Lecture 6 7 SNFR Course Slides

Simulation of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs
Lecture 6:
Modeling of Fractured Reservoirs With
Compositional Simulation
Reservoir Simulation Application/Software

Training Course
and (ECLIPSE) Workshop
SIS Training and Development
Denver and Houston
September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 1

Reservoirs Lectures 6,7
E300 and Fractured Reservoirs
Basic E300 contains all the features

and keywords founds in E100
Some of the special fractured
features found in E100 are also in
E300
Many of these missing advanced
featured are currently being added to
E300 by development team in
Abingdon, England

1
Additional Keywords for E300
PERMMF - permeability for matrix-

fracture coupling
MULTMF - multiplier for matrix-
fracture permeability
DIFFMMF - multiplier for matrix-
fracture diffusivities

Advanced Features
Alternate Gravity Drainage Model

Diffusion
Diffusion coefficients for each
component in each phase must be input
Activity Corrected Diffusion
Coefficients for diffusion based on ln
fugacity (See Compositional Simulation
Course or E300 Technical Description
for all details)

2
Diffusion
Diffusion coefficients x
Ji = cDi i
Use diffuse flow relationship: d
c is the total molar concentration, given by
c = 1 / Vm
Vm the molar volume of mixture.
Ji is the molar flux of component i per unit area
Di is the diffusion coefficient of component i
xi is the mole fraction gradient of component i

d

Diffusion
At high pressures, concentration gradient is
not most accurate predictor for diffusion.
Component chemical potential should be
used. Can then include effect of gravity.
= 0 + RT ln fi MiG(h h0 )
M = Molecular Weight
G = Gravity Constant
h = elevation

3
Diffusion
For isothermal, horizontal flow and using ,
/RT, let Dia be defined by
ln fi
J i = cDia xi
d
ln fi ln fi 1 xi
Expanding = So that
d ln xi xi d
ln fi xi xi
J i = c Dia comparing Ji = cDi
d
ln xi d

Diffusion
Di
Thus Dia =
ln fi /( ln xi )
Dia is the activity-corrected diffusion coefficient.

4
Diffusion
Two possibilities exist in E300:
1. Use normal diffusion coefficients and mole
fractions as the driving force Normal diffusion
coefficients are entered using DIFFCOIL
and DIFFCGAS.
2. Use activity corrected diffusion coefficients and
chemical potential as the driving force. Activity
corrected diffusion coefficients are entered using
DIFFAOIL and DIFFAGAS.

Diffusion
At low pressures, the two coefficients are equal,
as fi xiP
With both oil and gas present, the molar

concentrations include the saturation and porosity,
so that
Ji = Jio + Jig
(ln f i M i Gh / RT )
J io = S o b om D ioa x i
with d
or J io = S o b om D io x i / d

5
Conversion Factors from
Handbook Values
Lab Units: 1 cm2/sec = 3600
cm2/hour
Metric or PVT-M Units: 1 cm2/sec =
8.64 m2/Day
Field Units: 1 cm2/sec = 92.99 ft2/Day

Comparison Example
2-D x-z cross-section from next

Workshop
Dual Porosity Compositional
Without Diffusion
With Diffusion
WAG injection with CO2

6
Example Oil Description
It has a simple 6 component oil: components
CO2
N2
C1 (Methane)
C3 (Propane)
C10 (Decane)
C15 (Pentadecane)

RUNSPEC Section
DUALPORO
GRAVDR
DIFFUSE

7
PROPS Section
DIFFCGAS
-- CO2 N2 C1 C3 C10 C15
0.13 0.16 0.15 0.04 0.013 0.011 /
DIFFCOIL
-- CO2 N2 C1 C3 C10 C15
0.013 0.016 0.015 0.004 0.0013 0.0011 / high oil Diff Coef

CO2 Mole Fraction at 547 Days
Injection Well Well P1
With diffusion Well P2

No diffusion
In diffusion case: note high CO2 concentration

in matrix blocks near injector

8
CO2 Mole Fraction in Producer
Well P1
No diffusion
With diffusion

CO2 Mole Fraction in Producer

Well P2
No diffusion With diffusion

9
Field Oil Production Rate

Cumulative Oil Produced

10
Field GOR

Reservoir Pressure

11
Observations
With diffusion
Field produces longer and higher
recovery
WAG effects are smoothed out
CO2 breakthrough is delayed

Options in E300 for the Solution of

the Equations

12
IMPES, AIM and FULLIMP
In E300 there are 3 techniques to

solve the numerical problem
IMPES: Implicit Pressure, Explicit
Saturation
AIM: Adaptive Implicit Method (Default)
FULLIMP: Full Implicit
For Dual Porosity Runs FULLIMP is
the best method in most cases.

Linear and Non-Linear
Ax + By = D this is linear
where x and y the unknowns
and A and B are constants
A( x, y ) x + B( x, y ) y = D this is non - linear

since A and B are functions of the unknow solutions x and y

13
Linearize the Equation
Let l be the iteration counter

We know the solution at l, we are looking
for the solution at the next non - linear iteration l + 1
We linearize the equation by evaluating the

coefficents A(x, y) and B(x, y)
at the l iteration level where x and y are known.
[A( x , y )] x
l l l l +1
[ ]l
+ B( x l , y l ) y l +1 = D

Convergence of the Non-Linear Iterations
If this solution process converges

(x x ) 0 and
l +1 l
( y y ) 0 and
l +1 l
[A ( x , y ) = A ( x
l +1 l +1 l
, yl) ]
[B ( x , y ) = B ( x
l +1 l +1 l
, yl )]
The coefficients do not change any more, so

the solution to the linearized equation is the
correct solution to the non-linear equation.

14
Iteration Process in Reservoir
Simulation
Example of linear
and non-linear
iteration process:
4 non-linear
iterations Usually a non-linear iteration
requires 10 to 30 linears to
converge pressure and saturations

Linearization
Newton-Raphson Technique: It is primarily a

root finding technique Y
Y X
Root x4 x3 x2 x1
Newton-Raphson convergence course

X
x3 x1 Root x0 x2
f(x k )
f(x k )
x k +1 = x k -
x
Divergent Newton-Raphson iteration process

15
Matrix Inversion - to solve the simulator equations efficiently
a11x1 + a12 x 2 + .......... + a1n x n - b1 = 0

a11 a12 . a1n x1 b1
a 21x1 + a 22 x 2 + .......... + a 2n x n - b 2 = 0
a a 22 . a 2n b
.
.
21 x2 2
.
A = . ; x = . ; b = .

a n1x1 + a n2 x 2 + .......... + a nn x n - b n = 0
. . .
a n1 a n2 . a nn x n b n

Simultaneous Linear Equations Corresponding Matrix Equation

Linear Problem
AP = d
a b c d P1 d1
e f g h P2 d 2
i j k l P3 = d 3

m n o p P4 d 4

16
SEQUENTIAL IMPES (Implicit Pressure,
Explicit Saturation)
Sequential IMPES Formulation
Assumptions
over a time step, the change in the Bk [
n
o o Po + ]
Bo n k
P
[ ]
o o Po +
capillary pressures are assumed to
be zero and
saturation dependent parameters [ ] [
n P + Bo n k P +
Bkw w o
P
w w o ]
can be considered explicitly, i.e.
old time level values of these
V k
n n
parameters can be used to So S
Cr + Co Bo - Cw Bw w Po
calculate the new time level t B
o Bw

values.
Some pressure dependent PVT
parameters on the right hand side
of the equation, however, treated
{ [
- Bk n k k ] n [
k
o To o + B w Tw w + ]}
implicitly, like pressure, thus they
V k
n n
are treated at the new level. o So - k S w
+ -Bo w
t Bo Bw


FULLY IMPLICIT
Features
Unconditionally stable
Rock and fluid dependent

parameters are calculated implicitly
The resulting equations are

computationally much more
involved than equivalent IMPES

17
IMPES and Implicit in Black Oil
P1
P1
P2
Sw1
P3
Sg1
P4
P2
P5
Sw2
P6
Vector of Vector of Sg 2
P7 Unknowns for
Unknowns for P3
IMPES Solution P8 Full Implicit
Sw3
P9 Solution
Black Oil and Sg 3
P10
P4
Compositional

P
nb 2 P
Pnb 1 nb
Swnb
Pnb

Sg nb

Linear Problem in Compositional

Model
P1
Sw1
z
1,1
z 2,1
z3,1

The unknown vector in the linear problem

for the fully implicit compositional model z
nc ,1
P2
Sw2
z1, 2
z (component index, block index)

Pnb
Swnb
z1,nb
z
2,nb

z nc ,nb

18
Dimensionality of the Linear Problem
Given grid with 50,000 blocks: Dimensionality
IMPES (Black Oil or Compositional)-- 50,000

Full Implicit 3 Phase Black Oil-- 150,000
Full Implicit 3 Phase 8 Component
Compositional-- 500,000

Black Oil Simulation

Computational Cost Partitioning
The Rest
Inversion:
Solution of the
Linear Problem

19
Computational Cost Partitioning
The Rest
Flash Calculations

Options
AIM, IMPES, or Fully Implicit?

Depends mainly on throughput - pore
volumes through a cell in a step:
If < 1 - IMPES
If > 1 - fully implicit
In IMPES components are cheap, 10
common. In fully implicit cost will go
like nc3 for large nc - keep to
minimum.
20
Options
Typical implicit - radial models, dual

porosity
AIM useful when a few well blocks
dominate throughput.
AIMFRAC lets user tune the amount of
implicitness in a run DO NOT USE
THIS.
USE AIMCON

Workshop - 6: Compositional
Simulation of Fractured
Reservoirs

21
Workshop 6 Description
You have a single porosity Compositional
Simulation Data Set (E300) - single-co.data
It has a simple 6 component oil: components
CO2
N2
C1 (Methane)
C3 (Propane)
C10 (Decane)
C15 (Pentadecane)

Units are Field
PR EOS is used, Reservoir Temperature =
150oF
Grid is 20 x 1 x 5
Layer 2 is a thin and low permeability
Hysteresis is used, rock is water wet
Water viscosity is 0.41 cp.
Reservoir is initially oil filled, Pi = 3000
psia at a datum of 6100 Feet SSL

22
Krw and Krow Drainage and
Imbibition Curves
drainage
imbibition imbibition
drainage

Pcow Drainage and Imbibition

Curves
drainage
imbibition

23
Krg and Krog Drainage and
Imbibition Curves
imbibition
drainage
imbibition
drainage

One WAG injector in column 1

Two producers in columns 10 and 20
CO2 and Water are injected on a 2
and 4 month cycle, respectively
The maximum water rate = 3500
Stb/day
The maximum gas rate is 6800
Mscf/day
BHP Limit is 5000 psia
24
Producers have a maximum oil rate =

1500 Stb/day and maximum gas rate
= 1500 Mscf/day and Minimum BHP =
200 psia.
Producers have CON workovers
when WC = 0.95, GOR = 3, Oil rate <
200 Stb/day
Run the single porosity data set and
plot the results with single-co.grf

Single Porosity Grid

25
Your task: Convert single-co.data

into dual-co.data with the fracture
properties given in the following
table
Run dual-co.data and plot the results
with dual-co.grf
How do the results compare between
the single and dual porosity
descriptions?

Dual Porosity Grid

26
Proprieties of Dual Porosity
Reservoir
Matrix Matrix Matrix Matrix Fracture Fracture Fracture Fracture Sigma Stack Height
Layer No. Kx Ky Kz Porosity Kx Ky Kz Porosity
1 1 1 1 0.18 10 10 10 0.01 0.1 32
2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.01 5
3 2 2 2 0.22 20 20 20 0.005 0.1 20
4 8 8 8 0.32 20 20 20 0.02 0.2 41
5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.36 5 5 5 0.02 0.3 32

If time permits: Add diffusion to the

description if you have time, use the
diffusion coefficients in the table
following
Increase the Matrix-Fracture
Diffusivity until you see a difference
in the results

27
Diffusion Coefficients for
Component Names
CO2 N2 C1 C3 C10 C15
Diffusion Coefficient for Component in Gas: DIFFAGAS 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.04 0.013 0.011
Diffusion Coefficient for Component in Oil: DIFFAOIL 0.013 0.016 0.015 0.004 0.0013 0.0011

Simulation of Naturally Fractured

Reservoirs
Lecture 7:
Simulation of Fractured and
Vuggy Reservoirs
(Triple Porosity)
Reservoir Simulation Application/Software
Training Course
and (ECLIPSE) Workshop
SIS Training and Development
Denver and Houston

28
Triple Porosity Rock
As discussed in Lecture 1: Vugs are

open volumes (v = 1.0) in the rock
with vug fraction in the range of: 0.1 -
80%
Vug fraction =
Volume of vugs/Bulk Volume

Two Types of Vugs Exist

Vugs not
connected to
fracture system
Vugs connected
to fracture
system

29
Triple Porosity Rock: Two Types
More Complexity
Triple Porosity System: Flow Between:
Vug - Matrix
Matrix - Fracture
System A Vug - Fracture System B
Vug
Matrix
Fracture

When Vugs are connected to the

fracture network a good simulation
approximation is to add their volume
to the fracture porosity and these
Vugs will not affect fracture
permeability (System B)

30
If Vugs are connected only to the

matrix the oil must flow from the
Vugs through the matrix to the
fractures (System A)
The Vug size, distribution, proximity
to the fractures (distance from the
vug to the fracture), and flow
mechanisms all effect the recovery of
oil from the Vugs

Flow Mechanisms
A) If gravity and capillary forces dominate
displacement - matrix block surrounded
by fractures - Case A
B) If viscous forces are important in the
displacement - pressure drop exists
across matrix blocks - fractures parallel to
flow must be sealed - Case B
Note: these 2 conditions yield very different
displacements

31
Triple Porosity Flow Situations
fracture
fracture
Finely Finely No fracture

gridded gridded
matrix with matrix with
Vugs Vugs
Case A Case B
Flow/Flooding Flow/Flooding
Direction Direction

Difference in Flows
When Gravity and Capillary forces

dominate the displacement, the oil in
the Vugs:
Is not effected by capillary Imbibition
since Pc = 0 in Vugs
Initially the oil in the Vugs is by passed
When the matrix water saturation is
high - gravity forces push oil out of the
Vugs and into the matrix material where
it moves into the fractures via matrix.

32
Example Fine Grid Simulation -
Case A
Inject water at bottom, produce at top
Run for 200 days for comparison
with Case B
Run 7300 days to get higher oil
recovery

Case A 6% Vug Fraction - Initial

Initial water
Water Saturations saturation in
vugs = 0 in
matrix material
= 0.2

33
Water Saturation:
Case A After 20 Days

Water Saturation: Case A After 45

Days

34
After 100 days
Days water saturation
in vugs is < 10%
and in matrix
material is ca.
60%


After 200 days
Days water saturation
in vugs is 10 to
25% and in
matrix material
is ca. 65%

35
Oil Recovery From Vugs at 200
Days - Case A

Water Saturation in Matrix Material - Vertical

Column of Blocks: Case A

36
Water Saturation in Vugs - Case A

Oil Recovery at 7300 Days -

Case A

37
Water Saturation in Vugs at 7300
Days - Case A

Case B Simulation
Same vug fraction and positions

Same water injection, fluid
production rates as in Case A
Water travel through matrix material
since no vertical fractures - viscous
forces high.

38
Difference in Flows
When Viscous forces dominate the

displacement, the oil in the Vugs:
Viscous forces cause oil to flow rapidly
out of the high permeability Vugs
Water saturation is nearly 100% after
135 days.

Case B 6% Vug Fraction - Initial

Initial water
Water Saturations saturation in
vugs = 0 in
matrix material
= 0.2

39
Water Saturation: Case B After 10
After 10 days
water saturation
in vugs is 10 to
Days Note: Wake like
20% in matrix saturations down
material = 40 to stream of vug
80%


After 135 days
water saturation
in vugs is 100%
Days
in matrix
material = ca.
70%

40
Days

Oil Recovery From Vugs at 200

Days - Case B

41
Water Saturation in Vugs - Case B

Water Saturation in Matrix Material - Vertical

Column of Blocks: Case B

42
Comparison of Oil Recovery from
Vugs - 200 Day Simulation
Case B
Case A

Rock Properties in the Triple

Porosity Systems
Matrix material: uses Pc, immiscible
Kr, and initial fluid saturations.
Fractures: Uses Zero Pc and Straight
line Rel. Perms. Initially filled with
100% oil or water.
Vugs: Uses Zero Pc and Straight line
Rel. Perms. Initially filled with 100%
oil or water.

43
Pc and Relative Permeabilities in
Vugs
In Vugs the rock surfaces are far from each other,
compared to normal capillary pores
Thus, the interaction (surface tension) between
oil and water at the surface has little effect on the
flow in the Vugs.
1
Wall to wall distance large
Krow Ca. 0.1 to 1 cm
Krw
Oil filled
0
0 Sw 1 Vug

Simulation of Triple Porosity

Systems
The accurate simulation of flow in these 3
porosity systems is inherently complex.
Triple porosity simulators, perhaps, could
be written to model this process, but in
most all cases one would not have
sufficient the data on the rock system to
run the simulator.
Approximate solution is used that
involves Pseudofunctions or Composite
Curves.

44
Composite Curves
Objective of Composite Curves/Pseudofunctions:
To replace the complex system of matrix material and
vugs with a single material called composite matrix
blocks.
This resulting system has 2 porosities: fractures and
composite matrix blocks.
Now one can model the fluid displacement with a normal
dual porosity simulator.
The composite matrix blocks in dual porosity simulator
will behave as the original matrix block when subjected
to forces and pressures.

Composite Curves
Details of Composite Curves/Pseudofunctions:
Composite matrix block has one porosity value and a
water and an oil saturation.
The pore volume and liquid saturations are averages
from the original matrix - vug system.
Pseudo Capillary Pressure and Pseudo Relative
Permeabilities are created for the Composite Matrix
blocks so that the displacement is the same as from the
original vug filled matrix blocks

45
Composite Curves
Details of Composite Curves/Pseudofunctions:
The Composite Curves/Pseudofunctions are a
combination of the straight line curves of the
fractures and the immiscible curves of the matrix.
Example from 3 porosity study made by H-RT in
Denver follows.

Rock Type 1
Imbibition Curve Set for Satnum 45
Vug Ratio =75%, Matrix Porosity = 11%
1.0
0.9
Matrix
0.8 Kro
Vug Kro
0.7 Vug Krw Input Matrix Krw
Input Matrix Kro
Relative Permeability
Input Vug Krw

0.6
Input Vug Kro
Composite Krw
0.5 Composite Kro
Composite
Kro
0.4 Matrix
Krw Composite
0.3 Krw
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Water Saturation

46
Rock Type 1
Capillary Pressure Curve Set for Satnum 29
Vug Ratio = 55%, Matrix Porosity = 11%
1000
Composite Pc
100
Input Pc
Capillary Pressure, Psia
10 Input Pc
1 Composite Pc
0.1
0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Water Saturation

Composite Curves
Example 1:
porosity in matrix = 0.1
porosity in Vugs = 1.0
vug fraction = .03
Composite porosity p calculation
p = .97 x .1 + .03 x 1.0 = 0.127

47
Composite Curves
Example 1 continued:
initial water saturation in matrix = 0.2
initial water saturation in Vugs = 0.0
vug fraction = .03
Composite initial water saturation Swip
calculation
Swip = 0.1527559
Soip = 0.847244 (original So = 0.8)

Composite Curves
Example 2:
porosity in matrix = 0.1
porosity in Vugs = 1.0
vug fraction = .06
Composite porosity p calculation
p = .94 x .01 + .06 x 1.0 = 0.154

48
Composite Curves
Example 2 continued:
Composite initial water saturation Swip
calculation
Swip = 0.122077
Soip = 0.877922 (original So = 0.8)

Developing Composite Curves
BEST CASE: laboratory

displacement experiments exist with
vuggy cores - these should be
simulated/matched to give
Composite Curves
A good reference on this process is
Numerical Modeling of a Triple
Porosity Reservoir O. Gurpinar, J.
Kalbus, D. List SPE 57277

49
PROBLEM:
If laboratory displacement
experiments do NOT exist
And we only know the vug fraction in
our reservoir

NUMERICAL SOLUTION:
Create composite curve through fine
grid detailed numerical simulation of
displacement of vuggy rock which is
matched with dual porosity
simulations
Details follow ---

50
Creation of Composite Curves
Step 1) Place Vugs in finely gridded
Matrix+fracture simulation model such as
square.data used in Workshop 2
Vug grid blocks must have = 1.0, intrinsic
fracture permeability, fracture Pc and Kr.


Step 1) Continued:
Vugs must be located in matrix blocks at
positions provided by geologist - usually your
geologist will not have this detailed
information - then vug positions must be
assigned randomly and stochastic/Monte Carlo
simulations made.
Number of Vugs to give proper vug to matrix
distribution.

51
Step 2) Boundary conditions must be set in fine
grid model to match reservoir displacement
situation:
If gravity and capillary forces dominate
displacement - matrix block surrounded by
fractures - Case A
If viscous forces are important in the
displacement - pressure drop exists across
matrix blocks - fractures parallel to flow must
be sealed - Case B

Triple Porosity Flow Situations

fracture
fracture
Finely Finely No fracture

gridded gridded
matrix with matrix with
Vugs Vugs
Case A Case B
Direction Direction

52
Step 3) Inject and produce into the

fractures around the matrix as in
Workshop 2 with square.data
Record the oil production rate or RF
(ROE) vs. time


Step 4) Set up a single matrix block with the Dual
Porosity Simulator - as we did in Workshop 2 with
sq3.data
The matrix porosity and initial water saturation
must be the composite values from the
combination of the matrix and Vugs.
To initialize the Sw we will shift the Connate
water end point saturation in the Krw and Krow
curves
These shifted curves give us the initial guess
of the composite curves.

53
Step 5) Simulate the displacement of

oil by water in the dual porosity (one
grid block) model.
Record the oil production rate or RF vs.
time
Step 6) Adjust the Krw, Krow, and Pc
curves until the oil rate or RF curves
match the fine gridded results.

RF for Oil from Vugs and Matrix

54
Composite Curves
The Composite Curves or

Pseudofunctions, assigned to the
vuggy matrix media, can then be
used in a dual porosity field scale
model and give displacement and oil
recovery results for the triple
porosity system.

Composite Capillary Pressure
Numerical experiments generating

composite capillary pressures has
shown the results of generating the
composite Pc is a simple shift in the
original matrix Pc.
The shift is the change in the initial
water saturation between the original
matrix Sw and the composite Sw.

55
Stochastic Simulations
Numerical experiments of various distributions of
Vugs in a matrix has shown that the location of
the Vugs in the matrix blocks has a significant
effect on the oil displacement rate from each vug.
One assumes that the same or similar situations
occurs in real reservoir rock.

Simulations show that Vugs:
near the lower part of the matrix blocks (in a
water flood from below) produce oil early
at the top of matrix blocks produce oil last
near to fractures produce oil early
in the center of matrix blocks produce oil late.

56
The field, most likely, has a distribution of Vugs
in the matrix blocks.
The distribution is probably random
some matrix blocks may have more Vugs in
one location, say near the fractures - while
others may have more Vugs in the center of
the matrix blocks.
We need to generate composite curves that are a
good average of the displacement behavior for all
combinations of vug distributions.

To create a average set of composite curves, one
needs to construct n realizations of the
distribution of Vugs using a random number
generator to assign vug locations in the matrix
grid.
One would then simulate the displacement
though all the realizations and created n
composite curves.
These n curves should be averaged to give the
final composite curve set.

57
Example Calculation:
Triple Porosity Systems


58
A Methodology for Simulation
of Vuggy and Fractured
Reservoirs
SPE 66366
C. A. Kossack
Schlumberger Holditch-Reservoir Technologies
Denver, Colorado
Some of this presentation repeats what
we just saw we will skip over that
material
Outline of Presentation
Objectives of the Study

Analysis of Oil Recovery from Vugs
as a Function of Viscous to Gravity
Ratio
Methodology for simulating triple
porosity systems with dual porosity
model
Demonstration of Methodology
Conclusions
59
Objectives of Study
Investigate the oil recovery mechanisms
from isolated vugs (through numerical
simulation)
Determine a methodology for simulating
triple porosity systems with a dual
porosity simulator (water oil system)
Key get the correct answers from full
field dual/triple porosity simulations with
or without laboratory displacements

Connected and Isolated Vugs
Connected Vugs
Ehrlich SPE 3533
Dehghani, Edwards, Harris SPE 38910
Mexican Petroleum Inst. SPE 66386
Isolated Vugs
Gurpinar, Kalbus, List SPE 57277

60
Thin Section Photomicrograph

Viscous and Gravity Forces
Pc = 0 in Vugs
Viscous force caused by pressure
gradient in fracture system
Gravity force
Water and residual oil in matrix
Oil in fracture
Density difference acting over the
vertical height of the vug

61
Traditional Viscous to Gravity
Ratio
u L
R v =
g kg h
where
u = Darcy velocity
L = distance in direction of pressure gradient
h = distance in direction of gravity
k = permeability
= viscosity
g = gravitational acceleration
= difference in phase densities
Substitute Darcys Law
p
Rv =
g h
where
p = pressure drop over distance L
in the direction of flow

62
Viscous to Gravity Ratio in Vuggy
Matrix Blocks
h = height of the vug in the direction of gravity, feet
h = width/height of the vug in the in the direction of the viscous forces
p = pressure drop across the matrix block, psi
H = thickness/height of the matrix block in the direction viscous flow
We want an expression for the ratio of viscous to gravity forces across the width or
height of a vug. The expression in field units becomes:
lbs in 2
p( ) 144 2
Rv =
in 2 ft h' ( feet )
lb H ( feet )
3 h( feet )
g
ft

Viscous to Gravity Ratio

fracture
fracture
Finely Finely
gridded, gridded, No fracture or
vug filled vug filled fracture with
matrix matrix low
permeability
Gravity Viscous
Dominated Dominated
Direction Direction
Figure 2A Figure 2B

63
Numerical Study of Oil Recovery
from Vugs at Various Rv/g
Interested in the rate of oil recovery
from isolated vugs
Viscous to Gravity Ratio will affect
rate
Laboratory experiments difficult
Fine grid single porosity numerical
simulation to determine answer
similar to SPE 54042 (fractured
reservoirs)

Matrix block 5.2 feet cubed
Surrounded by fractures on six sides
Water is injected at the bottom and
liquid is removed from the top
fracture

64
Km = 5 mD
m = 0.1
Kf = varied from 5 to 50,000 mD to
create range of Rv/g
v= f = 1.0
Vug fraction = 15% - random located
in matrix block not connected with
fracture

How Important is Oil Recovery

from Vugs?
Matrix rock + vugs = 3.759 STB of Oil
Vugs = 69 % STOIIP
Matrix rock = 31 % STOIIP
Vugs = 73.4 % recoverable oil
Matrix rock = 26.6 % recoverable oil

65
Fine Grid
14 x 14 x 14 blocks (2744 grid blocks)
169 blocks were vugs
Initially oil filled
Pc = 0
Straight line relative permeabilities
kv = 50,000
v = 1.0


66
Results of Numerical Study
fracture dP/dx, Time to 90% vug

R v/g
perm, mD psi/feet oil recovery, days
5 18 29.74 3.15
50 12 19.83 5.5
500 3 4.96 48.3
5000 0.6 0.99 1058
50000 0.4 0.66 13477

Recovery of Oil from Vugs for Range

of Viscous to Gravity Ratios
Rv/g decreasing

67
Time for 90% Recovery of the Vug
Oil
100000
10000
Tim e (Days)
1000
100
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Fracture Perm eability (m D)

Viscous to Gravity Ratio of Forces on

Fluid in Vugs Vs. Fracture Permeability
100
Viscous/Gravity Ratio
10
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Fracture Permeability (mD)

68
Rv/g Vs. Pressure Gradient in the
Fracture System
35.00
30.00
Viscous to Gravity Ratio
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Pressure Gradient (psi/foot)

Simulation of Triple Porosity

Systems with a Dual Porosity
Model

69
The Process
Grid block of matrix rock One grid block represent
Grid block of representing a ting the fracture
vug
Fracture
grid
blocks
One grid
representing
the composite
matrix block
The process
x-z cross-section of fine grid single Two grid blocks in dual porosity model
porosity numerical representation of represent the fracture and composite
fractures, matrix and vugs matrix block

Initial Krw and Krow in the Matrix
Saturation of Oil
Relative
Permeability
Saturation of Water

70
Initial Matrix Pcow
Capillary
Pressure
(Psia)
Saturation of Water

The Process 1 of 4
Construct a very fine grid single

porosity numerical model of one
matrix block complete with vugs and
surrounded with fractures vug
location is statistical/a realization
Estimate the Rv/g in the field
Simulate the displacement process
(water-oil, gas-oil) on the fine grid
model

71
The Process - 2 of 4
Record the recovery of oil vs. time

from the matrix rock + vugs
Create a (effectively) 2 grid block
representation of the matrix block
and fractures Eclipse Dual Porosity
Model
Calculate the composite porosity of
the matrix

Shift relative permeability and

capillary pressure curves
Simulate displacement with dual
porosity model start with shifted
curves
History match the fine grid single
porosity recovery with the dual
porosity simulation

72
Create a new realization of vug

distribution in the fine grid single
porosity model
Back to 1st step
After n realizations have been
matched average HM curves
single curve to be used in field scale
simulations or proceed to standard
scale-up procedures

Demonstration of Process
Two Rv/g ratio

1.0
20.
Two vug distribution realizations
(random assignment of i, j k location)
15% vug volume

73
Rv/g = 1 Realization 1

Comparison of Fine Grid Single Porosity Simulation

and Initial Dual Porosity Simulation with Shifted
Curves Rv/g = 1 Realization 1
Dual porosity (2 grid block) simulation

with shifted curves
Oil
Recovery
Single porosity fine grid simulation
Days x 1000

74
Final Match - Rv/g = 1 Realization
1
Oil
Single porosity fine grid and final
Recovery matched dual porosity
Days x 1000


1
Oil
Recovery
Log Days

75
Krow - Rv/g = 1 Realization 1
0.9
0.8
0.7 Krow-shift
Krow-match
0.6
Krow-original
Krow
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Saturation of Oil

Pcow - Rv/g = 1 Realization 1

1000.000
Pcow-shift
100.000 Pcow-match
Pcow (Psia)
Pcow-Original
10.000
1.000
0.100
0.010
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation

76
Comparison of Oil Recovery - Rv/g
= 1 Realization 1 and 2
Oil
Recovery
Days x 1000


2
Oil
Recovery
Log Days

77
Comparison of Matched Pc from
Realization 1 and 2: Rv/g = 1
1000.000
100.000
Realization 1
Pcow (Psia)
10.000 Realization 2
1.000
0.100
0.010
0.001
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Saturation of Water
Rv/g = 20 Realization 1

78
Rv/g = 20 Realization 1 and 2
Oil
Recovery
Days

Rv/g = 20 Realization 1 Dual with

and Without Viscosity Model
Oil
Recovery
Days

79
1
Oil
Recovery
Days


1
Oil
Recovery
Log Days

80
Krow - Rv/g = 20 Realization 1
0.9
Krow-shift
0.8 Krow-match
0.7 Krow-original
0.6
Krow
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Saturation of Oil

Pcow - Rv/g = 20 Realization 1
1000.00
Pcow-shift
100.00 Pcow-match
Pcow (Psia)
Pcow-Original
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Water Saturation

81
2
Oil
Recovery
Log Days

Comparison of Matched Pcow from

Realization 1 and 2: Rv/g = 20
1000
Realization 1
100 Realization 2
Pcow (Psia)
10
0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Saturation of Water

82
Recommendations and
Conclusions
Magnitude of Rv/g ratio in the
reservoir is key to rate of oil
recovery from vugs
If gravity forces dominate oil in
the vugs may not be a reserve
Laboratory experiments of
displacements of vuggy cores are
appropriate when the laboratory
conditions match the fields
Recommendations and
Conclusions
Method is described and
demonstrated for simulating a triple
porosity reservoir with a dual
porosity model
A number of realizations of vug
distributions in the matrix rock must
be matched for proper composite
curves

83
Closing Thoughts

Ten Golden Rules
From Professor Khalid Aziz, Stanford

University Ten Golden Rules for
Simulation Engineers
JPT November 1989, 1157

84
Golden Rule No. 1
Understand Your Problem and Define

Your Objectives
Before you do any simulation
Understand characteristics of reservoir
Understand fluids
Objective of study clearly stated on paper
Ask yourself if the objective are realistic

Golden Rule No. 2
Keep it Simple
Start and end with simplest model
Consistent with
the nature of the reservoir
Objective of study
Availability of data
Most sophisticated model available may
not serve your needs
Understand model limitations and
capabilities

85
Golden Rule No. 3
Understand Interaction Between

Different Parts
Reservoir not an isolated entity
Connected to
Aquifers
Surface facilities
Separation into different components
May be inappropriate neglects interactions
When appropriate can lead to substantial
savings

Golden Rule No. 4
Dont Assume Bigger is Always

Better
Always question size of a study that is
limited by the computer resources
and/or budget
Greater number of blocks and
components do not automatically
translate into greater accuracy and
reliability (reverse is sometimes true)

86
Golden Rule No. 5
Know Your Limitations and Trust

Your Judgments
Remember simulation is not an exact
science more of an art
Trust your judgment based on
analysis of the field or lab observations
Do simple material balance to check
simulation results

Golden Rule No. 6
Be Reasonable in Your Expectations

Dont try to get from the simulator what
it is incapable of producing
Remember if you exclude a
mechanism during model development
cannot study its effect with that model

87
Golden Rule No. 7
Question Data Adjustments for

History Matching
Remember HM process does not have a
unique solution
A good HM with inappropriate
adjustments to the data will lead to poor
predictions
Pay close attention to physical and
geological reasonableness

Golden Rule No. 8
Dont Smooth Extremes

Pay attention to extremes in
permeability (barriers and channels)
Be careful in the process of averaging
Never average out extremes

88
Golden Rule No. 9
Pay Attention to the Measurement

and Use Scales
Measurement values at the core scale
may not directly apply at larger block
scale do influence values at other
scales
Permeability may be a scalar at some small
scale and a tensor at larger scale
Dispersive terms in our equations are a
result of process of averaging

Golden Rule No. 10
Dont Skimp on Necessary

Laboratory Work
Models do not replace lab experiments
designed to understand the nature of the
process
Or measure essential parameters of the
equations being solved
Plan lab work with its end use in mind

89
END

References
1. K.H.Coats: "Implicit Compositional Simulation
of Single-Porosity and Dual Porosity Reservoirs,"
SPE 18427
2. B.Litvak,: "Simulation and Characterization of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," Reservoir
Characterization.
3. F.V. da Silva, P.Belery, : "Molecular Diffusion in
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs: A Decisive
Recovery Mechanism", SPE 19672

90
References
4. J.E.Warren, P.J. Root, : "The Behavior of
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEJ Sept.1963.
5. L S.-K. Fung, : "Simulation of Block-to-Block
Process in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPE
Reservoir Engineering, Nov. 1991
6. A.M. Saidi, D.H. Tehrani, K.Wit, : "Mathematical
Simulation of Fractured Reservoir Performance,
Based on Physical Model Experiments,"
'Developments in Reservoir Engineering', PD10.

References
7. A.Fritsen, T.Corrigan: "Establishment of a
Geological Fractured Model for Dual Porosity
Simulations on the Ekofisk Field," North Sea Oil
and Gas Reservoirs., NIT, 1990
8. R.H.Rossen, E.I.Shen: "Simulation of Gas/Oil
Drainage and Water/Oil Imbibition in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs," SPE Reservoir
Engineering, Nov.1989
9. S. Festor, T.D. Van Golf-Racht: "Gas Gravity
Drainage in Fractured Reservoirs Through New
Dual Continuum Approach," SPE Reservoir
Engineering, Aug.1989

91
References
10. J.Gilman, H. Kazemi: "Improvements in
Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs",
SPE 10511.
11. J.N. Sicking: "Special Engineering Problems
in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," Exxon
Advanced Reservoir Engineering School.
12. L.H.Reiss, "The Reservoir Engineering
Aspects of Fractured Formations," IFP
Publications, Gulf Publishing Comp.

References
13. T.D. Van Golf-Racht, "Fundamentals of
Fractured Reservoir Engineering," Developments
in Petroleum Science 12, Elsevier.
14. D.K.Ponting: "Corner Point Geometry in
Reservoir Simulation," Mathematics of Oil
Recovery Conference Series, June 1989.
15. R.Aguilera, :"Naturally Fractured Reservoirs"
PennWell Books,' 1983.

92
References
16. J.C.T. Tan, A. Firoozabadi, : "Dual-Porosity
Simulation Incorporating Reinfiltration and
Capillary Continuity Concepts, Part-I: Single
Gridcell", SPE 29113
17. A.Puliti, A. Francesconi, "Modeling of Sloping
Faults," Eclipse International Forum, Sept 1994.
18. S.Kocberber' " An Automatic Unstructured
Grid Generation System of Geologically Complex
Reservoirs," SPE 28245
19. Eclipse, Technical Description

93

Lecture 6 7 SNFR Course Slides

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Lecture 6 7 SNFR Course Slides

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Simulation of Naturally Fractured

Reservoir Simulation Application/Software

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 1

E300 and Fractured Reservoirs

Basic E300 contains all the features

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 2

PERMMF - permeability for matrix-

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 3

Alternate Gravity Drainage Model

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 4

xi is the mole fraction gradient of component i

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 5

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 6

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 7

Dia is the activity-corrected diffusion coefficient.

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 8

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 9

With both oil and gas present, the molar

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 10

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 11

2-D x-z cross-section from next

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 12

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 13

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 14

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 15

CO2 Mole Fraction at 547 Days

Injection Well Well P1

With diffusion Well P2

In diffusion case: note high CO2 concentration

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 16

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 17

CO2 Mole Fraction in Producer

No diffusion With diffusion

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 18

No diffusion With diffusion

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 19

Cumulative Oil Produced

No diffusion With diffusion

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 20

No diffusion With diffusion

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 21

No diffusion With diffusion

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 22

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 23

Options in E300 for the Solution of

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 24

In E300 there are 3 techniques to

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 25

Linear and Non-Linear

A( x, y ) x + B( x, y ) y = D this is non - linear

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 26

Let l be the iteration counter

We linearize the equation by evaluating the

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 27

Convergence of the Non-Linear Iterations

If this solution process converges

The coefficients do not change any more, so

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 28

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 29

Newton-Raphson Technique: It is primarily a

Newton-Raphson convergence course

September 06 Simulation of Naturally Fractured 30

a11x1 + a12 x 2 + .......... + a1n x n - b1 = 0

Simultaneous Linear Equations Corresponding Matrix Equation