SCREENING TOOLS OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

Simple Screening Tool

Simple Fractured Reservoir Screening Tool If you answer YES to any of these questions, you may have a Fractured Reservoir
Do well test or whole core permeabilities exceed typical porosity-permeability relationship by an order of magnitude? Do some wells in the field experience water influx much earlier than others? Are well rates extremely variable across the field? Do injected fluids show up earlier or in different wells than expected? Are flow rates after casing and perforating substantially lower than open hole tests? Do your drilling wells experience unexpected high mud losses or unintended variable drilling rates? Do your wells experience rapid decline in rates?

Fractured Reservoir Screening Tool

Geological Data Geological Data
YES answers point toward a Fractured Reservoir Yes Answers point toward a Fractured Reservoir
1.

Do you observe significant number of natural fractures (>1/ft) in core or on well-processed imaging logs? Do outcrops of the relevant formation(s) on structures of similar origin contain abundant natural fractures? Are well test Khs a factor of 2 or more greater that those observed from core analysis? Do numerical structural deformation models using mechanical properties of the formation of interest and relevant structural geometry and deformation paths predict significant brittle strain in the trap? Do calibrated restoration strains from kinematic forward modeling predict significant brittle strain in the trap?

2.

3.

4.

5.

Fractured Reservoir Screening Tool

Geophysical Data

Geophysical Data

Yes Answers point toward presence of a Fractured Reservoir

1.

YES answers point toward a Fractured Reservoir

Do various forms of seismic attributes based on amplitude anomolies display azmuthal response within the trap? Does shear wave birefringence techniques show a strong azmuthal anisotropy within the trap? Do seismic dim zones correlate with structural curvature in the structure or map parallel to regional fracture trends in the area? Do interval velocities for the potential fractured reservoir vary significantly throughout the trap or structure?

2.

3.

4.

Fractured Reservoir Screening Tool

DrillingData Data Drilling
Yes answers point toward presence of a fractured YES answers point toward a Fractured Reservoir reservoir
1.

Do restricted zones in the formation exhibit penetration rates higher than expected and does this occurs in more than 1 well? When drilling certain hard formations, does the drill string exhibit an unusual amount or character of vibration? Do we experience sporadic and rapid mud losses within the formation and do they correlate across the field/trap? Do zones of mud loss become periodic within the formation? Does the well experience unusual pressure kicks, especially in tight portions of the formation? Do production logs (spinner, temperature, acoustic) display restricted zones of high fluid entry in a step function manner?

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Fractured Reservoir Screening Tool

Engineering Data
YES answers point toward a Fractured Reservoir Is there a very good correlation between maximum rate and cumulative production within the field? Do pressure transient tests display a dual porosity behavior? Does history matching require greater than anticipated flow rates or drainage areas? Do well tests indicate the presence of fluid flow barriers or point sources away from the wellbore, and can these be mapped using multiple wells? Do multiple well tests or flood pilots indicate strong preferential flow directions or high permeability azimuths?

Data Types Useful in Fractured Reservoir Analyses

Cores Borehole Image Logs 2-D Seismic Core Analysis (Plug,
Whole Core/3-D Whole Core)

Structural/Fracture Modeling Single & Multiple Well Tests Tracer Tests

3-D Seismic History Matching Reservoir Simulations Directional Permeability Data Water Breakthrough 4-D Seismic Drainage Area Calculations
(Access, Production, Harvest)

Procedures When Discovered During

1) Exploration/Access
Obtain cores and/or image logs in all early wells Predict natural fracture distributions Select optimum well locations and well paths Determine and map in situ stress from breakouts, etc.. Determine fractured reservoir type Evaluate reserves, variability, and risk

Procedures When Discovered During

2) Primary Recovery/Production
Plan static data collection wells Perform multiple well tests Model fracture system and in situ stress and correlate with dynamic data Determine directional permeability vectors Correlate fracture directions, in situ stress, and directional permeability Refine reservoir simulations using fractures

Procedures When Discovered During

3) Secondary Recovery/Harvest
Re-evaluate flood patterns Evaluate water production in terms of fractures Model in situ stress across the field Infer characteristics of the fracture system from dynamic data Re-evaluate reservoir simulations to include fracture anisotropy Revise predicted recovery factor (down)

Surveillance & Interventions SURVEILLENCE & INTERVENTIONS

Stage Exploration Primary Recovery Secondary Recovery Well Locations
Limited number of wells

Fracture Description
Generally nonexistent or very limited; predictive models dominate Good opportunity for data acquisition

Static -Dynamic Data Link

Static and dynamic database minimal

Wells not located to optimise production; location interventions still possible Few elective well locations available; manage existing producers and injectors

Good opportunity for program design, linkage, surveillance and interventions.

Limited opportunity to Dynamic data rich, but enhance static meagre static database database limits opportunity for linkage

Patton (June, 2000)

Modifiedafter after Nelson Nelson (1999) Modified (1999)