Simulations of Naturally

Fractured Reservoirs
R.H. Dean, SPE, Area Oil & Gas Co.
L.L. Lo, SPE, Area Oil & Gas Co.

Summary. This paper describes a three-dimensional (3D), three-phase, black-oil model being used to simulate naturally fractured
reservoirs. The program is fully implicit and can perform single-porosity, dual-porosity, or dual-permeability computations. Sample
simulations are presented to illustrate the differences between the three computational techniques. Single-porosity recoveries are
much larger than the recoveries predicted by the dual techniques. The dual-permeability, primary-depletion recoveries are very
similar to the dual-porosity, primary-depletion recoveries, while the dual-permeability waterflood recoveries are significantly larger
than the dual-porosity waterflood recoveries.
Pseudocapillary pressures are generated from fine-grid, single-matrix block studies. The pseudocapillary pressures are then used
in the dual-porosity simulations to account for fluid distributions in the matrix and fracture systems.

Introduction
Over the last 3 decades, considerable effort has been devoted to
understanding the physical processes occurring in fractured reser-
voirs and translating these processes into appropriate mathematical
models for reservoir analyses. Naturally fractured reservoirs may
contain many fractures that permeate different regions of the reser-
voir, occurring with greater intensity near faults or folds. The frac-
tures serve as highly conductive flow paths for the reservoir fluid,
increasing the reservoir's effective permeability significantly over
that attributable to the rock matrix. The fracture volume is usually
small, so the porous rock matrix serves as the primary source of
hydrocarbons.
The reservoir mechanics of fractured systems is significantly
different from that of single-porosity systems. In addition to matrix
porosities and permeabilities, one must also consider fracture porosi-
ties, fracture permeabilities, and factors that control exchange rates
between the two systems. Effective fracture permeabilities can be
determined from pressure-transient tests; however, it is very difficult
to ascertain fracture porosities and matrix-block geometries.
Fluid-production mechanisms are complex for fractured systems.
Fluid expansion pushes hydrocarbons from the high-porosity matrix
to the low-volume fractures, while gravity and capillary forces may
enhance or inhibit hydrocarbon recovery from the matrix system.
In fluid injection processes, the injected fluid may easily bypass
the low-permeability matrix system by shooting through the high-
permeability fractures to production wells. Gravity or capillary pres-
sures must playa major role in injection processes ifthe hydrocar-
bons in the matrix are to be replaced by the injected fluid.
Several authors 1.2 investigated fluidflow through fracture net-
works in nonporous rock and showed that there must be many inter-
connected fractures in a region before the fractures in that region
will behave as an equivalent porous medium. Here we assume that
there are many well-connected fractures and that the fracture net-
work behaves as an equivalent porous medium.
Barenblatt et ai. 3 proposed a dual-media approach in 1960 for
modeling naturally fractured systems. The fractures and matrix are
treated as separate continua throughout the reservoir. Every point
in the reservoir contains fracture pressures and saturations and
matrix pressures and saturations. Fluid may flow through the frac-
ture and the matrix continua. The two continua are connected
through an exchange term on the basis of the differences in matrix
and fracture pressures. This basic formulation is equivalent to the
dual-permeability technique discussed later.
The fracture system is typically assigned high effective permea-
bilities and low effective porosities, while the matrix is assigned
low permeabilities and high porosities. The fracture system's local
properties are averaged over a volume containing both the frac-
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
tures and matrix to arrive at effective properties. In many cases,
one may be able to ignore fluid flow through the matrix system,
and the formulation becomes a dual-porosity technique.
Single-porosity simulations have been performed for many years.
With the advent of more powerful computers and a continual reduc-
tion in computing costs, it is becoming feasible to simulate naturally
fractured reservoirs. Numerical simulations allow one to evaluate
complex reservoir systems and to make reservoir performance pre-
dictions without being restricted to the simplifying assumptions that
normalr, accompany analytic solutions. Kazemi et ai.4 and
Rossen presented simulators in 1976 and 1977 for modeling fluid
flow in naturally fractured reservoirs. Numerical simulation of
naturally fractured reservoirs has been receiving increasing attention
ever since.
The matrix/fracture exchange mechanism is an important com-
ponent in natural fracture simulations. Many authors 6-8 studied
matrix/fracture interactions to understand recovery mechanisms bet-
ter. Reiss 9 and Van Golf-Racht lO analyzed fluid segregation in
considerable detail for both the matrix and fracture systems to as-
certain matrix-block production rates and ultimate recoveries. Sever-
al authors 11-13 undertook extensive experimental studies of single-
matrix-block mechanisms.
During matrix/fracture fluid exchange, fluid flows through the
matrix block to the fracture system, resulting in saturation and pres-
sure profIles that are nonuniform throughout the matrix block. Capil-
lary forces produce profiles that vary radially out from the center
of a matrix block, while gravity forces create profiles that vary in
the vertical direction. Saidi 14 accounted for both radial and verti-
cal variations by subdividing each matrix block into a cylindrical
set of gridblocks and simulating the spatially varying saturation and
pressure profiles. Pruess and Narasimham 15 modeled radial-like
profiles using a multiple-interacting-continua grid that was discre-
tized symmetrically about the center of the matrix block.
The techniques presented by Saidi and by Pruess and Narasirnham
simulate matrix blocks with known geometries and require several
values of pressures and saturations for each matrix block. In this
paper, we assign a single set of matrix pressures and saturations
to each gridblock following the dual-continua approach of Baren-
blatt et ai. 3 and do not restrict ourselves to a specified matrix-block
geometry until we discuss single-block studies. Even though each
gridblock may actually contain many matrix blocks, as shown in
Fig. 1, the matrix and fracture saturations and pressures are taken
to be constant within each gridblock similar to Kazemi et at., 4
Chen,16 Thomas et ai. ,17 Gilman and Kazemi, 18 and Blaskovich
et ai. 19 Pseudocapillary pressures are generated to account for
nonuniform properties.
This paper compares single-porosity, dual-porosity, and dual-
permeability simulations for primary depletion and water injection

638 SPE Reservoir Engineering. May 1988

 SINGLE POROSITY -@---@I----.@--_ FLOW

FLOW
DUAL POROSITY -0 0 0
MATRIX + +
, +
BLOCK , : EXCHANGE

~
I
I II II @ @
~::~*=::-:?,z:=:
,I
,
"
"
II
I II II
L __ -'L __ -"-- __

DUAL PERMEABILITY -C?I----C?I----\.C? FLOW

I : : EXCHANGE
1 1 I FLOW
-~>-----~ @>----

0= FRACTURE @ = MATRIX

Fig. 1-Matrlx blocks contained within grldblocks. Fig. 2-0ne-dimenslonal flow for three simulation techniques.

in a 160-acre [65-ha] well pattern. Unmodified capillary-pressure The gas-matrix equation is

curves are used to compare the three techniques. Single-block studies
are then presented for a matrix block surrounded by gas/oil and
water/oil systems to generate pseudocapillary pressures for dual-
porosity pattern studies. Using these pseudopressures, primary-
depletion and water-injection pattern studies are then presented and - Tg(Pgm -PgI) -RtTo(Pom -Pol)
compared with the predictions generated by the original curves.

Equations
Dual-permeability equations are a direct extension of simpler single-
porosity equations. Fig. 2 depicts one-dimensional (lD) fluid flow
in single-porosity, dual-porosity, and dual-permeability systems.
In Fig. 2, the ID dual-permeability system is analogous to a two-
dimensional (2D) single-porosity system. This similarity between
single-porosity and dual-permeability systems allows any 3D single-
porosity program to perform 2D dual-permeability computations
with a suitable choice of transmissibilities in the third dimension.
The three-phase, dual-permeability equations in finite-difference
form follow.
Fracture Equations. The water/oil-fracture equation is
Eqs. 1 through 4 are identical to single-porosity equations with
additional transfer terms between the matrix and fracture systems.
Well terms (q) are not included in the matrix equations because
earlier tests showed that they were insignificant, even when frac-
ture permeabilities are approximately equal to matrix permeabili-
ties. The equations reduce to a dual-porosity formulation if the
matrix transmissibilities, Twm' Tom' and T£m =0.
Matrix and fracture transmissibilities are identical to their single-
porosity counterparts; e.g., the water transmissibility in the x direc-
tion for a homogeneous fracture system is

kxkrw) ~y..lz .
(Twl )x=0.001127 ( - - - - .................... (5)
Bw/l-w I ~x
+qOl.I= Vb ~t(rfJISOI.I), ........................... (1)
in field units.
~t BOI.l
The transfer transmissibility involves a geometric shape factor,
where a=w or o. u. The water transfer transmissibility has the form
The gas-fracture equation is
- (-
Tw=0.OO1127ukm krw
- )* ~x~y..lz, ................ (6)
Bw/l-w
where km is the average matrix permeability and the fluid proper-
ties, krw, Bw, and /l-w, are evaluated upstream. The fluid properties
are based on Pwj and Swj if water flows into the matrix block, and
on Pwm and Swm if water flows out of the matrix block. The same
upstream approach is used for RT in Egs. 2 and 4.
The shape factor, u, is a measure of the conductivity between
Matrix Equations. The water/oil-matrix equation is the matrix block and the surrounding fractures. Consequently, u
will be a function of block geometry. If the matrix blocks are rec-
tangular prisms with sides Lx. Ly • and Lz, then a first-order finite-
difference approximation of flow out of the matrix block produces
a u of the form 4
= :: ~t ( rfJ;::m), ............................... (3)
U=4C~ + L~ + L~). ........................... (7)
where a=w or o.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988 639


~
..
.
LEGEND
~
. Kozemi's Results
/"
Current Results
-:;;-
~
,£
. pressures simultaneously. The reservoir variable coefficients in the
~
0 linear system are stored as bands to facilitate vectorization, while
ii~
<5 //
~ •
ON
;.
.7
././
- • 7
~/
0 -- .... " --<t- ---,
-
, ,
0
Time (years)
Fig. 3-Kazemi five-spot comparison.
where a is in ft- 2 [m- 2]. Remember that Eq. 7 is a very simple
equation for the shape factor even though the shape factor is used
to model a complex interaction between the matrix blocks and frac-
ture system. Eq. 7 assumes that the recovery mechanism has no
preferred direction, the matrix properties are uniform, the matrix
blocks are rectangular, and the recovery mechanism can be modeled
with a simple difference formula. In practice, the shape factor may
be much different from that predicted by Eq. 7; consequently, the
shape factor normally must be evaluated as a history-match pa-
rameter.
Well Equation. The q terms in Eqs. 1 and 2 are the well-rate assign-
ments by layers in the fracture system. The well rates are assigned
to each layer on the basis of the bottornhole pressure (BHP) and
reservoir pressure in that layer. The water rate for a layer is
where Aw =krwlp-w for production and Aw =krwlp-w +krolp-o +kr/
P-g for injection. The wellbore pressure in the top well layer is Pw;
Pofis the fracture oil pressure in the gridblock; gpw is the average
wellbore gradient; and Cw is the wellbore constant for the partic-
ular layer. Oil and gas rates are calculated similarly. Summing the
individual rates to arrive at total well rates forms an equation relating
total well rates and the BHP, P w ' Prescribing a total well rate for
a phase or a combination of phases then determines Pw; prescribing
Pw then determines the total well rates.
Program Description
The program can simulate single-porosity, dual-porosity, or dual-
permeability black-oil systems. The program allows 3D radial or
rectangular discretizations. Wells can be completed only in the frac-
ture system, but may be deviated in any direction. Wellbore con-
stants are computed for deviated wells by rotating permeability
tensors and cross-sectional areas into the plane normal to the well-
bore and using Peaceman's20 formulas in the rotated plane.
The program can model full-field problems where fracture in-
tensities vary across the field. The user can vary the fracture in-
tensities by varying the shape factor, fracture permeabilities, and
fracture porosities. The user can also completely eliminate the frac-
tures in parts of the field by assigning matrix properties to the frac-
ture system.
The program has a finite-difference discretization for spatial coor-
dinates where flow terms are weighted upstream and a fully im-
plicit backward Euler method 21 for the time discretization. All
terms in Eqs. 1 through 4 are handled fully implicitly for each
timestep and all terms remain fully coupled during the solution proc-
ess. Primary solution variables are Po, Sw' and Sg in the gridblocks
and P w for the wells. If Sg=O in a gridblock, then that gridblock's
saturation pressure becomes the third variable. Nonlinear iterations
640
are performed with a Newton-Raphson technique and are usually
iterated to a convergence tolerance of 0.1 psi [0.7 kPa] for pres-
sures and 0.0001 for saturations .
The linearized equations are solved with an efficient incomplete
LU factorization, ILU(O), as a preconditioner with orthomin ac-
celeration. The program solves for the reservoir variables and well
the well variables use indirect addressing to allow for general well
completions.
If the number of gridblocks is n, then three-phase simulations
involve 3n unknowns (Po' Sw' and Sg or P s ) for single-porosity
simulations and 6n unknowns (Pof' Swf' Sgfor Psf' Pam' Swm' and
~sm or Psm ) for dual-porosity and dual-permeablity simulations .
However, the program solves linear systems having 3n unknowns
,
for single-porosity and dual-porosity simulations and 6n unknowns
for dual-permeability simulations. In dual-porosity simulations, the
3n unknowns-Pam' Swm' and Sgm or psm-are expressed in terms
of the fracture variables when the linear system of equations is
formed, so the resulting linear problem only contains 3n unknowns.
The linear solver for the 6n unknowns is very similar to the linear
solver used for the 3n unknowns. Single-porosity and dual-porosity
simulations in 3D produce a linear system with seven nonzero bands
oflength n where each band contains 3 x3 submatrices. For dual-
permeability problems, the solution vector contains the fracture vari-
ables as the first 3n unknowns and the rock matrix variables as the
second 3n unknowns. With the solution vector ordered in this man-
ner, the linear system has seven nonzero bands of length 2n and
an additional two bands of length n where each band contains 3 X3
submatrices.
Even though the program is fully implicit, it is capable of handling
fairly large reservoir discretizations. With 2 megawords (16 mega-
bytes) of storage, the program can simulate three-phase, 3D, single-
porosity problems consisting of 8,700 gridblocks, dual-porosity
problems consisting of 7,600 gridblocks, and dual-permeability
problems consisting of 4,200 gridblocks.
Comparison With Published Results
Kazerni et at. 4 presented a dual-porosity simulation of a waterflood
for one-quarter of a five-spot pattern. The simulated region is
600 X600 ft [183 X 183 m] with a pay zone 30 ft [9 m] thick. Water
is injected at the rate of 200 STB/D [32 stock-tank m 3 Id]; and the
liquid production rate is prescribed to be 210 STBID [33 stock-
tank m 3 /d]. The matrix and fracture porosities are 19 and 1 %, and
the effective permeabilities are 1 and 100 md, respectively. The
shape factor is 0.08 ft -2 [0.9 m -2]. Additional properties are de-
tailed in Ref. 4.
The pattern is simulated with 64 gridblocks, each 75 X 75 X30
ft [23x23x9 m]. Timesteps are controlled automatically with a
target saturation change of 3 % and a maximum allowable timestep
size of 5 days. The 5-day limit is chosen because of accuracy con-
siderations.
Fig. 3 compares the WOR predicted by the current model with
the results published in Ref. 4. The predictions show good agreement
throughout the history of the flood.
Comparison of Single PorOSity, Dual Porosity,
and Dual Permeability
Primary depletion and waterflood simulations are presented for the
single-porosity, dual-porosity, and dual-permeability options. All
simulations model one-eighth of a 160-acre [65-ha] well pattern and
a l00-ft [30-m] pay zone. The finite-difference mesh consists of
10 rows of cells in the x and y directions and 10 layers in the vertical
direction. All gridblocks are l46.7x146.7xlO.Oft [45x45x3 m].
Transmissibilities, PV's, wellbore constants, and well rates are
modified to account for the reduced pattern.
The reservoir is assumed to be heterogeneous and isotropic. The
dual-porosity and dual-permeability simulations use absolute per-
meabilities of 0.5 md for the matrix and 15.0 md for the fractures.
All single-porosity simulations use an absolute permeability of 15.0
md. Matrix porosities are 12.0% and fracture porosities are 0.5%.
The shape factor is set at 8 ft - 2 [86 m - 2], which corresponds to
a 1 x 1 x 1O-ft [0.3 xO.3 X3-m] rectangular prism in Eq. 7. Matrix
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988
 TABLE 1-WATER/OIL DATA

Sw P ewo
(fraction) krw k row (psi) TABLE 2-GAS/LIQUID DATA
--- ---
85.69
0.20 0.0 1.0000
0.25 0.0004 0.6027 27.84 SL Pego
0.30 0.0024 0.4490 2.53 (fraction)
~ ~ (psi)
--
0.31 0.0033 0.4165 0.0 0.30 0.0 0.6345 1.92
0.35 0.0075 0.3242 -1.26 0.40 0.00002 0.5036 1.15
0.40 0.0167 0.2253 -2.55 0.50 0.00096 0.3815 0.77
0.45 0.0310 0.1492 -3.94 0.60 0.00844 0.2695 0.50
0.50 0.0515 0.0927 -5.56 0.70 0.03939 0.1692 0.32
0.60 0.1146 0.0265 -10.35 0.80 0.13010 0.0835 0.22
0.70 0.2133 0.0031 -22.06 0.85 0.21670 0.0477 0.18
0.80 0.3542 0.0 -100.0 0.90 0.34540 0.0183 0.15
0.90 0.5438 0.0 -300.0 0.95 0.53020 0.0 0.12
1.00 0.7885 0.0 -600.0 1.00 1.0 0.0 0.10

and fracture compressibilities are 3.5 x 10 -6 psi -I [5.1 x 10 7 Primary Depletion. A single well is placed in one comer of the
kPa- I ]. grid and completed in the bottom half of the pay zone. The well
Fracture relative permeabilities are straight lines from zero to produces at a total oil rate of 2,000 STBID (320 stock-tank m 3 /d]
one, and water/oil and gas/oil capillary pressures are set to zero until it reaches a BHP of 1,800 psi [12.4 MPa]. The well reaches
in the fractures. Matrix relative permeabilities and capillary pres- this limiting pressure very early in the simulation and remains there
sures are listed in Tables 1 and 2, where the irreducible water satu- for the rest of the simulation. No gas is reinjected during the simu-
ration is 20.0%, critical gas saturation is 5.0%, and the water/oil lation.
imbibition capillary-pressure curve crosses zero at a water saturation The single-porosity, dual-porosity, and dual-permeability cumula-
of 31.0%. Later, we will see that this zero point on the capillary- tive production histories and GOR's are shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
pressure curve plays a major role in waterflood predictions. respectively. The ultimate single-porosity recovery is 9.4% of
Pressure-dependent oil and gas properties are listed in Table 3, and OOIP. The dual-porosity and dual-permeability production histories
additional fluid properties are shown in Table 4. All comparisons are very similar, with ultimate recoveries of only 3.5 and 3.6%,
between the three simulation techniques use the original capillary- respectively. Higher recoveries occur with pressure maintenance
pressure curves in Tables I and 2. Pseudocapillary pressures are and increased values of the critical gas saturation or with smaller
discussed later. values of the shape factor. The dual techniques experience high
All runs are initialized with an oil saturation of 100.0% in the GOR's after only 0.5 year. It is surprising that the dual-porosity
fracture system and 80.0% in the matrix. The matrix system begins and dual-permeability results are so similar because the dual-
with an immobile water saturation of20.0%, and there is no initial permeability technique includes gravitational effects implicitly in
free gas. The average initial reservoir pressure is 4,300 psi [29.6 the simulations, while the dual-porosity technique ignores gravita-
MPa], and the initial saturation pressure in each gridblock is set tional effects.
equal to that block's initial oil pressure. With these initial condi- The total oil productions for the dual techniques are even less
tions, 5.0% of the original oil in place (OOIP) is contained in the than the initial oil contained in the fracture system. In fact, there
fractures. is more oil in the matrix system at the end of the run than there
All runs are made with a target saturation change of 0.10 (fraction) was at initialization. This occurs because the oil shrinks as the reser-
per timestep. This target saturation applies to both the fracture and voir pressure declines and oil imbibes into the matrix to replace
matrix systems. Because the matrix porosities are 24 times larger liberated gas.
than the fracture porosities, this saturation-change constraint allows For the IO-year simulation, the single-porosity technique requires
single-porosity simulations to take larger timesteps than dual- 56 timesteps, with 3.3 nonlinear iterations per timestep and 19 linear
porosity or dual-permeability techniques. The dual techniques also iterations per nonlinear iteration. The dual-porosity technique re-
require more computations per timestep than the single-porosity quires 178 timesteps, with 3.3 nonlinear iterations per timestep and
technique; consequently, the dual techniques will be much more 17 linear iterations per nonlinear iteration. The dual-permeability
expensive than single-porosity techniques. computations were restricted to a 2-year simulation requiring 359
timesteps, with 3.0 nonlinear iterations per timestep and 74 linear
iterations per nonlinear iteration.
In terms of total run times, the single-porosity simulation is 3.2
TABLE 3-PRESSURE-DEPENDENT DATA times faster than the dual-porosity simulation; and if the dual-
permeability run time is extrapolated to 10 years, the dual-porosity
P 80 8g R. /La /Lg
technique is 17.6 times faster than the dual-permeability technique.
~ (RB/STB) (RB/STB) (scf/STB) (cp) ~ The dual-porosity and single-porosity techniques incur nearly the
15.0 1.050 225.00 5.0 3.934 0.0105 same computing costs per timestep, but the dual-porosity simulation
115.0 1.080 25.000 43.0 2.776 0.0109
315.0 1.100 9.524 95.0 2.400 0.0113 requires more timesteps because of the target saturation control men-
615.0 1.126 4.762 160.0 2.053 0.0122 tioned earlier. The dual-permeability technique is much more ex-
915.0 1.148 3.125 210.0 1.810 0.0132 pensive than the other techniques because its linear iterations are
1,215.0 1.170 2.326 265.0 1.600 0.0143 much less stable. This instability is probably a result of the trans-
1,515.0 1.190 1.852 315.0 1.413 0.0153
2,015.0 1.223 1.351 403.0 1.196 0.0173
2,515.0 1.257 1.075 493.0 0.990 0.0193 TABLE 4-ADDITIONAL FLUID PROPERTIES
3,015.0 1.293 0.901 585.0 0.880 0.0212
3,515.0 1.331 0.787 680.0 0.790 0.0232 Oil compressibility, psi -1 12.0 x 10- 6
4,015.0 1.372 0.704 782.0 0.725 0.0253 Water compressibility, psi -1 3.5x10- 6
4,273.0 1.393 0.671 836.0 0.702 0.0264 Water FVF at reservoir temperature, RB/STB 1.07
4,515.0 1.410 0.641 883.0 0.679 0.0274 Water viscosity, cp 0.35
5,015.0 1.449 0.585 983.0 0.638 0.0295 Water density at surface conditions, Ibm/ft 3 62.4
5,515.0 1.487 0.530 1,083.0 0.602 0.0317 Oil density at surface conditions, Ibm/ft 3 57.0
6,015.0 1.526 0.474 1,183.0 0.572 0.0338 Gas density at surface conditions, Ibm/ft3 0.056

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988 ()4j

 b~~~ ____________________________________--,
~r---------------------------------------~ .n i
~ I
~ I
Single Porosity

]:~ I Duol Techniques

~ I
Duol Permeability 9~ I
Duol Poroslfy
8 I Single Porosity

:J~----~---
10 '0
Time (yeors) Time (yeors)

Fig. 4-Prlmary depletion recoveries for three simulation tech· Fig. 5-Prlmary depletion GOR for three simulation tech·
nlques. nlques.

fer transmissibilities between the fracture and matrix systems, which
produce large off-diagonal entries in the linear system, making the
linear problem ill-conditioned. Dual-permeability simulations should
become stabler as the shape factor decreases.
Water Injection. For this study, the production well is still placed
in one comer of the grid but completed in the top half of the pay
zone. An injection well is placed in the opposite comer of the pattern
and completed throughout the entire interval. The producer flows
at a total liquid rate of 2,000 STBID [320 stock-tank m 3 /d] until
it reaches a minimum BHP of 1,800 psi [12.4 MPa]. Water is in-
jected into the injection well at a total rate of 2,400 STBID [380
stock-tank m 3 /d] until the wellreaches a maximum BHP of 6,000
psi [41.4 MPa].
For the single-porosity case, the injector and producer are oper-
ating at the limiting well pressures throughout most of the simula-
tion. For the dual techniques, the producer remains at the limiting
pressure for the first year and becomes rate-controlled thereafter.
The injection pressure stays below the limiting pressure throughout
the dual methods' simulations. The simulator produces and injects
more easily into the fracture system than into the matrix system
because the mobility term, A, in Eq. 8 is larger for the fracture
system. The fracture relative permeabilities are more favorable
toward flow than the matrix relative permeabilities.
The single-porosity, dual-porosity, and dual-permeability cumula-
tive productions for the first 10 years are shown in Fig. 6. At a
WOR of 50 STB/STB [50 stock-tank m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ], the
single-porosity recovery is 61.8% of OOIP. The dual-porosity
recovery is 18.0%, while the dual-permeability recovery is 33.3%.
The WOR histories are shown in Fig. 7. The dual-permeability and
single-porosity WOR's remain fairly low throughout the 1O-year
history.
The dual-permeability technique predicts a total recovery that is
85 % larger than the dual-porosity recovery. If water is injected for
10 years, then the water-saturation distributions in the matrix at
the center of the flood pattern have the vertical profiles shown in
Table 5. It is clear from Table 5 that gravity affects the entire ver-
tical interval of the dual-permeability matrix but is absent in the
dual-porosity matrix.
A second dual-permeability simulation was performed with all
vertical transmissibilities in the matrix system set equal to zero.
The reSUlting production history is shown in Fig. 8 with the dual-
porosity results. The dual-permeability predictions are now very
similar to the dual-porosity predictions, verifying that the higher
dual-permeability waterflood recoveries are caused primarily by
vertical continuity throughout the matrix system. Gilman and
Kazemi 22 present a technique that allows vertical continuity in the
matrix system but avoids the high computational costs associated
with dual-permeability simulations.
In terms of total run times, the single-porosity simulation is 6.4
times faster than the dual-porosity simulation, and the dual-porosity
simulation is 12.0 times faster than the dual-permeability simulation.
The dual-porosity technique requires 426 timesteps, while the single-
porosity technique requires only 57 timesteps. The target satura-
tion control appears to play a larger role in waterfloods than in
primary depletion.

~r-----------------------------------------' ~r-----------------------------------------'
I
.
o Single Porosity I
/
/ Dual Porosity

I
I
I
/ Duol Permeability

/
// - - -
~_/------
Single Porosity
'0 '0
Time (years) Time (yeors)

Fig. 6-Waterflood recoveries for three simulation techniques. Fig. 7-Waterflood WOR for three simulation techniques.

642 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988

 ~r---------------------------------------,

Tzm=O.O
""~-.;...::.;.:-~--~'-.:.-;-
Dual Porosity
./
TABLE 5-WATER PROFILE AFTER 10 YEARS y
Dual
Porosity
Dual
Permeability
'"
Layer ~ (%)
1 32.4 31.0
2 32.6 32.1
3 32.6 33.3
4 32.6 34.4
5 32.6 35.7
6
7
32.6
32.6
37.3
39.0 Time (years)
I.
8 32.6 41.1
9 32.6 43.5 Fig. 8-Dual-permeabllity recovery with no vertical continuity
10 32.6 46.5 in the matrix.

Dual.Poroslty Simulations With
Pseudocapillary Pressures
The previous section compared single-porosity, dual-porosity, and
dual-permeability techniques by use of the original relative perme-
abilities and capillary pressures. In this section, we develop pseudo-
capillary pressures to include gravitational effects in our dual-poros-
ity simulations and to account for numerical errors incurred when
matrix blocks having nonuniform saturation and pressure profiles
are modeled.
The simulator produces hydrocarbons from the matrix blocks by
means of fluid expansion forces, capillary forces, and gravity forces.
The recovery efficiencies for the matrix blocks are a strong function
of the type of fluid in the adjacent fracture system. If the fractures
contain water, then capillary pressures pull water into the matrix,
pushing hydrocarbons out into the fractures. If the fractures con-
tain gas and the gravity head exceeds the threshold pressure, gravity
pulls oil out of the matrix. If the fractures contain oil and the matrix
contains oil and free gas, however, capillary pressures and gravity
force oil into the matrix, reducing the matrix gas saturation to its
critical value. As discussed previously, it is possible for a matrix
block to contain more oil at the end of a simulation than it had ini-
tially.
The dual-permeability equations, Eqs. I through 4, place no re-
strictions on the geometry of the matrix blocks. However, we must
assume a specific matrix-block geometry to perform single-block
studies. In this paper, we are interested in vertical fracture sets,

1.0 ft
(.- 1.0 FT-1
t

t FLUID
INTERFACE

MATRIX 10 ft
BLOCK

r
Fig. 10-Matrlx block at fluid Interface.

0.1 f1 -l
Fig. 9-Flne-grld mesh for matrix-block studies.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988 643

 ~~---------------------------------------,
he = 10.0 ft
5.0
--- ---
0.0 _ - - -
/'
.-/'
.-/
--- ---
/
/ LEGEND
Time (yeors)
Fig. 11-Flne-grid, matrix-block recoveries for water/oil
system.
~.----------------------------.
v------·-____
! -----------i
~
rii
'"o
LEGEND
Finely Gridded Model
• ,Duol Porosity Cell
10
Time (days)
Fig. 12-Single-cell, dual-porosity match from 0 to 10 days.
so we require that our vertical matrix-block dimensions be signifi-
cantly larger than its horizontal dimensions, choosing our matrix
blocks to be lO-ft [3-m] -tall cylinders with I-ft [0.3-m] -diameter
bases. The cylindrical geometry makes the problem 2D; however,
preliminary simulations indicated that the cylindrical recoveries
would be identical to recoveries from a I x 1 x lO-ft [0.3 xO.3 x 3-m]
rectangular prism.
All simulations begin with 20% water and 80% oil in the matrix
block. Constant-pressure simulations are presented for fracture sys-
tems containing water and oil, while pressure depletion results are
presented for fractures containing gas and oil. As in Thomas et
ai. 's17 approach, accurate matrix-block recoveries are computed
for a finely gridded matrix block, then pseudocapillary pressures
are generated for single-cell, dual-porosity simulations. Thomas
et ai. generated pseudofunctions for the matrix system; in addition,
we generate pseudofunctions for the fracture system to account for
the fluid distribution in the fractures. These pseudocapillary pres-
sures are then applied to the pattern studies discussed earlier.
All fine-grid simulations model the matrix block with 10 grid-
blocks in the vertical direction and 5 gridblocks in the horizontal
direction. Fig. 9 shows the fine-grid discretization for the matrix
block and surrounding fracture system. The fracture cells are as-
signed very large PV's and permeabilities. In this way, the fluid
environment around the matrix block is constant and pressure gra-
dients in the fracture system are merely hydrostatic.
Depletion studies with 100% oil surrounding the matrix blocks
require that the bottom row of cells in Fig. 9 (Row 14) be assigned
depths that piace the center of Row 14 above the center of Row
13. As the pressure in the fracture system decreases with time, all
644
~.----------------------------.
finely Gridded ~odel
• Dual Porosity Cell
Time (years)
Fig. 13-Slngle-cell, dual-porosity match from 0 to 5 years.
the liberated gas in the fracture system accumulates in Rows 1 and
14, leaving 100% oil around the matrix block.
Water/Oil Studies. The lO-ft [3-m] matrix block is placed at the
water/oil contact (WOC) in the fracture system. For the fracture
system, the capillary pressures are zero and the oil and water phases
are perfectly segregated. The physical arrangement is shown in
Fig. 10, where the distance between the bottom of the matrix block
and the WOC is he' The WOC remains at he throughout the simu-
lation.
Water imbibes into the matrix system, pushing the oil out into
the fracture system until equilibrium is established. Because the
water/oil capillary pressures are zero in the fracture system, the
capillary pressure in the matrix must be zero at he' Using the fluid-
density gradients with the curve of the matrix water/oil capillary
pressure determines the saturation distributions throughout the
matrix block. If the curve of the imbibition capillary pressure can
be approximated by two straight lines joined at the capillary pres-
sure's zero point, then matrix-block recoveries become a simple
quadratic function in hellO.
The curve of water/oil capillary pressure in Table 1 crosses zero
at a water saturation of 31 %. Consequently, capillary pressures will
produce 13.8%,100(31-20)/80, of the initial oil in the matrix block.
Gravitational effects will increase or decrease this amount, depend-
ing on the value of hc' Fig. 11 shows the fine-grid recoveries with
the WOC at different levels along the matrix block. Water is placed
at the base of the matrix block for hc=O.O. The ultimate matrix
recoveries with WOC's at 0.0,5.0, and 10.0 ft [0.0, 1.5, and 3.0
m] are 13.4, 14.2, and 16.6%, respectively.
It is clear from the fully immersed results in Fig. 11 that the capil-
lary forces act very quickly, while the gravity forces are much slow-
er (note how quickly 13.8% of the oil is expelled). Consequently,
a single curve of pseudocapillary pressure cannot accurately repro-
duce all the recovery curves in Fig. 11.
The 160-acre [65-ha] dual-porosity pattern studies use 146.7 x
146.7xlO.0-ft [45x45X3-m] gridblocks. Because the matrix
blocks are 10 ft [3 m] tall, each gridblock contains only one layer
of matrix blocks and pseudocapillary pressures do not need to be
generated for gridblocks containing several layers of matrix blocks.
Nevertheless, the dual-porosity equations, Eqs. 1 through 4 with
zero matrix flow, do not account for either the gravitational effects
within a gridblock or the nonuniform fluid distributions seen in the
matrix-block studies. To minimize these deficiencies, the fine-grid
results are matched with a single-cell, dual-porosity simulation by
choosing an appropriate shape factor in Eqs. 1 through 4 and
modifying the original capillary pressures in both the matrix and
fractures. These pseudocapillary pressures are then used in the dual-
porosity pattern studies to approximate gravitational effects and
nonuniform matrix-fluid distributions.
A shape factor of 8.0 ft - 2 [86 m - 2 ] is chosen for the single
gridblock simulations. In Eq. 7, this corresponds to matrix-block
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988
 TABLE 6-MATRIX WATERfOll PSEUDOS TABLE 7-FRACTURE WATER/Oil PSEUDOS

Swm Pcwom SWf P cwof

(fraction) krwm krowm (psi) (fraction) krwf krowf (psi)
0.20
--- ---
0.0 1.0000 85.69 0.0 0.0 1.00 0.0526
0.25 0.0004 0.6027 18.00 0.20 0.20 0.80 0.0278
0.27 0.0014 0.5259 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.0026
0.30 0.0024 0.4490 0.18 0.70 0.70 0.30 0.0019
0.31 0.0037 0.4214 0.003 1.00 1.00 0.0 0.0
0.3327 0.0059 0.3662 0.0
0.35 0.0075 0.3242 -1.26
0.40 0.0167 0.2253 -2.55 capillary pressure now crosses zero at a water saturation of 33.3 % ,
0.45 0.0310 0.1492 -3.94 which corresponds to an oil recovery of 16.6%. Tpe curve also
0.50 0.0515 0.0927 -5.56 has a very small slope from 31.0 to 33.3% because gravitational
0.60 0.1146 0.0265 -10.35 effects increase the recovery very slowly from 13.8 to 16.6%.
0.70 0.2133 0.0031 -22.06 Matrix-block recoveries for he < 10 are simulated by modifying
0.80 0.3542 0.0 -100.0 the water/oil capillary pressures in the fracture system. It is not
0.90 0.5438 0.0 -300.0
1.00 0.7885 0.0 -600.0 possible to create a single pseudo-water/oil capillary pressure curve
for the matrix that will reproduce all the different recovery curves
in Fig. 11. It is possible, however, to produce the correct ultimate
recoveries by modifying the capillary pressures in the fracture sys-
dimensions of I X I x 10 ft [0.3 xO.3 x3 m]. Gravitational effects tem. For example, assume that the finC!! average matrix satur~ion
are very important in gas/oil systems, and as Thomas et at. dis- for the fine-grid simulation is Swm=S for the case of he=h ft.
cussed, one might use only the vertical dimension in Eq. 7 to arrive Then if the sil!Sle-cell pse!!do-water/oil capillary pressure in the
at a shape factor of 0.04 ft- 2 [0.43 m- 2 ] for gas/oil systems. In matrix is P em(S) at Swm =S, the single-cell pseudo-water/oil c!lpil-
this paper, all water/oil and gas/oil simulations use the same shape lary p!.essure in the fractures also must have the value Pcm(S) at
factor to avoid the need for logic checks in the program. Pseudo- Sw/=h /10. Using the pseudo-water/oil capillary pressures in Table
gas/oil capillary pressures generated with a shape factor of 0.04 7 for the fracture system, a single-gridblock simulation with a water
will probably have the same form as pseudo-gas/oil capillary pres- saturation of Sw/ (fraction) in the fracture system will have the
sures generated with a shape factor of 8.0 but scaled 200 times larg- same ultimate recovery as the corresponding fine-grid simulation
er. This results because fluid transfer rates involve the shape factor with he = lOSw/'
times the capillary pressure. The pseudo-water/oil-capillary-pressure curves are used for the
Pseudo-water/oil capillary pressures are generated for the matrix same waterflood discussed in the previous section that compared
system by matching a single-cell simulation with a fine-grid simu- the three simulation techniques. Water is injected into a comer well
lation for the case when the matrix block is completely surrounded and liquid (water plus oil) is produced from a well in the opposite
by water. The fme-grid simulation can be used to generate the aver- comer.
age matrix-block saturation as a function of time. The water/oil The dual-porosity simulation with pseudocapillary pressures re-
capillary pressures are then modified for the single-cell simulation sults in the production history shown in Fig. 14. Included in Fig.
until the single-cell simulation reproduces the fme-grid results. The 14 are the dual-porosity and dual-permeability results from the previ-
capillary-pressure modifications are fairly straightforward because ous section without pseudocapillary pressures. As one would ex-
the recoveries at any particular time are only a function of the water/ pect, the dual-porosity simulation with pseudocapillary pressures
oil capillary pressures that occurred before that time; i.e., the pseu- lies between the two nonpseudocapillary-pressure curves. The pseu-
docapillary pressures can be generated sequentially starting at the docapillary pressures account for the gravitational effects in a 1O-ft
initial water saturation and progressing to larger water saturations. [3-m] block, while the nonpseudo dual-porosity technique ignores
The single-cell results with 100% water in the fracture system gravitational effects and the dual-permeability technique sees gravita-
are compared with the fine-grid results in Figs. 12 and 13. The tional effects for a loo-ft [30-m] pay zone. The ultimate dual-
entire water-imbibition histories match very well when the pseudo- porosity recovery with pseudopressures is 20.6 %, while the ultimate
water/oil capillary pressures listed in Table 6 are used. The original recovery without them is 18.0%. The additional 2.6% corresponds
water/oil relative permeabilities were not modified. The pseudo- to the gravitational recovery seen in the single-block simulation.

~r---------------------------------~ ~r-----------------------------~-----------'
I
Operm Orig /
_ ~ __ ~~?~_~S_~u_~~~_ /
____ ~ OporQ~
Opor Orig /

I
I
/

~.
/./
/.Y----
/ "

-------------
Dperm Orig

Time (years)
,. Time (years)
,.
Fig. 14-Waterflood recovery using pseudo-water/oil capillary Fig. 15-Waterflood WOR with pseudo-water/oil capillary
pressures. (Dperm orig and Dpor orig are the curves from Fig. pressures.
6. Dpor pseudos are dual-porosity simulations with capillary
pressure.)

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988 645

 ~r---------------------------------------~ TABLE 8-MATRIX GAS/LIQUID PSEUDOS

SLm Pogom
(fraction) krogm k rgm (psi)
0.30 0.0 0.6345 1.92
0.40 0.00002 0.5036 1.15
0.50 0.00096 0.3815 0.77
0.60 0.00844 0.2695 -0.0045
5.0 0.70 0.03939 0.1692 -0.0045
0.80 0.13010 0.0835 -0.0045
0.85 0.21670 0.0477 -0.0045
0.90 0.34540 0.0183 -0.0045

- -- 0.95 0.53020 0.0 -0.0045

1.00 1.0 0.0 -0.0045

o
----- ---_-19.~_

,~~~--~------~------~------~------~00
Time (years)
Fig. 16-Flne-grld, matrix-block recoveries for gaS/oil system.
The WOR's for the three simulations are shown in Fig. 15. Again,
the pseudocurve lies between the two nonpseudocurves. The dual-
porosity curve with pseudopressures follows the dual-penneability
curve initially, but rises very rapidly after about 4 years.
Gas/Oil Studies. For the primary-depletion study presented earlier,
the dual-porosity and dual-penneability predictions are nearly iden-
tical. This suggests that pseudocurves may not be required for
primary depletion studies. Nevertheless, we proceed in a manner
analogous to the water-imbibition study, presenting single-matrix-
block recoveries for a finely gridded mesh and generating pseudo-
gas/oil capillary pressures with single-gridblock simulations. The
previous pattern depletion study is then repeated with these pseudo-
capillary pressures to predict primary depletion recoveries.
The 10-ft [3-m] matrix block with initially unifonn water and
oil saturations of20 and 80%, respectively, is placed at the gas/oil
contact (GOC) in the fracture system. The physical arrangement
is the same as in Fig. 10, where the distance between the bottom
of the matrix block and the GOC is hc' The GOC remains at hc
throughout the simulation.
The initial saturation pressures are set equal to local gridblock
pressures. The fracture pressure is lowered at the rate of 1.0 psilD
[6.9 kPa/d] until the fracture pressure reaches 1,800 psi [12.4 MPa] ,
which occurs after 6.8 years. The fracture pressure then remains
at 1,800 psi [12.4 MPa] for the rest of the simulation.
Gas is liberated from the oil in the matrix and flows out into the
fracture system. The final gas distribution in the matrix is at the
critical value of 5.0% for all gridblocks below the GOC and the
gas saturations increase substantially above that point. Fig. 16 shows
recoveries from a matrix block with the GOC at different levels
0
~
., .
~
0
along the block. The lO-year recoveries with the GOC at 0.0,5.0,
and 10.0 ft [0.0, 1.5, and 3.0 m] are 38.3, 16.9, and -6.6%, re-
spectively. For the matrix block completely surrounded by gas, the
final gas saturation is 5.0 % at the bottom of the matrix block, in-
creasing to 43.9% at the top of the block.
The matrix block completely surrounded by oil ends up with 6.6%
more oil at the end of the simulation than it had in the beginning.
This occurs because the oil in the matrix shrinks as gas is liberated
and oil from the fracture imbibes into the matrix, displacing the
liberated gas. The final gas saturations are 5.0% everywhere in the
matrix block for the oil-immersed simulation. One might expect
matrix blocks above an expanding gas cap to have recoveries near
38.3 %, while matrix blocks in the oil column may actually imbibe
oil.
Gravitational effects are very important in matrix-block studies.
For a matrix block completely surrounded by gas, the fine-grid simu-
lation with gravitational effects predicts a lO-year recovery of
38.3 %. If gravitational effects are turned off by specifying a con-
stant depth for all the gridblocks, then the fine-grid simulation pre-
dicts a recovery of only 3.9%.
In a manner similar to that described in the water/oil section,
we developed a pseudo-gas/oil capillary pressure for the single-
cell simulation to reproduce the fine-grid results. With the pseudo-
gas/ oil capillary pressures listed in Table 8, the single-cell simula-
tion reproduces the fine-grid results for a matrix block completely
surrounded by gas (Fig. 17). The negative capillary pressures in
Table 8 are small because the shape factor was chosen to be 8.0
ft- 2 [86 m- 2 ]. If the shape factor were 0.04 ft- 2 [0.43 m- 2 ],
as mentioned previously, then the negative capillary pressures would
probably be around -0.9 psi [-6 kPa].
As in the water-imbibition example, we must modify the gas/oil
capillary pressures in the fractures to produce the proper ultimate
recoveries for the cases where the matrix block is partially surround-
ed by oil. With the pseudocapillary pressures shown in Tables 8
and 9, the single-cell simulations reproduce the recovery history
for a matrix block totally surrounded by gas and calculate the correct
ultimate recoveries for matrix blocks partially surrounded by oil.
The pseudo-gas/oil capillary pressures are now applied to the same
primary-depletion example discussed in a previous section. Oil is

. produced from a comer well at the total rate of 2,000 STB/D [320
m 3 /d], with a limiting BHP of 1,800 psi [12 MPa] .
The dual-porosity simulation with pseudocapillary pressures re-
Q sults in the production history shown in Fig. 18. Included in Fig.
-0
o~

~
18 are the dual-porosity and dual-penneability results from the previ-
"~ ous section without pseudos. The dual-porosity recovery with pseu-
> dos is significantly larger than the dual-permeability recovery. If
.. .....
00
~

<5
we repeat the dual-porosity simulation using pseudo-gas/oil capillary
pressures in the matrix and zero capillary pressures in the fractures,
LEGEND
~

---_ .. _ - -~odel
Finely Cridded
- TABLE 9-FRACTURE GAS/LIQUID PSEUDOS
• Dual Porosity Cell
0
, SLI POgOI
0 00
"
Time (yeors)
2D
" 3D
(fraction) k rogl
~ (psi)
0.0 0.0 1.00 0.0
Fig. 17-Slngle-cell, dual-porosity match with pseudo-gas/oll 0.50 0.50 0.50 -0.0039
capillary pressures. 1.00 1.00 0.0 -0.0060

646 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988

then the recovery is 38.3% after 10 years. Our predicted recovery
~r---------------------------------------~
is extremely high when pseudos do not account for the fluid satu-
rations in the fracture system.

Conclusions
______D_por P$eu~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This paper presented a natural fracture simulator capable of per- /'
forming single-porosity, dual-porosity, and dual-permeability com- /
putations. The dual techniques should be used to simulate reservoirs
that contain well-connected fracture networks. The fracture net- /
works allow fluid to flow through the reservoir, bypassing the matrix /
blocks. This results in recoveries much lower than one would predict Opor Orig
using a single-porosity simulator. The dual-porosity technique will
normally be the method of choice for modeling naturally fractured
reservoirs, but dual-permeability simulations may be necessary if
a reservoir exhibits substantial vertical continuity throughout the
o+-~~~~ ______ ~ ______________________ ~
matrix system.
o
Primary depletion and waterflood studies were presented that com- Time (years)
10

pared the three techniques and led to the following conclusions.

1. Dual techniques predict ultimate recoveries that are signifi- Fig. 18-Prlmary-depletlon recovery wHh pseudo-gas/oll capil-
cantly lower than recoveries predicted with a single-porosity simu- lary pressures. -
lator for both primary depletion and waterflood.
2. Dual-porosity waterflood recoveries are much lower than dual-
permeability waterflood recoveries because of vertical continuity ily = gridblock dimension in y direction, ft [m]
in the dual-permeability matrix system. .:lz = gridblock dimension in z direction, ft [m]
3. Pseudocapillary pressures can be used in both the matrix and
il = 3D finite-difference operator
fracture systems in dual-porosity waterfloods to account for limited
gravitational and numerical deficiencies. ilt = time-difference operator
4. For gas/oil systems, matrix-block recoveries are very sensitive A = fluid mobility, cp -1 [Pa -1 .s -1]
to the fluid distribution in the fracture system, and dual-porosity P. = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa· s]
simulations are very sensitive to the gas/oil capillary pressures in (] = matrix/fracture shape factor, ft - 2 [m - 2]
both the matrix and fracture systems. cp = porosity, fraction
5. Dual-porosity primary-depletion predictions are very similar
to dual-permeability primary-depletion predictions, and pseudocapil- Subscripts
lary pressures may not be necessary for gas/oil dual-porosity simu- f = fracture system
lations. g = gas phase
6. Gas/oil pseudocapillary pressures in the matrix system result
in very high primary recoveries unless pseudocapillary pressures
L = liquid
are also included for the fracture system. m = matrix system
7. Single- and dual-porosity techniques require about the same o = oil phase
number of computations per timestep, but dual-porosity computa- w = water phase or well term
tions require many more timesteps because of the small PV's in x = x-direction property
the fracture system. y = y-direction property
8. Dual-permeability computations are much more expensive than z= z-direction property
the other two techniques. The dual-permeability technique requires ex = water or oil phase
much more storage because of its linear system that is twice as large
as the systems in other techniques. It also requires many more iter- Superscripts
ations to solve the linearized equations.
- = average
Nomenclature *= upstream weighting direction for
matrix/fracture exchange
B = FVF, RB/STB or scf/STB [res m 3/stock-tank m 30r
std m 3/stock-tank m 3]
C w = wellbore constant, res bbl-cp/psi-D [m 3] Acknowledgment
D = gridblock depth, ft [m] We thank the management of Arco Oil & Gas Co. for permission
gp = density gradient, psi/ft [kPa/m] to publish this paper.
he = height of fluid interface above base of matrix block,
ft [m] References
k = permeability, md 1. Long, J.C.S. et al.: "Porous Media Equivalents for Networks of Dis-
kr = relative permeability, fraction continuous Fractures," Water Resources Res. (June 1982) 645-58.
L = matrix-block length, ft [m] 2. Englman, R., Gur, Y., and Jaeger, Z.: "Fluid Flow Through a Crack
Network in Rocks," J. Appl. Mech. (Dec. 1983) 707-11.
n= number of gridblocks 3. Barenblatt, G.E., Zheltov, Iu.P., and Kochina,I.N.: "Basic Concepts
p = pressure, psi [kPa] in the Theory of Seepage of Homogeneous Liquids in Fissured Rocks, "
Ps = saturation pressure, psi [kPa] J. Appl. Math. and Mech., English translation (1960) 1286-1303.
Pe = capillary pressure, psi [kPa] 4. Kazemi, H. et ai.: "Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Natur-
q = well rate, STB/D or scflD [stock-tank m 3 /d or ally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEl (Dec. 1976) 317-26: Trans., AIME,
267.
std m 3/d] 5. Rossen, R.H.: "Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs with Semi-
Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB [std m 3/stock-tank m 3] Implicit Source Terms," SPEl (June 1977) 201-10.
S = saturation, fraction 6. Blair, P.M.: "Calculation of Oil Displacement by Countercurrent Water
ilt = timestep size, days Imbibition," SPEl (Sept. 1964) 195-202; Trans., AIME, 231.
7. Yamamoto, R.H. et ai.: "Compositional Reservoir Simulator for Fis-
T= transmissibility, STB/psi-D [stock-tank m 3 /kPa·d] sured Systems-The Single-Block Model," SPEl (June 1971) 113-28.
Vb = gridblock volume, ft3 [m 3 ] 8. Kazemi, H. and Merrill, L.S.: "Numerical Simulation of Water Imbi-
ilx = gridblock dimension in x direction, ft [m] bition in Fractured Cores," SPEl (June 1979) 175-82.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988 647

 9. Reiss, L.H.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fractured Forma- SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Manama,
tions, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1980) 108. Bahrain, March 14-17.
10. Van Golf-Racht, T.D.: Fundamentals ofFractured Reservoir Engineer- 20. Peaceman, D.W.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
ing, Elsevier/North Holland Inc., New York City (1982) 710. Reservoir Simulation With Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic Per-
II. Mattax, C.C. and Kyte, J.R.: "Imbibition Oil Recovery From Frac- meability," SPEl (June 1983) 531-43.
tured, Water-Drive Reservoir," SPEl (June 1962) 177-84; Trans., 21. Dahlquist, G. and Bjorck, A.: Numerical Methods, translated by N.
AIME,225. Anderson, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1974) 573.
12. Kyte, J.R.: "A Centrifuge Method to Predict Matrix-Block Recovery 22. Gilman, J.R. and Kazemi, H.: "Improved Calculations for Viscous and
in Fractured Reservoirs," SPEl (June 1970) 164-70; Trans., AIME, Gravity Displacement in Matrix Blocks in Dual-Porosity Simulators,"
249. JPT (Jan. 1988) 60-70.
13. Du Prey, E.F.: "Gravity and Capillary Effects on Imbibition in Porous
Media," SPEl (June 1978) 195-206. SI Metric Conversion Factors
14. Saidi, A.M.: "Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," paper
SPE 12270 presented at the 1983 SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simu-
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
lation, San Francisco, Nov. 16-18. cp x 1.0* E-03 Pa·s
15. Preuss, K. and Narasimham, T.N.: "A Practical Method for Modeling ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured Porous Media," SPEl (Feb. 1985) ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
14-26. Ibmlft 3 x 1.601 846 E+Ol kg/m3
16. Chen, H.: "Numerical Simulation of Coning Behavior of a Single Well psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
in a Naturally Fractured Reservoir," SPEl (Dec. 1983) 879-84. psi -I x 1.450377 E-Ol kPa- 1
17. Thomas, L.K., Dixon, T.N., and Pierson, R.G.: "Fractured Reservoir
Simulation," SPEl (Feb. 1983) 42-54. • Conversion factor is exact. SPERE
18. Gilman, J.R. and Kazemi, H.: "Improvements in Simulation of Natur-
ally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEl (Aug. 1983) 695-707.
Original SPE manuscript received for review March 14, 1986. Paper accepted for publication
19. Blaskovich, F. T. et al.: "A Multicomponent Isothennal System for Ef- May 29, 1987. Revised manuscript received Sept. 3, 1987. Paper (SPE 14110) first presented
ficient Reservoir Simulation, " paper SPE 11480 presented at the 1983 at the 1986 SPE Inti. Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing, March 17-20.

648 SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1988