SPE 62939
Integrated Fractured Reservoir Modeling Using Both Discrete and Continuum
Approaches
Ahmed Ouenes, (RC)2, Lee J. Hartley, AEA Technology
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A new approach that combines the use of continuum and
discrete fracture modeling methods has been developed. The
approach provides the unique opportunity to constrain the
fractured models to all existing geologic, geophysical, and
engineering data, and hence derive conditioned discrete
fracture models. Such models exhibit greater reality, since the
spatial distribution of fractures reflects the underlying drivers
that control fracture creation and growth.
The modeling process is initiated by constructing continuous
fracture models that are able to capture the underlying
complex relationships that may exist between fracture
intensity (defined by static measures, such as fracture count, or
dynamic measures, such as hydrocarbon production), and
many possible geologic drivers (e.g. structure, thickness,
lithology, faults, porosity). Artificial intelligence tools are
used to correlate the multitude of geologic drivers with the
chosen measure of fracture intensity. The resulting continuous
fracture intensity models are then passed to a discrete fracture
network (DFN) method.
The current practice in DFN modeling is to assume fractures
are spatially distributed according to a stationary Poisson
process, simple clustering rules, or controlled by a single
geologic driver. All these approaches will in general be overly
simplistic and lead to unreliable predictions of fracture
distribution away from well locations. In contrast, the new
approach determines the number of fractures in each grid-
block, based on the value of the fracture intensity provided by
the continuous model. As a result, the discrete fracture models
honor all the geologic conditions reflected in the continuous
models and exhibit all the observed fracture features.
The conditioned DFN models are used to build a realistic and
detailed model of flow in discrete conduits. There are two
main areas where detailed discrete fracture models can be
used: (1) Upscaling of fracture properties (permeability,
porosity and s factor) for input into reservoir simulators; and
(2) Optimization of well-design, completion and operation
based on an understanding of the inter-well scale flows.
For accurate results, the full permeability tensor is calculated
for each grid-block based on flow calculations using
generalized linear boundary conditions. Inter-well flows are
analyzed in terms of the variability in flow paths,
characterized by distance and time traveled, through the
fracture network connecting injectors and producers.
Introduction
Many large oil and gas fields in the most productive regions
such as the Middle East, South America, and Southeast Asia
happen to be fractured. The exploration and development of
such reservoirs is a true challenge for many operators who do
not possess the tools and technology to completely understand
and predict the effects of fractures on the overall reservoir
behavior. Although many fractured reservoirs could be
developed economically, it is very common to see operators
abandoning these fields because of their inability to drill wells
that intercept fractures, and/or inability to estimate correctly
reservoir pressure during a pressure transient test. After many
years, if not decades, of missed opportunities, the petroleum
industry is realizing the need for better fractured reservoir
modeling tools.
The rock properties in a conventional reservoir depend
primarily on the deposition process that is typically a smooth,
and "linear" process. As a result of this continuous deposition
process, spatial correlations of key rock properties, such as
facies proportion and porosity, appear at different scales. This
geologic characteristic can be exploited mathematically using
geostatistical tools that lead to reliable reservoir models in
almost any depositional environment. For a conventional
reservoir deposition is the key process in the reservoir’s
2 AHMED OUENES, LEE J. HARTLEY
formation. For fractured reservoirs it is only the first. After
deposition, many events can perturb the geologic layers giving
rise to a far more complex and heterogeneous situation. In this
paper we are primarily interested in structural deformation due
to folding and faulting. Although there are other circumstances
that create fractures, we shall focus only on fractures related to
tectonics.
A schematic story of a fractured reservoir begins with
geologic beds with different ranges of thickness, and are
characterized by a heterogeneous lithology/facies distribution
along and across the layers. Subject to different tectonic
regimes, these heterogeneous layers experience different
magnitudes and directions of stress. Depending on the bed
thickness and the lithology/facies that exist at each point, as
well as the prevailing stress magnitudes and directions, the
rock will either fracture or resist by rearranging itself. The
actual process of fracturing is complex. However, by noting
the following important facts, progress in modeling fractured
reservoirs becomes possible:
1. Tectonic events act on geologic layers whose structure
(i.e. geologic drivers such as thickness and distribution of
lithology/facies) is spatially heterogeneous which can lead
to very heterogeneous distributions of 3D mechanical
properties.
2. The non-linear process of rock failure, and hence the
resulting fracture intensity, depends considerably on this
3D heterogeneous distribution of mechanical properties.
3. The geologic drivers are the result of the deposition
process and hence can be characterized by their spatial
structure.
These observations indicate that there is a relationship
between the observed fracture intensity at any location and a
series of geologic and geomechanical drivers at the same
location. It is tempting to say that finding this relationship is a
simple exercise in continuum mechanics. In that, given some
boundary and initial conditions, and a 3D distribution of
mechanical properties, then the well-known stress and strain
equations can be applied to compute the tectonic stresses in
the reservoir. The tectonic stresses and overburden stresses are
then combined and compared with failure criteria to determine
the fracture distribution. Unfortunately, this relationship is
neither simple nor universal and each fractured reservoir must
be treated separately. This paper will describe the framework
used to derive these relationships for any fractured reservoir.
This paper begins with a review of current techniques used to
model fractured reservoirs. Each of these techniques uses only
a single type of data. We argue the need for an integrated
approach that combines various forms of data, and an
explanation on how this is achieved. For illustration, an
application to a fractured carbonate reservoir is presented.
Fracture modeling techniques
Many modeling approaches are documented in the literature.
Most attempts to describe the fracture distribution were done
SPE 62939
by utilizing one source of static or dynamic data. The methods
fall under three categories: 1) models for reservoir engineers
who are interested in the bottom line which is the ability to
reproduce well performances, 2) models for geologists who
are interested in geometrically complex patterns of 3D fracture
planes, and finally 3) models derived from geomechanics.
Examples of these three categories are given below.
Inverse models. The main source of data in these
approaches1-2 is well performances (pressure or production).
The fractures are represented by their flow properties on a pre-
defined grid or lattice. The problem consists of finding the
distribution of fracture flow properties that best matches the
observed well performances. The initial distribution of the
fracture properties could benefit from some a priori geologic
knowledge, but has been rarely used in such approaches.
Discrete fracture networks (DFN). The main source of data
in this approach is image logs and what can be extracted from
a borehole. In contrast to the previous approach, where well
performance is a simple measurement, acquiring data from
cores and image logs for DFN modeling is a real challenge.
There is a large number of geologic papers describing the
problems related to core and image log interpretations, and we
highly recommend to the reader the Lorenz and Hill3 paper
that illustrates very well some of the difficulties in obtaining
basic fracture properties used as input in DFN modeling. Since
explicit fracture information is only available at the well
location, the data is formulated as a probabilistic
characterization of fracture properties and spatial distribution
away from the well. A number of unconditioned stochastic
realizations of discrete fracture planes are generated in the 3D
reservoir volume by a stationary Poisson process. The main
ideas related to this approach are discussed in Cowie et al.4
Since the spatial distribution of fractures away from the well
locations is uncertain, the resulting models lack "geologic"
meaning, and the upscaled fracture permeability have been
used with little success in layered sedimentary systems. For
the same reason, accuracy of the generated models is only
reliable in the near wellbore region, and the unconditioned
random filling of the interwell region limits the use of such
models beyond the near wellbore scale. This major drawback
will be alleviated with the new approach described in this
paper.
Geomechanical approaches. The main source of data used
in these approaches is the structural surface derived from
markers picked on well logs and/or from seismic reflectors.
There are many geomechanical approaches for modeling
fractured reservoirs varying from simple curvature analysis to
more complex systems where non-linear continuum
mechanics equations are solved numerically usually based on
the finite-element method.
Many authors5-7 have used curvature analysis with varying
degrees of success. Most of the successes have been obtained
on "homogeneous" reservoirs (small variation in bed thickness
SPE 62939 INTEGRATED FRACTURED RESERVOIR MODELING USING BOTH DISCRETE AND CONTINUUM APPROACHES
and lithology) that have undergone extensional deformation.
In such an idealistic situation, the curvature is proportional to
the strain and the curvature analysis could be sufficient.
Unfortunately, "homogeneous" reservoirs are rare and one has
to deal with a large number of changing reservoir properties in
most fractured reservoirs. To handle the real heterogeneity of
the reservoirs, numerical geomechanical models are used to
predict the strain distribution. Although strain does not
automatically mean fracture intensity, it can be considered as a
strong indicator. The basic idea is that the reservoir becomes
deformed from an initial undeformed plane state as some
lateral boundary conditions are applied. A major difficulty is
that the initial and boundary conditions of this problem are not
known and need to be guessed. Depending on the guess, the
final deformed structure is compared to the actual present day
one, and the guess is adjusted if there is a large disagreement.
This trial and error process is similar to the production history
matching in reservoir simulation and can be very tedious.
Heffer et al.8 introduced some geostatistical concepts in the
general continuum mechanics equations to derive a correlation
of displacements. Although the asymptotic behavior of this
correlation when r à 0 raises some serious questions, the
explicit formulation could be very useful to derive a
correlation for strain. Unfortunately, having an explicit
formulation for strain did not come free and a hefty price was
paid in the assumptions that were made. The most detrimental
assumption was the homogeneous elastic properties (i.e. a
"homogeneous" reservoir). As in the geomechanical
approaches, this method relies only on reservoir structure,
while very influential drivers such as lithology are ignored for
the sake of obtaining an explicit form for the correlation of
strain. This approach points again to the need for a true
integrated approach where all data could be used to reach a
better model.
Integrated Reservoir Modeling
An integrated reservoir modeling approach consists of a
collection of computational tools and methods that utilize
simultaneously, or sequentially different static and/or dynamic
data representing different reservoir responses at different
scales. The objective and prospect of an integrated reservoir
modeling approach is to reduce the uncertainties. To better
understand this concept, some examples are given below.
One of the first original integrated approaches was proposed
by de Marsily et al.9 using the concept of pilot points. Their
objective was to find a permeability model by using two types
of data: well performances and spatial correlations. To handle
the two types of data, two computational tools were used: an
optimization method to match well performances and estimate
the permeability at a limited number of locations, and a
geostatistical method to derive a full model, utilizing the
spatial correlation and the known well permeability values. In
this case, the integration process was made possible by the
combination of an optimization method and geostatistics.
Another good example is the use of a geostatistical framework
3
that has an abundant number of methods able to handle
different types of data. The most common example is the use
of seismic information as “soft” data when building geologic
models. This integration process can be achieved with
different methods ranging from simple co-kriging to more
sophisticated ones such as cloud transform techniques.10
This example illustrates the ability to integrate seismic
information directly in the geologic modeling using the
geostatistical framework.
When the need came to integrate more data, many authors
used global optimization methods such as simulated annealing
as a framework. Here, a model is derived by minimizing an
objective function that can contain a variety of static and
dynamic data. A large number of applications are discussed in
Ouenes et al.11 and show the flexibility of such an approach.
Reviewing these three examples shows that integration of data
in reservoir modeling requires a framework with appropriate
computational tools that are able to handle simultaneously, or
sequentially different types of data. The drawback of all three
modeling approaches discussed in the previous section is their
inability to provide an integration framework where various
data could be used to reduce the model uncertainties.
Integrated Fractured Reservoir Modeling
Starting from the simple observation that fracture intensity
depends on many geologic drivers (the most commonly
known being, structural setting, proximity to a fault, lithology
and thickness), it is imperative to find a framework where
these drivers could be easily incorporated in the fracture
modeling process. Furthermore, it is important to recognize
the complexity of the non-linear process of fracturing, which
means that any attempt to find a simple and explicit
relationship between drivers and fracture intensity may require
some limiting assumptions that are not acceptable. Given these
constraints, Ouenes et al.12 introduced a collection of artificial
intelligence tools to model fractured reservoirs. The approach
was successfully used on various fields and basins12-16. The
methodology is described in Ouenes,17 in this paper we limit
ourselves to a short summary.
Since there is a complex but undetermined relationship
between a large number of geologic drivers and fracture
intensity, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as
neural networks has great merit. Utilizing the available data at
well locations, one can let a neural network find the
underlying relationship, then use the derived model to predict
fracture intensity everywhere in the 3D reservoir volume.
Since this is a data driven approach, one must pay attention to
common pitfalls and take some precautions. In other words,
the successful use of AI tools is not simply a matter of
downloading a neural network from the World Wide Web. To
ensure that AI tools are applied efficiently and with integrity
to fractured reservoirs, the following issues must be addressed:
ranking the geologic drivers; optimizing the neural network
4 AHMED OUENES, LEE J. HARTLEY
architecture; a robust training algorithm; selecting efficiently
data for training; and creating a stochastic framework.
The neural network is an "equation maker" or a "complex
regression analysis tool" that takes several reservoir properties
(the inputs), and tries to correlate them with a fracture
intensity indicator (the output). The neural network is trained
using a set of wells where both the inputs and the output are
known to find the relation, or the "equation," between the
inputs and the output. Once this relation is found, the neural
network uses only the inputs available throughout the entire
reservoir volume, to predict the fracture intensity. In this
application, the neural network is used to find the
undetermined relationship that exists between the geologic
drivers and the fracture intensity. Hence, no a priori
knowledge about this relationship is required. Rather we let
the actual data direct us to the key drivers. This relationship is
then utilized for the key objective of estimating the fracture
intensity in the interwell regions.
As indicated earlier, it is important to notice that most of the
geologic drivers that control fracture intensity are related to
deposition, and are easily mapped in the entire 3D volume
using geostatistics. For example, by combining the use of
markers picked on well logs with a seismic reflector, one can
use the integration abilities of geostatistics to derive a very
accurate reservoir structure. This can be used to compute first
(slopes) and second (curvatures) structural derivatives in
different directions that can be used as geologic drivers, and
are potential indicators of fracture intensity.
Among all the geologic drivers, lithology/facies and porosity
play a major role in any fractured reservoir modeling
(Assuming a “homogeneous” reservoir will likely lead to a
completely misleading model). These two key drivers control
the mechanical rock properties that in their turn control the
rock failure and fracture intensity. For a given lithology, the
increase of porosity makes a rock more ductile. Conversely, a
reduction of a few percent in porosity can lead to many orders
of magnitude increase in fracture intensity. On the other hand,
a rock with just a few more percent of shale can become very
ductile and exhibit no fractures, or just a few more percent of
dolomite can lead to a completely fractured rock. These
simple well-known examples illustrate the importance of
porosity and lithology or facies proportions in fractured
reservoir modeling and any modeling effort must include these
reservoir properties as input. In addition to structural
derivatives, facies proportions, bed thickness and proximity to
a fault can play a major role in determining the fracture
intensity. Besides these well-known drivers, most fractured
reservoirs have some particular feature that needs to be
incorporated in the modeling in order to be complete.
The key concept in fractured reservoir modeling is that
different geologic drivers are dominant in different areas of
the reservoir. For example, if we consider two simple drivers
such as structural curvature and the percent of shale in the
SPE 62939
rock, and also assume that the fractures were created as a
result of some extensional deformation, we expect a location
with high curvature to contain a large number of fractures.
This “linear” thinking is wrong in a fractured reservoir
because many other factors have an influence on how many
fractures will be present. In this example, the percent of shale
contained in the rock will play a major role and beyond a
certain threshold value, (for example 45% shale), the rock will
be without fractures however high the curvature. When
realizing that there is a multitude of geologic drivers that
could affect fracturing, it is easy to imagine how complex the
non-linear relationship between drivers and fracture intensity
could be, and how illusive is the search for an explicit
analytical form. On the other hand, one has to remember the
reasons behind the development of AI tools such as neural
networks that were specifically designed for such complex
non-linear problems.
In addition to geologic drivers that played a role during
fracturing, one can use present day information such as
seismic amplitude, seismic impedance (a good indicator of
lithology), strain or stress 3D models, or even permeability
estimated by automatic history matching as illustrated in
Barman et al.18
Given all the potential geologic drivers and present day
fracture indicators, one has to choose the framework where the
integration of these data could be achieved.
Integrated Continuous Models
The framework required to correlate all of the geologic drivers
and present day fracture indicators is a continuous one.
Because most of the drivers are related to deposition we
assume that the reservoir acts as an equivalent continuum on
some scale, which is known as the representative elementary
volume (REV). The entire reservoir is discretized into
gridblocks whose size is dictated by the size of the REV. This
assumption is appropriate for geologic drivers related to
deposition, but could seem to neglect smaller fractures that
range from microfractures to joints. At this stage, one has to
remember the purpose of the fractured reservoir modeling
effort that is to understand the flow behavior and the overall
fracture network controlling it. There are two ways of looking
at this problem and achieving the objective stated above. First
the reservoir engineer point of view, and second the geologist
perspective.
There is a major conceptual difference between the two views.
On one hand, reservoir engineers recognize the fact that
fractured reservoir provide very little data that can be used for
modeling purposes. Hence, they settle for some average
property assigned to a certain volume. This is the same
approach used for more than a century with the use of Darcy
equation to describe flow in porous media. Although the
actual flow in a rock could be described by using the Navier-
Stokes equations, the lack of information on the detailed pore
structure required for the boundary conditions, have lead to
SPE 62939 INTEGRATED FRACTURED RESERVOIR MODELING USING BOTH DISCRETE AND CONTINUUM APPROACHES
the use of a REV over which average properties such as
permeability are defined. On the other hand, geologists believe
that a correct fracture model must contain the actual discrete
objects (fracture planes), although the amount of available
information could be completely inadequate due the difficulty
of intercepting fractures with the commonly used vertical
wells. There is no doubt that fractures exist at different scales
ranging from microfractures to joints, but what is often
neglected is the fact that getting reliable information about the
fracture characteristics at any scale is an art rather than a
science. Therefore, one cannot expect to achieve an
understanding of reservoir flow at the level of micro-fractures
if there are no means of measuring adequately all the
characteristics of these small features. Hence, we need to rise
at a higher scale where reliable measurements are possible and
meaningful. This discussion leads to the conclusion that the
definition of the REV is simply related to what we will
consider as fracture intensity for our modeling purposes.
When using image logs interpretations we can consider a
fracture intensity defined by the fracture count which
represents the number of fractures encountered in a REV that
is in the range of a few feet. There are many problems
associated with the use of fracture count as a fracture intensity
indicator. The main one being the lateral extent of this
information which is valid only in the near wellbore region
sometimes no more than few inches away. It is also common
to find fracture swarms dominated by a large number of
microfractures making fracture count difficult to quantify.
Finally, the issue of dynamic effects, often ignored during
image and core analysis, could lead to overestimated fracture
count because not all observed fractures contribute to
production. Despite all these problems, many geologists view
fracture count as the best indicator of fracture intensity, and
hence tend to underestimate the value of information
contained in production indicators.
When seeking fractured reservoir models that could help
understand the interwell region, it is imperative to find a
fracture intensity that could “see” farther than the few inches
around the wellbore. The production based indicators such as
productivity index (PI), transmissiblity (kh) estimated from
well test, and Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR), are some
of the examples that provide an average fracture intensity that
encompasses an area as big as the drainage radius. These
production based fracture intensity indicators that only seem
appropriate for 2D models, have been successfully used in 3D
modeling simply by allocating the single measurement along
the wellbore. Different means could be used to transform a
single kh or PI value into a vertical log, the most common
being the production logs or the φh allocation.
Once the fracture intensity is chosen it will represent the
output of the neural network. The inputs that could be related
to the fracture intensity are the geologic drivers (porosity,
permeability, lithology, facies proportion, bed thickness,
5
proximity to faults, etc.) and present day indicators (seismic,
stress, strain, etc), all of which can be obtained over the entire
reservoir volume by using appropriate geostatistical methods.
The search for the possible relationship that exist between the
important drivers and the chosen fracture intensity is a three
stage process described below:
Ranking the drivers. Prior to any modeling, appropriate
ranking methods must be used to analyze the effect of each
driver on the chosen fracture intensity. The engineer, or
geologist must check at this stage for the validity of the
ranking over the entire area of the study, and on specific
zones. For example, if the reservoir was under extensional
deformation, it is expected to see the curvatures rank high.
There are many benefits that can be derived from the ranking
exercise, the most notable one is to achieve a better
understanding of what the primary drivers are. There are also
computational benefits, whereas, low ranked drivers could
indicate that they have no effect on the fracture intensity and
therefore, they do not need to be included in the inputs.
Training and testing the models. Once the user has decided
on which drivers he would use in the modeling process, the set
of available data is divided into two subsets: a training set and
a testing set. Since this approach is done in a stochastic
framework, many realizations are needed. Each realization can
be derived by selecting randomly or according to some rule
the training set. The neural network modeling process consists
of adjusting some weights until the actual fracture intensity
matches the estimated ones. Once the matching process is
done, we can assume that a model was available, and could be
used for testing and cross-validation on the testing data set that
was not used during the training process. Depending on the
ability of the model to predict fracture intensity at testing
locations, the model could be kept for further use or discarded.
Fracture analysis and probability volumes. Since all the
drivers are available in the entire 3D reservoir volume, and a
relationship has been established between the drivers and the
fracture intensity, the application of the neural network to all
the gridblocks in the reservoir will lead to a 3D distribution of
fracture intensity. These models could be used to estimate
fracture directions, analyze fracture connectivity, serve as
input for dual porosity model parameters, and derive
probability maps. Given a large number of realizations, all of
which provide a good testing correlation coefficient, one could
construct a 3D probability volume that can be used for further
modeling using a discrete approach.
The role of DFN models
The Dual-Porosity Continuum (DPC) concept19, 20 is
commonly applied to fractured reservoirs. This idealizes the
reservoir in terms of an orthogonally connected fracture
system that penetrates a set of identical rectangular gridblocks
representing the matrix blocks and deliver fluid to the wells.
Each of the rectangular blocks may contain several matrix
6 AHMED OUENES, LEE J. HARTLEY
blocks allowing the problem to be scaled up if required. DPC
models are well suited to multiphase flow, and to models with
a large number of blocks. However, the simplified geometry
makes the choice of parameters that describe the
heterogeneous permeability and connectivity characteristics of
fractured reservoirs difficult. DFN models provide a more
natural framework in which models of fracture geometry and
the stochastic methods used to characterize sub-seismic
fractures can be applied. Equivalent continuum properties that
accurately capture the heterogeneity, anisotropy and
connectivity of the fracture system can be derived using
appropriate upscaling techniques on the DFN models. Hence,
the approach is to populate the reservoir volume with discrete
fractures, and then upscale the properties of the fracture
system for each grid block of an equivalent DPC model.
Constrained DFN models
Since the introduction of DFN models, there was a need for
constraining the realization to some geologic input. Attempts
have been made to control the fracture generation with some
indicator. However, these past attempts used a single geologic
driver and ignored the others, and most importantly did not
account for the complex interplay of the drivers as described
in the previous sections. This problem was solved by the use
of the continuous modeling approach described in the previous
section, which passes to the DFN the entire 3D reservoir
volume map of fracture intensity, or probability that can be
used as a spatial constraint. Therefore, all the geological
realism of a detailed geometrical representation of discrete
fractures at the near-well scale can be coupled with realistic
constraints on fracture distribution over the larger interwell-
and reservoir-scales.
Generating a DFN model. DFN modeling is based on the
stochastic approach, and hence the specific details of
individual fractures change between realizations. However, in
this approach each realization is constrained such that amount
of fracturing, fracture area per unit volume, in any given
gridblock is the same for each realization and is derived from
the continuous model. Additional parameters that describe the
properties of discrete fractures are required to generate a
model:
1) Fracture orientation derived from image logs or inferred
as an additional output of the neural network approach.
2) Fracture length distribution from image logs, seismic or
outcrop mappings. These data supply fracture length data
on very different scales leaving gaps in the length
distribution. A natural solution to this problem is to use a
power law distribution that provides a continuous model
between the various length-scales of fractures, and many
geologists21, 22 have demonstrated the validity of such a
model.
3) Fracture transmissivity (to calculate permeability) derived
from high-density production logs and calibrated against
interference and/or tracer tests.
4) Fracture aperture (to calculate porosity) calibrated against
tracer tests
SPE 62939
Different fracture sets can be constrained against different
fracture intensity maps related to different groups of geologic
drivers. For example, two-conjugate sets characterized by
geologic drivers associated with folding (e.g. curvature,
lithology, and porosity) can be combined with other sets
characterized by geologic drivers associated with deformation
zones around faults (e.g. proximity to fault).
Directional fracture permeability. It is desired to calculate
an effective permeability tensor that best represents the
behavior, in the environment of the surrounding network, of a
block within a DFN model. An effective permeability that
represents the block, not just at a point, is required, because
permeability is to be used for the corresponding block in a
discretized DPC model. It is important to determine
directional permeabilities, a tensor, not just the axial
components. This is more robust in cases with anisotropy,
which is common in fracture systems, where the dominant
flow connections are between adjacent sides of a block rather
than between opposite sides. To calculate the permeability of a
block, uniform pressure gradients are imposed in three
orthogonal directions across the boundaries of the block. The
pressure distribution and flows in the block are calculated by
discretizing each fracture into finite-elements. The total flow
through each face of the block is evaluated, and an effective
permeability tensor is fitted that gives the best overall match
through each face for the different gradient directions. The
self-consistency between DFN models and equivalent
continuum models has been demonstrated by Jackson et al.23.
Application
To illustrate this new approach, we will consider a 3D
example of a fractured carbonate reservoir. Like many
fractured reservoirs, the one considered had seen many
tectonic events, each leaving behind a complex fracture
network.
Because of a lack of image logs and core data, most of the
continuum modeling effort relied on the use of the
productivity index (PI) which was available at all the wells.
Hence, a large gridblock size of 200 m by 200 m was
considered for the continuous model. At each well location,
the single PI value was allocated along the borehole to create a
PI log. Within the considered 3D grid, a large number of
geologic drivers, and present-day indicators were available for
the modeling effort. Four major types of drivers were
available:
1) Geological drivers such as porosity, and the facies
proportion of three different facies.
2) Geomechanical drivers that include structural derivatives
and fault related information.
3) Geophysical drivers such as seismic impedance.
4) Stress related information such as effective permeability
estimated by automatic history matching as described in
Barman et al.18
Out of all the drivers, the ranking pointed to 4 major ones:
SPE 62939 INTEGRATED FRACTURED RESERVOIR MODELING USING BOTH DISCRETE AND CONTINUUM APPROACHES
percentage of a certain rock type, porosity, proximity to a fault
and structural derivatives along the present day horizontal
maximum stress direction. Using all the drivers as inputs, and
the PI as a fracture intensity indicator, a large number of
realizations (e.g. Fig. 1) were derived using the procedure
described earlier. Using a threshold value for the PI, a
probability volume was calculated from the 10 best
realizations that had the most accurate testing prediction. Both
a PI realization as well as the probability could be used as a
constraint for the DFN models.
For this application we will illustrate the use of both
stochastic, and deterministic continuum models. There are two
major types of fractures present in this field: 1) fractures
related to faults, and 2) fractures related to structural
deformation. To model the structural related fractures we will
use the continuous model (Fig. 1) derived by integrating all
the available geologic drivers pertaining to these fractures.
This continuous model is used as a constraint to produce
different DFN realizations (Fig. 2). Notice that the fracture
intensity in the DFN model Fig. 2 follows the information
provided by the integrated continuous model Fig. 1.
Since the fracture related to faults are mostly present in the
vicinity of the fault, we created a deterministic model (Fig. 3)
of proximity to fault that utilizes mostly the seismic
interpretation of the faults. This deterministic model will serve
as a constraint to derive a DFN representing the fault related
fractures (Fig. 4).
Given the two DFN models representing the different types of
fractures, we can build an integrated DFN model that merges
the two DFN models. The final DFN model (Figs. 5 and 6)
contains features from the fault related fractures as well as
fractures related to the structural deformation.
The resulting DFN model could be used for future reservoir
modeling and management. A direct benefit from such a
model is to study the fracture cluster (Fig. 7) around existing
wells, especially those injecting fluids in the reservoir.
Another benefit is the derivation of a fracture permeability 3D
model (Fig. 8) that can be used in dual-porosity reservoir
simulators. The resulting fracture permeability model shown
in (Fig. 8) was derived using the final DFN model shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. The dark red cells represent high fracture
permeability while the white cells represent low permeability.
Notice the resulting distribution of low fracture permeability
(the very specific shape) that is the result of the whole
integration process. It is unlikely that an unconstrained DFN
model will be able to delimit exactly such an area, which is the
main point that we have tried to convey throughout this paper.
Conclusions
1. The combination of continuous and discrete approaches in
fractured reservoir modeling provides many benefits
among them true data integration that reduces
7
uncertainties.
2. The new proposed integrated framework goes beyond
data integration and constitutes a platform for integrating
different disciplines (geologists, geophysicists and
engineers).
3. The use of artificial intelligence tools in continuous
models allows a rapid and efficient integration of
geophysical, geologic, and engineering data into fractured
reservoir models.
4. The use of continuous models as a constraint in building
DFN provides more realistic fractured reservoir models
that can then be used to estimate fracture permeabilities.
5. The proposed approach and the seamless data integration
process, including passing data from continuous to
discrete models, is readily available in ResFrac24 and
NAPSAC 25 .
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank: David Holton of AEA
Technology for useful discussions, and Arnfinn Morvik of
BSSI A/S, Bergen, Norway, for assistance on visualization.
References
1. Smith, R., Tan, T.: "Reservoir Characterization of a
Fractured Reservoir Using Automatic History Matching,"
paper SPE 25251 presented at the 1993 SPE Syposium on
Reservoir Simulation, Feb. 28- March 3.
2. Long, J., et al.:" Modeling Heterogeneous and Fractured
Reservoirs with Inverse Methods Based on Iterated
Function Systems," paper presented at the Third
International Reservoir Characterization Technical
Conference, Tulsa, OK, Nov. 3-5, 1991.
3. Lorenz, J. and Hill, R.: "Measurement and Analysis of
Fractures in Core," in Geological Studies Relevant to
Horizontal Drilling: Examples from Western North
America, Schmoker J., Coalson, E., Brown, C. (Eds.)
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1992.
4. Cowie, P., Knipe, R., and Main, I.:"Introduction to the
special issue," J. Structural Geology, Vol 18, Nos 2&3,
1996.
5. Harris, J., Taylor, G., Walper, J.: "Relation of
deformational structures in sedimentary rocks to regional
and local structure,” AAPG Bulletin, (1960) v. 44 p.
1853-1873.
6. Murray, G.: "Quantitative fracture study- Sanish Pool,
McKenzie County, North Dakota," AAPG Bulletin, (1968)
v. 52, no. 1, p.57-65.
7. Lisle J. L. :"Detection of zones of abnormal strains in
structures using Gaussian curvature analysis," AAPG
Bulletin, (1994) v. 78, no. 12, p. 1811-1819.
8. Heffer, K., King, P., and Jones, A.:"Fracture Modeling as
Part of Integrated Reservoir Characterization," paper SPE
53347 presented at the 1999 SPE Middle East Oil Show,
Feb. 20-23.
9. Marsily, G. (de), Lavedan, G., Boucher, M., and
8 AHMED OUENES, LEE J. HARTLEY SPE 62939

Fasanino, G.: “Interpretation of Interference Tests in a Naturally Fractured Reservoirs”. SPEJ, pp. 317-326,
Well Field Using Geostatistical Techniques to Fit the (1976).
Permeability Distribution in a Reservoir Model,” 21. Barton, C.C. and Larsen, E.: “Fractal geometry of two-
Geostatistics for Natural Resources Characterization, Part dimensional fracture networks at Yucca Mountains”. In
2, Verly G. (Eds.), Reidel D. Publishing Company, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Dordrecht (1987), 831-849. Fundamentals of rock joints, pp. 77-84, (Björkliden,
10. Bashore, W., Araktingi, U., Levy, M., and Scheweller, Sweden, 1985).
W.: “Importance of a Geological Framework and Seismic 22. Okubo, P. G. and Aki, K.: “Fractal geometry in the San
Data Integration for Reservoir Modeling and Subsequent Andreas fault system”. J. Geophys. Res., 92, pp. 345-355,
Fluid-Flow Predictions,” Stochastic Modeling and (1987).
Geostatistics, Principles, Methods, and case Studies, 23. Jackson, C.P., Hoch, A.R. and Todman, S.: “Self-
Yarus and Chambers (Eds.), AAPG Computer consistency of a heterogeneous continuum porous
Applications in Geology, No3, Tulsa, (1994) medium representation of a fractured medium”. Water
11. Ouenes, A. , Bhagavan, S., Bunge, P., and Travis, B.: Resour. Res. 36, No. 1, pp.189-202, (2000).
“Application of simulated annealing and other global 24. http://www.rc2.com/products/ResFrac.html
optimization methods to reservoir description: myths and 25. http://www.aeat-env.com/groundwater/napsac.htm
realities,” paper SPE 28415 presented at the 1994 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25-
28 Sept.
12. Ouenes, A., Richardson, S., Weiss, W.: “Fractured
reservoir characterization and performance forecasting
using geomechanics and artificial intelligence,” paper
SPE 30572 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 22-25.
13. Zellou, A., Ouenes, A., Banik, A.: “Improved naturally
fractured reservoir characterization using neural networks,
geomechanics and 3-D seismic,” paper SPE 30722
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Oct. 22-25
14. Basinski, P., Zellou, A., Ouenes, A.: “Prediction of Fig. 1: A 3D PI continuous model derived by
Mesaverde estimated ultimate recovery using structural integrating all drivers pertaining to fractures
curvatures and neural network analysis, San Juan Basin, related to structural deformation.
New Mexico USA,” paper presented at the 1997 AAPG
Rocky Mountain Section, Denver CO, Aug.
15. Ouenes, A., Zellou, A., Basinski, P., and Head, C.:"Use of
Neural Networks in Tight Gas Fractured Reservoirs:
Application to the San Juan Basin,’’ paper SPE 39965
presented at the 1998 Rocky Mountain Regional Low
Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver 5-8 April
16. Gauthier, B., Zellou, A., Toublanc, A., and Garcia,
M.:”Integrated Fractured Reservoir Characterization: a
Case Study in a North Africa Field,” paper SPE 65118
presented at the 2000 European Petroleum Conference,
Paris, Oct.24-25.
17. Ouenes, A.,: "Practical application of fuzzy logic and
neural networks to fractured reservoir characterization,"
Computers and Geosciences, Shahab Mohagegh (Ed.)
(2000) v. 26, no 7
18. Barman, N., Ouenes, A., Wang, M.:”Fractured Reservoir
Characterization Using Streamline Based Inverse
Modeling and Artificial Intelligence Tools,” paper SPE
63067 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Fig.2: Top view of 3D DFN model constrained to the
Conference and Exhibition, Oct. 1-4 above continuous model. Two fracture sets (red and
19. Warren, J.E. and Root, P. J.: “The Behaviour of Naturally green) are used to represent the fractures related to
Fractured Reservoirs”. SPEJ pp. 245-255, (1963). structural deformation.
20. Kazemi, H., Merrill, L.S., Porterfield, K.L. and Zeman,
P.R.: “Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in
SPE 62939 INTEGRATED FRACTURED RESERVOIR MODELING USING BOTH DISCRETE AND CONTINUUM APPROACHES 9

Fig.3: a 3D Deterministic continuous model to

represent proximity to a fault.

Fig. 5: Top view of the combined DFN model that

includes both fault related fractures as well as
structural deformation fractures.

Fig.4: Top view of the DFN model representing the

fault related fractures and constrained to the Fig. 6: Another view of the combined DFN model
continuous model shown above.
10 AHMED OUENES, LEE J. HARTLEY SPE 62939

Fig. 7: Cluster analysis around a particular well. Notice

the complexity of the cluster that will create a
complex flow network as a result of the interaction
between the different fractures related to different
tectonic events.

Fig. 8: Estimated fracture permeability resulting from

the combined DFN model. Dark red represents high
fracture permeabilities while white areas represent
a low permeability. Notice the specific shape and
location of the low fracture permeability that could
be easily interpreted by utilizing the ranking and
modeling results of the continuous models. In this
case, the low fracture permeability is a result of the
absence of fractures related to a change in facies in
these areas.