n Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE 30572
Fractured Reservoir Characterization and Performance Forecasting Using Geomechanics and
Artificial Intelligence
A. Ouenes, SPE, S. Richardson, W.W. Weiss, SPE, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center
Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Ex-
hibition held in Dallas, TX, U.S.A" 22-25, October 1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the pa-
per, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are
subjected to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetinl\s are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous
acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE,
P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083, U.S.A., fax 01-214-952·9435.
Abstract
A new approach in fractured reservoir characterization
and simulation that integrates geomechanics, geology, and
reservoir engineering is proposed and illustrated with ac-
tual oil reservoirs. This approach uses a neural network
to find the relationship between, reservoir structure, bed
thickness and the well performance used as an indicator
of fracture intensity. Once the relation established, the
neural network can be used to forecast primary produc-
tion, or for mapping the reservoir fracture intensity. The
resulting fracture intensity distribution can be used to rep-
resent the subsurface fracture network. Using the fracture
intensity map and fracture network, directional fracture
permeabilities and fracture pore volume can be estimated
via a history matching process where only two parameters
are adjusted.
Introduction
Conventional reservoir simulation has benefited from im-
portant research during the last few years. The use
of geostatistics is slowly moving from the production of
"grayscale maps" with dubious value and multi-million cell
realizations with little practical value to useful input data
for reservoir simulators. Although there is still much to be
done before these geostatistical realizations will be able to
reproduce the past performance of a reservoir, the recent
trend shows clearly that major advances have been made
in conventional reservoir description. On the other hand,
naturally fractured reservoir (NFR) characterization has
not enjoyed a similar benefit from any major research ef-
fort. Until this work, there is no quantitative methodology
to "fill the NFR simulator gridblocks"
Most of the current fractured reservoir characterization
425
rely on a qualitative description of the fractures. This is
achieved by using mainly structure properties,1-2 seismic
velocity anisotropy 3 observed with shear or S-waves, and
more recently compression or P-waves. 4 However, a reser-
voir engineer struggling to numerically simulate a frac-
tured reservoir needs more than just the location of "sweet
spots."
The objective of this paper is to provide a reservoir
description methodology that leads to a computer input
file for a fractured reservoir simulator which can be used
for performance forecasting. This methodology relies on
the use of geomechanical concepts derived from reservoir
structure and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
Neural networks
During the past few years, the petroleum industry enthu-
siastically supported the concept of "integrated systems."
Integration of everything is everywhere. From a reservoir
engineering point of view, the concept of integration is
a necessity not fashion. The necessity exists because of
the scarcity of reservoir information and the wide range of
scales over which this information is measured. Therefore,
a reliable reservoir description must somehow integrate all
the existing information at all the scales. The application
of stochastic global optimization methods, e.g. simulated
annealing, in reservoir description 5 provided new tools for
achieving a certain level of integration. However, stochas-
tic global optimization methods were developed in an ar-
tificial intelligence context and are more than just simple
mathematical optimization methods, as believed by some
users. Within the artificial intelligence framework, other
tools exist and can be used to integrate various informa-
tion into a complex reservoir model. The most practical of
these integration tools can be found in neurocomputing.
There are various ways of looking at a neural network.
The most common application is a pattern recognition tool
where from a given amount of known information, a neu-
ral network is able to be trained to recognize some pat-
terns. In this case, the output of the neural network is
very often a binary variable where a value 0 means NO,
and a value 1 means YES. Such tools are routinely used
by financial institutions to decide on the outcome of our
 FRACTURED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
2
FORECASTING USING GEOMECHANICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
credit card or mortgage application. Scientists and engi-
neers found other uses for neural networks, the most com-
'-mon is the "equation maker." In this case, the scientist or
engineer may have experimental or field data for a given
system with N inputs, (xiii = 1,2,···, N) and M outputs,
(Yjlj = 1,2,···, M). Both the inputs and outputs can be
measured in the laboratory or field. The neural network
can be used to find a mathematical model that relates the
N inputs, x, to the M outputs, y. In other words, the neu-
ral network becomes a multivariate regression tool. How-
ever, the advantage of the neural network model over con-
ventional multivariate regression methods is its ability to
mimic complex non-linear models. This ability has been
illustrated by Quenes et al. 6 where the complex partial
differential equations describing two-phase flow in porous
media could be reproduced with a neural network.
The process of determining these mathematical models
is described as training. The basic idea is to provide to
the neural net L training records (patterns) that will direct
the adjustment of the neural net parameters represented
by a weight matrix Wnm ;. The reader is referred to neural
nets literature7 - 8 for a complete description of these AI
tools. The following paragraph gives a brief description
necessary for understanding the next section. Further-
more, we will address only backpropagation (or backprop)
neural networks which we use for the fracture mapping
application.
Suppose we have a system with N inputs (xiii =
1,2, .. ·,N), and M model outputs (Yjlj = 1,2, .. ·,M).
Additionally, we consider that there are L training data
records, (xil,Yjlli = 1,2, .. ·,N;j = 1,2, .. ·,M;l =
1" 2 ... , L) ,.available
... .. The backprop neural net uses the
L training patterns to adjust the weight matrix, Wn;n;
through an optimization procedure called training. For
the lth training pattern, the N inputs Xil are fed-forward
from the input layer, through all the hidden layers, and
finally the neural net provides its output Yjl (W), which
is different from the known target output Yjl measured in
the laboratory or field. The training process consists of
estimating the weights Wn;n; that minimize the quadratic
error:
L M
E(W) = LL[Yjl- Y}1(W)]2 (1)
1=1 j=1
The error E backpropagates from the output layer to
the input layer and is used to adjust the matrix weight
W nm ;. We use a hybrid optimization algorithm 6 that
combines simulated annealing and gradient methods to
estimate and adjust the weight matrix.
After successful training, the neural network can be
used for testing the outcome of some inputs not included
in the training process. There are various practical as-
pects related to the training and testing stages which will
be described within the fractured reservoir application.
426
SPE 30572
A neural network for fracture characterization
In reservoir description, a neural network can be viewed
as an integration tool where various inputs of different na-
ture and scale can be correlated to some crucial reservoir
property. In this framework, the neural net is more than a
crude "black box," it is a practical tool to integrate various
types of data into a reservoir model. A recent example of
this good integration ability can be found in the porosity
estimation using seismic attributes. 9 With this integration
ability in mind, we consider a naturally fractured oil or gas
reservoir and try to characterize the areal distribution of
fracture intensity.
In our early work,10 we estimated fracture intensity
distribution in a carbonate reservoir using a generalized
curvature method. The major idea behind this early work
is to construct a quantitative fracture model using struc-
tural properties. Extending Murray's1 original idea of us-
ing structure curvature, we used two curvatures Gxx and
Gyy to derive a fracture model. The determination of this
fracture model was time-consuming for a 30 well reser-
voir. Furthermore, only curvatures were considered as pa-
rameters affecting the fracture intensity. Within the same
philosophy, Lisle2 also uses the product of two main curva-
tures (Gaussian curvature) to detect fractures. However,
the bed thickness and lithology have an important impact
on rock fracturing, and therefore need to be included in a
quantitative fracture model. With at least three major pa-
rameters (structure curvatures, thickness, and lith(")logy),
it becomes impossible for humans to find a fracture model
that may correlate all these parameters to fracture inten-
sity as indicated by log data or well production. In this
situation, a neural net would be a perfect tool for finding
the fracture model able to integrate all parameters affect-
ing rock fracturing.
Neural network outputs. As described earlier, a neural
network is a mathematical model representing a relation-
ship between a set of inputs x and a set of outputs y.
Because we are interested in describing fracture intensity,
the question that arises is what is the best way to describe
fracture intensity, at reservoir simulator scale? Addition-
ally, we would like to develop a fracture mapping approach
that will not create another problem, i.e. upscaling. We
have found that at the reservoir simulator scale, the best
way to describe fracture intensity is to use well production
data. These data can either be the maximum oil rate in
the early life of the well, the initial potential (IP) of the
well, or the cumulative production at a given time in the
life of the reservoir. This well performance is strongly de-
pendent on the fracture network around the wellbore and
provides information at a reasonable scale represented by
the drainage radius. However, when choosing well per-
formance as an indicator of fracture intensity, one may
have also to take reservoir pressure into account which
also affects the well performance. Since reservoir pressure
is rarely measured, we use the field cumulative oil pro-
 SPE 30572 A. OUENES, S. RICHARDSON, W.w. WEISS
duction to account for the change in pressure. In other
words, for each new well drilled during the development
of a field, we compute the total cumulative oil production
of the entire field and use this number as an indication of
the reservoir pressure at the time the new well was drilled.
This reservoir pressure indicator is added as an input to
the neural network because it affects the output which is
the well performance. In addition to this "undesirable"
input which is not related to fractures, the neural network
will need other inputs that are related to rock fracturing.
Neural network inputs. The inputs for the neural net-
work must be the parameters which are related to fracture
intensity. We consider three major factors affecting the
rock fracturing: reservoir structure, bed thickness, and
lithology. These factors must be represented by one or
more quantitative variables that should be available over
the entire area of the reservoir.
Evaluating reservoir structure may seem an easy task.
However, this fractured reservoir description approach re-
quires a detailed and accurate structure, not simply a
hand-drawn contour map. There are only two possibili-
ties for obtaining a meaningful structure: 3-D seismic or
interpolation using well log data. If 3-D seismic is avail-
able, then the major changes in the structure can be seen
clearly either on a structure obtained simply from the
travel time l1 or after a time-depth conversion. At this
stage, it is important to realize that the most important
information needed in the structure map is the areal varia-
tion in depth, not the depth itself. Therefore, a time-depth
conversion may not dramatically change the structure con-
trast from one point to another.
Unfortunately, 3-D seismic is not available for all frac-
tured reservoirs. In this case, one must rely on tops ob-
tained from well logs and use a mapping method to gen-
erate the entire reservoir structure. With the effect of
structure on rock fracturing being accounted for through
curvatures and slopes at each location in the reservoir, it
is important to use a smooth mapping method. A "noisy"
structure will lead to extremely high curvatures (second
derivative of the tops) that are the result of the "noise"
and may have no relation to fracturing. A smooth map-
ping method such as kriging can be used provided that a
reasonable and meaningful variogram is available. After
trying various approaches to generate the reservoir struc-
ture, we have found a new approach that can be very useful
for mapping tops especially for folded structures. 12
This approach relies on the assumption that reservoir
depth, D, of a folded structure obeys the Laplace equa-
tion:
2 2
-88xD2 + -88 D2 = 0 (2)
y
In terms of curvatures, this assumption means that at
each location the curvature in the x direction, G",,,, = ~,
and the curvature in the y direction, Gyy = ~:1? are equal
427
3
and have opposite signs. This 3,fisumptioD. can be seen in
many structures where hyperbolic (saddle) folded surfaces,
can be found. For reservoirs where most of the structure
is made of elliptical (dome) folded surfaces this assump-
tion is not valid and another mapping approach must be
considered. If the observed folding appearR to he hyper-
bolic, the Laplace equation can be used with the known
depths at the well locations to estimate the entire top of
the structure. We use a finite element method to solve the
Laplace equation and take advantage of the sparse matrix
(resulting from the finite element approach) solvers to in-
terpolate reservoir structure points in a lpw seconds on a
simple PC.
With the resulting structure map, or using seismic
travel-time,l1 the discrete curvatures C:r,r and C yy are
computed at each grid location. Howevpr, for a complete
characterization of the structural changes, we have found
that cross curvatures G",y and Cy ", taken in the diago-
nal directions (Fig. 1) yield additional information and
therefore could be used as inputs for the neural network.
Furthermore, the slopes S'" = ~~, Sy = !!Jf" and the cross
slopes taken in the diagonal directions, when added as in-
puts, allow a faster and superior training of the neural
network. In summary, the geomechanical effect of struc-
ture on fracturing is taken into account by using the depth,
four slopes, and four curvatures.
The bed thickness is also another important parameter
to be included as an input. For a fractured reservoir where
bed thickness varies significantly, this input is crucial be-
cause it affects the neural network output in two ways.
When considering production as an indicator of fracture
intensity, a high oil or gas rate can reflect a very thick pay
zone, a highly fractured zone, or a very thick and highly
fractured zone. Therefore, a correct fracture model must
include thickness as an input. On the other hand, bed
thickness is intimately related to fracturing. In general,
very thick beds have less fractures than thin beds. 13 Based
on these two considerations, bed thickness appears to be
an important input for fractured reservoirs. The problem
of obtaining bed thickness over the entire reservoir is sim-
ilar to the interpolation of structure points. Mapping or
3-D seismic can be used, and the comments made for the
structure mapping also apply to thickness.
The last parameter that has an impact on rock frac-
turing is lithology. This parameter would be an important
input to consider if reservoir lithology varies areally. If so,
geostatistics applied to an indicator variable could provide
a good estimation of the lithology distribution which then
can be included as input to the neural net. Given these
different inputs, the neural network architecture may now
be designed.
Neural network architecture. A backprop net is a sys-
tem that links a series of basic blocks called nodes. These
nodes, represented by a set NO = {nl,n2,''',nn}, are
connected in a certain way to create the architecture (or
 FRACTURED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
4 SPE 30572
FORECASTING USING GEOMECHANICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
topology), whereas the connection between two nodes ni
and nj is characterized by a weight Wninj' Each node
sums the inputs multiplied by the weights, then applies a
nonlinear function (sigmoid function) to produce the node
output. The network architecture includes the input layer,
the output layer, and a certain number of hidden layers
(Fig. 2). Each layer contains a finite number of nodes
connected to other layer nodes. These nodes can be rep-
resented in practice by a few lines of software. or a few
electronic components in the hardware. The choice of this
architecture is important being that it directly affects the
performance of the neural network and its ability to pre-
dict correct values.
There are two major aspects to consider when design-
ing the architecture. First, complex non-linear models re-
quire more than one hidden layer, many nodes, and there-
fore many weights to estimate during the training pro-
cess. Second, the training of a neural network is a multi-
dimensional optimization problem very rich in local min-
ima. Hence, an increase in the number of weights or node
connections reduces the chance of approaching a global
optimum required for reasonable training. In this trade-
off between r~ducing the connections for better training,
and increasing the connections for better modeling of the
non-linear behavior, there are very limited objective tools
that can assist in the design of the optimal architecture.
Fuzzy logic combined with a special neural network can be
used to find the optimal architecture,6 if sufficient training
patterns are available.
However, in the fracture mapping application discussed
in this paper and its companion paper, 11 the amount of
available data is not sufficient to find the optimal archi-
tecture in an objective manner. The lack of data isa con-·
sequence of selecting actual reservoirs for the application
of this methodology. Therefore, the proper architecture
was found by testing various models, and it appears that
a neural network with two hidden layers (Fig. 2) was suffi-
cient for the modeling of the relation between the fracture
intensity and the inputs previously discussed. Each node
of the input layer is comiected to all the nodes of the first
hidden layer. For 11 inputs, there are 121 connections be-
tween the input layer and the first hidden layer. It is very
common in neural network applications for the first and
second hidden layers to be fully connected, which means
121 additional connections. This common procedure is not
necessary and the user should first try one-to-one conneC-
tions between the first and second hidden layer as shown
in Fig. 2. In the fracture mapping application, we have
found that the 11 connections between the first and the
secon'd hidden layers were sufficient which means 110 (121-
11=110) less weights to estimate during the training.
i
Neural network training
In most neural network applications, there is a wealth of
data that can be used for training, and most probably a
reliable generalization of the neural network. In fracture
428
mapping of actual reservoirs, this luxury does not exist
and one may have to live with 25 to 30 training patterns
obtained from the very limited information available at
the wells. Although, 25 patterns may seem very small
number to train a neural network, we have found that it
is sufficient to derive a fracture model.
When training a.neural network with known data, it is
helpful to know the limiting value of the error E at which
the training could be considered sufficient. The training
process starts by assigning random weights which will lead
to an initial error Eini. At each iteration (epoch), the neu-
ral network adjusts the weights and the neural network
error, E, is slowly reduced. The training could be stopped
at a certain error Efin and the obtained weights could
be considered as representative of the. non-linear model
sought by the user. The training process could be stopped
when the neural network fracture intensity FIt reasonably
match the actual fracture intensity fil for all the L wells
used for the training. A bad match of the well data in-
dicates insufficient training, and a very close match of all
the data may indicate over-training, which needs to be
avoided. The number of iterations required to obtain. an
acceptable match will be discl,1ssed and illustrated with
three different fractured res~rvoirs.
Using the architecture shown in Fig. 2, three actual
oil reservoirs were considered for the application of this
new approach. The first unit, referred to as Unit A is
located in a large naturally fractured reservoir in West-
ern· Texas. The study included 16 sections area of this
unit. For Unit A, the fracture intensity was represented
by the cumulative oil produced. at each well for 78 wells
drilled prior to 1960. In Unit A, we are interested in
mapping the fracture intensity of an approximately 900ft
thidc shaley sandstone formation which we will refer to as
Formation AA. For Unit A, little information was avail-
able at the time of the study. Besides the estimated in-
dividual cumulative production of 78 wells, the tops of
Formation AA and a 3-D seismic survey was available.
For Unit A, the average density of wells per section is
WDA = 4.9 wells/sq.mile. Another unit, referred to as
Unit B encompasses 22 wells that produced on primary
before water injection into formation AA was initiated.
Tops of the .formation AA were available at 55 wells lo-
cated in 4 sections. The average well. density per section
in Unit B is WDB = 13.7 wells/sq.mile. The third ex-
ample is a carbonate reservoir located in southeast New
Mexico and referred to as the Young Deep Unit (YDU).
Our early work lo on fractured reservoir characterization
was applied to YDU. Production history and log data of
30 wells were available at the YDU which spans over an
area of about 2 sections. The well density per section is
WDYDU = 15 wells/sq.mile.
For the West Texas Unit B and New Mexico YDU, the
structure of the considered fractured formation was ob-
tained by using the log data and the mapping procedure
that assumes the Laplace equation described in a previous
 SPE 30572 A. OUENES, S. RICHARDSON, W.w. WEISS
section. Given the reasonable well density of Unit Band
YDU, an interpolation method provides a good estimation
of the structure. The fracture intensity at each well loca-
tion was represented by the Initial Potential (IP) for Unit
B, and by the maximum oil rate for YDU. For both reser-
voirs, the correlation between neural net inputs and the
considered fracture intensity was distinctly evident. This
can be inferred because in less than 3000 iterations the
neural net converged to a very small error and achieved
very good training. Using the scarce well information in
Unit A, an interpolated structure ll was derived. When
using this structure map to create the neural network in-
puts, more than 5 million iterations were required to reach
an acceptable error. Thus, if a good structure map is avail-
able and the fracture intensity data are correct, the train-
ing will be short. For verification purposes, the neural
network used for Unit A was trained with a structure map
derived from 3-D seismic ll and resulted in faster training.
Therefore, slow training indicates poor data quality.
In such cases, the user may stop the training at a high
error E l . Using the weights associated with this error, a
fracture intensity map can be obtained as described in the
next sections. If the training is continued to a lower error
E z , the new fracture intensity will be different. For the
YDU, Fig. 3 shows the fracture intensity map for an error
E l = 0.1, and Fig. 4 shows the map for an error E z = 0.08.
Although there are some local differences, the main trends
remain the same for the two errors. The derived fracture
network from the Fig. 3 fracture intensity map is shown
in Fig. 5 for the high error E l . For the lowest error E z
when using the fracture intensity map shown in the Fig.
4 and the weighting method described in the companion
paper,ll the fracture network obtained is shown in Fig.
6. Notice that despite the difference in the training er-
ror, the two fracture networks are almost the same. This
indicates that for both the errors, an acceptable training
was achieved. However, the subsurface fracture network
is unknown and other means must be used to evaluate
the quality of the training. A simple approach to verify if
generalization was achieved, is to test patterns which were
not included in the training process.
Neural network testing
Before using the neural network for any prediction, one
must confirm the ability of the neural network to re-
produce correctly the non-linear model that may exist
between the various inputs and the fracture intensity.
This validation process is mandatory and allows the user
to evaluate the goodness of the obtained mathematical
model. In the application to fractured reservoirs, there
are two ways to test a neural network. The trained model
can be used to predict the performance of an infill well
(well deleted from the training data set), and/or obtain
the fracture intensity map over the entire reservoir.
429
5
Primary performance forecasting. If we consider a set
of 22 wells with their known performance and use only 18
wells for the training, the testing process consists of pre-
dicting the performance of the 4 wells not included in the
training. By doing so, we are simply predicting the per-
formance of an infill well. As an illustration, this testing
procedure is applied to Unit B.
For Unit B, data for 22 wells were available. Two sets
of 18 wells were used for training and each time 4 different
wells were removed from the training patterns. After com-
pletion of the training based on 18 wells, the performance
of the 4 wells removed from training are predicted. Figs.
7 and 8 show the actual IP versus the predicted IP. The
empty circles indicate the 18 wells used for the training,
and the filled circles are the predicted performance of the
4 wells for each data set. For both sets, the error on the
predicted performances varied between 11% and 50%. In
other words, the largest error was made when the neural
network predicted an IP=200, when the actual IP=400.
Considering the very small number of available wells used
for training, these predictions can be considered remark-
able. Unfortunately, this prediction tool cannot be used
after fluids are injected in the fractured reservoir. The
change in pressure cannot be included easily in the neu-
ral network model. For this reason, we developed another
procedure to obtain a fracture intensity map that can be
used for reservoir simulation.
Mapping the fracture network. When choosing the
well performance as an indicator of fracture intensity" we
include the cumulative oil production as an indicator of
reservoir pressure in the inputs. In other words, for each
new well drilled at a certain time, corresponds a reser-
voir pressure indicator. This indicator is simply the total
cumulative oil produced by all the previous wells. When
the neural network is used to predict the performance of
each gridblock at the initial reservoir pressure, we have a
tool that can "drill" fictitious wells, in each gridblock, at
the initial pressure. In this situation, the predicted perfor-
mance is only affected by the fracture network. Therefore,
the predicted value represents the fracture intensity of the
considered gridblock. Applying the same process for all
the gridblocks provides a complete description of the areal
distribution of fracture intensity. Figs. 3 and 4 show the
fracture intensity map for the YDU and similar maps can
be found for Unit A and Unit B in the companion paper.!l
These fracture intensity maps can be further used to derive
a fracture network using the weighting method described
in the companion paper. Briefly speaking, this method
uses at each gridblock the fracture intensity of the eight
neighboring gridblocks to find the orientation of the frac-
ture. When focusing only on the most intense fractures
that affect fluid flow in the reservoir, the fracture network
derived from Fig. 4 for YDU is shown in Fig. 9. This
fracture network clearly shows the shear fractures associ-
ated with a folded surface. This type of fractured reservoir
 FRACTURED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
6
FORECASTING USING GEOMECHANICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
is the most complex and difficult to simulate for reasons
described in the next section.
Estimation of fracture permeability and pore
volume
The objective of this paper is to develop a methodology to
fill reservoir simulator gridblocks. This objective includes
history matching, which we view as an integral part of
reservoir characterization, and not a downstream applica-
tion disconnected from the characterization effort. This
methodology relies on three components: 1) a fracture in-
tensity map obtained with a neural network or using seis-
mic attributes 11 , 2) a fracture network derived from the
fracture map using the weighting method 11 , and 3) an in-
verse modeling procedure using a reservoir simulator for
automatic history matching.
The basic idea behind this methodology was first de-
scribed in earlier work 10 where we assume that directional
permeabilities, K x and K y , as well as fracture pore vol-
ume PV are a function of the fracture intensity, Fl. The
functions considered are linear and simple. For example,
the permeability in the x direction is given by:
!(x = 01 X Fl (3)
and the pore volume of the fractures is given by:
PV=02 xF1 (4)
Where 0 1 and O2 are two constants to be estimated
during the history matching. Since the fracture intensity
is available over the entire reservoir, the estimation of frac-
ture permeability K x and pore volume PV in each grid~
block is reduced to the estimation of two simple parame-
ters 0 1 and O2 . Therefore, this approach tries to integrate
all the available field data to produce a fracture intensity
map which will ease the history matching task by reducing
the number of "tuning parameters." Furthermore, geome-
chanical and geological constraints can be honored in the
fracture intensity map which will lead to a realistic reser-
voir model.
The estimation parameters 0 1 and O2 can be found
by manual history matching, or by using an automatic
history matching procedure, which will not encounter ma-
jor difficulties, since the number of estimation parameters
is very small. The same philosophy of fractured reser-
voir characterization based on inverse modeling was used
by Long et al. 14 , Doughty et al. 15 , and Datta Gupta et
al. 16 to obtain fracture distributions. However, in their
investigations,14-16 the obtained fracture intensity map is
a result of a pure numerical inversion, and geomechani-
cal and geological input were not imposed to the model.
In our work, the emphasis is given to the integration of
geomechanical, geological, and geophysical 11 information
in the fracture model through a neural network. Despite,
this integration effort there are other problems that need
to be addressed when simulating actual oil or gas fractured
reservoirs.
430
SPE 30572
As discussed in the companion paper, 11 we are focusing
on two types of fractures: regional and structure related.
In the "regional fractures, two major fracture directions can
be seen by different means. The principal fractures along
the maximum horizontal stress direction, and another set
of fractures orthogonal to the major regional fractures. In
this situation, a reservoir grid that has its x-axis along
the regional fractures, and its y-axis in the perpendicu-
lar direction is sufficient to represent the fluid flow in the
fractures. Unfortunately, structure-related fractures are
not perpendicular and do not keep the same direction in
the field. Often these shear fractures, shown in Fig. 9,
form an angle of 60 degrees and are found along the fold-
ing. In other words, the fluid flow in the fractures can
occur in any direction. When using a finite difference
reservoir simulator, only two major flow directions can
be tolerated. Therefore, the major difficulty in simulat-
ing structure-related fractured reservoirs is the inability
of tp,e simulators to account for preferential flow paths in
any direction.
There are two solutions for this problem. The first so-
lution, is to use a very fine grid, and the second solution is
to use full permeability tensors. Because we are primarily
concerned with full-field simulation that includes history
matching, we try to avoid a very fine areal grid system.
Hence, we prefer to deal with full permeability tensors.
Diagonal versus full permeability tensors. 'Most
reservoir simulation studies use a diagonal tensor for per-
meability where at most two directional permeabilities K x
and K y are considered. The cross-permeability terms K xy
and K yx have been introduced by Leung 17 , White and
Horne 18 , and Samier 19 for different applications. For frac-
tured reservoir simulation, these cross-permeability terms
may be the best tools to represent the flow in all the direc-
tions as it occurs in a fold-related fracture system. Notice
at this stage that we did not discuss the dual-porosity or
single-porosity fracture representation. When concerned
with fluid flow in the fractures, the choice of dual or single-
porosity is not important. However, this choice becomes
important when considering the fluid transfers between
matrix and fractures.
For illustration purposes, we will use a diagonal perme-
ability tensor and a single-porosity model to simulate the
performance of the YDU reservoir. The purpose of this
choice is to illustrate the limited ability of a diagonal per-
meability tensor to reproduce correctly the fine details of
the production history at different wells. The advantages
of a full tensor will be illustrated in future papers.
The YDU reservoir model is described with two lay-
ers. The upper layer represents the matrix and the lower
layer represents the fractures. Each layer contains 759
gridblocks (33 x 23) of 350 ft. The details concerning the
reservoir and its characteristics can be found in a previous
paper.l° Using the fracture intensity map shown in Fig. 4
and the Eqs. 3 and 4, the inverse model history-matched
 SPE 30572 A, OUENES, S, RICHARDSON, W,W, WEISS
150 months of 29 wells' production history. In contrast
to the the early work lO the permeability anisotropy fac-
tor, which was considered constant over the field, was not
included in the estimation parameters. The permeability
in the y direction K y was computed directly by using K x
and an anisotropy map obtained from the fracture network
shown in Fig. 6.
At each gridblock, the fracture orientation was avail-
able. In terms of fluid flow, this fracture orientation indi-
cates the direction of flow. Unfortunately, when using a
diagonal tensor there are only two possible flow directions.
In this situation we have only three possible permeability
anisotropy factors (Fig. 10). When the fracture direction
has an angle around 0 degrees we assume an anisotropy
factor AN = 0.01 and:
Ky = 0.01 x Kx ...................•.•.....•.•..•....
This assumption will force the flow in the x direction to
honor the fracture orientation. When the fracture direc-
tion is around 90 degrees, the assumption is:
K y = 100 x K x ...••.•.•....•............•.......•.•.
And Finally when the fracture orientation is around 45
degrees we use:
Ky = Kx ......•.......•.•..........•................
Since the fracture orientation is available over the entire
field (Fig. 6), an anisotropy map can be obtained at each
gridblock and K y computed directly by using K x •
After less than a 100 iterations, using the automatic
history matching algorithm,lO the production history was
matched (Fig. 11). Waterflooding was initiated in the
early life of the reservoir and different injectors were used
to maintain the reservoir pressure. The water response of
different wells is directly related to the fracture networks,
In the considered grid, most of the producing wells shown
in Fig. 11 are not aligned with an injector in the x or y
direction. Since, the grids are large (350ft) and most the
producers-injectors are along the diagonal, we realize in-
consistent water breakthrough. For some wells, the break-
through is late (well 1 and well 12) for others it is early
(well 3). When the injector and producer are aligned along
the principal directions, we reach a better match as seen
on the last months of well 15 and well 24. These examples
illustrate the necessity of including cross-permeabilities in
the fractured reservoir model.
Conclusions
Based on the considered application, we have arrived at
the following conclusions:
1. A neural network can integrate geological, geome··
chanical, and reservoir engineering information into
a single fractured reservoir model.
7
2. The fracture intensity can be represented by a well
performance indicator such as maximum oil rate, Ini-
tial Potential (IP), or cumulative production.
3. The geomechanical effects on fracturing can be rep-
resented by the slopes and curvatures of the reservoir
structure
4. Using a reliable structure and its geometrical prop-
erties, bed thickness, and cumulative production as
inputs, and well performance as output, a neural net-
work can find easily the complex relation that exists
between the inputs and output.
5. Primary performance forecasting can be obtained
(5) simply by testing the neural network.
6. A fracture intensity map can be obtained by testing
the neural network at initial reservoir pressure.
7. Using a fracture intensity and anisotropy map, the
(6) number of history matching parameters was reduced
to two.
8. The use of diagonal permeability tensors when sim-
(7) ulating structure-related fractured reservoirs do not
allow a correct representation of the actual fluid flow,
and a full permeability tensor is needed.
Nomenclature
AN = permeability anisotropy factor
C xx = structure curvature in the x axis
C yy = structure curvature in the y axis
C xy = structure curvature in the diagonal
C yx = structure curvature in the diagonal
C 1 = history matching estimation parameter
C2 = history matching estimation parameter
D = reservoir depth
E = neural network training error
I P = well Initial Potential
F I = fracture intensity
K x = fracture permeability in the x axis
K y = fracture permeability in the y direction
L = number of training patterns
N = number of neural network inputs
n = neural network node
M = number of neural network outputs
PV = fracture pore volume
Sx = structure slope in the x axis
Sy = structure slope in the y axis
W = neural network weights
W D = well density per section
Xi! = ith neural network input for pattern I
yjl = jth actual target output for pattern I
YJI = jth neural network output for pattern
431
 FRACTURED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
8
FORECASTING USING GEOMECHANICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the State of New Mex-
ico for supporting this research, and HEYCO for provid-
ing the field data. Appreciation is extended to Adwait
Chawathe and Mark Valenzuela for reviewing the paper.
References
[1] Murray, G.H.: "Quantitative fracture study,
Sanish Pool. Fracture-controlled production,"
AAPG reprint Series 21.
[2] Lisle, R.J.: "Detection of zones of abnormal
strains in structures using Gaussian curvature
analysis," AAPG Bull. (December 1994) V. 78,
No 12, 1811-1819.
[3] Lynn, H., and Thomsen, L.: "Reflection shear-
data collected near the principal axes of az-
imuthal anisotropy," Geophysics, (Feb 1990) 55,
147-156.
[4] Lynn, H.B., Bates, R., Layman, M., and Jones,
M.: "Natural fracture characterization using P-
wave reflection data, VSP borehole imaging, and
in-situ stress field determination;" paper SPE
29595 presented at the 1995 SPE Rocky Moun-
tain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Sym-
posium, Denver Co, 20-22 March.
[5] Ouenes, A., Bhagavan, S., Bunge, P.R., and
Travis, B.: "Application of simulated annealing
and other global optimization methods to reser-
voir description: myths and realities," paper SPE
28415 presented at the 1994 Annual Technical
Conference .and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25-28
. Sept.
[6] Ouenes, A., Doddi, R., Lin, Y, and Cunning-
ham, 0.: "A new approach combining neural
.networks and simulated annealing for solving
petroleum inverse problems," paper presented at
the 1994 European Conference on the mathemat-
ics of oil recovery, R0ros, Norway, June 7-10.
[7] Wasserman, P.D. Neural Computing: Theory
and Practice, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New
York City (1989).
[8] Lippman, R.P.: ~'An introduction to computing
with neural nets," IEEE ASSP Magazine (April
1987), 4-22.
[9] Schultz, P.S., Ronen, S., Hattori, M., Mantran,
P., and Corbett, C.: "Seismic-guided estimation
of reservoir properties," paper SPE 28386 pre-
sented at the 1994 Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, 25-28 Sept.
[10] Ouenes, A. et al.: "A New Method to Charac-
terize Fractured Reservoirs: Application to Infill
432
SPE 30572
Drilling," paper SPE/DOE 27799 presented at
the 1994 Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Apr. 18-20.
[11] Zellou, A.M., Ouenes, A., Banik, A.: "Improved
fractured reservoir characterization using neural
networks, geomechanics, and 3-D seismic," paper
SPE 30722 to be presented at the 1995 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-
25 October.
[12] Richardson, S., Generalization of the curvature
method and application of neural networks to
fractured reservoir characterization, M.S. Thesis,
New Mexico Tech, 1995.
[13] McQuillan, H.: "Small-Scale Fracture Density in
Asmari Formation of Southwest Iran and Its Re-
lation to Bed Thickness and Structural Setting,"
AAPG Bull. (1973) V. 47 No 12, 2367-2385.
[14] Long, J., Doughty, C., Hestir, K., and Martel, S.:
"Modeling Heterogeneous and Fractured Reser-
voirs with Inverse Methods Based on Iterated
Function Systems," Reservoir Characterization
III, B. Linville (ed.), PenWell Publishing Co.,
Tulsa, OK (1993).
[15] Doughty, C., Long, J., Hestir, K., and Ben-
son, S.: "Hydrologic characterization of hetero-
geneous geologic media with an inverse method
based on iterated function systems," Wat. Res.
Res. (June 1994) V. 30, No 60,1721-1745.
[16] Datta Gupta, A., Vasco, D.W., and Long, J.C.S.:
"Detailed Characterization ·of a Fractured Lime-
stone Formation Using Stochastic Inverse Ap-
proaches," paper SPE/DOE 27744 presented at
the 1994 symposium on improved oil recovery,
Tulsa, April 17-20.
[17] Leung, W.F.: "A tensor model for anisotropic
and heterogeneous reservoirs with variable direc-
tion permeability," paper SPE 15134 presented
at the 1986 Western regional meeting, Oakland,
CA.
[18] White, C.D., and Horne, R.N.: "Computing
absolute transmissibility in the presence of fine
scale heterogeneity," paper SPE 16011 presented
at the 1987 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simu-
lation, San Antonio, TX.
[19] Samier, P.: "Finite element method for calculat-
ing transmissibilities in N-point difference equa-
tio~s using a non-diagonal permeability tensor,"
paper presented at the 1990 European conference
on the mathematics of oil recovery, Paris.
SPE ::l0572 A. OUENES, S. RICHARDSON, W.w. WEISS 9

y Cx y

~----~-----..... CXX

L....-- _ ..... X

Fig. I-Four directional curvatures.

Input Hidden Hidden

Layer Layer Layer
Surface Depth
First Derivative (X-dir)
First Derivative (Y-dir.) Output
First Derivative (FD-dir) Layer
First Derivative (BD-dir)
Second Derivative (X-dir) Fracture Index
Second Derivative (Y-dir)
Second Derivative (FD-dir)
Second Derivative (BD-dir)
Thickness
Cumulative Production

Fig. 2-Neural network architecture.

433
 FRACTURED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
10
FORECASTING USING GEOMECHANICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
SPE 30572

9900

22 22

7425

6188

4950

3712

2475

1238 1238

o o I I
Fracture Intensity Fracture Intensity

Fig. 3-YDU Fracture Intensity Map for E=O.1. Fig. 4-YDU Fracture Intensity Map for E=0.08.
25 -----,,-----,,---,-----,,-------,,-----,,-----,,----, 25 ~-_,--_,--_,--_,--____r--____r--_.

20
~rth
20 ,. I I

15
15

10

10

5
o 1/1 I
I I I I I

./ I

_5'-----'----'-------'----"----"------'----'-----' °0~---5'----1LO---1L5---2LO-
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 30 35 40

Fig. 5-YDU Fracture Network for E=O.1. Fig. 6-YDU Fracture Network for E=0.08.

434
 SPE 30572 A. OUENES, S. RICHARDSON, W.W. WEISS 11

600 700
a
500
o 600

500
400

0: Training ~ 400 - Training

..l
a a
~
~
300 Testing
• J 300
Testing
•
-
200
III
a 200
a
100 100
a

o
o 100 I 200 300 400 500 600 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Predicted I. P. Predicted I.P.

Fig. 7-Neural network training and testing for data set Fig. 8-Neural network training and testing for data set
1. 2.

\ ,
\, ky = 100 kJl'
" " ,/
,
ky=kx

ky = 0.01 kx
JL
8

40

Fig. 9-High intensity fractures in YDU. Fig. lO--Permeability anisotropy for a diagonal tensor.

435
 FRACTURED RESERVOIR CHARACTERIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
12
FORECASTING USING GEOMECHANICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
SPE 30572

Well Well
20,000 15,000

'UJ
;[
15,000
•
simulation
field data
III
,.• 1., 10,000
•
~ 10,000 E
lii .,,~ .,
~

~ ~ 5,000
5,000

0 0
0 10 20 50 0 130
Months

Well #12
25,000 r-----------------,

simulation
20,000
• field data
~
.,
;[ 15,000

e
j 10,000

5,000

oL...... .~~~~w..I
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Months

Well # 15 Well #24

5,000 10,000 r;:::======:;--------,
simulation simulation
4,000 6,000
• field data • field data
'UJ
;[ 3,000 ••
~
S 2,000 j
~

4,000
~
1,000 2,000

•
~10 120 130 140 150 180
Months

Fig. ll-Water history matching.

436