Characterization and estimation of reservoir properties in a carbonate reservoir in Southern Iran by fractal methods
 472 Downloads
Abstract
Reservoir heterogeneity has a major effect on the characterization of reservoir properties and consequently reservoir forecast. In reality, heterogeneity is observed in a wide range of scales from microns to kilometers. A reasonable approach to study this multiscale variations is through fractals. Fractal statistics provide a simple way of relating variations on larger scales to those on smaller scales and vice versa. Simple statistical fractal models (fBm and fGn) can be useful to understand the model construction and help the reservoir structure characterization. In this paper, the fractal methods (fGn and fBm) have been applied to characterize and to estimate of reservoir properties. Three methods, namely boxcounting, variogram, and R/S analysis, were carried out on log and core data for porosity and permeability data to estimate fractal dimension; a high fractal dimension estimated in this study reveals a high heterogeneity in the reservoir. Moreover, sampling from simulated fractal data at nonexisting data depths enables us to generate appropriate realizations of reservoir permeability with suitable accuracy at a proper computational time.
Keywords
Porosity Permeability Fractal geometry fGn fBmIntroduction
Reservoir characterization is one of the important tasks in petroleum engineering studies. An accurate characterization of reservoir dynamic behavior can be dependent on the exact characterization of the spatial distribution of reservoir properties throughout the reservoir (Hurtado et al. 2009). The porosity, permeability, and water saturation are key reservoir properties which affect the reservoir flow behavior and fluid recovery (Xiao et al. 2012). Among these, permeability is of prime importance, especially in carbonate reservoirs; the reason is that carbonate reservoirs have a more complex internal structure and more heterogeneous (Gholinezad and Masihi 2012; AlKhansi and Blunt 2007).
Methods for accessing the reservoir properties can be divided into direct and indirect methods. Direct methods include coring, well logging, and well tests; In practice, coring is the most reliable method, but it is expensive and time consuming; Moreover, it may be impossible to take samples in some intervals of a well. Indirect methods are based on estimation and forecast. Geostatistics as a branch of statistical science is one of the tools for indirect methods, which studies spatial structures that vary in pace and/or in time. Geostatistics can also be used for quantity description and local relationship between data within the reservoirs (Deutsch 2002). Methods based on geostatistics, despite their advantages, have drawbacks such as smoothing data; thus, they cannot show details and local heterogeneity (Rasouli and Tokhmechi 2010).
The term “fractal” was coined by Mandelbrot in the 1970s. Fractal geometry can be used to describe irregular and fragmented patterns in nature (Mandelbrot 1983; Aasum et al. 1991). In fact, fractal geometry presents a mathematical model for most of the complex phenomena such as coastline, mountain, cloud, and fracture patterns (Yin 1996; Li et al. 2009; Kim and Schechter 2009).
Recent studies have shown that statistical fractals are useful for modeling natural phenomena (Arizabalo et al. 2006; Vadapalli et al. 2014). Because of the nature of variability in reservoir data, statistical fractals such as fractional Gaussian noise (fGn) and fractional Brownian motion (fBm) are candidate approaches to characterize porosity and permeability and, in general, the hydraulic property variations on the subsurface data(Zeybek and Onur 2003; LozadaZumaeta et al. 2012).
The porosity and horizontal component of petrophysical properties such as permeability are usually modeled using krigingbased methods (i.e., Geostatistics). The property values along the well can be used as conditions through these approaches. Although these properties are inferred from well log data, there are some practical cases, where the data are missing in some well intervals. Due to significant variability of petrophysical properties in vertical direction as a result of reservoir layering in reservoirs, fractal models can be used to characterize them and to help model them in these intervals.
The purpose of this paper is to employ the statistical fractals (fBm and fGn) for the characterization and their estimation at nonexisting data depths. In this study, three wells in a carbonate reservoir in the southern part of Iran were studied. Once the R/S analysis and spectral density were carried out on logderived porosity data and corebased porosity, and permeability data, fractal properties were generated based on FFT(fast Fourier transform); next, the fractal structures were investigated. Finally, appropriate realizations of the reservoir permeability were generated.
The fractal theory
Methods of determination of fractal dimensions
Method  Summary method of fractal dimension (D) 

Boxcounting  \(D = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{r \to 0} \frac{\log N\left( r \right)}{{\log \left( {\frac{1}{r}} \right)}}\) N(r): number of boxes required to completely cover original shape r: reverse of mesh size for grid that is covering of shape 
Variogram  \(m = 4  2D\) m: slope of Logarithmic graph of variogram versus distances of separation 
Fractal modeling
Fractal modeling is an important class of simulations. One of the advantages of fractals is that the fractal dimension can be kept constant during the simulation and this resolves the smoothing shortcoming associated with kriging, as in fact the fractal dimension carries the data variation property. However, in fractal simulation, the minimized estimation variance is not guaranteed and more importantly, fractalbased approaches are actually simulators and not estimators; thus, with rerunning the fractal simulation, different realizations can be obtained in general (Rasouli and Tokhmechi 2010; Yu and Cheng 2002). The other advantage of fractals is that fractals are independent of scale, which allows one to utilize any data regardless of the measurement scale (Kim and Schechter 2009).
In petroleum engineering, especially where risks and cost are high, fractal models will take their place along with existing models as a powerful tool for the reservoir engineering because of old customary models and assuming that homogenous reservoirs cannot be exact. As an alternative method, a heterogeneous reservoir with a fractal structure can have a better accommodation for reservoir data.
The discovery that well logs often have a fractal character was made by Hewett (Hardy and Beier 1994). It is surprising that the logs analyzed by many authors in many different formations show similar to fGn; for example, Carne and Tubman analyzed three horizontal wells and four vertical wells in a carbonate formation. They found that all the logs behave as fGn (Crane and Tubman 1990). Moreover, Hardy found similar results by analyzing some wells in sandstone formations (Hardy 1993). The analysis of porosity logs of several Iranian reservoirs, which are also mostly carbonate formations, revealed that most of the logs can reasonably well be described by either fGn or fBm models (Sahimi 2000).
One should consider that not all logs are adapted to the fGn models, but one may apply fractal modeling like the fGn and fBm to evaluations of reservoirs properties (Hardy and Beier 1994). It should be noted the details of the application of fractal distributions can vary from one reservoir to another.
Fractional Brownian motion(fBm)
Brown motion is a random motion of a particle in an interval or distance in a random direction with a step length determined by a Gaussian (normal) probability distribution function (Yin 1996). Mandelbrot and Van Ness applied the term fractional Brownian motion (fBm) in 1968. fBm comprises a family of random functions described by an index H (0 < H<1) (Mandelbrot and Van Ness 1968; Luo et al. 2005; Dieker 2004; Sheng et al. 2012).
Consider a Gaussian random process B _{H}(r) and \(r = \left( {x,y,z} \right)\;{\text{and}}\;r_{0} = \left( {x_{0} ,y_{0} ,z_{0} } \right)\) are two arbitrary points in space and H is called the Hurst exponent.
 1.
The mean value is zero:
$$\left\langle {B_{\text{H}} \left( r \right)  B_{\text{H}} \left( {r_{0} } \right)} \right\rangle = 0$$(1)  2.
The variance value is:
$$\text{var} \left( {r  r_{0} } \right) = \left\langle {\left( {B_{\text{H}} \left( r \right)  B_{\text{H}} \left( {r_{0} } \right)} \right)^{2} } \right\rangle \cong \left( {r  r_{0} } \right)^{{2{\text{H}}}}$$(2)  3.
The correlation function will be:
$$C\left( r \right) = \frac{{\left\langle {  B_{\text{H}} \left( {  r} \right) \times B_{\text{H}} \left( r \right)} \right\rangle }}{{\left\langle {B_{\text{H}} \left( r \right)^{2} } \right\rangle }} \cong 2^{{2{\text{H}}  1}}$$(3)

H = 0.5 corresponding to an uncorrected trend and model in this condition is completely random (Dashtian et al. 2011; Ostvand 2014; Jafari et al. 2011).

H > 0.5 is characterized by persistence, i.e., the process shows a clear trend; in other words, a trend at x is likely to be followed by a similar trend at \(x + \Delta x\) (FonseaPinto et al. 2009; Gaci and Zaourar 2011).

H < 0.5 means that it shows an antipersistent behavior (FonseaPinto et al.2009; Delignieres 2015)
Fractional Gaussian noise(fGn)

A fGn model with H close to 1 is similar to a fBm model with H < 0.4.

The histogram of the fGn model is Gaussian; however, the histogram of the fBm is boxshaped.
Methods of generation of fractal structure
There are different methods for the generation of fractal data based on both fBm and fGn models (Babadagli 2005). In this work, fast Fourier transform (FFT) method was used to generate fractal data. The algorithm based on the FFT has lower computational efforts, less complexity and more suitable performance than other methods.
Based on the Fourier method, one should first generate random data between 0 and 1. The number of random data will be equal to number of the expected simulated data. Once the Fourier transform of random data must be calculated, this Fourier transform is multiplied by root of S(ω); finally, the data are returned to the original space by using a reverse Fourier transform, and thereby the resulting array containing data with fractal structures having an ideal size.
Methods of determination of fractal dimension
As summarizes in Table 1, the fractal dimension can be calculated by the following two methods.
Boxcounting
Variogram
Analysis methods of fractal data
There are different methods for the analysis of fractal data (Jafari et al. 2011; Kaya 2005), In this paper, both rescaled range (R/S) analysis and spectral density analysis were employed.
R/S analysis
The rescaled range (R/S) analysis is a measure of how a sequence varies as lag increases. In fact, it is a measure of the cumulative fluctuation of the sequence. The range is rescaled by dividing it by the standard deviation. In the R/S analysis, the rescaled range is plotted versus the lag on a log–log scale and the slope of the line fitted gives the Hurst exponent (H).The R/S algorithm is presented in Appendix (Hardy and Beier 1994; Kirichenko et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011; Arizabalo et al. 2004).
Spectral density
The spectral density is a measure based on the Fourier transform of the original data. The analysis of spectral density can provide insights into the ordering of the sequence of data (Harcarik et al. 2012).
Field data description
Range of log data in each of wells (A, B, and C)
Well  Depth 

A  3927–4173.8 
B  3943.9–4477.6 
C  4051.9–4489.9 
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of log data in each of wells (A, B, and C)
Statistical parameter  Well A  Well B  Well C  

Porosity \(\left( {\frac{\text{V}}{\text{V}}} \right)\)  Mean  0.0302  0.0521  0.0333 
Standard deviation  0.0425  0.0427  0.0354  
Irreducible water saturation \(\left( {\frac{\text{V}}{\text{V}}} \right)\)  Mean  0.787  0.538  0.818 
Standard deviation  0.289  0.310  0.227  
Rock density \(\left( {\frac{\text{gr}}{{{\text{cm}}^{3} }}} \right)\)  Mean  –  2.73  2.730 
Standard deviation  –  0.0257  0.032 
Statistical analysis of core data in well C
Statistical parameter  Porosity \(\left( {\frac{{\mathbf{V}}}{{\mathbf{V}}}} \right)\)  Permeability (mD)  Rock density \(\left( {\frac{{{\mathbf{gr}}}}{{{\mathbf{cm}}^{3} }}} \right)\) 

Mean  0.0446  1.764  2.720 
Standard deviation  0.0028  0.4893  0.0007 
Estimation of fractal dimension
Hurst exponents in each of wells (A, B, and C)
Well  Hurst exponent(H) 

A  0.4661 
B  0.4671 
C  0.4987 
Determination of fractal dimension in each of wells (A, B, and C) by log data
Well  Fahliyan thickness in the well (m)  \(\varvec{D}_{\varvec{F}}\) (by boxcounting method)  \(\varvec{D}_{\varvec{F}}\) (by variogram method)  \(\varvec{D}_{\varvec{F}}\) (by R/S analysis) 

A  246.8  1.69  1.829  1.9322 
B  530.6  1.753  1.956  1.9342 
C  438  1.918  1.904  1.997 
Estimation of β for fBm, fGn models by log data
Well  β (For fBm model)  β (For fGn model) 

A  −1.932  0.0678 
B  −1.934  0.0658 
C  −1.997  0.0028 
Estimation of H, β for core data
Distribution  H  β (For fBm model)  β (For fGn model) 

Core porosity  0.434  −1.868  0.133 
Core permeability  0.349  −1.698  0.302 
Determination of fractal dimension \((D_{F}\)) in well C for core data
Distribution  \(\varvec{D}_{\varvec{F}}\) (by variogram method)  \(\varvec{D}_{\varvec{F}}\) (by R/S analysis) 

Core porosity  1.844  1.868 
Core permeability  1.851  1.698 
Generation of fractal models for distribution of reservoir properties
Pseudopermeability log of Fahliyan reservoir
Statistical analysis of simulated permeability distribution in well C
Method  Mean  Standard deviation  Error of mean 

Fractal(fBm)  1.7645  0.4893  0.0025 
Fractal (fGn)  1.7506  0.4894  0.0075 
Conclusions

Fractal theory, a main branch of mathematics that can consider most of geometrics, can be used as a powerful method in petroleum engineering. The application of fractal modeling, because of the heterogeneous nature of reservoirs, has an appropriate adaption to real reservoirs. In this work, fractal modeling proved efficiently suitable for the characterization of reservoir properties;

In this study, Hurst exponents were calculated for wells A, B, and C and were about 0.5; thus, the porosity in these wells was approximately randomly distributed;

The fractal dimension was calculated by using three methods, namely boxcounting, variogram, and R/S analysis, and the results confirmed that the determination of the fractal dimension by variogram method, because of doing it by the GS + software package, could have higher accuracy and lower computational time than the other manual methods;

In the current work, an appropriate model for the distribution of permeability in Fahliyan reservoir was presented by using fBm and fGn data in nonsampled intervals. The fractal data used showed a suitable coordination with the core data in well C.
References
 Aasum Y, Kelkar M, Gupta S (1991) An application of geostatistics and fractal geometry for reservoir characterization. SPE20257PA 11–19Google Scholar
 AlKhansi AS, Blunt MJ (2007) Network extraction from sandstone and carbonate pore space images. Pet Sci Eng 56:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Annadhason A (2012) Computer science and information technology and security. 2, ISSN: 2249955Google Scholar
 Arizabalo R, Oleschko K, Korvin G, Ronquillo G, CedilloPardo E (2004) Fractal and cumulative trace analysis of wireline logs from a well in naturally fractured limestone reservoir in the Gulf of Mexico. J Geofis Int 43:467–476Google Scholar
 Arizabalo R, Oleschko K, Korvin G, Lozada M, Castrejon R, Ronquillo G (2006) Lacuarity of geophysical well logs in the Cantarell oil field in Gulf of Mexico. J Geofis Int 45:99–113Google Scholar
 Babadagli T (2005) Effect of fractal permeability correlations on water flooding performance in carbonate reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng 23:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Babadagli T, Develi K (2001) Fractal fracture surfaces and fluid displacement process in fractured rocks. In: 10th International conference on fracture, Honolulu, December 02–06, 2001Google Scholar
 Cai J, Yu B, Zou M, Luo L (2010) Fractal characterization of spontaneous cocurrent imbibition in porous media. J Energy Fuels 24(3):1860–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Crane SD, Tubman KM (1990) Reservoir variability and modeling with fractals. SPE 20606. doi: 10.2118/20606MS Google Scholar
 Dashtian H, Jafari GR, Masihi M, Sahimi M (2011) Scaling, multifractality and largerange correlations in well log data of largescale porous media. J Phys A 390:2096–2111Google Scholar
 Delignieres D (2015) Correlation Properties of (discrete) fractional Gaussian noise and fractional Brownian motion. J Math Probl Eng, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Article ID: 485623Google Scholar
 Deutsch CV (2002) Geostatistical reservoir modeling. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
 Dieker T (2004) Simulation of fractional Brownian motion. MSc thesis, University of Twente, Department of Mathematical SciencesGoogle Scholar
 Feder J (1988) Fractals. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 FonseaPinto R, Ducla JL, Araujo F, Aguiar A (2009) On the influence of timeseries length in EMD to extract frequency content: simulations and models in biomedical signals. J Med Eng Phys 31:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gaci S, Zaourar N (2011) A new approach for the investigation of the multifractality of borehole wireline logs. J Earth Sci. 3:63–70Google Scholar
 Gholinezad S, Masihi M (2012) A physicalbased model of permeability/porosity relationship for the rock data of Iran southern carbonate reservoirs. Iran J Oil Gas Sci Technol 1:25–36Google Scholar
 Harcarik T, Bocko J, Maslakova K (2012) Frequency analysis of acoustic signal using the fast Fourier transformation in MATLAB. J Procedia Eng 48:199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hardy H (1993) In: Linville B (ed) Reservoir characterization Ш. Penn well, Tulsa, pp 787–797Google Scholar
 Hardy HH, Beier R (1994) Fractals in reservoir engineering. World Scientific Singapore, Singapore. ISBN 9789810220693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hewett TA (1986) Fractal distribution of reservoir heterogeneity and their influence on fluid transport. In: SPE15386, pp 1–16Google Scholar
 Hurtado N, Aldana M, Torres J (2009) Comparison between neurofuzzy and fractal model for permeability prediction. J Comput Geosci 13:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Jafari R, Sahimi M, Rasaei R, Rahimi Tabar R (2011) Analysis of porosity distribution of LargeScale porous media and their reconstruction by Lanqevin equation. J Phys Rev 83:026309Google Scholar
 Kaya A (2005) An investigation with fractal geometry analysis of time series. MSc thesis, Izmir institute of technologyGoogle Scholar
 Kim T, Schechter D (2009) Estimation of fracture porosity of naturally fractured reservoirs with no matrix porosity using fractal discrete fracture networks. J Reserv Eng 12:232–242Google Scholar
 Kirichenko L, Radivilova T, Deineko Zh (2011) Comparative analysis for estimating of the Hurst exponent for stationary and nonstationary time series. J Inf Technol Knowl 5:371–388Google Scholar
 Klinkenberg C et al (1994) Modeling of the anisotropy of Young’s modulus in polycrystals. J Mater Technol 65:291–297Google Scholar
 Li J, Du Q, Sun C (2009) An improved box counting method for image fractal dimension estimation.J. Pattern Recognit 42:2460–2469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Li W, Yu C, Carriquiry A, Kliemann W (2011) The asymptotic behavior of the R/S statistic for fractional Brownian motion. J Stat Prob Lett 81:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 LozadaZumaeta M et al (2012) Distribution of petrophysical properties for sandyclays reservoirs by fractal interpolation. J NonlinearProcess Geophys 19:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Luo Ch, Lee W, Lai Y, Wen C, Liaw J (2005) Measuring the fractal dimension of diesel soot agglomerates by fractional Brownian motion processor. J Atmos Environ 39:3565–3572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Mandelbrot B (1983) The fractal geometry of nature, 3rd edn. Freeman, San Francisco. ISBN 13: 9780716711865Google Scholar
 Mandelbrot BB, Van Ness JW (1968) Fractional Brownian motion, fractional Gaussian noise and their application. SIAM Rev 4:422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Molz F, Hyden P (2006) A new type of stochastic fractal for application in subsurface hydrology. J Geoderma 134:274–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ostvand L (2014) Long range memory in time series of Earth surface temperature. A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae doctor, Faculty of Science and Technology, The Arctic university of NorwayGoogle Scholar
 Rasouli V, Tokhmechi B (2010) Difficulties in using geostatistical models in reservoir simulation. In: SPE North Africa technical conference and exhibition, energy management in a challenging economy, Egypt, pp 103–114Google Scholar
 Sahimi M (2000) Fractal—wavelet neural network approach to characterization and up scaling of fractured reservoirs. J Comput Geosci 26:877–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Serinaldi F (2010) Use and misuse of some Hurst parameter estimators applied to stationary and nonstationary financial time series. J Phys. A 389:2770–2781Google Scholar
 Sheng H, Sun H, Chen Y, Qiu T (2011) Synthesis of multifractional Gaussian noises based on variableorder fractional operators. J Signal Process 91:1645–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sheng H, Chen H, Qiu Y (2012) Fractional processes and fractionalorder signal processing, signal and communication technology. Springer, London. ISSN 18604862Google Scholar
 Souza J, Rostirolla S (2011) A fast matlab program to estimate the multifractal spectrum of multidimensional data: application to fractures. J Comput Geosci 37:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Vadapalli U, Srivastava RP, Vedanti N, Dimri VP (2014) Estimation of permeability of a sandstone reservoir by a fractal and Monte Carlo simulation approach. J Nonlinear Process Geophys 21:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Voss RF (1985) Random fractal forgeries. In: Earnshaw RA (ed) Fundamental Algorithms for computer graphics. NATO ASI Series. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 805–835Google Scholar
 Wang F, Li S (1997) Determination of the surface fractal dimension for porous media by capillary condensation. J Ind Eng Chem Res 36:1598–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Xiao B, Fan J, Ding F (2012) Prediction of relative permeability of unsaturated porous media based on fractal theory and monte carlo simulation. J Energy Fuels 26:6971–6978Google Scholar
 Yin ZM (1996) New methods for simulation of fractional Brownian motion. J Comput Phys 127:66–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Yu B, Cheng P (2002) A fractal permeability model for bidispersed porous media. J Heat Mass Transf 45:2983–2993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zeybek A, Onur M (2003) Conditioning fractal (fBm, fGn) porosity and permeability field to multiwall pressure data. J Math Geol 35:577–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.