Carbonate petrophysical rock typing: integrating geological

attributes and petrophysical properties while linking with

dynamic behaviour
MARK SKALINSKI1* & JEROEN A. M. KENTER1,2
1
Chevron Energy Technology Company, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road,
San Ramon, CA 94583-2324, USA
2
Present address: ConocoPhillips, 600 N Dairy Ashford, Houston, TX 77079, USA
*Corresponding author (e-mail: jeroen.kenter@conocophillips.com)

Abstract: Carbonate rock typing provides a vehicle to propagate petrophysical properties through
association with geological attributes and, therefore, is critical for distributing reservoir properties,
such as permeability and water saturation, in the reservoir model. The conventional approaches to
rock typing have significant gaps in incorporating diagenetic processes, transferring rock types
from core to log domain, accounting for fractures and using appropriate methodology to realisti-
cally distribute rock types in the static reservoir model. The workflow proposed in this paper
addresses these issues in a comprehensive way by determination of petrophysical rock types
(PRTs), which control static properties and dynamic behaviour of the reservoir, while optimally
linking to geological attributes (depositional and diagenetic) and their spatial interrelationships
and trends. This approach is novel for the fact that it: (1) integrates geological processes, petrophy-
sics and Earth modelling aspects of rock typing; (2) integrates core and log scales; and (3) provides
a flexible ‘road map’ from core to 3D model for variable data scenarios that can be updated with
progressive changes in data quality and quantity during the life cycle of an asset. This paper intro-
duces the rationale behind this workflow, and demonstrates its workings and agility through
deployment in two large carbonate fields.

Carbonate rock typing drives the quality of the dis-
tribution of petrophysical parameters in three-
dimensional (3D) Earth models and is fundamental
to reservoir characterization. Despite its recognized
importance, the oil industry is lacking a common
definition and standards for carbonate rock typing.
If the goal of carbonate rock typing is to properly
and realistically distribute log-derived reservoir
properties in 3D models, and to generate a spatial
distribution of appropriate rock types that control
oil-in-place and fluid flow, then most of the existing
rock typing definitions are not meeting this goal.
The main reasons for this gap are as follows:
† Depositional bias, which assumes that deposi-
tional facies are adequately representing reser-
voir properties, while, in fact, most carbonate
reservoirs are strongly influenced by diagenetic
modification. Even when diagenetic modifi-
cation is properly noted and included in the rock-
typing step, it is often ignored for reasons of
complexity in the spatial distribution stage,
which is usually driven by depositional trends.
† Lack of integration between rock type defini-
tions in the core domain and determinations in
the log domain, which are required to popu-
late static models. The current modelling prac-
tice is, still, suffering from a common lack of
knowledge and expertise at the interface of
geology and petrophysics
† Lack of a proper definition of the spatial pro-
perties of petrophysical rock types, resulting in
obscuring the spatial definition of rock types
and, hence, their distribution in the interwell
space. The relationship between petrophysical
properties (such as permeability and water sat-
uration) and geological attributes (such as depo-
sitional texture, diagenetic modification, and
their spatial trends and juxtaposition) are poorly
documented and/or understood, while no ade-
quate diagenetic analogues from outcrop or sub-
surface are available in the public domain.
† Biased focus on reservoir properties while ignor-
ing dynamic data. Most of the rock typing studies
are focused only on reservoir rock, ignoring per-
meability barriers/baffles that are important for
the flow modelling and definition of the flow
units in reservoir models.
Another consideration is that of scale. Rock types
are scale dependent and can be defined at: (1) the
pore scale using dual-energy computerized tom-
ography (CT) scan data (Walls et al. 2013); (2) the
core-plug scale using mercury injection capillary
pressure (MICP) data, routine core analysis (RCA
or conventional core analysis, CCAL) data and

From: Agar, S. M. & Geiger, S. (eds) 2015. Fundamental Controls on Fluid Flow in Carbonates: Current
Workflows to Emerging Technologies. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 406, 229– 259.
First published online May 30, 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP406.6
# The Geological Society of London 2015. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
230 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
petrographical thin sections (Amaefule et al. 1993;
Marzouk et al. 1998; Cantrell & Hagerty 2003;
Masalmeh & Jing 2004; Gomes et al. 2008; Hollis
et al. 2010); (3) the log scale (Cuddy 1998; Ye &
Rabiller 2000; Sagaaf & Nebrija 2003; Skalinski
et al. 2009); or (4) the flow-unit scale (Ebanks
et al. 1992; Gunter et al. 1997; Corbett & Potter
2004; Cortez & Corbett 2005; Kazemi et al.
2012). Several papers have made a serious attempt
to link different scales and data types (i.e. Vahren-
kamp et al. 2008; Zang et al. 2009); however, if
the ultimate goal is to populate 3D static and dyna-
mic models, then there is a scale challenge that has
not, yet, been addressed in a rigorous manner. The
workflow presented in this paper is integrating
core and log scale by defining rock types in the
core domain, and predicting/integrating in the log
domain. Further work is needed to develop rigor-
ous multiscale approaches that also integrate the
interwell/seismic scale. Rock typing is situated
right at the interface between the disciplines of
geology, petrophysics and engineering but gener-
ally is published mostly in petrophysical journals
and out of sight of the petroleum geologist. There-
fore, prior to introducing the new petrophysical
rock type (PRT) workflow, it is critical to review
the existing status quo in carbonate rock typing
practices and highlight those issues that the new
workflow attempts to mitigate. The present status
of carbonate rock typing can be summarized in
four different schemes. Table 1 summarizes the dif-
ferent schemes in terms of data needs, scale, and
suggested advantages and disadvantages that are
core for the rationale of developing the new rock
typing ‘road map’ that we present in this work.
Rock types based on mostly geological
(depositional) facies
Rock types here are defined as lithofacies and
associated attributes, what is commonly referred to
as depositional rock types (DRTs). This includes
pure textural classes (Dunham 1962; Embry &
Klovan 1971), generic pore types (Choquette &
Pray 1970) or combinations of Dunham/Embry –
Klovan classes with grain/pore size, which is rep-
resented by the popular Lucia classification (Lucia
1995). Such classifications relate to geologists’
classification of geological attributes, and are rela-
tively simple as they can be linked to depositional
environments and associated spatial distributions,
but are often not relevant to fluid flow as a result of
diagenetic modification. Rock fabric and inferred
pore types (Lucia 1983, 1995, 2007) can provide a
link between petrophysics and spatial geological
trends only if pore systems confirm the fabric
element definitions and are relatively uniform. This
is only valid for a subset of carbonate reservoirs
dominated by depositional or early diagenetic poros-
ity or where porosity modification resulted in mostly
fabric selective pore systems. However, in reservoirs
with complex and multimodal pore systems, the
classification fails to resolve the defined fabric
elements, and, as a result, fails to adequately char-
acterize porosity–permeability relationships (e.g.
Kenter et al. 2006; Johnson et al. 2010), hydraulic
flow units (Bust et al. 2011) or reservoir heterogen-
eity (Abbaszadeh et al. 2000). Although there are
examples of successful prediction of such fabric-
based rock types in the log domain (i.e. Bagheri
et al. 2005), this approach commonly lacks proper
prediction in the log domain in uncored wells/
intervals. One of the underlying reasons for the
Lucia classification falling short in complex pore
systems is the absence of capillary pressure in its
definition (Johnson et al. 2010; Chehrazi et al. 2011).
Rock types based on pore typing
Pore types defined using pore size and/or pore
throat size distributions are better tied to the flow
units and matrix permeability, but they might not
have the spatial guidance or trends for proper
spatial distribution in 3D models. Examples are
the Winland R35 method (Kolodzie 1980), the par-
titioning model by Ramakrishnan et al. (1999,
2001), the pore throat classification by Marzouk
et al. (1995) and Skalinski et al. (2005), or the
‘Rosetta Stone’ approach by Clerke et al. (2008).
The Winland R35 is based on the pore throat
radius corresponding to 35% of mercury (non-
wetting phase) saturation in mercury injection capil-
lary pressure (MICP) measurements as an indicator
of effective flow. Marzouk et al. (1998) partitioned
the carbonate pore system into three components
(micropores, mesopores and macropores). The
three components were adopted for porosity parti-
tioning in carbonates and are defined by their pore
throat radius as measured by MICP or air–water
centrifuge. However, the pore radii to define parti-
tioning cutoffs for pore classes are not consistent
between authors. For example, microporosity was
defined as pore throats below 0.1 (Chekani &
Kharrat 2009), 0.2 (Porras & Campos 2001), 0.3
(Marzouk et al. 1998; Skalinski et al. 2009), 0.5
(Arfi et al. 2006) or 2 mm (Hulea & Nicholls
2012). Marzouk et al. (1998) related pore types to
the Dunham textures for a Middle East reservoir
dominated by depositional attributes. However,
Waravur et al. (2005) did not observe a satisfactory
link between MICP-derived pore types and lithofa-
cies due to diagenetic modification. Clerke et al.
(2008) utilized the relationship between perme-
ability and Thomeer parameters (Thomeer 1983)
and demonstrated that permeability is most strongly
controlled by the largest pore modes (so-called
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 231

Table 1. Summary and comparison of current rock typing schemes including the scheme proposed in this paper

Method/author Data* Scale Plus Minus

DRT based
Dunham (1962) Core description Core Defines depositional Ignores diagenesis and pore types
texture
Lucia (1995, 2007) Core observations Core Link to depositional Ignores later diagenetic events and
trends and microporosity, large uncertainty
permeability in perm prediction, inferred pore
types

Pore type based

Choquette & Pray Core Core Genetic pore types No link to petrophysical properties
(1970) and spatial trends
MICP based (PTD, MICP Core Link to permeability and Prediction of pore type in log
R35, Pd) dynamic data domain, ignores pore throat
diameter .140 mm, no link to
spatial trends
NMR based NMR Log Log domain Pore size limitations, T2 might not
represent pore body size
Lønøy (2006) Thin sections Core Pore size and texture, No link to geological trends,
simple semi-quantitative porosity
Ahr (2008) Thin sections Core Link to genetic processes Core domain only

Integrated
Archie (1952) Core observations Core Practical well site Based on ‘visible’ porosity, no link
integration of geologic to spatial trends
and petrophysical
attributes
Hollis et al. (2010) DRT + DM + PT Core Integration of: DRT, DM Transfer to log domain, does not
and pore types. SCAL include fractures and the 3D
validation. model
Salman & Sameer DRT+ MICP Core Link to depositional Diagenetic modification not
(2009) trends and pore types included as defining factors

Partitioning – flow units

Amaefule et al. Core FZI Core Link to porosity – No link to spatial trends, transfer to
(1993) permeability log scale, fails when K and phi
transforms do not conform
Cortez & Corbett Core GHE Core Link to flow units in Poor link to geological trends,
(2005) larger scale challenging prediction from logs
Gunter et al. (1997) Core or log Core or Link to flow units in Need continuous core profiles,
porosity and log larger scale does not include fractures
permeability
Wibowo & Permadi Core RCA Core Link to permeability Core domain, assumes
(2013) conformance of porosity and
permeability

Partitioning – log clustering or electrofacies

Serra & Abbot Logs Log Easy to apply, link to No link to geological trends, driven
(1980) petrophysics by input logs

Dynamic rock types

Ghedan (2007) SSRT and Core Better dynamic control Need wettability model, not
wettability practical to acquire dynamic
SCAL data for rock typing
Gomes et al. (2008) DRT, DM and Core Better control of the fluid Only core domain
SCAL flow

Petrophysical Rock DRT, DM, PT, Core and Integration of DRT, DM, Not easy to apply
Types (this paper) barrier log PT and barrier in log
domain, includes 3D
Earth model, adaptable
to various data
scenarios

*MICP, mercury injection capillary pressure; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance; DRT, depositional rock type; DM, diagenetic modifi-
cation; PT, pore type; PTD, pore type distribution; FZI, flow zone indicator (Amaefule et al. 1993); GHE, generalized hydraulic elements
(Cortez & Corbett 2005); RCA, routine core analysis; CCAL, conventional core analysis; SSRT, static reservoir rock types (Ghedan 2007);
SCAL, special core analysis.
232 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
porositons) corresponding to the entry pressure,
which were used as rock typing classification
thresholds. Lønøy (2006) defined rock types by esti-
mation of conventional pore size and texture from
porosity distributions, but a significant mismatch
is observed when comparing resulting rock types
with porositon-based classification on the same
dataset (O. Karoussi, 2013, pers. comm.). Some
studies used MICP-calibrated nuclear magnetic res-
onance (NMR) T2 cutoffs to define pore types
(Frank et al. 2005; Arfi et al. 2006; Ramamoorthy
et al. 2008). NMR is a relatively new (1990s) tech-
nique that utilizes short-duration magnetic pulses to
excite and measure the relaxation time of hydrogen
atoms, which largely depends on the pore size distri-
bution in porous media. T2 is the transverse relax-
ation time typically measured in boreholes and
generally plotted, following inversion, v. the
signal distribution, while the area under the curve
represents the associated pore volume (T1 is the
longitudinal relation time). T2 cutoffs are user
defined and are assigned to ranges in pore size
and/or type (isolated v. connected). However,
NMR has limitations related to pore size (up to
100 mm) and the assumption of lack of diffusion
effects. If diffusion effects are strong and pore
size is larger than 100 mm, T2 distributions are no
longer considered representative of the pore body
distribution. Prediction of pore types in the log
domain and uncored intervals can create quite a
challenge without a strong link to geological trends.
Indeed, the observed pore typing approach in the
literature is generally lacking spatial guidance and
has scaling problems when integrating secon-
dary pore types (vugs and fractures). Despite those
observed challenges, pore types are the most critical
element of rock typing due to their strong control on
the fluid flow in carbonates (Sung et al. 2013).
Rock types based on integration of
depositional facies, diagenetic modification
and pore types
Here the goal is to define rock types by integrat-
ing depositional lithofacies with diagenetic modifi-
cations and pore types. In reality, most of the rock
typing is heavily biased towards depositional
facies (or lithofacies) that are integrated with pore
types from MICP. Diagenetic modifications are
therefore captured indirectly since there is a strong
relationship between diagenetic processes and pore
types. Spatial trends and modelling are driven by
depositional trends from analogues and core data
observations, and, in general, a properly and system-
atically documented effort to distribute ‘diagenetic
bodies or trends’ is lacking. Numerous studies
(e.g. Rebelle et al. 2005; Lehmann et al. 2008;
Basioni et al. 2008; Salman & Sameer 2009) inte-
grated depositional lithofacies with MICP-derived
pore types. However, the distribution in the result-
ing models is generally guided by depositional
trends, distributed within a sequence stratigraphic
framework (SSF), but without any clear explanation
as to what extent diagenetic modification controls
the pore throat distributions and rock types.
Several studies (Francesconi et al. 2009; Skalinski
et al. 2009) reported the lack of a significant
relationship between lithofacies and petrophysical
properties and defined rock types based on diage-
netic features. Rock type population in the latter
model was guided by conceptual diagenetic trends
and multiple point statistics (MPS) pixel-based
modelling. The widely known Archie (Archie 1952)
classification scheme is a hybrid approach that com-
bines textural (grain size) and petrophysical (pore
size) parameters. Archie made a first and successful
attempt to relate texture and pore types to petrophy-
sical properties in carbonates. His classification
primarily estimates porosity, but it also estimates
permeability and capillary properties by subdivid-
ing pore space into (invisible) matrix and visible
porosity. Archie classes proved to be useful in
well site classification of cuttings, but they are
lacking a link to depositional or diagenetic pro-
cesses that have more complex pore networks.
Hollis et al. (2010) defined rock types by partition-
ing depositional lithofacies on MICP-derived pore
types and validated those, basically, core-defined
rock types with relative permeability measurements.
This integrated and comprehensive definition of
rock types in core domain, however, lacks an ade-
quate prediction in the log domain.
Rock types based on petrophysical partitioning
of core or log data
This rock typing approach is using log clusters
(combinations) known also as electrofacies (Serra
& Abbott 1980; Wolff & Pellissier-Combescure
1982) or core porosity –permeability partitioning on
flow units (Amaefule et al. 1993). These methods
are linked to petrophysical properties but are lack-
ing the critical link to geology and spatial rules.
Serra & Abbott (1980) coined the term ‘electrofa-
cies’, which basically captures the set of log res-
ponses that uniquely characterizes a rock unit. In
reality, it is ‘log typing’ and was proven success-
ful in several siliciclastic reservoir studies where
‘natural ordering’ in lithofacies successions was
correlated with petrophysical ordering observed in
the log domain. Using reservoir quality index
(RQI) and flow zone indicators (FZI), rock types
are classified through artificial binning of the poros-
ity –permeability space (Amaefule et al. 1993).
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
A similar approach, also based on the Kozeny–
Carman model (Carman 1939), was proposed
by Wibowo & Permadi (2013). Corbett & Potter
(2004) and Corbett (2010) to expand the FZI con-
cept, by introducing generalized hydraulic ele-
ments (GHEs) that improve the link to geological
facies. Although such approaches are more practi-
cal and efficient in carbonates with complex pore
systems and strong diagenetic modification, the
link between log response and geology is generally
rather weak and leads to inaccurate spatial predic-
tion and proportions of resulting rock types. This
group of methods, which includes multi-resolution
graph-based clustering (MRGC) (Ye & Rabiller
2000), is also strongly dependent on the selection
of input logs for the partitioning process. Rock
typing becomes, in essence, an exercise of ‘log
typing’ with an arbitrary selection of logs with the
risk of ignoring meaningful geological influence.
FZI or electrofacies concepts were applied with
variable degrees of success in reservoir models
(Guo et al. 2005). The measure of success was
related to the goodness of prediction of core-derived
FZI from logs and/or the strength of the link
between FZI, GHE or electrofacies and geological
trends. Those links and therefore the resulting pre-
dictions are stronger in siliciclastic reservoirs and
carbonates with predominant depositional control.
These methods remain to be challenged by carbon-
ate reservoirs with strong diagenetic modification.
Static or dynamic rock types
A final consideration in the rock typing method-
ology is related to the goal of rock typing. If the
goal is to properly populate static Earth models
with porosity, permeability and water saturation,
the static rock types based on the integration of
depositional facies, diagenetic modifications and
pore types will be adequate. If the goal is to populate
relative permeability and capillary pressure curves,
then they might not be appropriate for all reser-
voir types (i.e. Hamon 2003; Masalmeh & Jing
2004; Ghedan 2007). Gomes et al. (2008) extended
the definition of rock types to include fluid –rock
interaction/wettability from special core analysis
(SCAL). His final reservoir rock types, therefore,
are not only a function of reservoir properties but
also of fluid content and the effect of fluid –rock
interactions. Hamon (2003) and Masalmeh & Jing
(2004) examined static and dynamic parameters
derived from core plugs and concluded that sim-
ple static rock types based on RCA or CCAL data
(porosity, permeability and water saturation) and
drainage capillary pressure might be not adequate
to capture dynamic impact resulting in different
residual oil saturation (Sor) and relative permea-
bility. Static rock types are not adequate for the
233
mixed wettability rocks under water injection. Der-
naika et al. (2012) reported results from relative per-
meability drainage and imbibition curves measured
for static rock types and found coherent results vali-
dating initial rock types. Ghedan (2007) and Gomes
et al. (2008) reconciled differences between static
rock types and dynamic rock types. They proposed
an approach of generating dynamic rock types by
imposing wettability or fluid model on the static
rock types. This superposition can be performed
on the upscaled simulation model. Wettability dis-
tributions can be controlled by a position in the
hydrocarbon column (Ghedan 2007; Al Jenaibi
et al. 2008) or pore type (Marzouk et al. 1998). Gen-
erating dynamic rock type based on relative per-
meability data is impractical since SCAL data on
preserved samples are costly, sparse and not fully
representative. SCAL measurements can be per-
formed to define/validate relative permeability
and saturation profiles for final rock types in the
dynamic model.
This paper describes a new workflow that intends
to address – and mitigate – the gaps specified above
and define petrophysical rock types (PRTs) which
account for both depositional and diagenetic pro-
cesses, are predictable from logs in uncored wells,
and can be distributed in a geologically realistic
way in 3D Earth models. This workflow is designed
as a general road map for carbonate rock typing and
does not pretend to solve all of the technical chal-
lenges related to this process.
Petrophysical rock type (PRT) – workflow
The workflow consists of eight composite and
sequential steps, which are represented by the
diagram shown in Figure 1. With progressing field
maturity and data scenarios, multiple loops are
required to capture reservoir heterogeneity and to
optimize the representation of the subsurface data
(see Fig. 1). The final product is the result of Step
8; that is, the 3D static PRT model or series of
models capturing recorded uncertainties. Below
follows a brief description of each of the workflow
steps.
Step 1: Data scenario
PRT workflows are designed to be adaptable to all
data scenarios that are driven by (in order of rel-
evance): (1) well density; (2) logging surveys (vin-
tage and completeness); (3) available core data;
and (4) dynamic data. Representativity is another
critical parameter linked to each of these data
types. Representativity is typically an uncertainty
that decreases with data collection during the life
of a field but is very difficult to estimate, in
234 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram showing the PRT workflow, which consists of eight composite and sequential steps that
gradually build to the definition, determination and distribution of PRTs in a static model. The workflow represents a
road map that can handle different data scenarios (data quality and quantity, and representativity) ranging from prospect
to appraisal to development. The second, empty loop illustrates that with progressing field maturity and data scenarios
multiple loops are required to capture reservoir heterogeneity and optimize the representation of the subsurface data.

particular near the start of a project, and its pro-
gression very much depends on the understanding
of the reservoir quality distribution. Generally, with
field development, the data scenario will change.
This progression is shown in Figure 1, where differ-
ent loops of the workflow represent different data
scenarios and reservoir maturity. Data scenarios
include those for prospects, field appraisal and pro-
ducing fields, although the lack of core (prospects)
will change the workflow towards a log-driven
approach.
Step 2: Depositional rock typing
The depositional rock type (DRT) Step is designed
to define a DRT catalogue in the core domain and
to predict lumped DRTs in the log domain. If the
subsequent Step 3 indicates a strong control of
flow by DRTs, the predicted DRTs will be used as
a primary input into the PRT definition. Step 2 con-
sists of three substeps. The DRT determination
(Step 2.1; Fig. 2a) requires an unbiased determi-
nation of depositional and diagenetic attributes as
a function of depth along the cored intervals.
Unbiased refers to a DRT determination approach
that is exclusively based on geological attributes
while ignoring any petrophysical information from
RCA/CCAL or logs, as inclusion of such infor-
mation will bias the DRTs towards petrophysical
rock typing and obscure the primary purpose of
this test. These geological attributes allow the gen-
eration of a set of DRTs, which represent categories
of non-overlapping lithofacies as well as a sepa-
rate set of diagenetic attributes that may be used
later in the workflow to explain the disconfor-
mity between reservoir properties and DRTs. The
DRT catalogue summary classification (Step 2.2;
Fig. 2a) represents the DRT elements of a deposi-
tional model based on core observations and con-
cepts from literature and/or analogues. The DRT
catalogue includes one or more alternate scenarios
that combine DRTs according to geological criteria
such as, for example, depositional regions and facies
belts to a statistically acceptable number for predic-
tion using logs. Generally, no more than 15 DRTs
are lumped into a maximum of five DRT associ-
ations. DRT prediction from logs (Step 2.3) requires
iterative ‘lumping’ of the DRTs determined from
core (Fig. 2b). Lumping should follow geological
associations, similarity in petrophysical space and
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 235

Fig. 2. Set of diagrams illustrating workflow Step 2. (a) Simplified workflow showing, when core is available,
DRT determination, classification and lumping, and prediction steps. (b) Progression of three successive lumping
steps on the DRT set shown on the left. (c) Graph displaying the progression of prediction scores corresponding to
successive DRT lumping steps shown in (b). (d) Cross-plots showing the general improvement of the prediction score as
a function of the number of logs used for the prediction (left), and the influence of the quality and type of logs used on the
prediction score (right). This clearly warns that care should be taken not to push for a high prediction score but for a
geologically acceptable number of representative DRTs.

statistical representativity of DRTs in the core set on the left. Prediction of DRTs from logs is gen-
descriptions. The diagram to the right in Figure 2b erally performed using multivariate statistical tools
shows three successive lumping steps on the DRT (such as stepwise discriminant analysis or principle
236 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

component analysis), nearest neighbour method,
supervised clustering or neural networks combined
with deterministic methods. Figure 2c presents pro-
gression of prediction scores corresponding to suc-
cessive DRT lumping steps shown in Figure 2b.
The diagram in Figure 2d shows the general
improvement of the prediction score as a function
of the number of logs used for the prediction.
The prediction score will also depend on the
quality and type of logs used, and, therefore, the
determination of the optimal combination of pre-
diction logs is critical. These two observed trends
also signal a warning that while the predictions
score may increase with progressive lumping and
inclusion of more logs (when available), this does
not necessarily mean that the resulting DRT set is
still maintaining integrity in terms of their geologi-
cal (depositional and diagenetic) definition. As a
rule, it is critical that lumping maintains the critical
geological definition, since if that is lost the test will
lose its significance. The resulting degrees of suc-
cess for the final set of lumped DRTs provide impor-
tant information for the PRT definition described
in workflow Step 5 (i.e. a tie to depositional and/
or diagenetic processes that may require further
study, and potential spatial rules and trends for dis-
tribution in the static model).
Step 3: Reservoir typing – the effect of
diagenesis
Carbonate reservoirs are highly susceptible to dia-
genetic processes that alter their original depo-
sitional fabric and petrophysical properties. In
addition, diagenetic, tectonic and depositional frac-
tures can overprint both type of systems. The pro-
cess of reservoir typing (RT) is the determination
of the relative contribution on fluid flow by the
degree of diagenetic modification and high-K zones
(diagenetic, depositional and tectonic fractures,
and well-connected high-permeability stratigraphic
zones) on the original DRTs. The outcome of this
step would be classification of reservoir using four
RT categories: (1) RT1, when PRTs and flow are
controlled by DRTs; (2) RT2, when flow is

Fig. 3. Set of diagrams illustrating workflow Step 3. (a) Flow diagram with four steps leading to the assessment of
reservoir type (RT). Note that not all data types are necessarily available to reach an RT definition and, with progression
of data availability, the RT may even change. However, for the current workflow, it is critical to have a ‘best’ assessment
to define and determine a first set of PRTs. The four resulting RTs represent combinations of the relative influence of
depositional, diagenetic control on flow and that of high-K features such as conductive fractures or karst horizons.
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 237

Fig. 3. Continued. (b) Schematic diagram visualizing the definitions from (a) in a ‘qualitative’ ternary diagram that
shows the relative contribution to flow in PRTs of diagenetic modification, depositional attributes and high-K pathways.
The stars represent plotted positions for the First Eocene and Tengiz platform and margin (modified after Ahr 2008).
(c) Porosity– permeability (phi– K) cross-plot for 15 Tengiz platform wells with textures displayed as colours. The
dominant texture in the platform is grain-supported skeletal sand with minor contributions of mud-supported
(wackestone –mudstone). Texture has a weak control on porosity–permeability trends; maximum permeability spans
over one order of magnitude, which is in the range of the uncertainty in the permeability prediction.
238 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

Fig. 3. Continued. (d) Petrographical images confirming the predominance (..33%) of diagenetically altered pores
over primary depositional pores, as well as the complex multimodal pore system (modified after Kenter et al. 2006). (A)
Overpacked ooid grainstone with minor blocky calcite and bitumen occluding solution-enhanced interparticle porosity.
(B) Moldic porosity showing evidence for enhanced dissolution shown by corrosion of the mold boundaries, nearly
breaking through at contacts and corroding earlier cement. (C) Moldic porosity in its early phase: micrite grains are
gradually being dissolved following partial fill of interparticle porosity by equant to rhombic spar cement. (D) Advanced
stage of enhanced dissolution of moldic and interparticle porosity (and minor intraparticle) leading to the destruction of
cement bridges and the development of vugs. (E) Skeletal and coated grain grainstone dominated by interparticle
porosity with minor cement. (F) Example of microporosity, pore size smaller than 25 mm, developed in grains. (G)
Intraparticle porosity developed in benthic foraminifera. (H) Skeletal and peloid grainstone with rims of equant spar
lining interparticle pores and minor moldic porosity. Width of photomicrographs is 4.20 (A, B, E, F and G) and 1.58 mm
(C, D and H).
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
controlled by diagenesis and truncates DRT trends;
(3) RT3, when flow is controlled by the fracture
system; and (4) a hybrid class, RT4, when flow
has mixed controls (Fig. 3a). The triangle in
Figure 3b visualizes this classification with the pos-
ition of reservoirs discussed in the ‘Examples’
section. This ternary graphic is similar to the
genetic pore type classification of Ahr (2008), but
with a different objective (flow control and reservoir
typing v. pore types) and with a different definition
of the hybrid case. There is a link between RT and
pore types captured by predominant pore systems
in each reservoir class. Considering the variable
data scenarios (data quality, quantity and represen-
tativity), an assessment of RT at this stage of the
workflow (and, in many cases, field development)
is a best guess only. However, even a best guess at
this point in the process is important for concep-
tualizing the first-order controls and trends on the
reservoir quality distribution (depositional v. diage-
netic and role of high-K zones), and the subsequent
planning of further investigations to converge on
these controlling parameters. Several methods are
available to provide estimates for RT, each with
particular uncertainties that mostly depend on the
data scenario: (1) divergence– convergence of poro-
sity– permeability transforms; (2) predictability of
DRTs using logs; (3) contribution of diagenetically
altered pores; (4) flow regime from production
logging tools (PLT) and/or the drill stem test
(DST); and (5) fractures from borehole image logs
and drilling data. Each of these methods is dependent
on the data scenario and has particular limitations.
Porosity– permeability regression lines by DRTs
are generally closer spaced when controlled by dia-
genesis but are highly dependent on the representa-
tivity of core data within each DRT. Figure 3c
shows an example of conformity of porosity– per-
meability transforms in a cross-plot using data
from 15 wells in the Tengiz platform. Transforms
for different textures are very closely spaced and
all fall within the range of the uncertainty in the per-
meability prediction, suggesting a very weak control
by texture (or DRTs). The prediction score of
(unbiased) DRTs using logs will generally
improve with a reduction (lumping) in the number
of DRTs (Fig. 2d), the quality and quantity of log-
ging suites, and the prediction method used (neural
networks or nearest neighbour over linear discri-
minant analysis). Ahr (2008) emphasized the rel-
evance of estimating the diagenetic alteration of
the pore system from petrographical thin sections
as an estimate for the contribution of diagenesis
on reservoir quality. Ahr (2008) provides a detailed
overview with excellent examples of the various
diagenetic processes, their products, and criteria
for recognition and estimation that can be used in
this context rendering a thorough synthesis from
239
the scope of this work. Figure 3d shows examples
of the highly complex and heterogeneous, multimo-
dal, pore system in the Tengiz platform that is the
result of modifying mineralogy and pores through
multistage and stacked diagenetic dissolution and
cementation (Kenter et al. 2006; Dickson pers.
comm. 2012). As a consequence, pore typing attem-
pts following Lucia (1995, 2007) and Lønøy
(2006) failed to identify single dominant fabrics
and associated pore types, but, instead, confirmed
the dominance (..33%), intimate juxtaposition,
and mixing of diagenetically altered pores (Kenter
et al. 2006). Similar observations have been noted
in other studies (e.g. Johnson et al. 2010). Although
biased by the individual observer, such estimates
can be used with caution as yet another method
to define RT. Finally, when available, PLT profiles
and DST build-ups can be examined to identify frac-
ture flow behaviour, while borehole image logs (i.e.
formation micro-imager, FMI) or drilling data (fluid
losses, rate of penetration (ROP)) identify fractures.
Even though each of those methods has issues with
data scenarios, they do have merits when used
together as an (best guess) estimate of the RT for
reasons explained earlier. Figure 3a shows the inte-
gration of the methods above in a flow diagram that
provides a first estimate of the RT, which directly
influences further attempts to delineate reservoir
quality trends and patterns, and steps to define rock
types and their controls. To achieve the RT, five
steps are required in an ideal data scenario that
includes application of the four methods discussed
above and the determination of the RT assignment
based on the relative contribution of the RT indi-
cator methods above, see Figure 3b. The RT step is
included in the workflow for two main reasons.
First, to prioritize flow control and define the nest-
ing scheme for the PRT definition in Step 5, and,
second, to frame the PRT distribution in the 3D
model using methods described in Step 8. The first
step will allow, when present, the definition of PRTs
that host certain high-K phenomena, like deposi-
tional fractures in tight marginal microbial bound-
stone or high-K stratigraphically bound zones with
connected vugs resulting from extensive meteoric
leaching.
Step 4: Pore typing
Carbonate petrophysical heterogeneity (flow prop-
erties) is generally the result of complex and multi-
modal pore systems including vugs and fractures.
Identification and prediction of pore types is there-
fore essential for reliable rock typing in carbon-
ate. The pore typing workflow (Fig. 4) accounts
for different data scenarios depending on the avail-
ability of core, MICP data, digital image analysis
(Weger et al. 2009) or other pore characterization
240 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

Fig. 4. Diagram showing the pore typing elements required for the determination and definition of the PRTs. Similar to
other steps in the workflow, the pore typing step is flexible and accounts for different data scenarios and integrates pore
types from different scales and measurements, such as pore types derived from MICP, digital image analysis (DIA),
NMR, gas absorption, nuclear, high-resolution micro-CT or industrial whole core CT, and speciality logs such as NMR,
acoustic borehole images (BHI) or formation microscanner (FM).

measurements (e.g. NMR, nuclear, gas adsorption), Step 5: PRT Definition

and speciality logs such as nuclear magnetic reson-
ance (NMR), ultrasonic borehole imager (BHI)
or FMI (Fig. 4). Appropriate pore type identifi-
cation can be best performed using MICP data,
which provides accurate information on pore throat
distributions controlling flow in the reservoir. MICP
derived initial pore throat types (IPT) have to be
combined with larger scale observations such as
vugs and fractures from specialty logs. In the case
of data scenarios lacking MICP data but including
available representative core, an alternative path
(B) is to be followed that produces core pore types
(CPT). CPT can be defined using other data types
(i.e. digital image analysis (DIA)) or conventional
classification such as Choquette & Pray (1970),
but are limited to the pore type and size, and do
not provide information on the pore throats. When
NMR and/or BHI/FMI data are not available,
pore types could be defined from IPT or from CPT
data. In the case when neither core nor NMR/
BHI/FMI data are available, the determination of
relevant pore types is less reliable. In that scenario,
pore types can be derived from cuttings (MICP, pet-
rographic thin section image analysis or micro-CT
scans) or from petrophysical analogues such as
those available in public or commercial carbonate
rock catalogues.
In the context of this workflow, PRTs are defined
as: (1) the category of rocks that are characterized
by specific ranges of petrophysical properties (e.g.
porosity, permeability and water saturation); (2)
exhibiting distinct petrophysical relationships rel-
evant for the reservoir modelling (e.g. porosity v.
permeability, water saturation v. capillary pressure);
(3) identified by wireline or logging while drilling
(LWD) logging surveys; and (4) linked to geologi-
cal attributes such as primary texture or diagenetic
modifications. In this critical step, PRTs are defined
according to the relative influence of the following
attributes: permeability barriers, DRTs, diagenetic
modifications and pore types. The permeability
barrier(s) are either non-reservoir rocks or low-
permeability rocks that act as flow barriers or
baffles, as indicated by dynamic data. They can be
a product of either depositional or diagenetic pro-
cesses. In carbonates they can be represented by
hard grounds, evaporite layers, zones with dispersed
volcanic ash, bitumen-tarmac layers, cemented
zones or interbeds or laminations with a high shale
or volcanic ash contribution. In summary, PRTs
are defined by combining elements such as the pre-
dicted DRT, PT, barriers and other diagenetic modi-
fiers affecting the log response. The combination
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
Fig. 5. PRTs are defined by combining elements including the predicted DRT, pore type (PT), barriers and other
diagenetic modifiers affecting the log response. Their combination order is mapped to the four reservoir types that were
defined in Figure 3a. See the text for more discussion.
order is defined by RT (see Fig. 5), which is defined
in Step 3 (see Fig. 3a). The definition of PRTs has to
take into account the logging data scenario; that is,
the ability to predict PRTs from logs in the majority
of wells. The PRT definition at the beginning of this
subsection contains the primary criteria used to
define PRT; the final PRTs have to conform to all
four segments of the definition.
Step 6: PRT determination in a multi-well
setting and quality control using maps
This step includes the determination of PRTs in all
wells using algorithms for PRT prediction from
logs developed in the previous steps (see Step 2
and Fig. 2c, d). These algorithms are designed to
predict lumped DRTs (Step 2), pore types (Step
4), permeability barriers (Step 5) or diagenetic
modifications (Step 3). Usually a master program
is designed to predict PRTs in a logical succession
as defined in Step 5. For example, if we have RT1,
the PRTs could be determined by predicting DRTs
first and distributing pore type based groups nested
within the DRTs (see the Wafra Field example in
the next section on ‘Examples’). The resulting
PRT logs are mapped across the field in all (cored
and uncored) wells using kriging (or comparable)
techniques. Following an assessment (and possible
removal) of outliers, spatial trends and relationships
between PRTs are extracted and used as input
241
to designing the distribution approach in the static
model (Step 8). This data interrogation step is extre-
mely important to constrain PRT patterns and
trends, and juxtaposition rules that need careful
contrast and comparison with the geological obser-
vations from Steps 1 –4. This step is especially criti-
cal when RT is greater than 1 and dominated by
diagenetic modification since little or no informa-
tion on spatial rules of diagenetic processes is avail-
able in the literature, and the user may be limited
to forward modelling of diagenetic processes (for
references, see Step 8). The PRT determination
follows three steps: (6.1) development of algorithms
or models for PRT prediction; (6.2) PRT determi-
nation in all wells; and (6.3) quality control (and
trend mapping and extraction) (see Fig. 6).
Step 7: Dynamic validation of PRTs
A quantitative validation of the link between
PRTs and available flow indicators is performed
by: (1) comparing PRTs with core RCA data (such
as porosity–permeability cross-plots and modified
Lorenz plots (Gunter et al. 1997); and (2) the
comparison of PRTs with dynamic data such as
PLTs, DSTs, wireline formation test (WFT) data
or injection profiles. The goal of this step is to
confirm that PRTs are linked to flow profiles
observed in dynamic data (Fig. 7). In particular, bar-
riers and flow zones should be positively correlated
242 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

Fig. 6. The PRT determination is represented by three simple steps. The first step builds on algorithms developed during
Step 2 (DRT prediction) and Step 4 (pore typing), and supplemented with information on permeability barriers (Step 2)
or diagenetic modifications (Step 3). In general, a tailor-made set of algorithms is captured in a master program designed
to predict PRTs in a logical succession, as defined in Step 5.

to appropriate PRTs. In case the linkage is poor, a
loopback to Step 5 is required. Definition of rejec-
tion criteria is field specific and depends on the
type and reliability of dynamic data. If dynamic
data are available, the workflow includes the follow-
ing three steps: (7.1) validation of PRTs with core
data; (7.2) validation of PRTs with dynamic data;
and (7.3) PRT conformance assessment. This step
might be skipped if reliable dynamic data are
not available.
Step 8: 3D PRT realization and spatial
validation
This step comprises the completion of the spatial
trends and interrelation rules for PRTs extracted in
Step 6. Those rules and trends can be used as soft
constraints (probability maps) and/or to design
training images or variograms for the distribution
of PRTs in 3D static models. Trend maps can be
generated in many of the existing geomodelling
platforms and are generally labelled as facies pro-
portion maps. These PRT proportion maps can be
manually modified to fit patterns and trends from
concepts or forward models in case the data den-
sity is low. Depending on the sequence stratigraphic
character of the grid layering (i.e. packages of layers
that represent transgressive systems tracts (TST),
highstand systems tracts (HST), lowstand systems
tracts (LST) or regressive wedges (RST), or any
other preferred diagenetic zonation scheme), one
can choose to generate PRT maps per selected inter-
val. Obviously, data density may limit the options
during this phase of investigation. The resulting
maps serve as input to a (so-called) facies prob-
ability cube or for soft conditioning during the
static modelling step. The distribution method is
also a function of RT and data scenario. In other
words, spatial patterns of – and interrelationships
between – PRTs are controlled by the relative con-
tribution of depositional v. diagenetic processes
(Fig. 2). In case RT ¼ 1, PRTs and flow are con-
trolled by DRTs. In addition to RT, the data
density also controls the choice of methods to distri-
bute PRTs in the static model. With increas-
ing density of data, the spatial trends are driven by
well control rather than concepts. Multiple point
statistics (MPS) is a pixel-based technique and is
one of the more powerful geostatistical tools to
honour and control proportions and trends of –
and spatial interrelationships among – PRTs (i.e.
Strebelle 2000, 2002; Strebelle & Zhang 2004;
Caers 2005). Examples of PRT definitions and dis-
tribution using MPS are shown in the section on
‘Examples’, later in this paper. High-resolution
and quality 3D seismic (attribute) data can be used
as a soft constraint for PRTs, especially for green
fields or intermediate fields where well density is
not capturing spatial heterogeneity. Seismic attri-
butes can be built into the PRT definition follow-
ing careful validation with log-derived acoustic
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 243

Fig. 7. (a) In case reliable dynamic data are available, a quantitative validation of the link between PRTs and available
flow indicators is performed. This should include a comparison of PRTs with core RCA data and modified Lorenz plots,
and PRTs with dynamic data. The ultimate purpose of this step is to evaluate the conformance between PRTs and flow
profiles observed from dynamic data. (b) Diagram showing an example of the application of Step 7 to Tengiz. Here a
quick visual inspection confirmed that non-reservoir PRT1–PRT3 correspond to non-flow zones, while reservoir
PRT4– PRT6 correspond to the inflow zones (green bars). CGR/SGR, total gamma ray minus uranium contribution and
total gamma ray (CGR, when available, preferred over SGR); PHIE, effective porosity PRT, petrophysical rock type;
PLT, production logging tools; PERM, permeability.
244 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
properties. In poor data scenarios, many other tech-
niques can serve to reduce uncertainty in the final
distribution of PRTs. For example, analogues from
outcrops or the literature or forward stratigraphic
modelling tools can assist to reduce uncertainty
and to generate trends and juxtaposition patterns
(or variogram design) in RT1 cases when data
density is poor and not capturing heterogeneity
and/or core is not representative of (anticipated)
reservoir quality. Forward stratigraphic modell-
ing platforms include SEDPAK (Kendall et al.
1989), STRATA (Flemings & Grotzinger 1996),
CARBONATE 3D (Bosence & Waltham 1990),
REPRO (Hüssner & Roessler 1996) and DIONISOS
(Granjeon 1997). In data scenarios where diagenetic
modification is dominant (RT2 – RT3), diagenetic
forward modelling tools can be used to generate
trends and patterns for the associated PRTs. Such
software platforms have been designed and pub-
lished and are available to the user. Predictive
diagenesis modelling techniques in carbonates are
in their infancy. CARB3D+ is a forward simula-
tion model for carbonate platforms developed by
the University of Bristol, which incorporates near-
surface (eogenic) diagenetic processes and predicts
the distribution of diagenetic products (Whitaker
et al. 1997). Reactive transport modelling (RTM)
code, such as TOUGHREACT developed by the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for
environmental studies, has been used in a variety
of carbonate studies both on outcrops and reservoirs,
but requires a separately built ‘stratigraphic’ geocel-
lular model as input to the reactor (Pruess et al.
1999). Recent publications have clearly dem-
onstrated their value in assessing the spatial dis-
tribution of diagenetic products, and, hence, in
designing trends and patterns (e.g. Whitaker et al.
1997; Jones et al. 2003; Jones & Xiao 2006; Pater-
son et al. 2006; Garcia-Fresca 2009; Barbier et al.
2012; Frazer et al. 2012). Ahr (2008) not only
provides a comprehensive workflow for assessing
associated pore types and systems, as well as the
genetic models of diagenetic modification, the
workflow also provides suggestions on their spa-
tial trends. The application and use of forward
modelling platforms varies with the data scenario
and specific geological demands, and cannot be
further detailed in this workflow. What is critical,
however, is that certain PRTs have been designed
to contain high-permeability (high-K ) elements in
their definition and, hence, distribution. This is rel-
evant for further upscaling and design of PRTs
and flow features in the simulation model. In
addition to forward modelling depositional and
diagenetic spatial trends at the metre to hundreds
of metres scales, promising results of 3D pore archi-
tecture models have been obtained for modelling
the evolution of porosity and permeability as a
function of diagenesis at the sub-micron scale (e.g.
Algive et al. 2012; van der Land et al. 2013). Dis-
crete fracture networks can be distributed using con-
cepts derived from analogues (e.g. Narr & Flodin
2012) or predicted using mechanical Earth model-
ling (MEM) or geomechanical forward modelling.
These mechanical modelling techniques provide
deformation and stress information that are used
to model fracture distributions (e.g. Xi et al. 2011;
Abul Khair et al. 2013), as well as to allow esti-
mation of the fracture behaviour (and flow) during
the development of the field. Fracture flow proper-
ties can be embedded in the PRT definition by
reconciling the combined effect of matrix and frac-
tures on porosity and permeability. However, such a
decision is complex and depends on the observed
contribution to flow from dynamic data. Alternati-
vely, fractures can be distributed as discrete objects
and co-located with PRTs (if desired) in the static
or dynamic model (i.e. Dershowitz et al. 1998;
Bourbiaux et al. 2002; Jonoud et al. 2013). Since
the modelling and distribution approach of fractures
in the static and/or dynamic model is very complex
and receiving much discussion, such an extensive
review is excluded from this paper.
Figure 8 summarizes the discussion above on the
relationship between data scenario, RT, and tools
to improve or optimize the distribution of PRT pat-
terns and juxtaposition. In addition, it shows the
positions of the fields that are used in the following
‘Examples’ section of this paper. The following
four steps are included in the PRT distribution and
spatial validation process: (8.1) determination of
PRT trends and spatial interrelationships assisted
by forward modelling techniques and/or ana-
logues; (8.2) determination of optimal geostatistical
method; (8.3.1) when applying stochastic geomo-
delling algorithms, analyse variogram lengths, gen-
erate the PRT probability cube and run the PRT
distribution; (8.3.2) in the case of MPS, design train-
ing image(s) (TIs), generate the PRT probability
cube and run the PRT distribution; and (8.4)
quality control and evaluation of the resulting PRT
distribution and, if required, loop back.
Examples
The workflow described above was applied to the
supergiant Tengiz Field in Kazakhstan, as well as
the high-porosity First Eocene reservoir interval of
the Wafra Field in the Partitioned Zone (Kuwait –
Saudi Arabia).
Tengiz Field
The Tengiz Field is located near the NE shore
of the Caspian Sea in Kazakhstan (Fig. 9). It is
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 245

Fig. 8. Schematic diagram summarizing the relationship between data scenario, RT and tools to improve or optimize
the distribution of PRT patterns and juxtaposition following the discussion in the text. In addition, it shows positions
of the fields that are used in the ‘Examples’ section of this paper (see also Figure 3b). The diagram assists the
integrated reservoir management team by offering the appropriate combinations of PRT trends, data scenario and tools,
and/or concepts that may help to optimize a realistic set of spatial distributions of PRTs to capture the uncertainty in
reservoir quality and flow. Clearly, this is part of the road map and many deviations to those solutions shown above
will exist.

one of several large hydrocarbon accumulations Tengiz is a stratigraphic trap consisting of a car-
in the carbonate formations found around the edge bonate build-up with a large central platform area
of the Pricaspian Basin (Lisovsky et al. 1992). (10 × 15 km), a raised rim area (up to 1 –2 km

Fig. 9. Simplified map showing the locations of the Tengiz Field and Wafra (First Eocene) Field.
246 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

wide), and is surrounded by an upper-slope micro-
bial boundstone sector and a lower-slope debris
apron. The field is divided into platform and slope
elements (Weber et al. 2003; Collins et al. 2006;
Kenter et al. 2006). The platform deposits are divi-
ded into Unit 1 (Late Viséan–Bashkirian), Unit 2
(Tournaisian– Late Viséan) and Unit 3 (Devonian).
The Unit 1 platform is the best reservoir with an
average porosity of 9% and target of this example.
PRT workflow application. The Tengiz Field was
used as a first application of the petrophysical rock
typing (PRT) workflow. The following is a short
description of the workflow steps outlined earlier
in this paper:
† Step 1: Data scenario. The PRT definition for the
platform was based on 14 cored wells with a total
of 2650 m of core, which were assigned DRTs,
and plugged every 1 ft for permeability, porosity
and water-saturation analyses (CCAL or RCA).
Plug trims were subject to total organic carbon
(TOC) determination to quantify solid bitumen.
More than 350 MICP measurements were used
for matrix pore typing. Modern logging suites
were available for 15 wells and included spectral
gamma, array induction, neutron, density, dipole
sonic, FMI, and NMR tools. Pressure mea-
surements from the well modular formation
dynamics tester tool (MDT), PLT and vertical
sonic profile (VSP) data were also available for
every well. As a result, the data scenario for
the platform is borderline to capturing reservoir
heterogeneity, while that for the margin, with
fewer wells but similar data quality, is con-
sidered moderate (see Fig. 8).
† Step 2: Depositional rock typing. The Unit 1
platform area is generally flat with parallel
depositional cycles, which are made up of a suc-
cession of generally shoaling DRTs overlying a
sharp base with evidence for subaerial exposure
and/or flooding. Cycle boundaries are gener-
ally associated with early cementation and the
presence of solid and dispersed volcanic ash,
and are well defined by log expression and
relatively easy to correlate across the central
platform. The outer platform is the gently basin-
ward-dipping (up to 98) sector, several hundreds
of metres in width, connecting the central plat-
form with the upper slope. Here, cycles are gen-
erally poorly defined as a result of increasing

Fig. 10. Diagrams illustrating steps 2 and 3 in the Tengiz PRT workflow. (a) Diagram showing the lumped DRT set
consisting of a generally shoaling-upward cycle of DRTs; DRT7 is only present in the deeper outermost platform.
(b) Diagram showing four major porosity enhancing/occluding episodes, each of which had a particular process and
associated spatial trend (modified after Kenter et al. 2010).
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 247

diagenetic overprint and the presence of tight
microbial boundstone intervals deposited
during early flooding of the platform (Kenter
et al. 2006). The ‘reservoir’ in between such
baffled cycle boundaries was overprinted by
meteoric and (to a lesser extend) late burial dia-
genesis increasing porosity by dissolution in the
centre of the platform, and reduced porosity
through compaction, calcite cementation and
pyrobitumen cementation towards the margins.
Geological descriptions identified a set of 15
DRTs using texture, depositional setting and
grain types. Those DRTs were reduced to a
final set of seven DRTs (Fig. 10a), which were
correlated across the platform using sequence
stratigraphic principles. However, due to pre-
dominantly diagenetic control (see below),
only the DRT corresponding to volcanic layers
was used for the PRT definition. The resulting
SSF was used for further PRT distribution in
Step 6.
† Step 3: Reservoir typing. The study of the diage-
netic modification of the original DRTs revealed
nine steps in a complete paragenetic sequence
that collapsed to four major porosity enhancing
and/or occluding episodes (Fig. 10b). Each
of these diagenetic episodes had a particular
process and associated spatial trend, which
were used to construct diagenetic trend maps.
Figures 3c, d illustrate, respectively, the confor-
mity of porosity –permeability trends and the
predominance of diagenetically altered pores in
the Tengiz platform, while limited conformity
was observed between DRTs and logs. The
observed high-K features, strata-bound zones
of connected vugs and high-permeability matrix,

Fig. 11. Diagrams explaining the PRT definition step in the Tengiz Platform. (a) PRT1 corresponds to the volcanic tuff
recognized from spectral gamma (thorium), and is related to DRT2 and linked to the early cementation stage. PRT2 was
defined as a rock with solid bitumen volume exceeding an effective porosity (occupying more than 40% of the pore
space), determined from Multimin analysis. (b) PRT3 corresponds to tight cemented rock as a result of late cementation
and was defined as a rock dominated by microporosity, with PHIE (effective porosity) below 5%. (c) The PRT4–PRT6
definition was derived from clustering NMR T2 distributions, and combining them with the effective porosity scale (30
clusters or bins of relaxation times) and cross-plotted against porosity. (d) PRT4– PRT6 correspond to an increasing
degree of the corrosion and represent the reservoir quality rock (modified after Skalinski et al. 2009).
248 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

Fig. 12. (a) T2 distributions combined over the approximately 500 m reservoir interval partitioned by PRT. The
signal distribution on the vertical axis reflects the volumetric proportions, normalized to 1, corresponding to the pore
volumes associated with each pore size shown on the horizontal axis. (b) Well plot confirming that non-reservoir
PRT1–PRT3 have a large spread of T2 distribution mostly below 200 ms, while reservoir PRT4–PRT6 are
characterized by higher T2, indicating increased amount of vuggy porosity (modified after Skalinski et al. 2009).

and conductive fractures from BHI and FMI,
were confirmed by well tests and production
logs. As a result, the RT was defined as a
Hybrid RT4 for the margin, while close to diage-
netic RT2 for the platform (see Fig. 3b).
† Step 4: Pore typing. MICP-based pore throat dis-
tributions led to the definition of five matrix pore
types; that is, nano-, micro-, meso-, macro- and
megaporosity (Skalinski et al. 2009). Pore types
were used to validate NMR-derived PRT4–
PRT6 from the clustering of T2 distributions.
Vuggy porosity was captured by NMR and
FMI logs.
† Step 5: PRT definition. PRTs were defined at the
log scale, as indicated in Figure 9 (Skalinski
et al. 2009). PRT1 corresponds to the volcanic
tuff recognized from spectral gamma (thorium)
logs, using a 15 API cutoff (American Petroleum
Institute common scale units from a US test pit).
This PRT is related to DRT2 and linked to the
early cementation stage (Fig. 10a, b). PRT2
was defined as a rock with solid bitumen satur-
ation exceeding 40%. Bitumen saturation was
defined as a percentage of bitumen volume in
reference to the original porosity (Fig. 11a),
determined from multi-log mineralogical analy-
sis (i.e. using Multimin in Geolog from Paradigm
formation evaluation software; Quanti.Elan in
Techlog from Schlumberger). The Multimin
model was calibrated to core data to assure reli-
able quantification of both parameters. Bitumen
was formed during late burial cementation (Fig.
10b). PRT3 corresponds to tight-cemented rock
as a result of late cementation. This PRT was
defined as a rock dominated by microporosity
(pore throat ,0.3 mm) and porosities below
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
Fig. 12. Continued.
5% (Fig. 11b). PRT4–PRT6 correspond to an
increasing degree of the corrosion and represent
the reservoir quality rock. Those PRTs were
defined from clustering NMR T2 distribu-
tions and combining them with the effective
porosity scale. This process allowed the capture
of both pore types (degree of ‘vugginess’) and
porosity. Figure 11c illustrates the definition
of PRT4–PRT6 from T2 clusters (groupings)
cross-plotted against log porosity. Figure 11d
shows a depth plot with (from left to right): spec-
tral gamma ray, depth, core and log porosity,
PRT and T2 distribution. Figure 12a contains T2
distributions combined over the approximately
500 m reservoir interval partitioned by PRT.
As expected, non-reservoir PRT1–PRT3 have a
249
large spread of T2 distribution mostly below
200 ms, while reservoir PRT4–PRT6 are charac-
terized by higher T2, indicating an increased
amount of vuggy porosity.
† Step 6: Determination in a multi-well setting and
quality control using maps. PRTs defined in Step
5 were determined in all platform wells with
modern well suits following specific cutoffs
or clustering incorporated into the master petro-
physical evaluation code (i.e. Loglan in Geolog;
Paradigm formation evaluation software; sim-
ilar routines available in Techlog from Schlum-
berger). The quality control step consisted of
comparing PRT maps with diagenetic and depo-
sitional trends. Care was taken to eliminate out-
liers and minimize overlap. The PRT maps were
250 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
Fig. 13. (a) Illustration showing the mapped relationship between DRTs and resulting PRTs. (b) Simplified
explanation of the PRTs in terms of relative depositional and diagenetic control, where DRT1– DRT3 are non-reservoir,
and PRT4– PRT6 represent fair to very good reservoir.
used to define lateral trends used for the creation
of MPS training images in Step 8.
† Step 7: Dynamic validation of PRTs. In Tengiz,
the dynamic validation was performed by com-
paring PRTs with PLT profiles (see Fig. 7b).
This exercise confirmed that non-reservoir
PRT1–PRT 3 correspond to non-flow zones,
while reservoir PRT4–PRT6 correspond to the
inflow zones (green bars in Fig. 7b). This confor-
mance was successfully assessed in all wells with
PLTs.
† Step 8: PRT realization and spatial validation.
During steps 5 –7 the relationship between
PRTs and DRTs was carefully monitored to
maintain optimal relationships for spatial distri-
bution in the model. The resulting mapping of
processes and spatial characteristics of DTs in
PRTs is shown in Figure 13a. Following the
prediction of the carefully defined – and vali-
dated by dynamic data – set of PRTs in all
wells, kriged PRT maps were generated for all
SSF zones. Those maps, along with the earlier
observations on geological attributes (deposi-
tional and diagenetic), resulted in a linkage
between DRTs and PRTs that provided
additional information on spatial trends and
juxtaposition rules (Fig. 13a, b) required for
building appropriate training images, as well as
the soft probability cube for PRT conditioning.
Some of the PRTs, although diagenetically
modified, still mostly resemble the original
DRTs and conform to primary depositional
spatial trends. Other PRTs have trends that are
the result of diagenetic processes, truncate the
SSF and change within cycles (Fig. 13a, b).
The interesting observation is that the timing of
those diagenetic processes played a crucial
role: PRT1 and PRT3 were modified early and
formed baffles with reduced porosity and per-
meability bordering cycles or ‘containers’.
These containers were later overprinted by cor-
rosion, mostly in the centre of the platform,
and cementation towards the NE and eastern
sectors in the field where calcite and bitumen
cements occluded porosity. Key elements of
the static model workflow included training
images, vertical proportion curves (VPC) and
facies probability cubes. The static geomodel-
ling process utilizes MPS, since this handles
complex juxtaposition while preserving pro-
portions better than most other available model-
ling platforms. The MPS modelling workflow
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 251

Fig. 14. Simplified diagram summarizing the geomodelling steps using multiple point statistics (MPS). Only five PRTs
were distributed in this realization as the pre-Joint Venture (Russian) well group was not capable of predicting PRT6.
The key in the lower-left corner shows the ‘lumping’, while Figure 13b provides the key for the PRTs. The modelling
steps run from (a) the generation of training images capturing relative proportions and juxtaposition rules, to (b) the
calculation (and, if required, manual modification) of vertical proportion curves, to (c & d) kriged PRT maps (from the
determined well PRTs) that were manually adjusted to generate more conceptually realistic trends, to (e) the soft
probability cube. Cross-sections of the final (base case) realization are shown in the centre of the diagram (modified after
Kenter et al. 2010).

used for the Tengiz platform has been published
by Kenter et al. (2010) and is briefly summarized
below. The training images (Fig. 14a) depict
PRT body shapes, relative dimensions, size–
frequency distribution and (in this scenario) 3D
spatial interrelationships from core and pre-
dicted well observations, as well as from geo-
logical concepts supplemented by information
from forward models and outcrops analogues
(for more detailed information, see Kenter et al.
2010). Vertical proportion curves (Fig. 14b)
display the proportion of facies per layer in the
geocellular model, while facies probability
cubes integrate information from the wells
through kriged PRT maps, seismic or geological
interpretation, and the VPC into facies probabil-
ities for each cell. Kriged PRT maps (Fig. 14c)
were manually adjusted to generate more con-
ceptually realistic trends (Fig. 14d), especially
in the interwell areas, and, next, convolved with
the VPCs to generate a soft probability cube
(Fig. 14e). Following a declustering step to
account for clustering of pre-Joint Venture and
modern wells, for each sequence the soft prob-
ability cubes were convolved with the training
images. Finally, porosity, water saturation and
permeability were distributed in the PRT model
using standard stochastic methods.
Wafra Field
The First Eocene reservoir at Wafra Field, located in
the onshore area of the Partitioned Zone between
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (Fig. 9), is a heavy oil car-
bonate reservoir with an average porosity of 37%,
which is exceptionally high for carbonates (Med-
daugh et al. 2013). The total onshore oil production
in the Partitioned Zone reached 3 billion (3 × 109)
252 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
Fig. 15. Graph showing the pore throat radius histograms (from MICP) groupings that were used for further lumping.
barrels in late 2004, with production from four
fields. In 2009, a pilot steam injection project
began at the carbonate First Eocene reservoir at
the Wafra Field. Steam flooding involves injecting
steam into heavy oil reservoirs to heat the crude
oil underground, reducing its viscosity and allowing
its extraction through wells.
PRT workflow application. The rock typing was per-
formed as part of the model to support the steam
injection project. The eight-step PRT workflow
was applied to predict and distribute the dominant
petrophysical rock types:
† Step 1: Data scenario. The resulting PRT set was
defined using a subset of 10 cored wells and
applied to 113 wells in the model area. Nearly
120 MICP samples were used to define throat-
based pore types. The 56 wells in the steam
injection pilot area include 15 wells with triple
combo (standard set of measurements used in
formation evaluation and wireline logging:
gamma ray, porosity and resistivity), and NMR
and FMI. However, for the sake of consistency,
PRTs were derived from the triple combo log
suite present in all wells. Although the well
density is high locally and capturing reservoir
heterogeneity, it also has a high degree of clus-
tering. Since logging suites are generally poor,
the data scenario is considered moderate (see
Fig. 8).
† Step 2: Depositional rock typing. DRTs were
described in 10 cored wells with eight initial
groups, which were lumped to three facies
assemblages (Fig. 16). The heavy oil reservoir
consists of dolomitized subtidal packstone and
grainstone deposited under arid or semi-arid
conditions in a shallow, very gently dipping
restricted ramp environment. The shallowing-
upward cycles are capped by mud-dominated
tidal flat facies, which are followed or replaced
by evaporites indicating occasionally hypersa-
line lagoons and sabkhas. DRTs were further
lumped to three to allow reliable prediction from
logs: (1) evaporites (anhydrite and gypsum);
(2) tidal flat capping facies including algal-
dominated grainstone, and dolomitic wackes-
tone and packstone; and (3) subtidal (dolomitic)
packstone. The lumping honoured both deposi-
tional patterns and similarity in logging space.
The three lumped DRTs were predicted in a
reliable way from logs using Multimin for eva-
porites and multivariate stepwise discriminant
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING 253

Fig. 16. (a) Porosity– permeability cross-plot with lumped pore types from seven MICP analysis to three lumped pore
types that were predictable from core and log data. (b) For the purpose of further prediction from logs, pore types were
further lumped to two groups: macro- (macro-lumped with meso-) and microporosity. (c) As a result of the RT1
assessment, PRTs were defined by first considering DRT and then by incorporating diagenetic pore types. Hence, both
the tidal flat DRT2 and subtidal DRT3 were subdivided into two groups based on pore types. See the text for discussion.

analysis for the remaining DRTs, with a predic-
tion score of 80% (Fig. 2c).
† Step 3: Reservoir typing. The determination
of RT was based on the conformance of
DRT prediction from logs and examinations
of porosity–permeability cross-plots by DRTs.
The strong diagenetic modification by dolomiti-
zation did not cross-cut depositional trends and
therefore the reservoir type was considered
as RT1 (Fig. 3b).
† Step 4: Pore typing. MICP data allowed the defi-
nition of seven PT groups, which were further
lumped into three lumped pore types predictable
from core and log data. Figure 15 shows the first-
generation MICP groupings, and Figure 16a
gives a porosity –permeability cross-plot with
lumped pore types as colours. Lumped pore
types were: PT1, dominated by macroporosity;
PT2, dominated by mesoporosity; and PT3,
dominated by microporosity. For the purpose
of further prediction from logs, pore types were
further lumped to two groups: macro- (PT1 and
PT2) and microporosity (PT3, see Fig. 16b).
Examination of NMR and FMI logs helped to
identify moldic porosity, which was lumped
with macroporosity as it did not stand out on
the porosity–permeability (phi–K ) cross-plot
as a distinct group.
† Step 5: PRT definition. The PRTs were first
defined as a combination of predicted DRTs
and pore types. Since the reservoir type is close
to depositional, the PRTs were defined by con-
sidering first DRT and incorporating diagenetic
pore types in the second step in which, both,
the tidal flat DRT2 and subtidal DRT3 were sub-
divided into two groups based on pore types (see
Fig. 16c). The five resulting PRTs defined this
way were predicted from logs using stepwise dis-
criminant analysis with a prediction score of
77% using conventional logs only. In order to
254 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER

Fig. 17. Diagram showing the strategy of nesting PRTs within DRTs for the top stratigraphic interval as an example of
the areal quality control check of the predicted PRTs. Nesting of PRTs followed the initial distribution of DRTs using
dedicated DRT training images defined using ramp analogues and available core descriptions. Note that TF, ST and E
stand for, respectively, tidal flat facies, subtidal facies and evaporite, see the text for discussion. Figure is courtesy of
M. Andres and M. Levy.

Fig. 18. Cross-section over the resulting sector model showing the distribution of PRTs, which were simulated using
‘PRTs nested in DRTs’ in MPS. Note that TF, ST and E stand for, respectively, tidal flat facies, subtidal facies and
evaporite, see the text for discussion. Figure courtesy of M. Andres & M. Levy.
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
preserve low-permeability baffles in the model,
PRT2 was further subdivided into two PRTs,
based on an evaporite threshold of 35%.
† Step 6: Determination in a multi-well setting and
quality control using maps. The PRTs defined in
Step 5 were determined in all wells from the
model area. The PRT maps helped to define
the dimension and shape of the depositional
‘bodies’ and their spatial trends.
† Step 7: Dynamic validation of PRTs. The
modular formation dynamics tester tool pressure
profiles were successfully used to validate
evaporite barriers.
† Step 8: PRT realization and spatial validation.
The resulting PRTs at the wells were sub-
sequently analysed in map and in cross-section
view to unravel their spatial trends and juxta-
position relationships, necessary to construct
training images and distribute the PRTs in the
3D static model. PRTs were distributed in the
model using MPS. First, DRT training images
were defined using ramp analogues and available
core descriptions. Next, PRT distribution and
training images were nested within correspond-
ing DRTs as per definition (Fig. 17). Figure 18
shows a cross-section over the sector model,
with PRTs simulated using MPS.
Conclusions
Conventional carbonate rock typing workflows are
based either on textural properties, pore type clas-
sification, the application of electrofacies or
flow zone indicators (FZI), and are biased either
towards depositional or towards diagenetic attri-
butes. The resulting proportions and spatial distri-
butions of rock types and estimated flow may,
therefore, be poor estimates of the real subsurface
distributions. This workflow addresses this bias in
a comprehensive way by determining petrophysical
rock types, which control static properties and
dynamic behaviour of the reservoir while optimally
linking the geological attributes (depositional and
diagenetic as well as their hybrid), and their spatial
interrelationships and trends. The integrated work-
flow consists of eight composite and sequential
steps, which account for progressing field maturity
and data scenarios, including matrix and secondary
pore types such as vugs and fractures. Our new
workflow validates to dynamic data and optimizes
the representation of geological attributes (deposi-
tional and diagenetic), as well as their spatial trends
and juxtaposition rules. Initial tests on Tengiz Field
and Wafra Field were highly successful and sup-
port the applicability of the workflow in different
data scenarios and reservoir types. This paper intro-
duces the rationale behind this integrated
255
workflow and demonstrates its workings and
agility through deployment in two large carbonate
fields. This workflow is novel in several ways: (1)
it combines geological processes, petrophysics and
Earth modelling aspects of rock typing in one com-
prehensive approach; (2) it integrates core and log
scales, and provides consistent input into reservoir
models in the log domain; and (3) it provides a flex-
ible ‘road map’ from core to 3D model for variable
data scenarios such as prospects, appraisal and pro-
ducing fields that can be updated with progressive
changes in data quality and quantity during the life
cycle of an asset.
The authors would like to thank the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia Ministry of Petroleum, Saudi Arabian Chevron,
the Kuwait Gulf Oil Company, the Kuwait Ministry of
Oil and TengizChevroil for permission to publish the
paper. Discussions with, and support and encouragement
from, many peers and colleagues significantly improved
the workflow and contributed to this paper. In particular,
we would like to acknowledge M. Andres and M. Levy
for their contribution to the PRT modelling in the (First
Eocene) Wafra example, M. Harris for continuously
testing the underlying principles and concepts, and
A. Latham and F. Harris for trust and committing funds
to the research project. Lastly, we would like to thank
the reviewers, J. Lucia, P. Corbett and S. Geiger, for con-
structive and positive critique, which greatly improved the
quality of this paper.
References
Abbaszadeh, M., Koide, N. & Murahashi, Y. 2000.
Integrated characterization and flow modeling of a
Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoir in Daleel Field,
Oman. (SPE paper 62514.) SPE Reservoir Evaluation
& Engineering, 3, 150–159.
Abul Khair, H., Cooke, D. & Hand, M. 2013. Natural
fracture networks enhancing unconventional reservoirs
producibility. Paper presented at the AAPG Annual
Convention and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
19–22 May 2013. http://www.searchanddiscovery.
com/documents/2013/41182abulkhair/ndx_abulk
hair.pdf.
Ahr, W. M. 2008. Geology of Carbonate Reservoirs.
Wiley, New York.
Algive, L., Békri, S., Nader, F. H., Lerat, O. & Vizika,
O. 2012. Impact of diagenetic alterations on the petro-
physical and multiphase flow properties of carbonate
rocks using a reactive pore network modeling
approach. Oil & Gas Science and Technology –
Revue d’IFP Energies nouvelles, 67, 147–160.
Al-Jenaibi, F., Hammadi, K. & Salameh, L. 2008. New
methodology for optimizing field development plan,
why do we need to introduce dynamic rock typing.
(SPE paper 117894.) Paper presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Confer-
ence, held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3– 6 November 2008.
Amaefule, J. O., Altunbay, M., Tiab, D., Kersey, D. G.
& Keelan, D. K. 1993. Enhanced reservoir descrip-
tion: Using core and log data to identify hydraulic
256 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
(flow) units and predict permeability in uncored inter-
vals/wells. (SPE paper 26436.) Paper presented at the
68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, TX,
3 –6 October 1993.
Archie, G. E. 1952. Classification of carbonate reservoir
rocks and petrophysical considerations. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 36,
278– 298.
Arfi, A. S., Heliot, D., Zhan, J. L. & Allen, D. 2006. A
new porosity partitioning-based methodology for per-
meability and texture analysis in Abu Dhabi carbon-
ates. (SPE paper 101176.) Paper presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Confer-
ence, 5 –8 November 2006.
Bagheri, A. M., Biranvand, B., Rezazadeh, S.,
Fasih, M. & Bahtiari, H. 2005. Integrated analysis
of core and log data to determine reservoir rock
types and extrapolation to uncored wells in a hetero-
geneous clastic and carbonate reservoir. Paper pre-
sented at the International Symposium of the
Society of Core Analysts, Toronto, Canada, 21– 25
August 2005.
Barbier, M., Hamon, Y., Doligez, B., Callot, J. P.,
Floquet, M. & Daniel, J. M. 2012. Stochastic joint
simulation of facies and diagenesis: A case study on
early diagenesis of the Madison formation (Wyoming,
USA). Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Revue
d’IFP Energies nouvelles, 67, 123–145.
Basioni, M. R. E., Negahban, S., Dawood, A., El
Mahdi, A. & Bahamaish, J. 2008. Reservoir rock
typing from crest to flank is there a link? (SPE paper
11.) Paper presented at the 2008 Abu Dhabi Inter-
national Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, 5 –6
November.
Bosence, D. W. J. & Waltham, D. 1990. Computer mod-
eling the internal architecture of carbonate platforms.
Geology, 18, 26–30.
Bourbiaux, B., Basquet, R., Cacas, M., Daniel, J. &
Sarda, S. 2002. An integrated workflow to account
for multi-scale fractures in reservoir simulation
models: Implementation and benefits. (SPE paper
78489.) Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 13– 16 October 2002.
Bust, V. K., Majid, A. A., Oleto, J. U. & Worthington,
P. F. 2011. The petrophysics of shale gas reservoirs:
Challenges and Pragmatic solutions. (IPTC 14631.)
In: International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Volume 2. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richard-
son, TX, 1440–1454.
Caers, J. 2005. Petroleum Statistics. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, TX.
Cantrell, D. L. & Hagerty, R. M. 2003. Reservoir rock
classification Arab D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi
Arabia. GeoArabia, 8, 435– 462.
Carman, P. C. 1939. Permeability of saturated sands,
soils and clays. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29,
57–68.
Chehrazi, A., Rezaee, M. R. & Rahimpour, H.
2011. Pore-facies as a tool for incorporation of small
scale dynamic information in integrated reservoir
studies. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 8,
202– 224.
Chekani, M. & Kharrat, R. 2009. Reservoir rock typing
in a carbonate reservoir – Cooperation of core and log
data: Case study. (SPE paper 123703.) Paper presented
at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and
Simulation Conference in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 19–21
October 2009.
Choquette, P. W. & Pray, L. C. 1970. Geologic nomen-
clature and classification of porosity in sedimentary
carbonates. American Association of Petroleum Geol-
ogists Bulletin, 54, 207–250.
Clerke, E. A., Mueller, H. W., Phillips, E. C., Eyvaz-
zadeh, R. Y., Jones, D. H., Ramamoorthy, R. & Sri-
vastava, A. 2008. Application of Thomeer Hyperbolas
to decode the pore systems, facies and reservoir prop-
erties of the Upper Jurassic Arab D Limestone, Ghawar
field, Saudi Arabia: A ‘Rosetta Stone’ approach.
GeoArabia, 13, 113 –160.
Collins, J. F., Kenter, J. A. M., Harris, P. M., Kuany-
sheva, G., Fischer, D. J. & Steffen, K. L. 2006.
Facies and reservoir quality variations in the Late
Visean to Bashkirian outer platform, rim, and flank
of the Tengiz buildup, Precaspian Basin, Kazakhstan.
In: Harris, P. M. & Weber, L. J. (eds) Giant Hydro-
carbon Reservoirs of the World: From Rocks to Reser-
voir Characterization and Modeling. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 88,
55–95.
Corbett, P. W. M. 2010. Petrotype-based sampling
applied in a saturation exponent screening study,
Nubian Sandstone Formation, Sirt Basin, Libya. Petro-
physics, 51, 264 –270.
Corbett, P. W. M. & Potter, D. 2004. Petrotyping:
A basemap and atlas for navigating through per-
meability and porosity data for reservoir comparison
and permeability prediction. Paper presented at the
SCA Annual Conference, Abu Dhabi, 5– 9 October
2004.
Cortez, O. D. & Corbett, P. W. M. 2005. Time lapse
production logging and the concept of flowing units.
(SPE paper 94436.) Paper presented at the European
EAGE Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, 13–16
June 2005.
Cuddy, S. J. 1998. Litho-facies and permeability predic-
tion from electrical logs using fuzzy logic. Paper pre-
sented at the Eighth Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 11–14 October 1998a.
Dernaika, M. R., Basioni, M. A., Dawoud, A. & Kalam,
M. Z. 2012. Variations in bounding and scanning rela-
tive permeability curves with different carbonate rock
types. (SPE paper 162265.) Paper presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Confer-
ence, 11–14 November 2012.
Dershowitz, B., Lapointe, P., Eiben, T. & Wei, L. 1998.
Integration of discrete feature network methods with
conventional simulator approaches. (SPE paper
49069.) Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 27–30
September 1998.
Dunham, R. J. 1962. Classification of carbonate rocks
according to depositional texture. In: Ham, W. E.
(ed.) Classification of Carbonate Rocks: A Symposium.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Memoirs, 1, 108–121.
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
Ebanks, W. J., Jr, Scheihing, M. H. & Atkinson, C. D.
1992. Flow units for reservoir characterization. In:
Morton–Thompson, D. & Woods, A. M. (eds)
Development Geology Reference Manual. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Methods in
Exploration Series, 10, 282– 285.
Embry, A. F. & Klovan, J. E. 1971. A late devonian reef
tract on Northeastern Banks Island, NWT. Canadian
Petroleum Geology Bulletin, 19, 730– 781.
Flemings, P. B. & Grotzinger, J. P. 1996. STRATA –
freeware for analyzing classic stratigraphic problems.
Geological Society of America Today, 6, 1 –7.
Francesconi, A., Bigoni, F., Balossino, P., Bona, N.,
Martchini, F. & Cozzi, M. 2009. Reservoir rock
types application – Kashagan. (SPE paper 125342.)
Paper presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir Charac-
terization Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 19– 21
October 2009.
Frank, S., Narayanan, R., Hansen, P. M. & Allen, D.
2005. Carbonate rock typing using NMR data: A case
study from Al Shaheen Field. (IPTC paper 10889.)
Paper presented at the Offshore Qatar, International
Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 21–
23 November 2005.
Frazer, M., Hollis, C. & Whitaker, F. 2012. Numerical
reconstructions of post-rift burial diagenesis, lower
carboniferous, Derbyshire Platform, UK. Paper pre-
sented at the AAPG Annual Convention, Long
Beach, CA, 22–25 April 2012.
Garcia-Fresca, B. 2009. Outcrop-constrained flow and
transport models of reflux dolomitization. PhD thesis,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Ghedan, S. G. 2007. Dynamic rock types for generating
reliable and consistent saturation functions for simu-
lation models. Paper presented at the SPE/EAGE
Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Confer-
ence, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 28–31 October 2007.
Gomes, J. S., Ribeiro, T., Strohmenger, C. J., Negah-
ban, S. & Kalam, M. Z. 2008. Carbonate reservoir
rock typing – the link between geology and SCAL.
(SPE paper 118284.) Paper presented at the Abu
Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Confer-
ence, held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3 –6 November 2008.
Granjeon, D. 1997. Modélisation stratigraphique déter-
ministe, conception et applications d’un modèle diffu-
sif 3D multilithologique. Mémoires de Géosciences
Rennes, 78.
Guo, G., Diaz, M. A., Paz, F., Smalley, L. & Wanniger,
E. A. 2005. Rock typing as an effective tool for per-
meability and water saturation modeling: A case
study in a clastic reservoir in the Oriente Basin. (SPE
paper 97033-MS.) Paper presented at the SPE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 9– 12
October 2005.
Gunter, G. W., Finneran, J. M., Hartmann, D. J. &
Miller, D. J. 1997. Early determination of reservoir
flow units and integrated petrophysical method. (SPE
paper 38679.) Paper presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
TX, 5– 8 October 1997.
Hamon, G. 2003. Two phase flow rock typing: another
approach. (SPE paper 84035.) Paper presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, CO, 5 –8 October 2003.
257
Hollis, C., Vahrenkamp, V., Tull, S., Mookerjee, A.,
Taberner, C. & Huang, Y. 2010. Pore system charac-
terization in heterogeneous carbonates: An alternative
approach to widely-used rock typing methodologies.
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 17, 772–793.
Hulea, I. & Nicholls, C. A. 2012. Carbonate rock
characterization and modeling: Capillary pressure
and permeability in multimodal rocks – a look
beyond sample specific heterogeneity. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 96,
1627– 1642.
Hüssner, H. & Roessler, J. 1996. Modeling of reef
growth in a 3-dimensional space. In: Reitner, J., Neu-
weiler, F. & Gunkel, F. (eds) Global and Regional
Controls on Biogenic Sedimentation. Goettinger
Arbeiten Geologischen Specialisten, 2, 397 –404.
Johnson, K., Barnett, A. & Wright, V. P. 2010. An
evaluation of existing carbonate pore system classifi-
cations and rock-typing approaches. Paper presented
at the AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition,
New Orleans, LA, 11–14 April 2010.
Jones, G. D. & Xiao, Y. 2006. Geothermal convection in
the Tengiz carbonate platform, Kazakhstan: Reactive
transport models of diagenesis and reservoir quality.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 90, 1251–1272.
Jones, G. D., Smart, P. L., Whitaker, F., Rostrom, B. J.
& Machel, H. G. 2003. Numerical modeling of reflux
dolomitization in the Grosmont platform complex
(Upper Devonian), Western Canada sedimentary
basin. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 87, 1273–1298.
Jonoud, S., Wennberg, O. P., Casini, G. & Larsen, J. A.
2013. Capturing the effect of fracture heterogeneity on
multiphase flow during fluid injection. SPE Journal,
16, 194 –208.
Kazemi, A., Corbett, P. W. M. & Wood, R. 2012. New
approach for geomodeling and dynamic calibration of
carbonate reservoirs using porosity determined
system (PODS). Paper presented at the 74th EAGE
Conference and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark,
4– 7 June 2012.
Kendall, C. G. St. C., Strobel, J., Tang, J., Moore, P.,
Cannon, R., Bezdek, J. & Giswas, G. 1989. Simu-
lation of the West Texas, new Mexican Permian Gua-
dalupian basin margin – a response to eustatic change,
an example of SEDPAK. In: Harris, P. M. & Grover,
G. A. (eds) Subsurface and Outcrop Examination of the
Capitan Shelf Margin. Society of Economic Paleontol-
ogists and Mineralogists, Core Workshop, 13,
423– 426.
Kenter, J. A. M., Harris, P. M., Collins, J. F., Weber,
L. J., Kuanysheva, G. & Fisher, D. J. 2006. Late
Visean to Bashkirian platform cyclicity in the central
Tengiz buildup, Pricaspian basin, Kazakhstan: deposi-
tional evolution and reservoir development. In:
Harris, P. M. & Weber, L. J. (eds) Giant Hydro-
carbon Reservoirs of the World: From Rocks to Reser-
voir Characterization and Modeling. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 88,
7– 54.
Kenter, J. A. M., Tankersley, T., Skalinski, M. T.,
Harris, P. M., Levy, M., Dickson, T. & Jacobs, G.
2010. Tengiz Field (Republic of Kazakhstan) Unit 1
258 M. SKALINSKI & J. A. M. KENTER
platform static model: Using a hybrid depositional –
diagenetic approach. Paper presented at the SPE
Caspian Carbonate Technology Conference, Atyrau,
Republic of Kazakhstan, 8– 10 November 2010.
Kolodzie, S., Jr . 1980. Analysis of pore throat size and
use of the Waxman– Smits equation to determine
OOIP in Spindle Field, Colorado (SPE paper 9382.)
Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 21– 24 September
1980.
Lehmann, C., Al Hosany, K., Cobb, D. O. & Al-Hend,
A. 2008. Rock typing of upper Jurassic (Arab) carbon-
ates, offshore Abu Dhabi. (SPE paper 117889.) Paper
presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5 –6 November
2008.
Lisovsky, N. N., Gogonenkov, G. N. & Petzoukha,
YU. A. 1992. The Tengiz oil field in the Precaspian
Basin of Kazakhstan (former USSR) – supergiant of
the 1980s. In: Halbouty, M. T. (ed.) Giant Oil and
Gas Fields of Decade 1978– 1988. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists, Memoirs, 54, 101–122.
Lønøy, A. 2006. Making sense of carbonate pore systems.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulle-
tin, 90, 1381– 1405.
Lucia, F. J. 1983. Petrophysical parameters estimated
from visual descriptions of carbonate rocks: A field
classification of carbonate pore space. Journal of Pet-
roleum Petrology, 35, 629– 637.
Lucia, F. J. 1995. Rock-fabric/petrophysical classifi-
cation of carbonate pore space for reservoir character-
ization. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 79, 1275– 1300.
Lucia, F. J. 2007. Carbonate Reservoir Characterization:
An Integrated Approach, 2nd edn. Springer,
New York.
Marzouk, I., Takezaki, H. & Miwa, M. 1995. Geologic
controls on wettability of carbonate reservoirs, Abu
Dhabi, U.A.E. Paper presented at the SPE Middle
East Oil Show, Bahrain, Manama, 11– 14, March,
1995.
Marzouk, I, Takezaki, H. & Suzuki, M. 1998.
New classification of carbonate rocks for reservoir
characterization. (SPE paper 29883.) Paper presented
at the Eighth Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhi-
bition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11– 14
October 1998.
Masalmeh, S. K. & Jing, X. D. 2004. Carbonate SCAL:
Characterization of carbonate rock types for deter-
mination of saturation functions and residual oil
saturations. Paper presented at the International Sym-
posium of the Society of Core Analysts, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 5–9 October 2004.
Meddaugh, W. S., Osterloh, W. T. et al. 2013. The
Wafra Field first eocene carbonate reservoir steam-
flood pilots: Geology, heterogeneity, steam/rock inter-
action and reservoir response. (SPE paper 158324.)
Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 8– 10,
October, 2012.
Narr, W. & Flodin, E. 2012. Fractures in steep-rimmed
carbonate platforms: Comparison of Tengiz reservoir,
Kazakhstan, and outcrops in canning basin, NW Aus-
tralia. Paper presented at American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Annual Convention and Exhibi-
tion, Long Beach, California, April 22– 25, 2012.
Paterson, R. J., Whitaker, F. F., Jones, G. D., Smart, P.
L., Waltham, D. & Felce, G. 2006. Accommodation
and sedimentary architecture of isolated icehouse car-
bonate platforms: insights from forward modeling with
CARB3D + . Journal of Sedimentary Research, 76,
1162– 1182.
Porras, J. G. & Campos, O. 2001. Rock typing: A key
approach for petrophysical characterization and defi-
nition of flow units, Santa Barbara Field, Eastern Vene-
zuela Basin. (SPE paper 69458.) Paper presented at the
SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engin-
eering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25–28
March 2001.
Pruess, K., Oldenburg, C. & Moridis, G. 1999.
TOUGH2 User’s Guide, Version 2.0. Report LBNL-
43134, Lawrence Berkeley Nat. Lab, Berkeley, CA.
Ramakrishnan, T. S., Poosala, V. & Suel, T. 1999. On
rectangular partitionings in two dimensions: algor-
ithms, complexity, and applications. In: Beeri, C. &
Buneman, P. (eds) Proceedings of 7th International
Conference on Database Theory (ICDT ‘99). Springer,
New York, 236–256.
Ramakrishnan, T. S., Ramamoorthy, R., Fordham, E.,
Schwartz, L., Herron, M., Saito, N. & Rabaute,
A. 2001. A model-based interpretation methodology
for evaluating carbonate reservoirs. (SPE paper
71704.) Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, LA,
30 September–3 October 2001.
Ramamoorthy, R., Boyd, A., Neville, T. J., Seleznev,
N., Sun, H., Flaum, C. & Ma, J. 2008. A new work-
flow for petrophysical and textural evaluation of
carbonate reservoirs. Paper presented at the SPWLA
49th Annual Logging Symposium, 25– 28 May 2008.
Rebelle, M., Al-Neaimi, M. A., Ribeiro, M. T.,
Gottlib-Zeh, S., Valsardieu, B. & Moss, B. 2005.
Quantitative and statistical approach for a new
rock and log-typing model: Example of onshore Abu
Dhabi Upper Thamama. (IPTC paper 10273.) Inter-
national Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha,
Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
Sagaaf, M. M. & Nebrija, E. L. 2003. A fuzzy logic
approach for the estimation of facies from wire-line
logs. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 87, 1223–1240.
Salman, M. S. & Sameer, B. 2009. Rock typing: An inte-
grated reservoir characterization tool to construct a
robust geological model in Abu Dhabi carbonate oil
field. Paper presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Conference in Abu
Dhabi, UAE, 19–21 October 2009.
Serra, O. & Abbott, H. 1980. The contribution of
logging data to sedimentology and stratigraphy. (SPE
paper 9270.) Paper presented at the 55th Annual Fall
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX, 21–24
September 1980.
Skalinski, M. T., Gottlib-Zen, S. & Moss, B. 2005.
Defining and predicting rock types in carbonates: An
integrated approach using core and log data in
Tengiz field. Paper presented at the SPWLA 46th
Annual Logging Symposium, 26– 29 June 2005.
 CARBONATE ROCK TYPING
Skalinski, M. T., Kenter, J. A. M. & Jenkins, S. 2009.
Rock type definition and pore type classification of a
carbonate platform, Tengiz Field, Republic of Kazakh-
stan. Paper presented at the SPWLA 50th Annual
Logging Symposium, 21–24 June 2009.
Strebelle, S. 2000. Sequential simulation drawing struc-
tures from training images. PhD thesis, Department of
Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford Uni-
versity, Stanford, CT.
Strebelle, S. 2002. Conditional simulation of complex
geological structures using multiple-point statistics.
Mathematical Geology, 34, (1), 1 –21.
Strebelle, S. & Zhang, T. 2004. Non-stationary
multiple-point geostatistical models. In: Leuangth-
ong, O. & Deutsch, C. V. (eds) Geostatistics Banff
2004, Volume 1. Springer, New York, 235–244.
Sung, R. R., Clerke, E. A., Buiting, J. J. & Ettajer, A.
T. 2013. Integrated geology, sedimentology and petro-
physics application technology for multi-modal car-
bonate reservoirs. (IPTC paper 16988.) Paper
presented at the IPTC International Conference,
Beijing, China, 26–28 March 2013.
Thomeer, J. H. M. 1983. Air permeability as a function of
three pore-network parameters. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 35, 809 –814.
Zang, T., Hurley, N. F. & Zhao, W. 2009. Numerical
modeling of heterogeneous carbonates and multi-scale
dynamics. Paper presented at the SPWLA 50th Annual
Logging Symposium, TX.
Ye, S. J. & Rabiller, P. 2000. A new toll for electro-facies
analysis: multi-resolution graph-based clustering.
Paper presented at the SPWLA 41st Annual Logging
Symposium, 4– 7 June 2000.
van Der Land, C., Wood, R., Wu, K., van Dijke,
M. I. J., Jiang, Z., Corbett, C. W. M. & Couples,
G. 2013. Modelling the permeability evolution of car-
bonate rocks. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 48,
1–7.
Vahrenkamp, V. C., Creusen, A., Tull, S., Farmer, A.,
Mookerjee, A. & Al-Bahry, A. 2008. Multi-scale
heterogeneity modelling in a giant carbonate field,
259
northern Oman. 8th Middle East Geosciences Confer-
ence, GEO 2008. GeoArabia, 13, 248.
Walls, J., Morcote, A. & Devito, J. 2013. Shale reservoir
evaluation improved by dual energy X-Ray CT imag-
ing. Paper presented at the International Symposium
of the SCA, Napa Valley, 16– 19 September 2013.
Waravur, S., Shebl, H., Salman, S. M., Shibasaki, T. &
Dabbouk, C. 2005. Reservoir rock typing in a giant
carbonate. (SPE paper 93477.) Paper presented at the
14th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Confer-
ence, Bahrain, 12– 16 March 2005.
Whitaker, F., Smart, P., Hague, Y., Waltham, D. &
Bosence, D. 1997. Coupled two-dimensional diage-
netic and sedimentological modeling of carbonate plat-
form evolution. Geology, 25, 175– 178.
Weber, L. J., Francis, B. P., Harris, P. M. & Clark, M.
2003. Stratigraphy, lithofacies, and reservoir distri-
bution, Tengiz Field, Kazakhstan. In: Ahr, W. M.,
Harris, P. M., Morgan, W. A. & Somerville, I. D.
(eds) Permo-Carboniferous Carbonate Platforms and
Reefs. SEPM Special Publication 78 and AAPG
Memoir 83, 351–394.
Weger, R. J., Eberli, G. P., Baechle, G. T., Massa-
ferro, J. L. & Sun, Y. F. 2009. Quantification of
pore structure and its effect on sonic velocity and per-
meability in carbonates. American Association of Pet-
roleum Geologists Bulletin, 93, 1297–1317.
Wibowo, A. S. & Permadi, P. 2013. A type curve for car-
bonate rock typing. (IPTC paper 16663.) International
Petroleum Technology Conference, Beijing, China,
26–28 March 2013.
Wolff, M. & Pellissier-Combescure, J. 1982. FACIO-
LOG – Automatic electrofacies determination. Paper
presented at the SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium,
Corpus Christi, 6– 9 July 1982.
Xi, G. F., Koutsabeloulis, N., Mohamad Hussein, A. &
Ni, Q. 2011. Fracture modeling associated with geo-
logical events. Paper presented at the EAGE Workshop
on Naturally & Hydraulically Induced Fractured
Reservoirs – From NanoDarcies to Darcies, Nafplio,
Greece, 10–13 April 2011.