Pme 417 - L6-8 - Dmim

PME 417 Unconventional Reservoir Engineering
L ECTURES 6-8
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs-Warren and Root Model
Course Instructor
Dr. Mohammad Islam Miah
Associate Professor
Dept. of Petroleum and Mining Engineering, CUET
1
Fracture Storage Capacity
▪ In contrast to the 𝜙𝑚 , fracture porosity contributes only a few percent to the total porosity.
▪ Fracture aperture is typically up to a few millimeters in width, and typical fracture spacing is in the
range of centimeter to meter. Because fracture apertures are significantly greater than typical
matrix pore-throat sizes, they contribute the major portion of the total transmissivity of the
petroleum rocks and, consequently, are an important factor in the movement of fluids.
▪ Fracture porosity initially is very high, but, over time, fractures may become partially filled with
fines. This filling process considerably reduces the fracture porosity to less than 5%.
▪ Since only fracture conductivity is necessary in flow calculations, not much attention has been
given to fracture porosity or storage capacity.
▪ The overall fracture storage capacity, which indicates how much fluid is held within the fracture
network of a particular reservoir, is best estimated from pressure buildup tests.
Copyright PME 315 @Dr. Mohammad Islam Miah, Ass. Professor, Dept. of PME, CUET. E-mail: islam.m@cuet.ac.bd 2
Fracture Conductivity
▪ In reservoir engineering, fractures have been categorized on the basis of their fluid
transmission capacity or conductivity as follows:
• Finite conductivity: Finite conductivity fractures allow a limited amount of the fluid to flow. If
the fracture has dimensionless conductivity FCD=(kfwf)/(krxf) <300, it is termed as FC.
• Infinite conductivity: Infinite conductivity fractures are highly conductive and their fluid
transferring capacity is greater than that of the finite conductivity fractures.
• If FCD= (kfwf)/(krxf) > 500, the fracture is infinitely conductive. This number is accepted by
many researchers; however, some works assume FCD>300 for infinite conductivity.
• Uniform flux: Uniform flux fractures allow the fluid to flow through them such that there occurs a
certain pressure drop and the amount of the fluid entering and leaving the fracture remains
constant.
Warren and Root Model
▪ Several reservoir idealizations of the dual-porosity reservoir systems have been introduced
for modeling and describing the fluid flow in naturally fractured reservoirs.
▪ Warren and Root (1963) idealized and represented the naturally
fractured dual-porosity system by a stack of rectangular blocks, as
shown in Figure 6.1. The assumptions for Warren and Root model:
i. The rock matrix containing the primary porosity is homogeneous and isotropic, and is contained
within a systematic array of identical rectangular parallelepipeds. Although most of the hydrocarbon
is stored in the matrix, the authors assumed that the fluid cannot flow to the well directly; however,
the fluid has to enter the fractures and flow to the wellbore.
ii. The secondary porosity is contained within a system of continuous and uniform fractures that are
oriented so that each fracture is parallel to one of the principal axes of permeability. These fractures
are uniformly spaced with a constant width.
Warren and Root Model-Cont’d
▪ Warren and Root (1963) presented an extensive theoretical work on the behavior of naturally
fractured reservoirs.
▪ They assume that the formation fluid flows from the matrix system into the fractures under
pseudo-steadystate conditions with the fractures acting like conduits to the wellbore.
▪ Mathematically, Warren and Roots introduced the matrix–fracture transfer function Γ as
defined by the following relationship:
where km = matrix permeability
σ = block-shape factor (A/Vx)
µ = fluid viscosity
▪ Kazemi (1969) developed a widely used expression for V = matrix rock volume
determining the shape factor based on finite-difference Pm = matrix pressure and Pf = fracture pressure
as given by:
where Lx , Ly , and Lz represent the dimensions of a matrix block.
Warren and Root-Dual Porosity System
▪ In addition to permeability and skin, which control the behavior of double-porosity systems,
Warren and Root introduced two other characteristic parameters to describe fully the fluid
exchange between the matrix and fractures.
• a) Storativity ratio (ω) defines the storativity of the fractures as a ratio to that of the total
reservoir.
• Mathematically, it is given by (a typical range of ω is 0.1 to 0.001):
• b) Interporosity flow coefficient (λ), which describes the ability of the fluid to flow from the matrix
into the fissures, and is defined by the following relationship:
• In general, the interporosity flow parameter ranges between 10−3 and 10−9 .
• Thus, ω is pressure dependent and therefore λ is greater than 10−3, the level of heterogeneity is
insufficient for dual-porosity effects to be of importance and the reservoir can be treated with a single
porosity. Copyright PME 315 @Dr. Mohammad Islam Miah, Ass. Professor, Dept. of PME, CUET. E-mail: islam.m@cuet.ac.bd 6
Warren and Root Dual Porosity System
▪ Most of the proposed models assume that the matrix–fissures system can be represented by
one the following four block-shape factor geometries:
• Cubic matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as given by:
• Spherical matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as given by
• Horizontal strata (rectangular slab) matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ:
where hf is the thickness of an individual fracture or high permeability layer.
• Vertical cylinder matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as given by:
Interporosity Flow Conditions
▪ Cinco and Samaniego (1981) identified the following two extreme interporosity flow
conditions:
• Restricted interporosity flow, which corresponds to a high skin between the least permeable media
(matrix) and the high permeable media (fissures), and is mathematically equivalent to the
pseudosteady-state solution, i.e., the Warren and Root model.
• Unrestricted interporosity flow, which corresponds to zero skin between the most and high
permeable media and is described as the unsteady-state (transient) solution.
Warren and Root Double Porosity Model
▪ Warren and Root proposed the first identification method of the double porosity system, as
shown by the drawdown semilog plot of Figure 7.1.
▪ The curve is characterized by two parallel straight lines
because of the two separate porosities in the reservoir.
▪ Secondary porosity (fissures), having greater transmissivity
and being connected to the wellbore responds first as
described by the first semilog straight line.
▪ Primary porosity (matrix), having a much lower
transmissivity, responds much later, combined effect of the
two porosities gives rise to the second semilog straight line.
▪ The two straight lines are separated by a transition period
during which pressure tends to stabilize
Figure 7.1: Pressure drawdown according to the model by
Warren and Root. (Kazemi, 1969, SPEJ.)
Warren and Root Model- ω
▪ Warren and Root indicated that the storativity ratio (ω) can be determined from the vertical
displacement between the two straight lines, identified as Δp in Figures 7.1 and 7.2
(pressure-buildup data for a naturally fractured reservoir), by the following expression:
▪ The first straight line reflects the transient radial flow

through the fractures, and thus its slope is used to
determine the system permeability– thickness product
▪ As the matrix pressure approaches the pressure of the
fractures, the pressure is stabilized in the two systems
and yields the second semilog straight line.
▪ Only parameters characterizing the homogeneous
behavior of the total system kf.h can be obtained.
Figure 7.2: Buildup curve from a fractured reservoir.
Warren and Root Model- λ
▪ Bourdet and Gringarten (1980) indicated that by drawing a horizontal line through the middle
of the transition curve to intersect with both semilog straight lines, as shown in Figure 7.1 for a
pressure drawdown test and Figure 7.2 for a pressure-buildup test, the interporosity flow
coefficient λ can then be determined by reading the corresponding time at the intersection of
either of the two straight lines, e.g., first-line intersection t1 or second-line intersection t2 , and
applying the following relationships:
or
or
Well Test Data- Dual Porosity System
▪ Pressure-buildup data as presented by Najurieta (1980) and Sabet (1991) for a double-
porosity system are tabulated below:
i. Estimate ω and λ,
ii. Storativity of the fractures (φhct )f
or
Pressure Type Curves- Dual Porosity System
▪ Based on the Warren and Root double-porosity theory, Bourdet and Gringarten (1980)
developed specialized pressure type curves that can be used for analyzing well test data in
dual-porosity systems.
▪ They showed that double-porosity behavior is controlled by the following independent
variables:
With the dimensionless time tD, dimensionless pressure pD, and
dimensionless wellbore-storage coefficient CD as defined below:
where
k = permeability, md
t = time, hours
µ = viscosity, cp
rw = wellbore radius, ft
C = wellbore storage coefficient,
or
bbl/psi
Pressure Type Curves- Dual Porosity System
▪ Bourdet et al. (1984) extended the practical applications of these curves and enhanced their
use by introducing the pressure-derivative type curves to the solution.
▪ They developed two sets of pressure-derivative type curves as shown in Figures 8.1 and 8.2.
▪ The first set (Fig. 8.1) is based on the assumption that the interporosity flow obeys the pseudosteady-
state flowing condition, and the other set (Fig. 8.2) assumes transient interporosity flow.
Figure: 8.2 Figure: 8.1

Pseudosteady-state/ Transient Matrix Flow Model
▪ The pseudosteady-state-flow model assumes that, at a given time, the pressure at all points
in the matrix is decreasing at the same rate and thus flow from the matrix to the fracture is
proportional to the difference between matrix pressure and pressure in the adjacent fracture.
▪ Specifically, this model does not allow unsteady-state pressure gradients within the matrix.
▪ Further, pseudosteady-state flow conditions are assumed to be present from the beginning of
fluid movement. Because it assumes a pressure distribution in the matrix that would be
reached only after what could be a considerable flow period, the pseudosteady-state-flow
model is oversimplified.
▪ Pseudosteady-state interporosity flow from Fig. 8.1.
Home Task/Self Study-Cont’d
1. Explain the effect of fracture shape on the permeability-porosity relationship.
2. Analyze buildup or drawdown data from naturally fractured formations using
both semilog and type-curve techniques.
3. Example 6.11: Buildup Test Analysis in a Naturally Fractured Gas Reservoir
References /Text Book:

• Djebbar, T., & Donaldson, E. C. (2012). Theory and practice of measuring reservoir rock and fluid transport
properties. Gulf Professional Publishing, Chapter- 8.
• Lee, W. J., & Wattenbarger, R. A. (1996). Gas reservoir engineering. SPE. Chapter 6.
• Ahmed, T. (2018). Reservoir engineering handbook. Gulf professional publishing. Chapter 17
16

Pme 417 - L6-8 - Dmim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pme 417 - L6-8 - Dmim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PME 417 Unconventional Reservoir Engineering

Naturally Fractured Reservoirs-Warren and Root Model

• Cubic matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as given by:

• Spherical matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as given by

• Horizontal strata (rectangular slab) matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ:

where hf is the thickness of an individual fracture or high permeability layer.

• Vertical cylinder matrix blocks separated by fractures with λ as given by:

▪ The first straight line reflects the transient radial flow

Figure: 8.2 Figure: 8.1

References /Text Book:

You might also like