ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 31 · Number 6 · 2013 pp.

821–832 821

Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix

block by free fall gravity drainage mechanism

Salman Ghorbanizadeh1, Muhammad Shojaadini Ardakany2*

and Mohammad Hossein Ghazanfari3
1
University of Tehran, Faculty Of Engineering, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Azadi
Ave., North Kargar Street, Tehran 113654563, Iran
2
Hydrocarbon Reservoir Engineer, National Iranian Oil Company. Fatemi Ave., Parvin
Street, Tehran 1414713111, Iran
3
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology. Azadi
Ave., Tehran 11155-11365, Iran
*
Author for corresponding. E-mail: mshojaadini@gmail.com

(Received 11 November 2012; accepted 26 February 2013)

Abstract
Free fall gravity drainage is the most effective mechanism in gas invaded zone
of fractured reservoirs. Although several analytical models have been proposed
to characterize this mechanism, most of them suffer from inadequate reality,
such as neglecting capillary pressure. In this study, a new analytical model was
proposed to predict the oil recovery versus time for a homogeneous matrix block
under a free fall gravity drainage mechanism. Considering the effect of viscous,
gravity as well as capillary forces, the model was developed. This model is
applicable to different conditions of gravity and capillary force, as well as when
both forces are active. Along with core scale experimental data available in the
literature, a series of micro model experiments was also conducted and used to
check the model’s validity. In addition, a synthetic computer model was
constructed and used for further model validation. Results showed that the
suggested model predicts the physics of the gravity drainage mechanism very
well. The results of this work can be helpful to develop a new transfer function
for gravity drainage process modeling in fractured reservoir.

Keywords: Fractured Reservoir, Gas Invaded Zone, Gravity Drainage, Matrix

Block

1. INTRODUCTION
Free fall gravity drainage is one of the producing mechanisms in naturally fractured
reservoirs. After commencement of production from a reservoir, a gas cap is formed
or expands Therefore the oil contained in fractures will be replaced by gas while the
matrix is saturated with oil. This region below the gas cap is called the gas invaded
zone (GIZ). Matrix blocks in this zone contain a considerable volume of the oil and
822 Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix block by free fall
gravity drainage mechanism

are partially or totally immersed in the gas. Free fall gravity drainage is the main
mechanism of oil recovery in GIZ. Several researchers have presented different
analytical models to model the gravity drainage mechanism in a matrix block. Darcy
(1856) formulated the flow of water in a vertical column of porous media under
influence of the gravity force for steady-state flow. Cardwell and Parsons (1949)
considered a heterogeneous vertical column of porous media. They justified the non-
uniform liquid saturation distribution through the porous media by presenting an
unsteady-state liquid drainage relationship. In their model, the porous media was
divided into two regions: saturated and unsaturated. Neglecting the capillary force in
unsaturated zone, the gas-oil interface velocity was modeled. The model did not
incorporate capillary force. Also liquid relative permeability in the unsaturated zone
needed an empirical equation. Nenniger and Storrow (1958) derived a basic
differential equation based on film flow theory. The resulting differential equation was
solved to predict saturation-time curves for the drainage of packed beds in the
gravitational fields. Dykstra (1978) extended the Cardwell model (1949) to oil
reservoirs; he modified the relative permeability-saturation relation by incorporating
residual oil saturation in the equations. He simplified the Cardwell model, but a few
terms still are empirical and uncertain. Van Golf-Racht (1982) considered the gas-oil
displacement in a vertical matrix block under partial and total immersion in the gas.
The model was developed by assuming impermeable side walls and while the gas
enters from top of the matrix and oil is displaced toward the bottom of the matrix. Gas-
oil interface velocity was quantified by assuming similar Darcy velocities for the oil
and gas phases. Saidi (1987) presented a differential equation for quantifying the oil
saturation distribution above the gas-oil interface in the matrix block. The equation
was developed for the stationary case, under steady state condition. Pavone et al.
(1989) developed an analytical solution for a non-linear governing equation of gas
saturation during oil drainage. In order to solve this equation, the governing equation
was linearized assuming straight-line permeability curve and logarithmic capillary
pressure curve. A series of experiments was performed to validate the proposed model.
The model could predict experimental data very well. Luan (1994) studied gravity
drainage mechanism in a stack of blocks experimentally and mathematically. The
differential equation proposed by Hagoort (1980) was solved analytically and
numerically, however same boundary condition as Pavone et al. (1989) was used.
Schechter and Guo (1996) divided the matrix block into two distinct zones similar to
the Cardwell’s study. They considered the Darcy velocity for the saturated zone and
both the bulk and film oil residual saturation for the unsaturated zone. A differential
equation was developed by equating the Darcy velocity in the saturated zone and the
oil volume change of the matrix block. Xu (2008) developed an unsteady-state model
to characterize the gravity-driven flow in an angular capillary tube as a fracture. The
corner flow was modeled by mass conservation law. The governing equation was
solved, and a velocity relationship above gas-liquid interface was proposed.
Neglecting the capillarity is the main drawback of this model. Di Donato et al. (2006)
performed the analytical and numerical analysis of the gas-oil gravity drainage. Three
distinct analytical models were presented to characterize the gravity drainage
mechanism, 1) gravity dominated, 2) capillary dominated and 3) gravity and capillary
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 31 · Number 6 · 2013 823

dominated. Unfortunately, they did not suggest any criterion to use each model for
practical purposes. Li and Horne (2008) suggested that the gravity drainage
mechanism is similar to the spontaneous imbibition; therefore, the model suggested by
Aronofsky et al. (1958) could be used for predicting the oil recovery by the gravity
drainage. The proposed model could estimate initial oil production rate, entry capillary
pressure, and average residual oil saturation accurately. But they did not present any
theoretical support to justify their model. Despite numerous studies, most of previous
analytical models proposed to characterize gravity drainage mechanism suffer from
inadequate reality of the assumptions used, e.g. neglecting capillary pressure.
In this study, a new analytical model for the free fall gravity drainage in a
homogeneous matrix block is presented. The model was developed considering the
effect of viscous, gravity as well as capillary forces. This model is applicable to
different conditions of gravity and capillary force dominant as well as when both
forces are active.

2. PROPOSED ANALYTICAL MODEL

A schematic of a typical fractured reservoir after beginning the oil production is
presented in Figure 1. A matrix block in GIZ with its surrounding fracture was
considered for modeling free fall gravity drainage as shown in Figure 2, H is the height
of matrix block and hm, hf are the heights of oil column in the matrix and fracture
respectively. The fluid flow direction is downward and assumed positive. Three
important forces which govern the free fall gravity drainage in a matrix block are:
gravity, capillary and friction force. The equivalent pressure statement corresponding
to these forces are as follows:

Figure 1. Schematic of a typical fractured reservoir after beginning the oil

production and a matrix block in the gas invaded zone.

Figure 2. Schematic of a matrix block which is surrounded by the fractures, oil

drains in both matrix and fracture due to the gravity force.
824 Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix block by free fall
gravity drainage mechanism

Gravity Force (hydrostatic pressure): this force is due to the gravity difference
between the oil and gas phases which are in matrix and fracture mediums respectively.
The pressure drop corresponding to this force can be formulated as:

(
∆Pg = ∆ρog g hm − h f ) (1)

where ∆ρog is density difference between oil and gas phases, g is gravitational
acceleration, hm is oil column in matrix and hf is fracture oil column height.
Capillary Force (capillary pressure): capillary pressure in the matrix can be defined
by Laplace equation as below:

2σ og cos θ og
Pc = (2)
Rm

where σog is the interfacial tension between oil and gas, θog is contact angle between
oil and gas on rock surface and Rm represents equivalent mean radius of the matrix
block. The matrix can be represented by a bundle of capillary tubes. The Rm can
8k
be replaced by , therefore capillary force can be written as:
ϕ

2σ og cos θ og
Pc = (3)
8k
ϕ

where k and φ represent permeability and porosity respectively.

Friction Force (viscous pressure loss): This force is due to the friction between the
rock wall and oil flow in the porous media while the gas phase friction drop can be
ignored. Assuming laminar and incompressible fluid flow in matrix block and using
Darcy’s law for the oil velocity, the viscous pressure loss can be obtained as follows:

Vmµ o hm
∆Pf = − (4)
k

where Vm represents velocity of oil phase in matrix, and µo is oil viscosity.

Substituting the velocity in Equation (4) with derivative of height with respect to
the time gives:

µ o hmϕ dhm
∆Pf = − (5)
k dt
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 31 · Number 6 · 2013 825

In GIZ, the capillary and friction forces resists oil flow while the gravity force acts
as a driving force. Therefore the momentum balance inside the matrix block can be
written as follows:

µ o hmϕ dhm 2σ og cos θ og

−
k dt
+
8k
(
= ∆ρog g hm − h f ) (6)

Rearranging the Equation (6) gives the following differential equation

dhm  h  1
= −a 1 − f  + b   (7)
dt  hm   hm 

where a and b are dependent on rock and fluid properties as:

∆ρog gk k σ og cos θ og
a= ,b = (8)
µ oϕ 2ϕ µo

Equation (7) is a differential equation which characterizes the free fall gravity
drainage mechanism in a matrix block. Parameters a, b are representatives for the
gravity and capillary forces respectively, and the effect of viscous pressure loss has
been considered in both parameters a, b through viscosity term. Three different
conditions for the height of oil column in the fracture can be regarded. First, there isn
no oil in the fracture and the matrix blocks are totally immersed in the gas, most of the
matrix blocks in the gas invaded zone are in this condition. Second, the height of the
oil column in the fracture is constant. This occurs in the gas-oil contact when the rate
of oil production from the oil zone is equal to the aquifer or gravity drainage filtration
rate. Third, the height of oil column in the fracture is variable. This occurs in the gas-
oil contact when the rate of oil production from the oil zone is not equal to the aquifer
expansion or gravity drainage rate. All these three assumptions can occur in real
reservoir conditions while the first condition is the most probable case. Assuming
totally immersed matrix blocks, Equation (7) is simplified as:

dhm b
= −a + (9)
dt hm

Integrating Equation (9) with initial condition of (t = 0 ⇒ hm = H) gives:

826 Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix block by free fall
gravity drainage mechanism

hm b
− 2 ln (−ahm + b) where C = + 2 ln (−aH + b)
H b
t =C− (10)
a a a a

Where H is matrix block height. Equation (10) is an implicit expression for hm, but
it is desirable to find an explicit expression of matrix oil column height with respect
to time. Equation (9) was solved by Fries and Dreyer (2008) for analytical modeling
of capillary rise of wetting phase restrained by gravity force. Therefore, the explicit
solution of differential Equation (9) is:

  ( −1+
a ( H − at ) 
)
b  (−b + aH ) × e b

hm (t ) = 1 + W   (11)
a
  b 
 

where W is Lambert Function. Equation (11) must be rewritten with respect to the oil
recovery and oil production rate versus time. Assuming that at initial condition, the
matrix block is completely saturated with oil, therefore the oil recovery factor could
be formulated as:

H − hm (t ) h (t )
R( t ) = = 1− m (12)
H H

For a homogeneous matrix, the residual oil saturation above the gas-oil interface is
uniform or it is constant with respect to the height; therefore Equation (12) seems to
be more realistic multiplied by 1 - Sor. Combining Equation (11) with Equation (12)
forms a new relationship for oil recovery from a matrix block under free fall gravity
drainage:

   ( −1+
a ( H − at ) 
)
 b   (−b + aH ) × e b

R(t ) = (1 − Sor ) 1 − 1+ W   (13)
 aH   b 
   

Mathematical manipulation and defining constants, r, C1, C2, and C3 gives Equation (14):

 
R(t ) = (1 − Sor )  1 − r 1 + W (C2 × eC3t )  (14)
 
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 31 · Number 6 · 2013 827

b 1− r  −a 2
r= , C1 =   , C2 = C1 × e 1 , C3 =
C
(15)
aH  r  b

For the proposed model, oil production rate expression can be formulated as:

−aAϕ (1 − Sor )W (C2 eC3t )

Q (t ) = (16)
 (
1 + W C eC3t 
2 )
Where A is the matrix cross sectional area, and ϕ is the matrix porosity.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this section, the proposed model, Equation (14), has been validated using three
distinct methods: numerical analysis, conventional simulation and experimental study.

3.1. Numerical Analysis

A MatLab code was developed in order to check the validity of Equation (12). The
equation was solved based on implicit finite difference method. Three samples with
different rock and fluid properties were considered to compare the results of numerical
solution with our analytical model. The properties of three different samples are given
in Table 1. The results shown in Figure 3 reveal that the explicit solution, presented in
Equation (12), can be considered as an exact solution for Equation (10).

Table 1. Rock and fluid characteristics used in the numerical analysis (Matlab
program).

Property Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

2 -13 -13
Permeability (m ) 9.869*10 1.9738*10 4.9345*10-13

Porosity (%) 15 25 20

Oil viscosity (Pa· s) 0.001 0.002 0.005

Oil Specific Gravity 0.9 0.9 0.9

Gas-Oil Interfacial Tension
0.03 0.03 0.03
(kg/s2)
Matrix Block Height (m) 3 3 3
828 Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix block by free fall
gravity drainage mechanism

Figure 3. Comparison of the oil recovery calculated by the analytical solution to that
calculated by numerical solution.

3.2. Model Validation Using Experimental Study Data

A few experimental studies of single block free fall gravity drainage are presented in
the literature. Most of these studies have considered several effects simultaneously so
they could not be helpful for our purpose. The proposed analytical model was tested
against the experimental data presented by Pedrera et al. (2002). Pedrera et al. used a
vertically positioned homogeneous 1 m long and 5 cm diameter core sample. The core
had a permeability of 7.0069*10-12 m2 and a porosity of 41%. The experimental results
of water-wet core sample with a wettability index of 1.0 and initial water saturation of
21% were used for validation purpose. Figure 4 compares our analytical models with
experimental data. There is an excellent consistency between the experimental data and
analytical model predictions. In addition, we performed a series of room condition
experiments using glass micro model to study free fall gravity drainage. The micro
model was constructed using laser technology and fusing procedure as described by
Mohammadi et al. (2013). In order to study free fall gravity drainage, a matrix block
surrounding by fracture was designed (Fig. 5). The 2-D glass micro model was
saturated with crude oil and positioned vertically to record the free fall gravity drainage
data through photo capturing. The fracture was drained very quickly. Nikon D90, which
is a resolution digital camera, was used to track saturation change of the matrix and
Adobe Photoshop CS5 software was used to analyze the micro model photographs. The
model and crude oil properties are presented in Table 2. As depicted in Figure 6, which
compares experimental data and our analytical model predictions, it is clear that our
model is able to predict the oil recovery of gravity drainage mechanism accurately.

Figure 4. Comparison of the oil recovery calculated by the presented analytical

model to the experimental data in core scale (Pedrera et al., 2002).
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 31 · Number 6 · 2013 829

Figure 5. Photo of micro model which is used in free fall gravity drainage
experiment.

Table 2. Micro model and fluid characteristics used in the gravity drainage
experiment.

Permeability (m 2) 4.14498*10-10

Porosity (%) 48

Oil viscosity (Pa s) 0.19465

Oil Specific Gravity 0.9475

Gas-Oil Interfacial Tension (kg/s2) 0.02

Matrix Block Height(m) 0.16

Residual Oil Saturation (%) 20

Figure 6. Comparison of the oil recovery calculated by the presented analytical

model and micro model experimental data
830 Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix block by free fall
gravity drainage mechanism

3.3. Model Validation Using Simulator data

For checking the validity of the proposed model further, a synthetic model was
constructed using the Eclipse commercial simulator. The matrix was represented by a
cube with dimensions 0.9144m×0.9144m×0.9144m with a threshold height of
0.3048m.The rock was assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic with porosity of
0.18 and permeability of 9.869*10-13m2. Very high values were assigned for the
outermost grid block properties (porosity of 100% and permeability of 9.869*10-11m2)
in order to accurately represent a fracture. The gas saturation of fracture region was
assumed 100%. Since the model was developed for a homogenous system, capillary
pressure was assumed uniform at different oil saturations. Relative permeability for oil
was assumed zero above the gas-oil interface where below the front its value was set
to unity. The oil has a viscosity of 0.00082 Pa·s, specific gravity of 0.91, and
interfacial tension of 0.03 kg/s2. Figure 7 compares the results of analytical model with
numerical simulation. The comparisons show that the model predicts oil recovery by
free fall gravity drainage reliably and correctly.

Figure 7. Comparison of the oil recovery calculated by the presented analytical

model to the simulation data using Eclipse software.

4. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a new analytical model was proposed for predicting oil recovery of a
homogeneous matrix block under free fall gravity drainage mechanism. The fact that
our model incorporates capillary pressure reveals how realistic it is. The model could
be used for predicting matrix oil recovery under gravity dominated, capillary
dominated and also when both gravity and capillary forces are active. A Good match
is observed between core-scale and micro model scale experimental data. Moreover,
computer simulation results confirmed the validity of assumption made for model
development. The results of this work can be helpful to develop a new transfer
function for modeling of gravity drainage process in fractured reservoir. The accuracy
and applicability of our proposed model makes it attractive for dual porosity modeling
of fractured porous media.
ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION · Volume 31 · Number 6 · 2013 831

NOMENCLATURE
A cross sectional area (m2)
g gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
h height of oil column (m)
H height of matrix block (m)
K permeability (m2)
P Pressure (N/m2)
Q(t) matrix block oil recovery rate (m3/sec)
R equivalent mean radius of rock (m)
R(t) matrix block oil recovery
t time (sec)
V velocity (m/sec)

Greek Letters
Θ contact angle (degree)
M viscosity (Pa·s)
∆ρ density difference (kg/m3)
σ interfacial tension (kg/m2sec2)
ϕ porosity

Subscripts
f fracture
g gas
m matrix
o oil

REFERENCES
Aronofsky J.S., Masse L. and Natanson S.G., 1958. A model for the mechanism of oil recovery
from the porous matrix due to water invasion in fractured reservoirs. Transactions of the
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers 213, 17-19.
Cardwell W.T. and Parsons R.L., 1949. Gravity drainage theory. Transactions of the American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers 179(199), 199-210.
Darcy H., 1856. Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dyon, Victor Dalmont.
Donato G.D., Tavassoli Z. and Blunt M.J., 2006. Analytical and numerical analysis of oil recovery
by gravity drainage. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 54(1-2), 55-69.
Dykstra H.J., 1978. The prediction of oil recovery by gravity drainage. Journal of Petroleum
Technology 30(5), 818-830.
Fries N. and Dreyer M.J., 2008. An analytic solution of capillary rise restrained by gravity.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 320(1), 259-263.
Hagoort J., 1980. Oil recovery by gravity drainage. SPE Journal 20(3), 139-150.
Li K.W. and Horne R.N., 2008. Modeling of oil production by gravity drainage. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 60(3-4), 161-169.
832 Analytical modeling of oil production from a matrix block by free fall
gravity drainage mechanism

Luan Z.A., 1994. Some theoretical aspects of gravity drainage in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Paper presented at 69th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, September 25-28, 1994. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper No. 35170.
Mohammadi S., Maghzi A., Ghazanfari M. H., Masihi M., Mohebbi A. and Kharrat R., 2013. On
the control of glass micro-model characteristics developed by laser technology. Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 35(3), 193-201.
Nenniger E. and Storrow J.A., 1958. Drainage of packed beds in gravitational and centrifugal-
force fields. AIChE Journal 4(3), 305-316.
Pavone D., Bruzzi P. and Verre R., 1989. Gravity drainage at low interfacial tension. Paper
presented at 5th European Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Budapest, October
27-29, 1989, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 165.
Pedrera B., Bertin H., Hamon G. and Augustin A., 2002. Wettability effect on oil relative
permeability during gravity drainage. Paper presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, September 29-October 2, 2002, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Paper No. 77542.
Saidi A.M., 1987. Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fractured Reservoirs, TOTAL Edition
Press, Paris, pp. 510-515.
Schechter D.S. and Guo B., 1996. Mathematical modeling of gravity drainage after gas injection
into fractured reservoirs. Paper presented at SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahama, April 22-24, 1996. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Paper
No. 35170.
Van Golf-Racht T.D., 1982. Fractured Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publication,
New York, pp. 477-480.
Xu J.Q., 2008. Modeling unsteady-state gravity-driven flow in porous media. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 62(3-4), 80-86.