Fracture Characterization

FRACTURE CHARACTERIZATION
NATURALLYFRACTUREDRESERVOIRS NFR
Dataacquisition?????Reservoirsimulation
Dilemma:Howtoincorporatedifferent(andlimited)datasetsandmapthe
fracturenetwork.
NFRcharacterizationismainlybasedonthefracturesetsseeninthelogsand
cores.
Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng
Short Course Reservoir Characterization
File-16
EvaluationofOutcropFracturePatterns
Babadagli, T.: Fractal Analysis of 2-D Fracture Networks of Geothermal Reservoirs in South-Western Turkey,
J. of Volcanology and Geothermal Res., vol. 112/1-4, Dec. 2001, 83-103.
Babadagli, T.: Evaluation of Outcrop Fracture Patterns of Geothermal Reservoirs in Southwestern Turkey,
2000 World Geothermal Congress, Kyushu-Tohoku, Japan, May 28-June 10, 2000.
File-17
STATEMENTOFTHEPROBLEM
Quantification of fracture network properties
(density, spatial distribution, orientation,
connectedness, length etc.) for modeling studies:
FRACTAL ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVE
Fractalanalysisoffracturenetworks
Usingdifferentmethods.
Outcropfracturepatterns
DifferentproducingformationsofgeothermalreservoirsinSouthwestern
Turkey
File-17
BOX COUNTING TECHNIQUE
r1
r3
r2
N(r)~r
i=1,2,3,...
SAND BOX
TECHNIQUE
r1
r2
File-17
MID (or INTERSECTION) POINT DISTRIBUTION

MASS DIMENSION (SAND-BOX METHOD)
L1
L2
L3
L4
N(L) ~ LD
MID
(OR INTERSECTION)
POINTS OF FRACTURES
N : Number of points
File-17
NUMBER OF FRACTURES PER UNIT AREA

MASS DIMENSION (SAND-BOX METHOD)
L1
L2
L3
L4
BOX
SIZES
FRACTURES
N(L) ~ LD
N : Number of points
File-17
METHODS APPLIED
BOX COUNTING
(BOX DIMENSION)
MID-POINT DISTRIBUTION
(MASS DIMENSION - SAND-BOX METHOD)
INTERSECTION POINT DISTRIBUTION

NUMBER OF FRACTURES PER UNIT AREA

File-17
File-17
Fracture mid-points and intersection points
File-17
FRACTAL DIMENSIONS FOR DIFFERENT

SCALES USING DIFFERENT METHODS
METHOD
BC
GIGA (km)
1.57 - 1.58
MEGA (m)
MACRO (cm)
1.14 - 1.52 1.16 - 1.25
MPD
1.71 - 2.00
IPD
1.10 - 1.81
NFA
1.07 - 1.89
MICRO (m)
1.01 - 1.04
BC : BOX COUNTING
MPD : MID-POINT DIST.
IPD : INTERSECTION-POINT DIST.
NFA : NUMBER OF FRACTURE PER UNIT AREA
File-17
FRACTAL DIMENSION - BOX COUNTING

PATTERN NO
Fig. 3-a
Fig. 3-b
Fig. 3-c
Fig. 3-d
Fig. 3-e
Fig. 3-f
Fig. 3-g
Fig. 3-h
Fig. 3-i
Fig. 3-j
Fig. 3-k
Fig. 3-l
Fig. 3-m
FRACTAL DIM.
1.15
1.39
1.41
1.25
1.29
1.39
1.15
1.50
1.46
1.40
1.35
1.27
1.39
File-17

KIZILDERE FIELD
Region
Upper Prod. Form.
Upper Prod. Form.
Upper Prod. Form.
Upper Prod. Form.
Upper Prod. Form.
Lower Prod. Form.
Fractal
Dim.
1.393
1.278
1.354
1.261
1.204
1.250
GERMENCIK FIELD
Region
Germencik
Germencik
Germencik
Germencik
Germencik
Germencik
Germencik
Fractal
Dim.
1.396
1.387
1.421
1.452
1.367
1.392
1.462
File-17
ROCK PIECES
1.175
1.255
1.252
1.164
1.189
THIN SECTIONS
1.015
1.035
1.015
1.013
1.020
File-17
FRACTAL DIMENSION - BOX COUNT. and SAND BOX

PATTERN
NO
MID POINT
DISTRIBUTION
INTERSECTION
POINT
DISTRIBUTION
NUMBER OF
FRACTURES
PER UNIT AREA
(FNUA)
FRACTURE
LENGTH
PER UNIT AREA
(FLUA)
Fig. 2-a
1.74
1.71
1.05
1.85
Fig. 2-b
1.99
1.74
2.04
1.80
Fig. 2-c
1.17
1.31
1.55
1.99
Fig. 2-d
1.59
1.39
1.48
1.76
Fig. 2-e
1.91
1.82
1.44
2.10
Fig. 2-f
1.54
1.70
1.48
1.85
Fig. 2-g
1.17
1.09
1.47
1.51
Fig. 2-h
1.62
1.80
2.01
1.39
Fig. 2-i
1.21
1.23
1.60
0.90
Fig. 2-j
1.22
1.50
1.50
0.74
Fig. 2-k
2.01
1.81
2.03
0.95
Fig. 2-l
1.63
1.58
1.94
1.35
Fig. 2-m
1.92
1.74
1.60
1.87
File-17
File-17
File-17
PATTERN
NUMBER
SCANLINE
DIRECTION
FRACTAL
DIMENSION
Fig. 2-g
W-E
1.372
Fig. 2-g
N-S
1.551
PATTERN
NUMBER
SCANLINE
DIRECTION
FRACTAL
DIMENSION
Fig. 2-a
W-E
1.620
Fig. 2-g
NW -SE
1.369
Fig. 2-a
N-S
1.383
Fig. 2-g
NE -SW
1.402
Fig. 2-a
NW -SE
2.368
Fig. 2-h
W-E
1.662
Fig. 2-a
NE -SW
1.382
Fig. 2-h
N-S
1.561
Fig. 2-b
W-E
1.973
Fig. 2-h
NW -SE
1.549
Fig. 2-b
N-S
1.919
Fig. 2-h
NE -SW
1.554
Fig. 2-b
NW -SE
2.004
Fig. 2-i
W-E
1.580
Fig. 2-b
NE -SW
1.824
Fig. 2-i
N-S
1.815
Fig. 2-c
W-E
1.398
Fig. 2-i
NW -SE
1.230
Fig. 2-c
N-S
1.414
Fig. 2-i
NE -SW
1.219
Fig. 2-c
NW -SE
1.321
Fig. 2-j
W-E
1.256
Fig. 2-c
NE -SW
1.269
Fig. 2-j
N-S
1.018
Fig. 2-d
W-E
1.726
Fig. 2-j
NW -SE
1.119
Fig. 2-d
N-S
1.547
Fig. 2-j
NE -SW
1.226
Fig. 2-d
NW -SE
1.623
Fig. 2-k
W-E
1.748
Fig. 2-d
NE -SW
1.472
Fig. 2-k
N-S
1.689
Fig. 2-e
W-E
1.588
Fig. 2-k
NW -SE
1.655
Fig. 2-e
N-S
1.442
Fig. 2-k
NE -SW
1.644
Fig. 2-e
NW -SE
1.710
Fig. 2-l
W-E
1.652
Fig. 2-e
NE -SW
1.314
Fig. 2-l
N-S
1.741
Fig. 2-f
W-E
1.699
Fig. 2-l
NW -SE
1.714
Fig. 2-f
N-S
1.724
Fig. 2-l
NE -SW
1.676
Fig. 2-f
NW -SE
1.686
Fig. 2-m
W-E
1.611
Fig. 2-f
NE -SW
1.599
Fig. 2-m
N-S
1.391
2-m
NW -SE
Short Course ReservoirFig.
Characterization
Fig. 2-m
NE -SW
1.532
File-17
1.546
FractureNetworks
km
cmm
mmmm
KIZILDERE
FIELD
FRACTAL DIM ENSION, D
1.60
1.50
1.40
GERMENCIK
FIELD
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
Giga
(km)
Mega
(m)
Makro
(cm)
Mikro
( m)
SCALE
Fracture network mapping: WELL DATA and OUTCROP

How much fractal properties help? Which fractal properties are critical?
Network Permeability or Single Fracture Permeability
File-17
3.00
KIZILDERE
FIELD
log N(r)
2.80
Germencik Field
(Slope = D = 1.56)
2.60
2.40
Kizildere Field
(Slope = D = 1.58)
2.20
GERMENCIK
FIELD
2.00
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
log(r)
Babadagli, J. Vol. and Geot. Res., 112, 2001

File-17
DIFFUSION OVER FRACTAL OBJECTS

r
k(r) ko
ro
Dd
similarly
r
(r) o
ro
Dd
P D 1 P P
r
0
2
r
r
r t
2
limr
r0
D 1
P
1
r
2(1 )
(2 )
1
Pw (t)
t
( )(2 D)
conductivityindex,>0forfracturenetworksnotperfectlyconnected
diffusiondelayedornotnormal
0and
=0.5(linearflow),1(radialflow),1.5(sphericalflow)
2
File-17
Acuna and Yortsos, 1995, Water Res. Res.
After Warren and Root, SPEJ Sept. 1963

File-17
Acuna, Ershaghi, Yortsos, 1991
File-17
FRACTAL WELLS TESTS SPE Form. Eval. Sept, 1995
File-17
FRACTAL WELLS TESTS SPE Form. Eval. Sept, 1995
File-17
FRACTAL WELLS TESTS SPE Res. Eval. And Eng., Feb. 2003
Short and long time approximations with matrix participation
d d mf 2 2
(2 ) 2 1
PwD (t D )
t
s
D
(1 )(1 )
1
t D /(1 )
(2 ) 2 2
2 3
s
( 2 )
(
2
FRACTAL WELLS TESTS SPE Res. Eval. And Eng., Feb. 2003
Determination of fractal parameters
Introduced solutions for v>0
and v<0. For v<0
1
b2
1
v
2
1 2(1 m1 ) 2 ( 2 ) m1
rDe
=
m1 (2 m1 )
1
m1pm
Use trial and error for solution. Obtain aVs , and m. Knowing
all these find, mass fractal dimension, dmf
File-17
File-17
File-17
File-17
SPE 63286, Baker and Kuppe

File-17
CORES:
Usedtodetermine:
Origin,geometryandoccurrenceoffractures
Geomechanicalmodification
Fractureorientation
Fracturediprelativetocoreaxisandtobedding,as
wellasrelativeorientationoffracturesshouldbe
measured.
Fractureapertureandheight:Neededforfracture
density,porosity,etc.
After Narr, Schechter, Thompson

Naturally Fractured Reservoir Characterization SPE, 2006
2
File-16
IMAGELOGS
Directsourceofinformation.
Twotypes;resistivitybasedandacoustic.
(CourtesyFrankLim,NFRSPE)
(a)Openfracturesinresistivityimage(darksinusoids),(b)Coreformthe
samewell,(c)imageofwholecore
3
After Narr, Schechter, Thompson
Naturally Fractured Reservoir Characterization SPE, 2006
File-16
Openfractures:filledwithconductivemud
filtrate
Closedfractures:filledwithresistive
mineralization
After Narr, Schechter,
Thompson
Naturally Fractured Reservoir
Characterization SPE, 2006
Imagelogsaregoodfororientations.
Aperturecouldalsobecomputed.
Apparentfractureheightcanbemeasured
fromimagelogs.
File-16
Othertools:
StoneleyWavelog
Photoelectriclog(usedtocorrectdensitylogs)
Sonicordensitylogs.
Productionlog(PLT):whichfracturesorzonescontributetoflow.
Lostcirculation
Gasshowsinmudlog
Mechnicalindications(caliperlogs)
File-16
FRACTUREDENSITY
Fracturesurfacesarea/unitvolume
Fracturesurfacearea:computedformcoresorimagelogs.
nf
D
Vr hr
2
df
A
i 1
nf
fi
Vr
h
i 1
fi
Dhr
L2/L3 isreducedto1/L.Forasetofparallelfractures,Lisequaltotheiraverage
spacing(perpendiculardistancebetweenfractures).
Fracturedensityprovidesfracturespacing
nf
a
i 1
nf
fi
Vr
A fi
a
i 1
fi
h fi
Dhr
af isfractureaperture.
File-16
FracturePermeability
Wo2
kf
12
wo3
kf
12s
MuskatEq.
LambsEquation
wo3
kf
* IF
12 s
Ifwisininches(IF=#fractures/ft)
Ifwisincm(IF=#fractures/ft)
k f 4.54 *10 6 * w 3 * IF
k f 2.77 *10 5 * w 3 * IF
DIRECTPROPORTIONALITY!!!!
7
File-16
FRACTURE SPACING
Calculated in core and outcrops by counting the number of fractures
encountered along a line of some given length perpendicular to the
fracture set an dividing the length of measurement line.
In more complex environments, the same is done along lines in specific dimensions.
Nelson, R.A. Geological Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Gulf Publ. 2001
8
File-16
FRACTURE (NETWORK) SYSTEM

Fracture orientation
Fracture typology (open/closed
Fracture density (spacing, heights)
Fracture apertures
Fracture connectivity
Fracture continuity
Size distribution (Power law)
Are fracture affecting the reservoir performance?
If so, can we optimize production or ultimate recovery based on
fracture properties.
File-16
QUANTIFICATION OF FRACTURE NETWORK PROPERTIES
Impedance Factor = # of fractures stopped/Total # of fractures (SPE 59045)

Fracture Spacing, S = Diameter of core / Fracture occurrence (SPE 25852)
Diameter of core / Fraction of cores that contained fracture
Fracture Permeability, kf = 5.4x109 w2
keff = kf w2 / Ls
w = aperture (m) , k = Darcy. Ls = Fracture spacing
Fracture spacing ratio, FSR
K f T 2
K w Rw2 8
(SPE 25612)
T = bed boundary thickness, l = Transmissibility between matrix and fracture
File-16
10
Fracture density and permeability (multiplier)

Obtained by history matching and non-linear
(SPE 58995)
m9
log( nf 1 )
1
log( nf max 1 )
nf = number of fractures
File-16
11

The Weyburn Field
(SPE 63286)
Medium quality oil from fractured, low perm, carbonate (Midale beds).
Discovered in 1956.
Porosity = 26 % (average, ranging between 16 and 38 %)
Permeability 1 to 100 md.
Waterflood began in the early 1960s.
Ultimate secondary recovery was 25-35 %.
For waterflood optimization, horizontal wells and assessment of miscible
Displacement, extensive characterization needed
File-16
12

The Weyburn Field
(SPE 63286)
Reservoir performance (production and pressure)

Geological data
Cores
Petrophysical data
Injection profile logging
Pressure transient tests
Vertical pulse testing
Vertical and horizontal cores
Wireline logs
RFT
FMS Neighboring Midale field experience
File-16
13

The Weyburn Field
(SPE 63286)
Significant differences in intensity for limestone and dolomite

Three ages of fractures, some filled with anhydrite
Vertical, subvertical and oriented N45oE.
Fracture intensity decreased as porosity increased.
Relationship between lithology and intensity was used for mapping
Fracture permeability was obtained from fracture spacing (and aperture) data.
File-16
14

The Spraberry Field
(SPE 63286)
First developed in the early 1950s
Many wells with 500 bopd initial production. But diminished rapidly.
10 billiion bbls OOIP, less than 10% recovered
60,000 bbls/day from 7,500 wells
700,000,000 bbls produced
First waterflood began in 1956,
Generally unsuccessful due to bypassing matrix oil
Similar fracture spacing as Weyburn but waterflood recovery is 2-5%
(Weyburn has 16-25% incremental waterflood recovery
15
File-16

The Spraberry Field
(SPE 63286)
Low matrix perm was problem (< 1 md) and reservoir was no water-wet resulting
in slow imbibition rates.
Tests conducted include horizontal cores (orientation), pulse/interference,
tracer tests (orientation),,
build up and fall off (fracture permeability and connectivity),
FMI (specific fracture trends) , outcrop etc.
Important to quantify fracture spacing for waterflooding and CO2 injection
Fracture orientation is NE to SW
Average fracture spacing in three different sets are 3.2, 1.6, and 3,8 ft.
File-16
16
FRACTURE RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

YATES FIELD
(Dershowitz et al., SPE Res. Eng. and Eval., April 2000)
Field discovered in 1926 and 1.3 billion bbls of oil produced until 1993.
1100 producers and 57 injectors.
To maximize withdrawals from high-rate, high efficiency wells,
400 wells were shut in while keeping the stable daily production rate
between 1992 and 1994.
In the same period, more than 30 new short radius wells were drilled.
A discrete fracture network modeling was used to study the spatial
distribution of fractures of to optimize location and orientation of new
horizontal wells.
File-16
17
FRACTURE RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION

YATES FIELD
(Dershowitz et al., SPE Res. Eng. and Eval., April 2000)
DISCRETE FRACTURES Faults deterministically , fractures from
borehole data
ORIENTATION Seismic For faults, fractures using Fisher distribution
SIZE DISTRIBUTION Power law distribution D=1.81, min. radius = 0.30 m.
(Stochastic)
INTENSITY 0.105 to 0.21 sq m/cu m depending on shale porosity/content
(Stochastic)
TRANSMISSIVITY Log normal distribution,
faults: log mean=-4, log std. dev. = 1
fractures: log mean=-4.5, log std. dev. = 1
APERTURE Correlated to transmissivity by cubic law, a = 0.00117 T0.32
MODEL DIMENSIONS 2130 x 2130 x 350 m.
File-16
18
Single Fracture
PERMEABILITY
-Is it only the roughness or mean aperture?
-Whichever it was, can we detect it for whole
reservoir and its distribution at all?
kf = 5.4x109 w2 keff = kf w2 / Ls
k F 33c f w2
w = aperture (m)
Ls = Fracture spacing (# of fractures/area)
cF= Fraction of pore volume occupied by fissures (fraction)
= total porosity (fraction)
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
-Straight line function? No answer yet. There
exist deviations due to roughness?
-Recent studies showed natural porous media
type kr for steam-water.
File-16
19
FBM LATTICES WITH

DIFFERENT H VALUES
Displacement patterns in a single fracture: Effect of roughness
H=0.5, D=2.5
H=0.7, D=2.3
H=0.9, D=2.1
INVASION PERCOLATION
CLUSTERS
H=0.1, D=2.9
20
File-16
Fracture Networks
km
cm-m
mm-mm
KIZILDERE
FIELD
FRACTAL DIM ENSION, D
1.60
1.50
1.40
GERMENCIK
FIELD
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
Giga
(km)
Mega
(m)
Makro
(cm)
Mikro
( m)
SCALE
Fracture network mapping: WELL DATA and OUTCROP

How much fractal properties help? Which fractal properties are critical?
Network Permeability or Single Fracture Permeability
File-16
21
FRACTURE NETWORK MAPPING: Does Fractal help?
D=2.78
Warren and Root, SPEJ Sept. 1963
D=2.48
Acuna and Yortsos, 1995, Water Res. Res.
D=2.85, Isotropic fracture,

D=1.85 (plane dimension)
D=0.85 (Any random hole)
Sammis and Steacy, in Fractals in the Earth Sciences,
Barton and LaPointe, 1995
D=2.65
NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS
Fracture orientation
Fracture typology (open/closed0
Fracture density-intensity (spacing,
heights)
Fracture apertures
Fracture connectivity
Fracture continuity
22
Size distribution (Power law)
File-16
FRACTURE NETWORK MAPPING: Does Fractal help?
WELL #1
WELL #2
Mega-Giga Scale Outcrops
23
File-16
CharacterizationofFractureNetworkSystemoftheMidaleField
(CIPC2007,BogatkovandBabadagli)
MidaleField History
Discovery 1953
Waterflood 1962
Midale
Infilldrilling mid1980s
Horizontaldrilling late1980s
CO2floodpilot 1984
MidaleCO2Flood
DemonstrationProject(10%ofUnit) 1992
Multileggedperpendicular
Horizontalwellsdrilled mid1990s
AcquisitionofthefieldbyApache 2000
Infilldrilling(hor.wells),injection&throughputx3,CO2feasibility
study
1
File-18
MidaleField FractureSystem
Suggestedfracturelengths:
100m,<560m.
Averagefractureheight:
Marly:28cm
Vuggy:47cm
Ref.:WaterfloodandCO2FloodoftheFracturedMidaleField,
Beliveau,D.,Payne,D.A.,Mundry,M.,1993.
File-18
DataMining
Datacollectedtodate beinganalyzed
CO2 FloodPilotArea:
Logs,cores(pictures)forallwells
Coreanalysis(petrophysical)reports
Thinsectionstudies
Wellfiles
Simulationstudies
Projects,etc.
Restoffield
Logs,cores,maps
Simulationstudies,petrophysicalstudiesetc.
3
File-18
DataAnalysis
Analysistodate(asdictatedbyFRACA):
Stratigraphicparameters
Layers,thicknesses,depths
Formationproperties
Porosity,permeability,compressibility,saturations
Result:simplestructuralmodelinFRACA
Layercake:9parallellayerswithdistinctparameters
Area=200x200m 200x200x9blocks
File-18
DataAnalysis
Facies
Layer
Depth
(m below
datum)2
Thickness1
(m)
Porosity1
(fraction)
kh
(mD)1
kv/kh4,5
Swi1,3
kro6,7
Sigma
for
Thickness8
Formation
compressibility
(bar-1)9
M1
1393.50
1.50
0.225
4.2
0.366
0.600
0.02
0.282
1.10E-07
M2
1395.00
1.40
0.113
0.4
0.335
0.918
0.00
0.302
2.20E-07
M3
1396.40
1.67
0.311
23.7
0.548
0.516
0.20
0.127
7.99E-08
M4
1398.07
0.88
0.132
0.6
0.428
0.707
0.00
0.411
1.88E-07
V1
1398.95
2.39
0.104
6.4
0.286
0.882
0.00
0.579
2.39E-07
V2
1401.34
2.01
0.065
0.6
0.196
0.793
0.00
0.500
3.82E-07
V3
1403.35
2.33
0.103
12.2
0.244
0.634
0.10
0.707
2.41E-07
V4
1405.68
1.05
0.063
0.5
0.190
0.932
0.00
0.574
3.95E-07
V5
1406.73
2.09
0.139
4.9
0.310
0.692
0.04
0.588
1.79E-07
File-18
FractureModelinFRACA
File-18
FractureModelinFRACA
7
File-18
DFNmodel
11/23/2011
File-18
DFNmodelcalibration
Prepare
apetrophysicalmodel
Populate
withfractures
Perform
welltestsimulation
Check
againstreal
data
9
11/23/2011
File-18
Sensitivitystudyresults
Most influential parameters (for history match)
S1
I2
I3
I4
Parameter #1
Matrix
Matrix
Matrix
Matrix
Relative effect, %
96.368
98.940
93.144
93.525
Fr. cond.
Matrix*Fr. length
Matrix*Fr. length
Fr. cond.
3.632
0.291
2.743
1.942
Parameter #3
N/A
Matrix*Fisher strike
Matrix*Fr. cond.
Fr. length
Relative effect, %
N/A
0.197
2.571
0.882
Parameter #2
Relative effect, %
1.
Strongmatrixeffect:
Matriximportantsource,probablymatrixflowispresent,
Fracturesenhancepermeability,facilitateinterwellconnectivity;
2.
3.
Matrix/fractureinteractionisimportant:probablythecontrollingparameter;
Individualfracturescanbeveryimportant,howeverdifficulttopredict.
10 Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng
11/23/2011
File-18
10
Sensitivitystudyresults
Matrix quality and fracture conductivity
factors in fitted MRE models
Design-Expert Software
Original Scale
I2-MRE
5
1.94
I4
93.52
3.3
X1 = A: Frac spacing, M
X2 = B: Frac spacing, V
I3
93.14
1.10E-07
Actual Factors
C: Fracture length = 100
D: Fisher strike = 1E+020
E: Frac cond = 10.0
F: Matrix = Mediocre
I2
5.1
4.6
4.2
I2-MRE
0.27
Well name
ResponsesurfaceforWellI2:MRE(A,B)
3.8
98.94
3.63
1.2
3.3
1.0
S1
0.8
A: Frac spacing, M
1.1
0.9
96.37
0
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.3
20
40
60
Relative effect, %
11/23/2011
0.3
B: Frac spacing, V
80
100
Fracture conductivity
Matrix
File-18
11
WellS1 producer
160
Wellbottomholepressure(bar)
Transienttestsimulation
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
D:13.45%
0
0
SP:6.73% DK:13.13%
4
WellI2 diagonalobserver
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
D:6.21%
SP:2.38% DK:1.79%
2
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
D:0.92%
0
0
SP:5.37% DK:5.25%
4
PhD, PEng
12 Tayfun Babadagli,Time(day)
11/23/2011
Time(day)
Time(day)
160
Realtest
140
120
Discrete
simulation
100
80
60
40
20
D:1.47%
0
0
SP:2.36% DK:3.30%
4

Time(day)
File-18
Single
continuum
simulation
Dual
continuum
simulation
12
Tracertestsimulation
Injection
well ID
Concentration
(mole fraction)
Salt
Vslug, m3
I1
KI
0.0203
4.1
I2
NH4SC
0.1022
2.2
I3
N3H4NO
0.1041
6.7
I4
KBr
0.0275
4.1
Totaltesttime:240days
Tracerslugfollowedby
continuouswaterinjection.
11/23/2011
File-18
13
Thiocyanate
3.000
3.00
0.50
2.50
0.40
2.00
1.400
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.500No
BT
1.400
No
BT
0.080
0.210
0.00
FS1
S1
S2
S3
Breakthrough time (day)
Iodide
0.30
0.100
0.10
0.040
0.130
No
BT
FS1
S1
S2
S3
Real test
Producer well
Simulated
Bromide
10.000
13.400
8.500
8.500
8.000
9.400
9
6
No BT
0.080
0.080
0.100
0
FS1
S1
S2
PhD, PEng
14 Tayfun Babadagli,
Producer
well
11/23/2011
S3
No
BT
12
No 0.080
BT
0.00
Nitrate
0.170
0.20
Producer well
15
0.500
6.000
4.000
2.000
No BT
No
BT
0.210
0.400 0.130
0.000
FS1
S1
S2

Producer well
S3
File-18
14
Wellconnectivity
basedontracerbreakthrough time(day)
200
Wellconnectivity
(axes in m)
basedonsimulatedtracerbreakthrough time(day)(axes in m)
200
main trend
main trend
Thiocyanate I2
0.1
S2
Thiocyanate
I2
FS1
S2
FS1
0.08
0.08
100
Iodide
I1
S1
1.4
I3
100
Nitrate
S1
I1
Iodide
I3
Nitrate
8
3
I4
Bromide
I4
S3
Bromide
S3
0
0
100
11/23/2011
200
100
200
File-18
15
Sensitivitystudy
Aim:
Tostudytheeffectsofvariousmatrixand
fracturepropertiesonthetracertransport.
Parameters:
1.Fracturedensity,
2.Fracturepermeability,
3.Dispersioncoefficients,
4.Matrixpermeability,
5.Matrixfracturetransmissibility,
6.Relativepermeability.
Tools:
Tracertestsimulation.
11/23/2011
File-18
16
Sensitivitystudy
Wellconnectivity
200
Wellconnectivity
200
main trend
main trend
Thiocyanate
I2
S2
Thiocyanate
I2
S2
FS1
FS1
0.08
23
0.08
100
S1
I1
Iodide
I3
I4
100
Nitrate
S1
I1
Iodide
Bromide
I3
I4
S3
Nitrate
Bromide
S3
0
0
100
11/23/2011
200
100
200
File-18
17
Sensitivitystudy
Wellconnectivity
Wellconnectivity
200
200
N
main trend
main trend
Thiocyanate
I2
S2
Thiocyanate
I2
S2
FS1
FS1
0.08
0.17
0.08
100
S1
I1
Iodide
I3
I4
100
Nitrate
S1
I1
Iodide
Bromide
I3
I4
S3
Nitrate
Bromide
S3
0
0
100
11/23/2011
200
100
200
File-18
18
Fracturenetworkrepresentation
Dualporositymodels:
Discretemodels:
1. Fracturenetworkasaregularmesh;
2. Fracturedip,strike,heightarenotvariable;
1. MorerealisticrepresentationofNFN
2. Anydesireddegreeofvariabilityavailable;
Idealised fracture network

11/23/2011
Realistic fracture network

File-18
19
Nonclassicaltechniques
Manydifferentapproaches
Stochastic
Involverandomness
Short Course Reservoir Characterization 20
File-18
WhatisRandomWalk?
Fluidflowrepresentedbymovementof
walkers
Eachwalkerrepresentscertainvolumeormass
Walkersmoverandomly;randomnessdefined
byphysicsofthesystem:Probability ofparticle
tomoveincertaindirectionisdefinedby
physicsoftheprocess(pressures,saturation,
permeabilities,viscosities)
Ifwearemodelingtwophaseflow,wewill
considertwotypeofparticlesmoving.
File-18
WhatisRandomWalk?
Movement=convective
+random
Convectivecomponent
followsDarcysLaw
Randomcomponent
v solutionofDarcyseqn
satisfiesADE
z ~N(0,1)
(Delayetal.2005)
D dispersioncoefficient
File-18
FieldCase:Sensitivity
Highesteffect:
Ontrendfracturewidths
Ch=(offtrend sp)/(ontrendsp)
File-18
FieldCase:HistoryMatching
File-18
FieldCase:HistoryMatching
Shortcomputationaltime=>automatedHM
Small#ofparametersorflexibility?
Result:qualitativeHM
observed
RWPT
DP
from:Bogatkov,M.Sc.thesis.
File-18
ASensitivityAnalysisforEffective
ParametersonFractureNetwork
Permeability
Jafari, A.R. and Babadagli, T.: A Sensitivity Analysis for Effective Parameters on 2-D Fracture Network Permeability,
SPE Res. Eval. and Eng., vol. 12, no. 3, June 2009, 455-469.
Jafari, A. and Babadagli, T.: Effective Fracture Network Permeability of Geothermal Reservoirs, Geothermics, vol. 40,
25-38, 2011.
Jafari, A.R. and Babadagli, T.: Generating 3-D Permeability Map of Fracture Networks Using Well, Outcrop, and Pressure
Transient Data, SPE Res. Eval. and Eng, vol. 14, no. 2, April 2011, 215-224.
Jafari, A. and Babadagli, T.: Equivalent Fracture Network Permeability of Multi-Layer-Complex Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
Tran. in Porous Media, 2011 (in print).
Jafari, A.: Permeability Estimation of Fracture Networks, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Alberta, Oct. 2010
Short Course
1 Reservoir Characterization
File-19
SyntheticPatterns:DifferentScenarios
NS&WE
50
Orientation NWSE&NESW
Random
100
20
Density (#/domain)
40
Length (m)
60
150
200
250
80
File-19
Topology:RandomOrientation
3
File-19
Topology:NWSE&NESWOrientation
File-19
Dataset#1:NWSE&NESW
L
(m)
Density
(#/square)
FD using Box
Counting
FD using Sand
box
I. P.
M. P.
I. P.
M. P.
FD using
Scanning
Line in X
direction
FD using
Scanning
Line in Y
direction
Connectivity
Index
Maximum
Touch with X
Scanning Line
Maximum
Touch with Y
Scanning Line
FD using Box
Counting
Permeability
(md)
Lines
20
50
1.080
1.408
1.328
1.555
1.605
1.437
0.616
7072.2
7070.8
1.293
6.575
20
100
1.555
1.638
1.604
1.707
1.318
1.324
1.199
14142.2
14145.9
1.465
10.553
20
150
1.740
1.733
1.551
1.503
1.338
1.317
1.812
21212.8
21216.3
1.552
36.958
20
200
1.835
1.817
1.681
1.491
1.347
1.370
2.477
28282.4
28283.2
1.620
62.765
20
250
1.878
1.857
1.856
1.541
1.363
1.365
2.976
35350
35354.3
1.648
84.162
40
50
1.564
1.401
1.650
1.366
1.131
1.145
2.902
14140.2
14142.5
1.429
28.059
40
100
1.803
1.647
1.565
1.404
1.112
1.113
5.911
28283.3
28285
1.583
82.722
40
150
1.867
1.745
1.671
1.428
1.118
1.115
8.776
42427
42426.6
1.651
144.026
40
200
1.911
1.817
1.886
1.352
1.132
1.134
11.499
56569.2
56571.8
1.700
201.535
40
250
1.915
1.854
1.935
1.403
1.126
1.122
14.575
70714.1
70710.6
1.737
261.725
60
50
1.703
1.398
1.590
1.265
0.930
0.932
7.444
21213.1
21213.2
1.457
66.995
60
100
1.812
1.641
1.531
1.198
0.940
0.934
14.875
42426.5
42424.9
1.596
112.958
60
150
1.841
1.754
1.700
1.241
0.929
0.932
22.666
63638.5
63639.4
1.682
184.213
60
200
1.849
1.823
1.620
1.342
0.934
0.936
30.224
84852.2
84850.3
1.722
264.453
60
250
1.855
1.859
1.632
1.286
0.928
0.929
37.907
106066.6
106062.6
1.760
342.236
80
50
1.727
1.401
1.903
1.501
0.860
0.859
12.064
28282.7
28284.9
1.456
76.150
80
100
1.780
1.638
1.773
1.903
0.859
0.859
24.008
56568.4
56567.6
1.586
139.468
80
150
1.800
1.754
1.771
2.122
0.859
0.859
36.095
84852.8
84855
1.665
210.461
80
200
1.801
1.817
1.671
1.788
0.859
0.859
47.925
113136.7
113137.6
1.705
296.081
80
250
1.804
1.860
1.740
1.808
0.859
0.859
59.979
141420.9
141422.2
1.730
352.534
File-19
EFRP Correlations
Exponential:
Ln(Y)=a*exp(b*x1)+c*ln(x2)+d*ln(x3)+e*ln(x4)+f*ln(x5)+g*ln(x6)+h
Powerlaw:
Log(Y)=a*x1^b+c*log(x2)+d*log(x3)+e*log(x4)+f*log(x5)+g*log(x6)+h
Thefirsttypewasfoundsuperiortothesecondoneandfurther
parametricanalysiswasperformedusingthistypeofcorrelation.
Independent
Variables
Derived Equation
R-squared
0.065
Ln( K ) A. exp( B. X 1 ) C.Ln( X 2 ) D.Ln( X 3 ) E

Ln( K ) A. exp(B. X 1 ) C.Ln( X 2 ) D.Ln( X 3 ) E.Ln( X 4 ) F
0.403
Ln( K ) A. exp( B. X 1 ) C.Ln( X 2 ) D.Ln( X 3 ) E.Ln( X 4 ) F .Ln( X 5 ) G
0.569
Ln( K ) A. exp( B. X 1 ) C.Ln( X 2 ) D.Ln( X 3 ) E.Ln( X 4 ) F .Ln( X 5 ) G.Ln( X 6 ) H
0.427
File-19
ExperimentalDesign:Analysis2
variable
Optimistic(1)
Pesimistic(-1)
Length
80
20
Density
250
50
Orientation
N-S&E-W
NW-SE&NE-SW
Conductivity
2000
500
Density
Length
Conductivity
Length/Density
Density/Conductivity
Length/Conductivity
Length/Density/Conductivity
Length/Density/Orientation
Length/Orientation
Density/Orientation
Orientation
Length/Density/Orientatio n/Co nductivity
Length/Oriention/Conductivity
Density/Orientation/Conductivity
Orientation/Conductivity
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Absolute Effect
File-19
variable
Optimistic(1)
Pesimistic(-1)
Length
80
20
Density
250
50
Conductivity
1500
1000
Length
Density
Length/Density
Conductivity
Length/Conductivity
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Absolute Effect
File-19
variable
Optimistic(1)
Pesimistic(-1)
Length
60
40
Density
150
50
Conductivity
2000
500
Conductivity
Density
Length
Length/Conductivity
Length/Density
0
50
100
150
200
250
9
Absolute Effect
File-19
300
Permeability in X-direction, Kx
250
Permeability, mD
Permeability in Y-direction, Ky
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Le ngth of dom ain s ide s (X and Y), m
File-19
10
VERIFICATION PATTERNS
File-19
11
Independent
Variables
Derived Equation
Ln(K) = a*exp(b*x1)+c*ln(x2)+d*ln(x3)+ln(x4)+f
Ln(K) = a*exp(b*x1)+c*ln(x2)+d*ln(x3)+e*ln(x4)+f*ln(x5)+g
Ln(K) = a*exp(b*x1)+c*ln(x2)+d*ln(x3)+e*ln(x4)+f*ln(x5)+g*ln(x6)+h
6
LnK(estimated),mD
LnK(estimated),mD
6
5
4
3
2
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
2
3
4
LnK(actual),mD
ActualEFNPsvs.estimatedonesusingtheJafari
andBabadagli(2008)equationwith4
independentvariablesfornaturalpatterns.
2
3
4
LnK(actual),mD
ActualEFNPsvs.estimatedonesusingtheequation
with4independentvariablesfornaturalpatterns.
12
File-19
ADDITION OF WELL TEST DATA

120
Welltest K
Fraca Kx
Permebaility, mD
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Pattern
ComparisonofactualEFNP(FRACAKx)intheXdirectionandaverage
permeabilityobtainedfromdrawdownwelltest.
Welltest K
Fraca Ky
120
Permeability, mD
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Pattern
ComparisonofactualEFNP(FRACAKy)intheYdirectionandaveragepermeability
obtainedfromdrawdownwelltest.
File-19
13
Image log
Outcrop
(1D data)
(2D data)
DFN (3D permeability

map)
Integrating 1D, 2D and 3D Data
CourtesyofSteveHansen,Schlumberger
Bourbiauxetal.1998
Welltest
Analysis
Bourbiauxetal.1998
File-19
14
Integrating1D,2D,and3DDataCont.
Pattern
FD (BoxCounting)
Intersection
Point
Connectivity
Index
Max
Touch
with X
Scanning
Line
Max
Touch
with Y
Scanning
Line
FD (BoxCounting)
Lines
Welltest
Permeability,
mD
Fracture
spacing
Fracturewellbore
Intersection
Kx,
mD
1.867
1.064
15608
21143
1.557
29.769
1.970
29.545
1.820
1.704
15396
17481
1.521
45.348
2.737
118.545
1.892
1.516
19585
24571
1.598
56.999
1.122
120.077
1.750
1.407
13331
15887
1.443
51.362
2.444
78.485
1.774
1.465
15486
16721
1.487
53.660
3.731
112.141
1.870
1.422
18933
24001
1.576
53.659
7.071
112.141
1.872
1.275
15916
31323
1.630
50.514
1.729
115.117
1.800
1.271
13364
16592
1.528
43.774
4.092
56.001
1.769
1.745
16978
17563
1.567
51.395
2.459
71.010
10
1.770
1.496
14366
18920
1.562
49.397
3.235
81.104
11
0.797
1.091
114
266
1.264
19.264
4.981
38.542
12
1.672
1.218
4720
5612
1.484
16.949
3.049
36.981
13
1.660
1.149
4071
3094
1.493
19.649
3.550
9.825
14
1.378
1.020
860
1210
1.481
28.733
7.071
88.872
15
1.577
1.041
4697
2680
1.513
26.524
2.538
15.212
16
1.893
2.611
4767
5473
1.682
60.970
2.088
169.827
17
1.647
1.369
1687
1758
1.583
33.349
2.739
23.733
18
1.653
1.558
996
1281
1.515
28.947
4.311
53.588
File-19
Integrating 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D Data Cont.
Only1Dand3Ddata:
Ln( Kx) 88.412 Ln( X 1 ) 28.884 Ln( X 2 )
19.734 Ln( X 3 ) 297.435
Kx:Equivalentfracturenetworkpermeability
X1:WelltestPermeability
X2:Fracturespacing
X3:Numberoffracturesintersectingwellbore
File-19
16

Only 2-D and 3-D data:
Ln( Kx) 17.37 exp(0.011X 1 ) 0.894 Ln( X 2 ) 1.111Ln( X 3 )
1.112 Ln( X 4 ) 1.362Ln( X 5 ) 1.132 Ln( X 6) 17.64
X1:FD ofintersectionpointsusing boxcountingdimension
X2:Connectivityindex
X3,X4:MaximumtouchwithscanninglinesintheXandYdirection
X5:FD offracturelinesusingboxcounting
File-19
17

All 1-D, 2-D and 3-D data:
Ln( Kx) 15.858 exp(0.004X1 ) 1.182Ln( X 2 ) 1.218Ln( X 3 ) 1.280Ln( X 4 )
1.277Ln( X 5 ) 0.979Ln( X 6) 0.555Ln( X 7) 0.763Ln( X 8) 14.677
X1:FD ofintersectionpointsusing boxcountingdimension
X2: Connectivityindex
X3,X4:MaximumtouchwithscanninglinesintheXandYdirection
X5:FD offracturelinesusingboxcounting
X7:Fracturespacing
X8:Numberoffracturesintersectingwellbore
File-19
18
200
Welltest K
Fraca Kx
Predicted Kx using 6 independents
180
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Pattern
180
Welltest K
Fraca Kx
160
Permeability, mD
Permeability, mD
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Pattern
File-19
19
Multi-Layer Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
20
File-19
Multi-Layer Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Cont.
FracturedReservoir
Configurations
21
File-19

Cont.
Only1DData:
Ln ( K ave ) 1 . 063 Ln ( X 1 ) 1 . 367 Ln ( X 2 ) 8 . 076
X1: Numberoffracturesintersectingwellbore
X2:Fracturespacing
File-19
22

Cont.
Only 3-D Data:
Ln( K ave ) 0.142 Ln( X 1 ) 0.098 Ln( X 2 ) 0.301Ln( X 3 )
0.168 Ln( X 4 ) 0.278 Ln( X 5 ) 2.026
X1:WelltestpermeabilityfromWell#1
X2: WelltestpermeabilityfromWell#2
File-19
23

Cont.
1-D and 3-D Data:
Ln( K ave ) 0.41Ln( X 1 ) 0.143Ln( X 2 ) 0.5 Ln( X 3 ) 0.26 Ln( X 4 )

0.59 Ln( X 5 ) 1.69 Ln( X 6 ) 1.02 Ln( X 7 ) 8.12
X7:Fracturespacing
File-19
24

Cont.
2-D and 3-D Data:
Ln( K ave ) 0.012 Ln( X 1 ) 0.09 Ln( X 2 ) 0.113Ln( X 3 ) 0.14 Ln( X 4 )
0.187 Ln( X 5 ) 0.0856 Ln( X 6 ) 2.12
File-19
25

Cont.
1-D, 2-D and 3-D Data:
Ln(Kave ) 0.14Ln( X1 ) 0.06Ln( X 2 ) 0.02Ln( X 3 ) 0.09Ln( X 4 ) 0.02Ln( X 5 )
0.4Ln( X 6 ) 0.1Ln( X 7 ) 0.1Ln( X 8 ) 1.07
X7:Fracturespacing
26
File-19
Jafari and Babadagli, Geothermics, 2010

Independent
Variables
Derived Equation
R1
R2
R3
Ln(K) =A.exp(B.X1)+C.Ln(X2)+D.Ln(X3)+E
0.73
0.87
0.86
Ln(K) = A.exp(B.X1)+C.Ln(X2)+D.Ln(X3)+E.Ln(X4)+F.Ln(X5)+G
0.93
0.93
0.90
Ln(K) =A.exp(B.X1)+C.Ln(X2)+D.Ln(X3)+E.Ln(X4)+F.Ln(X5)+G.Ln(X6)+H
0.93
0.94
1.0
27
File-19
SCALING EQUATIONS FOR FRACTURED SYSTEMS
File-20
Oil Produced (Pore Volume)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Colton Sandstone
q=0.60 cc/min
q=0.50 cc/min
0.2
q=0.35 cc/min
q=0.20 cc/min
0.1
q=0.05 cc/min
q=0.02 cc/min
0.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Water Injected (Pore Volume)

File-20
File-20
0.5
0.4
0.3
Colton Sandstone
q=0.60 cc/min
q=0.50 cc/min
0.2
q=0.35 cc/min
q=0.20 cc/min
0.1
q=0.05 cc/min
q=0.02 cc/min
0.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Time, minutes
Babadagli, Tran. in Porous Media, Oct. 2000
File-20
DYNAMIC CONDITIONS
CapillaryImbibitionTransferDuringContinuousFlowof
WaterinFracture
Water

File-20
EFFICIENCY
Needtoknowtotalamounttobeinjected
Dynamicexperimentsareneeded
BUT
ThermalismoreefficienteventhoughhigherCAPEXisrequired
anditisalwaysEFFECTIVEwithalsootheradditional
mechanisms.
File-20
0.6
Berea Sandstone
0.5
20 min.
0.4
10 min.
7 min.
0.3
5 min.
0.2
2 min.
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Injection Rate, cc/min

File-20
0.6
Austin Chalk
0.5
175 min.
0.4
100 min.
0.3
60 min.
0.2
45 min.
15 min.
0.1
0.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40

File-20
0.5
Colton Sandstone
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
300 min.
0.3
225 min.
0.2
120 min.
0.2
60 min.
0.1
25 min.
0.1
0.0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70

File-20
Berea Sandstone Experiments

Austin Chalk Experiments
0.8
Total Injected Water (TIW)
Oil Produced From Matrix (OPFM)
1.0
Colton Sandstone Experiments

Numerical Results
0.6
Critical rates for each sample.
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

File-20
4
Berea
Sandstone
Critical Rate, cc/min
Austin
Chalk
1
Colton
Sandstone
0
0
10
20
30
P
40
50
60
70
k , (psi-md)
c,max m

File-20
1.2
1.0
Total Injected Water (TIW)
Oil Produced From Matrix (OPFM)
Berea Sandstone
Austin Chalk
Colton Sandstone
0.8
N f ,ca
0.6
v w k f
Pc ,max k m
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
Fracture Capillary Number, N
ca,f

File-20
CAPILLARY NUMBER :
v w
N ca
(Cos )
From Abrams, SPEJ Oct. 1975

File-20
N f ,VC
v w A f
viscous
capillary cos Am
cos
N f ,VC
N f ,VC
Pc. max k m
J ( S wi ) m
qinj w
Pc ,max k m
Am
J ( S wi ) m
(1.27 E 5)qinj (cc / hr ) w (cp)

Pc ,max ( psi ) k m (md )
Am (cm 2 )
J ( S wi )
m
FromPutraetal.,2001,SPE
N f ,VC
(9.05 E 5)qinj ( STB / day ) w (cp)

Pc ,max ( psi ) k m (md )
Am ( ft 2 )
J ( S wi )
m
File-20
File-20
Modelusedinthenumericalsimulationof
singlematrixoilrecovery
=300cp
o
2.5 ft
0.75 ft.
(0.55 ft)
(0.95 ft)
(1.25 ft)
(1.50 ft)
0.75 ft.
L AYER 1
L AYER 2
Injection
(0.115cc/min)
Production
LAYER 3 (Fracture)
(0.05 ft.)
File-20
Normalized Temperature (Tn)
1.00
t=10 min.
0.80
t=30 min.
t=50 min.
0.60
0.40
0.20
Critical FHTI
0.00
0
1/FHTI (uL
12
16
/
), dimensionless
m m
20
File-20
EFFECTIVENESS
~
EFFICIENCY
OPTIMUM
INJECTIONRATEstb/day
EFFECTIVENESS:Oilrecovery/time
EFFICIENCY:Oilrecovery/Steaminjected
File-20
DISCOUNTEDCUMULATIVENETGAIN
(DCNG)
1 MMBtu = 2.4 US $
Discount Rate = 10 %
DCNG = Amount gained by OIL RECOVERY - Cost of STEAM
(only the cost of steam, no operational cost)
File-20
Discounted cumulative net gain, US $
50000
q=25STB/day
40000
q=60STB/day
q=100STB/day
q=150STB/day
30000
Continuousfracturecase
20000
10000
0
1
10
100
Time,days
1000
File-20
50000
Discounted cumulative net gain, US $
q=150STB/day
q=100STB/day
40000
q=60STB/day
q=25STB/day
30000
Continuousfracturecase
20000
10000
0
1
10
100
Time,days
1000
File-20
Babadagli,T.:OptimumSteamInjectionStrategiesforNaturallyFractured
Reservoirs,PetroleumScienceandTechnology,vol.18,no.34,375405,2000.
Babadagli,T.:EfficiencyofSteamfloodinginNaturallyFracturedReservoirsSPE
38329,67thSPEWesternRegionalMeeting,LongBeach,CA2527June,1997,665
675.
Babadagli,T.:EffectofFracturePropertiesonSteamEfficiencyinNaturallyFractured
Reservoirs,No:1998.020,7thUNITARInt.Conf.onHeavyCrudeandTarSands,2730
Oct.,1998,Beijing,China,pp:179188.
File-20
File-20
FracturedvsHomogeneous
File-20
ImprovedModelingofOilWaterFlowinNFRs
v w k f
Pc,max k m
S w S wi
S
1 S wi S or
Pc,max k m
v w k f
v w k f
1.127 *10 3 Pc,max k m
k ro (1 S n )
k rw S m
log(n) (0.1113)(log(1 / 2 )) 2 (0.3421)(log(1 / )) 0.1863

log(m) (0.0604)(log(1 / )) 2 (0.2999)(log(1 / )) 0.2554
File-20
File-20
File-20
A Practical Approach for Field Scale Performance Estimation of

Water Injection in Fractured Oil Reservoirs
t D t
2
w L
Pc ,max k m Lr

v w k f Lm
w L2ma
D
k
2
0.2q Lm

Pc ,max k m Lr
1
v w k f
Lm

3
1.127 *10 Pc ,max k m Lr
1
File-20
MISCIBLE
Plaxy glass core-holder
Teflon heat-shrinkable tub
Silicon
Matrix
Fracture
Matrix
Silicon
Heptane
Source
Core
Holder
Production Line
ISCO
Pump
Refractometer
TrivediandBabadagli,SPE100411
File-20
Total Oil Produced (PV)
1 ml/hr
0.8
6 ml/hr
3 ml/hr
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6 ml/hr
1 ml/hr
0.8
3 ml/hr
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
50
100
Total Solvent Injected (PV)

BSV-1
BSV-3
150
Time (hr)
BSV-6
BSV - 1
BSV - 3
BSV - 6
Gravity Effect
Total Solute Recovered (PV)
0.9
Time Recovery
0.8
0.7
High rate : Faster/Lower
0.6
0.5
Slow rate : Slower /High
0.4
0.3
Gravity Effect Ultimate Recovery
0.2
0.1
0
0
Total Solvent Injected (Pore Volume)

BSH-3
BSH-6
BV-3
BV-6
Slower rate - Minimal

Higher rate- Profound
File-20
200
k f * v * f ( ) * s
km * D * o
FDI=
N f ,Ca
k f * v * w
km * Pc,max
Highsolventinjectionrate:Mostoftherecoveryisfromthefracture
throughviscousflowandrecoveryfrommatrixislowduetopoor
diffusionintomatrix higherFDI.
Lowerinjectionrates:Thediffusiondominatestherecovery LowerFDI.
HigherFDI :indicatesafasterrecoverywithmoresolventinjectionand
presumablylessultimaterecoveryfromthematrix.
LowerFDI :Indicatesslowbutmoreefficientrecovery.Thismightyield
higherultimaterecoveriesfromthematrix,theprocessbeingslowdueto
lowinjectionrate.
31
File-20
File-20
Horizontal Berea Sandstone
Total Oil Producted (PV)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2
10
Flow rate (ml/hr)

20 hrs
30 hrs
40 hrs
80 hrs
File-20
Horizontal Indiana Limestone

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2
10
Flow Rate (ml/hr)

10 hrs
20 hrs
25 hrs
50 hrs
70 hrs
File-20
Horizontal Aged Berea Sandstone

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2
Flow Rate (ml/hr)

10 hr
20 hr
35 hr
50 hr
File-20
Total Oil Produced (PV) / Total Solvent Injected (PV)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
FDI
k f * v * f ( ) * s
km * D * o
File-20
(NMFD) v/s(TOP/TSI)
0uT2b L Pe* ArM

NM FD
r
gD
Ng
F
m
37
Total Oil Produced (PV) / Total Solvent Injected

(PV)
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
R2 = 0.8247
0.05
0
0.E+00
2.E+07
4.E+07
6.E+07
8.E+07
1.E+08
1.E+08
1.E+08
2.E+08
Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Group (NM-FD)

File-20

Fracture Characterization

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fracture Characterization

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FRACTURE CHARACTERIZATION

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

BOX COUNTING TECHNIQUE

MID (or INTERSECTION) POINT DISTRIBUTION

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

NUMBER OF FRACTURES PER UNIT AREA

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

INTERSECTION POINT DISTRIBUTION

NUMBER OF FRACTURES PER UNIT AREA

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Fracture mid-points and intersection points

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

FRACTAL DIMENSIONS FOR DIFFERENT

1.14 - 1.52 1.16 - 1.25

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

FRACTAL DIMENSION - BOX COUNTING

FRACTAL DIMENSION - BOX COUNTING

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

FRACTAL DIMENSION - BOX COUNTING

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

FRACTAL DIMENSION - BOX COUNT. and SAND BOX

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

FRACTAL DIM ENSION, D

Fracture network mapping: WELL DATA and OUTCROP

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Babadagli, J. Vol. and Geot. Res., 112, 2001

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

DIFFUSION OVER FRACTAL OBJECTS

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Acuna and Yortsos, 1995, Water Res. Res.

After Warren and Root, SPEJ Sept. 1963

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Acuna, Ershaghi, Yortsos, 1991

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

FRACTAL WELLS TESTS SPE Form. Eval. Sept, 1995

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

FRACTAL WELLS TESTS SPE Form. Eval. Sept, 1995

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

Tayfun Babadagli, PhD, PEng

Short Course Reservoir Characterization

SPE 63286, Baker and Kuppe