Sei sulla pagina 1di 23

# Fracture Modeling Petrel 2010

Fracture Modeling
Intro

Theorethical
Background

Modeling Fracture
Parameters

Building Fracture
Model

Import/Display

Attribute Data

Initial Data
Analysis

Upscaling

## Fracture model with

Multiple Fracture Drivers

Simulation

Course Content

Day 1

Day 2

Introduction

Fracture drivers

## Initial data analysis

Modeling fracture parameters

## Fracture Modeling Course

Introduction Overview
What is Fracture Modeling?
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Fluid Flow Simulation Models
Fracture Modeling approaches
Fracture Modeling Workflow
Data Set - Location
Data Set - Geological description
Stratigraphy/Mechanical zones
Fractures

## What is Fracture Modeling?

Purpose and Process
Purpose

## Create simulation properties for matrix and fractures to

be able to predict reservoir behavior

Why?

## Many reservoirs are dual porosity/dual permeability

(Naturally fractured); leading to high flow zones not
representative of the matrix flow capacity
Flow simulators have problems simulating these kind
of reservoirs.

Process

Multi-disciplinary approach;
Use analyzed fracture data from wells
Building a Fracture model (DFN+IFM)
Upscale fracture permeability, porosity and connection
factor between matrix and fractures from the Fracture
model
These data can subsequently be simulated

## Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Simple Classification of Reservoir types
I. Fractures provide essential Porosity and Permeability

Requires large reservoir tank or thick pay zones to be economical (no matrix porosity)

## IV. Fractures provide no additional Porosity/Permeability

Fractures act as Flow Barriers

100% KF

% of Total Perm.

II

III
IV
% of Total Poro.

100% F

## Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

Example of Reservoir types
MATRIX
DISCHARGE

Permeability

## II. Fractures provide essential reservoir

Permeability
Fluid communication from Matrix to
Fractures is important
Fracture Morphology essential !
III. Fracture assist Permeability in already
producible reservoir
IV. Fractures provide no additional
Porosity/Permeablity

Crossflow

No Crossflow

M
F

M
Morphology
Morphology
M to F communication
Restricted communication
Good Recovery Factor Poor Recovery Factor in
Good waterflood
tight Matrix
sweep efficiency
Poor waterflood sweep
efficiency

## Fluid Flow Simulation Models

How to approximate nature?
Reality captured in 3D Models

Fracture

## Ideally hydrocarbon flow takes place in a Single Porosity / Permeability system

However in Dual Porosity reservoirs, fluids exist in two interconnected systems
(matrix and fractures). This must be accounted for in Simulation models.

Reality

Matrix

Well Productivity
Field Connectivity

In Place Reserves
Recovery

Approximation

## Fluid Flow Simulation Models

Dual Porosity (DP) models
Dual Porosity idealization

A simplification of the real reservoir is done when creating a dual porosity model
Fluid flow and transport exist in both the connected fractures and matrix blocks
Two overlapping continua, where both are treated as porous media

## Simple layer model (sheet of parallel fracture sets)

Matchsticks model (2 orthogonal fracture sets)
Sugarcube model (3 orthogonal fracture sets)

Layered Model

Real Reservoir

## Fluid Flow Simulation Models

DFN vs. Dual Porosity models
DFN Model

- ->

## Non Uniform Geometry

Variable Fracture Orientation
Variable Fracture Length
Variable Aperture
Variable Intensity and Interconnectivity

## Dual Porosity Model

Fixed Geometry
Continuous Fractures
Equal spacing
Constant Aperture

DFN Model
Real Fractured
Medium

Layered Model

## Fluid Flow Simulation Models

Standard approaches to fracture modeling
Equivalent Non-Fractured
Medium

Equivalent Continuum

Layered Model

## Physical fracture representation

Upscaled to Dual porosity properties

DFN Model

Real Fractured
Medium

## Fluid Flow Simulation Models

Petrel 2010 approach to fracture modeling
Property Model

## Yields directly fracture porosity and

permeability as properties
Upscaled to Dual porosity properties

Real Fractured
Medium

Combined Model

## Physical fracture representation

Upscaled to Dual porosity properties

DFN Model

## Fracture Modeling Workflow

Petrel Overall Fracture modeling workflow
Well data

Data
Analysis

Model
Parameters

Upscale
& Simulate
Create
Fracture model

## Fracture Modeling Workflow

Petrel Specific Fracture modeling processes
DFN

Fracture intensity

IFM

Hybrid
IFM / DFN
model

Data Set
Teapot Dome Wyoming (USA)
Teapot Dome is located in central Wyoming. A comprehensive Data Management
project has been conducted to digitize
USAand compile all available data. Data is
available e.g. for research and software testing/training.

Achnowledgements:
Thanks to Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center and
U.S. Department of Energy for using Teapot data

Data Set
Stratigraphy (Outcrops @ Alcova anticline)
N

Cretaceous
Measverde Fm

Teapot Sandstone
Parkman Sandstone

East

West

Unit 5: Fluvial Ss
Unit 4: Non-Marine Carb.
Sh with localized
coal
Unit 3: White Beach
Ss

Unit 2: Shoreface/Beach
Ss
Unit 1: Shallow Marine
Interbedded Ss
and Sh

1 Section

10m

Location,
Number
Quaternary
Alluvium
Mesaverde Fm
Undifferentiated

NPR3 Boundary
0

Carboniferous
Tensleep Fm
Reworked from:
S.Raeuchle et al, 2006 and Cooper, S. 2000

1 km

5
3
4

Data Set
Mechanical Zones (Mesaverde Fm. Outcrops)
Mechanical zones
Separating units according to mechanical properties is important due
to mechanical influences on fracture characteristics.

## Generalized Stratigraphic column

Parkman Sandstone Mb. (Mesaverde Fm.)
Unit 5: Fluvial Ss
Unit 4: Non-Marine Carb.
Sh with localized
coal
Unit 3: White Beach
Ss

Unit 2: Shoreface/Beach
Ss
Unit 1: Shallow Marine
Interbedded Ss
and Sh

1 Section

10m

## Compiled from Mallory et al., 1972; Spearing, 1976, and

Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center field data.

Location,
Number
Quaternary
Alluvium
Mesaverde Fm
Undifferentiated

## From: Cooper, 2000; Cooper et al., 2001, 2003.

NPR3 Boundary
0

1 km

5
3
4

Data Set
Mechanical Zones (Tensleep Sst. Outcrops)
Stratigraphic systems
Separating units according to stratigraphic architecture is also important for
prediction of complex fracture development in low-complex reservoir facies.

## Compiled from Zahm & Hennings, 2009 (AAPG Bulletin)

Data Set
Fracture Intensity (Tensleep Sst. Outcrops)
Fracture intensity at multiple scales
High variability in fracture intensity was demonstrated, caused by original depositional
architecture, overall structural deformation and diagenetic alteration of the host rock.
Fracture intensity depends on stratigraphic scale.
1. Throughgoing fractures

## Compiled from Zahm & Hennings, 2009 (AAPG Bulletin)

Data Set
Faults at Teapot Dome (Outcrops)
Map of faults and representative
hinge-perpendicular fractures

## Map of faults and representative

hinge-parallel fractures

Data Set
Fractures at Teapot Dome (Outcrops)

## Fracture map of a pavement surface Illustrating

the nature of throughgoing fractures and cross
fractures at the top of a single sandstone bed at
Teapot Dome
Throughgoing fractures

Cross fractures

covered

1m

## Conceptual 3D model of fracture outcrop patterns

developed at Teapot dome.

Data Set
Fractures related to Lithology (Outcrops)
Throughgoing
fractures
N
Unit 5: Fluvial Ss
Unit 4: Non-Marine Carb.
Sh with localized
coal
Unit 3: White Beach
Ss
Unit 2: Shoreface/Beach
Ss
Unit 1: Shallow Marine
Interbedded Ss
and Sh

10m

N
n = 24

Quaternary
Alluvium
Mesaverde Fm
Undifferentiated
Charted Locality
NPR3 Boundary

A
Rotation to
Fold Hinge

1 km

n = 23

## Illustrations from: Cooper, 2000

Data Set
Infer Outcrop observations to subsurface 3D models?
Surface outline
(boundary) of
subsurface 3D grid

Tensleep Fm top

Overthrust

EXERCISES
Module 1

P.42 - 49