A Perspective Look at Fracture Porosity
W.M. Hen.e. Jr., * SPE, Sun E&P co.
Summary. Because overly optimistic estimates of hydrocarbons associated with reservoir fractures may lead to economic disasters,
it is important that fracture porosity values, assigned by whatever means, be examined critically. Some basic fracture models together
with documented examples of fracture width and frequency tend to suggest an upper limit for fracture porosity.
Introduction
Fractures can be an important feature of hydrocarbon reservoirs
because their presence (either naturally occurring or induced) in-
creases the productive capacity. Many low-matrix-permeability
reservoirs would not be commercially attractive without a natural
or induced fracture system. While fractures are unquestionably im-
portant with respect to formation permeability, the importance of
the contribution that fractures make to the reservoir storage capac-
ityor, more specifically, the porosity is unclear. The assigmnents
of porosity in a dual-porosity system (e.g., matrix and fractures)
may be critical in estimating both in-place reserves and ultimate
production of hydrocarbons. An assigmnent of too much porosity
to the fracture system could lead to grossly optimistic production
and economic predictions.'
Porosity is expressed in terms of void (pore) space per unit bulk
volume. The terms grain volume, PV, and bulk volume also are
involved. To calculate porosity, two of the three must be meas-
ured or known. In a fracture system, the pore space is a function
of the block size, which relates to the frequency of the fractures,
and the fracture width. A simplified example of a fracture porosity
calculation is shown in Fig. 1. The arbitrary assignment of a frac-
ture width of 254 I-'m results in a porosit} of 1 %. (The permeabil-
ity of this fracture is about 54 darcies. )
Jones 3 states that fracture volume and, therefore, fracture porosi-
ty are directly proportiOlial to fracture clearance, and that the ef-
fective porosity is proportional to the cube root of permeability.
Fracture Models
Reiss 4 proposes four types of fracture networks for calculating
fracture porosity (Fig. 2). The rectangular elements (blocks) have
sides a, , az, and a3, and the fracture widths are denoted by b (Fig.
3). For the four schemes the fracture porosity is calculated as
follows.
(Type A) Sheets:
<bJ=b/a. . ........................................ (1)
(Type B) Matchsticks:
<bJ=2b/a. . ....................................... (2)
(Type C) Cubes with two effective fracture planes:
<bJ=2b/a. . ....................................... (3)
(Type D) Cubes:
<br3b/a . ........................................ (4)
Here, a=matrix size, in. [cm], b=fracture width, I-'m [mm], and
<bJ=fracture porosity, %.
Warren and RootS used an idealized model in their study of the
behavior of primary and secondary porosity. They assumed that
all the secondary porosity was contained within an orthogonal sys-
tem of continuous, uniform fractures that are oriented so that each
fracture is parallel to one of the principal axes of permeability. This
is the same as the Type D4 fracture model that yields the maxi-
mum fracture porosity; however, the mathematics suggested by
Warren and Root holds true for any type of fracture system.
'Now retired.
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989
Fracture Porosity Calculation Methods
Aguilera6 documents a means of estimating fracture porosity from
well logs in a dual-porosity system where a partitioning coefficient,
V, is calculated. This V factor is applied to the matrix porosity and
results in an estimation of the fracture porosity. Aguilera provides
a chart for estimating V, with the basic assumption that the matrix
and fractures are connected in parallel.
Weber and Bakker7 state that the classic method for estimating
fracture porosity is to examine cores, count the number of natural
fractures, and measure their width. The qualifications placed on
this method include having a knowledge of fracture systems, bed
thickness, and lithology.
Bergosh and Lord 8 report on two new techniques: computerized
tomographic (CT) scanning and fluorescent epoxy impregnation.
Both techniques are enhanced by use of full-diameter cores, and
the tests are conducted at overburden stress conditions. Bergosh
and Lord state that these techniques have advantages over other
core-analysis methods, such as Boyle's-law helium porosimetry,
thin-section microscopy, and brine displacement.
Well testing and material balance are additional tools that are used
to estimate fracture porosity. Material balance appears to suffer in
accuracy if matrix porosity exists, and buildup curves likewise have
limitations, such as insufficient time to obtain truly representative
curves. 7
Fracture.Wldth/Block.Helght Considerations
Fracture porosity is a function of block size and fracture widths.
Fractures with large widths occurring at infrequent intervals (i.e.,
large block sizes) will yield very low porosities. Extensively frac-
tured rock (i.e., small block sizes) with very small fracture widths
likewise will yield low porosity values. In other words, to have
significant fracture porosity (e.g., 4 to 6%), the formation must
be fractured with a high degree of frequency and the fracture widths
must be of a significant size.
Table 1 shows the results of a literature survey of docu-
mented',7,9,10 fracture widths and block heights. With one or two
exceptions, the fracture widths fall into the 100- to 200-l-'m range.
Very little is documented regarding fracture frequency or block size.
The one confidential study that reports on extensive fracture den-
sity (336 fractures for one foot of core examined) couples this with
assigned fracture widths of only to I-'m. This is a classic example
of the small-block-size, small-fracture-width scenario that, in this
case, results in a calculated fracture porosity of 1. 1 %.
Fracture-width studies of cores can be misleading from several
standpoints. Fractures may be observed and reported, but commen-
tary may be missing about whether the fractures are open or closed.
Fractures that are open in cores may be closed in situ from
mineralization 7 or by tar or kerogen materials. Overburden stress-
es are seldom taken into account, and the width of a fracture at
reservoir conditions will be a function of the net confining pres-
sure; i.e., the effective compressive stresses are the difference be-
tween the total compressive stresses and the pore pressures."
Matrix core porosities normally are adjusted according to reser-
voir stress conditions, and the same approach should be taken to
evaluate fracture widths.
Fracture widths of 200 pm seem reasonable; however, 6,OOO-l-'m
extension fractures existing at overburden-stress conditions appear
unlikely or may have been created during the coring/core-retrieval
processes. The data shown in Table 1 appear to make Aguilera'S'
"paper-thin," minimum-fracture-width statement somewhat out of
order when one considers that common copy-machine paper is about
400 I-'m thick.
531
 /i-----------------"lI
· ~I-"- - 1 " -----+l~1 / I I

T
/ I I
/ I
/ I

r::'" I
/
/
/
I
I
I

I // a2 I

//1
//
/;=======-=- 1"
/
/

f---- ---...Ll-------
1
-.01'~ // I
T:Z=::::;:=======7 I I
I II
/--------
I
}-.l.------ --I
/
/
/ J---- I
/

I
/ I/ a3 I
I
Fig. 1-Baslc fracture porosity model: .p, =1%. II / I
1 / 1
I
I I I I
b / / I I
-2'
, I ',1
,I
L,_____________________ J ~

Fig. 3-Deflnition of fracture porosity (after Reiss 4 ).

a b Fracture Porosity Discussion

c d
Fig. 2-Typical fracture networks. Arrows indicate possible
directions of flow.
My observations indicate that fracture porosity may be overesti-
mated, particularly in dual-porosity systems. Fractures have such
a dramatic impact on reservoir performance that their hydrocar-
bon storage capacities may tend to be inflated.
Pittman 12 subdivides porosities into f<;>ur groups - intergranu-
lar, dissolution, microporosity, and fractures. He states that frac-
ture porosity is rarely greater than a few percent and is usually
<1%. ,
Table 2 shows the results of a literature survey of docu-
mented 7,8,10,12,13 fracture porosity values. Note that the values
generally support Pittman's conclusion. Bergosh and Lord's8
reported fracture porosity of 9.64 % was determined on one sam-
ple. Bergosh* stated that all porosity measurements were made on
full-diameter samples of an undefined diameter and that the sam-
ples were generally 2 to 3 in. [5 to 8 cm] long.
Of the four models suggested by Reiss, 4 maximum porosity re-
sults from a fracture network represented by cubes. The relation-
'During discussion portion of Ref. 8 at oral presentation.

TABLE 1-FRACTURE WIDTHS AND SPACINGS

Formation Fracture Widths (mm) Fracture Spacing/

Reference Information Range Frequency Comments
Aguilera' General statement Paper thin. 6 +
Elkins 9 Spraberry sandstone 0.33 (maximum) 0.051 Few inches to a few feet
Snow'o Selected dam sites 0.051 to 0.10 4 to 14 It
Aguilera 1 La paz·Mara field 6.35 (maximum)"
Confidential study Monterey 0.01 * 3 to 336 fractures/It
Weber and Bakker 7 Small joints' 0.01 to 0.10
Weber and Bakker 7 Extension fractures' 0.1 to 1 0.2
Weber and Bakker 7 Major extension 0.2 to 2t
fractures'

'Unidentified reservoirs.
'';Converted to metric units.
Partial infilling.
fAssigned.

532 SPE Formation Evaluation. December 1989

 TABLE 2-POROSITIES OF FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

References Formation Information Porosity Units

Pittman 12 General statement 1
Snow 10 Beaver gas field 0.05 to 5
Stearns and Friedman 13 Austin chalk 0.2
Confidential study Monterey 0.01 to 1.1
Weber and Bakker 7 South African karst zone 1 to 2
Bergosh and Lord 8 CT scan examples' 1.53 to 2.57
Bergosh and Lord 8 Epoxy injection examples' 1.81 to 9.64

'Three unidentified samples.

TYPE 0 TYPES B&C TYPE A

TYPE 0

FRACTURE WIDTH-MICRONS FRACTURE WIDTH-MICRONS

Fig. 4-Porosity-fracture-wldth relationships for various frac- Fig. 5-Poroslty-fracture-wldth relationships for various frac-
ture models with a 1-cm block size. ture models with 4-cm block sizes.

ship of fracture porosity with fracture width for a constant block

size may be developed from Fig. A.3.8 of Reiss. 4 Fig. 4 shows
these relationships for a very optimistic block size of 0.4 in. [1 cm].
Note that fracture widths of 200, 300, and 700 ILm are required TYPE 0

to develop 6 % porosity for the four fracture systems. Fig. 5 depicts

the drastic change in porosity as the block size is increased to 1.6
in. [4 cm]. Fig. 6 shows the relationship between porosity and block
size for a constant fracture width. An arbitrary 200-ILm fracture
width was chosen for this example. This graph demonstrates the ....z
reduction in porosity with increasing block size. Note that a w
o
a:
maximum porosity of abOut 2 % is associated with a I-in. [2.5-cm] ~I
block size. >
!::
An exception to this may be found in California's onshore/ <I)

~ 3
offshore Monterey formation, which has reservoirs that may have oa.
abnormally high fracture porosities. Redwine ll focused his work
on the Monterey shale. He qualifies the term "shale" to connote
that the rock is made up of clay-to-silt-sized particles and is lami-
nated, fissile, or both. His shale term does not imply that the rock
has a significant content of clay minerals. He speaks of the Santa
Maria area where fracturing is almost ubiquitous, with the dominant
type being well-ordered and systematic. He states that the rocks
of this area usually are dense and brittle, and extension fracturing
and brecciation are intense. It is conceivable that a breccia-type
rock could contain the porosities (and permeabilities) to explain the BLOCK SIZE-CENTIMETERS

high production rates of heavy, viscous oil recorded from some

wells. Sangree 14 discusses breccias in detail and cautions that a Fig. 6-Poroslty-block-slze relationships for various fracture
models with a 200-"m fracture width.
core box full of drilling-induced rubble should not be called a brec-
cia. Given the previous mathematics for calculating fracture porosi-
ty, it is still unlikely that a breccia-type rock would yield porosities
much greater than 2 to 3 %.

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989 533

 Weber and Bakker7 discuss the chert associated with the Mon-
terey and state that porosities of some 8 % are possible. On the ba-
sis of their thin-bed chert occurrence, examinations of long intervals
of Monterey core, 8 and my observations, it is unlikely that such a
lithology condition exists for a vertical interval2! 100ft [2! 30.5 m].
Fracture studies often yield extremely low fracture porosity
values, as Table 2 shows. Indirect estimates (e.g., wireline logs)
sometimes yield significant storage space assigned to the fracture
system; however, the fracture-width and block-size considerations
previously documented make these estimates appear overly optimis-
tic with a few possible exceptions.
Various types of studies may be conducted to provide fracture
porosity values. The same rules should apply for naturally frac-
tured reservoirs as for more conventional reservoirs when the va-
lidity of the data derived is considered. Be it a well test, a series
of downhole logs, or core studies, only a small portion of the reser-
voir is represented. This presents such valid questions as whether
the areal representation of the total lithology is adequate; i.e., do the
data tend to high grade or low grade because of the well's position?
The same holds true regarding the vertical cross section. Ques-
tions to address include (1) was the complete section cored; (2) was
the core recovery satisfactory both from a quantitative and qualita-
tive standpoint; (3) was the wellbore in satisfactory condition to
produce reliable results from logs; and (4) were the well tests ham-
pered in any manner. Additional valid questions may deal with the
analyses, data handling, and data interpretation. If a core study was
conducted, did the analyst unintentionally high grade or low grade
on the basis of sample sites? Was the proper analysis method used?
Did the log analyst use proper judgment and analytical procedures?
Did the reservoir-simulation engineer use state-of-the-art models,
and were there uncertainties resulting from lack or quality of
input data?
These comments are not meant to demean any of the many ana-
lytical tools. Instead, they are intended to present a challenge for
the prudent engineer/technologist to probe deeply into all facets of
each evaluation system and not blindly to accept any assigned frac-
ture porosity value without considering the possible limitations re-
garding accuracy and representation.
Conclusions
1. Fractures, either naturally occurring or induced, are the life-
blood of many reservoirs because of their influence on well deliver-
ability.
2. Overestimating fracture porosity potentially can lead to eco-
nomic failures in the development of naturally fractured reservoirs.
3. Fracture porosity generally may be insignificant with respect
to the total reservoir hydrocarbon storage space.
4. Fracture porosity, in many instances, is less than 1 %.
5. Technical personnel and financial planners should look criti-
cally at hydrocarbon-storage-space values associated with the frac-
ture network through whatever means of assignment.
534
Acknowledgments
I thank Sun E&P Co. for permission to publish this paper. I also
thank Sam Bass, Joan Hahne, and Lynda Chandler for their valua-
ble assistance in the preparation of various parts of the paper. A
special thanks is due Eve Sprunt of Mobil R&D Corp. for her many
helpful suggestions and overall guidance.
References
I. Aguilera, R.: "Geological Aspects," Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,
PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa, OK (1980).
2. "The Fundamentals of Core Analysis," Core Laboratories, Dallas, Sec.
2, 10.
3. Jones, F.O. Jr.: "A Laboratory Study of the Effects ofConfming Pres-
sure on Fracture Flow and Storage Capacity in Carbonate Rocks, " JPT
(Jan. 1975) 21-27.
4. Reiss, L.H.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fractured Forma-
tions, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX (1980).
5. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J.: "The Behavior of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs," SPEJ (Sept. 1963) 245-55; Trans., AIME, 228.
6. Aguilera, R.: "Relative Permeability Concepts for Predicting the Per-
formance of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. -Oct. 1982) 41-48.
7. Weber, K.J. and Bakker, M.: "Fracture and Vuggy Porosity," paper
SPE 10332 presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.
8. Bergosh, J.L. and Lord, G.D.: "New Developments in the Analysis
of Cores From Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," paper SPE 16805
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Dallas, Sept. 27-30.
9. Elkins, L.F.: "Reservoir Performance and Well Spacing, Spraberry
Trend Area Field of West Texas," JPT (July 1953) 177-96; Trans.,
AIME,198.
10. Snow, D. T.: "Rock Fracture Spacing Openings and Porosities," Ameri-
can Soc. of Civil Engineers, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Div. (1968)
94,73-91.
1I. Redwine, L.: "Hypothesis Combining Dilation, Natural Hydraulic Frac-
turing, and Dolomitization to Explain Petroleum Reservoirs in Mon-
terey Shale, Santa Maria Area, California," The Monterey Formation
and Related Siliceous Rocks of California, Soc. of Economic Paleon-
tologists and Mineralogists, Pac. Sec. (1981) 221-48.
12. Pittman, E.D.: Porosity, Diagenesis and Productive Capability ofSand-
stone Reservoirs, SEPM Special Publication No. 26, Soc. of Econom-
ic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Tulsa, OK (March 1979) 159-73.
13. Steams, D.W. and Friedman, M.: "Reservoirs in Fractured Rock,"
AAPG Memoir 16, Tulsa, OK (1972) 82-106.
14. Sangree, J.B.: "What You Should Know to Analyze Core Fractures,"
World Oil (April 1969) 69-72.
51 Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
in. x 2.54* E+OO cm
'Conversion factor is exact. SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 27, 1987. Paper accepted for publica·
tion June 12, 1989. Revised manuscript received Jan. 17, 1989. Paper (SPE 16806) first
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
Sept. 27-30.
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989