroleum Technology 27 (3), 283–293.
Widarsono, B., Wong, P.M., Saptono, F., 2001. Estimation of rock dynamic property
profiles through the combination of soft computing, acoustic velocity modeling
and laboratory dynamic test on core. SPE Paper 68712. In: Proceedings of Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia. Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, pp. 1–10.
Wilson, A.H., 1980. The Stability of Underground Workings in Soft Rocks of the Coal
Measures. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., Gardner, L.W., 1956. Elastic wave velocities in hetero-
geneous and porous media. Geophysics 21, 41–70.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gregory, A.R., Gardner, G.H.F., 1958. Elastic wave velocities in
heterogeneous and porous material. Geophysics 23, 459–493.
Wyllie, M.R.J., Gardner, G.H.F., Gregory, A.R., 1963. Studies of elastic wave attenua-
tion in porous media. Geophysics 27, 569–589.