Modeling Multiphase, Multi-Component Fluid Flow in Complex Geological Rocks

Petroleum Reservoir Simulation

Khalid Aziz Engineering Resources Engineering

Reservoir and Facilities

El Shargi field, Occidental

Deepwater Challenge
BP operated Thunder Horse field lies beneath some 6000m of mud, rock and salt, topped by 1900m of ocean Reservoir at over 1200 bar and 135C Advanced wells are required

Motivation
Development costs for typical oil fields are many billions of dollars Every field is different Development and operating actions are irreversible Models are needed to develop optimum strategies Annually around $10 billion spent on reservoir models, and it is increasing

Growing Energy Demand

Energy demand is 800.0 outpacing new discoveries 700.0 600.0 By 2030 energy demand 500.0 400.0 will increase by 50% 300.0 200.0 Only about 35% 100.0 0.0 of OOINP is recovered Impact of technology can be huge (~30-70%) Technology can also reduce environmental footprint
Q u a d r illio n B T U

Total World Energy

1990 2002 2003 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year

UGS Estimates
About half the reserves of conventional oil have been produced Unconventional oil much harder to recover

We are not likely to be free of oil soon!

85 million barrels/day now 120 million barrels/day by 2030

Outline
What is reservoir simulation? Underlying equations and solution techniques Use

Reservoir Simulation

Gringarten, 2002

Integration of data from all sources (wells, cores, seismic, outcrops, well tests, etc.)

Data to Decisions
Geosciences Engineering

Simmodels Geomodels Data Collection, Interpretation and Integration

History Matching and Predictions

Analysis, Optimization and Control (Decisions)

Characteristics of the System

Complex and generally unknown geology Multicomponent, multiphase flow
Poorly understood fluid mechanics Thermodynamic complexity

Complex wells and reservoir well interactions

Multiphase flow

Stanford VI reservoir model 6 million nodes Castro et al.

Strong connections to facilities and surroundings


10-5 10-4

Many sources Many scales (10-5 to 108 cm) Sparse Not always reliable
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 1010

Data

Simulation Cells Geological Model Cells Well Test Core Data Well Log Seismic Data

Thin Sections

Upscaling

Downscaling Hamdi Tchelepi

Pipat 2006

Process
Build one or more geological descriptions on a fine scale Upscale to a computational grid Establish boundary conditions and choose development and operating strategies Solve appropriate equations describing flow Predict reservoir performance Maximize or minimize some objective function Estimate uncertainty

GeoModel and Upscaling

Optimum level of and techniques for upscaling to minimize errors Gridding and upscaling are interconnected

Gurpinar, 2001

Gridding
Honor geology Preserve numerical accuracy Be easy to generate
Gurpinar, 2001

Castellini, 2001

Prevost 2003

Wolfsteiner et al., 2002

Equations
Mass balance for each component in the system in each block (CVFD) Additional Constraints Wells and Facilities Large number of non-linear equations

OGJ

Simulator Equations

l p

nn mc ,,pl+1 ,,i

w p

w mc , ,pni +1

( t
1
p

n n M c ,+1 M c , pi pi

Flow Rate into Block i from Connected Blocks l

Flow Rate out of Block i through Well w in i

Accumulation Rate in Block i

p - phase c - component

Definitions
Flow Rate

mc , p l ,i = ( c , p )l ,i p ,l p ,i

Mass Accumulation Rock

= [1 + c R ( p p
o

M c , p = V ( S p c , p )
o

)]

kA c , p = c , p pT , T = x kr , p c , p = p yc , p , p =

Methods of Solution

l p

nn mc ,,pl+1 ,,i

w p

wn mc , ,pi +1

( M cn,+p1 M cn, p ) t
1
i i

Flow Rate into Block i from Connected Blocks l

Flow Rate out of Block i through Well w in i

Accumulation Rate in Block i

nn mc ,,pl+i1 ,

= ( c , p )l ,i

n ,n +1

p ,l p ,i

n +1

Explicit impractical Fully implicit most robust, but expensive Partially implicit (IMPES, IMPEC) cheaper Adaptive implicit is generally the optimum approach

General Formulation
Non-linear equations set:

F (X ) = 0
primary secondary

Rewrite it as: Fp ( X p , X s ) = 0

p: s: Fs ( X p , X s ) = 0

Appropriate variables, equations and alignment All primary variables or a subset treated implicitly

Equations
Number of equations per block varies from 3 to around 10 (nc) Number of blocks hundred thousand to several million (nb) Optimum time step is selected automatically Number of nonlinear equations to be solved every timestep: nc x nb Equations are linearized using Newtons method Typical problems take about 3 iterations per timestep, difficult problems may not converge

Linearized Equations
0 200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400 0

200

400

600

800 nz = 74960

1000

1200

1400

X = R

From Jiang 2006

Multi-level Sparse Block Matrix

0 200 400

R ~ reservoir F ~ facilities and wells

600

800

1000

1200

1400 0 200 400 600 800 nz = 74960 1000 1200 1400

RR FR

RF FF

RW1 RW2

From Jiang 2006

Process
1. Create one or more images of the reservoir based on available data 2. Set objectives 3. Create a grid 4. Select time step 5. Iteratively solve equations to advance solution 6. Go to 3 and continue until
Desired time is reached, or Some constraint is violated

7. Go to 2

Block-Based Linear Solvers

Block Solvers
GMRES & BiCGstab CPR BILU(0) BILU(k)
From Jiang 2006

(from IML)

Multi-Level Block Preconditioners

Performance of Block Solvers

9 components, 100x100x5 grid (FIM), solver time
18 15
Speedup Factor

14.9 8.3 1
PGMRES+ ILU

12 9 6 3 0
BGMRES+ BILU PGMRES+ CPR(ILU) BGMRES+ CPR(BILU)

1.6

From Jiang 2006

Other Complications
Fractured Systems Mutiphase flow in wells and facilities Complex recovery processes Unconventional resources Geomechanics

Modeling Fractures
Image source: http://210.42.35.8/ybs/images/jcz/lar7.jpg

From: Bin Gong 06

Most reservoirs are fractured Modeling individual fractures is neither possible or desirable Usually dual media approach is used

Dual Porosity Model

Real fractured system Idealized sugar-cube model
matrix fracture matrix block

fracture

(Aziz & Settari, 1979, after Warren & Root, 1963) From: Bin Gong 06

Main transport through fractures Flow between matrix and fracture is modeled by transfer functions Number of equations doubles

Enhancements to Dual Porosity Models

Matrix

Fracture
From: Bin Gong 06

May allow flow between matrix blocks Subgrid matrix blocks

Modeling Fine Scale Features

Explicitly model major faults and fractures Near well modeling

Karimi Fard 2006

Discrete Feature Model

Features are represented as interfaces between matrix control volumes
Matrix

Fracture

Karimi Fard 2006

Treatment of Intersections
Fractures

Grid domain

Computational domain

Connectivity list

Modified connectivity list

Intermediate control-volume

Star-Delta transformation

Karimi Fard 2006

Well Model in Reservoir Simulator

Predicting pressure drop in wellbores is an important component Wellbore flow model needs to be simple, continuous, and differentiable

Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipes Horizontal Flow

Stratified Smooth Flow Stratified Wavy Flow Elongated Bubble Flow Slug Flow

Annular Flow Dispersed Bubble Flow

Bubble Flow

Slug Flow

Churn Flow

Annular Flow

Figures from Shoham (1982)

Modeling of Complex Processes

Limited ability to model processes involving
Fast phase changes Chemical reactions (in situ upgrading) Unstable fronts

Unconventional Resources

Rock Deformation
Coupled Geomechanics and Fluid Flow

K L t F Geomechanics Simulator = LT E P R Flow Simulator t

Subsidence in North Adriatic

From ENI

General Purpose Research Simulator (GPRS) Design

field SimMaster

belonging inheritance

core concepts
facilities solvers reservoir

other surfac stdwell mswell

wells

wellgroup

grid fluid rock

smart wells

From Jiang 2006

Object Oriented Design

field

SimMaster

SimMaster

SimMaster

facilities
surfac stdwells mswells wells

solvers

reservoir
grid rock

facilities
surfac stdwells mswells wells

solvers

reservoir
grid rock

facilities
surfac stdwells mswells wells

solvers

reservoir
grid rock

smart wells

smart wells

smart wells

reservoir 1
From Jiang 2006

reservoir 2

reservoir 3

Concluding Remarks
There have been continuous improvements in simulation techniques over the past 50 or so years Many challenges remain to make reservoir simulators more accurate, efficient and robust Benefits can be huge

Acknowledgements
Based on the work of many students and colleagues Supported by SUPRI-B and SUPRI-HW consortia, and the new Smart Fields Consortium (SUPRI-SFC) Additional support from DOE and several oil companies