1
CONTENTS
1 WHAT IS A SIMULATION MODEL? 1.1 A Simple Example of a Simulation Model 1.2 A Note on Units WHAT IS A RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL? 2.1 The Task of Reservoir Simulation 2.2 What Are We Trying To Do and How Complex Must Our Model Be? FIELD APPLICATIONS OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION 3.1 Reservoir Simulation at Appraisal and in Mature Fields 3.2 Introduction to the Field Cases 3.3 Case 1: The West Seminole Field Simulation Study (SPE10022, 1982) 3.4 Ten Years Later  1992 3.5 Case 2: The Anguille Marine Simulation Study (SPE25006, 1992) 3.6 Case 3: Ubit Field Rejuvenation (SPE49165,1998) 3.7 Discussion of Changes in Reservoir Simulation; 1970s  2000 3.8 The Treatment of Uncertainty in Reservoir Simulation STUDY EXAMPLE OF A RESERVOIR SIMULATION TYPES OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL 5.1 The Black Oil Model 5.2 More Complex Reservoir Simulation Models 5.3 Comparison of Field Experience with Various Simulation Models SOME FURTHER READING ON RESERVOIR SIMULATION APPENDIX A  References APPENDIX B  Some Overview Articles on Reservoir Simulation 1. Reservoir Simulation: is it worth the effort? SPE Review, London Section monthly panel discussion November 1990. 2. The Future of Reservoir Simulation  C. Galas, J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, 36, January 1997. 3. What you should know about evaluating simulation results  M. Carlson; J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, Part I  pp. 2125, 36, No. 5, May 1997; Part II  pp. 5257, 36, No. 7, August 1997.
2
3
4 5
6
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Having worked through this chapter the student should:
• • • • • • • Be able to describe what is meant by a simulation model, saying what analytical models and numerical models are. Be familiar with what specifically a reservoir simulation model is. Be able to describe the simplifications and issues that arise in going from the description of a real reservoir to a reservoir simulation model. Be able to describe why and in what circumstances simple or complex reservoir models are required to model reservoir processes. Be able to list what input data is required and where this may be found. Be able to describe several examples of typical outputs of reservoir simulations and say how these are of use in reservoir development. Know the meaning of all the highlighted terms  or terms referred to in the Glossary  in Chapter 1 e.g. history matching, black oil model, transmissibility, pseudo relative permeability etc. Be able to describe and discuss the main changes in reservoir simulation over the last 40 years from the 60's to the present  and say why these have occurred. Know in detail and be able to compare the differences between what reservoir simulations can do at the appraisal and in the mature stages of reservoir development. Have an elementary knowledge of how uncertainty is handled in reservoir simulation. Know all the types of reservoir simulation models and what type of problem or reservoir process each is used to model. Know or be able to work out the equations for the mass of a phase or component in a grid block for a black oil or compositional model.
•
•
• • •
2
Introduction and Case Studies
1
CONTENTS
1 WHAT IS A SIMULATION MODEL? 1.1 A Simple Example of a Simulation Model 1.2 A Note on Units WHAT IS A RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL? 2.1 The Task of Reservoir Simulation 2.2 What Are We Trying To Do and How Complex Must Our Model Be? FIELD APPLICATIONS OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION 3.1 Reservoir Simulation at Appraisal and in Mature Fields 3.2 Introduction to the Field Cases 3.3 Case 1: The West Seminole Field Simulation Study (SPE10022, 1982) 3.4 Ten Years Later  1992 3.5 Case 2: The Anguille Marine Simulation Study (SPE25006, 1992) 3.6 Case 3: Ubit Field Rejuvenation (SPE49165,1998) 3.7 Discussion of Changes in Reservoir Simulation; 1970s  2000 3.8 The Treatment of Uncertainty in Reservoir Simulation STUDY EXAMPLE OF A RESERVOIR SIMULATION TYPES OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL 5.1 The Black Oil Model 5.2 More Complex Reservoir Simulation Models 5.3 Comparison of Field Experience with Various Simulation Models SOME FURTHER READING ON RESERVOIR SIMULATION APPENDIX A  References APPENDIX B  Some Overview Articles on Reservoir Simulation 1. Reservoir Simulation: is it worth the effort? SPE Review, London Section monthly panel discussion November 1990. 2. The Future of Reservoir Simulation  C. Galas, J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, 36, January 1997. 3. What you should know about evaluating simulation results  M. Carlson; J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, Part I  pp. 2125, 36, No. 5, May 1997; Part II  pp. 5257, 36, No. 7, August 1997.
2
3
4 5
6
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Having worked through this chapter the student should:
• • • • • • • Be able to describe what is meant by a simulation model, saying what analytical models and numerical models are. Be familiar with what specifically a reservoir simulation model is. Be able to describe the simplifications and issues that arise in going from the description of a real reservoir to a reservoir simulation model. Be able to describe why and in what circumstances simple or complex reservoir models are required to model reservoir processes. Be able to list what input data is required and where this may be found. Be able to describe several examples of typical outputs of reservoir simulations and say how these are of use in reservoir development. Know the meaning of all the highlighted terms  or terms referred to in the Glossary  in Chapter 1 e.g. history matching, black oil model, transmissibility, pseudo relative permeability etc. Be able to describe and discuss the main changes in reservoir simulation over the last 40 years from the 60's to the present  and say why these have occurred. Know in detail and be able to compare the differences between what reservoir simulations can do at the appraisal and in the mature stages of reservoir development. Have an elementary knowledge of how uncertainty is handled in reservoir simulation. Know all the types of reservoir simulation models and what type of problem or reservoir process each is used to model. Know or be able to work out the equations for the mass of a phase or component in a grid block for a black oil or compositional model.
•
•
• • •
2
Introduction and Case Studies
1
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHAPTER 1
A brief overview of Reservoir Simulation is first presented. This module then develops this introduction by going straight into three field examples of applied simulation studies. This is done since this course has some reservoir engineering prerequisites which will have made the student aware of many of the issues in reservoir development. In these literature examples, we introduce many of the basic concepts that are developed in detail throughout the course e.g. gridding of the reservoir, data requirements for simulation, well controls, typical outputs from reservoir simulation (cumulative oil, watercuts etc.), history matching and forward prediction etc. After briefly discussing the issue of uncertainty in reservoir management, some calculated examples are given. Finally, the various types of reservoir simulation model which are available for calculating different types of reservoir development process are presented (black oil model, compositional model, etc.). PowerPoint demonstrations illustrate some of the features of reservoir simulation using a dataset which the student can then run on the web (with modification if required) and plot various quantities e.g. cumulative oil, watercuts etc. This module also contains a Glossary which the student can use for quick reference throughout the course.
1 WHAT IS A SIMULATION MODEL? 1.1 A Simple Example of a Simulation Model
A simulation model is one which shows the main features of a real system, or resembles it in its behaviour, but is simple enough to make calculations on. These calculations may be analytical or numerical . By analytical we mean that the equations that represent the model can be solved using mathematical techniques such as those used to solve algebraic or differential equations. An analytic solution would normally be written in terms of “well know” equations or functions (x2, sin x, ex etc). For example, suppose we wanted to describe the growth of a colony of bacteria and we denoted the number of bacteria as N. Now if our growth model says that the rate of increase of N with time (that is, dN/dt) is directly proportional to N itself, then:
dN = α.N dt
(1)
where α is a constant. We now want to solve this model by answering the question: what is N as a function of time, t, which we denote by N(t), if we start with a bacterial colony of size No. It is easy to show that, N(t) is given by:
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
3
N( t ) = N o .e α . t
(2)
which is the wellknown law of exponential growth. We can quickly check that this analytical solution to our model (equation 1), is at least consistent by setting t = 0 and noting that N = No, as required. Thus, equation 1 is our first example of a simulation model which describes the process  bacterial growth in this case  and equation 2 is its analytical solution. But looking further into this model, it seems to predict that as t gets bigger, then the number N  the number of bacteria in the colony  gets hugely bigger and, indeed, as t →∞, the number N also →∞. Is this realistic ? Do colonies of bacteria get infinite in size ? Clearly, our model is not an exact replica of a real bacterial colony since, as they grow in size, they start to use up all the food and die off. This means that our model may need further terms to describe the observed behaviour of a real bacterial colony. However, if we are just interested in the early time growth of a small colony, our model may be adequate for our purpose; that is, it may be fitforpurpose. The real issue here is a balance between the simplicity of our model and the use we want to make of it. This is an important lesson for what is to come in this course and throughout your activities trying to model real petroleum reservoirs. In contrast to the above simple model for the growth of a bacterial colony, some models are much more difficult to solve. In some cases, we may be able to write down the equations for our model, but it may be impossible to solve these analytically due to the complexity of the equations. Instead, it may be possible to approximate these complicated equations by an equivalent numerical model. This model would commonly involve carrying out a very large number of (locally quite simple) numerical calculations. The task of carrying out large numbers of very repetitive calculations is ideally suited to the capabilities of a digital computer which can do this very quickly. As an example of a numerical model, we will return to the simple model for colony growth in equation (1). Now, we have already shown that we have a perfectly simple analytical solution for this model (equation 2). However, we are going to “forget” this for a moment and try to solve equation 1 using a numerical method. To do this we break the time, t, into discrete timesteps which we denote by Δt. So, if we have the number of bacteria in the colony at t = 0, i.e. No, then we want to calculate the number at time Δt later, then we use the new value and try to find the number at time Δt later and so on. In order to do this systematically, we need an algorithm (a mathematical name for a recipe) which is easy to develop once we have defined the following notation: Notation: the value of N at the current time step n is denoted as Nn the value of N at the next time step, n+1 is denoted as Nn+1
Clearly, it is the Nn+1 that we are trying to find. Going back to the main equation that defines this model (equation 1), we approximate this as follows:
N n +1 − N n ≈ α .N n ∆t
(3)
where we use the symbol, "≈", to indicate that equation 3 is really an approximation, or that it is only exactly true as Δt → 0. Equation 3 is now our (approximate) numerical
4
Introduction and Case Studies
1
model which can be rearranged as follows to find Nn+1 (which is the “unknown” that we are after):
N n +1 = (1 + α.∆t ).N n
(4)
where we have gone to the exact equality symbol, “=”, in equation 4 since, we are accepting the fact that the model is not exact but we are using it anyway. This is our numerical algorithm (or recipe) that is now very amenable to solution using a simple calculator. More formally, the algorithm for the model would be carried out as shown in Figure 1.
Set, t=0
Choos e the time step size, ∆t Specify the initial no. of bacteria at t = 0 i.e. No and set the first value (n=0) of N n to N o No = No
Print n, t and N (N n)
Set
N n+1 = (1 + α.∆t). N n
Set
N n = N n+1 n = n+1 t = t + ∆t
No
Figure 1 Example of an algorithm to solve the simple numerical “simulation” model in the text
Time to stop ? e.g. is t > tmax or n > nmax
Yes End
The above example, although very simple, explains quite well several aspects of what a simulation model is. This model is simple enough to be solved analytically. However, it can also be formulated as an approximate numerical model which is organised into a numerical algorithm (or recipe) which can be followed repetitively. A simple calculator is sufficient to solve this model but, in more complex systems, a digital computer would generally be used.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
5
1.2 A Note on Units
Throughout this course we will use Field Units and/or SI Units, as appropriate. Although the industry recommendation is to convert to SI Units, this makes discussion of the field examples and cases too unnatural.
EXERCISE 1. Return to the simple model described by equation 1. Take as input data, that we start off with 25 bacteria in the colony. Take the value α = 1.74 and take time steps Δt = 0.05 in the numerical model. (i) Using the scale on the graph below, plot the analytical solution for the number of bacteria N(t) as a function of time between t = 0 and t = 2 (in arbitrary time units). (ii) Plot as points on this same plot, the numerical solution at times t = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. What do you notice about these ? (iii)Using a spreadsheet, repeat the numerical calculation with a Δt = 0.001 and plot the same 5 points as before. What do you notice about these?
1000
N(t) 500
0
1
Time
2
(i) (ii)
6
Introduction and Case Studies
1
2 WHAT IS A RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL?
In the previous section, we introduced the idea of a simulation model applied to the growth of a bacterial colony. Now let us consider what we want to model  or simulate  when we come to developing petroleum reservoirs. Clearly, petroleum reservoirs are much more complex than our simple example since they involve many variables (e.g. pressures, oil saturations, flows etc.) that are distributed through space and that vary with time. In 1953, Uren defined a petroleum reservoir as follows: “ ... a body of porous and permeable rock containing oil and gas through which fluids may move toward recovery openings under the pressure existing or that may be applied. All communicating pore space within the productive formation is properly a part of the rock, which may include several or many individual rock strata and may encompass bodies of impermeable and barren shale. The lateral expanse of such a reservoir is contingent only upon the continuity of pore space and the ability of the fluids to move through the rock pores under the pressures available.” L.C. Uren, Petroleum Production Engineering, Oil Field Exploitation, 3rd edn., McGrawHill Book Company Inc., New York, 1953. This fine example of old fashioned prose is not so easy on the modern ear but does in fact “say it all”. And, whatever it says, then it is precisely what the modern simulation engineer must model!
2.1 The Task of Reservoir Simulation
Let us consider the possible magnitude of the task before us when we want to model (or simulate) the performance of a real petroleum reservoir. Figure 2 shows a schematic of reservoir depositional system for the midJurassic Linnhe and Beryl formations in the UK sector of the North Sea. Some actual reservoir cores from the Beryl formation are shown in Figure 3. It is evident from the cores that real reservoirs are very heterogenous. The air permeabilities (kair) range from 1mD to almost 3000 mD and it is evident that the permeability varies quite considerably over quite short distances. It is common for reservoirs to be heterogeneous from the smallest scale to the largest as is evident in these figures. These permeability heterogeneities will certainly affect both pressures and fluid flow in the system. By contrast, a reservoir simulation model which might be used to simulate waterflooding in a layered system of this type is shown schematically in Figure 4. This model is clearly hugely simplified compared with a real system. Although the task of reservoir simulation may appear from this example to be huge, it is still one that reservoir engineers can  and indeed must  tackle. Below, we start by listing in general terms the activities involved in setting up a reservoir model. One way of approaching this is to break the process down into three parts which will all have to appear somewhere in our model: (i) Choice and Controls: Firstly, there are the things that we have some control over. For example:
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
7
• • • •
Where the injectors and producer wells are located The capability that we have in the well (completions & downhole equipment) How much water or gas injection we inject and at what rate How fast we produce the wells (drawdown)
We note that certain quantities such as injection and production rates are subject to physical constraints imposed on us by the reservoir itself. (ii) Reservoir Givens: Secondly, there are the givens such as the (usually very uncertain) geology that is down there in the reservoir. There may or may not be an active aquifer which is contributing to the reservoir drive mechanism. We can do things to know more about the reservoir/aquifer system by carrying out seismic surveys, drilling appraisal wells and then running wireline logs, gathering and performing measurements on core, performing and analysing pressure buildup or drawdown tests, etc. (iii) Reservoir Performance Results: Thirdly, there is the observation of the results i.e the reservoir performance. This includes well production rates of oil, water and gas, the field average pressure, the individual well pressures and well productivities etc.
Fl ial/ oo dp lain eB ay
Fluvial mud/sand supply
FC OM/CS L CRS BM OM/CS
SSW
L TC SM L
Flu
v
E
TC TF FTD TS TF
a stu
rin
SM TC
SM
Ba
rrie
r
o Sh a ref
ce
SM TF
SS TCI
SS
TC
SS
ETD
Fluvial/Floodplain Facies Asociation FC: Fluvial channel sandstones CRS: Crevasse channel/splay sandstones OM/L: Overbank/lake mudstone CS: Coal swamp/marsh mudstone and coal Estuarine BayFill Facies Association TC: Tidal channel sandstones TF: Lower intertidal flat sandstones TS: Tidal shoal sandstone SM: Salt marsh/upper intertidal flat mudstones BM: Brackish bay mudstones FTD: Flood tidal delta Tidal InletBarrier Shoreline Facies Association TCI: Tidal inlet/ebb channel sandstones SS: Barrier shoreline sandstone ETD: Ebb tidal delta
12
.15
km
Block diagram illustrates the gradual infilling of the Beryl Embayment by fluvial/floodplain (Linnhe l), estuarinebay fill (Linnhe ll) and tidal inletbarrier shoreline facies sequences (Beryl Formation).
Coal Fluvial/crevasse channelfills Tidal channelfills Tidal inletfills Shoal/bars Floodoriented currents Ebboriented currents Longshore currents
Figure 2 Conceptual depositional model for the Linnhe and Beryl formations from the middle Jurassic period (UK sector of the North Sea). (G. Robertson in Cores from the Northwest European Hydrocarbon Provence, edited by C D Oakman, J H Martin and P W M Corbett, Geological Society, London. 1997).
8
ka =2940mD) . Geological Society. ut: cr kx. ka = 1mD) 1m Pyritic mudstone (pm)→ finegrained bioturbated sandstone (φ =16%. (G. ∆y Approximate Size of Core vs. ka =1440mD) .some thin clay and carbonate rich lamination Figure 3 Cores from the midJurassic Beryl formation from UK sector of the North Sea. London. 1997). edited by C D Oakman. ka = 2mD) . P i krw(z. k et t og w. Mediumgrained ripplelaminated and bioturbated carbonate cemented sandstone (φ =10%. The information which is input for a single grid block is shown.in finingup units Coarsegrained carbonaceous sandstone (φ =20%. w) kr w(S w ). ock. Grid Size Institute of Petroleum Engineering. ka = 29mD) Medium to coarsegrained crossstratified sandstone (φ =21%. φ is porosity and ka is the air permeability. n S ky. Robertson in Cores from the Northwest European Hydrocarbon Provence. Contrast this simple model with the detail in a geological model (Figure 2) and in the actual cores themselves (Figure 3). finingup units 15858 ft Base 15855 ft Base 14594 ft Base 14364 ft Base 14361 ft Base Producer Water Injector Figure 4 A schematic diagram of a waterflood simulation in a 3D layered model with an 8x8x5 grid. HeriotWatt University 9 . J H Martin and P W M Corbett. ∆z ∆x Inp φ.in crossstratified.Introduction and Case Studies 1 Slab 1 Top 15855 ft Slab 2 Top 15852 ft Slab 3 Top 14591 ft Slab 4 Top 14361 ft Slab 5 Top 14358 ft Mediumgrained Carbonate cemented sandstone (φ =14%. ros c (S S s w).
the model in Figure 5c would be more appropriate since it is more detailed and it contains more spatial information. But we should now stop at this point and ask ourselves why we are doing the particular study of a given reservoir? In other words. Therefore. we require increasing amounts of data as we go from Figure 5a→5b→5c. The sector model in Figure 5b is somewhat more complex in that it recognises different regions of the reservoir. we may choose a very simple model of the reservoir or one that is quite complex depending on the question we are asking or the decision which we have to make. This schematic sequence of models illustrates that there is no one right model for a reservoir. the level of modelling that we will carry out is directly related to the issue or question that we are trying to address.or which tool can I use .one of the pioneers of numerical reservoir simulation . we illustrate the general idea in Figure 5 which shows three models of the same reservoir. we will identify models such as those in Figure 5a as essentially material balance models and will be discussed in much more detail later. at its most complex. It is also evident that we should think carefully before building a very detailed model of the type shown in Figure 5c. There are some circumstances where we might build quite 10 . However. because the material balance model is essentially a tank model. It is clear that to build models of the types shown in Figure 5. But there is another important factor: data. However. Some engineers prefer to put this as follows: • • What decision am I trying to make? What is the minimum level of modelling . The simplicity/complexity of the model should relate to the simplicity/ complexity of the question.(iii) in a complete model of the reservoir performance. our task will be to incorporate all of the above features (i) .2 What Are We Trying To Do and How Complex Must Our Model Be? Therefore. in this context. Without giving technical details of what we mean by simple and complex. even this model may be inadequate if the question is quite detailed such as: in my mature field with a number of active injector/ producer wells where should I locate an infill well and should it be vertical. slanted or horizontal ? For such complicated questions. The first (Figure 5a). The particular advantage of material balance models is that they are very simple.2.who said: “The tools of reservoir simulation range from the intuition and judgement of the engineer to complex mathematical models requiring use of digital computers. it cannot address questions about why the pressures in two sectors of the reservoir are different (since a single average pressure in the system is a core assumption). The question is not whether to simulate but rather which tool or method to use.” (Coats. 1969). They can address questions relating to average field pressure for given quantities of oil/water/gas production and water influx from given initial quantities and initial pressure (within certain assumptions). This model could address the question of different regional pressures. shows the reservoir as a tank model where we are just concerned with the gross fluid flows into and out of the system. if we have almost no data. In Chapter 2.that allows me to adequately make that decision? This matter is put well by Keith Coats .
a range of questions which we might answer. The simplicity/complexity of the model should relate to the simplicity/complexity of the question. Injector Producer 200ft 2000ft We are now aware that various levels of reservoir model may be used and that the reservoir engineer must choose the appropriate one for the task at hand. and be consistent with the amount of reliable data which we have. (a) "Tank" Model of the Reservoir Wells Offtake Average Pressure Average Saturations = = P So . We will assume at this point that building a numerical reservoir simulation model is the correct approach for what we are trying to achieve. we now address the issue: What do we model in reservoir simulation and why do we model it ? There are. Sw and Sg Aquifer (b) Simple Sector Model Producer . Definition: A numerical reservoir simulation model is a grid block model of a petroleum reservoir where each of the blocks represents a local part of the 11 Institute of Petroleum Engineering.West Flank Producer . as we have said. only some of which require a full numerical simulation model to be constructed. If this is so.East Flank Oil Leg Aquifer (c) Fine Grid Simulation Model of a Waterflood Figure 5 Schematic illustrations of reservoir models of increasing complexity. Each of these may be suitable for certain types of calculation (see text). HeriotWatt University .Introduction and Case Studies 1 a complicated model with little data to test out hypotheses but we will not elaborate on this issue at this point. Let us now say what a numerical reservoir simulation model is and what sorts of things it can (and cannot) do.
). Figure 7(a) shows the field and simulation results for total oil and water cumulative production over 35 years of field life. water and gas saturations throughout the reservoir as functions of time i. it is these which drive the model. relative permeability etc. (d) Choose which output (from a vast range of possibilities) you would like to have printed to file which you can then plot later or . permeability. water and gas The individual well pressures (bottom hole or.t) and Sg(x. We now list what needs to be done in principle to run the model and then the things which a simulator calculate.y. This field example is for a Middle East carbonate reservoir where the structural map is shown in Figure 7(d).t) Some of the above quantities are shown in simulator output in Figure 7. The output can include the following (nonexhaustive) list of quantities: • • • • • • • The average field pressure as a function of time The total field cumulative oil.z. water and gas production profiles with time The total field daily (weekly. The model incorporates data on the reservoir fluids (PVT) and the reservoir description (porosities . wellhead) over time The individual well cumulative and daily flowrates of oil. monthly.e.reservoir.z. An example of numerical reservoir simulation gridded model is shown in Figure 6. if it has the “correct” data.) and their distribution in space. (b) Choose certain numerical features of the grid (number of grid blocks. bottom hole pressure constraints etc. permeabilities etc. it can be seen that the reservoir comprises of three zones each of ~ 100 ft thick and each is at a different pressure. GORs.y. Blocks are generally connected to neighbouring blocks are fluid may flow in a blocktoblock manner. through lift curves. where some of the features in the above definition are evident. Figure 7(b) shows the actual and modelled average field pressure. (c) Set up the correct field well controls (injection rates. water and gas with time Either full field or individual well watercuts. This indicates that 12 . The type of results shown in Figures 7(a) and 7(b) are very common but the modelling of the RFT (Repeat Formation Tester) pressure shown in Figure 7(c) is less common. To run a reservoir simulation model. The RFT tool measures the local pressure at a given vertical depth and.in some cases . in this case. time step sizes etc). you must: (a) Gather and input the fluid and rock (reservoir description) data as outlined above.) although they may change with time as the reservoir process progresses.y. O/W ratios with time The spatial distribution of oil. Sw(x. Submodels within the simulator represent and model the injection/producer wells. So(x.t). Within a grid block the properties are uniform (porosity.while the simulation is still running.z. annual) production rates of each phase: oil.
data visualisation techniques have played on important role in analysing the results from large reservoir simulations. HeriotWatt University ure (psia) 3000 13 . flow is restricted between these layers). Bent and D.J.V. M. 1996. Two faults can be seen at the front of the reservoir before the structure dips down into the aquifer.e.W. There is no point is doing a massively complex calculation on a large reservoir system with millions of grid blocks if the output is so huge and complex that it overwhelms the reservoir engineerʼs ability to analyse and make sense of the output. This is an interesting and useful example of how reservoir simulation is used in practice. The distorted 3D grid covers the crestal reservoir and a large part of the aquifer which is shown dipping down towards the reader.743 grid blocks. J. 700 Cumulative Production (MMB) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Figure 7 (a) to (d) Example of some typical reservoir simulator output.Introduction and Case Studies 1 pressure barriers exist (i. In recent years. The model contains 25. Figure 6 An example of a 3D numerical reservoir simulation model. Observed Oil Modelled Oil Observed Water Modelled Water 15 20 25 30 35 Year of Production (a) Full field history match of cumulative oil and water production 3500 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Note that a vast quantity of output can be output and plotted up and the postprocessing facilities in a reservoir simulator suite of software are very important. Sibley. Oil is shown in red and water is blue and a vertical projection of a crosssection at the crest of the reservoir is shown on the x/z and y/z planes on the sides of the perspective box. This is correctly modelled in the simulation. Two injectors can be seen in the aquifer as well as a crestal horizontal well. From SPE36540. Davis (Texaco). “Reservoir Modelling and Simulation of a Middle Eastern Carbonate Reservoir”.
) 200 300 1000 1500 1000 2500 3000 (c) Match of RFT pressure data by reservoir simulation model at Year 30 Figure 7c • A Lower Cretaceous C C Carbonate Reservoir in the Arabian Peninsula • Most wells drilled in 19551962 C • > 600 MMBO produced by early 1980s • this study 1992 C C Drilled New Location Injector Location 1 Mile C Convert to Injector (d) Field structural map with 50' contour interval Figure 7d 14 .Cumulative Pro Modelled Oil 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Observed Water Modelled Water 15 20 25 30 35 Year of Production (a) Full field history match of cumulative oil and water production 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Average Pressure (psia) Observed Data Modelled Data 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Year of Production (b) Full field history match of volume weighted pressure Figure 7b Datum Observed Modelled 100 Depth (ft.
Note that Option 3 produces most oil (but it involves drilling six additional injection wells). respectively. (v) The economic evolution of each option using the predicted oil recovery profiles in Figure 8(f) is shown in Figure 8(g) (where NPV = Net Present Value. (iv) The forward predictions of cumulative oil for the various options are shown in Figure 8(f). it is much cheaper to model these four cases than to actually do one of them. (ii) The corresponding stratification/lithology of the field is shown along the well ABCD transect in Figure 8(b). of this Chapter. HeriotWatt University 15 . Note that option 4 emerges in the most economic case although it produces rather less oil than option 3. Injector Producer A C Figure 8 Schematic example of how reservoir simulation might be used in a study of four field development options (see text). Likewise.upgrade injectors and drill six new injectors.upgrade peripheral injection wells. This would ideally lead to range of profiles for any forward modeling but we will deal with this in detail later. lithology is given from wells A. C and D Institute of Petroleum Engineering. The important quantities are the oil recovery profiles for each case compared with the scenario where we simple proceed with the current reservoir development strategy (Option 1).to continue as present with the waterflood. we do not know whether the forward predictions which we are taking as what would happen anyway. Of course. B D (a) Field A areal plan showing injector and producer well locations.8.Introduction and Case Studies 1 How some of this output might be used is illustrated schematically in Figure 8. IRR = Interval Rate of Return: these are economic measures explained in the economics module of the HeriotWatt distance learning course). Option 3 . Option 4 .drill four new infill wells. This is an imaginary case where the reservoir study is to consider the best of four options in Field A: Option 1 . We discuss the handling of uncertainties in rather more detail in Section 3. Option 2 . we may be unsure of how accurate our forward predictions are for each of the various scenarios.8(g) we note that: (i) The areal plan of the reservoir is given showing injector and producer well location in Figure 8(a). an important aspect of reservoir simulation is to assess each of the various uncertainties which are associated with our model. Clearly. B. In the schematic case shown in Figures 8(a) . (iii) Figures 8(c) and 8(d) show the areal grid and the vertical grid. are actually correct. In fact.
Sand 1 Sand 2 Sand 3 Sand 4 A B C D Figure 8 (b) (b) Schematic vertical crosssection showing the lithology across the field through 4 wells A. A A B B C C D D A B B C C NZ = 8 NZ = 8 D D A Figure 8 (d) (d) Reservoir simulation vertical crosssectional grid showing current well locations. 16 . C and D A A B B C C D D Figure 8 (c) (c) Reservoir simulation (areal) grid showing current well locations. B.
Option 4 . HeriotWatt University 17 . NZ = 8. Option 4 Infill Wells Cumulative Oil Infill Wells Option 3 Option 4 Cumulative Oil Oil Cumulative Option 3 Option 4 Option 3 Continue as at present (do nothing) Option 1 Option 2 Time Continue as at present (do nothing) Option 1 Option 2 Continue as at present (do nothing) Option 1 Time Option 2 Figure 8 (f) Time (f) Simulated oil recovery results for various4options 3 NPV or IRR 1 4 4 2 3 3 NPV NPV or IRR or IRR 1 1 2 2 Option Option Option Figure 8 (g) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Option 2 . Note that the vertical grid is not uniform.upgrade injectors + add 6 new injectors. Option 3.continue as at present.Introduction and Case Studies 1 The grid has 8 blocks in the z.direction representing the thickness of the formation as shown below.upgrade peripheral injection wells. Periferal Injectors A B Periferal Injectors C Periferal Injectors A A B B C C D D D Figure 8 (e) Infill Wells (e) Option 1.drill four new infill wells.
Reservoir simulation may be used in many smaller ways to decide on various technical matters although even these . Appraisal stage: at this stage. The sequencing of the well drilling program and the topside facilites. The nature of the facility required to develop the field e. These studies will raise virtually all of the technical terms and concepts and many of the issues that will be studied in more detail later in this course. At the grander scale. gas injection etc. locations and types of well (vertical. The important terms and concepts will be italicised and will appear in the Glossary at the front of this chapter. The nature and capacities of plant subfacilities such as compressors for injection. a subsea development tied back to an existing platform or a Floating Production System (for an offshore fileld). oil/water/gas separation capability.for example the issue illustrated in Figure 8 . • • • 18 .(g) Economic evaluation of options . reservoir simulation will be a tool that can be used to design the overall field development plan in terms of the following issues: • • The nature of the reservoir recovery plan e. natural depletion. we have considered what a numerical reservoir simulation model is and we have touched on some of the sorts of things that can be calculated. The number. a platform.NPV or IRR Now consider what we are actually trying to do in a typical full field reservoir simulation study. Reservoir simulation may be applied either at the appraisal stage of a field development or at any stage in the early. 3 FIELD APPLICATION OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION 3. middle or late field lifetime. There is a short answer to this is often said in one form or another: it is that the central objective of reservoir simulation is to produce future predictions (the output quantities listed above) that will allow us to optimise reservoir performance.1 Reservoir Simulation at Appraisal and in Mature Fields Up to this point. waterflooding. what is meant by “optimise reservoir performance” is to develop the reservoir in the manner that brings the maximum economic benefit to the company. There are clearly differences in what we might want to get out of a study carried out at the appraisal stage of a reservoir and a study carried out on a mature field. we will proceed to three field applications of reservoir simulation.g.g. slanted or horizontal) to be drilled in the field. Rather than continue with a discussion of the various technical aspects of reservoir simulation one by one.are usually reduced to economic calculations and decisions in the final analysis as indicated in Figure 8(g).
g.investment decisions are made e. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Therefore. just when it can be at its most useful during appraisal is precisely when it has the least data to work on and hence it will usually make the poorest forward predictions. the stock tank oil initially in place. As we have already noted. Different values of the reservoir parameters such as permeability. most expensive . the presence/absence of major fluvial channels. that incorporate the major uncertainties in terms of reservoir size (STOIIP). In such cases. By running forward predictions on this range of cases. reservoir simulation can take us forward with the best current view of the reservoir that we have at that time. Therefore.. scenarios for various cases may involve: • • • Different assumptions about the original oil in place (STOIIP. or reservoir scenarios. 2005 2010 Time (Year) 2015 For example. it is the most helpful time to have accurate forward predictions of the reservoir performance. very little or no field performance history (there may be some extended production well tests). we may still be able to build a range of possible reservoir models. the distribution of shales in the reservoir etc. if major features of the reservoir model (e. of course. then the forward predictions may be very inaccurate. “leaky” faults in the system. strength of aquifer. porosity. HeriotWatt University 19 . "Optimistic" Case Cumulative Oil Recovery (STB) "Pessimistic" Case Most Probable Case Figure 9 Spread of future predicted field performances from a range of scenarios of the reservoir at appraisal. But.g. STOIIP) are uncertain. does reservoir simulation let us down just when we need it most? Perhaps. etc. nettogross ratio. even during appraisal.Introduction and Case Studies 1 It is during the initial appraisal stage that many of the biggest .. sealing vs. main fault blocks. the effect of an aquifer. we can generate a spread of predicted future field performance cases as shown schematically in Figure 9. Stock Tank Oil Originally In Place). it seem that reservoir simulation has a builtin weakness in its usefulness. the type of platform and facilities etc.e.i. How to estimate which of these predictions is the most likely and what the magnitude of the “true” uncertainties are is very difficult and will be discussed later in the course. it is at this time when we have the least amount of data and. reservoir connectivity. etc.g. However. although this view may be highly uncertain. So. Major changes in the structural geology or sedimentology of the reservoir e.
injected water arrives at oil producers before it is expected). changing to gas injection or some other IOR scheme etc. i.e. we may wish to determine the importance of gravity in the reservoir recovery mechanism. 20 . adding extra injection water capability.g. Late field development: we define this stage of field development as the closing few years of field production before abandonment.) • • • • There are many reported studies in the SPE literature where the simulation model is rebuilt in early/midlife of the reservoir and different future development options are assessed (e.20+ years) but there is still a reasonably long lifespan ahead for the field. typical reservoir simulation activities are as follows: • Carrying out a history match of the (now available) field production history in order to obtain a better tuned reservoir model to use for future field performance prediction Using the history match to revisit the field development strategy in terms of changing the development plan e. A question arises here as to whether the field is of sufficient economic importance to merit a simulation study at this stage. this does not invalidate doing reservoir simulation in the first place. geological and petrophysical data prior to a new simulation study The reservoir recovery mechanisms can be reviewed using a carefully history matched simulation model e. reservoir simulation is a tool for reservoir management which allows the reservoir engineer to plan and evaluate future development options for the reservoir. cumulative oil. in that it fails in some aspects of its predictions of reservoir performance e.10+years. (Why do you think this is so?) At this development stage. in addition to having some idea of which wells are in communication and possibly some production logs.g. This is a process that can be done on a continually updated basis. see SPE10022 attached to this chapter). Deciding between smaller project options such as drilling an attic horizontal well vs. infill drilling. working over 2 or 3 existing vertical/slanted wells It may be necessary to review the equity stake of various partner companies in the field after some period of production although this typically involves a complete review of the engineering. At this stage. to match the history. if we find that. The initial reservoir simulation model for the field has probably been found to be “wrong”. watercuts and GORs (both fieldwide and for individual wells). if the original model does turn out to be wrong. such as pressures.g. although not always. By the way. say 3 . The main difference between this stage and appraisal is that the engineer now has some field production history. it failed to predict water breakthough in our waterflood (usually. (Coats (1972) refers to this as the “educational value of simulation models” and it is a part of good reservoir management that the engineer has a good grasp of the important reservoir physics of their asset.Mature field development: we define this stage of field development for our purposes as when the field is in “midlife”.g. it has been in production for some time (2 . we must reduce the vertical flows (by lowering the vertical transmissibility).
S. 3.g. The three field examples are as follows: Case 1: “The Role of Numerical Simulation in Reservoir Management of a West Texas Carbonate Reservoir”. New Orleans. SPE10022.J. SPE49165. In fact. For example. Alabert (Elf Aquitaine) Case 3: “The Ubit Field Rejuvenation: A Case History of Reservoir Management of a Giant Oilfield Offshore Nigeria”. presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference (Europec92).G. Cannes. Case 2: “Anguille Marine. we can develop a new development strategy that will give the field “a new lease of life” and keep it going economically for a few more years. G. However there are two reasons why we may want to launch a simulation study late in a fieldʼs lifetime. presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. you may very well understand many of the term immediately from the context of their description in the SPE paper. Massonat and F. SPE25006. Beijing. a DeepseaFan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From Geology Toward History Matching Through Stochastic Modelling”. However. France. presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the SPE. Firstly. 18 . by K J Harpole and C L Hearn. In the text of each of these papers there are margin numbers which refer to the Study Notes following the paper.26 March 1982.Introduction and Case Studies 1 A company may make the call that it is simply not worth studying any further since the payback would be too low. there are no general rules here since it depends on the local technical and economic factors which course of action a company will follow. This may justify a late life simulation study. Nigeria) These cases were chosen for the following main reasons: • They are all good technical studies that illustrate “typical” uses of reservoir simulation as a tool in reservoir management (we have deliberately taken all cases at the middle and the mature stages of field development since much more data is available at that time). They introduce virtually all of the main ideas and concepts of reservoir simulation in the context of a worked field application. we may have to remove an offshore structure . Secondly. In some countries there may be legislation (or regulations) that require that an oil company produces reservoir simulation calcualtions as part of their ongoing reservoir management. 1618 November 1992. by C.e. LA.2 Introduction to the Field Cases Three field cases are now presented. Giudicelli. by C. the cost of field abandonment may be so high . although it is in far decline. or a program of successful well stimulation (to remove a production impairment such as mineral scale) or we may wish to try an economic Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) technique. HeriotWatt University . we may apply a novel cheap drilling technology.that almost anything we do to extend field life and avoid this expense will be “economic”. We reproduce the full SPE papers describing each of these reported cases. China. As these concepts 21 • Institute of Petroleum Engineering.A. Clayton et al (Mobil and Department of Petroleum Resources. We use these to explain the concepts of reservoir simulation as they arise naturally in the description of a field application. we may think that. 2730 September 1998.
the early/mid 1990s and the late 1990s. Although this paper is almost 20 years old. Summary: This paper presents a study from the early 1980s where a range of reappraisal strategies for a mature carbonate field are being evaluated using reservoir simulation. 1982) Case 1: “The Role of Numerical Simulation in Reservoir Management of a West Texas Carbonate Reservoir”. Beijing. For example. by K J Harpole and C L Hearn. all the main concepts that are introduced can also be found in the Glossary which should be used for quick reference throughout the course or until you are quite familiar with the various terms and concepts in reservoir simulation. By choosing an example from the early 1980s. viz Introduction. it introduces the reader in a very clear way to virtually all the concepts of conventional reservoir simulation. 18 . Future Performance.26 March 1982. As noted above.3 Case 1: The West Seminole Field Simulation Study (SPE10022. Reservoir Description. China. See SPE 10022 paper in Appendix 3. The structure of the study is very typical of the work flow of a field simulation study.and specialised terms arise. Compact definitions of the various terms are given in the Glossary at the front of this module. Location maps and general reservoir structure shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SPE 10022. SPE10022. Simulation Model. we can illustrate some of the advances in applied reservoir simulation that have taken place over that period (this is due to the availability of greater computer processing power and also the adoption of new ideas in areas such as geostatistics and reservoir description). • • They are all wellwritten and use little or no mathematics. History Matching. Conclusions and recommendations. presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the SPE. How you should read the next part of the module is as follows: • • Read right through the SPE paper and just pay particular attention when there is a Study Note number in the margin. Go back through the paper but stop at each of the Study Notes and read through the actual point being made in that note. They explicitly state in their opening remarks that their central objective is to “optimise reservoir performance” by choosing a future development strategy from a range of defined options. they are explained briefly in the study notes although more detailed discussion will appear later in the course. 22 . possible development strategies include the blowdown of the gas cap or infill drilling.
see Figure 4. The vertical communication . This geochemical information is not directly used in the simulation model but it is important since it leads to identification of reservoir layer to layer flow barriers (see below). Carbonate diagenetic processes include dolomitisation (dolomite = CaMg(CO3)2). States explicitly that the objective of the study is to “optimise reservoir performance” as discussed in the introductory part of this module. in fact).Introduction and Case Studies 1 Study Notes Case 1: 1.e. The impact of the geology/diagenesis in the simulation model is discussed here. 3. Therefore. 6a.see below . Strategy: Previous gas reinjection into the cap + peripheral water injection => not very successful. Therefore. States the structure of the simulation study work flow: Accurate reservoir description . recrystallisation. This is an excellent example of an uncertain reservoir feature that can be modelling using a range of scenarios from free flow between layers to zero interlayer flow + all cases in between. cementations and leaching. A “5spot” is a particular example of a “pattern flood” which is appropriate mainly for onshore reservoirs where many wells can be drilled with relatively close spacing (see Waterflood Patterns in the Glossary).Develop the simulation model (perform the history match . An interesting point is raised comparing the carbonate reservoir of this study broadly to sandstone reservoirs. 6b. 2. There is evidence of field wide barriers due to cementation with anhydrite which may reduce vertical flows. see Fig. the local porosity and permeability. In contrast.use model for future predictions . They want to implement a 40 acre. 4. a point to note is that the broad outline and work flow of a numerical reservoir simulation study are quite similar for both carbonate and sandstone reservoirs.will affect flow between the oil and gas zones which may lead to loss of oil to the gas cap. This is important since it gives a sound geological interpretation to the existence of the vertical flow barriers. A lengthy geological description of the reservoir is given where the depositional environment is described . HeriotWatt University 23 . 8b. 8a. if we need to include this to Institute of Petroleum Engineering. A history match is when we adjust the parameters in the simulation model to make the simulated production history agree with the actual field performance (expanded on below). 3. 5spot water flood.reference is made to extensive core data (~7500 ft. we can run simulations of all these cases and see which one agrees best with the field observations (which is what they do. Raises the issue of an accurate reservoir description being required and this is emphasised throughout this paper.or lack of it . 5. of core). it is noted that sandstone reservoir are mainly controlled by their depositional environment and tend to show less diagenetic overprint. 7. However. They raise the issue of vertical communication between the oil and gas zones. It notes that the postdepositional diagenetic effects are of major importance in the West Seminole field in that they affect the reservoir continuity and quality i.evaluate alternative operating plans).
it is this. these may be explained from the depositional environment and the subsequent diagenetic history of the reservoir. No evidence of “channelling or obvious fracture flow system” 14c. 15. Dake (1994. (b) restricted communication between layers (ΔP ≈ 200 . 7500 ft. of whole core analysis for the W. see k/φ Correlations in the Glossary). 11. there is pressure evidence of “arithmetically averaged permeabilities”. (iii) evaluation of the pay continuity between the injectors and producers 14b. Permeability distributions in the reservoir are shown in Fig. we just have to “get on with it”.match the field performance. 3 phase . 14d. This is probably too little data but reflects the reality in many practical reservoir studies that often the engineer does not have important information. 6 and these data are vital for reservoir simulation.g. They note that no consistent k/φ correlation is found in this system (which is quite common in carbonates).19) comments on this type of data: “What matters in viewing core data is the allimportant permeability distribution across the producing formations. Often some approximate k/φ correlation can be found for sandstones (e. This is vital information since it gives an immediate clue that there is probably not completely free flow between layers i.e.250 psi between layers). Again. (ii) the degree of stratification in the reservoir. Native state core tests are referred to from which they obtained steadystate relative permeabilities. that dictates the efficiency of the displacement process. This is again typical of layered systems. Seminole field was available which was digitised for computer analysis (not common at that time. 14a. In this study the reservoir simulator which they used was a commercial Black Oil Model (3D. NB it appears that only one native state core relative permeability was actually measured. Seminole field does “exhibit a distinctly layered structure” and the corresponding permeability stratification in the model is shown in Fig. The W. Pressure transient work . This is very valuable information and is often not available. This is done quite often in order to simplify the model and to focus 24 . The objectives of this work were to determine whether there was (i) directional permeability effects. 9. 7. Finally on this issue. more than anything else. Distinct evidence was seen for: (a) the presence of a layered system. directional fracturing or channelling. we have some justification or explanation for it rather than it simply being a “fiddle factor” in the model. however. 13. low k anhydrite cement zones. late 1970s).again gives important ancillary information on the reservoir. 10. p.” 12. there are barriers to flow as suspected from the geology. 16.oil/water/gas). These could be very valuable results but no details given here. Modelling carried out on the main dome portion of the reservoir. Figure 5 shows the 6 major reservoir layers where the interfaces between the layers are low φ.
this is done in this study). 1975). Institute of Petroleum Engineering. History Matching: The basic idea of history matching is that the model input is adjusted to match the field pressures and production history. The following three concepts are closely related (see Pseudoisation and Upscaling in the Glossary): 18a. (ii) channelling due to poor well completions. 18c. The particular grid that is chosen is very important in reservoir simulation. They refer to changing the transmissibilities between grid blocks in order to reduce flows. Hopefully we can change the “correct” variables in the model to get a match e.e.) 18. Again.g. They note that the fine grid model uses rock relative permeabilities while the coarse grid model uses pseudo relative permeabilities. In essence. (i) Complicated by free gas production. the use of pseudos can be seen as a fix up for using a coarse grid structure. An areal grid of 288 blocks ( 16 x 18 blocks) . The actual field history match indicates that approx. 17b. This procedure is intended as being a way of systematically adjusting the model to agree with field observations. i. Grid size sensitivity: Refers to the introduction of errors due to the coarsness of the grid known as numerical dispersion. 9. (ii) no accurate records on gas production for the first 6 years.10 BCF of gas must have been produced over this early period in order to match the field pressures. “Pseudos” are introduced in order to control numerical dispersion and account for layering. This is a use of a material balance approach in order to find the actual early STOIIP (STOIIP = Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place). 19. a total of 1728 blocks.about 10 acre each is taken along with six layers in the vertical direction. Corresponding coarse and fine grid reservoir models are shown in Fig. They note some problems with data from early field life. “Early” mechanism identified as solution gas drive and assistance from expansion. A no flow boundary is assumed in the model on the saddle with the east dome (justified by different pressure history). Some initial discussion of field experience and numerical simulation conclusions is presented and developed in these points. 8 . this is supported by field evidence but it may also be a simplifying judgement to avoid unnecessary complication in the model. 20a. See History Matching in the Glossary. HeriotWatt University 25 .this was not the case in late 1970s. The grid structure used in the simulations is shown in Fig 8. (See Glossary for exact definition of transmissibility.Introduction and Case Studies 1 on the region of the field of interest (and importance in terms of oil production). 20c. 18b. This would be a very small model by todayʼs standards and could easily be run on a PC . we may examine the sensitivity to changes in vertical flow barriers in order to find which level of vertical flow agrees best with the field (indeed. 17a. The very important concept of pseudorelative permeability is introduced here (Kyte and Berry. 20b.
water production or average field pressure . (iii) strong barriers and (iv) noflow barriers. blowdown of gas cap before peak in waterflood production rate would significantly reduce oil recovery.e. Table showing some alternatives in text. Results showed that => strong barrier case is best but some problem high GOR wells are encountered randomly spaced through the field. This is quite a common explanation that appears in many places.gas production. A brief summary of the best future development option is given which is: (i) infill drilling as the best option. 25. 26b. Outlines the problems/issues for various strategies as follows: (i) shows vertical communication is very importance . (ii) moderate barrier. They look at the following cases: (i) no barriers. 27b. (iii) infill drilling. 26 .e. shows infill drilling is the most attractive option and the forward prediction for this case is shown in Figure 12. 27a. this is probably the strongest evidence that this is the best case match. 21c. Some highlighting of problems with earlier water injection . In simulation terms. 23a. increase gas injection or infill drill. (iii) shows better development strategy is to keep low ΔP e. The strong barrier case was chosen as the base case and this was used for the predictive runs. i.250 psi can only be reproduced for the strong barrier case. The strategies looked at for the future sensitivities are listed as follows: (i) change rate of water injection. increase of gas and blowdown at different times. Most of the sensitivties are for the moderate and strong barrier cases.is the easiest/most difficult to match? 22.g. 24. They diagnosed and simulated this as “behind the pipe” gas flow in these wells to explain the anomalies in the field observations. For completeness.it has a major impact on predicted reservoir performance.but overall it is very good (which they attribute to extensive core data). The actual history match of reservoir pressure and production is shown in Fig. They present a description of some adjustments to the history match . it is explained why other plans are not as attractive. 21b. A good description of their study of the sensitivity to vertical communication is given at this point. 10. (ii) shows that can avoid high future ΔP between gas cap and oil zone by high water injection or early blowdown. 11. Layer differential pressures up to 200 . (ii) management of gas cap voidage i. The base case predictions refer to the cases which essentially continue the current operations and these are shown in Fig. This is examined by adjusting the vertical transmissibilities.21a. 26a. This is a good history match but think of which field observable . Finally. (ii) water injection increased concurrently with the drilling program to maintain voidage replacement (but prevent the overinjection of water). 23b.
in summary. A reasonably good initial forward prediction from 1978 . DC. G. transmissibility. Important terms and concepts introduced in SPE10022: Specific to Reservoir Simulation: history match. voidage replacement. are as follows: 1. 13 and 14. material balance. 29. Seminole very sensitive to vertical permeability.4 Ten Years Later . pp. 47 October 1992: SPE24890: “From Stochastic Geological Description to Production Forecasting in Heterogeneous Layered Systems”. C. Tech. Hove.. Seminole field best if minimum _P between oil zone and gas cap (lower losses of oil > gas cap) by: (i) infill drilling. 3. General terms: 5spot water flood. Detailed reservoir description essential for numerical modelling. E.donʼt overinject..Introduction and Case Studies 1 28. (ii) controlling water injection rates to maintain voidage replacement . HeriotWatt University 27 . Nilsson. It is essentially a field application of a methodology described in a previous paper from the same company (Damsleth et al. infill drilling. Management of W. Carbonate . 5. 3. permeability distribution. “A Two Stage Stochastic Model Applied to a North Sea Reservoir”. The two step procedure involves a first step of constructing the geological architecture of the reservoir followed by a Institute of Petroleum Engineering.H. pseudorelative permeabilites. Hatloy (Norsk Hydro and Geomatic) Summary: This paper describes the transfer of data from a detailed gridded stochastic geological model to a more coarsely gridded reservoir simulation model. Vertical permeability is broadly characterised using 3D numerical simulation. H. Tjolsen. 2. Tonnesen and A.both primary and postdepositional diagenetic factors are important. numerical dispersion. Olsen. April 1992).1992 An interesting snapshot of where reservoir simulation technology had reached 10 years after the West Seminole study can be seen in the following papers: From the proceedings of the SPE 67th Annual Technical Conference. Conclusions are given which. S. Damsleth.B. grid structure. permeability distribution. solution gas drive.1981 is shown in Figs. K. J. rock relative permeabilities. 1992. Pet. 4. M.. Omre. 402408.. and Haldonsen. Waterflood in W. steadystate relative permeability. Understanding of reservoir response (mechanism) essential to good management. black oil model. (iii) careful management of voidage replacement into gas cap. 6. H. k/φ correlation. Washington.
That is.000 voxels were used in the model. George (Shell) Summary: This study focuses on a reservoir which has low sandbody connectivity and which is interpreted as a meandering channel fluvial system. Cannes.H. Duncan. Johnson and R.B.) Summary: This simulation study was carried out on the geologically complex. when a regular coarse grid was used. The consequences of making various assumptions in the gridding are evaluated for water. Murray (BP Exploration Operating Co. France. Leonard. A session at this conference produced the following selection of reservoir simulation papers: SPE25008: “Reservoir Management of the Oseberg Field After Four Years”. the contrast in properties of this heterogeneous reservoir were “smoothed out” by the averaging process and in most cases led to a more optimistic predicted production performance. Two years of depletion data is available and one of the aims of the study was to evaluate the possibility of performing a waterflood in this field. SPE25059: “Development Planning in a Complex Reservoir: Magnus Field UKCS Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation (LKCF)”.M. The objective of the simulation study was exactly this . This study again emphasises the importance of the reservoir geology and tries to relate the performance back to this. D. It was also noted that.E. Fantoft (Norsk Hydro) Summary: The Oseberg Field (500x106 Sm3 oil.second stage where the petrophysical values are assigned to each building block in the geological model. Brint J. They noted that the original (sedimentological) models gave over optimistic connectivity. low net to gross LKCF (rather than on higher net to gross Magnus sands studied 28 . This is a very competent simulation study and . 60x106 Sm3 gas) comprises of seven partly communicating reservoirs. They note that is it very important to represent the main geological features in the gridded model. It establishes several aspects of the reservoir mechanics and makes a number of recommendations for operating practice in the future. Paardekam.e. W. A.J. to maximise the plateau and improve ultimate oil recovery.A. They identified a problem in that the sandbody connectivity was lower than might be expected from the sedimentology alone and it was conjectured that this might be due to minor faulting with throws of a few meters. A. In the proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference. Both water and gas are being injected and modelled in this study and results indicate over 60% recovery in the main reservoir units. van Lieshout and P. J. SPE25057: “The Construction and Validation of a Numerical Model of a Reservoir Consisting of Meandering Channels”. In other respects.approx. S.i.M.B.F. van Vark. gas and WAG (wateralternatinggas) injection. The geological model is also an early practical example of using a “voxel” representation of the system . this is quite a “conventional” study. 128. An acceptable match to observed field pressures by including some level of smaller scale faulting.although details are not given .it is stated that the geological model is updated annually based on information from new wells. The modelling results indicate that the plateau production will be extended by the use of horizontal wells. 1618 November 1992. the more stochastic models led to a reduction in predicted recovery compared with conventional coarse gridded models. A.
J.e a turbidite) with a low sand/shale ratio. This study also demonstrated the importance of interdisciplinary team work to overcome the previously inhibiting high risks involved. Alabert (Elf Aquitaine) See SPE 25006 paper in Appendix Summary: The Anguille Marine Field in Gabon has 25 years of production history. Alabert (Elf Aquitaine) This paper is such a good example of contemporary studies at that time. This paper is one of the first to refer to the multiscale nature of the heterogeneity (5 scales were studied) and to refer this back to the sequence stratigraphy of the depositional environment. Massonat and F. The study concluded that a phased water injection scheme was the best way forward with the phasing being used to manage and offset the considerable geological risks. presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference (Europec92).G.S. that this is chosen as our Case 2 example and is presented in some detail in the next section. G. 3. Cannes. Stochastic modelling techniques were integrated into more conventional “deterministic” models and various options were screened for inherent uncertainty and risks. Massonat and F. HeriotWatt University 29 . by C. G. 2. The waterflood performance indicated severe sedimentary heterogeneity as the field is known to have been deposited in a deep water fan sedimentary environment. a DeepseaFan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From geology Toward History Matching Through Stochastic Modelling”.J. Study Notes Case 2: 1.Introduction and Case Studies 1 previously). The sequence stratigraphic approach allowed the field to be divided into the main types of turbiditic geometries (channels. laminated facies).S. Giudicelli.1992) Case 2: “ Anguille Marine. C. Giudicelli.G. France. This geological description opens the discussion (unusual for previous simulation studies) and the geology features heavily in the flow properties and hence in the geological and reservoir models of this field. 1618 November 1992. The proceedings of Europec92 also included the following paper: SPE25006: “Anguille Marine. The multiscale nature of the heterogeneity is well related back to the geology. Fine scale models (> 2 million grid blocks) were generated using geostatistical techniques and several issues were raised concerning both the geological model and the upscaling process itself. Ranges of expected recovery were generated and an incremental recovery of 60 MMstb was predicted increasing the total reserve of the LKCF by a factor of x2. a DeepseaFan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From geology Toward History Matching Through Stochastic Modelling”. Sequence stratigraphy: A more modern feature of reservoir simulation is that the five identified scales of heterogeneity are recognised and some attempt is made to Institute of Petroleum Engineering. This is a very good example of an early integrated geology(sedimentology)/engineering study in reservoir simulation. The objective was to formulate a development plan for the LKCF which would accelerate production from these sands. SPE25006.5 Case 2: The Anguille Marine Study (SPE25006. lobes. slumps. Depositional environment: the Anguille Marine field is a deep sea fan environment (i.4.
5 in this paper. A very important final result for reservoir simulation is the identification of five scales of heterogeneity . Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration. 8. Some contradictory water breakthrough observations were noted. 1 and 2 of this paper. waterflooding from 1971 restored pressure support but channelling led to early water breakthrough. 7. 4. Basically they: describe and model upper reservoir/ extend to the whole reservoir/ try to translate the geological model to a practical simulation model. it is rare to see sedimentary history discussed in terms of a sequence stratigraphic analysis (even mentioning the pioneering work on sea level changes of P. new approach in 1990 focused more strongly on the reservoir geology of this heterogeneous low sand/shale ratio system recognising the characteristic geometries of a tubditic fan . in Seismic Stratigraphy. channels (Upper Anguille). 1977).4. Table 2 gives mean petrophysical characteristics.which was large for the time) using geostatistical techniques. These scales are also firmly linked to the geology (sedimentology) through the principles of sequence stratigraphy. 5. Firstly.3 years and GOR increased. Table 1 gives sedimentary body dimensions (lengths and widths) for channels. Geostatistics: Reference is made to how the geological features constrain the fine scale 3D models (of > 2 million blocks . primary depletion commenced in 1966 but reservoir pressure fell rapidly over the next 2 . By the early 90s.incorporate them into the 3D simulation model. R. criteria of composite log recognition of various facies shown in Figure 5. the use of geostatistical methods was becoming more widespread and how it has been applied in this case is covered better by Refs. 6. 1 . pp. The approach: It is important in all reservoir simulation studies to have a clear logic to how we approach the simulation of a large complex reservoir system. infill drilling not very successful due to lack of current understanding of complex reservoir geology. focus on geostatistical modelling of the 3D distributions of the major flow units (channels and lobes) and barriers (laminated facies or slumps) for the entire reservoir. On the latter issue they describe the use of “partial models” where just a smaller sector of the reservoir is studied but lessons are taken back into the full model. 49212. this makes the geological analysis and information numerically useable. levees/crevassesplay. Vail et al. Chronostratigraphic correlations refer to the “timelines” of simultaneous deposition. Reservoir description: Section 2 of the paper gives a sedimentological description of the reservoir as a “slopeapron fan” of complex lithology (depositional model Figure 3) in which 14 (simplified) facies were retained. Sedimentary history: In earlier reservoir simulation studies. Brief field facts: Discovery 1962. 3. This analysis underpins much of the reservoir description but we will not elaborate on it here. This is done as a “conditional” simulation where the distribution is constrained 30 . laminated facies etc. 1 . Here they describe their general methodology although details are in Refs. and indeed up to the present time. AAPG Memoir 26.lobes channels. lobes. “Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level”. levees. slumps. Location and structure maps of Anguille Marine are given in Figures 1 .4 at the end of the paper. slumps.Figures 6 and 7. Geostatistical modelling: Mainly discussed in Refs.
10.where 14 out of 17 wells show satisfactory pressure behaviour. Reservoir zonation: Six unit vertical reservoir zonation shown in Figure 10. Test model .Introduction and Case Studies 1 (or conditioned) to the observed facies and reservoir quality observed at the wells. Simulation results: Initial pressure depletion results shown in Figure 16 . Figure 23 shows that an optimum upscaling aggregation rate (2 x 2 x 7) is found . Model changes: Table 8 lists a number of sometimes quite radical changes to the model in order to achieve a better fit to observed field performance . The geostatistical simulation method used was “indicator simulation” (Refs. Secondly.is geological model correct? . making reservoir too connected and eliminating strong anisotropy.Figure 17.what is the real effect of upscaling? 13. Conclusions: Thin model partly validates geological model. Relative permeabilitiees were upscaled “on a typical block configuration” (details in Refs.Figure 19 shows the “thin” partial field model to verify reservoir geology. Additionally: Three major zerotransmissibility faults included in model. Some problems with upscaling not supressing breakthrough. some WOC variation across field.much of it at HeriotWatt!).early breakthrough for well AGM29 (Figure 21).g. 2 and 4).000 grid blocks). Figure11 shows lateral zonation on LA2 and UA2 units showing directional trends and thus variograms with spatially variable anisotropy direction used in final model. Continuing problems with injection predictions => .see Figure14. Pressure behaviour and water breakthrough are poorly predicted during injection stage .they warn caution on this point. water saturations around injectors shown in Figure18 . Partial models: “Thin” model . Institute of Petroleum Engineering.not Middle Anguille. 4x4) is applied leading to areal block sizes of 200m x 200m . Figures 12 .Figure 15 shows differences in upscaled permeability maps. 2 in paper). depth varying bubble points assigned. well AGM18 good water breakthrough match (Figure 20) .breakthrough delayed in both wells but shape of BSW is satisfactory. 11 vertical layers are retained to represent the reservoir layering with more blocks being used in the best reservoir units. We note that if very reliable and general upscaling techniques were available.upscaling has “washed out” the finer scale strong anisotropy. 9. Figure 10) performed independently since they correspond to separate sedimentary phases. 25 years of injection/production for history matching. 12.15 show resulting correlation structures of the various units. then this should be eliminated (more work has been done on this issue since 1992 . Simulations of lateral continuity within each of the units (five . Upscaling of absolute permeability at some “aggregation rate” (e. Flow simulations: Discusses details of upscaling from fine grid stochastic model (>2 million blocks) to coarse grid simulation model (11. 11. Ends up with >2 million grid blocks in the full field 3D model. When thin model upscaled as in full field model (abs. k upscale + rel perm as before) . the smaller scale heterogeneities are “unconditionally” simulated (synthetically) to yield average properties within the major flow units (see Ref.(50 x 20 x 56) model extracted from full field model.results in Figures 21 and 22 . For horizontal zonation. 1 and 8) which require the average frequency and variogram information. HeriotWatt University 31 .
trends can also be included Stochastic model for Anguille Marine constrained by geology gives hopeful first results If aggregation rate in upscaling is optimised. compartments and slump blocks) was achieved using seismic data in a range of complementary ways.). The reinterpretation of the structural geology of the field (the fault blocks. computer mapping 32 .1 billion bbl oil.14. In particular.scale heterogeneity . history matching is possible with the use of strictly controlled geological parameters 3. New Orleans.38. Previous average production = 30 MBD. Conclusions: • Sedimentology controls heterogeneity analysis when very wide variation in sandbody geometries is found (as in this case) • • • • • • Link understanding of reservoir history to sequene stratigraphy Lithointerpretation of seismic canʼt give paleodirection when there is techtonic activity during sedimentation Multiscale heterogeneity analysis essential to quantify subgrid petrophysical properties Geostatistical indicator simulation is a good tool for modelling this multi.) and a fairly thick gas cap (50 . New data and techniques: The study is a very good example of the close integration of (especially) 3D seismic data used in several ways. a clearer understanding of the reservoir structural geology has been central to this process. Important facts on the Ubit reservoir and this study are: STOIIP = 2. Nigeria) See SPE 49165 paper in Appendix Summary: This is another good example of where integrated reservoir management has greatly contributed to the success of a field redevelopment plan. by C. Clayton et al (Mobil and Department of Petroleum Resources.550 ft. LA. The Ubit reservoir is a prograding shallow marine system which has been tectonically disturbed. presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.). The downslope movements of the youngest sand sequences resulted in large scale slumping and block sliding although reservoir quality in these sediments is good to excellent. Bo = 1. production from a relatively thin oil column (160 ft. μo = 0. 37ºAPI black oil. expected production ≈ 140 MBD. after implementation of study recommendations (many horizontal wells etc.64 cp and μg = 0.16 cp.6 Case 3: Ubit Field Rejuvenation (SPE49165. 2730 September 1998.1998) Case 2: “ The Ubit Field Rejuvenation: A Case History of Reservoir Management of a Giant Oilfield Offshore Nigeria”. The notes on this SPE paper will not be very extensive and only a few of the main novel points will be discussed below.A. SPE49165. Study Notes Case 3: 1. GOR 612 scf/stb.
Layering and Reservoir Simulation Model: Vertical layering is shown schematically in Figure 9 and the areal grid is given in Figure 12.comprise 80% pore volume in oil column). Establish field plateau rate.marine turbidites and debris flow sands. Depositional facies types present are . shoreface and channel sands . Grid is Nx x Ny x Nz = 93 x 40 x 18 (67. Full field simulation defining drilling placement and timing. 3. advanced reservoir simulation procedures. Balancing a nonuniform gas cap. Minimising free gas production. The older interpretation saw these facies as being essentially “chaotic” whereas they are now thought to be more ordered and predictable. Structural reinterpretation: Figures 2a and 2b show both the original and current interpretations of the structure. Sandbody geometries. Recommendations: These have been quite clearly established and stated. Distribution of flow units. 57 wells). The study shows that the key strategies are • • • • • • Implement horizontal well drilling (approx. 6. to resolve the gravity stable gas front. Petrophysicsbased facies: Seven flow controlling depositional facies were identified as shown in Figure 8 with rock properties related to grain size (lithology. 2. HeriotWatt University 33 . Rock property slices were loaded into the 3D modelling software to “connect up” the stratigraphic layers (using new but unclear developments by authors) as shown in Figure 11. visualisation etc. Petrophysical rock and fluid properties. 5. Pc and krokrw). Uncertainties: there was an initially erroneous view of certain aspects of the reservoir geology and the key uncertainties at the start of the study were • • • • Geological complexities in reservoir architecture. 3D seismic data is of central importance in the definition of the structural geometries where the “bedded” and “disturbed” strata are shown on a seismic section in Figure 4. rock physics and amplitude analysis. typical log response. k vs. seismic facies analysis of time slices and conventional reflector mapping. The resulting 70 internal slump and fault blocks are shown in Figure 7. Several seismic techniques were applied including attribute analysis. shallow marine upper shoreface and lower shoreface sands and shelf shales (best are turbidites.Introduction and Case Studies 1 and reconstruction of the slump blocks. 4. Maintaining a stable gas cap (gravity stable displacement) and pressure. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. with a set of rock property maps for a single simulation layer given in Figure10. particularly structural deformation. net/gross. The original “rubble beds” are reinterpreted as being techtonically disturbed downslope movements of the youngest sand sequences resulting in large scale slumping and block sliding.000 blocks) with most oil leg cells being Δz = 10ft. φ. lower delta plain tidal channels and lagoonal sands.
see Figure 14. “Reservoir Simulation: Past.e.see schematic view in Figure 9. time and a corresponding graph of maximum practical model size vs. (b) Parallel Processing: Part of the increase in computing power referred to above is the growth of parallel processing in reservoir simulation. time and (b) maximum practical model size vs. Relative permeability: An interesting point is made concerning the oil relative permeability (kro) close to its end point . Matching field pressure is not so difficult since Ubit shows good pressure communication (high k . time is shown in Figure 10: 1000 1000000 Mflops/s 100 10 1 0. Dallas. 8. The adjusted curve in Figure 14 is used to get more realistic longer time recoveries (Figure 15).lack of sealing faults). 57 June 1997.107). chips) especially as implemented in Unix machines (workstations) and RISC technology and more recently by the development of modern PCs. A graph of processing power (Mflops/s) vs. History match and forward prediction: Average field pressure and GOR are history matched . Although kro is low in this region (kro ~106 .i. from J.7 Discussion of Changes in Reservoir Simulation. This is important because gravity stable gas cap expansion and downward displacement is the principal oil recovery mechanism . time. Watts. The central idea here is to distribute the simulation calculation around a number of processors ( or “nodes”) which perform different parts of the computational problem simultaneously. Mflop/s = megaflops per second = million floating point operations per second.1 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 100000 10000 1000 100 1960 Year (a) State of art CPU performance 1970 1980 Year 1990 2000 (b) Maximum practical simulation model size Figure 10 (a) CPU performance (Mflops/s) vs. The main changes are as follows: Computer power: There has been a vast increase in computer processing power over this period because of : (a) CPU: The growth of powerful CPU (central procesing units .2000 From the above field examples (Cases 1 3).W.see Figures 15 and 16. 3. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. it significantly affects the tail of the reservoir oil production profile .see Figure 15. The corresponding cost of computing has fallen dramatically.7. Figure 22 shows the initial part of the improved productivity (up to 140 MBD from 37 horizontal wells) and future predictions. Present and Future”. Some discussion of field management is presented. A bank of such processors is shown in Figure 11 (from the 34 Gridblocks . TX. 1970s . there is clearly a progression in the engineering approach. See Recommendations (point 2 ) above. the degree of reservoir description and the computational capabilities as we go from reservoir simulation in the late 1970s to the present time.
A.SPE Distinguished Author Series.H. 2000.2 1 0. 2000. SPE57907.2 0 1988 Conventional Simulators 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. If the problem gets linearly faster with the number of parallel processors. Figure 11 A cluster of parallel processors. SPE57907. from “Megacell Reservoir Simulation” .8 Parallel Simulators Figure 12 The impact of parallel reservoir simulation.6 0. Dogru . Dogru . 1. SPE57907. Finally.A. SPE57907. HeriotWatt University 35 . then it is said to be “scalable” and the closeness to an ideal line is a measure of how well the process “parallelises” (reaches the ideal scaling line). the type of fine scale calculation that can now be performed using megacell simulation is shown in Figure 14 where it is shown that there is a lengthscale of remaining oil that is missed in the coarser (but still quite fine) simulation. 2000 and the references therein.H.6 0. see Megacell Reservoir Simulation . 0. an example is shown in Figure 13. The general impact of parallel simulation is shown according to Dogru (2000) in Figure 12. For further details. A table of what types of calculation can be performed and some timings for these is also included (although these numbers will probably be out of date very quickly!). from “Megacell Reservoir Simulation” A.SPE Distinguished Author Series.H.Introduction and Case Studies 1 work of Dogru. Dogru . 2000).SPE Distinguished Author Series.
45 million y ( cells. in turn allows us to apply our intuitive engineering judgement to reservoir development problems. In addition. Comparison with fine grid and megacell simulation which identifies the scale of remaining oil in a reservoir displacement process. (d) Integrated software: The availability of more integrated software suites that handle all the initial data from seismic processing. This.2 1.5 1. 36 . 2000. geocellular modelling and upscaling through to the actual simulators themselves.3 3. 2000.500 cells. History Length (Years) 27 49 10 2.67 la yers).H. Reservoir Model Size (Millions of Gridblocks) 1. from “Megacell Reservoir Simulation” A. to petrophysical analysis and data generation.2 0 1988 Conventional Simulators 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 Speedup 16 12 8 4 0 0 4 8 12 16 Number of Nodes Cluster SP2 Ideal Figure 13 A cluster of parallel processors.0 4.5 CPU Hours On 64 Nodes On 128 Nodes 3 4.H. SPE57907.5 Fig. 5 laers) and megacell simulation 2.7 2. (c) Visulisation: Huge improvements in visualisation capabilities have taken which allow us to evaluate vast quantities of numerical data in a more convenient manner.SPE Distinguished Author Series. from “Megacell Reservoir Simulation” A. the visual representation of output allows a more fruitful communication to take place between geologists and engineers. 7—Comparison of conventional simulation (40.9 2. SPE57907.0 Carbonate Sandstone Carbonate (With gas cap) Carbonate Figure 14 The type of reservoir simulation that becomes more possible with parallel processing.6 0.SPE Distinguished Author Series.0. Dogru .5 2. Dogru .
“The future of Reservoir Simulation”. which is reproduced in Appendix B.Amoco . Srivastava.e. profitable) exploitation of mature assets e.g. JCPT. This article has an interesting slant from the point of view of the smaller consultant and it makes a number of interesting observations.K. 1989 “Introduction to Geostatistics: Applications in Hydrogeology” by P. ExxonMobil.23. Vol. Cambridge University Press. Isaaks and R. KerrMcGee etc. a number of very “low cost” operations have grown up which may specialise in the successful (i. p. Introductory texts are now available such as: • • “An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics” by E. see the short article by Galas. Likewise.M. Such approaches were quite well known in the mining. is the ability to handle huge geocellular models and somewhat smaller but still very large reservoir simulation models. Organisational changes in the oil industry: A number of major organisational changes have occurred in the oil industry since the 1970s which have affected the practice of reservoir simulation.H. The main ones are as follows: (a) Many companies have taken a more integrated geophysics/geology/engineering view of reservoir development and many studies have made a central virtue of this by organising reservoir studies within more multidisciplinary asset teams (e.ARCO).Introduction and Case Studies 1 (e) Linked to this increased power. How these changes will affect the future of reservoir simulation remains to be seen.g. HeriotWatt University . 1997 Both pixedbased point geostatistical techniques and object based modelling have been developed and applied in various reservoirs. Kitanidis. TotalFinaElf. Upscaling: There have been a number of advances in approaches to upscaling (or pseudoisation) from fine geocellular model → the reservoir simulation model. (c) There have been a number of major mergers and takeovers recently which have formed some very large companies e. Geostatistics: there have been significant advances in the application of geostatistical techniques in reservoir modelling. Upscaling is dealt with in much more detail in Chapter 7. 36 (1). BP (BP . Oxford University Press. This still an area of active research and the debate is still in progress on the question: • Will increasing computing power remove the need for upscaling? The basic idea of upscaling has been introduced in the SPE examples. (b) There have been significant organisational changes in the structure of the industry given the sucessive rounds of “downsizing” and “outsourcing” that have occurred. 37 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. For example. mineral processing and prospecting industries but only in the last 10 to 15 years have they been specifically adapted for application in petroleum reservoir modelling. SPE25006 clearly shows a strong integration of geology and engineering). Talisman. January 1997.g.
Detailed technical advances: In addition to the changes discussed above. Again. most companies would have had their own numerical reservoir simulator which was built (programmed up) and maintained inhouse. gridding etc. Most companies have greatly reduced the amount of inhouse “R” that takes place and have focused much more heavily on shorter term asset related “D”.(d) Up until the late 1970s. almost every major and medium sized oil company had a “research centre” where programmes of applied R&D were carried out by oil company personnel.) software.they also ally themselves with service companies in order to have their R&D needs met in certain areas. this table was adapted from two tables in J. Most of the technical details in the advances listed in Table 1 are beyond the scope of this course and the introductory student does not need to have any indepth knowledge on these. This article is well worth reading. in the 1970s. Our practical capabilities have also expanded greatly as discussed above. (e) More specific to reservoir simulation is the fact that. most oil companies use specialised software service companies to supply their reservoir simulation (and visualisation. The view was essentially that this inhouse technology development would give the company a competitive and commercial edge in reservoir exploration and development. Present and Future”. TX. However. Many companies do support research in universities and other independent outside organisations . the situation is in flux and the longer term effects of this change is yet to be seen. Dallas.W. Table 1 presents a list of capabilities and major technical advances in reservoir simulation over the last 50 years. on the formulation and numerical methods etc. 38 . the relative merits and demerits of this will emerge in the coming years. SPE38441.e. To this day. a few companies still do. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. many advances have been made over the past 50 years on how we perform the simulations i. Watts “Reservoir Simulation: Past. Again. 57 June 1997.
(all references are given in Appendix A) 1980’s Complex well management Fractured reservoirs Special gridding at faults Graphical user interfaces Code vectorization Nested factorization Volume balance formulation YoungStephenson formulation Adaptive implicit method Constrained residuals Local grid refinement Cornerpoint geometry Geostatistics Domain decomposition Code parallelization Upscaling Voronoi grid 1990’s Improved ease of use Geologic models and upscaling Local grid refinement Complex geometry Integration with nonreservoir computations Heinemann et al (1991) Palagi and Aziz (1994) 3. SPE38441.8 The Treatment of Uncertainty in Reservoir Simulation It is well recognised in modern reservoir development that when we calculate the future oil recovery profile of a reservoir. 1973) Coats et al (1971) Todd and Longstaff (1972) Todd et al (1972) Price and Coats (1974) Spillette et al (1973) Kyte and Berry (1975) Thomas et al (1976) Meijerink and Van der Vorst (1977) Vinsome (1976) Peaceman (1978) Yanosik and McCracken (1979) Appleyard and Cheshire (1983) Acs et al (1985).W. Suppose a particular reservoir simulation model for Field X .gives the forecast in Figure 15. and Jenkins (1954) Peaceman and Rachford (1955) Sheldon et al (1960) Stone and Garder (1961) Lantz (1971) Stone (1968) MacDonald and Coats (1970) Watts (1971) Stone (1970. Dallas. it is not “accurate”. Watts “Reservoir Simulation: Past. Watts (1986) Young and Stephenson (1983) Thomas and Thurnau (1983) Wallis et al (1985) Ponting (1992) 1960’s 1970’s Table 1 Capabilities and major technical advances in reservoir simulation over the last 50 years (adapted from two tables in J.Introduction and Case Studies 1 Decade 1950’s Capabilities Two dimensions Two incompressible phases Simple Geometry Three dimensions Three phases Blackoil fluid model Multiple wells Realistic geometry Well coning Compositional Miscible Chemical Thermal Technical Advances Aronofsky and Jenkins radial gas model Alternatingdirection implicit (ADI) procedure IMPES computational method Upstream weighting Understanding of numerical dispersion Stronglyimplicit procedure (SIP) Implicit computational method Additive correction to linesuccessive overrelaxation Stone relative permeability models Vertical equilibrium concept ToddLongstaff miscible displacement computation Twopoint upstream weighting D4 direct solution method Total velocity sequential implicit method Pseudofunctions Variable bubblepoint blackoil treatment Conjugate gradients and ORTHOMIN Iterative methods based on approximate factorizations Peaceman well correction Ninepoint method for grid orientation effect References Aronofsky. TX. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium.a new development which is currently under appraisal . 57 June 1997. Present and Future”. Cumulative Oil Recovery 2000 2005 Time (Year) 2010 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Figure 15 A single forward prediction of the oil recovery production profile for a given reservoir. HeriotWatt University 39 .
shales. its geological structure in terms of sandbodies. No matter how bleak things look.. we cannot trust this single curve since there is a considerable amount of uncertainty associated with it for various easily appreciated reasons. • • • The above list of uncertainties for a given reservoir. Uncertainties in the actual numerical values of the porosities (φ) and permeabilities (k) in the interwell regions (which make up the vast majority of the reservoir volume) Inaccuracy in the fluid properties such as viscosity of the oil (μo).or very uncertain data. thickness and nettogross ratios Lack of knowledge about the reservoir architecture i. faults.e. The main contributors to this uncertainty are to do with lack of knowledge about the input data although the modelling process itself is not error free. the only two options are to give up or do something. the task of doing something useful with reservoir simulation may seem quite hopeless in the face of such a long list of uncertainties. is really quite realistic and is by no means complete. or doubts about the representativity of these properties Lack of data . let us first consider what the answer might look like for the case above in Figure 15. especially at the appraisal stage. particularly relative permeability and capillary pressure. we must make the biggest decisions about the development and hence speed most of our investment money. At a first glance. phase behaviour etc. Before considering what we can do in practice. e.on the multiphase fluid/rock properties. Bw. A list of possible sources of error is as follows: • • • Lack of knowledge or wide inaccuracies in the size of the reservoir. Figure 16 gives some idea of what is required: 40 . formation volume factors (Bo. Bg). the numerical errors due to the coarse grid block model may significantly affect the answer in either an optimistic or pessimistic manner. etc. As we have noted elsewhere.even if it is an educated guess (or even just a guess) . although the future reservoir performance is at its most uncertain. it is at the appraisal stage when. and on knowledge as to how these curves vary from rock type within the reservoir volume away from the wells Because the representational reservoir simulations model may be poor.and some estimate of the sort of error sound that we might expect. its areal extent. and reservoir engineers never give up! We must produce an answer .Clearly.g.
φhi klow = 100mD ∆Zhi The reservoir is being developed by a fivespot waterflood as shown in Figure 17 However. we are uncertain as to the actual thickness (ΔZhi).Introduction and Case Studies 1 Most probable case Figure 16 Outcome of reservoir simulation calculations showing a range of recoveries for various reservoir development scenarios. we derive mean. khigh. In fact. Our single curve in Figure 15 may becomes a “most probable” (or “base case”) future oil recovery forecast. suppose we have a layered reservoir as shown in Figure 17 which we think has a fieldwide high permeability streak set in background of 100 mD rock. For example. HeriotWatt University 41 . INJECTOR Figure 17 This shows a layered reservoir where we have some uncertainties in the various parameters such as the permeability (khi ). high and low estimates of each of these quantities as follows: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. The closer set of outer curves is the range of future outcomes that can be expected with a 50% probability. the permeability (khi) and the porosity (φhi) of the high permeability streak. Cumulative Oil Recovery Range of cases with a 90% probability Range of cases with a 50% probability 2000 2005 Time (Year) 2010 The results in Figure 16 can be understood qualitatively without worrying about how we actually obtain them right now. PRODUCER 1000ft 1000ft 100ft φ = 0. there is a probability.5. That is. the thickness (ΔZhi ) and the porosity (φhi ) in the high permeability layer. Such results allow economic forecasts to be made with the appropriate weights being given to the likelihood of that particular outcome. We can think of a given calculation as a scenario. p = 0. A company can then estimate its risk when it is considering various field development options. here we will just discuss doing some simple sensitivities to various factors in the simulation model. we can set up various scenarios based on our beliefs about the various input values in our model and we simply compare the recovery curves for each of the cases. Therefore. that the true curve lives within this envelope of curves shown in Figure 16. From various sources.18 High Permeability Streak.
In Table 2. lower permeability with higher value of porosity) and we could reduce the number. khi Thickness. φhi 400 mD 20 ft 0.18 φhi = 0.26 Even with just the three uncertainties in this single model. ∆Zhi Porosity.g.22 High Value 1600 mD 40 ft 0. Note: The OIIP will vary somewhat from case to case since the thickness of the high permeability layer and its porosity both change. vary by different percentages for realistic min.25 Oil Initially in Place (OIIP) (res. Alternatively. Not that different physical quantities such as k and φ. we could conclude that some input combinations are unlikely (e.g. The notional results could be entered in Table 2 Changed Input Value Base Case khi = 400 mD khi = 1600 mD ∆Zhi = 20 ft Zhi = 40 ft φhi = 0. 42 . Permeability Porosity X X Layer Thickness % Change in Parameter Change in Recovery From Base Case (STB) Figure 18 “Spider diagram” showing the sensitivity of the cumulative oil to various uncertainties in the reservoir model parameters (khi. ΔZhi. Such a plot is shown in Figure 18. We could simply keep the mean value of two of the factors while varying only the third factor.Low Value Permeability. we can see that there are 3x3x3 = 27 possible scenarios or combinations of input data for which we could run a reservoir simulation model. leading to 7 scenarios to simulate. we can take some measure of the oil recovery e. A useful way to plot the variation in recovery is against this % change in input value since all three factors can be represented on the same scale in a socalled “spider diagram”. we have noted the % change in the varied parameters relative to its base case value. bbl) Cumulative Recovery at Year 2010 (stb) % Change in Input Value Relative to Base Case Change in Recovery from Base Case Table 2 Results of sensitivity simulations described in the text. Taking this view.18 Mean Value 800 mD 30 ft 0. φhi) in Figure 17./max. values. cumulative oil produced (predicted) at year 2010.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering. That is. if we were going to spend time and effort on reducing the uncertainty in our predictions. then this tells us which quantity to focus on first. Indeed it ranks the effects of the various uncertainties. The basic ideas presented above give you enough to go on with in this course. the water or gas front should be moving through the reservoir interacting with the underlying geological structure in quite a complicated manner. the water may possibly be advancing preferentially through a high permeability channel between an injector and producer pair. this can better be illustrated by looking at an animated sequence of saturation distributions as the flood front moves through the reservoir. The pressure distribution through the system should also be evolving with time. However. as time progresses. For example.ppt This can be run on your PC from the CD supplied with this course and double clicking on the PowerPoint presentation. However. There are more sophisticated ways to deal with uncertainty in reservoir performance but these are beyond the scope of the current course. Thus. It clearly highlights which is the most important input quantity (of those considered) and has the most impact on the result. 4 STUDY EXAMPLE OF A RESERVOIR SIMULATION The examples presented in the above SPE papers should give you a good idea of what reservoir simulation is all about. HeriotWatt University 43 . An example of such a sequence is shown in file Res_Sim_D1.Introduction and Case Studies 1 This type of spider plot is very useful since it displays the effect of the different uncertainties on the outcome. By this point you should also be familiar with many of the basic concepts that are involved in reservoir simulation from the study notes and the Glossary. the reservoir simulation of say a waterflood or a gas displacement is a dynamic process. The sequence of the saturation fronts in the series of “snapshots in time” shown in Figure 19 give some idea of the progression of the flood with time.
up arrow producer. From Res_ Sim_D1. 44 .ppt Down arrow injector.Figure 19 The sequence of saturation distributions as the flood front moves through the reservoir.
If the injected gas was carbon dioxide (CO2). surfactants. we will also list the others and present a table comparing experience of these various models. then quite complex phase behaviour may occur and this requires some particular steps to be taken in order to model this. Note that.1 The Black Oil Model Different types of simulator are available to model these different types of reservoir recovery process. because the gas is present in the oil and water there are extra terms in the expression for the mass of gas. we have confined our discussion to relative simple reservoir recovery processes such as natural depletion (blowdown) and waterflooding. These quantities are pressure dependent and this is incorporated into the black oil model. However. water and gas present. This gas solubility is described in oil and water by the gas solubility factors (or solution gasoil ratios). It treats the three phases . 5. The Black Oil Model: This model was used in the three SPE field case studies above and is the most commonly used formulation of the reservoir simulation equations which is used for single. 45 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Dry gas (methane. Immiscible gas injection. These mathematical expressions for the mass of the various phases are important when we come to deriving the flow equations (Chapter 5). there are many more complex reservoir recovery processes which can also be carried out. Waterflooding including viscous.oil. Some three phase recovery processes such as immiscible wateralternatinggas (WAG). typical field units of Rso and Rsw are SCF/STB. capillary and gravity forces (secondary recovery). HeriotWatt University . Rso and Rsw. Capillary imbibition processes. alkali or foams) into the reservoir to recover oil that is left behind by primary and secondary oil recovery processes. More exotic Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) processes can also be carried out where we inject chemicals (polymers. Reservoir processes that can be modelled using the black oil model include: • • • • • Recovery by fluid expansion . respectively. A simple schematic of a grid block in a black oil simulator is presented in Figure 20 showing the amounts of mass of oil. oil and water) in the reservoir which is more complicated than two phase flow.this is wateralternatinggas or WAG flooding. Another process is where we alternately inject water and gas in repeating sequence . for example. would generally result in the flow of three phases (gas. CH4) injection. for completeness.solution gas drive (primary depletion). However. Throughout the chapters of this course we will focus on the simplest of these (which is quite complex enough!) known as the "Black Oil Model".as if they were mass components where only the gas is allowed to dissolve in the oil and water.Introduction and Case Studies 1 5 TYPES OF RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL Until now. two and three phase reservoir processes. gas and water .
in a nearcritical fluid where small changes in say pressure can result in large compositional changes of the “oil” and “gas” phases which. in turn. For example. Mass water = Vp.contact) miscibility (e. The mass conservation is applied to each component rather than just to “oil”.Vp. water and gas present. It can be considered as a generalisation of the black oil model. 46 . because the gas is present in the oil and water there are extra terms for the mass of gas. Sw free gas gas in oil gas in water 5.ρgsc (Sg + So. Sg Oil + Gas.g. in CO2 flooding). Note that.Rsw) Bg Rock Gas. the separate components (C1.7 psi). Bo. strongly affects their physical properties (viscosity. C3.2 More Complex Reservoir Simulation Models The Compositional Model: A compositional reservoir simulation model is required when significant interphase mass transfer effects occur in the fluid displacement process. Rso and Rsw are the gas solubilities (or solution gas/oil ratios). oil and water) but the actual compositions of the oil and gas phases are explicitly acknowledged due to their more complicated PVT behaviour. That is.) in the oil and gas phases are explicitly tracked as is indicated in Figure 21 (which should be compared with Figure 20).ρosc Mass oil = Bo So. Figure 20 Schematic of a grid block in a black oil simulator showing the amounts of mass of oil. C2.Rso + Sw. etc. Gas recycling processes in condensate reservoirs. So Water + Gas. interfacial tensions etc. This model usually defines three phases (again gas. Bw and Bg are the formation volume factors. ρosc. x φ. and ρgsc are densities at standard conditions (60°F and 14.). Examples of reservoir processes that can be modelled using a compositional model include: • • • Gas injection with oil mobilisation by first contact or developed (multi. ρwsc. pore volume = Vp = block vol.ρwsc Bw Sw Mass gas = Vp. density. “gas” and “water” as in the black oil model. The modelling of gas injection into near critical reservoirs.
involves strong phase behaviour effects where third phases may appear which contain oil/water/surfactant emulsions. Mass of component in block = Vp. C33.. the polymer is for mobility control behind the surfactant slug.. Examples of reservoir processes that can be modelled using a chemical flood model include: • Polymer flooding which can be thought of as an “enhanced waterflood” to improve the mobility ratio and hence improve the microscopic sweep efficiency and also to reduce streaking in highly heterogeneous layered systems. C21. Polymer flooding can be considered mainly as extended waterflooding with some additional effects in the aqueous phase which must be modelling e. then interest in these processes may revive.is the mass concentration of component i in phase j (j = gas. Polymer/surfactant flooding where the main purpose of the surfactant is to lower interfacial tension (IFT) between the oil and water phases and hence to “release” or “mobilise” trapped residual oil. if economic factors were favourable (a very high oil price). the viscosification of the aqueous phase. Surfactant. For economic reasons.. polymer component transport. Alkali flooding where a solution of sodium hydroxide is injected into the formation. C31.Introduction and Case Studies 1 Figure 21 The view of phases and components taken in compositional simulation. polymer adsorption.. However.. C32... Σ Sj. HeriotWatt University . C23.. Extended chemical flood models are also used to model foam flooding. x φ ROCK Phase Labels: j = 1 = Gas j = 2 = Oil j = 3 = Water Component concentrations in each phase: Gas: Oil: C11.g. flooding however. GAS Sg OIL + GAS So WATER + GAS Sw Water: C13. C12. oil or water) . Cij . Lowtension polymer flooding (LTPF) where a more viscous polymer containing injected solution also contains some surfactant to reduce IFT. pore volume = Vp = block vol. the combined effect of the lower IFT and viscous drive fluid improves the sweep and also helps to mobilise some of the residual oil. Specialised phase packages have been developed to model such processes..Cij j=1 3 The Chemical Flood Model: This model has been developed primarily to model polymer and surfactant (or combined) displacement processes. C22. 47 • • • Institute of Petroleum Engineering.dimensions of mass/ unit volume of phase. permeability reduction etc. The sodium hydroxide may react with certain conponents in the oil to produce natural "soaps" which lower IFT and which may help to mobilise some of the residual oil. activity on field polymer flooding has continued at a fairly low level world wide and surfactant flooding has virtually ceased in recent years.
Alternatively. They have been applied to model recovery processes in massively fractured carbonate reservoir such as those found in many parts of the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. the well is shut in for a time to allow heat dissipation into the oil and then the well is back produced to obtain the mobilised oil (because of lower viscosity).insitu combustion . Steam “drive” where the steam is injected continuously into the formation from an injector to the producer.where part of the oil is burned to produce heat and combustion gases that help to drive the (unburned) oil from the system. • • The above more complex reservoir simulation models are really based on the fluid flow process. However.an actual combustion process is initiated in the reservoir by injecting oxygen or air. This is not a common improved oil recovery method but a number of field cases showing at least technical success have been reported in the SPE literature.• Foam flooding where a surfactant is added during gas injection to form a foam which has a high effective viscosity (lower mobility) in the formation than the gas alone which may then displace oil more efficiently. Examples of reservoir processes that can be modelled using thermal models include: • Steam “soaks” where steam in injected into the formation. There is quite considerable field experience of modelling such systems in certain companies but there are also doubts over the validity of such models to model flow in fractured systems. This is known as a “Huff nʼ Puff” process. In situ combustion where . Another nearwellbore process that can be modelled using such simulators in water shutoff using either polymercrosslinked gels or socalled “relative permeabilty modifiers”. 48 .as noted above . the objective is to lower oil viscosity by the penetration of the heat front deep into the reservoir. Thermal Models: In all thermal models heat is added to the reservoir either by injecting steam or by actually combusting the oil (by air injection. These include: DualPorosity Models of Fractured Systems: These models have been designed explicitly to simulate multiphase flow in fractured systems where the oil mainly flows in fractures but is stored mainly in the rock matrix. The heat may be supplied to the reservoir by injected steam produced using a steam generator on the surface or downhole. Again. there are also other types of simulator that are more closely defined by their treatment of the rock structure or the rock response. an actual combustion process may be initiated in the reservoir . Part of the oil is burned (oxidised) to produce heat and combustion gases that help to drive the (unburned) oil from the system. Such models attempt to model the fracture flows (and sometimes the matrix flows) and the exchange of fluids between the fractures and the rock matrix. The purpose of this is generally to reduce the viscosity of a heavy oil which may have μo of order 100s or 1000s of cP. for example).
x10) • Moderate • High in limited geographical areas Coats (1978). Acs et al (1985).x40) • Very low Crookston et al (1979). Pope and Nelson (1978) Thermal Model . Van Quy and Labrid (1983). as above Table 3 This is an adapted version of a table in Chapter 11 of Mattax and Dalton (1990). Sorbie (1991) Chemical Model .x20) Coats.3 Comparison of Field Experience with Various Simulation Models We now consider what field experience exists in the oil industry with the various models from the black oil model through to more complex fracture models and in situ combustion models etc. Simulator Type Processes Modelled Degree of Difficulty Relative Computing Costs Cheap = 1 Amount of Industrial Experience • Huge • But there are still challenges with upscaling of large models • >90% of cases • Moderate • High in certain companies Example References2 Black Oil Model • Primary depletion • Waterflooding • Immiscible gas injection • Imbibition • Gas injection • Gas recycling • CO2 injection • WAG Routine Any of the books on reservoir simulation listed in Section 7 (Chapter 1) Compositional Model Difficult Specialisd Expensive (x3 .x5) • Moderate to large Bondor et al (1972). Young and Stephenson (1983). However. For example.Polymer • Polymer flooding • Nearwell water shutoff Not too difficult Moderate (x2 .Introduction and Case Studies 1 Coupled Hydraulic. depending on the asset base of the particular oil company or regional expertise within regional consultancy groups.Steam • Steam soak (Huff n’ Puff) • Steam flooding Not too difficult Expensive (x3 . Compositional Model. • Condensate development • MWAG Difficult Very expensive (x5 . Prats (1982).Near Crit. was) a concentration of expertise in both California and parts of Canada on steam flooding since this process is applied in these regions to recover heavy oil. there is (or until recently. Mathews (1983) Thermal Model In Situ Combustion • In situ combustion processes Very difficult Very specialised Expensive (x10 . in the future. • Gas injection near crit. there are pockets of expertise with the various other types of simulation model. 5. Todd et al (1978). HeriotWatt University 49 . The main function of these is to model the mechanical stresses and resulting deformations and the effects of these on fluid flow. Youngren (1980). (1980a). Vela et al (1976).x20) • Low • Mainly “research type” pilot floods Todd and Chase (1979).Surfactant • Micellar flooding • Low tension polymer flooding Difficult Specialisd Expensive (x5 . This is beyond the scope of this course although.x30) • Low to moderate Chemical Model . Thermal Fracturing and Fluid Flow Models: These simulators are still essentially at the research stage although there have been published examples of specific field applications. these will be important in many systems. This gives some idea of the problems and issues encountered in applying advanced simulation models relative to applying a black oil simulator. The vast majority of simulation studies which are carried out involve the black oil model. Coats (1980b) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Nolen (1973). Watts (1986). in the Middle East (and within the companies that operate there) there is great competence in the dualporosity simulation of fractured carbonate reservoirs. The view about the difficulties and computer time consuming these are is somewhat subjective.
TX. C: Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice. A. we briefly review some good texts which cover Reservoir Simulation from various viewpoints.. It is has been put together by a team of Exxon reservoir engineers between them have vast experience of all areas of reservoir simulation. Houston. and Settari. London. This book is also one of the earliest proponents of the importance of integrating the reservoir geology within the simulation model. it offers a good overview of petroleum engineering and it contexts reservoir simulation very well within the overall picture of reservoir development. K. An interesting lengthy quote from this book on the relationship between material balance and reservoir simulation is reproduced in Chapter 2. Archer. J S and Wall. This is a classic text on the discretisation and numerical solution of the reservoir simulation flow equations. 1977. L P: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering. 1994.. 1990. Developments in Petroleum Science No. 1977. 50 . Englewood Cliffs. J R: Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation. This recent book provides a good elementary text on reservoir simulation. It is a based around the BOAST4D black oil simulation model which is supplied on disk and can be run on your PC. 6. D W: Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulation. The software makes this a very attractive way to familiarise yourself with reservoir simulation if you donʼt have ready access to a simulator. Graham and Trotman Inc. Dake. this book is not about reservoir simulation but it makes a number of interesting and controversial observations on reservoir simulation (not all of which the authors agree with!). H B: Modern Reservoir Engineering: A Simulation Approach. R L: Reservoir Simulation. This is an excellent SPE monograph which covers virtually every aspect of traditional reservoir simulation. 1979. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. Developments in Petroleum Science 36. It is quite mathematical with a focus on the actual difference equations that arise from the flow equations and how to solve these. 13. NJ. This book gives a fairly good introduction to reservoir simulation from the viewpoint of it being a central part of current reservoir engineering. Gulf Publishing Co. This book is not a specialised reservoir simulation text. C C and Dalton. 1997.6 SOME FURTHER READING ON RESERVOIR SIMULATION A full alphabetic list of References which are cited in the course is presented in Appendix A. However. Again. Fanchi. PrenticeHall Inc. Elsevier.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Peaceman. Elsevier. Aziz. 1986.. Vol. The authors have learned something from each of these and we would recommend anyone who wishes to specialise in Reservoir Simulation to consult these. Amsterdam. Crichlow. SPE Monograph. Here. Mattax.
543 . SPEJ. This short volume is written . November 1618. 1986.according to Thomas . San Francisco. Currently. Acs. Amyx. Lecture Notes in Engineering No. 1988. McGrawHill. SPE Reprint No. Numerical Simulation I (1973) and SPE Reprint No. The treatment of some areas is rather brief.e.: “A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas Flow. E. C: Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice. “General Purpose Compositional Model”. Doleschall. I. G W: Principles of Hydrocarbon Reservoir Simulation.” paper SPE 12264 presented at the Seventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation. solution of linear equations. London. D M and Whiting. Graham and Trotman Inc.B.” Trans. and Jenkins..: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. AIME 201 (1954) 149154 Aziz..553. and Trangenstein. S. Mathematics and Numerics.from a developers viewpoint. Behie. K. They are also relatively cheap! Thomas. Numerical Simulation II (19**). 34. for example.. R. G. i. 1982. J W.S. The treatment is quite mathematical with quite a lot of coverage of numerical methods. August 1985.there was an early version of this and it stopped for a while.. HeriotWatt University 51 . someone who is involved with writing and supplying the simulators themselves. J. Amsterdam. and Cheshire. J S and Wall. R L: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. 20. 1979.A.. CA. It discusses the discretisation of the flow equations and the subsequent numerical methods of solution in great detail.: “Nested Factorization. A. Most of this material is too advanced or detailed for a newcomer to this field but the volumes contain excellent reference material. there are only 7 pages on wells. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. APPENDIX A: REFERENCES NOTE: SPEJ = Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal . G. These two collections present some of the classic SPE papers on reservoir simulation. SpringerVerlag. Aronofsky.A. and Farkas. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers. J. Bass.Introduction and Case Studies 1 This book presents an excellent treatment of the mathematical and numerical aspects of reservoir simulation. J. Archer. there are SPE Journals in various subjects but reservoir simulation R&D appears in SPE (Reservoir Engineering and Evaluation).: Multiphase Flow in Porous Media: Mechanics. 11. Appleyard. 1983. and Settari. M. IHRDC. All aspects of reservoir simulation are covered including numerical methods. pp. Boston.M.R. the modelling of wells and field applications. 1960. Allen.
Coats. SPE49165. Eng. Dempsey. J. Trans.. Culham. 1991. 1618 November 1992. Hirasaki. 3557. M F and Terry. pp. J.H.tools of res sim Coats. France. SPEJ.H. Cannes.Bondor. February 1979. PrenticeHall Inc..J. October 1980a. NJ. AIME 267. “ InSitu Combustion Model”.H. and Henderson. 1994.A. Houston. LA.B. SPEJ. M.. “Anguille Marine. “A Highly Implicit Steamflood Model”. Gulf Publishing Co. Fanchi. “Reservoir Management of the Oseberg Field After Four Years”.: “The Use of Vertical Equilibrium in TwoDimensional Simulation of ThreeDimensional Reservoir Performance.. Pet. a DeepseFan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From Geology Toward History Matching Through 52 . Dake. proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference.. Coats.. presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 1997. October 1978. SPEJ. L P: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering. “Mathematical Simulation of Polymer Flooding in Complex Reservoirs”. pp. AIME 269.. AIME. Crookston. Giudicelli. G.L. 363376.J and Tham... R E: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Crichlow.. SPE monograph.. 1979. Elsevier. F F: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding.H. K. Clayton. and Chen.. Dallas. pp. G.R. New Orleans.” Soc. K. Craig. Fantoft. P. SPEJ.S. W. . F. S.. NJ... SPEJ. Developments in Petroleum Science 36. 1977. pp.G. AIME 251 Craft. and Alabert.... J. Prentice Hall. 2730 September 1998. 1978.. 369383.H.. 269.H. Trans. Trans. December 1980b. “An Equation of State Compositional Model”. Massonat. Elsevier. “A Numerical Simulation Model for Thermal Recovery Processes”.. C. Englewood Cliffs. SPE25008. K. 533554. TX. 1969 . B C. TX.J. Coats. October 1972.. et al.. L P: The Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. W. C.. 11 (March 1971) 6371. Hawkins. Coats. R.. “The Ubit Field Rejuvenation: A Case History of Reservoir Management of a Giant Oilfield Offshore Nigeria”.E. K.. H B: Modern Reservoir Engineering: A Simulation Approach. pp. Developments in Petroleum Science 8. K. J R: Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation. 369382.H. Dake. Trans.
Introduction and Case Studies
1
Stochastic Modelling”, SPE25006, proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 1618 November 1992. Harpole, K.J. and Hearn, C.L., “The Role of Numerical Simulation in Reservoir Management of a West Texas Carbonate Reservoir”, SPE10022, presented at the International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the SPE, Beijing, China, 18  26 March 1982. Heinemann, Z.E., Brand, C.W., Munka, M., and Chen, Y.M.: “Modeling Reservoir Geometry with Irregular Grids,” SPERE 6 (1991) 225232. Hove, K., Olsen, G., Nilsson, S., Tonnesen, M. and Hatloy, A., “From Stochastic Geological Description to Production Forecasting in Heterogeneous Layered Systems”, SPE24890, the proceedings of the SPE 67th Annual Technical Conference, Washington, DC, 47 October 1992. Katz, D.L., “Methods of Estimating Oil and Gas Reserves”, Trans. AIME, Vol. 118, p.18, 1936 (classic early ref. on Material Balance) Kyte, J.R. and Berry, D.W.: “New Pseudo Functions to Control Numerical Dispersion,” Soc .Pet. Eng. J. 15 (August 1975) 269276. Lantz, R.B.: “Quantitative Evaluation of Numerical Diffusion (Truncation Error),” Soc .Pet. Eng. J. 11 (September 1971) 315320; Trans., AIME 251. Leonard, A.J., Duncan, A.E., Johnson, D.A. and Murray, R.B., SPE25059: “Development Planning in a Complex Reservoir: Magnus Field UKCS Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation (LKCF)”, SPE25059, proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 1618 November 1992. Mathews, C.W., “Steamflooding”, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 465471, March 1983; Trans. AIME 275. MacDonald, R.C. and Coats, K.H.: “Methods for Numerical Simulation of Water and Gas Coning,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 10 (December 1970) 425436; Trans., AIME 249. Mattax, C C and Dalton, R L: Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph, Vol. 13, 1990. Meijerink, J.A. and Van der Vorst, H.A.: “An Iterative Solution Method for Linear Systems of Which the Coefficient Matrix is a Symmetric MMatrix,” Mathematics of Computation 31 (January 1977) 148. Nolen, J.S., “Numerical Simulation of Compositional Phenomena in Petroleum Reservoirs”, SPE4274, proceedings of the SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation of Reservoir Performance, Houston, TX, 1112 January 1973. Palagi, C.L. and Aziz, K.: “Use of Voronoi Grid in Reservoir Simulation,” SPE Advanced Technology Series 2 (April 1994) 6977. Peaceman, D.W.: “Interpretation of WellBlock Pressures in Numerical Reservoir
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
53
Simulation,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 18 (June 1978) 183194; Trans., AIME 253. Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H.: “The Numerical Solution of Parabolic and Elliptic Differential Equations,” Soc Ind. Appl. Math. J. 3 (1955) 2841 Peaceman, D W: Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulation, Developments in Petroleum Science No. 6, Elsevier, 1977. Ponting, D.K.: “Corner point geometry in reservoir simulation,” in The Mathematics of Oil Recovery  Edited proceedings of an IMA/SPE Conference, Robinson College, Cambridge, July 1989; Edited by P.R. King, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992. Pope, G.A. and Nelson, R.C., “A Chemical Flooding Compositional Simulator”, SPEF, pp.339354, October 1978. Prats, M., “Thermal Recovery” SPE Monograph Series No. 7, SPE Richardson, TX, 1982. Price, H.S. and Coats, K.H.: “Direct Methods in Reservoir Simulation,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 14 (June 1974) 295308; Trans., AIME 257 Robertson, G., in Cores from the Northwest European Hydrocarbon Provence, C D Oakman, J H Martin and P W M Corbett (eds.), Geological Society, London. 1997. Schilthuis, R.J., “Active Oil and Reservoir Energy”, Trans. AIME, Vol. 118, p.3, 1936; (original ref. on Material Balance) Sheldon, J.W., Harris, C.D., and Bavly, D.: “A Method for Generalized Reservoir Behavior Simulation on Digital Computers,” SPE 1521G presented at the 35th Annual SPE Fall Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 1960. Sibley, M.J., Bent, J.V. and Davis, D.W., “Reservoir Modelling and Simulation of a Middle Eastern Carbonate Reservoir”, SPE36540, proceedings of the SPE 71st Annual Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 69 October 1996. Sorbie, K.S., “Polymer Improved Oil Recovery”, Blakie and SOns & CRC Press, 1991. SPE Reprint No. 11, Numerical Simulation I (1973) and SPE Reprint No. 20, Numerical Simulation II (19**). Spillette, A.G., Hillestad, J.H., and Stone, H.L.: “A HighStability Sequential Solution Approach to Reservoir Simulation,” SPE 4542 presented at the 48th Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Les Vegas, Nevada, September 30October 3, 1973. Stone, H.L.: “Iterative Solution of Implicit Approximations of Multidimensional Partial Differential Equations,” SIAM J. Numer.Anal. 5 (September 1968) 530558 Stone, H.L.: “Probability Model for Estimating ThreePhase Relative Permeability,” J. Pet. Tech. 24 (February 1970) 214218; Trans., AIME 249.
54
Introduction and Case Studies
1
Stone, H.L.: “Estimation of ThreePhase Relative Permeability and Residual Oil Data,” J. Can. Pet. Tech. 12 (OctoberDecember 1973) 5361. Stone, H.L. and Garder, Jr., A.O.: “Analysis of GasCap or DissolvedGas Drive Reservoirs,” Soc .Pet. Eng. J. 1 (June 1961) 92104; Trans., AIME 222. Thomas G.W. and Thurnau, D.H.: “Reservoir Simulation Using an Adaptive Implicit Method,” Soc. Pet. Eng.. J. 23 (October 1983) 759768. Thomas L.K., Lumpkin, W.B., and Reheis, G.M.: “Reservoir Simulation of Variable Bubblepoint Problems,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 16 (February 1976) 1016; Trans., AIME 261. Todd, M.R. and Longstaff, W.J.: “The Development, Testing, and Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance, “ J. Pet. Tech. 24 (July 1972) 874882; Trans., AIME 253. Todd, M.R., OʼDell, P.M., and Hirasaki, G.J.: “Methods for Increased Accuracy in Numerical Reservoir Simulators,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 12 (December 1972) 515530. Thomas, G W: Principles of Hydrocarbon Reservoir Simulation, IHRDC, Boston, 1982. Todd, M.R. and Chase, C.A., “A Numerical Simulator for Predicting Chemical Flood Performance”, SPE7689, proceedings of the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Denver, CO, 12 February 1979. Todd, M.R. et al , “Numerical Simulation of Competing Chemical Flood Designs”, SPE7077, proceedings of the SPE Symposium on Improved Methods for Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, 1619 April 1978. Uren, L.C., Petroleum Production Engineering, Oil Field Exploitation, 3rd edn., McGrawHill Book Company Inc., New York, 1953. Van Quy, N. and Labrid, J., “A Numerical Study of Chemical Flooding  Comparison with Experiments”, SPEJ, pp.461474, June 1983; Trans. AIME 275. van Vark, W., Paardekam, A.H.M., Brint, J.F., van Lieshout, J.B. and George, P.M., “The Construction and Validation of a Numerical Model of a Reservoir Consisting of Meandering Channels”, SPE25057, proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 1618 November 1992. Vela, S., Peaceman, D.W. and Sandvik, E.I., “Evaluation of Polymer Flooding in a Layered Reservoir with Crossflow, Retention and Degradation”, SPEJ, pp. 8296, April 1976. Vinsome, P.K.W.: “Orthomin, an Iterative Method for Solving Sparse Banded Sets of Simultaneous Linear Equations,” paper SPE 5729 presented at the Fourth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Los Angeles, February 1920, 1976.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
55
Wallis, J.R., Kendall, R.P., and Little, T.E.: “Constrained Residual Acceleration of Conjugate Residual Methods,” SPE 13536 presented at the Eighth SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February 1013, 1985. Watts, J.W.: “An Iterative Matrix Solution Method Suitable for Anisotropic Problems,” Soc Pet. Eng .J. 11 (March 1971) 4751; Trans., AIME 251. Watts, J.W., “A Compositional Formulation of the Pressure and Saturation Equations”, SPE (Reservoir Engineering), pp. 243  252, March 1986. Watts, J.W., “Reservoir Simulation: Past, Present and Future”, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, TX, 57 June 1997. Yanosik, J.L. and McCracken, T.A.: “A NinePoint Finite Difference Reservoir Simulator for Realistic Prediction of Unfavorable Mobility Ratio Displacements,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 19 (August 1979) 253262; Trans., AIME 267. Young, L.C. and Stephenson, R.E., “A Generalised Compositional Approach for Reservoir Simulation”, SPEJ, pp. 727742, October 1983; Trans. AIME 275. Youngren, G.K., “Development and Application of an InSitu Combustion Reservoir Simulator”, SPEJ, pp. 3951, February 1980; Trans. AIME 269.
APPENDIX B  Some Overview Articles on Reservoir Simulation
1. Reservoir Simulation: is it worth the effort? SPE Review, London Section monthly panel discussion November 1990. This one pager summarises a panel discussion that was held in London in 1990. Given the brevity of the article, it is packed with some genuine wisdom  and some things to disagree with  from a really excellent group of front line “users” of the technology. Briggs comes closest to capturing the principal authorsʼ particular prejudices! 2. The Future of Reservoir Simulation  C. Galas, J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, 36, January 1997. This short viewpoint from a Canadian independent consultant is interesting since it contexts reservoir simulation in the current “outsourced” and “downsized” oil industry. He notes that virtually everyone can have PC based powerful simulation technology on their desk tops. However, he concludes that the overall demand for simulation will rise and that, for the sake of efficiency, this will be performed by specialists. At the same time, he promotes a teamwork environment for the simulation engineer where he or she will be involved in the preceding reservoir characterisation process and the subsequent decision making process. This is a well argued position but not all of his conclusion would be generally accepted. 3. What you should know about evaluating simulation results  M. Carlson; J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, Part I  pp. 2125, 36, No. 5, May 1997; Part II  pp. 5257, 36, No. 7, August 1997.
56
Introduction and Case Studies
1
This very interesting pair of articles gives a very good broad brush commentary on a range of technical issues in reservoir simulation e.g. gridding, handling wells, pseudorelative permeability, error analysis and “consistency checking”. The views are clearly those of someone who has been deeply involved in applied reservoir simulation. They are well presented and quite individual although again there are issues that would provoke disagreement. Read this and decide for yourself what you accept and what you donʼt.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
57
Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering
2
1. 2.
INTRODUCTION MATERIAL BALANCE 2.1 Introduction to Material Balance (MB) 2.2 Derivation of Simplified Material Balance Equations 2.3 Conditions for the Validity of Material Balance SINGLE PHASE DARCY LAW ∇ 3.1 The Basic Darcy Experiment 3.2 Mathematical Note: on the Operators “gradient” ∇ and “divergence” ∇ 3.3 Darcy’s Law in 3D  Using Vector and Tensor Notation 3.4 Simple Darcy Law with Gravity ∇ 3.5 The Radial Darcy Law
3.
.
.
4. 5. 6.
TWOPHASE FLOW 4.1 The TwoPhase Darcy Law CLOSING REMARKS SOME FURTHER READING ON RESERVOIR ENGINEERING
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Having worked through this chapter the student should:
• be familiar with the meaning and use of all the usual terms which appear in reservoir engineering such as, Sw, So, Bo, Bw, Bg, Rso, Rsw, cw, co, cf, kro, krw, Pc etc. • be able to explain the differences between material balance and reservoir simulation. • be aware of and be able to describe where it is more appropriate to use material balance and where it is more appropriate to use reservoir simulation. • be able to use a simple given material balance equation for an undersaturated oil reservoir (with no influx or production of water) in order to find the STOOIP. • know the conditions under which the material balance equations are valid. • be able to write down the single and twophase Darcy Law in one dimension (1D) and be able to explain all the terms which occur (no units conversion factors need to be remembered). • be aware of the gradient (∇) and divergence (∇.) operators as they apply to the generalised (2D and 3D) Darcy Law (but these should not be committed to memory). • know that pressure is a scalar and that the pressure distribution, P(x, y, z) is a scalar field; but that ∇P is a vector. • know that permeability is really a tensor quantity with some notion of what this means physically (more in Chapter 7). • be able to write out the 2D and 3D Darcy Law with permeability as a full tensor and know how this gives the more familiar Darcy Law in x, y and z directions when the tensor is diagonal (but where we may have kx ≠ ky ≠ kz). • be able to write down and explain the radial Darcy Law and know that the pressure profile near the well, ΔP(r), varies logarithmically.
2
Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering
2
REVIEW OF BASIC CONCEPTS IN RESERVOIR ENGINEERING Brief Description of Chapter 2
This module reviews some basic concepts of reservoir engineering that must be familiar to the simulation engineer and which s/he should have covered already. We start with Material Balance and the definition of the quantities which are necessary to carry out such calculations: φ, co , cf , Bo , Swi etc. This is illustrated by a simple calculator exercise which is to be carried out by the student. The same exercise is then repeated on the reservoir simulator. Alternative approaches to material balance are discussed briefly. The respective roles of Material Balance and Reservoir Simulation are compared. The unit then goes on to consider basic reservoir engineering associated with fluid flow: the single phase Darcy law (k), tensor permeabilities, k , two phase Darcy Law  relative permeabilitites (kro , krw) and capillary pressures (Pc). Note that many of the terms and concepts reviewed in this section are summarised in the Glossary at the front of this chapter.
1. INTRODUCTION
It is likely that you will have completed the introductory Reservoir Engineering part of this Course. You should therefore be fairly familiar with the concepts reviewed in this section. The purpose of doing any review of basic reservoir engineering is as follows: (i) Between them, the review in this section and the Glossary make this course more selfcontained, with all the main concepts we need close at hand; (ii) This allows us to emphasise the complementary nature of “conventional” reservoir engineering and reservoir simulation; (iii) We would like to review some of the flow concepts (Darcy’s law etc.), in a manner of particular use for the derivation of the flow equations later in this course (in Chapter 5). An example of point (ii) above concerns the complementary nature of Material Balance (MB) and numerical reservoir simulation. At times, these have been presented as almost opposing approaches to reservoir engineering. Nothing could be further from the truth and this will be discussed in detail below. Indeed, a MB calculation will be done by the student and the same calculation will be performed using the reservoir simulator. In addition to an introductory review of simple material balance calculations, we will also go over some of the basic concepts of flow through porous media. These flow concepts will be of direct use in deriving the reservoir simulation flow equations in Chapter 5. Again, most of the concepts are summarised in the Glossary. Exercises are provided at the end of this module which the student must carry out.
3
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
The following concepts are defined in the Glossary and should be familiar to you: viscosity (μo, μw, μg), density (ρo, ρw, ρg), phase saturations (So, Sw and Sg), initial or connate water saturation (Swi or Swc), residual oil saturation (Sor). In addition, you should also be familiar with the basic reservoir engineering quantities in Table 1 below:
Symbol Name
Formation volume factors (FVF) for oil, water and gas
Field Units Meaning / Formulae
bbl/STB or RB/STB
Bo, Bw, Bg
Bo = Vol. oil + dissolved gas in reservoir Vol. oil at STC STC = Stock Tank Conditions (60°F; 14.7 psi). Likewise for water (usually const.) and gas; Pb = bubble point pressure below.
FVF
Bg
Bo Bw
P
Rso, Rsw Gas solubility factors or solution gas oil ratios SCF/STB
Pb
Rso =
Vol. dissolved gas in reservoir Vol. gas at STC
Rso Rso P
co, cw, cg Isothermal fluid compressibilities of oil water and gas psi
1
Pb
1 Vk
ck = 1 ρk
∂ρk ∂P
=
∂Vk ∂P
ρk and Vk  density and volume of phase k; k = o, w, g
Table 1: Basic reservoir engineering quantities to revise
2. MATERIAL BALANCE 2.1 Introduction to Material Balance (MB)
The concept of Material Balance (MB) has a central position in the early history of reservoir engineering. MB equations were originally derived by Schilthuis in 1936. There are several excellent accounts of the MB equations and their application to different reservoir situations in various textbooks (Amyx, Bass and Whiting, 1960; Craft, Hawkins and Terry, 1991; Dake, 1978, 1994). For this reason, and because this subject is covered in detail in the Reservoir Engineering course in this series, we only present a very simple case of the material balance equation in a saturated reservoir case. The full MB equation is presented in the Glossary for completeness. Our objectives in this context are as follows: • To introduce the central idea of MB and apply it to a simple case which we will then set up as an exercise for simulation;
4
Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering
2
• To demonstrate the complementary nature of MB and reservoir simulation calculations. Material balance has been used in the industry for the following main purposes: 1. Determining the initial hydrocarbon in place (e.g. STOIIP) by analysing mean reservoir pressure vs. production data; 2. Calculating water influx i.e. the degree to which a natural aquifer is supporting the production (and hence slowing down the pressure decline); 3. Predicting mean reservoir pressure in the future, if a good match of the early pressure decline is achieved and the correct reservoir recovery mechanism has been identified. Thus, MB is principally a tool which, if it can be applied successfully, defines the input for a reservoir simulation model (from 1 and 2 above). Subsequently, the mean field pressure decline as calculated in 3 above can be compared with the predictions of the numerical reservoir simulation model. Before deriving the restricted example of the MB equations, we quote the introduction of Dake’s (1994) chapter on material balance.
Material Balance Applied to Oilfields
(from Chapter 3; L. P. Dake, The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Developments in Petroleum Science 36, Elsevier, 1994.) Dake says: It seems no longer fashionable to apply the concept of material balance to oilfields, the belief being that it has now been superseded by the application of the more modern technique of numerical reservoir simulation modelling. Acceptance of this idea has been a tragedy and has robbed engineers of their most powerful tool for investigating reservoirs and understanding their performance rather than imposing their wills upon them, as is often the case when applying numerical simulation directly in history matching. As demonstrated in this chapter, by defining an average pressure decline trend for a reservoir, which is always possible, irrespective of any lack of pressure equilibrium, then material balance can be applied using simply the production and pressure histories together with the fluid PVT properties. No geometrical considerations (geological models) are involved, hence the material balance can be used to calculate the hydrocarbons in place and define the drive mechanisms. In this respect, it is the safest technique in the business since it is the minimum assumption route through reservoir engineering. Conversely, the mere act of construction of a simulation model, using the geological maps and petrophysically determined formation properties implies that the STOIIP is “known”. Therefore, history matching by simulation can hardly be regarded as an investigative technique but one that merely reflects the input assumptions of the engineer performing the study.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
5
this should be one of the history matching parameters. whereas. done. the system response depends on the compressibilities of the various fluids (co. as we discussed above. you certainly have enough to perform a MB calculation. 2. water and rock. Clearly. To counter this. 3.2 Derivation of Simplified Material Balance Equations Material balance (MB) is simply a volume balance on the changes that occur in the reservoir. The authors of this Reservoir Simulation course would very much like to echo Dake’s sentiments. If there is a gas cap or production goes below the bubble point (Pb). which is the domain of numerical simulation modelling. The volume of the original reservoir is assumed to be fixed.There should be no competition between material balance and simulation. Performing large scale reservoir simulation studies does not replace doing good conventional reservoir engineering analysis . the reservoir pressure will drop although this can be balances if there is a water influx into the reservoir. Because engineers have drifted away from oilfield material balance in recent years. If this is so. 2. Typical ranges of fluid and rock compressibilities are given in Table 2: 6 . instead they must be supportive of one another: the former defining the system which is then used as input to the model. Physically. which denied them vital information concerning the basic understanding of the physics of reservoir performance. The pressure is taken to be constant throughout this tank model and in all phases. Notes on Dake’s comments 1. if you have enough data to build a reservoir simulation model.as shown in Figure 5 Chapter 1.especially MB calculations. then the remaining oil. It is perhaps worth commenting that in none of these fields had the operators attempted to apply material balance. must be zero. Take careful note of Dake’s comment on where a reservoir simulation model is used for history matching. Material balance is excellent at history matching production performance but has considerable disadvantages when it comes to prediction. MB should always be carried out since. The reservoir engineer can get around this to some extent by building a number of alternative models of the reservoir and this is sometimes. The reservoir is assumed to be a “tank” . the other fluids and the rock must expand to fill the void space left by the produced oil. if oil is produced. indeed. cw and cg) and on the reservoir rock formation (crock). As a consequence. The very act of setting up the model means that you actually input the STOIIP. how to use it properly. the chapter provides a comprehensive description of various methods of application of the technique and included six fully worked exercises illustrating the history matching of oilfields. free gas. the unfamiliarity breeds a lack of confidence in its meaningfulness and. but not frequently. Note Dake’s comments on the complementary nature of MB in defining the input for reservoir simulation. then the highly compressible gas dominates the system response. then the algebraic sum of all the volume changes in the reservoir of oil.
1991) Formation rock. Vf = N.Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 Fluid or formation Compressibility (10 3 .Swi).Boi/(1. HeriotWatt University 7 .(1Swi) Water.po Vf = initial void space (bbl).1300 50 .200 6 psi ) 1 Table 2: Typical rock and fluid compressibilities (from Craft. pressure p (STB) Bo = oil formation volume factor at current t and p (bbl/STB) W = initial reservoir water (bbl) Wp = cumulative produced water (STB) Bw = water formation volume factor (bbl/STB) We = water influx into reservoir (bbl) cw = water isothermal compressibility (psi1) Δ P = change in reservoir pressure.Swi Water influx Water. Swi W = Vf.Swi Swi = initial water saturation (of whole system) cf = void space isothermal compressibility (psi1). cw Undersaturated oil.10 24 5 . and (ii) in the figures above. with possible water influx. Wp Figure 1. NBoi = Vf. Simplified system for material balance (MB) in a system with an undersaturated oil above the bubble point and possible water influx. sometimes denoted RB.(1Swi) Water.Np)Bo NBoi = Vf. Swi W + We . Hawkins and Terry. the oil and water are effectively assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the system) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Wp Water influx We Definitions: N = initial reservoir volume (STB) Boi = initial oil formation volume factor (bbl/STB or RB/STB) Np = cumulative produced oil at time t. Np Oil N Oil (N . cg The simple example which we will take in order to demonstrate the main idea of material balance is shown in Figure 1 where the system is simply an undersaturated oil. co Gas at 1000psi. cg Gas at 5000psi. crock Water. p .100 900 . c f = 1 ∂Vf Vf ∂p (NB: (i) bbl = reservoir barrels. W = Vf. Initial conditions pressure = po After production (Np) pressure = p Oil.
ΔVvoid Initial void space volume = Vf = W .Boi .Np).Boi (bbl = RB) (bbl) = V .∆Vvoid Water volume change.c . The pressure drop is denoted. ΔVo. ΔVvoid (ΔVvoid = .cw.Bw Volume of water influx into reservoir = We Water volume change due to compressibility = W. water and void space (rock) occur. Bo (bbl) (1) __ ∆Vrock = .ΔVrock). to pressure. In going from initial reservoir conditions shown in Figure 1 at pressure. p. Δ P = p .Np).∆ p __ = (N .∆ p Oil volumeV = W B ∆ change. = V .(Vf . ΔVw ΔVw Change in the void space volume.∆ p Initial reservoir water volume = W (bbl) (STB) (bbl) (bbl) (bbl) Cumulative water production at time = Wp Reservoir volume of cumulative water production at time = Wp. po. ΔVw. Δ P (2) (bbl) 8 .Definitions of the various quantities we need for our simplified MB equation for the depletion of an undersaturated oil reservoir above the bubble point (Pb) are given in Figure 1. ΔVo w p w .(N .Wp Bw + We + W. Δ P ) (bbl) = Wp Bw .c w .c f ∆ Oil volume tf time t.c f . pressure .p p ) f f Change in oil volume.W.c w .cw.Vf .We .W. Bo ΔVo = N. Δ P Change in water volume.Vf . (NB a more extensive list of quantities required for a full material balance equation in any type of oil or gas reservoir is given in the Glossary for completeness). The volume balance simply says that: ∆Vo + ∆Vw + ∆Vrock = ∆Vo + ∆Vw − ∆Vvoid = 0 (1) Each of these volume changes can be calculated quite straightforwardly as __ follows: ∆Vw = W . ΔVw = .(W . volume changes in the oil.∆ p = __ __ Initial oil volume in reservoir N.cw.(W .Wp Bw + We + W.We .po.
Bo +through+ N p . Bo + use Bo + N . B + N p . Bo = Boi and and therefore (Np/N)= 0. Boi W + Wp.cw . Boi − N .∆ P = 0 1 w (7) Boi − Bo + o oi N 1 − Swi . + noting N RearrangingBequation −NandWp .w + fc .∆ P = 0 equation simplifies even furtheroi 1 − S wi S .Vf. Bo + N . B − B Swi−cSwi .∆ P − Vf . Bo − Boi wi . Bo + N p . o − WS orWp . Boi Swi cw crock . the MB Swi .(Bw − N . is the higherk ∆P pressure ∂P initial k for depletion). Bo + N p . Boi − N .cf.∆ P = Vf W .∆ PBoi0 wi w p wi 1 − Swi (5) Swi .cw + crock __ wi N .∆VrockN B .cw . Note also in equation 8 that ∆P is negative in depletion ( ∆P = ppo. of material balance in . = It is seen from equation 8 that. Bo + N . B B 1− e + .∆ P = 0 which rearranges N . Boi − N . Boi − N . Boi∆Vw .∆ P__ 0 N . Boi 1 − S wi . . N. +o ∆VrockBo 4WeBoi + N − that).∆ P = 0 N Boi − N bbl = RB) to . Boi . Boi S .c + c f __ N . Boi e + 1 −pSBw −. Boi − N . Bo + N p . Bfor the − W . as ∆p=0 expected.− S+∆ P=0 __ wi (6) 1 − wi N . Bo equation 6 by N (the initial reservoir oil volume.c P = 0__ ∆ 5 . B to: . = − . BoN .cw + c f __ Np ∆ = N = 1 − B + B S .cf. Bo + N . Bo + N .c f we P = 0 V w and − ∆Vo. Bo + N p . B N p . Boi − N .B − N B 1 remains system given in Figure 1 (as longas it − Swi above its bubble point). ΔVvoid = Vf .c + c .obtain: .Vf.c + .Swi.∆ P = 0 N .cw + cf __ __ __ S . Boi wi w rock anP = 0 simpler example. Q u= =− . Bo + N . = Note that we can divide 1c + Swi .∆ P − Vf .cw + cwi __ S rock N . P__ 0 N = 1 −Bo oi +Bo oi 1 − Swi .(Vf . Boi − N .∆ P = 0 that there is no water oinflux (We =0) wicw production __ oi = 1 − STherefore.1 − wi+ (balance ∆ Bo = 0 p . ΔVrock = . Bo o++ NBo. N .∆ even us N . P__ 0 f N p . Q µk L P µk ∂P A = − .∆ /(1Swi. − − W wiWw . at t = 0.ΔVvoid = .c + c __ __ N Boi − N . HeriotWatt University 9 .let __ assume illustrate the N p .∆ p − wi obtain: Swi . Boi wi w S 1.cw + crock __ __ __ ∆ N .∆ P B − . where po. expression V Equation Vo is ∆+ wN+ .c f . Bo + N p . Bw − N . Boi − N . B − We 0 = N.cf.Boi − N .Bo 1= S f .BoiP − Vf ).∆ P = 0 S . P + W w − We undersaturated = material .Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 Change in void space volume.cw . = S . p wi N . f N . x ∂ u= A µ L µ ∂x Institute of Petroleum Engineering. + crock (W 0).c + c ∆ = Boi − Bo + N . Boi + ( N − N p ). Δ P Now adding the volume changes as follows: (3) ∆Vo + ∆Vw + ∆Vrock = N .cw + cf To N .−wSwi crock . Bo + N p . Bo + N p . Δ P ) = Vf. Bo + Wp .+ the (simplified) N BoiSwi wN − fN p ). Bo − N .. Boi wi w __ .c + cf . = .∆ P = 0 p f wi w (8) N Bo Bo 1 − Swi where the __ quantity ∆ p__ 0 (Np/N) is the Recovery Factor (RF) as a fraction of the STOIIP. ∆ = − .c + c __ oi o p o oi Swi . Bo + N . Bw − We − W . Boi 1 − Swi Boi Boi Swi .∆ P = 0 1 − Swi __ Np S .c f .∆ P = 0 (4) __ __ N + − N + N p . Δ P Change in rock volume.c + crock . Boi − easily to: . S .
∆P shown in Figure 2 (we take . water and formation compressibilities.P + c Oil FVF Bo 1. 1 1 Np N Y 0 X ∆P Figure 4 Reservoir depletion on a plot following equation 9. 1 1"almost" straight line for w/o systems Np N 0 Figure 2 Plot of remaining oil. 10 .3 4000 P (psi) 5500 Figure 3 B0 as a function of pressure for a black oil. 1. If we draw the reservoir pressure down by an amount ∆P (known or measured) and we know that to do this we had to produce a volume Np (STB) of oil. This point of depletion is shown in Figure 4.It is convenient to rearrange equation 8 above as follows: N p Boi Boi Swi cw + c f − 1 − = ∆P N Bo Bo 1 − Swi (9) We then identify 1(Np/N) as the fraction of the initial oil still in place.∆P since it plots along the positive axis. this decline plot is not necessarily a straight line but for oil water systems. ∆P Np 1 − vs. We can then plot this quantity vs. Suppose we know the pressure behaviour of B0 (i. .e. − ∆P N As noted in Figure 2. it is very close in practice.4 Bo(P) = m. B0(P)) as shown in Figure 3. Figure 2 suggests a way of applying a simple material balance equation to the case of an undersaturated oil above the bubble point (with no water influx or production). This is a pure depletion problem driven by the oil (mainly). since ∆P is negative).
Swi = 0. Suppose you find that after 200 psi of depletion. water and formation expansion above the bubble point (Pb) with no water influx or production. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.1.e. we can find N the initial oil in place.3 Conditions for the Validity of Material Balance The basic premise for the material balance assumptions to be correct is that the reservoir be “tank like” i. p. Indeed. the pressure communication through the system must at least be very fast in practice (rather than instantaneous which is strictly impossible). X is equal to 1(Np/N) and we know Np (the amount of oil we had to produce to get drawdown ∆P ).like reservoir with the fluid properties given below (and in Figure 4).78). That is.or “diffuses” through the system faster .e. Hence. Dake (1994. Material Balance problem for an undersaturated reservoir using equation 8 above.Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 We know Y ( it is ∆P ). For this to be correct.4. the whole system is at the same pressure and. . as follows: cf = 5 x 106 psi1. What was the original oil in place in this reservoir? Input data: The initial water saturation. which is given by k/(φµc) (Dake. For a pressure disturbance to travel very quickly through a system. the more “tank like”.∆P over the first 250 psi of depletion N of this reservoir. we will show later (Chapter 5) that pressure equilibrates faster . p. the better and this is equivalent to having a large k/(φμc) as discussed above. 2. EXERCISE 1.3 and the bubble point is at Pb = 4000 psi where Bo = 1. as the pressure falls. The initial reservoir pressure is 5500 psi at which Boi = 1. we can calculate X (the RHS of equation 9). the oil swells as the pressure drops as shown in Figure 4. 1994. then the system equilibrates immediately. and (ii) we must have the ability to define an average pressure decline trend i. An exercise to do this is given below.for larger values of the “hydraulic diffusivity”. The rock and water compressibilities are. we know that the permeability should be very high and the fluid compressibility should be low (pressure changes a re communicated instantaneously through and incompressible fluid). cw = 4 x 106 psi1. Plot a figure of Np 1 − vs. This describes a case where production is by oil. also points out two “necessary” conditions to apply material balance in practice as follows: (i) We must have adequate data collection (production/pressures/PVT). Exercise: Suppose you have a tank . you have produced 320 MSTB of oil.78). HeriotWatt University 11 .
is indicated that allows us to work in various units as may be convenient __ to the problem=at hand. µ L Q field bbl/day ft. N p = 1 − Boilaboratories. we wish to introduce the idea of permeability as ∇ ∇ a tensor property. the idea of gradient ∇ and divergence ∇ • will be discussed in the context of the generalised formulation of the single phase Darcy law. rock . ft.∆ P = 0 The Darcy law given in Figure 5. We also wish to extend the idea of permeability (k) somewhat further than is covered in basic reservoir engineering texts. is as follows: Bo Bo 1 − Swi k ∆P k ∂P Q u= =− .g. Swi .s lab. β. a more useful way to express the Darcy ∆p 0 Law and introducing the Darcy velocity. Bare N . wi 3. . A µ L µ ∂x (9) where the minus sign in equation 9 indicates that the direction of fluid flow is down the pressure gradient from high pressure to low pressure i. (Darcy used a gravitational head of water as his driving force __ whereas.A ∆P .3. u. Bo + N p . Bo models wi w as approximate experimental − Boi of an aquifer P =the ground water supply at . = − . In differential form. many of the terms Note that c __ N . Some useful mathematical concepts will also be introduced in this section associated with vector calculus.cwe would normally use a pump. + through f Boi − Bo + p .) in modern core + Boi Swi . denoted by k .∆ for 0 1 − wi Dijon. This will prove to be very useful when we derive the flow equations of reservoir simulation in Chapter 5. in particular.e. In particular.the 1 − S . Definitions: Symbol Dimensions Meaning Consistent Units c.1 The Basic Darcy Experiment Darcy in 1856 conducted a series of flowctestsc __ packs of sands which he took N S . is in its “experimental” form where a conversion factor.g. Bo + N Boi Glossary. water) being pumped through a homogeneous sand pack or rock core. A schematic ofN essential DarcySexperiment is shown in Figure 5 where the N we imagine a single phase fluid (e. cm3/s cm cm3/s cm cm2 k. SINGLE PHASE DARCY LAW We review the single phase Darcy Law in this section in order to put our own particular “slant” or viewpoint to the student.2 SI field m3/day m m2 Q L L3/T L L2 Volumetric flow rate Length of system 12 A Cross .∆ P = 0 discussed here oi − also summarised in . in the opposite direction to the positive pressure gradient. ∆P Q L Q = β. w + c f .sectional cm2 .cw +for reference.
14. e. cm3/s cm cm3/s cm cm2 cP dyne/cm2 darcy 9. Sometimes. .sectional cm2 area Viscosity cP atm darcy 1. 14.58999x410 5. Here. Q (cm 3 / s) = 1. we now convert everything in the field units to2 4 bbl (except for 8cp.127x10 3 SI field m3/day m m2 Pa.7 Q to . 14.48 that convert it unitdayunit starting from the c.∆P Q Q Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering L Q = β.dimensions L2. units as follows Q . 1. 1 Darcy = 9. units: k. = x10 4 = 24 x 3600 s = 8. µ (cp) 2 L ( ft.g. = 4 k (ft.2 cP psi mD 1. Darcies (D). 30. We do need know a few conversion factors = 4 L3 (ft. are the c. . ft.g. indeed.s. Starting fromPthe Darcy Law in c. which30.869 x 109 cm2 = 0. 1.527 x103 Q L A µ ∆P k β L3/T L L2 Volumetric flow rate Length of system Cross .2 ).30.48 µ (= ) 14.second) units where β = 1.482 ( psi) bbl 1.L.A ∆P .48 µ where by 8.615 x 30.615 ft3= 5. µ L 2 Definitions: Symbol Dimensions Meaning Consistent Units c.) µ (cp) k ∆P ( mD) . A (ft ) ∆P ( psi) Q ( bbl / day) = ?? . bbl 1.30. that is. (cp) we .30know β = ( ) 1.s. µ L . A ( ft. The single phase Darcy Law # permeability .58999x10 5 1000 How do we the correct conversion factor for these new units? Essentially. ).s Pa mD 8. k.s.00 M. ) ∆P( p 8.s.58999x10 . the Darcy was defined such µ L that β = 1. ) ∆P( p .g.).126722x10 µ (cp) day 2 L ( ft.gram . 1 day atm.2 (Force/Area) L2 Pressure drop Permeability# dimensionless Conversion factor Figure 5. = 1. k.g. (centimetre .48 2 bbl Institute of Petroleum Engineering. = 5 L (ft µ (cp) day 1000 . we go from c.A ∆P Q = β.48 cm (exact).s lab.64 x10 . milliDarcies (mD). psi 2 2 L ∆P 30. k (Darcy) .7we Q find .869x10 6 field bbl/day ft. ) ∆P( psi ) Q .482 same): k (Darcy) . Thus. Note on Units Conversion for Darcy’s Law: the various units that are commonly used for Darcy’s Law are listed in Figure 2 above.).00 L (cm ) µ (cp) Suppose we now wish to convert to field units as follows: k (Darcy) . we briefly explain how to do this using the examples in the previous figure. µ (cp) 2 L ( cm ) k (Darcy) . A (ft.) k (Darcy) . A (ft 2 ) ∆P ( psi) Q ( bbl / day) = ?? . the conversion between various systems of units causes confusion for some students. = 7 µ (cp) day 1000 .00 .2 . = 30.A ∆ Q = β.7 psi = 1 day 1 bbl645. units m2.T. L (ft.58999x10 1000 as follows: 1 ft. 8. A (ft. 30. A (ft.48 2 L ( ft bbl k (Darcy) .48 Q . HeriotWatt University 13 3 k ( Darcy ) .) ∆P psi Q (cm 3 / s) = 1. A (cm 2 ) ∆P (atm ) .g. expressionA ( ft.64 x10 .98696 x 1012 m2 ≈ 1 µm2.64 x10 5 ( mD) .g.. .64 x 10 s.58999 x 105 cm .7 . 14. A (cm ) ∆P (atm ) .483 cm3 cp1. 30.
j. . 1. L (cm ) L (ft.48 µ (cp) 4 2 bbl 3 k ( Darcy ) .64 x10 . ij. j The gradient operation can be carried out on a scalar field such as i . A (ft. which simplifies to L (ft.7 . 14.48 ∆ µ (cp day 8.) µ (cp) day µ (cp) . = k 4 P (ft. . 1. 14.30.127 x 103 for these units (as given in Figure 5). ) ∆P( psi ) Q = 1. 30.∆ k. k.482 . i . ). A 2 cm ) ∆P (atm ) µ (cp . L (cm ) Q (cm 3 / s) = 1.58999x10 14. β.126722x10 3 .30L (ft.2)).48 Thus.58999x10 5. day 8. µ (cp) mD) .00 3 Q ( bbl / day) = ?? Q ( bbl / day) = ?? k (Darcy) . P. . and k are the unit vectors which point in the x.7 = factors together we obtain: 4 L (ft. ) ∆P( psi) 8. A ( ft. A (cm 2 ) ∆2 (atm ) P ( .) ∆P( psi) µ (cp) k (Darcy) . 30. 14.(ft L) ( ∆P ( psi) ft Q ( bbl / day) = ?? µ (cp)k .64 x10 . and ∂P k . = 1. as follows: ∂P ∂P ∂P ∇P = ∂P i + ∂P j + ∂P k ∇P = ∂P i + ∂P j + ∂P k ∇ ∂x ∂y ∂z ∇P = ∂x i + ∂y j + ∂z k ∂x ∂y ∂z . day 1000 .48 ( psi) day 8.48 Q . These will be used to write the generalised flow equation of single and two phase flow in Chapter 5.(ft.64 x10 . = 5 L (ft.58999x10 . y and z as follows: ∇P ∂P ∂P i ∂P i ∂x ∂x i ∂x ∂P ∇P = ∂P j ∇P = ∂P j ∂y ∇P = ∂y j ∂y ∂P ∂P k k ∂P ∂z k ∂z ∂z 14 ∂P ∂P ∂P i. where ∇ P P sometimes written as grad P.2. k (Darcy) .58999x10 5 14. j and k j and k respectively. P 2 Q = 3µ L µ L k (Darcy) .126722x10 L (ft. A (cm ) ∆P (atm ) Q (cm / s) = 1.) 2 and hence β = 1.64 x10 x10 bbl 1. The quantity ∇ P is actually a vector of is ∇P ∇ the pressure gradients in the three directions. and ∂P k i. . L (ft. 14. ∇ ∇ .). ∇ .) day 1000 . A ( ft. .2 Mathematical Note: on the Operators “gradient” ∇ and “divergence” ∇ • Before generalising the Darcy Law to 3D.482 5 4 ( mD) . A (ft 2 ) ∆P ( psi) 2 k (Darcy) .) ∆P L ( ).) 482 ( ( psi) bbl 1. A (ft. 30. .482 L( psi) bbl 1. 30. 1.126722x10 day bbl k (Darcy) . x.). A (ft.7 ∆P 1000 k 2 Q .48 Qbbl = .00 µ (cp) . 30.) µ (cp) 2 day bbl 3 k ( Darcy ) .7 1000 Q . A .) µ (cp)2 day 1000 . ft. ) ∆P( psi ) Q . Q (cm / s) = 1.48 4 2 5 k (Darcy) .) 2 bbl k (Darcy) . y and z directions.2 ) ∆P psi) 8.00 (Darcy) ) A (ft ) L Pcm ) k ∆ (.( psi) µ (cp) µ (cp) . we first make a short mathematical digression to introduce the concepts of gradient and divergence operators. A (ft. 3.30.A .30.58999x10 5. ∂P j.. A (ft. 7 30 48 L (ft. ) ∆P( psi) 8.64 x10 ( mD) .A A P ∆ Q = β.).) Q = 1.30. and k pressure.58999 1000 µ (cp) Q . Gradient (or grad) is a vector operation as follows: ∂ ∂ ∂ ∇ = ∂ i + ∂ j + ∂ k ∇ = ∂x i + ∂y j + ∂z k ∂ ∂ ∂ ∇ = ∂x i + ∂y j + ∂z k ∂x ∂y ∂z where i. = .30. ( Q . = L (2ft.7 .64 x10 collecting the numerical 4 µ (cp) bbl k (Darcy) A (ft.
... . . . .. . . . . . . . u.. . . . .. . and k . . . . . . . gives the ∂ ∂ ∂ the u i x ∇ = i j k following: ∂ ∂ x y ∇ z ∂ ∂∂ ∂ i ∂∂ ∂ j ∂= ∂ ki u j j ∂ k u y∂y ∇ = ∇ i u = j k i ∂z ∂x x ∂z ∂ ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂ ∂ yj ∇ u = i j k u z k ∂y ∂z u i ∂x x ∂ ∂ ∂ u z k ux i u j ∇ u = i j ux i k y ux i ∂ ∂ ∂ x ∂∂∇ ∂= i y z ∂∂ ∂ k ∂u ∇ uwe can expand∂the RHS∂ofktheu ∂j ∂equation∂byj multiplyingout jthe firstu z = i j ∂ u y x u z k y ∂u x ∂z u y y where ∇ ∂xu = ∂y i k ux j i i + j + ∂z j above u y i = a “1x1 matrix” whichuisjkscalar z k k (1x3) matrix by the ∂x (3x1) matrix∂to second ∂y z ∂ ∂ u ∂k obtain ∂u x ∂yy z a u ∂ ∂x ∂ ∂u z z yj ∇ u = i j k u z k = ii + jj + k k as follows: ∂y ∂z u i ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x x ∂ u i uy ∂ ∂ ∂ u z k ∂u x ∂u z ∇ i = j = = k ik = 1 j u x i k u y j = i i∂ + xj j + ∂u k k i ∂ u j ∂∂ ∂ x ∂∂∇ u ∂= i∂u x ∂ j∂x u y k ∂y∂ujz = ∂zx i i + y z ∂ ∇ u = i j k u y j ∂xu z ki ∂y+ = j j + u y k k ∂x i ∂z ∂z ∂x i i∂x j j =∂k k = 1 ∂z = y ∂y u z k u z k ∂u y ∂u ∂u z ∇ i = j= = k x = 1 i u j ∂xk + ∂y + ∂z where wej usekuk = 1 ∂u x + ∂uiy i + j∂j z= k k = 1 . . . . The operator is denoted as follows: ∂ ∂ ∂ ∇ = i j k ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂ ∂ ∂ ∇ = i j k ∂y ∂z ∂x For example. Divergence (or div) is the dot product of the gradient operator and acts on a vector to produce a scalar. . .. . . . . . . . taking the divergence of Darcy velocity vector. . . ∂x ∂P ∂P j.This is shown schematically in Figure 6 where the three components of the vector ∇ . . . ∂z ∂y Figure 3: The definition of grad P or z Figure 6 The definition of grad P or ∇P ∇ . . . HeriotWatt University ∂P 15 ∇P ∇ ∇P i ∇P ∇ ∇P 2 2 x ∂ ∂ P ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂P ∂ P .e. ... . . . ∆ P Unit vectors k i j y x . i. . . . . . . . to obtain: = u i i = j ∇= the relationships. . and are shown by the dashed lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . . = ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂u y ∂ ∂u z ∇P ∇ ∇Pu x ∇ u = + + ∂ ∂u y ∂ ∂u∇ ∇P u y ∂∇z u =z ∂u x + ∂u y + ∂u z ∂x x ∇ ∂x ∇ u =P + + ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂z ∂P i ∇P ∇ ∇P ∂x Institute of Petroleum Engineering.. . . . . . . .. . . . . . ∂P i ∂x Basic Concepts ∂P j ∇P = ∂y ∂P k ∂z in Reservoir Engineering 2 ∂P ∇ P. . .
∂u y ∂u ∂u z u = x + + ∂y ∂z ∇ ∂x . ∂x ∂z ∂ ∂y 2 2 x y 2 2 2 ∂u z ∂z where. ∂ j ∂y . . . ∇P . . . .i + x y x ∂u y ∂y jj + . Suppose we k ∇P ∇P ∂y a that is k • ∇ P. Likewise. . u j = ∂∂ux i. . . grad = ∂∂x . k . ∇ ∇ .∂x∇P += ∂yP P + +∂z∇∂. u = ∂∂x i. we obtain the familiar 2 2 . . ∂ k ∂z . . . . . . in summary. . . 2 2 P P ∂ .3 Darcy’s Law inzy k zz 2 k zx ∇ 3Ddiv grad = ∂ 2 and Tensor Notation k = . . . ∇ = div . . . . . . . ∇P = . . . N. i i = j = k ==j = k k = 1 Again j using kthe1jrelationships. ∇ quantity. .P=u∇+P ∂uP += ∂u P + ∂ ∂∂ ∂ = ∇ ∂x ∇y ∇. . .. . i. . . ∇ i i = j j = k k = 1 u z k . . . .∂y ∂x ∂z ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂y k = k yx k yy k yz ∂P 2 2 2 3. ∂ k ∂z . . ∂u z k k ∂z . . as i ∇ u = follows: j k uy j ∇ . ∇ 2 is the Laplacian operator: ∇P ∇ ∇P . . . we can take the divergence of the grad P vector. . ii expression: ∇ 2 2 2 2 2 . . . . to obtain theu x i ∂ ∇P ∇ ∇P ∂ ∂ ∇ • ∇ P. . with the vector ∇ P. ∇ P. .. . . . . ∂ j ∂y . .Using Vector + ∂ 2 + ∂ 2 k ∇ =∇ ∂ ∂ ∂2 Suppose we have a tensor k which ∂x 23D can 2be represented by 3 zx 3 in a ∂ 2 ∇ = ∇ ∇ = div grad = 2 + ∂y 2 + ∂y 2 matrix as follows: ∂x ∂y ∂y ∇P k ∇P i i = j j = k k =1 k xx k xy k xz k k k k = k xx k xy k xz yx yy yz ∂P 2 k = k yx k yy k yz ∂2 P ∂2 P ∂ P ∇ k zx k zy k zz ∇ ∇Px = 2 + 2 + 2 = ∇ 2 P ∂ k ∂z ∂y k ∂x ∇ k zx k zy xx k zz xy k xz ∂P ∇P = to k a k product k now wish k yxtake yy dot yz ofthis tensor. . 2 ∂P i ∂x The final issue we wish to discuss in this mathematical note is the rule for taking 2 ∂ ∂2 P ∂2 P ∂ ∂P the dot product of a tensor and vector. (sometimes denoted div grad P). j and k in the following developments. . . k ∇P kproduct of a tensor and vector is a vector and the operation ∇P The dot zx k zy k zz ∂ follows: is carried out like a matrix multiplicationasP ∂P z ∂x ∂P k xx k xy k xz ∂x k xx k xy k xz ∂P ∂P k ∇P = k yx k yy k yz ∂P k xx + k xy ∂P + k xz ∂P ∂P ∂y ∂z ∂y k ∇P = k yx k yy k yz ∂x ∂x k zx k zy k zz ∂y k xx k xy k xz k zx k zy k zz ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P = k yx + k yy + k yz k ∇P = k yx k yy k yz ∂z ∂x ∂z ∂y k ∂y ∂z k zy k zz zx ∂P k zx ∂P + k zy ∂P + k zz ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P z k ∂x + k ∂y + k ∂z 16 xy ∂P xz ∂P xx ∂P ∂z ∂x k xx ∂x + k xy ∂y + k xz ∂P ∇2 = ∇ . ∂z ∂x ∂P ∂y i u z k ∂x ∂P i ∂x ∂ ∂P ∂ 2 P ∂ ∂2 P ∂2 P ∂ ∇ ∂ ∇P =∂ i ∂ j∂P k P j ∂2 P 2 i ∂2 u i 2 j j + 2 k k = + i P ∂2 k ∂y j ∂z ∂y + ∂x + 2 x k ∂y = ii jj ∇P = i ∂z∂u ∂ j x k ∂u z ∂ ∂y 2 ∂ ∂z ∂u x ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂ 2 ∂x y u j = xi ∇ = u j k y ii + jj + k k ∂P ∂y ∂x ∂P ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂z k k u z k ∂z ∂z . . . u = ∂∂ux ∇ ∇P x + ∂u y ∂u ∂ + = z i ∂y∇ ∂z x ∂ .B.∇ . . . . We now omit∂ explicit inclusionof ∂ P a the k xx k xy k xz ∇ ∇P = i j k j = 2 i i + 2 j j + 2 k k the unit vectors. . i i = j j = k k = 1 . i i = j j = k k =1 . 2 + ∂2 ∂2 + ∂y 2 ∂y 2 . .
k xx z + µ ∂x µ ∂x ∂y ∂P PP ∂P ∂ ∂ k xy k zx xz + k zy + k ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂P + k xz ∂z ∂P + k yz ∂z ∂P + k zz ∂z xx x xy University+ Institute of Petroleum Engineering. ∂P k ∂P + k ∂P + k ∂P xx xy xz y ∂z ∂x ∂P x k ∂P + k ∂P k ∂P ∂ xx ∂ + xz xy k xx k xy k xz ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂ ∂P ∂x P ∂P ∂P ∇P = k yx k k xxk yz kxy k = k yx + k yy + k yz xz yy ∂ ∂z ∂y ∂P ∂P k ∂y ∂P x ∂P k ∇zx =k k yxk zz kyy k = k yx + k yy + k yz P zy yz ∂P ∂z ∂y ∂P ∂x ∂y ∂P ∂P k k ∂zk zz k zx + k zy + k zz zy zx ∂z ∂y ∂P x ∂ ∂P ∂P ∂P . we can extend the Darcy Law (in the absence of gravity) to 3D as follows by introducing the tensor permeability. ∂x ∂x k xx k k k xz k xy xx k xz xy ∂P kP k ∇P = ∇yx =k k k yz k k ∂P yy k yx yy ∂y yz k ∂y k k zz zy zx k zx k ∂Pk zz zy ∂P which multiplies out as follows: ∂z ∂z Basic Concepts in ∂P ∂P Reservoir Engineering 2 .k yx ∂P+ yy 1 + k yz P 1 y ∂ ∂ µ = . HeriotWatt 1 ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u y = . ∂P k zx ∂x ∂P + k zy ∂y ∂P + k zz ∂z Using the above concepts from vector calculus (div.k yx + k yy + k yz ∂z ∂P µ ∂x 1 ∂yP ∂ u =.k + k ∂P µ ∂x ∂y ∂P ∂P ∂P k xz ∂z 17 . . k : ∂P ∂P P ∂∂P ∂P + k + k k xx ∂P xy k xx xz + ∂x ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂x k xx k xy k xz k∂xx k xy1 k xz∂P ∂P P 1 ∂P k ∇P = 1 k yx k yy k yz = .zy yx zz ∂zyy k ∂y + k y x k zx ∂x ∂P + k zy ∂y 1 ∂P u u x = . and grad). .y k yx ∂z + k P ∂y µ zx zy zz ∂P µ µ ∂x k zx k zy k zz ∂P + k zy ∂P + k zz ∂P k zx ∂z ∂ ∂x ∂P ∂y ∂Pz ∂P k xy ∂y ∂P k yy ∂y u=  1 k µ u . .∇P ∇P k∇P k ∇P . k . .k yx +yy k+ k xy u x ∂x ∂z ∂y y µ ∂ ∂x ∂P ∂P ∂P uz k k 1+ ∂P + k ∂P u = uzx ∂=. ∂z giving the finalresult:P ∂P ∂P ∂ k xx + k xy + k xz ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂P ∂P ∂P + xy ∂ + P k ∂k xx+ ∂x ∂P k + k∂y P k xz ∂z k ∇P = yx k yy yz ∂z x ∂y ∂ ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂ ∂P ∂P k ∇k Pk yx+ k + k yy k + k yz P = zx ∂x + ∂y zz zy ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x k zx ∂x + k zy ∂y + k zz ∂z .µ k ∇k = k k∂yx k yy k yz∂x = . ∂z which we maywrite P ∂ as: ∂P ∂P k xx + k xy + k xz ux ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂ ∂P ∂P ∂P P 1 ∂P k k xx + yz u = u y = .
ρ.1 k xx ∂P ..µ k ∂x ∂P u x = .1 k yy ∂P ∂P 1 u = . inthe case cosaθsimple inclines system at a slope of θ. cosθ 1 u = µ k ∂P u x = .µ k ∂y u y = .gρ ∂z ∂x 1 u x = .k∂z µ .1 k xx ∂P .gρ x ∂ ∂x xx µ ∂x cos θ ∂x = ∂x ∂z where.1 k xx ∂P 1 u = . the crossterms are zero as follows: k xx 0 0 k = 0 k xx k yy 0 0 0 0 0 k = 0 k yy k zz 0 0 0 k zz then the various components of the Darcy law revert to their normal form and : ∂z ∂y ∂z 1 ∂P k xx ∂x µ 1 ∂P u x = . as shown in Figure 7. cosθ ∂x .e.kxxx 2 πkhrxxgdPx µ . cosθ ∂ µ Q = ∂x µ dr 2 πkhr dP 18 Q = 2 πkhr dP Q 2 πkhr= dPµ dr ux =  .kzzz 1 Law ∂z µ u x = ∂z gravity g In the presenceof k xx the1DρDarcy Law becomes: ∂x µ ∂x 1 ∂z ∂P u x = . = cos θ in the figure above and: ∂θ = cosx 1 shownP ∂ ∂x u x = .g.kyyy µ yy ∂P ∂y 1 µ u z = ∂y k zz ∂z µ 1 ∂P u z = .k xx .g.ρ.µ k xx ∂z .k zx + k zy + k zz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u z = .ρ.k yx + k yy + k yz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u y = .g.gρ ∂x ∂P u x = . ∂z = of ∂x as ∂z .k yx + k yy + k yz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u = u y = .4 =Simple= . cosθ ∂x µ 1 ∂P u x = .ρ.1 k zz ∂P ∂z 1 u ∂µ P 3.kxxx µ xx ∂P x ∂1 k µ u y = x yy µ ∂y ∂P 1 u y = .k yx + k yy + k yz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u z = . ∂x ∂P ∂P ∂P k xx + k xy + k xz ux ∂z ∂y ∂P ∂x ∂P ∂P k xx + k xy + k xz ux ∂P y ∂P 1 ∂P x z u = u y = .k zx + k zy + k zz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y If the permeability tensor is diagonal i.k xx + k xy + k xz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u y = .k yx + k yy + k yz ∂P ∂z µ x ∂y ∂P P uz k zx + k zy + k zz ∂z ∂y ∂P ∂x ∂P and we can identify the threek +of the velocity+ k ∂P as follows: uz components k zy zx zz ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u x = .µ k zz ∂z Darcy Pwith Gravity u z .k xx + k xy + k xz ∂z µ ∂x ∂y ∂P 1 ∂P ∂P u x = .
A dP Q= = ∂P µ µ dr µ dr 1 ∂z u z = .k xx g. A = 2π.r. this simply involves the radial coordinate.e. Because a radial (r/z) geometry is appropriate for the nearwell region.Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 Note that: ∂z ∂x = cos θ x Figure 7 Radial form of the singlephase Darcy Law θ 3.5 The Radial Darcy Law In the above discussion.k xx ∂x µ ux = uy =  dr Figure 8 Single phase Darcy Law in an inclines system .h dr = 1 ∂Pincremental radius u x = . ∂x µ 2 πkhr dP Q= 2 πµ dP khr dr Q= µ dr we can rearrange this to obtain: µQ dr 1 ∂P u z = . in both 1D and 3D we considered the Darcy Law in normal Cartesian coordinates (x.k xx .gρ u x = .h k xx = height of formation µ ∂x dP ∂xincremental pressure drop from r→ (r + dr) i. over dr = = area of surface at r = 2π.ρ. In Chapter 6. In fact. cosθ ∂P µ 1 ∂x Starting from the radial formof thecosθ Law. r.k yy h µ ∂y Area.k zz ∂z µ 1 ∂z Notation: Q = ∂Pvolumetricflow rate of fluid into well . we will explain how wells are treated in reservoir simulation. HeriotWatt University 19 .effect of gravity ∂P 1 k yy µ ∂P ∂y 1 u y = . In 1D.g.k xx r = ∂Pradial distance from well µ ∂x 1 ∂z ∂x .ρ. y and z). it is useful to consider the Darcy Law in radial coordinates. the radial form of the Darcy law can be derived from the linear form as shown in Figure 8.h ∂z A = cos θ = fluid viscosity μ ∂x ∂z k = cos θ = formation permeability ∂x r = wellbore radius w r Radial Darcy Law is: 2µQ dr πkh r dP = 2 πkh r dP = Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 1 ∂P k xx ∂PQ µ 1 ∂x u x = .gρ u x = .r.k zz 2πkhr dP k. as follows: Darcy u x = .
Pwf is the well flowing pressure (at rw) 4.µ rw ∂Pw k ∂x r as. ∂Pw ∂P ∂P and ∂Po ∂x w and ∂xo Q ∂x ∂x Injector Pc (Sw ) = Po − Pw Pc (Sw ) = Po = PPw. Examples of the relative permeability curves which can be measured in this way are also shown schematically in Figure 10 and actual experimental examples are given for rock curves of different wettability states in the Glossary.Pwf ∆P(r) Pc (Sw ) = Pnon − wett . the Darcy Law has been modified empirically to include a term .same.which is intended to describe the impairment of the flow of one phase due to the presence of another. = . we can easily integrate the above equation to obtain the radial pressure profile in a radial system as follows: µQ dr ∫ dP = 2µQ r∫r dr πkh w r rw dP = ∫ 2 πkh r∫ r rw w r r r which gives: µQ r ∆P( r ) = µQ ln r ∆P( r ) = 2 πkh ln rw 2 πkh rw where weu = denoted ∂Pradialgρ ∂z drop (or increase for a producer) from rw to have . in radial singlephase flow. over a given o o ∂z k ∂x dr is higher. the pressure profile is logarithmic u =. the pressure drop. r k rw = k k rw w k w = k k rw Pwf rw r Figure 9 Pressure profiles. However. Pc (Sw ) = Pnon − wett . where all of the quantities are defined. therefore. A schematic representation of a steadystate two phase Darcy type (relative permeability) experiment is shown in Figure 10.k.Taking rw as the wellbore radius and r some appropriate radial distance.k. dP. water and gas.µ ro ∂Po schematically for an injector and a producer in Figure 9. To do this.gρo ∂x ∂x developed ∂x here will be used later in Chapter 4 on well The formulae and µ ideas the modelling in reservoir simulation and we will not discuss this further here. − Pwett . in reservoir k w and k engineering. This is exactly what we expect physically since the area is decreasing with r as we approach u = . This ∂x that pressure drops are much higher closer to the well.k rw w . − Pwett . ΔP(r).the relative permeability .1 The TwoPhase Darcy Law Darcy’s Law was originally applied to single phase flow only. unlike the linear Darcy Law.P(r) ∆P(r) − wf Pwf Q Producer ∆P(r) ∆P(r) = P(r) .k. and k o k w it has obeen convenient to extend it to describe the flows of multiple phases such as oil. TWOPHASEkFLOW k o = k ro k o = k k ro 4. 20 .k ro Q Po the gρ ∂z the well and ∂ is . u o This is shown .gρw ∂x µ means ∂x in the radial case.pressure the w w ∂z k.wNote that. ΔP(r).
A ∆Pw .gρw µ ∂x ∂x ∂z k. are the same: ∆Po Qw Qo ∆Pw Qw Qo L The two .A ∆Po Qo = .k ro ∂Po .phase Darcy Law is as follows: Qw = k. krw and kro 1 kro krw Figure 10 The twophase Darcy Law and relative permeability k. L µo Rel. = the pressure drops across the water and oil phases at steadystate flow conditions r r µQ dr r krw and kdP == the water and oil relative permeabilities r dr µQ ro rw ∫ NB the Units for the twophase Darcy Law 5.state flow conditions. = system length.k rw ∂Pw .gρo µ ∂x ∂x r uw =  uo =  uo =  where we note that the flow of the two phases (water and oil. on w and o .krw. i. Perm.Q ln including gravity Law = µ again r w which is taken to act in the zdirection. = absolute permeabilities.gρo ∂x µ ∂x ∂z k. in this case) depends ∂P ∂P w and o ∂P ∂P on the pressure ∂x gradient ∂x that phase.k rw ∂Pw .k ro ∂Po .Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 At steady . in ∂x ∂x Pc (Sw ) = Po − Pw P (S Pc (Sw ) = Po − Pw Institute of Petroleum Engineering. L µw Schematic of relative permeabilities. HeriotWatt University 21 )=P − P .kro. = crosssectional area. Qo and Qw.gρw µ ∂x ∂x ∂z k. the oil and water flow rates in and out. is as follows: 2 πkh rw uw = ∂z k. 2 πkh r∫ r w µQ r arewexactly ∫ dP = 2πkh ∫ r rw the same as those in Figure ∆P( r ) form of the two The differential = 2 πkh ln r phase Darcy ∆P( r )in 1D. 0 0 Sw 1 Where: Qw and Qo A L µw and µo k ΔPw and ΔPo = volumetric flow rates of water and oil. = water and oil viscosities.e.
at aw ∂x saturation.k. However.rw µQ ∫ dP = = k. Examples= k k rw pressure curves are alsoPcPSw ) = = oP − − w shown inP Glossary.ro ∂ u oP=(Sw)k=kPo −oPo w . − Pwett .(∇Pw − ρw g∇z) µw 1 k o . the capillary pressure is the difference between the nonwetting Pc (S = P ∂ − wett . The topics reviewed specifically involved: . c kw tensor form. say .Material balance and its particular relationship with reservoir simulation. as in the singlephase Darcy Law.k ∂P z .kµQlnP ∂z r) ) = r ∆ ro ∂ o u o = .rw rw∂Pow . 5.∂Sw (So = 1 ∂Po). we may generalise ro twophase Darcy expressions w ) = = non − wett .The singlephase Darcy law and its extension using vector calculus terminology to a 3D version of the Darcy Law including tensor permeabilities. with o k o = k k ro c ( w) ( ) o w k w = =k kk rw k rw kw k ok = =k kk ro k o k w and k o ro where k w and k ok are the effective phase permeability tensors of water and oil. and k the phase relative permeabilities gives: k w .k ∂Pw z u w ∂Pw . and ∂x Pw The phase pressures. we can calculate Pw.. the Darcy velocity vectors for the water and oil.2 πrwrwrw wr . ∂PwPw ) phase pressureandnonPowettingphase pressure.gρw rw µ ∂x ∂x uw =  ∂z k. ( S the P P k o = k k the Note that. combination of absolute permeability in its full PcPS to 3D. wett . if we have the = k k w rw k w of capillary Po at a given saturation. P DefiningPwett ( S P P non − wett . uw and uo.k rw ∂Pw . We ∂ and the∂Po of w and can think xthecapillary pressure as a constraint on the phase pressures.ρoρ ∂ uco = µ ro x P.g 2 µ πkh∂x w ∂x uo =  ∂z k. k w and o respectively.. may be written in 3D as follows: uw = − 1 k w ..ρw ∂ w = µ k ∂P g gρ∂x u = . are generally given ∂∂x and Sw ∂x µ x ∂x pressure. That is.then.from experiment . Using this notation. Pc (Sw ) = Pnon − wett . . CLOSING REMARKS The purpose of Chapter 2 is to review some key concepts in reservoir engineering which impact directly on the subject matter of reservoir simulation. − Pwett .g g ∂x o ∂ ∂x µ ∂x Pc (Sw ) = Po − Pw More strictly. they are related through the capillary ∂z k. − − the .k ro ∂Po . Po andPw. if x ∂ ∂x ∂ ∂x we know k capillary pressure function .2 πkh lnrwr ρo .(∇Po − ρo g∇z) µo uo = − This form of these equations is particularly useful in deriving the twophase flow equations in their most general form (this will done in Chapter 5).gρo µ ∂x ∂x µQ r ∆P(P( r= k. as follows: ∂x not equal.gρw µ ∂x ∂x ∂z k. 22 .kh ∫∫∂Pdr ∫ dP 2π k r ∂z kh u w = .
Elsevier. TX. J W. This is still an excellent petroleum engineering text although the coverage in some areas a little old fashioned. This book is a modern plea for the continued application traditional reservoir engineering principles and techniques in performance analysis and prediction. NJ. The original text by Craft and Hawkins was already an early classic. It has particularly good coverage of material balance and BuckleyLeverett theory.. Graham and Trotman Inc. capillary pressure (Pc(Sw) = Po . HeriotWatt University 23 . J S and Wall. D M and Whiting. Some of these are listed below. 1979. This was revised and updated by Terry and reissued in 1991. London. Elsevier. Hawkins. Bass. Dake. F F: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding. Dake. M F and Terry. B C. This book also makes a number of interesting and controversial observations on reservoir simulation (not all of which the authors agree with!). It gives central place to the interpretation of well testing. 1978. McGrawHill.Pw). Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 1986. Dallas. R E: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering.g. Developments in Petroleum Science 36. L P: The Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. SOME FURTHER READING ON RESERVOIR ENGINEERING A full alphabetic list of References which are cited in the course is presented in Appendix A. R L: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Archer. This has very good clear coverage of material balance and its application in various reservoir systems. It is an excellent monograph on the subject and an essential reference text for the reservoir engineer who is interested in the traditional analytical methods for assessing waterflooding. Many excellent texts have appeared over the years covering the basics of Reservoir Engineering. It has a very good chapter on material balance. Amyx. Developments in Petroleum Science 8. Ideas and concepts developed here will be used in other parts of this course. phase pressures (Po and Pw). It has many examples from the hundreds of reservoirs that Dake himself worked on. the application of material balance and the use of Buckley Leverett theory. L P: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering. 1991. C: Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice. This book is also one of the earliest proponents of the importance of integrating the geology within the reservoir model. This has become a modern classic on the basics of reservoir engineering. This text is confined to the underlying principles and reservoir engineering applications of waterflooding. This book offers a good overview of petroleum engineering and covers many of the basics of reservoir engineering.Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 . 1960. 6. Craft. It is very widely referenced and draws on Dake’s vast experience of teaching reservoir engineering basics. 1994. Prentice Hall. SPE monograph. Craig. relative permeabilities (kro and krw).The twophase Darcy Law and the related concepts that arise in twophase flow e. etc. although this list is far from comprehensive.
993 0.Solution To Exercises EXERCISE 1: Material Balance problem for an undersaturated reservoir using equation 8 above. This describes a case where production is by oil.N/Np) as calculated by equation 8 vs.999 0.6 MMSTB Answer: the STOOIP = 35.991 => N = 35555.991 0. The initial reservoir pressure is 5500 psi at which Boi = 1.ΔP = 200 psi. we know by field observation that this 200 psi drawdown was caused by the production of 320 MSTB. we know that Np = 320 MSTB.5 MSTB ≈ 35.4. as follows: crock = 5 x 106 psi1. That is. The rock and water compressibilities are.987 0.989 0. Input data: The initial water saturation.3 and the bubble point is at Pb = 4000 where Bo = 1. However. Exercise: For the input data below.985 0 50 100 150 ∆p (psi) Series 1 200 250 300 (ii) Note from the graph (or from your numerical calculation when plotting the graph) that. Swi = 0. cw = 4 x 106 psi1.997 0. ΔP. (1 .Np/N) = 0.995 Np B B Swi + c f = 1 − oi + oi ∆P N Bo Bo 1 − Swi (1Np/N) 0. do the following: (i) Plot the function (1 . DP 0. As a reminder equation 8 is 1 − This is shown below (1Np/N) vs. That is. water and formation expansion above the bubble point (Pb) with no water influx or production.1. the oil swells as the pressure drops as shown below: 24 .991. at .6 MMSTB. then (1 . Hence.320/N) = 0.
Basic Concepts in Reservoir Engineering 2 1.3 4000 P (psi) 5500 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 25 .P + c Oil FVF Bo 1.4 Bo(P) = m.
26 .
4.5. EXAMPLE INPUT DATA FILE 4.2.1. Model Dimensions 4.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 CONTENTS 1.8. Fluid Properties 4. DATA INPUT AND OUTPUT 4.1. Initial Conditions 4. Grid and Rock Properties 4.7. 6. INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 3 2. Reservoir System to be Modelled 4.6.3. . Production Schedule RUNNING ECLIPSE AND FILE NAME CONVENTIONS 5.1. Defining The Objectives Of A Simulation Study 3. ECLIPSE Syntax 4. Running ECLIPSE on a PC 5. SETTING UP A RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL 2. File Name Conventions CLOSING REMARKS 5. Output Requirements 4.2.
• Perform simple upscaling calculation to address numerical diffusion. taking account of keyword syntax and required units. • Format data correctly. Analysis of Results • Identify impact of reservoir engineering principles in calculation performed. • Identify numerical effects and impact of grid block size and orientation on results.LEARNING OBJECTIVES Having worked through this chapter and the associated tutorials the student should be able to: Simulation Input • Identify what questions the simulation is expected to address. Simulation Output • Select required output of calculations. 2 . • Identify purpose of each output file and use postprocessors to analyse data. • Quality check output data to check for errors in input. • Identify what data is required as input to perform the desired calculations.
However. We want you to be able to formulate the right questions for a given reservoir application.). “Is this something physical that I should expect or is there something wrong with the calculation?”. However.usually as graphs and figures .this behaviour is perfectly understandable and predictable.. The engineer would stop and work it out from their basic reservoir engineering knowledge . This is done by working through an actual case which is complex enough to demonstrate most of the basic ideas. This example will be used to illustrate the power of reservoir simulation in understanding reservoir recovery mechanisms. two phase (oil/water) reservoir simulation model using the ECLIPSE reservoir simulator. This is proprietary software of Schlumberger GeoQuest. a stepbystep approach is given to setting up a 3D reservoir simulation model.you can think of these as the “objectives” if this were a real field case. The central objective of this exercise is to get you actually applying reservoir simulation to a realistic (but quite simple) case. From the above discussion.you would notice the BHP trends. The simulator used in this course is ECLIPSE which is a software product of Schlumberger GeoQuest. 1. or field average pressure etc. just as you are going to! The engineer would conclude that although I possibly didn’t expect it . when you study the simulator output . INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 3 In this section of the course. we set up a practical 3D.if this was all you did . there are also some tasks in the study itself . One of the tasks in the exercise is as follows: in your calculation. you can see that it is not just the mechanics of running a numerical simulator and getting the results out that we want you to achieve in this course. the general approach and methodology for setting up a field simulation calculation is very similar for other commercial simulators. can demonstrate various sensitivities and can also show the effects of well controls.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHAPTER 3 In this module. you should observe initial shortterm rise in BHP (bottom hole pressure) in the injection well and drop in BHP in the production well. carry out the appropriate simulations and then interpret the results correctly. You are asked to explain these trends. understanding the results and predicting reservoir performance is an engineer’s job and this course is intended for the latter (or for the former strongly intent on becoming the latter in the future!). She or he would immediately stop and think and ask a few questions.. “What’s going on here?”. This would catch the attention of a good engineer who would not be happy just to note it and move on. However. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. The mechanics of running a simulation . HeriotWatt University 3 . the important job of correctly formulating the simulation problem. This is good example of where you may have run a calculation without necessarily thinking about what was going to happen to the BHP (or it could be watercut at the producer.is really a technician’s job.
e. DATA INPUT AND OUTPUT When run.. The important matter in that you know what sort of decision you are trying to make.. Most will read data from an input file.1 Defining The Objectives Of A Simulation Study Defining the objectives is a vitally important stage of any field simulation study. the SPE field cases. SETTING UP A RESERVOIR SIMULATION MODEL This section will not be very long since there are many excellent examples of reservoir simulation studies elsewhere in this course e. or by other companies.3 in Chaper 1. 3. every reservoir simulator will require input data that defines the system to be modelled. Here. This is like the schematic example in Chaper 1.g. The input file must therefore be set up before starting the simulation run. Whichever method is used. they all have some basic components in common. since you could get more oil but at too great a cost .2. we will lay out more formally. The data file may be set up by manual editing (if it is in ASCII format). The general spirit which is suggested for approaching this (in Chaper 1) is to correctly formulate the question you are trying to ask in order to make a particular decision. Cases 1 . Some generalities on how to set up a reservoir simulation study were also discussed in Chaper 1. and should generate output data that represents the results of the calculations which have been performed. some reservoir decisions are made that may not in themselves be economic. economically) improve reservoir performance?”. most data files will be divided into certain key sections that define: • Model dimensions • Grid and rock properties • Fluid properties • Initial conditions • Output requirements • Production schedule Additional optional sections may allow for manipulation of an imported grid structure and for subdivision of the grid into regions. Individual parts of the input data may be set up by other programs that may be supplied by the same supplier as the simulation code. These are referred to as preprocessors: They are used to perform calculations that set up the model in 4 . the general procedues broadly following the workflow of a typical simulation study. We will find that there are a huge number of possible refinements in all of the above general sections representing special models for particular applications but we will focus on the simpler common features of most black oil simulations. Having said this. Although different reservoir simulation codes have different formats for entering data. the decision may be: “do I need to infill drill in this field in order to significantly (i. For example. or by using a Graphical User Interface (GUI). however.the decision must be economically based. Figure 8 where the question was not “will I get more oil by .”. they may be strategic or may lead to some knowledge or experience which will be economic in the future. 2.
and usually understated. etc. or by using standard graphing software such as Microsoft Excel or Lotus 1. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 5 . which means that they may only be read by appropriate postprocessing software. The two types are as follows: (a) Summary data: this consists of calculated parameters such as oil. porosity. any software that is used for setting up a part or the whole of an input data file is termed a preprocessor. a 100. Typically. which in both cases results in the creation of files that can be stored and read at a later date.) of each cell. the reservoir simulation input data file need only refer to these grid files by means of a simple “include” statement. The first category of output data is typically referred to as “summary” data and the second type of output consists of grid data. For example. Preprocessors may be used to: • Define grid and rock properties • Define fluid properties • Convert the results of special core analysis data to a form that can be used in the simulation • Upscale rock data so that it is appropriate for the size of grid cells being used • Define vertical flow performance tables • Set up the production schedule Indeed. with output data for 20 time steps.3.000 cell model. elements of good reservoir simulation practice are thus: • Keeping a record of what each calculation represents (by choosing sensible file names and inserting comments) • Minimising disk usage (by outputting only data that is actually required). Thus. Setting up a model with more than a few hundred cells would be very laborious if performed by hand. These files are typically in binary format. Current software developments are addressing automatic report generation and minimising the time taken to obtain a good history match by automatically varying specified parameters. and no further manipulation of the grid is required by the flow simulator. These data may be plotted as line charts. The output of the reservoir flow calculations usually comes in two forms. well bottom hole or tubing head pressures. either by using specialised postprocessing software. and similarly for every other property such as phase saturations. would generate 2 million values of pressure (usually to eight significant figures) during the course of the simulation. The reason that ASCII format is not generally used is one of disk space usage. etc. Two major.2. a preprocessor is used to set up the grid and to define the rock properties (permeability. These gridding packages are usually designed to generate output that conforms to the input format of several of the more widely used simulators. usually as a function of time. values such as pressure or saturation to be plotted for each cell at a given time step. (b) Grid data: in this type of data.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 advance of the actual reservoir fluid flow calculation. etc. water and gas production rates.
The symmetry of the system means that the flow between any two wells can be modelled by placing the wells at opposite corners of a Cartesian grid. and thus there is no need to perform calculations for a free gas phase (in the reservoir). the reservoir system to be modelled consists of a fivespot pattern of four production wells surrounding each injection well. The data format is that required by the Schlumberger GeoQuest Reservoir Technologies model. EXAMPLE INPUT DATA FILE 4. and is referred to as a quarter fivespot calculation. the symmetry of the system allows us to model a single injection production pair. but other than syntactical differences. it is useful in the first instance to set up a simple model using a text editor.1 Reservoir System to be Modelled In the first tutorial exercise. 6 . TUT1A. and a waterflood calculation is to be performed to evaluate oil production and water breakthrough time. as shown in Figure 1.DATA. as are the initial reservoir conditions and production schedule (proposed injection and production rates). are provided. such as layer permeabilities. Tutorial 1A. The system is initially at connate water saturation (Swc). This file can then be used as a starting point for other models. A five spot pattern consists of alternating rows of production and injection wells. The reservoir will be maintained above the bubble point pressure (Pb) at all times. Here we will go through the input file. While the data file may be set up using a GUI. whether generated using a text editor or by GUI. which will be located at opposite corners of a grid. TUT1A. oil and water PVT and relative permeability data. used for this calculation. Production well Injection well Two well quarter fivespot grid Figure 1. porosity. which may be set up by modifying the appropriate parts of this data file. The input data file. However.4. consists of various sections that incorporate all of these components just described. Reservoir and fluid properties.DATA will also be used as a base case for other tutorial sessions associated with this course. ECLIPSE 100. the style of data entry is similar for most other simulators. thus ensuring by the end of the exercise that every line of data is familiar and relatively well understood.
such as by lining data up in columns. θ. z) • Phases to be modelled (oil. HeriotWatt University 7 . format and function of each keyword may be found in the online manuals. are identified by use of set keywords. tabs and new lines may be used as desired. Figure 2. z. This means that. as many or as few spaces. WordPad or other basic text editor). and treated as comment lines • Blank lines are ignored To illustrate the use of keywords. and saving time in the long run. y. can improve readability. The following additional rules should be noted • Each section starts with a keyword • There must be no other characters (or spaces) on the same line as a keyword (i.2 ECLIPSE Syntax Each item of data. There are certain rules governing data entry for any simulator. gas.. will be used here. each keyword must start in column 1. dissolved gas in the oil) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 4. data and comments. It should be noted that the actual input file should be in ASCII text format only (as produced by Notepad. The syntax. illustrated in Figure 2. arranging the file appropriately. etc. bold or coloured letters. though Cartesian is often the default) • Number of cells in each direction (x. and be immediately followed by a new line keystroke) • All data associated with a keyword must appear on the subsequent lines • Data entry is terminated by a forward slash symbol (/) • Lines beginning with two dashes () are ignored. reducing unnecessary typographical mistakes. These also give examples of how the keywords may be used. the following style conventions. with a few exceptions. otherwise setting up the input data file can be very frustrating and as time consuming as performing the calculations themselves. and should not contain italic. Example of conventions used to identify components of input data file. or r. The individual sections are also designated by keywords. and effort must be made at the outset to get these right.3 Model Dimensions The first step in setting up a model is to define: • Title of run • Type of geometry to be used (Cartesian or radial. vapourised oil in the gas. However. ECLIPSE uses free format. water.e. FEATURE Comments EXAMPLE FROM DATA FILE NX Number of cells NY NZ KEYWORDS Data (followed by /) DIMENS 5 5 3/ 4. such as porosities or relative permeabilities.
) The title for this calculation will be “3D 2Phase”. with the injection and production wells to be located at opposite corners. connections per well. The following keywords are used: RUNSPEC DIMENS OIL WATER FIELD WELLDIMS 8 Section header Number of cells in X. A twophase oil and water calculation is to be performed in this model. (Note that once a choice of units has been made. using feet (field units) for depths and bars (metric units) for pressures in the same run. Y and Z directions Calculate oil flows Calculate water flows Use field units throughout (i.• • • Units to be used (field.e. which has the advantage that not all the data output data is lost if one file is in some way corrupted.) The above information is all that is required for defining the dimensioning data that goes in the first section of an ECLIPSE data file. lb.) Number of wells. we will assume that the injection and production wells are in two separate groups. wells per group . and it is assumed that first oil was on 1st January 2001. etc. feet. but this may result in an unmanageable number of files being generated. The form in which this data should be entered is shown in Figure 4. ECLIPSE allows wells to be grouped together so that the cumulative production or injection rates may be specified or calculated. Cartesian is the default geometry used by ECLIPSE. so it does need to be specified explicitly. groups. psi. 500 500 500 500 500 1 2 3 4 5 50 50 50 1 2 1 2 3 500 500 500 500 500 3 4 5 Figure 3. Cartesian grid of 5 x 5 x 3 cells used to represent reservoir system to be modelled in Tutorial 1A. each cell having dimensions of 500 ft x 500 ft x 50 ft. referred to as the RUNSPEC section. metric or lab) Number of wells Start date for simulation (usually corresponding to the date of first oil production) The model set up in Tutorial 1A consists of a Cartesian grid of 5 x 5 x 3 cells. bbl. This precludes. Here. as shown in Figure 3. and completed in all three layers. it must be used consistently for all data entry. (The ECLIPSE default is to create a separate output file for every time step. Field units are to be used throughout the input data file. Generated output should be written to a single unified output file. for example.
when using field units gas rates are entered in MSCF/day. TUT1A. but would lead to completely wrong results. DATA Base case for tutorials RUNSPEC TITLE 3D 2Phase Number of cells NX NY NZ DIMENS 5 Phases OIL WATER 5 3/ Units FIELD Maximum well / connection / group values #wells #cons/w #grps #wells/grp WELLDIMS 2 3 2 1/ Unified output files UNIFOUT Simulation start date START 1 JAN 2001 / Figure 4. HeriotWatt University 9 . RUNSPEC Section of input data file. it is well worth looking it up in the online manual.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 UNIFOUT START Unified output file Start date of simulation (1st day of production) Every time an unfamiliar keyword is encountered. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. and this is probably as good a point to start as any! Particular attention should be paid to units. For example. Entering a value in SCF/day would be allowed by the simulator.
This enables a quick visual check that the grid data has been entered correctly. It is useful to output a file that allows these values to be viewed graphically by one of the postprocessors. All three layers are assumed to be continuous in the vertical direction. the following grid properties must be defined: • Dimensions of each cell • Depth of each cell (or at least the top layer) • Cell permeabilities in each direction (x. The following keywords are used: GRID DX DY DZ TOPS PERMX PERMY PERMZ PORO INIT Section header Size of cells in the X direction Size of cells in the Y direction Size of cells in the Z direction Depth of cells Cell permeabilities in the X direction Cell permeabilities in the Y direction Cell permeabilities in the Z direction Cell porosities Output grid values to .4 Grid and Rock Properties Having identified the number of grid cells in the X. Y and Z directions required to model the reservoir or part of the reservoir being studied. by 500 ft wide. y. The formation has a uniform porosity of 0. There are three layers. Permeability (mD) Horizontal Vertical X direction Y direction Z direction 200 150 20 1000 800 100 200 150 20 Layer 1 2 3 This represents the minimum information that is required for defining the grid and rock properties for the second section of an ECLIPSE data file. or r. then the BOX and ENDBOX keywords may be used to identify this subsection (an example is given later). width and height of each cell. θ. PERMX. etc. Each cell in the model is to be 500 ft long. z. The current grid has 75 cells (5 x 5 x 3).4. and thus 75 values must be specified for each property. the top layer being at a depth of 8. are being entered for the whole grid. PORO. such as DY. and the layer permeabilities in each direction are given below. or after an ENDBOX 10 .000 ft. by 50 ft thick.25. If values are only being entered for a subsection of the grid.INIT file ECLIPSE normally assumes that grid values. If no BOX is defined. referred to as the GRID Section. then the size of each cell may be specified by providing data on the length. z) • Cell porosities If a Cartesian grid is being used..the simulator can calculate these implicitly from the depth of the top layer and the thickness of the top and middle layers. as here. so there is no need to specify the depths of the second and third layers . DZ.
to be lumped together. since all 75 cells in the model have a length of 500 ft. Thus. and finishing at (5. Y and Z directions respectively. 4 5 1 2 . . etc. and k slowest. the values of DX (and every other grid value such as DY. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. j is in the Y direction. . There should be no spaces on either side of the “*”. 1 2 3 500 500 500 500 500 3 4 5 Y Z X The length (DX) of each of the 75 cells in Tutorial 1A is the same: 500 ft. then the values are read in with i varying fastest. j. . . . . such as cell length. 5 k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1.) will be read in in the order shown in Figure 5. and the last one is for cell (NX. 1). NY and NZ are the number of cells in the X. HeriotWatt University 11 . NZ=3) model. 1 1 2 2 . 5. If the coordinates of each cell are specified by indices (i. and k is in the Z direction. 5 j 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 . Thus. 3 500 500 500 500 500 1 2 3 4 5 50 50 50 1 2 Figure 5. PORO. with the i index varying the fastest. 24 25 26 27 . . ECLIPSE assumes that cell values are being defined for the entire grid. NY=5. then the value. are read in a certain order. where NX. starting at (1. NZ). NY. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . and the k index the slowest. 1). and separating these two numbers by a “*”. k). 3). In ECLIPSE this is done by prefixing the value (cell size) by the number of cells to be assigned that value. where i is in the X direction. PERMX. 1. DX. each with the same size. 75 i 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 . Thus the data may be entered as: DX 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 / 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Most simulators will allow the definition of multiple cells. DZ. Order in which cell property values are read in by ECLIPSE. The first value that is read in is for cell (1. in this (NX=5. 5 5 1 1 . this may be entered as: DX 75*500 / Note that the multiplier comes first. The values of each grid property.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 keyword. then the “*” operator. .
Instead of 75 cells for the whole model. If cell depths are only to be defined for the top layer of cells using the TOPS keyword. but only 1 in the Z direction. then a box must be used to identify this top layer as the only section of the grid for which depths are being defined. and thus only 25 values of TOPS need be defined: BOX 1 5 1 5 1 1 / TOPS 25*8000 / ENDBOX The GRID Section of the Tutorial 1A input data file should be as shown in Figure 6. The box that encompasses the top layer is defined as from 1 to 5 in the X direction. 12 .This convention may be used for all other grid parameters. 1 to 5 in the Y direction. there are only 25 cells in this section of the model.
Output file with geometry and rock properties (.INIT) INIT Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Y and Z directions for each cell PERMX 25*200 25*1000 25*200 / PERMY 25*150 25*800 25*150 / PERMZ 25*20 25*100 25*20 / Porosity of each cell PORO 75*0. GRID Section of input data file. Y and Z directions DX 75*500 / DY 75*500 / DZ 75*50 TVDSS of top layer only X1 X2 Y1 BOX 1 TOPS 25*8000 / 5 1 5 1 1/ Y2 Z1 Z2 ENDBOX Permeability in X.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 GRID Size of each cell in X.2 / Figure 6. HeriotWatt University 13 .
(Note that all three densities must be supplied.90 0. compressibility and viscosity to pressure Compressibility of the rock .01 The oil formation volume factor (Bo) and viscosity (μo) is provided as a function of pressure (P).500 psia is 4 x 106 PSI1.0 At a pressure of 4. formation factor.2 0.) Oil (lb/ft3) 49 Water (lb/ft3) 63 Gas (lb/ft3) 0.25 1.00 capillary pres.02 rb/stb. and oilwater capillary pressure vs.4.70 0.8 cP.1 This data should be inserted in the third section of the ECLIPSE data file.0 1.30 0. the following Pressure/Volume/Temperature (PVT).50 0. Sw 0.15 Oil Viscosity (cP) 1. water saturation The densities of the three phases ρoil.25 0. and thus viscosibility (∂μw/∂P) is 0.20 1. Water compressibility does not change with pressure within the pressure ranges encountered in the reservoir. the PROPS section. the compressibility (cw) is 3 x 106 PSI1 and the viscosity (μw) is 0.0 0.500 psia. water and gas phases PVT data for dead oil relating FVF and viscosity to pressure PVT data for water relating FVF.5 Fluid Properties Having defined the grid and rock properties such as permeability and porosity. Pressure (psia) 300 800 6000 Oil FVF (rb/stb) 1. (psi) 4.00 0.55 kroil 0.40 0. relative permeability and capillary pressure data must be defined: • Densities of oil. viscosity.8 0.80 krwater 0. the water formation volume factor (Bw) is 1.20 0. even though free gas is not modelled in the system. The following keywords are used: PROPS DENSITY PVDO PVTW ROCK 14 Section header Surface density of oil. The form in which this data should be entered is shown in Figure 7. pressure • Pressure. water and gas at surface conditions • Formation factor and viscosity of oil vs. ρwater and ρgas are given below. compressibility and viscosity of water • Rock compressibility • Water and oil relative permeabilities.1 2. The rock compressibility at a pressure of 4.10 0. Water and oil relative permeability data and capillary pressures are given as functions of water saturation below.
1 2.02 3e06 Vis Viscosibility 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.0 / Rock compressibility P Cr ROCK 4500 4e06 / Water and oil rel perms and capillary pressure Sw Krw Kro Pc SWOF 0.1 / Figure 7.0 0.2 0.9 0.25 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.8 0. PROPS Section of input data file.4 0.15 Vis 1.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 SWOF Table relating oil and water relative permeabilities and oilwater capillary pressure to water saturations PROPS Densities in lb/ft3 Oil Water DENSITIES 49 63 Gas 0.20 1.7 0.1 0.0 1. HeriotWatt University 15 .0 4.0 / PVT data for water P Bw Cw PVTW 4500 1.2 0.55 0.01 / PVT data for dead oil P Bo PVDO 300 800 6000 1.25 1.8 0.
In this example the model is being set up to predict field performance from first oil. they would be set to the last value in the relative permeability table. then one of the output time steps can be used to provide the starting fluid pressures and saturations for a subsequent calculation. above the oilwater contact the system is at connate water saturation. This method is the most complicated and least commonly used.25. and thus there is no previous run to use as a starting point. which may then be used to assess future performance.) An output file containing initial cell pressures and saturations for display should be requested so that a visual check can be made that the correct initial values of these properties have been calculated. A restart run will use the last time step of the historymatched model as the starting point for a predictive calculation. In this method of initialising the model. (In a wateroil system.200 ft. A failure to correctly account for densities when setting the pressures in cells at different depths will result in a system that is not initially in equilibrium. This initialisation data should be inserted in the fourth section of the ECLIPSE data file.500 psia at 8. The equilibration model is to be used. below the contact Sw = 1. which would thus have to include relative permeability and capillary pressure values for Sw = 1. (If any cells were located below the wateroil contact. the pressure. The depths of the wateroil and gasoil contacts are also specified if they are within the model. 50 ft below the bottom of the model.4. A pressure at a reference depth is defined in the input data. the initial pressure and saturation conditions in the reservoir must be specified.6 Initial Conditions Once the rock and fluid properties have all been defined. The model should initially be at connate water saturation throughout. the SOLUTION section. Time is saved by not repeating the entire calculation.000 ft. If a model has already been run. This is the simplest and most commonly used method for initialising a model. and the model then calculates the pressures at all other depths using the previously entered density data to account for hydrostatic head. and various future development scenarios are to be compared. This option will typically be used where a model has been history matched against field data to the current point in time. with an initial pressure of 4. the wateroil contact should be set at 8. which is 0. This may be done in one of three ways: 1) Enumeration 2) Equilibration 3) Restart from a previous run 1) Enumeration. The form in which this data should be entered is shown in Figure 8. 2) Equilibration. The following keywords are used: SOLUTION Section header 16 . and the initial saturations can then be set depending on position relative to the contacts. oil and water saturations in each cell at time = 0 are set in much the same way as permeabilities and porosities are set.) 3) Restart from a previous run. To achieve this. The water saturation in each cell will be set to the first value in the relative permeability (SWOF) table.
water (stb in FIELD units) G .UNRST) Restart file Graphics for init cond only Figure 8. The parameters that should be calculated are specified in the SUMMARY section by the use of appropriate keywords.block 2nd letter: O . but in the Summary Section Overview. 1st letter: F .Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 EQUIL RPTRST Equilibration data (pressure at datum depth and contact depths) Request output of cell pressures and saturations at t = 0 SOLUTION Initial equilibration conditions Datum Pi@datum EQUIL 8075 4500 8200 0/ WOC Pc@WOC Output to restart file for t=0 (. RPTRST BASIC=2 NORST=1 / 4.field R .oil (stb in FIELD units) W . Most of the summary keywords consist of four letters that follow a basic convention.tracer concentration S .7 Output Requirements Clearly there is no point in performing a reservoir simulation if no results are output. but for this section only the keywords are not found in the main section of the manual.reservoir volume flows (rb in FIELD units) T . SOLUTION Section of input data file.salt concentration C .solvent concentration Institute of Petroleum Engineering.liquid (oil + water) (stb in FIELD units) V .region W .gas (Mscf in FIELD units) L .connection B . HeriotWatt University 17 .polymer concentration N .well C .
production I . the following will be calculated: • Oil production rate for the entire field • Cumulative water injection for well “Inj” • Well bottomhole pressure for all wells in the model In Tutorial 1A the following parameters should be calculated and output: • Field average pressure • Bottomhole pressure of all wells • Field oil production rate • Field water production rate • Field oil production total • Field water production total • Water cut in well PROD • CPU usage In addition.total Thus. keywords beginning with another letter must specify which region. connection or block they refer to. Keywords beginning with an F refer to the values calculated for the field as a whole. Thus. The form in which this data should be entered is shown in Figure 9. well.injection 4th letter: R .3rd letter: P . the value is calculated for all wells in the model. etc. If no well names are supplied. However. the output Run Summary file (. terminated with a /.RSM) should be defined such that it can easily be read into MS Excel. An example would be FOPR WWIT Inj / WBHP / Here. but WWIT must be followed by a list of well names. and require no further identification. a keyword such as FOPR requires no accompanying data. and WWIT represents Well Water Injection Total. use of the keyword FOPR requests that the Field Oil Production Rate be output. following keywords are used: SUMMARY Section header FPR Field average pressure 18 The . and the keyword is followed only by a /. for example.rate T .
The main functions that are performed here are: • Specify grid data to be output for display or restart purposes • Define well names. locations and types • Specify completion intervals for each well • Specify injection and production controls for each well for each given period 19 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University . SUMMARY Section of input data file. the final part of the input data file defines the well controls and time steps (t > 0) in the SCHEDULE Section.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 WBHP FOPR FWPR FOPT FWPT WWCT CPU EXCEL Well Bottomhole pressure Field Oil Production Rate Field Water Production Rate Field Oil Production Total Field Water Production Total Well Water Cut CPU usage Create summary output as Excel readable Run Summary file SUMMARY Field average pressure FPR Bottomhole pressure of all wells WBHP / Field oil production rate FOPR Field water production rate FWPR Field oil production total FOPT Field water production total FWPT Water cut in PROD WWCT PROD / CPU usage TCPU Figure 9.RSM) EXCEL 4.8 Production Schedule Having defined the initial conditions (t = 0) in the SOLUTION Section. Create Excel readable run summary file (.
and should be completed in all three layers. enabling production of 10.5). “2* “ ignores the next two values. is to be drilled in cell (5. This may be achieved as follows: Completion interval Well Location name I J Interval K1 K2 Status O or S Well ID COMPDAT Item number 1 2 PROD 1 / 3 1 4 1 5 3 6 OPEN 7 8 2* 9 0. in the COMPDAT keyword. INJ belonging to group G2. Thus “1* “ ignores one value. containing flow rates for each well on a monthly basis for the history of the field. we may wish to specify values for items 1 to 6. etc. outputting data every 200 days. but items 7 and 8 should remain unspecified.6667 / The keywords to be used are: SCHEDULE Section header RPTRST Request output of cell pressures and saturations at all time steps (t > 0) WELSPECS Define location of wellhead and pressure gauge COMPDAT Define completion intervals and wellbore diameter WCONPROD Production control WCONINJ Injection control TSTEP Time step sizes (for output of calculated data) END End of input data file These keywords should appear as the last section of the data file as shown in Figure 10. is to be drilled in cell position (1. They both have pressure gauges at their top perforation (8. It should be noted that the time steps input here refer to time intervals at which 20 .000 ft). Both wells will have 8 inch diameters. and a water injection well. For example. labeled PROD and belonging to group G1.1). this section will typically be the longest. Although not the case in this simple example. with the number of values to be defaulted or ignored on the left. The simulation should run for 2.(time step) Basic pressure and saturation data should be generated at every time step to enable a 3D display of the model to be viewed at each time step. Both will be open from the start of the simulation. This can be done by using the “*” character. A number of keywords in the SCHEDULE section will be able to read in data that the user may wish to default or not supply all.000 stb/day of liquid (oil + water) from the system. and pressure support provided by injection of 11. and item 9 (which is the wellbore diameter). and the space to the right left blank.000 days. A production well.000 stb/day of water.
Number and size (days) of timesteps TSTEP 10*200 / END Institute of Petroleum Engineering. but if the calculations do not converge. HeriotWatt University 21 . The simulator will try to use these time step sizes as numerical time step also. SCHEDULE Output to Restart file for t > 0 (. it will automatically cut the numerical time step sizes.6667 / 0. phase OIL / WATER / Location of wellhead and pressure gauge Well Well Location BHP name group I J datum WELSPECS PROD INJ / G1 G2 1 5 1 5 8000 8000 Completion interval Well Location name I J COMPDAT PROD INJ / 1 5 1 5 Interval K1 K2 1 1 3 3 Status 0 or S OPEN OPEN 2* 2* Well ID 0. rate 10000 Resv rate 1* BHP lim 2000 / Injection control Fluid Status Well Name TYPE WCONINJ INJ / WATER Control mode Surf rate 11000 Resv rate Voidage frac flag 3* BHP lim 20000 / OPEN RATE Figure 10.UNRST) Restart file Graphics only every step RPTRST BASIC=2 NORST=1 / Pref. SCHEDULE Section of input data file.6667 / Production control Status Control Well name mode WCONPROD PROD OPEN / LRAT Oil rate Wat rate 3* Gas rate Liq.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 data are output.
and is used by post processors for displaying the grid outline. RUNNING ECLIPSE AND FILE NAME CONVENTIONS 5.1 Running ECLIPSE on a PC Once the input data file has been edited. and will run by reading every keyword in the order in which they appear in the input file. This file is only created once the run has completed. 5.DATA”. It contains a list of the keywords.UNRST The . and the user will be prompted to locate the input file. TUT1A. TUT1A. as this will render the file unreadable to ECLIPSE. it should be saved with the file extension “.USMRY. TUT1A.RSM file is an ASCII file that can be read into MS Excel to display summary data in line chart format. and to display a map of field permeabilities. If the run was successful.PRT file is an ASCII file that is generated for every successful and unsuccessful run.UNRST file is a unified binary file that contains pressure and saturation data for each time step. The GeoQuest postprocessors are Graf and FloViz.GRID The . this file will contain summary data such as field average pressure and water cut for each time step. Having saved the input data file.5. A search for an ERROR in this file will usually reveal which keyword was the culprit. etc. This can be avoided by using Menu>File>Save As and selecting “All Files” instead of “Text Documents” as the “Save as type”. These may be displayed using a postprocessor to check that the data have been entered correctly. and will indicate if any keywords have been incorrectly entered. During this course FloViz is used for 3D displays of the model. and various output files will be generated during the run. the GeoQuest Launcher may be used to run ECLIPSE. Care should be taken that the text editor does not append the suffix “. showing. this file should be checked for the cause of the failure.txt” onto the file name. then it will perform the requested flow calculations. For Tutorial 1A choose a file name such as “TUT1A. These may be displayed using a postprocessor. TUT1A.INIT file is a binary file that contains initial grid property data such as permeabilities and porosities. The simulation will then start. If the simulator is satisfied that all data has been entered correctly.INIT The . progression of the water flood 22 . which is a binary file readable only by the GeoQuest postprocessors. During the run the summary data is stored in file TUT1A. or may be used as the starting point for an ECLIPSE restart run.DATA”.PRT The .2 File Name Conventions If any of the keywords or data are incorrectly entered. for example.RSM The .GRID file is a binary file that contains the geometry of the model. If the simulation fails. the run will stop without performing the required flow calculations. as follow: TUT1A.
which is a powerful though more complicated postprocessor than FloViz. Excel is used to display line charts such as water cut vs. CLOSING REMARKS In this section of the course. We have used the Schlumberger GeoQuest ECLIPSE software for the specific case presented here. The issue of visualisation was also discussed previously but its value should be better appreciated by the student. 6. and Excel and FloViz for postprocessing for Tutorial 1A. how these are systematically organised as input for the simulator should now be clear.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 by displaying saturations varying with time (Figure 11). Institute of Petroleum Engineering. the general procedures are very similar for most other commercially available simulators. etc. The various input data that are required should be quite familiar to you from the discussion in the introductory chapter of the course (Chapter 1). However. and may optionally be used for subsequent tutorial sessions. However. HeriotWatt University 23 . students are encouraged to use a basic text editor for preprocessing. The functionality of Graf is being replaced by ECLIPSE Office. since this will give a better understanding of the calculations being performed. we have presented the working details of how to set up a a practical reservoir simulation model. showing progression of water flood in Tutorial 1A. The vast possibilities for simulation output have also been discussed in this section and you should know be aware of how to choose this output. Figure 11 FloViz visualisation of water saturation for four time steps. The injection well is on the left and the production well on the right of the 5 x 5 x 3 model. organise it is files and then visualise it later. However. which is a GUI that may be used for setting up data files and viewing results. time. Both grid and line charts may be displayed in Graf.
0 krw 0.3 0.55 1.0 0.2 0.0 0. 24 .ECLIPSE TUTORIAL 1 (A 3D 2Phase Reservoir Simulation Problem) A.25* 0. Water and Oil Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Functions.2 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.0 * Initial saturation throughout. Prepare an input data file for simulating the performance of a twophase (water/oil) three dimensional reservoir of size 2500’ x 2500’ x 150’. 150 mD for 1st and 3rd layers and 800 mD for 2nd layer.9 0.0 0.00 kro 0. 500 500 500 500 500 1 2 3 4 5 50 50 50 1 2 1 2 3 500 500 500 500 500 3 4 5 Figure 1 Schematic of model. dividing it into three layers of equal thickness. The number of cells in the x and y directions are 5 and 5 respectively.8 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.20 200 mD for 1st and 3rd layers and 1000 mD for 2nd layer. Water Saturation 0. 20 mD for 1st and 3rd layers and 100 mD for 2nd layer. Other relevant data are given below. using field units throughout: Depth of reservoir top: Initial pressure at 8075’: Porosity: Permeability in x direction: Permeability in y direction: Permeability in z direction: 8000 ft 4500 psia 0.0 Pcow (psi) 4.
and use 10 time steps of 200 days each.000 stb liquid/day and inject 11. The producer has a minimum bottom hole pressure limit of 2.000 psia. Pressure (psia) 4500 Bw (rb/stb) 1. Produce at the gross rate of 10.200 ft). with zero capillary pressure at the contact.8 Viscosibility (psi1) 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.000 stb water/day. The inside diameter of the wells is 8”.0 4E06 psi1 49 lbs/cf 63 lbs/cf 0. while the bottom hole pressure in the injector cannot exceed 20. Drill a producer PROD. Start the simulation on 1st January 2000. belonging to group G2. 5). in Block No.02 cw (psi1) 3.0E06 μw (cp) 0. in Block No.000 psia.0 1. HeriotWatt University 25 .25 1.20 1. (5.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 Water PVT Data at Reservoir Pressure and Temperature. belonging to group G1.15 Viscosity (cp) 1.01 lbs/cf Rock compressibility at 4500 psia: Oil density at surface conditions: Water density at surface conditions: Gas density at surface conditions: The oilwater contact is below the reservoir (8. (1. Pressure (psia) 300 800 6000 Bo (rb/stb) 1. porosity and depth data (keyword INIT in GRID section) Initial grid block pressures and water saturations into a RESTART file (keyword RPTRST in SOLUTION section) Field Average Pressure Bottom Hole Pressure for both wells Field Oil Production Rate Field Water Production Rate Total Field Oil Production Total Field Water Production Well Water Cut for PROD CPU usage (FPR) (WBHP) (FOPR) (FWPR) (FOPT) (FWPT) (WWCT) (TCPU) to a separate Excel readable file (using keyword EXCEL) in the SUMMARY section. Ask the program to output the following data: • • • Initial permeability. 1) and an injector INJ.1 2. Perforate both the producer and the injector in all three layers. Bubble Point Pressure (Pb) = 300 psia.0 Oil PVT Data.
You will need to view. Run Eclipse using the TUT1B. time on Figure 2. Plot the water cut (WWCT) of the well PROD and the field oil production rate (FOPR) vs. water cut and the PVT data of the reservoir fluids. instead of injecting at a constant 11. and save the file. Plot the BHP of both wells (WBHP) vs.RSM. Account for the subsequent trends of these two pressures and of the field average pressure.000 stb water/day (RATE). Plot on Figure 3 the BHP values for the first 10 days in the range 3. “Files of type: All files (*. fill in the necessary data. Activate the ECLIPSE Launcher from the Desktop or the Start menu. relating these to the reservoir production and injection rates. Make a copy of the file TUT1A. use Excel to open the output file TUT1A. 5 6 7 Explain the initial shortterm rise in BHP in the injection well and drop in BHP in the production well. Run ECLIPSE and use the TUT1A dataset. which will be in the \eclipse\tut1 folder.500 psia.DATA in the same folder tut1.500 psia to 5. By modifying the keyword TSTEP change the time steps to the following: 15*200 Modify the WCONINJ keyword to operate the injection well at a constant flowing bottom hole pressure (BHP) of 5000 psia.DATA called TUT1B.DATA in folder \eclipse\tut1 by dragging it onto the Notepad icon. When the simulation has finished. Add field volume production rate (FVPR) to the items already listed in the SUMMARY section. B.*)” and import the data as “Fixed width” columns. time on Figure 1.• Grid block pressures and water saturations into RESTART files at each report step of the simulation (keyword RPTRST in SCHEDULE section) Procedure: 1 2 3 4 Edit file TUT1A. and then plot the two following pictures in Excel: 26 .DATA file. time and the field average pressure (FPR) vs.
HeriotWatt University 27 . To do this. calculate total mobility as a function of water saturation for 4 or 5 saturation points. using: MTOT (Sw ) = K ro (Sw ) Krw (Sw ) + µo µw and show how this would change the differential pressure across the reservoir as the water saturation throughout the reservoir increases. Copy file TUT1B. modify the control mode for the injection well (keyword WCONINJ) from BHP to reservoir rate (RESV).DATA file.DATA to TUT1C.000 psia again. From Figure 5. to display the grid cell oil saturations (these displays need NOT be printed). set item 6 to 0. time. C. instead of injecting at a constant flowing bottom hole pressure of 5000 psi. Discuss the profile of the saturation front in each layer. Set the upper limit on the bottom hole pressure for the injection well to 20. This time. explain the impact of the WWCT profile (fraction) on the FVPR (rb/day). Account for the differences between the pressure profiles in this problem and Tutorial 1A. reservoir volume injection rate = item 6 + (item 7 * field voidage rate) Therefore. and item 7 to 1. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 Figure 4: Figure 5: Both well bottom hole pressures and field average pressure vs. and explain how it is affected by gravity and the distribution of flow speeds between the wells. let the simulator calculate the injection rate such that the reservoir voidage created by oil and water production is replaced by injected water. Run Eclipse using the TUT1C. Note the definitions given in the manual for item 8 of the WCONINJ keyword. To assist with the interpretation.DATA in the same folder.700 psia to 5. and then run Floviz. Based on the definition for voidage replacement. and use the voidage replacement flag (FVDG) in item 8. Field water cut and field volume production rate vs. time.100 psia. showing pressures in the range 3. to inject the same volume of liquid as has been produced.
DATA RUNSPEC TITLE NDIVIX DIMENS OIL WATER FIELD NWMAXZ WELLDIMS START GRID DX DZ PORO X1 BOX TOPS ?DBOX PERMX PERMY PERMZ INIT X2 Y1 Y2 Z1 Z2 NCWMAX NGMAXZ NWGMAX NDIVIY NDIVIZ 28 .TUT1A.
HeriotWatt University 29 .Reservoir Simulation Model SetUp 3 PROPS OIL DENSITY P PVDO P PVTW P ROCK Sw SWOF SOLUTION DATUM Pi@DATUM WOC Pc@WOC GOC Pc@GOC Krw Kro Pc Cr Bw Cw Vis Viscosibility Bo Vis WAT GAS EQUIL Block Block Create initial P Sw restart file RPTSOL SUMMARY RPTSMRY Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
PHASE LOCATION I J INTERVAL K1 K2 STATUS O or S WELL ID WELL STATUS CONTROL OIL NAME MODE RATE WCONPROD WELL FLUID STATUS NAME TYPE WCONINJ DAYS TSTEP END CONTROL MODE WAT RATE GAS RATE LIQ RESV RATE RATE BHP LIMIT SURF RATE RESV RATE VOIDAGE BHP FRAC FLAG LIMIT 30 .SCHEDULE Block P RPTSCHED WELL NAME WELSPECS WELL NAME COMPDAT Block Sw Create restart file at each time step WELL GROUP LOCATION I J BHP DATUM PREF.
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 2. GRIDDING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Accuracy of Simulations and Numerical Dispersion 2.3. Grid Orientation Effects 2.4 Local Grid Refinement (LGR) λ (So ) −1/ 2 or λ o Point 2.5 Distorted TGrids iand Corner (So ) i +1/ 2 Geometry 2.6 Issues in Choosing a Reservoir Simulation Grid λ p ∆P λp 2.7 Streamline Simulation
(
)
(
)
3. THE CALCULATION OF BLOCK TO BLOCK FLOWS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATORS 3.1. Introduction to Averaging of Block to kA Block Flows 3.2. Averaging of the TwoPhase Mobility Term, λ p 4. WELLS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION 4.1. Basic Idea of a Well Model Bp 4.2. Well Models for Single and TwoPhase Flow 4.3 Well Modelling in a MultiLayer System ∆x 4.4. Modelling Horizontal Wells 4.5 Hierarchies of Wells and Well Controls
Pi − Pi −1 Q p = − kA. . = − kA. . Bp ∆x Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2
=
5. CLOSING REMARKS  GRIDDING AND WELL MODELLING
∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2
k rp µp
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Having worked through this chapter the student should:
• understand and be able to describe the basic idea of gridding and of spatial and temporal discretisation. • be aware of all the main types of grid in 1D, 2D and 3D used in reservoir simulation and be able to describe examples of where it is most appropriate to use the different grid types. • be able to give a short description with simple diagrams of the phenomena of numerical dispersion and grid orientation and to explain how these numerical problems can be overcome. • be familiar with more sophisticated issues in gridding such as the use of local grid refinement (LGR), distorted, PEBI and corner point grids • given a specific task for reservoir simulation, the student should be able to select the most appropriate grid dimension (1D, 2D, 3D) and geometry/structure (Cartesian, r/z, corner point etc.). • be able to discuss the issues of grid fineness/coarseness (i.e. how many grid blocks do we need to use) in terms of some examples of what can happen if an inappropriate number of grid blocks are used in a reservoir simulation calculation. • be able to describe the basic ideas behind streamline simulation and to compare it with conventional reservoir simulation in terms of its advantages and disadvantages. • be familiar with the different types of average used for single phase kA , two phase relative permeabilities (krp) and for μp and Bp (p = o, w, g phase) when calculating the block to block flows (Qp) in a reservoir simulator. • be able to describe the physical justification for using the upstream value of two phase relative permeabilities when calculating the block to block flows (Qp) in a reservoir simulator. • understand the origin of all the pressure drops that are experienced by the reservoir fluids from deep in the reservoir, through to the wellbore and then to the surface facilities and beyond • know what a well model is and what productivity index (PI) is, including knowing the radial Darcy Law and how this gives a mathematical expression for PI for single phase flow (know the expression from memory). • be able to describe the main issues in relating the pressure in the reservoir, Pe, at some drainage radius, re, to an average grid block pressure and how this leads to the Peaceman formula (Δr = 0.2 Δx) which is then used to calculate PI. • be able to extend PI to the concept of multiphase flow to calculate PIw and PIo.
2
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
• describe a well model for a multi layer system where there is two phase flow into the wellbore. • understand and be able to describe the various types of well constraint that can be applied e.g. injection volume constrained wells, well flowing pressure constraints and voidage replacement constraints.
GRIDDING AND WELL MODELLING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
This chapter deals with the related issues of grid selection and well modelling in reservoir simulation. Gridding: Examples of various grid geometries are presented including 1D linear, 2D areal, 2D crosssectional , 2D radial (r/z) and 3D Cartesian cases. Selection of grid geometry, how fine a grid to take and potential problems are discussed. Nonmathematical introductions to the concepts of numerical dispersion and grid orientation are given along with some examples of the consequences of these effects. More sophisticated gridding such as PEBI grids, distorted grids and local grid refinement (LGR) are illustrated with examples. A brief discussion of streamline simulation is also presented. Treatment of the block to block flows in reservoir simulation is presented and it shown how the various interblock quantities such as the permeability and relative permeabilities are averaged. Well Modelling: All interactions between the surface facilities and the reservoir takes place through the injector and producer wells. It is therefore very important to model wells accurately in the reservoir simulation model. The central issue with a “well model” in a simulator is that it must represent a near singular line source within (usually) a very large grid block. The basic ideas of well modelling are explained and how simple well controls are applied is introduced. Modelling of horizontal wells and the control of well hierarchies are also briefly discussed.
2
GRIDDING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
2.1 Introduction
By this point in the course, you will be familiar with the idea of gridding since it has been discussed in Chapter 1 both in general terms and with reference to the SPE examples (Cases 1  3; Section 1.3). You will also have seen how to set up a 3D grid in Chapter 3. Basically, the gridding process is simply one of chopping the reservoir into a (large) number of smaller spatial blocks which then comprise the units on which the numerical block to block flow calculations are performed. More formally, this process of dividing up the reservoir into such blocks is known as spatial discretisation. Recall that we also divide up time into discrete steps (denoted Δt) and this related process is known as temporal discretisation. The numerical details of how the discretisation process is carried out using finite difference approximations of the governing flow equations is presented in Chapter 6. However, we would point out that the grid used for a given application is a user choice  it is certainly not a
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
3
reservoir “given”  although, as we will see, there are some practical guidelines that help us to make sensible choices in grid definition. In a Cartesian grid, which to date has been the mot common type of grid used, we denote the block size as Δx, Δy and Δz and these may or may not be equal. This grid can also be in one dimension (1D), two dimensions (2D) or three dimensions (3D). Some typical examples of 1D, 2D and 3D Cartesian grids are shown in Figure 1. This is the most straightforward type of grid to set up and typical application of such grids are as follows:  1D linear grids may be used to simulate 1D BuckleyLeverett type water displacement calculations (xdirection) or for single column vertical displacements (zdirection) such as gravity stable gas displacement of oil (Figures 1(a) and 1(b));  2D Cartesian grids: 2D crosssectional (x/z) grids may be used to; (a) study vertical sweep efficiency in a heterogeneous layered system; (b) calculate water/oil displacements in a geostatistically generated crosssection; (c) generate pseudorelative permeabilites (can be used to collapse a 3D calculation down to a 2D system); (d) to study the mechanism of a gas displacement process  e.g. to determine the importance of gravity etc. (Figure 1(e)); 2D areal (x/y) grids may be used to; (a) calculate areal sweep efficiencies in a waterflood or a gas flood; (b) to examine the stability of a nearmiscible gas injection within a heterogeneous reservoir layer; (c) examine the benefits of infill drilling in an areal pattern flood etc. (Figures 1(c) and 1(d));  3D (x/y/z) Cartesian grids are used to model a very wide range of field wide reservoir production processes and would often be the default type of calculation for a typical full field simulation of waterflooding, gas flooding, etc. (Figure 1(f)). Cartesian grids are clearly quite versatile but they are not appropriate for all flow geometries that can occur in a reservoir. For example, close to the wellbore (of a vertical well), the flows are more radial in their geometry. For such systems, an r/z  geometry may be more appropriate as shown in Figure 2. An r/z grid is frequently used when modelling coning either of water or gas into a producer. The pressure gradients near the well are very steep and, indeed, we know from the discussion in Chapter 2, section 3.5 that the pressure varies as ln(r/rw), where rw is the well radius. For this reason, in coning studies, a logarithmically spaced grid is often used for the grid block size, Δr; a logarithmic spacing divides up the grid such that (ri/ ri1) is constant where Δri = (ri ri1) as shown in Figure 2. For example, if we take rw = 0.5 ft and the first grid block size is, Δr1 = 1ft, then this sets (ri/ ri1) = 3 since r0 = rw = 0.5ft and r1 = 1.5ft.; hence r2 = 3x1.5ft. = 4.5ft. and Δr2 = 3ft., r3 = 13.5ft and Δr3 = 9ft., and so on.
4
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
(a) 1D horizontal grid
∆x
(b) 1D vertical grid 1D vertical displacement e.g. 1D vertical gravity drainage calculations ∆z
(c) 2D Areal grid  top view showing injectors ( ) and producers ( )
(d) 2D areal grid
W2
W1
y x
W3
∆z
∆x ∆y
Perspective view of a 2D areal (x/y) reservoir simulation grid: W = well
Just 1 x z  block in 2D areal grid
(e) 2D (x/z) crosssectional model showing a waterflood
∆z
∆x
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
Water Injector
5
Producer
∆z
∆x
(f) a 3D Cartesian grid with variable vertical grid (Δz varies from layer to layer)
Water Injector
Producer
∆y ∆z ∆x
Figure 1 Examples of 1D, 2D and 3D Cartesian grids
Q
∆r
top view
∆ri
z
h
r
rw
∆zi
ri ri1
Notation:
r ∆r z ∆zi h rw
= radial distance from well = radial grid size (can vary ∆r1, ∆r2, ...) = vertical coordinate = vertical grid size (can vary ∆z1, ∆z2, ...) = height of formation = wellbore radius
Figure 2 r/z grid geometry  more
appropriate for modelling flows in the near well region even in a heterogeneous layered system as shown.
2.2 Accuracy of Simulations and Numerical Dispersion
The issue of numerical dispersion was touched upon briefly in Chapter 1 in connection with Case 1 (SPE10022). Here we expand on the concept in a nonmathematical manner. Numerical dispersion is essentially an error due to the fact that we use a grid block approximation for solving the flow equations. A more mathematical description of numerical dispersion is presented in Chapter 6, Section 8 but here we focus on explaining physically how it arises and what its consequences are. We also
6
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
discuss how to reduce this source of error in our simulations or to make it a minor effect. The balance, as we will see, is between accuracy (usually by taking more grid blocks) and computational cost. Ideally, we would like to capture all the main reservoir processes (e.g. frontal displacement, crossflow, gravity segregation etc.) and accurately forecast recovery to some acceptable percentage error, for the minimum number of grid blocks. A simple schematic of the way that the numerical dispersion error arises is shown step by step in Figure 3. This figure illustrates a simple linear waterflood and we imagine that each of the subfigures shown from (a) to (e) represents a time step, Δt, of the water injection process. Block i = 1 contains the injector well which is injecting water at a constant volumetric rate of Qw, and block i = 5 contains the producer. The system is initially at water saturation, Swc, and this water is immobile i.e. the relative permeability of water is zero, krw(Swc) = 0. Each block has constant pore volume, Vp = Δx.A.φ where φ is the porosity. In Figure 3(a), we see that after time, t = Δt, some quantity of fluid has been injected into block i = 1; the volume of water injected is Qw. Δt and this would cause a water saturation change in grid block i = 1, ΔSw1 = (Qw. Δt)/Vp i.e. the new water saturation in this block is now, Swc+ (Qw. Δt)/Vp. Over the first time step, no fluid flowed from block to block since the relative permeability of all blocks was zero (krw(Swc) = 0). However, the relative permeability in block i = 1 is now krw(Sw1) > 0. The second time period of water injection is shown in Figure 3(b). Another increment of water, Qw. Δt, is injected into block i = 1 causing a further increase in water saturation Sw1. However, over the second time period, krw(Sw1) > 0 and therefore water can flow from block i = 1 to i = 2, increasing the water saturation such that Sw2 > Swc making the relative permeability in this block, krw(Sw2) > 0. In the third time step, shown in Figure 3 (c), the same sequence occurs except that fluid can now from block 1 → 2 and also 2 → 3, where for the same reasons as explained, krw(Sw3) > 0. In the fourth and fifth time steps (Figures 3(d) and 3(e)), flow can now go from block 3 → 4 and from 4 → 5 where, since krw(Sw5) > 0, then it can be produced from this block, although the relative permeability in block 5 will be very small. Hence, after only five time steps to time , t = 5Δt, the water has reached the producer in block 5 from whence it can be produced (although not a very high rate because the relative permeability is very small) and this is an unsatisfactory situation. If we had taken 10 grid blocks, then clearly a similar argument would apply and water would be produced after 10 time steps  with an even lower relative permeability in block i = 10  and this is more satisfactory. Indeed, this underlies why we take more grid blocks. This simple illustration explains in a quite physical way the basic idea of numerical dispersion.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
7
1.0
Relative Permeability to Water
krw Swc = 20% Sor = 30% 80 100
Oil Production
0
Water Injection
0
20
40 60 Sw %
Qw
Mixing due to numerical dispersion & relative permeability effects
∆x
Time Step
(a)
∆Sw1
Sw = Swc i=4
i=5
1 t = ∆t
i=1
(b)
i=2
i=3
2 t = 2.∆t
(c)
3 t = 3.∆t
(d)
4 t = 4.∆t
(e)
5 t = 5.∆t
Figure 3 Effect of grid on water breakthrough time  numerical dispersion.
The frontal spreading effect of numerical dispersion can be seen when we try to simulate the actual saturation profile, Sw(x,t), in a 1D waterflood. Under certain conditions, this may have an analytical solution, e.g. the well known BuckleyLeverett solution described in Chapter 2, Section 4.2. This often has a shock front solution for the advancing water saturation profile, Sw(x,t) as shown in Figure 4. Clearly, this sharp front may be “lost” in a grid calculation since, at time t, the front will have a definite position, x(t). However, in a grid system with block size Δx, any saturation front can only be located within Δx as shown in Figure 4. If we take more grid blocks (Δx decreases), then we will locate the front more accurately. Indeed, taking more and more blocks we will gradually get closer to the analytical (correct) solution. Hence, one method of reducing numerical dispersion is to increase the number of grid blocks. An alternative is to use a numerical method which has inherently less dispersion in it but we will not pursue this here. Another approach is to use pseudo functions to control numerical dispersion  as we briefly introduced in Chapter 1  and this is discussed further below.
8
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
1.0
Numerical Grid block size = ∆x Water saturation = Sw(x,t1) time = t1
Front moving in this direction with velocity Vw
Analytical solution
Sw
xf(t1)
Figure 4 The frontal spreading of a BuckleyLeverett shock front when calculated using a 1D grid block model
0
∆x
x
2.3 Grid Orientation Effects
Figure 5 Flow between an injector (I) and 2 producers (P1 and P2) where the injectorproducer separations are identical but flow is either oriented with the grid or diagonally across it illustrating the grid orientation effect.
Another numerical problem arising in 2D and 3D grids is the grid orientation effect. This is illustrated in Figure 5 where the distance between wells I  P1 and I  P2 are the same. However I  P1 are joined by a row of cells oriented to the flow as shown. The flow between I  P2 is rather more tortuous as also shown in Figure 5. The Grid Orientation effect arises when we have fluid flow both oriented with the principal grid direction and diagonally across this grid. Numerical results are different for each of the fluid “paths” through the grid structure. This problem arises mainly due to the use of 5point difference schemes (in 2D) in the Spatial Discretisation. It may be alleviated by using more sophisticated numerical schemes such as 9point schemes (in 2D).
P1 I I = Injector P = Producer
Flow arrows show the fluid paths in oriented grid and diagonal flow leading to grid orientation errors
P2
The effects on the breakthrough time and in recoveries of these two flow orientations are shown in Figure 6. The IP1 orientation tends to lead to somewhat earlier breakthrough and a less optimistic recovery that the IP2 orientation. The reasons for this are intuitively fairly obvious.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
9
diagonal flow result Oil recovery grid aligned result "true" recovery
Time
Figure 6 Oil recoveries for “true”, aligned and diagonal flows in 2D grid
The grid orientation error can be emphasised for certain types of displacement. For example, in gas injection, gas viscosity is much less than the oil viscosity (μg << μo) leading to viscous fingering instability. This is exaggerated when flow is along the grid as in the IP1 orientations. Again, as for numerical dispersion, some grid refinement can help to reduce the grid orientation effect. Alternative numerical schemes can also be devised to reduce this source of error. In particular, in a 2D grid the flows are usually worked out using the neighbouring grid blocks shown in Figure 7. The 5point numerical scheme uses the neighbours shown in Figure 7(a). If information from the blocks in Figure 7(b) are used, the 9point scheme that emerges helps greatly to reduce the grid orientation error. We will not go into further technical details here.
(a) (b)
Figure 7 5  point and 9  point schemes for discretising the grid  the latter helps to reduce grid orientation effects
2.4 Local Grid Refinement (LGR)
In a reservoir, the changes in pressure, saturations and flows tend to be quite different in different parts of the system. For example, close to a well which is changing production rate every day or so, there will be large pressure and saturation changes. On the contrary, on a flank of the field which is connected to, but is remote from, the active wells, the pressure may be quite slowly changing and the saturations may hardly be changing at all. To represent regions with rapidly changing waterfronts will require a finer grid than will be required for relatively stagnant regions of the system. Thus, a single uniform grid with fixed Δx, Δy and Δz will often not be suitable to represent all regions of an active reservoir. Instead, the application of some local grid refinement (LGR) may be much more appropriate. LGR options are supported by most major simulation models and the simplest version is shown in Figure 8 (indeed, this simpler version is sometimes not referred to as LGR). “True” LGR is shown in Figure 9 where the refined grid is clearly seen.
10
we can also define Hybrid Grid LGR as shown in Figure 10. Schematic of Local Grid Refinement (LGR) injector producer Coarse grid in aquifer Figure 10 A simple example of LGR and Hybrid Grid structure Hybrid Grid 2. The most common use of hybrid grids are Cartesian/Radial combinations where the radial grid is used near a well. In addition to conventional LGR (Figure 9). Hybrid Grids are mixed geometry combinations of grids which are used to improve the modelling of flows in different regions.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 Figure 8 A simple version of local grid refinement where the grid is finer in the (central) area of interest in the reservoir Figure 9 “True” local grid refinement (LGR) where the refined grid is embedded in the coarser grid.5 Distorted Grids and Corner Point Geometry In recent years. many studies have used grids that have tried to distort either to reservoir geometry or to the particular flow field and an examples of a distorted grid is shown in Figure 11. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Hybrid Grid LGR can be used in a similar way to other LGR scheme. HeriotWatt University 11 .
PEBI grids have been developed very extensively by Aziz and coworkers at Stanford University and by Heinemann in Austria (Heinemann. In the PEBI grid the chosen grid points are blocked off into volumes using a geometrical construction which is not shown here. et al 1991.E Phelps. 2526 April 2000 Figure 12 An example of a study using a PEBI grid Another way of building distorted grids where the individual blocks retain some broad relationship with an underlying Cartesian form is using corner point geometry (Ponting. T. 1994). This is shown in Figure 13. PEBI grids can be orientated to follow major reservoir faults This example from: R. Shahri. This scheme is implemented in the reservoir simulator Eclipse (GeoQuest. if this approach is used.M. An example of a study using PEBI grids is shown in Figure 12 where the particularly flexible form of this grid is used to model faults in this particular case. In corner point geometry it appears rather tedious to build up a grid by specifying all 8 corners of every block (although some are shared with neighbours).Figure 11 An example of a distorted grid An interesting class of nonCartesian grids are PEBI grids. Japan. “Rigorous Inclusion of Faults and Fractures in 3D Simulation”. SPE59417. Schlumberger) where it has been applied quite widely. Yokohama. 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Conference. 1992). However. Pham and A. The engineer may be reluctant to use corner point geometry if there is a high likelihood 12 . the engineer would virtually always have access to grid building software although building complex grids can still be time consuming. Palagi and Aziz. PEBI = Perpendicular Bisector.
The model shown in Figure 14 is constructed using corner point geometry since it has a major fault in it between the aquifer and the main reservoir. Block centres ( ) Block <> Block Transmissibility Figure 13 Corner point geometry Highly distorted grid blocks Figure 14 Complex reservoir model constructed using corner point geometry 2. 2D or 3D grid structure. HeriotWatt University 13 . Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Corner Point Geometry Coordinates of vertices ( ) specified.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 that the reservoir model will change radically. In future.6 Issues in Choosing a Reservoir Simulation Grid The main issues in choosing a grid for a given reservoir simulation calculation are as follows: (i) Grid Dimension: Refers to whether we should use a 1D. corner point geometry is probably more common in fairly fixed base case reservoir models that the engineer has fairly high confidence in. this may be overcome by autogenerating the corner point mesh directly from the geomodel (although some upscaling may also be necessary in this process). At present.
Consider the issues of grid dimension and type together. For full field simulations.on the sweep efficiency or water breakthrough time. (iii) Grid Fineness/Coarseness: How many grid blocks do we need to use? This asks whether a few hundred or thousand is adequate or whether we need 10s or 100s of thousands for an adequate simulation calculation.layering for example . If. For a nearwell coning study. Fault L1 L2 L1 L4 L3 L4 L3 L2 Figure 15 Grid system at a fault which may have nonneighbour connections The issue of grid fineness/coarseness. other types of grid such as distorted or corner point grids are being applied . This was to carry out the reservoir simulation calculation keeping firmly in mind the question which had to be answered or the decision which had to be taken. We remind the student of the advice in Chapter 1. In recent years. an r/z grid is usually more appropriate since it more closely resembles the geometry of the near well radial flow. Flow through major faults can lead to communication between non neighbour blocks and this can be modelled in some simulators by defining nonneighbour grid block connections as shown schematically in Figure 15. can sometimes be quite subtle as we will show below. a distorted grid or corner point geometry is appropriate. in many practical calculations. type and fineness are directly related to the appropriate question/decision. Then. However. some “reasonable” and practical number of grid block is chosen by the engineer. Essentially. or how many grid blocks to use in a given simulation.especially if a geocellular model has been generated as part of the reservoir description process. as we carry out this grid 14 . This choice also includes where local grid refinement. 3D grids are generally used which in most models are still probably Cartesian with varying grid spacing in all three dimensions.(ii) Grid Geometry/Structure: The next issue is whether we should use a simple Cartesian grid (x. y. type and fineness) depend strongly on the problem we are trying to solve. as we will see. z) or some other grid structure such as r/z. A 2D x/z crosssectional model (with dip if necessary) may be used to study the effects of vertical heterogeneity . there are several technical considerations that can guide us in these choices. all 3 choices (grid dimension. Therefore. However. 2D x/z grids are also used to generate pseudo relative permeabilities for possible use in 2D areal models. Such guides are also applied in some studies to model major faults in reservoirs. this can be checked by refining the grid and seeing if the answers are close enough to the coarser calculation. the issues of grid dimension.
These results show that 200 layers are needed to fully resolve the gas “tongue” at the top of the reservoir.e. The answer is rather surprising as shown by the results in Figure 17.e.no longer changes. i.5% which is well within the error band of the calculation. then our calculation would be significantly in error.e. The economics of performing MWAG depends on how large this difference is. (ii) Example 2: resolving the vertical equilibrium (VE) limit of a gas displacement calculation. NZ blocks) on a miscible wateralternatinggas (MWAG) process. the calculation is said to be “converged” and is probably quite reliable. as we refine the vertical grid. Taking the results at NZ = 2 (1/NZ = 0. recovery profiles and water etc.e. These various points are illustrated by the two examples below. we appear to have a completely marginal or nonexistent improved oil recovery scheme. The difference between the two calculations is the incremental oil recovered by the MWAG process. Clearly. It shows the need to check that a calculation has converged or that changing the number of grid blocks does not significantly change the answers. Certainly. However. By “reliable”. Example 2: The vertical equilibrium (VE) condition in a gas flood is where the gas if fully segregated by gravity from the oil.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 refinement. This limit has a simple analytical form (not discussed here) which can be written down without doing a grid block calculation. The purpose of plotting this vs. the waterflood recovery increases while the MWAG recovery decreases. However. we see that the incremental oil is only (47. rather than having a very attractive project. If the grid is far from being converged.36%) = 36% of STOIIP which is a huge increase and would make such a project very attractive. the answer . then comparisons between different sensitivity calculations may be masked by numerical errors. So. Indeed. we can test the numerical simulation by seeing how many blocks (NZ again) we need to correctly reproduce the VE limit. performing just one coarse grid calculation and taking the results at face value would be very misleading in this case. as we extrapolate to (1/NZ) = 0.47%) = 0. . (1/NZ) is that we can extrapolate this to zero i.. Example 1: Figures 16(a) and 16(b) shows the recovery results (at a given time or pore volume throughput) for both a waterflood and an MWAG flood in the same system each as a function of 1/NZ. the calculations move closer together and the incremental oil is greatly reduced. if we just guessed that 5 vertical blocks would be enough and did not check. The two examples used to show the importance of the number of grid blocks are: (i) Example 1: the effect of vertical grid fineness (i.5) shows an incremental recovery of (72% .g. we mean that the grid errors are probably a small contribution of to the overall uncertainties of the whole calculation. effectively to NZ → ∞. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.5% . HeriotWatt University 15 . The two examples above illustrate how the number of blocks chosen for a simulation can strongly affect the results.
20 0.10 0. kv/kh = 0.3% 0.00 0.40 0.35 0.55 0.Figure 16: (a) Extrapolation of Predicted Waterflood Recovery Efficiency for 2D Stratified Model C Sand Base Case 100 90 80 Recovery Efficiency. %ooIPEfficiency. kv/kh = 0.02 0.15 0. 25% slug.Gas (MWAG) Homogeneous Model.60 Water 90 2 1 C Sand Base Case /nz grid blocks 3 Oil 80 Recovery Efficiency. %ooIP Recovery Model 70 100 60 90 50 80 40 70 30 60 20 50 10 40 NZ Vertical Grid Refinement NX As vertical grid is refined 1 > 0 NZ 1 2 3 Gas Water Oil As vertical grid is refined Extrapolated RE = 35.20 / Water .01 Homogeneous Model.20 0. 1.30 1 Extrapolated RE = 27.60 0.00 0.02 NZ Homogeneous Model.05 20 0. kv/kh = 0.50 0.45 0.2 HCPVI.60 10 Vertical Grid Refinement 100 NX 0 (b) Extrapolation of Predicted MWAG Recovery Efficiency for 2D Stratified 1 0.10 0.25 0.3% 1 > NZ Homogeneous Model.55 0.40 = 0.55 0. side solver Stratified Model. kv/kh = 0.50 0.50 0.1 Variable Width Homogeneous Model.50 Stratified Model.1 Stratified Model.05 20 10 0 0.45 0. %ooIP Recovery Process ==> Waterflooding Vertical Grid Refinement NX 70 100 60 90 50 80 40 70 30 60 20 50 10 40 0 300.40 0.Gas (MWAG) Process ==> Wisciblenz grid blocks 1 0.1 0.05 Extrapolated RE = 35. kv/kh = 0. kv/kh 0.15 0.10 0. 1.40 0.02 Homogeneous Model.00 0.45 0.60 /nz grid blocks 16 . kv/kh = 0.15 0. 25% slug.45 0. kv/kh = Gas 0. kv/kh = 0.6% Process ==> Waterflooding Vertical Grid Refinement As vertical gridNXrefined 1 > 0 is NZ 1 2 3 NZ Water Oil Gas Water Oil 1 2 3 As vertical grid is refined Homogeneous Model.55 0.Alternating .01 0 300.30 0.2 HCPVI.20 0. 1.15 Extrapolated RE = 27.30 1 0.35 0. kv/kh = 0. %ooIPEfficiency.30 0.35 0.01 Process ==> Wiscible Water .02 0.Alternating .25Homogeneous Model. 1.05 0. side solver 0 Stratified Model.2 HCPVI. kv/kh = 0.00 0. kv/kh = 0.25 0.1 NZ Gas Variable Width Homogeneous Model.10 0.01 1 NZ > 0 Figure 16 The effect of vertical grid refinement on recovery in (a) a waterflood and (b) a MWAG displacement in a 2D crosssectional model 0.6% /nz grid blocks Homogeneous Model.25 0.35 0.2 HCPVI.
6 0.2 0. Δl = v. The basic procedure in streamline simulation for a given permeability field (Figure 18(a)) is to calculate the pressure distribution by solving a conventional pressure equation (see Chapter 5 and 6). HeriotWatt University 17 .35 0.oil displacement by increasing the number of vertical grid blocks (from Darman et al.4 0. the advance of the front along the streamline can be calculated accurately without the problem of block to block numerical dispersion. We will describe this qualitatively in a nonmathematical manner with reference to Figure 18 from the work of Gautier et al (1999).3 0. hence changing fluid mobilities.05 0 x Gravity Dominated x x x x x x x x x x x Gas Oil Recovery factor x x x x x x x x x x x x x x VE Limit fine grid : 5 layers fine grid : 25 layers fine grid : 50 layers fine grid : 200 layers coarse grid 0. the gradient of the pressures locally perpendicular to the isopotentials are the streamlines as shown in Figure 18(c). in turn. From this the isopotentials (pressure contours) can be calculated as shown in Figure 18(b). Since the velocity along these paths is known (from Darcy’s Law using the calculated ∇P). 1999) 0. This process can be continued throughout the calculation. After we propagate the front along the streamlines.7 Streamline Simulation The problem of numerical dispersion was discussed above. One approach to have a more accurate transport calculation is to use streamlines. Since v is known quite accurately. These saturation changes are then projected back onto the Cartesian grid as shown in Figure 18(d).8 1 x 0 0.5 0. These updated mobilities can be used to recalculate the pressures which. These streamlines are essentially the “paths” of the injected fluid from the injectors (sources) to the producers (sinks).Δt. can be used to update the streamline pattern. the calculation of the pressure equation is what takes most computational time in most reservoir simulation. we can work out how far the saturation front moves along the streamline.1 0.4 PVI 2.15 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. where v is the (local) velocity at that point on the streamline.45 0.2 0.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 Figure 17 Resolving the gas “tongue” in the Vertical Equilibrium (VE) limit in a gas .25 0. However. the saturations will change over the reservoir domain.
(c) (d) From Gautier et al (1999) 2D Areal Displacements with Streamlines I1 • Pair Injector / Producer • IW flows faster in a direct line between the wells and slower in the corners • Arrival of different streamlines at producer at the same time. by (Blunt and coworkers at Imperial College in London) and are available commercially. there tends to be “side flow” between streamlines and hence it is necessary to recalculate the pressure field quite often. Streamline simulation is fastest compared with conventional simulation for viscous dominated flow where the assumption of slowly changing streamlines is probably best. In streamline simulation. streamline simulation has a place in our simulation “toolbox” but it 18 . At the present time. if the wells change very significantly. This is a good assumption for many applications.g. This relies on the assumption that the streamlines do not vary too rapidly as the flood progresses. it will almost certainly be necessary to recalculate the pattern of streamlines in the reservoir domain. Injected water concentration Figure 18 Schematic of streamline simulation from the work of Gautier et al (1999) P1 Figure 19 An example of a streamline calculation in a fivespot pattern An example of a streamline calculation in a fivespot pattern is shown in Figure 19. or we switch off some wells and add new ones. Clearly. For flow where gravity effects are very prominent.Outline of Streamline Method Prod a) Permeability map with an injector and a producer wells b) Solve the pressure field c) Compute the velocity field and trace streamlines (a) (b) Inj d) Move saturation along streamlines and compute the values of the saturation on the grid. it may be possible to recalculate the pressures after many transport (saturation update) time steps. This slows the streamline simulation down quite significantly in many cases although it can sometimes remain competitive with conventional simulation. Streamline simulation has gained some popularity in recent years since 3D streamline codes have been developed e.
=are: . = − kA. ∆P = − .1 Introduction to Averaging of Block to Block Flows In reservoir simulation. or . instead we define them within the grid blocks themselves e. . A typical blocktoblock flow is shown in Figure 20 where the appropriate terms in Darcy’s Law are also shown: Applying λ T (So ) law or theo (So ) block flow shown in Figure 20 and using the Darcy’s to λ inter i −1 / 2 i +1 / 2 notation in that figure. However. we obtain: ( ) ( ) λ p ∆P λ p Pi − Pi −1 Q p = − kA.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 is not suitable for all types of reservoir calculation. Q. of a single phase and the related pressure x i −1 + ∆x = phase flow. kA = We first examine 2 kA averaging by considering what ∆x should be for singlethe this + ∆x i −1 i ∆ ∆x flow. complex well models. HeriotWatt University = ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2 19 . = − kA p Bp ∆x where the overbar denotes an average of that pquantity.(λ (S )) − )) 1 2 + 2 i Bp ∆x T o i −/ Bp o∆xo−1 i+1/∆x i λ λ . “difficult” PVT oil behaviour etc. Bp . block to block flow terms arise between blocks which we often denoted by mobility terms such as (λT(S0))i1/2 or (λ0(S0))i+1/2 etc. = − specific questions − kA average should we take? The two Bp ∆x Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i kA kA 2 What is the correct average for the permeabilityarea product.within the phase mobility. the permeability. relative permeability etc. μp . ∆x Bp ∆x ∆x i −1 + ∆x i ∆x 3. λ p ? kA (λ (S )) T o i −1 / 2 or (λ o (So ))i +1(S ) λ T / 2 o i −1 λ T (So ))i −1/(2 or (λ o)(So/ 2 ) ( λp Further issues involve (i) whether we should average the separate terms krppand λ p ∆P λ Pi − P Q = − kA. Also. we do not specify properties directly on the boundaries. porosity. B (1) x Q p B Q pp ∆ . . (λ =(S kA. It is strictly for incompressible flow and compressibility effects can cause some errors. where the (i+1/2) and (i1/2) denote the block boundary as the location where that term is evaluated. the saturations (Sw and So). and (ii)pwhich average ∆x for Bp we should use Bp Bp ∆x i −1 + Bp ∆x although the formation volume factor does not usually vary very rapidly from block 2 Bp λp to block. The issue p is: P − P which λ ∆P λ here kA i i −1 Q pmainkA. 3 THE CALCULATION OF BLOCK TO BLOCK FLOWS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATORS 3. . λ p . 2 kA∆P p λ p= − kA.g. )) ? (λ T (So ))i −1/ 2 or (λ o (So kA/2 λp i +1 What is the correct average for the phase mobility. Q p = − kA p . streamline codes tend not to be as developed in terms of “bells and whistles” as conventional simulators e. . Consider the volumetric x 2 = ∆x i −1 + ∆= i drops as shown in Figure 21: 2 λp k rp 2 ∆x i −1 + ∆x i µp k rp = k rp 2 Bp k rp µp µp µp k rp ∆x µp Institute of Petroleum Engineering.2 Averaging of the kA Product.g. .
. where we denote the interface pressure as Pf (see Figure 21). Ai ki1. Bp ∆x Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2 kA i −1 / 2 or (λ o (So ))i +1/ 2 Area. . = − kA. ki λp krp ΔP μp. A i λp Bp ∆x λp Bp Figure 20 Block to block flow in a simulator Notation: Qp Δxi1. Bp ∆x Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i ∆x i λi λ p Pi − Pi −1 2 Permeability = kp ∆P Q p = − kA. w. 20 . = − kA. . A i1 kA ∆x Area. We now consider flows from Block (i1) to the interface of the two blocks. g) = sizes of the (i1) and i blocks (may not be equal) = distance between grid block centres = ∆x Ai1.(λ (S )) T o i −1 / 2 or (λ o (So ))i +1/ 2 (λ (S )) T o ∆x i1 Permeability = ki1 Qp λ p ∆P λ p Pi − Pi −1 Q p = − kA. Δxi = volumetric flow of phase p (p = o. Bp ∆x ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2 = areas of the (i1) and i blocks (mayx be equal) ∆x + ∆ not k rp 2 = permeabilites of the (i1) and i blocks (usually not equal) µp k = mobility of phase p = rp µp = relative permeability of phase p = pressure drop between grid block centres = viscosity and formation volume factors of phase p = i −1 i Ai1 Ai Pi1 ki1 ∆xi1 ∆xi Q Pi ki Pi1 Pressure P Pf Pi Pf = face pressure between blocks x Figure 21 Singlephase flow between blocks to determine the correct kA average to use in flow simulation. .
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
k .A P −P k i −1 .A i −1 . Pf − Pi∆x x i −1 Q=− −1 ∆ Q=− .µ µ µ ∆x i −1 i −1 ∆x i −1 2 µ k i −1 .A i −1 Pf − Pi −1 2 2 2 from which = −can find the pressure difference (Pf  Pi1): Q we . ∆x i −1 µ k i .A i P − P −1 ∆ 1 Q = − ( P−1 − P−1 .) f= 2∆ixQµx i x1i −1 1 − ∆ P f) Pi 1 Qµx iQ i . − 1 k A . − i −1 (Pf −(Pif−1− µ=−1i)−− = ∆−∆1xµ−.1 2 2 1 (k(.A.)i −)1i 1 − (Pf − Pi −1 ) = − Qµ.2 2 ( k.A)−1 k.A i 2 ( ) i −1 ∆x 1 (Pf − Pi −1 ) = − Qµ. i −1 2 . i .A iP − P k ikA− P.i Pi −f Pf ( k.A )i −1 i Q= 1 In block (i):= − k i .A i−. Pi −.Pf ∆x i −1 Q Qi =.)− P µQ f . ∆ (Pf=−−Pk−i1µA i=. µi− x i µ∆x i x i Q ∆ 2 ( k.A )i −1 ∆x i µ 22 k i .A i Pi − Pf 2 Q we . 2 from which = −can find thexpressure difference (Pi  Pf): ∆ i µ k i .A i Pi − Pf ∆x Q = − ( P − P ) 2 ∆xQ∆x i1i 1 1 . − P µ P f ∆= . Q i µ 1 ( (Pfi)−i = f )− = x i−∆xµ. . 2 k.A (Pi − P ) = − Qµ. i 2 (k.A)i i ) Qµ 2 ( k.A ) (Pi − f 2 2 ( k.A )i ∆x 1 i (Pi − Pf ) = − Qµ. i 2 Q(µ .A )i∆x k Qµeliminate1ithexP+ term gives that: x .1∆x− −∆ f ∆x i x i ∆ Adding equationsPi andi −1 ) Qµ xto∆ i −1 i 1 i ∆ P 3 P 5 above P − P ) −i P QQ.µ 2 − k+A x k A ) (Pii −(Pif(i−)1− ==−1−)− =µ=−..−i2∆.x i(1 (.A.) )∆+ i( k.A.) i k k 1 1 ( (Pi − Pi −1 ) = − 2 2 ( k.(A.)A1)i + i(−ki .−A)i i 2 ( k.A )ii −1 ( k.A )i ∆x i Qµ ∆x i −1− + (Pi − Pi −1 ) = − . ( . 2 ( k.A )i −1 kA )i Qµ ∆x ∆x (Pi − Pi11 )= = 1−. 2 . 2 2i −1 + . iP − P − 1 .A i = Q Q. − µ 22 x i ( k.A )i .∆x ( kP( )) i −1i) 1 ) − ∆ form 1 the (P − P − Q = − 1to− µ .following−1 ∆x iPi i .singlephase Darcy Law: which rearranges . the x i −1∆x i −1 ∆x i+ .( Pi − iii−1 ) of − Q = − µ ∆ ( P −1 x . µ ∆x i(1 ( A ) )∆+ i( kA ) )i ( − .k+A−1i −1 k.A + 1 ( k.A )ik1 2 i( k.A )i i ( k.A ) − ( k.A ) . . P − P Q = − . i −1 i ( i i −1 ) µ ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 1 2 Q = − . ( k.A )i −1 ( k.A )i .( Pi − Pi −1 ) ∆x ∆x i µ i −1 + ( k.A )i −1 ( k.A )i k In block (i1): Qk i −=.A ii −1i.−A if−1i −1Pif−1f Pi −1i −1 Q − − −1 1P −. P. − =1
(2)
(3) (4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
But, taking kA as the correct average, then, by definition, the singlephase Darcy Law is of the form:
Comparing identical terms in equations 7 and 8 above gives that:
kA ( P − Pi −1 ) Q=− . i µ ( P 1 P −1 ) kA ∆xi −− + i∆xi Q=− . i µ ∆xi −12+ ∆xi 2 kA ∆xi −kA ∆xi 1 + ∆xi −12 ∆xi + 2
(8)
2 = ∆xi −1 2 ∆xi = ( k . A) + ( k . A) ∆xi i ∆xi −i1−1 + ( k . A) i − 1 ( k . A) i
which easily rearranges to:
(9)
∆xi −1 + ∆xi kA = ∆∆ix1−1 + HeriotWatt University x −i ∆ixi Institute of Petroleum Engineering, ∆x kA = ( k . A) + ( k . A) ∆xi i ∆xi −i1−1 +
21
Q=−
Note: This is an important result and in particular, we observe the following:
kA ( Pi − Pi −1 ) . µ ∆xi −1 + ∆xi 2 (λ T (So ))i −1/ 2 or (λ o (So ))i +1/ 2 ∆x i−1 + ∆xi kA = ∆x ∆x i −1 i + λ p ∆P kA 2 λ p Pi − Pi −1 (k.A= ∆k.A) ∆ ) (p ∆xi −1 +∆xi i−1 Qxi −= i− kA. xi . ∆x = − kA. B . ∆x + ∆x 1 i− i p (10)1 + Bp 2 k . A) i − 1 ( k . A) i ( 2
(i) The appropriate average kA is not the arithmetic average, it is the harmonic average weighted by the grid x ∆x + ∆blocksizes.
i −1 i kA = ∆xi −1 ∆xi + λp (ii) This harmonic average gives much more weighting to the lower permeability ( k . A) (k. A)i −are equal, ithis reduced to the exact harmonic average, k , 1 value. If the grid sizes
of the permeabilities as follows:
H
Bp 1 1 1 1 = + 2 ki −1 ki kH ∆x
(λ (S ))
T o
i −1 / 2
or (λ o (So ))i +1/ 2
(11)
λ Pi − Pi −1 This can be seen for the following example: k1 = 200 mD, k2 = 2 mD ⇒ H =3.9∆P kλ krp Q p = − kA. p . = − kA. p . mD. We λ p = expect the flows x be much more strongly affected by theBp ∆x would ∆ to−1 + ∆xλ T ( lower Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i or λ o i i µ p if one of the permeabilitiesSo ) i −1zero, then(So ) flow would be = /2 i +1 / 2 permeability since, were the 2 2 zero, no matter how large the other permeability was.
(
)
(
)
i −1 and k rp over Bp (iii) Theµabove iarguments carry = i −1into ithe averaging of kA for multiphase p = 2 2 Q = − kA. λ p . ∆P = − kA. λ p . flow. µp p
µ
+µ
B
+B
EXERCISE 1. 1. For the two grid blocks below, calculate
20 ft.
Bp ∆x λp Bp
15 ft.
Pi − Pi −1 Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2 or (λ o (So ))i +1/ 2
kA (in mD.ft.2) λp
(λ (S ))
T o
i −1 / 2
λ p ∆P λ p Pi − Pi −1 15 ft. k2 25 ft. = − kA Bp k1 i or (λ T (So ))i −1/ 100 ft.(λ o (So ))i +=/ 2∆xQ−p1 + ∆x i . Bp . ∆x = − kA. Bp . ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2 1 2 2 λ p ∆P λ p Pi − Pi −1 120 ft. Q p = − kA. . = − kA. . ∆x Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i Bp ∆x k rp 2 λ ∆P λ calculated − Pi −1 (i) For k1 = 200 mD and k1 = 185 mD. Compare ptheanswer with kA p Pi µkA. Q p = − kA. . = − p . as the arithmetic average. ∆x B + ∆x i Bp ∆x i −1 + ∆x i = i −1 p ∆x 2 2 (ii) For k1 = 200 mD and k1 = 5 mD. Compare the answer with kA pcalculated λ
as the arithmetic average. 2. If k1 ≈ k2, and A1 ≈ A2, show that average.
∆x λ S ( T ( o ))i −1/ 2 or (λ o (So ))i +1/ 2
k rp kA is approximately equal to the arithmetic λ pB p µp λp Bp x ∆ ∆x ∆x + ∆x
22
Bp
kA ( P − P ) (λ T (So ))i −1/ 2 kA 2 Q = − . i= i −1 i ∆x ∆xi −1 +µ∆xi∆xi −1 + ∆xxi −1 ( (λ(Tk∆So)))i −1+2 (or. Aiλ o(So ))i +1/ 2 Q = − kA. λ p . ∆P = − kA. ( 2 .A / 2 k )i p i −1 B ∆x p Gridding And Well Modelling λ Q p = − kA. B λ ∆P λ p Pi − Pi −1 kA 2 p = = . + ∆x = ∆x Q p ∆xi− kA. . = − kAkA . ∆x i −1 + ∆x i kA i −1 + ∆xi i −1 ∆xi −1 + B∆ i ∆x px Bp ∆x i −1 2 A (k.∆x)ii −1 (k. A)i + 2 ( k . A) i − 1 ( k . A) i kA 3.3 Averaging of the TwoPhase Mobility Term, λ p To recap, the singlephase kA term is taken as a weighted harmonic average and this 1 leaves us with the1 ∆1 of what averages to take for the twophase flow term, λ p . issue i −1 +1∆xi x + = Bp In fact, it kAconvenient to separate the relative permeability term from the viscosity is = 2 ∆k kH xii −1 ki ∆xi −1 λ+ and consider these separately as follows: p ( k . A) i − 1 ( k . A) i Bp ∆x k λ p = rp Bp 1 µ p1 1 1 (12) ∆x = + ∆x i −1 + ∆x i 2 ki −1 ki kH = 2 We do this since the relative permeability of phase p is far more variable than ∆x µi −1 +If ifact, withoutBfurtheri discussion, we will simply note that x + ∆x µ i −1 + B ∆ i −1 the phaseµ p = viscosity. and Bp = = 2 the viscosity and formation volume factors are very accurately calculated as the k 2 2 k rp λ p = rp arithmetic averages, since = ∆xusuallyx i not vary very much from block to block they i −1 + ∆ do µp µp i.e. the averages between grid blocks (i1) and i are: 2 k rp µp µ + µi k B + Bi rp µ p = i −1 and Bp = i −1 2 2 (13) µp
4
Therefore the situation is summarised in Figure 22:
Qp
Figure 22 Which average should be taken for the relative permeability of phase p in the averaging of block to block flows?
Qp =  kA.
krp µp.Bp
.
∆P ∆x
Which average??
Harmonic average
Arithmetic averages
We will determine which relative permeability average to take by considering the physical situation of twophase oil/water flow from block i → (i+1) as shown in Figure 23. Consider the situation in Figure 23 where: Block i is at Sw = (1Sor) i.e. only water can flow; krw > 0 and kro = 0; Block (i+1) is at Sw = Swc i.e. only oil can flow; krw = 0 and kro > 0.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
23
Sor
1  Sor Sw krw > 0 kro = 0 Swc Block i Block i + 1
krw = 0
kro > 0
Figure 23 Flow of water from block i → (i+1) and the corresponding relative permeability values for water and oil.
Physically, it is clear in Figure 23 that water can flow from i → (i+1) but oil cannot. Therefore, for flow in this direction, the average water relative permeability must be nonzero but the average oil relative permeability must be zero. Let us consider the different averages that are possible in turn: Harmonic Average: First consider if the harmonic average can be used since this was appropriate for the singlephase permeability averaging. Harmonic average of water relative permeabilities = Harm. Av. {krw i >0; krw i+1 = 0} =0 Likewise, for oil, Harm. Av. {kro i = 0; kro i+1 > 0} = 0 Thus, the harmanic average gives zero flow for both water (incorrect) and oil (correct). Therefore, it cannot be the harmonic average which is correct for the relative permeability. Arithmetic Average: Now consider if the arithmetic average can be used since this is a natural thing to try and it is certainly the simplest. Arithmetic average of water relative permeabilities
rw i rw i +1 = ( krw i > 0) + ( krw i +1 = 0) > 0 2
(k
> 0) + ( k
= 0)
> 0
2
So, the arithmetic average could be physically correct for the water phase since it gives the average krw > 0 and thus allows water to flow.
krw > 0
But, for oil the oil phase, we find that : Arith. Av. {kro i = 0; kro i+1 > 0} > 0 and this is physically incorrect, since oil cannot flow from i → (i+1). Therefore, it cannot be the arithmetic average which is correct for the relative permeability. What average does this leave? We simply state the answer and then give some physical justification. Upstream Value: In fact, it turns out that the physically correct value of the relative permeability is simply the upstream value. The upstream value refers to the block from
24
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
which the flow is coming i.e. in the flow from left to right in Figure 23. This would be block i. This can be seen to be consistent with the physical situation since: Flowing from i → (i+1), the “average” water relative permeabilities = Upstream {krw i} > 0, as required. Likewise, flowing from i → (i+1), the “average” oil relative permeabilities = Upstream {kro i } = 0, as required. Now reversing the flows from (i+1) → i, we find that only oil should flow and this is again consistent since: Flowing from (i+1) → i, the “average” water relative permeabilities = Upstream {krw i+1} = 0, as required since water cannot flow in this direction. Likewise, flowing from (i+1) → i, the “average” oil relative permeabilities = Upstream {kro i+1} > 0, as required since only oil can flow in this direction. The situation is summarised in Figure 24.
Qp
Figure 24 The correct interblock averages for all terms in the twophase blocktoblock flows in a reservoir simulator.
Qp =  kA.
krp µp.Bp
.
∆P ∆x
Upstream value of krp
Harmonic average
Arithmetic averages
4
WELLS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
4.1 Basic Idea of a Well Model
The only way fluids can be produced from or injected into a reservoir is through the wells and we must therefore include them in our reservoir simulation model. As you may know, the area of Well Technology is vast and in addition to the long wellbore between the reservoir and the surface, there are many other technical features of wells that can have a major impact on the flows into and out of the reservoir. For example, there will be safety valves at the surface and many different types of completion in the well construction itself. Here, we will simplify things as much as possible in order to extract the central functions of the well that we will have to model in the simulator. A schematic of the total well is shown in Figure 25 where the details of the near well formation are shown inset. The near wellbore flows are thought to be radial in an ideal vertical well and this will have some relevance in modelling the nearwell pressure behaviour, as discussed in Chapter 2 and elaborated upon below. In addition to these nearwell pressure drops, there are several other identifiable
25
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
pressure drops between the fluids in the reservoir and the surface oil storage facilities and we may have to model at least some of these. Indeed, it is this topside pressure behaviour that “links” or “couples” the surface with the pressure and flows that we are trying to model in the reservoir using reservoir simulation. The main decision is to determine how much of the formation to surface well assembly we will actually have to model. The main pressure drops are shown in Figure 26 (based on Figure 25 of whole well + ΔPs) and are associated with: (i) Formation → wellbore flow, ΔPf→w: where fluids flow from a “drainage radius”, re, at pressure, Pe, to the wellbore. Figure 26 shows the nearwell pressure profile, in the nearsandface region with bottom hole flowing well pressure (BHFP), Pwf. Thus the formation → wellbore pressure drop, ΔPf→w , is:
∆Pf → w = Pe − Pwf
(
)
(14)
(ii) The pressure drop, ΔPwell, that may occur along the completed region of the Pfrom the bottom wellbore wf = Patm + ∆Pr → s of the well (or the “toe” of a horizontal well) to the wellbore just at the top of the completed interval. In very long wells, this pressure drop along the wellbore due to friction may be quite significant although there will be casesQo = PI . can− Pwf where it Pe be ignored;
(
)
Well head Q
o max .
= PI .Pe
Surface facilities (separator etc...)
To storage / export
∆P(r ) =
r Qµ ln 2π (k.h) rw
Well tubulars
∆P(re ) = Pe − Pwf
(
)
r Qµ = ln e 2π (k.h) rw
Well
2π (k.h) . Pe − Pwf re µ. ln Reservoir showing rw Q=
(
)
Fluid flow from reservoir layers to wellbore
two geological layers
PI =
2π (k.h) r µ.ln e rw
Well completed in reservoir
Figure 25 Schematic of the fluid flows into a well in a grid block model of the reservoir through to their storage or export from the field.
26
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
∆Pwh > export
Well head
Surface facilities (separator etc...)
To storage / export
Well tubulars
∆Pr > s pressure drop from reservoir top to surface
Near wellbore formation to wellbore ∆Pf > w Pe ∆Pf > w Pwf rw r re
Well
Figure 26 Schematic of the fluid flows from the well through to storage or export showing the associated pressure drops that occur in the system.
Reservoir showing two geological layers
Fluid flow from reservoir layers to wellbore Well completed in reservoir
∆Pwell pressure drop along the well within reservoir section
(iii) Reservoir → surface pressure drop, ΔPr→s : the pressure drop from the well at the top of the completed formation just above the reservoir to the wellhead which is at pressure, Pwh . This ΔP is quite significant and, locally in any sector of the well, there will be a local pressure drop vs. flow rate/fluid composition relationship. This may be calculated from models (often correlations) of multiphase flow in pipes. As the fluids move up the wellbore, the pressure drops in oil/water production and free gas may also appear; thus, we can have three phase flow in the well tubular to the surface and we may have to incorporate this flow rate/pressure drop behaviour in our modelling. (iv) There will frequently be further pressure drops as the fluids flow from the wellhead through the surface facilities such as the separators, various chokes, etc. We will not consider this in detail here although it can be an important consideration in some field cases e.g. if the well is feeding into a network gathering system which other wells are also feeding into. This could be a complex surface gathering system network or a multiplewell manifold of a subsea production system. In this section, we will mainly focus on the formation to wellbore pressure drops. Thus, our main task is to either calculate or set the well flowing pressure (Pwf) although we will return briefly to the issue of calculating the pressure drops between the reservoir and the surface in the discussion below. To set the scene in modelling wells in a simulator, we will first consider a very simple model well producing only oil into the wellbore. How do we decide what
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
27
the volumetric flow rate, Qo, of this well is? Indeed, do we decide or is it set for us by the reservoir and well properties? We will start with the simplest case where we basically “take what we can get” by drawing the wellhead pressure, Pwh, down as low as possible. Suppose that we simple open it up such that the oil pressure drops essentially to atmospheric. There is then the additional reservoir to surface pressure drop, ΔPr→s, to consider. Thus, the well flowing pressure, Pwf, would be given by:
∆Pf → w = Pe − Pwf
(
)
Pwf = Patm + ∆Pr → s
(15)
So, what happens ? Clearly, if this value of Pwf > Pe (the reservoir pressure), then no oil can beQo = PI . Pe However, if Pwf < Pe, then some oil will flow into the well and produced. − Pwf we can now calculate how much. As we will see, this will depend on the physical properties of the system such as the permeability of the rock, the viscosity of the oil, QP . = PIof − well the precise geometryPePe Pwf etc. However, in our simple conceptual well, we will ∆o max w = . the f→ take all of these quantities as “givens” for the moment. Suppose the well does flow at a volumetric flow rate, Qo, for reservoir pressure, Pe, and well flowing pressure, Pwf . We can (=)Patm +Qµa→ s r ∆ ln PP r = ∆wf then definePr productivity index, PI, of the well as follows:
(
)
(
)
2π (k.h) rw
(16) ( ) r Qµ ∆P(r ) = ( P − P ) = ln where possible units of PI could π ( k.h) r for example. The above equation 2 be bbl/day/psi,
Qo = PI . Pe − Pwf
e e
wf
e
Qo max = PI .Pe basically states .how much oil is produced per psi of drawdown. This simple equation takes us back to our original question on “what/who decides on Qo?”. In our simple case, the ∆Pf → w π ( know clear; i.e. some things are “givens”  e.g. PI and Pe in a answer = Pe ) Pwf 2 is .h − r Qµ . P and virgin oil Q = producing system e − Pwfsome we can set within limits  e.g. Pwf by setting ∆P(r ) = re ln µ. ln2π the wellhead pressure.( k.h) rw you may be able to set a flowrate, Qo, by installing However, r a downhole pump (anw∆Pr → electrical submersible pump). In that case, you would Pwf = Patm+ ESP s set Qo and then calculate Pwf where we are still considering the reservoir pressure (Pe) as a given. But clearly we cannot set Qo r any arbitrarily large value since the to Qµ 2= k ∆P(rePIπ (Peof)PPwf = = (a vacuum),which would then set a maximum value )valuee .h−Pwf 0 2π k.h ln re lowest possible . P − wf PI Qo = ( ) w re of Qo given by:
w
(
( ) ))
)
µ.ln rw (17) Qo max .2= (PIhPe π k. . ) Q= . Pe − Pwf r So, in summary,. we can set either a pressure or a flowrate but (a) not both and (b) µ ln e in either case, withinrlimits. r Q wµ ∆P(r ) = ln 2π (k.h) rw
((
(
)
But, can’t we affect the well PI or the reservoir pressure, Pe? We can actually affect the PI of a well 2π ( k.h) by “stimulating” it possibly by locally hydraulically fracturing the PI = well or by acidising r increase the effective permeability of the near well region. it to r Qµ .ln P e In addition, weµ= e −Pwf (or more commonly maintain) the reservoir pressure increase = ∆P(re )can r ln e w 2π (k.h rw (which relates to the “reservoir energy”)) to some extent by injecting a fluid  usually water or gas in another injector well. However, the basic well controls are either setting pressure or flow rate and this must be kept in mind when we model wells in reservoir Q = 2π ( k.h) .elaborate on these ideas in the following section where we simulation. We P − P e wf introduce the central re of a well model. idea
(
)
µ. ln rw
(
)
28
PI =
2π (k.h)
∆Pf → w = Pe − Pwf ∆Pf → w
e wf
( ) = (P − P ) ( ( ) )
Gridding And Well Modelling
4
Pwf = Patm + ∆Pr → s P = Patm for Single and TwoPhase Flow 4.2 WellwfModels+ ∆Pr → s
We now consider how a well model can be developed, firstly in our simple conceptual Qo = PI . Pe − Pwf reservoir producing only oil. Figure 27 shows the local pressure profiles in a simple Qo = PI . system homogeneous well Pe − Pwf in single phase flow (see Chapter 2, section 3.5). The pressure profile close to the wellbore, assuming radial flow, was derived in Chapter Qo max . = PI .Pe 2 and is given by (section 3.5):
Qo max . = PI .Pe ∆P(r ) =
Figure 27 Schematic showing (a) the near well pressure profiles that occur in a radial system and (b) corresponding quantities in a Cartesian grid block
( ) Taking the P ∆ pressure(at radius)r as being the reservoir pressure, P , then gives: = P −P r Qµ ∆P(= ) = ( + ∆PP ) = ln rP P− P 2πQk.h) r (µ ∆P(r ) = ( P − P ) = ln P = P + ∆P 2π (k.h) r (19) Q = PI .(k.h− P ) 2π ( P ) Q= .( P − P ) Q = PI .( .r − Q ) P 2π (k h) P (a) (b) Q = µ. ln .( P − P ) Grid block r Well at BHFP P
w f →w e e e wf
e e
r Qµ ln 2πQk.h) rw (µ r ∆P(r ) = P − P ln ∆Pf → w = 2πe(k.h) r wf
wf wf o o atm atm e e wf r→s wf r→s wf wf
(18)
e
w e w
e
e e
wf wf
ee
e
2π (k.h) PI = = Qµ Pwf r ∆P(r )∆P(r)=.rP(r)  ln h 2π2π (ekh) r h) (kQµ. r w PI = µ.ln Pwf ∆P(r ) = rw ln 2π . µ.ln (ekh) rw ∆x rw r rw re r Qµ ∆P(re ) = Pe − Pwf = ln e 2πQk.h) rw (µ re ∆P(re ) be arranged = which can easily = Pe − Pwf to obtain: ln 2π (k.h) rw
P
w Qo maxµ.= PI .ePe . ln rw = PI .P Q o max . e
Pwf
pressure
P
Pwf
∆y (assume ∆x = ∆y)
( (
) )
2π (k.h) . Pe − Pwf kh 2.π ( .re ) Q = µ ln . Pe − Pwf (20) rw r µ. ln e rw and hence from equation 16 above, we can identify the productivity index 2π (PI) of the well as: ( k.h) PI = 2π ( .re ) kh PI = µ.ln r rw µ.ln e (21) rw Q=
( (
) )
This now demonstrates exactly how the quantities k, h, μ, rw and re affect the well productivity. All of these factors behave as we might expect them to physically e.g. as k↑, PI↑; as μ ↑, PI↓ etc. Now consider how this relates to the pressures in the simulation block shown in Figures 27 and 28. In a grid block, the pressure is thought of as being constant throughout the block although we know that it should be varying continuously across the block; we will refer to this as the average block pressure, P . The size of the grid block in
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
29
our example is (Δx, Δy) and, for simplicity, we will assume that, Δx = Δy. Looking at the expression for PI in equation 21 and the quantities we have in the grid block, it is easy to make direct relations for some of them  obviously k, μ and h and also possibly rw and Pwf , although these latter two do not seem to appear in the grid model. The drainage radius, re, and the reservoir pressure, Pe, which appear in the radial model do not appear in the grid model  instead, the block size (Δx, Δy) and average block pressure ( P ) appear. This immediately suggests the following 2 questions: 1. what is the relation between re , and the block size (Δx, Δy)? 2. what is the relation between Pe and the average grid block pressure, P ?
Well at BHFP = Pwf
Grid block pressure P
h ∆x
Pwf
re
=>
re
P
e =
P
Pe
How do we choose re such that Pe =P ?? Relation re <> ∆x, ∆y ??
P ∆y
Pwf rw r re
(assume ∆x = ∆y)
Figure 28 Schematic indicating how the near well pressures relate to the corresponding quantities in a Cartesian grid block
re
rw
∆y
re is where P(re) =P and re = re (∆x, ∆y) but what is the formula ?
∆x
Figure 29 The relation between re and the block dimensions, Δx and Δy.
The issue is defined quite clearly in Figure 28. From this figure, we would like to choose re such that Pe coincides with the average grid block pressure, P . The latter quantity ( P ) is calculated in the simulation itself. In fact, we need to know how to calculate re from the quantities Δx and Δy as indicated in Figure 29 where we show the re as function of Δx and Δy, i.e. re(Δx, Δy). If we know the formula for re(Δx, Δy), then we can calculate the PI (equation 21) and use this in the simulation to couple the quantities Qo (oil flow rate) and P (average P grid block pressure); i.e.
Q o = PI.( P − Pwf ) r 2π( k.h ) ( P( r ) − Pwf ) ln = . µ Q rw
(22)
30
wells in “corner”.− rwwfSw ) Q w = PI w . o ( wf ) Q w = PI w . Also.2 ∆x 2 π( k.8 ro (So ) k rw 7 PI o = 6 r µ o .ln e 5 4 rw 3 2 1 2πkh. ( ro S ( ) ( ) o 2πkh.( P − Pwf ) (24) ln = = .ln1e 0 1 rw Institute of Petroleum Engineering.2 ∆x Q o = PI. 1978) Q o = PI o . PI o The simple Peaceman formula applies to a well in a radial environment (the fivespot rw µ = PI .PP−−PPwf ). the well re ≈ 0. P − P r Qo w w wf configuration is asoclose as we can get to radial using a common 2D Cartesian grid) µ o .ln wf rwsome modification to the simple formula is required for and for Δx = Δy.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 Here.14o . P − Pe .14 ∆x + ∆y re Therefore. HeriotWatt University 31 .PI Δx ≠ πkhbut theo well is isolated (radial flow). .ln2 w+ y 2 µ w ∆xr e rw (25) Figure 30 The 2D areal grid used to compare pressures with the expected radial profiles (from Peaceman.locations or set close to a boundary and these are shown in Figure re ≈ 0 2 ∆x 32.k r (S ) PI w = µ . we have a very simple way of calculating the PI or “well connection 2 2 factor” asre ≈ sometimes called of a well in a simulation grid block. QQ = PI .h ) ( P( r ) − Pwf ) ln = .14 ∆x + ∆y re ≈ 0. y)P − Pfor a quarter fivespot configuration as shown in Figure 30.ln e 9 2 πkh. 11 PI w = 10 r µ w . back to find r equivalent radius where P = Pe in terms of the well block dimension µ Q w (Δx).( P − Pwf ) 2π( P k P ( ).(h )o )( P( r ) − Pwf ) 2 . if we plot the pressure at grid blocks away from the well block vs. by Donald Peaceman (1978).kh. It turns out that the simple relation is (for Δx = Δy): 2 2 ( ) P ≈ 0.k rw Sw 0 1 r PI w = ( ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 µ w .h ) scale as wf block spacingron a logarithmic P( r ) − Pshown in Figure 31. Q o = PI. then we can extrapolate ln the = . grid wf But. it is 0. then: if = 2 Δy. we can set either Qo or Pwf and then calculate the other one from P (and the known PIP This was achieved in a very simple but ingenious way in a classic paper ).k ro (S ) r 2 πkhπk k. we know that: ( ) r 2 π( k.o(. Q rw P Q o = PI. In fact. Peaceman did this by carrying out a 2D numerical solution of the pressure equation on a Cartesian (x.ln rwe w r ∆ re ≈ 0. another pioneer of numerical reservoir simulation. from equation 19.( P − µwf ) P (23) Hence.
∆x + 2 kx ky 1/2 .2) (2.2 (Peaceman's equation) (re / ∆x) = 0.72 For anisotropic permeabilities kx ≠ ky re = 0.1) ro / ∆x r A / ∆x From areal average pressure o 0.4 0.∆y 2 1/2 ky 1/4 k 1/4 + x kx ky Figure 32 Well factors for wells in various positions relative to the boundaries.0) (1.1) (2.2 0.po qµ / kh • On Edge: i = 0 or j = 0 • On Diagonal: i = j •i≠j≠0 0.3 0.4 pij .0) (2.1 0 0.0.193 (re / ∆x) = 0.28 ky kx 1/2 .5 0.433 (re / ∆x) = 0.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 31 Log plot of the pressures from the 2D areal grid used to find re (from Peaceman. 1978) Factor in terms of (re / ∆x) (re / ∆x) = 0. after Kuniansky and Hillstad (1980) 32 .196 implies no flow boundary (re / ∆x) = 0.1 (1.2 0.6 0.
( P − P Qw Qo Figure 33 Near well twophase flows in a Cartesian grid block.14 ∆x + ∆y Q o = PI o .( P − Pwf ) where theQ o 0= PI o .ln rw rw (28) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.as shown in Figure 33.( P − Pwf ) Q w = PI .( P − Pwf ). = > So > Sor . ( P( r ) − Pwf ) µ .(w arePwf ).k ro (So ) PI o = e 2 πkh. we should think carefully before making such changes since the simulated well productivity may be wrong because some (or several) other aspects of the reservoir simulator input data are wrong.2 ∆x 2 From the rradial .e.( P − Pwf ) (26) 33 .ln rw (27) r 2πkh. HeriotWatt University re ≈ 0.and− o wf ) PI ( P S P Q o = PI.ln re e µ w . and PI and PI P − the 2 πkh. Q w = PI w .ln re e µ o .h ) .Gridding And Well Modelling 4 We may find that.( P − Pwf ) h r 2 π( k.ln rw ( PI w = 2πkh. in a given simulation of a field case.h ) ( P( r ) − Pwf ) ln = .2 ∆x ∆y e We now apply the same ideas as were developed above for the single phase case. re ≈ 0.say.h ) ( P( r )Q Pwf ) − k ∆x ln r = 2 π( k. that we input all the known or estimated data but the well in our simulation does not perform like the real case. respectively. Sw > Swc). we may adjust the calculated well PI in the simulation model in order to reproduce the observed field behaviour.( P − Pwf ).14 ∆x 2 + ∆y 2 re ≈ 0. Since two phases are being produced.k ro (So ) π o . Q ln rw = µ Q rw (assume ∆x = ∆y) re ≈ 0. Within limits. It may produce more (higher PI) or it may produce less (lower PI) than expected.k (Sw ) rw rw w r PI w = µ w . Q o = Sw .k r(S ) PI o = 2µkh.two phase+Darcy Law. Well radius = rw P P P Q o = Saturation wf ) PI. then the saturations of both oil and water (So and Sw) must be at values where their relative permeabilities are > 0 (i. Q w = PI w . However.2 ∆x r ≈ 0.k rww(Sw ) and PI w = 2πkh.lnror o rw PI o = µ o . It is now relatively straightforward to extend our discussion on PI and simple well models in a homogeneous single layer system to the flow of two phases .k reS ) µ w . oil and water . rw 2 π(µ .oil and waterwproductivity indices. The former case may be due to the well being stimulated and the second case may be due to well damage. the volumetric production rates of oil and ∆y 2 e ≈ 0 14 ∆x water are given by: 2 2 Q o = PI o .
Using the notation in Figure 34. j. k = PI o j. being = PI same for .g. j. there are additional issues in this system since all four layers may be producing both oil and water and the proportions of each phase may be changing as the saturations (and hence relative permeabilities) change. j. Pwf. = + Qw bottom hole inj T Bw We need to decide how this total flow is made up . 4. k Pwf i . In the above equation. For example. j.khk (S ) P Pπ j. we can also specify µ Q either phase k P . again.oil iork water ioj.e.. k − 2wf i . P . j. Q w inj = Q o ++ Q w = Q T = make Q wk ) (Bw (PI ok PI wk ) a − Pwfk ok For simplicity. k . This situation is shown for a simple four layer system in Figure 34. layer iand−we can calculate the corresponding bottom hole flowing pressure.ln and a similar expression applies for owater. Again.i. Clearly. . Hence. k ro o k we can specify theok Pk flow or = flowing bottom hole pressure and then we can Q ok = PI total − Pwfk the Pk − Pwfk rek calculate the other one using the above relations.ln 2 π( khk (So))k ro rw (29) Q ok = PI ok ( Pk − Pwfk ) = (Pk − Pwfk ) rek µ . Pwf.. what are the separate Qo and Qw 3 Bo Q (QT = Qo + Qw) and how this flow is3allocated from each of the layers in the system. Pwf1 inj wf2 B wf3 wf4 ( ( ( ) ( ( ) ) ) ( ) ) ∑ ∑ ( ) w Bo Q Q w inj=> Q ok +oQ+ Q w ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwf ) ( B wk ) = Tk w (31) Everything is known in the above equation which allows us to determine the allocation Q i . we have not incorporated the separate phase pressure.e. j.and then find the flow of the other and the w Q wflowing pressure). in the layered case. j.ln r PI o i k the flow of o i . − Pwf . re is calculated using Peaceman’s formula. weBo Q o the assumption that+there is Pksingle well flowing pressure. in this example) are: (Pk − Pwfk ) rek µ o . k of all fluidso from eachi . k . 3. Po and Pw. + Qcould specify the well flowing pressure.wk iboth oil and water phases. for each layer.where. (In fact. 2. there is also a gravitational potential in each layer which we may have to take into account. k k =1 Q w= P>=1 = P = P w). w The total oil and water flows in 3 3 r the well are: = ∑ (Q ok + Q wk ) = ∑ ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwfk ) QT Q T = ∑ (Q ok + Q wk ) = ∑ ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwfk ) 1 k =1 Q Tk =k(=Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwf ) k =1 3 k =1 3 Q ok = PI ok ( Pk − Pwfk ) = 2 π( khk ro (So ))k (30) where we have taken the mean block pressure and also the well flowing pressure in Q Tk = (Q + Q ) = ( PI ok + PI wk ) Pk − Pwf layer k asQ o i . 4. we note that the oil flows in layer k (k = 1. suppose we specify the total flow. two phase oil/water) flow in a layered system where the layers are of different permeability. ( ) Bo Q o we In a very Q similar manner. k =Bo Q. k theok o i . In addition. in each layer. k : +Q Pwf (i. Q w inj > Bo Q o + Qw Bw 34 .oj. Qok and Qwk etc.3 Well Modelling in a MultiLayer System The most common case which is modelled is where we have multiphase (e. j. Q . and then w inj = w Bw calculate the individual flows. in the well block but these may be used in a given calculation.
h3. Q B Q w inj > o o Bw + Qw Institute of Petroleum Engineering.S Qw2 2 2 2 w2 Qo3 Qw3 k3.h .k . j. k ( ) (32) where the actual form of the productivity index expression. h1. Sw4 Figure 35 shows the trajectory of a “horizontal” well in a reservoir simulation model. k = PI o i . each well sector intersects a grid block (i.ln ek 4. k − Pwf i .k) even although the well may be Q Tk =through Q wk ) = ( PI oksayPI wk x(i)kdirection and the flows between the well going (Q ok + this block in + the ) P − Pwf sector and the grid are given by an expression of the form: ∑ ∑ ( ) ( ) Q o i . P1.j. it is less likely that Q T = (Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk ) Pk − Pwfk the well connection factors calculated as shown in previous sections will apply for k =1 k =1 a horizontal well. P4. h4. P3. That is. j.1 above in the context of a vertical well.4 Modelling Horizontal Wells rw Q ok = PI ok ( Pk − Pwfk ) = 2 π( khk ro (So ))k (P k − Pwfk ) Qo4 Qw4 k4. Hence. This is broadly true although the basic principle is very similar. PIoi. j. may be rather more Bo Q o Q w inj since (a) theQ w may intersect the block in a more complex way and (b) + well complex = Bw the block is rather different when a horizontal well intersects it in the aspect ratio of that the xdirection well is very close to the zboundaries since Δz is often smaller than Δx or Δy.Gridding And Well Modelling 4 Well completion Layer 1 2 3 4 (a) (b) QT = Qo + Qw Qo1 Qw1 k1. HeriotWatt University 35 .j. j. P i . Sw3 h Figure 34 Well modelling of twophase flow in a multilayered system r µ o .P . Sw1 Qo2 k . k . This is not well represented by the purely radial r/z model grid discussed 3 3 in Section 2.
two vertical wells also shown.calculated or input .Figure 35 Cartesian grid cut from a 3D reservoir model showing two horizontal wells going through the system. for example in a 2D x/z crosssection. Do you know why this is? Clearly the formation volume factors (Bo and Bw) will affect the exact production volumes. The volume of oil produced per day is Qo stb which is actually Qo. Since Bo > Bw. Suppose this is a simple waterflood in an oil/water system. 4. the reservoir volume of injected water per day is Qw. we can apply a range of well controls. This must be taken into account in considering well control by voidage replacement as discussed below. Alternatively.but not quite the same. One of the most common controls is to fix the water injection rate at the injector but with (upper) limits on the well flowing pressure. For a single well. then we can do so to a good approximation by noting that if the production rate of oil 36 . For a simple injector/producer well pair.Bw/Bo stb/day. We now consider controls on pairs. The volumetric production will be approximately balanced with the total production volume being of the order of the injected water volume .indeed. equating these reservoir volumes shows that if we inject water at a rate of Qw (stb/day). when we are injecting water and producing 100% oil. then groups and then clusters of groups of wells in a field .Bo reservoir bbls. we can essentially set the well flowing pressure and then calculate the flows or vice versa but not both and with certain constraints (see above). then the volumetric production rate of oil (in stb/day) is lower than the injected water injection rate (in stb/day).well formation to surface pressure drops etc.5 Hierarchies of Wells and Well Controls Simple well control can be understood in terms of the well models discussed above. The corresponding producer is then controlled by setting the bottom hole flowing pressure and then allowing the calculation of the oil and water phase flows (Qo and Qw). If we wish to set injected Qw to precisely voidage replace whatever is produced. we produce oil at a rate of Qw. we can even couple together the wells from several reservoirs and set more global controls and this will be described briefly. we may set the wellhead pressure and then calculate the Pwf from the .Bw and this will displace (virtually) the same reservoir volume of oil.
− P from the µ o . the student has been presented with a largely nonmathematical description of gridding and well modelling in reservoir simulation. we would gradually adjust the volume of water injected in the simulation B Q Q w on what o + Q w model based inj > o we have just produced (at the last time step say) to the above B wk Q Tk = (Q ok + Qw ) = ( PI ok + At the Pk − Pwf quantity in order to voidage replace.buti . Although it is possible to specify different volumetric flow rates at Bw injector and producer for a compressible fluid. k − Pwf i . j. it is evident that the straightforward P i . Q w inj = + Qw respectively. wf i .ln k quantity of water that must be injected. this can only be done within very tight limits and the pressures tend to go to unrealistic limits e.5 CLOSING REMARKS .g. j. ( ) Note Q o i . the most common option would be to constrain by bottom hole flowing pressure as described above. rek above discussion. 4. depending on whether we over.e.∞. k production rate. respectively.GRIDDING AND WELL MODELLING In this section. the pressure tends to rise to unphysically high levels (i. Q w inj > B w well above fracture pressure of the reservoir rock. PI wk ) producer.ln ek rw ( k wfk ) Q T = ∑ (Q ok + Q wk ) = ∑ ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwfk ) k =1 k =1 3 Gridding And Well Modelling 3 4 and water in our simulation is currently. j.ok ok ( k wfk ) r µ o .Qw inj (in stb/day) is given by: r Q Tk = (Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwf ) ( ( ) ( ) ) ( ) w B Q Q w3inj = o o + Q w 3 B Q T = ∑ (Q ok + w wk ) = ∑ ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk − Pwfk ) Q k =1 k =1 (33) Hence. A more mathematical treatment of these issues will be given as we develop the flow equations and consider their numerical solution in Chapter 5 and 6. HeriotWatt University 37 . k . What volume of injected water 2 π khk ro (So ) must Q inject toP − P replace the reservoirkvolume of these two phases? This is we = PI exactly = Pk − Pwfk ok ok k wfk now quiteQ o i . Qo and Qw. if we overinject ( ) + Q w ). j.less common to constrain all wells by volumetric injection/ that j.j.sincekand. k P j. j. k = PI o i . = PI o i .or underinjected. We can see why if we consider an incompressible fluid where it is clearly impossible for the injection and production rates to be different since the B Qo pressure would ogo to + ∞ or . itkis possible. Bo Q o Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
4 Extension of the Single Phase Pressure Equation to 2D and 3D 2.3 The TwoPhase Pressure Equation 3.5 Mathematical Shorthand for the 3D SinglePhase Pressure Equation THE TWOPHASE FLOW EQUATIONS 3.2.5 The Simplified Pressure and Saturation Equations CLOSING REMARKS 3 4 . The Single Phase Pressure Equation 2.3 The Simplified Compressible Pressure Equation 2.1 The Physics of Single Phase Compressible Systems 2.2 Derivation of the TwoPhase Conservation Equations 3.1 Review of TwoPhase Flow Concepts 3.The Flow Equations 5 CONTENTS 1 2 INTRODUCTION THE SINGLE PHASE PRESSURE EQUATION 2.4 Schematic Strategy for Solving the TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equation 3.
recognising the difference between mass flow rates and volumetric flow rates. • follow the argument on how the full two phase pressure equation is derived. and (b) to then apply Darcy’s Law. • be able to derive the (pressure) equation for single phase compressible flow. Having worked through this chapter the student should: • know that the central principles in deriving the flow equations in porous media are (a) to apply material balance to the flow and accumulation terms. 2 . • know how to apply material balance to a control volume with flow and accumulation terms. In the learning objectives below. there are a number of lengthy derivations of the flow equations. • appreciate (but not memorise) the use of the gradient (∇) and divergence (∇. what a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) is and why it is difficult to solve. in the context of the single phase compressible flow equation.) operators from vector calculus in writing the multiphase flow equations. • be able to apply conservation + Darcy’s law in the two phase case to arrive at the two phase flow equations for compressible fluids and rock. • be able to identify the relation of each of the terms in the two phase pressure equation to viscous. gravity and capillary forces. • be able to reproduce (in words and diagrams) the outline solution scheme for the two phase pressure equations for both the full equations and for the simplified pressure and saturation equations. Dh =k/(μφcf) • understand the extension of the single phase pressure equation to 2D.LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Note that in this chapter. we clarify what parts of this the student should know and be able to reproduce and/or apply in an exam question and what parts need only be appreciated or understood at a general level. • be able to work through all of the simplifying assumptions on the single phase compressible flow equation to arrive at the much simpler pressure equation (linear PDE) for slightly compressible flow involving the hydraulic diffusivity. • understand be able to describe the basic physics of single phase compressible flow through porous media. The student should work through all of these in detail and understand each step in the process. • know physically.
to derive the flow equations we simply use mass balance + Darcy’s law. So. We do not usually think of fluid flow laws as being mass flow laws. the principal flow law is Darcy’s law (either for one or two phases) which is a volumetric flow law. from high P to low P). Δt. INTRODUCTION In the course so far. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. However. as will be evident below. You should be able to follow all the details of the derivations of these equations since only elementary undergraduate mathematics is involved. is proportional to the pressure gradient. then the sum of all the mass that flows into (+) the system and out of it () is the change of mass in that block. Within a porous medium. Δt). we have not yet studied the mathematical equations which underpin the whole subject of reservoir simulation. usually denoted Q. The general approach to the flow equations is basically the same for both single and twophase flow. The same principle is used in the derivation of these equations viz. some simplified cases of the equations are considered in order to establish some important physical insights into these equations. we have used many of the concepts of day to day numerical simulation as it is applied in reservoir engineering. Mass balance simply states that over a given time period (say. (Note the minus sign here since fluids flow down the pressure gradient. Once we have set up the mass balance between the flows and the accumulations. However. only the p and φ quantities can change). We start with the single phase flow equation for a compressible fluid and go on to develop the twophase flow equations. We show that the flow equations are nonlinear partial differential equations (PDEs) which can usually not be solved analytically. This chapter introduces the underlying equations of flow through porous media which are solved in a reservoir simulation code. Q ~ (dP/dx) for a single one dimensional system oriented along the x. A control volume can be thought of as a typical isolated grid block in the system. in Darcy’s law. That is. the application of mass (material) balance between flow and accumulation and then the application of Darcy’s Law. That is. HeriotWatt University 3 . We first derive a mass balance between the flows and the accumulation (local mass build up or decline) in a local control volume. the volumetric flow rate.direction. implies the difference in the quality (pφΔxΔyΔz) between times t and t + Δt (of course. This section will introduce you to these equations in a stepby step manner. we then need some expressions to describe these mass flows. it is simply a mathematical way of expressing something that is a fact.The Flow Equations 5 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHAPTER 5 The central activity of reservoir simulation is the numerical solution of the multiphase flow equations in real reservoir systems. We note that the mass balance equation that we will set up must be correct. where the operator. 1. This is shown schematically for single phase fluid flow in Figure 1.
z. Other features are also different from single phase flow. for a compressible fluid/rock system. (We return to the topic of numerical solution of the flow equation in Chapter 6).e.φ. If we have a way of finding P(x.y.j Change in mass over ∆t 4 ∆m = ∑ (ρ.Q) m . In Section 3.∆y. we will take the latter course of action at this point.∆x.∆t m=1 where we then substitute Darcy's law Figure 1 The basic principles of Mass Balance + Darcy’s Law as the basis for all equations for flow through porous media. 4 . In the twophase equations. The pressure distribution in space is the main unknown in the system and we need to find this as a function of time as the system evolves.j+l Qj+l/2 Qil/2 i1.t). Indeed. And Darcy's law is: i.t). In Section 2. except for some special simple cases).∆t m =1 where m counts over the 4 neighbours.e. or (ii) we may be able to simplify the equation by making various assumptions that then allow us to solve the equation analytically. it turns out to be a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE). the simplified equation that arises is none other than the main equation used in single phase well testing. This is essentially a pressure equation since this is the only quantity we need to find. There is no known analytical solution to this equation for the general case.∆z i.y. You may remember that we discussed the idea of an analytical model in the opening section of this course (Chapter 1 Section 1). j − Pi −1. there is also a saturation equation. the Qs are volumetric fluid flows. we find the flows from Darcy’s law etc. we go on to derive the equations of twophase flow in their complete form i.Mass in block (i. we can then find the flow rates from the gradient of this quantity i.j Qi −1/ 2 kA ( Pi . In fact. even the apparently simple single phase pressure equation cannot be solved using “well known” mathematical functions. If we are faced with this difficult nonlinear PDE for the pressure there are two things we might do to solve it as follows: (i) we could possibly use a numerical method to solve it. we also have a pressure equation but. in addition. then the twophase equivalent will certainly not be soluble since it is even more complicated (again.Q)m .j) = ρ. Although we can obtain the singlephase pressure equation for a compressible fluid/ rock system in 1D.jl Qi+l/2 i+1. we use Darcy’s law. That is. for a threedimensional (3D) system. we start by deriving the singlephase flow equation for a compressible system. once we solve for the pressure. pressure is denoted. This sort of “completes the circle” since we use Darcy’s law to derive the pressure equation and. if the singlephase pressure equation is not analytically soluble in general. µ i−1/ 2 ∆x Therefore: 4 ∆t (ρφ∆x∆y∆z) = ∑ (ρ. Clearly. j ) in x direction = − . P(x.z. Section 2 describes how we simplify the full equation for a compressible fluid in order to obtain an equation that we can solve.j Qjl/2 i.
1 The Physics of Single Phase Compressible Systems Before deriving the single phase pressure equation. say by injecting fluid (identical to that already in the reservoir). Po and Pw (where Pc (Sw) = PoPw). These concepts have been fully reviewed in Chapter 2 and they are also explained in the Glossary. which we can consider as being essentially onedimensional (1D). Imagine the “reservoir” is horizontal and has two wells in it at either end as shown in Figure 2a.The Flow Equations 5 such as the capillary pressure. (a) Injector Well Long thin (1D) reservoir Producer Well Figure 2 (a) Schematic of a long thin “reservoir” containing compressible fluid and rock. see Glossary). (b) pressure profile along the system at various times from t = 0. consider first the “physics” of what is happening in a compressible singlephase system. leading to two different phase pressures. We take the location of Well 1 as being at x = 0. is also shown. (b) Pin t=t1 t=t2 t=t3 P Po 0 t=0 x L Pout = Po Now consider what happens to the pressure profile if we cause the pressure to rise suddenly at Well 1. The fluid and the rock have compressibilities. which we can consider as being essentially onedimensional (1D). then clearly the pressure in the system will reach a constant value. HeriotWatt University 5 . t2 etc. Figure 2 shows a long thin “reservoir” containing compressible fluid and rock. Pc (Sw). Is this pressure disturbance immediately “felt” at Well 2 at x = L? The answer is of course “no” since the pressure wave will take some time to transmit from Well 1 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. and Well 2 is located at x = L.this shows the pressure disturbance travelling (“diffusing”) along the system. The bottom hole pressure also equalises in both wells and will also be Po. THE SINGLE PHASE PRESSURE EQUATION 2. P(x)=Po. 2. . This is shown as the dashed line (at t = 0) in Figure 2b where the “pressure profile” through the reservoir. Po (ignoring the gravitational potential since the reservoir is also “thin” in the zdirection). cf and cr (where cf >> cr. The twophase Darcy law also introduces the concept of relative permeability into the flow equations. If the wells are both shutin and the reservoir is left to achieve steadystate. t1 .
• The pressure “wave” would propagate or “diffuse” through the reservoir as shown in Figure 2b. i. P(x. • At t = t3. the “slower” the wave propagates. the pressure profile P(x.t) = P1. Well 2 (still at fixed pressure Po) will go to steadystate flow exactly at flowrate. for the main case considered above. P1(x = 0.to Well 2. the pressure profile. • Likewise. For example. On the other hand. suppose we simply pumped into Well 1 at constant rate q1(now fixed) and we held the bottom hole pressure of Well 2 to be constant at P(x =L) = Po (the original reservoir pressure). finding an equation for P(x. At a short time after this disturbance. the pressure disturbance just reaches the produced Well 2 as shown in Figure 2b. we leave it shutin. nothing would happen at Well 2. the outcome is quite predictable. It also introduces the ideas of boundary conditions. you can probably visualise that the sequence of events would be as follows: • Firstly. t2. at a later time. q1. t3. Well 1 is a rateconstrained injector and Well 2 is a pressure–constrained producer. Well 2 must start to flow in order to maintain the pressure at P = Po (this works like a backpressure regulator). the pressure wave starts to be felt all across the reservoir such that the flowrate at Well 1 is (still fixed) at q1 and the pressure settles to a constant value P1.t2). • At a certain time. • As time proceeds (t → ∞). denoted.t)). it is shown as. Likewise. as t → ∞.e.t → ∞) will tend to a straight line as shown by the inclined dashed line in Figure 2b. we also need to appreciate what boundary conditions to apply in a given situation. That is. Note that the larger the fluid compressibility (cf) or porosity (φ). q1(t).e. at early times up to t2 and a little later. But what happens at Well 2? This depends on what we do at Well 2: Suppose. We have been quite explicit here in identifying the boundary conditions with different well constraints.t1). Hence. at Well 1 say at t = t1. we would be varying (reducing) q1 with time. This “thought experiment” is extremely useful to appreciate the physics of flow in a compressible system. It would still have pressure Po and would not be flowing. P(x. the “speed” of this wave is governed by the “diffusivity” which is quantified by k/(cfφμ) as we will show later in this chapter. We would keep pumping in at (decreasing) rate q1(t) until we had “blownup” the pressure in the reservoir – like pumping up a car tyre – to pressure P1. 6 . not only do we need a way of modelling the development of pressure in our reservoir (i. is shown schematically in Figure 2b. the q1 value would reduce to q1 = 0 and the reservoir pressure – and the pressure in both wells – would settle to P(x. into Well 1 such that it maintained a constant pressure.t). What would happen for this case? With a little thought. what will eventually happen? If we were injecting a volumetric flow rate. • At t → ∞.
ρ)i. ρ.∆t (2a) the fluid Llikewise: The mass of fluid flowing OUT of block i over time Δt = (qρ)i+1/2. Let us now apply the mass conservation conditions as were applied in the introductory section of this chapter. In Figure 3. Can you explain the sequence of events that would occur in the simple 1D system of Figure 2 if both wells were pressure constrained to Pin (Well 1) and Po (Well 2) with Pin > Po? 2.The Flow Equations 5 EXERCISE 1. and constant crosssectional area. Δx. Mass conservation states that: The mass accumulation (increase or decrease) in block i over a time step.1 2 . The volumetric flows across the boundaries of block i are given by: qi1/2 and qi+1/2 as shown in Figure 3. The fluid has density. ∆t The mass that flows IN over time ∆t =  The mass that flows OUT over time ∆t (1) We can easily write mathematical expressions for each of the terms in equation 1 as follows: Volumetric rate flowing IN to block i = of in flow to block i over time ∆t The mass of fluid density of x x ∆t = (q. Flow is considered to be in the positive xdirection (i increasing). φ(P). Throughout this derivation we refer to the control volume shown as block i in Figure 3 where certain terminology is also explained. A. the dimensions of these quantities are volume/time and typical units might be STB/day.Δt (2b) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 7 . we have divided up the xaxis into increments of (constant) size. the porosity is. m3/sec etc. The porosity is denoted as φ and it too may depend on pressure. ρ(P). φi. which may depend on pressure i.e.2 The Single Phase Pressure Equation We now return to the task of deriving the singlephase flow equations for a compressible system. in block i.
Therefore.12 . 2 3 Figure 3 Control volume grid block for application of material balance for the single phase flow equation.∆t i − 12 i + 12 (3) − (qρ)i+ 1 .∆t 2 − (qρ)i . However.Boundary i1/2 i1 Boundary i+1/2 Blo i ck q i1 / 2 ∆x q i+1 i+1 /2 x ∆x ∆x Notation: 1 The boundaries of block i are denoted (i1/2) between blocks (i1)and i (i+1/2) between blocks i and i+1 q(i1/2) denotes the volumetric flow rates across the (i1/2) boundary q(i+1/2) denotes the volumetric flow rates across the (i+1/2) boundary 3 Note – units bbl/day.(qρ)i + 12 . you can think of ρi1/2 being some sort of “average” density between ρi1 and ρi. respectively. respectively.∆t . m /s etc… The porosity of block i = φi. the permeability is ki etc. We now turn to the alternative way of expressing the mass of fluid in a grid block i at the different times. t and t+Δt. the change in mass of fluid in block i over time Δt is given by: Change in mass over Δt in block i = [(qρ) = − [(qρ) = (qρ)i .1 2 ] ]∆t Thus. the densities in blocks (i1) and i. notation is given below. In fact. Note that we have changed the signs consistently in the final step of equation 3 for convenience below. we have discussed this matter of grid block to grid block average in Chapter 4.. i1/2? This seems a bit strange. Which quantity do you think we mean when we refer to ρi1/2 : the density “on the boundary”. equation 3 expresses the change in mass due to flow that occurs in block i using quantities – volumetric flow rates and densities – defined on the boundaries. Therefore: 8 . This is shown in Figure 4 where we denote the mass of fluid in grid block i at times t and (t + Δt) by (ρφΔxA)t and (ρφΔxA)t+Δt .
A Figure 4 Expressions for the mass of singlephase fluid in a grid block = = We now apply the material balance condition (equation 1) by equating the expressions in equations 3 and 4 as follows: [(ρφ ) t + ∆t − ( ρφ )t .( ρφ )t ∆t ] qρ qρ − A i−1 2 A i+ 1 2 =− ∆x (6) where we have taken the (constant) area.ρ) i+ 1 2 .The mass (t + Δt) at t [(ρφ)t+Δt . Ro ck Po Sp re ac e ∆x The mass of fluid in block i = = Area = A (Pore volume of block i) x density (Volume of block x porosity) x density (∆x.∆x.A.( u. This becomes: [(ρφ) t + ∆t . u.)ρ ρφ. equation 6 is exactly true since it is simply a statement of mass balance. As it stands.(ρφ)t]. we can simplify equation 6 a little more by noting that q/A is the Darcy velocity.∆t 2 2 ] [ ] (5) Now divide through equation 5 by the (constant) Δx. A.1 .ρ)i. HeriotWatt University 9 .ΔxA (4) where we have used the fact that Δx and A are constants in equation 4.(ρφ)t ∆t ] = − [(u.AΔt to obtain: [(ρφ ) t + ∆t .φ.1 2 ∆x ] (7) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. There are no assumptions in this equation. to the inner parenthesis on the RHS of equation 6. Indeed.The Flow Equations 5 The change of mass of fluid in block i over the time from t to t+Δt = = The mass at .∆xA = − (qρ )i+ 1 − (qρ )i.
look at the structure of equation 10. − = − ∂x ∆x → 0 ∆x and therefore: [ ] (9) ∂(ρφ) ∂( u. ∆t → 0 and [(ρφ ) t + ∆t .e. Clearly: Lim.e. ∂t ∂P ∂t 10 (13) . it is “exact” in the sense discussed above. Before going on to use Darcy’s law (for u). in that its validity depends on whether Darcy’s law is or is not a good assumption.). Equation 12 still does not have pressure (P(x. then this could be because the fluid density went down (the fluid expands) and the rock porosity went up (the rock contracts or compresses).t)) does not explicitly appear in equation 10.ρ )i − 12 ∂( u. Hence. We may substitute this form of the Darcy law directly into equation 10 (taking care with the signs) to obtain: ∂(ρφ) ∂ ρk ∂P = ∂t ∂x µ ∂x (12) This equation is now inexact. in particular look at the symmetry between ρ and φ. We now assume Darcy’s law for u. that is: u= k ∂P .ρ) = − ∂t ∂x (10) Equation 10 is the differential form of the conservation equation and again. µ ∂x (11) (as given in the Glossary etc. However. they can be written ρ(P) and φ(P). if the mass in a grid block stayed the same with time. ∂(ρφ)/∂t = 0. These two quantities appear in an identical manner in the LHS of this equation. We therefore manipulate the LHS of equation 12 as follows using the chain rule of differentiation: ∂(ρφ) ∂(ρφ) ∂P = .ρ )i+ 12 .(u. it was necessary to use a flow law such as Darcy’s law since pressure (i. we know that φ and ρ depend locally only on pressure i. However.ρ ) Lim.which is still an exact statement of fact. Thus.t)) explicitly shown on the LHS. Darcy’s law is our “link” between fluid velocities and pressure gradients.( ρφ )t ∆t ] = ∂( ρφ ) ∂t (8) (u. P(x.e. We can take the limits of the difference equation 7 at Δt → 0 and Δx → 0 to obtain the equivalent differential equation. i. it simply has a term ∂(φρ)/∂t.
we obtain equation 17 below: u=− k ∂P ∂x − ρg cos θ µ (17) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. we will take the second approach. quantities such as C(P). by its nature. = ∂t ∂x µ ∂x Some points should be noted about equation 15. in the following section. With a simplified equation. a numerical solution will be approximate although it is an approximation to the full equation (equation 15. we could include gravity effects by taking the Darcy equation with gravity as follows: u=− ∂z k ∂P ∂x − ρg ∂x µ (16) (instead of equation 11). substituting equation 13 back into equation 12 we obtain a “true” single phase pressure equation as follows: ∂( ρφ ) ∂P ∂ ρk ∂P . therefore.The Flow Equations 5 Thus. but the simplifications may have “thrown away” some of the important physics. the unknown pressure. then (∂z/∂x) = cos θ where θ is the angle of incline. “depend on the answer”. (iii) Going back to equation 10. By “nonlinear” we mean that the coefficients in the equation – the “input”.depend on the quantity we are trying to find. term. we may have an exact solution. μ(P) etc. HeriotWatt University 11 . (ii) Following on from point (i) above. = ∂P ∂t ∂x µ ∂x (14) where we can consider the term ∂(φρ)/∂P as a generalised fluid and rock compressibility. such equations can only usually be solved by one or two approaches: • By solving them numerically where we can handle the nonlinearities using certain types of iterative methods (see Chapter 6). in this case).t). We will not go into mathematical detail but such problems are notoriously difficult to solve analytically for general cases. P(x. ρ(P). as follows: (15) (i) It is a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE). C(P). In other words. If the 1D system is at constant incline. C( P ). Clearly. z(x). • We may simplify the equation to the extent that it becomes soluble. In fact. Equation 14 would then become: ∂P ∂ ρk ∂P . if you like. .
Our hope is to get to a simpler equation which will have analytical solutions for given boundary conditions. That pressure gradients. cf. in a sense. Applying Assumptions 1 and 2 results in the following simplification of equation 14: 12 . For a real system. cf >> crock). = ∂P ∂t ∂x µ ∂x (14) We first list the assumptions which we will make in the above equation and then we will go on to examining their consequences. Permeability and porosity. ρ ∂P Assumption 1 is probably quite reasonable since viscosity does not vary greatly for most oils (or water) over small pressure ranges. we will indicate below how we can turn this assumption round. which is repeated below: ∂( ρφ ) ∂P ∂ ρk ∂P . However.e. (18) 2.This could simply lead to the generalised single phase equation as follows: ∂( ρφ ) ∂ρ ∂ ρk ∂ρ . to make clear what is happening to the LHS of the equation we start from equation 14. Assumption 4 – fluid compressibility. for this to be the case. The second part of Assumption 2 is that the rock is incompressible and this is quite reasonable (usually. does not vary with pressure. μ. we will take equation 15 as our starting point and introduce some simplifying assumptions. Indeed. cf = 1 ∂ρ ≈ cons tan t .3 The Simplified Compressible Pressure Equation In this section. i.e. are constant. (with x and P). the system homogeneous and the rock is incompressible. this is indeed a very simplifying assumption. (∂P/∂x). that the system is homogeneous in k (and φ). .e. are “small” such that: ∂P ≈0 ∂x 2 4 The fluid has a constant compressibility. k and φ. cf. is constant (with x and P). Assumption 2 is quite drastic since it says that permeability (k) is constant through the reservoir i. we would normally aim to derive a simplified linear PDE. Assumption 3 is rather odd: it is clearly designed to get rid of “difficult” terms with terms like (∂P/∂x)2 in them. In fact. = µ ∂x − ρg cos θ ∂P ∂t ∂x but this is fairly straightforward. Simplifying Assumptions 1 2 is 3 Viscosity. is again quite reasonable for most (noncritical) reservoir oils. i.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering.e. + ρ 2 ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂P ∂x ∂x Equation 22 can be then simplified as follows: (22) Now use Assumption 3 to eliminate the first term on the RHS of equation 23 above (i. + ρ 2 ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x (21) and use the fact that ρ is a function of pressure only. 2 = ∂t (µφc f ) ∂x (26) where the constant in this form is normally referred to as the hydraulic diffusivity. ∂2 P ∂ ∂P ∂ρ ∂P ρ = . ∂P = ∂ ρ. Dh=k/(μφcf). to further expand the (∂ρ/∂P) in equation 21 as follows: ∂2 P ∂ ∂P ∂ρ ∂P ∂P ρ = . cf (assumption 4). = ρ ∂P ∂t µ ∂x ∂x which rearranges quite simply to: (19) µφ ∂ρ . .e. to obtain: 2 µφc f ∂P = ∂ P 2 k ∂t ∂x (25) where the coefficient (μφcf/k) is a constant. HeriotWatt University 13 . ∂P k ∂P ∂t ∂x ∂x Now expand the RHS of equation 20 as follows using the product rule: (20) ∂2 P ∂ ∂P ∂ρ ∂P ρ = . ρ(P). + ρ 2 ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂P ∂x 2 2 (23) ∂P ≈ 0 ) to obtain: ∂x 2 µφ ∂ρ ∂P = ρ ∂ P 2 k ∂P ∂t ∂x (24) Note that we can divide both sides of 24 by ρ and use the fact that the fluid has constant compressibility.The Flow Equations 5 ∂ρ ∂P k ∂ ∂P φ . i. This is more commonly written with the constant on the RHS as follows: 2 ∂P k ∂ P .
h (29) 14 . The Mathematics of Diffusion. (ii) Analytical solutions are available for a range of boundary conditions (see Crank. 2nd edition. (j + 1/2) for the flow from block (i. the volume rate of flow into (sign +) or out of (sign ) the well in block (i. as shown in Figure 5. respectively. This well again injects or produces exactly the same fluid as is in the reservoir already.e. 2. Likewise.j) ˜ is described by q ij which is the volumetric flow rate per unit volume of block (i.e.j) is as follows: density of injected or ˜ Mass rate of flow into or out of block (i.j).and ydirections are given by. j) produced fluid.h) and Ay = (Δx. the control volume is now grid block (i.h). rather than x) equation 27 becomes the following: ∂P D h ∂ ∂P = r ∂t r ∂r ∂r (28) which is a well known equation of well testing (Stanislav and Kabir. in radial coordinates.Equation 26 is now a linear PDE and has the form of a linear diffusion equation as follows: ∂2 P ∂P = Dh 2 ∂t ∂x Note the following about the above equations (26 or 27): (27) (i) It is the simplified (slightly) compressible 1D flow equation in a linear porous media i.4 Extension of the Single Phase Pressure Equation to 2D and 3D For the 2D case. (iii) In its radial form (i. ρij ˜ = q ij × ρij ∆x∆y. in Cartesian form.j) → (i.j + 1) etc. r. The well flow rate into block (i. In addition. as listed on Figure 5. this equation has a number of well known analytical solutions for various boundary conditions. 1959). The flows are shown at the boundaries as before and are labelled as (i.j). Oxford Clarendon Press. j) = q ij × × volume block (i. 1990). Ax = (Δy. For this definition.1/2) for flow from (i1) → i in the xdirection. The flow areas in the x. as shown in Figure 5. we show a source/sink term due to a (single phase) well. ˜ possible units for q ij are m3/ s or bbl/day etc. (iv) The reason these equations have many readymade analytical solutions available is because these diffusion equations are wellknown and are identical in form to the equations of heat conduction which have been studied for many years (Carslaw and Jaeger. 1975).
x.flows) (well source / sink term) (30) The accumulation term is the same as previously (Figure 4) as follows: Change in mass in block (i.h )t + ∆t −(φρ ∆x∆yh )t = (φρ )t + ∆t − (φρ )t ∆x∆yh (31) We then equate expressions in equations 30 and 31 to obtain: [ ] [(φρ ) t + ∆t ˜ = − (qρ )i + 1 − (qρ )i − 1 .∆t + q ij ρij ∆x∆y.j) Are Ay a.h ] ] [ ] (32) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. the flow areas in the x and y directions.j).1/2 = (i1) → i i + 1/2 = i→ (i+1) j . A x= ∆y .h.j) between time t and t+Δt = (φρ ∆x∆y.1/2 = (j1) → j j + 1/2 = j→(j+1) x (i) i1 .h We now apply the material balance equation as follows: Change in mass in block (i.j i.j) over time Δt due to flows across boundaries and the well = (qρ )i − 1 − (qρ )i + 1 . j control volume i .∆t − (qρ ) j + 1 − (qρ ) j − 1 .j i.j1 i+1 .∆t 2 2 2 2 [ ] [ ] (the x .j Thickness = h Note for the control volume. HeriotWatt University 15 .h =∆ ∆x ∆y Are a. block (i.h∆t 2 2 2 2 [ − (φρ )t ∆x∆y. Ax and Ay are given by: h Figure 5 The 2D x/y Grid Showing the Control Volume. Block (i.The Flow Equations 5 y (j) Well Mij NOTATION i.j+ 1 i.∆t + (qρ ) j − 1 − (qρ ) j + 1 ∆t + q ij ρij ∆x∆y.flows) (the y .
ρ) j − 1 ∆y 2 ] ˜ + (qρ)ij (34) Again.A x ] − [(qρ) j+ 12 − (qρ) j − 1 2 ∆y.y. where we choose z as the vertical direction (of gravity): ux = − ∂z k x ∂P − ρg µ ∂x ∂x (38a) 16 . ∂t ∂P ∂t And on the RHS of equation 35 (or 36) we must use Darcy’s law. The flow areas. is given as follows. Δy and → 0. gives: ∂ u yρ (qρ) ˜ ∂( u xρ) ∂(φρ) − + =− ∂t ∂x ∂y ( ) (35) This is the 2D mass conservation equation is still exact in that no approximations have yet been made.ρ) 2 i + 12 − ( u. exactly as before: ∂(φρ) ∂(φρ) ∂P = . Δx.y. Clearly.Δy. the pressure P(x. (uρ)i + 12 = [(φρ) qρ ) as follows: Ax i+ 1 t + ∆t − (φρ)t ∆t ] = − [(u.Ay. uz) to give: ∂ u yρ ∂(φρ) =− ∂t ∂x ( ) − ∂ u y . x. Dividing through by Δx.Δt and cancelling gives the following: [(φρ) t + ∆t − (φρ)t ∆t ] = − [(qρ) i + 12 − (qρ)i − 1 2 ∆x.ρ ∂y ( ) − ∂( u z .g.z.t) (in 2D) or P(x.ρ) j+ 12 − ( u. and z. taking limits as Δt. may then be divided into the q’s to give Darcy velocity terms (e.ρ) ˜ + (qρ) ∂z (36) As before.t) (in 3D) does not yet appear.ρ)i − 1 ∆x 2 ] − [(u. Ax and Ay.h. y. We must manipulate the LHS of equation 35 (or 36) to yield. we can easily generalise this to 3D by simply adding a zflow term (for vertical flows.where we note that the signs have been adjusted slightly on the RHS. (37) Darcy’s law in each of the 3 directions.A y ] + (q˜ ρ) (33) ij where we have used the fact that ΔxΔyh = ΔxAx and ΔxΔyh = Δy.
V = x + y + x ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂V x ∂V y ∂V z ∇. on a vector V: ∂V ∂V ∂V ∇. Again. Note also that the equation is rather lengthy and it would be useful if there was a more shorthand way of writing this equation. P ∂P ∂P ∂P ∇P = i + j + k ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂P ∂P ∂P ∇P = i + j + k ∂x ∂y ∂z Institute of Petroleum Engineering. ∇. Before doing this.V = x + y + x ∂x ∂y V ∂z x where vector V = VVy where vector V = VVz y Vz x (ii) The gradient operator. we review the following mathematical concepts: Mathematical Concepts Review: Review the meaning of: (i) The divergence operator. = µ ∂x − ρg ∂x + ∂y µ ∂y − ρg ∂y ∂P ∂t ∂x + ∂ ρk z ∂P ˜ ∂y − ρg + (qρ) ∂z µ (39) Equation 39 is the 3D generalisation of equation 14 including gravity and also a well (source/sink) term. HeriotWatt University 17 . this is a 3D nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) which cannot generally be solved analytically. kx ≠ ky ≠ kz. ∇.5 Mathematical Shorthand for the 3D SinglePhase Pressure Equation In order to write equation 39 in a more compact form we must use the notation of vector calculus. on a scalar. This is dealt with in the following section..The Flow Equations 5 uy = − k y ∂P ∂z ∂y − ρg ∂y µ k z ∂P − ρg µ ∂z (38b) uz = − (38c) where we note that the permeability may be anisotropic i. such as pressure. 2.e. Using the above expressions (equations 38ac) for the Darcy velocity along with equation 37 for the LHS in the 3D equations 36 gives: ∂(φρ) ∂P ∂ ρk x ∂P ∂z ∂ ρk y ∂P ∂z .
there is a little more “twophase physics” that we must be aware of before proceeding. We apply the mass conservation equation to each of the phases separately.(4) in Section 2. For this reason. 18 . In certain respects. oilwater.(ρu) + (qρ) ∂P ∂t (41) After the Darcy law has been used – as in equation 38 – the vector calculus version of this equation becomes: ∂(φρ) ∂P ρ ˜ . as we will develop below. = ∇. + = ∂P ∂t ∂x µ ∂x ∂y µ ∂y Simplify this equation as far as possible by making all the Assumptions (1) . Using this notation. airwater. y. THE TWOPHASE FLOW EQUATIONS 3. gasoil. equation 35 (the exact conservation equation) becomes: ∂(φρ) ˜ = −∇. 3. j and k are the unit vectors in the x.(∇P − ρg∇z) + (qρ) µ ∂P ∂t (42) We will not expand on equation 42 here but it can be seen that it does give a compact way of writing the 3D pressure equation.2). Exercise 2 The following equation is the full 2D equation for a compressible fluid (in the absence of gravity and with no well terms): ∂(φρ) ∂P ∂ ρk x ∂P ∂ ρk y ∂P . the approach is very similar to that used for singlephase flow in Section 2 above. (iii) see also operations on a tensor (Chapter 2. However.where i. we first review some of the key concepts from twophase flow (see Chapter 2 or the Glossary).1 Review of TwoPhase Flow Concepts We now consider the equations which govern the flow of two phases through a porous medium e. This approach can also be used to write the 3D multiphase flow equations. k.3 but keep kx ≠ ky (although both are constant).(ρu) + (qρ) ∂t or expanding the LHS of equation 40 as before: (40) ∂(φρ) ∂P ˜ = −∇. Section 3.and zdirections.g.
L2. Dimensions are M. Definition: A very useful quantity to define is the oil flux.The Flow Equations 5 Key Concepts: Ensure you are familiar with the following main ideas on twophase flow (where we assume oil/water in the examples below): • Phase saturations. Ans: Mass oil = Volume of oil x density of oil = (∆x∆y∆z φ So) x ρo Mass oil = ∆x∆y∆z ( φSoρo) = ∆x∆y∆zρosc (φ So/Bo) ∆z k Oil . we will use the material balance in a control volume as shown in Figures 6 and 7. krw(Sw) and kro(So) uo =  k k ro µo k k rw µw ∂Po ∂z ∂x − ρo g ∂x ∂Pw ∂z ∂x − ρw g ∂x uw =  • Phase pressures.day1. where So + Sw = 1 • Formation volume factors. The oil flux. So and Sw.S o Wa ter .T1 and possible units would be kg. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 19 . The oil (water) flux is the mass rate of flow of oil (water) per unit cross sectional area.ft2. ρo = ρosc/Bo and ρosc is the oil density at standars conditions (likewise for ρw). for example. • The twophase Darcy Law (with gravity) and relative permeabilities.S Ro c ∆x w ∆y Likewise: Mass water = ∆x∆y∆z (φSwρw) = ∆x∆y∆zρwsc (φ Sw/Bw) 3. Jw. Exercise 3 Calculate the mass of oil and water phases for the control volume (grid block) shown using the usual notation. and the concept of capillary pressure.m2. Pc (Sw) = Po–Pw. Sw. Jo.2 Derivation of the TwoPhase Conservation Equations As for the single phase case. Po and Pw. and the water flux. Bo and Bw (units RB/STB) where. Jo (and Jw) can easily be related to other more familiar quantities as follows: consider the flow area across the block area shown below. as a constraint of the phase pressure difference at various saturations.s1 or lbs.
(Where we note that qo/A = uo. can be used to obtain an expression for the flux. Oil tric ate me olu low R V F qo ∆y ∆x The volumetric flow rate of oil. A z y. by definition the above quantity is the flux. the flux expressions are: J o = ( u o ρo ) .∆ =∆ Jo= o o = A ∆z ρ . the Darcy velocity of oil). A of oil across A oil.Oil Flux: Are a. Jo . Clearly: ∆y ∆z i1 Are =A a =∆ z.ρo (43) Across area.uo Bo Figure 6 Definition of oil (water) flux. ∆ i Oil Wa te i+1 r S S o y ∆x w Bo x un (i1 dary /2) ∆x ∆x r Bo un (i+ dary 1/2 ) Wa te Oil Flu id (φ) Pe r Po mea ros bili ity ty = =φ k Figure 7 Control Volume (block i) for TwoPhase Flow Mass flow rate of oil volumetric flow rate density of = x = Q o .q ρosc. qo. ρo u ρ qρ ∴ Mass flow rate of oil per unit area = o o = u oρo = o osc (44) A Bo But. Thus. Jo (Figure 6). Jo. J w = ( u w ρw ) (45) 20 .
∆t (51) 2 2 ] [ ] Divide through the above equation by ΔxΔyΔzΔt to obtain: [(φS ρ ) o o t + ∆t − (φSoρo )t ∆t ] = .1 A.The Flow Equations 5 However. ~15.( J o )i. introducing the densities of oil and water at standard conditions. we obtain (by definition above): u ρ J o = o osc Bo u ρ J w = w wsc Bw (46) Now use the flux expression to perform the mass balance on control block i in Figure 7.is calculated.1 A.∆t )i.1 2 oil i. HeriotWatt University 21 . change in static mass of oil in block i .∆t (49) 2 2 [ ] (where we note in Figure 7 that A = ΔyΔz) The accumulation .i.7 psia.1 2 ∆x ] (52) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 60°F and 14.[(J ) o i+1 2 − ( J o )i. The expression for this is given in the Exercise above: Change of mass in block over Δt (accumulation) = Mass in block at t+Δt – Mass in block at t = ( ∆x∆y∆zφSo ρo )t + ∆t − ( ∆x∆y∆zφSo ρo )t = (φSo ρo )t + ∆t − (φSo ρo )t ∆x∆y∆z (50) Equate the expressions in equations 49 and 50 to obtain [ ] [(φS ρ ) o o t + ∆t − (φSoρo )t ∆x∆y∆z = . The flow terms are as follows: Mass of oil flowing into block i over time step Δt Mass of oil flowing out of block i over time step ∆t Flux of = .6°C and 1 bar).( J o )i + 1 − ( J o )i.∆t = ( J o .1 2 (47) Mass of oil flowing out of block i over time step Dt = (Jo. Therefore.A. we wish to work with reference to standard conditions (sc ⇒ standard conditions.e.A.Area. ρosc and ρwsc.Δt)i1/2 (48) Change in mass of oil in block over ∆t due to flow = − ( J o )i+ 1 .
Taking limits as Δt. Δx → 0. (56) ∂ φSw ∂ uw = − ∂t Bw ∂x Bw (57) The above equations are the (exact) differential forms of the oil and water mass conservation equations. They involve no assumptions. uo and uw. the equations are of little practical use in this form since they do not mention pressure. it is now time to introduce Darcy’s Law. we obtain the differential form of the mass conservation equation: ∂(φSo ρo ) ∂J = − o ∂x ∂t Using the fact that ρo = (53) ρosc in the LHS of the above equation gives: Bo (54) ∂ φSo ρosc ∂J o = − ∂x ∂t Bo Substituting for J o = u oρosc gives: Bo (55) ∂ φSoρosc ∂ u oρosc = − ∂t Bo ∂x Bo However. they simply arise as a result of the definition of the various terms. The expressions for the two phase Darcy Law are reviewed at the start of this subsection. Substituting for uo and uw in equations 56 and 57 above gives: ∂ φSo ∂ k k ro = ∂t Bo ∂x µ o Bo ∂z ∂Po ∂x − ρo g ∂x ∂z ∂Pw − ρw g ∂x ∂x (58) ∂ φSw ∂ k k rw = ∂t Bw ∂x µ w Bw (59) 22 . ρosc is a constant reference density (at standard conditions) which cancels to yield: ∂ φSo ∂ uo = − ∂t Bo ∂x Bo Likewise. and it is this that we measure most directly in a reservoir – not local (spatially distributed) velocities. However. Clearly.
To eliminate the time derivative terms of the saturations above.g. Sw or So. (P = Po) as our reference pressure (this is arbitrary). we decide to retain the oil pressure. Sw. . At a first glance. These are our “working equations” for the two phase flow (in their 1D form). are truly independent. there are two constraints on these quantities. Po and Pw. Thus. it appears that equations 58 and 59 present us with two equations in four unknowns. This is derived in the next section. But. The above equations still require some manipulation since we would like to have a pressure equation which was free of terms of the type (∂So/∂t) and (∂Sw/∂t). Firstly. So. Pw etc. for the LHS of the water equation (equation 59): ∂ φSw φ ∂Sw ∂ 1 Sw ∂φ ∂Po + φSw = + ∂t Bw Bw ∂t ∂Po Bw Bw ∂Po ∂t (61) Note that the underlined terms in equations 60 and 61 are to be eliminated and the following terms are essentially of the form = (compressibility terms) x (∂P/∂t). ∂Po Bo ∂t Bo ∂t Bo ∂Po ∂t (60) φ ∂So ∂ 1 So ∂φ ∂Po + φSo + Bo ∂t ∂Po Bo Bo ∂Po ∂t where the underlined term is the one we wish to eliminate. viz So + Sw = 1 and Pc(Sw) = Po – Pw. on the assumption that the 2phase Darcy Law applies. . as we have noted above in the review of key concepts.The Flow Equations 5 These equations now express mass conservation of oil and water. Po. 3. HeriotWatt University 23 . we proceed as follows. Likewise. It is now clear why we described the Pe as a constraint equation earlier in this chapter. + + . Po. only two of these quantities e.3 The TwoPhase Pressure Equation In order to eliminate the saturation derivatives with respect to time in equations 58 and 59 above. Next we expand the LHS of the oil equation (equation 58) as follows: ∂ φSo ∂ 1 φ ∂So So ∂φ + = φSo + ∂t Bo ∂t Bo Bo ∂t Bo ∂t = φSo = ∂ 1 ∂Po φ ∂So So ∂φ ∂Po . then note that ∂Sw ∂So + = 0 ∂t ∂t by definition (since Sw + So = 1∴ (62) ∂Sw ∂So + = 0) ∂t ∂t Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
First. + + φ ∂t Bo φ ∂t Bw ∂Po Bo ∂Po Bw φ ∂Po φ ∂Po ∂t ∂ 1 ∂ 1 1 ∂φ ∂Po = BoSo . + BwSw . + BwSw . we obtain (68) 24 . The expression above (equation 65) is now equal to the RHS of equation 58 multiplied by Bo/φ + RHS of equation 61 multiplied by Bw/φ. + ∂Po Bo ∂Po Bw φ ∂Po (66) ∂P B ∂ k k ro ∂Po ∂z Bw ∂ k k rw ∂Pw ∂z α(So .Po) . w = o − c ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂x Substituting this expression from (∂Pw/∂x) into equation 67. = + φ ∂t Bo ∂t ∂Po Bo φ ∂Po ∂t Bw ∂ φSw ∂Sw ∂ 1 Sw ∂φ ∂Po + BwSw . Pc(Sw)=PoPw.Po ) o = o µ B ∂x − ρo g ∂x + φ ∂x µ B ∂x − ρw g ∂x ∂t φ ∂x o o w w (67) Now use capillary pressure. + ∂Po Bo ∂Po Bw φ ∂Po ∂t (65) where we have used So + Sw = 1 on the RHS in the last simplification in equation 65. to eliminate the water pressure as follows: ∂Pc (Sw ) ∂Po ∂Pw ∂P ∂P ∂P = − i. multiply equation 60 (oil) by Bo/φ on both sides and multiply 61 (water) by Bw/φ on both sides to obtain: and Bo ∂ φSo ∂So ∂ 1 So ∂φ ∂Po + BoSo .e. = + φ ∂t Bw ∂t ∂Po Bw φ ∂Po ∂t (63) (64) Now ADDING the above equations 63 and 64.Po ) = BoSo .Therefore. we see that the ∂S/∂t terms vanish (equation 62) as follows: Bo ∂ φSo Bw ∂ φSw ∂ 1 ∂ 1 So ∂φ Sw ∂φ ∂Po + = BoSo .that is: Therefore: ∂ 1 ∂ 1 1 ∂φ α(So . + BwSw . we simplify a little by denoting all of the compressibility terms above by. α(So.
The Flow Equations 5 ∂P B ∂ k k ro ∂Po ∂z α(So . we must then calculate the saturation. ∂t ∂x µ o Bo ∂x ∂x µ w Bw ∂x OIL FLOW − Bo . Again. it is a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) which cannot be solved analytically for the general case.Po ) o = o µ B ∂x − ρo g ∂x ∂t φ ∂x o o + Bw ∂ k k rw ∂Po ∂Pc ∂z B ∂x − ∂x − ρw g ∂x φ ∂x µ w w (69) This is the 1D pressure equation for a twophase compressible (fluids and rock) system. In fact. HeriotWatt University 25 . (ii) Despite its complexity. Where is our saturation equation in any case? In fact. gravity and capillary forces. ro o + Bw . We will consider the simplified pressure equation in the next section. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.t) and So(x. ideally we would like to solve the pressure equation at the same time as solving for the saturation.t) Therefore. once we solve the pressure equation 70.Po ) o = Bo . (iv) Recall that in twophase flow. WATER FLOW ∂ k k roρo g ∂z ∂ k k rwρw g ∂z µ B ∂x − Bw . ∂ k k rw ∂Pc ∂x µ w Bw ∂x (70) CAPILLARY PRESSURE TERM Notes on equation 70 (i) The twophase pressure equation for the fully compressible system is clearly very complex. ∂ k k ∂P ∂ k k rw ∂Po ∂P φα(So . all of the terms in equation 70 have a clear physical interpretation in terms of viscous. we have already met this – as equation 59 above. ∂x µ B ∂x ∂x o o w w GRAVITY TERMS − Bw . the dependent variables (the unknown we want to find) were chosen to be: Po(x. (iii) Following from (i) above. our two alternatives are either to use numerical methods to solve equation 70 or to simplify it greatly such that an analytical solution may be possible. Each of the terms is physically interpretable and we expand this out to see each of the contributions more clearly.
t = t +Δt or n + 1 denoted Poi n+1 Poi n+1 n+1 n Time level n+1 (time = t+∆t) (UNKNOWN) Time level n+1 (time = t+∆t) (UNKNOWN) Soi n+1 Soi The problem is shown schematically if Figure 8 below as follows: GRID BLOCK i At time = t (time step n) Time step. . in the saturation equation. We denote this as follows: n Time level n (time = t) (KNOWN) Poi n Time level n (time = t) (KNOWN) Poi Soi n Soi We are trying to find Poi and Soi at the next time. the coefficients in the pressure equation e. Likewise.4 Schematic Strategy for Solving the TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equations In fact. etc. Δt. ∂t ∂x µ o Bo ∂x etc. depend on So which is the unknown we are trying to find. ∆t GRID BLOCK i At time = t+∆t (time step n+1) Rock S oi n n Rock n Solve equations 70 and 59 to find ⇒ n P oi S oi n+1 n+1 P oi n+1 n+1 (S wi ) (Pwi ) 26 (S wi ) (Pwi ) Figure 8 Schematic showing update of the pressure and saturation in a grid block (i) over a time step. That is. Hence. ko. we face the problem that there are unknowns which we don’t yet know. (70) ∂P ∂ k k ∂P SATURATION ∂ φSo ∂ k k ro = ∂t Bo ∂x µ o Bo ∂z ∂Po − ρo g ∂x ∂x (58) Clearly. Think of the unknowns in our grid block i. We imagine the time levels n meaning time = t or now where we know Poi and Soi. we will just think in general terms about how we may go about solving the pair of pressure/saturation equations above. we can write the two equations for pressure and saturation in the following schematic way: ro PRESSURE φα(So . We will go into more detail in Chapter 6 where we discuss the numerical solution of the flow equations. However. these two equations are coupled. terms = Bo . Poi and Soi. if we solve these equations “one at a time”. flow terms appear with (∂Po/∂x) in them – we are also trying to find Po.3.g.Po ) o + gravity terms + cap.
we found it quite useful to simplify the (analytically insoluble) compressible flow equation.e. We would then accept these as our “accurate” new time level values and then go on to the next time level. We used no mathematics since it is just the basic idea that we want to get across just at this point. the known saturation value to calculate all the coefficients in the pressure equation (equation 70). 3. 2 Both the rock and the fluids are incompressible (φ constant. Assumptions: 1 The viscosity of the oil and water are constant μo and μw (with x and P). It is easiest to see the consequences of the above assumptions by going back to the conservation equations 58 and 59. n (b) Solve the pressure equation to get a first estimate of Poi +1 n (c) Now solve the saturation equation (equation 58) using the latest Poi +1 for n +1 the pressure dependent flow terms.The Flow Equations 5 Now the pressure equation has lots of terms that depend on So. HeriotWatt University (71) (72) 27 . Po = Pw = P) and gravity (g = 0).5 The Simplified TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equations In the case of single phase flow. This allowed us to see its structure quite clearly and it turned out that the simplified single phase equation was a diffusion equation. BUT suppose we try the following strategy: (a) Use Snoi i. In the absence of gravity and capillarity (Assumption 3). Bo = Bw = 1). to get ⇒ Soi n n (d) We now have Poi +1 and Soi+1 as we required – but we may be able to do a bit better than this by going back to step a and using our (from this step) to n get a better solution to the pressure equation. the newly calculated Soi+1 and Poi +1 don’t change any more (or change only by a tiny amount). these become as follows: ∂ φSo ∂ k k ro ∂P = ∂t Bo ∂x µ o Bo ∂x ∂ φSw ∂ k k rw ∂P = ∂t Bw ∂x µ w Bw ∂x Institute of Petroleum Engineering. and hence an “improved” Poi +1 (e) Clearly. For the twophase flow case. we could iterate through steps a to d until our process “converges” n n i. so strictly we need to n +1 know Soi to solve the pressure.e. we will make some slightly different assumptions when we simplify the equations as follows. The description above outlines – in words – an algorithm or numerical strategy for solving the pressure and saturation equations that arise in twophase flow. 3 We neglect both capillary pressure (Pc = 0. This diffusive process underlay how pressure “waves” spread across an oil reservoir.
we obtain: ∂S ∂ k k ro ∂P φ o = ∂t ∂x µ o ∂x ∂S ∂ k k rw ∂P φ w = ∂t ∂x µ w ∂x (73) (74) Clearly. as: λ T ( So ) = λ w + λ o thus simplifying the pressure equation to: (78) ∂ ∂P λ T (So ) ∂x = 0 ∂x (79) The simplified saturation equation is simply equation 73 above which. λw(So). we can define the total mobility. λo(So). λT(S0). the simplified (incompressibility no Pc. Indeed. it is now very simple to eliminate the (∂S/∂t) terms since we simply need to add the above two equations to obtain the simplified pressure equation: ∂ k k ro ∂P ∂ k k rw ∂P + =0 ∂x µ o ∂x ∂x µ w ∂x which simplifies to: (75) ∂ ∂P (λ o + λ w ) ∂x = 0 ∂x where λo and λw are the phase mobilities given by: (76) λo = k k ro k k rw and λ w = µo µw (77) These phase mobilities are strong functions of the saturation So (So = 1 – Sw) through the relative permeabilities i.e.Now using Assumptions 1 and 2. becomes: φ ∂So ∂ ∂P = λ o (So ) ∂x ∂t ∂x (80) In summary. no gravity) twophase pressure and saturation equations are as follows: ∂ ∂P λ T ( So ) = 0 ∂x ∂x 28 (81) . in the above notation.
2 nonlinear.e. converged) n+1 n+1 YES 4.and twophase flow. There is also a little more “twophase physics” to be dealt with due to capillary pressure and relative permeability. the resulting full equations for the compressible system were nonlinear PDE’s (indeed. The numerical solution of these equations is discussed in some detail in Chapter 6. the mass conservation equation was applied to each of the two phases – oil and water. We have shown that these can be derived in a unified way by applying: MATERIAL BALANCE + DARCY’S LAW ⇒ FLOW EQUATIONS In the twophase case. Take next time step n Figure 9 Schematic Strategy for the Iterative Solution of the (simplified) Pressure and Saturation Equations for TwoPhase Flow NO Are these P i . For both single. These could not be solved analytically but.4) to these two equations. Time level n ⇒ KNOW Soi P i Calculate mobilities at these n n n λT( So )=λo(So )+λw(So ) n n Set the latest P i S oi to "current" values and ITERATE through calculation again n+1 n+1 Solve PRESSURE equation with ∂P ∂ "current" λ T (Sn ) = 0 o ∂x ∂x ⇒obtain Pin +1 Use Pin +1 and λo(So ) To solve SATURATION equation ∂P n+1 ∂ ∂S φ o = λ o (Sn ) o ∂t ∂x ∂x n ⇒obtain Soi +1 Keep them and set to "current" values. S oi satisfactory? (i. completed PDE’s for twophase flow). CLOSING REMARKS The purpose of this module is to familiarise the student with the fundamental flow equations of single. We illustrate this in the flowchart in Figure 9. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 29 .The Flow Equations 5 ∂P ∂S ∂ φ o = λ o ( So ) ∂t ∂x ∂x (82) It is probably clearer for these equations how we would apply our schematic strategy (Section 3. in the example here.and twophase flow. in simplified form. they illustrate some interesting features of the processes.
ρ ∂∂yk∂P ρ + Py P ρ ∂P ∂ρ x will be very ρ∂∂ + of these (theµx ∂∂ ρ ∂P + µy⇒ykxρ∂ ρ ∂P ∂ ∂ ⇒x µ ∂y ∂y = ρ + ∂P = ρ ∂ P ⇒ µ ∂x ∂ µ ∂y ∂y 2 ρ ∂ µ ∂x ∂xµ ∂x∂ y x ∂x y ∂2x µ x y∂ρ ∂x ∂ 2x ∂x 2 µ ∂ ∂µ x ∂ P x ∂y ∂ P P∂ ∂P ∂ ∂∂ 2 = + ρ P ∂ρρ 2 2 P = ρ 2 ∂ P ∂ ∂x ∂ ∂ ∂P ∂x 2 + ∂ρ 2 ∂ ρ ∂P = ρ ∂ 2 P ∂x ∂P ∂ρ = x 2 P ∂x ∂x ρ ∂P = ρ ∂2 P + ∂P 2∂ρ = ρ ∂ 2 P 2 ∂ 2 2 ∂ρ ∂x ∂x ∂ x2∂ ∂x ∂ Px ∂P ∂x2 2 ∂ 2 P ∂ ∂P 2 P ∂ ∂P ∂ρ ρ ∂ P P ∂∂ ρ ∂x = ρ ρ P + =∂ρ ∂∂+=∂ρ∂∂=P = P ∂ρ = ρ ∂ P x ρ = ρ ∂x 2 + ∂x ∂x =ρP∂x 2ρ+∂ Pρ ∂x ρ ∂x ∂x ρ ∂x 2 2 2 2 = 2 ∂ x 2 x ∂ ∂ ∂x 2 xx x ∂x ∂x ∂x x 2 xx ∂x∂x ∂x∂∂ ∂ ∂x x x ∂ ∂ ∂P y ∂ y ∂x ∂x ∂ ∂ P ∂y ∂ ∂ Likewise 2 ρ = ρ 2 ∂ P ∂ ∂P ∂y 2 ∂ ρ ∂P = ρ ∂ 2 P ∂y ∂y ∂y ∂y ρ ∂P = ρ 2 P 2 2∂ ∂ ∂P ∂ ∂ yP ∂ ∂ 2 P 2 2 P ∂ ∂2 P ∂∂ ρ ∂y = ρ ∂ρ 2 = ρ ρ ∂Pφ = ρ ∂P = ρ k x ∂ P + ρ k y ∂ P y ρ = ρ ∂y ∴ ρ 2 ∂y ∂y ∂y y 2 ∂y ∂y 2 y 2 ∂ y ∂ ∂y ∂y ∂ y ∂ρ ∂y ∂P ∂ ∂t∂ P µk y x 2 P µ ∂y 2 ∂ ∂2 ∂P kx 2 2 ∴ φ P k ∂=Pρ +ρ 2 k x ∂2 ∂ ∂ ∂ρ ∂P µ ∂y 2 ∴ φ ∂ρ ∂P = ρ k x ∂P P ρ k ty 2 P µ ∂x + y ∂2 2 2 2 P 2 µ 2P ∴ φ ∂ρ ∂P = ρρµ ∂xP+ ρ kk ∂y22P 2 2 ∂ρ ∂t ∂ k x ∂2P ∴ P P ∂t = ρ µ ∂x 2 =ρρk . 2 2 µ 2 . ∂y 2 + ρ k ∂ x y ρ 1 P ∴ φ ∂P ∂P φ= ρ kx∂∴2φ+ ∂ρµyx∂∂ P = ρ k xy∂kPk+ k y ∂ ∂ρ = c µy where k = P ∴ φ ∂P ∂t + µ ∂x 2 ρ µ ∂y 22 2 f ∂t µ ∂ ∂ ∂P ∂t ∂Pµµ. P ρ k where k µ.and y. k y / z k = k x + k y khydraulic k = zk x + k ( µφc f ) z y k Dh = k ( µφcf ) Dh = k D h = ( µφc f ) k k D h = ( µφc f ) D = k D = k xk/ k D h = ( µφc ) h ( µφxcf/)kh ( µφcf ) ( µφcff ) k The coefficients on the RHS of the simplified pressure equation here are kx/ k and kx / k ky / k kx k ky/ k which /reflect the anisotropy of the problem. Obviously.∂x ∂P k ∂∂xk k µ ∂x 22 ρ µρ ∂y P ∂ ρµ y x y µ 1 y2 t = cf µ. k x2 y 1 ∂ρk = c f 1 ∂ρ = k y ρ kρ µ.RHStermsx + k ∂y ρ ∂P µ ∂ ∂ ⇒ k x ∂x ρ ∂Pk ∂ ky ∂∂P ∂Py ∂ ∂k 2 µ ∂y 2 ⇒ kother ρ ∂x x + similar). x c and k k y k 1 y ρ k sides byk = k x k y µ= ∂P y= fc= note that P kto obtain: multiply both where k = where k ρ ∂ µφkc ∂Px == xc1 ∂ ∂ρ += c f ∂ P where where f 2 ρ ∂P = ff ∂P 2 ρk ρ k 2 µφck ∂2 k k ∂∂ 2P k k ∂x∂PP k ∂y 2 2 ρ ρ P ρk y 2 ρ f ∂P = x t 2 + ρ ∂ k y ∂ 2 P 2 µφc f ∂P = k x ∂2 P + ∂t 2 k ∂x k ∂y 2 k µφc f ∂P = kk ∂ 2 P + k y ∂ 22P µφc ∂P k x ∂x 2 k y ∂y 2 k 2 2 2P k 2 k f ∂t µφcx ∂P k ∂2P µφc ∂P = k f ∂ 2µφc yk= PP + k y ∂PP k y ∂ 2 P k f ∂t kx x 2 + k ∂yk + xy /∂z ∂ = f x ∂ x 2 k ∂t = kk x t + k ∂y 2= k ∂y 2 + 2 k ∂ ∂ 2 k k ∂y 2 k x 2 k ∂y k ∂t t k x k + k /xz ∂= ∂ x y k = kx + ky / z k We havek = k x introduced k = (kx+ky)/2 to retain the general form of the simplified simply + k y / z / Dh = / pressure k = k x + The / = k x + kdiffusivity iny thiszcase is therefore given by: equation.. k x k y whereρk = k 1∂ where k = k x kρ 1 ∂ρ = c f 2 ρ ∂P µ. k x / k k y /kk / k x ky / k ky / k k y // k k /k k k k /k ⇒ ( ( (( ) ) )) ( ( ) ( ) ) ( ) y y y 30 .Solution to Exercise 2: ∂(φρ ) ∂ρ = φ ∂P ∂P ∂(φρ ) ∂ρ Expand the LHS (φ constant) ⇒ = φ ∂(φρ ) ∂ρ ∂P ∂P ⇒ ∂(φρ ) = φ ∂ρ P φρ ⇒ ∂(∂P ) = φ ∂∂( ) ∂ρ φρ assumptions)ρ ) = x ∂∂ρ ∂P k y ∂ ∂P ⇒ ∂(φρ ) = φ ρ φ ∂(φρ k φ ρ + The RHS becomes = φ⇒∂P ⇒ ∂P (usingP ⇒ ∂ ∂P =⇒ ∂P ∂P ρ µ x ∂P ∂P ∂∂ k x ∂∂P ∂P P k y∂x ∂P ∂y ∂ µ ∂y ρ k k x ∂ ∂P ⇒ y ∂ ρ∂P + x x ⇒ k x ∂ ρ ∂P + k y µ∂ ∂ ρ ∂P∂ µ ∂y ∂y are identical in formand so we just need to expand up one The x. if kx = ky then these k x // k kx k terms would be unity.
The Flow Equations 5 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 31 .
1 Discretisation of the 2D Pressure Equation 3.A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH 7.4. NUMERICAL DISPERSION .1. 2.1. 6. Direct Methods for Solving Linear Equations 5.2. 3.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 CONTENTS 1. Newton’s Method for Solving Sets of Nonlinear Equations 6.1. APPENDIX A: Some Useful Matrix Theorems. INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF FINITE DIFFERENCES APPLICATION OF FINITE DIFFERENCES TO PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS (PDEs) 3. General Methods for Solving Linear Equations 5. Implicit Finite Difference Approximation of the 2D Pressure Equation 3.1 Discretisation of the TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equations 4.3. Implicit Finite Difference Approximation of Nonlinear Pressure Equations APPLICATION OF FINITE DIFFERENCES TO TWOPHASE FLOW 4. 4.2 IMPES Strategy for Solving the TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equations THE NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS 5. Mathematical Derivation of Numerical Dispersion CLOSING REMARKS 8.2. Introduction to Sets of Nonlinear Equations 6.2. Explicit Finite Difference Approximation of the Linear Pressure Equation 3. .2. 5.5. A Comparison of Iterative and Direct Methods for Solving Linear Equations DIRECT SOLUTION OF THE NONLINEAR EQUATIONS OF MULTIPHASE FLOW 6. Introduction to the Problem 7. Iterative Methods for Solving Linear Equations 5. Introduction to Linear Equations 5.4.3.3.3. Newton’s Method Applied to the Nonlinear Equations of TwoPhase Flow 7.3.1.2 Numbering Schemes in Solving the 2D Pressure Equation 3. Implicit Finite Difference Approximation of the Linear Pressure Equation 3.
where the matrix A is an nxn matrix of (known) coefficients (aij. for (∂P/∂x). and be able to comment on the number of iterations required for convergence. μ) are functions of the dependent variable. (∂P/∂t) and (∂2P/∂x2) explaining your spatial (space) and temporal (time) n n +1 n +1 n +1 notation ( Pi . • explain clearly the main differences between a direct and an iterative solution method for the set of linear equations. ρ.LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Having worked through this chapter the student should be able to: • write down from memory simple finite difference expressions for derivatives. j) notation to mnotation where m is an ordered numbering scheme e. x(0) .x = b. the idea of convergence of x(ν) as ν → ∞.t). • apply finite difference approximations to a simple partial differential equation (PDE) such as the diffusion equation and explain what is meant by an explicit and an implicit numerical scheme. m = (j . b is a vector of n (known) values and x is the vector of n unknowns which we are solving for. 2 . ). pressure. and be able to describe the significance of the initial guess.g. • write down the discretised form of both the pressure and saturation equation for twophase flow given the governing equations (in simplified form in 1D). the backward difference and the central difference and the order of the error associated with each.x = b. • derive the structure of the pentadiagonal Amatrix in 2D for a given numbering scheme going from (i.y. and be able to explain why these lead to sets of nonlinear algebraic equations. what is meant by iteration (and iteration counter. • show how the implicit finite difference scheme applied to a simple linear PDE leads to a set of linear equations which are tridiagonal in 1D and pentadiagonal in 2D. Pi +1 . the student should know the meaning of the forward difference. j = columns). A. P(x. • write down the algorithm for a very simple iterative scheme for solving A. in compact form are written A. Pi . for the natural numbering scheme. ν). (∂P/∂x). Pi −1 etc. • write a simple spreadsheet to solve the explicit numerical scheme for a simple PDE for given boundary and initial conditions and be able to describe the effect of time step size. O(Δx) or O(Δx2).1). Niter.NX + i • describe a solution strategy for the nonlinear single phase 2D pressure equation where the fluid and rock compressibility (and density. • write down the expanded expressions for a set of linear equations which. and viscosity. i = rows. Δt.x = b. • outline with an explanation and a simple flow chart the main idea behind the IMPES solution strategy for the discretised twophase flow equations.
HeriotWatt University 3 . N( t ) = N o . In the numerical solution of the multiphase flow equations. we formulated it this way. An outline of how this is done is presented but we do not go into great detail. N. f ' ( x (ν ) ) • extend the application of the NewtonRaphson to sets of nonlinear algebraic equations such as those arising from the discretisation of the twophase pressure and saturation equations. (dN/dt) = α. This equation does not need to be solved numerically but it demonstrates how explicit and implicit finite difference solution can be developed. the more mathematical explanation of numerical dispersion. After a brief review of finite differences. We then consider how the 2D pressure equation is solved. The numerical version of the model came up with the algorithm (or recipe) N n +1 = (1 + α. even although we could solve the problem analytically. we go on to apply them to very simple systems such as for the simplified 1D pressure equation (derived in Chapter 5). grew with a rate proportional to N itself i. In the exercise in Chapter 1. S P X (ν +1) = X (ν ) − J ( X (ν ) ) .t had a wellknown analytical solution. INTRODUCTION At the very start of this course. the multiphase flow equations for real systems are so complex that it is not remotely possible to solve them analytically. we also introduced the idea of a numerical model where. where No is the number of bacteria at time. We then show how sets of linear equations arise in solving implicit equations and we consider solution of the linear equations in an elementary manner.∆t ). NUMERICAL METHODS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION As noted in Chapter 5. The most commonly applied numerical methods are based on finite difference approximations of the flow equations and this approach will be followed in this chapter. However. we need to solve for pressure and flow.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 • explain how to apply (without derivation) the NewtonRaphson method for solving a single nonlinear algebraic equation. −1 [ ] • understand.N n . f ( x ) = 0 . NewtonRaphson scheme => x (ν +1) = x (ν ) − f ( x (ν ) ) . This exponential growth law provides the solution to our model. you should have compared the results of the analytical and numerical models and found out that. where α is a constant.F( X (ν ) )).e. but not be able to reproduce the detailed derivation of. in any case. we considered a very simple “simulation model” for a growing colony of bacteria. In practice these equations can only be solved numerically.e . F( X ) = 0.N. they get closer as Institute of Petroleum Engineering. where X = and S and P are the (unknown) vectors of saturation and pressure. 1. t =0. We saw that this simple equation α. The number of bacteria. (given the NewtonRaphson expression.
This is often done iteratively by repeatedly solving them until the numerical solution converges. we usually end up with sets of nonlinear algebraic equations which are still quite difficult to solve. These turned out to be nonlinear partial differential equations (PDEs).(iii) above. both the generalised compressibility term. we already met the equations for singlephase and twophase flow of compressible fluids through porous media. we say that the numerical model converges to the analytical model.ρ ∂P c( P) = ∂t ∂x µ ∂x (1) In this equation. (i) . The phrase “works best” in the context of a numerical method usually means gives the most accurate numerical agreement with the analytical answer for the least amount of computational work. such nonlinear PDEs are very difficult to solve analytically and we must usually resort to numerical methods. Recall that a nonlinear PDE is one where certain coefficients in the equation depend on the answer we are trying to find e. Δt. 4 .g. we will exclusively use finite difference methods for this purpose. in 1D is given by: ∂P ∂ k. P(x. For example. in many areas of science and engineering. (iii) We then solve the resulting sets of linear equations. we usually linearise these equations in order to obtain a set of linear equations. which we are trying to find.z.e.numerical techniques to determine which one works best. Note the importance of this balance between accuracy and work for a numerical method. As noted previously. This process involves the following steps: (i) Firstly. where we “know the answer”. and the density. In Chapter 5. (ii) When we apply finite differences. in this course. terms depend on the unknown pressure. ρ(P). However.we take successively smaller time steps. the equation for pressure. P(x. In some cases. This is known as spatial discretisation and. we might test several . The main topic of this module is on how we solve the reservoir flow equations numerically. P.y. This module will deal successively with each of the parts of the numerical solution process.maybe 3 or 4 . There may be no point in having a numerical method that is “twice” as accurate (in some sense) for ten times the amount of computational work. c(P) (of both the rock and the fluid). In this case. we must take the PDE describing the flow process and “chop it up” into grid blocks in space. More commonly. for single phase compressible flow. Many numerical options are available for solving sets of linear equations and these will be discussed below.t). we often apply a numerical technique to a problem we can already solve analytically i. Why would we do this? The answer is that we might be testing the numerical method to see how closely it gives the right answer. In fact.t).t) etc. Sw(x. we do solve these nonlinear equations.
dx ∂t ∂x dx ∂t ∂x First consider how we might approximate (dP/dx) at xi using the quantities in Figure 1. This is known as central differences (cd) and is given by: i dx i dP = 1 dP + dP = 1 Pi +1 − Pi + Pi − Pi −1 dx i cd 2 dx i fd dx i bd 2 ∆x ∆x P −P dP = i +1 i −1 2. The main concept of finite difference approximation is best illustrated by the following simple example where we refer to Figure 1. it is easily seen that there are three ways we may do this as follows: Approximation 1 Forward Differences (fd): we may take the slope between Pi and Pi+1 as being approximately dP at xi to obtain: dx i dP = Pi +1 − Pi dx i fd ∆x dP at x to obtain: and Pi as being approximately i dP = Pi − Pi −1 dx i bd ∆x dx i (2) Approximation 2 Backward Differences (bd): we may take the slope between Pi1 (3) Approximation 3 Central Differences (cd): thirdly. we could take the average of the forward difference (fd) and backward difference (bd) approximations to give us dP at x . HeriotWatt University 5 . ∂ P etc. In fact. in an approximate manner 2 dP . P(x). The main task of the finite difference approach is to represent the derivatives of the function.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 2. ∂ P etc. Study the Notation in this figure. since it is the basis of that used throughout this chapter.∆x dx i cd (4) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. dP . 2 i. REVIEW OF FINITE DIFFERENCES Definition: A finite difference scheme is simply a way of approximating 2 derivatives of a function (e.g. ∂P . ∂P .e.) 2 numerically from either point or block values of the function.
but let us take a simple numerical example where we know the right answer and examine each of the forward.e. i.Pi+1 P(x) Pi Pi1 ∆x = constant ∆x xi1 ∆x xi xi1 x Notation: ∆x = the x.14) and the backward difference answer is a little too low (by ≈ 0.1 !).grid spacing or distance between grid points (i .7183 − 2. The values given in Figure 3 will illustrate how the methods perform. Each of the above approximations to dP is shown graphically in Figure 2. Firstly. on the other hand.7183 = 2. the grid spacing (where.7183 = 2.label (subscript) for the grid point or block numbers Pi1.7183. dx i You may wonder why we bother with three different numerical approximations to just yet. The central difference approximation is rather better than either of the previous ones.1 (5) The quantity in square brackets after each of the finite difference approximations above is the error i. simply calculate the values given by each methods for the data in Figure 3: dP dx i and ask: which is “best”? There is not an unqualified answer to this question dP ≈ 3. we note that the fd and bd methods give an error of order Δx.1 dP ≈ 2.723 [err ≈ −0. As expected from the figure for this case. we are saying 0.13). the difference between that method and the right answer which is 2.0042 − 2.13] dx i bd 0. Pi+1 = the corresponding function values at grid point i1. i+1 etc. In fact.859 [err ≈ +0. has an error of order Δx2 (where again we are 6 .1).587 [err ≈ −0.4596 = 2. the forward difference answer is a little too high (by ≈ +0.1 dP ≈ 3.14] dx i fd 0. Figure 1 Notation for the application of finite difference methods for approximating derivatives. (i + 1) = the x .0042 − 2. backward and central difference approximations.005] dx i cd 2 x 0. The cd approximation. Pi. i.14 ≈ 0. as engineers.
1x0.1 = 0. Therefore.01). O(Δx2). More formally.0017 ≈ 0.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 saying 0.7183 = 2. dt Here. In the introductory section of Chapter 1.0017] 2 ≈ ∂x 0. the fd approximation) and simply take the rate of change of these two quantities with respect to x. is the unknown we want to find.005 (0. we can see that the error in this case (err ≈ 0. N (number of bacteria in the colony) as a function of time. ∂x ∂P Going back to Figure 1. the definition of second derivative at ∂x xi is the rate of change of slope (dP/dx) at xi. we already applied the idea of finite differences (although we didn’t call it that at the time) to the simple ordinary differential equation dN (ODE).N . and the cd approximation has an error "of order Δx2" which we denote. gives: ∂x ∂ 2 P 3.12) is actually O(Δx2). N(t). we say that the error in the fd and bd approximations are "of order Δx" which we denote. we applied finite differences to obtain: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 7 .12 (7) Thus.4596 − 2 x 2. the bd approximation) and then do the same between xi and xi+1 (i. O(Δx).e. Denoting Nn and Nn+1 as the size of the colony at times t (labelled n) and t+Δt (labelled n+1). as follows: ∂ P 2 ≈ ∂x 2 dP − dP dx i fd dx i bd ∆x Pi +1 − Pi − Pi − Pi −1 ∆x i fd ∆x i bd ∆x ≈ ∂2 P 2 ≈ ∂x ( Pi +1 + Pi −1 − 2 Pi ) ∆x 2 (6) ∂2 P 2 Calculating the numerical value of ∂x for the example in Figure 3 (where again ∂2 P 2 = 2.0042 + 2. we can evaluate this derivative between xi1 and xi (i.e.7200 [err ≈ 0. ∂2 P 2 Now consider the finite difference approximation of the second derivative. = α .7183 since the example is the exponential function).
0 1.0 Pi+1 P(x) Pi Pi1 d2P dx2 = 2.Pi1 2.1 8 .1 1.1 0.∆t ) N n (8) This gave us our very simple algorithm to explicitly calculate Nn+1.∆x dP dx i fd dP ∆x xi1 x ∆x = Pi+1 .0042 2.0 3. dP = 2. dP dx i cd Pi+1 P(x) Pi Pi1 = Pi+1 .7183 dx x=1.7183 x=1.9 x 0.Pi1 ∆x xi Figure 2 Graphical illustration of the finite difference derivatives calculated by backward differences (bd).7183 2. N n dt ∆t N n +1 ≈ (1 + α .4596 Figure 3 A numerical example where the function values and derivative values are known (P(x) = ex) 0.Pi ∆x = dx i bd xi+1 ∆x = constant Pi . forward differences (cd) and central differences.n +1 n dN ≈ N − N ≈ α . We then took this as the current value of N and applied the algorithm repeatedly.
HeriotWatt University 9 . 3. at t = 0.xls. Apply finite differences to the solution of the equation: dy = 2. However. time level. APPLICATION OF FINITE DIFFERENCES TO PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS (PDEs) 3. We can visualise this physically .1 . Chapter 5) as follows: k ∂2 P ∂P = ∂t cφµ ∂x 2 (9) k where the constant cφµ is the hydraulic diffusivity. As we noted in Chapter 5. y 2 + 4 dt where. Section 2. Plot the numerically calculated y as a function of t between t = 0 and t = 0. As an example of a linear PDE. we will take Dh = 1. giving the equation: 2 ∂P ∂ P = 2 ∂t ∂x (10) This is the pressure equation for a 1D system where 0 ≤ x ≤ L. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.t) say.25 and plot it against the analytical value (do the integral to find this).Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 EXERCISE 1. Use the notation yn+1 for the (unknown) y at n+1 time level and yn for the (known) y value at the current.much as we did in Chapter 5.1 Explicit Finite Difference Approximation of the Linear Pressure Equation We have seen in Chapter 5 that the flow equations are actually partial differential equations (PDEs) since the unknowns.001 (arbitrary time units) and step the solution forward to t = 0.t) and Sw(x. which we denoted previously by Dh. Take time steps of Δt = 0. P(x. This gives the finite difference formula. this PDE is linear which has known analytical solutions for various boundary conditions. n. Answer: is given below where the working is shown in spreadsheet CHAP6Ex1. we will again neglect these and apply numerical methods as an example of how to use finite differences to solve PDEs numerically. the inlet pressure is raised (at x = 0) instantly to P = Pin while the outlet pressure is held at Pout = Po. After the system is held constant at P = Po. a spreadsheet implementing it and the analytical solution for comparison. To make things even simpler. where L is the length of the system.using Figure 4. we will take the simplified pressure equation (equation 26. y(t = 0) = 1. depend on both space and time.25.
Pin and Pout.. However.. Δt.Pin t = t1 t = t2 Pout = Po 0 x L P Po t=0 Figure 4 Physical picture of pressure propagation in a 1D (compressible) system described by.. these are set. and the system between 0 < x < L must “sort itself out” or "respond" by simply obeying equation 10 above. It is simply: which time level should we take for the spatial derivative terms in equation 12? This is important and we will return to this matter soon. represent the constant pressure boundary conditions (Mathematically these are sometimes called Dirichlet boundary conditions). • use the following notation = 2 ∂t ∂x Pin Pin +1 Pin Pin Pin +1 P n +1 i → time level n = 0. we obtain: 10 . i = 1. are as follows (see Figure 4): P1 = P in and PNX = Pout = Po which are fixed for all t. an issue arises in equation 12 above as shown by the question marks on the spatial derivative time levels. 2. let us take these spatial derivatives at time level n (the “known” level) since this will turn out to be the simplest thing we can do. 1. 2 . Thus. 3 . NX (at x = L) current (known) P at time level new (unknown) P at time level • fix the boundary conditions which. for the moment. In other words. as if by experiment. in this case. • apply finite differences to equation 10 using the above notation to obtain: P n +1 − Pi n ∂P ≈ i ∂t i ∆t and (11) ∂2 P Pi ??1 + Pi ??1 − 2 Pi ?? + − 2 ≈ ∂x i ∆x 2 (12) However. We now approach this problem using finite differences as follows: • discretise the xdirection by dividing it into a numerical grid of size Δx. → xgrid block label. ∂P ∂ 2 P These pressures. • choose a time step..
. NX) at t = 0. P2 .e. For this problem.t). n +1 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. P11 (NX = 11). The initial conditions are the values of all the P0i (i = 1. equation 10 (i. equating the expressions in equations 11 and 13) gives: Pi n +1 − Pi n Pi n 1 + Pi n 1 − 2 Pi n − ≈ + ∆t ∆x (14) which easily rearranges to obtain an explicit expression for. From Figure 4. P(x... .Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 ∂2 P Pi n 1 + Pi n 1 − 2 Pi n + − 2 ≈ ∂x i ∆x 2 (13) Equating the numerical finite difference approximations of each of the above derivatives as required by the original PDE. these are clearly: P0 1 P0 1 P = 1 for all time (boundary condition) 1 Pi 0 Pi 0 = 0 at time t = 0 for 2 < i < NX1 Pi 0 0 PNX = Po for all time (boundary condition) 0 PNX 0 PNX Let us now apply the above algorithm to the solution of equation 10.001 The problem is then to calculate the solution. we can interpret this above algorithm as saying: New (n+1 level) value of Pi = Old (n level) value of Pi + a “correction term” Equation 15 gives the algorithm for propagating the solution of the PDE forward in time from the given set of initial conditions. .. the only unknown in the above equation: Pi n +1 = Pi n + ∆t ( Pi n+1 + Pi n−1 − 2 Pi n ) ∆x 2 (15) In words.see Exercise 2 below. This can be done by filling in the “solution chart” Table 1 . P1 . suppose we take the following data: 0 ≤ x ≤ 1. HeriotWatt University 11 . P3. Δt = 0. We now consider how to set the initial conditions. Pi n +1. . ..that is Pi for all i (at all grid points) and all future times up to some final time (possibly when the equation comes to a steadystate as will happen in this example). 3 .0 Δx = 0.1 => implies 11 grid points. 2.
4 400 0.8 800 P800 i 0.e. Solution chart for the solution of the simple pressure equation EXERCISE 2.xls on the disk.4 5 0 0.Grid Blocks Time x= t 0 n 0 i= P0 i → (IC) P100 i P200 i P300 i P400 i P500 i P600 i 0.0 (BC↓) 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 700 P700 i 0. Copy this and paste it into all of the cells in the entire unknown area (surrounded by bold border above).5 500 0. values of P(x.9 10 0 1.2 200 0.these points are fixed.5 6 0 0.0 0.8 9 0 0.6 7 0 0.7 8 0 0. 12 . t = 0) for all i at t= 0 Table 1.9 900 1 1000 Note: P900 i P1000 i BC = Boundary Conditions .3 4 0 0.3 300 0. look at spreadsheet CHAP6Ex2. Fill in the above table using the algorithm (where (Δt/Δx2)=0. IC = Initial Conditions.1 (BC↓) 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.1): Pi n +1 = Pi n + ∆t P n + Pi n 1 − 2 Pi n ) − 2 ( i +1 ∆x Hint: make up a spread sheet as above and set the first unknown block (shown grey shaded in table above) with the above formula.2 3 0 0. i.6 600 0.1 100 0. Answer: If you get stuck.
Δx (or NX) and the solution as t → ∞.indeed negative pressures can occur which is physically impossible. Δx → 0 or NX → ∞). As t → ∞. until the numerically computed solution stops changing). • Behaviour as t → ∞ : Finally. The answer should get more accurate although. • Sensitivity to Δx: the effects of grid refinement are that. then if steadystate is reached.xls. a little bit of analysis shows us that this is quite expected. Δx (or number of grid cells.3: • Sensitivity to Δt: When you make Δt too big. Δt. the predicted numerical solution of the PDE goes badly wrong . as the grid blocks get smaller (i. In fact. Three features of this method can be illustrated by “numerical experiment” as follows: (i) the effect of time step size. the solution has become unstable for the larger time steps. to make this happen. considering the longtime behavior of the solution of the PDE.e. (ii) the effect of refining the spatial grid size. HeriotWatt University 13 . HINTS for Exercise 6. It is best if you do these yourself by modifying the spreadsheet (CHAP6Ex2.Δt.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 The assumption we made in equation 12 was that the spatial derivative was taken at the n (known) time level. This means that this explicit numerical method does have some time step limitations which we must be careful of.xls). you need to reduce the time step as well. Experiment with the spreadsheet in CHAP6Ex2. In fact.xls. you should find that P(x.xls to examine the effects of the three quantities above . This allowed us to develop an explicit formula for Pi n +1 (for all i). (iii) the effect of running the calculation to steadystate as t → ∞ (in practice. Therefore. NX). a first derivative which is constant) is a straight line. We can learn about some interesting and useful features of the explicit method which is encapsulated in equation 15 by simply experimenting with the spreadsheet CHAP6Ex2. This method is therefore known as an explicit finite difference method. EXERCISE 3. which implies => 2 = 0 ∂t ∂x But the “curve” with a zero second derivative (i. t → ∞) tends to a straight line.e. Some other intermediate pressure profiles can also be plotted using CHAP6Ex2. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. then: ∂2 P ∂P = 0. this result is physically reasonable and our numerical model appears to be behaving correctly.
Pi n 1 1 . − + + n + + + Pi n 1 1 . In the previous case. The finite difference equation for this case is as follows: The time derivative is the same. Time P i1 n ∆x Pi n ∆x P i+1 Time level n n i1 ∆t i i+1 Time level n + 1 P i1 n+1 Pi n+1 P i+1 n+1 Figure 5.2 Implicit Finite Difference Approximation of the Linear Pressure Equation We now return to the original finite difference equation 12. P n +1 − Pi n ∂P ≈ i ∂t i ∆t but the spatial derivative now becomes: + + ∂2 P Pi n 1 1 + Pi n 1 1 − 2 Pi n +1 + − 2 ≈ ∂x i ∆x 2 (16) (17) As before. i.Another way to represent this explicit finite difference solution to the PDE is shown in Figure 5. 3. However. viz. to +1 a bit n 1 1 time level (n+1). where we indicate the time levels for the solution of the equations and we also show the dependency of the unknown pressure ( Pi n +1). where we had to ∂2 P 2 make a choice of time level for the spatial derivative. Schematic of the explicit finite difference algorithm for solving the simple pressure equation (a PDE). Indeed. We will show below that this leads to a set of linear equations where we have exactly the same number of unknowns as we have linear equations. Pi n +1 and Pi n 1 1 . Pi n +1 . 14 .at every grid point. This appears Pi beand Piof a paradox: − + − + how do we find three unknowns from a single equation (equation 18 above)? The answer is not really too difficult: Basically.and Pi n 1 1 there now appear to be three unknowns at (n+1). We now examine the consequences of taking this derivative at the (n+1) time level . this could Pn + easily be rearranged into1 an explicit equation for Pi n +1 (equation 15). we now equate the numerical finite difference approximations of each of the above derivatives (as required by the original PDE. Pi n + equation 18 above cannot be rearranged to give a simple expression for the pressure + + at the new time step Pi n 1 1 .like equation 18 .e.this is the “unknown” time level. equation 10) to obtain: + + Pi n +1 − Pi n Pi n 1 1 + Pi n 1 1 − 2 Pi n +1 − ≈ + ∆t ∆x (18) This equation should ibe1compared with equation 14. we have an equation . ∂x .
ai +1 = 1 and bi = − P ∆t i ∆t 2 3 n 4 n 5 ∆x ∆t P5 n Time level n P2 P3 P4 n Time level n=1 Figure 6. since it is at the old time level.this method is known as an implicit finite difference method.instead we get an implicit set of equations . we do not get an explicit expression for our unknowns . rearrange equation 18 above to obtain: ∆x 2 n ∆x 2 n +1 + + n Pi n 1 1 − 2 + Pi+1 + Pi n 1 1 = − P − + P ∆t i ∆t i (19) + + where all the unknowns ( Pi n 1 1 . The ai do not change throughout the calculation but the quantity bi is updated at each time step as the newly calculated Pn+1 is set to the Pn for the next time step. then (a) we know the value from the boundary condition (i = 1 and i = 5). ai = − 2 + . if these equations are all linearly independent. We can write this equation as follows: + + ai −1 Pi n 1 1 + ai Pi n +1 + ai +1 Pi n 1 1 = bi − + (20) are all constants. This is a bit more trouble than our earlier simple explicit finite difference method. in this case .but it would be most points for a large number of grid points). (b) it uses a boundary condition (i=2 and i=4) or (c) it is specified completely by equation 20 (only i = 3. then we can solve them numerically. HeriotWatt University 15 . Pi n +1 and Pi n 1 1 ) are on the LHS of the equation − + and the term on the RHS is “known”. therefore P1 is fixed. Because. say as P 1 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. To see where these linear equations come from. Simple example of a 5 grid block system showing how the implicit finite difference scheme is applied P n+1 1 Boundary condition (fixed) P n+1 2 P n+1 3 P n+1 4 P n+1 5 Boundary condition (fixed) At each grid point. We can see how this works for the 5 grid block system in Figure 6 below: 1 P1 n ∆x 2 n ∆x 2 and where ai −1 = 1. Consider each grid point in turn as follows: i = 1 a boundary.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 Therefore. n.
therefore P5 is fixed.i=2 P 1 => + a2 P2n +1 a2 P2n +1 + + P3n +1 = P3n +1 = b2 = ∆x 2 n − P ∆t 2 ∆x 2 n − P − P 1 ∆t 2 ∆x 2 n − P ∆t 3 i=3 P2n +1 + a3 P3n +1 + P4n +1 = b3 = i=4 P3n +1 => + a4 P4n +1 + P5 = = b4 = P3n +1 + a4 P4n +1 ∆x 2 n − P ∆t 4 ∆x 2 n − P − P5 ∆t 4 iP5 5 a boundary. follows: n +1 ( P2n +1 . P3n +1 and P4n +1 ) which can be summarised as P3 and P4 ) i = 2: a2 P2n +1 + P3n +1 = ∆x 2 n − P − ∆t 2 ∆x 2 n − P ∆t 3 ∆x 2 n − P − ∆t 4 (21) P 1 i = 3: P n +1 2 + aP n +1 3 3 + P n +1 4 = i = 4: P n +1 3 + aP n +1 4 4 = P5 Note that the set of linear equations above can be represented as a simple matrix equation as follows: a2 1 0 1 a3 1 0 1 a4 P2n +1 n +1 P3 n +1 P4 = ∆x 2 n P2 − − ∆t ∆x 2 n − P ∆t 3 2 − ∆x P n − ∆t 4 P 1 P5 (22) 16 . say as P5 = Therefore there are only three unknowns in the above set of linear equations n +1 ( P2n +1 .
P 1 0 n +1 13 .0P 1 a4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n +1 4 0 . of the form: 1 12 11 P 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n +1 a 22 .Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 The structure of this matrix equationP clearer when there are more equations P and is 1 12 involved. we obtain 10 equations (using the two fixed boundary conditions. P2n +1 .P n +1. P4n +1 .. HeriotWatt University 17 . P3n +1 . it is quite easy to show that... P and P ) for the quantities... For example.P n +1 0 11 0 0 0 0 1 a7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a10 1 a3 0 0 a5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a11 P2n +1 n +1 P3 n +1 P4 P n +1 5 P6n +1 n +1 P7 n +1 P8 P n +1 9 P n +1 10 n +1 P 11 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 = − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 ∆t ) P2n − P 1 ∆t ) P3n ∆t ) P4n n ∆t ) P5 ∆t ) P6n ∆t ) P7n n ∆t ) P8 ∆t ) P9n ∆t ) P n 10 ∆t ) P n − P 11 12 (23) And 20 grid points in 1D would lead to the following set of 18 equations: − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 = −( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ( ∆x 2 − ∆x 2 ( a2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 a19 P2n +1 n +1 P3 n +1 P4 P n +1 5 P6n +1 n +1 P7 n +1 P8 P n +1 9 P n +1 10 n +1 P 11 n +1 P 12 P n +1 13 P n +1 14 P n +1 15 n +1 P 16 n +1 17 P P n +1 18 P n +1 19 ∆t ) P2n − P 1 n ∆t ) P3 n ∆t ) P4 ∆t ) P5n n ∆t ) P6 ∆t ) P7n ∆t ) P8n ∆t ) P9n ∆t ) P n 10 ∆t ) P n 11 ∆t ) P n 12 ∆t ) P n 13 ∆t ) P n 14 ∆t ) P n 15 ∆t ) P n 16 ∆t ) P n 17 ∆t ) P n 18 n ∆t ) P − P20 19 (24) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. if we take 12 grid points instead of the 5 above..
called the Thomas algorithm. (ii) It is very sparse . most of the elements are zero.that is.that is. The FORTRAN code for this is shown for interest in Figure 7. it is clear that the matrix arising from our implicit finite difference method has the following properties: (i) It is tridiagonal . a very simple computational procedure. 18 . there are only 3M nonzero terms but M2 actual elements. then the matrix is only (300/1002)x100% = 3% filled with nonzero terms. In an MxM matrix. can be used to solve tridiagonal systems very quickly. it has a maximum of three nonzero elements in any row and these are symmetric around the central diagonal. You are not expected to know this or to necessarily understand how this algorithm works.For this simple 1D PDE. If M = 100. Note that it is very compact and quite simple in structure. As it happens.
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 THE THOMAS ALGORITHM subroutine thomas c Thomas algorithm for tridiagonal systems + (N ! matrix size + ....tol) write (6. 0 cn an  cImplicit Double Precision (ah. cn1 an1 bn1  c  0 0 0 0 ....gt.*) “ thomas: alarm” c Done 100 Format (1x...10) Return End Institute of Petroleum Engineering.f15.c(200)..c ! subdiagonal + . 1998 cc Coefficient matrix: c  a1 b1 0 0 ..s(200)......b(200).. The Thomas algorithm for the solution of tridiagonal matrix systems..1. 0 0 0  c  ..b ! superdiagonal + .  c  0 0 0 0 ....Na Res = s(i)c(i)*x(i1)a(i)*x(i)b(i)*x(i+1) If(abs(Res).tol) write (6.Na i1 = i+1 Den = a(i1)c(i1)*d(i) d(i1) = b(i1)/Den y(i1) =(s(i1)c(i1)*y(i))/Den End DO c Back substitution x(N) = y(N) DO i=Na.x ! solution + ) cc This program accompanies the book: c C...tol) write (6.......gt. Numerical Computation in Science and Engineering c Oxford University Press.. 0 0 0  c  0 c3 a3 b3 ..gt.oz) Dimension a(200)..*) “ thomas: alarm” DO i=2..x(200) Dimension d(200)..y(200) Parameter (tol=0. HeriotWatt University Figure 7..*) “ thomas: alarm” End DO Res = s(N)c(N)*x(N1)a(N)*x(N) If(abs(Res).000000001) this is a measure of how close to coverage we are c prepare Na = N1 c reduction to upper bidiagonal d(1) = b(1)/a(1) y(1) = s(1)/a(1) DO i=1. 19 .1 x(i)= y(i)d(i)*x(i+1) End DO c Verification and alarm Res = s(1)a(1)*x(1)b(1)*x(2) If(abs(Res). Pozrikidis..a ! diagonal + .. 0 0 0  c  c2 a2 b2 0 ..s ! rhs + ..
Chapter 5) where the term k which we will denote as β below. i. the cµφ ∂P ∂ ˜ ∂P ∂ ˜ ∂P kx + = k y k ∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ˜ ˜ k x and k y cφµ k (25) k ˜ ˜ k x = k x / k and k y = ky / k. (ii) the possibility of heterogeneity in the permeability field which leads us to the matter of how to take average properties in gridtogrid flows between blocks of different permeability (dealt with in Chapter 4).1 Discretisation of the 2D Pressure Equation We take as the basic pressure equation for single phase slightly compressible flow. there are exactly the same number of linear equations as there are unknowns and so it is possible to solve these. k is an average permeability of the entire ˜ ˜ reservoir and k x and k y are the local permeabilities normalised by k .3. Time P i1 n ∆x Pi n ∆x P i+1 Time level n n i1 ∆t i i+1 Time level n + 1 n+1 P i1 n+1 Pi n+1 P i+1 Figure 8. 20 ˜ ˜ k x = k x / k and k y = ky / k. The choice of the (n+1) time level for the spatial discretisation leads to a set of linear equations which are somewhat more difficult to solve than the simple algebraic equation that arises in the explicit method (equation 15).g.e. However. the following (see the solution for exercise 2 at the end of Chapter 5): ˜ ˜ cφµ k x and k y k is a constant (a simplified form of equation 39. 3. (iii) the issue of nonlinearity for a compressible system e. . This raises some additional important issues which occur when we try to solve more complicated systems. as follows: (i) the complication of the more “connected” grid block system in a 2D domain. However.t). which is the “unknown”. k ˜ ˜ k x = k x / k and k y = ky / k. c(P) is clearly a function of P(x. we will first consider the discretisation of the 2D singlephase pressure equation. Note that we have avoided the nonlinearities for the moment (the quantities c(P).Finally.3 Implicit Finite Difference Approximation of the 2D Pressure Equation Before we go on to discuss how to solve the sets of linear equations that arise in the finite difference approximation of PDEs arising in reservoir simulation. μ and ρ usually depend on pressure). Schematic of the implicit finite difference algorithm for solving the simple pressure PDE 3. we note that the implicit finite difference method can be viewed as shown in Figure 8 below.
We can now expand these boundary flows as follows: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. we are starting with the PDE and going back to the local conservation of flows and introducing finite size Δx and Δy. However. Δy and Δt → 0. Here. j + 1 (j + 1/2) ∆y i .1/2) Figure 9. Equation 25 above can be discretised in a similar way to that applied to the 1D linear pressure PDE discussed above. j i.1. j i + 1.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 system may be anisotropic (kx ≠ ky) and heterogeneous (the permeability may vary from grid block to grid block). we refer to Figure 9. This shows the discretisation grid for the above PDE . i. we will need to be quite clear about our notation in 2D and. j (j . for this purpose.note that this is essentially the opposite of what we did when we derived the equation in the first place! In Chapter 5.1 ∆x (i + 1/2) Discretising the following equation using the above notation ∂P ∂ ˜ ∂P ∂ ˜ ∂P β = k x + k y ∂t ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y we obtain: ˜ ∂P ˜ ∂P − k k x ∂x i +1/ 2 x ∂x i −1/ 2 P −P β + ≈ ∆t ∆x n +1 n (26) ˜ ∂P ˜ ∂P − k y k y ∂y j +1/ 2 ∂y j −1/ 2 ∆y (27) where the (i ± 1/2) and (j ± 1/2) subscripts refer to quantities at the boundaries as shown in Figure 9. Discretisation and notation for the 2D pressure equation. we used a control volume (or grid block) to express the mass conservation and then inserted Darcy’s law for the block to block flows. HeriotWatt University 21 . j . y (j) (i x (i) 1/ ) 2 i. we then took limits as Δx.
k y j +1/ 2 and k y j −1/ 2 are some type of average permeabilities between the two neighbouring grid blocks . The matrix which arises in this 2D case is known as a pentadiagonal matrix. j − + (30) where the constant coefficients. j is also a (know) constant.nj+−11 − Pi .nj++11 − Pi . k x i −1/ 2 . ai .nj+1 + ai .2 Numbering Schemes in Solving the 2D Pressure Equation It is quite convenient to label the pressures as Pi.nj++11 = bi .nj+−11 j −1 / 2 ∆y 2 (28) where the quantities k x i +1/ 2 . j −1 and ai .nj+1 − Pi .j) subscripting in equations 29 or 30 above.Pi . j .1j + − Pi .nj+1 − Pi n 1.1j + ai +1.nj+1 ˜ − ky j +1 / 2 ∆y 2 ( ) Pi . j . j = kx ∆t ( ) + Pi n 1. The structure of the A .Pi .Pi n 1.nj+1 ˜ + − kx i +1 / 2 ∆x 2 ( ) + Pi . j 2 2 ∆t ∆y ∆y ( ) ( ) (29) Since the coefficients in equation 29 above are constants. here we have up to five nonzero terms per grid block to deal with rather than the three we found for the 1D system. We can rearrange equation 28 above by taking all the unknown terms (at n+1) to the LHS and the known terms (at time level n) to the RHS.3. j when we are working out the discretisation of the equations. but this is not helpful when we are arranging the linear equations.as discussed in Chapter 4.1j − Pi . bi. ai −1. Note also we have chosen the spatial discretisation terms at the new (n+1) time level making the this an implicit finite difference scheme.Pi n 1.1j + ai . j +1 . j +1 .nj+−11 + ai . 3.Pi .nj++11 = − Pi . 22 . This set of linear equations can be written as follows: + + ai −1. j . Here. However. j . ai . j .1j − i −1 / 2 ∆x 2 ˜ + ky ( ) Pi . j . are given by the coefficients in equation 29. This gives the following: ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ k kx kx ky ky kx x β j −1 / 2 j +1 / 2 + + i −1 / 2 i +1 / 2 i −1 / 2 i +1 / 2 Pi n 1.nj+1 − + + + − + 2 ∆t ∆x 2 ∆y 2 ∆y 2 ∆x 2 ∆x 2 ∆x (˜ ) (˜ ) (˜ ) (˜ ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ˜ ˜ kx ky β n j −1 / 2 j +1 / 2 Pi . P n +1 − Pi . j −1 . ai +1. then this defines a set of linear equations similar to those found in 1D. it is useful first to consider the numbering scheme for the 2D system that allows us to dispense with the (i.matrix in equation 30 can be made clearer by working out a specific 2D example as shown in Figure 10.1j − Pi n 1.nj ˜ β i.
NX + i e. All implicit methods for discretising the pressure equation lead to sets of linear equations.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 j=5 j=4 j=3 j=2 j=1 m = 17 m = 13 m=9 m=5 m=1 i=1 m = 18 m = 14 m = 10 m=6 m=2 i=2 m = 19 m = 15 m = 11 m=7 m=3 i=3 m = 20 m = 16 m = 12 m=8 m=4 i=4 Figure 10. the coefficient Am1 =0 in this case. when we apply the above equation numbering scheme to the example in Figure 10 (NX = 4.Pm − 1 + a m+ NX .direction. For example: ˜ ˜ ai . for block (i = 3.1). the reordered equations 30 become the following: n +1 n +1 n n+ n+ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ a m−1 . j −1 → a ( j −1−1) NX +i =( j −1) NX +i − NX → a m− NX ˜ ˜ ai . j = 3). j = NY m = grid block number in the natural ordering scheme shown m = (j .direction. the Amatrix structure is shown in Figure 11. i = NX. This is just like equation 31 but it is in shorthand form. that is block m = 9. NY = maximum number of grid blocks in y . 1 ≤ m ≤ 20). This is best seen by writing out the structure of the 20 x 20 Amatrix by referring to Figure 10. j = 4 and NX = 4. Notation: NX = maximum number of grid blocks in x . the “j1 block” is not there.4 + 3 = 15 (as above) In the mnotation shown in Figure 10 (m = (j1)NX +i).1).Pm + 1 = bm NX NX (31) ˜ where the am are the reordered coefficients where the subscript is calculated from the mformula in Figure 10. 23 Institute of Petroleum Engineering.it is a pentadiagonal matrix. m = (4 .Pm +1 + a m . Therefore. we will just assume that it can be solved. We next consider when the PDEs describing a phenomenon are nonlinear PDEs. x is the column vector of unknowns (like the pressures) and b is a column vector of the RHSs.g.Pm +1 + a m− NX . Note that the Amatrix structure in Figure 11 is sparse and has a maximum of five nonzero coefficients in a given row . For the meantime. Numbering system for 2D grid conversion from (i. We will discuss methods for solving these equations later in this chapter. j +1 → a ( j +1−1) NX +i = ( j −1) NX +i + NX → a m+ NX (32) (33) Note that.x = b (34) where A is a matrix like the examples shown above. for i = 3. For example. HeriotWatt University . These have the general matrix form: A.j) → m counter. NY = 5 and therefore.Pm −1 + a m+1 . certain “neighbours” are “missing” since a block is at the boundary (or in a corner where two neighbours are missing).
We will use the singlephase 2D equation for the flow of compressible fluids (and rocks) as the example for discussing the numerical solution of nonlinear PDEs.4 Implicit Finite Difference Approximation of Nonlinear Pressure Equations We have noted previously that using numerical methods are usually the only way which we can solve nonlinear PDEs of the type that arise in reservoir simulation. we will see shortly that the equations that arise are not linear equations . ρ(P) and the viscosity.shown here for reference. then they introduce difficulties into the equations. j=5 j=4 j=3 j=2 j=1 m = 17 m = 13 m=9 m=5 m=1 i=1 m = 18 m = 14 m = 10 m=6 m=2 i=2 m = 19 m = 15 m = 11 m=7 m=3 i=3 m = 20 m = 16 m = 12 m=8 m=4 i=4 Figure 11.ordering scheme used in figure 10 .t).m 1 2 x x 1 x x 2 x 3 4 5 x x 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 x x x 4 5 x 6 x 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x m . the density. In fact. hence. μ(P). Equation 35 below was derived in Chapter 5 and has the form: ∂P ∂ kx ρ ∂P ∂ ky ρ ∂P c( P) = + ∂t ∂x µ ∂x ∂y µ ∂y (35) where the nonlinearities arise in this equation due to the dependence of the generalised compressibility.they are nonlinear algebraic equations. It is the pressure that is the main unknown in this equation and. P(x. c(P). 24 . 3. on pressure. if these quantities depend on it. Structure of the Amatrix for the mordering scheme in the table shown below for reference.
1j ) i . j − P.1j − Pi .nj++11 − Pi .nj+1 − Pi n 1. ρ and μ).nj+1 − x 2 Pi .e. we can discretise the above equation as follows: ky ρ ∂P k ρ ∂P kx ρ ∂P k ρ ∂P − y − x µ ∂x i +1/ 2 µ ∂x i −1/ 2 µ ∂y j +1/ 2 µ ∂y j −1/ 2 P n +1 − P n c( P) + = ∆t ∆x ∆y (36) where we have not yet decided on the time level of the nonlinearities (i.nj+1 ky ρ n +1 Pi .nj+−11 kρ − y 2 ∆y µ. HeriotWatt University 25 .nj+1 − Pi . the time level of the pressure.nj+1 k ρ n +1 Pi .nj+1 µ. j c( P ) = ∆t ∆x ky ρ n +1 Pi .1j − Pi . j + − = µ.nj kx ρ kρ + + Pi n 1.∆x i −1/ 2 ( ) ( ) kρ + y 2 Pi .∆y j −1/ 2 n +1 (39) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.nj+1 − Pi n 1.n1+1 − Pi .∆y j +1/ 2 n +1 ( ) Pi .1j + − x x − µ n +1 n ∆x ∆x i −1 / 2 µ i +1/ 2 i i n +1 P.nj++11 − Pi .nj+−11 − µ ∆y ∆y j −1 / 2 µ j +1/ 2 + ∆y which can be simplified to the following: n +1 (38) n +1 c( P n +1 P n +1 − Pi . The most difficult case would be if these were set at the “unknown” time level Pn+1 and this is what we will do as follows: k ρ n +1 ∂P − x n +1 n P − P µ ∂x i +1/ 2 c( P n +1 ) = ∆t ∆x k ρ n +1 ∂P x ∂x µ i −1 / 2 ky ρ n +1 ∂P µ ∂y j −1/ 2 (37) ky ρ n +1 ∂P − µ ∂y j +1/ 2 + ∆y Now expanding up the ∂P ∂P and terms gives: ∂x ∂y + + k ρ n +1 Pi n 1. Pn or Pn+1.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 Proceeding as before. at which we evaluate c.∆x 2 ∆t i +1 / 2 µ.
j .nj++11 = βin. α in++11 j and α in. α in.e.nj+1 [( )] ν (P ) n +1 ν i. (b) Solve the now linear equationsi . j Pj . +1 . j Pi. j .of the Pi . j +1 and βin j are evaluatedi .Pi . Pi . j − + Pi . j ( α iν.nj+1 + α in.Pi . How do we go about solving the nonlinear set of algebraic equations in 39 or 40 above? It turns out that we have two choices in tackling this more difficult problem as follows: (i) We can actually use a numerical equation solver which is specifically designed to solve more difficult nonlinear problems. j . α in. that is: ( ) ν α iν.nj+1 value after ν iterations. as a first guess. ++1 .∆x i +1/ 2 µ.nj++11 = − x 2 .Pi.∆y j +1/ 2 µ.Pi n 1.This can be treated as before to gather together similar unknown Pterms as follows: kρ kρ + − x 2 . +−1 . We will use the following notation ⇒ ν n +1 αν where ν is the iteration counter and α i .1j − y 2 . at values of pressure = Pi . α i(42).nj+1 n α in−1.1j + α in. +1 − .nj kρ kρ + .1j − y 2 + ∆t µ. j . j 2 ∆t µ. j −1 .Pi. α in. j n+1 are not constants since they depend on the (unknown) value of P . j .∆y j +1/ 2 µ.∆y j −1/ 2 n +1 n +1 c( P n +1 ). we can write this in a compact form as follows: + + 1 1 α in−+11. + j j j j (41) 1 1 where the elements of theAmatrix (now denoted α in−+11 j .1j + α in+1.Pi.Pi. j .Pi .Pi n 1.1j + α in++11 j .or iaj first Pi . ++1 ) . j (P ) ) ν n +1 ν i. α in+1. j is the value of the acoefficient at the Pi .Pi. j +1 and βin.∆y j −1/ 2 n +1 c( P n +1 ) k ρ n +1 k ρ n +1 ky ρ n +1 n +1 kρ + + y 2 + + x 2 + x 2 . So we approximate equation 41 by the following first guess: + + α in−1. α in+1.Pi n 1.1j + α in.Pi n 1.∆x i −1/ 2 µ.i.nj+1 + α in. An example of this type of approach is in using the NewtonRaphson method. α in. j . j +1 . j . j −1 n +1 Pj where the quantities α in−1.Pi n 1. at the .∆x i −1/ 2 µ.nj+1 αν i. j (43) 26 .Pi . α in. j −1 .nj+1at each grid point. j .nj+−11 + α in. j j . j . α in.Pi. α in. We will return to this method later (once we have seen how to solve linear equations). j . (i) We can choose to apply a more pragmatic algorithms such as the following: (a) Although our αterms in equation 41 are strictly at time level (n+1).nj iteration .nj++11 = βin. +−1 . 42 above to obtain a first estimate .Pi n 1.nj+−11 − µ. n (known) time level n . +1 .nj+−11 + α in. simply take them at time level n.∆x i +1/ 2 n +1 n +1 (40) As before. j . j = α i .
j . j .nj+1 ( ) ν +1 . Algorithm for the numerical solution of the nonlinear 2D pressure equations: Yes (the method has converged) Stop Institute of Petroleum Engineering. j ∑ (P ) n +1 ν +1 i. the difference between it the sum of two successive iterated values of the pressure (Err. j +1 and β iν.) is sufficiently small (< Tol. [( )] ν ( ) ν where ν = current iteration number.Pinj+−11 + α iν.Pinj+1 + α iν. The algorithm outlined in (ii) above for solving the nonlinear pressure equation is represented in Figure 12. j +1 . j ∑ (P ) n +1 ν +1 i. j to Pi . j . j Pinj+1 . . j 1.nj+1 6 ν (c) Use the latest iterated values of the α i . α iν. j converges. (d) Keep iterating the above scheme untilPi . ( ) ν +1 Calculate Err = all i . j − Pi . . to obtain Pinj+1 = Pinj+1 . j −1 . j −1 . . Otherwise continue through steps above.Pin−+1j + α iν+1. ν = ν +1 Solve the set of linear equations: α iν−1.continue iterations Err < Tol ? Figure 12. j . Set the iteration counter ν = 0 Calculate the α iν−1. j . j = α i . 1. i. . j at n values of pressure = Pi .nj+1 ( ) ν No .Pin++1j + α iν.nj+1 ( ) ν (44) Stop if Err < Tol. j − Pi . j α iν.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation Pi .Pinj++11 = β iν. j .e. which is an acceptably small value) ( n +1 ν ) Err = all i . α iν. α iν. HeriotWatt University 27 . j to solve the (now linear) equations to go from (P ) n +1 ν i. α iν+1.
t) and So (x. equations 81 and 82. Po(x.4 APPLICATION OF FINITE DIFFERENCES TO TWOPHASE FLOW 4.1 Discretisation of the TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equations We now consider how finite difference methods are applied to the twophase flow equations. For example. λ (S ) T o The quantity λ T ( So ) is the total mobility and is the sum of the oil and water mobilities.Pw. Note that we have taken zero capillary pressure (therefore P = Po = Pw) and zero gravity which gives: PRESSURE EQUATION ∂ ∂P λ T ( So ) ∂x = 0 ∂x ∂S ∂ ∂P φ o = λ o ( So ) ∂t ∂x ∂x (45) SATURATION EQUATION (46) (Equations 45 and 46 are the same as equations 81 and 82 from Chapter 5. we would then find the water saturation and water pressure by using the constraint equations.t). we may solve for the oil pressure. We have seen how these equations were derived in Chapter 5. the oil saturation appears in the nonlinear coefficient of the pressure equation. we have two coupled equations to solve . in twophase flow.a pressure equation and a saturation equation. So+Sw = 1 and the capillary pressure relation. where we choose to solve for ⇒ P(x.t) as shown in Chapter 5. From Chapter 5.t) and the oil saturation. we use the highly simplified form of the 1D pressure and saturation equations. for the pressure equation (see notation in Figure 8): λ T ( So ) = λ o ( So ) + λ w ( So ) . λ T ( So ) = the flow term on the pressure appears inλ o ( So ) + λ w ( So ) the RHS of the saturation equation. So (x. We can now apply finite differences to each of these equations in the same way as discussed above to obtain. respectively. Pc(Sw) = Po . The above two equations are clearly coupled together since ∂P ∂P − λ T ( So ) λ T ( So ) ∂x i +1 / 2 ∂x i −1/ 2 =0 ∆x which can be expanded further to give: (47) + P n +1 − Pi n +1 P n +1 − Pi n 1 1 − λ T ( So ) i +1 − λ T ( So ) i i +1 / 2 i −1 / 2 ∆x ∆x =0 ∆x (48) 28 . Likewise. respectively). Recall that.
Finite differences may be applied to this equation as follows: P n +1 i −1 .e. ( ) ( ( ) ) n and(Sλ+1(So ) λT o T ) T n +1 o ( ) i +1 / 2 ( (λ (S S )) and (λ (S )) . Note that equation 50 represents one of a set of equations since there is one So at each grid point (and at the ends of the 1D system the values may be set by the n boundary conditions). we can expand the derivative terms at the (i+1/2) and (i1/2) boundaries (Figure 9) and we can take the mobility terms at the (n+1) time level to obtain: n +1 n n Soi+1 − Soi λ o ( So ) φ = ∆t ∆x 2 ( ) i +1 / 2 (P n +1 i +1 − Pi n +1 n λ ( So +1 ) o ) − ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 (P i n +1 −P n +1 i −1 ) (52) The above nonlinear algebraic set of equations can be written in various ways. Two particularly useful ways to write the above equations are as follows: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. we must now specify the time T (So )of the and λ T (So ) nonlinear mobility λ level n terms. HeriotWatt University 29 .saturations. Pi n +1 and P n +1 i +1 (50) ∂P ∂P − λ o ( So ) λ o ( So ) ∂x i +1 / 2 ∂x i −1/ 2 S −S φ = ∆t ∆x n +1 oi n oi (51) Again. − + n +1.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation (λ (S )) T o i +1 / 2 and λ T (So ) ( ) i −1 / 2 6 ) i −1 / 2 In equation 48 above. + + Pi n 1 1 . we go straight to the most difficult case by n +1 defining these terms at the later time level i. Pi n +1 and Pi n 1 1 . but the coefficients depend on the . These terms are denoted as. we must choose whether we take these terms i +1 / 2 i i +1 / 2−1 / 2 at time n or at time level (n+1)? Again. at So . in equation 48 above to obtain: (λ S (λ (λ (S) )) (S ) λ (S ( )) )) − ( )) (λ (S ∆x ( P − P ) ∆x ( P − P ) = 0 (λ (S )) (49) (λ (S )) T n +1 n +1 o o i +1 / 2 i −1 / 2 T n +1 n +1 o T i +1 / 2 o n +1 T i +2 / 2 1 o i −1 / 2 n +1 o n +1 i +1 i n +1 T n +1 n +1 o T i +1 / 2 o n +1 i −1 / 2 i 2 n +1 o n +1 i −1 T i −1 / 2 T i −1 / 2 The above equation can now be arranged into the usual order as follows: (λ (S )) T n +1 o i −1 / 2 ∆x 2 P n +1 i −1 n λ ( So +1 ) T − ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 (λ (S )) + T n +1 o i +1 / 2 ∆x 2 λ ( S n +1 ) P n +1 + T o i ∆x 2 ( ) i +1 / 2 + Pi n 1 1 = 0 + This is a nonlinear set of algebraic equations for the unknown pressures. So +1 We now consider the discretisation of the saturation equation 46. λ T (So ) So + 1 (λ (S )) T o i +1 / 2 n So + 1 and λ T (So ) ( ) i −1 / 2 .also unknown .
As with the case of the solution of the nonlinear single phase pressure equation for a compressible system.g. we have two strategies which we can use to solve the twophase equations above. as follows: (i) We can actually use a numerical equation solver which is specifically designed to solve more difficult nonlinear problems. e. 4. the NewtonRaphson method. We will return to this method later (once we have seen how to solve linear equations).2 below.2 IMPES Strategy for Solving the TwoPhase Pressure and Saturation Equations The form of the discretised pressure and saturation equations which we will take are as follows (equations 50 and 53): Pressure: (λ (S )) T n +1 o i −1 / 2 ∆x 2 P n +1 i −1 n λ ( So +1 ) T − ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 (λ (S )) + T n +1 o i +1 / 2 ∆x 2 λ ( S n +1 ) P n +1 + T o i ∆x 2 ( ) i +1 / 2 + Pi n 1 1 = 0 + (50) Saturation: n n Soi+1 + Soi − n +1 ∆t λ o ( So ) φ ∆x 2 ( ) i +1 / 2 n λ ( So +1 ) o + Pi n 1 1 − Pi n +1 ) − ( + ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 + Pi n +1 − Pi n 1 1 ) ( − (53) 30 . (i) We can again choose to apply a more pragmatic algorithm and this is the subject of section 4. depending on how we intend to approach the solution of the coupled pressure (equation 45) and saturation (equation 46) equations.Form A: S n +1 oi n +1 ∆t λ o ( So ) =S + φ ∆x 2 n oi ( ) i +1 / 2 (P n +1 i +1 − Pi n +1 n λ ( So +1 ) − o ) ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 (P i n +1 −P n +1 i −1 ) or Form B: S n +1 oi n +1 ∆t λ o ( So ) −S − φ ∆x 2 n oi (53) ( ) i +1 / 2 (P n +1 i +1 − Pi n +1 n λ ( So +1 ) − o ) ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 + Pi n +1 − Pi n 1 1 ) = 0 ( − (54) The reason for writing the above two forms of the saturation equation is that each is useful.
If))Δt etc. before−1(see i+the and n − + i i +1 algorithm in Figure 13).Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 Pressure equation 50 would be a set of linear equations if the coefficients were known at the current time step (n). Explicit ) etc. the ( P ) . ( P ) . rather than being specified at the (n+1) . n +1 ν i n +1 ν i +1 n +1 ν i +1+1 ν n i +1 n +1 +ν ν n 1 i +1i n +1 ν i +1 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. ( P P ) )and ( and using the latest pressures (i. S S in Saturation. P n +1 and P n +1 Pi n +1 i −1 i i +1 +1 just mentioned).e. The saturations can then (be obtainedP ) ) . Pi and Pi +1 . Pi −1 + ν.e.hereP Figure Pi n 1 1 and Pi −1 Pi in1 andPi + . the unknown . ( IMPES approximation. Δt. However. (S(S ) )etc. The same problem exists Pi forP n +1saturation equation 53. the quantities Pin−+11 .(S . 1 1 the unknowns i. which stands for IMplicit in Pressure. ((S is too the size of time step. ( P explicitly( ⇒ ( P ) .time level. we could solve equation 50 above as if it were + + Pi n 1 1 .). as discussed + ν ν Pi −1 . ( P ) and ( P )P ) . the ( S ) . Pi n +1 and Pi n 1 . i− o 13.νthe pressure equation +1 ν n 1 ν n +1 . ( P ) and ( P ) iteration of the saturation (i.for that iteration.e. Pi n +1 and Pi n 1 1 − a linear system of equations by timelagging the+coefficients1 1as Pi n +1 P n +1 . Pinn++11for andpressure. A flow 1chart of this procedure iterated until convergence. then we could usenthese latest values of pressure and still time lag Pi n +1 the coefficients (the oil mobility S n +1 and use the saturation equation 53 as if it terms) Pi n +1 S n +1 weren an explicit expression. ( unstable and ν n +1n +1 ν i −1 n 1 ν n +1 +ν i i +1 n +1 ν i −1 i n +1 ν n +1 ν i +1 above. ( P ) and ( P ) . ν Pi −implicitly ν the Pinn+111 ν + n +1 ν i −1 i n +1 ν n +1 ν i +1 i −1 i i +1 n +1 ν i −n +1 ν 1 i+ n−1 ν i n +1 ν i n +1 ν i n +1 ν i n +1 ν in +1 ν i +1 n +1 ν i +n +1 ν 1 i +1 n +1 ν i n +1 ν i −1 i ( ) ( ) ( () ) ( ) ( ) (( )) (( )) (( )) (( )) ( P ) .i.n +1 ν n +1n +1 ν n +1 +ν ν + n +1 hasSalready been outlined in Chapter 5 (Figure 9) but is elaborated . This can be iterated(until)it.e. This owould give us an updated ovalue of So +1 which Pi n +1 could then be used back in the pressure equation and the whole process could be So n +1 ν So n +1 νpreviously. give unphysical results like the example in Exercise 3 (S ) .PiP1n1+1 and P n +1 Pi n + . which can may becomeS ) etc. Pi ν and P +1 + ν i is linearlised and can then be solvednn+111 ν . Therefore. large. ( P ) and ( P ) ) and the most recent ( P ) . this approach is (S ) . This would+1 nus a “firstnguess” (or first iteration) to find n give +1 +1 Pi −n +1 Pi n +1and Pi +n +1 . known as theP ) and ( P ) etc. HeriotWatt University 31 . the IMPES method ) . ( S ) etc. if we had the first guess at the Pi n +1 (by the procedure the .converges although there are limitations in (Sbe taken. Note that by taking timelaggednvalues of+the saturations. .
( Pin +1 ) and ( Pin++1 ) 1 1 Update saturation explicity as follows: n n Soi+1 = Soi + ν ν ν ∆t λ o (So ) i +1/ 2 (Pin++11 ) − (Pin +1 ) φ ∆x 2 ( ) ( ) ν λ ( So ) ν ν i −1 / 2 − o (Pin +1 ) − (Pin−+11 ) ∆x 2 ( ) ( ) to obtain latest iteration of saturations ν = ν +1 ⇒ (Sin +1 ) . < Tol ? Yes Stop 32 . ν. ν ν ν (ii) the latest values of the pressures just calculated implicity ⇒ ( Pin−+1 ) . Explicit in Saturation) No .. Now update the saturation equation as if it were explicit by taking ν ν (i) the oil mobility terms at the latest iteration. to obtain: T ν o i −1 / 2 2 (λ (S )) ( ) ( ) ( ) ⇒ ( Pin−+1 ) . Set the total mobilities ⇒ λ T (So )i +1/ 2 and λ T (So )i −1/ 2 obtain the linearised pressure equation: ν ν ν λ ( So ) λ T ( So ) λ T ( So ) T i −1 / 2 i +1 / 2 n +1 i +1 / 2 Pin−+1 − + Pi + Pin++1 = 0 1 1 2 2 ∆x ∆x ∆x ∆x 2 Solve this linear implicit pressure equation for pressure at iteration. ν ν Calculate the error.Set the iteration counter to zero. by comparing the change in pressure or saturations (or both as here) at the current (ν) and last (ν1) iterations: Err.continue iteration Is Err. (Sin++11 ) etc. term above would have some scaling factors weighing the pressure and saturation terms because of the units of pressure. ν = 0 n Take current values of So and P n as the ν level ν iteration values: ⇒ So and P ν ν ν PRESSURE EQUN. ( Pin +1 ) and ( Pin++1 ) 1 1 ν ν ν SATURATION EQUN. Err. Figure 13. = ∑ ( Pin +1 ) − ( Pin +1 ) ν i =1 NX ν −1 + ∑ (Sin +1 ) − (Sin +1 ) ν i =1 NX ν −1 Note that the Err. etc. IMPES Algorithm for the numerical solution of the twophase pressure and saturation equations (IMPES ⇒ IMplicit in Pressure. ν ⇒ λ 0 (So )i λ 0 (So )i +1 .
.. .. x5 . x1 + a32 ... xn = b3 .. + ann .. In the following section. x2 + a13 .. an1 .. .. + a2 n . x4 + a25 . ... ... an1 a12 a22 a32 a13 a23 a33 a14 a24 a34 an 2 an 3 an 4 a15 ..... (55) ..... xn = bn where the aij and bi are known constants and the xi (i = 1. x1 + an 2 .. x2 + an 3 . 2.. for example. .. x4 + a15 .. x3 + a14 . . we will address the issue of solving the nonlinear equations which arise in the discretised twophase flow equations directly. + a3n . x3 + an 4 . . In fact.. an 5 .g. .. The xi in our pressure equation. HeriotWatt University 33 ... we have shown above that the equations involved ... a2 n x2 b2 a35 . x1 + a12 .may be a set of nonlinear algebraic equations. . . x5 . ann xn bn (56) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. A generalised set of linear equations may be written in full as follows: a11 . x2 + a23 . x4 + a35 .1 Introduction to Linear Equations In all implicit finite difference methods.. we end up with a set of linear equations to solve. The set of linear equations can be written in matrix form as follows: a11 a21 a31 . x5 ... x5 ... the discretised pressure equation .... a3n x3 = b3 .. x4 + an 5 ... . + a1n . . n) are the unknown quantities which we are trying to find. would be the unknown pressures at the next time step. a1n x1 b1 a25 . The solution to the original nonlinear equations may then be found by repeating or iterating through the cycle of solving the linear equations.. xn = b2 a31 .. x1 + a22 .. . x3 + a34 ....e. by time lagging the coefficients as discussed above) in order to obtain a set of linear equations. . these can usually be linearised (say. However... x2 + a33 ...Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 5 THE NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS 5. x3 + a24 .. . xn = b1 a21 . .
A very simple example of a set of linear equations is given below: (58) 4.. b n (57) and the set of linear equations can be written in very compact form as follows: A..rather than understand in detail ... ..x = b where A in an n x n square matrix and x and b are n x 1 column vectors. an1 a12 a22 a32 a13 a23 a33 a14 a24 a34 an 2 an 3 an 4 a15 . . Indeed... x3 = 13 1. x2 + 1.. a3n . x1 + 3... petroleum reservoir simulation has led to the development of some of these numerical techniques... x3 = 11 (59) How do we solve these? In the above case. ann x1 x2 x = x3 . 5.. Remember. . x2 + 2.. although this would be virtually impossible if there were hundreds of equations.. an 5 . . .. a1n a25 . you can do a simple trial and error solution to find that x1 = 2.2 General Methods for Solving Linear Equations Firstly.... x n and b1 b2 b = b3 .. The overview of approaches to solving these equations is discussed in the next section. x1 + 2...We can write the matrix A and the column vectors x and b as follows: A a11 a21 = a31 ... x1 + 1. there is one equation for every grid block in a linearised pressure equation in reservoir simulation (although there are lots of zeros in the A matrix). We will not cover much of this huge subject but we will cover enough that the student can appreciate . a2 n a35 . let us note that there is a vast literature on solving sets of linear equations and many books on the underlying theory and on the numerical techniques have appeared. . .. This implies that we need a clear numerical algorithm that a computer can work through and solve the linear equations. x2 + 3. .. .how the linear equation are solved in a simulator. x3 = 14 2. 34 . x2 = 1 and x3 = 3. .
Examples of iterative methods are the Jacobi iteration.. in many cases. . The solution should get closer and closer to the “correct” answer but. (ii) Iterative Methods: in this type of method.. we cannot say exactly how quickly it will get there. x2 .. we usually start off with a first guess (or estimate) to the solution vector.g. say x(o) . .... We can write the n x (n+1) augmented matrix of A and b coefficients as follows: a11 a21 a31 ..for successively improving this guess by iteration to obtain. multiplying through by x2) must be performed on both sides of the equation i. followed by a back substitution set of steps which give us the answer.3 Direct Methods for Solving Linear Equations In fact. a2 n b2 a35 . etc. An example of such a direct method is Gaussian Elimination... the numerical values of x1. HeriotWatt University 35 ... an 5 . we will discuss a general outline of how these methods work.. If it is successful.. an1 a12 a22 a32 a13 a23 a33 a14 a24 a34 an 2 an 3 an 4 a15 . this involves a set of forward elimination steps in order to get the equations into a particularly suitable form for solution (see below). Usually. xn)... .. then this iterative method should converge to the correct x as ν increases..an algorithm .... a3n b3 . iterative methods do not have a fixed number of steps in them as do direct methods. the LSOR (Line Successive Over Relaxation) method. ....x = b (60) where A in an n x n square matrix and x and b are n x 1 column vectors. . x(1) → x(2) → x(3) . Starting with the basic linear equation in matrix form: A. there are two main approaches for solving sets of linear equations involving direct methods and iterative methods as follows: (i) Direct Methods: this group of methods involves following a specific algorithm and taking a fixed number of steps to get to the answer (i.... Instead. 5. We then have a procedure .... Where we take this as iteration zero.e.. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.e.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 Basically.. . ann bn (61) Remember that any mathematical operation we perform on one of the linear equations (e... The following two sections will discuss each of these approaches for solving sets of linear equations in turn. Therefore. v = 0. we will not present the details of any direct method for solving linear equations.. a1n b1 a25 . → x(ν) etc... .
as shown above.on the aij and the bi. .. .. ... if we have formed the augmented matrix correctly (i.. .. only the diagonals and above are nonzero (cij ≠ 0. just that it can be done): c11 0 0 .. .. . 0 c12 c22 0 <=> C.... if j ≥ i) and all elements below the diagonal are zero (cij = 0.. doing the same operations to the A and b coefficients)........e. Therefore... then the following matrix equation is equivalent to the original matrix equation: i. . (63) Therefore.. c3n x3 = e3 . c2 n x2 e2 c35 .... c1n e1 c25 .... as can be seen by writing it out in full as follows: 36 ... .x = e c14 c24 c34 c15 . (62) The Cmatrix above is in upper triangular form i. . 0 cnn xn en . ... . . The reason is that....e... 0 cnn en . ...x = b c11 0 0 . 0 c12 c22 0 c13 c23 c33 c14 c24 c34 0 0 0 c15 ..e.. c2 n e2 c35 .. ... Now consider why this particular form is of interest in solving the original equations. c13 c23 c33 0 0 0 (64) This matrix equation is very easy to solve.... c3n e3 .. if i > j).. c1n x1 e1 c25 . . A. suppose we can transform the above augmented matrix into the following form (we do not say how this is done..... ... .
x5 . n − 2 .. x5 . . xn −1 + cn −1. starting from the equation n which only has one term to find xn. xn −1 + cn −1. n − 2 (66) Hence.. . xn => xn − 2 = n − 2 etc. we can calculate xn.x xn −1 = n −1 n −1. n −1 cn −1. n . back to x1. n . x5 .. n . n −1 . n −1 . cn − 2. x3 + c14 . e − c . xn = e3 c44 . xn − 2 + cn − 2. n −1 .. + c2 n . xn = en (65) We can easily solve this equation by backsubstitution. x5 . xn1.. by working back through these equations in upper triangular form.. . x3 + c24 . xn = e4 . xn −1 − cn − 2. xn = en => xn = en / cnn now use xn in . n . as follows: cnn . n −1 .. x4 + c35 .. x3 + c34 .. xn = en −1 => cn − 2. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 c11 .. HeriotWatt University 37 . + c3n . x4 + c15 . . x4 + c25 .. cn −1... x4 + c45 ..cn − 2. + c4 n .. x2 + c13 . xn = e1 c22 .... this xn is then used in the (n1) equation (which has 2 terms) to find xn1 etc.. xn2. xn −1 + cn − 2. x2 + c23 . xn in ... x1 + c12 .. xn = en −1 cnn . cn −1. n n use xn −1 .... xn = e2 c33 . xn = en − 2 e ... + c1n .
. x3 = ...... x4 = . x4 = b3 a41 .... x3 = ... x3 + a34 ....... x4 = ...1x2 − 2 x 2 − 2 x3 + 2 x2 − 3 x3 + 2 3 2 x3 1x4 2 x3 4 x4 3 x3 2 x4 4 + 1 x 4 + 1x 5 = 5 + 2 x5 = 12 + 1x4 + 2 x5 = 12 + 1x5 = 30 + 4 x4 + 1x5 = 30 − 1x 5 = 3 2 x 4 − 1x 5 = 3 3 x5 = 15 3 x5 = 15 5 Answer Answer: Answer x1 = .4 Iterative Methods for Solving Linear Equations As noted above....... However.. it adequately illustrates the main ideas which you need to know for the purposes of this part of the course. 5..... x3 + a44 .. x2 = . Note that this simple point iterative scheme will work for some of the examples we try here but it is not one that is recommended for use in reservoir simulation... x3 + a24 ........ We illustrate the idea of such a method using a very simple iterative scheme. x1 + a42 .....EXERCISE 4. the idea in an iterative method for solving a set of linear equations is to make a first guess at the solution and then to refine it in a stepwise manner using a suitable algorithm.... x4 = b1 a21 ...... x4 = b2 a31 . for our purposes..... x2 + a33 ..... x5 = .... x1 = ...... x1 + a22 . x2 + a23 .. we will just take a set of four linear equations as follows: a11 . x5 = . x2 + a13 .. Our simple scheme starts with the longhand version of a set of linear equations and..... Solve the following simple1example1of an upper triangular matrix: 4x 1x − 2 x + x + x = 5 1 4 x1 .. x1 + a12 ....... x4 = b4 We can rearrange the above set of equations as follows: (67) 38 ... This procedure should gradually converge to the correct answer. x2 + a43 .. x3 + a14 ....... x1 + a32 ....... x2 = ...
x ( 0 ) . if anything. if Err. which we can use to solve the equations numerically. x (ν ) Err. where ν is the iteration counter. they look a bit more complicated. Firstly. x. the above reorganised equations forms the basis for an iterative scheme. HeriotWatt University 39 . then the scheme has converged. Tol  Using the above notation in equations 68 above.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 x1 = 1 b1 − ( a12 x2 + a13 x3 + a14 x4 ) a11 [ ] ] x2 = 1 b2 − ( a21 x1 + a23 x3 + a24 x4 ) a22 [ x3 = 1 b3 − ( a31 x1 + a32 x2 + a34 x4 ) a33 [ ] ] (68) x4 = 1 b4 − ( a41 x1 + a42 x2 + a43 x3 ) a44 [ The resulting equations are precisely equivalent to the original set although. we need to introduce some notation as follows: Notation: (ν ) xi(v) xi  the solution for xi at iteration ν. the first guess and νth iteration of the solution vector. Why would we deliberately complicate the situation? In fact. < Tol. an estimate of the error in the iteration scheme from the ν to the (ν+1) iteration some “small” quantity which determines the acceptable error in the iteration scheme. gives the following simple iteration scheme: Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
63 + 0. = ∑ xik +1 − x ki 4 Err. x4ν ) ) a22 1 ( ( b3 − ( a31 .0.go back to step (ii) and continue the iterations. If yes . if no .33 x3 + 0.g.21x4 = 5. Example: Solve the following set of equations using the iterative scheme above. x2ν ) + a23 . x2ν ) + a43 .0 x3 0. This scheme is now illustrated with a practical example. x3ν ) + a24 .: Err.1x4 = 13.19 = 16.23 x1 .22 x2 + 0. x3ν ) ) a44 [ This iteration scheme may now be applied as follows: (i) (ii) Make an initial guess at the solution.32 x2 + 4. x20 ) .x1(ν +1) = 1 ( ( ( b1 − ( a12 .0. 3. x4ν ) ) a11 [ ] ] ( x2ν +1) = 1 ( ( ( b2 − ( a21 . x3ν ) + a14 . x2ν ) + a13 . x40 ) Update the solution to the next iteration ν+1 using equations 69 (iii) Estimate an Error term (Err.1x1 0.) by comparing the latest with the previous i =1 iteration of the unknowns.42 x1 + 0.76 0. x2ν ) + a34 . e.2 x4 = 15. = ∑ xiν +1 − xiν i =1 4 (iv) Is Err.1x2 + 0. x4ν ) ) a33 [ ( x3ν +1) = [ ] ] (69) ( x4ν +1) = 1 ( ( b3 − ( a41 . < Tol. iteration ( ( ( ( ν = 0: x ( 0 ) = x1 0 ) .the scheme has converged.32 x2 + 0.2 x1 . 5 x 3 40 .5 x3 + 2.3 x4 + 5. x1(ν ) + a32 .92 + 0. x1(ν ) + a42 . x30 ) .
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation
6
(0) (0) (0) (0) Take the first guess: x1 = 2, x2 = 2, x3 = 2, x4 = 2
Hint: reorganise the above equations as follows:
( ( x1(ν +1) = (1 / 3.1) * 13.92  ( 0.32 x2ν ) + 0.5 x3ν )
(
( + 0.1x4ν ) )
)
( x2ν +1) = (1 / 2.1) * 5.63 
(
(0.20 x
( ν + 1) 1
( ( + 0.33 x3ν ) + 0.21x4ν )
)) ))
( x3ν +1) = (1 / 4.0) * 15.19 
(
(0.23x
(ν +1) 1

( 0.32 x2ν +1)
( + 0.30 x4ν )
( x4ν +1) = (1 / 5.2) * 16.76 
(
( 0.42 x
(ν +1) 1
( + 0.22 x2ν +1) +
( 0.5 x3ν +1)
))
EXERCISE 5.
Fill in the table below for 10 iterations using a calculator or a spreadsheet: POINT ITERATIVE SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS
Iteration counter ν First guess = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x at iter. ν x1 x2 2.0 2.0
x3 2.0
x4 2.0
Iteration counter x at iter. ν ν x1 x2 x3 x4 In some First guess = 0be possible to develop improved iteration schemes by using cases, it may 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 the latest information 1 is available. For example, in the above iteration scheme, that 4.309677 1.97619 3.6925 2.784615 4.008926 1.411795 3.498943 2.436331 we could use the very2latest value of x1(ν+1) when we are calculating x2(ν+1) since we 3 3.993119 1.505683 3.497206 already have this quantity. Likewise, we can use both x1(ν+1) 2.503112 when we and x2(ν+1) 4 4.000937 1.500783 3.500617 2.500584 (ν+1) calculate x3 etc as shown below: 5 3.999963 1.499755 3.499965 2.499832 6 3.999986 1.500026 3.499995 2.500017 7 4.000003 1.5 3.500002 2.500001 8 4 1.499999 3.5 2.5 Converged ⇒ 9 4 1.5 3.5 2.5 10 4 1.5 3.5 2.5
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
Note  converges fully at k = 9 iterations.
41
( ( x1(ν +1) = (1 / 3.1) * 13.92  ( 0.32 x2ν ) + 0.5 x3ν )
(
( + 0.1x4ν ) )
)
( x2ν +1) = (1 / 2.1) * 5.63 
(
(0.20 x
( ν + 1) 1
( ( + 0.33 x3ν ) + 0.21x4ν )
)) ))
( x3ν +1) = (1 / 4.0) * 15.19 
(
(0.23x
(ν +1) 1

( 0.32 x2ν +1)
( + 0.30 x4ν )
( x4ν +1) = (1 / 5.2) * 16.76 
(
( 0.42 x
(ν +1) 1
( + 0.22 x2ν +1) +
( 0.5 x3ν +1)
))
available).
( ( x1(ν +1) , x2ν +1) , x3ν +1) => underlined terms, imply they are at the latest time
When this is done, we find the following results: IMPROVED POINT ITERATIVE SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS (Using latest information)  see spreadsheet CHAP6Ex5.xls  Sheet 2
Iteration counter ν First guess = 0 1 2 3 4 5 Converged ⇒ 6 7 8 9 10 x at iter. ν x1 2 4.309677 4.021247 3.999376 3.999973 3.999998 4 4 4 4 4
x2 2 1.756221 1.495632 1.500005 1.499974 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
x3 2 3.540191 3.501408 3.500161 3.499997 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
x4 2 2.460283 2.498333 2.500035 2.500004 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Note  converges fully at ν = 6 iterations.
Clearly, comparing this table with the previous one using the simple point iterative method, we see that this method does indeed converge quicker. Although this is just one example, it is generally true that using the latest information in an iterative scheme improves convergence. Notes on iterative schemes: there are several point to note about iterative schemes, which we have not really demonstrated or explained here. However, you can confirm some of these points by using the supplied spreadsheets. These points are: (i) Iterative solution schemes for linear equations are often relatively simply to apply  and to program on a computer (usually in FORTRAN). If you study the supplied spreadsheets (CHAP6Ex5.xls), you can see that they are quite simple in structure for this set of equations.
42
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation
6
(ii) The convergence rate of an iterative scheme may depend on how good the initial guess (x(0)) is. If you want to demonstrate this for yourself, run the spreadsheet (CHAP6Ex5.xls) with a more remote initial guess. Here is the same example as that presented above with a completely absurd initial guess: POINT ITERATIVE SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS  Bad First Guess (you can use CHAP6Ex5.xls to confirm these results)
Iteration counter ν First guess = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Converged ⇒ 13 14 15 x at iter. ν x1 900 1017.45 63.79526 55.59796 1.890636 4.326953 4.090824 3.987986 4.001064 4.000117 3.999963 4.000004 4 4 4 4
x2 2000 2454.69 406.2002 20.1756 2.67691 2.668945 1.389409 1.49622 1.502872 1.499593 1.500013 1.500006 1.499999 1.5 1.5 1.5
x3 456 1932.95 131.922 4.491703 0.53117 3.538073 3.519613 3.491895 3.500729 3.500025 3.499982 3.500003 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
x4 23000 28.7 375.1144 6.43019 0.84584 3.234699 2.420476 2.495457 2.50191 2.499722 2.500005 2.500004 2.499999 2.5 2.5 2.5
(iii) We cannot tell in advance how many iterations may be required in order to converge a given iterative scheme. Clearly, from the results above, a good initial guess helps. In reservoir simulation, when we solve the pressure equation, a good enough guess of the new pressure is the values of the old pressures at the last time step. If nothing radical has changed in the reservoir, then this may be fine. However, if new wells have started up in the model or existing wells have changed rate very significantly, then the “pressure at last time step” guess may not be very good. However, with a very robust numerical method, convergence should still be achieved. (iv) It helps in an iterative method to use the latest information available. This was demonstrated in the iterative schemes in spreadsheet CHAP6Ex5.xls.
5.5 A Comparison of Iterative and Direct Methods for Solving Linear Equations
In this Chapter, we have described two general methods  direct and iterative  for solving the linear equations which arise when we discretise the flow equations of reservoir simulation. We have not indicated which of these methods is usually “best” for reservoir simulation problems. This is because, it depends on the problem. The final numerical problem which is solved in a reservoir simulator could be quite small and simple, or it could be very large and have some intrinsically difficult numerical problems within it.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
43
In any numerical computational method, such as those for solving a set of linear equations, we need to have some way of calculating the amount of “work” involved. To some extent this depends on the computer architecture since new generation parallel processing machines are becoming available as discussed in Chapter 1. However, we will take quite a simple view based on a conventional serial processing machine and will define computational work as simply the number of multiplications and divisions (addition and subtraction is cheap!). In this way, we can define the amount of work required for any given direct and iterative scheme for solving linear equations. We present results without any proof for two such schemes called the BAND (a direct method) and LSOR (Line Successive OverRelaxation; an iterative method) schemes. For a 2D problem with NX and NY grid blocks in the x and y directions, respectively (where we choose NY < NX) BAND (direct), LSOR (iterative), Work, WB Work, WLSOR ≈ NX.NY3 ≈ NX.NY. Niter (70) (71)
where Niter is the number of iterations until convergence is reached. It is already quite clear that the amount of work for the direct method  which only has to be done once  is larger than that for a single iteration of the iterative method. However, we do not know in advance the number of iterations, Niter. We illustrate some typical results for these two methods with a simple exercise below.
EXERCISE 6.
Which is best method (i.e. that requiring the lowest amount of computational work), BAND or LSOR, for the following problems? (i) NX = 5, NY = 3, Niter = 50 (a small problem) Niter = 50
(ii) NX = 20, NY = 5,
(iii) NX = 100, NY = 20, Niter = 70 (iv) NX = 400, NY = 100, Niter = 150
NX 5 20 100 400 NY 3 5 20 100 Niter 50 50 70 150 BAND WB LSOR, WLSOR Comment
44
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation
6
We can summarise our comparison between direct and iterative methods for solving the sets of linear equations that arise in reservoir simulation as follows: (i) A direct method for solving a set of linear equations has an algorithm that involves a fixed number of steps for a given size of problem. Given that the equations are properly behaved (i.e. the problem has a stable solution), the direct method is guaranteed to get to the solution in this fixed number of steps. No first guess is required for a direct method. (ii) An iterative method on the other hand, starts from a first guess at the solution (x(o)) and then applied a (usually simpler) algorithm to get better and better approximations to the true solution of the linear equations. If successful, the method will converge in a certain number of iterations, Niter, which we hope will be as small as possible. However, we cannot usually tell what this number will be in advance. Also, in some cases the iterative method may not converge for certain types of “difficult” problem. We may need to have good first guess to make our iterative method fast. Also, it often helps to use the latest computed information that is available (see example above). (iii) Usually the amount of “work” required for a direct method is smaller for smaller problems but iterative methods usually win out for larger problems. For an iterative method, the amount of work per iteration is usually relatively small but the number of iterations (Niter) required to reach convergence may be large and is usually unknown in advance.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
45
EXERCISE 7.
The linear equations which arise in reservoir simulation may be solved by a direct solution method or an iterative solution method. Fill in the table below:
Direct solution method Give a very brief description of each method
Iterative solution method
Main advantages
1.
1.
2.
2.
Main disadvantages
1.
1.
2.
2.
46
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation
6
6. DIRECT SOLUTION OF THE NONLINEAR EQUATIONS OF MULTIPHASE FLOW 6.1 Introduction to Sets of Nonlinear Equations
We noted in Section 4 above that the equations which we obtain when we discretise the twophase flow equations are actually nonlinear in nature. However, the strategy we discussed above (the IMPES method) involved tackling the problem almost as if it were a linear set of equations since we timelagged the coefficients to reduce the problem to a linear set of equations. Then we repeated this process  we applied repeated iterations  until it (hopefully) converged. Therefore, we took a nonlinear problem and solved it as if it were a series of linear problems. In this section, we will introduce the general idea of solving sets of nonlinear equations numerically and indicate how this can be applied to the twophase flow equations. We will do this in a simplified manner that shows the basic principles without going into too much detail. Firstly, compare the difference between solving the following two sets of two equations, a set of 2 linear equations:
2 x1 + x2 = 10 3 x1 − x2 = 5
and a set of 2 nonlinear equations: (72)
x1
+
2 x2 .e − x1 = 2
2
x2 .( x1 )2 − x1 .( x2 ) = −5
(73)
It is immediately obvious that the second set of nonlinear equations is more difficult. The first set of linear equations can be rearranged easily to show that x1 = 3 and x2 = 4. However, it is not as straightforward to do the same thing for the nonlinear set of equations. As a first attempt to solve these, we might try to develop an iterative scheme by rearranging the equations as follows
( x1(ν +1) = 2 − 2 x2ν ) .e − x1
(ν )
x
(ν +1) 2
=
( x2ν ) .( x1(ν ) )2 +5
x1(ν )
(74)
where, as before, ν denotes the iteration counter. The actual solution in this case is, x1 =2.51068, x2 = 3.144089. Applying the above iterative scheme with a first guess, x1(0) = x2(0) = 1.0, gives the results shown in Table 2 below (where we have removed some of the intermediate iterations). Table 2: Nonlinear scheme applied to solution of equations 73 using the point iterative scheme of equation 74 (spreadsheet, CHAP6Ex5.xls  Sheet 3)
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
47
Iteration counter ν First guess = 0 1 2 3 4 .... 9 10 .... 25 26
x at iter. ν x1 1 2.735759 2.317673 2.575338 2.454885 .... 2.513337 2.508958 .... 2.510682 2.510681
x2 1 2.44949 2.920421 2.987627 3.104133 .... 3.141814 3.144173 .... 3.144089 3.144089
You can check the results in Table 2 or experiment with other first guesses using Sheet 3 of spreadsheet CHAP6Ex5.xls. We note that the convergence rate in Table 2 is not very fast but, in this case, it does reach a solution. In general, it is usually very difficult to establish for certain whether a given scheme will converge for nonlinear equations although there is a large body of mathematics associated with the solution of such systems (which is beyond the scope of this course).
6.2 Newton’s Method for Solving Sets of Nonlinear Equations x 2 .e − x = 0.30
We take a step back to the solution of a single nonlinear equation such as: (75)
which has the solution x = 0.829069 (you can verify this by calculating x 2 .e − x and making sure it is 0.30  to an accuracy of ~ 4.6x108). This equation can be represented as:
f ( x ) = 0 where f ( x ) = x 2 .e − x − 0.30
(76)
and the solution we require is the value of x for which the function f(x) is zero. Expand f(x) as a Taylor series as follows:
f ( x ) ≈ f ( xo ) + δx. f ' ( x0 ) +
δx 2 ' ' . f ( x0 ) + ... 2
(77)
Thinking in terms of an iteration scheme (x(ν) → x(ν+1)) as a basis for calculating better and better guesses of the solution of f(x) = 0, we can rewrite the Taylor series above as:
f ( x ) ≈ f ( x (ν ) ) + ( x (ν +1) − x (ν ) ). f ' ( x (ν ) )
(78)
where we have neglected all the second order and higher terms. Since we require the solution for f(x) = 0, then we obtain:
f ( x (ν ) ) + ( x (ν +1) − x (ν ) ). f ' ( x (ν ) ) = 0
(79)
48
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation
6
which can be rearranged to the following algorithm to estimate our updated guess, x(ν+1) as follows:
x (ν +1) = x (ν ) −
f ( x (ν ) ) f ' ( x (ν ) )
(80)
This equation is the basis of the NewtonRaphson algorithm for obtaining better and better estimates of the solution of the equation, f(x) = 0. Note that we need both a first guess, x(0), and also an expression for the derivative f ' (x(ν)) at iteration ν. In the simple example in equation 76, we can obtain the derivative analytically as follows:
df ( x ) = f ' ( x ) = 2 x.e − x − x 2 .e − x dx
(81)
Therefore the NewtonRaphson algorithm for solving equation 75 above is as follows:
x
( ν + 1)
=x
(ν )
( x (ν ) )2 .e − x (ν ) − 0.30  (ν ) − x ( ν ) (ν ) 2 2 x .e − ( x (ν ) ) .e − x
(82)
The point iterative method of the previous section and the NewtonRaphson method of equation 82 have both been applied to the solution of equation 75 (see Sheet 4 of spreadsheet CHAP6Ex5.xls for details). The results are shown in Table 3 for a first guess of x(0) = 1. Table 3: Comparison of the point iterative and NewtonRaphson methods for solving nonlinear equation 75; (see spreadsheet CHAP6Ex5.xls  Sheet 4 for details)
Iteration Number ν Value of x at iteration ν Point Iteration method x(ν) 1 0.903042 0.860307 0.84212 0.834497 0.831322 0.830003 0.829456 0.82923 0.829136 0.829097 0.82908 0.829074 0.829071 0.82907 0.829069 0.829069 NewtonRaphson method x(ν) 1 0.815485 0.825272 0.82806 0.828805 0.829 0.829051 0.829064 0.829068 0.829069 0.829069 0.829069 0.829069 0.829069 0.829069 0.829069 0.829069
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, HeriotWatt University
49
The correct solution to equation 75 is x = 0.829069. The results in Table 3 show that the NewtonRaphson method converges to this solution (to an accuracy better than 106) in 9 iterations, whereas it takes 15 iteration for the point iterative method to converge at the same level accuracy. This performance can vary quite a bit from problem to problem but the NewtonRaphson method is generally better if the derivative term, f '(x(ν)), is not too close to zero. When this derivative gets too small, it can be seen that the second term in equation 80 would start to get very large or “blow up”, as it is sometimes described. We will not go into details about the convergence properties of the NewtonRaphson but it is meant to be “quadratic” meaning that the error should decrease quite rapidly. We now go on to see how the NewtonRaphson method can be applied to sets of nonlinear equations. Returning to the set of two nonlinear equations in the previous section, we note that another way of writing this set of equations in a general way is as follows:
F1 ( x1 , x2 ) = 0 F2 ( x1 , x2 ) = 0
(83)
where, in the case of equation 73 above, these functions would be given by:
F1 ( x1 , x2 ) = x1
+
2 x2 .e − x1 − 2
2
F2 ( x1 , x2 ) = x2 .( x1 )2 − x1 .( x2 ) + 5
(84)
The problem is then to find the values of x1 and x2 that make F1 = F2 = 0. In this section, we present Newton’s method for the solution of sets of nonlinear equations. Basically, we will simply state the NewtonRaphson algorithm without proof (although it will resemble the simple form of the NewtonRaphson method above) for sets of nonlinear equations. We will then illustrate what this means for the example of the set of two nonlinear equations above (equation 73). Definitions: As before,
x (ν ) and x (ν +1) x (ν ) and x (ν +1) = the solution vectors at iteration levels ν and (ν+1)
New terms are: (ν ) N
F(νx ) ) F( x((ν )and x (ν +1) x )
ν) x x (F ( x ( ν ) )
(ν )
= the number of nonlinear equations (and hence unknowns, x1, x2, .... xN) = the vector of function values, F1, F2 .. FN at x(ν)
F(ν ) ) 0 for the "true" solution of the set of non   linear equations F( x()x= = 0 for the "true" solution of the set of nonlinear equations x
50
F( x ) = 0 for the "true" solution of the set of non  linear equations
. 0 ..... x3 .. HeriotWatt University 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 −1 That is → J ( x (ν ) ) ..... (ν ) (ν ) (ν ) (ν ) ∂FN ( x ) ∂FN ( x ) ∂FN ( x ) ... A1 .Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 That is: ν ν ν F1 ( x1 ....... ∂FN ( x ) ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂x N (86) = the inverse of the Jacobian matrix...all diagonals 1 and all other elements zero .....[ J ( x )] = I..... the identity matrix [ J ( x )] .... The above matrix is also an NxN matrix with the property: [ J ( x )] (ν ) −1 [ J ( x )] .... ...... x3 .... ......... ... ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂x N ∂x1 ∂F2 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F2 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F2 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F2 ( x (ν ) ) . 0 0 .. F ( x ν . ...... 1 ..see below).A = I. x2 ... x2 .. x ν ) N ν ν ν F2 ( x1 ..[ J ( x )] = I........ the identity matrix (ν ) −1 (ν ) (ν ) −1 (ν ) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.... J(x ) = I = 0 . .. x2 . .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ [ ] [ ] [ ] ] . where I is the identity matrix ... x ν ) (ν ) N F( x ) = ....... (87) ..... J ( x (ν ) ) = I = 0 0 0 1 0 −1 0 0 0 0 1 (ν ) (ν ) J(x ) .. x3 . ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂x N ... x ν . .... x ν ) N N 1 2 3 (85) J ( x (ν ) ) = the NxN Jacobian matrix defined as follows: ∂F1 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F1 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F1 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F1 ( x (ν ) ) . x ν ) N ν ν ν F3 ( x1 ... x ν ... 0 . (Recall that the inverse of a matrix A is denoted by A1 and by definition............... 0 0 ... ∂x2 ∂x3 ∂x N ∂x1 J ( x (ν ) ) = ∂F3 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F3 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F3 ( x (ν ) ) ∂F3 ( x (ν ) ) .. 0 0 .............. 0 0 .... 1 51 ... 0 0 1 0 .............
F( x ) = 0. x2ν ) ) (92) Hence.( x1 )2 − x1 .( x2 ) + 5 In the notation developed above. x2 ) F( x ) = = 2 x2 .e ) ( − x1 ν ) ( ) (( x (ν ) 2 1 ) − 2x (ν ) 1 ( .e − x1 − 2 2 F2 ( x1 . is given by the following expression: x (ν+1) = x (ν) − J ( x (ν) ) . Example: Returning to the simple example.Using all of the above definitions. the NewtonRaphson method for this simple system becomes: 52 . these equations become: (89) x1 + 2 x2 . x2 ) = x1 + 2 x2 .F( x (ν) ) −1 [ ] (88) We first demonstrate how this is applied to a simple example (equations 73) before going on to show how it is applied to the more complicated nonlinear sets of equations which arise in the fully implicit discretisation of the reservoir simulation equations. x2 ) We note that the 2x2 Jacobian matrix is given by: (90) ∂F1 ( x (ν ) ) ∂x1 (ν ) J(x ) = ∂F2 ( x (ν ) ) ∂x1 ∂F1 ( x (ν ) ) ∂x2 ∂F2 ( x (ν ) ) ∂x2 (91) where each of the elements can be evaluated analytically to obtain: 1 − 2 x (ν ) . the NewtonRaphson algorithm for a set of nonlinear equations. where N = 2 (rearranged equations 73): F1 ( x1 . x (ν ) − x (ν ) 2 (2 ) 2 1 ( ) (2.e − x1 − 2 F1 ( x1 . x2 ) = x2 .e − x1(ν ) 2 J ( x (ν ) ) = 2 x (ν ) .( x2 ) + 5 F2 ( x1 .( x1 )2 − x1 .
such as in the above case .( x2ν ) ) + 5 (93) which we could solve if we knew how to invert the Jacobian matrix to find J x This is a detail which we don’t need to know for this course but it can be done.e − x1(ν ) 2 2 x (ν ) .A = I. [ ] [] [ J ( x )] (k ) −1 = *** (94) which allows us to apply the NewtonRaphson method directly to our simple example.xls. The results are shown in Table 6.it is quite easy to work out the inverse. For details see Sheet 5 spreadsheet ***. The factor (adbc) is known as the determinant of the matrix and it must be nonzero for A1 to exist. Indeed. x2ν ) ) −1 x (ν ) + 2 x (ν ) .e − x1(ν ) − 2 2 1 2 ( ( x2ν ) . The inverse of a simple 2 x 2 matrix A given by: A = a b [ ( )] (ν ) −1 c d is well known to be A1 = 1 d − b ( ad − bc) − c a This can easily be proven by multiplying out there matrices and showing that A1 .e ) ( − x1 ν ) ( ) (( x (ν ) 2 1 ) − 2x (ν ) 1 ( . This is done in the spreadsheet Chap6Exxx. Rather than using equation above to write out the analytical form of the J ( x (ν ) ) matrix we first simply numerically evaluate the matrix J at a −1 given iteration and apply equation above no get J . HeriotWatt University 53 . for a 2x2 matrix .( x1(ν ) )2 − x1(ν ) . x (ν ) − x (ν ) 2 (2 ) 2 1 ( ) (2.xx.xls where results are shown.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 x ( ν + 1) = x ( ν ) − 1 − 2 x (ν ) . (NOTES & SPEADSHEET STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
. The simplified form of these equations is as follows (see Section 4.. . . i (n +n +1 .. P n +1 ) = 0 (95) FP. ..3 Newton’s Method Applied to the Nonlinear Equations of TwoPhase Flow We now return to the discretised equations of two phase flow which we noted at the time. formed a set of nonlinear equations. respectively. .equation 54): n n Soi+1 − Soi − n +1 ∆t λ o ( So ) φ ∆x 2 ( ) i +1 / 2 n λ ( So +1 ) o + Pi n 1 1 − Pi n +1 ) − ( + ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 + Pi n +1 − Pi n 1 1 ) = 0 ( − Given that the unknowns that we are trying to find are Pi then we can write the above equations in general form as: n +1 .. P n +1 NX (96) 54 . i ( S . S n +1 NX n +1 1 and P n +1 P n +1 1 n +1 P2 n +1 P3 ... P n +1 ) n +1 n +1 S1 n 1 where the two nonlinear equations.2. as given above..6. FS . P n +1 ) and +FS .. arise from the pressure (P) and saturation (S) equations. . i ( S .. Sin +1 i = 1. S n +1 = i −1 Sin +1 n +1 Si +1 ....1): Pressure (equation 50): (λ (S )) T n +1 o i −1 / 2 ∆x 2 P n +1 i −1 n λ ( So + 1 ) T − ∆x 2 ( ) i −1 / 2 (λ (S )) + T n +1 o i +1 / 2 ∆x 2 λ (S n + 1 ) P n +1 + T o i ∆x 2 ( ) i +1 / 2 Pin++1 = 0 1 Saturation (Form B . i ( S n +1 . S n +1 and P n +1. . P n +1 = i −1 Pi n +1 n +1 Pi +1 . P ) . NX. .... The vectors of unknowns. nare given nby : +1 +1 S and P S n +1 S n +1 S2 n +1 S3 .. P ) and FS .. i ( S n +1 .. FP. P n +1 ) = 0 FP. i ( S n +1 ..
P n +1 ) and FS . S n++1 and n +1 n +1 n +1 coupled together in the1equations iabove. Pi −1 . i S . The general form of the solution using the Newton iteration is then to take a starting guess (iteration. Pi n 1 1 and. i ( S n +1 . since these are the nearest neighbours Sin−+1 . i S . there are various methods that try to −1 construct the J matrix more directly. Sin +1 . Note that the Jacobian matrix is very sparse since there are just nearest neighbour interaction (as was the case for the matrices associated with single phase flow discussed earlier in this Chapter). in practice. P at grid block i only depend + + on the quantities Sin−+1 . We also need to invert this matrice to obtain J in order to apply the above algorithm. P However. However. [] [] In this course. Pi +1 1 We may also write one total unknows vector Xn+1 using a combination of the saturation and pressure vectors as follows: ( n +1 n +1 ) ( n +1 n +1 ) X n +1 S1 n +1 n +1 1 P S n +1 2 P2 n +1 = S n +1 i Pi n +1 S n +1 NX n +1 PNX and the equation to be solved is then F(Xn+1)=0 The saturations and pressures are coupled together to their nearest neighbours through the discretisation equations (50 and 54 above). Pi n +1 .Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 FP. the given FP. rather than on all of the 1 1 − + other saturations and pressures in the system. ν=0) Xn+1(0) and then apply the formulation as above to obtain: X n +1 (ν +1) = X n +1(ν ) + J ( X )(ν ) [ ] −1 . A consequence of this is that the inverse matrix is also quite sparse and there are many numerical techniques available to solve such problems. Pi . Sin++1 and Pi n 1 1 . Sin +1 . F ( X (ν ) ) It is rather more complex to constuct the Jacobian matrix J ( X ) of derivatives but −1 it can be done. we will not give any more detail on the solution of the nonlinear equations which arise in reservoir simulation. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. i ( S n +1 . HeriotWatt University 55 . often in an approximate manner. P n +1 ) and FS .
we discussed the physical idea of numerical dispersion. the level of numerical diffusion can realistically be made much less than that from physical sources. Indeed. it is specifically the 2 term that is the “dispersive” or ∂x “diffusive” part.e. the simplified pressure equation derived in Chapter 5.a term which we will now use interchangeably with “numerical diffusion”. In 1D. In this section. It is a numerical effect and it can be reduced by taking a finer grid. known as diffusion equations.μ)) and this is a standard form of the classical diffusion equation. Indeed. a waterfront in a water/oil displacement .1 Introduction to the Problem In Chapter 4. We note that in real reservoirs there are some real dispersive physical mechanisms which result in the spreading of fronts. is an example of a diffusion equation. This is almost never possible in a field scale simulation. equation 27.φ.m) permeability heterogeneity of the reservoir rock. Numerical dispersion is essentially the artificial spreading or “diffusion” of a front .g. These arise due to the effects of capillary pressure and also from the interaction of the fluid flow with small scale (cm . we use a simple form of the twophase saturation equation. ∂2 P 7. In an ideal calculation.e. “diffusion” is often referred to as quite a specific physical effect which is described by certain wellknown equations which are.2 Mathematical Derivation of Numerical Dispersion In order to show mathematically how a “diffusive” term arises when we solve certain transport equations numerically. This equation has the form: ∂2 P ∂P = Dh 2 ∂t ∂x (97) where Dh is the hydraulic diffusivity (Dh = k/( cf .e. real) spreading or diffusion was correctly represented by our grid. the numerical diffusion would be less that the physical diffusion. although it can be achieved in modelling laboratory scale experiments on flows through small rock samples or bead packs. For such a fine scale simulation. For example. there are also some quite complex interactions between the capillary forces and the small scale heterogeneity that also lead to types of physical spreading in the reservoir.7 NUMERICAL DISPERSION . In the above equations. We now consider how the effects of a grid can lead to “diffusionlike” terms when we try to solve the flow equations numerically. which is also sometimes referred to as numerical diffusion. we would take a sufficiently fine grid that the level of physical (i. not surprisingly.A MATHEMATICAL APPROACH 7. the transport equation for a simple waterfront (with Pc = 0 and zero gravity) is the wellknown fractional flow equation (see Chapter 2) as follows: ∂S ∂f φ w = − v w ∂t ∂x (98) where Sw is the water saturation and fw ( Sw ) is the fractional flow of water 56 qw fw ( Sw ) = qw + qo .due to the coarse grid used in the simulation. we return to the issue of numerical dispersion . i.
hence. Sw Water 0 x1 Vw x2 Oil x Vw = constant Vw = x2 .t1 Starting from the transport equation 101 above. we take a straight line ∂f v w (S w ) = − v w ∂Sw fw (Sw ) ∂fw fractional flow. so is the water velocity. Note that we have not yet specified the time level of the spatial terms. we can easily apply finite differences using our familiar notation (Chapter 5) to obtain: n Sn +1 − Swi Swi − Swi −1 φ wi = − vw + Error terms ∆t ∆x (102) where we have used the backward difference (sometimes referred to as the upstream ∂Sw difference) to discretise the spatial term. This equation describes the physical situation illustrated schematically in Figure 14.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation fw ( Sw ) ( fw ( Sw ) = 6 differentiate fw ( Sw ) by the chain rule to obtain: qw ) which is a function only of water saturation. ∂x .Vw ∂t ∂x Figure 14 The advance of a sharp saturation front governed by the transport equation with a constant velocity vw. If we take these at the n time level (known). f which is also a function of water saturation: that is: (100) To simplify the problem even further for our purposes here. v w (Sw ) . HeriotWatt University . vw is now constant. Vw. t1 1 t2 Governing equation ∂Sw ∂Sw = . Hence. as noted above.x1 t2 . Sw. then it 57 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. which means that ∂Sw is a constant and. the simple 1D transport equation for a convected waterfront is: ∂fw ∂Sw ∂S ∂Sw = −wvw ∂t ∂x (101) where. fw (Sw ) . We can qw + qo fw ( Sw ) ∂f ∂S ∂S ∂f φ w = − v w = − v w w q ∂t = ∂x w ∂Sw ∂x fw ( Sw ) qw + qo (99) ∂f − v w where the termw ( Sw )∂Sw is a nonlinear term giving the water velocity.
w + 2 + higher order terms ∂x 2 ∂x (t fixed) (103) w w + TIME Sw ( x.would be an explicit scheme and if we take them at the n+1 time level (unknown). we make the identities: S( x. t ) ⇔ Sin +1 S( x 0 ) ⇔ Si −1 S( t 0 ) δx δt ⇔ Sin ⇔ ∆x ⇔ ∆t (107) Equation 105 now becomes: 2 ∂S Si − Si −1 ∆x ∂ S ≈ − 2 ∂x ∆x 2 ∂x (108) and equation 106 becomes: n +1 n 2 ∂S Si − Si ∆t ∂ S − ≈ ∂t ∆t 2 ∂t 2 (109) 58 .t). To determine what these terms look like. t ) − S( t 0 ) δt ∂ S ≈ − 2 ∂t 2 ∂t δt (105) TIME (106) To return to our usual notation. we need to go back to the original finite differences based on Taylor expansion of the underlying function. it would be an implicit scheme. t ) = Sw ( t 0 ) + δt. since we are principally interested in the “Error terms” which are indicated in equation 102. It does not matter for our current purposes here. Sw(x. in this case. + higher order terms ∂t 2 ∂t 2 (x fixed) (104) ∂S δt 2 ∂ 2S We can rearrange each of the above equations 103 and 104 to obtain the finite difference approximations for the ∂x ∂t terms with the leading error terms as follows (now ignoring the higher order terms): ∂S ∂S and S(x. We can expand Sw (x. t ) − S(x 0 ) δx ∂ 2S ∂S SPACE ≈ − 2 ∂x δx 2 ∂x 2 ∂S S(x.t) either in space (x) or in time (t) as follows: SPACE 2 2 ∂S δx ∂ Sw Sw (x. t ) = Sw (x 0 ) + δx.
it still needs some simplifying since it is a strange mixed term with ∂ 2S ∂ 2S ∂ 2S 2 and 2 both ∂x ∂t terms in it. we can rearrange the RHS of equation 112 as follows: (112) − vw ∂ ∂Sw ∂ ∂S = − vw w ∂t ∂x ∂x ∂t (113) We now return again to the governing equation (equation 101) and use it for w ∂t in equation 113 to obtain: ∂S − vw and hence: ∂ 2S ∂ ∂Sw ∂ ∂S = − v w − v w w = v 2 2w w ∂x ∂x ∂t ∂x ∂x (114) ∂ 2 Sw ∂ 2S = v 2 2w 2 w ∂t ∂x (115) We now substitute this expression into the error term in equation 111 above to obtain the following: Institute of Petroleum Engineering.∆x ∂ 2S ∆t ∂ 2S φ i ≈ − vw i + + ∆t ∆x 2 ∂x 2 2 ∂t 2 Error term (111) The error term in the finite difference scheme is now clear and is shown in equation 111. However.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 We now substitute the above finite difference approximations into the governing equation 102 with their leading error terms as follows: Sn +1 − Sin ∆t ∂ 2S S − Si −1 v w . To obtain ∂ 2S ∂Sw ∂S = − vw w 2 .∆x ∂ 2S φ i − 2 ≈ − vw i + ∆t 2 ∂t ∆x 2 ∂x 2 (110) Collecting the error terms together on the RHS gives: Sn +1 − Sin S − Si −1 v w . HeriotWatt University 59 . first note from the original equation 101 that ∂x ∂t ∂t ∂Sw with respect to t as follows: and we can then differentiate ∂t ∂ ∂Sw ∂ 2Sw ∂ ∂S = 2 = − vw w ∂t ∂t ∂t ∂t ∂x Thus. We now want to eliminate the ∂t 2 term and this is done by using the original governing equation.
e.∆x ∂ 2S ∆t ∂ 2S v w . we can take such a small time step that v w ∆t << ∆x 2 D∆ v w ∆t <<numx≈ v w . ∂ 2S ∂Sw ∂S = − v w w + D.v w . does not change on refining Δx and Δt) then we can plot this at a suitable time. it multiplies a (∂2Sw/∂x2) term. Dnum. + 2 (118) 2 ∆x v w ∆t .e.∆x 2 (119) We can now solve two problems as follows (i) Firstly. 60 . 2w ∂t ∂x ∂x (120) That is. Dispersed frontal displacement with a known and converged level of dispersion. Governing equation: 1 Sw t = t1 Sw = . + 2 2 2 2 If D num = v w . Hence we identify the level of numerical dispersion or diffusion. t1.∆x v 2 ∆t ∂ 2S + w 2 ≈ − vw i + ∆t ∆x 2 2 ∂x (117) In this equation.Vw t Sw +D x 2 Sw x2 Vw = water velocity 0 x Figure 15. we may apply an explicit finite difference method to obtain an accurate solution of the following convectiondispersion equation. If this solution is converged (i. as shown in Figure 15.∆x v 2 ∆t ∆x v w ∆t D num = w + w = v w . + For this case: 2 ∆x v w ∆t D num = v w . where the numerical dispersion is much less than the physical dispersion due to the explicit D term.∆x v 2 ∆t ∂ 2S = w + w 2 2 2 ∂x (116) The finite difference equation with its error term in equation 111 now becomes: Sin +1 − Sin S − Si −1 v w .∆x ∂ 2S v 2 ∆t ∂ 2S w 2 + 2 = 2 + 2 ∂x 2 ∂t 2 ∂x 2 ∂x 2 v . we now see that the form of the error term is exactly like a “diffusive” term i. arising from our simple finite difference scheme as: v .
These discretised equations have led to systems of either linear or nonlinear equations which are then solved numerically.φ part (i) above i.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 n n n Sn +1 − Swi Swi − Swi −1 (ii) Now take only the explicit finite difference φ wi approximation − v w convection = to the ∆t ∆x equation only. 8 CLOSING REMARKS In this Chapter.and twophase flow through porous media. we have introduced the student to finite difference approximations of the partial differential equations (PDEs) that describe both single. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.∆t n n+ n n φ wi = − vw which gives ⇒ Swi 1 = Swi − w (Swi − Swi −1 ) ∆t ∆x ∆x. A more mathematical of numerical dispersion was also given. At the end of the unit. that is: n n n Sn +1 − Swi Swi − Swi −1 v .φ Solve this with a relatively coarser grid.(Swi − Swi −this level of dispersion to deliberately match that in Dnum to wi 2 Choose 1 ) ∆x.x n+ n n Swi 1 = Sbe − w . Methods for solving these equations have been discussed in principle and some idea has been given of how these are applied in practical reservoir simulation. Plot out a saturation profile like that in Figure 15 at the same time t1 and compare these. some discussion was presented on gridtogrid flows and how these intergridblock properties are averaged. HeriotWatt University 61 . but with a fine time step thus predicting v w . choose Δx such that Dnum = D.∆∆t n v .e. Δx.
I = way. 62 .x = b actually has a solution. if one of them hold. If A. In other words. 2.x = b where A is an NxN square matrix 1. then A is said to be nonsingular or invertible A the following five conditions apply and are equivalent (i. A = I . i. G This is known as Cholesky decomposition.I = A .x = 0 transpose of A. I is the identity matrix which has 1s on the diagonal and zeros elsewhere. (ii) det( A ) ≠ 0 .x = 0 .A = A. And . The central problem which we are interested in is: A. A. I is like the number “1” in that I.A. a ij = a ji ) is said to be positive T definite if: x . by “multiplying out” the matrix .e. and they all hold): I A (i) A −1 exists where A −1 . A matrix A which is square and symmetric A T is the ( A = A T .G T such that matrix G is lower triangular and has positive entries on the main diagonal.x = b A. then the vector x must be zero . A (iv) The rows of A are linearly independent. This is a number found I A = A. Where (iv) and (v) say that we cannot get one of the rows or columns by making some combination of the existing A. if A.x = vector x such that.have 0s for all its elements.x > 0 3. If the matrixA =is positive definite then it can be decomposed in exactly one A G. the determinant of the matrix is nonzero. A.x = 0 ones.G T way into a product: A = G.x = 0 A (v) the columns of A are linearly independent.e.x = b A..APPENDIX A: Some useful Matrix Theorems This lists (without proof) some useful theorems from matrix algebra which underpin much of the practical application work which we have described in this section. whereA.in a specificA (iii) There is no nonzero0 A.x = 0 .
Plot the numerically calculated y as a function of t between t = 0 and t = 0.( ∫ u2 + αn2 + ∆t(tany n)2α+ 4) α To find the analytical answer.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES EXERCISE 1. 2 2 2 HeriotWatt University Institute of Petroleum 2 2 1 1 C(t= = 2 tan −1 2 (t + C )2176049 = 0.( y + 4 n +du n 1 ∆t y n +1 − y n n 2 1 y 1 − y = tan −n 2 u = ∫ be sett up quite easily on a spreadsheet.xls. Answer: is given below where the working is shown in spreadsheet CHAP6Ex1.( y ) + 4 ∆t which is rearranged to the explicit formula: y n +1 = y n + ∆t (2. SOLUTION 1. y t ) 2 2 tan 2 2 (t + C ) α= this becomes: 1 − 1 C 1 tan −1tany1 = t+C0. Therefore. time level.( y ) + 4 n +1 t n ∆ y −y n 2 = 2. Apply finite differences to the solution of the equation: dy = 2.2176049 = = 2 Engineering. a spreadsheet implementing it and the analytical solution for comparison. at t = 0. Take time steps of Δt = 0.( y ) α 4 + du 1 ∆ which can −1 u n +1 y = y = 2. y ) tan 2 2 2 2 [ ] y(1) = 2 tany2 2 (tt +C )] t tan [ = + C 2 2 2 −1 1 2 2 tan −1 [ ] y = t +C 2 63 . Use the notation yn+1 for the (unknown) y at n+1 time level and yn for the (known) y value at the current.( y n )2 + 4) n +n1+1 − y n y n nn 22 y = y + ∆t (2. y 2 + 4 dt where.( y ) + 4) 2 ) 2 ∫ y2 + ( 2 1 2 2 1 du dy= tan −11 u −1 y ∫ u2y+ α 2( 2α2 = 2 2 tan 2 = ∫ dt = t + C 2 α du 1 ) 2 ∫ du+ −1 u 1 −1 u ∫ u2 + α 2 = α tan α = tan α= 22 ∫ u2 + α α α Using this standard form gives: 1 α = 2 2 dy 2 = 1 tan −1 y = dt = t + C ∫ − 2 ∫ 2 1 y + (1 2 ) 2 2 1 dy 1 −1 y 1 tandy y = t1+C −1 y ∫y = tan = ∫ dt = t + C2 + ( 2 )2 = 2 2 tan 2 = 2 ∫ 2 2 + ( 2 )2 2 2 2 2 2 1 y −1 y2 tan = t +C α =2 2 2 2 where C is(the=constant of integration and we identify α = 2 above. Discretise the equation using the suggested notation as follows: y n +1 − y n n 2 = 2.( y )) + 4 ) = 2.25 and plot it against the analytical value (do the integral to find this). ∆t = 2.( y ) + 4) 1 = tan − = ∫ dt = t + C= y + ∆t (2. you might need the standard form of the following n n 2 1n +1 dy 1 y n n 2 y n +1 integral: y = y + ∆t2(2. n.( y ) + 4 u 2 + α 2 α 2.25. This gives the finite difference formula.001 (arbitrary time units) and step the solution forward to t = 0. y(t = 0) = 1.
both the analytical and numerical solutions go a bit strange (very large and they start to disagree) since the tan function has a singularity y(t) → ∞. look at spreadsheet CHAP6Ex2. Experiment with the spreadsheet in CHAP6Ex2. 64 .3. Copy this and paste it into all of the cells in the entire unknown area (surrounded by red border above).Δt.2176049 2 which is then used in the analytic solution for y(t) above. This is implemented in the spreadsheet CHAP6Ex1. EXERCISE 3. Δx (or NX) and the solution as t → ∞. SOLUTION 2. EXERCISE 2.2176049 2 1 = 0. Note that at t > 0. If you get stuck. ] C(t= = 2 tan [2 2 (t + C )2176049 We now find C from the initialconditions since y(t = 0) = 1.∫ u + α = α tan α du 1 u ∫ u + α = α tan α du 1 u 1 ∫ u + αdy= α tan 1 α tan = ( 2 ∫ y +dy 2 ) 2 12 1 = tan ( 2 ∫ y +dy 2 ) 2 12 1 α ∫ y 2 ( 2 ) = 2 2 tan 2= + 2 2 2 2 2 2 −1 −1 2 2 2 2 2 2 −1 −1 −1 y = dt = t + C 2 ∫ y = dt = t + C 2 ∫ y = dt = t + C 2 ∫ α= 2 α 1 tan −1 y = t +C = 2 y 2 12 2 tan −1 = t +C 2 2 12 which easily rearrangesyto: = t +C tan −1 2 y(t ) = 2 tan 2 2 (t + C ) 2 2 y(t ) = 2 tan 2 2 (t + C ) −1 [ ] [ ] y ) 1 tan 1 = 0.xls. Fill in the above table using the algorithm: Pi n +1 = Pi n + ∆t ( Pi n+1 + Pi n−1 − 2 Pi n ) ∆x 2 Hint: make up a spread sheet as above and set the first unknown block (shown grey shaded in table above) with the above formula. it is easy to see that: tan −1 2 12 C= tan −1 2 2 C= 2 12 2 1 = 0.xls to examine the effects of the three quantities above .xls on the disk.
2 3 4 5 EXERCISE 5.0 x4 2...5 2.999963 1.500026 3.500017 7 4.... x2 = .309677 1..converges fully at k = 9 iterations.. HeriotWatt University 65 .499999 3....000937 1..5 3..499965 2....xls ...0 2........497206 2....436331 3 3. x = ..97619 3. ...Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 EXERCISE 4. x3 = ....500584 5 3.5 Converged ⇒ 9 4 1... Institute of Petroleum Engineering...5 Note ..5 10 4 1..0 2.... x4 = ....000003 1... x = .499832 6 3..498943 POINT ITERATIVE SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS2..993119 1...008926 1..... ν x1 x2 2.1xx1 −.0 2.499995 2.0 SOLUTION 5..5 3..500617 2....Sheet41 ....5 2.....5 3.503112 4 4.499755 3..500002 2.......999986 1.500001 8 4 1..2 x32 − 2 x4 2 2 x − 22 x2 − 2 x3 x + 1x 2 3 4 3 x3 + 3 x34 + 4 x5 =+ 1x5 = 30 4 x + 1x4 30 2 x − 2 x 4 =− 3 1x5 = 3 1x 4 + + + + 1x4 =+ 5 1x5 = 5 1x 5 1x4 = +12 x5 = 12 2 2x 5 3 x5 = 153 x5 = 15 5 SOLUTION 4.....0 2. Answer Answer x1 = x = .411795 3..784615 2 4..... x5 = .6925 2.. x1 = .0 1 4.505683 3.....5 2... Iteration counter x at iter.Exercise 5: 2.500783 3. fill in the table below for 10 iterations using a calculator or a spreadsheet: POINT ITERATIVE SOLUTION OF LINEAR EQUATIONS Iteration counter ν First guess = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x at iter..0 x3 2. x = . Solve the following simple example of an upper triangular matrix: 4 1x + 1 x 3 4 x1 ....... ν ν x1 x2 x3 x Answer First guess = 0see spreadsheet CHAP6Ex5.
97619 1. for the following problems? (i) NX = 5. NX 5 NY 3 Niter 50 BAND WB 135 LSOR.499755 1. that requiring the lowest amount of computational work). Niter = 50 (a small problem) Niter = 50 (ii) NX = 20.499995 3.500002 3.5 3.411795 1.5 x3 2.5 1.500026 1. EXERCISE 6.500617 3.500017 2.0 3. 66 . Niter = 150 NX 5 20 100 400 NY 3 5 20 100 Niter 50 50 70 150 BAND WB LSOR.0 4. Which is best method (i.500783 1.000003 4 4 4 x2 2. iterative methods virtually always win over direct methods by more than an order of magnitude.converges fully at k = 9 iterations.503112 2.436331 2. ν x1 2.5 x4 2.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Iteration counter ν First guess = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Converged ⇒ 9 10 x at iter. 1.5 3.999986 4.0 1.499999 1.499965 3. NY = 20.000937 3.6925 3.309677 4. Niter = 70 (iv) NX = 400.e.4x105 As the problem grows in size.5 2.0 2.498943 3.500001 2.993119 4.008926 3.5 2.784615 2. BAND or LSOR.505683 1.500584 2. NY = 3. NY = 100. although both would take very little time even on a PC. NY = 5.5 Note . 6x106 For very large problems.497206 3. WLSOR Comment SOLUTION 6.5 1. a direct method is usually better. 5000 Again a direct method is somewhat better for a small problem. iterative methods start to overtake direct method.999963 3. (iii) NX = 100.499832 2. WLSOR 750 Comment 20 100 5 20 50 70 2500 8x105 4x108 400 100 150 For a very small problem like this.
2. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 2. 1. 2. HeriotWatt University 67 . 1. 2. Fill in the table below: Direct solution method Give a very brief description of each method Iterative solution method Main advantages 1.Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 EXERCISE 7. Main disadvantages 1. The linear equations which arise in reservoir simulation may be solved by a direct solution method or an iterative solution method.
68 .
Numerical Methods in Reservoir Simulation 6 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 69 .
2.6 Summary of SinglePhase Upscaling TWOPHASE FLOW 2.5.3.5.1 CapillaryEquilibrium 2.3.5 Alternative Methods 2.6.1 Flow Through Tilted Layers 3.6.6 Dynamic Methods 2.3.3 Flow through Correlated Random Fields 1.2.7 Summary of TwoPhase Flow ADDITIONAL TOPICS 3.3.2 CapillaryDominated Flow 3.2 Boundary Conditions 1.Permeability Upscaling 7 CONTENTS 1 SINGLEPHASE FLOW 1.1 NonUniform Upscaling 2.6.5.6.4 Disadvantages of the Kyte and Berry Method 2.1 INTRODUCTION 1.5 Upscaling Summary 4 REFERENCES 2 3 .2 Evaluating the Accuracy of Upscaling 1.4 When to use the Geopseudo Method 3.1 Introduction 2.3 Improving SinglePhase Upscaling 2.2 The Kyte and Berry Method 2.3.5 Upscaling Errors 1.1 Flow Parallel to Uniform Layers 1.4 Introduction to TwoPhase Upscaling 2.2 Permeability Tensors 3.1 Recap on Flow Simulation 1.3.3 Upscaling of a Sand/Shale Model 1.2 Applying SinglePhase Upscaling to a TwoPhase Problem 2.4 Numerical Methods 1.4 Uncertainty and Upscaling 3.3 Discussion on Numerical Dispersion 2.2 Simulation with Full Permeability Tensors 3.3 Geopseudo Example 3.1 Correlated Random Fields 1.2 Upscaling Porosity and Water Saturation 1.2 Flow Across Uniform Layers 1.5 Summary of Permeability Averaging 1.5.2 Well Drive Upscaling 2.3.4.3 SmallScale Heterogeneity 3.5 SteadyState Methods 2.6 Example of the PVW Method 2.3 Averaging Permeability 1.3.1 Upscaling at Wells 3.4.4 Additional Averaging Methods 1.3.3.6.1 Introduction 2.6.3.1 The Geopseudo Method 3.
Realise the limitations of applying singlephase upscaling to a twophase problem. and understand the advantages and disadvantages of applying dynamic upscaling. Know how to upscale from the corescale to the scale of a geological model. Understand how to upscale around a well. Know how to calculate effective permeability in simple models by averaging. Know how to carry out steadystate. the Student should be able to do the following: • • • • • • • Appreciate why upscaling is necessary. Understand how to perform numerical upscaling of singlephase flow. • • • 2 . capillaryequilibrium upscaling for twophase flow. Become familiar with twophase dynamic upscaling (the Kyte and Berry Method). taking account of finescale structure and capillary effects. Be aware of the effects of heterogeneity on twophase flow.Learning Objectives After reading through this Chapter. Appreciate that permeability is a full tensor property.
either by averaging the finegrid values. the effective permeability often does depend on the boundary conditions. are easy to upscale. Upscaling must always be carried out with care in order to obtain “sensible” results.1 Introduction Reservoir modelling often involves generating multimillion cell models. which are too large for carrying out flow simulations using conventional techniques. An example of finescale and coarsescale grids is shown in the 2D model in Figure 2. and on the method used for calculation. HeriotWatt University 3 .4). However. keff = effective permeability. We assume that Darcy’s Law holds at the coarse scale: Q=− Ak eff ∆P µ ∆x (1) where Q = total flow. in practice. other quantities – notably permeability – are much more difficult to upscale. True effective permeability is an intrinsic property of the model and ought to be independent of the applied boundary conditions (Section 1. An effective permeability is calculated for each coarsescale cell. and the coarsescale model on the right consists of about 300.000 cells. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. or by performing a numerical simulation. A = area. because they may be averaged arithmetically. Fullfield model Geological model Figure 1 Upscaling Example We usually refer to the upscaled permeability as the effective permeability.Permeability Upscaling 7 1 SINGLEPHASE FLOW 1. However. such as porosity and water saturation. and ΔP/Δx is the pressure gradient. The number of cells must therefore be reduced by “upscaling” (Figure 1). In Figure 1. Each of the coarsescale cells contains an effective permeability. μ = viscosity. the geological model on the left is a finescale model with 20 million cells. The effective permeability is defined as the permeability of a single homogeneous cell which gives rise to the same flow as the finescale distribution when the same pressure gradient is applied. Some quantities.
we assume that there is only one phase present – water or oil.15.2. we need to take the porosity into account.18. φ = 0. suppose the water saturation was 0.) There are 10 grid blocks of size 1 m3. in this case: φ= 4 × 0.20 = 0. and how to avoid them.fine grid one coarse cell coarse grid Figure 2 The upscaling procedure In this section of the upscaling course. φ . and then move on to methods which involve numerical simulation.15 φ = 0. 10 When averaging the water saturation. However.20.20 Sw = 0. (Note that the water saturation is not required for a singlephase problem.2 Upscaling Porosity and Water Saturation We start by averaging porosity and water saturation. 4 of which have a porosity of 0.15. and 0.5 in the blocks with porosity of 0. 1.4 in the blocks with porosity 0. we include it here because it is simple to upscale. and 6 of which have a porosity of 0. using a simple model (Figure 3). We show how simple averaging may sometimes be used to estimate upscaled parameters. This is followed by a set of examples which demonstrate how errors may arise. In the previous example. and that we have steadystate linear flow.50 Sw = 0.40 Figure 3 Example for averaging porosity and water saturation The average porosity. the average water saturation is: 4 . then the average water saturation is: Sw = total amount of water total pore volume (3) Here.15 + 6 × 0. is given by: φ= total pore volume total volume (2) Therefore.
) Example 1 x Figure 5 A simple. k eff = k a = ∑t k i =1 n i n i ∑t i =1 i (4) (Equation (4) may be proved by applying a fixed pressure gradient along the layers.48 0.15 × 0. k1 = 10 mD t2 = 5 mm.3 + 0.15 + 6 × 0. twolayer model 1 2 t1 = 3 mm.20 × 0. 2. ti ∆x Consider a set of (infinite) parallel layers of thickness. .20 0. k2 = 100 mD m z Suppose we have two layers as shown in Figure 5.4 4 × 0. HeriotWatt University 5 .Permeability Upscaling 7 Sw = 4 × 0.5 + 6 × 0.1 Flow Parallel to Uniform Layers P1 P2 Qi Figure 4 Alonglayer flow ki. ka.78 = = 0.433. the effective permeability may be calculated by averaging.. = 1. n (the number of layers).8 1.3 Averaging Permeability In some simple models. The effective permeability of these layers is given by the arithmetic average.25 m mD 3+5 8 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. ti and permeability ki. The effective permeability for flow in the xdirection is given by Equation (4).8 1. and is: ka = 3 × 10 + 5 × 100 530 = = 66.3. such as parallel layers or a random distribution. where i = 1. 1.
flow in the zdirection. and the harmonic average may be used for calculating the effective permeability in the vertical direction. Correlated random fields are described in Section 1. so that the spatial distribution is smoother than a totally random one.3.2 Flow Across Uniform Layers Q ∆Pi ki.e.3 Flow through Correlated Random Fields Figure 7 shows an example of a correlated random permeability distribution. the longer will be the range of the semivariogram for the permeability distribution. which is given by: 6 .1. Basically.35 From Examples 1 and 2.3.5. we see that the permeability is different in different directions. The “correlation length” is approximately the size of patches of high or low permeability. kh: Figure 6 Acrosslayer flow k eff = k h = ∑t i =1 n n i t ∑ ki i =1 i . The longer the correlation length. In reservoirs with approximately horizontal layers.86 mD 3 10 + 5 100 0. Assuming that we are averaging over many correlation lengths. “correlated” means that areas of high or low permeability tend to be clustered. y. the effective permeability is given by the harmonic average.) Example 2 Equation (5) may be used to calculate the effective permeability for flow across the two layers in the model shown in Figure 5. kh = 8 3+5 = = 22. (5) (Equation (5) may be proved by assuming a constant flow rate through each layer.1. 1. The effective permeability for a random permeability distribution is proportional to the geometric average. i.and zdirections). the arithmetic average may be used for calculating the effective permeability in the horizontal direction. ti ∆x For flow perpendicular to the layers. permeability should be isotropic (same in the x.
dark = low permeability) The results given below have been derived theoretically for lognormal distributions. with a standard deviation of σY. and the effective permeability always lies between the two extremes: ka and kh. random permeability distribution (white = high permeability. . Example 3 Figure 8 A random arrangement of the permeabilties in the simple example 75 cells of 10 mD 125 cells of 100mD Institute of Petroleum Engineering. where Y = ln(k). (6) Correlation Length Figure 7 A correlated. The results depend on the number of dimensions: k eff = k g (1 − σ 2 2) Y k eff = k g (1 + σ 2 6) Y k eff = k g in 1D in 2 D in 3D } (7) These formulae are approximate. Also note that ka > kg > kh. (You are not required to know the proof. and assume σY is small (< 0. HeriotWatt University 7 . n is the number of cells in the distribution.) The 1D result is an approximation of the harmonic average. Note that the results do not depend on the correlation length of the field. provided it is much smaller than the system size..5).Permeability Upscaling 7 n ln k ∑ ( i ) k g = exp i =1 n where i = 1. 2.
See Figure 8.4 Numerical Methods In general. it is frequently used as an approximation for the effective permeability in more complex models. so that there are 75 small cells of 10 mD. The value of the power depends on the type of model. 1.4.4). 1. and 125 small cells of 100 mD. the permeability distribution will not be simple enough for us to be able to calculate the effective permeability analytically (i. Also. there are two types of simple model in which we can calculate the effective permeability by averaging: • Parallel layers • Correlated random fields Since averaging is very quick.625 = 42.Suppose that the permeability values in the simple example are jumbled up. The effective permeability of this model is: k eff = k g = 10 = 10 75 + 250 200 75 × log(10 ) +125 × log(100 ) 200 = 101.4 Additional Averaging Methods Since averaging is very quick (compared with numerical simulation).g.1 Recap on Flow Simulation The continuity equation tells us that there is no net accumulation or loss of fluid within a grid block: 8 . e.5 Summary of Permeability Averaging To summarise. by averaging). 1. Sometimes engineers increase the accuracy by using power averaging. We can use a finite difference method to calculate the pressures.3.17 mD. engineers use a combination of the arithmetic and harmonic averages.3. sometimes. The power average is defined as: n α ∑ ki k p = i =1 n 1/ α . (8) where α is the power. many engineers use this technique in more complex models. they take the arithmetic average of the permeabilities in each column and then calculate the harmonic average of the columns. and we will have to perform a numerical simulation.e. 1. and must be calibrated against numerical simulation (Section 1.
if the grid blocks in Figure 9 are of length Δx and height Δz (and unit width in the ydirection). j −1/ 2 + Tz. For example. i = 1. i . i −1/ 2.j i. j ∆z Pi .) The other flows are calculated in a similar manner. j µ ∆x ( ) (10) where kx.Permeability Upscaling 7 q xin + q zin = q xout + q zout . 2. nx and j = 1. j −1/ 2 Pi . i −1/ 2.) We can therefore derive the pressure equation: (T x . 2. j − Tx. j + Tz. (You now should know now why the harmonic average is used here. j ) − Tx. Δy = 1. Upscaling errors are discussed in Section 1. j Pi −1.i1/2. we can solve this set of linear equations to obtain the pressure in each grid block. j +1 =0 (11) An equation is set up for each Pij. j Pi +1. 1. (Assume the width. j +1/ 2 Pi . j − Pi −1. j +1/ 2 Pi . The effective permeability is than calculated from the total flow and the total pressure drop.2 Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions are required to specify what happens at the edges of the model. i +1/ 2. then: q xin = − k x. i −1 / 2 . The transmissibilities are known. i .j) and (i.j is the harmonic average of the permeabilities in the xdirection in blocks (i1.j i.4. HeriotWatt University 9 . . and using the appropriate boundary conditions. as described below. and they may not be a good approximation to the pressures which would arise in a finegrid simluation. Tx = kxΔz/Δx and Tz = kzΔx/Δz. It is useful to use the transmissibilities. .. i . i +1/ 2. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. j − Tz.5. (We are assuming incompressible rock and fluids. nz. j + Tx. Note that the boundary conditions are applied to each coarse grid cell in turn. here. This leads to errors in the results.) x (9) qzin i. j −1 − Tz.j Figure 9 Recap on numerical flow simulation qzout Darcy’s law is used to express the flows in terms of the pressures and permeabilities.j1 z qxin qxout i1. i .j)..j+1 i+1.
Q. This type of boundary condition is suitable for models where there is little crossflow: for example. or a random distribution.a) NoFlow Boundaries no flow through the sides P1 P2 Figure 10 Fixed pressure.and zdirections. x A( P1 − P 2) µL (12) Repeat the calculation for flow in the y.) 4. or noflow. in each grid block. A z L Figure 11 The calculation of effective permeability using noflow boundary conditions 1. Calculate the interblock flows in the xdirection using Darcy’s Law.) 3. Figure 11 illustrates how an effective permeability may be calculated in the xdirection. Pij. models with approximately horizontal layers. (See Equation 10. 2. using the equation: Q= k eff . These are the most commonly applied boundary conditions. and no flow is allowed through the others sides of the model. Calculate the effective permeability for flow in the xdirection. (See Section 3. by adding the individual flows between two yz planes.) The use of periodic boundary conditions ensures that we also 10 . (b) Periodic Boundary Conditions Periodic boundary conditions are useful for calculating the effective permeabilities in models where there are infinitely repeated geological structures in each direction.2. boundary conditions no flow through the sides The pressure is fixed on two sides of the model. (Any two planes will do. Pressure= P1 on left face Pressure= P2 on right face y x Flow Rate. Solve the steadystate equation to give the pressures. Calculate the total flow. Q Area. because the total flow is constant. to obtain keff.z.y and keff.
.Permeability Upscaling 7 have an infinitely repeated pattern of flows and pressure gradients.j) = P(nx. there is a net pressure gradient in the xdirection. The extra grid blocks round the edges are referred to as a “jacket” or “skin”. The blocks are numbered i = 1. the pressure is fixed at each end.nz) Figure 12 Periodic boundary conditions P(0. P1 P2 P1 P2 Figure 13 Linear pressure boundary conditions P1 P2 (d) Flow Jacket. the pressure at the edges of the model is interpolated linearly from one side to the other.. This method can be used to calculate a full tensor effective permeability (Section 3. Like the periodic boundary conditions. is that fluid can flow through the sides of the model. nz in the zdirection.0) = P(i.j)∆P P(i. See Figure 14. x z P(i.nz+1) = P(i.2). Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 11 .. some engineers perform the simulations on a larger grid than necessary. 2. Then. and j = 1.j)+∆P P(nx+1. 2. as in the fixedpressure boundary conditions. (c) Linear Pressure Boundary Conditions In linear pressure boundary conditions (Figure 13). In the example shown in Figure 12.nx in the xdirection. the linear pressure boundary conditions allow flow through the edges.1) One advantage of using periodic boundary conditions. .j) = P(1. or Skin To reduce the effect of boundary conditions when calculating the effective permeability.
the field is then characterised by three parameters: the mean.5 3. in some cases.05 0.5 1. rather than log(permeability) 12 .04 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.05 Frequency Frequency 0.5 Upscaling Errors In the process of upscaling.05 Frequency 0. 1. it is a useful way to parameterise heterogeneity.03 0. However. σ.5. and standard deviation = 20 mD.04 0. b) Lognormal distribution with mean = 2. The standard deviation determines the width of the pdf (i.03 0. a) Normal distribution with mean = 100 mD.5. Figure 16 shows examples of the 4 models with varying σ and λ. and upscaling usually gives rise to errors.06 0.0 2.5 2. Although the permeability distribution in real rocks may not follow this type of model. as shown in Figure 15. 0.02 0. We assume that the probability density function (pdf) of the model is normal or log normal.boundary conditions applied to outer edges of model keff calculated for this block Figure 14 Example of a flow jacket round a model.01 0.e. the errors will be larger than in others.1 Correlated Random Fields We introduce the concept of a correlated random field.5 b) 0.0 1.00 40 60 80 100 120 140 Perm eabil ity (m D) 160 a) 0.03 0.06 0. same in all directions). the standard deviation. λ.e. the permeability contrast).0. information about the finescale structure is lost.00 0. c) Lognormal distribution as above. we examine a series of models which show examples of where upscaling is successful and where it is not. and the correlation length determines approximately the distance over which the permeability values are similar.02 0. In an isotropic model (i.00 c) 0 500 1000 1500 Per m eab ility (m D) 2000 Figure 15 Normal and lognormal permeability distributions. and standard deviation = 0. In this section. and correlation length.0 log (p erm eabil ity) 3.04 0. μ. In this case the jacket is 4 cells thick 1. but with permeability plotted on the xaxis.01 0.
5.3. with upscaling in a single stage. large λ b) large σ. HeriotWatt University .2. k1 .1 and 1. and we use the method shown in Figures 10 and 11 to demonstrate this effect. as shown in Figure 17.2 Evaluating the Accuracy of Upscaling One way to evaluate the accuracy of upscaling is to compare upscaling in two stages. then k eff = k eff . but upscale by different factors – so that the 13 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. finescale model single cell k1eff k2eff Figure 17 Comparison of onestage and twostage upscaling The accuracy of scaleup is affected by the correlation length and standard deviation of the distribution. small λ a) small σ. k 2 .3. we create 1 finescale model.Permeability Upscaling 7 a) small σ. This is the case for upscaling along and across parallel layers in the idealised models of Sections 1. large λ Figure 16 Models with different standard deviations and correlations lengths Permeability (mD) 0 50 100 150 200 1. Instead of generating many finescale models with different correlation lengths. small λ b) large σ. If upscaling is eff eff 2 1 accurate.
00 sigma = 0.e.0. 8 × 8.01 1. 1. 20 × 20. 80 × 80 In terms of the correlation length. i.5. with a mean of 4. c) coarsescale model with 8 x 8 cells keff2/keff1 1.0. as one might expect. the error increases with the standard deviation of the model. b) coarsescale model with 80 x 80 cells. 16 × 16. The results are least accurate when the scaleup factor is 10 – 50. this gives coarsescale cells of size: 0.75 sigma = 0.50 1. Figure 18a shows a finescale model with a correlated random permeability distribution. The permeability distribution is lnnormal. Also.03 1 10 100 1000 10000 Figure 18 a) Finescale model with 400 x 400 cells.02 sigma = 1.6 (corresponding to 100 mD).75 and 1.4. 5 × 5. Upscaling errors increase as the standard deviation of the model increases. 4. Three different versions of the model were created with different standard deviations: 0. each of size 1 m3. 0. The following scaleup factors were tested: 4 × 4. In each case the ratio of twostage upscaling to singlestage upscaling was calculated. 1.00 0 20 40 60 80 Scaleup Factor Figure 19 2 1 The ratio of k eff k eff for different scaleup factors The conclusions from these examples are: • • Upscaling will be least accurate when the coarse cell size is comparable to.coarse block size varies relative to the correlation length. a) b) c) Permeability (mD) 0.6. 8. The results are plotted in Figure 19. 10 × 10.0. 14 . The model has 400 x 400 grid cells. 0.1 1.01 1. Figure 18b and c show examples of coarsescale models with scaleup factors of 5 and 50.5. when the coarse block size is 1 – 5 times the correlation length. 2. or slightly larger than the correlation length.8. 40 × 40.0.0. 0. and a correlation length of 10 m.
Upscaling would be more accurate. as shown. Unfortunately. Figure 20 Sand/shale model 1.3 Upscaling of a Sand/Shale Model Upscaling errors are largest in models where there are high permeability contrasts. where the shale has zero permeability. • • • • Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Upscaled permeability is generally referred to as effective permeability. periodic and linear. For example. we often require to model the following: • Low permeability shales in a high permeability sandstone • Low permeability faults in a high permeability sandstone • High permeability channels in a low net/gross reservoir • High permeability fractures in a low permeability reservoir All these cases are difficult to model. because they may be averaged arithmetically. we consider a sand/shale model. each coarse block will have zero permeability in the zdirection (vertical). − the harmonic average for acrosslayer flow. Upscaling is least accurate when the coarse cell size is comparable to. such are porosity and water saturation are easy to upscale. This error arises because the coarse block size is similar to the characteristic length of the shales.2. Alternatively. if the coarse block size was much larger. fluid can flow through the model vertically.4. the effective permeability is calculated using a numerical simulation. Upscaling errors increase as the standard deviation of the model increases. or much smaller than the shales. using a “skin” or “flow jacket” will increase the accuracy of upscaling (Section 1. HeriotWatt University 15 . In more complex models. Some quantities. Different boundary conditions may be used when calculating the effective permeability numerically: constant pressure (or noflow). permeability may also be upscaled using averaging. Figure 14). high permeability contrasts frequently occur in reservoir rocks. or slightly larger that the correlation of the permeability distribution. as shown. − the geometric average for a random distribution. However.6 Summary of SinglePhase Upscaling The main points to remember from this section are: • • • • Finescale geological models usually require upscaling for fullfield simulation. Figure 20 shows the finescale model.5.Permeability Upscaling 7 1. In some simple models. which has to be upscaled to 3 coarse blocks. as follows: − the arithmetic average for alonglayer flow. Since there is a shale lying across each coarse block. As an example.
3 0.1 Introduction Often we need to simulate twophase systems.8 0. by injecting at uniform rate at the left side.2 TWOPHASE FLOW 2.5 0.2 0. The aim of upscaling in this case is to calculate a coarsescale model which can reproduce the flow rates of the different fluids.8 Water Saturation Water Saturation Figure 22 The relative permeability and capillary pressure curves Case 1 2 3 Porosity facies 1 facies 2 0.2 0. with alternating horizontal layers of 100 mD and 10 mD (referred to as facies 1 and facies 2).05 0. the balance of forces should be taken into account during upscaling. The coarse model should also provide a good approximation to the saturation distribution in the reservoir with time.3 0. and producing from the right side (at constant bottomhole pressure). facies 1 facies 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 Flow Regime viscous viscous visc+capillary Table 1 Properties of the first set of examples 16 .2 0.6 0. and simulate a water flood. we show the effects which geological heterogeneity may have on hydrocarbon recovery.5 0.5 0. and Table 1 lists the properties of the 3 cases simulated with this model.7 0. The density of the two fluids is the same for this example. a water flood or a gas flood of an oil reservoir.2 0.2 0. Consider the following simple model (Figure 21). The paths which the injected fluid takes through the reservoir depends on the forces present: • Viscous – due to injection of a fluid • Capillary • Gravity Therefore.8 0. 100 mD 10 mD Figure 21 Simple layered model for demonstrating viscous and capillary effects 12 10 0.4 0.2 0.g.7 krw 1 kro 1 krw 2 kro 2 Rel Perm 0. so that there are no gravity effects.1 0 Pc 1 Pc 2 0.9 Cap Pressure 8 6 4 2 0 0.6 0.2 0. We assume that the model is filled with oil and connate water initially.3 0.4 0.6 0. or an oil reservoir with a gas cap or an aquifer. e.7 0. Before learning how to upscale twophase flow.4 0. Figure 22 shows the relative permeabilities and capillary pressures.1 Rel Perm/Pc Curve No.
Figure 24 The oil saturation for Case 3. Water flows faster along the high permeability layers.5 0.6 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. but different recoveries. the front is nearly level in the two facies.4 0.3 0.2 PV.5 0. after the injection of 0.6 0. notice that this effect is reduced when the porosity of facies 2 is reduced. both relative permeability and capillary pressure tables are used. Figure 23 The oil saturation for Cases 1 and 2.Permeability Upscaling 7 Figure 23 shows the distribution of oil saturation after the injection of 0. Due to the effects of capillary pressure.2 PV Oil Saturation 0.7 In Case 3. and demonstrates that models may have the same effective absolute permeability.4 0.2 PV Oil Saturation 0. and also there is crossflow from the high permeability layers to the low permeability ones (Figure 24). after the injection of 0. Both cases use only a single relative permeability curve and the flow regime is viscousdominated. However.7 Figure 25 shows the recovery as a function of porevolumes injected. In this case. HeriotWatt University 17 . and the connate water saturation is higher.3 0. water is imbibed along the low permeability layers. for Cases 1 and 2. as one would expect. These curves are typical of a waterwet rock: the capillary pressure is much higher in the low permeability facies.
4 0. a) Coarseningup 1000 mD b) Finingup 200 mD 200 mD 1000 mD Figure 26 The graded layer models for Cases 4 and 5 Again a waterflood was performed. as shown in Figure 27. There are two versions: Case 4 with permeability increasing upwards (referred to as coarseningup) and Case 5 with permeability decreasing upwards (referred to as finingup). This means that the breakthrough time is earlier in Case 5 than in Case 4.3 0. (If the density of water equalled the density of oil.4 0. this tendency is reduced by the fact that the viscous forces tend to move the fluid faster in the upper layers.1 0.3 0. and the first relative permeability curve was used.) a) Coarseningup a) Finingup Oil Saturation 0. due to the effect of gravity.0.2. In this model.5 0. Since water is more dense than oil.3 In the next example. The effective absolute permeability in these two models is the same.5 0. the densities of the fluids were different: the density of water was set to 1000 kg/m3 and that of oil was set to 200 kg/m3. however.7 Figure 27 The oil saturation after the injection of 0. but the twophase flow effects are different. as shown in Figure 26.6 0. in Case 5 (finingup). the slumping effect is reinforced by the viscous force moving fluid faster along the lower layers.3 0.2 0. However.6 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Pore Volumes Injected Figure 25 Cumulative recovery and watercut for Cases 1 . and the results are shown in Figure 27.4 0. water has a tendency to slump down. In Case 4 (coarseningup).1 0 0 0.5 0. the porosity was kept constant at 0.2 0. the recovery and watercut curves would be identical. The permeabilities range from 200 mD to 1000 mD. graded models are used.2 PV in the graded layer models 18 .
permeability heterogeneity disperses the flood front (Cases 1 and 2).4 0. The details of the model are given in Table 2.0 0.) Gravity effects may increase or reduce the viscous effects. The reason for this is that twophase upscaling is timeconsuming and the results are not always robust (i. The permeability distribution was lnnormal (i. and the coarsescale models 1 and 3 are also shown in Figure 29 (middle and right side).2 0. they may contain large errors). The model was upscaled using the pressure solution method with noflow boundaries. (More information on capillary effects is given in Section 3.2 Applying SinglePhase Upscaling to a TwoPhase Problem Most engineers only perform singlephase upscaling although.5 0.2 0.1 0. We deal with twophase upscaling in Sections 2. with a standard deviation of 2.0 0.3 0.and coarsescale models used for demonstrating the effects of applying singlephase upscaling to a twophase problem Model Fine Coarse 1 Coarse 2 Coarse 3 log10(k) 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Table 2 Number of Cells 105 x 105 21 x 21 15 x 15 7x7 Cell dimension (m) 5 25 35 75 Scaleup Factor 5x5 7x7 15 x 15 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 2. natural logs).e. Figure 29 Fine. heterogeneities give rise to a variety of effects in twophase flow.8 0. In a waterwet system.0 0.3 0.3. HeriotWatt University 19 .Permeability Upscaling 7 Fractional Recovery 0.0 0. Three different scaleup factors were used.1 0.1 0. in a viscousdominated flood. and the water cut curve rises less steeply. as shown above. However.6 Figure 28 Cumulative recovery and watercut for the graded layer models Case 4 Case 5 Pore Volumes Injected Pore Volumes Injected In summary.6 1.5 0.6 0. capillary pressure can help the front to advance more evenly along the layers (Case 3).4 0. the effect of heterogeneity also depends on the balance of fluid forces.2 0. with correlated random permeabilities.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0. Figure 29 (left side) shows a very heterogeneous 2D model.4 – 2.0 The model is assumed to be in the horizontal plain.6. so that breakthrough occurs earlier.2 0. depending on permeabilities in the model (Cases 4 and 5).e.5 Water Cut 0.
and the simulations were repeated with the low heterogeneity model.4 0.2 0. 1 0.1 0 Fractional Recovery lo het fine lo het coarse hi het fine hi het coarse 0 0.5 0. are larger when the coarse block size similar to the correlation length.1 0 0 0.6 0.3 0. the error increases with the scaleup factor.6 0. As expected. the errors caused by using only singlephase upscaling.2 0. 2 wells in diagonally opposite corners). The same relative permeability curve was used for the whole model (Figure 30).2 (lowering the permeability contrast). The resulting recovery curves are shown in Figure 31.3 0.6 0.0.2 0.8 1 Pore Volumes Injected Figure 32 Comparison of recovery for models with different levels of heterogeneity In addition.8 0.8 1 fine ups 5x5 ups 7x7 ups 15x15 Pore Volumes Injected Figure 31 Comparison of recovery for different scaleup factors The model was modified by reducing the standard deviation to 0.4 0. As one might expect. (Capillary pressure was set to zero) Fractional Recovery 0.6 0. The viscosity of water was 0.2 0. the errors are smaller for the low heterogeneity model.8 1 Relative Permeability krw kro Water Saturation 0. Also.4 0.4 0. 0.3 and that of oil was 3. The flood was therefore viscousdominated.6 0.A waterflood with a quarter 5spot well pattern was performed (i.4 0.6 0.2 0 0 0. and the capillary pressure was set to zero.5 Figure 30 The relative permeability curve used for the random model.4 0.e. The recovery is shown in Figure 32 for the scaleup factor of 15 x 15. the upscaling error tends 20 .2 0.
as shown in Figure 33. HeriotWatt University 21 . the cells are each 5 m thick. The model details are given in Table 3.Permeability Upscaling 7 to be larger in unstable floods (injected fluid is of lower viscosity than the in situ fluid) than in stable floods. 1 m. including wells. and the second is to perform a global singlephase simulation (i.e. and the model which maintains the high permeability streak (Coarse 2) is much more accurate. There is a high permeability streak running across the model. 2. the thicknesses are: 7 m. or very small compared to the coarse cell size The flood is stable (favourable mobility ratio) The flood is not capillarydominated (See Section 3.3 Improving SinglePhase Upscaling There are two approaches which may make singlephase more accurate when applying it to twophase problems. b) Coarse 1 Coarse oars c) Coar c) Coarse 2 oarse Figure 33 Model with a high permeability streak Model Fine Coarse 1 Coarse 2 No. In both coarsescale models there are 3 coarse cells in the vertical direction. over the whole finescale model) using the correct boundary conditions.3) The flood is not gravitydominated 2. However. It can be seen that the model with uniform coarse cells (Coarse 1) gives very inaccurate results. In model Coarse 1. provided that: • • • • • • The scaleup factor is small The permeability contrasts are small The correlation length is very large. of cells 100 x 15 20 x 3 20 x 3 Cell size (m) 1x1 5x5 variable Table 3 Figure 34 shows the recovery for these models. The first is to use nonuniform upscaling.1 NonUniform Upscaling Consider a model with horizontal layers. singlephase upscaling may be adequate for upscaling twophase systems. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. in model Coarse 2. so that the high permeability streak is still resolved. 7 m. We refer to this second method as Well Drive Upscaling (WDU). In summary.3.
10 0. 2.0 0. 2005). so that upscaling is as accurate as possible. boundary conditions are applied to each coarsescale cell in turn (Figure 2. Boundary conditions applied to coarse cell Injector P1 P2 Producer Local Global Figure 35 Local and global boundary conditions In the WellDrive Upscaling method (WDU).) These are called local boundary conditions. Then they use the interblock flows to determine the coarse block boundaries. much attention is paid to upgridding the model – i.25 0.0. Durlofsky et al. rather than the effective permeability.3 0. To overcome this problem. leading to inaccuracies in the upscaled model.2 may be quite different from the pressures which actually occur in a finescale simulation. The coarse grid may also be nonuniform in the x. However. Smaller coarse blocks are assigned to regions where there are high flow rates. The upscaled transmissibility is give by: 22 .00 Fractional Recovery fine coarse 1 coarse 2 0.and ydirections.e. deciding how to amalgamate the layers. Several methods for performing nonuniform upscaling have been developed.1 0.) Then the effective transmissibility between coarsescale cells is calculated.and coarsescale models In a practical upscaling application. (1996. Figure 35 demonstrates the difference between local and global boundary conditions.4 Pore Volumes Injected Figure 34 Recovery and watercut for fine.2 0.20 0. For example. (It is feasible to perform a single pressure solve on grids with several million grid cells.2 Well Drive Upscaling When upscaling using numerical simulation. we may use global boundary conditions.05 0.4. a singlephase simulation is performed on the whole fine grid (Zhang et al.3. 1997) first carry out a singlephase simulation. the boundary conditions described in Section 1.15 0.
using the method described in Section 3. It can clearly be seen that the WDU method reproduces the results of finescale model much better than the conventional approach.1. We use layer 59 (Figure 37b) as an example of well drive upscaling. Figure 36 Upscaling transmissibility Ι ΙΙ Upscaling is also performed at the wells. because this layer is particularly heterogeneous. 2001). Many tests on upscaling methods have been carried out using the model generated for the 10th SPE comparative solution project. which leads to an increase in the accuracy of twophase flow at the coarse scale. and layer 59 P4 log10(k) P3 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Layer 59 was upscaled using the WDU method and also the conventional method with local boundary conditions. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. There is an injection well at the centre and production wells in each corner. This is because appropriate boundary conditions have been applied to the model. HeriotWatt University 23 . This method produces very accurate singlephase upscaling. a) b) P1 P2 Figure 37 The SPE 10 model. Figure 38 shows the oil saturation distribution.Permeability Upscaling 7 T= PΙ − PΙΙ ∑q (13) Where q denotes the finescale flows (Figure 36) and PI and PII are the (porevolume weighted) average pressures in coarse cells I and II. This model is referred to as the SPE 10 model (Figure 37a). which was on upscaling (Christie and Blunt.
Although floods are dynamic processes.directions. we assume that both the absolute and the relative permeabilities are homogeneous and isotropic at the smallest scale ( k x = k z ).and coarsescale simulations of Layer 59 of the SPE 10 model 2. the system is not. As we upscale. To obtain effective (or pseudo) relative permeabilities. and also to compensate for numerical dispersion (Section 2.65 0.20 0. over small scales (20 cm. the absolute and relative permeabilities may become anisotropic ( k rx ≠ k rz ). When upscaling. However. We need to simulate finescale floods in order to upscale relative permeability and capillary pressure.5 SteadyState Methods (15) If fluids are in a steady state. we should use the phase permeabilities: k f = k abs k rf (14) Where “f” stands for fluid – oil. 2. x Similar equations are used for flow in the y. or less).80 Figure 38 Comparison of oil saturation distribution in fine. Then the pseudo relative permeability is calculated as follows: k rf . we have assumed that there is only one phase present. 24 . and that the flow is in a steady state.35 0. Generally. such as water displacing oil.3). in a steady state. We only need to upscale the absolute permeability. x = k f . sometimes a flood may approach a steady state. For example.4 Introduction to TwoPhase Upscaling So far.6.50 0. This is referred to as dynamic upscaling.fine local WDU Soil 0.and z. the absolute permeability must be scaledup separately. the saturation does not change with time and the fractional flow (flow of water/total flow) is constant. when performing upscaling. when there are two phases flowing. or pseudos. in general. x k abs. Pseudos can be calculated to take account of physical dispersion. oil and water may come into capillary equilibrium. and the upscaled relative permeabilities are known as pseudo relative permeabilities. gas or water.
∂Sw/∂t = 0. Calculate the phase permeabilities: ko = kabskro. but we allow the fluid saturation to change gradually.e. where u is Darcy velocity. depending on the balance of forces: • Capillary equilibrium. depending on the distribution. 2. kw = kabskrw. 8. Calculate the pore volumeweighted average water saturation. Repeat the process with another value of Pc. Pickup and Stephen. This means that steadystate methods are feasible for models with large numbers of grid cells. At steadystate. and that the fluids have come into capillary equilibrium with a coarsescale cell. Calculate the effective oil phase permeability.Permeability Upscaling 7 In a steadystate upscaling method. kw 6. and Pickup et al. The advantage of steadystate methods is that they turn twophase upscaling into a series of singlephase upscaling calculations.) 2. for example. (See. Calculate the effective water phase permeability. krw = kw/kabs. HeriotWatt University 25 . Institute of Petroleum Engineering. so the continuity equation becomes: ∇ ⋅ u f = 0. The method is as follows: 1. gravity forces are negligible. ko 7.1 CapillaryEquilibrium Assume that the injection rate is very low. i. This means that the saturation distribution is determined by the capillary pressure curves. (17) There are several steadystate methods. 4. 2000. • Vertical equilibrium (gravitydominated flood) • Viscousdominated steadystate We concentrate here on the capillary equilibrium method. From Darcy’s law: (16) ∇ ⋅ ( k f ⋅ ∇Pf ) = 0. Calculate the relative permeabilities. Steps 5 and 6 may be carried out analytically or numerically. Determine the water saturations. Choose a Pc level. the water saturation does not change with time. we assume that within a short interval of time the zone of interest is in a steadystate. so that a full range of saturation is obtained.5. and f is fluid. etc. and then the relative permeabilities. 3. 5. 2000.
4 0.Example 4 Consider a model with two layers of equal thickness.39.0 9. The effective phase permeabilities are then calculated using the arithmetic and harmonic averages.3 lo 0.6 Figure 41 Phase permeabilities Since the layers are of equal width.4 hi lo 0. the average saturation is Sw = 0.3). kw = 0.00 k z = 33.0013.4 0. kro = 0. 26 . Figure 41 shows the phase permeabilities.48. In the high perm layer: Sw = 0.13. krw = 0.6.33 Suppose we choose a capillary pressure of Pc = 0. krw = 0.2 0. ko = 9.8 0.5 0.3 hi Rel Perm lo 0. kw (mD) 0. kw = 0. Then the relative permeabilities are calculated using Equation 15. the effective permeability is: k x = 60.7 0.0016.34. In the low perm layer: Sw = 0.45.6 0.2.032 ko (mD) 50. ko = 50.2 Water Saturation 0.6 0.6 Figure 40 Relative permeability and capillary pressure curves Using the arithmetic and harmonic averages (Section 1.032. kro = 0.7 0.8 Cap Pressure 0 8 6 4 2 0 0.2 0 hi 0.44.5. The absolute permeabilities are 100 mD and 20 mD. kabs (mD) 100 20 12 Figure 39 Model with horizontal layers 0. Assume that the porosity in each layer is equal to 0.5 0. as shown in Figure 39.8 Water Saturation 0.13 0. The relative permeability and Pc curves for each layer are shown in Figure 40.
00153 k rox = 29. However.3 0.081 k wz = 0. we shall concentrate on the Kyte and Berry (1975) method.00 = 0.2 0. Here.4 Water Saturation 0.48 Note that the kv/kh ratio ( = k z k x ) is different for oil and water: k w. z k w.5 0.4 Rel Perm krox kroz krwz 0. The total mobility is: λt = λo + λw = k ro k rw + .5 0. The capillaryequilibrium method is useful as a quick method for upscaling smallscale models (Section 3.6 0.33 = 0.63 k o. average the pressure gradient and use Darcyʼs Law to obtain the pseudo phase permeability. z k o.54 Effective relative permeability curves may be derived by repeating this calculation for a range of capillary pressure values (Figure 42).6 DYNAMIC METHODS 2. x = 0.00135 k rwz = 0. 0.1 k rwx = 0. µo µw (18) 27 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Then the average fractional flow is used to calculate the pseudo relative permeabilities. x = 0.3 Figure 42 Effective relative permeability curves krwx 0.1 0 0.33 = 0.1 Introduction For dynamic (or non steadystate methods).6 2.7 0.3).051 / 33. However the pressure may be averaged in different ways.8 / 60.7 0.Permeability Upscaling 7 k wx = 0.051 k ox = 29.9 0.081 / 60. it is only valid in cases where the flow rate is very low.2 0.00 = 0.8 0. a common approach in twophase upscaling is to sum the flow.8 0.8 k oz = 16. b) Total Mobility Methods In total mobility methods.6. There are basically two types of dynamic method: a) Weighted Pressure Methods As in singlephase numerical upscaling. we need to perform a twophase flow simulation on a fine grid.1 / 33. and scaleup the total mobility.50 k roz = 16. HeriotWatt University . we avoid averaging the pressure.
g. i=1 j=1 2 3 4 5 ∆x ∆z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pseudo calculated for this coarse block ∆X DX ∆Z DZ Figure 43 Model used for describing the Kyte and Berry Method. i. The method proceeds as follows: 1. 2. The first step is to perform a finescale. i=3 j=1 i=7 j=5 Figure 44 The area used for calculating the effective absolute permeability Kyte and Berry approximate the effective permeability using the arithmetic average in each column. The equations below show how to calculate the pseudo relative permeabilities and capillary pressure for the left coarse block. and then taking the harmonic average of the columns. each of which is made up of 5 x 5 fine blocks.The fractional flow is the flow of water divided by the total flow: fw = qw q = w qo + qw qt (19) Again there are a number of variations of this method. half way between the two coarse blocks. using the grid shown in Figure 43. The thickness of the model is Δy Δ The diagram shows two coarse grid blocks.2 The Kyte and Berry Method A simple version of the Kyte and Berry (1975) method is presented here. twophase simulation (e.6.e. the most commonly used being that of Stone (1991). in ECLIPSE). Calculate the effective absolute permeability in the area shown in Figure 44. The area between the two coarse blocks is used. for reasons explained below. saving the pressures and interblock flows at specified intervals of time (in the restart files). 28 .
HeriotWatt University 29 .j is the flow of fluid “f” from fine block number (5.) 2.Permeability Upscaling 7 ki = ∑ ∆z k j =1 j 5 ij ∆Z (20) where Δzj and ΔZ are the thicknesses of the fine and coarse blocks. j . at certain times during the simulation. we use the fine blocks in columns 3 and 8. j =1 5 (23) where qf5. i=5 j=1 Figure 45 Calculation of the total flow j=5 4. The pseudos are then calculated. and k I is the required effective absolute permeability. Calculate the total flow of oil and water out of the left coarse block (Figure 45). ij ij φ ∆x i ∆z j i j ∑ ∑ φ ∆x ∆z j =1 i =1 ij (22) where φij is the porosity. 3. Calculate the average phase pressures in the central column of each coarse block. the shaded areas in Figure 46.) kI = ∑ ∆x i=3 7 ∆X i ki (21) where Δxi and ΔX are the lengths of the fine and coarse blocks. (These are the times at which the restart files are written in the Eclipse simulation.j). In this example. Calculate the average water saturation: Sw = ∑∑S j =1 i =1 5 5 5 5 w . (In z this case. q f = ∑ q f 5. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. all the blocks are of equal size. respectively.
j) and D is the average depth of coarse cell I. the average pressure is: P fI = ∑k j =1 5 3j k rf 3 ∆z 3 j Pf 3 j − gρf (D3 j − D) ( ) (24) ∑k j =1 5 3j k rf 3 ∆z 3 j where D3j is the depth of cell (3. The pseudo rel perms are then calculated using Darcy’s law. ∆D (26) where ΔD is the depth difference between the two coarse grid centres. the pressures are weighted by the phase permeabilities times the height of the cells (which in this case are all the same size). (Potential is defined as Φ = Pρgz. In the first coarse block (numbered.) ∆Φ f = ∆P f − gρf ∆ . I). The average pressure for coarse block II is calculated in the same manner.i=3 j=1 i=7 j=5 I II Figure 46 The cells used for averaging the phase pressures In the Kyte and Berry method. However. 30 . but using column 8 instead of column 3. Then: k rf = −µ f q f ∆X ∆Zk I ∆Φ I (27) 6. Calculate the pseudo capillary pressure using: P c = P oI − P wI (28) The Eclipse PSEUDO package can be used for calculating Kyte and Berry pseudos.D ) is to normalise the pressure to the grid block centre. This is so that more weight is given to regions where there is greater flow. there is no scientific justification for using this weighting. The pressure difference is then calculated as: ∆P f = P fI − P fII . calculate the pseudo potential difference. The term gρf(D3j . Firstly. so that the flow rate is proportional to ∇Φ . (25) 5.
When a simulation is carried out using a larger grid. as shown in Figure 49. The pseudo water relative permeability curve is moved to the right. This is illustrated by a simple example.Permeability Upscaling 7 2. oil Figure 48 Example of the water saturation in a coarse block water coarse block Since the water has reached only half way across the coarse block.3 0.8 Water Saturation If the water saturation is Sw = 0.6 0.5 0. instead of the middle. the rock curves show that there is a small amount of oil and water flowing.5. the distribution could be as shown in Figure 48.5 in the coarse block.3 Discussion on Numerical Dispersion One advantage of pseudoisation methods. However.5 0.2 0.8 0. when the average saturation.3 0.9 0. 0.6. there should be no water flowing out of the right side. However. The Kyte and Berry method calculates the pseudo relative permeabilities using the flow on the downstream side of the coarse block.6 Perm Rel 0. the Kyte and Berry method counteracts this effect by calculating the flows on the downstream side of the coarse block.7 0.2 0.4 0. such as that of Kyte and Berry is that they can take account of numerical dispersion.7 0. the front between the oil and water becomes more spread out. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.4 0. relative to the rock curves. is 0. HeriotWatt University 31 . Sw .1 0 Figure 47 Example of “rock” curves 0. Figure 47 shows an example of input relative permeability curves (“rock” curves). to prevent water breaking through too soon.
a finescale twophase flow simulation is required for each coarsescale cell (plus a “flow jacket”). may cause errors when the fluids are separated due to gravity. because only the central column is used for averaging the pressures. The capillary pressure may be different in different directions.dashed lines Relative Permeability 0.7 0.solid lines ave.6 0. rock curves . if ∆Φ f has the same sign as q f .8 Water Saturation Figure 49 Example of pseudo relative permeability curves 2. pseudos obtained from packages like the PSEUDO must be vetted before using at the coarse scale. Nonzero pseudo capillary pressure may be produced.3 0. Also.4 0.1 0 0 0.2 0. there may be 10. Good reviews of various methods for calculating pseudos are presented in Barker and Dupouy (1999) and Barker and Thibeau (1997). The number of pseudos must be reduced.6. i. Ideally.000s of pseudos in the coarsescale model. Often “odd” values of relative permeability are set to zero. such as that of Kyte and Berry are difficult to apply in practice.e.4 0. the TW method works better (Section 2.9 0. and this is time consuming. • • • Negative rel perms are produced. 32 . If a pseudo is calculated for each coarse cell. using relative permeability as a weighting function.5 0. or infinite rel perms. it is difficult to determine the correct boundary conditions to use. even if there is no capillary pressure in the finescale simulation. The method of averaging the pressures.6 0. This is because a different weighting is used for calculating the average pressure in each phase. For floods which are gravitydominated. Note that dynamic upscaling methods.2 pseudos . negative.4 Disadvantages of the Kyte and Berry Method There are certain problems with the Kyte and Berry method.8 0.6. • • Because of the first two disadvantages. so the results may not be accurate. in each direction. Infinite rel perms occur if ∆Φ f is zero.1 0.5). by grouping similar pseudos together.
In this case. namely. A global simulation was performed on the fine grid. Figure 50 shows the oil saturation for the finescale simulation. mentioned in Section 2. the pseudos ought to be recalculated. the whole of the fine grid was included in the finescale flow simulation. Both these methods share the same problems discussed in Section 2. (a) The PoreVolume Weighted Method The problems of nonzero capillary pressure and directional capillary pressure.) The finescale model had 60 x 220 cells and the coarsescale model had 10 x 22. It is available in the Eclipse PSEUDO package.2). pore volume weighting may be used for averaging the pressures when calculating the pseudo relative permeabilities. a coarsescale simulation using the WDU method (Section 2. Pseudo relative permeabilities were calculated for each coarse cell. (Note that this would not be done.4. so that (hopefully) the results of a coarsescale simulation provide a good approximation to the finescale results. Layer 59 of the SPE 10 upscaling study (Figure 37b) is used here as an example. (b) The well locations The wells determine the flow rate and direction. may be overcome by using a pore volume weighted average of the pressures over the entire coarse block. 1999).5 Alternative Methods There are a number of similar methods to the Kyte and Berry Method. if you can simulation the whole fine grid. and a coarsescale simulation using pseudos Institute of Petroleum Engineering.e. Also.Permeability Upscaling 7 Pseudo relative permeability curves depend on a number of factors. (b) The TW Method This method was developed by Nasir Darman at HeriotWatt University (Darman et al. pseudo relative permeabilities are calculated. because there is no point in upscaling.6.6.4. the method is called the Pore Volume Weighted Method. twophase upscaling is rarely used for upscaling from a geological model to a fullfield simulation. in each direction. except transmissibility weighting is used when calculating the average pressure. These ratios may be different in different parts of the reservoir. including: (a) The balance of forces The shape and end points of a pseudo depend on the ratio of viscous/capillary and viscous/gravity forces.6 Example of the PVW Method In twophase dynamic upscaling methods.6. they are difficult to apply in practice. It is similar to the Kyte and Berry method. HeriotWatt University 33 . ECLIPSE uses this method for calculating the average capillary pressure in the Kyte and Berry method. a gas flood). 2. which corresponded to a scaleup factor of 6 x 10. The method works better than the Kyte and Berry method in cases where gravity effects are significant (e.6.g. in practice. Because of these problems. If a new well is drilled. 2. i.3.
2.2 0. PVW and local upscaling methods It can be seen in Figure 51 that both the WDU and the PVW methods agree well with the finescale simulation. So. 34 .3). so is rarely used by engineers.50 0. The oil recovery rate. and tends to produce dispersion of the flood front. Both the WDU and the PWV methods give reasonable oil saturation distributions.65 0. fine WDU PVW Soil 0.8 Pore Volumes Injected Figure 51 The oil recovery rate for well P4 for the finescale model and coarsescale models obtained using the WDU.4 0. and the reservoir model is very heterogeneous (large standard deviation). and 2. However.20 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.1 0.35 0. the results from the singlephase upscaling with local boundary conditions are poor.80 Figure 50 The oil saturation distribution for the finescale model of layer 59 and the coarsescale models obtained using the WDU and the PVW methods Well Rate (m3/day) Fine Local WDU PVW 0 0. only singlephase upscaling is performed. especially when there is a large scaleup factor.from the PVW method. singlephase upscaling may give rise to errors.3 0. Usually. But. for well P4.7 0. This example shows that twophase upscaling is not necessarily always more accurate than singlephase upscaling.7 Summary of TwoPhase Flow The main points on twophase flow are: • • • • Twophase upscaling is time consuming and not always robust.5 0. heterogeneity interacts with twophase flow. which is not taken into account using singlephase upscaling.2.6 0. along with the oil rate for a coarsescale simulation using singlephase upscaling with local boundary conditions (Sections 2. for these models is shown in Figure 51.
and the pressure calculated for a block containing a well is different from the actual bottom hole pressure. However. Most of the singlephase upscaling methods presented may be found in geological packages. twophase upscaling should be performed to take account of twophase flow. so far. Steadystate upscaling is relatively quick to apply. Dynamic methods can compensate for the effects of numerical dispersion. Ideally. (The WDU and TW methods which were developed at HeriotWatt are not available in commercial packages. Dynamic methods are potentially more accurate. we cover these issues in a variety of additional topics: • Upscaling as Wells • Permeability Tensors • The Geopseudo Method • Uncertainty and Upscaling 3. there are a number of other important issues which should be taken into account when upscaling. and is feasible for large models. HeriotWatt University 35 . A grid block in the simulator is much larger than the diameter of a well. This means that the upscaling methods were not appropriate for regions containing wells. where there is radial flow. it is only valid in limited cases. Dynamic methods are difficult to apply in practice. such as IRAP/RMS and Petrel. Iw is the well index. These are related by: q= Iw (Pw − Pb ) µ (29) where Pw is the wellbore pressure and Pb is the pressure of the block.g.) However. focussed mainly on common methods for upscaling a geological model for fullfield simulation. e. when the fluids are approximately in capillary equilibrium.1 Upscaling at Wells In the singlephase upscaling methods described in Chapter 1.Permeability Upscaling 7 • • • • • • • Errors in singlephase upscaling may be reduced by using nonuniform upscaling. given by: Iw = 2πk∆z ln( ro rw ) (30) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. we assumed that the flow was linear. or welldrive upscaling. In this section. 3 ADDITIONAL TOPICS This course has. The Kyte and Berry (1975) Method was described as an example. We start with a brief overview of simulation in blocks containing a well.
2 Permeability Tensors Suppose that we have layers which are tilted at an angle to the horizontal. Others have put forward similar methods. From the results. Iw is also referred to as the well connection factor. the term crossflow is used to describe flow perpendicular to the applied pressure gradient. periodic boundary condition applied to each block in turn). Peaceman. (2000) put forward a method for upscaling in the nearwell region. When calculating the effective permeability of this model. or crossflow. Durlofsky et al. 1983). The fluid takes a path through the medium. and the average pressures in the coarse blocks are calculated. as in Figure 53. described in Section 2. we need to take this crossflow into account. a finescale singlephase simulation of the well block and surrounding blocks is carried out (Figure 52). and a coarsescale well index. q T4 T2 Figure 52 Nearwell upscaling (after Durlofsky et al. the total flows out of the coarsescale well block. where: 36 . so that it expends a minimum amount of energy. Then. This gives rise to a net flow in the zdirection. The first step is to calculate effective singlephase permeabilities.. net flow in zdir x net flow in xdir z ∆P Figure 53 Crossflow due to tilted layers. k . 3. or the connection transmissibility factor. This may be done using a tensor effective permeability. There will be a component of flow up the high permeability. Lightcoloured layers represent high permeability and darkcoloured layers represent low permeability A pressure gradient has been applied in the xdirection. and only a small amount of flow across the low permeable layer. and it is also incorporated into the well drive upscaling method (WDU).3. using one of the conventional methods (e. as shown. given by Peacemanʼs equation (Peaceman. This will obviously give rise to a flow in the xdirection. The method is only approximate. Here. 2000) T3 T1 This method improves the accuracy of upscaling at well. but improves the accuracy of coarsescale simulations.2. These are used to calculate upscaled transmissibilities between the coarsescale well block and the surrounding blocks.where rw is the wellbore radius and ro is the equivalent radius. 1978.g.
kzz are known as the diagonal terms.2. mD 22. we studied flow along and across horizontal layers. Figure 54 The simple twolayer model x z finescale finescale nesca t1 = 3 mm. With tensor permeabilities. respectively. are the offdiagonal terms. These are the terms which are usually considered – the horizontal and vertical permeabilities.25 In this model.1 and 1. HeriotWatt University 37 . so we may write the effective permeability in tensor form with zero offdiagonal terms. µ (32) where u is the Darcy velocity (vector) and P is pressure (scalar). mD 22. k 2 = 100 mD mm. kyy.Permeability Upscaling 7 k xx k = k yx k zx k xy k yy k zy k xz k yz k zz (31) The first index applies to the flow direction.86 28 0 or in 3D: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. which describe the crossflow. The other terms. kh and kv. Darcyʼs Law becomes: u=− k ⋅ ∇P. The model in Figure 5 is repeated here (Figure 54). showing the arithmetic average for the effective permeability for alonglayer flow and the harmonic average for across layer flow.3. there is no crossflow.25 mD .86 mD coarsescale coarse scale arse 66. The terms kxx.2 66. For example kxy is the flow in the xdirection caused by a pressure gradient in the ydirection. 1 ∂P ∂P ∂P u x = − k xx + k xy + k xz µ ∂x ∂y ∂z 1 ∂P ∂P ∂P u y = − k yx + k yy + k yz µ ∂x ∂y ∂z 1 ∂P ∂P ∂P u z = − k zx + k zy + k zz µ ∂x ∂y ∂z (33) In Sections 1. k1 = 10 mD mD t2 = 5 mm.3. and the second to the direction of the pressure gradient.25 k= 22. as follows: 0 66.
0 0 66. the effective permeability should be represented by a full tensor. kzx and kzz are shown. In the frame of reference defined by the x ′ and z′ axes. although the layers have are repeated. However.) This example is in 2D. as follows: k a cos2 θ + k h sin 2 θ ( k a − k h ) sin θ cos θ k= 2 2 ( k a − k h ) sin θ cos θ k a sin θ + k h cos θ (34) This formula is obtained by rotating the coordinate axes through an angle θ. so only the kxx.25 0 0 0 22. the effective permeability may be calculated using the arithmetic and harmonic averages as before. (You are not required to know the proof. Example 5 Suppose the example in Figure 54 is rotated by 30º (Figure 56). Further rotations may be carried out around the x ′ or z ′ axes to obtain a full 3D tensor.25 0 k= 66. • Depending on the sign of θ. in the xz coordinate system. and they have been tilted. the offdiagonal terms may be positive or negative. The terms of the tensor may be calculated from the arithmetic and harmonic averages.86 3. Note that: • The tensor is symmetric (kxz = kzx). and calculate the effective permeability tensor.2. 38 .1 Flow Through Tilted Layers θ x z z' x' Figure 55 Layers tilted at an angle of θ to the horizontal This model is essentially the same as the one in Figures 4 and 6. kxz.
86 × 0. you usually specify PERMX. as described in Section 1. j − a 2 Pi −1. 18. but some packages allow the user to input full tensors. k xz = (66. Conventional finite difference simulators use a 5point scheme in 2D and a 7point scheme in 3D. and also flow in the zdirection due to internal heterogeneity. j − a 4 Pi .25 = 55. in Equation (35) depend on the transmissibilities between the blocks.79 33.40 18. a 9point scheme is required to take account of crossflow. and kh = 22. These flows can be used to calculate the kxx and kzx tensor terms. (In 3D.25 mD. (35) The coefficients. j +1 = 0. This means that there are 9 terms in each of the pressure equations. PERMY and PERMZ. j −1 − a 5 Pi . j −1 − a 7 Pi −1.433 = 18. k xx = 66. we need special software to handle them at the larger scale. HeriotWatt University 39 . sin230 = 0. a1Pi . ka = 66. sin30.25 − 22.79 k= .) 3. there is a full tensor option which allows you to specify terms such as PERMXY.25 + 22. From before. j +1 − a 8 Pi +1. 55.2 Simulation with Full Permeability Tensors Having calculated full effective permeability tensors. there will be flow in the xdirection. In 2D.4.40 mD.433.2.Permeability Upscaling 7 'z Figure 56 Layered model tilted by 30º x z 30o cos230 = 0. k zz = 66.71 mD.75 + 22. There are several different methods of discretisation which give slightly difInstitute of Petroleum Engineering.75.71 Full tensor permeabilities may also be calculated from numerical simulations. In Eclipse.79 mD. Simulation with full tensors is more complicated and more timeconsuming.86) × 0. Then a pressure gradient is applied in the zdirection to obtain the kzz and kxz terms. It is useful to use periodic boundaries.25 × 0. as illustrated in Equation (35). ai.g.86 × 0. a pressure gradient should also be applied in the ydirection.25 × 0. and only take diagonal tensors – e.25. j −1 − a 9 Pi +1. j +1 −a 6 Pi −1. j − a 3 Pi +1. When a pressure gradient is applied in the xdirection.75 = 33. when running ECLIPSE.cos30 = 0.2.86 mD.
etc) are negligible.j+1 i. There are typically about 107 such cells in a full field model.j i+1. along with the scales of measurements and typical sizes of models.j i. Petrophysical data (permeabilities. Figure 58 shows the ranges of scales of sedimentary structures. b) 27point scheme for 3D Often the offdiagonal elements of the permeability tensor (kxy.001 0.) Obviously. See Figure 57.j i1. petrophysical data should be upscaled before being applied to the grid blocks of the geological model. sedimentary structures. 100 Seismic data Log Parasequences Flow model Geological model Beds Probe Laminae 0. and capillary pressures) are acquired from core plugs. and as the permeability contrast increases. Therefore.1 0. This is a stochastic model with grid cells of size approximately 50 m in the horizontal directions.5 m in the vertical. and increases as (ka – kh) increases. However.j1 i+1.01 0. it takes longer to solve equations with a larger number of terms.0 1 10 100 1000 10000 Vertical thickness (m) 10 0 1 Core 0.j+1 i.j+1 i+1.j1 z i1.001 0. the size of the offdiagonal term may be gauged from Equation (34) in Section 3. which are only a few cm long. These cells must be reduced in number to about 104 for fullfield simulation. we need either a 19point scheme or a 27point scheme. what is commonly termed a “finescale geological model”. (36) This is a maximum for θ = 45º. full permeability tensors become more important as the angle of the lamination or bedding increases. so the limitations of using a 5point (2D) or a 7point (3D) scheme are not serious.j1 b) Figure 57 a) 9point scheme for 2D.2.1: k xz = ( k a − k h ) sin θ cos θ. and about 0.01 Horizontal length (m) Figure 58 Length scales 40 . a) x i1. for example. To extend this to 3D.3 SmallScale Heterogeneity Most reservoirs are modelled using. (The 19point scheme leaves out the 8 corners of the cube. In layered systems.ferent results.1 1. 3. When smallscale structure is present. relative permeabilities. each of the grid cells in the geological model is likely to be heterogeneous. containing.
from the mm – cm scale to the m – Dm scale. we consider upscaling as two separate stages (Figure 59). Core plug Sedimentary Structure Stage 1 Upscaling Geological Model ~ 107 blocks Figure 59 Two separate stages of upscaling. Flow simulations are carried out to calculate the effective singlephase permeability and the twophase pseudo parameters. Models of typical sedimentary structures are created and permeability values are assigned to the laminae (from probe permeameter measurements. work carried out at HeriotWatt University has demonstrated that smallscale structures. i. HeriotWatt University 41 . water is imbibed into the low permeability laminae. by Christie and Blunt. Stage 1 is upscaling from the smallest scale at which we may treat the rock as a porous medium (rather than a network of pores).) Stage 2 Upscaling Simulation Model ~ 104 blocks 3. 1995). or by analysing core plug data).e. or less. The Geopseudo Method is an approach. 2001. and oil may become trapped in the high permeability laminae. upscaling from beds to bedsets. If we upscale to blocks of 50 m x 50 m x 0. Ringrose et al. up to the scale of the stochastic geological model. 1993. in a waterflood of a waterwet rock. which has already been described. the grid cells may be a mm cube. In the finestscale model. such as sedimentary lamination may have a significant effect on oil recovery (Corbett et al.5 m. using geologically significant lengthscales (Figure 60). Stage 2 is upscaling from the stochastic geological model to the fullfield simulation model. where upscaling is carried out in stages.. Additional stages of modelling and upscaling may be required – e..3. we are upscaling by a factor of at least 5 x 104 in the horizontal directions and 500 in the vertical. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.g. who apply core plug permeabilities and “rock” relative permeability curves directly to the geological model. 1992.. However. Relative permeabilities and capillary pressure curves are also assigned to each laminatype (by history matching SCAL experiments on core plugs).1 The Geopseudo Method Upscaling from the corescale to the scale of the geological model (Stage 1 in Figure 59) is frequently ignored by engineers. Huang et al. For example.Permeability Upscaling 7 For convenience. (Geological model taken from “Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Techniques”.
the flood is capillarydominated (Figure 62a). Figure 24 showed a moderate capillary effect: the imbibition of water along the low permeability layer made the flood front approximately level in the two layers (instead being ahead in the high permeability layer.3. If the size of the model is reduced by a factor 100. In the case of Figure 62c. so that the layers are 1 cm thick. in this figure. the effects of capillary pressure are much stronger.Low Perm High Perm Individual Rel. Notice that. This is because the front has been spread out by the effects of capillary pressure. as in Figure 62. in the case of a viscousdominated flood). 42 . When the injection rate is low (average frontal advance rate of 0. and the grid cells were 10 cm square.5 0. and the model is almost in capillary equilibrium. showing that the water saturation is almost constant in each layer. In that model (Figure 21).7 Figure 61 Example of capillarydominated flood in a layered model When the flow is across the layers. the flood is viscous dominated and all the movable oil has been displaced by water. strong capillary imbibition draws water into the low permeability layers (black) so that the front advances faster in this layer.2 CapillaryDominated Flow At small scales the flow is often capillarydominated. there is little lateral variation in the shading. as shown in Figure 61. This figure shows the same smallscale model of sedimentary lamination.4 0. the effects of capillary pressure are even more striking.6 0.3 0. Perm Curves Figure 60 Illustration of the Geopseudo Method 3. the layers were 1 m thick. In this case. the oil has more viscous force and can overcome the capillary forces leading to less trapping of oil (Figures 61b). Perm Curves Effective Perm Pseudo Rel. and represent sedimentary laminae. water (black) has been imbibed into the low permeability layers leaving oil trapped in the high permeability laminae (grey). As the injection rate is increased.3 m/day). Oil Saturation 0.
1 0.4 0. twophase steadystate methods. Figure 64 shows the resulting pseudos (from Pickup and Stephen.4 0. Figure 63 shows a model of sedimentary ripples.8 0. 18 cells 10 mD 200 mD 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 rate 1 rate 2 rate 3 rate 4 0. Scotland) 3 cm. Twophase dynamic upscaling may also be used.5 0.2 0. When upscaling from the laminascale. near St.Permeability Upscaling 7 a) b) c) Figure 62 Examples of acrosslayer flow.6 0. or twophase dynamic methods.2 0.9 0. Figure 63 A model of ripples (based on the Ardross Outcrop. and twophase upscaling should be performed.2 0.3 0.3 0.9 Relative Permeability Relative Permeability 0.3 0. Since a flood is often capillarydominated.3 Geopseudo Example All the upscaling methods described in the previous sections may be used in the Geopseudo approach. as shown above. 3.4 0. a) capillary dominated. for oil (left) and water (right) 0.7 0. HeriotWatt University 43 .8 0.0 0. 2000). depending on the type of heterogeneities and the fluids flowing – averaging. and we show an example of the Kyte and Berry method below. these effects should not be ignored.5 0.2 0. Monance in Fife.3. steadystate upscaling using the capillary equilibrium method is often appropriate.7 0.0 0.5 0.1 0. c) viscousdominated Oil Saturation 0.8 Water Saturation Water Saturation Institute of Petroleum Engineering.5 0. 54 cells 1 cm.7 0. singlephase numerical methods. b) intermediate.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0. Kyte and Berry pseudos were calculated for the model using four different flow rates.6 0. with rate 1 being the fastest.7 The examples shown in Figures 61 and 62 demonstrate the significance of capillary effects at the smallscale.6 rate 1 rate 2 rate 3 rate 4 Figure 64 Pseudo relative permeabilities for different flow rates.7 0. There is a factor of 10 between each flow rate.
4 When to use the Geopseudo Method Geopseudo upscaling may be timeconsuming. people are less likely to follow the “traditional” upscaling approach. Ringrose et al. and there is no point in upscaling from the smallest scales. largescale connectivity may be the dominant issue.46. about 104 or 105. These detailed models are too large for fullfield flow simulation. At very low flow rates (rate 4). this 44 . 3.3. • Jigsaw puzzle reservoirs – smallscale structure may be important. it is now recognised that there are many uncertainties in the reservoir modelling. These changes mean that. The Weber and van Geuns (1990) classification may be used to describe the largescale structures: • Layer cake reservoirs – smallscale structure will usually have primary importance. and only a few are created for each reservoir. and the oil is trapped. reliable SCAL data is also required.Note the following: 1. This is to compensate for numerical dispersion. The pseudo oil relative permeability goes to zero around Sw = 0. and probe permeability measurements should be taken to populate the smallscale models. Research into upscaling has focussed on trying to develop methods to accurately upscale these types of models. smallscale structure may have to be ignored. geologists and engineers are starting to generate thousands of models in order to characterise the effects of uncertainty. • Labyrinth reservoirs – smallscale structure will usually be of secondary importance. Additionally. However. 3. Such models are often timeconsuming to generate. These models must be coarse so that the simulations can run very quickly. At high rates. if the effects of finescale structure are ignored. reservoir modelling developed (along with computing power) so that geologists could create models containing millions of grid cells. and instead of concentrating on a few detailed models. Cores must be studied to identify the sedimentary structures present. and must be upscaled to reduce the number of cells to. the pseudos are shifted to the right. (1999) give a list of guidelines for when Geopseudo upscaling may be necessary: 1) Are immiscible fluids flowing? 2) Are significant smallscale heterogeneities present? Specifically: • Is the permeability contrast greater than 5:1? • Is the layer thickness less than 20 cm? • Is the mean permeability less than 500 mD? 3) What is the largescale structure of the reservoir? In many cases. the flood is capillarydominated.4 Uncertainty and Upscaling During the 1990s. However. 2. in which case. in future. unless cores are available for the field.
particularly when the coarse cell size is comparable. which increases the accuracy of singlephase upscaling by using the “correct” boundary conditions. kyy and kzz. These give an overview of some of the methods described in this chapter: e. even for models with a relatively large number of grid cells. It is therefore very important to understand the effects of possible subgrid heterogeneity on absolute and relative permeability. In general. in general. Full tensors may be used to take account of crossflow within a grid cell. because the flow is radial. Permeability upscaling is often inaccurate. along with suitable boundary conditions. especially when the scaleup factor is large and when the standard deviation of the permeability distribution is large. 45 • • • • • • • Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 9 terms in 3D). The capillary equilibrium method is useful.g. It is more time consuming than singlephase upscaling. ky and kz). Renard and Marsily (1997) and Christie (2001). effective permeability should be calculated using a numerical simulation. HeriotWatt University . this can give rise to errors. Singlephase upscaling for twophase systems may be made more accurate by using a nonuniform coarse grid. In general. Twophase dynamic upscaling methods should be able to reproduce twophase flow on a coarse scale. often referred to as kx. However. Christie (1996). The Kyte and Berry (1975) method is an example of a pressure averaging approach. 3.5 Upscaling Summary Several reviews have been published on upscaling.Permeability Upscaling 7 will lead to errors in the predicted recovery. Usually only singlephase upscaling is used in twophase systems. The well index and the transmissibilities around the well block should eb upscaled. However. and when the standard deviation is large. Here is a summary of the main points: • • • The effective permeability of simple permeability models (layered or random) may be calculated using averaging. or slightly larger than the correlation length of the permeability distribution. and the results are not robust (negative or infinite values may be obtained). only the diagonal terms are used (kxx. twophase upscaling is difficult to apply. This is an area of active research at HeriotWatt University. or by using the Well Drive Upscaling method. The regions around wells should be treated as a special case. It is feasible. Permeability is actually a tensor quantity (4 terms in 2D. when necessary. and to include these effects. particularly for smallscale models.
in which models of sedimentary structures are generated and upscaled.• It is important to take account of smallscale (mm – m) heterogeneity in some reservoirs. Capillary effects are often significant at smallscales. • 46 . This may be done using the Geopseudo Method. and it is important to take these into account using twophase upscaling (steadystate or dynamic).
J. S. May.394. Pet. L.. J. Jensen. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Durlofsky.D. SPE 24699. D. HeriotWatt University. SPEJ.. A.. Pickup. “Interpretation of WellBlock Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation”. and Bernath. M. “Upscaling of TwoPhase Flow in OilGas Systems”.. Ringrose. “New Pseudo Functions to Control Numerical Dispersion”. 6. N. Ph. Christie. Christie. D. Jones. 1996. 269276. R. M. Corbett. Kyte. W.. and Dupouy. Petroleum Geoscience. 20. 335 – 347. Milliken.. J. 1992. and Sorbie. E. R. K. N. 23 – 241. W. “Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation”. Jones. R. M. Darman. W. 6. 1. A. SPE Reservoir Engineering.. 138143. 5 – 27. 1975. June 1978. Darman. 2001. Huang. W. “Laminated Clastic Reservoirs . A... “Scaleup in the NearWell Region”. 2000. 5 (1). “Capillary Trapping Mechanisms in WaterWet Laminated Rocks”. Durlofsky. K. R. and Blunt. Durlofsky. J. and Berry. “An Analysis of Dynamic PseudoRelative Permeability Methods for OilWater Flows”. DC. S. HeriotWatt University 47 . 10 (4). H. SPE RE. 183194. November 1996. Christie.. 1997. G.. H. Peaceman. 2000. S. “Scale Up of Heterogeneous Three Dimensional Reservoir Descriptions”.. 1997. L. Ringrose.The Interplay of Capillary Pressure and Sedimentary Architecture”. 11 – 14 February. 1996. R. S. Behrens. Washington.7 October. 2001. 1999. J. 313326. 48. J. 4 . presented at the 67th Annual Technical Conference of the SPE.. M. 2001. W.. SPEJ.. “Flow in Porous Media – Scale Up of Multiphase Flow”. “A Comparison of TwoPhase Dynamic Upscaling Methods Based on Fluid Potentials”. SPEJ.. P. J. W. and Thibeau. 1978. C.. “A Nonuniform Coarsening Approach for the Scale Up of Displacement Processes in Heterogeneous Porous Media”. J. Y. J. L. 1995. 10041008. “Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques”.. August 1975. A. Thesis. P. SPEJ. J. Computational Geosciences. and Sorbie. 287 – 292. P. A.. 5 (4). Houston Texas. 385 . P. 1997. S... A. C.. 1992.Permeability Upscaling 7 4 REFERENCES Barker. 110 – 117. “A Critical Review of the Use of Pseudo Relative Permeabilities for Upscaling”. L.. presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. J. K. and Bernath. M. 2002. W. Barker. and Sorbie. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science”. Advances in Water Resources. and Milliken. Tech.
Stone. K. Jensen. p 256 – 276. 9(2). D.. 5 (2). Pickup. P. Ringrose.. L. Petroleum Geoscience. Schatzinger and J. Jordan. 1991. SPEJ. M. February. A.. “An Assessment of SteadyState ScaleUp for SmallScale Geological Models”. “Rigorous Black Oil Pseudo Functions”. P.”SteadyState Upscaling: From LaminaScale to FullField Model”. “A New Upscaling Approach for Highly Heterogeneous Reservoirs”. E. presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation.. G.Peaceman. June 1983. 103124. S. and Sharif.. 1990. P. 6 (3). Weber. E. 2000. H. 2005. and Stephen. 1720. “Interpretation of WellBlock Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic Permeability”. and Jensen. and Forrester. “Immiscible Flow Behaviour in Laminated and Crossbedded Sandstones”. 20 (5/6). 1983.. M. 48 . and de Marsily. AAPG Memoir 71. Sorbie. P.. Pickup. E. 253 – 278. October 1990. S. CA. P. p 1248 – 1297. JPT. Zhang. Corbett.. L. presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium . L.. Ringrose. Pickup. Ringrose. G. Renard. W. “The Ardross Reservoir Gridblock Analog: Sedimentology.. J. G. J. SPE 21207. A. Petroleum Science and Engineering. S. in Reservoir Characterization – Recent Advances. S. 208 – 217. D. W. G. P. J. 203 – 210. Anaheim. Advances in Water Resources. “Framework for Constructing Clastic Reservoir Simulation models”. M.. K.. 1991. eds R. 531543. and van Geuns. “Calculating Equivalent Permeability: A Review”. J. 1999. and Flow Upscaling”. and Christie. C. SPEJ. E.. M. February 2005. 2000. Statistical Representivity. Pickup. G.. 1993. L. K.
1 Introductory Concepts 6.A BRIEF OVERVIEW 2.2 Methods for Generating Relative Permeabilities 5.1 Laboratory Measurement of Capillary Pressure 4.2 Wettability Measurement and Classification 6.1 Capillary Pressure — What Does it Mean and When is it Important? 3.2 Steadyand UnsteadyState Flow 3.2 Laboratory Measurement of Relative Permeability 5 EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO GENERATING PETROPHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR RESERVOIR SIMULATION 5.6 Introduction to Percolation Theory 3.5 The Pore Doublet Model 3.7 Network Modelling of Multiphase Flow 4 EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF PETROPHYSICAL DATA 4.3 The Impact of Wettability on Petrophysical Properties 6.4 Capillary Bundle Models 2.Petrophysical Input 8 1 INTRODUCTION 2 MODELLING SINGLEPHASE FLOW AT THE PORESCALE .4 Network Modelling of Wettability Effects 7 CONCLUDING REMARKS 8 APPENDIX A: and Concepts Some Useful Definitions 9 APPENDIX B: UnsteadyState Relative Permeability Calculations 10APPENDIX C: Details of the HeriotWatt MixWet Simulator .3 Drainage at the PoreScale 3.2 Empirical Models 2.3 Hysteresis Phenomena 6 WETTABILITY .1 Methods for Generating Capillary Pressure Curves and Pore Size Distributions 5.6 Network Modelling Techniques 3 MODELLING MULTIPHASE FLOW AT THE PORESCALE 3.3 Probabilistic Models 2.4 Imbibition at the PoreScale 3.CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS 6.1 Deviations from Darcy’s Law 2.5 First Principles Derivation of CarmenKozeny Model 2.
Concepts and Applications • Explain how wettability variations affect waterflooding at the porescale • Identify two wettability measures used routinely in industry • List “Craig’s Rules of Thumb” in the context of waterwet and oilwet relative permeability curves 2 . Modelling Single Phase Flow • Appreciate the different types of model used to predict single phase permeability • Use a CarmanKozeny equation to calculate absolute permeability given values for the remaining variables Modelling Multiphase Flow • Explain the meaning of capillary pressure and use Laplace’s equation to relate capillary pressure to pore entry radius.LEARNING OBJECTIVES Having worked through this chapter the students should be able to..and unsteadystate flow • Describe the porescale physics characterising drainage processes in porous media • Describe the porescale physics characterising imbibition processes in porous media • Describe a network model and explain how it can be used to investigate multiphase flow in porous media Experimental Determination of Petrophysical Data • Identify several different methods for measuring capillary pressure and relative permeability Generating Petrophysical Properties for Reservoir Simulation • Calculate oilwater capillary pressure curves from mercury injection data • Derive a pore size distribution from mercury injection data • Generate several capillary pressure curves from a single curve using a LeverettJ function • Determine the Brooks and Corey _parameter from capillary pressure data and use this to predict relative permeabilities given the relevant equations • Identify three causes of capillary pressure hysteresis Wettability . contact angle and interfacial tension • Identify the difference between steady..
to name but a few. and a more precise formulation must be attempted. HeriotWatt University 3 . even animal tissue and bones contain intricate pore networks. krw. would not generally be considered a porous medium. These range from leather. The notion of a "porous medium" immediately conjures up an intuitive picture: put in its crudest terms. a truly porous material should have a specific permeability associated with it. concrete and sand. so. kro. Unfortunately. • To explain the underlying porescale physics of twophase flow and show how this behaviour leads to the results we see at the macroscopic scale. each has its own technical terminology associated with the subject. a porous medium may be thought of as a solid with holes in it. Pc). Pc). For example. φ. such a superficial definition is of little use when trying to describe such materials objectively. implying a certain degree of interconnectedness within the underlying pore structure. and petroleum engineering. • To review empirical and theoretical models used to generate relative permeabilities and their application in Reservoir Simulation. • To briefly review relative permeability and capillary pressure are measured experimentally. A cylindrical pipe. industrial filtration. In short. There is a tacit understanding that "real" porous media should be capable of sustaining fluid transport. to bricks. • To review wettability measures (such as USBM and Amott tests) and to explain how wettability modifies relative permeability and capillary pressure. Throughout this section. k and φ are generally measured or determined by correlation or model. the terminology used will be that generally encountered in the petroleum industry. groundwater hydrology. The need to understand such a vast array of permeable materials has consequently fostered a great deal of scientific interest from many diverse fields: soil mechanics. Although the theme of fluid flow through porous media is a common feature of all of the disciplines listed above. for example. paper and textiles. nor would a solid containing isolated holes. "dewetting". the central focus here will be on multiphase properties (kro. There are countless examples of porous materials in everyday life. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. "desaturation" and "drainage" are all terms synonymous with the displacement of a wetting phase from the interstices of a porous material by a nonwetting phase. each with its own particular pore structure and transport potential. krw. A variety of fundamental concepts relating to both pore structure and solid/fluid interactions can be found in Appendix A. however.Petrophysical Input 8 1 INTRODUCTION Outline of the purpose of this chapter: • To inform the student of the types of petrophysical data that are used in reservoir simulation (k. wood.
liquid permeabilities can be greatly affected by clay distribution. Field S S S S S S S S S S S S S S T T T T T T Zone 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 36 36 36 36 36 36 Ka 4080 24800 40100 39700 12000 4850 22800 34800 27000 12500 13600 7640 111000 6500 2630 3340 2640 3360 4020 3090 K1000 1445 11800 23000 20400 5450 1910 13600 23600 21000 4750 5160 1788 4250 2380 2180 2820 2040 2500 3180 2080 K500 1380 10600 18600 17600 4550 1430 6150 7800 15400 2800 4640 1840 2520 2080 2140 2730 1920 2400 2900 1900 K300 1290 10000 15300 17300 4600 925 4010 5460 13100 1680 4200 2010 1500 1585 2080 2700 1860 2340 2860 1750 K200 1190 9000 13800 17100 4510 736 3490 5220 12900 973 4150 2540 866 1230 2150 2690 1860 2340 2820 1630 K100 885 7400 8200 14300 3280 326 1970 3860 10900 157 2790 2020 180 794 2010 2490 1860 2280 2650 1490 KW 17. This is evident in Table 1. brine composition. Such models can generally be divided into four broad categories. A brief discussion of such analogues will be presented below. with tortuous channels embedded throughout the solid matrix. we should nevertheless be aware of some possible difficulties. Nevertheless. decreased salinity leads to a decreased permeability estimate. (i) those which attempt to reduce the porous medium to a single representative conduit. There is also experimental evidence for socalled lubrication effects. where the medium is approximated by a lattice of connected conduits with distributed radii. Kw means permeability to fresh water 4 . which shows variations in absolute permeability with increased brine salinity — in some cases.1 Deviations from Darcy’s Law Although Darcy’s Law has been validated countless times experimentally. where oil permeability measured at Swi actually exceeds kabs (this is rather surprising when one considers the fact that isolated water islands within a sample should actually form effective baffles to flow). and brine pH.2 147 270 1680 167 5. K500 means permeability to 500 grains per gal chloride solution.5 9. 2.9 1030 2.1 1960 2460 1550 2060 2460 1040 Table 1 Effect of water salinity on permeability of natural cores (grains per gallon of chloride ion as shown). whilst other samples exhibit the reverse behaviour. (ii) probabilistic models. Ka means permeability to air. and (iv) network models. over the years there have been many attempts to encapsulate this structure into a simple.0 19. For example.4 197 119 6. more detailed descriptions can be found in the monographs of Scheidegger (1963) and Dullien (1979).2 4. idealised analogue.2 MODELLING SINGLEPHASE FLOW AT THE PORESCALE . (iii) empirical correlations.A BRIEF OVERVIEW Examination of any photomicrograph immediately demonstrates why the modelling of fluid flow through a porous medium is such a formidable task: the underlying pore structure is extremely complex.
capillary pressure. Büche. HeriotWatt University 5 . One of the most popular of these is the "cutandrandomrejoin" model of Childs and CollisGeorge (1950). probabilistic models involve the use of some kind of probability law. which has been further extended by Marshall (1958) and Millington and Quirk (1961). Habesch. 1936. p the gas pressure. 2. 1937. 1990). The porosity/permeability relationship has perhaps been the most widely studied (see. (ii) Low pressure gas measurements must be corrected by using the Klinkenberg Equation: α k app = k 1 + p where kapp is the apparent (measured) permeability. but correlations vary so much that no universally accepted formula can be adopted successfully. grain size distribution.2 Empirical Models There have been numerous attempts to derive correlations between permeability and other sample properties. These are then joined together again in a random fashion. inertial effects can become important and Darcy’s Law should be replaced with the Forcheimer Equation: dp = aµq + bρq 2 dx where η is the fluid viscosity and the second term on the righthand side corresponds to inertial effects. 2. 2. Each different model contains tubes with different characteristics: they may be uniform and identical. Mavis and Wilsey. The underlying theory involves the sectioning of the porous sample into two parts perpendicular to the direction of flow. The correction is needed because the mean free path of a gas molecule at low pressure is of the order of a pore radius and the continuum concept begins to break down. for example.4 Capillary Bundle Models Capillary bundle models characterise the porous medium using systems of capillary tubes with welldefined properties (Figure 1). and α a parameter that depends upon the properties of the gas being used.Petrophysical Input 8 There are two other wellknown limitations of Darcy’s Law: (i) At high injection rates. Consequently. for example. Rose. or periodically constricted and identical. and statistical analysis is used to approximate the permeability of the subsequent hybrid. 1945. or uniform but with distributed radii. k the actual permeability. etc.3 Probabilistic Models As their name suggests. most empirical correlations contain "geometrical factors" which serve to fit experimental measurements without any real consideration of the underlying pore structure. such as porosity. and electrical properties. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
and (ii) that the effect of the interconnected pore structure can be contained within an empirical constant known as the tortuosity factor. relies upon two main assumptions: (i) that a porous medium can be adequately characterised by a single tortuous channel having a characteristic radius. Hence. Kozeny.a b c k=φ D2 32 D 2 Dmax D2 = Dmin ∫s 2 f(s)ds k= φ 96 [∫ f(D) dD / D ] 2 2 k=φ 96 <> D 2 +σ2 D ∫ f(D) dD / D6 If all tubes are identical (diameter=D) and lie parallel to the flow direction. based upon hydraulic radius theory. After some analysis (see Appendix B). 1938. 1937. CarmenKozeny Model . we arrive at the relationship: k= φ3 2 2 T 2 (1 − φ)2 Ss (2) See Appendix A for definitions The permeability can be written in terms of an average grain diameter (Dp) by noting that. Ss=6/Dp. usually called the hydraulic radius. then a combination of Poiseuille's law and Darcy's law gives: k=φ D2 32 (1) as a permeability predictor.5 First Principles Derivation of CarmenKozeny Model This popular approach.One of the more notable correlations based upon conduit flow is that developed by Carmen and Kozeny (Carman. 2. An interesting aspect of this simple result is that the quantity (k/φ)1/2 can be thought of as a sort of average pore diameter. 1927). The basic premise of this modelling approach is that particle transit times in the actual porous medium and the equivalent tortuous rough conduit must be the same. where φ is the porosity (see Appendix B for mathematical details). 1956. The mathematical details of this approach are given in Appendix B. for spherical particles. 6 .
However. the novelty of the approach encouraged great interest in the subject. With the advent of high speed computers. Figure 3 shows a capillary dominated drainage process using an 80 x 80 square lattice.1959). the details of which will be presented later: the resulting picture is somewhat more reassuring. and improvements on Fatt's primitive model were soon forthcoming (Rose . the capillary radii are assigned randomly from a realistic pore size distribution in an effort to partially reconstruct the actual porous medium under investigation. 1988). 2. A variety of lattices are shown in Figure 2. much larger 3D systems can now be constructed. the medium is modelled using a system of interconnected capillary elements.1957. Although these network structures are somewhat idealised. however. The fractal capillary fingering is in excellent agreement with experimental observation (see Lenormand et al. which generally configure to some known lattice topology. they differ only in the method of calculating an hydraulic radius RH and shape factors.Petrophysical Input 8 k= φ3D 2 p 2 72 T (1 − φ)2 (3) Although a whole family of similar models exist. Dodd & Kiel . HeriotWatt University 7 . Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Hexagonal Square Kagome Figure 2 Triagonal Cubic Crossed square A fully interconnected network was first used by Fatt (1956) for primary drainage studies. Here. with the result that microscopic flow behaviour can be more accurately simulated.6 Network Modelling Techniques Models that account for the interconnected nature of porous media constitute a group of analogues which can truly be referred to as network models. Although the twodimensional lattice used was extremely small (200400 tubes). simulations using small lattices could never hope to capture the full behaviour of microscopic flow processes.
no distinction is made here between pores and throats. The model consists of a three dimensional cubic network of 8 . unlike many previous studies. The porous medium is initially modelled using a threedimensional cubic network of what will be referred to as pore elements. In such models.Figure 3 Only recently has it been computationally feasible to carry out studies using large threedimensional networks (Figure 4). Figure 4 The Basic Model Many network models attempt to distinguish between "pores" and "throats". 1986). by building networks consisting of hollow spheres connected by thin capillary tubes. The approach taken here is somewhat more straightforward. all of the liquid volume is assumed to be contained in the spherical pores with pressure differences being maintained by the throats (Lenormand.
This simple lattice has dimensions Nx x Ny x Nz where Nx.1 Capillary Pressure . Periodic boundary conditions are assumed in the y and z directions in order to simulate larger systems and eliminate surface effects.Petrophysical Input 8 capillary elements. the sum of the flows Qi must add up to zero (conservation of mass). The pressure gradient is taken to be in the x direction. the solutions to which can then used to calculate the elemental flows. y and z directions respectively. k). Now. we shall soon see that it is actually a very straightforward measure to interpret. the flow Q is given by Poiseuille’s law: Q= π r 4 ∆P 8µ L (4) where µ is the viscosity and ∆P the pressure difference acting across the capillary. then the process is carried out for each fluid in turn. we could be shown the schematic in Figure 5(a) and wonder why no oil flow occurs even though Poil>Pwater. Nz are the number of nodes in the x. which can then be substituted into Darcy's equation to give a value for the total network permeability. j.Ny.Nz linear pressure equations. 3 MODELLING MULTIPHASE FLOW AT THE PORESCALE 3. If the system contains more than one fluid. for a single element of radius r and length L. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Summing the outlet flows yields the total network flow. The modelling of multiphase flow is discussed more fully in later sections. the resulting phase conductivities now being referred to as effective permeabilities. the term "capillary pressure" is a rather difficult concept to grasp. especially in the context of a flowing hydrocarbon reservoir. For example. Athough capillary pressure may seem problematic. Ny. and so: ∑Q i =1 6 i =0 Consideration of the whole network leads to a set of Nx.What Does it Mean and When is it Important? For many. At each node (i. HeriotWatt University 9 .
We can now write immediately: ( Pgas − Poil ) = 2σ go R (6) where σgo represents the interfacial tension between gas and oil. If a force balance is considered for one half of the balloon (Figure 5(c)). Now. This relationship tells us that the pressure difference across a small spherical bubble is larger than that across a large spherical bubble. the elastic force acting around the circular perimeter of the balloon must counterbalance the difference in pressure projected onto the shaded cross section. This leads to a relationship between the pressure difference across the balloon surface and the radius of the balloon: ( Pi − Po ) = 2Σ R (5) where Σ is the elastic tension characterising the balloon wall (dimensions of Force/ Length).P0)πR2 = 2πRΣ 2Σ R => (Pi . Here is an example where a pressure difference exists between two regions of fluid but no flow occurs — the elastic membrane of the balloon counteracts this. then we can show that. but the final result is simply: 10 . at equilibrium.(a) Poil>Pwater .why no flow? Oil Water Projected area = πr2 (b) (c) P0 Pi r (Pi . This type of analysis can be applied to the more general case of an interface characterised by two different principal radii of curvature (eg a sausageshaped balloon Figure B2). we can carry out a similar analysis for a gas bubble at pressure Pgas floating in oil at pressure Poil. instead of thinking of a rubber balloon (where Σ is actually a function of R itself). The details are slightly more involved (see Dullien (1979).P0) = Figure 5 Let us first consider a rubber balloon that has been inflated to a certain pressure (Pi) and then tied (we will assume that this "experiment" is taking place in an atmosphere at pressure Po. usually atmospheric pressure).
We can therefore go on to examine the very simple drainage process shown in Figure 7. HeriotWatt University 11 . Another consequence of the equation is that larger pressure differences are needed for a nonwetting phase to displace a wetting phase from smaller tubes ((PgasPoil)∝1/R). Note the difference between tube radius (rA) and the interface radius (RA) when the contact angle is nonzero. known as the YoungLaplace equation. RA rA Figure 6 θ A little bit of trigonometry can be used to derive an equation for two fluids at equilibrium in a circular cylinder. The pressure difference across the fluidfluid interface is known as the capillary pressure. capillary pressure Pc) in terms of the associated contact angle. Figure 6). Institute of Petroleum Engineering. and (PoilPwat)>2σowcosθ/R3. where oil (dark) displaces water (light) from a set of parallel tubes (R1>R2>R3) as oil pressure is gradually increased. Return now to the idealized (and some what unrealistic) situation where we have two fluids at equilibrium in a capillary tube separated by a curved interface (this curved interface appears at the microscopic scale when one of the fluids preferentially wets a solid surface. interfacial tension and pore (tube) radius: Pc = ( Pgas − Poil ) = σ go cos θ( 2σ go cos θ 1 1 + )= R R R (8) Although we have used gas displacing oil in our example.e. then the largest tube fills and the system settles down to a new equilibrium configuration. Once the oil pressure exceeds the water pressure by an amount 2σowcosθ/R1. This relates the pressure difference across a curved interface (i.Petrophysical Input 8 ( Pgas − Poil ) = σ go ( 1 1 + ) R1 R 2 (7) where R1 and R2 are the principal radii of curvature characterising the interface. This could be thought of as a very basic capillary pressure curve and we will return to this concept later. The corresponding plot of water saturation vs capillary pressure is shown in Figure 8. Subsequent displacements occur at (PoilPwat)>2σowcosθ/R2. results for any nonwetting fluid displacing a wetting fluid can be inferred immediately.
to the simultaneous flow of oil and water through reservoir rock. where the physical porous medium will be approximated using an interconnected capillary network and each element may contain a different fluid: either water or oil. such as phase distributions and relative permeabilities.P1 P2 P3 P4 Figure 7 Pc 2σ cos θ R3 2σ cos θ R2 2σ cos θ R1 Sw Figure 8 Simulators use capillary pressure curves to relate oil and water pressures at a given water saturation (see earlier chapters regarding this).2 Steadyand UnsteadyState Flow The aim of this section is to broaden the understanding of twophase flow in porous media. Generally. that is. this would be achieved by fixing the inlet flows of oil and water at a certain ratio and leaving the system to equilibrate (such that the individual fluid fluxes exiting the sample are the same as those entering). the volume flux of each fluid entering the system is the same as that leaving. capillary pressure is mostly important at the small scale (~cm). There are consequently no porescale displacements of any kind once steadystate has been reached . concepts from percolation theory will be introduced towards the end of this section. With regard to flow in porous media.each 12 . 3. Experimentally. it is important to distinguish between steadystate and unsteadystate regimes (Figure 9). more specifically. although it should also be included in reservoirscale models involving transition zones. To this end. it will be beneficial to first discuss some of the more general aspects of twophase flow. Before dealing directly with percolation issues. however. the former is characterised by phase saturations that are invariant with time. When dealing with any process involving multiphase flow.
First. we will return to a capillary bundle model and then we will go on to examine drainage in an interconnected network. The radius r of each pore is the capillary entry radius (i. This would occur if one fluid was injected into a sample containing a second "resident" phase. Note that the two flow regimes are seldom independent. as steadystate conditions are only achieved once some degree of transient unsteadystate displacement has taken place to redistribute the phases. 3.e. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. then the wetting phase will tend to line the channel walls and the nonwetting phase will usually reside in the centre of pores. implying continuous displacement of one fluid by another. A schematic PSD and 3D network are shown in Figure 10. Once measurements have been completed at this ratio of fluxes. or if the interfacial tension between the two fluids is very small. a new ratio could be set and the process repeated. HeriotWatt University 13 . unsteadystate flow is accompanied by almost continuous saturation changes.3 Drainage at the PoreScale In order to better understand the following discussion on two phase displacements. Although the "channel flow concept" of steadystate flow outlined above appears to be generally valid (Craig. Such phenomena can play a vital role in determining phase distributions during a variety of displacements. where the network of "pores" are simply capillary tubes of different radius (but equal length in this case). and their effects cannot always be overlooked. If there is no strong wetting preference for the matrix. We will now discuss drainage capillary pressure and relative permeability in two different arrays of capillary tubes. the radius characterising the pressure difference required for a nonwetting fluid to invade a tube containing a wetting fluid.1). CoreScale Steadystate PoreScale Unsteadystate Figure 9 Steadystate Unsteadystate In contrast to this. see Section 3. however. Alternatively.Petrophysical Input 8 phase tends to flow within its own tortuous network of pores. PSD — a schematic representation of the range and frequency of pore radii characterising a given sample (Cf probability distributions from statistics). if the flow channels are rough and have an irregular crosssection (which is almost always the case in natural rock material). there are certain conditions under which this assumption may be questioned. we begin with the idea of a pore size distribution. then a sluglike flow regime may develop. 1971). We shall return to these Issues later. for example.
divided by the volume of all pores.1 is the smallest of all entry pressures.and return to the case of an ideal parallel bundle of tubes .this is the minimum entry pressure before the oil can displace the water from the largest pore where r = Rmax.filled with 100% water (Sw = 1) and then consider the physics of oil (the nonwetting fluid) displacing this water. we may calculate the relative permeabilities (described in a later section).Rmin f(r) Rmin radius. Rmin.(a) (b) PSD(r) r Single Pore Figure 10 Drainage in a Capillary Bundle Suppose we now start with a water wet (θ = 0) porous medium . r > Rmax Figure 11 The steps in a Primary Drainage process . we calculate the water saturation Sw by summing the volume of the waterfilled pores. we will take a fully connected capillary bundle of tubes with a uniform PSD and a minimum radius.1 = 2σ/Rmax . oil enters the biggest pore first. and a maximum pore size.and the corresponding drainage capillary pressures . Oil cannot spontaneously invade waterwet pores and requires an increase in pressure for a displacement to occur (see earlier discussion). Step 1: To enter the water filled porous network the oil pressure must be such that Po1 .would be as follows and these are illustrated schematically in Figures 12(c). Rmax (Figure 11). Figure 12(a). 14 . From the pore occupancies. Similarly. 1 PSD Rmax . Because Pc. For simplicity.Pw > Pc.
Petrophysical Input 8 Step 2: The oil pressure increases such that. Step 3: The oil pressure increases again such that. Figure 13(a). At this even higher capillary pressure. Correspondingly. kro rises very rapidly since the oil is flowing in the larger pores as shown in Figure 13(c). the sum of the relative permeabilities turns out to be unity. for a capillary bundle. In fact. Pc1 < Pc2 = 2σ/r2 where r2 < Rmax. Again. but this is a result specific to simple fully accessible models and is not of great importance for real porous media. for a fully accessible system. there are analytical expressions for the relative permeabilities of a capillary bundle model and these will be introduced later in the course. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Step 1: At this point. Pc1 < Pc2 < Pc3 = 2σ/r3 where r3 < r2 < Rmax. there is only water flow (Sw = 1) and therefore krw = 1 and kro = 0. For this Primary Drainage process. the oil displaces more water from all the pores that have Rmax > r > r3. Step 3: The water saturation is now Sw = Sw3 and krw is relatively low since the water is now flowing in the smallest pores. This leads to a finite oil saturation in the (fully accessible) capillary bundle. the oil displaces water from all the pores that have Rmax > r > r2. Figure 12(b). Also. the water saturation is Sw = Sw2 and krw falls quite rapidly since the water is now flowing in the smaller pores. kro rises more rapidly since the oil is flowing in the larger pores. we can increase the capillary pressure to Pcmax = 2σ/ Rmin and this would displace all the water with 100% oil (So = 1). the corresponding drainage relative permeabilities (rel perms) are shown in Figures 13(a) – 13(c). This leads to a increased oil saturation in the (fully accessible) capillary bundle. Figure 12(c). Figure 13(b). Step 4 (not shown): In principle. At this higher capillary pressure. Step 2: Now. HeriotWatt University 15 .
r > Rmax Sw > Figure 12 16 .(a) Step 1: primary drainage. r > Rmax Sw > (b) Step 2: primary drainage. Pc1 < Pc2 < Pc3 = 2σ/r3 (r3 < r2 < Rmax) PSD f(r) Pc water r3 oil Pc3 = 2σ r3 Rmin radius. Pc1 = 2σ/Rmax PSD f(r) Pc water oil Pc1 = 2σ Rmax Rmin radius. r > Rmax Sw > (c) Step 3: primary drainage. Pc1 < Pc2 = 2σ/r2 (r2 < Rmax) PSD f(r) Pc water r2 oil Pc2 = 2σ r2 Rmin radius.
Without loss of generality we can again assume a uniform pore size distribution.Petrophysical Input 8 (a) Step 1: corresponding drainage relative permeabilities PSD f(r) water kr krw kro Rmin radius. there are two reasons why the oil may be prevented from invading this “target” pore: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. r > Rmax Sw > (b) Step 2: drainage relative permeabilities at Sw = Sw2 PSD f(r) water r2 oil kr krw kro Rmin radius. Although a pore could be occupied by the oil (nonwetting phase) at a given capillary pressure. The YoungLaplace equation still applies and the steps shown in Figures 12 and 13 still broadly occur but there are some important differences from the (fully connected) capillary bundle model as follows. r > Rmax Sw3 Figure 13 Drainage in connected networks Drainage physics: We now illustrate what happens when drainage occurs in a connected network of pores such as that shown in Figure 10(a). HeriotWatt University 17 . Pc1 say where Pc1 =2σ/r 1. r > Rmax Sw > Sw2 (c) Step 3: drainage relative permeabilities at Sw = Sw3 PSD f(r) kr kro water r3 oil krw Sw > Rmin radius.
Just at breakthrough. i. (a) when. A sequence of invasion percolation (drainage) calculations in a 2D network showing the fluid distributions are shown in Figure16 for coordination number. These films fill the "corners" of pores as shown for the example of a simple triangular pore in Figure 14.(i) The particular pore may be inaccessible to the invading oil. i. it is evident from the later figures (Figures 16 (e) and 17(e)) that some of this hydraulically disconnected water has escaped. water is first displaced directly . z = 2.e. this is governed by the YoungLaplace equation. the initial percolating capillary finger of nonwetting phase is somewhat more "spindly" or "ramified" because of lower accessibility. This is the issue of accessibility and a water filled pore may not be occupied by oil unless the Pc is above the entry pressure and the oil can access the pore in question. (ii) The water residing in the target pore could be trapped.g. the main cluster of nonwetting phase continues to grow and water is displaced. water oil Figure 14 Invasion percolation where oil (yellow) displaces the water The drainage process in an interconnected network as described above is illustrated in Figure 15 and it is known as invasion percolation (with or without trapping). such that the water appears trapped (see for example Figures 16 (d) and 17(d)). This spanning cluster has a flowing "backbone" but it also has some dead end branches.667 and in Figure17 for z = 4 (here. breakthrough. After. (this would be the case if the invading oil cluster had not yet reached the target pore). this pore must also be accessible.the water is displaced by oil and escapes through a direct route of bulkfilled pores to the outlet of the network. As noted above. at higher oil saturations. Water can be trapped in a pore when two conditions are satisfied. the invading oil phase may not be able to "see" the pore of radius r1. The characteristics of the overall displacement pattern in these two cases are quite similar but in the lower z case. a spanning cluster of nonwetting phase is formed. There are probably pores in the large areas of trapped water which are large enough to be occupied by oil but they are inaccessible. but for the oil to displace the water from a given pore. a continuous cluster that goes from the inlet to the outlet. 18 . red is oil.e. In this figure. However. In the primary drainage simulations shown. the oil (yellow) is displacing the water (blue) from the left.e. Later in the flood. the oil "surrounds" some water filled pores. there is no chain of waterfilled pores from the target pore to the outlet of the network (the target pore is then hydraulically disconnected) and (b) when there are no wetting films coating the pore surfaces that could allow water to "leak away" from the pore. lower coordination number). This water has escaped through the water films in the corners of the oilfilled pores (e. see the triangular pore in figure above). blue is water and spaces denote missing pores i.
5.e.1. (b) drainage.9.7. Figure 16 Oil/water drainage flood at various stages in a 2D (20 x 20) network for a water wet system with coordination number. z = 2. So =0.667. HeriotWatt University 19 . So =0.Petrophysical Input 8 Figure 15 Invasion percolation where oil (yellow) displaces the water (a) drainage. This is essentially invasion percolation with periodic boundary conditions (i. (e) drainage.667. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. z = 2. z = 2. So =0. z = 2. So =0. it reenters at the bottom). Observe that water films in oilfilled pores are not visualised (c) drainage. z = 2.667.667.3.667.667. So =0. if the invading oil leaves the top of the network. z = 2. (d) drainage.
So =0.1.5.(a) drainage. So =0. z = 4. z = 4. Figure 17 Oil/water drainage flood at various stages in a 2D (20 x 20) network for a water wet system with coordination number. (c) drainage. together with the pore filling sequence for a connected network. A(r). So =0.9. z = 4. This is essentially invasion percolation Accessibility and the accessibility function A(r): The meaning of accessibility and the definition of the accessibility function. (b) drainage. z = 4.7. z = 4. z = 4. So =0. (e) drainage.3. So =0. are shown in Figure 18. Compare this with the drainage process in a fully accessible (capillary bundle) model. 20 . (d) drainage.
Consider a mercury (Hg)→ air invasion percolation process (Figure 18). 1992) and we will give a fuller exposition of this topic later in this chapter.Petrophysical Input 8 (a) (b) p(r) Accessibility A(r)=A2/(A1+A2) Pores filled with Hg M e r c u r y 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 A i r M e r c u r y 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 A i r 4 1 9 4 1 9 A1 (c) A2 Rmin r Rmax M e r c u r y 10 5 3 2 Shielded (d) Shielded 12 Figure 18 The idea of accessibility and the accessibility function for mercury (black) invasion into air 13 6 8 11 7 A i r M e r c u r y 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 A i r 4 1 Shielded 9 4 1 9 The accessibility function is defined as A(r) = A2/(A1+A2) and we can explain this concept physically as follows. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Introduction to Percolation Theory. i.e.e. this pore must be accessible.. In the sequence of Hgpore filling in (a) to (d).g. For the mercury to displace the air from a given pore. where the “low occupancy” value of the accessibility is seen to be 0 and the high occupancy is 1 i. Taylor and Francis. they are large enough to be invaded but can not (yet) be seen by the invading mercury. at certain stages (e. The underlying theory of the drainage process in an interconnected network is a topic known as Percolation Theory (See Stauffer and Aharony. How accessibility is related to the accessibility function for a drainage displacement is shown in Figure 19(a) – 19(c). 2nd Edition. HeriotWatt University 21 . (c)) some pores are “shielded”. the phase is at a sufficiently high saturation that it can effectively “see” all pores that can be entered at a given (high) capillary pressure.
well below percolation radius. and (b) the corresponding 2D theoretical network model calculation of the same flood where oil is in lighter blue and the red pores are water filled (McDougall and Sorbie. r > Rmax 0 r > rp Rmax (c) Accessibility in a connected network . rp rp PSD f(r) N water A(r) Accessibility function 1 A(r) = 0 for Rmax > r > rp Rmin radius. r > Rmax 0 r > rp Rmax Figure 19 The meaning of accessibility and the accessibility function.above percolation radius. r < rp r < rp PSD f(r) N water Not occupied = A1 Accessibility function 1 A(r) A(r) > 0 for r < rp N Oil occupied = A2 Rmin radius. r > Rmax 0 N r > rp Rmax (b) Accessibility in a connected network .just below percolation radius. in a primary drainage process a) b) Figure 20 Comparison of a drainage flood (oil displacing water) in (a) a 2D water wet glass micromodel where oil is the light fluid and the etched “geometrical” pore pattern can be seen. r << rp r << rp PSD f(r) Accessibility function N water oil Oil occupied = A2 (A1 = 0) => A(r) = 1 A(r) N 1 A(r) = 1 for r << rp Rmin radius. A(r). HeriotWatt U.(a) Accessibility in a connected network .. unpublished) 22 .
The corresponding 2D theoretical network model calculation of the same flood is shown in Figure 20(b) where oil is in red and the lighter blue pores are water filled. or o→w). Figure 20(a) shows the 2D water wet glass micromodel where oil is the light fluid and the etched “geometrical” pore pattern can be seen. At the pore level. cosθ = 1 in all pores).Petrophysical Input 8 A comparison of an experimental drainage flood (oil displacing water) in a glass micromodel and the corresponding network model calculation is shown in Figure 20. The second mechanism.causes the oil to snap off thus occupying the space with water. A given waterflood will generally consist of a mixture of the two displacement mechanisms outlined above.4 Imbibition at the PoreScale We now consider waterflooding of the same strongly waterwet 2D network models used in the primary drainage processes described above (i.at an appropriate capillary pressure . Pistonlike displacement of oil by water is the reverse of drainage except that it occurs when one of the phase pressures change such that Po . This snapoff process is shown schematically in Figure 21 for a single pore and in Figure 22 for a 2D interconnected network.or water displacing oil (w→o) in this case . Swelling of wetting phase to form "collar" Nonwetting fluid Σ Figure 21 Wetting fluid Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 3. HeriotWatt University 23 . snapoff. the oil displaced the water by a pistonlike displacement mechanism governed by the YoungLaplace equation. which swell around the oil in a pore to form a “collar” which eventually . is associated with the flow of wetting phase (water) through films.e.Pw < Pc = 2σ/r. imbibition . A process where the wetting phase increases such as water injection in this system is known as imbibition. The pore scale physics of imbibition is not simply the reverse of the drainage process although there are some features that are common to each. We noted that in drainage (oil → water.can actually take place by two distinct mechanisms viz. The agreement between these two figures is sufficiently good to be confident that we have captured the main pore scale physics of the drainage process in our network model. by pistonlike displacement and by snapoff.
in a strongly waterwet circular capillary (cosθ =1). Indeed. drops sufficiently (or Pw increases sufficiently) that the snapoff capillary pressure is reached and there are water films to carry water to that pore. which shows a “ganglion” of oil being snappedoff by water in a waterwet rock.then pistonlike displacement will occur first.if water is freely available. Po. Pc = σ/r i. A 3D view of a pore with wetting films in the corners is given in Figure 14 How the snapoff process relates to oil recovery is shown schematically in Figure 23.(a) (b) W a t e r 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 O i l W a t e r 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 O i l 4 1 9 4 1 9 (c) Trapped (d) W a t e r 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 O i l W a t e r 10 5 3 2 12 13 6 8 11 7 O i l 4 1 9 4 1 9 Figure 22 Schematic of the snapoff mechanism in imbibition. if the capillary entry pressure drops below the pistonlike entry pressure but no water front is available. then it will not fill with water. 24 . we note here that the capillary pressure for snapoff is lower than that for pistonlike displacement. Po. half the value for piston like displacement. the capillary entry pressure for pistonlike displacement will be reached first and . if the oil phase pressure.e. where the Pc refers to either Pc pistonlike in an accessible pore or snapoff in a smaller but isolated pore which can be supplied wetting phase through films. the pore that fills next with water is that for which Po . We also note that the isolated blob of oil left behind in this process in Figure 23 is “residual oil” since it is “trapped” and cannot now move (unless viscous rather than capillary forces are invoked).Pw < Pc. Hence. then as we drop the oil phase pressure. imbibition is a more complex process than drainage and the balance between pistonlike and snapoff events that occurs depends on a range of factors such as the range of pore sizes. in adjacent pores for example .e. On the other hand. then snapoff will occur. if a capillary is occupied by oil and the oil pressure is lowered. Hence. poregeometry (aspect ratios). the snapoff capillary pressure is approximately. The oil could only escape through the connected cluster of oil filled pores (since there are no oil films in a water wet porous medium). i. Clearly. However. Without proof. the connectivity of the network (z) and the presence/absence of wetting films (wettability). if we have a wide range of pore sizes.
as pores fill simultaneously throughout the network.Petrophysical Input 8 Trapped Oil this oil filament is unstable and "snaps" continous oil Flow oil escapes through continous oil phase Sand Grains Oil Trapping by Filament Snap Off Trapped Oil "snapoff" continous oil Flow oil escapes through continous oil phase Figure 23 Schematic of snapoff of an oil ganglion within a porous medium Sand Grains Oil Trapping by Filament Snap Off Such a model of imbibition has been implemented in the 2D network of water wet pores discussed above where we take: => Pc for pistonlike displacement = 2σ/r => Pc for snapoff events = σ/r The phase distribution patterns for imbibition in this network is shown for z = 2. we can determine that the percentages of snapoff and piston like events in each flood are: ♦ z = 2.5% 25 Institute of Petroleum Engineering.(d).667 (Figure 24) Pistonlike = 79 % ♦ z = 4 (Figure 25) Pistonlike = 92. Observe that in this case no direction of flow can be observed.(d) and for z = 4 in Figures 25(a) .5% Snapoff = 21 % Snapoff = 7.667 in Figures 24(a) . In the two cases above. HeriotWatt University .
the imbibition capillary pressure for a parallel bundle of tubes would be identical to the drainage curve i.667. z = 2. we can also derive the relative permeabilities for the drainage and imbibition processes in the connected networks (see later). the greater should be the hysteresis between the primary drainage and the imbibition Pc curves i. Notice that there are more sources for hysteresis than just snapoff — the lower coordination number also leads to more residual oil trapping and so magnifies the hysteresis effect. we find that the fraction of snapoff events grows to 21%. (d) imbibition. the lower the imbibition Pc curve should drop below the primary drainage curve.667. if we considered a fully accessible capillary bundle model (as discussed earlier in this section).281 Figure 24 Oil/water imbuition flood at various stages in a 2D (20 x 20) network for a water wet system with coordination number. Sw =0.e. z = 2.667. For z = 2.05. the system is moderately accessible and hence there is only a small fraction of snapoff events (7.15 (c) imbibition z = 2.667 26 .667. Sw =0.These results are as we expect since. z = 2. (b) imbibition. The corollary of this is that the more snapoff events we observe in the imbibition process. which show hysteresis effects similar to those for the Pc curves of Figure 26.667. Obviously.e.5%). For z = 4. Sw = 0. then only piston like displacements would occur (for the reasons discussed above). This is precisely what is seen in the simulations (Figure 26). (a) imbibition z = 2.25. For such a case. Sw = 0. no hysteresis should be observed.
I3. etc. (d) imbibition.05. 1984) has uncovered other possible mechanisms.75 1 Figure 26 In reality.366 15000 15000 10000 Pc(Pa) Pc(Pa) 3 0000 2 1 10000 drainage 0000 imbibition 0 0 0. as long as the next stage of the waterflood results in an increase in meniscus radius.5 Sw 0.25. pore geometries in rock samples are far more complicated than those characterising capillary networks and imbibition is somewhat more complex (drainage is still relatively straightforward). HeriotWatt University 27 . z = 4. Hence.25 0. We can determine the stability of each meniscus in Figure 27 as the capillary pressure is lowered — remember. the displacement Institute of Petroleum Engineering.15 Figure 25 Oil/water imbuition flood at various stages in a 2D (20 x 20) network for a water wet system with coordination number. as illustrated in Figure 27.75 1 0 0 0.Petrophysical Input 8 (a) imbibition z = 4. the displacement remains stable. of course. I2.25 0. Their different mechanisms have been termed I1. So. Micromodel studies by Lenormand and coworkers (Lenormand and Zarcone. (b) imbibition. in Figure 27(a) (an I1 mechanism). Sw = 0.5 Sw 0. z = 4 (c) imbibition z = 4. where the integer corresponds to the number of pores surrounding a junction that are filled with nonwetting fluid. z = 4. Sw =0. Sw = 0. that the imbibition process is characterized by increasing meniscus radii as the flood proceeds. Sw =0.
with the meniscus moving gradually from position 1 to position 2 to position 3. 28 . Laidlaw and Wardlaw (1983). the supply rate (q).5 The Pore Doublet Model The simplest connected pore system is known as the pore doublet (see Appendix B. When the displacing fluid is nonwetting. and Sorbie. At low flow rates (small q and small Nvc). the velocity ratio v2/v1 shows that the thinnest tube fills first and the meniscus in the wider tube actually retracts. Similar reasoning holds for the case shown in— Figure 27(b) (an I2 mechanism) — here. However. Fuller treatments of the problem can be found in Moore and Slobod (1956). Wu and McDougall (1995). Here. and a dimensionless number known as the capillary number (Nvc=µLq/πR13σcosθ). At high rates (large Nvc). x 1 p0 01 nw 4 x' p0 3 2 1 w 02 (a) 1 x' = √2x x 1 2 5 A 4 3 1 (c) R 5 (b) (d) Figure 27 3. the next step involves the meniscus leaving three—“grain” corners and the radius of curvature”decreases”— this is unstable and the water immediately flows to position 4 and continues to displace oil from the corresponding pore. the displacing fluid is introduced to the inlet of the doublet at a characteristic flowrate q.begins steadily as the capillary pressure is decreased. A little analysis shows that the frontal velocity in each branch depends upon the ratio of branch radii (β). The relative importance of each mechanism during an imbibition displacement once again depends upon pore geometry. the widest branch of the doublet fills first as expected (lowest capillary entry pressure) and wetting phase is trapped in the thin branch. the meniscus remains stable up to position 4 and only becomes unstable after grain edge A has been reached and the meniscus separates. Figure B3). The situation is far more interesting however when we consider imbibition in the doublet. we see that v2/v1=R22/R12 and the wider tube fills first. pore size distribution. which is a ratio of viscous to capillary forces. however. Chatzis and Dullien (1983). flowrate and supply.
their theory has subsequently been used to describe many other diverse processes. initially. In fact. the behaviour of crystalline semiconductors containing impurities. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. instructive analogue. Consider the critical behaviour of the network.6 Introduction to Percolation Theory In the previous two sections. this critical fraction is called the percolation threshold (Pth) and for a simple square lattice has the value Pc=0. which has since become known as percolation theory.5 exactly (Figure 28(b) shows the distribution of closed and open tubes and Figure28(c) shows the flowing. it only depends upon the topological structure of the network (actually. The most pertinent concepts from percolation theory will now be discussed using this geometry.Petrophysical Input 8 3.and threedimensional geometries. such as. However. the electrical properties of amorphous semiconductors. it is also possible to consider the process as being determined by the geometry of the porous medium itself. Phenomena that are best described by percolation theory are critical phenomena: characterised by a critical point at which some property of the system changes abruptly. the percolation threshold and system topology are linked by the equation: z. consider first a twodimensional square lattice of capillary elements as shown in Figure 28(a). As a simple. and magnetic phase transitions. the coordination number (z) and the Euclidean dimension (d)). spanning cluster of open tubes). 1992). the process of fluid flow in a porous medium has been considered from the point of view of the fluid. was first used by Broadbent and Hammersley (1957) to investigate the flow of gas through carbon granules (for the design of gas masks to be used in coal mines). HeriotWatt University 29 . As well as describing the flow of fluids and gases through porous media. Table B1 in Appendix B shows percolation thresholds for a variety of two. In the present context of fluid flow. For any given geometry there is a unique fraction of tubes that must be open before flow across the network can commence. percolation theory emphasises the topological aspects of problems. dealing with the connectivity of a very large number of elemental pores and describing the size and behaviour of connected phase clusters in a welldefined manner. The primary focus of this section is to discuss how ideas from percolation theory can be applied more specifically to flow in a porous medium. all of the tubes are blocked and that they are then opened at random. One of the most incredible aspects of this result is that it is independent of the radius distribution. Assume that.Pc = d (d − 1) (9) (see Stauffer and Aharony. One approach.
the simulation of lowrate drainage processes is carried out using a topdown invasion percolation model with hydraulic trapping of the wetting phase. However. the invasion percolation spanning cluster also appears at R=Rp. in fact. The radius at which this occurs is known as the percolation radius. How does this apply to flow in porous media? Well. many imbibition and drainage processes exhibit critical behaviour: porous media contain clusters of oilfilled. if instead of random opening. Rp. the injected nonwetting phase first fills the largest pores connected to the inlet face of the network. the pores are opened systematically beginning with those of largest radius (topdown filling). it is clear that flow will commence once a cluster of large open pores spans the system. sequentially occupying smaller and smaller pores.(a) (b) (c) Figure 28 Now. Although this process appears to be very different from the pure topdown pore filling. waterfilled and gasfilled pores and we would only see flow of a particular phase when the corresponding phase clusters span the system (Figure 29). the resulting flowing clusters are. Hence. In this case. and then proceeds along progressively narrower pathways. and is defined implicitly by the equation: Pth = ∫R Pmax f ( r )dr R (10) where f(r) is the normalised tube radius distribution function and Pc the percolation threshold. identical. 30 .
according to the porescale physics of drainage and imbibition discussed earlier. The physical porous medium is once again simulated using a capillary network. The aim of this section is to broaden the understanding of twophase flow in porous media. no distinction is made here between pores and throats. Swi) and these critical saturations will largely be determined by the connectedness of the porous medium under investigation (see equation 10 above. but now each element may contain a different fluid: either water or oil. Heiba et al postulated an approach for the estimation of volume and conductance of each pore element in the network. v(r) α r ν 0 ≤ ν ≤ 3 (12) Institute of Petroleum Engineering. concepts from percolation theory are utilised more fully. The porous medium is initially modelled using a threedimensional cubic network of what will be referred to as pore elements. We consider it debatable as to what constitutes a pore and a throat in a real porous medium. to the simultaneous flow of oil and water through reservoir rock. 1994). To this end. 3. HeriotWatt University 31 . of each pore element can be related to the radius governing the pore capillary entry pressure by the following relationships. and propose a more abstract approach based upon effective flow cylinders (the 3R’s approach. McDougall. the“radius” derived from the poresize distribution is the radius governing the capillary entry pressure of the pore element and is related to the capillary pressure by: p c ( r )α 1 r (11) On the basis of geometrical analysis. They reported that the volume. v(r).7 A Brief Introduction to Network Modelling of Multiphase Flow The last section described the concept of percolation theory. In this formulation. and conductance. which closely follows the analysis of Heibaet al (1982). unlike many previous studies. g(r). this type of analogue is commonly known as a bond percolation model. where Pth is a function of z). we see no flow below certain critical saturations (Sor.Petrophysical Input 8 8 Isolated clusters 3 Isolated clusters + 1 spanning cluster Figure 29 Moreover. In the parlance of percolation theory. more specifically.
A great deal of time and effort has been invested in achieving the optimum performance of this element of the network simulator. the computational effort saved in dispensing with unsteady state calculations is more than offset by the implementation of a clustering algorithm (after Hoshen and Kopelman.g(r) α r λ 1 ≤ λ ≤ 4 (13) Different combinations of these exponents correspond to different “facies”. These clusters are continually changing their structure during a displacement. In fact. This facilitates the calculation of effective permeabilities for the two intertwined networks (one for each phase) over a range of saturation values. thus steadystate relative permeabilities are considered here. give realistic saturation distributions throughout a displacement. the ratio of the fluid viscosities and the capillary number. The precise computational details are dealt with more fully in McDougall (1994). since any increase or decrease in the saturation of a particular phase depends upon the spatial distribution of that phase. primary drainage. saturation of the fluids. However. This algorithm is essentially a “book keeping” exercise which locates and labels the phase clusters which are distributed throughout the network. when combined with topological considerations (accessibility). for work on dynamic relative permeabilities see Blunt and King. secondary imbibition etc. 1990. When more than one fluid is flowing through a network. In addition.ν=3 andλ=1 would be most appropriate for unconsolidated media.) may be characterised by a set of rules (based upon the physics discussed earlier) which.g. effectively “freeze” each phase. Inherent in this is the assumption that the flow is stationary. determine the phase occupancies. These ideas are central to the 3R’s approach. Although we have rules that tell us how a given displacement proceeds as a function of capillary pressure.6 to calculate the fractional flows . 1997). this turns out to be fairly straightforward: we can set a certain capillary pressure in the model. wetting characteristics of the fluids. phase occupancy during a given process (e. One can further dispense with pore/throat arguments by incorporating effective contact angles into the model formulation (see Dixit et al. we still need a method of calculating the flow of each phase at any given stage.g. pore space morphology. the rich variety of hysteresis phenomena observed during multiphase flow in consolidated and unconsolidated porous media can be reproduced and interpreted.2 when we discuss the use of network models in calculating capillary pressure curves and relative permeabilities. It is particularly wellsuited to 32 . 1976). Many of these factors are already included in the model and will be described later in Section 5. Different contact angle ranges can be used to mimic the effects of different pore/throat aspect ratios and the competition between snapoff and pistonlike displacement during imbibition. and so the efficacy of the simulation as a whole is intrinsically linked to the efficacy of the clustering algorithm itself. This approach is particularly wellsuited to the modelling of capillarydominated flow. whilst ν=1 and λ=4 would apply primarily to consolidated samples. To summarise. and use the numerical approach from Section 2. e. Measured relative permeabilities depend upon the saturation histories. network modelling is a powerful tool for increasing our understanding of multiphase flow in porous media ——the key element of such an approach lies in the nterconnected nature of the underlying model.
Typically. with its lower face in hydraulic contact with a waterwet glass frit (a glass disc containing Institute of Petroleum Engineering.1 Laboratory Measurement of Capillary Pressure There are a number of ways in which capillary pressure can be measured experimentally and a few will be briefly discussed here — almost all rely upon highly specialised equipment of varying degrees of sophistication. Note. HeriotWatt University 33 .Petrophysical Input 8 qualitative sensitivity studies of petrophysical parameters (examining the effects of connectivity. The volume of mercury penetrating the sample is measured at each pressure step (once a given equilibration interval has elapsed) and the resulting mercuryvacuum capillary pressure curve is output to a file. that the mercuryvacuum curve cannot be used directly in a reservoir simulator — it must be rescaled appropriately (the procedure for doing this is described in section 5. Figure 31(a)(iii). &c.005 Nonwetting phase Pores filled with wetting phase R 20 40 50 80 100 Figure 30 4 EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION OF PETROPHYSICAL DATA 4. cooperative filling events.005 Pores filled with wetting phase Pores filled with nonwetting phase R 80 100 20 f(R) 40 50 Drainage 0.01 0.01 0. Mercury Injection — Perhaps the most straightforward approach to capillary pressure measurement utilises a mercury porosimeter (although manual pumps are also available. f(R) Imbibition 0. Porous Diaphragm — The porous diaphragm method is shown in Figure 31(a)(ii). evacuated and contacted with mercury at zero pressure.015 0. deadend pore space. upon Pc and Krel). although more quantitative studies can also be considered. A waterfilled porous plug is placed in an oilfilled (or gasfilled) container.000psia is then input into the porosimeter and the pressure of the mercury in contact with the porous plug is raised sequentially in a number of discrete steps.1). a 1” diameter cylindrical plug of the porous sample is inserted into a glass penetrometer (essentially a closefitting glass container). A table of pressure values ranging from 060.02 0. Mercury extrusion curves can be similarly measured. which is then put into the machine.02 0. although the subatmospheric part of the curve is difficult to obtain without experimental artefact.015 z y x 0. pore size distribution.
a direct measure of Pc can be achieved over a range of saturation values. as nonwetting fluid is unable to enter the lower face of the sample. Note also that a residual wetting phase saturation is also measured using this method. The pressure in the surrounding nonwetting phase (oil or gas) is then increased incrementally. Once the displacement pressure of the diaphragm has been exceeded. and the displaced water leaves the container via the frit. some analysis is required to backout an appropriate average Pc curve. Unfortunately. The sample is put into a centrifuge surrounded by a displacing phase (Figure 31(a)(ii)). the wetting phase is no longer able to leave the sample and the experiment ends (Figure 31(b)). the porous diaphragm method is rather slow (and therefore expensive). Dynamic Method — This method is used in conjunction with steadystate relative permeability measurements (see below). This problem can be ameliorated somewhat by using water/air systems and rescaling the resulting data. Whilst an average capillary pressure can be inferred corresponding to each rotational speed. Note that the topology of the invading nonwetting clusters could be different from those obtained during mercury intrusion. Hence. semipermeable membranes can be used to measure wettingphase and nonwetting phase pressures independently at a number of different fixed fractional flows. 34 . Here. as equilibration times for an oilwater system are generally high. One final point of note relates to the operating range of the experimental equipment. The maximum possible driving pressure is determined by the displacement pressure of the glass frit (diaphragm) upon which the sample is placed. Hence. as the sample is initially evacuated). Saturations are measured at each pressure (once the system has equilibrated) and the oilwater or gaswater Pc curve can subsequently be determined. Centrifuge Method — The centrifuge method is quick but relies on highly specialist equipment and analytical treatment of the data.micronscale holes). whereas mercury injection ends with the sample completely filled with mercury (there is no wetting phase in this case. The centrifuge is spun at different speeds and the volume of displaced fluid measured on each occasion. the local capillary pressure and saturation values vary with distance from the centre of rotation.
000 psi Pressure Guage (iii) Lucite Window To Atmosphere Regulating Valve Cylinder UTube Manometer Lucite Window Figure 31a Mercury Pump Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Petrophysical Input 8 (i) Nitrogen Pressure Saran Tube Crude Oil Neoprene Stopper Scale of Squared Paper (ii) I H P NickelPlated Spring Core Kleenex Paper UltraFine Fritted Glass Disk Brine Seal of Red Oil D M N L F G E J K C Porous Diaphragm Centrifuge 0200 psi Pressure Guage 02. HeriotWatt University 35 .
The fluid flux ratio is then changed (whilst keeping the total flowrate constant). Typical laboratory relative permeability curves are shown in Figures32 and 33. yielding a second set of data once a new steadystate has been achieved. 36 . Similar measurements for a number of different flux ratios can then be used to give a set of relative permeability curves which span the entire saturation range. This may take many hours or even days. The question as to whether such rapid measurements are representative of conditions in the reservoir. Once equilibration has been reached. and have consequently become the oil industry standard. resulting in a pair of relative permeability values valid at that particular saturation. Some of the more popular experimental techniques will now be discussed. Although the time involved in extracting such data is clearly an important concern. steadystate measurements performed at low rates should be considered most indicative of reservoir behaviour. SteadyState Methods Steadystate methods are characterised by simultaneous injection of the two phases at a fixed ratio and known flowrates.Pc Pc diaphragm Pc core 100% 0 Operating range σW Figure 31b 4.2 Laboratory Measurement of Relative Permeability Relative permeabilities can be measured using either steadystate or unsteadystate methods: unsteadystate measurements can usually be completed in a much shorter time. is a matter of some debate. Steadystate conditions are assumed to have been reached once the inlet and outlet fluxes of each phase have equilibrated and/or a constant pressure drop is seen to exist across the sample. Darcy’s law can be used for each phase in turn. however. depending upon the type of material under investigation and the measurement technique being used.
kg . kg . kg . Penn State k0 . singlecore dynamic k0 . gasdrive technique k0 . k0 . kg . % 60 # # 40 # 20 Core No. % 80 100 Figure 33 Institute of Petroleum Engineering.23 cm # # ## # # # # 0 0 20 40 60 Oil saturation. % # # # ## 80 100 Figure 32 100 kg . # k0 . kg . kg . 02 Berea outcrop K = 118 md L = 7. Penn State k0 . Hassler method # kg . gasdrive technique k0 . 02A Berea outcrop K = 120 md L = 2. Hafford technique k0 . # k0 . Hafford technique k0 . # # Relative permeability. % kg . HeriotWatt University 37 .30 cm 0 0 20 40 60 Oil saturation. k0 . dispersed feed 80 Relative permeability.Petrophysical Input 8 100 kg . Hassler method # kg . singlecore dynamic k0 . dispersed feed 80 kg . # 60 # 40 # # # # # 20 Core No.
The nonwetting phase is injected into radial grooves that are machined into the downstream end of the dispersing section. one of the two outer units acting as a mixer at the inlet. which serve to separate the test fluids outwith the sample whilst permitting twophase flow to take place within it. Semipermeable membranes are positioned at both the inlet and outlet ends of the core sample. The relevant theory was given by Welge (1952). analysis of the resulting data is more difficult and open to a certain degree of ambiguity. Richardson et al (1952) have compared a variety of steadystate methods.The PennState Method — Originally designed by Morse et al (1947). and conclude that all four of the techniques outlined above should give very similar drainage relative permeabilitysaturation curves (Figures 32 and 33). Again. at a rate high enough such that capillary pressure remains negligible. A similar concept lies behind the Hafford apparatus. the idea is to obtain more realistic injection behaviour. then permits the determination of a relative permeability ratio (krw/kro). It utilises an upstream dispersing medium in order to spread the wetting phase uniformly across the face of the test sample before entering it. UnsteadyState Methods Although unsteadystate relative permeability measurements can be made much more rapidly than those requiring steadystate equilibration. whilst the wetting phase must first pass through a central semipermeable membrane. An analysis of the resulting production data. whilst the other serves to alleviate capillary end effects at the outlet. In unsteadystate tests. The importance of this is that allows the two pressure drops to be regulated independently. one phase is displaced directly from the core sample by the injection of another. and thus eliminate any capillary end effects. enabling equilibration of the capillary pressure at both ends of the core. The method can be used for both liquidliquid and liquidgas measurements and has been used over a wide range of wettability conditions. who demonstrated that: fo = 1 µ k 1 + o rw µ w k ro (14) 38 . which injects nonwetting fluid directly into the sample. A typical apparatus is shown in Figure 85a and essentially consists of three similar core plugs mounted in a core holder with a pair of pressure tappings. at its boundary with the core plug. The threeplug assembly also facilitates dismantling of the test section for saturation measurements to be carried out. Only the central plug is considered for measurement purposes. 1942). The Hassler Method — The laboratory apparatus used for this type of steadystate test is shown in Figure 35d. based upon the BuckleyLeverett frontal advance theory (Buckley and Leverett. this technique has recently become one of the most popular. The DispersedFeed Method — This technique was devised by Richardson et al (1952) in an attempt to introduce the fluids to the test sample in a more appropriate manner. This procedure is designed to provide a uniform saturation distribution throughout the system.
although the outcomes appear to be broadly in agreement. for a fuller account).2 0. there have been a number of exceptions (e. 1978. subject to problems associated with capillary end effect and cannot be used to quantify the relative permeability of the displacing phase. Loomis and Crowell.0 0. Owens et al. 1982. and the fact that large viscosity ratios are often used in an attempt to extend the range of twophase flow.6 krw kro kri 0. This was later extended by Johnson et al (1959). 1962.4 0. Jones and Roszelle.2 0.0 Figure 34 In the past. and the mi are viscosities.Petrophysical Input 8 where fo is the fraction of oil in the outlet stream.0 0. 1982. Unfortunately. Several other methods also exist (Saraf and McCaffery.8 0.0 0.4 Sw 0. inter alia). Institute of Petroleum Engineering. 1. 1965. They are. A sample calculation is shown in Figure 34 —note that we only get relative permeability after breakthrough of the displacing phase. who developed a technique for calculating the individual relative permeabilities from the permeability ratio. The limitations of the unsteadystate approach for determining wateroil relative permeabilities have been discussed more fully by Craig (1971): the main concerns relate to the high pressure differentials involved (in excess of 50psi). much work has been carried out to compare these unsteadystate results with their steadystate equivalents. however. with analytical techniques being used to backout relative permeability values (see Van Spronsen. with the added bonus that they are thought to be free of the viscous fingering problems that accompany many other unsteadystate methods. 1971).8 1.6 0.g. HeriotWatt University 39 . 1970. Schneider and Owens. Archer and Wong. Centrifuge Methods Centrifuge techniques can provide useful results extremely rapidly. The general applicability of the resulting data must consequently be called into question. Such methods involve monitoring the production from samples that are initially saturated with one or two phases.
Moreover. and in cases where the wetting phase is flowing only through thick films. the nonwetting phase may experience hydraulic slip and any analysis using Darcy’s Law becomes invalid. if the 40 . Saraf and Fatt. 1967. Levine. At such rates. relative permeabilities in the medium saturation range should consequently be independent of the viscosity ratio. If high rates are used in relative permeability measurements. 1939. the subsequent flow behaviour will no longer remain capillarydominated. there sometimes exists a strong hydraulic coupling between the two phases. and viscous forces will tend to take over. Near the endpoints. and Interfacial Tension. As a result. Wyckoff and Botset. Viscosity Ratio. however. At sufficiently low flowrates. If Darcy’s law is applied regardless. nonwetting phase relative permeabilities greater than unity can often be the result: the experimental results of Odeh (1959) clearly demonstrate this effect (Figure 36a). however. 1936.Gas (a) Thermometer Packing nut Electrodes Copper orifice plate Inlet (b) Porous end plate Gas pressure guage End section Test section Mixing section Oil pressure Differential pressure taps Bronze screen Outlet Highly permeable disk Intlet Gas meter Oil pressure pad Oil PennState Oil burette Hafford (c) Gas meter Gaspressure guage Gas (d) Lucite vacuum Core material Core Lucitemounted core Dispersing section Oil burette Oil Dispersing section face Flowmeter Dispersed Feed Hassler Figure 35 The Effects of Flowrate. 1954). 1941. microscopic flow behaviour should always be capillarydominated if the system has a strong wetting preference. and this conclusion appears to have been borne out by many subsequent investigations (Leverett et al.
e.Petrophysical Input 8 associated viscosity ratio is high.5 ???? ???? m=0. the relative permeability curves actually become straight diagonal lines: i.7 ???? m=5.5 Sq . Experimental results showing this effect are reproduced in Figure 36b.9 ???? m=0.0 200 ???? m=82. why? What are the advantages of network models over other porescale models? Now. The effect of interfacial tension upon relative permeabilities can also be significant. HeriotWatt University 41 .6 .75 1.2 . how do we use the knowledge we’ve obtained so far ? Institute of Petroleum Engineering.0 . if so. the total effective mobility of the system remains constant over the entire saturation range.2 ???? m=42.25 ???? 0 0 50 Sw 100 0 0 . it is clear that such considerations should not be overlooked when attempting to interpret a wide variety of unsteadystate coreflood data. (a) 240 ???? m=74. With this in mind. then the less viscous invading fluid will begin to finger through the sample and a condition of uniform saturation will be impossible to achieve. as the interfacial tension approaches zero. the capillary forces become less significant and slugs of both fluids may begin to flow through the same network of pores. In cases where the experimental flowrate is high and the interfacial tension is small.0 QUESTIONS WE SHOULD NOW BE ABLE TO ANSWER • • • • • • • What is capillary pressure? At what scale is it most important? What things affect meniscus curvature? How do drainage and imbibition processes differ at the pore scale? Why can the roughness of pore walls be important? Is flowrate important in laboratory tests and.5 (b) 1. In fact.75 ???? 100 ???? m=5.25 Figure 36 ???? .
The resulting plot of Pc vs Sw is the drainage capillary pressure curve (Figure 37).5 EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO GENERATING PETROPHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR RESERVOIR SIMULATION 5. using a capillary tube analogue. the radius of interface curvature decreases and. in drainage. we will describe a number of approaches to generate capillary pressure curves for use in reservoir simulation. Pc Water wet sand Pc D. the nonwetting phase saturation gradually increases with Pc. although we may have to make some gross assumptions. Let us begin by reminding ourselves of the drainage case (drainage curves are frequently used in simulators — often erroneously). We need some way of inferring reasonable data from those available to us at the time and. at the socalled displacement pressure of the sample.1 Methods for Generating Capillary Pressure Curves and Pore Size Distributions Background In this section. the YoungLaplace equation tells us that the nonwetting phase begins to invade the porous medium when Pc>2σcosθ/Rmax — i.e. Remember that. We often have to undertake a simulation study without possessing all of the data we would ideally require — perhaps we have only one experimental capillary pressure curve at our disposal and perhaps it comes from a part of the reservoir not directly related to our current study. we are increasing the pressure difference between the nonwetting and wetting phases. As Pc continues to increase. As Pc increases.P. the nonwetting phase invades progressively smaller pores. Hence. we should be able to invoke our knowledge of flow at the porescale to help us. Displacement pressure Funicular Pendular Funicular Insular %100 0 0 σ0 100% σw Figure 37 42 .
Moreover. All same radii 0 100% σw σ0 0 100% Figure 38 Rescaling Mercury Injection Data One of the most common ways to derive oilwater or gasoil capillary pressure curves is to rescale mercury injection data (which is routinely measured and relatively cheap to obtain). how would the pore size distribution affect the curve? We already know that the displacement pressure is affected by Rmax — the largest pore in the sample — but it should also be clear that the range of pore sizes in a sample can greatly affect the shape of the corresponding Pc curve (Figure 88). The capillary pressure required for this pore to be invaded by mercury is given by the YoungLaplace equation: (Pce )mercury / air = 2(σ cos θ)mercury / air max R ext (15) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Petrophysical Input 8 We can now use this discussion to infer the type of capillary pressure curve that may result from different samples.P. from our basic understanding of capillary pressure at the microscopic scale. whilst steeper curves indicate a large variance in the distribution. Consider mercury injection into a porous medium containing a large exterior pore of radius Rextmax. Pc Water wet sand Irreducible water saturation 3 2 1 D. For example. HeriotWatt University 43 . So. Flat plateaux indicate samples that are fairly homogeneous at the pore scale. fine textured rocks with small cemented grains can be expected to exhibit higher capillary pressures at a given saturation that coarsetextured media — also higher displacement pressures. we have been able to infer a great deal about how we would expect capillary pressure curves to vary at the continuum (macroscopic) scale.
8 0 20 40 H20 60 80 0 20 40 H20 60 80 100 80 60 40 Hg 20 0 100 80 60 40 Hg 20 0 Liquid saturation. Such differences may be due to interactions between contact angle and pore geometry. However.5 150. eliminating Rextmax from equations 15 and 16we arrive at the scaling relationship: (Pce )oil / water = (Pce )mercury / air (σ cos θ) oil / water (σ cos θ) (17) mercury / air This clearly holds for any Pcvalue.5 Restored state Mercury injection 225.0% Permeability .0 37.7.28. and so a complete oilwater capillary pressure curve can be obtained from the mercury injection data by applying equation 17at each saturation.1% Permeability .36 md Factor . Experience shows that the ratio of interfacial tensions and cosines on the right hand side of 17(often difficult to measure accurately) should have a value of approximately 6. psi 348 290 232 174 116 58 0 100 Mercury capiliary pressure. % Liquid saturation. psi 50 40 30 20 10 0 Restored state Mercury injection Limestone core Porosity . psi 30 25 20 Sandstone core 15 10 5 0 Porosity .0 187. then the requisite oilwater capillary pressure is now: (Pce )oil / water = 2(σ cos θ)oil / water max R ext (16) Now. % Figure 39 44 .5.5 75. psi Water/nitrogen capiliary pressure.1. undergoing oil injection.0 112. filled with water.23.3.5 0 100 Mercury capiliary pressure. 60 Water/nitrogen capiliary pressure.43 darcys Factor . different ratios have sometimes been needed to reconcile experimental mercuryair and oilwater data from different rocktypes (Figure 39 — the ratio is referred to as—“Factor” in these plots).If we now consider the same medium.
the volumeweighted distributions provided by commercial porosimeters are still useful lithological fingerprints.4 0.8 0. Unfortunately.5 0. the PSD (D(r)) can be derived from the capillary pressure data via the relationship: D( r ) = Pc dSmercury r dPc (18) In fact. (Pc) mercury/air 0 5 6 8 9 11 13 16 18 25 50 sair 0 0. Use YL equation to derive Sw vs r plot (this is the cumulative intrusion curve) 4. To get a better idea of the true PSD (that is the frequency distribution of pore radii).3 0.e. Derive the oilwater curve (σcosθ=40mN/m for oilwater and 375mN/m for mercuryair) 3. the Ritter and Drake distribution D(r) should be divided by r2 for each rvalue — this generally shows that there are far more smaller pores than D(r)would suggest. which makes a number of simplifying assumptions: (i) the pores are circular cylinders in shape.97 0. and (ii) all pores of a given radius are accessible to the mercury (i. Plot the mercury capilliary pressure curve 2. some algebra shows that this can be rewritten as: dS D( r ) = air dr (19) The procedure can be tested using the data shown in Table 2 and you are encouraged to follow the example.2 0.Petrophysical Input 8 Derivation of Pore Size Distributions In addition to providing raw data for the derivation of capillary pressure curves.6 0. no accessibility issues). Plot PSD (D(r)) using Ritter and Drake formula (Hint: use YL equation to get a formula for dSw/dr) Table 2 Institute of Petroleum Engineering.92 0.15 1. By using the YoungLaplace equation to convert Pc to pore radius. the distributions that are produced by this method (and therefore by commercial porosimeters) are not pore size distributions but pore volume distributions. The spike (very typical) is caused by accessibility effects prevalent during drainage processes and the volume associated with some large “shielded” pores can be incorrectly assigned to small pores (see Figure 40). HeriotWatt University 45 . mercury injection data can also be used to derive socalled poresize distributions (PSDs). That said. The theory for deriving PSDs from intrusion data comes from a paper by Ritter and Drake (1945).7 0.
viz: Pc (Sw ) = J(Sw ). a dimensionless group can be formed by defining: Pc k 2 J= σ cos θ φ 1 (21) This can be applied at a number of different saturation values — at each saturation. contact angle. Having found J(Sw). Often. Leverett (1941) developed a dimensionless group — called a Jfunction—— to account for these effects. We saw in section 3.4 (Capillary Bundle Models) that a “representative poreradius” can be inferred from sample permeability and porosity via the relation: ˜ R~ k φ (20) Hence.De De D (a) (b) Figure 40 The Leverett JFunction The foregoing discussion has shown that Pc curves are clearly affected by the sample poresize distribution.σ cos θ k φ 1 2 (22) 46 . and pore structure. and the cosθ term is often set to unity. The Jfunction has become an important tool for capillary pressure interpolation and extrapolation and increases the utility of a single capillary pressure curve. It allows us to adapt a single data set to other areas of a reservoir where data may be unavailable. capillary pressure curves corresponding to a range of different permeability and porosity values (and different fluid combinations via the σcosθ term) can be determined by simply inverting the Jfunction. interfacial tension. Pc(Sw) is determined and (21) used to find J(Sw). the contact angle is difficult to ascertain with any accuracy.
ft 1 200 500 md 200 md 100 md 900 md 50 md 10 md 90 81 72 63 54 45 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0 20 40 60 Liquid saturation.371 0.5 1. psi (reservoir conditions) Height above zero capilliary pressure. at a given Pc.347 0. % Figure 41 40 60 Liquid saturation. % (d) 80 100 21 18 15 12 9 5 3 0 4 3 1 Pc σ cos θ √ (Sw) = 27 18 9 0 100 () k φ 2 1 0 0 20 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2 Water saturation.7 Alundum 2 0.315 0.419 3 1 () k φ 1.8 0. 1.1 1.4 0.9 0. HeriotWatt University 47 . √ (Sw) = Pc σ 1.2 Hawkins Pc σ cos θ √ (Sw) = () k φ 2 1 0 0 20 Capilliary pressure function.18 0.4 1.3 1 2 4 Reservoir Hawkins Rangely El Robie Kinsella Katie Leduc Formation Woodbine Weber Moreno Viking Deese Devonian Lim Sw1√(Sw) 0. we find that lower k => higher Sw (Figure 42). % (b) 80 100 4 3 1 Kinsella Shale Pc σ cos θ √ (Sw) = () k φ 2 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Water saturation.1 0 0 Katie Leverett Theoretical limiting value for regular packed spheres 0.Petrophysical Input 8 Example Jfunctions are shown in Figure41 together with a derived set of Pccurves.0 Alundum (consolidated) Leverett (unconsolidated) Kinsella 0.114 0.5 0.151 0.3 0. % (c) 80 100 Institute of Petroleum Engineering.116 0. Sw 80 90 100 2 After Amyx Bass and Whiting 1960 30 27 24 Oil water capilliary pressure.2 0.447 Leduc Morano Rangely 40 60 Liquid saturation. The procedure can also be used to examine the relationship between permeability (and/or porosity and/or fluid combinations) and water saturation at different capillary pressure cutoff values ——in general.6 0.
At the top of the column. 48 . A watersaturated bead pack is allowed to drain under gravity until capillary equilibrium is reached. the water is in the form of discrete rings connected via thin wetting films over grains — called the pendular regime. md Brine saturation S 20 25 30 Porosity φ Figure 42 Transition Zones We conclude this section on capillary pressure curves with a brief discussion of transition zones. water is continuous. Transition zones are usually described using the waterwet vertical bead pack idealization shown in Figure 43. Near the bottom of the pack.Capillary pressure = 5 psi log k log permeability. Moving down the column. the rings become larger and ultimately coalesce — the funicular regime.
Petrophysical Input 8 σ σ R θ θ R θ θ r (a) r r r y y d (i) (ii) b δ c θ θ a c b δ a (i) (b) (ii) b b δ δ θ c a c a Figure 43 (iii) (iv) Whilst this idealization gives some limited insight into transition zone behaviour. Referring to Figure 44a. with oil present in smaller and smaller pores as we move up through the transition zone. Above this contact. Figure 44b shows how the phases would be distributed in the pore network. a more enlightening picture emerges if we use our knowledge of drainage capillary pressure at the pore scale — this can give us a mental picture of fluid distributions as we move through a transition zone. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 49 . Po>Pw and capillary pressure increases as we go further up the reservoir. we see that the hydrostatic oil and water gradients meet at the OWC (Po=Pw).
35 psi/ft dD Oil OWC 5500' Water Pressure (psia) 2250 5000 Depth (feet) 5250 2265 2375 2369 2500 Cappilary Pressure Increasing Pcgo GOC: po = pg = 2385 Pcow 5500 OWC: po = pw = 2490 (a) (b) Figure 44 Capillary pressure data can also be used to infer fluid saturations as a function of depth within a transition zone.Exploration Well Water Oil Gas GOC 5200' Test Results at 5250 ft po = 2402 psia dpo = 0. we can write equations for each hydraulic gradient (z measures height above OWC and increases vertically upwards): dPw = − gρ w dz dPo = − gρ o dz Subtracting (23) from (24) leads to: (23) (24) dPo dPw dPc − = = g(ρw − ρo ) dz dz dz which can be integrated to give: (25) 50 . Assuming that oil and water pressures remain continuous throughout the entire height of the zone (doubtful under some circumstances).
difficult and timeconsuming to carry out and it is often infeasible to perform a large number of laboratory sensitivity studies. Purcell Model The Purcell model seeks to utilise cheap capillary pressure data in order to predict more expensive relative permeabilities. a number of models are already currently available (although some still lack a degree of refinement) and we will discuss three such approaches below. any capillary pressure curve can be replotted to give saturation with depth information. 830 840 Minimum of 22% connate water 850 860 870 880 890 Depth. easilyaccessible data as inputs. The model revisits the capillary bundle model and initially uses a little algebra to develop a predictor for absolute permeability.Petrophysical Input 8 Pc = g(ρw − ρo )z (27) Hence. In fact. HeriotWatt University 51 . It would therefore be highly desirable if a cheap.2 Methods for Generating Relative Permeabilities Multiphase flow experiments are costly. An example is shown in Figure 45. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. predictive model for relative permeability could be developed that only required cheap. M below sea level 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 Data derrived from capillary pressure Data obtained from seismic logs Approximate gasoil contact 990 1000 1010 1020 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 45 Water saturation scale % 5.
This gives kwt (v) For the same value of water saturation. Extending the approach to deal with relative permeabilities is relatively straightforward — we simply need to replace the summation in (equation B6 with integrals over water saturation. 52 .24 4 0.The development is shown in Figure B4 in Appendix B.56 12 0. calculate the area under the 1/Pc2 curve from Swt to 1. calculate the area under the 1/Pc2 curve from 0 to Swt. A graphical “recipe” for relative permeability prediction via capillary pressure data is essentially the following: (i) Obtain capillary pressure data Pc(Sw) (ii) Plot the curve 1/Pc2 vs Sw (see Figure 46) (iii)Find the area under the entire curve (=k) (iv) For any chosen value of water saturation (Swt. say).32 6 0.48 10 Capillary pressure.16 2 0.40 8 1 (Pc)2 0.08 0 100 0 80 60 40 20 Percent of total pore space occupied by mercury 0 1/(capillary pressure)2. The equations to be applied at successive values of water saturation are given in Figure B5. however: the relative permeabilities add up to unity over the full saturation range and are therefore completely symmetrical. This limitation led Burdine to add the following improvement. whilst the nonwetting integral runs from Swt to 1. atm2 Figure 46 There is one clear drawback using this approach. Pc. The wetting phase relative permeability integral runs from 0 to Swt (the wetting phase saturation of interest). This gives knwt (vi) Use the values obtained from (iii) – (v) to determine relative permeabilities 14 0. atm Pc 0. 1/Pc2.
One of the most popular empirical correlations is that due to Corey (1954). Both of these parameters have to be determined experimentally: Seff vs Pc data is plotted on a loglog scale and a straight line fitted. The full equations are given in Appendix B (Figure B6). however. They were consequently generalised by Brooks and Corey (1964) to: 2 k rw = S(eff+ 3λ ) λ (30) (31) (32) k rnw = (1 − Seff )2 (1 − Seff )( 2 + λ ) λ Seff = ( Pcb Pc ) λ ( Pc ≥ Pcb ) with Pcb representing the breakthrough capillary pressure and λ the “pore size distribution index”. reproduction of experimental data is only achieved via the introduction of some form of empiricism. Many studies have subsequently relied entirely upon empirical curve fitting techniques. who proposed the following: 4 k rw ∝ Seff (28) (29) k rnw ∝ (1 − Seff )2 (1 − S2 ) eff However. It is easily coded into a spreadsheet and is often carried out by practicing reservoir engineers — experience appears to show that the wetting phase prediction is often fairly good. HeriotWatt University 53 . the Burdine method offers a cheap alternative to laboratory measurement of relative permeabilities. it was soon discovered (not surprisingly) that the exponents in Corey’s original equations would have to be varied in order to fit different materials. One of the most promising developments of recent years.Petrophysical Input 8 Burdine Model The Burdine model simply takes the Purcell model and rescales the endpoints through the prefactors: λ w (Sw ) = Sw − Swi 1 − Swi − Sor λ nw (Sw ) = 1 − Sw − Sor 1 − Swi − Sor (27) The curves are therefore defined over the wettingphase saturation range (1Sor) to (1Swi). has been the possibility of applying interconnected network models to the study of Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Although a number of gross assumptions have been made along the way. Brooks and Corey Model Although the models described above yield relative permeability curves that are qualitatively reasonable. the slope gives λ and the intercept with Seff=1 is assumed to give Pcb. Network Models It is quite apparent from this discussion that no satisfactory predictive model currently exists which can adequately account for the complex jumble of channels that pervade a porous medium. whilst the nonwetting curve is less well reproduced.
the wetting phase is assumed to be water and the nonwetting phase oil. Inherent in this is the assumption that the flow is stationary. McDougall and Sorbie have developed an approach for “predicting” relative permeability based on “anchoring” to capillary pressure data. thus steadystate relative permeabilities are considered here. The full methodology is explained by McDougall et al (SCA. Edinburgh. They have recently developed a PCbased software package known as MixWet. Each pore in the network is assigned a capillary entry radius from a distribution. Certain pore scale parameters required as input to MixWet are estimated using the inverse mercury capillary pressure curve . which allows a wide range of multiphase simulations to be undertaken at the porescale under a variety of different wettability conditions — the interface is shown in Figure 47. At each stage of the displacement.which we call the Rplot since 1/Pc ~ R.microscopic flow. 2001). In all that follows. the total flow is calculated separately for each of the 54 . Figure 47 The model calculates the total flow through two intertwined networks (one for each phase) over a range of saturation values. A detailed discussion now follows to determine the extent to which the capillary network model is an analogue for twophase relative permeability experiments. where R is the pore radius.
a strongly waterwet rock will spontaneously imbibe the wetting fluid via film flow along irregularities on the pore surfaces. A set of simulated drainage relative Institute of Petroleum Engineering. A typical set of imbibition relative permeability curves obtained from 3D network modelling are shown in Figure 48 and are seen to correlate well with experimental observations 1. one of which is known as “snapoff”.4 0. Additional details can be found in the earlier discussion presented in section 2.4). Eventually. unconsolidated beadpacks) but such systems are not considered here (the competition between snapoff and pistonlike displacements is discussed more fully in Dixit et al.0 0.8 1. the injected nonwetting phase first fills the largest pores connected to the inlet face of the network. The snapoff mechanism is thought to be the most prevalent imbibition mechanism governing capillarydominated waterfloods of consolidated media (low aspect ratio pores). This drainage model. In this case. The results are then converted into normalised permeabilities as functions of saturation. the thin films begin to swell.Petrophysical Input 8 intertwined networks. and then proceeds along progressively narrower pathways. In effect. no irreducible water saturation would remain at the end of the flood. Primary Displacements — Consider first the case of a strongly waterwet rock which is initially 100% saturated with oil.6. the water slowly wets all internal grain surfaces and is essentially present everywhere in the matrix. occupying successively smaller pores (see section3. first proposed by Chandler et al (1982) and Wilkinson and Willemson (1983). As this imbibition process continues.2 Figure 48 Imbibition relative permeability curves from porescale simulation 0.3).4 Sw 0. When brought into contact with the water phase. the thinnest pores will become completely filled with water and the original oil will be displaced if an escape route exists (see earlier discussion in section 3. This continues with the gradual filling of progressively wider pores until no further displacement is possible since the oil phase becomes disconnected. 1984). HeriotWatt University 55 .6 0. The drainage displacement is terminated at a predetermined limiting capillary pressure — if an unrealistically high capillary pressure were applied to the network.2 0.g. Several possible displacement mechanisms have been identified in two dimensions (Lenormand and Zarcone. More pistonlike displacements may occur in media containing high aspect ratio pores (e.8 0. is basically the displacement mechanism governing mercury porosimetry experiments. 1997).0 The simulation of lowrate drainage processes is carried out using an invasion percolation model with hydraulic trapping of the wetting phase.0 0.6 Kri 0.0 0.
8 0. 1992). More recently. Both studies show that pore aspect ratio and the competition between snapoff and pistonlike displacement affect the hysteresis trend. Both secondary drainage and secondary imbibition have been studied. in particular. The similarity to experimental curves from consolidated media is striking and the hysteresis effect is clearly duplicated in the case of the nonwetting phase. 1. although different methodologies were used to capture the effects. if a primary drainage experiment is followed by a waterflood. 56 . For example.8 1.4 Sw 0. the process is called secondary imbibition. but very little variation is evident in the wetting phase curves and the hysteresis effect is usually considered to be negligible.0 0. The wetting phase curve shows little sign of deviation which is also in general agreement with experimental findings. Various theories relating to pore size distribution and matrix cementation have been put forward in an attempt to explain this phenomenon.2 0. the associated issue of accessibility during drainage (McDougall and Sorbie. In order to explain this phenomenon. but network modelling of the various secondary processes provides important clues as to the real causes of hysteresis in porous media.permeability curves are shown in Figure 49 and again correlate well with experimental observation. This cycle exhibits an hysteresis effect between the primary drainage and secondary imbibition nonwetting relative permeability curves. Different hysteresis patterns are exhibited by unconsolidated media and possible causes of this have been discussed by Jerauld and Salter (1990). The simulation is shown in Figure 50. but for brevity only the primary drainagesecondary imbibition scenario will be discussed here. It is found that the hysteresis effect is due to the different physics governing imbibition and drainage processes. a step by step analysis of the distribution of invaded pores must be considered.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 0. the full range of experimentallyobserved hysteresis phenomena has been modelled and interpreted by Dixit et al (1997).2 0.0 Figure 49 Drainage relative permeability curves from porescale simulation Secondary Displacement Processes ——Secondary displacement processes are displacements carried out on a porous medium which is already partially saturated with the displacing phase.6 Kri 0.
8 Secondary Imbibition krwsec 0.6 0.. HeriotWatt University 57 .2 0.Petrophysical Input 8 1. This is an ongoing exercise but some preliminary examples are shown in Figure 51 together with the matching inverse capillary pressure data (RPlots).0 Comparison with Experiment — Although we have presented a number of idealised relative permeability simulations.4 Sw 0.6 Kri 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.0 krwint Primary Drainage 0.0 0.4 0.8 1. the acid test of such a model is to compare relative permeability prediction with experiment.2 Figure 50 Nonwetting phase hysteresis after a primary drainage > secondary imbibition cycle 0.0 0.
3 0.4 Sg compensated 0.8 1 Experimental Analytic Comparing Sample G with z3.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 Sample F with bestfit 0.4 SHg 0.1 0.2n0lmb3 1 0.6 0.4 Sg compensated 0.8 Sg compensated 40 35 30 R.2 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 0 0.2 0.6 kr 0. microns Kro sim Krg sim Kro expt Krg expt 25 20 25 10 5 0 0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 Sample H with bestfit 0.1 0.3 0.4 0. microns Kro sim Krg sim Kro expt Krg expt 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0 0.3nu1.4 SHg 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 kr 0.8 100 90 80 R.9 0.8 1 Experimental Analytic Comparing Sample H with z4nu0.4 0.3nu0.8 0 0 0.9n0lmb4 1 0.2 7 6 5 R. There are a number of possible causes for hysteresis but the three main effects are the following: (i) Contact angle hysteresis — advancing and receding contact angles differ (reflected in Pc through the YoungLaplace equation) 58 .Comparing Sample F with z3. they depend upon saturation history (Figure 52 and 53).6n0lmb3 1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0 0.2 0.8 Analytic 1 Experimental Figure 51 Gasoil relative permeabilities (prediction vs experimental) and inverse capillary pressure data for reservoir samples 5. microns Kro sim Krg sim Kro expt Krg expt 4 3 2 1 Sample F with bestfit 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.4 SHg 0.3 Hysteresis Phenomena We have already seen that both capillary pressure and relative permeability curves exhibit hysteresis — that is.6 kr 0.9 0.
Builtin numerical models are available in Eclipse and other commercial reservoir simulators to account for flow reversals at intermediate saturations.0 Figure 52 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 59 . we should not be using drainage curves as simulation input when modelling a waterflood in a waterwet reservoir).0 0. Pc a b d c Sw Pc 1.0 1 kr kro Drainage Secondary drainage Intermediate path Imbibition 0.0 Swi Sw 1.Petrophysical Input 8 (ii) Pore structure hysteresis — sloping pore walls mean that pores fill and empty at different capillary pressures (iii)Topological hysteresis — imbibition and drainage processes are different topologically (filmflow versus fingered invasion) There is often such a difference between imbibition and drainage curves (both capillary pressure and relative permeability) that we must make sure that we are using the correct set of curves in our reservoir simulation studies (for instance.0 0.0 0.0 Sw 1.0 Sor Swi 1.
1 Introductory Concepts What is Wettability? The term wettability refers to the wetting preference of a solid substrate in the presence of different fluid combinations (liquids and/or gases). as shown in Figure 54.2 md 32 Capillary Pressure . The wetting phase is defined as the fluid that contacts the solid surface at an angle less that 90o. θ = 158º θ = 35º θ = 30º θ = 30º Water Silica Surface Water Isooctane Isooctane + 5. We have already seen in Section 3.1 and Appendix A6 that the wetting preference of a solid can be characterized by a contact angle.percent Figure 53 6 WETTABILITY — CONCEPTS AND APPLICATIONS 6.Cm of Hg 24 16 2 8 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Water Saturation .7% Isoquinoline θ = 48º Isoquinoline θ = 54º Naphthenic Acid θ = 106º θ = 30º Water Calcite Surface Water Figure 54 60 .48 Water Wet 40 Venango Core VL2 k = 28.
Contact Angle (degrees) 0 to 80 80 to 100 100 to 160 160 to 180 Table 3 Waterwet Intermediate wet Oilwet Strongly oilwet Percent of Reservoirs 8 12 65 15 Table 4 Waterwet Intermediate wet Oilwet Total Contact Angle (degrees) 0 to 75 75 to 105 105 to 180 Silicate Reservoirs 13 2 15 30 Carbonate Reservoirs 2 1 22 25 Total Reservoirs 15 3 37 55 We now know that wettability is a rather complicated issue (still actively being researched) and that there are a number of different factors affecting reservoir wettability. Nutting (1934) realised that some producing reservoirs were. in the presence of isoquinoline. The rock surfaces were consequently in constant contact with water and no wettability alterations were possible as connate water would prevent oil contacting the rock surfaces. oilwet (the rock surface was preferentially wetted by oil in the presence of water) and it is now generally accepted that waterwet reservoirs are the exception rather than the rule (Table 3 and 4). An additional argument for the validity of the waterwet assumption was the following: the majority of reservoirs were deposited in an aqueous environment. and distribution of fluids in a porous medium — hence. with oil only migrating at a later time. The importance of rock wettability cannot be overemphasised. we see that. In cases when a solid has no wetting preference. Moreover. including: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. However. water is nonwetting on a silica substrate but wetting on a calcite substrate. in fact. HeriotWatt University 61 . and electrical properties (see Anderson. Indeed. For instance. when the angle separating the two fluid interfaces is close to 90o) the system is said to be of “neutral” wettability. the assumption has been made that the system under consideration was waterwet. In most of what has been described in this chapter.e. for an excellent series of review articles). we shall see later how some core handling procedures can drastically alter the wettability state of a core: this would invariably lead to the measurement of SCAL data inappropriate to the reservoir under investigation. most measured petrophysical properties must be affected. all reservoirs were believed to be strongly waterwet and almost all clean sedimentary rocks are in a waterwet condition. (i. that the wetting preference of a rock depends not only upon the fluids involved but also upon the mineralogy of the rock surface. namely. relative permeability. The simple reason for this is that wettability affects the location. waterflood behaviour.Petrophysical Input 8 This figure clearly demonstrates an important issue. flow. as it affects almost all types of core analysis: capillary pressure. historically. 1987.
any given region of a reservoir. oil is flushed from small pores. mostly prevalent in the heavier crude fractions — resins and asphaltenes — that form an organic film or adsorb onto pore walls Brine chemistry (ii) (iii) Brine salinity (iv) Brine pH (v) The presence of multivalent metal cations (Ca2+. However. however.“imbibition” refers to the displacement of water by oil. and network models. Cu2+. relative permeability models. Mg2+. in an oilwet medium. Fe3+) (vi) Pressure and temperature (vii) Mineralogy (including clays) In short. we have already seen that there is a tendency for water to reside in the tighter pores and to form a film over the grain surfaces. Consequently. the term “imbibition””— a process whereby a wetting phase displaces a nonwetting phase — would refer to the displacement of oil by water. If a rock is waterwet. as wettability can be expected to vary spatially — and possibly temporally——throughout a reservoir). Having discovered that most reservoirs are not waterwet. and we appreciate the dynamics underlying relative permeability measurements. and oil production via filmflow also becomes important). we know how to define capillary pressure. In this case. PoreScale Effects The effect of wettability at the porescale is shown in Figure 55. more correctly. 62 . a waterflood is a drainage displacement. we already understand drainage and imbibition processes at the pore scale. Ni2+. the situation is reversed— oil now forms a thin film over the grain surfaces and water fills the larger pores. These are generally believed to be polar compounds (polar head and hydrocarbon tail). this is not as difficult as it may first appear. These differences clearly have major implications for waterflooding reservoirs (if a reservoir is oilwet. The term “drainage” would apply to oil displacing water . In an oilwet system. whilst “drainage” refers to the displacement of oil by water. capillary pressure models.(i) Surfaceactive compounds in the crude oil. we now have to modify everything that we have learned so far — porescale physics. The following discussion should help you apply your previous waterwet knowledge to systems that are not waterwet. Oil (the nonwetting phase) resides in the larger pores. surface chemistry determines the wettability state of a reservoir (or.
a waterflood would now consist of a combination of imbibition and drainage events: water initially imbibing along waterwet pathways (displacing oil from small pores) and then requiring an overpressure to drain oil from the larger oilwet pores. It is clear that the underlying mineralogy and surface chemistry of the system would determine the connectivity and topology of the “wettability pathways” but how can we determine these pathways”— in short.Petrophysical Input 8 Oil Oil Oil (a) Water Water Water Oil Water Rock Grains Oil Oil Oil (b) Water Figure 55 Water Water Oil Water Rock Grains The foregoing discussion has clarified some of the porescale physics affecting waterwet and oilwet media. However. given the complex nature of wettability alterations in reality. a combination of waterwet and oilwet pathways exists that allows filmflow access to the displacing phase and filmflow escape for the displaced phase. HeriotWatt University 63 . Here. how can we quantify the wettability of a porous medium? Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Hence. a more realistic representation of wettability at the pore scale may be that shown in Figure 56.
Fractionallywet — no size preference for oilwetness (there are valid mineralogical arguments for this). It will be beneficial. NonUniform — this is more characteristic of hydrocarbon reservoirs.2 Wettability Classification and Measurement When we come to define the type of wettability associated with a particular porous sample. with variations in wetting from pore to pore (and possibly within a pore) — say 70% waterwet pores and 30% oilwet pores. to give some definitions that will appear periodically throughout this section. or 100% “intermediatewet”) and the contact angle is essentially the same in every pore. The porespace exhibits “heterogeneous” wettability. Given our knowledge of porescale displacements. and we should be aware of this when we come to interpret SCAL and wettability test data. 100% oilwet. we come up against a minefield of inconsistent terminology. We can introduce 2 subdivisions (Figure 57): Mixedwet — a certain fraction of the largest pores are oilwet (there are valid depositional arguments for how this may come about). it is clear that each type of wettability distribution will yield different capillary pressures and relative permeabilities (and recoveries). 64 . therefore.WaterWet OilWet Figure 56 6. Wettability can be classed as being uniform or nonuniform as follows: Uniform — the wettability of the entire porespace is the same (100% waterwet.
01 0.005 OilWet R 20 40 60 80 100 Figure 57 Wettability Measurement Core wettability can be determined in a number of ways. HeriotWatt University 65 . is less informative.Petrophysical Input 8 F(R) MixedWet 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.015 WaterWet α 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. neutralwet. although three main quantitative methods are used most frequently: (i) Contact angle measurement — this measures the wettability of a mineral surface and is mainly used by specialist researchers (ii) Amott method — this measurement gives valuable information regarding the extent and connectivity of wettability pathways of a core (iii)U S Bureau of Mines (USBM) method — yields an average wettability measurement.015 α WaterWet 0. but much faster (and therefore cheaper) than the Amott method Table 5 gives some expected values for waterwet. and oilwet media from each test (we will explain each of these shortly).005 OilWet R 20 40 60 80 100 F(R) FractionallyWet 0.
3 Table 5 Other qualitative methods exist.3 ≤ / ≤ 1. Contact angle method This is shown in Figure 58 and is mainly applicable to pure fluids and isolated mineral surfaces. A drop of fluid (oil. These angles usually differ from one another (hysteresis effect) and this is one component of the hysteresis observed in capillary pressure and relative permeability curves. say) is generally placed between the mineral surfaces in a bath of a second fluid (water). NMR methods and dye adsorption methods. A sessile drop (single surface) or modified sessile drop (two surfaces) can be used.0 Neutrally Wet 60 to 75º 105 to 120º W near 0 Zero Zero 0. Whilst this technique is often used in wettability research laboratories. it is not carried out routinely in the industry.3 < / < 0. Notice also that the earlytime behaviour of the measurement is often misleading — you have to wait for the system to equilibrate. such as rateofimbibition tests.WaterWet Contact angle Minimum Maximum USBM wettability index Amott wettability index Displacementbywater ratio Displacementbyoil ratio AmottHarvey wettability index 0º 60 to 75º W near 1 Positive Zero 0. Let us now examine the three main methodologies in more detail. Crystal Water Advancing Contact Angle Water Oil Oil Crystal 180 Curve "E" Kareem 150 Contact Angle (degrees) Curve "D" San Andres 120 90 Curve "B" Deosol Curve "C" Tertiary Kenai Curve "A" Pure Grade C10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 60 30 Age of the oilmineral interface (hours) Figure 58 66 .3 OilWet 105 to 120º 180º W near 1 Zero Positive 1. but these are not routinely undertaken.0 ≤ / ≤ 0. The surfaces are then moved in opposite directions parallel to one another and advancing and receding contact angles can be determined.
the core is said to be neutrallywet (neither phase has imbibed) If Iw>0 and Io>0. as these individual indices tell far more than the single AmottHarvey index. the core is said to be heterogeneouslywet (mixed. the indices are combined to give a single index. making the test timeconsuming and costly. yielding a number between 1 (oilwet) and 1 (waterwet). the ratios used in the calculations are very sensitive to errors in saturation measurement. it takes a long time for fluids to equilibrate.e.Petrophysical Input 8 Amott Test The Amott test is slow but informative. HeriotWatt University 67 . the AmottHarvey Index =IwIo.or fractionallywet) Often. It combines both imbibition and forced displacement and is usually carried out via the following “recipe”: (1) Centrifuge core down to Sor (2) Immerse in oil and measure volume of oil imbibed after 20 hours (Voi) (3) Centrifuge the core down to Swi and measure the total oil volume (Vot) (4) Immerse in water and measure volume of water imbibed after 20 hours (Vwi) (5) Centrifuge the core down to Sor and measure the total water volume (Vwt) (6) Calculate the displacementbyoil ratio (Io) and the displacementbywater ratio (Iw). there are two main drawbacks to the Amott test: firstly. USBM Test The USBM test uses thermodynamic arguments to ascertain the approximate work done on the system durig centrifuge displacements. Io = Voi Vot Iw = Vwi Vwt If Iw >1 and Io>0. Unfortunately. i. it is better to have access to both Io and Iw. measure of wettability is given by the USBM test. and secondly. A far quicker. but less informative. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. the core is oilwet If Iw=0 and Io=0. If possible. This essentially boils down to calculating areas under Pc curves (= work done during a displacement) as follows (Figure 59). the core is waterwet If Io >1 and Iw>0. however.
so Pc=PoPw is negative). Percent 100 * Oil Wet Log A1/A2 = 0.10 * Water Wet Log A1/A2 = 0. PSI II A1 0 I A2 a 10 0 10 Average Water Saturation. water pressure greater than oil pressure. PSI II A1 0 A2 I b 10 0 Average Water Saturation. Measure expelled oil volume (3) Core is centrifuged under oil at incremental speeds until Pc=+10psi. Percent 100 Figure 59 (1) Core driven down to Swi by centrifuge (2) Core is centrifuged under brine at incremental speeds until Pc=10psi (NB.79 Capillary Pressure. Measure expelled water volume (4) Plot the two capillary pressure curves (5) Calculate the areas under the oildrive (A1) and waterdrive(A2) curves (6) USBM Index (W) = log(A1/A2) 68 .51 Capillary Pressure.
We should therefore endeavour to preserve the natural state of a core as much as possible if we wish to derive SCAL data that has relevance to the reservoir under consideration. 6. Note. flow reservoir fluids in correct order. then seal in liquid paraffin Cleaned core — should only be used if reservoir is strongly waterwet (rare).3 +1 slightly neutral slightly oil wet water wet Figure 60 oil wet intermediate water wet Three types of core are generally used in core analysis: Nativestate core — ideal if available as it minimises losses. 1<W<1 is usually reported (W>0 indicates some degree of waterwetness. 1976) 180º oil wet 133º intermediate 62º water wet 0º AmottIFP Index (Cuiec. There are a number of issues of which we should be aware: (i) wettability alterations can occur during drilling due to complex mud chemistry. (ii) pressure and temperature change as a core is brought to surface. this is not the case and recoveries and relative permeabilities are badly affected (Figure 61).3 0. (iii) asphaltenes may subsequently precipitate and light ends may be lost. Often. wrap cores in polyethylene film and foil. 1991) 1 0. age the core (1000 hours/40 days) and hope that reservoir conditions have been reestablished. Cleaning procedure should depend upon the crude oil/brine/rock system under investigation Restoredstate core — Only course of action if wettability has been altered. an example is shown in Figure 60). Pressure coring can help alleviate some of these problems but this is not always available. Uniform wettingcontact angle (Morrow and McCafferty. of course. W<0 some degree of oilwetness).1 +0.Petrophysical Input 8 Although W theoratically goes from infinity to +infinity. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Clean the core. HeriotWatt University 69 .1 +0.3 The Impact of Wettability on Petrophysical Properties Core Handling The previous discussion has highlighted the importance of wettability at the porescale and its implications for oil recovery (as demonstrated by the Amott and USBM tests). that other methods exist that combine elements of the Amott and USBM tests (see the literature for details.
will highlight the importance of proper core handling and cleaning procedures still further. if n=2 is used regardless of the wettability condition pertaining in the reservoir.1 0 0 . The Effect of Wettability Upon Electrical Properties We begin our discussion of petrophysical parameters with a brief look at Archie’s equation (Figure 62). Pore Volumes .2% φ ka 25.4 20 10 . mO 27.4 . In order to demonstrate how inappropriate it would be to assume n=2 for nonwaterwet material.8% 338.8 Water Saturation.6% 254. When taken together with direct resistivity measurements. mO 29. implying the breakdown of the assumptions underpinning the model itself .01 0. mO 24. regarding the sensitivity of a number of petrophysical properties to wettability.8% 338. for an example of how expensive this assumption has been in the past).8% 202. mO 31.6 30 . The table in Figure 62 shows just such a case: we see that the exponent is not even constant. then saturation predictions will be wrong (see Pirson and Fraser.0 10 100 NATIVE CORE CRUDE OIL CLEANED CORE CRUDE OIL CLEANED CORE REFINED OIL .so use the Archie equation with care 70 .2 0 0. This is routinely used by petrophysicists to determine water saturation in a formation from wireline log data and the exponent (n) has been determined experimentally from plugs and has a value of about 2 for waterwet/ cleaned cores.6 .8 .8% 780. mO 1 60 50 Oil Recovery. however. mO 24. we could take reservoir core and actually measure saturations directly. Consequently. Percent PV 40 Relative Permeability 1. Under nonwaterwet conditions. the fluids are distributed differently in the porespace (fewer water films are also present) and we should not be surprised to learn that Archie’s equation breaks down (although it is often used regardless). 1960. PV 1 Figure 61 The following discussion.2 Water Injected. we could then use Archie’s equation to infer what the appropriate exponent should be over a range of saturation values.Contaminated Cleaned Restoredstate Swi k0 452.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Petrophysical Input 8 Archie Saturation Exponents as a function of Saturation for a Conducting Nonwetting Phase Air/NaCi Solution Brine Saturation n (% PV) 66. this relationship becomes: pc = po − pw = 2σ R (34) Notice. and r1 and r2 are the two principal radii of curvature (see section 3.01 51.46 55.00 33.90 Oil/NaCi Solution Brine Saturation n (% PV) 2. the capillary pressure must become negative (i.35 64.51 44.2 2.2 1. that for water to invade an oilwet capillary.31 60.e.8 2.97 65. but the term is merely an artefact of conventional terminology. The pressure difference Pc is the capillary pressure and.3 4.1 63.9 4.98 63.0 9 _ Sw n Sw Rt Ro = Rt Ro = = ≡ IR where: brine saturation in the porous medium resistivity of the porous medium at saturation S w.93 43.5 2.4 1.37 50.4 8.06 30.1).3 2.15 31.3 2.61 36.1 2. pw must become greater than po) The combination of the words “negative” and “pressure” may at first seem confusing. and resistivity of the 100% brinesaturated formation = Figure 62 The Effect of Wettability Upon Capillary Pressure We have already seen an oil/water interface will become curved in order to balance the pressure jump across it opposing interfacial tension forces.50 28. in oilwater systems.6 1. HeriotWatt University 71 .9 7. The pressure jump at which this balance is attained is given by Laplace’s equation: 1 1 pc = po − pw = σ + r1 r2 (33) where s is the interfacial tension between the two fluids.46 40. is conventionally taken to be the pressure in the oil phase minus the pressure in the water phase.5 2.1 1.1 7. however.92 59.7 2.81 34. The concept of negative capillary pressure is central to displacements in heterogeneouslywet media.11 33.2 2. For drainage of a waterwet circular capillary (radius R) and zero contact angle.99 39.2 1.
Tensleep sandstone.Cm of Hg 1 8 2 8 4 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 WATER SATURATION. CM HG CAPILLARY PRESSURE .3 md 3 Drainage capillary pressure characteristics (after Ref. strongly waterwet rock.SPONTANEOUS IMBIBITION 3. waterfloods in heterogeneouslywet media may be a combination of conventional imbibition and drainage processes. Curve 3 .2 md OIL WET CAPILLARY PRESSURE. Curve 1 . Pc(+ve) Swi (Initial Water) Primary Drainage 32 A CURVE 1.DRAINAGE 2. Curve 1 . the terms imbibition and drainage become somewhat confused.2 k = 28. intermediatewet ) 72 . For example.drainage. oilwet.PERCENT 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 OIL SATURATION. 0 48 Sw% 100 48 WATER WET 40 40 VENANGO CORE VL . Eventually.3 md Swi (Initial Water) Pc(+ve) Water Imbibition (Spontaneous) Primary Drainage Forced Oil Drive (Secondary Drainage) 8 3 16 Oil Imbibition (Spontaneous) POINT A.FORCED IMBIBTION 24 16 Age + Change Wettability 1 8 2 0 Sw% 100 0 B BEREA CORE k = 184. however.When discussing displacements in porous media of heterogeneous wettability. the water has to be forced into oilwet pores and the displacement becomes one of drainage. Curve 2 .29). with water spontaneously imbibing along waterwet pathways displacing oil from the smallest pores. IRREDUCIBLE NONWETTING SATURATION Pc(ve) Forced Water Drive C 24 0 20 40 60 80 100 WATER SATURATION.184. Figure 63 Experimental capillary pressures in cores for various processes ( drainage. Capillary pressure characteristics. PERCENT 100 8 BEREA CORE 2MO161 k . PERCENT Oilwater capillary pressure characterisitics. PERCENT P.30) 16 24 0 20 40 50 60 WATER SATURATION . CM. When the pore network contains a mixture of waterwet and oilwet pores.V. Curve 1 . ZERO . imbibition) and wettability conditions ( waterwet.Imbition.Drainage. intermediate wettability. the waterflood initially proceeds as an imbibition.CAPILLARYPRESSURE NONWETTING SATURATION C.drainage.forced imbition.Cm of Hg 32 32 24 24 16 2 8 1 16 1 8 2 0 0 20 40 80 60 WATER SATURATION . oilwet rock (after Ref. Curve 2 . IRREDUCIBLE WETTING SATURATION B.Imbition.HG 16 24 INTERMEDIATE WET 12 16 CAPILLARY PRESSURE . Curve 2 . 20 32 CAPILLARY PRESSURE.spontaneous imbition.PERCENT 100 Oilwater capillary pressure characteristics.
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY.Sw < 50% k rw at S or / k ro at S wi> 50% Influence of wettability on relative permeability. OGJ. OilWet Generally less than 15% PV. floodout): based on the effective oil permeability at reservoir interstitial water saturation. Frequently less than 100%. The concept is shown both schematically and for experimental data in Figure 63. together with a high water endpoint—— once again.wet curves (Figure 64).Petrophysical Input 8 So. fastflowing pores.e. Greater than 50% and approaching 100%.V. Relative permeability to water at the maximum water saturation (i.Sw > 50% k rw at S or / k ro at W wi < 30% In oilwet system: S w < 15% At point A: kro = k rw . In the waterwet case. a negative leg in the capillary pressure curve indicates some fraction of oilwet porespace. water imbibes via the smallest pores in the system. 22 May 1978 Figure 64 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 73 . % of air permeability Oilwet reservoir 60 60 20 S wi 0 0 A 20 S wi 100 0 0 A Water 40 80 Water saturation % Wa ter 40 80 Water saturation % 100 In waterwet system: S w mostly > 20% At point A: kro = k rw . The Effect of Wettability Upon Relative Permeability As wettability controls the distribution of phases within the porespace. 80 60 40 WATER 20 Saturation at which oil and water relative permeabilities are equal. Generally less than 30% 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 WATER SATURATION. Consequently. we would expect the oil relative permeability curve to decrease slowly with increasing water saturation and the water relative permeability endpoint to remain low — this is exactly what is observed. Less than 50% water saturation. this is what is observed. after Fertl. leaving oil resident in large. We can use our porescale modeling knowledge to help explain the differences seen between the slopes of waterwet and oil. Conversely. PERCENT P. it is hardly surprising that wettability has a majorimpact upon relative permeability curves and subsequent reservoir performance. in general.. waterflooding an oilwet medium should lead to a rapid decrease in oil relative permeability. 100 100 Waterwet reservoir Oil Oil Relative permeability. Greater than 50% water saturation. PERCENT 100 OIL WET WATER WET OIL WATER OIL CRAIG'S RULES OF THUMBS FOR CETERMINING WETTABILITY WaterWet Interstitial water saturation Usually greater than 20 to 25% PV.
4 0.4 4 0.5 131 o . PERCENT 0. However. 1981.5 5 4 5 . inter alia) (Figure 65 ).9 9 0.2 0. Dodecone Dioclyl Ether Water Nitrogen Nitrogen q up to 49 o 108 o 131o 138 and greater . as always.8 DISPLACED PHASE SATURATION. Shankar and Dullien.0 108 o UP TO 49 o DISPLACED PHASES . the trends are often useful [Influence of wettability on relative permeability. FRACTION % .0 Figure 65 74 . Nevertheless. 1.2 1 2 DISPLACING PHASE DISPLACED PHASE Heptone.649 0. Dodecone 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 80 0 WATER SATURATION.01 Nitrogen Dioclyl Ether Heptone.V.0 USBN WETTABILITY 0.10 . FRACTION P.02 .3 3 2 3 .05 .250 1.6 0. OGJ.176 0.6 6 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TO WATER . after Fertl.2 2.8 5 8 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY. the key features of such curves were presented by Craig (1971) who indicated the differences between the two in the form of several rules of thumb (see Table in Figure 64).7 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY TO OIL 7 138 o AND GREATER DISPLACING PHASES 0.1 5 1 Nitrogen 0.In fact.0 10. Many subsequent experimental studies have agreed with these ideas (Donaldson and Thomas.333 10 1.222 1. there are a few exceptions that prove the rule(s) — pore geometry and connectivity can change things quite a lot. 22 May 1978] 10 1 2 3 4 CORE PERCENT NO. SILANE 1 2 3 4 5 0 0. 1971.
Petrophysical Input 8 80 CONTACT ANGLE 0o WATERWET 47 o 90 oo 138 180 o OILWET 0 WOR= 25 OIL RECOVERY.4 0. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. % P. HeriotWatt University 75 .V.6 0.2 0. PERCENT OILIN PLACE 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0. relative permeability affects waterflooding performance through the fractional flow equation (as does the viscosity ratio) but what type of wettability distribution leads to the optimum recovery? In the relatively sparse literature on nonuniform systems there is much disagreement regarding this question (Figures 66 and 67).8 10 WATER INJECTED. 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 PORE VOLUMES OF FLOOD WATER Figure 66 The Effect of Wettability Upon Waterflood Performance Clearly. PORE VOLUMES 100 70 50 30 20 10 6 3 OIL SATURATION.
PERCENT OIL .5 DISPLACEMENT BY WATER RATIO 0.6 SW 0.8 0.2 0.8 1.4 0.0 0. % ORIGINAL 60 50 OHIO SANDSTONE 70 60 50 WATERWET OILWET 1.0 0.0 Figure 68 Relative permeability curves from mixedwet systems: a is the oilwet pore fraction 76 . 0 20 40 60 80 100 WEIGHT .5 DISPLACEMENT BY OIL RATIO 1.70 OIL RECOVERY AT 24 P.4 0.0 AMOTT WETTABILITY INDEX 0.2 0.0 RESIDUAL WATER SATURATION.6 krw 1/0 100% WW 75% WW 50% WW 25% WW 0% WW krw1 kro2/25 krw1/25 krw2 kro2 Kri 0.V.V. THROUGHPUT.0 0.0 0. PERCENT P.WET SAND Figure 67 1.
Kennedy et al (1955). however. waterflood recovery efficiency and residual oil saturation. and recovery is shown to be maximum at close to neutral conditions. simulated capillary pressure data have demonstrated that standard wettability tests (such as AmottHarvey and free imbibition) may give spurious results when the sample is fractionallywet in nature (McDougall and Sorbie. This section describes the development and implementation of a porescale simulator capable of modelling multiphase flow in porous media of nonuniform wettability. The wettability characteristics of these pores may then be altered by the adsorption of polar compounds and/or the deposition of organic matter from the original crude. HeriotWatt University 77 . the term “cluster” refers to any group of connected pores containing the same phase. crude oil components may adsorb onto some pore walls whilst ignoring others.e. Here. Fractional wettability. the fraction of pores wetted by oil is denoted by α. Results are presented which show how α (the fraction of pores which are assigned oilwet characteristics) affects resulting relative permeability curves. These have been used to calculate waterflood displacement efficiencies for a range of wettability conditions. pore walls are very strongly wetted by the corresponding wetting phase. 1993a). however. Because of these variations. the wettability of each pore is controlled so that some are preferentially wetted by water and others by oil. This has been achieved by explicitly incorporating pore wettability effects into the steadystate models described earlier. Here. Such situations may arise when oil migrates to waterwet reservoirs and preferentially fills the larger interstices. will be restricted to mixedwet systems.4 Network Modelling of Wettability Effects Introduction The wettability characteristics of a porous medium play a major role in a diverse range of measurements including: capillary pressure data. In the next section. means that fractionallywet rock contains oilwet pores of all sizes. Both studies showed that the more waterwet the rock. The precise wettability details are unclear from study to study however and so some sort of modelling approach is appropriate to understand the issue more fully. the small pores remaining waterwet. The wetting phase contact angle is taken to be zero in both oilwet and waterwet pores. Amott (1959) and Salathiel (1973) have all shown that the most efficient recovery takes place at close to neutral conditions. we therefore go on to examine how network modelling techniques may be applied in this context. Waterflood Simulation Details One of the advantages of using microscopic network simulators is that physical properties can easily be ascribed to each pore individually. electrical conductivity.Petrophysical Input 8 Donaldson et al (1969) and Emery et al (1970) performed waterflood experiments using core plugs which had been aged in crude for varying periods of time. relative permeability curves. This. 6. The term “mixed” wettability was first introduced by Salathiel (1973) to describe systems where the oilwet pores correspond to the largest in the sample. thereby rendering them oilwet. Attention here. whilst a “spanning Institute of Petroleum Engineering. in effect. is generally related to the rock matrix itself and is due to the differences in surface chemistry of the constituent minerals. i. attention is restricted to mixedwet systems. Conversely. Moreover. In all that follows. the more efficient the displacement.
then they are filled spontaneously if the defending oil can escape. 1976) have been developed which permit the labelling of both oil clusters and water clusters as well as clusters of oilwet and waterwet pores. (2) Once spontaneous imbibition has ceased. and water is then introduced at the inlet face. The displacement is modelled using an invasion percolation process. The defending oil phase can escape from a pore by draining along a pathway of oilfilled pores which connect it to the outlet. whilst the “wettability clusters” remain static during a given process. and the water next fills the largest oilwet pores connected to either the inlet face of the network or the invading water cluster. Throughout forced imbibition. The relative permeability curves from mixedwet networks. it actually shifts to higher saturations. Accessible waterwet pores are then assumed to become filled via a “snapoff” mechanism. Modelling Waterflood Performance The relative permeability curves described above can now be used in the conventional fractional flow equations enabling the construction of a family of fractional flow curves. Each simulation begins with the network 100% saturated with oil. waterwet pores are contacted by the invading cluster. If. the crossover point does not steadily move towards lower water saturations (as is often supposed). The results from the porescale simulations are shown in Figure 69 and 78 . BuckleyLeverett analyses can then be carried out to uncover how the microscopic displacement efficiency is expected to be influenced by the wettability of the system. computed for a variety of α values. Clustering algorithms (following Hoshen and Kopelman. at any time during the forced imbibition.5. The precise structure of relative permeability curves plays a vital role in determining reservoir performance and efficiency. only when α> 0.cluster” is a cluster which spans the network — connecting the inlet face of the network to the outlet face. are shown in Figure 68. Each waterflood consists of the following two stages: (1) Water is first allowed to spontaneously imbibe via film flow but only along continuous waterwet pathways which have access to the inlet. a negative capillary pressure is applied) and now acts as a nonwetting fluid. or (b) by draining via film flow along a pathway of oilwet pores to the outlet. The results described above show that experiments performed on unrepresentative core samples may yield inaccurate curves and subsequently lead to incorrect field predictions. For a between 0 and 0. Furthermore. the invading water is overpressured (i. The precise effect of reservoir wettability on waterflood performance is now examined in more detail. oil may escape in two different ways: either (a) by draining along a pathway of oilfilled pores which connect it to the outlet.e.5 does it begin to moves back towards lower values. whereby the smallest pores are filled first followed by the next smallest and so on. Note that the fluid clusters are a dynamic phenomenon. It is apparent that the oil curve loses curvature and the water curve gains curvature as the oilwet pore fraction increases.
0.6 0. Aging after primary drainage is controlled via the Institute of Petroleum Engineering. The full cycle of primary drainage — aging — water imbibition — water drainage — oil imbibition — oil drainage are all included.6 1. leading to the possibility of producing far larger networks than before.2 0.0 BT Recovery Efficiency 20PV 3PV Figure 70 Experimental observations from Jadhunandan and Morrow (1991) 0.6 0. The latest version of the mixedwet simulator (MixWet) is now fullyfunctional (Appendix C) and a large number of new features are available. HeriotWatt University 79 . Indeed. comparisons with a laboratory study on wettability effects (Figure 70) are extremely encouraging: the simple rulebased simulator implemented here reproduces the experimental observations very satisfactorily.8 Recovery Efficiency 20PV 0.7 0. and (ii) C++ facilitates the creation of dynamic arrays that can be created “on the heap” and deleted at the end of function calls — this utilises memory far more efficiently.2 0. The advantages of the Visual C++ approach are twofold: (i) PCbased material is far more accessible to the general user than raw Unixbased research code.0 AmottHarvey Wettability Index Current Research Recent development work in the Institute of Petroleum Engineering at HeriotWatt University has focussed upon on a new PCbased Visual C++ mixedwet simulator.5 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 % WaterWet Pores 0.3 1.Petrophysical Input 8 support the conclusion that optimum recovery occurs at some intermediate wettability state.7 3PV 0.6 BT Figure 69 Recovery efficiency vs % waterwet pores using a mixedwet simulator 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.
depressurisation. and calculate NMR T2 signals automatically. then we run the risk of ever increasing uncertainty in our reservoir predictions • • • • 80 . A stepbystep description of the new interface is given in Appendix C. change boundary conditions from unidirectional flooding to intrusion from all sides. Moreover. we can look at ways of improving recovery in the future (IFT reduction. by understanding the controlling physics at the porescale. capillarity. etc) BUT. gravity drainage. Additional checkboxes are available to turn film flow off and on. which can be used to vary the percentage and size distribution of oil wet pores. something more novel?) The underlying physics can be complicated and a number of controlling phenomena are intrinsically coupled (wettability. the random number seed can be set explicitly by the user in order to examine different realisations of statistically similar networks. 7 CONCLUDING REMARKS We conclude with some final thoughts as to the importance of understanding multiphase flow at the microscopic scale: • • The continuum approach fails to explain a great many observations A lot of the confusion surrounding petrophysics and petrophysical simulator input can be cleared up by considering the associated smallscale physics Remember — all displacements ultimately occur porebypore So. if we don’t attempt to understand petrophysics at a fundamental level.“Wettability Parameters” group. pore structure. calculate relative permeabilities.
and Dettre. “Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and Its Effects on Oil Recovery”. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Inc. 289319.. 12771280. Eval. Chem. M..”“Determination of the Wettability of a Solid by a Liquid”. F. Cuiec. F. Surfactant Science Series. Dixit. New York City. Spreading and Adhesion. F. S. Li.“SPE Res. 1927. 3 (2). L. SPE59309. “PoreScale Modeling of ThreePhase Flow and the Effects of Wettability”.. in Interfacial Phenomena in Oil Recovery. M. “Performance and Analysis of ThreePhase Capillary Pressure Curves for Drainage and Imbibition in Porous Media”. K. Berg (editor). Morrow. H. “PoreScale Modelling of Wettability Effects and their Influence on Oil Recovery. OK. C.H.J. 1999. Tech. Pet. October 1999. and Eng. N. in”Wetting. Kalaydjian. 1993. Pergamon.). J. 471473. 1999.J. Bartell.. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE. 19 (11). Johnson. Volume 49. Morrow.H.S. and Blunt. New York City. E. 2000. and Eng.. SPE56474. Padday (ed.J. 139149. “Wetting of Low Energy Surfaces”. 1992.E. DC.. L... 2(1).. ed. 319. New York. Marcel Dekker.. L. J. 1991. Morrow. “Displacement Studies in Uniformly Wetted Porous Media ”. E. SPE24878. SPE Res. “ThreePhase Relative Permeability Correlations”.M. K.. 2000. Marcel Dekker. J.. 14761484. Eval. Tulsa. and Buckley. Landau. Washington.R. A. October 1992. N. April 1988.. 112. Statistical Physics.. M.R. TX.. London. Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. OK. and Osterhof. Tulsa. 42. 1978. G.D..”“An Empirical Model for Threephase Relative Permeability”. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Blunt. Hui. N. in”Wettability. “Experimental Study of Wettability Alteration to Preferentially GasWetting in Porous Media and Its Effects”.E. A. 1988.. Academic Press. HeriotWatt University 81 . 1958.B.R.. 1990.F. R. J. “Wettability and Its Effects on Oil Recovery”. and Firoozabadi. McDougall.S. Houston.. Eng. and McCaffery.Petrophysical Input 8 REFERENCES Baker.R. and Lifschitz. Proceedings of the Sixth SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. R. Ind.M. SPE17369. April 2000.. Sorbie.
J. Tech. Moulu. A. K.J. van Dijke. 1973. 3. M.J.. 365384.H.K.R. V.5361.S. J. and Mohanty.. 238248. Fenwick. Pet. Molecular Theory of Capillarity. 82 . McDougall. B. 121143.E. Advances in Water Resources. Tulsa. “SaturationDependencies of ThreePhase Relative Permeabilities in MixedWet and FractionallyWet Systems”. Mani. 1989. Stone.S. M. SPE59311. Sorbie. Stone. “ThreeDimensional Modeling of Three Phase Imbibition and Drainage. Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. pp.I. P. K.: 1998. “PoreScale Modeling of ThreePhase Flow and the Effects of Wettability”. Italy. M. SPE Journal. 2000. 20.: 1997. van Dijke.. 12. 214218. 1995. Oxford... 24. and McDougall..: 1998. Rowlinson. J. Transport in Porous Media. FLren..S. S. 45. 2000. and Mohanty. W..V. Proceedings of ECMOR 7. M. and Eng. F. 187. B..S. 2 (1). “Probability Model for Estimating ThreePhase Relative Permeability”. and Blunt. Egermann. “Fluid Distributions and PoreScale Displacement Mechanisms in Drainage Dominated ThreePhase Flow”. and Sorbie K. OK. “A ProcessBased Approach for Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Relationships in MixedWet and FractionallyWet Systems”. R. Vizika. Sorbie K. P.J. and Blunt.. and Bakke. H. D. Tech. Baveno. Sorbie K.L. Pet. September 2000. Colloid and Interface Science.H. SPE59310. Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Adv. 2536. Clarendon Press..S. S.: 1999 “A New ThreePhase Relative Permeability Model for Various Wettability Conditions”. “Estimation of ThreePhase Relative Permeability and Residual Data”. Can. “Effect of Spreading Coefficient on ThreePhase Flow in Porous Media”. April 2000 van Dijke. SPE56477. February 1999. SPE59309.: 2000.. V. Mani.I. S. 20.R. 21. Tulsa. 1970.. 2001a.. and Widom. “PoreLevel Network Modeling of ThreePhase Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Curves”.C. O..S. 105133.L. April 2000. and Buckley. T.I. J. and Kalaydjian. J.. K. OK. OK. H. Tulsa.R. Dixit.J.: “PoreScale Modeling of Wettability Effects and their Influence on Oil Recovery”.: “A Predictive Network Model for ThreePhase Flow in Porous Media”.E and Pinczewski.. J. Water Resour. M. SPE Reservoir Eval. April 2000 Lerdahl. P.J. “A Probabilistic Model for ThreePhase Relative Permeabilities in Simple Pore Systems of Heterogeneous Wettability”.flren. Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Conference on Improved Oil Recovery. Hui. S. M. and McDougall.K..
Dynamics of fluids in porous media..: 1996. “Estimation of threephase relative permeabilities”. A.. 20. P. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. TX. 59.S. From AWR paper Aleman. Proceedings of the 1988 Sixth SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery. December 2000.. Edinburgh. Henderson. L.C. Edinburgh. Tulsa. HeriotWatt University. 24.” Proceedings of the 7th European IOR Symposium. Proceedings of ECMOR V conference. and Slattery.G. W. W. Pereira. Elsevier. D. SPE17369.D. G. Transport in Porous Media. Dallas TX. G. D.: 1995. Transport in Porous Media. Dixit. Baker. M. Aziz. L. “Fluid Distributions and PoreScale Displacement Mechanisms in Drainage Dominated ThreePhase Flow”.C. and Sorbie. 6. April 1988. Baker. 105133. Chan. K. WAGrep5:““Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Studies Progress Report No. E. 1972. 167201.Petrophysical Input 8 Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.: 1996. Loeben. L.A. London.Y.WaterWet System”. and Danesh. and FLren.: “ThreePhase Relative Permeability of WaterWet. June 2000. Sohrabi.E. T. WAGrep6:““Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Studies Progress Report No. A.: 1972. S. October 1993. New York.V. SPE63000.: “Visualisation of Oil Recovery by Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection using High Pressure Micromodels . Bear.: “ThreePhase Relative Permeability Correlations”.. Houston. “PoreScale Network Model for DrainageDominated ThreePhase Flow in Porous Media”. E. J.: 2000.B. and Settari. Transport in Porous Media. IntermediateWet and OilWet Sandstone. 5. Austria.G. Pereira. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.H. October 1999. McDougall. J. G. OK. 111131. Proceedings of the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference. HeriotWatt University. December 2000. Applied Science Publishers. Paterson..”“The Use of Capillarity Surfaces to Predict Phase Distributions in MixedWet Porous Media”. P. Tehrani. September 1996.: 1988.. E.. Moscow. “Numerical PoreScale Modelling of ThreePhase Fluid Flow: Comparsion between Simulation and Experiment”. WAG Report 6: “Water Alternating Gas (WAG) Injection Studies Progress Report No. 6.R. M. and Pinczewski. K. Edinburgh. 42294242. HeriotWatt University 83 . HeriotWatt University.V. Flren.: 1979. 3. Rev. October 2000. Pinczewski.E. Phys.
: 1991. and Wyllie. J. SPE40567.Bradford. Heiba. M. J. D. Burdine. L. 4.M. S.J.S. April 1984. Trans AIME. Fayers.. A. Transport in Porous Media. Houston.. SPE Journal. Sahni. Jerauld.T. OK. Blunt. A.”“Empirical Measures of Wettability in Porous Media and the Relationship Between Them”. Davis.J. November 1989. H. S. J. Hustad. A.: 1953 “Relative Permeability Calculations from PoreSize Distribution Data”. A. A. in Interfacial Phenomena in Oil Recovery. 207. J. Skjaeveland.D. Skauge and L. 224232. SPE12690. McDougall. New York City. F. SPE12172. J..and ThreeFluid Relative Permeabilities”. and Mathews. Stavanger. O.: 2000.: “Extension of Stone’s Method 1 and Conditions for Real Characteristics in ThreePhase Flow”.M.R. Delshad. Davis. Trans.T and Scriven.H. in press. 319. New Orleans.. DiCarlo. N. Pet. Heiba.: “An Empirical Model for Threephase Relative Permeability”. L. and Leij. San Francisco. October 1999. 20. F.A. S. 349351. Inc. Transport in Porous Media..). A.J.E. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.:”“Statistical Network Theory of ThreePhase Relative Permeabilities”.. and Hansen.R.S. 7177. and Blunt M. Morrow.J. SPE Reservoir Engineering..: 1984.: 1996 “A Consistent Formulation for ThreePhase Relative Permeabilities and Phase Pressures Based on Three Sets of TwoPhase Data”. M. Henderson.: “Effect of Wettability on TwoPhase Relative Permeabilities and Capillary Pressures”.A. A.A. Fayers. 8.S. 4.: “Effect of Wettability on ThreePhase Relative Permeability”. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. AIME. Rathjens. 35. C. ”Evaluation of Normalised Stone’s Methods for Estimating ThreePhase Relative Permeabilities”.. M. Corey.B. TX. Marcel Dekker. “Comparison of ThreePhase Oil Relative Permeability Models”. Hinderacker (Eds. Buckley. and Rathmell.A.. L. K. 5983. L. Tulsa.J. and Sorbie. SPE56474.J. Contaminant Hydrology.: 1997 “Wettability Effects on Two.T and Scriven. Dixit. G..T. and Pope. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. J. Tech. F. N.A. Cuiec. October 1983. Abriola. “Evaluation of Reservoir Wettability and Its Effects on Oil Recovery”.R. in RUTH: A Norwegian Research Program on Improved Oil Recovery Program Summary.J: ”Wettability and Relative Permeability of Prudhoe 84 . H.. September 1998.: 1956 ”ThreePhase Relative Permeability”.E. ed.R.. 437445. 198. 28.G. 171191. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Proceedings of the 4th DOE/SPE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery.H. G.: 1989.
1961..R. 261. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Kalaydjian. 149156. Larsen.: “General ThreePhase Relative Permeability Model for Prudhoe Bay“. and Duquerroix. ”Steady Flow of GasOilWater Mixtures Through Unconsolidated Sands”.C.S. 163173.R. J. SPE56477. February 1997. M. SPE Reservoir Engineering. J. Proceedings of the 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE. O. June 1998. November 1997.: 1990. SPE Journal. 3. “Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability in Two. “ThreePhase Imbibition Relative Permeability”. June 1968.B. Leverett.. W.Petrophysical Input 8 Bay: A Case Study in MixedWet Reservoirs”. J. Killough.:”“Reservoir Simulation with HistoryDependent Saturation Function”. Moulu. J.E.: “Threephase Flow in WaterWet Porous Media: Determination of Gas/Oil Relative Permeabilities Under Various Spreading Conditions”. SPE Journal.. J.C.S. Tech. October 1993. DC. SPE Reservoir Engineering. SPE Journal. Jerauld. Kalaydjian. J. Trans. Land. 107. Vizika. C. Vizika. and Skauge. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. O. Mani. Trans. 45. Dallas. Houston. . Kalaydjian. 255263. K. O. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Meeting and Exhibition. J. J. “Wettability and Its Effects on Oil Recovery”. AIME. October 1992. P. N. F. October 1997. Vizika.K. P. Naar.and ThreePhase Flow”.: 1941. 14761484.. SPE24878. Colloid and Interface Science. and Munkerud. AIME.: “Methodology for Numerical Simulation with CycleDependent Relative Permeabilities”. SPE38891. HeriotWatt University 85 . 187..: “A New Model for ThreePhase Relative Permeabilities Based on a Fractal Representation of the Porous Medium”. 1. February 1976. Moulu. V. A. 254258. and Mohanty. TX. Morrow. 142.M.. G. TX. Trans. Moulu. Houston.: “ThreePhase Relative Permeability of IntermediateWet Berea Sandstone”.: 1968. SPE Journal.: “A New ThreePhase Relative Permeability Model for Various Wettability Conditions”.: 1961. Pet. 254258. 12.. 222. 58. Oak.C.: 1997. M. F. San Antonio.J. R. Washington.: “Performance and Analysis of ThreePhase Capillary Pressure Curves for Drainage and Imbibition in Porous Media”.K. AIME. SPE26671. J. F. Egermann. and Wygal. October 1999. Trans. TX. and Lewis. and Kalaydjian. 3748.M. Proceeding of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. 243.J. TX. Proceedings of the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE. October 1991. J. AIME. 12.P. 42. F. “Effect of Spreading Coefficient on ThreePhase Flow in Porous Media”. SPE22599. J..A.
W. J.I.R.Flren. 618624. “A Parametric Model for Constitutive Properties Governing Multiphase Flow in Porous Media”. K. and McDougall. 12. Pet. 16. 11. Van Dijke. Proceedings of the 6th European IORSymposium. Tech. 105133. 5460. SPE Reservoir Engineering. S. J. O.C. 20. and Pinczewski. and Kuppusamy. 23. D. Water Resources Research. S. Contam.: 1995.L.J.: 1970. T. and Lombard.. Soll. H. H. “Fluid Distributions and PoreScale Displacement Mechanisms in Drainage Dominated ThreePhase Flow”. M.: 2000a. 5361.: 1993 “A modified percolation approach to simulating threefluid capillary pressuresaturation relationships”. 107126. and Celia. “ThreePhase Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Relationships in Mixedwet Systems”. Advances in Water Resources. Stone. “Effect of spreading coefficient on the distribution of light nonaqueous phase liquid in the subsurface”. 25. R. Transport in Porous Media.: 2000b. May 1991. J.: 1987. Vizika.S.M... M. Zhou. Tech.E.O. April 2000. SPE59310. Stavanger. Can. “Wettability and Spreading: Two Key Parameters in Oil Recovery with ThreePhase Gravity Drainage”. Transport in Porous Media. P.E. in press.J.R. Van Dijke. 214218.: 1997. Lenhard. Stone..S.: 1973.A. Hydrol.V.: 1996. and Blunt. Pet. “A ProcessBased Approach for ThreePhase Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Relationships in MixedWet Systems”. Proceedings of the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Tulsa. Temeng. J.L. OK.J. McDougall. “Estimation of ThreePhase Relative Permeability and Residual Data”. Sorbie K. Parker. J. W. M.I.11 86 .: “ThreePhase Relative Permeability Model for Arbitrary Wettability Systems”. 20. and Sorbie K. “Probability Model for Estimating ThreePhase Relative Permeability”. M..
1 — the cubic packing gives the largest porosity (47. etc. including electrical resistivity. the specific surface of a porous medium is inversely proportional to the (mean) grain size. these methods are extremely computerintensive and we really have no option but to use idealized geometries if we wish to model petrophysical parameters in a costeffective way. (ii) The surface area of the pores per unit bulk volume (Sv). Let us analyse a simple packing in more detail. and. Mathematical relationships for (i) and (ii) can be derived by noting that the surface area of a sphere is 4πR2. (i) The surface area of the pores per unit volume of solids (Ss).). Although it is possible to partially reconstruct real pore geometries using microtomographical techniques. Examples are shown in Figure A. we find that Ss=3/R and Sv=π/2R — hence. initial water saturation. and absolute permeability. This plays an important role in the adsorption capacity of a sample and affects a number of petrophysical measures. For this idealized system. HeriotWatt University 87 . Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Figure A1 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 A2Specific Surface An important measure characterising the grain surface of a porous medium is known as the specific surface. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. A3The Pore Size Distribution Photomicrographs show that pore structure is extremely complex and we may ask ourselves whether there is any point in trying to impose conformity by attempting analysis using idealised pore geometries (eg cylinders. There are two definitions of specific surface.6%) whilst the rhombohedral packing gives the smallest (26%).Petrophysical Input 8 8 APPENDIX A: SOME USEFUL DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS A1Sphere Packings Sphere packings are very useful for qualitative understanding of pore shape and can also give some insight into porosity measurements.
This phase is identified as the wetting phase. A6 Wettability. a liquid/liquid system is considered. and is probably one of the most important parameters governing flow processes at the porescale. instead of a liquid/air system. The coordination number plays an important role in determining such things as breakthrough and residual saturations during multiphase displacements. However. Although these forces of cohesion act to cancel one another in the interior of the liquid. these distributions are actually volumeweighted throatsize distributions — see notes). the tensile force is referred to as interfacial tension and is one of the most important parameters governing multiphase flow in porous media. The system then behaves as if the liquid and air were separated by a uniformly stretched membrane. If. Contact Angle and Spreading Phenomena If a solid surface is contacted by a pair of fluids.— A4 The Coordination Number One measure of the interconnectedness of pore structure is the socalled coordination number (z): it is defined as the average number of branches meeting at a point (Figure A2). the situation is somewhat different at the surface: at an air/liquid interface the cohesive forces of the underlying liquid far exceed those of the competing air molecules. one of them will tend to have a greater affinity for that surface than the other. Mercury porosimeters assume pores to be circular cylinders and experimental pore size distribution functions are derived under these assumptions (in fact.In fact. we need to be careful about what we mean by “poresize”. 1988. This wide variation should clearly be taken into account when attempting to interpret flow behaviour. 1979). Dullien. Coordination numbers can vary greatly from system to system: from z=6 for a simple cubic sphere packing to z ≈ 2. x z y Z=6 Z=4 Z=2 Figure A2 A5 Surface and Interfacial Tension It is welldocumented that the molecules of a liquid are closely bound together by forces of molecular attraction. characterised by a surface tension (σ). Rmax) that act as fingerprints for different rock samples. mercury porosimetry analysis still relies upon such models to define socalled poresize distributions — probability distribution functions defined for the radius range (Rmin. The wetting preference of a flat solid surface can be quantified by inspecting the contact angle and the associated force balance (Figure A3). whilst the other is known as the nonwetting phase. resulting in a net inward pull. This is due to the fact that the magnitude of the contact angle at equilibrium is intrinsically linked to the free surface energies of the system via Young’s equation: 88 . which serve to keep it as one cohesive assemblage of particles.8 for Berea sandstone (Doyen.
Although quantification of this “spreadability” in fluid/solid systems is not possible at present (there is no current technique available for measuring either σS1 or σS2). If θ=90o. σ12 σs1 Figure A3 σs1 . If this condition is violated. HeriotWatt University 89 . this is not a problem if the solid is replaced by a third fluid or a gas.Petrophysical Input 8 σ S1 − σ S2 = σ12 cos θ where σS1 represents the solid/fluid 1 surface free energy. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. cosθ must always be <1. The value of the contact angle may lie anywhere from 0o to 180o. the system is then described as neutral. and is strongly dependent upon the fluid pair and surface material involved (Figure A4). however. then σs1=σs2 and neither fluid is wetting.e. the system is unstable and the wetting phase will spontaneously spread on the solid.σ s2= σ12 cos θ θ σs2 θ = 158º θ = 35º θ = 30º θ = 30º Water Silica Surface Water Isooctane Isooctane + 5.7% Isoquinoline θ = 48º Isoquinoline θ = 54º Naphthenic Acid θ = 106º θ = 30º Water Water Figure A4 Calcite Surface A7Spreading Phenomena Consideration of the trigonometric term in Young’s equation shows that mechanical equilibrium between two fluids and a solid surface is only possible if: σ S1 − σ S2 < σ12 i. and σ12 the fluidfluid interfacial tension. σS2 the solid/fluid 2 surface free energy.
90 .The spreadability of an oil can be quantified with recourse to a spreading coefficient. The fact that the meniscus is curved. Although the application of this simplistic example to flow in porous media may not be immediately obvious.e. when: πR 2 hρg = 2 πRσ cos θ Total Upward Force = 2πRσWA cosθ σWA θ 2R Figure A5 where h is the height of the liquid column. R the capillary radius. The full implications of capillary phenomena are apparent in the notes. it should serve to demonstrate how surface and interfacial tension forces can play a crucial role in determining fluid distributions at the pore scale. forming a meniscus which intersects the tube wall at an angle θ (Figure A5). and r the density of the fluid. which acts to pull liquid up the capillary. defined by: So = σ wa − (σ ow + σ oa ) and so initial spreading occurs if this coefficient is either zero or positive. i. It is evident from the above discussion that the spreading characteristics of oil/water/gas systems must have serious implications for a wide range of hydrocarbon recovery processes. This continues. until the vertical component of surface tension is exactly balanced by the weight of fluid below. If the adhesive forces of the liquid to the glass are greater than the cohesive forces in the liquid. then the interface will curve upwards towards the tube. A8Capillarity Consider the situation where a liquid is in contact with a glass capillary tube. means that there is now a nonzero vertical component of surface tension. The effect of the spreading coefficient upon threephase displacements is dealt with more fully in the notes.
the porosity (φ) of the medium is nπR2L/(AL)= nπR2 (as crosssectional area A=1). B2 CarmanKozeny Equation The basic premise of this modelling approach is that particle transit times in the actual porous medium and the equivalent tortuous rough conduit must be the same.Petrophysical Input 8 9 APPENDIX B: MATHEMATICAL BACKGROUND AND DERIVATIONS B1Capillary Bundle Permeability This can be derived as follows: Consider the system shown in Figure 1a. the total flow (Q) through the porous medium is: Q = nq = nπR 4 ∆P 8µL Now. Q= φR 2 ∆P 8µL Setting this equal to Q given by Darcy’s Law finally leads to: R2 D2 k=φ =φ 8 32 An interesting aspect of this simple result is that the quantity (k/φ)1/2 can be thought of as a sort of average pore diameter. HeriotWatt University 91 . Particle velocity in a rough conduit (vt) is given by the equation: vt = R 2 ∆P 2µL t where Lt is the conduit length and particle velocity through the porous medium (vr) is given by: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. The flow through a single cylindrical capillary of radius R is given by Poiseuille’s law: q= πR 4 ∆P 8µL where µ is the fluid viscosity and ∆P the pressure drop across the tubes. Hence. which consists of n capillary tubes per unit crosssectional area. The length of the system is taken to be L. Hence.
We now need to determine a hydraulic radius.vr = k∆P φµL t For travel times to be the same in both systems.φ)Ss Ss= specific surface / solid volume => k= ur = vr φ vr = For travel times to be equal L t Lr = vt vr => k= Rφ 2T 2 2 2 2(1. in that the “equivalent” conduit is assumed to have a radius.φ)2 T 2 Ss φ3 92 . The theory utilises established hydraulic practice. and this leads to the relationship: k=φ R2 H 2T 2 where T is called the tortuosity of the sample (Lt/Lr). RH which takes the form: RH = Volume of pores φ = Surface area of pores (1 − φ)Ss and hence we can write: k= φ3 2 2 T 2 (1 − φ)2 Ss The permeability can be written In terms of an average grain diameter (Dp) by noting that. Ss=6/Dp. we require Lt/vt=Lr/vr. for spherical particles. Lr T= Lt Lt Lr Figure B1 CarmanKozeny details vt = R 2 ∆P 2µL t ur = k∆P µLr k∆P µL rφ What do we take for R H ? Volume of pores φ RH = = Surface area of pores (1 . Hence.
43 pcs 0.088 2.3473* Bc = Zpcb 1.3116 0.49 1.55 1.1795 0.119 Table B1 Percolation Thresholds For a Variety of Network Geometries Diamond Simple cubic BCC FCC Institute of Petroleum Engineering.652 1/2* Currently accepted values of the percolation thresholds of some threedimensional networks Network Z 4 6 8 12 pcb 0.3886 0.198 Bc = Zpcb 1.4299 0.6527* 1/2* 0.44 1.2464 0.2488 0.6962 0.5927 0. HeriotWatt University 93 .96 2 2.522 2 sin(π/18) ~ 0.Petrophysical Input 8 D B ρ C P ρ δl A σδl R2 Figure B2 Generalised Derivation of Capillary Pressure Across a Curved Interface φ R1 N a q2 qw Figure B3 Pore Doublet Details L r2 b L r2 q1 r1 r1 Currently accepted values of the percolation thresholds of some twodimensional networks Network Honeycomb Square Kagomé Triangular *Exact result Z 3 4 4 6 pcb 12 sin(π/18) ~ 0.84 pcs 0.
Figure B4 Purcell Method for Absolute Permeability Prediction 2 kwt ∫s = 0 dS/ (Pc ) = krwt = S =1 k dS/ (P ) 2 S = S wt ∫ s=0 c 2 ∫s = s wt dS/ (Pc ) knwt = krnwt = S =1 k dS/ (P ) 2 S =1 ∫ s=0 c Figure B5 Purcell Extension to Relative Permeability Prediction 94 .
HeriotWatt University 95 .Petrophysical Input 8 dS ∫0 Pc2 k rw (Sw ) = ( λ w (Sw ))2 S = 1 S= dS ∫0 Pc2 S= where the prefactorsare defined by: Figure B6 Burdine Extension to Purcell Model of Relative Permeabilities S = Sw dS 2 2 S = Sw Pc k rnw (Sw ) = ( λ nw (Sw )) S =1 dS ∫0 Pc2 S= S =1 ∫ λ w ( Sw ) = Sw − Swi 1 − Swi − Sor λ nw (Sw ) = 1 − Sw − Sor 1 − Swi − Sor Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
gasoil drainage).10 APPENDIX C: DETAILS OF THE HERIOTWATT MIXWET SIMULATOR Description of Interface Controls (1)(3) (4) The number of nodes (junctions) in the X. Aging will already have taken place before this part of the cycle.g.e. 0. snappingoff the smallest waterfilled pores.and Zdirection Coordination Number (Z): the average number of pore elements meeting at a node Distortion Factor used to distort the network. This can also be used to examine other generic 2phase incompressible drainage displacements (e. This is driven by a gradual reduction in water pressure and this drives the oil imbibition Oil drive (OD) checkbox: oil pressure is increased once again and oil is forced into waterwet pores Random number seed — changing this value produces a new network realisation with the same average properties as others that use the same (5) (6) (6a) (7)(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 96 .0 gives a regular cubic (3D) or square (2D) network. The displacement is controlled by reducing the pressure in the oil phase (i. 0.Y. Mixedwet assigns oilwet characteristics to a fraction of the largest pores containing oil after primary drainage. Fractionallywet assigns oilwet characteristics to a sizeindependent fraction of the pores containing oil after primary drainage Primary drainage (PD) checkbox: oil displaces water from a 100% waterwet network.5 is the maximum allowed value Fraction of oilwet pores: this refers to the fraction of the total number of pores in the network that become oilwet after primary drainage Theta button —used to read in waterwet and oilwet contact angle ranges The mixedwet and fractionallywet radio buttons are mutually exclusive. Successively higher (positive) capillary pressures are applied to the system and this drives the displacement Water imbibition (WI) checkbox: water imbibes along waterwet pathways in the system and snapsoff in the smallest oilfilled pores. successively lower (positive) capillary pressures are applied to the system Water drainage (WD) checkbox: successively higher (negative) capillary pressures are applied to the system and water is forced into successively narrower oilwet pores Oil imbibition (OI) checkbox: oil imbibes along oilwet pathways. leading to a distribution of pore lengths (under development).
An SOR algorithm is used to solve the pressure field and elemental flows can be subsequently calculated Mercury? — this checkbox is used to allow invasion of mercury from all sides of the network instead of unidirectional flooding Water Films? — if this is checked.999 (not n=–1. n=0 refers to a Uniform distribution. where f(r)~rn. several runs should be performed using different random number seeds and the results averaged (15) PSD refers to the poresize distribution exponent (n). n =2 gives cylinders Conductivity exponent (λ) — the conductance of a pore element is taken to be G(r)~r l . This information is then used to calculate the Accessibility Function (A(R)). Density” should be left unchanged at present as the NMR section is still an area of active research RUN — this button is pressed to set the simulation running (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) Institute of Petroleum Engineering.Petrophysical Input 8 parameter set. as the intrusion in this case is essentially mercuryvacuum Oil Films? — if this is checked. n=3 gives a Cubic distribution. in effect. In order to get statistically meaningful results. etc. l =4 gives cylinders Rmin is the minimum capillary entry radius of the sample Rmax is the maximum capillary entry radius of the sample Graphics Options: these radio buttons allow the user to view different aspects of the simulation Calculate Kri — 2phase relative permeabilities are calculated when this checkbox is checked. as this leads to a singularity). N=10 gives a truncated normal distribution Volume exponent (n) — the volume of a pore element is taken to be V(r)~r n. Values for “Rho” and”“Mag. in effect. this parameter should be set to n=–0. For a LogUniform distribution. then oil will leave the system through thin films. HeriotWatt University 97 . leads to no trapping of the water phase during oil invasion in a 100% waterwet network. This option is checked when simulating mercury injection. This. leads to no trapping of the oil phase during water imbibition in a 100% oilwet network “NMR Calculations” GroupBox — partial T2 signals are calculated if this is checked. This. then water will leave the system through thin films.
current capillary entry radius (R). wetting phase relative permeability (krw) (water or oil). nonwetting phase relative permeability (krnw) (oil or gas). Ultimately. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6a 7 8 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 25 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 Figure 78 Annotated interface (see text for details of functions) 98 . number fraction of pores filled with nonwetting phase (p). interpret this automatically and “instantiate” a network that would serve as a preanchored numerical representation of an experimental sample. it should be possible to simply import an experimental capillary pressure data set. This could then be used for a wide variety of sensitivity studies. an error box appears upon termination: this should simply be cancelled and does not affect performance The main output file contains information regarding nonwetting phase saturation (Snw) (oil or gas).(27) Exit—— used to leave the package. At present.
10 Numerical Simulation of Flow in Fractured Systems 1.2 Reservoir Fluid Properties 1.4 MultiPhase Rock/Fluid Properties 1.11 Miscellaneous .6 Oil Recovery Methods.3 Single Phase Rock Properties 1.7 Terms Used in Numerical Reservoir Simulation 1.Glossary of Terms CONTENTS 1 GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS AND CONCEPTS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION AND FLOW THROUGH POROUS MEDIA 1.1 Some General Definitions 1. Miscible Displacement and Dispersion .5 Wettability and Fluid Displacement Processes 1.8 Numerical Solution of the Flow Equations in Reservoir Simulation 1.Vertical Equilibrium.9 PseudoIsation and Upscaling 1. Waterflood Patterns and Sweep Efficiency 1.
2 .
Gas Condensate.Glossary of Terms 1 GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS AND CONCEPTS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION AND FLOW THROUGH POROUS MEDIA This glossary is intended for use by the reader as a quick reference to terms used commonly in reservoir engineering in general and in reservoir simulation in particular. Volatile oil. 1 bbl = 5. HeriotWatt University 3 . the students should make sure that he or she is quite familiar with all the technical terms that appear in the main text of this unit.7 psi.see Tables 1 and 2 below.615 ft3 or 0.high pressure. ºF T nt 350 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. A reservoir barrel (RB) is the same volume defined at reservoir conditions which can range from ~ 90oF and 1500 psi for shallow reservoirs to > 350oF and 15.000 psi for very deep (high temperature . However. (See formation volume factor. Tar . Wet gas. A stock tank barrel (STB) is the same volume defined at some surface standard conditions (in the stock tank) which are usually 60oF and 14. Note that when 1RB of oil is produced it gives a volume generally less than 1B at the surface since it loses its gas. PSIA 2500 B2 D 40% 20% 2000 1500 1000 u Liq i m olu dV e 10% 5% 0% Path of Reservoir Flui Fluid A1 300 l bb 80% Bu t o in eP Figure 1 Pressure Temperature Phase Diagram of a Reservoir Fluid A2 500 0 50 100 150 B3 200 250 Path De w Po i of Pr oducti on B Cricondentherm = 250 ºF Bubble Point or Dissolved Gas Reservoirs Dew Point or Retrograde GasCondensate Reservoirs Single Phase Gas Reservoirs A Tc Reservoir Temperature. “Black” oil. It is hoped that this is of particular use for distance learning students who may have studied the reservoir engineering distance leasrning unit some time ago but hopefully it will also be of use to our residential students.1 Some General Definitions Oilfield Units volumes in oilfield units are barrels (bbl or B). The student is not expected to work through this from begining to end in a systematic manner. 4000 = 127 ºF F 3500 3000 C C1 Critical Point B1 Reservoir Pressure.) Oil Types: Dry gas. Heavy (viscous) oil.159 m3. 1. HTHP) reservoirs.
67 0.. 0 API Liquid color Black Oil 48.00 2000 50.93 1.60 3. .12 0.83 0. Table 2 Mole Composition and Other Properties of Typical SinglePhase Reservoir Fluids 1.2500 scf/bbl (20 .00 225 625 34.450 m3/m3) 30o40o 49 2.97 1...60 1..9 1.7 Water White Gas 86.Reservoir Fluid Surface Appearance GOR Range API Gravity C1 Typical Composition.39 2.36 7.29 1.00 157 105. C7+ GOR...5 0. red.3 0.. SCF/bbl Tank gravity.1 0.77 2.200 60.0 16.2 Reservoir Fluid Properties Phase: A chemically homogeneous region of fluid which is separated from another phase by an interface e.3 1.88 .52 4.5 Heavy oil Black viscous liquid Almost no gas in solution 10o25o 20 3.00 181.74 4.34 0.83 2.8 Light Straw Dry Gas 95.8 1..... 100.38 14.g.7 4.59 42. There is no particular symbol but frequently subscripted o. .0 2.08 0..1 3.7 0. w.80 100. oil or green hues "3000 scf/bbl (500 m3/m3) 40o50o 64 7.15 100.75 1.6 1.8 “Volatile” or Brown liquid high shrinkage various yellow.42 100.0 71 Tar Black substance No gas viscosity > 10. phases are immiscible.0 2. gas phase. Wt.5 4.7 0.67 7.000 54. solid phase (rock).000cp < 10 o      90+ Table 1 Describing various oil types from dry gas to tar Component C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ Mol.52 0.4 2. Mole % C2 C3 C4 C5 C6+ Dry gas Wet gas Colourless gas Colourless gas  Almost no liquids >100 Mscf/bbl some clear or strawcoloured liquid 3100 Mscf/bbl (90018000 m3/m3) 60o 70o 100 96 2.0 12.8 3.12 2.1 Medium Orange GasCondensate 87.4 Condensate Colourless gas significant amounts of light coloured liquid 50o70o 87 4.91 100.2 43. Inf.74 0.3 Greenish Black Volatile Oil 64.15 1. oleic (oil) phase. 4 .07 4. g.85 2. aqueous phase (mainly water).7 “Black” or low shrinkage oil Dark brown to black viscous liquid 100.73 0.00 .00 112 18.95 1.
symbol.I.g. The symbol for IFT is σ and units are dyne/cm in c. Viscosity: The viscosity of a fluid is a measure of the (frictional) energy dissipated when it is in motion resisting an applied shearing force. Note that numerically 1mN/m = 1dyne/cm. symbols Bw. the IFT is given in dimensions which are energy per unit area.Glossary of Terms Inter Facial Tension (IFT): The IFT between two phases is a measure of energy required to create a certain area of the interface. oilfield units [reservoir barrels/stock tank barrel (RB/STB)].6000 psi). gas. σ0w ~ 15 . in the oil phase there can be hundreds or even thousands of components . water) in the “formation” (i. units SCF/STB. For oil.water viscosity at standard conditions. medium viscosity oils have μo ~ 1 . σgo ~ 0.110 mN/m.time] and units are Pa. The oil/water value may be in the range. Typical example are:. Formation Volume Factor: The factor describing the ratio of volume of a phase (e.hydrocarbons based on C1. dimensions [force/area. The most common unit in oilfield applications is centiPoise (cP or cp).g. Typical ranges of compressibilities are presented below (from Craft & Hawkins (Terry revision).50 cP. 1991): Institute of Petroleum Engineering. water) or rock formation can be defined in terms of the volume (V) change or density (ρ) change with pressure as follows: c = − 1 ∂V 1 ∂ρ = V ∂P ρ ∂P Note that this quantity is normally expressed in units of psi1. μw ~ 1 cP.1. oil.g. HeriotWatt University 5 ..40 mN/m. units. SCF) per volume of oil (usually stock tank barrel. C2. likewise. Some of these oil components are shown in Table 2.6 cP.s (SI) or poise (metric). typical light North Sea oils have μo ~ 0.water (H2O). it often contains large amounts of dissolved gas which is released at surface as the pressure drops and the oil shrinks. sodium chloride (NaCl).1000s cP and tars may have μo ~ up to 10000 cP.6 cP at reservoir conditions (T ~ 200oF . STB). etc. API Gravity (°API): Definition = Gas Solubility Factors (or Solution Gas/Oil Ratios): These factors describe the volume of gas (usually in standard cubic feet. very viscous oils may have μo ~ 50 .e.s. C3. at reservoir conditions. at reservoir conditions. Rso and Rsw. Component: A single chemical species that may be present in a phase. For example. in the aqueous phase there are many components . Compressibility: The compressibility (c) of a fluid (oil. Indeed. P ~ 4000 . moderately viscous oils have μo ~ 6 . reservoir at high temperature and pressure) to that at the surface. if both gas and oil are present in a reservoir then the gas/oil IFT may be in the range. a typical range for Bo is ~1.3 . units and N/m (newtons per m) in S.1 . dissolved oxygen (O2) etc.0. Bo etc.3 since. e.
Bti . SCF/STB Rso = solution gasoil ratio. SCF/STB Rp = cumulative produced gasoil ratio. STB. Bg + Bw .m. Essentially the material balance equations described how the energy of expansion and influx “drive” production in the reservoir. psi 6 [ c . bbl/STB Rsoi = initial solution gasoil ratio.S + c f N . • The reservoir (average) pressure. gas and water produced. • The initial oil and gas content of the reservoir. psi1 cf = formation isothermal compressibility. bbl/STB Bg = gas formation volume factor. 1991): N . It may be expressed as an equation which relates: • The quantities of oil. Bti . bbl cw = water isothermal compressibility. Np = cumulative produced oil. the reservoir pressure will decline. bbl/STB Bw = water formation volume factor. w wi N.Compressibilities (units of 106 psi1) Formation rock Water Undersaturated Oil Gas at 1000psi Gas at 5000psi 3 2 5 900 50 10 4 100 1300 200 Compressibilities are used in reservoir engineering for Material Balance Calculations. N .∆p + We . SCF/STB We = water influx into the reservoir. STB Boi = initial oil formation volume factor. • The quantity of water influx (e.g. bbl Wp = cumulative produced water. psi∆ p = change in average reservoir pressure. One form of the Material Balance Equation is given below where each term on the lefthand side described a mechanism of fluid production (from Craft & Hawkins (Terry revision). bbl/STB Bo = oil formation volume factor.( Bg − Bgi ) + (1 + m). If there is a sufficiently low (or zero) fluid influx. Material Balance Equations: Material Balance applied to a reservoir is simply a volumetric balance.Wp Where the terms have the following meaning: N = initial reservoir oil. Bgi 1 − Swi ] p . bbl/STB Bgi = initial gas formation volume factor. Bt + ( Rp − Rsoi ). from the aquifer).( Bt − Bti ) + = N p .
. 1963. Pet. (scanning electron microscopy). they are easily visible in s. pp896900. N . HeriotWatt University 7 . Bti . common symbol.(Bt − Btii ) + t N. w wi ).Wp 1. of oil) In practice the material balance equation is often applied in the “linear form” of Havlena and Odeh (J.1 for a very low permeability rock. July 1964). φ Porosity varies from φ ≈ 0. Pores may be lined by diagenetic minerals e. See Figure 2: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Pores & pore throats: The tiny connected passages that exist in permeable rocks.S + c f (1 + m).Bti . typically of size 1μm to 200 μm. see discussion in Craft & Hawkins (Terry revision.m. clays.Glossary of Terms Swi = initial water saturation m = (Initial hydrocarbon vol. the various terms have the following interpretation.(Bg − Bgi ) Bgi • The following term accounts for the change in void space volume which is the expansion of the formation and the connate water: • The next term is the amount of water influx that has occurred into the reservoir: We RightHand Side of the Material Balance Equation • The first term of the RHS represents the production of oil and gas: c .e.∆p = N p . Aug. 1 − Swi p .m. In the above formulation of the Material Balance Equation. Bg • [ ] The second term of the RHS represents the production of water: Bw. ibid.g. The narrower constrictions between pore bodies are referred to as Pore Throats. 1991). of gas cap)/(Initial hydrocarbon vol. Tech.25 for a fairly permeable rock down to φ ≈ 0. LeftHand Side of the Material Balance Equation • The following terms account for the expansion of any oil and/or gas zones that may be present in the reservoir: N . Bt + ( Rp − Rsoi ). pp815822.3 Single Phase Rock Properties Porosity: the fraction of a rock that is pore space. there may be an approximate correlation between k and φ.
Permeability is found experimentally using Darcy's Law (see below). higher permeability rocks have a higher porosity and some of the relationships reported in the literature are shown below. Timmerman (p. φ. and porosity.1000 > 1000 k/φ Correlations: It has been found in many systems that there is a relationship between permeability. Practical Reservoir Engineering. Broadly. units Darcy (D) or milliDarcy (mD). 1982) presents the rule: Classification poor to fair moderate good very good excellent Permeability Range (mD) 1 .250 250 .illite quartz quartz 10m m ~1mm illite Figure 2 Permeability: The fluid (or gas) conducting capacity of a rock is known as the permeability. Vol. 83. Permeability can be anisotropic and show tensor properties (see below) . dimensions > [L]2.50 50 . This is not always the case and much scatter can be seen in a k/φ crossplot. k. Probably the most important quantity from the point of view of the reservoir engineer since its distribution dictates connectivity and fluid flow in a reservoir. symbol k . Some examples of k/φ correlations which have appeared in the literature are shown in Figure 3: 8 . 1.denoted k .15 15 .
0 1.0 Core Permeabilty (md) Core Permeabilty (md) 10.1 0.05 Figure 3 Permeability/Porosity Correlation for Cores from the Bradford Sandstone 0.000 10.0 1.01 0.000 Core Permeabilty (md) Core Permeabilty (md) 100 100 10 10 Figure 4 Permeability/Porosity Correlation for Cores from the Brent Field 1 10 0 10 10 20 20 Core Porosity (%) Core Porosity (%) 30 30 Darcy’s Law: Originally a law for single phase flow that relates the total volumetric flow rate (Q) of a fluid through a porous medium to the pressure gradient (∂P/∂x) and the properties of the fluid (μ = viscosity) and the porous medium (k = permeability.0 5.0 10.0 5.1 0.01 6 6 8 8 10 10 12 14 16 12 14 16 Core Porosity (%) Core Porosity (%) 18 18 20 20 22 22 10. HeriotWatt University 9 .05 0.5 0.0 50.0 0.Glossary of Terms 100.0 50.000 1.000 1.5 0.0 100. A = crosssectional area): Note that Darcy's law can be used to define permeability using the quantities defined in Figure 5 as follows: Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
(kv/kh). At the small (core plug) scale. The value of this quantity will be different in a core plug or in a large simulator grid block in which the core plug was a small part. with the vertical permeability. The value of (kv/kh) must be evaluated with respect to the scale (i.e. (kh). u= k ∂P Q = − A µ ∂x Pore Velocity: This is the fluid velocity. i. Darcy Velocity: This is the velocity. This is often seen in practice when comparing the horizontal permeability. u. It is often found (kv/kh) < 1. then it is possible for kx ≠ ky ≠ kz in a given system.usually as the ratio. At the larger scale (grid block). k. even though locally the component rock facies are completely isotropic.A ∆P ∆ . This is illustrated in Figure 6.φ φ ∆P Q L k. there is more resistance to vertical flow than horizontal flow. v= Q u = A. v. u = Q/A. (kv) . L µ Q Q = β. anisotropy may come from fabric anisotropy at the grain level or from lamination at the slightly larger scale (laminaset scale). the anisotropy may arise from larger scale heterogeneity. calculated as.A ∂P Q = − µ ∂x Note that the β in the equation in Figure 5 is a factor for units conversion (see Chapter 2). Figure 5 Schematic of the Single Phase Darcy Law Permeability Anisotropy: Since permeability can be directional. the size) of the sample or system. 10 .e. given by. this may be expressed as. The origin of the anisotropy may be quite different in each case.
g. we reach residual oil saturation.2 . Institute of Petroleum Engineering. gas) is the fraction of the pore space that it occupies (not of the total rock + pore space volume). Sor. where Sw + So + Sg = 1. The amount of trapped or residual phase depends on the permeability and wettability of the rock and a large amount of industry data is available on this quantity: For example. symbols Sw. So and Sg . the related trapped gas saturation is Srg. e. Typically. HeriotWatt University 11 . Multiphase flow functions such as relative permeability and capillary pressure (see below) depend strongly on the local fluid saturations.the residual phase of nonwetting phase is trapped in the pores by capillary forces. in a moderately water wet sandstone.35. Figure 7.4 MultiPhase Rock/Fluid Properties Saturation: The saturation of a phase (oil. at the residual or trapped phase saturation the corresponding relative permeability (see below) of that phase is zero. Strictly. after many pore volumes of water displace oil from a rock. Swc (or Swi) is shown for a range of reservoir formations. the relationship for k vs.Glossary of Terms Core Plug Small Scale kh kv Hi k lamina Lo k lamina Fabric Anistropy Rock Grains Lamination Grid Block Scale (100s m) kv kh For Whole System Heterogeneity Anistropy Low Perm Lenses or Shales (kv/kh) = 1 Low Perm Sand (kv/kh) = 1 Figure 6 Permeability anistropy at different scales 1. Residual Saturation: The residual saturation of a phase is the amount of that phase (fraction pore space) that is trapped or is irreducible. we should refer to the phases in terms of wetting and nonwetting phases . saturation is a fraction. water.0. Sor ~ 0. the corresponding connate (irreducible) water level is Swc (or Swi).
It is defined in the two phase Darcy law (see notes).0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Connate water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 = = = = = = = = Hawkins Magnolia Washington Elk Basin Tangely Creole Synthetic Alundum Lake St John 9 = Louisiana Gulf Coast Miocene AgeWell A DittoWells Band C North Belridge California North Belridge California Core Analysis Data Dominguez Second Zone Ohio Sandstone 10 = 11 = 11A = 12 = 13 = Figure 7 Correlation between (air) permeability and the connate water (Swc) for a range of reservoir rocks Relative Permeability: A quantity (fraction) that describes the amount of impairment to flow of one phase on another. At steadystate flow conditions.10.000 5.000 1 1. Qo and Qw. in two phase flow > krw and kro depend on Sw (since Sw + So = 1). e. the oil and water flow rates in and out. A schematic of the Two Phase Darcy Law showing the definition of Relative Permeability is presented in Figure 8.g.000 Air Permeability (mD) 500 3 2 12 100 50 13 10 11 7 9 8 10 5 11A 5 4 6 1. depends on the Saturation of the phase. are the same: 12 .
A .k ro . 0 0 kro krw Sw 1 The twophase Darcy Law is as follows: Where: Qw and Qo = volumetric flow rates of water and oil Where: = crosssectional area Qw and QoA = Volumetric length rates of water and oil. permeabilities = the water and oil relative ΔPw and ΔPo = The pressure drops across the water and oil phases at NB the Units for the twophase Darcy Law are exactly the same as those in Figure 2 steadystate flow conditions krw and kro = The water and oil relative permeabilities Several further examples of relative permeabilities and capillary pressure are given later in this glossary.for two phases capillary pressure. the oil and water flow rates in and out.k rw .Pw (for a water wet porous medium). krw and kro Qw = 1 Figure 8 The twophase Darcy Law and relative permeability k. ∆Po Qo = µo L Rel.A . defined as the non wetting phase pressure minus the wetting phase pressure. flow L = system A = µw and µo Crosssectional area. ∆Pw µw L Scematic of relative permeability. The following figures show schematic figures for Capillary Pressure (Pc(Sw)) and Relative Permeability (krw(Sw) and kro(Sw)) for a water wet system: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. depends on the saturation . Perm.Glossary of Terms At steadystate flow conditions. the pressure drops across o = μw and μo ∆Pw and ∆PWater and oil viscosities. the water and oil phases at = steadystate flow conditions k = krw and kro Absolute permeabilities. = system length k = absolute permeabilities L = System length. Pc(Sw) = Po. Qo and Qw are the same ∆Po Qw Qo ∆Pw Qw Qo L The twophase Darcy Law is as follows: k. Capillary Pressure: The difference in pressure between two (immiscible) phases. Note that the Units for the twophase Darcy Law are given in Figure 2. HeriotWatt University 13 . Chapter 2.
of a fixed saturation value Sw is given by: ∂f vSw = v. w ∂Sw 14 .µ w = λ w k rw . M.k rw k. in the presence of another phase.g. Sw: fw = Qw Q . . is given by: M= λ o k ro . k.µ o Fractional Flow: The Fractional Flow of a phase is the volumetric flow rate of the phase under a given pressure gradient.k ro λw = . ko = k . krw . kro) divided by the viscosity of that phase. fo = o .where Q T = Q o + Q w QT QT The fractional flows play a central part in BuckleyLeverett (BL) theory of linear displacement which starts from the conservation equation: ∂Sw ∂f = − w .Capillary Pressure Swc Sor Relative Permeability Swc Sor Pc krel kro krw Sw Sw Figure 9 Schematics of capillary pressure and relative permeability for a waterwet system Mobility and Mobility Ratio: the mobility of a phase (e. λw or λo) is defined as the effective permeability of that phase (e. kw = k . ∂t ∂x ∂So ∂f = − o ∂t ∂x BuckleyLeverett Theory: This mathematical theory of viscous dominated water → oil displacement is based on the fact that the velocity.g. The symbols for water and oil fractional flow are fw and fo and they depend on the phase saturation. vSw. λo = µw µo Mobility ratio.
Some different types of intermediately wet system have been identified known as Mixed wet and Fractionally wet. Drainage: A Drainage displacement process is when the nonwetting phase is increasing. Fractional Flow Fractional Flow of Water. Sw 1.even in the pores containing oil. For example. Water occupies the smaller pores and forms a film over all of the rock surface .5 Wettability and Fluid Displacement Processes Wettability: This is a measure of the preference of the rock surface to be wetted by a particular phase . We refer to: Water wet. Both water and oil may spontaneously imbibe (see below) into such a system to some degree and indeed this forms the basis for certain Wettability Tests known as the Amott Test and the USBM Test (USBM => United States Bureau of Mines). Water would spontaneously imbibe (see below) into a waterwet core containing mobile oil at Sor.Glossary of Terms where v is the fluid velocity. WaterWet: Waterwet formation: Where water is the preferential wetting phase. The drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves and relative permeabilities are different since these petrophysical functions depend on the saturation history. A simple schematic of a drainage process is shown in Figure 11. displacing the water. drainage would be oil displacing water. The relationship between the fractional flow and Buckley Leverett theory is illustrated in Figure 10. v = Q/(Aφ) and (dfw/dSw) is the slope of the fractional ) flow curve. in a water wet porous medium. IntermediateWet: An Intermediate wet formation is where some degree of water wetness and oil wetness is shown by the same rock. Oil wet and Intermediate wet systems in the following definitions. hence displacing the oil. The Wettability of a porous medium determines the form of the relative permeabilities and capillary pressure curves. A Waterflood in such a system would be a drainage process (see below).aqueous or oleic . Oil would spontaneously imbibe into an oilwet core containing mobile water at Swr.or some mixed or intermediate combination. HeriotWatt University 15 .even in the pores containing water. OilWet: Oilwet formation: Where oil is the preferential wetting phase. Welge Tangent "BuckleyLeverett" Saturation Profile Sor Sw Sor Length. a very complex subject which is still the subject of much research. Oil occupies the smaller pores and forms a film over all of the rock surface . Institute of Petroleum Engineering. A Waterflood in such a system would be an imbibition process (see below). (x/L) Swc Swf Flood Front Height fw Swf Swc Figure 10 Relationship between the fractional flow function and the BuckleyLeverett front height Water Saturation.
For example. in a water wet porous medium (> means displaces) : Drainage and Imbibition Capillary Pressure Drainage (d) and Imbibition (i) Relative Permeabilities Swc Sor 16 . Core that wc Core at swc Core at swc Water Water Water Oil Water imbibes into core displacing Water wet or oilwater imbibes into core displacing intermediate wet oilwater wet or system intermediate wet Water imbibes into system core displacing oilwater wet or intermediate wet system Figure 13 Spontaneous Imbibition Figure 14 Intermediate wettability. then water may spontaneously imbibe and displace the oil as shown in Figure 13. Swr. Q w Water Injection Q w Water Wet Core at sor Water Injection Water Wet Core at sor Qw Figure 12 Imbibtion Water Wet Core Spontaneous Imbibition: This process occurs when a wetting phase invades a porous at sor Water Injection medium in the absence of any external driving force. Oil The observed behaviour in a system of Intermediate Wettability is shown in Figure 14 Oil where we seeat s both phases can spontaneously imbibe under certain conditions. For example. The wetting fluid is “sucked in” under the influence of the surface forces.Qo Qo Oil Injection Water Wet Core at 100% Water Oil Injection Water Wet Core Qo at 100% Water Figure 11 Drainage Imbibition: An Imbibition displacement process is when the wetting phase is increasing. if we have a water wet core at irreducible water saturation. Both water and oil may spontaneously imbibe into the core displacing the other phase. at 100% Water imbibition capillary pressure The drainage and curves and relative permeabilities are different since these petrophysical functions depend on the saturation history. in a waterWater Wet Core wet porous medium. For example. drainage would be water Oil Injection displacing oil as shown in Figure 12. Shows both water wet and oil wet character Core at swc Oil Core at sor Water Primary and Secondary Recovery Processes: Primary and Secondary processes refer to the stage in the fluid displacement when one phase displaces another.
%PV Examples: Further examples of experimental capillary pressures and relative permeabilities in cores are shown for various processes (Drainage and Imbibition) and wettability conditions (Water wet and Intermediate wet) in figure 17. HeriotWatt University 17 . Secondary imbibition: is water > oil from a core at Swr and mobile oil to Sor. % Drainage Figure 16 Drainage and imbibition relative permeability characteristics 0 20 40 60 80 100 Wetting Phase Saturation.Glossary of Terms Primary drainage: is oil > water from a core at 100% water saturation to Swr.18. Examples: Figures 15 and 16 show schematics of typical Drainage and Imbibition capillary pressure (Pc) and relative permeability (krw and kro) curves for a water wet system. Primary Drainage (oil > water from core at 100% water) and Secondary Imbibition (water > oil from core at Swr) processes are illustrated: Drainage and Imbibition Capillary Pressure Drainage (d) and Imbibition (i) Relative Permeabilities Swc Sor d kro i Pc krel Drainage d krw Figure 15 Drainage and imbibition capillary pressures Imbibition i Sw Sw 100 80 60 40 20 0 Imbibition Relative Permeability.19 and 20 on the following pages. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.
001 0. strongly waterwet rock 1.01 Waterter Wa 0. %PV Water Saturation. strongly waterwet rock 100 Relative Permeability.0 O il .01 0. Fraction Relative Permeability.0 1. %PV 100 100 Figure 18 Typical wateroil relative permeability characteristics.0001 0. Fraction Relative Permeability. %PV 100 Figure 19 Typical wateroil relative permeability characteristics. %PV Water Saturation.1 0. Fraction 80 60 40 20 0 Oil Wa te r 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation.001 0.0 il il O O Relative Permeability. Fraction 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 00 0 Water Water 20 40 60 80 20Water 40 60 80 Saturation. %PV OilOil 100 100 Figure 17 Typical wateroil relative permeability characteristics.1 0. Fraction 0. strongly oilwet rock 18 1.0001 0 0 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation.100 100 Relative Permeability.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Figure 21.01 0. strongly oilwet rock 0. HeriotWatt University 19 . Oil Wet and Intermediate Wet).0 O il Relative Permeability.Glossary of Terms 1. %PV 100 Examples: Experimental Capillary Pressures in cores for various processes (Drainage and Imbibition) and wettability conditions (Water wet.0001 0 Wate r 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation.001 Figure 20 Typical wateroil relative permeability characteristics. Fraction 0.1 0.
Curve 1 . Curve 1 .Imbibition OilWater Capillary Pressure Characteristics.% 100 3 Capillary Pressure Characteristics.Cm of Hg 32 24 16 Water Wet Venango core VL2 k = 28.Imbibition 20 Capillary Pressure .% 100 OilWater Capillary Pressure Characteristics. Curve 1 .Drainage Curve 2 .Cm of Hg 32 24 16 Intermediate Wet 1 8 0 8 16 24 2 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation .2 md Capillary Pressure . 29).Cm of Hg 16 12 8 4 0 Capillary Pressure .Drainage Curve 2 .Spontaneous Imbibition Curve 3 Forced Imbibition Figure 21 20 . (After Ref.% Capillary Pressure Characteristics. OilWet Rock (After Ref. 30) 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation .48 40 Capillary Pressure .% 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Oil Saturation . TenSleep Sandstone.Cm of Hg 48 40 32 24 16 8 Oil Wet 2 8 0 0 1 1 2 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation . Strongly WaterWet Rock. Intermediate Wettability.Drainage Curve 2 .
0001 0. Fraction 80 60 Oil 100 80 60 40 20 0 Oil 40 20 0 Water 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation. Strongly OilWet Rock 1.001 0.01 Water 0. Figure 22. %PV 100 Wate r 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation. %PV 100 Figure 22 Typical WaterOil Relative Permeability Characteristics. Strongly OilWet Rock Institute of Petroleum Engineering. Fraction 0. Fraction 0. %PV Wa te r 100 Typical WaterOil Relative Permeability Characteristics.1 0. Strongly WaterWet Rock Typical WaterOil Relative Permeability Characteristics. Strongly WaterWet Rock Typical WaterOil Relative Permeability Characteristics. HeriotWatt University 21 . %PV 100 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation.01 0.001 0.Glossary of Terms Examples: Relative Permeabilitites Examples of experimental relative permeabilities in cores for Water Wet and Oil Wet systems.0 il O 1.0 O il Relative Permeability. 100 Relative Permeability.0001 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation. Fraction Relative Permeability.1 Relative Permeability.
% of Air Permeability Oil 100 WaterWet Reservoir 80 Oil OilWet Reservoir 60 40 20 60 40 20 A Swi 0 Wa te r B Swi r Wate A B 0 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation. % In WaterWet System Sw mostly > 20% 100 0 20 40 60 80 Water Saturation. Sw < 50% krw at Sor / kro at Swi > 50% Figure 23 Influence of wettability on relative permeability (after Fertl. OGJ. % In OilWet System Sw < 15% 100 At Point A: kro = krw .5 (approaching 1) This is shown schematically in Figure 23: 100 80 Relative Permeability.e.3 OIL WET < 15% (Often < 10%) Sw < 50% krw > 0. Waterflood Patterns and Sweep Efficiency Here we refer to the method used to develop the reservoir as follows: • Primary Depletion . WATER WET Swc Sw where krw = kro (Points A on Figure 23) krw at Sro (Points B on Figure 23) mostly > 20% Sw > 50% krw < 0.where reservoir pressure is supported by injection. water or gas injection also displaces oil directly: 22 .EXAMPLES: Relative Permeabilitites A simple table summarising the typical characteristics of waterwet and oilwet relative permeabilities is given below. by natural expansion. Sw > 50% krw at Sor / kro at Swi < 30% At Point A: kro = krw .6 Oil Recovery Methods.allowing the reservoir to produce under the original reservoir energy i. 22 May 1978) 1. usually of water in waterflooding but early gas injection may be considered also as secondary recovery In addition to supporting the pressure (maintaining reservoir energy). If the pressure falls below the bubble point (Pb). then gas appears and the primary depletion process is known as solution gas drive: • Secondary Recovery .
For example. . Injection Well Production Well Pattern Boundary Regular FourSpot Skewed FourSpot Normal NineSpot Inverted NineSpot FiveSpot SevenSpot Inverted SevenSpot Figure 24 Examples of areal patterns of injectors and producers (pattern flooding) Direct Line Drive Staggered Line Drive Areal Sweep Efficiency: The Areal Sweep Efficiency refers to the fraction of areal reservoir that is swept at a given pore volume throughput of displacing fluid as shown schematically in Figure 25..this refers to a range of methods which are designed to recover additional oil that would not be recovered by either Primary or Secondary Recovery. Line Drive etc. Nine Spot. HeriotWatt University 23 . This is known as pattern flooding and examples of such patterns are: Five Spot. the Areal Sweep Efficiency at Breakthrough for various processes (Waterflooding.. Such methods include: Thermal Methods Gas Injection Chemical Methods Microbial Methods . alkali.Glossary of Terms • Tertiary Recovery or Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) or Improved Oil Recovery (IOR) .using bugs to recover oil! Waterflood Pattern: Onland Waterflooding is often carried out with the producers and injectors in a particular pattern. CO2. hydrocarbon gas injection (usually after a waterflood) . insitu combustion.N2.. .surfactant. as shown schematically in Figure 24. Gas Displacement and Miscible flooding) is shown as a function of mobility ratio in Figure 26: Institute of Petroleum Engineering.steam.. polymer.
0 Mobility Ratio 10. % 90 80 70 60 90 80 70 60 50 0.g. This is function of the heterogeneity of the system (e. % 100 Breakthrough Areal Sweep Efficiency. waterflooding.High Areal Sweep Poor Areal Sweep High Areal Sweep Poor Areal Sweep Figure 25 Schematic of areal sweep efficiency 100 Breakthrough Areal Sweep Efficiency. the fluid displacement process (e.0 Mobility Ratio Gas→Oil Vertical Sweep Efficiency: The Vertical Sweep Efficiency refers to the fraction of Miscible vertical section (or crosssection) of reservoir that is swept at a given pore volume throughput of displacing fluid.1 Water→Oil Figure 26 Areal sweep efficiency at breakthrough in a five spot pattern for various displacement processes 10.0 50 0. stratification).g.g. It is shown schematically in Figure 27.0 1. importance of gravity). gas injection) and the balance of forces (e. 24 .1 Water→Oil Gas→Oil Miscible 1.
it does not model full compositional effects. Spatial Discretisation: This is the process of dividing the grid in space into divisions of Δx. we always “chop up” the reservoir into blocks as shown in the gridded examples below and then we model the block → block flows. Δy and Δz. w. however. A black oil simulation model is one of the most common approaches to modelling immiscible two and three phase (o. by far the most common is the “Black Oil Model” which can simulate primary depletion and most secondary recovery processes. HeriotWatt University 25 . 2D or 3D (see notes).7 Terms Used in Numerical Reservoir Simulation Mass Conservation: This is a general principle which is used in many areas of computational fluid dynamics. This grid may be Cartesian. instead. Institute of Petroleum Engineering. it allows the gas to dissolve in the other two phases (described by Rso and Rsw).Glossary of Terms Good Vertical Sweep Figure 27 Schematic showing vertical sweep efficiency Poor Vertical Sweep (By gravity override or the presence of a highk streak in this case) 1. It says that: (mass flow rate into a block) . Grid Structure: This refers to the geometry of the grid being used in the numerical simulation of the system. radial or distorted and may be 1D. 2 or 3 phases) is basically: A mass conservation equation combined with Darcy’s law. In reservoir simulation. no “oil” is allowed to enter the gas phase. g) flow processes in porous media.(mass flow rate out) = (the rate of mass accumulation in that block) A reservoir simulation model (for 1. Black Oil Model: Different types of formulation of the transport equations for multiphase/multicomponent flow are used to simulate the various recovery processes. it treats the phases rather like components.
2D Areal Grid: This is a 2D grid structure as shown in Figure 28 which is imposed looking down onto the reservoir. Crosssectional calculations are carried out to asses the effects of vertical stratification in the system and to generate pseudofunction for upscaling. it would divide up the x and z directions in the reservoir into increments of Δx and Δz. For a Cartesian system.Temporal Discretisation: This is the process of dividing up the time steps into divisions of Δt. This is shown in Figure 30. Figure 29 3D Cartesian Grid The 3D Cartesian Grid is the most commonly used grid when constructing a relatively simple model of a reservoir or a setion of a reservoir. (Figure 29). y W2 W1 x W3 ∆z ∆x ∆y Just 1 x zblock in 2D Areal Grid Figure 28 Perspective view of a 2D areal (x/y) reservoir simulation grid: W = well 2D CrossSectional Model: This is a 2D grid structure which is imposed on a vertical slice down through the reservoir. For a Cartesian system. it would divide up the x and y directions in the reservoir into increments of Δx and Δy. 26 .
between the two grid blocks is given . is given by: . The single phase Transmissibility.i+1/2. Ti +1/ 2 = ( kA)i +1/ 2 ∆x and the full Water Transmissibility.Glossary of Terms Producer ∆y Water Injector ∆x Figure 30 A 3D Cartesian grid for reservoir simulation ∆z (Variable) Transmissibility: The transmissibility between two grid blocks is a measure of how easily fluids flow between them. Tw. Ti+1/2 . by: Tw. HeriotWatt University . i +1 ∆x µ w Bw i +1/ 2 where the intergrid block quantities are averages at the interfaces (where i+1/2 denotes this block to block interface. The mathematical expression for two phase flow between grid blocks i and (i+1) is (for water): (i+1/2) Boundary Block i Sw i krw i (kA)i Qw Block i+1 Sw i+1 krw i+1 (kA) i+1 Figure 31 k (P − Pi ) Q w = ( kA )i +1/ 2 rw kA . rw µ w Bw i +1/ 2 µ w Bw i +1/ 2 27 Institute of Petroleum Engineering. i +1/ 2 = ( kA)i +1/ 2 k rw ∆x k = Ti +1/ 2 .
3). 28 . [krw]av an Upstream Weighting is used.a Harmonic Average between blocks is taken for the single phase part of the transmissibility (see Chapter 4. i +1/ 2 ( Pi +1 − Pi ) The water transmissibility is clearly made up of two parts each of which is an average between the blocks.2). which is due to numerical effects. Section 2. For [(μw. [krw/(μw. rather than everywhere in the reservoir.A)av and the two phase part is [krw/(μw. The single phase part is (k. How bad the error is depends on several factors including the actual fluid recovery process being simulated e.Bw)]av (k.Bw)]av . The idea is to increase the accuracy of the simulation in the region where it matters.this term is more complicated. This problem arises mainly due to the use of 5point difference schemes (in 2D) in the Spatial Discretisation. (See Chapter 4.Bw)]av the Arithmetic Average between blocks is taken.g. wateralternatinggas (WAG) etc. LGR ==> close to wells or in the flood pilot area but coarser grid in the aquifer. Numerical Dispersion: The spreading of a flood front in a displacement process such as waterflooding. For the average relative permeability term. This spreading of flood fronts tends to lead to early breakthrough and other errors in recovery.Therefore. we may write: Qw = Tw. is known as Numerical Dispersion. Grid Orientation: The Grid Orientation problem arises when we have fluid flow both oriented with the principal grid direction and diagonally across this grid as shown schematically in Figure 32.2). waterflooding. (See Chapter 4. I P P I = Injector P = Producer Figure 32 Flow arrows show the fluid paths in oriented grid and diagonal flow leading to grid orientation errors Local Grid Refinement: Local Grid Refinement is when the simulation grid is made fine in a region of the reservoir where (LGR) quantities (such as pressure or saturations) are changing rapidly. Section 3.A)av . E. It may be alleviated by using more sophisticated numerical schemes such as 9point schemes (in 2D). Section 3.g. It is due to both the spatial (Δx) and time (Δt) discretisation or truncation error that arises from the gridding. Numerical results are different for each of the fluid “paths” through the grid structure.
HeriotWatt University 29 . Eclipse). This option is known as Corner Point Geometry and it requires that the block → block transmissibilities are modified accordingly. This allows the user to define complex geometries which better match the system shape.Glossary of Terms Hybrid Grid LGR: Hybrid Grids are mixed geometry combinations of grids which are used to improve the modelling of flows in different regions. Injector Producer Coarse Grid in Aquifer Figure 33 Schematic of local grid refinement (LGR) Hybrid Grid Distorted Grids: A Distorted Grid is a grid structure that is “bent” to more closely follow the flow lines or the system geometry in a particular case. Corner Point Geometry: In some simulators (e. The idea of Corner Point Geometry is illustrated schematically in figure 34: Institute of Petroleum Engineering. the option exists to enter the geometry of the vertices of the grid blocks. The most common use of hybrid grids are Cartesian/Radial combinations where the radial grid is used near a well.g. Hybrid Grid LGR can be used in a similar way to other LGR scheme. Examples: A simple example of LGR and Hybrid Grid structure is shown in figure 33.
Corner Point Geometry Coordinates of Vertices ( ) Specified Block ( ) centres Highly Distorted Grid Blocks Block <> Block Transmissibilty Fault L1 L2 L3 L4 L1 L2 L3 L4 Distorted Grid Figure 34 Grid structures for Faults and Distorted Grids 30 .
Glossary of Terms 1 Extented Refinement 2 Imbedded Refinement (Rectangular) 3 Variable Refinement (Radial) 4 Hybrid (Radial in Rectangular) Local Grid Refinement Around Vertical Wells 5 Hybrid Local Grid Refinement (Horizontal Wells) Figure 35 Types of local Grids Institute of Petroleum Engineering. HeriotWatt University 31 .
Days x 10 9 0. redraw from Mattax and Dalton (1990) 1.g.e.8 0.8 Numerical Solution of the Flow Equations in Reservoir Simulation Finite Differences: When the derivative in a differential equation is approximated as a difference equation as follows: 32 . Examples: Examples of history matching of pressure and wateroilratio (WOR) in two reservoirs are Figure 36. the permeability of a high perm streak. The observables which are commonly matched are the field and individual well cumulative productions. A vitally important point is that a good history match must be obtained for the right reason.4 First Trial Observed Data 0.0 0 1 3 5 7 Time. Ideally. this is very often the case). by adjusting a variable that is not the primary cause of the mismatch (indeed. such a model will eventually have very poor predictive properties. 1. Note that in the WOR match the “first pass” was very inaccurate but that eventually a suitable match was found. the changes in the simulation model should most closely reflect change in the knowledge of the field geology e.6 Watercut 0. watercuts and pressures.2 Initial and Final Matches of WOR of a Well in a Highly Stratified Reservoir Final Pressure Matches of Typical Khursaniyah Field Wells: (a) Reservoir AB (b) Reservoir C (c) Reservoir D (MP) Figure 36 A field of a history match of watercut and well pressures.0 (a) 3600 3400 3200 Final Match 3000 Pressure (psi) 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year (b) 3600 11 3400 3200 3000 Pressure (psi) 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year (c) 3600 3400 3200 3000 Pressure (psi) 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year 8 9 10 11 12 Calculated Field Data 8 9 10 11 12 Calculated Field Data 8 9 10 11 12 Calculated Field Data 0. the presence of sealing faults etc.History Matching: History Matching in numerical simulation is the process of adjusting the simulator input in such a way as to achieve a better fit to the actual reservoir performance. It may be possible to get a satisfactory match for the wrong reason i. However.
. In a convergent iterative method.... Expanded up. a33 x3 .... which is illustrated below...t) Si+1 ∆x ∆x i1 ∆x . an1 x1 + an2 x2 + an3 x3 .. to the machine accuracy. the number of linear equations [unknowns]). + a1n xn = + a2n xn = + a3n xn = + a4n xn = b1 b2 b3 b4 .. E..... Gaussian Elimination Iterative Solution Of Linear Equations: An Iterative Solution method is when the linear equations are solved by an algorithm which has a variable number of operations. + ann xn = bn Direct Solution Of Linear Equations: A Direct Solution method is when the linear equations are solved by an algorithm which has a fixed number of operations (given N. x = b where A is a matrix of coefficients.. a43 x3 . These have the form: A.. a23 x3 . in principle... x(true). A first estimate of the solution vector x(0) is made and this is successively refined to converge to the true solution. a direct method will give the exact answer. this set of linear equations has the form: a11 x1 a21 x1 a31 x1 a41 x1 + + + + a12 x2 a22 x2 a32 x2 a42 x2 + + + + a13 x3 .. It is because of this iterative process that a variable number of steps may Institute of Petroleum Engineering. x i x i+1 Slope = ∂s ∂x i Figure 37 Linear Equations: When finite difference methods are applied to the differential equations of reservoir simulation. In this example. then x(v) → x(true) as v → ∞.. If the equations have a solution.Glossary of Terms ∂S (Si − Si −1 ) ≈ ∂x i ∆x then this is referred to as a Finite Difference approximation. then. respectively. Δx is the size of the spatial grid... a set of linear equations results.. (∂S/∂x)i is the derivative of Saturation (S) with respect to x at grid point i . HeriotWatt University 33 .g.. Si and Si1 are the discrete values of S at grid points i and i1... x is the vector of unknowns and b is the (known) “right hand side”.. Si1 Si S(x..
x(true) < Tol. Advantage can be taken of the precise structure when solving these equations.g. Normally.9 PseudoIsation and Upscaling Upscaling: The process of reproducing the results of a calculation which is carried out on a “fine grid” on a coarser grid is known as Upscaling. Schemes known as D2 and D4 ordering. The input properties at the coarser scale must take into account the flow effects of the smaller scale structure. where Tol. A.g. 34 .be required depending on how accurate the answer must be. E. Line Successive Overrelaxation (LSOR) Grid Ordering Schemes: When the simulation grid blocks are ordered in various ways. the iterative method would be carried out until:  x(v) . These coarser scale properties then become pseudoproperties. E. 1. The basic idea of upscaling is shown schematically in Figure 38. is some small prespecified tolerance. is different. the structure of the nonzeros in the sparse matrix.
. Kyte and Berry.Glossary of Terms Fine Grid Layered Model High Sw Low Sw Oil Upscaling or PseudoIsation Coarse Grid Layered Model Oil Recovery % OOIP Fine Grid Coarse Grid Figure 38 Basic idea of upscaling Time PseudoProperty: This refers to the value of a property or function (e. HeriotWatt University 35 . PseudoRelative Permeability: This is probably the most important pseudoproperty that is used in reservoir simulation. For example. relative permeability. Stone etc. It refers to the effective relative permeability in the simulation model at the grid block scale and is shown schematically in Figures 39 and 40. 1994). Methods for calculating the Pseudorel perm include: Jacks et al. the balance of forces (viscous/capillary/gravity) and certain numerical effects (numerical dispersion). we might put the value kx = 150 mD in a simulator grid block which is 200 ft x 200 ft x 30 ft.) which is an average or effective value at a certain scale usually the grid block scale. permeability. It must incorporate the effects of all the smaller scale geological heterogeneity. Newer methods are based on tensor pseudorelative permeabilities (Pickup and Sorbie. Clearly. this incorporates a large amount of geological substructure and permeability may vary very significantly in different parts of this block. Institute of Petroleum Engineering.g.
bedform. scales. then the approach is known as the Geopseudo Methodology.Geopseudos: When the fluid flow upscaling is performed in the correct context of the sedimentary structure up from the lamina. This has been developed in work at HeriotWatt which has extended more conventional approaches by “putting in the geology”.. Fine Grid Layered Model High Sw "Rock" Relative Permeabilities krel Low Sw Oil Sw Upscaling or PseudoIsation PseudoRelative Permeabilities krel Sw Coarse Grid Layered Model Oil Recovery % OOIP Fine Grid Coarse Grid Time Figure 39 Basic idea of upscaling or pseudoisation 36 . Figure 40 shows a simple example of a pseudo relative permeability showing “holdup of fluid”. laminaset.
HeriotWatt University 37 . width. They have separate conservation/flow equations for the matrix and the fractures and matrix → fracture flow is represented by Transfer Functions. Stylolites: Stylolites are frequently found in limestones. Single phase (tracer) flow models of this type are used to model radioInstitute of Petroleum Engineering. as a fraction φf = 0. connectivity and spacing (or fracture density). it is possible to have all the oil in the fractures but these are much less common.e. Typically.0.01).Glossary of Terms Water Flow Sw Rel Perms. ? Sor krw No Water Flow Figure 40 A simple example of a pseudo relative permeability Sw Swc 1. Vugs: Vugs are dissolution “holes” in a carbonate rock caused by diagenetic reactions. Dual Porosity Models: These are the most widely used simulation models for modelling flow in fractured systems. Features of Fracture Geometry: The main geometric features of fractures which are thought to affect fluid flow are the: fracture orientation. (i) flow only in fractures and (ii) flow in both fractures and matrix. we imply systems (such as in many carbonate reservoirs) where small scale conductive fractures occur but most of the oil is in the rock matrix.001 . φf = 0. Variants of this model allow for. conductivity. Discrete Models of Fracture Systems: A more recent approach to flow in fractured systems tries to represent the fractures explicitly as oriented planes with various shapes in 3D. They are laterally extensive features formed by graintograin sutured contact caused by the phenomenon of pressure solution.1% of bulk volume (i. In certain nonporous fractured rock reservoirs (e. The “interface” between the fracture and the matrix will also play a very important role in multiphase flow and fluid displacement processes. Sor kro Swc Sw Rel Perms. They are most frequently used to model multiphase flow in fractured carbonates.g.10 Numerical Simulation of Flow in Fractured Systems Fractured System: In this context. fractured volcanics).1 . These features may significantly reduce vertical permeability thus causing systems containing them to have very low (kv/kh) ratios (at certain scales). in porous fractured systems: fracture porosity.
compared with the horizontal flow. are all equal locally in a long system. In practice. The VE assumption is often made in order to simplify the mathematical analysis of certain fluid flow problems in reservoir engineering. ∂P/∂x.11 MiscellaneousVertical Equilibrium. 1. the VE limit is approached as the scaling group. Sudation: When oil is recovered from the matrix blocks in a fracture by a combination of gravity and capillary forces. two of which are listed below (and illustrated schematically in Figure 41: A: the pressure gradients in a particular direction (x. Boxerman and Ahronovsky. Approximate analytical equations for this function have been suggested by Birk. However. the recovery mechanism is sometimes referred to as Sudation. if RL is > 10. where: ∆x k R L = . RL → ∞ . 38 . More accurately. See Figure 41b. B: there is virtually instant crossflow vertically . then VE is a very good assumption.nuclide transport in fractured media. z ∆z k x 1/ 2 and kz and kx are the vertical and horizontal permeabilities. in Figure 41b). say). Miscible Displacement and Dispersion Vertical Equilibrium: The concept of Vertical Equilibrium (VE) is quite widely used in reservoir engineering. Vertical Equilibrium (VE) is known to apply in “long thin” systems (where Δx >> Δz. respectively. Transfer Function: The function which describes the oil flow rate between the matrix and the fractures is known as the Transfer Function. multiphase models of this type are not commercially available at present.nearly infinite . See Figure 41a. It takes several forms.
When a gas (or other fluid) is injected into an oil reservoir and the fluids are miscible. The Miscible Flow Equations: These comprise of a Pressure Equation and a Transport Equation.u = 0 (assuming incompressible flow) Darcy Equation: u=− k .e. When two fluids (e. gas and oil) are fully miscible (σgo = 0). this is referred to as a Miscible Displacement. c is the miscible solvent concentration and k is the Institute of Petroleum Engineering. The pressure equation is derived by inserting Darcy’s Law (with a viscosity dependent on solvent concentration) into the continuity equation. c (or oil). the solvent viscosity is below that of the oil (i. The displacement is described by a generalised ConvectionDispersion Equation where the mixing viscosity. the local pressure and the pressure gradients are the same (there is no capillary pressure since there is no interface).Glossary of Terms A: Equality of Layer Pressure Gradients (Where ∆x >> ∆z) Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 ∆x ∆z ∂P ∂x 1 ∂P ∂x 2 ∂P ∂x 3 B: Instantaneous/Infinite Vertical Crossflow Figure 41 Schematic views of vertical equilibrium ∆z ∆x Miscible Displacement: Whereas oil and water are immiscible fluids (i. HeriotWatt University 39 . The mixing between the solvent and the oil can occur locally by Dispersion and by Fingering (see Viscous Fingering below).e. The transport equation is a generalised convectiondispersion (or convectiondiffusion) equation.∇P ∇P µ( c) where u is the Darcy velocity.e. μs < μo) which tend to cause an instability to develop in the displacement known as Viscous Fingering.g. they do not mix and are separated by an interface). Often. Continuity equation: ∇. μ(c) is a function of the concentration of the solvent. some fluids are fully Miscible (i. they mix freely in all proportions).
The pressure equation is then given by: k ˜ ∇. φ Dispersion and Dispersivity: Hydrodynamic dispersion in a porous medium at the small (core) scale is a frontal spreading or mixing which is due to various flow paths which the fluid can flow along at the pore scale. Lf . Dispersion is actually a tensor in rather the same way that permeability ( k ) in its general form is a tensor.∇c) − v.∇P = − q ∇P µ (c ) ˜ where q represent any source/sink terms The transport equation is the generalised convectiondispersion (diffusion) equation: ∂c ∇c = ∇. 40 . has been found to depend linearly on velocity through the relationship: D = α .permeability tensor. tends to grow in proportion to t . D. Dispersive mixing behaviour can also be seen from the “mixing” effect of heterogeneities at larger scales in a porous medium. v. where α is the Dispersivity and has dimensions of length. the Dispersion Coefficient. . D. may be measured by fitting the effluent profile to an analytical solution of the ConvectionDispersion Equation (see figure 42). This mixing is a “diffusive” process since the growth of the mixing zone. In a tracer core flood experiment.∇P = q ∇P µ (c ) or k ˜ ∇.at lab scale).(D. . Units of D (cm2/s .u = −∇.∇c ∂t where D is the dispersion tensor and v is the pore velocity ( v = u ).
Results from an experiment are shown in Figure 43 where the dark fluid is high viscosity and the light fluid is low viscosity. although it occurs more readily in miscible systems. Clearly. HeriotWatt University 41 .Glossary of Terms Dispersive Mixing Zone 1 C 0 Figure 42 Schematic illustration of dispersion and the convectiondispersion equation for simple tracer flow C(x. a type of instability may develop known as Viscous Fingering. C(x.t1) Lf Ce 1 Effluent Concentration Ce(1.t1) Described by Convection Dispersion Equation: ∂C = D ∂ C . For such a displacement. viscous fingering leads to a poorer sweep efficiency in such floods.t) x 1 1 time (pv) In situ concentration profile at time.v ∂C ∂t ∂x2 ∂x C = Dimensionless Concentration (C/Co) D = Dispersion Coefficient v = Pore Velocity (Q/Aφ) 2 Viscous Fingering: When a high mobility (lower viscosity) fluid displaces a lower mobility (higher viscosity) fluid. Figure 43 Experimental demonstration of viscous fingering Institute of Petroleum Engineering. t1. the Mobility Ratio (see above) is high and the process may be observed in either miscible or immiscible displacements.
28902B HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING Examination for the Degree of Meng in Petroleum Engineering Reservoir Simulation Monday 17th April 1995 ( 70% of Total marks ) 09. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 . The marks are relative and. together with the space available. The total number of marks in this examination is 262. There is a compulsory 15 minute reading time on this paper during which you must not write anything. If you need more space in order to answer a question then continue on the back of the same page indicating clearly (by PTO) that you have done so.30 .PAPER NO. You will be allocated 3 hours to complete this paper. The amount of space and the relative mark for the question will give you some idea of the detail that is required in your answer. should give an approximate guide to the level of detail required. this will be rescaled to give an appropriate weighted percentage for the exam.30 NOTES FOR CANDIDATES (1) Answer ALL the questions and try to confine your answer to the space provided on the paper.12.
List two uses of numerical reservoir simulation for each of the following stages of field development. which are known to exist in the application of reservoir simulation. Under which particular cir cumstances would you use each of these approaches? (i) Material Balance? (3) (ii) Reservoir simulation? (3) Q3. Given all the problems and inaccuracies. (2) Q2.Q1. At the appraisal/early field development stage 1. (2) (i) (ii) At a stage well beyond the maximum oil production in a large North Sea field: 1. (2) 2. why do engineers still use it? (2) 2 . the engineer may use material balance calculations and/or numerical reservoir simulation. At any stage in a reservoir development by waterflooding. (2) 2.
The following questions refer to Figure 1 above. (i) What would the main differences be between the cases where the shales in the above reservoir were continuous and where they were discontinuous? (4) (ii) Say briefly how you would go about investigating this using reservoir simulation.Q4 Water injector Water injector Producer Continuous or Discontinuous Shales ??? High k Low k OWC 2000 m Vertical scale 100 m Reservoir X is a light oil reservoir (35º API) being developed by waterflooding. However. The thickness of each sand is approximately equal and there are shales at the interface of these two sands. the operator is uncertain if these shales are continuous or discontinuous. The reservoir comprises a high average permeability massive sand overlying lower average permeability laminated sands. (4) 3 .
(iii) Suppose a reservoir engineer took 10 vertical grid blocks (NZ=10) in a simulation model of this system. Similar/different (1) Explain (4) (iv) If this reservoir well had a gas cap. (4) How would you use reservoir simulation to investigate this problem? (4) 4 . What is gas coning? Draw a rough sketch. Would you expect the local (kv. then gas coning might be a problem.kh) values in each of the main reservoir sands to be similar or different? Explain your answer briefly.
Explain each of these terms briefly saying .Explanation? (5) 5 .what it means. (i) Numerical Dispersion: Sketch (5) (ii) Numerical Dispersion . Draw a simple hand drawn sketch illustrating each. (2) 2. Two of the main numerical problems/errors that arise in reservoir simulators are due to numerical dispersion and grid orientation.(v) In which two ways would the grid used to investigate gas coning be different from that which was used in the full field waterflooding simulation? 1. (2) Q5. its origin and how we might get round it.
briefly explain your notation. 1 (i) Write down how this equation is discretised in an explicit finite difference scheme . 2 Ê ∂P ˆ Ê ∂ P ˆ Á ˜ =Á 2˜ Ë ∂t ¯ Ë ∂x ¯ Eq.sketch (4) (iv) Grid orientation . 6 (4) .Explanation? (4) Q6.(iii) Grid Orientation . A very simple single phase pressure equation is given by Eq. 1 below.
Briefly explain each of the bold terms above: • Implicit finite difference scheme (4) • Set of linear equations (4) • Direct linear equation solution technique (4) • Iterative linear equation solution technique (4) 7 . 1.(ii) If an implicit finite difference scheme was used to solve Eq. then a set of linear equations would arise which could be solved using either a direct or an iterative linear equation solution technique.
indeed. Q8. the oil and water saturations So and Sw (only 2 phases present).Q7. showing the porosity f. Explain this statement with reference to two phase flow .you do not need to actually derive the equations and. (i) (2) 8 . you may not use any equations other than Darcy’s law. Statement: “The Equations of Two Phase Flow can be derived easily simply by using Material Balance and Darcy’s Law”. (8) Draw a schematic sketch of a single grid block of size Dx by Dy by Dz.
derive expressions for (a) the volume of oil in the grid block. introducing the formation volume factor. (b) the mass of oil in the grid block. any units it might be expressed in and explaining any terms you introduce.(ii) Using the sketch in part (i) above. Mo. saying briefly what it is. Jo. Bo. Vo? (a) (3) (b) Mo? (3) (iii) Write an expression for the oil flux. (6) 9 . Vo.
2.Q9. 1. (4) (iii) Using the notation CIJ to denote the mass composition of component I per unit volume of phase J (dimensions of CIJ are mass/volume).for the mass of component I in the grid block. (6) (ii) Draw a simple sketch of a single grid block showing what is meant by a component and a phase. 3.based on the quantities labelled in your sketch in (ii) above . derive an expression . (i) Name three ways in which a Black Oil reservoir simulation differs from a Compositional simulation model. (6) 10 .
"Fine" Grid CrossSectional Model OIL "Rock" Propts. "Coarse" Grid Upscaled or Pseudoised Model "Pseudo" Propts. answer the following: 11 . With reference to Figure 2 above. Figure 2: The figure below shows the basic idea of “upscaling” or “Pseudoisation”. Use Black Oil model? (a) (3) (b) Use Compositional model? (3) Q10.(iv) Give one example of (a) where you would use a Black Oil model and (b) where you would use a Compositional simulation model.
we need both an Upscaling Methodology and Upscaling Mathematical Techniques. (2) (ii) What is the difference between “rock” relative permeabilities and pseudorelative permeabilities? (4) (iii) In order to perform upscaling in reservoir simulation.(i) What is meant by “Upscaling” with reference to the modelling of say a waterflood. • Methodology (4) • Techniques? (4) 12 . Explain very briefly the meaning of the bold terms.
(a) (6) (b) (6) (ii) What can you deduce about the standard deviation of the correlated random field in (i)(a) above.000 mD2.Q11. and a laminated system where the laminae are of constant width of 1cm and where the high permeability = 2D and the low permeability = 1D. (i) (a) (b) Sketch (roughly) a semi variogram for each of the following permeability models: a correlated random field with a range of 100m and a sill of 10. (3) 13 . Label your sketches clearly.
0 D k = 1. (5) 14 .(iii) Sketch the correlogram for case (i) above. k = 0. show your working. (5) Q12.0 D 2 cm 5 cm 1 cm y x (i) Calculate the effective permeability of the above model in the xdirection. Figure 3 below shows the sketch of simple 3 layer model.5 D k = 2.
(ii) Calculate the effective permeability of the above model in the ydirection. (6) (ii) Suppose we put a very find grid (say of size 0. in between these values? Explain your answer. If we jumbled up all the grid blocks randomly so that the new model had no discernable structure. less than that in (i) and (ii)?. show your working. (6) 15 .1 cm) on the 3 layer model in Figure 3 above. would the new effective permeability be: greater than that in (i) and (ii)?.1 cm x 0.
(6) 16 . sketch the expected type of fractional flow curve f(c) vs c) you would expect for each type of flow.Q13. In miscible flow in a random correlated field. explain how the mixing zone grows with time in each of the following cases (illustrate your answers with simple sketches): (i) dispersive flow (4) (ii) fingering flow (4) (iii) channelling flow (4) (iv) On the same diagram below.
In the Kyte and Berry pseudoisation (upscaling) method.Q14. (10) 17 . describe briefly (using a diagram) how numerical dispersion is taken into account (no detailed mathematics is required).
(i) List the main categories in the hierarchy of stratal sedimentary elements .give one short sentence explaining each of these. (8) (iii) Describe which of the above length scales of sedimentary heterogeneity are likely to have most significance for the following reservoir flow phenomena: * Reservoir payzone connectivity: (3) * Gravity slumping or water override: (3) * Vertical sweep efficiency: (3) * Residual/Remaining oil saturation (3) 18 .Q15.
(a) (3) (b) (continue on the back of this sheet if necessary) (10) 19 . bed and formation scale) you might use for the flow simulation of this unit. (b) sketch the sort of permeability models (laminar. You have been given the following distribution of coreplug permeabilities in a particular reservoir unit which includes a higher permeability a fluvial channel sand overlying a lower permeability deltaic sand: Frequency 100 400 600 800 Permeability (md) With reference to Figure 4 above: (a) explain the probable reason that the permeability distribution has the above form.Q16.
Q17. (a) (8) (b) (8) 20 . in this sketch show where the residual remaining oil is and give a sentence or two of explanation. (i) Draw a sketch of water displacement of oil across the laminae in a waterwet laminated system at (a) “low” flow rate (capillary dominated) and (b) “high” flow rate (viscous dominated).
(ii) Is the effective water permeability at residual (i) remaining oil saturation (across the laminae) higher in case (a) or (b) in part (i) above? Explain. (6) (iii) What are the implications of the results in (i) and (ii) above for upscaling in reservoir simulation? (6) 21 .
This book must be handed in entire with the top corner sealed.. 3.. yyyy . Rough working should be confined to left hand pages.. 5. 1. O N t N O no TI o A E: td M TR bu ion A n N GIS SE: at tio in : ec m RE UR : RE s s exa d hi CO AR TU e t l the ishe E A et N pl unti fin G m is l Co sea Model Solutions to Examination Y SI .. 4.8 Pages yyyy ... Additional books must bear the name of the candidate.. be sealed and be affixed to the first book by means of a tag provided PLEASE READ EXAMINATION REGULATIONS ON BACK COVER 1 . 2. yyyy ... Insert in box on right the numbers of the questions attempted...: Date: Subject: Reservoir Simulation INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES No. Mk. Complete the sections above but do not seal until the examination is finished.. Start each question on a new page. yyyy . 6.
2 .Answer Notes # => indicates one of several possible answers which are equally acceptable. […] => extra information good but not essential for full marks .may get bonus.
gravity segregation etc. waterflooding. To assess additional field management options such as infill drilling. (ii) Would be used when a more complex development strategy requiring spatial information is essential e. assessment of shale effects. To extend initial material balance calculations by examining some other spatial factor such as wellplacement or aquifer effect. sources of influx and production. pressure blowdown etc. # 2.g.to see if DP decline tallies with estimated field size. WAG or chemical flooding. 3 . (ii) # 1.g. To take the improved history match model which can be developed after same development twice and to use this to assess various IOR strategies e. Q2 (i) # Because of its inherent simplicity you would virtually always apply single material balance to assess your field performance . # 2. To perform broad scooping calculations which examine different development options e.Model Solutions to Examination Q1 # (i) 1. gas injection. gas flooding etc.g. well placement.
say. Compare water saturation fronts and recoveries as fraction of pv water throughput. Result will allow us to assess the effects of the shales in the waterflood.0 Æ 0. 50 blocks in the x direction and 10 vertical grid blocks . Clearly.5 in each layer.5 Æ1. (iii) Different 4 . (ii) Set up a simple 2D cross sectional model with . it is much better than simple material balance alone.Q3 (#) Because it is the only tool we have to tackle complex reservoir development/flow problems which extends material balance. it will affect the effective kv/kh (lower or zero for continuous shales) and will strongly influence gravity slumping of water in a waterflood.and some inbetween cases with transmissibility modifiers set beween Tz = 0.0. Run waterflood cases with and without shales . some vertical communication will help recovery.01 Æ0.1 Æ0. In the situation above with high k on top. Q4 (i) The shale continuity strongly affects the hi/lo permeability layer vertical communication (both pressure and fluid flow). Thus.
In the laminated sands.1 to 0.Model Solutions to Examination The high perm massive sand would have a small scale kv/kh ~1 which would result in a similar larger scale value. the “small” scale (say core plug scale) would have a low kv/kh of say 0. Pattern is shown here in figure. 5 . (iv) Well Gas Gas Oil and Water Oil and Water = perforations Gas Coning It is the drawdown of the highly mobile (low mg) gas into the perforations. Causes high GOR production at a level well above the solution gas value.01 and this would result in a correspondingly lower kv/kh at the grid block scale.
Tz modifiers. vertical communication. Very fine for nearwell. etc. Layering.g. The fineness of the grid would be different. (v) 1. Perform simulations to look at issues such as effect of rate. perms. often finer near the well where most rapid changes of Sg and pressure with time occur. The geometry would be different: r/z for coning and cartesian or corner point for full field. Rel.Set up a nearwell r/z geometry fine grid . gas/oil/water Rel. # (Dimensionality too 2D vs. 3D) 6 . etc… Generally needs a fine Dr. Dz grid. perms. much coarser for full field.possibly 50 layers and set reservoir nearwell rock properties e. 2.
It can be improved by refining the grid (globally or locally) or by using improved numerical methods. It arises because we take large grids to represent moving fronts. Fig B P = producer 7 . (iii) Wells same distance apart in Figs A and B L I P I L Fluid tends to flow along (parallel) to the grids P Fig A I = injector .Model Solutions to Examination Q5 (i) (ii) Numerical dispersion is the artificial spreading of saturation fronts due to the numerical grid block structure in the simulation.
Fig B Actual Recovery Fig A %00IP Producer Pv or Time Q6 (i) 8 . This means that early breakthrough and poorer recoveries are seen in A then in B above.see previous page.(iv) The injected fluid tends to flow parallel with the grid from the injector (I) to the producer (P) . i.e.
X(1) Æ X(2)… Æ X(V) until the method converges e.3x3system) a11 X1 + a12 X2 + a13 X3 = b1 a21 X1 + a22 X2 + a23 X3 = b2 a31 X1 + a32 X2 + a33 X3 = b3 where X1.Model Solutions to Examination (ii) ∂2 P In this scheme the spatial term in Eq.e. would be specified at ∂x 2 the new time level n+1 A set of linear equations is the following type of equation (e.g. [Typically forward elimination is applied to get an upper triangular A* matrix and back substitution is then easily applied to get the X solution] In contrast.g. Gaussian Elimination is an algorithm Elimination) with a fixed number of steps which will solve these linear equations (under certain conditions). X2.g.e. 1 i.the a’s are a matrix of known coefficients and b’s are a known righthand side. A direct solution method (e. X3 are unknown . an iterative technique starts with a first estimate of the unknown vector X (0) where the (o) denotes 0th iteration: This is then improved by some algorithm to a better and better solution of the original linear equations i. 9 .
These volumetric flows can be converted to MASS flows (x by density) and then put into the material 10 .g. LSOR. Ê A. [Methods such as the Jacobi. mo mw i.e. j ) Æ ( i . j ) Á Po . j mo Mass Accumulation of oil over time Dt = Amount that flows in over Dt Amount that flows out over Dt But amount that flows in/out is given by the pressure differences between blocks i. are examples of this]. oil and water) for 2phase flow. Q7 In block (i./ X(V+1) . etc.X(V)/ < small number TOL. then material balance can be applied for each phase (e.k.kro ( So ) ˆ Qoil ( i 1.1 ij 2 ( ) Thus the two phase Darcy Law supplies the relation for volumetric flow rate and pressure in the grid block. j).Poi 1 j ˜ mo Ë ¯ i .
Model Solutions to Examination balance equation to obtain Æ a conservation equation and in pressure equation for oil and water. \ \ Material Balance + Darcy’s Law => 2phase Flow Equation. Q8 (i) (ii) (a) Vo = Dx Dy Dz f So (b) 11 .
C10.the black oil model simply treats gas dissolution in oil through Rso . The compositional models incorporate a full PVT description of the oil whereas the black oil model relies on the simple Rso type treatment.w. 12 .(iii) # Q9 1. The black oil model essentially treats a phase (o. H2O etc.g) as the basic conserved unit or “pseudo component” 2. Compositional models are based more correctly on the conservation of components (CH4.) .gas solubility 3.
(ii) “Rock” relative permeabilities are meant to be the intrinsic representative properties of a representative piece of reservoir rock at the “small” (i.g. perm. 13 .) for the larger scale grid blocks which will reproduce a “correct” fine grid model.g.say 36∞ API . Pseudo rel.oil reservoir with pressure maintenance. perms.light oil system [Condensate system .say 30∞ API . rel.Model Solutions to Examination (iii) (iv) # (a) Waterflood calculations in a low GOR .gas recycling etc…] Q10 (i) Upscaling in a waterflood essentially means getting the correct (effective) parameters (e.e. are effective properties at the “larger” (usually gridblock) scale which incorporate other effects and artefacts (e. core plug) scale. # (b) CO2 injection in a .
two phase tensors etc… [N. data collection. E. Kyte and Berry. (iii) Methodology This is a geologically consistent approach to the task of upscaling. heterogeneity etc.even if it is WRONG . Stone’s method.numerical dispersion. perms.at the coarse scale] 14 .. i. This just needs to reproduce the fine grid result .g.B.) in addition to the intrinsic “rock” rel.e.… [The function of the methodology is to get the geologically + fluid] mechanically “right” answer. sedimentological framework. Techniques? These refer to the actual mathematical algorithm to go from a fine grid Æ coarse grid.
e.i. ~ 100mD) of the field. 15 .Model Solutions to Examination Q11 (i) (ii) It takes a lag distance of about the “range” to see the field variability (standard dev. .
(iii) 1 lag Q12 (i) (ii) The effective permeability is clearly the harmonic (thickness weighted) average as follows: 16 .
5. Strictly in a randomised distribution of permeability the average value tends to the geometric average (kg) in 2D kg .1.is less than the arithmetic (along layer) answer.g.we take the same contour values (c= 0. 0. Q13 (i) Note . 17 .Model Solutions to Examination (iii) The keff in the randomised model would be between the two answers in (i) and (ii) above (the answer in (ii) being the lower). kg . 0.8) in all sketches below.is greater than the harmonic (across layer) answer. e.
(ii) (iii) (iv) 18 .
Thus.g. => set krw= 0 When there is oil or water flow e. water flow. if the fine grid water (say) flows have not reached the coarse grid interface then Qw = 0.Model Solutions to Examination Q14 With no maths Consider only ACTUAL flows of Qw and Qo across this interface interface only. 19 .
20 . hi k lo k Bedform Æ How lamina sets are joined together geometrically to form 3D beds.g. (length mm Æ m) Lamina set Æ A collection of the above (cm Æ m) e.Q15 (i) Lamina Æ The simplest unit within which we can assume (almost) homogeneous k. core.
bed form • Lamina set . Tabular crossbedding 2m ~50cm Bottom sets or climbing ripples Parasequence/sequencestacks of bedforms (ii) • Para sequence . and the higher permeability plugs from the fluvial channel.sequence . 21 .also bed form influence • Para sequence .the bimodality probably arises from the lower perm plugs from deltaic sands.Model Solutions to Examination Eroded/? top sets e.bed form Q16 (a) There is a double peak .sequence scale • At parasequence .g.
inclined cross bed pseudo A . Perm. 22 .(b) laminated sand pseudo Tightly laminated deltaic sands A Crossbeddes fluvial channel stacked crossbeds B 2 Scale pseudoisation . to oil in the low k waterfilled laminae is so low.bedform pseudo B Q17 (i) (a) hi Slow Flow lo hi lo hi lo CAPILLARY DOMINATED Water flow direction High water Sw in LOW perms in a waterwet system Sw HIGH "remaining" oil in hi k Spontaneous water inhibition into the LOW k laminae occurs in Pcdominated flow. This traps oil in the HIGH k laminae behind the front where it is well above "residual" but it can't move because the Rel.
(iii) The central implications are twofold. Along and across layer water displacement in laminar system gives widely different pseudos. (a) The two phase pseudo relative perms. 23 . Recovery of oil is better in this case since it is not "stranded" by downstream capillary imbibition. are highly anisotropic for such laminar systems. [I give a slightly overdetailed answer to part (a) and (b) above].Model Solutions to Examination (b) hi "Fast" Flow of water lo hi lo hi lo VISCOUS DOMINATED WATERFRONT Water flow direction High water Sw LOW perm in a watercut system Sw Note at Viscous dominated conditions a water front goes through which reduces the oil in all layers to its local "residual" level. (ii) It is higher in case (a) for the reasons already explained.
Along Across (b) The levels of “remaining” oil can be vastly different in laminar systems which. 24 . in simulation/upscaling. end points. perm. (see above). moves the pseudo rel.
Model Solutions to Examination 25 .
2.09. This is a Closed Book Examination. Marks for Questions and parts are indicated in brackets This Examination represents 70% of the Class assessment. 5. Do not write your name on any loose pages which are submitted as part of your answer. State clearly any assumptions used and intermediate calculations made in numerical questions. This Paper consists of 1 Section. 4.30. 6. 8 1 . 15 minutes reading time is provided from 09.30 .Course:.28117 Class:.28912 HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING Examination for the Degree of Meng in Petroleum Engineering Reservoir Simulation Tuesday 20th April 1999 09. 3.15 . Be sure to allocate time appropriately. See separate instructions for completion of Script Book front covers and attachment of loose pages. 7. Attempt all Questions. No marks can be given for an incorrect answer if the method of calculation is not presented. Examination Papers will be marked anonymously.13.30 ( 100% of Total marks ) NOTES FOR CANDIDATES 1.
2 .
........................... When you would use Reservoir Simulation + Example: ........................................................................................... ...................... .............................................................. ..................................................................... ............... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Q........................1: Consider the following statement which is made referring to a reservoir development plan for a field which has been in production for some time: “A reservoir engineer should always apply Material Balance calculations and should usually but not always ............................................... explain when you would use Reservoir Simulation and when you may not use it.............................. .................................................................................. Give an example of each case...........................................use Numerical Reservoir Simulation”.......................... ..................................... (2) (4) (iii) In the above context...................................................................... .................................................................................. .............................................. ........................................... When you may not use Reservoir Simulation + Example: .......................................................... (4) (4) 3 ......................................................................................................................................................... (ii) What is the main disadvantage of using material balance calculations in reservoir development? ................. (i) Why should you always perform some sort of material Material Balance calculations ? ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... .............................................................. (4) 4 ............................ Reservoir processes: (i) Modelling of likely gas and water coning and its effect on (vertical) well productivity in a light oil reservoir with a gas cap and an underlying aquifer................... (4) (iii) Which grid?....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (iii) Carrying out an appraisal of an entire flank of a complex faulted field which has several injector and producer wells.......................................................................................................................................................................2: Various types of 2D and 3D grids are used in reservoir simulation calculations......................................................................................... ........................................................ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................... ........................................................................ (4) Why?................. Describe what you think the best type of grid is for performing calculations on each of the reservoir processes described below and say why................... ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................Q................................................................................................................................................................................... (4) Why?............................................................................... ..................... (4) Why?........ (4) (ii) Which grid?............. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. (i) Which grid?........................................................................................................oil displacement and to develop some pseudo relative permeabilities to use in a full field model..................................................................................................... ........................................................................................ ......................................... ............................................................................................................................... (ii) Simulating a large number of options in an injector/producer well pair in a gas injection scheme where the objective is to look at the effects of formation heterogeneity on gas ......
.................... (5) 5 ............................................................ ......................................................... ...................................................................................................................... (5) (ii) Grid orientation ? Sketch: (5) Grid orientation ? Explanation: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .... ......................................................................................................................................................... the meaning of each of these terms: (i) Numerical dispersion ? Sketch: (5) Numerical dispersion ? Explanation: ....................................3: Numerical dispersion and grid orientation are two of the main numerical problems that occur in reservoir simulation.................................. Explain in your own words......................................................................................................................................................... ...........................Q.................................................................................................................... .................................... with the help of a simple sketch............................................................................................................................................. ................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....4 0........................................................ Results are plotted as “Oil Recovery at 1PV Injection” vs........................1 0......................... and (b) that the axes of the graph are “quantitative”............................................... vertical grid blocks = NZ Key gas injection waterflood Oil recovery at 1PV injection 60% A 50% B C D E 40% F 0.................................................................. 1/NZ .................2 0............F) in a 2D vertical crosssectional numerical simulation model......... (4) 6 .......................Q4...................... Assume (a) that the number of grid blocks in the xdirection (NX) is sufficiently large and is constant in all calculations.... ..................................... Figure 1 below shows the results of a series of 6 waterflooding and gas flooding calculations (labelled A ....... (3) (ii) Do the simulated waterflood and gas flooding calculations become more “optimistic” or “pessimistic” as we take more vertical grid blocks in the calculation? .... .......................................3 0..............5 Inverse number of grid blocks (1/NZ) > Answer the following questions: (i) How many vertical grid blocks (NZ) were used in case F? .................... Figure 1 2D crosssection No......................................... where NZ is the number of vertical grid blocks in the simulation..
.......................................................................................................... Estimations..........................4 ——————————————— Q5................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Comment on the implications of your result for carrying out a gas flooding project in this reservoir............................................................................ on next page 7 ........................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ (6) Comment: ......................... ..... ................................... .......................................................................................... (4) ————————————————— End of Q..................................................................... (continued) (iii) Extrapolate each of the calculations to NZ > ∞ for both the waterflood and the gas flood on Figure 1............................................................................................................................... Estimate the % recovery for each and the incremental recovery of the gas flood compared with the waterflood.............. ......................................................................... .................................................................................Q4......... .......
........................................................ ......................................................Q................................................................... (6) 8 .............................. (6) (iii) Considering the above two expressions............................................................................. ∆ z i i+1 qi1/2 q i1/2 ∆x x With reference to the above figure..................... ..................................................... what equation can you now write from material balance ? ................................................................................................... the accumulation): Difference in mass in block i over time step ∆t = ........................................................................ The quantities qi+1/2 and qi1/2 are the volumetric flow rates of the fluid at the boundaries of block i..............block i .........................................e.............................................................. A = ∆y........................ The density and porosity are denoted by symbols ..................................................... (i) Write a clear mathematical expression for the change in mass in block i over a time step ∆t due to flow: Change in mass due to flow over time step ∆t = ..∆z (where ∆y and ∆z are the block sizes in the yand zdirections). 5 Figure 2 below shows a “control volume” .... (6) (ii) Write a clear mathematical expression for the change in mass in block i from the beginning of the time step to the end (i... All grid blocks are the same size in the xdirection (∆x) and the crosssectional area is constant..................for singlephase compressible flow in 1D...... Figure 2 i1 Area =A = ∆ y.........................ρ and φ respectively................................................ ......................................................................................
................................................................................................................................ (4) (v) Now use the singlephase Darcy Law in the equation you wrote in (iii) above and show how by taking Limits ∆x.......................................................... (4) 9 ...................................................................................................................................5 (continued) (iv) Are there any assumptions in the equation you have just written in part (iii) above? Briefly explain...................................................you obtain the pressure equation for singlephase compressible flow: Show the steps you take............................................................................................................... Nonlinear?..................................................................................................... (8) (vi) If you have written down the answer to part (v) above correctly......................................................... ...................... (4) The problem?............................................................... What does “nonlinear” mean in this context and explain in physical terms what the main problem is with this sort of equation.........................................................................................Q................................................ ............................. ......................... ........................................................................................................ ............................................................. ............................................... ....................................................................... then you should have written down a nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE)............................................ ∆t > 0 .............................................................................
ρ . φ . µ . The fluid has a constant compressibility. ρ ∂P ∂P 4. Pressure gradients are small .5 part (v) above.6: (i) From the four assumptions listed below. Permeability (k) and viscosity (µ) are constant. Assumptions: 1. 2 ∂P ∂ P = 2 κ ∂t ∂x Equation 1 The term κ is a constant (Greek kappa . k . 2. The rock is incompressible. 3.Q.the permeability.the density.the porosity. C f = 2 1 ∂ρ . k). show clearly how Equation 1 arises from the nonlinear equation you derived in Q. Other quantities which may be used are Cf .hence ≈ 0 ∂x (i) Answer: (12) (continue on the back of this page if necessary indicating that you have done so) 10 .the fluid compressibility.not permeability.the fluid viscosity. Indicate clearly where you use each of the assumptions in your derivation.
..Q........... Figure 3 n+1 Time level n i1 Space > P in+1 ∆x ∆t All ∆ x and ∆ t fixed........... an implicit method)......6 (continued) (ii) From your answer to part (i) above.............. (n+1) (i.....................e............ write down what constant κ is in terms of the other constants... P in i i+1 (12) (continue on the back of this page if necessary indicating that you have done so) 11 ............... (4) (iii) Using the notation in Figure 3 below.................... Show each step in your working and show clearly how this leads to a sparse set of linear equations........................ κ = .. apply finite differences to Equation 1 above and define the discretised spatial derivative at the new time level............
........................................Q. Disadvantage?..............x = b Equation 2 where A is a matrix... 12 (2) (2) .............. Write out Equation 2 explicitly for three equations and rearrange these to show how a simple iterative scheme can be formulated........................ indicating you have done so) (10) Advantage?... (continue on the back of this page............................. x is the vector of unknowns and vector b is known........... Say very briefly how this is solved..... Give one advantage and one disadvantage of an iterative scheme...6 (continued) (iv) We can write down the set of linear equations that arises from applying finite differences to the flow equations as follows: A....... if necessary.......................
giving any possible units. into and out of a grid block is shown in Figure 4 below. Jo. is defined as the mass of oil per unit volume of reservoir. (6) 13 . Jo. Other quantities are denoted as follows: Oil saturation So. φ. Bo. porosity. vo (similar quantities apply to the water phase).7: The oil flux.Q. ρosc. Co. Oil density at standard conditions. (6) (ii) The concentration of oil. Formation volume factor. Write an expression for Co in terms of the quantities defined above. Darcy velocity of oil. Figure 4 ∆y Oil Flux Jo Jo ∆z ∆x x x + ∆x (i) Write an expression for the oil flux.
in 1D twophase flow. indicating you have done so) 14 . Equation 3 (10) (continue on the back of this page. then for the oil phase: (∂Jo/∂x) = .7 (continued) (iii) Prove that.(∂Co/∂t) showing your working clearly.Q. if necessary.
and substitute this into Equation 3 above and derive the oil conservation equation. • Twophase Darcy Law for the oil phase (in terms of Darcy velocity. vo) (4) • Oil conservation equation: (8) ————————————————————End of Q.7 (continued) (vi) State the twophase Darcy’s law for oil using (∂Po/∂x) for the pressure gradient and kro for the relative permeability.7 —————————————— 15 .Q.
............8 In threephase flow (oil............ 7 above........... water and gas).......................... (4) (ii) Using Rso and Rº to denote the gas solubility factors........................................ (12) (continue on the back of this page...................Q............................... if necessary.......................................................... in exactly the same way as was defined for oil in Q...... ......................... we can define a gas flux............................... Jg............................. and a gas concentration....... derive expressions for Jg and Cg showing your working. (i) Explain physically why the gas flux and the gas concentration are more complicated than the corresponding quantities for the flow of oil or water............................................................. .... Cg............................................................ indicating you have done so) 16 ....... ...............................
..........Q.............................................................................................................................................................................8 ——————————————— Q..................... .......................... ..9: Explain what history matching is in a reservoir simulation of a field saying briefly how it is done and what can go wrong............ .......................................... .......................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................... .............................................................................................. ............................................... if necessary....................... • History matching? How is it done? What can go wrong? ........................................ (6) ————————————————————End of Q..................................................................................................... ........................................................... ............................................................................................................................................................. indicating you have done so) 17 .......................................................................... .......................................................................................... 8 (continued) (iii) Use your expressions for Jg and Cg in the conservation Equation 3 (for gas) to write down the first step in obtaining the conservation equation for gas.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................ ................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................(10) (continue on the back of this page...........................................
. k2. kM. ka = kh = kg = (10) (ii) State how you would use these averages for calculating the effective permeabilities in the horizontal and vertical directions in the models in Figures 5(a) and 5(b) below.. . The number of data points you have = M. harmonic (kh) and geometric (kg) averages of a permeability field with permeabilities k1.10 (i) Write down the formulae for the arithmetic (ka). Figure 5 (a) (b) • For Figure 5(a): Horizontal keff & Vertical keff : (8) 18 .Q..
............................................................................... ............. 1 cm 19 ..Q...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 cm .. Show your working.........................................(6) ————————————————————End of Q..................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 6 10 mD.. .............................................. ................................. ...................................... 1 cm 100 mD.............10 (continued) • For Figure 5(b): Horizontal keff & Vertical keff : (8) (iii) Calculate the effective permeability for flow across the laminae in Figure 6 below.......................................................................................10 —————————————— 20 mD................................................................................
...... (i) Show clearly on Figure 7 which part of the grid you would use for calculating the following quantities and give a brief sentence of explanation: • the average water saturation (3) ..........................Q.................................................................................................................................. (4) (ii) What is the formula for the average water saturation? Sw = (5) 20 .................................................................................................. pressures................................................................................................................................................................................. Figure 7 i=1 2 j= 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ∆z ∆x Suppose you are calculating the pseudo relative permeabilities for the left coarse block using the Kyte and Berry method..... .................................................. with 7 x 3 fine blocks in each of these coarse blocks.................................. Assume that you have all the necessary information (saturations... flows etc........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .................. ...) from a finescale (3x14) simulation......................................................................................................(4) • the total flows of oil and water (3) .................(4) • the average pressure gradient (3) ..........................11 The diagram in Figure 7 below shows a grid consisting of 2 coarse grid blocks.......................
..................................... (3) (iv) What is the formula for the total flow of water? qw = (5) ————————————————————End of Q.................................. (5) .................................11 —————————————— 21 ...................................................................................................Q........................................... ................................... 11 (continued) (iii) What is the weighting for the average pressure? Give a brief sentence of explanation.............................
............. m2/m3 (6) (iii) If the grain radius is taken to be 10µm.. Ss = ....12 (i) By means of a simple sketch.. Sketch: (4) (ii) Use the sketch to help you calculate the specific surface of the sample per unit volume of solid.Q..working: Specific surface per unit volume of solid.... determine the porosity (φ) of the sample Porosity working: Sample porosity (φ) = .. Ss (in m2/m3)... 22 (6) .... show how a cubic packing of spherical grains is arranged. Specific surface .
... calculate an approximate permeability in Darcies for a cubic packing of spheres (NB Use the porosity found in Q................................................................... Darcies............................................... what would the porosity (φ) of the sample now be? Porosity = ..........12 (continued) (iv) If the grain radius was 100µm instead of 10µm...................... and the specific surface per unit volume of solid.......... (3) (v) What do the results of parts (iii) and (iv) above suggest concerning the porosity of cubic sphere packs? Ans...... Working: Permeability = ........................................................ Ss CarmanKozeny equation: k= (6) (vii) Taking the grain radius to be 10 µm and the tortuosity of the sample to be T=1........... porosity (φ)...........................................Q....... (1 Darcy = 1x1012 m2) (6) 23 ......... (2) (vi) Write down the CarmanKozeny equation in terms of the grain diameter (D)........12 part (iii) in this calculation) .
................................................................................... what is the equation that relates the capillary pressure........................ to the tube radius R and the contact angle θ? Pc= (5) What is this reduced form of the equation called? ................................................................................................................................................................................Q.......................... (4) Sketch (4) (ii) If an oil/water meniscus is at equilibrium in a cylindrical capillary tube...................................................... ...........................................13 (i) Describe the meaning of the term “contact angle” and draw a rough sketch to illustrate your answer Contact angle?........................................... (3) 24 ................................... Pc..................... ..........................................................................................
The numbers on Figure 8 refer to pore radii (in microns. Shade in the pores that become oilfilled at each of the 4 capillary pressure values Pc1. Show any working out below: 25 . The capillary pressure of the system is gradually increased and oil begins to invade the network. The pores are taken to be capillary tubes and are waterwet. Pc2. 13 (continued) (iii) Oil is introduced at the inlet face of the waterfilled pore network shown in Figure 8 on the next page.7 psi = 105 Newtons/m2). Pc3 and Pc4 in Figure 8 (NB 14. µm).Q. the contact angle is θ = 60o in every pore and the oil/water interfacial tension is 80 mN/m.
2 psi 8 5 Oil 20 15 11 10 3 2 1 Water 3 12 12 4 Pc3= 3. 13 (continued) Figure 8: Shade in the pores that become oilfilled at each of the 4 capillary pressure values Pc1.0 psi 8 5 Oil 20 15 11 10 3 2 1 Water 3 12 12 4 Pc4= 10. . c 2 5 2 Pc3 and Pc4 below (NB 14.6 psi 5 Oil 20 15 11 10 3 2 1 Water 3 12 12 4 Pc2= 1.0 psi 8 5 Oil 20 15 11 10 3 2 1 Water 3 12 12 4 8 (20) 26 .7 psi = 10 Newtons/m ). P Pc1= 0.Q.
.......................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... if necessary................................... .....................................................................................................................14 (i) Explain the differences between a drainage flood and an imbibition flood at the porescale.................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................... ........... .............................................................................................................. .................... .......................................... .............. filmflow and accessibility to the inlet (sketch each displacement in the boxes provided below to illustrate your answer)............................................................................................................................................................................................................. (continue on the back of this page.... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... paying particular attention to the roles played by pore size.............................................................................................................................................Q........................................ ................ ............................................................................................................ indicating you have done so) (10) Imbibition Sketch (4) Drainage Sketch (4) 27 ..........................................................................
Q. Figure 9 Initial distribution of oil 5 Water 20 15 11 10 3 2 1 Oil 3 12 12 4 8 Figure 10 Answer: Template for final oil distribution (shade in appropriately) 5 Water 20 15 11 10 3 2 1 Oil 3 12 12 4 8 (8) ————————————————————End of Q. If the capillary pressure is slowly decreased. Note this network is deliberately different from that in Figure 8.e. oil cannot enter the water reservoir due to the presence of a waterwet membrane. Also. The numbers on the bonds again refer to the tube radii in microns (µm). so that water can invade via filmflow and snapoff.14 —————————————— 28 . how is the residual oil distributed at the end of imbibition (i. when Pc=0)? Shade in the residual oil using the network template provided in Figure 10. 14 (continued) (ii) The strongly waterwet network in Figure 9 below is initially completely filled with oil and the capillary pressure is so high that no water can currently imbibe.
5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.8 0. σoil/water = 60x103 N/m.2 0.9 (i) Sketch the air/mercury capillary pressure curve using the axes provided (6) (ii) Write down the equation used to rescale mercury injection data to oil/water systems and use it to complete Table 1 (assume the following values for interfacial tensions and contact angles: σmercury/air = 360x103 N/m. You have been supplied with the table of mercury injection data below.Q15.6 0.4 0.9 P c (air/mercury) (psia) 2 4 5 6 7 20 60 Oil saturation Pc(oil/water) (psia) 0 0. Table 1 Mercury saturation 0 0.6 0. θmercury/air = θoil/water = 0o Equation: (6) Now complete Table 1 at the top of this page (8) 29 .5 0.
..e..Q... complete the following equation: J(Sw) = Pc(Sw) x .............. 15 (continued) (iii) Plot the oil/water capillary pressure curve using the axes provided below Sketch............... (5) (iv) Write down the equation that determines the Leverett Jfunction from capillary pressure datai........ 15 is continued on the next page) 30 ... (5) (Q.
φ= 0.Q.2 20 J (S w) (6) Write down the form of the Jfunction here: J(Sw)= (4) Sketch the Jfunction here: (6) 31 . 15 (continued) (v) Using the capillary pressure data shown below in Table 2. θ = 0o.5 6 0.6 4 0. and contact angle. σ =10 x103 N/m. Table 2 Complete the table Wa te r S a tu ra tio n P c (p s ia ) 1 0 0.8 2 0.4 10 0. Choose any suitable units but label your sketch clearly. calculate an appropriate Jfunction and complete the table below : assume the values k = 100 mD. interfacial tension.1. Sketch the Jfunction below.
...(4) (iii) Capillary pressure curves in Figure 11 below have been measured on two different core samples.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... The .................................................................... ...............................(4) Rule 3 ..................................................... Test (2) (2) (ii) Give the three “rules of thumb” that can often be used to distinguish between waterwet and oilwet relative permeability curves......................................... ......................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................... Use your knowledge of wettability variations at the pore scale to answer the following: Figure 11 Pc Pc Sw Sw (A) (B) (iv) Which sample is probably the more waterwet? Explain your choice.............................................................................................. Test The .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 (i) Name the two most popular tests used to determine the wettability of a reservoir rock...................................................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................(4) Rule 2 ............................ The two plots are shown below................................................... ................. Rule 1 ............................................................ ...............................................................(6) 32 ................................................... ................ ......................................................Q...
................................................. ...... (6) (End of examination paper) Total number of marks possible = 462 33 ....................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................16 (continued) (v) Give a physical explanation for the negative leg shown in the capillary pressure curve in Figure 11(A)...................... ............................................................................................................................... ..............................Q....................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................................................