Develops a workflow for classifying pore types in carbonate reservoirs, suggesting improved hydrocarbon assessment methods.
Microscopic pore structure strongly controls hydrocarbon storage and flow in carbonate reservoirs, but objective and continuous pore-type classification remains difficult because carbonate pore systems are multiscale, heterogeneous, and commonly interpreted using experience-based criteria. This study develops a reproducible workflow that integrates 912 mercury-intrusion capillary pressure (MICP) datasets from 34 wells with 474 paired thin-section and core-photograph observations from the S oilfield. Principal component analysis (PCA) reduces eight pore-structure parameters to three interpretable components that describe pore-throat scale, distribution uniformity, and connectivity/displacement behavior, retaining 87.63% of the total variance. K-means clustering identifies four pore types for dolomite and four for limestone, with k = 4 selected using the elbow criterion, silhouette coefficient, centroid interpretability, and petrographic consistency. Modified injection-to-final-state analysis (MIFA) is used as an internal MICP-based consistency check rather than as a fully independent validation; paired micro-observations provide cross-scale validation with 81.22% agreement. Lithology-constrained GR, SP, and AC response windows are then used for intra-field upscaling to uncored intervals, and field-scale back-checking shows 87% agreement with existing geological interpretations. The workflow reduces interpreter subjectivity, provides physically interpretable pore-type criteria, and is applicable to carbonate reservoirs with comparable MICP, petrographic, and logging constraints.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: