5?
E 9305
Fractured Reservoir Simulation
~. Kent Thomas, SPE, Phillips Petdeum Co.
Thomas N. Dixon, SPE. Phillips Pctrdeum Co.
Ray G. Pierson, SPE, Phillips Petmieum Co.
Abstract
This paper describes the development of a th~e-
dimensional (3D), three-phase model for simulating the
flow of water, oil, and gas in a naturally fractured reser-
voir. A dual porosity system is used to describe the fluids
pment in the fractwes and matrix blocks. Primary flow
in the resezvoir occurs within the fractures with local ex-
change of fluids between the fractute system and matrix
blocks. The matrixlfmctwe transfer function is based on
an extension of the equation deveioped by ‘Warren and
Root and accounts for capihry pressure, gmvity, and
viscous forces.
Both the fmctwe flow equations and matrix/fracture
flow are solved implicitly for pressure, water salutation,
gas saturation, and salutation pressure.
We present example problems to demonstrate the utili-
ty of the model. These include a comparison of our
tesults with previous tesuk.s: comparisons of individual
block matrix/fractute transfers obtained using a detailed
3D grid with results using the fractwe model’s
matrbdfractm transfer function; and 3D field-scale
simulations of two- and thee-phase flow. The thtee-
phase example illustrates the effect of free gas satumtion
on oil recovery by watertkmdhtg.
Introduction
Simulation of naturally f!actumd reservoirs is a chaHeng-
ing task from both a nzservoir description and a
numerical standpoint. F1OWof fluids through the rese-
rvoir primarily is through the high-permeability, low-
effective-porosity fractures summnding individual
matrix blocks. The matrix blocks contain the majority of
0197-7s’20/s3m02-9wsso0.zs
Copynghl19S3SOCNIY01PewdaumErg- d AIME
42
the ~servoir PV and act as source or sink terms to the
fMCNIW. The rate of recovery of oil and gas from a frac-
tured mervoir is a timction of several vtiables, in-
cluding size and properties of matrix blocks and pmssum
and saturation history of the fmcture system. Ultimate
recovexy is influenced by block size, nettability, and
pressure and saturation history. Specific mechanisms
controlling matrix/fracture flow include water/oil im-
,.. -. . ..* :—L: .----- ~ttw *A %L-I
Cnoltlon, oil lmuibhiuu,
--./.-.:1 .4..,,; ” “s
UII UUW86W, a..- ..-.= e~-
pansion. The study of naturally fmctured reservoim has
been the subject of numemus papers over the last four
decades. These inciuue laboratory iiivestigations d oil
tecovery fmm individual matrix blocks and simulation of
single- and multiphase flow in fractured resemoim.
Wanen and Root i presented an analytical soiution for
single-phase, unsteady-state flow in a namrally fmctwed
resemoir and introduced the concept of dual porosity.
Their work assumed a continuous uniform fracture
system parallel to each of the principal axes of
permeability. Superimposed on this system was a set of
identical tectartgtdar parallelepipeds mpmsenting the
matrix blocks.
Manax and Kyte2 presented experimental results on
water/oil imbibition in labomtory core samples and
defined a dimensionless group that relates ~covery to
time. This work showed that recovexy time is propor-
tional to the squa~ root of matrix ptmneability divided
by porosity and is inversely pmpottional to the square of
the characteristic matrix i~iigtt.
Yamamoto et af. 3 developed a compositional model
of a single matrix block. Recovery mechanisms for
various-size blocks surrounded by oil or gas wete
studied. Gas/oil capillary pressure hysteresis was inciud-
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
~d to ~ccQuntfor the effect of ttapped gas on recovery. Following are the equations describing three-phase,
Braester4 gave an analytical solution for lD, horizon- 3D flow in the fmcture system written in finite difference
tal flow of two immiscible fluids through a fractured form.
porous medium. Capillary pressure was assumed equal
to zero in the fracture and nonzero in the matrix. The ef- Fracture Flow Equations
fect of pressure drop across a matrix block was included Water.
in the attdysis.
Previous multiphase, multidimensional simulations of A[Tw@p,, - ~wAD)]+Aw( .pwrn-.pw)—qw
natumlly fractured resemoirs include papers by Kazemi
et af. 5 and Rossen. 6 Kazemi treated two-phase water/oil
flow using block Gauss-Seidel to solve iteratively first S:WLIWSW), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
for fracture pressunx and water saturations using last
iterate matrix pressures and water satumtions. Next
matrix pressures and water satumtions were calculated
using last itenwe values of fmcture pressures and water od.
saturations. This process was repeated until convergence
was teached. No gravity terms were included in this AITo(Apo-ToAD)l +ho( Pom ‘Po)-90
work for matrkdfractme flow and they used the same
fmctu~ capiilaty pmssute and upstteam relative
pemneability for both matrix/fracmre and fmctum flow. =:q+boso), . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)
Twodimensional (areal) water/oil examples were
included.
Rossen’s model used input recove~ ctuves that wete a Gas.
function of p~ssure, matrix block pmpetties, and the
fluid enviromnent of the fmcttue system. These recovery A[Tg(@g -~g~)l+~g( pgm -Pg)
curves we~ differentiated with respect to pressure and
salutation and then were inciuded in a sequetttiai
p/Sw -Sg simulator as semi-implicit source terms. Com- +A(Toi?~@po -TOAD)] +AoRJ pm ‘Po)–9g
plete segregation of fluids was assumed in the fracture
system. Matrix blocks surrounded by gas were assumed
not to tmnsfer water from the matrix to the fracture, and =;~(&@g+@oR,SO). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)
matrix blocks surrounded by water were assumed not to
tmnsfer gas fmm the matrix to the fracttue. An example
was given simulating gas injection into an oil reservoir
with an initiaJ gas cap ~presented by a 2 x 25 grid with The A(pm -p) terms teptesent matrix/fracture fluid ex-
no communication except in the gas cap. change and act as source or sink terms in the fmctute
CV.tnwl With the ~~~qg~~rt of ~~e rn.ittm:x.!fm!aue
This paper presents the development of a ~D three- 0, =.”,ss. . . ,“.

phase, dual-porosity, finitediffenmce model for transfer tetms, the fractwe flow equations am the same
simulating naturally fractuted reservoirs. The formula- as those normally found in a conventional beta-type
tion is implicit in pmssute, water saturation, imd gas simulator.
saturation or saturation pressure for both mattix/fractu= Finite diffemmce equations describing matrix/fracture
flow and fmcture flow. We include provisions for flow am as follows.
calculating gravity, capillary pressure, and viscous
fomes for both matrix/fracture and fmcture flow, and Matrix/Fracture Flow Equations
hysteresis effects on both capillary pressure and relative Water.
permeability. We pment single-block studies to
demonstmte matritifmcture flow and simulation of this
term by the model. -Aw(pw-pw)=;3(@bwsw)m.
. . . . . . . . (4)
The model can be used to simulate primary depletion,
gas injection, and water injection in a natumlly fractured
teservoir. The degree of fracturing within the resemoir is 011.
described by input data and can vary fmm highly fmc-
tured regions in portions of the resewoir to unfractumd
regions in other areas. Examples are included of 3D -~o(Pom-PO) s:w$boso)m. . . . . . . . . (5)
field-scale water and gas injection.
Development of Flow Equations Gas.
The teservoir is assumed to comprise a continuous frac-
ture system filled with discontinuous matrix blocks.
Primary flow in the rese~oir occurs within the fractures ‘~g( p~m -P~)-~.Rs( P.m ‘p.)
with local exchange of fluids between the fractwe
system and marnx blocks. Each block is assumed to have
known properties and geometric shape, and all blocks =:s(t$bgSg +i$boR,So). ..... . . . . . . . . (6)
within a given grid block me assumed identical.
q~
FEBRUARY 1983
 The tmnsmissibilities between the matrix and fracture The CU coetllcients mpment partial derivatives of the
blocks are calculated as follows for the water equation accumulation temns evaluated at k-level conditions. For
example,

(7)
(14)

The coefficient u is a geometric factor that accounts for

the surface area of the matrix blocks per unit volume and c22=-:&b5 ........................(i5j
a characteristic iength associated with matrixifractwe
flow. This coefficient was introduced first by Warren ‘bk~
and Root who presented an equation for u for single- CZ3=–xtj)bo, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(16)
phase quasi-steady-state flow.
The preceding matritifracture flow equations assume
ID, horizontal flow between block centers of the matrix and
and fracture. To include the effect of gmvity in the flow
terms, we use pseudorelative permeability and capillary
nressuns curves 7.s for both the matrix and fracture. This CZ4= —
‘b@kS$b;~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
integration effectively reduces the physical flow from 3D At
to 2D. Fracture/fracture flow is evaluated by using input
fractwe capillary pressures, usually set equal to zero. where formation volume factor for oil is always
Eqs. 1 through 6 represent six equations in 12 calculated as a function of pressure and salutation
unknowns. Six additional equations—three for the frac- pmsuxe using the equation
ture, and three for the matrix expressing the sum of
sammtions bo=bo~+b’J~–p~). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(18)

Sw+so+sg=l, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(8) For conditions above and below the bubble point, only
three unknowns exist: P,, P2, and P3, where PI and P2
and capillary pressure relationships are ~p and 6SW, respectively, and P3 is equal to 6Sg for
saturated oil or dp~ for undersaturated oil. Thus, for
Pw=po-pw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9) saturated cells, dp~ is set equal to ~p and the Cw coeffi-
cients are added to the Cil coeftlcients. When a cell is
and undersaturated, ii$g is set equal to zero and the C~3coef-
ficients are set equal to the Cig vahes.
P cgo=Pg-PCJ> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(10)
Fracture Flow Terms
complete the set of 12 model equations. Fracmre flow terms a~ evaluated implicitly as follows
for the oil phase fracture flow term.
Accumulation Terms
The right sides of both the fmctute and matrix equations AITO(&O-TOM)l=AITO(& O–T.W)lk
am expanded as follows for the fmctum equations.
+A[T$ (Ac5p-A13Pcgo)]
v~
~t(4bwSw)=C116p+ Ci26Sw+C136Sg +(Ap-APcgo -~oAD)~aTo, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(19)

where
+(obwsw)~-(r$bwsw)n. ............... (11)
aP,,o
6P Cgo =-6s8, . . .... .. ... .. ... . ... . ..
l?sg
:N46JO)=C2, ap+czzbsw +c~@sg
and
C246p~+(@boSo)k -(4boSo)n. .......... [12) aro aTo
13T0= —f5sg+— Ww,p<p. . . . . . . . .. (21)
asg as.

or
:8(4bgsg +@boRsSo)=C316p+C326Sw aTo aTo
6T0 =—6p, + —15sw, p>p,. . . . . . . . ..(22)
ap, as.
+C33(5Sg +CMtip, +(@bgSg+q$boR$So)k
Relative permeabilities and PVT properties all are
evaluated at upstream condhions using latest iterate
-(@$gsg+@oJRJo)n. ................ (ig) vaiues of ptessure, satumtions, and satwation pressure.
1
I
44 SOCIETY
OFPETROLEUM
ENGINEERS
JOURNAL

I
M.++.
Lvmu.. .A,
lFm..-JAm
m--.”. - . “ .. ~~~m~
~llW TABLE l-DATA FOR SINGLE BLOCK EXAMPLES

Matrix/fracture flow terms in Eqs. 4, 5, and 6 am Permeability, rnd 1

calculated implicitly in a manner similar to the fracture Matrix porosity, % 0.3
flow terms with two exceptions: the aTo/ap$ derivatives
One-foot block
are not included for flow above the bubble point, and
special considerations a~ given to upstream relative Grid Olmensions 7x7x8
Grid Spacing ●: Ax= Ay=o.ol , 0.1, 0.2, 0.4,0.2, 0.1, 0.01 tt
permeabilities when flow is fmm the ftacture to the Az=o.ol, 0.1, 0.2, 0.2,0.2,0.2,0.1, 0.01 ft
matrix since flow is governed essentially by matrix prop- Ten-foot block
erties. Relative permeability to water is limited to matrix
Grid Dimensions 7x7x 8
kw evaluated at zero Pcw. Grid Spscing ●: &f= Ay=(t.Ool, 1,2,4,2, 1,0.001 ft
AZ%().L3-”
WI, “I,<,* -JC,A
n ,6,
.-l ,I, U.””?
nfi~, *!.
“Fracture valuesareincluded.
kw =kw(Pm=O)S@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(23)

The term Sw accounts for the fractional covemge of a

grid block by water. Oil relative permeability is
calculated as Rate Calculations
Production rates are calculated semi-implicitly as a func-
km =km(Sw,Sg)mSo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(24) tion of water and gas satumtions and saturation pmssum,
and, optionally, as a function of pressure and wellbore
where krO(SW ,Sg )~ is evaluated using Stone’s9 pmssute. For example, oil production fmm a saturated
equation: well producing against a constant bottomhole pmsstm
(BHP) is evaluated as
km =( kw+kmw)(k,g +k,og)-(knv+krg). . . . . (25)
aqo aqo aqo *S
Gas relative permeability is calculated at a matrix gas qon+l ‘q:+ —tip+ —Mw+- (29)
satumtion of one minus residual oil to gas minus ir- ap as. asg “ ““”
reducible water saturation,

km= krg(l-SOrg-SWc)S@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (26) aqo

—=Pfj, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (30)
For flow from the matrix to the fracture, matrix satura- ap
tions are used to evaluate dative permeabilities and aqo
capillaty pressures from input values. —= b&df#&t, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(31)
Hysteresis in both the matrix gadoil and water/oil as.
telative permeability and capillary pmssum is incor- and
porated in the model. The hysteresis model, which in- aqo
cludes dminage, imbibition, scanning curves, tmpped —=b:q$fo/asg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (32)
gas, trapped oil, residual oil, and residual gas, is similar asg
to that proposed by Killough.’0 In this work, however,
the scanning functions are assumed reversible. For wells producing a specified constant oil rate, water
Trapped-gas samtation is defined as the gas saturation and gas rates are evaluated as follows for the water mte
at which the gss/oil capillary pressure becomes zero, and
trapped-oil saturation is defined in a similar manner for a aqw
water/oil system. %WI+I= %$+-NW! . . ..-. ..”- $.. ”.. ”’””(33)
Residual-gas samrations are calculated using the equa- as.
tion developed by Land, 11 where

Sgu . .......
s =—
“ 1+ csg/j
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)
%=(%59’-’s’”
(34)
The term SgH i: ~ maximum historical gas satumtion. An option also is included in the model to perturb rates
Drainage, imbibmon, and scanning gasi’oii Capiiiav” from ~.rnen m~er ~ from k. ‘Thefonmdation is iden-
pressures are evaluated as a function of gadoil surface tical to the one preceding except that all quantities
tension 12,13at block pressure evaluated at level k ate evaluated at time n, and 6 terms
such as ~p are written as 6P.

P -a- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (28)
Solution of Flow Equations
.-a =zPcgo!. -1 ne- u- mud
—.-l- cquuhulla
----- :-... &=
u]
●
J=Mu&W .0 &
-- m.+,.-.n~ “ ennn.atinqc
.Y—..w.. in ... 6
●

unknowns by substitution of Eqs. 8, 9, and 10 for the

matrix and fracture into Eqs. 1 through 6. A tiu’ther
The term P.gol corresponds to input capillary pressuns reduction in the number of unknowna can be made by
values calculated using surface tension, u I. eliminating matrix unknowns in terms of fractute values.
FEBRUARY 1983
 TABLE 2-PVT DATA FOR SINGLE-BLOCK AND 3D EXAMPLES TABLE 3-RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA
FOR SINGLE-BLOCK AND 3D EXAMPLES
Pressure BO P,j.
(psig) (RBISTB) (R%) (sc%TB) (Cp) & (dyn~/cm) P Cwo
i%) km k
1674.0 1.3001 0.00198 367.0 ~ 0.0162 6.0 —&!L

2031.0 1.3359 0.00162 447.0 0.467 0.0171 4.7 0.20 0.0 1.& 50.0
2530.0 1.3891 0.00130 564.0 0.436 0.0164 3.3 0.25 0.005 0.860 9.0
2991.0 1.4425 0,00111 679.0 0.397 0.0197 2.2 0.30 0.010 0.723 2.0
3553.0 1.5141 0.000959 832.0 0.351 0.0213 1.26 0.35 0.020 0.600 0.5
4110.0 1.5938 0.000855 1000.o 0.310 0.0230 0.72 0.40 0.030 0.492 0.0
4544.0 1.6630 0.000795 1143.0 0.278 0.0244 0.444 0.45 0.045 0.392 -0.4
4935.0 1.7315 0.000751 1265.0 0.246 0.0255 0.255 0.50 0.060 0.304 -1.2
5255.0 1.7953 0.000720 1413.0 0.229 0.0265 0.155 0.60 0.110 0.154 -4.0
5545.0 1.6540 0.000696 1530.0 0.210 0.0274 0.090 0.70 0.180 0.042 -10.0
7000.O 2.1978 0.000600 225s.tl 0.109 C.0330 C.05Q Q.?s g.~~Q 0.0 -40.0

Original bubble point, pS19 5,545

Pw
SIOPS Of b. above Pb >vO1/vOkPsi
Density of stock-tank oil, lbm/cu ft
0.000012
51.14 (t) km kW (psi)
slope Of jL. a~ve Pb ! c@Psi 0.0000172 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.075
Gas density at standard conditions, lbm/cu ft 0.058 0.1 0.015 0.70 0.065
Water formation volume factor, psig 1.07 0.2 0,050 0.45 0.095
Water compressibility, voUvol-psi 3.5(10 -6) 0.3 0.103 0.25 0.115
Water viscosity, cp 0.35 0.4 0.190 0.11 0.145
Water density at standard conditions, Ibm/cu ft 65 0.5 0.310 0.028 0.255
Matrix compressibility, vol/vol-psi 3.5(10 -6) 0.55 0.420 0.0 0.386
Fracture compressibility, vol/vol-psi 3.5(10 -’3)

Elimination of Matrix Unknowns basic recovexy mechanisms and to demonstmte the

After expanding the matrix/fracture flow equations in
totally implicit form, the resulting equations are written
mathematically in matrix form as
~ms,#+& . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:. @5)
where Pm is the column vector with elements 6Pm,
6s ~, and 6Sg~, and P is the column vector with
elements 6P. MW, and CWg.Using Gaussian elimination,
Pm is expressed in terms of P as
P (36)
-m =/!’ P+El’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The m3tIiX/fmCNre flow terms, Eqs. 4, 5, and 6, now
can be written in terms of fracture unknowns. Substitu-
tion of either the right or left sides of Eqs. 4 through 6 in-
to Eqs. 1 through 3 can be made. In this work, the right
side accumulation terms were used to allow easy
modification of the model for additional transfer
mechanisms such as those discussed in the Appendix.
Solution Technique
A42.- ieuuvmig
nwst .4..-:-- ,i.~
LUG+1~.
Mu+, QYW.IUUS.“
~a,,”f.nn. +fi~h-
“..-- ,am,l~~;nm=
_q_..w... an~
-t-
hree fracmm unknowns, a simultaneous solution for all
three unknowns is obtained using the reduced bandwidth
direct solution method ptvsented by I%ce and Coats. 14
Next, matrix unknowns m evaluated using Eq. 36.
Following each itemtion, saturation checks are made and
coefficients are m-evaluated. Convergence criteria am
based either on maximum pmssum change over the last
itemtion or on the absolute sum of residuals divided by
total production/injection.
SiigIe Matrix Block Studies
Detailedsimulations of single matrix blocks surrounded
by water or gas are presented in this section to illustrate
46
validity of the postulated matrix/fracture tmnsfer equa-
tions. One- and ten-ft (0.3- and 3.O-m) cubic matrix
blocks of intermediate nettability and absolute
permeability of 1.0 md were modeled. Grid dimensions
and matrix properties for these suns an? shown in Table
1. PVT data me presented in Tabie 2 and matrix reiative
permeability and capilla~ pressure data an given in
Table 3. Gas/oil capillary pmssute was calculated as a
function of pressure according to the variation of surface
tension with presswe.
Water/Oil
Water/oil imbibition above the bubble point was mod-
,, . J.__ .l-
eiea oy surraunaing me m2iriXA1--1-.....L .------ -,&W,~m-
uiuwi WIUIWUWIa\
psig (43 MPa). Fracture water/oil capillary ptesswe was
set equal to zem and fmcture water xelatlve pemneability
was set equal to the value corresponding to zem capillary
pressure to simulate the boundary condition at the face of
the block. Oil ~covery vs. time for the 1-and 10-ft (0.3-
and 3-m) blocks is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, n?spectively.
Recove~ ti’om the l-ft (0.3-m) block essentially was
complete at the end of 10 days, while the imbibition
process was still active in the 10-ft (3-m) black after 2
years. Note that the ultimate recovery from the 10-ft
,- .... block
(%m) -- -34,2%, compared with 26% for the l-ft
------ is
(0.3-m) block. This additional ~covery occurs because
of a larger gravity head for the lo-ft (3-m) block.
Ultimate recovery comespands to a water satumtion
where watdoil capillary pressme equals minus one-half
the block height times the difference in water and oil
densities.
Calculated recovery using the fracnue model with a
single
---- cell ---
and values of u equal to 25 and 0.25 for the 1-
and lo-tt (U.+ and 3-mj biacks, tispectiveiy, is iii ex-
cellent agreement with the 3D, single-block results.
Warren and Root’s equation for u,
4N(N+2)
u= . (37)
L* ‘ ““””””””””””””””””””””””””
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 gives a value of 60 for the l-ft (0.3-m) block and 0.6 for 50 t I
the 10-ft (3-m) block. The above difference in u values is
not surprising since Warren and Root’s vaiue is for
~“r
I ●

- 3G tiGcEL
FRACTURE MODEL
J
I
single-phase quasi-steady-state fiow and the values
shown here are for transient countemwrent flow.
Calculating

A
u =—. . . . . . . . . . .$..,.,<,............ (38)
LVb ‘

... ;-- .-. ---

ualbs~utiu -id l~nurh vaiU~~ ~~~~ponding
.w..~”. the cen- to
o~
o 20 40 60 80
tmid of one of the six equilateral pyramids in a cube of TIME, DAYS
side L, yields Fig. l-Water imbibition recovery, l-ft block.

36.6
=—. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . (39)
u L2

]
601
1
50 L I
. ..--, v~ues for u of 36.6 and 0.366 are obtained from
Thus.

this equation for the 1- and 10-ft (0,3- and 3-m) blocks.
Kazemi proposed an equation for u,
r I

0=4
(
111
—+—+—
L: L; L? )
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (40)

which was derived on the basis of a length between

matrix and fracture nodes and gives values for u of 12 for
the i -ft @.3-mj bbcic and 0. i2 frJrtiie iO-ft @-t@ biOCk.
The single-cell fracture model results were obtained us-
ing pseudo water/oil dative permeability and capillary
plessule.
o~
[r”
1

o
●
●
●

1
-
● FRACTURE MODEL
30 MODEL

2 3
I

TIME, YEARS
Fig. 2-Water imbibition reeovery, ltl-ft block.
GaalOil
Oil recovery from matrix blocks with gas in the fracttms
was modeled using a depletion mte of 0.75 psi/D (5.2
I&a). Initial ptessum was set equal to 5,540 psig (38
MPa). Gravity drainage is the primary producing

1
mechanism and occurs when the difference between oil ● FRACTURE MODEL
and gas densities times block height is greater than the 40 - 30 MODEL
M I
gas/oil capillary tlueshold pressure. 15Ultimate recovery *-
corresponds to a saturation distribution whete capilla~ g 30
>
. and gmvity forces are equal. Recovery fmm the 1- and Q
10-fi (0.3- and 3-m) blocks vs. time is shown in Figs. 3 g 20
and 4. Ultimate tecovety for the 1-ft (0.3-m) block is
s
10%, which is obtained in fewer than 60 days, while 10 -
ultimate tecovery for the Io-ft (3-m) block is equal to
46%, which is teached in 2.5 years. 0
Excellent agreement between recoveries from the 0 20 40 So So
single+ell fmcture model and the 3D values was ob- TIME, DAYS
.. :--4 ..using
tamcu
--- u- ...1..*. # ? n --r! n (1? frw
VmUGa 01 &.U ~t,= -.va
fh~ 1- ~0~ i~fi
.W. . .. . Fig. 3-Gaa/oil drainage raeovary, l-ft block.
(0.3- and 3-m) blocks, respectively. These geometric
coefficients were derived assuming lD vertical flowl
which chamcterizes the gravity drainage process. For
this case, L in Eq. 38 is evaluated as one-half of the
matrix height and A is equal to the area of the base. The
single-cell fmctute model results wete obtained using
gadoil capillary pseudopressums as a function of both
gas saturation and pressure, and pseudo gaa/oil relative
permeabilities at the initial pmssum. Table 4 gives the
pseudodata at 5,545 psig (34 MI%).
FEBRUARY 1983 47
TABLE 4-GASIOIL PSEUDODATA TABLE 5—GA!MOIL lMBIBITtON SCANNING CURVES
AT 5,545 paig AT 4,500 paig

P sgH =0.1 SQH=0.2 Sq” =0.3 S*M=0,4

(2) (;5 & km P P P P,&
7i?i- -0.74 0.0 1.0 ;J) ~ (p%) & (;$ km (:% km (psi)
0.05 -0.47 0.026 0.69 0.076 0.0 -2.0 — — — —
0.10 -0.33 0.062 0.80 0.130 0.015 -0.91 0.0 -To – – – –
0.20 -0.06 0.14 0.62 0.167 0.025 -0.17 0.037 -0.68 0.0 -2.0 — –
0.30 0.21 0.21 0.44 0.193 0.032 0.36 0.045 0.25 0.022 -0.58 0.0 -2.0
0.40 0.48 0.29 0.25 n 9tl
“--- ~,Q34 b.bq Q,Q~ ~,~~ 0:028 -0.20 0.022 -1.04
0.50 0.75 0.37 0.070 0.30 0.103 0.57 0.103 0.57 0.103 0.57 0.090 0.018
0.55 1.27 0.420 0.0 0.40 0.190 0.73 0.19 0.73 0.19 0.73 0.19 0.73

Three-Phase Example Problems

Water imbibition below the bubble point into the 1047 Kazemi et d Five-Spot Exsmple
(3-m) block was modeled at 4,500 psig (34 MPa) stafi- A comparison of nxults from this paper with previous
ing with input gas saturations of 0.4, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1, mults is pnzsented in this example which was given first
and 0.1 in Layers 1 through 6, respectively, by surround- by Kazemi et al. Water is injected into onequaner of a
ing the block with water. The gas/oil imbibition scan- five-spot at a rate of 200 STB/D (31.8 m3/d) and pr-
ning curves for each of the above saturations are given in oductionis set at a total liquid rate of210 STB/D (33.4
Table 5. m3/d). The reservoir is assumed to be fractured unifoon-
For the single block calculations, residual gas was ly and was modeled using a 2D grid. Reservoir dimen-
calculated using a value of C equal to 2.667 in Land’s sions and properties are given in Tables 6 and 7. Effec-
equation. Straight-line scanning curves between max- tive fracture permeability was calculated as
imum gas saturation and residual gas saturation we~
used for gas/oil relative permeability and capillary
pressule. Ke=~Kf. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(41)
Fig. 5 shows oil recovery vs. time. Ultimate oil (pf+r$m
recovery for this example was 47%, which is appro-
ximately13% higher than the recovery from the water/oil Upstream n?lative penneabilities were used by Kazemi et
example above the bubble point. Fig. 5 also shows a al...L.—C—--L.
with ~w .–~d—-—–.:..
k ~~ calculated
_..-.-.:_- as a direct function of ---:11 --- -—. ”..-”
comparison between calculated recovery fmm the singie- emner rmcturc or mawrx sdturauun. uiiputary prcasuim

cell fracture model and the detailed 3D model and given in Table 7 were used for both matrix/fmctum flow
tepmsents an excellent match. A geometric coefficient, and flow from one fracture cell to another. Timesteps
u, of 0.02 was used during the period in which the block wem calculated automatically using a maximum fractute
...-.
Wat
.SU1lUU1lUGU
...- .. ..A-Ak.. . . . alms
Uy &Ia,
.-A a. u- U1
.-.+-
n 9K ..,,..
w.Ad
,..-.-l .,&a.
wait UmGU alLG1
cstilmtinn
-.”. -..”..
rhmmm
-..-.~-
nf(l 11~ ad
“. “.”-
an anrmn=nt
. ...- -. -y~-------
mnximnrn
. -------------
cten
---r

surrounding the block with water. In general, u is
calculated in the model using the gas/oil value, Ug, if
S@ is equal to zero, Sti is greater than zero, and pOmis
greater than pO~.Otherwise, u is calculated using the
water/oil value, u ~.
size of 20 days. A total of 81 timesteps were ~quired.
Water breakthrough for this example occumed after
approximately 30 days, but water production remained
relatively low for the first 2 years because of imbibition
of water into the matrix rock and countercurrent flow of

r
::[ .~
●
a
UJ
:30-
$
./ ● FRACTURE MODEL a20- ● FRACTURE MODEL
- 30 MOOEL
- 30 NOOEL
3--1 I
10 -
I
0
o
{

1 2 3 4
o~o 1 2 3 4
TIME, YEARS TIME, YEARS

Fig. &-Gas/oil drainage recovery, 104 block. Fig. 5-Thrae-phaee, water imbibition recovev, 104t block.

48 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL

 TABLE 6-KAZEMI et al. FIVE-SPOT EXAMPLE

Initial pressure, psia 3,959.89

Thickness, ft 30
Gnd dimensions 8x8
Grid spacing, Ax= Ay (ft) 75
TABLE 7-RELATIVE PERMEABILITY DATA
Fracture porosity, % 0.01
Matrix porosity, % 0.19
FOR KAZEMI et al. EXAMPLE
Fracture permeability (effective), md 500
PM
Matrix permeabilii, md
(%) kti kti (psi) ~
Matrixshape factor, aq ft 0.0; ——
Water compressibility, voilvol-psi 3.03(10-6) TF 1.000 4.00 —
Bubble point pressure, psia o 0.1 0.05 0.770 1.85 —
Water and oil formation 0.2 0.11 0.587 0.90 – —
volume factor at the bubble point, RB/STB 1.0 0.25 0.145 0.519 0.725 0.000 0.920 4.00
Slops of b. above p~, vol/voi-psi O.OOOO1O3O83 0.3 0.180 0.450 0.55 0.020 0.705 2.95
Fracture compressibility, vollvol-psi 3(10-6) 0.4 0.260 0.330 0.40 0.055 0.420 1.65
Water viscosity, cp 0.5 0.5 0.355 0.240 0.28 0.100 0.240 0.65
Oil viscosity, cp 2 0.6 0.475 0.173 r3.2(3 0.145 0.110 0.30
Water density, psi/ft 0.4444 0.7 0.585 0.102 0.16 0.200 0.0 0.00
Oildensity, pailft 0.3611 0.6 0.715 0.057 0.11 — —
Water injection rate, STB/D 0.9 0.850 0.021 0.05 — —
Total production rate, STS/D 210 1.0 1.000 0.0 0.0 – —

oil into the fracture system. By the end of 1,200 days,
water saturation in the fractwe at the injection cell was
0.97 and water saturation in the matrix was 0.58. Similar
values were obtained by Kazemi et al.
A comparison of water/oil ratio from this work with
that calculated by Kazemi et af. is shown in Fig. 6 and is
quite good considering that we used inteqrolated values
of dative permeability and capillary psessu~.
An additional run using a maximum step size of 3
months was made to test the stability of the model. The
number of timesteps used in this run was 48 and the oil
recovery from the two runs was essentially identical.
Both simulations presented here tequimd two iterations
per timestep to converge to a pmssum tolemnce of 0.1
psi (0.7 kPa) and the material balances wem 1.0000 for
both water and oil at the end of the nuts.
Three-Dimensional Examples
Several 3D, field-scale examples are presented to
demonstrate the utility of the model and to illustrate the
nature of fluid flow in fractured resewoirs. A linear sec-
tion of reservoir between a production and injection well
was modeled in each example. Areally, the msewoir was
divided into thee cress sections with widths of 800,400,
and 800 ft (244, 122, and 244 m), respectively. Vertical-
ly, five layers each having a thickness of 50 fi ( 15.2 m)
wexe used. In the x ditection, the resetvoir was divided
into ten 200-fi (61-m) grid blocks. Because of the sym-
met~ line through the wells, only one-half of the reser-
voir was actually modeled using a 10x2x 5 grid.
Matrix pmneability and porosity wem set equal to 1
md and 0.29, and the effective fmcture permeability and
porosity were 10 md and 0.01, respectively. Matrix

PRODUCTION INJECTION
WELL WATER-OIL EXAMPLE WSLL
5 FRACTURE 50% SW CONTOUR
+ J

0
-o 1 2 3
TIME, YEARS
Fig. 6-Kazemi’s five-spot example.

I I
Fig. 7-Water/oil example fracture 50% S ~ contour.

FEBRUARY 1983 49
 100 flowing bottomhole pressure of 7,400 psig (51.02 MPa)
●,O
was used to control water injection after pressure buildup
near the well. Total liquid rate was set equal to 4,000
/ STWD (636 m3 /d).
/
Water/oil rdative permeability and capillary pressure
for the matrix is shown in Table 3. We used straight-line
/
fracture dative pemteabilities with zero and one as end-
● points and capillaty pmssums equal to zero. Rock and
water/oil pseudocurves for this example are essentially
. /. :>--.:
luenu~~--1 iiUu
-_A Ullly
.--1.. -....1.
IVLfiW_..-.a”
VGS
aAG
- Wa *,.-.-I .
oh. -...,”
SIIUWil. VV S, U-U u

matrix shape factor equal to 0.25, which was derived

●
/ from the single block studies for a 104I (3-m) block sur-
rounded by water.
20 / p~~~~re ~Q~ wa~~r ~tumtion contoum in both the
●

o
l_/ ●
, I I 1
center and outside cross sections at 1, 3, and 7 years are
shown in Fig. 7. Note the gravity segregation that occurs
0 2 4 -6 8 10 in the fracture system, resulting in water undernmning
oil. Matrix saturation contouts are similar in shape and
TIME, YEARS illustrate the water/oil imbibition process for blocks sur-
t Fig. S-Water injection example. rounded by water.
Fig. 8 shows water cut vs. time for this example.
Water breakthrough occurred at approximately 1.5
years, Watercut increased gradually, having a value of
PRODUCTION INJECTION 56% at 6 years and 92% at 10 years.
WELL GAS - OIL EXAMPLE, WELL
Total recovery at the end of 10 years was 35 % OOIP.
This tecovery figure is essentially the same as that ob-
tained in the 10-ft (3-m) water/oil single-block study and
indicates that recovery is complete.
This example took 114 timesteps with an average of
2.18 itemtionslstep. The example was repeated using a
maximum satumticm change of 0.3 and a maximum
timestep size of 0.50 years. This run took 41 steps (3.1
itemtionslstep) with an avemge step size of 0.24 years.
Water cut at the end of 10 years was 90.5% and oil
recove~ was within 0.7% of the smaller timestep nm.
I 2 VEARS

—---l
Water and oil material balances at the end of the mns
we~ both i .0000.
Gas Inj-ion
In this example, 90% of the produced gas was tein-
jected, resulting in partial pressure maintenance. Injec-
tion rates wem based on gas production mtes at time n.
Initial production mte was setequal to 2,000 STB/D
Fig. 9-Gardoil eXam@e.fMture WwSg contour. (318 m3/d) and a maximum drawdown of 150 psig (1
MPa) was applied to the well to simulate declining pro-
duction with increasing GOR. Rock gas/oil relative
permeabilities and capillay pressutes are given in Table
blocks were assumed to be 10-fi (3-m) cubes. A detailed 3. Pseudocuwes were input as a function of both satura-
list of fluid and reservoir propefiies is given in Table 2. tion and ptessuR, and two-way inteqmlation was used to
Initial pmsum in the reservoir was set equal to 6,200 calculate specific values. Data at 5,545 psig (38 MPa)
psig (43 MPa) at the center of Layer 1. Both wells were are shown in Table 4. We used a value of u equal to 0.02
perforated in all five layers. Layer productivity indices derived from the single-block study for 104I (3-m)
(excluding kr/Bp) wem set equal to 1.0 darcy-ft (0.3 m). blocks sumounded by gas.
Timesteps we~ controlled automatically using a max- Injected gas in the fracture system near the well quick-
imum salutation change of 0.10, an initial and minimum ly sammted the oil. Afier the free gas phase was formed,
step size of 0.01 year, and a maximum step size of 0.2 gravity segregation occurred with gas rapidly moving
J . . . . T~aM~Sq ~~~ ~n~re~s ftDrn.one step to the next
vt=ar ~cm~~~$e ~ep iayer of Lbemwrv~ir, Ga_sbM_kth_mugh
was limited to 1.5 times the previous step size. A resulted after only 0.2 years, and, by the end of 1 year,
pressure tolerance of 0.5 psi (3.45 kPa) was used in dl the gas saturation in the top producing cell was 0.12.
mns. Saturation of the matrix blocks took considembly longer,
with some of the bottom blocks becoming saturated only
Water Injection after the memoir pnessure was reduced to the original
In this example, water was injected into the nxervoir at bubble-point pressure of 5,545 psig (38 MPa). Contours
an initial rate of 7,000 B/D (1113 m3 /d). A maximum of 50 % gas saturation at 2,4, and 8 years for the fracture
50 SOCIETY
OFPETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL
,,

are given in Fig. 9.

GOR vs. time for this example is shown in Fig. 10. 120000 ●

1/
GOR increased sharply after 3 years’ operation and m
reached a value of 118,000 scf/STB (21 254 std 1-
m3/stock-tank m3) after 9 years. Average pressure in <100000
&
the reservoir at this time was approximately 3.500 psig Q

/
(24 MPa). Oil recovery after 9 years was 15.4%. 0
This mn took a total of71 timeste~s, averaging 3 itera-
~- 80000
tions/step, corresponding to an avemge step ~ize of 0.13 t- ●
4

I
years. = 60000
~
Gas and Water Injection o J
& 40000
The effect of gas injection for a period of time followed a
a
by water injection is demonstrated in this example. The
first 4 years’ simulation are identical to the gas injection 20000 /“
example presented earlier. By the end of 4 years, the /“
GOR in the producing well had risen to approximately
13,000 scf/STB (2342 std m 3/stock-tank m 3), and the 0 .-.4-”’1 ‘ I I I
0246810
average pressure had dropped to 4,700 psig (32 MPa).
TIME, YEARS
Starting at the end of the fowth year, the injection well
was switched fmm as to water injection at a rate of Fig. 10—Gas injection example.
7,000 B/D (1113 m ! /d). A maximum flowing BHP of
6,000 psig (41 MPa) was employed. At the producing
well, a minimum bottomhole flowing pmssun of 4,300
psig (30 MPa) and a maximum drawdown of 150 psig ( 1
MPa) were applied.
Following the initiation of water injection, the GOR at
80
the producing well declined sharply (Fig. 11), until it
reached approximately 1,350 scf/STB (243.2 std
m3/stock-tank m3), corresponding to solution GOR.
Water breakthrough in the producing well occumd in
approximately 1.5 yearn.
Residual gas for this example was calculated using
Land’s equation with a C value of 2.667. Thus, a matrix
block with a maximum gas saturation of 0.30 would
have a midual gas saturation of approximately 0.17 024681012 1416
TIME, YEARS
after water imbibition at constant pressure. Gas satura-
tion contours in the matrix blocks at 10 years am shown Fig. 1l-Three-phaee example.
in Fig. 12. This figure illustmtes the higher trapped gas
at the top of the resemoir where significant gravity
dminage had occtmed. Oil recove~ at the end of 16
years was equal to 33.8 ?4 and the water cut was equal to
75%. PRODUCTION INJECTION
WELL THREE PHASE EXAMPLE, WELL
The 12 years of water flooding in this example took ? MATRIX 10% Sg CONTOUR AT 10 YEARS 1
i48 timesteps using a maximum fmcture saturation .
change of 0.1, and 99 timesteps using a maximum frac-
NR salutation change of 0.2. In the latter run, fmm 6 to
16 years the timestep size was limited by the maximum
step size of 0.2 years. The number of iterations per
timestep for the two mns was 2.6 and 3.1, respectively.
Oil recoveries fmm the two runs were within 0.3%.

Discussion
Itis interesting to compare the mcove~ from the lo-ft
~... .-
I
(3-m) single-block run surrounded by gas with the
recovery from the 3D field-scale gas injection simula-
tion. The single-block example resulted in an ultimate I
recovery of 47 %, while the 3D field example recovered
only 15%. The primary reason for this disparity is that
1 I
gas segregation to the top of the reservoir allowed only
the upper part of the formation to dtain oil. Also, gassing 4

zones in the lower pat of the memoir potentially could Fig. 12-Three-phaee example, matrix 10% Sg contour at 10
imbibe oil. years.

FEBRUARY 1983 51
 To study the effect of better gas coverage, which D= depth measured positive downward,
might be obtained in a muitiiayereci reservoir with ft (in)
limited crussflow, an additional run was “madeusing a f= fractional flow
vettical/horizontal permeability ratio of 0.1. This run ex- k= formation permeability, md
hibited less gravity segregation than the previous one, k, = dative permeability
but as a result of early gas breakthrough in all layetw L = length, ft (m)
recove~ was only 10.7% by the time a 100.000 GOR
N= number of normal sets of fractures
was reached after only after 6 years’ operation.
p= pressute, psia (kPa)
Oil recovery from the water-injection example was
~~~nti~!!y Lie ~atrn.ess ~h~ @!e-block results, in- p= = capillary pressure, psi (kPa)
dicating that gravity segregation was not a significant pi = vector of unknowns
problem for this case and that good vefiical and anxd Ps = saturation pressure, psia (kPa)
coverage by water wem obtained. Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
The 3D, thee-phase example illustmtes the effect of (kPa)
trapped gas on oil recovery. By the end of 12 years’ q = production rate, STB/D or scf/D (std
water injection following 4 years’ gas injection, a m3Id)
recovery almost equal to uitimate water flood recovery
qT = total production rote, RB/D (res
was ~ached. The water cut at this time was 75% and
m3 Id)
ultimate recovery was projected to ‘be37%. Resuits from
qmF = matrix/fmcture flow, STB/D or scf/D
the time-phase single-block run indicated 47%
recove~. Obviously, this value of recovery can be ob- (std m3/d)
tained in a field-scale project only if complete gas R, = solution gadoil ratio, scf/STB (std
coverage is attained prior to waterflooding and if m3/m3)
pressure is not increased to a level where the residual gas s = saturation, fraction
goes back into solution. s@ = maximum gas sanuation for
hysteresis calculation
Conclusions t = time, days
This paper ptesents the development of a 3D, three- T = fmctwe transmissibility, 0.001127
phase model for simulating the flow of fluids in a (kA/L)bkJp, STBID-psi
naturally fractured reservoir. There a~ four specific ad-
[2.6 (10 ‘5) (kA/L)bkr/~,
vancements in this work.
ml m
--- .-. 3 Id.
— ~_Pa]
1. We describe a highly stable fommlation that tteats
both fracture flow and matrix fracture flow implicitly in v~ = bulk volume, res bbl (res m3)
pressure, water satumtion, gas saturation, and satmation Vp = pore volume, res bbl (ms m3)
pressulw w= fiactum width, cm (in.)
2. The implicit treatment of matrixhcture flow X,y,z = Cartesian cocmhates
nmcmntd
p------
h-m
..-.=
r~n
-=.
hP
.-
rwwfnrmed
~-.--....-_
W~Lh ~S.~n~~i~ aO ad- Y= specific weight, psi/ft (kPa/m)
ditional work per iteration compamd to the sequential ap- & = iteration difference, &=xk+ 1-xk
proach used by Kazemi et af. and results in a more stable 3 = time step difference,
and ei%cient model. a=ai=xn+[ +Xn
3. The matrix/fmcture flow equation developed in this At= time increment, rn+ 1- tn
paper accurately matches detailed simulations of two-
A(TAp) = AX(TXAXP)
phase, water/oil and gas/oil flow processes as well as
+Ay(TyAyP)+AZ(TZAZP)
three-phase flow. Provisions are included for modeling
the gravity term, for properiy calculating dative A(TXAXP) = Ti+%(pi+l -pi) -Ti-lA@i–pi-l)
petmeabilities as a function of both up- and downstream A = matrix/fmcture tmnsmissibility,
conditions and hysteresis, and for evaluating the ap- S’ITI/D-psi (m3/d. kPa)
propriate geometric factor depending on the environment viscosity, cp (Pa. S)
of the fracnue system. density, iiimicu tl (kghn3 j
4. We give two- and three-phase, 3D examples that matrix shape factor, l/sq ft (1/m2 ) or
demonstrate the utility of the model and provide insight surface tension, dyne/cm (mN/m)
into the nature of multiphase flow in natukally fractured porosity
resemoirs. @i = porosity at initial conditions, fraction
Nomenclature
A = ma, sq fi (m*) superscripts
b = formation volume factor, STWRB or k = iteration level
# = derivative at kth iteration level
scf/RB (m3 /m3)
B = fortnation volume factor, RB/STB or
RB/scf (m3/m3) subscripts
C = accumulation term pmiai derivatives e = effective
~ = ~Q~-P~.~~ihi!i~, ‘Qi/vQi-~i f = fmctufe or fomkation
(vol/vol” kPa) g = gas
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM
ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 i? J* k = grid block indices mulation offers definite advantages over a strictly se-
m = matrix quential approach, especiall for conventional nonfrac-
n = time step level tured resetvoir simulation. #
o = oil Matrix/Fracture Transfer
r = residual
In addition to flow contributions from capillary ptessure,
s = saturation pressure
gravity, and viscous forces within matrix blocks,
w= water
matrix/fracture flow may result fmm a pressure gtadient
across the matrix block and from diffusion of gas fmm a
Acknowledgments satutated ftactttre cell to an undemammted matrix block
We thank Phillips Petroleum Co. for permission to during gas injection. Inclusion of these terms in the
publish this paper. matrix/ftactute flow equations results in the following
equations.
References
.
1. Wan-en, J.E. andRoot,P.J.:‘The Behaviorof NaturallyFrac- L=
in<?.*.C <=
mredReservoirs,”’
Sot. Per. Eng. J’.(*pi. 1YOJ
) L4J-JJ. ?wnsf=hw( Pwm ‘P.) +}’. —A”
7WJ!= . . . . . . . (A-1)
.. . . .
2. Matrax. C.C. and Kyte. J.R.: “Imbibition Oil Recovesy frum LB
Fractured, Water-Drive Reservoir, ”’ Sot. Per. &rg. J. (June
1%2) 177-84.
3. Yarnarnoto, R.H.et aL: ‘-CompositionalReservoir Simulator for
m.-.,.-,.! 0,C.,..m
,-,,W,SU .,als-
T1.-
1 ,,t.
~;,.”1-.llln,-l. .Mn,i.al
.J,,,&v”w..l. ... . .,
,, kc. P., t7”0
. . . . -.. a.
j
. .
LC
(June 1971) 113-28. qomf=Aoi Pom -po)+~o —&ofl . . . . . . . . . (~-~j
4. Bmester, C.: “Simultaneous Flow of Immiscible Liquid Through
LB
PorousMedia,“’SoC.Per. Errg. J. (Aug. 1972) 297-305.
5. Kazemi, H. er aL: ‘“Numcricai Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in and
Natumlly Fractured Reservoirs.” .%x. Per. Eng. J. (Dec. 1976)
317-26.
6. Rossen. R. H.: “Simulation of Namrally Fractured Reservoirs qgmf=hgt Pgm ‘Pg)+hg ~%f
with Semi-Implicit SourceTerms,” Sac. Per. Eng. J. (June 1977)
201-10.
7. Coats. K.H. er al.: “Simulation of Three-Dimensional, Two-
PhaseFlow in Oil and Gas Reservoirs,”’SoC. Per. Eng. J. @cc. +WJ P.. –Po)+~o&&wof
1%7) 377-g8.
8. Coats, K.H., Dempsey, J.R., and Henderson.J.H.: “The Use of
Vertical Equilibrium in Two-Dimensional Simulation of Three-
Dimensional Reservoir Performance,””Sot. Per. Eng. J. (March
+Ag~(boR,m -b oR ~,
f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-3)
1971) 63-71.
9. Stone, H. L.: “Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Perrneabdity
and Residual Oil Data,”’ J. C&s. Per. Tech. (Oct. 1973) 53-61. whete
10. Killough, J.E.: “’Reservoir Simulation with History-Dependent
SaturationFunction.” Sot. Per. Eng. J. (Feb. !976) 374.
11. Land, C. S.: “Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Ap = pressure dmp across matrix block,
Two- and Three-phase Flow Fmm Rock Properties,’”Sot. Per. LB = distance over which Ap acts,
Eng. J. (June 1%8) 149-56. LC = characteristic length for matrix/fracture
12. KaQ, D. L., Monroe, R. R., and Ttainer, R. P.: “Surface Tension
of Crude Oils Containing Dissolved Gases,” Per. Tech. (Sept. flow,
1943). A*D = urbs~ D15.6146, BID,
13. Sugden, S.: ‘“A RelationshipBetween SurfaceTension, Density, D = diffusion coefficient.
and Chemical Composition,”” J. Chcm.Sot. (1924) 12s, 1,177.
14. Price, H.S. and Coats, K. H.: ‘“Dkect Methcds in Reservoir
Simulation,””Sot. Per. Eng. J. (June 1974) 295-308. Gicuiation of Fracture Properties
15. Thomas, L. K.. Katz. D. L., and Tek. M. R.: “Threshold Pressure
Phenomena in Porous Media,’” Sot. Per. Eng. J. (June 1%8) InTsim fractute ~tmeabilities are a function of ftacture
174-84. width squared. 1 Expressing Win centimeters and kf in
16. Coats, K. H.: “A Fully Implicit Steamflood Model,” &c. Per. millidtucies yields
Eng. J. (Oct. 1978) 3&-83.
17. Amyx, J.W.. Bass, D.M. Jr., and Whiting, R. L.: Perrofeum
Reservoir Engineering, McGmw-Hill Book Co.. Inc., New York
kf=8.44(109)W2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-4)
City (1960) 83-85.
18. Parsons,R. W.: “Permeability of Ideaiized FracturedRock, ” Sot. Effective fmctute permeabilities can be derived 18 by
Per. Eng. J. (June 1966) 126-36. assuming linear flow through the fmcture system parallel
to four faces of a cubic matrix block of length L. The ex-
pression for effective permeability for this system can be
APPENDIX written as
Semi-Implicit Formulation
A semi-implicit formulation, which uses the implicit K.A m+KfAf
matrix/fractute flow described in the text and an implicit K,= (A-5)
fmctttte solution for presswe and gas saturation or A “ ““””””-”-””””””””-””
samration pressure followed by a sequential water
calculation, also is included in the model. This formula- The term A represents the area included by one face of
tion is adequate for many two-phase water/oil problems the matrix block plus the minor area corresponding to
and cart be used for some time-phase studies. This for- one-half fracture width surrounding the matrix block.

FEBRUARY 1983 53
For W< <L, S1 Metric Conversion Factors
bbl X 1.589873 E–01 = m3
Af 2W Cp x 1.0* E-03 = Paes
—=— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-6) CU ft X 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
AL
dyne x 1.0* E-02 = mN
and ft X 3.048* E-01 = m
in. x 2.54* E+OO = cm
K, =Km +KfA/A Ibm x 4.535924 E–01 = kg
psi X 6.894 757 E+OO = kpa
W3 scf x 2.863 WI E-02 = std m3
=K~+l.69(1010)—. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-7)
L
Fracture porosity for this system is equal to “Convemon factofm exam SPEJ

Origmdmmuacrvt recai~ m SOCKAY

of Petfo@umEngmwm OWOAug.18, 1SS0.
3W PWMraccemed
forPubliiuonJune23, 1SS3.F!Owsed remivadNOV.3,
manuscnpt
df=y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-8) 1ss3. PEW C3PE93W fimt pmented at the +* *E AMU@ T*n~ cm-
L fwmw mrl ExhtMon w inOallaaseLx.21-24.

54 SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS JOURNAL