CONTENTS

Quantifying and predicting AUTHORS

Creties Jenkins
DeGolyer and MacNaughton,
naturally fractured reservoir Dallas, Texas; cjenkins@demac.com
Creties Jenkins is a senior staff geologist for De-
behavior with continuous Golyer and MacNaughton where he specializes
in reservoir characterization, geocellular modeling,
fracture models and resource estimation in clastic reservoirs, in-
cluding coalbed methane and shale gas accumu-
lations. He received an M.S. degree in geology and
Creties Jenkins, Ahmed Ouenes, Abdel Zellou, and a B.S. degree in geological engineering from the
Jeff Wingard South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.

Ahmed Ouenes
Prism Seismic, Greenwood

Village, Colorado; ouenes@prismseismic.com
ABSTRACT Ahmed Ouenes is the president of Prism Seismic.
Previously, he was the chief reservoir engineer at
This article describes the workflow used in continuous fracture
(RC)2 where he developed the first commercial
modeling (CFM) and its successful application to several projects.
software for the CFM technology. Ahmed’s main
Our CFM workflow consists of four basic steps: (1) interpreting key interest is the development of improved reservoir
seismic horizons and generating prestack and poststack seismic attri- characterization technologies especially for frac-
butes; (2) using these attributes along with log and core data to build tured reservoirs. Ahmed graduated from Ecole
seismically constrained geocellular models of lithology, porosity, water Centrale de Paris and holds a Ph.D. in petroleum
saturation, etc.; (3) combining the derived geocellular models with engineering from New Mexico Tech.
prestack and poststack seismic attributes and additional geomechan- Abdel Zellou
Prism Seismic, Centennial,
ical models to derive high-resolution three-dimensional (3-D) fracture Colorado; abdel@prismseismic.com
models; and (4) validating the 3-D fracture models in a dynamic res-
Abdel M. Zellou is director of consulting at Prism
ervoir simulator by testing their ability to match well performance. Seismic. He has worked as a consultant on nu-
Our CFM workflow uses a neural network approach to integrate merous fractured reservoirs all over the world
all of the available static and dynamic data. This results in a model and contributed to the drilling of many successful
that is better able to identify fractured areas and quantify their im- wells. He codeveloped ReFract, a leading frac-
pact on well and reservoir flow behavior. This technique has been tured reservoir software using patented technology.
successfully applied in numerous sandstone and carbonate reservoirs Abdel graduated from New Mexico Tech with an
M.Sc. degree in petroleum engineering.
to both understand reservoir behavior and determine where to drill
additional wells. Three field case studies are used to illustrate the Jeff Wingard
DeGolyer and MacNaughton,
capabilities of the CFM approach. Dallas, Texas; jwingard@demac.com
Jeff Wingard is a senior staff reservoir engineer at
DeGolyer and MacNaughton where he has devel-
INTRODUCTION oped and evaluated geocellular and simulation
models for waterflood, miscible gas, and thermal
The characterization of naturally fractured reservoirs is a recurring Enhanced Oil Recovery projects. He earned a B.S.
degree in chemical engineering from the Massa-
challenge for oil and gas companies. Reservoir models built to assist
chusetts Institute of Technology in 1980 and a Ph.D.
with field development planning and depletion optimization need to in petroleum engineering from Stanford University
accurately incorporate the effects of natural fractures in the near- in 1988.
wellbore regions and to also predict their distribution in interwell
areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The AAPG Editor thanks the following reviewers
for their work on this paper: Soren Christensen,
Copyright ©2009. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All rights reserved. Stuart D. Harker, Tony Morland, Ronald A. Nelson,
Manuscript received February 10, 2009; provisional acceptance April 16, 2009; revised manuscript and an anonymous reviewer.
received May 31, 2009; final acceptance July 13, 2009.
DOI:10.1306/07130909016

AAPG Bulletin, v. 93, no. 11 (November 2009), pp. 1597–1608 1597

 Many attempts have been made in the past to achieve
this, but most of them have proven to be inaccurate and
unreliable. For example, many companies are still using
simple methods such as reservoir curvature to identify
areas that are likely to be fractured. Such a simplified ap-
proach ignores lithology, bed thickness, and other factors
that are generally known to influence fracture develop-
ment. Similarly, geostatistical techniques such as kriging
and sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS) are commonly
inadequate for distributing fracture properties in inter-
well areas because these properties do not change in a
regular manner away from well control.
Geomechanical models attempt to construct a frac-
ture description and mechanical property distribution
from the tectonic history, but these models commonly
fail to capture the complex heterogeneity and anisotro-
py of the fracture system (Mace et al., 2004). Discrete
fracture modeling (Dershowitz et al., 1998; Sabathier
et al., 1998), which has become very popular in recent
years, is constrained by the assumption that a limited
number of macroscale fractures, as observed in cores
and image logs, control fluid flow. A review of discrete
fracture modeling methods and their characteristics can
be found in the works of Dershowitz et al. (2004) and
Bourbiaux et al. (2005).
To capture fracture effects at multiple scales and
simultaneously integrate all of the available information,
including core, log, seismic, and well test data, an alter-
native technique (Ouenes et al., 1995; Ouenes, 2000)
called continuous fracture modeling (CFM) can be used.
This article provides a review of the CFM approach
by describing its key characteristics and illustrating these
with three case studies. In each of these studies, objec-
tive criteria are used to evaluate the predictive capabil-
ity of the generated model, which is critical to ensure its
reliability. This can be done by comparing the model
properties to the actual properties found in new wells
or in existing wells that were not used to construct the
model (also known as blind wells). Another method of
comparison is to test the validity of the model in a numer-
ical simulator to see if well performance can be reason-
ably matched without significant model adjustments.
CONTINUOUS FRACTURE MODELING APPROACH
The CFM approach does not focus on the fractures
themselves but instead on the factors that control where
fracturing occurs. Lithology, structure, proximity to faults,
1598 Continuous Fracture Modeling (CFM)
and other geological factors are commonly known to
control the location and intensity of fracturing. These
factors, known as fracture drivers, can be identified
not just from wellbore data but also from seismic data,
which is the key to predicting fracture occurrence
throughout the reservoir. Through the CFM approach,
these fracture drivers are related to fracture indicators,
which include the interpretation of fractures from core
descriptions, image logs, and production logs that dem-
onstrate the existence of a fracture at a specific location.
Once this relationship is established, the fracture driv-
ers can be used to predict the location of fractures else-
where in the reservoir.
Common geological fracture drivers include facies
types, porosity, and reservoir zonation. Geomechanical
fracture drivers include deformation, slopes and curva-
tures of structural surfaces in multiple directions, and
proximity to faults. Seismic fracture drivers include elas-
tic properties, acoustic impedance, and spectral imaging
attributes. In combination, these fracture drivers are a
much more powerful tool for characterizing the fracture
system than if used alone.
The CFM approach can be applied in both two and
three dimensions (2-D and 3-D). When working in 2-D,
the fracture indicator is represented by a single value at
each well, and the fracture drivers are a series of 2-D con-
tour maps. Ouenes et al. (1998) and Zellou and Ouenes
(2003) presented a 2-D CFM example where Dakota
Formation sweet spots were identified in the San Juan
Basin. When working in 3-D, fracture indicators are as-
signed to model cells intersected by wellbores, and the
fracture drivers consist of distributed properties condi-
tioned to log, core, and seismic data. Table 1 lists those
fracture drivers most commonly used in building a geo-
cellular model for CFM and some of the methods used
to obtain the seismic fracture drivers. The table also con-
tains a list of common fracture indicators available at
the wellbore.
A neural network is used to find possible relation-
ships between the fracture drivers and fracture indica-
tors observed at the wellbore. The neural network
approach first ranks all the fracture drivers according
to how reliably they correlate with the fracture indica-
tors. The modeler then reviews the results in light of
what is known about the significance and robustness
of each fracture driver, and how the ranking compares
to what is understood about the physical distribution of
fractures in the reservoir. The best-correlated fracture
drivers that make the most sense are then subjected to
a training and validation process before being used to
Table 1. Summary of the Most Common 3-D Fracture Drivers Used in the CFM Approach along with Possible Fracture Indicators
Available at the Wellbore

Structural and Geomechanical Seismic Attributes Used as Fracture Indicators in

Geological Fracture Drivers
Core- and log-derived
porosity and permeability
Lithofacies volumes (shale,
dolomite, calcite)
Log data (gamma ray,
density, resistivity, etc.)
Fluid saturations
Correlation framework
Vertical and lateral trends
Fracture Drivers
Structural curvature (dip
and slope)
Structure and reservoir depth
Deformation
Stress and strain fields
Distance to faults
Bed or layer thickness
Fracture Drivers the Wellbore
Amplitude and amplitude- Fracture count from
based attributes image logs
Impedance derived from Fracture count from core
poststack inversions descriptions
Frequency-dependent spectral Fluid entry or exit locations
imaging attributes from production logs
Statistical spectral imaging attributes Well-test permeabilities
Elastic properties derived from Difference between deep and
prestack inversions shallow resistivity-log values
Azimuthal anisotropy attributes Drilling losses

generate a suite of equiprobable fracture-density real-
izations. These realizations can then be screened and
calibrated to permeability-thickness (kh) data or direc-
tional permeability data obtained from well tests. The
resulting effective permeability model can then be ex-
ported for use in numerical simulation and development
planning. A simplified workflow summarizing the entire
3-D CFM approach is shown in Figure 1.
VALUE OF SEISMIC DATA IN CONTINUOUS
FRACTURE MODELING
The CFM approach relies heavily on the use of seismic
data to provide key fracture drivers. Structural fracture
drivers such as dip magnitude and interpreted faults can
be derived from basic seismic interpretation, and seis-
mic attributes can be derived from seismic volumetric
curvatures (Al-Dosari and Marfurt, 2006). Bed thickness
variations can be determined from isochrons or from
the tuning frequency derived from spectral imaging. Li-
thology, porosity, and other rock properties can be de-
rived indirectly from high-resolution seismic attributes
obtained in prestack and poststack inversions calibrated
against log and core data from wells. Under good condi-
tions, these seismic attributes can be generated at a ver-
tical resolution of 2–3 m (6–10 ft), which, in our experi-
ence, is comparable to the thickness of intervals that
control fluid flow in fractured reservoirs and to the ver-
tical scale at which geocellular models are built.
The key to deriving attributes at a 2–3-m (6–10-ft)
scale is to integrate the seismic traces with the log data
through high-resolution seismic stochastic inversion
(Haas and Dubrule, 1994). In this process, synthetic seis-
mograms are generated from the pseudoimpedance log
and compared to the actual seismic trace at a given well lo-
cation. The synthetic seismogram that results in the best
match to the actual seismic trace is retained as the inver-
sion solution at that location. The vertical resolution of
the simulated data is determined by the selection of the
vertical cell size (determined by the end user of the
model) and not by the frequency content of the seismic
data. The result of the stochastic seismic inversion is a
3-D volume with a seismic-like areal resolution and a
loglike vertical resolution that honors both the log data
and the seismic data.
An example showing the soundness of this tech-
nique comes from a recent work in a Hungarian reser-
voir (Zellou et al., 2006) where the data from five wells
were used to generate a high-resolution seismic imped-
ance volume with a sample rate of 0.5 ms (2–3 m [6–
10 ft]). The resulting impedance volume was then com-
pared to the actual impedance values at four blind wells
resulting in a correlation coefficient of 0.77 (Figure 2).
This goodness of fit illustrates the potential ability of
the high-resolution inversion to accurately predict imped-
ance values in the 3-D seismic volume. For the fracture
modeling effort in this example, a high-resolution imped-
ance was derived using all nine wells.
The predictive capabilities of CFM depend, in large
part, on the quality of the seismic and well-log data used
to extract the relevant seismic attributes. A good-quality
3-D seismic survey and a large number of available wells
with good-quality sonic and density logs recorded over a
long interval provide the best input data.

Jenkins et al. 1599

Figure 1. Simplified workflow showing the key components of the 3-D CFM approach, which includes the generation of seismic attri-
butes, the generation of geologic and geomechanical fracture drivers constrained by seismic data, the construction of a fracture indicator
log at the wells, and the quantitative integration of all these data with artificial intelligence tools (neural networks).

The quality of the seismic data also has a significant
impact on the quality of the structural framework and
the resulting 3-D geocellular grid, which are built in the
time domain using interpreted horizons and faults. For
example, poor seismic data may result in the inability
to capture critical faults, which will negatively impact
the acoustic impedance inversion. Figure 3 shows a
cross section of the impedance for the Hungarian res-
ervoir (Zellou et al., 2006) described previously. With-
out a proper structural framework that considers all
the faults and an inversion algorithm that is able to
honor the sharp offsets near each of the faults, the de-
rived impedance will not be very useful in the CFM
workflow.
High-resolution seismic attributes have been pro-
duced for almost 15 yr using Haas and Dubrule’s sto-
chastic or geostatistical inversion techniques (Haas and
Dubrule, 1994; Dubrule et al., 1998). Many geoscien-
tists have been using seismic attributes simulated at a res-
olution of 2–3 m (6–10 ft) for more than a decade (Lo
and Bashore, 1999; Torres-Verdin et al., 1999; Dasgupta
et al., 2000; Robinson, 2001; Sullivan et al., 2004; Francis,
2005; Raguwanti et al., 2005). Commercial software
using this approach has also been created. Despite these
advances, many geoscientists are still unfamiliar with the
technique and erroneously believe that seismic attributes
are limited to a one-quarter wavelength resolution. In the
CFM approach, many seismic attributes are computed
near the seismic detection limit (2–3 m [6–10 ft]), which
could be five to seven times smaller than the seismic res-
olution (15–20 m [49–66 ft]).
The use of high-resolution attributes is critical to
achieve good predictive capabilities with the CFM ap-
proach. Boadu (1998) showed that, in theory, a neural
network can accurately predict the fracture density
using limited seismic attributes. The following case stud-
ies each include the use of one or more high-resolution
seismic attributes in the CFM approach.

1600 Continuous Fracture Modeling (CFM)

 Figure 2. Predicted
(x axis) versus actual (y axis)
impedance at four blind
wells not used in a seismic
inversion. The predicted
impedance at the wells
was extracted from an im-
pedance cube computed
with a resolution of 0.5 ms
or 2–3 m (6–10 ft) and
compared to the actual
logs averaged at 2 m (from
Zellou et al., 2006; re-
printed by permission of
the Society of Petroleum
Engineers).

FIELD CASE STUDIES OF CONTINUOUS
FRACTURE MODELING
South Arne Chalk Field, Danish North Sea
In this project (Christensen et al., 2006), the CFM ap-
proach was used to predict the 3-D distribution of frac-
ture density and to create reservoir simulation models
in the South Arne field, a complex chalk reservoir. Nu-
merous fracture drivers, including a high-resolution
acoustic impedance inversion and several spectral imag-
ing attributes, were combined with porosity log values
at 15 wells to construct a porosity model. The result-
ing model compared very favorably with three blind

Figure 3. Cross section

along an inline showing
the derived impedance at
a resolution of 0.5 ms. Be-
cause the structural in-
terpretation captures the
existing faults and their
sharp offsets, the derived
seismic attributes are more
representative and there-
fore will be more useful
in the CFM workflow (from
Zellou et al., 2006; re-
printed by permission of
the Society of Petroleum
Engineers).

Jenkins et al. 1601

Figure 4. Validation of
predicted porosities in the
South Arne field of the
North Sea. The red curves
are the predicted porosity
values from the seismic
attributes. The black curves
are the upscaled porosity
values from the logs
(Christensen et al., 2006;
reprinted by permission
of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers). MD = mea-
sured depth.
wells that were not included in the model construction
(Figure 4). Four vertical appraisal wells drilled subse-
quent to model construction were used to further validate
the inverted impedance and derived porosity models.
After validation, a fracture-density model was gener-
ated using porosity, seismic data, and geomechanical
fracture drivers. Two fracture indicators were used to
calibrate the fracture model and quantify the effects of
fractures: core permeability and the fracture density esti-
mated from image logs. A matrix permeability model
was also generated using the porosity model as the domi-
nant fracture driver. This matrix permeability model
was subsequently combined with the fracture-density
model to generate an effective permeability model for
numerical simulation. The resulting effective perme-
ability from fracture permeability enhancement for a
matrix volume with N fractures in the same direction
was described by the following equation.
Keff ¼ Km þ f  a3h  84:44  106 ð1Þ
where Keff is the effective permeability of the combined
matrix and fracture flow, (in millidarcies), Km is the ma-
trix permeability (in millidarcies), f is the fracture density
(in number of fractures per meter), and ah is the average
fracture aperture open for flow (in microns).
The four models discussed above (porosity, matrix
permeability, fracture density, and effective permeabil-
1602 Continuous Fracture Modeling (CFM)
ity) are individual property models that were each gen-
erated within a single geocellular modeling project. The
effective permeability and porosity models were subse-
quently exported for use in numerical simulation.
As shown for two wells (Figure 5), the resulting
simulation runs matched the individual well perfor-
mance without making any substantive adjustments.
The matches in these two wells, which had moderately
simple completions, indicate that the derived fracture-
density model was able to quantify the complex frac-
ture network at the appropriate resolution. Other wells
in the field, with much more complex completions, were
more difficult to match. Nonetheless, the CFM-derived
effective permeability model used in the simulation work
was far better than the model previously used and re-
quired smaller adjustments to obtain matches.
The history match was further optimized by varying
the initially estimated average fracture aperture to find
the best overall match to effective permeability. The his-
tory match approach resulted in a geologically meaning-
ful result using apertures ranging from 30 to 40 mm,
which provides a good starting point for future history
matching once more well tests become available.
The fracture-density model was validated on a well-
by-well basis by comparing fracture density in the model
with the actual counts of conductive fractures. The re-
sults are shown in Figure 6 for three random horizontal
wells that were available during the study. The compar-
ison shows fair to good agreement between the predicted
Figure 5. Initial history matching results for two wells showing good agreement between predicted and actual data for water produc-
tion (blue), pressure (orange), and gas-oil ratio (red). The oil rate curve (green) is specified in the model (Christensen et al., 2006;
reprinted by permission of the Society of Petroleum Engineers).
Jenkins et al. 1603
Figure 6. Count of actual con-
ductive fractures (black) from
image logs in horizontal bore-
holes compared to the predicted
fracture density (red) from CFM
modeling (Christensen et al.,
2006; reprinted by permission
of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers).
and actual occurrence of fractures. Subsequently, two
horizontal wells were drilled in 2007 after the comple-
tion of the study. Fracture-density logs extracted from
the model showed a favorable comparison to the actual
fracture-density logs from these wells.
Maloichskoe Carbonate Reservoir,
Western Siberian Basin
Unlike the South Arne field, where image logs and core
permeability were used as the key fracture indicators,
this project (Pinous et al., 2006) used a simple differ-
ence in the values of the shallow and deep resistivity
logs as the key fracture indicator.
Fracture drivers included seismic inversion and spec-
tral imaging volumes, curvature in multiple directions,
distance to faults, porosity, and deformation. Overall,
27 fracture drivers were evaluated and ranked based on
how accurately each was correlated to the fracture indi-
1604 Continuous Fracture Modeling (CFM)
cator. The CFM approach was used to quantify the re-
lationship between the fracture drivers and the fracture
indicator, and then to predict fracture density in every
cell of the model.
Fifty equiprobable fracture model realizations were
generated, and three of these were selected as the base
case, downside case, and upside case for further analy-
sis. A connectivity analysis based on displaying the CFM
results as discrete fractures and pipes was then con-
ducted to identify those areas most likely to contain
connected fractures. A well was subsequently drilled
using this information, and based on a comparison of
the image log from this well to the modeling results, a
good correspondence between the predicted and actual
location of fractured intervals existed (Figure 7).
The predicted fracture model showed that the up-
per interval would be highly fractured, the middle inter-
val would be poorly fractured, and the lower interval
would be moderately fractured. This is very similar to

the interpretation subsequently derived from the image
log in this well. Although variations between the pre-
dicted and actual fracture density are present, the com-
parison is quite good given that the key fracture indica-
tor was the difference between a shallow and a deep
resistivity log. The fracture-density model was built using
a geocellular grid containing cells 2 m (6 ft) thick, and
thus it was possible to generate a predicted fracture-
density log having a 2-m (6-ft) resolution, as shown in
Figure 7.
Sabria Quartzite Field, Tunisia
This project began with a high-resolution inversion and
the generation of spectral imaging cubes. A structural
framework was then built in both time and depth, and
two key seismic attributes, impedance and tuning fre-
quency, were resampled to the geocellular grid. Geosta-
tistical techniques were then used to distribute porosity,
permeability, water saturation, and shale content into
this grid. These four geological parameters, the two seis-
mic attributes, and structural information were used as
fracture drivers.
The fracture indicator log was provided by core de-
scriptions from three wells. The CFM approach was used
to rank the fracture drivers according to how reliably
they matched this fracture indicator and to generate
Figure 7. Comparison be-
tween the model-derived frac-
ture density, derived from the
difference between the shallow
and deep resistivity logs, and
the measured Formation Micro-
Scanner (FMS) log in the Ma-
loichskoe field. Note that, at a
depth of 2850 m (9350 ft), the
model predicted a 2-m (6-ft)-
thick interval with no fractures
that was confirmed by the FMS
log (Pinous et al., 2006; reprinted
by permission of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers). MD =
measured depth.
multiple fracture-density models. An average model
was then chosen, and data from three well tests were used
to convert the model into fracture permeability. This
was then used as an input for numerical modeling. Dur-
ing the history matching process, a match was achieved
by making adjustments to relative permeability. The
fracture permeability distribution itself was not altered.
After history matching was completed, various new dril-
ling locations were planned and tested with the model.
Based on the results of this work, the Sabria 11 well
was drilled and completed in 2007. A comparison be-
tween the actual and predicted porosity for this well
(Figure 8) shows good agreement, as does the actual
and predicted impedance for this well. In addition, the
actual oil rate of Sabria 11 is in line with the predicted
range of rates forecasted by the numerical model.
IMPACT OF NEW SEISMIC TECHNOLOGIES ON
CONTINUOUS FRACTURE MODELING
Since its inception in 1995 (Ouenes et al., 1995), the
main focus of the CFM approach has been to incorpo-
rate multiple seismic attributes to improve the 3-D de-
scription of fractures. The technique has been applied to
multiple fields, and its value has been demonstrated by
the ability of the resulting models to predict the fracture
Jenkins et al. 1605

Figure 8. Comparison between actual and predicted porosity
values in a new well in the Sabria Quartzite field showing a higher
porosity interval from 3814 to 3930 m (12,513 to 12,894 ft). The
well (left) was only logged to 3930 m (12,894 ft), but the model
(right) extracted values along the entire borehole and thus shows
predicted values of lower porosity deeper than 3930 m (12,894 ft)
(Ouenes et al., 2008; reprinted by permission of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers).
density in new wells and closely match the performance
of individual wells. Because of the flexibility of the CFM
approach, it will continue to benefit from new seismic
technologies that provide better descriptions of subsur-
face properties.
1606 Continuous Fracture Modeling (CFM)
The initial application of CFM technology used only
the seismic amplitude (Zellou et al., 1995), but this was
later improved by adding coherency (Gauthier et al.,
2000). Improvements were also made by adding imped-
ance (Laribi et al., 2003; Zellou et al., 2003) and prestack
azimuthal attributes (Boerner et al., 2003; Wong, 2003)
to the list of fracture drivers. In many instances, the addi-
tion of spectral imaging attributes (Ouenes et al., 2004;
Christensen et al., 2006; Pinous et al., 2006; Zellou et al.,
2006) to the previous seismic attributes greatly improved
the predictability of the models.
Recently, the use of volumetric curvature (Al-Dosari
and Marfurt, 2006), which is a significant improve-
ment over curvature methods applied to surfaces and
coherency-type seismic attributes, provided some of
the best seismic attributes for fractured reservoirs where
faults are major factors. The use of elastic properties de-
rived from high-resolution prestack inversion is one of
the best seismic inputs for the CFM approach. Unfortu-
nately, deriving such seismic attributes requires the
shear component from dipole sonic logs, which is rarely
available in fractured reservoirs.
The absence of seismic attributes or the use of poor-
quality attributes reduces the predictive capabilities of
the CFM models. Although a CFM model can be built
without seismic data, it will likely do a poor job of pre-
dicting fracture density at undrilled locations. This may
also be the case if the seismic data are of poor quality,
especially if this leads to an inaccurate structural inter-
pretation that fails to include some of the faults. If a large
number of wells are present, this will help compensate
for poorer quality seismic data and the resulting model
will have better predictive capabilities.
The presence of good seismic data alone is not suf-
ficient to ensure a predictive CFM model, and other im-
portant conditions must be satisfied. One of these is the
need to extract high-resolution attributes capable of
capturing the vertical variations at a scale of a few me-
ters. A seismic attribute at an initial seismic resolution of
4 ms (which represents 15 to 25 m [49 to 82 ft] of thick-
ness) will not be very useful for the CFM approach. An-
other important condition is that enough good-quality
data exist to generate an accurate fracture indicator
log. Ideally, this would include cores, logs, well tests,
and production logs with each demonstrating the exis-
tence of productive fractures at the same location in a
given wellbore. With less data and/or conflicting infor-
mation, confidence in the calibration of fracture indica-
tors to fracture drivers is reduced as is the predictive
capability of the CFM approach.
SUMMARY
A successful modeling approach for naturally fractured
reservoirs needs to predict where naturally fractured
intervals will be encountered in undrilled wells and
do so at a scale (2–3 m [6–10 ft]) that is comparable
to core, log, and well-test data. A successful approach
must also be able to provide an effective permeability
model for numerical simulation that will match the per-
formance of individual wells.
The CFM approach meets these criteria based on
the results of multiple case studies. The approach pro-
vides a method for geoscientists to quantitatively inte-
grate all of the available data by simultaneously relating
multiple fracture drivers to any type of fracture indica-
tor. This integration is achieved by the quantitative and
simultaneous use of multiple 3-D property volumes,
especially seismic attributes, to predict the interwell
occurrence of fractures and build effective permeabil-
ity models that incorporate them.
As new seismic processing and interpretation tech-
nologies continue to evolve, the resulting seismic attri-
butes will be used to further improve the ability of the
CFM approach to quantify the location and effects of
fractures on well performance.
REFERENCES CITED
Al-Dosari, S., and K. Marfurt, 2006, 3D volumetric multispectral es-
timates of reflector curvature and rotation: Geophysics, v. 71,
no. 5, p. 41–51, doi:10.1190/1.2242449.
Boadu, F. K., 1998, Inversion of fracture density from field seismic
velocities using artificial neural networks: Geophysics, v. 63,
no. 2, p. 534–545, doi:10.1190/1.1444354.
Boerner, S., D. Gray, D. Todorovic-Marinic, A. Zellou, and G.
Schnerck, 2003, Employing neural networks to integrate seis-
mic and other data for the prediction of fracture intensity: So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers Paper No. 84453, 13 p.
Bourbiaux, B., R. Basquet, J. M. Daniel, L. Y. Hu, S. Jenni, A. Lange,
and P. Rasolofosaon, 2005, Fractured reservoirs modeling: A re-
view of the challenges and some recent solutions: First Break,
v. 23, no. 9, p. 33–40.
Christensen, S. A., T. E. Dalgaard, A. Rosendal, J. W. Christensen,
G. Robinson, A. Zellou, and T. Royer, 2006, Seismically driven
reservoir characterization using an innovative integrated ap-
proach: Syd Arne field: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper
No. 103282, 11 p.
Dasgupta, S., M. Hong, P. La Croix, L. Al-Mana, and G. Robinson,
2000, Prediction of reservoir properties by integration of seismic
stochastic inversion and coherency attributes in super giant
Ghawar field (abs.): Society of Exploration Geophysicists Ex-
panded Abstracts, v. 19, p. 1501–05, doi:10.1190/1.1815691.
Dershowitz, B., P. Lapointe, T. Eiben, and L. Wei, 1998, Integration of
discrete feature network methods with conventional simulator
approaches: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper No. 49069,
9 p.
Dershowitz, W., P. La Pointe, and T. Doe, 2004, Advances in dis-
crete fracture network modeling: Proceedings of the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency/National Groundwater Associa-
tion Fractured Rock Conference, p. 882–894.
Dubrule, O., M. Thibaut, P. Lamy, and A. Haas, 1998, Geostatistical
reservoir characterization constrained by 3D seismic data: Pe-
troleum Geoscience, v. 4, no. 2, p. 121–128.
Francis, A., 2005, Limitations of deterministic and advantages of sto-
chastic seismic inversion: Canadian Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists Recorder, v. 30, no. 2, p. 5–11.
Gauthier, B. D. M., A. M. Zellou, A. Toublanc, M. Garcia, and J. M.
Daniel, 2000, Integrated fractured reservoir characterization: A
case study in a North Africa field: Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers Paper No. 65118, 11 p.
Haas, A., and O. Dubrule, 1994, Geostatistical inversion: A sequen-
tial method of stochastic reservoir modeling constrained by seis-
mic data: First Break, v. 12, no. 11, p. 561–569.
Laribi, M., et al., 2003, Integrated fractured reservoir characteriza-
tion and simulation: Application to Sidi El Kilani field, Tunisia.:
Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper No. 84455, 13 p.
Lo, T.-W., and W. Bashore, 1999, Seismic constrained facies model-
ing using stochastic seismic inversion and indicator simulation:
A North Sea example (abs.): Society of Exploration Geophysi-
cists Expanded Abstracts, v. 18, p. 923–926.
Mace, L., L. Souche, and J.-L. Mallet, 2004, 3D fracture characteriza-
tion based on geomechanics and geologic data uncertainties: 9th
European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery:
Houten, Netherlands, European Association of Geoscientists
and Engineers, 8 p.
Ouenes, A., 2000, Practical application of fuzzy logic and neural net-
works to fractured reservoir characterization: Computers and
Geosciences, v. 26, no. 9, p. 953–962.
Ouenes, A., S. Richardson, and W. Weiss, 1995, Fractured reservoir
characterization and performance forecasting using geomechan-
ics and artificial intelligence: Society of Petroleum Engineers
Paper No. 30572, 12 p.
Ouenes, A., A. M. Zellou, P. M. Basinski, and C. F. Head, 1998,
Practical use of neural networks in tight gas fractured reservoirs:
Application to the San Juan Basin: Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers Paper No. 39965, 8 p.
Ouenes, A., G. Robinson, and A. Zellou, 2004, Impact of pre-stack
and post-stack seismic on integrated naturally fractured reser-
voir characterization: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper
No. 87007, 11 p.
Ouenes, A., G. Robinson, D. Balogh, A. Zellou, D. Umbsaar, H.
Jarraya, T. Boufares, L. Ayadi, and R. Kacem, 2008, Seismically
driven characterization, simulation and underbalanced drilling
of multiple horizontal boreholes in a tight fractured quartzite
reservoir: Application to Sabria field, Tunisia: Society of Petro-
leum Engineers Paper No. 112853, 12 p.
Pinous, O., E. P. Sokolov, S. Y. Bahir, A. Zellou, G. Robinson, T. Royer,
N. Svikhnushin, D. Borisenok, and A. Blank, 2006, Applica-
tion of an integrated approach for the characterization of a natu-
rally fractured reservoir in the West Siberian basement (ex-
ample of Maloichskoe field): Society of Petroleum Engineers
Paper No. 102562, 7 p.
Raguwanti, R., A. Sukotjo, B. Wikan, and H. Adibrata, 2005, Inno-
vative approach using geostatistical inversion for carbonate res-
ervoir characterization in Sopa field, south Sumatra, Indonesia
(abs.): 2005 AAPG International Conference and Exhibition,
Paris, France, http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents
/abstracts/2005intl_paris/raguwanti.htm.
Robinson, G. C., 2001, Stochastic seismic inversion applied to reser-
voir characterization: Canadian Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists Recorder, v. 26, no. 1, p. 36–40.
Sabathier, J. C., B. J. Bourbiaux, M. C. Cacas, and S. Sarda, 1998, A
Jenkins et al. 1607
 new approach of fractured reservoirs: Society of Petroleum En-
gineers Paper No. 39825, 11 p.
Sullivan, C., E. Ekstrand, T. Byrd, D. Bruce, M. Bogaards, R. Boese,
and P. Mesdag, 2004, Quantifying uncertainty in reservoir
properties using geostatistical inversion at the Holstein field,
deepwater Gulf of Mexico (abs.): Society of Exploration Geo-
physicists Expanded Abstracts, v. 23, p. 1491–1494, doi:10
.1190/1.1851128.
Torres-Verdín, C., M. Victoria, G. Merletti, and J. Pendrel, 1999, Trace-
based and geostatistical inversion of 3-D seismic data for thin-sand
delineation, an application in San Jorge Basin, Argentina: The
Leading Edge, v. 18, no. 9, p. 1070–1076, doi:10.1190/1
.1438434.
Wong, P. M., 2003, A novel technique for modeling fracture intensity:
A case study from the Pinedale anticline in Wyoming: AAPG Bul-
letin, v. 87, no. 11, p. 1717–1727, doi:10.1306/07020303005.
Zellou, A., and A. Ouenes, 2003, Integrated fractured reservoir char-
1608 Continuous Fracture Modeling (CFM)
acterization using neural networks and fuzzy logic: Three case
studies, in M. Nikravesh, L. A. Zadeh, and F. Aminzadeh, eds.,
Soft computing and intelligent data analysis in oil exploration:
Developments in Petroleum Geoscience 51, p. 583–602.
Zellou, A., L. Hartley, E. Hoogerduijn-Strating, S. Al Dhahab, W.
Boom, and F. Hadrami, 2003, Integrated workflow applied to
the characterization of a carbonate fractured reservoir: Qarn Alam
field: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper No. 81579, 8 p.
Zellou, A., G. Robinson, T. Royer, P. Zahuczki, and A. Kiraly, 2006,
Fractured reservoir characterization using post-stack seismic at-
tributes: Application to a Hungarian reservoir (abs.): European
Association of Geoscientists and Engineers Annual Conference,
Vienna, Austria, 4 p.
Zellou, A. M., A. Ouenes, and A. K. Banik, 1995, Improved fractured
reservoir characterization using neural networks, geomechan-
ics, and 3-D seismic: Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper
No. 30722, 11 p.