Rock Typing

  • Vahid Tavakoli
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Petroleum Geoscience & Engineering book series (BRIEFSPGE)


Rock typing is the process of assigning reservoir properties to geological facies. The samples in an ideal rock type have the same geological and reservoir properties. Such a unit is considered as a reservoir building block. The properties of interest are fluid storage and flow and thus it is possible that two facies are grouped in one rock type or one facies is divided into two rock types. There are three main categories for this process including geology, reservoir (static properties), and petrophysics. Geological rock types are defined by integrating facies and diagenesis characteristics of the samples in a porosity–permeability framework. Reservoir methods use porosity, permeability, pore throat size, and their relationships for dividing the samples into various rock types. Logs are routinely grouped by cluster analysis into electrofacies. The final result is an ideal unit that contains the same geological, reservoir, and wire line characteristics. As wire line data are available from almost all wells and reservoir intervals, this ideal unit could be distributed in 3D space, even with limited core data. These units are perfect for both static and dynamic modeling. On a regional scale, the concept of flow unit is used to divide the reservoir into compartments with the same reservoir quality. Sequence stratigraphic concepts are also used for correlating the defined units in the reservoir scale. All methods try to reduce the reservoir heterogeneity to understand reservoir behavior on microscopic and macroscopic scales.


  1. Al-Tooqi S, Ehrenberg SN, Al-Habsi N, Al-Shukaili M (2014) Reservoir rock typing of Upper Shu’aiba limestones, northwestern Oman. Petrol Geosci 20:339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amaefule JO, Altunbay MH, Tiab D, Kersey DG, Keelan DK (1993) Enhanced reservoir description using core and log data to identify hydraulic (flow) units and predict permeability in uncored intervals/wells. In: Paper presented at SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3–6 Oct 1993Google Scholar
  3. Bear J (1972) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Elsevier, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Chehrazi A, Rezaee R, Rahimpour-Bonab H (2011) Pore-facies as a tool for incorporation of small-scale dynamic information in integrated reservoir studies. J Geophys Eng 8:202–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choquette PW, Pray LC (1970) Geological nomenclature and classification of porosity in sedimentary carbonates. AAPG Bull 54:207–250Google Scholar
  6. Ebanks WJ (1987) The flow unit concept—an integrated approach to reservoir description for engineering projects. Am Assoc Geol Annu Conv 71:551–552Google Scholar
  7. Gill D, Shomrony A, Fligelman H (1993) Numerical zonation of log suites and logfacies recognition by multivariate clustering. AAPG Bull 77:1781–1791Google Scholar
  8. Gunter GW, Finneran JM, Hartman DJ, Miller JD (1997) Early determination of reservoir flow units using an integrated petrophysical method. In: Paper presented at SSPE annual technical conference and exhibition, San Antonio, 5–8 Oct 1997Google Scholar
  9. Hearn CL, Ebanks WJ, Tye RS, Ranganatha V (1984) Geological factors influencing reservoir performance of the Hartzog draw field, Wyoming. J Petrol Technol 36:1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolodzie S (1980) Analysis of pore throat size and use of the Waxman-Smits equation to determine OOIP in Spindle Field, Colorado. In: Paper presented at 55th annual fall technical conference of society of petroleum engineers, Dallas, Texas, 21–24 Sept 1980Google Scholar
  11. LØnØy A (2006) Making sense of carbonate pore systems. AAPG Bull 90:1381–1405Google Scholar
  12. Lorenz MO (1905) Methods of measuring concentration of wealth. Am Stat Assoc 970:209–219Google Scholar
  13. Lucia FJ (1995) Rock fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization. AAPG Bull 79:1275–1300Google Scholar
  14. Lucia FJ (2007) Carbonate reservoir characterization. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Moradi M, Moussavi-Harami R, Mahboubi A, Khanehbad M, Ghabeishavi A (2017) Rock typing using geological and petrophysical data in the Asmari reservoir, Aghajari Oilfield, SW Iran. J Petrol Sci Eng 152:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rahimpour-Bonab H, Mehrabi H, Navidtalab A, Izadi-Mazidi E (2012) Flow unit distribution and reservoir modelling in Cretaceous carbonates of the Sarvak Formation, Abteymour Oilfield, Dezful Embayment, SW Iran. J Pet Geol 35:213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rahimpour-Bonab H, Enayati-Bidgoli AH, Navidtalab A, Mehrabi H (2014) Appraisal of intra reservoir barriers in the Permo-Triassic successions of the Central Persian Gulf, Offshore Iran. Geol Acta 12:87–107Google Scholar
  18. Rezaee MR, Jafari A, Kazemzadeh E (2006) Relationships between permeability, porosity and pore throat size in carbonate rocks using regression analysis and neural networks. J Geophys Eng 3:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riazi Z (2018) Application of integrated rock typing and flow units identification methods for an Iranian carbonate reservoir. J Petrol Sci Eng 160:483–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schmalz JP, Rahme HS (1950) The variations in water flood performance with variation in permeability profile. Prod Mon 15:9–12Google Scholar
  21. Serra O, Abbott HT (1980) The contribution of logging data to sedimentology and stratigraphy. In: SPE9270 presented at the 1980 annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, TXGoogle Scholar
  22. Tavakoli V, Amini A (2006) Application of multivariate cluster analysis in logfacies determination and reservoir zonation, case study of Marun Field, South of Iran. J Sci Univ Teheran 32:69–75Google Scholar
  23. Tiab D, Donaldson EC (2015) Petrophysics, theory and practice of measuring reservoir rock and fluid transport properties. Gulf Professional Publishing, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  24. Ye SJ, Rabiller P (2000) A new tool for electro-facies analysis: multi-resolution graph-based clustering. In: Paper presented at SPWLA 41st annual logging symposium, society of petrophysicists and well-log analysts. Dallas, Texas, 4–7 June 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geology, College of ScienceUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations