Fractured reservoir modelling

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 1 of 45

Main critical points

Fracture porosity evaluation

Matrix-fracture exchange factor

Equivalent permeability evaluation

Interaction between fractures at different scale

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 2 of 45

Different scale fractures

Microfractures represent the storage (together with matrix
porosity, if any)

Intermediate scale fractures usually connect the fracture

network to the wells and represent the drainage fracture
system

Faults and main brittle lineaments

can be important oil paths during
the production phase,
but can also anticipate breakthrough
of water and/or gas at the wells

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 3 of 45

ENIs methodology

ENIs methodology is based on the construction of Discrete

Fracture Network (DFN) models and on the simulation of
hydrocarbon flow within the fracture system by means of a
finite element single phase simulator

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 4 of 45

DFN simulation available tools

The ENI Suite
(Golder packages)

FRED (Fractured Reservoir Evaluation and

Development)
The software development is
Model Construction
DFN generation

Properties assignment
DFN analysis

Grid construction (FredMesh)

Results visualization

carried out by the FRED

Consortium, which is
sponsored by the following
companies:
Marathon Oil Company
ExxonMobil Corporation
Enterprise Oil -> Shell
ENI Agip Division
Norsk Hydro
Golder Associates

MAFICOIL
Single Phase Flow Simulation
K_Comp, SIGMA_BLOCK
Single Phase Flow Simulation
FRACA (Beicip/IFP package)

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 5 of 45

The workflow An overview

Available data

Production data
Static DFN conceptual models

Optimization
phase

Evaluation of static DFN models

Ranking of conceptual models

Production data
Evaluation of static DFN model

Optimization
phase

Static DFN final model

Dynamic model
UPSCALING

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 6 of 45

ENIs methodology

ENIs workflow, together with the chain of software utilized,

enables us to face each kind of fractured reservoir and to
build reasonable and successful models (both dual or single
porosity and permeability).

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 7 of 45

Software chain
Seismic interpret.
Structural model

3D Model
Petrel/
Earthvision

Reservoir layering
Fracture potential
maps
Seismic attributes
maps

Simulation Grid
Petrel/Eclipse/Sure

Property
model.
Petrel

Fracture properties
from core

Fracture Analysis
AFRODITE

Fracture properties
from imaging log

Fracture properties
from outcrop and/or
seismics

Fracture network
conceptual model
FRED/SIBYLFRAC

Stress field map

(Poly3D)

Flow sim. within

fracture network
MAFICOIL/WILMA

Production logs
and tests

Upscaling
Grid_K, s-Block

Eclipse/Sure 2f-2K models

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 8 of 45

The workflow Data integration

Available data

Production data
Static DFN conceptual models

Optimization
phase

Evaluation of DFN static models

Ranking of conceptual models

Production data

Evaluation of static DFN model

Optimization
phase

Static DFN final model

Dynamic model
UPSCALING

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 9 of 45

Conceptual model

Conceptual model refers to a schematisation of reality that

describes the main features of the fracture system that control
hydrocarbon flow behaviour
The fractures are linked to one or more events that represent
the geological drivers.

The choice of a sound conceptual model, and hence the geological driver,
enables us to distribute fractures in a sensible way, also in the area not
checked by the wells

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 10 of 45

Geological Drivers
Qualitative and quantitative information related to geological
characteristics of the field.
They are used as trend to distribute to the whole field:
the fracture network
the fracture equivalent parameters (i.e. : permeability, )

curvature map

3761000
3760000
3759000
3758000
3757000
3756000
3755000
3754000
3753000
3752000
3751000
3750000
3749000
3748000
258000

262000

266000

270000

274000

Eni Corporate University

278000

282000

286000

290000

294000

fracture
intensity map
Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 11 of 45

Advanced Modeling Techniques

CONCEPTUAL MODELS

Faults driven

Homogeneus

Mixed
Eni Corporate University

Layering driven
Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 12 of 45

Data Integration for Fracture Network Modelling

Geological data at different scale (thin section, core analysis, laboratory
measurements, log, outcrop, mud losses, PLT, MDT, seismic interpretation,
geological maps, satellite maps), geomechanical measurements, seismic
attributes (coherence cube analysis), analogues

Reservoir layering, fracture geometry, paleostress, current stress

Conceptual models / Geological drivers

Distribution and orientation of fractures inside the DFN model (fractures

are modelled like discrete elements)
DFN model must match well observation (fracture intensity and geometry)

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 13 of 45

Model building Fracture size

Microfractures

Intermediate scale
fractures

Main lineaments

Eni Corporate University

Petrophysical parameters evaluation with statistical

simulation or laboratory analysis

Petrophysical parameters evaluation at intermediate

scale is carried out building a DFN model (at well scale)
validated by well test match. Matrix takes into account
the microfracture petrophysical parameters

Whole Field Model is built utilizing its specified fracture

size plus an equivalent matrix that takes into account
microfracture and intermediate fracture parameters

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 14 of 45

Model building The pseudo-matrix

Fracture swarms, faults
Microfractures
Well1

+ matrix
Well2

Outcrop scale
= pseudo matrix
Well4

Well4

Well7

Well test pseudo-matrix

Well3

Well test model

Well6

Well5

Fracture swarm
Well8

Full-field background

Eni Corporate University

3D whole field model

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 15 of 45

Model evaluation

Previous validation
Static matching: the model must match well data (fracture
intensity, fracture geometry)
The model has also to match regional geologic data (fracture
geometry)
Final validation
Dynamic matching: the model must match the historical
production data

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 16 of 45

Static matching
Orientation

Fracture geometry

Length

Fracture intensity

Distribution

Connectivity

Aperture

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 17 of 45

Static matching Fracture intensity

Orientation

Fracture geometry

Fracture intensity

Length

Distribution

Connectivity

Aperture

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 18 of 45

Fracture Density Indexes Definition *

DIMENSION OF
MEAUREMENT REGION

DIMENSION OF FRACTURE

0 : NUMBER OF FRACTURES

1
MEASUREMENT ALONG
LINES
( IMAGE LOGS, CORE )

3
VOLUME

P10
NUMBER OF FRACTURE PER
MEASUREMANT UNITS (m ^-1)

1 : LENGHT

2 : SURFACE (AREA)

3 : VOLUME
* modified by Dershowitz & Herda (1992)

Eni Corporate University

2
MEASUREMENT ACCORDING TO
AREAS (SLABS, MAPS )

P21
CUMULATIVE FRACTURE LENGHT
PER SURFACE UNIT (m^-1)

P22
FRACTURE AREA PER CUMULATIVE
SURFACE UNIT (undimensional)

P31
CUMULATIVE FRACTURE LENGHT
PER VOLUME UNIT (m^-2)

P32
CUMULATIVE FRACTURE AREA PER
VOLUME UNIT (m^-1)

P33
FRACTURE VOLUME PER VOLUME
UNIT (undimensional)

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 19 of 45

Basic concepts
Fracture Intensity (Dershowitz, 1984)
P21=m/m2

Eni Corporate University

P32=m2/m3

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 20 of 45

scale

Summary of data sources

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 21 of 45

Matching the well observation (fracture intensity)

FI = Fracture intensity value

Well 1

100 stocastic realization for

each FI

FI=1

FI=n

This realization has

to match well
observation (number
of fractures crossed
by each well,
orientation and
geometry)

Conceptual model
Best realization

Well n
FI=1

FI=n

Realisation 1 Fracture set 1

Realisation 2 Fracture set 2
..
Realisation 100 Fracture set 100

Back interpolation

100
Well 1
Well n
Poli. (Well 1)

60

Poli. (Well n)

40

Eni Corporate University

FI

1800

1400
1

1000

600
0

200

Percentage of success
means the number of-20
realizations matching
well data

20

Percentage of success

80

FI

Right FI

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 22 of 45

Static matching Fracture orientation

Orientation

Fracture geometry

Length

Fracture intensity

Distribution

Connectivity

Aperture

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 23 of 45

Matching the well observation (fracture orientation)

Fracture orientation at well scale can

be deduced by cores, logs and in some
cases also by outcrops.
Other data can be used to estimate
fracture orientation at field scale
(seismic, maps, outcrops).

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 24 of 45

Static matching Fracture length

Orientation

Fracture geometry

Fracture length is constrained by the

model size

Length

Distribution

Connectivity
XX
7

120.%

100.%

5
80.%
Frequency

Aperture

4
60.%
3
40.%
2
20.%

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 25 of 45

class of length (log10)

Altro

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

0.9

.%
0.8

Dynamic test

Static matching Other parameters

Orientation

Fracture geometry

Length

Distribution

Connectivity

Aperture

Eni Corporate University

Conceptual model / Geological driver

Orientation
Length
Density (fracture intensity)
Distribution

Dynamic simulation matching

parameter

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 26 of 45

Matching the well observation - DFN model

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 27 of 45

The workflow Static model validation

Available data

Production data
Static DFN conceptual models

Optimization
phase

Evaluation of DFN static models

Ranking of conceptual models

Production data

Evaluation of static DFN model

Optimization
phase

Static DFN final model

Dynamic model
UPSCALING

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 28 of 45

Model evaluation

Previous validation
Static matching: the model must match well data (fracture
intensity, fracture geometry).
The model has also to match regional geologic data (fracture
geometry)
Final validation
Dynamic matching: the model must match the historical
production data

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 29 of 45

Conceptual model validation

Dynamic behaviour of each conceptual model is investigated simulating
production data (well tests, interference tests, PLT); fluid flow is simulated
with finite element equation, with a single phase code

Variations of pressure vs. time obtained from the

simulation are compared with historical production
data and the properties of the fractures (aperture,
compressibility and permeability) and the matrix
(porosity and permeability) are adjusted during
optimization phase, to obtain the best match
The search for the optimal set of simulation parameters was carried out by means of an
optimisation technique that allowed to minimize the difference between observed and
calculated data, by automatically changing the simulation parameters within a specific range of
values

Pressure distribution

Eni Corporate University

Ranking of the simulated

conceptual models (based on the
quality of the history match)

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 30 of 45

Optimization loop
Define a range of
K and aperture
for each fracture set

DFN

Enter the
Optimization
Loop

Best match between simulated

and observed reservoir behavior

Elements to discriminate
between conceptual models

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 31 of 45

Maficoil

Single phase flow simulator

Fractures = planes
Finite Elements on triangular grid
Two-dimensional flow equation

Km ,

Pseudo-Matrix = spheres
One-dimensional flow equation

K, A

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 32 of 45

MaficOil limits:
No matrix-to-matrix flow
No gravitational effects
Mono-phase (no aquifer, no gas cap)

Mono-PVT (no API tracking)

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 33 of 45

Workflow
km, m, cm, cf
oil PVT properties

Geological model

Maficoil monophase simulation

No
Match
Real data?

Optimization process
Match
parameters Kf ,af

Yes

Eni Corporate University

Upscaling for a DP
simulation

kfeq,feq,
meq, s, Lz
Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 34 of 45

Chaotic optimization Procedure

Well
MEW1 A
MEW1

Optimization runs:

338
338

Real Real
data data

336
336

simulation
simulation

334
334

332
332

Pressure (bar)
Pressure (bar)

120000

330
330

Permeability (mD)

100000

328
328

80000

326
326
60000

324
324
40000

322
322
20000

320
320
18/02/1997
18/02/1997

15/12/1997
15/12/1997

11/10/1998
11/10/1998

07/08/1999
07/08/1999

02/06/2000
02/06/2000

Time(h)
(h)
Time

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Aperture (m)

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 35 of 45

29/03/2001
29/03/2001

23/01/2002
23/01/2002

Ranking and evaluation

Well A

Well B

Perticara
415

405

405

395

395

pressure [bar]

000

pressure [bar]

Gorgoglione
415

385
375
365

375
365

real data

355

simulation

real data
355

simulation

345

345
0

000

5000

10000

15000

5000

time [h]

Well A

Tem parossa 2

15000

403

403

401

401

399

399

397
395
393

Well B

Tem pa d'Em m a
405

pressure [bar]

pressure [bar]

10000
time [h]

405

Geometrical
layered strata
bound

397
395
393
391

391
real data

389
387

simulation

389

real data

387

simulation

385

385

5000

Stress field driven

model

385

5000
time [h]

10000

15000

415

95

5000

10000

15000

time [h]

Gorgoglione
Well
A

GO build-up Horner plot

00

Perticara
Well
B

415

405

405

395

395

10

100

((tp+t)/t)

1000

PE build-up Horner plot

8
6
4
2
0
8

pressure [bar]

85

pressure [bar]

90

385
375
365

375
365

real data

355

simulation

real data
355

simulation

345

345
10

05

03

100

((tp+t)/t)

1000

Eni Corporate University

5000

10000

15000

time [h]

Tem parossa 1

Fault related
homogeneous
model

385

Tem parossa 2

5000

10000

15000

time [h]
Tem pa d'Em m a

405

405

403

403
401

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 36 of 45

The workflow Final static model validation

Available data

Production data
Static DFN conceptual models

Optimization
phase

Evaluation of DFN static models

Ranking of conceptual models

Production data

Evaluation of static DFN model

Optimization
phase

Static DFN final model

Dynamic model
UPSCALING

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 37 of 45

Final static model validation

Construction of the final, detailed fracture network model at the whole reservoir scale
(always a DFN model is adopted)

420

Dynamic simulation over the entire

production history

pressure [bar]

400
380
360
340
320

Optimization phase (changing the

properties of the fractures within a
specific range of values)

Eni Corporate University

real data
simulation

300
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

time [h]

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 38 of 45

100000

The workflow The dynamic model

Available data

Production data
Static DFN conceptual models
(FRED)

Optimization
phase

Evaluation of DFN static models

(MAFIC OIL)

Ranking of conceptual models

Production data

Evaluation of static DFN model

(MAFIC OIL)

Optimization
phase

UPSCALING

Eni Corporate University

Static DFN final model

(FRED)

Dynamic model
(ECLIPSE)
Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 39 of 45

Upscaling - Dynamic model

DFN final model is used to obtain a
continuum approximation of
reservoir fracture system properties
(equivalent fracture porosity and
permeability, exchange mass factor
between matrix and fractures)

Dynamic simulation model

Well A

Fracture porosity

Each cell has its own

equivalent properties

Fracture permeability

The choice of a sound conceptual model, and hence, the geological driver
enables us to distribute fractures in a sensible way, also in the area not
checked by the wells

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 40 of 45

From DFN 3D Model to Dual Continuum Model

f, m, s, Kf, Km
Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 41 of 45

Dynamic model

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 42 of 45

Remarks

The key feature in the characterisation of fractured systems is an

integrated approach leading to the realisation of DFN models
The selected models represent one of the possible solutions but are
consistent with all the information available coming from different
disciplines and scales of observation
Different geological and conceptual assumptions carried out from
other disciplines can be tested and validated
A better understanding of the field structure and properties can be
achieved

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 43 of 45

Conclusions
Evaluation of following parameters:

Equivalent fracture porosity

Matrix block size
Matrix-fracture exchange factor
Equivalent fracture permeability

Methodology enables us to:

create a standard and easy procedure to fracture reservoir
characterization;
validate the fracture model with dynamic data;
plan field development;
optimize well location, trajectory and completion;
enhance well performance.

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 44 of 45

Eni Corporate University

Reservoir Geology
Rev. 00 July 07/EP
Page 45 of 45