E&P NOTES

AUTHORS S. N. Ehrenberg  Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; sne@statoil.com Steve has a Ph.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles. He works on sandstone and carbonate reservoir studies for exploration and production projects. P. H. Nadeau  Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; phn@statoil.com Joining Statoil in 1986, Paul now serves as a specialist in global exploration working on basin evaluation and petroleum systems analysis. Originating from Maine, Paul received a B.S. degree from Boston College and a Ph.D. from Dartmouth College. He received the Schlumberger Medal from the Mineralogical Society and the Brindley Award from the Clay Minerals Society. A. A. M. Aqrawi  Statoil, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway; present address: Statoil Arabian Gulf, Samarqand Street, Hai Al-Ssalam, AlRabia, Amman, Jordan; aamaq@statoil.com Adnan works as a business development manager for international exploration and production. He has more than 25 years of international geological experience in the Middle East, southeast Asia, and northwest Europe, with various geological research institutes and oil companies. He has published many articles and has recently completed a book, together with J. Goff, A. Horbury, and F. Sadooni, on the petroleum geology of Iraq. Adnan received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees from the University of Baghdad and his Ph.D. and D.I.C. from Imperial College, London. He is a member of the AAPG, the International Association of Sedimentologists, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, the Iraqi Geological Society, and the Norwegian Petroleum Society.

A comparison of Khuff and Arab reservoir potential throughout the Middle East
S. N. Ehrenberg, P. H. Nadeau, and A. A. M. Aqrawi

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank David E. Eby, Stephen E. Laubach, and Bradford E. Prather for helpful reviews.

Copyright #2007. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Manuscript received May 21, 2006; provisional acceptance July 6, 2006; revised manuscript received September 5, 2006; final acceptance September 14, 2006. DOI:10.1306/09140606054

AAPG Bulletin, v. 91, no. 3 (March 2007), pp. 275 286

275

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.

in Halbouty, 2003). Other Khuff and Arab fields also contain enormous reserves (Alsharhan and Nairn, 1997). Any information contributing to a better understanding of these important resources should therefore be examined with care. The second rationale behind the Khuff and Arab comparison is the stratigraphic position of these units as the two main petroleum-bearing layers underlying the Cretaceous strata of the Middle East. Whenever drilling is planned to penetrate below the Cretaceous, therefore, both the Arab and the Khuff must commonly be considered as potential targets because both units are productive from the same structures in numerous cases (Figure 1).

INTRODUCTION Carbonate reservoirs from producing oil and gas fields have extreme ranges of porosity and permeability, both locally within a single reservoir zone and in terms of average values for entire reservoir zones (Ehrenberg and Nadeau, 2005). This study describes the latter type of variation for two major reservoir formations in the Middle East and lists the factors that seem likely to account for the striking overall differences between these units. The units compared are the Khuff Formation (Upper Permian Lower Triassic) and the Arab Formation (Upper Jurassic). Both units are major petroleum reservoirs in the Arabian/Persian Gulf region, with the Khuff having almost exclusively gas production and the Arab producing mainly oil (Alsharhan and Nairn, 1997). The differences in reservoir quality and geology between these units are already well known, but have not previously been considered systematically in a regional perspective or in any comparison involving both formations. We hope that our results will be useful as a context for discussing and comparing data from individual fields, as well as for revealing overall trends and perhaps thereby indicating general controlling processes. The rationale for the comparison of these two quite dissimilar reservoir formations consists, first, of their enormous economic significance and, second, of their stratigraphic situation. The Khuff Formation houses the worlds largest gas accumulation: the combined North field (Qatar) and South Pars (Iran) dome, with approximately 1500 tcf of recoverable reserves (Statoil inhouse data; 1250 tcf listed in Halbouty, 2003). The Arab Formation is the reservoir for the worlds largest oil accumulation: the Ghawar field (Saudi Arabia), with approximately 120 billion bbl of recoverable reserves (Statoil in-house data; > 80 billion bbl listed 276 E&P Notes

STRATIGRAPHIC CONTEXT The Khuff and Arab formations are stratigraphic entities of quite dissimilar scale. The Khuff Formation is three to five times thicker and represents four to seven times greater duration than the Arab Formation. Absolute ages quoted here refer to the time scale of Gradstein et al. (2004). Khuff deposition occupied roughly 17 m.y. and encompassed 5 (Sharland et al., 2001), 7 (Strohmenger et al., 2002), or 11 (Osterloff et al., 2004) depositional sequences of perhaps 0.5 5 m.y. duration, whereas Arab deposition occupied about 2.1 m.y. and encompassed four depositional sequences averaging approximately 0.5 m.y. duration (Sharland et al., 2001). The Khuff Formation of Arabia is equivalent with the Dalan (Permian) and Kangan (Triassic) formations in Iran (Szabo and Kheradpir, 1978); the Chia Zairi Formation (PermianTriassic) in Iraq (Aqrawi, 1998); and the Bih, Hagil (Permian), and lower Ghail (Triassic) formations in outcrops of the Musandam area of the eastern United Arab Emirates and northern Oman (Strohmenger et al., 2002). The Khuff Formation represents an epeiric carbonate platform that developed above siliciclastics of the Unayzah Formation and its equivalents (Faraghan in Iran; Gaara in Iraq; Al Khlata in Oman), following middle Carboniferous (Hercynian) orogeny and middle Permian rifting (Sharland et al., 2001; Osterloff et al., 2004). Khuff thickness increases from near zero, where siliciclastic facies pinch out in central Saudi Arabia, to somewhat more than 400 m (1300 ft) in Ghawar field, eastern Saudi Arabia; to 800 m (2600 ft) in the North field, Qatar; to nearly 1000 m (3300 ft) in the eastern United Arab Emirates (Al-Jallal, 1994, 1995). According to Sharland et al. (2001), the basal Khuff transgression is dated as middle late Wordian (roughly 267 266 Ma) in Oman, but is likely to be some 5 m.y. younger

Figure 1. Locations of petroleum fields for which average values are available for Khuff and Arab reservoir parameters.

in Saudi Arabia. Khuff deposition terminated in the late Induan (approximately 250 Ma) with progradation of fine siliciclastics of the overlying Sudair Formation. Important internal markers are the Nar anhydrite (end Capitanian; 260.4 Ma) and the PermianTriassic boundary (251.0 Ma). The Arab Formation consists of four regionally correlative cycles of carbonate capped by evaporite, termed D, C, B, and A in ascending order. The formation ranges in thickness from 128 150 m (419 492 ft) in Saudi Arabia to 180 285 m (590 935 ft) in the United Arab Emirates (Alsharhan and Nairn, 1997). According to Sharland et al. (2001), the maximum flooding surface of the Arab D, near the base of the formation, is dated as middle Kimmeridgian (roughly 152.9 Ma), and the maximum flooding surface of the Arab A coincides with the Kimmeridgian Tithonian boundary (150.8 Ma).

DATA The data examined in this article are average values for the producing zones of oil and gas fields, the geographic distribution of which is shown in Figure 1. These data are a component of Statoils global reservoir database, results from which have been reported in Bjrkum and Nadeau (1998), Ehrenberg and Nadeau (2005), and Nadeau et al. (2005). Numerous gaps exist in these data, such as reservoirs represented by porosity but not permeability values. The nature of the original measurements upon which the average values are based is unknown, but derivation from a combination of coreplug data and log interpretation seems likely. The permeability values will therefore not reflect the contribution of fractures, which are known to be important in both Khuff (Loutfi and Abul Hamd, 1989; Bashari, 2005) Ehrenberg et al. 277

Figure 2. Comparison of average porosity and permeability values for Arab reservoirs from the Statoil database versus average values for the same fields recovered by digitizing crossplots from published sources. (A) Data for three fields, for which the Statoil database includes values for two different reservoir zones in field B. (B) Data for two other fields, for which all cases include values for multiple reservoir zones in each field.

and Arab reservoirs (Keith et al., 1998; Meyer et al., 2000; Al-Ghamdi et al., 2003). The Statoil data have been augmented by a compilation of additional published porosity-permeability data from specific fields, where core and wire-line-log data are commonly also available and, thus, provide insight into geologic controls. These additional data were collected from Wilson (1985), Munn and Jubralia (1987), Bos (1989), Kawaguchi (1991), Alsharhan and Nairn (1994, 1997), Saner and Sahin (1999), Lucia et al. (2001), Rahim et al. (2001), Dasgupta et al. (2002), Cantrell and Hagerty (2003), Clark et al. (2004), and Ehrenberg (2006). In most cases, these data were published in graphic instead of numeric form, so average porosity and permeability values were obtained by digitizing the individual data points on the published plots. Tests performed by digitizing porositypermeability plots of data with known values confirm that the digitization procedure recovers the initial data values with a high degree of accuracy. For most Arab reservoirs, the digitized data provide alternative values for several reservoirs already present in the Statoil database (Figure 2). Some cases compare closely, and others do not, but we have no way of evaluating the relative accuracy of individual values because the source data are not publicly available. The additional data also provide porosity and permeability values not already listed in the Statoil database for one Arab reservoir and four Khuff reservoirs. These five porosity values are included in Figure 3. 278 E&P Notes

RESULTS Most Khuff reservoirs have average porosity of less than 12%, whereas most Arab reservoirs have average porosity of 1226% (Figure 3). This is the fundamental finding of the present study. All the following discussion and other relationships shown revolve around explaining this difference in porosity and exploring its consequences. Average porosity shows a broad (poor) correlation with shallower top-reservoir depth in both Khuff and Arab data (Figure 4). The trend in the Khuff data is uncertain, however, because it depends solely on the very low porosity values of the three deepest Khuff reservoirs. Nevertheless, the two trends appear to have a common meeting point, such that the combined data may be seen as defining a single overall trend, the slope of which becomes steeper with decreasing porosity (Figure 5). A broad correlation also exists between average porosity and average permeability in both Khuff and Arab data (Figure 6). The two units again each define rough trends with somewhat different slopes but having a common meeting point. The combined data thus define a single overall trend, the slope of which becomes steeper with decreasing porosity on the semilog coordinates used (Figure 7). Ehrenberg and Nadeau (2005) presented a global compilation of the average porosity and permeability values for carbonate reservoirs. Trends of porosity versus depth were characterized by values of porosity P10, P50, and P90 at fixed intervals of depth. Porosity P10,

Figure 3. Frequency distributions of average porosity values for Khuff (A) and Arab reservoirs (B). Only one value is included for each reservoir, but there are multiple reservoirs in several fields.

in this connection, represents the porosity value for a given depth for which only 10% of the data points are larger. Similarly, trends of porosity versus permeability were characterized by values of permeability P10, P50, and P90 at fixed intervals of porosity. A superposition of these trends in Figures 5 and 7 provides a global perspective on the Khuff and Arab data. Khuff porosity values fall mostly between the porosity P90 and P50 depth trends, whereas nearly all Arab porosities exceed P50 and commonly exceed the P10 trend. Khuff per-

meabilities fall mainly below the global permeability P50, whereas most Arab permeabilities exceed the global P50 trend.

DISCUSSION The above differences in average porosity and permeability between Khuff and Arab reservoirs reflect a combination of depositional, diagenetic, and economic

Figure 4. Top-reservoir depth versus average porosity for (A) Khuff and (B) Arab reservoirs. Plotting symbols indicate country. Ehrenberg et al. 279

Figure 5. Top-reservoir depth versus average porosity for combined Khuff and Arab reservoirs. Plotting symbols indicate the formation and data source. Gray lines show P10, P50, and P90 trends for carbonate reservoirs worldwide (Ehrenberg and Nadeau, 2005).

factors (Table 1). We suggest, however, that the factor of greatest importance is likely to be burial depth. Deeper burial corresponds to increasing thermal exposure (temperature integrated over time), which causes porosity loss in both carbonates and sandstones by increasing the rates of chemical compaction and associated cementa-

tion from the solutes thus supplied (Schmoker, 1984; Walderhaug, 1996; Ehrenberg, 2004, 2006). Despite the high degrees of complexity and heterogeneity known to characterize both Khuff and Arab strata, the correlation shown in Figure 5 indicates that most of the variation in average porosity, and thus the main part of the overall

Figure 6. Arithmetic average permeability versus average porosity for (A) Khuff and (B) Arab reservoirs. Plotting symbols indicate country. 280 E&P Notes

Figure 7. Arithmetic average permeability versus average porosity for combined Khuff and Arab reservoirs. Plotting symbols indicate the formation and data source. Gray lines show (from top) P10, P50, and P90 trends for carbonate reservoirs worldwide (Ehrenberg and Nadeau, 2005).

porosity difference between these formations (Figure 3), reflects the deeper burial of the Khuff reservoirs. Insofar as average permeability also correlates with porosity (Figure 7), it may be concluded that burial depth, by controlling porosity, is also a major factor responsible for the lower average permeabilities of Khuff as compared with Arab reservoirs. Despite the overriding importance of thermal exposure, as reflected in the top-reservoirdepth parameter,

several other well-known differences between Khuff and Arab carbonates have tended to reinforce the temperaturedriven contrasts in reservoir quality. One of these factors is the different platform geometries characterizing the two units. Khuff strata were deposited on an extensive (epeiric), very low-relief shelf, which was sheltered from the open ocean by a reefal barrier (Figure 8A). Consequently, Khuff reservoirs have a layer-cake geometry and consist mainly of interbedded mudstones

Table 1. Factors Accounting for Differences in Average Porosity and Permeability between Khuff and Arab Reservoirs Factors Burial diagenesis Depositional setting Dominant lithologies Primary mineralogy Anhydrite cement Dolomite Dominant pore types Petroleum phase Khuff More chemical compaction and associated cementation caused by greater thermal exposure Extensive, poorly circulated, very low-relief shelf Grainstones having relatively fine grain size and mudstones Aragonite Extensive anhydrite plugging of entire zones Major proportion of reservoirs, finely crystalline Moldic and intercrystalline Gas Arab Shallower burial depths correspond to greater preservation of primary porosity Well-circulated conditions nearer to margins facing deep intracratonic basins Grainstones and grain-dominated packstones Mainly calcite Localized anhydrite cementation Minor to moderate proportion of reservoirs, medium to coarsely crystalline Primary intergranular, intrafossil, and microporosity Oil Ehrenberg et al. 281

282 E&P Notes Figure 8. Maps comparing the paleogeography of the (A) Khuff platform (modified from Dasgupta et al., 2002) and (B) Arab platform (modified from Swart et al., 2005).

Figure 9. Photomicrograph of a Khuff grainstone with oomoldic porosity. Porosity inversion has produced molds after former ooids and filled original intergranular pore space with calcite cement. This sample is from the base of the uppermost Khuff depositional sequence at 2900 m (9500 ft) depth, offshore the Persian Gulf (Ehrenberg, 2006).

and relatively fine-grained grainstones (Al-Jallal, 1987; Dasgupta et al., 2002; Alsharhan, 2006; Ehrenberg, 2006; Insalaco et al., 2006). The Arab Formation was deposited on a shelf that was differentiated into shallowwater shoals and intrashelf basins (Figure 8B), with relief inherited from the underlying carbonate units (Meyer and Price, 1992). Arab reservoirs consequently have progradational geometries and commonly have a predominance of coarse-grained, grain-dominated textures and low to moderate content of chemically precipitated grains. Nevertheless, Arab cycles include a wide spectrum from deep- to shallow-water facies (Wilson, 1985; Mitchell et al., 1988; Meyer and Price, 1992; Bouroullec and Meyer, 1995; Meyer et al., 1996; Al-Saad and Sadooni, 2001). Major anhydrite deposition and cementation was mainly limited to the terminal (lowstand to early transgressive) phase of each Arab cycle, whereas the highstand carbonates tend to be preserved as limestone with low to moderate anhydrite content (Alsharhan and Magara, 1995; Al-Silwadi et al., 1996; Cantrell and Hagerty, 1999).

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 (Sandberg, 1983). As a result, Khuff grainstones were susceptible to intense eogenetic dissolution and cementation, commonly leading to the porosity inversion for which these strata are notorious (Focke and Munn, 1985; Al-Jallal, 1987; Bos, 1989; Talu and Abu-Ghabin, 1989; Zeidan, 1994; Bashari, 2005) (Figure 9), whereby volumes that were initially solid (grains) become pores, and the initial intergranular pores become solid (cement). Such textures are generally not mentioned in descriptions of Arab lithologies. Other possible contrasts between the Khuff and Arab reservoirs are more widespread and proportionately greater dolomitization and calcium sulfate cementation of the Khuff strata. These differences are somewhat hypothetical, however, because quantitative mineralogic data are limited to a few specific fields, and wide variations are reported between different Arab reservoirs. Ehrenberg et al. 283

Nevertheless, Khuff strata in both Ghawar and South Pars fields are predominantly dolostone, with limestone intervals mainly confined to the most open-marine grain shoal facies (Dasgupta et al., 2002; Ehrenberg, 2006). Alsharhan (1993) states that Khuff Formation is 75 85% dolomitized in the United Arab Emirates. The Khuff dolostones formed in evaporitic sabkha and shallow reflux settings (Talu and Abu-Ghabin, 1989; Ehrenberg, 2006), although evidence of dolomite recrystallization and cementation during burial is abundant (Videtich, 1994; Alsharhan, 2006). Arab strata of Ghawar field contain only subordinate dolostones, which are partly of early, open-marine, and hypersaline-reflux origin, but largely of late-burial or hydrothermal origin related to the introduction of basinal brines along fractures (Powers, 1962; Meyer et al., 1996; Cantrell and Hagerty, 2003; Cantrell et al., 2004; Swart et al., 2005). This moderate degree of Arab dolomitization also appears to characterize other areas ( Wilson, 1985; Magara et al., 1993; Alsharhan and Magara, 1995; Al-Silwadi et al., 1996; Al-Saad and Sadooni, 2001), although extensive dolomitization is reported in other cases, reflecting either early hypersaline conditions (Azer and Peebles, 1998; Grotsch et al., 2003) or late expulsion of brine from compacting evaporite basins (Broomhall and Allen, 1987; Goff, 2005). Khuff dolomite tends to be finely crystalline ( Talu and Abu-Ghabin, 1989; Bashari, 2005), whereas Arab dolomite is commonly coarsely crystalline and, in other cases, may be dominated by preserved intergranular pores (Meyer et al., 2000; Cantrell et al., 2001; Grotsch et al., 2003; Clark et al., 2004; Swart et al., 2005). The combined result of the above depositional and eogenetic factors is that Khuff lithologies tend to be dominated by moldic pores in limestones and by very fine intercrystalline pores in dolostones, as well as having extensive anhydrite-cemented barrier zones. Arab reservoirs are characterized by a greater preservation of primary depositional pore types, more coarsely crystalline dolomite fabrics, and lesser plugging by anhydrite. These tendencies should be expected to result in lower permeability for a given porosity and poorer overall connectivity in Khuff strata, in contrast to excellent reservoir characteristics in Arab strata. Finally, contrasting petroleum type may be an important reason for lower average porosity and permeability of the Khuff reservoirs represented in our database. Khuff reservoirs almost exclusively contain gas, whereas Arab reservoirs produce mainly oil. Of the Khuff locations in Figure 1, only Yibal field has significant oil production (Bos, 1989). The Khuff is part of 284 E&P Notes

a Paleozoic petroleum system sourced mainly from Lower Silurian hot shales in the gas window, whereas the Arab is sourced mainly from Upper Jurassic shales and basinal carbonates in the oil window (Abu-Ali et al., 1991; Alsharhan and Magara, 1994; Alsharhan, 2006). The reason that petroleum type affects average reservoir porosity and permeability values is economic instead of geologic. Parameter values exist in our database because they represent reservoirs in production, and it is well known that gas can commonly be produced from rock having permeability well below the economic cutoff for oil production (Worthington et al., 2003). Thus, production may be possible from low-permeability zones in Khuff reservoirs that would be excluded as uneconomic for oil production in Arab reservoirs, and these tighter zones will contribute to the average values tabulated in our database.

CONCLUSIONS 1. Most Khuff reservoirs have average porosity of 5 12% (average 8%), whereas most Arab reservoirs have average porosity of 12 26% (average 19%). 2. Because there is overall correlation of decreasing porosity with increasing depth, and Khuff reservoirs are mostly deeper than Arab reservoirs, lower porosity of Khuff reservoirs probably results primarily from greater burial diagenesis (chemical compaction and associated cementation). 3. A broad correlation exists between average porosity and average permeability, suggesting that deeper burial with resulting porosity decrease is also a primary cause of the lower permeabilities of Khuff reservoirs. 4. In addition to the difference in burial depth, a combination of depositional and early diagenetic factors have reinforced the lower average porosity and permeability values of the Khuff reservoirs. 5. Because the Khuff is almost exclusively a gas play, whereas Arab reservoirs contain mainly oil, different cutoff values may pertain to these two units, allowing the inclusion of lower permeability zones in Khuff than in Arab reservoirs.

REFERENCES CITED
Abu-Ali, M. A., U. A. Franz, J. Shen, F. Monnier, M. D. Mahmoud, and T. M. Chambers, 1991, Hydrocarbon generation and migration in the Paleozoic sequence of Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 21376, Proceedings of SPE 7th Middle East Oil Show, p. 345 356.

Al-Ghamdi, A., S. A. BinAkresh, and S. A. Bubshait, 2003, Characterization of conductive faults and fractures responsible for interreservoir communication in the Shedgum leak area of the giant Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 81517, Proceedings of SPE 13th Middle East Oil and Gas Show, p. 1 9. Al-Jallal, I. A., 1987, Diagenetic effects on reservoir properties of the Permian Khuff Formation in eastern Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers 6th Middle East Oil Show, p. 465 476. Al-Jallal, I. A., 1994, Stratigraphy, depositional environments and reservoir potential of the Khuff Formation in the Arab Gulf countries: Proceedings of the 6th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 112, p. 402 416. Al-Jallal, I. A., 1995, The Khuff Formation: Its regional reservoir potential in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, depositional and stratigraphic approach, in M. I. Al-Huseini, ed., Geo94, Middle East petroleum geosciences: Bahrain, Gulf PetroLink, v. 1, p. 103 119. Al-Saad, H., and F. N. Sadooni, 2001, A new depositional model and sequence stratigraphic interpretation for the Upper Jurassic Arab D reservoir in Qatar: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 24, p. 243 264. Alsharhan, A. S., 1993, Facies and sedimentary environment of the Permian carbonates (Khuff Formation) in the United Arab Emirates: Sedimentary Geology, v. 84, p. 89 99. Alsharhan, A. S., 2006, Sedimentological character and hydrocarbon parameters of the middle Permian to Early Triassic Khuff Formation, United Arab Emirates: GeoArabia, v. 11 p. 121 158. Alsharhan, A. S., and K. Magara, 1994, The Jurassic of the Arabian Basin: Facies, depositional setting and hydrocarbon habitat, in A. F. Embry, ed., Pangea: Global environments and resources: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 17, p. 397 412. Alsharhan, A. S., and K. Magara, 1995, Nature and distribution of porosity and permeability in Jurassic carbonate reservoirs of the Arabian Gulf Basin: Facies, v. 32, p. 237 254. Alsharhan, A. S., and A. E. M. Nairn, 1994, The Late Permian carbonates (Khuff Formation) in the western Arabian Gulf: Its hydrocarbon parameters and paleogeographical aspects: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 9, p. 132 142. Alsharhan, A. S., and A. E. M. Nairn, 1997, Sedimentary basins and petroleum geology of the Middle East: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 843 p. Al-Silwadi, M. S., A. Kirkham, M. D. Simmons, and B. N. Twombley, 1996, New insights into regional correlation and sedimentology, Arab Formation ( Upper Jurassic), offshore Abu Dhabi: GeoArabia, v. 1, p. 6 27. Aqrawi, A. A. M., 1998, Palaeozoic stratigraphy and petroleum systems of the western and southwestern deserts of Iraq: GeoArabia, v. 3, p. 229 248. Azer, S. R., and R. G. Peebles, 1998, Sequence stratigraphy of the Arab A to C members and Hith Formation, offshore Abu Dhabi: GeoArabia, v. 3, p. 251 268. Bashari, A., 2005, Khuff formation Permian Triassic carbonate in the Qatar-South Fars arch hydrocarbon province of the Persian Gulf: First Break, v. 23, p. 43 50. Bjrkum, P. A., and P. H. Nadeau, 1998, Temperature controlled porosity/permeability reduction, fluid migration, and petroleum exploration in sedimentary basins: Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Journal, v. 38, p. 453 465. Bos, C. F. M., 1989, Planning an appraisal/development program for the complex Khuff carbonate reservoir in the Yibal field, north Oman: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 17988, Proceedings of the SPE 6th Middle East Oil Show, p. 631 640.

Bouroullec, J., and A. Meyer, 1995, Sedimentological and diagenetic model of the Arab Formation (Qatar): Reservoir implications, in M. I. AI-Husseini, ed., Geo94, Middle East petroleum geosciences: Bahrain, Gulf Petrolink, v. 1, p. 236 246. Broomhall, R. W., and J. R. Allen, 1987, Regional caprockdestroying dolomite on the Middle Jurassic to Early Cretaceous Arabian Shelf: Society of Petroleum Engineers Formation Evaluation, v. 2, p. 435 441. Cantrell, D. L., and R. M. Hagerty, 1999, Microporosity in Arab Formation carbonates, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 4, p. 129 154. Cantrell, D. L., and R. M. Hagerty, 2003, Reservoir rock classification, Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 8, p. 435 462. Cantrell, D. L., P. K. Swart, R. C. Handford, C. G. Kendall, and H. Westphal, 2001, Geology and production significance of dolomite, Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 6, p. 45 60. Cantrell, D. L., P. Swart, and R. M. Hagerty, 2004, Genesis and characterization of dolomite, Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 9, p. 11 36. Clark, D., J. Heaviside, and K. Habib, 2004, Reservoir properties of Arab carbonates, Al Rayyan field, offshore Qatar, in C. J. R. Braithwaite, G. Rizzi, and G. Darke, eds., The geometry and petrogenesis of dolomite hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 235, p. 193 232. Dasgupta, S. N., M.-R. Hong, and I. A. Al-Jallal, 2002, Accurate reservoir characterization to reduce drilling risk in Khuff-C carbonate, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 7, p. 81 100. Ehrenberg, S. N., 2004, Factors controlling porosity in Upper Carboniferous Lower Permian carbonate strata of the Barents Sea: AAPG Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1653 1676. Ehrenberg, S. N., 2006, Porosity destruction in carbonate platforms: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 29, p. 41 52. Ehrenberg, S. N., and P. H. Nadeau, 2005, Sandstone versus carbonate petroleum reservoirs: A global perspective on porositydepth and porosity-permeability relationships: AAPG Bulletin, v. 89, p. 435 445. Focke, J. W., and D. Munn, 1985, Cementation exponents (m) in Middle Eastern carbonate reservoirs: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 13735, Proceedings of the SPE 8th Middle East Oil Show, p. 431 437. Goff, J., 2005, Origin and potential of unconventional Jurassic oil reservoirs on the northern Arabian plate: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 93505, 16 p. Gradstein, F. M., J. G. Ogg, A. G. Smith, W. Bleeker, and L. J. Lourens, 2004, A new geologic time scale, with special reference to Precambrian and Neogene: Episodes, v. 27, p. 83 101. Grotsch, J., O. Suwaina, and G. Ajlani, 2003, The Arab Formation in central Abu Dhabi: 3-D reservoir architecture and static and dynamic modeling: GeoArabia, v. 8, p. 47 86. Halbouty, M. T., 2003, Giant oil and gas fields of the decade 1990 1999: AAPG Memoir 78, 340 p., CD-ROM Folder A, Giants Table. Insalaco, E., A. Virgone, B. Courme, J. Gaillot, M. Kamali, A. Moallemi, M. Lotfpour, and S. Monibi, 2006, Upper Dalan Member and Kangan Formation between the Zagros Mountains and offshore Fars, Iran: Depositional system, biostratigraphy and stratigraphic architecture: GeoArabia, v. 11, p. 75 176. Kawaguchi, K. I., 1991, Geological controls on reservoir quality of Arab Formation in Satah field: Proceedings of the 7th Society of Petroleum Engineers Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, SPE Paper 21448, p. 933 945. Keith, T., J. C. Cole, J. E. Mattner, S. I. Ozkaya, and K. A. Waak, 1998, A conceptual model for super permeability in Uthmaniyah field: GeoArabia, v. 3, p. 108.

Ehrenberg et al.

285

Loutfi, G., and M. Abul Hamd, 1989, Permian Khuff in Abu Dhabi: Geological re-evaluation using well logs, cores, testing, and seismic data: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 17979, Proceedings of SPE 6th Middle East Oil Show, p. 529 543. Lucia, F. J., J. W. Jennings, Jr., M. Rahnis, and F. O. Meyer, 2001, Permeability and rock fabric from wireline logs, Arab-D, reservoir, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 6, p. 619 645. Magara, K., M. S. Khan, F. A. Sharief, and H. N. Al-Khatib, 1993, Log-derived reservoir properties and porosity preservation of Upper Jurassic Arab Formation in Saudi Arabia: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 10, p. 352 363. Meyer, F. O., and R. C. Price, 1992, A new Arab-D depositional model, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 25576, Proceedings of SPE 8th Middle East Oil Show, p 465 474. Meyer, F. O., R. C. Price, I. A. Al-Ghamdi, I. M. Al-Goba, S. M. AlRaimi, and J. C. Cole, 1996, Sequential stratigraphy of outcropping strata equivalent to Arab-D reservoir, Wadi Nisah, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 1, p. 435 456. Meyer, F. O., R. C. Price, and S. M. Al-Raimi, 2000, Stratigraphic and petrophysical characteristics of cored Arab-D super-K intervals, Hawiyah area, Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: GeoArabia, v. 5, p. 355 384. Mitchell, J. C., P. J. Lehmann, D. L. Cantrell, I. A. Al-Jallal, and M. A. R. Al-Thagafy, 1988, Lithofacies, diagenesis and depositional sequence; Arab-D Member, Ghawar field, Saudi Arab, in A. J. Lomondo and P. M. Harris, eds., Giant oil and gas fields A core workshop: SEPM Core Workshop, no. 12, p. 459 514. Munn, D., and A. F. Jubralia, 1987, Reservoir modelling of the Arab D reservoir in the Bul Hanine field, offshore Qatar: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 5th Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 1987, SPE Paper 15699, p. 109 120. Nadeau, P. H., P. A. Bjorkum, and O. Walderhaug, 2005, Petroleum system analysis: Impact of shale diagenesis on reservoir fluid pressure, hydrocarbon migration and biodegradation risks, in A. G. Dore and B. Vining, eds., Petroleum geology: North-west Europe and global perspectives Proceedings of the 6th Petroleum Geology Conference, Petroleum Geology Conferences Ltd.: Geological Society (London), p. 1267 1274. Osterloff, P., et al., 2004, Depositional sequences of the Gharif and Khuff formations, subsurface interior Oman, in M. I. Al-Husseini, ed., Carboniferous, Permian and Early Triassic Arabian stratigraphy: GeoArabia Special Publication 3, p. 83 147. Powers, R. W., 1962, Arabian Upper Jurassic carbonate reservoir rocks, in W. E. Ham, ed., Classification of carbonate rocks A symposium: AAPG Memoir 1, p. 122 192. Rahim, Z., M. Y. Al-Qahtani, and I. Buhidma, 2001, Improved gas

recovery from acid or hydraulic fracturing: Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology, Spring 2001, p. 50 60. Sandberg, P. A., 1983, An oscillating trend in Phanerozoic nonskeletal carbonate mineralogy: Nature, v. 305, p. 19 22. Saner, S., and A. Sahin, 1999, Lithological and zonal porositypermeability distributions in the Arab-D reservoir, Uthmaniyah field, Saudi Arabia: AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, no. 2, p. 230 243. Schmoker, J. W., 1984, Empirical relation between carbonate porosity and thermal maturity: An approach to regional porosity prediction: AAPG Bulletin, v. 68, p. 1697 1703. Sharland, P. R., R. Archer, D. M. Casey, R. B. Davies, S. H. Hall, A. P. Heward, A. D. Horbury, and M. D. Simmons, 2001, Arabian plate sequence stratigraphy: GeoArabia Special Publication 2, 371 p. Strohmenger, C. J., R. H. S. Alway, R. W. Broomhall, R. F. Hulstrand, A. Al-Mansoori, A. A. Abdalla, and A. Al-Aidarous, 2002, Sequence stratigraphy of the Khuff Formation comparing subsurface and outcrop data (Arabian plate, U.A.E.): Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 78535. Swart, P. K., D. L. Cantrell, H. Westphal, C. R. Handford, and C. G. Kendall, 2005, Origin of dolomite in the Arab-D reservoir from the Ghawar field, Saudi Arabia: Evidence from petrographic and geochemical constraints: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 75, p. 480 495. Szabo, F., and A. Kheradpir, 1978, Permian and Triassic stratigraphy, Zargos Basin, south-west Iran: Journal of Petroleum Geology, v. 1, p. 57 82. Talu, H. S., and F. A. Abu-Ghabin, 1989, Depositional and diagenetic facies relationships, Khuff-C reservoir, eastern Saudi Arabia: King Saud University Journal of Earth Science, v. 3, p. 95 108. Videtich, P. E., 1994, Dolomitization and H2S generation in the Permian Khuff Formation, offshore Dubai, U.A.E.: Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 9, p. 42 57. Walderhaug, O., 1996, Kinetic modeling of quartz cementation and porosity loss in deeply buried sandstone reservoirs: AAPG Bulletin, v. 80, p. 731 745. Wilson, A. O., 1985, Depositional and diagenetic facies in the Jurassic Arab-C and -D reservoirs, Qatif field, Saudi Arabia, in P. O. Roehl and P. W. Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reservoirs: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 319 340. Worthington, P. F., Gaffney, Cline & Associates, and L. Cosentino, 2003, The role of cut-offs in integrated reservoir studies: Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE Paper 84387. Zeidan, R. H., 1994, Dolomitization and the development of secondary porosity in Arabian carbonate rocks, in M. I. Al-Husseini, ed., The Middle East petroleum geosciences (Geo94): Selected Middle East papers from the Middle East Geoscience Conference: Bahrain, Gulf Petrolink, v. 1, p. 927 939.

286

E&P Notes