4271

Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

ISSN 1819-544X
This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Petrophysical Characteristics of the Nubia Sandstone Along the B –Trend, Southern
Gulf of Suez, Egypt, Based on the Hydraulic Flow Units Concept.

Mohamed S. El Sharawy

Geophysical Science Dept., National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt.

ABSTRACT

The Gulf of Suez rift basin is considered the most prolific oil reservoir province in Egypt. It is produced oil
from the Miocene and pre – Miocene rocks. The pre – Cenomanian Nubia Sandstone sediments are considered
one of the most important reservoirs in the Gulf of Suez. It consists mainly of sandstone intercalated by thin
layers of clays. It thins southward along the Gulf of Suez. Based on the pore scale, the Nubia Sandstone is a
heterogeneous reservoir. We used the hydraulic flow unit concept to differentiate the Nubia Sandstone section
into flow zones. Based on statistical methods, at least eight HFU can be identified within the Nubia interval.
This study indicates that the HFU is controlled essentially by the permeability, which in turn controlled by the
pore throat size. The pore throat size is a function of the pore type, which is determined by the depositional
facies and the subsequent diagenetic processes. Presence of clays and heavy minerals, as well as feldspars,
which altered subsequently to kaolinite, led to significant reduction in porosity and permeability, and finally led
to poor reservoir quality zones.

Key words: hydraulic flow unit – Gulf of Suez – Nubia Sandstone – reservoir.

Introduction

The hydraulic flow unit (HFU) concept has been developed to identify and characterize rock types, based
on geological and physical parameters at pore scale. It can be used essentially to improve the permeability
prediction and well to well rock properties correlations. The hydraulic flow unit (HFU) is defined as a mappable
portion of the total reservoir, within which geological and petrophysical properties that affect the flow of fluids,
are consistent and predictably different from the properties of other reservoir rock volumes (Ebanks et. al.

• A flow unit is a specific volume of a reservoir; it is composed of one or more reservoir-quality lithologies
1992). They recognized the following characteristics for HFU:

• A flow unit is correlative and mappable at the interwell scale.

and any non reservoir-quality rock types within that same volume, as well as the fluids they contain.

• A flow unit zonation is recognizable on wireline logs.

• A flow unit may be in communication with other flow units.
The hydraulic flow units are controlled by geological and petrophysical reservoir rock properties. The
geological properties include rock texture and mineralogy, and sedimentary structures while the petrophysical
properties include porosity and permeability, which are controlled by depositional facies and diagenetic
processes. Within a single facies zone, a few HFU can be present and on contrary, one HFU can include several
depositional facies, depending on their textural and mineralogical characteristics (Svirsky et al. 2004). Amaefule
et al. (1993) showed that it is not possible to get good reservoir description without introducing the pore throat
parameters and bridging the gap between microscopic attributes from routine core plugs and macroscopic log
derived characterization, as they introduced the concept of reservoir quality index (RQI) to define the pattern of
flow units.
Methods for HFU zonation include application of Lorenz plots and the use of the flow zone indicator
concept. Martin et al. (1997) and Chekani and Kharrat (2009) used Winland equation (1972) to define the HFU.
All these methods require the knowledge of porosity and permeability distributions. Gunter et al. (1997)
described a technique for combining the porosity, permeability, and bed thickness data for flow unit
identification. They utilized the Stratigraphic Modified Lorenz (SML) plot for flow characterization. This
method of flow unit determination requires only the routine porosity and permeability data (from logs and/or
cores). It is independent of facies identification and uses simple crossplotting techniques. The SML plot is a
crossplot of “cumulative flow capacity” – defined as the product of average permeability and thickness of an
interval (kh) – versus “cumulative storage capacity” – defined as the product of average porosity and thickness
of the same interval (Φh).

Corresponding Author: Mohamed S. El Sharawy, Geophysical Science Dept., National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo,
Egypt.
E-mail: [email protected]
 4272
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

On the other hand, Amaefule et al. (1993) introduced three parameters to determine the HFU, which can be
defined, according to the following equations:
K
Φ
RQI = 0.0314 (1)

Φe
Φz =
(1 − Φe)
(2)

1 RQI
FsτSgv Φz
FZI = = (3)

Taking the logarithm of the both sides results in:

Log RQI = log Фz + log FZI (4)

Where: Фe is the effective porosity in fraction, k is the permeability in md, RQI is the reservoir quality
index in µm, Фz is the normalized porosity index, FZI is the flow zone indicator in µm, Fs is the shape factor, τ
is the tortuosity and Sgv is the surface area per unit grain in µm-1. The FZI model can be converted to 3D discrete
rock type (DRT) by using the following equation (Chekani and Kharrat 2009):

DRT = round (2 log (FZI) + 10.7) (5)

Equation (4) indicates that for any HFU, log - log plot of RQI vs. Фz will yield a straight line with unit
slope. The value of the FZ1constant can be determined from the intercept of the unit slope straight line at Фz =1.
Samples with different FZ1 values will lie on other parallel lines. Samples that lie on the same straight line have
similar pore throat attributes and, thereby, constitute a specific hydraulic unit. According to Amaefule et al.
(1993) the rocks containing authigenic pore lining, pore filing and pore bridging clays, as well as fine grained
poorly sorted sands tend to exhibit high surface area and high tortuosity, hence low FZI. In contrast, the clean,
coarse grained and well sorted sands exhibit lower surface areas, lower shape factor, lower tortuosity, and higher
FZI values. Each HFU should be distributed according to the normal distributions with corresponding mean FZI
values close to the true FZI. For FZI in µm and Фe in fraction, the permeability in md can be calculated, as the

Φe 3
following:

K = 1014(FZI) 2 (
(1 − Φe) 2
) (6)

Winland (1972) carried out regression analyses on 322 sandstone samples to develop an empirical
relationship between porosity, permeability and pore throat size. He found the best fit at 35% mercury
saturation. The Winland equation has the following form:

Log r35 = 0.732 +0.588 log K – 0.864 log Ф (7)

Where: r35 is the pore aperture radius corresponding to the 35th percentile in micron, K is the permeability in
md and Ф is the porosity in percentage. The core samples of a given petrophysical flow unit have similar r35

• Megaport units with r35 > 10 μm.

values which are used to define the HFU categories, as the following:

• Macroport units with 2 < r35< 10 μm.

• Mesoport units with 0.5 < r35< 2 μm.
• Microport units with 0.1 < r35< 0.5 μm.
• Nanoport units with r35< 0.1 μm.

Background on geologic setting:

The Gulf of Suez rift basin is considered the most prolific oil province in Egypt. According to the EGPC
(1996) and Alsharhan (2003), more than 800 exploratory wells were drilled in the Gulf basin resulted in 230 oil
discoveries and more than 80 oilfields. Therefore, a stream of technical papers was released and still concerned
the geological, geophysical and geochemical Gulf of Suez aspects (e.g. Garfunkel and Bartov 1977; RRI 1986;
Richardson and Arthur 1988; Montenat et al. 1988& 1998; Patton et al. 1994; Schutz 1994; EGPC 1996;
Bosworth et al. 1998; Bosworth and McClay 2001; Moustafa 2002; Jackson et al. 2006; and Wilson et al.
2009). Due to the Late Oligocene – Early Miocene rifting, the Gulf of Suez stratigraphic succession was divided
 4273
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

into three megasequences. The pre – rift megasequence extended from Cambrian to Eocene, providing excellent
reservoirs and source rocks (Fig. 1). The oil reservoirs sourced from this succession is typically oil – prone type
and occasionally oil – gas prone (Alsharhan 2003). The syn – rift megasequence extended from Oligocene to
Miocene, providing both good reservoirs and the ultimate sealing of the generated hydrocarbons. The post – rift
megasequence extended from Pliocene to Recent.

Member
Sequence Era System Epoch Age Rock Uint Lithology Unconformity Status

Pliocene - Recent
Quaternary

Post - Miocene
Messinian (Ashrafi Fm.)
t
???
i
y

e
c
Syn-rift megasequence

Salt
n
r

Z
a

Anhydrite
n
i

n i
a

Gharib
o

Limestone
o
e
i

t
z

Marl
r

South
o
c
o

Shale
t

Sandstone
n

o
r

H.Faraun
e

Serrvallian Belayim Feiran

Basement
i

Sidri
e

Baba
Seal
C

Shagar
Kareem Markha
Source rock
M

Upper
Burdigalian - Langhian
T

Oil reservoir
R u d e i s

r
e
w
o
L

Aquitanian Ghara
Nukhul
Oligocene Shoab Ali
Eocene Thebes
Paleocene Esna
megasequence

Late Upper Senonian Duwi

Mesozoic
Cretaceous Lower Senonian Matulla
Pre - rift

1000 ft
Paleozoic Nubia
Sandstone

Precambrian Basement 0

Fig. 1: Generalized stratigraphic column of the central trough of the Southern Gulf of Suez.

The studied area is located along the central axis of the Suez rift at the southern structural trend called “B-
Trend” (Fig. 2). This prolific trend extends from the Morgan Accommodation Zone in the north until Shadwan
and Gubal islands in the south (Fig. 2). The Southern Gulf of Suez represents a complicated structural area, as a
consequence to the intense tectonic activities associated with the rifting of the Gulf of Suez. Subsidence, uplift,
 4274
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

tilted fault blocks and unconformities in association with sea level changes, as well as sediments supplies were
controlled the configuration of the Gulf of Suez rift basin and its depositional facies during the Miocene time.
33 38 E 33 40 E 33 42 E 33 44 E
28 00 N

Well D

27 58 N

Well C

27 56 N

G
UL
27 54 N

F
O
F
SU
EZ
27 52 N
-

33 30 E GEBEL 34 E Well B
QIBLIAT
GEBEL
ARABA
SINAI 27 50 N
0 5Km Well A

GS327
AN
RG
O

NESSIM
M

AMAL YOUNIS

28 -
-
28
WALY
GS365 N
N
SIDKI GH378

SARG EL
ZEIT
EAST
ZEIT SHAOB
GEMSA HILAL ALI
ASHRAFI
IS.
BASIN RANIM IS. ASHRAFI RAS
G

MUHAMMED
H

ABU GEISUM
AR

GERFAN IS.
A

GUBAL
TR

TAWILA IS.
ESH IS.
EN
D

SHADWAN
EL IS. 27 -
-
27 MELLAHA
30
30 N
N BASIN

ABU GIFATUN IS.

RED SEA
SHAAR
HURGHADA
0 5 10Km. 34 E
33 30 E
-

Fig. 2: Location map of the study wells, showing the major structural trends in the Southern Gulf of Suez
(modified after Bosworth et al., 1998). All the study wells distributed throughout the B- Trend.

The term Nubia was introduced by Russegger (1937) to describe the clastic sediments which cover the
southern part of Egypt and Northern Sudan. The term usually applied for all sediments below Cenomanian.
Later, Beets (1948) subdivided the Nubia section into four units for exploration purposes. This subdivision
usually used till now in oil companies. These units are, from base to top, Nubia D, Nubia C, Nubia B and Nubia
A. However, the Egyptian stratigraphers tend to divide the Nubia facies into four formations, from base to top,
the Araba, Naqus, Qiseib and Malha. In the Southern Gulf of Suez Province, only the Araba and Naqus
formations (corresponding to Nubia D and Nubia C, respectively) are occurred (Gameel and Darwish 1994).
The Araba Formation consists of sandstones with kaolinitic, illitic and calcareous cements and is interbedded
with thin siltstone, while the Naqus Formation comprises medium to coarse-grained sands and sandstones, with
minor clay and kaolinitic interbeds at the top of the unit (Alsharhan, 2003).
The Pre – Cenomanian Nubia Sandstone is considered one of the most prolific oil reservoirs in the Gulf of
Suez. It produces oil from many fields throughout the Gulf of Suez. According to Alsharhan (2003), the Nubia
sandstone represents about 17% of the production potential in the Gulf of Suez. Most of the Nubia Sandstone
 4275
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

reservoir is quartzarenite-type with minor reservoirs of quartzwacke type, with different cement types, such as
siliceous, ferruginous and dolomitic. The Nubia sandstones were subjected to several diagenetic processes, such
as compaction and pressure solution, cementation (iron oxide or silica), pore fillings, replacement and
recrystallization (Alsharhan and Salah 1997). Combination of these diagenetic processes resulted in the
reduction of porosity and permeability.
The Pre – Cenomanian deposits in the study area, which rested unconformably on the basement, consist
mainly of sandstone with intercalations of shale deposited in fluvial braided system, graded to aeolian
environment. The clay is mainly kaolinite with traces of illite and heavy thorium- bearing minerals (Fig. 3). The
section thickness generally decreases southward along the Gulf of Suez. The Nubia Sandstone reservoir,
according to Gameel and Darwish (1994), is ranged from poor to high quality reservoir rock, based on the
attribute of petrographic and petrophysical investigations.

25
ls Possible 100% kaolinite,
montmorillonite,
era

illite "clay line" 100% illite point

min

20
g
arin
- be
i um
Thorium, ppm

15
hor

Kaolinite
vy t

~ 70% illite
He a

10
ite

~ 40% mica
n
llo

Illite s
Mica
or i

5
n tm

~ 30% glauconite Th/K: 0.6

Mo

lo rite
Ch Feldspar Th/K: 0.3
Potassium evaporites, ~ 30% feldspar
0

1 2 3 4 5
Potassium, %

Fig. 3: Identification of clay minerals, from thorium and potassium, for well C (after Schlumberger, 1985).

Study area and data:

Four wells, distributed along the B – Trend, were chosen to study the hydraulic flow characteristics of the
Nubia Sandstone. The studied wells are belonging to three oil fields. All the wells were penetrated the Nubia
Sandstone; either reached the basement (wells A, B and C) or drilled through some Nubia interval (well D). The
thickness generally increases northward along the B –Trend. It ranges from about 120 ft in well B to more than
700 ft in well C. The well to well correlation indicates that well C is the complete one, regarding to the studied
wells (Fig. 4). For the wells A and B, only the lower section was encountered. The encountered Nubia section
consists mainly of sandstone, with an intercalated thin layer of shale. The lowermost part exhibits high gamma-
ray readings due to the presence of heavy minerals that derived from basement.
The available data are well logs, and routine and special core analyses. These log data include gamma-ray,
natural gamma-ray (well C), neutron, density, sonic, resistivity (shallow and deep), dipmeter and litho – density
tool. In addition, routine core analyses are available for the four wells. The routine core analyses include
horizontal and vertical permeabilities, porosity, fluid saturation and grain density. In well A, the encountered
Nubia section is about 230 ft thick of mainly sandstone with a thin layer of shale. The Nubia interval shows
good reservoir quality, as indicated from the good separation between density and neutron logs, with high
formation resistivity (reached 2000 ohm.m). However, the lower third part is characterized by high gamma- ray,
decrease in resistivity and high clay content. This change in facies is resulted in reduction of porosity and
permeability, as well as an increase in water saturation. Two core plugs, representing the lowermost 80 ft, were
analyzed provided 80 cored samples. The cored permeability is ranged from 0.07 to 177 md with an average
value of 13.8 md. The cored porosity is ranged from 0.012 to 0.177 with average value of 0.091. The grain
density has an average value of 2.65 g/cc.
In well B, about 120 ft thick of the measured depth were encountered consisting of sandstone. Good
reservoir quality can be detected from the enough separation between density and neutron logs, low gamma-ray,
as well as high formation resistivity. However, the lowermost 35 ft indicated low reservoir quality, as a result of
the high clay content and the reduction of permeability and hydrocarbon saturation. In this well, two core plugs
were analyzed provided us with 110 samples. The cored interval covered the most encountered section.
Permeability is ranged from 0.004 to 1610 md, with an average value of 169 md. The porosity is ranged from
0.05 to 0.22, with an average value of 0.15. The grain density recorded an average value of 2.65 g/cc.
 4276
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

NW SE
Well D
฀ T,µsec/ft
140 90 40
GR, API
0 100 200

9900

10000

10100

10200

10300
Well A
Well C ฀ T,µsec/ft
฀ T,µsec/ft 140 90 40
10400 140 90 40 GR, API
GR, API 0 100 200
0 100 200

10500 10500

Well B
10600 ฀ T,µsec/ft 10600
140 90 40
GR, API
0 100 200
10700 10700

10800 10800

10900

11000

11100

11200

Fig. 4: Well – to well correlations using gamma -ray and sonic logs, illustrating the missed sections. Black bars
refer to the cored intervals.

In well C, 713 ft thick were encountered of mainly sandstone with some intercalations of thin shale layers.
Four thin shale layers are distributed throughout the lower part. Excellent reservoir characteristics were
predominant for the upper 320 ft. This part is characterized by high formation resistivity (2000 ohm.m) with
very low clay content, as well as very low water saturation. Downward, the reservoir quality begins to decrease
gradually with an increase of the clay volume. Routine core analyses were carried out on 13 core plugs. These
core plugs covered about 600 ft thick. Permeability is ranged from 0.01 to 1050 md, with an average value of 68
md. The porosity is ranged from 0.016 to 0.204, with an average value of 0.133. The grain density has 2.64 g/cc
of average value.
In well D, about 532 ft thick were drilled of mainly sandstone, with some intercalations of thin layers of
shale. The drilling program did not reach the basement, due to the oil – water contact was encountered at the
lower part. One core plug was analyzed, providing eleven core samples. Permeability is ranged from 0.2 to 886
md, with an average value of 156 md. The porosity is ranged from 0.016 to 0.173, with an average value of
0.09. The average grain density is 2.77 g/cc.
Special core analysis was performed on six core samples for the well B, giving six mercury injection
capillary pressure curves (Fig.5). From this SCAL, we can conclude the best-fit equation, that determines the
relation between permeability, porosity and pore throat radius. The equation has the following form, with a
coefficient of determination (r2) = 0.99:

r30 = 0.594 + 0.786 log (k) -1.199 log (Ф) (8)

Where: r30 is the pore size corresponding to a mercury saturation of 30% in micron, K is the permeability in
md and Ф is the porosity in %.
 4277
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

10000

1000
Mercury injection capillary pressure, psi

100

10

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

Fig. 5: Capillary pressure for the available SCAL in well B. The curves illustrate four hydraulic flow units.

Determination of the number of HFU:

As mentioned earlier, the HFU can be determined using several methods such as SML plot, FZI and r35.
Numerous authors used Winland equation (r35) to determine the reservoir rock types rather than the HFU
(Boada et al. 2001; and Rushing et al. 2007). Figure (6) illustrates the number of HFU that can be determined by
using r35. In well A, four reservoir rock types can be detected, ranging from nano to macro pore types. The
majority of data is clustered around the micro and meso pore types. In well B, five reservoir rock types can be
detected ranged from nano to mega pore types. The data are scattered throughout the plot without cluster area,
indicating a high degree of heterogeneity. In well C, five reservoir rock types can be detected, also in this well,
ranged from nano to mega pore types. The majority of data are clustered around the meso and macro rock types.
In well D, four reservoir rock types can be detected for this short interval. The rock types are ranged from micro
to megaport.
The stratigraphic modified Lorenz (SML) plot can be used too to determine the number of HFU. It is a plot
of flow capacity versus storage capacity. The change in slope indicates a new flow unit, while the horizontal
trend can be treated as a barrier where no flow occurred. Figure (7) shows the SMLP for all wells. We can
determine at least six HFU in well A for the cored interval with three barriers. We can conclude that about 45%
of the fluid flow has been occurred from the depth interval between 10628 and 10638 ft (Fig. 8). This figure
indicates also high degree of heterogeneity in this well. In well B, six HFU can be determined in this well with
two barriers. It can be concluded that about 52% of the flow come from the interval between 10688 and 10712 ft
depth (Fig. 8). The heterogeneity of the reservoir increased downward as indicated from the increasing the
separation between storage capacity and flow capacity lines. In well C, at least nine HFU can be determined
with four barriers. We can detect that about 25% of the flow come from the interval between 10904 and 10952 ft
depth. It can be concluded that the degree of heterogeneity is varied considerably along the well. From 10900 ft
depth upward, the reservoir can be treated as homogenous. However, from 10900 ft depth downward, the
heterogeneity increased. In well D, three HFU occurred in the cored interval.
The number of HFU, based on FZI technique, can be determined by several methods. Log – log plot of RQI
versus Фz yielded a straight line with intercept determines FZI. Figure (9) illustrates such plot for the studied
wells. Applying the DRT method yielded at least five HFU for well A (Fig.10). In well B, six HFU can be
detected. In well C, 13 HFU can be determined, while in well D, only two HFU could be observed. The change
 4278
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

in slope, according to Nooruddin and Hossain (2011), is related to changing in the cementation exponent. This
change can be observed obviously in well B (Fig. 10). This change in the cementation exponent may help in the
explanation of the high degree of heterogeneity for this well.
Well (A) Well (B)
10000 10000
50

Mega
50

Mega
30 30

Pore throat size in micron

Pore throat size in micron

1000 10 1000 10

Micro Meso Macro

Micro Meso Macro

Permeability, md

Permeability, md
100 2 100 2

0.5 0.5
10 10
0.1 0.1
1 1

Nano
Nano
0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity,% Porosity,%

Well (C) Well (D)

10000 10000
50

Mega
50

Mega
30 30

Pore throat size in micron

Pore throat size in micron

1000 10 1000 10
Micro Meso Macro

Micro Meso Macro

Permeability, md

100 2 100 2

Permeability, md
0.5 0.5
10 10
0.1 0.1
Nano

1 1

Nano
0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Porosity,% Porosity,%

Fig. 6: Pore throat size, from permeability and porosity plot.

Well (A) Well (B)
1 1
barriers
0.8 0.8
barriers
Flow Capacity

0.6 0.6
Flow Capacity

flows
flows
0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Storage Capacity
Storage Capacity
Well (C) Well (D)
1 1

0.8 0.8
Flow Capacity

barriers
Flow Capacity

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
flows

0.2 0.2

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Storage Capacity
Storage Capacity

Fig. 7: Stratigraphic modified Lorenz (SML) plot, to identify the hydraulic flow units.
 4279
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

Well (A) Well (B)

1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 Flow Capacity
0.8

Capacity (storage/flow)

Capacity (storage/flow)
Flow Capacity
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
Storage Capacity
0.4 0.4
Storage Capacity
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0

10600 10620 10640 10660 10680 10700 10680 10700 10720 10740 10760 10780 10800
Depth in ft Depth in ft

Well (C) Well (D)

1 1
0.9 0.9
Flow Capacity
0.8 0.8
Capacity (storage/flow)

Capacity (storage/flow)
Flow Capacity
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 Storage Capacity
0.3 0.3
Storage Capacity
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0

10600 10700 10800 10900 11000 11100 11200 9966 9968 9970 9972 9974 9976
Depth in ft Depth in ft

Fig. 8: SML plot showing reservoir flow and storage capacity for studied wells. We note that increasing
heterogeneity in wells A, B & D.
Well (A) Well (B)
10 10
FU1
FU1 FU2

FU2 FU3
FU3 FU4
FU4 FU5
1 1
FU5
RQI
RQI

FU6

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

ΦZ ΦZ
0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1

Well (C) Well (D)

10 10
FU1
FU2 FU1
FU3
FU2
FU4
FU5
1 FU6 1
FU7
RQI
RQI

FU8

FU9

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

ΦZ
0.01 0.1 1

ΦZ
0.01 0.1 1
฀
Fig. 9: Log – log plot of log RQI against Фz.

Statistical methods, such as histograms and cumulative probability plots can be used to further accurate
differentiations the number of HFU (Figs. 11&12). The cumulative probability can be used to estimate the FZI
boundaries for the HFU. In well A, five HFU can be detected. In well B, six HFU can be detected, while in well
C, nine HFU are occurred.
 4280
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

Well (A) Well (B)

1000 10000

1000
100
100

permeability, md
10

permeability, md
10

1 1

0.1
0.1
0.01

0.01 0.001

0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1

porosity porosity

Well (C) Well (D)

10000 1000

1000
100
permeability, md

100

permeability, md
10 10

1
1
0.1

0.01 0.1

0.01 0.1 1 0.01 0.1 1

porosity porosity

Fig. 10: Log – log plot of the permeability against porosity, using DRT.
Well (A) Well (B)
30 30
Std. Dev. = 1.83 Std. Dev. = 2.76
Mean = 2.3 Mean = 3.6
Frequency

No. = 80 No. = 110

20 20
Frequency

10 10

0 0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
FZI
FZI

Well (C) Well (D)

100 5
Std. Dev. = 2.12 Std. Dev. = 2.63
Mean = 2.8 Mean = 6.1
80 No. = 519 4 No. = 11
Frequency

Frequency

60 3

40 2

20 1

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 2.0 6.0 10.0

FZI FZI

Fig. 11: Identification of the number of HFU, using histograms.

More accurate results can be obtained by using Ward's hierarchical clustering method. The advantages of
this method are its high accuracy and user independency. It is used to get some sense of the possible number of
clusters and the way they merge, as seen from the dendrogram. Then the clustering is rerun with only a chosen
optimum number, in which to place all the cases. It starts from a number of HFU equal to the number of samples
and then gradually merge the samples with similar FZI values into joint clusters. To validate the optimum
 4281
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

number of HFU, we used the sum of square errors (SSE), as an indicator for such determination. In this method,
we plot SSE against the number of HFU in which the SSE decreased as HFU increased. At certain HFU number,
the SSE is nearly constant. After this certain number, SSE is almost constant with small variations, which can be
neglected. This certain number can be considered the optimum number of HFU (Fig. 13). According to this
method, we can detect five HFU for well A, seven HFU for well B, eight HFU for well C and four HFU for well
D (Fig. 14).

Well (A) Well (B)

100 100
FU1
FU1

80 80
FU2
Cumulative probability

Cumulative probability
60 60
FU2

40 40
FU3
FU3
FU4

20
20 FU4
FU5
FU5
FU6
0
0
-0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
FZI -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
FZI

Well (C) Well (D)

100 100
FU1

80 80
Cumulative probability

FU2

Cumulative probability
60 60
FU1

FU3
40 40
FU4

FU2
20
FU5 20
FU6
FU9 FU7
FU8
0
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
FZI 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
FZI
Fig. 12: Identification of the number of HFU, using probability plot.
Well (A)
Well (B)
120 300

80 200
SSE

SSE

40 100

0 0

2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12
Numbers of HFU Numbers of HFU

Well (C)
Well (D)
800 30

600
20
SSE

SSE

400

10
200

0 0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 10
Numbers of HFU Numbers of HFU

Fig. 13: Identification of the number of HFU, using SSE.

It can be noted that the r35 method can’t be help in identifying the hydraulic flow units. It can be used to
detect the rock types rather than hydraulic flow units. Other methods give closeness results as noted in other
wells (Table 3). Extreme flow unit number for well C using DRT method indicated that this method gives more
 4282
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

details for the hydraulic flow units of the reservoir rocks. The higher number of hydraulic flow units in well C is
expected due to it is the thickest one in the studied wells.

Table 1: Statistical description for the HFU in well C.

No. of S. statistics Phicore Kcore Pota Thor Uran Vsh FZI R35
HFU size
HFU1 13 Max 20.4 1050 0.15 5.4 1.4 4.5 11.5 27.2
Min 12.7 262 0.1 2.9 0.5 0 8.1 14.4
Averg 16.2 548 0.11 3.7 1 5 9 19
HFU2 37 Max 20.2 578 0.42 17.3 3.8 31 7.6 17.1
Min 6.1 10 0.1 2.27 0.55 1.6 6 4.4
Averg 5.7 268 0.15 5 1.3 7.6 6.5 12.6
HFU3 36 Max 19.5 362 0.29 12.3 3.6 32 5.9 13.2
Min 10 32 0.1 2 0.43 2 5 5.7
Averg 15.8 183 0.14 4.7 1.3 7 5.4 10.1
HFU4 60 Max 19 215 0.29 17.3 3.4 16 4.9 10
Min 10.9 26 0.1 1.9 0.14 0 4 4.7
Averg 15.1 103 0.13 4.6 1.2 6 4.4 7.6
HFU5 65 Max 20.4 141 0.61 19.8 2.9 44 3.9 7.96
Min 4.6 0.97 0.1 2.2 0.1 15 2.8 1.4
Averg 14.3 52 0.13 4.5 1.2 7 3.4 5.2
HFU6 73 Max 18.1 67 0.53 49.1 7.2 42 2.77 5.2
Min 5.7 1 0.1 2.3 0.24 8 1.77 1.2
Averg 12.8 17 0.15 5.15 1.3 6 2.2 2.8
HFU7 143 Max 18.5 18 0.32 24 3.8 44 1.7 2.6
Min 1.6 0.01 0.1 1.6 0.53 2 0.93 0.2
Averg 12.5 5.7 0.15 4.4 1.3 7 1.3 1.5
HFU8 92 Max 19.5 5.6 1.9 61.7 8.7 65 0.89 1.26
Min 2.7 0.01 0.1 1.96 0.5 0 0.09 0.05
Averg 10.7 0.79 0.26 7.7 1.9 12 0.5 0.44

Prediction of hydraulic flow unit in the uncored interval:

Before any attempt to predict the HFU, we must be sure that the available logs are calibrated,
environmentally corrected and the core and log data are accurately depth matched. Several statistical methods
can be used to predict the FZI from the log data. The simplest one is the multiple regression analysis (MRA).
Other complicated methods can be used such as the Fuzzy logic and artificial neural network (ANN).
For the MRA, one can't predict an equation to be used for all intervals. We need an equation corresponding
to each HFU. Even within a HFU, more than one equation is required to improve the quality of prediction. So,
the uncored intervals can't be predicted using this method. Therefore, the ANN can be used for such purpose, in
which we use the IP software program to improve the prediction quality and to predict the uncored intervals. In
this method, we used the GR, RHOB, PHIE and ILD logs as inputs and the FZI as output. Then, we divided the
interval into zones and run train neural network. The train is repeating several times till reaching the best results
(Fig. 15).

Results and Discussions

The Nubia Sandstone sediments in the Southern Gulf of Suez, Egypt, can be considered as a heterogonous
reservoir, based on pore scale. For macro scale, the matter walks in the same track. Complete Nubia section is
seldom to encounter in the drilled wells of this area. The reason can be attributed to the erosion processes and/or
the effect of faulting. Both factors are used for delineating the distribution of the encountered Nubia Sandstone
in the Southern Gulf of Suez. Well – to well correlations are useful to detect the common intervals and the
missed parts, as well as to determine the role of unconformity and/or faulting with the aid of dipmeter. The
thickest section was encountered in well C. In wells A&B, only the lowermost part is encountered. Dipmeter
indicates that faulting is responsible for such missing in both wells (Fig. 16). For wells C& D, the dipmeter
indicates that an unconformity separates the Nubia section from the overlying sediments. Such an unconformity
may be responsible for the missed strata at the top of the drilled sections (Fig. 16).
Based on the statistical methods, at least eight HFU can be detected for the cored interval in well C. The
cored interval represents about 80 % of the total thickness. HFU1 is the best reservoir quality, while HFU8 is
the poorest (Table 1). Gradual decreasing in reservoir quality takes place from HFU1 to HFU8. Generally, the
hydraulic flow units are distributed throughout the reservoir with concentration of high quality at the middle and
upper parts (Fig.14). In well A, five HFU can be detected labeled HFU1 to HFU5. In well B, seven HFU can be
identified. Table 2 illustrates the correlation of HFU among the studied wells.
 4283
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

Well (A) Well (B)

10620

10720

10640

Depth in ft
Depth in ft
10760

10660

10800
10680

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of HFU Number of HFU

Well (C) Well (D)

10700 9968

10800
9970

Depth in ft
Depth in ft

10900
9972

11000

9974
11100

9976
11200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4
Number of HFU Number of HFU

Fig. 14: Distribution of HFU, using hierarchical Ward's clustering method.

Fig. 15: Prediction of FZI in the uncored intervals, using IP software program.
 4284
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

Well B Well C
Depth Dip angle and direction Rock Depth Dip angle and direction Rock
in ft 0 10 20 30
Unit in ft 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Unit

10200
10500

Rudeis

Matulla
10300

10600

10400

Nukhul

Sandstone
Unconformity

Nubia
10500
10700 Fault

Nubia Sandstone

10800

Fig. 16: Dipmeter for B&C wells. We note that the normal fault is responsible for missing the upper part of the
Nubia Sandstone in well A and unconformity for well C.

Table 2: Correlation between the HFUs in the studied wells.

HFU Well C Well A Well B
FZI FZI FZI
From To From To From To
HFU1 0.09 0.9 0.49 1.6 0.12 0.33
HFU2 0.93 1.7 1.65 2.65 0.55 0.95
HFU3 1.77 2.77 2.93 3.6 1.02 .73
HFU4 2.8 3.9 4 5.3 2 2.9
HFU5 3.9 4.9 9.4 12.9 3.5 5.6
HFU6 5 5.9 5.8 9.1
HFU7 6 7.5 1.36 16.2
HFU8 8.1 11.47

Table 3: Number of HFU according to the used methods.

Methods Number of HFU
Well A Well B Well C Well D
r35 4 5 5 4
SML 6 6 9 3
DRT 5 6 13 2
Probability 5 6 9 2
Ward 5 7 8 4

Comparing the significance of permeability and porosity on the HFU appears that permeability plays the
main role in determining the HFU (Fig. 17). Figure 17 indicates that the porosity of HFU7&8 (the lowest
quality) covered nearly all the HFU porosity range. On the other hand, permeability values are restricted in a
certain HFU with limited interference. Quick look, we can determine the order of such HFUs.
For RHOB & DT, there is a common interval, in which all HFU were fallen into it. It is 2.3 to 2.5 gm/cc
and 65 to 75 μsec/ft, respectively. For gamma-ray, HFU1 is clearly the least radioactive, while HFU8 is the
highest one.
For radioactive minerals; potassium, thorium and uranium, we can note that for potassium and thorium, the
minimum value is the same for all HFU. However, the length of the bars can be used to differentiate between
the HFUs. For uranium, the differentiation between the HFUs is not clear, except for the best and the worst
HFU; namely, HFU1 &HFU8. For r30, the differentiation between HFU is perfect. Clear contrast is obvious.
So, it can be concluded that the HFU is controlled essentially by the permeability, which in turn is
controlled by the pore throat size. The pore throat size is a function of pore types. The pore type is a function of
the depositional facies and the subsequent diagenesis processes. Therefore, a depositional environment
contained heavy thorium –bearing minerals and sediments derived from basement containing feldspars that
altered to kaolinite and led to filling the pores of rock. Consequently, reduction in the permeability and porosity
has been occurred. Finally, low grade hydraulic flow units are encountered such as for HFU7& HFU8.
 4285
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

Fig. 17: Parameters affecting the magnitude of HFU.

Conclusions:

• The Nubia Sandstone is a heterogeneous reservoir, based on the micro and macroscopic heterogeneity

•
scales.

•
Permeability is the main controlling factor in the determination of the reservoir fluid flow characteristics.
Permeability is controlled mainly by the pore throat size, which is affected in turn by the depositional

•
environment and the subsequent diagenetic processes.
Presence of kaolinite patches, as well as heavy minerals, resulted in a significant reduction of porosity and

•
permeability.

•
Natural gamma- ray is a good indicator for the hydraulic flow unit.
Artificial neural network is a powerful technique to predict the hydraulic flow unit in the uncored intervals.

Acknowledgments

The Author is grateful to the Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (EGPC) and the Gulf of Suez
Petroleum Company (GUPCO) for providing the data.
 4286
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

References

Alsharhan, A., 2003. Petroleum geology and potential hydrocarbon plays in the Gulf of Suez rift basin, Egypt.
AAPG Bulletin, 87(1): 143-180.
Alsharhan, A., M. Salah, 1997. Lithostratigraphy, sedimentology and hydrocarbon habitat of the Pre-
Cenomanian Nubian Sandstone in the Gulf of Suez oil Province, Egypt. GeoArabia, 2(4): 385-400.
Amaefule, J., M. Altunbay, D. Tiab, D. Kersey, D. Keelan, 1993. Enhanced Reservoir Description Using Core
and Log Data to Identify Hydraulic Flow Units and Predict Permeability in Uncored Intervals/Wells. SPE,
26436, pp: 205-220.
Beets, C., 1948. Correlation of the Paleo-Egyptian oilfields Co: (files of the General Petroleum Co., Cairo).
Boada, E., R. Barbato, J. Porras, A. Quaglia, 2001. Rock Typing: Key Approach for Maximizing Use of Old
Well Log Data in Mature Fields, Santa Rosa Field, Case Study. SPE 69459, 7 p.
Bosworth, W., K. McClay, 2001. Structural and stratigraphic evolution of the Gulf of Suez rift, Egypt: A
synthesis. In: P.A. Ziegler, W. Cavazza, A.H.F. Roberston, S. Crasquin-Soleau (eds), Peri - Tethys Memoir
6: Peri – Tethyan Rift/ Wrench Basins and Passive Margins, pp: 567-606.
Bosworth, W., P. Crerello, Winn Jr, J. Steinmetz, 1998. Structure, sedimentation, and basin dynamics during
rifting of the Gulf of Suez. In: B.H. Purser and D.W.J. Bosence (eds), Sedimentation and Tectonics of Rift
Basins: Red Sea – Gulf of Aden, pp: 78-96.
Chekani, M., R. Kharat, 2009. Reservoir rock typing in a carbonate reservoir – cooperation of core and log data:
case study. SPE 123703, 22 p.
Ebanks, W., M. Scheihing, C. Atkinson, 1992. Flow units for reservoir characterization. In: D.Morton-
Thompson, A.M.Woods (Eds.), Development Geology Reference Manual, Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.
Methods in Exploration Series, 10: 282-284.
Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation, EGPC, 1996. Gulf of Suez oil fields (A comprehensive overview),
736 p.
Gameel, M., M. Darwish, 1994. Reservoir behavior of the Pre- Turonian sandstones in south Gulf of Suez
province (Sidki field – case history). 12th EGPC Exploration and Production Conference, 2: 449-471.
Garfunkel, Z., Y. Bartov, 1977. The tectonics of the Suez rift. Geological Survey of Israel Bulletin, 71: 1-45.
Gunter, G., J. Finneran, D. Hartmann, J. Miller, 1997. Early determination of reservoir flow units using an
integrated petrophysical method. SPE 38679, 8 p.
Jackson, C., R. Gawthorpe, I. Sharp, 2006. Style and sequence of deformation during extensional fault-
propagation folding: examples from the Hammam Faraun and El-Qaa fault blocks, Suez Rift, Egypt.
Journal of Structural Geology, 28(3): 519-535.
Martin, A., S. Solomon, D. Hartmann, 1997. Characterization of petrophysical flow units in carbonate
reservoirs. AAPG Bulletin, 81(5): 734-759.
Montenat, C., P. Ott d’Estevou, J. Jarrige, J. Richert, 1998. Rift development in the Gulf of Suez and the
northwestern Red Sea: structural aspects and related sedimentary processes. In: B.H. Purser and D.W.J.
Bosence (eds), Sedimentation and Tectonics of Rift Basins: Red Sea – Gulf of Aden, pp: 98-116.
Montenat, C., P. Ott d’Estevou, B. Purser, P. Burollet, J. Jarrige, F. Orszag-Sperber, E. Philobbos, J. Plaziat, P.
Prat, J. Richert, N. Roussel, J. Thiriet, 1988. Tectonic and sedimentary evolution of the Gulf of Suez and
the northwestern Red Sea. Tectonophysics, 153: 161-177.
Moustafa, A., 2002. Controls on the geometry of transfer zones in the Gulf of Suez and Red Sea: implications
for the structural geometry of rift systems. AAPG Bulletin, 86(6): 979-1002.
Nooruddinn, H., M. Hossain, 2011. Modified Kozeny - Carmen correlation for enhanced hydraulic flow unit
characterization. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 80: 107-115.
Patton, T., A. Moustafa, R. Nelson, A. Abdine, 1994. Tectonic evolution and structural setting of the Suez rift.
In: Landon SM (ed) Interior rift basin. AAPG Memoir, 59: 9-55.
Richardson, M., M. Arthur, 1988. The Gulf of Suez-northern Red Sea Neogene rift: a quantitive basin analysis.
Marine and Petroleum Geology, 5: 247-270.
Robertson Research International (RRI), 1986. The Gulf of Suez area, Egypt: stratigraphy, petroleum
geochemistry, petroleum geology, six volumes Robertson Group, Leandudno.
Rushing, J., A. Perego, R. Sullivan, T. Blasingame, 2007. Estimating Reserves in Tight Gas Sands at HP/HT
Reservoir Conditions: Use and Misuse of an Arps Decline Curve Methodology. SPE 109625, 17 p.
Russegger, J., 1937. Kreide und Sandsteini Einfluss von Granit auf Letzern. N.Jb. Mineral, pp: 665-669.
Schutz, K., 1994. Structure and stratigraphy of the Gulf of Suez, Egypt. In: Landon SM (ed), Interior rift basin.
AAPG Memoir, 59: 57-96.
Svirsky, D., A. Ryazanov, M. Pankov, P. Corbett, A. Posysoev, 2004. Hydraulic flow units reservoir description
challenges in Siberian oil field. SPE 87056, 15 p.
 4287
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 9(7): 4271-4287, 2013

Wilson, P., R. Gawthorpe, D. Hodgetts, F. Rarity, I. Sharp, 2009. Geometry and architecture of faults in a syn-
rift normal fault array: The Nukhul half-graben, Suez rift, Egypt. Journal of Structural Geology, 31: 759-
775.
Winland, H.D., 1972. Oil accumulation in response to pore size changes, Weyburn field, Saskatchewan. Amaco
Production Research Report, No. F72-G-25.