SPE-175662-MS

Determination of Effective Matrix and Fracture Compressibilities from

Production Data and Material Balance
J. M. Ham, A. Moreno, J. C. Villasana, and R. Perez Herrera, Pemex Exploración Y Producción; C. A. Rodney,
Orbit Consultores Mexico

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Reservoir Characterisation and Simulation Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 14 –16 September
2015.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is 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 acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
A new method is proposed to estimate the matrix and fracture’s effective compressibilities by using the
material balance equation (MBE) and production data. Assuming the behavior of naturally fractured
reservoir (NFR), accordingly to the pressure tests analysis, it is then possible to replace the effective
compressibilities into a MBE of double porosity to determine original oil from both systems.
Due to the lack of information from cores and the problem that implies acquiring it, this method
represents a useful alternative for analytical models. Generally, it is complicated to determine represen-
tative values of fracture compressibilities for the entire reservoir; especially when this is very heteroge-
neous. The calculated compressibility of the matrix and fractures can be compared with formation
compressibility correlations when there are no core analysis or pressure tests available.
This is an innovative method to obtain reliable compressibilities for the analysis of material balance of
double porosity (MBDP). In addition, with this method it is also possible to obtain the original ratio of
the volume stored in the fractures to the total volume in the reservoir; which is a crucial factor in the
determination of the final oil recovery.

Introduction
This paper presents two methods to quantify compressibilities from production data to use them in MBDP.
The aim is to determine the original volumes stored in NFR. These methods are developed mainly for
undersaturated NFR without water influx.
In addition, it proposes determining volumetric NFR drive indices to observe the impact of each index
in the recovery efficiency. Also a new approach is proposed to solve MBDP by using the total reservoir
volume and effective compressibility previously determined by simple porosity analytical model.

General Material Balance Equation

From the general material balance equation for homogeneous reservoirs presented by Schilthuis (1935),
for an undersaturated reservoir without water influx:
2 SPE-175662-MS

(1)

Where the term Cet is defined as the total effective compressibility of the formation:
(2)

Simplifying equation 1:
(3)

And
(4)

The value of original oil in place (Nt) is determined by the solution of the straight line method of
Havlena y Odeh (1963) as shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1—MB, the straight line method by Havlena and Odeh.

Material Balance Equation for Undersaturated Naturally Fractured

Reservoirs
A NFR can be classified according to the behavior of the porosity and permeability present in the matrix
and fractures. In the case of a NFR type II or B according to Nelson (2001) or Aguilera (2003)
respectively, it is considered as a fracture matrix binary system with storage capacity. Thus equation 1 has
been modified by Peñuela et al. (2001) to determine the original volume in the matrix and fracture:
(5)

Defining:
(6)

(7)

Substituting the terms of equations 4, 6 and 7 into equation 5 a simple form of material balance
equation of double porosity is obtained:
(8)
SPE-175662-MS 3

The original oil in matrix (Nm) and fractures (Nf) can be determined by dividing equation 8 by equation
6:
(9)

A plot of this equation leads to a straight line with intercept Nm and slope Nf as represented in Fig. 2.
For MBDP the total effective compressibility (Cet) was replaced by effective compressibility in matrix

Figure 2—Peñuela at el., the straight line solution for MDBP.

(Cem) and fractures (Cef), in this way two variables have been added in the equation that can only be
determined by special analysis of cores and logs, or using correlations which have a degree of uncertainty.

Determination of Formation Compresibilities from Production Data

Using the method proposed by Turhan Yildiz (1998) the equation 1 has been modified dividing by
NtBoi⌬p:
(10)

The equation 10 can be plotted as a straight line again like Havlena y Odeh by doing:
(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

Through the use of the inverse of the slope we can estimate the parameter Nt and the intercept can be
used to estimate Cet. This analisys has the advantage to obtain values of original oil in place and the total
effective compressibility by using only production data and PVT properties, see Fig. 3.
4 SPE-175662-MS

Figure 3—Turhan, determination of original volume and the effective compressibility formation.

Determination of Matrix and Fracture Compresibilities from Production

Data
In fig. 3 the line we obtain from the production behavior of a NFR can present different trends due to
changes in production rates and pressure in the reservoir. Nevertheless, MBDP considers two tanks which
are connected by an average pressure throughout the reservoir. The pressure decreases in function of net
withdrawal of fluids and total expansion of the system. In this way, the total compressibility and volume
can be assumed to represent both matrix and fracture media, therefore the following expressions can be
used:
(15)

And:
(16)

The behavior observed in the first production stage of a NFR is dominated mainly for the fracture
system. When the matrix system starts applying a major influence in the oil production, it will be possible
to detect a change in the production trend. It is proposed to deduct compressibilities and original oil in
place of matrix and fracture from different slopes observed in fig. 3
To interpret this assumption it is necessary to apply equation 10 by identifying and early slope for the
fractured system and a delayed slope for the total system similar in dual porosity interpretation of pressure
test. In Fig. 4 a change in the slope for a volumetric undersaturated NFR reservoir is presented, where the
intercept of the line AB is the effective compressibility of fractures, and the inverse of AB slope is equal
to Nf plus a portion of the volume stored in the matrix:
SPE-175662-MS 5

Figure 4 —Determination of the effective compresibility of fractures and the total effective compressibility.

(17)

The intercept of the line BC is the total effective compressibility of system matrix-fracture, the inverse
of the slope is the total oil in place (Nt):
(18)

Dividing equation 15 by Cef we obtain a new term that we call matrix-fracture swap volume (Nfm):
(19)

Taking into account this term and knowing ABC slopes and intercepts:
(20)

The original oil volume content in fractures is obtained from equation 17:
(21)

The original oil volume content in matrix is obtained from equation 16:
(22)

Finally Cem is obtained from equation 15:

(23)

In addition the value of Nfm can be used as an approximate value of estimated ultimate recovery (EUR)
for a NFR, assuming that 100% of oil in fractures is recovered. In this way the effective fracture
compressibility can be solved from equation 19 by doing an approximation of EUR from Fig. 5:
6 SPE-175662-MS

Figure 5—Approximation of the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR).

(24)

Solving for Cef:

(25)

An analysis of MBDP can be performed with the value of effective compressibilities determined by the
methods previously proposed to obtain the original volume of oil in the fractures and matrix.
Abel Chacon and Tiab (2007) proposed another solution to the equation 5 by using the value of the
storage capacity ratio ␻, and solving it by the straight line method:
(26)

Simplifying equation 26 by substituting F for NtEot and dividing it by Nt, we get:

(27)

The Equation 27 can be plotted as a straight line Fig. 6.

Figure 6 —MBDP determination of ␻.

(28)
SPE-175662-MS 7

(29)

(30)

(31)

The values of Nm and Nf can be determinated from equation 26 knowing the value of Nt and ␻.

Determination of Drive Indices for NFR

The magnitude of the forces acting on a NFR can be calculated in terms of total expansion and voidage,
based on equation 5 and rearranging the terms so that:
(32)

Dividing equation 31 by NpBo:

(33)

Discretizing each index we get:

Matrix Depletion Drive Index (expansion of the original oil with dissolved gas in the matrix):
(34)

Fracture Depletion Drive Index (expansion of the original oil with dissolved gas in the fractures):
(35)

Matrix compressibility and connate water expansion:

(36)

Fracture compressibility and connate water expansion:

(37)

Plotting each of the terms in the y axis in relation to time or cumulative oil production, acting forces
can be observed over time in the reservoir Fig. 7.

Figure 7—Drive indices for NFR.

8 SPE-175662-MS

Application Example, Numerical Model

To validate the methods to determine matrix and fracture compressibilities and calculation of the original
volume by MBDP; synthetic data were generated for the case of an undersaturated reservoir without water
influx, by using a numerical simulation model of dual porosity. Appendix A Table A-1 shows the
parameters of the model, Table A-2 presents PVT data, Fig. 8 shows pressure and production.

Figure 8 —Pressure and production from the simulated model.

A conventional MB was performed using both total effective compressibilities from production data
(see Fig. 9) and from simulated input data. The straight line solutions are shown in Fig.10. A good
approximation of Nt values with respect to the simulation model were obtained, this leads to the
conclusion that we can employ a full representative reservoir compressibility in NFR as discussed in
equation 15:

Figure 9 —Determination of effective fractures and total compressibility of the simulated field.
SPE-175662-MS 9

Figure 10 —MB results Havlena y Odeh.

Later, a MBDP was performed using the equation 9 and 27 in order to solve Nm, Nf and ␻ Fig. 11a and
Fig. 11b respectively, the Cem and Cef values used are shown in Fig. 9 and Table 1. Additionally the
effective compressibility of fractures was calculated with eq. 25 determining a value of 7.40x10-5 psi-1.
See Fig. 12.

Figure 11a—MBDP solution as straight line Proposed Peñuela et al.

10 SPE-175662-MS

Figure 11b—Determination of ␻.

Table 1—Determination of effective volumes and compressibilities of fractures and the total system.
Slopes (m) N (MMb) Ce (psi-1) N*Ce

T1 2.08E-02 48 7.48E-05 3.59E-03

T2 9.62E-03 107 2.00E-05 2.15E-03

Figure 12—Determination of effective fractures compressibility using EUR.

Analysis of Results
The results for original oil in place using the compressibilities determined by the proposed methods are
summarized in Table 2. Reservoir pressures calculated by MBDP were compared with the pressure
simulated, the adjustment is significant throughout the history of pressure. Fig. 13.
SPE-175662-MS 11

Table 2—Summary of volumes determined by using effective compressibilities MBDP.

BM Data N total (MMb) Nf (MMb) Nm (MMb) Ce (psi-1)

MbDP Ec.8 Simulation 109 22.7 86.5 2.0E-06

Proposed method 106 21 85 2.0E-06
MBDP Ec. 27 Proposed method 109 19.7 89.3 2.0E-6

Figure 13—Pressure history matching.

In this example, the values of Nt, determined by MB shows a good approximation obtaining only errors
between 2% and 5%, and errors in the estimation of Nm between 2.1 and 2.58%. In the case of Nf using
equation 21 lead to an error of 12%, and using equation 26 lead to an error of 1.93%. It can be seen that
the error from equation 21 is affected by the total volume and that the value of Cef is highly sensitive in
the prosses of determing the oil volume in fractures.
Conclusions
The proposed method can be used to derive matrix and fracture compressibilities, which can be directly
substituted into the equation of MBDP. It is important to identify if a NFR is type B or II, otherwise the
reservoir will behave as a homogeneous media which could be studied from conventional BM analysis.
The balance equations of double porosity which consider matrix and fractures compressibility, represent
a method that allows estimating original oil in place for matrix and fractures. They can be solved by the
straight-line method proposed by Peñuela et al. (equation 9) or by the method proposed (equation 27).

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank PEMEX E&P to allow us to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
Bo ⫽ Oil formation volume factor, rb/STB.
Ce ⫽ Effective compressibility, 1/psi.
Cf ⫽ Formation compressibility, 1/psi.
Cef ⫽ Effective fractures compressibility, 1/psi.
Cem ⫽ Effective matrix compressibility, 1/psi.
Cw ⫽ Water isothermal compressibility, 1/psi.
12 SPE-175662-MS

⌬p ⫽ Change in average reservoir pressure, psi.

Eof ⫽ Expansion of the initial oil and water contained in the fractures plus fractures
compressibility, rb/STB.
Eom ⫽ Expansion of the initial oil and water contained in the matrix plus matrix compress-
ibility, rb/STB.
Eot ⫽ Total expansion of the initial oil and water contained in reservoir plus formation
compressibility, rb/STB.
F ⫽ Amount of oil produced, RB.
N ⫽ Initial oil in place, STB.
Nf ⫽ Initial oil in fractures, STB.
Nfm ⫽ Matrix-fracture swap volume, STB.
Nm ⫽ Initial oil in matrix, STB.
Np ⫽ Cumulative oil production, STB.
P ⫽ Pressure, psi.
Swi ⫽ Initial water saturation (fraction).

Greek Symbols
⌬ ⫽ Change, Drop.
␻ ⫽ Storage capacity ratio, dimensionless
␸ ⫽ Porosity, dimensionless.

Subscripts
e ⫽ Effective.
f ⫽ Fracture.
i ⫽ Initial.
m ⫽ Matrix.
t ⫽ Total.

References
Aguilera R. 2003. Effect of Fracture Compressibility on Oil Recovery From Stress-Sensitive Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs. JCPT: 49 –59 presented at the 4th Canadian International Petroleum Con-
ference, Calgary, Alberta 10-12 June 2003.
Chacon Abel, Djebbar Tiab. 2007. Impact of Pressure Depletion on Oil Recovery in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs. Paper SPE 108107 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina 15-18 April 2007.
Havlena D., A. S. Odeh. 1963. The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line, Paper SPE
559-PA,
Nelson R. A., 2001, Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, GPP 2nd Edition, Houston,
Tx.
Peñuela, G., Idrobo, E. A., Ordonez, A, Medina, C. E. and Meza, N. 2001. A New Material Balance
Equation for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using a Dual System Approach. Paper SPE 68831
Presented at the Society of Petroleum Engineers Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA
26-30 March 2001.
Schilthuis, R. J, 1936. Active Oil and Reservoir Energy, Trans. AIME (1936) 118, 33.
Yildiz Thurhan. 1998. Prediction of In-situ Formation Compressibility from Production Data. Paper
SPE/ISRM 47379 presented at the SPE/ISRM Eurock ’98, Trondheim, Norway, 8-10 July 1998.
SPE-175662-MS 13

Appendix A
Summary of Data and results from Simulation Model

Table A-1—Data numerical simulation model

Grid 10x10x10 ⌬x, y 850 ft.
⌬z 35 ft.
Black Oil Oil, Water, Gas
Matrix block 10 ft
Dual Porosity (Sigma value) ␴ 0.12
Initial Pressure 9000 psi
Deep 18269 ft.
Connate water saturation in fractures 0 Fracc.
Connate water saturation in Matrix 0.25 Fracc.
Water compressibility 3.00E-06 psi-1
Pore volume matrix compressibility 3.00E-06 psi-1
Fracture compressibility 7.50E-05 psi-1
Matrix porosity 0.05 Fracc.
Fracture porosity 0.01 Fracc.
Matrix permeability 1.00 mD
Fracture permeability 100.00 mD
Original oil in place total 111 MMb
Original oil in place in matrix 87.25 MMb
Original oil in place in fractures 23.86 MMb
Effective matrix compressibility 5.00E-06 psi -1
Effective fracture compressibility 7.50E-05 psi -1
Effective total compressibility 2.00E-05 psi -1

Table A-2—PVT data.

Pressure (psi) Rs (scf/stb) Bo (rb/stb) Viscosity (Cp)
9000 1700 1.932 0.172
7500 1700 1.993 0.151
6500 1700 2.039 0.14
5500 1700 2.097 0.128
4500 1700 2.18 0.117
Bp 4354 1700 2.195 0.114