4.

CLASSIFICATION
OF FRACTURED
RESERVOIRS
Classification of
Fractured Reservoirs
Delineates the reservoir parameters most
important in quantifying the reservoir
(high-grades data acquisition)
Potential production & evaluation problems
can be anticipated
The style of reservoir simulation necessary
can be constrained
Type I: Fractures provide the essential storage capacity and
permeability in a reservoir. The matrix has little porosity or
permeability.

Type II: Rock matrix provides the essential storage capacity and
fractures provide the essential permeability in a reservoir. The
rock matrix has low permeability, but may have low, moderate, or
even high porosity.

Type III: Fractures provide a permeability assist in an already
economically producible reservoir that has good matrix porosity and
permeability.

Type IV: Fractures do not provide significant additional storage
capacity or permeability in an already producible reservoir, but
instead create anisotropy. (Barriers to Flow)
Nelson (1999)
Fractured Reservoir Classification
CLASSIFICATION OF NATURALLY
FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
Type Matrix Storage Flow
f k

I Little Little Fracts Fracts
II Low Low Mat & Fracts Fracts
III High Low Mat Fracts
IV High High Mat Mat
1. Often a rapid decline curve
2. Possible early water encroachment
3. High fracture intensity necessary
Fractures provide the essential
reservoir porosity and permeability
LIST OF
PROBLEMS
INVOLVED
1. Poor fracture and matrix porosity
communication leads to poor matrix
recovery and disastrous secondary
recovery
2. Possible early water encroachment
3. Fracture intensity and dip critical
Fractures provide the essential
permeability Type 1
Type 2
1. Non-recognition of fracture system
2. Often usual response in secondary recovery
3. Drainage areas often highly elliptical
4. Interconnected reservoirs
Fractures provide permeability assistance
to an already producible reservoir.
Type 3
I
II
III
IV
All
Fractures
All
Matrix
% of Total Porosity
%

o
f

T
o
t
a
l


P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

100 % k f
100% k m
100% f m
100% f f
Increasing Effect of Fractures
Decreasing Effect of Matrix
Schematic Distribution of
Fractured Reservoir Types
Nelson (1999)
M
Evaluation Characteristics by
Fractured Reservoir Type
Type 1 (Fractures provide essential por. & perm.)

Fracture characteristics define reserves
Static description is critical
Production highly variable in 4-D
Few wells required to deplete
Type 2 (Fractures provide essential perm.)

Cross flow and rate control are critical
Fractures define rate
Water influx must be monitored &
intervention planned
If overpressured, fracture closure must
be controlled
Evaluation Characteristics by
Fractured Reservoir Type
Type 3 (Fractures provide a perm. assist)

Fractures define anisotropy
Highly customized flood patterns needed
Rates & drainage areas better than
predicted from matrix alone
Evaluation Characteristics by
Fractured Reservoir Type
Type 4 (Fractures create perm. reduction)

Fractures create baffles, barriers and
compartments (flow & saturation)
Fracture descriptions made generally
by core only
Inefficient drainage & sweep
Rates & reserves lower than predicted
from matrix alone
Evaluation Characteristics by
Fractured Reservoir Type
Examples Of Fields In Which
Fractures Provide The Essential Porosity
And Permeability To The Reservoir
Reservoir Type 1
_____________________________________________________
Field Location Reserves
I . Amal Libya 1700 mmbbl
2. (5)Ellenburger Fields Texas 107.8 (1957)
3. Edison California 42
4. Wolf Springs Montana 5.4
5. (8) PC Fields Kansas 3.8
6. Big Sandy Kent./W.V 3 Tcf
Reservoir Type 1 Fields
Examples of Contrasting History
__________________________________________________
Reservoir Type 1:
Fractures Provide the Essential Porosity
and Permeability
Edison (California) Poor History
Tectonic Fractures
Big Sandy (Kentucky/W. Virginia) Good History
Regional Fractures
The Difference is Primarily One of Drainage
Area and Fracture Type.
Contrasting History
Examples Of Fields In Which
Fractures Provide The Essential
Permeability To The Reservoir

Reservoir Type 2


Field Location Reserves

1 . Agha Jari Iran 9500 mmbbI
2. Haft Kel Iran 2660
3. Rangely Colorado 600
4. Spraberry Texas 447
5. Altamont- Utah 250
Bluebell
6. Sooner Trend Oklahoma 70
7. La Paz/Mara Venezuela 800

Reservoir Type 2 Examples
Examples of Contrasting History
Reservoir Type 2:
Fractures Provide the Essential Permeability
Spraberry (Texas) Poor History
Underpressured
Altamont-Blue Bell (Utah) Good History
Overpressured
The Difference is One of Reservoir Energy.
Contrasting History
Fractures Provide A Permeability
Assist To The Reservoir
Reservoir Type 3:
Field Location Reserves
1 . Kirkuk Iraq 15000 mmbbi
2. Gachsaran Iran 8000
3. Hassi Messaoud Algeria 6000
4. Dukhan Qatar 4570
5. Cottonwood Creek Wyoming 182
6. Lacq France 8.8 TCF
Reservoir Type 3 Examples
Reservoir Type 3:
Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist
Cottonwood Creek (Wyoming) Poor History
Late Recognition of Fractures
Kirkuk (Iraq) Good History
Early Recognition of Fractures
One Difference is When the Fracture Systems
Were Recognized in Production Procedures.
Contrasting History


Reservoir Type 3

Fractures Provide a Permeability Assist

1. Reserves dominated by matrix properties
2. Reserve distribution fairly homogeneous
3. High sustained well rates
4. Great reservoir continuity

Reservoir Type 1.

Fractures Provide Essential Porosity and Permeability

1. Drainage areas per well are large.
2. Few wells needed in development
(in-fill for rate acceleration only)
3. Good correlation between well rates and well
4. Best wells are often early
5. Generally high IPs
6. Can produce from non-standard and non-reservoir


Reservoir Type 2.

Fractures Provide Essential Permeability

1. Can develop low permeability rocks
2. Often higher than anticipated well rates
3. Hydrocarbon charge often fostered by fractures
Attributes
of
Reservoir
Types
100%
0%
0%
100%
%Porosity in Fractures
%
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

i
n

F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
s

Matrix
All
All
Fractures
Valhall
Hod
Blackburn
West Rozel
Pineview
Ryckman Creek
Lost Soldier
Tensleep
Lost Soldier
Madison
Opon
Hugoton
Anschutz Ranch East,High
Anschutz Ranch East, Low
Beaver River/
Pointed Mountain
Beaver Creek
Sabria/
El Franig
Middle Ground Shoals/
Granite Point
Pearsall
Sajaa/
Kahaif
Pressure, Wellbore
Stability & Rate control
Reserve
Calculation &
Rate Decline
Inappropriate
Floods & Non-Recognition
Development Patterns
& Well Paths
Whitney Canyon
Liuhua
Wamsutter
Critical Exploration & Development Issues by
Fractured Reservoir Type
Darius
Rijn
Cedar Rim
R.A.Nelson, 1999