In The Name Of Allah

Solution gas drive in fractured reservoirs

Table of contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................1
Introduction.....................................................................................................2
Solution gas drive in low pressure decline rate reservoirs...............................4
Material balance for solution gas drive reservoirs...........................................6
Reservoir description during depletion............................................................7
Reservoir zoning under static conditions......................................................8
Reservoir zoning under dynamic conditions.................................................8
Muskat and pirson methods for solution gas mechanism..............................10
Solution gas drive mechanism in fractured reservoirs, comparison between
Kazemi and Warren and Root models. (case study in one of iranian oil
reservoirs)......................................................................................................11
Discussion and results................................................................................14
References.....................................................................................................15

List of figures
Figure 1: The reservoir gas-oil ratio, GOR vs. recovery is substantially lower in
a fractured reservoir
3
Figure 2: The rate of pressure decline per unit of oil produced is normally low
in fractured reservoirs
3
Figure 3: Solution gas drive reservoir;above and below bubble point pressure
6
Figure 4: Behavior of Reservoir Fluid Properties
7
Figure 5: Reservoir zoning under static conditions
8
Figure 6: Reservoir zones under dynamic conditions
9
Figure 7: oil recovery in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model
13
Figure 8: Pressure drop in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model
13
Figure 9: Pressure drop at final period of production in Dualporo and
Dualporo-Dualperm model
13
Figure 10: Gas production in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model
14
Figure 11: Gas saturation in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model
14

Abstract [1]
In NFRs, it is mainly the matrix-fracture fluid interaction which governs
the production
From the he reservoir, therefore, the production mechanisms are focused on
how the matrix is depleted and the petroleum is transferred from the matrix
to the fracture (where it will be transported to the producing wells). The
importance of each production mechanism differs from a Single-porosity
system, since the interaction of the two systems (matrix and fractures) has
to be
Taken into account. The dominant forces in the two distinct systems can also
be quite different.
The relative importance of the different production mechanism is basically
determined by the
Shape of the matrix blocks and by rock and fluid properties of the system. In
the conventional
Dual-porosity model the production mechanisms in naturally fractured
reservoirs are modelled
To calculate a so-called transfer term which represents the matrix-fracture
fluid transfer rate.
These main production mechanisms are:

Fluid expansion and solution gas drive

Imbibition
Gravity drainage
Viscous displacement
Molecular diffusion

Introduction [2]
As depletion goes on, the pressure falls below the bubble point
Pressure in the lowest-pressure regions, that is, in the upper regions of
the reservoir and also close to wellbores. Gas bubbles nucleate within
the oil phase. When the bubble point pressure is reached within the
matrix blocks, gas bubbles appear within the pore network of the
matrix. As long as these bubbles grow while remaining immobile, an oil
phase somewhat impoverished in gas is expelled from the matrix blocks
and conveyed to the production wells. At that precise stage, a decrease
in the production Gas-Oil Ratio (GOR) may then be observed if
significant. Actually very soon, gas bubbles coalesce and form a mobile
phase, for a minimum value of the gas saturation, called the critical gas
saturation Sgc. As pointed out by Firoozabadi et al. (1992) knowledge of
critical gas saturation is important for estimating recovery in a solution
gas-drive reservoir. Measured values of the critical gas saturation in the
literature range from 2% to 27% PV. For solution gas-drive reservoirs,
and particularly for fractured petroleum reservoirs, higher values of
critical gas saturation mean higher oil recoveries. When the gas is
mobilized, gas drive becomes a prevailing recovery mechanism of the
matrix oil in the oil zone. However, the oil-to-gas mobility ratio, that is
already unfavorable because of the low gas viscosity, rapidly gets worse
because of a rapidly-increasing gas-to-oil relative permeability ratio, due
to gas saturation increase. In addition, for reservoirs subjected to
convection phenomena, the diffusion of matrix solution gas to the
fractures causes a shrinkage of the oil phase within the matrix blocks
which further Decreases the matrix oil phase saturation and mobility.
Eventually, the oil recovery from solution gas drive alone generally
remains low. At that time, the evolution of well effluent differs according
to the reservoir structure and fracture intensity:

 in the case of high-dip, thick and intensely-fractured reservoirs such as

Iranian fields, the gas expelled by the matrix blocks can segregate
within the fracture network and form a secondary gas-cap. The latter
will expand via the fracture network as production goes on, and initiate
gas-oil gravity drainage of the gas-surrounded matrix blocks. In that
situation, the production GOR stays at a lower value than in
conventional reservoirs, Fig 1 and Fig 2.
The previous situation typical of well-fractured reservoirs may not
occur in the presence of a low-relief reservoir with a poorly-connected
and/or low-permeability fracture network. Such reservoirs then behave
like conventional ones and rapidly deliver a high-GOR effluent. Such a
production behavior calls for a strategy of pressure maintenance,
denoted as secondary recovery, that involves the (re)injection of a
fluid phase, either water or gas.
Solution gas drive is generally regarded as an ineffective
recovery process for fractured reservoirs, except for hard-to produce
fields where other recovery mechanisms, driven by capillarity and/or
gravity forces, are ineffective. This is the case for tight, viscous and oilwet reservoirs where the matrix can neither be imbibed by water nor
effectively drained by gas.

Figure 1: The reservoir gas-oil ratio, GOR vs. recovery is substantially lower in a
fractured reservoir

Figure 2: The rate of pressure decline per unit of oil produced is normally low in
fractured reservoirs

Solution gas drive in low pressure decline rate reservoirs[3]

Botset and Muskat (1939) made a series of solution gas drive experiments by
varying the rate of pressure drop using small size permeable cores and fluid, composed of
kerosene and essentially methane with different bubble point pressure. The volume of free
gas saturation, occupying the pores, was measured at the end of each experiment, while the
rate of pressure drop varied from 0.5 to 600 psi/min. For the range of 1.5 to 0.5 psi/min
they measured a free gas saturation of about 10% of the pore volume. Although 0.5 psi/min
corresponds to about 263000 psi/year, however they concluded that pressure drop below
0.5 psi/min leaves the same percentage of free gas saturation. Elkins (1953) reported two
similar experiments, using Spraberry core with a porosity of 8.15 % and
permeability of 1.1 md. The sample had a water saturation of 28.5 % in

test N 1 and 13.4 % in test N2 and reservoir oil of about 2000 psi
bubble point pressure. The measured free gas saturation in the core
after it reached atmospheric pressure were respectively about 52 and
29 % of the pore volume when The pressure was dropped at the rate of
200 psi/min and 100 psi/day in the test N1 and N2. The results of
these experiments are considerably different from those measured by
the previous authors. There is a ratio of about 7 between the 100
psi/day case (0.07 psi/min) and that extrapolated by the previous
authors. The theory developed by Tarner (1944) and Muskat (1945) for
calculating free gas saturation by solution gas drive process, is based on
complete

equilibrium

conditions

between

gas

and

oil

and

the

assumption that the laboratory measured relative permeabilities are

comparable to those taking place in the reservoir. It was due to the
above unrealistic experimental work, with such wide divergence, and
the concept of solution gas drive mechanism that was masterly
developed by Tarner and Muskat that made the petroleum industry stay
asleep for so long, to the extent that even the alarming work of Dumore
(1970) did not wake up the industry. Consequently the method of
measuring gas-oil relative permeability also suffered. That is, it was
assumed that the concept of the above solution gas drive mechanism
had a well-established basis and for example the laboratory measured
critical gas saturation of 10 % is a fairly typical one. Their concept and
laboratory experiments may be correct under very special conditions
but this is often not the case. In fact the oil recovered from Spraberry
field with a maximum rate of pressure drop of about 1 psi/day was not
all by solution gas drive. As could be noted, when a well had been shutin for some days, the GOR and PI of that well improved considerably
when it was put back into production. It can be said that in most of
reservoirs produced under natural depletion, when the reservoir

pressure dropped moderately larger gas volume and more dispersed gas
distribution were calculated than existed in the Reservoirs. In the Tarner
and Muskat method of calculating free gas saturation due to the solution
gas drive process, the microscopic effects of the rate of pressure drop,
diffusion, interfacial tension between gas and oil, and the degree of
inhomogeneity of reservoir rock on this process were completely
ignored. Therefore, it was assumed that free gas saturation developed
by the solution gas drive mechanism was independent of the
parameters mentioned above. In fact, this is true only when dP/dt is
large, e.g. over a few hundred psi/year.
The classic solution gas drive method for calculating free gas
saturation in reservoirs, developed by Muskat and Tarner, lacks two
important elements. These are namely:
a. The separation of gas from solution takes place in an infinitesimally
small volume (volume of a pore), which is infinitely smaller than a PVT
cell. Therefore, the evolution of gas from solution follows a certain
physical law. In the PVT cells this dependency can be ignored.
b. The oil and its solution gas in the pores are under almost quiescent
conditions,
unlike the PVT cell in the lab.
Under reservoir conditions, these two elements mainly effect the
interfacial tension between oil and the supersaturation pressure, in
which the latter is related to the rate of pressure drop. These can give a
completely different picture from what is usually known as the solution
gas drive mechanism. As indicated above, when the rate of pressure
drop is low the solution gas drive mechanism can result in a S g of a few
per cent, even in a reservoir with high bubble point pressure. Such a
6

volume of gas saturation can be far below the oil shrinkage in that
reservoir and thus, a considerable volume of oil will be lost in that part
of the reservoir, rather than oil recovery by solution gas drive
mechanism as could be expected.
Material balance for solution gas drive reservoirs [4]
Solution gas drive reservoirs are assumed to be volumetric due to the absence of
water influx and gas caps. In determining the material balance for this type of drive
mechanism, two phases can be distinguished, as shown in Figure 2.2 (a) when the reservoir
oil is under saturated and (b) when the pressure is fallen below the bubble point and a free
gas phase exists in the reservoir (Dake, 1978).

Figure 3: Solution gas drive reservoir; (a) above bubble point pressure; liquid oil (b)
Below bubble point; oil plus liberated solution gas

Below bubble point pressure (saturated oil): Saturated reservoir is one

that originally Exists at its bubble point pressure. Once the pressure falls below the bubble
point solution Gas is liberated from the oil leading, in many cases, to a chaotic and largely
uncontrollable situation in the reservoir, which is the characteristic of what is referred to as
the solution gas drive process. Assuming that the water and rock expansion term E f,w = 0 or
negligible in comparison with the expansion of solution gas, the general MBE may be
expressed by:

N=

NpBo+ ( GpNpRs ) Bg
( BoBoi ) + ( RsiRs ) Bg

As pressure decline rate is lower in fractured reservoirs for same N p, Bg and Bo will be
estimated higher and because segregation is better due to fractures, G p is lower than
conventional reservoirs. Therefore applying the conventional methods for simple
expansion and solution gas-drive of a fractured reservoir gives high OOIP or an extremely
efficient water-drive for history match.

Figure 4: Behavior of Reservoir Fluid Properties

Reservoir description during depletion [5]

Fracture network is divided into a number of zones, each of them practically
saturated with only one phase, while inside each zone the matrix block may be saturated
8

with one, two or even three phases. A given reservoir zonation will already exist before
reservoir production begins (under static equilibrium) and another zonation will result from
reservoir production conditions during field exploitation (dynamic state).
Reservoir zoning
Division of a reservoir into zones depends essentially on the fractured network
saturation. Sub-zones may also develop during the production of the reservoir, as a result
of fluid equilibrium inside the matrix block as well as fluid exchange between matrix and
fracture. The extension of zones and subzones is continuously changing during reservoir
production.
Reservoir zoning under static conditions:

Figure 5: Reservoir zoning under static conditions

Reservoir zones under dynamic conditions:

Main zones:
- Water-invaded zone between WOLO and WOL
- Gas-invaded zone between GOLO and GOL
- Oil zone between WOL and GOL
Sub-zones:
As a result of pressure variation with depth the oil zone may be

Divided into two additional zones:

- The gassing zone, between GOL and Ps= Bpp
- The under saturated zone, between Ps =Bpp and WOL

Figure 6: Reservoir zones under dynamic conditions

a. Gas-invaded zone: Gravitational drainage displacement

b. Gassing zone: Liberated gas expansion + buoyancy + imbibition +
convection mechanisms
Two sub-zones may be developed as a result of critical gas saturation vs.
effective gas saturation in the matrix. The circulation of liberated gas in
fractures saturated with oil, as well as the contact between the heavier
oil of fractures with the lighter oil remaining in the matrix, develops
more complex transfer processes. In the case of non-uniform distribution
of

matrix

pores

and

low

decline

rate

of

reservoir

pressure,

supersaturation pressure phenomena can occur.

c. Undersaturated zone: Simple expansion drive mechanism the
expansion drive mechanism will be bigger if the compressibility and
pressure decline rate are higher while production rate increases if block
dimensions are smaller.

10

d. Water-invaded zone: Gravitational + capillary imbibition

Oil recovered from the matrix pores as a result of progressive Exposure
of the matrix pores to a water environment in the fractures, is rate
sensitive to rate of water table advancement
- If the aquifer is limited or non-existent, the oil will be produced as a
result of the expansion of gas liberated from solution in the oil zone, and
of gravity drainage in the gas-invaded zone.
Muskat and Pirson methods for solution gas mechanism [1]
As the pressure drops in the fracture system, as a consequence
of production, fluid expands and flows out from the matrix to equilibrate
the matrix pressure with the surrounding fracture pressure. Also the
compressibility

of

rock

or

the

secondary

compaction

can

gain

importance specially low fluid compressibility or low porosity. The pore

compressibility for matrix and Fracture is in most of the cases quite
different.
Below the bubble point pressure the solution gas liberates and
expands. The efficiency of the matrix recovery under solution gas
displacement can be calculated in a standalone way, using the wellknown Muskat or Pirson methods. According to Pirson, the equations that
describe the performance of the reservoir in case of solution gas drive
reservoir can be written in finite difference form of the material balance:

[ ]

Np
=
N

][

Np
Bo
1

Rs [ 1+mg , o ] Bob
N
Bg
Bg
Bo
Rs i+1+ R
Bg

The instantaneous gas-oil ratio is:

11

R=Rs+

Bo Krg o
.
.
Bg Kro g

The oil saturation is

Np Bo
.
(1Sw)
N Bob

So= 1

Muskat used also a differential form of the material balance equation to

evaluate the
Performance of a reservoir with internal gas-drive (solution gas drive).
The change in the oil Saturation is:

So ( p ) + So

Where
( p )=

( p ) ( p ) (p) and

( p , So ) are special Muskat functions

Bg dRs
Bo dp

( p )=Bg

( p )=

Kg
( p ) +(1SwSo) ( p)
Ko
( p , So)
So= p

d 1
( )
dp Bg

1 o dBo
Bo g dp

( p , So )=1+

Kg o
Ko g

The cumulative amount of produced oil is then:

12

Np=Vp
Pi

So
So
So
=Vp[
i
]
Bo
Bo
Bo

( )

( ) ( )

Solution gas drive mechanism in fractured reservoirs,

comparison between Kazemi and Warren and Root models.
(Case Study in one of Iranian oil reservoirs)[6]
In fractured reservoirs fluid is flowing between two different
mediums,

matrix

and

fracture

that

is

more

complicated

than

conventional reservoirs. To predict the future of fractured reservoirs we

need to model them.
Despite conventional reservoirs that we need to know only
reservoir data for modeling, in simulation of fractured reservoirs we
need to know also the model that fluid is flowing in the mediums. Two
known models for fractured reservoirs are Kazemi and Warren and root.
ECLIPSE uses two models of Dualporo (dual porosity) and DualporoDualperm (dual porosity, dual permeability) that Dualporo is Warren and
root and Dualporo-Dualperm is Kazemi model.
In this case study oil recovery and pressure drop rate is compared for
these two models in one of Iranian fractured reservoirs that was flowing
under solution gas drive mechanism. The results show dual porosity
model gives 3% more recovery and lower pressure drop for longer
periods of production. The reservoir data are:
No. of blocks (X,Y,Z)

30x30x
8
thickness 400

Oil viscosity (cp)

1.54

Reservoir
(ft.)
Matrix porosity
Fracture porosity
Matric permeability
(x,y,z),md
Fracture permeability
(x,y,z),md
OOIP of the model

Oil formation volume factor

(bbl/stb)
Solution gas ratio (scf/stb)
Bubble pressure (psi)
Matrix-fracture
transfer
shape factor ()
Oil density (pcf)

1.56

25%
0.5%
0.1
1300

104200 Water density(pcf)

13

1041
4042
0.00
48
54
63.0

(stb)
oil gravity (API)

00
32

Lowest Pwf (psia)

2000

Pressure
(psia)

at

8000ft 5500

Gas density(pcf)
Rock compressibility
3600 psi (1/psi)
Scg

2
0.07
02
at 4x10
-6

0.03

ECLIPSE is used for this study and a producing well is placed on block
15x15 (X, Y) that was perforated on all layers. Well was flowing at P wf of
1800 psi and Rs of 1041 scf/stb. After 7020 days of production, the oil
recovery is fixed and modeling is done till this date.
Fig-7 shows oil recovery with dualporo model is about 28% that
gives 3% more recovery than dualporo-Dualperm model. Dualporo
model produces only through fracture despite Dualporo-Dualperm model
that produces through both fracture and matrix. So in early times, oil
recovery in Dualporo is lower than Dualporo-Dualperm but as matrix
permeability is very low, the differences is not significant. In the first
year of production with dualporo-Dualperm model, the oil recovery was
473817 stb and 473085 stb for Dualporo model. In Fig-8 and Fig-9
pressure drop is shown. At early times of production till bubble pressure,
that no solution gas was liberated, the pressure drop is fast and after
that due to liberation of solution gas the rate decreased. In DualporoDualperm model permeability is higher that results higher gas
production (Fig-10) and lower gas saturation (Fig-11) but as Dualporo
model has a lower permeability the gas production is lower and it will
give higher reservoir pressure (lower pressure drop) and higher oil
recovery.

14

Figure 7: oil recovery in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model

Figure 8: Pressure drop in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model

Figure 9: Pressure drop at final period of production in Dualporo and DualporoDualperm model

15

Figure 10: Gas production in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model

Figure 11: Gas saturation in Dualporo and Dualporo-Dualperm model

Discussion and results

In Dualporo-Dualperm due to higher permeability, gas can move
better even in low permeability matrix. So gas production is higher
and gas saturation is lower.
Because more gas will remain in Dualporo model, reservoir
pressure will be kept higher.

16

 In early times of production with Dual-poro, recovery is lower than

Dualporo-Dualperm

but

with

more

production

as

reservoir

pressure is higher in Dual-poro, its final recovery is also higher.

References
[1] Mohammad Taghi Amiry, February 2014. Modeling flow behavior in
naturally fractured reservoirs.
[2] P. Lemonnier and B. Bourbiaux oil & gas science and technology, IFP,
vol. 65, 2010. Simulation of naturally fractured reservoirs, physical
mechanisms and simulator formulation.
[3] Ali M.Saidi 1986. Reservoir engineering of fractured reservoirs.
[4] Dorcas Karikari, December 2010. Well performance in solution gas
drive reservoirs.
[5] IPE-UT, fundamentals of fractured reservoir engineering. Production
mechanism of a fractured reservoir.
[6] Mahmood Shakiba, Masood Riazi, Aban 1392. Solution gas drive
mechanism in fractured reservoirs, comparison between kazemi
and warren and root models.

17