Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
-of l+tmfem~
SPE 18427
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Sympoalum on Reservoir Simulstlon in Houston, TX, Fabruary 6-S, 1989.
This paper wee selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in en abstract submitted by the
author(a). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been raviewed by the Society of Petroleum Englneera and are subject to correction by the
author(a), The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineere, Ite officers, or members. Papera
presented at SPE meetings are aubjacf to publiczflon review by Editorial Gmmittees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 306 worda. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presanted. Write Publice~ ma Manager, SPE, P.O. Sox 833636, Richardson, TX 75063-3636. Telex, 730969 SPEDAL.
---
239
2 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSITY ANO DUAL-POROSITY RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
Pseudo or extended black oil models are frequently computed usinga method developedby da Silvaand Belery.
used to approximate com postinal effectsin volatileoil Their method includesdetailedequations for calculating
resewoire undergoingdepletionandlor cycling. There are diffusioncoeftiientsfor each component from the static
advantages in many euch caeee in favor of using a variable group of (resemoir ternperature, component
com positionalmodel with a pseudoized, tuned three- molecularweightsand critical properties),
and the dynamic
component fluiddescription. These advantages include: group of pressureand com positions,Allth.ssevariablesare
easier preparationof PVT data, increased accuracy in presentin any com positionalmodel or are calculatedin the
representationof com positionalphenom ens, and only aimulation.
m arginzlly
greatercomputing expense.
Da Silvaproposedsome time ago thatdiffusion can be
The code utilizesmapping so that storageis required importantin fracturedmatrixreservoirbehavior,especially
only for activegridblocks. For exam plea 49 x 30 x 56000- when injec(iongas com position(e.g.N 2) differsgreatly
block @d having 4200 active bloclw requiresstorage for from native reservoir gas. Computations chow that
only 4200-block arrays. To our knowledge, this mapping diffusioncan act very rapidlyto nearlyeliminatematrix-
logicwas firstdevisedby Dr. A. D. Modine in 1971. fracturecom positiondifference both in the liquidand gas
phaee. The diffusioncoefficientsand rate expressionsand
M&id com positionmay vary with depth throughout theirdenvativeeare coded implicitly
in the m odeL
the hydrocarbon column in the case of initially undey
saturatedresenroire. Ttdz depth variationmay cross the Table 1 shows the expreseione
for matrix-fracturegae-
criticalpoint with near-critical
condensate in the upper gas and Iiquid-gaediffusionrates. The term Tor is
portionsand near-critical
volatileoilin the 10w er portions tortuoeity,
A@/!?isthe diffusion“tranemiscibility”
reflecting
of the initial
column. m atr& and @d block dimeneione,S g (Sgg)is a saturation-
dependent fractionbetween O and ?%, and D g (Dgg) is the
The model offersthe option of internally-generated diffusion coefficient,different for eac component.
vertical-equilibria
m (VE)capfiry pressurecurveslO. These Diffusioncoefficientsfor liquid-liquid diffusioncan be
curves vary in time and from block to block. They reduce about 100 times em allerthan those for gae-gaa diffusion.
the errore and occasionaldisruptive“steel-plate” effects Liquid-gascoefficientsare largerbut still
lessthan gae-gae
associatedwithuse of rock capillary
pressurecurves. coefficients.
liiatorymatching often entailsa largenumber of long The diffusionratesare illustratedin Table I for cells
rune w~h productionwell rates specifiedae ST B/d of oil.. 1 (matrix)and 2 (fracture).Tf both cells,remain 2-phase
Until a good match is approached, rune may encounter gas-oiland equilibratewith both the gas-gasand liquid-gas
erroneouslylargecalculatedG O R valueswith resultinghigh diffusionterms shown, then an equilibrium-state dilemma
com puti.ng
expense. A method of avoidingthisis described eriaea. The equilibriumrequirem ent that all matrix
below.“-1 gatheringcenterlogicl1 which has proven weful component K-values be equal is a contradiction. The
infieldstudy predictions
isalsodescribed. problem is resolvedmm ply by usinggae-gasdiffusiononly.
For am allmatrixblocks(e.g. 1-4 ft. cubes),diffusion is so
Th the dual-porosity case,the model nl.lo
ws reseqvoir rapid that gae-gaecliff
ueion alone reeultein sm all matrix-
descriptionewhere the matrix block size and shape vary fracturecom positiondifferencesboth in the liquidand gas
from block to block throughout the grid. Storage and phaaes.
computing time requirem enteare proportional to the degree
of fracturing. For a 1000 gridblockproblem with allblocks An estimateof the diffusiontransienttime isgivenby
dual-porosity, theee requiremente are proportionalto 2000. solutionof the diffusion
equation
W, due to regionalfracturing, only 100 blocks were dual-
porosity, then these requirem enta would be proportional to a2c
—.
1100. SD
axi
For regionallyfractured reservoixdescriptions, the for initialconditionC(XD,0) = 1 and boundary condkione
model treatsthe three cliff
erent types of interlock 50 w:
C(l,tD)= O and 3C/3xD = O at XD = O, where
matrix-matrixElow between blocksin unfracturedregions,
fracture-fractureflow betwe en blocksin fracturedregions,
and I.Iatrix-fractureflow between block pairs on the = x / (!2/2) = Dt / ~or(k/2)2
‘D ‘D
interfaceof such regions, The model can be run in single-
porositymode with virtually no lossof efficiencycaused by This corresporids to the case of a linearcore 8 feet long
the presenceof dual-porositycode. initiallysaturated with fluid of unit concentration and
exposed to zero-concentration fluidat x = O and x = E. The
The calculationsinclude matrix-fractureliquid-gae solutionforaverage concentrationia
and gas-gasdiffusion,
usinga method developedby da Silva k -A t
enll
and Belery12. $s oCdtiQ=2~ 1
~ 1 ~2
n
The linear-solver
code includesthe threeoptionsof D4 where 1 is (2n-1)~/2. * Using first-termapproximation,the
(reduce?band-width)directsolution13, iterative
block SO R time t* %ecessary for C to decay 90% from itsinitial value
(successiveoverrelaxation),and the vectorizedconjugate- ~
gradientESPID O method developedby Don Thurnau.
t* = .S5Tor(%/2)2/D.
Diac&ion of Features
“For gas-gas high pressure (e.g. 4500 p&) diffusion,a
Diffusion
representativeD valueis.001cm 2/see.For a l-ft.core and
a tortuoeityvalue of 3.5,t* = 8 daya. The same analyaia
Diffusionis calculatedbetween matrix and fractures -
performed in threedimewione givesa lower transienttime.
within a grid block but not between grid blocks. The
For practicalpurpoaeathisb inatantaneow.
matrix-fracturegas-gee and liquid-gasdiffusionratea are
---
i?w
SPE 18427 KEITH H. COATS 3
The Extended Black OilApplication the pseudo 3-com ponent descriptionand correspondingEOS
regressed match of date at the 266 deg. F. reservoir
The extendedblack oilmodel generallyrequires3 and temperature. Table 2 includes the 3=tage surface
sometimes 4 (non-aqueous) com ponent8. Itscomputing time separationconditionsand the regressed match of data for
then reflectsthe solutionof 4 or 5 equations(per grid the 10-com ponent and 3-component descriptions.Figs.1
block). Its PVT treatm ent frequentlyinvotvesmultidimen- and 2 show the differential
expansiondata and the regressed
eional tables representingcertain rules establishedfor match forthe 10-and3-com ponentdescriptions
presence/absence of various components in the various
phases. Multiple-contact oilvaporizationis a mechanism of
some importance in ReservoirA due to the 86 Z methane
Today’s EOS com positionaltechnology allows an content of injectedgas. Previousexperiencein composi-
alternativeapproach. A black- or volatile-oillaboratory tionalsimulationindicatesthat accuracy iu E OS-computed
PVT dataset can be used with EOS regressionto obtaina multiple-contactvaporizationrequiresa splitof the heavy
pseudoized 3-component fluid description. This 3- C 7+ fractioninto several subfractions. In this case no
component descriptioncan representthe oilin respect to laboratory vaporization test data were available.
reservoirvolumetric(expansion)behavior,multiple-contact Therefore,the PVT program was used to generatea I&point
revaporizationunder gas injection,
and surface separation vaporization “test” using the tuned (regressed) 10-
behavior. If C 02 or N2 are to be injected,then this component description.This description includesthe C 7+
approach entails4 com ponents$the same as the extended fractionssplitinto 3 subfractions.The computed results
blackOiL were treated as “data” and e~.~eredas part of the dataeet
forthe 3-com ponent regression.Fig.3 shows the agreement
The 3-com ponent EOS com positional approach offers between 3-and lo-corn ponent calculationsof multiple-
severaladvantages. First,the PVT treatm ent isboth easier contactvaporization.
and more accurate. Frequently,extended black oilmodels
involve significanteffort to devise and code tabular Overall, Table 2 and Figs. 1-3 illustratea good
representations of PVT behaviorwhich become increasingly approximation of Oil A available data using the 3-
complex. The resultsin some casesinclude: component description. The tuned EOS param etere are
cliff
erentforthe resemoir and surfacecalculations.
a) distortedPVT behavior causing com mutational
runningproblems, Vertical-Equilibrium
CapillaryPressureCurves
b) difficultyin understandingand preparingPVT
inputdata requirem ente, The laboratoryor r~ck capillarypressure(Pc) curve
c) difficultyin designing meaningful laboratory reflectsthe relationshipbetween capillarypressure and
teststo determinePVT parameters,and
d) difficulty in representing m ultico m ponent ‘;::;a?ei ;~~e%~~~% c atblOck
td the point to the
center). Theaverage
VE or
surfaceseparations. saturationover the gridblock heightintervalencom passing
the point. The VE curve is obtained by integratingthe
The EOS 3-com ponent approach is easier,involving laboratorycurve over a capillmy pressureincrement equal
repeated multivariable regressionson a collectionof fluid to the product of block height and wate~oil or gas-oil
behavior data. The EOS approach should also be more densitydifference.Thus each gridblockhas a differentVE
accurate. Whatever itscomplexity,the extended black oil Pc curve and the curve changes with time reflecting
PVT treatm ent attempts to represent what are aimply changes in fluiddensities.The gas-oilVE P= curve also
com positionalphenomena generallyhandled well by today’s reflectschanginginterracial
tension.
k O S compositionaltechnology. The EOS regressionon a 3-
component basis allows adjustment of a number cf EOS Used in equilibrationof rese~oirs having initial
gas-
param etere and introducesa PVT continuityor consistence
y oiland/or water-oilcontacts,VE Pc curvesgive the exactly
over all pressureasd com postions. All components are correctinitialfluids-in-place.
Rock Pc curvesgive emore in
presentin both hydrocarbonphasesin a manner continuously these quantitieswhich increase as the ratio of block
dependent upon pressureand com positioq. thicknessto transition
zone heightincreases.
241
4 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROS~Y AND DUAL-POROSITY RESERVOIRS SPE 16427
PVE
=(2s ~f - 1)h (Y.- Yg)/2 (lb) L is mole of etocktank liquidper mol of feed and subscripts
Cgo
denotes surface com poeitione. Multiplyingnumerator and
Equilibration with the VE matrix and fracturePc curves denominatorby w ellstreammolarrateq gives
gives correct fluid distributions and initialgas-oiland
Nc qi
w ate~oil contacts which are horizontalthroughout the (6)
fracturesyatem. Fracturesaturations are between O and 1 F=E—= o
,=1 qL .+~q
in gridblocksintemectedby the contacts.Also,withineach
gridblockthe matrixand fracturesare in equilibrium inthe and this is chosen es the constraintfunction F. qi is
sense that a model run with zero we~ rateswillexhibitno w ellstrea
m molar rate of component i and q isstock tank
saturationor pressurechanges. The matrixand fractureVE rate,mole liquid/d.Assu mptioneare: over tk e iterationas
Pc curvesare used for equilibrationand interlock flaw but q and {Zi}change,(a)the Cii vzluesrem sin unchanged and
play no role in the matrix-fracturetransfercalculations. (b)ifqk rem sineconstantthen the conesponding ST B/d oil
They are an optionin the program and may be deactivatedif rate rem sinecmstant. Both aasum ptionshappen to be very
rock-curve use is desired. Uae of nonzero fracture Pc good ones. Thw the constraintequatin is
curves gives erroneouz initialtransitionzones in the
fractureaystem. N
c aF
6F=E (7)
Well Bottomhole ConstraintEquations j=l ~ ‘qj = 0
In black oil m odela the bottomhole constraint The variablesin F subjectto the differentiation
are qiin the
equations ensuringpreservationof productionwell target numerator and q = Z qi in the denominator. qL and ~ are
rates are easilydetermined. h compositional models, known constants(latest&erate valuea). Use of Eqn. (7)
effectiveor proper constraintequationsare more difficult together with Eqna. (6)and (2)and chain-ruledifferencing
to determine, The compositionalmodel equationsexpress leadsto a constraintequationin the form of Eqn. (3).
productionrateas m olsfd
This constraint’
equationgivesgood resultseven when
= ~ ~gp$yi)k
p~QoPo x.+ ‘~wb)k (2) the bottomhole gas phase isthe sourceof most or allof the
%k
surfaceoiL In the case where specifiedwallrateM M C F/d
where i and k denote component and perforatedV; -r, gas,a eimilarprocedureleadato a constraintfunction
respectively.For a given value of pwb, total w e~tream
molar rate q and com positionZi are easilyobtainedfrom Nc qi
this expression. The multistage surface separation F=T— (8)
calculation then givesthe surface8TB/d oiland M CF/D gas ~=1 qv + ~iq
ratesand com positions.U the welltargetrateiaspecified
in uNte of STB/d, then an iterativeprocedure determines where 8.i= 1/(1- ?i)and surfacemols/dgas rateqv and 8i
Pwb so that the surfaceoilrate equalsthe specifiedST B/d are heldconstant.
rate at the beginning of each outer iteration. If no
bottomhole constraintis used, the well W.B/d rate at the Tim e TruncationError Control
end of the iterationwillnot equalthe specifiedvalue due to
changesin q and Ziover theiteration. Fig. 4 ‘sho wa a resewoir% total GOR vs. time
calculatedfrom the fullyimplicitform@a&n with and
The bottomhole constraintfora wellisan equationof without the time-truncation error control method. The
the form reservoiris a 3D 8 x 13 x 6 single-poro~ grid represen-
tationof the fracturedReservoirA describedlater. The
6F = ~(;(a~sp~k) “ O (3) 4380-day emulation run was made using91-day and 45-day
time steps. The figureshows that withoutthe errorcontro~
where Pj denotesthe COm positional m’odelvariableset { . calculatedG O R is significantly
higherusingthe larger91-
{YO P, S wv SO, Sg, and 6 Pj ie the new ~erate change, ~f day steps.
-. The outersum isover allperforatedgridblocks.1!he
4
objectiveis choice of an appropriatefunctionF euch that , The open and solidcircularpointsrepresentthe same
invarianceof F over the iterationensuresinvarianceof the 9l-day and 45-day step rune performed with the error
ST B/d rateover the iteration.ChoosingF es the expression controL The sensitivity of resultsto time step size b
for totalwellbottomholeliquidphase molar rate givesgood reduced ei@ficantly. Another point of compa~om is
242
SPE 18427 KEITH H. COATS 5
average fieldpressure,reflectingdi.fferencea
in c&uleted The occurrence of thisevent is flegsedin the output well
producedgas,as follows: eum m arias(end of step and end of run) and the overall
impact of the featureis noted by printingan oil-deficiency
Final Final variablein each step summary. Oil-deficiency is the total
Tim e Outer cumulative shortage of oil produced (STB) due to this
Run s&s Ens. C%~ol
—— SCYS; B % featuredividedby totalspecifiedcumulativeoilproduction.
-i- 48 m No 15600 m
2 96 194 No 13000 4357 Until a descriptionis tuned to avoid emoneous high
3 4s 104 Yes 11900 4429 G O R valueswe have a choiceof procedure. We can not use
4 96 194 Yes 11500 4463 the Q G M A X feature and aimply let the wells blow out,
indicating the mismatch. This type of run can take (say)
T&LA fieldpressure was 6943 Paia. The error control hours of computing time due to very smalltime stepaandlor
featurereduces the 91 vs.45-day step run pavg cliff
erance step cute due to large changes accompanying blowout. Or
from 175 paito 34 paL we can run with the Q G MA X featurewith (say)20-minute
runa with high oil-deficiencyvalues. Both rune indicateor
This controlfeature relatesonly to im miscibleflow, tellw the earne information- our G O R istoo high- but the
reducing sensitivityof saturationdistributions, W O R and latterruns tellus that in faster,smoother rune. Aleo,the
G O R to time step aiae. It does not controlthe compoai- Q G MA X restraint actsto preventor reduce the phenomenon
tionalsmearing or numerical dispersioneffectsassociated of one w ell’ablowout destroyingother w ells’smatch or
with m iacibledisplace
m ent. behavior. Lf GOR isvery high,the reservoirvoidageeffect
of a wellon Q G MA X isnot much differentthan itapressure
A subtle im pl.ication
appears in the above tabular effectifit were producingspecifiedoilST B/d with correct
results. We prefer implicitover IMPES formulationsin GOR - provided Q G MAX is equal or near the actual gee
cases where maximum IMPES time step is small and rate.
computing expense consequently high. However, the
implicit formulation generally requires much more In the Resenoir A studydiscussedbelow, the Q G M AX
arithmeticper step than IMPES and to come out ahead (of values were obtainedfrom the historyE& for each walles
IMPES) we must use a largetime stepin the implicitmodeL the maxim u m surfacegas ratesproduced over allof history.
If,however, as shown here, the implicitmodal time step The end-of~tep wellsummary printoutgivesoildeficiency
requiresconstraintto reduce truncationerror,then we are by well,showing at a glance which wells are the major
defeatingour purpose. The 45-day step Nna requiredtwice culpritsin the Q G M A X constraint
- Le. which wellshave the
the computing expense of the 9l-day step rune. Thus a greateatG O R problems.
method of reducingtruncationerroris important in regard
to computing expenseinsome cases. GatheringCenters
The error control method requixeslittleadditional The wells are assignedin groups to any number of
storage and virtuallyno increasedcomputing time. It is gatheringcenters(GC). A given G C generallyincludesa
very aimpie, consistingessentially of a Crank-Nicholeon number of productionwellsand gas andlor water injection
treatm ent of relativeperm eabilities.
For each phase,the wells.Assignm ent of a G C productiontargetrate resultsin
upstream relativeperm eabilityused for the new i+l outer allocationof that rate among the G C producerson the basis
iterationis of their current open-flow potentialsor deliverabilitiaa.
Alternatively,individualproduction well ratee may be
~ f.+1 (9) specifiedwithom isaionof a G C productiontargetrate.
= .5(krn + kr(Sg+l))
r
G C injectiontarget rates may be specifiedin three
A violentinstabilitycan resultwhen kr issmall and S forms: a) absoluteunits-MC F/d gas and ST B/d water, b)
is decreasing. Methods of protectingagainst this are fractionsof the G C total M C F/d gaa and ST B/d water
num eroua and of variouscomplexities. We simply use the productionrates,and c) fractionsof the total reservoir
A
fullyimplicitk= = %(s ‘+1) when thatsituationexists.We voidage rate represented by the G C producers. The
findno benefitfrom extandingthisprocedure to capillary resultingtarget injectionrates are allocatedamong the
pressure and do not apply it to ~ in the dual-porosity appropriatetype G C injectorson the basisof theh current
matrix-fracturetransferterms. injectionpotential or injectivities.
In the case (c)above,
the R B/d voidage rate is converted to MCFId gas andlor
Maximum Gas Rate ST3/d water injectionrates which at current bottomhole
pressuregivethe desiredR B/d rate.
Specification of ST B/d oilin historymatch runs where
G O R isa problem can resultin a semistableprocess. As a Ih the case of gas injection, the model provideafor
well G O R risesabove itsfieldvalues,“blowout”can occur. entry of sales gas, fuel gas, and makeup gaa G C values.
That is,as G O R risesabove observedthe I.erSe freegee rate Entered salesand fuel gas values are subtractedfrom the
causes rapid pressuredecline- a pressuresink - which in G C produced gas to determine gas avd.able forreinfection.
turnresultsin even higherG O R and highergas rate -and so If the targetinjectionrate exceeds availablegas, makeup
on. Also, excessivegas rate at one well can affect its gas is added to meet the target. Provisionis made for
neighbors- reducing pressureregionally, resultingin their injectingmakeup gas Erst and meeting any difference
erroneouslygassingout as w elL between availablemakeup gas and targetrate withrecycled
produced gas. Injectiongas com positionis calculatedfrom
The model provides for data entry of a maximum the com positionsand am ounta of produced and makeup gas
surfacegas rate (QG M AX) for each productionweLL The constitutingthe reinfection
etream.
model then produces the specifiedST B/d oilrate for each
well unless the associatedgas rate exceeds the w en’s If no G C productionor injectiontargetsare specified,
entered Q G M AX. In the latterevent,the wallproducesthe then all individualwell rates must be specifiedand the
Q G M A X gas rateas ti targetin placeof the ST B/d oilrate. asaignments of wells to gathering centers becomes an
exercisefor cosmetic (printou@purposes. The G C feature
—
243
6 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSITY AND DUAL-POROSITY RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
is option~ that is,the model can be run with no wells = V ~ (@(PoSoXi+,Pg$#)m i= 1,2,.0.Nc (Ma)
assignedto any gatheringcenters.
The time differencenotationhere is,for any quantity where T and C m are (Nc+l)x (N +1) m atnces. As previously
or variableX, describedfor the black oilcase1 7, m u.ltiplying
thisEqn. by
the inversematrix C-k and inserting the resultingexpression
8X z Xn+l - x“ (lOa) for 6~m into Eqn. (13) gives the finalsingle m ateri.al
balanceequationin terms of fracturesystem unknowns.
or greater. The complexity of the matrix-fracturetransfer Models of the type describedhere representa stackof
formuladon described below reflects en attempt to n matrix blocksby a singlegridor nodal point. There is a
accuratelyrepresentthe case where n isconsiderably larger limitto the accuracy obtainablewith euch coarse,one-point
definition.Test or example problema need to show the
than 1. A grid block is referredto as a stack of matrix
blocke withoutliteral im plication
that s gridblock has only inaccuraciesas well as accuraciesof a proposed transfer
one stackof matrixblocks.Obviously, thereare roughlyAx method. Ideally,a m ethod’s areas of accuracy and
inaccuracy should relate to dominant and subdominant
A y / Lx Ly identicalcolumns or etacksin one gridbloch
The term aspectratiodenotesthe ratioof block heighth to aspectsof resenfoirbehavior,respectively.Admittedly,it
its lateraldimensionEx. is difficult
to generalizein a definition of what the latter
are.
H any authorsstateor imply that capillarypressureis
The Shape Factor
zero and relativepermeabilityis linear(kr‘= S for each
phaae)in the fractures.Here, theee are assumed physically
Warren and Rootl5 introduced a shape factor U to
correct fracture properties. Fracture nonzero Pc or
relatematrix-fracture
pressuredifferenceand flowrateae,
nonlinear~ may be introducedfor methodologicalor other
purposesbut are not attributedas real propertiesto the
fracture8. q= c“ (Fm-pf) (17)
I There & littleinterestin the im m ereiontransientin More generally,this work aimply uses an exchange
cases where both the trueand calculatedtransienttimes are transmiasibil.ity
definedby
small - e.g.60 days or less. Inaccuracyof a formulation’s
transientcalculationwillhave littleeffect on aimulated (21)
reservoirbehaviorinsuch cases.
For a singlematrixblock,
This and othersimilarpaperspresentexam ple problem
resultsreflecting theirtranef
er formulations.These results
shed littlelighton the questionof accuracy unlessthey are
com pared to correct results. This is possiblefor eingle-
matrix block problems,for some singlegridblock studies, and forthe gridblockof bulkvolume A x A y A z,
and, rarely,for fullfield-acale problems. These correct ‘kx k kz
T =8(— +2+
resultsare obtainedby single-porosity modeling.usinggrids ~ ) Ax AY AZ(l -@f) ’23)
which subdividethe matrix and fracturesinto grid blocks. If t; z
Resultsfrom these single-porosity and dual-porositymodel
runsare designatedSP M and D P M results,
respectively.All For QSS single-phase flow,the diffusivity
equationcan
SP M calculations are performed usingrock Pc and kr data. be solved to give exact valuesof u for any anisotropyand
An effortis made to presentexample problems where the any matrixblock shape. Appendix A givesthiscalculation.
Rem.Ltafor an isotropic, cubic matrixblockof dineneionE
correctSP M resultscan be obtained.
for N= 1,2 and 3 aetaof normal Eractureeare:
Thomas et all7 describeda dual-porositymodel and
presentedresultsfor severalexam ple problems. In certain
d 2
cases, our model can duplicate their matrix-fracture
Warren Analytical Kazemi This
~ansfer method. Therefore,forseveralexample problems
our D P M refwitaare com pared to those obiainedusingtheir JJ & Root QSS-~~w et ai Work
1 12 4 T
method. The term D P M T denotes resultsof their method
generatedusingour m odeL 2 32 2S.45 8 16
3 60 49.58 12 24
Any calculatedeffect of injectionto or production
from the matrix in a dual porositygrid block is error.
Physically,a 6-inch diemeter wellbore can intersector The ahape factor and lengthy aseocieteddiscussions
penetrateat most one of the many matrix block stacksin contributeconfusionwith littlebenefit. Single-phaseQSS
the grid block. The only possibleeffect of the matrix is flow isseldom of interestin the resemoir simulationbut if
introductionof a skin factor. This is true even if or it were the above recommended and Piazemi’s shape factors
especiallyif horizontal fractures are absent and the are 2 and 4 times too 10w, respectively. TWO blocks of
w ell/verticel
fractureorientations
are viewed such that the differentshape can have the aam e shape facto~ but block
wdlbore intersectsno fractures. shape,especially aspectratio,can be a dom &ant parameter
‘- ’245
,.
8 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSITY AND DUAL-POROSITY RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
in reservoirbehavoir. The shape factor definitionloses gas flow are three-dimeneionelb the matrixbut the oilflow
m caningaltogetherforanizotropic
matrixpermeability. iesubstantiallyverticaldownward.
The shape factorisneitherhelpfulnor relevantin the A key characteristic of this process is the virtual
matrix-fracture transferformulationdescribedhere. The absence of viscouspressuregradientin the gas phase. That
two matrix block transmiaeibiWes of imterestare T (Eqn. is,gee phase pressureessentially obeys 8PI 8z = Yg where
(22))and gee exists,and oil mobility controlsthe dtainage rate.
7= = kztx~+tz (24) C apilleryforces act to retain oil in the matrix and at
equil.ibriu
m (largetime), the gee saturationdistribution,
The former givesttearly correctresulm for the imbibition curve ABC in Fig. 5 M the section ABC of the capillary
process. Calculationof T from the shape factorand Eqn. pressurecurve, The volumetricor integratedaverage gas
(19)essentially
givesimbibitionrates correspondingto an saturationat equilibria
m isdenoted sge~
effectivematrix perm eability1/2 itstrue value. Tz is the h
transmissibilityconnected with the gxavity drainage Sg(z)dz (25)
‘ge=~o
procesf5. J
At equilibrium,capillarypreeeure is zero at the
The transientdecay time for single-phase,mat+ bottom and h Ay at the top of the block,varyinglinearlyas
fracture flow ia generallyvery sm elL Aa developed in
Appendix A; the ratio(~m-pf)/ (pi-p?isabout .03at a time PC=(h-z)AY (26)
248
SPE 18427 KEITH H. COATS 9
The grid block equilibriumcurves are now discussed. where T is given by Eqn. (22). The ~c terme are pseudo
The gridblockisa stack of n matrix blocke where n is 1 or functionsfor approximate representationof 3D unateady-
greater. Litvak22 pointedout that partia.im m eraionof a state gravity and capillaryforces active in the matrix-
grid block resultsin drainage (imbibition) only in those fracturetransfer. Most publisheddual-porositytransfer
matrix blocks above (below)the fracturegas (water)leveL formtdations are equivalent to these equations; their
Thus for the gas-oilcase, the grid block fracture and exprgasionaof capillarypre~ure and.gravityterme define
equilibria
m matrixgas saturationsare rebted by the Pc terms in Eqna.(35). Pcgo and PcW. are functioneof
● (Sgm~ ?gf) and (Sw m ? S Wf)s respectively. The phase
‘ge = ‘gf ‘ge (31) are upatream valuee. The fracturem obilitiee
m obilities are
calculatedfrom linearcurveskr = S for each phase normally
Thisrekionahip appliesforlarge n and isapproximate to a but nonlinearfracture~ data may be entered.
data-dependentdegree for n = I. As an exception,for zero
capillary
pressureitia exact for alln, includingn = 1, and The con~on qw + q. + qg = O wows e~mination of
‘ge = 1 - ‘erg - ‘WC* A p from Eqna. (35)to obtain&the3-phase transferratesin
terms of the pseudo functioneP c
For the w ate~il case, the grid block equilibnu m
b +~ ;
curve can be determtied exactly for any value of n. We qw=- T@o+x ‘t
g Cwo g Cgo) (36a)
firstconsiderthe case of n =‘1 or A z = h, the case of a
singlematrixblockand itsadjoiningverticalfractures.The
VE capillarypressurecurves for matrix and fractureare q.= T+ ( aw 6CW0 - Xg ~ ~go) (36b)
easilydetermined. The fr~ure VE curve isEqn. (la). For
each SWf, we calculatePcf from this Eqn. and find the
equilibriummatrix,blocksaturationfrom the matrix VE Pc qg’.~(kwfiewo+(a w+ao)tCgo)
A (36c)
curve at thisPc value. The resultis shown by the upper
curve on Fig. 37, for an example problem discussedlater.
The data are those of Table 4 and matrix block dim ensiona
where A = Aw + X. + Ag.
sre 10 x 1“0x 30 ft.
For the water-oilcase Sw = Swc, ,lW= O and mass balance
For the case of intermediaten, n = 3 for illustration
gives,
here, the grid block curve can be constructedusing the
upper (n = 1) curve. The resultis the step-functioncurve ‘wf bm ~
qo’T— = v~m (isWm / dt (37)
shown on Fig. 37. For large n, the grid block equilibrium Cwo
curveis ‘wf + km
s*
we
= SwfSwe + (1- Swf)
Swc (32) For the gas-oilcase,Sgm = Xgm = O and mass balancegivee,
Our D P M formulationuses thisEqn. in a form coreplicated
by considerationsof transitionblocks and hysteretic * $ .V$m@gm, d~
qo=-T (38)
behavior. M kdle Eqn. (32) appliesonly for large n, it is
~f + brn Cgo
alteredas followsfor improved accuracy at small n. ‘She
Swf valueisreplacedby
Integration of these equations gives the saturation
(recovery)transientin analyticalform for given fracture
;Wf = (Swf + s; f)/(l+ S;f) (33) saturations.
swm
where S~f isa displacementwish a defaultvalue of .1. The
kWf + ~m ~ T
resulting
gridblockequilibnum curve =—
wm t (39)
\ ‘$m
S:e = SWf Swe + (1 - iw+ Swc o ‘wf %m CCWO
(34)
247
10 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSn Y AND DUAL-P OROS~Y RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
transient in m ereion response often approtimates the The sign of the term may be positivewhen oil is
exponentialform actuallycontinuingto drainto the fractures.A gridblock
-x*t, may exist at some time near the equi.libnu m condition.
s = Sge(l-e (42) Then a decrease in Sge and an increaee in S f may
13
eimultaneoualyoccur in relativedegreessuch that tt e term
where X* isconstant. Our SP M calculations agree with this signis potive. Let Sgfi be the fracturecontactlevelat
observation. We adopt this form becauee if gives better the beginning of this situation. Then above Sg~ no
resultsover a wide range of data.sets
than any other method exchange takes place. Below the contact in the vertical
we have tried. intervalSgf - S fn, matrix blocksare becoming exposed to
,.. fracturegas wti
“% drainageresulting(m atri.x-to-fractureoil
~ pcgodefin.ifionissoughtwhich exhibits the fonow~g flow) in that interval related to the new lower Sge.
beha=o~ Additionalcom plexitieacan be descibedat greatlength.
a) The im m ereiontransientobeys the exponential For brevity,the equationsof additional logicare given
form Eqn. (42). without lengthy identification of terme with phenomena.
b) The gridblock equilibriumsaturations obey Eqn. Two arrayaare carried.The firstisS fmx. Sgfmx isreset
(31). equalto S f at the end of every step w‘$ere the term signis
c) For partialimmersion, the tranaientrem sins negative ?norm al drainage is occurring). The second S*
fivafint with Sg/Sgfva time independentof Sgfi variableis resetas matrix S mn only when (a)the end-o#
d) The initial oilrate response obeys the form of etep term rngnispotive, an5 (b)S fn c Sgfmx and the new
Eqn.(41) sBf > s .fm*. Two .aaee are co~ered for a positiveterm
e) Im m ereiontransientaccuracy for a given rock ~. #he firstcase entailaa poei.iive term sign together
type (kro , Pc data)is presened ae block height with Sgf < Sgfm x. Imbibitionoccurein thiscase. The term
and interacid
! tensionvary. iD Eqn. (43)u multiplied by (Sgfmx - Sgf)and the fo~w~g
additivecapilhmyterm appears:
Skippingderivational
details,
the reeultis
(sgfmx
-‘gf)
‘Pcgo (s
g -sgf sge )-Pee)ur (44)
A T hAY-P The im bibi.tion
capillary
pressureisused here.
z
P
Cgo=r
b
g sge
Ce (l+!!W- ) (Sg-SgfSge)
l“o~gf The second case entailsa positiveterm signwithSgf>
(43) Sgfmxo The terms X and Y are defined
X5 S*-S
g gfmx ‘ge
togetherwith the “constant-~”contion thatkrog = 1 iI’Ithe
calculationof k.m in Eqn.(35b). 6g is a parameter easily (45)
determined by comparing SP M and DP M single-block YE S-s s-x
g gf ge
im m eraiontransients.Itisa singleparameter foreach rock
type,not a differentparameter foreach gridblock. Default The term in Eqn. (43)is replacedby Y. If Y is negatbe~
valueis 1. .~ the constantA optionisdeactivated,the D P M drainage is occurring and no additional terms are
im m eraion traneientexhibitatoo much curvature and a introduced.If Y ispositive,imbibitionisoccurringand the
larger ~g value is required. The for-m ~43) s~tiefies(a) followingadditiveterm appears:
because the left-handaideof Eqn. (3S)~ hear UI s~ The (Pcgo(Y)- p )u ifX~O
coudition8(b)and (c)are exactlysatisfied.Condition(d)is ce r
satisfiedby inspection. The degree of satisfactionof (46)
condition(e)is generallygood but is only approximate and (Pcgo
problem (data)-dependent. ‘Sg - ‘gf ‘ge)- ‘Cc)or if X < 0
The capillarypressuresare drainage or imbibitionvalues
Real fieldproblems exhibita complexity of gas-oil depending upon whether Sg is increa~ng or decrea~g~
exchange behavior which seldom appeare in test or respectively.
conceptualexam ple problems. The fo11owing describedlogic
represents only one of many possible approaches for The w ateeoil case is now addressed. For clarity
approximatetreatm ent of thiscomplexity. The signof the subscript m is omitted from all matrix saturalione,
term Sg - S f Sge in Eqn. (43)isimportant. A negativeaig: m obil.ities
and capillarypressures. Fracture saturations
indicates ~rainage proceeding toward equilibrium. carry the subscriptf. Subscript w is omitted since all
positivesign may or may not indicate oil flow from saturationsare water saturations.Fig. 7 illustrates the
fracturesto matrixin the gridblock. With no additionsto initialwater saturationdistributionin a grid block lying
Eqn. (43)a poeiIivesign will. resultin such fracture-to- within the water-oiltransitionzone. The block’eupper
m atrb.oilflow. Whether thieis correctdepends upon the intervalbetween pointsC and E containsmobile oilwith an
source or cause of the positivesign. A positivevalue can average water saturationSb at Capil.lavpressurePCW The
result from S increa~g andlor from Sgf andlor Sge 10wer intervalbetween pointsE and H containsimmobile oil
decreasing. I!?the positivesign only reflectsincreasing with an average water saturationSa. The gridblock@l
interf
aci.eltensionand 10w er Sge then oilflow to the matrix averagematuration is
shouldnot be allowed. The upper block region,above the
fracturegas-oilcontacc leve~ containsthe m aerixblocks Si = SFi Sa + (l-sF#~ (47)
drainedto a Sg value largerthan the new (decreasing) Sge.
But there is no oilin the fractureaoppositethese blocke where S .is the fractional distanceof the pointE up from
avdable forim Libition.Without additional logic,E qn. (43) the bot%m of the block is not fracture water
‘Fi
willreeultin falseimbibi.~onof fractureoilfrom below the saturation.Sfiis zero for the case shown. The pointSb,
gas-oilcontact into the matrix blocks above the contact. Pcb lies on the grid block matrix VE capitky pressure
Thisin turnresults in model G O R valueserroneouslylarge. curve. Tn terms of areas,the saturationare
24s
SPE 18427 KELTH H. COATS 11
=A ~big/Az AY Sa ‘sFi=O
‘i
% = Aabed/(ze - Zc) AY (48)
= Si = S:c = Swc
‘b
‘b = Adei~(zh - ze)AY
(55)
correspondsto recovery of the mobile oil in the upper s:=
‘Fwe + ‘1 - ‘Gswc
intervaland is
249
,,
12 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROS~Y AND DUAL-P OROS~Y RESERVOIRS SPE 1S427
[did S2 illSb. S2 is recalculatedby maze balance W e tried m ethoda aimilar to Roazen and Shen,
considerationseach time step in a manner dependent upon generatingpeeudo kro andlor Pc curves from SP M results.
whether fracturewater saturationincreasedor decreased. Different h/~o/Pc com binationz gave different pseudo
The resultis thatif a gridblock were to stabi.kzeat some curves,requiring~in general differentpseudo cuzvss for
S~ the matrixsaturationabove Sf k not Sb but .some larger each grid block. Even if only one or a limitednumber of
saturation S2 reflecting earlier temporary periods of blockhedghtawere allowed,the pseudo curvez changed with
exposureto and imbibikionof water. time due to density and interracialtension changes. In
addition, pseudo curves were different for different
All calculationof Sge) Swe, Sa! Sb$etc.in the a~~ve positions in the i#tieltransition
zone(a).Finally,for some
equationaare internallyperformed in the m od~ requmng dataseta,pseudo Pcgo curves wkh negativealopeoccurred,
no externalaimulations
or calculations. leading to com mutationalinstability.The pseudo curves
apply to the drainage(gae-oil) processbut do not represent
Discussion oilimbibition.
Dean and L021 describe sever~ formul.etione, Sonier et el19 emphasize the need for dynamti m ode~
&Iclud@ duel-porosity.For the ga~il caae they generate ratherthan previouslypubliehedstatk m odelz. Their term
a matrix block pseudo capillarypreseurecurve using full staticbaaically referato the need forexternalgenerationof
im m eraionSP M resultsin Eqn. (38). This givesthe co=ect some parameter(s). In particularthey referred to the
Sge value. They then generatea pseudo fracturecapfiry Tho m aa et al model aa static. In fact it is dynamic.
pressurecurve which givesconect equilibriummatrixblock Thornas’ use of pseudo capillaryprezzure curves reflecte
saturationafor partialim m ereion. They apply the same both capillarypressureand gravityforces with no external
procedurein the wateroil case. They statethat Thomaa et calibrations or parameter.
al used a matrix pseudo P= whilethey use pseudo Pc curves
for both fractureand matrix. In fact,Thornse et al used Soaier et al pointed out deficienciesin previous
both fractureand matrix pseudo Pc curves. Thornas’curves formulations’ gravityterms and presented theirimproved
give the same correct matrix block equilibriumsaturations method. They illustrated the accuracy of theirmethod in
for fulland partialim m eraionas obtainedby Dean and Lo. connection with the Kazemi et al five spot waterflood
m addition, Thomas’ method does thie automaticalLy problem16. This problem is treatedin detailbelow and is
(internally) for matrix blocks of any size or shape and for briefly sum m arizedhere. The vertically fracturedrezervok
changing Pc o (with tension),requiringuone of the SP M is a 600 x 600 x 30 ft.five-spotquadrant with 10 x 10 x 30
matching efFort of Dean and Lo. An advantage of the Dean ft. matrix blocks and an 8 x S x 1 DPM areal gridis used.
and Lo procedureliesin itstransientaccuracy which should Therefore matrixblock and gridblockheightsare equaland
be exactin the fullim m eraioncase. there are no horizontalfractures. Data provided(Table4)
include matrix block perm eability, porosityand ~ and Pc
Both of the above methods representthe gridblockby data and nonzero fracturePc and nonlinearfracturekr data.
a singlerepresentativematrix block,similarto other duel- Here and below we use zero fracturePc and linearfracture
poro~y formulationa16S19. The partial im m eraion ~ Thishas no effecton,theobservations and conclusions.
transientsand equilibria m saturationsare those of a single
matrix block ratherthan those of the gridblock (stackof Sonieret al showed that theirnew gravityterms are
matrixblocks). so correct that with capillarypreaeureezeroed and only
gravityforces active,their model closelyreproduces the
Rossen and Shen23 specifieda fracturepseudo Pc of nonzero P= Kazemi et alresults.Thisissurp-g becauze
SgfhAY (essentblly), then generated the matrix pseudo Pc the nonzero Pc Kaze mi problem is imbibitiondominated;
usingfullimmersion SP M resultein Eqn. (38). Throu8h a gravity forces are insignificant in the m atxix-fracture
aimpie, clever transformation they obtain matrix and tranaf er. Results with capillarypressurezeroed and only
fracturepseudos which give exactLycorrecttransientsand gravity forces active differ widely from those with the
equilibriummatrix saturationsfor allSgf on a @ b~ck givencapillary pressure.
basis<e. for a stack of matrix blocks. They appliedthe
same procedureto the wate~oil case. Since we may be in errorin understandingthe Sonier
et al method, theirequationsare reproduced here se used
Our difficultiesin use of a method similarto Thornas for the zero Pc water-oiltestproblem describedbelow. For
et al were as.follows. Reduced gas-oiltransientaccuracy w ate~oilmatrixto fractureflow they write
was obsened as h, kro,andlor Pc data were changed. As a
% = -Tkc (AP + Yo(zwf - zwm))
aimple exam pie, coneider the case of negligiblegas-oil (62)
capillary pressure.The m alrixVE krog curve ~ a str~ht
linein thiscase,independentof the rock curve. The dual-
~w = T Aw (AP - Yw(zwf - zwm))
porositytransient isthe same for m hog curv:s. Kowever$
the SP M transientahows wide variation for ~f erentbog where fora singlematrixblock
curves. 7n the wate=iL case,the SP M imbibitiontransient (~= .08)
T = .001127 LX !tYkz u k
reflectsthe rock capillarypressure curve regardlessof (63)
block height. However, the vertical’ equilibriumpseudo Pc and
cutie @e gives a dual-porositytransient rate which z ~f = (Swf - Swf$ t= (64al
bcreases with height. Loosely speaking,the errorin the
dual-porositywater imbibitiontraneientis proportionalto s -s
the differencebetween the pseudo and rock Pc curves. If zwm = 1 :~orwm wmi - Swmi ~z (64b]
theix method b appliedto the water-oilgravitydrainage
case (negligible rock Pc)sthe transient emor can be ~r8 e In this problem oilflowa from matrix to fractureand watel
simply because the fullmatrix blocktranzmiaeibility
isused in the oppositedirectionso for claritywe omit subscripts m
(when water is present)es opppaed to the gravitydrainage and f on nobilities.EliminatingA p from theirequatimu
z-directiontramsmieaibility.A reasonablepresum pti.oniz usingq. + qw = O gives
that they intendtheirwater-oilformulationfor use in the
norm alcase where imbibihn dominatesgravitydrainage.
ml!”
Zml
KEITH H. COATS 13
SPE 18427
s
Tim e 5X5X1O 2 x:: 10 2X1XI0
Days krw7w32 kw~”z %Wrl
m .2750 .2753
(65) 1200 .3003 .2993 .3001
2000 .3326 .3301 .3319
3200 .3786 .3726 .3754
20m parieonwith Eqn. (37) shows their equivalentgravity
lrzinagepseudo functionis The SP M resultsare essentiallyindependentof ~wf
valuesrangingfrom .2 to 1,a factorof 5. For drainage,a
; = (Y. +Yw) 2Z (Swf -Swfi DP M formulationshoulduse krwf = Swf and,in the gas-oil
Cwo
s -s . (66) case,~gf = Sgfi
- Iw-msorwwmm: sWmi) W u and Preuza25 presented a duel-porositymethod
For the im merzioncase, Swmi = Swc, Swfi = O and Swf = 1 allowing matrix block subdivision(MIN C) and com pared
n the above equations. The above equationsreflectonly resultswith conventionalD P M results.Their MIN C resulta
:hei.rgravity ~erms. Capillary pre~ures are zero & compare very closelywith SP M results. In part, they
~ccordancewiththeixapplication to Kaze mi’sproblem. concluded that for single❑ atrixblock studies,theirMIN C
method gives more reliablebehaviorthan the conventional
The zero Pc immersion transientequation for their D P M. They ahowed that MIN C (matrixblocksubdivision) is
method ia given by equatingq. from Eqn. (65)to (V/5.6146) neceaaary or desirable when fracture water saturation
im 8Swm/8t where V is matrixblockvolume ~x~y~z. We change ia rapid,when block size or oilviscosityare large,
;olvedthisequationwith resultsshown in Fig. 8, usingthe and when matrixpermeability ‘ialow.
iataof Table 4. Zero Pc SPM resultsusinga S x 5 x 10 grid
iedcribedbelow are shown forcomparison. The error(h our We considera case where fracturewater saturatioti
:esults usingtheirmethod) is eo largethat we alteredtheir change is rapid.- the im m ersion case of instantaneous
method a~ follows.In a laterpaper Sonieret e120statethey change from O to 1. The data are the Table 4 data withthe
?eviaed theix gravity terms by using phaae density 10 x 10 x 30 ft.1 md UIatrixblock. In the gravitydrainage
differencesrather than phase densitiesin front of their case discussed above the saturation gradients in the
iepth terms, as describedby Litvak. They alsostatedthis 5 x 5 x 10 SP M gridat 500 days are large. Near the block
:hangeresultedininsignificant differencesfor practicaland bottom, water saturationsrange from facialgrid block
realistic problems. We don’tunderstandwhat is m cant but
sasume it may somehow resultin Yw -Y. appearingin Eqn.
valuesof .37 to .53 to the W .25 at the interior block.
The D P M one-pointrepresentationof such gradientsby a
I
:65)in place of y w + yo. Resultsusingtheirmethod with m“ngle average value might be expected to show error
they w - Y. substitution are”shown in Fig.8. Again,their indicating “a need for matrix subdivision.Howevar, Fig. 8
ae w gravity term exhibits largeerroron the”highside. Fig. shows the D P M and SP M resultsagree w elL
B alao shows the zero Pc D P El resultsfor the method
flescribed in this paper. Their (revised)gravity term For the imbibitioncase (Pc = Table 4 values)Fig.36
significantly overestimatesthe true gravityresponse(Pc = shows SP M and our DP M resultsagree welL W u and Preusa
0). One source of errorin theirgravityterm isthe use of alao made. this calculationand showed moderately poorer
total-block T in place of the smeller,correctz-direction ~z SPM - DPt4 agreement. Fig. 9 shows our SPM and DPM
Eor gravitydrainage. In additiontheirnew gravityterm resultsfor the case where matrix permeabilityia 10wered
results in gravitydrainageeven when oiland water densities tenfoldto .1 m d, The significantly greater accuracy of
areequal(seeEqn. (65)). MIN C (SPM here)k. evident. However, a practical question
A subtleaspect of the above zero Pc gravity drainage The,open circleson Fig.9 chow D P M resulta%r km =
SP M calculationsreLetea to the @roper value of the .14, a 40% adjustment. The agreem ent is significantly
upstream krwf value. By analogy to the Thomas et al better.Large-timeagreement isgoo~
recom m endation for gas-oil gravity drainage, a D P M
transferformuletionshould use the matrix ~wro value for Tim e s wm
upstream ~wfy or (presumably)SWf x kr~ro for the partial D aye 5X5X1O DPM km = .14 md
immersion case. Our gas-oildrainagecalculations to date
e .5488 .5593
show the gP M grid resultsare independent of whether
5000 .5S12 .5912
upstream ~gf is&go (theirrecom m endati~ or 1.0. The
10000 .6230 .6306
reasonfortluaisthatgas entersthe blocklaterally over the
20000 .6536 .6608
aides as well as from the top and the effectiveentry
transmissibilityis much largerthan a 1D verticalpictureof
The questionof need for matrixsubdivisionisone that
the processwould indicate. The aam e situationexistshere
can be argued endlesslywith littleresolution
or agreement.
in the zero-Pc water-oilgravitydrainagecaee. Following
Meaningful answers are problem dependent. Nevertheless
are SP M w atex=oilgravitydrainageresultsforthe 5 x 5 x 10
we have seen littleneed for subdivision, especiallyin
and 2 x 1 x 10 grids with ~wf = krwro = .2 and for the
respectto other errorsourcesin dual-porosity modeling. Tn
2 x 1 x 10 grid with ~wf = 1. These resultsare for full
the case justtreatedoilviscositywee 2 cp, the block was
immersion of the 10 x 10 x 30 ft. block w~h Table 4 dsta
10 x 10 x 30 ft. and permeabfiy was .1 md. The Reservoir
except thatPc = O.
A describedlater hae .23 Cp o% .5 m d permeabilityand
251
I
14 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF 81NGLE-POROSITY AilU DUAL-POROSITY -.. RESI?RVOIRS
—--- . . . . ... ----- liV197.-.
.QPR
1
three 50-ft.layerswith a matrixblockheightof 10 ft. Let oilis the non-wettingphase case and P=w o acts to prevent
the initialfracturegastoilcontact of O be lowered to and reinfiltration. This can be argued againstby considering
held at 75 ft. The top gridblock willexperienceincreaainE negative valuea of imbibitionPc W. at each matrix block
matrix gas saturation but none of the corresponding bottom, but at thispoimtwe tireof futiherspeculation.
displacedoilappearsin thatgridblock. Rather,itflowsto
the verticalfractureain the second (middle)grid block. Gas OilExamplea
Thus one gridblock’sdeliveryof oilto itsverticalfractures
dependaupon othergridblocks’conditions. The firstexam pies presentedhere com pare SP M and
D P M results for constant-pressuregravity drainage.
To examine thisreinfiltration effect,we performed Calculations are performed for the data of Table 6, and for
gravitydrainageSP M calculations for a single10 x 10 x 10 the data of Table 7 which are roughlyrepresentative of the
ft.matrix block and for a gridblock containinga stack of Resemoir A propefies. The SP M gridis2 x 2 x Nz for the
sixof these matrixblocks. Data are givenin Table 6. For symmetrical 1/4 element,actuallyrun es a 2 x 1 x Nz with
clarityhere we refer to the horizontalfractureaas the xy x-directiontranam iaaibilities
doubled.
fractures.First,the singlematrixblock was m odelledusing
the 2 x 1 x 7 gridshown in Fig.13. The calculatedrecovery Figs. 15 and 17 compare SPM and DPM 10- and l-i%.
curve is shown by the solidlineon Fig. 14. Second, the block resultsfor constant-pressure drainageat bubble-point
stackof six matrixblockswas modelledusingthe 2 x 1 x 37 pressureusingthe data given in Table 6. The equilibrium
gridof Fig. 13. The recoverycurve isshown by the dashed gas aaturationeSge at bubble-pointpressureare .498 and
‘he in Fig.14. The inkialrateisindeedabout sixtimesleas .1258 for the 10 and 1 ft. blocks,respectively. These
than the eingIe-blockrecovery rate, as reported by the values reflectthe gas-oildensitydifferenceof .1477 pa
above-mentioned authors, used in Eqn. (28). The calculatedI,arge-tim e or stabilized
Sgm values are .4998 and .4974 for the SP M and DP M
Allauthorsacknowledge that the cartesiannetwork of calculations,respectively.The firstvalue isatabilize~,the
verticaland horizontalfracturesis an idealizationof a far latterisstillincreasingvery S1Owly at 10000 days.
more complex reservoirdescription.The xy fractures,if
they exist at all,are not preciselyhorizont~ just as Fig.15 shows good agreement between SP M and DP M
vertical fractures are not exactly verticaL A third results for the 10-ft.block using a ~g of 1.14. The
calculationwas thereforeperformed with a .5 ft.downward agreem ent with SP M resultaahows that the recovery curve
verticaldisplacem ent of each fractureintersection(sub-) is closelyapproximated by the exponentialform, Eqn. (42),
block inthe2xlx37 grid. This correspondsto xy fortheseparticular kr and Pc data.
fracturesslopingat an angle of about 11 degrees from the
horizontal The resultingrecovery curve shown by the Thornas et al reportedbetteragreement than we show
triangularpointsin Fig. 14 agrees closelywith the single- fortheirmethod in Fig.15. Thisisbecauae they performed
blockrecoverycurve. theircalculationswith pressuredepletion- about 750 psi
pressuredeclineover 1000 days. This depletionmasks the
In sum m ary, with sloping xy fractures,calculated accuracy or evaluationof the tranefer form ulationsincethe
recovery from a stack of six matrix blocksvirtually equals increaseof matrixgas saturation isa combined resultof the
six times the recovery of a single m atdx block. A matrix-fracture transferand gas evolutionor liberationdue
conservativeconclusioniathat SP M resultican be obtdned to pressuredecline.Thisgas evolutionreducesthe tranehit
to argue in favor or againstthe asaum ption,indicatinga time and im provea the apparent accuracy of the tra~fer
need for experimentaldata.. The experimente of Saidiet formulation.
a131indicateour sloped-fracture SP M resultsare erroneous.
As previouslystated,one difficult objectivein D P M
Some sensitivityrune were performed for the sloped development is constructing a transfer or exchange
xy fracturecase. Tbe base case reported here used five formulation which at leaat approximately preserves
(sub-)gridblocksvertically for each matrixblock with A z = accuracy under time and spatialvariationof reservoix/fluid
3, 3, 2, 1, 1 ft. The xy fracturegrid block permeability properties. Fig. 16 indicates the senaithiky of. D P M
correspondsto a contributionof about 50 m d to x- or y- accuracy to variationinthe bog curve. The curve of Table
directionefEective fracture system permeability. The 6 was reduced by a factorof 3 except forthe entry~og = 1.
fractureslopeis 11 degrees. A run was performed usinga 2 The D P M with f3g= .485 only approximatelym atchea the
x L x 49 gridwith each matrixblock Az = .5,1, 1.5,3,2, 1, SP M resultsfor the 10-ft.block case. The method of
1 ft.to obtaina small gridblock at the top of the matrix Thomas et al givesa higherrecovery curve. The D P M and
block. In addition,a verticaldiaplacement of .2 ft.lowered SP M recovery curve shapea show that the SP M recovery
the dip angleto only4.6 degrees. Thisrun gave a recovery curve does not obey the exponentialform as well wifh
curve 10w er than but close to the base case curve - a krog/3 as itdidforthe originalkzop
maxim um of 2.7 saturationpercentage pointslessover all
time. Another run used the 2 x 1 x 37 base case gridand dip Fig. 17 shows SP M and D P M resultefor the conatant-
anglebut 10w ered the xy fractureperm ea~i3ity by a factor pressuredrainagecaae for the 1 ft. matrix block. The
of 10 to a contributionof only 5 m d to fracturesystem calculations usingTho m as’method agree very well with the
effectivex- or y-directionpermeability.The resultwas a SP M results;the agreement isessentially the aam e aa they
lower recovery curve with the m a~mum difference‘~from reported. The reason for similarityof their and our
baae case)of 4.2saturationpercentagepointsat 600 dayn. com pariaonein thiscase (as opposed to the Fig. 15 lo-ft
case)ia that theirdepletionwas minimal in the 1 ft.case,
In ~ theee sloped-fracture stack rune,the saturation havingleesthan 100 days to act due to the festertransient.
distributions
in the individualmatrixblockswere esaen~y The D P M gives a recovery curve slightlyhigher than the
@dependent of positionin the stack and very similarto the SP M and D P M T results.The Bg valueof 1.14determinedfor
distribution
calculatedforthe singlematrixblock caae. the lo-ft.block waa uae~ the SP M/D P M curve differences
of Figs. 15 and 17 thus indicate the approximate
Ih these gas/oil.calculations,
capillaryforces tend to preservationof accuracy of the DP M formulationfor a ten-
prom ote the imbibition or reinfiltrationof oiL The foldvariationof blockheight.
aaeum ption might be more validin the water/oilcase since
26s
16 I14PLICITCO MPOST1’IONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSITY AND DUAL-POROSITY RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
The resultsjustdiscussedrelateto the case of a single from 600 to 1200 days. Gas evolution accompanying
matrix block. For the case of a grid block containinga pressure decline tends to increase Sgm w~e caP~
stack of many matrix blocks,the drainagerecovery curve forces along with weaker gravityforcen tend to decrease
for partialim m ereion(sridblockSgf c 1)eho~d be identic~ Sgm by forcingflow of matrix gas to the fracturee.Theee
to the single-matrix blockcurve providedSg ❑ /Sgfisplotted opposingtendenciesbecome equal at about 600 daye with
in ‘lieu of Sgm. Our D P M gives thisresult. Our run using the capillary-gravity forces dominating thereafter. After
the Tho m ae et al D P M method for Sgf = .5 gave a stabilized shut-in at 1200 days, the depletion/evolution effect is
Sgm/Sgf of .446 for the 10-ft.block case and an S m of O absent and the capillary-gratiy forcesact alone to reduce
forthe l-ft.case. The .446 value reflectsthe equ!libtim Sgm. The rate of Sgm declinediminishesas Sgm decreaaeep
Sgm value of .223 for a single 10 ft. matrix block as due to decreasing~gm and Pcgom.
opposed to the value of .249 for the stack of blocks
representedby the gridblock. The O value of the 1 ft.case The D P M resultsshown by the open circularpointsin
reflectsthe influenceof the thresholdcapillarypressureon Fig. 21 match the SP M results welL The growing
eqflbrium Sgm of a single1 ft.matrixblockforSgf = .5. discrepancyat large time reflects the verticaldistribution ?
or variationof gas saturationin each matrix block in the t
The proceduresuggestedby Roeeen et al was used with SP M calculation.The DPM uses ~gm and Pcgom values .-
the SP M resultsshown in Fige. 15 and 17 to calculate evaluated at the average eaturati.onvalue of this
peeudo matrixgas/oilcapillary pressurecurves forthe 10 ft. distribution. These values are lesethan the SP M effective
and 1 ft block cases,respectively.Fig. 1S show.sthat the values which reflectvalues integratedover the vertical
curves differgreatlyfor the two differentblock heights. distribution.
The implicationof thisis that in caees of variableblock
heightover the reservoixgrid,each gridblock would need to For the resultsjustdiscussed, a singlematrixcapillary
have input and storage of a differentp8eudo curve. The pressurecurve of S; was used. The triangular-point DPM
slopeof the pseudo curve issatisfactory (positive) for the 1 resultsin Fig. 21 nulicatethe effect of use of a .1*S2
ft. case but ia negative for the 10 ft case at saturations imbibitioncurve along with the S: drainagecurve. Results
below .3. A negative slope can cause stabilityor are identicalto 600 days Ace Sgm is inCreSSkig and o~y
convergence problems. the drainage curve is applicable. After 600 days,,Sgm
declinesand the D P M calculationswtiches to imbibitmn
Tn this and other unreported cases,the unorthodox curve values. The lower im bitdfion curve resultsin a 10war
integrated curve shapes obtained lead us to question rate of gas expulsionfrom the matrixor @“eatermatrix gas
whether we are in error either in understanding or retention.
implementing thisproposed procedure. For thisreason we
includeTable 6 Vhich givesthe SP M Sgm vs. time curve for The SP M and DP M calculations give the same matrix
the 10 ft.block. These are the only data missingfor the pressureand interracial tensionvs. time cuwee~ shown in
purposeof performingthe integration. the lower portionof Fig. 21. The plottedIFT is ratioof
tensionto initial tensionat the initiAI 5553.7 peia bubble
Figs.19 and 20 compare SP M and D P M resultsfor the point pressure. The value of nearly6 at 1200 days m eana
gas/oildrainageprocessforthe data of Table 7. A 1x1x4 ft. thatgas-oilcapillary pressuresincreasesix-fold from bubble
matrix block containing saturated oil is im m creed in poihtto 4200 peia.
equilibria m fracturegas at constantbubble-pointpressure.
Fig. 19 shows that the SP M and D P M resultsagree fairly For the 8econd depletion case, gas entering the
W~ with 13g= 1.3. As previouslystated,the D P M should fracturescannot percolate out of the grid block. Oil
givean invariantplotof S&m/Sgf for the partialimmersion productionrate at the bottom of the block is constantfor
case. The cixculerpointsm F%. 19 are a plotof Sgm/Sgf 1500 days and O thereafter.In thiscase gas simultaneously
from the DP M forthe case of a constantSgf = ,5. flows from fractureto matrix and from mat& to fracture
at differentpositions in the gridblock. In the upper partof
The approximate preservationof D P M accuracy for a the block,gas flows from fractureto m atti. In the 10wer
fixed~g and differentblock heightsisindicatedin Fig.20. part,fracturesare oil-filled and gas flows from matrix to
SPM and DPM resultsare shown for Sgf = 1 and ~g = 1.3for fracture. After shut-inat 1500 days,a circulatory type of
a matrixblockheightof 1 ft. flow occurs; gas flows from matrix to the fracturesin the
lower region,percolatesupward and enters matrix blocks
Simple pressure depletion may be a dominant above the fracturegao-oilcontact.
m echaniem during periods of production with no gas or
water injection.Two cases are consideredfor a singlegrid The D P M cannot represent simultaneousfbw of a
block subjectedto pressuredepletion.Data in Table 7 are phase in both directions; it can only approximate that
used. The gridblock of.height24 ft.isa stackof six1 x 1 x situationby a net flow in one direction.Fig.22 compares
4 ft. matrix blocks. In the firstcase, gaa evolved in and SP M and D P M resultsfor thissecond depletioncase, with
escaping from the matrix percolatesupward through the and without~ T effects.U the latterare ignored,lessgas
verticalfracturesleaving the grid block’sfracturesoil- appeam in the fractures which, in terms of reservoir
filled.Jn the second case,caprock or gas-filled fracturesin performance, translatesinto 10wer G OR. The reason for
an overlyingblockpreventsthispercolation and the evolving thisis that Sge islargerwhen IFT effectsare @nored and
m atb gae enters and accumulates in the fractures, largerSge correspondsto more gas in the m atxixand lessin
res~ting in an increaaimgSgf or declininggas-oilfracture the fractures.Fig. 22 ahowa only moderate agreement of
contact, The SPM and DPM gridsare 2 x 1 x 24 and 1 x 1 x SP M and D P M resultsforthissecond depletioncase.
2 respectively.A productionwallproduceea constanttotal
RB/day rate from the fracturesfrom O to 1200 days and is Fig.23 shows pressureand matrix gas saturationvs.
shutin from 1200 to 2500 days. time for the gP M and D P M calculationwith and without
IFT effects. The curves are the same for allfour cases.
Fig. 21 shows the SP M matrix gas saturation,Sgm ? The interracial tensionratiorisesfrom an initial value of
plottedva. time. Sgm is the volumetric average of gas 1.0to 4.5at 4430 pt& at 1500 days.
saturationsin the 24 matrix sub-blocksof the 2 x 1 x 24
SP H @l. Sgm increasesfrom O to 600 days and decreases
--.
m
Fig.24 comperee SP M and D P M resultsforthe case of existedat earlytime with a downward verticalmovement
fracture oilimbibitioninto a gas-filledmatrix block at over time of a nearly piatodike gas-oilinterface. The
constant,bubble-pointpressure.This processmay occur in inifialS e value was .5664at the initial
IFT (rat5.o
of te.tin
the reservoirif oilin pushed upward into a gas-cap grid t. d te~~ of 1.0. Rough averages of IFT, Sge and
block or a previouslydrainedg-idblock. The 1 x 1 x 4 ft. Sgm valuee over blocks where Sgf = 1.0 at 7 years are es
matrix block initial
saturationsare Sgm = .9,Sw m “ Swc “ follous:
.1,and the fractureoilsaturation isconstantat 1.0. Table IFT
7 g$ee other data. An imbibitioncapillarypressurecurve C see Inj.Gas Diffusion Fracture Matrix Sge ‘gm
of Sg was used.
1 Separator No 7 1.4 .53 .54
2 Separator Yes 2 2 .50 .53
Fig.24 shows closeagreement between SP M cnd D P M ~
Nitrogen No 60 5 .37 .37
single-matrix-blockreeultaforthe case Sof = 1.0. However; 4
Nitrogen Yes 40 40 .23 .50
the D P M formulationdoes not exhibitthe properinvariance
to partialfracturesaturation.The correct(dashedline)and
The average Sgm of .53for Case 2 includeseeveralblocksat
actual(triangtirpoints)D P M resuh for the case of Sof = and near the gasinjector where Sgm was .9due tO matrixOfi
.5are shown, The correctD P M Sgm valueiS 1/2 the sum of
vaporization With diffusion, matrix/fracture gee
●9 and ‘he ‘~M ‘gm value calculatedfor Sof = 1.0. The com positionswere nearlyidenticalas were matrix/fracture
D P M formule~on does givethe correctasymptoticor large-
time valueof Sgm of .45. oilcom poeMons where fractureoilexisted.In Case 4, the
large differencebetween Sgm (.5)and Sge (.23)reflectsa
combination of early-tire e drainage of oil when S8e WJM
The above discussionand Figs. 15-24 examined the
largerand vaporizationof matrixoilby the high-N2 content
accuracy of the D P H formulationin connectionwith single
matrix gas. No complete matrix oilvaporizationoccurred
m at~ block or singlegridblock behavior. The sensitivity
in Case 4. No grid block matrix oilsaturationat eeven
of D P M full-gridaimulationresultsto inaccuraciesin the
yearewas lessthan .3.
formul.etion is of equal interest. Fig. 25 shows the D P M
single matrix block, constant-pressuredrainage curve
Water/OilExa mplee
calculatedwith (a)f3g= 1.3(asin Fig.19),(b)13g= l.% and
(c) Bg = 1.0 and the constant-~option deactivated. The
Single-Block Imbibition
cases(b)and (c)give moderate and largeerrorein the D P M
resultsforthe rnngle-m atrix-blockcase.
SP M and D P M resultsare compared firstfor water
imbibitioninto a singlematrix block. The accuracy of the
The D P M param eteraof the three cases (a)-(c)
shown
D P M resultsisexamined for changesin two variables-block
fi rig. 25 were used in 12x5 x-z cross-aectiona~ constant- heightand the irnbibition capill.aty
pressurecurve. The two
pressuregas injection,D P M aimulationrum. The crose-
blocksizesare 10 x 10 x 10 ft.and 10x 10x 30 ft. The fkvt
sectiongridand welldata are givenin Table 7. The injected
Pc isthat givenin Table 6. The second,denoted %w PC”,
separator gas com positiongivee a vaporizinggae drive.
given in Ref. 30, is identicalexcept for the fol.lo wing
Average reservoix pressure during the seven yeara of
entries:
simulationis about 5600 psia for all runs diacusaedhere.
Gas injectionra!e is constant and the productionwell is Pcwo
placed on deliverability at a bottomhole pressure,of 5500 ‘urn Table 6 Low Pc
psia. 7 50. r
.25 9. .5
Fig. 26 shows that the moderate and large .3 2. .3
inaccuraciesin the D P M single-block
behaviortranslateto .35 .5 .15
am alland moderate inaccuraciesin the 12x5 cross-sectional .4 o* o.
results. ThiE tendency of a change in a given model .45 -.4 -.2
(reservoiror fluidor M echaniam) parameter to cause a
significantly
smallerchange in overallsimulationresultsiE Obtain@g the correctSP M resultsfor these cases is
well known. Nevertheless,(as,indeed,~here perhaps)we not entirelystreightforward. A l/4-elementNx x Ny x Nz
frequentlybelabor the accuracy of a model parameter or SP M gridincludeehorizontalfractureblocksat k = 1 and N z
mechanism without examining its impact on the overall and verticalfractureblocks at i = N x and j = N ~ The
aimulationreaulta. choice of krwf value in these wate~filledfractureblocks
for upstream use in water imbibitioncan affect the SP M
For several years, da Silva12 has gathered and resultsby a fractionto severalsaturationpercentagepoints.
presented evidence that diffusion may play a very In theory,the facial~wf value is determinablefrom the
significant role in dual-porosity reeervoir behavior, boundary conditionSWf -= 1. Firstthoughtleads to a value
especiallywhen injectiongas com poeidon differsgreatly of krwf = kflwm = the matrix ~w at Sum = S$m = water
from that of the naturalreservoirgas. Fig.27 ahous the saturationat imbibitionPcw o = O. Thisvalue is .03 for the
effectof diffusionin the D P M cross-sectional
aimuletionfor data here for both Pc curves. However, the block
the case of separatorgas injection.With diffusion included experiencesgravitydrainagein additionto imbibitionwith
in the calculations, the results show somewhat higher finalequilibriumwater saturationequallingS% m at the top
recovery with significantly 10w er G OR. Fig. 28 showa a and the Sw of pointB in Fig. 6 at the bottom of the block.
greater effectof diffusionwhen nitrogenis injected. Oil The maxim urn possiblevalue of the lattersaturationforany
recoveryiaroughly60% greaterwith diffusion whileG O R is block height is I-Sorw and the maxim urn possible
significantlylower. A crossplotof GOR ve.recovery would corresponding~wf valueiskrwro, which iS .23 for the data
illustrate
the effectof diffusionmore dramatically;at 16% here. These values of .23 and .03 are over seven-fold
recovery,calculatedG O R is 3800 Scf/STB with diffusion differentand at varioustimes and block positions, the true
and 25,500Scf/STB withoutdiffusion. fac~ krwf upstream value for water flow tito the m atdx
block may apan thisrange, SP M resultsobtainedusingfixed
These cross-sectionrune with the two different
%tif = .23and ●O3 v~uea are sis~an~y different
injectiongasea and with and withoutdiffusion
exhibitedthe
followinggeneralcharacter. A strongfracturegas override
---
I
18 IMPIJCIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSITY AND DUAL-P OK OSITY RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
The proble❑ isreso’vedin the followingmanner. For curve independent of Swf. Fig. 33 shows SP M and D P M
a givenblockheightand P= curve,the value of Sw at point resultsforSwf = .5 and 1.0forthe 10 ft.block and Table 6
B of Fig.6 is determined. The value of ~w ~ at thisSw is P c“ The curvesare nearlyindependentof Sw f value.
calculated.The proper~wf value cannot exceed this~w
and it b used for facial upstream krwf in the SP M Three-DimensionalWaterfloodExample
calculation.The resultingkrwf values for the four cases
are: Resultsare com pared to those of Thomas et al for
MatrixBlock theirlinedrive water injectionexam pie. Their 10 x 3 x 5
Sise Pcwo krwf griddescribesa 2000 x 2000 x 250 ft.resemoir with water
10 X1OX1O Table 6 .069 injectionand totalliquidproductionratesspecifiedat x = O
10 X1OX3O Table 6 .108 and x = 2000 ft.,respectively.Pc and ~ data and fluid
Lox loxlo Low .06S propertiesat 6215 paie formation pressure are given in
10 XIOX3O Low .104 Table 6. Matrixblocksare 10 ft.cubes. The remainingdata
are not reproducedhere.
The value of krwf onlyaffectscalculatedflow intothe first
matrix grid block at the m atrixffrac ture interface. Each layer of thisgridis 50 ft.thick and containsa
Thereforeuse of a sufficiently finegridwillgivevery small stack of five matrix blocks. Fig. 29 shows that both
dimensionsof thisfirstblock and the SP M resultsbecome Tho mast and our D P M methods give good agreement with
insensitive to the value of krwf. We used a 5 x 5 x 12 grid fullim m ereic
n SP M resultsfor water imbibitionintoa single
for the l/4-element(x = O to 5 ft.,y = O to 5 ft.)with AX 10 ft. m atr”xblock. However, Fig.34 ahows the different
and A y matrixspacingsfrom centerto fractureface of 2.5, gridblockequilibrium curvesforthe two methods. Equating
1.5,.7,.3ft. the VE (pseudo) matrix and fracture capillarypressure
curves for various Sw f values gives the two solidcurv..
Sensitivityruns with other grids and ~wf values shown on Fig. 34. The upper curve is obtainedby applying
indicatedthe above procedure givesaccurate SP M results. this procedure for a single 10 ft. matrix block and
The truncationerrorof Nz = 12 vs Nz = 22 issmalleven for representsTho mas’method. The step-function curve isthe
the 30 ft.blockheightand isin the oppositedirectionof the correct resultobtained by applyingthe procedure on the
s m d error of using the maximum possiblekrwfi The basisof the 50-ft.gridblockheight. The dashed lineisthe
verticalspacingfor Nz = 12 is .001, 10 * (h/lO),.001 ft. relationshipused in our method ifS~f = O.
The SP M calculationisactuallyperformed as a l/8-element
which reduces computing time. The aimpleatgridisa 2 x 2 The expected impact of the differencesin these
x Nz with the matrix grid point at x = y = 2.5 ft.and is equilibriam curves on 3D resultsis difficultto deduce.
equivalentareallyto thatused in the D P M formulati.on
-also Confusionarisesin trying‘:0reconcilethe curve differences
equivalentto the shape factorEqn.(20).The 2 x 2 x Nz grid with factorssuch as (a) vhe magnitude of the imbibition
is actuallyrun as a 2 x 1 x N ~ with x-directiontransmis- transienttime (Fig.29, about 1 year)com pared with flood
sibilitydoubled. The resultingSw m vs. time curve ranges displacementtimes, (b)the time a grid block spends in a
from a fractionto about 3 saturationpointslower than the 5 partial immersion etate,com psred with imbibitiontransient
x5x Nz grid. time, and others, If a problem were designed whera a
dominant aspect of resemoir behavior was a long-term or
Fig. 29 shows SP M and D P M resultsfor the 10 ft. stabilized establish
m ent of partialfracturesaturation(say,
block and Table 6 pcwo. Thornas et al presentedSP M and .5),then reasoningalone might deduce from Fig. 34 that
D P M resultsforthiscase. Our SP M resultsand resultsusing calculated recovery would be significantly higher for
their method show about the same agreement se they Tho m as’method than oura. Tn any event,it seems safe to
reported. The two D P M methods give virtuallythe same inferfrom” Fig. 34 that Tho m as’resultsmight reflectfaster
transientforthiscase. earlyimbibitionleadingto 10w ar W O R and higherrecovery.
However, all blocks eventuallyexperiencepermanent SWf
Fig.30 shows that forthe 30 ft.blockour D P M results values of 1.0 at which recoveriesfor both methods are
are slightlyhigh and our curve using Tho m as’ method is identicaL
higheryet.
Fig. 35 com pares the two methods on the basis of
Fig.31 shows forthe 10 ft.blocksnd low Pc case good water cut calculatedfrom the 3D simulations.The methods
SP M agreement using our D P M and a low transientusing give very similarresults.Our water cut iahigherearlyand
Thomas’ method. 10w er at latetimes. Thomas reportedbreakthroughat about
1.5years,and water cut and recoveryvaluesat 10 yeara of
For the 30 ft.block and low Pc case, Fig. 32 shows 92% and 35 % OOIP, respectively.Our breakthroughtime is
good accuracy of our DP M and a significantly
more rapid about 1 year and ill-year water cut and recovery are 88.4%
transientusingTho m as’method. and 34.6% O 07.P,respectively.
For both 10 ft.and 30 ft.block heights,the low Pc Our run was made using an initial5-day step with
case requixeda f3wvalueof 2.7 whilethe higherTable 6 P autom atic step selection limited only by a specified
case requiredno change from the default1.0 value. Ti-& maximum step sise and a maximum increaseof 50% from
reflectsour experiencethat imbibition-dominated(highPc) step to step. For a maximum step of .5 years,the run
casesgenerallyrequireno adjustmentof f3
w. required27 steps and 63 iterationsfor the 10 years. A
maximum step of .25 yeara resultedin 45 steps and 91
Figs.31 and 32 show fairpreservationof accuracy of iterations.Tim e truncationerroris small as the fasterrun
D P M resultsusing the same 2.7 8 w value with a 3-fold gave lo-year water cut and recovery values of 87.4 Z and
change in blockheight. 34.4 % OOIP. Resultswere insensitiveto whether the VE Pc
optionwas used forthe interlock fractureflow.
If matrix block heightis significantly
less than grid
blockheight,then a plotof (Sw m -Swc)/((Swf* (Swe - Swc))
for the partialim m ereioncalculation
shouldgivea transient
SPE 18427 KEITH H. COATS 19
The com pariaonbetween line-driveD P M and correct The 8 x 2 x 10 grid representsthe matrix-fracture
(SPM) resultsisextended to the case of formationthickness flow usinga singlegridpointor gridblockforthe 10x 10 ft.
= 90 ft. where n = Az/h = 3, a case where D P M accuracy xy area of the matrix block. Thizrepresentation isexectLy
would be expectedto be greater.Finally, the areal8 x 8 x 1 equivalentto a 2 x 2 x 10 3D grid representationof a
D P M five-spot
resultsare presentedwith an estimateof the (symmetrical)quadrant of a singlematrix block with kc
correct five-spotresultsprovided by the DP M-SP H line associatedverticalfractures. Thus we can aeeees the
drivecom parisone. accuracy of the 8 x 2 x 10 field-scalesimulationresultsby
performingim meraionrunefor 1/4 element of a singleblock
Our calculations utilizedata differing
from Kazemi et usinga 2 x 1 x 10 xz grid with x-dixection
Cranemieaibililiee
al in the fcllowingrespects. Our injecdon and production multipliedby two.
rates are 200 R B/d. With theirdata in parentheses,shape
factoris .16 (.0S)and fracturekr and Pc are linear(non- Fig. 36 com pares the single-block, water imbibition
linear)and zero (non-zero), respectively.‘theextended time (immersion)curve calculatedusinga (1/4element)finegrid
period of 3200 (1200) days allows more meaningful of 5 x 5 x 10 and the 2 x 1 x 10 grid.The lattergridgivesa
comparisons. Fro m che data, we calculate effective transientcurve somewhat low. However, increasingthe
fractureperm eabilitiea of 50 and 100 md in the x and z matrix permeabilityby 20% gives a 2 x 1 x 10 @ result
directions, respectively. Thomas et al used an effective virtually identicalto the correctcurve,as shown in Fig.36.
value of 500 md. The effecton W O R and oilrecovery of Therefore,ky2 = 1.2x 14254.5= 17105.4md was usedin the
effectivefracture permeabilityvalues over thisrange is 8 x 2 x 10 field-scale SPM @d. The 5 x 5 x 10 finega
essentially absent and isotropicvalues of 100 and 500 m d used A x and A y spacingsfrom fractureto blockcenterof C,
are used here forlinedriveand five-spotrune,respectively. .3,.7,1.5,2.5 ft.and verticalspacingof A z = 3 ft. Both
b the 3D SP M gridsdescribedbelow forthe linedrive,wells gridsused krwf = .2at Swf = 1 forflowintothe matrix.
were completed in alllayers and a PI of about .06 R B-
cplday-paiper ft. of com pl’etion was used. R esulteare Alao shown on Fig.36 are the single-blockim m eraion
unaffectedby PI valuesrangingfrom thislevelto 100 times reeultausing our D P M and Tho m as’ method. The latter
larger. m ethod’ause of VE capillary
pressureses drivingforce gives
an excessivelyrapid traneientfor the 30-ft.block height.
The Ehre-epotquadrant is 600 ft.on each aide. The Our DPM read% are somewhat low but compare wall with
equivalentline drive element having the same interwell the correctSP M results.The DP M runeuse the 1 md matrix
diztanceand totalvolume is 848.5 ft.long,424.24 ft.wide perm eabilityvalue.
and 30 ft. thick.To account fordualporosity, an 8 x 2 x 10
3D single-porosity gridia used with A z = 3 ft. The two The implicationhere is that SP M-D P M agreement for
adjoining8 x 10 cros~ections, denoted by subscriptsj=l the sing%e matrix block full im m eraion case ensuree
and j=2,representfracturesand matrix,respectively.For accuracy of the field-scaleSP M 8 x 2 x 10 simulation.One
the givenfractureand matrixporosities of .01and .19, might object that the full im mereion com pariwn is
inconclusivesince all grid (matrix)blocke in the field
AY1 = 4.2425 ft. @l=1.
aimulationexperiencevanoua statesof partialim m ereion.
(68) We thereforerepeatedthe singlematrixblock 5 x 5 x 10 and
2 x 1 x 10 (with km x 1.2)rune for the partialimmersion
AY2 = 420 ft. ~ = .19(.99)=.1881
case SWf = .2. The followingreaulteindicatethat the full
The proper value of k for y-direction(matrix- im m ereion accuracy is retained under partialim m ereion
fracture)flow iscalculatedas !?
ollows.A skgle 10 x 10 x 30 conditione.
ft.matrixblockhas a totallateraltram miaaibility
acroesits
fourverticalfacesof Tim e s“m (swf =.2)
l?S#— 5X5X1O 2X1X1O
‘K= ‘h ~=18kh (69) .2997 ~
%% + 5X14)
x 600 .3610 .3607
In a gridblockof dimensionsA x A y A z thereare 1200 .3944 .3953
2400 .4326 .4361
AX Ay Az(l- of)/ 2X Ey h (70) 3200 .4493 .&539
‘-.257
20 IMPLICIT COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OF 81NGLE-POROS~y AND DUAL-P OROS~Y RESERVOIRS SPE 18427
Fig.37 #hows the gridblock equilibriumcurvesforthe volatileoilwith B. of about 2.2 RB/STB and solutiongas of
caseshere of n = 1 and 3. The upper curve iscorrectfor the 1966 SCF/STB at the 5553 paia bubble point. original
caae n = 1 and isobtainedas discussedpreviously.Tho m as’ reservoirpressure is about 7000 peia with a water-oil
method reflectsthis(upper)curve in the matrix-fracture contact about 1200 feet balmw top of structure. The 3-
drivingforce expressionfor any value of n. The correct component EOS representationof the oil wae discussed
curve forthe case n = 3 is shown by the etep-functionsolid above in connectionwith Figs. 1-2 and Table 2.
curve of Fig. 37. The D P M curves(Eqn.(34))are ahown by
the dashed lineefor S~f = O, .0856and .314. W e used S~f = During the lest13 of the 16 years’history, first-stage
.314 and .0S56 for the casesn = 1 and n = 3, respectively. separator gas (86Z methane) w es injacted. When gas
Thisreduces the D P M error for small n. The value of .463 injectionbegan, rese~oir pressure wee 6S00 peie,about
for equilibriumgrid block saturationat SWf = O is the 1300 PM above bubble point. Reservoir pressureand oil
equilibnu m saturationof a 30-ft. matrixblock exposed to recovery at the end of historyare about 4000 paieand 12%
water at itsbottom face. of OOIP, respectively. GOR hms risen to about 9000
Scf/STB. Queetiona concerning future recovery include
Fig.38 com paresSP M end D P M oflrecoveryand water continuedseparatorgas injection, N 2 injectin andlor water
cut resultsfor the field-scaleline-drivewaterflood with injectiow
formation thickness= h = 30 ft. The DP M recovery ia
moderatelyhighup to 1500 days and too low at largertimes. The reservoirstudyhas proceeded far past the status
The SP M and DP H recoveriesare 37.9 and 39.1% OOIP, described here. The originalhistory match dateaet is
respectively,
at 1200 days, and are 56.? and 53.2Z O OLP, retained as a fixed reference for the purpose of testing
respectively,
at 3200 days. The ultimate recovery for all model changes or enhancem ente. Table 9 gives some
three calculationsis 62.6Z OOIP when the fracturesare res.ervofr descriptiondata. Since the reservoiria highly
100Z w ater-Eilled. heterogeneoua~ only average values are given for
permeability, porosity, etc. The effective fracture
The high DP MT recovery curve aimply reflectsthe permeabilityisthe order of 100 times matrix permeability
high im m eraion transient of Fig.36. If the matrix, with the latteraveraging about .5 m d with variationsto
permeabilityisreduced 65X in thatrun,agreement with the much 10w er values.
SP M resultsis much better.
Of interestare the sm all mattix block size (prolific
For the case of reservoirthickness= 90 ft.,the well fracturing)on the order of 1x1x3 ft.?and the 10w fracture
ratez are increasedto 600 R B/d so that rate per ft. of porosityaveraging.0005or lees. A consequence of the first
thicknessis unchanged. The SP M gridis S x 2 x 30 with 30 isa large matrix-fractureexchange coefficient the order of
3-ft.layersand zero z-direction tranamissibilit.ies
between 107 (RB-cp/da~ei). The 10w fracturepororntygivesam all
layers10 and 11 and between layers20 and 21 in the matrix fracture-ayetempore volumes and high throughputratiosfor
cross-aectinj = 2. large time steps. This requireeimplicit model aimulation.
The large transfer coefficientsresult in com putatkmel
Fig. 39 compares SP M and DP M recovery and water difficultysincethe matrix-fracture darcy flow ratesare the
cut resultsfor the case where resenoir thickness= 90 ft. products of large coefficients and small potential
and n M Az/h = 3 for the 8 x 1 x 1 DPM calculation.The differences(.01to .001 and lower psi). This combination
D P M resultsare more accurate in this case than in the can cause round-off and com putationel convergence
previouscase of n = 1. The D P M T resultsfor thiscase are difficulties,especiallyfor large time eteps and large,
the same es the DPMT resultsfor n = 1 ehown on Fig. 38. rapidlychangingiajection/producticm rates.
The SP M and DP M recoveriesare 36.1 end 36.4Z OOIP,
respectively, at 1200 days, and are 53 and 51.4% OOIP} Fige.41 and 42 show totalfieldoilproductionrate and
respectively,at 3200 days. Recovery for this 90 ft. gas injectin rate ve time as 9l-day averages. The rates
thicknesscaee isroughly2 to 3 recovery percentagepoiute change every 91 days throughout the dataset,giving a
lower than forthe 30 ft.thicknesscaee. maximum 91-day step size. Fig. 42 ahowa the extreme
variationsin gas injectionrate from one 91-day periodto
Fig. 40 shows five-spotoil recovery and water cut the next+ About 6 of the 47 wellsare gee injectionw ew
D P H resultscalculatedusingthe 8 x 8 x 1 areelgridand the only one well injectswater, during the lest 270 days of
30-ft.reservoirthickness.We believethe correctfive-spot history.The gas injection rate changee might be expected
recovery curve would compare to the 3PM curve on Fig.40 to resultin oscillatingfractureoilsaturationsfrom step to
in about the same fashionas exhibitedby the SP M-DP M lime step,especiallyat or near injectionand/orproductionwells.
drivecomparisonof Fig.38. Fig.43 ahowa calculatedfractureoilsaturationvs time in a
gridblock adjacentto a high-rateinjector. Calculatedofi
The five-spotD P M mu requixed28 timeatepsand 34 saturationisvirtuallymonotonic with time in spiteof ‘large
iterationsto 1200 days and 44 eteps and 50 iteratkme to injectionrate changes.
3200 daya. Materielbalances were .99998. Tim e steps
ranged from the initial2 days to 180 days. Tim e step The S e value is important in this study. Its
controlswere maximum saturationchange per step of .15 internally-c3 culeted value changea wish time and from
and maximum step size of 180 daya but both were rarely block to block. Historyruns were made for the three came
invoked. Rather,output times of every 200 daya to 1200 of constantSge (with spatialvarietion)~ de~fiependent
days and every 400 daye thereafter together with a S e, and dermt~ and tension-dependentS e. Rune were
maximum increaseof 50% from step to step determinedthe a%o made with and without diffusion. T%e o~d S e
time steps. Rune with varioussmeller maximum step has velueaare about .4-.5forblockheightsin the range of 3 f0
indicate that time truncationerroris minimeL 4 ft. The model historyrune show calculatedgrid block
matrix saturationsb close agreement with the Sgf x Sge
Applicationto VolatileOilReservoixA product~ reflecting the Lsrge matrix-fracturetram mw
aibilitiee.Two exceptionsoccur. First,forrock type 2,Swc
Reeemoir A isa fracturedmatrixreeervotiwith about is large, oil saturationis low and oil easily becomes
16 yeare’history. The reeervoiroilie an undereaturated immobile due to trappingby gas and watar in accordance
with the Stone 2 km method. Thus a number of the type 2
m.-
Zou
SPE 18427 KEITH H. COATS 21
blocks show matrix gas saturation< Sgf x S ~ simply The 5753-day historyrun required60 time stepsand
because the matrix oilis immobile and cannot 8rain out. 167 total outer iterations,an average of about 3 outer
The second exceptionis that gridblock equilibriumoccurs iterationsper 9l-day tine step. 91-day steps were used
at some pressure,followedby significant pressuredecline. throughoutwithlarger,up “to20*day, stepsused duringthe
Oildoes not want to (and does not in the calculations)
drain first1280 days before gas injectionbegan. No time-step
out of the block to matrix oilsaturationsbelow equilibria
m cutsoccurredand totalcomputing time was about 2.5VAX
valuesbut the oilsnrinkein accordance with the constant- 780 CPU hours.
volume expansion. Also, depending upon the nature of
injected gas, oil can vaporize, further reducing its An iterativeY Z planar SO R was used with reeulting
saturationor,equivalently, increasingmatrix gas saturation omega valuesof about 1.4and totalinneriterations at 5753
above itsequil.ibnum value. days of about 1700,or an average of 10 SO R iterations
per
outeri.tmation.The linearsolvertakea about 20% of total
Fig.44 compares fieldtotalobserved and model G O R computing time. Allcomponent materialbalances’ were the
vs time. The model resultsreflectdiffusion and density-and order of .999X .to .9999X throughout the runa with the
tension-dependentS e. Calculated G O R is avout 9400 “sensitive”norm aldenominatorbasisof cum dative injection
Scf/STB at the end oF history.Withoutdiffusion, calculated or production.
G O R is about 14Z higher. For the time-constantSge case,
calculatedG O R is 7700 Scf/STB at the end of .Gtory. S Computer time with 4 components (3+N2) active is
and diffusion are the controllingparameters in tl% about 60% greaterthan that for 3 components. All rune
calculated G O R behavoir. Runs with depth-dependent were made with a 4-component set of PVT data entered
initialcom position(bubble point decreasing with depth) with N2 the lastcompol.ant.SinceinitialN2 mol fractionis
show significantlylower G OR. O, the model autornatically com putea with only 3
com ponenteuntilthe firsttime step(ifany)of N 2 injection.
Fig. 45 indicatesthe strong diffusioneffect when It then automatically expands to the 4-tom ponent
injected and native reservoir gas compositions cliff er calculation.This can save considerablecomputing expense
significantly.Restart runs were made from the titme- in problems where certaincom ponente(s)are absentinitially
constant Sge case,injectingN 2 rather than separatorgas and throughoutpartor allof historybut become activedue
during the 3472-5753 (end of history)day period,with and to laterinjection.
withoutdiffusion.Fig. 45 shows that calculatedG O R is
extremely higher without diffusionthan with it. Table 10 Sum mary
shows the effectof diffusionon matrix-fracture oiland gas
phase compositionfor thisN 2 injectioncase in a gridblock An ,implicitcom positionalmodel has been described
adjacentto a gas injector. Without diffusion, virtuallyno for con positionalemulation of single-or dual-porosity
N 2 appea~ in the matrix phases and large composition reservoira. The model simdates uneteadptate three-
differences exist between matrix and fracture phase dimenaional,three phase flow in heterogeneousreservoirs
com positions. W ifh diffusion(only gas-gas diffusionwas rangingin type from black oilto near-crkicaloilor gas to
used),matrixand fracturephase compositionsare identic~ lean gas condensate. Applications includedepletionand gas
both in the gas and oil. andfo~ w? .:er injection.Single-porosityapplications
incurno
10SS ,.’ ef :iencycaused by the presence of dual-porosity
Table 11 shows calculatedmatrix and fracturegas code. . code is mapped so that storageis requiredonly
saturationsat the end of historyfor the constantSge run for active grid blocks. This can ai@ficantly reduce
with diffusion. Saturationsare shown for several cells, machine storagerequirem enta for reaervo~ having highly
includingactiveand shut-ingas injectionblocks. As stated irregubr geometry. Dual-porosityapplicationsinclude
above,eqwbti m matrix gas satxationieSgf x Sge. Table regionallyfracturedreservoirswhere unfracturedaingle-
11 shows that the calculated matrix gas saturationsare porosityregionsexist.
close to equilibria m, due to the large n atrix-fracture
exchange coefficients. Table 11 shows a matrix gee Advantages of 3-tom ponent com positionalas opposed
saturationexceeding Sge for the activegaa injectionblock to extendedblackoilm odellingare describedand illustrated
4-8-1. This reflectsthe vaporizingeffectof the separator for an actualnest-critical volatileoilreservoir.A aimple
gas, reducing matrix oil saturation to lees than its method for reducing time truncation error in implicit
equilibria m value. formulationeisdescribedand illustrated. A new bottomhole
constraint function is presented for presezwation of
In all model rune no computed matrix oilsaturations productionwelltargetratesin com positional m odela.
leasthqn .2 were computed. That is,complete vaporization
of oildid not occurin any case/block.In fact,the minimum A new matrix-fracture tranaf
er formulation ia
matrixoilsaturations over the gridwere closeto .2 both for deecxibedfor the dual-porosity
case. Matrixblockhe ‘and
N 2 and separator gas injectioncases. These minimums shape may vary fro m block to block over the grid. The
occured in gas injectioncellsand matrix oil eaturatior.a formulation accounts for matrix-fracturediffusionand
were significantlyhigherthroughoutthe non-injection cells, effects of changing gas-oil density difference and
obsyingthe equilibrium raldionship. tension on gravity drainage recovery. The
interfaci.sl
approximate accuracy of the formulationis shown for a
Maxim um gas productionrates(QG M A X) were entered number of testproblems where correctresultsare available
in the data fileforallproducingwells.They were obtained from single-porosity
simulation.Resultaare given for a 3D
from the historyfileas the maximum gas M CF/D rates 600-block simulationof a highly fractured nearmitical
produced throughout history. The model produces the volatile
oitreservoir.
specifiedST Bid oilrate for each v allunlessthe associated
gas rate exceeds the w en’sentered Q G M AX. In the latter Nom encleture
event,the wallproducesthe Q G M A X gaa rate, The overall ~ Form ationvolume factor,RB/STB
impact of thisisnotedby printingtotalcum dative ehortage
of oilproduced (STB) dividedby totalspecifiedCUm ulative b l/B
On production.This fractionis .0145 for the run shown in
%j EOS binaryinteraction
coefficients
Fig. 44.
259
22 IMPLICIT CO MPOS~ONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-POROSITY AND DUAL-POROSITY RESERVUIKS SPE 18427
/
SPE 18427 KEITH H. COATS 23
7. Coats, K.H. and Smart, G.T.: “Applicationof a the 1987 SPE Amual Technical Conference, Dallast
Regression-BasedEOS PVT Program to Laboratory TX., Sept.27-30.
Data;’SPE Res.Engr.(May 1986)277-299.
24. Golf-Itacht,T.D. van: Fundsm entele of Fractured
8. Lohrenz,J.,Bray, B.G.,and CLsrk,C.R.:“Calmdating ReservoirEngineering
& ElsevierScientificPublishing
Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids From th~k CO~ 1982.
Compositions/’J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1964) 1171-70;
Trans.,AIME, 231. 25. W u, Yu-Shu and Kareten Preuzz,“A Multiple-Porosity
Method for Simuhtion of Naturally Fractured
9. Reid, R. C. and Sherwood, T. K.: “i’hePropertiesof Petroleum Reservoirs”,SPE Reservoir Engineering
u t~d edition,M cGraw-Hill Book
Gases and Liquids, (Feb.,1988)327-336.
Co.Inc.,New York City(1977).
26. Kleppe, J. and Morse, R.A.: “Oii Freductionfrom
10. Coats, K.H., Nielsen,R.L.,Terhune, M.H. and Weber, Fractured Reserb’oirs
5y Water Displecemcut:’paper
A.G.: “Sire
ulationof Three-Dimeneion~ T we-Phase SPE 5084 presentedat the 1314 SPE Annual T $chnical
F1OW in Oil and Gas Reservoirs/’Sot. Pet. Eng. J. Conference,Houston,TX., Oct.6-9.
(Dec. 1967)377-88.
27. Beckner, B.L., Tahimoto, K., Yamaguci@ s.,
lL Marathon Oil Cornpany, Littleton,C o1o., Personal Firoozaba@ A., Aziz, K.: ‘Ymbibidon-Dominated
Communication, 1985 M atrkFracture Fluid Transfer im Dual Porosity
Simulatoreflpaper SPE 16981 presentedat the 1937
12. da Silva,F. and Belery,P.: PersonalCornmunication, SPE Annual Technical Conference,Dallas,TX., Sept.
Petrofina,Brussels,
1987. 27-30.
13. Price, H.S. and K.H. Coats, “Dfiect Methods in 28. Lefevbre du Prey, E.J.,“C aecade drai~ageof blocksin
ReservoirSimulation”,
Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (June,1974) a fissuredrese~oir~ Revue de l’institut Franceiedu
295-308. petrole,
Janv.-Fev.(1976),p. 173-178.
14. Coats, K.H.: “An Equation of State C om positional 25.. Festoey, S., Van Golf-Racht, T.D.: “Gas Gravity
Model;’Sot.Pet.Eng. J.(Oct. 1980)363-376. ?)reinagein Fractured ReservoirsThrough New Dual
Continuum Approach”, paper SPE 16980,presentedat
15. W erren$ J.E. and Root, P.J.: “The Behavior of the 1987 SPE Annual Technical C onferance, Dall.cw,
NaturallyFractured Resenroire;’Sot. ‘Pet. Eng. J. TX., Sept.27-30.
(Sept.1963)245-44;Trans.,AIM E, 22S.
30. Thomas, L.K., Firoozabad& A.:“Tenth SPE Symposium
16. K. and Zeman, P.:
Kazem~ H., Merr& L.,Porterfield, on R eaervoirSimulation Dual Porosity Comparative
llNumeric~ sim~a~n of Water-OilF1OW iIIN atura~Y SolutionProject,u to be presented at the 1989 ‘PE
Fractured Resemoire/’Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1976) Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,Houston, TX.,
317-32Q Trans.,AIME, 261. Feb. 6-8.
17. Thomas, L.K., Dixon, T.N. and Piereon, R.G.: 31. said& A.M. and Tehra~ D.H.: “Mathematical
“Fractured Reae~oir Simulation/lSot. Pet. Eng. J. Simulationof FracturedResezvoirPerformante,Based
(Feb.1983)42-54. on PhysicalModel Expenm ents,”Paper P D 10(3)on the
Developm ents in Reservoir Engineering,Proceedings
18. Gilman, J.R. and Kazem~ H.: ‘Improvements k of the 10th World Petroleum Congresa,Bucharest,
Simulationof NaturallyFractured Reservoir/’ Sot. 1979.
Pet.Eng.J.(August1983)695-707.
Appendix A
19. Sonier, F., Souillard,P. and B~skovich, F.T.:
“Numerical Simulation of N aturelly Fractured For quasi-steady-state (QSS),single-phase,m at~fracture
Reservoirs:’paper SPE 15627 presented at the 1986 flow in a bulk volume element V of reservoir,
the ftow rate
SPE Annual Technical Conference,New Orleans,LA, ~
O ct.5-8.
~= -’<*C aft (Al)
20. Sonier,F. and Eymard, R.: “A New Simtitor for
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs:’paper SPE 1600S where @c iseffectiveporosity-compressibility
of the m atrix
presentedat the Ninth SPE Symposium on Reservo& in V. In the cliff
ueivityequation
Simulationheldin San Antonio,TX., Feb. 1-4,1987.
kfi+Kd+kti= l.l~ca~t (A2)
x~xz YaY2 Zaz2
21. Dean, R.H. and Lo, L.L., Ilsim
&tio~ of N atur.zlly
Fractured Reservoirs”,SPE Reservoir Engineering a p/at isindependentof positionwitti”the matrixfor QSS
(May, 1988),638-648. flow so thatsubs~ution from Eq~ (Al)gives
261
24 IMPLICIT CO MPOS~ONAL SIMULATION OF SINGLE-PORO~y AND DUAL-POROSITY RES5RVOIKS SPE 18427
where
= xla yD = y~ ‘D = Zlc
‘D
(AS)
=$~~=>a~Q .&
r
X b2 Xe x Where tD is ktlIJ~ ca2 and sums are over odd postive
Eqn. (A4) can be solvedfor p usingthe Fourierfinite integera. For the isotropic, cubic block case thisratiois
sinetransformand the resultintegratedto obtain about .03 at tD =.1and fortD >.1 the ratioizapproximated
by the firstterm of the summation,
1
;m
- Pf = Q 83EZE
ijk 2222
(A6)
—~—
- Pf *3
e
-31!
2tD Fm
‘i ‘j y~ (Ai +
Pi-Pf
rB2 j
- fi6
+ w:)
(A16)
The term ~m is volumetricaverage matrix block pressure Thus a 90+ Z decay occursat tD ‘.1or
and each EWm m ationisover odd,positive
integersonly,and
‘i
= iw $j =jfi yk=kfl
(A7)
t . “AL@sL2 (A17)
.00633 k
(A13)
(A14)
ZU
18427
69
?AILE
1 TASLE 6
mrnms (MAXUX+IACXL7ECI
L ~‘CG‘cc(cc,.
~.&# Wauwis pm8mre 3959.89+
’00 Da, .
CC*)
Co.preni6&iy ef rock, fiamre, ●nd water 2.0x 10-6Ilpd
onCo.psudbiuk, 10+ 1/+
‘LC ‘LG At ,anwokr 91WIKU
-A ~ k!*C,, V2?.odty .5 Cp
‘LG ~ “L1 - CC2) on ViU.mlf”
or 2 op
n“ .9SS12 BB/ST1
CL . OL. cc - Pcy a.
M .c*r ‘ledfy
.96o6 EB/STB
- Wm.
022detuizy .3611 9d/fL
71it& ~tte,billty 1 *d
cc EOUIL2BR1U71 D2LEH)5A, M,U2x g0?&2y .19
ccl “ C.32 Sbqle Factor .08
~-rl
51.tr& bbck &e iJx10x30f2,
CL1 - CG2 Fraetum pm.e.bi7icy 100DO -d
1 2
CL1 “ ccl Framdre pamizy .01
‘L1 ‘i “ Dc, Yi
mid 8X.3X1
yilxi . ;:. Ay
‘i- ‘L1lPG1l ‘ii 7522.
3052.
LO
w U- Lajectiorl rate 200 Srnld
Tota2 Ziquid pmd.c!iori rate 210 SWd
EAcn CELL
2-PHASE GAS-02L 71.2zix k, ,md PC da2a 17
S= krw k
. Pc”o
5A1LS 2
75 r = r
VOLAY2LS OIL MSBIVO1l A PLOTD COk2?0231201S ASD DAfA .02 .705 2.95
:: .055 .42 1.65
T -266° F .26 .85
:: ::45 .11 .3
.7 .2 0 0
RE8C S.
V017(FLUID mxzcnon GAS
M ~ ~ ~ ZAILX 5
cl .5898 .5898 PC1 .8601 .S601 KL1?P1 AmD k70UlE 51? XL262X8TAL BAZA
C02 .0093 .1926 Pc 2 .1243 .0113
.0757 .2176 Pc 3 .00$6 .071s
:: .D409 .0283 21@ix Wme.bi!iz, 290 md
C4 .0300 .0115 M.tl’2Y p+r.adq .225
C5 .0192 .0039 care .Jh..t*, 9.87 en
C6 .0175 .0D17 Mid. dia.tit. .f tube 10.39 c.
?7 .07812 .0053 Core hei2bt 122.8c.
F8 .09517 .0003 W .ter density 1.02 ~W
F9 .04431 %7+ “ .8578 0i3d.~, .811 dc.
wate, V&ity 1 :p
Okzticc.dq 2.3 cp
Eos Pare V.2U. * of core 2114 cc
DATA ~ ~ Vdu.e of beture 1017 cc
BUS8LE PT. Ssm 5333.7 5s53.7 Low 5nJcc2ioa rat. 3.3 CC1.ia
00 ●t B.P. 36.11 36.11 36. IL Ib,lcu. ft lush&jec&?. “m 33 Cel.iu
a at B.P. .2716dpnwlc~
k= ●nd P= data 27
z
0. -120.0
rR33TAL F2, DID9-IN.PLAcG lDOOVSM
VE P= ROCK P
c
‘2.-1-ssh k
peso
w
—. . —
L ~ 07L Y2LF.EGAS 21ATE21 OIL ?RSE GAS .2 0. 1.0 1.0
.45 0. .42 .386
2747.1 3319 1226.4 1423 5947 .3 .0227 .31 .255
: 2747.1 3319 1224.4 3518 3727 : .6 .11 .19 .145
2747,1 3319 1324.6 2623 3441 1233 .7 .25 .103 .11s
1: 2?47.1 3319 1224.4 2737 3326 1207 .8 .45 .05 .095
20 2747.9 3319 1224.3 2771 3323 1196 .9 .7 .015 .08s
1,0 1.0 0. .075
-m
?ABL6 7 TAIM 10
?r.ez.nn VKic? ,002 0.27687 0.1561 x 222 .!3032 .2696 .1306 .1307
Iaf2ia2 preuure 5553.7 F& 0.212760.1138
Ini&2 .** ,.tlxaciot?s 0.15b49 0.0799
022 .9 0.11351 0.05355 c1 .0208 .1769 .s510 .S567
w*tcr .1 0.07721 0.0337 GAS y
GM 0 0.0489k 0.0195 U2 .0071 .7846 .3176
Y .3181
Cd dencizg Aiffer.nce at 5553.7 Pti .1181 pd.% 0. 7i462 0.57603 0.028020.010
Sze u 5353.7 Pda .5722 0.83846 0.67466 0.013650.004215
0.89231 0.77635 0.004950.0012b9
Diftin t0r2u0& 3.5 0.000880.0041S6
0.946150.88606 TABLZ 11
Gtid 12X1X5 1.008Q0 1.04000 0.000000.0
Ax 100 EC. CM 8ATu RAT20#S b~ 5753 DAIS
As 500 ft. 1mbi60ion Pcgoi - .1 ● Dmim8e PcgO
As 50 ft.
CELL Sfxs
cu bjecdon weU completed in ti 5 fayera ●t 1- L k k
.2621
~
PI Wr fqer 1.23 8B-cp/damci 2+-1 .4998 .2624
tijecciam race 2500 MSCPld 3-8-1 .8625 .4796 .4131 .4136
4-8-1(1) 1.ODDO .4627 .5369 .4627
2-10-2 .239 .5044 .1217 .1206
7-’+2(2)
.9796 .4961 .4863 .4860
c1 .8621 0
C 2-6 .1305 0 (1) Activ. foje.cor
P 7-9 .0074 0 (2) Sh.efn 2ojector
N2 o 1.0
TABLE 8
EE.uELL
31ATL23 GAs SATURATIOW 1S fIMC 10s T~I S?f2 10 ?I. BLOCK CA22Z RESERVOIR FLUID A
(la p3meAiu7ig. 15)
DIFFERENTIAL EXPANSION
Time Tim e
D ‘y,
. L
Days
— %-
‘“”~ 2“
0 0 300
‘.5kc’
.3173
5 .0069 400 .3690
20 .0273 500 .4020
50 .0670 60D .4263
100 .1300 800 .4531
150 .1878 1000 .6704
200 .2383 7000 .4998
250 .2S17
00 SCF
I.Y
~ .9
RB/STB
TA3.LZ9
R~
BE8ERV02E & DsscM?r309 .8
2.0 “-~ )’ 1000 ~
Rock CO.
p=ti~y 5.3 x 10+ I/@i -.Q
*.
r
w .t.r co mprenLb53Lcr 3.0 x ID+ llpcl .7
w ,ml Vim@ .22 cp “%..
w ok2ticc.ri23. .23 Cp -.
e.
1.06 RB/STB
B“
W●ce. denciw 63.65 lbs/m.5L ‘%.. .6
Q
2s4
I
S!% 18427
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 4
DATA —
—
‘--%
41J STEPS, M
STEP& HO TTEC
TTEC
I
● ● 4S STEPS WITH TTEC
10-CPT CALC’D ● ● EOS 00 9S STEPS WITH T?EC I
3-CPT CALC’1) O 0 Eos .8
1400C
1. 1
1.05 12000
.6
z GAS FIELD GOR,
PO
SCF/STB
1.0 CP
10000
.95 4
.9 8000
.85 , I 1
,-%,
2
1 2 3 4 5
P, 1000’S PSIA 6000
o
FIGURE 3
TIME. DAYS
10-CPT —
hA7
3-CPT O 0
1.0 Pcgo
5a
-\
.9 -\
%?!
\ t
o; 1
Q Sti Swc+sorg Lo
.8 - \
s LIO
\
.7-
\ GAS FLOW
Z=o a + ~ GAS
.6 - b _ FLOW
\
S9
\
1 * r 5b
.5 , i
o pM\AY
I 2 3 4 5 Z=h I
B
+
PV SEPARATOR GAS INJECTED
214
flGURE 6
U-J
m. o
0 0
E
A
m
w. A
0 o
P A
Cwo
A
/ —SPM 5x5x1O GRID
lME191TtON swm~. A
0 0 SONIER ET AL *9
D A SONIER ET AL 19
o - -. — --- — ‘e 0
c A
(YW-YO REPLACES YO+YW)
-hAY m
A m.
0 A •l OPM BETAW=1,5
)
A
F
u-l
I 1 w
0 Sw - 1.0
TIME (OAYS)
FIGURE 7
HATFR MBJRIT’1ON CURVF iOx~x30 FT. BI OCJ(
-DRAINAGE ~
I
P I
. I
\ \
Cwo
I I
s urn
GRID
BLOCK
*l!k+2k!L
U!
m
0
o I-sorw Lo
Sw 4
m
N
9/
0 1
200 400 600 aoo *000 1200
TIME [DAYS)
. . w
.-..
FIGURF 12
COMP~N OF S PM AND EXPERIMENTAL RFSUl TS ~ R“
:.
CUM OIL
PRODUCEO -
FROM CORE
(cc)
z.
ml
0-
0 500 1000 1500 2000 o 500 1000 iioo “ 2000
CUMULATIVE WATER INJECTION, CC CUMULATIVE WATER INJECTION, CC
FIGURE 11 FIGURE 13
0
m —KLEPPE AND MORSE DATA
0 SPM LOW RATE
A SPM HIGH RATE , * O STACK OF SIX BLOCKS
1 2xIx37GRID .-
g
0
“
rl
F
m- SINGLE BLOCK
2x1x7 GRID
H- l-B. I
0
ln- ‘SLOPED FRACTURE
lfATER 2xIx37GRID
LEVEL IN-
FRACTURE 7 ““
(cm) c+ .5 FT
- FRACTURES
XfE
Az=q~3,2,1,1,e FT
%-
AX*5,EFT .5 FT
@*5F~
0 ~ 3,001667F~
1
0 500 1000 1500 2000
CUMULATIVE WATER INJECTION, CC k =1500
.. .
227
FIGURE 14 FIGU R F 16
%og /3
In —SINGLE BLOCK
0 - – STACK OF 6 BLOCKS
HORIZONTAL XY FRACTURES
A STACK OF 6 BLOCKS
SLOPEO X’f FRACTURES
T
0
m
0
‘gm
/
/ / ‘4
/
---
/
/ o
— SPM
0
/ O DPMT
/ . A DPM BETAG=.485
/
/
/
/
0
200 400 600 800 1000
TIME (OAYS)
TIME (DAYS)
FIGURF 15 FIGURE 17
sgf = 1.0
u-l N A
0 0 A
AO
A
o
0 A
.
w o
0 0
0
A
— m o
0.
m 0 A
0
‘gm ‘gm~-
—SPM
w 0 DPMT
a“ — SPM A DPM BETAG=l.14
O DPMT :-
A CIPM BETAG=l.14 0
6
-1
0“
0
,,.,,00 :L
00 200 400 600 30 60 90 120 150 180 2i0 240 270 300
TIME (DAYS) TIME (OAYS)
2U
..
SPE 1842 ?
w
0
m
0
%:’
— SPM
–- DPM
0“
0
‘i 20 40 ‘ do
,
100 t20
,
140
I
160
TIME *?OAYS)
$ i
,
,0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 ’716
‘gm
.!2,QJRF 21
QNGIF GRIR_RIQGK Depiction
OATA OF TABLE 7
1
m
0 r%.
0 A
In
0
A
(0 0“ A
0 o A
0
o
In e — SPM \
0
v
0“ i=
2000 2500
TIME (OAYS)
‘gm~- z
w
Ii-1.
——. ___ ___ -a
0
‘SPM Sgf=l.O
all -m
p 9-
0
I
–- DPM Sgf=f,f) PSIA IFT
0.
0 -w
O OPM (SQm/Sgf)Sgf=.5 g —PRESSURE
. ‘- IFT
/ .m
0
g /
w. /
-w
/
0
0 /
+ , , (
g<
, ,
‘o 200 r
400 600 800 1000 o 500 1000 1500 2000 250;
TIME (OAYS] TIME (DAYS)
EwBE22’
J3AS-FIIJFD MATRIX WQCK
DATA OF TABLE, 7
AZ=24 FT. h=4 FT.
‘gmi=g
la
0
—SPM
--
0 RPM
SPM
EILJEEm
O!!F
o c o
w
1’ —5PM
O OPM
So f=l.
So f=l.
O
O
In A DPM OFF
0
o ‘gm
N
=? 0
0 0
n l-)
0 0
~+-----
0
I-u
0
0
A
I A OPM Sof= .5
I
:IA
‘gm \ A
\ AA
m --~
0“ -A-3— - - - - . - .
:~ A
A
400 aoo 1200 1600 2000
TIME (DAYS)
:~
o 200 400 600 000 1000
TIME [OAYS)
FIGLIRE 23 FIGURF .%
0 m
0
10” ——_ 0
m
/
/ 0
—0
0 /
0. /
; / A
/ A
0
0. m!
z 0
— PRESSURE
0
P; ‘gm
PSIA- /“
1/
/
0 N
0
/
m-
w
0 0 A —BETAG = 1.3
/ 0 BETAG = 1.0
/.
b A BETAG = 1.0 LAMBOA=CONSTANT
0
0
.
/
~- 0
0
w
, , g------
‘o 400 800 1200 1600 2008 130 200 300 400 500 600 700 aoo 900 1000
TIME (DAYS) TIME (DAYS)
270
.
1
‘1
0, OIFFUSION
o 0
0
0
OIL o
RECOVERY
% OOIP
c.-
GOR %
GOR
SCF/STB o
SCF/STB
2-
m
0 A 0
“-
0.
1% A
g
0
I o~
-0 1 2 5 6 7 1
0 1 2 5 6 7
TIM~ (y E;Rs)
TIfE (YEiRS)
FIGURF 27
Pc OF TABLE 6
—NO OIFFUSION
0 O OIFFUSION
e-l
I o s~e=.475
0 u!
0
lv- 0 0
0
OIL
RECOVERY n m a
% OOIP %-
0-
T
0
0- , , 1
s
Wm
m — SW
0
GOR O dPMT
SCFA3TB A OPM
W
7 I
00 200 400 600 800 iooo
TIME (DAYS)
27””
~E 18427
UGl!MJQ
ITION CURVF 1=30 FT. Bl OC K WATFR TION CURVF IOX1OX3O FT. B! 0~
swe=.544 Swe~.546
(n
0
0 0 o 0
0 A
o
A 0
A U-I 0
0 A
o o
A
OA 0
o
A s urn:- 0
o
0
1/
— SPM —SPM
O OPMT OA O OPMT
A DPM m A A DPM
0
r
I , , I
200 400 600 aoo 1000 00 200 400 600 600 1000
TIME (DAYS) TIME (OAYS)
FIGURF 31 FIGURF 33
sHe=.4Ell PC OF TABLE 6
DPM RESULTS
a
4
A 4
A
A A
{“
A A
m
v
0
A
0
A
%m
—Swf=l.o
m —SPM
0“ O DPMT A Swf=.5
A DPM BETAW=2.7
N
, 1
00 200 400 600 600 1000
TIME (OAYS) 0
0 #
200 400 600 600 1000
TIME (3AYS)
,. - —..
I ?72
FIW+F 34 FIGURE X
RIUM MATRIX WATFR SATUR WATER~BITION CIJ~ 10X1OX3 O FT. BI 0~
~li
OATA OF- KAZEMI ET AL (TABLE 4)
AZ = 50 FT. h=lOFT
m ~
0 —1 MATRIX BLOCK CALCULATION 0
•l CORRECT
– – DPM
0 0 0
m
m
0 0
v
g
0
s s wm
nme - 6EI.QMEzHOJl
—5X5X1O SPM
m - - 2X1X1O SPM
v
0 o 2X1X1 DPMT
m
0 A 1x1x1 DPM
n 2X1X1O SPM kIfl.2
/ In
N lx
I
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.0
Swf TIME (OAYSI
FIGURF 35 EL!WIF 3Z
3D IINF-ORIVE WATFRFIOOO FXAMPI F BIOCK FQU~IuM CURVFS . 0 FT.
OATA OF TABLE 6
——.. y.4z.41
3
0 -- OPM
0
-1
—OPhfT
–- DPM (O+OIL RECOVERYI
In
la.
G-
0
/
m /’. /
0
(n” u-l- /“
0 /
,,/’
s Wm
MATER ,...-
CUT U-1 /
(m% / -.
0-
/ 0 /
/ /
0
0
tll-
In
m. y
0
0/ <
/ /
u-l /
(IJ
o- I I
0 2 8 10 OO.O 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 i.o
T;ME (YEA&)
Swf
m
Y AND WATEFIQJJ
Bx8xI GRID
AZE30 .FT, h=30 FT. q=200 RB/D RESERVOIR THICKNESS = 30 FT
0
LO-
a
A --”-
//”
l%- A
C&
.-
0 A 0 /
w“ =r-
/
% OOIP ~- % UOIP 0
m- —SPM m-
—DPM
-- DPM –- OPMT
0 0
tu - m!-
-IL,,,,,,,,, ---
—
0 0
*-
0 0
0
m-
% WATER
CUT
i%-
0
w-
01 1 0
~
I
I
‘o 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 ‘o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
TIME (DAYS) TIME (DAYS)
~uRF 39 FIGURE 41
300
i%-
C+ ‘
% OOIP
l%- —SPM
- – OPM
r
0
ru- 200 -
0.
0 MMSTB
DAY
0
m-
100 “
% WATER
CUT ~
L
ln-
~.
-1
z~ 1200
TIME
1600
(DAYSI
2000 2400 2800 3200 0
74 76
, t ,
76
& t
60
,
82
,
84 86
, 1
88
SEE 18427
FIGURE 44
I.n\
Sge -DEPENOENT UPoN
[1
DENSITIES AND TENSION
WITH DIFFuSION
3001- lull I
u
MMSCF
DAY
HI n nil
u
GOR
SCF/STB
I
TIME
II
86 68
N2
FIGURE 45
FIGURE 43 I (1 1
15000 ;:
NO
CALCULATED FRACTURE SO VS. TIME DIFFUSION+ \
I 1:
. ;
I 1000 - !
I.c ‘::
/ 1, ,4’
%-1
:
9000 - I
.8
7000-
.6
GOR
SCF/STB
sOF
5000 -
.4
3om -
.2
0 1000
76 78 80 82 84 86 * , ,
74 76 78 80 82 84 86 [
TIME
TIME