You are on page 1of 28

Technical University of Crete

School of Mineral Resources Engineering

Postgraduate program in Petroleum Engineering

Reservoir Simulation

Instructor: Ch.Chatzichristos

SEMESTER PROJECT:RESERVOIR SIMULATION

Team
Konstantinos- Dionysios Pandis
Konstantinos Voumvourakis

Chania

June 2015

Table of Contents
History Matching ........................................................................................................... 1
Transmissibility.............................................................................................................. 2
Reservoir description and characteristics....................................................................... 3
Different trials .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Trial 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Trial 2 ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Trial 3 ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Trial 4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Trial 5 ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Trial 6 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Trial 7 ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Trial 8 ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Trial 9 ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Trial 10 ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Results .......................................................................................................................... 20

i

and how well the attempt of matching is done. Therefore. So in essence.History matching is about evaluating the reservoir model with respect to the observed dynamic data. then it will behave the same as the actual wells under future constraints. What does is the total package. and misused models are common. a good history match does not necessarily guarantee a good model. A simulation model represents an oil and gas reservoir in its size. But the model must be verified because one cannot observe. and test every aspect of a hydrocarbon reservoir. measure. The assumption is that once the model reacts under historical constraints. and most importantly. Then the reservoir data that can be adjusted during the history match and the confidence range for these data is also determined. the company resources available for history match. It can be used to evaluate or confirm static conditions. Models are history matched so that under historical production constraints the model behaves similar to actual wells. and the deadlines and data availability. as did the actual wells. shape. The data chosen should be those that are the least accurately known to the field but that have the most significant impact on reservoir performance. reasonable 1 . such as the original oil in place (OOIP). such as well deliverability and production decline. and the criteria to be used to describe a successful match. which is dictated by the objectives of the history match. and physical characteristics. the history match. The first step of history matching is to set the objectives of this process.History Matching History matching is the process of building one or more sets of numerical models (representing a reservoir) which account for observed. Its main intent is numerically to duplicate reservoir performance by incorporating physical parameters that dictate subsurface flow in porous media. Then the historical production data we are interested to be matched need to be determined. One should not use modeling results that contradict common reservoir engineering principles. But this is often incorrect. one can draw various inferences from a properly constructed reservoir model. and many measurements may be erroneous or contradictory. one measures an extremely small portion of the reservoir. The next step is to run the simulation model with the best available input data. At best. consisting of the construction. Then the method to use in the history match is determined. measured data. and dynamic issues.

MULTY. J. measures how easily fluids can flow between them. 2 . the transmissibility default value is 1.0. An upstream weighting will be used for the average relative permeability and an arithmetic average between blocks will be used for the viscosity and formation volume factor. the challenge is to incorporate the information in dynamic data in all reservoir modeling. The single-phase part will be a harmonic average between blocks. each of which is an average between blocks: the single-phase part 𝐤𝐀 𝐊𝐫𝐰 ( 𝐡 ) 𝐚𝐯 and the two phase part (𝝁𝒘 𝑩𝒘)𝐚𝐯 . For a two-phase flow. one for each direction. and to consistently span the uncertainty in predictions. J. the transmissibility of water at the interface of two blocks is given by this formula: kA Krw Tw =( h ) av * (𝜇𝑤 𝐵𝑤)av This quantity consists of two parts. Any non-neighbor connections generated due to faults have transmissibility that reflects the MULTX. Transmissibility The transmissibility between two adjacent blocks of the grid.projections. followed by the Y and Z axis indices. a value of MULTX specified for block (I. MULTX. The keyword should be followed by one non-negative real number for every grid block in the current input box. MULTZ values are not specified when the end of the GRID section is reached. The values specified act as multipliers on the transmissibility’s calculated by the program for the +X face of each grid block. In eclipse simulator the keyword that was used is MULT. On the other hand for the two phase part two different averages are used. Whenever the MULTX MULTY. and MULTZ. K) and (I+1. A is the cross-sectional area of the interface. Grid blocks are ordered with the X axis index cycling fastest. then it applies only to the transmissibility calculated by the program using the information in the GRID section. Moreover. In order to enforce a no flow condition without changing the physical conditions of the reservoir simply set Tw=To=0. K).Ultimately. If MULTX is entered in the GRID section. Thus. MULTZ values. J. K) multiplies the transmissibility between blocks (I. MULTY.

It was decided that history matching will be done for the 4 out of 6 producers. P- A39A. I-H2 & I-INJEC.Reservoir description and characteristics The reservoir that will be examined in this project is consisted of 6 different producers. Injection wells I-A5H and I-H2 are vertical. excluding producer P-ABRH and producer P-A35 because they contribute the least in the total reservoir production. I-A5H. and that some of them are horizontal wells. In the next figure (figure 2). which in turn makes more difficult to appreciate and evaluate the behavioral conditions that apply and affect the reservoir under flowing fluids. I-A38. a sense of the complexity of the reservoir is evident. 3 . The horizontal wells are P-A1H. and 4 different injectors. P-A17. A description of the initial reservoir will follow as well as all the different graphs obtained from the data of the original case that will be history matched. P-A2AH. in which the reservoir is colorless and without gridlines. P-A17. The other producers are far more important in terms of oil production. that is another significant reason which strongly influences the behavior of the reservoir. whereas P-A39A is a vertical one and reaches the area right next to P-A1H. after the injection of water. So apart from the variability in the geology structure of the reservoir. P-A1H. The darker red the area. whereas injector I-A38 is deviating from the vertical axis until it reaches the area next to I-H2. P-A35& P-ABRH. the more oil it has. It is clear that not all the wells are vertical. P-A2AH. Figure 1: Original reservoir fluid flow. Figure 1 illustrates the saturation of oil in the reservoir.

well P-A17. It is obvious that not all the wells produce simultaneously and certain wells act in such way that assists the operation of others. well P-A39A. This well contributes the most in cumulative oil production of the reservoir. The production oil rate for each well is presented in the next graph. It can be noticed that the production order. Figure 3: Well oil production rate for the production wells. is: well P-A1H. from high to low. This graph is an indication of the significance of each well with respect to the oil production. At first the P-A1H production well starts to operate until the 2500 days of production. The production well P-A2AH 4 . well P-A2AH. Figure 2: Reservoir wells. and finally well P-A35.

First the I-A5H well is operating and then it stops and injector I-A38 starts injecting until the end of the production period. Likewise. from the graph above it is obvious that the injectors (I-A38. The production well P-A17 starts production at about 600 days and operates until 3150 days of operations. the graphs for the optimum case will be compared to the following graphs. Figure 5 illustrates the well oil production total. The production well (deviated producer) P-A39A starts production few days before the P-A1H shuts down in order to extract the oil from the near P-A1H region. The two injectors above are positioned at close positions and can be treated as if there was a single injector. to the data on which we are supposed to do the history match. The injection water Rate for each well is presented in the graph below (figure 4). In all of them. The contribution of the above injector is poor in comparison with the I-A5H and I-A38 injectors. I-H2 & I-INJEC) do not operate all at the same time. In the following figures the original case that needs to be history matched is presented in order to identify the deviation from the history of production and to compare with the optimum result at the end of the history match process. 5 . to the highest possible degree. just like the producers. I-H2 well starts injecting only after the first 1000 days of production and operates until about 2200 days of production. This well stops producing at about 1800 day of production and then operates for a few days more until 2200 days from the initiation of the production has been reached.starts operating from the first day of production and has also a significant contribution in the cumulative oil production of the reservoir. Figure 4: Well Water Injection rates. Initial. The discrepancy of the production for each well is crystal clear. the plots are a comparison of the original starting situation of the reservoir. The figures that follow give a clear view of the starting point of the history match process. Ultimately. the data of the history are compared to the data of the initial case. and it is this difference the simulation model that is to be constructed will have to eliminate. I-INJEC injector does not operate at all in the given time period. I-A5H. When the above well stops production P-A35 starts to produce but contributes the least in cumulative oil production and for that reason it is excluded from history matching.

Figure 6: Well water cut. 6 . History vs Initial Figure 7 illustrates the field oil production total. Figure 5: Well oil production total. The deviation in between the respective lines of the history data and the initial’s case data is significant. History vs Initial Figure 6 illustrates the well water cut. the data of the history are compared to the data of the initial case. The simulation model should also accomplish to eliminate as much as possible this disparity. the data of the history are compared to the data of the initial case.

History vs. the data of the history are compared to the data of the initial case. and P-A17. Figure 9 illustrates the well oil production rate for wells P-A2AH. Figure 7: Field oil production total. 7 . Figure 8: Field oil production rate. the data of the history are compared to the data of the initial case. History vs Initial. Initial Figure 8 illustrates the field oil production rate.

Figure 10 illustrates the well oil production rate for wells P-A39A. 8 . Figure 10: Well oil production rate (2). History vs Initial. History vs Initial. and P-A1H. the data of the history are compared to the data of the initial case. Figure 9: Well oil production rate (1).

and z.Process for History Matching In order to perform the history matching technique the use of different boxes was selected in order to alter the direction of flow and achieve the result that is desirable.. In every box that was created transmissibility multipliers in x. 9 . For the proper directions of the flow to be identified the use of flowviz 2014. y. The table below presents the various different boxes installed and the transmissibility multipliers applied at each direction in the reservoir in order to perform the history matching adjustments.directions were used in order to alter the transmissibility of specific grid blocks.1 was crucial.

then the a multiplication of both transmissibility factors take place. Different trials The graph that is presented below for all the different trials is the one of well oil production total. trial. In many cases the area that a box has been assigned to influence.Figure 11 illustrates the relative position of the boxes in the reservoir that were implemented throughout the history matching. Figure 11: Boxes implemented in reservoir space. The reason for that is because the main concern during the process of history matching was the well oil production total for the four production wells that was selected to be history matched. The depth of the boxes that were installed does not have the same depth. gets into the area that some other box influences as well. so this is an aspect that needs to be taken into consideration. Trial 1 10 . history vs. since it is a critical indicator of the production process. when there is a conflict of transmissibility assigned at a certain area. However.

in order to identify the effect of this block in the four wells that are selected for history matching. After this trial the quantities that P-A1 and P-A2 produced deviate even more from the original case. This trial maximizes even more the deviation of P-A1 and P-A2 production wells but results in a good history match for well P-A17. Two of the boxes (Box1. History vs. Figure 12: Well oil production total. I-A38) and two other blocks to reduce partially the transmissibility of the sections (Box2. In this attempt only Box1 is used with increased transmissibility (3 times higher) in every direction. Trial 2. Box5) used aimed in increasing the flow in a certain area one box aims to block an area (Box3) near the injectors (I-A5H. History vs. It is obvious that those adjustments have the opposite result for the history match that is attempted. Trial 1.Box4). 11 . Trial 2 Figure 13: Well oil production total.

In this trial three boxes (Box2. it fails to history match the most important one that is the main producer. and on the other hand. P-A39 also has a smaller deviation from its original value. Box6. Trial 3. History vs. well P-A1. Box4. three other wells (Box4. and Box5) where used in order to increase the transmissibility of the areas that were placed. increase in this manner the secondary recovery of the reservoir.Trial 3 Figure 14: Well oil production total. and Box7) target in decreasing them. and therefore. 12 . The aim is to increase the flow of water coming from the injectors. Even though this trial provides some encouraging results with respect to 3 out of 4 wells. Results indicate that P-A2 production is decreased and tend to be history matched and P-A17 achieves history matching.

13 . Trial 4. The main goal of improving the P-A1 producer is achieved. two of them (Box2. One of the aspects of this attempt is to partially block the interconnection between P-A1 and P-A2 drainage areas. Box7. History vs. however the other three producers now present a significant deviation. The target of this attempt is to try to obtain better results for producer P-A1 and at the same time identify the ways that is influenced. Box5) are constructed in such order. For that reason.Trial 4 Figure 15: Well oil production total. and another aspect is to reduce the quantity of oil that P-A1 produces. and three others (Box4. that they will impose a tendency to increase the transmissibility of the region placed. and Box8) that have a counter operation. which is to reduce the transmissibility of the respective areas. The latter is achieved by reducing the transmissibility in the y-direction and at the same time the x and z directions are significantly increased. five boxes are used.

Box6. 14 . Trial 5. History vs. Two of the boxes used increase the transmissibility (Box5. The aim in this attempt is to change the direction of the flow of the injection wells. Box4. Box7) act towards reducing it or try to change the flow direction. Producer P-A17 is history matched but the other three deviate from the production history. Box2) of the area that they are extended and the other four (Box3.Trial 5 Figure 16: Well oil production total.

Trial 6 Figure 17: Well oil production total. Box number 3 aims to change the water flow of the main injectors and increase the transmissibility in two other boxes (Box1. Trial 6. In trial number six only three boxes where used. History vs. This attempt results on the optimization of just the P-A1 main producer without a significant effect in the rest of the producers. 15 . Box2).

The increase that Box 5 provides is only at x and y directions and reduces the vertical transmissibility of the area reducing with this way the oil quantity of the main producer. Box7) aim in blocking interconnections of nearby wells. Box6. Only P-A1 main producer is history matched at the end of the run. The other Boxes (Box3. In this attempt six Boxes are used in order to alter the direction of the flow of the reservoir. and in changing the direction of the flow in order to history match the four main producers.Trial 7 Figure 18: Well oil production total. 16 . History vs. Box4. Box5. Only Box 5 aims to increase relative permeability of the area that is situated (close to P-A1). Trial 7.

This attempt uses the same Boxes as the previous on (trial 7) and the only difference is in transmissibility multipliers of Box15 which is placed right in front of the P-A2 producer. 17 .Trial 8 Figure 19: Well oil production total. History vs. This trial optimizes the one producer but lead to a significant deviation of the total history matching of the reservoir. In addition affecting the transmissibility in z-direction changes the transmissibility in other directions and thus changes the direction of flow. The increased transmissibility of the X and Z direction lead to an increase in the production of P-A1 and to a reduced oil production in P-A2. Trial 8. The raise in vertical transmissibility did not lead to the increase of the production of P-A2 well because the cells that were influenced were not the ones that have a direct contact with the producer.

18 . Box 15 is removed because it disturbs the history match of the other producers.Trial 9 Figure 20: Well oil production total. Box 16 is implemented in this attempt in order to alter the relative flows in another area away from the producers and injection that concern the reservoir. which means that the final solution is close to what has been already designed. History vs. The aim of Box 16 is to reduce the quantity of oil that is produced from P-A2 and P- A17 producers that are affected the most from the changes at this area. In this attempt a relatively satisfying history match is achieved in three out of four production wells. Trial 9.

Trial 10 Figure 21: Well oil production total. With the above adjustment a portion of the oil instead of moving towards the P-A2 producer to move towards the direction of P-A1 well.direction are reduced in order for the relative difference to be in favor of x direction. The other two wells have small deviations from the previous case. The same boxes are used as in the previous run. The only change is in the factors affected the relative flow of Box 5. Trial 10.and z. 19 . The y. History vs.

some representative slices of the reservoir have been cut off. 20 . after water injection. an annotated picture shows the boxes that were selected in the optimum solution of the history matching process. a more detailed view of the consequences in permeability will be presented. by making use of graphs derived from petrel software. In order for the saturations of the fluid phases to be shown.Results Hereby the optimum case chosen will be presented. Figure 23: Boxes implemented in reservoir space for the optimum solution. In the following figure (figure 23). In the figures to follow. In order to better illustrate the effect of the boxes. certain graphs are presented as well. Figure 22: Reservoir fluid flow for the optimum selection. Those slices are chosen at the areas mostly affected by the presence of the boxes. due to the installation of the boxes that were previously presented. Figure 22 illustrates the oil saturation of the reservoir for the optimum case.

Figure 24 attempts to identify saturations in specific cells of box 3 and box 16. Saturation of oil is increased around the area of the well. Figure 25: Fluid flow of reservoir slices through boxes 3. 21 . The basic function of box 3 is to block the injection of water and alter the direction of flow towards P-A39A in order to increase the quantity of oil that is produced from this well. It is obvious that there are a lot of boxes with increased oil saturation. the saturation of oil has been increased and this is due to the low transmissibility in Z-direction. 6 & 16. 5. Box 16 aims to reduce the flow of oil that is produced from wells P-A1 and P-A39 and this has an effect in the saturations. It can also be noticed that in the very last layer of the slice. therefore our target is accomplished. Figure 24: Fluid flow of reservoir slices through boxes 3 & 16.

As already mentioned box 3 reduces the transmissibility in the top two layers and blocks the flow through those cells. Figure 27: Fluid flow of reservoir slices through boxes 3. 6 & 16. This is due to the fact that Box 4 enforces a really low transmissibility in the cells and acts only on 6 top layers. it can be noticed that below Box 4. As far as the influence of those two boxes in P-A39 well is concerned. Figure 26: Fluid flow of reservoir slices through boxes 3. The target is to reduce the quantity of oil that P-A39 produces. 22 . Moreover. 6. This cross section gives a better understanding of the flow of fluids in y direction due to the presence of the three boxes in the area. Generally at the edges of the reservoir and at the bottom layer a quantity of oil is trapped. a significant quantity of oil is trapped also. Box 3 aims in reducing oil production and box 6 aims in increasing it using secondary recovery technique. Box 6 affects only the top 2 layers that are oil saturated and reduce the transmissibility of those cells.

In figure 28. passing over producers P-A1H and P- A2AH. Figure 29: Fluid flow of reservoir slices through boxes 5 & 7. The above picture indicates the flow of fluids toward P-A1H and P-A2AH wells. Consequently. Figure 28: Fluid flow of reservoir slices through boxes 4 & 5. passing over producer PA-1H. Increased oil saturation can be distinct in the grid cells next to P-A1 (transmissibility in x- direction is promoted the most). The flow of water is significantly promoted due to the presence of Box 5 which has altered the direction of flow. it can be easily noticed the effect of the boxes in oil saturation of the reservoir. which are the two main producers of the reservoir. there exists some oil that is left behind in between layers and does not to flow towards the producing wells. In the cell of Box 7 a reduced flow of water can be shown due to reduced transmissibility in this area. Oil saturation is greater in the cells 23 . The increased transmissibility in the z-direction of box 5 transfers a great quantity of water towards P-A2AH and increases secondary recovery of oil. Finally producer PA-1H receives a significant quantity of oil due to water injection applied in the area. Box 4 (which acts on 6 layers) enforces a really low vertical transmissibility. The increased transmissibility of box 5 affects the saturation of the cells that are shown above.

in order for the main producer (P-A1) to be sufficiently history matched. Figure 30: Well oil production total. Producer P-A39 has the least contribution in oil production and deviates to a greater extent at the WOPT diagram after the history match procedure. History vs. a significant improvement is obvious and the greater deviation for the water cut is for producer P-A39. Optimum. compared to the other three producers. In figure 31 the water cut of the optimum scenario and the water cut of the history of production are presented in order for a comparison to be made. After the selection of the optimum trial is made several plots are presented to support this selection. This well operates in order to produce the oil that P-A1H cannot reach. Finally for the optimization of the history matching a really small adjustment is performed in the relative permeability of the z. The water cut of the final attempt demonstrate a deviation in certain dates but the general trend is the same.direction. 24 . That is the reason why the deviation in water cut is greater for this well. This attempt is considered to be the optimum one because the four main producers of the reservoir match at the same time the history of the production to a tolerable degree. From the above figure the P-A39A well is shown and the area next to P-A1H which is oil saturated. This deviation occurs due to the fact that the history matching process was aiming in the history match of WOPT and not to those of the water cut of the four wells.next to P-A17. On the other hand when comparing the original case before history matching.

Figure 31: Well water cut. In figure 32 the cumulative production for the reservoir is presented in comparison with the history of production. History vs. After that and until the end of the production period the cumulative oil production starts deviating from the history data. Until 3400 days of production the two cumulative productions present an almost perfect match. Figure 32: Field oil production total. Optimum. 25 . History vs. This is due to the fact that there is not a perfect match between the four production wells that are used and moreover because producer P-A35 is excluded from history matching but is taken into account in the cumulative oil production of the reservoir. The P-A35 producer starts operating at the day 3200 and after a few days the FOPT starts deviating more intensely. Optimum.

This result is for similar reasons with FOPT overproduction indications and deviation of the water cut in P-A39 producer. The main reason is the lack of P-A35 producer form history matching procedure (operates at the end of production) and the overestimation of his production well until the end of the production period. In general. History vs. 26 . After the 2800 day and especially after the 3200 day of production the deviation becomes greater. Finally. until day 2800 deviations are not significant and this is evidence that history matching quality is adequate. Figure 33: Field oil production rate. To conclude. for the identification of the quality of the history mach process the field oil production rate is presented in comparison with the history rate. the quality of the history matching that was performed during this project is regarded as adequate. is in FOPT of the reservoir. In general. From the three graphs that were presented above the best fit as far as the history match is concerned. the simulation model that was built could in fact provide realistic future prediction scenarios that will contribute valuable information for the prospective production of this particular reservoir. On the other hand well water cut and field oil production rate for the reservoir present a deviation between history and optimum trial especially in the last days of production. Optimum.