SPE 63286

Reservoir Characterization for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Richard O. Baker and Frank Kuppe/Epic Consulting Services Ltd

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
Reservoir characterization and simulation modeling of
naturally fractured reservoirs (NFRs) presents unique
challenges that differentiate it from conventional, single
porosity continuum reservoirs. Not only do the intrinsic
characteristics of the fractures, as well as the matrix, have to
be characterized, but the interaction between matrix and
fractures must also be modeled accurately.
Three field case studies have been evaluated combining the
forward modeling approach, typically used by geoscientists, with inverse techniques, usually incorporated by
reservoir engineers. The forward approach examines various
causes of natural fractures and its associated properties (e.g.
fracture spacing, height, stress distribution, etc.) while the
inverse approach focuses more on the effect created by the
NFR (e.g. decline analysis, material balance, productivity,
etc.).

constrained the development of NFR modeling1. This paper

shows a number of integrated field studies, which have
addressed the difficulties in characterizing NFRs, and presents
a proven methodology to characterize and model them.
Reservoir characterization presents a unique challenge in
NFRs because of:
1) the need to characterize the fractures as well as the
matrix
2) the need to characterize the matrix-fracture
interaction.
Characterization of the fracture includes defining parameters
such as inter-fracture spacing, length, orientation, porosity,
connectivity, aperture and permeability. As well, it is
important to include realistic areal and vertical heterogeneity
in both the matrix and the fracture systems.
A fractured medium represents a highly heterogeneous
system. Fluid transport and pressure dynamics cannot be fully
replicated in a model using a homogeneous three-dimensional
system.
Recent work has emphasized the need to better characterize
heterogeneities in matrix properties. The same attention, if not
more, needs to be given to the characterization of fracture
heterogeneities.
Reservoir characterization is highly
dependent upon the integration of skills from geologists,
geophysicists, petrophysicists and reservoir engineers to an
even greater extent in NFRs than in conventional reservoirs.

This study shows how a more powerful methodology is

created, for the evaluation of naturally fractured reservoirs,
when combining two techniques that have, historically, been
applied in relative isolation.

The methodology presented ensures compatibility between the

geological and engineering models. Specifically, this paper
will show how NFR parameters were determined for the three
fields in which this methodology has been applied.

Introduction

Geological (Forward) Approach

The development of reservoir modeling and reservoir

characterization for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs (NFRs)
has lagged behind simpler matrix flow dominated rock
systems due to the practical difficulty in quantifying both
matrix and fracture parameters.
The complexities of,
numerical and mathematical calculations have historically

On the geological side, there have been numerous attempts to

compile fracture statistics on spacing, fracture height,
orientation, aperture and length, and to subsequently scale
these up to represent an effective fracture porosity and
permeability. This is often referred to as the "forward
approach" as it characterizes the reservoir from the perspective

RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE

of what caused or created the geological setting, as opposed to

the effects (usually the Engineers' preoccupation) of NFR
parameters.
Fracture spacing, aperture, length and connectivity are
functions of:
a) porosity
b) lithology
c) structural position
d) rock brittleness.
One of the objectives of a fracture model is to generate
empirical/analytical relationships incorporating fracture
parameters and the above controlling factors. To do this, a
certain amount of reservoir sampling is required to
characterize the fractures. Unfortunately, lack of sampling or
fracture characterization is a common problem in NFRs.
Outcrops are a good source of data for fracture length and
connectivity. Vertical wells have a low probability of
intersecting vertical fractures. Cored horizontal wells, drilled
perpendicular to fracture systems, also provide insight into
inter-fracture spacing (or length).
Thus, the relatively limited coverage from cored vertical wells
is unlikely to yield a sufficiently large sample. For many of
todays' developed fields, the data to correlate these variables is
insufficient. Engineering data can sample large numbers of
fractures (i.e., from the larger-scale pressure transient or
production data) but this analysis cannot generate specific
fracture parameters. Fracture parameters and empirical
relationships must be derived from outcrop or field analogies.
Despite the relatively small sample size, forward methods are
critical because they often are zone or area specific.
Although averages of fracture spacing and aperture are useful,
as pointed out by Long2, there is ample field evidence
suggesting that only a few fractures are hydraulically active
and fluid flow may be dominated by extreme values of the
fractured media.
Outcrop studies can provide valuable information on fracture
spacing, length, direction and connectivity. However, as
Friedman et al3 demonstrated, weathering and stress effects
may affect parameters in the outcrops, making them different
from insitu conditions. The dimensions of matrix blocks are
controlling factors for the recovery process. The inter-fracture
spacing or determination of block volume distribution is
therefore critical. Thus outcrop studies are important, despite
the limitations.
To increase the number of data control points and
areal/vertical coverage, it is often necessary to use engineering
or "inverse" techniques. An inverse technique is one where
the dynamic response (i.e. the effect) of the larger scale
system is measured and is then used to infer smaller scale
characteristics.

SPE 63286

Tracer tests, historical production data and pressure transient

tests provide us with the measurements, and the means, to
generate inverse solutions for fracture lengths, fracture
permeability and fracture connectivity.
Engineering (Inverse) Approach
On the engineering side, there have been attempts to
understand the nature of the fracture systems using
permeability and fracture storativity derived from well tests
and production data.
Unfortunately the production and pressure transient data, is
typically characterized with generic sugar cube" models and
other simplifying assumptions. Often reservoir heterogeneity
is transparent to these tests and analyses. Most buildup
(pressure transient) tests and long term production testing is
not zone specific and therefore have limited effectiveness for
characterizing fracture heterogeneity.
There is a large volume of engineering literature dedicated to
solving the dual porosity pressure transient problem. In
theory, the results from a pressure buildup test can be used to
determine effective fracture spacing, however in 90% of
naturally fractured reservoirs, pressure build up performance
does not display dual porosity behavior4. Many NFR field
examples in the literature show that a simple single porosity
system can be used to obtain a reasonable match of pressure
build up behavior5. The match is ultimately obtained with a
higher effective permeability, when compared to matrix
permeability.
The importance of fracture heterogeneity has been neglected
or minimized in engineering simulation studies. Without this
heterogeneity, reservoir simulation models often underpredict
watercuts (and water breakthrough time) and underestimate
the amount of bypassed oil in the reservoir.
In summary, both the geological approach and the engineering
approach have limitations because of undersampling of insitu
fracture systems and the use of theoretical models that use
simplistic representations of real fracture systems,
respectively.
These approaches, independently, do not
provide the means to accurately characterize the fracture
system.
This is a major problem in that long term
deliverability and reserves are controlled by the effective
reservoir permeability. Combining the forward and inverse
approaches, however, allows us to narrow the range of
uncertainty and build more realistic models of NFRs.
Integrating Forward and Inverse Techniques
It is critical to identify, early in the reservoir study:
1. what created the fracture system (i.e., regional,
faulted or bended environment)
2. characteristics of the matrix-fracture system (i.e.,

SPE 63286

3.
4.

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

fracture types, length, height, spacing etc.)

matrix permeability and porosity
the degree of communication between the matrix
and fractures.

Determining how the fractures originated provides us with

important clues for the areal and vertical distribution of
fractures as well as a likely reservoir recovery mechanism.
Table 1 shows how the features of the NFR system vary
between the three different fracture systems and describes the
associated production implications.
As with most
generalizations, there are exception to the "rules", indicated in
Table 1.
The degree of flow between the matrix and fractures dictates
which of many typical production problems may arise and also
determines the level of recovery that may be expected. We've
identified four varying degrees, or "types", of flow and their
implications in Table 2.
The two primary parameters that control recovery in NFRs are
1) the magnitude and heterogeneity of fracture permeability
and, 2) the extent of matrix-fracture communication. The
fracture permeability will control well deliverability while
fracture heterogeneity will control the extent of water/gas
influx. Good matrixfracture communication is essential for
longterm productivity or high recovery factors.
Matrix-to-fracture communication is dependent upon the interfracture spacing as well as the matrix permeability. These two
parameters determine the strength of the reservoir drive
mechanism. If fracture spacing is small and/or matrix
permeability is high, a very efficient waterflood (imbibition)
and gravity drainage mechanism develops. Conversely low
matrix permeability and/or wide fracture spacing often results
in the bypassing of the matrix by injected fluids or aquifer
influx and yields lower recoveries.
The productive permeability cutoff employed controls the
original hydrocarbon in place.
From a mechanical
perspective, the permeability provides a means of measuring
the brittleness of the rock and thus fracture intensity. The
matrix permeability therefore needs to be carefully considered
in all NFR studies.
The key to successful fracture characterization is to (a) focus
on key variables that dominate the recovery process and (b)
use techniques that combine the more accurate, "micro scale",
tests (e.g. core analyses), with large scale tests (e.g. pressure
buildups) that implicitly average the reservoir characteristics
over large volumes of rock.
Fracture-Matrix Interaction. Core analyses and logging
tools such as the formation micro-scanner (FMS) provide an
estimate of matrix permeability and fracture spacing. This
provides us with sufficient data to at least estimate the
transfer function, or the degree of matrix-fracture

communication.
Alternative methods such as long term production decline data
supplemented by pressure transient data, helps us to confirm
large-scale transfer function parameters.
Decline characteristics may provide important information on
fracture volume, connectivity and permeability.
The
hydrocarbon volume present in the high permeability fractures
will be produced rapidly. After this flush oil production the
rate will decrease rapidly before stabilizing at a lower decline
rate. Fracture spacing and the amount of communication
between the fracture and the matrix, as well as the drive
mechanism will control the stabilized rate.
Simulation Concerns. Depending, generally, on the contrast
between matrix and fracture permeability and fracture spacing,
the classical single continuum description may not be
adequate for the simulation modeling of a fractured
reservoir. For theoretical analysis and reservoir simulation,
the irregular fracture distribution must be replaced by a regular
matrix network (primary porosity) floating in the interconnected fractures (secondary porosity continuum). The
idealized representation of fractures in the simulation model is
shown in Figure 1.
It is assumed, in the fracture continuum approach, that
fractures are very long relative to the size of the blocks. As
shown by outcrops, fracture length, especially in regional
fractured reservoirs, can have limited length. Therefore, using
the discontinuous fracture approach vs. a continuum approach
in many NFRs may yield better results2.
Figure 1 is an illustration of the classical dual porosity model.
Both the fracture and matrix have non-zero porosity and
permeability. Flow takes place within the fracture network
and between the matrix and fractures. Each matrix block is
assumed to be completely surrounded by fractures and cannot
communicate directly with matrix adjacent blocks. This is not
completely realistic because matrix blocks are "floating" while
in reality the fractured media supports rock stresses and allow
matrix blocks to touch. Most commercial simulators have the
added feature of including matrix-matrix connections (i.e.,
dual permeability).
Warren and Root (1963) presented an analytical solution of
the pressure transient based on the dual porosity model of
porous media. The key assumption was that the matrix to
fracture flow is in pseudo-steady state conditions at all times
(i.e., pressure declines uniformly throughout the matrix block).
Fluid exchange between a matrix block and fracture would
then be given by:

( m b ) = m c m Pm = k m (Pf Pm )
t
t

(1)

RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE

where Pm is the volume average pressure in a matrix block, Pf

is the pressure in the fractures surrounding the matrix block;
cm is the primary (matrix) compressibility given by;
c m = c r + c o (1 S w ) + c w S w
(2)
and a is the "shape factor", dependent on the size and shape of
the matrix block.
The matrix blocks act as sources or sinks for the fracture
system, according to equation 1, depending on the changes of
pressure in the fracture system.
Warren and Root obtained an analytical solution for single
phase, radial flow in an infinite and finite reservoir, with
constant well rate, as a function of the following
dimensionless parameter, otherwise known as the transfer
function:

k m rW
k eff

where:
keff = k effx k effy
rw = wellbore radius,

1
1
1
+
+
= shape factor = 4
2
2
2
L
x

Ly

L x

Lx, Ly, Lz = fracture spacing in x,y and z direction,

respectively

SPE 63286

Unfortunately porositypermeability cross-plots, derived from

core data rarely has any significance for NFRs as it merely
represents the matrix properties. Also, conventional openhole
logs are limited when predicting fracture distribution and
fracture permeability. The key to successful fracture
characterization is in developing empirical relationships that
can relate fracture spacing to porosity, lithology, structure
position, rock properties or layer thickness as shown in Figure
2.
Initially, a theoretical geological fracture model should be
conceived, built on a combination of analog data, outcrop core
and FMS/FMI data. The primary objective in these initial
fracture models should be establishing the empirical
relationship between fracture parameters and porosity,
lithology, structure and rock brittleness.
These initial
conceptual geological fracture models usually have limitations
in that fracture connectivity and individual fracture length are
not yet well defined.
Pressure buildup tests and production data can be used to
determine effective permeability but are very sensitive to
fracture length and heights as well as connectivity.
Combining the analysis from the conceptual geological
fracture models with the engineering data allows us to
estimate these parameters. Production data and pressure data
allows us to define fracture connectivity.
Case Study 1 The Weyburn Field

This criteria for single porosity behaviour is usually supported

by pressure transient analysis (i.e., no dual porosity behaviour
observed). Engineers usually prefer, whenever possible to
model a dual porosity reservoir with a single porosity model,
capturing the effective permeability, because it halves the
number of required gridblocks and shortens run time.
Applying a single porosity model in a multi-phase enviroment
may, however, generate erroneous results. The breakthrough
time of the flood front, in a miscible flood or waterflood, is
usually more rapid when "fingering" through fractures in the
dual porosity model rather than the homogenized effective
permeability of the single porosity model. Consequently the
sustained higher production profile in the single porosity
model would decline more rapidly in the dual porosity model.

The first case study shows how old log data and production
data were integrated to successfully characterize the reservoir.
This work helped increase field oil production rate by more
than 50% using horizontal well technology.
The Weyburn field is located approximately 130km southeast
of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. The productive portion of
the field covers some 180km2 and has produced medium
gravity crude oil from the fractured, low permeability, Midale
beds of the Mississippian Charles formation since its
discovery in 19546

Determining Fracture Parameters

The Midale beds of the Mississippian Charles formation were

deposited on a shallow carbonate shelf in the Williston basin.
The reservoir is informally subdivided into the upper Marly
and the lower Vuggy zone. The Marly is a chalky intertidal
dolostone with occasional limey or limestone interbeds. The
Vuggy zone is a heterogeneous, sub-tidal limestone. Although
both zones are fractured, the Marly zone is less intensely
fractured than the Vuggy zone.

As mentioned previously, fracture permeability, fracture

connectivity and fracture distribution, in water drives,
waterfloods or gas cap drives, are critical controlling factors
for oil recovery. The key parameter, governing connectivity
between injectors and producers, is the fracture permeability2.

The porosity of the Marly ranges from 16% to 38%, averaging

approximately 26%. Matrix permeability ranges from 1md to
greater than 100md, with the average being less than 10md.
There is some contribution to effective permeability from
natural fractures within the Marly.

Care should therefore be taken to ensure the NFR

characteristics not only satisfies single porosity, single phase
criteria but that there are no multi-phase consequences when
using a single porosity simulation model.

SPE 63286

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

The Vuggy is a substantial limestone, which is more

heterogeneous than the Marly due to the interaction of the
depositional environment and diagenetic over-printing.
Carbonate sands (packstones and grainstones) were deposited
in the higher energy shoal regions and carbonate mudstones
and wackestones in the quieter intershoal regions. Porosity
and matrix permeability vary substantially, ranging from 3%
to 18% and <0.01md to >500md, respectively. In addition, the
Vuggy is extensively fractured. Highly permeable carbonate
sand bodies and fractures control the magnitude and direction
of the permeability anisotropy in the Vuggy. Injectivity
studies also show that the majority of the floodwater is
injected directly into this horizon.
Waterflood development in Weyburn began in the early
1960s. The waterflood has been very successful. Ultimate
secondary recovery factors ranged from 25% 35%, based on
decline analysis. An extensive reservoir characterization
study was required to provide reservoir simulation models for
waterflood optimization, horizontal well evaluation and an
assessment of miscible-flood potential.
A strong regional fracture system controls the behavior of the
Midale beds under waterflooda,6. It was therefore, important to
characterize and quantify fracture system parameters such as
fracture spacing, aperture, rock type, reservoir quality and
diagenesis.
The characterization study incorporated reservoir performance
(i.e., production and pressure) as well as geological and
petrophysical data.
Engineering data sources included
injection profile logging, pressure transient and vertical pulse
testing. Geologic data sources included both vertical and
horizontal well core and wireline logs, repeat formation tester
(RFT) and FMS logging. The neighboring Midale field
producing from the same reservoir has been extensively
studied7, 8,9 and served as a valuable source of information.
Core and FMS observations indicate that the fractures are
vertical to subvertical and are oriented approximately N45E.
Core observations clearly reveal that the forces causing
fractures have been active on more than one occasion and
have generated at least three ages of fractures. Some fractures
are filled with anhydrite cement and are ineffective fluid
conduits, whereas other fractures are very effective in moving
fluids.
Initial geological studies showed that there were significant
differences in fracture intensity between the limestone and
dolomite zones. As well, there were large differences in
fracture intensity within limestone beds between shoal and
a

The Vuggy is most intensely fractured with fracture spacing of 1 ft in

intershoal and 10 ft in shoal areas. The Marly has fracture spacing in the 3 ft
to 10-ft range but is not fractured in some high porosity areas.

intershoal areas. It is also interesting to note that fracture

intensity decreased dramatically as porosity increased. Old
logs could therefore be used as semi-quantitative indicators of
fracture intensity if the porosity and lithology could be
estimated.
The relationship between lithology and fracture intensity was
very useful when creating the fracture model. Particular
consideration was given to the more heterogeneous limestone
layer (Vuggy), as it was important to capture its heterogeneity
to accurately model primary flow conduits.
Six simulation layers were selected to provide sufficient
resolution for the Vuggy6. Previous simulation studies used
one to two layers: which smears or over-averages porosity,
lithology and the dominant high permeability layers. In
matching injection breakthrough performance, it is critical to
preserve the high permeability; high intensity fractures zones
and not lump them together with lower permeability zones.
Conversely, as indicated in early engineering studies, a
shallow decline in production (5%-6% annual rate) was
generated with long remaining reserve life.
Watercut and breakthrough trends showed strong permeability
anisotropy behavior. The watercut maps also showed a strong
relationship between the geological shoal and intershoal areas
and the anisotropic behavior. This relationship meant that it
was important not only to look at dolomite/ limestone
differences but to also look at the variations within the
limestone (shoal versus intershoal). Studies identifying
lithology and the geological environment therefore served as
the cornerstone of the fracture characterization work.
Estimates of fracture permeability had to be derived from the
fracture spacing data (i.e., from core analyses) because of the
limited number of good quality pressure transient tests.
Fracture permeability is dictated by fracture aperture and
spacing.
After having combined calculated fracture
parameters with the matrix parameters, the effective
permeability could be compared with the insitu permeability
determined form DST's.
Note that DST's have a limited radius of investigation. To
confirm calculated frac parameters a history match of the
pressure drawdown was important. The pressure drawdown
data was among the little data available to calibrate effective
permeability.
The magnitude of the anisotropic ratio (ontrend NE-SW to
offtrend (NE-SE) was a critical variable in determining the
effectiveness of the waterflood, horizontal wells and CO2
flooding. The anisotropy ratio in the simulation model was
therefore pre-conditioned in the simulator using water
breakthrough times at respective production wells.
The project involved large potential oil reserves. Before
simulation was initiated, six man-years of effort toward

RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE

reservoir characterization had already been completed. The

workflow diagram is shown in Figure 3. In our opinion, the
key criteria to achieving successful characterization (i.e. one
that generated an excellent history match) included:
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

The ability to utilize open hole log response to estimate

fracture spacing.
The use of horizontal well data to get significant fracture
spacing statistics.
Using the ratio of water breakthrough times to precondition the permeability anisotropy ratio. This was
subsequently altered slightly to achieve a history match in
the Simulator.
Pressure Transient data was combined with direct fracture
data to characterize the reservoir9.
Selection of geological and simulation model grids that
provided sufficient resolution for the intervals with large
permeability contrasts.

In the first simulation run, 70% of all wells were matched in a

63 well model without any modification of the data6.
Horizontal well watercut forecasts were within 3% of the
actual values. Finally, it was found that the key parameters
governing the waterflood and horizontal well recoveries, were
vertical permeability and the distribution (and amount) of oil
saturation. This study is a case where geological (direct) data
and engineering (inverse) data was combined to get a better
representation of the reservoir.
Case Study 2: The Spraberry Field
The Spraberry Trend in West Texas covers an area of more
than 400,000 acres10. The Spraberry Trend was once deemed
The largest uneconomic field in the world, with reservoirs
that contained some 10 billion Bbls OOIP of which less than
10% has been recovered today. The Spraberry Trend Area
produces nearly 60,000 bopd from more than 7,500 wells and
has produced some 700 million barrels of oil11-16.
The Spraberry Trend Area was first developed in the early
1950s. The areal extent of the reservoir combined with many
hundreds of wells having initial production rates of greater
than 500 bopd, led some to believe the Spraberry Trend was
one of the most prolific fields in the world. However, well
productivity diminished rapidly as fracture depletion occurred.
The first waterflood in Spraberry began in 1956. Generally,
waterflooding in the Spraberry area has not been successful.
Injected water bypassed the matrix and did not effectively
sweep oil to producers10. Despite very similar fracture spacing
between the Weyburn/Midale fields and the Spraberry field,
there is a very large difference in waterflood recovery factors
between these fields. The incremental waterflood recovery in
Weyburn/Midale is on the order of 16% to 25%, whereas the
incremental waterflood recovery is only 2% to 5% for most
areas of Spraberry. Various hypotheses have been proposed to
explain why waterflood recovery is so low, including:

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

SPE 63286

Lack of pattern confinement and low injection well

density
Assumption that the primary direction of the fracture
trend is N50E throughout the trend, thus leading to
incorrect pattern alignment in some locations
Low matrix permeability (Kair < 1 md), resulting in slow
imbibition rates
The reservoir rock may not be strongly water-wet,
resulting in low capillary forces and slow imbibition rates
Low reservoir pressures during the start up of waterflood,
resulting in poor capture efficiency of oil as well as high
initial gas saturations and low oil permeability in the
matrix.

Preliminary studies show that perhaps all the listed

explanations play some role in establishing ultimate recovery.
The differences in waterflood performance between the
Weyburn/Midale fields and the Spraberry field highlight the
importance of not relying too heavily on analogous reservoirs
to characterize the Spraberry NFR and that subtle differences
in fracture/matrix parameters can have a huge impact on
recovery factors, and the rate of recovery.
A number of tests have been completed to characterize the
Spraberry reservoir fracture system. These include horizontal
core, pulse/interference tests, interwell tracer tests, buildup
and falloff tests, FMI logging, outcrop studies, interwell tracer
and mini-frac tests10. Like the Weyburn/Midale reservoirs,
the direct approach (core/FMI) applications were very useful
in identifying zone specific fracture trends, whereas pressure
transient analysis was useful in identifying overall fracture
permeability and connectivity. Interwell tracer testsb, core data
and pressure transient analyses were used to identify fracture
orientation.
Pulse tests were conducted in the Midkiff Unit, of the
Spraberry field in the 1960s. These tests demonstrated that
fracture permeability changed as the injection pressure and
reservoir pressure increased18.
The results suggest the
effective fracture permeabilities are in the 30md to 200md
range. Cross fractures (offtrend E-W fractures) also seemed to
have been created from the high injection pressures.
In this study, determining the extent of matrix-fracture
communication was especially important in the evaluation of
the CO2 flood efficiency. Since the degree of matrix-fracture
communication is indicated by the waterflood imbibition
process, this was more extensively studied. Laboratory
imbibition experiments were designed to examine late stage
decline rates on waterflood. This correspondence was then
used to infer relationships between fracture spacing and matrix
b

The interwell tracer tests in this area show very fast tracer breakthrough
times (i.e., in the order of days).

SPE 63286

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

permeability.18

hydrocarbon in place.

Successful reservoir characterization in Spraberry depended

upon:

As with case studies one and two the key integration here was
combining the openhole log (geological) data with mud loss
and AOF test data (engineering inverse data) to characterize
the fractures. In several key zones, solution enhanced
fractures or karst development was proposed to account for
these variations. This is consistent with observations made
from pressure transient analyses from most of the wells. This
study ultimately confirmed the presence of a complex
heterogeneous fracture system with extensive karsting in
several intervals. This was confirmed through the course of
history matching as well as with pressure transient analysis.

1.
2.

3.

Use of horizontal well cores to calibrate fracture spacing

Re-examination of matrix properties and imbibition data
that, coupled with field production data, promoted
consistency between performance data and derived
fracture/matrix properties.
Use of pressure buildup tests, interference tests,
production data (i.e., watercuts) and outcrop data to infer
permeability anisotropy ratio.

Combining the direct with the inverse approach was critical.

Quantifying the fracture spacing is important to the design of
waterfloods and CO2 floods in a naturally fractured reservoir.
The numerous studies completed have led to the generally
accepted view that the fracture orientation in Spraberry is in a
northeast to southwest trend. A more recent study examined
fracturing in a horizontal well core. The study revealed a
fracture set, located in the first layer, that was oriented N43 E
while in a lower layer, there were two fracture sets oriented
N32E and N70E. The average fracture spacing of the three
sets were found to be 3.2ft, 1.6ft and 3.8ft, respectively. This
confirms that more than one fracture direction can prevail and
must be incorporated into the model.
Case Study 3: The Waterton Field
The Waterton field is located in the southwestern corner of
Alberta at the front ranges of the Rocky Mountains and the
foothills disturbed belt. The field consists of a westward
dipping thrust sheet of Mississippian and Devonian carbonates
with hydrocarbons trapped along the leading edge. The pool
is extensively fractured, especially along the crest of the
structure, and contains a near-critical, rich gas condensate with
a compositional gradient19, 20.
The Waterton field was discovered in 1959 and was put on
production in 1962 upon the completion of the initial phase of
gas plant construction. Twenty-four wells have been drilled in
the "Sheet III" reservoir with the last well drilled in 1977.
Drilling and seismic operations have been restricted to narrow
valleys due to the rugged topography of the area.

Conclusions
1)
Forward and Inverse methods do not characterize the
fracture network sufficiently, when used in isolation,
because fracture connectivity is unknown.
Combining these two techniques provides a more
powerful complementary means of doing so.
2)
Fracture heterogeneity is often over-simplified, or
"smeared" in simulation models by using an
insufficient number of layers or gridblocks (as was
found to be the case in previous Weyburn studies). It
is important to preserve the high permeability, high
intensity fracture zones to accurately model
breakthrough trends and ultimate recovery.
3)
Accurate modeling of anisotropy, driven by overall
fracture orientation, was critical in history matching,
and predicting, waterflood movement, horizontal well
performance and CO2 flood performance, in
Weyburn.
4)
Large scale tests (i.e., buildup and interference
testing) and production data (i.e., water breakthrough
and watercuts) were coupled with smaller scale
evaluations (i.e., outcrops and horizontal well cores)
to generate a consistent (i.e., good history match) and
accurate model for predicting waterflood and CO2
flood recovery in Spraberry.
5)
The "Inverse" techniques of the pressure transient
analyses and matching production data (in reservoir
simulator) confirmed the presence of karst
development and the associated enhanced
permeability, in the Waterton field.
References

Data from well logs, cores, drilling and production records,

pressure transient analyses and reservoir engineering analyses
were used to characterize the variations in fracture and matrix
properties in the reservoir, as shown in Figure 4.
Conventional, tectonically induced fracture intensity was
found to vary with lithology (dolomite versus limestone) and
structural position. However, such conventional fracture
descriptions did not account for the large drilling mud losses
in some zones, variable productivities (not correlatable to
structural position) and estimated volumes of initial

1.

2.

3.

Waldren, D. and Corrigan, A.F.: "An Engineering and

Geological Review of the Problems Encountered in
Simulating Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, SPE paper
13717, 1985.
Long J.C.: "Construction of Equivalent Discontinum
Models for Fracture Hydro-Geology," Comprehensive
Rock engineer Principles, Practices.
Friedman, M. and McKiernan, D.E.: Extrapolation of
Fracture Data From Outcrops of the Austin Chalk I Texas
to Corresponding Petroleum Reservoirs at Depth,
Petroleum Society of CIM paper 93-10-103, 1993.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

RICHARD O. BAKER AND FRANK KUPPE

Fetkovich, M.J., Vienot, M.E., Bradley, M.D. and Kiesow,

U.G.:
Decline Analysis Using Type Curves Case
Histories, SPE paper 13169, 1984.
Carlson, M.R.: Reservoir Characterization of Fractured
Reservoirs in Western Canada, paper 97-87 presented at
48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of
CIM, June 1997.
Elsayed
et.al.:
"Multidisciplinary
Reservoir
Characterization and Simulation Study of the Weyburn
Unit," SPE, Oct 1993.
Beliveau, D., Payne, D.A. and Mundry, M.: Waterflood
and CO2 Flood of the Fractured Midale Field, JPT, pp.
881-887, September 1993.
Beliveau, D. and Payne, D.A.: "Analysis of a Tertiary CO2
Flood Pilot in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," paper SPE
22947 presented at the 1991 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas Oct 7-9.
Beliveau, D.: "Pressure Transients Characterize Fractured
Midale Unit," JPT (Dec 1989) 1354, Trans., AIME, 287.
Schechter, D.S., McDonald, P., Sheffield, T. and Baker, R.:
Reservoir Characterization and CO2 Pilot Design in the
Naturally Fractured Spraberry Trend Area, SPE paper
35469, presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 27 29,
1999
Barfield, E.C., Jordan, J.K. and Moore, W. D.: An
Analysis of Large-Scale Flooding in the Fractured
Spraberry Trend Area Reservoir, JPT, pp.15-19, April
1959.
Brownscombe, E. R. and Dyes, A. B.: Water-Imbibition
Displacement - Can it Release Reluctant Spraberry Oil?
Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 99-101, November 1952.
Elkins, L.F.: Reservoir Performance and Well Spacing,
Spraberry Trend Area Field of West Texas, Petroleum
Transactions of AIME, pp. 177-196,1953.
Elkins, L.F. and Skov, A.M.: "Cyclic Water Flooding the
Spraberry Utilizes "End Effects" to Increase Oil Production
Rate," JPT, 1963.
Elkins, L.F. and Skov, A.M.: Determination of Fracture
Orientation from Pressure Interference, Petroleum
Transactions of AIME, pp. 301-304, 1963.
Howell, W. D., Armstrong, F.E. and Watkins, J.W.:
Radioactive Gas Tracer Survey Aids Waterflood
Planning, World Oil, February 1961.
Field Test Results of Surfactant Waterflooding and
Balanced High Pressure Waterflooding in Spraberry
Midkiff Unit, Humble Oil Internal Memo, PRRC
Spraberry Database, 1968.
Baker, R.O. et.al.: " Characterization of the Dynamic
Fracture Transport in an Naturally Fractured Reservoir,"
SPE 59690, March 2000.
Aguilera, R.: Advances in the Study of Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs, JCPT, p.5, May 1993.
Nutakki, R. et.al.: "Three Dimensional simulation of a
Fractured Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir: a study of
Waterton Sheet lll.
Thomas, M.B. et al.: "A New Interpretation of Fracture
Distribution in Waterton Sheet lll: An Integrated Reservoir
Characterization Study," SPE 35605, May 1996.

SPE 63286

Figure 1: Idealization of fracture reservoir according

to the model of Warren and Root (1963)

Weyburn Field Objectives:

Identify waterflood, horizontal well recovery
potential as well as examine CO2 potential

Initial Geological
Studies

Initial Engineering
Studies

- Decline analysis
-(showed long reserve life)
- strong permeability
anisotropic behavior
determined from watercuts
and breakthrough timing

Fracture intensity is
a function of:
- Dolomite vs limestone
- shoal vs. intershoal
porosity

- highest permeability in
NE to SW direction

Was initial geological model

- compatible with engineering model
- good overall continuity
- relatively good waterflood
- recovery (RF> 30%)

Key parameters identified for

horizontal well evaluation
waterflood

- vertical permeability
- current oil saturation
- distribution of oil saturation

Model Construction
- determined fracture parameters from oil log
data
- used ratio (ontrend vs. offtrend)of water
breakthrough
times to give an initial estimate of
permeability

anisotropy ratio

History Match

A history match was successfully achieved on

the following critical parameters:
- watercut
- reservoir pressure
- injection pressure
- producing bottomhole pressure
- saturation distribution at late stage of flood as
flood as measured by vertical wells
- RFT pressures
buildup/DS T derived permeability

Horizontal well projections, CO2 flood forecast

Figure 3: Workflow Diagram for Weyburn

SPE 63286

Seismic
data

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Core/log/data
Mud Losses
Production/injection
logging

Structural changes
surface maps
faulted areas

Zone
specific
data

Pressure
buildup and
productivity
index

Total effective
permeability

Allocation of fracture permeability on layer basis

and areal basis

Figure 4: Workflow Diagram for Waterton

NFR
Parameters

Regional Fracture System

Faulted
System

Areal distribution

More uniform

Very localized faulted zones

Vertical distribution

Small vertical barriers often

act to terminate fracture
systems

Sensitivity of fracture
spacing to lithology
Sensitivity of fracture
spacing to matrix
porosity/permeability
Fracture porosity

Very sensitive

Shales and lithology change

do not terminate fracture set;
very high vertical
communication
Not sensitive near fault

Very sensitive

Not sensitive

Can be moderate;
depends upon karsting
f < 5 %
Often wells water out;
Recovery mechanisms
Some of these reservoirs can
water drive is common in
(limiting factors)
be very successfully
faulted systems because of
waterflooded (see Beliveau
high vertical fracture
1989)
continuity.
Table 1: NFR System Parameters and Production/Recovery Implications
Very small
f < 0.1%

Bended
System
Localized at crest and plunge
areas
Non-uniform higher
frequency in thinners beds

Sensitive
Sensitive

Can be moderate; depends

upon karsting
f < 5%
Often act like multi-layered
reservoirs

SPE 63286

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Reservoir Type
Type 1 Productivity essentially
derived from fracture
porosity and permeability
alone.

Type 2: Fractures provide essential

reservoir permeability
Hydrocarbons stored in
matrix and fracture but fractures
provide the means (i.e.,
permeability) to flow.

Type 3: Productivity of a permeable

matrix is enhanced with the
additional fracture permeability.

Type 4: Fractures do not contribute to

porosity or permeability, but act
as barriers to flow.

Problems and Opportunities

It is necessary to have high fracture intensity
or high fracture porosity for an economic
reservoir.
May result in early water breakthrough the
timing of which is governed by fracture height
and vertical connectivity.
Water influx is often accompanied by rapid oil
decline.
Fractures may generate production from
otherwise unproductive rock.
Determination of fracture porosity is critical in
determining recovery.
Primary and secondary recovery efficiency is
highly dependent upon how well the matrix is
exposed to the fracture network.
Possible early water breakthrough and rapid
oil decline.
Development patterns must consider the
reservoir heterogeneities (e.g. matrix-fracture
communication may vary areally).
Fracture intensity and dip must be known
before pursuing development.
Fractures improve productivity from poor
deliverability reservoirs.
Determination of fracture permeability and
heterogeneity is critical in accessing effective
parameters and recovery potential.
There can be unusual responses in secondary
recovery
Drainage areas can often be elliptical
It may be difficult to recognize or detect the
fracture system
Fractures may enhance already commercial
opportunities
Determination of fracture permeability and
heterogeneity is critical (as for Type 2
reservoirs.
Recovery is poor due to severe reservoir
compartmentalization
If properly planned, field development could
be optimized
Can have very poor secondary recovery
because of compartmentalization

Table 2 Reservoir Types (Adapted from Nelson)

11

Data Source

Pressure
Buildup
analysis PTA

Empirical
Relationships

Fracture Variables
Total effective
Permeability,
Skin
(all Z layers)

Model Parameters

1. Layer specific
parameters
Empirical
Relationships

Productivity
Index
q

Core Analysis

Total effective
Permeability

Fracture spacing,
Fracture height,
Fracture orientation,
Fracture aperture

Fracture
Spacing

(kh )layer
khlayer=

kh

Fracture
Spacing

Fracture aperture
Structure
Bed thicknesses
Fracture spacing

Fracture height,
Spacing, length,
Continuity, clustering

(kh )
bu

core

2. Qualitative mapping
of fracture distribution
(i.e. fracture intensity)

lithology

FMS/FMI
(fracture
logging)

Layer Allocation
Model

3. Intrinsic fractures
permeability and effective
reservoir permeability

4.
Matrix/fracture
connectivity
(i.e.
transfer function)

SPE 63286

RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Figure 2: Data Flow for Charaterization of Permeability for Natural

Fractures and Reservooirs

Outcrop Data

13