Fracture Intensity

Quantitative Fracture Analysis

Planar features are expressed by ellipses on borehole walls which are expressed as sine waves Steepness of ellipses reflect the dip magnitude and orientation Apparent strike and dip relate to amplitudes and inflections in sine waves
TD: 530 / 2700 W BOREHOLE
0 N 90 E 180 S 270 W 360 N

For straight hole: Dip magnitude is proportional to amplitude of sine wave Dip azimuth is located at minimum of sine wave

David Spain (1998)

UBI

FMI

UBI vs. FMI

UBI Shows
Topography

FMI Shows
Resistivity
Courtesy of Steve Hansen, Schlumberger

False-Color STAR Image

Oil well in granite.

RED: Acoustic amplitude

GREEN: Microtopography
: Resistivity BLUE

Open fractures are black

Green fracture is filled with somewhat hard, resistive, slightly erodible material.
Courtesy A. Lacazette

Depths in meters below arbitrary datum.

Average Fracture Intensity

Used with either core or image log data.

n x

Represents the average number of fractures per unit length along the observed interval
n is the number of fractures observed. x is the length of core or log interpreted. Avg. FI = n / x

Nelson (2005)

Along Hole Depth Fracture Intensity Curves

1. Fracture intensity, density, and spacing curves are created by many exploration and service companies using a variety of techniques. 2. Data generated does not generally assign a quantitative fracture intensity for the well. 3. What is generally missing is a statistical and analytical approach to the data making up that curve. 4. Various elements of this analysis are correlatable to different reservoir and field parameters.
Nelson (2005)

0 Fracture Intensity (FI) 0.7

Fracture Intensity Curve

A boxcar moving average calculation in spreadsheet form. Uses a 10 ft. averaging window and a 6 in. sampling interval. Value is the number of fractures per 6 in. as averaged from 20 samples over 10 ft. Times 2 to get number of fractures per ft. in that sample interval. Nelson (2005)

Measurement of Fracture Swarms in Horizontal Wells

Moving Avg. Fracture Intensity Curve Peak

Top

Base

Intensity Height =
Intensity

(Intensity x Height)

Width Length Along Hole

0.15

Nelson (2005)

Example of Spreadsheet-Generated Fracture Intensity Data

AH Depth, ft 14803.00 14803.50 14804.00 14804.50 14805.00 14805.50 14806.00 14806.50 14807.00 14807.50 14808.00 14808.50 14809.00 14809.50 14810.00 14810.50 14811.00 14811.50 14812.00 14812.50 14813.00 14813.50 14814.00 14814.50 14815.00 14815.50 14816.00 14816.50 14817.00 14817.50 Fracture % Intensity, # Samples Fractures #/0.5 ft Mean Maximum Median SD FIH Fractures Avg. FI Kurtosis Skewness >0.15 1 0.028 0.35 0 0.057 29.2 96 0.055 7.742 2.603 3.55 0 0 Fracture Intensity Curve for UD-502 (Hansen) 0 1 0 0.4 0.35 0 0.3 0 0.25 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.15 0.1 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 0 0.05 0 0 Depth, ft 0 0 0 0 Fracture Intensity Histogram for UD-502 (Hansen) 0 0 0 0 3325 0 0 2771 0 0 2217 0 0 1663 0 0 0 0 1109 0 0 555 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0 Fracture Intensity, #/0.5 ft 0 0 0 0
Fracture Intensity, #/0.5 ft 14700 14800 14900 15000 15100 15200 15300 15400 15500 15600 15700 15800 15900 16000 16100 16200 16300 16400 16500 16600
Frequency

Nelson (2005)

16700

Fracture Intensity Can Rank the Well by Fracture Control in a Field

Avg Fracture Intensity per Well Distribution

0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0

Average Fracture Intensity

(#/ft)

4
Well

Nelson (2005)

Fracture Intensity Can Discriminate Between Sectors in a Field Complex

Average Fracture Intensity by Field Sector

0.800

Average Fracture Intensity, #/m

0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000

Sector

6
Nelson (2005)

AFI #/ft
172000 General 174000 176000 178000 180000 182000 184000 186000 188000 190000 192000 194000 196000 198000

1116000

0.135 0.13 0.125 0.12 0.115 0.11 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02

1124000

Quantitative Fracture Intensity Mapping

182000 184000 186000 188000 190000 192000 194000 196000 198000

1124000 1122000

1122000

1118000

Mean FI #/0.5ft
1120000 1118000 1116000

1120000

General 174000 172000 0.145 0.14 0.135 0.13 0.125 0.12 0.115 0.11 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02

176000

178000

180000

1124000

1114000

1124000

1114000

1122000

1122000

1112000

1112000

1120000

1120000

1110000

1110000

1116000

FIH
178000 180000 182000 184000 186000 188000 190000 192000 194000 196000 198000
1124000 1122000 1120000

1118000

1118000

1108000

1108000

1116000

1106000

1106000

172000

174000

176000

1114000

1114000

1:110015
1108000

172000

174000

176000

178000

180000

182000

184000

186000

188000

190000

192000

194000

196000

198000
1118000

1120000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000m

General 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5

1104000

1104000

1124000

1112000

1112000

1102000

1102000

1122000

1110000

1110000

1100000

1100000

1108000 1106000

1118000

1106000

1116000

1116000

1104000

1104000

1114000

1114000

Cogollo_mean_FI_curve_ft_total
Country Scale

Venezuela
1112000

1:110015
Contour inc
1112000

1102000

Block

1102000

Urdaneta West
License Model name

0.005
User name

Michael.Poppelreiter
1110000

Date
1100000

1110000

1100000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000m Horizon name

06/12/2003
Signature

1:110015 172000 174000 176000 178000 180000 182000 184000 186000 188000 190000

192000

194000
1108000

Poppelreiter 196000

198000
1108000 1106000

1106000

1104000

1104000

Cogollo_FIH_over_15
Country Scale

Venezuela
1102000

1:110015
Contour inc
1102000

Block

Urdaneta West
License Model name

5
User name

Michael.Poppelreiter
Date
1100000 1100000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000m Horizon name

Nelson (2005)

06/12/2003
Signature 178000 180000 182000 184000 186000 188000 190000 192000 194000

1:110015 172000 174000 176000

Poppelreiter 196000

198000

Fracture Intensity Can Rank Fracture Effects by Reservoir Layer

Avg. Fracture Intensity for All Fractures in the Area (35 Km of BHI data)

1 2

Unit

3 4 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Average Fracture Intensity, #/m 0.5

Nelson (2005)

Fracture Intensity Logs in 3-d

(No azimuthal information included)

Nelson (2005)

Fracture Intensity Curves Can be Made for Various Types of Fractures in the Wellbore
Open Fracture Intensity vs Depth, DM-17h3
Fracture Intensity, #/0.5 m
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Open Fractures
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400

Depth, m

All Fracture Intensity vs Depth, DM-17h3

Fracture Intensity, #/0.5 m
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

All Fractures

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

AH Depth, m

Nelson (2005)

Comparison of Fracture Distribution Curves

# of Open Fractures per Sample Interval
0 1 2 3

Open Fracture Intensity, #/0.5m

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 0 1

BA Open Fracture Density, #/m

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

1,980

1,980

1980

Baker Atlas Fracture Density, Open Fractures, TG312BIS

Open Fracture Occurrence vs Depth, TG312BIS

Open Fracture Intensity vs Depth, TG312BIS

2,000

2,000

2000

2,020

2,020

2020

2,040

2,040

2040

Along Hole Depth, m

Along Hole Depth, m

Along Hole Depth, m

2,060

2,060

2060

2,080

2,080

2080

2,100

2,100

2100

2,120

2,120

2120

2,140

2,140

2140

Occurrence Plot

Boxcar Moving Avg. Curve (10m)

Inverse of Avg. Spacing Curve (4 Frac)

Fracture Intensity from UBI Interpretations

Strike & dip tadpoles of fractures

Fracture Intensity = # fractures per 6 log increment highlighted above an arbitrary cutoff value

15,750 Fault interpreted on UBI

15,843-48 high mud losses 15,855 reverse fault on UBI from fracture cluster & bed dip changes

Nelson (2005)

Quantitative Comparison of Fracture Intensity from Core- & FMI-based Interpretations

Fracture Intensity vs Distance along Well Bore, L-193 Core & FMI
Fracture Intensity, #/0.5 m
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

A way of validating BHI L-193 FMI Interpretations and of Core L-193 Calibrating Subsurface Intensities
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200

Depth along Well Bore, m

Nelson (2005)

Application of Various Fracture Intensity Parameters

AFI & MFI relates well to bulk production properties. Should be used in comparing wells within and between areas, in comparing different reservoirs and when correlating with cumulative production and EUR.

FIH relates to well rates.

Should be used when correlating with Kh, PI, max or initial rate, water-cut & wellbore skin.

FIC helps define where fluids exit and enter the wellbore. Should be used when correlating with mud losses, PLTs, and the position and properties of faults.
Nelson (2005)

Fracture Intensity Correlation to Drilling & Production Data

General cross-plots with fracture data often show scatter and poor correlation coefficients. Often details of plumbing or interconnectedness cause direct correlation issues. Better correlations occur by defining common domains and overlapping domains.
Nelson (2005)

Mapped Fracture Intensity Parameter Depicting Highly Fractured Areas

Meters of summed high intensity fracture swarms per well

Nelson (2005)

SHUAIBA PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

PI = 1.0 to 5.0 m3/Kpa PI = 0.1 to 1.0 m3/Kpa PI < 0.1 m3/Kpa

Moderately High PI Observed

Very High PI Observed

Morrison (2000)

Domains of High Drilling Losses

Total Losses 40 m3/hour 30 m3/hour

High Drilling Losses Observed

20 m3/hour 10 m3/hour

No Losses

Morrison (2000)

Static Modeling Options in Fractured Reservoir Simulation

Non-Discrete Fracture Models
Treats fractures via local matrix permeability multipliers in x, y & z and utilizes single porosity simulation.

Discrete Models
Places individual features with independent porosity & permeability in x, y & z. Deterministic Individual placement via detailed integration & mapping Stochastic
Statistical placement of features
Nelson (2005)

Swept zones from previous production.

Ways to Map Natural Fracture Effects in Reservoirs

Map Fracture Productivity Index (FPI = kh welltest / kh core analysis). Map a k multiplier needed to match well tests. Map PI (or IP) &/or Cumulative Production/Well & overlay on structure &/or fault map (if young wells, use EUR instead of Cum.). Map calculated drainage area/well (bubble map). Map vectors of high k directions between wells &/or azmuthal kmax/ kmin ratios. Map decline rate per well or time to dramatic change in decline rate (bubble map)

Lorsong et.al. (2000)

Fracture Productivity Index

kh welltest / kh core analysis
Total Matrix Matrix

After Belfield (2000)

Cumulative Production Bubble Map,

Anschutz Ranch East

Nugget Ss
As of 12/2000
Amoco Production Company
(a subsidiary of BP America, Inc.)

Anschutz Ranch East Unit Nugget Sandstone

Summit Co., Utah & Uinta Co., Wyoming

Cumulative Production through 12/2000 (boe)

Utah

Wyoming

Courtesy of Amoco

Calculated Drainage Radii Overlaying Fault Map

La Paz Field

Granite Reservoir

Nelson et.al. (1996)

Calculated Drainage Radii Overlaying Fault Map

La Paz Field

Carbonate Reservoir

Nelson et.al. (1996)

Fracture Systems Effect Gas Production Profiles in Devonian Shale Wells

Increasing connected fracture system

Bagnall & Ryan (1976)

A Highly Fractured Unit Can Drain Oil From Adjacent Layers Across Bedding Planes and to the Wellbore Much Like a Gravel Pack

A
High f, High So, Low K
Highly Fractured Layer Low f, Low So, High K

High f, High So, Low K

Vertical Well

A Highly Fractured Unit Can Drain Oil From Adjacent Layers Across Bedding Planes and to the Wellbore Much Like a Gravel Pack

A
High f, High So, Low K
Highly Fractured Layer Low f, Low So, High K

High f, High So, Low K

Horizontal Well

Secondary Recovery (Flood) Patterns Must Incorporate and Anticipate Reservoir Anisotropy To Be Effective

Nelson (2001)

Flood Front in a Homogeneous & Isotropic Matrix Reservoir

Line of Producers

Line of Injectors

Nelson (2001)

Flood Pattern With Parallel Natural Fractures

Line of Producers

Line of Injectors

Nelson (2001)

Line of Injectors

Short Circuit

Line of Injectors

Sweep of Producer/Injector Pairs Parallel to Fractures/Faults

Nelson (2001)

Fractures Cause Poor Sweep in Flood

Line of Producers

Line of Injectors

Nelson (2001)

Horizontal Injector

Horizontal Producer

Fractures

Sweep of Injectors/Producers Across Fractures/Faults

Nelson (2001)

Line Drive Flood Pattern Sweeping Across Fractures & Faults

Nelson (2001)