Geologic and Engineering Aspects

ARTICLE
of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Roberto Aguilera, Servipetrol Ltd., Calgary, Canada
I am convinced significant volumes of hydrocarbons reside
in naturally fractured reservoirs – particularly in fields aban-
doned because of improper testing and evaluation or because
the wells did not intersect the fractures.1 Rules of thumb and
naturally fractured reservoirs do not mix well. What appears to
work in one might fail miserably in the next. Consequently,
each naturally fractured reservoir (nfr) exploration play and
each nfr under production must be considered as a research
project by itself.
Geologic Aspects
Stearns2 defines a natural fracture as a macroscopic planar
discontinuity that results from stresses that exceed the rupture
strength of the rock. These natural fractures can have a positive,
neutral, or negative effect on fluid flow.3 In my opinion, virtually
all reservoirs contain at least some natural fractures. However, if
the effect of these fractures on fluid flow is negligible, the reser-
voir can be treated, from a geologic and reservoir engineering
perspective, as a “conventional” reservoir.
For reservoirs where the fractures have a positive or negative
effect on fluid flow, it is of paramount importance to have knowl-
edge of magnitude and direction of in-situ principal stresses;
azimuth, dip, spacing, and aperture of fractures; matrix and frac-
ture porosity, matrix and fracture permeability, and matrix and
fracture water saturation. These data help in calculations of how
the in-place hydrocarbons are distributed between matrix and
fractures, and the flow capacity of the wells.
determine magnitude and direction of in-situ principal stresses;
azimuth, dip, spacing, and if possible aperture of fractures.
Pore Classification
It is possible to make preliminary estimates of productive
characteristics of common reservoir porosity types following a
classification proposed by Coalson et al.4 In this classification,
porosity classes are defined first by the geometry of the pores, and
second by pore size. Included in the geometry are the following
general pore categories: intergranular, intercrystalline, vuggy, and
fracture. The combination of any of them can give origin to dual
and even multi-porosity behavior.5
The pore size can be recognized from different techniques,
including Winland4 r35 and Aguilera6 rp35 pore throat apertures.
Included in the pore size are megaporosity (r35>10 microns),
macroporosity (r35 between 2 and 10 microns), mesoporosity (r35
between 0.5 and 2 microns) and microporosity (r35 < 0.5 microns).
Martin et al.7 have indicated that megaports are capable of
flowing tens of thousands of barrels per day, macroports thou-
sands of barrels per day, mesoports hundreds of barrels of oil per
day, and microports tens of barrels per day. Figure 1 shows a
graph for estimating values of Rp35 for the matrix in naturally frac-
tured reservoirs. The graph follows the same format presented by
Martin et al.7 using Winland’s equation.

All naturally fractured reservoirs are not created equal. I am

not sure if I read the previous sentence somewhere, if I heard it
from somebody, or if I thought about it. Notwithstanding, I
believe it is a very accurate statement, which means that we have
to somehow classify and characterize the reservoir. This provides
an important link between the geophysical, geological and engi-
neering disciplines.

In addition to the fracture and matrix properties mentioned

above, I recommend (1) classifying the reservoir from a geologic
point of view keeping in mind that the fractures can be tectonic,
regional or contractional, (2) evaluating the pore system, (3) quan-
tifying the relative hydrocarbon storativity of matrix and frac-
tures, and (4) getting a good idea with respect to the
matrix/fracture interaction.

Geologic Classification

From a geologic point of view the fractures can be classified as

being tectonic (fold and/or fault related), regional, contractional
(diagenetic), and surface related1-3. Historically most hydrocarbon
production has been obtained from tectonic fractures, followed
by regional fractures and followed by contractional fractures. In
general, surface related fractures are not important from the point
of view of hydrocarbon production. When classifying fractures Figure 1. Aguilera Rp35 pore throat radii as a funcation of matrix porosity and perme-
ability.
Continued on Page 45
44 CSEG RECORDER February, 2003

Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Continued from Page 44
The vast majority of papers and books on this subject discuss
only fractures with apertures of a few microns. This is probably
because of very poor core recovery from reservoirs containing frac-
tures with much greater apertures. From laboratory work and
experience it has been found that nut shells and plastic materials
can stop circulation losses in fractures with apertures as large as
5000 microns. If in a given naturally fractured reservoir these mate-
rials cannot stop circulation losses the conclusion is reached that
the apertures are bigger than 5000 microns at reservoir depth. In
fact, secondary porosity apertures can actually reach cavern-size in
some instances. Thus the generalized assumption that fractures
cannot provide significant hydrocarbon storage is, in my opinion,
not valid.
Storage Classification
From a storage point of view, fractured reservoirs can be classi-
fied8,9 as being of Type A, B or C. Many reservoirs that would other-
wise be non-productive are commercial thanks to the presence of
natural fractures.
In reservoirs of Type A the bulk of the hydrocarbon storage is in
the matrix porosity and a small amount of storage is in the frac-
tures. The matrix typically has a very low permeability while the
natural fractures tend to have a much larger permeability. But there
are exceptions. For example, the matrix in the giant Saudi Arabian
Ghawar reservoir has very large porosities and permeabilities.10 In
this type of reservoir the fractures are a curse rather than a blessing
because they facilitate unwanted water channeling. In this
instance, efforts that integrate geologic information, 3D seismic
data, and transient pressure analysis are directed at avoiding
rather than intersecting the fractures.
In reservoirs of Type B approximately half the hydrocarbon
storage is in the matrix and half is in the fractures. The matrix is
tight and the fractures are much more permeable than the matrix.
In reservoirs of Type C all the hydrocarbon storage is in the frac-
tures with no contribution from the matrix. Thus in this instance
the fractures provide both the storage and the necessary perme-
ability to achieve commercial production.
There are many reservoirs with fractures of tectonic origin
where the primary porosity (matrix) tends to be occluded or has
extremely low permeability and consequently does not contribute
any hydrocarbon storage. In these cases, a large number of
microfractures might be present that play the role of “matrix”
porosity. This is due to the pervasiveness of tectonic fractures that
exist from a macro scale to the grain size scale (they are very
fractal). In this case the combination of micro and macrofractures
can lead to dual porosity behavior.
Matrix/Fracture Interaction
Cores provide an excellent source of direct information for
determining the kind of interaction that could be anticipated from
fractures and matrix. Consider different possibilities:5
No Secondary Mineralization. Good luck or a teaser? When
the natural fractures are open and have a negligible amount of
ARTICLE Cont’d
secondary mineralization the hydrocarbons move from the matrix
to the fractures in an unrestricted way.
How quickly the fluids move from matrix to fractures is
controlled by the amount of pressure drop in the fractures, and
matrix properties such as permeability, porosity and compress-
ibility, viscosity of the fluid flowing, and fracture spacing or size of
the matrix blocks. These kinds of fractures can provide very high
initial fluid rates. The major problem with this type of fractures is
that they might tend to close as the reservoir is depleted depending
on the in-situ stresses, the initial reservoir pressure and the reduc-
tion in pressure within the fractures. In these cases, fractures are
much more compressible than the host rock.
If the reservoir is initially overpressured the fracture closure can
be very significant leading to small hydrocarbon recovery, big
headaches and major financial losses.
If the reservoir is initially underpressured the fracture closure is
not as significant because most of the closure at reservoir depth has
already occurred. Ultimate fractional recoveries will be bigger than
in the previous case.
Some Secondary Mineralization. I think good luck! When
natural fractures have a certain amount of secondary
mineralization the fluid flow from matrix to fractures is somewhat
restricted. From the point of view of pressure behavior during well
testing this can be visualized as a natural skin within the reservoir
(not to be confused with mechanical skin around the wellbore
routinely calculated). Partial mineralization is a blessing in
disguise. In this case, the secondary minerals will act as a natural
proppant agent and fracture closure will be significantly reduced
(not completely stopped) even in overpressured reservoirs. This in
turn will lead to higher ultimate recoveries. The fracture closure
will be smaller in normally pressured reservoirs, and even smaller
in underpressured reservoirs.
Complete Secondary Mineralization. Bad Luck!! Even if there
is a lot of hydrocarbon within the reservoir, the ultimate recovery
will be low. The mineralized fractures will compartmentalize the
reservoir leading to very low ultimate recoveries.
Vuggy Fractures. They can have very large porosities that can
reach 100% in some intervals and several darcies of permeability.
Production can be several thousands of barrels per day if the vugs
are connected (touching vugs). Vuggy fractures present the
advantage that they do not close due to their rounded shape. Non-
connected vugs provide non-effective porosity and permeability.
Engineering Aspects
Engineering aspects deal primarily with quantitative evalua-
tion of naturally fractured reservoirs. This quantification links the
geophysical, geologic and engineering disciplines. Some key goals
are to estimate hydrocarbons-in-place, forecast production rates,
and improve ultimate economic recoveries.
Characterization of the naturally fractured reservoir and engi-
neering evaluations rely on direct and indirect sources of informa-
Continued on Page 46
February, 2003 CSEG RECORDER 45
ARTICLE Cont’d
Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Continued from Page 45
tion.9 The determination of flow (or hydraulic) units11 is an impor-
tant part of the characterization. Direct sources of information
include cores, drill cuttings, downhole photographs and videos of
the borehole. Indirect sources include outcrops, drilling history,
mud log, conventional and specialized well logs, seismic informa-
tion (preferentially 3D), well testing, inflatable packers, and
production history.
Direct Sources of Information
They are very powerful because direct sources permit “seeing”
the fractures categorically.
Cores. They represent the most important direct source of
information. I recommend to always budget the necessary funds to
core at least a few key wells. The successful study of a naturally
fractured core must start at the well site.12,13 The laboratory must be
selected carefully, followed by meetings with laboratory personnel,
and an inspection of the facilities where the experiments will be
conducted.14 Disruption of the fractured core must be minimized
by using double-tube core barrels, which have successfully
replaced rubber-sleeve coring methods. Disposable inner liners
made of aluminum or fiberglass can provide good coring results
because of their low friction coefficients and ability to prevent
jamming.13 In case of some disruption the core must be properly
fitted together and marked with scribe lines to make sure that it is
correctly laid out in the laboratory for fracture analysis.12 The core
should be preserved as best as possible, preferentially by wrapping
it in plastic and placing it in ziplock bags. This precaution helps to
prevent loss of reservoir fluids and/or core dehydration. In my
opinion, oriented cores are advisable, although there is a trend in
industry to orient cores with well log images (which are indirect
sources of information).
A modern comprehensive analysis should include at least the
following evaluations:14
• Fracture types description
• Grain density
• Petrophysical parameters m an n (m at simulated conditions of
net overburden)
• Whole core porosity and permeability (at room conditions and
some samples at simulated net overburden pressure)
• Routine core analysis
• Capillary pressures and relative permeabilities
• Wettability determination in a preserved core
• Imbibition recoveries if the rock proves to be water wet
• Mechanical testing (Poisson’s ratio, Young’ modulus, stress-
strain analysis, matrix and fracture compressibility)
• Thin section analysis
• SEM (scanning electron microscopy) analysis
• Epoxy impregnation
• Spectrometric gamma ray and sonic velocity
• Solubility
• Non-destructive permeability determinations with a pressure
decay profile permeameter
• Core scale pressure transient analysis15 and microsimulation of
the fractured core.16
Drill Cuttings. Many times natural fractures may not be
preserved in cuttings due to breakage along cuttings.
46 CSEG RECORDER February, 2003
Consequently, the reservoir might be naturally fractured even if
the cuttings do not show any fractures. However, there are
exceptions. Hews17 has indicated that there are instances where
cuttings can provide very useful information with respect to
fractures. He indicates, and I had the opportunity to see it, that
“with the samples wetted, internal textures including fractures and
brecciation are more apparent. Dry samples are best to see any
porosity that may be associated with a fracture plane.” Under these
circumstances it is advisable to examine the cuttings thinking in
terms of natural fractures. Crystals on the face of a fracture can be
indicative of very effective fracture porosity. Thin sections from
cuttings can also provide evidence of natural fractures. Cemented
microfractures in thin sections can be extensions of larger open
fractures.
Downhole Borehole Cameras. Photos and video tapes can
provide direct information regarding many features penetrated by
the borehole including natural fractures, faulting, bed boundaries,
hole size and hole shape. There are video cameras that have been
developed to examine vertical, slanted and horizontal wells. Air-
drilled, low pressure reservoirs are prime candidates for
application of video camera technology.18
Indirect Sources of Information
They include outcrops, drilling history, mud log, conventional
and specialized well logs, seismic information (preferentially 3D),
pressure data, inflatable packers, and production history.
Outcrops. There are essentially two schools of thought when it
comes to the evaluation of outcrops. The first one indicates that19
“using outcrop data to characterize the fracture pattern of a
reservoir is frustrated by the stress release which occurs as rocks
come to the surface” and that “outcrop data is unsuitable for
modelling reservoir fractures.” The second school of thought
indicates that outcrops, when properly evaluated, can provide a
significant amount of valuable information in exploration plays
and during the development of a reservoir. I strongly recommend
you to adhere to the second school of thought. A properly
conducted outcrop study can provide information on spacing,
connectivity and orientation of the fractures relative to the
structure and stratigraphy. If you are going to drill a horizontal
well, for example, the outcrop can help you determine the
optimum orientation of the well to maximize productivity.20
Drilling History. It contributes valuable information regarding
hydrocarbon shows, mud losses and penetration rates. Mud losses
might be associated with natural fractures, vugs, underground
caverns or induced fractures. Penetration rates can increase
significantly while drilling all types of secondary porosity.
Well Logs. Logs are powerful indicators of natural fractures in
some reservoirs. However, there is not a single log that is going to
work all the time. I have used the following logs in the past, mostly
from a qualitative point of view, to determine where the fractures
are located: sonic amplitude, variable intensity, vertical seismic
profiling, caliper, resistivity, Pe, borehole televiewer, dipmeter,
spontaneous potential, density correction curve, borehole
gravimeter, uranium index, temperature and noise logs. Details on
Continued on Page 47
 ARTICLE Cont’d
Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Continued from Page 46

these techniques are available in the literature of the various in addition to usually estimated parameters such as skin, radius of
service companies. investigation, extrapolated pressures, etc.

Quantitative analysis can be conducted from image logs to
determine fracture orientation, dip, spacing, connectivity, fracture
aperture and permeability. My experience with images for deter-
mining fracture orientation, dip and spacing is good. However, my
experience with calculated apertures and permeabilities is a mixed
bag. I recommend assigning value to these parameters only from a
relative point of view.
Production History. If from cores the permeability of a formation
is 0.1 md, and the well produces 1,000 bopd, it can be inferred that
the rate is the result of some type of secondary porosity, including
fractures. Premature water or gas breakthrough in secondary
recovery projects can also indicate the presence and strike of natural
fractures. To avoid these unpleasant surprises, it is advisable to
perform pressure interference tests early in the life of the reservoir.

Quantitative analysis can also be conducted for estimating frac-
ture porosity21 using dual porosity models, which are based on the
observation that the porosity exponent of the fractures (mf) should
be very close to 1.0. This is much smaller than the porosity expo-
nent of the matrix (mb). The porosity exponent of the dual porosity
system (matrix + fractures and/or connected vugs), m, varies
between mf and mb. The smaller the degree of fracturing, the
closer the value of m to mb. The larger the degree of fracturing, the
closer the value of m to mf. In the case of dual porosity systems
made out of matrix and non-connected (non-touching) vugs, the
value of m is larger than mb. Care must be exercised when using
dual porosity models, as the incorrect scaling of the matrix porosity
can lead to errors in the calculation of water saturation.21
Seismic Information. Significant advances have been
achieved in 3D seismic technology that allow in some cases
determination of fracture orientation, anisotropy and fracture
density22 and the type of fluid that could be present in the reservoir.
Under favorable conditions, this can be estimated using AVO
(amplitude vs. offset) and AVAZ
(amplitude vs. azimuth) interpretation
techniques.
Recovery Factors and Reserves
The optimum way of forecasting performance and recovery is
utilizing a reservoir simulator as long as the reservoir characterization
and the quality of the pressure and production data is good. Based on
my experience, it is reasonable to forecast twice the time of available
history. For example, if there are two years of good production and
pressure data, it is reasonable to forecast four years of production.
Compressibility
If the reservoir is composed by matrix and fractures, the
compressibility of the fractures is bigger than the compressibility of
the matrix. The relative difference between the two compressibili-
ties depends5 on various factors including the amount of
secondary mineralization within the fractures, the orientation of
the fractures and in-situ stresses, and if the reservoir is over-pres-
sured, normally pressured, or under-pressured.

Well Testing. This in an area that

has also seen significant advances in
the precision of the tools and the
interpretation software packages.
Modern formation testers can provide
vertical information that cannot be
detected by a standard test. Multiple
probes can show the presence or lack of
vertical interference in a wellbore.
Automatic type curve matching is
powerful but dangerous. To avoid
fiascos with automatic matching, it is
important to make sure that the
engineer is always on top of the
interpretation. Numerical 2D well
testing models using unstructured
Voronoi grids (PEBI) provide a
significant and necessary extension to
the more conventional Cartesian,
semilogarithmic and log-log derivative
crossplots.

A properly designed and super-

vised test can provide valuable infor- Figure 2. Chart for estimating fracture compressibility. MINER is the estimated percentage of secondary mineralization
mation including fracture permeability, in the fractures. RATIO is fracture porosity divided by the summation of fracture porosity and connected vug porosity.
fracture porosity, and fracture spacing (Source: Aguilera5)
Continued on Page 48

February, 2003 CSEG RECORDER 47

ARTICLE Cont’d
Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Continued from Page 47

Closing of the fractures once the reservoir goes on production
can be very significant in over-pressured reservoirs. This can lead
to huge declines in production rates. Fracture closure in under-
pressured reservoirs is less significant as most of the closure has
already occurred.
In a dual porosity system made out of macro and microfrac-
tures (and without any primary porosity) the macrofractures play
the role of “fractures” and the microfractures play the role of
“matrix.” In this case, there are instances in which the microfrac-
tures (matrix) can be more compressible than the macrofractures
(fractures). In other instances both compressibilities can be of the
same order of magnitude.
Although in general, percent hydrocarbon recoveries from
Type C reservoirs are larger than for Types A and B, the engineer
has to be careful because usually the amount of hydrocarbon-in-
place in Type C reservoirs is smaller.
Reserves
An excellent source24 regarding proved, probable and possible
oil and gas reserves is the Petroleum Society of CIM Monograph
No. 1 published in 1994. When it comes to naturally fractured
reservoirs, I recommend using statistical procedures to quantify
the uncertainty associated with hydrocarbons-in-place and
reserves.

Whenever possible, it is advisable to determine compressibili-
ties in the laboratory using rocks from our own reservoir. If this is
not available we have to rely on empirical correlations. Figure 2
shows a correlation5 that I have used with reasonable success for a
number years.
Ranges of Recovery
Each naturally fractured reservoir should be considered as a
research project by itself. As such it has to be studied carefully to
estimate recoveries. It is wise to remember that naturally fractured
reservoirs and rules of thumb do not mix well. What appears to
work in one reservoir might fail miserably in the next.
Tables 1 and 2 show some ranges of recoveries5,23 based on my
experience working with naturally fracture reservoirs worldwide
for about 30 years. These oil and gas recovery estimates are
presented for different recovery mechanisms and different types of
fractured reservoirs. They are no panaceas. Use them carefully and
only as order of magnitude indicators. There is no substitute for a
detailed study.
Most naturally fractured reservoirs I am familiar with are char-
acterized by low matrix porosities (less than 10%) and low matrix
permeabilities (less than 1 md). For these reservoir characteristics it
is difficult to place a reasonable certainty of volumetric estimates of
original hydrocarbons-in-place and reserves. As a consequence, I
recommend placing reserves from volumetric estimates in the
possible category. For matrix porosities larger than 10% and matrix
permeabilities larger than 1 md the reserves can be moved to the
probable category.
Early material balance calculations can provide estimates of
probable reserves. As the cumulative production increases and with
good quality pressure data (long flow and long shut-in times) the
material balance reserves can be moved into the proved category.
I place production decline estimates from short history in an
unproved category. Long production history leads to reasonable
estimates of proved oil reserves. I do not recommend decline
curves for estimating proved reserves of gas reservoirs unless the
wells are at a late stage of production where a constant surface
compression pressure is being utilized.

Reservoir Type Beware of water influx in naturally fractured gas reservoirs. A

Recovery Mechanism A B C well might be producing extremely well. But it is not unusual to see
Depletion Drive 10-20 20-30 30-35 that the gas rate goes to nothing once water reaches the wellbore.
Depletion Drive plus Gas Injection 15-25 25-30 30-40
Reservoir simulation, although imperfect, is the tool that in my
Depletion Drive plus Water Injection 20-35 25-40 40-50 opinion provides the most reliable source of information for esti-
Depletion Drive plus Water Inj plus Gas Inj 25-40 30-45 45-55 mating recoveries and proved reserves. A significant amount of
Gravity Segregation with Counterflow 40-50 50-60 >60 high quality data is required. The longer the production history the
Depletion Drive plus Water Drive 30-40 40-50 50-60 more reliable are the forecasted results.
Depletion Drive plus Gas cap 15-25 25-35 35-40
Early in the life of the reservoir when production history is
Depletion Drive Plus Gas cap plus Water Drive 35-45 45-55 55-65
short or non-existent, proved reserves can be estimated from well
Table 1. Typical oil recoveries from naturally fractured reservoirs as a percent of designed, well supervised interference tests using high precision
original oil in place (Source: Aguilera5) pressure gauges. The larger the number of wells involved in the
test the better. In addition to providing reserves, the test will give
Reservoir Type very useful information regarding anisotropy.
Recovery Mechanism A B C
Without Water Drive 70-80 80-90 >90 If the objective is estimating reserves by investigating both
With Moderate Water Drive 50-60 60-70 70-80 matrix and fractures, I do not recommend pulse tests with short
With Moderate Water Drive & Compression 20-30 30-40 40-50 flow and buildup periods. Long continuous flow times during the
interference test are required to properly investigate both matrix
With Water Strong Drive 15-25 25-35 35-45
and fractures.
Table 2. Typical gas recoveries from naturally fractured reservoirs as a percent of
original gas in place (Source: Aguilera5) Continued on Page 49

48 CSEG RECORDER February, 2003

ARTICLE Cont’d
Geologic and Engineering Aspects of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Continued from Page 48
If there is only one well in the naturally fractured reservoir, I
recommend a long flow period following the collection of a good
initial pressure. An estimate of the radius of investigation leads to a
volumetric estimate of hydrocarbons-in-place within the investi-
gated area. This requires a reasonable estimate of net pay, matrix and
fracture porosity, and matrix and fracture hydrocarbon saturation.
A Review — and a Look Ahead
Since my early days working with naturally fractured reser-
voirs in the early seventies, I have seen extraordinary advances in
the geophysical, geological and engineering fields. These advances
have led to improved estimates of recoveries and reserves. These
improvements will continue.
Over the next few years, I anticipate significant improvements
in seismic technology to better characterize anisotropy of naturally
fractured reservoirs.
There will be advances in the evaluation of whole cores and the
uncertainty associated with estimates of fracture compressibility
will be reduced.
Imaging logs will continue improving and this will lead to more
reasonable estimates of fracture parameters.
More, better and more realistic well testing and reservoir simu-
lation models will be developed. Simulation grids will be
improved. Unstructured Voronoi (PEBI) grids in 3D will become
standard features of well testing packages. Software “friendliness”
will be a big part of these models. Coupled fluid flow and rock
mechanics simulators that take into account normal and shear
stresses will become functional.
Hydrocarbon recoveries will continue increasing as more devi-
ated and horizontal wells are drilled underbalance to properly
intersect (or if desired avoid) vertical and high inclination natural
fractures. R
References
1. Aguilera, R.: Geologic Aspects of Naturally Fractured reservoirs, The Leading Edge
(December 1998), pp. 1667-1670.
2. Stearns, D. W.: AAPG Fractured Reservoirs School Notes, Great Falls, Montana (1982-
1994).
3. Nelson, R., Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, Contributions in
Petroleum geology and engineering, Vol. 1, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas
(1985).
4. Coalson, E. B., Hartmann, D. J., and Thomas, J. B.: Productive Characteristics of
Common Reservoir Porosity Types, Bulletin of the South Texas Geological Society, v. 15,
No. 6 (February 1985), pp. 35-51.
5. Aguilera, Roberto: Recovery Factors and Reserves on Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, Distinguished Authors Series (July
1999), p. 15-18.
6. Aguilera, R.: Incorporating Capillary Pressure, Pore Throat Aperture Radii, Height Above
Free Water Table, and Winland r35 Values on Pickett Plots, AAPG Bulletin, v. 86, no. 4
(April 2002), p. 605-624.
7. Martin, A. J. et al.: Characterization of Petrophysical Flow Units in Carbonate Reservoirs,
AAPG Bulletin, v. 83, no. 7 (May 1997), p. 734-759.
8. McNaughton, D. A. and Garb, F. A.: Finding and Evaluating Petroleum Accumulations
in Fractured Reservoir Rock, Exploration and Economics of the Petroleum Industry, v.
13, Matthew Bender & Company Inc. (1975).
9. Aguilera, R.: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, PennWell Books, Tulsa, Oklahoma
(1995), 521 p.
10. Al-Thawad F. et al.: Optimizing Horizontal Well Placement in the Faulted Ghawar Field
by Integrating Pressure Transient and 3D Seismic, SPE 62986 presented at the 2000 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in Dallas, Texas (October 1-4, 2000).
11. Aguilera, Roberto: Determination of Matrix Flow Units in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, paper 2002-157 presented at the Petroleum Society’s Canadian
International Petroleum Conference held in Calgary, Canada (June 11-13, 2002).
12. Bergosh, J. L. et al.: New Core Analysis Techniques for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
SPE paper 13653 presented at the California Regional Meeting Held in Bakersfield,
California (March 27-29), 1985.
13. Skopec, R. A.: Proper Coring and Wellsite Core Handling Procedures: The First Step
Towards Reliable Core Analysis, Journal of Petroleum Technology (April 1994) p. 280.
14. Aguilera, R.: Advances in the Study of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, The Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology (May 1993), vol.32, no. 5, pp. 24-26.
15. Kamath, J. et al.: Characterization of Core-Scale Heterogeneities Using Laboratory
Pressure Transients, SPE Formation Evaluation (September 1992), p. 219-227.
16. Au, A. D. and Aguilera, R.: Micro-simulation of Naturally Fractured Cores, Petroleum
Society of CIM paper 94-79 presented at the Annual Technical Conference in
Calgary, Canada (June 12-15, 1994).
17. Hews, Peter: Structural Features that can be Identified from Drill Cuttings,
Interpretations, Implications and Fracture Evaluation, Hara Consulting Ltd. Course
Manual (October 2000).
18. Overby, W. K. et al.: Analysis of Natural Fractures Observed by Borehole Video Camera
in a Horizontal Well, SPE 17660 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium
held in Dallas, Texas (June 13-15, 1988).
19. Akbar, M. et al.: Fractures in the Basement, Schlumberger Middle East Evaluation
Review, Number 14 (1993), p. 26.
20. Friedman, M. and McKiernan, D. E.: Extrapolation of Fracture Data from Outcrops of
the Austin Chalk in Texas to Corresponding Petroleum Reservoirs at Depth, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology (October 1995), p. 43.
21. Aguilera, M. S. and Aguilera, R.: Improved Models for Petrophysical Analysis of Dual
Porosity Reservoirs, Petrophysics (January-February 2003).
22. Gray, F. D. and Head, K. J.: Using 3D Seismic to Identify Variant Fracture Orientation
in the Manderson Field, SPE 60296, Denver, Colorado (March 2000).
23. Cronquist, C.: Estimation and Classification of Reserves of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and
Condensate, SPE, Richardson, Texas (2001), p. 150
24. Determination of Oil and Gas Reserves, Petroleum Society of CIM Monograph No. 1,
Calgary, Canada (1994).
Dr. Roberto Aguilera is president
of Servipetrol Ltd. and an Adjunct
Professor in the Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering Department
at the University of Calgary, where he
concentrates in teaching about the
theoretical and practical aspects of
naturally fractured reservoirs. He is a
petroleum engineering graduate from
the Universidad de America at Bogota, Colombia and
holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in Petroleum
Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. He has
presented his course on Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
and has rendered consulting services throughout the
world. He is a Distinguished Author of the Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, a recipient of the
Outstanding Service Award from the Petroleum Society of
CIM and a SPE Distinguished Lecturer on the subject of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs.
February, 2003 CSEG RECORDER 49