SPE 71037
Reserve Estimates for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Arthur R. Briggs, SPE / A. R. Briggs & Associates
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Keystone, Colorado, 21–23 May 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Reserves estimates in naturally fractured reservoirs present a
unique challenge to the reservoir engineer. Reservoir storage
capacities and thus reserves in a fractured reservoir come from
two major sources: fracture capacity and matrix capacity.
Most fractured reservoirs consist of a combination of these
two capacities.
Defining area of drainage in a naturally fractured reservoir
presents another challenge. Fractures often contribute most of
the delivery capacity in a fractured reservoir. Drainage area in
a naturally fractured reservoir is oriented along open fracture
systems with significant areas included from nearby reservoir
rock containing appreciable matrix porosity and permeability
and intersected by the fracture system. Horizontal drilling,
which is usually oriented in an attempt to intersect several
open fracture systems, adds another dimension to the problem
of defining area of drainage and delivery capacity.
This paper investigates the application of the major types of
reserve estimates including analogy, volumetric, and
performance analysis to naturally fractured reservoirs. Sample
illustrations and calculations for typical reservoirs will be
reviewed and discussed.
Introduction
Discovery and development of naturally fractured reservoirs
has increased dramatically during the past 15 years. Rapid
advances in horizontal drilling technology have spurred on
much of this activity. Naturally fractured reservoirs present a
unique challenge to the reserve estimator in that they are often
complex combinations of fracture porosity and matrix
porosity.(1) Figure 1 is a schematic diagram depicting a dual
porosity fracture-matrix reservoir.
The principal methods of reserves determination;(2) i.e.
analogy, volumetric method and performance analysis apply
to dual porosity reservoirs as well as to single porosity
systems. Each of these methods is applicable based upon the
information available to the reserves estimator at the time the
estimate is made. All reserve estimates contain some degree of
uncertainty. Reserve estimates may be modified from time to
time as the amount of reliable geologic and engineering data
increases and the interpretation of these data changes.
Analogy
In applying analogy the reserve estimator must consider
similarity of well spacing, geologic age, rock and fluid
properties, depth, pressure, temperature, pay thickness, and
reservoir drive mechanism. Analogy can be applied on a direct
well to well or on a unit recovery basis. Analogy using simple
well-to-well comparisons may be the least accurate and
reliable of reserve estimating techniques, however, it can
provide valuable input into reserve estimation by furnishing
unit recovery for the volumetric method or by serving as a
quantitative check on performance results.
It also appears valid that analogy can also be applied on a
fracture-by-fracture basis for horizontal wells. Initially, the
reserves estimate can be obtained by estimating the number of
open and interconnected sub-vertical fractures (n) that have or
expected to be intersected by a horizontal leg of length (l). The
projected reserves for the horizontal leg will then be the
product of the number of fractures and the analogous recovery
per fracture determined from other similar horizontal or
vertical wells in the area. The number of open sub-vertical
fractures in a vertical or horizontal well must be determined
from careful analysis of drilling and sample logs or by
application of specific logging devices designed to identify
fractures in the wellbore. For purposes of analogy in a
fractured reservoir a vertical well is assumed to penetrate only
one sub-vertical fracture unless there is specific information to
the contrary. Table 1 presents an example of an analogous
reserve estimate for a horizontal well using information
gathered from similar vertical and horizontal wells.
2 ARTHUR R. BRIGGS SPE 71037

Table 1
Example of Reserve Estimate Using Analogy
to the remainder of the reservoir. Values for porosity and
Vertical and/or Horizontal Wells to Horizontal Well water saturation may also vary widely between the fracture
and matrix components. Fractured reservoirs are complex
Total All Average Per Reserve systems that require special attention in preparing reserve
Analogous Analogous Estimate estimates using the volumetric method.
Description Wells Fracture By Analogy

Similarity of Reservoir Yes Yes Yes

Some work has been done to help analyze volumetric factors
for naturally fractured reservoirs.(1)(6)(10) Aguilera has
Number of Measured / calculated bulk volume fracture porosity for various fracture
Expected Fractures 15 1 4 systems. Bulk volume fracture porosity is defined as the
fraction of total reservoir volume occupied by open and
Oil Recovery - Barrels 1,000,000 66,667 266,667
interconnected fractures. According to Aguilera bulk volume
Gas Recovery - MCF 2,400,000 160,000 640,000
porosity for fracture systems ranges from 0.5% to 1.5% of
bulk reservoir volume. Howard, et al has developed a method
for estimating fracture porosity and permeability from small
Matrix
Porosity
samples in a fracture system. Porosity estimates from this
study are consistent with those developed by Aguilera.

The reserve evaluator must concern himself with fractured

reservoir limits, both vertically and horizontally. In some
Horizontal Well cases vertical reservoir boundaries may extend into adjacent
beds that serve as source rock for the reservoir. Fracture trends
may extend great distances from producing wells. In some
Fractu instances wells on trend have exhibited interference over
res several miles. In general, drainage areas for wells in fractured
reservoirs are larger than for wells in single porosity reservoirs
due to fracture permeability. Also, drainage areas in horizontal
Figure 1 wells tend to be larger than for vertical wells in the same
Schematic Diagram of Dual Porosity Reservoir
reservoir because of increased reservoir contact.

Volumetric Method
Volumetric reserve estimates for naturally fractured reservoirs
may be prepared much the same as for predominately matrix
(single) porosity systems with a few exceptions. First, the
reserve estimator must determine if the reservoir has a single
or a dual porosity system. For a dual porosity system the
reserve estimator must determine the reservoir volume for the
fractures and the matrix segments of the reservoir. The ratio
that the fracture reservoir volume bears to the total reservoir
volume (fractures plus matrix) is called the partitioning
coefficient.1 Next, the volumetric parameters of water
saturation and formation volume factor are applied separately
to the fracture and matrix portions of the reservoir to arrive at
original hydrocarbons in place. Then recovery factors are
After all these factors are considered an initial volumetric
estimate of reserves can be prepared. Separate estimates for
fracture reserves and for matrix reserves may be prepared and
consolidated as shown in Table 2. These volumetric estimates
should be compared to estimates using analogy or
performance analysis, if available. Analogy and volumetric
reserve estimates are generally preliminary in defining
reserves for fractured reservoirs when compared to reserve
estimates using reservoir performance analysis.
Ta b le 2
E x a m p le V olu m e tr ic R e s e r v e E s tim a te
C om b in a tion F r a c tu r e -M a tr ix P or os ity R e s e r v oir
F r a c tu r e M a tr ix C om b in e d
De s c r ip tion P or os ity P or os ity P or os ity

applied on a separate basis to arrive at estimated reserves. A v e r a g e Th ic k n e s s - F e e t 125 10

Table 2 shows an example of a volumetric calculation for a A r e a l E x te n t - A c r e s 320 80
R e s e r v oir V olu m e - A c r e F e e t 40000 800 40800
dual porosity reservoir. E f f e c tiv e P or os ity - P e r c e n t 0.5 10.0 0.7
Tota l P or e V olu m e - A c r e F e e t 200 80 280
P e r c e n t of Tota l 71 29 100
In fractured reservoirs the parameters for effective area,
effective thickness, effective porosity and effective water W a te r S a tu r a tion - P e r c e n t 10 40 N/A
saturation are substantially different for the fracture H y d r oc a r b on P or e V olu m e - A c F t 180 48 228
F or m a tion V olu m e F a c tor 1.25 1.25 1.25
component and for the matrix component. Reservoir height, O il in P la c e - S toc k Ta n k B a r r e ls 1,117,152 297,907 1,415,059
area, and shape are strongly determined by fracture orientation
R e c ov e r y F a c tor - P e r c e n t 75 15 N/A
and interconnection. In many cases the areal extent of the V olu m e tr ic R e s e r v e s - S TB 837,864 44,686 882,550
matrix component is dependant upon the interconnectedness
of the fractures that intersect the matrix and ultimately connect
SPE 71037 RESERVE ESTIMATES FOR NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
P r e d o m in a n tly M a tr ix P o r o s ity
M ix e d P o r o s ity
P r e d o m in a n tly F r a c tu r e
R ate
Tim e
Figure 2
Schematic Rate - Time Curves
For Dual - Porosity Reservoirs
Performance Analysis
Presently accepted methods of performance analysis to predict
reserves include: material balance, decline curve analysis,
special well tests and reservoir simulation.(2) Often several
methods are applied in the same study to furnish independent
methods of analysis for the same problem. All of these
methods require gathering of reservoir performance data over
time before the analysis can be reasonably applied. Each
method has specific strengths and weaknesses. Special care
must be taken in gathering and applying performance data in
fractured reservoirs.
Accuracy of material balance method depends upon correct
estimation of average rock and fluid properties, aquifer size
and characteristics, and especially average reservoir pressure.
Fractured reservoirs require special attention to the
compressibility of fractures as well as the compressibility of
the reservoir rock. Failure to consider the high relative
compressibility of fractures in material balance calculations
can result in a significant overstatement of calculated oil in
place. When exact fracture compressibility is unknown, an
estimated value equal to 10 times the compressibility of the
reservoir rock usually gives reasonable results.(1) The
material balance method works best in high permeability
reservoirs with good pressure communication. Fractured
reservoirs often contain matrix porosity segments with
extremely low permeability. Long-term shut-in periods are
often required on special well tests to determine the presence
and extent of dual porosity systems in naturally fractured
reservoirs and to obtain true average reservoir pressure.
Production-decline curve analysis is the most frequently used
method for estimating producing reserves in all types of
reservoirs including naturally fractured reservoirs.(2)
Production-decline curve analysis assumes wells are
producing at capacity. This method also has another advantage
over analogy/volumetric methods because the decline curve
3
trend forecast also establishes a future production forecast.
Figure 2 shows schematic rate-time curves for Type A, Type
B and Type C fractured reservoirs as described by
Aguilera.(1) In general, the greater the relative volume of
matrix porosity the more the rate-time curve “flattens out” and
the longer lived the reserves become.
In naturally fractured reservoirs the decline curve method is
not accurate until the flow between the fracture and matrix
portions of the reservoir are in equilibrium. This equilibrium
may take an extended period of time. Other production trend
analysis techniques including water/oil ratio data, oil cut vs
cumulative production, production rate vs cumulative
production and gas-oil ratio vs cumulative production may
also be used effectively in estimating reserves from naturally
fractured reservoirs.
Reservoir modeling or simulation can be considered a
complex material balance. Instead of a single-tank analysis,
reservoir simulation divides the reservoir into several adjacent
tanks called cells or grid points. The resulting network of
simultaneous equations for each cell requires computer
solution. The outcome of the analysis depends upon the
availability and quality of data. The outcome must still be
subject to judgment by an experienced reserves evaluator.
Great care must be taken not to extrapolate results of reservoir
simulation beyond reasonable limits.
All methods of performance analysis for estimating reserves
are applicable to naturally fractured reservoirs. In addition, all
reservoir performance methods require information that is
often only available as the reservoir is produced. While
reserve estimates based on performance analysis are often
more accurate than those based on analogy or volumetric
methods, results should be compared with results from the
other methods, if available, to check reliability and
consistency of estimates. Whenever possible more than one
method should be used to estimate reserves. This is especially
true in complex, dual porosity reservoirs often associated with
natural fractures.
Conclusions
Naturally fractured reservoirs are usually complex, often dual-
porosity reservoirs requiring special handling in preparing
reserve estimates. The reserve estimator must consider the
relative number of open fracture systems in the observed
well(s) compared to the expected number of open fracture
systems in the subject well(s). All reservoir properties between
the observed wells and the subject wells must be checked for
consistency with appropriate adjustments in order to obtain
reasonable reserve estimates using analogy.
Volumetric estimates of reserves in naturally fractured
reservoirs are made more difficult by the multi-porosity
storage systems in many fractured reservoirs and the irregular
shape of fracture drainage patterns. Porosity, permeability and
water saturation usually vary widely from the fracture system
4 ARTHUR R. BRIGGS SPE 71037

to the matrix system. Dividing reserve estimates into fracture
and matrix segments and then adding the results together
present a simpler method for arriving at volumetric reserve
estimates for these type reservoirs.
Performance analysis methods are directly applicable to
naturally fractured reservoirs. Care must be taken to consider
the compressibility of the fractures separate from the
compressibility of the reservoir rock. Decline curve analysis
should be used only when the reserve estimator feels confident
the fracture system and the matrix porosity system are
producing in equilibrium.
8. Bourbiaux B., Granet S., Landereau P., Noetinger B.,
Sarda S., and Sabathier J.C. “Scaling Up Matrix-Fracture
Transfers in Dual-Porosity Models: Theory and
Application” SPE 56557 prepared for presentation at the
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
9. Adams S.J., “Fracture Porosity from Conventional Logs
with Image Tool Calibration” SPE 64408 prepared for
presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia,
16-18 October 2000.

Results of any analysis can be used to modify input
parameters and expected results for any other estimate. More
than one reserve estimation method should be used whenever
possible and results compared and analyzed before the then
current or combined estimate is presented.
10. Howard J.H., Nolen-Hoeksema Richard C., “Description
of Natural Fracture Systems for Quantitative Use in
Petroleum Geology”, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Bulletin, Vol 74, No. 2, February 1990, pp
151-162.

References 11. Narr Wayne, “Estimating Average Fracture Spacing in

1. Aguilera, Roberto, “Naturally Fractured Reservoirs” Subsurface Rock”, AAPG Bulletin, Vol 80, No. 10,
(Second Edition), PennWell Publishing Company 1995. October 1996, pp 1565-1586.

2. Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers, Monograph I

(Second Edition), “Guidelines for Application of
Petroleum Reserve Definitions

3. Stowell, Julia, “Specifying Lengths of Horizontal Wells

in Fractured Reservoirs”, presented at 2000 SPE/PS-CIM
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology
held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 6-8 November 2000.

4. Lai C.H.; Bodvarsson G.S., Tsang, C.F., and

Witherspoon, P.A. “A New Model for Well Test Data
Analysis for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs” paper SPE
11688 presented at the 1983 California Regional Meeting
held in Ventura, California, March 23-26, 1983.

5. Aguilera Roberto, “Well Test Analysis of Naturally

Fractured Reservoirs” SPE 13663 published in SPE
Formation Evaluation, September 1987.

6. Hensel Jr. W.M. “A Perspective Look at Fracture

Porosity” paper SPE 16806 presented at the 62nd Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE held in
Dallas, Texas September 27-30, 1987.

7. Aguilera Roberto, and Ng Michael C. “Transient Pressure

Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Anisotropic Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs” SPE 19002 published in SPE
Formation Evaluation, March 1991.