IPTC 17505

Karachaganak Brownfield Vs. Kashagan Greenfield: Analogues Or "Apples

And Oranges"?
C. Albertini, L. Bado, F. Bigoni, A. Francesconi, K. Imagambetov, G. Leoni, V. Tarantini - Eni E&P

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2022 January 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees
of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Can Karachaganak field, in production since 1984, represent a good analogue for Kashagan field which is approaching the
production start-up? In fact the two carbonate buildups developed in the same geological context, the Pre-Caspian-Basin
margins, during the same stratigraphic interval, Visean-Bashkirian.
While their depositional facies are comparable, their internal architecture, as inferred from seismic, is different. Karachaganak,
affected in its early stage by tectonic, developed initially with aggrading mound complexes followed by prograding
clinoforms; it is characterized by biohermal deposits passing, in its upper part, to cyclic, grain-dominated platform interior
sediments. Kashagan started developing with a retrograding pattern followed by prograding and then aggrading patterns; it is
characterized by a large platform interior, made of grain-dominated cyclic deposits, surrounded by a narrow biohermal rim and
slope. The diagenetic overprint consists of marine cementation, dolomitization and later dissolution in Karachaganak while, in
Kashagan, an early diagenesis, dominated by cyclic subaerial exposures and karst was followed by late burial cementation.
The resulting reservoir qualities reflect these different geological backgrounds. Karachaganak, quite heterogeneous, is
dominated by microbial boundstone, in situ and breccias; it shows low porosity but locally high productivity when affected by
micro-fractures and vugs. These characteristics are consistent with the wide range of well performances historically observed
(orange!). Kashagan instead appears dominated by two rock types: platform cyclic grainy porous rock, having moderate
productivity and cemented poor rim boundstones affected by outstanding productivity because of the presence of both karst
and solution-enlarged fractures. These data support the expected bi-modal performances (apple!).

Introduction
Karachaganak field (KGK) is an onshore Kazakh field located in the northern area of the Pre-Caspian Basin. Discovered in
1979 and put in production in 1984, it represents one of the largest gas and condensate reservoirs in the world. Kashagan field
(KSG) is an offshore Kazakh field located in the southern area of the Pre-Caspian Basin (Fig 1). Discovered in 1999 and put
in production in 2013, it is considered one of the largest oil discoveries of the last 30 years.
These two giant fields consist of reservoir deposited during the same stratigraphic interval, Lower Carboniferous, in the same
environment of deposition, carbonate ramp/platform, at just a distance of about 600 kilometers but at the opposite side of the
same sedimentary basin.
The main difference between these two fields appears to be that while Karachaganak is a kind of brown field with an actual
achieved RF of about 10% and large amount of geological/dynamic data endorsed during the long production history,
Kashagan is a green field with a quite significant amount of geological data but no production history on which rely, definitely
affected by a lot of uncertainties.
Therefore Karachaganak should represent a very good analogue of Kashagan, a very useful tool to interpret the geological
data, to forecast the green field behaviour and to reduce the uncertainties.
This paper describes the comparison between the geological data of these two fields and the relevant interpretations, as per
Enis view, aimed to understand if they can really be considered as analogues.
2 IPTC 17505

Fig 1: Pre-Caspian Basin (PCB) and fields location

Regional Context
The Pre-Caspian Basin (PCB) is an elliptical paleo-depression located in the western part of Kazakhstan at the south-eastern
corner of the European Plate. The basin infilling consists of more than 20 km thick deposits including an evaporites sequence
(Kungurian-Ufimian-Kazanian) with variable thickness depending on the degree of halokinesis (Brunet et al., 1999).
The pre-salt sediments begin with siliciclastic sequences in Early-Mid Devonian evolving to mixed siliciclatic and carbonates
from Late Devonian along the margins of the basin. Major carbonate ramps were deposited between Frasnian and Visean
followed by biohermal carbonates (mainly located along southern and northern margins of the basin from Late Visean to
Bashkirian). Permian deposits are characterized by reefoidal carbonates, locally as steep build-ups on top of Carboniferous
banks, after a major unconformity associated with the regional hiatus of a significant part of Late Carboniferous (Kenter et al.,
2006).
During the Early Permian the PCB was progressively isolated due to the strong tectonic compression context; the Pre-Caspian
Sea underwent a strong evaporation creating the perfect conditions for salt deposition.
The post-salt succession is dominated by a thick sequence of continental red beds (Late Permian) whose deposition triggered
the salt movements that eventually led to the formation of minibasins filled during Mesozoic and Tertiary clastics sediments.

Stratigraphic and Sedimentological Framework

This paper is focused on the main reservoir units belonging to the Carboniferous sequence which is bounded by the Devonian-
Carboniferous unconformity and the Top Carboniferous-Permian unconformity (Borromeo et al., 2010).

During the Tournasian-Early Visean time gap a transgressive phase characterized the carbonate ramp deposits along the entire
edge of the Pre-Caspian Basin with shallow interior bank sediments inter-bedded with muddy layers. This phase was
concluded by the deposition of radioactive shaly interval which is recorded along the entire basin, i.e. the so called Tula Shale
in Karachaganak area and the equivalent High Radioactive Zone (HRZ) in Kashagan area.

The following phase, during Late Visean time gap, was characterized in the Karachaganak field area by the settling of
biohermal mounds composed by in-situ microbial boundstone. These mounds are surrounded by flank related deposits-
breccias, crinoidal limestones and intra-mounds bedded deposits. This kind of facies, quite heterogeneous, covers the whole
Karachaganak field area reaching an average thickness of about 90-100 meters. It appears to be related to a relative deep sea
level affected by a tectonic activity which, wearing out at the Visean top, broken up the field area in different blocks.
In the meantime southwards, in the Kashagan field area, it settled a carbonate platform composed of different delineated
environments of deposition: a large platform interior, characterized by grainy facies recording ciclicity, surrounded by a
confined margin, characterized by biohermal facies, passing outboard to a slope characterized by flank and basin related
deposits. The growth of the platform during this time gap shows an aggrading and prograding trend without apparently any
tectonic activity and the overall thickness is significant, about 250-300 meters, much higher than the one recognized in
Karachaganak.

During the Serpukovian time gap a quite complex internal architecture developed in Karachaganak. An initial aggrading phase
consisting of microbial biohermes forming high rising mound complexes developed both in the north and in the south of the
field; the shallow areas progressively recorded the first settling of cyclic platform sediments. This event was followed by a
prograding phase, up to 4-5 kilometers progress filling the intra mound complexes depressed areas; the progradation mainly
developed on the Karachaganak bank eastward and westward the aggrading complexes, while it was less noticeable along the
flanks. In the same time the cyclic platform facies extended laterally becoming the dominant facies during the Late
Serpukovian when reached a significant areal extension. The overall Serpukovian thickness is up to of about 400-450 meters.
In the meantime southwards, in the Kashagan field area, the stratigraphic framework appears to be less complex. It persists the
typical scheme of a symmetric carbonate platform, actually already recognized in Late Visean, composed by an interior
IPTC 17505 3

platform, a margin and a slope. It goes on also the prograding trend with a total progress/migration of about 2-2.5 kilometers
basinward and an overall thickness of about 60-100 meters, smaller than the one recognized in Karachaganak (Ronchi et al.,
2010).

Bashkirian time gap in Karachaganak area is just represented by few scattered problematic deposits because probably largely
eroded during the Top Carboniferous unconformity. On the contrary in Kashagan the Bashkirian interval is well-developed
showing an aggrading trend of the symmetric carbonate platform.

Finally Karachaganak, above the unconformity, is partially capped by a thick Permian pinnacle (up to 900 m) composed by
bioherm related deposits while in Kashagan the Carboniferous carbonate platform is sealed by the deposition of thin shaly
intervals and by the Kungurian salt domes (Fig 2).
The two platforms developed roughly in the same time-frame, but with different geometries and thicknesses. The
Permian/Carboniferous unconformity, moreover, had different effects on the evolution of the two fields: in Karachaganak the
Bashkirian was almost completely eroded, but after the drowning of the platform the carbonate sedimentation has been
recovered with development of a huge pinnacle, whereas no carbonate deposition restarted in Kashagan with the exception of a
thin shaly mudstone layer Artinskian/Asselian in age.

Fig 2: Karachaganak and Kashagan Stratigraphic Framework Sketch

Facies Associations
From a general perspective, the facies association of Kashagan and Karachaganak can be so summarized and described (Fig
3):

In Kashagan field alternation of grainstone deposits and mid to relatively deep water deposits, such as wackestone
and mudstone, are recognized in the platform interior. These facies, dominant in Kashagan, are present in large areas
of the field and are interpreted as well preserved 4th order cycles. The same facies are recognized also in
Karachaganak where, however, the cycles result to be present in more confined areas/intervals and characterized by
less frequent record of deeper facies like wackestone and mudstone.
In Karachaganak field instead the bioherm facies and their related deposits are widespread present and dominant.
Their organization changes in the different environments of deposition: in Late Visean (C7-C9) they consist in
scattered microbial boundstone (20-50m thick) in alternation with bioherm flanks deposits; in the following
aggrading interval they define massive in-situ stacked boundstone which create mound complexes (up to 250m thick)
associated with reworked flank grainstone and packstone deposits; in the prograding interval they consist in
boundstone deposits organized in beds 10-30m thick located at the tops of downward dipping clinoforms passing,
down dip, to boundstone breccias deposits. Similar facies can be recognized also in Kashagan field in the platform
margin and slope where in-situ boundstone deposits, dominant in the elevated portion of the rim, are associated with
boundstone breccias.
Similar rudstone and boundstone breccias can be observed in both fields. These facies are mainly located in the
4 IPTC 17505

steepest areas of the flanks of the carbonate build-up.

Distal mudstone facies have been observed only in Karachaganak being the distal area of Kashagan not yet appraised.

The Facies therefore appear to be very similar in the two fields, but their distribution is different with the grainy interior
platform facies dominant in Kashagan while the biohermal facies are prevailing in Karachaganak.

Fig 3: Sedimentological Facies: (a) KGK grainstone, (b) KSG oolitic grainstone, (c) KGK microbial boundstone, (d) KSG algae
boundstone. (Claps et al., 2009)

Environments of Deposition
The stratigraphic evolutions of the two fields outline different environments of deposition. Despite they straddle time lines,
these environments of deposition present homogeneous petrophysical characteristics which characterize the reservoirs. In
Karachaganak their definition has been optimized through a deep integration of geological and dynamic data. Therefore they
are characterised by peculiar Reservoir Properties according to core/log/Well test and production data (Bigoni et al., 2010) and
represent a good framework for the reservoir characterisation.

From Devonian up to Early Visean maximum Flooding surface (Tula shales-HRZ) both the fields experienced a very similar
and comparable evolution with deposition of shallow water, sub tidal to intertidal bedded limestones on a carbonate ramp.
From Late Visean the two fields started to differentiate each other.
Moving from the core of the carbonate build-up to the basin we can recognize, in Karachaganak field, the following
environments of deposition: (Fig 4):
Late Visean (C7-C9) EoD this environment of deposition represents the first settling, on top of Tula/HRZ shales, of
biohermal deposits which were controlled by syn-depositional tectonic. It extends all over the Karachaganak field
area.
Aggrading EoD this environment of deposition, areally confined to the core of carbonate build-up, overlays Late
Visean EoD and represents two main stages of aggradation when amalgamated Biohermal deposits developed huge
Mound complexes.
Cyclic Platform EoD this environment of deposition overlays Aggrading EoD and represents the settling of
platform sediments generally dominated by shallow to relatively deep-water lithofacies associations (grainstone to
wackestone-mudstone). They are, initially, limited to confined areas and then progressively extended towards the
margin of the field.
Prograding EoD this environment of deposition, edging the Cyclic Platform EoD eastwards and westwards,
represents the carbonate platform large progradation due to sea level falling.
Flanks EoD this environment of deposition surrounds the whole carbonate build-up and presents different
geometries, steeper southwards. It represents the transition to the sediment deposited in the basin.
IPTC 17505 5

Fig 4: Karachaganak Stratigraphic and Depositional Regions Sketch

A more simple framework has been recognized in Kashagan field where no production data are still available and the
geological data can be integrated only with few dynamic data represented by well-tests.
Moving from the core of the carbonate build-up to the basin we can recognize, in Kashagan field, the following environments
of deposition (Fig 5):
Cyclic Platform EoD this environment of deposition represents the settling, immediately on top of Tula/HRZ
shales, of sediments generally dominated by shallow to relatively deep-water lithofacies associations (grainstone to
wackestone-mudstone).
Transition Zone EoD this environment of deposition generally surrounds the Cyclic Platform EoD and is
characterized by the same lithofacies associations (grainstone to wackestone-mudstone). With the Cyclic Platform
represents the platform interior depositional region which is quite extended in Kashagan. However the higher
proportion of deep water facies suggests for the Transition Zone EoD a slightly deeper and lower energy conditions.
Rim EoD this environment of deposition generally surrounds the Transition Zone EoD and is characterized by high-
energy shoals grainy sediments alternated with biohermal associations (boundstone and breccias). This EoD results
generally raised above the platform interior. This fact has been related to the differential compaction between
boundstone facies and the grainy facies. Several evidences highlight that this EoD is characterized by enhanced
permeability related to fractures and Karst.
Flanks EoD this environment of deposition surrounds the whole carbonate build-up and presents different
geometries, steeper northwards. It represents the transition to the sediment deposited in the basin characterized by the
association of boundstone breccias, grainstones passing down-dip to wakestones and mudstones. However the
shortage of data, determined by both the few wells drilled in this area and the low recovery of the cut cores, make the
description of this EoD quite speculative.

Fig 5: Kashagan Environment of Deposition Sketch

The two fields appear to be characterized by different EoD. In Kashagan the framework appears to be quite simple with the
settling, from the beginning, of a carbonate build-up made of well delineated environments of deposition. Some EoD
recognized in Karachaganak, like Late Visean and Aggrading, result totally missing in KSG. In KGK the framework is highly
articulated, probably linked to a complex paleogeography and the presence of some EoD recognized in Kashagan, like the
lower energy Transition Zone and the raised Rim, not clearly identified.

Diagenesis and Dolomitization

In Karachaganak the diagenetic overprint consists of marine cementation, dolomitization and later dissolution. Dolomitization
process, the main diagenetic event, is time transgressive and affects the bank margins (Albertini et al., 2010). The replacive
6 IPTC 17505

dolomite has been imputed to two different mechanisms (Fig 6):

Geothermal convection acting mainly along the slope of the carbonate bank.
Evaporation and mesohaline water circulation developed within the shallow bank interior (cyclic platform).

Fig 6: Karachaganak Dolomitization Conceptual Model

The main effect of the dolomitization is a general increase of porosity of the original limestone and a homogenization of the
permeability values.

Fig 7: Karachaganak Dolomitization Impact on Reservoir Quality

The later dissolution in Karachaganak is represented by the vuggy porosity which is generally associated with the biohermal
facies. The vugs result aligned along microfractures along which the leaching fluids flowed.

In Kashagan the diagenetic overprint consists of an early diagenesis dominated by cyclic subaerial exposures and karst
followed by late burial cementation. Dolomitization process in Kashagan is in fact nearly absent while the multiple dissolution
phases represent the main diagenetic event.
Millimiter to centimiter in size dissolution features are observed on cores. They suggest multiple dissolution events with
different degree of intensity between the different Environments of Deposition:
Cyclic Platform is affected by moldic porosity and dissolution vugs up to centimeters in size.
Rim-Flanks are affected by very large dissolution caves, geobodies detectable at seismic scale, and dikes.

A later burial diagenesis, bringing cement precipitation in the inner platform and exotic fluids along the platform margin, is the
last diagenetic event recognized in Kashagan.
IPTC 17505 7

Fig 8: Kashagan Geobodies: Acoustic Impedance Seismic Volume

The two fields are characterized by different diagenetic over-print: in Karachaganak the dolomitization was dominant while in
Kashagan multiple dissolution phases were prevailing.

Petrophysics
In order to analyse and compare the petrophysical characteristics of Karachaganak and Kashagan, an integrated core database,
which includes more than 40000 samples of the two reservoirs, has been built. This database includes measurements at
different scales of observation ranging from micro-permeameter measurements to plug and whole cores routine and special
core analysis. Each sample is characterized in terms of sedimentological, diagenetical and petrographical facies (Francesconi
et al, 2009).
For a simplified comparison of the two fields, the different facies have been grouped into two main categories:
cyclic platform grainy deposits.
biohermal dominated deposits.

A K vs. Phi cross-plot is here utilized to compare the large populations of the two fields.

Cyclic platform grainy deposits (Fig 9):

It can be observed a general good overlap between the two clouds when we consider only the matrix samples not
affected by microfractures or vugs.
However in Karachaganak can be recognized also a subordinate separate population characterized by higher porosity
and referred to samples affected by dolomitization as the grain density confirm. This population is not recognized in
Kashagan.
In Karachaganak can be also recognized a large population, covering a wide range of porosity values, affected by
enhanced permeability related to microfractures and vugs. Also this population is not recognized in Kashagan.
On the other hand in Kashagan can be recognized a population of low porosity samples having high permeability
because fractured. This population is only partially present in Karachaganak.
8 IPTC 17505

Fig 9: Cyclic Platform Grainy Deposits Poro-Perm Cross-plot

Biohermal dominated deposits (Fig 10):

As for cyclic platform a general good overlap between the two clouds is observed when we consider only the matrix
samples not affected by micro-fractures or vugs.
In Karachaganak can be recognized also a separate population characterized by higher porosity and referred to
samples affected by dolomitization as the grain density confirm. It is very large population due to the fact the
dolomitization processes were very active in the depositional regions dominated by biohermal deposits, i.e. along the
flanks of the structure, at the toe of the prograding units and in some portion of the Late Visean where faults allowed
exotic fluids invasion. This population is not recognized in Kashagan.
In Karachaganak can be also recognized a large population, covering a wide range of porosity values, affected by
enhanced permeability related to microfractures and vugs. This population, with a lower number of samples and a less
wide range of porosity values, is also recognized in Kashagan.

Fig 10: Biohermal Dominated Deposits Poro-Perm Cross-plot

The comparison of the two main groups shows that the two fields have a similar K/Phi pattern for matrix samples not affected
by micro-fractures or vugs. However the dolomitic facies of Karachaganak show significant higher values of porosity and
significant differences can be recognized also in terms of samples affected by enhanced permeability.
In fact the enhanced permeability in Karachaganak is at small scale, often recorded in core plugs being mainly related to
aligned vugs, microfractures and small scale dissolution phenomena. On the contrary in Kashagan enhanced permeability is at
IPTC 17505 9

larger scale, related to strong dissolution phenomena creating karst features and caves observable at seismic scale (geobodies),
definitely not recordable at core scale.

Well Evidences
The reservoir qualities reflect the different geological characteristics of the two fields.

Karachaganak results to be quite heterogeneous because of both its complex internal architecture and diagenetic overprint. The
heterogeneous reservoir characteristics are reflected in the wide range of well performances historically observed and make
well behaviour prediction very demanding. Dominated by microbial boundstone, in situ and breccias, the reservoir shows low
porosity but locally high productivity where the microbial boundstones and breccias results to be affected by micro-fractures
and aligned vugs. Few moderate mud losses have been recorded in most of the field. Only in the confined western culmination
some wells experienced total losses probably in relation to the presence of dissolution interpreted as the result of a significant
emersion confined to this structural high. However, in general the enhanced permeability in Karachaganak results to be
described by events of small scale and a single poro/single perm formulation considered appropriate to simulate the reservoir
behaviour.

Kashagan instead appears dominated by two rock types: cyclic platform grainy porous rock, having moderate productivity, and
cemented poor rim boundstones affected by outstanding productivity because of the presence of both karst and solution-
enlarged fractures; the presence of these features has often required to switch the drilling mode into CHCD (Closed Hole
Circulation Drilling mode). These data explain and support the experienced bi-modal performances of the tested wells.
Therefore to simulate the reservoir behaviour, a dual porosity/dual permeability formulation was deemed necessary to describe
the iteration between the matrix and fractures/karst in the rim/flanks EoDs, while for the cyclic platform a single poro/single
perm formulation was considered adequate.

Conclusions
Karachaganak and Kashagan are carbonate build-ups deposited in the same geological context, the Pre-Caspian-Basin
margins, during the same stratigraphic interval, Lower Carboniferous, in the same environment of deposition, carbonate
ramp/platform, at a relative short distance, about 600 kilometers, on the opposite side of the same sedimentary basin.
On the basis of this background, the expectations were that the two fields could represent good analogues, both of fields being
mainly controlled by the sea level change of the basin. However, the analysis of the available data have highlighted some
similarities but also some significant differences.
The main similarities are the sedimentological facies and the rock matrix petrophysical characteristics. In fact discriminate
core and facies of the two fields is a very demanding target and the core petrophysical characteristics of the rock matrix, not
affected by the diagenetic over-print, are almost coincident.
The main differences are the stratigraphic framework and the diagenetic over-print, i.e. dolomitization and dissolution.
Although some of these differences can be considered just a possible interpretation, so subjective and questionable, some
others are hard data.
The possible reasons of these differences could be related to a different tectonic history. While Kashagan developed in a
relative quite contest, Karachaganak was probably affected, up to the Visean top, by a tectonic activity which broken up the
field area in different blocks. These events had impact on Karachaganak stratigraphic framework and then on the diagenetic
over-print.
However Kashagan is a green field and the data that are going to be collected in the next years will allow to better understand
differences and similarities between these two fields.

Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Republic of Kazakhstan, KPO and NCOC consortium for the permission to publish this paper.
Authors would like to thank all eni people somehow involved in Karachaganak and Kashagan project that during the years
have worked with us. Many thanks also to Claudio Musca for his collaboration in our department during his Master Thesis.

References
- Albertini C., Bigoni F., Borromeo O., Camocino D., Francesconi A., Luoni F. 2010 Karachaganak 3D
Modelling of Dolomite. SPE 139882, SPE Caspian Carbonate Technology Conference, Atyrau, Kazakhstan, 8-10
November 2010.
- Bigoni F., Francesconi A., Albertini C., Camocino D., Distaso E., Borromeo O., Luoni F. 2010 Karachaganak -
Dynamic data to drive geological modelling. SPE 139881, SPE Caspian Carbonate Technology Conference, Atyrau,
Kazakhstan, 8-10 November 2010.
- Borromeo O., Luoni F., Bigoni F., Camocino D., Francesconi A. 2010 Stratigraphic Architecture of the Early
Carboniferous Reservoir in Karachaganak Field, Pri-Caspian Basin (Kazakhstan). SPE 139887, SPE Caspian
Carbonate Technology Conference, Atyrau, Kazakhstan, 8-10 November 2010.
10 IPTC 17505

- Brunet, M.F., Volozh, Y.A., Antipov, M.P., Lobkovsky, L.L. - 1999 The geodynamic evolution of the Precaspian
Basin (Kazakhstan) along a north-south section. Tectonophysics 313, 85-106.
- Claps M., Zempolich W.G., Casaglia F., and Ronchi P. 2009 Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Kashagan
build-up, Carboniferous, Pricaspian Basin, Kazakhstan: AAPG Annual Convention Abstracts, v. 18, p. 44.
- Francesconi A., Bigoni F., Balossino P., Bona N., Marchini F., Cozzi M. 2009 Reservoir Rock Types Application
Kashagan. Paper SPE-125342-MS presented at the SPE/EAGE Reservoir Characterization and Simulation
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 19-21 October.
- Kenter, J.A.M., Harris, P.M., Collins, J.F., Weber, L.J., Kuanysheva, G., Fischer, D.J. 2006 Late Visean to
Bashkirian Platform Ciclicity in the Central Tengiz Build-up, Pricaspian Basin, Kazakhstan: Depositional Evolution
and Reservoir Development. In P.M. Harris and L.J. Weber eds., Giant hydrocarbon reservoir of the world: From
rocks to reservoir characterization and modeling, 7-53.
- Ronchi P., Ortenzi A., Borromeo O., Claps M., Zempolich W.G. 2010 Depositional setting and diagenetic
processes and their impact on the reservoir quality in the late ViseanBashkirian Kashagan carbonate platform (Pre-
Caspian Basin, Kazakhstan). AAPG Bulletin, V.94, NO. 9, PP. 1313-1348.