Perpustakaan Digital ITB

Which hydraulic fracture method should an engineer trust: the one that maximizes production accuracy, or the one that minimizes runtime? Prior Eagle Ford studies applied Stimulated Rock Volume (SRV), Embedded Discrete Fracture Model (EDFM), and Dual Permeability separately under different reservoir assumptions, leaving the effect of the representation method itself unresolved. This study closes that gap through a controlled, side-by-side comparison of the three approaches within a single Eagle Ford black-oil shale reservoir model over a 20-year simulation. EDFM delivered the strongest production performance (432.24 MSTB cumulative oil; 2.01% recovery factor), followed by Dual Permeability (409.25 MSTB; 1.90%), while SRV trailed (316.91 MSTB; 1.47%). The ranking inverted for computational cost: Dual Permeability was fastest (652 s), followed by EDFM (870 s), while SRV's local grid refinement pushed runtime to 3,017 s. Fracture half-length was the dominant sensitivity parameter across all methods, while the second-ranked parameter diverged by representation, reflecting each method's fracture-upscaling approach. Under the evaluated Eagle Ford reservoir conditions, EDFM provided the highest simulated production performance, whereas Dual Permeability offered a computationally efficient.