SPE-195822-MS

Matching of Pilot Huff-and-Puff Gas Injection Project in the Eagle Ford Shale
Using a 3D 3-Phase Multiporosity Numerical Simulation Model

Alfonso Fragoso, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary; Bruno A. Lopez Jimenez, Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, UNAM; Roberto Aguilera, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary;
Graham Noble, CNOOC International Limited

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 Sep - 2 October 2019.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Production of oil from pilot shale wells has generally increased by implementing huff-and-puff (H&P) gas
injection. The objective of this paper is using a new 3D, 3-Phase, physics-based, multiporosity model for
matching and understanding primary oil production as well as recovery by H&P gas injection from a pilot
well in the Eagle Ford shale.
History matching and performance forecast are carried out with a newly-developed fully-implicit 3D
multi-phase modified black-oil finite difference numerical model, which uses a multiple porosity approach.
"The model is capable of handling five storage mechanisms, including (1) organic porosity, (2) inorganic
porosity, (3) natural fracture porosity, (4) adsorbed porosity, and (5) hydraulic fracture porosity" (Lopez
Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019). Furthermore, the model has capabilities to handle dissolved gas in the solid
part of the organic matter, adsorption/desorption from the organic walls, and stress-dependent properties of
natural and hydraulic fractures.
These storage and fluid flow mechanisms, as well as the stress-dependency of hydraulic fractures, are
widely recognized in the case of some shale petroleum reservoirs. Their inclusion in our simulation model
permits evaluating the effect of these mechanisms during H&P gas injection. Results of the simulation,
presented as cross-plots of production rates and cumulative production vs. time, indicate that oil recovery
from shale petroleum reservoirs can be increased significantly by H&P gas injection. The possibility of
desorption and gas diffusion is investigated.
The approach implemented in this H&P history match of an Eagle Ford pilot well should prove of value
for simulating complex shale reservoirs.

Introduction
Since the beginning of the shale revolution several years ago, there have been significant amounts of
research, which have focused on understanding the physics of shale reservoirs and development of
appropriate models for their simulation. Shale reservoirs have multiple porosities and several transport
2 SPE-195822-MS

mechanisms, which might be active during fluid flow. Therefore, traditional models built for conventional
reservoirs may be inappropriate to simulate fluid flow in some shale reservoirs.
Shales are characterized by low and ultralow permeabilities, which make necessary the implementation
of multi-stage hydraulic fracturing in horizontal wells to enable production. Their production rates decline
drastically during the first few months and then tend to stabilize with a slow production decline. This
production behavior leads to very low primary recovery as a percentage of hydrocarbons-in-place. The
search for techniques to increase these low recoveries started during the early stages of the shale revolution
(Kovscek et al., 2008; Shoaib and Hoffman, 2009; Wang et al., 2010).
At present, three main techniques are being considered for increasing oil recoveries from shale reservoirs:
H&P gas injection, hydraulic refracturing and surfactants. Several authors have simulated H&P gas
injection in attempts to understand the mechanisms that control fluid flow in shale reservoirs during the
implementation of this technique and to forecast reservoir performance. Wan et al. (2013) simulated H&P
gas injection using a single porosity model in a black oil commercial simulator. They investigated the effect
of miscibility by means of a pseudo-miscible model. Wan et al. (2014) published simulation results of H&P
gas injection using the dual permeability option of a commercial compositional simulator. They made a
comparison with results from a black oil simulator run always above the bubble point pressure. Fragoso et al.
(2015) simulated continuous and H&P gas injection using a commercial compositional reservoir simulator
and compared results from single porosity, dual porosity and dual permeability models. The models by
Wan et al. (2013), Wan et al. (2014) and Fragoso et al. (2015) were built using data gathered from the
shale reservoirs literature. All these models predicted H&P performance without comparing results with
real production data.
Some studies have compared results of numerical and analytical models with real production data
from H&P gas injection pilots. Fragoso et al. (2018) history matched a H&P gas injection pilot carried
out in the Eagle Ford shale using a dual permeability commercial simulator. They found that H&P can
provide significant increments in oil recoveries by considering a wide range of low and ultralow matrix
permeabilities. Orozco et al. (2019) compared results of a H&P pilot carried out in the Eagle Ford shale with
results from (1) a semi-analytical material balance and (2) the dual permeability option of a commercial
simulator. Both approaches provided a reasonable match of the real production history. In their models, they
approximated stress-dependent behavior of hydraulic fractures using the Piedrahita et al. (2019) correlation.
Gala and Sharma (2018) developed a fully coupled geomechanical compositional reservoir simulator,
which they used for modeling H&P gas injection. Propped fractures were represented explicitly in the
model. Fluid and rock properties representative of an unconventional reservoir were used as input data. A
comparison was presented with results when geomechanical effects were neglected.
Shen and Sheng (2016) conducted experimental work to determine the size of asphaltene aggregates
precipitated during CH4 and CO2 injection in shales. Shen and Sheng (2018) carried out experimental
and numerical work to investigate the effect of asphaltene precipitation on permeability during H&P CO2
injection. They found that permeability reductions were as high as 48.5%. Thus, formation damage can
happen during H&P gas injection due to asphaltene precipitation and deposition leading consequently to a
positive skin and pressure drop around the wellbore.
In this study, we use a newly-developed multi-porosity, fully-implicit, 3D multi-phase modified black-
oil finite difference numerical model (Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019) that we are calling GFREE-SIM
in this paper. We use GFREE-SIM for simulating H&P gas injection of a pilot well in the Eagle Ford shale.
A positive skin stemming from asphaltene deposition is included to perform the history match. This is
followed by an investigation of the effects of adsorption and diffusion.
Containment of the injected gas as used in this study is a critical requirement for successful H&P
gas injection (Rassenfoss, 2017; Fragoso et al., 2018; Jacobs, 2019). Ramirez and Aguilera (2016) have
demonstrated that containment is physically possible by simulating one million years of flow in the Eagle
SPE-195822-MS 3

Ford shale. They showed that the fluid distribution (dry gas-condensate contact and condensate-oil contact)
has remained approximately the same over geologic time, corroborating that gas, condensate and oil remain
in their respective containers.

Quintuple Porosity Model

Shale reservoirs are complex rocks that store fluids in multiple porosity systems in which flow occurs
through different mechanisms. Lopez and Aguilera (2015a) proposed a quintuple porosity formulation to
incorporate all the storage mechanism present in shales. The quintuple porosity model consists of (1) organic
porosity, (2) inorganic porosity, (3) natural fracture porosity, (4) adsorbed porosity, and (5) hydraulic fracture
porosity. In addition, there is gas dissolved in the solid kerogen. A schematic of the quintuple porosity model
is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1—Schematic (not to scale) of quintuple porosity and solid

kerogen in shale reservoirs (Lopez, 2017; Lopez and Aguilera, 2018).

Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera (2019) developed a modified black-oil simulator (GFREE-SIM) that
incorporates a quintuple porosity formulation and is able to handle several transport mechanisms that occur
during fluid production from shales. A detailed description of the mathematical model can be found in
Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera (2019) and needs not be repeated here. However, a brief description of the
model is presented next.
GFREE-SIM was built based on the following assumptions and considerations (Lopez Jimenez and
Aguilera, 2019):
1. "Shale reservoir has porosities in inorganic and organic matter, and in natural and hydraulic fractures,
2. Viscous flow of gas and liquids in fracture system (natural and hydraulic fractures),
3. Viscous flow of gas in both inorganic and organic matter.
4. Viscous flow of liquids in both inorganic and organic matter,
5. Adsorption/desorption only from wall surfaces of organic pores,
6. Gas dissolved in solid organic matter (solid kerogen), which is handled by means of the fractional
volume of solid kerogen (Vdiff) introduced by Lopez and Aguilera (2018),
4 SPE-195822-MS

7. Modified black-oil modeling of the phases (two hydrocarbon pseudo-components and one non-
hydrocarbon component),
8. Stress-dependent properties (porosity and permeability) in fracture system."
The mathematical model in GFREE-SIM consists of partial differential equations that govern the 3D
multiphase flow in each system. Transfer terms were defined to account for mass flux of oil, gas and water
from matrix (organic or inorganic) to fractures (hydraulic or natural). Shape factors in those terms were
calculated according to Kazemi et al. (1976) model. The accumulation term of the mass balance equation
for the gas phase in the organic matrix system consisted of the summation of free, adsorbed and dissolved
gas in the solid kerogen. Desorption and diffusion of gas in the solid kerogen were included through a single
desorption curve following the concept of ‘gas evolution graphs’ by Javadpour et al. (2007). The portions of
the desorption curve that correspond to adsorbed gas and dissolved gas in the solid kerogen were quantified
by means of the adsorbed porosity (ϕadsc) and the fractional volume of solid kerogen (Vdiff). The differential
equations were discretized using a finite difference approach and the resulting numerical set of equations
were solved implicitly through the Newton-Raphson iteration method.

Validation of H&P Gas Injection Modeling

To validate H&P gas injection modeling in GFREE-SIM, we make a comparison with results from a well-
established commercial dual porosity black oil simulator. In GFREE-SIM, H&P is simulated using the same
well as injector and producer. Constraints in both, production and injection mode, are defined and used to
constrain the well, according to the operation (production or injection) being performed at a given time.
On the other hand, the commercial simulator requires that two exact wells, one injector and one producer,
be defined at the same location. To simulate a dual porosity reservoir in GFREE-SIM, the dissolved gas in
solid kerogen, the adsorbed gas, and organic porosity are switched off.
For validation of H&P gas injection in GFREE-SIM, the model presented by Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera
(2019) in their section "Numerical Model Application" is used with a reduction in the grid size in the x
direction. Reservoir properties are summarized in Table 1, fluid properties are presented in Table 2, relative
permeability curves for matrix and fractures are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively, and matrix
capillary pressures are shown in Figure 4. The production constraints used in this comparison are: Maximum
oil rate = 200 bls/day, minimum bottom hole pressure (BHP) = 1500 psi. The injection constraints are:
Maximum gas injection rate = 1,000,000 scf/day and maximum BHP = 5000 psi.
SPE-195822-MS 5

Table 1—Reservoir parameters used in GFREE-SIM for validation of primary recovery and H&P gas
injection. Initial simulation uses the dual porosity option. The dissolved gas in solid kerogen, adsorbed
gas, and organic porosity are switched off in this case (data from Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019).

Parameter Symbol Value Units

Number of cells in x-direction Nx 21 -

Number of cells in j-direction Ny 11 -
Number of cells in z-direction Nz 10 -
Reservoir length Lx 250 ft
Reservoir width Ly 550 ft
Reservoir thickness h 250 ft
Formation top 8,250 ft
Matrix porosity ϕm 0.07 fraction
Matrix permeability km 0.001 md
Natural fracture porosity ϕ2 0.009 fraction
Natural fracture permeability k2 0.9 md
Hydraulic fracture permeability khf 2,000 md
Hydraulic fracture width whf 0.01 ft
Hydraulic fracture half-length xhf 275 ft
Skin factor S 0 -

Table 2—PVT properties used in GFREE-SIM for validation of primary recovery

and H&P gas injection modeling (data from Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019).

Pressure Gas Oil Ratio Oil Formation Viscosity Gas Formation Gas Viscosity
(Solution) Volume Factor Volume Factor

psi scf/STB RB/STB cP RB/scf cP

14.7 1 1.062 1.040 0.166666 0.0080
264.7 90.5 1.150 0.975 0.012093 0.0096
514.7 180 1.207 0.910 0.006274 0.0112
1,014.7 371 1.295 0.830 0.003197 0.0140
2,014.7 636 1.435 0.695 0.001614 0.0189
2,514.7 775 1.500 0.641 0.001294 0.0208
3,014.7 930 1.565 0.594 0.001080 0.0228
4,014.7 1,270 1.695 0.510 0.000811 0.0268
5,014.7 1,618 1.827 0.449 0.000649 0.0309
9,014.7 1,618 1.500 0.600 0.000386 0.0470
6 SPE-195822-MS

Figure 2—Matrix gas-oil relative permeability curves used in GFREE-SIM for validation of
primary recovery and H&P gas injection modeling (data from Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019).

Figure 3—Fracture gas-oil relative permeability curves used in GFREE-SIM for validation of
primary recovery and H&P gas injection modeling (data from Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019).

Figure 4—Matrix capillary pressure curve used in GFREE-SIM for validation of primary
recovery and H&P gas injection modeling (data from Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019).
SPE-195822-MS 7

The horizontal well used for this validation produces initially by primary means for 700 days.
Subsequently, H&P gas injection is started using regular cycles consisting of 100 days of injection and 100
days of production. No soaking time is considered.
Comparison of simulation results from GFREE-SIM and the commercial simulator is good as shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6. The match of oil production rates and cumulative oil production during both, primary
recovery and H&P gas injection, is very close as presented in Figure 5. The match of BHP results is also
good as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5—Oil production rate and cumulative oil production comparison: GFREE-SIM vs commercial simulator.

Figure 6—BHP comparison: GFREE-SIM vs. commercial simulator

The good results obtained during this validation gives us confidence to use GFREE-SIM for performing
history matching of real production data from an Eagle Ford H&P gas injection pilot well, and for further
8 SPE-195822-MS

investigating the impact of desorption and diffusion of gas during primary recovery and during H&P gas
injection in a shale reservoir.

History Match of a H&P Gas Injection Pilot

In recent years, several operators have developed H&P gas injection projects in the Eagle Ford shale. Jacobs
(2019) has indicated that "In a recent quarterly earnings statement, EOG said it continues to see "strong
results" from around 150 EOR wells, more than a third of which were converted in 2018. Analysts and
engineering consultants have found about 100 other wells in the Eagle Ford that several other operators
have converted into huff-and-puff injectors."
In the same article, Jacobs (2019) cites a non-exhaustive list of operators that are moving forward on
H&P gas injection. These include EOG Resources, EP Energy, Chesapeake, Marathon Oil, Murphy Oil,
Occidental Oil and Gas, Liberty Resources, Hess Corporation and Continental Resources. These projects
have provided, in general, positive results from an oil production standpoint.
In this section, we match production by primary recovery and H&P gas injection from a pilot well in
the Eagle Ford shale using GFREE-SIM. We consider all driving mechanisms in GFREE-SIM: free flow
of hydrocarbons, adsorption/desorption and diffusion of gas.

Production History
The pilot well produced by primary means for 29 months. This was followed by seven H&P cycles, which
provided a significant improvement in oil production. The cumulative oil production increased by a factor
of 1.84 compared to cumulative production previous to initiation of H&P gas injection. Natural gas was
injected in this pilot well. Following the seven H&P cycles, the well was placed on continuous production
without further H&P gas injection (Figure 7).

Figure 7—Oil Production from a H&P pilot well in the Eagle Ford.

Simulation Model
We used GFREE-SIM for history matching the H&P gas injection pilot well. The simulation model is
built using reservoir and fluid properties characteristic of the area where the pilot well is located. The grid
SPE-195822-MS 9

discretization is logarithmically spaced in the x direction. Block sizes in y and z directions are 45.45 ft and
9.75 ft, respectively.
Table 3 summarizes the reservoir and wellbore parameters as well as the original oil in place (OOIP).
Figure 8 and Figure 9 present relative permeability curves for the matrix. Figure 10 and Figure 11 show
relative permeability curves for the fractures. PVT properties of the reservoir fluid are included in Table 4.

Table 3—Reservoir and wellbore parameters for history match of the H&P gas injection pilot well.

Parameter Symbol Value Units

Initial reservoir pressure pi 5,900 psi

Reservoir temperature T 224 °F
Initial water saturation in matrix Swm 0.5 fraction
Initial water saturation in fractures Swf 0.10 fraction
Matrix compressibility Cm 1.00E-6 1/psia
Natural fracture compressibility Cf 1.00E-5 1/psia
Formation top 8,000 ft
Initial total stress on fractures σt 8,000 psia
Matrix porosity ϕm 0.0597 fraction
Natural fractures Porosity ϕ2 0.00055 fraction
Matrix Permeability km 0.0001 md
Natural Fracture Permeability k2 0.08 md
Natural Fracture Spacing 10 ft
Reservoir thickness h 97.5 ft
Reservoir length Lx 5,250 ft
Reservoir width Ly 500 ft
Well drainage area A 60.3 Acre
Skin factor S Variable 5,8,20 -
Initial flow capacity of hydraulic fractures khf*whf 12 md-ft
Hydraulic fracture half-length xhf 250 ft
Hydraulic Fracture Spacing 250 ft
Maximum gas injection pressure pinj 5,000 psi
Bottomhole flowing pressure pwf 2,000 psi
Original Oil in Place 1,018 MSTB
10 SPE-195822-MS

Figure 8—Water-oil relative permeability curves for matrix.

Figure 9—Gas-oil relative permeability curves for matrix.

Figure 10—Water-oil relative permeability curves for fractures.

SPE-195822-MS 11

Figure 11—Gas-oil relative permeability curves for fractures.

Table 4—Properties of reservoir fluid for history match of H&P pilot well using GFREE-SIM.

Oil Formation Gas Oil Ratio Gas Formation

Pressure Oil Viscosity Gas viscosity
Volume Factor (Solution) Volume Factor

psi RB/STB scf/STB cP RB/scf cP

6015 1.35874 672.5 0.8215

5515 1.35874 672.5 0.8215
5015 1.36664 672.5 0.7745
4515 1.37526 672.5 0.7273
4015 1.38475 672.5 0.6798
3515 1.39525 672.5 0.6322
3015 1.40697 672.5 0.5843
2687 1.41545 672.5 0.5528 0.001074 0.0212
2404 1.38235 600.78 0.5818 0.001202 0.0196
2115 1.35023 531.43 0.6121 0.001371 0.0181
1815 1.3184 463.07 0.644 0.001612 0.0168
1515 1.28781 397.92 0.676 0.001954 0.0157
1215 1.2581 335.45 0.7077 0.002476 0.0148
1015 1.23871 295.15 0.7281 0.003001 0.0143
815 1.2193 255.46 0.7479 0.003788 0.0138
615 1.19943 215.79 0.767 0.005097 0.0134
415 1.17807 174.79 0.7857 0.007681 0.0129
215 1.15123 127.51 0.8066 0.01512 0.0122

One problem associated with natural gas (and CO2) injection in shale reservoirs is precipitation and
deposition of asphaltenes, which can block pores causing formation damage (Shen and Sheng, 2018). This
reduction in permeability is more significant in the vicinity of the wellbore, which is where the largest
pressure drop occurs, and is modelled in GFREE-SIM with the use of a positive skin factor.
Adsorption/desorption of gas on the walls of pores in the organic matter is modeled in GFREE-SIM
through the Langmuir isotherm. To incorporate this mechanism in the simulation, we have to input values of
adsorbed porosity (ϕadsc), Langmuir pressure (PL) and Langmuir volume (VL). Langmuir isotherm parameters
12 SPE-195822-MS

published by Yu and Sepehrnoori (2014) and values of adsorbed porosity and bulk density of shale published
by Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera (2019) are used in the GFREE-SIM model (Table 5).

Table 5—Adsorption parameters (Yu and Sepehrnoori, 2014; Lopez Jimenez and Aguilera, 2019).

Parameter Symbol Value Units

Langmuir pressure PL 1500 psi

Langmuir volume VL 175 scf/ton

Adsorbed porosity ϕadsc 0.009 fraction

Bulk density of the shale ρβ 156.06991 lb/ft3

Diffusion of gas from the solid kerogen is incorporated in GFREE-SIM through the fractional volume
of solid kerogen (Vdiff). Piedrahita and Aguilera (2017) published values of Vdiff ranging between 0.09 and
0.1. Based on their work, we use Vdiff = 0.09 in the present simulations. Note that this paper discusses only
gas diffusion from solid kerogen, which is different from diffusion occurring in small pores of the matrix
in shales and is believed to play a role in oil recovery by H&P in this type of reservoir (Jia et al., 2017;
Hoffman and Rutledge, 2019).

Stress-dependent properties
Stress-dependent properties of the hydraulic fractures during primary production are calculated with the use
of the Piedrahita et al. (2019) correlation:

Eq. 1

Where, k is permeability at a given net stress, ki is permeability at the net stress corresponding to the
reference pressure, pk is the net stress, and D, E and α are empirical parameters. The values used for the
GFREE-SIM modeling of the pilot well are shown in Table 6.

Table 6—Values of parameters in the Piedrahita et al. (2019) correlation for estimating stress-dependent permeability.

Parameter Value

D 10428.6
E 2000
α 5.32

When a hydraulically fractured horizontal well goes on primary production, pressure drops, net stress
on the fracture increases, and consequently the hydraulic fracture tends to close leading to a reduction
in permeability and porosity. Conversely, when gas is injected into the reservoir, pressure increases
and therefore the net stress decreases, which causes the fracture to reopen. However, reopening of the
hydraulic fracture does not follow the same stress-dependent path that occurred during primary production.
This hysteresis behavior is incorporated in GFREE-SIM by inputting several permeability (and porosity)
hysteresis curves for different rebound pressures. For each grid block, GFREE-SIM selects two of those
permeability hysteresis curves (and two porosity hysteresis curves) according to the actual rebound pressure
when gas injection starts, and interpolates between them to calculate permeability (or porosity) at current
net stress. Figure 12 illustrates the changes in permeability as a function of net stress in the well block.
SPE-195822-MS 13

Figure 12—Stress-Dependent Permeability in the well block.

History Match
GFREE-SIM was used in attempts to match the history of the H&P gas injection pilot well. Simulation
results using data described above match reasonably well the production data of the pilot well, both during
primary production and during H&P gas injection (Figure 13 and Figure 14). A scenario where the well is
always producing by primary means is simulated and results are included in both figures. Results indicate
that incremental production up to the maximum time shown in the figures is in the order of 50 MSTB.
Figure 13 also indicates that in this particular well, production has improved even after the H&P cycles
ended. This opens some interesting research possibilities for the future. Values of positive skin factors are
also included in Figure 14.

Figure 13—History match results using GFREE-SIM. Real and simulated oil production
rates. "Ads Diff" means that the simulation runs include adsorption and diffusion.
14 SPE-195822-MS

Figure 14—History match results using GFREE-SIM. Real and simulated cumulative oil
production. "Ads Diff" means that the simulation runs include adsorption and diffusion.

Once the matches observed in Figure 13 and Figure 14 are obtained, we use GFREE-SIM to forecast well
performance under two different scenarios. In the first scenario, the well remains under current operating
conditions and produces continuously, achieving a cumulative oil production of 236 MSTB after 125
months. The incremental production compared to the primary production is 74 MSTB (Figure 15). The
second forecast explores the possibility of resuming the H&P gas injection in the well. The schedule and
injection rates of the last "historical" cycles are used during subsequent H&P cycles. Simulation results
indicate that resuming the H&P gas injection under the same conditions, does not provide any additional
benefits (Figure 16). On the contrary, it lowers oil production as compared with continuous production
without H&P. The use of a different schedule, higher gas injection rates or remediation of possible damage
by asphaltene deposition might improve performance of additional H&P cycles. This possibility, however,
has not been investigated in this study.
SPE-195822-MS 15

Figure 15—Forecast of cumulative oil production using GFREE-SIM. Case in which the well remains
producing continuously. "Ads Diff" means that the simulation runs include adsorption and diffusion.

Figure 16—Forecast of cumulative oil production using GFREE-SIM. Case in which H&P gas
injection is resumed. "Ads Diff" means that the simulation runs include adsorption and diffusion.

Effect of Adsorption/Desorption and Diffusion of Gas from Solid Kerogen

The history match presented in the previous section was achieved simulating a reservoir with flow of
hydrocarbons in free state in matrix and fractures, gas adsorbed on the walls of pores in the organic matter
and gas dissolved in the solid kerogen. To investigate the effect of adsorption/desorption and diffusion of
gas from solid kerogen on H&P gas injection, GFREE-SIM simulation runs are made switching off these
storage mechanisms.

Combined Effect of Adsorption/Desorption and Diffusion of Gas from Solid Kerogen

As discussed previously, the adsorption/desorption and diffusion phenomena are modelled in GFREE-SIM
using the Langmuir isotherm. Adsorption/desorption is included by means of the adsorbed porosity (ϕadsc).
Diffusion of gas from the solid kerogen is incorporated through the fractional volume of solid kerogen
16 SPE-195822-MS

(Vdiff). In this section, the effects of these storage mechanisms are analyzed by comparing the history match
discussed previously with a case in which dissolved gas in solid kerogen and the adsorbed gas are switched
off. Figure 17 and Figure 18 present the resulting oil production rates and cumulative oil production,
respectively. The plots show that the combined effect of desorption and diffusion of gas improves primary
production from the shale reservoir under study. During primary production, these two storage mechanisms
help to maintain reservoir pressure. On the other hand, Figure 17 also indicates that this combined effect
affects negatively oil production performance during H&P gas injection, although only slightly in this case.

Figure 17—Effect of gas adsorption and diffusion on oil production rates by H&P gas injection using GFREE-SIM.

Figure 18—Effect of gas adsorption and diffusion on cumulative oil production by H&P gas injection using GFREE-SIM.
SPE-195822-MS 17

Effect of Adsorption/Desorption of Gas

The independent effect of adsorption is investigated by simulating a scenario in GFREE-SIM in which
adsorption is neglected and diffusion is active, and comparing results with the history match. Figure 19
and Figure 20 illustrate that in this case, adsorption barely affects oil production during both, primary
production and H&P gas injection. However, there are instances where the effect of adsorption might be
more significant, as shown next with a sensitivity analysis with respect to adsorbed porosity.

Figure 19—Effect of adsorbed gas on oil production rates by H&P gas injection using GFREE-SIM. The red
line corresponds to the history match which considers adsorption and diffusion, and the purple line is a
case in which adsorption is neglected and diffusion is active. The simulated curves are almost identical.

Figure 20—Effect of adsorbed gas on cumulative oil production by H&P gas injection using GFREE-SIM. The
red line corresponds to the history match which considers adsorption and diffusion, and the purple line is
a case in which adsorption is neglected and diffusion is active. The simulated curves are almost identical.
18 SPE-195822-MS

We run simulations in GFREE-SIM, assuming different values of adsorbed porosity and compared them
with the history match results discussed previously. Vdiff = 0.09 in all scenarios. Oil production rate and
cumulative oil production are presented in Figure 21 and Figure 22. The figures show that during primary
recovery, gas desorption increases oil production. This is concluded since the larger the adsorbed porosity,
the larger the oil rate and the cumulative oil production before the initiation of H&P gas injection. The
increase occurs because gas desorbed from the surface of organic pores is now in a free state and helps
support the reservoir pressure.

Figure 21—Effect of adsorbed gas on oil production rates by H&P gas injection using GFREE-SIM.
Sensitivity analysis with respect to adsorbed porosity. The red line corresponds to the history match.

Figure 22—Effect of adsorbed gas on cumulative oil production by H&P gas injection using GFREE-
SIM. Sensitivity analysis with respect to adsorbed porosity. The red line corresponds to the history match.
SPE-195822-MS 19

Figure 21 also illustrates that the larger the adsorbed porosity, the lower the oil rates during H&P gas
injection, which indicates that gas adsorption affects negatively oil production by this IOR method, although
only slightly in these cases. This happens because when gas is injected into a reservoir, pressure increases,
and gas desorption slows or stops in the areas affected by injection. Instead, gas is re-adsorbed on the surface
of organic pores. This process causes a portion of the energy supplied by the injected gas to be "spent" on
re-adsorption of gas in organic pores rather than on the increment of reservoir pressure. The result is that
H&P performance is affected negatively. A larger amount of gas would need to be injected to attain the
same recoveries obtained when adsorption is neglected.

Conclusions
1. GFREE-SIM modeling of H&P gas injection was validated by comparing dual-porosity results against
a well-recognized commercial numerical simulator. The validation gave us a good level of certainty
for history matching real data from a H&P gas injection horizontal well pilot and for investigating
the effects of adsorption and diffusion of gas from solid kerogen during primary recovery and during
H&P gas injection.
2. Simulation results using GFREE-SIM considering flow of hydrocarbons in free state in matrix and
fractures, gas adsorbed on the walls of pores in the organic matter and gas dissolved in the solid
kerogen compare reasonably well against real production data from a H&P gas injection pilot carried
out in the Eagle Ford shale.
3. The combined effect of gas adsorbed in organic matter and gas dissolved in solid kerogen improves
primary oil production, but affects negatively the performance of H&P gas injection in the shale
reservoir considered in this study. The negative effect observed in this study, however, is very slight.
4. GFREE-SIM indicates that gas adsorption has a positive effect during primary production, but can
affect negatively the performance of H&P gas injection in shale reservoirs. This occurs because
part of the energy provided by the injected gas is "spent" on re-adsorption of gas in organic pores.
Therefore, the increment in reservoir pressure is lower compared to the scenario where there is no
gas re-adsorption.

Acknowledgements
The support of CNOOC International Limited, Mitacs (through the Mitacs Accelerate Program), the
Schulich School of Engineering at the University of Calgary, and Servipetrol Ltd. (Canada) is gratefully
acknowledged. We also thank the GFREE research team [GFREE refers to an integrated research program,
including Geoscience (G); Formation Evaluation (F); Reservoir Drilling, Completion, and Stimulation (R);
Reservoir Engineering (RE); and Economics and Externalities (EE)] at the University of Calgary for their
continued help and support. We acknowledge the donation of the CMG simulation software to the University
of Calgary and CMG’s continuous and quick assistance when we have any questions about their reservoir
simulation programs.

Nomenclature

A = Well drainage area, acres

Cm = Matrix compressibility, psi-1
Cf = Natural fracture compressibility, psi-1
D = Empirical parameter in Equation 1.
E = Empirical parameter in Equation 1.
h = Reservoir thickness, ft
20 SPE-195822-MS

k = Permeability at a given net stress, md

ki = Permeability at net stress corresponding to the reference pressure, md
khf = Hydraulic fracture permeability, md
khf*whf = Initial flow capacity of hydraulic fractures, md-ft
km = Matrix permeability, md
krg = Gas relative permeability
krog = Oil relative permeability in presence of gas
krow = Oil relative permeability in presence of water
k2 = Natural fractures permeability, md
Lx = Reservoir length, ft
Ly = Reservoir width, ft
Nx = Number of cells in x-direction
Ny = Number of cells in j-direction
Nz = Number of cells in z-direction
pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psi
pinj = Maximum gas injection pressure, psi
pk = Net stress, psi
PL Langmuir pressure, psi
pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
S = Skin factor
Swf = Initial water saturation in fractures, fraction
Swm = Initial water saturation in matrix, fraction
T = Reservoir temperature, R
Vdiff = fractional volume of solid kerogen, fraction
VL = Langmuir volume, scf/ton
whf = Hydraulic fracture width, ft
xhf = Hydraulic fracture half-length, ft
α = Empirical parameter in Equation 1.
ρβ = Bulk density of the shale lb/ft3
σt = Initial total stress on fractures, psi
εadsc = Adsorbed porosity, fraction
ϕm = Matrix porosity, fraction
ϕ2 = Natural fractures porosity, fraction

References
Fragoso, A., Wang, Y., Jing, G. and Aguilera, R. 2015. Improving Recovery of Liquids from Shales through Gas Recycling
and Dry Gas Injection. Presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Quito,
Ecuador, 18 – 20 November 2015. SPE 177278.
Fragoso, A., Selvan, K. and Aguilera, R. 2018b. Breaking a Paradigm: Can Oil Recovery From Shales Be Larger Than Oil
Recovery From Conventional Reservoirs? The Answer Is Yes! Presented at the SPE Canada Unconventional Resources
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 13 – 14 March 2018. SPE 189784.
Gala, D., and Sharma, M. 2018. Compositional and Geomechanical Effects in Huff-n-Puff Gas Injection IOR in Tight Oil
Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 24 – 26 September
2018. SPE 191488.
SPE-195822-MS 21

Hoffman, B. T., and Rutledge, J. M. 2019. Mechanisms for Huff-n-Puff Cyclic Gas Injection into Unconventional
Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, 9 – 10
April 2019. SPE 195223.
Jacobs, T. 2019. Shale EOR Delivers, So Why Won’t the Sector Go Big? Journal of Petroleum Technology. Volume 71,
No 05, 37 – 41. May 2019. https://doi.org/10.2118/0519-0037-JPT.
Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M. 2007. Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale Gas Sediments. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology. Volume 46, No 10, 55 – 61. October 2007. https://doi.org/10.2118/07-10-06.
Jia, B., Tsau, J.-S. and Barati, R. 2017. Role of Molecular Diffusion in Heterogeneous Shale Reservoirs During CO2 Huff-
n-Puff. Presented at SPE Europec featured at 79th EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Paris, France, 12 – 15
June 2017. SPE 185797.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S., Porterfield, K. L. 1976. Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs. SPE Journal. Volume 16 No 06, 317 – 326. December 1976. https://doi.org/10.2118/5719-PA.
Kovscek, A., Tang, G. and Vega, B. 2008. Experimental Investigation of Oil Recovery from Siliceous Shale by CO2.
Presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 21 – 24 September 2008. SPE
115679.
Lopez, B. and Aguilera, R. 2015a. Physics-Based Approach for Shale Gas Numerical Simulation: Quintuple Porosity
and Gas Diffusion from Solid Kerogen. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
Texas, USA, 28 – 30 September. SPE 175115.
Lopez, B. 2017. Characterization and Construction of 3D Numerical Simulators of Oil and Liquids-Rich Multi-Porosity
Shale Reservoirs. PhD Thesis. Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada.
Lopez, B. and Aguilera, R. 2018. Petrophysical Quantification of Multiple Porosities in Shale-Petroleum Reservoirs with
the Use of Modified Pickett Plots. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering. Volume 21, No 01, 187 – 201, February
2018. https://doi.org/10.2118/171638-PA.
Lopez Jimenez, B. A. and Aguilera, R. 2019. Physics-Based Fluid Flow Modeling of Liquids-Rich Shale Reservoirs
Using a 3D 3-Phase Multi-Porosity Numerical Simulation Model. In press: SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering
(2019). Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 24 – 26 September
2018. SPE 191459.
Orozco, D., Fragoso, A., Selvan, K., Noble, G. and Aguilera, R. 2019. Eagle Ford Huff-and-Puff Gas Injection Pilot:
Comparison of Reservoir Simulation, Material Balance and Real Performance of the Pilot Well. In press: SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering (2019). Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
USA, 24 – 26 September 2018. SPE 191575.
Piedrahita, J. and Aguilera, R. 2017. Models for Calculating Organic and Inorganic Porosities in Shale Oil Reservoirs.
Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18
– 19 May. SPE 185591
Piedrahita, J., Lopez, B. and Aguilera, R. 2019. Generalized Methodology for Estimating Stress-Dependent Properties in
a Tight Gas Reservoirs and Extension to Drill-Cuttings Data. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering. Volume 22,
No 01, 173 – 189, February 2019. https://doi.org/10.2118/189972-PA.
Ramirez, J. and Aguilera, R. 2016. Factors Controlling Fluid Migration and Distribution in the Eagle Ford Shale. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering. Volume 19, No 03, July 2016. https://doi.org/10.2118/171626-PA.
Rassenfoss, S. 2017. Shale EOR Works, But Will It Make a Difference? Society of Petroleum Engineers. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. Volume 69, No 10, October 2017. https://doi.org/10.2118/1017-0034-JPT.
Shen, Z. and Sheng, J. 2016. Experimental Study of Asphaltene Aggregation during CO2 and CH4 Injection in Shale Oil
Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Conference held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA 11 – 13 April.
SPE 179675.
Shen, Z. and Sheng, J. 2018. Experimental and Numerical Study of Permeability Reduction Caused by Asphaltene
Precipitation and Deposition During CO2 Huff and Puff Injection in Eagle Ford Shale. Fuel. Volume 211, 432 – 445,
January 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.09.047.
Shoaib, S. and Hoffman, T. 2009. CO2 Flooding the Elm Coulee Field. Presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky Mountain
Petroleum Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, 14 – 16 April 2009. SPE 123176.
Wan, T., Sheng, J. and Soliman, M., 2013. Evaluation of the EOR Potential in Shale Oil Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas Injection.
Presented at the SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 22 – 26 June. Paper
SPWLA-d-12-00119.
Wan, T., Meng, X., Sheng, J. and Watson, M. 2014. Compositional Modeling of EOR Process in Stimulated Shale Oil
Reservoirs by Cyclic Gas Injection. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA,
12 – 16 April 2014. SPE 169069.
22 SPE-195822-MS

Wang, X., Luo, P., Er, V. and Huang, S. 2010. Assessment of CO2 Flooding Potential for Bakken Formation, Saskatchewan.
Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources & International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 19 – 21 October 2010. SPE 137728.
Yu, W. and Sepehrnoori, K. 2014. Simulation of Gas Desorption and Geomechanics Effects for Unconventional Gas
Reservoirs. Fuel. Volume 116, 455 – 464, January 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.08.032.