PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 42, Issue 3, June 2015

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2015, 42(3): 358–368. RESEARCH PAPER

Three-dimensional carbonate reservoir geomodeling based

on the digital outcrop model
QIAO Zhanfeng1,2,*, SHEN Anjiang1,2, ZHENG Jianfeng1,2, CHANG Shaoying1, CHEN Yana1
1. PetroChina Hangzhou Research Institute of Geology, Hangzhou 310023, China;
2. CNPC Key Laboratory of Carbonate Reservoir, Hangzhou 310023, China

Abstract: To better know the spatial distribution and architecture of carbonate reservoirs, three-dimensional carbonate reservoir geo-
logic modeling based on the digital outcrop model (DOM) is proposed. Based on the traditional geologic study of outcrops, combined
with digitizing the outcrop walls by utilizing the advanced instrument (LIDAR, RTK-GPS, GPR, Gigapan, etc), DOM is built, from
which geological information based on measured sections and samples (litho-facies, porosity, permeability, sonic velocity) is extracted
and used to build the 3-D outcrop reservoir geologic model by modeling software. Eventually the 3-D reservoir geologic model of out-
crop is used to guide the subsurface research. The DOM-based 3-D reservoir geologic model for oolitic reservoirs of Triassic Feixianguan
Formation in Yudongliang outcrop, NW Sichuan Basin, reveals more realistic spatial distribution of litho-facies, porosity and permeabil-
ity, and their relationship, consequently providing more reliable evidence for seismic data interpretation and reservoir prediction of sub-
surface reservoirs with similar geological conditions.

Key words: digital outcrop model; carbonate reservoir; 3-D geologic modeling; Triassic Feixianguan Formation; oolitic beach

Introduction modeling.

Most oil and gas fields have a great amount of core and
well logging data, allowing the identification of vertical fea-
tures of reservoirs, but lack of valid means to delineate the
lateral heterogeneity of reservoirs in detail. Meanwhile, the
mismatch of resolution of 3-D seismic data and well data lim-
its the reliability of the reservoir models. Lateral features of
reservoirs and related reservoir properties can be described
and measured based on continuous outcrop[1]. LIDAR
(Ground-based light detection and ranging)-based Digital
Outcrop Model (DOM) is proved to be a valid technology to
study the outcrop recently[2,3], in which outcrops are scanned
continuously to get digital outcrops, and then combined with
the geological information obtained by traditional methods
(measured sections, sampling, survey, etc.), to build a more
realistic 3-D model. Zhu et al. (2013) and Zheng et al. (2014)
have used the LIDAR to study the delta and reef bodies, re-
spectively[4,5]. This paper proposed a 3-D geologic modeling
method based on multiple outcrop digitalizing systems (in-
cluding LIDAR, RTK-GPS, GPR, and Gigapan, etc.), inte-
grating the outcrop geologic study, reservoir geologic model-
ing, and reservoir study together. The method can provide
more reliable analog to better understand the reservoir fea-
tures and to minimize the uncertainty of reservoir geologic
1. Reservoir geologic modeling
The outcrop-based reservoir geologic modeling includes
five parts: outcrop selection, outcrop geologic study, DOM
building, outcrop reservoir geologic modeling, and application
in subsurface reservoir analog.
1.1 Outcrop selection
Outcrop condition and representativeness to the subsurface
reservoir control the quality of the outcrop geologic model
and application effect, so outcrop selection is the first step of
the whole geologic modeling process. The key points in this
step include: (1) Clarifying the study purpose and deciding the
size of the geologic modeling outcrop, larger outcrop is used
to study the regional distribution of the reservoir, whereas
smaller size outcrop is better in delineating the internal archi-
tecture of the reservoir. (2) Making sure the selected outcrop
is similar to the subsurface reservoir. (3) Making sure the
selected outcrop meet the conditions for geologic modeling,
i.e., the geologic modeling outcrop should cover different
facies belt and be 1−2 km long for the best. Multiple exposed
windows of different strikes can produce more realistic 3-D
geologic model.

Received date: 05 May 2014; Revised date: 18 Mar. 2015.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: qiaozf_hz@petrochina.com.cn
Foundation item: Supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project (2011ZX05004-002).
Copyright © 2015, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368
1.2. Outcrop geologic study
As the basis of reservoir geologic modeling, outcrop geo-
logic study needs to objectively describe the spatial changes
in lithology, lithofacies, and petrophysics. Specifically, it in-
cludes the following parts: (1) Measurement of sections, in
which the space of sections is determined by the lateral
change of lithofacies; the lithologies and petrophysics should
be carefully described to find out their vertical variation pat-
tern; samples should be taken if necessary, and sampling in-
terval depends on the variation of lithology and physical
properties; GR ray and velocity data might be collected to
build the column and seismic modeling. (2) Lateral tracking
of key boundaries, such as sequence stratigraphic boundaries,
lithofacies boundaries, and geobody boundaries, to delineate
the internal architecture of the geobodies reasonably and real-
istically. (3) Observation of thin sections, measurement of
porosity and permeability, and classification of lithofacies in
which the classification of lithofacies is made with considera-
tion of the reservoir types and petrophysical features. (4)
Study of multiple 2-D sections to get a better understanding
on sedimentary model, the formation mechanisms and distri-
bution pattern of the reservoir, is used as the control parame-
ters during the building of 3-D models (lithofacies, porosity,
and permeability models).
1.3. DOM building
The outcrop is digitized by using advanced equipments and
technologies, and combined with the geologic information
obtained in geologic study, to organize and analyze the geo-
logic information in 3-D space.
1.3.1. Outcrop digitizing
The devices used to digitizing outcrop currently include
Fig. 1. Schematics of acquiring digital outcrop.
− 359 −
LIDAR, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Real Time Kine-
matic Global Positioning System GPS (RTK-GPS), and Gi-
gapan, etc. LIDAR produces almost realistic digitial outcrop
by laser scanning the outcrop point by point, with the X, Y,
and Z coordination calculated by the recorded one-way travel
time multiplying the speed of light, combined with the coor-
dination and angle of the scanner head[2] (Fig. 1). The step of
laser points is dependent on the distance between the scanner
and outcrop and the needed precision. To avoid the failure of
data capture caused by the irregular outcrop surface, it is im-
portant to choose the right scanning direction and scanning
range and to ensure sufficient overlap between two scans and
the full coverage of the outcrop[2]. The scans are merged one
by one by picking and matching at least three points in
neighboring two scans, to produce a realistic 3-D digital out-
crop.
The intensity (or color difference) of laser data set is mainly
controlled by the amount of reflected laser (e.g. smooth de-
gree of the outcrop surface), and, thus doesn’t have geological
meanings, and usually has visual error. Therefore, it needs the
assistance of high resolution photography to decipher geo-
logic information (such as lithofacies and boundaries) accu-
rately.
Gigapan captures the pictures of outcrops by controlling the
moving of camera at certain space. The captured pictures can
be merged in software to produce a high resolution panorama
(Fig. 1), which is helpful to correct the visual error of laser
data set during geologic analysis.
With one basement antenna and one mobile antenna,
RTK-GPS, one of the most precise positioning technology,
corrects the position of the mobile antenna by using the inter-
action between basement antenna and satellite. It is available
to position the samples and key boundaries at cm-level accu-
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368
racy in real-time, to delineate the architecture of geobodies
(Fig. 1).
GPR calculates the location (depth) of the geobodies in the
subsurface by stimulating and receiving high frequency elec-
tromagnetic wave and acquires the 2-D and 3-D data set by
moving the stimulator and receiver step by step, similar to the
seismic acquisition (Fig. 1). GPR is able to acquire the depth
and shape of geobodies less than 20 m below the ground and
to delineate lithofacies and effective reservoirs by finding out
the relationship between electrical property and lithofacies
and physical properties of reservoirs. By combining with the
outcrop surface data (LIDAR and RTK-GPS), GPR can enrich
3-D information, and help solve the scale difference between
well data and seismic data. The effect of GPR is strongly in-
fluenced by topographic relief, vegetation, and underground
water, etc.
The devices digitizing outcrop should be selected according
to the characters of the devices and the outcrop condition.
LIDAR, GPR and Gigapan are suitable for nearly vertical
outcrop walls; whereas RTK-GPS and GPR are suitable for
nearly horizontal outcrop walls (Fig. 1). Usually, it is unnec-
essary or impossible to use all devices to digitize one outcrop.
1.3.2. Combination of digital outcrop and geological
information
The digital outcrop is just a series of points with spatial in-
formation and needs to be combined with geological informa-
tion. By comparing to the panorama, the measured sections
and sampling positions are marked on the LIDAR data set by
digitzing their path on the centimeter-scale point clouds in the
software of Polywork. This step controls the precision of
lithofacies and other geological information in 3-D space[3].
This process converts each measured section to a 3-D line or
pseudowell. Constrained by the location on the pseudowells,
key boundaries are traced laterally on the DOM. Finally,
based on sampling points and measured lithofacies thickness,
the geologic information (including lithofacies, porosity and
permeability) is loaded on the pseudowell track. Then through
comparing high resolution photos and calibrating by measured
sections, the digital outcrop can be geologically interpreted in
detail. The geological information on the peseudowell and the
boundary lines on the outcrop are used as the input data of
geologic modeling. The digital outcrop set combining geo-
logical information is called DOM.
1.4. Outcrop reservoir geologic modeling
The building of an outcrop reservoir geologic model in-
cludes three steps: stratigraphic framework building, lithofa-
cies model building, and petrophysics model building. Reser-
voir geologic model can be built by software such as Gocad,
and Petrel, etc.
(1) Stratigraphic framework building. First, the boundary
lines on the DOM are extrapolated to build 3-D horizons. The
consistency between the extrapolated 3-D horizons and the
− 360 −
actual geologic condition, the basis of building realistic strati-
graphic framework, is related to the distribution of controlling
points (outcrop walls). Then the framework is layered ac-
cording to the geological features of the geobodies between
horizons. Intra-unit layering options include proportional,
onlapping, downlapping, or truncational[6], and the vertical
thickness of the grids should be consistent with the sampling
space as far as possible.
(2) Lihtofacies modeling. In the 3-D stratigraphic frame-
work, by using the lithofacies on the pesudowell as input data,
the proportion of every lithofacies in each layer is calculated
as conditioning data, and, in combination with the knowledge
obtained during lateral tracking, is used to select suitable al-
gorithms and variograms to extrapolate the lithofacies infor-
mation on the pesudowell throughout the volume, to form a
3-D lithofacies model.
(3) Petrophysics modeling. In this step, the measured po-
rosity and permeability measured on plug collected along the
measured sections are used as input controlling data and up-
scaled to the neighboring grid cells using arithmetic average
and geometric average respectively. Finally, the upscaled
porosity and permeability on the peseudowells are extrapo-
lated throughout the volume by choosing suitable algorithms,
respectively, under the control of lithofacies model.
As the modeling with software only reflects the mathematic
results, the quality control of the models need to base on the
geologic knowledge obtained from the outcrop to adjust the
iteration times, interpolation algorithms, selected parameters
and attribute control. The final reservoir geologic models
should be able to realistically show the spatial distribution and
internal architecture of the lithofacies and reservoirs.
1.5. Analog with subsurface reservoirs
The application of DOM in the subsurface reservoir re-
searches contains three aspects: (1) 2-D and 3-D analysis of
outcrops by using the digitizing methods give us more realis-
tic understanding on geobodies, and lithofacies models and
sedimentary facies models are more consistent with the sub-
surface geologic features, which would provide more realistic
conceptional model for reservoir geologic modeling based on
well logging and seismic data. (2) By analyzing the relation-
ship between lithofacies and velocity, seismic forward models
can be built based on the lithofacies model, by which the ef-
fect of seismic attributes on the seismic response of lithofacies
is analyzed so as to provide bases for the seismic interpreta-
tion of formations and parameter selection in reservoir predic-
tion. (3) Small scale reservoir geologic models can character-
ize the internal architecture of reservoirs in detail and deline-
ate the flow units more realistically, which is of great guid-
ance for reservoir development.
In real application, because of different research objectives,
the process needs to be adjusted according to the real situation:
for example, for large scale reservoirs, large outcrops several
kilometers long with larger interval between measured sec-
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368
tions are required, in this case, LIDAR needs to be used along
with RTK-GPS to obtain sufficient data, and the application in
subsurface reservoir study is providing conceptional model
and seismic forward model; Whereas small scale reservoir
structure models only ask for small but continuous outcrops,
with denser measured sections, in this case, LIDAR would be
able to cover the outcrop, and the application in subsurface
formation study would be the analysis of flow units, as the
scale of the outcrop is not big enough for seismic forward
modeling.
2. Case study
2.1. Outcrop selection
The aim of this study is to characterize the interwell het-
erogeneity of platform marginal oolitic reservoir of Lower
Triassic Feixianguan Formation on the west of Kaiji-
ang-Liangping Trough in Sichuan Basin. The modeling area
called Yudongliang Outcrop, is 50 km northeast of Jiangyou
City in Northwestern Sichuan Basin, situated at the same
platform margin and similar in geologic settings with the
Longgang and Yuanba gas fields. Cropping out for about 220
m continuously perpendicular to the strike of platform margin,
the outcrop allows accurate characterization of the interwell
heterogeneity of the oolitic shoal. Feixianguan Formation
consists of two 3rd order sequences (upper sequence and lower
sequence)[7]. The modeling section is located in the upper part
of HST of the lower sequence, consisting of three 4th order
cycles and seven upward-shallowing 5th order cycles (Fig. 2),
corresponding to the main reservoir section underground.
2.2. Outcrop geologic study
2.2.1. Field survey
To control the vertical and lateral features of the oolitic
shoal, five sections 20−50 m in space were measured in detail
to build the composite columnar section of the reservoir (Fig.
2). Two hundred plugs were sampled at the interval of 10-50
cm according the variation of lithofacies, to make thin sec-
tions and test porosity and permeability. The key interfaces
(high frequency sequence boundaries, lithofacies boundaries,
pinchout points) were traced laterally to record the change in
lithofacies and the feature of sedimentary structures. Finally,
the reservoir sedimentary features were analyzed in the high
frequency sequence framework.
2.2.2. Types and features of lithofacies
Based on outcrop and thin-section observation, 7 types of
lithofacies are identified (Table 1).
Comparison with modern depositional systems and cases
abroad shows that the oolitic shoal in the modeling section
shares similar lithofacies with Bahamian oolitic shoals[8−10]
and Triassic oolitic shoals in Germany[11]. Oncoid packstone
and peloid/intraclastic packstone are the sediments in rela-
tively low energy back flank of the margin to platform interior,
− 361 −
in which the presence of small scale bidirectional cross bed-
ding indicates the influence of tidal activities. Ooid grainstone,
well sorted, with thick cross bedding and short lateral exten-
sion, is interpreted as sediments in tidal channels. Laminated
ooid dolograinstone, fenestral laminae dolomite, and crystal-
line dolomite are the product of the ooid shoal transforming
into the tidal flat during the late HST. The sedimentary struc-
ture and lithofacies assemblages indicate that the ooid shoal in
the modeling section is the moderate to high energy sediments
in the back flank of platform margin, and the platform margin
has obvious tidally controlled features.
Different types of lithofaces have distinctive pore-types and
porosity and permeability features (Table 1). According to the
classification of carbonate pores suggested by Choquette and
Pray (1970)[12] and Lucia (1983)[13], limestone reservoirs
mainly have isolated pores like moldic pores, with porosity
ranging from 0 to 5%, up to 10% in some rare cases, and
permeability of less than 0.1×10−3 ȝm2, up to 2×10 3 ȝm2 in
ˉ
some rare cases (influenced by fractures). Without fractures
and intergranular pores, limestone would not form effective
reservoir. Modified by dolomitization, there are fenestral
pores and intercrystalline pores developing in peloid/intraclas-
tic bindstone, which makes this rock higher in porosity and
permeability, thus effective reservoir.
With a variety of pores, including moldic pores and inter-
granular pores, dolomite reservoirs are much higher in poros-
ity and permeability than limestone reservoirs (Table 1). Ooid
dolograinstone has the best porosity and permeability, with
porosity ranging from 0.823% to 27.270% (averaging
16.210%) and permeability ranging from 0.001×10−3 ȝm2 to
50.630×10−3 ȝm2, and samples more than 0.1×10−3 ȝm2 in
permeability account for about 85%. In addition, dolograin-
stone samples dominated by intergranular pores have signifi-
cantly higher permeability than samples dominated by moldic
pores. Crystalline dolomite has a wide porosity and perme-
ability range, and good correlation between porosity and per-
meability due to the filling degree of calcite. Fenestral lami-
nae dolomite mainly has fenestral pores and moldic pores
(isolated pores), with a porosity of 1.49% to 23.63% (averag-
ing 7.51) and permeability of (0.001−30.190)×10−3 ȝm2, and
67% of samples are lower than 0.1×10−3 ȝm2 in permeability.
Uneven fenestral pores and moldic pores and calcite filling
lead to poorer porosity and permeability, and the presence of
micro-fractures enhances the permeability of some samples.
2.3. Digital outcrop model
Since the outcrop is nearly vertical, LIDAR and Gigapan
were used to digitize the outcrop. Thick surface vegetation
and uneven terrain make it not suitable for GPR acquisition.
The step of LIDAR scanning was set at 15-20 mm, precise
enough to acquire the detail information of the outcrop.
Eventually, multiple scans were merged to form a realistic
digital outcrop wall (Fig. 3).
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368

Fig. 2. Composite columnar of sedimentary and reservoirs in Section 1 of Yudongliang outcrop.

− 362 −
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368

Table 1. Lithofacies and reservoir properties of the oolitic shoal of Feixianguan Formation in Yudongliang outcrop.

Fig. 3. LIDAR scanning result of Yudongliang outcrop (colors stand for different scans).

The sampled points in sections, then, were digitized into minimum space of sampling. With the assistant of the pano-
peseudowells with the point space of 10 cm according to the rama obtained by Gigapan, the key interfaces (high frequency

− 363 −
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368
sequence boundaries, lithofacies boundaries, and outlines of
tidal channels and cross beddings) were traced on the digital
outcrop constrained by the interface points on the peseudow-
ells (Fig. 4a). Finally, the geological information, such as in-
terfaces, sampling position, lithofacies, porosity, and perme-
ability, etc, was loaded on the outcrop in the form of peseu-
dowell, transforming the digital outcrop into DOM (Fig. 4a).
2.4. Geologic models of outcrop reservoir
2.4.1. 3-D stratigraphic framework
The outcrop exposed along a river valley with irregular
surface is favorable for the building of realistic 3-D horizons.
The boundary lines traced on the DOM were extrapolated by
using the minimum curvature interpolation according to the
observation that the boundaries of high frequency sequences
and lithofacies appear like “layered cake” in inter-well scale.
The extrapolation was also controlled by external trend sur-
face built according to the dip angle of 22 degree and inclina-
tion of 268 degree measured on the outcrop.
In between the modeled horizons, intra-unit layering was
either proportional, onlapping, downlapping, or truncational.
In the crossbedding grainstone interval, the intraunit layering
was built using external trend surface to mimic the internal
structures of oolitic shoal. With 622 layers, and horizontal cell
size of 1 m×1 m, the 3-D geologic model of the outcrop 25 m
thick is made of more than 13.5 million cells.
2.4.2. Lithofacies model
In the 3-D stratigraphic grid, with the lithofacies informa-
tion from the pseudowells as input data, and distribution
Fig. 4. Schematics showing the combination of digital outcrop and geological information.
− 364 −
probability of each lithofacies in each layer as control data,
the lithofacies was modeled in the whole grid system to obtain
the 3-D lithofacies model of the (Fig. 5a and b).
The geologic study and lithofacies model on the outcrop
show that: 1) The modeling section consists of two parts,
FHS-1 located in the middle to lower part of HST, only ex-
poses the top part, where oncoid packstone is laterally con-
tinuous, with oolitic grainstone on top. The lower to middle
part of FHS-2 (FFHS-2 and FFHS-3) consists of interbedded
peloid/intralclastic packstone, oncoid packstone, and ooid
grainstone, which are interfingered laterally with relatively
poor continuity; the upper part of FHS-2 consists of
tidal-controlled oolitic shoal with intraclastic bindstone at the
bottom. The top part of FHS-2 consists of tidal flat fenestral
laminae dolomite in the north part and limestone in the south
(Fig. 5). FHS-2 indicates the stage of water shallowing and
transit from oolitic shoal to tidal flat. FHS-3 consists mainly
of ooid dolograinstone, interbedded with crystalline dolomite
and fenestral laminae dolomite, constituting the upward-
shallowing cycle of ooid dolograinstone to crystalline dolo-
mite/fenestral laminae dolomite, and the ooid dolograinstone
has good lateral continuity. 2) Different lithofacies are differ-
ent in size. The oncoid packstone in FFHS-1 with a stable
thickness of about 2 m laterally extends beyond the outcrop,
whereas that in FFHS-3, 0.5−2 m in thickness, 100−150 m in
lateral extension, interbeds with ooid grainstone and
peloid/intraclastic packstone. The peloid/intraclastic pack-
stone, 0.3−2.0 m thickness, with larger changes in thickness,
interbeds with oolitic limestone and oncolite limestone, and
extends laterally over 150 m. The intraclastic bindstone is in
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368

Fig. 5. 3-D lithofacies model of the oolitic shoal in Yudongliang outcrop.

patch shape, 0.1−1.0 m thickness and about 10 m width. The
fenestral laminae dolomite, 0.3−1.0 m thickness and 50−150
m widith, associates with crystalline dolomite in both vertical
and lateral direction. The crystalline dolomite is 0.4−1.5 m in
thickness, and about 20−100 m in lateral extension relating to
thickness. The ooid dolograinstone is mostly 1−2 m thick in
single layer, and over 200 m in lateral extension.
2.4.3. Petrophysical model
Observation of thin-sections and porosity measured from
plugs show that all lithofacies in the modeled section have the
potential to develop pores, consequently, all porosity and
permeability data obtained from plugs were used as control
points. The petrophysical values measured on plugs collected
from the measured sections were upscaled to the neighboring
grid cells using arithmetic average and geometric average of
point data for porosity and permeability respectively. Since
the study area has obvious changes in lithofacies, and it is
intergranular pores that mainly control the reservoir perme-
ability[13], intergranular pore model was built first, then util-
ized to constrain the permeability modeling, this process of
model building stresses on the control effect of rock fabrics on
reservoir physical properties (Fig. 6a and 6b).
The porosity and permeability models are consistent with
lithofacies on the whole. The porous zones mainly occur in
the ooid dolograinstone, and some in ooid grainstones (2%<
Porocity<5%). In the dolomite section, even though most part
of dolomite has a porosity of more than 5%, the vertical varia-
tion of porosity is significant, and the porosity is less than 5%
in some layers; additionally, lateral heterogeneity is also
strong, and the north part of modeling outcrop has obviously
higher porosity. In the permeability model, the oncoid pack-
stone, peloid/intraclastic packstone, and ooid grainstone in the
lower part of the section all are less than 0.1×10−3 ȝm2 in per-
meability, and the zones more than 0.1×10−3 ȝm2 in perme-
ability are mostly in dolomite intervals. High permeable

Fig. 6. Porosity model and permeability model of Yudongliang outcrop.

− 365 −
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368
layers in dolomite are in thin layers separated by intervals less
than 0.1×10−3 ȝm2 in permeability. Moreover, all sublayers are
significant in lateral permeability variation.
2.5. Application of the geologic model
Through the geologic modeling of Yudongliang outcrop, we
have got a deeper understanding on the inter-well heterogene-
ity of the oolitic reservoirs.
2.5.1. Development features of effective reservoirs
The outcrop reservoir geologic model reveals the distribu-
tion of effective reservoirs (Fig. 7). In the lithofacies model,
the interval more than 2% in porosity in the limestone section
takes up about 30% (Fig. 7a), in which the main reservoirs
consist of the ooid grainstone of upper FHS-1 and middle and
upper FHS-2, and a small amount of oncoid packstone,
peloid/intraclastic packstone, and intraclastic bindstone also
have good physical properties. In contrast, the dolomite, with
a porosity of more than 2% in most part, accounts for 95% of
the whole reservoir storage capacity. The effective reservoirs
(Porocity>2% and Permeability>0.1×10−3 ȝm2) take up about
50% of the modeled section (Fig. 7b).
There are only a few reservoirs developing in the lower
limestone section, mainly ooid grainstone and intraclastic
bindstone, thin, small in scale, and poor in continuity, they are
not productive without fracturing. The oncoid packstone and
peloid/intraclastic packstone can also be effective reservoir,
but too small in distribution, they are regarded as ineffective
too.
The upper dolomite, the major effective reservoir section,
features thin layers and lateral pinchout, and is separated ver-
tically by barriers. Ooid dolograinstone takes up the most
proportion of the effective reservoirs, crystalline dolomite,
and fenestral laminae dolomite also take up a small proportion
of reservoirs. Laterally, ooid dolograinstone, crystalline dolo-
mite, and fenestral laminae dolomite could be interfingered.
Overall, the size, shape and frequency of effective reservoirs
are consistent with the lithofacies features.
Fig. 7. The distribution of effective reservoirs in modeling section of Yudongliang outcrop.
− 366 −
2.5.2. Distribution of barriers
The layers less than 2% in porosity and 0.1×10−3 ȝm2 in
permeability are called barriers in flow units, separating the
effective reservoir into thin layers (Figs. 7 and 8).
Analysis of thin section and petrophysical data show reser-
voir barriers in Yudongliang outcrop are of three origins: (1)
barriers caused by different petrophysical properties of litho-
facies; (2) barriers caused by difference in relative permeabil-
ity in one lithofacies; (3) impermeable layers generated during
diagenesis. The permeability difference between different
lithofacies could be up to several magitude orders, especially,
the fenestral laminae dolomite, with permeability much lower
than ooid dolograinstone and crystalline dolomite, can act as
barrier for fluid flow. The difference of relative permeability
in a single lithofacies is largely caused by rock fabric differ-
ence, for example, intergranular pore-dominated ooid dolo-
grainstone and molidc pore-dominated ooid dolograinstone
have obviously different permeability ranges. These two types
of ooid dolograinstone, with origins related to the frequent
fluctuation of sea level, are usually interbedded, and conse-
quently, leading to the vertical permeability difference in a
single lithofacies. Although both of them meet the standard of
effective reservoir, the obvious difference in permeability
results in compartmentalization of flow units. The diagene-
sis-induced impermeable layers are usually zones strongly
cemented by calcite. In the lower part of high frequency cy-
cles, the meteoric dissolution caused oversaturation and pre-
cipitation of calcite, which results in destructive filling of the
pre-existing pores (commonly seen in ooid dolograinstone,
crystalline dolomite, and fenestral laminae dolomite), and
formation of laterally continuous barriers at last (Fig. 8) that
block fluid flow severely.
2.5.3. Inspiration of modeling to the subsurface oolitic
reservoirs
Through geologic modeling of Yudongliang outcrop, we
have reached a few understandings on the platform marginal
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368

Fig. 8. Features of barriers in the reservoir section of Yudongliang outcrop

oolitic reservoirs on the west of Kaijiang-Liangping Trough:
(1) The dolomite is the main reservoir rock, whereas the
limestone becomes reservoir only when intergranular pores
and fractures are abundant. According to previous studies, the
limestone reservoirs and dolomite reservoirs in Yuanba gas
field[14] and Longgang gas field[15] are very similar to those in
Yudongliang outcrop, ooid dolograinstone and crystalline
dolomite constitute the majority of reservoirs, and limestone
lack of intergranular pores and fractures is poor in petro-
physical properties.
(2) The oolitic reservoir has strong vertical and lateral het-
erogeneity. The migration of tidal channels segments signifi-
cantly the architecture of ooid shoal, causing strong lateral
heterogeneity there. The model shows that most of the litho-
facies extend 100−200 m laterally and then pinch out or tran-
sit to other lithofacies, except few layers of lower energy on-
coid packstone and peloid/intraclastic packstone that don’t
constitute effective reservoir. The ooid dolograinstone extends
more than 200 m, however, the complicated internal architec-
ture and cross bedding enhance the heterogeneity. Even
though natural gas can flow through cross bedding, the dif-
ference in permeability caused by different rock fabric will
influence its flow pattern. The vertical heterogeneity is mainly
controlled by the effect of high frequency sequence on the
oolitic shoals. The dolomite constituting the main reservoir
− 367 −
section consists of mainly ooid dolograinstone deposited in
shallow water and suffered from frequent exposure and disso-
lution by meteoric water, and the effect tidal-flat transforma-
tion give rise to interlayers of ooid dolograinstone, crystalline
dolomite, and fenestral laminae dolomite, with the effective
reservoir bed mostly 0.5−1.0 m thickness, over 1.0 m in local
areas.
(3) Geologic analysis reveals that the outcrop is geologi-
cally located in the back flank of platform margin to platform
interior. The distribution of reservoir lithofacies vertically and
laterally and reservoir heterogeneity are consistent with the
features of frequent facies change and ooid shoals separated
by tidal flats in the transit of the back flank of platform mar-
gin to platform interior. Thus, the geologic modeling of the
oolitic shoal reservoir is of great guiding significance for the
interwell geologic analysis at the edge of lithologic gas pools.
3. Conclusions
The carbonate reservoir geologic modeling based on out-
crop study, can reveal the distribution and internal architecture
of carbonate geobodies more objectively and provide more
realistic models for the study of underground reservoirs.
Outcrop selection and geologic study are crucial in the
geologic modeling. The condition of the selected outcrop con-
trols the quality of the final model, and the similarity between
 QIAO Zhanfeng et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2015, 42(3): 358–368
the selected outcrop and the subsurface reservoir determines
the validity of the model. The geologic modeling is fulfilled
by mathematic methods, but most importantly is based on
geologic study. Therefore, the geologic study dictates the re-
liability and rationality of the final model, and whether or not
the model can be used to solve the problem existed in under-
ground reservoir study.
The case study of Yudongliang outcrop illustrates the
method and flow of the 3-D carbonate reservoir geologic
modeling based on DOM, gives a deeper understanding on the
internal architecture and heterogeneity of the oolitic reservoir,
and proves the method is useful for oil and gas exploration
and development.
References
[1] Kerans C, Lucia F J, Senger R K. Integrated characterization
of carbonate ramp reservoirs using Permian San Andres For-
mation outcrop analogs. AAPG Bulletin, 1994, 78(2): 181–216.
[2] Bellian J A, Kerans C, Jennette D C. Digital outcrop models:
Applications of terrestrial scanning lidar technology in strati-
graphic modeling. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 2005,
75(2): 166–176.
[3] Janson X, Kerans C, Bellian J A, et al. Three-dimensional
geological and synthetic seismic model of Early Permian re-
deposited basinal carbonate deposits, Victorio Canyon, west
Texas. AAPG Bulletin, 2007, 91(10): 1405–1436.
[4] Zhu Rukai, Bai Bin, Yuan Xuanjun, et al. A new approach for
outcrop characterization and geostatistical analysis of mean-
dering channels sandbodies within a delta plain setting using
digital outcrop models: Upper Triassic Yanchang tight sand-
stone Formation, Yanhe outcrop, Ordos Basin. Acta Sedimen-
tologica Sinica, 2013, 31(5): 867–877.
[5] Zheng Jianfeng, Shen Anjiang, Qiao Zhanfeng, et al. LI-
DAR-based 3-D digital outcrop modeling and application in
geologic modeling: A case of modeling of middle Ordovician
reef-beach carbonate body at Dabantage Outcrop in Bachu
− 368 −
Uplift, Tarim Basin. Marine Origin Petroleum Geology, 2014,
19(3): 72–78.
[6] Tinker S W. Building the 3-D jigsaw puzzle: Applications of
sequence stratigraphy to 3-D reservoir characterization, Per-
mian Basin. AAPG Bulletin, 1996, 80(4): 460–485.
[7] Qiao Zhanfeng, Li Guorong, Long Shengxiang, et al. Charac-
teristics and evolution model of sequence stratigraphy of
Feixianguan Formation in the Northeast of Sichuan Basin.
Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2010, 28(3): 462–470.
[8] Gonzalez R, Eberli G P. Sediment transport and bedforms in a
carbonate tidal inlet: Lee Stocking Islands, Exuma, Bahamas.
Sedimentology, 1997, 44(6): 1015–1030.
[9] Rankey E C, Riegl B, Steffen K. Form, function and feed-
backs in a tidally dominated ooid shoal, Bahamas. Sedimen-
tology, 2006, 53(6): 1191–1210.
[10] Rankey E C, Reeder S L. Holocene oolitic marine sand com-
plexes of the Bahamas. Journal of Sedimentary Research,
2011, 81(2): 97–117.
[11] Palermo D, Aigner T, Nardon S, et al. 3-D facies modelling of
carbonate sand bodies: Outcrop analogue study in an epicon-
tinental basin: Triassic, SW Germany. AAPG Bulletin, 2010,
94(4): 475–512.
[12] Choquette P W, Pray L C. Geologic nomenclature and classi-
fication of porosity in carbonates. AAPG Bulletin, 1970,
54(2): 107–250.
[13] Lucia F J. Petrophysical parameters estimated from visual
description of carbonate rocks: A field classification of car-
bonate pore space. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1983,
35(3): 626–637.
[14] Hu Dongfeng. Difference and its origin of reef shoal complex
reservoir of Puguang and Yuanba Gasfield. Natural Gas In-
dustry, 2011, 31(10): 1–5.
[15] Zhu Haihua, Zhong Dakang. Characteristics and formation
mechanism of the Triassic Feixianguan Formation reservoir in
Longgang Gas Field, Sichuan Basin. Journal of Palaeo-
geography, 2013, 15(2): 275–282.