Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in
Bakersfield, California, 2630 March 2001.
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
The complexity associated to naturally fractured formations
constrains reservoir engineers to use simplified versions of the
Material Balance Equation for determining the initial
hydrocarbon in place and predicting reservoir performance.
Although in particular cases a limited variant of the MBE may
end up in small volumetric errors, the risk of using it is
extremely high.
In this paper, a new material balance equation for naturally
fractured reservoirs is presented by using an original
mathematical model that considers an initially-undersaturated
black-oil fluid in a porous medium composed of
interdependent matrix and fracture systems.
The proposed equation leads to an improved method of
modeling naturally fractured reservoirs by considering the
compressibility difference between fractured and matrix
systems. Particularly, the analysis displays its capability in
reservoirs that have similar storage capacity in matrix and
fractures. Modeling separate estimates of oil accumulation
have significant economic implications. Poor fracture-matrix
communication will give initially high oil rates that drop
quickly because oil is basically produced from the fracture
network. Pore pressure reduction due to production will tend
to close fractures leaving behind considerable oil reserves in
the matrix system. Estimates of original oil in-place both in
the matrix as well as in the fracture system will help reservoir
and production engineers to decide on exploitation strategies
for these complex reservoirs.
Our proposed equation has been applied to synthetic as
well as field examples. Synthetic examples are used to
validate the approach and examine the sensitivity to the
average fracture compressibility. The field example is from El
Segundo field, a low porosity carbonate reservoir in
Colombia. Our example includes 8 producers located along
the main fracture trend of the field and illustrates the
feasibility of the approach for large-scale field applications.
Introduction
Material balance calculations are very well established
techniques that apply the law of conservation of matter to
petroleum engineering. Since Schilthuis
1
first presented the
derivation of the volumetric material balance equation (MBE),
several MBE have been presented for single-porosity
reservoirs
2-7
.
One of the basic assumptions of conventional MBE is that
rock properties, such as porosity and compressibility, are
uniform throughout the reservoir. For dual-porosity media, as
encountered in naturally fractured reservoirs (NFR), this
assumption is no longer valid. Fracture and matrix porosity
values change differently with pressure changes since
fractures are highly compressible compared to the matrix (Fig.
1)
8
.
Using the uniform reservoir compressibility assumption,
MBE have also been derived for coal seam gas
9,10
reservoirs,
which are characterized for being dual-porosity systems. In
conclusion, there is not a MBE specifically derived for NFR
that considers the compressibility difference between fractured
and matrix systems.
From a storage capacity point of view, NFR can be
classified into three groups
11
. Reservoirs of type A have high
storage capacity in the matrix system and low storage capacity
in the fractured system, reservoirs of type B have about similar
storage capacity in matrix and fractures, and in reservoirs of
type C, the storage capacity is exclusively in the fracture
network.
For reservoirs of type A and C, conventional MBE are
applicable since single-porosity model assumptions holds.
However, there is an important number of NFR in which
fractures not only assist permeability in an already producible
reservoir matrix but also contribute with storage capacity. For
these reservoirs of type B, a new MBE was derived.
SPE 68831
A New Material-Balance Equation for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs Using a Dual-
System Approach
Gherson Penuela, University of Oklahoma; Eduardo A. Idrobo, Anibal Ordonez, Carlos E. Medina, and Nestor S. Meza,
ECOPETROL-ICP
2 GHERSON PENUELA, ALEJANDRO IDROBO, ANIBAL ORDONEZ, CARLOS E. MEDINA, NESTOR MEZA SPE 68831
The proposed equation is applicable to initially-
undersaturated black-oil fluids in a porous media (matrix) and
that is produced through a fractured network. The graphical
method of solution of Havlena and Odeh
12
is applied and
estimates of both original oil in-place in the fractured and
matrix systems are obtained.
Model Assumptions
The derivation of the volumetric MBE is based on the
following idealizations:
1. The reservoir is an isothermal system.
2. The reservoir is composed of four components: stock-tank
oil, surface-gas, production water and naturally fractured
rock.
3. The reservoir is composed of four phases: oil, gas, water
and naturally fractured rock.
4. The stock-tank oil component exists only in the oil-phase
and does not partition into the water-, gas-, or rock-
phases.
5. In the reservoir, the surface gas component exists free in
the gas-phase and dissolved in the oil-phase.
6. The water component exists in an immobile water-phase
that, for material balance purpose, only reduces the pore
space available for hydrocarbon accumulation and flow.
7. The rock component exists only in the rock-phase.
8. The rock-phase is composed of two porous media in
hydraulic communication: the fractured system and the
(primary porosity) rock-matrix system.
9. The fracture and porous matrix systems are compressible.
10. There is no water influx and water production is
negligible.
11. There is no fluid injection (water and/or gas) into the
reservoir.
12. The fracture porosity, rock-matrix porosity and initial
water saturation are uniform throughout the reservoir.
13. The reservoir pressure is uniform throughout the
reservoir, which implies that there are no vertical or
horizontal pressure gradients.
The previous assumptions are a modified version of those
used in single-porosity models
7
.
The above statements define a fluid type known as black-
oil which is assumed to have an initial pressure above the
bubble point pressure. Below the bubble point pressure, gas
evolves from the solution and flow either to the top of the
formation or to the well through the fractures. Therefore,
surface gas comes from the free gas-phase and the gas
dissolved in the oil-phase.
NFR are ideal examples for testing MBE. One of the
reasons why volumetric MBE works so well is due to the high
communication of pressure through the fracture system
making the assumption of reservoirs with tank like behavior
to be valid
6
.
Material Balance Equation
The general form of the MBE for NFR is
( )
[ ]
( )
( )
N B R R B
N B B R R B
c S c
S
p B
N B B R R B
c S c
S
p B
p o p s g
o oi si s g
w wi m
wi
oi
o oi si s g
w wfi f
wfi
oi
+
+ +
+

j
(
,
\
,
(

+
+ +
+

j
(
,
\
,
(

1
2
1
1

...................................................................................... (1)
where N
1
is the original oil in-place in the rock matrix and N
2
is the original oil in-place in the fractures, N
p
is the cumulative
produced oil and R
p
is the cumulative produced gas-oil ratio,
c
m
is the average matrix compressibility and c
f
is the average
fracture compressibility. Definitions of the remaining
variables are given in the nomenclature, and details on the
derivation are presented in Appendix A.
Graphical Solution of the Material Balance Equation
A very useful solution method of the MBE was presented by
Havlena and Odeh
12
. This method, known as the straight-line
method, consists of rearranging the MBE to obtain variable
groups that are plotted to result in a straight line.
Therefore, if the following variables are defined
( )
[ ]
F N B R R B
p o p s g
+ ..................................... (2)
( ) E B B R R B
c S c
S
p B
o o oi si s g
w wi m
wi
oi 1
1
+ +
+

j
(
,
\
,
(
............................................................................................ (3)
( ) E B B R R B
c S c
S
p B
o o oi si s g
w wfi f
wfi
oi 2
1
+ +
+

j
(
,
\
,
(
............................................................................................ (4)
Eq. 1 can be expressed in the following compact form
F N E N E
o o
+
1 1 2 2
................................................... (5)
where E
o1
represents the net expansion of the original oil-
phase in the matrix system and E
o2
is the net expansion of the
original oil-phase in the fracture network.
Diagnostic plots can be constructed as Havlena and Odeh
proposed. The rearranged MBE can be written as follows
F
E
N N
E
E
o
o
o 1
1 2
2
1
+ ................................................... (6)
Therefore, a plot of
F
E
o1
vs.
E
E
o
o
2
1
should result in a
straight line with slope N
2
and y-intercept N
1
. This diagnostic
plot is presented in Fig. 2.
SPE 68831 A NEW MBE FOR NFR USING A DUAL-SYSTEM APPROACH 3
Application to hypothetic reservoirs
To test the accuracy of the proposed MBE, three hypothetical
cases of oil production from a NFR were designed. Case 1
models a situation where the oil in the fracture media is twice
the oil in the matrix. In case 2, it is assumed that the initial oil
in both systems is equal, and in case 3, the initial oil in-place
in the matrix system is twice the oil in the fracture media. In
all cases, a single well is used to drain a square reservoir.
Petrophysical and fluid properties used for all cases are
given in Tables 1 and 2 and Fig 3. Production data were
obtained from a finite-difference reservoir simulator that
handles a dual-porosity system and whose volumetric
estimates of N
1
and N
2
were used to validate results obtained
from MBE calculations.
Fig. 4 shows the finite-difference-generated production
profile and the reservoir pressure decline curve. In all three
cases the same production profile was used and therefore a
different pressure decline was observed.
Using the PV-weighted average reservoir pressure
obtained from the simulator, the calculation of oil in-place was
performed with the proposed equation. Table 3 summarizes
the results and shows a comparison with volumetric estimates.
Even though errors in material balance calculations were
less 5%, several limitations of the proposed MBE were found
during modeling. Errors greater than 30% are encountered
when the equation is applied to production data from a
reservoir where 3 to 5% of it oil has been recovered. Fig. 5
shows the typical curvature that the diagnostic plot initially
presents and the starting point of the straight line used to
calculate oil in-place in case 2. There are several factors that
influence the early shape of the curve in Fig. 5. One of them is
that initially not all the reservoir pore volume has been
contacted. Secondly, all production initially comes from the
fractures and the pressure drop propagates faster along the
fracture network until the matrix begins to fill up the fractures.
This phenomenon is seen in Fig. 5 as the reduction of the
slope (N
2
) and the increase of the intercept (N
1
) with recovery.
This should not been observed in reservoirs with several wells
that help to establish an uniform pressure drop throughout the
reservoir, contacting rapidly all the effective porosity.
The MBE is valid as long as there is good communication
between matrix and fracture media. In reservoirs with poor
communication between media (low matrix permeability), it is
very difficult to reach the average reservoir pressure through
the traditional transient tests, i.e., pressure buildup tests, in
short periods of time. Because the reservoir simulator that was
used to generate the synthetic data does not handle transient
flow between fracture and matrix media, this limitation was
not explored.
In the case where the matrix media contains oil several
times more than the fractured media, the proposed MBE under
predict early production of gas. This event occurs when the
average reservoir pressure is above the bubble point pressure,
p
b
, and the pressure in the fracture system, especially in the
near-wellbore region, is below p
b
. Therefore, data points that
correspond to reservoir pressures just above the bubble point
pressure should be ignored.
Finally, the sensitivity of fracture compressibility on initial
oil in-place calculation was studied. One of the reason for this
study is because fracture compressibility is more dependent on
scale than the matrix compressibility, and therefore, it is more
uncertain its determination. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 present the
effects of fracture compressibility on N
1
and N
2
respectively.
Uncertainties in low values of fracture compressibility have a
strong effect in the estimation of the initial oil in-place both in
the matrix and the fracture media. These effects should be
considered when assessing uncertainties involved in an initial
oil in-place calculation with material balance techniques.
Application to a field case: El Segundo field
El Segundo field is located 128 miles northwest of Bogota in
the Middle Magdalena Basin of Colombia. The discovery
well, El Segundo 1E (ELS-1E), was completed in 1996 and
flowed at 3500 STB/D. By 2000, 13 wells had been drilled
and 8 were producers.
The producing zone is the Cimarrona formation, a
naturally fractured carbonate. Table 4 summarizes the present
interpretation of the reservoir rock and fluid properties.
Extensive pressure transient test were performed to
evaluate reservoir flow capacity. It was found an excellent
reservoir communication due to the fracture network. Fig. 8
shows how reservoir pressure data observed in different wells
fall into one straight line.
Three data points were available to calculate the original
oil in-place (Table 5) and to perform analyses with the MBE.
Fig 9 presents the diagnostic assuming the NFR is either type
A or type C. By using the typical MBE and compressibility of
the primary porosity, the assumed reservoir type A would
have 188 MMSTB. On the other hand, the assumed reservoir
type C would have an initial oil in-place of 80 MMSTB using
fracture compressibility. These two limiting cases show why
reserves estimation of a NFR is so uncertain.
If the proposed equation for reservoirs type B is applied
(Fig. 10), the analysis shows that the reservoir mainly has the
reserves stored in the fractured system and poor
communication between media will leave behind important oil
reserves. It is also observed from the negative value obtained
from the y-intercept of the straight line in Fig. 10 that not all
matrix porosity has been contacted and reserves calculated
under the assumption of a reservoir type A are not correct.
Several comments on the accuracy of this calculation are
required. Spite of the good communication between wells,
effects due to low recovery are important. This can be
observed in the fact data points that were analyzed are not in
the proper straight line for oil in-place estimation (compare
with Fig. 5).
The range of values for initial oil in-place shows a
minimum value of 80 MMSTB assuming no significant oil
accumulation in the matrix. A maximum value of 157
MMSTB needs to be corrected with further production data.
Finally, limited data make the whole calculation uncertain.
Error associated with the only data points used in the latter
calculation can drastically influence the estimates, which
should the used with caution.
4 GHERSON PENUELA, ALEJANDRO IDROBO, ANIBAL ORDONEZ, CARLOS E. MEDINA, NESTOR MEZA SPE 68831
Conclusions
A new MBE was presented and synthetic and field cases were
used to demonstrate and validate the accuracy of the equation.
The proposed equation can be used to calculate the initial
oil in place in undersaturated reservoirs whose rock contains
fractures.
The most important assumption used in the derivation of
the equation with the dual system approach is the
instantaneous flow of hydrocarbons from the matrix to the
fracture media. In reservoirs with limited communication
between media, large errors in oil in-place calculations are
expected.
Synthetic cases showed that the proposed equation could
be used to valuate the influence of compressibility
uncertainties on oil in-place calculations. Uncertainties in low
values of fracture compressibility will have larger impact oil
in-place estimates.
Finally, the field case showed that the proposed equation is
simple to used and will help the reservoir engineer to obtain a
simultaneous estimation of oil stored both in the matrix and
the fracture systems in a naturally fractured formation.
Nomenclature
B
o
= Oil FVF, rb/STB
B
g
= Gas FVF, rb/STB
c
f
= Average matrix compressibility, psi
-1
c
m
= Average fracture compressibility, psi
-1
c
w
= Water compressibility, psi
-1
E
o1
= Net expansion of the original oil-phase in the
matrix system, rb/STB
E
o2
= Net expansion of the original oil-phase in the
fracture network, rb/STB
F = Net fluid withdrawal, rb
k
ro
= Relative permeability to oil phase, dimensionless
k
rg
= Relative permeability to gas phase, dimensionless
N
p
= Cumulative produced oil, STB
N
1
= Original oil in-place in the rock matrix, STB
N
2
= Original oil in-place in the fractures, STB
R
s
= Solution oil-gas ratio, scf/STB
R
p
= Cumulative produced gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
p = Pressure, psia
S
w
= Water saturation, dimensionless
t = Time, days
= Porosity, fraction
= Viscosity, cp
Subscripts
f = Fracture
g = Gas phase
i = Initial value
o = Oil phase
w = Water phase
Acknowledgments
Authors will like to thank ECOPETROL-ICP for funding this
research project and permission to present the main results of
this study.
References
1. Schilthuis, R.J.: Active Oil and Reservoir Energy, Trans.
AIME (1936) 148, 33-52.
2. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production. McGraw-
Hill, New York (1949).
3. Pirson, S.J.: Oil reservoir Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New
York (1958).
4. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M. and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering - Physical Properties. McGraw-Hill,
New York (1960).
5. Craft, B.C., Hawkins, M.F., Jr. and Terry, R.E.: Applied
Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Second edition. Prentice
Hall, Inc., New Jersey (1991).
6. Dake, L.P.: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering.
Developments in Petroleum Science 36, Elsevier Science B.V.
(1994).
7. Walsh, M.P.: A Generalized Approach to Reservoir Material
Balance Calculations, JCPT (Jan. 1995) 55-63.
8. Nelson, R.A.: Geologic Analysis of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1985).
9. King, G.R.: Material-Balance Techniques for Coal-Seam and
Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs with Limited Water Influx,
SPERE (Feb. 1993) 67-72.
10. Penuela, G., Ordonez, A., and Bejarano, A.: A Generalized
Material Balance Equation for Coal Seam Gas Reservoirs,
paper SPE 49225 prepared for presentation at the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans (Sep. 1998).
11. Aguilera, R. Geologic Aspects of Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs, The Leading Edge (Dec. 1998).
12. Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an
Equation of a Straight-Line, JPT (Aug. 1963) 896-900, Trans.
AIME 228.
Appendix A - Derivation of the Material Balance
Equation for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Applying the assumptions given previously, the derivation of
MBE for NFR is carried out based on the idealistic model
shown in Fig. A-1.
A volumetric material balance in the fractured system
demands
V V V V V V V V V V
ofi gfi of gf o g o g fw f
+ + + + + +
2 2 1 1 2 2

.......................................................................................... (A-1)
The initial oil that is in the fractured system is
V N B
ofi oi

2
............................................................. (A-2)
The gas that is initially in the fractured system is given by
V
gfi
0..................................................................... (A-3)
SPE 68831 A NEW MBE FOR NFR USING A DUAL-SYSTEM APPROACH 5
because an initially-undersaturated oil was assumed there is no
free gas. The oil in the fractured system after a pressure drop
is estimated as follows
V N B
of o 2 2
............................................................. (A-4)
And the free gas present in the fracture media after the
same pressure drop is calculated from
( ) V N R R B
gf si s g 2 2
............................................ (A-5)
where the original oil in-place in the fractured media is
calculated as follows
( )
N
V S
B
b fi wfi
oi
2
1

................................................ (A-6)
On the other hand, the oil that comes from the rock matrix
system is calculated as the expanded oil of the original
accumulation according to the following volumetric material
balance in the matrix system
V N B V V N B
o o p w oi 1 1 1
+ + ........................ (A-7)
where
( )
N
V S
B
b mi wi
oi
1
1

................................................ (A-8)
V V c p
p b mi m
.................................................... (A-9)
V V S c p
w b mi wi w
...............................................(A-10)
Substituting Eqs. 8-10 into Eq. 7, the following expression
is obtained
V N B B
c S c
S
p B
o o oi
w w m
wi
oi 1 1
1
+
+

j
(
,
\
,
(
,

,
]
]
]
..........(A-11)
The free gas phase is assumed to flow directly to the
fractured system as soon it evolves from the solution in the
matrix system. The free gas that enters the fractures is
( ) V N R R B
g si s g 1 1
.............................................(A-12)
The production stream is composed of oil, which is
calculated from
V N B
o p o 2
.............................................................(A-13)
and a gas volume, which is estimated from the following
expression
( )
V N R R B
g p p s g 2
............................................(A-14)
The expansion of the fracture pore volume is given by
V V c p
f b f f
.................................................... (A-15)
and the net expansion of the connate water in the fracture
system is
V V S c p
w b f w w
................................................ (A-16)
Substituting the previous equations into Eq. A-1, the MBE
for NFR with an initially undersaturated oil is obtained
( )
[ ]
( )
( )
N B R R B
N B B R R B
c S c
S
p B
N B B R R B
c S c
S
p B
p o p s g
o oi si s g
w wi m
wi
oi
o oi si s g
w wfi f
wfi
oi
+
+ +
+

j
(
,
\
,
(

+
+ +
+

j
(
,
\
,
(

1
2
1
1

.................................................................................. (A-17)
SI Metric Conversion Factor
acre 4.046 873 E+03 = m
2
bbl 1.589 874 E01 = m
3
cp 1.0
*
E03 = Pa.s
ft 3.048
*
E01 = m
ft
3
2.831 685 E02 = m
3
o
F (
o
F-32)/1.8 =
o
C
md 9.869 233 E04 = m
2
psi 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.
Table 1. Reservoir and fluid data used in the synthetic example
Reservoir data
Productive area
Reservoir thickness
Matrix permeability
Matrix compressibility
Fracture permeability
Fracture compressibility
Initial water saturation in
the matrix system
Initial water saturation in
the fractured system
826 acres
50 ft
10 md
310
-6
psi
-1
300 md
310
-5
psi
-1
20%
5%
Fluid data
Oil gravity
Gas specific gravity
Water compressibility
Initial reservoir pressure
Bubble point pressure
30
o
API
0.7 (air = 1)
310
-6
psi
-1
3810 psia
2000 psia
6 GHERSON PENUELA, ALEJANDRO IDROBO, ANIBAL ORDONEZ, CARLOS E. MEDINA, NESTOR MEZA SPE 68831
Table 2. PVT data used in the synthetic example
p
o
B
o
Rso
g
B
g
psia cp rb/STB scf/STB cp rb/scf
1000 1.1252 1.1653 150.01 0.01465 0.003082
1500 0.9241 1.1976 242.07 0.01582 0.001991
2000 0.7866 1.2322 340.62 0.01726 0.001467
2500 0.8270 1.2238 340.62 0.01890 0.001171
3000 0.8763 1.2182 340.62 0.02066 0.000987
3500 0.9333 1.2142 340.62 0.02247 0.000865
4000 0.9973 1.2112 340.62 0.02427 0.000779
Table 3. Comparison of original oil in-place calculation
Simulator MBE for NFR
MMSTB N
1
N
2
N
1
N
2
Case 1 2.38 4.75 2.49 4.60
Case 2 4.75 4.75 4.79 4.54
Case 3 9.50 4.75 9.80 4.58
Table 4. Description of El Segundo Field
Productive area
Reservoir thickness
Depth
Reservoir temperature
Permeability
Matrix compressibility
Fracture compressibility
Initial water saturation
Oil gravity
Gas specific gravity
Initial reservoir pressure
Bubble point pressure
13544 acres
135 ft
5600 ft TVD
130F
1100 md
(from 50 md to 15000 md)
310
-6
psi
-1
6.510
-5
psi
-1
0%
19
o
API
0.6 (air = 1)
1654 psia
1574 psia
Table 5. Production data used in original oil in-place calculation
Time p Np Gp
days psia M STB MM SCF
0 1654 0 0
1204 1604 386 120.1
1431 1536 785 232.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 2000 4000 6000
Confining Pressure, psi

/

5
0
0

m
(Matrix)

f
(Fracture)
Fig. 1 Normalized porosity of the fractured and matrix systems as
a function of hydrostatic confining pressure (After Nelson
8
).

F
E
o1

E
E
o
o
2
1
N
2

N
1

Fig. 2 Diagnostic plot for initially-undersaturated NFR.
SPE 68831 A NEW MBE FOR NFR USING A DUAL-SYSTEM APPROACH 7
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Phase saturation, fraction
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
0.1
1
10
100
1000
C
a
p
i
l
l
a
r
y

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
kro
krg
Pcgo m
Pcgo f
Fig. 3 Relative permeability for the matrix system and capillary
pressure data.
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time, days
A
v
g
.


r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i
a
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
F
l
o
w

r
a
t
e
,

S
T
B
/
D
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Qo
Fig. 4 Production profile and reservoir pressure decline curve
used in hypothetical cases.
y = 4.7883 x + 4.5434
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2 3 4 5
E
o2
/E
o1
, fraction
F
/
E
o
1
,

M
M
S
T
B
Np/N = 3.5%
Np/N = 7.2%
Fig. 5 Diagnostic plot for case 2
0
3
6
9
12
15
0 30 60 90 120 150
Fracture compressibility, psi
-1
x10
6
N
1
,

M
M
S
T
B
1x10^-6
2x10^-6
3x10^-6
4x10^-6
Compressibility of the
primary porous media
Fig. 6 Effects of compressibility in the estimation of the original
oil in the matrix system.
8 GHERSON PENUELA, ALEJANDRO IDROBO, ANIBAL ORDONEZ, CARLOS E. MEDINA, NESTOR MEZA SPE 68831
0
3
6
9
12
15
0 30 60 90 120 150
Fracture compressibility, psi
-1
x10
6
N
2
,

M
M
S
T
B
1x10^-6
2x10^-6
3x10^-6
4x10^-6
Compressibility of the
primary porous media
Fig. 7 Effects of compressibility in the estimation of the original
oil in the fracture network.
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Pressure , psia
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
ES1S
ES1N
ES1E
ES2E
ES3E
ES6E
TP1E
TP1W
Fig. 8 Pressure communication among the eight producing wells.
y = 188.2 x
y = 79.9 x
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016
E
o1
or E
o2
, rb/STB
F
,

M
M

r
b
NFR
Type A
NFR
Type C
Fig. 9 Diagnostic plot for El Segundo field assuming reservoir
types A and C.
y = 157.47x - 196.16
0
400
800
1200
0 2 4 6 8
E
o2
/E
o1
, fraction
F
/
E
o
1
,

M
M
S
T
B
Np/N = 0.37%
Np/N = 0.76%
NFR
Type B
Fig. 10 Diagnostic plot for El Segundo field assuming reservoir
type B.
SPE 68831 A NEW MBE FOR NFR USING A DUAL-SYSTEM APPROACH 9

Vgm Vgm Vgm
Vom
Vo1
Vg1
Vo2
Vg2
Vof
Vgf
Vgs
Np
Gp
Rock Matrix
System
Fractured
System
Fig. A-1 Volumetric material balance in the fractured system.