Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

Research paper

Analytical model for tracer transport in reservoirs having a conductive geological fault
Manuel Coronado , Jetzabeth Ramrez-Sabag
Instituto Mexicano del Petrleo, Eje Central Lzaro Crdenas 152, 07730 Mxico D.F., Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Geological faults are frequently found in oil reservoirs and their presence dramatically impacts the
Received 15 February 2007 underground uid motion. Tracer tests provide a mean to dynamically characterize the conduit or barrier
Accepted 13 July 2008 behavior of the fault. Although diverse analytical models have been developed to describe tracer transport in
a geological conductive fault, only few of them capture the fact that injection and production wells are
Keywords:
regularly located outside the fracture plane. In many cases, the tracer path length outside the fault structure
tracer
fault
is signicant. In this work the system is represented by three coupled regions associated to the injector-to-
transport fault, fault, and fault-to-production-well zones. The coupling is simplied by considering linear ow and
ow aligned regions. This model includes hydrodynamic dispersion, an important phenomenon not considered in
previous work. One-dimensional advectivedispersive tracer transport is assumed in each region. Border
conditions require tracer mass conservation. The initial condition is a Dirac delta pulse at the injection site.
The equations are analytically solved in Laplace space and the inverse transform is evaluated numerically by
the Stehfest algorithm. Four specic cases have been studied; they comprehend a long and a short fault path
length having low or high dispersivity respectively. The pulse behavior and the tracer breakthrough curve, as
well as their sensitivity to fault dispersion, fault length and fault uid velocity are analyzed. Clear differences
in the pulse prole and breakthrough curve shape are found in relation to the case when no fault is present.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction termining the presence and characteristics of a conductive fault is of

Inter-well tracer tests constitute a widely recognized technique to
determine reservoir communication channels, to obtain eld informa-
tion on sweep efciency and residual oil saturation in uid ooding
recovery programs, and a mean to evaluate formation properties such
as dispersion coefcient, fracture width, block size, layer thickness
or porosity (Zemel, 1995). Although faults are relatively common in
underground formations, tracer tests have been only occasionally
employed in oil reservoir fault characterization. Faults can build a
transverse ow barrier, but also a longitudinal or vertical ow con-
duit depending on the fault structure. Faults may comprise a low
permeability core surrounded by the so called damage zone, which is a
high permeability region having a complex network of small fractures
and veins. Conduit-barrier fault hydraulic behavior depends on the
size, width and composition of these structures (Caine et al., 1996;
Fairley and Hinds, 2004; Bense and Person, 2006). Fault uid
conductivity has dramatic inuence on oil and gas recovery. Sealing
faults compartmentalize the reservoir, while conductive faults give
direct access to distant reservoir production zones. Conductive faults
have in general a negative impact in uid ooding programs due to the
oil by-passing effect and the swept volume reduction. Therefore, de-
Corresponding author. Tel.: +52 55 9175 8302.
E-mail address: mcoronad@imp.mx (M. Coronado).
primary relevance.
Fluid ow in conductive faults have been examined along the years
in various oil reservoirs (Trocchio, 1990; Nishikiori and Hayashida,
2000; Al-Ghamdi et al., 2003), but reservoir tracer studies of
conductive faults have been only scarcely reported (Trocchio, 1990;
Nitzberg and Broman, 1992; Kelven et al. 1996; Dugstad et al., 1999).
Diverse analytical and numerical works related to tracer transport
models in faulted geological formations have been published in
various specialized areas such as oil reservoir engineering (see for
example: Kocabas, 2003; Lange et al., 2005; Toublanc et al. 2005), or
Geohydrology and pollutant transport (see for example: Hoehn et al.
1998; Himmelbach et al., 1998; Lapcevic et al., 1999; Maloszewski et
al., 1999; Tseng et al., 2002; Mazurek et al., 2003; Bodin et al., 2003;
Salve et al., 2004; Houseworth, 2004). However, an important feature
has not received sufcient attention when applying inter-well tracer
transport models to real eld situations, particularly to oil reservoirs.
It is the fact that injection and production wells are regularly located
outside the fault plane. This means that tracers move through regions
with clearly different transport properties. They may travel rst along
a region of relative low permeability located between the injection
well and the fault, then it goes through a highly permeable fractured
zone along the fault body self (the damage zone), and nally it may
move again across a relative low permeability region from the fault to
the production well. This situation can be properly described by
diverse numerical simulators, provided appropriate porous media
information is available. It is however not the case in analytical

0920-4105/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2008.07.001
74 M. Coronado, J. Ramrez-Sabag / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379
Fig. 1. Plane schematic view of (a) the structure of a reservoir section with an injection
and a production well divided transversally by a conductive fault, and (b) a repre-
sentative main ow pattern.
modeling. Tracer transport models in a fracture or a fracture network
have traditionally concentrated on certain important physics phenom-
ena, such as advection, longitudinal dispersion, fracturematrix cou-
pling, matrix diffusion, two-dimensional dispersion, variable fracture
aperture, reactive transport, etc. However, only few analytical works
consider the presence of a tracer source located outside the fault plane.
The report by Houseworth (2004) approaches the situation we want to
describe. In this work he assumes a highly permeable fault streak
surrounded by a low permeability rock matrix, and considers an in-
stantaneous or continuous solute source located inside or outside the
fault plane. A 2D steady-state, uniform ow parallel and transversal
to the fault is assumed in his paper. Tracer transport involves: ad-
vection in both fault and matrix, diffusive exchange between fracture
and matrix, linear sorption and radioactive decay. A fully analytical
solution is found, and the sensitivity to the Peclet number is exam-
ined. However, in relation to the problem of our interest, there are
two relevant elements not taken into account. They are tracer dis-
persion, and a third tracer path domain that represents the region
from the fault to the production well.
Fig. 2. The one-dimensional three-region system.
In this work, we present a simple semi-analytical model to de-
scribe tracer transport in a formation in which a conductive fault is
located between the injector and the production well. In order to
include tracer dispersion while keeping the mathematical problem
manageable, we consider bi-dimensional, steady-state and uniform
ow, and neglect tracer diffusive faultmatrix coupling, tracer sorpt-
ion and radioactive decay. These and some other additional relevant
processes and fault features can be incorporated in future develop-
ments. Nevertheless, we believe this model provides a valuable tool
for reservoir tracer test analysis.
2. Problem description
The system under consideration is a reservoir section consisting
of an injector, a producing well and a conductive fault separating
them as shown in Fig. 1(a). Here L1 and L3 are the distances from
the injection well to the fault and from the fault to the production
well respectively, and L2 the path length along the fault between
injector and production well. The fault is assumed to be a channel
of isotropic high permeability, where large uid ows can be de-
veloped. Tracer transport in the fault will be represented by a
single-permeability advectiondispersion model neglecting fracture
matrix diffusion and reactive transport. If the fault were not
present the steady-state ow pattern would probably be a dipole-
type; however, with the fault present the pattern modies
signicantly due to the presence of a highly permeable streak. It
would for example gives place to a displaced dipole pattern, as we
schematically illustrate in Fig. 1(b). In order to simplify the problem
while keeping some main features regarding the multi-region
tracer path we transform the system to a one-dimensional three-
region tracer transport problem, as shown in Fig. 2. This system
represents the situation of a three-region ow channel commu-
nicating the injector and a production well. The situation analyzed
here corresponds to a closed fault, in the sense that uid amount
owing in Region 1 is equal to the amount owing along the fault
and in Region 3. We consider a different uniform uid velocity ui
and a different constant dispersion coefcient Di for each region. A
Dirac delta tracer pulse is introduced in x = 0 at t = 0, which travels
to Regions 2 and 3. We impose conditions on the region border.
These conditions should require continuity on the tracer concen-
tration and tracer mass conservation. At the end, the tracer con-
centration will be evaluated at x = L1 + L2 + L3 as a function of time
and the parameters describing the system. The resulting tracer
breakthrough curves are compared with the case when the fault is
not present.
 M. Coronado, J. Ramrez-Sabag / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379 75

The advectiondispersion equation for Region i is conditions in Eqs. (4b)(4e), together with the two extra conditions at
x = 0:
@Ci @C @2C
ui i Di 2i 0; 1
@t @x @x C1 x 0 ; t C1 x 0 ; t 10

where Ci(x,t) is the tracer concentration in that region. In the whole

formulation, the tracer and uid velocity are assumed equal. The
tracer mass ux is given by
@C1
@x j x0

@C1
@x j x0

m
D1
: 11

@Ci
Ji ui Ci Di : 2 This last condition results from Eqs. (5) and (3) for i = 1, after space
@x integration from x = to x = and taking 0. By this procedure only
The initial conditions are the second-order derivative term and the Dirac delta term on the RHS
of the Eq. (5) give a non-vanishing contribution, as displayed in
Eq. (11). After setting all mentioned boundary conditions and long
C1 x; 0 mx; C2 x; 0 0; C3 x; 0 0; 3
algebraical manipulations it nally results:

where m is the total tracer mass injected at x = 0 per unit of interstitial

surface cross-section, and (x) the Dirac delta function. The boundary m=u1
B q 12
conditions are 1 4sD1 =u21

C1 x Y; t 0; 4a   h  i
1
D1 1 exp 1 2 L1
M B
u2 u1 1 D1 2 D2 
C1 x L1 ; t C2 x L1 ; t ; 4b 1
 (" # " # )
1
u2 u1 D1 2 D2 u2 u3 3 D3 2 D2 h  i
2 2
1 2
3 2
exp L2
J1 x L1 ; t J2 x L1 ; t ; 4c u2 u1 D1 D2 u2 u3 D3 D2
13

C2 x L1 L2 ; t C3 x L1 L2 ; t ; 4d
" #
h  i u u 3 D 2 D
2
2 L1 L2
2 3 3 2
M M exp 3 2
14
J2 x L1 L2 ; t J3 x L1 L2 ; t ; 4e u2 u3 D3 D2

h      i  
C3 x Y; t 0: 4f 2 1
B M exp L1 M exp 2 L1 B exp 1 L1 exp L1 15

3. Solution A B B 16

The solution is obtained by the Laplace transform technique. From  

2  

Eq. (1), the transformed tracer concentration of Region i, C i(x,s), satises D2 2 exp 2 3 L1 L2
N M 3 2
: 17
u2 u3 D3 D2
@2C i @C
Di ui i sC i Ci 0; 5
@x2 @x
The solution in Laplace space is then fully determined in terms of
where s is a variable in the complex plane. In the location where the injected tracer mass, velocity, dispersion coefcient and travel
Ci(0) = 0 (i.e. x 0), the solution can be found by seeking solutions distance in the three regions. To obtain the tracer behavior in real
space the inverse Laplace transform should be calculated. Here, it is
of the form C i exp(x). The characteristic equation for = (s)
yields the roots done numerically by the Stehfest (1970) algorithm. The inversion
formula requires the integration of Eqs. (7)(9) along the imaginary
 q axes in the s-complex plane. The integration line should leave all
i ui singularities appearing in Eqs. (12)(17) on its left side. To analyze the
F 1F 1 4sDi =u2i : 6
2Di Laplace inversion restrictions we write s = r exp(i) and let r with
/2 b b /2. We found that assuming Di and ui positive, non-zero and
The solution for each region is nite, there are no additional restrictions on the parameter values.
In the limiting case where the three regions have the same
8  
< 1 parameters  upand D, then
 the single-region model is recovered,
A exp x for x b0
C1     7 C x; s m= 1 4sD=u2 exp x, where is given by Eq. (6).
: B exp 1 x B exp 1 x for 0bx b L1
In real space
p it jtranslates intok the well known expression C x; t
m= 4Dt exp xut 2 =4Dt .
    In order to treat and analyze the solutions it is very useful to change
2
C 2 M exp x M exp 2 x for L1 V x V L1 L2 8 variables and introduce certain appropriate dimensionless parameters.
The new dimensionless space and time variables to be used are
 
C 3 N exp 3 x for xNL1 L2 9
xD x=L; tD t=tc and sD stc 18

where conditions (4a) and (4f) are used. Here A+, B+, B, M+, M, N are where L is a given estimated length for the total path distance, and tc
function of s. These six functions are determined by the four boundary is a characteristic total transit time. tc can be for example the tracer
76 M. Coronado, J. Ramrez-Sabag / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379

Fig. 3. Case I: High velocity and high dispersivity inside the fault. Plots (a) to (d) give the tracer concentration prole at four times tD = {0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1}. Here d1 = d3 = 0.1, d2 = 0.8,
a1 = a3 = 0.1, a2 = 0.1, b1 = b3 = 0.2 and b2 = 20 have been set. The continuous line shows the three-region model, and the broken line the case when the fault is not present.

peak arrival time or the average transit time. The dimensionless para-
meters to be employed are
ai i =L; bi ui tc =L and di Li =L
for i = 1,2 or 3. Here i is the i-region dispersivity. The assumption
Di = iui was made. The use of the local Peclet number, Pei = i/Li
instead of parameter ai would complicate the analysis since it couples
the effects of dispersivity and local path length, Li. It is to be noticed
that the dimensionless time tD is independent of any other model
parameter (such as ui or Li); by this mean, the time variable keeps the
same in all three regions, and therefore model analysis and data
tting becomes mathematically easier.
The parameters ai and di are positive and take values smaller than
the unity, since i b Li b L. It also holds di = 1. Further, we can write
bi = (uitc/i)ai, and since uitc N Li N i it follows bi N ai. By assuming
u2 u1 u3, it yields b1 b1, b3 b1 and b2 N1. Also b2 is required. The
number of free parameters in the model is ten; they are grouped as
dimensionless dispersivities {ai}, normalized velocities {bi}, fractional
path lengths {di} and the linear scale parameter m/u1.
When using the variable sD instead of s, the tracer concentration in
Laplace space C i (sD) has dimensions of concentration. We can in-
troduce a dimensionless concentration C D i(sD) = C i(sD)/(m/u1tc), since
p the pulse advances in Region 2. A relatively high peak is generated in
B m=u tc 1 4sD a1 =b1 . In this case the function B translates into
p1
B 1= 1 4sD a1 =b1 . The tracer concentration, m/u1tc, means the
tracer mass injected divided by the total uid volume introduced in
the formation during the characteristic tracer transit time tc. This
interpretation follows from setting u1 = QA1, where Q is the uid vol-
ume ow rate (volume/time) along the system, and A1 the channel
cross-section in Region 1.
4.1. Case I: long fault with high dispersion
We examine the case of a long fault with d1 = d3 = 0.1 and d2 = 0.8. It
means that the fault length represents 80% of the whole tracer path.
19
We assume that the uid velocity in the fault is 100 times larger than
the velocity in Region 1, it means u2/u1 = 100. Further, we take a fault
dispersion coefcient hundred times larger than the value in Region 1,
i.e. D2/D1 = 100. Also, we consider that Region 1 and Region 3 have the
same dispersivity and tracer velocity with values a1 = a3 = 0.1 and
b1 = b3 = 0.2 (notice that condition b1 N a1 is satised). These considera-
tions yield a2 = 0.1 and b2 = 20.
The tracer concentration as function of space for the xed times
tD = {0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0} is displayed in Fig. 3. In this gure the plot series
from (a) to (d) show the motion of a pulse injected at xD = 0 and
moving to the right, through Regions 1, 2 and 3 in sequence. In these
graphs the three-region model (solid line) and a one-region model
with the properties of Region 1 (broken gray line) are displayed. This
last curve represents the case appearing when the fault is not present
in the reservoir; which describes a slow pulse. The solid line shows
abrupt derivatives changes at interfaces located at xD = 0.1 and 0.9 due
to the imposed discontinuities in the tracer velocity and dispersion
coefcient. At short times, as that displayed in plot (a), the solid curve
is similar to the broken line curve; however, they become different as

4. Results

In this section we present the results of the tracer concentration as

function of space and time. We will treat four cases: a long and a short
fault length having low or high dispersion respectively. The sensitivity
of the tracer breakthrough curve to the model parameters is also
Fig. 4. Tracer breakthrough curves for a long fault having high dispersion a2 = 0.1 (solid
examined. To numerically evaluate the inverse Laplace transform, the line) and low dispersion a2 = 0.0001 (dotted line). Parameters correspond to those in
Stehfest algorithm was selected due to its efciency in comparison to Figs. 3 and 5 with xD = 1. Gray broken curve describes the case when the fault is not
other methods. present.
 M. Coronado, J. Ramrez-Sabag / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379 77

Fig. 5. Case II: High velocity and low dispersivity inside the fault. Tracer concentration prole for four times (a) to (d). Parameters are the same as in Fig. 3, except a2 = 0.0001.

Region 3 near the border due to tracer accumulation at this site since
tracer velocity in Region 2 is much higher than velocity in Region 3
(u2/u3 = 100). It should be remarked in Fig. 3 that due to mass con-
servation, the area below each of the curves (a) to (d) is equal.
The tracer breakthrough curve to be observed at xD = 1 is shown as
a solid black line in Fig. 4. The curve displays the standard asymmetric
bell shape with a relatively short transit time, without any straight-
forward evidence of the fault presence. A signature, such as a bump or
a derivate abrupt change, would be very helpful in recognizing the
presence of a fault. This is however not the case. Nevertheless, the
width and height of the three-region and the no-fault curves are very
different; the no-fault case is shown as a gray broken line in Fig. 4. Due
to mass conservation the area below these two curves is again the
same (dispersion ow gives zero net contribution to the cumulative
crossing tracer transport).
4.2. Case II: long fault with low dispersion
The dispersion coefcient in reservoirs is hard to be measured and
generally involves large uncertainties. In this case we analyze its
inuence by considering a dispersion coefcient 1000 times smaller
than the previous case, it means D2/D1 = 1/10. In examining this case
all parameters are kept the same as in Case I except a2, which con-
sequently is now given by a2 = 0.0001. The concentration prole in
space is displayed in Fig. 5. Due to the low dispersion in the fault, the
concentration gradient in Region 2 is almost null, resulting in the at
prole observed in Fig. 5. Furthermore, due to the large velocity in
Region 2 the concentration there is very low. The corresponding
breakthrough curve for xD = 1 is displayed in Fig. 4, as a black dotted
line. Due to the reduced dispersion, this curve is narrower, larger and
with a peak concentration arriving earlier than the solid black curve,

Fig. 6. Case III: Short fault with high velocity and high dispersivity. Tracer concentration prole for four (a) to (d) times given by tD = {0.3, 0.6, 1.5, 3}. Here d1 = d3 = 0.45, d2 = 0.1.
Parameters are the same as in Fig. 3.
78 M. Coronado, J. Ramrez-Sabag / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379
Fig. 7. Tracer breakthrough curves for a short fault having high dispersion a2 = 0.1 (solid
line) and low dispersion a2 = 0.0001 (dotted line). Parameters correspond to those in
Figs. 6 or 8 with xD = 1. Gray broken curve describes the case when the fault is not present.
which corresponds to the high dispersion case. It is to be observed that
the three order of magnitude change in the dispersion coefcient
yields only relatively small changes in the tracer breakthrough curve.
Thus, the curve sensitivity to the dispersion difference between the
fault and the homogeneous Regions 1 and 3 is low.
4.3. Case III: short fault with high dispersion
In this case we analyze the effect of the fault path length on the
tracer transport in comparison with the situation when the fault is not
present in the reservoir. We consider in this case a short fault length,
which represents only 10% of the total tracer path length. Since the
fault effects are localized in a small zone, an important similarity to the
case without fault is expected. We take the same parameter values as in
Case I (say D2/D1 = 100 and u2/u1 = 100), with d1 = d3 = 0.45 and d2 = 0.1.
The space concentration proles for the time series tD = {0.3, 0.6, 1.5, 3}
are displayed in Fig. 6. The selected time values are different from those
in Fig. 3 in order to adequately illustrate the pulse dynamics. The basic
features of the pulse behavior along the three regions are similar to
those described in Fig. 3, but slower in time. The tracer breakthrough
curve describing this case is shown in Fig. 7 as a solid black line. Due to
the small size of Region 2, this solid line is very similar to the broken
gray curve, which corresponds to a single-region having the char-
acteristics of region I (i.e. no fault present), as expected.
Fig. 8. Case IV: Short fault with high velocity and low dispersivity. Tracer concentration prole for four (a) to (d) times. Parameters are the same as in Fig. 6, except. a2 = 0.0001.
Fig. 9. Tracer breakthrough curves for a long fault with high dispersion for various
velocities in the fault. The cases u2/u1 = {1000,100,10} are shown as black broken, solid
and dotted lines respectively. Other parameters as in Fig. 3. The solid and gray broken
lines here are the same as in Fig. 4.
4.4. Case IV: short fault with low dispersion
The complementary case of a short fault length with low
dispersion is examined by considering the same parameter values as
in Case III, except a2, which is now a2 = 0.0001 (i.e. D2/D1 = 1/10). As
shown in Fig. 8, the tracer concentration space proles display the
basic dynamics features as those found in the Case II, but in a narrow
zone. The breakthrough curve is shown in Fig. 7 as a black dotted line.
4.5. Dependence on the uid velocity in the fault
To study the dependence of the tracer breakthrough curve on the
uid velocity in the fault we consider the same parameters chosen in
Case I (i.e. long fault path length d2 = 0.8, and high fault dispersion, D2/
D1 = 100), but modify the velocity ratio u2/u1 to take the values 10, 100
or 1000. We therefore set a1 = a3 = 0.1, a2 = 0.1, b1 = b3 = 0.2 and b2 =
{200, 20, 2}. The results are shown in Fig. 9, where the three b2-cases
are displayed as broken, solid and dotted lines respectively. For
reference, as in all previous graphs, the gray broken line corresponds
to the case without the fault. In Fig. 9 we observe the curve changes
appearing by increasing or reducing u1/u2 in one order of magnitude.
With respect to the case u2/u1 = 100 the u2/u1 = 1000 curve gets taller
and its maximum is reached at a slight shorter time. On the other side,
the curve for case u2/u1 = 10 becomes clearly smaller and remarkable
 M. Coronado, J. Ramrez-Sabag / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 62 (2008) 7379
broader than the u2/u1 = 100 case. Thus the tracer breakthrough curve
sensitivity to the parameter u2/u1 is important.
5. Summary and conclusions
An analytical model has been developed to describe inter-well
tracer pulse transport in a homogeneous reservoir having a con-
ductive fault. The model recognizes a common feature in oil elds, this
is that injection and production wells are regularly off the fault plane.
Therefore, the model involves three regions with different transport
properties, the fault being the central region with a large convective
velocity. The tracer transport is described in each one-dimensional
region by uniform advection and hydrodynamic dispersion. Boundary
conditions to conserve the tracer mass at interfaces are set. The model
can be employed in the interpretation of tracer tests and determina-
tion of formation properties. Some of the basic properties we theo-
retically could estimate from tracer tests, adding some supplementary
reservoir information, would be: fault transit length, distance from the
fault to the injection or production wells, effective channel cross-
section, dispersivity, and permeability. The existence of a fault in a
reservoir is regularly predicted by seismic exploration; nevertheless
conrming its presence and determining its conductive properties
requires dynamic characterization techniques, doubtless inter-well
tracer tests. A regular data feature indicating the presence of a con-
ductive fault is a short tracer transit time together with a narrow
concentration peak. The general breakthrough curve shape found
by this model shows the standard smooth asymmetric bell-shaped
contours of a typical single-medium tracer test. Thus, very different
media can yield similar breakthrough curve shapes. This is a well
recognized problem of tracer tests that makes heterogeneous porous
media characterization tough. The analysis of the conduction channel
properties should therefore rely on the standard tracer test data
interpretation techniques. To this purpose tracer transport models
should be tted to eld tracer breakthrough data, and hence, the
analytical model developed becomes meaningful. The amount of free
parameters in the model is relatively large; however they can be
reduced by considering similar properties for Region 1 and Region 3,
incorporating information from other reservoir characterization
information sources, and taking the sensitivity and relevance of the
parameters into account. In this work we have analyzed the tracer
breakthrough curve sensitivity to the parameters: (i) fault dispersivity,
(ii) fault length and (iii) fault uid velocity. The curve is importantly
affected by dispersivity; however as appears in Fig. 4, a three order of
magnitude change in the fault dispersivity is required to appreciate a
relevant curve shape modication. The fault length shows a
signicative inuence on the breakthrough curve, as can be inferred
from comparing Fig. 4 for an 80% relative fault length and Fig. 7 for a
10% relative fault length. The breakthrough curve also displays
important sensitivity to the fault uid velocity as reveled by Fig. 9.
Here curves with a value one order of magnitude above and below u2/
u1 = 100 are confronted. Finally, it is to be remarked that pulse dyna-
mics and tracer concentration prole along the path length display
some peculiar and clearly different characteristics for each case, as can
be observed in Figs. 3, 5, 6 and 8.
79
References
Al-Ghamdi, A., BinAkresh, S., Bubshait, S., 2003. Characterization of conductive faults
and fractures responsible for inter-reservoir communication in the Shedgum Leak
Area of the Giant Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia. SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show &
Conference, Baharain, 912 June 2003. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson,
TX. Paper SPE 81517.
Bense, V.F., Person, M.A., 2006. Faults as conduit-barrier system to uid ow in sili-
ciclastic sedimentary aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 42, W05421. doi:10.1029/2005
WR004480.
Bodin, J., Delay, F., de Marsily, G., 2003. Solute transport in a single fracture with negligible
matrix permeability: 2 mathematical formalism. Hydrogeol. J. 11, 434454.
Caine, J.S., Evans, J.P., Forster, C.B., 1996. Fault zone architecture and permeability struc-
ture. Geology 24 (11), 10251028.
Dugstad, O., Aurdal, T., Galdiga, C., Hundere, I., Torgersen, H.J., 1999. Application of tracers
to monitor uid ow in the Snorre eld: a eld study. SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, TX. Paper SPE 56427.
Fairley, J.P., Hinds, J.J., 2004. Field observation of uid circulation patterns in a normal
fault system. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, 14. doi:10.1029/2004GL0208 12, 2004 L19502.
Himmelbach, T., Htzl, H., Maloszewski, P., 1998. Solute transport processes in a highly
permeable fault zone of Lindau Fractured Rock Tests Site (Germany). Ground Water
36 (5), 792800.
Hoehn, E., Eikenberg, J., Fierz, T., Drost, W., Reichlmayr, E., 1998. The Grimsel migration
experiment: eld injection-withdrawal experiments in fractured rock with sorbing
tracers. J. Contam. Hydrol. 34, 85106.
Houseworth, J.E., 2004. An analytical model for solute transport in unsaturated ow
through a single fracture and porous rock matrix. Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, paper LBNL-56342. http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-56342.
Kelven, R., Hovring, O., Opdal, S.T., Bjornstad, T., Dugstad, O., Hundere, I.A., 1996. Non-
radioactive tracing of injection gas in reservoirs. Gas Techonology Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, 28April1 May, 1996. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson,
TX. Paper SPE 35651.
Kocabas, I., 2003. Modeling tracer ow in oil reservoirs containing high permeability
streaks. SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain, 58 April 2003.
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX. Paper SPE 81429.
Lange, A., Bouzian, J., Bourbiaux, B., 2005. Tracer-test simulation on discrete fracture
network models for the characterization of fractured reservoirs. SPE Europec/EAGE
Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, 1316 June. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, TX. Paper SPE 94344.
Lapcevic, P.A., Novakowski, K.S., Sudicky, E.A., 1999. The interpretation of a tracer ex-
periment conducted in a single fracture under conditions of natural groundwater
ow. Water Resour. Res. 35 (8), 23012312.
Maloszewski, P., Herrmann, A., Zuber, A., 1999. Interpretation of tracer tests performed in
fractured rock of the Lange Bramke basin, Germany. Hydrology Journal 7, 209218.
Mazurek, M., Jakob, A., Bossart, P., 2003. Solute transport in crystalline rocks at sp-I:
geological basis and model calibration. J. Contam. Hydrol. 61, 157174.
Nishikiori, N., Hayashida, Y., 2000. Investigation of uid conductive faults and modeling
of complex water inux in the Khafji Oil Field, Arabian Gulf. SPE Reservoir Eval. &
Eng. 3 (5), 401407.
Nitzberg, K.E., Broman, W.H., 1992. Improved reservoir characterization from water-
ood tracer movement, Northwest Fault Block, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. SPE Formation
Eval. 7 (3), 228234 SPE paper #20548.
Salve, R., Liu, H.-H., Cook, P., Czarnomski, A., 2004. Unsaturated ow and transport
through a fault embedded in fractured welded tuff. Water Resour. Res. 40, 112.
doi:10.1029/2003WR002571, 2004 W04210.
Stehfest, H., 1970. Numerical inversion of Laplace transforms. Communications of the
ACM 13 (1), 4749.
Toublanc, A., Renaud, S., Sylte, J.E., Clausen, C.K., Eiben, T., Ndland, G., 2005. Ekosk
eld: fracture permeability evaluation and implementation in the ow model.
Petrol. Geosci. 11, 321330.
Trocchio, T., 1990. Investigation of Fateh Mishrif uid conductive faults. J. Pet. Technol.
10381045 (August), SPE paper 17992.
Tseng, P.-H., Soll, W.E., Gable, C.W., Turin, H.J., Bussod, G.Y., 2002. Modeling unsaturated
ow and transport processes at the Busted Butte Field Test Site, Nevada. J. Contam.
Hydrol. 6263, 303318.
Zemel, B., 1995. Tracers in the oil eld. Elsevier, Amsterdam.