Flow Units Sarvak Abteymour-Libre

Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol.
35(3), July 2012, pp 213-236
213
FLOW UNIT DISTRIBUTION AND RESERVOIR

MODELLING IN CRETACEOUS CARBONATES OF THE
SARVAK FORMATION, ABTEYMOUR OILFIELD,
DEZFUL EMBAYMENT, SW IRAN
H. Rahimpour-Bonab1*, H. Mehrabi1, A. Navidtalab1 and E. Izadi-Mazidi2
Carbonate sediments within the Mid-Cretaceous Sarvak Formation form an important reservoir
at the Abteymour oilfield in the western Dezful Embayment, SW Iran. The poroperm
characteristics of this reservoir were controlled by factors including deposition under tropical
climatic conditions and early diagenesis, repeated phases of subaerial exposure due to local,
regional and global-scale tectonism, and diagenetic modification during burial. From microfacies
analysis, the Sarvak Formation carbonates in the Abteymour field were interpreted in a previous
study as having been deposited on a homoclinal ramp-type platform.Three third-order sequences
were recognized in the middle Cenomanian to middle Turonian part of the formation. The
reservoir quality of the carbonates was enhanced both by dissolution (comprising separate
phases of eogenetic and telogenetic meteoric dissolution) and dolomitization (especially styloliterelated dolomitization).
In this paper, a rock/pore type approach was used in order to integrate petrophysical data
with facies and diagenetic models within a sequence stratigraphic framework. Two different
rock-typing methods for the determination of flow units were considered. Hydraulic flow units
(HFUs) were identified firstly using flow zone indicators and secondly using a stratigraphic
modified Lorenz plot. The flow units resulting from these two methods are compared, and their
close correspondence within the sequence stratigraphic framework is discussed. In addition, the
previously-used large-scale reservoir zonation scheme for the Abteymour field is correlated
with the defined flow units, and four new Integrated Reservoir Zones are introduced. By integrating
geological information with petrophysical parameters (including porosity, permeability and
saturation) within a sequence stratigraphic framework, field-scale variations and controls on
reservoir quality are described.
INTRODUCTION
1
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, University
of Tehran, 14176-14411 Tehran, Iran.
2
Geological Operation Office, Karoon Industry Area,
N.I.S.O.C., Ahwaz, Iran.
* author for correspondence, email:

rahimpor@khayam.ut.ac.ir; hrahimpor@gmail.com
Facies analysis of carbonate reservoir rocks can be

used to study primary (depositional) pore size
distribution and reservoir quality. Subsequent
modification and pore rearrangement however can
Key words: Sarvak Formation, Abteymour oilfield, Dezful
Embayment, SW Iran, carbonate reservoir, integrated
reservoir zones, rock typing, karst, Cretaceous.
2012 The Authors. Journal of Petroleum Geology 2012 Scientific Press Ltd
214
Flow units in the Cretaceous Sarvak Formation carbonates, Abteymour field, SW Iran
only be understood by studying the diagenetic history.

Determining the paragenetic sequence helps to
constrain poroperm evolution and to identify other
controls on the quality of a carbonate reservoir rock
(Dunnington, 1967; Moore, 2001; Al-Habshi et al.,
2003; Rahimpour-Bonab, 2007; Ahr, 2008). In most
carbonate reservoirs, diagenesis is a major factor
controlling secondary porosity and reservoir quality
(Schlager, 2005; Lucia, 2007; Ahr, 2008). The impact
of the diagenetic overprint on reservoir heterogeneity
and porositypermeability values is emphasised in
carbonate platforms in which deposition occurred in
a humid, tropical climate with heavy rainfall and an
influx of meteoric waters (e.g. Sun and Esteban, 1994;
Petty, 2005; Ehrenberg et al., 2007; Hollis, 2011).
The development of karst features in this context may
significantly improve reservoir qualities (Mazzullo and
Chilingarian, 1992).
Unconformity-related reservoirs contain about 20
to 30% of known hydrocarbon reserves (Mazzullo
and Chilingarian, 1992). Subaerial exposure and related
meteoric diagenesis are a major control on the reservoir
quality of these carbonate successions (Ehrenberg et
al., 2007; Weidlich, 2010, Razin et al., 2010; van
Buchem et al., 2011; Hollis, 2011). Diagenetic
processes can have both positive and negative effects
on reservoir quality depending on many factors
including the original mineralogy and texture of the
carbonate sediments and the climate (Harris et al.,
1984; Sun and Esteban, 1994; Ehrenberg et al., 2007;
Razin et al., 2010; Weidlich, 2010). In addition, the
duration of subaerial exposure may influence pore
systems and poroperm values (Harris et al., 1984;
Mazzullo and Chilingarian, 1992; Weidlich, 2010).
In a previous study (Rahimpour-Bonab et al.,
2012), the depositional environment and diagenetic
history of the Sarvak Formation, an epeiric platform
succession formed under a humid climate in the midCretaceous, were discussed with reference to
Abteymour oilfield, SW Iran (Fig. 1). The importance
of climatic and tectonic controls on facies types and
patterns, diagenetic history and reservoir quality were
investigated and the significance of disconformities
on the diagenetic history was emphasized. In order
to visualize the spatial distribution of depositional
facies and diagenetic imprints, the data were integrated
within a sequence stratigraphic framework. The
prevalence of humid tropical climatic conditions in
the mid-Cretaceous in the Arabian platform has been
substantiated by a range of geochemical modelling
studies (e.g. Huber et al., 2002; Fluteau, 2007; Keller
et al., 2008; Keller, 2008; Steuber, 2010).
The purpose of the present paper is to investigate
the relationship between facies patterns and diagenetic
events and reservoir zones (flow units) in the Sarvak
Formation within a sequence stratigraphic framework.
A two-dimensional model of the Sarvak reservoir at

Abteymour oilfield was constructed to illustrate the
heterogeneities within, and zonation of, the reservoir.
For flow unit determination, two approaches were
adopted based respectively on flow zone indicator
values and stratigraphically modified Lorenz plots.
First, the proposed flow units determined by the two
methods are compared. Then, they were correlated
with the large-scale reservoir zones currently used
by reservoir geologists (NIOC) at Abteymour field.
Using this approach, the previous reservoir zonation
scheme of the Sarvak Formation at this field has been
improved and a more precise, integrated reservoir
zonation is introduced. The main advantage of this
new scheme is that it is supported by geologically
predictable features throughout the field and has the
potential to predict and justify variations in reservoir
quality.
GEOLOGICAL SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY
Thick sedimentary successions of Cretaceous age in
the Arabian Platform and Zagros Basin contain
numerous economically important hydrocarbon
accumulations (Setudehnia, 1978; Alsharhan et al.,
1986; Alsharhan and Nairn, 1988; Ghabeishavi et al.,
2009 and 2010; Hollis, 2011; Lapponi et al., 2011).
The development of an epeiric platform occurred
during the Early Cretaceous throughout the Middle
East (Murris, 1980; Koop and Stoneley, 1982). The
stratigraphic record of the Late Albian, Cenomanian
and Turonian (89-98.9 Ma) in the Arabian Platform
and Zagros Basin includes the Mishrif, Ahmadi and
Rumaila Formations in Saudi Arabia; the Natih
Formation in Oman (van Buchem et al., 1996, 2002);
the Derdere Formation in SE Turkey; the Mishrif
Formation in Iraq; and the Sarvak Formation in the
Zagros Basin, Iran (Fig. 2). These successions are
characterized by a marked reduction in siliciclastic
influx, the development of a carbonate platform to
intra-shelf basin topography and the deposition of
basinal source rocks. Rudists are the dominant
component of grainy, high-energy platform margin/
barrier facies, and are also present in the platformtop sediments (e.g. Aqrawi, 1998; Alavi, 2004; van
Buchem et al., 2011).
Throughout the Cretaceous, the Arabian Plate
migrated northwards to tropical and subtropical
latitudes (Murris, 1980; Beydoun, 1991; Beydoun et
al., 1992; Alavi, 2007; Heydari, 2008). In addition,
local factors including the effects of salt diapirism
and movement on basement blocks led to episodic
regional uplift and emergence. Interactions between
eustatic and local sea-level fluctuations and the warm
humid climate are reflected in both the depositional
facies and diagenetic history (Blanc et al. 2003;
H. Rahimpour-Bonab et al.
215
3300
3250
3200
AT-3 331150
00
AT-2
2km.
OW
C: 3
317
Studied wells
3050
AT-1
AT-4
Turkey
3100
3150
3200
3250
3300
OW
C: 3
317
Iran
Abu Jir
fault zo
ne
Discovery year
So
Dezful
embayment
Mesopotamian
basin
uth
Eu
ph
ra
tes
fau
lt z
Trap type
on
HIGH ZAGROS
au
lt
IZEH
DEZFU Mountain Front F.
L
EMBAY
MENT
FARS
26
>3
Mi
na
bF
.
Gulf of Oman
Mountain Front F.
Zagros Fr
ont F.
Zagros
ult
QATAR
ARCH
n Fa
WESTERN
PERSIAN GULF
Front F.
EASTERN
PERSIAN GULF
r
Qata
-Ka
zeru
Abteymour Oilfield
Abteymour Oilfield
API
Sulfur content (percent)
IRAN
Main Zagros Reverse Fault
dF
31
Hydrocarbon characteristics
Persian Gulf
C
ru
ala
Anticline
Drilled wells
- Sarvak Formation
(late Albian-mid Turonian)
- Illam Formation
(Santonian-early Campanian)
100km.
LURESTAN
1969
Reservoir units
Saudi Arabia
0
Abteymour Oilfield
General information
BA
N
HI D A
NT R
ER A B
LA B A
ND S
Iraq
Abteymour Oilfield
QATAR
300km.
Fig. 1. (A). Location map of the study area and Abteymour oilfield in the transition zone between the Dezful
Embayment (SW Iran) and the Mesopotamian Basin.
(B). UGC map for the top-Sarvak reservoir at Abteymour field, OWC and location of studied wells
(contours in m).
(C). Principal geological and structural sub-divisions of SW Iran; the Dezful Embayment and Abteymour field
are labelled.
216
McQuarrie, 2004; Sepehr and Cosgrove, 2005; Sepehr

et al., 2006; Sherkati and Letouzey, 2004; Sherkati et
al., 2005; Verges et al., 2009; Razin et al., 2010; Hollis,
2011; Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012).
In oilfields in south and SW Iran, the Sarvak
Formation of the Bangestan Group (Fig. 2) together
with the Oligo-Miocene Asmari Formation are the most
important reservoir intervals. However, at Abteymour
field (Fig. 1) only Bangestan Group reservoirs are oil
producing and the Asmari produces water. Here, the
Sarvak consists of shallow-marine limestones which
are clay-rich, micritic and sparitic in parts, and which
include grainstones, rudist-bearing packstones and
stromatoporid wackestones alternating with intervals
of shale and marl. At its type section at Tang-e-Sarvak
(Bangestan Mountain), the Sarvak Formation
conformably overlies the Kazhdumi Formation with a
transitional contact; its upper contact with the shales
and marls of the Gurpi Formation is sharp (Motiei,
1993). However, at Abteymour field, the Sarvak
Formation is disconformably overlain by the carbonates
of the Illam Formation, and the upper boundary is
difficult to recognise (Fig. 2).
The Sarvak Formation has been dated as late Albian
(?) to middle Turonian (James and Wynd, 1965;
Setudehnia, 1978; Motiei, 1993). The complex tectonic
history of the Zagros Basin and Arabian Platform
(Sharland et al., 2001; Bahroudi and Talbot, 2003;
Sepehr and Cosgrove, 2005; Alavi, 2004; Sharp et al.,
2010; Casini et al., 2011) led to wide variations in the
depositional and reservoir characteristics of the Sarvak
Formation and its equivalents (Hollis, 2011; RahimpourBonab et al., 2012). These include formation of
intrashelf basins and palaeohighs in the SW sector of
the Zagros Basin (including the Dezful Embayment).
The influence of these tectonically induced features
are reflected in the sedimentary successions in the area
both as particular sedimentary facies and as the several
unconformities which are associated with significant
diagenetic events (Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012). For
example, the combined effects of sea-level
fluctuations, salt diapirism and movement on basement
blocks in the CenomanianTuronian resulted in three
phases of emergence dated as mid-Cenomanian, late
Cenomanian early Turonian, and mid-Turonian,
respectively (Blanc et al. 2003; Emami et al. 2010;
Verges et al. 2009; Aqrawi et al., 2010; Sharp et al.,
2010; Razin et al., 2010; Hollis, 2011). The midCenomanian and mid-Turonian phases of emergence
can be recognized in terms of regional-scale
disconformities (Alsharhan and Nairn, 1986; Alsharhan
and Nairn, 1988; Motiei, 1993; Aqrawi, 1998; Aqrawi
et al., 2010). However, the CenomanianTuronian
phase is restricted to SW Iran and the Mesopotamian
Basin (Razin et al., 2010; Aqrawi et al., 2010,
Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012). In the studied field,
all three unconformities are present and the Sarvak

Formation can be divided into three portions: (i) the
lower Sarvak (late Albian to mid-Cenomanian); (ii)
middle Sarvak (mid-Cenomanian to the CenomanianTuronian disconformity); and (iii) upper Sarvak,
comprising the interval between this hiatus and the
mid-Turonian surface which is marked by extensive
karstification.
In this study, subsurface sections of the Sarvak
Formation from the Abteymour field in SW Iran are
investigated. The field is located in the SW margin
of the Zagros Basin, in the transition zone between
the Mesopotamian Basin and the Dezful Embayment
(Fig. 1). Since its discovery in 1969, 31 wells have
been drilled in the NW-SE trending Abteymour
anticline for oil production, and have targetted
Bangestan Group reservoirs (Illam and Sarvak
Formations). This symmetric anticline, located on a
palaeohigh, measures about 23 by 5 km at the level
of the oil-water contact. Currently, on the base of
drilling and production data, the Bangestan Group
interval at this field is divided into nine large-scale
zones (Zones 1 through 9). In general, zones 2 and
4 are productive at this field.
In previous investigations, zones 1 to 3 were
considered to correspond to the Illam Formation,
and zones 4 to 9 to the Sarvak Formation (Table 1).
However, Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012) concluded
that the mid-Turonian disconformity separating the
Illam Formation from the underlying Sarvak
Formation is located above zone 3. Thus zone 3,
which was previously erroneously considered as the
lowermost interval of the Illam Formation is in fact
the uppermost Sarvak interval (Table 1). In this study,
reservoir zones 3 and 4, located respectively below
the mid-Turonian disconformity (i.e. just below the
revised Sarvak-Illam boundary) and the Cenomanian
Turonian disconformity (Table 1, right), were
considered. The study attempts to show why
reservoir zone 3 (with an average thickness of 55
m), which is intensely karstified as a result of longterm subaerial exposure during the mid-Turonian, is
of poor reservoir quality. In addition, the study shows
that because of important heterogeneities, reservoir
zone 4 (with an average thickness of 171 m) should
be considered as two independent flow zones
separated by a tight interval.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study is based on data from four wells in the
Abteymour oilfield (wells AT 1-4, Fig. 1). High
resolution petrographic analyses together with image
analyses and quantitative analysis of rock
components were used to determine the depositional
facies (and microfacies) and diagenetic features of
Shelf
Southwest
Northeast
Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Laffan
200 m
(Ma)
100
Rumaila
Ahmadi
Wara
K150
Sarvak
Mishrif
HST
92
Burgan Arch
Cenomanian
AP 9
Aruma
Turonian
Zagros
Halul
Maudud
Wasia
Cretaceous
Late
Santonian
Coniacian
Preservation Age
Active
northeast
margin
AGE
EUSTACY and
TECTONICS
MFS/TMS
CHRONOSTRATIGRAPHY
Continent
K140
2
1
K130
K120
100
Passive
margin
217
K110
Burgan 3rd sand
Albian
TST
AP 8
K100
Kazhdumi
Balambo
Series
Burgan 4th sand
Lurestan
Stage
Khuzestan
K90
Coastal Fars
Interior Fars
Amiran
Tarbur
Maastrichtian
Santonian
Coniacian
Turonian
Surgah
Lower
Aptian
Garau
Cenomanian
Albian
Ilam
Ilam
Bangestan group
Upper
Campanian
Sarvak
Sarvak
Kazhdumi
Kazhdumi
Dariyan
Fahliyan
Gadvan
Fahliyan
Gadvan
Garau
Neocomian
Ahmadi
Ahmadi
Mauddud
Sarvak
Sarvak
Limestone
Shale
Conglomerate
Shaly limestone
Fig. 2. (A). Generalized chronostratigraphy of the Cretaceous successions in the Zagros region (SW Iran),
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia together with eustasy and regional tectonics (after Sharland et al., 2001).
(B). Detailed stratigraphy of the Cretaceous successions in different parts of Iran, including the Sarvak
Formation of the Bangestan Group showing lateral facies and thickness variations.The studied subsurface
section of the Sarvak Formation at Abteymour field is located in the western Dezful Embayment, in Khuzestan
province.
the Sarvak Formation. For facies description, a

modified Dunham (1962) scheme was used together
with sedimentary structures and fabrics, grain size
and rock composition, as well as diagnostic allochems.
Facies analysis was carried out using standard models
and microfacies descriptions (e.g. Buxton and Pedley,
1989; Wilson, 1975; Flugel, 1982 and 2004). A
depositional model of the Sarvak Formation at
Abteymour oilfield was presented in a previous study
(Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012) (Fig. 3), and the role
of facies distribution in shaping the reservoir quality
were evaluated. Petrographic analyses of 300 thin
sections (cores and cuttings) from two wells (AT-1

and AT-3) were used to investigate depositional and
diagenetic controls on the distribution of reservoir
(flow) units and non-reservoir units (barriers/baffles)
in the Sarvak Formation. Core porosity and
permeability data for three wells (AT-1, -2 and -3),
together with log data from four wells (AT-1, -2, -3
and -4) were also available for this study. Flow unit
determination was carried out using two approaches:
firstly hydraulic flow units were identified using flow
zone indicator values; the alternative method was
based on stratigraphic modified Lorenz plots.
218
Not studied
104
Zone 2
Not studied
Mid-Turonian disconformity
Finally, by integrating both geological data (facies

analysis, diagenetic and sequence stratigraphic
interpretations) and petrophysical data, a twodimensional reservoir model was constructed for the
Sarvak Formation at Abteymour oilfield. Factors
controlling the distribution of reservoir (flow) and nonreservoir units were investigated.
GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Facies analysis of the Sarvak Formation (RahimpourBonab et al., 2012) resulted in the recognition of 12
microfacies which can be grouped into five facies
associations. An epeiric platform model is proposed
for the formation at Abteymour field (Fig. 3). The
leeward nature of the ramp was indicated by the
prevalence of muddy facies. This model suggests that
reservoir quality distribution in this formation is
primarily controlled by depositional facies. Talus
deposits (rudist debris floatstones/rudstones), patch
reef (rudist-algal) boundstones and shoal facies
(peloidal-bioclastic grainstones/packstones) have the
IRZ2
43
IRZ3
48
IRZ4
80
Upper Sarvak
Formation
55 Turonian
IRZ1
C-T disconformity
Cenomanian
171
Zone 3
Zone 4
Cenomanian-Turonian
Sarvak Formation
55
Formation
Zone 1
Illam Formation
Thickness
(m)
33
Stage
Revised
zonation scheme
(this study)
(Rahimpour-Bonab
et al., 2012)
Old reservoir
zonation
(by NIOC)
Santonian
Thickness
(m)
Stage
Coniacian? - Santonian
Illam Formation
Formation
Table 1. The previous reservoir zonation scheme for the upper Sarvak and lower Illam Formations at
Abteymour field (below, left) was established by NIOC geologists and reservoir engineers. This scheme is
compared with the new zonation scheme (below, right) presented in this study which is based on detailed
geological and petrophysical investigations.The positions of the CenomanianTuronian (C-T) and midTuronian disconformities are shown. See text for details.
best primary reservoir qualities (Rahimpour-Bonab

et al., 2012).
However, the Sarvak carbonates have undergone
intense diagenetic modification (Fig. 4) and four
diagenetic processes have been identified: eogenetic
and telogenetic meteoric dissolution; dolomitization
(especially stylolite-related dolomitization);
cementation; and fracturing (Hollis, 2011; Casini et
al., 2011; Lapponi et al., 2011; Rahimpour-Bonab et
al., 2012).
The reservoir zonation scheme presented in this
paper is based on previously-published studies
(Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012). Thus, only a
summary of geological events in the studied field
which shaped the geological framework of the
reservoir zonation is presented here. Mid-Cenomanian
emergence resulted in the formation of an important
basin-scale disconformity within the Sarvak
Formation. A second phase of uplift and emergence
in the late Cenomanian early Turonian resulted in
leaching of the middle Sarvak. Subsequently, relative
sea-level rise or basin subsidence beginning in the
Supra
Tidal
Inner Ramp
219
Intrashelf basin
Mid Ramp
(outer ramp)
FWWB
MF 10
MF 9
SWB
MF 11
MF 5
MF 12
MF 4
MF 8
MF 3
MF 6
Calcisiltite with
Sponge Spicules
Peloidal Wackestone
F1
F2
F3
F4
Intrashelf basin (outer ramp)

F5
F6
F7
Mid ramp
Wackestone to Mudstone
with bioclasts
Bioclastic
Floatstone to Rudstone
Packstone to wackestone
with benthic and pelagic
Foraminifera
Rudist-Algal
Boundstone
Rudist debris bearing

Floatstone
Wackestone with large

Foraminifera
F8
F10
Open marine
lagoon
F9
Mudstone with benthic

Foraminifera
Benthic Foraminiferal
Wackestone
Restricted lagoon
F11
Bioclastic-Peloidal
Grainstone to Packstone
Facies
code
F12
Name
Shoal
Mudstone with
pelagic Foraminifera
MF 2
MF 7
Facies
belts
MF 1
Fig. 3. Ramp-type depositional model for the Sarvak Formation at Abteymour oilfield together with microfacies
and facies associations occurring in different parts of the model (for details, see Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012).
early Turonian led to inundation and the reinstatement

of the carbonate factory, and the deposition of the
upper Sarvak succession. Burial of the middle Sarvak
at this time to shallow depths resulted in cementation
and mechanical compaction. A prolonged mid-Turonian
sea-level fall and basin-wide uplift resulted in a major
regional disconformity at the top of the upper Sarvak
with intense dissolution and karst formation. Downward
percolation of meteoric waters led to a renewed phase
of leaching and karstification beneath the Cenomanian
Turonian disconformity. These consecutive phases
of diagenesis resulted in significant enhancement of the
middle Sarvak reservoir at Abteymour. In general,
diagenetic features show a good correlation with
depositional facies, and are predictable within a sequence
stratigraphic framework (Fig. 5). Porosity increases
beneath sequence boundaries due to meteoric dissolution
and karstification. However, during lengthy periods of
subaerial exposure (e.g. beneath the mid-Turonian
disconformity in the uppermost Sarvak), porosity is
destroyed by over-mature karstification, e.g. by the
formation of collapse breccias resulting in porosity
occlusion.
Petrophysical attributes are one-dimensional and
cannot in general be predicted in inter-well locations or
at distance from the well bore (e.g. Lucia, 2007; Ahr,
2008). However, integration of this type of data
(including wireline logs, core and production data) with
three-dimensional geologic data (e.g. facies and

diagenetic data compiled in a sequence stratigraphic
framework) permits detailed 3D reservoir modelling
(Al-Habshi et al., 2003; Roger, 2006). In this study,
the sequence stratigraphic framework established
from previous studies (Fig. 5) was used as a basis
for reservoir zonation and lateral correlation.
Sequence stratigraphic analysis resulted in the
recognition of three third-order sequences in the
mid-Cenomanian to mid-Turonian interval (Fig. 5).
Sequence boundaries were identified by rapid
changes in depositional environment and distinct
diagenetic effects related to sea-level fall, and were
dated on the basis of biostratigraphic analysis
(Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012). The sequences can
be correlated over the Abteymour oilfield and other
areas in the Zagros Basin and Arabian Platform
(Grelaud et al., 2010; Razin et al., 2010; van
Buchem et al., 1996 and 2011; Rahimpour-Bonab
et al., 2012).
In the following sections, controls exerted by
facies patterns and diagenetic features within the
sequence stratigraphic framework on the
distribution of the reservoir (flow) and non-reservoir
units in the Sarvak reservoir are discussed. A twodimensional reservoir model is presented for the
Sarvak Formation at Abteymour oilfield.
220
A: middle part of the Sarvak Formation (below C-T disconformity)

Dissolution
(Eogenetic)
Eogenetic meteoric
diagenetic environment
(at C-T disconformity)
Silicification
Dolomitization
(Mixing-type)
Mosaic/drusy
Cement
Dedolomitization
Telogenetic meteoric
(at mid-Turonian)
Solution-collapse
brecciation
Isopach
cements
Shallow burial
(early Turonian)
Marine
(middle to late Cenomanian)
Shallow burial
Cementation
Micritization
Dolomitization
(Stylolite-related)
Dissolution
(Telogenetic)
Deep burial
Cementation
Stylolitization
Recrystallization
(Neomorphism)
Deep burial
(Santonian-present day)
B: upper part of the Sarvak Formation (above C-T disconformity)

Dissolution
(Eogenetic)
Isopach
cements
Meteoric
(at mid-Turonian)
Marine
(early Turonian)
Micritization
Dolomitization
(Stylolite-related)
Shallow burial
Cementation
Silicification
Dolomitization
(Mixing-type)
Mosaic/drusy
Cement
Dedolomitization
Shallow burial
Recrystallization
(Neomorphism)
Stylolitization
Deep burial
Cementation
Deep burial
Fig. 4. Schematic cartoons illustrating the diagenetic history of the Sarvak Formation from its time of
deposition to the present day. A (above) refers to the middle part of the Sarvak Formation between the midCenomanian and the CenomanianTuronian (C-T) disconformities; B (below) refers to the upper Sarvak
between the C-T and mid-Turonian disconformities.This diagenetic history comprises the transition from
marine to meteoric diagenesis (eogenetic and telogenetic phases) and subsequent burial (shallow to deep).
See Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012) for more details.
Facies
Associations
Ds Dl St Cm Fr
Well#2
GR
20
40 60
3rd
Seq.
Well#3
GR
20
40
60
3rd
Seq.
Sedimentological Characteristics
P/B
<1
Texture
>1 M W P G B
Facies
Associations
Diagenetic Features
Ds Dl St Cm Fr
Disc. 1
3230
3300
Well#4
SGR
20
50
80
3rd
Seq.
SB 4
MFS3
3250
3300
c.
is
3293
Sequence 3
>1 M W P G B
Depth
Diagenetic Features
Sedimentological Characteristics
Texture
<1
Lg
Pr
Tl
Sh
Bs
P/B
3rd
Seq.
Depth
40 60
Depth
GR
Lg
Pr
Tl
Sh
Bs
Depth
Well#1
AT#14
20
Upper Sarvak
29
Nezzazatinella-Dicyclina
assemblage zone
(Wynd,1965)
Stage
Biozone
No.
Series
Turonian
System
Formation
Biozone
2
3400
SB 3
3300
3500
3350
MFS2
Sequence 2
Middle Sarvak
Nezzazata-Alveolinidae
Assemblage zone
(Wynd,1965)
Middle Cretaceous
Sarvak
Cenomanian
25
3400
3400
SB 2
3400
MFS1
AlbianCenomanian
26
Oligostegina
Interval zone
(Wynd,1965)
3433
3450
M: Mudstone
W : Wackestone
P: Packstone
G: Grainstone
B: Boundstone
P/B: Pelagic to Benthic forams ratio
Ds: Dissolution
Disc.3
3450
Disc. 1: Mid Turonian unconformity

Lg: Lagoon
Sh: Shoal
Disc. 2: Cenomanian-Turonian boundary unconformity
Tl: Talus
Pr: Patch reef
Disc. 3: Middle Cenomanian unconformity
SB:
Sequence boundary
Bs: Basin (Outer ramp)
MFS: Maximum Flooding Surface
Cm: Cementation
Dl: Dolomitization Fr: Fracturing

St: Stylolitization
Sequence 1
3600
Cretaceous
3350
SB 1
Highstand
systems tract
Transgressive
systems tract
221
Fig. 5. Correlation of third order sequences in the four studied wells at Abteymour field.The sequences were determined using facies, diagenetic and palaeontological
observations; the time framework for the disconformities and sequences was based on the results of biostratigraphic analysis.The CenomanianTuronian (C-T) and
mid- Turonian unconformities which had a major impact on the reservoir quality evolution of the Sarvak Formation (and its equivalents over the Arabian Platform)
are shown.
222
FLOW UNIT IDENTIFICATION AND

RESERVOIR MODELLING
Rock typing concepts can be used to establish the
relationship between petrophysical data from different
sources (such as log, core and production data) and
geological descriptions (Amaefule et al., 1993; Porras
and Campos, 2001; Soto and Garcia, 2001; Granier,
2003; Bagheri et al., 2005; Asgari and Sobhi, 2006;
Gomes et al., 2008). Rock typing involves the
identification of particular facies types on the basis
of their dynamic behaviour (Varavur et al., 2005).
The dynamic behaviour is determined from studies
of textures, diagenetic alterations and rock-fluid
interactions (Bear, 1972; Gomes et al., 2008). Thus,
rock typing integrates 3D geological data with
numerical 1D petrophysical data.
Petrophysical parameters and dynamic calculations
extracted from core analyses are combined with
geological facies to determine flow unit behaviour and
spatial distribution. The relationship between facies
and rock types in a carbonate reservoir is often
complex due to interference between facies
distribution, diagenetic processes and rock-fluid
interactions (wettability variations) (Varavur et al.,
2005; Gomes et al., 2008). In this study, two different
approaches were used to differentiate flow units from
non-reservoir units in the Sarvak Formation. In the
first approach, hydraulic flow units were identified
using flow zone indicator values (Ebanks, 1987;
Abbaszadeh et al., 1996; Porras and Campos, 2001;
Tiab and Donaldson, 2004; Uguru et al., 2005). The
second approach was based on a stratigraphic
modified Lorenz plot (Gunter et al., 1997; Chopra et
al., 1998; Gomes et al., 2008). These methods were
applied in three wells (AT-1, -2 and -3) for which
well log and core poroperm data are available. The
methods are detailed below and the results analyzed
and compared.
Hydraulic flow unit determination using
flow zone indicator values
A flow unit is defined as a volume of rock in which
the pore-throat properties of the porous medium which
govern the hydraulic character of the rock are both
consistently predictable and significantly different
from those of other units (Amaefule et al., 1993;
Abbaszadeh et al., 1996; Porras and Campos, 2001;
Soto et al., 2001). A reservoir may be divided into
flow units to describe its performance during different
production schemes, and the division can be made
from either geological or engineering standpoints. In
order to understand and model the spatial distribution
of reservoir characteristics, 1D engineering data
should be integrated with 3D geological data (e.g.
Gomes et al., 2008).
Discretizing the reservoir into units, such as layers

and blocks, and assigning values of all pertinent
physical properties to these units, will improve the
understanding of the reservoirs heterogeneity. The
Hydraulic Unit concept (e.g. Amaefule et al., 1993)
can be used to divide a reservoir into distinct
petrophysical types, each of which has a unique flow
zone indicator (FZI) value (Al-Ajmi and Holditch,
2000).
Kozeny (1927) and Carmen (1937) simulated a
porous medium as a bundle of capillary tubes,
combining Darcys law for flow in a porous medium
and Poiseuilles law for flow in a tube. In order to
describe the relationship between porosity and
permeability, a tortuosity factor was included because
in reality connected pores are not straight capillary
tubes. Thus:
(1)
e r
e r 2 e rmh 2
( )
8 2 2 2 2
2 2
where k is permeability,e is effective porosity, is

tortuosity, and rmh is mean hydraulic radius. The mean
hydraulic radius can be related to the surface area per
unit grain volume (Sgv) and the effective porosity e
by the following equation:
(2)
S gv
1 e
(
)
rmh 1 e
Combining these two equations gives the

generalized Kozeny-Carmen equation:
(3)
k (
e3
1
)
2
2
(1 e ) Fs S gv 2
where k is in m2, e is a fraction and F is formation

resistivity. The term Fs2 is known as the Kozeny
constant, and usually has values of between 5 and
100 in most reservoir rocks. The term Fs2 Sgv2 is a
function of the geological characteristics of the porous
medium and varies with changes in pore geometry.
The determination of Fs2 Sgv2 is the focal point of the
HFU classification technique.
Amaefule et al. (1993) addressed the variability
of Kozenys constant by dividing Eq. 3 by effective
porosity, e:
(4) 0.0314
k
1
( e )(
)
(1 e )
e
Fs S gv
where the constant 0.0314 is the permeability

conversion factor from m2 to mD. A flow zone
indictor value, FZI, is defined as:
(5)
FZI (
1
)
Fs S gv
The reservoir quality index, RQI, is defined as follows:

(6)
RQI 0.0314
k
e
Fig. 6. Log-log plot of RQI versus z for

well AT-3 (see text for details). Data
distribution allows three hydraulic
flow units (HFUs) to be distinguished.
10
RQI
223
HFU 1
HFU 2
HFU 3
AT-3 well
0.1
R2=0.5931
0.01
R =0.7843
R =0.8529
0.001
0.01
0.001
0.1
z
Table 2. Example of dataset used for the hydraulic flow units determination using the FZI method in well AT-3.
The RQI, normalized porosity (z) and FZI values are calculated using formulae presented in the text.
Depth
(m)
101.13
103.34
103.6
104.76
104.84
106.18
106.64
106.87
106.94
107.1
107.26
108.15
108.24
108.59
108.66
108.93
109.22
109.56
109.83
110.23
110.46
110.88
110.93
Porosity
(fraction)
0.1089
0.1555
0.1044
0.1645
0.164
0.1955
0.1784
0.1853
0.1922
0.1692
0.1533
0.1995
0.2149
0.192
0.2049
0.2048
0.1587
0.1666
0.1856
0.1835
0.1861
0.1781
0.185
K air
(md)
R QI
?z
LOG FZI
FZI
zone
0.762
0.08306
0.12221
0.15969
0.18413
1.402
0.11507
0.11657
2.461
0.12145
0.19689
3.829
0.15172
0.19617
11.584
0.2417
0.24301
6.38
0.18778
0.21714
7.243
0.19631
0.22745
3.945
0.14226
0.23793
-0.16771
-0.06185
-0.00563
-0.20982
-0.11159
-0.00234
-0.06309
-0.06393
-0.22337
-0.17211
-0.23388
-0.29725
-0.42954
-0.30973
-0.43638
-0.21997
-0.35418
-0.36662
-0.31998
-0.31388
-0.29902
-0.39525
-0.48436
0.67966
4.022
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3.222
0.13702
0.20366
1.736
0.10567
0.18106
3.197
0.1257
0.24922
2.259
0.10181
0.27372
2.641
0.11646
0.23762
1.85
0.09435
0.2577
5.003
0.1552
0.25755
1.121
0.08345
0.18864
1.248
0.08594
0.1999
2.24
0.10908
0.2279
2.215
0.10909
0.22474
2.49
0.11486
0.22865
1.374
0.08721
0.21669
1.039
0.07441
0.22699
where z, the normalized porosity, is:

(7)
z (
e
)
(1 e )
Eq. 6 then becomes:

(8)
RQI z FZI
Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. 8 gives:

(9)
log RQI log z log FZI
Input data for this study include core porosity (e)

(c.f. Tiab and Donaldson, 2004), and permeability
0.86727
0.98711
0.61685
0.77342
0.99464
0.86478
0.86312
0.5979
0.6728
0.58361
0.50437
0.37193
0.49009
0.36612
0.6026
0.4424
0.42991
0.47866
0.48542
0.50232
0.40248
0.32782
from three wells measured in 0.3 m to 1 m intervals.

An example of the dataset used for the FZI method is
shown in Table 2. Ideally, on a log-log plot of RQI
versus z (e.g. Fig. 6 data from well AT-3), samples
with similar FZI values will lie on a straight line with
a unit slope, and data samples with significantly
different FZI values will lie on parallel unit-slope lines.
Samples that lie on the same straight line have similar
pore throat attributes and thereby constitute a unique
hydraulic flow unit. Each line represents a particular
HFU, and the intercept of this line with z = 1 gives
the mean FZI value for that HFU.
Based on this method, three HFUs were determined
in the studied wells (wells AT-1,-2 and -3); poroperm
HFU 2
HFU 3
HFU 1
-1.5 to - 0.5
- 0.5 to 0
0 to 0.5
< - 0.5
R = 0.7901
1
0.1
R2= 0.8384
0.01
Permeability (md)
Permeability (md)
R2= 0.9593
10
> 0
AT#2 Well
R2= 0.9608
R2= 0.5213
2
R = 0.7182
10
0.15
0.2
0.3
0.2
Porosity (decimal)
> 0.5
AT#3 Well
100
R = 0.5993
10
R2= 0.8742
R2= 0.8612
1
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.4
4
0.2
Percent Flow Capacity (%KH)
0.8
0.6
0.6
5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
Percent Storage Capacity (%PHIH)
0.2
4
0.4
0.6
0.2
3
0.6
Inflection points
Inflection points
0.3
Inflection points
0.8
0.2
Porosity(decimal)
0.1
Porosity (decimal)
- 0.5 to 0.5
0.001
0.1
0.1
< - 0.5
0.001
HFU 2
1000
100
HFU 3
HFU 1
0.01
0.0001
Stratigraphic modified
Lorenz plot (SMLP)
- 0.5 to 0
1000
100
HFU 3
Permeability(md)
AT#1 Well
HFU 2
0.4
0.6
0.8
12
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 7. (A) Porosity-permeability cross-plots for wells AT-1, -2 and -3 from which hydraulic flow units (HFUs) can be identified.The limits of log FZI for each HFU are
also shown. (B) Cross-plots of storage capacity ( h%) versus flow capacity (k.h%) for wells AT-1 to AT-3 (see text for details).
Hydraulic Flow Unit (HFU)

determination method
HFU 1
224
A
LOG FZI
Values
225
Table 3. Example of dataset used for the stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot method for well AT-3. The kh%,
h% and R35 values are calculated using formulae presented in the text.
Depth
(m)
? (%)
v/v
K (md)
281.05
1.44
0.0144
1.308
281.71
1.36
0.0136
27.02
282.29
3.08
0.0308
0.244
282.47
6.85
0.0685
0.535
282.53
4.28
0.0428
0.33
282.69
6.13
0.0613
13.02
283.56
13.49
0.1349
4.542
283.87
13.83
0.1383
1.758
283.93
9.75
0.0975
3.134
284.53
3.71
0.0371
1.575
284.59
3.07
0.0307
2.124
284.83
2.08
0.0208
0.743
285.3
0.76
0.0076
12.752
285.78
1.77
0.0177
0.078
285.84
2.55
0.0255
0.036
286.1
0.46
0.0046
0.278
287.67
2.88
0.0288
84.726
289.67
2.98
0.0298
0.013
289.95
7.06
0.0706
0.647
289.97
290.37
1.77
15.32
0.0177
0.1532
6.119
4.587
290.42
21.47
0.2147
88.284
290.88
12.56
0.1256
21.145
290.95
20.38
0.2038
52.469
kh%
phi
phih%
logr35
r35
0.639414
0.005074
0.003453
0.00071
0.074694
0.141683
0.01954
0.006742
0.033883
0.004569
0.006394
0.214896
0.001342
7.74E-05
0.002592
4.769459
0.000932
0.006496
0.004388
0.065787
0.158272
0.348753
0.13169
0.008976
0.017864
0.01233
0.002568
0.009808
0.117363
0.042873
0.00585
0.02226
0.001842
0.004992
0.003572
0.008496
0.00153
0.001196
0.045216
0.0596
0.019768
0.000354
0.06128
0.010735
0.057776
0.014266
0.052738
0.104959
0.072444
0.015088
0.057626
0.689559
0.251898
0.034371
0.130787
0.010823
0.02933
0.020987
0.049918
0.008989
0.007027
0.265664
0.350176
0.116146
0.00208
0.360047
0.063073
0.339459
0.083819
0.66374
1.458453
-0.05032
-0.14976
-0.09668
0.707025
0.142131
-0.1096
0.169206
0.356062
0.503479
0.381335
1.485057
-0.1337
-0.46814
0.696476
1.468759
-0.78672
-0.11256
0.980319
0.096915
0.725476
0.561695
0.61215
4.610416
28.73779
0.890589
0.70833
0.800422
5.093607
1.387174
0.776964
1.476407
2.270188
3.187714
2.406217
30.55323
0.735026
0.340295
4.971364
29.42786
0.163409
0.771693
9.556948
1.250015
5.314663
3.644979
4.094024
( kh)cum k1 ( h1 h0 ) k2 ( h2 h1 ) ki ( hi hi 1 )
diagrams and FZI log values for these wells are shown
in Fig. 7A.
(10)
HFU determination using a

stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot
The best way to assess the minimum number of flow
units in a reservoir uses a technique based on a
stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot (SMLP) (Gunter
et al., 1997; Tiab and Donaldson, 2004; Gomes et
al., 2008). This method is a graphical tool which uses
various data including the geological framework,
petrophysical rock/pore types, storage capacity and
flow capacity. By integrating these data, rock-type
based zonations can be transformed into
petrophysically-based flow units.
To construct the SML plot, continuous (ft-by-ft)
core porosity and permeability values and the
respective k/ ratios are arranged in stratigraphic order
(Gomes et al., 2008). The products of k*h and *h
are calculated, the partial sums are computed and totals
are normalized to 100%. *h and k*h are referred as
storage capacity and flow capacity, respectively. An
SML plot is a cross-plot of cumulative flow capacity
versus cumulative storage capacity (e.g. Fig. 7B).
The equation for obtaining a single value of
cumulative flow capacity is as follows (MaglioJohnson, 2000):
where k = permeability (mD), and h = thickness of

the sample interval.
A similar equation can be used to determine a single
value of cumulative storage capacity:
(11)
(h)cum 1 (h1 h0 ) 2 (h2 h1 ) ki (hi hi 1 )
where = fractional porosity.
An example of dataset used for the stratigraphic
modified Lorenz plot is shown in Table 3. Plots of
*h versus k*h values for the studied wells are
presented in Fig. 7B. The slope of the segments on
these plots is indicative of the flow performance of
the reservoir. Preliminary flow units (speed zones,
tight/baffle zones and seals) are interpreted by
selecting changes in slope or inflection points. Using
this method, the main flow units are illustrated in their
correct stratigraphic position. Segments with steep
gradients have a greater percentage of flow capacity
relative to storage capacity, and by definition, have a
high reservoir process speed. They are referred to as
speed zones (Chopra et al., 1998) or sometimes as
hydraulic units (in this paper, flow units, speed
226
zones and hydraulic units are synonymous). They

show high flow and storage capacities (for example
segments 2, 4 and 5 in wells AT-1 and -2; and segments
4 and 5 in well AT-3 in Fig. 7B).
Segments with lower gradients, i.e. relatively lower
storage and flow capacities, are known as baffle units
(for example, segments 1 and 3 in well AT-1 and
segment 3 in well AT-3 in Fig. 7B). These are typically
tight or dense stylolitic zones within the reservoir
succession. Segments with neither flow nor storage
capacity are seals or barriers (e.g. segments 1 and 3
in well AT-2 and segment 1 in well AT-3 in Fig. 7B).
Based on these plots, the studied intervals in each
well can be divided into three types of unit (Fig. 8):
1. Reservoir units (R.Us), with high h% and kh%
values; (h% from 25 to 40, and kh% from 20 to
35);
2. Baffle units (Bf.Us), with high h% but low
kh% values (h% from 15 to 25, and kh% below
10); and
3. Barrier units (Br.Us), with low h% and kh%
values (h% below 10; kh% mostly below 5), which
block (horizontal or vertical) flow through the
reservoir and result in compartmentalization.
Stratigraphic modified Lorenz plots were compiled
for wells AT-1, -2 and -3, and flow units were ientified
(Figs. 8 and 9). According to this interpretation (Fig.
9), there are three flow units and two baffles in well
AT-1; three flow units and two barriers in well AT-2;
and two flow units, two baffles and one barrier unit
in well AT-3 (Fig. 9).
H. D. Winland developed an empirical equation to
delineate commercial hydrocarbon reservoirs and to
define flow units (Gunter et al., 1997; Aguilera, 2002;
Tiab and Donaldson, 2004). The equation is based on
the correlation between porosity, permeability, and pore
throat radius at the point of 35% mercury saturation
(R35) in capillary pressure measurements and was
derived from formations ranging widely in age and
lithology. The equation is (Aguilera, 2002):
Log R35 = 0.732 + 0.588 (Log kair) 0.864 (Log e)
The correlation is generally reliable for rocks with
only intergranular porosity (such as sandstone) where
pore and pore throat geometry are related closely to
rock texture. However, porosity in carbonate rocks
is not always intergranular and the Winland method is
not therefore as reliable for assessing reservoir quality
in carbonate reservoirs. Therefore samples from the
Sarvak Formation were tested for reservoir quality
with use of a modified Winland R35 equation (Pittman,
1992):
Log R35 = 0.255 + 0.565 Log k 0.523 Log e
This equation was found to provide a more

accurate graphic solution (e.g. Fig. 8). As shown in
Fig. 8 and as indicated by other researchers (e.g.
Gunter et al., 1997), changes in R35 values can be
used to define major flow units. The figure shows
that R35 values are closely correlated with defined flow
units and show corresponding variations.
A NEW INTEGRATED RESERVOIR ZONATION
SCHEME AT ABTEYMOUR
As discussed above, on the base of drilling and
production data, the Bangestan Group interval at the
Abteymour field is divided into nine large-scale zones:
zones 1 to 2 are in the Illam Formation and zones 3 to
9 are in the Sarvak Formation (Table 1, right). Only
zones 2 and 4 are productive, and zone 3, in spite of
extensive karstification, shows poor reservoir
qualities. In this study, reservoir zones 3 and 4, located
respectively below the mid-Turonian disconformity
(i.e. just below the SarvakIllam boundary) and the
CenomanianTuronian disconformity (Table 1), were
considered. Considering flow units determined by the
various methods discussed in the last section, the
study investigates why reservoir zone 3, which is
intensely karstified as a result of long-term subaerial
exposure during the mid-Turonian, is of poor reservoir
quality. In addition, the study shows that because of
the presence of important heterogeneities, reservoir
zone 4 should be considered as two independent flow
zones separated by a tight interval (Table 1).
In Fig. 8, reservoir, baffle and barrier units
determined on the basis of the stratigraphic modified
Lorenz method for well AT-3 are compared with HFUs
resulting from the FZI method. There is a relatively
good correspondence between the results of these
two methods. For example, barrier and baffle units
identified from the SMLP method in general correlate
with low and medium quality HFUs identified using
the FZI method (yellow and blue colours, respectively:
see key in Fig. 10 below). However, differences in
the resolution and scale of two methods have resulted
in some inconsistencies.
As regards the spatial distribution of reservoir and
non-reservoir (baffle or barrier) units and high to low
quality HFUs in the three studied wells (Fig. 9), four
new Integrated Reservoir Zones (IRZs) are introduced
in this study. They are numbered IRZ1 to 4 in Fig. 9.
These zones are correlatable throughout the field and
their occurrence at inter-well locations is geologically
justifiable.
IRZ1: This zone corresponds to non-reservoir
units and low-quality HFUs in the uppermost interval
of all the studied wells (i.e. at depths of 3230 to 3290
m in well AT-1, 3225 to 3295 m in well AT-2; and
3280 to 3320 m in well AT-3). This interval coincides
Well#3
20
3300
GR
40 60
Texture
3rd
Sequences M W P G B
10
phi
r35
1
10
10
0.1
0.1
10
%KH
k/phi
100
10
10
10
10
100
10
20
30
%PHIH
40 50
10
20
Sequence 3
Stage
Turonian
Formation
Depth
30
HFU
from
FZI
method
40 50
Br.U
Cenomanian
Bf.U
R.U
Sequence 1
3400
Sarvak
3350
Sequence 2
R.U
Bf.U
3451
FZI method
Medium quality
HFU 2
3rd order sequence

High quality
HFU 1
HST
mfs
Low quality
HFU 3
TST
R.U :
Br.U :
Bf.U :
Reservoir Unit
Barrier Unit
Baffle Unit
227
Fig. 8. Hydraulic flow unit (HFU) determination using flow zone indicators (FZIs) and stratigraphic modified Lorenz plot (SMLP), correlated within a framework of
facies and sequences at well AT-3.There is a relatively high correspondence between the results of the two methods used for HFU determination; minor
inconsistencies are due to differences in resolution and scale of the two methods.
228
with the reservoir zone 3 of previous studies (Table 1

and Fig. 9).
IRZ2: This zone comprises the high quality HFUs
and reservoir units developed just below the
Cenomanian-Turonian disconformity in the studied
wells. Depths are 3290 to 3350 m in well AT-1, 3295
to 3330 m in well AT-2, and 3320 to 3350 m in well
AT-3. This interval coincides with the uppermost part
of high-quality reservoir zone 4 of previous studies
(Table 1 and Fig. 9).
IRZ3: This zone corresponds to the medium to
low quality HFUs and baffle/barrier units developed
in the middle parts of the studied intervals at the three
wells (depth ranges of 3350 to 3390 m in well AT-1,
3330 to 3370 m in well AT-2, and 3350 to 3375 m in
well AT-3). This interval coincides with the middle
part of high quality reservoir zone 4 of previous
studies (Table 1 and Fig. 9), but in contrast to the
previous zonation scheme includes very low reservoir
quality layers.
IRZ4: This zone comprises the high quality HFUs
and reservoir units developed in the lower parts of
the studied intervals at the three well locations (depth
ranges of 3390 to 3435 m at well AT-1, 3370 to 3450
m at well AT-2, and 3375 to 3451 m at well AT-3).
The zone coincides with the lowermost portion of
high-quality reservoir zone 4 of previous studies
(Table 1 and Fig. 9).
Factors controlling reservoir quality variations and
their spatial distribution are discussed in the next
section.
DISCUSSION
Carbonate reservoirs are often characterized by
considerable heterogeneity ranging from the pore to
the reservoir scale (Aplin et al., 2002; Lucia, 2007;
Ahr, 2008; Gomes et al., 2008). Identifying reservoir
rock types and their vertical and horizontal
heterogeneities is important in reservoir
characterization and the construction of threedimensional geological and flow simulation models
(e.g. Beiranvand et al., 2007). Two frequently used
methods were applied in this study, and there is close
correspondence between the respective results. From
the available data (i.e. well logs and core poroperm
data from three wells) using both methods, rock type
groups (flow units) were determined and four new
integrated reservoir zones (IRZ #1 to 4) were
identified. Below, the origins and spatial distribution
of this new reservoir zonation scheme for Abteymour
field are discussed in a sequence stratigraphic
framework (Figs 10 and 11).
IRZ1: Relatively short episodes of subaerial
exposure (10 to 400 ky) can result in high porosity
development (and to some extent permeability

development) in comparison to longer periods of
exposure (1 to 20 million years) (Mazzullo and
Chilingarian, 1992). A widespread mid-Turonian fall
in sea level and basin-wide exposure lasting several
million years led to the formation of an important
regional disconformity in the upper Sarvak unit at
Abteymour field (Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012),
represented by major diagenetic dissolution and an
over-mature karst profile. This interval corresponds
with the non-reservoir (barrier) units in IRZ1 in the
studied wells and is highly compacted and includes
completely cemented horizons (Figs. 11A and 12A).
Contrary to expectation, intense meteoric diagenesis
under a warm, humid climate has resulted in karst
over-maturation and thus low reservoir quality in the
Sarvak Formation carbonates in the studied wells.
IRZ2: The highest quality flow units occur (Figs.
9 to 11) in the upper parts of sequence 2, including
the interval below the Cenomanian-Turonian
unconformity; and in the underlying succession which
mainly comprises sequence 1. During the
Cenomanian-Turonian hiatus, local uplift caused
subaerial exposure of the Sarvak Formation in the
study area. Under a tropical climate, extensive
dissolution led to development of karst and microkarst
networks in the formation (Taghavi et al., 2006;
Hajikazemi et al., 2010; Sharp et al., 2010; Razin et
al., 2010; Rahimpour-Bonab et al., 2012). Karst
development depends on a number of factors
including the duration of exposure. Despite a
comparable climate and similar sediments, a shorter
period of exposure in the Cenomanian Turonian (less
than 1 Ma, compared with mid-Turonain exposure
of about 4 to 6 Ma) resulted in better development
and preservation of microkarst networks at Abteymour
field (Fig. 11B).
Two generalizations can be made about the
relationship between flow units and sequence
stratigraphic position in IRZ 2. Firstly, high quality
flow units are located in the uppermost parts of
highstand system tracts, especially below the
Cenomanian-Turonian unconformity (Figs. 11B and
12B). Secondly, high quality flow units occur in
sequence 1, and with less importance in sequence 2,
in transgressive system tracts below maximum
flooding surfaces and, with less importance, in the
early HST. High reservoir qualities in the latter (muddominated) intervals (IRZ4) are a result of styloliterelated dolomitization (Figs. 11D and 12C). Dissolution
during mesogenetic diagenesis was a secondary factor
resulting in the improvement of reservoir quality in
basinal and outer ramp oligosteginid facies in IRZ2. A
major part of this reservoir zone correlates with the
talus facies containing abundant rudistid bioclasts
20
GR
40
60
3rd
Seq.
Texture
MWPG B
PHIE
20 10
10 20
%KH
%PHIH
10 20 30 40 50
10 20 30 40 50
HFU
from
FZI
method
Reservoir
zonation
This study Old
3290
IRZ1
Bf.U
Z0ne 3
(Non reservoir)
Discon. 1
is
Depth
Well#2 3rd
20
GR
40
60
Seq.
PHIE
20 10
10 20
%KH
%PHIH
10 20 30 40 50
10 20 30 40 50
HFU
from
FZI
method
Reservoir
zonation
This study Old
3230
Discon. 1
3250
Z0ne 3
(Non reservoir)
Well#1
AT#14
Br.U
IRZ1
Depth
n.
co
20
GR
40
%KH
PHIE
10
10
HFU
from
FZI
method
%PHIH
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
3300
Br.U
o
sc
R.U
IRZ2
R.U
3rd Texture
60 Seq. M W P G B
Well#3
IRZ2
n.
Depth
3300
3350
R.U
R.U
IRZ3
3350
Br.U
Zone 4 (Reservoir zone)
3400
Zone 4 (Reservoir zone)
IRZ3
Bf.U
3400
R.U
R.U
IRZ4
IRZ4
3400
Bf.U
R.U
Bf.U
R.U
3430
3451
3450
3rd order sequence

High quality
HFU 1
HST
mfs
Low quality
HFU 3
FZI method
Medium quality
HFU 2
TST
R.U : Reservoir Unit Discon. 1 : Mid-Turonian disconformity

Br.U : Barrier Unit
C-T disconformity
Discon. 2 :
Bf.U : Baffle Unit
229
Fig. 9. Correlation of hydraulic flow units (HFUs) determined by the FZI method with reservoir, baffle and barrier units resulting from the SMLP method for wells
AT-1 to AT-3 within a sequence-stratigraphic framework.There is a relatively high correspondence between the results of the two methods.The new Integrated
Reservoir Zones (IRZ1-4) together with the previously-used gross reservoir zonation scheme (zone 3, zone 4) (see Table 1) are also shown and correlated.
Image analysis results (%)
Lithology
Dissolution
vugs
40
Wireline logs
Pelagic to
Benthic
Foraminifera
ratio
40 <1
Porosity log
Sw
Calculated
So
>1 0
25
GR
1
Sequence
stratigraphy
Lagoon
Patch reef
Talus
Shoal
Basin
Depth
Facies
associations
HFU s
from
FZI
method
Ilam
Stage
Santonian
System
Formation
230
Turonian
3240
3340
Cenomanian
Sarvak
Cretaceous
3290
3390
3430
Limestone
Dolomite
1
2
3
HFU s from FZI method

poros. 20-37; perm. 100-550
poros. 10-20; perm. 10-100
poros. 0-10; perm. 0.005-10
Fig. 10. Correlation of HFUs resulting from the FZI method and sequence stratigraphic positions, facies
associations and diagenetic features (including dissolution and dolomitization) in well AT-1. Gamma-ray and oilwater saturation logs and parameters resulting from microscopic image analysis are also included.
0.6
0.8
IRZs
3rd
Seq.
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
IRZs
3225
0.1
Discon.1
Disco
IRZ2
0
3230
n.2
IRZs
3rd
Seq.0.3
0.2
0.1
50
B
100
150
3325
30
3330
IRZ3
0.5
Porosity
3280
IRZ2
50
IRZ3
Depth in ft
below unconformity
3275
100
0.2
IRZ1
IRZ1
3293
3rd
Seq. 0.3
IRZ1
0.4
IRZ2
0.2
3233
AT#3
Sw
Porosity
IRZ3
AT#2
Sw
Porosity
Depth in ft
below unconformity
AT#1
Sw
150
IRZ4
IRZ4
IRZ4
3380
3425
3430
3433
3450
HFU 3
HFU 2
HFU 1
HST
mfs
3rd order sequence
FZI method
TST
Discon.2: C-T disconformity

Discon.1 : Mid-Turonian disconformity
3460
3375
3400
Fig. 11. Main panel shows the correlation of hydraulic flow units (HFUs) identified using the FZI method and integrated reservoir zones (IRZs 1 to 4) within a
sequence stratigraphic framework for wells AT-1 to -3 at Abteymour field. Schematic cartoons (A, B, C and D) illustrate processes and features which controlled
reservoir qualities of these zones in different parts of the model:
(A) IRZ1 Barrier unit (tight interval): reservoir quality destruction below mid-Turonian disconformity due to extended exposure and over-mature karst profile.
(B) IRZ2 Flow unit: high reservoir quality below Cenomanian-Turonian disconformity due to karstification in shorter exposure.
(C) IRZ3 Barrier unit (tight interval): domination by low reservoir quality mud-dominated facies without secondary porosity enhancement, compartmentalizing the
reservoir.
(D) IRZ4; Flow unit: high reservoir quality resulting from burial (stylolite-related) dolomitization.
231
232
C
c1
b1
b1
a1
1mm
1mm
c2
b2
b2
0.5mm
a2
C: High reservoir qualities produced

by extensive stylolite-related
dolomitization (IRZ4)
1mm
B: High reservoir qualities due to

karst profile development (IRZ2)
0.5mm
A: Low reservoir qualities due to

karst profile over-maturation (IRZ1)
Fig. 12. Core photos and thin section images illustrating the three principal controls on reservoir quality of the
Sarvak Formation at Abteymour field.
(A) Collapse brecciation and cave-filling due to karst over-maturation; this occurs below the mid-Turonian
disconformity. Some of these breccias are marked as a1 and a2 in the figure.
(B) Macro- and microscopic karst networks were preserved as a result of short term subaerial exposure under
tropical climatic conditions during the Cenomanian-Turonian hiatus. Some of these solution vugs are marked
as b1 and b2 in the figure.
(C) Stylolite-related dolomitization controlled the final reservoir quality of the Sarvak carbonates (especially in
the lower parts of the formation). Stylolite related dolomites and oil staining in stylolite paths are marked as
c1 and c2.
composed of aragonitic and high magnesium calcite.

Dissolution of these bioclasts during early diagenesis
resulted in mouldic pores which were completely or
partially filled by meteoric and shallow burial cements.
During subsequent uplift of the Sarvak carbonates
and infiltration of meteoric waters during midTuronian exposure, these cements were dissolved
resulting in either vuggy porosity or well-connected
touching pore spaces. Higher values of permeability
indicate the development of microkarst networks and
microfractures in this zone. Thus, flow units with
intermediate reservoir qualities show a relatively good
correlation with talus facies associations (Fig. 10).
As detailed by Rahimpour-Bonab et al. (2012) for
Abteymour field, extensive fabric-selective dissolution
during eogenetic meteoric diagenesis and non-fabric
selective dissolution during telogenetic meteoric
diagenesis have enhanced the reservoir properties of
the Sarvak Formation. These diagenetic processes
occurred at the end of highstand system tract
development (especially in the late HST of Sequence

2, below the Cenomanian-Turonian unconformity),
and were observed in all the studied wells (Figs. 11B
and 12B).
IRZ3: Domination by mud-dominated facies, lack
of dolomitization and karst-related features make this
interval a non-reservoir unit (baffle zone in wells AT1 and -3, and a barrier in well AT-2). Pelagic
wackestones and mudstones (outer ramp and basinal
deposits) are the main facies associated with this IRZ.
They occur principally in the transgressive system
tract of sequence 2 in all the studied wells (Figs. 9
and 11C). Contrasting with the results of previous
zonation schemes, this IRZ has resulted in
compartmentalization of the Sarvak reservoir (Figs.
9 and 11).
IRZ4: Facies types are wackestones to mudstones
which underwent stylolitization and related
dolomitization. Dolomitization resulted in formation

of high quality reservoir intervals in the early (and
especially the late) TST and early HST of sequence 1
and the TST of sequence 2 (labeled as IRZ4, Figs.
11D and 12C). Lapponi et al. (2011) also described
volumetrically significant dolomitization of latest Albian
to Turonian carbonates in the Lower and Upper
Sarvak Formation. Intermediate and low quality flow
units in these sequences show a close correlation with
facies associations and diagenetic features (Fig. 10).
There is a close relationship in the studied wells
between reservoir and non-reservoir units, sequence
stratigraphic position and facies characteristics (Figs.
9 to 11). Logs of porosity (from image analysis) versus
rock-type groups in well AT-1 (Fig. 10) show that
high quality rock-type groups (i.e. high quality flow
units) occur in the lower parts of sequence 1.
Fractures occur in various states (from open to
partially and completely filled) and have, at least partly,
influenced the reservoir quality of the Sarvak
Formation, as has also been reported from other areas
(e.g. Casini et al., 2011).
CONCLUSIONS
This study has focused on carbonates in the midCretaceous Sarvak Formation at Abteymour field, SW
Iran. Microfacies analyses, diagenetic studies and
sequence stratigraphy from a previous investigation
were integrated with petrophysical data to develop a
new reservoir zonation scheme. In order to visualize
the spatial distribution of depositional facies and
diagenetic imprints, the data were integrated within a
sequence stratigraphic framework.
Flow (reservoir) units in the Sarvak Formation
were modelled by two independent methods: hydraulic
flow units (HFUs) were identified firstly using flow
zone indicators (FZIs); and secondly, using
stratigraphic modified Lorenz plots. The results of
the two methods show reasonable correlation.
Integrating the rock types resulting from these two
methods, a new reservoir zonation scheme is identified
for the Sarvak Formation at Abteymour field. This
new scheme is an improvement on the reservoir
zonation which has previously been used. Integrated
Reservoir Zones (IRZs) 1 to 4 are identified and
illustrated within a sequence stratigraphic framework
for the upper Sarvak Formation. Compared to the
previous zonation scheme, the new IRZs show: higher
resolution; greater predictability within a sequence
stratigraphic framework; greater correlation between
wells; and an origin which is more geologically
justified. The new IRZs thus provide a better basis
for 3D reservoir modelling.
This study showed that in various horizons at
Abteymour field, reservoir distribution in the Saravk
233
Formation is governed by different factors. In IRZ1,

sequence stratigraphic position associated with
tectonic movements (emergence during the midTuronian), influenced the reservoir characteristics and
flow unit structures. But in IRZ2, despite comparable
conditions (e.g. emergence and karstification under a
humid climate at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary),
difference in the duration of the exposure led to higher
flow unit quality, forming the most productive zone
of the Sarvak reservoir. The low quality muddominated facies association within the transgressive
system tract, in the absence of secondary porosity
enhancing processes (such as karstification or
dolomitization), formed the low-quality IRZ3.
However, in IRZ4, the reservoir quality of the muddominated facies in the early and late TST and early
HST improved as a result of extensive dolomitization.
This study emphasises the importance of detailed
geological studies, including facies analysis and
diagentic history reconstructions, integrated within a
sequence stratigraphic framework, for the prediction
of controls on reservoir development. Establishing a
predictive model for the reservoirs structure enabled
a definition of flow units using two separate methods,
within a sequence stratigraphic framework. The
results of this study will be applicable to similar Sarvak
Formation reservoirs in SW Iran.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The University of Tehran provided facilities for this
research for which the authors are grateful. NIOC is
thanked for their support and data preparation. JPG
editorial staff assisted with the English language
presentation. Journal reviews were by Cathy Hollis
(Manchester University) and Farid Taati (NIOC)
whose comments on a previous version are
acknowledged with thanks.
REFERENCES
ABBASZADEH, M., FUJII, H.and FUJIMOTO, F., 1996.
Permeability prediction by hydraulic flow units theory
and applications. SPE Formation Evaluation, 11, 263-271.
AGUILERA, R., 2002. Incorporating capillary pressure, pore
throat aperture radii, height above free water table, and
Winland r35 values on Pickett plots. AAPG Bull., 86(4), 605624.
AHR, W. M. and HAMMEL, B. 1999. Identification and mapping
of flow units in carbonate reservoirs: An example from
Happy Spraberry (Permian) field, Garza County, Texas,
USA. Energy Exploration and Exploitation, 17, 311334.
AHR,W.M., 2008. Geology of carbonate reservoirs. John Wiley
and Sons, 296 pp.
ALAVI, M., 2004. Regional stratigraphy of the Zagros foldthrust belt of Iran and its pro-foreland evolution. American
Journal of Science, 304, 1-20.
AL-AJMI, F.A. and HOLDITCH, S.A., 2000. Permeability
estimation using hydraulic flow units in a central Arabia
reservoir. SPE paper no. 63254.
234
AL-HABSHI, A., DARWISH, A.R., HAMDY, T. and SHEBL, H.,

2003. Application of sequence stratigraphy and
petrography in preparation of reservoir rock typing
scheme in one of Thamama gas reservoirs of onshore
Abu Dhabi. SPE paper no. 81533.
ALSHARHAN, A. S. and NAIRN, A. E. M., 1986. A review of
the Cretaceous formations in the Arabian Peninsula and
Gulf: Part I, Lower Cretaceous (Thamama Group),
stratigraphy and paleogeography. Journ. Petrol. Geol., 9, 365392.
ALSHARHAN, A. S. and NAIRN, A. E. M., 1988. A review of
the Cretaceous formations in the Arabian Peninsula and
Gulf: Part II, mid-Cretaceous (Wasia Group), stratigraphy
and paleontology. Journ. Petrol. Geol., 11, 89-112.
AMAEFULE, J. O., ALTUNBAY, M., TIAB, D., KERSEY, D. G., and
KEELAN, D. K., 1993. Enhanced reservoir description;
using core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow) units
and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells:
Formation evaluation and reservoir geology. Proc. Society
of Petroleum Engineers Annual Conference, v. Omega, 205
220.
APLIN, G.F., DAWANS, J.M.L. and SAPRU, A.K., 2002. New
insights from old data: Identification of rock types and
permeability prediction within a heterogeneous
carbonate reservoir using diplog and open-hole log data.
SPE, paper no. 78501.
AQRAWI, A.A.M.,G. A. THEHNI, G. H. SHERWANI and B. M.
A. KAREEM, 1998. Mid-Cretaceous rudist-bearing
carbonates of the Mishrif formation: An important
reservoir sequence in the Mesopotamian basin, Iraq.
Journal of Petroleum Geology, 21, 57-82.
AQRAWI, A.A.M., MAHDI, T.A., SHERWANI, G.H. and
HORBURY, A.D., 2010. Characterization of the midCretaceous Mishrif reservoir of the southern
Mesopotamian basin, Iraq. AAPG GEO Middle East
Geoscience Conference, Bahrain, March 7-10. AAPG Search
and Discovery Article #50264.
ASGARI A. and SOBHI G.A., 2006. A fully integrated approach
for the development of rock type characterization, in a
Middle East giant carbonate reservoir. Research Institute
of Petroleum Industry (RIPI), Tehran, Iran. Journ. Geophys.
Eng., 3, 260-270.
BAGHERI, A. M., BIRANVAND, B., REZAZADEH, S., FASIH,
M. and BAKHTIARI, H., 2005. Integrated analysis of core
and log data to determine reservoir rock types and
extrapolation to uncored wells in a heterogeneous clastic
and carbonate reservoir. Society of Core Analysts,Intl.
Symposium, Toronto, Canada, August 21-25, pp. 42.
BAHROUDI, A. and TALBOT, C.J., 2003. The configuration of
the basement beneath the Zagros basin. Journal of Petroleum
Geology, 26 (3), 257-282.
BEAR, J., 1972. Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Elsevier,
New York.
BEIRANVAND, B., AHMADI, A. and SHARAFODIN, M., 2007.
Mapping and classifying flow units in the upper part of the
mid-Cretaceous Sarvak formation (western Dezful
Embayment, SW Iran) based on a determination of
reservoir types. Journal of Petroleum Geology, 30, 357373.
BEYDOUN, Z.R., 1991. Arabian plate hydrocarbon geology
and potential A plate tectonic approach. AAPG Studies in
Geology, 33, 77 pp.
BEYDOUN, Z.R., HUGHES CLARKE, M.W. and STONELEY,
R., 1992. Petroleum in the Zagros basin: A late Tertiary
foreland basin overprinted onto the outer edge of a vast
hydrocarbon-rich Paleozoic-Mesozoic passive margin
shelf. In: MacQeen, R. and Leckie, D. A. (Eds.), Foreland
basins and fold belts. AAPG Memoir, 55.
BLANC, E.J.P., ALLEN, M. B., INGER, S. and HASSANI, H. 2003.
Structural styles in the Zagros simple folded zone, Iran.
Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., 160, 401-412.
BUXTON, M.W.N. and PEDLEY, H.M., 1989. A standardized

model for Tethyan Tertiary carbonates ramps. Journ. Geol.
Soc. Lond., 146, 746-748.
CARMEN, P.C., 1937. Fluid Flow through Granular Beds. Trans.
AIChE 15, 150-166.
CASINI, G., GILLESPIE, P.A., VERGES, J., ROMAIRE, I.,
FERNNDEZ, N., CASCIELLO, E., SAURA, E., MEHL, C.,
HOMKE, S., EMBRY, J. C., AGHAJARI, L. and HUNT, D. W.,
2011. Sub-seismic fractures in foreland fold and thrust
belts: insight from the Lurestan Province, Zagros
Mountains, Iran. Petroleum Geoscience, 17(3), 263-282.
CHOPRA, A.K., STEIN, M.H. and ADER, J.C., 1998.
Development of reservoir descriptions to aid in design
of EOR projects. SPE reservoir engineering, 16370.
DUNHAM, R.J., 1962. Classification of carbonate rocks
according to depositional texture. AAPG Memoir, 1, 108121.
DUNNINGTON, H.V., 1967. Aspects of diagenesis and shape
change in stylolite limestone reservoirs. 7th World
Petrol. Congr. Proc., 2, 339-352.
EBANKS, W.J., 1987. Flow unit concept-integrated approach
to reservoir description for engineering projects. AAPG
Meeting Abstracts, 1, 521-522.
EHRENBERG, S.N., NADEAU, P.H. and AQRAWI, A.A.M.,
2007. A comparison of Khuff and Arab reservoir potential
throughout the Middle East. AAPG Bulletin 91(3), 275-286.
EMAMI, H., VERGES, J., NALPAS, T., GILLESPIE, P., SHARP, I.,
KARPUZ., R., BLANC, E.P. and GOODARZI, M.G.H., 2010.
Structure of the Mountain Front Flexure along the Anaran
Anticline in the Pusht-e Kuh Arc (NW Zagros, Iran):
insights from sand box models. In: LETURMY, P. and ROBIN,
C. (Eds), Tectonic and Stratigraphic Evolution of Zagros
and Makran during the Meso-Cenozoic. Geol. Soc. Lond.,
Spec. Publ. 330, 155-178.
FLUGEL, E. 1982. Microfacies analysis of limestones. Berlin,
Springer-Verlag, 633 pp.
FLUGEL, E. 2004. Microfacies of carbonate rock. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 976 pp.
FLUTEAU, F., RAMSTEIN, G., BESSE, J., GUIRAUD, R. and
MASSE, J.P., 2007. Impacts of palaeogeography and sea
level changes on mid-Cretaceous climate. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 247, 357381.
GHABEISHAVI, A., VAZIRI-MOGHADDAM, H. and TAHERI,
A., 2009. Facies distribution and sequence stratigraphy of
the ConiacianSantonian succession of the Bangestan
palaeo-high in the Bangestan anticline, SW Iran. Facies,
55, 243-257.
GHABEISHAVI, A., VAZIRI-MOGHADDAM, H., TAHERI, A.
and TAATI, F., 2010. Microfacies and depositional
environment of the Cenomanian of the Bangestan
anticline, SW Iran. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 37, 275285.
GOMES, J.S., RIBERIO, M.T., STROHMENGER, C .J.,
NEGAHBAN, S. and KALAM, M.Z., 2008. Carbonate
reservoir rock typing the link between geology and SCAL.
SPE paper 118284.
GRANIER, B., 2003. A new approach in rock-typing,
documented by a case study of layer-cake reservoirs in
field A, offshore Abu Dhabi (UAE). Carnets de Gologie /
Notebooks on Geology Article. (CG2003_A04_BG).
GRELAUD, C., RAZIN, P. and HOMEWOOD, P., 2010.
Channelized systems in an inner carbonate platform
setting: differentiation between incisions and tidal
channels (Natih Formation, Late Cretaceous, Oman). In:
van Buchem, F.S.P., Gerdes, K.D. and Esteban, M., (Eds),
Mesozoic and Cenozoic carbonate systems of the
Mediterranean and the Middle East. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec.
Publ., 329, 163-186.
GUNTER, G.W., FINNERAN, J.M., HARTMANN, D.J. and
MILLER, J.D. 1997. Early determination of reservoir flow
units using an integrated petrophysical method. SPE 38679,

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, pp. 373-380.
HAJIKAZEMI, E., AL-AASM, I.S. and CONIGLIO, M. 2010.
Subaerial exposure and meteoric diagenesis of the
Cenomanian-Turonian upper Sar vak formation,
southwestern Iran. In: LETURMY, P. and ROBIN, C. (Eds),
Tectonic and Stratigraphic Evolution of Zagros and Makran
during the Meso-Cenozoic. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ., 330,
253-272.
HARRIS, P.M., FROST, S.H., SEIGLIE, G.A. and
SCHNEIDERMANN, N., 1984. Regional unconformities
and depositional cycles, Cretaceous of the Arabian
peninsula. In: Schlee , J. S. (Ed.), Inter-regional
unconformities and hydrocarbon accumulation. AAPG
Memoir, 36, 67-80.
HEYDARI, E., 2008. Tectonic versus eustatic control on
Supersequences of the Zagros mountains of Iran.
Tectonophysics, 451, 56-70.
HOLLIS, C., 2011. Diagenetic controls on reservoir properties
of carbonate successions within the AlbianTuronian of
the Arabian Plate. Petroleum Geoscience, 17(3), 223-241.
HUBER, B.T., NORRIS, R.D. and MACLEOD, K. G., 2002. Deepsea paleotemperature record of extreme warmth during
the Cretaceous. Geology, 30, 123-126.
JAMES, G. A. and WYND, J. G., 1965. Stratigraphic
nomenclature of Iranian oil consortium agreement area.
AAPG Bull., 49(12), 2182-2245.
KELLER, G., 2008. Cretaceous climate, volcanism, impacts,
and biotic effects. Cretaceous Research, 29, 754-771.
KELLER, G., ADATTE, T., BERNER, Z., CHELLAI, E.H. and
STUEBEN, D., 2008. Oceanic events and biotic effects of
the Cenomanian-Turonian anoxic event, Tarfaya basin,
Morocco. Cretaceous Research, 29, 976-994.
KOOP, W. and STONELEY, R., 1982. Subsidence history of the
Middle East Zagros basin, Permian to Recent. Phil. Trans.
Roy. Soc. Lond., A305, 149-168.
KOZENY, J., 1927. Uber Kapillare Letung des Wassers im
Boden, Sitzungsberichte, Royal Academy of Science,
Vienna, Proc. Class I, 136, 271-306.
LAPPONI, F., CASINI, G., SHARP, I., BLENDINGER, W.,
FERNNDEZ, N., ROMAIRE, I. and HUNT, D. 2011. From
outcrop to 3D modelling: a case study of a dolomitized
carbonate reservoir, Zagros Mountains, Iran. Petroleum
Geoscience, 17, 283-307.
LUCIA, F.J., 2007. Carbonate reservoir characterization.
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 341p.
MAGLIO-JOHNSON, T., 2000. Petrophysical Definition of
Flow Units in a Deep-Water Sandstone, Lewis Shale,
Wyoming. AAPG Search and Discovery, Article #90909.
MAZZULLO, S.J. and CHILINGARIAN, G.V., 1992. Diagenesis
and origin of porosity (Chapter 4). In: Chilingarian, G.V.,
Mazzullo, S.J. and Rieke, H.H. (Eds), Carbonate reservoir
characterization: A geologic- engineering analysis. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 199-270.
McQUARRIE, N., 2004. Crustal scale geometry of the Zagros
foldthrust belt, Iran. Journal of Structural Geology, 26, 519535.
MOORE, C. H., 2001. Carbonate reservoirs porosity
evolution and diagenesis in a sequence stratigraphic
framework. Elsevier, 444 pp.
MOTIEI, H., 1993. Geology of Iran.The stratigraphy of Zagros.
Geological Survey of Iran, Tehran [in Farsi].
MURRIS, R.J., 1980. Middle East: Stratigraphic evolution and
oil habitat. AAPG Bulletin 64, 597-618.
PETTY, M.D., 2005. Paleoclimatic control on porosity
occurrence in the Tilston interval, Madison group,
Williston basin area. AAPG Bulletin, 89(7), 897-919.
PORRAS, J.C. and CAMPOS, O., 2001. Rock typing: A key
approach for petrophysical characterization and definition
of flow units, Santa Barbara field eastern Venezuela basin.
235
Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper no. 69458.

RAHIMPOUR-BONAB, H., 2007. A procedure for appraisal
of a hydrocarbon reservoir continuity and quantification
of its heterogeneity. Journ. Petrol. Sci. Eng., 58, 1-12.
RAHIMPOUR-BONAB, H., MEHRABI, H., ENAYATIBIDGOLI,A.H. and OMIDVAR, M., 2012. Coupled imprints
of tropical climate and recurring emergence on evolution
of a mid-Cretaceous carbonate ramp, Zagros Basin, SW
Iran. Cretaceous Research, 37, 15-34.
RAZIN, P., TAATI, F. and van BUCHEM, F.S.P., 2010. Sequence
stratigraphy of CenomanianTuronian carbonate platform
margins (Sarvak Formation) in the high Zagros, SW Iran:
an outcrop reference model for the Arabian plate. In: van
Buchem, F.S.P., Gerdes, K.D., Esteban, M. (Eds.), Mesozoic
and Cenozoic carbonate systems of the Mediterranean
and the Middle East: Stratigraphic and diagenetic reference
models. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec, Publ., 329, 1-7.
ROGER, M. S. 2006. Stratigraphic reservoir characterization
for petroleum geologists, geophysicists, and engineers.
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma USA,
Elsevier.
SADOONI, F.N. and AQRAWI, A.A.M. 2000. Cretaceous
sequence stratigraphy and petroleum potential of the
Mesopotamian basin Iraq. In: Scott, B. and Alsharhan, A.S.
(Eds.), Middle East models of Jurassic/Cretaceous
carbonate systems. SEPM Special Publication, 69, 315-334.
SCHLAGER, W., 2005. Carbonate sedimentology and
sequence stratigraphy. SEPM, Concepts in Sedimentology
and Paleontology, Series 8, 200 pp.
SCOTT, R.W., SIMO, J.A. and MASSE, J.P., 1993. Overview of
economic recourses in Cretaceous carbonate platforms.
In: Simo, J.A., Scott, R.W. and Masse, J.P., (Eds), Cretaceous
carbonate platforms. AAPG Mem., 56, 15-24.
SEPEHR, M. and COSGROVE, J.W., 2005. Role of the Kazerun
fault zone in the formation and deformation of the Zagros
fold thrust belt, Iran. Tectonics, 24.
SEPEHR, M., COSGROVE, J.W. and MOIENI, M., 2006. The
impact of cover rock rheology on the style of folding in
the Zagros Fold-Thrust Belt. Tectonophysics, 427, 265
281.
SETUDEHNIA,A., 1978.The Mesozoic sequence in southwest
Iran and adjacent areas. Journ. Petrol. Geol., 1, 3-42.
SHARLAND, P. R., ARCHER, R., CASEY, D. M., DAVIES, R. B.,
HALL, S. H., HEWARD, A. P., HORBURY, A. D. and
SIMMONS, M. D., 2001. Arabian plate sequence
stratigraphy. GeoArabia Special Publication, 2, 371 pp.
SHARP, I., GILLESPIE, P., MORSALNEZHAD, D., TABERNER,
C., KARPUZ, R., VERGES, J., HORBURY, A., PICKARD,
N., GARLAND, J. and HUNT, D., 2010. Stratigraphic
architecture and fracture-controlled dolomitization of
the Cretaceous Khami and Bangestan Groups: an outcrop
case study, Zagros Mountains, Iran. In: van Buchem, F.S.P.,
Gerdes, K.D., Esteban, M. (Eds), Mesozoic and Cenozoic
carbonate systems of the Mediterranean and the Middle
East: Stratigraphic and diagenetic reference models. Geol.
Soc. Lond., Spec. Publ., 329, 343-396.
SHERKATI, S. and LETOUZEY, J., 2004. Variation of structural
style and basin evolution in the central Zagros (Izeh zone
and Dezful Embayment), Iran. Marine and Petroleum Geology,
21, 535554.
SHERKATI, S., MOLINARO, M., FRIZON DE LAMOTTE, D.
and LETOUZEY, J., 2005. Detachment folding in the
Central and Eastern Zagros fold-belt (Iran): salt mobility,
multiple detachments and late basement control. Journal
of Structural Geology, 27, 1680-1696.
SOTO, R. and GARCIA, J.C., 2001. Permeability prediction
using hydraulic flow units and hybrid soft computing
systems. SPE paper no. 71455.
STEUBER, T.. 2010. Cretaceous carbonate reservoir facies as
a function of seawater composition, paleoclimate, and
236
evolution of major carbonate producing biota. AAPG,

Annual Convention and Exhibition, 11-14 April.
SUN, S.Q. and ESTEBAN, M., 1994. Paleoclimatic controls on
sedimentation, diagenesis, and reservoir quality: lessons
from Miocene carbonates. AAPG Bulletin 78(4), 519543.
TAGHAVI, A.A., MORK, A. and EMADI, M.A. 2006. Sequence
stratigraphically controlled diagenesis governs reservoir
quality in the carbonate Dehluran field, SW Iran. Petroleum
Geoscience, 12, 115-126.
TIAB, D. and DONALDSON, E.C. 2004. Petrophysics: Theory
and practice of measuring reservoir rock and fluid
transport properties. 2nd ed., Elsevier.
UGURU, C.I., ONYEAGORO, U.O., LIN, J., OKKERMAN, J.
and SIKIRU, I.O., 2005. Permeability prediction using
genetic unit averages of Flow Zone Indicators (FZIs) and
neural networks. Shell petroleum development company
of Nigeria limited. Society of Petroleum Engineers, paper
no. 98828.
VAN BUCHEM, F.S.P., RAZIN, P., HOMEWOOD, P.W.,
OTERDOOM, W.H. and PHILIP, J., 1996. High-resolution
sequence stratigraphy of the Natih formation
(Cenomanian/Turonian) in northern Oman: distribution
of source rocks and reservoir facies. GeoArabia 1, 6591.
VAN BUCHEM, F. S. P., PITTET, B., HILLGARTNER, H.,
GROTSCH., J., AL MANSOURI, A., BILLING, I.M.,
DROSTE, H., OTERDOOM, W. H. and VAN
STEENWINKEL, M., 2002. High resolution sequence

stratigraphic architecture of Barremian/Aptian carbonate
systems in Northern Oman. GeoArabia, 7, 461500.
VAN BUCHEM, F. S. P., SIMMONS, M. D., DROSTE, H. J. and
DAVIES, R. B., 2011. Late Aptian to Turonian stratigraphy
of the eastern Arabian Plate depositional sequences
and lithostratigraphic nomenclature. Petroleum Geoscience
17(3), 211-222.
VARAVUR, S., SHEBL, H., SALMAN, S.M., SHIBASAKI, T. and
DABBOUK, C., 2005. Reservoir rock type definition in a
giant cretaceous carbonate. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, paper no. 93477.
VERGES, J., GOODARZI, M. H., EMAMI, H., KARPUZ, R.,
EFSTATIOU, J. and GILLESPIE, P., 2009. Multiple detachment
folding in Pusht-e Kuh Arc, Zagros. Role of mechanical
stratigraphy. In: McCLAY, K., SHAW, J. and SUPPE, J. (Eds)
Thrust Fault Related Folding. AAPG Memoir, 94, 1-26.
WEIDLICH, O., 2010. Meteoric diagenesis in carbonates
below karst unconformities: heterogeneity and control
factors. In: van Buchem, F.S.P., Gerdes, K.D., Esteban, M.
(Eds.), Mesozoic and Cenozoic carbonate systems of the
Mediterranean and the Middle East: Stratigraphic and
diagenetic reference models. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ.,
329, 291-315.
WILSON, J.L. 1975. Carbonate facies in geologic history.
Springer-Verlag, New York, 471 pp.

Flow Units Sarvak Abteymour-Libre

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Flow Units Sarvak Abteymour-Libre

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Petroleum Geology, Vol.

35(3), July 2012, pp 213-236

FLOW UNIT DISTRIBUTION AND RESERVOIR

H. Rahimpour-Bonab1*, H. Mehrabi1, A. Navidtalab1 and E. Izadi-Mazidi2

* author for correspondence, email:

Facies analysis of carbonate reservoir rocks can be

only be understood by studying the diagenetic history.

A two-dimensional model of the Sarvak reservoir at

Main Zagros Reverse Fault

McQuarrie, 2004; Sepehr and Cosgrove, 2005; Sepehr

all three unconformities are present and the Sarvak

Burgan 4th sand

the Sarvak Formation. For facies description, a

sections (cores and cuttings) from two wells (AT-1

Finally, by integrating both geological data (facies

best primary reservoir qualities (Rahimpour-Bonab

Intrashelf basin (outer ramp)

Rudist debris bearing

Wackestone with large

Mudstone with benthic

early Turonian led to inundation and the reinstatement

three-dimensional geologic data (e.g. facies and

A: middle part of the Sarvak Formation (below C-T disconformity)

B: upper part of the Sarvak Formation (above C-T disconformity)

Disc. 1: Mid Turonian unconformity

Dl: Dolomitization Fr: Fracturing

FLOW UNIT IDENTIFICATION AND

Discretizing the reservoir into units, such as layers

where k is permeability,e is effective porosity, is

Combining these two equations gives the

where k is in m2, e is a fraction and F is formation

where the constant 0.0314 is the permeability

The reservoir quality index, RQI, is defined as follows:

Fig. 6. Log-log plot of RQI versus z for

where z, the normalized porosity, is:

Eq. 6 then becomes:

Taking the logarithm of both sides of Eq. 8 gives:

log RQI log z log FZI

Input data for this study include core porosity (e)

from three wells measured in 0.3 m to 1 m intervals.

Percent Flow Capacity (%KH)

Percent Flow Capacity (%KH)

Percent Storage Capacity (%PHIH)

Percent Flow Capacity (%KH)

Percent Storage Capacity (%PHIH)

Percent Storage Capacity (%PHIH)

Hydraulic Flow Unit (HFU)

HFU determination using a

where k = permeability (mD), and h = thickness of

zones and hydraulic units are synonymous). They

This equation was found to provide a more

3rd order sequence

with the reservoir zone 3 of previous studies (Table 1

development (and to some extent permeability

This study Old

This study Old

Zone 4 (Reservoir zone)

Zone 4 (Reservoir zone)

3rd order sequence

R.U : Reservoir Unit Discon. 1 : Mid-Turonian disconformity

Image analysis results (%)

HFU s from FZI method

3rd order sequence