4.

CLASSIFICATION OF FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Classification of Fractured Reservoirs

Delineates the reservoir parameters most important in quantifying the reservoir (high-grades data acquisition) Potential production & evaluation problems can be anticipated

The style of reservoir simulation necessary can be constrained

Fractured Reservoir Classification

Type I: Fractures provide the essential storage capacity and permeability in a reservoir. The matrix has little porosity or permeability. Type II: Rock matrix provides the essential storage capacity and fractures provide the essential permeability in a reservoir. The rock matrix has low permeability, but may have low, moderate, or even high porosity.

Type III: Fractures provide a permeability assist in an already economically producible reservoir that has good matrix porosity and permeability.
Type IV: Fractures do not provide significant additional storage capacity or permeability in an already producible reservoir, but instead create anisotropy. (Barriers to Flow)
Nelson (1999)

CLASSIFICATION OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Type Matrix f k Little Little Low Low High Low High High Storage Flow

I II III IV

Fracts Fracts Mat & Fracts Fracts Mat Fracts Mat Mat

Fractures provide the essential reservoir porosity and permeability

1. Often a rapid decline curve 2. Possible early water encroachment 3. High fracture intensity necessary

Type 2

Type 1
LIST OF PROBLEMS INVOLVED

Fractures provide the essential permeability

1. Poor fracture and matrix porosity communication leads to poor matrix recovery and disastrous secondary recovery 2. Possible early water encroachment 3. Fracture intensity and dip critical

Fractures provide permeability assistance to an already producible reservoir.

1. Non-recognition of fracture system 2. Often usual response in secondary recovery 3. Drainage areas often highly elliptical 4. Interconnected reservoirs

Type 3

Schematic Distribution of Fractured Reservoir Types

100 % k f All Fractures

% of Total Permeability

II III

Decreasing Effect of Matrix Increasing Effect of Fractures

M
100% k m All Matrix

IV
100% f m

% of Total Porosity

100% f f
Nelson (1999)

Evaluation Characteristics by Fractured Reservoir Type

Type 1
(Fractures provide essential por. & perm.)

Fracture characteristics define reserves Static description is critical Production highly variable in 4-D Few wells required to deplete

Evaluation Characteristics by Fractured Reservoir Type

Type 2
(Fractures provide essential perm.)

Cross flow and rate control are critical Fractures define rate Water influx must be monitored & intervention planned If overpressured, fracture closure must be controlled

Evaluation Characteristics by Fractured Reservoir Type

Type 3
(Fractures provide a perm. assist)

Fractures define anisotropy Highly customized flood patterns needed Rates & drainage areas better than predicted from matrix alone

Evaluation Characteristics by Fractured Reservoir Type

Type 4
(Fractures create perm. reduction)

Fractures create baffles, barriers and compartments (flow & saturation) Fracture descriptions made generally by core only Inefficient drainage & sweep Rates & reserves lower than predicted from matrix alone

Reservoir Type 1 Fields

Examples Of Fields In Which Fractures Provide The Essential Porosity And Permeability To The Reservoir

Reservoir Type 1
_____________________________________________________ Field I . Amal 2. (5)Ellenburger Fields 3. Edison 4. Wolf Springs 5. (8) PC Fields 6. Big Sandy Location Libya Texas California Montana Kansas Kent./W.V Reserves 1700 mmbbl 107.8 (1957) 42 5.4 3.8 3 Tcf

Contrasting History
Examples of Contrasting History __________________________________________________

Reservoir Type 1:
Fractures Provide the Essential Porosity and Permeability Edison (California) Tectonic Fractures Big Sandy (Kentucky/W. Virginia) Regional Fractures The Difference is Primarily One of Drainage Area and Fracture Type. Poor History

Good History

Reservoir Type 2 Examples

Examples Of Fields In Which Fractures Provide The Essential Permeability To The Reservoir

Reservoir Type 2
Field 1 . Agha Jari 2. Haft Kel 3. Rangely 4. Spraberry 5. AltamontBluebell 6. Sooner Trend 7. La Paz/Mara Location Iran Iran Colorado Texas Utah Oklahoma Venezuela Reserves 9500 mmbbI 2660 600 447 250 70 800

Contrasting History
Examples of Contrasting History

Reservoir Type 2:
Fractures Provide the Essential Permeability Spraberry (Texas) Underpressured

Poor History

Altamont-Blue Bell (Utah) Good History Overpressured The Difference is One of Reservoir Energy.

Reservoir Type 3 Examples

Fractures Provide A Permeability Assist To The Reservoir

Reservoir Type 3:
Field 1 . Kirkuk 2. Gachsaran 3. Hassi Messaoud 4. Dukhan 5. Cottonwood Creek 6. Lacq Location Iraq Iran Algeria Qatar Wyoming France Reserves 15000 mmbbi 8000 6000 4570 182 8.8 TCF

Contrasting History
Reservoir Type 3:
Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist Cottonwood Creek (Wyoming) Poor History Late Recognition of Fractures Kirkuk (Iraq) Good History Early Recognition of Fractures One Difference is When the Fracture Systems Were Recognized in Production Procedures.

Attributes of Reservoir Types

Reservoir Type 3
Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist
1. 2. 3. 4.

Reserves dominated by matrix properties Reserve distribution fairly homogeneous High sustained well rates Great reservoir continuity

Reservoir Type 1.
Fractures Provide Essential Porosity and Permeability
1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Drainage areas per well are large. Few wells needed in development (in-fill for rate acceleration only) Good correlation between well rates and well Best wells are often early Generally high IPs Can produce from non-standard and non-reservoir

Reservoir Type 2.
Fractures Provide Essential Permeability
1. 2. 3.

Can develop low permeability rocks Often higher than anticipated well rates Hydrocarbon charge often fostered by fractures

Critical Exploration & Development Issues by Pressure, Wellbore Fractured Reservoir Type
100% Stability & Rate control
Valhall

All Fractures

Blackburn

%Permeability in Fractures

Hod

West Rozel Beaver River/ Sabria/ Sajaa/ Pointed Mountain El Franig Pearsall Kahaif Anschutz Ranch East, Low Opon Whitney Canyon

Middle Ground Shoals/ Lost Soldier Granite Point Madison Wamsutter

Lost Soldier Liuhua Tensleep Ryckman Creek Darius Anschutz Ranch East,High Rijn Cedar Rim Pineview Beaver Creek Inappropriate Hugoton Floods & Non-Recognition

Reserve Calculation & Rate Decline Development Patterns & Well Paths

0% Matrix 0% All

R.A.Nelson, 1999

%Porosity in Fractures

100%