SPE
90ciBtu or f'Iatraa&m EngIneare at AIME
SPE 12270
Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
by A.M. Saidi, Consultant
Member SPE-AIME
Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
. .
~~~s~~e: :U~~6rre~::~~s~~~~ ~;;;~~:s~\~~~~~~;~~!~~~~ ~~:~~re ~~a:~~~'~~;dS. wri~: SPE, 6200 N~rth C~ntral Expressway, Drawer 64706,
Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
A three-dimensional, three-phase reservoir simulator
was developed to study the behavior of fully or par-
tially fractured reservoirs.
It is also demonstrated, that when a fractured reser-
voir is subject to a relatively large rate of pressure
drop and/or it composed of relatively larg~ blocks,
the pseudo steady-st~te press~re concept g~ves large
errors as compared wlth tranSlent fromulatlon. In ad-
dition, when gravity drainage and ~mbi~itum processes,
which is the most important mechanlsm ln the Fractured
reservoirs are represented by a "lumped parameter"
even large; errors can be produced in exchange flow
between matrix and fractures.
For these reasons, the matrix blocks are gridded and
the transfer between matrix and fractures are calcula-
ted using pressure and diffusion transient concept.
In this way the gravity drainage is also calculated
accurately. As the matrix-fracture.exch~nge flo~ de-
pends on the location of each matrlx grld relatlve to
the GOC and/or WOC in fracture, the exchange flow equa-
tion are derived and given for each possible case.
The differential equation describing the flow of water,
oil, and gas within the matrix and fracture system,
each of which may contain six unknowns, are presented.
The two sets of equations are solved implicitly for
pressure water, and gas stauration in both mat~ix and
fractures. The first twenty two years of the hlstory
of Haft Kel field was successfully matched with this
model and the results are included.
INTRODUCTION
The presence of a wide variety of fractured reservoi~s,
in Iran, with varied natural forces and rock propertles
some having over 60 years of documented history and mo-
re than 20 years of laboratory and fiels research, plus
a continuous analysis of their past histories using dif
ferent simulation techniques and different recovery me-
chanisms, offers a unique experience to the rest of the
Petroleum Industry.
The statement made by REISS(1) in his book which reads
"No book on fractured reservoirs could be complet with-
out reference to the Iranian experience",is a statement
of fact rather than intuition or exaggeration. It is
with the above background, opportunity and rich expe-
References and illustrations at end of paper.
. SF· CA N ember 15-18 1983 The material is subject to correc·
rience that the following analysis on the existing frac
tured reservoirs is based and a proper app~oa~h for de-
veloping a simulator for fractured reservolr:sproposed
A bnrfrewlew of the mechanisms that are taklng place
in fractured reservoirs are discussed by SAIDI(2,3,4).
Similarly, matrix geometry is one of the main f~ctors
in estimating recovery from a fractured reserVOlr and
it is therefore very important to evaluate the block
size distribution throughout a given reservoir, or at
least to have the average block size versus depth.
Sever~l methods can be used to determine this important
parameter. Slne of these methods are discussed by ~AIDI(2).
In the past, a fairly complete history of gas-oll, wa-
ter-oil contacts, minimum closing well head press~re,
and oil and gas production measurements were.prov~ded
in the Iranian and Irakian fractured re~ervolrs wlth.
documents dating back to 1915. By plottlng the gas-oll
and water-oil contacts of each field versus the cumula-
tive production, and by extrapolating the two contacts
until they come within 50 feet, the reserves of each
field were estimated.
It was not until the end of the fifties that the n~ed
for a mathematical model became apparent and the flrst
simulation model was developed for Iranian fracuted .
limestone reservoirs by Iranian Oil Operating Companles
In this model the matrix blocks were considered as pots
surrounded by' fractures. The reservoir was divided into
several columns of different rock types so that the sum
of each horizontal layer of th~ columns represented
oil-inplace versus depth.
Solution gas drive and fluid expansion were calculated
theoretically and gravity drainage from each block
(pot) was calculated using a single block concept.
Production from each block was calculated by the pre-
viously derived simple equations mentioned above. Core
Lab. was involved in the operation of tHis model.
It was after several years of experience in working
with different version of the above model that YAMAMOTO
(5) published the first single block compositional mo-
del in 1971.
In 1972, a new fully compositional simulator was deve-
loped. In this model, matrix blocks were gridded to
with a felexibility to have as large an area open to
the fracture as desired, and all the newly discovered
mechanisms were incorporated. The fracture was not grid
ded, although its volume versus depth was needed in the
model. In other words, the fracture was used to descri-
be the boundary conditions of the matrix blocks, and
its thickness or volume did not affect hte flow capaci-
361
2 SIMULATION OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIR
ty of t~e reserv9ir. It was during the use of this mo-
del, Wh1l~ match1ng 45 years history of Haft-Kel field
that the 1moortan~ role of interfacial tension on oil '
reco~ery due to 1tS effect on capillary pressure was
real1zed.
The above simulation model and its applicaiton to Haft
Kel field .was published by SAIDI(6). IMPES formula-
tion was used in this model.
During the same period (1972-74), McCord developed a
fracture model for the Oil Service Company of Iran
(OSCO~ to study three large Iranian reservoirs.
I~ th1~ model, the fracture system is gridded three
d1mens1onally. For each fracture. grid there is a ma-
trix grid. Each matrix grid could take as many as 20
x 50 sub grids. The last sub grid could represent se-
veral matrix blocks of the same quality. Thus, with
fracute system represented by 500 grids, the entire
system could have as many as 500 000 grids.
In generating the coefficients for reservoir flow sys-
tems, the pressure coefficient is initiated with the
specification of a time interval over which the cal-
culations, are to be made. Then, for each cell in the
grid, the overall rate, the flow, and expansion coef-
ficient are calcualted for both fracture and matrix
rock systems.
The coupled matrix and fracture equations at each
point on the grid are reduced to a bitridiagonal or
heptadiagonal syst~m which is solved for the fracture
pressure at each point by direct inversion or itera-
tive alternating direction method. After the pressure
distribution for the fracture system has been deter-
mined, the production, flux at cell boundaries and
pressure change for each cell become available to
obtain a detailed pressure and saturation distribution
in both matrix and fractures for the subcells defined
within each cell. The fluid flux due to gravity drai-
nage is calculated by reading the appropriate transfer
functions. In this model, the effect of the pressure
on interfacial tension is incorporated in the transfer
functions, and the effect of diffusion is calculated
directly using the difference between the Rs of the
fluid in the fracture and that in each grid. The mPES
formulation is used in this model.
LEFEVRE(7), described a simulator ~hich seems to be
similar to that described above, with the exception of
the subgrids, interfacial tension and diffusion. The
IHPES formulation was also used in that model.
In his 1977 publication, ROSSEN (8) described a trans-
fer function simulator much like the one mentioned a-
bove with certain differences in the solution proce-
dure. This is done by using the transfer functions se-
mi-implicity in b.oth pressure and saturation calcula-
tions. However the effect of pressure difference wi-
thin the matrix blocks and that between fractures and
matrix blocks are ignored. This model was used to stu-
dy three Iranian fractured reservoirs.
THOMAS(9),et al, have described a fully implicit 3-D,
3-Phase simulator designed to study fractured reser-
voirs. In this model, a shape factor was introduced in
order to readjust the difference between the actual
single block performance and that of several blocks
represented by on grid.
BOSSIE-CODREANU(10), described a fully implicit model
by considering matrix cell, composed of several matrix
blocks, surrounded by fracture. The exchange between
matrix and fracture is calculated by the model. Howe-
ver to calculate gravity, and pressure gradient across
matrix blocks with sufficient accuracy requires large
number of grids.
BLASKOVICH(11), presented a model with possible four-
component hydrocarbon system. PSS concept is used for
flnw between matrix and fractures and gravity segrega-
362
SPE 12270
tion is not included explicitly.
E~cept in this paper and the previous SAlOl's publica-
tlon non of th~ other publisherl paoers offp.red an
a~t~al reservo~r study. The last six simulators may be
d1v1ded essent1ally into the following groups.
1) The ~racture.system is gridded, a group of matrix
block~ 1S assoc1ated with each fracture grid. Transfer
fun~t1ons are used to describe flow due to gravity
dra1nage and other processes, from matrix blocks to
the fracture (sources or sinks).
2) Si~i1ar to above, ~xcept pseudo steady state con-
cept 1S used to descr1be the flow between matrix and
f~acture. Therefore pressure and/or gravity segrega-
t10n are not calculated properly.
Cor~MENTS ON THE ABOVE TI~O GROUPS OF SIMULATORS.
Transfer fu~ction(s) may be used in simulating fractu-
red reserV01rs where there are simple mechanisms that
can be described accurately by one or a set of curves
(or equations) for each rock type and block. height.
However, there are several sources of error involved
in this method which are discussed below:
It does not have sufficient flexibility and requires
large engineers time unless one has an ~lmost complete
knowledge of all the reservoir parameters, which is
rare.
As each .of the above mentioned parameters have a non-
linear relationship whith the flow of fluid, the dif-
ference between two curves is also non-linear.
In.deve10~ing gas-oil or water-oil recovery curves,
uS1ng a slng1e block model, the gas-oil (or water-oil)
contact movement, in the actual reservoir is slow this
also becomes a source of error. ' .
Interfacial tension may be considered as a vector.
T~e components of this vector are pressure, composi-
t1on, and temperature. Again in developing gas-oil re-
covery curves at different pressures, if diffusion is
active, then the gas-oil recovery curves do not take
the effect of compositions into consideration.
~Ihen the movement of the gas-oil or water-oil contact
~e~ers~s its direc~ion due to water injection or gas
1nJect1on, respectlve1y, it is not convenient to han-
dle such process using transfer functions. This is due
to the fact that each segment of each block is at a
different stage of drainage, and therefore they take
different paths on the capillary pressure curve.
The effect of preexisting free gas, due to solution
gas drive, on gravity drainage curves, is normally
ignored. The effect of the repressurization of blocks
which has almost stopped draining is not usually trea-
ted thoroughly.
From the above brief discussion, it can be seen that
the transfer function concept, except may be in special
cases, does not provide sufficient accuracy to the com-
plex problem of~imu1ating naturally fractured reser-
voirs. Otherwise, one has to prepare many sets of
transfer functions under different conditions which
can become impractical.
When pressure drops at the boundary of a matrix grid
(composed of one or several blocks), the pressure res-
ponse described by the pseudo steady state equation
(PSS) is given by :
at
Equation 1 and its boundary conditions at x o has
the following solution
at (2)
<1P m = <1 Pf(l_e- )
 SPE 12270
Hhen a block is subject to a series of equal pressure
drops at its boundary, the matrix pressure will be cal-
culated by superimposing N .1 Pfi'" .1 Pf durincr:N.:1 ti=.:1 t
Applying the superimposion concept on equation 2,
we have :
.1Pm =; O_e-a(t-ti» N.1Pfi (3)
i=1
As we increase n while proportionally decreasing .1 Pi
and .1 t i , equation 3 appoaches :
.1P m =a[(~_e-a(t-ti»dt=a(t_+
= .1Pf (1- a1t (1- e -at»
Where a = dP/dt =~Pf/ ~t.
When the same block is gridded, i.e. using a transient
equation, the pressure distribution in such a gridded
block when the fracture pressure is dropping at a
constant rate, a, is given by :
2 (5)
Pi - Pm = a {t - -L (x - 1) +
2a
--.!£ f {-l)o cos (2n + 1) x/2 e
It 1(3 0 =0 (2 0 + 1)3
The average matrix block pressure is given by :
~Pm =.:1Pf{l __1_ + ~ L: 00
3at ah" 0=0
When at) 0,5 Equation 6 reduces to :
.1P m =. .1Pf {l __1_ (1 _ e - 2.~7 at»
3 at
Equations 4 and 7 are plotted in figure 1. From figure
1, it can be seen that when 0,5 < at < 5 there is a
considerable difference between the two solutions.
In a typical case ~here K=1 md., kr=O,1, 0=0,1, ~ =1
c.p., c=6,32 x 10- (psi)-1 and L=5 feet, a =1 and t
is in days, when L=25 feet (a block of 50 feet wide)
and other parameters being the same, a =0,04. In this
case,at=5 represents 125 days.
If we use the THOMAS, et a 1, example of 0,75 ps i /day
and the last at we get more than 10 psi difference
between the two approaches. vlhereas, for a 20 feet
block, this difference reduces to about 0,4 psi. Simi-
lary, a 10 feet block has a maximum of 0,15 psi diffe-
rence afte two days.
When dP/dt = 0,1 psi/day, like the average reservoir
pressure in Iranian fractured reservoirs, the above
differences would reduce by a factor of 0,14.
In simulating sandstone reservoirs, a difference of
~,2 psi between the real and calculated grid pressure
lS an acceptable error. In fractured reservoirs, a 0,2
psi error in a 10 feet high matrix block represents
one foot of that block during its gravity drainage or
10-15 per cent of oil recovery from that block, or a
delay in oil production for the period of time during
which such a pressure difference exists.
In addition, 0,2 psi error in pressure of matrix
blocks may cause a large volume of fluid, relative to
fracture volume, to flow more or less (depending on
the sign of error) from matrix to fracture. Therefore
in studying the fractured reservoirs, this size of
error is not normally acceptable.
In well fractured reservoirs, a 0,2 psi excess pressu-
re can transfer large volumes of fluid from one sector
to another sector of the reservoir.
In testing the impact of a different amount of error
in pressure on simulating the performances of Iranian
A. M. SAIDI 3
type fractured reservoirs, it was found that the pres-
sure should be acc~rate up to 0,01 psi.
ThlS would be meanlgful only if the mathematical des-
cription of a process as well as numerical calcula-
tions of the processes are accurate up to 0,01 psi.
The same problem arises when using the diffusion pro-
cess. The equation governing this process is exactly
the same as those given by equation 4 and 7. 2n this
ca~e, .1 P .'=.1R Sfll ' and .1 Pf =.1R sf ' and a = O/L , where
o lS the malffusl02 coefficient.
If 0 = 0,036 feet /day and L = 10 feet, a = 3,6x10- 4 •
In this case, each unit on the urdinate of figure 1
represents 10 years. In 15 years, the difference betwe·
(l_e- at » en the two solutions is 0,28.1 Rsf' If, during this ti-
me, 1 500 psi pressure has dropped, the change of R~f
in the fracture using the THOMAS example, and assumlng
(~) complete mixing within the fracture, is 550 cuft/Bb1.
This means that the difference between the GOR of ma-
trix oil and that in fracture is about 150 cuft/Bb1
more when using the PSS equation than that when using
the transient equation.
This volume of gas multiplied by the volume of the oil
column can represent a very large volume of gas. When
this volume of gas is placed in the gas cap or kept in
the oil column, it can completely alter the analysis of
-(20 + 1)2 7f 2 at/~)
the reservoir. It is also stated in the THOMAS paper
that calculations using diffusion can be swithched
"from a saturated cell to an undersaturated matrix
block during gas injection". This statement appears
somewhat illogical.
2 2
e - (20 + 1) 7f (tt/~) If there has been no convecti on in the fracture duri ng
the natural depletion period,there will be no convec-
(20+1)3 (6)
tion in that reservoir during gas injection either, and
therefore it is less likely that the oil in the fractu-
re will have less gas in solution than in the matrix.
The: only way that the gas diffusion process between
fracture oil and that of the matrix could work to a
reasonable degree, would be if convection occur~ in the
fracture.
CHOICE OF MODEL
In simulating the history of a fractured reservoir and
then predicting the future history of that reservoir,
we are faced with the following distinct problems:
M~trix blocks may contain over 90 per cent of the total
011 reserve, and the problem of oil recovery from a
f~actured reservoir.is essentially that of extracting
011 from these matrlx blocks and not necessarily from
the fractures. Therefore, we should concentrate our
efforts on understanding the mechanisms that which take
place in matrix blocks and on simulating these proces-
ses within their container as accurately as possible.
The number of parameters that can be varied during his-
tory matching in fractred reservoirs is far greaterthan
those used in history matching sandstone reservoirs.
This makes the history matching of fractured reservoirs
very vulnerable to different sources of error.
From the above discussion and analysis, it is clear tha
the main aim should be to simulate the matrix blocks be
haviour as accurately as possible, so the fracture pres
sure, which is used essentially as the boundary condi-
tion for matrix blocks, can be known accurately.
Therefore, when the pressure in a fractured reservoir
does not behave fairly uniformly throughout the reser-
voir~ esp~cially under proportionally distributed pro-
' ductl0n wlth respect to the potential oil-1n-p1ace such
a reservoir may be divided into as many sectors as're-
qui red. With such a division of the reservoir (whether
areal1y or vertically) the pressure in each sector will
be f~irly constant horizontally or its potential will be
vertlcally eonstant at any given time.
In this manner, a fractured reservoir may be represen-
363
 4 SIMULATION OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIR
ted by several smaller interconnected reservoirs with '
known boundaries. Each of these small reservoirs (or
sectors) may be represented by column of one or more
matrix blocks, representing the oil in-place and diffe-
rent rock qual ities that exist at any depth of any sector.
This is shown schematically in figure 2.
Each block may be represented by its R-Z coordinates
which requires at least four grids. The use of R-Z
blocks instead of three-dimensional blocks will great-
ly reduce the number of grids. The fracture of each
sector is also gridded two dimensionally using verti-
cal equilibrium concept, to describe the flow within
each sector as well as between different sectors.
With the above concept, if a fractured reservoir is
divided into five sectors, each having a hydrocarbon
column of 1 000 feet with three rock characteristics
and a constant block height of 10 feet (for simplicity)
then the entire reservoir can be represented· by 6 500
grids i.e., 6 000 grids for matrix blocks and 500 grid
for fractures.
If one or more sector(s) is not fractured, it can be
represented as for sandstone modeling.
In this manner, a fractured reservoir can be studied
fairly accurately within a reasonable number of grids.
PROPOSED CONCEPT FOR SIMULATING FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
If we consider a single matrix e1emnet lying within
a fracture as shown in figure 3, the matrix element is
subdivided into a two dimensional R-Z grid system, so
that the center line of the element is a sealed boun-
dary and the top, bottom and left-hand boundaries may
be partially or totally open, and communicate with the
fracture. In order to calculate the flow between this
matrix element and the fracture, it is necessary to
specify the pressure and fluid distribution along the
open boundaries.
To calculate the flow between the fracture and any gi-
ven grid block within the matrix element, the pressures
in both systems must be specified. The pressure in the
fracture system is evaluated at the fracture gas-oil
contact, and the grid block pressure is evaluated at
the center of the grid block. In other words, the re-
ference elevation for fract~re pressure is the gas-oil
contact and the reference elevation for the grid block
pressure is the elevation of the grid block.
a) The grid block is in the oil zone
Fig. 4 illustrates the case of a grid block m lying in
the oil zone. The fracture pressure is P at the gas-oil
contact Zg. The matrix pressure is Pm at elevation hm•
The fracture pressure Pf at the grid block elevation
hmis therefore:
Pf = P + Yo (h m - Zg) (8)
b) The grid block is in the gas zone
Similary, the fracture pressure Pf at elevation hmis
Pf = P - Yg (Zg - h m ) (9)
c) The grid block is in the water zone
As before the pressure Pf at elevation hmis
Pf = P + Yo (Zw - Zg) + Yw (h m - Zw) (10)
d) The grid block is in a two-phase zone
In this case a grid block m is lying in a twb-phase zo- Nothin~ in ~his discussion about pressures deals with
ne,i.e., a fluid contact is present withinthegridblock. flow d1rect10n, however the next section concerning
This case is treated as one of the above cases, either flow.
a, b or c. For example, as long as the GOC lies within
SPE 12270
the upper half of the block, the block is considered
as.being in the oil .zone. When the contact passes the
gr1d bloc~ ce~ter, 1.e. GOC > hm the block is conside-
red as be1ng 1n the gas zone. The same applies to the
water-oil contact.
Calculation of the flow rate
Once the fracture pressure Pf and the matrix pressure
Pm have been related to the same elevation hm' the
flow rate is then calculated using the pressure diffe-
rence so the flow of oil from the fracture to the ma-
trix is calculated from :
Qo=To(Pf-P m) (11)
However, the calculation of individual phase flows of
water, oil and gas depends not only on the pressures
but also on the capillary pressures. The specification
of capillary pressure within the grid block is obtai-
ned from the normal rock gas-oil capillary pressure
curves :
Pegm = Peg (Sgm) (12)
Thus, the gas phase pressure within the matrix grid
block at elevation hm is :
P gm = Pm + Pegm (13)
Normally, the capillary pressure in a fracture system
is assumed to be negligible, i.e., zero. However, no-
ting that a vertical equilibrium calculation is done
in the fracture system, a vertical equilibrium capil-
lary pressure must also be assigned to the fracture
element of length hbshown in Fig.4.
Therefore :
Pgf = Pf + Pegf (14)
In Fig.5 if Zt is the elevation of the top of the grid
block and Zb 1S the elevation of the bottom of the
grid block, the vertical equilibrium gas-oil capillary
pressure in the fracture system Pcgf is obtained from:
Pegf = 0 for GOe < Zt (15)
Pegf = (GOe - Z) (Vo - Vg) for Zt < GOe < Zb (16)
Pegf = hb (Yo - Yg) for GOe > Zb (17)
Therefore, the flow rate of gas from the fracture to
the matrix is defined by :
Qg = Tg (Pf + Pegf - Pm - Pegm ) (18)
A similar argument is used to define a wate oil verti-
cal equilibrium capillary pressure in the fracture
system, Pcwf where :
Pewf = 0 for woe < Zt (19)
Pewf = (woe - Zt) ( Pw - Po) for Zt < woe < Zb (20)
,..
for woe> Zb (21)
Similarly, the flow rate of water from the fracture to
the matrix is obtained from :
Q w = Tw (Pf - Pewf ~ Pm + Pewm ) (22)
This entire discussion on pressure difference has de-
f~n~d th~ flow from the fracture to the matrix as po-
s1t1ve, 1.e., the fracture face pressure is greater
than the matrix face pressure. If flow occurs in the
other direction (from matrix to fracture) the sign re-
verses the flow direction and the rate becomes an ef-
flux instead of an influx.
phase transmissibilities deals with the direction of
364
 SPE 12270 A. M. SAIDl 5

Transmissibility calculations along the' boundary K rw = Krwf = a for Zw > Zb (33)

The definition of transmissibility is : K rw =' Krwf = (Zb - Zw)/(Zb - Tt) for Zb > Zw > Zt (34)
T =T aKrb/1l (23) K rw = Krwf = 1.0 for Zw > Zt (3.5)
where Ta is obtained from Oarcy'slaw as KA/L. Figure When oil flows from fracture to matrix we have
3 shows a matrix element with a typical two-dimen- Krof = 1.0 - Krgf - Krwf (36)
sional R-Z grid network overlaid on the element. The
absolute radial transmissibility is calculated from Implicit relative permeabi1ities
A =271r n L1Z m (24) All terms involving relative permeability must be ta-
ken at the last iterate and treated implicitly, or the
Therefore : calculations will become unstable, except at extremely
2 7l rn L1 Zm (2.5) small time steps. For example a gas relative permea-
T a (radial) = rn _ (rn - rn-l) / Ln (rn / rn-l) bility could be expressed as
k+1 k a Krg ("'7)
The absolute vertical, or Z-direction, transmissibi- Krg = Krg + ( - - ) oSg
a 5g
;J

1ity is calculated from:

2 2
Where k refers to the kth iteration, k+l the coming
(26)
A = 7l(r n - rn-l ) iteration and :
Therefore : k k
2 2 Krg = Krgm = Krg (Sgm) (38)
2 7l (r n - rn-I )1 L1 Zm
T z (vertical) = (27)
It should be noted that these grid block transmissi- For gas flow from the matrix to the fracture, we can
bilities only refer to the grid block having open write
boundaries in contact with the fracture system. The
transmissibilities describing flow between adjacent aKrg k aKrgm (39)
grid blocks within the matrix element are normal R-Z K'rg = ( - - ) = ( - - - ) rock curves
transmissibilities. aS g a Sgm
a) Gas relative permeability at the boundary
In other words, the latest iterate on the gas satura-
We will now consider a simple example of a matrix grid tion inside the matrix block is used to evaluate the
block with a top elevation of Zt, a bottom elevation gas relative permeability and its derivative with res-
of Zbfeet and a gas-oil contact intersecting the grid pect to gas saturation from the rock relative permea-
block at elevation Z . If gas flows out from the ma- bility curves. In order to develop the implicit relati-
trix block into the ~racture, then the upstream rela- ve permeabi1ities when gas flows from the fracture to
tive permeability for gas is that determined by the the matrix, the fracture gas-oil contact Zg should
rock gas relative permeability curve for the matrix. first be replaced by :
This is true for both radial and vertical flow. When
the gas flow direction is such that gas is flowing Zg = hSgf (40)
. from the fracture into the matrix, the situation is
more complex. First, we will consider radial flow Where h is the total fracture grid b1pck length, not
the following equations describe the gas relative just the portion in contact with the matrix element
permeabil tty : grid block. Then by substituting equation (40) into
equations (28)-(30) and differentiating this with res-
Krg = Krgf = 0
for Zg < Zt (28) pect to Sgf, we get:
Krg ,,; Krgf = (Zg - Zt)/(Zb - Zt) for Zt < Zg < Zb (29)
for Zg > Zb (30) aKrgf k
< Zt (41)
Krg = Krgf = 1.0 K'
rg
f = (--) =
as gf a for Zg

Secondly, regarding the vertical direction relative for Zt < Zg < Zb (42)
permeability to gas, onewou1d expect that as long as K'rgf = h/(Zb - Zt)
the gas-oil contact was above the top of the matrix for Zg > Zb (43)
K'rgf = 0
block element, the gas relative permeability would be
zero, and as soon as gas reached the top of the ma- Similary the implicit relative permeabilities when wa-
trix element the gas saturation would become 100%, ter flows from the fracture to the matrix, first the
and the gas relative permeability should be set to fracture water-oil contact Zw should be replaced by
unity, i.e. for vertical gas influx to the matrix we
would have : (44)
Zw= h( I - Swf)
for Zg < Zt (31)
Krg = Krgf = 0.0 Where h is again the total fracture grid block length.
Krg = Krgf = 1.0 for Zg > Zt (32)
Now substituting equation (44) into equations (33)-(35)
and differentiating with respect to the water satura-
Intuitively, this would appear to be the case, ~owe­ tion in fracture SWf' we get:
ver, because of practical limitations, the ve~tlcal
relative permeabilities are ~reated exa~t~y.11ke the aK rw k
horizontal or vertical re1atlve permeabllltles expres- K'rw = ( - - - ) = 0 for Zw > Zb (4.5)
sed in equations (28)-(30). Swf a
K'rwf = h/(Zb - Zt) for Zb > Zw > Zt (46)
K'rwf = a for Zw < Zt (47)
b) Water relative permeability at the boundary:
The corresponding equations of (28)-(30) for water re- For oil flow from the matrix to fracture. ihe implicit
lative permeabi1ities are respectively: oil relative permeability is given by :

365
 6
Srr.,ULATION OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIR SPE 12270

Krok+l = Kro k + K'rog a Sg + K'row a Sw (48) In this part, terms like Pf - Pm will be expanded to :

When oil is flowing from the fracture to the matrix (Pf - Pm)k+l = (Pf - Pm)k + c5Pf - c5P m (60)
we have : In some of the pressure terms, quantities such as
oK ro k c5('YZg) or c5('Ylw) may appear.
K'rogf = ( - - ) =0 for Zg < Zt (49) These will be expanded as follows:
OSgf
Zg = h Sgf (61)
K'rogf = - h/(Zb - Zt) for Zt < Zg < Zb (.50)
.5 ('YZ g) = 'Y a Zg + Zgc5'Y (62)
K'rog = 0 for Zg > Zb (.51)
Substitution of equation (61) into equation (62) gives:
.5 ('YZg) = "Yh.5S gf + Zg8'Y (63)
and for water saturation
oKra k Zw = h (1 - Swf) (64)
K'rowf = ( - - ) = 0 for Zw < Zb (52)
Similary, for the water-oil contact
oSwf
K'rowf = - h/(Zb - Zt) for Zb < Zw < Zt (53)
c5('YZ w) = 'Yc5Z w + Zwl;'Y (65)
K'rwf = 0 for .Zw < Zt (54)
a('YZw) = -'YhaSwf + Zwa'Y (66)
The method for applying all the implicit relative
permeabilities will be in the form of transmissibili- The gravity terms Ii Yare relatively simple for the gas
ties, i.e. and water, but they are more complicated for the oil
phase. For gas :
k+l k , (.5.5)
Tg = Tg + T g a Sg 'Y=~e~ (6n
where, obg
c5'Yg = Pge c5 bg = Pge (a-t» c5 P = "Ygpc5P (68)
Tgk=Ta(Krgb~k bg)k (~) , obg
J.l g
and T'g=T a ( Ilg • Sg h
were: 'Ygp = (ge (ap)
For water, the density is expanded to
From now on we will discuSS implicit transmissibilities
which are formed from implicit permeabilities. In ge- 'Ywp = Pwe (1 + Cw (P - Pi» (69)
neral, we have the following equation:
So : "Y w = Pwe Cw Ii P = "Y wp (j P
Tgk+l = Tgk + a gm T'gm 8S gm + agf T'gf SSgf (.56) where : "Y wp = ('we Cw
The a's are coefficients which depend upon the flow
direction. For flow from matrix to fracture The equation that would be used to describe oil densi-
a gm = 1,0 ; a gf = 0 ty in the model is :
For flow from fracture to matrix :
a gm = 0 ; CI' gf = 1,0 "Yo = (Poe + Pge Rs) b o (71)
In this manner, the equations may generally be written
in full and the appropriate terms included or zeroed Equation (71) implies that Yo is a function of both pres
out depending on the flow direction. The water and oil sure and solution gas-oil ratio Rs • For saturated oil,
equations are similar to equation (56), i.e. : both bo ,and Rs are functions of pressure only. There-
fore, Yo is only a function of pressure.
Twk +1 = Twk + Il'wm T'wm c5S wm + awf T'w c5S wf (.57)
1'0= 'op.5P
Tok+l = Tok + a'om T'owm c5S wm + T'ogm aS gm + (58) Type = 0 (72)
01'0
aof T'owf c5S wf + T'ogf aSgf where: Yop = (ap-) table Saturated oil
where
For undersaturated oi 1, Po and bo are both functions of
bw k 0 Krw k bo k pressure and Rs ' so we can replace bo by its approxi-
T'w = Ta (-;-) (~S) T'ow = Ta (-) mate value :
w u w Ilo

and
bo k oKrog k
T'og = Ta (-) ( )
bo = bos (1 + Co (P - Ps » (73)

J.lo oSg where, bos is saturated value of bo at bubble point

Note that in this manner all transmissibility terms pressure Ps •
have upstream weighting implied in their formation. Then from equation (71) for undersaturated oil (type =
For example the transmissibility for gas when flow is 1), the oil density Y is :
from the fracture to the matrix is : o
= ( Poe + Pge Rs) bos (1 + Co (P - PsJ)
Yo (74)
k+ 1 bg k k bg k 0 Krl!.. k (59)
Tg = Ta (-)f Krgf + Ta (-)f (-;;-"'S' f
Ilg J.lg u g Then, since P is a function of pressure and
have 0
Expansion of the pressure difference terms: Earlier in
Itnls .paper, l:ne Torm ana meanlng ot tne fracture and Yo 0 Yo
Po = ( - - ) hP + (--) c5Rs (75)
matrlx pressure used to calculate the exchange flow ra- P 0 Rs
te was qiven
366
SPE 12270 A. M. SAlOl 7

or: (76) (Pf - Pm)k;,,1 = (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k + (I + (h m - Zg) Yop

- hb ( I'wp - Yop) .sP + (h m -,zg + hb) 'Y ors 8R s -
where from equation (74) :
'Yo h 8S g - 8P m + P'ewm 8S wm (83)
Yop =( aaY; ) =( Poe + Pge Rs) bos Co (77)
where: P'ewm =( ~~CW)
w
m
Yors = ( : ~O) = Pge bos (l + Co (P - Ps» + ( Poe + Pge Rs) • When the water-oil contact is in the grid block, but
s
below·h m so that the block is still in the oil zone,
(l + Co (P - P s» ( aabrf;) + ( Poe + Pge Rs ) bos ( P - Ps) • equation (20) applies for the fracture capillary pres-
sure and the water phase pressure difference becomes :
(ac + Age Rs) CO (%~S)
RO ) _ (Poe (78)
a s s (Pf - Pm)k;,,1 = (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k +P'ewm 8 Swm +
Equations (77) and (78) therefore represent the neces- (h m - Zg + Zw - Zt) 'Y ors 8 Rs - 'Yo h,s,Sg + h ('Yw - 'Yo) 8S w +
sary oil derivatives for undersaturated oil. Note that
for saturated oil, the pressure derivative is given by (I + (h m - Zg) 'Y op - (Zw - Zt) ('Ywp - Yop» 8P - 8P m (8i1)
equation (72) and lars = O.
These expansions give rise to a number of terms in the The same comments concerning solving 8R s or 8S g , ap-
equations which in a sandstone reservoir simulator are ply to equations (83) and (84). This was discussed ear-
usually negligible and ignored. However, these terms lier when the oil phase pressure differences were des-
are important in the fractured model, especially in the cribed.
case where a variable bubble point is specified or The grid block is in the gas zone: When the water-oil
when diffusion of gas through the oil is significant. contact lS below the bottom of hte grid block, equa-
This importance is due mainly to the fact that a small tions (9) and (21) are substituted into equation (82)
error in computing matrix pressure is magnified by ap- and expanding the result gives:
proxiamtely the ratio of the flux, due to such an er- k+1
ror, to the fracture volume. (Pf - Pm) =( Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm
)k
+

Now using the method described above, all the various (I - (Zg - h m ) Ygp - hb P'w P - 'Yop»)8P +
cases of pressure d i fferenc,es can be deri ved. hb 'Y ors 8R s - 'Ygh .sSg - 8P m + Pewm 8S wm (85)
Oil phase pressure differences When there is a water-oil contact in the block below
The oil pressure difference is given by equation (60). the elevation hm' so that the grid block is still in
The exact fo~m of Pf depends on where the $r~d block the oil zone, equation (20) applies for the fracture
is located wlth respect to the contact posltlons. capillary pressure and the water phase pressure diffe-
The grid block is in the oil zone: Substituting equa- rence becomes :
tlon (8) lnto equatlon (60) and expanding, the result
is :
(Pf - pw)k+l =(Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k + (Zw - ht)
(Pf - Pm)k+l = (Pf - Pm)k + (1 + (h m - Zg) Yop> .5P- 'Y ors 8Rs + (I - (Zg - h m ) 'Ygp - (Zw - Zt) ('Ywp - 'Yop» 8 P-
(79)
aP m + (h m - Zg) Pors a Rs - ho .5 Sg 'Ygh 8S g + (Y w -"Yo) h8S w - 8P m + P'ewm 8S wm (86)
The grid block is in the gas zone: Substituting equa- The grid block is in the water zone: When the water-
tlon (9) lnto equatlon (60) and expanding the result 011 contact lS at, or above the top of the block, equa-
gives : tions (19) and (10) (Pew = 0) are substituted into equa-
(Pf - Pm)k+l :: (Pf - Pm)k + (l + (h - Zg)Ygp) - .5Pm
tion (82) and the result, after expansion gives:
m
- hg .5 Sg (80) , (Pf - Pm)~+1 = (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k + (I + (Zw - hg)'Yop
+ (h m - Zw) 'Y wp) 8 P + (Zw - Zgl'Y ors 8 Rs + h ('Y w - 'Y 0)
The grid block is in the water zone: Substituting
equatlon (10) lnto equatlon (60) and expanding the re- .sSw - h'Yo 8S g - .sP m + P'ewm.sSwm (87)
sult gives:
When the water-oil contact is in the grid bloc~, equa-
tions (20) and (10) are substituted into equation (82),
(Pf - Pm)k+l = (I + (Zw - Zg) Yop + (h m - Zw) Ywp> after expansion this gives :
+ h ( Yw - Yo) 0 Sw - h 1'0.5 Sg + (Zw - Zg) Yors .5Rs (Pf - Pm)~+1 = (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k + (I + (2Z w - Zg -
(Pf - Pm)k + .5P - aP m (81)
Zt) 'Y op - (2Z w - hw - Zt) 'Y wp) 8 P + (2Z w - Zg - Zt) 'Y ors 8R s ~
l~a ter phase pressure differences h'Y 0 0 Sg - 0 Pm + P'ewm 0 Swm + 2h ('Yw - 'Yo) 0 Sw (88)

The wat~r pressure difference is given by equation (82) This completes the expressions for the water-phase pres·
sure differences. As in the oil phase terms, either the
k+l
(Pf - Pm) w
P )k
= (Pf - Pewf - Pm + ewm + terms involving Rs or the terms involving Sg are pre-
sent but not both simultaneously.
oPf - .sPewf -bPm + .sPewm (82)
Gas phase pressure differences
The grid block is in the oil zone: When the water-oil The gas phase pressure difference is given by :
contact lS below the bottom of the grid block, equa- ( p f - Pm )k+l
g
k
= (Pf - Pegf - Pm + Pegm ) + 8 Pf -
tions (8) and (21) are substituted into equation (82)
and the result expanded to give: .sPegf - .sP m - .sPegm (89)
367
 8 SIMULATION OF NATURALLY tRACTURED RESERVOIR SPE 12270
The e.xact.form of P.fand P f will depend on where the Where the A's are comp t d f h
matr1x gr1d block 1S 10caCqd te w1'th respect to the frac- pend1ng.on . . phase uise being
Wh1Ch or eac individual
calculated case de-
and where
ture contact positions. ' th~ flu1d contact~ are located with respect to the rna-
The grid block is in the oil zone: Substituting equa- tr1x block. The f1nal result is an equation with six
t10ns (8) and (16) 1nto equat10n (89) and expanding the unknowns.
result gives: Exchange flow equations
(P P )k+l ( k The genera I form of an impliCit transmissibil ity was
t- mg • Pt-Pegt-Pm+Pegm) +U-(hm-Zt)"Yop derived earlier in this section and has the following
- (Zg - Zt) "Ygp> 15 P + (h m - Zt) "Yops 15 Rs - h "YgsSg _ form :
15 Pm - P'egm 15 Sgm (90) Tk+l = Tk + T' 15 S (96)
The grid block is in the gas zone: Since the gas-oil and the general form of pressure difference analogous
contact must be below the center grid block elevation to equation (95) is :
hm• either equation (16) or equation (17) must be used £\pk+l=£\pk+A6P+B6S (97)
for the fracture gas-oil capillary pressure. When the .
gas-oil contact has not passed the bottom of the grid The latest 1terate on the exchange flow rate is :
block. equation (16) is valid, so substituting equations qk+l = Tk+I£\pk+l (98)
(9)
gives . and (16) into equation (89) and expanding the result S b t't t' f
u s 1 u 10n 0 equa 10ns t' (96) an d (97) into equation
. (98) and expanding. the result gives:
k
(Pf - Pm)~+l = (Pf - Pcgf - Pm + pcgm)k + U - (Zg _ Zt)"Yop qk+l = Tk£\p k + ATk 6P + BT 6S + T'6S£\p + SA6T'15P +
k
SBOI"6S (99)
-(2Zg -h m - Zt)"Y gpl6P+(Zg-Zt)"Yors6Rs+ N '
ow gwen any varla . bl e .sx. (~x ) 2 »bX so the appro-
("Yo - 2"Yg) h6S g - 6P m - P'cgm 6S gm (91) ximation may be made:
When the gas-oil contact is below the bottom of the AT' 15 S 15 P = 0 and BT' (6 S)2 = 0
grid block. equation (17) is valid'for the fracture so equation (99) becomes :
gas-oil capillary pressure.
(100)
(Pf - Pm)~+l = (Pf + Pcgf - Pm - pcgm)k + U + Zb "Yop -
(Zg - hm + Zb) "Ygpl6 P + Zb "Y ors 6 Rs - h'Yg 6Sg - 6Pm -
P'cgm 6 Sgm (92) Using proper subscript for each term equation (100) be-
comes :
The grid block is in the water zone : In order to be
1n the water zone reference grla block. the water-oil qk+l = Rj + Ajl15P + Aj2 15Sw + Ai) 15Sg + Bjl 15 Pm +
contact must be above the center grid block elevation Bj2 6S wm + Bj) 6Sgm (l01)
hm• so only equation (15) and (16) can be valid for
the gas-oil capillary pressure. When the gas-oil con-
tact is above the top of the block. equation (15) is Equation (101) is the general form used for the latest
valid. i.e •• Pcgf = O. iterate on the exchange flow rate. N~te that at conver-
gence :
Substituting equations (10) and (15) into equation
(89) and expanding the result gives: 15 S - 0 and 15 P _ 0
The water. oil. and gas flow rates for various cases
(Pf - Pm)~+1 = (Pf + Pcgf - Pm - pcgm)k + U + (Zw - Zg) + are presented in appendix A.
(h m - Zw) 'Ywp> 6 P + (Zw - Zg) 'Yors 6 Rs - 'Yo h6Sg + Mathematical description of the simulator
('Yw - .yo) h6Sw - 6P m - P'cgm 6S gm (9) The flow equations using Darcy's law and the conversa-
tion of mass for water, oil and gas in fracture and
When the gas-oil contact is below the top of the grid matrix may be written in the following form :
block and yet still above the center elevation hm•
equation (16) is valid for the gas-oil fracture capil- div. Tw ~ (Pw - 'YwZ) - qw + qew = ilVt 8 (II bw Sw) (l02)
lary pressure. Substituting equations (10) and (16)
into equation (89) and expanding the result gives:
div.ToV(Po-'YoZ)-qo+qeo= ilVt 8(IIbo So) (10)
(Pt - Pm)~+l = (Pf + Pegf - Pm - pcgm)k + U + (Zw - Zg +
Zb) "Y op + (h m - Zw) "Ywp - Zb 'Y gp) 15 P + (Zm - Zg + Zb) "Y ors 15Rs div. Tg V(P g - 'Yg Z) + div To Rs V (Po - 'Yo Z) - qg - qo Rs +
- 'Y 0 h 6Sg + ("Yw - 'Yo) h6S w - 6 Pm - P'cgm 15S gm (94) qeg +qeoRs + div.D V (Rsm - Rs) = ~ t 8 (II Sg bg + II So bo Rs)
(104)
General form of pressure differences : Examination of V
the equations given above show that the pressure dif- div.TwV(Pw-"YwZ)m-qewm= ilt 8(IIbw Sw)m (l0~)
ferences are of the form :

£\pk+I =£\pk + Al 6 P + A/Pm + A)

15Rs
or
div. To V(Po - 'YoZ) m - qeom = :t 8(11 bo So) m (106)

15S div. Tg V(Pg - 'YgZ) m + div. To Rs V (Po - 'YoZ) - qegm -

+ AS 6Sgm + A6 15Swm / g (95)
368
 SPE 12270 A. M. SAIDI 9

qeo Rsm -dive 0 V(R sm - RS> = ~t 8 (~Sg bg + ~ So bo Rs> m lar

In the above equations P represents oil pressure. Simi-
(107) equations can be written for matrix acummu1ation
terms.
A~cumu1ation terms. i.e. the right hand side of equa- Combining the above equations. i.e. equations (102)-
tl0ns (102)-(107\ can be expanded as follows: (107) and (108)-(110) we have:
V IS
~ (" bw Sw) = CUcS P + Cl2 cS Sw + Cl3 cSS + (" bw Sw)k - dive Tw V (cSP - cSP ewo ) + Rw = (AU + Cll).s P +
g
- (IlbwSw)n (A 12 + C 12) d Sw +(A 13 + C 13) cS Sg + B 11 .s Pm +
V k+l B12 Swm+ B13cSSgm (111)
- - (~bo SO> = C21 b P + C22 bS w + C23 8S g + (~ bo So)
At
- (~ bo So) n dive To V (dP - .sPego> + Ro = (A21 + C21) h' P +
V (A22 + C22) cS Sw +(A23 + C23) cS Sg + B21 S Pm +
- (~bg Sg + ~ bo Rs SO> = C31 8P + C22 8Sw + C33 6Sg + B22 cSS wm+ B23cSSgm (112)
At
(~ bg Sg + ~ 1
bo Rs S9)k+ - (~ bg Sg + ~ bo Rs SO> n dive (To Rs + Tg)V(hP -.sPego) + Rg = (A3I + C31)hP +
where. (A32 + C32) h Sw + (A33 + C33)cSSg + B31 cSP m + B32 cSSwm
+ B33hSgm (113)
Cll =V(S'; (~k+l b'w + C r b wk (61»/At. C12 =v(16 k+l bwk+l)/A
dive Tw V (cSP - dPewo) m + Rwm = All cSP + A12 cSS w +
C 13 =V(16k +l b wk+l)/At • C2l =V(Sok (16k +l b'o + C r bok 16i»/.:lt A13 cSS g +(Bll + dll) bP m + (B12 + d12) GS wm +
(B13 + d13) cSS gm (114)
dive ToV (cSP - cSPego> m + Rom = A21 cS P + A22 cSSw +
V k k+1 , k V k (",n+l ( R \' A23 cSS g +(B21 + d21) cSPm + (B22 + d22) 8Swm +
C31 = - Sg (16 bg+Crbg 16i)+-So ¥I bo 51 (11")
.1 t .1 t (B23 + d23) h Sgm J

+Cr bo Rs ~i)n) dive (ToRs + Tg)V(cSP - cSP ego ) + Rgm = A31hP + A32 hSw +
k 1
Cn = _V(16 k+1 (b o Rs>k+l)/.:lt. C33 = _V(16 + (b o Rs>k+1)/At
A33hSg +(B31 + d31)cSP m + (B32 + d32)cSS wm +
(116)
Similarly. the right hand side of equations (105)-(107) (B33 + d33) bSgm
can be expanded as those given above. in which they
will be referred as dij' where.
If the bubble point pressure of reservoir oil varies . k+l
considerably in the lateral direction of the reservoir. Rw = Rl - qw + dJv. (TwV(P - Pewo - 'YwZ» + V(P - Pewo
then. such variation of ~ubble point press~re can. be ta- _'YwZ)k+1cS Tw - (16 b w Sw)k+l + (16 b w Sw) n
ken lnto account by addlng one more equatlon. ThlS cau-
ses to have an extra term in the above expanded equa- R _R _ + di (T V (P _ 'Y Z»k+1 + V (P _ P _ 'Y Z)k+1
tions (for oil and gas only) such as C24 and C34 • 0 - 2 qo v. 0 0 eog 0
For this we also need to have an extra equation which cSTo - (16 bo So>k+l + (16 bo 50>n
relates oil formation vo1um factor. Rs. and saturation
pressure. In addition. we have six ot~er equations. R = R3 _ q _ q R + diVe (T V(P _ P _ y Z»k+l + V(P-
three for fracture and three for matrlX. These equa- g ~+l 0 s g eg~+l g .
tions are: Pego-YgZ) cSTg+Rs V(P-Pe~o YgZ) cSTo+dJv.DV
Sw + So + 5g = 1 • Pego = Pg - Po I(Rsm - RS> - (Il bg Sg + Il bo Rs 50) +1 + (Il b g 5g + , bo Rs So) n
Pewo = Po - P w (for water wet system) Equations tor Rwm. Rom and RQm are similar to their
corresponding fracture equatl0ns. given abvove. except
Pewo = Pw - Po (for oil wet sytem) that they do not contain the productions terms. i.e.
The above 12 equations. with twelve unknowns can be qw· qo and qg.
solved using fully implicit method. The capillary pressure terms in the fracture equations
Moreover. the left hand side of equations (102)-(107) may be put to zero. Thus equations (111)-(126) repre-
can be evaluated implicitly as follows: sent six equations with six unknowns. the unknowns are
p. Sw. Sg. Pm. Swm and Sgm'
dive Tw V (P w - 'YwZ)k+1 = dive (T w V(P - Pewo - ywZ»k+l +
It should be noted that when there is water influx in-
div.Twk+lV(6P-6Pewo)+ V(P-Pewo-'YwZ)k+16Tw (l08) to any sector of a rerservoir. a term should be added
to the left hand side of equation (l17)to represent such
dive To V (Po - l' oZ) = dive (To V (p - 'YOZ)}k+l + dive To k+l influx. The above set of equations can be solved using
. k+l Gaussian elimination. When a reservoir is divided into
V ( uP - cSPego) + V(P - Peog - 'YoZ)
~
hTo (109) more than one sector. then we have to solve the above
set of equations simultaneously for all the grids in
dive Tg V (P g - l' gZ) = dive <Tg V (p - Pego _ 'Y~Z»k+l + all the sectors.
dive Tgk+lV(cSp - cSPego ) + V(P - Pego _ 'YgZ) +1 hTg In order to demonstrate the matrix structure of such
(110) a system. it is more convenient to give a simple exam-
ple.
369
10 SIMULATION OF NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIR SPE 12270
Let us consider a reservoir that is divided into four
sectors. two .in the i direction and two in the j direc-
tions. Each sector is represented by two matrix blocks Depth ·Fracture Depth Fracture· Depth Fracture'
Each matrix block is divided into four grids, two in Volume VOJume VOJume
the Z direction and two in the R direction. For simpli- ( 106RB) ( 10 Rl3) (10 R(3)
city, the fracture of each sector is represented by
one grid point. This reservoir is shown schematically 90 4.5 600 97.0 1400 165.0
in figure 6. 200 10.0 700 107.0 1700 177
The above set of simultaneous equations (118)-(123) 350 55.0 900 127.0 1850 100
for the reservoir described in figure 6, with 36 grids 500 85.0 1100 135.0 2136 207
results in a matrix shown in figure 7. As may be seen
from this figure, each rock element (matrix block) gi-
ves rise to a 4x4 sUb-matrix lying along the diagonal. The actual production of oil and gas is given by SAIDI~
The ordering scheme for each rock element is the nor- The simulation of this reservoir, using model descri-
mal Gaussian elimination ordering. The sector system bed here, started in 1973. 22 years of the history of
also lies on the digona1 at the lower right hand cor- this reservoir was matched using a two sector reser-
ner of the matrix, and it has a D-4 Gaussian elimina- voir. The results of pressure. gas-oil and water-oil
tion ordering scheme. The matrix elements along the contacts history match together with their actual va-
right hand side and lower part of matrix represents lues are given in Fig. 8. The results of GOR match,
the coupling (transmissibility) coefficients between together with its actual history, are also given ver-
each grid of the rock element and each sector grid sus time in Fig. 11.
This study could not be continued due to the'events
block (fracture grid block). in Iran which meant that computer was not available.
Haft Ke1 field simulation
Haft Ke1 Field is situated in the south-west of Iran CONCLUSION
at the east side of the Dezfu1 embayment. The field The following conclusions can be drawn from this paper:
was discovered in 19~8 and had a cumulative oil produc- 1. A fully implicit reservoir simulator which thorou-
~ion.of over 1.67xl0 STB at the end of 1~79. ~as in- gh1y treats both fracture flow and the exchange bet-
Jectlon, at a rate of 400xMMSCF, started ln thlS reser- ween matrix and fracture is described.
vois in mid ~97B. It is a~proximate1~ 20 mi1e~ (32 km) 2. The gravity drainage and diffusion processes as well
long and 3 ml1es (5 km) wlde. The maln produclng for- as exchange between matrix and fracture are ca1cu1a-
ma~ion.is the Asmeri 1imes~one of.01igo-Mio~en~ age ted more ~ccrately than any other exist{ng fractured
WhlCh lS 900 ft (2BO m) thlCk. ThlS reserVOlr 1S also reservoir simulation model.
in pressure commu~ication with th~ Eo~ene and Creata- 3. Excellent results were obtained when matching the
ceous rocks and wlth the Naft Safld Fle1d from the reservoir performance of the Haft J<el field in Iran.
north-west. These formations and reservoirs have pro-
bably contributed to oil production in Haft Ke1. NOMENCLATUrlES
The oil-ie-place used in the mathematica1 mode1 is A = Area
7.25 x 10~ STB in the matrix and 175 x 106STB in the b = Formation volume factor
fissures. c = Compressibility factor
Because of excellent communication in the reservoir, D = Effective diffusion coefficient
the pressure variations and gas-oil and water-oil le- GOC = Gas-oil contact
vels within the field are not significant and they can h = Height of fracture
reasonably be averaged. In addition. in order to sim- K = Rock permeability
plify the study and to reduce the computer time. only kr = r.elative permeability
one rock type was used to represent the reservoir. The L = Half width of a matrix block
porosity and permeability of the blocks varied, res- P = Pressure
pectively, from 12 to 7% and from 0.8 to 0.05 md. The Pc= Capillary pressure
block dimensions are varied from 10 to 14 ft (3-4.25m)q = Production
in height with radii of 6-B ft (1.B-2.5m). rn= nth radial grid
The 51 years of history consisting of the pressure, Rs= Solution gas-oil ratio
water-oil and gas-oil contacts are given in Fig.B. The S = Saturation
relative permeabi1ities of gas-oil and water-oil are t = Time
given in Fig.9, and their related capillary pressures T = Transmissibility of fracture
at the bubble point pressure are given in Fig.l0. The V = Bulk volume
cumulative fracture volume distribution versus depth WOC = Water-oil contact
which was finally used in this study is given in the Z = Depth
following Table. ~he black oil PVT properties are gi- Zm = Depth of a matrix qrid
ven by SAID! (6). Zw = Depth of woc
The water formation volume and compressibil ity factors,
Zg = Depth of GOC
rock compressibility, and diffusion coefficient of
SUBSCRIPTS
1.002 RB/STB, 3xl0- 6 psi- l , 4x 10-6 psi- 1 , and 0.0025
ft 2/day were respectively used in this study. The gas-b= Bottom
oil capillary pressure was calculated from the equa- e = Influx from matrix to fracture
tion . f = Fracture
9 = Gas
i = Initial
j = 1,2,3 Water. oil and gas
In matching the past history of this reservoir, almost m = MatriX
all the parameters mentioned earlier within their pos- nt ==
Time step level
Top
sible ranges were changed to arrive at a qood match.
370
SPE 12270 A. M. SAIDI 11

SUPERSCRIPTS APPENDIX A
k = Iteration level
I = Derivative with respect to saturation 01" pressure Due to the limitation of the space, only water equation
terms are given.
GREEK LETTERS Water zone reference (WaC above top of block.)
JI. = Viscosity
p = Density Rl Tw k (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm}k
I' = Specific weight k
!!J = Porosity
All T w (l + Zw - Zg) l' op + (h m - Zw) l' wp}
A12 T'w (Pf - Pewf - Pm + pcwm)k + Tw k h (1'w -1'0)
11ATHEMATICAL SYI~BOLS k k
a = Partial derivative AU -Tw h'Yo(TYPEO),T w (Zw-Zg) 1'ors(TYPE 1)
b = Iteration level
div= Divergence Bll - Tw k
V = Gradient k k
B12 T w P'ewm + T'wm (Pf - Pemf - Pm + Pewm)
4t= Time increment (t n+l - t n)
B13, Pwf 0
ACKNOVILEDGrmnS Pf P + 'Yo (Zw - Zg) + 'Yw (h m - Zw)
The author wishes to thank A.D.Modine for his valuable (WOC in block and above elevation h )
contribution in both the development of the concept Rl, A13 .(TYPE 0), B11 , B12 , B13 , an~ Pf are the same as
and the computer proqram.
those glven above.
REFERENCES k
All T w (l + (2Zw + Zg - Zt) 'Yop - (2Z w - h m - Zt) 'Ywp)
1. Reiss, L.H. : "The reservoir engineering aspect of A12 T'w (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm) + 2Twk h ('Yw - 'Yo)
fractured formations", editions Technip Paris, 1980 k
AUT w (2Z w - Zg - Zt) Yors (TYPE 1)
2. Saidi ,A.r1.: "Effect of gas pressure maintenance on
the recovery of the Iranian fractured limestone reser- Pewf (Zw - Zt) ('Yw - 'Y 0)
voirs", Proc. 9th world energy Conf., Detroit. (1974)
Oil zone reference (WaC below bottom of block)
3. Saidi ,A.M., and Van Golfracht, T. : "Consideration R , A (TYPE 0), B , B , and B are the same as tho
Sur les m~canismes de base dans les reservoirs frac- 1 13 11 12 13
tures," Review de l'Institut Francais ctu Petrole (1971 se given above.
4. Saidi ,A.t1, Tehrani .D.H., and lHT ,K.: .. ~1athematical All T w k (l - (Zg - h m) I' gp (Zb - Zt) (I'wp - 'Y op)
Simulation of fractured reservoir performance, based k
on physical model experiments" ; Develooments in re- A12 T'w (Pf - Pcwf - Pm + Pcwm)
servoir engineering_ paper PD 10(3) - Proceedings 10- A13 - Tw k 'Y gh(TYPE 0), Twk (Zb - Zt) Yors (TYPE 1)
th world petroleum congress, Bucharest, 1979. Pf P - Yg (Zg - h m)
5. Yamamoto, Padgett, Ford and Bonbeguira : "Composi-
tional Reservoi~ Simulator for Fissured Systems - The Pcwf (Zb - Zt) (Y w - Yo)
Single-Block Model," SPEJ, June (1971), 113-128. (waC in block but below eleva~ion hm)
6. Saidi,AJ.1.:"Mathematical simulation model descri- R1, A13' Bll' B13' and Pf are the same as those given
bing iranian fractured reservoirs and its application
to Haft-Kel field", Proccedings 9th Horld Petroleum above.
Congress, Tokyo (1975), p. 209. Twk(I +(hm-Zg~ Yop-(Zw-Zt)(Ywp- Yop»
7. Lefebvre du Pray, E.J., Bossie-Codreanu,D. : "Si- T'w (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k + T w kh (Y w - "0)
mulation nU11l~rique de 1 'exploitation des r~servoirs
fissur~s", Proceedings 9th lVorld Petroleum Congress, T w k P'ewm + T'wm (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k
Tokyo (1975), Panel discussion 13 (5). (Zw - Zt) (Yw - Yo)
8. Rossen, R.H. : "Simulation of naturally fractured
reservoirs with semi impl icit source terms", SPE Jour- Gas zone reference (WaC below bottom of block)
nal, June (1977), p. 201. Rl, Bll, B12, and B13 are the same as those given above.
9. Thoms, L.K., Dixon.T.N., and Pierson R.G. : "Frac- k
tured reservoir simulation", SPE Paper 9305 presented All Tw (I + (h m - Zg) Yop - (Zb - Zt) (i'wp - Yop»
at the 55th Annual Fall Meeting of AIME held in Dallas
Texas, Sept. 21-24, (1980). A12 T'w (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm)k
k
AU m Tw (h - Zg + Zb - Zt) (TYPE 1)
10. Bossie-Codreanu,D.,Bia,P.,and Sabathier,J.C :
"The Checker model" and imprpvement in model 1ing natu- Pf P+Yo(hm-Z g)
rally fractured reservoirs", paper SPE 10977 presentee Pewf (Zb - Zt) ( Y - Yo)
at the six SPE symposium on reservoir simulation ; w
New Orleans, Feb. (1982). (WaC in block but below elevation h )
11. Blaskovich, F.T., Cain, G.M, Sonier, F., Waldren, R1, All' A13 (TYPE a), B11 , B'2' B13m, Pf and Pcwf are
D., and Webb, S.J. : "A multicomponent isothermal sys- the same as those given above.
tem for efficient reservoir simulation", paper SPE
11480 presented in Bahrain March (1983).
T'w (Pf - Pewf - Pm + Pewm}k + T w k h ("Y w - "o)
k
T w (Zw - Zt) "ors (TYPE 1)

371
 SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR SECTOR

[IZ] ROCK TVPE 2

~ ROCK TVPE3

at

Fig. 2-Schematic representation of a fractured reservoir divided into six sectors.

Two dimensional
Symmetry R-Z cylinder

Sealed boundary
Ibl

tIFlow
Vertical

- Flow
Radial

lei
Idl

Fig. 3-Matrix element with grid block definition.

)2. 270
GOC - - - - - - - - - - p. Z!J
P, ----------r-- ..m
• •• •
m •• • •
Pf ---- -- .... • •• •
••• •
RACTURE GRID GOC - - - ------P.Zg ••• •
•• • •
• •• •
••• •
••• •
WOC--- - - - - - - Zw •• • •
• •• •
WOC - - - - - - - -_- Zw ••• •
••• •
•• • •
• •• •
Fig. 4-A grid block lying in oil zone. Fig. 5-A grid block lying in gas zone. ••• •
••• •
•• • •
• •• •
••• •
••• •
•• • •
• •• •
••• •
••• •

r
SECTOR 1 SECTOR 2 SECTOR 3 SECTOR 4
x •• • •

BE
• ••

[ffij [ffij tffi8

•
••• •
••• •
~ 2 4 10 12 18 20 26 28
•• • •
• •• •
33 36 35 34 ••• •
•••• ••• • • ••
•
• • • ••••• •••
• •• • • • • • ••
• ••
• }
EB tffij [ffij tffi8 , • • ••• • • • • • •
V
.1'-.,-.'
MATRIX BLOCKS (NATURAL ORDERING) FRACTURE
6 8 14 16 22 24 30 32 (04 ORDERING)

j = I. i = I j = I. i = 2 j = 2. i = I j = 2. i = 2

Fig. 6-Schematic representation of a reservoir with four sectors. Fig. 7-Typical matrix structure for a four-sector reservoir.

) 22-?(}
 o
r.- r-..... G~s-Oi levI I
20( 1 750

I- 400
w
~
~ ""~ 1650 en
~
w 0.
u.
~ 600
1\ 1550 ~
w ""- I\vV-
':Ii
::::l
a::
~ 800
1\ I-
1450 ~
1.0 r----r--"T"'""-....,--,.
R., ervo r \
(J o
::::I
~ 1(1(10
I eSSL e r\.. 1350 :g
'\
I\-.. V-
I-
'"u. ct: 0.8 I-l-----j~-.___+ - - 4 - - - - 1
01200 1250 w
0.
c:: ~
~
::::l
o
~ 1400 1150 :za::
(J)
"-
~ 0.6
o 0. a::
a:: ...,- r----- o
u. 1600 950 a::
:r / o ~ Ou4 1-¥7-t---\-----}f--~~~_I
>
I-
0.
w 1800
. ./ c::
W
"-
'"
~

c
~ ter-( il Ie
<II
'I
W 0.2 I--~hl--~- -+----1
y a::
200 0
/
220 0
~
.20 .40 .60 .80

4 S9 OR Sw FRACTIOI~ OF P V
8 12 16 20 24 28 YEARS

Fig. 8-Actual and simulated pressure, gas/oil, Fig. 9-0il, water, and gas relative
and water/oil levels. permeability.

MEASURED

SIMULATED
410
***
4

o 1'. .
' ........
\ -
3
:;; 400
1\1
"-
u.
(J
(J)

a::
0
C1 380
390

en '" 1'-,, ' "

--:: - en w
, .... , ~
>

'"
0. 0.
Z Z I- 370
2 2- ct:

~" "-
~
'"
(.)
0.
::::l
:Ii 360
- ::::l
(J

\ 350
·4

0.2 OA
Sw OR SL FRACTION OF P,V.
0.6
\
I
0.8
"'" ~
1.0
o 10 20 YEARS
Fig. 10-Average water/oil and gas/oil capillary pressures of Haft Kel Fig. 11-Actual and simulated GOR.
field.

) 2:l 70