SPE 63286
Reservoir Characterization for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Richard O. Baker and Frank Kuppe/Epic Consulting Services Ltd
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Reservoir characterization and simulation modeling of
naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs) presents unique
challenges that differentiate it from conventional, single
porosity continuum reservoirs. Not only do the intrinsic
characteristics of the fractures, as well as the matrix, have to
be characterized, but the interaction between matrix and
fractures must also be modeled accurately.
Three field case studies have been evaluated combining the
“forward” modeling approach, typically used by geo-
scientists, with “inverse” techniques, usually incorporated by
reservoir engineers. The forward approach examines various
causes of natural fractures and its’ associated properties (e.g.
fracture spacing, height, stress distribution, etc.) while the
inverse approach focuses more on the effect created by the
NFR (e.g. decline analysis, material balance, productivity,
etc.).
This study shows how a more powerful methodology is
created, for the evaluation of naturally fractured reservoirs,
when combining two techniques that have, historically, been
applied in relative isolation.
Introduction
The development of reservoir modeling and reservoir
characterization for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs (NFRs)
has lagged behind simpler matrix flow dominated rock
systems due to the practical difficulty in quantifying both
matrix and fracture parameters. The complexities of,
numerical and mathematical calculations have historically
constrained the development of NFR modeling1. This paper
shows a number of integrated field studies, which have
addressed the difficulties in characterizing NFRs, and presents
a proven methodology to characterize and model them.
Reservoir characterization presents a unique challenge in
NFRs because of:
1) the need to characterize the fractures as well as the
matrix
2) the need to characterize the matrix-fracture
interaction.
Characterization of the fracture includes defining parameters
such as inter-fracture spacing, length, orientation, porosity,
connectivity, aperture and permeability. As well, it is
important to include realistic areal and vertical heterogeneity
in both the matrix and the fracture systems.
A fractured medium represents a highly heterogeneous
system. Fluid transport and pressure dynamics cannot be fully
replicated in a model using a homogeneous three-dimensional
system.
Recent work has emphasized the need to better characterize
heterogeneities in matrix properties. The same attention, if not
more, needs to be given to the characterization of fracture
heterogeneities. Reservoir characterization is highly dependent
upon the integration of skills from geologists, geophysicists,
petrophysicists and reservoir engineers to an even greater
extent in NFRs than in conventional reservoirs.
The methodology presented ensures compatibility between the
geological and engineering models. Specifically, this paper
will show how NFR parameters were determined for the three
fields in which this methodology has been applied.
Geological (Forward) Approach
On the geological side, there have been numerous attempts to
compile fracture statistics on spacing, fracture height,
orientation, aperture and length, and to subsequently scale
these up to represent an effective fracture porosity and
permeability. This is often referred to as the "forward
approach" as it characterizes the reservoir from perspective of
2 RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE
what caused or created the geological setting, as opposed to
the effects (usually the Engineers' preoccupation) of NFR
parameters.
Fracture spacing, aperture, length and connectivity are
functions of:
a) porosity
b) lithology
c) structural position
d) rock brittleness.
One of the objectives of a fracture model is to generate
empirical/analytical relationships incorporating fracture
parameters and the above controlling factors. To do this, a
certain amount of reservoir sampling is required to
characterize the fractures. Unfortunately, lack of sampling or
fracture characterization is a common problem in NFRs.
Outcrops are a good source of data for fracture length and
connectivity. Vertical wells have a low probability of
intersecting vertical fractures. Cored horizontal wells, drilled
perpendicular to fracture systems, also provide insight into
inter-fracture spacing (or length).
Thus, the relatively limited coverage from cored vertical wells
is unlikely to yield a sufficiently large sample. For many of
todays' developed fields, the data to correlate these variables is
insufficient. Engineering data can sample large numbers of
fractures (i.e., from the larger-scale pressure transient or
production data) but this analysis cannot generate specific
fracture parameters. Fracture parameters and empirical
relationships must be derived from outcrop or field analogies.
Despite the relatively small sample size, forward methods are
critical because they often are zone or area specific.
Although averages of fracture spacing and aperture are useful,
as pointed out by Long2, there is ample field evidence
suggesting that only a few fractures are hydraulically active
and fluid flow may be dominated by extreme values of the
fractured media.
Outcrop studies can provide valuable information on fracture
spacing, length, direction and connectivity. However, as
Friedman et al3 demonstrated, weathering and stress effects
may affect parameters in the outcrops, making them different
from insitu conditions. The dimensions of matrix blocks are
controlling factors for the recovery process. The inter-fracture
spacing or determination of block volume distribution is
therefore critical. Thus outcrop studies are important, despite
the limitations.
To increase the number of data control points and
areal/vertical coverage, it is often necessary to use engineering
or "inverse" techniques. An inverse technique is one where the
dynamic response (i.e. the effect) of the larger scale system is
measured and is then used to infer smaller scale
characteristics.
SPE 63286
Tracer tests, historical production data and pressure transient
tests provide us with the measurements, and the means, to
generate inverse solutions for fracture lengths, fracture
permeability and fracture connectivity.
Engineering (Inverse) Approach
On the engineering side, there have been attempts to
understand the nature of the fracture systems using
permeability and fracture storativity derived from well tests
and production data.
Unfortunately the production and pressure transient data, is
typically characterized with generic “sugar cube" models and
other simplifying assumptions. Often reservoir heterogeneity
is transparent to these tests and analyses. Most buildup
(pressure transient) tests and long term production testing is
not zone specific and therefore have limited effectiveness for
characterizing fracture heterogeneity.
There is a large volume of engineering literature dedicated to
solving the “dual porosity” pressure transient problem. In
theory, the results from a pressure buildup test can be used to
determine effective fracture spacing, however in 90% of
naturally fractured reservoirs, pressure build up performance
does not display dual porosity behavior4. Many NFR field
examples in the literature show that a simple single porosity
system can be used to obtain a reasonable match of pressure
build up behavior5. The match is ultimately obtained with a
higher effective permeability, when compared to matrix
permeability.
The importance of fracture heterogeneity has been neglected
or minimized in engineering simulation studies. Without this
heterogeneity, reservoir simulation models often underpredict
watercuts (and water breakthrough time) and underestimate
the amount of bypassed oil in the reservoir.
In summary, both the geological approach and the engineering
approach have limitations because of undersampling of insitu
fracture systems and the use of theoretical models that use
simplistic representations of real fracture systems,
respectively. These approaches, independently, do not provide
the means to accurately characterize the fracture system. This
is a major problem in that long term deliverability and
reserves are controlled by the effective reservoir permeability.
Combining the forward and inverse approaches, however,
allows us to narrow the range of uncertainty and build more
realistic models of NFRs.
Integrating Forward and Inverse Techniques
It is critical to identify, early in the reservoir study:
1. what created the fracture system (i.e., regional,
faulted or bended environment)
2. characteristics of the matrix-fracture system (i.e.,
fracture types, length, height, spacing etc.)
SPE 63286 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
3. matrix permeability and porosity
4. the degree of communication between the matrix
and fractures.
Determining how the fractures originated provides us with
important clues for the areal and vertical distribution of
fractures as well as a likely reservoir recovery mechanism.
Table 1 shows how the features of the NFR system vary
between the three different fracture systems and describes the
associated production implications. As with most
generalizations, there are exception to the "rules", indicated in
Table 1.
The degree of flow between the matrix and fractures dictates
which of many typical production problems may arise and also
determines the level of recovery that may be expected. We've
identified four varying degrees, or "types", of flow and their
implications in Table 2.
The two primary parameters that control recovery in NFRs are
1) the magnitude and heterogeneity of fracture permeability
and, 2) the extent of matrix-fracture communication. The
fracture permeability will control well deliverability while
fracture heterogeneity will control the extent of water/gas
influx. Good matrix–fracture communication is essential for
long–term productivity or high recovery factors.
Matrix-to-fracture communication is dependent upon the inter-
fracture spacing as well as the matrix permeability. These two
parameters determine the strength of reservoir drive
mechanism. If fracture spacing is small and/or matrix
permeability is high, a very efficient waterflood (imbibition)
and gravity drainage mechanism develops. Conversely low
matrix permeability and/or wide fracture spacing often results
in the bypassing of the matrix by injected fluids or aquifer
influx and yields lower recoveries.
The productive permeability cutoff employed controls the
original hydrocarbon in place. From a mechanical perspective,
the permeability provides a means of measuring the brittleness
of the rock and thus fracture intensity. The matrix
permeability therefore needs to be carefully considered in all
NFR studies.
The key to successful fracture characterization is to (a) focus
on key variables that dominate the recovery process and (b)
use techniques that combine the more accurate, "micro scale",
tests (e.g. core analyses), with large scale tests (e.g. pressure
buildups) that implicitly average the reservoir characteristics
over large volumes of rock.
Fracture-Matrix Interaction. Core analyses and logging
tools such as the formation micro-scanner (FMS) provide an
estimate of matrix permeability and fracture spacing. This
provides us with sufficient data to at least estimate the
“transfer function”, or the degree of matrix-fracture
communication.
3
Alternative methods such as long term production decline data
supplemented by pressure transient data, helps us to confirm
large-scale transfer function parameters.
Decline characteristics may provide important information on
fracture volume, connectivity and permeability. The
hydrocarbon volume present in the high permeability fractures
will be produced rapidly. After this “flush oil” production the
rate will decrease rapidly before stabilizing at a lower decline
rate. Fracture spacing and the amount of communication
between the fracture and the matrix, as well as the drive
mechanism will control the stabilized rate.
Simulation Concerns. Depending, generally, on the contrast
between matrix and fracture permeability and fracture spacing,
the classical single continuum description may not be
adequate for the simulation modeling of a fractured
reservoir. For theoretical analysis and reservoir simulation, the
irregular fracture distribution must be replaced by a regular
matrix network (primary porosity) floating in the inter-
connected fractures (secondary porosity continuum). The
idealized representation of fractures in the simulation model is
shown in Figure 1.
It is assumed, in the fracture continuum approach, that
fractures are very long relative to the size of the blocks. As
shown by outcrops, fracture length, especially in regional
fractured reservoirs, can have limited length. Therefore, using
the discontinuous fracture approach vs. a continuum approach
in many NFRs may yield better results2.
Figure 1 is an illustration of the classical dual porosity model.
Both the fracture and matrix have non-zero porosity and
permeability. Flow takes place within the fracture network and
between the matrix and fractures. Each matrix block is
assumed to be completely surrounded by fractures and cannot
communicate directly with matrix adjacent blocks. This is not
completely realistic because matrix blocks are "floating" while
in reality the fractured media supports rock stresses and allow
matrix blocks to touch. Most commercial simulators have the
added feature of including matrix-matrix connections (i.e.,
dual permeability).
Warren and Root (1963) presented an analytical solution of
the pressure transient based on the dual porosity model of
porous media. The key assumption was that the matrix to
fracture flow is in pseudo-steady state conditions at all times
(i.e., pressure declines uniformly throughout the matrix block).
Fluid exchange between a matrix block and fracture would
then be given by:
∂
(Φ m b ) = Φ m c m ∂Pm = − ∝ k m (Pf − Pm )
(1)
∂t ∂t µ
4 RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE
where Pm is the volume average pressure in a matrix block, Pf
is the pressure in the fractures surrounding the matrix block;
cm is the primary (matrix) compressibility given by;
c m = c r + c o (1 − S w ) + c w S w (2)
and a is the "shape factor", dependent on the size and shape of
the matrix block.
The matrix blocks act as sources or sinks for the fracture
system, according to equation 1, depending on the changes of
pressure in the fracture system.
Warren and Root obtained an analytical solution for single
phase, radial flow in an infinite and finite reservoir, with
constant well rate, as a function of the following
dimensionless parameter, otherwise known as the transfer
function:
k m rW 2
λ=∝
k eff
where:
keff = k effx k effy
rw = wellbore radius,
 1 1 
∝ = shape factor = 4
1 parameters. Production data and pressure data allows us to
+ +
L 2 L y2 L z2 
 x 
Lx, Ly, Lz = fracture spacing in x,y and z direction,
respectively
This criteria for single porosity behaviour is usually supported
by pressure transient analysis (i.e., no dual porosity behaviour
observed). Engineers usually prefer, whenever possible to
model a dual porosity reservoir with a single porosity model,
capturing the effective permeability, because it halves the
number of required gridblocks and shortens run time.
Applying a single porosity model in a multi-phase enviroment
may, however, generate erroneous results. The breakthrough
time of the flood front, in a miscible flood or waterflood, is
usually more rapid when "fingering" through fractures in the
dual porosity model rather than the homogenized effective
permeability of the single porosity model. Consequently the
sustained higher production profile in the single porosity
model would decline more rapidly in the dual porosity model.
Care should therefore be taken to ensure the NFR
characteristics not only satisfies single porosity, single phase
criteria but that there are no multi-phase consequences when
using a single porosity simulation model.
Determining Fracture Parameters
As mentioned previously, fracture permeability, fracture
connectivity and fracture distribution, in water drives,
waterfloods or gas cap drives, are critical controlling factors
SPE 63286
for oil recovery. The key parameter, governing connectivity
between injectors and producers, is the fracture permeability2.
Unfortunately porosity–permeability cross-plots, derived from
core data rarely has any significance for NFRs as it merely
represents the matrix properties. Also, conventional openhole
logs are limited when predicting fracture distribution and
fracture permeability. The key to successful fracture charac-
terization is in developing empirical relationships that can re-
late fracture spacing to porosity, lithology, structure position,
rock properties or layer thickness as shown in Figure 2.
Initially, a theoretical geological fracture model should be
conceived built on a combination of analog data, outcrop core
and FMS/FMI data. The primary objective in these initial
fracture models should be establishing the empirical
relationship between fracture parameters and porosity,
lithology, structure and rock brittleness. These initial
conceptual geological fracture models usually have limitations
in that fracture connectivity and individual fracture length are
not yet well defined.
Pressure buildup tests and production data can be used to
determine effective permeability but are very sensitive to
fracture length and heights as well as connectivity. Combining
the analysis from the conceptual geological fracture models
with the engineering data allows us to estimate these
define fracture connectivity.
Case Study 1 – The Weyburn Field
The first case study shows how old log data and production
data were integrated to successfully characterize the reservoir.
This work helped increase field oil production rate by more
than 50% using horizontal well technology.
The Weyburn field is located approximately 130km southeast
of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. The productive portion of
the field covers some 180km2 and has produced medium
gravity crude oil from the fractured, low permeability, Midale
beds of the Mississippian Charles formation since its
discovery in 1954,6
The Midale beds of the Mississippian Charles formation were
deposited on a shallow carbonate shelf in the Williston basin.
The reservoir is informally subdivided into the upper Marly
and the lower Vuggy zone. The Marly is a chalky intertidal
dolostone with occasional limey or limestone interbeds. The
Vuggy zone is a heterogeneous, sub-tidal limestone. Although
both zones are fractured, the Marly zone is less intensely
fractured than the Vuggy zone.
The porosity of the Marly ranges from 16% to 38%, averaging
approximately 26%. Matrix permeability ranges from 1md too
greater than 100md, with the average being less than 10md.
There is some contribution to effective permeability from
natural fractures within the Marly.
SPE 63286 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
The Vuggy is a substantial limestone, which is more
heterogeneous than the Marly due to the interaction of the
depositional environment and diagenetic over-printing.
Carbonate sands (packstones and grainstones) were deposited
in the higher energy shoal regions and carbonate mudstones
and wackestones in the quieter intershoal regions. Porosity and
matrix permeability vary substantially, ranging from 3% to
18% and <0.01md to >500md, respectively. In addition, the
Vuggy is extensively fractured. Highly permeable carbonate
sand bodies and fractures control the magnitude and direction
of the permeability anisotropy in the Vuggy. Injectivity studies
also show that the majority of the floodwater is injected
directly into this horizon.
Waterflood development in Weyburn began in the early
1960’s. The waterflood has been very successful. Ultimate
secondary recovery factors ranged from 25% – 35%, based on
decline analysis. An extensive reservoir characterization study
was required to provide reservoir simulation models for
waterflood optimization, horizontal well evaluation and an
assessment of miscible-flood potential.
A strong regional fracture system controls the behavior of the
Midale beds under waterflooda6. It was therefore, important to
characterize and quantify fracture system parameters such as
fracture spacing, aperture, rock type, reservoir quality and
diagenesis.
The characterization study incorporated reservoir performance
(i.e., production and pressure) as well as geological and
petrophysical data. Engineering data sources included
injection profile logging, pressure transient and vertical pulse
testing. Geologic data sources included both vertical and
horizontal well core and wireline logs, repeat formation tester
(RFT) and FMS logging. The neighboring Midale field
producing from the same reservoir has been extensively
studied7, 8,9 and served as a valuable source of information.
Core and FMS observations indicate that the fractures are
vertical to subvertical and are oriented approximately N45°E.
Core observations clearly reveal that the forces causing
fractures have been active on more than one occasion and
have generated at least three ages of fractures. Some fractures
are filled with anhydrite cement and are ineffective fluid
conduits, whereas other fractures are very effective in moving
fluids.
Initial geological studies showed that there were significant
differences in fracture intensity between the limestone and
dolomite zones. As well, there were large differences in
fracture intensity within limestone beds between shoal and
intershoal areas. It is also interesting to note that fracture
a The project involved large potential oil reserves. Before
The Vuggy is most intensely fractured with fracture spacing of 1 ft in
intershoal and 10 ft in shoal areas. The Marly has fracture spacing in the 3 ft
to 10-ft range but is not fractured in some high porosity areas.
5
intensity decreased dramatically as porosity increased. Old
logs could therefore be used as semi-quantitative indicators of
fracture intensity if the porosity and lithology could be
estimated.
The relationship between lithology and fracture intensity was
very useful when creating the fracture model. Particular
consideration was given to the more heterogeneous limestone
layer (Vuggy), as it was important to capture its heterogeneity
to accurately model primary flow conduits.
Six simulation layers were selected to provide sufficient
resolution for the Vuggy6. Previous simulation studies used
one to two layers: which smears or over-averages porosity,
lithology and the dominant high permeability layers. In
matching injection breakthrough performance, it is critical to
preserve the high permeability; high intensity fractures zones
and not lump them together with lower permeability zones.
Conversely, as indicated in early engineering studies, a
shallow decline in production (5%-6% annual rate) was
generated with long remaining reserve life.
Watercut and breakthrough trends showed strong permeability
anisotropy behavior. The watercut maps also showed a strong
relationship between the geological shoal and intershoal areas
and the anisotropic behavior. This relationship meant that it
was important not only to look at dolomite/ limestone
differences but to also look at the variations within the
limestone (shoal versus intershoal). Studies identifying
lithology and the geological environment therefore served as
the cornerstone of the fracture characterization work.
Estimates of fracture permeability had to be derived from the
fracture spacing data (i.e., from core analyses) because of the
limited number of good quality pressure transient tests.
Fracture permeability is dictated by fracture aperture and
spacing. After having combined calculated fracture parameters
with the matrix parameters, the effective permeability could be
compared with the insitu permeability determined form DST's.
Note that DST's have a limited radius of investigation. To
confirm calculated frac parameters a history match of the
pressure drawdown was important. The pressure drawdown
data was among the little data available to calibrate effective
permeability.
The magnitude of the anisotropic ratio (ontrend NE-SW to
offtrend (NE-SE) was a critical variable in determining the
effectiveness of the waterflood, horizontal wells and CO2
flooding. The anisotropy ratio in the simulation model was
therefore pre-conditioned in the simulator using water
breakthrough times at respective production wells.
simulation was initiated, six man-years of effort toward
reservoir characterization had already been completed. The
workflow diagram is shown in Figure 3. In our opinion, the
6 RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE
key criteria to achieving successful characterization (i.e. one
that generated an excellent history match) included:
1. The ability to utilize open hole log response to estimate
fracture spacing
2. The use of horizontal well data to get significant fracture
spacing statistics
3. Using the ratio of water breakthrough times to pre-
condition the permeability anisotropy ratio. This was
subsequently altered slightly to achieve a history match in
the Simulator
4. Pressure Transient data was combined with direct fracture
data to characterize the reservoir9
5. Selection of geological and simulation model grids that
provided sufficient resolution for the intervals with large
permeability contrasts.
In the first simulation run, 70% of all wells were matched in a
63 well model without any modification of the data6.
Horizontal well watercut forecasts were within 3% of the
actual values. Finally, it was found that the key parameters
governing the waterflood and horizontal well recoveries, were
vertical permeability and the distribution (and amount) of oil
saturation. This study is a case where geological (direct) data
and engineering (inverse) data was combined to get a better
representation of the reservoir.
Case Study 2: The Spraberry Field
The Spraberry Trend in West Texas covers an area of more
than 400,000 acres10. The Spraberry Trend was once deemed
“The largest uneconomic field in the world,” with reservoirs
that contained some 10 billion Bbls OOIP of which less than
10% has been recovered today. The Spraberry Trend Area
produces nearly 60,000 bopd from more than 7,500 wells and
has produced some 700 million barrels of oil11-16.
The Spraberry Trend Area was first developed in the early
1950’s. The areal extent of the reservoir combined with many
hundreds of wells having initial production rates of greater
than 500 bopd, led some to believe the Spraberry Trend was
one of the most prolific fields in the world. However, well
productivity diminished rapidly as fracture depletion occurred.
The first waterflood in Spraberry began in 1956. Generally,
waterflooding in the Spraberry area has not been successful.
Injected water bypassed the matrix and did not effectively
sweep oil to producers10. Despite very similar fracture spacing
between the Weyburn/Midale fields and the Spraberry field,
there is a very large difference in waterflood recovery factors
between these fields. The incremental waterflood recovery in
Weyburn/Midale is on the order of 16% to 25%, whereas the
incremental waterflood recovery is only 2% to 5% for most
areas of Spraberry. Various hypotheses have been proposed to
explain why waterflood recovery is so low, including:
SPE 63286
1. Lack of pattern confinement and low injection well
density
2. Assumption that the primary direction of the fracture
trend is N50ºE throughout the trend, thus leading to
incorrect pattern alignment in some locations
3. Low matrix permeability (Kair < 1 md), resulting in slow
imbibition rates
4. The reservoir rock may not be strongly water-wet,
resulting in low capillary forces and slow imbibition rates
5. Low reservoir pressures during the start up of waterflood,
resulting in poor capture efficiency of oil as well as high
initial gas saturations and low oil permeability in the
matrix.
Preliminary studies show that perhaps all the listed
explanations play some role in establishing ultimate recovery.
The differences in waterflood performance between the
Weyburn/Midale fields and the Spraberry field highlight the
importance of not relying too heavily on analogous reservoirs
to characterize the Spraberry NFR and that subtle differences
in fracture/matrix parameters can have a huge impact on
recovery factors, and the rate of recovery.
A number of tests have been completed to characterize the
Spraberry reservoir fracture system. These include horizontal
core, pulse/interference tests, interwell tracer tests, buildup
and falloff tests, FMI logging, outcrop studies, interwell tracer
and mini-frac tests10. Like the Weyburn/Midale reservoirs,
the direct approach (core/FMI) applications were very useful
in identifying zone specific fracture trends, whereas pressure
transient analysis was useful in identifying overall fracture
permeability and connectivity. Interwell tracer testsb, core data
and pressure transient analyses were used to identify fracture
orientation.
Pulse tests were conducted in the Midkiff Unit, of the
Spraberry field in the 1960’s. These tests demonstrated that
fracture permeability changed as the injection pressure and
reservoir pressure increased18. The results suggest the effective
fracture permeabilities are in the 30md to 200md range. Cross
fractures (offtrend E-W fractures) also seemed to have been
created from the high injection pressures.
In this study, determining the extent of matrix-fracture
communication was especially important in the evaluation of
the CO2 flood efficiency. Since the degree of matrix-fracture
communication is indicated by the waterflood imbibition
process, this was more extensively studied. Laboratory
imbibition experiments were designed to examine late stage
decline rates on waterflood. This correspondence was then
used to infer relationships between fracture spacing and matrix
permeability.18
b
The interwell tracer tests in this area show very fast tracer breakthrough
times (i.e., in the order of days).
SPE 63286 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
Successful reservoir characterization in Spraberry depended
upon:
1. Use of horizontal well cores to calibrate fracture spacing
2. Re-examination of matrix properties and imbibition data
that, coupled with field production data, promoted
consistency between performance data and derived
fracture/matrix properties.
3. Use of pressure buildup tests, interference tests,
production data (i.e. watercuts) and outcrop data to infer
permeability anisotropy ratio.
Combining the direct with the inverse approach was critical.
Quantifying the fracture spacing is important to the design of
waterfloods and CO2 floods in a naturally fractured reservoir.
The numerous studies completed have led to the generally
accepted view that the fracture orientation in Spraberry is in a
northeast to southwest trend. A more recent study examined
fracturing in a horizontal well core. The study revealed a
fracture set, located in the first layer, that was oriented N43° E
while in a lower layer, there were two fracture sets oriented
N32°E and N70°E. The average fracture spacing of the three
sets were found to be 3.2ft, 1.6ft and 3.8ft, respectively. This
confirms that more than one fracture direction can prevail and
must be incorporated into the model.
Case Study 3: The Waterton Field
The Waterton field is located in the southwestern corner of
Alberta at the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains and the
foothills disturbed belt. The field consists of a westward
dipping thrust sheet of Mississippian and Devonian carbonates
with hydrocarbons trapped along the leading edge. The pool is
extensively fractured, especially along the crest of the
structure, and contains a near-critical, rich gas condensate with
a compositional gradient19, 20.
The Waterton field was discovered in 1959 and was put on
production in 1962 upon the completion of the initial phase of
gas plant construction. Twenty-four wells have been drilled in
the "Sheet III" reservoir with the last well drilled in 1977.
Drilling and seismic operations have been restricted to narrow
valleys due to the rugged topography of the area.
Data from well logs, cores, drilling and production records,
pressure transient analyses and reservoir engineering analyses
were used to characterize the variations in fracture and matrix
properties in the reservoir, as shown in Figure 4.
Conventional, tectonically induced fracture intensity was
found to vary with lithology (dolomite versus limestone) and
structural position. However, such “conventional” fracture
descriptions did not account for the large drilling mud losses
in some zones, variable productivities (not correlatable to
structural position) and estimated volumes of initial
hydrocarbon in place.
7
As with case studies one and two the key integation here was
combining the openhole log (geological) data with mud loss
and AOF test data (engineering inverse data) to characterize
the fractures. In several key zones, solution enhanced fractures
or karst development was proposed to account for these
variations. This is consistent with observations made from
pressure transient analyses from most of the wells. This study
ultimately confirmed the presence of a complex heterogeneous
fracture system with extensive karsting in several intervals.
This was confirmed through the course of history matching as
well as with pressure transient analysis.
Conclusions
1) Forward and Inverse methods do not characterize the
fracture network sufficiently, when used in isolation,
because fracture connectivity is unknown.
Combining these two techniques provides a more
powerful complementary means of doing so.
2) Fracture heterogeneity is often over-simplified, or
"smeared" in simulation models by using an
insufficient number of layers or gridblocks (as was
found to be the case in previous Weyburn studies). It
is important to preserve the high permeability, high
intensity fracture zones to accurately model
breakthrough trends and ultimate recovery.
3) Accurate modeling of anisotropy, driven by overall
fracture orientation, was critical in history matching,
and predicting, waterflood movement, horizontal well
performance and CO2 flood performance, in
Weyburn.
4) Large scale tests (i.e., buildup and interference
testing) and production data (i.e., water breakthrough
and watercuts) were coupled with smaller scale
evaluations (i.e., outcrops and horizontal well cores)
to generate a consistent (i.e., good history match) and
accurate model for predicting waterflood and CO2
flood recovery in Spraberry.
5) The "Inverse" techniques of the pressure transient
analyses and matching production data (in reservoir
simulator) confirmed the presence of karst
development and the associated enhanced
permeability, in the Waterton field.
References
1. Waldren, D. and Corrigan, A.F.: "An Engineering and
Geological Review of the Problems Encountered in
Simulating Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” SPE paper
13717, 1985.
2. Long J.C.: "Construction of Equivalent Discontinum
Models for Fracture Hydro-Geology," Comprehensive
Rock engineer Principles, Practices.
3. Friedman, M. and McKiernan, D.E.: “Extrapolation of
Fracture Data From Outcrops of the Austin Chalk I Texas
to Corresponding Petroleum Reservoirs at Depth,”
Petroleum Society of CIM paper 93-10-103, 1993.
8 RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE SPE 63286

4. Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D. and Kiesow,

U.G.: “Decline Analysis Using Type Curves Case
Histories,” SPE paper 13169, 1984.
5. Carlson, M.R.: “Reservoir Characterization of Fractured
Reservoirs in Western Canada,” paper 97-87 presented at
48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, June 1997.
6. Elsayed et.al.: "Multidisciplinary Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Study of the Weyburn
Unit," SPE, Oct 1993.
7. Beliveau, D., Payne, D.A. and Mundry, M.: “Waterflood
and CO2 Flood of the Fractured Midale Field,” JPT, pp.
881-887, September 1993.
8. Beliveau, D. and Payne, D.A.: "Analysis of a Tertiary CO2
Flood Pilot in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," paper SPE Figure 1: Idealization of fracture reservoir according
22947 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical to the model of Warren and Root (1963).
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas Oct 7-9.
9. Beliveau, D.: "Pressure Transients Characterize Fractured
Midale Unit," JPT (Dec 1989) 1354, Trans., AIME, 287.
10. Schechter, D.S., McDonald, P., Sheffield, T. and Baker, R.: Weyburn Field Objectives:
Identify waterflood, horizontal well recovery
“Reservoir Characterization and CO2 Pilot Design in the potential as well as examine CO2 potential

Naturally Fractured Spraberry Trend Area,” SPE paper

35469, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 27 – 29,
1999 Initial Engineering
Studies
Initial Geological
Studies

11. Barfield, E.C., Jordan, J.K. and Moore, W. D.: “An

Analysis of Large-Scale Flooding in the Fractured - Decline analysis
Fracture intensity is
Spraberry Trend Area Reservoir,” JPT, pp.15-19, April -(showed long reserve life )
- strong permeability
a function of:
anisotropic behavior - Dolomite vs limestone
1959. determined from watercuts
and breakthrough timing
- shoal vs. intershoal
porosity

12. Brownscombe, E. R. and Dyes, A. B.: “Water-Imbibition - highest permeability in

NE to SW direction
Displacement - Can it Release Reluctant Spraberry Oil?”
Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 99-101, November 1952.
13. Elkins, L.F.: “Reservoir Performance and Well Spacing, W as initial geological model
- compatible with engineering model
Spraberry Trend Area Field of West Texas,” Petroleum - good overall continuity

Transactions of AIME, pp. 177-196,1953.

- relatively good waterflood
- recovery (RF> 30%)

14. Elkins, L.F. and Skov, A.M.: "Cyclic Water Flooding the
Spraberry Utilizes "End Effects" to Increase Oil Production Key parameters identified for

Rate," JPT, 1963.

horizontal well evaluation
waterflood

15. Elkins, L.F. and Skov, A.M.: “Determination of Fracture

Orientation from Pressure Interference,” Petroleum
Transactions of AIME, pp. 301-304, 1963. - vertical permeability
16. Howell, W. D., Armstrong, F.E. and Watkins, J.W.: - current oil saturation
- distribution of oil saturation
“Radioactive Gas Tracer Survey Aids Waterflood
Planning,” World Oil, February 1961.
17. “Field Test Results of Surfactant Waterflooding and Model Construction

Balanced High Pressure Waterflooding in Spraberry - determined fracture parameters from oil log
data
Midkiff Unit,” Humble Oil Internal Memo, PRRC - used ratio (ontrend vs. offtrend)of water
breakthrough

Spraberry Database, 1968. times to give an initial estimate of

permeability anisotropy ratio
18. Baker, R.O. et.al.: " Characterization of the Dynamic
Fracture Transport in an Naturally Fractured Reservoir,"
SPE 59690, March 2000. History Match

19. Aguilera, R.: “Advances in the Study of Naturally A history match was successfully achieved on
the following critical parameters:
Fractured Reservoirs,” JCPT, p.5, May 1993. - watercut
- reservoir pressure
20. Nutakki, R. et.al.: "Three Dimensional simulation of a - injection pressure
- producing bottomhole pressure
Fractured Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir: a study of - saturation distribution at late stage of flood as
flood as measured by vertical wells

Waterton Sheet lll. - RFT pressures

buildup/DST derived permeability

21. Thomas, M.B. et al.: "A New Interpretation of Fracture

Distribution in Waterton Sheet lll: An Integrated Reservoir
Characterization Study," SPE 35605, May 1996. Horizontal well projections, CO2 flood forecast

Figure 3: Workflow Diagram for Weyburn.

SPE 63286 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS 9

Figure 2: Data Flow for Characterization of Permeability for Natural Fractures and Reservoirs.
10 RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE SPE 63286

Core/log/data Pressure
Seismic buildup and
data Mud Losses
Production/injection productivity
logging index

Zone
Structural
specific Total effective
changes surface
data permeability
maps
faulted areas

Allocation of fracture permeability on layer basis

and areal basis

Figure 4: Workflow Diagram for Waterton.

NFR Regional Fracture System Faulted Bended

Parameters System System

Areal distribution More uniform
Vertical distribution Small vertical barriers often
act to terminate fracture
systems
Sensitivity of fracture Very sensitive
spacing to lithology
Sensitivity of fracture Very sensitive
spacing to matrix
porosity/permeability
Fracture porosity Very small
φf < 0.1%
Recovery mechanisms Some of these reservoirs can
(limiting factors) be very successfully
waterflooded (see Beliveau
1989)
Very localized faulted zones Localized at crest and plunge
areas
Shales and lithology change Non-uniform higher
do not terminate fracture set; frequency in thinners beds
very high vertical
communication
Not sensitive near fault Sensitive
Not sensitive Sensitive
Can be moderate; Can be moderate; depends
Depends upon karsting upon karsting
φf < 5 % φf < 5%
Often wells water out; Often act like multi-layered
Water drive is common in reservoirs
faulted systems because of
high vertical fracture
continuity.

Table 1: NFR System Parameters and Production/Recovery Implications.

SPE 63286 RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
Reservoir Type
Type 1 Productivity essentially
derived from fracture
porosity and permeability
alone
Type 2: Fractures provide essential
reservoir permeability
Hydrocarbons stored in
matrix
and fracture but fractures
provides the means (i.e.
permeability) to flow
Type 3: Productivity of a permeable
matrix is enhanced with the
additional fracture permeability
Type 4: Fractures do not contribute to
porosity or permeability, but
barriers act as flow.
Table 2 – Reservoir Types (Adapted from Nelson).
12
Problems and Opportunities
- It is necessary to have high fracture intensity
or high fracture porosity for an economic
reservoir.
- May result in early water breakthrough the
timing of which is governed by fracture height
and vertical connectivity.
- Water influx is often accompanied by rapid oil
decline.
- Fractures may generate production from
otherwise unproductive rock.
- Determination of fracture porosity is critical in
determining recovery.
- Primary and secondary recovery efficiency is
highly dependent upon how well the matrix is
exposed to the fracture network.
- Possible early water breakthrough and rapid
oil decline.
- Development patterns must consider the
reservoir heterogeneities (e.g. matrix-fracture
communication may vary areally).
- Fracture intensity and dip must be known
before pursuing development.
- Fractures improve productivity from poor
deliverability reservoirs.
- Determination of fracture permeability and
heterogeneity is critical in accessing effective
parameters and recovery potential.
- There can be unusual responses in secondary
recovery
- Drainage areas can often be elliptical
- It may be difficult to recognize or detect the
fracture system
- Fractures may enhance already commercial
opportunities
- Determination of fracture permeability and
heterogeneity is critical (as for Type 2
reservoirs.
- Recovery is poor due to severe reservoir
compartmentalization
- If properly planned, field development could
be optimized
- Can have very poor secondary recovery
because of compartmentalization