January

Search Index

GEOHORIZON

AUTHORS Mohammed S. Ameen $ Geological Technical Services Division, Saudi Aramco, P.O. Box 2817, Dhahran 31311, Saudi Arabia; mohammed.ameen@aramco.com Mohammed S. Ameen was awarded his Ph.D. and Diploma of Imperial College in structural geology and geomechanics from Imperial College, London, in 1988. He has more than 20 years of academic and industrial experience. He joined Saudi Aramco Reservoir Characterization Department in 1998, and is currently leading the Structural Geology and Rock Mechanics Group in the Geological Technical Services Division, Saudi Aramco. He is an active member of the AAPG, Society of Petroleum Engineers, European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers, and the Geological Society (London). Ernest A. Hailwood $ Core Magnetics, The Green, Sedbergh LA10 5JS, United Kingdom Ernest A. Hailwood graduated from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, with a Ph.D. in paleomagnetism in 1971 and joined the University of Southampton, where he became head of Marine Geology and Geophysics and established a highly successful research laboratory specializing in sediment magnetism. He founded the company Core Magnetics in 1992 to provide services in paleomagnetic and rock magnetic measurements for the hydrocarbon industry.

A new technology for the characterization of microfractured reservoirs (test case: Unayzah reservoir, Wudayhi field, Saudi Arabia)
Mohammed S. Ameen and Ernest A. Hailwood

ABSTRACT This article presents a test case of a new technology using artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (referred to here as EAMS) for the characterization of microfractured reservoirs. These are reservoirs in which microfractures are essential to porosity and/or permeability. A conventional geological characterization is costly, time consuming, and difficult to quantify in terms of assessing fracture impact on porosity and permeability. Therefore, an efficient and effective method is required to characterize these microfractures and to determine their contribution to porosity and permeability. The EAMS technology, which we developed and tested, allows rapid analysis that bridges reservoir geology and engineering. Using petrography, the margin of error to detect microfractures that impact porosity and/or permeability is 43%; however, it requires three times the sampling rate of the new EAMS technology. The lower part of the Unayzah reservoir (Unayzah-B/C) in the Wudayhi field, Saudi Arabia, where fractures were studied and microfractures are known to impact reservoir performance, is used to develop and verify the EAMS technology. The results show that EAMS-derived microfracture fabric strikes east-northeast westsouthwest, consistent with that obtained by geological means. The effective-porosity profile obtained from EAMS tests is similar to that of the conventionally acquired porosity. Open microfractures in tested samples increase mean values of reservoir effective porosity by 3650% in Unayzah-B/C. The occurrence of connected microfractures is estimated to cause an increase in average permeability of 75% in Unayzah-B/C. This is in agreement with the fact that wells

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank Saudi Aramco for sponsoring this work and the permission to publish. This article benefited from constructive reviews of an earlier version by Wayne Narr, Ronald A. Nelson, and Laird B. Thompson.

Copyright #2008. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Manuscript received August 5, 2006; provisional acceptance October 27, 2006; revised manuscript received August 6, 2007; final acceptance August 20, 2007. DOI:10.1306/08200706090

AAPG Bulletin, v. 92, no. 1 (January 2008), pp. 31 52

31

January

Search Index

in microfractured Unayzah-B/C have 4.514 times the productivity of wells as nonfractured sections of this reservoir. A maximum permeability trend of northeastsouthwest permeability anisotropy is detected. The implementation of the EAMS technology in other fields with microfractured reservoirs will directly impact operational and simulation effort.

INTRODUCTION Definitions The following definitions are based on Ameen (2003). Fractures are defined here as all discontinuities that occur in rocks caused by brittle and semibrittle deformation. In hydrocarbon reservoirs, these include natural fractures and induced fractures. Natural fractures are those related to the natural deformation of the rock. They include faults, cracks, joints, veins, and tectonic stylolites. Induced fractures are those induced artificially, e.g., by coring, core handling, drilling, fluid injection, etc. In the context of the current work, there are two natural fracture types, according to their size: mesofractures and microfactures. Mesofractures can be characterized fully from borehole-scale observations using cores and borehole images, and microfractures can only be characterized fully using optical and electron microscopy of core samples. Fracture characterization is the science that deals with the detection, diagnosis (identification of natural versus induced and type of each), and quantification of fractures (single fracture properties such as orientation, aperture, fault offset, and length and fracture population properties such as number of sets, orientation of each set, density, etc.). Fracture characterization is a multidisciplinary subject that integrates multitools and multiscale observations like microscopic, borehole image, core, and three-dimensional (3-D) seismic data. In-situ stresses are the present-day natural stresses present in the Earths crust. They are the result of several components: 1. Gravitational stresses caused by the weight of the overburden 2. Current tectonic stresses related to present-day tectonic forces such as those resulting from the active collision of the Arabian and the Eurasian continents in the Arabian Gulf region 3. Remnant and residual stresses locked in the rock during past episodes of tectonic and gravitational stresses 32 Geohorizon

In-situ stress characterization is the process of determining the orientation and estimating the relative and absolute magnitudes of the three principal in-situ stresses (maximum, intermediate, and minimum in-situ stresses, referred to as s1, s2, and s3, respectively). This is done using an integrated suite of tools like borehole images, borehole logs, extended leakoff tests, hydrofracturing tests, and active seismicity analysis. Using a Cartesian system relative to the Earths surface, the presentday in-situ stress can be resolved into three mutually perpendicular stresses, referred to as maximum horizontal stress (sH), minimum horizontal stress (sh), and vertical stress (sV). Microfractured Reservoirs Fractures can impact permeability and/or porosity and, hence, reservoir performance (Nelson, 2001). This is becoming more apparent with the advancement of technology and the shifting of frontiers to deeper and tighter reservoirs, in increasingly high-pressurehightemperature environments. Therefore, the need for fracture characterization is no longer limited to classical fractured reservoirs (in which fractures are the main source of permeability). Deep tight reservoirs rely on fractures as the source of porosity and permeability. The subject of the current work is reservoirs in which microfractures are the main source of porosity and permeability and, therefore, they are referred to here as microfractured reservoirs. To that effect, a reservoir sample is referred to as having fractured pore fabric if it has open, connected natural fractures that contribute to the effective porosity and permeability of the reservoir. If natural fractures are absent, low in density, or occluded so they have insignificant or no impact on reservoir porosity and/or permeability, then the reservoir sample is referred to as having a nonfractured pore fabric. Objectives Microfractured reservoirs are characterized using mainly petrographic and conventional petrophysical methods. The objectives of our work are to develop and test a quick, economical, and nonconventional method for microfractured reservoir characterization that combines both geological and petrophysical properties through one test. The Unayzah-B/C reservoir in the Wudayhi field, Saudi Arabia, where fractures were previously studied and known to impact reservoir performance from well tests (Al-Hawas et al., 2003), is considered as a good example of a microfractured reservoir. Therefore, it is

January

Search Index

Figure 1. (A) Natural magnetic susceptibility (NAMS) ellipsoid. The manifestation of the microfractures in the measured EAMS (artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility) ellipsoid orientation, where the K min is the pole to the fracture set, and the fracture plane is presented by the plane including K max and K int. (B) Block diagram of a cubic rock sample with a dominant set of open, connected microfractures impregnated with ferrofluid.

used for developing and testing the EAMS (artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility) technology for microfractured reservoir characterization as an alternative to the conventional method. For this purpose, two key wells from the Wudayhi field are used, referred to as well A and well B. These wells have several hundred feet of core and borehole images and were included in the previous fracture characterization effort referred to above. The United States Patent and Trademark Office granted U.S. Patent number 7,126,340 for the invention titled A Method to Characterize Microfractured Hydrocarbon Reservoirs by Artificially Induced Anisotropy of Magnetic Susceptibility on October 24, 2006. This article deals with this technology.

PRINCIPLES OF THE ANISOTROPY OF MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY Magnetic susceptibility is the magnetization induced in a rock by the application of a relatively weak magnetic field. This behavior is reversible, and the magnetization will decrease to zero when the field is removed. Natural anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (referred to here as NAMS) is the anisotropy of induced magnetization in a rock under an artificially imposed, relatively small magnetic field (e.g., 0.1 mT). The fabric of NAMS in a rock is affected by the mineralogical components to degrees that vary as a function of their intrinsic susceptibility. Therefore, NAMS reflects the preferred orientations of natural magnetic mineral grains that have relatively strong magnetic susceptibilities (such

as ferromagnetic iron oxides and/or sulfides and also paramagnetic clay minerals). The magnetic susceptibility, referred to as K, is expressed as the ratio between induced magnetization M and the artificially imposed magnetic field H of a rock sample. It depends on the direction of measurement: i.e., it is an anisotropic physical property. K is mathematically expressed by a secondorder tensor and, geometrically, as a triaxial ellipsoid, with K max, K int, and K min as the long, intermediate, and short axes (Figure 1). The shape of the NAMS ellipsoid is described by two important parameters: a magnetic foliation, referred to as F, which physically corresponds to the plane perpendicular to the minimum magnetic susceptibility, and a magnetic lineation, referred to as L (the direction of maximum susceptibility). The magnitudes of these two parameters are determined from the principal susceptibility values as follows: L Kmax =Kint F Kint =Kmin 1 2

A further useful magnitude parameter is the anisotropy degree, P, where P Kmax =Kmin 3

Such directional NAMS parameters and the inherent nature of NAMS in the mineralogical composition of rocks have led to important applications in geosciences (Hamilton and Rees, 1970; Tarling, 1971; Kirschvink, 1980; OReilly, 1984; Tarling and Hrouda, 1993; Ameen and Hailwood 33

January

Search Index

Figure 2. Illustration of the procedures involved in the conventional geological characterization of microfractures. These procedures are petrographic, and geometrical description involves laborious, destructive, and costly processes (require acquiring three mutually perpendicular thin sections parallel to the cube faces 1, 2, and 3) and yet do not give a direct and precise assessment of rock petrophysics.

Hailwood and Ding, 1995; Hirt et al., 1995; Kodama, 1995; Opdyke and Channel, 1996). Such applications include determining 1. depositional history, including paleocurrent directions in sediments 2. orientation of the magma flux direction in igneous rocks 3. deformation history in igneous and metamorphic rocks

METHODOLOGY Background and Previous Work

netic suspension and the magnitude of the magnetic susceptibility. The availability of smart magnetic fluids makes it possible to create a magnetic fluid cast of the connected pores by injecting the micropores with magnetic fluid. The application of magnetic susceptibility anisotropy of samples saturated with magnetic suspension to characterize connected open pores has been applied successfully to determine the pore fabric and the direction of maximum permeability and optimum fluid flow through conventional nonfractured synthetic material and outcrop sandstones (Pfeiderer and Halls, 1990, 1994; Hailwood et al., 1996, 1999a, b; Hailwood and Ding, 2000).

Conventional Geological Characterization of Microfractures The technology used in the current work is based on the process of enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (referred to here as EAMS). This is the anisotropy of artificially induced magnetization in a rock that has been impregnated by ferrofluid, under laboratoryimposed, relatively small magnetic field (e.g., 0.1 mT). EAMS borrows from nature the principles of NAMS by acquiring a magnetic cast of open, connected pore space ( by injecting ferrofluid into the rock samples) and then measuring the anisotropy parameters (L, F, and P as defined above), which give the orientation of the connected pore fabric. In addition, porosity values can be calculated from the known concentration of the mag34 Geohorizon Microfractures can only be effectively detected and characterized by microscopy (Figure 2). This type of fracture is ubiquitous in rocks (Kranz, 1983) and includes open, partly mineralized, and fully mineralized fractures. Characterizing mineralized microfractures is considerably easier than open fractures. Scanned cathodoluminescence imaging was used to map quartz-filled microfractures (lengths of micrometers to millimeters) in quartz-cemented sandstones in an attempt to predict the occurrence and orientation of larger fractures that are otherwise not encountered in the borehole cores or images (Laubach, 1997). Natural open or partly

January

Search Index

mineralized fractures are critical to hydrocarbon reservoirs that have otherwise low intrinsic porosity and/or permeability. However, reservoir-scale characterization of such open microfractures is a challenging task. This relies on microscopic analysis of core samples that, in addition to natural fractures, can also have artificially induced fractures by drilling, coring, core handling, or sampling (Santarelli and Dusseault, 1991). Distinguishing natural open fractures (that show no evidence of mineralization) from the induced fractures is an essential preliminary step in microfracture characterization. Natural microfractures tend to show staining, whereas induced fractures are fresh looking. In addition, natural microfractures develop parallel to nearby natural mesofractures, parallel to microfractures that show evidence of mineralization, and develop in clearly defined sets. Coring-induced fractures may be oriented relative to the core circumference in a concentric or radial pattern. Drilling-induced microfracture orientation can be related to present-day in-situ stresses and their modification around the borehole (especially in wells that are not vertical or horizontal). Natural microfractures are systematically related to local structural fabric or remote stress regime, which is not necessarily parallel to the present-day in-situ stress. The development of specialized seismic technologies may, in some cases, offer a reservoir-scale tool to predict the presence of a dominant set of open natural fractures under reservoir conditions (Gaiser et al., 2002). The combination of the borehole-scale characterization using cores, borehole images, full-wave sonic logs, and vertical seismic profile (VSP) logs offers comprehensive characterization and considerably reduces uncertainties associated with any of these tools when used alone. This multidisciplinary borehole-scale method was combined with a reservoirscale seismic anisotropy approach to characterize the microfractured Unayzah-B/C reservoir in the Wudayhi field and successfully helped in well planning (Al-Hawas et al., 2003). Therefore, the Unayzah-B/C reservoir offers a good testing ground for EAMS technology. Fracture density in conventional methods is assessed in terms of fracture count per unit length of an imaginary scan line perpendicular to the fracture set average plane (one-dimensional estimate) or as the cumulative length of fractures per unit area (two-dimensional estimate). Ideally, the best way to estimate fracture density is the cumulative area of fracture surfaces per unit volume of the rock. This is, however, affected by the uncertainties associated with the limited field of observation within the boundaries of the borehole images and/or cores. For reservoir appraisal, what really matters are

the open, connected fractures because they impact porosity and/or permeability. Therefore, there is a need to assess effective fracture porosity; this is defined here as the cumulative volume of open, connected fracture space (voids) per unit volume of the rock at the scale of observation. This is equivalent to effective fracture porosity in the tested sample. Conventional geological methods (e.g., petrography for microfractured reservoirs) are not reliable to assess this. However, the EAMS method is developed to directly give effective fracture porosity in rocks where fractures are the only source of porosity and permeability and indirectly for rocks with both fracture-related and nonfracture-related porosity and permeability. Characterizing Microfracture Fabrics Using EAMS Microfractures contribute to porosity and/or permeability in certain reservoirs. Such reservoirs, referred to here as microfractured reservoirs, are increasingly encountered because of the advancement of drilling and development technologies targeting deeper, tighter reservoirs (Energy Information Administration, 2002). Conventional characterization methods described above (Figure 2) are costly, time consuming, and difficult to quantify in terms of assessing fracture impact on porosity and permeability. Therefore, seeking innovative characterization of the microfractures in a way that reveals their impact on reservoir petrophysics is important. The Unayzah-B/C reservoir in the Wudayhi field, where microfractures are well studied and known to impact reservoir performance (Al-Hawas et al., 2003), is a good example of a microfractured reservoir. Therefore, we have used this reservoir for developing and testing the EAMS technology as an alternative to the conventional method. The EAMS technology is based on the assumption that if we inject ferrofluid into a rock sample characterized by a dominant set of planar, open microfractures and low effective porosity, the fluid fills the fracture network. The magnetic anisotropy magnitude and ellipsoid orientation of such a sample will be controlled by the fracture pattern, fracture size, and density and, therefore, can be used to predict the fracture orientation (Figure 1) and fracture-related porosity. Results from laboratory experiments on artificially induced fractures in nonporous media (marble) conducted in the Core Magnetics Laboratory as part of the calibration process and on prism-shaped pores (can be considered as fractures here) in Plexiglas (Pfeiderer and Halls, 1990) confirm that the resulting minimum susceptibility (K min) Ameen and Hailwood 35

January

Search Index

Figure 3. Examples of geological features that occur in both the cores and the borehole images that were used to calibrate the core orientation in the Wudayhi-A and Wudayhi-B wells. (A) Syndepositional fault in core clearly visible in the borehole image (B). (C) Two syndepositional faults in core truncated by overlying bed apparent in the borehole image (D).

axis is perpendicular to the mean plane orientation, so that EAMS measurements provide a precise measure of the dominant planar pore fabric. This premise should apply in microfractured reservoirs that have developed a dominant microfracture set as in the Unayzah-B/C reservoir, Wudayhi field. Core Sampling Core pieces from the two key wells (wells A and B) were fitted together into intervals in which all pieces had a common orientation. Each such interval is referred to as a core run. Runs are separated by breaks, across which a reliable fit cannot be made. Eleven runs were sampled in well A, the upper three being in the Unayzah-A formation and the lower eight in the Unayzah-B/C. Three runs were sampled in well B, all of them in the Unayzah-B/C. The mean run lengths in the two wells were 14.2 and 1.3 m (46.5 and 4.2 ft), respectively. A specially manufactured, nonmagnetic plugging bit, with a 25 mm (1 in.) diameter, was used to extract cylindrical plug samples from each of the fixed core runs. In most cases, three pairs of plugs were taken from each run, and the two plugs in each pair were drilled from opposite sides of the core to aid in the identification and vector removal of any spurious components of remanent magnetism associated with plugging and related processes (Hailwood and Ding, 1995). As far as possible, the six plug samples in each run were distributed uniformly throughout that interval of core. A total of 142 plug samples were acquired: 112 from well A and 36 Geohorizon

30 from well B. Two separate specimens were cut from each plug sample, a 15-mm (0.6-in.) cube for EAMS analyses and a 25-mm (1-in.) right-cylindrical specimen for paleomagnetic reorientation of the cores. Core Reorientation The method requires oriented cores or oriented wireline core plugs to acquire true orientation of the measurements. Cores from two wells (wells A and B) in the Wudayhi field were sampled for the present study. Measurements of microfracture orientations using the EAMS method and of mesofracture orientations using core goniometry were made in core coordinates. The measured relative directions were then referred to the geographic north using the paleomagnetic core reorientation method (Hailwood and Ding, 1995). The 25-mm (1-in.) right-cylindrical specimens sampled from the core runs were subjected to incremental thermal demagnetization to isolate the viscous remanent magnetism (VRM) acquired in the Holocene geomagnetic field. The mean VRM in each core run was then used to define the direction of the geographic north within that interval of core. The paleomagnetic core orientations were then verified using the calibration of the orientation of distinctive geological features in borehole images versus their orientation in the cores (Figure 3). The calibration shows that the difference between the paleomagnetic core orientation and the borehole image orientation is on the order of a few to 10j.

January

Search Index

Saturation of Reservoir Samples with Ferrofluid The 15-mm (0.6-in.) cube samples collected from cores are saturated with a magnetic fluid (ferrofluid). This comprises a suspension of ultrafine-grained (nanometer size) particles of isotropic magnetite in a suitable carrier medium, which may be oil based or water based. The particles are coated with an antiflocculent to prevent aggregation. Their size is within the superparamagnetic range, so that they do not carry remanent magnetism, but instead exhibit a strong induced magnetism in the presence of applied field. The saturation is done using a specially designed unit consisting of a pressure cell in which the rock specimen is evacuated from air using a vacuum valve and then immersed in ferrofluid under pressure (Figure 4). The pressure used is sufficiently low (80 psi; 551 kPa) to avoid inducing fractures into the tested samples. The pressure choice was calibrated by experiments to optimize saturation without inducing fractures. The saturation process was optimized and validated by conducting a petrographic inspection of dried samples after saturation. The microscopic inspection shows the ferrofluid distributed in all open, connected pores.

EAMS Testing The ferrofluid-saturated, 15-mm (0.6-in.) cube samples were subjected to EAMS measurements. The shape and orientation of the magnetic susceptibility ellipsoid in each tested sample were determined from the magnitude and direction of the measured susceptibilities K max, K int, and K min. The magnitude of magnetic foliation F, magnetic lineation L, and the anisotropy degree P are then derived from K max, K int, and K min using equations 1, 2, and 3 respectively. The EAMS parameters were then analyzed to detect the existence of fractures and determine their orientation (Figure 1), porosity, and permeability anisotropy.

positional fabrics. This reflects the enhanced porosity caused by the microfractures, which results in a higher volume of ferrofluid within these samples. 2. The magnetic foliation parameter, F, for samples with a dominant, open, microfracture set also tends to be systematically greater than that for samples with depositional-style fabrics (i.e., the magnetic susceptibility ellipsoid for the former tends to be more oblate than for the latter). This is caused by the concentration of ferrofluid within the planar fractures, which enhances the foliar structure of the fabric. 3. Primary depositional fabrics (after restoring bedding to syndepositional orientation) are generally characterized by relatively shallow K max axes and steep K min axes (within $20 25j of the horizontal and vertical, respectively). In contrast, microfracture-type fabrics are aligned in a direction related to the mean fracture plane orientation. Thus, apart from the rare case of subhorizontal fractures, K min axes of microfracture-type fabrics will commonly have steeper inclinations than those of depositional-style fabrics. 4. When the fracture fabric has shallow dip angles similar to those of samples with depositional fabrics, the dip directions of the microfracture fabrics are generally quite distinct from those of planar structures associated with the depositional fabrics. This criterion should be verified by petrography.

Verification of Fracture Occurrence and Orientation To verify that the magnetically detected fabric is caused by microcracks, we compared results from EAMS analyses with those from conventional (petrographic) observations on the same samples. We selected 12 EAMS cube samples as representative of the two main classes of EAMS-diagnosed fabrics: microfracture-type fabrics (five samples) and nonfractured fabrics (seven samples). Three mutually perpendicular thin sections were cut from each cube, one horizontal (section 2; Figure 2) and the other two vertical (sections 1, 3; Figure 2). The sections were analyzed using optical and electron microscopy for the presence and the orientations of natural microfractures (Figure 2). Paleomagnetic reorientation of the cube samples and constituent thin sections facilitated a referral of directions observed in the sections to the geographic north. The use of three mutually perpendicular thin sections gave an approximation to 3-D observation of visible microfractures and reduced the chance of missing features, had only one or a pair of thin sections been used. Ameen and Hailwood 37

Detection of Fractures and Their Orientations Microfracture-type fabrics can be distinguished from depositional-style (nonfractured) fabrics using four separate criteria: 1. The magnetic susceptibility (per unit volume) of samples with open, connected microfractures tends to be systematically greater than that of samples with de-

January

Search Index

Figure 4. Schematic section of the cell used for saturating the reservoir samples with ferrofluid under 80 psi (551 kPa) pressure.

Characterization of Microfracture Porosity Using EAMS The effective porosity of the samples was determined from their magnetic susceptibility after ferrofluid saturation. The total volume of ferrofluid within each plug sample can be calculated from the known magnetic susceptibility of the ferrofluid, coupled with results from previous calibration experiments. Knowing the sample volume, this provides a measure of the EAMS porosity of the sample using equation 4. X X=0:45

effective porosity

(before injection by the magnetic fluids) or on a separate set of plug samples acquired from the same cores. In the current case study, we used a separate set of plugs, which were acquired and tested independently. The method used in the conventional testing includes acquiring cylindrical plug samples 1.5 in. (3.8 cm) in diameter and 3 in. (7.6 in.) in length. A total of 197 samples were acquired from well A, and 225 samples were acquired from well B for the conventional tests. The porosity and permeability of the core plug samples are analyzed using conventional methods. The plug samples were cleaned in a Soxhlet extractor, first by toluene as organic solvent to remove hydrocarbons and then by methanol to remove salt and water. The cleaned samples were dried in an oven to remove water and solvent and then transferred to desiccators to cool them and absorb water. The plug samples were tested using helium gas for porosity and nitrogen gas for permeability. When assessing fracture porosity on reservoir scale, it is essential to consider that such porosity is a function of fracture dimensions, fracture density (or spacing), and fracture abundance or distribution and clustering. If fractures are localized in a narrow cluster, their contribution to reservoir porosity decreases with the increase in core sample size. In addition, random sampling may miss the fractures. However, if fractures are sufficiently small (microfractures) to be captured in a core sample, pervasive in a relatively large reservoir body or layer (such as the case with the Unayzah-B/C reservoir in this study), then the fracture porosity from core samples tends to be representative of the whole of the microfractured reservoir body. The dynamic performance of a reservoir, such as productivity (e.g., from well tests), is essential in any verification of the impact of fractures on porosity and permeability, particularly in tight reservoirs. Characterization of Permeability Anisotropy EAMS-determined pore-fabric anisotropy is related to the gross geometrical anisotropy of the effective connected pore spaces. If we assume that permeability is controlled by the connected pore space, including microfractures, then the geometry of the EAMS is expected to impact permeability anisotropy. The degree of permeability anisotropy can be calculated from EAMS using calibrated (empirically derived) standard equations. The calibration was performed in the Core Magnetics Laboratory over a period of time by comparing EAMS-derived data with directly measured permeability anisotropy values obtained from conventional core testing. The calibration is based on results (unpublished) from studies

X is the measured enhanced magnetic susceptibility (SI units). The possibility of predicting fracture porosity from comparing preinjection natural magnetic susceptibility with the postinjection EAMS is investigated and found inaccurate. This is related to the very low natural susceptibility of the tested reservoir samples, which was commonly below the accuracy threshold of laboratory equipment. Verification of EAMS-Derived Porosity Conventional petrophysical analysis of the cores is used to verify the porosity trends and porosity values obtained using the EAMS technology. This can be done on the same set of plug samples used for the EAMS test 38 Geohorizon

January

Search Index

of North Sea porous reservoirs (fluvial and deep-water sands). Permeability anisotropy data are expressed by two parameters. The first is the azimuthal permeability anisotropy, which represents the percentage difference between maximum and minimum permeability in the horizontal plane (i.e., parallel to bedding). The second is the total permeability anisotropy, which quantifies the percentage difference between the overall maximum and minimum permeability in 3-D. These are determined by the following equations: p permeability anisotropy 8:1 X 5

seismically resolvable offset) in the sedimentary rocks. An east-northeasttrending lineament along the steeper, southern limb of the anticline is evident from the dipmagnitude attribute of the seismic data (Figure 5B). This feature may reflect a deep-seated, basement fault zone. The Unayzah Reservoir The Unayzah is a sandstone reservoir, divided into three units (Figure 6). In descending order, these are 1. Unayzah-A: mostly fluvial- and coastal-plain facies, with alluvial fan and eolian facies 2. Unayzah-B: fluvial and lacustrine facies 3. Unayzah-C: glaciofluvial and eolian facies For further details concerning the stratigraphic aspects of the Unayzah, see Senalp and Al-Duaiji (2001). Impact of Fractures on Productivity

where X (referred to as X aa for azimuthal anisotropy and X ta for total anisotropy) is the enhanced susceptibility (SI units), calculated from the following equations: Xaa X 100 L 1 6

where L is the magnetic lineation (equation 1), and Xta X 100 P 1 7 The Unayzah-B/C reservoir in the Wudayhi field depends on the presence of fractures (mainly microfractures). This is evident from well tests that show that productivity from a nonfractured matrix forms only 19% of the total gas production and 7% of condensate production. Fracture Modes in the Unayzah The existence and properties of the fractures in the Unayzah reservoir were thoroughly studied and documented using a combination of borehole-scale tools (cores, borehole images, full-wave sonic logs, and vertical seismic profile processing log [VSP]) and fieldscale seismic anisotropy (Al-Hawas et al., 2003). This multidisciplinary approach confirmed the presence of open gas-filled microfractures with east-northeastwestsouthwest and west-northwesteast-southeast strike (Figure 7) and helped in the well planning. Analysis of drilling-induced fractures and breakouts in the field shows that the maximum horizontal in-situ stress direction is east-northeastwest-southwest, i.e., subparallel with the east-northeaststriking detected open fractures (Figure 7) and, therefore, is expected to enhance the fracture aperture of this set under reservoir conditions. Core and borehole image studies show that most of the observed open fractures in the Unayzah-B/C are microfractures. Mesofractures are low in density and small, up to several tens of centimeters in length (Figure 8). Furthermore, the open fracture density increases greatly with depth, with minimum density in Unayzah-A (higher Ameen and Hailwood 39

where P is the magnetic anisotropy density (equation 3). Verification of Permeability Anisotropy The directional properties of permeability, on reservoir scale, can be verified from conducting interference tests on sufficient number of adjacent wells. However, this could not be achieved in the studied field because of the lack of sufficient wells.

THE STUDY AREA (THE WUDAYHI GAS FIELD) Location and General Geology The Wudayhi gas field (discovered in 1998) is an eastnortheasttrending anticlinal structure, 30 km (18 mi) in length and 10 km (6 mi) in width. It is located in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia (Figure 5A), with structural and potential stratigraphic traps. The Wudayhi anticline is a forced basement-involved fold formed by the draping of the PaleozoicCenozoic sedimentary cover over fault-bound basement blocks. The anticline is gentle (dip angles rarely exceed several degrees) and asymmetric, with south vergence. The 3-D seismic and borehole data show no clear evidence of major faults (with

January

Search Index

Figure 5. (A) Location map of the Wudayhi field. (B) The location of the studied key wells on a time-dip structure map of the Unayzah reservoir, Wudayhi field. Reprinted with permission from Al-Hawas et al. (2003).

porosity sandstones, and low-porosity, shale-rich softer rocks) and maximum density in Unayzah-B/C, which consists of low-porosity, well-lithified sandstones (Figure 9). Origin of Natural Fractures in the Unayzah Natural fractures in the Unayzah include four distinct types: 1. Early, soft-sediment deformations, including faults, granulation seams, and slump structures, which occur mostly in the upper part of the Unayzah (Unayzah-A): These are dominated by a north-northweststriking set, are well cemented, are related to local gravity stresses controlled by local slopes, and may be triggered by seismicity in basement faults. 40 Geohorizon

2. Early diagenetic, fully mineralized fractures contorted by the vertical compaction with a dominant northnortheaststriking set 3. Stylolite-related fractures (defined by Nelson, 2001; Narr et al., 2006) that emanate from bedding stylolites and die out away from them: These are small (up to a few tens of centimeters in length), mostly occur in the lower section of the Unayzah (Unayzah-B/C), and are partially to fully mineralized. 4. Nonstylolite fractures that have no apparent link to bedding stylolites: These fractures are mostly open with partial mineralization, mostly occur in the lower section of the Unayzah (Unayzah-B/C), and are nearly vertical, with two sets striking eastnortheastwest-southwest and northwest-southeast, respectively.

January

Search Index

Figure 6. (A) Generalized stratigraphy of the Upper Carboniferous Permian reservoirs in the study area. (B) Porosity profile of the Unayzah reservoir in the Wudayhi field.

The nonstylolite open fractures are most dominant and affect reservoir performance. They are mostly microfractures. These fractures are not systematically oriented around the local anticlinal Wudayhi structure. However, they are systematically oriented relative to the plate tectonic remote stresses associated with the collision of the Arabian and the Eurasian plates (Late Cretaceous up to now). The preservation of open apertures in

most of these fractures (mineralization is only partial) can be related to the fracturing being contemporaneous with the hydrocarbon placement (Cretaceous to Tertiary) that helped in slowing the diagenesis and preserving the fracture-related pore spaces. This is evident from the common occurrence of hydrocarbon lining of part of the microfracture walls and the occurrence of hydrocarbons in fluid inclusions of quartz crystals lining the

Figure 7. Rose diagrams of the strikes of the open fractures and the trend of the maximum horizontal in-situ stress (SH) in the Unayzah reservoir, Wudayhi field. The diagrams show the presence of two open fracture sets striking east-northeast west-southwest and west-northwesteastsoutheast, with the latter set nearly parallel to SH. The in-situ stress diagrams are derived from borehole breakouts and drilling-induced tensile fractures (Al-Hawas et al., 2003) (Figure 9).

Ameen and Hailwood

41

January

Search Index

Figure 8. Modes of the open fractures in the Unayzah-B/C. (A) Partly mineralized (by quartz), mesofractures in whole core. (B) Formation microimaging borehole images with small, conductive mesofractures. (C) Plane-light photomicrograph showing a network of open microfractures. Note the hydrocarbon lining (dark brown to black) in the fractures.

fractures. Such inclusions were also observed along healed fractures in the Unayzah in other fields in Saudi Arabia (W. J. Carrigan, P. J. Jones, and R. H. Worden, 2003, personal communication; W. J. Carrigan and S. G. Franks, 2006, personal communication; S. G. Franks and W. J. Carrigan, 2006, personal communication).

Reservoir Petrophysics Fracture and Matrix Porosity from EAMS Data EAMS-determined porosity in the Unayzah-B/C for well A and well B are plotted in Figure 11. EAMS-based porosity values for microfractured samples (samples acquired from zones identified geologically as microfractured from the previous fracture characterization work published by Al-Hawas et al., 2003) are systematically greater than those for nonfractured samples (samples acquired from zones identified geologically as nonfractured by Al-Hawas et al., 2003). This reflects the porosity enhancement caused by the presence of the microfractures. The estimated porosity enhancement caused by microfractures is summarized in Table 1. The increase in the mean value of reservoir porosity

EAMS-DERIVED RESULTS Microfracture Trends The EAMS-detected microfractures have a dominant northeast-southwest to east-northeastwest-southwest strike in the studied wells (Figure 10). 42 Geohorizon

January

Search Index

Figure 9. Fracture density in the two studied key wells, well A (A), and well B (B), which are fully cored and imaged.

Figure 10. The strikes of EAMS-derived microfractures in the Unayzah-B/C presented as rose diagrams for wells A and B, superimposed on the Wudayhi field map. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

Ameen and Hailwood

43

January

Search Index

Figure 11. EAMS-derived porosity values for Unayzah-B/C samples with microfracture-type fabrics and depositionalstyle fabrics, compared with conventional porosity from plug samples, in wells A and B. Notice the higher porosity in the fractured samples compared to the nonfractured samples and the similarity of the porosity trends in the conventional and the EAMS methods. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

caused by fracture occurrence ranges from 36 to 50% in the Unayzah-B/C. The impact of fractures on porosity is also illustrated in the histograms of porosity distribution in fractured and nonfractured samples in each of the studied wells (Figure 12). Pore Fabric Anisotropy The preferred orientations of the long axes of EAMSderived, connected pores (K max azimuths) in all the samples from wells A and B (irrespective of fracture occurrence) are plotted as point and azimuthal rose diagrams in Figure 13A. This is characterized by one dominant nearly horizontal trend (N45jE) and two subordinate nearly horizontal east-west and north-northwestsouth-

southeast trends. The same pattern is evident from similar plots for the nonfractured samples from both wells A and B, respectively (Figure 13B) and for all the samples in well A (Figure 13C). The plot for all the samples in well B shows the east-west trend as marginally more dominant than the northeast-southwest trend (Figure 13D). This is most probably related to a scatter associated with the relatively small number of samples in well B (29 samples) compared to that in well A (111 samples). The dominant northeast-southwest trend of the nonfractured pore fabric (Figure 13B) lies at about 25 35j counterclockwise from the dominant fracture trend (Figure 10). The pore fabric of the fractured samples shows a dominant east-northeast to east-west trend (Figure 13E, F).

Table 1. EAMS-Derived Porosity* Effective Porosity (%), Derived from EAMS Well A B Sample Type Fractured Nonfractured Fractured Nonfractured Mean 9 6 15 11 Median 9 6 15 12 Standard Deviation 1.7 1.9 4.9 3.8 Skewness 0.1 0.5 2.2 1.1 Increase in Effective Porosity Caused by Fractures (%) Mean 50 36 Median 50 25

*Expressed as mean, mode, and median for microfracture-type and depositional style fabrics in the Unayzah-B/C, of the studied wells, and percentage increase in porosity for microfractured samples compared with nonfractured samples. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

44

Geohorizon

January

Search Index

Permeability Anisotropy: Relative Ratio of Directional Permeability The EAMS-based permeability anisotropy was calculated from using equations 5 7. Permeability anisotropy includes the horizontal (azimuthal) permeability anisotropy and the maximum (3-D) permeability anisotropy (defined in the methodology section). Histograms of these two parameters for wells A and B are shown in Figure 14. These show that azimuthal permeability anisotropy ranges from about 3 to 15% in both wells, with a mean of about 6.5%, and total permeability anisotropy ranges from 5 to 28%, with an overall mean of approximately 14%. Mean permeability anisotropy values for samples with microfracture-type and depositional-style fabrics, respectively, are summarized in Table 2A. No significant difference exists between the degrees of permeability anisotropy of samples with the two types of fabric in either well (within the variability represented by the standard deviation of the mean). These results suggest that although the presence of microfracture fabrics increases porosity, it does not appear to have a significant effect on the degree of permeability anisotropy. The degree of anisotropy is related to several factors, including fracture size, aspect ratio, density, the existence of nonfracture pores, and their relative abundance and geometries.

Figure 12. Frequency distribution of the EAMS-based porosity in the key wells A and B. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

Figure 13. Trend and plunge (points) and azimuthal rose diagrams of the long axes of EAMS-derived, connected pores (K max azimuths) in (A) all the samples from both wells A and B (irrespective of fracture occurrence); (B) the nonfractured samples from both wells A and B; (C) all the samples in well A; (D) all the samples in well B; (E) the fractured samples from well A; (F ) the fractured samples from well B. The plots in (A) (C) are characterized by a dominant, nearly horizontal trend (N45jE), and two subordinate, nearly horizontal east-west and north-northwest southsoutheast trends, whereas (D) (F ) show the east-west or east-northeast westsouthwest trend as the marginally more dominant trend than the northeast-southwest.

Ameen and Hailwood

45

January

Search Index

Figure 14. Frequency distribution of the azimuthal and total permeability anisotropy values in wells A and B.

Trends of Permeability Anisotropy The maximum permeability direction in microfractured rocks depends on fracture properties, including the number of sets, their relative frequency and orientation, their aperture, the presence of propping features like partial mineralization or fracture wall geometrical mismatch, and fluid dissolution enhancement. In addition, the orientation of the present-day stress regime is a significant factor in enhancing or closing open

fractures, thus affecting their permeability (Barton et al., 1995). In the current study, there is one dominant microfracture set (Figure 10) that is open, nearly parallel to the maximum horizontal in-situ stress and perpendicular to the minimum horizontal in-situ stress (compare Figure 7 with Figure 10). Therefore, the maximum permeability direction in the microfractured samples is expected to lie within the mean microfracture plane, whereas that of samples with depositional fabrics is controlled by the nonfracture pore fabric. The

Table 2. Estimates of (A) Permeability Anisotropy Mean Values and (B) Fracture-Related Increase in Permeability (A) Mean Permeability Anisotropy Values* Azimuthal Permeability Anisotropy (%) from Equation 5 (See Text) Well A B Microfracture-Type Fabrics 7 2.5 6 4.4 Depositional-Style Fabrics 7 2.1 7 3.9 Total Permeability Anisotropy (%) from Equation 5 (See Text) Microfracture-Type Fabrics 17 2.5 12 4.0 Depositional-Style Fabrics 15 2.2 12 6.1

(B) Permeability Increase in the Unayzah-B/C, well A** Well A Estimated Permeability Increase (%), Unayzah-B/C 75

*With associated standard deviations for samples with microfracture-type and depositional-style fabrics in the key wells from Wudayhi field. **Caused by the microfractures calculated using EAMS-derived porosity.

46

Geohorizon

January

Search Index

microfracture strike in the Wudayhi field is oriented east-northeast, forming an angle of 25 35j clockwise from the northeast-trending dominant depositional pore long axis (compare Figure 10 with Figure 13C), so that maximum permeability directions associated with the two types of fabric are broadly similar. Permeability The EAMS test setup used in this work does not allow for accurate permeability measurements. Permeability for matrix rocks is derived from conventional petrophysical tests of core-plug samples. Fracture permeability is generally more difficult to assess and is a function of the percolation threshold (Odling et al., 1999). However, if we assume that a microfractured reservoir is at or below the percolation threshold because of the microscopic size of the dominant fractures and their pervasive nature, we may predict the minimum impact of the microfractures on permeability using the correlation of conventionally acquired porosity and permeability. Using the porosity of the microfractured EAMS-tested samples and applying the porosity-permeability correlation from conventional tests (well A) of core plugs, it is estimated that microfractures increase the average permeability by 75% in Unayzah-B/C (Table 2B). The actual permeability impact will be significantly higher as fractures reach and exceed the percolation threshold.

occurrence in one or more of the three key thin sections. The results are summarized in Table 3. The following conclusions are derived from these observations: 1. Fractures were geologically verified in 100% of the cube samples that were diagnosed as fractured from the EAMS tests. These include fractures occurring along grain boundaries and fractures that cut across grains (Figure 15). 2. The orientation of the petrographically identified fractures was analyzed. The petrographically observed orientation is similar to that of the microfractures identified from the EAMS fabrics (compare Figures 16, 17). 3. Microfracture orientations determined from the EAMS tests are similar to the east-northeastwestsouthwest regional in-situ stress and open fracture direction in the Wudayhi field (compare Figures 7, 10). This is further supported by observations made in this study on mesofractures in the immediate vicinity of samples diagnosed as microfractured by EAMS. These mesofractures show trends similar to those of the EAMS-delineated microfractures (compare Figures 10, 18). 4. The instances of fractures detected by microscopy (43% of cubes) in samples that are diagnosed as nonfractured by the EAMS technology were investigated and found to represent low-density, localized, isolated microfractures related to microstylolites. These have no significant impact on effective porosity. This demonstrates further the efficiency of EAMS in detecting only open, connected, pervasive fractures that have an impact on the reservoir petrophysics. Petrographic methods may detect fractures; however, this has no reliable indication as to their petrophysical impact. Therefore, the margin of error in using petrography to detect microfractures that impact porosity and/or permeability is 43%; however, the required sampling rate is three times that of EAMS. Petrophysical Verification Porosity The conventionally measured porosity values are used to verify the values and trends of the EAMS porosity values. The results show the following: 1. The porosity trend detected from the EAMS is plotted versus depth and compared with the plot of conventionally acquired porosities. The two sets of data show similar porosity profile, although the conventionally Ameen and Hailwood 47

VERIFICATIONS OF THE EAMS-BASED RESULTS The validation of the technology aims at verifying the following aspects: 1. The existence of natural open fractures in samples diagnosed as fractured by the EAMS tests and their lack in those diagnosed as nonfractured 2. The orientation of the fractures as detected from the EAMS analysis 3. The porosity profile as detected from the EAMS analysis Verification of Fracture Occurrence and Trend The verification of the first and second aspects is achieved using conventional geological (petrographic) methods as described above on 12 key samples presenting microfractured and nonfractured samples as identified from the EAMS tests. The occurrence or lack of fractures is therefore verified for each EAMS sample from their

arch Index

January

Table 3. Summary of EAMS Diagnoses*

48 Geohorizon

EAMS Values K max Sample 1 EAMS Porosity (%) 2.3 Azimuth 339 Plunge 4 Azimuth 188 K min Plunge 85 Azimuth K int Plunge L 1.007 F 1.036 P 1.033

EAMS-Derived Micofracture Orientation

Petrographic Verification Existence of Significant Open Fractures No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Strike

Dip

Orthogonal Thin Section A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

7.5

232

42

36

36

1.006

1.027

1.032

93

55

9.1

141

58

16

22

276

1.002

1.049

1.051

106

68

1.8

49

310

78

1.004

1.061

1.065

2.3

333

41

82

1.005

1.01

1.015

2.8

57

12

217

77

1.012

1.037

1.049

3.5

239

140

80

1.007

1.038

1.045

4.6

250

11

57

78

1.008

1.023

1.032

4.1

320

220

74

1.003

1.009

1.012

10

9.0

247

45

118

32

28

1.004

1.035

1.039

208

59

11

8.9

11

59

134

18

233

25

1.003

1.049

1.052

224

72

12

8.7

92

54

320

26

219

24

1.007

1.034

1.041

50

65

*In terms of microfracture occurrence and their EAMS porosity, EAMS parameters and orientation, and the petrographic verification from the three mutually perpendicular thin sections (A, B, and C, respectively). For orientation of the EAMS-derived fractures and their petrographic verification, see Figures 16 and 17. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

January

Search Index

Figure 15. (A) Plane-polarized light photomicrograph of vertical thin section (from well A) shows open, tensile, steep, dipping microfractures. The fractures are along grain boundaries (I), and cutting across grains (II). (B) Scanning electron microscopy image (from well A) of open, tensile, primary, and secondary fractures. Note that some of the fractures are mineralized, indicating natural origin.

measured porosity was obtained independently from a set of plugs different to that used in the EAMS analysis (Figure 11, well A). 2. Porosity magnitude from the EAMS in microfractured samples at any particular depth is consistently higher than those in nonfractured samples from the same interval (Figure 11). This is also evident from the correlating porosity distribution of fractured samples with nonfractured samples (Figure 12).

Permeability The impact of fractures on permeability is evident from well tests on the two key wells. The tests show that the productivity within the Unayzah-B/C could not be accounted for solely by matrix porosity and permeability. The directional properties of permeability might be verified by conducting interference or tracer tests on multiple wells. However, this could not be done because of the lack of sufficient wells. Ameen and Hailwood 49

January

Search Index

Figure 16. Lower hemisphere, equal-area polar plot (A) and strike rose diagram (B) of the petrographically measured microfracture orientation from the key EAMS samples (2, 3, 11, and 12 in Table 3). Note that sample 10 in Table 3 is not plotted here because it was only observed in one of the three orthogonal thin sections, and therefore, it was not possible to orient accurately. Compare with Figure 17. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The study successfully developed and proved the EAMS technology for the characterization of microfractured reservoirs. The Wudayhi gas field presented an ideal testing ground for the technology because previous geological characterization and well testing proved that one of the main reservoir sections (Unayzah-B/C) is microfractured. Results of the EAMS method agrees with those acquired conventionally in previous studies of the

Wudayhi field (Al-Hawas et al., 2003). In addition, verification of the EAMS method in a selection of the EAMS-tested samples shows its reliability in detecting fractures, compared to using thin sections of the same samples (petrographic methods). The petrographic methods require three times the sampling rate as the EAMS method. One or two thin sections are not sufficient for the detection and orientation of fractures. Three mutually perpendicular thin sections are essential (three times the EAMS sampling rate). Therefore, the EAMS method

Figure 17. Lower hemisphere, equalarea point diagrams showing trend and plunge of the EAMS ellipsoid axes from the key EAMS samples (2, 3, 10, 11, and 12 in Table 3). K min presents the pole to the EAMS-based microfracture set. Compare with Figure 16. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

50

Geohorizon

January

Search Index

The applicability of the EAMS technology to detect open connected microfractures and determine their orientation and petrophysical impact depends on the degree of fracturing, and the presence, degree, and relative orientation of other open and connected rock fabric (e.g., depositional, diagenetic pore space). Microfractured reservoirs with nonexisting depositional or nonfracture pore fabric are good candidates for the implementation of the EAMS technology. This also applies if these nonporous matrix rocks have microfractures with clearly defined sets or fractures that are random in orientation (e.g., dilatational cataclasites). For the latter, an EAMS test will be applicable to assessing fracture porosity and relative density. If depositional or nontectonic pore fabric exists, but is distinctive from microfracture orientation, the EAMS technology applies.

Figure 18. Rose diagram of the strikes of mesofractures in the immediate vicinity (within up to 1 m [3.3 ft]) to the EAMStested samples in the Unayzah-B/C cores. EAMS = artificially enhanced anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility.

REFERENCES CITED
Al-Hawas, K., M. Ameen, M. Wahab, F. Al-Thawad, E. Nebrija, and C. MacBeth, 2003, Delineation of fracture anisotropy signatures in Wudayhi field by azimuthal seismic data: The Leading Edge, v. 22, no. 12, p. 1202 1211. Ameen, M. S., 2003, Fracture and in-situ stress characterization of hydrocarbon reservoirs, definitions and introduction, in M. S. Ameen, ed., Fracture and in-situ stress characterization of hydrocarbon reservoirs: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 209, p. 1 6. Barton, C. A., M. D. Zoback, and D. Moos, 1995, Fluid flow along potentially active faults in crystalline rock: Geology, v. 23, p. 683 686. Energy Information Administration, 2002, U.S. crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquid reserves: 2002 annual report U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration 0216 (2002), 170 p. Gaiser, J., E. Loinger, H. Lynn, and L. Vetri, 2002, Birefringence analysis at Emilio field for fracture characterization: First Break, v. 20.8, p. 505 514. Hailwood, E. A., and F. Ding, 1995, Palaeomagnetic re-orientation of cores and the magnetic fabric of hydrocarbon reservoir sands, in P. Turner and A. Turner, eds., Palaeomagnetic applications in hydrocarbon exploration and production: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 98, p. 245 258. Hailwood, E. A., and F. Ding, 2000, Sediment transport and dispersal pathways in the Lower Cretaceous sands of the Britannia field, derived from magnetic anisotropy: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 6, p. 369 379. Hailwood, E. A., D. Bowen, P. W. M. Corbett, F. Ding, and P. Whattler, 1996, Magpore, a new technique for characterizing reservoir pore fabrics, by magnetic anisotropy analysis: 58th European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers Conference and Technical Exhibition, Extended Abstracts, v. 2, Oral and Poster Presentations, EAGE Petroleum Division and 17th European Formation Evaluation Symposium (SPWLA). Hailwood, E. A., D. Bowen, F. Ding, P. W. M. Corbett, and P. Whattler, 1999a, Characterising pore fabrics in sediments by anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility analyses, in D. H. Tarling and P. Turner, eds., Palaeomagnetism and diagenesis in sediments: Geological Society (London) Special Publication 151, p. 125 126.

is more efficient than petrographic methods. Furthermore, the margin of error in petrographically detecting microfractures that impact reservoir porosity and/or permeability is high: 43%. In addition, in the conventional characterization method, a fourth set of sampling is required for petrophysical testing. One important aspect about the EAMS technology is its link to petrophysics. In addition to fracture orientation, we acquired effective 3-D porosity of fractured samples. The effective porosity of the fractures is obtained from comparing the EAMSderived effective porosity of fractured and nonfractured samples. Therefore, EAMS gives us fracture-effective porosity and permeability anisotropy, an important bridge between reservoir geology and engineering. This will impact our operational and simulation effort directly. The EAMS technology requires a baseline geological study prior to its application on a new reservoir or field to determine the existence and orientation of open connected natural fractures. In addition, during the implementation of the technology, a random choice of EAMStested samples should be dissected and petrographically verified for the presence, orientation, and type of fractures predicted from the EAMS tests. A selection of the sample population allocated for EAMS testing should be subjected to conventional petrophysical testing before the EAMS test to verify the EAMS-derived porosity.

Ameen and Hailwood

51

January

Search Index

Hailwood, E. A., F. Ding, and D. Bowen, 1999b, Directional permeability How important is it and can it be measured reliably: Dialog (Newsletter of the London Petrophysical Society), v. 7, p. 4 7. Hamilton, N., and A. I. Rees, 1970, The use of magnetic fabric in palaeocurrent estimation, in S. K. Runcorn, ed., Palaeogeophysics: London, Academic Press, p. 445 464. Hirt, A. M., K. F. Evans, and T. Engelder, 1995, Correlation between magnetic anisotropy and fabric for Devonian shales on the Appalachian Plateau: Tectonophysics, v. 247, p. 121 132. Kirschvink, J. L., 1980, The least-squares line and plane and the analysis of palaeomagnetic data: Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 62, p. 699 718. Kodama, K. P., 1995, Magnetic fabrics: Reviews of Geophysics, v. 33, p. 129 136. Kranz, R. L., 1983, Microcracks in rocks, a review: Tectonophysics, v. 100, p. 449 480. Laubach, S. E., 1997, A method to detect natural fracture strike in sandstones: AAPG Bulletin, v. 81, no. 4, p. 604 623. Narr, W., D. W. Schechter, and L. B. Thompson, 2006, Naturally fractured reservoir characterization: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 115 p. Nelson, R. A., 2001, Geologic analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs: Woburn, Gulf Professional Publishing, 332 p.

Odling, N. E. et al., 1999, Variations in fracture system geometry and their implications for fluid flow in fractured hydrocarbon reservoirs: Petroleum Geoscience, v. 5, p. 373 384. Opdyke, N. D., and J. Channel, 1996, Magnetic stratigraphy: Oxford, Academic Press, 346 p. OReilly, W., 1984, Rock and mineral magnetism: London, Blackie and Son Ltd., 220 p. Pfeiderer, S., and H. C. Halls, 1990, Magnetic susceptibility anisotropy of rocks saturated with ferrofluid: A new method to study pore fabric: Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, v. 65, p. 158 164. Pfeiderer, S., and H. C. Halls, 1994, Magnetic pore fabric analysis, a rapid method for estimating permeability anisotropy: Geophysical Journal International, v. 116, p. 39 45. Santarelli, F. J., and M. B. Dusseault, 1991, Core quality control in petroleum engineering, in J. C. Roegiers, ed., Rock mechanics as a multidisciplinary science: Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema, p. 111 120. Senalp, M., and A. Al-Duaiji, 2001, Sequence stratigraphy of the Unayzah reservoir in central Saudi Arabia: Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology, p. 20 43. Tarling, D. H., 1971, Principles and applications of palaeomagnetism: London, Chapman and Hall, 164 p. Tarling, D. H., and F. Hrouda, 1993, Magnetic anisotropy of rocks: London, Chapman and Hall, 220 p.

52

Geohorizon