SPE 111212
Risk Assessment Based on Single Porosity, Alpha Factor, Dual Porosity Simulation of
a Naturally Fractured Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir
F.O. Iwere, H. Gao, E. Gomez, Y.Z. Ma, and O.M. Gurpinar, Schlumberger
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A., 17–19 October 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Modeling naturally fractured reservoirs is difficult because of
the need to characterize the fractures, matrix and the matrix-
fracture interaction. It becomes more challenging if the
naturally fractured reservoir produces wet gas, condensates
and water. Three different three dimensional, compositional
models--single-porosity (SP), single-porosity with alpha factor
(SPWAF), and dual-porosity single permeability (DPSP) of
the study area, were studied.
The models were calibrated against measured pressure,
historical oil production, layer contributions and gas-oil ratios.
The calibrated models were then used to forecast the
performance of wells in the study area. The impacts of the
methodology of describing the natural fractures on fluid flow
behavior and recovery mechanisms, as well as on the ultimate
hydrocarbon recovery were evaluated. The results also were
used to ascertain the risks of selecting the optimum
methodology for the field development plan.
The forecasted results show little variations in oil recovery,
pressure and oil saturation distributions under identical
operating strategy for the three models. This is attributed to
the absence of some critical properties required to model the
oil recovery mechanisms in dual porosity system. For
example, imbibition capillary and relative permeability
functions were not input in the dual porosity (DPSP) model.
However, the DPSP model is considered more efficient than
the single porosity (SP and SPWAF) models because it took
less time and modifications to obtain reasonable history match
of the field performance. It was also more difficult to obtain a
reasonable and acceptable history match using the SP and
SPWAF models compared to the DPSP model, and the
reservoir properties in the single porosity models had to be
modified extensively and unrealistically to obtain history
match.
Introduction
The choice of a numerical smulator to study the behavior
of naturally fractured reservoirs is often not obvious, and this
decision is further complicated when the reservoir fluid is a
rich gas condensate requiring compositional characterization.
This is because naturally fractured reservoirs comprise of
matrix and fracture systems; some of them contain vugs also
and are referred to as triple porosity systems. Depending on
the amount of matrix, natural fractures, vugs in the total pore
volume and their role in fluid flow, a single porosity model,
dual porosity - single permeability model or dual porosity -
dual permeability model may be used.
Da Silva and Petrofina have suggested the use of pseudo
relative permeability1 generated for different fracture spacings,
which in turn were correlated from core observation as a
function of effective permeability. This approach is tedious,
time consuming and sometimes impossible to describe the
fracture network in the model. Tealdi et al2 up-scaled the
matrix, fracture and karst properties into an equivalent single
porosity model and used the model to simulate natural
depletion and miscible gas injection. The methodology was
first evaluated in representative sector models and then
extended to the full field model.
The work presented in this paper investigates the
performance of a sector of a naturally fractured gas condensate
reservoir using single porosity, single porosity with alpha
factor and dual porosity-single permeability models to
represent the dual porosity system. Alpha factors or transport
coefficients were introduced by Baker and Fayers3 to model
subgrid heterogeneity in compositional simulation. Alpha
factors are particularly suited for reservoirs where flow is
primarily single phase. It could be very efficient as it reduces
model complexity and simulation time while capturing all the
dynamic key performance indicators of the more complex and
computationally expensive dual porosity model.
The field was initially developed under primary depletion
with condensate yield of about 300STB/MMscf. Although
produced gas is presently recycled, the reservoir pressure has
dropped below the dew point. It is believed that production is
due to revaporization of the liquid components into gas phase
and transport of these components in the gas phase to the
production wells.
2 SPE 111212
Geology
The subject field is a large, structurally complex, naturally
fractured rich gas condensate reservoir. Hydrocarbons are
trapped along a long, narrow SW-NE tending asymmetrical
anticline that is bounded by a thrust. The thrust has generated
both a complex structure including imbricated and overturned
units (Figure 1), and a high degree of conductive natural
fracturing in response to the deformation.
Figure 1- Structure map of study area
Production is from three major stratigraphic units that
consist of fractured sandstones deposited under fluvio-
estuarine, estuarine and shallow marine formations. Total
reservoir thickness exceeds 900 feet. A thick interval (+300
feet) of muddy coastal plain deposits separates the fluvio-
estuarine sandstones from the underlying estuarine and marine
sediments and serves as an effective flow barrier throughout
the field. The best production comes from the fluvio-estuarine
deposits, which consist of quartz arenites.
Static Model
During the static modeling the matrix and fracture
properties were distributed into the structural framework.
Within the model individual cells were 100m x 100m x 10
feet. The static model covered the entire field for this study
only a small area underwent detailed static and dynamic
modeling. The static model covered the entire field to avoid
edge or extrapolation effects in the final dynamic model.
The matrix properties including porosity, water saturation,
net-to-gross (NTG) and permeability were determined from
the log data and interpretations.
Matrix Porosity
The porosity logs from the wells were upscaled using
simple arithmetic averaging from the 0.5-foot sampling rate to
the 10-foot layers in the structural framework. Because
porosity has a normal distribution, arithmetic averaging was
deemed adequate for upscaling.
Variograms based on the log data were then created and
used along with the log porosity data to distribute porosity in
3-D using sequential Gaussian simulation (SGS). This
geostatistical procedure is the standard continuous
petrophysical property modeling method and uses the Kriging
mean variance to generate a Gaussian field4. Porosity in the
non-reservoir muddy coastal plain deposits separating the
fluvio-estuarine and estuarine sediments was arbitrarily set to
0%, thus reducing the size of the dynamic model. Average
porosity is approximately 5% in the static model.
Matrix Permeability
There is a relatively good correlation between porosity and
permeability; a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.82 exists
between the two properties. Additionally the porosity versus
permeability relationship is similar by stratigraphic unit.
A workflow very similar to the porosity modeling was
used to distribute permeability. The calculated permeability
logs from the wells were used as input. These logs were
upscaled using the mid-point (median) method from the 0.5-
foot sampling rate in the logs to the 10-foot layers in the
structural and porosity models. This upscaling method assigns
the median value of permeability in each of the static model
cells and minimizes the effect of data outliers with the final
result better matching the log input.
Co-located co-simulation using the porosity - permeability
relationship and porosity model was next performed to
populate the permeability in the geocellular model area.
Matrix Net-to-Gross (NTG)
A Net-to-Gross (NTG) cutoff of porosity less than 4% was
used after reviewing the petrophysical analysis and production
data. The final NTG was distributed in the model using
collocated co-simulation with the porosity.
Matrix Water Saturation and Saturation Functions
Because the reservoir water is fresh, reliable water
saturation calculated from wireline logs was not used. The
model was populated with matrix water saturation determined
from special core analysis (gas and oil displacement tests).
Based on the water saturation and other available data,
four rock types were identified. Rock type 1 has irreducible
water saturation of less than 5%, rock type 2 with irreducible
water saturation between 5 and 10%, rock type 3 with
irreducible water of greater than 10%, and rock type 4 was
assigned an irreducible water saturation of 20% and higher.
Trapped gas saturation value of 0.522, determined from
laboratory displacement experiment on only one composite
core was assigned to all four rock types as no other data was
available.
The matrix relative permeabilities and capillary pressure
were derived from fluid displacement tests5. For the fracture
system initially straight-line relative permeability and zero
capillary pressure were assumed. It should be pointed that
only single phase flow (except near the wellbore) was
anticipated as no fluid contacts were evident.
Fracture Modeling
The data used for the fracture model was derived from
image logs, curvature derived from the structural surfaces at
the top of the major stratigraphic units and the wells tests
(pressure transient analysis). A geological conceptual model
of the fracturing was first developed based on analysis of the
fracture and related structural data. This included determining
SPE 111212
what fracture sets are present, and what factors maybe relate to
the variations in fracture intensity and orientation.
The geological conceptual model was then converted into
a discrete fracture network (DFN), which is a mathematical
and visual representation of the fractures. The DFN was
verified then through semi-quantitative comparison to select
static and dynamic data before being upscaled to the dynamic
model.
Geological Fracture Conceptual Model
There are two fracture sets whose orientation relates to the
bedding and structural framework. One set developed parallel
to the direction of maximum shortening with an ESE – WNW
strike and a sub vertical dip. This set was formed during the
initial shortening prior to major folding and faulting. A
second set developed sub parallel to the local bedding strike
and is dipping perpendicular to bedding. This set appears to
have formed in response to the folding of the rock during
shortening and is oriented in a NNE-SSW direction.
The first set is more commonly observed in the backlimb
position, while the second set is more prominent in the hinge
and forelimb regions, probably reflecting the increased
bending stresses in these structural positions. Spatial changes
in orientation of these two sets are the result of block rotations
along faults, and to local changes in fold geometry.
Fracture intensity appears to also be controlled by
proximity to faults, folding and lithology. Fracture intensity is
greater near faults and along steep folds as can be observed in
wells along the forelimb that have cut several imbricates.
Fracture intensity is also greater in the sandstones than in
shales and mudstones. Fractures are more prevalent in the
quartz arenites of the fluvio-estuarine, estuarine and marine
deposits. The more ductile muddy (i.e. more shale) coastal
plain deposits have very few faults.
Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) Model
The DFN model was based on the geological fracture
conceptual model of orientation and intensity. It was
developed by first importing all of the structural and
stratigraphic surfaces. Grids of the relative fracture intensity
were generated. Fracture orientations were controlled by local
bedding orientation. The DFN was verified by comparing the
results with the measured fracture data from the wells.
The assignment of fluid flow properties to the fracture sets
was based on matching the Kh from the well tests, and as well
qualitatively matching other aspects of the well tests such as
flow dimension6,7. The assessment of the permeability-
thickness (kh) values began by computing permeability values
assuming that the thickness was the fluvio-estuarine deposits
was the primary control on production. The resulting
permeability values range from 0.85md to over 20 md,
however the main portion of the data lies between 1 and 7 md.
These values also provide insights to the fracture network
geometry.
Upscaling
The matrix and fracture properties were upscaled for
inclusion in the dynamic model. The 250 layers in the static
matrix model were upscaled a factor of 12:1 proportionally
3
into 20 layers. This yielded 8 layers in the fluvio-estuarine
deposits (main reservoir interval). The estuarine and marine
intervals (secondary reservoir intervals) were sub-divided into
4 and 6 layers, respectively. The non-reservoir muddy coastal
plain interval was consolidated into one layer.
Matrix porosity and water saturation was upscaled from
the static to dynamic model using standard arithmetic
averaging. Flow based tensor was used to upscale the
permeabilities in the I-, J- and K- directions.
The fracture property upscaling was accomplished by
superimposing the dynamic model grid over the DFN model
and then calculating the fracture porosity, directional
permeability and sigma factor for each cell based upon the
fractures in the cell of the model.
Dynamic Model Construction
Two base models were built for the single porosity and
dual porosity systems. The structure framework, gross and net
thicknesses, porosity, permeability, and water saturation for
the matrix system are the same for both systems. For the dual
porosity model, additional properties of the fracture system,
fracture porosity, permeability and sigma (matrix/fracture
interface area per volume) were included. Sigma is used to
calculate matrix-fracture coupling transmissibility.
Fluid Properties
A 12-component system was used to characterize the
reservoir hydrocarbon ystem. The gas condensate properties
were determined from tuning equation of state (EOS)
parameters with available laboratory data. The initial
reservoir pressure and dew point pressure as functions of
depth were determined from subsurface sampling and
measurements (MDT).
The data yielded a fluid system which is highly
undersaturated, with a degree of undersaturation ranging from
800psi at the top of the structure to 1400 psi at the bottom.
The data also were used to derive temperature and fluid
compositional gradients in the models. The three dynamic
models have same input PVT properties.
Alpha Factors
Alpha factors are transport coefficients, which are purely
numeric concept and used to control the flow of each
hydrocarbon component of the fluid system through the
reservoir. They were originally proposed by Baker and
Fayers3 to model the effects of subgrid scale heterogeneity,
viscous fingering and gravity override in compositional
simulation of gas injection processes. Alpha factors are well
suited for single phase flow in place of compositional
upscaling or pseudo relative permeability.
Two models (a finely gridded and coarsely gridded) were
built for the alpha factor table development. The fine grid
model which is the reference model captures the detailed
heterogeneity of the reservoir. Its results are compared with
those obtained with a coarse grid model having the same or
similar grid cells as the full field model. Varying degree of
fracture intensity (fracture kh as a percent of total model kh)
and configurations (connectivity between the injection and
producing wells) were modeled. A set of alpha factors for the
4 SPE 111212
single porosity full field simulation model was generated
based on kh values derived from petrophysics and conditioned
with flow test interpretation results. This set of alpha factors
represents fracture contribution of 50% of the total flow
capacity (kh).
Model Initialization
The primary objective of initializing the dynamic model
was to establish capillary-gravity equilibrium and obtain
practically identical hydrocarbon in-place in both static and
dynamic models. This was particularly necessary for this
reservoir with such a complex structure with overthrust and
imbricates and to ensure that the observed compositional
gradient is adequately described in the model.
The matrix and fracture systems were assigned to two
multi-purpose report regions to monitor fluid flow from the
matrix to the fracture system. It was also used to track fluid
flow between model layers as well as into and out of the pilot
area. A hydrocarbon-water contact was set in the model at
16000ft tvdss from MDT fluid gradient analysis. As this
depth is outside the flow models, no water production is
expected.
The models were run for two years with all wells shut-in,
no production or injection. The initial pore volumes for the
static and flow models were less than 6 % for the various
reservoirs, which is reasonable considering the complex
structure of the field.
Well Completion, Production and Reservoir Pressure
The perforated intervals, workover and stimulation reports,
as well as gas, oil and water production data for each well over
the history match period were input in the model. The
contribution by each completed interval to fluid production or
injection was determined from production logs. Completed
intervals which did not contribute to fluid flow into or out of
the wells were not completed in the models.
Analysis of pressure buidup and MDT tests were
performed to obtain reservoir pressure, flowing bottomhole
pressure, productivity index, flow capacity and skin factor and
were included in the model whenever possible. The historical
pressures were compared to the model calculated pressure
during the calibration of the models. Production test and
production log data were also collected and prepared for use in
the calibration of the models.
Model Calibration
The model calibration (history match) was carried out in
three stages. During the first stage, global modifications were
made to approximately match the observed reservoir pressure
for the wells while producing the specified gas rates over the
history match period. In the second stage, local modifications
of the reservoir properties were made to match oil production,
gas-oil ratio and contribution of the respective perforated
intervals while improving the quality of the pressure match.
After the first and second stages of the model calibration
process, reservoir voidage and pressure were matched. The
third and final stage involved adjustments of the wells’
productivity index until the production rate and flowing
bottomhole pressure for each well are matched.
All three (SP, SPWAF and DPSP) models were calibrated
against observed historical oil production or GOR and
reservoir pressure. As water production in the study area was
insignificant and no transition zone was modeled, it was not
considered a history parameter. The calibration of each model
to historic well performances is discussed in the following
sections.
Single Porosity (SP and SPWAF) Models
The calculated (model) reservoir pressures were higher
than the observed for the initial history match runs. The
horizontal permeability and pore volume were adjusted to
obtain a reasonable match of the reservoir pressure. The
horizontal permeability was reduced by 30% globally.
Because the calculated and observed trends of the pressure and
gas-oil ratio were different, it was decided that regional and/or
local modifications of the reservoir properties would be
necessary.
Regional modifications of transmissibilities were made to
increase connectivity between injectors and producers so that
the historical gas-oil ratio and injected gas breakthrough times
could be matched. The modifications resulted essentially in
the establishment of high fluid conductivity paths between
producer-injector pairs.
Additional adjustments of permeability to match the
contributions of the respective completed intervals from the
PLT data, and of transmissibility to isolate some of the wells
were also necessary. The original transmissibility was
multiplied by factors ranging from 0.000001 to 0.1 to match
well GOR.
Figure 2 shows the history match quality for the single
porosity model. This figure has has two panels with solid lines
representing model results and the symbols showing observed
historical data. The first panel from the top compares the
observed historical with the model (calculated) gas production
rates and cumulative gas production. The second panel shows
the historical and calculated oil production rates and gas-oil
ratio. Although the plots were made for all wells and field,
only the field plots are shown in this paper.
Figure 2 - Comparison of calculated and observed field
production performance for the single porosity model.
Symbols represent observed data and lines are calculated
data.
SPE 111212
The single porosity model with the initial reservoir
properties (without modifications) and alpha factors was set
up. The model performance did not match the observed
performance. This mismatch is probably due to inadequacy of
the derived alpha factors. Most wells could not produce at
their specified rates. It is believed that the fracture flow
capacity (kh) contribution is higher than 50% in the study
area.
The SPWAF model was then modified by incorporating
the modifications of reservoir properties in the single porosity
model. Another history match run with the modified SPWAF
model was made. A reasonable match of the well/field
performances was obtained (Figure 3), although the GOR was
slightly higher. This model is used for the prediction cases
and comparison with the other (single and dual porosity)
models.
Figure 3 - Comparison of calculated and observed field
production performance for the single porosity with alpha
factor model. Symbols represent observed data and lines
are calculated data
The alpha factor model generally yielded a better history
match of the well behaviors than the single porosity model
without alpha factors. It may be concluded that the alpha
factor model in this study yields better history match results
compared to single porosity model.
DPSP Models
At early times the wells produced at their specified oil rate
against substantially lower flowing bottomhole pressures
compared to those observed in the field. The fracture pore
volume was globally increased four-fold to obtain reasonable
match of the observed pressure and gas-oil ratio for most wells
at early times. It was found that modifying matrix properties
has insignificant impact on the history match quality of the
well performances, particularly during the early time of the
history match period.
It is noted that the calibration of the dual porosity model,
including the breakthrough of the injected gas, was achieved
5
without local modifications of the reservoir properties
(fracture transmissibility, pore volume or permeability).
Figure 4 shows the history match results for the dual porosity
model.
Figure 4 - Comparison of calculated and observed
production performance for the dual porosity model.
Symbols represent observed data and lines are calculated
data
Generally, the best history match quality was obtained for
the dual porosity model and the worst results for the single
porosity model without alpha factor. Some of the
modifications of the reservoir properties in the single porosity
models as discussed above are considered geologically
unreasonable.
The pressure responses to voidage at early time in the dual
porosity model leads to the conclusion that fluid flow during
this period of the field production history occurred primarily
in the natural fractures. The precipituous drop of reservoir
pressure at early time is attributed to less than required
fracture pore volume or low sigma values to sustain historical
fluid injection and withdrawal. The fracture pore volumes of
the history matched model accounted for 27% of the total pore
volume of the calibrated dual porosity model. This rather high
value suggests that the wells are probably draining fluid
beyond the boundaries of the study area.
Forecast of Future Field Performance
Several prediction runs were set up to study the
performance of the three models under identical operating
constraints. The constraints include maximum operating GOR,
minimum bottomhole flowing pressure at the producers, and
maximum bottomhole flowing pressure at the injectors. All
cases are processed for thirty years.
The prediction cases are divided into three groups – base
cases, reservoir voidage replacement cases and infill cases.
The base cases are a continuation of the present operations.
Gas injection into currently active injectors is continued
maintaining the voidage replacement ratio (VRR) at the end of
history match throughout the thirty-year prediction period.
For the voidage replacement cases, reservoir voidage
replacement ratios of 0.5, 0.8 and 1.0 were used. For the infill
6 SPE 111212

cases, two infill wells (one in an updip location and the other
in a downdip location) were drilled to evaluate the effects of
gravity on the performance of the infill wells under varying
degrees of voidage replacement.
Table 1 summarizes the results of all the prediction cases.
It is noted that the dual porosity model has higher stock tank
oil initially in place compared to the single prosity models.
The results for the base cases are compared in Figure 5.

Figure 6 – Forecasted field performance for the three

models operated under voidage replacement ratio of 0.5

Figure 5 – Comparison of forecasted field performance for

Base cases

The oil recovery factor as a percent of stock tank oil originally

in-place for the various models ranges from 34% to 39% over
30 years. The difference between the maximum and minimum
value is only 5%. The poorer performance of the dual
porosity model is attributed to earlier gas breakthrough of the
injected gas in the dual porosity models compared to the
single porosity models.
The results of the voidage replacement prediction cases are
presented in Table 1. Higher oil recovery factors are obtained Figure 7 – Forecasted field performance for the three
with higher reservoir voidage replacement ratio. The oil models operated under voidage replacement ratio of 0.8
recovery factor ranges from 30% for the SPWAF model
operated under VRR of 0.5 to 39% for single porosity model
with VRR of 1.0 over 30 years.
Comparison of Figures 6, 7 and 8 shows that higher
voidage replacement ratio maintained the reservoir pressure at
higher level thereby reducing the amount of liquid dropout
near the wellbore and its negative effects on production. The
difference of only 9% in liquid recovery for the models
suggests that liquid dropout affect only limited volume of the
reservoir.

Figure 8 – Forecasted field performance for the three

models operated under voidage replacement ratio of 1.0
SPE 111212 7

Gravity drainage was expected to play an important role in

the behavior of the infill wells. Average flowing bottomhole
pressures of 2600 psia and 3000 psia for the offset wells were
specified for the updip and downdip well respectively. The
results for the infill well cases are shown in Table 1. The
maximum oil recovery factor of 42% was obtained with the
single porosity model and lowest recovery of 33% for the
SPWAF model. The results are similar to those for the base
and voidage replacement cases. When 100% of the reported
gas volume was injected into the study area, oil recovery
increased from 39 to 41% for the dual porosity model because
of increased reservoir pressure and less liquid dropout near the
wellbores. It also is observed that higher voidage replacements
yield higher oil recoveries for all three models.
Figures 9, 10 and 11 show field performance for the infill
cases for all three models with 100% gas injection into the
study area.

Figure 11 – Forecasted field performance for the infill

cases with the models operated under voidage replacement
ratio of 1.0

The updip well performed better than the down-dip well

although its producing GOR was increasing throughout the
run. This is probably the result of lower bottomhole pressure
of 2600 psia at the up-dip well compared to 3000psia at the
downdipwell.

Recovery
Model Cases (%STOIP)
SP Base 39.03
VRR=0.5 32.98
VRR=0.8 35.59
VRR=1.0 39.02
Figure 9 – Forecasted field performance for the infill cases Infill + VRR=0.5 36.17
with the models operated under voidage replacement ratio Infill + VRR=0.8 39.26
of 0.5 Infill + VRR=1.0 41.55
SPWAF Base 35.12
VRR=0.5 30.09
VRR=0.8 32.36
VRR=1.0 35.12
Infill + VRR=0.5 33.39
Infill + VRR=0.8 36.12
Infill + VRR=1.0 38.15
DPSP Base 34.39
VRR=0.5 32.71
VRR=0.8 33.8
VRR=1.0 34.28
Infill + VRR=0.5 35.87
Infill + VRR=0.8 37.87
Infill + VRR=1.0 39.15
DPSP Full
Injector Infill + VRR=1.0 41.04
Figure 10 –Forecasted field performance for the infill cases
with the models operated under voidage replacement ratio Table 1 – Condensate Recovery Summary for All Cases
of 0.8
8 SPE 111212

Conclusions 7. Chang, J. and Yortsos, Y.: “Pressure transient

1. Under identical operating strategy, the differences in analysis of fractal reservoirs”, SPE Formation
condensate recovery of within 4% are obtained for Evaluation, Vol. 5, 1990, p. 31.
the SP, SPWAF and DPSP models.

2. The risk of using single porosity models to forecast

field performance is minimal under the prevailing
single phase flow conditions studied.

3. The natural fractures extend beyond the study area as

the fracture pore volume had to be increased four-
fold to obtain reasonable history match.

4. The dual porosity model yielded the “best” history

match quality as modifications of the reservoir
properties were most reasonable.

5. Higher oil recovery factors are obtained with higher

reservoir voidage replacement ratio.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Schlumberger
for allowing publication of this paper.

References

1. da Silva, F.V., Petrofina, S.A.: “Primary and

Enhanced Recovery of Ekofisk: A Single- and
Double-Porosity Numerical Simulation Study “,
Paper SPE 19840, presented at SPE Annual
Technical and Exhibition Conference, San Antonio,
8-11 October 1989.

2. Tealdi, L., Giordano, D., Nembrini, E., Cappanera,

F., and Francia, L.: “Dynamic Upscaling From a
Complex Triple-Porosity System to a Single-Porosity
Model: A Successful Application for a Miscible-Gas-
Injection Project”, Paper SPE 100185, presented at
SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, Vienna, 12-15 June 2006.

3. Baker, J.W. and Fayers, F.J.: “Transport Coefficients

for Compositional Simulation with Corse Grids in
HeterogeneousMedia”, SPE Advanced Technologu
Series, Vol. 2, no. 2, April 1994.

4. Jensen, J. L., L. W. Lake, P. W. M. Corbett and D. J.

Goggin, 2000, Statistics for petroleum engineers and
geoscientists,: Second edition, part of Handbook of
Petroleum Exploration and Production 2, John Cubitt,
editor, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Elsevier, Chapter 12
Modelling Geological Media p. 253

5. AEA Technology, 1996, “Special core analysis”

November 1996.

6. Baker, J. A.: “A generalized radial-flow model for

pumping tests in fracture rock”, Water Resources
Research, Vol. 24, 1988, p. 1796.