SPE 120166

Rock Type and Permeability Prediction of a Heterogeneous Carbonate

Reservoir Using Artificial Neural Networks Based on Flow Zone Index
Approach
Riyaz Kharrat, SPE, Petroleum University of Technology, Tehran, Iran; Ramin Mahdavi, SPE, Mohammad
Hashem Bagherpour, SPE, Petroiran Development Company; Shahab Hejri, SPE, Petran Company, Tehran, Iran

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in the Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 15–18 March 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
The Cretaceous carbonates of Sarvak formation formed large hydrocarbon reservoirs in the South-west region of Iran. The
studied field is a tight carbonate reservoir in which several exploration wells have been drilled, and is in the process of
development. Since, only few wells have core data, therefore it was decided to integrate the available core and log data using
new methods that describe the carbonates heterogeneity more precise.
3D modeling of permeability is an essential part of building robust dynamic model for proper reservoir management and
making reliable predictions. A good definition of reservoir rock types (RRT) could relate somehow better geological modes
to dynamic models. Rock typing by flow-zone-index (FZI) and rock-quality-index (RQI) values proved to be an effective
technique to develop porosity-permeability transforms for RRTs in a reservoir model.
RRTs were defined based on the core derived FZI through some mathematical and statistical approaches. Permeability
estimation using artificial neural network approach (ANN) was then made through a two-step process. In the first step, FZI
log was estimated from a trained neural network using the standard suite of logs as input (Gamma ray, Sonic, Density,
Neutron porosity) and FZI-core as output in a subset of cored wells (Key wells). In the second step, individual trained neural
networks implemented porosity-log and FZI-log from the first step to predict permeability-log for each RRT.
Validation of the predictive capability of the method in two cored wells (Blind-test wells) that are located in the field proved
the estimation technique to be robust and was found to be valuable to supplement core data in the prediction of log-
permeability in the entire reservoir wells.
For the sake of comparison between the result of this work and the work which was based on the integration of
sedimentological, petrographical, and diagenetic study, the results were found to be in good agreement for most of the log
interval. However, the predictions of the ANN approach in the regions where core data are not available are better and it
follows the log property variation logically.

Introduction
Rock typing is a process for the classification of reservoir rocks into distinct units. These units are deposited under similar
geological conditions and undergoes through similar diagenetic alterations. If the rocks are properly classified and defined, a
given rock type is imprinted by a unique porosity/permeability correlation, capillary pressure profile, and set of relative
permeability curves. In addition, the true dynamic characteristics of the reservoir will be captured in the reservoir simulation
model as a more reliable permeability model is used1-3.
On the classical plot, the relationship between permeability and porosity is not causal. Whereas porosity is generally
independent of grain size, permeability is strongly dependent on grain size. Hence, traditional plot can not be used reliably to
estimate accurate permeability from porosity. Several investigators1-4 have noted the inadequacy of classical approach and
have proposed alternative models for relating porosity to permeability specifically for using in carbonates reservoir. 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 investigators5-7 had come to similar conclusions about
porosity/ permeability relationships.
2 SPE 120166

Among the various quantitative rock-typing techniques presented in the literature, the flow zone index (FZI) appears to be
more widely used7,8. In addition, by incorporating log data through statistical and artificial neural networks approaches its
application has been enhanced9-12. Conventional cores are correlated to the log data for the purpose of predicting the uncored
intervals. This approach is very useful for fields with limited data.
The FZI approach has been used in this work for the 3-D permeability estimation of a giant reservoir using an artificial neural
network approach (ANN). The reservoir under study is a cretaceous carbonates of Sarvak formation located south-west of
Iran. The Field is under development and has limited core and log data. The available core and log data were screened and
correlated based on statistical approach.
Porosity and permeability core data of five wells namely 1,2,3,4, and 5 were used to classify the rock typing of this reservoir.
The basic statistical parameters of the core porosity and permeability are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. At first, the
porosity histogram of the data for each well was obtained as shown in Figures 1 through 5. One observation indicates that
porosity distribution of Well#1 is quite different than the other four wells. On the other hands, wells numbers 3, 4 and 5 have
almost similar distribution. However, the histogram of well#2 shows a wide range of distribution. Based on this simple
observation, it might be concluded that the reservoir is a heterogeneous reservoir and several rock types are needed to model
the porosity permeability data.
Different approaches were considered for 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 is obtained. The relationship works properly for
sandstone reservoir, but there is a big problem for carbonate reservoirs where heterogeneity and non uniformity characterize
the carbonate rocks. Figure 6 shows cross plot of permeability to air versus porosity values resulted from conventional core
analysis of this reservoir. The scattering of data around regression line clearly shows the weakness of this method in this
heterogeneous carbonate reservoir as permeability estimator. 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. The hydrocarbon flow capacity is a function of
permeability, and the storage is a function of porosity. 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 equation14.

log( R35)  0.732  0.588 log( K )  0.864 log(  ) (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.
The R35 of a given rock type both reflects its depositional and diagenetic fabric and influences fluid flow and reservoir
performance. It determines the effective pore type which dominates over the fluid flow in the rock. The R35 values are
utilized to define petrophysical units as follows:

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.

Winland R35 plot for the studied reservoir are given in Figure 7. 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. Wells 3, 4, and 5
are more heterogeneous than the first two wells and they follow the same unit flow. In fact, megaports, macroports,
mesoports, microports, and nanoports are present in the formation of these wells. A summary of these observations are given
in Table 3.
It should be mentioned that limestones are represented by microports and mesoports, while the dolomites have intense
megaports which are related to good porosity and permeability measurements form the cores.
Based on this method of rock typing at least five rock types are needed to characterize this reservoir. However, the scattering
SPE120166 3

of the data requires a better approach for the rock type classification.

Flow Zone Index method

The flow zone index 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 that are provided based on the calculation of flow
zone index (FZI) and rock quality index (RQI) values. The main idea is to group data according to their flow zone index
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 FZI equations are 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 below:
r2
K e (2)
8
The above 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.
 e3 1
K (3)
(1   e ) Fs 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.
This 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)
Fs 2 S gv2
So
e3 1
K (5)
1  e  FZI 2
2

Dividing both sides by porosity (Øe) and taking the square root of both side results is:
   1
K
 e  (6)
e 1  e  FZI
If the permeability is expressed in terms of millidarcies, then Reservoir Quality Index, RQI, can be defined as follows:
K
RQI ( m)  0.0314 (7 )
e
By defining Øz as the normal porosity:
e
z  (8)
1  e
Equation 6 can be simplified as follows:
RQI
FZI  (9)
z
Where FZI is Flow Zone Indicator (µm). By taking the logarithm of both sides of equation (9), the following equation is
obtained.

log RQI  log z  log FZI (10)

The equation indicates that for any hydraulic unit, a log-log plot of a Reservoir Quality Index, (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
Flow Zone Indicator, (FZI) which is a unique parameter for each hydraulic unit.
4 SPE 120166

The RQI values are calculated for the available core data from different wells. The FZI values are generated using equation
(9) and then were used for permeability estimation. As this FZI values are only calculated in the cored intervals of some
wells, it is required to estimate FZI-log in uncored intervals of all wells in the field. The FZI-log was estimated by two
separate approaches, namely; multiple regression, and artificial neural networks. The procedures are described in the
following sections. Since artificial neural networks approach resulted in more consistent output of permeability-log, it was
selected for future works include 3D modeling.

Multiple regression method

In this method the FZI obtained from the RQI and normalized porosity is correlated to a certain combinations of logging tools
responses to develop regression models for permeability predictions in cored and uncored intervals of all wells. Once the FZI
values are calculated for all core plugs, the wileline log measurements at the exact cored depths are extracted, normalized,
and subsequently analyzed together with the calculated FZI to develop an explicit multivariate regression model for
predicting FZI in the uncored intervals. The uniqueness of this approach is stimulated by the common problem of
permeability prediction in uncored but logged wells. A synthetic rock type log (based on FZI-log) for all wells can be
generated using this method. Since FZI is a continuous variable, it can be distributed throughout a 3D geological model using
geostatistical techniques. 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 )  C ) (11)

Where C is a constant and depends on the normal distribution of the FZI data. The permeability for each cell of the
geological model can be estimated using the unique permeability porosity equation for each discrete rock type.

In this study, the conventional core data were used to define FZI for the cored intervals and then the FZI were converted to
district rock type using equation (11) where the C constant was found to be 10.6. The distribution of the obtained DRT was
determined as shown in Figure 8. DRT 9, 10, 11, and 12 are more dominant than the other district rock types for this
reservoir. Ten distinct hydraulic units as shown in Figure 9 were established within the cored interval by utilizing the
discussed techniques and integrating some DRTs such as 6 and 7 to a one DRT (DRT 7) and DRTs 16, 17 and 18 to a one
DRT (DRT 16). Distinct relationships between permeability and porosity was calculated using each DRT classes and are
given in Figure 10. A summary of the obtained DRT, mean FZI, average porosity and permeability are given in Table 4. DRT
17 and 8 corresponds to good and poor rock respectively. The average porosity and permeability are based on the available
core data of each rock. It should be noted that population of the available porosity data of DRT 17 were in the low porosity
region as can be seen from Figure 10. However, the trend of the permeability model is well defined in the upper region of the
mentioned plot.

To make regression model, the conventional open hole well logging data of the five wells are utilized. These include
Standard Gamma Ray (SGR), Corrected Gamma Ray (CGR), Sonic Transit Time (DT), Thermal Neutron porosity (TNPH),
Bulk density (RHOB), and Resistivity (RS, RT, and RXO) logging. All interpreted logs as well as the FZI values are
normalized either by using equation (12) or the logarithmic approach.
   min
N  (12)
 max   min
where Nδ is the normalized log value, δmin and δmax are the minimum and maximum reading of δ log respectively. The values
of the normalized logs are extracted at the same depth as the core plugs. A total of 374 points are obtained.
At first a multivariate regression analysis was the performed for the development of a mathematical model for the prediction
of FZI using the normalized logs. The developed model is given by equation (13).

FZI  0  1SGR  2CGR  3 RHOB  4TNPH  5 RS  6 RT  7 RXO  8 DT  9VCLAY (13)

where SGR (standard gamma ray), CGR (corrected gamma ray), RHOB (bulk density), TNPH (thermal neutron porosity), RS
(medium resistivity), RT (deep resistivity), RXO (shallow resistivity), DT (sonic), and VCLAY (volume of clay)
respectively. The λ's are regression coefficients. The regression coefficients of the equation for the log data with FZI are
given in Table 5. The predicted and reported permeabilities of all used data of the five wells are show in Figure 11. In
addition, the relative error is given in Figure 12. As can be seen an acceptable prediction is obtained for most of the intervals
except for few points.

To reduce the error, the FZI obtained from core data and related log data for each DRT were regressed to find the weight
factors of the logs of equation (13). The derived constants using the multivariate regression analysis obtained are given in
SPE120166 5

Table 6. Based on this new modification the relative error was decreased significantly when compared to the previous
approach. The results of the predicted and experimental permeabilities for each DRT are shown in Figure 13 through 22. As
can be seen good match is obtained for almost all DRTs.
To analyze the relationships between the logs and the DRTs in more detail, the histograms of the log responses observed for
each DRT were compared. The density functions of the log responses were found to be close to normal distributions and
were approximated by the Gaussian density functions. Figures 23 through 31 show the density functions profile of the nine
logs respectively.
The GR log is a measurement of the total gamma ray intensity in the wellbore, which helps to distinguish potential
hydrocarbon bearing formations and shale. Three radioactive elements, namely; Potassium, Thorium, and Uranium tend to
concentrate in shales. Since Sarvak reservoir is a Shale free carbonates so it contains a very small amount of these elements.
The density functions of the ten DRTs show three distinct clusters. The first cluster includes DRT17, DRT16, and DRT14.
The second cluster includes DRT15, DRT13, DRT12, and DRT11. The third cluster includes DRT 8 through 10. The mean
value of shale volume for the good rock, namely DRT 14 through 17 is higher than the other DRTs. In addition, larger
distribution of Shale volume was observed for the lower DRT rocks, namely; DRT11 through 8 (Figure 23).
The sonic logging is an important part of reservoir evaluation. It utilizes the propagation of acoustic waves within and around
the hole bore, and it measures the reciprocal of the velocity of the compressional wave or in fact the slowness internal transit
time.
The sonic logs are mainly used for porosity calculation. It should be noted that sonic log readings are not affected from
secondary porosity. Hence, the obtained porosity is mainly the primary one. In addition, the sonic waves are not recorded
within the fractures and vugs of the formation.
The density functions of the sonic log data is shown in Figure 24 for all rock types. The obtained density functions are
distinctly different for most of the rock types. Although for some DRT density functions look similar, all the rock types have
different mean interval transit time. The density functions of different rock type might be grouped into three clusters. In the
first cluster DRT 14 through 17 can be grouped as good rock. In the second cluster they are DRT 13,10,9, and 8, while DRT
11 and 12 as one cluster.
The density log represents the bulk density of the rock. In fact, it is the overall gross or weight average density of a unit of the
formation. The density functions of the density log data is shown in Figure 25 for all rock types. The obtained density
functions are quite different for most of the rock types. Although for some DRT density functions look similar, all the rock
types have different mean and variance interval. The density functions of different rock type might be grouped into three
clusters, namely homogenous, slight heterogonous, and strong heterogeneous formations. In the first cluster DRT 14 through
17 can be grouped as high density rocks. In the second cluster they are DRT 13,10,9, and 8, while DRT 11 and 12 as one
cluster with almost the same mean and a wide variance interval for both rock types. The third cluster has a wide range of bulk
density which is an indication of a very heterogeneous formation as mentioned above.
The thermal neutron porosity log is based on the elastic scattering of neutrons as they collide with the nuclei in the formation.
The mud salinity, mud cake, formation water salinity, the presence of shale and gas may affect the neutron logs. In facts,
neutron logs are generally run with density logs as mentioned before. Together, they are used to identify the lithology type.
The density functions of the neutron porosity log data is shown in Figure 26 all DRTs. The obtained density functions are
different for all the rock types and are similar to the bulk density log behavior classification.

The resistivity log data (RS) is an indication of the resistivity of the transient zone. The density functions of the different
DRTs are given in Figure 27. As can be seen, DRTs 13 up to 17 has almost the same mean while the other are quit different
and have a wide variances. So based on this observation, two distinct clusters might be defined. The same observation is
obtained for the RT logs data except for DRT 13 as shown in Figure 28.
The RXO log data is the resistivity of the flashed zone. Due the induced fracture during drilling it can not be a good indicator
for Rock typing. The plotted data of the density function are shown in Figure 29. As can be seen there is no distinct
difference between the functions and an overlapping is almost obtained. The same results were observed for the CGR and
VCLAY plots as shown in Figures 30, and 31 respectively. It should be mentioned that the CGR log is the formation shale
indicator which is obtained form the Gamma Ray contribution from Thorium and Potassium. VCALY data are also obtained
from the CGR log and it represents the volume of the shale.

The pore throat size distributions and capillary pressure data of some of the available cores were used to check the validity of
the DRT obtained. Figures 32 and 33 show the pore size distribution and capillary pressure of some core samples from
different wells. In addition, the mean pore throat of the cores is given in Table 7. As can be seen from the figures and table,
DRT 11 and 12 have almost the same pore size distribution function and they can be grouped into one cluster if required. The
other core samples are well distinct. It should be mentioned that the trend of the data is completely consistent with the
concept of unit flow, since the ratio of macro pore to micro pore throat sizes is directly proportional to FZI or DRT.

Based on statistical analysis conducted above for each log type, it was hypothesized that the main logs to be used for the
correlation are, SGR, CGR, RXO, TNPH, and VCLAY. A new regression was conducted with these logs. However, no
significant change was observed.
6 SPE 120166

Artificial Neural Networks method

A different approach was taken for the better correlation of the respective logs or some of the petrophysical data. In addition,
the artificial neural networks and geostatistical techniques, which are more powerful tool for modeling, were considered. In
this new approach the Neutron porosity (PIGN), bulk density (RHOB), Acoustic impedance (AI), and sonic transit time (DT)
were taking into consideration and the new model was developed. It should be noted that the effective porosity is obtained
from the combination of bulk density and neutron porosity while the acoustic impedance is obtained the product of bulk
density and sonic data.

The following steps were taken in this new approach:

1. Extraction of core porosity and permeability data
2. Extraction of petrophysical log data corresponding to core interval
3. Calculation of RQI, FZI, and DRT (Hydraulic Units)
4. Statistical analysis of the result for the final selection of the rock types (DRT)
5. Cross plot of RQI versus Øz to check the consistency of the defined DRT's.
6. Plot the permeability versus porosity for each rock type
7. Selection of Key wells
8. Construction of mathematical model using artificial neural networks based on the FZI of core and log data of the
same interval.
9. Prediction of FZI for the uncored intervals of the key wells
10. Tuning the model by comparing the predicted and used data
11. Prediction of FZI logs for all wells based on the tuned model
12. Transformation of FZI log to DRT log for the prediction of permeability
13. Checking the predicted permeability of the non key wells with the core data for final refinement.
14. Application of 3D geostatistical techniques for the generation of 3D FZI based on the porosity model
15. Estimation of DRT of each cell in the 3D model
16. Calculate the permeability based on the developed correlation for each cell in the 3D model.

Two key wells were selected for the modeling purposes. The information of two wells namely well#3 and well#5 were
considered for the cored interval. At first the FZI was calculated based on the core data for these two wells, then the FZI log
of each well was obtained based on the log data of the same interval as the core.
The results of FZI calculation for the core data of well#5 is shown in Figure 34. The core porosity, core permeability, and
calculated FZI are shown in columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The FZI prediction for the total log interval using the four
mentioned log data and FZI of the core through the implementation of the neural approach is given in Figure 35. The
information of column 1 through 5 represents the PIGN, RHOB, DT, AI, and predicted FZI respectively for well#5. Due to
the good quality of the prediction, the FZI log was generated for the well (Figure 36). The same procedure was applied for
well#3. Then the FZI and permeability were populated for each well. The permeability was obtained based on the effective
porosity. The predicted permeability of the used wells, namely 5 and 3 are shown in Figures 37 and 38 respectively. As can
be seen from the Figures, the predicted permeability is well matched with core data. The prediction of the permeability for
wells 1, 2, and 4 are given in Figures 39 through 41 respectively. As can be seen the predicted permeability is well matched
with the actual data for most of the intervals of wells in which were not used in the FZI population process. It should be noted
that there are some poor prediction in some intervals which might be due the variability of input data as well as weak
correlations between them or quality of the log used in this work.

For the sake of comparison between the result of this work and the work which was based on the integration of
sedimentological, petrographical, and diagenetic study, the permeability log of well#5 was used and the results are given in
Figure 42. The results are in good agreement for most of the log interval. However, the prediction of this work in the regions
were core data were not available are better, because it follows the log property variation logically (Figure 42).

Finally, the FZI and DRT were populated for the whole reservoir based on its structural map as shown in Figures 43 and 44
respectively. The developed rock type model for this reservoir might be used for the reservoir simulation. In addition, the
final permeability model can be refined if new log and core data become available.

Conclusions
Based on the results of this study the following conclusions were obtained:

1) The artificial neural networks and geostatistical techniques were successfully applied for modeling Hydraulic Unit
Flow for the permeability prediction and rock typing purposes of a very heterogeneous carbonate reservoir.
2) Three dimensional permeability and rock typing were generated based on the core and log data.
SPE120166 7

3) Among the different available logs, Gamma ray, Sonic, Density, and Neutron porosity logs were found to correlate
better with the core data.
4) The permeability prediction of the ANN approach, in regions where core data were not available, followed the log
property variation logically.

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 geosciences and
reservoir simulation study team, specially; Misses Chekani and Nikzad and Mr. Kolivand for their suggestions.

Nomenclature
AI = Acoustic impedance
CGR = corrected gamma ray
DRT = district rock type
DT = sonic transit time
Fs = shape factor
FZI = flow zone indicator
HFU = hydraulic flow unit
K = permeability (md)
RHOB = bulk density
R35 = pore throat radius at 35% mercury saturation (µm)
RQI = reservoir quality index
RRT = reservoir rock type
RS = medium resistivity
RT = deep resistivity
RXO = shallow resistivity
SGR = standard gamma ray response
Sgv = surface area per unit grain volume
PIGN = Neutron porosity
VCLAY = volume of clay
TNPH = thermal neutron porosity
Ø = porosity, fraction
Øe = effective porosity
τ = tortuosity factor
λi = regression coefficients

References

1. Amaefule J.O., Altunbay M., Tiab D., Kersey D. G., and Keelan D.K.: Enhanced Reservoir Description: Using Core
and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic (Flow) Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells, SPE 26436,
presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.
2. Gunter G.W., Finneran, J.M., Hartmann, D.J., and Miller, J.D.: Early Determination of Reservoir Flow Units Using
An Integrated Perophysical Methods, paper SPE 38679 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition in San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1997.
3. 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 Orient Basin, SPE 97033 presented at annual
technical conference and exhibition in Dallas, Texas, 2005.
4. Hearn C.L., Ebanks, W.J. Tye, R.S., Ranganathan. V.: Geological Factors Influencing Reservoir Performance of the
Hartzog Draw Field, Wyoming, JPT Vol. 36 No. 9 (August 1984) 1335-1344.
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 (1988).
6. Slatts R.M., Hopkins G.L.: Scaling Geologic Reservoir Description to Engineering Needs," JPT, Vol. 42 No. 2
(February 1990) 202-211.
7. Abbaszadeh M., Fujii H., Fujimoto F.: Permeability Prediction by Hydraulic Flow Units-Theory and Applications,
SPE Formation Evaluation Journal, December 1996, 263-271.
8. 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. Jennings Jr. J.W., Lucia F. J.: Predicting Permeability from Well Logs in Carbonates with a Link to Geology for
Inter well Permeability Mapping, SPE 71336 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
8 SPE 120166

Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3 October 2001.

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Abdi Y., Ghane M., Haghighi A.R.: Integrated Reservoir Characterization and Modeling of One Iranian Naturally
Fractured Reservoir Using Laboratory and Field Data, SPE 111120, Presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E, 2007.
14. Winland H. D.: Oil Accumulation in Response to Pore Size changes, Weyburn field, Saskatchewan, Amoco
Production Research Report No. F72-G-25, 1972.
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: Summary statistic of core plug porosity (fraction)

Sample Mean Median Variance Standard Minimum Maximum
size Deviation

582 0.118 0.08 0.007 0.0809 0.0013 0.369

Table 2: Summary statistic of core plug permeability (md)

Sample Mean Median Variance Standard Minimum Maximum
size Deviation

582 1.26 1.26 2626 51.248 0.002 432

Table 3: Type of ports of the studied reservoir

Megaport Macroport Mesoport Microport Nanoport
Well Number
(>10 µ) (2-10 µ) (0.5-2 µ) (0.1-0.5 µ) (<0.1 µ)
1 - - x x x
2 x - - x x
3 x x x x x
4 x x x x x
5 x x x x x
SPE120166 9

Table 4: Average values for each DRT

Average Porosity Permeability

DRT FZI Mean RQI Mean
% md

17 23.07 0.7798 3.3 35.6

16 14.564 0.5376 3.5 18.13
15 8.47 0.4156 4.5 11.15
14 5.606 0.3462 5.8 19.52
13 3.177 0.3796 10 54.5
12 1.963 0.4012 16 57.26
11 1.243 0.2433 15 22.88
10 0.745 1.0000 11 3.55
9 0.457 0.0658 12 1
8 0.295 0.0496 14 0.7

Table 5: Regression Coefficients for the FZI prediction Model

Normalized log Name Constant SGR CGR RHOB TNPH RS RT RXO DT VCLAV
Coefficient Name λ0 λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 λ5 λ6 λ7 λ8 λ9
Coefficient Value 0.43838 0.00927 -0.14544 -4.5228 -1.1306 0.1337 -0.00097 -0.1094 0.8087 2.2468

Table 6: Regression coefficients for DRT prediction model

DRT λ0 λ1 λ2 λ3 λ4 λ5 λ6 λ7 Λ8 λ9

8 -1.9141 -0.0756 0.04233 0.59120 -0.0464 0.17216 -0.1419 -0.0312 0.71128 0.41947

9 0.630127 -0.0548 -0.01211 -0.59233 -0.1017 0.004507 0.022652 -0.06143 -0.35914 0.27994

10 -0.21595 0.026091 0.006025 -0.04549 -0.0455 0.038114 0.001746 -0.00269 0.067207 0.038598

11 -1.27999 0.020253 -0.01374 0.644299 -0.0977 -0.03012 0.02112 0.019035 0.651062 0.384158

12 1.204829 0.014517 -0.00769 -0.23197 0.05265 -0.03922 0.045289 0.017388 -0.43408 0.055939

13 0.474677 0.077372 -0.02564 0.85391 0.081005 0.042004 -0.03901 0.028498 -0.20067 -0.1489
14 0.399217 0.028821 0.118141 -2.02909 -0.15603 -0.02444 -0.03287 0.043123 0.570322 0.259265

15 -4.94926 -0.00291 -0.18738 0.178915 -0.21334 0.406829 -0.38151 -0.13713 3.332309 -0.06049

16 4.575454 -0.17297 0.095026 -4.66786 -0.17675 -0.0344 -0.1116 0.082449 -0.57586 1.095992

17 -2.78647 0.327834 0.16314 5.450113 0.208959 -0.26032 0.330884 -0.02706 0.650088 -0.94242

Table 7: Mean pore throat of the core samples

Core sample
DRT Mean pore throat, micron
ID
5-29 10 0.22
5-6 11 1.688
2-10 11 1.571
2-6 12 1.46
1-3 14 8.2
10 SPE 120166

Porosity Histogram of Porosity Well#4

Porosity Histogram of Well#1-Sarvak
12% 100%
25% 100%
Frequency Cumulative
Frequency Cumulative 90%
90%
10%
80%
20% 80%
70%
70% 8%
60%

Frequency

Cumulative
15% 60%
Frequency

Cumulative
6% 50%
50%
40%
10% 40%
4%
30%
30%
20%
5% 20% 2%
10%
10%
0% 0%
0% 0%

0.000
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
0.260
0.300
0.000

0.150

0.170

0.180

0.190

0.200

0.210

0.220

0.230

0.240

0.290

0.300

0.310
Porosity (Fraction)
Porosity (Fraction)

Figure 4: Porosity histogram and cumulative of well#4 data.

Figure 1: Porosity histogram and cumulative of well#1 data.
Porosity Histogram of Porosity Well#5
Porosity Histogram of Well#2-Sarvak
12% 100%
30% 100%
Frequency Cumulative
Frequency Cumulative 90%
90%
10%
25% 80%
80%
70%
70% 8%
20%
60%
Frequency

Cumulative
60%
Frequency

Cumulative

6% 50%
15% 50%
40%
40%
4%
10% 30%
30%
20%
20% 2%
5%
10%
10%
0% 0%
0% 0%
0.000
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.150
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
0.260
0.270
0.280
0.290
0.300
0.000

0.040

0.060

0.080

0.100

0.120

0.140

0.160

0.220

0.240

0.260

0.300

Porosity (Fraction)
Porosity (Fraction)

Figure 2: Porosity histogram and cumulative of well#2 data. Figure 5: Porosity histogram and cumulative of well#5 data.

Porosity Histogram of Well#3-Sarvak

18% 100% Perm vsChart

Poro Title
- CCAL Data

Expon. (Perm vs Poro - CCAL

Frequency Cumulative Data)
90% 1000
16%

80%
14%
100
70%
12%
60% y = 0.1925e20.345x
Frequency

Cumulative

10% R2 = 0.4558
10
50%
Perm_core

8%
40%
6% 1
30%

4%
20%
0.1
2% 10%

0% 0%
0.000

0.030

0.050

0.070

0.090

0.110

0.130

0.150

0.170

0.190

0.210

0.230

0.250

0.270

0.290

0.310

0.330

0.350

0.370

0.01
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Poro_core
Porosity (Fraction)

Figure 3: Porosity histogram and cumulative of well#3 data. Figure 6: Cross-plot of Permeability vs. porosity of all wells.
SPE120166 11

1000 Permeability vs Porosity (Core Data) , DRT Classified

y = 226.23x3.4752
Winlad Plot 1000.000 R2 = 0.983 DRT 7

y = 363.46x3.2992
DRT 8
100 R2 = 0.9666
100.000 y = 1100.6x3.3333
2 DRT 9
R = 0.9677
y = 3560.9x3.4096
Permeability, md

2
R = 0.9862 DRT 10
10 10.000

Permeability md
y = 7545.5x3.3262 DRT 11
R2 = 0.9847
1.000 y = 16046x3.2375 DRT 12
1 R2 = 0.9847
y = 32776x3.0891
DRT 13
0.100 R2 = 0.9879
y = 90656x3.1477 DRT 14
0.1 2
R = 0.9853
0.010 3.2082
y = 360773x DRT 15
R2 = 0.9851
0.1 Micron 0.5 Micron 2.0 Micron
3.0892
10 Micron 50 Micron core data y = 647251x DRT 16
0.01
R2 = 0.9872
0.001
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400
Porosity Power
Porosity %
(DRT 7)

Power
Figure 7: Winland porosity-Permeability plot of all wells data. (DRT 8)
Figure 10: Distinct relationships of Permeability vs. Porosity
Power
based on DRT. (DRT 9)

Power
(DRT
10)
Power
K_MODEL & CORE, DRT_Ln (DRT
25 11)
Power
1000
(DRT
12)
Power
20 100
(DRT
13)
Power
(DRT
14)
P(DRT)

15 10 Power
(DRT
15)
Power
1 (DRT
10 16)
K_CORE
K_MODEL
0.1
5
0.01

0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0.001

DRT 0.0001
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Figure 8: Probability distribution function of DRTs. Figure 11: A comparison between core and predicted
permeability

FZI_MODEL Relative Error

10 DRT7

6000
DRT8

DRT9 4000

1 DRT10
2000

DRT11
RQI

0
DRT12 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
FZI_MODEL Relative Error

DRT13
0.1 -2000

DRT14
-4000

DRT15

-6000
DRT16,17,1
0.01 8
0.01 0.1 1
-8000
Normalized porosity

Figure 12: The relative error n between core and predicted

Figure 9: District rock type of the studied reservoir. permeability based on rock type.
12 SPE 120166

10 1000

100
1
Permeability, md

10

Permeability, md
K_CORE_DRT8 K_Core-DRT-11
0.1
K_MODEL_DRT8 K_MODEL_DRT-11

0.01

0.1

0.001 0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Sample Sequence Number
Sample Sequence Number

Figure 13: A comparison between core and predicted Figure 16: A comparison between core and predicted
permeability based on DRT 8. permeability based on DRT 11.

10
1000

100

1
Permeability, md

10
Permeability, md

K_MODEL_DRT_9_LN
K_CORE_DRT12
K_CORE_DRT_9_LN
K_MODEL-DRT12

0.1

0.1

0.01 0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Sample Sequence Number Sample Sequence Number

Figure 14: A comparison between core and predicted Figure 17: A comparison between core and predicted
permeability based DRT 9. permeability based on DRT 12.

100 1000

100
10
Permeability, md

10
Permeability, md

K_Core-DRT-10
1 K_CORE_DRT13
K_MODEL_DRT-10 K_MODEL_DRT13

0.1

0.1

0.01 0.01
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sample Sequence Number Sample Sequence Number

Figure 15: A comparison between core and predicted Figure 18: A comparison between core and predicted
permeability based on DRT 10. permeability based DRT 13.
SPE120166 13

K_MODEL vs K_CORE DRT14 K_MODEL vs K_CORE DRT 17

1000 1000

100

100
Permeabiliy, md

10

Pemeability, md
K_CORE K_CORE
K_MODEL K_MODEL

10

0.1

0.01 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Sample Sequence Number Sample Sequence Number

Figure 19: A comparison between core and predicted Figure 22: A comparison between core and predicted
permeability based on DRT 14. permeability based on DRT 17.

K_MODEL vs K_CORE DRT15 NDF_GR_Per DRT

100 0.080
DRT17
DRT16
0.070 DRT15
DRT14
DRT13
0.060
DRT12
10 DRT11
DRT10
Permeability, md

0.050
DRT9
K_CORE DRT8
K_MODEL 0.040

1 0.030

0.020

0.010

0.1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.000
Sample Sequence Number 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 20: A comparison between core and predicted Figure 23: GR log readings density functions for major DRT.
permeability based on DRT 15.

K_MODEL vs K_CORE DRT16 NDF_DT_Per DRT

100
0.120
DRT17
DRT16
DRT15
0.100 DRT14
DRT13
DRT12
10
0.080 DRT11
Permeability, md

DRT10
DRT9
K_CORE
DRT8
K_MODEL
0.060

1
0.040

0.020

0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.000
Sample Sequence Number 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

Figure 21: A comparison between core and predicted

Figure 24: DT log readings density functions for major DRT.
permeability based on DRT 16.
14 SPE 120166

NDF_RHOB_Per DRT NDF_RT_Per DRT

7.000 0.014
DRT17 DRT17
DRT16 DRT16

DRT15 0.012 DRT15

6.000
DRT14 DRT14

DRT13 DRT13

0.010 DRT12
5.000 DRT12
DRT11
DRT11
DRT10
DRT10
DRT9
DRT9 0.008
4.000 DRT8
DRT8

0.006
3.000

0.004
2.000

0.002
1.000

0.000
0.000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

Figure 28: RT log readings density functions for major DRT.

Figure 25: RHOB log readings density functions for major
DRT.

NDF_RXO_Per DRT
NDF_TNPH_Per DRT

0.140
9.000 DRT17
DRT17 DRT16
DRT16 DRT15
8.000 0.120
DRT15 DRT14
DRT14 DRT13
7.000 DRT13 DRT12
0.100
DRT12 DRT11

6.000 DRT11 DRT10

DRT10 DRT9
0.080
DRT9 DRT8
5.000
DRT8

0.060
4.000

3.000 0.040

2.000
0.020

1.000
0.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.000
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

Figure 29: RXO log readings density functions for major DRT.
Figure 26: TNPH log readings density functions for major
DRT.

NDF_RS_Per DRT
NDF_CGR_Per DRT

0.030
DRT17 0.18
DRT17
DRT16
DRT16
DRT15 0.16
0.025 DRT15
DRT14
DRT14
DRT13
0.14 DRT13
DRT12
DRT12
0.020 DRT11
0.12 DRT11
DRT10
DRT10
DRT9 DRT9
DRT8 0.1
DRT8
0.015

0.08

0.010 0.06

0.04

0.005
0.02

0.000 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure 27: RS log readings density functions for major DRT. Figure 30: CGR log readings density functions for major DRT.
SPE120166 15

NDF_VLAY_Per DRT 100000

core 5-29 DRT 10
12
DRT17 core 5-17 DRT 11
DRT16 core 5-6 DRT 11
DRT15
10 DRT14 core 2-10 DRT 12
10000
DRT13
core 5-13 DRT 13
DRT12

8 DRT11 core 1-3 DRT 14

DRT10
DRT9
DRT8
6 1000

Mercury Pressure, psia

4

100
2

0
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

10
Figure 31: VCLAY log readings density functions for major
DRT.

1
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Mercury Saturation, fraction

Figure 33: Capillary pressure data from high pressure

1.00
mercury injection. INTRA_SVK
Top_Laffan
SVK_2a
SVK_8b
SVK_8a
SVK_7b
SVK_7a
SVK_6b
SVK_6a
SVK_10
SVK_1
SVK_9

core 5-29
DRT 10 AZADEGAN-5_WGS84 [SSTVD]
0.90 SSTVD 0.0000 Poro_Core 0.4000 0.0010 Perm_Core 500.0000 0.00 FZI_Core 5.00
2850

core 5-6
0.80 DRT 11 SVK_2b
SVK_2b
SVK_2b

2860

0.70 core 2-10

DRT 11
Distribution fuction

0.60 SVK_2c 2870 SVK_2c

SVK_2c
core 2-6
DRT 12
0.50 SVK_2d
SVK_2d
SVK_2d
core 1-3 2880
SVK_3a
SVK_3a SVK_3a
DRT 14
0.40

SVK_3b
SVK_3b 2890 SVK_3b
0.30

SVK_4a
SVK_4a SVK_4a
0.20
2900

0.10

2910

0.00
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Pore throat radius, Micron
SVK_4b
SVK_4b SVK_4b

2920
Figure 32: Distribution function of the pore throat

Radius of some cores.

2930 SVK_5a
SVK_5a SVK_5a

2940

Figure
2949
34: FZI profile of well#5 based on core data. SVK_5b
SVK_5b SVK_5b
 16 SPE 120166
INTRA_SVK
Top_Laffan
SVK_2a
SVK_8b
SVK_8a
SVK_7b
SVK_7a
SVK_6b
SVK_6a
SVK_10
SVK_1
SVK_9

AZADEGAN-5_WGS84 [SSTVD]
SSTVD 0.00 FZI_Core 5.00 0.0000 PIGN_N 1.0000 0.00 RHOB_N 1.00 0.00 DT_N 1.00 0.06 AI_N 1.00 0.01 FZI_Core [Neural net 7] 5.00
2850

SVK_2b
SVK_2b

2860

2870 SVK_2c
SVK_2c

SVK_2d
SVK_2d

2880
SVK_3a
SVK_3a

SVK_3b
SVK_3b 2890

SVK_4a
SVK_4a

2900

2910

SVK_4b
SVK_4b

2920

2930 SVK_5a
SVK_5a

2940

SVK_5b
SVK_5b 2949

Figure 37: Permeability prediction of well#5.

Figure 35: FZI profile of well#5 based on log and core data. INTRA_SVK
SVK_10
SVK_9

AZADEGAN-5_WGS84 [SSTVD]
SSTVD 0.0000 PIGN_N 1.0000 0.00 RHOB_N 1.00 0.00 DT_N 1.00 0.06 AI_N 1.00 0.01 FZI_Core [Neural net 7] 5.00 0.33 FZI-Log_Neural7 [Synthetic] 3.31

2790

2800

Top_Laffan
Top_Laffan
SVK_1
SVK_1
2825

SVK_2a
SVK_2a 2850
SVK_2b
SVK_2b

SVK_2c
SVK_2c
2875 SVK_2d
SVK_2d
SVK_3a
SVK_3a
SVK_3b
SVK_3b
SVK_4a
SVK_4a
2900

SVK_4b
SVK_4b

2925
SVK_5a
SVK_5a

SVK_5b
SVK_5b 2950

SVK_6a
SVK_6a 2975

SVK_6b
SVK_6b

3000

SVK_7a
SVK_7a
SVK_7b
SVK_7b
3025
SVK_8a
SVK_8a

3050
SVK_8b
SVK_8b
3064
Figure 38: Permeability log of well#3 based on Neural
modeling.
Figure 36: FZI log of well#5 based on neural modeling.
SPE120166 17

Figure 39: Permeability log of well#1 based on Neural

modeling. Figure 41: Permeability of well#4 based on Neural modeling.

Figure 40: Permeability log of well#2 based on Neural Figure 42: Comparison of Permeability prediction of current
modeling. work and the sedimentological method.
18 SPE 120166

Figure 43: FZI map of the reservoir understudy.

Figure 44: DRT map of the reservoir understudy.