Fractured Reservoir Characterization in Brazilian Pre-Salt

Using Pressure Transient Analysis with a Probabilistic

Approach
C.K. Quispe Cerna1,2*, D.J. Schiozer1,2, G. Soares Oliveira1,2, A. De Lima 1,2, R. B. Z. L. Moreno2
1
Center for Petroleum Studies; 2 University of Campinas

Summary
The integration of dynamic data in the characterization of a fractured carbonate reservoir contributes to
uncertainties reduction and construction of more reliable simulation models. This paper proposes the inclusion of
pressure transient analysis with a probabilistic approach, in the characterization of a fractured carbonate reservoir
to generation and calibration of stochastic discrete fracture network (DFN) models. The process aims to reduce
uncertainty through the calibration of a set of realizations considering the well testing interpretation.

This work is supported by the pressure transient analysis performed in a reservoir located in Santos basin in
Brazil´s pre-salt. The proposed methodology integrates the well testing interpretation considering their
uncertainties, in the calibration and generation of stochastic sub-seismic fault models based on fractal hypothesis.
We choose some realizations considering the faults density that crosses the wellbore be consistent with the
borehole image logs and calibrated these realizations with the well testing. Later, we upscaled these models,
imported the properties into numerical simulation models, and compared their results with those obtained by the
simulation models generated before the proposed calibration.

Well test interpretation results showed characteristics of a fractured reservoir, presence of heterogeneities and
boundaries. The analytical model used in the well test interpretation is supported by the borehole image logs,
petrophysical data and seismic information. The inclusion of these results in the generation and calibration of
DFN models allows us to obtain simulation results consistent with the well tests history, improving simulation
models’ reliability. Likewise, this procedure reduced the high variability of the generated simulation models
compared to simulation models corresponding to DFN models not calibrated. Additionally, the interpretation
results enable us to estimate parameters of the reservoir and the well used in the numerical simulation model and
also improve the characterization of the reservoir.

The main contribution of this work relies on the integration of pressure transient analysis considering uncertainties
in its interpretation, into the calibration of stochastic DFN models. This methodology provides an alternative to
the DFN models calibration that tries to reduce the variability and generate simulation models consistent with
production data. Besides, we compare the DFN models calibrated by the proposed methodology with the DFN
models not calibrated, revealing positive and negative aspects of this methodology.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
1. Introduction

Characterization of naturally fractured carbonate reservoirs presents great challenges due to complex
pore structures and the anisotropic behavior of the fluid flow. The natural fracture systems can have a
variety of effects on the behavior of fluid flow that affect reservoir performance in the oil recovery
(Nelson, 2001). The extent to which they affect will depend on properties such as fracture density,
connectivity and conductivity, main concerns in this work. In turn, studies indicate that the recovery
factor is not only the result of reservoir characteristics, but also of the methods of production and
reservoir management (Allan and Sun, 2003). Thus, the appropriate analysis and understanding of this
type of reservoir has a relevant importance to the reservoir characterization and predicting reservoir
performance. In this scenario, the need to collect data in the early stage of field development should
be considered in order to predict the effects of fractures on reservoir fluid flow (Nelson, 2001).

An integrated evaluation of static and dynamic data is recommended to characterize reservoir

fractures and their impact on fluid flow behavior. Three aspects could be considered in this
assessment; the analysis of the fracture impact on flow, the transcription of information into a
simulation model and the capability of this model to represent the reservoir (Bourbiaux, 2010). Based
on these aspects, we could summarize the approach of this work in three main parts. Initially, this
work emphasizes the analysis of dynamic data of fractures system supported by static data into the
characterization of fractured carbonate reservoirs. Then, this assessment is used to calibrate the
stochastic discrete fracture network (DFN) models that allow us to build representative reservoir
models. Finally, the fidelity of these simulation models is evaluated through the comparison with well
test history. Static and dynamic data used correspond mainly to the borehole image logs,
petrophysical data, seismic information and well testing.

Well testing interpretation can provide valuable information regarding the reservoir properties,
connectivity, heterogeneities and boundaries in the reservoir and can also identify flow behaviors.
However, the choice of deterministic parameters obtained from the well testing interpretation can lead
to limitations. Likewise, studies pointed out that some analytical models may not be appropriate for
some fractured reservoirs (Egya et al. 2017; Kuchuk and Biryukov, 2013; Biryukov and Kuchuk,
2012). Hence, we have considered the results with a range of uncertainty based on the well testing
interpretation using different analytical models. These parameters and their uncertainties can be used
both in the construction and calibration of DFN models. This paper focuses on the calibration of DFN
models in order to reduce uncertainties in the simulation models.

Stochastic models based on fractal hypotheses are methods widely used to modeling fractures due to
random nature of the fractured system and data limitation (Chiles, 1988; Bonnet et al. 2001;
Tavakkoli et al. 2009). In this study, these stochastic models were used to generate sub-seismic faults
and to represent the fracture network in the reservoir. These faults can determine important
characteristics and affect reservoir flow behavior. Some known characteristics of these faults are the
preferential flow paths or geological fracture corridors, which are present in the Brazilian Pre-salt
(Johan and Monteiro, 2016). The fracture corridors are continuous narrow zones closely spaced
extending laterally in the order of meters and sometimes several kilometers. The fracture corridors can
have an important impact in the field productivity and recovery (Bockel-Rebelle et al. 2004). In turn,
these can be difficult to predict because they are invisible on both seismic images and well logs
(Verscheure et al. 2010), so these need to be constrained with dynamic and production data. The
methodology to characterize and subsequently generate seismic and sub-seismic faults with stochastic
algorithm used in this work was explained by Lima et al. (2019).

Once the sub-seismic faults were characterized and represented in an initial DFN model, which was
generated based on fractal method, the common procedure is to use dynamic data such as the well
testing interpretation to calibrate this DFN model. Following, the generation of various DFN models
is performed based on the calibrated DFN model and its uncertain parameters, then, these models are
upscaled to simulation model grid (in this work, this procedure was also performed and compared
with the proposed method). However, when we compared parameters such as the bottom hole

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
pressure (BHP) obtained from the simulation models with the well test history, a high variability in
the pressure behavior was identified in various simulation models. Hence, we elaborated an
alternative methodology that includes the selection of some generated DFN models and the calibration
of each one of them using the well testing interpretation results with a range of uncertainty. Then,
these calibrated DFN models are upscaled to simulation model grid. This methodology improves the
reliability of the simulation models and allows us to obtain simulation results consistent with the well
test history data. The variability in the pressure behavior of the simulation models was reduced
compared to simulation models corresponding to DFN models generated based in an only calibrated
DFN model.

2. Method and Theory

The development of this work includes the following steps: (1) Interpretation of well tests (2)
Selection of stochastic DFN models to be calibrated, (3) Calibration of each one of these realizations
with the well testing interpretation results, (4) Upscaling process to the simulation model grid using
the Oda method (1985), (5) Numerical simulation of each one of the models and (6) Comparison of
their results with those obtained by the simulation models generated before the proposed calibration.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the proposed methodology.

Figure 1 Flowchart summarizing the development of this work

2.1. Well testing interpretation

One of the most traditional methods for the interpretation of naturally fractured reservoirs is the dual-
porosity analytical model. This model was formulated by Barenblatt et al. (1960) and developed by
Warren and Root (1963). This model assumes a reservoir not homogeneous with matrix blocks with
high volume of hydrocarbon stored and low permeability connected by natural fractures of much
lower volume of hydrocarbon stored and high permeability. The fluid in matrix blocks cannot flow to
the well directly, the fluid is stored in the matrix blocks and then the fluid flows to the well through
the fractures system. This model describes two variables that control the matrix-fracture system, the
storativity or capacity ratio (ω), represented by Eq. 1, which indicates the fraction of fluids stored in
the fracture system and the interporosity flow parameter (λ), represented by Eq. 2, which characterizes
the ability of the matrix blocks to flow into the fracture system.

(∅𝑐𝑇 )𝑓
𝜔= Eq. 1
(∅𝑐𝑇 )𝑓 + (∅𝑐𝑇 )𝑚
𝑘𝑚
𝜆 = α𝑟𝑤2 Eq. 2
𝑘𝑓+𝑚

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
where: Ø, k, CT, α and rw represent the porosity, permeability, total compressibility, a shape factor
(which depends on the size and geometry of the matrix) and well radius, respectively. The subscripts f
and m represent the fracture and matrix, respectively. Mainly in cases of early field development, all
the information of the reservoir should be verified before diagnosing a reservoir as a naturally
fractured reservoir (seismic, petrophysical, geological, PLT information, BHI logs, RFT data among
other).

Despite of being widely used, naturally fractured reservoirs not always show the typical answer of
dual-porosity models. Many times, the wellbore storage effects can hide the sharp dip in the pressure
derivative, effect due to the support of pressure by the contribution of fluid from the matrix blocks
into the fracture system. In other cases, the reservoir does not have high permeability contrast between
layers or sufficient connectivity between the fracture network system with the wellbore. Various
studies have exposed limitations and suggested new ways for well testing interpretation in naturally
fractured reservoirs, also concluding that reservoirs can be naturally fractured even if the sharp dip in
the pressure derivative is absent (Egya et al. 2017; Kuchuk and Biryukov, 2014). Single-porosity
models, dual permeability models and discretely faulted and fractured systems (Biryukow and
Kuchuk, 2012) are also used to analyze the pressure transient behavior in naturally fractured reservoir.

The use of pressure transient analysis is also recognized to the characterization of naturally fractures
reservoirs, getting to be used to pre-condition DFN models (Lamine et al. 2017; Richard et al. 2017).
In this work, we have used the results of the pressure transient analysis of a well test to calibrate the
conductivity of the stochastic DFN models with an alternative methodology. In the well test
interpretation, it has been possible to identify the conventional signature of a dual-porosity model in
the pressure derivative. Hence, we have performed the well testing interpretation using this analytical
model, supported by static and dynamic information such as seismic, petrophysical, BHI logs and
PLT data. Additionally, we believe it is important to consider a range of uncertainties in the results of
the well testing interpretation to the calibration of stochastic DFN models.

2.2. Selection of stochastic DFN models to be calibrated

The calibration of a DFN model is performed with the objective of reducing uncertainties in the
simulation model, in which the fracture properties are upscaled. However, a single calibrated DFN
model is not enough to conditionate the reservoir simulation model due to the multiple combinations
of possible attributes used to calibrate this model and the large number of uncertainties related to
characterization and interpretation of faults. So, a probabilistic approach usually is adopted and a set
of DFN models are generated to represent the possible behavior of fracture network system.

The proposed method is an alternative procedure to the calibration of only the initial DFN model. This
methodology includes a second calibration, the calibration of each DFN realization after being
generated. This additional calibration was adopted due to the high variability in the pressure in the
simulation models with respect to the measured pressure from the well test, as can be observed in
Figure 2.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
 Figure 2 BHP of all simulation models before the calibration of each DFN model (proposed
methodology). Simulated pressure and measured pressure from the well test

The steps since the creation of an initial DFN model until the obtention of DFN models calibrated and
upscaled are represented in Figure 3. In this work, we focus in the last three steps, the selection of
DFN models, the calibration of these models and finally, the upscaling to the simulation model grid.

Figure 3 Scheme representing and indicating the process of obtention of DFN models calibrated.
The last three steps indicate the focus of this work

Once we have reservoir dynamic data to calibrate the stochastic DFN models, we must select which
models need to be calibrated from a set of models. With this selection, we mainly achieve: (1) discard
the simulation models with a high mismatch with respect to the real data (imposing the degree of
mismatch accepted) and (2) reduce the computational time focusing only in the models not calibrated.
If we had a high difference between the observed data and simulated data in the discarded models, it
would be advisable to recharacterize the parameters used for the generation of the realizations (which
were transformed in DFN models) and/or to review the characterization of the sub-seismic faults.

The selection of models was through the measurement of the history matching quality of the
simulation models in which the stochastic DFN models were upscaled. The indicator used to measure
the history matching quality was the NQDS (normalized quadratic distance with signal). This
indicator was introduced by Avansi et al. (2015) and used by different authors in history matching
processes (Maschio and Schiozer, 2016; Correia, 2017; Almeida et al. 2018).

The NQDS indicator defined in Eq. 3 calculates the limits of an interval in which will be the models
accepted according to the limits of tolerance previously established. This indicator is useful to
determine if the distribution of models is centered around the observed data. A slight increase in this
range makes the acceptance criteria less strict. A specific analysis for each case before defining the
limits of tolerance and constants is recommended.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
 𝑄𝐷𝑆
𝑁𝑄𝐷𝑆 = Eq. 3
𝐴𝑄𝐷
where:
𝑁𝑜𝑏𝑠
𝑆𝐷
𝑄𝐷𝑆 = ∑ (𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑖 − 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖 )2 Eq. 4
|𝑆𝐷|
𝑖=1
𝑁𝑜𝑏𝑠

𝐴𝑄𝐷 = ∑ (𝑇𝑜𝑙 × 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖 + 𝐶)2 Eq. 5

𝑖=1
𝑁𝑜𝑏𝑠

𝑆𝐷 = ∑ (𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑖 − 𝐻𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖 ) Eq. 6

𝑖=1

where QDS is the quadratic distance with signal represented by the Eq. 4, AQD is the Acceptable
Quadratic Distance represented by the Eq. 5, SD is the Simple Distance represented by the Eq. 6, Simi
and Histi are the simulated and observed data calculate at the time i, respectively, Tol is an acceptance
tolerance in relation to observed data (percentage), C is a constant added to the production data to
avoid a division by zero and Nobs are the observed data.

For the development of step 2, we need to have the simulation models corresponding to DFN models
not calibrated. So, in this work, we first need to do the upscaling of all DFN models to simulation
model grid and then simulate these models. Following, we could select the DFN models to be
calibrated.

2.3. Calibration of stochastic DFN models

The calibration of stochastic DFN models was performed through AKC method (Automated KH
Calibration) used by the commercial software FracaFlow (Beicip). This method is based on genetic
algorithm described by D.E. Goldberg (1989), which allows us to find the best fault and fractures
parameters to fit the measured flow capacity (permeability-thickness product calculated in the well
testing interpretation). The problem is an inverse problem, which seeks to minimize the objective
function that is the difference between the measure and simulated flow capacity. As parameters of the
fault and fractures, we refer mainly to the conductivity, C, and the hydraulic aperture, e. The
conductivity is defined by the Eq. 7.

𝑒3
𝐶= Eq. 7
12

In the genetic algorithm process during the calibration, the sequence of a step to other can be
summarized in three operations (Fracaflow-Beicip, 2019): (1) selection of the best solutions based on
the optimization criterion (minimize the objective function), (2) according the probability entered by
the user, two identical parameters types from the two solutions have that probability of being
transformed into two new parameters that will replace the old parameters in the new generation. (3)
evolution of new genetic configurations through mutation or modification of some parameters. In the
case of having various wells in the field, the objective function is equal to the weighted sum of the
relative error when calculating the flow capacity of each well, as described in Eq. 8.

𝑖 𝑖 2
𝑤𝑖 (𝑘ℎ𝑒𝑞 − 𝑘ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑠 ) × 100
𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 2 Eq. 8
𝑖
∑𝑖 𝑤𝑖 (𝑘ℎ𝑒𝑞 𝑖
− 𝑘ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑠 )

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
where: wi is the weight that we give to the conductivity of each well, kheq and khmes represent the
equivalent and the measured flow capacity of each well respectively, and i represent the number of
wells.

The conductivity parameter is optimized through a multiplier factor (M). First, the multiplier factor is
optimized and then multiplied by the initial conductivity to obtain the optimized conductivity (Copt),
as shown in Eq. 9.

𝐶 𝑂𝑝𝑡 = 𝑀 × 𝐶 Eq. 9

At each step, an analytical upscaling is performed around each well to calculate its flow capacity,
while the fracture model parameters change until obtaining the combination of parameters that fits
best the flow capacity. Analytical upscaling was introduced by Oda (1985), who proposed a method to
evaluate the effective permeability of a rock volume through the fracture network. The effective
permeability is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the effective permeability tensors of the fractures
related to a probability distribution function. The pressure gradient located in the fracture is assumed
to equal to the pressure gradient in the reservoir, so the flow effects are neglected and the effective
permeabilities are assumed to be linearly proportional to changes in density. The calculation of the
effective permeability is described by Eq. 10:

𝑁𝐵𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑁𝐵𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐
1
𝐾𝑒𝑞 = 𝐾𝑓 = ( ∑ ̅𝑓,𝑠 )
∑ 𝑉𝑓,𝑠 𝑒 2 𝑁 Eq. 10
𝑉𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙
𝑆=1 𝑓=1

where: Vcell is the block volume, NBsets is the number of fractures sets, NBFrac is the fractures number
by set, Vf,s is the fractures volume, Nf,s is the projection of the matrix related to the pressure gradient
of the block in the fracture plane. The effective permeability can be also described by Eq. 11 in terms
of the conductivity.

𝑁𝐵𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑁𝐵𝐹𝑟𝑎𝑐
1 2⁄
𝐾𝑒𝑞 = 𝐾𝑓 = ( ∑ ∑ 𝑉𝑓,𝑠 (𝑐𝑡𝑒 × 𝐶 ̅𝑓,𝑠 )
3) 𝑁 Eq. 11
𝑉𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙
𝑆=1 𝑓=1

After the calibration, the effective permeability optimized (KeqOpt) can be represented by the Eq. 12.
2⁄
𝐾𝑒𝑞 𝑂𝑝𝑡 = 𝐾𝑒𝑞 𝑀 3 Eq. 12

2.4. Analytical Upscaling

The representation of fractures and faults on discrete models in the simulation model is
computationally infeasible. Hence, the fractures and faults equivalents properties should be computed
for the full field and transferred to the grid of simulation model through an upscaling process. The
upscaling can be developed through two technics, numerical or analytical. Delorme et al. (2008)
proposed a technic to the choice between both methods, based on a fracture network connectivity
index; and also proposed a combined analytical/numerical upscaling methodology. In this paper, we
have chosen the analytical method to upscale the sub-seismic faults equivalents properties
(permeability tensor, equivalent matrix block size and fracture porosity) to the grid cell scale.

The analytical method is the most common for discrete fracture network and computationally faster
than the numerical approach. However, its validity depends on a high density and connectivity of the
conductive fracture network and could be less effective in the representation of the physical
phenomena (Correia, 2014). Firstly, we performed the upscaling of all DFN models not calibrated in
the simulation models grids and then performed their numerical simulation, in order to have a

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
reference data. Following, as part of the proposed methodology, we performed the upscaling of only
the calibrated DFN models.

2.5. Numerical Simulation and Comparison with Well Test History

After running each simulation model, the simulated pressure is compared with the well test history
and with the simulation models results corresponding to the DFN models before the proposed
calibration. We must evidence a reduction of the variability of the simulation models.

Stop criterion:

We start the calibration of each DFN model considering the KH obtained from the well test
interpretation using a dual-porosity model. In some cases, we could reduce the variability of the
simulation models and the process could be concluded. However, in some cases we could maintain a
mismatch in relation to the well test history. In these cases, we should go back to the calibration of the
DFN model (step 3), as shown in Fig. 1, and to choose and consider another flow capacity to perform
the calibration. The flow capacity is chosen from the estimated value range of KH.

If, despite this procedure, the mismatch continues, the characterization of the sub-seismic faults
and/or the parameters used to generate the DFN model could be reviewed.

3. Application

The studied reservoir is located in Santos basin in Brazil´s pre-salt. This reservoir is a very
heterogeneous carbonate reservoir, in the matrix and fracture, both horizontally and vertically. The
matrix presents an oil storage contribution, with significant permeability in the region of the mounds
and less permeability as it gets away from these. On the other hand, sub-seismic and large-scale faults
represent the main medium for fluid flow, contributing to reservoir connectivity and field
productivity. In general, this kind of reservoir presents preferential flow paths or fracture corridors
and a permeable matrix with anisotropy caused by these corridors. Also, karst systems are present in
this reservoir (Correia, 2019; Cazarin et al. 2016).

The field is in the early stage of development. As dynamic data we have a DST (Drilling Stem Test)
performed in one of the wells located in the center of an anticlinal structure and a PLT performed
during the well test, without any production history of the field. Seismic data, core data, BHI logs and
PLT data were included in the development of this study. Additionally, we had a discrete fracture
network with sub-seismic faults to represent and model the fracture network system in the reservoir,
which had been previously calibrated with dynamic data (well testing interpretation and PLT data).
Also, from this initial DFN model, various realizations had been generated using a Hypercube Latin
experiment and then transformed in DFN models (procedure published by Lima et al. 2019).

3.1. Well testing Interpretation

The DST test performed in the reservoir was a flow after flow test with four periods of flow previous
to the main buildup period. Figure 4 shows the real history plot (pressure and rate) and the test
pressure history match (real pressure and simulated pressure). The response of the pressure derivative
(Figure 5) evidences the behavior of a heterogeneous reservoir and the conventional dual-porosity
signature. Likewise, seismic data, BHI logs, fluid lost during the perforation and flow patterns in the
PLT evidence the presence of faults, fractures and other critical heterogeneities such as karst and vugs
in the reservoir. Hence, we considered to adequate use mainly the dual-porosity model to the
interpretation of this well test.

The dual-porosity model considered rectangle boundary and vertical limited entry effects. The use of
a closed system was supported by behavior of the drawdown pressure (pressure drop between static
reservoir pressures) shown in Figure 4A and studies of seismic attributes, which allowed us evidence

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
flow barriers, good permeability in the region of the well and a decrease of the reservoir quality as we
move away from the well. An analysis of seismic attributes in this present field was carried out by
Correia, 2019, revealing properties and characteristics of these fracture network system and karst
structures. The limited entry effect was used due to the much smaller perforated interval than the well
net pay and it was evidenced as a negative slope in the pressure derivative after the wellbore storage.
Due to the position of the perforated interval (only the first meters of the reservoir) and the shape of
the pressure derivative considered a hemi-spherical flow to the wellbore until upper and lower
boundaries be reached. The distance between the pressure difference and the pressure derivative
evidenced a high skin, this was justified for information of mud loss and a cement plug made in the
well during the perforation. The decrease in dynamic pressure drop (Figure 4B) may reflect the
decrease in damage along the well test, this fact due to the well was cleaned during production.

Fig. 4A

Fig. 4B

Figure 4 Pressure and rate history plot during the well test

The log-log derivative plot and the semi-log analysis corresponding to the main build up are shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6. According to the analytical model used, which best fit the pressure response,
the main parameters calculated of the interpretation were: (1) Flow capacity: 6.1E+5mD.m, (2) Skin:
110, (3) Initial pressure: 610kg/cm2, (4) Storativity or capacity ratio, ω: 0.08 and (5) interporosity
flow parameter, λ: 7E-8. The pressure derivative presents the typical dip shape (V shape), which
indicates the transition period before the matrix and fracture pressure to reach equilibrium. This
transition period shows a period of bilinear flow (slope≈1/4), which is usually evidence of finite
conductivity (fractures with low conductivity).

Figure 5 Log-log plot for the main Build-up Figure 6 Semi-log plot for the main Build-up
period period

The flow capacity was used mainly for the calibration of DFN models and the interporosity to
estimate a reference value of the matrix block size and distance between the fractures in a Warren and
Root model (1963) (Reiss, 1980; Bourdet, 2002). The other parameters were used to the

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
characterization of the reservoir and the construction of the simulation model used in this work. We
incorporate a range of uncertainties of +/-15% to the flow capacity based on the well testing
interpretations using other analytical models.

3.2. Selection of stochastic DFN models to be calibrated

All the stochastic DFN models were upscaled to the simulation model grid, these were simulated and
the NQDS indicator for the BHP was calculated. This indicator allowed us to establish a tolerance in
the pressure for the observed data, discarding models with a high difference between the observed
data and simulated data. For the calculation of NQDS for the BHP, a tolerance of 0.01 and a constant
of 0 were used. Considering that the DFN models were not yet calibrated, the established acceptance
range was [-6; 6], in order to consider only the results closer to the real data. In this scenario, 43 DFN
models were discarded. From the remaining models, 15 models were chosen randomly to be
calibrated.

Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the NQDS indicator of each simulation model (with different DFN) for
BHP data, before the calibration of the DFN models. The gray dots indicate the NQDS for each one of
the DFN models and blue dots for the models selected.

Figure 7 NQDS computed for all the models. In Figure 8 Zoom of NQDS computed for all the
blue the selected models to be calibrated models. In blue the selected models to be
calibrated (acceptance range [-6-6])

The borehole image reveals a high concentration of open and semi-open fractures and vugs in some
regions of the perforated interval. Hence, we verified that the faults density that crosses the wellbore
represented in the simulation models be consistent with the borehole image logs on the selected
models, so we calculated the average fracture permeability in the cells of the analyzed well. The
permeabilities of the selected models are between 1000mD and 20000mD evidencing presence of
fractures in the well as indicated in the borehole image logs. We considered this wide range due to the
large amount of uncertainties related to the permeability in the well up to present study.

Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the average fracture permeability in the cells where the well was
completed for all the simulation models and an illustration of the distribution of permeabilities in a
reservoir cross-section in one of the selected models, respectively.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
 Figure 9 Average fracture permeability in the cells Figure 10 Permeability distribution in a
where the well was completed of all the simulation reservoir cross-section in one of the
models selected simulation models

3.3. Calibration of stochastic DFN models

The selected DFN models were calibrated according to the method described previously.
Conductivities calibration of the sub-seismic faults of each DFN model was performed based on the
range of values of flow capacity calculated in the interpretation of well tests. The best estimate of the
flow capacity obtained from the dual-porosity model was of 6.1E+5mD.m and the considered
uncertainty range was of +/-15%. Figure 11 represents one of the calibrated DFN models and Figure
12 and Figure 13 the permeability map of the upscaled model before of the calibration and the
permeability map after the calibration, respectively. In this case, comparing Figure 12 and Figure 13
is possible evidence the reduction of the conductivities after the calibration.

Figure 11 DFN model Figure 12 Permeability map Figure 13 Permeability map

selected to be calibrated before the calibration after the calibration

Figure 14 shows the results from the calibration using AKC method based on genetic algorithm of
one of the DFN models. Its shows the histogram of the multiplier factor, of all the samples, applied to
the conductivity in AKC calibration of this DFN model in order to match the flow capacity of the well
test. The optimized multiplier factor in this case was of 0.252. The multiplier factor is in a range of
[0.1 – 3] in all the DFN models.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
 Figure 14 Histogram of the conductivity multiplier applied to the initial conductivity in AKC
calibration process of one of the DFN models

Figure 15 shows the decrease of the objective function error after each iteration of genetic algorithm.
In this example, after 8 iterations, the best fractures parameters (conductivity and hydraulic aperture)
to fit the flow capacity (KH) were found.

Figure 15 Decrease of the objective function error during AKC calibration process of one of
the DFN models

In Table 1, we summarized some parameters obtained from the calibration; the optimized multiplier
factor, the simulated equivalent flow capacity and the solution error obtained from AKC calibration
for two of DFN models. Comparing both models, we can observe that the DFN model #14 has a lower
solution error than the DFN model #15, even though its KH (5.2E+5mD.m) is farther than the KH
(6.1E+5mD.m) obtained from the well test (using a dual-porosity model). This fact is due to we are
working not only with a value of KH from the well test, but with a range of values around to this
value (approximately +-15%). Model #14 is using as input a KH of 5.3E+5mD.m (-13% of KH
interpreted in dual-porosity model). Hence, the solution error corresponds to the difference between
the simulated KH in the calibration and the input KH used in each DFN model.

DFN model Multiplier Factor Simulated KH (mD.m) Solution error

#14 0.67 5.2E+05 0.08
#15 0.23 6.2E+05 0.13
Table 1 Results of AKC calibration of two DFN models (multiplier factor, simulated KH and
solution error or objective function)

3.4. Analytical Upscaling

The calibrated DFN models were upscaled to the simulation model grid using the analytical upscaling.
The set of properties upscaled from the discrete fracture network to the simulation model grid were:

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
permeability tensor, equivalent matrix block size and fracture porosity. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show
two of the properties, the fracture permeability and matrix block size upscaled respectively.

Figure 16 Fracture Permeability (Ki), in x- Figure 17 Matrix block size of one of the DFN
direction, of one of the DFN models models

3.5. Numerical Simulation and Comparison with Well Test History

The simulation grid has 101746 active blocks spaced by a horizontal increment of approximately
200x200m and a vertical increment of 4m. We used the DFN models to distribute the equivalent
fracture properties throughout the field in the simulation models. In this study, we chose a dual-
permeability simulation model and thus take into account the existence of flow interactions between
matrix blocks. Although the existence of flow interactions between matrix blocks has been
demonstrated and quantified from laboratory experiments in fractured reservoirs, it is speculative, and
in practice this assumption could be evaluated through a sensitivity study of the reservoir history
match considering this and other assumptions (single-medium or dual-medium systems) (Bourbiaux,
2010).

Before the numerical simulation of the calibrated models, all DFN models not calibrated were
upscaled to the simulation models grids and simulated, in order to compare these later with the
simulation results corresponding to the calibrated models. Figure 18 shows the simulation models
corresponding to the DFN models before the calibration, after the calibration, the simulation models
selected to the calibration and the well test history. In some models, the simulated pressure had a high
variability with respect to the measured pressure from the well test. These models were discarded in
step 2 of this methodology and other models were selected to be calibrated.

The numerical simulation of the calibrated models is shown in Figure 19. We managed to reduce the
variability in BHP of the selected models and obtained simulation models with a BHP closer to the
measured BHP from the well test. Although the variability was decreased and the dynamic behavior
in all the models is closer to the real behavior of the reservoir, we maintained a low variability
inherent to the interpretation and the methods of assimilation. In case of maintaining a high
variability, we could review the characterization of the sub-seismic faults and the parameters used to
generate the realizations in order to improve this application.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
 700 620

600 610

500 600

BHP, kgf/cm2
BHP, kgf/cm2

400 590

300 580

200 WT data 570

Selected WT data
100 Simulated before Cal. 560 Selected before Cal.
Simulated after Cal. Simulated after Cal.
0 550
1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9
Time, days Time, days
Figure 18 BHP of simulation models before and Figure 19 BHP of simulation models before and
after the calibration, selected models and well after the calibration (only selected models) and
test BHP well test BHP

Conclusions

This paper integrates the pressure transient analysis considering an uncertainties range in its
interpretation into the calibration of stochastic DFN models in a naturally fractured reservoir of a
Brazilian pre-salt field. Three main motives led us to propose this methodology:
(1) The high variability in the pressure behavior of the simulation models corresponding to the
stochastic DFN models generated from an initial DFN model, even though this initial DFN
model had previously been calibrated.
(2) The large number of uncertainties in the simulation model of a naturally fractured reservoir,
especially in the early phase of development and
(3) Integrate the results of the well testing interpretation for the characterization and modelling of a
reservoir, not only as deterministic data; but as a range of values considering inherent
uncertainties in its interpretation.

The main conclusions of this work are:

• This methodology allowed us to calibrate the conductivity of sub-seismic faults used to represent
the fractured network introducing the results of the well testing interpretation. AKC calibration
method allowed us to obtain an equivalent flow capacity of the fractured network very close to
the flow conductivity obtained from the well test, in each case.
• The high variability of the simulation models before the calibration of each DFN model was
reduced. We obtained simulation models with a dynamic behavior (represented by the pressure)
close to reservoir behavior during the well test.
• The selection of the models to be calibrated using the AQNS indicator was important because we
managed to discard the models with a high degree of mismatch in their dynamic behavior with
respect to real data and discovered the DFN models that needed a dynamic calibration. Due to
these models discarded, it would be advisable to adjust the parameters used for the generation of
stochastic models and to review the characterization of the sub-seismic faults.
• Even though the calibration of each DFN model led us to satisfactory results, we could review
the characterization of the sub-seismic faults and the parameters used to generate the realizations
in order to improve more this application. Additionally, we consider important to reduce the time
of execution of this methodology, considering the possibility of an upscaling in parallel of all
calibrated models to the simulation model grids.
• The use of well testing interpretation results with a range of uncertainties to the calibration of
DFN models allowed us to consider inherent uncertainties in its interpretation. Hence, we could
consider values of flow capacity that could calibrate better the DFN and therefore represent the
reservoir behavior realistically.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Center of Petroleum Studies (Cepetro-Unicamp/Brazil), SHELL Brasil
Petróleo (Grant Agreement No. 20469-3), UNISIM and Petroleum Engineering Department (DEP-
FEM-Unicamp/Brazil) for their support in this work. The authors are also grateful to Schlumberger
Information Solution for the use of Petrel, Computer Modelling Group for the use of simulator IMEX,
Beicip-Franlab for the use of Openflow and Kappa for the use of Saphir.

References

Allan, J. and Sun, S.Q. [2003] Controls on recovery factor in fractured reservoirs: Lesson learned
from 100 fractured field. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (SPE 84590), Denver,
Colorado, USA, Oct. 5- 8th.
Almeida, F.L.R, Formentin, H.N., Maschio, C., Davolio, A. and Schiozer, D.J. [2018] Influence of
additional objective functions on uncertainty reduction and history matching. 80th EAGE Conference
and Exhibition, Copenhagen, Denmark, Jun. 11-14th.
Avansi, G.D. and Schiozer, D.J. [2015] A new approach to history matching using reservoir
characterization and reservoir simulation integrated studies. Offshore Technology Conference (OTC-
26038-MS), Houston, Texas, USA, May 4-7th.
Barenblatt, G., Zheltov, I. and Kochina, I. [1960] Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of
homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 24 (5), 1286-1303.
Bockel-Rebelle. M-O., Hassall, J.K., Silva, F.P., Lozano J.A., Deeb, M.A., Salem, S.E.A., Vesseron,
M. and Mehsin, K.A. [2004] Faults, fracture corridors and diffuse fracturing: ranking the main
structural heterogeneities within onshore Abu Dhabi fields. 11th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference (SPE 88676). Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., Oct 10-13th.
Bonnet, E., Bour, O., Odling, N.E., Davy, P., Main, I., Cowie, P. and Berkowitz, B. [2001] Scaling of
fracture systems in geological media. Reviews of Geophysics, 39 (3), 347-383.
Bourbiaux, B. [2010] Fractured reservoir simulation: A challenging and rewarding issue, Oil & Gas
Science and Technology – Rev. IFP, 65 (2), 227-238.
Bourdet, D. [2002] Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models, Handbook of
Petroleum Exploration and Production. Elsevier Science B.V, Netherlands.
Chiles, J.P. [1988] Fractal and geostatistical methods for modeling of a fracture network.
Mathematical Geology, 20 (6), 631-654.
Correia, G.F.G.C. [2017] Integration of Reservoir Characterization with History Matching Guided by
pilot wells: Application to the Norne field, Ph.D. thesis, Unicamp, Campinas, SP.
Correia, M.G. [2014] Integration of Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs in Reservoir
Simulation, Ph.D. thesis, Unicamp, Campinas, SP.
Correia, U.M.D.C. [2019] The impact of post-depositional structures in carbonate reservoirs:
Examples of igneous intrusions, fractures and karst, Ph.D. thesis, Unicamp, Campinas, SP.
Delorme, M., Atfeh, B., Allken, V. and Bourbiaux, B. [2008] Upscaling improvement for
heterogeneous fractured reservoir using a geostatistical connectivity index. VIII International
Geostatistics Congress, Santiago, Chile, Dec.
Egya, D. O., Geiger, S., Corbett, P.W.M., March, R., Bisdom, K., Bertotti, G. and Bezerra, F.H.
[2017] Analysing the limitations of the dual-porosity response during well tests in naturally fractured
reservoir. Petroleum Geoscience, 25 (1), 30-49.
Goldberg, D.E. [1989] Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-
Wesley Longman Publishing Co.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event
Johann, P.R.S. and Monteiro, R.C. [2016] Geophysical reservoir characterization and monitoring at
Brazilian pre-salt oil fields. Offshore Technology Conference (OTC-27246), Houston, Texas, USA,
May 2-5th.
Kuchuk, F.J. and Biryukov, D. [2013] Pressure-Transient tests and flow regimes in fractures
reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (SPE 166296-MS), New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, 30 Sep. 2nd.
Kuchuk, F.J. and Biryukov, D. [2012] Transient pressure behavior of reservoirs with discrete
conductive faults and fractures. Transport in Porous Media 95, 239-268.
Lamine, S., Richard, P., Van der Steen, E., Pattnaik, C., Narhari, R., LeVarlet, X. and Dashti, Q.
[2017] Integration of pressure transient tests in fracture characterization in North Kuwait carbonate
reservoirs. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference (SPE-188835-MS), Abu
Dhabi, UAE, Nov 13-16th.
Lemonnier, P. and Bourbiaux, B. [2010] Simulation of naturally fractured reservoirs. State of the art.
Part 1. Physical mechanisms and simulator formulation. Oil & Gas Science and Technology -Rev.
IFP, 65(2), 239-262.
Lima, A., Fourno, A., Noetinger, B. and Shiozer, D.J. [2019] Characterization and modeling of the
fault network of a Brazilian pre-salt reservoir and upscaling results. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition (SPE 195999-MS), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 Sep. 2nd.
Maschio, C. and Schiozer, D.J. [2016] Probabilistic history matching using discrete latin hypercube
sampling and nonparametric density estimation. Petroleum Science and Engineering, 147, 98-115.
Nelson, R.A. [1985] Geological Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, 2nd. Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston.
Oda, M. [1985] Permeability tensor for discontinuous rock masses, Géotechnique, 35(4), 483-495.
Reiss, L.H. [1980] The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fractured Formations, Gulf Publishing
Company, Houston.
Richard, P., Lamine, S., Pattnaik, C., Al Ajmi, N., Kidambi, V., Narhari, R., Levarlet, X., Swaby, P.
and Dashti, Q. [2017] Integrated fracture characterization and modeling in North Kuwait carbonate
reservoirs. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference (SPE 188185-MS), Abu
Dhabi, UAE, Nov. 13-16th.
Tavakkoli, M., Mohammadsadeghi, M., Shaheabadi, A., Khajoee, S., Malakooti, R. and Beidokhti,
M.S. [2009] Deterministic versus stochastic discrete fracture network (DFN) modeling, application in
a heterogenous naturally fractured reservoir. Kuwait International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition (SPE 127086), Kuwait, Dec. 14-16th.
Verscheure, M., Fourno, A. and Chilès, J.P. [2010] History matching of a stochastic multifractal sub-
seismic fault model. European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery (ECMOR XII),
Oxford, UK, Sep. 6-9th.
Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J. [1963]. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, 3(3), 245-255.

ECMOR XVII – 17th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery

14-17 September 2020, Online Event