Master in Petroleum Engineering 2010-2011

Analysis and classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow

Author: Geol. Gianvito Tumbarello

www.eni.it

San Donato Milanese, 20 October 2011

 Master in Petroleum Engineering 2010-2011
Analysis and Classification of a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
Author Company Tutors
Geol. Gianvito Tumbarello Ing. Carlo Monico
Geol. Silvia Fiorini
Geol. Marco Pontiggia

University Tutor
Division Exploration & Production
Prof. Ing. Francesca Verga
Dept. MOGI/IPET

San Donato Milanese, 20 October 2011 2

 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

3
 Goals

All reservoirs have fractures, but not all are

fractured reservoirs

4
 Goals

a) Identification of the fractured behaviour

by using a Screening tool

b) Identify the Nelson class by using a

Classification tool

c) Choice of modelling workflow

5
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

6
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
Fracture Detection
Four natural fracture types, origin related (Nelson, 2001)

a) Tectonic  associated with a local tectonic event

b) Regional  developed over large areas, always perpendicular to

major bedding surface

c) Contractional  e.g. stylolite, columnar joints, mud cracks

d) Surface Related  e.g. exfoliation joints, developed during uplift and

erosional unloading

7
Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
Different Reservoir types

Basement

Massive Sedimentary

Layered Sedimentary High

Permeability

Layered Sedimentary Low

Permeability

8
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
Nelson Classification
kfracture
100%

Highlights
II I
fracture and
% of total permeability

III matrix
contributions
Increasing effect of fractures
and decreasing effect of matrix to porosity
and
permeability
IV
100%
kmatrix

% of total porosity 100%

100%
Φfracture
Φmatrix

9
Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir

Class I
Basement
Class II

Class I

Massive Sedimentary Class II

Class III

Class I
Layered Sedimentary High
Class II
Permeability
Class III

Layered Sedimentary Low

Class II
Permeability

10
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

11
Introduce the workflow

Workflow scheme

Mutually integrating
geologic and dynamic
models

- Study Objectives
- Conceptual Models
- Reservoir Models

12
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

13
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir

Geological asset

14
Case study: Alfa Reservoir

Tectonical asset

Trias-Creta rifting stage

Principal faults  N-S E-W

Creta-Actual collision stage

Principal faults  NE-SW

15
 Qo [m3 /d]
ge
n-
8

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
8
ge
n-
8
9
ge
n-
9
0
ge
n-
9
1
ge
n-
9
2
ge
n-
9
3
ge
n-
9
4
ge
n-
9
5
ge
n-
9
6
ge
n-
9
7
ge

ge

ge
n-

n-
9

9
8

9
Mud losses
n-
0
0

Qo vs. Time

Time
ge
n-
0
1
ge
n-
0
2
ge
n-
0
3
ge
n-
0
4
ge
n-
0
5
ge
n-
0
6
ge
n-

Production data
0
7
ge
n-
0
8
ge
n-
0
9
ge
n-
10
ge
n-
11
ML

ML
ML

Data
Analysis

Core
analysis
Case study: Alfa Reservoir

Pressure data
Depth Map
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

17
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
Screening tool
criteria

Geological Questions

Dynamic Questions
Answers:
Yes; No; Unknown

Drilling Questions

18
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour

Effective Weight Theoretical Weight if answer is Yes or No

Tendency to behave
as fractured reservoir

T ‗ ΣYes Answer Weight

ΣEffective Weight

19
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour

Effective Weight Theoretical Weight if answer is Yes or No

Confidence degree

C‗ ΣEffective Weight__
ΣTheoretical Weight

20
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour

Fractured or not?

Tendency & Confidence

74%
Tendency
Alfa Reservoir
Confidence
has a
94%
fractured
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1 behaviour

Tendency “fractured behaviour”= 74%

Confidence = 94%

21
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

22
 Classification tool: Nelson class
Criteria

Based on the kind of formation:

- Basement

- Massive sedimentary

- Layered sedimentary

23
 Classification tool: Nelson class

Theoretical Weight of positive and

Weighted Answer negative answers identifying a Nelson
class

Tendency to belong
to a Nelson class

T ‗ ΣWeighted Answer
ΣEffective Weight

24
 Classification tool: Nelson class

Theoretical Weight of positive and

Weighted Answer negative answers identifying a Nelson
class

Confidence degree

C‗ ΣEffective Weight__
ΣTheoretical Weight

25
 Classification tool: Nelson class
Which Nelson class?
Tendency & Confidence
MASSIVE SEDIMENTARY RESERVOIR

28%
Class 1 Alfa is Massive
Sedimentary Reservoir
Class 2
42%
Class 3

belonging to class III

60% Confidence

100%

kfracture
100%
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

II I

III

permeability
% of total
Tendency class III= 60% Increasing effect of fractures and

Confidence = 100% decreasing effect of matrix

100%

IV
kmatrix

100% % of total porosity 100%

Φmatrix Φfracture

26
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce the workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual model
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

27
Conceptual model
Alfa Reservoir
Conceptual Model

3D Grid

Cells: 299 x 294 x 10

28
Conceptual model

Depth map

Dotted lines
show the
principal tectonic
alignments
Conceptual model
Fracman® 7.2
Parameter sensitivity

Intensity

- P10  Nrfracture / Lwell

- P32  Afracture / Vbulk
- P33  Vfracture / Vbulk
- Total Nr of fractures

P10 = 2 fr/m

30
Conceptual model
Fracman® 7.2
Parameters sensitivity

Orientation
- Pole vector  Trend & Plunge

Pole vector

N N

y y

Trend Plunge
x x

31
Conceptual model
Fracman® 7.2
Parameters sensitivity

Geometry

- Size
- Shape

32
Conceptual model
Fracman® 7.2
Parameters sensitivity

Proprerties

- Aperture
- Trasmissivity
- Storativity

33
 Conceptual model

Fracture orientation

NE-SW

E-W
NNW-SSE

34
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce at workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual models
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

35
 Choise of a suitable modelling workflow
Massive Sedimentary CFM Conventional
Discrete Fracture
Choice of Dynamic Model
(DFM)
Simulation CFM Directional Question
5

CFM Hybrid
Single Φ
Type I Equivalent Single
Single K Porosity Model
(ESPM)
Single Φ
Single K CFM Conventional

CFM Directional Dynamic

Questio
Action / model
Type II Suggestion
n1

DFN
Dual Φ
Single K

Questio Dual Φ CFM Directional

n2 Single K
Dynamic
model
Action / Questio Dual Φ DFN
Type III Suggestion n3 Dual K

Dynamic
CFM Conventional
model

Single Φ CFM Directional

Questio
n4 Single K

36
 Choise of a suitable modelling workflow
Conceptual
Driver Geological Workflow for Massive
Sedimentary Class III
Validatio
Orientation Spatial Intensity Petrophysical Properties
n
Definition Definition and Distribution
Distribution
Finalization

Questio
Questio
n1
n8
Questio Action / Questio
n4 Suggestion n7

Generate
Questio Action / a CFM
n2 Suggestion Action /
Suggestion

Questio Action /
n5 Suggestion Generate
Action / a
Questio Questio
Suggestion directional
n3 n9 CFM

Questio Generate
n 10 a DFN
Action / Questio Action /
Suggestion n6 Suggestion
Action /
Suggestion

37
 List of Content

Analysis and Classification of a

Naturally Fractured Reservoir and
choice of a suitable workflow
 Goals
 Overview of a Naturally Fractured Reservoir
 Introduce at workflow
 Case study: Alfa Reservoir
 Screening tool: fractured behaviour
 Classification tool: Nelson class
 Conceptual models
 Choice of a suitable modelling workflow
 Conclusions

38
 Conclusions

a) Alfa Reservoir has been classified as a Massive

Sedimentay type III reservoir

b) Screening and Classification tools can be used to

identify the “fractured behaviour” and Nelson
class for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs

c) Proposed workflow optimises the choice of

modelling for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with
integration between geological and dynamic
models

39
 Acknowledgements

I would thank eni e&p Division Management

for permission to present this work and
related results and MOGI colleagues,
especially to C. Monico, S. Fiorini, M.
Pontiggia, R. Chiarelli and V. Radice (GISE)
for the technical support and needed
assistance.

San Donato Milanese, 20 October 2011 40