SPE 93574
Modeling and Designing Improved Oil Recovery by Steam Injection in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs
O. Cicek, U. College London
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Western Regional Meeting held in
Irvine, CA, U.S.A., 30 March – 1 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Steam injection in naturally fractured reservoirs provides an
extremely challenging problem as well as a potentially
effective and efficient improved oil recovery method.
Coupling of the two distinct and contrasting matrix and
fracture systems results in a highly non-linear problem, and it
gets even more complicated as a result of steep changes in
fluid properties due to the thermal effects of steam injection.
Modeling and designing an optimum steam injection operation
in such systems requires an accurate characterization and
representation of a naturally fractured reservoir and steam
injection operation parameters and dynamics.
In this research effort, a thermal dual-
permeability/dual-porosity numerical model is developed for
the problem. The multi-phase fully implicit model is three
dimensional and compositional, accounting for viscous,
capillary and gravitational forces. The model incorporates
detailed anisotropic and heterogeneous reservoir property
description, and formulates all reservoir and operational
parameters as functions of all the primary variables,
(2nHC+10), where nHC is the number of hydrocarbon
components. The multi-layer production and injection wells
are coupled to the reservoir fully implicitly. Both an iterative
and a direct solver are employed in the solution of the
resulting system of linear equations. The present model is
verified and benchmarked against two SPE Projects.
A comprehensive and comparative study is
conducted in order to understand the relative effects of
naturally fractured system and injection operation properties
on the oil recovery performance. This comparative sensitivity
analysis is performed using the dual-permeability, the dual-
porosity and the approximate conventional single-porosity
model.
In search of some practical guidelines, each reservoir
system and operational property is studied in a range of
naturally fractured reservoirs such as with different matrix
block sizes, fracture/matrix permeability ratios and capillary
pressures. The present study should help us better understand
fluid flow dynamics, design optimum recovery operations and
determine range of confidence for an oil recovery operation in
naturally fractured reservoirs undergoing steam injection
Introduction
As one of the heterogeneous systems, the naturally fractured
reservoirs have been an active research subject1. The
difficulty in modeling of naturally fractured reservoirs arises
from the capillary discontinuity at the fracture/matrix
interface. The parameters governing fluid flow dynamics in
naturally fractured reservoirs are different than those of single
porous systems. Highly non-linear nature of steam injection
compounds the existing problems of modelling naturally
fractured reservoirs undergoing steam injection2,3,4.
A major part of research interest in the naturally
fractured reservoirs has focused on single-phase pressure
transient analysis. The multi-phase fluid flow studies in
naturally fractured reservoirs include black oil and
compositional simulation, most of which is directed towards
waterflooding. Some of the existing thermal simulators are
applied to naturally fractured hydrocarbon reservoirs5, and
some others have had specialized applications in geothermal
reservoirs6, and carbonate reservoirs7. In some cases,
conventional steam injection models8 are employed to model
naturally fractured reservoirs.
Extensive research efforts are directed towards
understanding the flow mechanisms and parameters governing
fluid flow in naturally fractured reservoirs9,10,11. These studies
are both numerical and experimental in nature. However, it is
still generally accepted that further research is needed for a
better understanding of mechanisms of mass and heat flow in
the naturally fractured reservoirs.
Formulation of fluid and heat transfer between the
two distinct media of fracture and matrix is the most
challenging part of studying steam injection in a naturally
fractured reservoir. In the calculation of fluid and heat flow
between the fracture and the matrix systems, effects of the
gravity and the capillary pressure along with the viscous
forces should be accounted for. Using pseudo-capillary
pressure and relative permeability curves12,13,14, assigning
different effective depths to the fracture and the matrix
blocks15, discretization of the matrix block16, assuming
uniform saturation distribution in the fracture and the matrix17
are some of the approaches used in order to account for the
gravitational and the capillary forces in the formulation of the
2 MODELING AND DESIGNING IMPROVED OIL RECOVERY BY STEAM INJECTION SPE 93574
IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

matrix-fracture interaction. In this research, unmodified such as directional permeabilities, non-uniformly distributed
capillary pressure and relative permeability values are used. fractures.
In addition to fracture-matrix and fracture-fracture
connections, matrix-matrix connections should be accounted Flow Equations for Fracture System. A molar mass flow
for in the mathematical formulation18. Relative effects of equation for a component, i, in rectangular coordinate system
these in-structure and inter-structure connections and their over a period of time ∆t , can be expressed by:
transmissibilities should be evaluated for gaining more insight
into steam displacement of oil in naturally fractured reservoirs. ∂ ⎧⎪ ⎡ ρ p ⎛ k k k k ,r ∂Φ p ⎞⎤ ⎫⎪
⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎬
∑ ∆k ⎨ ∑ ⎢ Ak X i , p
p

M p ⎜⎝ µ p ∂k ⎟⎠⎦⎥ ⎪
This analysis is conducted with a range of fracture and matrix
k = x, y , z ∂k ⎪ p =l ,v ,a ⎣⎢
property values such as degree of fracturing, the fracture ⎩ ⎭
absolute permeability, the matrix absolute permeability, and
the matrix capillary pressures. + q pro ,i + qinj ,i + qtra ,i
In order to evaluate the relative effects of naturally
fractured reservoir properties and acting forces on oil
displacement by steam injection, the problem is formulated by ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ρp ⎞⎤
using three different conceptualisations, the dual-permeability, = ⎢Vbφ ∑ ⎜⎜ X i , p S p ⎟⎥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(1)
⎟⎥
the dual-porosity and the single-porosity realizations. All ∂t ⎢⎣ p =l ,v , a
⎝ Mp ⎠⎦
three physical conceptualisations can be represented by a
comprehensive dual-permeability mathematical formulation. Similarly, an energy flow equation in the rectangular
A comparative analysis of the performances of these three coordinate system over a period of time ∆t , can be written as:
different conceptualisations should provide insight about the ∂⎡ ρ p ⎛⎜ k k k k ,rp ∂Φ p ⎞⎟ ⎤
oil displacement mechanisms from the matrix blocks and ∑ ∆k ⎢ ∑ HpA k ⎥
about the relative effects of the acting forces on these k= x, y,z ∂k ⎢⎣ p= l,v,a M p ⎜⎝ µ p ∂k ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
displacement mechanisms. The series of sensitivity analyses
∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
conducted should help us in assessing the level of confidence + ∑ ∆k ⎜ K r ,k Ak ⎟ − qlost
in the accuracy of the mathematical and physical k = x, y,z ∂k ⎝ ∂k ⎠
representation of steam injection in a naturally fractured
reservoir. Also, the present research should contribute to the
+ ∑
p = l ,v ,a
(q pro , p H p + q inj , p H p + q tra , p H p )
evaluation and the screening of a naturally fractured reservoir
+ σ K r , m V xyz (T m − T f )
for a possible steam injection operation.
∂⎡ ρp n ⎤
Mathematical Formulation and Solution = Vb ⎢ U r (1− φ ) ρ r + φ ∑ S p ∑ X i,p U i,p ⎥ . . . . . .(2)
∂t ⎢⎣ p= l, v,a M p i ⎥⎦
In naturally fractured reservoirs, there are two distinct regions,
the fractures and the reservoir matrix. The reservoir matrix
has the high storage and low flow capacity, whereas the Flow Equations for Matrix System. Similar to the fracture
fractures have the high flow and low storage capacity. The system, a molar mass flow equation for a component, i, can be
physical structure of the reservoir is idealized in the form of written for the matrix domain as:
orthogonal parallelepipeds. The rectangular blocks and the
spacing between the blocks represent the reservoir matrix and ∂ ⎧⎪ ⎡ ρ p ⎛ k k k k ,r ∂Φ p ⎞⎤ ⎫⎪
⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎬
∑ ∆k ⎨ ∑ ⎢ Ak X i , p
p

M p ⎜⎝ µ p ∂k ⎟⎠⎦⎥ ⎪
the fractures, respectively.
k = x, y , z ∂k ⎪ p =l ,v ,a ⎣⎢
The mathematical formulation of the problem is ⎩ ⎭
based on the dual-permeability conceptualisation, which can
represent the dual-porosity and the approximate single- + q srp ,i − qtra ,i
porosity idealizations of naturally fractured reservoirs. Two
different compositional flow equations for each component
and energy, both in the fracture and the matrix system, are ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ρp ⎞⎤
used to describe the mass and heat flow in the reservoir in the = ⎢Vbφ ∑ ⎜⎜ X i , p S p ⎟⎥ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(3)
⎟⎥
dual-permeability model. The dual-permeability mathematical ∂t ⎢⎣ p =l ,v , a
⎝ Mp ⎠⎦
formulation accounts for matrix-matrix interaction in addition
to fracture-fracture and fracture-matrix interactions. Similarly, an energy flow equation in the rectangular
The unsteady state mathematical model is three- coordinate system over a period of time ∆t , can be written as:
dimensional, three-phase and compositional. The
mathematical formulation of the fluid and heat transport ∂ ⎡⎢ ρ p ⎛⎜ k k k k ,rp ∂Φ p ⎞⎟ ⎤
⎥
∑ ∆k ∑ HpAk
includes the simultaneous contribution of conduction, k= x, y,z ∂k ⎢⎣ p= l,v,a M p ⎜⎝ µ p ∂k ⎟⎠ ⎦⎥
gravitational, capillary and viscous forces. Reservoir fluid
system is composed of water and three oil components, which
∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
are light, medium, and heavy ends. Mass transfer between the + ∑ ∆k ⎜ K r ,k Ak ⎟ − qlost
liquid and the vapor phases for a component is determined by k = x, y, z ∂k ⎝ ∂k ⎠
the two-phase equilibria19. The model is capable of handling
anisotropic and heterogeneous reservoir property distributions
 SPE 93574 O. CICEK 3

+ q srp H srp − ∑
p = l ,v , a
(q tra , p H p ) Source/Sink Terms. Well can penetrate a number of blocks in
the vertical direction. Volumetric flow rate of phase p from a
layer i in the wellbore can be expressed by the following
− σ K r , m V xyz (T m − T f ) equation:

⎛k ⎞
∂⎡ ρp ⎤ Q p ,i = PRIi ⎜ r , p ⎟ (Pl ,i − Pbh ,i ).. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .(19)
⎜µ ⎟
n
= Vb ⎢ U r ( 1 − φ ) ρ r + φ ∑ S p ∑ X i,p U i,p ⎥ . . .(4)
∂t ⎢⎣ p= l, v,a M p i ⎥⎦ ⎝ p ⎠i
where
The mathematical model is completed by the following
( )
i
constraints, relationships, and initial and boundary conditions, Pbh,i = Pbh,l + ∑ γ *j− 1 D j − D j− 1 . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . (20)
written for both the fracture and the matrix medium as j= 2
indicated: In the formulation of fluid transfer between the matrix
(b) Saturation and mole-fraction constraints: blocks and the fracture network, the flow potentials are
[ ∑ S p = 1] f ,m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) calculated using unmodified capillary pressure values and the
p =l ,v , a matrix block height:
n
[ ∑ X ip = 1] f ,m p=a,l,v. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . (6) ρ p k k ,r
i =1 q tra ,i = σV xyz k k ∑ X i , p
p
(Φ m, p − Φ f , p ).
(c) Interfacial relationships: p =l ,v , a M p µp
(i) Capillary pressure relationships, assuming that ................................................
formation is preferentially water wet: (21)
[ Pcla (S a ) = Pl − Pa ] f ,m . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(7) The described mathematical model is solved
[ Pclv (S v ) = Pl − Pv ] f ,m . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .(8) numerically using finite-difference. The unconditionally
stable Newton-Raphson method is used to solve the resulting
(ii) Phase equilibrium relationships: set of non-linear equations. A fully implicit simultaneous
[ f ia = f iv ] f ,m i=1,2,...,n. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .(9) solution method is implemented for the solution of the
described highly non-linear mathematical model20. Eqs.1, 2,
[ f ia = f il ] f ,m i=1,2,...,n. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . (10)
3, 4, 5 and 6 are solved simultaneously for a total of (2nhc+10)
[ f iv = f iad ] m i=1,2,...,n. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . (11) primary variables. These primary variables are pressure
(δP1), temperature (δT), saturations (δSa, δSl, δSv), and oil
(iii) Relative permeability relationships:
( )
[k rp = f S p ] f ,m . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . (12)
phase component fractions (δX1, δX2, δX3) in both the fracture
and the matrix systems. This solution technique would have a
Following initial and boundary conditions are also total of sixteen primary variables (NPV) for each grid block in
used in completing the mathematical formulation. Initially, a fluid system of three pseudo and one water component.
pressure and composition of the reservoir are given as: Treating fractions of the hydrocarbon components in the liquid
[ P k ,t =0 = Pin ] f ,m . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(13) phase as primary unknowns and solving them simultaneously
with the rest of the primary variables greatly contributes to the
[Z i k ,t = 0
= Z i ,in ] f ,m i=1,2,...,n. . . . . . .. . . . . (14) strong stability and accurate representation of the dynamics of
the system. This solution technique implicitly couples the
All six boundaries of the reservoir are completely compositional behavior of the reservoir fluids with the mass
sealed off to fluid flow: transfer and heat transfer.
∂Φ p Transmissibilities are calculated using single-point
[ = 0] f ,m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15) upstream, harmonic averaging and arithmetic averaging
∂k k ,t
techniques for various parameters appearing in the
transmissibility terms. As an exception, in the transmissibility
The initial and boundary conditions associated with Eqs.2 calculation of the matrix-fracture exchange term absolute
and 4 are reviewed below. matrix permeability values are used. The Jacobian and the
Initially, temperature of the reservoir is known: residuals are calculated through a comprehensive formulation
[T k ,t = 0
= Tin ] f ,m . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16) assuming that all of the fluid, rock, and rock-fluid properties
as well as parameters related to the steam injection operation
Also, for all six boundaries of the reservoir: are calculated as functions of all possible primary variables
identified.
∂T ∂Tsur
[ = ] f ,m . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .(17) Each of the mathematical models, the dual-
∂k k ,t ∂k k ,t
permeability, the dual-porosity and the single-porosity, results
in different coefficient matrix structures. For example, a
[T k,t
= Tsur k,t
] f , m . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18) three-dimensional dual-permeability model results in a nine-
block diagonal Jacobian. That is, each entry along each
at the boundaries of the reservoir. diagonal is an NPVxNPV submatrix, obtained by
4 MODELING AND DESIGNING IMPROVED OIL RECOVERY BY STEAM INJECTION
IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
differentiating NPV number of equations with respect to NPV
number of primary unknowns for all blocks, NT. All elements
of the residual vector and the Jacobian matrix are calculated
implicitly using the last iteration values. Both a direct and an
iterative solution technique are applied to the resulting system
of linear equations.
Results and Discussion
The present model is verified against the Sixth SPE
Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Dual-
Porosity Simulators1, and against the compositional problem
of the Fourth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Comparison
of Steam Injection Simulators2. The verification of the model
is presented in an earlier study20. In the present research, a
compositional steam injection operation in an inverted nine-
spot pattern located in a naturally fractured reservoir is
studied. The reservoir has an area of 330x330 ft2 and three
distinct layers. A 5x5x3 parallel grid system is superimposed
over the one-half symmetry element of the pattern in the
horizontal plane. The production wells are perforated in all
layers, and the injection wells are perforated only at the
bottom layer. Four-component fluid system is composed of
one pure water component and three hydrocarbon
components, two distillable and one nonvolatile. The default
data describing the naturally fractured reservoir and the steam
injection operation parameters are presented in Fig. 1 and
Table 1 through Table 4. Pure water properties are assumed
for the water component. Modified Stone’s model is used for
the three-phase liquid oil relative permeabilities. For the
approximate single-porosity reservoir model, the absolute
permeability is assumed to be the fracture absolute
permeability, and the relative permeability and the capillary
pressure values are assumed to be of those of the matrix. In
all three models of the naturally fractured reservoir,
unmodified capillary pressure and relative permeability values
are used.
The presented steam injection problem in a naturally
fractured system is studied in order to understand the effects
of various naturally fractured reservoir parameters on fluid
displacement mechanisms and oil recovery. In the solution of
the problems dual-porosity, dual-permeability and single
porosity mathematical modeling and physical
conceptualizations are employed.
Mathematical Modeling/Physical Conceptualization. An
comparative investigation is conducted on performance of the
dual-permeability, dual-porosity and single-porosity modeling
of the naturally fractured system. The oil recovery obtained
by the single porosity model is higher than those obtained by
both the dual porosity and the dual permeability models (Fig.
2). The dual permeability and dual porosity models yield very
similar oil recoveries.
In a second set of the above comparative investigation, the
original reservoir with a lower matrix block size of 1 ft instead
of 7.5 ft is studied (Fig. 3). In this smaller matrix block case,
both the dual-porosity and dual-permeability models yield
much higher oil recoveries than the single porosity model.
Existence of the two distinct contrasting media in a naturally
fractured reservoir dramatically changes the relative effects of
the acting forces on the fluid displacement mechanisms
compared to those in a conventional single-porosity reservoir.
SPE 93574
Negative effects of the gravity overriding and the viscous
channeling on the oil recovery are considerably smaller in the
naturally fractured reservoirs than in the conventional single-
porosity reservoirs. The high conductivity fracture network in
the naturally fractured reservoir helps the injected steam reach
more parts of the reservoir in a shorter period of time.
Negative effect of viscous channeling and the gravity
overriding on sweep efficiency in the high conductivity
fracture network is insignificant because of its low storage.
Thus, the higher level of sweep efficiencies combined with the
smaller matrix blocks and the matrix capillary pressure yields
significantly higher oil recoveries from both the dual-
permeability and the dual porosity model than the approximate
conventional single-porosity model.
Fig. 3 also shows that the significantly higher matrix-
fracture transmissibilities compared to matrix-matrix
transmissibilities in both of the above problems are
responsible for the very similar recoveries obtained from the
dual-porosity and the dual-permeability models. Although the
dual-permeability model provides the advantage of matrix-to-
matrix connection for fluid flow, the oil prefers to flow into
the less resistant fracture network through the higher matrix-
fracture transmissibility path.
In a third set, the mathematical models are studied
comparatively using the original naturally fractured system
with a higher matrix block size of 15 ft instead of 7.5 ft (Fig.
4). In this case of larger matrix blocks, the single porosity
model gives higher oil recovery than the dual-porosity and the
dual permeability model. Because of the decreased
matrix/fracture transmissibility due to the larger matrix blocks,
the difference between the oil recoveries from the dual-
porosity and the dual permeability models significantly
increased. As a result relatively more amount of oil flows
through the continuous matrix system allowed by the dual
permeability model. Thus, a higher oil recovery is obtained
from the dual-permeability than the dual-porosity model. The
distance between the oil recovery curves from the dual-
permeability and the dual-porosity models increases because
of the decreasing ratio of the matrix/fracture to the
matrix/matrix transmissibility value.
In a fourth set of this comparative investigation, the oil
recovery results from the mathematical models are analyzed
for the same fractured reservoir with zero matrix oil-water
capillary pressure values, and with the default matrix block
size of 7.5 ft (Fig. 5). The oil recovery from the single-
porosity approximation of the fractured system is reduced only
by a small amount, and still dramatically higher than those
obtained from the dual-porosity and the dual-permeability
models. In both of the dual-porosity and the dual permeability
solutions, the oil recovery values are very similar, however,
reduced by very significant amounts to dramatically lower
levels. In both of the dual-porosity and the dual permeability
conceptualizations, the contribution of the higher
matrix/fracture transmissibilities to the oil recovery is realized
more only in the presence of higher flow potentials between
the matrix and the fracture systems. Single porosity model
allows the establishment of significant flow potentials by
viscous forces in the reservoir in a steam injection operation
for long periods of time. However, in the case of the dual-
porosity and dual-permeability model, injected steam prefers
 SPE 93574
to flow through the less resistant fracture network, thus, the
viscous forces do not contribute to the establishment of
relatively higher flow potentials between the fracture and the
matrix systems. As a result, reducing the matrix oil-water
capillary pressure values to zero in a naturally fractured
system undergoing steam injection operation dramatically
decreases the flow potentials between the fracture and the
matrix system.
Matrix Capillary Pressures. Effect of matrix capillary
pressures on oil recovery is investigated by using three matrix
liquid-aqueous capillary pressure sets which are denoted as
high, low and zero (Table 2). The low capillary pressure set
is the same as in the original problem. The role of matrix
capillary pressures on the oil recovery seems to be very
important in all of the mathematical models (Fig. 6 through
8). Effect of matrix capillary pressures is more pronounced in
the dual-porosity and the dual permeability models than in the
single porosity model. The same general trend can be
observed in the results obtained from all three mathematical
models, that is, increasing matrix liquid-aqueous capillary
pressure values yield increasing oil recoveries.
Matrix Block Size. Three different matrix block sizes are
used to investigate the effect of degree of fracturing on steam
displacement of oil in a naturally fractured reservoir. In
addition to the original 7.5 ft, matrix block sizes of 1 ft and 15
ft are used. Smaller matrix block sizes give higher oil
recoveries (Fig. 9). Rate of increase in oil recovery increases
by decreasing matrix block sizes. A similar oil displacement
behavior is observed for the dual-permeability model with
slightly higher oil recoveries and higher rates of increase in oil
recovery as a function of smaller matrix blocks (Fig. 10).
Effect of matrix block size is investigated in a second set of
numerical experiments using the same naturally fractured
system with zero matrix liquid-aqueous capillary pressure
instead of the default low capillary pressure set. For all the
matrix block sizes the zero matrix capillary pressure reduces
the oil recovery dramatically to almost the same very low
levels. (Fig. 11). A parallel behavior is observed for the dual-
permeability model as well (Fig. 12). A third set of numerical
experiments is conducted in order to study the effect of matrix
block size using the original fractured reservoir with a medium
matrix absolute value of 10 md in all directions. In this set of
experiments, zero matrix capillary pressure is used as in the
second set of experiments. In this case of medium matrix
permeability, slight improvements, but still at very low levels,
in oil recoveries are observed for all the matrix block sizes,
however, still at very low recovery levels (Fig. 13). In case of
the dual-permeability model, better improvements are
achieved in oil recoveries for all matrix block sizes, but still at
relatively low recovery levels (Fig. 14). The zero matrix
capillary pressure results in significant reductions in flow
potentials between the fracture and the matrix system. As a
result, contribution of the increased matrix/matrix
transmissibility on oil recovery is more pronounced than that
of the increased fracture/matrix transmissibility. Hence,
relatively higher improvements on oil recoveries are observed
in the dual-permeability model compared to the dual-porosity
model. In the presence of higher flow potentials between the
fracture and the matrix system, the difference between the oil
O. CICEK 5
recovery levels obtained by the dual-porosity and the dual
permeability models are very small as shown by Figs. 2 and 3.
Matrix Absolute Permeability. The role of matrix
absolute permeability on oil recovery is investigated using
three different matrix absolute permeability values. For this
part of the numerical experiments, a wide range of matrix
absolute permeability values are used, which are denoted as
low, medium and high. The low permeability is the original
permeability set of 1 md in all directions, and the medium
permeability is 50 md in all directions. The high matrix
absolute permeability set is 100 md in the horizontal and 50
md in the vertical direction. Increasing matrix absolute
permeabilities yield increasing oil recoveries (Fig. 15). The
results displayed on Fig. 15 are for the original naturally
fractured reservoir with high matrix liquid-aqueous capillary
pressures and with matrix block sizes of 15 ft. A second set of
the same numerical experiments is conducted with the original
reservoir having zero matrix liquid-aqueous capillary pressure
and with significantly smaller 1 ft matrix block sizes (Fig. 16).
Although the overall oil recovery decreases to lower levels for
all the matrix absolute permeability values, increasing oil
recoveries are obtained with increasing matrix absolute
permeabilities. However, relative increases in oil recoveries
by increasing absolute permeabilities are very similar in case
of 1 ft matrix blocks and zero matrix capillary pressure and in
case of 15 ft matrix blocks and high matrix capillary pressures.
In the second case, the smaller matrix blocks sizes of 1 ft is
expected to improve the overall oil recovery due to a
significant increase in the fracture/matrix transmissibilities.
However, the decrease in the matrix capillary pressures to zero
is responsible for the overall reductions in the oil recovery
levels.
Fracture Absolute Permeability. The oil recovery from
the naturally fractured system is studied using three different
fracture absolute permeabilities, which are denoted as high,
medium and low. A wide range of fracture permeability
values is employed. The original fracture absolute
permeability set is the high permeability with values of 100
md in the horizontal and 50 md in the vertical direction. The
medium permeability is 50 md in all directions, and the low
permeability is 10 md in all directions. The oil recovery
results from the dual-porosity reservoir are presented on Fig.
17 as a function of injected steam volume, on Fig. 18 as a
function of time. Similar qualitative results are observed for
the dual-permeability model. Lower fracture absolute
permeability values yield higher oil recoveries as a function of
injected steam volume. This trend could be explained by the
fact that lower fracture absolute permeability values increases
the resistance to steam flow inside the fracture network.
Hence, the resulting higher viscous forces contribute to higher
flow potentials between the fracture and the matrix system. As
a result, relatively more steam flows into the matrix blocks
and displaces oil from the matrix blocks into the fracture
network. But the oil recoveries from the naturally fractured
reservoir for the three fracture absolute permeabilities do not
exhibit a general trend as a function of time. However, the oil
recoveries from the approximated single-porosity reservoir for
the three absolute permeabilities yield a general trend as a
function of time, higher absolute permeabilities result in
higher oil recoveries as a function of time (Fig. 19).
6 MODELING AND DESIGNING IMPROVED OIL RECOVERY BY STEAM INJECTION
IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS
The behavior of oil recovery as a function of time in
relation to the fractured absolute permeability can be
explained by the combined effects of two competing fluid
displacement mechanisms. Achieving a high sweep efficiency
and high flow potential between the fracture and the matrix
systems would improve the oil recovery. While higher
fracture absolute permeability increases the sweep efficiency
of the steam injection as a function of time, it decreases its
positive contribution to the flow potential between the fracture
and the matrix system. For each naturally fractured system,
there must be an optimum fracture absolute permeability,
which would yield the maximum combined contribution of
these two competing oil displacement mechanisms to the oil
recovery. For a given fracture absolute permeability value,
operational parameters such as injection rate can be used to
obtain the optimum combined contribution of the competing
oil displacement mechanisms to oil recovery.
Steam Injection Rate. Besides the original steam injection
rate of 300 STB/D, two other steam injection rates are used to
investigate the role of steam injection rates on oil recovery. In
general, high injection rates result in high oil recoveries from
the naturally fractured reservoir (Fig. 20), which is
qualitatively similar to the widely accepted rules of thumb for
steam injection operations in conventional single-porosity
reservoirs. The difference between the oil recoveries obtained
from different injection rates as a function of time is quite
significant. However, smaller steam injection rates are more
efficient in recovering oil as a function of injected steam
volume (Fig. 21). In order to design the economically most
feasible steam injection operation, numerical experiments
should be conducted with different steam injection rates for
each naturally fractured reservoir.
Summary and Conclusions
In this research, modeling and designing of steam injection in
naturally fractured reservoirs is described. The fully implicit
dual-permeability mathematical formulation is three-phase,
three-dimensional and compositional. Using the dual-
permeability, the dual-porosity and the approximate single-
porosity conceptualizations, a comparative and comprehensive
investigation of steam displacement of oil from naturally
fractured reservoirs is carried out. The present model is found
to be strongly stable and internally consistent for the
extremely dynamic and non-linear systems studied in this
research. The present investigation shows that steam injection
in naturally fractured reservoirs can yield very high levels of
oil recovery.
Higher oil recoveries, both as a function of time and
as a function of injected steam volume, are obtained for the
smaller matrix blocks, for the higher matrix capillary pressures
and for the higher matrix absolute permeabilities. On the
other hand, oil recoveries for higher steam injection rates are
higher as a function of time and lower as a function of injected
steam volume. In case of the fracture absolute permeability,
these functional relationships are more complicated. Oil
recoveries for the higher fracture absolute permeabilities are
lower as a function of injected steam volume. However, due
to the competing effects of the sweep efficiency and the flow
potential between the fracture and the matrix system, oil
SPE 93574
recoveries as a function of time can not be generalized in
relation to the fracture absolute permeability.
Although higher steam injection rates yield
considerably higher oil recoveries as a function of time, an
optimum steam injection rate should be decided depending on
the economical calculations for each naturally fractured
reservoir.
Effects of changing matrix capillary pressure values
on oil recovery are more pronounced in cases of the dual-
porosity and the dual-permeability models than the single-
porosity model.
Effects of the matrix block size and the matrix
absolute permeability on oil recoveries are dramatically
magnified or shrunk depending on the magnitude of the matrix
capillary pressure.
Accounting for the inter-matrix connections becomes
more crucial in case of larger matrix blocks and smaller matrix
capillary pressures. In this case, the dual-permeability model,
rather than the dual-porosity model, becomes more consistent
with the physics and the fluid displacement mechanisms
within the naturally fractured system.
Potentially higher sweep efficiencies can be achieved
in a naturally fractured reservoir than in the approximate
conventional single-porosity reservoir. This is achieved by
unique facility of the high conductivity low storage fracture
network in addition to the high fracture-matrix transmissibility
and the high fracture-matrix flow potentials.
The dual-permeability model does not always result
in higher oil recoveries than the dual-porosity model.
Depending on the naturally fractured reservoir properties, the
oil recoveries from both models can be practically the same.
The difference between the oil recoveries from the dual
porosity and the dual permeability models increases as one or
both the matrix-fracture transmissibility and the fracture-
matrix flow potential decrease, and vice versa.
The approximate single porosity model of a naturally
fractured reservoir does not necessarily yield higher oil
recoveries than the dual porosity and the dual-permeability
models. The oil recovery from the dual-porosity and the dual-
permeability model can be similar, more or less than that from
the single-porosity model. As the fracture/matrix
transmissibility and the fracture/matrix flow potential
increases, the dual-porosity and the dual permeability model
gives more oil recovery than the single porosity model, and
vice versa.
Nomenclature
Latin Characters
Ak = area perpendicular to the k-direction, L2, ft2
D = depth, L, ft
fia = fugacity of component i in aqueous phase, m/Lt2, psi
fiad = fugacity of comp. i in adsorbed phase, m/Lt2, psi
fl = fugacity of comp. i in liquid oil phase, m/Lt2, psi
fv = fugacity of comp. i in vapor phase, m/Lt2, psi
Hp = molar enthalpy of phase p, L2/t2, Btu/mole
J = Jacobian
kk = absolute permeability in the k-direction, L2, md
kk,rp = relative permeability to the pth phase
K = thermal conductivity, mL/t3T, Btu/ft2-D-oF
L = length, L, ft
 SPE 93574 O. CICEK 7

Mp molecular weight of the pth phase

= sur = surroundings
q molar flow rate, L3/t, mole/D
= STC = stock tank conditions, 14.7 psia and 60oF
qlost heat loss rate to the surroundings, mL2/t2, Btu/D
= ste = steam
qinj,p =
molar injection rate of phase p, m/t, lbmole/D t = time
qpro,p =
molar production rate of phase p, m/t, lbmole/D v = vapor phase
qtra,i =
molar matrix-fracture transfer rate of component i, w = water
m/t, lbmole/D l = layer 1
Q = volumetric fluid flow rate, L3/t, B/D 4 = water component
Qp,i = volumetric fluid flow rate of phase p in layer i, L3/t, Acronyms
B/D E = energy flow equation
q4 = steam injection rate, L3/t, B/D H = heavy hydrocarbon molar flow equation
P = primary variable L = light hydrocarbon molar flow equation
P = pressure, m/Lt2, psi M = medium hydrocarbon molar flow equation
Pbh,i = bottom hole pressure at layer i, m/Lt2, psi NPV = number of primary variables
Pc,la = oil-water capillary pressure, m/Lt2, psi NT = total number of reservoir blocks
Pc,lv = oil-gas capillary pressure, m/Lt2, psi PL = oil phase pressure
PRIi = productivity/injectivity index for layer i, L3, md-ft S = saturation constraint
R = residual SA = aqueous phase saturation
Sp = saturation of fluid phase p SL = oil phase saturation
t = time, t, D SV = vapor phase saturation
T = temperature, T, oF X = oil phase mole-fraction constraint
U = internal energy, L2/t2, Btu/lbm X1 = light hydrocarbon mole-fraction in oil phase
V = volume, L3, ft3 X2 = medium hydrocarbon mole-fraction in oil phase
Vxyz = grid block volume, L3, ft3 X3 = heavy hydrocarbon mole-fraction in oil phase
Xi,p = mole-fraction of component i in the pth phase Y = vapor phase mole-fraction constraint
y4 = injected steam quality W = water component molar flow equation
Greek Characters
δ = difference References
γ = density, m/L3, lbm/ft3 1. Firoozabadi, A., Thomas, L. K.: "Sixth SPE Comparative Solution
µ = viscosity of the pth phase, m/Lt, cp Project: A Comparison of Dual-Porosity Simulators," paper SPE
φ = porosity, fraction 18741, Proc., the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Feb.
Φ = potential of the pth phase, m/Lt2, psi 6-8, 1989.
ρ = density, m/L3, lbm/ft3 2. Aziz, K. et al.: "Fourth SPE Comparative Solution Project:
λ = mobility, Lt/m, cp-1 Comparison of Steam Injection Simulators," JPT (Dec. 1987)
1577.
ε = small number
3. Farouq Ali, S. M. and Abou-Kassem, J. H.: “Simulation of
Mathematical Signs Thermal Recovery Process,” First and Second International
∇ = “nabla” operator Reservoir Simulation, Paul Steiner, Leoben, Austria (1989) 25.
∂ = partial differential 4. Coats, K. H.: "Implicit Compositional Simulation of Single-
∆k = an increment of k in k-direction, L, ft Porosity and Dual-Porosity Reservoirs," paper SPE 18427, Proc.,
→ = vector the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston, TX,
Superscripts Feb. 6-8, 1989.
n = time level 5. Chen, W. H. et al.: "A Thermal Simulator for Naturally
v = iteration level Fractured Reservoirs," paper SPE 14902, Proc., the nineth SPE
* = wellbore conditions in Eq. 21 Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas, Feb.
Subscripts 1-4, 1987.
a = aqueous phase 6. Pruess, K., Narasimhan, T. N. "A Practical Method for
b = block Modelling Fluid and Heat Flow in Fractured Porous Media,"
SPEJ (Feb. 1985) 14.
bh = bottom-hole
7. Briggs, P. J.: "A Simulator for the Recovery of Heavy Oil From
hc = hydrocarbons Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using Cyclic Steam Injection,"
i = component index paper SPE 17954, Proc., the SPE Middle East Oil Technical
i = wellbore layer index Conference and Exhibition, Manama, Bahrain, March 11-14,
in = initial 1989.
inj = injection 8. Dreher, K. D. et al.: "Heat Flow During Steam Injection Into a
j = surrounding block index Fractured Carbonate Reservoir," paper SPE/DOE 14902, Proc.,
k = cartesian direction, (k=x,y,z) the Fifth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery of the Society
l = Liquid oil phase of Petroleum Engineers and the Department of Energy, Tulsa,
l = grid block index April 20-23, 1986.
n = number of components 9. Babadagli, T.: “Evaluation of EOR Methods for Heavy-Oil
p = fluid phase p Recovery in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” JPSE 37 (2003)
pro = production 25.
r = rock 10. Firoozabadi, A., Hauge, J.: “Capillary Pressure in Fractured
sat = saturation Porous Media,” JPT (June 1990) 784.
8 MODELING AND DESIGNING IMPROVED OIL RECOVERY BY STEAM INJECTION SPE 93574
IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

11. Dutra Jr., T. V., Aziz, K.: “ A New Double-Porosity Reservoir Table 1-Reservoir data.
Model for Oil/Water Flow Problems,” paper SPE 21248, Proc.,
Area of the pattern 339x339 ft (2.65 acre)
the 11th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Feb. 17-20, Simulation area 240x240 ft
1992. Grid block sizes in x-, y-direction 15-90-30-90-15 ft
12. Thomas, L. K. et al.: "Fractured Reservoir Simulation," SPEJ Grid system 5x5x3 parallel
(Feb. 1983) 42. Well radius 0.3 ft
13. Dean, R. H., Lo, L. L.: "Simulation of Naturally Fractured Depth to top of Layer 1 1500 ft
Reservoirs," SPERE (May 1988) 638. Matrix permeability 1 md
14. Rossen, R. H., Shen, E. I. C.: "Simulation of Gas/Oil Drainage Matrix porosity 0.29
and Water/Oil Imbibition in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," Fracture porosity 0.01
SPEREJ (Nov. 1989) 464. Matrix compressibility 5x10-4 vol/vol-psi
15. Gilman, R. J., Kazemi, H.: "Improvements in Simulation of Fracture compressibility 5x10-4 vol/vol-psi
Naturally Fractured Reservoirs," SPEJ (Aug. 1983) 695. Heat capacity
16. Saidi, A.M.: “Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs,” (reservoir, over/underburden) 35 Btu/ft3-0F
Oil phase heat of vaporization 0 Btu/lbm-0F
paper SPE 12270, Proc., the SPE Reservoir Simulation
Thermal conductivity
Symposium, San Francisco, CA, Nov. 15-18, 1983. (reservoir, over/underburden) 24 Btu/ft3-D-0F
17. Sonier, F. et al. "Numerical Simulation of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs," SPEREJ (Nov. 1988) 1114. Layer thickness and fracture permeabilties:
18. Festoy, S., Van Golf-Racht, T. D.: "Gas Gravity Drainage in kx , ky kz Thickness
Fractured Reservoirs Through New Dual-Continuum Approach," Layer md md ft
SPEREJ (Aug. 1989) 271. 1 100 50 30
19. Peng, D. Y. and Robinson, D. B. "Two- and Three-Phase 2 100 50 30
Equilibrium Calculations for Systems Containing Water," Cdn. 3 100 50 30
J. Chem. Eng. (Dec. 1976) 595.
20. Cicek, O. "Compositional and Non-Isothermal Simulation of CO2
Sequestration in Naturally Fractured Reservoirs/Coalbeds:
Development and Verification of the Model," paper SPE 84341, Table 2-Relative permeability and capillary pressure
Proc., the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, data.
Denver, 5-8 Oct, 2003. Pcla,f and Pclv,f is equal to zero.
Fracture relative permeability curves
are straight lines with Zero residuals High Pc Low Pc
Pcla,m Pcla,m
SI Metric Conversion Factors Sl+Sa,m krv,m krlv,m Sa,m kra,m krla,m psi psi
bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m3 0.35 0.54 0.000 0.20 0.0000 1.0000 26.00 1.00
Btu x 1.055 056 E+00 = kJ 0.40 0.53 0.002 0.25 0.0066 0.9900 22.00 0.50
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s 0.45 0.52 0.005 0.30 0.0130 0.9850 18.00 0.30
ft x 3.048*
E-01 = m 0.50 0.51 0.010 0.35 0.0150 0.9780 14.00 0.15
0.55 0.50 0.020 0.40 0.0250 0.9700 10.00 0.14
in. x 2.54* E+00 = cm 0.60 0.46 0.035 0.45 0.0500 0.9400 6.00 0.13
lbf x 4.448 222 E+00 = N 0.65 0.36 0.055 0.50 0.0803 0.8233 3.50 0.12
lbm/ft3 x 1.601 846 E+01 = kg/m3 0.70 0.28 0.080 0.55 0.1230 0.6500 2.75 0.11
md x 9.869 233 E-04 = µm2 0.75 0.20 0.120 0.60 0.1807 0.4667 2.00 0.10
0.80 0.12 0.180 0.65 0.2381 0.3000 1.50 0.09
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*
Conversion factor is exact. 0.85 0.06 0.250 0.70 0.3159 0.1516 1.10 0.08
0.90 0.02 0.380 0.75 0.4018 0.0650 0.85 0.07
0.95 0.00 0.600 0.80 0.5000 0.0200 0.60 0.06
1.00 0.00 1.000 0.85 0.6000 0.0000 0.50 0.05
 SPE 93574 O. CICEK 9

Table 3-PVT data.

Viscosities:
Comp. 1 in gas phase 0.5x10-4xT-4 (T, 0R) 240'
Comp. 2 in gas phase 1.0x10-4xT-4 (T, 0R)
Comp. 1 in oil phase 4.4x109xT-3.4 (T, 0R)
Comp. 2 in oil phase 20.0x109xT-3.4 (T, 0R)
Comp. 3 in oil phase:
Temperature Viscosity
0F cp
75 2890
100 690
150 94
200 24
250 9
300 4 Injection Well Production Well
350 2.5
500 1.2 Fig. 1-5x5x3-parallel grid system superimposed over one-half
element of symmetry of an inverted nine-spot pattern.
Properties of oil components:
Comp. 1 Comp. 2 Comp. 3
Mol. weight, lbm/lbmole 250 450 600
Specific heat, Btu/lbm-0R 0.53 0.55 0.6 1
Density, lbm/SCF 52.3 57.64 61.2 0.9 Dual-Permeability
Critical pressure, psi 225 140 - Single-Porosity
0.8

Oil Recovery, Fraction

Critical temperature, 0F 800 950 -
0.7 Dual-Porosity

Phase equilibrium (K-value): 0.6

Comp. 1, K1 0.5
(1.23+833.4x106/P)exp-(16000.0/T) (T, 0R; P, psi) 0.4
Comp. 2, K2
0.3
(212+155.4x103/P)exp-[4000.0/(T-480)] (T, 0R; P, psi)
0.2
0.1
0
Table 4-Initial and well operating conditions data.
0 0.5 1 1.5
Initial conditions: Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Temperature 125.0 0F
Pressure 75.0 psi
Component 1 fraction in oil phase 0.5030 Fig. 2-Efffect of mathematical modeling of the naturally fractured
reseroir on cumulative oil production for the full pattern.
Component 2 fraction in oil phase 0.1614
Component 3 fraction in oil phase 0.3356
Liquid phase saturation 0.2
Aqueous phase saturation 0.8 1
Vapor phase saturation 0.0
0.9
Well operating conditions: 0.8
Oil Recovery, Fraction

Perforated injection well layers 3 0.7

Perforated production well layers 1, 2, 3 0.6
Minimum production well pressure 17.0 psi
0.5
Maximum production rate of liquids 1000.0 STB/D
Maximum steam production rate 10.0 STB (CWE)/D 0.4
Maximum injection well pressure 1000.0 psi 0.3 Dual-Permeability
Maximum injection rate 300 STB (CWE)/D 0.2 Single Porosity
Steam quality 0.7 Dual-Porosity
0.1
Steam temperature 450.0 0F
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction

Fig. 3-Efffect of mathematical modeling of the naturally fractured

reseroir on cumulative oil production for the full pattern (MBS=1
ft).
10 MODELING AND DESIGNING IMPROVED OIL RECOVERY BY STEAM INJECTION SPE 93574
IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

1 1
0.9 Dual-Permeability 0.9 Pc=Zero
0.8 Single-Porosity 0.8 Pc=High

Oil Recovery, Fraction

Oil Recovery, Fraction

Dual-Porosity 0.7
0.7 Pc=Low
0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction

Fig. 4-Efffect of mathematical modeling of the naturally fractured Fig. 7-Efffect of matrix water-oil capillary pressure on cumulative
reseroir on cumulative oil production for the full pattern (MBS=15 oil production for the full pattern, using the dual-permeability
ft). modeling.

1
1
Dual-Permeability 0.9
0.9
Single-Porosity 0.8

Oil Recovery, Fraction

0.8
Oil Recovery, Fraction

Dual-Porosity 0.7
0.7
0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
Pc=Low
0.2 0.2
Pc=Zero
0.1 0.1 Pc=High
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction Pore Volume Injected, Fraction

Fig. 5-Efffect of mathematical modeling of the naturally fractured Fig. 8-Efffect of matrix water-oil capillary pressure on cumulative
reseroir on cumulative oil production for the full pattern oil production for the full pattern, using the single-porosity
(Pcla,m=Zero). modeling.

1 1
MBS=15 ft
0.9 Pc=Zero 0.9
MBS=7.5 ft
0.8 0.8
Oil Recovery, Fraction

Pc=High
Oil Recovery, Fraction

MBS=1 ft
0.7 0.7
Pc=Low
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction Pore Volume Injected, Fraction

Fig. 6-Efffect of matrix water-oil capillary pressure on cumulative Fig. 9-Efffect of the matrix block size on cumulative oil production
oil production for the full pattern using the dual-porosity for the full pattern using dual-porosity modeling.
modeling.
 SPE 93574 O. CICEK 11

1 1
0.9 MBS=15 ft 0.9 MBS=15 ft
0.8 MBS=7.5 ft MBS=7.5 ft
0.8
Oil Recovery, Fraction

Oil Recovery, Fraction

MBS=1 ft MBS=1 ft
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction

Fig. 10-Efffect of the matrix block size on cumulative oil Fig. 13-Efffect of the matrix block size on cumulative oil
production for the full pattern using dual-permeability modeling. production for the full pattern using dual-porosity modeling
(Pcla,m=Zero, km=10 md).

1
MBS=15 ft 1
0.9
MBS=7.5 ft 0.9 MBS=15 ft
0.8
Oil Recovery, Fraction

MBS=1 ft 0.8 MBS=7.5 ft

0.7

Oil Recovery, Fraction

MBS=1 ft
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Fig. 11-Efffect of the matrix block size on cumulative oil
production for the full pattern using dual-porosity modeling Fig. 14-Efffect of the matrix block size on cumulative oil
(Pcla,m=Zero). production for the full pattern using dual-permeability modeling
(Pcla,m=Zero, km=10 md).

1
MBS=15 ft 1
0.9
MBS=7.5 ft 0.9 km=High
0.8 km=Low
Oil Recovery, Fraction

MBS=1 ft 0.8 km=Medium

0.7
Oil Recovery, Fraction

0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4 0.5

0.3 0.4

0.2 0.3

0.1 0.2

0 0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 0
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Fig. 12-Efffect of the matrix block size on cumulative oil
production for the full pattern using dual-permeability modeling Fig. 15-Efffect of matrix absolute permeability on cumulative oil
(Pcla,m=Zero). production for the full pattern using the dual-porosity modeling
(Pcla,m=High, MBS=15 ft).
12 MODELING AND DESIGNING IMPROVED OIL RECOVERY BY STEAM INJECTION SPE 93574
IN NATURALLY FRACTURED RESERVOIRS

1 1
0.9 km=High 0.9 kf=Medium
0.8 km=Low 0.8 kf=Low
Oil Recovery, Fraction

Oil Recovery, Fraction

0.7 km=Medium kf=High
0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction Time, Days

Fig. 16-Efffect of matrix absolute permeability on cumulative oil Fig. 19-Efffect of frature absolute permeability on cumulative oil
production for the full pattern using the dual-permeability production for the full pattern using the single-porosity modeling.
modeling (Pcla,m=Zero, MBS=1 ft).

0.6
1 Qi=100 STB/D
0.9 kf=Medium 0.5 Qi=300 STB/D

Oil Recovery, Fraction

0.8 Qi=600 STB/D
Oil Recovery, Fraction

kf=Low
0.7 0.4

0.6 kf=High
0.3
0.5
0.4 0.2
0.3
0.2 0.1
0.1
0
0
0 500 1000 1500
0 0.5 1 1.5
Time, Days
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction
Fig. 20-Efffect of steam injection rate on cumulative oil production
Fig. 17-Efffect of fracture absolute permeability on cumulative oil for the full pattern using dual-porosity modeling (Pcla,m=High).
production for the full pattern using the dual-porosity modeling.

1
0.9 kf=Medium
0.8
Oil Recovery, Fraction

kf=Low
0.7
kf=High 0.6
0.6
0.5 0.5
Oil Recovery, Fraction

0.4
0.3 0.4
0.2
0.3
0.1
0 Qi=100 STB/D
0.2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Qi=300 STB/D
Time, Days 0.1
Qi=600 STB/D
Fig. 18-Efffect of frature absolute permeability on cumulative oil 0
production for the full pattern using the dual-porosity modeling.
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Pore Volume Injected, Fraction

Fig. 21-Efffect of steam injection rate on cumulative oil production

for the full pattern using dual-porosity modeling (Pcla,m=High).