SPE 74341
Vug Characterization and Pore Volume Compressibility for Numerical Simulation of
Vuggy and Fractured Carbonate Reservoirs
F.O. Iwere, J.E. Moreno, O.G. Apaydin, Schlumberger; R. León Ventura, J.L. Garcia, Pemex E&P
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition in Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 10–12 February 2002.
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, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Three porosity types, matrix, vugs and fractures, are usually
present in naturally fractured, vuggy carbonate reservoirs.
The vugs are generally considered connected either to the
matrix or to the fractures in numerical simulation. One of the
challenges of modeling these reservoirs is the partitioning of
the porosities into two components since dual porosity
reservoir simulators can only handle two rock components,
namely matrix system and fracture system. The goal of this
study is to characterize the vugs in these systems, and to
determine the pore volume compressibility for the simulation
of vuggy, naturally fractured reservoirs.
Sequential laboratory experiments were designed and
conducted to determine the amount of secondary porosity in
the core samples. A combination of capillary pressure
(centrifuge and mercury injection experiments) and NMR
experiments was used to determine the vug or secondary
porosity of the samples from pore size and T2 (relaxation
time) distributions. The results were compared and reconciled
with those from porosity logs and image logs. Pore volume
compressibility tests and compaction tests were used to
determine the compressibility of each sample. The
compaction and pore volume compressibility tests were
evaluated at different net stresses to determine the influence of
vuggy porosity in the samples.
The composite (sample) compressibility versus porosity plots
showed that pore volume compressibility increases as
secondary porosity increases. This dependence, which is
strong at low net stresses, gradually disappears as the reservoir
pressure decreases or the net stress increases. This implies
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022
that the effects of secondary porosity on pore volume
compressibility of the total system are minimal at low
reservoir pressures. Based on these results, pore volume
compressibility was generated for various values of effective
and secondary porosity and served as input data to the
numerical flow models. The development of the vug porosity,
pore volume compressibility and the construction of the
simulation flow model are described in this paper.
Introduction
Carbonate reservoirs have complex pore systems, which
present challenges in wireline log interpretation, conventional
and special core analyses and reservoir simulation. Pore
distribution ranges from microcrystalline to large vugs or
caverns. The petrophysical and productive characteristics of a
carbonate rock are controlled by two basic pore networks: an
interparticle pore network and a vuggy pore network1.
Interparticle porosity may be intergranular or intecrystaliine
porosity. These are primary porosities. Vuggy porosity is
commonly present as leached particles, fractures, and large
irregular cavities.
The rocks of naturally fractured and vuggy carbonate
reservoirs are therefore made up of matrix, vugs and fractures.
The fractures and vugs constitute the secondary porosity. The
fractures occupy a very small portion of the reservoir volume,
have high permeability and dominate fluid flow. The matrix
occupies a major portion of the reservoir, stores most of the
hydrocarbon in place and has low permeability. The vugs in
these reservoirs may be connected to the matrix or to the
fractures.
Dual porosity simulators consider only the matrix and fracture
systems, and oil is produced through the fracture system,
which serves as fluid conduits between the matrix and the
wells. It is therefore required that the three porosities (matrix,
vugs and fractures) be partitioned into the matrix and fracture
systems. The characterization of the vugs is critical in
assigning rock properties to the two systems during the
construction of numerical flow models.
A methodology is proposed for characterizing vugs and/or
secondary porosity (types and amounts) and for determining
2 F.O. IWERE, O.G. APAYDIN, J.E. MORENO, R. L. VENTURA, AND J.L. GARCIA
their influence on pore volume compressibility in dual
porosity simulators. This involves an integration of results
from a series of special core tests, wireline log interpretation
and discrete fracture network modeling.
Secondary Porosity Measurement
Secondary porosity was determined from four sources, namely
wireline logs and laboratory sequential tests, including
mercury injection capillary pressure, oil/brine centrifuge
capillary pressure and laboratory NMR measurements.
1. Wireline Logs
Secondary porosity was determined from interpretation of
the wireline logs (conventional and image logs).
Effective porosity of the carbonate rock, consisting of the
matrix, vugs and fractures, was determined from the
interpretation of porosity logs (neutron, density and
sonic). The sonic log was used to calculate the porosity
of only the matrix2. The calculated porosities were
compared with core analysis results for validity, and the
difference between the porosities from the neuton-density
and sonic logs was the secondary porosity.
Vug porosity was calculated from image logs3, using
GeoFrameTM applications, PoroSpect and BorTex4. The
porosity from the conventional and image logs were also
reconciled to back out the secondary porosity.
2. Laboratory Sequential Tests
A series of laboratory tests were designed to characterize
and quantify secondary porosity. These tests were
sequentially carried out on each core sample. A summary
of the properties of some of the cores is shown in Table 1.
The cores represent different rock types. To ensure all
pore types were selected, tomography was utilized in the
sample selection. The scope of work follows:
• The clean and dry samples were vacuum saturated
with the synthetic formation brine and desaturated to
Swi using stock tank oil. NMR T1 and T2
measurements were made on the samples at 100%
brine saturation and at Swi (oil-brine)
• The cleaned and dryed NMR samples were saturaded
with synthetic formation brine and displaced with hot
crude oil using a high-speed centrifuge.
• Next, the core samples were aged. The samples were
placed under heated oil in a sealed container. The
sealed container was stored in an oven at elevated
temperature for a period of one month.
• Following aging, water-displacing-oil and oil-
displacing-water capillary pressures were measured
using the high-speed centrifuge method at a
temperature close to that of the reservoir. Live oil
was used in these displacement tests.
• After the centrifuge capillary pressure tests, steady
state gas oil relative permeabilities and then steady
SPE 74341
state water oil relative permeabilities were measured.
• The final stage of the sequential tests is the
measurement of capillary pressure using mercury
injection. The cleaned and dried samples were
subjected to drainage and imbibition mercury
displacement test. The drainage tests were followed
by the imbibition tests.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022
The capillary pressure measurements (centrifuge and mercury
injection experiments) provided the sample pore size
distribution. NMR measurements on water saturated cores
yielded the distribution of T2 values that correspond to pore
size distribution with the largest pores having the longest
relaxation times5. Figure 1 shows the T2 distribution for one
of the core samples, obtained from the sequential core tests.
Vugs may often be detected by the longest T2 values6. Two
porosities, capillary bound water and free fluid, are identified
in the figure. The sum of these porosities gives the total
porosity of the sample, and the ratio of the free fluid porosity
to the effective porosity is an estimate of the vugs. T2
distributions after air/brine centrifugation are shown as solid
lines with diamond symbol (SWI A/B). The difference
between the dashed line with diamond (100%SW) and (SWI
A/B) line corresponds to the volume of fluid displaced from
the cores. A comparison of the T2 curve with pore throat size
distribution from mercury injection (Figure 2) indicates that
pore throats larger than 5microns may be considered vugs or
secondary porosity. This corresponds approximately to
capillary pressure of 1psia from the oil-brine centrifuge tests
(Figure 3). The calculated porosities were compared with core
analysis results for validity.
Figure 4 compares the secondary porosity from the various
sources. The data fit well along the 45° line with the NMR
and mercury injection data yielding the best fit. One reason
for the poor fit of the wireline secondary porosity can be
attributed to differences in measurement and sampling scales
between the wireline logs (approximately 3 ft) and the core
plugs (1-2in). The amount of information available and the
favorable comparison of secondary porosity from all the
sources validate the proposed method for estimating secondary
porosity. A flow model may be populated with the secondary
porosity thus obtained using an appropriate property
distribution method.
Secondary Porosity Partitioning
The following equations define the relationships between the
various porosities in this study:
φe = φm + φsec (1)
φsec = φND - φS (2)
φsec = φv + φf (3)
φv = φvc + φvnc (4)
φvc = φvcf + φvcm (5)
φfs = φvcf + φf (6)
φms = φm + φvnc + φvcm (7)
 VUG CHARACTERIZATION AND PORE VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY FOR
SPE 74341 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VUGGY AND FRACTURED CARBONATE RESERVOIRS
Where:
φe = Effective porosity, fraction
φf = Fracture porosity, fraction
φfs = Fracture system porosity, fraction
φND = Neutron – density porosity, fraction
φS = Sonic porosity, fraction
φm = Matrix porosity, fraction
φms = Matrix system porosity, fraction
φsec = Secondary porosity, fraction
φv = Vug porosity, fraction
φvc = Connected vug porosity, fraction
φvcm = Vug porosity connected to the matrix, fraction
φvcf = Vug porosity connected to the fractures, fraction
φvnc = Non-connected vug porosity, fraction
The effective porosity is total porosity discounted for
shaliness. Wireline logs thus provide the effective, matrix and
secondary porosities. While these logs can be used to detect
fractures, their porosity must be determined from analysis of
data from several sources. A similar approach is used to
obtain vug porosity as discussed previously. However, the
determination of the percent of vugs connected to the fractures
or matrix presents some challenge (Figure 5).
The vugs connected to the matrix may degrade or enhance the
flow capacity of the matrix. It has been documented that dead
end or cul-del-sac pores and separate vugs contribute to
porosity but not much to electrical conductivity and
permeability7,8,9. These pore types typically have cementation
factor, m, greater than 2.5. Appropriate saturation functions
(capillary pressure and relative permeability) must be derived
for this type of vugs to properly simulate their flow
characteristics. Touching vugs enhance the flow capacity of
the matrix1, with cementatation factor generally less than 2.0.
These vugs contribute to porosity and permeability, and no
special treatments of the saturation functions are necessary.
The non-connected vugs (Equation 4) are usually insignificant
and trapped in the matrix (Equation 7), and may be considered
as non-reservoir rock. The connected vugs in communication
with the matrix form the matrix system, which stores the fluid
(Figures 6 and 7).
In terms of fluid flow, a fracture model (DFN-Discrete
Fracture Network) or pressure transient analysis (PTA) sees
the fractures and the vugs connected to them (Equation 6
above). Therefore the connected vugs that are in
communication with the fractures form the fracture system
(Figure 5).
In the simulation of three porosity reservoirs using dual
porosity simulators, the following two systems were defined:
• Matrix and vugs connected to the matrix system.
• Fractures and vugs connected to the fracture system.
3
The fractures and vugs connected to the fracture system were
determined from discrete fracture network (DFN) models and
PTA. These studies provided fracture properties such as,
porosity, permeability and the matrix to fracture coupling
factor or sigma (σ). The DFN model was built with structural
curvature analysis from seismic, fracture orientation from
image logs, azimuths of maximum curvature and other data
for the field10. This DFN was conditioned with well tests
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022
results (PTA) and well performance indicators (Productivity
Index) by calibrating the fracture models against buildup and
shutin pressure measurements.
After determining the porosity of the fracture system
(Equation 4), a simple material balance on the effective
porosity of the system was performed to determine the amount
of vugs that are connected to the matrix system (Equations 5
to 7) in the simulation model.
Pore Volume Compressibility
Pore volume compressibility is a major energy source for
naturally fractured and vuggy reservoirs. A good estimate of
pore volume compressibility is necessary for proper
simulation of the behavior of the wells and field. Therefore,
detailed engineering work was done to understand and
quantify rock compressibility for the triple porosity system in
the field. The three porosity types, matrix, vugs and fractures
were reduced to dual porosity system in the simulator as
described above. The matrix system consists of the matrix and
vugs connected to the matrix, while the fracture system
consists of the fractures and the vugs connected to the
fractures. The compressibility of the matrix and fracture
systems must be specified in the flow model.
Pore Volume Compressibility Tests
Compaction tests using the CMS11 equipment and pore
volume compressibility tests were performed. The
compaction tests (CMS) involved measurement of porosity at
three net stress conditions. The data was acquired during
routine core analysis. The compressibility tests on several
samples consisted of measurements of pore volume and
porosity at several net stresses during increasing and
decreasing stress cycles.
Pore volume compressibility for each sample was calculated
using the following formula:
−1  φ 2 − φ1 
Cpv =  
φ avg − φ 2 avg  P2 − P1  (8)
where:
Cpv = triaxial pore volume compressibility, psi-1
φavg = average porosity at pressure, (P1+ P2)/2
φ1, φ2 = porosity at pressure, P1, P2
P1, P2 = pressures
4 F.O. IWERE, O.G. APAYDIN, J.E. MORENO, R. L. VENTURA, AND J.L. GARCIA
The calculated compressibility was converted from triaxial to
uniaxial stress conditions in the reservoir using a correction
factor of 0.691 specific for the field of study12.
Effects of Secondary Porosity on Pore Volume
Compressibility
The CMS compaction tests were performed on all the routine
core samples and the compressibility tests were performed on
only six samples, which were subjected to the sequential tests,
discussed previously. The results of the sequential tests were
used to determine secondary porosity and evaluate its
influence on the rock compressibility.
The compressibility data at 1850 psia net stress for the
reservoirs is shown in Figure 8. The composite
compressibility versus porosity plot shows that the composite
pore volume compressibility increases as secondary porosity
increases. Composite compressibitility is defined as the total
compressibility of the system, including matrix, vugs and
fractures. The data for a given net stress were curve fitted to
obtain sets of curves for the various secondary porosity values.
Figures 9 through 15 are plots of composite compressibility
versus net stress (the difference of lithostatic or overburden
pressure and pore pressure). The plots show strong
dependence of pore compressibility on secondary porosity at
low net stress. This dependence gradually disappears as net
stress increases beyond 3400 psi for the field. This implies
that the effects of secondary porosity on pore volume
compressibility are minimal above net stress pressure of
3400psi. Based on these results, pore volume compressibility
was generated for various effective porosity and secondary
porosity values at a given net stress.
The pore volume compressibility for the following two
systems was developed for input to the reservoir flow model:
• Matrix and vugs connected to the matrix.
• Fractures and vugs connected to the fractures
For each effective porosity and secondary porosity interval, a
compressibility curve was generated for only the matrix (0%
secondary porosity) the lower most curves in Figures 10 to 15.
With this value and the following formula, compressibility of
the secondary porosity was calculated for any given net stress.
Cc = C mϕ m + C sec ϕ Sec
(9)
where:
Cc = Composite compressibility
Cm = matrix compressibility
ϕsec = secondary porosity, fraction of effective porosity
ϕm = matrix porosity, fraction of effective porosity
SPE 74341
Assuming that the compressibility of the secondary porosity
and the fracture are equal, then:
Cc = C mvϕ mv + C fvϕ fv
(10)
where:
Cmv = compressibility of matrix and vugs connected to the
matrix, psi-1
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022
Cfv = compressibility of fractures and vugs connected to the
fractures, psi-1
ϕmv = matrix and vugs connected to matrix, fraction of
effective porosity
ϕfv = fracture and vugs connected to fracture, fraction of
effective porosity.
The influence of the fractures and vugs connected to the
fractures on the composite compressibility is assumed to be
minimal because of low pore volumes occupied by the
fractures and their connected vugs. The foregoing statement
was verified using one of the compressibility curves and
various values of ϕfv to calculate Cmv. The maximum
difference between the Cc and the Cmv calculated was
about 7%.
Therefore for any given net stress, the composite
compressibility is assigned to the matrix system based on
Table 2, and the fracture system compressibility is calculated
using Equation 9. It should be noted, however, that the
influence of vugs connected to the fractures in the total
compressibility of the system is different for varius rock types,
so this effect needs to be carefully evaluated for each reservoir
under study.
Flow Model Input Compressibility
The laboratory data show dependence of compressibility on
both secondary and effective porosity at a given net stress.
These relationships were considered in the reservoir
simulation model by assigning a different rock region for each
effective porosity range of secondary porosity. Table 2 shows
the different rock regions in the model for the matrix system.
A similar table was also developed for the fracture system.
The pore volume compressibility as a function of net stress
pressure was entered in the simulator, Eclipse 10013,14, as
lookup tables. Pore volume multipliers rather compressibility
values as a function of pressure were entered into the table.
The multipliers correspond to the ratio between the pore
volume at any given net stress and the pore volume at original
conditions. The value of the multiplier at the original net
stress is 1.0
The simulator requires also the initial reservoir pressure,
which is stored as overburden pressure. This allows the
calculation of net stress for every cell in the model for any
time during the life of the field. It follows that at initial
conditions the net stress is 0, and the pore volume multiplier is
1 corresponding to initial overburden pressure. Table 3 shows
 VUG CHARACTERIZATION AND PORE VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY FOR
SPE 74341 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VUGGY AND FRACTURED CARBONATE RESERVOIRS 5

an example of the simulator input data. The last column of the
table is for transmissibility multipliers and its entry is 1.0.
This option is used when the permeability of the rock changes
drastically with pressure such as during asphaltene
precipitation15 in the reservoir.
Conclusions
Vug or secondary porosity is estimated from the integration of
9. Watfa, M., Nurmi, R.: “Calculation of Saturation,
Secondary Porosity and Producibility in Complex Middle East
Carbonate Reservoirs,”SPWLA Twenty-Eight Annual logging
Symposium, June 29-July 2, 1987.
10. “Integrated Tartaunich Field Study, Phase V Report –
Reservoir Simulation” Schlumberger Holditch – Reservoir
Technologies, 2000
11. Stanley C. J.: “Two-Point Determinations of Permeability

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022

results from a series of special core tests, interpretation of
wireline logs and discrete fracture network modeling.
The three porosity types in carbonate reservoirs are partitioned
into two systems, matrix and fracture systems) for input into
dual porosity simulators.
Knowledge of vug types is required to determine if special
treatment of the saturation functions (capillary pressure and
relative permeability) is necessary. For dead end pores with
higher cementation factors, special saturation functions must
be developed.
and PV vs. Net Confining Stress”, SPE 15380.
12. Khatchikian, A.: ”Deriving Pore Volume Compressibility
From Well Logs,” SPE-26963 1996.
13. Eclipse 100 Technical Description, Copyright 2000
Schlumberger
14. Eclipse 100 Reference Manual, Copyright 2000
Schlumberger
15. Iwere, F.O., Apaydin O.G. et al. “Simulation of
Asphaltene Precipitation in Fractured Reservoirs: A Case
Study”,SPE 74373 February 2002

Laboratory measurements of compressibility and vug content

provide adequate data for determining the pore volume
compressibility for the matrix and fracture systems in the
simulation of triple porosity reservoirs.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Schlumberger and
PEMEX E&P for permission to publish this work.

References
1. Lucia, F.J.: “Petrophysical Parameters Estimated From
Visual Descriptions of Carbonate Rocks: A Field
Calssification of Carbonate Pore Space,” JPT March 1983.
2. Brie, A., D. L. Johnson and R. D. Nurmi, Ëffect of
Spherical Pores on Sonic and Resistivity
Measurements,”SPWLA Twenty-sixth Annual Logging
Symposium, Paper W, June 17-20, 1985.
3. Newberry, B. M., Grace, L. M. and Stief, D.D.: “Analysis
of a Carbonate Dual Porosity System From Borehole
Electronic Images,” SPE-35158 1996.
4. Schlumberger Austin Systems Center, 1998, Geoframe
PoroSpect User’s guide, Version 1.0.
5. Straley, C., Rossini, D., Vinegar, H., Tutunjian, P.,
Morriss, C.: “Core Analysis by Low-Field NMR,” The Log
Analyst, March-April 1997.
6. Ausbrooks, R., Hurley, N. F., Neese, D. G., “Pore-Size
Distributions in Vuggy Carbonates From core Images, NMR,
and Capillary Pressure”, SPE-56506, October 1999
7. Fatt, I., Maleki, M., and Uphadhyay, R. N.: “Detection and
Estimation of Dead-End Pore Volume in Reservoir Rock by
Conventional Laboratory Tests.”SPEJ Sept. 1966.
8. Chang, D., Vinegar, H., Morriss, C., and Straley, C., :
“Effective Porosity, Producible Fluid, and Permeability in
carbonates from NMR Logging,”The Log Analyst, March-
April 1997.
6 F.O. IWERE, O.G. APAYDIN, J.E. MORENO, R. L. VENTURA, AND J.L. GARCIA SPE 74341

0.2
3.00 Sample A Mercury
Sample B Mercury
0.18
BVI = 2.59 FFI = 12.71 Sample C Mercury
285ms Sample D Mercury
0.16
2.50 433ms
Sample E Mercury

0.14 Sample F Mercury

Secundary Porosity, Fraction

45 Deg line
100%SW-2
2.00 0.12 Sample A Well Log
SWI A/B
30ms T2 Cutoff Sample B Well Log
169ms Weighted Geo. Mean 0.1 Sample C Well Log
Porosity%

Swi o/b Sample D Well Log

1.50
0.08 Sample E Well Log
Sample F Well Log

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022

0.06
Sample A Centrifuge
1.00
54ms Sample B Centrifuge
0.04
Sample C Centrifuge
Sample D Centrifuge
0.02
0.50 Sample E Centrifuge
Sample F Centrifuge
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2

0.00 NMR Secundary Porosity, Fraction

0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00 100000.00
T2, msec Figure 4. Secondary Porosity Comparisson
Figure 1. NMR T2 Distribution Sample B

Connected Vug
Figure 5. Connected Vug Thin Section

Figure 2. Pore Throat Distribution Sample B

Matrix
Figure 6. Matrix Thin Section

Figure 3. Centrifuge Capillary Pressure Sample B Fracture

Figure 7. Fracture Thin Section
 VUG CHARACTERIZATION AND PORE VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY FOR
SPE 74341 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VUGGY AND FRACTURED CARBONATE RESERVOIRS 7

60
1850 Net Stress 25
0% Sec Porosity 8% Total Por
50% Sec Por

70% Sec Por 5% Sec Porosity 8% Total Por

50
75% Data to fit
20 15% Sec Porosity 8% Total Por
59% Data to fit
25% Sec Porosity 8% Total Por

Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi

1.5% Data to fit
Uniaxial Compressibility, psi-1

40
0% Data to fit 35% Sec Porosity 8% Total Por
90% Sec Por 15
45%+ Sec Porosity 8% Total Por
80% Sec Por
30
70% Sec Por 0% Sec Porosity 8% Total Fit

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022

60% Sec Por 5% Sec Porosity 8% Total Fit
10
50% Sec Por
20 15% Sec Porosity 8% Total Fit
45% Sec Por

35% Sec Por 25% Sec Porosity 8% Total Fit

25% Sec Por

10 5 35% Sec Porosity 8% Total Fit
15% Sec Por
45% Sec Porosity 8% Total Fit
5% Sec Por

0% Sec Por Fracture

0
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Porosity, Fraction Net Stress, psi

Figure 8. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Porosity, 1850 psia Net Figure 11. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 8% Total
Stress Porosity
100 18
0% Sec Porosity 2% Total Por 0% Sec Porosity 13% Total Por

90 5% Sec Porosity 13% Total Por

5% Sec Porosity 2% Total Por 16

15% Sec Porosity 2% Total Por 15% Sec Porosity 13% Total Por
80
14
25% Sec Porosity 2% Total Por 25% Sec Porosity 13% Total Por

Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi

Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi

70
12 35% Sec Porosity 13% Total Por
35% Sec Porosity 2% Total Por

60 45%+ Sec Porosity 13% Total

45%+ Sec Porosity 2% Total Por Por
10
0% Sec Porosity 13% Total Fit
50 0% Sec Porosity 2% Total Fit
8 5% Sec Porosity 13% Total Fit
5% Sec Porosity 2% Total Fit
40
15% Sec Porosity 13% Total Fit
15% Sec Porosity 2% Total Fit 6

30 25% Sec Porosity 13% Total Por

25% Sec Porosity 2% Total Fit
4
35% Sec Porosity 13% Total Fit
20 35% Sec Porosity 2% Total Fit
45%+ Sec Porosity 13% Total Fit
2
45%+ Sec Porosity 2% Total Fit
10
Fracture
Fracture
0
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Net Stress, psi
Net Stress, psi

Figure 9. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 2% Total Figure 12. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 13%
Porosity Total Porosity

45 12
0% Sec Porosity 5% Total Por 0% Sec Porosity 18% Total Por

40 5% Sec Porosity 5% Total Por 5% Sec Porosity 18% Total Por

10
15% Sec Porosity 5% Total Por 15% Sec Porosity 18% Total Por
35
25% Sec Porosity 5% Total Por 25% Sec Porosity 18% Total Por
Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi
Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi

30 8
35% Sec Porosity 5% Total Por 35% Sec Porosity 18% Total Por

45%+ Sec Porosity 5% Total Por 45%+ Sec Porosity 18% Total Por
25

0% Sec Porosity 5% Total Fit 6 0% Sec Porosity 18% Total Fit

20 5% Sec Porosity 18% Total Fit

5% Sec Porosity 5% Total Fit

4 15% Sec Porosity 18% Total Fit

15% Sec Porosity 5% Total Fit
15
25% Sec Porosity 18% Total Fit
25% Sec Porosity 5% Total Fit
10 35% Sec Porosity 18% Total Fit
35% Sec Porosity 5% Total Fit 2

45%+ Sec Porosity 18% Total Fit

5 45%+ Sec Porosity 5% Total Fit
Fracture
Fracture 0
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Net Stress, psi
Net Stress, psi

Figure 10. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 5% Total Figure 13. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 18% Total
Porosity Porosity
8 F.O. IWERE, O.G. APAYDIN, J.E. MORENO, R. L. VENTURA, AND J.L. GARCIA SPE 74341

12
0% Sec Porosity 23% Total Por Table 2. Rock Regions
5% Sec Porosity 23% Total Por

10 15% Sec Porosity 23% Total Por

Rock Region Total Porosity Secondary
25% Sec Porosity 23% Total Por
Porosity
Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi

1 0- 3 % 0 - 10%
8 35% Sec Porosity 23% Total Por

45%+ Sec Porosity 23% Total

Por
0% Sec Porosity 23% Total Fit
2 0- 3 % 11 - 20%
3 0- 3 % 21 – 30%
6

5% Sec Porosity 23% Total Fit

15% Sec Porosity 23% Total Fit 4 0- 3 % 31 – 40%

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022

4
25% Sec Porosity 23% Total Fit
5 0- 3 % 40%+
2
35% Sec Porosity 23% Total Fit
6 4- 6 % 0 - 10%
7 4- 6 % 11 - 20%
45%+ Sec Porosity 23% Total
Fit
Fracture

0
8 4- 6 % 21 – 30%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Net Stress, psi
10000 12000 14000
9 4- 6 % 31 – 40%
Figure 14. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 23% 10 4- 6 % 40%+
Total Porosity 11 7- 9 % 0 - 10%
12 7- 9 % 11 - 20%
12
0% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Por 13 7- 9 % 21 – 30%
5% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Por 14 7- 9 % 31 – 40%
10 15% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Por
15 7- 9 % 40%+
16 10- 15% 0 - 10%
25% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Por
Uniaxial Compressibility *10^6, 1/psi

8 35% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Por

45%+ Sec Porosity 25%+ Total

17 10- 15% 11 - 20%
6
Por
0% Sec Porosity 25%+ Fit 18 10- 15% 21 – 30%
5% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Fit 19 10- 15% 31 – 40%
4
15% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Fit 20 10- 15% 40%+
25% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Fit
21 16- 20% 0 - 10%
22 16- 20% 11 - 20%
35% Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Fit
2
45%+ Sec Porosity 25%+ Total Fit

Fracture
23 16- 20% 21 – 30%
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
24 16- 20% 31 – 40%
Net Stress, psi
25 16- 20% 40%+
Figure 15. Uniaxial Compressibility vs Net Stress, 25+% 26 21- 25 % 0 - 10%
Total Porosity 27 21- 25 % 11 - 20%
28 21- 25 % 21 – 30%
29 21- 25 % 31 – 40%
Table 1. Basic Rock Properties for the Sequential Study 30 21- 25 % 40%+
31 26% + 0 - 10%
Depth Rock Core Core 32 26% + 11 - 20%
(mss) Type Porosity, Perm, 33 26% + 21 – 30%
Fraction md
34 26% + 31 – 40%
Sample A 4307.34 Carbonate 0.207 369.15
35 26% + 40%+
Sample B 4751 Carbonate 0.151 720.87
Sample C 4230.68 Carbonate 0.214 15.09
Sample D 4658.8 Carbonate 0.08 33.18
Sample E 4234.11 Carbonate 0.135 2.56
Sample F 3251.47 Carbonate 0.1326 2.5641
 VUG CHARACTERIZATION AND PORE VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY FOR
SPE 74341 NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VUGGY AND FRACTURED CARBONATE RESERVOIRS 9

Table 3. Pore Volume Compressibility Tables

RockNum Net Pore Volume Transmissibility
Stress, Multiplier Multiplier
psia
7 6250 0.935476077 1
7 5250 0.945276393 1
7 4966.4 0.948081416 1

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEIOCEM/proceedings-pdf/02IPCEM/All-02IPCEM/SPE-74341-MS/1882944/spe-74341-ms.pdf/1 by Arcadie Farcasanu on 16 February 2022

7 4866.4 0.949073501 1
7 4766.4 0.95006735 1
7 4666.4 0.95106298 1
7 4566.4 0.95206041 1
7 4466.4 0.953059661 1
7 4266.4 0.95506395 1
7 4166.4 0.956068786 1
7 4066.4 0.957075528 1
7 3750 0.960274252 1
7 3250 0.965370439 1
7 2750 0.970519128 1
7 2250 0.975724199 1
7 1750 0.980990287 1
7 1250 0.986322993 1
7 750 0.991729169 1
7 250 0.997217331 1
7 0 1 1