Transforming subsurface uncertainty into value …

A fully integrated supervised rock typing

(in a complicated carbonate reservoir in the Middle East)

Ebrahim Heydari, MohammadReza Yousefpour

Senior Petrophysicist
Helix RDS Limited, IOOC

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S www.helixesg.com
 Introduction
Clarification
Clarification

• The presentation describes the methodology and results of an

improved supervised rock typing for a carbonate reservoir in the
centre of the Persian Gulf in the Middle East

• Accurate classification and prediction of rock types (RT) requires a

comprehensive integration of petrophysical, geological and reservoir
data

• The rock typing methodology (classification and prediction) presented

in this study is applicable in reservoir modeling in both reservoir types
(clastic and carbonate reservoirs) in the North Sea, particularly to the
carbonate reservoirs

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Location
Location
Location

IRAN

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Reservoir:
Reservoir:Upper
Upper Sravak
Sravak ((Mishrif)
Mishrif)

Laffan

Mishrif

Khatiyah

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Depositional
Depositionalsetting
setting

• The field is located on the eastern part of an intra-shelf basin

developed during the Middle Cretaceous within the Arabian
continental shelf

Sirri-E

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Wells
Wells

• 6 Vertical wells
• 17 Horizontal oil producer
• 13 Horizontal water injector

Er
o sio
n

Vertical Well
Oil Producer
Water Injector

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Objectives
Objectives

• Identify rock classification in the cored wells, by integration of electric

logs, cores and geological data

• Predict rock types in uncored wells

• Provide the geologist with the

rock types in each wells, as the
basic building blocks of the
geological model

• Predict permeability in uncored wells

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Data
Data
• Core description
(Well A: 86.5 m, Well B : 73.5 m and Well C : 92 m)

• Thin-Section study
(Well A : 380 samples, Well B : 165 samples)
1000

• Wireline and LWD logs 100

(Raw and Interpreted data for 17 wells )

Air permeability, mD
10

• Conventional core analysis 1

(Well A : 380 samples, Well B : 165 samples)

0.1

• Mercury injection tests 0.01

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

(Well A : 46 tests, Well B: 37 tests) Porosity, %

CCA: SIE-5 CCA SIE-6

• Regional data
(Previous geological studies by TOTAL)

250 µm

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Available
Availabledata
dataand
andKey
Keywells
wells
Other wells

Well B Well A

Well C Used for blind test and validation

Well C
5 km
Other wells

Well A
Well B
Key wells

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Introduction
Methodology
Methodology Key wells

• Identification of rock types by

integration of mercury injection data,
core description, thin sections study
and CCAL data in key wells
Facies Core Des.
CCAL characterization

• Determination of petrophysical SCAL

characteristics for each rock type Thin section

• Extending rock types to uncored wells

using the relationship between rock Extend to uncored
wells
types and electrical logs

• Permeability prediction in uncored wells

using fitted regression equations for
each rock type
Permeability prediction

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
Rock
Rocktype
typedefinition
definitionand
andTraining
Training

• 6 Major rock types have been identified and characterized

1000

SIE-6:
Well B RT 1

Well B RT 2
SIE-6:
100
6
5 SIE-5:
Well A RT 2

4
Air permeability, mD

10 SIE-6:
Well B RT 3

2 3 Well A RT 3
SIE-5:

1 SIE-6:
Well B RT 4

Well A RT 4
SIE-5:
0.1

SIE-6:
Well B RT 5

SIE-5:
Well A RT 6
0.01
0 5 10
H E L 15I X E 20N E R G
25
Y S 30O L U T
35
I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
RT-1: Very
RT-1: Verypoor
poorreservoir
reservoirpotential
potential
FWWB

SWB
Protected
PC
Platform

1000

100
Air permeability, mD

10

0.1 Micro Pores

250 µm
0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Porosity, %
! Well B, 2897m, phi=3.8%; k=0.53 mD ! Porosity and Permmeability are very low and ! Pore throat diameters ranges from 0.003 µm to
! Wackestone sometimes Packstone scattered 0.05 µm
! Benthic forams (Chrisalinids), Cortoids, Pelecypods ! Pores are classified as Micro pores

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
RT-2: Very
RT-2: Verypoor
poorreservoir
reservoirpotential
potential
FWWB

SWB
Protected
Upper Slope
PC
Platform

1000

100
A ir p e rm e a b ility , m D

10

0.1 Micro Pores

250 µm
0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Porosity, %
! Well B, 2904.79 m, phi=7.1%; k=0.15 mD ! Porosity and Permmeability are very ! Pore throat diameters ranges from 0.04
! Wackestone sometimes Packstone scattered, Slightly higher than RT-1 µm to 3 µm
! Pelecypod, small benthic forams ! Pores are classified as Micro pores

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
RT-3: Medium
RT-3: Mediumreservoir
reservoirpotential
potential
FWWB

SWB

PC Middle Slope

1000

100
A ir p e r m e a b ilit y , m D

10

0.1
Meso Pores

250 µm 0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50
Porosity, %
! Well B, 2914.52 m, phi=18.9%;k=4.6 mD ! Wide range of porosity and medium ! Pore throat diameters ranges from 0.07
! Packstone sometimes Wackestone permeability values µm to 4 µm
! Skeletal debris, Ech. & Pelecy. are very rare ! Pores are classified as Meso pores

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
RT-4: Good
RT-4: Goodreservoir
reservoirpotential
potential
FWWB

SWB
Shoal
PC

1000

Macro Pores
100
A ir p e rm e a b ility , m D

10

250 µm
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Porosity, %
! Well A, 2867.25 m, phi=20%, k=13 mD ! Pore throat diameters ranges
! Porosity and Permmeability are high
! Grainstone sometimes Coarse Packstone from 0.14 µm to 10 µm
! Pelecypood, Rudist and Cortoid ! Pores are classified as Meso pores

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
RT-5: Very
RT-5: Verygood
goodreservoir
reservoirpotential
potential
FWWB

SWB
Shoal
PC

1000

Macro Pores
100
A ir p e r m e a b ilit y m D

10

0.1

250 µm 0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50
! Well B, 2920.75 m, phi=21.5%, k=17 mD
Porosity, %
! Pore throat diameters ranges from 0.5 µm to
! Coarse Grainstone rarely Packstone ! High Porosity and Permmeability values 10 µm, mean
! Pelecypood fragments, abundant Rudist ! pore throat size is higher than ones in RT 4
! Pores are classified as Macro pores
H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
RT-6: Highest
RT-6: Highestreservoir
reservoirpotential
potential
FWWB

SWB
Shoal
PC

1000

Bi Modal
Macro Pores
100
A ir perm eability , m D

10

500 µm
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Porosity, %
! Pore throat diameters ranges from
! Well A, 2866.5 m, phi=22%, k=35 mD ! Highest Porosity and Permeability values 0.1 µm to 70 µm
! Coarse Grainstone rarely Packstone ! Characterised by Dual pore throat size
! Pelecypood fragments, abundant Rudist ! Pores are classified as Macro pores

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
Geological
Geologicalcharacteristics
characteristicsof
ofrock
rocktypes
types
Coarse grained skeletal GR Coarse grained skeletal GR Coarse grained skeletal GR

RT 4 RT 5 RT 6

FWWB

SWB

PC
Slope
Basin Lower Slope Middle Slope Upper Slope Shoal Back Shoal
Source Rock RT 3 RT 2 RT 2 RT 1

Dysaerobic basin Fine grained skeletal Medim grained skeletal Peloids and Forams
Organic matter and pelagic biota PA PA PA
H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
Petrophysical
Petrophysicalcharacteristics
characteristicsof
ofrock
rocktypes
types
• Box and Whisker Plot of core porosity and permeability illustrate
increasing petrophysical properties from RT-1 to RT-6

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
Log
LogResponses
Responses

Generally are similar

Generally are similar

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
Differences
Differencesbetween
betweenRT
RT4,
4,55and
and66
RT4 RT5 RT6

250 µm 250 µm 500 µm

• Coarse equant blocky cement is major parameter for pore throat size variations

• Coarse equant blocky cement is not uniformly distributed in shoal grainstones

• Permeability and pore throat size increase due to decrease in cementation

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Rock Typing in key wells
Pore
Porethroat
throatsize
sizecharacteristics
characteristicsof
ofrock
rocktypes
types
• Mean pore throat size distribution increases from RT-1 to RT-6

Mean pore throat diameter

Rock-Type (µm)
Min. Average Max.
RT 1 0.003 0.01 0.04
RT 2 0.03 0.30 2.80
RT 3 0.05 1.00 3.00
RT 4 0.20 3.50 10.50
RT 5 0.20 5.60 11.00
RT 6 0.1 10 70

RT-1 RT-2 RT-3 RT-4 RT-5 RT-6

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Extending Rock Types
Extending
Extendingto
toUncored
Uncoredwells
wells
• Rock Types were extended to uncored wells by means of
Electrical Logs and Statistical analysis (Facimage)

• MRGC was used for clustering and k-NN (k-nearest neighbors)

was selected as facies propagation method

Histogram of RHOB
1 4

2 5

3 6

Rock Type

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Extending Rock Types
Production
Productionand
andInjector
Injectorwells
wells
RHOB_1 RHOB_1
1.95 G/C3 2.95 1.95 G/C3 2.95
RHOB_1
DEPTH NPHI_1 DEPTH NPHI_1 1.95 G/C3 2.95
METRES 0.45 V/V -0.15 METRES 0.45 V/V -0.15
DEPTH NPHI_1
GR_1 dt RT_1 GR_2 dt RT_1 METRES 0.45 V/V -0.15
0 GAPI 100 140 US/F 40 0 6 0 GAPI 100 140 US/F 40 0 6
GR_1 dt RT_1
3700.5 3443.0 0 GAPI 100 140 US/F 40 0 6

3272.5

3275

3450

3725

3300

3475

3310.0

3750

3500

3503.0

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Extending Rock Types
Cross
Crosscheck
checkvalidation
validation
• Very good correlation between rock types
and core description was observed
Oil 1 4

RHOB LLD Gas 5

2
1.95 G/C3 2.95 0.2 OHMM 2000

TVD NPHI LLS Moved Fluid 3 6

METRES 0.45 V/V -0.15 0.2 OHMM 2000

GR DT MSFL Free Water

Rock Type
0 GAPI 100 140 US/F 40 0.2 OHMM 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6

3501.0

3510

3520

3530

3540

3550

3560

3570.5

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Water Saturation Modeling

3490

Sw Model

• A capillary pressure curve was assigned 3500

Sw log

to each rock type for SW modeling 3510

3520

SW model
3530

70

3540
SW log

Depth(TVDss)
60

`
50 3550

40
3560
RT-1
30 RT-2
RT-3 3570
20 RT-4
RT-5
10
RT-6 3580

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 3590

3600
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Sw

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Permeability Prediction

• Permeability prediction was performed

for each RT using K/PHI relationship
and PHIE

The regression line of horizontal versus vertical

permeability suggests that “Kv / Kh” ratio is about 1

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Conclusions

• Six major rock types were classified in the field. Reservoir quality
increase from rock type 1 to 6

• The rock types have been identified mainly on the basis of pore throat
size similarities

Pore Type Depositional Env. Rock Type

Pore Type Depositional Env. Rock Type
• A very good correlation appeared
Primary >
Primary >
Dissolution
Protected Platform
Protected Platform
RT 1
RT 1 between rock types and microfacies
Dissolution Prot. Plat./Up. Slope RT 2
Prot. Plat./Up. Slope RT 2

Middle Slope RT 3
Middle Slope RT 3
Dissolution >
Dissolution >
Shoal
Shoal
RT 4
RT 4
• The change of depositional
Primary
Primary Shoal
Shoal
RT 5
RT 5
environment is generally recorded
Shoal
Shoal
RT 6
RT 6 by a change in rock types

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Conclusions

• Obtained rock types in key wells were propagated to uncored wells

by means of Electrical logs and statistical analysis methods

• The reliability of extended rock types were clearly established by very

good correlation in blind test

• Permeability was predicted in uncored wells using correlation

between porosity and permeability in cored wells for each rock types

• For water saturation modeling unique capillary pressure curves of

rock types were used

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Conclusions

• Obtained Rock Types and fitted regression equations were transferred

to geological modeling section for modeling

Permeability Modeling

Facies Modeling

H E L I X E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S
 Any Question?

Thank you for your attention

Transforming subsurface uncertainty into value

Special thanks to IOOC and Tehran Energy Consultants for their support in
the development of this study

H E L I X
HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS E N E R G Y S O L U T I O N S www.helixesg.com