ARTICLE IN PRESS

Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Geosciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cageo

Automatic fracture density update using smart well data and articial neural networks
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli n
University of Alberta, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, 3-112 Markin CNRL-NREF, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2W2

a r t i c l e in fo
Article history: Received 19 November 2008 Received in revised form 4 August 2009 Accepted 9 August 2009 Keywords: Smart wells Fracture networks Static data Production data Static model ANN

abstract
This paper presents a new methodology to continuously update and improve fracture network models. We begin with a hypothetical model whose fracture network parameters and geological information are known. After generating the exact fracture network with known characteristics, the data were exported to a reservoir simulator and simulations were run over a period of time. Intelligent wells equipped with downhole multiple pressure and ow sensors were placed throughout the reservoir and put into production. These producers were completed in different fracture zones to create a representative pressure and production response. We then considered a number of wells of which static (cores and well logs) and dynamic (production) data were used to model well fracture density. As new wells were opened, historical static and dynamic data from previous wells and static data from the new wells were used to update the fracture density using Articial Neural Networks (ANN). The accuracy of the prediction model depends signicantly on the representation of the available data of the existing fracture network. The importance of conventional data (surface production data) and smart well data prediction capability was also investigated. Highly sensitive input data were selected through a forward selection scheme to train the ANN. Well geometric locations were included as a new link in the ANN regression process. Once the relationship between fracture network parameters and well performance data was established, the ANN model was used to predict fracture density at newly drilled locations. Finally, an error analysis through a correlation coefcient and percentage absolute relative error performance was performed to examine the accuracy of the proposed inverse modeling methodology. It was shown that fracture dominated production performance data collected from both conventional and smart wells allow for automatically updating the fracture network model. The proposed technique helps in generating another readily available at no cost data source for fracture characterization as a supplement to limited 1D data obtained from well logs and cores. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR) are characterized by their fracture network properties, such as fracture density, orientation, location, dimension, and connectivity. The network properties control the uid ow in the reservoir and therefore accurate prediction of those parameters is essential in generating the static model (fracture network) to be used for performance prediction. Several different approaches have been utilized based on statistical, fractal, and articial neural network (ANN) methods to build conditioned stochastic fracture network models. Fracture statistics and distribution functions in this process are traditionally extracted from core, well log, outcrop, and seismic data. Intelligent elds in which reservoir surveillance data are continually measured using permanently installed downhole

Corresponding author: Tel.: + 1 780 492 9626; fax: + 1 780 492 0249. E-mail address: tayfun@ualberta.ca (T. Babadagli).

completion devices are becoming increasingly popular. Multiphase production data are transmitted to engineers to monitor eld operations and make effective decisions. The readily available conventional and smart well production information, referred to as dynamic data, could also be useful in generating static models of NFRs. In our previous attempt, we showed that a non-linear relationship exists between dynamic data and fracture network characteristics (Al-Anazi and Babadagli, 2007). In that study, ANN was used to detect the underlying relationship. Our inverse problem consists of predicting fracture network characteristics using limited static (well logs and cores) and readily available historical well performance (dynamic) data. The solution to such an inverse problem is ill-posed in general and cannot uniquely constrain the detailed variations in reservoir static properties. The objective of this study was to investigate the importance of smart (permanent downhole devices) and conventional (well surface devices) dynamic data in generating the fracture network maps.

0098-3004/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2009.08.005

ARTICLE IN PRESS
336 A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

Nomenclature ErrL ErrV ErrT ICV MPFM PDHM learning data set error validation data set error testing data set error intelligent control valve multiphase ow meter permanent downhole monitoring system

PI P/T qo qg qw Qo Qg Qw

productivity index, sm3/bar pressure/temperature gauge oil ow rate, sm3/day gas ow rate, sm3/day water ow rate, sm3/day oil cumulative production, sm3 gas cumulative production, sm3 water cumulative production, sm3

2. Literature review Forward modeling is traditionally applied in reservoir characterization and fracture network modeling. Inverse modeling, on the other hand, is an approach that attempts to extract a fracture network that honors all available static and dynamic data. In one of the earliest studies, Ouenes (2000) devised a methodology to characterize fractured reservoirs using ANN. It began with ranking all available geologic drives and eld observations such as structure, lithology, and bed thickness to evaluate the impact on the fracture indicator using a fuzzy neural network. Then, multiple realizations were stochastically generated using neural networks that are evaluated through probability maps. The methodology was illustrated using an actual tight gas fractured sandstone reservoir, and the production-based fracture density was successfully predicted. The resulting 3D fracture density volume map or probability constraints used in building the discrete-fracture network can be used to estimate directional fracture permeability for further reservoir modeling and management (Ouenes and Hartley, 2000; Ouenes et al., 1995). Later, Boerner et al. (2003) predicted fracture intensity by integrating seismic data and 3D model attributes such as porosity and lithology and the rst and second derivatives of the structural surfaces. Since fracture intensity is spatially distributed and difcult to obtain, the expected ultimate recovery was used as a proxy for fracture intensity. Forward modeling studies also utilized the fractal theory to characterize the fracture networks. Babadagli (2001) applied the fractal theory to a geothermal reservoir to gure out the precise fractal dimensions of fracture properties, such as fracture length, orientation, density, length, spatial distribution, and connectivity. Park et al. (2005) characterized and generated a 3D fracture model for a fractured basement reservoir based on statistical and fractal analyses using static data such as FMI logs, outcrop, and seismic data. Inverse modeling studies used either static (pressure transient tests) or dynamic (production) data. In an attempt to characterize a reservoir using pressure data, Aydinoglu et al. (2002) proposed an inverse solution methodology to characterize an anisotropic faulted reservoir. Synthetic pressure transient data using ANN technology was used to determine reservoir permeability, porosity, distance to the fault, orientation of the fault with respect to ow directions, and the sealing characteristics. He et al. (2002) presented a streamline approach to identify reservoir compartmentalization and ow barriers during primary production. In addition to those, Athichanagorn et al. (1999) developed a multistep procedure to process and interpret long term pressure data using simulated and eld data sets. It was shown that historical pressure data could be used to obtain the distributions of reservoir properties. Later, Tamagawa et al. (2002) constructed a fracture network model using static (borehole images) and dynamic data (represented by well test pressure derivative curves). Recently, Tran et al. (2007) presented an integrated approach utilizing object-based modeling, stochastic simulation, and global optimization. Initially, the target fracture network was

formulated from observed eld data. Then, a stochastic simulation was used to create an initial estimate of the fracture network model. An objective function was statistically formulated between the initial and the target fracture network. Finally, a simulated annealing algorithm was used to minimize the objective function to reproduce the target network. The methodology was applied to an actual outcrop map and produced satisfactory results. Studies using production data in inverse modeling are also available. Jansen and Kelkar (1996; 1997) presented a simple cross-correlation approach using production data to examine the interwell communication and interference of a mature waterood in order to rank areas for subsequent development. Chugh et al. (2000) analyzed production data using Inverted Decline Curves and the Reciprocal Productivity Index to estimate the megascopic reservoir permeability. Spatial permeability distribution was classied based on different scale measurements. Later, Will et al. (2003) developed a technique based on an objective function for gradient-based optimization of fracture-system parameters incorporating seismic anisotropic attributes and reservoir production performance data. It is a parallel workow for effective elastic and permeability elds modeling from an initial preconditioned discrete-fracture model. The objective function was minimized using a systematic update of selected fracture parameters. The simultaneous technique allowed fast convergence of both fracture trend and intensity. Reproducing the principle fracture parameters that control the ow behavior has been considered an ill-posed problem and there have been limitations to solely using well performance data to predict fracture static data. Cobenas et al. (1998) systematically examined the nature of the objective function during multiphase production data integration to explore the source of the nonuniqueness and the impact of some proposed remedies. They showed that the continuous non-linear trade-off between parameters is the major source of non-uniqueness during dynamic data integration. They demonstrated the danger associated with using dynamic data in isolation. As seen, using ANN and inverse modeling in reservoir characterization is not a new idea, though their applications for fracture networks are limited. However, using ANN and inverse modeling through conventional production data in fracture network modeling is uncommon. We introduced this concept in this paper and added specic smart well data in this analysis.

3. Fracture network stochastic simulation In our previous work, conventional well production data was used to map fracture orientation, density, dimension, and conductivity using an articial neural network (ANN). The fracture network model was stochastically generated using limited well static data in a single-layer reservoir with a total of thirty wells. Well performance drivers were ranked based on a sequential forward regression scheme to select the best ANN prediction model. A complex non-linear relationship was

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347 337

captured with high prediction accuracy between well performance and fracture characteristics such as density, length, conductivity, dip and azimuth (Al-Anazi and Babadagli, 2007). This work was extended to encompass smart well data in the present study. A two-layer reservoir model separated by a shale layer was built using a commercial software package (FRACA) with the grid system built using the MATLAB software. Small values of porosity and permeability were assigned to the matrix to ensure its low contribution to reservoir ow behavior. A discretized geo-cellular model was built with 45 45 3 grid blocks. The two layers measure a uniform thickness of 15 m and are separated by a 5 m shale layer. Fracture network maps were generated using MATLAB by distributing fractures along the completion depth of all the wells. The code written for this purpose facilitates assigning a certain distribution to all fracture characteristics. The prepared data les for a hundred wells including fracture, facies, and well trajectory were loaded into FRACA. Fracture orientation including fracture dip and dip-azimuth was assumed not to change signicantly over the eld. Fractures were placed randomly along each wellbore. Similarly, fracture dimension and conductivity were assumed to be xed over the entire eld. Two different fracture density distributions were assigned to the rst layer and the second layer. Fracture density was normally distributed representing a reservoir with different well performances. Also, fracture orientation, dimension, and conductivity were xed differently for both layers. Well fracture data were loaded into the static model and a fracture network was generated stochastically for both layers. The structural model with equivalent directional porosity and permeability was exported to the ECLIPSE simulator for dynamic simulation. A black-oil model was adopted for ow in a CornerPoint geometric petroleum reservoir where geometry, porosity, and directional permeability values were extracted from the imported network maps. Hypothetical multiphase PVT properties, relative permeability curves, and rock properties were assigned. The reservoir was initialized by a static pressure of 500 bar and Gas Oil Contact (GOC) and Water Oil Contact (WOC) were assumed to be 1000 and 1535 m, respectively. The wells were placed

throughout the reservoir constrained by their original location during the FRACA modeling stage to obtain their corresponding fracture characteristics imbedded in the imported maps. The well production was controlled by assigning sequentially different owing bottom hole pressures to generate different well performance responses. A well production plan was allocated to serve our modeling purpose in predicting the fracture density at newly drilled wells as discussed below. The well production plan included producing oil at a certain rate and pressure using smart well facilities by opening and closing wells at different zones. For example, high fracture density zones were closed for a period of time to improve the productivity of the low density zone after reaching a certain water cut. In this study, we incorporated well smart data into our fracture density prediction model. The smart data was generated from the owing blocks of the well completion. In other words, the well ow data across the completion intervals in the rst and the third layers were generated through ECLIPSE completion keywords. This is to simulate intelligent well completion pressure and ow devices that are permanently installed in smart wells. The well ow data includes oil, water, gas rates, and pressure for particular layers. Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of a smart well design used in this study. Surface measurements are done through pressure and temperature gauges (P/T) and multiphase ow meters (MPFM) are used to measure multiphase ow rates, pressure, temperature, gas/oil ratio, and water cut. Also, smart pressure data across the upper and the lower productive layers are continuously monitored through permanent downhole monitoring systems (PDHMS). The ow is fully controlled by intelligent control valves (ICVs). After the ow model simulation is performed, three simulated dynamic data were obtained: (a) the whole well (conventional data), (b) only the rst layer (smart well data), and (c) only the second layer (smart well data) performances. The data generated for the three scenarios are: (a) multiphase production performances that include the production rate, (b) cumulative production, and (c) the productivity index. Well performance represents the conventional data while layer performance represents the simulated smart data generated from smart well downhole completion devices. This hypothetical and exact model was used

To Production Line P/T Gauge PDHMS Production Packer MPFM Choke Valve ICV Smart Data -1 Upper Layer (Current Study) Conventional Data (IPTC 11492)

Shale Zone

Smart Data -2 Lower Layer (Current Study)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of smart well completion used in this study.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
338 A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

as the base case in this paper to check and/or to validate the ANN models as explained below.

4. ANN modeling An articial neural network (ANN) is a data mining technique that has the ability to capture the underlying complex non-linear relationship in the data structure (Haykin, 1994). One of the most important uses of ANN is its ability to correlate a multiscale historical database and extrapolate the knowledge to newly employed input data by self-tuning its parameters to perfectly generate representative models. The well performance data including multiphase production rates, cumulative productions, and productivity indices were loaded into the ANN modeling software . Production rates, as well as their cumulatives at different times and at the end of the production life, were the inputs to the ANN model. Fracture densities at each well were a single value in this analysis. Each record contains all modeling wells that are open at the time with their location coordinates, performance data, and the corresponding fracture density values. Each record was divided into three sets including learning (60%), validation (20%), and testing (20%). The validation set was used to cross-validate the relationship established during the training process and the testing set was used to test the model quality. A completely connected perceptron (CCP) was selected to prevent the oversizing network problem. The range of hidden units started at zero neurons representing a linear regression and ended at 20 neurons representing a highly complex non-linear structure. Growing architecture was selected to optimize the network size in which each generation has one more hidden unit than the previous generation. Validation error was selected as a stopping criterion during training since overtraining causes the network to memorize results rather than to generalize. In addition, a total of ten ANNs were simultaneously trained to prevent them from trapping in local minima. Finally, the best network was selected based on the lowest validation error.

5. Forward regression The reservoir production response is nonlinearly regressed to capture the fracture signature presented as fracture density. Performance drivers such as well locations, production rates (oil, gas, water) at selected time intervals and their cumulatives, and the productivity indices of the wells were used in the forward regression process. Certain performance drivers are highly sensitive in predicting fracture density. Therefore, performance input data has to be ranked to optimize the ANN training process. According to Fruhwirth et al. (2006), there exists no exact solution to test the contribution of input drivers to model quality. Several different combinations of input drivers should be trained and the validation error is used as the selection criterion for the best model. In our study, a total of fourteen drivers were submitted to neural network training considering different combinations of well location coordinates, rates, cumulative, and the productivity index of the training wells. During network construction, these drivers were classied into four groups and different combinations were modeled.

and microseismic sources as well as well data such as cores and logs. During initial eld development, there is a scarcity of static data to constrain the generated model which in turn increases the fracture network uncertainty. In this part of the study, the directional permeability and porosity maps were continuously updated as more well fracture data become available from newly added wells to demonstrate the importance of the additional static data. Several fracture network updates were carried out by ne tuning the maps using the additional data and comparing the results using history matching to eld cumulatives of the base case. The base case model was described in the section Fracture Network Stochastic Simulation and it is used as the case to check the updated models against throughout the analyses done in this paper. Initially, the base fracture network model was stochastically generated by uploading the well fracture data of 100 wells. The drilling was conducted in six stages starting from drilling 16 wells up to 80 wells. Simultaneously, a total of six networks were generated based on a different number of wells. Due to increase in number of wells (and their static data) at each step, the reliability of the fracture network of the whole reservoir presumably increased. The six network maps along with the initial base model were exported to the dynamic simulator and history matching to the base case for these six different realizations was conducted. The same number of wells with the same locations was used in the ow simulations to obtain a consistent performance comparison. Field liquid and gas cumulative performances shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, were compared to the base case (100 well case represented by triangles). The eld performance of the initial model (16 wells) does not match the base case (100 wells) over the time window considered. On the other hand, the last model (80 wells) presents the best agreement with the base case. However, looking at the other models (2464 wells) and examining the eld performance behavior leads to the conclusion that there is no unique fracture network realization that could be derived from the limited static data. The results also indicate that data from a large number of wells have to be obtained to generate a possible representative fracture network model. In addition, well distribution signicantly affects the capability of drilled wells to capture the fracture network distribution. However, the data needed to constrain well placement may not be known a priori which makes modeling totally based on static data limited. Hence, the addition of dynamic data to the fracture network generation process can be thought of as a potential tool to reduce the uncertainty of the generated fracture network. This will be the main objective of this paper and discussed in the next sections.

7. Dynamic data-driven models With the availability of extensive production history and limited static data, the underlying relationship between well performance and fracture density can be captured and the data can be used to generate a representative fracture network model. Conventional and smart well data were integrated to examine their prediction capability of the fracture density in this section. 7.1. Importance of smart production data The conventional well data was used to map fracture density of the two layers all together and on a one-by-one basis to investigate the advantages of smart data over conventional data. In mapping the fracture density, the static and dynamic well data were used and initially the fracture density (or population)

6. Static data-driven models Reservoir fracture network models are normally characterized and updated using static data generated from seismic, subseismic,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347 339

7.E+06 6.E+06 Field Cumulative Liquid, STB 5.E+06 4.E+06 3.E+06 2.E+06 1.E+06 0.E+00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time, years 9 10 11 12 13 14 16-Well-Based Model 24-Well-Based Model 36-Well-Based Model 48-Well-Based Model 64-Well-Based Model 80-Well-Based Model 100-Well-Based Model

Fig. 2. Field liquid cumulative performance of updated fracture network.

3.E+08 16-Well-Based Model 24-Well-based Model 36-Well-Based Model 48-Well-Based Model 64-Well-Based Model 80-Well-based Model 100-Well-Based Model

3.E+08 Field Cumulative Gas, SM3

2.E+08

2.E+08

1.E+08

5.E+07

0.E+00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time, years 9 10 11 12 13 14

Fig. 3. Field cumulative gas performance of updated fracture network.

around each well was determined. Using the software package, it was distributed in the whole reservoir. Obviously, increase in the number of wells would yield a more reliable description of the fracture network. The procedures are explained as follows:

lowest validation error (Table 1). The ANN model presents high accuracy as seen in Fig. 4. The correlation coefcient and the percentage absolute relative error show that well conventional data is a useful source of data for well fracture density mapping.

7.1.1. Use of conventional well data to map well fracture density Well conventional data was dened as the data obtained at the surface using multiphase ow meter and surface pressure and temperature gauges. Modeling was started by selecting the optimum well performance parameters to minimize the number of input channels and enhance ANN prediction efciency. A total of seven models were used to select the most signicant parameters that contribute in generating well fracture density, and regression using ANN was carried out over eight years of production. Among the seven models, the seventh model was selected as the best to predict well fracture density due to the

7.1.2. Use of well conventional data to map rst layer fracture density In this case, our objective is to investigate the possibility of mapping fracture density in the rst productive layer using well conventional data and to compare it with the result generated using the smart data of the rst layer. Initially, the well completion data was used to map the rst layer fracture density. A forward selection scheme was used to select the best model. A total of fourteen models were regressed over eight years of production and the second model was selected as the best as it gives the minimum validation error (Table 2).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
340 A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

Table 1 ANN model optimization using forward selection scheme (well conventional data). ErrL 0.1812 0.2995 0.3570 0.2912 0.2847 0.2104 0.4189 ErrV 1.9993 1.9560 1.8017 2.0577 1.7169 1.9436 1.6494 ErrT 1.9901 2.1173 2.0394 2.3193 2.0378 2.1262 1.7647 Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Well location x x x x x x x qo qg qw Qo Qg Qw PI x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.50 1.40 Model Absolute Relative Error, % 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Time, years 6.0 7.0 Absolute Relative Error,% Correlation Coefficient

1.00 0.98 Model Correlation Coefficient

Qg

0.96 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.80 8.0

Fig. 4. ANN model error prole using well conventional data.

Table 2 ANN model optimization using forward selection scheme (layer-1 modeling using well conventional data) . ErrL 0.6337 0.5352 0.8191 0.8312 0.6829 0.8384 0.7969 3.6803 2.9654 4.7476 5.0194 3.9729 3.7909 5.3629 ErrV 0.6515 0.6413 0.8928 1.0088 0.9622 0.9938 0.8223 4.3225 3.9129 5.0758 5.2213 4.6276 4.4240 5.5320 ErrT 0.6653 0.7435 1.0306 1.0603 1.1254 1.1040 1.2429 4.0267 3.5032 5.2060 5.1002 5.1298 4.4413 5.4683 Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Well location x x x x x x x qo qg qw Qo Qw PI x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

Then, the smart well data for the rst layer was used to map fracture density over eight years of production. A forward selection scheme was applied to select the optimum input channels and nd the model with the most efcient prediction capability. Among seven models, the second model showed the minimum validation error. The second ANN model that has well production cumulatives with well geometric location was selected based on its lower validation error (Table 3). The correlation coefcients for both conventional and smart well data cases show a good match over eight stages of production (Fig. 5). Similarly, the percentage of absolute relative error performance for both conventional and smart data yielded a

good match. This indicates that well conventional data can be used successfully to map the rst layer fracture density. It means that the fracture density signature was recognized in both types of data.

7.1.3. Use of well conventional data to map second layer fracture density This case was devoted to investigating the possibility of mapping fracture density in the second productive layer using well conventional data and to compare it with the result generated using the smart data in the second layer. The only

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347 341

Table 3 ANN model optimization using forward selection scheme (layer-1 modeling using smart data -1). ErrL 0.2690 0.3106 0.2684 0.2586 0.3126 0.2801 0.2106 ErrV 0.6488 0.6349 0.9417 0.9454 0.9268 1.2934 0.8746 ErrT 0.7402 0.7267 0.8986 1.0263 0.9379 1.9651 0.7943 Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Well location x x x x x x x qo qg qw Qo Qg Qw PI x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.00 0.99 Absolute Relative Error, % 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 Correlation Coefficient Using Conventional Data 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 1 2 Correlation Coefficient Using Smart Data-1 Absolute Relative Error, % Using Conventional Data Absolute Relative Error, % Using Smart Data-1 3 4 5 Time, years 6 7 8

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Correlation Coefficient
Qg

Fig. 5. ANN model error prole comparison of rst layer smart data and well conventional data.

Table 4 ANN model optimization using forward selection scheme (layer-2 modeling using well conventional data). ErrL 0.1456 0.1988 0.1019 0.2612 0.1969 0.1835 0.1412 ErrV 1.6310 1.4461 1.9090 1.4818 1.8924 1.3597 1.4582 ErrT 1.9953 1.5009 2.1178 1.3759 1.9883 1.4141 1.7380 Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Well location x x x x x x x qo qg qw Qo Qw PI x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

difference here is that the lower productive layer has lower fracture density than the upper one. Initially, the well completion data was used to map the second layer fracture density and a forward selection scheme was applied to select the best model. A total of seven models were regressed over eight years of production and the sixth model was found to be the best as it gives the minimum validation error (Table 4). The smart well data for the second layer was used to map the fracture density over the simulated period of production. A forward selection scheme was applied to select the optimum input channels and a model with the most efcient prediction capability. Out of seven models, the fourth showed the minimum validation error. The ANN model that contains cumulative well productions with the geometric location of the wells was selected based on its lower validation error (Table 5).

The correlation coefcient and the percentage absolute relative error performance values for conventional and smart data show a good match over the eight stages of production (Fig. 6). In summary, well conventional data and smart data allow equally high fracture density prediction capability. However, the smart completion is important to obtain static and dynamic pressure data to calculate the productivity index, which was shown as a critical parameter in constructing the fracture network models (Tables 25).

7.2. Fracture density prediction The objective here is to examine the uniqueness of dynamic data capability to predict well fracture density at newly drilled wells. Several different cases at different levels of static data, i.e.,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
342 A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

Table 5 ANN model optimization using forward selection scheme (layer-2 modeling using smart data-2). ErrL 0.1475 0.1856 0.2171 0.1653 0.1871 0.2230 0.2459 ErrV 1.5790 1.3836 1.5717 1.1306 1.4776 1.3569 1.2239 ErrT 1.7440 1.7243 1.7904 1.5047 1.3148 1.5623 1.4616 Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Well location x x x x x x x qo qg qw Qo Qg Qw PI x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

10.0 9.0 8.0 Absolute Relative Error, % 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 Time, years 6 7 8 Absolute Relative Error, % Using Conventional Data Absolute Relative Error, % Using Smart Data-2 Correlation Coefficient Using Conventional Data Correlation Coefficient Using Smart Data-2

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Correlation Coefficient

Fig. 6. ANN model error prole comparison of second layer smart data and well conventional data.

different numbers of wells, were built and examined at different time lines. In year one, the rst 5 wells were drilled and every year the same numbers of wells were added. Then their productions were added in the analysis of the next period. The static data, i.e., fracture density around the wellbore, of the newly drilled wells were added as they were presumably available through logs and cores. The main point is to show how much the dynamic data contributes to improving fracture density prediction. The cases discussed are as follows: CASE I: A total of six scenarios were carried out to predict the fracture density at 5 newly drilled wells. These include 20, 30, 40, 50, 64, and 70 wells that are assumed to have been drilled nine years ahead of the 5 new wells. The input parameters were cumulative well production and the productivity index, as they showed the least validation error in the previous analyses. Modeling started out using the dynamic data of the rst year to train the model and the production data of the 5 wells were fed to the trained ANN model to predict the corresponding fracture density. The prediction error was dened as the percentage average absolute relative error of the prediction of the fracture density at the 5 wells. Then, the dynamic data of the second year was cumulatively added to the rst and used to train the model, and the same production data of the 5 wells was fed to the trained model to predict the fracture density. The procedure was carried out over the entire historical production data and predictions were made at different time steps. Modeling was performed using six different scenarios one at a time over the historical period.

The results indicate that additional dynamic data provided over the years of production helps in ne tuning the constructed ANN model and consequently improves the prediction of fracture density at the newly drilled 5 wells (Fig. 7). This positive trend is valid for all study cases except the 50-well case. Initially, the fracture density prediction error was too high when the dynamic and static data were limited since the underlying relationship between well performance data and fracture density cannot be completely recognized throughout the reservoir. Static data was also employed in this study to evaluate its potential usage in fracture density prediction at the new wells. The procedure is initiated by sequentially opening wells and extracting the data required to obtain well fracture density. The ANN model was built using the available static and well performance data obtained from the initial hypothetical model described in the section of Fracture Network Stochastic Simulation, and dynamic simulation was run on it. The constructed model was then used to predict the fracture density at the newly drilled wells. The result of all cases given in Fig. 7 can be analyzed at xed time values. The prediction capability is enhanced as additional static data become available, and the prediction error decreased signicantly from about 11.5% (the 20-well case) to about 3.0% (the 70-well case). This performance trend was applied to all cases except the 50-well case, which showed a higher prediction error compared to the 40-well case. This indicates that the use of limited static data generates a high prediction error as the spatial fracture density distribution is not fully mapped. Therefore, the more static data the model is trained on, the lower the prediction error the model generates, as can be

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347 343

35 30 ANN Model Predsiction Error, % 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Training Time Cycles, years 8 9 10 20-well Case 30-Well Case 40-Well Case 50-Well Case 64-Well Case 70-Well Case Best fit (20-well case) Best fit (30-well case) Best fit (40-well case) Best fit (50-well case) Best fit (64-well case) Best fit (70-well case)

Fig. 7. CASE I: ANN prediction performance using staticdynamic data.

100 95 90 Correlation Coefficient, % 85 80 75 20-well Case 70 65 60 55 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Training Time Cycles, years 8 9 10 30-Well Case 40-Well Case 50-Well Case 64-Well Case 70-Well Case

Fig. 8. CASE I: Change of correlation coefcient with training time for different number of wells.

easily seen through the comparison of the 20, 40 and 70-well cases. The correlation coefcient was generated as an average value over time. One can observe that there is a positive contribution from dynamic data (Fig. 8). Initially, the correlation is too weak and as more production data is included, the correlation becomes stronger. Combining the static and dynamic data and looking at the cases with anomalies, the addition of more wells as shown in the case of the 50-well might have interrupted the ANN constructed model and hence, the prediction drifted off from generating a better prediction at the newly drilled wells. Although the high correlation model that is ne tuned by dynamic data does not produce a decrease in prediction error trend when the production data of newly drilled wells were fed to the trained model, the prediction error started to atten off at values less than 10% error. This is not surprising since we are

using a data-driven model that honors the existing data which in turn guides us to focus on data preprocessing before modeling is initiated. CASE II: The objective is to examine the prediction capability consistency over time using several different initial numbers of wells and comparing the result with CASE I. A total of 5 wells were drilled nine years after the initial eld start-up and the same modeling procedure explained in the previous case was carried out here. The locations of those 5 wells are totally different from the previous case. The addition of dynamic performance data has generally resulted in a decrease in trend in the prediction error. This is obvious for the cases of 30, 50, and 70 wells (Fig. 9). Two other well cases (40 and 64) also showed a decrease in trend until a point where the addition of more dynamic data becomes less important and the trend showed no change with time. The 20-well case showed an almost uniform trend with the minimum

ARTICLE IN PRESS
344 A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

35 30 ANN Model Prediction Error, % 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Training Time Cycles, years 8 9 10 20-well Case 30-Well Case 40-Well Case 50-Well Case 64-Well Case 70-Well Case Best fit (20-well case) Best fit (30-well case) Best fit (40-well case) Best fit (50-well case) Best fit (64-well case) Best fit (70-well case)

Fig. 9. CASE II: ANN prediction performance using staticdynamic data.

100 95 90 Correlation Coefficient, % 85 80 75 20-well Case 70 65 60 55 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Training Time Cycles, years

Fig. 10. CASE II: Change of correlation coefcient with training time for different number of wells.

30-Well Case 40-Well Case 50-Well Case 64-Well Case 70-Well Case

prediction error. In general, the dynamic data reduced the prediction error to a maximum of 10% which is a remarkable result and increased the correlation coefcient as illustrated in Fig. 10. When the effect of static data is examined, once can see that having the least error with 20 wells and the highest with 70 wells is an indication of the non-unique character of the fracture network construction process. It is highly likely that the random selection of 20 wells turned out to be highly representative of the model or highly correlated to the 5 newly drilled wells. At rst sight, this could be attributed to the random nature of fracture networks. Randomness is involved in the fracture network generation process, which is normally not the case in natural fracture patterns. Therefore, it should be emphasized that, in these limited runs, there is an anomaly whereas a model with 20 wells is better than the one using 70 wells and additional work will be needed to investigate this issue in some future work. The

effect of dynamic data, however, is more consistent and similar in both CASES I and II. This case shows the potential of integrating dynamic data into cases where large static data sets are not good enough to provide better predictions. The prediction error in the 70-well case started high and having more production data reduced the error signicantly. This might also lead us to further select the optimum number of wells for prediction based on dynamic data analysis. CASE III: The objective of this case is to examine the prediction capability consistency of fracture density of 5 different wells over a shorter period of time compared to the previous two cases. To achieve this, the new wells were drilled ve years after the initial eld start-up. As in the previous case, the ANN model was constructed using a different initial numbers of wells to examine the potential use of static and dynamic (cumulative production) data to predict the well fracture density at the newly drilled wells.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347 345

26 24 22 ANN Model Prediction Error, % 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Training Time Cycles, years

Fig. 11. CASE III: ANN prediction performance using staticdynamic data.
20-Well Case 30-Well Case 40-Well Case 50-Well Case 64-Well Case 70-Well Case Best fit (20-well case) Best fit (30-well case) Best fit (40-well case) Best fit (50-well case) Best fit (64-well case) Best fit (70-well case)

100 95 90 Correlation Coefficient,% 85 80 75 20-Well Case 70 65 60 55 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 Training Time Cycles, years

Fig. 12. CASE III: Change of correlation coefcient with training time for different number of wells.

30-Well Case 40-Well Case 50-Well Case 64-Well Case 70-Well Case

Clearly, the addition of dynamic data for all study cases, except the 30-well, has enhanced the prediction capability to a certain level (Fig. 11). The prediction error was minimized over a short period of time using additional production data for the 64- and 70-well cases. It might also be recognized that for two well cases (50 and 70), the initial prediction error was low and there was no further noticeable reduction. Analyzing the prediction performance, the error would have been further reduced if continuous additional dynamic data were available to bring it down to acceptable values as in the 20-well case. The anomalous 30-well case reveals that the addition of more dynamic data has drifted the prediction off which might be attributed to the fact that the additional data has manipulated the ANN model. This is likely due to using a data-driven model that can highlight abnormal trends. The correlation coefcient was plotted for all cases in Fig. 12. The dynamic data improved the correlation to the values higher than 90% for all cases.

All three cases given above show the potential of dynamic and static data to be employed in the prediction of fracture density in a newly opened well. There were cases where anomalous trends were detected; however, the prediction is a function of how much the historical static and dynamic data are related to the dynamic and static nature of the predicted wells. The study eventually guides us to select the optimum number of wells to enhance the prediction capability through data preprocessing based on well dynamic data.

7.3. Geometric well input parameter for ANN prediction model It is important to encompass all input drivers that are related to the predicted parameter in specic and to the prediction mechanism in general. The spatial distribution of well performance data is a characteristic of the fractured-based reservoir and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
346 A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347

6.0
5.08 5.22 4.63 4.32 3.91 4.42 5.53

ANN Training Validation Error, %

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0
0.89 0.65 0.64 1.01 0.96 0.99 0.82

1.0

0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Training Model Number

Fig. 13. Fracture density models validation error comparison using data given in Table 2.

90 ANN Predicted Fracture Density 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Actual Fracture Density

Fig. 14. Cross-plot of ANN predicted and actual fracture density at a stage of a production without well location.

90 ANN Predicted Fracture Density 85 80

seen: the lower ANN model error class and the higher ANN model error class. The distinction class criterion is the presence or absence of well locations. The model error range was drastically reduced from 3.915.53 to 0.641.01 with the addition of well locations into the ANN modeling. To further visualize the mapping potential of this new parameter, plots of two cases were randomly selected from Table 2. The second model was chosen as the best due to its minimum validation error, which uses well cumulative productions and well locations as input drivers for the ANN model. This model involves a total of 100 wells and modeling was conducted over eight years of production. First, the well location was removed from the ANN model and the crossplot in Fig. 14 was obtained using only production performance data. The cross-plot for the case with well locations is shown in Fig. 15. The correlation coefcient of the former model was as low as 29% compared to the latter one, which was 98%. The predicted model considering well location was able to capture well fracture density at all eight stages of production with a high correlation. This exercise clearly indicates the importance of this critical parameter (well location) and emphasis should be given to that parameter in further analyses.

8. Conclusions
75 70 65 60 55 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Actual Fracture Density

The study shows the potential of using dynamic data in fracture network parameter prediction. Our observations and conclusions can be summarized as follows:

 Dynamic data allows prediction of fracture density with a priori    

limited well static data. articial neural networks (ANN) is a useful tool to be used in this exercise. Multiphase production data integration, well cumulative production, and productivity index showed a high potential to predict fracture density. Well conventional and smart data have equally high capability for fracture density prediction. Inverse modeling using dynamic data becomes complex when well fracture-related distinction criterion is absent. A strong mapping potential of well fracture density was observed through the use of well geometric location as an input to the ANN model.

Fig. 15. Cross-plot of ANN predicted and actual fracture density at a stage of a production with well location.

well performance, as shown earlier, was well mapped to predict fracture density. The prediction model can be signicantly improved if well geometrical parameters, i.e., well coordinates, are considered. The ANN model errors given in Table 2 were plotted in Fig. 13. There are two classes of data as can be clearly

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Al-Anazi, T. Babadagli / Computers & Geosciences 36 (2010) 335347 347

 The prediction model loses its capability of prediction when

solely using well performance data. The proposed methodology can be easily integrated into intelligent eld technology to approximate fracture density around targeted well locations.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Beicip Inc. for providing the FRACA software and Ms. Pascale Neff of Beicip for technical support. We are also thankful to Schlumberger for providing the ECLIPSE software. We are grateful to Dr. Rudolf K. Fruhwirth (Neuro Genetic Solutions GmbH) for providing the cVision (ANN) software package. The rst author (AA) also thanks Saudi Aramco for nancial support through its scholarship program during the course of this study. This paper is the revised and improved version of SPE 113282 presented at the 2008 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Rome, Italy, 912 June 2008. References
Al-Anazi, A., Babadagli, T., 2007. Use of real-time dynamic data to generate fracture network models. Paper IPTC 11492. In: Proceedings of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, UAE. pp. 10. Athichanagorn, S., Horne, R., Kikani, J., 1999. Processing and interpretation of longterm data from permanent downhole pressure gauges. Paper SPE 56419. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, USA. pp. 16. Aydinoglu, G. Bhat, M., Ertekin, T., 2002. Characterization of partially sealing faults from pressure transient data. Paper SPE 78715. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. pp. 13. Babadagli, T., 2001. Fractal analysis of 2D fracture networks of geothermal reservoir in south-western Turkey. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 112, 83103. Boerner, S., Gray, D., Todorovic-Marinic, D., Zellou, M., Schnerk, G., 2003. Employing neural networks to integrate seismic and other data for the prediction of fracture intensity. Paper SPE 84453. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA. pp. 13. Chugh, S., Herweijer, J., Kuppe, F., 2000. Analysis of production data to improve characterization of in-situ megascopic reservoir permeability. Paper SPE

59761. In: Proceedings of 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers/Canadian Energy Research Institute Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada. pp. 14. Cobenas, R., Aprilian, S., Gupta, A., 1998. A closer look at non-uniqueness during dynamic data integration into reservoir characterization. Paper SPE 39669. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, USA. pp. 18. Fruhwirth, R., Thonhauser, G., Mathis, W., 2006. Hybrid simulation using neural networks to predict drilling hydraulics in real time. Paper SPE 103217. In: Proceeding of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA. pp. 8. Haykin, S., 1994. In: Neural Networks. A Comprehensive Foundation, McMillan College Publishing, New York, NY 696 pp. He, Z., Parikh, H., Datta-Gupta, A., Perez, J., Pham, T., 2002. Identifying reservoir compartmentalization and ow barriers using primary production: A streamline approach. Paper SPE 77589. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA. pp. 16. Jansen, F., Kelkar, M., 1996. Exploratory data analysis of production data. Paper SPE 35184. In: Proceedings of 1996 Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, TX. pp. 331342. Jansen, F., Kelkar, M., 1997. Non-stationary estimation of reservoir properties using production data. Paper SPE 38729. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA. pp. 131138. Ouenes, A., 2000. Practical application of fuzzy logic and neural networks to fractured reservoir characterization. Computers & Geosciences 26, 953962. Ouenes, A., Hartley, L., 2000. Integrated fractured reservoir modeling using both discrete and continuum approaches. Paper SPE 62939. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA. pp. 10. Ouenes, A., Richardson, S., Weiss, W., 1995. Fractured reservoir characterization and performance forecasting using geomechanics and articial intelligence. Paper SPE 30572. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA. pp. 425436. Park, J., Kwon, S., Sung, W., 2005. Characterization of fractured basement reservoir using statistical and fractal methods. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 22 (4), 591598. Tamagawa, T., Matsuura, T., Anraku, T., Tezuka, K., Namikawa, T., 2002. Construction of fracture network model using static and dynamic data. Paper SPE 77741. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, USA. pp. 12. Tran, N., Chen, Z., Rahman, S., 2007. Characterizing and modeling of fractured reservoirs with object-oriented global optimization. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 46 (3), 3945. Will, R., Archer, R., Dershowitz, B., 2003. Integration of seismic anisotropy and reservoir performance data for characterization of naturally fractured reservoirs using discrete feature network models. Paper SPE 84412. In: Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, USA. pp. 12.