Formation Characterization of Shaly-Sand Reservoirs
in the Southern Oil Fields of Iraq
Esmaeel K. Ibraheem
Sr. Reservoir Engineer, Reservoirs' & Fields' Development Directorate,
Ministry of Oil – IRAQ
ABSTRACT
The reservoir characterization
methods, namely the porosity-
permeability, reservoir quality index
(RQI) concept and the capillary
pressure. Initially these methods were
developed for carbonate reservoirs
characterization in UAE and Saudi
Arabia then applied and tested on
shaly-sandstone reservoirs in S.A. and
Egypt, we applied it here in order to
find out its applicability on the shaly-
sand reservoirs.
Several available core measurements
from different wells of a shaly-sand
reservoir in a single oil field in the
south of Iraq were used for this study
in order to compare the results of these
methods / concepts with the measured
ones. The data were used first to
develop the porosity-permeability
correlations then for the application of
the RQI and then to calculate the
capillary pressure. The RQI concept
showed that there could be different
flow units within this reservoir but
could not be very well identified and
can be considered as one flow unit.
INTRODUCTION
The main look of the reservoir
engineer in developing a reservoir is
the better flow properties and storage
capability which in turn reflected on
the development of the reservoir model
for better results and better choice of
the oil wells' locations later on.
Porosity and permeability represent
the toughest choice in carbonate
reservoirs but in clastics represent the
less tough choice as the flow efficiency
is greater or better even with the
presence of shale in between, but the
reservoir engineer always looks for the
best well location for better and
optimum recovery from the reservoir
itself. So the oil industry needed a
good and effective technology to find
the best well location, so several
studies were performed to find this
technology and came with the
"Reservoir Quality Index". The use of
the RQI and the J-function concepts
incorporate parameters such as
porosity and permeability into a single
quantity that characterizes the
formation. The application of these
parameters / concepts may or may not
show that the formation can be single
or multiple flow units.1-4
The proposed methods apply locally
only because there may be large
differences in depositional
characteristics at other locations. Most
of the models explicitly ignore the
scatter of data about the normalized
capillary pressure curve and implicitly
attribute any scatter to measurement
errors, fluctuations in reservoir
characteristics, or absence of some
reservoir parameters. An improvement
to J-function can be achieved by first
identifying lithological categories of
formation and then calculating
regression curves for measurements
that belong to each lithology class. The
proper method to identify the different
lithological categories is the use of
hydraulic flow unit technique.
١
 Both Desouky1 and Shedid et.al2
applied these methods on different
reservoir rocks and arrived to the same
conclusions.
THEORY
If rocks of similar fluid conductivity
are identified and grouped together,
can be called or referred to as a
Hydraulic Flow Unit. The hydraulic
flow unit is identified as the reservoir
zone that is continuous laterally and
vertically and has similar flow and
bedding characteristics. The hydraulic
flow unit that characterizes a specific
reservoir zone is mathematically
expressed by Al-Ajmi & Holditch 5 by
the following equation:
RQI = FZI Фn (1)
Where the reservoir quality index
(RQI) is given by:
RQI = √ K / Ф (2)
And the normalized porosity (Фn) is
defined as:
Фn = Ф / (1 – Ф) (3)
The value of the Flow Zone Indicator
(FZI) is the intercept of a unit-slope
line with the coordinate Фn = 1, on a
log-log plot of RQI versus Фn. The
principle of hydraulic flow unit
classification is to identify groupings
of data classes that form straight lines
with unit slope on log-log plot of RQI
versus Фn. From equations (1) and (2)
we get:
√ K / Ф = FZI Фn (4)
Referring to the Capillary Pressure
correlation, Leverett 6 who first
introduced a dimensionless capillary
pressure correlation function, which is
defined as follows:
٢
J(Sw) = Pc( √ K /Ф )/(σ cos θ) (5)
This function accounts for the change
of porosity, permeability and
wettability of the reservoir as long as
the general pore geometry remains
constant. Substituting equation (4) in
(5) we get:
J(Sw) = Pc FZI Фn / ( σ cos θ ) (6)
For capillary pressure data of a
constant pore geometry (i.e. a fixed
value of FZI), the relationship between
the values of J(Sw) and normalized
water saturation (Swn) is given by:
J(Sw) = J* Swn -1/λ (7)
Where
Swn =(Sw – Swr)/(1 – Swr) (8)
The term J* is known as the lithology
index and its value:
J* = J(Sw) @ Sw = 1
And the term λ is the pore size
distribution index which is equal to the
reciprocal of the slope of the plot
J(Sw) versus Swn.
Substituting equation (7) into
equation (6) we obtain:
Pc = σ cos θ J* Swn-1/λ / (FZI Фn) (9)
If we assume that
Ψ = σ cos θ J* / FZI (10)
Then equation (9) can be rewritten as
follows:
Pc = Ψ Swn -1/λ / Фn (11)
Equation (11) is the normalized
capillary pressure equation for a flow
unit of a reservoir and the number of
the normalized curves is equal to the
number of hydraulic flow units.
CALCULATION PROCEDURE
The routine core data ( k & Ф ),
capillary pressure data( Pc & Sw ) and
irreducible water saturation Swr were
used in the following calculations to
identify the hydraulic flow zones in the
reservoir under study, these
calculations are cas follows:
- Calculate RQI using equation
(2).
- Calculate the normalized
porosity, Фn, using equation
(3).
- Plot RQI versus Фn on log-log
coordinates.
- Determine the optimum
number of hydraulic flow units.
- Draw a unit-slope line and
move it until you find the best
fit line for each hydraulic flow
unit, determine the FZI from its
intersection with the Фn = 1
coordinate.
- Identify the capillary pressure
data of each flow unit and plot
it.
- Use the capillary pressure data
and core data to calculate the J-
function using equation (5) and
the normalized water saturation
(Swn) using equation (8).
- Plot these values on log-log
scale and determine the
lithology index (J*) and pore
size distribution (λ) for each
unit.
- Determine the normalized
capillary pressure curve for
each unit using equations (10)
and (11).
APPLICATION OF METHODS
The methods were applied to the
available data, which data were not so
much. Routine core analysis data (k &
Ф) and capillary pressure data (Pc &
Sw) were obtained from two different
zones, (A & D), of a shaly-sandstone
reservoir in the south of Iraq. The core
data were 92 measurements and 6
capillary measurement sets which were
measured by the restored state method.
The capillary pressure data were
plotted in Fig. 1, which showed six
different flow zones, but they are
actually from two different zones. This
may be referred to the different shale
content of the samples.
The plot of the permeability versus the
porosity, Fig 2, should show, in
somehow, separation into different
zones, but it did not show that. An
experimental relationship was found as
follows:
k  0 . 3773 e 27 .676  (12)
The RQI calculated using equation (2)
and the normalized porosity calculated
using equation (3) for both units (A&
D), and then plotted on log-log
coordinates, Fig. 3.
The plot did not show any separation
into different flow units, but they
looked like as one unit which means
that they both have the same flow
characteristics. A unit slope line was
drawn and the FZI value of each unit
were determined, but since they can be
considered as one flow unit a single
FZI value were determined also. Table
no. 1.
In order to calculate the J-function of
each flow unit a single Pc curve should
be considered, so the Sw values of
each of the two units were averaged
and plotted, Fig.4.
The J-function and the normalized
water saturation (Swn) for each unit
were calculated using equations (5) &
(8) respectively. Plotting the J-function
versus Swn on log-log coordinates,
Fig. 5, and determined the lithology
index, J*, from the intersection of the
best fit line with the Swn = 1
coordinate for each unit, these values is
shown in Table no.1 below.
Then the slope of the two fit lines were
calculated, determined the pore size
distribution index, λ, then an average
٣
value for the normalized porosity, Фn,
were calculated in order to calculate
the Ψ factor, equation (10), all these
factors were listed in Table no.1
below. A value of 72 dyne/cm was
used for the surface tension, σ, and 70o
was used for the contact angle, θ, in
order to calculate the Ψ factor.
The final normalized capillary
pressure equations for the two units
were as follows:
For unit A
Pc = 0.6293 / ( 0.3 Swn 0.5147 ) (13)
For unit D
Pc = 0.6074 / ( 0.32 Swn 4.1793 ) (14)
The Capillary pressure for the two
units, A & D, calculated using
equations (13) & (14) and plotted
versus the measured ones, Fig.6.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
From this work, one can conclude
that the use of the RQI is a good
practice, it can show you if your
reservoir is subdivided into different
flow units or not, as this can be seen
from the plot of the RQI versus Фn,
and allows you to consider your
reservoir as a single flow unit or
different units, even if your capillary
measurements show different flow
units. It shows that the data of both
units are scattered and interfere with
each other making a single unit plot,
but when we calculate the J-function
and plot it versus the Swn we find out
that they are separated into two units.
The shale content of the core samples
has a significant effect on the results of
the capillary pressure measurements. If
the Pc data are plotted versus the water
saturation will show a wider scattering
if the shale content is high, and a
narrower scattering when the shale
content is low. Therefore the capillary
pressure data should be normalized to
٤
narrow this scattering and have better
results.
The number of the available capillary
pressure data is an effective factor in
the overall calculations. As high as the
number of the available data the
calculations will be better and exact.
The available capillary pressure data in
this work were not so much but reflects
the nature of the capillary pressure
behavior.
The calculated capillary pressure
from equations (13) & (14) for the two
units showed results higher than the
measured ones which may be
interpreted due to the effect of the
shale content of the core samples
chosen for measurement.
CONCLUSIONS
The following can be concluded from
this work:
1. The technique was initially
developed for carbonate
reservoirs and proved effective
and useful in several reservoirs
in UAE and Saudi Arabia then
it is applied latter on shaly-
sandstone reservoirs in Egypt
and Saudi Arabia and also
proved effective and useful. On
application on the Iraqi oil
fields / shaly-sandstone
reservoirs it showed good
correlation, we need more
detailed capillary pressure data
to improve the correlation.
2. The overall correlation is local
and can not be generalized and
applied to all the carbonate and
clastics reservoirs. Therefore an
analyses need to be performed
on every reservoir in order to
find the best correlations.
3. The technique incorporates the
effect of the pore geometry,
lithology variation and fluids
saturations.
4. The Reservoir Quality Index
(RQI) provides better
 identification of the flow units
than the J-function.
5. The developed equations can
be used to correlate capillary
pressure data of different flow
zones or units in multiple wells
in a formation by the Flow
Zone Indicator (FZI). This
indicator can give you an idea
of the better flow zone in a
single formation and a
qualitative participation of each
zone to the production. Higher
FZI means higher participation
and vice versa.
NOMENCLATURE
FZI = Flow zone indicator, m
J(Sw) = Leverette J-function for
capillary pressure,
dimensionless.
J* = Lithology index,
dimensionless.
K = Permeability, md.
Pc = Capillary pressure, psia.
RQI = Reservoir quality index,
micron.
Sw = Water saturation, fraction.
Swn = Normalized water saturation,
ratio.
Swr = Irreducible water saturation,
fraction.
θ = Contact angle, degree.
σ = Interfacial tension, N/m.
Ф = Porosity, fraction.
Фn = Normalized Porosity. ratio
λ = Pore size distribution index,
dimensionless.
Ψ = Constant eq. (10 & 11).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to gratefully
acknowledge the management of the
reservoirs' and fields' development
directorate in the Ministry of Oil in
Iraq for their cooperation and advices
in releasing and performing this work.
REFERENCES
1- S.E.D.M. Desouky, "A New
Method for Normalization of
Capillary Pressure Curves". Oil
& Gas Science and Technology
– Rev. IFP, Vol. 58 (2003),
No.5.
2- Shedid A. Shedid & Reyadh A.
Almehedib, "A New Approach
of Reservoir Description of
Carbonate Reservoirs", SPE
74344, SPE International
Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico 10 – 12
February 2002.
3- Tiab, D. and Donaldson, E.C.:
"Petrophysics – Theory and
Practice of Measuring
Reservoir Rock and Fluid
Transport Properties", Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston,
Texas, USA (1996).
4- Amefule, J.O., Atunbay, M.,
Tiab, D., Kersey, D.G., and
Keelan, D., "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 66th
Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition of the SPE held
in Houston, Texas 3-6 October
1933.
5- Al-Ajmi, F.A. and Holditch,
S.A. Permeability Estimation
Using Hydraulic Flow Units in
a Central Arabia Reservoir.
Paper No. 63254 presented at
SPE Conference, Texas, 1-4
October 2000.
6- Leverett, M.C. (1941) Capillary
Behavior in Porous Solids.
Trans. AIME, 142, 152-169.
7- Craig, F.F.,"The Reservoir
Engineering Aspects of Water
Flooding". SPE of AIME
(1971).
٥
 Table no.1 – Characteristics of the flow units A & D.

Unit J* λ Ψ FZI Фn
from Fig.5
A 2.30 - 0.5147 0.6293 90 0.3
D 3.70 - 4.1793 0.6074 150 0.32

50

45
A1
40 A2

35 A3
D1
30 D2
Pc, psi

25 D3

20

15

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sw, %

FIG. 1 – Capillary Pressure, Pc, versus Water Saturation, Sw, of Units A & D.

٦
 10000
A
D
1000
Permeability, md

100

10

1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Porosity, fraction

FIG. 2 – Porosity versus Permeability of units A & D.

A
D
1000

100
RQI, micron

10 FZI
A = 90 micron
D = 150 micron

1
0.10 1.00
Phin, ratio

FIG. 3 – Reservoir Quality Index, RQI, versus Normalized Porosity, Фn, of units
A & D.

٧
 50

45
Av. A
40 Av. D

35

30
Pc, psi

25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sw, %

FIG. 4 – Capillary Pressure, Pc, versus averaged Sw, of units A & D.

100
J-function, dimensionless

A
D

10

J*

1
0.01 0.1 1
Normalized Sw, ratio

FIG. 5 – J-function versus Normalized Sw for units A & D.

٨
 100
Pc- calculated

10

D
A

1
1 10 100
Pc - measured

FIG.6 – Calculated versus measured capillary pressure of flow units A & D.

About the author

The author has a B.Sc. in petroleum engineering from the university of Baghdad –
Iraq. Joined INOC in September 1980 at the Central Oil Establishment in Baghdad as
a drilling then cementing engineer, then joined the North Oil Company in Kirkuk in
July 1987, he had worked as petroleum / well testing engineer then in 1990 started
working as reservoir engineer. In 1998 transferred to the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad
as reservoir engineer. In 1999 went on a study for the M.Sc. degree in reservoir
engineering in the State Russian University for Oil & Gas – GUBKIN in Moscow –
Russian Federation and graduated in June 2001. The he returned to work in the
ministry up-to-date.