Advertisement

Compositional Flow in Fractured Porous Media: Mathematical Background and Basic Physics

  • Leonardo Di G. Sigalotti
  • Eloy SiraEmail author
  • Leonardo Trujillo
  • Jaime Klapp
Conference paper
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)

Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of the equations describing the flow of multiphase and multicomponent fluids through fractured and unfractured porous media using the framework of continuum mixture theory. The model equations and constraint relationships are described by steps of increasing level of complexity. We first describe the governing equations for multiphase flow in both undeformable and deformable porous media. This model is extended to include the transport of chemical species by first describing the flow of a multicomponent, single-phase fluid and then of a compositional (multiphase and multicomponent) fluid in a porous medium. Finally, the equations governing the flow of compositional fluids in fractured porous media are described. The proposed methodology is suitable for modelling any type of fractured media, including dual-, triple-, and multiple-continuum conceptual models.

Keywords

Porous Medium Capillary Pressure Relative Permeability Fluid Phase Multiphase Flow 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología of Mexico (CONACyT) under the project CONACyT-EDOMEX-2011-C01-165873.

References

  1. Adler PM, Brenner H (1988) Multiphase flow in porous media. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 20:35–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen MB (1985) Numerical modelling of multiphase flow in porous media. Adv Water Res 8:162–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaefule JO, Handy LL (1982) The effect of interfacial tensions on relative oil/water permeabilities of consolidated porous media. Soc Pet Eng J 22:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amiri A, Vafai K (1994) Analysis of dispersion effects and non-thermal equilibrium, non-Darcian, variable porosity incompressible flow through porous media. Int J Heat Mass Transf 37:939–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai M, Elsworth D, Roegiers J-C (1993) Multiporosity/multipermeability approach to the simulation of naturally fractured reservoirs. Water Resour Res 29:1621–1633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardon C, Longeron DG (1980) Influence of interfacial tensions on relative permeability. Soc Pet Eng J, 391–401Google Scholar
  7. Barenblatt GI, Zheltov IP (1960) Fundamental equations of filtration of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks. Sov Phys-Doklady 5:522–525Google Scholar
  8. Barenblatt GI, Zheltov IP, Kochina IN (1960) Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks. J Appl Math Mech 24:1286–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bear J (1988) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Bear J, Berkowitz B (1987) Groundwater flow and pollution in fractured rock aquifers. In: Novak P (ed) Development of hydraulic engineering, vol 4. Elsevier Applied Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen Z (2007) Homogenization and simulation for compositional flow in naturally fractured reservoirs. J Math Anal Appl 326:12–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Z, Huan G, Ma Y (2006) Computational methods for multiphase flows in porous media. SIAM, PhiladelphiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coats K (1980) An equation-of-state compositional model. Soc Pet Eng J, 363–376Google Scholar
  14. Ellenbroek WG, van Hecke M, van Saarloos W (2009) Jammed frictionless disks: connecting global and local response. Phys Rev E 80:061307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firoozabadi A (2000) Recovery mechanisms in fractured reservoirs and field performance. J Can Pet Technol 39(11):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forchheimer P (1901) Wasserbewegung durch Boden. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure 45:1736–1741Google Scholar
  17. Frisch U (1968) Wave propagation in random media. In: Bharucha-Reid AT (ed) Probabilistic methods in applied mathematics. Academic Press, New York, pp 75–198Google Scholar
  18. Hewett TA (1986) Fractal distributions of reservoir heterogeneity and their influence on fluid transport. In: 61st annual technical conference and exhibition of the society of petroleum engineers, SPE Paper 15386, New Orleans, Louisiana, 5–8 October 1986Google Scholar
  19. Hoa NT, Gaudu R, Thirriot C (1977) Influence of the hysteresis effect on transient flows in saturated-unsaturated porous media. Water Resour Res 13:992–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kang Z, Wu YS, Li J, Wu Y, Zhang J, Wang G (2006) A triple-continuum numerical model for simulating multiphase flow in naturally fractured vuggy petroleum reservoirs. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. SPE Paper 102356, San Antonio, Texas, 24–27 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  21. Karal FC, Keller JB (1964) Elastic, electromagnetic, and other waves in a random medium. J Math Phys 5:537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Khoei AR, Mohammadnejad T (2011) Numerical modeling of multiphase flow in deforming porous media: a comparison between two- and three-phase models for seismic analysis of earth and rockfill dams. Comput Geotech 38(2):142–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lake LW (1996) Enhanced oil recovery. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  24. Larose E (2006) Mesoscopics of ultrasound and seismic waves: application to passive imaging. Annales de Physique 31(3):1–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemonnier P, Bourbiaux B (2010a) Simulation of naturally fracture reservoirs. State of the art. Part 1. Physical mechanisms and simulator formulation. Oil Gas Sci Technol - Rev IFP 65(2):239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemonnier P, Bourbiaux B (2010b) Simulation of naturally fracture reservoirs. State of the art. Part 2. Matrix-fracture transfers and typical features of numerical studies. Oil Gas Sci Technol - Rev IFP 65(2):263–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lichtner PC (1988) The quasi-stationary state approximation to coupled mass transport and fluid-rock interaction in a porous media. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 52:143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu HH, Ahlers CF, Cushey MA (2000) Analysis of hydrologic properties. Report ANL-NBS-HS-000002. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&OGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu JC, Bodvarsson GS, Wu YS (2003) Analysis of pressure behavior in fractured lithophysal reservoirs. J Contam Hydrol 62–63:189–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manrique EJ, Muci VE, Gurfinkel ME (2007) EOR field experiences in carbonate reservoirs in the United States. SPE Reser Eval Eng 10(6):667–686Google Scholar
  31. Mätthai SK, Belayneh M (2004) Fluid flow partitioning between fractures and a permeable rock matrix. Geophys Res Lett 31(7):7602–7606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mei CC, Auriault J-L (1991) The effect of weak inertia on flow through a porous medium. J Fluid Mech 222:647–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller CT, Christakos G, Imhoff PT, l, McBride JF, Pedit JA et al (1998) Multiphase flow and transport modeling in heterogeneous porous media: challenges and approaches. Adv Water Res 21(2):77–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morel-Seytoux HJ (1969) Introduction to flow of immiscible liquids in porous media. In: De Weist RJM (ed) Flow through porous media. Academic Press, New York, pp 456–516Google Scholar
  35. Parker JC (1989) Multiphase flow and transport in porous media. Rev Geophys 27:311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peaceman DW (1966) Improved treatment of dispersion in numerical calculation of multidimensional miscible displacements. Soc Pet Eng J 6:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips OM (1991) Flow and reactions in permeable rocks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Pruess K, Narasimhan TN (1985) A practical method for modeling fluid and heat flow in fractured porous media. Soc Pet Eng J 25:14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ryzhik L, Papanicolaou G, Keller JB (1996) Transport equation for elastic and other waves in random media. Wave Motion 24:327–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sabathier JC, Bourbiaux B, Cacas MC, Sarda S (1998) A new approach of fractured reservoirs. In: SPE international petroleum conference and exhibition. SPE Paper 39825, Villahermosa, Mexico, 3–5 March 1998Google Scholar
  41. Sahimi M (1995) Flow and transport in porous media and fractured rock: from classical methods to modern approaches. VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  42. Sahimi M, Tajer SE (2005) Self-affine fractal distribution of the bulk density, elastic moduli and seismic wave velocities of rocks. Phys Rev E 71:046301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sarda S, Bourbiaux B, Cacas MC, Sabathier JC (1997) An innovative procedure to compute equivalent block size in a dual-porosity model. Paper presented at the 9th European symposium on improved oil recovery. The Hague, The Netherlands, 20–22 OctoberGoogle Scholar
  44. Srivastava RP, Sen MK (2009) Fractal-based stochastic inversion of poststack seismic data using very fast simulated annealing. J Geophys Eng 6:412425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Starikovic̆ius V (2003) The multiphase flow and heat transfer in porous media. Report Fraunhofer-Institut für Techno- und Wirtschaftsmathematik ITWM 55, 30 ppGoogle Scholar
  46. Steefel CI, Lichtner PC (1998a) Multicomponent reactive transport in discrete fractures: I. Controls on reaction front geometries. J Hydrol 209:186–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steefel CI, Lichtner PC (1998b) Multicomponent reactive transport in discrete fractures: II. Infiltration of hyperalkaline groundwater at Maqarin, Jordan, a natural analogue site. J Hydrol 209:200–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stone HL (1973) Estimation of three-phase relative permeability and residual oil data. J Can Pet Technol 12(4):53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stothoff S, Or D (2000) A discrete-fracture boundary integral approach to simulating coupled energy and moisture transport in a fractured porous medium. In: Faybishenko B, Witherspoon PA, Benson SM (eds) Dynamics of fluids in fractured rocks, concepts, and recent advances, vol 122. AGU Geophysical Monograph. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 269–279Google Scholar
  50. Warren JE, Root PJ (1963) The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. Soc Pet Eng J 3:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weaver RL (1990) Diffusivity of ultrasound. J Mech Phys Solids 38:55–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitaker S (1996) The Forchheimer equation: a theoretical development. Transp Porous Media 25:27–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu YS (2000) On the effective continuum method for modeling multiphase flow, multicomponent transport and heat transfer in fractured rock. In: Faybishenko B, Witherspoon PA, Benson SM (eds) Dynamics of fluids in fractured rocks, concepts, and recent advances, vol 122. AGU Geophysical Monograph. American Geophysical Union, Washington, pp 299–312Google Scholar
  54. Wu YS, Pruess K (1988) A multiple-porosity method for simulation of naturally fractured petroleum reservoirs. SPE Reserv Eng 3:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu YS, Qin G (2009) A generalized numerical approach for modeling multiphase flow and transport in fractured porous media. Commun Comput Phys 6(1):85–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu YS, Liu HH, Bodvarsson GS, Zellmer KE (2004) A triple-continuum approach for modeling flow and transport processes in fractured rocks. J Contam Hydrol 73:145–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu YS, Ehlig-Economides C, Qin G, Kang Z, Zhang W, Babatunde A, Qingfeng T (2007) A triple-continuum pressure-transient model for a naturally fractured vuggy reservoir. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. SPE Paper 110044-MS, Anaheim, California, 11–14 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  58. Wyllie MRJ (1962) Relative permeability. In: Frick TC (ed) Petroleum production handbook, Chap. 25. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo Di G. Sigalotti
    • 1
    • 3
  • Eloy Sira
    • 2
    Email author
  • Leonardo Trujillo
    • 2
  • Jaime Klapp
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias BásicasUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana-AzcapotzalcoMéxicoMexico
  2. 2.Centro de FísicaInstituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVICCaracasVenezuela
  3. 3.Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVICCaracasVenezuela
  4. 4.Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Nucleares, ININOcoyoacacMexico
  5. 5.Departamento de MatemáticasCinvestav del I.P.N.MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations