Integrated Fractured Reservoir

Characterization: A Case Study in a

North Africa Field
B.D.M. Gauthier, TotalFinaElf; M. Garcia, FSS Intl.; and J.-M. Daniel, IFP

Summary
In fractured reservoirs, data directly related to fractures are scarce
and 1D (e.g., core and image-log data). Other types of data are
more widespread (e.g., seismic data) but generally are related only
indirectly to fracture distribution. In such reservoirs, it is necessary
to understand and then to model the fracture network on a fieldwide scale by integrating all available data.
We propose a methodology to achieve this objective. The methodology establishes relationships between the fracturing and other
sources of data in a systematic workflow that goes from static 1D
data to a 3D dynamic model. The methodology is described and
illustrated with a case study from north Africa. In this field, fracture data from image logs and cores are related to (1) 3D seismic
attributes (e.g., amplitude, coherency), (2) fault patterns, and (3)
other types of well data (e.g., interval thickness, lithology index,
and porosity). Production data also are used to quantify the contribution of each fracture set to flow, which then can be mapped on
a reservoir basis with the more widely distributed log and seismic
data. The resultant set of maps then is entered into a dynamic
reservoir model. The methodology has been validated with a new
well, the fracture network of which was accurately predicted in the
reservoir by the model.
Introduction
Fractured reservoirs are by nature highly heterogeneous. In such
reservoirs, fracture systems control permeability and can also control porosity. Fracture modeling is therefore a key development
issue and requires an integrated approach from geology to reservoir simulation and well planning. Because fractures are below the
limit of seismic resolution, the static models of fractures are constrained mainly by well data (e.g., cores or image logs) using
conventional structural geology techniques.1 These models include
the mechanical origin (shears vs. joints), the geometry (orientation,
size, and frequency) and the typology (open vs. cemented) of the
fracture network. The fracture permeability then can be assessed
by relating the fracture aperture to the fracture excess conductivity
measured on electrical image logs,2 critically stressed fractures
within the present-day stress field,3,4 or both. It is the authors
opinion, however, that such approaches only give, at best, a relative estimate of permeability that must be calibrated against dynamic data. This requires the quantitative modeling of fracture
flow behaviors. At the drainage-radius scale of wells, discrete
fracture networks (DFNs)5,6 can be constructed and used to simulate flows and match them to well-test data.7 This allows us to
derive the fracture input parameters for reservoir simulation.8 Far
from wells, however, the lack of data makes DFN models very
uncertain. The static modeling of the spatial distribution of fractures at the field scale and the use of these models as input to
dynamic reservoir models are the purposes of this paper.
Methods have been presented to model field distributions of
fractures based solely on the fracture density measured along
wells.9 The scarcity of wells in which fracturing data are available

Copyright 2002 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 79105) was revised for publication from paper SPE 65118, first presented
at the 2000 SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, 2425 October. Original manuscript received for review 14 November 2000. Revised manuscript received 12 April 2002.
Paper peer approved 24 June 2002.

284

makes such a direct mapping difficult and very uncertain, however. Geometrical methods based on the fractal theory predict
subseismic fractures from seismic faults.10,11 These methods can
be hazardous when used to extrapolate over several orders of magnitude (i.e., from seismic faults down to core scale fractures) and
generally apply only to shear fractures, not to joint systems.12
Bourne et al.13 propose a geomechanical method to predict the
fracture distribution related to the elastic stress field perturbation
around faults. This technique does not allow the prediction of
fractures that do not result from the activation of seismic faults
(e.g., doming). Leroy and Sassi14 and Guiton15 suggest another
geomechanical method that relies on an idealization of the real
fractured rock by a continuum. They introduce opening and sliding
displacements to represent the reservoir-scale deformation and the
diffuse fracture patterns that accommodate it. This approach assumes a homogeneously fractured rock and therefore does not
predict fracturing or faulting localization. Heffer et al.16 propose a
geostatistical technique to interpolate strain/tensor components
supposedly related to fracturing. The estimation is conditioned to
well and structural data and is calibrated against well-test permeabilities. All these methods assume that the fracturing process is
related to a limited number of geological parameters that constrain
the mechanical behavior of fractured rocks. Although only one
parameter may be needed to characterize a fractured reservoir,1719
it is often the lack of a methodology to integrate the combined
effects of structure, thickness, and lithology that leads geologists to
focus only on the most important factor. With complex reservoirs,
however, more comprehensive descriptions are unavoidable when
producing reliable fracturing models. Ericsson et al.20 build an
empirical and deterministic approach to derive a fracture density
index that is a function of other indices related to reservoir variables like the structural curvature, the crestal distance, or the facies
type. Similarly, Agarwal et al.21 relate the fracture intensity to both
geological parameters and effective permeabilities to model field
permeability distributions. Their approach is less empirical but
remains fully deterministic (and hence inappropriate) to address
the uncertainty inherent in the spatial distribution of fractures or
permeabilities. Stochastic methods are the only way to account for
such uncertainties. One approach22,23 consists of using a multivariate, nonlinear regression function of secondary (geological)
parameters to fit well fracturing data (i.e., related to a fracture
index). The stochastic aspect addresses the uncertainty on the regression model by random sampling of the data set. Repeatedly, a
data subset is drawn and used to fit the regression function, which
can be accepted or rejected according to some correlation criteria.
If accepted, the multivariate regression function is applied to the
whole field to produce a realization of the fracture index. The
particularity of this approach is the use of a neural-network architecture to define the regression function. However, the approach
generates unconditional realizations (fracturing data are partly
honored) and does not allow the reproduction of any statistical
model as inferred from the data.
In this paper, a geostatistical approach is presented to simulate
fracture frequencies with the integration of primary fracturing data
and any variety of secondary geological, geomechanical, or seismic information reflecting the understanding of the fracturing process. In the following, the method is presented and applied to a
north Africa field. The results are validated against new drilling
data, and their use as input to a reservoir model is discussed.
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Methodology
Full-field static fracture modeling requires that we first characterize the geometry of the entire fracture network: orientation, frequency, and size. Orientations are often direct measurements (e.g.,
in image log data). Gauthier et al.1 describe a method to quantify
fracture dimensions from well data using the proportion of fractures that terminate within the wellbore. We focus here on the
spatial distribution of fracture frequencies for directional sets of
fractures observed in wells. The fracture frequency (FF) is defined
as the number of fractures per unit length measured perpendicularly to the fracturing plane. It can be seen as a fracture density
geometrically corrected to be independent of well directions.1
A geostatistical approach that is based on both multivariate
statistical analysis and sequential simulation is our proposed solution to the data integration problem.
Primary and Secondary Variables. Two types of variables are
considered for each oriented fracture set.
The primary variable, the one to be modeled, is the FF. FF
data are calculated at wells in which image-log or core interpretations are available.
Secondary variables (SV) are variables derived from field
data or simulation and potentially correlated with fracturing. Secondary variables can be of a different nature: lithological (porosity
distribution), mechanical (geomechanical simulation results), or
structural (seismic attributes like coherency or curvature). They are
known over the entire field (exhaustive information).
Modeling Steps. The two-step geostatistical approach tackles the
problem of modeling the spatial distribution of a fracturing variable (the FF) and quantifying the uncertainty about it. In the first
step, discriminant analysis is used to derive a single geological
component that best capitalizes the indirect information about the
FF from all secondary variables. In the second step, the objective
is to generate FF realizations that honor well fracturing data and
reproduce different statistical models inferred from the data. These
statistical models include the global distribution of the FF (histogram); variogram models that specify the spatial correlation of the
FF and its cross-correlation with the geological component; and a
bivariate distribution model of the FF and the geological component. The bivariate distribution model provides the conditional
distribution of the FF for any geological component value. The
geological component being known everywhere over the field, this
model determines the a priori FF distribution (before simulating)
at any location according to the local geological component value.
In that sense, the geological component carries information about
spatial fracturing trends. The roles of the two steps of multivariate
statistical analysis and sequential simulation are as follows.
Multivariate Statistical Analysis. As discussed earlier, it is
several secondary (explanatory) variables, taken together, that allow us to identify spatial fracturing trends. To integrate them into
the geostatistical approach, discriminant analysis is used to determine the linear combination of SVs that best distinguishes selected
FF classes (e.g., low, medium, and high fracturing classes). By
considering classes, discriminant analysis can recognize nonlinear
relationships with the SVs. Because the SVs are not necessarily
independent or linearly correlated, improved (i.e., linear) correlation can be obtained by transforming them into distribution probabilities (cumulative distribution function values). From the discriminant analysis, only the first component (the so-called geological component) is retained, provided that it indeed shows a
monotonic relationship with the FF. At this stage, the geological
component remains the unique secondary variable that capitalizes
at best all indirect information about FF.
Sequential Simulation. To better represent the rather complex
nonlinear relationship between the FF and the geological component, sequential indicator simulation is used to simulate the FF.
The integration of the geological component (secondary information) is done by cokriging through a Bayesian formalism in which
the geological information is converted into soft (probability-like)
data.24,25 A Markov model is adopted, which leads to a collocated
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

cokriging simulation approach, with the cross-variogram (between

FF indicators and soft probabilities) being written as a function of
one of the two autovariograms.26
Application to a North Africa Field
Geology of the Field. The case study is an oil-bearing field. The
porosity ranges from 10 to 35% (average is 20%). The matrix
permeability measured from core plugs ranges from 0 to as high as
1,000 md (several tens of md, on average), whereas the well-test
permeability is within the interval of 10 to 110 md. The ratio
between test and plug permeability, which is generally interpreted
as an indicator of fracturing effects, varies from 1 to 10. This ratio
barely reaches 10, which is the minimum ratio admitted to classify
a reservoir as fractured.19 Therefore, this field cannot be considered strictly as a fractured reservoir. It also can be noted that single
porosity/permeability reservoir simulations give, on average, good
well history matches. Bad matches observed in some locations
would be caused by high-permeability streaks related to smallscale faults, fracture swarms, or both. In other locations, fracturing
is believed to improve the matrix performance homogeneously.
In this field, a carbonate sequence of Late Paleocene age subdivides into an oil-producing upper reservoir unit and a mostly
water-bearing lower interval. These two units are separated by
nonreservoir shale/carbonate alternations. The upper reservoir unit
is subdivided into four layers that are 5 to 40 ft thick. They consist
of tight limestones (variably argillaceous), good-porosity limestones (locally interbedded with dolomitic streaks), and calcareous
shales. This study focuses on the good-porosity limestone layers.
The structural history of the field is quite complex but is generally interpreted as a transtensional basin, initialized in the Cretaceous and reactivated during the Tertiary. However, the tectonic
phase(s) post-dating reservoir deposition is (are) poorly documented. Fig. 1 shows the structural map of the top reservoir, with
the fault pattern at a deep level overlaid. One can note the change
with depth in the main strike of the seismically defined faults. At
the top, the faults are mainly oriented N120-130. This fault network developed just above the deep main trends, which strike
preferentially N170. Subsequently, the field structure can be explained by the reactivation of deep basement faults within an oblique extension regime. This structural style results in the dominant
oblique northwest/southeast normal faults and in N170 secondary
faults and flexures at the top of the reservoir. From the fault
pattern, the deformation seems to be concentrated on the flanks of
the structure just above the deep faults. Indeed, the top fault density and continuity increase in the southern part of the field where
the two main deep faults join.
The determination of the present-day stress field suggests a
maximum compressive horizontal stress, oriented east-northeast/
west-southwest, and a normal stress regime. This stress field is
therefore not compatible with the northeast/southwest-faulting extension direction. One could then argue that faults and fractures
were formed under of paleo-stress state and associated to dolomitization before hydrocarbon fill, which protected them from
cementation. The present-day stress field therefore cannot activate
new fractures or close the old ones.
Fracture Network Characterization. In faulted and fractured
reservoir characterization, both 3D seismic and horizontal wells
provide key data.27 On one hand, a seismic fault map can be used
to define fault control on small-scale fracturing; on the other hand,
horizontal wells help to characterize the geometry of the fracture network.
3D Seismic. In addition to clear seismic faults, interactive shadings of the horizon also support the picking of tiny features that
prove laterally coherent. The simultaneous analysis of several seismic attribute maps shows that these subseismic features also correspond to low amplitude and low coherence lineaments (i.e., a
standard fault signature).28 Image logs from horizontal wells also
validate this interpretation of faults (see the next section). The final
structural map is shown in Fig. 1. This map includes faults with a
vertical throw less than 10 m. Using this map and the image-log
interpretations, one also can demonstrate that fractures tend to be
285


i=N

S=

Vti dli

WS , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)

i=1

where N number of fault segments; dli length of segment i;

Vti average vertical throw along dli; and Ws surface of the
moving window.
This measure weights the faults according to their throw and
has the same dimension as strain. An accurate measure of strain
would have required more information than just the throw of
mapped faults. To avoid any misinterpretation, this map will be
called S-map in the following examples. Without evidence of
strike-slip movement in this field, the S-map can be seen as a good
approximation of the actual fault-related-strain field (Fig. 2).
Horizontal Wells. Although some 70 wells were drilled in this
field, the only available fracturing data come from image logs
along two vertical wells and five horizontal wells. Two of them are
located in the northern part, four are in the central part, and one is
in the southern part of the field. The five horizontal wells (Fig. 1),
drilled in the main reservoir unit, have various orientations, with
some of them turning 90 along the hole (multidrains). This data
set is therefore a representative sampling of the field fracture network. The quality of the image logs is good to relatively poor.
Fig. 3 shows the overall fracture interpretation. One can note that
the dominant fracture trend strikes parallel to subparallel to the
seismic fault trend. Fig. 4a shows the orientation distribution of
fractures in each well. The size of the rose diagrams is proportional
to the apparent average fracture density. A secondary east/west
trend can also be noticed locally. Fig. 4b illustrates the distribution
of fractures along one particular horizontal well. This interpretation shows that (1) the FF is much higher in the southern drain than
in the other horizontal wells and (2) the fractures are generally
distributed in background fracturing (0 to 2 fractures/m) and in
fracture swarms (3 to 9 fractures/m).
To better understand the parameters that control the observed
fracture distributions, other valuable information can be obtained
from the horizontal wells. Indeed, these wells provide highresolution data about facies and fracture density. Their 3D analysis
in a geomodeler, also depicting the reservoir layers and the fault
network, offers a powerful integrated picture of the reservoir. It is
also a good practice to highlight the correlation along wells to
refine the picking of intrareservoir layers from logs, especially
when horizontal drains repeatedly cross the same reservoir marker.
In addition, the interactive editing of markers and layer surfaces,
with the visualization of faults, allows us to verify the reliability of
the fault map. Such a visualization also can be used to understand
the occurrence of fracture clusters.
The highly fractured intervals along wells can be explained
either by fracture swarms located near faults or by dolomitic layers
known to be fractured (Fig. 5). These two configurations have
different impacts on the hydraulic behavior and the fracture modeling strategy. It is therefore essential to understand and be able to
recognize which configuration prevails at any location. In this
field, the 3D model helped to establish that the apparent correlation
between fracture cluster and dolomite is mainly caused by thin
dolomitic layers intersected repeatedly by wells, especially in the
southern part of the field.
Fig. 1Structural map at the top of the reservoir with deep
faults overlaid, and the well layout.

more numerous near subseismic scale faults. The fault map is

typically used to control the reservoir structural map and sometimes to modify interblock transmissibilities in the flow simulation
grid. Less conventionally, attributes related to the fault network
can be computed to map the faults areas of influence on reservoir
properties. This should be done when faults are suspected of inducing significant strain accommodated by fractures or pressure
solutions. Maps can be constructed that integrate the throw (i.e.,
vertical displacement) along fault traces within a moving window.
286

Relation Between Fracturing and Production Data. The relation between fracture and production data reflects the role of fracturing in the dynamic behavior of the field. Fig. 6 shows the
distribution of the productivity index (PI) over the entire field and
for both horizontal and vertical wells. The following comments
can be made: (1) the PI distribution is log-normal, which is indicative of wells drilled in a heterogeneous reservoir; (2) although
the best two producers are horizontal wells, the performance of this
type of well is not systematically better than vertical wells; (3)
wells located in the southern part of the field (where dolomitization occurred) show better production performances than those
located in the central and northern parts; and (4) the three regions
show the same type of PI distribution. It could be argued that this
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 3Stereoplot (Schmidt projection, lower hemisphere) and

strike histogram of raw open fracture orientation interpreted in
image log data.

Regarding seismic faults and fracture corridors, their capacity

to conduct flows is still difficult to assess at this stage. Indeed, a
pilot waterflood strongly suggests a high-flow-capacity channel in
the northwest/southeast direction that can be interpreted as the
effect of a fault, of fracture swarms, or both. This qualitative
analysis demonstrates that if fracture systems do play a role, they
are not the only factor contributing to permeability. Their modeling therefore should be part of a more integrated reservoir model
(see the next section).

Fig. 2S map. This map is one of the secondary information

sources about fracturing.

is related to the fractured nature of the field. However, the combined

effect of fractures and matrix heterogeneities is more likely here.
To assess the role of fractures qualitatively, well-parameter
ratios were calculated between the four central and northern drains,
and the most fractured well (S-H1) was taken as a reference. The
well parameters are PI, overall average fracture density, average
FF for the dominant northwest/southeast set only, and wellbore
length. Fig. 7 shows the results of this exercise. Though the southern reference well is two to seven times shorter than the four other
wells, it produces 3 to 15 times more. Two factors can explain this
behavior: (1) the matrix property with more dolomite in Well SH-1
and (2) the greater abundance of open fractures, especially those
striking northwest/southeast (the latter strongly influence the PI
ratio). Knowing that dolomite streaks tend to be more fractured, it
can be concluded that both factors play a role.
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 4(a) Fracture orientation in each studied well. The rose

diagrams are normalized according to the relative fracture density in each well. The well orientation is given in brackets.
(b) Example of along-hole FF distribution.
287

Fig. 6Relative PI distribution in the studied field for all tested wells.

Fig. 5Possible interpretations of fracture-density peaks in

horizontal wells.

Secondary Variables Affecting Fracturing in This Specific

Field. Fractures are interpreted here as conjugate shear fractures
related to faults. Their distribution over the field is related to the
presence of faults but also to the lithological control of dolomitic
streaks. Using the approach given by Barton et al.,4 it is found that
with the present-day stress field, only a few fractures of the east/
west family are critically stressed. This suggests that the presentday stress field cannot be solely responsible for the fracture permeability. Consequently, only parameters related to the paleostructural history and lithology of the field are likely to explain the
fracture sets. Four types of such parameters can be distinguished as
possible explanatory (secondary) information about fracturing:
Seismic-derived structural attributes: amplitude, coherence,
deep faults (distance from the projected faults, interpreted at a
deeper horizon).
Calculated structural variables: S-map and distance to the
top faults.
Log-derived lithological variables: porosity and gross thickness.
Core-related lithological variables: dolomite, calcite, and illite contents.
All these secondary variables are available as maps with values
known at the center of 100100 m2 cells (total number of cells
16,534). It should be noted that lithological variables are interpolated from a large number of well data, whereas structural
variables are fully defined by the seismic. This paper focuses
mainly on the modeling of the dominant northwest/southeast fracture set interpreted in four out of the five horizontal wells (data
from vertical wells and northwest/southeast-oriented C-H3 are
deemed unreliable).
Results. Fracture-frequency data are calculated every 25 m along
all wells, within a moving window of 25 m. The number of data so
calculated is 55. Among the 10 available secondary variables, only
six are retained here; the four others (calcite and illite contents,
porosity, and seismic coherency) are strongly correlated to them
and hence are redundant. The discriminant analysis and sequential
simulation results can be summarized as follows.
Discriminant Analysis. The number and ranges of fracturefrequency classes influence the results. Different class definitions
may lead indeed to different discriminant functions (i.e., geological components), which may be correlated differently with the
288

secondary variables. Two extreme cases are evaluated. One involves a few (three) classes representing low-, medium-, and highFF values. The other relies on many (approximately 20) classes,
with most classes containing no more than three or four data. This
second class definition allows us to distinguish the few highestfracture-frequency data, the latter belonging to the same class
(with other data) in the three-class definition. Fig. 8 shows the
discriminant analysis correlation plots, with the first two discriminant components represented by the x and y axes. With three
classes, the geological component is dominated by the seismic
amplitude and the deep faults, with a positive correlation, and by
the gross thickness and the distance to faults, with a negative
correlation. With 20 classes, the dominating explanatory variables
become the deep faults, the S-map, and the dolomite content with
a positive correlation and the distance to faults with a negative
correlation. The scatterplots of the FF vs. the first geological component is given in Fig. 9 for the two class definitions. Though the
two clouds of points look very similar, the three-class component
better separates at least some of the very small, high-fracture frequencies (i.e., cases from the two extreme classes). The reason can
be found in the number of classes; it is simply easier to distinguish
a few classes than many of them.
Sequential Simulation. The two previous geological components (with 3 and 20 classes) can be calculated at grid-nodes where
the secondary variables are known. Each geological component is
used independently as secondary (soft) information to simulate the
northwest/southeast FF with the sequential indicator simulation
approach presented previously. For each geological component,
100 realizations are generated from which probability maps can be
derived. The probability maps in Fig. 10 show that the northwest/
southeast FF be greater than or equal to 0.5 frac/m.
These probability maps call for some comments. First of all, the
maps look very similar in terms of trends and show similar high-

Fig. 7Comparison of various parameters between Well SH-1

taken as reference and the other horizontal wells.
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Dolomite
Strain

Second Discriminant Component

Second Discriminant Component

0.75

0.5

Deep Faults
0.25

Dist2Faults
0

GrossThick
Amplitude

0.25

0.75

0.5

0.25

Dist2Faults

Dolomite

Strain
Amplitude
Deep Faults
l

0.25

0.5

0.5

0.75

0.75

GrossThick
1

1
1

First Discriminant Component

0.75 0.5

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

3-Class Component

0.75 0.5

0.25

0.25

0.5

0.75

First Discriminant Component

20-Class Component

Fig. 8Correlation plots corresponding to the first two discriminant components for different class definitions.

NW/SE FF, fractures/m

and low-probability areas. The significant differences from one

map to another are in regions in which the model is in extrapolation situations (i.e., where the geological component is outside the
data intervals of Fig. 9). The northern part of the field is the most
illustrative. The 20-class geological component gives, in some
regions, a high probability of finding northwest/southeast fracture
frequencies greater than 0.5 frac/m; this is not apparent with the
three-class geological component. The latter relies on a class defi2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3-Class Component

Incorporation of the Results Into a Full-Field

Reservoir Model

Geological Component (dimensionless)

NW/SE FF, fractures/m

nition that gathers all fracture frequencies greater than 0.5 frac/m
into the same class without any distinction between them. The
northern high-probability regions therefore can be seen as influenced (in extrapolation conditions) by the high-fracture-frequency
data that the 20-class discriminant analysis function tries to fit.
Because these data are located in the southern part of the field,
their influence in the north can be questioned. Otherwise, both
probability maps show uncertain regions of medium probabilities
(e.g., from 40 to 60% chance). In these regions, the available
information is not enough to predict with confidence whether the
FF is above or below 0.5 frac/m. A comparison of this method with
the method of Ouenes et al.23 can be found in Gauthier et al.29

2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

20-Class Component

Geological Component (dimensionless)

Fig. 9Scatterplots of the northwest/southeast FF vs. the geological component for different class definitions.
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Reservoir (flow) simulations require that the fracture frequencies

related to small-scale fracture distributions be transformed into
equivalent dynamic properties. Because of the strongly coupled
influence of matrix, small-scale fractures, and faults on the average
well performances, a direct calibration to well-test permeabilities
is not suitable. Instead, the FF realizations are used to control the
generation of DFNs. The latter can be used in turn to upscale
fracture dynamic properties (see Bourbiaux et al.8 for details), to
predict fracture-network attributes for well planning, or to validate
the model against new well data, as discussed later.
Discrete Fracture Models. The FF and lithology are available on
2D and 3D grids, respectively, with the same horizontal resolution
(100100 m2 cells). The lithology is limited to three facies types:
dolomite, reservoir limestones, and tight limestones. Because these
facies types are not fractured equally, the FF must be simulated
again within each of these facies types (facies-dependent FF realizations). The methodology of Cacas et al.6 is used to model the
small-scale fractures (DFNs) as regional joint sets.
Given a particular vertical column of the 3D lithologic model,
the two fracture sets (northwest/southeast and east/west) are simulated with a Poisson process, honoring the following constraints.
Mean strike value, assumed constant at the reservoir scale.
The Fischer coefficient (measure of the standard deviation of
azimuth data) describing the strike distribution.
Lithology profile along the column.
289

Fig. 10Probability maps showing that the northwest/southeast FF will be greater than or equal to 0.5 frac/m for (a) the 20-class
geological component and (b) the 3-class component.

Average fracture density within each facies type. This constraint is controlled by a set of FF simulations in each facies type.
The same FF value applies to all cells within the same facies type
in the column.
The distribution of fracture lengths is also required to characterize fully the geometry of the DFN. Without information to
constrain this parameter, as proposed by Gauthier et al.,1 a lognormal distribution is considered. Sensitivity analysis shows that,
unless unrealistic, the fracture length has a limited impact on upscaling results.
290

Equivalent Flow Parameters of the Fracture System. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail the match of the
6-year history of the field. Instead, a procedure is presented to
derive, from simulated FF maps, equivalent dynamic properties
(e.g., kx, ky, kz) assigned to the blocks of a reservoir simulation grid.30
The simulation of flows in DFNs requires conductivities to be
assigned to fractures. Without evidence in this field of in-situ stress
controls of the fracture conductivity or of geographical aperture
variations caused by diagenesis, a constant aperture is assumed for
the entire reservoir. Consequently, lateral and vertical permeability
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

1 frac / 2m

Along-Hole Measured
NW/SE FF

1 frac / 5m

TVD (ft)
3,350

3,400
3,450

1 frac / 0.75 m

Prob (NW/SE FF >= 1 frac / X m)

Along-Hole Measured
NW/SE FF

Prob (NW/SE FF >= 1 frac / X m)

3,500

FF threshold
Dolomitic zones
Poor FMI data quality zones

4 m k

Fig. 11Comparison between interpreted and predicted northwest/southeast FFs in the dolomite facies along Well S-H2.

changes depend only on simulated facies types and FF. The constant aperture is calibrated by matching fluid-flow simulations in
DFNs to well tests or to some production data.
For computing reasons, DFNs cannot be generated in all cells
of the (full-field) 3D lithological grid to derive equivalent properties. Instead, the following procedure is proposed.
DFNs are generated in 1,000 cells drawn randomly in the 3D
lithological grid.
Equivalent dynamic properties are computed for each of
these DFNs.8
Principal component analysis is run to derive, for each dynamic property, a unique FF component that it is best correlated to it.
The relationships between FF components and dynamic
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

properties are then applied to all cells of the 3D lithological grid to

assign them equivalent properties from the simulated FF maps.
The fine 3D permeability grid is finally upscaled on the reservoir simulation grid with standard upscaling tools.
At this stage, the faults have not yet been introduced in the
reservoir simulation grid. In particular, the subseismic faults,
which are reservoir scale objects crossing several simulation gridblocks, are to be taken into account. Faults are treated separately
and modeled explicitly inside the reservoir grid. From history
match, some are known to be transversal fluid barriers and are
translated into interblock transmissibility multipliers according to
the throw. Others, for which nearby well behaviors could not be
matched, are interpreted as longitudinal drains (i.e., fault parallel
291

flow). Depending on the type of reservoir model considered (i.e.,

single- or double-medium), different techniques are available to
represent these drains.31,32 This procedure finally leads to matrix
and fracture porosities and permeabilities, as well as block-size
transmissibilities for cells crossed by faults or fracture swarms.
In this study, the upscaling results were used in a single permeability simulator with pseudo kr/Pc functions that accounted for
the movement of water in fractures. A history match of pressure,
water cut, and breakthrough time was achieved in 70 wells without
any fine tuning on a well-by-well basis. This success was attributed to the proposed methodology that allowed proper reproduction, in the reservoir simulation grid, of the spatial distribution of
the two types of highly conductive heterogeneities: fractured dolomitic streaks and fault/fracture swarm networks.

292

Fig. 12Comparison of predicted and interpreted (actual) FFs

in the dolomite facies type.

come from the randomly drawn simulations of the northwest/

southeast and east/west fracture frequencies in the dolomitic facies
set. Average (predicted) fracture frequencies were calculated on
these maps within a zone around the well path (circled areas).
These average values are pointed out by arrows below the legend
bars. They then can be compared to the actual fracture frequencies
calculated in S-H2 (interpreted values given at the bottom of Fig.
12). One can note the good agreement between the predicted and
calculated values for the two fracture sets in dolomitic facies.
A last comparison was to construct an equivalent (predicted)
fracture-frequency log from the two maps in Fig. 12. Using these
maps in the 3D geological model, a DFN model was generated (as
described earlier) around S-H2 and a fracture log was constructed
along the well trajectory. Fig. 13 shows a surprisingly good match
between predicted and interpreted logs. Although this comparison
relies only on one particular simulation of each fracture set, it tends
to corroborate the already good probability results discussed previously. Note that the peak between 12001800 is related to both
a dolomitic zone and a subseismic fault. In this case, it is probably
the former parameter that influences the prediction.
From a production standpoint, Well S-H2 displays a PI three
times lower than S-H1 (i.e., similar to C-H1 and C-H2 in Fig. 6).
Because the northwest/southeast FF in S-H2 is also approximately
three times lower than in S-H1, the role of this fracture set on flows
seems to be as important as, if not more than, the role of the
(dolomitic) matrix. This well therefore suggests that dolomite is
not the only parameter that controls fracturing in this field. The PI
Frequency, number of fractures/m

Static Calibration of the Geostatistical

Fracture Model
In addition to fluid-flow simulations, the fracture models were
tested against fracturing data from a new horizontal well, S-H2,
which was not included in the previous geostatistical work. Well
S-H2 is a 400-m-long west-northwest/east-southeast drain drilled
in the southern part of the field, north of S-H1. Approximately
two-thirds of the well crosses dolomitic lithologies. The interpretation of electric image log data revealed a poorly fractured well
with east/west to northwest/southeast fractures. Fig. 11 shows a
qualitative comparison between interpreted and predicted fracture
frequencies for the northwest/southeast fracture set in the dolomitic facies set. The diagrams above map views depict the alongborehole FF calculated with different moving-window sizes (5, 2,
and 0.75 m, respectively). Changing the moving-window size allows the smoothing, more or less, of the fracture-frequency logs or
the exhibiting of some highly fractured zones. The dashed line in
each diagram indicates the FF threshold used in the corresponding
probability map and related to the moving-window size (i.e.,
threshold 1 frac/window size). The areas in black, below the
frequency curves, represent the borehole sections in which the FF
is above the reference frequency threshold. These zones of higher
fracturing appear in all diagrams, for all three moving-window
sizes, and tend to follow the same trend. In accordance with the
probabilities, however, their proportion decreases as the reference
threshold increases. The dolomitic zones for which this comparison applies are also indicated along the well path. The map views
are from probability maps calculated for the dolomitic facies set.
They show the probability that the FF will be greater than the
threshold. As expected, the probabilities tend to decrease with the
threshold increasing from 1 frac/5 m to 1 frac/0.75 m. There is a
60 to 80% chance that the FF will be greater than the lowest
threshold (1 frac/5 m) in dolomitic zones along the well and a 0 to
20% chance it will be greater than the highest threshold (1 frac/
0.75 m). Regarding the intermediate threshold (1 frac/2 m), the
probability of being higher is approximately 50%. These probabilities can be interpreted as follows: in dolomitic facies around Well
S-H2, the northwest/southeast FF is more likely to be greater than
1 frac/5 m, but without exceeding 1 frac/0.75 m. In between these
two thresholds, however, the available direct and indirect (secondary) information does not allow us to know with confidence
whether the FF is above or below 1 frac/2 m. It can be noted that
the rather small fracture frequencies predicted around S-H2 are not
influenced or are poorly influenced (in extrapolation conditions)
by the high-fracture-frequency data in the nearby Well S-H1. This
medium-scale variability is correctly reproduced by the geostatistical model through the primary (fracturing) and secondary (geological component) data and the input statistical models. This result tends to confirm the pertinence of the geological component as
capitalizing structural and geological information that governs, at
least partly, the northwest/southeast fracture set. The geological
component is different at the two well locations and is taken into
account in a satisfactory manner by the model (hence the fracturing conditions).
Another comparison was between randomly chosen fracture
simulations and the actual fracture frequencies calculated along
Well S-H2. This comparison is illustrated in Fig. 12. The two maps

1.8

Predicted
Interpreted

1.4

1.0

0.6

0.2
0.0
0

2000

4000

Well Offset, m

Fig. 13Along-hole predicted and interpreted fracture density

logs for all fracture sets together.
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

also corroborates the minor conducting effect of the other east/

west fracture set, though it is dominant (i.e., more inclined to be
critically stressed).
Discussion and Conclusions
Beyond the geostatistical approach, the use of geological parameters as secondary information for full-field modeling of fracturesets relies on two critical points or decisions.
The first point concerns the choice of a fracture index; the latter
needs to be related directly to the fracturing intensity and not
influenced by the well orientation or length. Fracture frequencies
proved adequate. However, they depend strongly on the recovery
of cores (poorly recovered cores being possibly related to highly
fractured zones) or on the quality of image logs. In addition,
they also can be biased by the subjective interpretation of cores
or images.
The second point is about the choice of explanatory variables.
Although any type of attribute could be used and could show some
correlation with the FF, it is the geologists responsibility to validate correlated attributes. The secondary information is not limited
to geological or structural parameters and can include other types
of data. In particular, a geomechanical model (if available) could
provide additional variables (e.g., sliding or opening variables).
Although the resolution of geomechanical models is poorer than
that of seismic or log data, geomechanical variables can be integrated into the geostatistical approach as another type of secondary
information.
The application of this approach to a north Africa field shows
that, although the field cannot be considered strictly as a fractured
reservoir, the northwest/southeast fracture set plays a determinant
role on flows in the southern and, to a lesser degree, northern parts
of the field. It is demonstrated that lithology (dolomitic streaks)
and faulting are the main factors controlling this fracture set. Dolomitic facies and faults are more frequent in the south, and both
contribute to the better productivity of the southern wells. The
fracture-frequency model cannot be used directly for flow simulation, but it needs to be incorporated into a more integrated reservoir model. Fracture-frequency maps in particular are used to
control the local density of fractures for the stochastic simulation
of DFNs. DFNs are then calibrated in terms of equivalent flow
properties to match well-test data and to derive dual porosity/
permeability parameters for reservoir simulation (upscaling step).
The probability maps are useful for risk analysis regarding new
drilling targets of horizontal wells. The good fracturing predictions
along a well drilled more recently validate (at least partly) this model.
Nomenclature
dli length of segment i
kr relative permeability
kx, ky, kz permeability tensor components
N number of fault segments
Pc capillary pressure
S strain estimate
Vti average vertical throw along dli
Ws surface of the moving window
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank TotalFinaElf and its subsidiaries for authorizing
the publication of this paper. Olivier Lerat is sincerely thanked for
providing this study with key facies interpretations in horizontal
wells. Abdel Zellou, Andr Toublanc, and Claude Pernin contributed to the work presented here. Three anonymous reviewers
helped to improve the SPE paper version of this manuscript.
References
1. Gauthier, B.D.M. et al.: Fracture networks in Rotliegend gas reservoirs of the Dutch offshore: implications for reservoir behaviour, Geologie en Mijnbow (2000) 79, No. 1, 45.
2. Sibbit, A.M.: Quantifying Porosity and Estimating Permeability From
Well Logs in Fractured Basement Reservoirs, paper SPE 30157 presented at the 1995 SPE PetroVietnam, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 13
March.
August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

3. Heffer, K.J. et al.: The influence of natural fractures, faults and earth
stresses on reservoir performance-geomechanical analysis by numerical modeling, North sea oil and gas reservoirs III, Norwegian Inst. of
Technology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1994) 201.
4. Barton, C.A. et al.: Utilizing wellbore image data to determine the
complete stress tensor: application to permeability anisotropy and wellbore stability, The Log Analyst (NovemberDecember 1997) 21.
5. Swaby, P.A. and Rawnsley, K.D.: An Interactive 3D Fracture Modeling Environment, paper SPE 36004 presented at the 1996 SPE Petroleum Computer Conference, Dallas, 25 June.
6. Cacas, M.C. et al.: Nested geological modelling of naturally fractured
reservoirs, Petroleum Geoscience (2001) 7, S43.
7. Wei, L. et al.: Discriminating Fracture Patterns in Fractured Reservoirs by Pressure Transient Tests, paper SPE 49233 prepared for
presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2730 September.
8. Bourbiaux, B. et al.: A Fast and Efficient Methodology to Convert
Fractured Reservoir Images Into a Dual-Porosity Model, paper SPE
38907 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 58 October.
9. Guerreiro, L. et al.: Integrated Reservoir Characterization of a Fractured Carbonate Reservoir, paper SPE 58995 presented at the 2000
SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Mexico,
Villahermosa, Mexico, 13 February.
10. Gauthier, B.D.M. and Lake, S.D.: Probabilistic modeling of faults
below the limit of seismic resolution in Pelican field, North Sea, Offshore United Kingdom, AAPG Bull. (1993) 77, No. 5, 761.
11. Cowie, P.A. et al.: Introduction to the special issue: Scaling law for
faults and fractures populationanalysis and applications, J. of Structural Geology (1996) 18, vxi.
12. Loosveld, R.J.H. and Franssen, R.C.M.W.: Extensional vs. Shear
Fractures: Implications for Reservoir Characterisation, paper SPE
25017 presented at the 1992 SPE European Petroleum Conference,
Cannes, France, 1618 November.
13. Bourne, S.J. et al.: Predictive modelling of naturally fractured reservoirs using geomechanics and flow simulation, GeoArabia (2001) 6,
No. 1, 27.
14. Leroy, Y.M. and Sassi, W.: A plasticity model for discontinua, Aspects of tectonic faulting, F. Lehner and J. Urai (eds.), Springer-Verlag
(2000).
15. Guiton, M.: Contribution of pervasive fractures to the deformation
during folding of sedimentary rocks, PhD dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique, France (2001).
16. Heffer, K.J., King, P.R., and Jones, A.D.W.: Fracture Modeling as
Part of Integrated Reservoir Characterization, paper SPE 53347 presented
at the 1999 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 2023 February.
17. McQuillan, H.: Small scale fracture density in Asmari formation
southwest Iran and its relation to bed thickness and structural setting,
AAPG Bull. (1973) 57, No. 12, 2367.
18. Murray, G.: Quantitative fracture studySanish Pool, McKenzie
County, North Dakota, AAPG Bull. (1968) 52, No. 1, 57.
19. Nelson, R.: Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Gulf
Publishing Co., Houston (1985).
20. Ericsson, J.B., McKean, H.C., and Hooper, R.J.: Facies and Curvature
Controlled 3D Fracture Models, Geological Society of London Special
Publication (1998) 147, 299.
21. Agarwal, B. and Allen, L.R.: Ekofisk Field Reservoir Characterisation: Mapping Permeability Through Facies and Fracture Intensity,
paper SPE 35527 presented at the 1996 SPE European 3-D Reservoir
Modelling Conference, Stavanger, 1617 April.
22. Zellou, A.M, Ouenes, A., and Banik, A.K: Improved Fractured Reservoir Characterization Using Neural Networks, Geomechanics, and
3-D Seismic, paper SPE 30722 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October.
23. Ouenes, A.: Practical application of fuzzy logic and neural networks
to fractured reservoir characterization, Computer and Geosciences,
Shahab Mohaghegh (ed.) (2000) 26, No. 7.
24. Gooverts P.: Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation, Oxford U.
Press (1997).
25. Zhu, H. and Journel, A.G. Formatting and Integrating Soft Data: Stochastic Imaging via the Markov-Bayes Algorithm, Geostat Troia,
Soares (ed.), Kluwer Publishing (1992) 112.
293

26. Schmaryan, L.E. and Journel, A.G.: Two Markov models and their
applications, Math Geology (1999) 31, No. 8, 965.
27. Auzias, V. et al.: Fracture orientation modelling in the vicinity of a
horizontal well, Bull., Centre Rech. Elf Explor. Prod. (1997) 21, 381.
28. Townsend, C. et al.: Small seismic-scale fault identification and mapping, Faulting, Fault sealing and Fluid flow in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs, G. Jones, Q.J. Fisher, and R.J. Knipe (eds.), Geological Society,
Special Publications (1998) 125.
29. Gauthier, B.D.M. et al.: Integrated Fractured Reservoir Characterisation: A Case Study in a North Africa Field, paper SPE 65118 presented at the 2000 European Petroleum Conference, Paris, 2425
October.
30. Daniel, J.M. et al.: The use of discrete fracture models to constrain
full field flow simulations, paper XX presented at the 2001 EAGE
Conference & Technical Exhibition, Amsterdam.
31. Cosentino, L. et al.: Integrated Study of a Fractured Middle East
Reservoir With Stratiform Super-K IntervalsPart 2: Upscaling and
Dual Media Simulation, SPEREE (February 2002) 24.
32. Van Lingen, P. et al.: Single Medium Simulation of Reservoirs with
Conductive Faults and Fractures, paper SPE 68165 presented at the
2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 1720 March.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft 3.048*
E 01 m
ft2 9.290 304*
E 02 m2
mile 1.609 344*
E + 00 km
*Conversion factor is exact.

294

Bertrand Gauthier is Senior Geologist/Geophysicist at TotalFinaElf. e-mail: bertrand.gauthier@totalfinaelf.com. After some

time working in computing, he joined Shell Research in Holland
in 1988, where he worked mainly on fault modeling. In 1992, he
moved to Shell Netherlands as a production seismologist. In
1996, he joined Total and was in charge of the fractured reservoir study team; in early 2002, he moved back to seismology.
Gauthier has published papers on fault and fracture characterization and modeling. He holds a PhD degree in structural
geology from the Pierre et Marie Curie U., Paris. Michel Garcia
is currently the manager of FSS International R&D (France). email: michel_garcia_fssi@compuserve.com. His activities include consulting, software design and development, and
teaching in the fields of geostatistics, automatic mesh generation and optimization, and flow modeling for petroleum, environmental, and nuclear waste management applications. He
has worked with the Stanford Center for Reservoir Forecasting
on geostatistics and upscaling methods. Garcia holds an engineering degree and a PhD degree in mining and petroleum
engineering, both from the Ecole des Mines de Paris. JeanMarc Daniel is Head of the IFP Structural Geology Dept. e-mail:
j-Marc.DANIEL@ifp.fr. He is interested mainly in fracture network characterization and modeling, both in terms of geometry and fluid flow. Previously, he was a research engineer in
the IFP Geology-Geochemistry Div. and managed several research projects concerning the role of faults on fracturing and
fluid flow. He is now in charge of analog modeling and 4D
description of fault networks and is involved in advanced fractured reservoir studies, including stochastic modeling of fracture networks. His main areas of interest are the geological
description of fracture networks from outcrop and subsurface
data, 4D analog modeling of fault networks, and geomodeling. Daniel holds a PhD degree in structural geology from the
Pierre et Marie Curie U., Paris.

August 2002 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering