SPE-197352-MS

Integrated Reservoir Characterisation of an Emerging Unconventional

Resource Play in the UAE

Warren Newby, Soumaya Abbassi, Claire Fialips, Bertrand D.M. Gauthier, Anton Padin, Hamid Pourpak, and
Samuel Taubert, Total SA

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14 November 2019.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Upper Jurassic (Oxfordian to Late Kimmeridgian) Diyab Formation has served as the source rock
for several world-class oil and gas fields in the Middle East. More recently it has become an emerging
unconventional exploration target in United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and its age-
equivalent Najhma shale member in Kuwait.
The Diyab is unique in comparison to other shale plays due to its significant carbonate mineralogy, low
porosities, and high pore pressures. Average measured porosities in the Diyab are generally low and the
highest porosity intervals are found to be directly linked to organic porosity created by thermal maturation.
Despite low overall porosities, the high carbonate and very low clay content defines an extremely brittle
target, conducive to hydraulic fracture stimulation. This coupled with a high-pressure gradient facilitates a
new unconventional gas exploration target in the Middle East. However, these favorable reservoir conditions
come along with some challenges, including complex geomechanical properties, a challenging stress regime
and the uncertainty of whether the presence of natural fractures could enhance or hinder production after
hydraulic fracture treatment.
Only recently has the Diyab been studied in detail in the context of an unconventional reservoir.
This paper presents an integrated approach allowing a multidisciplinary characterisation of this emerging
unconventional carbonate reservoir in order to gain a better understanding on the plays’ productivity controls
that will aid in designing and completing future wells, but already encouraging results have been observed
to date.

Introduction
The Upper Jurassic Diyab formation (Figure 1) has sourced an important number of oil and gas fields in
the Middle East. A recent study by Shu-Zheng et al., (2018) states that the combined Upper Jurassic/Lower
Cretaceous-Lower Cretaceous petroleum system represents 73.2% of the total proved and probable (2P)
hydrocarbon reserves in the UAE with a majority of these reserves being sourced from the Diyab. It is no
surprise this world class source rock is now the target itself and the focus of an emerging unconventional
play in the Middle East. It is actively being pursued not only in the UAE, but throughout the Middle East.
2 SPE-197352-MS

A successful development of the Diyab in the Jafurah Basin, Saudi Arabia is already underway (Baig et
al., 2017); in the UAE, however, where our study is focused, it is just beginning to emerge with very few
horizontal unconventional wells drilled and tested, but already encouraging results have been observed to
date.

Figure 1—Middle and Late Jurassic lithostratigraphic units for the UAE (from Baig et al., 2017).

Production from unconventional reservoirs is linked to rock quality, storage and flow capacity and
executing a successful hydraulic fracture stimulation (Bhatt et al., 2018). To address these criteria, advanced
logging suites, coring and core analysis tailored to unconventional methodologies were performed as part
of a broad data acquisition program in pilot wells. Furthermore, a 1D mechanical earth model (MEM) was
created to understand the stress regime evolution within the Diyab. The aim of this paper is to apply a
multifaceted approach using an extensive dataset to characterise and evaluate the potential of the Diyab as
an unconventional gas play in the UAE.

Geologic Framework
Depositional Setting
During the Middle to Late Jurassic, the Arabian Platform was characterised by the development of three
distinct intra-shelf basins (Murris, 1980; Ayres et al., 1982; Beydoun, 1988, Alsharhan and Kendall, 1986;
Azer, 1989; Meyer and Price, 1993; McGuire et al., 1993; de Matos and Hulstrand, 1995; and Al-Husseini,
1997; Ziegler, 2001; Al-Suwaidi and Aziz, 2002; Eltom et al., 2017) (Figure 2). The focus of our study lies
within the southernmost intra-shelf basin, also known as the Hanifa, Rub’ Al Khali or Abu Dhabi basin that
extends onshore and offshore UAE and also offshore Qatar. Stratigraphic reconstructions of the Arabian
carbonate platform during Oxfordian times by Van Laer et al., (2014) indicate that sedimentation in the Abu
Dhabi basin was controlled via a combination of uplift of the plate margin fringing Oman and Eastern UAE,
SPE-197352-MS 3

subsidence and eustatic sea level fluctuations. The interplay of these elements formed an intrashelf basin that
was separated from the open-marine environment to the east by a high-energy platform margin that reduced
seawater circulation in the intrashelf basin and created conditions favorable for source rock deposition and
preservation (Droste, 1990; Alyousuf et al., 2011; Vahrenkamp et al., 2015). Evidence of this intrashelf basin
is apparent by a distinct change from shallow water platform carbonates of the Araej Formation overlain
by organic-rich carbonates of the Diyab Formation (Figure 3). The Diyab depositional model is that of a
carbonate ramp-type succession where broad lateral facies changes can be observed from thick, shallow
water grain-dominated limestones (packstones/grainstones) along the platform margin grading down to
more muddy limestones (wackestone/packstone and mudstone/wackestone) in the deeper setting (Figure
3). The deepest part of the ramp is characterized by condensed organic-rich basinal carbonates that serve as
the source rock intervals of the Diyab and are the focus of this paper.

Figure 2—Location map of intrashelf basins and environments of deposition during the Oxfordian
and Kimmeridgian (from Al-Suwaidi and Aziz, 2002) with regional well section (Figure 3) overlaid.
4 SPE-197352-MS

Figure 3—(Top) Regional NW-SE cross-section with associated lithofacies demonstrating the proximal to distal relationships
of the different source rock (SR) intervals of the Jubaila, Hanifa, and Tuwaiq Mountain Formations with the four sequences
used in this study. Gamma Ray log (left log track in wells) with cutoffs of >20API units (shaded green) and >50API
units (shaded brown) that show progressively higher gamma ray values basinward (NW) indicating accumulation of
more organic-rich sediments; (Bottom) Lithofacies, associated depositional environments, and depositional models
for Sequences 1 and 2; (the most organic-rich source rock intervals from unpublished internal report). For location
of regional section NW-SE see Figure 2. Formation tops are based on an internal definition for integration purposes.

The Diyab formation can be further sub-divided into lithostratigraphic units such as the Tuwaiq Mountain,
Hanifa and Jubaila (see Figure 1). Based on De Matos and Ulstrand (1995) or Al-Suwaidi and Aziz (2002),
from the top of the Upper Araej to the base of the Arab-D reservoir, 4 sequences of third-order are defined
and has been adopted to correlations of Figure 3. Three different potential source rock intervals marked by
elevated gamma ray values are found to occur within the greater Diyab interval onshore UAE where TOC
values approach or exceed 2%. The first organic-rich interval is located within Sequence Unit 1 (S1) that
corresponds to the Tuwaiq Mountain interval, the second organic-rich interval lies just above and below the
anhydrite beds of Sequence Unit 2 (S2) that corresponds to the Hanifa and the last organic-rich package lies
within Sequence Unit 4 (S4) that corresponds to the Jubaila.

Structural Overview
The main structural regime in the UAE is one of strike-slip (Figure 4) with predominantly horizontal
movement and little to no vertical displacement found on either side of faults (Noufal et al., 2016b).
The present structural configuration of Abu Dhabi was created by a regional compressive force from the
Semail ophiolite obduction during the late Cretaceous. This principally horizontal NW-SE or WNW-ESE
compression is responsible for the formation of the roughly N-S or NE-SW oriented large anticlinal features
and the associated large onshore conventional oil and gas fields of the UAE we see today. Two prevalent
conjugate NW-orientated strike-slip fault systems (N75W and N45W) are observed and are detached from
each other typically in the Shuaiba-lower Nahr Umr level (Johnson et al., 2005). The deeper set oriented
N75W is seen cross-cutting the Diyab section and display little offset and is often associated with N30E
SPE-197352-MS 5

buckle folds (Johnson et al., 2005). A regional study of stress orientations by Noufal et al., (2016a) across
Abu Dhabi concluded that the present-day maximum horizontal stress (SHmax) across different onshore
fields ranges between N10E-N60E with some rotational variation near faults or deformational zones (Figure
4).

Figure 4—Abu Dhabi Stress and Fault Map (from Noufal et al., 2016a).

Reservoir Characterization
Mineralogical Composition
Based on the quantitative X-Ray Diffraction analysis of 75 core samples from wells 1V and 2V by two
laboratories (Lab A and Lab B), the mineralogical composition in the Jubaila, Hanifa and Tuwaiq Mountain
is largely dominated by calcite, with low contents of dolomite (0-12 bulk mass%; 3mass% on average),
quartz (<6mass%), feldspar (≤5mass%), and pyrite (≤7mass%; Figure 5). Clay content (mainly illite and/or
illite-smectite) is also generally low (1-15 mass% clays+micas for 90% of the samples), at the exception of
the Upper Hanifa where it reaches up to 36 mass% above an anhydrite layer and thin intervals in the Upper
and Lower Jubaila where it locally reaches 18 mass%. As already reported in previous studies of Diyab
source rock samples (e.g., Baig et al., 2017), the amount of quartz appear slightly higher in the Jubaila than
in the Hanifa and Tuwaiq Mountain intervals. Vertical mineralogical variations are however fairly low based
on the available core data and well logs. Therefore, the Diyab is a fairly unique source rock formation in
terms of mineralogy compared to other shale plays as most of them contain much lower carbonate contents
and higher quartz and clay contents, and often display strong vertical variability (Figure 5).
6 SPE-197352-MS

Figure 5—(Left) Bulk mineralogical composition of 75 core samples on a normalised compositional ternary
diagram of the silts (approximated as quartz+feldspars), total carbonates (calcite+dolomite), and total clays+micas;
(Right) Comparison of the studied Diyab core samples with the ranges of mineralogical compositions of other
shale plays: Niobrara shales (El Ghonimy, 2015), Vaca Muerta shales (in-house core study of Total, unpublished),
Eagle Ford shales (Mullen, 2010), Barnett shales (Loucks and Ruppel, 2007), Woodford shales (Gupta et al., 2012).

In terms of mechanical behavior, the high carbonate and low clay contents of the Diyab are expected to
induce favourable brittle properties, including the most clay-rich intervals of Hanifa and Jubaila. In other
shale plays, the most favorable intervals for hydraulic fracturing often have to be carefully selected to avoid
ductile behavior induced by high clay content.

Petrographical Observations of the Main Lithofacies

Most of the studied core samples were also observed by optical microscopy by Lab B (39 thin sections from
the well 1V) and Lab A (14 thin sections from the well 2V). They consist of skeletal calcareous wackestones
to mudstone and a few argillaceous lime mudstones (Figure 6). No to very limited macro-porosity is visible
by optical microscopy.

Figure 6—Petrographical microphotographs obtained for 4 samples from the Well-2V.

SPE-197352-MS 7

Quantification of Porosity and Organic Matter by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Thirteen core plugs from well W2V were studied by Lab C using a multiple-resolution imaging workflow
allowing to measure and characterise porosity at the core, plug, and micropore scale. X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) and micro X-ray tomography (µ-CT) projections were first used to identify homogeneous areas
within the core plugs. For each sample, a selected 2D area was extracted and polished with a broad ion beam
milling system resulting in a finely polished 2D area suitable for quantitative SEM analysis of organic matter
and porosity. After ion polishing, a 2D SEM image of each polished area was acquired at a resolution of 250
nm/pixel on a Zeiss SEM system using simultaneous energy selective backscatter electron and secondary
electron detectors. 2D SEM images of up to 10 smaller areas were then acquired at a resolution of 10 nm/
pixel. Image processing was used to determine for each of them the total volume of porosity visible by SEM,
solid organic matter (OM), high density minerals, and matrix grains. Clay bound water volume cannot be
resolved from SEM images and gets counted as part of the clay mineral volume during image analysis.
The total SEM porosity can therefore be considered as porosity available for free water or hydrocarbons
(effective porosity PhiE). The porosity was then further analysed to quantify the volume of OM-hosted
porosity (PHI_OM) and mineral-associated porosity (intergranular plus intragranular).
Results have shown that although the mineralogical composition of the studied samples is fairly
homogeneous, their solid organic matter content and porosity can vary greatly from one sample to another
with a large impact on reservoir quality (Figure 7). In particular, some of the OM-rich samples (sample#12
in Figure 7) present poor reservoir quality with very limited porosity within the organic matter (Phi_OM
<0.5%) while some others present good reservoir quality with both high OM content and high proportion
of porosity within the OM (sample#8 in Figure 7).

Figure 7—Examples of 2D SEM images and porosity data obtained for 6 samples at a resolution
of 10 nm/pixel and upscaled data obtained for the larger polished areas at 250 nm resolution.
Brine saturated NMR porosity values obtained at the same depths are given for comparison.
8 SPE-197352-MS

In addition, as already observed for other shale plays (e.g. Perry et al., 2017), the total porosity determined
by SEM (PhiE_SEM) in the studied Diyab samples is systematically lower than the total porosity measured
by NMR on brine saturated plugs (PhiT_NMR) and the difference between PhiT_NMR and PhiE_SEM
is correlated with the total clay content of the studied samples (Figure 8). As stated earlier, this is due to
the fact that the resolution of SEM imaging is not sufficient to discriminate the clay-bound water and it is
not counted as pore space. The Phi_OM may also be underestimated by SEM as very small pores (<10nm)
cannot be resolved.

Figure 8—(A) Comparison of the total porosity measured by NMR on brine saturated
samples with the total porosity determined by SEM image analysis, and (B) Comparison
of the difference between PhiT_NMR and PhiE_SEM with the total clay content.

As a consequence, the identification of intervals with high Phi_OM by SEM imaging is crucial as high
TOC and high PhiT_NMR values are not necessary indicating good reservoir quality.

Residual Petroleum Potential and Thermal Maturity

Sample set and methods. To assess the present-day organic richness and residual petroleum potential of
the Diyab Formation, samples were analysed by various laboratories using LECO and pyrolysis techniques
(Espitalié et al., 1986; behar et al., 2001). For well 1V, two sample sets are available and used for the scope
of this study. The first set, analysed by Lab A, is comprised of a total of 109 solvent-extractd plug samples
[(Jubaila (58); Hanifa (39) and Tuwaiq mountain (12)]. The second set, analysed by Lab B, is comprised of
a total of 39 core samples [(Jubaila (17); Hanifa (18); Tuwaiq Mountain (4)]. For well 2V, a total of 60 core
samples [(Jubaila (24); Hanifa (4) and Tuwaiq Mountain (32)] analysed by Lab C are also available.
In addition to Rock-Eval pyrolysis Tmax values, organic petrology was applied to assess the level of
thermal maturity of the Diyab Formation. Solid bitumen reflectance (BR0) measurements were made under
reflected light on polished thick-sections from eleven samples from well 1V [(Jubaila (3) and Hanifa (8)] and
three samples from well 2V covering the Tuwaiq Mountain unit. Vitrinite (VR0) reflectance measurements
were only made on three samples from well 1V [(Jubaila (2) and Hanifa (1)].
Present-day Organic Richness and Residual Petroleum Potential. The present-day organic carbon
richness, expressed by measured total organic carbon contents (TOC) for the Diyab Formation at wells 1V
and 2V are displayed in Figure 9a-b. Overall, there are stratigraphic variations in TOC contents that could
be attributed to both differences in organofacies (potential dilution by interbedded organic-lean sediments)
and different degrees of thermal cracking of organic matter.
SPE-197352-MS 9

Figure 9—Total organic carbon (TOC) and potential generative potential (S2) logs of the Diyab
Formation at Well-1V (a) and Well-2V (b); Hydrogen index versus Tmax showing the thermal
maturity and residual potential and of the Diyab Formation at Well-1V (c) and Well-2V (d)

TOC values of samples from the Jubaila unit range from < 0.5 to < 3.5% (average: 1%) at well 1V and
from < 0.5 to < 1.5% at well 2V. Higher TOC contents were measured for the intermediate Hanifa unit at
both wells 1V (up to 5%) and 2V (up to 6%). The underlying Tuwaiq Mountain Formation displays similar
TOC contents to those measured for the Jubaila unit at well 1V, but much higher contents (up to 8%) with
an average of 2.5% at well 2V.
Similar trends were observed when comparing the residual petroleum potential (S2) measured for the
three lithostratigraphic units of the Diyab Formation (Figure 9a-b). Both Hanifa and Tuwaiq Mountain units
have relatively good residual petroleum potential translated by S2 values up to 1.5 and 3 mg/g rock at wells
1V and 2V, respectively. In contrast, the Jubaila unit has poor residual petroleum potiential with an average
of less than 0.5 mg/g rock at both wells that could be assigned to originally organic-lean sediments.
Thermal Maturity. Rock-Eval Tmax values measured to assess the thermal maturity level of samples from
the Diyab Formation exhibit a wide range (Figure 9c-d). This is mainly explained by the high frequency
of samples with flat S2 peak (low S2 values) at the top of which Tmax values are estimated. Additional
interference from oil-based drilling mud could also affect the reliability of Tmax values. Following a quality
check of pyrograms, some Tmax values higher than 450°C however, suggest an advanced maturity level for
the three stratigraphic units. Such interpretation is in agreement with previous findings that suggest that
The Diyab Formation lies within the gas generation window for most of onshore Abu Dhabi (Al-Suwaidi
et al., 2000).
Although it is widely accepted that the Diyab Formation contains gas, but mainly oil-prone marine
kerogen (offshore Abu Dhabi); the hydrogen index (HI) measured for samples from both wells 1V and 2V
10 SPE-197352-MS

do not allow kerogen type assessement given their high maturity level. Accordingly, the measured (HI)
values (Figure 9c-d) represent present-day values and do not consider kerogen quality degradation with
thermal maturation and subsequent hydrocarbon generation.
Further insights on thermal maturity levels reached by the Diyab Formation within the two investigated
wells were provided by means of organic petrology performed by Lab B for well 1V and by Lab C
for well 2V (Figure 10). Petrographically, samples from the three lithostratigraphic units of the Diyab
Formation are dominated by amorphous organic matter occuring mainly as organic streaks parallel to
bedding plane (Figure 10a-b). Non-fluorescent amorphinites and solid bitumen (Figure 10c-d) contents
represent volumetrically up to 100% of the total maceral composition (measured on mineral matter free
basis). Vitrinite and inertinite particles occur only in minor amounts (traces) in the studied samples (10e-f).
For well 1V, vitrinite reflectance (VR0) measured (when present and properly identified) for two samples
from the Jubaila unit (1.12 to 1.15%) and one sample from the underlying Hanifa unit (1.25%) indicate
late thermal maturity within the wet gas window. Solid bitumen reflectance (BR0) mean values measured
for eleven samples vary from 1.07 to 1.88%. Using the Jacob's (1989) equation, these translate into 1.06 to
1.56 % vitrinite reflectance equivalent (%VRE) suggesting late mature organic matter within the wet gas
generation window for Jubaila unit (and upper section of the Hanifa unit) to post-mature organic matter
within the dry gas generation window for the Hanifa unit.

Figure 10—Photomicrographs in incident white light (a and c-f) and UV fluorescent light (b). V: vitrinite; Am: micronized
amorphinite bands; I: inertinite; P: pyrite; C: carbonate showing rock matrix composed mainly of carbonates (with
minor quartz and clay minerals) and maceral contents in samples from Jubaila and Hanifa units within the Well-1V well.

Similarly, the maceral composition of three samples from the Tuwaiq Mountain Unit within well 2V is
dominated by solid bitumen that fills small pores of an interconnected network. Vitrinite is absent in the
three samples, but mean BR0 values (based on 24 to 50 measurements) range from 1.38 to 1.60%. Using
the Jacob's (1989) equation, these translate into 1.25 to 1.39 %VRE suggesting late mature organic matter
within the wet (to dry) gas generation window.
However, it should be noted that these maturity values are based particularly on the reflectance of solid
bitumen components and are only approximate ranges as (1) these particles are sometimes very small and
reflectance values may be somewhat underestimated and (2) some of these particles may be (partly) the
SPE-197352-MS 11

product of thermal sulphate reduction processes (Reservoir temperature > 80°C) and thus whether or not
their reflectance could be used to assess thermal maturity remains questionable.

SRV (Stimulated Rock Volume) and Geomechanics

Geomechanics needs to be integrated into any unconventional development methodology in order to
assess the potential to create an efficient SRV (Stimulated Rock Volume). This is done by having
knowledge of the initial stress state and rock mechanical properties to allow for an understanding of
the geomechanical behavior of formation during hydraulic fracturing, but also during production. This
geomechanical knowledge also helps to optimise well orientation and reduce wellbore stability issues.
To assess the SRV geometry the following factors were investigated through lab experiments and 1D
Geomechanical Modelling: fracability of the rock, stimulated rock volume (SRV) complexity, containment
of a hydraulic fracture, and fracture conductivity.

• Fracability, which is controlled mainly by rock elastic properties and strength, (minimum
horizontal stress and stress regime). Among parameters involved in the fracability of the rocks
(which are beyond the scope of this paper), in particular, the stress regime is one of the critical
factors to be assessed carefully for Diyab Formation. Generally, according to the magnitudes
of stress principal components, the stresses are classified into three different regimes known as
Andersonian classification (Zoback, 2007): Normal Fault Stress Regime or NFR (σv > σhmin >
σHmax), Strike-Slip Fault Stress Regime or SSFR (σHmax > σv > σhmin) and Reverse Fault Stress
Regime or RFR (σHmax > σhmin > σv) regime. For normal stress (in non-tectonic regions) and
strike–slip stress regimes (tectonic regions), a hydraulic fracture will develop vertically, whereas
in a reverse (or thrust) fault stress regime, a hydraulic fracture will develop horizontally. Reverse
fault stress regime is a geological and tectonic context where fracturing should be avoided or at
least controlled, as the initiated fractures will be horizontal and consequently the area drained by
the fracture will be limited.
• SRV complexity, which defines the ability to develop a complex stimulated rock volume. Natural
fractures and stress anisotropy are important parameters affecting the SRV complexity. Natural
fractures could form a reactivated network that could be unpropped or partially propped and will
facilitate the transport of the fluids from the matrix to the hydraulic fractures. However, geological
characterisation of natural fractures is also necessary (in addition to geomechanical knowledge)
to investigate precisely whether or not those features can be reactivated and how their activation
could enhance the SRV complexity.
• Containment of a hydraulic fracture is controlled mainly by vertical variation (contrast) of stress,
but also by the presence of laminations/bedding planes and contrast of material properties.
• Fracture conductivity defines the ability of hydraulic fractures to remain open hydraulically under
increased in-situ effective stresses during production.
Geomechanical Laboratory and In-situ Experiments. To characterise the rock mechanical properties,
it was necessary to perform geomechanical experiments in the lab on the plugs recovered from the cores
covering the Jubaila, Hanifa and Tuwaiq formations from two exploration wells (1V and 2V). A large
number of advanced geomechanical measurements have been conducted on these plugs by two different
laboratories (Lab B and Lab D) including ultrasonic P and S velocity measurements, single-stage triaxial
compression test, multi-stage triaxial compression and unconfined compression tests and also Brazilian test
and Biot coefficient measurement at ambient condition.
The full description of experiment results are out of scope of this paper, however, it should be noted
that the results of the triaxial tests (see the example in Figure 11a) indicated high (to extremely high) static
and dynamic Young's moduli (Estatic =3 ~ 8 Mpsi and Edynamic Vp&Vs of plug = 7 ~11 Mpsi). The static Poisson
12 SPE-197352-MS

ratios range from 0.23 to 0.33 and the dynamic ones range from 0.27 to 0.32. The results of the lab studies
also indicates that the Diyab source rock in the UAE possess a higher stiffness (elastic moduli) than the
average shale gas rock in the United States. This observation was also reported by Izadi et al. (2018). The
high static moduli should be considered as it could have some challenging consequences on the hydraulic
fracture design and fracture geometry. In addition, the triaixal tests showed some anisotropy of elastic
moduli (Figure 11a) and this anisotropy seems to be more noticeable in Tuwaiq Mountain formation than
the other formations (Jubaila and Hanifa). This should be investigated further and taken into account in the
fracture geometry estimation.

Figures 11—a) Triaxial test by Lab B on the horizontal and vertical plugs from the core of well
W2V: The samples exhibited pseudo-brittle failure, showing post-failure strain softening to a
residual stress condition. Young's modulus (for H and V orientations) was calculated from this
test. b) A static-dynamic relationship proposed for a set of core plugs from the well 2V (by Lab B).

From ultrasonic velocity measurements, static-dynamic relationships have been proposed. Figure 11b
plots by Lab B (on a set of plugs from core in well 2V). This relationship was very helpful to convert the
dynamic moduli to static moduli. Similar relations were proposed by Lab D for the plugs from the core
retrieved from the well 1V. However, static-dynamic relationships per facies (or rock type) using the results
of both wells 1V and 2V are yet to be established. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) values range
from 8000-15000psi, friction angles ranges from 35° to 40° and cohesion varies between 5000-6500psi.
The tensile strength ranges from 500-2500psi. Similarly, a full characterisation of mechanical properties
per facies is yet to be performed.
Stress is another geomechanical parameter that has to be measured in any unconventional play. Stress
values (minimum stress) cannot be measured in the lab and has to be measured in-situ. This was done for our
study via injection tests or mini fracture tests on the wells 1V, 2H, 3H, and 4H allowing for stress estimation
in the Jubaila, Hanifa and Tuwaiq formations. High stress gradients were interpreted from injection tests
(0.95-1.05 psi/ft) which are to be reconfirmed in future wells. Pore pressure is another geomechanical-
SPE-197352-MS 13

related parameter that has to be determined. Only one of injection tests (in Tuwaiq Mountain formation)
allowed for a reliable estimation of pore pressure while the others were unsuccessful. The results of all
measurements have been used in the calibration of 1D Mechanical Earth Models (1D MEM).
1D Mechanical Earth Models (1D MEM). Lab measurements and in-situ tests allow for characterisation
of rocks only at certain depths. However, the characterisation of rock geomechanical properties is necessary
along the whole interval of interest and to do so a 1D MEM was built using well 2V well log data.
In particular using sonic and density logs to compute dynamic elastic properties. The static-dynamic
relationships developed from the lab measurements (by Labs B and D) were used to convert the dynamic
moduli to static moduli. The static elastic moduli values were calibrated with the measurements obtained
from the labs. Other rock properties such as UCS, tensile strength and Biot coefficient have been estimated
using the relevant correlations and have been calibrated with the lab measurements (Figure 12). Core data
from both wells (1V and 2V) were used for the calibration of mechanical properties in the 1D MEM.

Figure 12—1D Mechanical Earth Models (1D MEM) built based on W2V well log data displaying computed rock
mechanical properties and strengths. Lab test results from both wells of W1V and W2V are plotted as well and
used for calibration of the 1D MEM. Formation tops are based on an internal definition for integration purposes.

After calculation of rock properties, stress calculations were conducted. Vertical stress was computed
using RHOB log data extrapolated to the surface. Horizontal stresses were computed using the poroelastic
equations (see Figure 13). Due to the uncertainty of pore pressure, different pore pressure scenarios were
considered while one scenario was considered as most likely scenario (Figure 13). It should be noted
that wellbore image logs, injection and mini fracture tests and drilling reports were used to calibrate the
stress model. The results show that the formations are very highly stressed (0.95-1.15psi/ft) with stress
regimes changing from reverse to strike slip fault regimes in the targeted formations. The stress anisotropy
changes for different scenarios. The lower stress anisotropy cases might lead to higher SRV complexity and
potentially better production.
14 SPE-197352-MS

Figure 13—1D Mechanical Earth Models (1D MEM) stress models with different pore pressure scenarios:
(a) Base case (b) Pore pressure = base case −10% pore pressure, (c) Pore pressure = base case −20%,
(d) 0.75 psi/ft in Jubaila increasing to 0.9 psi/ft in Tuwaiq Mountain. The minimum horizontal stress
values have been calibrated with the results of injection tests in Jubaila, Hanifa and Tuwaiq. Black dots
represent injection tests. Formation tops are based on an internal definition for integration purposes.

As seen in Figure 13, the stress model exhibits certain stress contrast vertically with the alternation of
strike slip and reverse fault regimes. The low stress sections are better areas for the target landing selection as
the hydraulic fracture is more likely to be contained. However, because of limited thickness in the intervals
of interest, numerical modelling of hydraulic fracturing for different potential landing points is necessary
to confirm the fracture containment.

Natural Fracture Characterisation and Reactivation Under Present-day Stress Field

In non-conventional reservoirs, horizontal drain should be drilled with an optimised orientation in order
to generate transverse hydraulic fractures (or almost transverse) and minimise wellbore stability issues.
However, the role of natural fractures can also be important since the interactions between the natural and
the hydraulic fractures can significantly enhance the efficiency of hydraulic fracture treatment (Gale et
al, 2007). Under the present day stress field (at steady state and/or at hydraulic fracturation conditions),
natural fractures can be reactivated in shear mode and subsequently enhance permeability according to the
orientations and the values of the effective principal stresses as well as the Anderson stress regime (Barton
et al, 1997).
It is therefore of prime importance to characterise the natural fracture network (orientation, typology,
frequency, spatial distribution etc.) and to evaluate which of these fractures can be critically stressed before
and/or during the hydraulic fracture treatment.
Natural Fracture Characterisation. Three horizontal wells (2H, 3H and 4H) have been logged with
resistivity borehole imaging. Two wells have been logged with wireline tools and one with a logging while
drilling (LWD) tool. The quality of the acquisition and interpretation have been documented as good. Each
well samples the fracture network in different reservoir layers (see Figure 14).
SPE-197352-MS 15

Figure 14—Terzaghi corrected fracture frequency along well trajectories and for all fracture types and orientations.

Regarding fracture orientations (Figure 15), the following comments can be made:

• Fracture orientations are consistent in the three wells and in line with the regional structural
framework;
• Both conductive and resistive fractures have been interpreted with the latter being dominant.
However, from cores in offset wells, calcite (resistive) and pyrite (conductive) cements have been
observed suggesting that almost all fractures are closed;
• Two main orientation sets can be defined: NE-SW and NW-SE, the latter being largely dominant
despite the NW-SE orientations of the wells which should have favored intersection with NE-SW
planes.

Figure 15—Stereoplots of fracture orientations in the combined three wells according to different criteria.

The quantitative analysis of fracture density and spatial organization suggests that:

• Average fracture densities (corrected for the sampling bias related to the well trajectory), vary
between 0.03 and 0.6 ft−1 according to the stratigraphic layers targeted. Layering can thus provide
the basis of mechanical units. Wells 2H and 4H have been landed in high GR layer (high TOC),
but poorly fractured, whereas well 3H has been landed in a low GR layer, i.e. more fractured layer;
16 SPE-197352-MS

• In horizontal sections (Figure 14), fractures are uniformly distributed in well 2H and in clusters in
wells 3H and 4H with cluster spacings varying between 100ft and 600ft.
From this natural fracture characterisation analysis, we can assume that the natural fracture permeability
remains very low and cannot participate to well productivity unless reactivated through the hydraulic
fracture treatment.
Natural Fracture Reactivation Under Critical Stress Conditions. From induced tensile fractures and
breakouts in image log data, the orientation of the present day maximum horizontal stress (σHmax) is
N055E. Average present day stress and pore pressure values have been determined in the three horizontally
targeted reservoir layers from the 1D-MEM model (Figure 16, left). Vertically, under Anderson conditions,
the stress regime in the three layers varies from reverse to strike-slip. In the two bottom layers pore pressure
is close to σhmin. The internal friction angles defining the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria under the principal
effective stress conditions vary from 39 to 30° according to layers.

Figure 16—Stress evolution with depth around the three horizontal wells and impact for critically stressed fractures.

Using the method defined by Barton et al (1997), the natural fracture orientations which will be critically
stressed (CS) or non-critically stressed (N CS) can be defined at steady state conditions and after the
hydraulic fracture treatment (Pp=Minimum stress, Figure 16, right). We can note that, no reservoir layer
(formation) is under critically stressed conditions before hydraulic fracturing. After fracturing, however, a
SPE-197352-MS 17

large number of fractures can be reactivated in all three reservoir (formation) layers, but particularly for the
deepest one (Tuwaiq Mountain) in strike-slip conditions. These results thus suggest that a complex SRV
can be expected.

Integrating Reservoir and Completion Quality Data

An essential part of an integrated workflow of reservoir characterisation involves the comparison of the
various scientific perspectives and data streams. A simple way of screening the reservoir for finding the best
intervals is to display a summary of reservoir quality (Figure 17) as well as completion quality (Figure 18)
based on simple criteria or cutoffs, which are founded on the experience in the area as in addition to other
play analogs. These displays help with the evaluation of the reservoir in terms of its hydrocarbon content
and its deliverability, as well as of its completion and stimulation quality, with the purpose of selecting the
most appropriate target intervals.

Figure 17—Reservoir quality summary. From left to right, the columns represent the following: formation tops based
on internal definition for integration purposes; core-calibrated, log-based mineralogy (v/v); TOC (v/v); kerogen
identification by resistivity/density and resistivity/compressional velocity cutoffs; effective porosity (v/v); total
porosity (v/v); bulk density (g/cc); kerogen/porosity crossover (v/v); and natural fracture density (fractures/ft).
18 SPE-197352-MS

Figure 18—Completion quality summary. From left to right, the columns represent the following: formation tops based on
internal definition for integration purposes; core-calibrated, log-based mineralogy (v/v); TOC (v/v); effective porosity (v/
v); kerogen/porosity crossover (v/v); Young's modulus (MMpsi); Young's modulus/Poisson's ratio crossover; vertical and
minimum horizontal stresses and pore pressure (psi); stress regime crossover (psi); and natural fracture density (fractures/ft).

Figure 17 resumes the most relevant screening criteria for reservoir quality: Mineralogy, TOC, kerogen
identification by resistivity/density and resistivity/compressional velocity cutoffs, effective porosity, total
porosity, bulk density; kerogen/porosity crossover and natural fracture density are represented in the figure
with their respective cutoffs. In addition, selected FIB-SEM photomicrographs of several intervals are
shown in the lower-right portion of the figure. The color code means that the green-colored intervals are
more positive and the red-colored intervals are more negative. Care should be taken in order to avoid
interpreting the red sections as a no-go, as the evaluation of the reservoir quality should be done qualitatively.
Each individual measurement is not a cut-off for the entire section, but it must be interpreted as part of a
whole. For example, TOC is normally used to select the best source rock reservoir zone, however, it is not
necessarily the zone with the best reservoir quality, as it might have very low porosity or the porosity might
not be in the organic matter, but interclay and unconnected porosity. In the Hanifa formation (Figure 17,
top) effective porosity, for instance, is not necessarily directly correlated with TOC content. The high TOC
content intervals tend to have medium porosity (3-4%) but the largest porosity is found in the sections with
slightly more clay content (thus less carbonate content) on top and bottom of the TOC-rich interval. The
crossover of kerogen content versus porosity shown on the right side of Figure 17 also helps determine which
intervals have favourable conditions in both criteria. In the Tuwaiq Mountain formation, however, there
is a direct relationship between kerogen content and porosity, the intervals having high TOC content also
having the largest porosity. However, these are less regular and show within thin streaks of good reservoir
quality, interbedded with others of low quality.
SPE-197352-MS 19

In addition, natural fracture density is an important consideration, as explained previously, both in terms
of reservoir and completion quality. Fracture density is an important criteria to take into account in the event
natural fractures can be stimulated so that they contribute significantly to the flow. In both the Hanifa and
Tuwaiq Mountain formations, the largest natural fracture density corresponds to the carbonate-rich, TOC-
poor intervals, the bottom part having the largest fracture density.
Figure 18 summarizes completion quality criteria. In this reservoir, which is predominantly very stiff and
has very high pore pressure, the best intervals in terms of completion quality are those with moderate Young's
modulus (approximately between 3 and 7 MMpsi), with a high Young's modulus/Poisson's ratio. Stress in
this case is influenced quite significantly by the large anisotropy in mechanical properties, even though
it is a carbonate-rich reservoir. The most favourable intervals correspond to zones of the reservoir with a
strike-slip stress regime (more supportive of vertical fracture propagation). On the other hand, intervals
having very high Young's modulus tend to be in the reverse stress regime, which implies an increased risk
of horizontal or T-shape propagation of the hydraulic fractures. These might cause the loss of production
from the part of the reservoir above the T-shape as well as proppant placement and screen out problems.
Finally, reservoir and completion quality can be combined for target selection and well placement.

Conclusions and Future Work

The Upper Jurassic Diyab Formation onshore UAE, represents an emerging unconventional gas play with
high potential. By bringing a fully integrated approach, characterising the controls on its prospectivity
can be well understood. The favourable mineralogy, high pore pressure, natural fracture network and geo-
mechanics all play key roles in offsetting the relative low porosities of the play. This type of multi-facetted
methodology to evaluate the Diyab formation is vital to unlock its true potential. Already, encouraging
results have been observed to warrant further exploration that will aid to constrain uncertainties, confirm
assumptions and allow for improvements.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank both Total and ADNOC Unconventional Department management for
their support and permission to publish the results in this paper. We would also like to thank Weatherford,
Schlumberger, Halliburton, InGrain (a Halliburton service), and Baker Hughes (a GE company) labs for the
various data that was used in this paper.

References
Al-Husseini, M. I.1997. Jurassic Sequence Stratigraphy of the Western and Southern Arabian Gulf. GeoArabia 2 (4):
361–382.
Alsharhan, A.S. and Kendall, C.G.1986. Precambrian to Jurassic Rocks of the Arabian Gulf and Adjacent Areas: Their
Facies, Depositional Setting and Hydrocarbon Habitat. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 70 (8):
977–1002.
Al-Suwaidi, A.S. and Aziz, S.K.2002. Sequence Stratigraphy of Oxfordian and Kimmeridgian Shelf Carbonate Reservoirs,
Offshore Abu Dhabi. GeoArabia 7 (1): 31–44.
Al-Suwaidi, A.S., Taher, A.K., Alsharhan, A.S. and Salah, M.G. 2000. Stratigraphy and Geochemistry of Upper Jurassic
Diyab Formation, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. In Alsharhan, A.S. and Scott, R.W. (Eds.), Middle East Models of Jurassic/
Cretaceous Systems, SEPM Special Publication 69: 249–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.2110/pec.00.69.0249.
Alyousuf, T., Algharbi, W., Algeer, R. and Samsudin, A.2011. Source Rock Characterization of the Hanifa and Tuwaiq
Mountain Formations in the Arabian Basin, Based on Rock-eval Pyrolysis and the Modified Delta Log R Method.
Paper presented at the SPE/DGS Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia,
15-18 May. SPE-149119-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/149119-MS.
Ayres, M.G., Bilal, M., Jones R.W., Slentz, L.W., Tartir, M., and Wilson, A.O.1982. Hydrocarbon Habitat in Main
Producing Areas, Saudi Arabia. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 66 (1): 1–9.
Azer, S.R.1989. Preliminary Investigation Into Possible Stratigraphic Traps, Offshore Abu Dhabi. Paper presented at the
SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 11-14 March. SPE-17999-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/17999-MS.
20 SPE-197352-MS

Baig, M.Z.Van Laer, P., Leyrer, K. Makrachev, G., Al Marzooqi, H., Al Suwaidi, S., Raina, I., and Dasgupta, S.
2017. Assessing Reservoir Quality of the Diyab Source Rock in UAE. Paper presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exposition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November. SPE-188433-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/188433-MS.
Barton, C.A., Moos, D., Peska, P. and Zoback, M.A.1997. Utilizing Image Data to Determine the Complete Stress Tensor:
Application to Permeability Anisotropy and Wellbore Stability. The Log Analyst 38 (6): 21–33.
Behar, F., Beaumont, V., and Penteado, H.L. De B. 2001. Rock-Eval 6 Technology: Performances and Developments. Oil
& Gas Science and Technology 56 (2): 111–134.
Beydoun, Z.R. 1988. The Middle East: Regional Geology and Petroleum Resources. Scientific Press Ltd., UK, 292p.
Bhatt P., Zhunussova, G., Uluyuz, S., Baig, M., Makarychev, G., Mendez, A. and Povstyanova, M.2018. Integrated
Reservoir Characterization for Successful Hydraulic Fracturing in Organic-rich Unconventional Plays: A Case Study
From the UAE. Paper presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exposition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 12-15 November. SPE-192845-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/192845-MS.
De Matos, J.E., and Hulstrand, R.F. 1995. Regional Characteristics and Depositional Sequences of the Oxfordian and
Kimmeridgian, Abu Dhabi. In, M.I. Al-Husseini (Ed.), Middle East Petroleum Geosciences, GEO’94. Gulf PetroLink,
Bahrain, v. 1, p. 346–356.
Droste, H.1990. Depositional Cycles and Source Rock Development in an Epeiric Intra-platform Basin: The Hanifa
Formation of the Arabian Peninsula. Sedimentary Geology 69 (3-4): 281–296.
El Ghonimy R.S. (2015) Petrophysics, Geochemistry, Mineralogy, and Storage Capacity of the Niobrara Formation in the
Aristocrat PC H11-07 Core, Wattenberg Field, Denver Basin, Colorado. Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
MSc Report, 161p.
Eltom, H. A, Rankey E.C., Hasiotis, S.T., Gonzalez, L. A, and Cantrell D.A.2017. Impact of Upwelling on Heterozoan,
Biosiliceous, and Organic-rich Deposits: Jurassic (Oxfordian) Hanifa Formation, Saudi Arabia. Journal of Sedimentary
Research 87 (12): 1–24.
Espitalié J., Deroo G. and Marquis, F. 1986. Rock-Eval Pyrolysis and its Applications (Part Three), Oil and Gas Science
and Technology –Rev. IFP 41 (1): 73–89. https://doi.org/10.2516/ogst:1986003.
Gale, J. F. W., Reed, R.M. and Holder, J.2007. Natural Fractures in the Barnett Shale and Their Importance for Hydraulic
Fracture Treatments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 91 (4): 603–622.
Gupta N., Rai C.S., Sondergeld C.H. (2012) Integrated petrophysical characterization of the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma.
SPWLA 53rd Annual Logging Symposium, 16-20 June, Cartagena, Colombia. Paper SPWLA-2012-250, 35p.
Izadi, G., Cruz, L., Franquet, J., Hoeink, T., Van Laer. P. 2018. Mitigating Risks in Hydraulic Fracture Design for
a Complex Carbonate Reservoir. Paper presented at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and
Exhibition, Woodlands, Texas, USA, 23-25 January. SPE-189883-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/189883-MS.
Jacob, H., 1989. Classification, Structure, Genesis and Practical Importance of Natural Solid Oil Bitumen
("Migrabitumen"). International Journal of Coal Geology 11 (1): 65–79.
Johnson, C.A., Hauget, T., Al-Menhali, S., Bin Sumaidaa, S., Sabin, B., and West, B. 2005. Structural Styles and Tectonic
Evolution of Onshore and Offshore Abu Dhabi, UAE. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21-23 November. IPTC-10646-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-10646-MS.
Loucks R.G., Ruppel S.C., 2007. Mississippian Barnett Shale: Lithofacies and depositional setting of a deep-water shale-
gas succession in the Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG Bulletin, 91, 579–601.
McGuire, M.D., Koepnick, R.P., Markello, J.R., Stockton, M.L., Waite, L.E., Kompanik, G.S., Al-Shammery, M.J. and
Al-Amoudi, M.O.1993. Importance of Sequence Stratigraphic Concepts in Development of Reservoir Architecture in
Upper Jurassic Grainstones, Hadriya and Hanifa Reservoirs, Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the Middle East Oil
Show, Bahrain, 3-6 April. SPE-25578-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/25578-MS.
Meyer, F.O. and Price, R.C. 1993. A New Arab-D Depositional Model, Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at
the Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 3-6 April. SPE-25576-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/25576-MS.
Mullen J. (2010) Petrophysical Characterization of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas. Canadian Society for
Unconventional Gas, Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 19-21 October 2010. CSUG/SPE Paper 138145, 19p.
Murris, R.J.1980. The Middle East: Stratigraphic Evolution and Oil Habitat. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin 64 (5): 597–618.
Noufal A., Obaid, K., and Ali, M.Y. 2016a. Abu Dhabi Stress Map, UAE. Paper presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exposition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November. SPE-182919-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/182919-MS.
Noufal A., Obaid, K., and Ali, M.Y. 2016b. Tectonic Map of Abu Dhabi, UAE. Paper presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exposition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November. SPE-183108-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/183108-MS.
SPE-197352-MS 21

Perry S.E., Walls J., Rider T., 2017. Integration of core data, digital rock analysis, magnetic resonance, and well logs
for improved unconventional resource characterization. Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, Austin,
Texas, 24-26 July, 2017. URTeC Paper 2670001, 13p.
Vahrenkamp, V.C.Van Laer, P., Franco, B., Celentano, M. A, Grelaud, C., and Razin, P. 2015. Late Jurassic to Cretaceous
Source Rock Prone Intra-Shelf Basins of the Eastern Arabian Plate – Interplay between Tectonism, Global Anoxic
Events and Carbonate Platform Dynamics. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Doha, Qatar, 7-9 December. IPTC-18470-MS. https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-18470-MS.
Van Laer, P., Leyrer, K. and Vahrenkamp V. 2014. Mesozoic Extensional Events in Eastern Arabia, Geo-2014, Bahrain.
Yin, S.Z., Bai, G.P., Gao, L. and Xu, C.Y. 2018. A Facies and Palaeogeography-based Approach for Analysis of Petroleum
Systems in United Arab Emirates. Journal of Palaeogeography 7 (2): 168–178.
Ziegler, M.A.2001. Late Permian to Holocene Paleofacies Evolution of the Arabian Plate and its Hydrocarbon
Occurrences. GeoArabia 6 (3): 445–504.
Zoback, D.M., 2007. Reservoir Geomechanics, Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2
8RU, UK, Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York, 464 p.