SPE 123703

Reservoir Rock Typing in a Carbonate Reservoir- Cooperation of Core and

Log Data: Case Study
Mitra Chekani, SPE, Petroiran Development Company (PEDCO-NIOC); Riyaz Kharrat, SPE, Petroleum University
of Technology

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 19–21 October 2009.

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

Abstract
Reservoir characterization is one of the most challenging subjects in Carbonate reservoirs. In this study Flow Zone Index,
Winland and initial water saturation methods were used to classify rock typing in an Iranian oil field located in the south-
eastern region. In addition, the predicted initial water saturation along with log and core data was used for capillary pressure
estimation.
The studied field is a Cretaceous fractured oil bearing reservoir composed of tightly packed limestone characterized by high
porosity but poor permeability with a thickness of 55-65 meters throughout the reservoir. The matrix permeabilities and
porosity are in the range of 0.01-150 md and 5-40 percent respectively. The oil gravity is 21.5 degree API.

Conventional Core data were first used to define the rock types for the cored intervals in which nine district rock types were
defined. Furthermore, the FZI (Flow Zone Index) log was also generated based on the permeability which was obtained from
FMI (Full-bore Formation Micro Imager) and porosity logs of cored and un-cored intervals. In addition, SLMP (Stratigraphic
Modified Lorenz) plots were generated for the purpose of identifying flow zone and barriers in each well. Also, Winland
method was also used for the same purpose. The results of SLMP were consistent with Winland result and FZI. The Scanning
Electro Microscopy Photomicrographs of the obtained rock type were studied and found to be consistent with the finding of
this work.

Further, the available initial water saturations obtained from log data were classified in three groups and found to consistent
with FZI and Winland methods. Based on the DRT (District Rock Type) obtained from the FZI method a correlation between
initial water saturation from the log and DRT was developed for the purpose of initial water saturation prediction. The
generated data was used for the capillary pressure and relative permeability estimation. The generated capillary pressure and
relative permeability were consistent with available scale data and provided sufficient Pc curve for the uncored intervals.

Introduction

Reservoir rock typing is a process for the classification of reservoir rocks into distinct units. If the rocks are properly
classified and defined, the real dynamic characteristics of the reservoir will be provided in the reservoir simulation model.
Several investigators1-5 have noted the inadequacy of classical approach and have proposed alternative models for relating
porosity to permeability. From the classical approach it can be concluded that for any given rock type, the different
porosity/permeability relationships are evidence of the existence of different hydraulic units. In fact, several investigators4-5
had come to similar conclusions about porosity/ permeability relationships.

Various quantitative rock-typing techniques are presented in the literature; Winland method, RQI and Swi methods are used
more frequently6-12. However, the RQI method appears to be more widely used13. The in cooperation of log data with this
statistical and neural network modeling has enhanced the RQI application13&14. Conventional cores are correlated to the log
data for purpose of prediction the uncored intervals. This approach is very useful for fields with limited data.
The available core and log data were screened and correlated based on statistical approach. The reservoir under study is a
2 SPE 123703

cretaceous carbonates formation located south-west of Iran. The Field is under development and has limited core and log
data. The routine and scale data are reviewed and analyzed in the following sections for the purpose of rock typing.

Routine Core Analysis

The plot of porosity permeability for the studied reservoir core data is shown in Figure 1. The plot shows a relatively good
relation between porosity and permeability data. The range of porosity is between 5 to 40 percent and the permeability range
is 0.01 to 150 md.
Different approaches are considered for permeability prediction and the rock typing in this work. These methods will be
discussed in the following sections.
Classical method
Classical method for rock typing is based on simple logarithmic regression evaluating permeability from log derived
porosity. Usually a linear relationship between log permeability and porosity coordinate system is obtained. However, in the
studied case, in which heterogeneity and non uniformity characterize the carbonate rocks, no unique correlation was obtained.
In addition, this approach has little or no physical and geological background. The obtained simple correlations deliberately
ignore the experimental scatterings of the data and predict smoothed permeability distribution.
Winland method
A quality of reservoir can be characterized by flow units which are controlled by hydrocarbon storage and flow capacity.
Flow units define the intervals of similar and predictable flow characteristics. Flow units can be identified from an
interrelated series of petrophysical cross plots and from the calculation of pore throat radii (R35, pore size) at the 35% pore
volume using the following Winland equation.

log( R35) = 0.732 + 0.588 log( K ) − 0.864 log(φ ) (1)

where R35 is the calculated pore throat radius at 35% mercury saturation from a mercury injection capillary pressure test
(micron), K is permeability (md), and Ø is porosity (percentage). The core samples of a given rock type will have similar R35
values which are utilized to define petrophysical units as given below:
• Megaport, units with R35 values greater than 10 micron.
• Macroport; units with R35 values between 2 and 10 micron.
• Mesoport; units with R35 values between 0.5and 2 micron.
• Microport; units with R35 values between 0.1 and 0.5 micron.
• Nanoport; units with R35 values smaller than 0.1 micron.
The Winland R35 plot for the core data of wells A, B, and D are shown in Figures 2. The diagonal lines represent equal pore
throat sizes (pore size). Points along the contours represent rocks with similar flow characteristics which are the flow units.
As figure 2 shows well D is more heterogeneous than the first two wells. However, all the three wells follow the same unit
flow. In fact macroports, mesoports, microports, and nanoports are present in the formation of these wells. A summary of
these observations are given in Table 1.
Based on this method of rock classification, four rock types are needed to characterize the studied reservoir. Tables 2 through
4 show statistical view of Winland rock type determination for well A, well B and well D sequentially.
Based on statistical view, all available core data were categorized in four determined rock types for well A (Table 2). Based
on this analysis 57 samples were taken from well A, in which 19 samples are from Upper part of Studied reservoir (33%).
Thirty eight samples (67%) are from Lower part of formation. Based on Winland classification, 12.1 percent of samples
which cover 4.12 meters length of studied reservoir formation, with 76.6md permeability and 30 percent porosity, are
categorized as rock type number one with R35 between 2 to 5 Microns. About 73.2 percent of the samples are in rock type 2
with R35 between 0.5 to 2 Microns covering 24.89 meters length with 6.9md permeability and 26.8 percent porosity. About
13.3 percent of samples are categorized in rock type number 3 with R35 between 0.1 to 0.5 Microns which covers 4.53
meters length and 1.4md permeability and 25.2 percent of porosity. About 1.4 percent of samples are in rock type number 4
with R35 below 0.1 micron and permeability of 0.028md and porosity of 25 covering 0.47 meters length of the formation.
Most popular rock type in well A is of type 2.
Table 3 includes 59 samples for well B which 10 of the data equal to 17 percent of the Upper part of studied reservoir and 49
samples equal to 83 percent of Lower part of formation. Therefore based on Winland classification just 0.22 percent of
sample which cover 0.07 meters length of studied reservoir formation with 23.2 md permeability and 24.2 percent porosity
are categorized in rock type number one with R35 between 2 to 5 micron. About 75 percent of the samples are in rock type 2
with R35 between 0.5 to 2 micron covering 23.78 meters length and 4.6md permeability and 28.9 percent porosity. Around
23.89 percent of samples are categorized in rock type 3 with R35 between 0.1 to 0.5 micron with 7.59 meters length and
0.4md permeability and 21.9 percent of porosity. One percent of samples are in rock type number 4 with R35 below 0.1
micron and with the permeability of 0.1md and porosity of 25.7 covering 0.32 meters length of the formation. Most popular
SPE 123703 3

rock type in well B is rock type 2.

Table 4 shows that there are 114 samples retrieved from well D which 16 of them including 14 percent of samples are from
upper part of studied reservoir and 98 samples including 86 percent of samples are from lower part of formation.
Therefore based on Winland classification 12.4 percent of sample which cover 10.04 meters length of studied reservoir
formation with 65.3md permeability and 32.8 percent porosity are categorized in rock type number one with R35 between 2
to5 microns. About 30.1 percent of the samples are in rock type 2 with R35 between 0.5 to 2 micron covering 24.39 meters
length and 12md permeability and 30.6 percent porosity. Around 57.5 percent of samples are categorized in rock type
number 3 with R35 between 0.1 to 0.5 micron with 46.57 meters length and 1.3md permeability and 23.3 percent of porosity.
No core data is recognized to be in rock type number 4. In well D, most popular rock type is of type 3.
As a result most popular rock types in studied reservoir formation based on available core data are of type 2 and 3. The most
common permeability and porosity from core data available are in the range of 1.3-12md and 23.3-30.6 percent sequentially.
To map the variation of the rock quality for each well through depth, strip charts were generated for porosity, permeability,
permeability/porosity, Rock type from R35 and Winland. The results for the three wells are shown in Figures 3 to 5. As can
be seen from the charts, the porosity, permeability, K/Phi ratio and R35 are almost decreasing from top to bottom of the wells
through depth. Hence Winland rock type is increasing through the depth. Of course these data are more obvious in well D
than the two other wells because of more core samples.

Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plots

Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot (SMLP) is a plot of percent flow capacity versus percent storage capacity ordered in
stratigraphic sequence. It offers a guide as to how many flow units are necessary to honor the geologic framework. Coupled
with Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot (SMLP), the R35 method can be used to define major flow units existing in
reservoirs. This method has been proven to be suitable for both clastic and carbonate reservoir descriptions.
Based on the available data of the three wells, the SMLP plot was implemented and the results are shown in Figures 6
through 8. There are 7 flow units and three barriers for well A, three flow units for well B and 7 flow units for well D. Most
of the high flow units are located at the top of studied reservoir. The number of core data available in each well might be one
of the reasons for the difference between numbers of flow units in different wells.

RQI method
The Reservoir Quality Index (RQI) method is an approach for classifying rock types and prediction of flow properties. This
method is based on sensible geological parameters and the physics of flow at pore scale. The main idea of the RQI approach
is to group data according to the FZI values. The method is based on a modified Kozeny-Carmen equation and the concept of
mean hydraulic radius15&16. It is an effective technique for rock type classifications and excellent permeability porosity
relationships can be obtained once the conventional core data are grouped according to their rock types.
The derivation of the RQI equation is based on the assumption that porous medium can be represented by a bundle of
capillary tubes. The combination of Darcy's law and Poiseuille's law of straight cylindrical tubes produces a simple equation
which relates the porosity and permeability as given by equation (2).

r2
k = φe (2)
8
The equation correlates the geometrical characteristics of the pore size (radius) and pore shape. The value 8 in equation (2) is
for cylindrical tubes. A tortuousity factor τ and the mean hydraulic radius were used by Kozeny and Carmen to account for
realistic porous media in the above equation, which resulted in the generalized form as given in equation (3). The mean
hydraulic radius was expressed through the surface area per unit grain volume, Sgv.

φ e3 1
k= (3)
(1 − φ e ) Fsτ S gv
2 2 2

Where Fs is the shape factor, k is in µm2 and Øe is a fraction. The group Fsτ2 is known as the Kozeny constant. This constant
is not known for particular rocks.
The RQI approach addresses variability of the Kozeny constant and the S2gv term by classifying the flow zone indicator, FZI,
which includes all major geological and geometrical characteristics of a porous medium.
1
FZI = (4)
Fsτ 2 S gv2
So
4 SPE 123703

φ e3 1
k= (5)
(1 − φe ) FZI 2
2

Dividing both sides by porosity (Øe) and taking the square the square root of both side results is:

k ⎡ φ ⎤ 1
=⎢ e ⎥ (6)
φ e ⎣1 − φ e ⎦ FZI
If the permeability is expressed in terms of millidarcies, then RQI can be defined as follows:

k
RQI ( μm) = 0.0314 (7)
φe
By defining Øz as the normal porosity:

φe
φz = (8)
1 − φe
FZI then is defined as follows:
RQI
FZI = (9)
φz
By taking the logarithm of both sides of equation 9, the following equation is obtained.

log RQI = log φ z + log FZI (10)

The equation indicates that for any hydraulic unit, a log-log plot of RQI versus a normalized porosity index, Øz should yield a
straight line with unit slope. The intercept of the unit slope line with Øz =1, designed as the FZI which is a unique parameter
for each hydraulic unit.
Since FZI is a continuous variable, it can be distributed throughout a 3D geological model. To provide rock type transfer to
the simulation model, the 3D FZI model can be converted to a 3D discrete rock type model by using a simple tool such as
equation (11).

DRT = Round (2 log( FZI ) + 10.7) (11)

The permeability for each cell of the geological model can be estimated using the unique permeability porosity equation for
each discrete rock type.
The RQI values are calculated for the available core data from wells A, B and D. The FZI values of all data are generated.
Figures 9 and 10 show semi log and log plot of permeability versus porosity as classified using DRT. The plot shows the
existence of at least five distinct hydraulic units with the cored interval. Each hydraulic unit is characterized by a different
average FZI value, ranging from 0.03 up to 2. The most populated data are in DRT 4 to 9. This range is covering 0.03 to 0.44
micrometer of FZI.
In addition to the core data, FMI permeability data of wells A, B and D were used to generate FZI log from permeability and
porosity logs of FMI. The results are shown in Table 5 and are in agreement with FZI predicted based on core data. The
correlation for three mentined wells between FZI from core and FZI form log (left track), DRT from core and DRT from log
(middle track) and permeability from core and from FMI (right track) are shown in Figures 11. As can be seen, good
correlation between FZI and DRT is obtained from core and log data. As a result, permeability in 3D static modeling was
build based on FMI data which is more effective than FZI permeability prediction.

Swi method
Initial water saturation (Swi) is a reservoir parameter which is relevant to porosity. In fact different rock types have different
initial water saturation.
Water saturation data obtained from petrophysical logs was used for this method of rock type classification. A 50% cut off
for initial water saturation was considered for the studied reservoir.
By plotting Swi versus porosity the rock types were determined. Based on the available log data, three major groups are
SPE 123703 5

determined for the three wells as can be seen from Figure 12. Different initial water saturations were categorized in different
groups as given in Table 6.
Regarding this approach, the saturation is divided to low, medium and high representing good (RT1), fair (RT2) and poor
(RT3) rock quality respectively. As Figure 13 depicts most rock types of the top of the studied reservoir formation is RT1 and
RT2 and for lower part of this formation, the rock quality decreases to RT3.

Special Core Analysis

The capillary pressure and relative permeability data are analyzed and proper set of capillary pressure and relative
permeability curves are proposed in the following sections.

Rock Types and Capillary Pressure Curves

Two capillary pressure curves are available for studied reservoir. Samples number of 5 and 126 are from wells A and well B
respectively. The detail information of the samples is given in Table 7. The porosity and permeability of well A is reported to
be higher than well B. However, the initial water saturation of well A sample is higher than Swi well B as shown in Table 7.
As a result; the routine, SCAL and saturation data are not consistent. Hence, these two samples are not reliable to support
initial water saturation data for the studied reservoir as indicated in Figure14. Therefore the trend of the Swi data will be used
to assist capillary pressure prediction.
Based on the limited capillary pressure data the discrete rock types of these curves were generated using the permeability and
porosity values as measured from conventional analysis of the corresponding core samples.
In the Winland and FZI methods, four and six capillary pressures respectively were generating based on Swi from the
available relative permeability samples which have similar rock type porosity and permeability. The detail information is
given in Table 8 and the results are shown in Figure 15 and 16.
Different procedures are proposed in the literature for capillary pressure determination. In this work two approaches are
implemented to define the required capillary pressure data. Based on following procedure, which is based on the scatterings
and intensity of data points division, the limits of such intervals were determined using equation 12.

C
⎛ 1 − FZ Im ⎞
Swi = Swim * ⎜ ⎟ (12)
⎝ FZI − FZ Im ⎠

Where;
Swi= Limit curve for interval i
Swim= Minimum Swi for the limit curve which is 0.15 based on estimated lowest Swi.
FZIm= Minimum value of FZI for the limiting curve.
C = Curvature of the limiting curve
The connate water saturation reported from scale data of well A and well B were plotted versus FZI from routine core data as
shown in Figure 17. A value of 0.03 is defined based on lowest FZI estimated from DRT4, and C was estimated by trial and
error with the objective of getting the best match curve with actual data.
Upon the determination of the parameters of Equation 12, the mathematical relationship (Eq. 13) is obtained. The trend
shows a reduction of Swi by increasing FZI as expected.

0 . 97
Swi = 0 . 15 * ( ) 0 . 51 (13)
FZI − 0 . 03

The above equation was derived from core data too. Based on Swi generated for each FZI, with the curvature estimated from
laboratory data, capillary pressure curves were generated. The results are illustrated in Figure 18. The same procedure was
implemented on available log data. FZI prepared from FMI permeability data and effective porosity for wells A, B and D was
plotted versus initial water saturation from log as shown in Figure 19. The same trend was observed as Equation 12 predicted.
To summarize the results based on different methods and to make the simulation model as simple as possible, far away from
any complexity, three rock types were identified. The Swi and porosity of each rock type is given in Table 8.

Relative permeability and DRT

There are six oil-water relative permeability and four samples for gas oil relative permeability curves of well B are available.
6 SPE 123703

Oil-water and oil-gas relative permeability might be correlated with rock type. But due to some error in Lab relative
permeability of well A and well B data, a reasonable correlation between the rock type and relative permeability data was not
feasible. The Relative permeability data for studied reservoir properties and their classification are given in Table 9.
The available relative permeability curves were normalized and the end points were implemented as defined in Table 10,
three Kr Water-Oil curves were selected as shown in Figure 20. A comparison between relative permeability from the
available core data and the selected rock is given in Table 11.
Meanwhile by considering 2 percent critical gas saturation, gas oil relative permeability data were normalized and
demoralized based on selected rock types as shown in Figure 21.

HPMI (High Pressure Mercury Injection)

There are nine HPMI tests for well D. Porosity, permeability, mean hydraulic radius, pore throat sorting, reservoir grade and
threshold pressure of the tests are presented in Table 12. Based on rock typing analysis these data are categorized in three
major rock types. As Table 12 depicts reservoir grade (reservoir quality) is high at the top and it is decreasing to the bottom
of the studied reservoir formation. More detail information is shown in Figure 22. About 10 meters of the top of the studied
reservoir formation is fairly good rock, since threshold pressure and hydraulic radius are medium and reservoir grade is about
23. It should be mentioned that the scale of reservoir quality is zero to 100 which representing high to low quality
respectively. Next 15 meters show good rock because threshold pressure is very low and hydraulic radius is high. In addition,
reservoir grade is about 15. Of course, the data points in HPMI do not cover top of the reservoir and are not enough to clarify
the actual trend in minor scale. It should be noted that petrophysical log indicates a lower rock quality from top to bottom of
the formation as shown in Figure 23.

Rock quality based on pore size

In addition to the routine and SCAL data, the pore throat distribution, grain size distribution, capillary pressure semi log plot
of mercury injection and Scanning Electro Microscopy (SEM) for the all mentioned plugs (Table 12) was investigated. The
results of the analysis are presented in Figures 24 though 31. As can be seen from the Figures, the rock quality depends on
pore throat diameter and grain size distribution. Poor quality is observed for small pore throat diameter and wide range and
different of grain size and good qulity rock depicts in large pore throat duameters and homogene garin size.
As an example of good rock, in sample number of 76 from Table 12, dual pore throat diameter trend of 1 and 10 microns
with homogene coarse grain size and low threshold pressure (about 8psi) were observed for DRT11 and RT1 showing high
rock quality. In SEM results, The Photomicrographs of the figures provide some geological description of the rock. For
example in Figure 27, Photomicrograph A shows a general view of micritic matrix that at higher magnification shows
abundant pores (photomicrograph B, red arrows). Photomicrographs C displays another view of the porous micritic matrix.
Photomicrograph D shows micrite (smaller crystals) and larger calcite crystals that are likely the result of micrite
recrystallization (yellow arrows).
Considering an example of a bad rock which is sample number of 92 from Table 12, the quality of rocks decreases as the size
of more popular pore throat diameter decreases to less than 1. Based on the available data, pour quality rocks have small pore
throat diameter about 0.5 microns, wide variation of grain sizes, high threshold pressure (about 91psi), and interaparticle
porosity occurring in a micritized bioclast in SEM description
In Figure 29 based on SEM results, photomicrograph A shows intraparticle porosity occurring in a micritized bioclast (yellow
arrow). Micrite is the dominant component of this sample (photomicrograph B). Dispersed in the micritic matrix are micro-
vuggy pores that are variably occluded with microcrystalline calcite cement (photomicrographs C and D, red arrows). In fact,
the variation in pore throat diameter and grain size distribution and threshold pressure and SEM pictures illustrate DRT and
RT changes in practice.

Comparing the different methods

Three different methods were used to classify the rock quality of the studied reservoir reservoir. In DRT classification, which
is based on FZI, DRT4 and DRT12 are classified as poor to good quality rocks respectively. In Winland method, RT1
corresponds to best quality rock and RT4 as poor quality rock. In Swi method, RT1 represents best quality rock and RT3 as
poor quality rock. Meanwhile, since Swi is obtained from log data, it covers wider range of reservoir depth and might be
more representatives. Figures 32 to 34 present all variation on rock types versus depth in three methods presented in this
study.

Conclusions
Rock type classification was done based on the available information using different approaches. Three major rock types
were extracted for the studied methods. The results were almost consistent with pore throat diameter and grain size
distribution, threshold pressure and the Scanning Electro Microscopy Photomicrograph. Initial water saturation was predicted
based on correlation estimated from SCAL and Log data between Swi and FZI. The capillary pressure and relative
permeability data for water-oil and gas – oil system were generated based on estimated Swi and Sor for each rock type.
SPE 123703 7

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Petroiran Development Company (PEDCO) management for the permission to publish this
paper. We also would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to members of geoscience and reservoir
simulation study team for their suggestions.

Nomenclature
C = Curvature of the limiting curve
Fs = shape factor
FZI = flow zone indicator
FZIm = Minimum value of FZI for the limiting curve
HFU = hydraulic flow unit
k = permeability (md)
R35 = pore throat radius at 35% mercury saturation (µm)
RQI = reservoir quality index
DRT = District Rock Type
Sgv = surface area per unit grain volume
Ø = porosity, fraction
Øe = effective porosity
τ = totuosity factor
λi = regression coefficients
Swi = Limit curve for interval i
Swim = Minimum Swi for the limit curve which is 0.15 based on estimated lowest Swi

References
1. Slatts R.M., Hopkins G.L.: Scaling Geologic Reservoir Description to Engineering Needs," JPT, Vol. 42 No. 2
(February 1990) 202-211.
2. Jennings Jr. J.W., Lucia F. J.: Predicting Permeability from Well Logs in Carbonates with a Link to Geology for
Interwell Permeability Mapping, SPE 71336 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October 2001.
3. Porras J.C., Campos O.: Rock Typing: A key for Petrophysical Characterization and Definition of Flow Units, Santa
Barbara Field, Eastern Venezuela Basin, SPE 69458 presented at the 2001 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Buenos Aires, 25-28 March 2001.
4. Guo G., Diaz M.A., Paz F., Smalley J., Waninger E.A.: Rock Typing as an Effective Tool for Permeability and
Water Saturation Modeling: A Case Study in a Clastic Reservoir in the Oriente Basin, SPE 97033 presented at
annual technical conference and exhibition in Dallas, Texas, 2005.
5. Stiles J.H. Jr., Hutfilz J.M.: The use of Routine and Special Core Analysis in Characterizing Brent Group
Reservoirs, U.K. North Sea, SPE 18388.
6. Winland H. D.: Oil Accumulation in Response to Pore Size changes, Weyburn field, Saskatchewan, Amoco
Production Research Report No. F72-G-25, 1972.
7. M. Fujii H., Fujimoto F.: Permeability Prediction by Hydraulic Flow Units-Theory and Applications, SPE
Formation Evaluation Journal, December 1996, 263-271.
8. Abbaszadeh Soto B.R., Garcia J.C., Torres F., Perez G.S.: Permeability Prediction Using Hydraulic Flow Units and
Hybrid Soft Computing System SPE 71455 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October 2001.
9. Biniwale S.: An Integrated Method for Modeling Fluid Saturation Profiles and Characterizing Geological
Environments Using Modified FZI Approach. Australian Fields Vase Study, SPE-99285- Oct. 2005.

10. Obeida T.A., Al-Jenaibi F., S. Rassas, S. Serag Eldin S.: Accurate Calculation of Hydrocarbon Saturation
Based on Log Data in Complex Carbonate Reservoirs in the Middle East, SPE 111112, Oct. 2007.
11. Shenawi H.S., White J. P., Elrafie E.A., Kilany K.A.: Permeability and Water Saturation Distribution by Lithology
Facies and Hydraulic Units: A Reservoir Simulation Case Study, SPE 105273, Presented at the 15th Middle East Oil
& Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 11-14 March, 2007.
12. Svirsky D., Ryazanov A., Pankov M.: Hydraulic flow units resolve reservoir description challenges in a Siberian oil
field, SPE 87056, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling and Asset Management
held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2004.
8 SPE 123703

13. Kharrat R., Mahvadi R., Bagherpour M.B., Hejri S.: Rock type and permeability prediction of a heterogeneous
carbonate reservoir using artificial neural networks based on Flow Zone Index approach, SPE 120166, March 2009.
14. Mahdavi, R., Kharrat R.: Integration of 3D seismic attributes and well logs for electrofacies mapping and prediction
of reliable petrophysical properties, SPE 121214, June 2009.
15. Kozeny, J.: Uber Kapillare Leitung des Wassers im Boden, Stizurgsberichte, Royal Academy of Science, Vienna,
Proc. Class 1 (1927) V. 136, 271-306.
16. Carmen, P.C.: Fluid Flow through Granular Beds, Trans. AICHE (1937) Vol.15, 150-166.

Table 1: Type of ports of the studied reservoir

Well Megaport Macroport Mesoport Microport Nanoport

Number (>10 µ) (2-10 µ) (0.5-2 µ) (0.1-0.5 µ) (<0.1 µ)
Well A - x x x x
Well B - x x x x
Well D - x x x x

Table 2: Summary of Winland rock type for well A.

Upper Part Lower Part

Count Count Count
Percent Percent
upper part 19 lower part 38 Total 57 33 67
Cutoffs for RTs
min max Percent of the different rock Types
RT cutoff cutoff RT %RT H(m) K, md Phi
1 2 5 1 12.1 4.12 76.6 30
2 0.5 2 2 73.2 24.89 6.9 26.8
3 0.1 0.5 3 13.3 4.53 1.4 25.2
4 0 0.1 4 1.4 0.47 0.028 25

Table 3: Summary of Winland rock type for well B.

Upper Part Lower Part
Count Count Count
Percent Percent
Upper Part 10 lower part 49 Total 59 17 83
Cutoffs for RTs
min max Percent of the different rock Types
RT cutoff cutoff RT %RT H(m) K, md Phi
1 2 5 1 0.2204 0.07 23.2 24.2
2 0.5 2 2 74.874 23.78 4.6 28.9
3 0.1 0.5 3 23.898 7.59 0.4 21.9
4 0 0.1 4 1 0.32 0.1 25.7

Table 4: Summary of Winland rock type for well D.

Upper Part Lower Part
Count Count Count
Percent Percent
Upper Part 16 lower part 98 Total 114 14 86
Cutoffs for RTs
min max Percent of the different rock Types
RT cutoff cutoff RT %RT H(m) K, md Phi
1 2 5 1 12.4 10.04 65.3 32.8
2 0.5 2 2 30.1 24.39 12 30.6
3 0.1 0.5 3 57.5 46.57 1.3 23.3
4 0 0.1 4 0 0 0 0
SPE 123703 9

Table 5: Comparing FZI and DRT based on Core and Log data for studied reservoir.
STUDIED RESERVOIR FROMATION Remarks
Well CORE LOG
Name FZI (µm) DRT FZI (µm) DRT
A 0.03-1.65 4 TO 12 0.017-2.7 2 TO 13
Wide range of data is not
B 0.06-1.12 5 TO 11 0.006-9.13 0 TO 15
available in core data
D 0.12-1.66 6 TO 12 0.11-3.6 6 TO 13

Table 6: Swi Range Definition for Studied reservoir formation.

Rock Type No. Swi Range

RT1 12.6<=Swi<=19
RT2 19<Swi<=28
RT3 28<Swi<=50

Table 7: Initial Water Saturation and residual oil reported from Laboratory data for studied reservoir
Well B
Routine SCAL DATA
Swi
Liquid %
Depth (m) Porosity Ka Ka (mD) Swi% Porosity Sorw Swmax
Sample No. Perm from
Log
Sample (dec) (mD) (mD) (mD) % 24% (dec)

103 1043.08 29.91 9.46 7.475 21.19 29.19 28 72

118 1060.64 32.172 3.78 1.988 23.32 32.17 32.67 67.33
126 1062.5 26.63 1.52 0.856md 31.77 26.63% 16.76 83.24
135 1064.74 24.524 1.04 0.6 35.17 24.52 28.02 71.98
161 1071.17 21.543 0.773 0.473 17.29 21.54 32.61 67.39
Well A
Routine SCAL DATA
Swi
Liquid %
Sample Porosity Ka (mD) Ka (mD) Swi% Porosity Sorw Swmax
Sample No. Perm from
Log
Depth (dec) 21%
4 1090.93 24.27 2.76 6.51 30.15 27.76 32.9 67.1
5 1099.07 23.81 6.283 4.57 40.7 28.17
6 1102.15 27.56 0.909 2.475 24.13 28.96 28.12 71.88

Table 8: Rock types properties for studied reservoir formation

Swi Porosity RT Number

0.44 26 3
0.27 27 2
0.18 30 1
10 SPE 123703

Table 9: Relative permeability data for studied reservoir properties and rock type classification

Routine SCAL DATA

Winland (micron)

DRT from FZI

SAMPLE NO

FZI (micron)
Liquid Perm

Winland RT
Ka (mD)

Ka (mD)
Porosity

Porosity
Swi%
(Well A)
4 24.27 2.76 6.51 30.15 27.76 0.62 0.33 8 2
6 27.56 0.909 2.475 24.13 28.96 0.29 0.15 7 3
(Well B)
103 29.91 9.46 7.475 21.19 29.19 1.07 0.41 9 2
118 32.17 3.78 1.988 23.32 32.17 0.59 0.23 8 2
135 24.52 1.04 0.6 35.17 24.52 0.35 0.2 7 3
161 21.54 0.773 0.473 17.29 21.54 0.33 0.22 8 3

Table 10: End points of selected rock types

Rock type
Swi Sor Sgc
No
RT1 18 22.4 2
RT2 27 25.5 2
RT3 44 29.7 2

Table 11: Comparing relative permeability available data for studied reservoir with the selected rock
Liquid Permeability

Winland (micron)

DRT from FZI

SAMPLE NO

FZI (micron)

Winland RT
RT number

Ka (mD)
Porosity

Porosity
Swi%
(mD)
Swi

Phi

0.44 26 RT =3 135 24.524 1.04 0.6 35.17 24.52 0.3479 0.2 7 3

0.27 27 RT =2 118 32.172 3.78 1.988 23.32 32.17 0.5876 0.23 8 2
0.18 30 RT =1 103 29.91 9.46 7.475 21.19 29.19 1.07 0.41 9 2

Table 12: HPMI data analysis for well C of studied reservoir formation
Reservoir grade
Grain Density

Emp. Klink K

Theoretical K

Surface Area

RT winland
Core Depth

per unit Vp
Pore throat
Sample ID

Threshold
Hydraulic

DRT FZI
Mercury
Porosity

pressure
porosity
Helium

Sorting

Remark
Radius
Mean

(m) (%) (%) (g/ml) (mD) (mD) (micron) (psia)

53 1249.5 33.8 33.3 2.71 19.4 21.2 1.22 2.2 19 25 25.86 9 2

57 1251.53 34.3 35.6 2.71 9.78 8.2 0.746 2.1 25 40 30.78 8 2
64 1255 32.2 34.2 2.71 31.8 16.4 1.122 1.9 17 25 19.54 10 1
73 1260.5 34.5 35.7 2.72 19.8 249 4.091 1.9 15 4 16.21 vuggy 9 2
76 1262 33.6 32.8 2.73 141 231 4.055 2.7 16 8 15.78 11 1
83 1265.5 38.7 29.9 2.72 25.3 845 6.718 1.7 17 2 18.14 vuggy 9 2
92 1276 29.9 31.4 2.71 2.08 1.26 0.336 1.4 26 91 18.16 7 3
94 1277 36.2 31.5 2.71 6.02 6.98 0.653 1.7 20 40 16.49 8 2
111 1285.5 27.4 24 2.7 2.67 68.4 2.7 1.5 26 7 19.56 8 2
 Permeability (md)
Porosity Vs Permeability

1000.0

100.0

10.0 Well D
Well A
1.0 Well B

0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Porosity (%)

Figure1: Porosity Permeability plot of the studied reservoir. Figure 2: Winland R35 plot for the core data of all wells.

Figure 3: Strip chart, Quick Scan Evaluation-Changing property and rock typing vs. depth for well A

Figure 4: Strip chart, Quick Scan Evaluation-Changing property and rock typing vs. depth for well B
12 SPE 123703

Figure5: Strip chart, Quick Scan Evaluation-Changing property and rock typing vs. depth for well D

Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot

100 100
7
6
90 5 90
4
80 80
Cumulative Flow Capacity

Barriers
Cumulative Flow Capacity

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40 Flow Units
30 30
3 Flow Units
20 20

10 10
2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1 Cumulativ e Storage Capacity
Cumulative Storage Capacity

Figure 6: Stratigraphic modified Lorenz Plot for well A Figure 7: Stratigraphic modified Lorenz Plot for well B
Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz Plot
Permeabity vs Porosity classified by DRT
100
100 DRT-4
DRT-6
90
DRT-7
DRT-8
80 DRT-9
DRT-10
10 DRT-11
70
Cumulative Flow Capacity

DRT-5
DRT-12
PE R M EA B IL ITY (M D )

60
Power (DRT-4)
Power (DRT-8)
50
1 Power (DRT-7)
Power (DRT-10)
40
Flow Power (DRT-11)
Power (DRT-10)
30 Power (DRT-5)
Power (DRT-6)
0.1
20 Power (DRT-4)
Power (DRT-11)
10 Power (DRT-10)
Power (DRT-11)
Power (DRT-12)
0
0.01 Power (DRT-4)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Power (DRT-9)
Cumulative Storage Capacity
POROSITY(%)

Figure 8: Stratigraphic modified Lorenz Plot for well D Figure 9:Semi Log Plot of Permeability vs. Porosity

as Classified Using DRT

SPE 123703 13

Permeabity vs Porosity classified by DRT

100 DRT-4
DRT-6
DRT-7
DRT-8
DRT-9
10 DRT-10
DRT-11
DRT-5
PERMEABILITY(MD)

DRT-12
Power (DRT-4)
Power (DRT-8)
1 Power (DRT-7)
Power (DRT-10)
Power (DRT-11)
Power (DRT-10)
Power (DRT-5)
0.1 Power (DRT-6)
Power (DRT-4)
Power (DRT-11)
Power (DRT-10)
Power (DRT-11)
Power (DRT-12)
0.01
Power (DRT-4)
1 10 100
Power (DRT-9)
POROSITY(%)

Figure 10: Log-Log Plot of Permeability vs. Porosity as Classified Using DRT.

Figure 11: Comparing FZI, DRT and K core with log for wells A (right), B (middle) and D (left).
14 SPE 123703

Swi vs Phi from log

50

45

40

35

Swi
30

25

20

15

10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
POROSITY(%)

Figure 12: Swi vs. Phi from log of well A, B and D for studied reservoir Formation.

Rock type classification vs depth for Well A Rock type classification vs depth for Well B Rock Type classification vs depth for Well D

Rock type number Rock type number Rock type number

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1060 1042 1240

1250
1070
1052
1260
1080
1270
1062
1090
1280
D e p th m m d
D e p th m m d

D e p th m m d

1100 1072 1290

1300
1110
1082
1310
1120
1320
1092
1130
1330

1140 1102 1340

Figure 13: Rock type classification based on initial water saturation for well A (left), B (middle) and D (right) for studied formation.

Two major laboratoty Pc for well A, B CAPILLARY PRESSURE FOR EACH ROCK TYPE BASED ON WINLAND RT

600
400

500

300

400 RT2
RT1
RT3
Pc(Psia)

RT4
PSIA

300
200

200

100
100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
SW(%)
SW

Figure 14: Pc for available SCAL data Figure 15: Capillary pressure based reservoir in different rock
Winland method.
SPE 123703 15

CAPILLARY PRESSURE FOR EACH DRT

400
Swi v.s FZI based on core data

50
300
40

S W i(% )
DRT8
DRT9 30 Actual
P c (P S IA )

DRT7
200 DRT6
DRT5 20 MODEL
DRT4

10
100
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
FZI (micrometer)
SW(%)

Figure 16: Capillary pressure determination based on derived DRT Figure 17: Swi from SCAL data vs. FZI .

Swi from log v.s. FZI from log

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4 Well A
S W i lo g

Well B
Well C
0.3 Well D

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
FZI log

Figure18: Swi from Log vs. FZI from log for studied reservoir. Figure 19: Three Pc for three rock type's determination

Relative Permeability curves for studied reservoir KRGO studied reservoir

1 1

0.9 0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7

KRW RT3 0.6 103 KRG

0.6
KRO RT3 103 KRO
KRGO

KRW RT2 118 KRG

KR

0.5 0.5
KRO RT2 118 KRW
KRW RT1 135 KRO
0.4 0.4 135 KRW
KRO RT1

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SW SG

Figure 20: Water Oil relative permeability of the selected rocks. Figure 21: Gas oil relative permeability of three rock types .
16 SPE 123703

Figure22: Changing in rock quality through the depth for well D for Studied reservoir.

Facies change is
confirmed with CMR

Figure 23: CMR log shows best quality at the top is decreasing towards bottom.
SPE 123703 17

Figure 24: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=9 and RT=2 (Sample # 53).

Figure 25: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=8 and RT=2 (Sample # 57).
18 SPE 123703

Figure 26: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=9 and RT=2 (Sample # 73).

Figure 27: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=11 and RT=1 (Sample # 76).
SPE 123703 19

Figure 28: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=9 and RT=2 (Sample # 83).

Figure 29: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=7 and RT=3 (Sample # 92).
20 SPE 123703

Figure 30: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=8 and RT=2 (Sample # 94).

Figure 31: Grain size distribution, SEM, Hg Pc for DRT=8 and RT=2 (Sample # 111).
SPE 123703 21

Winland-RT vs Depth DRT based on FZI vs Depth Rock typing based on Swi

0 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4
1070 1070
1070

1080 1080
1080

1090
1090
1090

1100
1100
1100

1110
1110
1110

1120
1120
1120

1130
1130
1130

1140
1140
1140

Figure 32: Comparing different rock type determination for well A for Studied reservoir
DRT f rom FZI vs Depth Rock typing bas ed on SWi
WinlandI-RT vs Depth

1 2 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4
1042 1042 1042

1047

1052 1052 1052

1057
epthMD

1062 1062 1062

D

1067

1072 1072
1072

1077

1082
1082 1082

Figure 33: Comparing different rock type determination for well B for Studied reservoir.
22 SPE 123703

DRT bas ed on FZI vs

Winland-RT vs Depth Rock type based on Sw i
Depth

0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
1240 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1240
1240

1250 1245 1250

1250
1255 1260
1260
1260
1265
1270 1270
1270
1275
1280 1280
1280
1285
1290 1290
1290
1295
1300 1300
1300
1305
1310 1310 1310

1315
1320 1320 1320
1325
1330 1330 1330

Figure 34: Comparing different rock type determination for well D for Studied reservoir.