Fracture Modeling – Petrel 2010

Fracture Modeling Theorethical Import/Display QC and use Fracture Initial Data

Intro Background Attribute Data Analysis

Modeling Fracture Building Fracture Upscaling Fracture model with Simulation

Parameters Model Multiple Fracture Drivers
Fracture Modeling Course
Course Content

Day 1 Day 2
Introduction Building a Fracture model

Optional: Background theory Upscaling fracture attributes

Import & display fracture data Fracture drivers

QC and use fracture attributes Dual porosity simulation setup

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
Data Set - Comparative Outcrop studies
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)
II. Fractures provide essential reservoir Permeability
– Most reservoirs with storage in matrix but low matrix permeability
III. Fractures assist Permeability in already producible reservoir
– Higher porosity lithologies
IV. Fractures provide no additional Porosity/Permeability
– Fractures act as Flow Barriers
100% KF
II I
% of Total Perm.

III

IV

% of Total Poro. 100% ΦF

Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Example of Reservoir types
MATRIX
I. Fractures provide essential Porosity and DISCHARGE
Permeability

Crossflow No Crossflow
II. Fractures provide essential reservoir
Permeability M
– Fluid communication from Matrix to
F
Fractures is important
– Fracture Morphology essential ! M

III. Fracture assist Permeability in already • Morphology  • Morphology 

producible reservoir M to F communication Restricted communication
• Good Recovery Factor • Poor Recovery Factor in
IV. Fractures provide no additional
• Good waterflood tight Matrix
Porosity/Permeablity sweep efficiency • Poor waterflood sweep
efficiency
Fluid Flow Simulation Models
How to approximate nature?

Reality captured in 3D Models

 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.
Fracture

Reality Approximation

Well Productivity
Field Connectivity
Matrix

In Place Reserves
Recovery
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

Dual Porosity model types

 Simple layer model (sheet of parallel fracture sets) Real Reservoir
 Matchsticks model (2 orthogonal fracture sets)
 Sugarcube model (3 orthogonal fracture sets)

Layered Model Match Stick Model Sugar Cube Model

Fluid Flow Simulation Models
DFN vs. Dual Porosity models

DFN Model DFN Model

– Non Uniform Geometry
– Variable Fracture Orientation
– Variable Fracture Length
– Variable Aperture Real Fractured
- -> Variable Intensity and Interconnectivity Medium

Layered Model
Dual Porosity Model
– Fixed Geometry
– Continuous Fractures
– Equal spacing
– Constant Aperture
Fluid Flow Simulation Models
Standard approaches to fracture modeling

Equivalent Non-Fractured
Medium

Equivalent Continuum
– Bulk response for equivalent porous media

Real Fractured
Medium
Layered Model

Dual Porosity (DP)

– Separate Matrix and Fracture blocks

Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) DFN Model

– Physical fracture representation
– Upscaled to Dual porosity properties
Fluid Flow Simulation Models
Petrel 2010 approach to fracture modeling

Property Model

Implicit Fracture Model (IFM)

– Yields directly fracture porosity and
permeability as properties Real Fractured
– Upscaled to Dual porosity properties Medium

Combined Model

DFN Model
Discrete Fracture Network (DFN)
– Physical fracture representation
– Upscaled to Dual porosity properties
Fracture Modeling Workflow
Petrel – Overall Fracture modeling workflow

Well data Data

Analysis

Model
Upscale Parameters
& Simulate

Create
Fracture model
Fracture Modeling Workflow
Petrel – Specific Fracture modeling processes

DFN

Fracture intensity

Hybrid
IFM IFM / DFN
model
Data Set
Teapot Dome – Wyoming (USA)

Teapot Dome is located in central Wyoming. A comprehensive Data Management

USAand compile all available data. Data is
project has been conducted to digitize
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

Teapot Sandstone Unit 5: Fluvial Ss

Cretaceous Parkman Sandstone
Unit 4: Non-Marine Carb.
Sh with localized
coal
Measverde Fm Unit 3: White Beach
Ss
1

East West Unit 2: Shoreface/Beach

Ss
1 Section
Location,
2
5
Number
Quaternary
Unit 1: Shallow Marine Alluvium 3
Interbedded Ss Mesaverde Fm
and Sh 10m 4
Undifferentiated

0 NPR3 Boundary

0 1 km

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

Unit 5: Fluvial Ss
Unit 4: Non-Marine Carb.
Sh with localized
coal
Unit 3: White Beach 1
Ss
2
Unit 2: Shoreface/Beach 1 Section
Ss Location, 5
Number
Quaternary
Unit 1: Shallow Marine Alluvium 3
Interbedded Ss Mesaverde Fm
and Sh 10m 4
Undifferentiated

0 NPR3 Boundary

From: Cooper, 2000; Cooper et al., 2001, 2003. 0 1 km

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

Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center field data.
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 3. Facies Bound fractures

2. Sequence Bound fractures 4. Lamina Bound fractures

Compiled from Zahm & Hennings, 2009 (AAPG Bulletin)

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

Modified from: Cooper et al., 2006

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 Conceptual 3D model of fracture outcrop patterns
Teapot Dome developed at Teapot dome.

Throughgoing fractures Cross fractures

N

covered

0 1m
Illustrations from: Cooper, 2000
 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
Quaternary
Alluvium A
Mesaverde Fm
0 Undifferentiated
Charted Locality
NPR3 Boundary
N
0 1 km Rotation to
n = 24 n = 23 Fold Hinge

Illustrations from: Cooper, 2000

B
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