Research article Petroleum Geoscience

https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo2020-079 | Vol. 27 | 2021 | petgeo2020-079

Optimising development and production of naturally fractured

reservoirs using a large empirical dataset
Shaoqing Sun and David A. Pollitt*
C&C Reservoirs, 13831 Northwest Freeway, Suite 450, Houston, TX 77040, Texas, USA
DAP, 0000-0002-7618-3996
* Correspondence: david.pollitt@ccreservoirs.com

Abstract: Naturally fractured reservoirs are important contributors to global petroleum reserves and production. Existing
classification schemes for fractured reservoirs do not adequately differentiate between certain types of fractured reservoirs,
leading to difficulty in understanding fundamental controls on reservoir performance and recovery efficiency. Three hundred
naturally fractured reservoirs were examined to define a new classification scheme that is independent of the type of fracturing
and describes fundamentally different matrix types, rock properties, fluid storage and flow characteristics.
This study categorises fractured reservoirs in three groups: (1) Type 1: characterized by a tight matrix where fractures and
solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide both storage capacity and fluid-flow pathways; (2) Type 2: characterized by a
macroporous matrix which provides the primary storage capacity where fractures and solution-enhanced fracture porosity
provide essential fluid-flow pathways; and (3) Type 3: characterized by a microporous matrix which provides all storage
capacity where fractures only provide essential fluid-flow pathways. Differentiation is made between controls imparted by
inherent natural conditions, such as rock and fluid properties and natural drive mechanisms, and human controls, such as choice
of development scheme and reservoir management practices.
The classification scheme presented here is based on reservoir and production characteristics of naturally fractured reservoirs
and represents a refinement of existing schemes. This refinement allows accurate comparisons to be made between analogous
fractured reservoirs, and trends and outliers in reservoir performance to be identified. Case histories provided herein
demonstrate the practical application of this new classification scheme and the benefits that arise when applying it to the
understanding of naturally fractured reservoirs.
Received 30 July 2020; revised 25 October 2020; accepted 1 December 2020

Naturally fractured petroleum reservoirs, although generally less (1983) divided Type B reservoirs into two subcategories: Type B-I
common and more poorly understood than conventional reservoirs, and Type B-II. Type B-I reservoirs have low matrix porosity but
are very important contributors to world oil and gas reserves and sufficient matrix permeability to allow oil trapped in matrix blocks to
production (Aguilera 1983, 1995). Naturally fractured reservoirs be effectively produced. Type B-II reservoirs have low matrix porosity
(herein referred to as ‘fractured reservoirs’) are often perceived as and permeability. Although matrix blocks may be oil saturated, their
short-lived with high flow rates, and suffering from rapid production permeability is too low to provide effective delivery to the fractures.
declines, early gas or water breakthrough and low ultimate recovery This classification scheme was subsequently modified by Nelson
factors (Nelson 1985). Consequently, due to this perception, (2001) who defined four fractured reservoir types. Type I reservoirs,
reservoir engineers often look unfavorably on fractured reservoirs in which fractures provide both essential storage capacity and
since recovery techniques must be judiciously applied to avoid permeability, and which commonly suffer from rapid production
production problems. These perceptions are associated with decline and early water encroachment. Type II reservoirs, in which
increased cost and risk of developing a fractured reservoir. the rock matrix provides essential storage capacity and fractures
Many of these perceptions derive from negative experiences provide essential permeability. Type II reservoirs are defined as
associated with the historical development of fractured reservoirs. exhibiting poor recovery when matrix permeability is low because
When appropriate modern development methods are applied, matrix permeability does not deliver oil to the fracture network
ultimate recovery factors from fractured reservoirs can compare efficiently. When these types of reservoir are produced at too high a
favorably with conventional reservoirs (Allan and Sun 2003). Many rate, the fractures drain quickly with no oil contribution from the
historical development and production problems in fractured matrix, and water encroachment may halt production. Conversely,
reservoirs stemmed from poor understanding of the inherent with higher matrix permeability Type II reservoirs can make
fracture-matrix dual-porosity system (van Golf-Racht 1982). This excellent producers since the matrix can adequately supply the
was often compounded by the lack of an objective, consistent and fracture network. In Type III reservoirs, fractures contribute
empirical-based classification scheme which made accurate char- additional permeability to reservoirs that are already economically
acterization and analysis of the reservoir difficult (Spence et al. producible. Type III reservoirs are often produced as ‘conventional’
2014). (i.e. non-fractured) reservoirs when the importance of the fracture
The first widely used fractured reservoir classification was network is not recognized. Type IV reservoirs, in which fractures do
presented by McNaughton and Garb (1975) who defined three not provide significant additional storage capacity or permeability
types of fractured reservoirs: (A) reservoirs with the great majority of but only create permeability anisotropy, are often highly compart-
their storage capacity in the rock matrix; (B) reservoirs with their mentalized. When flow predictions from standard core or log
storage capacity split between fractures and matrix; and (C) reservoirs analyses do not match reservoir performance, cemented fractures
with their storage capacity entirely within the factures. Aguilera probably act in the capacity of flow barriers.

© 2021 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/). Published by The Geological Society of London for GSL and EAGE. Publishing disclaimer: www.geolsoc.org.uk/pub_ethics
2 S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

While Nelson’s classification has been widely adopted and literature and represents continuing research on global trends in
utilized at a conceptual level, it has several limitations that make fractured reservoirs that began in the 1990s (Fig. 1). Crucially, the
practical application of the scheme difficult: information used to compile this fractured reservoir knowledge base
has been consistently standardized and parameterized into c. 450
(1) Nelson’s classification is focused on the type of fracturing in
variables for each reservoir, including reservoir and fluid properties,
terms of its storage capacity and role as fluid conduits (open
drive mechanism, resources and recovery, well rate and EUR,
fracture) or flow barriers (closed fractures) rather than the reservoir
development scheme and production performance at both reservoir
as a whole, and thus does not account for other intrinsic matrix
and well level (Sun et al. 2021). This allows consistent and
properties that often have a large impact on reservoir performance.
appropriate comparisons to be made on an equal basis between
(2) Distinguishing between Type II and III requires a subjective
fractured reservoirs.
determination of ‘economically producible’. This is often difficult
The 310 fractured reservoirs examined in this study have
to make; and can be subjective as one person’s ‘economic’ is
combined recoverable reserves of 230 BBOE. For those fields
unlikely to be another’s.
where ultimate recovery can be reliably determined, ultimate
Limitations of the existing schemes make comparison of production recovery factors can be said to range 7–65% with a mean average of
performance between fields difficult when large data sets are used. 33% (Fig. 2). Initial well rates range from 100 to 8000 BOPD (mean
While the basis for Nelson’s classification is the relative contribution average 3700 BOPD) and well EUR ranges from 0.32 to 15 MMBO
of matrix and fractures to the total fluid production, we posit that the (mean average 8 MMBO). As most fractured reservoirs have
matrix properties define the various fractured reservoir types. Owing relatively low primary recovery factors, Improved Oil Recovery
to the lack of an objective and consistent definition of matrix (IOR) and Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques are widely
properties, identifying the correct analogues using Nelson’s employed within this dataset as a means to improve recovery
classification can be difficult, particularly for Type II and Type III efficiency, but the results are highly variable with both low- and
fractured reservoirs. For many reservoirs, there is significant overlap high-side outcomes occurring (Fig. 3). This dataset therefore covers
in these categorizations and indeed, different zones or areas of a a broad spectrum of available data on fractured reservoirs and is
single reservoir may fit into different classifications. taken to be representative of both the natural variability inherent to
The objective of this study is to create a classification scheme that is these reservoirs, and of the variability of outcomes when IOR and
practical for the optimization of development and production of EOR methods are applied.
fractured reservoirs by accurately describing their reservoir and To understand the production behaviour of fractured reservoirs, a
production characteristics. These characteristics include the rock fractured reservoir in this study is defined as one whose permeability
matrix properties, such as lithology, diagenesis and pore type, and the is enhanced by the presence of naturally occurring fractures.
performance of fractures as fluid conduits. This classification also Fractured reservoirs are herein classified as:
describes the effects on reservoir performance and recovery efficiency
of intrinsic reservoir and fluid properties and natural drive mechan-
(1) Type 1: characterized by a tight matrix where fractures and
isms, v. the extrinsic choice of development schemes and reservoir
solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide both storage capacity
management practices. This new classification scheme is tested
and fluid-flow pathways;
against case histories with both low- and high-side outcomes of
(2) Type 2: characterized by a macroporous matrix (>20 µm pore
various development methods and reservoir management techniques.
size) which provides the primary storage capacity where fractures
and solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide essential fluid-flow
pathways; and
Methodology
(3) Type 3: characterized by a microporous matrix (<20 µm pore
The data used in this study is a proprietary compilation of 310 global size) which provides all storage capacity where fractures only
fractured reservoirs compiled from peer-reviewed scientific provide essential fluid-flow pathways.

Fig. 1. Map of the world showing location of the 310 fractured reservoirs analyzed in this study.
 Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation 3

Fig. 2. Probabilistic distribution of ultimate recovery factor for the 104 fractured oil reservoirs for which reliable data are available. This distribution
illustrates that the dataset covers a broad range of reservoir size and recovery potential for Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 fractured reservoirs.

Key characteristics of each Type are given in Table 1. This ‘economically viable’ using water-flooding and horizontal drilling
classification is based on the characteristics of the rock matrix and is technology to improve oil recovery in low permeability micropor-
not defined by the type or characteristics of fracturing, as in some ous reservoirs. As this classification scheme focuses on reservoir
widely adopted classifications (Stearns and Friedman 1972; Nelson and production characteristics of naturally fractured reservoirs,
2001), but is representative of the reservoir as a whole; comprising rather than focusing on the type of fracturing, Nelson’s Type IV is
rock properties (lithology and diagenesis), fluid storage (matrix pore not relevant since cemented fractures do not enhance the
type and porosity value) and flow characteristics (matrix and permeability of the reservoir.
fracture permeability).
The fractured reservoir classification described here has some
Type 1 fractured reservoirs
overlap with McNaughton and Garb (1975) and Nelson (2001), but
it differs in its greater simplicity, objectivity and practicality Type 1 fractured reservoirs include any rock type where the matrix is
(Table 2). This scheme lacks a reliance on arbitrary porosity- tight. Fractures and solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide
permeability cut-offs and focuses on fractures as fluid conduits both storage capacity and fluid-flow pathways. Karstification and
rather than flow barriers. Additionally, this classification scheme hydrothermal dissolution are common diagenetic processes and
incorporates element of diagenetic modification into the rock serve to enlarge pre-existing fracture networks and create cavernous,
matrix, such as karstification and hydrothermal dissolution, that are channel and breccia porosity. Fracture networks are generally
not described by other schemes. extensive, consisting of both small-scale microfractures and larger-
Type 1 from this scheme is comparable to Type C of scale joints (Belaidi et al. 2016).
McNaughton and Garb and Type I of Nelson. Type 2 represents Forty-four reservoirs have been characterized as Type 1 by this
a broad spectrum of macroporous reservoirs with low to moderate study, representing about 14% of the total population. Fracture porosity
matrix porosities and generally low permeabilities, including ranges from 0.3–3.5% with an average of 1.4% and bulk porosity
Types A and B of McNaughton and Garb, and Type II and Type III ranges from 0.8–5.8% with an average of 3.2%. Bulk porosity is herein
of Nelson. Type 3, as described here, has little overlap with the defined as the average total porosity of all porosity types: fractures,
existing schemes. It represents reservoirs that have been made solution-enhanced fracture porosity and karstic porosity. Well test

Fig. 3. Primary recovery factor v. ultimate recovery factor cross-plot for the 53 fractured oil reservoirs that produce under different drive mechanisms. For
any given primary recovery factor, a wide range of outcomes are possible dependent on the suitability of secondary and tertiary recovery methods to the
fractured reservoir in question.
4 S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

Table 1. Fractured reservoir classification into Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 with characteristics, lithology, matrix and fracture properties and range of ultimate
recovery factors

Ultimate Oil
Recovery
Classification Characteristics Lithology Matrix Properties Fracture Properties Factor
Type 1 Tight matrix: fractures and solution- Basement, Negligible matrix porosityBulk porosity range from 0.8– Range from
enhanced fracture porosity provide dolomite and and permeability 5.8% (average 3.2%); well test 13–55%
both storage capacity and fluid-flow limestone permeability average 184 mD (average
pathways (maximum 3700 mD) 31%)
Type 2 Macroporous matrix provides the Limestone, Porosity range from 4–20% Fracture porosity range from Range from
primary storage capacity while dolomite, (average 11%); air 0.1–1.5% (average 0.95%); 7–65%
fractures and solution-enhanced sandstone and permeability average well test permeability average (average
fracture porosity provide essential volcanics 5 mD (maximum 103 mD (maximum 35%)
fluid-flow pathways 100 mD) 3280 mD)
Type 3 Microporous matrix provides all storage Chalk, chalky Porosity range from 5 to Fracture porosity range from Range from
capacity while fractures only provide limestone, 34% (average 20%); air 0.1–2% (average 0.9%); well 8–57%
essential fluid-flow pathways diatomite, chert permeability average test permeability average (average
and siltstone 2 mD (maximum 5 mD) 62 mD (maximum 1800 mD) 30%)

permeability which reflects fracture density and connectivity, and flow La Paz Field, Venezuela). Type 1 solution-gas drive basement
capacity averages 184 mD with a maximum of 3700 mD. reservoirs are very susceptible to rapid rise in gas-oil ratio (GOR),
The most prominent aspect of Type 1 fractured reservoirs is a lack which if not addressed can severely limit oil recovery (e.g. Zeit Bay
of matrix contribution to the total reserves and production. Bulk Field, offshore Egypt).
porosity used for volumetric calculation is more accurately obtained In contrast to Type 1 fractured basement reservoirs, Type 1
through mass balance determination. Reservoir performance and fractured carbonate reservoirs are generally well connected with
recovery efficiency depend to a large extent upon distribution of regional aquifers, and hence more prone to water incursion since all
fracture networks and how microfractures, joints and faults interact. oil is stored in fractures. High production rate, and therefore
Type 1 fractured reservoirs are very sensitive to production rates, drawdown, during early production of a reservoir almost always
and hence require bespoke development schemes and reservoir leads to precipitous pressure decline and water incursion, swiftly
management practices to achieve an optimal recovery. followed by rapid production decline as high water-cut wells are
shut-in. Owing to these challenges in managing water production,
ultimate recovery factors range 13–55% (Table 3), reflecting
Production characteristics differing quality of reservoir management practice. Higher ultimate
Production characteristics of Type 1 fractured reservoirs are recovery (>40%) is commonly associated with smaller aquifer-drive
primarily controlled by lithology, size of the reservoir and natural reservoirs (e.g. Amposta Marino Field, Spain, and Nagylengyel
drive mechanism. Type 1 fractured basement reservoirs are largely Field, Hungary) or larger solution-gas drive reservoirs (e.g. La Paz
disconnected from regional aquifers and consequently have a Field in Venezuela). Smaller aquifer-drive reservoirs are typically
relatively weak natural drive dominated by solution gas (Table 3). easier to manage and control water-cut, and larger solution gas
This is reflected by these reservoirs only experiencing limited water reservoirs have more energy to control production in a manageable
production from perched aquifers, which are the main source of way. Optimization of production rates is essential to realize higher
formation water production prior to water injection (Dang et al. ultimate recoveries. Lower ultimate recovery (20% and less) results
2011). Ultimate recovery factor ranges 23–39% and there is a from higher viscosities (e.g. Gela and Rospo Mare fields, Italy) or
positive correlation between ultimate recovery factor and oil column excessively high production rates and early water breakthrough (e.g.
height (Fig. 4). Large reservoirs with thick oil columns that are Liubei Field, China, and Emma Field, USA) where early cessation
completed for production significantly above the oil-water contact of production occurs.
are characterized by steady pressure decline and uniform rise in oil- Within the population of studied Type 1 fractured reservoirs,
water contact throughout production. These reservoirs can support water injection is widely utilized to maintain reservoir pressure
higher flow rates without water coning, and hence recover more oil above the bubble point for both basement and carbonate reservoirs
before water breakthrough occurs (e.g. Bach Ho Field, Vietnam, and (Table 3). If production and injection rates are carefully balanced

Table 2. Comparison in fractured reservoir classification among McNaughton and Garb (1975), Nelson (2001) and this study

McNaughton and Garb (1975) Nelson (2001) This Study

Type C - storage capacity Type I - fractures provide both essential storage Type 1 - tight matrix: fractures and solution-enhanced fracture
entirely within fractures capacity and permeability porosity provide both storage capacity and fluid-flow pathways
Type B - storage capacity split Type II - rock matrix provides essential storage Type 2 - macroporous matrix provides the primary storage capacity
between fractures and matrix capacity and fractures provide essential permeability while fractures and solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide
essential fluid-flow pathways
Type A - great majority of Type 3 - microporous matrix provides all storage capacity while
storage capacity in the rock fractures only provide essential fluid-flow pathways
matrix
Not included in the Type III - fractures provide permeability assistance to Included in Type 2 of this classification
classification reservoirs that are already economically producible
Not included in the Type IV - fractures do not provide significant Not included in the classification
classification additional storage capacity or permeability but
simply create anisotropy
Table 3. List of 16 type-examples for Type 1 fractured oil reservoirs. These are chosen based on availability of high-quality data and as representative of key characteristics of this Type. Field name, reservoir unit, country,
hydrocarbon column height, lithology, bulk porosity, well test permeability, viscosity, drive mechanism, secondary recovery/EOR method, STOIIP and ultimate recovery factor are given for each reservoir

HC Column Bulk Well Test Viscosity Secondary Recovery/ STOIIP Ultimate RF

Field Name Reservoir Unit Country Height (ft) Lithology Porosity (%) Permeability (mD) (cP) Drive Mechanism EOR Method (MMBO) (%)
Amposta Montsia Spain 636 Limestone 1.8 NA 6.15 Aquifer None 110 51
Marino
Augila- Basement (Main Block) Libya 1550 Basement NA NA 1.92 Aquifer/solution gas Water injection 5170 29
Nafoora

Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation

Bach Ho Basement Vietnam 6443 Basement 2.5 43 0.43 Solution gas Water injection 4772 35
Dongshengpu Anshan China 1575 Basement 3.81 80 5.34 No significant drive Water injection 110 38
Emma Ellenburger USA 450 Dolomite NA 54 0.5 Aquifer/solution gas None 230 20
Gela Taormina Italy 1378 Dolomite 4 NA 85 Aquifer None 1305 13
La Paz Basement Venezuela 6000 Basement 1.6 1.9 6.6 Solution gas None 843 39
La Paz La Luna-Cogollo Venezuela 7050 Limestone 2.7 2.1 6.6 Solution gas None 1500 44
Liubei Wumishan China 820 Dolomite 5.7 156 2.9 Aquifer Water injection 235 19
Meyal Chorgali-Sakesar Pakistan 1149 Dolomitic NA NA NA Solution gas Water injection/ 60 41
limestone hydrocarbon gas
injection
Nagylengyel Ugod-Main Dolomite Hungary 1115 Limestone/ 1.5 3800 19 Aquifer CO₂ immiscible injection 103 55
(Blocks I-Iv) dolomite
Rospo Mare Cupello Italy 492 Limestone 1.2 50 000 250 Aquifer None 540 17
Wangzhuang Taishan China 666 Basement 5.6 NA 1.35 No significant drive Water injection 56 27
Xinglongtai Archean Buried Hill China 7612 Basement 6.3 NA 0.52 Solution gas None 271 23
(Xinggu-7 Block)
Yanling Wumishan China 800 Dolomite 3.55 2200 16 Aquifer Water injection 124 32
Zeit Bay Basement Egypt 1050 Basement NA 400 0.84 Solution gas/gas cap Hydrocarbon gas injection 208 31
expansion/gravity
drainage

NA = Not available

5
6 S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

Fig. 4. Ultimate recovery factor v. oil column height for the 10 basement reservoirs for which reliable data are available. The correlation coefficient of 73%
reflects the reasonable correlation between recovery factor and column height.

and continuously monitored, produced water can be minimized for Triassic-Cretaceous Granitic Basement Reservoir, Bach
an extended period of production to optimize ultimate recovery Ho Field, Vietnam
(Fig. 5a, e.g. Bach Ho Field, offshore Vietnam). During this period
The Bach Ho Field produces oil from a horst structure with 80% of
of low water production, the extensive use of preventative measures
reserves contained in fractured granitic basement and the remaining
to control water coning, such as intermittent water injection,
20% in onlapping and overlying Oligo-Miocene sandstones.
modifying injection pattern, water plugging and high water-cut
Production began in 1986 from the Oligo-Miocene reservoir,
wells shut-in, is crucial to achieve higher recoveries (Dang et al.
initially at 6000 BOPD. Field production increased significantly
2011).
after the basement reservoir was brought onstream in 1988,
In contrast, when water injection programs are poorly planned
plateauing at 268 000 BOPD during 2002 (Fig. 5a). The basement
and badly executed, water incursion can lead to a cessation of
reservoir was initially produced under solution-gas drive, but
production within a few years of initial water breakthrough (Fig. 5b,
ultimately this was proved to be inefficient, and reservoir pressure
e.g. Liubei and Wangzhuang fields, China). Amongst Type 1
fell steadily. Pilot water injection began in 1993 to arrest the
fractured reservoirs, where individual wells experience either high
observed pressure decline and first water breakthrough occurred in
water-cut or ‘watering out’, this is the result of either water injection
1997. Full-scale water injection was successfully implemented
or the presence of an extensive aquifer (or both). Once individual
during 1997–01. The success of water injection resulted from
wells produce mostly water, costly reservoir management interven-
monitoring and adjustment of both injection and production rate.
tions may be required to maintain production (Xuan et al. 2018).
The well pattern was continually adjusted to improve sweep
Maintaining a good balance between pressure maintenance and
efficiency. Whenever water-cut in individual wells reached 5–15%,
low water-cut is key to optimal oil recovery (Dang et al. 2011). For
they were converted into gas lift production, which greatly extended
longevity of production it is critical to produce Type 1 fractured
production duration and increased cumulative output of watered-out
reservoirs under low pressure drawdowns and at sustainable rates.
wells (Dang et al. 2011). Measures to maintain a stable rate of
Several reservoir management measures have proved to be effective
production included oil rate control and intermittent production of
in preventing production problems or repairing reservoir damage,
high water-cut wells. As a result of good reservoir management
such as reinjection of produced gas into gas caps to re-pressurize
practices, relatively stable production has been maintained over a
reservoirs, shutting in or recompleting individual wells to eliminate
long period of time (Fig. 5a), leading to an ultimate recovery of
water or gas channeling, and shutting in entire reservoirs to allow
35%. It has been estimated that an extra c. 170 MMBO (4%
fluid contacts to re-equilibrate to planar configurations. Horizontal
incremental recovery) could be recovered in the late-production
wells can prevent gas and water channeling by spreading production
phase of the basement reservoir by postponing water injection to
over a broader lateral area, thus minimizing local drawdown. Since
allow the reservoir to fall below the bubble point pressure and create
well productivity depends on fracture density and the number of
a secondary gas cap (Lang et al. 2008). Gravity-drainage drive
intersecting fracture sets, high-angle and horizontal wells are
would primarily displace oil from the microfractures into the
particularly effective as they maximize the chance of intersecting
surrounding macrofractures. Once the gas cap was large enough,
multiple fractured zones.
water injection could be resumed.

Case histories
Two case histories with positive (Bach Ho Field, Vietnam) and Precambrian Karstic Dolomite Reservoir, Liubei Field,
negative (Liubei Field, China) reservoir management outcomes are China
discussed here as examples of best practices, and pitfalls, of The Liubei Field produces oil from a karstic dolomite reservoir with a
optimizing production in Type I fractured reservoirs. tight matrix and strong drive from an underlying aquifer. Production
 Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation 7

Fig. 5. Daily oil rate and water-cut performance: (a) basement reservoir, Bach Ho Field, Vietnam; and (b) Precambrian Wumishan reservoir, Liubei Field,
China. The difference between the water-cut over the life of the two fields is a result of the judicious employment of reservoir management practices; water-
cut at Bach Ho was actively managed, whereas at Liubei water production rapidly displaced oil production - a condition that was never able to be rectified.

began in June 1978 and reached a peak of 16 700 BOPD in 1979 Type 2 fractured reservoirs
(Fig. 5b). Wells were drilled into the top of the reservoir and
completed open hole. High initial production rates led to rapid Two hundred and five Type 2 case histories were reviewed to
pressure and production decline. A water injection program characterize the rock matrix and fracture properties that define this
undertaken in October 1978 to reverse the pressure only served to Type. Type 2 fractured reservoirs consist of dolomite, limestone,
create a water incursion problem: high-speed channeling of injected sandstone and volcanics, and are characterized by low to moderate
water along fractures blocked the free movement of oil in nearby matrix porosity of 4–20% (average 11%) and generally low air
microfractures and vugs causing poor sweep efficiency (Zhang and permeability of 0.2–100 mD (average 5 mD) (Fig. 6). Matrix
Zhang 1991). To improve drainage of the bypassed oil, both the porosity provides the primary storage capacity while fractures and
production and injection rates were reduced substantially between solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide essential fluid-flow
1980 and 1982. These measures were ineffective for the same pathways. The predominant matrix porosity types include inter-
reasons, and an observed rise in water-cut after 1983 caused further crystalline, interparticle, intergranular, moldic and vuggy.
reduction in production rates. By the end of 1988, water-cut had Karstification and hydrothermal dissolution are common diagenetic
reached 78.8% when most (90%) of the oil column had watered-out processes in this Type and serve to enlarge pre-existing pore
and production rate fell to 2534 BOPD. At the cessation of networks and create cavernous and breccia porosity. These effects
production, in 2002, the Liubei Field had a truncated production further complicate the fracture-matrix dual-porosity system.
life and achieved a sub-optimal ultimate recovery rate - v. applicable Fractures raise average production-derived permeability by one to
analogues - of only 19%. two orders of magnitude above the value that would be derived from
the matrix alone. Well test permeability averages 103 mD with a
Comparing the outcome of development at Bach Ho Field to maximum of 3280 mD.
Liubei Field, it is evident that maintaining production under low Type 2 is the most common fractured reservoir type in this study,
drawdowns, managing water injection/production in a dynamic way representing about 66% of the total population. Fracture-matrix
and preventing water coning is key to optimal recovery. bimodal porosity adds a significant complexity to the recovery
8 S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

Fig. 6. Matrix porosity v. air permeability cross-plot for fractured reservoirs with tight matrix (Type 1), macroporous matrix (Type 2) and microporous
matrix (Type 3).

mechanism. Proper understanding of how these two porosity recovery programs (e.g. Walio, Kasim and Salawati-A fields,
systems interact is critical to optimal recovery. Indonesia and Casablanca Field, Spain) (Table 4).
Many Type 2 fractured reservoirs have either solution gas, gas
cap expansion and/or gravity drainage drive in combination with
Production characteristics
some element of an aquifer drive (Table 4). Solution-gas drive
The production characteristics of Type 2 fractured reservoirs are reservoirs tend to be much longer-lived than aquifer drive reservoirs
closely related to fracture density, rock matrix properties and natural and can be produced for many decades with little risk of water
drive mechanisms. High and sustainable well productivities are incursion. The principal risk factor in these cases is decline in
dependent upon a combination of dense fracturing and good matrix reservoir pressure which can result in unintentional gas-cap
porosity - a result of high fracture permeability recharging fractures formation when an undersaturated reservoir drops below the
rapidly with matrix oil (McQuillan 1985). Ultimate recovery factors bubble point pressure, or because of unwanted gas-cap expansion
range from 7–65% (Table 4). As would be expected, there is in a saturated reservoir (Saidi 1996).
generally a positive correlation between ultimate recovery factor and Reservoirs with a gas-cap expansion drive are susceptible to
mobility index (Fig. 7). With higher matrix permeability and lower precipitous pressure decline when overproduced. Downward gas
viscosity, ultimate recovery factor improves as the matrix cusping and upward water coning through fractures leave high
permeability can adequately recharge fractures. Reservoirs with residual oil saturations in un-swept areas of the matrix and can
unfavorable reservoir and fluid properties (mobility index < significantly reduce ultimate recovery factor. Early initiation of gas
0.1 mD/cP) tend to have lower recovery efficiencies (Fig. 7). reinjection for the purpose of pressure maintenance above the
However, the scattered recovery factor distribution for a given bubble point is critical for maximizing oil recovery (McQuillan
mobility index reflects the human impact on reservoir performance 1985). Optimization of production rate is also essential to prevent
and recovery efficiency as discussed below and in the case the formation of pressure sinks that allow gas and water incursion
histories. into the oil column. When gas-cap expansion occurs along a
Many of the production characteristics result from the brittle uniform front, gravity drainage can be induced in the gas-swept
nature of Type 2 fractured reservoir lithologies. Fracture networks in portion of the oil column, and hence significantly increases recovery
these types of rock matrix tend to be extensive and are commonly factor.
connected to downdip or underlying regional aquifers. High Many gravity-drainage drive Type 2 fractured reservoirs were
production rates during the early production of a reservoir almost originally undersaturated and first produced by other drive
always leads to a rapid water incursion and premature production mechanisms. The Cantarell and Empire Abo fields were originally
decline (e.g. Nido and West Linapacan A fields, Philippines). From solution-gas drive reservoirs and the Yates Field was produced by
the studied Type 2 fractured reservoirs, water injection has been weak aquifer drive (Table 4). In all three fields, the natural drive
widely implemented to maintain reservoir pressure, but it has met mechanisms were weak and secondary gas caps formed uninten-
with mixed success (Table 4). There is a tendency for injected water tionally when reservoir pressure dropped below the bubble point. As
to channel along fractures, leaving the matrix block un-swept. the gas caps expanded, the gas-oil contacts moved downward
For efficient, long-life production, it is critical to produce Type 2 through the oil column and gravity drainage became the primary
fractured reservoirs at optimal rates so that the rate at which oil is drive mechanism. In all three fields, the formation of secondary gas
produced from the fractures is matched to the rate at which water is caps was the result of poor planning. However, the unintended
imbibed into the matrix. Water-cut and movement of the oil-water switch to gravity drainage was tremendously beneficial, greatly
contact must be carefully monitored and production rate reduced increasing oil production and ultimate recovery factor (to 45%, 60%
when either rises too rapidly (Orlopp 1988). When properly and 36%, respectively). Once it became apparent that gravity
managed, many aquifer drive reservoirs have achieved good drainage was increasing productivity, the gas caps were artificially
ultimate recovery factors (>40%) without the need for secondary expanded in all three fields by reinjection of produced gas at Empire
Table 4. List of 57 type-examples for Type 2 fractured oil reservoirs. These are chosen based on availability of high-quality data and as representative of key characteristics of this Type. Field name, reservoir unit, country,
hydrocarbon column height, lithology, matrix porosity, air permeability, viscosity, drive mechanism, secondary recovery/EOR method, STOIIP and ultimate recovery factor are given for each reservoir

HC
Column Matrix Air
Height Porosity Permeability Viscosity STOIIP Ultimate
Field Name Reservoir Unit Country (ft) Lithology (%) (mD) (cp) Drive Mechanism Secondary Recovery/EOR Method (MMBO) RF (%)

A.J. Bermudez Middle Jurassic-Upper Mexico 4839 Dolomite 5.6 0.6 9.5 Solution gas Water injection/gas injection 8635 36
Cretaceous
Abkatun Cantarell Mexico 2789 Dolomite 9 3.1 0.59 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ Water injection 5045 45
gravity drainage
Akal Cantarell Mexico 7218 Dolomite 7 NA 2.6 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Nitrogen immiscible injection 30 000 46
expansion/gravity drainage
Al Huwaisah Shuaiba Oman 171 Limestone 21 20 1.2 Aquifer None 1566 25
Albion-Scipio Trenton-Black River USA 600 Dolomite 3 1 0.97 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ None 200 45
gravity drainage
Ardmore Zechstein UK 780 Dolomite 12 NA 0.75 Aquifer None 261 31
Ashtart El Garia Tunisia 860 Limestone 17 2.5 0.56 Solution gas Water injection 944 37
Barnhart Ellenburger USA 397 Dolomite 4 4 NA Solution gas None 116 17

Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation

Bati Raman Garzan Turkey 689 Limestone 18 58 592 No significant drive Water injection/gas injection 1850 10
Beaver Lodge Duperow USA NA Dolomite 13 3.6 0.23 Solution gas Water injection 230 33
Beaver Lodge Mission Canyon USA 188 Limestone 6 2.1 0.23 Solution gas Water injection 175 33
(Madison)
Bibi Hakimeh Asmari Iran 5300 Dolomitic 9 1 1.3 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Hydrocarbon gas injection 12 400 31
limestone expansion/gravity drainage
Bouri Farwah (Jdeir-Jirani) Libya 730 Limestone 14 10 NA Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Water injection 5000 40
expansion
Breedlove Fasken USA 210 Dolomite 9 NA NA Aquifer None 76 50
Cabin Creek Interlake USA 400 Dolomite 15 5 1.26 Solution gas Water injection 480 23
Cactus Agua Nueva-Tamaulipas Mexico 3609 Dolomitic 7 16 4.6 Aquifer/solution gas Water injection 2069 20
limestone
Casablanca Middle Jurassic-Lower Spain 879 Limestone 4 10 1.1 Aquifer None 356 40
Cretaceous
Charlson Interlake USA 220 Dolomite 12 1 NA Aquifer None 88 22
Cottonwood Creek Phosphoria (Ervay) USA 6500 Dolomite 7 0.5 2.75 Solution gas Water injection 230 30
Elkhorn Ranch Mission Canyon USA 125 Dolomite 16 25 0.23 Aquifer None 50 44
(Madison)
Empire Abo Abo USA 1044 Dolomite 6.4 50 0.39 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ Gas recycling 383 60
gravity drainage
Gachsaran Asmari Iran 7516 Dolomitic 9 4 1.35 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ Hydrocarbon gas injection 33 300 31
limestone gravity drainage
Haft Kel Asmari Iran 2286 Dolomitic 8 1 0.4 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Hydrocarbon gas injection 8575 23
limestone expansion/gravity drainage
Kasim Kais Indonesia 470 Limestone 21 38 1.79 Aquifer None 88 65
Kirkuk Main Limestone Iraq 2265 Limestone 15 6 4.3 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ Water injection 37 285 60
gravity drainage
Krisna Baturaja (Lower) Indonesia 593 Limestone 23 100 2.22 No significant drive Water injection 120 44
Ku Cantarell Mexico 2769 Dolomite 9 NA 1.8 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Nitrogen immicible injection 5884 53
expansion/gravity drainage
Kuleshov A4 Russia 384 Limestone 18 195 0.97 Aquifer/solution gas Water injection 986 50
(continued)

9
 10
Table 4. (Continued)

HC
Column Matrix Air
Height Porosity Permeability Viscosity STOIIP Ultimate
Field Name Reservoir Unit Country (ft) Lithology (%) (mD) (cp) Drive Mechanism Secondary Recovery/EOR Method (MMBO) RF (%)

Lisbon Leadville (Redwall) USA 1870 Dolomite 5.5 22 NA Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ Gas recycling 91 56
gravity drainage
Maloob-Zaap Cantarell Mexico 2493 Dolomite 9 NA 14.5 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ Nitrogen immicible injection 12 280 36
gravity drainage
Mansuri Asmari Iran 420 Dolomitic 24 10 1.18 Aquifer/solution gas None 3315 30
limestone
Masjid-i-Suleiman Asmari Iran 1520 Dolomitic 13 0.25 3.5 Solution gas/gas cap expansion/ None 5300 26
limestone gravity drainage
Midale Charles (Midale Beds) Canada 604 Dolomite 20 7 3.4 No significant drive Water injection/CO₂ miscible 515 42
injection/WAG miscible flood
Naft Khaneh-Naft Kalhur Iran-Iraq 1082 Dolomitic 14 5 2.48 Aquifer/solution gas None 834 40
Shahr limestone
Nido-B Nido Philippines 711 Limestone 9 0.5 1.87 Aquifer None 42 35
Ostashkovich Zadon-Yelets Belarus 623 Dolomite 8.8 10 2.5 Solution gas Water injection 473 45
Parentis Upper Jurassic-Lower France 1345 Dolomite 11 100 2.3 No significant drive Water injection 560 41

S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

Cretaceous
Parsi Asmar Iran 4670 Dolomitic 15 2.4 0.73 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Gas recycling 12 650 30
limestone expansion/gravity drainage
Poza Rica Tamabra Mexico 820 Limestone 11 30 19 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Water injection 4810 44
expansion/gravity drainage
Ragusa Taormina Italy 1719 Dolomite 4 NA 315 Aquifer/gas cap expansion None 480 33
Raman Mardin-Raman-Garzan Turkey 902 Limestone 14 10 30 Aquifer None 600 20
Renqiu Wumishan China 3028 Dolomite 4 1 8.21 Capillary imbibition Water injection 2662 32
Sabiriyah Mauddud Kuwait 745 Limestone 21 31 2.5 Solution gas Water injection 7446 28
Salawati-A Kais Indonesia 580 Limestone/ 17 NA 3.5 Aquifer None 75 48
dolomite
Sidi El Itayem El Garia Tunisia 407 Limestone 12 4 0.44 Aquifer None 140 29
Sitio Grande Tamaulipas-Tamabra Mexico 1575 Dolomite 8 NA 8.3 Solution gas Water injection 1153 32
Turner Valley Turner Valley (Rundle Canada 5650 Dolomite 8 4 2.4 Solution gas/gas cap expansion Water injection 1313 15
Pool)
Usa Carboniferous-Lower Russia 1122 Limestone 19 39 710 Aquifer Steam injection/hot water injection 4034 15
Permian
Vega Siracusa Italy 1017 Limestone/ 6 NA 2500 Aquifer None 1000 7
dolomite
Virden Lodgepole (Nvs Unit) USA 150 Limestone 10 35 3.52 No significant drive Water injection 195 40
Walio Kais Indonesia 561 Limestone/ 23 7 2 Aquifer None 410 49
dolomite
West Edmond Frisco (Hunton) USA 680 Limestone 7 3 0.6 Solution gas Water injection/gas injection 400 30
West Linapacan A Linapacan Limestone Philippines 1097 Limestone 14 NA NA Aquifer None 111 8
Weyburn Charles (Midale Beds) Canada 459 Dolomite 15 10 3.4 No significant drive Water injection/CO₂ miscible injection 1400 43
Xan Coban B Guatemala 176 Dolomite 14 200 30 Aquifer Water injection 460 39
Yates San Andres USA 450 Dolomite 18 100 7.6 Aquifer/solution gas/gas cap Water injection/gas injection 4500 36
expansion/gravity drainage
Yihezhuang Majiagou-Badou China 1093 Dolomite 2.5 8.4 2.51 Solutiong as Water injection 122 32

NA = Not available
 Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation 11

Fig. 7. Ultimate recovery factor v. mobility index cross-plot for the 38 Type 2 fractured oil reservoirs for which reliable permeability and oil viscosity data
are available. Mobility index is defined as the average ratio of air permeability to oil viscosity.

Abo and Yates, CO2 injection at Yates, and N2 injection at Cantarell This example provides a type case of where effective reservoir
(Table 4). management methods were adopted early enough, and with
For Type 2 fractured reservoirs, optimization of flow rate and sufficient speed, to adapt to changing reservoir conditions.
careful management of water injection and production are the most Because the fracture permeability and matrix-fracture connectivity
critical elements for maximizing recovery factor (Yu and Li 1989). are relatively high in Type 2 reservoirs, it is critical that sufficient
Depressurization recovery by means of reducing water injection or reservoir monitoring is in place to adopt an adaptive strategy.
shutting-in production has proved to be effective in recovering oil Further, this example illustrates that corrective measures, such as
stranded in medium-small fractures, and in lower permeability plugging of even large fractures with cement, can still be effective,
reservoirs (Withjack 1985). Other successful improved recovery even after damage to the reservoir’s performance through water
methods include nitrogen immiscible injection, gas recycling, incursion has occurred.
hydrocarbon gas injection and CO2 miscible flood (Table 4). The
following section examines both successful management cases, and
unsuccessful ones, in detail.
Cretaceous Dolomite Breccia, Sitio Grande & Cactus
Fields, Mexico
The Sitio Grande Field produces oil from a Type 2 fractured
Case histories dolomite breccia reservoir with a mean average matrix porosity of
Four case histories are presented to demonstrate the impact of 8%. The field came onstream in 1972 under solution-gas drive and
reservoir management programs on reservoir performance and within two years attained peak production of 93 000 BOPD
recovery efficiency: Renqiu Field, China, Sitio Grande and Cactus (Fig. 8b). High production rates were made possible by adequate
fields, Mexico, and Bibi Hakimeh Field, Iran. fracture connectivity and a thick oil column. Owing to a weak
natural drive combined with the offtake of associated gas, reservoir
pressure fell rapidly to near bubble point (Santiago-Acevedo 1980).
Precambrian-Ordovician Karstic Dolomite Reservoir, Peripheral water injection began in 1977, aiming to reverse the
Renqui Field, China pressure decline, and dramatically increased production to a second
The Renqiu Field produces oil from a Type 2 fractured karstic peak of 92 000 BOPD (Fig. 8b). High production rates continued
dolomite reservoir with a matrix porosity of 4% and air permeability under water injection until the early 1980s. During the second peak
of 1 mD. Natural energy is provided by relatively weak aquifer period, waterflooding was responsible for 40% of field production.
drive. The field began production in 1975 and reached plateau Successful implementation of water injection has led to an estimated
production of c. 260 000 BOPD during 1977–80 (Fig. 8a). Water ultimate recovery factor of 32%.
injection was introduced to maintain reservoir pressure in December The Cactus Field, adjacent to Sitio Grande, produced oil from a
1976. Owing to the inherent interconnectivity of fracture systems, similar carbonate reservoir with the same drive mechanism. It began
water coning occurred faster than anticipated. Water encroachment production at about the same time and reached peak production in
along fractures led to a rapid rise in water-cut and early ‘watering- 1978 (Fig. 8c). In contrast to Sitio Grande however, the reservoir
out’ of producers (Horn 1990). To counter this trend, production pressure dropped below bubble point, necessitating earlier water
was slowed and well spacing was reduced. In time, production rates injection. Because the fracture system at Cactus was better connected
were optimized to match the imbibition rate (i.e. the rate at which than at Sitio Grande, the injected water channeled along fractures and
water in the fracture system exchanges with oil in the reservoir water influx led to a decline in reservoir pressure and oil production
matrix). Large fractures were plugged with cement to prevent water that were never mitigated (Santiago-Acevedo and Mejia-Dautt 1980),
coning. Implementation of these reservoir management programs leading to an ultimate recovery factor of only 20%.
has resulted in an estimated ultimate recovery factor of 32% (Yu and The comparison of these two near-neighbor analogues
Li 1989). provides a good opportunity to evaluate the human impact on
12 S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

Fig. 8. Daily oil rate and water-cut performance: (a) Precambrian Wumishan reservoir, Renqiu Field, China; (b) Cretaceous Tamaulipas-Tamabra reservoir,
Sitio Grande Field, Mexico; (c) Cretaceous Tamaulipas-Tamabra reservoir, Cactus Field, Mexico; and (d) Miocene Asmari reservoir, Bibi Hakimeh Field,
Iran.

reservoir performance. Timely and effective water injection at Tertiary Dolomitic Limestone Reservoir, Bibi Hakimeh
Sitio Grande was successful in arresting pressure decline and Field, Iran
increasing production, whereas water injection designed to
reverse pressure decline at Cactus only served to create a The Bibi Hakimeh Field produces oil from a Type II fractured
water incursion problem: high-speed channeling of injected dolomitic limestone reservoir with a mean average matrix
water along fractures blocked the free movement of oil in the porosity of 9% and mean average air permeability of 1 mD.
matrix. Natural drive energy is provided by gas-cap expansion
 Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation 13

augmented by gravity drainage, partial aquifer support and weak techniques is essential for maximizing the ultimate recovery.
solution gas. The field began production in 1964 and achieved a Many different techniques have been applied, often in combin-
peak of 445 000 BOPD in 1971 from wells that produced through ation (Table 5), but have met with mixed success as reflected by
fractures at individual well rates of more than 34 000 BOPD. the range of observed ultimate recovery factors in this population
However, this rate was sustained for less than two years. By (8–57%). All higher recovery factors (greater than 35%) occur in
1973, overproduction from the more densely fractured parts of well-fractured chalk or chalky limestone with favorable imbibition
the reservoir caused terminal pressure decline, resulting in gas characteristics (e.g. Ekofisk Field, Norway and Yibal Field,
incursion from above and water incursion from below, and Oman), where effective secondary recovery programs have been
leaving high unrecoverable residual oil saturations in the invaded adopted (Table 5). As would be expected, there is generally a
zone. By 1978 field production had declined dramatically to less positive correlation between ultimate recovery factor and rock/
than 200 000 BOPD (Fig. 8d). fluid properties (Fig. 9). Lower ultimate recoveries (less than
Gas injection and water injection secondary recovery programs 25%) result from unfavorable imbibition characteristics, and poor
were both considered as mitigation measures, but as the reservoir reservoir and fluid properties (Fig. 9). Many reservoirs with a
was oil-wet with a water imbibition efficiency of only 5%, gas lower recovery factor produce under primary recovery. In poorly
injection was determined to be the optimum method for fractured reservoirs, in which bypassed oil is commonly left
improving recovery (McQuillan 1985). Gas injection began in behind in the matrix, ultimate recovery factors are generally low
1977 aiming to reverse the pressure decline, but the damage had regardless of the imbibition characteristics (e.g. Kraka, Valdemar
been done. The gas-oil contact had fallen by more than 1200 ft, and Dan fields, Denmark).
the oil-water contact had risen by 400 ft, and production from Reservoirs with good imbibition characteristics could be
many of the producers was restricted by water-cut, gas incursion described as water-wet. They imbibe water easily during primary
or both. Although the reservoir has a theoretical maximum oil production by aquifer drive or during secondary recovery by water
recovery factor of 60% under gas injection, the ultimate recovery injection. Since the imbibed water efficiently forces oil out of the
factor is estimated at 31% due to problems caused by reservoir matrix and into fractures, water-wet reservoirs with well-developed
management mistakes. If gas injection had been initiated earlier, natural fractures tend to have good ultimate recovery factors.
water and gas incursion could have been contained and the Reservoirs with poor imbibition characteristics are generally
ultimate recovery factor would have been significantly higher described as oil-wet or mixed-wettability. They do not imbibe
(McQuillan 1985). This example reiterates the need for early and water easily. As water enters an oil-wet reservoir during production,
decisive intervention. it displaces oil in the fractures, but not in the matrix, leaving large
portions of the matrix blocks un-swept. This can significantly
reduce recovery factors.
Type 3 fractured reservoirs
One of the key challenges to developing Type 3 fractured
Sixty-one Type 3 fractured reservoir examples were reviewed to reservoirs is the selection of appropriate secondary recovery
characterize the rock matrix and fracture properties. Type 3 fractured programs to keep reservoir pressure above the bubble point. Water
reservoirs consist of primary chalk, chalky limestone, diatomite, injection has proved to be the most effective secondary recovery
chert and siltstone, and are characterized by high matrix porosities method in reservoirs with favorable imbibition characteristics
of 5–34% (average 20%) and low air permeabilities of 0.1–5 mD (Table 5). Methods to control water-cut and improve sweep
(average 2 mD) (Fig. 6). Matrix porosity provides almost all storage efficiency include horizontal and infill drilling, optimizing
capacity in these reservoirs and fractures provide essential fluid- production and injection rate, modifying injection pattern, water
flow pathways. Type 3 fractured reservoirs are characterized by a plugging and profile modification. For oil-wet and mixed-
microporous matrix (<20 µm pore size) with rare solution-enhanced wettability reservoirs, gas injection has proved to be an effective
pores. Preservation of matrix porosity is enabled by hydrocarbon secondary recovery program (e.g. Fahud, Natih and Safah fields,
saturation in structurally higher positions (Brewster et al. 1986). Oman). In several Type 3 fractured reservoirs gas injection has been
Fractures raise average production-derived permeability by one to used to intentionally expand the gas caps to induce gas-oil gravity
two orders of magnitude above matrix values. Well test permeability drainage. This is a very efficient drive mechanism that is easily
averages 62 mD with a maximum of 1800 mD. capable of raising recovery factors to more than 50% for both Type 2
and 3 fractured reservoirs.
Production characteristics
Production characteristics of Type 3 fractured reservoirs are
Case histories
primarily controlled by fracture density and imbibition character- Two case studies are presented here to demonstrate the substantive
istics. Because of the low matrix permeability, a large proportion of effect that wettability can have on ultimate recovery factor in Type 3
field production is obtained from wells that intersect the most highly fractured reservoirs: Ekofisk Field, Norway, and Natih Field, Oman.
fractured reservoir and from the most highly fractured intervals in an
individual well. Fractures tend to be localized around faults and
areas of maximum curvature, and generally do not connect either to Upper Cretaceous-Tertiary Chalk Reservoir, Ekofisk Field,
downdip or underlying aquifers. In addition, porosity and Norway
permeability in many Type 3 fractured reservoirs decreases The Ekofisk Field produces oil from several water-wet primary
dramatically off-structure (Brewster et al. 1986), preventing the chalk reservoirs. The field began production in 1971, established a
reservoirs from connecting laterally with regional aquifers. This has first period of plateau production in 1976 under solution-gas and
important implications since it means that these reservoirs are compaction drive, and then experienced a steep decline (Fig. 10a).
usually not prone to widespread water incursion. Natural drive Re-injection of excess gas into several crestal wells began in 1975
energy is provided mainly by solution gas, gas cap expansion and and continued for several decades, increasing oil recovery by an
compaction (Table 5). incremental 3% of STOIIP (Christian et al. 1993). Fieldwide water
Owing to the low matrix permeability and weak natural energy injection was implemented in 1987, peaked in 1996 and has
drive, primary recovery factors are generally low (6–28%) with a continued to the present day. This has increased oil recovery by an
mean average of 14%. Application of secondary recovery incremental 28% of STOIIP (Christian et al. 1993). These reservoirs
 14
Table 5. List of 25 type-examples for Type 3 fractured oil reservoirs. These are chosen based on availability of high-quality data and as representative of key characteristics of this Type. Field name, reservoir unit, country,
hydrocarbon column height, lithology, matrix porosity, air permeability, viscosity, drive mechanism, secondary recovery/EOR method, STOIIP and ultimate recovery factor are given for each reservoir

HC Column Matrix Air Permeability Viscosity Secondary Recovery/EOR STOIIP Ultimate RF

Field Name Reservoir Unit Country Height (ft) Lithology Porosity (%) (mD) (cP) Drive Mechanism Method (MMBO) (%)

Dan Chalk Group Denmark 1040 Chalk 28 1.75 0.58 Solution gas/gas cap Water injection 2800 28
expansion
Ekofisk Tor-Ekofisk Norway 1265 Chalk 30 1.5 1 Solution gas/ Water injection/ 6900 52
compaction hydrocarbon gas injection
Eldfisk Hod-Tor-Ekofisk Norway 1050 Chalk 30 1.5 0.11 Solution gas/ Water injection 2800 31
compaction
Fahud Natih Oman 1575 Chalky limestone 29 5 2.2 Gas cap expansion/ Water injection/ 6027 30
gravity drainage hydrocarbon gas injection
Halfdan Chalk Group Denmark 590 Chalk 28 1.5 NA Solution gas/gas cap Water injection 1615 38
expansion
Hod Hod-Tor Norway 630 Chalk 33 1.4 NA Solution gas/ None 333 19
compaction
Idd El Shargi Shuaiba Qatar 570 Chalky limestone 23 1.5 2.5 No significant drive Water injection 2618 26
North Dome
Kraka Chalk Group Denmark 275 Chalk 28 2 NA Solution gas/gas cap None 350 12
expansion

S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

Lekhwair Kharaib-Shuaiba Oman 394 Chalky limestone 28 2 0.8 Aquifer/solution gas Water injection 1440 39
Lisburne Wahoo (Lisburne) USA 900 Limestone/ 10 1 0.9 Solution gas/gas cap Gas recycling 1800 9
dolomite expansion
Machar Chalk Group UK 4495 Chalk 22 0.22 0.4 Solution gas Water injection 500 24
Mansuri Ilam Iran 1270 Chalky limestone 12 0.8 NA Solution gas None 9034 8
Natih Natih Oman 728 Chalky limestone 19 2.6 1.5 No significant drive Water injection/ 3000 21
hydrocarbon gas injection
Norman Wells Ramparts Canada 1150 Chalky limestone 8.4 4 1.32 Solution gas Water injection 680 47
Point Arguello Monterey USA 1735 Chert/siltstone 15 0.1 2.5 Solution gas/gravity Gas recycling 2350 9
drainage
Reitbrook Reitbrook Beds Germany 295 Chalky 25 1.5 30 Aquifer/gas cap Gas recycling/hydrocarbon 243 8
limestone/ expansion gas injection
chalk
Safah Shuaiba Oman 125 Chalky limestone 22 4 0.3 Solution gas/gas cap Water injection/ 1077 40
expansion hydrocarbon gas injection
Sidi El Kilani Abiod Tunisia 656 Chalky limestone 22 0.5 NA No significant drive Water injection 126 39
Skjold Chalk Group Denmark 1798 Chalk 23 1 0.93 Solution gas/capillary Water injection 790 41
imbibition
South Belridge Belridge Diatomite USA 1200 Diatomite 60 1.5 3 Solution gas/ Water injection 2500 28
(Monterey) compaction
Tor Tor-Ekofisk Norway 1050 Chalk 21 0.6 NA Solution gas/ None 812 22
compaction
Tyra Lower Chalk Group Denmark 341 Chalk 35 4.1 NA Solution gas/gas cap Gas recycling 345 20
expansion
Valdemar Tuxen-Sola Denmark 500 Chalk 25 0.4 0.58 Aquifer/solution gas/ None 725 14
compaction
Valhall Hod-Tor Norway 656 Chalk 42 3.7 0.4 Solution gas/ Water injection 2700 34
compaction
Yibal Shuaiba Oman 312 Chalky limestone 25 1 0.64 Aquifer/solution gas Water injection 3800 57

NA = Not available
 Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation 15

Fig. 9. Ultimate recovery factor v. rock and fluid property cross-plot for the 18 Type 3 fractured oil reservoirs for which reliable porosity, permeability and
oil viscosity data are available. Rock and fluid property is measured by multiplying average ratio of air permeability to oil viscosity by porosity (mD/cP*%).

responded well to waterflooding, the production decline was Middle Cretaceous Chalky Limestone Reservoir, Natih
reversed, and a secondary production peak was reached in 2002. Field, Oman
Successful implementation of water injection led to an estimated
ultimate recovery factor of 52%. Recovery efficiency for Ekofisk The Natih Field produces oil from a chalky limestone reservoir. The
might have been poorer if a different secondary recovery program field began production in 1967 under a weak natural energy drive
had been chosen or if water injection had been poorly planned and and established plateau production in 1969–70. The field went into
badly executed. rapid pressure and production decline after this (Fig. 10b). The

Fig. 10. Daily oil rate and water-cut performance: (a) Cretaceous-Paleocene Tor-Ekofisk Reservoir, Ekofisk Field, Norway; and (b) Cretaceous Natih
Reservoir, Natih Field, Oman.
16 S. Sun and D. A. Pollitt

primary production profile is similar to that of Ekofisk and pressure- Conclusion

maintenance water injection was tried to achieve a similar result.
However, unlike at Ekofisk, it did not arrest the production decline, Systematic and in-depth analysis of a global dataset of 310 fractured
primarily due to the overall mixed wettability of the reservoir (van reservoirs has prompted the creation of a new classification scheme
Dijkum and Walker 1991). After the failure of this water-injection for fractured reservoirs. This new classification scheme is
program, crestal gas injection began in 1982 to induce gravity independent of the type of fracturing and embraces fundamentally
drainage (Al Salhi et al. 2001). This served to stem the production different matrix types, including its rock properties, fluid storage
decline, but was not able to reverse it, as water injection did at and flow characteristics. Within this scheme, rock matrix properties,
Ekofisk. Because of the poor response to water injection, the Natih including lithologies and pore types, are demonstrated to exert a
Field achieved an ultimate recovery factor of only 21%. The field primary control on production performance and recovery efficiency.
might have achieved a greater ultimate recovery if a different Optimal field development plans should take into consideration of
secondary recovery program had been chosen (e.g. crestal gas both the lithological characteristics and fractured reservoir types.
injection only). This indicates the importance of adopting Type 1 fractured reservoirs are characterized by a tight matrix
appropriate secondary recovery programs during the early stage of where fractures and solution-enhanced fracture porosity provide
a field development. both storage capacity and fluid-flow pathways. Production
characteristics of Type 1 fractured reservoirs are primarily
controlled by lithology, size of the reservoir and natural drive
Implications for development strategy
mechanism. Type 1 fractured basement reservoirs are largely
The fractured reservoir classification scheme presented here has disconnected from regional aquifers and consequently have a
wide implications for field development strategy. While permeabil- relatively weak natural drive dominated by solution gas. Large
ity enhancement by natural fractures is critical to defining a fractured reservoirs with a thick oil column that are completed for production
reservoir, it is matrix properties that define the various fractured significantly above the oil-water contact can support higher flow
reservoir types. Using an objective and consistent definition of rock rates without water coning, and hence recover more oil before water
matrix properties, such as porosity type and poroperm character- breakthrough occurs. It is critical to develop basement reservoirs
istics (Fig. 6), this study categorises fractured reservoirs as Type 1 under low pressure drawdowns and at sustainable rates. However,
(tight matrix), Type 2 (macroporous matrix) and Type 3 solution-gas drive basement reservoirs are very susceptible to rapid
(microporous matrix). This classification scheme describes the rise in gas-oil ratio (GOR), which if not addressed can severely limit
unique behaviour of the 310 fractured reservoirs examined by this oil recovery. In contrast, Type 1 fractured carbonate reservoirs are
study into discrete groups that perform similarly within the generally well connected with regional aquifers, and hence more
constraints of the definition. This forms the basis for the ‘Types’ prone to water incursion since all oil is stored in fractures. High
and while it is possible to sub-divide these types further (for production rate, and therefore drawdown, during early production of
instance, into Type 1 basement and Type 1 carbonate), this a reservoir almost always leads to precipitous pressure decline and
classification scheme attempts to make the subdivision of fractured water incursion, swiftly followed by rapid production decline as
reservoirs at the highest possible level, in order to have the widest high water-cut wells are shut-in. Optimization of production rates is
practical application. essential to realize higher ultimate recoveries. Water and gas
Existing fractured reservoir classifications do not adequately injections have been widely adopted injection strategies to maintain
differentiate certain types of fractured reservoirs as the definition reservoir pressure above the bubble point for both basement and
and delineation for the different types of fractured reservoirs is carbonate reservoirs. When production and injection rates are
qualitative in nature, relying on arbitrary porosity-permeability cut- carefully balanced and continuously monitored, the amount of
offs and subjective judgement of commerciality. Consequently, it is produced water can be kept low for an extended period of
difficult to apply these classification schemes for the understanding production, and hence optimize the ultimate recovery.
of fundamental controls on reservoir performance and recovery Type 2 fractured reservoirs include dolomite, limestone, sand-
efficiency. The fractured reservoir classification scheme presented stone and volcanics and are characterized by low to moderate matrix
in this study is based on reservoir and production characteristics, porosities, diverse pore types and generally low air permeabilities.
including rock matrix properties and fractures in the capacity of both Permeability enhancement by naturally occurring fractures is critical
storage and fluid conduit. As there is little overlap between the to the delivery of commercial production rates. Fracture networks in
various types of fractured reservoirs (Fig. 6), it can be easily these brittle lithologies tend to be extensive and are commonly
implemented to optimize development and production in naturally connected to downdip or underlying regional aquifers. High
fractured reservoirs, particularly during the early stage of a field production rates can lead to rapid water incursion and premature
development when direct measurement information is limited. production decline. The production rates must be optimized so that
Numerous fractured reservoir examples from around the world the rate at which oil is produced from the fractures is matched to the
indicate that Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 fractured reservoirs defined rate at which water is imbibed into the matrix and microfractures.
in this study are comprised of fundamentally different rock types When properly managed, many aquifer-drive Type 2 fractured
and characterized by different natural drive mechanisms, and hence reservoirs have achieved good ultimate recovery factors without the
render different development scheme choices. Within this new need for secondary recovery programs. Water injection has been
classification scheme differentiation is made between controls widely implemented to maintain reservoir pressure, but it has met
imparted by inherent natural conditions, such as rock and fluid with a mixed success. There is a tendency for injected water to
properties and natural drive mechanisms, v. human controls, such as channel along fractures, leaving the matrix block un-swept.
choice of development schemes and reservoir management Optimization of flow rate and careful management of water
practices. Differentiation of these controls allows reservoir injection and production are the most critical elements for
performance and recovery efficiency to be understood in context, maximizing recovery factor. Gravity drainage has proved to be an
and for fractured reservoirs to be classified in term of their intrinsic effective recovery mechanism for many large solution-gas or gas-
whole-rock properties. Best practices and lessons learned from the cap expansion drive carbonate reservoirs with thick oil columns.
global analogues for each of the fractured reservoir types can be Type 3 fractured reservoirs include chalk, chalky limestone,
used to validate development concepts, quantify resource assess- diatomite, chert and siltstone and are characterized by high matrix
ments, and calibrate production performance. porosities and low air permeabilities. Fractures tend to be localized
 Fractured Reservoirs Optimisation 17

around faults and areas of maximum curvature, and generally do not Dang, C.T.Q., Chen, Z., Nguyen, N.T.B., Bae, W. and Phung, T.H. 2011. Lessons
connect to downdip or underlying aquifers. Natural drive energy is learned and experiences gained in developing the waterflooding concept of a
fractured basement-granite reservoir - a 20 year case study. Journal of
provided mainly by solution-gas, gas-cap expansion, and compac- Canadian Petroleum Technology, 50, 10–23, https://doi.org/10.2118/137561-
tion. Application of secondary recovery techniques is essential for PA
maximizing the ultimate recovery. Water injection has been widely Horn, M.K. 1990. Renqiu field. In: Beaumont, E.A. and Foster, N.H. (eds)
Structural Traps II: AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology, Atlas of Oil and
implemented, but its success depends upon fracture density and Gas Fields. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 227–252.
imbibition characteristics of the reservoir rock. Higher recovery Lang, L.D., Loi, C.M., Luong, D.H., Toan, N.M. and Tuan, P.A. 2008. A
efficiency commonly occurs in well-fractured water-wet chalk or proposal to study the production of White Tiger basement reservoir under a
new reservoir pressure regime to enhance oil recovery. Proceedings 2nd
chalky limestone, whereas lower recovery efficiency results from
International Fractured Basement Reservoir Conference, Vung Tau,
unfavorable imbibition characteristics, poor reservoir and fluid 291–296.
properties or limited development of natural fractures. McNaughton, D.A. and Garb, F.A. 1975. Finding and evaluating petroleum
The new classification presented in this study is demonstrated to accumulations in fractured reservoir rock. In: Cameron, V.S. (ed.) Exploration
and Economics of the Petroleum Industry. Matthew Bender and Co., 13,
better describe performance of naturally fractured reservoirs of 23–49.
different types and allows differentiation and better understanding McQuillan, H. 1985. Gachsaran and Bibi Hakimeh fields. In: Roehl, P.O. and
of controls imparted by inherent natural conditions, and by human Choquette, P.W. (eds) Carbonate Petroleum Reservoirs. Springer-Verlag,
New York, 513–523.
intervention on reservoir performance and recovery efficiency. Nelson, R.A. 1979. Natural fracture systems: description and classification.
AAPG Bulletin, 63, 2214–2232.
Acknowledgements We thank C&C Reservoirs for allowing access to its Nelson, R.A. 1985. Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs -
proprietary global field and reservoir knowledge base for this publication and Contributions in Petroleum Geology and Engineering, 1. Gulf Professional
Petroleum Geoscience editor, Sebastian Geiger, and reviewers, Raffaele Di Cuia, Publishing, Houston.
Mark Bentley and Arthur Lavenu, for their constructive comments and Nelson, R.A. 2001. Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, 2nd
suggestions. We also thank Robert Trice, Rod Sloan and Xiaoguang Lu for edn. Gulf Professional Publishing, Houston.
their comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. We are grateful to Rena Yan, Orlopp, D.E. 1988. Casablanca Oilfield, Spain - a karsted carbonate trap at the
Yangyang Li and KaDavien Baylor for their assistance during preparation of the shelf edge. Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
manuscript. USA, OTC Paper 5734, 441–448.
Saidi, A.M. 1996. Twenty years of gas injection history into well-fractured Haft
Kel Field (Iran). SPE International Petroleum Conference of Mexico,
Author contributions SS: conceptualization (lead), writing – original Villahermosa, SPE 35309, 123–133.
draft (lead); DAP: conceptualization (supporting), methodology (equal), Santiago-Acevedo, J. 1980. Giant fields of the southern zone – Mexico. In:
validation (lead), writing – review & editing (lead) Halbouty, M.T. (ed.) Giant Oil and Gas Fields of the Decade l968–1978.
AAPG Memoirs, 30, 339–385.
Santiago-Acevedo, J. and Mejia-Dautt, O. 1980. Giant fields in the southeast of
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in Mexico. Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, 30,
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 1–31.
Spence, G.H., Couples, G.D., Bevan, T.G., Auilera, R., Cosgrove, J.W., Daniel,
J.-M. and Redfern, J. 2014. Advances in the study of naturally fractured
Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are hydrocarbon reservoirs: a broad integrated interdisciplinary applied topic.
available from C&C Reservoirs but restrictions apply to the availability of these Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 374, 1–22, https://doi.org/
data, which were used under licence for the current study, and so are not publicly 10.1144/SP374.19
available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request Stearns, D.W. and Friedman, M. 1972. Reservoirs in fractured rock. In: King,
and with permission of C&C Reservoirs. R.E. (ed.) Stratigraphic Oil and Gas Fields. AAPG Memoirs, 16, 82–106.
Sun, S.Q., Pollitt, D.A., Wu, S. and Leary, D.A. 2021. Use of global analogues to
improve E&P decision quality. AAPG Bulletin, https://doi.org/10.1306/
References 10262019250 [in press].
Aguilera, R. 1983. Exploring for naturally fractured reservoirs. SPWLA 24th Van Dikjum, C.E. and Walker, T. 1991. Fractured reservoir simulation and field
Annual Logging Symposium, 27–30 June, Calgary, Albert, 1–28. development, Natih Field, Oman. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Aguilera, R. 1995. Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. PennWell Publishing Co., Exhibition, October 1991, Dallas, Texas, SPE Paper 22917, 309–320.
Tulsa, OK. Van Golf-Racht, T.D. 1982. Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir Engineering:
Allan, J. and Sun, S.Q. 2003. Controls on recovery factor in fractured reservoirs: Development in Petroleum Science, 12. Elsevier Scientific Publication
lessons learned from 100 fractured fields. SPE Annual Technical Conference Company, New York.
and Exhibition, 5–8 October, Denver, Colorado, USA, SPE 84590. Withjack, E.M. 1985. Analysis of naturally fractured reservoirs with bottom water
Al Salhi, M., Al Maimani, A. and Makel, G.H. 2001. A switch from verticals to drive - Nido A and B fields, offshore Northwest Palawan, Philippines. Journal
dual lateral producers accelerate oil production and reduces Unit Technical of Petroleum Technology, 37, 1481–1490, https://doi.org/10.2118/12019-PA
Cost (UTC) for Natih Field. SPE Middle East Oil Show, March 2001, Xuan, V.T., Tuan, V.N., Tuan, N., Kha, X.N., Ngoc, B.T. and Thanh, Q.T. 2018.
Manama, Bahrain, SPE Paper 68127. Assessing the impact of groundwater intrusion to production efficiency and
Belaidi, A., Bonter, D.A., Slightam, C. and Trice, R.C. 2016. The Lancaster field: proposing solutions to enhance oil recovery from fractured basement reservoir
progress in opening the UK’s fractured basement play. In: Bowman, M. and in Su Du Den Field, offshore Vietnam. IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling
Levell, B. (eds) Petroleum Geology of NW Europe: 50 Years of Learning — Technology Conference, 27–29 August, Bangkok, Thailand, IADC/SPE-
Proceedings of the 8th Petroleum Geology Conference. Geological Society, 191078-MS.
London, Petroleum Geology Conference Series, 8, 385–398, https://doi.org/ Yu, Z. and Li, G. 1989. Development of Renqiu fractured carbonate oil pools by
10.1144/PGC8.20 water injection. In: Mason, J.F. and Dickey, P.A. (eds) Oil Field Development
Brewster, J., Dangerfield, J. and Farrell, H. 1986. The geology and geophysics of Techniques: Proceedings of the Daqing International Meeting 1982.
the Ekofisk Field waterflood. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 3, 139–169, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 28, 175–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8172(86)90025-5 Zhang, M.K. and Zhang, H.P. 1991. Feasibility study on cessation of water
Christian, T.M., Currie, J.C., Lantz, T.G., Rismyhr, O. and Snow, S.E. 1993. injection, plugging of large fractures and improvement of recovery factor
Reservoir management at Ekofisk field. SPE Annual Technical Conference, during late stage development of the Liubei Wumishan oil pool. Paleokarst, 4,
Houston, SPE 26623. 61–66 [in Chinese].