SPE-177278-MS

Improving Recovery of Liquids from Shales through Gas Recycling and

Dry Gas Injection
Alfonso Fragoso, Yi Wang, Guicheng Jing, and Roberto Aguilera, Schulich School of Engineering, University of
Calgary, Canada

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Quito, Ecuador, 18 –20 November
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
The objective of this paper is to investigate the possibility of using gas injection to improve liquids
recoveries from containers in shale condensate and shale oil reservoirs. Liquids recoveries from shales are
known to be very low. A method is proposed to increase these recoveries through gas recycling and by
using dry gas that is available within relatively short distances of the shale condensate and oil containers
considered in this study. This dry gas is not being produced at this time due to current market conditions.
In practice, some shale reservoirs such as the Eagle Ford in the United States and the Duvernay in
Canada present the challenge of unconventional fluids distribution: shallower in the structure there is
black oil, deeper is condensate and even deeper is dry gas. So the fluids distribution is exactly the opposite
of what occurs in conventional reservoirs. Differences in burial depth, temperature, and vitrinite reflec-
tance are used to explain this unique distribution.
Ramirez and Aguilera (2014) have shown that fluids in shale reservoirs have remained with approx-
imately the same original distribution (i.e. approximately the same dry gas-condensate contact and
approximately the same condensate-oil contact) over geologic time. These fluids are the target of the
research results presented in this paper. The investigation involves three basic cases, all of them with
horizontal wells.
In the first case, a single porosity compositional simulation is used to investigate the possibility of
improved liquid recovery from the condensate container by using dry gas injection obtained from the
recycling process plus dry gas from the deeper part of the structure. Fluid properties are similar to those
of the Duvernay shale.
In the second case, dual permeability compositional simulations are used to investigate practical
aspects of the condensate container that can lead to improved recoveries in the Eagle Ford shale.
Sensitivities are run that include bottomhole pressure (BHP), natural fracture permeability and spacing,
hydraulic fracture length and spacing, and distance between parallel wells. Results from dual permeability
simulations are compared with dual porosity behavior. Fluid properties are similar to those of the Eagle
Ford shale.
2 SPE-177278-MS

In the third case, compositional single porosity, dual porosity and dual permeability simulations are
used to study the possibility of injecting gas in the oil container. A cyclic huff and puff gas injection is
also investigated. Fluids and rock properties are similar to those of the Eagle Ford shale.
The study leads to the conclusion that dry gas from deeper shales can be put to good use by injecting
it into the middle and upper parts of the structure. In the middle part of the structure there is a container
where gas condensate is predominant. In here, a re-cycling injection project allows to inject dry gas
stripped from the condensate fluids. This is supplemented with dry gas produced from the deeper part of
the structure.
In the upper part of the structure there is a container where oil is predominant. In here, injection is
implemented using dry gas produced from the deeper part of the structure. Permeability plays a critical
role in the case of single porosity simulations. Dual porosity and dual permeability simulations indicate
that oil recovery can be enhanced significantly in naturally fractured shales. Diffusion plays a fundamental
role on the performance of shale gas injection particularly in the case of naturally fractured shales. It is
found that cyclic huff and puff gas injection can help increase oil recovery.
To the best of our knowledge, the idea developed in this paper that includes all fluids (oil, condensate
and dry gas) present in the same shale structure within relatively short distances of each other has not been
published previously in the literature.

Introduction
The concept of flow units and reservoir containers has been used in the oil industry with a good deal of
success for several years. The process or delivery speed k/␸ can be used in many instances to define a flow
unit. Correlation of flow units between wells helps to establish reservoirs containers and to forecast
reservoir performance (Aguilera and Aguilera, 2002). This paper considers gas, condensate and oil
containers in the Eagle Ford and Duvernay shales.
Oil production from the Eagle Ford shale, as reported by the Railroad Commission of Texas
Production, shows a continuous increase between 2010 and April 2014 when it reached 838,293 bopd
(Figure 1). Although these figures are impressive the fact is that oil recoveries as a percent of original oil
in place are extremely low. Hence, there is a need to study the Eagle Ford and other shale reservoirs with
the ultimate goal of improving petroleum recoveries. The key is understanding the rocks.
SPE-177278-MS 3

Figure 1—Eagle Ford daily oil production since 2010. Source: Railroad Commission of Texas Production.

The speed with which thousands of wells have been drilled in shale resource plays in a rather short
period of time has required the use of brute force. This has left very little time to think on how oil
recoveries can be improved. This is clearly important. Through the thousands of wells drilled and
completed in the Eagle Ford shale and other unconventional plays, it has been found that the fluid
distribution and the contacts are ⬙upside down⬙, having oil on the shallowest zone, condensate in the
middle and dry gas on the bottom of the structure.
Thus the distribution is exactly the opposite of what is observed in conventional reservoirs. The origin
of this distribution is attributed to the maturation windows present in the Eagle Ford shale; differences in
burial depth, temperature, and vitrinite reflectance that lead to oil, wet gas, and dry gas in an approxi-
mately south east direction in the Eagle Ford shale as shown in Figure 2. A similar fluid inversion is also
present in the Duvernay shale in Canada.
4 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 2—Map showing the maturation windows of the Eagle Ford (Fan et al., 2011).

Various authors (Kovscek et al, 2008; Wan el al., 2013a; Wan el al., 2013b; Wan et al., 2015) have
investigated the possibilities of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in shales. Miscible CO2 flooding has been
considered as an adequate method to enhance oil recovery in shale reservoirs.
Kovscek et al (2008) conducted experiments to study the possibility of CO2 injection in siliceous
shales and found that the incremental oil recovery could be as high as 25%. Wan el al. (2013a), evaluated
the possibility of cyclic natural gas injection in a shale oil reservoir using a single porosity black oil
simulator. They considered different degrees of miscibility and determined the incremental oil recovery
obtained for each case. For the case of total miscibility, the incremental recovery was 20.9%. Wan et al.
(2013b), conducted a similar study, but using a dual permeability model. Again, they obtained consid-
erable increasing in oil recovery. In addition, they determined the impact of some hydraulic fracture
properties. More recently, Wan et al. (2015) evaluated the effect of diffusion on gas injection (not cyclic)
in a shale oil reservoir using a dual permeability compositional simulator. They concluded that diffusion
plays an important role in gas flooding process in shales. Reservoir properties used by Wan et al. are based
on published data for the Eagle Ford Shale.
Ramirez and Aguilera (2014) investigated factors controlling fluids distribution in shales through
geologic time. These factors included porosity, permeability, pore throat aperture (rp35) and spacing
between natural fractures. The investigation was done with the use of compositional reservoir modelling.
They concluded that fluids with different densities have remained in more or less the same position and
with approximately the same dry gas-condensate contact and approximately the same condensate-oil
contact over geologic time. Thus there has been a general lack of changes in matrix hydrocarbons
distribution throughout the one million years considered in their study. This was a significant finding and
these hydrocarbons are the target of the research results presented in this study.
We show in this paper using simulation that favorable conditions are necessary for gas injection to be
successful. In shales without natural fractures, characterized by very small permeability, gas injection is
not feasible. However, gas injection in those parts of the reservoir with better rock properties can lead to
important liquids recovery increases. The composition of the injection gas also plays a critical role as well
SPE-177278-MS 5

as the form in which gas is injected (continuous vs. huff and puff). But in the end laboratory work and
pilot tests will be essential to corroborate these findings. Some work along these lines is being carried out
by the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). In addition to some pilot tests being conducted in the
Saskatchewan Bakken field, the SRC is evaluating gas flooding technologies for the Bakken formation in
their laboratories (Luo and Li, 2015).
Primary vs. Improved Oil Recovery (IOR)
Liquid recovery from shale reservoirs cannot be improved with the use of brute force. It is critical to
understand the rocks with a view to determine flow units (Aguilera, 2014; Lopez and Aguilera, 2015) that
will provide the best recoveries by only primary means and flow units that will increase liquids recoveries
by gas injection (or maybe other type of injection). Figure 3 shows the flow units where, based on this
study, gas injection might be feasible in shale reservoirs without natural fractures leading to improved
recovery of liquids.

Figure 3—Plot highlighting flow units where primary recovery and gas injection in shale reservoirs without natural fractures might be
possible (Adapted from Lopez and Aguilera, 2015). The minimum permeability that allows gas injection must be determined for each
project.

From the point of view of single porosity the question is if it is possible to find shales with matrix
permeabilities large enough to allow gas injection. The answer might be positive. Shales are very complex
rocks that can have for example a carbonate component that enhances shale permeability. The key is
finding shale flow units that meet the requirements for gas injection. In this paper, the single porosity
model in Case I utilizes a matrix permeability equal to 0.07 md. In Case II the matrix permeability of the
dual porosity and dual permeability models is 0.0001 md. In case III the single porosity matrix
6 SPE-177278-MS

permeability is 0.01 md and the matrix permeability of the dual porosity and dual permeability models is
0.00025 md.
Aguilera’s (2014) work shows that, other things being equal, the smaller pores with smaller perme-
abilities lead to smaller production rates. However, favorable conditions the smaller pores could lead to
approximately constant gas oil ratios (GOR) over long periods of time by primary means, larger recovery
of liquids in the surface and consequently more attractive economics. Examples of approximately constant
GOR in Eagle Ford shales are presented in Figure 4 (Altman et al., 2014) for 14 Eagle Ford shale wells
over approximately 60 months. Note that in the upper graph the GOR ranges between approximately 5 and
10 Mscf/stb; in the lower graph the range is between approximately 2.5 and 7 Mscf/stb.

Figure 4 —Examples of approximately constant GOR in 14 rich gas condensate wells of the Eagle Ford shale (Altman et al., 2014).

The flow units plot shown in Figure 3 (Lopez and Aguilera, 2015) helps to explain the observed
constant GOR with the use of shrinking two-phase envelopes as values of rp35 get smaller. The flow-units
graph is presented as a function of ␸ and k. Note that the phase diagrams shrink as rp35 values become
smaller. The approximately constant GOR and larger recovery of liquids will be maintained until the
reservoir pressure reaches the dew point. At that moment the GOR will start increasing.
Lopez and Aguilera (2015) have shown how to recognize pore sizes in shale condensate reservoirs with
the use of process speed (flow-units) and modified Pickett plots. Data from the Niobrara and Eagle Ford
shales have been used to demonstrate these crossplots. Careful evaluation of pore scales in shale rocks
could assist in the identification of flow units amenable to improved oil recovery by gas injection.
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model proposed in this paper is holistic and shows how production of liquids can be
increased under favorable conditions with the use of gas injection. The addition of heavier ends to the
SPE-177278-MS 7

injection stream increases even more the recovery of liquids. The basic idea is explained with the use of
the schematic presented in Figure 5, which includes all the fluids considered in this paper. Fluids are
produced from the condensate container (C) in the middle of the structure, the oil container (O) in the
upper part of the structure and the dry gas container (G) in the lower part of the structure. Liquids are
stripped from the condensate and the left-over dry gas is re-injected into container C. Thus this would be
equivalent to a gas condensate re-cycling project. A portion of the dry gas produced from container G is
injected jointly with re-cycled gas into container C with the ultimate goal of maintaining the pressure
above the dew point. The other portion of the produced dry gas is injected into container O. Three main
cases are considered.

Figure 5—Conceptual model for gas injection in shale oil (O) and condensate (C) containers (not to scale). Thick red arrows show gas
injection (essentially dry gas) produced from bottom of the structure (container G). Thin red dashed lines show injection in O and C
of gas stripped from C.

In Case I, a single porosity compositional simulation is used to investigate the possibility of improved
liquid recovery from the condensate container of the structure by dry gas injection obtained from the
recycling process plus dry gas from the deeper part of the structure. Fluid properties are similar to those
of the Duvernay shale in Canada.
In Case II, a dual permeability compositional simulation is used to investigate practical aspects in the
condensate container of the structure that can lead to improved recoveries in the Eagle Ford shale.
Sensitivities are run that include bottom-hole pressure (BHP), natural fracture permeability, hydraulic
fracture length and hydraulic fracture spacing in the horizontal well, and distance between parallel wells.
Results from dual permeability simulations are compared with dual porosity behavior. Fluid properties are
similar to those of the Eagle Ford shale in the United States.
In Case III, compositional single porosity, dual porosity and dual permeability simulations are used to
study the possibility of injecting gas into the oil container (O) in the upper part of the structure. A cyclic
huff and puff gas injection is also investigated. Fluids and rock properties are similar to those of the Eagle
Ford shale.
8 SPE-177278-MS

Condensate Container
The evaluation of the condensate container (C) in the structure shown in Figure 5 has been carried out with
the use of single porosity, dual porosity and dual permeability numerical simulation models. The results
indicate that under favorable conditions it is possible to increase recovery of liquids from shale condensate
reservoirs using dry gas injection stripped from the condensate (recycling) and to increase recovery even
more by supplementing that injection with dry gas available in container G in the deeper part of the
structure. However, there are also cases where gas injection is not feasible. Still in the latter case it is
feasible to increase recoveries by using for example a suitable combination of BHPs, length of horizontal
wells, distance between parallel horizontal wells, length of hydraulic fractures, spacing between hydraulic
fractures and location of the best natural fractures.

Case I: Single Porosity Model

The condensate container of the structure (C in Figure 5) has been simulated with the use of a single
porosity compositional simulator. An average permeability in the order of 0.07 md has been assumed. The
compositional components are from the Duvernay shale in Canada (Taylor et al., 2014). The wells are
horizontal and are hydraulically fractured.
Reservoir Model Description and PVT Data.- The single porosity condensate reservoir model
consists of 67⫻50⫻15⫽50250 grid blocks and each grid block size is 30m⫻30m⫻2.0m. Production
comes from 2 identical horizontal wells. Production wells are perforated in layer 12 while injection wells
are perforated in layers 1 to 9. The reservoir model is compositional and includes components from the
Duvernay shale in Canada (Taylor et al., 2014). The reservoir model is run using GEM of the Computer
Modeling Group (CMG®). Fluid PVT was generated using CMG’s Winprop.
Assumptions.- The single porosity compositional simulation work includes the following key assump-
tions:
1. The near-well phase equilibrium and fluid flow interactions are accurately represented using a fine
corner grid with fluid properties calculated from an equation of state (EOS) model.
2. Production constraints: Maximum surface gas production rate and minimum bottomhole pressure.
If a producer is not able to meet the surface production rate, the gas rate is reduced to meet the
minimum bottomhole pressure.
3. Cumulative recovery factors are compared after 10 years of production.
4. There is no aquifer support.
Condensate Bank.- The formation of condensate banks along hydraulic fractures is of common
occurrence in shale reservoirs once pressure goes below the dew point. An example is presented in Figure
6 where the color-code shows oil saturations increasing from zero (top graph) to 40% (bottom graph)
around the horizontal wellbore and in one transverse hydraulic fracture under natural depletion.
SPE-177278-MS 9

Figure 6 —Condensate bank forms around the wellbore over time reducing productivity (logarithmic grid refinement for hydraulic
fractures).
10 SPE-177278-MS

The top graph is captured at an assumed date (July 2016); the one in the middle on June 2018 and the
one at the bottom on September 2019. The liquid bank forming around the wellbore and the hydraulic
fracture reduces gas deliverability significantly. Thus a good strategy in a situation like this would be to
inject gas (or other suitable fluid) with a view to maintain the reservoir pressure above the dew point as
long as possible for postponing liquid dropout, or if this is already occurring, to re-evaporate the
condensate around the wellbore and hydraulic fractures.
Recycling Gas from Condensate.- More than 40 cases were run with the single porosity model to
investigate the possibility of gas injection and 3 are discussed in this section. These cases are called
scenarios 41, 42 and 43. Two vertical wells inject all dry gas stripped from recycling operations. Two
vertical wells inject dry gas from the deeper part of the structure (container G in Figure 5). In some of the
cases not discussed in this paper only the recycling gas was injected. But it was found that the best liquid
recoveries were obtained when that injection was supplemented with dry gas from container G (Figure 5).
The injection wells are perforated in upper layers 1 to 9 and hydraulically fractured in layers 7 to 9.
Non-Darcy flow is assigned in the hydraulic fractures.
Several combinations of horizontal lengths, fracturing stages and half-length of hydraulic fractures
were considered in efforts to obtain the combination that leads to maximum recovery factors after 10 years
of production. Well locations are shown in the map view of Figure 7 that also includes gas saturation after
10 years of production and gas injection (scenario 41). The horizontal wellbores are 1080 m long, there
are 9 fracturing stages in each well, 240 m fracture half-length, and injection of both recycling and
supplemental dry gas. Scenario 42 is the same but includes 12 fracturing stages. Scenario 43 is the same
as 42 but adds a shorter production horizontal well in the western part of the structure and a third vertical
injection well to drain more efficiently stranded gas stored in that region.

Figure 7—Hydraulically fractured production horizontal wells and vertical gas injection wells. Included is gas saturation distribution
after 10 years of production and gas injection (scenario 41).
SPE-177278-MS 11

In scenario 41 the gas and oil recovery factors are 23.2% and 21.9%, respectively. In Scenario 42 the
gas and oil recovery factors are 27.6% and 25.7%. In scenario 43 the gas recovery and oil recovery factors
amount to 29.7% and 26.9 %. On the other hand recovery without gas injection was in the order of 19%.
Are these recoveries possible in practice for a shale reservoir? It could be. The key would be the
identification of the proper flow units (Figure 3). The conclusion is reached that for the conditions
considered in this single-porosity model, recycling gas injection supplemented by dry gas from the deeper
part of the structure is a reasonable alternative to increase x container (C in Figure 5).
Case II: Dual Permeability and Dual Porosity Models
A 3-D dual permeability model of two producing horizontal wells was created for evaluating the
condensate part of the structure (container C in Figure 5). The model was set with average reservoir and
fluid properties of a naturally fractured shale condensate area in the in Eagle Ford shale. Initially, two
horizontal wells 6000 ft long each (typical length of some of the wells in the area) were simulated.
Subsequently to improve computer running time, one-third (2000 ft) of the horizontal length was
considered for carrying out a sensitivity study with a view to investigate practical aspects affecting Eagle
Ford shale production including BHP, natural fracture permeability, hydraulic fracture spacing in the
horizontal well, interwell fracture intervals (distance between the tip of hydraulic fractures in adjacent
parallel horizontal wells), and dual porosity vs. dual permeability behavior. Finally a comparison was
made between the 2000 and 6000 horizontal wells.
6000 ft Horizontal Well This is the length of a typical Eagle Ford horizontal well penetrating the
condensate part of the structure (container C in Figure 5) in the study area. Some of the key data used to
build the model are presented next.
Reservoir Properties.- The model represents an Eagle Ford shale condensate reservoir. Net pay is
equal to 110 ft (Lower Eagle Ford), depth 10000 ft, matrix permeability 100 nd, porosity 7%, water
saturation 35%, water gas contact 10,350 ft, initial pressure 5235 psia, temperature 335 F°, and rock
compressibility 1E-6 psi⫺1.
Fluid Properties.- Under original reservoir pressures and temperatures, the fluid exists as a gas phase
in the model. The fluid components are as shown in Table 1.

Table 1—Fluid properties for Eagle Ford shale considered in the study area.
Components Mol

C1 40%
C2 20%
C3 20%
IC4 2%
NC4 2%
IC5 1%
NC5 1%
C6 4%
C7 10%
Total 100%

Modeling.- Simulation of the 6000 ft horizontal well was performed with dual permeability formu-
lations. The same is true for the sensitivities performed with horizontal lengths of 2000 ft. However, one
sensitivity run was carried out with a dual porosity model for comparison with the dual permeability
results. Both dual permeability and dual porosity models were built with the same input data.
Well constraints.- The production wells are constrained to operate at a variable minimum bottom hole
pressure of 500 psi and at a maximum surface gas rate of 2 MM scf/d.
12 SPE-177278-MS

Operating Period.- The 6000 ft horizontal well simulation as well as the 2000 ft sensitivity cases were
run for 5 years. It was observed that recoveries were very low. Once peak production was reached decline
occurred fast.
Well Configurations.- The configuration for the two 6000 ft parallel wells is presented in Figure 8.
Distance between wells is about 1500ft. The half-length of each fracture is 400 ft. Distance between the
tips of the fractures (panel interval) is 700 ft. There are 15 transverse hydraulic fractures in each well
leading to a hydraulic fracture spacing of approximately 400 ft. Permeability of the hydraulic fracture is
10,000 md. For sensitivity analysis using the 2000 ft horizontal wells numerous simulations were
conducted for different well configurations to investigate the controlling factors that impact shale
condensate production from the Eagle Ford shale.

Figure 8 —Simulation model for Eagle Ford shale parallel horizontal wells 6000 ft long in layer 6. Notice decrease in reservoir pressure
around the hydraulic fractures once the wells go on production.

Natural Fracture Permeability.- Natural fractures, even if very tight, play an important role in
productivity of the Eagle Ford shale. In the 6000 ft horizontal wells and the 2000 ft sensitivity base case,
natural fracture permeability was input as follows: I, J 4E-5 md and K 8E-5 md. A second sensitivity case
was built as follows: I, J 2E-4 md and K 4E-4md. These fracture permeabilities are very low but the
simulation of Case II tries to capture the tightest fracture permeabilities.
Results.- Outcomes of the 6000 ft horizontal well simulation for 5 years production are presented in
Figures 9 to 11.
SPE-177278-MS 13

Figure 9 —Pressure decline vs. time for Eagle Ford horizontal well 6000 ft long.

Figure 10 —Gas rate and cumulative chemical components vs. time for one Eagle Ford 6000 ft horizontal well.
14 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 11—Cumulative gas moles vs. time for Eagle Ford 6000 ft horizontal well.

Figure 9 shows the average pressure decline. POVO in the ordinate of the plot indicates pore volume
average pressure. Note that in 5 years the average pressure decreases from the initial pressure (5235 psi)
to approximately 4780 psi.
Figure 10 shows cumulative production of heavy end components C6 (blue line) and C7 (red line) in
gmol for each well. Also shown is gas rate (green line) in scfd (monthly average) vs. time. The gas rate
for each well starts at 2 MMscfd, remains constant for about 5 months and then start declining. After 5
years of production the simulator shows a gas rate of about 0.7 MMscfd.
Figure 11 shows the cumulative gas moles rates for the chemical components C7, C6, C2, and C1 vs.
time. The largest gmol cumulative contribution is given by methane followed by C2, C7 and C6. The
equivalent gas and oil rates are presented in Figure 12. The initial oil rate is approximately 180 bopd and
declines to 60 bopd after 5 years of production.
SPE-177278-MS 15

Figure 12—Oil and gas rate vs. time for the 6000 ft horizontal well.

Sensitivity Analysis In this sensitivity, one-third (2,000 ft) of the horizontal length (6,000 ft) considered
in the previous section is investigated to examine practical aspects affecting Eagle Ford production
including BHP, natural fracture permeability, hydraulic fracture spacing, fracture half length, wells
intervals, and dual porosity vs. dual permeability behavior. The reason for using 2,000 ft is to speed up
the simulation time. However, at the end of this exercise a comparison is made with the 6,000 ft horizontal
well to validate the sensitivity results.
Figure 13 shows a 3D view of the simulation model at reservoir depth used in the sensitivity study. The
average model block size is as follows, I: 2450 ft; J: 2700 ft; and K: 110 ft. This is represented by
Cartesian grid block sizes of 50⫻50⫻8 ft in i-j-k directions, respectively.
16 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 13—3D view of reservoir model at depth used in the sensitivity study.

Sensitivity Cases investigated.- This paper investigates first a base case with a 2,000 ft horizontal well
and then runs various sensitivities. A synopsis of the base plus 7 practical sensitivity cases that could be
of interest to operators in the Eagle Ford shale follows:
Base case sensitivity:
BHP: 1500 psi
Natural fracture permeability I: 4E-5 md; J: 4E-5 md and K: 8E-5 md
Panel interval: 450 ft
Hydraulic fracture half length: 225 ft
Hydraulic fracture spacing: 25 ft
Hydraulic fracture permeability: 10,000 md
Distance between parallel horizontal wells: 1000 ft
For details on the distances mentioned above refer to the schematic shown on Figure 8.
Case 1 sensitivity: This case changes BHP (Bottom Hole Pressure) from 1500 psi to the following
values:
500 psi
3000 psi
Case 2 sensitivity: This case changes natural fracture permeability to the following values:
I: 2E-4 md; J: 2E-4 md and K: 4E-4 md
Case 3 sensitivity: Comparison of dual permeability results with dual porosity
Case 4 sensitivity: Change the wells intervals from 450 ft to the following values:
500 ft
700 ft
900 ft
SPE-177278-MS 17

Case 5 sensitivity: Change Natural Fracture Spacing from 25 ft to the following value:
50 ft
Case 6 sensitivity: Start gas injection and compare with primary recovery
Case 7 sensitivity: Compare the above 2000 horizontal well base case with the 6000 ft simulation
Results.- In general it is found for the study area that production of heavy ends (C5, C6 and C7)
remains low with time but can be produced at an approximate constant rate. The dual permeability model
shows larger production of C5, C6 and C7 as compared with the dual porosity model. This is interpreted
to be the flow contribution from matrix to matrix and natural microfractures as opposed to flow from only
matrix to natural microfractures.
In spite that natural fracture permeability is very low in some shale reservoirs (as in this Case II) it has
a significant influence on production and pressure decline. A higher natural fracture permeability
(relatively speaking) results in increased production rates and recovery.
Lean injection is not feasible in the condensate region (container C in Figure 5) when shale
permeability is within the range introduced in the dual permeability and dual porosity models considered
in this section (0.0001 md).
Base Case Sensitivity.- Results for the Base Case sensitivity are presented in Figures 14 to 17.

Figure 14 —Base Case. BHP1500 psi. There are changes in reservoir pressures around the hydraulic fractures once the two horizontal
wells go on production.
18 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 15—Base case sensitivity pressure decline.

Figure 16 —Base case chemical components cumulative production.

SPE-177278-MS 19

Figure 17—Base Case. Cumulative Gas Moles and Gas Production Rate.

Figure 14 shows formation pressure changes in layer 6 around the hydraulic fractures. After 5 years of
production, the region near the wellbore has the lower pressure (around 2300 psi). The region around the
hydraulic fracture network has a pressure in the order of 3500 psi. The matrix far away from the wellbore
or the fracture network remains at the original pressure (around 5200 psi) indicating lack of flow from
natural fractures or the tight matrix to the hydraulic fractures. The two parallel wells with an approximate
distance of 450 ft between end points of hydraulic fractures do not show communication within the
production span of 5 years considered in this simulation. So there are significant volumes of gas and
condensate that remain to be recovered.
Figure 15 shows that the average pressure (POVO) declined from 5235 to 4865 psi after 5 years of
production. Figure 16 shows the cumulative gas mole curves for the chemical components C7, C6, C2 and
C1. The largest cumulative corresponds to methane, the smallest to hexane. Figure 17 shows cumulative
C7 and C6, and gas monthly rate. The gas monthly rate curve shows a quick decline after the initial peak
production period of 2–3 months. Thereafter, there is a smaller continuous decline for the next few years
of production. This performance is consistent with actual observations in the Eagle Ford shale.
Similar crossplots to those shown on Figures 14 to 17 were developed for all the sensitivity cases
carried out in this study but they are not included in this paper due to space limitations. However,
summary tables are shown next to illustrate the effect of controlling factors on primary recoveries from
the Eagle Ford shale.
Case 1 Sensitivity (BHP).- Table 2 shows the effect of BHP on cumulative recoveries after 5 years
of production. Results indicate that recoveries can be enhanced significantly by lowering the BHP. For the
simulation at hand the reduction on BHP does not seem to affect significantly the recovery of C6⫹ C7
with respect to C1⫹C6⫹C7 as shown on Table 3. Practical care, however, would have to be exercised
given the liquid banking that could occur in these types of reservoirs as shown on Figure 6.
20 SPE-177278-MS

Table 2—Cumulative production and average reservoir pressure at different BHPs.

Effect of BHP. Cumulative gmoles after 5 years of production

BHP Cum C7 Cum C6 Cum C1 Average P (psi)

3000 psi 1.5 ee 1.1 ee 1.68 e8 5000

1500 psi 2.68 e7 1.82 e7 3.1 e8 4865
500 psi 3.38 e7 2.27 e7 3.9 e8 4810

Table 3—Cumulative production of C6ⴙC7 as a function of C1ⴙ C6ⴙC7.

BHP (C6ⴙC7)/(C6ⴙC7ⴙC1)

3000 psi 13.40%

1500 psi 12.68%
500 psi 12.65%

The minor differences in the ratio (C6⫹C7)/(C6⫹C7⫹C1) at different BHPs shown in Table 3 might
be due to average reservoir pressures (last column in Table 3) still being above the dew point. This
prevents liquid drop out in the matrix. Eagle Ford shale fluid analysis shows dew point pressures ranging
between 3150 and 5000 psi. However, the region near the wellbore reaches approximately 2000 psi during
the simulation. In this region, liquid drop out could occur but high velocities through the primary
hydraulic fracture permeability of 10,000 md probably help to avoid the liquid banking issue.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that although the variations in the ratio (C6⫹C7)/
(C6⫹C7⫹C1) are not significant, the differences in the heavy ends and C1 production in the three cases
are obvious (Table 2). We find that the 3,000 psi BHP case has the lowest C6⫹C7 and C1 production but
the highest (C6⫹C7)/(C6⫹C7⫹C1) ratio among all three cases. This could indicate that the lower BHP
pressure will increase the overall production but the higher BHP pressure will increase the heavier end
components in the gas phase.
Another possibility is the low k/␸ for this case. In fact, as shown on Figure 3, this flow unit is not
amenable to gas injection but can produce very well under primary recovery. In practice, this can also be
verified through constant, flat production GOR curves. Examples are shown in Figure 4.
Case 2 Sensitivity (Natural Fracture Permeability).- In this sensitivity we are referring to microfrac-
tures with very small permeabilities as opposed to larger natural fractures with permeabilities on many
millidarcies and even darcies that can be found for example in some carbonate reservoirs. The sensitivities
in this case considered the following natural microfractures permeabilities:
I: 4e-5 md; J: 4e-5 md and K: 8e-5 md
I: 2e-4 md; J: 2e-4 md and K: 4e-4 md
Although the above microfracture permeability differences at first glance do not appear very signifi-
cant, they do provide some variations in cumulative production and average reservoir pressures as shown
on Table 4.

Table 4 —Effect of natural fracture permeability on cumulative production and average reservoir pressure.
BHP Inputs C6ⴙC7 Cumulative Production (gmole) Total Production (gmole) Average Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Small Natural I: 4e-5 md; 4.5 E7 3.55 E8 4865

Fracture J: 4e-5 md
Permeability K: 8e-5 md
Larger Natural I: 2e-4 md; 6.21 E7 4.77 E8 4700
Fracture J: 2e-4 md
Permeability K: 4e-4 md
SPE-177278-MS 21

In fact, the above cumulative C6⫹C7 production data show that a higher natural fracture permeability
contributes close to 40% more production of the heavy end components in 5 years while the average
reservoir pressure is 4700 psi. With the larger natural microfracture permeability, the contribution of the
heavy end C6⫹C7 to the cumulative production is 13.02%. With lower natural fracture permeability the
C6⫹C7 contribution is 12.68% of the total cumulative production.
Case 3 Sensitivity (Dual Permeability vs. Dual Porosity).- Flow mechanisms in dual porosity and dual
permeability models are different. This leads to different simulation outcomes as shown on Table 5 that
compares cumulative production and pressure results.

Table 5—Dual Permeability vs. Dual Porosity Simulation Results.

C6ⴙC7 Cumulative Production (gmole) Total Production (gmole) Average Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Dual Permeability 4.5 E7 3.55 E8 4865

Dual Porosity 2.7 E7 1.77 E8 5040

Input data in both the dual porosity and dual permeability models are identical. However, the dual
porosity C6⫹C7 simulation results are significantly lower over a 5-year period as compared with the dual
permeability model.
The difference between the cumulative production of C6⫹C7 in the two models is about 1.8 E7 gmole,
a difference of approximately 66%. In addition, the average reservoir pressure of the dual porosity model
is 5040 psi, which is higher than the pressure in the dual permeability model. Based on actual Eagle Ford
performance, the dual permeability model seems to provide more realistic results.
Case 4 Sensitivity (change well intervals to 500ft, 700ft, and 900ft).- The interwell fracture intervals
change the production, recovery and reservoir pressure. How close should the wells be drilled and what
should be the inter fracture panel intervals in order to maximize production while minimizing the cost of
drilling and completion? This is a practical question in Eagle Ford shale condensate development. Results
of this sensitivity are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 —Cumulative production and average reservoir pressure for different fracture panel intervals after 5 Years of Production.
Inter Fracture Panel Intervals C6ⴙC7 Cumulative Production (gmole) Total Cum Production (gmole) Average Reservoir Pressure (psi)

500 ft 4.5 E7 3.55 E8 4865

700 ft 5 E7 3.75 E8 4870
900 ft 5 E7 3.75 E8 4910

The inter fracture panel intervals between two parallel horizontal wells were set at 500, 700 and 900
ft. The intervals of the surface wells are approximately 1100, 1300 and 1500 ft. The simulation results
show that cumulative production for 500 and 700 ft is not too dissimilar while at 700 and 900 ft the
production figures are the same. So 700 ft would be the optimum from the point of view of cumulative
production. An economic evaluation would indicate the optimum inter fracture panel interval.
Case 5 Sensitivity (Natural fracture spacing at 25 ft and 50 ft).- Natural fracture spacing influences
overall production in shale reservoirs. In general, the lower the natural fracture spacing the larger the
recovery as shown in Table 7.
22 SPE-177278-MS

Table 7—Effects of Natural Fracture Spacing.

Natural Fracture Spacing C6ⴙC7 Cumulative Production (gmole) Total Production (gmole) Average Reservoir Pressure (psi)

25 ft 4.5 E7 3.55 E8 4865

50 ft 4.45 E7 3.44 E8 4870

In this sensitivity, the simulation results show a slightly higher total production with closer fracture
spacing, but there is not a significant difference between the two models. There is only 3% more
production for the 25 ft spacing as compared with 50 ft.
The average reservoir pressures are also similar.
Case 6Sensitivity (Gas Injection Effect).- The idea was to inject gas with a view to increase recovery
of liquids in the condensate part of the structure (container C in Figure 5). The effort proved unsuccessful
for the very low fracture permeabilities considered in this sensitivity.
Case 7: Comparison of 6000ft and 2000ft Horizontal wells- Eagle Ford horizontal wells in the study
area generally have a length of 6,000 ft. This case was run and results for 5 years production were
presented in a previous section entitled ‘6000 ft Horizontal Well’. Table 8 shows C7 and C6 cumulative
production for the 2000 ft horizontal base case and 6000 ft horizontal well.

Table 8 —Heavy end C6 and C7 production comparison between 2000 ft horizontal well (base case) and 6000 ft horizontal well.
Base Case (2000ft) Full Eagle Ford Wells Length (6000ft)

C7 Cumulative Production 2.7e7 scf 9.05e7 scf

C6 Cumulative Production 1.8e7 scf 6.4e7 scf

The average pressure for both cases after 5 year production is in the order of 4000 psi. The extended
well length (6000 ft), which is 3 times the length of the base case well, produces about 3.3 times more
C7 as compared with the base case and 3.5 times more C6. The results suggest that the sensitivities
utilizing 2000 horizontal wells provided results that were directionally correct.
Results of the sensitivity analysis can be summarized as follows: (1) lower BHP lead to larger recovery
of liquids (but one has to be careful about the possibility of liquid banking around the wellbore), (2) even
if in the order of nanodarcys, larger natural fracture permeability leads to larger recovery of liquids, (3)
dual permeability models (as opposed to dual porosity) better reflect performance of Eagle Ford wells, (4)
500 ft subsurface hydraulic fracture end point intervals between two parallel horizontal wells provide
good production results, (5) smaller hydraulic fracture spacing leads to larger recoveries (but hydraulic
fracture spacing has a strong effect on economics, Taylor et al., 2014), (6) gas injection is not feasible for
the case of natural fracture permeabilities considered in this sensitivity.
Oil Container
Case III: Oil Container
The upper part of the Eagle Ford structure considered in this study stores oil (container O in Figure 5).
Production from this container has been relatively small as efforts have concentrated on production of
condensate (container C on Figure 5). Recovery factors from container O are also very small. Case III
examines the possibility of increasing recoveries from container O by gas injection.
Simulation model For Case III a model of a shale oil reservoir was built using a compositional simulator
(GEM, CMG). Data were gathered from the Eagle Ford shale literature. The oil composition was
simplified to pseudocomponents in order to reduce simulation times (Table 9). The simulation model
(Figure 18) utilizes a Cartesian grid with an area of 153 acres divided into 65*41 grid cells, and a thickness
SPE-177278-MS 23

of 200 ft divided into 5 layers. Single porosity, dual porosity and dual permeability models were used and
compared in this study. The matrix permeability is 250 nd and the matrix porosity is 8%; the reservoir has
a dip angle of 2°. In the dual porosity and the dual permeability models, the fracture permeability if 0.04
md and the fracture spacing is 10 ft. All these properties are taken as constant throughout the simulation
model (in this sense the reservoir properties are homogeneous). Table 10 summarizes the reservoir
properties.

Table 9 —Initial molar composition of the reservoir fluid (Case III).

Component Mol

CO2 0.91%
N2 0.16%
C1 36.47%
C2 9.67%
C3 6.95%
C4 to C6 12.55%
C7⫹1 20%
C7⫹2 10%
C7⫹3 3.29%
Total 100%

Figure 18 —Reservoir Grid.

24 SPE-177278-MS

Table 10 —Reservoir Properties.

Matrix Porosity, ␸m (%) 8
Matrix Permeability, Km (mD) 0.00025
Fracture Porosity ␸2(%) 0.08
Fracture Permeability K2 (mD) 0.04
Fracture Spacing hm (ft) 10
Thickness, h (ft) 200
Formation Top, H (ft) 10500
Matrix Compressibility, cm (1/psi) 1*10⫺6
Fracture Compressibility, Cf (1/psi) 1*10⫺5
Dip Angle 2°
Initial Pressure, Pi (psi) 6000

Relative permeability curves for the matrix system were built using the data published by Honarpour
et al. (2012) for calcite rich regions in shale reservoirs. For the fracture system, straight line relative
permeabilities were adopted. Figure 19 shows the relative permeability curves.

Figure 19 —Relative Permeability Curves for the Matrix System (Top) and the Fracture System (Bottom).
SPE-177278-MS 25

The study takes into account molecular diffusion as mass transport mechanism. Sigmund correlation
is used to calculate gas phase and oil phase diffusion coefficients.
Two horizontal wells, one injector and one producer, were drilled in the third layer of the model, the
injector is updip of the producer. The horizontal length of the wells is 3250 ft; multistage hydraulically
fracturing stimulation was applied to both wells, the number of stages is 13, the hydraulic fractures
halflength is 500 ft in the producer and 450 ft in the injector, the fracture width is 0.01 ft and the fracture
(hydraulic) permeability is 1000 md in both wells. In the production well, the minimum allowed bottom
hole pressure was set at 2000 psi, while in the injection well the bottom hole pressure was restricted to
a maximum of 5000 psi.
In order to reduce simulation times, a submodel of 5⫻41⫻5 grid cells with only one hydraulic fracture
was constructed. Figure 20 presents the submodel.

Figure 20 —Reservoir grid submodel.

Two injection techniques were considered: continuous gas injection and huff and puff gas injection.
The cyclic huff and puff process is an improved oil recovery method applied in heavy oil reservoirs in
which a horizontal well is used for both injection and production. The possibility of extending this method
to gas injection in shale reservoirs has been proposed by Wan el al. (2013a). In this work, cyclic huff and
puff gas injection was studied for the Eagle Ford Shale. Each cycle consists in 100 days of injection
followed by 100 days of production.
26 SPE-177278-MS

Single Porosity Model Based on our experience the sweet spots of the Eagle Ford shale are naturally
fractured. However, we are building as a starting point a single porosity simulation model to get an idea
with respect to the possibilities of gas injection in those areas where only matrix porosity might be present.
The model is used for simulating container O of the Eagle Ford oil shale (Figure 5). A sensitivity analysis
to the matrix permeability was performed with a view to evaluate the effect of this property on gas
injection performance. Four cases with different values of permeability were simulated: 250 nd, 0.001 md,
0.005 md and 0.01 md. Two injection fluids were considered; the first fluid composition is 100% methane
and the second is 70 % C1, 20% C3 and 10% C6; this composition was suggested by Wan et al. (2015).
Injection starts after 5 years of production. Table 11 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis.
It shows that for a matrix permeability of 250 nd, oil recovery is not improved with injection of any of
the two fluids; injected gas can barely penetrate the matrix due to the very low permeability. A similar
result is obtained when matrix permeability is 0.001 md; the increment in oil recovery by gas injection
is not significant

Table 11—Oil recovery factors obtained with the single porosity model for different matrix permeabilities. Continuous gas injection
starts after 5 years of primary production.
Matrix Permeability Primary Recovery (%) Recovery by CH4 injection (%) Recovery by (70% C1 ⴙ 20%C3ⴙ 10%C6) injection (%)

250 nd 5.25 5.25 5.25

0.001 md 7.04 7.28 7.72
0.005 md 8.94 10.72 13.55
0.01 md 9.39 13.21 16.80

A matrix permeability of 0.005 md allows the injected gas (70 % C1⫹ 20% C3 ⫹ 10% C6) to flow
into the matrix and increase oil recovery significantly. For methane injection, the increment becomes
important only when matrix permeability is 0.01 md. Subsequent single porosity simulations use a 0.01
md matrix permeability. It is found that the shale oil reservoir performance under gas injection is strongly
affected by matrix permeability when using single porosity models. However, the permeability values that
allow increasing oil recoveries in these cases depend on the reservoir fluids composition, the injected fluid
composition, the injection pressure and the injection rate. Therefore the threshold permeability must be
determined for each particular injection project.
Figure 21(a) compares oil recovery for the primary production and methane injection cases. Figure
21(b) presents oil production rate, gas injection rate and reservoir pressure throughout 20 years for the
methane injection case. During the five years of primary production reservoir pressure decreases very
quickly. When methane injection starts, pressure increases and is maintained approximately constant due
to the gas injection. Oil rate also presents an abrupt decline during the five years of primary production.
When methane injection starts, it helps to maintain production rates for a long time. Figures 22(a) and (b)
present the same kinds of crossplots but now for the injection case with 70% C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6.
SPE-177278-MS 27

Figure 21 (a)—Oil recovery for the single porosity model (k ⴝ 0.01 md). The blue line corresponds to primary production and the red
line corresponds to methane injection starting after five years of primary production.

Figure 21 (b)—Oil production rate (green line), gas injection rate (red line) and reservoir pressure (blue line) for the methane injection
case in a single porosity model (k ⴝ0.01 md). Note that rates have to be multiplied by the number of stages as simulations are done
for only one hydraulic fracture.
28 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 22 (a)—Oil recovery for the single porosity model (k ⴝ 0.005 md). The blue line corresponds to primary production and the red
line corresponds to 70% C1 ⴙ 20 % C3 ⴙ 10%C6 gas injection starting after five years of primary production.

Figure 22 (b)—Oil production rate (green line), gas injection rate (red line) and reservoir pressure (blue line) for the 70% C1 ⴙ 20 % C3
ⴙ 10%C6 injection case in a single porosity model (k ⴝ0.005 md). Note that rates have to be multiplied by the number of stages as
simulations are done for only one hydraulic fracture.

An important issue in an injection project is the time when the injection should start. Two starting times
were compared in this study for the case of continuous gas injection: (1) at the beginning of production
SPE-177278-MS 29

and (2) after five years of production. For huff and puff gas injection, starting after two years of production
was also evaluated. The injected fluid was methane in all cases.
It was found that starting injection earlier in the production life of the well does not improve oil
recoveries in the single porosity model. The best results for both continuous and huff and puff gas
injection are obtained when injection starts after five years of production as can be seen in Figures 23(a)
and (b), respectively.

Figure 23 (a)—Different starting times for continuous gas injection in the single porosity model.
30 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 23 (b)—Different starting times for huff and puff gas injection in the single porosity model.

The effect of four injected gas compositions was contemplated in this study for different models. Table
12 compares the oil recovery obtained after 20 years when injection starts after 5 years of primary
production. It also compares performance with the two injection techniques.

Table 12—Oil recovery factors after 20 years of production. Gas injection starts after 5 years of primary production. Matrix permea-
bility for the single porosity case is equal to 0.01 md, whereas for both dual porosity and dual permeability it is 2.5ⴛ10ⴚ4 md.
Gas Injection

Model Primary Recovery Injected Fluid Continuous Gas Injection Huff and Puff

Single Porosity 9.39 Methane 13.21 12.82

95% C1 ⫹ 5% C2 13.43 12.76
80% C1 ⫹ 20% C2 14.26 12.79
70 % C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6 16.80 15.42
Dual Porosity 10.62 Methane 15.83 26.29
95% C1 ⫹ 5% C2 16.08 26.47
80% C1 ⫹ 20% C2 17.26 27.08
70 % C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6 40.63 32.55
Dual Permeability 10.03 Methane 18.22 19.66
95% C1 ⫹ 5% C2 18.85 19.88
80% C1 ⫹ 20% C2 20.52 20.54
70 % C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6 32.83 20.96

Table 12 shows that continuous gas injection gives slightly better results that huff and puff injection
when dealing with a single porosity model, regardless the injected fluid composition.
SPE-177278-MS 31

However, in all probability this small increment in oil recovery does not justify the cost of and
additional well and the higher volume of gas needed in continuous gas injection. The table also shows that
small amounts of C2 added to the injected gas do not improve significantly the oil recovery compared to
the 100 % methane case.
Only when the injected fluid is 70 % C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6, considerable recovery increments can
be obtained in the single porosity model. Some grade of miscibility with the reservoir oil might be
achieved in this case increasing thus the recovery. However, the cost and availability of this gas may be
an issue.
Dual Porosity Model The Eagle Ford shale is considered to be a naturally fractured reservoir in many
areas. Therefore, dual porosity or dual permeability models are the most suitable to represent the Eagle
Ford. Figure 24 illustrates oil recovery for a dual porosity model when injection starts after five years of
primary production. Continuous and huff and puff methane injection cases are included in the figure. The
plot shows that when the reservoir is naturally fractured, gas injection can help to improve recoveries in
container O (Figure 5) of the Eagle Ford shale.

Figure 24 —Oil recovery from the dual porosity model. Methane injection starts after 5 years of primary production. The blue line
corresponds to primary recovery, the red line corresponds to continuous gas injection and the green line corresponds to huff and puff
gas injection. The small differences between the huff and puff and continuous injection curves during the five years of primary recovery
are due to different production well locations (it is centered in the huff and puff case).

Table 12 summarizes the results for different cases using a dual porosity model. The analysis allows
to conclude that, in general, huff and puff immiscible gas injection generates considerably greater
recoveries that continuous immiscible gas injection when a double porosity model is used (this is also
illustrated in Figure 24). As in the single porosity model, adding C2 to the injected gas does not produces
substantial improvements in oil production neither for continuous gas injection nor for huff and puff gas
injection. Only the injected gas with composition 70 % C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6, which may achieve
some grade of miscibility, produces significant better results than methane. In fact, the recovery obtained
with this gas composition is almost 25 % more than the recovery using only methane.
32 SPE-177278-MS

Different injection starting times were also evaluated with this model. Figure 25 (a) shows that for
continuous gas injection recovery by the year 2035 is higher when injection starts after five years of
primary production. However, starting injection at the beginning of production life gives higher early
recoveries which may lead to better economic results. From Figure 25 (b), it can be concluded that the best
time to start the huff and puff gas injection is after two years of production. This time not only gives the
highest final oil recovery, but also permits to obtain high early recoveries.

Figure 25 (a)—Different starting times for continuous gas injection in the dual porosity model.
SPE-177278-MS 33

Figure 25 (b)—Different starting times for huff and puff gas injection in the dual porosity model.

Dual Permeability A dual permeability model was also built in order to study gas injection in the
naturally fractured part of container O in the Eagle Ford Shale (Figure 5). Input data in both the dual
porosity (described above) and dual permeability models are identical. Figure 26 is a plot of oil recovery
vs time for the dual permeability model. It shows that, as in the case of the dual porosity model, huff and
puff gas injection provides higher recoveries that continuous gas injection when the injection gas is
methane.
34 SPE-177278-MS

Figure 26 —Oil recovery from the dual permeability model. Methane injection starts after 5 years of primary production. The blue line
corresponds to primary recovery, the red line corresponds to continuous gas injection and the green line corresponds to huff and puff
gas injection. The small differences between the huff and puff and continuous injection curves during the five years of primary recovery
are due to different production well locations (it is centered in the huff and puff case).

From Table 12 it is concluded that when dealing with a dual permeability model, the effect of fluid
composition is important in the continuous gas injection case. The use of a gas that can achieve miscibility
(70 % C1 ⫹ 20 % C3 ⫹ 10% C6) improves greatly the performance compared to the use of only methane.
On the other hand, fluid composition variations do not have an important effect on the final recovery
obtained by huff and puff gas injection in this model. Table 12 also shows that unlike the dual porosity
model, the differences between continuous and huff and puff gas injection results are not pronounced
when the injected gas is methane or methane ⫹ C2 in the dual permeability model.
Starting continuous gas injection at the beginning of production life in the dual permeability model
offers a slight increment in the final oil recovery. Furthermore, early recoveries are higher to some extent
compared to the case where injection starts after five years of primary production. This can be seen in
Figure 27(a). Economic benefits must be evaluated in order to determine which one is the best option.
Figure 27(b) shows that starting huff and puff injection at the beginning of production is not a good
choice. Starting after two years of production, gives the same final recovery as compare with starting after
five years. But the early recoveries are moderately higher in the first case. Again, economic considerations
must define the best option.
SPE-177278-MS 35

Figure 27 (a)—Different starting times for continuous gas injection in the dual permeability model.

Figure 27 (b)—Different starting times for huff and puff gas injection in the dual permeability model.
36 SPE-177278-MS

Effect of Diffusion So far, all simulations presented in this paper have considered the effects of
molecular diffusion. In order to determine the relevance of this phenomenon in the performance of a gas
injection project in a shale oil reservoir, additional simulations are done neglecting diffusion effects. Table
13 summarizes the simulations results. In the single porosity model, diffusion does not play an important
role in oil recovery by gas injection; increment in oil recovery is almost the same when diffusion occurs
and when it is neglected. On the contrary, when the shale is naturally fractured (dual permeability and dual
porosity models), which applies in the cases we are familiar with, diffusion has a significant impact on
oil recovery. When diffusion is neglected, the injected gas flows directly to the production well through
the fractures instead of penetrating the matrix. This can even affect negatively oil production as shown in
the Table 13. When diffusion occurs, oil recovery is increased due to transfer of solute from the fractures
to the matrix emanating from a concentration gradient. Gas injection can improve oil recovery in fractured
shale reservoirs in the absence of diffusion effects when there is miscibility as shown previously by Wan
et al. (2015).

Table 13—Effect of diffusion on oil recovery by continuous CH4 injection.

Without molecular difusion Molecular diffusion

Continuous Continuous
Model Primary Recovery CH4 Injection RF Increment Primary Recovery CH4 Injection RF Increment

Single Porosity 9.39 12.99 3.6 9.39 13.21 3.82

Dual Porosity 11.06 9.54 ⫺1.52 10.62 15.83 5.21
Dual Permeability 10.14 8.89 ⫺1.25 10.03 18.22 8.19

Conclusions
The objective of this paper has been to investigate the possibility of using gas injection to improve liquids
recoveries from containers in shale condensate and shale oil reservoirs. The methodology considers gas
recycling and the use of dry gas (container G in Figure 5) that is available deep in the same structure and
within relatively short distances of the shale condensate container (C) and the shale oil container (O). This
dry gas is not being produced at this time due to current market conditions. The investigation has led to
the following conclusions:
1. Liquid recovery in shale gas and shale oil reservoirs can be improved by means of dry gas
injection. The availability of dry gas in the deeper part of the Eagle Ford shale (USA), makes this
reservoir a good candidate to implement this methodology. The Duvernay shale in Canada is also
a good candidate.
2. In the case of primary recovery in the condensate container (C in Figure 5) lower BHP leads to
larger recovery of liquids (but one has to be careful about the possibility of liquid banking around
the wellbore).
3. Even if in the order of nanodarcys, larger natural fracture permeability leads to larger recovery of
liquids in condensate reservoirs.
4. Dual permeability models (as opposed to dual porosity) better reflect performance of the Eagle
Ford wells.
5. Smaller natural fracture spacing leads to larger liquid recoveries.
6. In shales without natural fractures (evaluated in this paper with a single porosity model), the
performance of a gas injection project is strongly affected by matrix permeability. For each single
porosity project, the permeability values that permit gas injection to be successful must be
carefully pre-determined.
7. Injected fluids that can achieve some degree of miscibility with reservoir oil produce better results
SPE-177278-MS 37

than lean gas. Availability and price may be limiting factors in the use of these fluids.
8. Huff and puff immiscible gas injection produces, in general, better results that continuous gas
injection in terms of oil recoveries. In addition, the cost of huff and puff injection is lower since
the same well is used as injector and producer and the volume of gas needed is smaller due to the
shut in periods.
9. Diffusion plays a fundamental role in the performance of a gas injection project in a naturally
fractured shale oil reservoir. It may determine if the gas injection is successful or fails. Therefore,
understanding of diffusion through experimental work and modelling is very important in shale oil
reservoirs.

Acknowledgements
The support of CNOOC Limited, Nexen, the Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary,
and Servipetrol Ltd. (Canada) is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank the GFREE research team
[GFREE refers to an integrated research program including Geoscience (G); Formation Evaluation (F);
Reservoir Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation (R); Reservoir Engineering (RE); and Economics and
Externalities (EE)] at the University of Calgary for their continued help and support.

References
Aguilera, R., 2014. Flow Units: From Conventional to Tight-Gas to Shale-Gas to Tight-Oil to
Shale-Oil Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, Volume 17, No. 02, May 2014.
10.2118/165360-PA.
Aguilera, R. and Aguilera, M. S., 2002, The Integration of Capillary Pressures and Pickett Plots for
Determination of Flow Units and Reservoir Containers. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineer-
ing, 5(6):465–471. DOI: 10.2118/81196-PA, December 2002.
Altman, R., et al, 2014, Understanding Mechanisms for Liquid Dropout from Horizontal Shale Gas
Condensate Wells. Paper SPE 170983 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 October 2014.
Fan, L., Martin, R. B., and Thompson, J. W. 2011. An Integrated Approach for Understanding Oil and
Gas Reserves Potential in Eagle Ford Shale Formation. Paper SPE 148751 presented at the
Canadian Unconventional Resources Conference, held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15–17 No-
vember 2011.
Honarpour, M., Nagarajan, N., Orangi, A., Arasteh, F., Yao, Z., 2012. Characterization of Critical
Fluid, Rock and Rock Fluid Properties-Impact on Reservoir Performance of Liquid-rich Shales.
SPE 158042 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio, Texas, USA, 810 October 2012.
Kovscek, A., Tang, G. and Vega, B., 2008. Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from Siliceous
Shale by CO2. SPE 115679 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference held in
Denver, Colorado, USA, 21–24 September 2008.
Lopez, B. and Aguilera, R., 2015. Flow Units in Shale Condensate Reservoirs, paper URTeC 2154846
prepared for presentation at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) in
San Antonio, Texas, July 20 –22, 2015. DOI 10.15530/urtec-2015, control ID number URTeC
2154846.
Luo, O. and Li, S., 2015, Gas Injection in the Bakken Formation: An Overview, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, July 2015.
Railroad Commission of Texas - Eagle Ford Information. (2013). Retrieved December 5, 2013, from
https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/eagleford/
38 SPE-177278-MS

Ramirez, J. and Aguilera, R., 2014. Factors Controlling Fluid Migration and Distribution in the Eagle
Ford Shale. SPE 171626-MS presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources Conference-
Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 September-2 October 2014.
Taylor, R. S., Stobo, B., Niebergall, G., Aguilera, R., Walter, J., and Hards, E., 2014. Optimization of
Duvernay Fracturing Treatment Design Using Fully Compositional Dual Permeability Numeric
Reservoir Simulation. Paper SPE 171602, presented at the SPE/CSUR Unconventional Resources
Conference - Canada held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 September - 2 October 2014.
Wan, T., Sheng, J. and Soliman, M., 2013 (a). Evaluation of the EOR potential in shale oil reservoirs
by cyclic gas injection. Paper SPWLA-d-12– 00119 presented at the SPWLA 54th Annual Logging
Symposium Held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 22–26 June 2013.
Wan, T., Sheng, J. and Soliman, M., 2013 (b). Evaluation of the EOR potential in fractured shale oil
reservoirs by cyclic gas injection. Paper SPE 168880 or URTeC 1611383 presented at the
Unconventional Resources Technology Conference Held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 12–14
August 2013.
Wan, T. and Sheng, J., 2015. Compositional Modelling of the Diffusion Effect on EOR Process in
Fractured Shale-Oil Reservoirs by Gasflooding. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology.
Volume 54, No. 02, March 2015. 2014 –1891403-PA