SPE 101674

Simulation of Gas/Oil Displacements in Vuggy and Fractured Reservoirs

C. A. Kossack, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

correctly predict the oil recovery. The process described can
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and be applied to any triple porosity reservoir where gas is
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.
invading the fracture-matrix system.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to Introduction
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at The presence of vugs in a naturally fractured reservoir can be
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
a significant source of reserves. The recent developments in
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is image log technology are helping to identify that naturally
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous fractured reservoir rock contains not only matrix and fracture
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
but also the vugs. Oil recovery from vugs is highly dependent
on the geology and the fluid flow situation. The mechanism
Abstract of oil recovery from vugs in a triple porosity system is
The presence of vugs in a naturally fractured reservoir can be dependent on the location of the vugs and connections of the
a significant source of reserves. These vugs can be connected vugs to the fracture system. These vugs can be connected to
to the fracture system or be isolated in matrix material which the fracture system or be isolated in matrix material which
constitutes a triple porosity system. The modeling of the constitutes a triple porosity system. Several publications2, 3
displacement of oil from the vugs can not be made with have addressed the recovery of oil from vugs that are
conventional dual porosity reservoir simulators since triple connected to the fracture system.
porosity system isolated vugs are not part of the
formulation. This work concerns isolated vugs. The definition of isolated
vugs used in this paper considers vugs that do not have a
The simulation of oil production from triple porosity connection to the overall fracture system. Vugs can be
reservoirs requires the development of composite porosity, interconnected with other vugs in the matrix rock. Such a
composite relative permeabilities and composite capillary vuggy rock is illustrated in Figure 1, which is a thin section
pressure relationships. These composite curves can be photomicrograph. The blue areas are vugs.
generated from properly designed laboratory experiments on
representative cores or by history matching fine grid single
porosity simulations. Kossack, et al1 discussed this for water-
oil systems. Since the displacement of oil from vugs by gas
involves very different mechanisms from water-oil systems
and is very complex, the simulation of this process must be
studied separately.

This paper describes a numerical scale-up technique to

provide the composite properties and curves to be used in gas-
oil displacements in triple porosity systems. Displacements in
dual and triple porosity gas-oil systems are dependent on the
magnitude of gravity and viscous forces, capillary pressure in
the matrix rock, composition of the injection gas, and rate of
component diffusion in the porous media. Fine grid single
porosity simulations are made with a compositional simulator
to determine the rate of oil recovery from the fractures, matrix
rock, and vugs. These results are then matched with dual
porosity compositional simulations, which create the Figure 1. Thin section photomicrograph of vuggy rock
composite matrix properties.
As discussed by Kossack, et al1 the modeling of the
These composite properties can then be used in full field dual displacement of oil from the vugs can not be made with
porosity simulations of fractured and vuggy reservoirs to
2 SPE 101674
conventional dual porosity reservoir simulators since three
porosity system isolated vugs are not part of the
formulation. Thus, the simulation of oil production from triple
porosity reservoirs requires the development of composite
relative permeability and capillary pressure relationships that
incorporates the behavior of the vugs into the matrix curves.
Gurpinar, et al4 applied this procedure to a reservoir in a
water-oil displacement situation. A set of composite curves
can be generated from properly designed laboratory
experiments on representative cores. If these experiments are
made they must emulate the mechanisms present in the
reservoir.
Kossack, et al1 described a technique to create composite
matrix properties and composite matrix relative permeability
and capillary pressure curves to be used in a dual porosity
simulation of the triple porosity system for water-oil
displacements. They explained that, in water-oil systems to
generate these composite curves one must know the vug
fraction, distribution, and the approximate ratio of viscous and
gravity forces in the reservoir. Geostatistical information
about the vug distribution can be incorporated into the
analysis. The results from this numerical procedure are
composite curves that are more dependable than the result
obtained from matching of laboratory displacement
experiments on vuggy cores.
Since Kossack, et al1 have described in detail the process of
creating composite properties and composite curves only a
summary of the process will be given in this paper. The basic
idea is to generate the answer to the fluid flow/oil recovery
system from very fine grid single porosity simulations. Here
the geological features, rock, fractures, and vugs are
physically represented in the discretized grid. Composite
properties, relative permeability and capillary pressure are
then created for a dual porosity model so that displacement
results made with a dual porosity simulator match the fine grid
single porosity simulations.
Since the displacement of oil by gas in fractured and vuggy
reservoirs is substantially more complicated than that in water-
oil systems, a complete discussion of the mechanisms will be
given.
The factors affecting the rate of displacement of oil from vug
by gas and the ultimate oil recovery in the matrix rock and in
the vugs are (1) viscous forces, (2) capillary forces, (3) gravity
forces, (4) diffusive forces and (5) injection gas composition.
For this paper viscous forces are minimized and neglected in
the analysis, gravity forces are fixed and constant. Diffusive
forces are neglected in some simulations and accounted for in
others. Comparisons of the results show the effect of diffusive
forces in the oil recovery process. Three different magnitudes
of capillary forces are used in the simulations to show their
effect.
Six cases are simulated with a very fine single porosity grid
using one realization of isolated vugs distributed in a matrix
rock. Composite properties and composite relative
permeability and capillary curves are generated so that the
dual porosity simulation results match the fine grid results.
This process works very well. The objective of showing the
results from these six cases is to give detailed examples of the
process/workflow so simulation engineers will be able to
generate appropriate composite properties and composite
relative permeability and capillary pressure curves for their
individual field cases when gas invades a fractured and vuggy
reservoir. In actual field cases it is expected that many
realizations of the vug distributions in the matrix block will be
needed to properly set up the composite curves for full field
simulations.
Geological Considerations
Vugs, which are void spaces in reservoir rock, are created by
diagenesis, which in most cases is the dissolution of water-
soluble compounds. Some of the vugs are connected to the
major fracture system, while others are isolated in the matrix
rock. Vug size, orientation, connectivity, and distribution in
the matrix blocks, etc. are specific to the depositional process
and the diagenesis.
Casar-Gonzalez and Suro-Perez5 have studied vuggy rock with
CT scans and created semi-variograms of the distribution of
the vugs. The small value of the range in the semi-variograms
showed that for this rock the distribution was random beyond
this short distance.
As was the case in Kossack, et al1, and for this papers
analysis, the vug distribution was assumed to be random in the
matrix blocks. Other reservoir rocks may have different
distributions of vugs. For these cases, the realizations should
be created using the actual geo-statistical vug distribution.
Mechanism of Oil Displacement from Matrix Rock
and Vugs
Displacement from Matrix Blocks
In the paper published by Kossack, et al1, the water-wet matrix
blocks were flooded with water from the fractures. In this
situation, the forces present that cause this displacement were
capillary imbibition, gravity, and viscous. All three forces
were acting to displace the oil from the matrix rock. Gravity
and viscous forces controlled the oil recovery from the vugs.
In history matching the fine grid single porosity results with
the composite dual porosity model, the authors choose to alter
the krow and Pcow of the matrix.
In this gas-oil case, the situation is much more complex.
When the fracture fills with gas and the matrix contains oil
and connate water, the movement of the gas into the matrix
rock is a drainage process. The matrix rock gas-oil capillary
pressure tends to resist this process. There are two forces
available to displace gas into the matrix and oil out. They are
gravity forces and diffusive forces. When the fracture fills
with gas, gravity forces will push oil out the bottom side of the
matrix block and gas will flow into the topside. This
displacement is basically a one-dimensional process that
results in a horizontal gas-oil contact in the matrix block. The
magnitude of the gravity force is proportional to the phase
SPE 101674
density difference, (oil -gas), times [the height of the gas-oil
contact in the fracture minus the height of the gas oil contact
in the matrix block, (H-Z)]. Z is measured from the top of the
matrix block downward. At the start of the displacement, Z
= 0. If the fracture is filled with gas the height of the gas oil
contact in the fracture is the matrix block height or stack
height, H. For any gas to invade the matrix block the gravity
forces given by Equation 1 must be larger than the capillary
forces given by Equation 2. If the gravity force is larger than
the capillary force at the beginning of the drainage process the
matrix will be flooded with gas until the two forces are equal.
As gas fills the matrix, Z increases and the magnitude of
gravity force decreases. At some point in the displacement
process the level of the gas oil contact in the matrix block has
moved down from the top of the block, that is Z > 0 and (H
Z) may be of small magnitude. At this point the gravity and
capillary forces are equal and the flow of oil from the matrix
and gas into the matrix stops. The recovery of oil from the
matrix, in the absence of diffusion, has reached its maximum.
Pg = ( o g ) g / g c ( H Z ) (1) from triple porosity reservoirs. In both cases, the true solution
2 Cos
Pc = (2)
r gc
When there is a difference in composition between the gas in
the fracture and the oil in the matrix, diffusion will push gas
molecules into the matrix (from all sides) and push oil
molecules out into the fractures. The magnitude of the
diffusion force is a function of the diffusion coefficients of the
various molecules in the oil phase times the mole fraction
(concentration) gradient with distance.
Viscous forces are in general relatively small in a gas-oil
displacement for two reasons. One, in many cases the gas cap
is expanding into the reservoir. Here the gas velocity and
pressure gradient in the gas cap are very small. Two, even
when gas is injected into the fractures and is moving through
the reservoir displacing oil, the combination of the low
viscosity gas and high permeability fractures, results in very
low viscous forces.
Displacement from Vugs
In the water-oil system, as described by Kossack, et al1, two
mechanisms force the oil out of the vugs into the reservoir
rock of the matrix. The forces are (1) viscous from the
pressure gradient in the fractures and (2) gravity from the
density difference between the oil in the vug and the water in
the matrix rock.
In the gas oil system the forces available to push oil out of the
vugs and gas, from the matrix rock, into the vugs are (1)
gravity and (2) diffusion. Viscous forces in this system are
very small.
Gravity forces are created when the matrix fills with gas and
the vugs are still oil filled. The density difference between the
3
phases will force gas into the vugs from the top side of the
vugs and the oil will drain out the bottom of the vugs. Once
this oil is in the matrix rock it will flow along with matrix oil
to the bottom of the block and into the fracture.
Diffusion forces are created when the matrix fills with gas
with a different composition from the oil, for example when
the gas is Methane. The Methane will diffuse into the oil in
the vug and the heavier oil molecules will diffuse out of the
vug into the matrix rock. Once the oil is in the matrix rock it
will flow to the bottom of the block and into the fracture.
Fine Grid Single Porosity Simulations
As described previously by Gurpinar and Kossack6, the default
dual porosity simulator model (Warren and Root7, Kazemi8)
does not give the correct solution to the water-oil
displacement. In additions it does not give the correct solution
to the gas-oil displacement. This will be shown later in this
paper. Also Kossack, et al1, discussed that the dual porosity
model is incapable of simulating oil displacement/recovery
can be calculated using a very fine grid single porosity
simulation where all the physical features, fractures, matrix
rock and vugs are modeled with small grid blocks. This paper
will follow this direction of analysis so one can simulate the
oil recovery from triple porosity reservoir using a dual
porosity simulator using appropriate composite functions.
Model Description
A single porosity, fine grid, numerical description of a vug
filled matrix block surrounded by fractures was created for the
ECLIPSE Compositional Reservoir Simulator9. The
assumption is made that simulations of displacements with
this model provide the correct answer of the oil recovery from
the matrix block and from the vugs. To demonstrate the
workflow that a simulation engineer would use to simulate this
triple porosity system with a dual porosity simulator, a sample
matrix block surrounded by fractures was created with a
random distribution of vugs, a compositional reservoir fluid, a
compositional injection gas with injection and production
rates, a gas-oil capillary pressure in the matrix rock, and
component diffusion coefficients in the oil and gas phases.
The matrix block was 5.2 x 5.2 x 5.2 feet surrounded by
fractures on six sides. Since the matrix fracture displacement
situation is effectively a one-dimensional displacement driven
by gravity forces, gas was injected evenly in the top fracture
and fluid was removed from the bottom fracture. This is to
model the movement of a gas cap as it expands into the
reservoir or an injected gas front as it passes by the matrix
block. The matrix block (km = 5 mD and m = 0.1) and
fractures (kf = 10,000 mD and f = 1.0) were sub-divided into
2744 grid blocks. A realization (the same as Realization 1 as
described by Kossack, et al1) of 169 vugs (kv = 10,000 mD
and v = 1.0) randomly distributed throughout the matrix
block was created, where the vugs were not in contact with the
fracture blocks. This gave a vug fraction of 15%. The
definition of vug fraction used in this paper is vug bulk
volume in the matrix block /matrix block bulk volume (vugs +
4 SPE 101674
matrix rock). In the following discussions the part of the
matrix block that is rock with pores will be referred to as
matrix rock, the part of the matrix block that is vugs will be
referred to as vugs and the block containing the matrix rock
and the vugs will be referred to as the matrix block.
Fluid Description
A simple 4-component compositional reservoir fluid
(containing C1, C3, C10, C15) was used as the oil for the
Methane displacement cases and a 5-component
compositional reservoir fluid (containing N2, C1, C3, C10, C15)
was used as the oil for the Nitrogen displacement cases. The
compositions of the reservoir oils are given in Table 1. The
bubble point pressure for the reservoir oil was 2604 Psia at the
reservoir temperature of 100o F. A 3-Parameter Peng-
Robinson10 characterization was used for the 4 and 5
component descriptions using standard default component
properties. Lorentz-Bray-Clark11 default parameters were
used for the viscosities. Cheuh-Prausnitz12 Binary Interaction
Coefficients (A=0.15) were defaulted. At the reservoir
temperature of 100o F this oil is typical black oil. In an actual
field case, a simulation engineer would use the characterized
fluid matched to the phase behavior at the actual reservoir
temperature.
Table 1. Composition of the reservoir oil in the 4 and 5
component characterizations
Component Name Mole Percent in 4 Mole Percent in 5
component system component system
N2 ---- .01
C1 50 49.99
C3 15 15
C10 15 15
C15 20 20
The initial pressure in the matrix, fractures, and vugs was
2655 Psia. Thus, single-phase oil initially fills the model. The
stock tank oil initially in place (STOIIP) in the matrix rock
was 1.109 Stb and in the vugs was 2.451 Stb. Even though the
vug fraction in the matrix block was only 15%, 69% of the
STOIIP was in the vugs. Since the residual oil in the matrix
rock is non-zero and is zero in the vugs, the percentage of the
recoverable oil in the vugs is 73.4%. This shows the
importance of modeling the oil recovery in the vugs
accurately.
Flow System
Gas was injected into the fracture at the top of the matrix
block using a simulator well with many connections to
fracture blocks. A similar production well was attached to the
fracture at the bottom of the matrix block. A gas flux rate
through the fracture system of approximately 2.5 rb/day was
simulated. This created a gas filled fracture very quickly and
rapidly swept oil into the production well as it emerged from
the matrix block. The injection and production wells were also
controlled by bottom hole pressure so that a small pressure
gradient (less than 50 psi) was maintained from the topside
fracture to the bottom side fracture. The average pressure in
the matrix, vugs, and fractures during the displacement leveled
off at 2670 Psia. Thus, the displacement phases present were
a gas (injection gas) in the fractures and a single phase
(slightly undersaturated) oil in the matrix and vugs.
The results of the fine grid single porosity simulations showed
that the pressure drop across the matrix block in the direction
of the gas flow (top to bottom) was approximately 0.28 psi.
This gave a pressure gradient of 0.05 psi/foot. Which implies
that the viscous forces acting on the matrix block are
negligible.
The numerical grid was described in detail by Kossack, et al1.
The matrix block and surrounding fractures as subdivided into
2744 small grid blocks. In the interior of the matrix block
were 169 randomly distributed vug blocks. The only
restriction on the location of the vugs was that they were not
adjacent to fracture blocks. A FloViz9 view of the matrix,
fractures and vugs is shown in Figure 2. This is one
realization of the vug distribution. In a complete analysis
several realizations would be created, simulated, history
matched with a dual porosity composite model, and resulting
curves/parameters averaged.
Figure 2. View of numerical grid with matrix rock and vugs (red).
Prior to the creation of composite properties and the history
matching process which will be described in a later section,
three parameters were varied in the fine grid single porosity
simulations to study their effect on the recovery of oil from the
matrix rock, vugs, and matrix block (matrix rock + vugs). The
following parameters were varied in the simulations: matrix
capillary pressures, injection gases, and amount of diffusion.
Four different matrix rock gas-oil capillary pressure curves
were used. Since this is a drainage process, the higher the gas-
oil capillary pressure the larger is the capillary force that will
tend to keep the oil in the matrix and the gas in the fracture.
One of the capillary pressure curves was zero for all gas
saturations. The other three curves are shown in Figure 3.
Note the maximum gas-oil capillary pressures (at the
maximum gas saturation) values are 1.72 Psia (labeled
normal Pc), 10 Psia (labeled high Pc), and 52 Psia (labeled
very high Pc). The very high Pc curve has a threshold
SPE 101674 5

capillary pressure of 2 Psia at a gas saturation of 0. This very
high Pc is unlikely in the real world and was used as an
academic exercise.
the capillary forces are greater than the gravity forces at the
start of the displacement. Thus no matrix oil is recovered.
Actually in the displacement process the pressure in the matrix
block increases as gas is injected into the fracture and oil,
initially in the fracture, is pushed into the matrix block and the
recovery factor is slightly negative. The oil recovery from the
vugs is similar to that in the matrix rock.

Gas Composition Sensitivity

Two injection gases are simulated. The gases are pure
Methane and pure Nitrogen. These gases have different
densities and different diffusion rates. Thus, we can see the
effect of different gases on the displacement of oil from the
matrix rock and from the vugs.

Figure 5 shows the oil RF from the matrix rock for

Figure 3. Gas-oil capillary pressures used in the simulations in the
matrix rock.
Pcog Sensitivity
Four fine grid simulations were run with these capillary
pressures using Methane injection without diffusion. For
comparative purposes the oil recovery factors (RF) in the
matrix rock are plotted in Figure 4.
displacement with Methane and Nitrogen. The higher gravity
forces cause the difference when the fracture is filled with
Methane. Figure 6 shows the oil RF from the vugs in these
two simulations. Again the rate of oil recovery from the vugs
is higher with Methane since the matrix block fills with
Methane more rapidly than with Nitrogen.

Figure 5. Oil Recovery Factor from matrix rock for Methane and
Nitrogen displacements.

Figure 4. Oil Recovery from matrix rock and vugs for the four matrix
gas-oil capillary pressures.

As the gas-oil capillary pressure in the matrix rock increases

from 0 to 1.72 to 10 and finally to 52 Psia the recovery of oil
decreases from 60% to 46% to 29% and finally to 1%. These
results are explained as follows. The gravity forces given by
Equation 1 are fixed at 1.17 Psia in the four simulations
densities are given by the gas composition and oil composition
and the pressure. The calculation of the gravity force present
is given in the Appendix. At the beginning of the simulations
the gravity force is greater than the capillary force in the three
cases with the Pcog < 52 Psia and oil flows out the bottom of
the matrix block and gas flow in the top. As the gas-oil
contact in the matrix moves lower in the block, Z increases,
the gravity force decreases. When the gravity force given by
Equation 1 equals the capillary force given by Equation 2 the
displacement stops. With a higher Pcog this equality occurs at Figure 6. Oil Recovery Factor from vugs for Methane and Nitrogen
displacements.
a smaller value of Z. Thus, the oil RF decreases as the gas-oil
capillary pressure increases. With the very high Pcog (52 Psia)
6 SPE 101674

Diffusion Sensitive
Diffusion can be an important mechanism to extract oil from
matrix blocks when there is a large mole fraction difference
between the gas in the fracture and the oil in the matrix rock.
When diffusive forces are added to the displacement process
the main result is that oil recovery from the matrix rock can
continue past the point where the gravity and capillary forces
are equal. The rate of oil recovery from the matrix rock and
from the vugs can either be increased or decreased as diffusion
is added to the flow mechanisms. It is increased when the
mole fraction gradient is high and the diffusion coefficient for
the components is large. On the other hand, the additional
flux of components from diffusion can reduce the density
difference between phases and reduce the gravity forces. This
can result in a lower overall recovery of oil. Both of these
cases will be seen in the examples that follow.
Figure 7. Oil Recovery Factor from matrix rock for Methane
To test the effectiveness of diffusion in the recovery of oil displacements with and without diffusion.
from the matrix block including the vugs, cases were run with
and without the diffusion calculation. The key input to the
diffusion calculation is the magnitude of the diffusion
coefficients of each component in the gas phase and in the oil
phase. The component diffusion coefficients in the gas phase
are easily available in several handbooks of chemical
properties as a function of pressure and temperature. Typical
gas component values for the components in this study are
shown in Table 2. Component oil phase diffusion coefficients
are more difficult to determine. In normal cases they are
determined experimentally. From experience we know that
for a typical component the oil phase diffusion coefficient are
1/10 to 1/30 of the gas phase value. For this study gas phase
values were estimated to be 1/10 of the gas phase values.

Table 2. Diffusion Coefficients for Components in gas

and oil phases
Figure 8. Oil Recovery Factor from vugs for Methane displacements with
and without diffusion.
Component Name Gas Phase Oil Phase
Diffusion Diffusion
Coefficients Coefficients
(ft2/day) (ft2/day)
N2 0.16 0.016
C1 0.15 0.015
C3 0.04 0.004
C10 0.013 0.0013
C15 0.011 0.0011

A comparison showing the effect of diffusion can be seen in

Figures 7, 8 and 9. For the base case with Methane injection
and Pcog = 0 in the matrix rock, Figure 7 shows the effect of
activating diffusion on the oil RF in the matrix rock. As one
can see in the figure, diffusion is a slow process and does not
affect the results until after 100 days. After that point in time,
diffusion substantially increases the recovery of oil. As for the
RF for the vugs, Figure 8 shows that the No Diffusion case Figure 9. Oil Recovery Factor from vugs for Nitrogen displacements with
actually has a higher rate of oil recovery, as discussed earlier. and without diffusion.
When the injection gas is Nitrogen, Figure 9, initially the oil
recovery from the vugs is higher with diffusion, later, after 50
days the reduction in the density difference is more important
and the no diffusion case has the higher recovery rate.
SPE 101674
Development of Composite Curves for Simulating
Triple Porosity Reservoirs
Overview of the Process
The main objective of this research was to determine how one
could simulate a triple porosity system with a dual porosity
(fracture and matrix) reservoir simulation such as the
ECLIPSE Compositional Simulator. This section will
describe the process to develop the appropriate composite
curves to accomplish this and the following sections will
demonstrate how this is done for six cases with different
injection gases, with and without diffusion and with different
gas-oil capillary pressure in the matrix rock.
The process (demonstrated in Figure 10) of developing
composite curves that will allow the dual porosity simulator to
model the oil flow and recovery from a triple porosity system
is as follows:
The engineer must have the following data
1. Approximate matrix block size in the area of interest
Matrix rock Pcog, krg, krog, km, and m
Approximate fracture permeability and
thickness
Vug fraction (in the matrix block)
Any geo-statistical information available
about the distribution of the vugs in the
matrix blocks
2. A fine grid, single porosity simulation model
(ECLIPSE Compositional Simulator) is made
consisting of the fracture, matrix and vugs. The
fractures and vugs are assigned straight-line relative
permeabilities (that is krg = Sg and kro = So), Pcog = 0,
f = v = 1.0, and k = kf = kv = 10,000 mD (a very
large permeability). The matrix is assigned the rock
relative permeabilities and capillary pressure, that is,
= m, k = km. The number of grid blocks assigned
as vugs should yield the known vug fraction. Vug
grid blocks should not be adjacent to fracture grid
blocks. Vug grid block locations should be assigned
according to the geo-statistical model; in the absence
of a particular model the vugs should be located
randomly.
3. Simulator gas injection wells should be located on
the top fracture for displacement from above. The
well(s) should be completed evenly over the top
fracture. Producer (gas rate or BHP control) wells
should be located on the opposite side of the matrix
block from the injectors. The gas injection rate
should model the estimated flow that will be (is)
found in the reservoir.
4. The simulation of the displacement should be run
until nearly 100% of the oil is recovered from the
vugs or the oil recovery factor (RF) from the matrix
rock and vugs plateaus as a function of time. The oil
recovery from the matrix rock + vugs should be
recorded vs. time.
5. The rock relative permeability and capillary pressure
curves and matrix porosity should be shifted (end
points/values changed) to incorporate the vugs in the
composite matrix material. We will call these
7
properties, composite properties. Details of this shift
are best observed in the example problems.
6. A dual porosity simulation model of the fracture,
matrix, and vugs should be created for the ECLIPSE
Compositional Simulator. This model represents the
fracture with one grid block and matrix with another.
The estimated sigma and stack height for the matrix-
fracture system are inputs to the simulator. Two
additional fracture blocks are attached adjacent to the
top and bottom for the injector and producer
connections. The dual porosity matrix block has the
porosity and permeability of the combined matrix and
vug system (shifted properties) and is initialized with
the shifted curves. The oil and water in place of the
dual porosity matrix should be the same as the sum
from the matrix and vugs in the single porosity
system. A gas injector and fluid producer should be
connected to the extra fracture blocks. The wells
should be run exactly the same as they were in the
single porosity simulation.
7. The gas displacement should be simulated the same
length of time as the single porosity simulation. The
oil recovery from the composite matrix block
should be recorded.
8. The oil recoveries from the single and dual porosity
simulations should be compared (plotted together).
The objective then is to adjust (history match) the
shifted models properties until the dual porosity
simulated, oil recovery matches the fine grid, single
porosity results. These adjusted composite curves
and other adjusted matrix properties, when used in
the dual porosity model, give the same oil production
rate and RF from the matrix block as one gets from
the triple porosity system, which we assume is the
correct result.
9. In an actual field situation, a second realization is
then created. This process the jumps to step 4 and
new composite curves are history matched for this
realization.
10. This process is repeated until N realizations have
been matched. The value of N is determined by
statistical principles (say, a 95% confidence level) or
by resources available.
11. The N curves are averaged into one effective
composite curve that is used in the full field
simulation. This process provides composite curves
that can be used when the full field grid block is
approximately the same size as the matrix blocks. If
larger numerical grid blocks are to be used in the full
field simulation another step in the scale-up process
may be required. This further scale-up calculation
must use the averaged composite curves as a starting
point.
8 SPE 101674
Figure 10. View of the process of matching fine grid single porosity
simulation with a dual porosity model.
Sigma Values for Dual Porosity Simulations
A key input parameter for dual porosity simulations is the
matrix-fracture transfer function called sigma, . Kazemi8
provided a standard formula to calculate sigma from the
matrix block dimensions, lx, ly, and lz. For this matrix block
where lx= ly= lz=5.2 feet, = 0.4438 feet-2. This value is valid
when the flow from the matrix block is three-dimensional.
Thomas, et al13 gave an equation to evaluate a gas
displacement sigma as = 2/l2 where l is the average matrix
block dimension. This gives = 0.074 feet-2. Both of the
sigma values are used in some of the initial dual porosity
simulations. But since these simulations do not match the fine
grid single porosity results and sigma is a history matching
parameter, the exact value used is of little consequence.
Oil Recovery from a Vug Free Matrix Block
Gurpinar and Kossack7 showed that the standard dual porosity
model does not give the correct result in a water-oil system.
The same is true for a gas-oil system. When dual porosity
simulation results of a vug free matrix block are compared
with the same case from a fine grid single porosity simulation
(the answer), Figure 11, the initial flow of oil from the dual
porosity matrix block is much higher than the correct result.
Figure 11 shows, on a log scale of time, the dual porosity
simulation with both the standard sigma ( = 0.4438 feet-2)
and the one-dimensional sigma ( = 0.074 feet-2) along with
the fine grid single porosity result. Both dual porosity results
have a higher oil recovery rate from the matrix block for at
least the first 10 days and the long time results also do not
match the answer. Thus, part of the matching process
discussed below will correct the flows from the matrix rock to
the fracture and from the fracture to the matrix block.
Figure 11. Oil recovery from vug free matrix rock: comparison of fine
grid single porosity results with dual porosity simulation with different
sigma values.
Available Reservoir Parameters for History Matching
When the dual porosity simulation results using a composite
matrix block, to be described in a later section, which has the
properties and fluids in place of the matrix rock and vugs does
not match the fine grid single porosity simulation of the same
situation, one must alter some of the dual porosity models
properties until the simulation matches the answer. In most
cases the initial rate of flow of oil from the matrix block does
not match and the final oil RF at large time, also, does not
match.
To history match this, one must change the rate at which oil
flows out of the matrix block and into the fractures and the
forces that control the recovery of oil from the matrix. To do
this there are many parameters available. The key parameters
that one would consider changing are as follows:
1. Sigma
2. krog of the matrix rock
3. Pcog of the matrix rock
4. Stack height, H
5. Diffusion transmissibility
6. Component Diffusion Coefficients
The objective of this paper is to show a consistent technique
that will allow the matching of the single porosity fine grid
results for all cases that one will encounter. After
investigating the sensitivity of various parameters, the first
choices of parameters to be adjusted were the value of sigma
and krog of the matrix rock. When an additional force is
needed to push the oil out of the matrix block the Pcog of the
matrix rock was altered slightly. In some diffusion cases, the
diffusion transmissibility was increased. It is important to
remember that the dual porosity simulation model with the
altered parameters is a pseudoized or composite model
created to give the correct answer while using two grid blocks.
Shifted Composite Curves
The porosity, relative permeability and capillary pressure
curves were shifted, as described in detail by Kossack, et al1,
so that the matrix block in the dual porosity model contained
the pore volume of the matrix plus vugs from the single
SPE 101674 9

porosity model and so that the residual saturation of the dual

porosity matrix was the effective value of the matrix rock plus
vugs. The shifted porosity for the dual porosity model was
0.235. The shifted curves give the correct end points
(Swi=0.0723 and Somax=0.928) to the composite matrix
material. These shifted curves, (see Kossack, et al1 for the
figures) are put into the dual porosity ECLIPSE
Compositional model as a starting point for the history match.
The history matching process may change these curves
between the end points, but not the shifted end points.
Example Cases
Six example cases will be shown where the dual porosity
composite model using one grid block for the matrix and one
for the fracture properties are altered so that the oil recovery
from the composite matrix matches that of the fine grid single
porosity simulation of the same case. The results of any
individual case are not as important as the workflow process
that creates the match.
Case 2. Methane gas injection - Pcog= 0, with diffusion
Figure 14 shows the oil recovery from the matrix block as
before. To match the single porosity recovery the value of
sigma was reduced to 0.024 and the krog was changed. The
initial and matched krog curves are given in Figure 15. This
case requires an extra force to push oil into the matrix block
when the gas saturation in the matrix block is 0.6 or higher.
Thus a small negative Pcog was created for this purpose, see
figure 16. Remember this Pcog is a pseudo capillary pressure
and not a real one. Simulator options must be set to accept
non-monotonic curves such as this one.

Case 1. Methane gas injection - Pcog= 0, no diffusion

Figure 12 shows the oil RF from the matrix block (matrix rock
and vugs) as a function of time for the fine grid single porosity
simulation, the initial dual porosity simulation, and the
matched result. To match the single porosity recovery the
value of sigma was reduced to 0.027 and the krog was changed.
The initial and matched krog curves are given in Figure 13.

Figure 14. Case 2 match methane gas injection, no capillary pressure,

with diffusion comparison of fine grid single porosity results with pre
and post matched results.

Figure 12. Case 1 match methane gas injection, no capillary pressure,

no diffusion comparison of fine grid single porosity results with pre and Figure 15. Case 2 match - Comparison of initial krog and altered krog
post matched results. required to match the fine grid single porosity results.

Figure 16. Case 2 match - Comparison of initial Pcog and altered Pcog
Figure 13. Case 1 match - Comparison of initial krog and altered krog required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
10
Case 3. Nitrogen gas injection - Pcog= 0, no diffusion
Figure 17 shows the oil recovery from the matrix block as
before. To match the single porosity recovery the value of
sigma was reduced to 0.024 and the krog was changed. The
initial and matched krog curves are given in Figure 18.
Figure 17. Case 3 match nitrogen gas injection, no capillary pressure,
no diffusion comparison of fine grid single porosity results with pre and
post matched results.
Figure 18. Case 3 match - Comparison of initial krog and altered krog
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
Case 4. Nitrogen gas injection - Pcog= 0, with diffusion
Figure 19 shows the oil recovery from the matrix block as
before. To match the single porosity recovery the value of
sigma was reduced to 0.04 and the krog was changed. The
initial and matched krog curves are given in Figure 20.
SPE 101674
Figure 19. Case 4 match nitrogen gas injection, no capillary pressure,
with diffusion comparison of fine grid single porosity results with pre
and post matched results.
Figure 20. Case 4 match - Comparison of initial krog and altered krog
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
Case 5. Methane gas injection High Pcog, no diffusion
Figure 21 shows the oil recovery from the matrix block as
before. To match the single porosity recovery the value of
sigma was reduced to 0.024 and the krog was changed. The
initial and matched krog curves are given in Figure 22. This
case requires an extra force to push oil into the matrix block
when the gas saturation in the matrix block is 0.2 or higher.
Thus a small negative Pcog was created for this purpose, see
figure 23.
SPE 101674
Figure 21. Case 5 match methane gas injection, high capillary pressure,
no diffusion comparison of fine grid single porosity results with pre and
post matched results.
Figure 22. Case 5 match - Comparison of initial krog and altered krog
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
Figure 23. Case 5 match - Comparison of initial Pcog and altered Pcog
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
Case 6. Methane gas injection High Pcog, with diffusion
Figure 24 shows the oil recovery from the matrix block as
before. To match the single porosity recovery the value of
sigma was reduced to 0.018 and the krog was changed. The
transmissibility for diffusion to and from the matrix block was
increased by a factor of 10. The initial and matched krog
curves are given in Figure 25. This case requires an extra
force to push oil into the matrix block when the gas saturation
in the matrix block is 0.2 or higher. Thus a small negative Pcog
was created for this purpose, see figure 26.
11
Figure 24. Case 6 match methane gas injection, high capillary pressure,
with diffusion comparison of fine grid single porosity results with pre
and post matched results.
Figure 25. Case 6 match - Comparison of initial krog and altered krog
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
Figure 26. Case 6 match - Comparison of initial Pcog and altered Pcog
required to match the fine grid single porosity results.
Conclusions
1. A numerical process was presented that demonstrates how
one can create composite curves (relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures) that will allow the simulation of oil
recovery from vuggy matrix blocks with a dual porosity
reservoir simulator in a gas-oil system.
2. Fine grid single porosity compositional simulations were
run with a vuggy reservoir where gas invades the fractures.
Comparisons are made of the oil recovery from the matrix
rock and the vugs for cases with various gas-oil capillary
pressures, injection gases, and diffusion. One realization of
random distributed vugs was simulated.
3. Six examples of the numerical matching process are
presented where the reservoir properties of the dual porosity
model are altered so that the oil recovery results match the fine
12 SPE 101674

grid single porosity results. To match the fine grid single Acknowledgement
porosity simulations with a dual porosity (ECLIPSE The author thanks Schlumberger Information Solutions for
Compositional) model, sigma, Pcog, krog, and matrix fracture permission to participate in preparation and publication of the
diffusion transmissibilities were altered in various cases. paper.
4. Since the rate of oil recovery from the vugs is dependent on
the vug size, distribution, connection, and location in the Nomenclature
matrix block, the composite curves that one would use in a A Cheuh-Prausnitz Binary Interaction Coefficients
field scale simulation must be an average of the results from Multiplier
several realizations of the vug filled matrix block. C1 Methane
5. The methodology proposed is valid in general however it C3 Propane
should be modified if other oil recovery mechanisms are C10 Decane
present in the reservoir. C15 Pentadecane
g acceleration of gravity
References gc mass to force conversion factor
1. Kossack, C. A. and Gurpinar, O., A Methodology for H Matrix block height or stack height (feet)
Simulation of Vuggy and Fractured Reservoirs, SPE kf fracture permeability (mD)
66366, presented at the 2001 SPE Reservoir Simulation km matrix rock permeability (mD)
Symposium held in Houston, Texas, 11-14 February 2001. kv vug permeability (mD)
2. Ehrlich, R., Relative Permeability Characteristics of
Vugular Cores-Their Measurement and Significance, SPE
krow oil water relative permeability
3553, presented at the 46th Annual Fall Meeting of the krg gas relative permeability
Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, New Orleans, kro oil relative permeability
La. 3-6 October 1971. krog oil gas relative permeability
3. Dehghani, K., Edwards, K. A. and Harris, P. M., krw water relative permeability
Modeling of Waterflood in a Vuggy Carbonate lx matrix block length in the x-direction (feet)
Reservoir, SPE 38910, presented at the 1997 SPE Annual ly matrix block length in the y-direction (feet)
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, lz matrix block length in the z-direction (feet)
Texas, 5-8 October 1997. N number of realizations
4. Gurpinar, O., Kalbus, J., and List, D., Numerical
Modeling of a Triple Porosity Reservoir, SPE 57277,
P pressure (psia)
presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Pc capillary pressure Pcog gas-oil capillary pressure (psia)
Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25-26 Pcog gas-oil capillary pressure (psia)
October 1999. Pcow water-oil capillary pressure (psia)
5. Casar-Gonzalez, R., and Suro-Perez, V., Stochastic Pg gravity force in gas-oil system (psia)
Imaging of Vuggy Formations, SPE 58998, presented at r radius of capillary tube (cm)
the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference and Sg gas saturation
Exhibition in Mexico in Villahermosa, Mexico 1-3 So oil saturation
February 2000. Z distance from top of matrix block to gas-oil contact in
6. Gurpinar, O. and Kossack, C. A., Realistic Numerical
Models for Fractured Reservoirs SPE 59041, SPEJ,
the matrix block (feet)
December 2000. Interfacial Tension (feet-2) or Matrix-Fracture transfer
7. Warren, J.E. and Root, P.J., The Behavior of Naturally coefficient
Fractured Reservoirs SPE 426, SPEJ, September 1963. f fracture porosity
8. Kazemi, H., Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in m matrix rock porosity
Naturally Fracture Reservoirs, SPE 5719, SPEJ Page 317- v vug porosity
326, Dec 1976
9. ECLIPSE Reference Manual and ECLIPE Technical
oil density oil (lb/ft3)
Description, Copyright 2005, Schlumberger. gas density gas (lb/ft3)
10. Martin, J. J., Cubic Equations of State-Which? I and EC Contact angle in gas-oil IFT system
Fundamentals, Vol. 18, Page 81, May 1973.
11. Lorentz, J., Bray, B. G. and Clark, C.R.J., Calculating Appendix
Viscosity of Reservoir Fluids from there Composition,
J.Pet.Tech. 1171, Page 231, 1964. The gravity forces created when the fracture is gas filled and
12. Whitson, C.H., Anderson, T.F., and Soreide, I., C7+
the matrix is oil filled is:
Characterization of Related Equilibrium Fluid using the
Gamma Distribution, Paper in C7+ Characterization,
Edited by Mansoori, G.A., Chorn L.G., Taylor and Francis, Pg = ( o g ) g / g c ( H Z )
New York, (1989).
13. Thomas, L.K., Thomas, N.D., and Pierson, R.G.,
Fractured Reservoir simulation SPE 9305, SPEJ,
February 1983.
SPE 101674 13

Substituting values for this reservoir situation one gets the

following:

Pg = 5.2( feet ) [40.95 8.5](lbm / ft 3 )

0.0069444(lbm ft 2 / lb f in 2 )
Pg = 1.172lb f / in 2 = 1.172 Psia