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, 14 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
Imaging log, sonic log, optical microscopy, NMR, MRI, and
tomography have greatly enhanced the possibility of
measuring fracture geometric characteristics. However, the
fracture hydraulic width and permeability can only be
evaluated from dynamic data revealing production or
adsorption along the wellbore. Different analytical approaches
accounting for mud rheology and their application to several
field cases where mud losses were recorded with
electromagnetic flowmeters are presented to evaluate the
fracture hydraulic width from mud loss measurements.
Observation of mud loss evolution in time also revealed
whether a single fracture or an intensely fractured zone had
been intercepted by the drilling bit. Results are discussed with
respect to imaging log data, core analyses, and well test
interpretation results. In general, a very good correspondence
was found between mud loss occurrence, fracture detection
from imaging log, core data, and productivity tests.
Introduction
Fractured reservoirs are difficult to simulate due to the
presence of tectonic discontinuities, intersecting a generally
almost tight matrix, that strongly influence the fluid flow
pattern in the producing formation. Technologies such as
imaging log coupled with microfracture analyses of
conventional cores with optical microscopy, NMR, MRI, and
tomography have greatly enhanced the possibility of
measuring the fracture geometric characteristics.
However, the fracture hydraulic width and permeability
can only be evaluated from dynamic data revealing production
or adsorption along the wellbore. The use of high resolution
electromagnetic flowmeters to monitor mud losses during
drilling appears very attractive for fracture detection and
characterization in that flowmeters provide an accurate,
continuous recording of mud adsorption, thus giving a clear
indication of the formation conductive fractures or more
permeable zones intersected by the wellbore.
(1,2)
Only at a later
time, production logs can indicate primary fluid entry points
and transient pressure analysis allow estimation of the fracture
or fracture network permeability.
Appropriate data collection at early stages is crucial to
identify and characterize faults and fractures affecting the
reservoir productivity and performance, and integration of all
available information probably represents the only effective
approach to achieve a good understanding of fractured
reservoirs in order to develop effective management
strategies.
(3,4)
Mud loss identification
The exposure of open natural fractures by the drilling bit
produces a sudden decrease of the outlet mud flow rate.
According to Dyke et al.
(2)
losses through matrix
permeability or into natural fractures can be distinguished by
the characteristics of the loss. Losses through pores start
slowly and gradually increase as drilling proceeds whereas
losses into natural fractures show a rapid initial increase in
loss rate followed by a gradual decline in time. Such loss
progressions with time give rise to the typical responses in the
mud tank level, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 - Type of loss zone from pit level: (a) Pore or fracture
network, and (b) Single natural fracture (after Dyke et al.
(2)
,
modified)
The same loss evolution in time was detected when mud
losses were recorded by the flowmeters, thus allowing to
discriminate between single conductive fractures and porous
SPE 63266
Detection and Characterization of Fractures in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
F.M. Verga, SPE, Politecnico di Torino, C. Carugo, V. Chelini, and R. Maglione, SPE, ENI - Agip Division, and G. De
Bacco, SPE, Politecnico di Torino
time
M
u
d

l
e
v
e
l
(a)
time
M
u
d

l
e
v
e
l
(b)
2 F.M. VERGA, C. CARUGO, V.CHELINI, R. MAGLIONE, G. DE BACCO SPE 63266
matrix or intensely fractured zones, both inducing very similar
mud losses into the formation. Fig. 2 shows typical
electromagnetic flowmeter responses in the two cases.
Fig. 2 - Type of loss zone from electromagnetic flowmeter
recordings: (a) Fracture network, and (b) Single conductive
fracture
Analytical approaches
To the authors' best knowledge according to the literature two
analytical models have been developed to evaluate the fracture
hydraulic width from mud losses. Both models assume that the
fracture can be regarded as a slot of constant width, h
frac
, and
that the mud propagates radially into the fracture.
Furthermore, both models assume the validity of the
Poiseuille's law and, therefore, that the fracture permeability,
k
frac
, is proportional to fracture width, h
frac
, according to
(5)
:
12
h
k
2
frac
frac
.(1)
The main features of the models are briefly outlined and
discussed in the following.
Method developed by Sanfilippo et al.
The model developed by Sanfilippo et al.
(6)
is based on the
diffusivity equation applied to the mud flow radially
propagating into a fracture perperdicularly intersecting the
wellbore:
t
p
k
c
r
p
r
1
r
p
frac
mud frac mud
2
2

.(2)
where p is the pressure, r is the radial distance from the well
axis,
mud
is the mud Newtonian viscosity,
frac
is the fracture
porosity, c
mud
is the mud compressibility, and t is time.
The solution to equation (2) assuming a constant terminal
pressure boundary condition, namely the Van Everdingen-
Hurst solution
(5)
, and substituting equation (1) is then:
0
p h r c 2
) t ( V
r c 12
t h
ln
r c 12
t h
c
frac
2
w mud frac
2
w mud frac mud
2
frac
2
w mud frac mud
2
frac

(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j


(3)
where c is a constant equal to 2.01, r
w
is the wellbore radius,
and V(t) is the cumulative volume of mud lost in the fracture
at time t.
The matrix is assumed to be totally impermeable and,
therefore, the fracture porosity is set equal to unity.
Method developed by Lietard et al
The model developed by Lietard et al.
(7)
is based on Darcys
law. The description of the mud flow through a fracture is
obtained by solution of the equation describing the local
pressure drop due to the laminar flow of a plastic fluid in a slot
of width h
frac
:
frac
y
2
frac
p
h
3
h
) t , r ( v
12
dr
dp

+ .....(4)
where p is the pressure,
y
and
p
are the mud yield value and
plastic viscosity, respectively, and v(r, t) is the local mud
velocity for radial flow, equal to:
dt
) t ( dV
rh 2
1
) t , r ( v
frac

...(5)
evaluated as a function of the distance from the well axis, r,
the time, t, and the mud loss volume V(t). The latter is given
by:
] r ) t ( r [ h ) t ( V
2
w
2
frac
..(6)
where r(t) is the invasion radius at time t and r
w
is the wellbore
radius.
The solution to equation (4) is provided as a set of
dimensionless type-curves (Fig. 3) defined in terms of the
dimensionless radius R and time T, respectively equal to:
w
r
) t ( r
R ...(7)
t
3
p
r
h
T
P
2
w
2
frac

....(8)
where p represents the difference between the bottom hole
pressure and the formation pressure and it is assumed to be
constant.
Fig. 3 - Type-curves to evaluate the fracture width (after Lietard et
al.
(7)
, modified)
time
L
o
s
s

r
a
t
e
(a)
time
L
o
s
s

r
a
t
e
(b)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Log (R
2
-1)
L
o
g

(
T
)O O O O

O
.
O
O
2

O
.
O
O
2

O
.
O
O
2

O
.
O
O
2

O
.
O
1

O
.
O
1

O
.
O
1

O
.
O
1
SPE 63266 DETECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF FRACTURES IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS 3
Each type-curve describes the mud loss volume as a
function of time and it is characterized by a value of the
parameter , defined as:
p h
r 3
y
frac
w

....(9)
In the case of Newtonian fluid = 0.
Given that the following relations apply:

2
w
frac
2
p
2
w
2
frac
r
) t ( V
h ] 1 R [
t
3
p
r
1
h
T
..(10)
the fracture hydraulic width can be determined from the
coordinate shifts applied to obtain a satisfactory superposition
between the real data (Fig. 4) and a particular theoretical
curve. Furthermore, the fracture width can be estimated from
the value of the parameter characterizing such curve.
Fig. 4 - Example of cumulative mud loss volume versus time
An example of superposition between real data and type-
curve is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5 - Type-curve matching with real data to determine the
fracture width
Discussion
In the case of drilling mud the assumption of Newtonian fluid
is generally not feasible and, therefore, the rheological model
adopted by Sanfilippo et al.
(6)
does not appear to be
representative of the real fluid behavior. However, the model
is very flexible and can be applied to calculate the fracture
width even if the loss evolution with time suggests the
presence of a locally intensely fractured rock rather than a
single conductive fracture. Obviously, in this latter case the
calculated fracture width must be regarded as an equivalent
fracture width which accounts for the presence of a network of
microfracture.
The model presented by Lietard et al.
(7)
accounts for mud
rheology and it is very useful for a first estimation of the
fracture width. However, superposition of the real data to the
most representative theoretical curve poses some difficulties,
and a slight shift to obtain the match between the real data and
a particular type-curve can induce a significant difference in
the calculated fracture aperture value. Furthermore, when
fractures characterized by small spacing values or fracture
networks are exposed by the drilling bit, a departure of the
recorded mud loss data from the type-curves occurs and thus
the fracture width can not be determined.
New analytical method developed to calculate
fracture width from mud loss data
A new analytical model has been conceived by Maglione et al.
(8,9)
assuming that the mud radial flow into a fracture of width
h
frac
can be described by the solution to the diffusivity
equation [eq. (2)] under steady state conditions, namely the
Muskat equation. The bottom hole drilling overpressure p(t),
can then be expressed as:
w
2 / 1
2
w
frac
3
frac
mud loss
r
r
h
) t ( V
ln
h
Q 6
) t ( p
(
(
,
\
,
,
(
j
+

....(11)
where Q
loss
represents the mud loss rate values recorded by the
flowmeter during each time step,
mud
is the mud viscosity, r
w
the wellbore radius, and V(t) is the cumulative mud volume
lost in the fracture at time t.
It is assumed by the authors that the mud can be regarded
as a Bingham fluid, thus the shear stress, , can be described
by proper values for the yield point,
y
, and plastic viscosity,

p
:
frac p y
' + .....(12)
where
frac
' is the shear rate in the fracture.
Considering that
frac
' ranges between 10
4
and 10
7
s
-1
for
fracture apertures ranging between 100 and 1000 m, the yield
point value can be neglected, and the mud viscosity can be
approximated to the plastic viscosity:
p
frac
mud
'

.........(13)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Log [V(t)/ rw]
L
o
g

[
(

p
t
)
/
(
3

p
r
w
2
)
]
Real Data
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Log (R
2
-1)
L
o
g

(
T
)
9.3
10.3
11.3
12.3
13.3
14.3
15.3
16.3
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.2 3.7
Log[V(t)/ r
w
]
L
o
g
[

p
t
)
/
(
3

p
r
w

)
]
O,OO2 O,OO2 O,OO2 O,OO2
Real Data
4 F.M. VERGA, C. CARUGO, V.CHELINI, R. MAGLIONE, G. DE BACCO SPE 63266
The solution to equation (11) is obtained numerically by
application of the Newton method.
Fracture aperture using new electric imaging
technique
A continuous analysis of the main tectonic and stratigraphic
events is possible using the electrical images.
The Formation Micro Scanner (FMS or FMI) is a wireline
tool producing electrical images of the borehole wall.
(10)
The
electrical pictures are achieved by several small electrodes
mounted on pads and flaps held at a known potential with
respect to a return electrode. The currents emitted from the
electrodes produce conductance images, which can be oriented
with respect to the geographic North, of the part of the
borehole wall covered by the pads and flaps.
Generally, resistivity values are very high in carbonatic
tight reservoirs and using a black and white scale the evidence
of the matrix can be recognized in white and light colors,
while the natural open fractures invaded by conductive mud
filtrate are characterized by black or dark colors.
The Formation Micro Scanner imaging technique allows
the detection of potential fractures where conductivity exceeds
the local matrix values, but the integration of the electrical
images over the well circular area to evaluate the fracture
aperture requires that a calibration of the excess current be
imposed.
The approach presented by Luthi and Souhait
(11)
and by
Hornby et al.
(12)
has been applied to calculate the fracture
aperture. Such method requires the normalization of the
electrical images against an oriented and calibrated micro
resistivity curve using the neural network technique. The
calibration of the electrical images is achieved by applying the
neural network transform to the micro resistivity curve and to
the average resistivity curve measured by the electrodes
closest to the azimuth while logging the wellbore with a Micro
Cylindrically Focused tool. The resulting neural network
relation is assigned to all the electrode measurements and a
calibrated image is obtained.
The main principles and potential applications of this
method have been described in a paper by Anxionnaz et al.
(13)
According to the assumptions of Luthi and Souhait
(11)
the
local electrical fracture aperture, w
frac
, can be calculated as:
b 1
xo
b
mf frac
R kER
h
A
a w

(14)
where a and b are tool constants, R
mf
is the mud filtrate
resistivity, R
xo
is the background resistivity; A is the
rectangular area under examination; h is the length of each
local fracture trace; E is the excess of conductivity within the
rectangle of examination, and k is a conversion factor.
All the computations are performed for each element
showing along the fracture trace, and the final value of the
electrical fracture aperture is determined as the average value
of all the calculated local apertures.
Fracture width determination for a real case
In the following results are presented from the application of
the discussed methodologies to three wells drilled in a
fractured carbonatic reservoir. Small mud losses occurred
during drilling of the wells were monitored with
electromagnetic flowmeters to attempt an evaluation of the
conductive fracture width of the fractures intercepted by the
wells according to the available analytical methods. Results
are compared to the electric fracture apertures determined by
imaging logs. Furthermore, the distribution of the fracture
apertures detected by imaging logs is compared to the
cemented fracture distribution evaluated from laboratory
analyses on cores. Eventually, production log and transient
pressure analysis results are discussed.
Application of the analytical methods to mud loss data
The presented analytical methods were applied to small mud
losses occurred during drilling to evaluate the fracture
hydraulic width of the conductive natural fractures intercepted
by the wells.
Inflow and outflow mud rates were measured during
drilling of each well by two electromagnetic flowmeters.
Besides mud rates several other parameters were monitored
continuously to recognize operational factors influencing mud
rates and identify mud losses solely due to the presence of
conductive fractures and fracture network.
Typical mud losses evolution for a single conductive
fractures and for a fracture network intercepted by the wells
presented in Fig. 6 and 7, respectively.
Fig. 6 - Typical mud loss evolution for a single conductive
fracture
Each mud loss occurred during drilling was analyzed
according to the presented analytical methods to determine the
fracture hydraulic width of the natural conductive fractures
intercepted by the well. The gradual decline in mud loss rate
due to fracture plugging is not accounted for by any of the
developed analytical methods owing to the complexity of the
problem.
Fig. 8 shows an example of mud loss interpretation in the
case of a single conductive fracture, and the fracture hydraulic
width values calculated according to the models of Sanfilippo
et al.
(6)
, Maglione et al.
(8)
, and Lietard et al.
(7)
are presented.
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s)
Q
l
o
s
s

(
m
3
/
s
)
SPE 63266 DETECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF FRACTURES IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS 5
Fig. 9 shows an example of mud loss interpretation in the
case of a fractured zone, and the fracture hydraulic width
values calculated according to the models of Sanfilippo et al.
and Maglione et al. are presented. The calculated fracture
hydraulic width values are to be regarded as an equivalent
value.
Fig. 7 - Typical mud loss evolution for a fracture network
Fig. 8 - Fracture hydraulic width values from mud loss
interpretation for a single conductive fracture
Fig. 9 - Fracture hydraulic width values from mud loss
interpretation for fracture zone
Fig. 10 shows a comparison between the fracture hydraulic
width values obtained by application of the methods
developed by Sanfilippo et al.
(6)
and by Maglione et al.
(8)
to all
the mud losses detected during drilling of the three wells. The
assumption of Newtonian fluid in the model developed by
Sanfilippo et al. leads to greater fracture width values with
respect to the values calculated with the model developed by
Maglione et al. In general, fracture width values calculated
with the model developed by Sanfilippo et al. are twofold than
the values calculated with the model developed by Maglione
et al.
Fig. 10 - Comparison between the fracture hydraulic width values
calculated with the methods of Sanfilippo et al. and Maglione et
al.
The comparison between the fracture hydraulic width
values obtained by application of the methods developed by
Lietard et al.
(7)
and by Maglione et al.
(8)
for all the single
conductive fractures detected during drilling of the three wells
is shown in Fig. 11. It can be noticed that there exists a very
good correspondence between the fracture width estimated
with the two methods.
Fig. 11 - Comparison between the fracture hydraulic width
calculated with the methods of Lietard et al. and Maglione et al.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fracture width-model of Maglione et al. ( m)
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

w
i
d
t
h
-
m
o
d
e
l

o
f

S
a
n
f
i
l
i
p
p
o

e
t

a
l
.

(

m
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Fracture width-model of Maglione et al. ( m)
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e

w
i
d
t
h
-
m
o
d
e
l

o
f

L
i
e
t
a
r
d

e
t

a
l
.

(

m
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s)
h
f
r
a
c

(

m
)
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
Q
l
o
s
s

(
m
3
/
s
)
Sanfilippo et al.
Maglione et al.
Lietard et al.
Mud Losses
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s)
Q
l
o
s
s

(
m
3
/
s
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (s)
h
f
r
a
c

(

m
)
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
Q
l
o
s
s

(
m
3
/
s
)
Sanfilippo et al.
Maglione et al.
Mud Losses
6 F.M. VERGA, C. CARUGO, V.CHELINI, R. MAGLIONE, G. DE BACCO SPE 63266
Comparison between electrical and hydraulic fracture
aperture
The fracture aperture values obtained from imaging logs are in
very good agreement with the values calculated from mud loss
data in the case of relatively large fracture width values, i.e.
when the aperture of the fracture is greater than 300-400 m.
Fig. 12, 13 and 14 show a comparison between the fracture
aperture values obtained from interpretation of the imaging
logs and analyses of mud losses along three depth intervals of
the examined wells where the presence of conductive fractures
or fracture network was detected. The first two columns show
the mud rates and imaging log as a function of depth,
respectively. In the third column the calculated fracture
electrical apertures (circles) and hydraulic apertures
(diamonds) are reported. The fracture hydraulic width values
were calculated according to the method developed by
Maglione et al.
It can be noticed that, as predicted by Luthi and
Souhait
(11)
, in all cases the hydraulic fracture aperture values
are greater than the electrical fracture aperture values.
Interpretation of imaging logs also allowed the detection of
small open fractures (less than 100 m) that were not evident
from mud loss rate data (Fig. 13). Significant mud losses were
recorded only in the presence of fractures with hydraulic width
greater than approximately 200 m.
Fig. 12 - Example of the good correspondence found between:
fracture aperture values calculated from mud loss data analysis
and imaging log interpretation for a single conductive fracture
intercepted by the well.
Fig. 13 - Example of the good correspondence found between:
fracture aperture values calculated from mud loss data analysis
and imaging log interpretation for a single conductive fracture
intercepted by the well.
Fig. 14 - Example of the good correspondence found between:
fracture aperture values calculated from mud loss data analysis
and imaging log interpretation for a single conductive fracture
intercepted by the well.
SPE 63266 DETECTION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF FRACTURES IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS 7
Small fluctuations in mud loss rates could not be
considered indicative of the presence of open fractures both
because small fracture apertures do not produce detectable
mud losses and because the electromagnetic flowmeters
accuracy can decrease to approximately 10
-3
m
3
/s if
transported solids in the outlet mud deposit on the flowmeter
electrods.
Comparison between imaging log and laboratory
measurements on cores
Laboratory measurements on cores with MRI, NMI, and
tomography showed a network of microfractures through the
carbonatic rock but also the presence of few important
fractures.
Imaging log interpretation also allowed the detection of
rock microfractures, and the aperture values of the
microfractures range between 20 and 60 m (Fig. 15).
Fig. 15 - Distribution of the open fracture apertures measured
from log data
The fracture aperture values obtained from imaging logs
are in very good agreement with the distribution of the
cemented fracture apertures measured on cores (Fig. 16).
Fig. 16 - Distribution of the cemented fracture apertures measured
on cores
Discussion of results
The fracture hydraulic width values determined from mud loss
recordings and the fracture electrical aperture values
calculated from imaging logs are in very good agreement for
all the examined wells, provided that a proper mud rheology is
accounted for. In the analytical method developed to evaluate
the fracture hydraulic width from mud loss data it is assumed
that the drilling mud can be considered as a plastic fluid. The
method does not account for fracture plugging phenomena.
Mud losses into microfractures are not detectable and,
therefore, mud rate analysis proved to be an effective method
to estimate fracture width only when the fracture width is
rather large, i.e., greater than 200 m. Very similar results
were found by Dyke et al.
(2)
, according to which mud losses
are detectable only when the fracture width is greater than
150-250 m.
Reliability of imaging log calibration and interpretation
was also suggested by the very good agreement between the
microfracture aperture values determined from logs and the
cemented fracture aperture values measured on cores.
Based on the fracture or fracture network detection by mud
losses and imaging logs the MDT tests could be properly
positioned along the wells and intervals for acid jobs could be
efficiently selected.
After the production was started a PLT was performed
along one of the examined wells revealing that about 70% of
the producing oil reaches the well through the main fracture
detected along the well. Evidence of this fracture is presented
in Fig. 14 and the calculated hydraulic width is about 700 m.
Conclusions
Electrical flowmeters proved to be very effective to monitor
mud loss rates to detect the presence of fracture or fracture
network during drilling.
The hydraulic fracture width values determined from mud
loss recordings and the electrical fracture aperture values
calculated from imaging logs are in very good agreement
provided that a non Newtonian fluid rheology is adopted.
Fracture width values significantly contributing to mud
losses range approximately between 200 and 1000 m. Very
similar results are reported by Dyke et al.
(2)
, according to
which mud losses are detectable when fracture width values
range between 200 and 700 m. When the fracture width
exceeds about 1000 m a total loss of circulation occurs.
Based on the fracture or fracture network detection by mud
losses and imaging logs the MDT tests can be properly
positioned along the wells.
Nomenclature
a = tool constant for FMS or FMI
A = FMS examination area, in
2
b = tool constant for FMS or FMI
c = equation constant, equal to 2.01
c
mud
= mud compressibility, Pa
-1
E = excess of conductivity with respect to the local
matrix values, mho/m
Classes of fracture aperture ( m)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Fracture aperture ( m)
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
8 F.M. VERGA, C. CARUGO, V.CHELINI, R. MAGLIONE, G. DE BACCO SPE 63266
h = length of the local fracture trace, in
h
frac
= hydraulic fracture aperture, m
k = conversion factor for electrical conductivity from
m/mho to V/A
k
frac
= fracture permeability, m
2
p = pressure, Pa
Q
loss
= mud loss rate, m
3
s
-1
r = radial distance from well axis, m
r
w
= wellbore radius, m
R = dimensionless radius
R
xo
= background resistivity, Ohm m
R
mf
= mud filtrate resistivity, Ohm m
t = time, s
T = dimensionless time
v = local mud velocity, m s
-1
V = cumulative mud volume lost in the fracture, m
3
w
frac
= local electrical fracture aperture, mm
= dimensionless type-curve parameter
frac
' = fracture shear rate, s
-1

frac
= fracture porosity

mud
= mud viscosity, Pa s

p
= plastic viscosity, Pa s
the shear stress, Pa

y
= yield point, Pa
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank ENI AGIP Division and the
Politecnico di Torino for giving permission to publish the data
presented in this paper.
References
1. Schafer, D.M., Loeppke, G.E., Glowka, D.A., Scott, D.D.,
Wright E.K.: An Evaluation of Flowmeters for the Detection of
Kicks and Lost circulation During Drilling, Paper SPE 23935
presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana (Feb. 18-21), 783.
2. Dyke, C.G., Wu, B., Milton-Tayler, D.: "Advances in
Characterizing Natural-Fracture Permeability from Mud-Log
Data" Paper SPE 25022 (1995), 160.
3. Nelson R.A.: "An approach to evaluating fractured reservoirs".
Paper SPE 10331 first presented at the SPE 1981 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, Oct.
4. Thompson, L.B.: "Fractured Reservoirs: Integration Is the Key to
Optimisation," Distinguished Author Series, Paper SPE 56101
(1999).
5. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Petroleum reservoir engineering,
Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959), pp. 437
6. Sanfilippo, F., Brignoli M., Santarelli F.J., Bezzola C.:
"Characterization of Conductive Fractures While Drilling", Paper
SPE 38177 presented at the 1997 SPE European Formation
Damage Conference, The Hague, Netherlands (June 2-3), 319
7. Lietard, O., Unwin, T., Guillot, D., Hodder, M.: Fracture Width
LWD and Drilling Mud/LCM Selection Guidelines in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs", Paper SPE 36832 presented at the 1996
European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, (Oct. 22-24), 181
8. Maglione, R., Marsala, A.: "Drilling mud losses: problem
analysis", AGIP Internal Report (1997).
9. Maglione, R., Marsala, A.: "Multidisciplinary approach for mud
losses management" Proc. of the ARPO Convention From
concepts to value, San Donato Milanese, Italy (1998)
10. Ekstrom, M.P., Dahan, C., Chen, M.Y., Lloyd, P., Rossi, D.:
"Formation imaging with microelectrical scanning arrays," The
Log Analist, 28, (1987), 294.
11. Luthi, S.M., Souhait, P.: "Fracture pertures from Electrical
Borehole Scans, Geophysics, 55 (1990) 821.
12. Hornby, B.E., Luthi, S.M., Plumb, R.A.: Comparison of
Fracture Apertures Computed from Electrical Borehole Scans and
Reflected Stoneley Waves: an Integrated Interpretation," The Log
Analyst, 33,(1990), 55.
13. Anxionnaz, H.A., Delhomme, J.P., and Haan, S.D.:
Reconstructing Petrophysical Borehole Images: Their Potential
for Evaluating Permeability Distribution in Heterogeneous
Formations," Paper SPE 56786 presented at the 1999 Annual
Technical Conference, Houston.