Application of alternative digital rock physics methods in a real case study: a challenge between clean and cemented samples

High‐resolution three‐dimensional images are used in digital rock physics to numerically compute rock physical properties such as permeability and elastic moduli. These images are not widely available, and their preparation is both expensive and time consuming. All of these issues highlight the importance of alternative digital rock physics methods that are based on two‐dimensional images and use different approaches to compute effective properties of three‐dimensional samples. In addition, the scale of study in both standard and alternative digital rock physics is very small, which applications of its results are questionable at wells or reservoir scale. The aim of this study is to use two‐dimensional images and alternative digital rock physics techniques for computing seismic wave velocity and permeability, which are compared with well and laboratory data. For this purpose, data from one well in a reservoir located in the southwestern part of Iran are used. First, two clean (carbonate) and two cemented (limy sandstone) samples were collected from well cores at different depths. Then, two‐dimensional images by scanning electron microscope and conventional microscope were captured. In the next step, two alternative digital rock physics methods, namely, empirical relations and conditional reconstruction, have been employed to compute P‐wave velocity and permeability of a three‐dimensional medium. Results showed that, in clean (mono‐mineral) samples, velocity values were reasonably close to well data. However, permeability values are underestimated compared with laboratory data because laboratory data were obtained at ambient pressure, whereas alternative digital rock physics results are more representative of reservoir pressure conditions. Nevertheless, permeability–porosity trends are valid for both samples. In the case of cemented samples, a two‐scale procedure, along with a method for two‐scale computation and grain‐cement segmentation, is presented and developed. Results showed that P‐wave velocity is overestimated probably due to random sampling in this method. However, velocity–porosity trends are in agreement with well data. Moreover, permeability results obtained for cemented samples were also similar to those obtained for the clean samples.