We apply, evaluate and compare several reservoir rock typing (RRT) approaches for a giant carbonate reservoir in the Middle East that is characterized by poor rock quality and a thick transition zone. These workflows are used to define RRTs by comparing several approaches, namely pseudo clouds from porosity and permeability data for each subzone, global hydraulic elements, petrophysical grouping using MICP data and Lucia classes. Then, the permeability models obtained from each RRT approach are used as input data for building the water saturation models using two different approaches, Leverett J-functions and the Geo2Flow software.

The application of this workflow leads to a significantly change of the saturation distribution and subsequently revised the oil-in-place estimation for the field, especially because the reservoir has a thick transition zone. The variations in saturation distributions and oil-in-place arising from the different RRT approaches are likely larger than the uncertainty in the geological data itself. The saturation distributions do not only impact oil-in-place estimates but also predictions for the subsequent reservoir simulation models.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amaefule, J., M.Altunbay, D.Tiab, D.Kersey and D.Keelan
    . (1993) Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells. paper SPE 26436 at the SPE Annual Technical Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AlbreikiM, GeigerS, & CorbettP
    , (2017). A Consistent Workflow to Re-evaluate the Hydrocarbon Distribution in a Giant Carbonate Reservoir in the Middle East. 10.3997/2214‑4609.201701539.
    https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201701539 [Google Scholar]
  3. BentleyM, RingroseP.
    (2015) Reservoir Model Design, Springer Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Corbett, P.W.M., Potter, D.K.
    , (2004) Petrotyping: a basemap and atlas for navigating through permeability and porosity data for reservoir comparison and permeability prediction. In: Paper Presented at International Symposium of the Society of Core Analysts, SCA2004-30.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. GomesJ, RibeiroM, StrohmengerC, NegahbanS, KalamM
    . (2008) Carbonate Reservoir Rock Typing — The Link between Geology and SCAL. SPE Paper SPE-118284.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. HollisC, VahrenkampV, TullS, MookerjeeA, TabernerC, HuangY
    . (2010) Pore system characterisation in heterogeneous carbonates: An alternative approach to widely-used rock-typing methodologies. Marine and Petroleum Geology. doi: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.12.002, 27(4), 772–793.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2009.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. LeverettM
    , (1941) Capillary behavior in porous solids. Transactions of the AIME. doi: 10.2118/941152‑G, 142 (1): 159–172.
    https://doi.org/10.2118/941152-G [Google Scholar]
  8. Lucia, J.F.
    , (1995) Rock fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterisation. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin79, 1275–1300.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Masalmeh, S. K., Abu-Shiekah, I. M., & Jing, X.
    (2007). Improved Characterization and Modeling of Capillary Transition Zones in Carbonate Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi: 10.2118/109094‑PA
    https://doi.org/10.2118/109094-PA [Google Scholar]
  10. PittmanE
    , (1992) Relationship of Porosity and Permeability to Various Parameters Derived from Mercury Injection Capillary Pressure Curves for Sandstone. AAPG Bulletin, 76 (2): 191–198.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Skalinski, M., & Kenter, J. A.
    (2015) Carbonate petrophysical rock typing: integrating geological attributes and petrophysical properties while linking with dynamic behaviour. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 229–259.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error