Advertisement

Mathematical Geosciences

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 447–476 | Cite as

Characterizing Fracture Geometry from Borehole Images

  • Michael D. Prange
  • Marie LeFranc
Article
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

The use of borehole image logs in natural-fracture evaluation has traditionally focused on mapping the strikes and dips of the individual fractures that intersect the borehole, estimating their apertures, and from these computing fracture attributes such as fracture density. These fracture attributes are commonly used to build three-dimensional fracture-network models. However, these attributes do not directly constrain an important aspect of these models—fracture geometry—specifically, the size, shape, and rotation of three-dimensional fractures within the model. The published formulas of Ozkaya estimate the radius of circular fractures from the statistics of fracture intersections observed in a borehole image. These formulas are shown to be approximate, only applying to circular fractures with shallow relative dip, and are replaced with exact formulas for elliptical fractures that are valid over the entire range of relative dip. A new statistic is defined, the measured distribution of relative azimuths for fracture-trace midpoints, that is sufficient for estimating both the elongation ratio and the rotation angle of elliptically shaped fractures. As estimation accuracy for this fracture geometry is dependent on the number of observed fracture traces, practical methodologies are provided for computing the uncertainty of these estimates. Finally, since natural fracture size is typically not constant, but follows a distribution such as a power law, solutions are provided for using these same borehole image statistics to estimate the fracture-size distribution. Numerical examples with exponential and Pareto distributions demonstrate that a single parameter of a parametric size distribution can be estimated along with its uncertainty.

Keywords

Natural fractures Fracture geometry Elliptical fracture Cylindrical exposure Length distribution Elongation ratio Fracture uncertainty Fracture-network model Ozkaya formula 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Laure Pizzella for her active contribution to the first part of this project. Thanks also go to their colleagues from Schlumberger in Cambridge (USA) and Clamart (France), who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research. They are grateful to Fikri Kuchuk for his insightful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Berkowitz B, Adler PM (1998) Stereological analysis of fracture network structure in geological formations. J Geophys Res 103(B7):15339–15360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonnet E, Bour O, Odling NE, Davy P, Main I, Cowie P, Berkowitz B (2001) Scaling of fracture systems in geological media. Rev Geophys 39(3):347–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bounoua N, Dozier G, Montaggioni P, Etchecopar A (2008) Applied natural fracture characterization using combination of imagery and transient information: case studies from Cambro–Ordovician tight sandstones of Algeria. In: Bounoua N, Dozier G, Montaggioni P, Etchecopar A (eds). Journal of petroleum engineers, SPE North Africa technical conference and exhibition held in Marrakech, Morocco, 12–14 March, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Marrakech, Morocco. Society of Petroleum EngineersGoogle Scholar
  4. Chilès JP (1988) Fractal and geostatistical methods for modeling of a fracture network. Math Geol 20(6):631–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darcel C, Bour O, Davy P (2003) Stereological analysis of fractal fracture networks. J Geophys Res 108(B9, 2451):1–14Google Scholar
  6. Dershowitz W, LaPointe P (1994) Discrete fracture approaches for oil and gas applications. In: First North American rock mechanics symposium, 1–3 June, Austin, Texas (American Rock Mechanics Association, Balkema, Rotterdam)Google Scholar
  7. Gupta AK, Adler PM (2006) Stereological analysis of fracture networks along cylindrical galleries. Math Geol 38(3):233–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Holický M (2013) Functions of random variables. Springer, Berlin, pp 79–93 (978-3-642-38300-7) Google Scholar
  9. Kulatilake PHSW, Wu TH (1984) Estimation of mean trace length of discontinuities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 17:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. LaPointe PR, Hudson JA (1985) Characterization and interpretation of rock mass joint patterns. Geol Soc Am Spec Pap 199:38Google Scholar
  11. Laslett GM (1982) Censoring and edge effects in areal and line transect sampling of rock joint traces. Math Geol 14(2):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mauldon M (ed) (2000) Borehole estimates of fracture size. In: 4th North American Rock mechanics symposium, 31 July–3 August, Seattle, Washington (American Rock Mechanics Association, Balkema, Rotterdam)Google Scholar
  13. Mauldon M, Mauldon JG (1997) Fracture sampling on a cylinder: from scanlines to boreholes and tunnels. Rock Mech Rock Eng 30(3):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Odling NE, Gillespie P, Bourgine B, Castaing C, Chiles JP, Christensen NP, Fillion E, Genter A, Olsen C, Thrane L, Trice R, Aarseth E, Walsh JJ (1999) Variations in fracture system geometry and their implications for fluid flow in fractures hydrocarbon reservoirs. Petroleum Geosci 5(4):373–384.  https://doi.org/10.1144/petgeo.5.4.373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ozkaya SI, Mattner J (2003) Fracture connectivity from fracture intersections in borehole image logs. Comput Geosci 29:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ozkaya SI (2003) Fracture length estimation from borehole image logs. Math Geol 35(6):737–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peacock DCP, Nixon CW, Rotevatn A, Sanderson DJ, Zuluaga LF (2016) Glossary of fault and other fracture networks. J Struct Geol 92:12–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piggott AR (1997) Fractal relations for the diameter and trace length of disc-shaped fractures. J Geophys Res 102(B8):18121–18125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Priest SD (2004) Determination of discontinuity size distributions from scanline data. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37(5):347–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Priest SD, Hudson JA (1981) Estimation of discontinuity spacing and trace length using scanline surveys. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 18:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rohrbaugh MB, Dunne WM, Mauldon M (2002) Estimating fracture trace intensity, density, and mean length using circular scanlines and windows. AAPG Bull 86(12):2089–2104Google Scholar
  22. Silverman BW (1998) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. In: Monographs on statistics and applied probability, volume 26. Chapman & Hall/CRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Tonon F (2007) Determining fracture size probability distribution functions from trace length probability distribution functions. In: 11th ISRM Congress, 9–13 July, Lisbon, Portugal (International Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisboa, Portugal)Google Scholar
  24. Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley series in behavioral sciences. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang X (2005) Stereological interpretation of rock fracture traces on borehole walls and other cylindrical surfaces. Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Warburton PM (1980a) A stereological interpretation of joint trace data. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17(4):181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warburton PM (1980b) Stereological interpretation of joint trace data: influence of joint shape and implications for geological surveys. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17:305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang L, Einstein HH (1998) Estimating the mean trace length of rock discontinuities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 31(4):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang L, Einstein HH (2010) The planar shape of rock joints. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang L, Einstein HH, Dershowitz WS (2002) Stereological relationship between trace length and size distribution of elliptical discontinuities. Geotechnique 52(6):419–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Schlumberger-Doll ResearchCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.ShelburneUSA

Personalised recommendations