IPTC 11195
Matrix Subgridding and Its Effect in Dual Porosity Simulators
Reza Naimi-Tajdar,* SPE, Mojdeh Delshad, SPE, and Kamy Sepehrnoori, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin
*Now with BP America Inc.
Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 4–6 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Naturally fractured reservoirs are found throughout the world
and contain significant amounts of oil reserves. The so-called
dual porosity model is one of the most widely used conceptual
models for simulating such reservoirs. In the dual porosity
model, two types of porosity are in a rock volume: fracture
and matrix where matrix blocks are surrounded by fractures
and the system is visualized as a set of stacked cubes,
representing matrix blocks separated by fractures. There is no
communication between matrix blocks in this model, and the
fracture network is continuous. Matrix blocks do communicate
with the fractures that surround them. A transfer function
characterizes fluid flow between matrix blocks and fractures.
The performance of dual porosity simulators is determined by
the accuracy of the transfer function employed.
A new parallel simulator for naturally fractured reservoirs,
capable of modeling fluid flow in both rock matrix and
fractures, has been developed. The simulator is a parallel, 3D,
fully implicit with equation-of-state compositional model that
uses a generalized dual porosity model, the multiple-
interacting-continua (MINC). The matrix blocks are
discretized into subgrids in both horizontal and vertical
directions to offer a more accurate transient flow description
in matrix blocks. Some notable features of this simulator are
modeling of improved oil recovery (IOR) processes including
both gas and water injection with the ability of two-
dimensional matrix subgridding for naturally fractured
reservoirs. To the best of our knowledge, such features are not
available in commercial reservoir simulators. For coupling of
the fracture and matrix continua, numerical methods are used
to treat the transient flow of fluid between matrix and
fractures.
In this study, we investigated the effect of vertical and
horizontal matrix subgridding on oil recovery, oil production,
and water cut using the above mentioned simulator. The
effects of matrix permeability and capillary pressure on the
number of vertical and horizontal matrix subgrids were also
investigated. The results showed that in some circumstances,
there is more than 15% error in oil recovery for simulations
with insufficient matrix subgrids.
Introduction
Naturally fractured reservoirs consist of a network of
interconnected fractures surrounding porous matrix blocks.
Most of the porosity of naturally fractured reservoirs is
contained in the matrix blocks. The fractures normally have
little pore volume but are orders-of-magnitude more
permeable than the matrix blocks. Recovery of oil from
naturally fractured reservoirs is envisioned to take place in two
steps: expulsion of oil from the matrix blocks followed by
flow through the highly permeable fracture network to the
well. Water and/or gas injection are processes used to recover
oil from naturally fractured reservoirs. Several mechanisms
such as capillary imbibition, gravity drainage, and miscible
displacement operate during water/gas injection that force oil
from matrix blocks into the fractures. Numerical simulation of
water/gas injection into naturally fractured reservoirs requires
a description of the geometry and properties of the reservoir
and a formulation of fluid flow that can adequately model the
above recovery mechanisms. Most models developed for
simulating fractured reservoir performance use the dual
porosity continuum approach. This approach assumes that a
sufficient amount of randomly oriented and interconnected
open fractures exist in the reservoir to define statistically
meaningful, spatially averaged rock and fluid properties. The
fracture system is considered to behave as a type of porous
medium that communicates with the other type of porous
medium (the matrix) at the same spatial point in the reservoir.
Because of the dual medium nature of this approach, these
models are commonly called “dual porosity models.”
An important element in simulating a fractured reservoir
using a dual porosity model is the proper calculation of the
fluids exchange between the matrix blocks and the fractures.
In the conventional approach, the transfer term for a particular
phase is directly related to the shape factor, fluid mobility, and
potential difference between the matrix and fracture. Shape
factors have been developed based on first-order finite-
difference approximations1 and by matching fine-grid
multiphase simulations of matrix-fracture transfer flow2. In
most dual porosity models, the matrix block heights are
assumed to be at the same depth as the corresponding fracture
blocks, and therefore, gravity has no explicit effect on the
fluid exchange between the matrix and the fracture. Pseudo
capillary pressures have been used to account for the effect of
2 IPTC 11195
gravity2. The gravity-segregation concept has also been used
to compute the fluid levels in the matrix and fractures to
account for the gravity contribution3. Dual porosity models
also must account for the saturation distribution in a matrix
block. Because the saturation is evaluated at the center of a
gridblock, it represents an average value for that gridblock.
The pseudo-capillary-pressure concept has been used to
account for both gravity effects and nonuniform saturations
within a matrix block2,4. The method of subgridding
discretization has also been applied to this problem5-9. In this
approach, the matrix is divided into a number of subgrids
where pressures and saturations are calculated for each
subgrid. The subgridding approach can also take into account
transient effects.
Pruess and Narasimhan6 introduced the so called “multiple
interacting continua” (MINC) method. All the fractures are
grouped into one continuum and all the matrix blocks into
another, resulting in two interacting continua coupled through
a mass-transfer function determined by the size and shape of
the blocks, as well as by the local difference in potentials
between the two continua. Gilman10 presented two possible
divisions of matrix blocks into multiple subgrids, one called
stacked blocks and the other nested blocks (Fig. 1). Stacked
blocks represent a system where horizontal fractures are the
primary flow paths and transient flow in the lateral direction is
not important. Nested blocks are similar to the MINC
assumption, representing a more randomly fractured medium.
In this formulation, the solution of the matrix equations will be
a major portion of the total computational effort. However,
phase segregation inside matrix blocks is possible, improving
the calculation when gravity is important.
Beckner et al.7 presented a dual porosity model in which
matrix blocks are discretized in such way that basically
combines Gilman’s10 stacked and nested subgrids. In the
lateral direction, the subgrid is the same as in the MINC
method, reducing a two-dimensional problem to one
dimension. Subgrids in the vertical direction would model
fluid segregation due to gravity with much better resolution.
Beckner et al.7 studied the sensitivity of matrix-block
discretization on production forecasts and found differences as
large as 35% in cumulative oil recovery between discretized
and non-discretized matrix-block models. This difference
increases with decreasing matrix permeability. Aldejain8
investigated the effect of subgridding for a single-phase tracer-
injection case using the dual porosity option of UTCHEM11.
He concluded that using a higher number of subgrids yields a
more accurate result and showed that, in a very low matrix
permeability where the transient flow is dominant, the effect
of subgridding could be significant.
Recently, Naimi-Tajdar9 and Naimi-Tajdar et al.12
developed a fully implicit parallel compositional simulator for
large-scale naturally fractured reservoirs, capable of modeling
fluid flow in both rock matrix and fractures, based on an
existing single-porosity simulator, called GPAS. The primary
objective of this study is to investigate the effect of matrix
subgridding on oil recovery. We first briefly describe the
model. More details of the description of the model and
solution approach can be found in Naimi-Tajdar9 and Naimi-
Tajdar et al.12.
Description of the Model
The developed simulator is a parallel, 3D, fully implicit,
equation-of-state compositional model that uses numerical
tools for solving very large, sparse linear systems arising from
discretization of the governing partial differential equations. A
generalized dual porosity model, the multiple-interacting-
continua (MINC), has been implemented in this simulator.
The matrix blocks are discretized into subgrids in both
horizontal and vertical directions (Fig. 2) to offer a more
accurate transient-flow description in matrix blocks. For
coupling of the fracture and matrix continua, no analytical
approximations are made. Instead, numerical methods are used
to treat the transient flow of fluid between matrix and
fractures. To overcome the computationally intensive
problems raised by subgridding the matrix blocks in modeling
large-scale naturally fractured reservoirs with an order of a
million gridblocks, the dual porosity simulator was developed
with the capability to run in a parallel processing platform
using a cluster of computers.
Two overlapping continua, one corresponding to the
fracture medium and one corresponding to the matrix medium,
are considered. Thus two values for most variables and
parameters are attributed to each spatial location. The
equations of flow and component mole conservation are
written independently for each medium and should hold at
every point of the fracture and matrix medium and at all times.
Transfer of fluids between the two media is taken into
consideration by a source/sink (transfer) function. Isothermal
multicomponent and multiphase flow in a porous medium can
be described using three different types of equations.
Neglecting dispersion and mutual solubility between water
and hydrocarbon phases, for a system consisting of nc
hydrocarbon components and np fluid phases (excluding the
aqueous phase), the three types of equations are
mathematically expressed for a control volume in the
following sections12.
Component Mole Conservation Equations. Using
multiphase and multicomponent Darcy's law, in terms of
moles per unit time, the hydrocarbon component conservation
equations, for fracture and matrix systems are the following:
Fracture system (subscript f):
∂
(
Vb (φ f N fi ) − Vb ∇ ⋅ ∑ λ fjξ fj x fij ∇Pfj − γ fj ∇D f )
n
p
∂t j =1
− qi + τ mfi = 0
(1)
Matrix system (subscript m):
∂
( )
n
(φm N mi ) − Vb ∇ ⋅ ∑ λmjξ mj xmij ∇Pmj − γ mj ∇Dm
p
Vb
∂t j =1
=0
(2)
For i = 1,2,..., nc
IPTC 11195
These equations also hold for water by inserting the
properties of the aqueous phase.
Volume Constraint Equations. The volume constraint states
that the pore volume in each cell must be filled completely by
the fluid volumes. The volume constraint equations for both
fracture and matrix media are the same and are as follows:
nc +1 np
∑ N fi ∑ L jν j = 1
i =1 j =1
(fracture system) (3)
nc +1 np
∑ N mi ∑ L jν j = 1
(matrix system) (4)
i =1 j =1
Phase Equilibrium Equations. With the assumption of local
thermodynamic equilibrium for the hydrocarbon phases, the
criterion of phase equilibrium applies:
( ) ( )
ln f fig − ln f fio = 0 (fracture system) (5)
( ) ( )
ln f mig − ln f mio = 0 (matrix system) (6)
Independent Variables. Equations 1 through 6 describe the
fluid flow through porous media in naturally fractured
reservoirs. There are 2(2nc+2) equations. Independent
unknowns are chosen as lnKi, Ni, Pw, Nw (N = moles per unit
pore volume) in each medium, fracture and matrix, which
gives 2(2nc+2) primary variables. All the fluid-related
properties and variables in Eqs. 1 through 6 can be expressed
as a function of the selected independent variables.
Transfer Function and Boundary Conditions. The transfer
function for each component (hydrocarbon components and
water), τ mfi are evaluated at the boundary between the matrix
and fracture media and have the following forms:
Nb
∂
τ mfi = NM ⋅ Vb ∑ (φ m N mi )l (7)
l =1 ∂t
Where NM is the number of matrix blocks within a
fracture gridblock (may be a fractional number), and Nb is the
number of matrix subgrids. No-flow boundary conditions for
component mole consevation equations in the fracture system
are considered. The boundary condition for matrix blocks is
continuity of all phase pressures.
Case Studies
In this section, we present several cases to investigate the
effect of subgridding using this developed dual porosity
model. In the first series of runs, we present a 1D waterflood
case in which the matrix block heights are smaller than
fracture gridblock heights (explicit gravity effect) and show
the effect of vertical and horizontal subgridding on the oil
recovery, oil production, and water cut. The second series of
runs present a 2D waterflood case in which the matrix block
heights are the same as the corresponding fracture gridblock
3
heights (no explicit gravity effect). The effect of matrix block
permeability is investigated in the next series of runs and
finally, the effect of the matrix capillary pressure is presented
in the last series of runs. The subsequent cases are run and
compared with the 2x2, 2x4, 4x2, 4x4, 2x6, and 6x2 subgrids
in which the first number refers to the number of subgrids in
horizontal direction and the second number refers to the
number of subgrids in vertical direction.
Case 1: 1D Waterflood With Explicit Gravity Effect. A 1D
waterflood in dual porosity media is used to investigate the
effect of subgridding. The fracture network consists of eight
gridblocks of 80x80x30 ft with matrix blocks of 10x10x10 ft
inside every fracture gridblock. In this case, water is injected
into the first fracture gridblock at a constant rate of 498.4
STB/D (2000 ft3/day) and liquids are produced from the last
fracture gridblock at a constant pressure of 3900 psia. The
initial pressure is 4000 psia. Zero capillary pressure for both
fracture and matrix, straight-line relative permeabilities for
fracture, and Corey model relative permeabilities for the
matrix are used. The input parameters are presented in Table
1. The matrix block heights are 10 ft while the fracture
gridblock heights are 30 ft. Hence, gravity has an explicit
effect on the fluid exchange between the matrix and the
fracture. Figures 3 through 5 show the oil recovery, oil
production rate and water cut vs. time for these cases. A very
interesting fact can be seen by studying these figures. If we
start with the 2x2 subgrids and increase only the number of
horizontal subgrids to four and six (cases with 4x2 and 6x2
subgrids), not much improvement is achieved compared to the
results of base case of 4x4 subgrids. The case with 6x2
subgrids shows about 15% lower oil recovery, since the effect
of gravity drainage is much smaller relative to the fluid flow in
horizontal direction. However, by increasing the number of
vertical subgrids, the results of these cases converge to the
results of the base case with 4x4 subgrids. Since there are
more subgrids in the vertical direction in the cases with 2x4
and 2x6 subgrids, these cases show a higher oil recovery and
lower water cut. Therefore for applications where the gravity
drainage is dominant, the number of vertical subgrids plays an
important role and simulators that do not discretize in the
vertical direction could produce erroneous results.
Case 2: 2D Waterflood With No Explicit Gravity Effect. A
quarter of a five-spot waterflood problem1 is used to
investigate the effect of subgridding. In this case, water is
injected into a quarter-five-spot model at a rate of 200 STB/D
and water and oil are produced at a constant bottomhole
pressure of 3900 psia. The reservoir is 600 ft long, 600 ft
wide, and 30 ft thick. The fracture media is discretized into
8x8 uniform gridblocks in the x and y directions, respectively,
and has one 30-ft-thick gridblock in the z direction. Zero
capillary pressure is used for both fracture and matrix media,
and the relative permeability curves in the fracture and matrix
media are shown in Fig. 6. The input parameters are presented
in Table 2. Note that in this case, the matrix block heights are
the same as the fracture gridblock heights of 30 ft. Hence,
gravity has no explicit effect on the fluid exchange between
the matrix and the fracture. Figures 7 through 9 compare the
oil recovery, oil production rate, and water cut for different
4 IPTC 11195

subgridding cases. As expected, the 2x4 and 2x6 runs show a
higher oil recovery compared to the base case results of 4x4
run, while the 6x2 run shows a lower oil recovery. In this case,
where gravity has no explicit effect on the fluid exchange
between the matrix and the fracture, increasing the number of
vertical subgrids keeping horizontal subgrids the same will
overestimate the oil recovery whereas increasing the number
of horizontal subgrids keeping vertical subgrids the same will
underestimate the oil recovery. Another interesting
observation is that increasing the number of vertical subgrids
from 4 to 6 had no significant impact on oil recovery and oil
and water production rates which can be attributed to the
absence of explicit gravity effect.
subgrids in the vertical and horizontal directions to
obtain accurate results.
4. Based on the simulation studies carried out in this work,
when capillary imbibition recovery mechanism is
dominant in naturally fractured reservoirs, using a small
number of subgrids seems to be sufficient for typical
cases.
Acknowledgement
The financial support of the Reservoir Simulation Joint
Industry Project in the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems
Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin is gratefully
acknowledged.

Case 3: Effect of Matrix Permeability. In the previous case, Nomenclature

the matrix permeability was 1 md. To investigate the effect of D = depth measured positive downward, L
the matrix permeability on the number of vertical and f = fugacity
horizontal subgrids, we increased the matrix permeability to Ki = equilibrium ratio, dimensionless
10 md. Figures 10 through 12 show oil recovery, oil Lj = mole fraction of phase j
production rate, and water cut. Note that as in the previous NM = number of matrix blocks within a fracture gridblock
case, the matrix block heights are the same as the fracture Nb = number of matrix subgrids
gridblock heights and gravity has no explicit effect on the Ni = Moles of component i per unit pore volume, mol/L3
fluid exchange between the matrix and the fracture. As nc = number of hydrocarbon components
reported by Aldejain8, the effect of the number of subgrids is np = number of phases
minimal. Oil recoveries of simulations with 2x4 and 2x6 P = Pressure, m/Lt2
subgrids are slightly overestimated compared to the base case q = flow rate, L3/t
of 4x4, whereas 4x2 and 6x2 subgrids results are almost t = time, t
identical to those of 4x4 case. The results suggest that the V = volume, L3
dominant flow regime is pseudosteady state and there is no v j = molar volume of phase j
need to increase the number of subgrids. The fact that there is
no change in the results by increasing the vertical subgrids xij = mole fraction of component i in phase j
from 4 to 6 is indicative of the absence of explicit gravity φ= porosity, fraction
effect. Four subgrids in the lateral direction seem adequate for γ= fluid specific gravity, dimensionless
this problem due to overlap of results of the 4 and 6 horizontal τ= matrix-fracture transfer function, L3/t
subgrids. λ= effective mobility, L3/mt3
ξj = molar density of phase j, mol/L3
Case 4: Effect of Capillary Pressure. To investigate the
effect of capillary pressure on the number of subgrids, the Subscripts
quarter of a five-spot waterflood problem is used by adding b = bulk
capillary pressure in the matrix. Figure 13 shows the capillary f = fracture
g = gas
pressure curve. Figures 14 through 16 show the oil recovery,
i = component index
oil production rate, and water cut. The results show almost no
j = phase index
effect for the number of subgridding. Recall that the matrix
block heights are the same as those of the fracture gridblocks. m = matrix
Hence, these results attest to the fact that capillary pressure o = oil
has the dominant effect on the fluid exchange between the
matrix and the fracture for these cases. References
1. Kazemi, H., L.S. Merrill, K.L. Porterfield, P.R. Zeman:
“Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Naturally
Conclusions Fractured Reservoirs,” paper SPE 5719 presented at the SPE-
The following conclusions are drawn from this study: AIME Fourth Symposium on Numerical Simulation of
1. In some circumstances, there is more than 15% error in Reservoir Performance, Los Angeles, CA (Feb. 19-20, 1976).
oil recovery for simulations using insufficient subgrids. 2. Thomas, L.K., T.N. Dixon, and R.G. Pierson: “Fractured
2. When the gravity-drainage mechanism is dominant, the Reservoir Simulation,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1983) 42-54.
importance of the number of vertical subgrids is greater 3. Sonier, F., F. Bouillard, and F.T. Blaskovich: “Numerical
than the number of horizontal subgrids. Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” SPERE (Nov.
1988) 1114-22.
3. The necessity for the larger number of vertical and
4. Rossen, R.H. and E.I. Shen: “Simulation of Gas/Oil Drainage
horizontal subgrids will decrease dramatically in matrix and Water/Oil Imbibition in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,”
blocks with higher permeability. Hence, matrix blocks paper SPE 16982 presented at the 1987 Society of Petroleum
with lower permeability need a larger number of Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
TX, Sept. 27-30.
IPTC 11195 5

5. Saidi, A.M.: “Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoir,” Table 2. Input parameters used for 2D waterflood.
paper SPE 12270 presented at the 1983 SPE Reservoir
Description Fracture Matrix
Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, CA, Nov. 16-18.
6. Pruess, K. and T.N. Narasimhan: “A Practical Method for Number of gridblocks 8x8x1 4x4 and 16x16
Modeling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured Porous Media,”
paper SPE 10509 presented at the Sixth SPE Symposium on Size of gridblocks 75x75x30 ft 10x10x30 ft
Reservoir Simulation, New Orlean, LA, Februrary 1982, Soc.
Pet. Eng. J., Vol. 25, No. 1 (Feb. 1985) 14-26. Porosity 0.01 0.19
7. Beckner, B.L., H.M. Chan, A.E. McDonald, S.O. Wooten, and
Permeability 500 md 1.0 md
T.A. Jones: “Simulating Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using a
Subdomain Method,” paper SPE 21241 presented at the 1991 Initial water saturation 0.0001 0.25
Society of Petroleum Engineers Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20. Water viscosity 0.5 cp 0.5 cp
8. Aldejain, Abdulaziz A.: “Implementation of a Dual Porosity in a
Chemical Flooding Simulator,” Ph.D. dissertation, The U. of Oil viscosity 2.0 cp 2.0 cp
Texas, Austin (1999). Residual oil saturation 0.0 0.3
9. Naimi-Tajdar, Reza: “Development and Implementation of a
Naturally Fractured Reservoir Model into a Fully Implicit, Oil endpoint relative permeability 1.0 0.92
Equation-of-State Compositional, Parallel Simulator,” Ph.D.
dissertation, The U. of Texas, Austin (2005). Corey exponent for oil 2.15 1.8
10. Gilman, J.R.: “An Efficient Finite-Difference Method for
Residual water saturation 0.0 0.25
Simulating Phase Segregation in Matrix Blocks in Double
Porosity Reservoirs,” Soc. Pet. Eng. Res. Eng. (July 1986). Water endpoint relative perm 1.0 0.2
11. Delshad, M., G.A. Pope, and K. Sepehrnoori: “A Compositional
Simulator for Modeling Surfactant Enhanced Aquifer Corey exponent for water 1.46 1.18
Remediation, 1 Formulation,” J. Contamin. Hydrol. (1996) 303.
12. Naimi-Tajdar, R., C. Han, K. Sepehrnoori, T.J. Arbogast, and Initial reservoir pressure 4000 psia 4000 psia
M.A. Miller: “A Fully Implicit, Compositional, Parallel Water injection rate 200 STB/D (constant)
Simulator for IOR Processes in Fractured Reservoirs,” paper
SPE 100079 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Production well pressure 3900 psia (constant)
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 22-26 April 2006.

Table 1. Input parameters used for 1D waterflood.

Description Fracture Matrix

Number of gridblocks 8x1x1 4x4 and 16x16

Size of gridblocks 80 x 80 x 30 ft 10x10x10 ft MATRIX
MATRIX
Porosity 0.01 0.19
Permeability 500 md 10 md
Initial water saturation 0.25 0.25
Water viscosity 1.0 cp 1.0 cp
Oil viscosity 2.6 cp 2.6 cp
Stacked grids (vertical) Nested grids (horizontal)
Residual oil saturation 0.0 0.3
Fig. 1. Subgrids of a single matrix block10.
Oil endpoint relative permeability 1.0 0.92
Corey exponent for oil 1.0 1.8
Matrix
Residual water saturation 0.0 0.25
Fracture
Water endpoint relative perm 1.0 0.2
Corey exponent for water 1.0 1.18 Reservoir
Reservoir gridblock
Initial reservoir pressure 4000 psia 4000 psia Horizontal
subgrids
Water injection rate 498.7 STB/D (constant)
Production well pressure 3900 psia (constant)

Single
matrix Idealized
Matrix block gridblock
subgridding

Fig. 2. Dual porosity model with subgridding9.

6 IPTC 11195

25
50

20
40

4x4 Subgrids

2x6 Subgrids
Oil Recovery (%)

Oil Recovery (%)

15
30
6x2 Subgrids
4x2 Subgrids

10 2x4
20

2x2 Subgrids

5 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (days) Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids 2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 3. Effect of subgridding on oil recovery vs. time for case 1 Fig. 7. Effect of subgridding on oil recovery vs. time for case 2
(with explicit gravity effect). (no explicit gravity effect).

300 225

4x4 Subgrids 200

250 2x6 Subgrids
2x4 Subgrids 175
6x2 Subgrids

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

200 4x2 Subgrids

150
2x2 Subgrids

125
150
100

100 75

50
50
25

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (days) Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 4. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for Fig. 8. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 1. case 2.

1
1

0.8
0.8
Water Cut (fraction)

Water Cut (fraction)

0.6
0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (days) Time (days)

2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids 2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 5. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 1. Fig. 9. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 2.

1
50

0.9

0.8 40
Kro
0.7
Relative Permeability

Oil Recovery (%)

0.6 30

0.5

0.4 20

0.3
Krw

0.2 10

0.1

0
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (days)
Water Saturation
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids
Matrix media Fracture media
Fig. 10. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
Fig. 6. Fracture and matrix relative permeabilities used in case 2.
case 3 (K = 10 md).
IPTC 11195 7

225
100

200

175 80
Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

150

Oil Recovery (%)

60
125

100
40

75

50 20

25

0
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (days)
Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 11. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for Fig. 14. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 3. case 4 (with capillary pressure).

225
1

200

0.8 175

Oil Production Rate (STB/Day)

150
Water Cut (fraction)

0.6
125

100

0.4
75

50
0.2

25

0
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (days)
Time (days)
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids
2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids

Fig. 12. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 3. Fig. 15. Effect of subgridding on oil production rate vs. time for
case 4.

4
1

3.5

0.8
3
Capillary pressure (psi)

2.5
Water Cut (fraction)

0.6

1.5 0.4

0.2
0.5

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Water saturation Time (days)

2x2 Subgrids 2x4 Subgrids 4x2 Subgrids 2x6 Subgrids 6x2 Subgrids 4x4 Subgrids
Fig. 13. Capillary pressure curve used for case 4.
Fig. 16. Effect of subgridding on water cut vs. time for case 4.