You are on page 1of 93

7/2/2017

On the Misuse of
Equations of State, Upscaling & Decline Curve Analysis

Tarek Ahmed, PhD, P.E.


Emeritus Professor of Petroleum Engineering

Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd


25326 Metzler Creek Drive
Houston, Texas 77389

Tahmed@Mtech.edu
www.TarekAhmedAssociates.com

1
7/2/2017

How Do you Define Experience?

1) 5 years
2) 10 Years
3) 15 Years
4) 20 Years

2
7/2/2017

On Equations of State

3
7/2/2017

The van der Waals EOS


RT RT a
Ideal EOS: p p 2
V Vb V

November 23, 1837 March 8, 1923


Dutch
1910 Nobel Prize in Physics
R 2 Tci2 R Tci
ai a & bi b
pci pci

4
7/2/2017

p 2 p
Equations of State [ ]T , p ,V 0 &
V c c c
[ ]T , p ,V 0
V 2 c c c
p = prepulsive - pattractive

EOS prepulsive pattractive ai bi i (T)

idea RT 0 0 0 -

V
vdW RT a R 2 Tc2 R Tc -
a b
V b V 2 pc pc

RK RT a R 2 Tc2.5 R Tc -
a b
V b V (V b ) T pc pc

SRK a (T ) R 2 Tc2 R Tc f(T,Tc,)


RT a b
V b V (V b ) pc pc

PR a (T ) R 2 Tc2 R Tc f(T,Tc,)
RT a b
V b V ( V b ) b (V b ) pc pc

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

5
7/2/2017

Numerous Applications of:


PV=ZnRT

Imagine:
A grid block in the reservoir:

yi
Ki
xi

6
7/2/2017

Equations of State
Why Tuning ?

7
7/2/2017

Two Major Problems with Any EOS


1. The Plus-Fraction & Lumped Components
2. The Methane Problem

p 2 p
[ ]T , p ,V 0 & [ ]T , p ,V 0
V c c c V 2 c c c

R 2 Tci2 R Tci
ai a & bi b
pci pci

The Cn+ critical& other properties: Tc, Pc;etc.

R 2 (Tc2 ) c 7 R (Tc ) c 7
ac 7 a & bc 7 b
( pc ) c 7 ( pc ) c 7

8
7/2/2017

p 2 p
[ ]T , p ,V 0 & [ ]T , p ,V 0
V c c c V 2 c c c
R 2 (Tc2 ) c 7 R (Tc ) c 7
ac 7 a & bc 7 b
( pc ) c 7 ( pc ) c 7

9
7/2/2017

10
7/2/2017

Experimental PVT Data


1. Saturation Pressure
2. Separator Test
3. Constant Volume Depletion Test CVD
4. Differential Expansion Test DE
5. Constant Composition Expansion CCE
6. Swelling Tests
7. Slim-Tube Test
8. Minimum Miscibility Pressure
9. etc.

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

11
7/2/2017

Tuning of EOS
Minimize one of the following two objective functions:
W exp pred
min F ( pc , Tc , , BIC , c)
i i i

i iexp

W exp pred
min F ( a , b , , BIC , c)
i i i

i iexp

Where:
Wi = Weight factor
i = PVT data, e.g. pb, pd, Bo,etc
a= EOS parameter
b= EOS parameter
= Acentric factor

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

12
7/2/2017

Tuning Strategy
W exp pred
min F ( pc , Tc , , BIC , c)
i i i

i iexp

1. Conduct several SENSITIVITY RUNS to evaluate the impact of individually shifting EOS
parameters, i.e. pc,Tc, , a, b,etc., on the predicted PVT Data. This step might reveal that
changing pc has no significant impact on the results as compare with adjusting Tc.

2. Proper Selection of the experimental data to match

3. Proper Assigning the Weight Factors Wi to Experimental Data

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

13
7/2/2017

Mis-selection of Experimental Data to Match


W exp pred
min F ( pc , Tc , , BIC , c)
i i i

i exp
i

Assiging Weight on Experimental PVT Data:

1. Saturation Pressure
2. Separator Test
3. Constant Volume Depletion Test CVD
4. Differential Expansion Test DE
5. Constant Composition Expansion CCE
6. Swelling Tests
7. Slim-Tube Test
8. Minimum Miscibility Pressure

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

14
7/2/2017

Example 1:
CCE & DE Laboratory Data

100 % oil 100 % oil 90 % oil 70% oil 60 % oil


Pi> Pb Pb P<Pb P <<Pb P <<<Pb

100 %
Oil Vt Vsat Vt Vt Vt
Hg

Vt
Vrel Notice, reference volume is Vsat
VSat

15
7/2/2017

CCE DE
31 data points 11 data points

(Vt ) p,T
Vrel
(V ) Psat ,T

(Vo ) p,T
Vrel
(V )14.7,60 o

16
7/2/2017

167 oF

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

17
7/2/2017

170 oF

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

18
7/2/2017

175 oF

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

19
7/2/2017

168 oF

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

20
7/2/2017

Constant Composition Expansion CCE

My Advise: ASSIGN WEIGHT FACTORS=0

Comment:
Why using Vsat; why not Vi ?

Vt (error ) V
Vrel t The problem is the
VSat (error ) VSat reference volume Vsat

21
7/2/2017

Example 2:
Z-Factor Related Laboratory Data
CVD, CCE

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

22
7/2/2017

Matching Reported Gas Z-Factor

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

23
7/2/2017

Matching Reported Gas Density, Why !!!

p Ma

ZRT

Perfect match; why?


because you had a perfect match
of Z-Factor

24
7/2/2017

Matching Gas Recovery Factor

RF is a function of Z-factor

p Zi
RF 1 [ ]
Z pi

25
7/2/2017

Lee-Gonzales Gas Viscosity

Why matching results


from a correlation?

26
7/2/2017

Defining Data Weight Factors

27

27
7/2/2017

Wi iexp ipred
F (a, b, , BIC )
i iexp

Property Z-Factor Gas RF Gas Density Gas Vrel


Viscosity
Weight 10 0 0 0 1
Factor

p Zi
RF 1 [ ]
Z pi
( MW ) P
g
Z RT
Lee-Gonzalez Method
(9.4 + 0.02 M a ) T 1.5 0.001494 M p Y
g= exp X a

0.0209 + 0.0019 M a + T Z T

197.2
Y = 1 .7 0.002 M a
T
28

28
7/2/2017

Challenges with Matching


Differential Rs and Bo With EOS
Challenges associated with measuring the liquid volume at reference temperature and
pressure, i.e. stock-tank.
EOS simulation might not replicate the final depletion point of the laboratory process.

29
7/2/2017

Eliminating the Stock-Tank Reference:


To eliminate the propagation of errors and for better match with EOS;
consider using the following conversions:

Rsb Rs
( Rs ) cum Scf/bbl to eliminate the ST:
Cumulative gas solubility is referenced to Bubble point volume
Bob
Bo
Bo bbl/bbl to eliminate the ST:
Bob Dimensionless Bo is referenced to Bubble point volume

30
7/2/2017

Rs

Rsb Rs
( Rs ) cum
Bob

Pressure

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights


Reserved.

31
7/2/2017

Bo
Bo
Bo
Bob

Pb

Pressure

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

32
7/2/2017

An Alternative Approach
Instead of:
a, b, and m = f (pC, TC, )c7+

replace with :
a, b, and m = f (MW, sp.gr)C7+

Molecular weight and specific gravity are


measurable properties

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

33
7/2/2017

SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal


Paper # 18532

3 c4 6 c
a or b [ (ci D i )] [ (ci 7i 4 )] 7 ,
i 0 D i 5 7
M 7
D
7

34
7/2/2017

12

10

Modified EOS
LDO, % 6 Exp. Data
PVTSim
WinProp

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure
CVD for Gas 5

35
7/2/2017

4000

3500

3000

2500

Rsd; 2000
PVTSim
scf/STB
WinProp
Modified EOS
1500
Exp. Data

1000

500

0
0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00
Pressure

DE Rsd for Oil 2 at 176 oF

36
7/2/2017

Comment on Gas Cycling

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd.


All Rights Reserved.

37
7/2/2017

Nitrogen Injection

% LDO

38
7/2/2017

Lean Injection

% LDO

39
7/2/2017

Understand the impact of:


a) Gas injection volume on vaporizing LDO
b) Gas Composition on vaporizing/reducing LDO
c) Timing of gas cycling; delay suggests more heaving components to vaporize

40
7/2/2017

What is the impact of injecting gas in a PVT cell containg condensate?

1- LDO curve !
2- dewpoint pressure !

41
7/2/2017

North Sea Gas-Condensate System


Pd = 6750 psi
T = 280 oF
Max LDO = 21.6%
C1 = 73.19%
C7+ = 8.21%

42
7/2/2017

North Sea Gas Original Liquid Drop Out Curve.

25

20
Liquid Drop Out, %

15

10

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psig

43
7/2/2017

North Sea Gas - Methane Injection commencing


at 4300 psig.

25
Liquid Drop Out, %

Original
20
500 scf/bbl
15
1000 scf/bbl
10
1500 scf/bbl

2000 scf/bbl
5

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psig

44
7/2/2017

Comparison of North Sea Injected gas


at 3100 psig (500 scf/bbl).

Original LDO = 21.3%


30
25
20
Liquid Drop Out, %

15
10
5
0

Injected Gas

45
7/2/2017

Comparison of North Sea Injected gas


at 1200 psig (500 scf/bbl).

Original LDO = 19.6%


Liquid Drop Out, %

40

20

0
Original N2/CO2/C1 N2/C1 CO2/C1 N2/CO2 N2 CO2 C1

Injected Gas

46
7/2/2017

EOS must be tuned to match


Hysis Simulation Data

47
7/2/2017

The Nameless Field Schematic of the


Central Processing Facilities
CPF

injection gas line

Stripper Column
(19 distillation trays)
80-250oc
55oc 1500 KPA
Oil Composition !!!
1st Stage 250oc
80oc 1300 KPA Stock-Tank

2nd Stage Boiler Furnace


(Tray-20) Gradual changes in the
temperature in the flow line

48
7/2/2017

Treatment of the Temperature Profile of the


Distillation Column

injection gas line

Temp profile is
Described
by single value of
150oc
150oc
700 KPA
55oc 1500 KPA
Oil Composition !!!

1st Stage
80oc 1300 KPA Stripper Column Stock-Tank
(19 distillation trays)
2nd Stage
The study suggests that the current treatment of the Column in the FFM
overestimates the liquid shrinkage; i.e. it underestimates STOIP and ST oil
produced
2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

49
7/2/2017

The Eagle Ford Example

The Eagle Ford shale is one of the newest shale plays. Located in S. Texas, it extends over
an area of about 20,000 square miles

6 Hydrocarbon Windows

50
7/2/2017

Industry Fluid Identification Standards

System CGR GOR API


STB/MMscf SCF/STB
Dry Gas - > 100,000 -
Wet Gas 10-15 70,000- > 60
100,000
Retrograde 15-300 3,300-70,000 > 50
Gas
Near Critical >300 > 3,300 > 50

Volatile Oil - 1,000-3,300 > 45


Ordinary Oil - 200-1,000 < 45

Low Shrinkage - < 200 < 20


Oil

51
7/2/2017

C1+N2
A
A- Dry Gas
D
B- Wet Gas
C- Retrograde Gas
D- Near Critical
E- Volatile Oil
F- Ordinary Oil C B
G- Low Shrinkage Oil

C7+ C2-C6+CO2
2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

52
7/2/2017

CGR Condensate Yield Y


Qo Qg
CGR The stream from a
Well or PVT cell
Qg Qo
Qo Qstream CGR
Y Qg
Qstream
Qstream Veq QO (Qg ) sep scf/day Qo

Qo
Y
Veq Qo Qg o
Veq 133,000 ; scf / STB
Hg Mo
CGR
Y
Veq CGR 1

Y < CGR

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

53
7/2/2017

On Decline Curves Analysis

54
7/2/2017

Traditional Decline Curve Analysis


Arps Decline Curve Methodology

Arps Decline Curve Analysis DCA has been the standard for evaluating the expected ultimate recovery EUR in
conventional gas and oil wells since 1950s.

Arpss equations were developed based on the assumptions that wells are producing under the Boundary
Dominated Flow BDF and past well performance trend will continue in the future .

qi
qt
(1 bDi t ) 1 / b

The curvature of decline b in the production rate vs. time curve can be expressed mathematically by one of
the following three hyperbolic family of equations:

Exponential decline: b=0


Harmonic decline: b=1
Hyperbolic decline: 0<b<1
PROBLEMS: b>1

55
7/2/2017

The Misuse of Arps Equations


o Arps equation has been often misused and applied to model the performance of
oil and gas wells whose flow regimes are in a transient flow. Arps approach is
strictly applicable ONLY when the well is under boundary-dominated flow
conditions

o When b >1; Arps decline curve approach will OVER ESTIMATE RESERVES

56
7/2/2017

Total Time b Di qi
Days Day-1 Mscf/day
qi
0- 365 2.93 0.0164 2025
qt
(1 bDi t ) 1 / b
0-730 3.00 0.0171 2030
0-1095 3.02 0.0173 2031
1825 2.96 0.0164 2023
3650 2.59 0.0114 1945
7300 1.9 0.0045 1675

57
7/2/2017

When b > 1 and why?

It is common in tight and oil and gas wells that the best fit to the production data requires values of
b > 1, beyond the application limit of Arps equation. Main reasons that the best-fit to the observed
data requires a value of b>1 is that:

1. The observed production data are collected under the unsteady-state (transient) flow regime

2. Production is commingled from multilayered formations that are hydraulically fractured with
multiple stages. Lower permeability zones maybe in transient flow, while higher-permeability
zones have established stabilized boundary-dominated flow.

58
7/2/2017

Modern DCA Methodologies


1) Boundary Dominated b
2) Modified Arps Method
3) Duongs Approach
4) Logistic Growth Model
5) Power Law Exponential Decline
6) Simplified Stretched Exponential Production Decline
7) Stretched Exponential Production Decline

59
7/2/2017

Which decline curve you should select?

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

60
7/2/2017

Recommended Approach
A. Regress and Match Cumulative Production; i.e. Gp or Np, NOT THE RATE
B. Regress and Match ONLY 80% of Observed Data; keep the 20% for Validation
C. Apply and Compare Different Methodologies to Provide with a Range of Answers
D. Using a Sufficient Sample of Wells that Represent the Field and Develop Type Curves
E. Express Results in Terms of P90, P50, and P10

61
7/2/2017

Boundary Dominated b
Under boundary dominated flow, the best oil or gas flow rate equation is give by:

n
Qo or Qg C p r pwf
2
log p r pwf
2
2 2 1 1
log Qo log C
n n

1 p
2

b (2 n 1) wf
2n pi

For a gas reservoir and based on the dependency of the parameter b on fluid and
production conditions, a model to estimate average b as a best approximation during
boundary-dominated depletion as given by:



( g c g ) i m( pi ) m( pwf )
b 1
2 pi pwf
( )
Z i Z wf

62
7/2/2017

Logistic Growth Model:


The logistic growth model LGM is a mathematical expression that used to forecast growth in numerous
applications, e.g. model population growth.

( EUR ) t n EUR
Np
n
at

N P ( EUR ) n a t n 1
qt
t
a tn
2

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

63
7/2/2017

Doungs Governing Equations

q a 1 m
N P oMax exp
a
t
1 m

1


N P
t
a 1 m
qo qoMax t m exp
1 m
t


1


qo = oil orate
Np = Cumulative oil
qoMax = Maximum anticipated oil rate

Regression variables:
1) qoMax
2) a (recommended range 0.5< m <6)
3) m (recommended range 1.1< m <4)

2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

64
7/2/2017

Stretched Exponential Production-Decline


SEPD
t
n
qi 1 1 t
n

qt qi exp & Np ,
n n n

Gamma Function (x+1):


1 1 139 571
( x 1) x x e x 2 x 1 2
3
4
12 x 288 x 51840 x 2488320 x

For example, (5) is expressed as (4+1) which means x=4

Incomplete Gamma Function (g,h)):

g 1 ( g 1) ( g 2) ( g 1) ( g 2) ( g 3)
1 h h2

h3
( g , h) h g 1 e h
( g 1) ( g 2) ( g 3) ( g 4)
h4

65
7/2/2017

On Sector Modeling & Upscaling

66
7/2/2017

Nameless Field

67
7/2/2017

Nameless Field
Upper TAGI Formation , Described by Four Zones
1) U4: 10 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) U3: 15 Fine scale layers 2 coarse scale layers
3) U2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layer
4) U1: 23 Fine scale layers 3 coarse scale layers

Middle TAGI Formation , Described by Two Zones


1) M2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) M1: 35 Fine scale layers 5 coarse scale layers

Lower TAGI Formation, Described by Three Zones


1) L3: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) L2: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layers
3) L1: 40 Fine scale layers 4 coarse scale layers

173 Fine Scale Layers 19 Coarse Scale Layers

68
7/2/2017

69
7/2/2017

Three Major Issues in Upscaling

1)Zonation (Optimum Number of Layers)


2)Averaging Technique
3)Downscaling !

70
7/2/2017

Upscaling Permeability, Porosity,etc.

A. Power Average
B. Arithmetic (Volumetric) Average
C. Root-Mean-Square RMS Average
D. Tensor Averaging
E. Renormalization

Which averaging methodology should we use?

71
7/2/2017

Why not 15? Why Not 30?

72
7/2/2017

Upper TAGI Formation , Described by Four Zones


1) U4: 10 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) U3: 15 Fine scale layers 2 coarse scale layers
3) U2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layer
4) U1: 23 Fine scale layers3 coarse scale layers

23 layers 3 layers

73
7/2/2017

Upper TAGI Formation , Described by Four Zones


1) U4: 10 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) U3: 15 Fine scale layers2 coarse scale layers
3) U2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layer
4) U1: 23 Fine scale layers 3 coarse scale layers

15 layers 2 layers

74
7/2/2017

Sector Modeling

75
7/2/2017

76
7/2/2017

Identifying Problem Layers per Zone

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

77
7/2/2017

Combined Performance of the


Lower TAGI Formation
6Layers Coarse System vs. 80 Layers Fine System

Water cut vs. time

Cumulative oil vs. time

78
7/2/2017

VERDICT
1)19 Layers are Not Sufficient, Downscaling

2)New Geological Model

79
7/2/2017

On Relative Permeability

80
7/2/2017

81
7/2/2017

Reservoir Simulation

2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd.


All Rights Reserved.

82
7/2/2017

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

83
7/2/2017

84
7/2/2017

Simulator
1) TA (this is the driver program)
2) TAREK (The simulator)

Three Files are needed to run the simulator:


TA.dat (Initialization File)
TA.Sim (Simulation File)
TA.out (Output File)

Be SURE to use Notepad when you open


TA.dat & TA.sim (Remember that PLEASE)

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

85
7/2/2017

STEPS TO RUN THE MODEL


Step 1: Step 2:
a) Click on the application file: TA a) Click on the application file: TA
b) Select: Initialization Run b) Select: Simulation Run
c) Follow instruction and answer all questions and c) Follow instruction and answer all questions and CLICK
CLICK ON THE ENTER KEY TO CLOSE ON THE ENTER KEY TO CLOSE
d) At the end of step (C); Open TA.dat with Notepad d) Open: TA.sim with Notepad; this file contains wells info
and Enter Missing Reservoir Data.
e) Save and close the file
e) Save and close the file
f) Click on: Tarek.exe to run the simulator (this is a MUST
f) Click on the application file : Tarek (this is a MUST STEP)
STEP); simulator WILL NOT RUN WITHOUT THIS STEP
g) Results of the run are given in TA.OUT as well as other
files

do not go to step 2 until you:


a) answers all questions
b) close the software by pressing the <ENTER> key
c) Open TA.dat with Notepad and enter missing data
d) Clicking on Tarek.exe
e) Observed the reported OOIP or OGIP
f) If you did not see OOIP or OGIP, something wrong in TA.dat

86
7/2/2017

Initialization File: TA.dat


! 3) Reservoir Model Grid Dimensions
! **********************************
100 100 10 ! x,y, and z blocks

! 4) x-direction Grid Block Lengths


! *********************************
Each time you see
! Warning Warning Warning The Warning message;
! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you must enter some data
! Please, enter below the x-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 100 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
100*300 You enter the data
! 5) y-direction Grid Block Lengths
! *********************************

! Warning Warning Warning


! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Please, enter below the y-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 100 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
100*300 You enter the data
2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

87
7/2/2017

Open the Following Files with EXCEL to Make Plots


(e.g. GasRec.dat, FieldQg.dat,etc)

File Name Contents


-------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
1) Summary.dat > History Matching info.& Well data
2) DailyQ.dat > Field Daily Flow Rates
3) OilRec.dat > Field Oil Recovery Factor
4) GasRec.dat > Field Gas Recovery Factor
5) FieldQg.dat > Field Monthly Flow Rates
6) WellQw.dat > Well Monthly Water Flow Rates
7) GasQ.dat > Field Total Daily Gas Flow Rate
8) WellQg.dat > Monthly Gas Flow Rates/well
9) Pmap.dat > Pressure Map
10) Sgmap.dat > Gas Saturation Map
11) Swmap.dat > Water Saturation Map
12) Layers.dat > Performance of layers, cross flow,etc
13) LayerRate.dat > Production/injection rate/layer

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

88
7/2/2017

The Big Saigon Gas Field


Grid dimensions= 30 x 30 x 3
Reservoir dimensions= X=300 ft, Y=300 ft, Z=20 ft
Initial # of wells= 3 wells
Depth to top= 5000 ft
Start date= Jan 1, 1990
Total Thickness = 100 ft
Temperature 200 oF
Initial Pressure 4000 psi @ 5020 ft
Sgi= 0.70
Simulation time= 7200 days

89
7/2/2017

The Texas Oil Field


Grid dimensions= 30 x 30 x 5
Reservoir dimensions= X=300 ft, Y=300 ft, Z=20 ft
Initial # of wells= 8 wells
Depth to top= 5000 ft
Start date= Jan 1, 1990
Total Thickness = 100 ft
Soi= 0.70
Simulation time= 7200 days

90
7/2/2017

Initial Pressure =4500 psia


35o API
Temperature 200 oF
Gas gravity=0.75
GOR=500 scf/STB
Model will calculate Pb
Pressure at 5020 ft =4500 psi
Minimum Pwf = 300 psi

91
7/2/2017

Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5


Kx, md 20 15 35 12 10
Ky, md 15 12 30 10 5
Kz, md 1.7 1.3 3.0 1.0 0.7
0.25 0.20 0.30 0.15 0.12
h, ft 20 20 20 20 20
Z, ft 20 20 20 20 20

1 x-direction (columns) 30
1 z=20 ft
y-direction (rows)
30 z=20 ft

1 z=20 ft 100 ft
z=20 ft

z=20 ft

92
7/2/2017

Objectives:
1) Maximize Oil Recovery
2) Open Summary.dat to exam the performance of each layer and where the injected water is going
3) Important that you open Sgmap.dat , Swmap.dat & Pmap.dat with Excel
4) Open with Excel: Oilrec.dat to to plot RF & average P vs. time
5) Open with Excel: WellQg.dat, WellQo.dat & WellQw.dat to plot well rates vs. time
6) Open with Excel: WellGOR.dat & WellWOR.dat to plot well rates vs. time
7) Compare Water Injection with Gas Injection
8) Balance Production-Injection rate VRR
9) Drill Horizontal injectors /producers and:
test completion in Layer 1,2,3,4, and 5
Effect of horizontal well orientation
document the difference in RF
10) Stimulate Wells
11) Miscible Displacement
12) Document your Team Results Graphically
13) Team Presentation

93