Carbonates and Evaporites

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 11–20 | Cite as

Petrophysical analysis of modern reef rocks

  • Liang Chuanmao
  • Gerald M. Friedman


On the basis of original fabric, modern reef rock can be divided into two kinds: 1. skeletal framework reef rock, and 2. particle reef rock. The factors that control the pore-system characteristics and their changes are different in the two kinds. In the skeletal framework reef rock the pore system and its development are mainly controlled by (1) the original skeletal pores, and if, with what, and how these pores are filled; and (2) the nature of cementation. In contrast, the pore system and development of the particle reef rock depends strongly upon the type of particles, form of support, and cementation.

Skeletal framework reef rock may be classified into five petrophysical facies (or petrofacies), as follows: A) original coral-skeletal-framework reef rock; B) coral-skeletal-framework reef rock; C) partially recrystallized coral-skeletal framework reef rock; D) cemented skeletal-framework reef rock; and E) cemented skeletal-framework reef rock. Particle reef rock; G) particle-matrix-supported particle reef rock; and H) particle-supported particle reef rock. The most porous reef rocks are assigned to categories A, B and C (mean porosity values as follows: A=34.6%, B=32.3%, C=43.8%). The least porous reef rock is type F (mean=5.46%). Types E and H reef rock have the highest recovery efficiency values (the mean for group E=40.70%, for group H=29.09%).

For skeletal framework reef rock, an inverse correlation between recovery efficiency (RE) and porosity obtains, whereas particle reef rock exhibits a weak positive relationship.


Capillary Pressure Aragonite Recovery Efficiency Mercury Porosimetry Capillary Pressure Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amthor, J.E., Kopaska-Merkel, D.C., andFriedman, G. M., 1988, Reservoir characterization, porosity, and recovery efficiency of deeply-buried paleozoic carbonates: examples from Oklahoma, Texas and new Mexico:Carbonates and Evaporities, v. 3, p. 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dullo, W.C., 1986, Variation in sequences: an example from Pleistocene coral reefs, Red Sea, Saudi Arabia, p. 77–90in Schroeder, J. H., and PurSer, B. H., eds.,Reef Diagenesis: Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag, 455 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Friedman, G. M., 1964, Early diagenesis and lithification in carbonate sediments:Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 34, p. 777–813.Google Scholar
  4. Friedman, G. M., 1973, Cementation in reefs: Bull. Centre Rech. Pau-SNPA, p. 171–176.Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, G. M., 1985, The problem of submarine cement in classifying reef rock: an experience in frustration:in Schneidermann, N., and Harris, P. M., eds.,Carbonate Cements, Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ., 36, p. 117–121.Google Scholar
  6. Friedman, G. M., Amiel, A. J., andSchneidermann, N., 1974, Submarine cementation in reefs: example from the Red Sea:Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 44, p. 816–825.Google Scholar
  7. Friedman, G. M., Ghosh, S. K., and Urschel, S., 1990, Petrophysical characteristics related to depositional environments and diagenetic overprint: a case study of the San Andres Formation, Mabee Field, West Texas: p. 125–144in Bebout, D. G., and Harris, P. M., eds., Geologic and Engineering Approaches in Evaluation of San Andres/Grayburg Hydrocarbon Reservoirs—Permian Basin, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texa 297 p.Google Scholar
  8. Ghosh, S. K., andFriedman, G.M., 1989, Petrophysics of a dolostone reservoir: San Andres Formation (Permian), West Texas:Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 4, p. 45–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ginsburg, R. N., Marszulek, D. S., andSchneidermann, N., 1971, Ultrastructure of carbonate cements in a Holocene algal reef of Bermuda:Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 41, p. 472–482.Google Scholar
  10. Guo, Baiying, andFriedman, G. M., 1990, Petrophysical characteristics of some Holocene beachrocks:Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 5, p. 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gvirtzman, G., andFriedman, G. M., 1977, Sequence of progressive diagenesis in Quaternary reefs, Red Sea: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology, No. 4, p. 357–380.Google Scholar
  12. Jennings, J. B., 1987, Capillary pressure techniques: application to exploration and development geology:Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 71, p. 1196–1209.Google Scholar
  13. Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., Amthor, J. E., and Friedman, G. M., 1987, Notes on the use of a mercury porosimeter (micromeritics Pore Sizer 9305): Northeastern Science Foundation Technical Report 1, 12 p.Google Scholar
  14. Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., andAmthor, J. E., 1988, Reservoir charcterization with very high-pressure porosimetry:Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 3, p. 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kopaska-Merkel, D. C., andFriedman, G. M., 1989, Petrofacies analysis of carbonate rocks: example from Lower Paleozoic Hunton Group of Oklahoma and Texas:Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 73, p. 1289–1306.Google Scholar
  16. Macintyre, I. G., 1977, Distribution of submarine cements in a modern fringing reef, Galeta, Panama:Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 47, p. 503–516,Google Scholar
  17. Macintyre, I. G., 1985, Submarine cements—the peloidal question:in Schneidermann, N., and Harris, P. M., eds,Carbonate Cements, Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral., Spec. Publ. 36, p. 109–116.Google Scholar
  18. Marshall, J. F., 1983, Submarine cementation in a high-energy platform reef: One Tree Reef, southern Great Barrier Reef:Jour. Sed. Petrology, v. 53, p. 1133–1149.Google Scholar
  19. Sansone, F. J., Tribble, G. W., Andrews, C. C., andChanton, J. P., 1990, Anaerobic diagenesis within Recent, Pleistocene, and Eocene marine carbonate frameworks:Sedimentology, v. 37, p. 997–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wardlaw, N. C., 1976, Pore geometry of carbonate rocks as revealed by pore casts and capillary pressure:Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 60, p. 245–257.Google Scholar
  21. Wardlaw, N. D. andMckellar, M., 1981, Mercury porosimetry and the interpretation of pore geometry in sedimentary rocks and artificial models:Power Tech., v. 29, p. 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wardlaw, N. C., McKellar, M. andYu, L., 1988, Pore and throat size distribution determined by mercury porosimetry and by direct observation:Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 3, p. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liang Chuanmao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gerald M. Friedman
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of GeologyBrooklyn College and Graduate School of the City University of New YorkBrooklyn
  2. 2.Rensselaer Center of Applied GeologyNortheastern Science Foundation Affiliated with Brooklyn College-CUNYTroy

Personalised recommendations