Workflow of Fracture Modeling in RMS: Application to a Carbonate Reservoir

Xingquan (Kevin) Zhang1, Hossam Daify2

1 Emerson Process Management, Calgary, Canada 2 Abu Dhabi Marine Operating Company (ADMA-OPTO), Abu Dhabi, UAE
Introduction
Two thirds of the worlds proven reserves are in naturally fractured reservoirs. Fractures have a critical impact on reservoir behavior, EUR, and OOIP. However, Fractures are thought to be complex, so many times we only pay attention once we have a problem! Fractures can be modeled in all industry-standard simulation packages. The ground-truthing of any fracture model is simulation. This poster demonstrates the fracture modeling workflow in RMS. The input hard data includes fracture measurements (fracture orientation, height, length, aperture, mineralization,) based on core, image log, and outcrops, well test permeability, etc; soft data includes seismic, mud loss, etc. The output 3D models include fracture permeabilities, fracture porosity and sigma factor. The benefits of the workflow are that all kinds of hard data, soft data, and knowledge can be easily integrated; the input parameters can be easily adjusted based on production response and the fracture model can be easily updated; and lots of modeling and simulation time can be saved with the integrated workflow.

Fracture Distribution Trends

For a naturally fractured reservoir, fractures are the products of multiple tectonic events. Fracture networks present regularities, and some of which can be predicted away from data points.

Fracture Modeling Workflow

The fracture modeling workflow can be simplified as: 1. Predict fracture distributions (density & orientation) 2. Build the discrete fracture network (DFN) model 3.Calculate fracture-related attributes 4. export to a reservoir simulator 5. Repeat step 1-4 with modified input parameters if significant mismatch is found

Fracture Trends and DFN Modeling

4 types of fracture trends present: fault zone trend local stress trend vertical trend by zone / time lithology trend
Zone 1 Zone 2

Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5

1. Fault Zone Related Fractures

Some fractures are located in fault zones, and they have the same orientations as the related faults. The density is higher when closer to the fault surface. The density of this type of fractures can be predicted by the distance to fault surfaces; the orientation can be predicted by the fault strikes.

Zone 6

Zone 7

Conditional fracture density models (by fracture sets) were built to honor well observations.
unconditional

Zone 8

conditional

Building a DFN (Discrete Fracture Network)

How to Quantify an NFR

Fractures form where the rock strength is exceeded in response to stress field; and stress field results from tectonic events and processes such as exhumation or cooling of plutons. Fractures are irreversible and cumulative, so the current fracture distribution is the product of multiple tectonic events. In the long geological history, many tectonic events happened, and each event created a set of fractures. A fracture set is defined by: orientation (strike/dip) density/spacing aperture/mineralization size (length/height) type origin/age/truncations connectivity A naturally fractured reservoir (NFR) is quantified by predicting the distribution of each fracture set; and the result is a discrete fracture network (DFN).

2. Local Stress Related Fractures

Fractures form where the rock strength is exceeded in response to a stress field. RMS provides a stress calculator to calculate the local stress. The stress state modeled is that responsible for faults (not necessarily linked to present day stress). Fracture orientation is controlled by local stress orientation; and fracture density is controlled by the scale of local stress.

Case Study

Fracture Modeling Products

Fracture attributes can be merged with matrix attributes.

Folding axis

3. Folding Related Fractures

During folding, tension fractures and conjugate shear fractures can be created. Fracture density can be predicted by the structure curvature, and fracture orientation is the same as the local maximum curvature orientation. Note that the current curvature is the product of multiple tectonic events, which is often not the state when folding-related fractures occurred. Structural restoration is needed to predict this type of fractures.
Fracture Perm I
Fracture strikes

Fracture Perm J

The field is an elongated dome structure, with NE-SW orientation. There are two main sets of faults: E-W antithetic faults (main) NNE-SSW synthetic faults (secondary) The tectonic history of the field can be summarized as follows: The ancient stress Orientation: 140 10 from north Type: trans-compressional Created the antithetic faults and synthetic faults (10~30) The current stress Orientation: 40 10 from north Type: trans-compressional Created other faults

Sigma Factor

Fracture Porosity

Contact
For further discussions and comments on this topic, please contact: Xingquan (Kevin) Zhang, P.Geol. Email: kzhang@emerson.com Mobile: (403) 471-0234