Petrographic and petrophysical investigation on carbonate samples (Upper Cretaceous) from the Tushka Area (Egypt) with special focus on the effective pore radius

  • Ümit Öner
  • Andreas WellerEmail author
  • Carl-Diedrich Sattler
  • Mohamed A. Kassab
Original Paper


Petrographic and petrophysical properties of 42 carbonate rock samples from the Tushka Area, Egypt have been investigated. The samples originate from the Upper Cretaceous taken from seven shallow wells and were subdivided into three microfacies. The petrographic characterization of the glauconite-rich, fossiliferous limestones was carried out over 17 thin sections and an additional measurement of the glauconite content by color differentiation. The facies were characterized as (1) oolithic, low-dolomitic, and low-glauconitic, fossil-rich packstone with a tendency towards floatstone or rudstone; (2) glauconite-rich, low-dolomitic floatstone with a tendency towards rudstone; and (3) glauconite and iron mineral-rich, sparry calcitic cemented, and low-dolomitic rudstone. The petrophysical investigation providing grain density, porosity, electrical conductivity, specific internal surface, permeability, magnetic susceptibility, and the pore throat geometry supports the classification into three facies. A strong relation between permeability and formation factor is observed. The median pore radius derived from mercury porosimetry proves to be a good estimate of the effective hydraulic radius. An increased content of iron oxides was identified in facies 3. The increased iron content is related to higher values of both magnetic susceptibility and specific internal surface.


Tushka Area Egypt Limestone Petrophysical properties Porosity Permeability 



The authors thank Dr. Wolfgang Debschütz and Mostafa Behery for their help during sample preparation and petrophysical investigations. The constructive comments received from an anonymous reviewer significantly improved this manuscript.


  1. Börner FD, Schopper JR, Weller A (1996) Evaluation of transport and storage properties in the soil and groundwater zone from induced polarization measurements. Geophys Prospect 44:583–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunauer S, Emmet PH, Teller E (1938) Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J Am Chem Soc 60:309–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. El-Sayed AMA, Kassab MA, El Safori YA, Abass AE (2005) Carbonate facies and its reservoir properties, West Tushka, South Western Desert, Egypt. First International Conference on the Geology of the Tethys, Cairo University 267–278Google Scholar
  4. Füchtbauer H (1988) Sediment-Petrologie Teil II: Sedimente und Sedimentgesteine. E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  5. Issawi B (1969) Geology of Kurkur-Dungul area. Geol Surv Egypt 46:102–103Google Scholar
  6. Kassab MA, Weller A (2013) Porosity estimation from compressional wave velocity: a study based on Egyptian carbonate samples. J Earth Sci Eng 3:314–321Google Scholar
  7. McRae SG (1972) Glauconite. Earth-Sci Rev 8:397–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pape H, Clauser C, Iffland J (1999) Permeability prediction based on fractal pore-space geometry. Geophysics 64:1447–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Porrenga DH (1966) Glauconite and chamosite as depth indicators in the marine environment. Mar Geol 5:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Said R (1962) The geology of Egypt. Elsevier Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. Schön J (1996) Physical properties of rocks: fundamentals and principles of petrophysics. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Sing KSW, Everett DH, Haul RAW, Moscou L, Pierotti RA, Rouquerol J, Siemieniewska T (1985) Reporting physisorption data for gas/solid systems with special reference to the determination of surface area and porosity. Pure Appl Chem 57(4):603–619Google Scholar
  13. Tiab D, Donaldson EC (2012) Petrophysics—theory and practice of measuring reservoir rock and fluid transport properties, 3rd edn. Elsevier Inc., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Triplehorn DM (1966) Morphology, internal structure and origin of glauconite pellets. Sedimentology 6:247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Washburn EW (1921) The dynamics of capillary flow. Phys Rev XVII:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weller A, Slater L, Nordsiek S, Ntarlagiannis D (2010) On the estimation of specific surface per unit pore volume from induced polarization. A robust empirical relation fits multiple data sets. Geophysics 75(4):WA105–WA112. doi: 10.1190/1.3471577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weller A, Slater L, Nordsiek S (2013) On the relationship between induced polarization and surface conductivity: implications for petrophysical interpretation of electrical measurements. Geophysics 78(5):D315–D325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weller A, Slater L, Binley A, Nordsiek S, Xu S (2015) Permeability prediction based on induced polarization: insights from measurements on sandstone and unconsolidated samples spanning a wide permeability range. Geophysics 80(2):D161–D173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Woods AD (2013) Microbial ooids and cortoids from the Lower Triassic (Spathian) Virgin Limestone, Nevada, USA: evidence for an Early Triassic microbial bloom in shallow depositional environments. Glob Planet Change 105:91–101Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ümit Öner
    • 1
  • Andreas Weller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carl-Diedrich Sattler
    • 2
  • Mohamed A. Kassab
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für GeophysikTechnische Universität ClausthalClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Geologie und PaläontologieTechnische Universität ClausthalClausthal-ZellerfeldGermany
  3. 3.Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute (EPRI)Naser CityEgypt

Personalised recommendations