About This Item
- Full TextFull Text(subscription required)
- Pay-Per-View PurchasePay-Per-View
Purchase Options Explain
Share This Item
The AAPG/Datapages Combined Publications Database
AAPG Bulletin
Abstract
AAPG Bulletin, V.
2007. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved.
DOI:10.1306/09140606054
A comparison of Khuff and Arab reservoir potential throughout the Middle East
S. N. Ehrenberg,1 P. H. Nadeau,2 A. A. M. Aqrawi3
1Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; [email protected]
2Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; [email protected]
3Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; present address: Statoil Arabian Gulf, Samarqand Street, Hai Al-Ssalam, Al-Rabia, Amman, Jordan; [email protected]
ABSTRACT
A compilation of average
porosity
and permeability data for petroleum reservoirs in the Permian–Triassic Khuff
Formation
and the Jurassic Arab
Formation
shows that most Khuff reservoirs have an average
porosity
of less than 12%, whereas most Arab reservoirs have an average
porosity
of 12–26%. Higher
porosity
correlates with shallower depth, suggesting that burial diagenesis is the main cause of the overall
porosity
difference between these units. Deeper burial of Khuff reservoirs is inferred to have resulted in greater
porosity
loss by chemical compaction and associated cementation. A broad correlation also exists between average
porosity
and average permeability, suggesting that deeper burial and the resulting
porosity
decrease are also a primary cause of the lower permeabilities of the Khuff reservoirs. In addition to greater burial depth, however, a combination of depositional and early diagenetic factors is also reflected in the lower average
porosity
and permeability values of the Khuff reservoirs. Khuff strata were deposited on an extensive, poorly circulated, very low-relief shelf and consist in large part of interbedded mudstones and grainstones having relatively fine grain size, with major amounts of depositional calcium sulfate present. Arab reservoirs were deposited under better circulated conditions near platform margins facing deep, intracratonic basins and, thus, have coarser, more grain-dominated fabrics and lesser overall content of chemically precipitated grains, calcium sulfate, and dolomite. Khuff deposits were likely composed of less stable mineralogy than Arab sediments because the Late Permian was a time of aragonite seas, whereas the Late Jurassic was a time of calcite seas. The combined result of these factors is that Arab reservoirs are characterized by greater
preservation
of primary depositional pore types, more coarsely crystalline dolomite fabrics, and lesser plugging by anhydrite. Finally, a possible factor affecting the average
porosity
and permeability values is petroleum composition, which is gas in most Khuff reservoirs and oil in Arab reservoirs. Lower economic cutoff values for gas production would favor inclusion of low-permeability zones in Khuff reservoirs, thus reducing average reservoir values.
Two main aspects of these results are innovative. This is the first time that
porosity
and permeability values for either Khuff or Arab reservoirs have been examined regionally. Second, the conclusion that thermal exposure is the primary control on average
porosity
and permeability in these units is consistent with previous work from other carbonates, but is new for the Middle East.
Pay-Per-View Purchase Options
The article is available through a document delivery service. Explain these Purchase Options.
| Watermarked PDF Document: $16 | |
| Open PDF Document: $28 |
AAPG Member?
Please login with your Member username and password.
Members of AAPG receive access to the full AAPG Bulletin Archives as part of their membership. For more information, contact the AAPG Membership Department at [email protected].
