Internship Report

Transmisssibility upscaling of hydraulically fractured well models using Eclipse and SimOpt

Nneoma Ogbonna

March – August 2008

Abstract

This work investigates the generation of transmissibility correlations for use in upscaling models of hydraulically fractured wells built in Eclipse , and the extension of these correlations to specific two and three dimensional case studies.

i

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Smith Institute for providing the opportunity for this internship through the Industrial Mathematics Knowledge Transfer Network scheme, and for their effort in ensuring that is went smoothly. I would like to thank my manager Dr. Tony Fitzpatrick (Schlumberger) for taking me on this project and introducing me to the vibrant SIS team at Abingdon. I would also like to thank Haythem Ounaissa (Schlumberger) for all the help given during this project. I would like to thank my academic mentor Prof. Dugald Duncan for his full support during the internship. My special thanks goes to my family and friends who have been untiring in their support.

ii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 Upscaling techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Review of existing work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Software tools used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Hydraulic fracture modelling 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Model setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Fracture modelling in 2D . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Comparison of existing and current 2.3.2 Spline interpolation . . . . . . . . 2.4 Coarse grid refinement . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Two fractures defined in the domain . . . 2.6 Fracture modelling in 3D . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Problem setup . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Conclusions and further work Bibliography A Definitions A.1 SimOpt objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2.1 Steepest descent algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2.2 Gauss-Newton algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2.3 Merging the two: Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm A.3 Eclipse variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3.1 Transmissibility calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3.2 Well equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3.3 Average well block pressure calculation . . . . . .

1 1 3 4 5 5 6 8 8 9 12 15 17 17 18 21 22 23 23 25 25 26 27 27 27 28 31

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

iii

. . . . . .2. . . .1 Base case . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Fracture kept the same and blocks refined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 33 35 35 39 41 42 43 43 46 48 C Preliminary investigations in 3D C. C. B. . C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Two separate fractures . . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Fracture spans more than one grid block . .1 Blocks kept the same and fracture extended B. . B. .2 Discussion .3 Preliminary tests with calculated initial multipliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B Preliminary investigations in 2D B. . B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Problem setup . . . . . . . . . . .4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The fracture provides high permeability channels through which reservoir fluids can flow into the well. and global-global methods.1 Upscaling techniques Upscaling techniques can be classified according to the types of parameters being upscaled (single or multi-phase systems) and the way in which these parameters are computed (local and global calculations) [4]. the techniques can be classified into local-local. renormalization techniques. This level of detail is often unsuitable for numerical reservoir simulation due to the amount of time and computer resources required and so upscaling is necessary. and the aim is to preserve the gross features of flow on the coarse grid. Based on the way the upscaled parameters are calculated. the upscaled parameter is often the absolute permeability. harmonic/arithmetic averaging techniques and homogenization theory [2]. 1. The treatment involves pumping specially engineered fracturing fluid into a closed well bore at a sufficient pressure to fracture the formation. In general fractures and other geological variations can be represented by geostatistical reservoir models. In this case several simulation runs are needed to cover the range of parameter variations. and this keeps the fractures open when the treatment is complete. Examples of existing single-phase upscaling methods are pressure-solver methods. where the first word refers to (fine grid) experiments and the second word to (coarse grid) calibration [5]. Hydraulic fractures add to the heterogeneity in reservoir permeability.1 Introduction Hydraulic fracturing of wells is a stimulation treatment applied to low-permeability reservoirs to improve fluid recovery. The fracturing fluid contains solid proppant such as grains of sand. upscaling of relative permeability and capillary pressure must also be considered [2. local-global. effective medium theory. 9]. global-local. Upscaled reservoir models are also required when assessing risk and uncertainty in reservoir performance. which give the information on a very fine scale (typically on the order of 107 – 108 cells). For single-phase systems. For multiphase systems. and it is desirable to perform these using substantially coarse grid blocks. In local-local 1 .

This idea is similar to history matching where we seek to minimize an objective function of a simulation model and the reservoir by varying simulation parameters. the coarse parameters are computed by considering only the fine scale region corresponding to the target coarse block [4]. See [3] for a comparison of the performance of different upscaling methods on a test problem. This may be necessary if fine-scale information is sparse [5]. It also involves the minimization of a functional measuring the difference between fine and coarse solutions. Upscaling introduces errors due to homogenization of the medium and coarsening of the computational grid [9]. These methods are successful when the length scales of heterogeneity are well separated. They showed that the output least squares method was able to preserve total mass flux over each coarse grid block. Application of this method to specific test problems gave accurate solutions. Holden and Nielsen [6] compared the weighted output least squares method to the following methods: minimization of the pressure field in the energy norm. as it requires the global solution on both the fine and coarse grids. Also a match in production data does not necessarily imply a match in reservoir parameters. The upscaling method used in this work falls under global-global upscaling as described in [5].methods. Local-local methods can be very inaccurate in three dimensions [5]. Gridblock aspect ratio and significant transport at an angle to the gridlines are some factors that strongly influence the upscaled value [2]. meaning that small changes in the initial data could lead to large differences in the solution. who applied a weighted output least squares method to permeability upscaling of single-phase flow. For local-global methods. and a local upscaling method. The minimization approach to upscaling was discussed by Nielsen and Tveito [7]. Furthermore. while remaining comparable in efficiency to traditional local methods. The assumption is that the model generated by parameters that minimize the objective function is the best suited model (if it is a global minimum). The resulting upscaled model from this method is improved if optimization starts off close to the desired minimum. Also it is difficult to analyze errors in the outcome subject to the assumptions made in the calculation. and a model that provides a good fit in one respect could perform very badly in the other [10]. minimization both pressure and velocity fields in the L2 norm (which they called the output least squares method). they showed that it was not necessary to solve the fine scale pressure equation. otherwise they can be improved by considering a flow region slightly larger than the original coarse cell (the so-called extended local method). The objective was to obtain upscaled permeability on the coarse grid that minimized the difference in velocity fields of the fine and coarse scale models (in the defined weighted norm). 2 . History matching is a non-linear inverse problem and is often ill-posed. the fine model is only upscaled in a few regions and the complete coarse scale model is built by interpolating these upscaled values. Global-local and global-global methods require the global solution (or a good approximation) on the fine grid.

the multipliers 3 . Previous work on hydraulic fracture modelling was carried out on a single-phase system comprised of water.1 shows a schematic of matched well blocks pressures (containing the dots) and modified transmissibilities (shown by the arrows) for the 2D model. x. fracture length. 1. The well bottom hole pressure (WBHP) and average well block pressure (WBP) recorded during these simulations were then matched to corresponding coarse model measurements by applying multipliers calculated from regression runs to x. through the modification of coarse grid transmissibility in the fracture region. orientation and grid block size). y center location and orientation. A hydraulic fracture was modelled as a thin high permeability strip in a locally refined grid with the producing well defined at the center of the fracture.2 Review of existing work The work carried out in this internship is part of a Schlumberger study into upscaling hydraulically fractured reservoirs. The pressure equation for the LGR model was solved for different grid block sizes and combinations of the following fracture properties: length.1. y transmissibilities in the defined regions (see Section 1. permeability. The block shown in a different colour contains the producing well. It extends existing work that has been done for vertical wells in two dimensions. For each set of parameters (that is. and transmissibilities in the fracture vicinity. The parameters that were modified to obtain a fit were the well connection factor. A coarse model was fit to the LGR model by performing non-linear least squares minimization. center location. More information on the objective function and the regression algorithm are provided in Appendix A. In this section an overview of the work that had been done for a two-dimensional model is given. permeability.1: Schematic showing matched average WBP (dots). The objective function used was a weighted sum of squares of the difference in pressures (well bottom hole pressure and average well block pressure measured in the fracture vicinity) of the LGR model and the coarse models.3 for the software tools used). The goal is to obtain a coarse model that suitably approximates flow and pressure patterns of a hydraulic fracture model represented on a locally refined grid. (a) x regions (b) y regions Figure 1. Fig. and regions of modified transmisibility. The producing well is in the central block of the modified region.

1. Two separate simulators make up this suite: E100 for black oil modelling and E300 for compositional modelling.that gave a satisfactory match were recorded. The existing correlations express these multipliers as polynomial functions of fracture length. SimOpt provides gradient. For more on the form of the objective function see Appendix A. permeability and orientation angle. These properties are not altered by SimOpt directly. 4 . compositional and thermal recovery. and preliminary investigations are summarized in Appendix B and C.2). At the end of the complete set of regression runs a function was matched to the dataset of multipliers for each modified transmissibility region using least-squared curve fitting (in Matlab). The regression algorithm implemented is the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (see Appendix A. The user specifies regions of the simulation model within which properties of interest are adjusted. ˆ A 3D model. which may be multiplicative or additive. Eclipse is the Schlumberger finite difference reservoir simulator software with capabilities for black oil. In addition. SimOpt is a Schlumberger program that assists in the history match of an Eclipse simulation model to observed data. rather it alters the property modifiers. 1. The E100 simulator was used in this study. covariance and correlation information to aid in sensitivity analysis of the selected parameters. Multi-dimensional spline interpolation was performed using Matlab . after smoothing the data by spline interpolation. Work done to this effect is discussed in Chapter 2. It features options for different computational geometry and numerical algorithms. In addition. Python scripts were used to generate Eclipse input files for different parameter combinations and also for initial result analysis. x center position. standard deviation and weights) about the parameters to be specified.3 Software tools used The numerical simulations in this work were carried out using Eclipse and SimOpt . The aim of this work was to investigate the extension of the existing correlation to the following cases: ˆ In 2D – A fracture spanning more than one grid block – A situation where two fractures are close enough to interfere. The difference in observed and simulated data is expressed as a weighted root mean square (RMS) error. It has a regression facility in which a series of cases are run and selected parameters are adjusted in order to improve the match. Input data is specified in free format using a keyword system and can be prepared in a text editor (or using Petrel or Eclipse Office). It also allows prior information (mean. as well as representing several reservoir properties.

Details of preliminary investigations are in Appendix B and C. µ is viscosity. The governing equations for single-phase flow are the conservation of mass. ˜ The problem of permeability upscaling is one of finding the coarse scale permeability k such that the solution of the coarse scale problem is. and these emphasized the importance of good initial 5 . this program adjusts the transmissibility of selected regions in the coarse model by applying multipliers. regions of modified transmissibility.2 Hydraulic fracture modelling 2. Details are provided in subsequent sections. Details of transmissibility calculation in Eclipse are given in Appendix A. WBP matched.3. ρ is density. and depends on the grid size. and when the problem has multiple minima the solution it arrives at depends strongly on how the problem is set up (the chosen initial conditions. and equations of state. in some sense. For the global upscaling problem considered here. p is pressure and qm is the source/sink term (mass flow rate per unit volume).1 Introduction This work was carried out on a single phase model comprising of water. this is achieved indirectly through transmissibility upscaling. As stated in the previous chapter. Multi-dimensional spline interpolation was then performed to obtain a function of the multipliers for each of the modified regions in terms of simulation parameters.1) where φ is porosity. The pressure equation in this case can be written in the following form: ∂ (φρ) − ∂t · (k ρ · µ p) = qm (2. The upscaling process was carried out using SimOpt . close to that of the fine scale problem Eq. Darcy’s law. SimOpt solves a non-linear least squares minimization problem to arrive at multipliers for the upscaled model.1). k is the permeability tensor. etc). Transmissibility appears in the discretized pressure equation.(2. The process was performed for LGR models generated by varying a set of fracture properties and the multipliers for the upscaled models were recorded. Difficulties were encountered in investigations that were carried out initially due to the nonuniqueness of the solution being sought.

pi.1 shows some sample models. where qi+ 1 . Relevant simulation parameters are listed in Table 2. Tcoarse (2. A calculator script was used to automate regression runs in SimOpt . and the prior standard deviation was set to 0. j) and (i + 1. a modification was implemented in SimOpt to allow the automated specification of multiplier prior information from the calculator script. Fig. For the tests that were run.2 Model setup Investigations were performed on a model consisting of 31 × 31 cells of size 250 × 250 × 10 ft.j is the well flow rate.2) and Eq. Using this setup in the regression runs in SimOpt led to marked improvement in results obtained. Considering the steady-state discretized pressure equation (for incompressible flow). j) and p is the average well block pressure. The estimated multipliers were then computed from Eq.(2.4) In addition variation from the calculated initial multipliers during the regression run was restricted by specifying prior information for the multipliers: prior mean. 2.j pi.2) gives the estimated x-direction transmissibility Tx .(2. UDQ keyword entries were added to the input files to compute the transmissibilities of regions of interest according Eq.3). and initial multipliers were calculated as the quotient of the two.2 for x. On completion of each regression run.j (2.1. the prior weights were set to 1.(2. The y and z direction transmissibilities are defined in a similar manner.j = pi. Eclipse input files (for the LGR model) for the different parameter combinations were generated using a Python script.2) (2.j 2 (Tw )i. 6 .3) gives the estimated connection transmissibility factor from the inflow performance relation. standard deviation and weights.j = 2 qi+ 1 . where w qi.j is the average well block pressure. A significant improvement introduced in this study is the calculation of initial multiplier values to be used in SimOpt from the LGR model. A Python script was developed and called from the calculator script to extract coarse and LGR transmissibilities from Eclipse RSM files. In addition. and pw is the well bottomi. multipliers were exported to text files.j − pi+1.j is the total (volumetric) 2 flow across the interface between blocks (i. 2.(2.j − pw i.4).estimates to the regression runs. that is Multiplier = TLGR . These equations were applied to LGR and coarse models to get the estimated transmissibilities.3) Eq.j w qi. as will be discussed in the sections that follow. the prior mean was set to the estimated initial value. initial transmissibilities were calculated from the following equations: (Tx )i+ 1 . y multipliers and 1 for z and connection transmissibility multipliers. Eq.(2.j hole pressure.

1: Sample LGR models (a) Layer 1 (b) Layer 2 (c) Layer 3 Figure 2. 9. 63.Table 2.y) 10 (x-).1: Simulation parameters Domain permeability (mD) Grid refinement (x.13). 10 (y-). pos = (5.9). 100000 (x-. 14. 1 (z-) 33 × 33 (well block) 9 × 9 (surrounding 8 blocks) 3 × 3 (surrounding 16 blocks) 5. 27. 76 1000.directions) Fracture length (number of LGR cells occupied) Fracture x. 25.2: Well positions for a three layer model 7 . pos = (13.y-. 17. angle = 14° Figure 2. angle = 76° (b) frac props: len = 25. 10000. 13. 17 0. degrees) Fracture permeability (mD) (a) frac props: len =11.z. 45. 11. 33 5. y center position Fracture angle (approx.

2. 2.1 multipliers were generated for a 2D model. Comparison of data acquired from both studies showed significant difference in the x.3. The dot indicates the block that contains the producing well and fracture. The multipliers for these cases were set to zero in subsequent analysis.5). The producing well was always placed at the center of the fracture. 2.5) in the LGR fracture block.3 Fracture modelling in 2D Using the parameters listed in Table 2.3: Transmissibility modification regions. The target RMS for the regression was set to 2. The multipliers for the connection transmissibility factor on the other hand did not vary as much for both studies. and the regression was controlled using prior information. Some parameter combinations do not yield valid models. In addition comparison of inter-block flow rate in the fracture vicinity showed that the current set of multipliers provide a better estimate (see for example Fig. The difference between the two is that while the regression was started with all parameters set to 1 in previous studies. and the match focuses on late-time steady-state pressures. for instance a fracture of length 33 centered at position (5.4 shows sample plots of multipliers obtained from previous and current work.2. y multipliers in general. The SimOpt configuration used for these runs is shown in Fig. 2. 8 .1 Comparison of existing and current multipliers Fig. 11 1 2 9 12 15 3 4 5 6 10 13 16 7 8 14 (a) x regions (b) y regions Figure 2.3. Fig.5. initial multipliers in this study were calculated from Eq. 2.(2.2(a) shows the position of well block pressures that were matched.(2.2) and Eq.3).

9 . position = (17.13) .5).(a) frac.3. In general the new multipliers give a better prediction. = 100000 mD and orientation = 76°.5: Comparison of predicted block flow across the fracture block for a coarse model using existing and current multipliers. Some of the capabilities of this toolbox are: ˆ The construction of interpolating splines. perm. This was accomplished by performing multi-dimensional spline interpolation using the Matlab spline toolbox. perm.4: Comparison of multipliers from existing work to current multipliers (a) x direction (b) y direction Figure 2. perm.5) . Fracture parameters are: length = 5. = 1000 mD Figure 2. frac. position = (17. = 1000 mD (b) frac. 2. position = (17. frac. least-squared approximation splines and smoothing splines for data fitting. The Matlab spline toolbox provides a suite of functions for the construction and subsequent use of splines.2 Spline interpolation It was desired to express the multipliers for each region as a function of the simulation parameters.

38 Better results were obtained with piecewise polynomial spline interpolation.2 to equivalent coarse models with multipliers calculated from the interpolating function gave RMS values shown in the table.6(a). knot/break choices. The requirement of a smooth second derivative at interpolation points however leads to an overshoot of the obtained estimate in some regions as shown in Fig. RMS calculation (with respect to matched WBP/WBHP. The piecewise polynomial spline form was used in this study. y center position for a permeability multiplier of 100 (in this case fracture permeability of 1000mD).2. Table 2. 2. 10 . 2.51 63 ° 30 9 17 100000 mD 13. and others.2: Test data Angle Length x center position y center position Permeability RMS 14 ° 19 11 11 1000 mD 17.2(a)) of the fit coarse model and corresponding LGR model for the test data gave a value of 74. An evaluation run in SimOpt matching LGR models for test parameters in Table 2. Visual comparison of measured LGR and coarse model pressures showed a good match (see for example Fig. 2. Initially linear spline interpolation was performed as a function of fracture length. The rest of the chapter contains investigations that were carried out with respect to extending multipliers from this default case to specific 2D and 3D case studies. etc. This was resolved by first performing Hermite cubic interpolation in the relative fracture length and fracture orientation to obtain a smoother set of data before applying spline interpolation.7).ˆ Provision of piecewise polynomial form. end conditions. The interpolant was tested by applying to the test data in the first column of Table 2. ˆ Versatility in spline construction: specification of order. see Fig. B-spline form. orientation and relative x. rational spline form. ˆ Support for multi-dimensional spline interpolation and interpolation of vector-valued functions.

rel.2879%. ypos = 0.(a) Piecewise polynomial spline interpolation before(b) Piecewise polynomial interpolation after smoothing smoothing using Hermite interpolation in fracture length and angle Figure 2. Maximum relative error = 2. orientation and permeability multiplier) (a) WBHP (column2).6: Connection transmissibility factor at perm.2. Interpolation performed in 5 dimensions (fracture length. relative error is for time > 20 days 11 .7: LGR and predicted coarse WBHP for parameters in Table 2. Rel. rel.83% (b) WBHP (column3). x. mult = 100. error in drawdown = 0. xpos = 0.1363.5. Max. y relative center position. error in drawdown = 1.44% Figure 2.3914%. Rel. Maximum relative error = 0.

8 multipliers from the refined model were generally lower. Figure 2. The main source of this error was the measured WBP especially for the block containing the fracture. x multipliers were calculated from the refined model using observation wells at the same positions and inter-block flow at the same faces as the original coarse model. This is due to the different block sizes for which the average block pressure was measured. Test 1 In the first test. 2.2. This should be implemented in order to properly compare the effect of grid refinement on calculated initial multipliers when equivalent well block pressures and inter-block flow are used in the computation on both coarse and refined grids. In this section. In order to get consistent results. LGR models were generated for fracture permeability of 1000 mD only. with all other properties remaining the same. The multipliers were distributed in a similar manner but as shown in Fig.8: Comparison of initial multipliers calculated from the original (unrefined) and refined LGR models 12 . initial multipliers calculated from the refined model must use the average pressure of composite blocks that make up the equivalent blocks in the original model. These multipliers were then applied to the original model and RMS values calculated. with values between 20 and 80 obtained. the domain was refined by 3 in the x direction.4 Coarse grid refinement Preliminary investigations had been carried out comparing multipliers from a refined grid to multipliers from a coarse grid (see Appendix B).

2. Following this arithmetic. In some cases the initial multipliers calculated for the blocks containing the fracture were greater than the set maximum of 100.Figure 2.10. In Case1 regions between observation wells were equated to regions in the original model while in Case2 averages were taken over regions corresponding exactly to the original case. Models to the left are closer to the left boundary of the fracture block. 2. Test 2 The second test was carried out to explore the relationship between multipliers from the coarser model to multipliers from the individual regions on the refined grid. Regions are labelled as in Fig.3(a). Two cases were considered as shown in Fig. and RMS values obtained by substituting these averages into the original model were equally high (up to 150 in some cases). geometric and harmonic averages of the multipliers were calculated and compared to multipliers from the original model.9: Ratio of original to refinement x multipliers for the different regions. 2.11. The ratios of the original multipliers to these averages are plotted in Fig. 13 . It may be possible to map multipliers from the original model to a subset of the regions used in Case1. The plots show that these averages are a poor estimate of the original multipliers especially in the regions closer to the fracture. The multipliers calculated at the left and right end regions in Case1 were quite close to 1 implying that the transmissibility for these regions do not need to be modified. Evaluation runs of the the refined model using these multipliers gave an RMS that was less than 6 for most simulations. x multipliers were calculated for individual refined regions that make up the regions of the original model. However the tests performed here show that the mapping is unlikely to be a straight-forward average. these were rounded down to 100.

2.3(a). Regions are labelled as in Fig. 14 . with higher deviations in regions closer to the fracture.10: SimOpt x regions used in the second test for the refined coarse model Case1 Case2 Figure 2. The plots show that in both cases the averages are a poor estimate to the original multipliers.(a) Case1 (b) Case2 Figure 2.11: Ratio of x multipliers from the original model to averages of multipliers from the refined model.

12). an evaluation run gave an RMS value of 4. Simulations were run for fracture permeability of 1000 mD. the initial x transmissibility multiplier across the border of the cells that contain the fractures gave a negative value.3). 2. As before. Two cases are compared here: fractures placed side by side and fractures separated by one grid block (see Fig.5) and orientation angle 0 For Case1. On the other hand when the calculated initial multipliers were all positive an evaluation run gave low RMS values.24 respectively.2)–(2. the SimOpt simulation was set up with regions shown in Fig. which presented a problem as SimOpt does not accept negative multipliers.(2. initial multiplier values were calculated using Eq. WBP W1 < WBP W5 in the LGR model in contrast to the coarse model. 15 . Running regressions with the negative multiplier set to 1 in these 2 cases terminated with no further improvement at RMS values of 70.38 and 15. 2.12: Two fractures occupying 5 LGR cells with center at position (5.17). For example for fractures occupying 5 cells with centers at positions (5. Both producing wells in the model were set to the same target rate as used in the base case.2. An examination of the data revealed that negative multipliers arose when the pressure difference used in calculating initial multipliers were of opposite signs in the LGR and coarse models. For most of the models.9).8.13. (a) Case1 (b) Case2 Figure 2.5) and (13.5 Two fractures defined in the domain This section examines multipliers obtained when two fractures of identical properties are placed close to each other. For instance for fracture length = 5 cells and center position at (17.

15). (16. then the error made in using the positive value instead may not be significant as demonstrated above.17) .14: SimOpt regions for Case2 A similar situation with negative initial multipliers was experienced for Case2. As in Case1. As stated earlier SimOpt does not allow the specification of negative multipliers.14 resp.9) by setting negative multipliers to 1. the final RMS obtained from regression runs (with the negative values set to 1) could be large or small.13: SimOpt regions for Case1 (a) x regions (b) y regions Figure 2. 16 . The examples shown here present the problem where flow and pressure behaviour of the LGR model differs fundamentally from the coarse model that is being matched.(a) x regions (b) y regions Figure 2. If the negative multipliers are relatively small.44 and 7.17). On the other hand when the negative multipliers are large. This is the case when the multipliers calculated from the LGR model are negative. regressions were run for fractures occupying 5 cells with centers at positions (5. (15.5) and (13. The model with fracture length = 5 cells and center position at (17.015 across faces (on the right hand side of blocks) (15.17) had negative initial x multipliers of -0. An evaluation with these multipliers set to positive gave an RMS value of 3.97. These terminated with no further improvement at RMS values of 17.15). (16.

The regions where transmissibility was modified for the first case are shown in Fig. using initial calculated multipliers as a guide for selecting these regions. still needs to be researched.1. including more regions in the match could reduce the RMS. Regression runs were carried out in SimOpt using initial values calculated from the domain block pressures and inter-block flow rate. For the second case. the x. Table 2.5.15. and whether these multipliers can be related to those from the base case study.For the cases where the resulting RMS is large.1 Problem setup This section investigates a three layer model with a fracture at the center of the domain ((x.2 with acceptable results as shown in the table below. In addition its impact on the final set of multipliers. The interpolant was applied to the test data in Table 2.5 63 ° 30 9 17 100000 mD 2.94 17 .68 12. Two cases were considered: a) the fracture and producing well in the second layer and b) the fracture and producing well in the top two layers. The wells that were matched are shown in Fig. with respect to the extent of deviation of the upscaled model from the properties of the LGR model. However the significance of setting large negative multipliers to 1 before running regressions. y regions for the first layer are defined the same way as for the second layer (as in Fig.6 Fracture modelling in 3D 2. y)=(16.15 (b). 2.2.16)). The regression needed only 5 iterations to converge to an RMS value less than 5. 2. for the parameter values in Table 2. Following this a 5 dimensional spline interpolant was calculated for each modified region.32 11. 2.6.(e)).3: Application of piecewise polynomial spline interpolant to test data Angle Length x center position y center position Permeability RMS (well in middle layer) RMS (well in top 2 layers) 14 ° 19 11 11 1000 mD 6. needs to be investigated. 2.

2 Discussion Initial tests (see Appendix C) had shown that low RMS values were obtained by substituting x.6. The RMS values obtained from evaluation runs in SimOpt were less than 9 for the first case (3D model with a fracture defined only in the second layer). substituting 2D multipliers into the fracture layers for both 3D models defined above.15: Transmissibility regions 2. for the 879 valid models generated using parameters in Table 2.(a) x regions (layer 1) (b) x regions (layer 2) (c) x regions (layer 3) (d) y regions (layer 1) (e) y regions (layer 2) (f ) y regions (layer 3) (g) z regions (layer 1) (h) z regions (layer 2) Figure 2. More tests were performed here.1. y multipliers from the two dimensional model previously described into the fracture layer of the three dimensional model investigated. and less than 14 for the second case (3D model with a fracture in the top two layers). 18 .

(2.2) and Eq. especially in blocks surrounding the fracture (see Fig.(2. While these runs completed with low RMS. In order to run the regression these multipliers were set to positive if they were less than one. 19 . y multipliers. The z multipliers in the blocks containing the fracture were generally in the same range. problems were encountered where multipliers varied widely over a few iterations without a comparable change in RMS values. As stated in previous sections the effect of this assumption on the resulting set of multipliers still needs to be investigated. 2. It is noted here that the computed initial z multipliers for the block containing the fracture were always positive (whereas some calculated initial z multipliers for blocks surrounding the fracture were negative and had to be reset in order to carry out the regression runs). or to one if they were greater. However there were cases where calculated initial z transmissibility multipliers were negative. This dominant horizontal flow is captured in the coarse model by the x. On the other hand starting the regression with multipliers calculated from Eq.The horizontal extent of the domain is much more than the vertical extent (grid blocks are 250 × 250 × 10 ft). and the simulation results above suggest that multipliers from a 2D model can be used in a 3D model if similar flow patterns occur in both. as were the connection transmissibility multipliers.0001 when there was little or no flow in the z direction. It is possible that modifying the prior weight and standard deviation assigned to the z multipliers will reduce this variation. In some cases the initial z multipliers were as low as 0. making it difficult to determine when to stop the regression in order to obtain results that matched expected flow properties in the fracture region (see Table C. y multipliers compared to the z multipliers. A graphical comparison of z multipliers for the 3D models described in this section showed a much higher variation in values obtained for the first case (3D model with a fracture defined only in the second layer) in each region compared to the second case. so flow is predominantly in the horizontal direction. Preliminary regression runs carried out with all multipliers set initially to 1 resulted in z multipliers that were still close to 1 at the end of the regression run in all regions except in the fracture block.2).16). Prior information for the regression runs of both models were set to have lower standard deviation and higher weights for the x.3) ensures that the initial multiplier values reflect the properties of the LGR model.

16: Comparison of z region multipliers 20 .(a) ZRegion 5 (b) ZRegion 27 (c) ZRegion 7 Figure 2.

Results obtained in the 3D study suggest that x. Three cases were investigated: in 2D. The major difficulty encountered in the investigations was the sensitivity of results obtained to initial values for the regressions. All the fractures defined in this study lay strictly within the fine well block. For the investigations that were carried out. A more systematic choice may improve the outcome of the investigations that were carried out. The workaround implemented was to set the multipliers to positive if they were relatively small. the refinement of the original grid cells. and the control of deviation from these initial values during regression by using prior information (mean. The standard deviation and weights used in the prior information are somewhat heuristic. or set them to 1 before running the regressions. y multipliers from a two-dimensional model can be used in a three-dimensional model if similar horizontal flow patterns occur in both. However further tests need to be carried out in order to understand the behaviour of the z transmissibility multipliers. a three layer model. and with respect to the relationship we seek to establish with multipliers from the original study needs to be investigated further. due to the non-unique nature of the problem being solved. there were cases where the calculated initial transmissibility multipliers were negative and could not be used directly in the regression. The main contribution of this project is the use of initial values (transmissibility multipliers) that are calculated from the locally refined and coarse models. Data used for the existing correlations was obtained by carrying out regression runs to minimize an objective function described in terms of measured well bottom-hole pressure and average well bore pressures on coarse and locally refined grids. There is the question of what happens when a fracture edge is along the boundary of a fine/coarse mesh.3 Conclusions and further work The aim of this project was to investigate the extension of already existing correlations for transmissibility upscaling of hydraulic fracture models to specific configurations in two and three dimensions. standard deviation and weights) in SimOpt . in 3D. The effect of this action on the outcome. and placement of two fractures close together. 21 .

Carter. Errors in history matching. Nielsen and A. Presented at 7th International Forum of Reservoir Simulation. June 2004. Tenth spe comparative solution project: A comparison of upscaling techniques. Texas.F. [8] Ananth Ranganathan.1. International Journal For Numerical Methods in Fluids. The levenberg-marquardt algorithm. 2002. Durlofsky. [7] B. [9] R. Upscaling for reservoir simulation. Christie. pages 1004–1010. An upscaling method for one-phase flow in heterogeneous reservoirs. Tveito. June 23-27 2003. Upscaling: a review. Blunt.A. Aziz. 50:115–143. SPE37324. Buhl/BadenBaden. SPE72469. L. Sablok and K. Journal of Petroleum Technology.A.Bibliography [1] Schlumberger Simulation Software Manuals 2008. 1998. Tavassoli. November 1996.J. 40:63–78. September 2004. [6] L. Germany. August 2001. pages 352–361. [2] M. [10] Z. Holden and B. J. Jonathan N. Houston. Computational Geosciences. [3] M. Upscaling of geocellular models for reservoir flow simulation: A review of recent progress. Christie and M. pages 308–317. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. and Peter R. 22 . Farmer. SPE Journal. Upscaling and discretization errors in reservoir simulation. [4] L. [5] C. 2000. Global upscaling of permeability in heterogeneous reservoirs. 2: 93–123.F. 2005. Nielsen. SPE86883. Presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium. King. a weighted output least squares (wols) approach. the output least squares (ols) method. SPE93372. Transport in Porous Media.

3 were taken from [1]. γ r s Cs fprior α T β −1 r r + sT Cs s + γfprior 2 2 (A.A Definitions Sections A. The production data for this work were the measured well block and bottom hole pressures. survey and prior terms resp. which are assumed to be log-normally distributed. all parameters in SimOpt are normally distributed except transmissibility and permeability parameter modifiers. group or connection individual data point of dth data set observed and simulation production values resp. A.1 and A. This allows these parameters to vary more rapidly compared to the normally distributed parameters. vector of residuals for the production data vector of residuals for the survey data matrix of correlations between observed survey data residuals objective function prior term By default.2) observed production data type at well. β.1 SimOpt objective function The objective function minimized by SimOpt is f= where α. measurement error for dth data set overall weight for dth data set weight for ith production data point 23 . ci σd wd wi oi − ci σd (A. The residual r is the weighted error in matched production data values: ri = wd wi where d i oi .1) overall weights for production.

24 .6) where λ λ σ un-normalized parameter modifier mean value of the parameter modifier distribution standard deviation of the parameter modifier distribution The overall measure of the history match in SimOpt is represented by a root mean square index: 2f rms = (A. and f is the objective function. It is defined as : 1 −1 fprior = (Bν)T Cprior (Bν) 2 where ν B Cprior vector of normalized parameter modifiers diagonal matrix of parameter modifier prior weights parameter modifier prior correlation matrix (A.3) a set of a given observed survey data type at a given time individual grid block data point of dth data set observed and simulation survey values resp. square root of the variance associated with the observed survey residual value overall weight for dth data set The objective function prior term allows the inclusion of information on how the parameter modifiers are expected to vary.5) (A. ci σi wd (oi − ci ) σi (A.Survey data was not used in this work but the definition is included here for completeness.7) m where m is the total number of observations over which the index is formed. The survey data term allows other quantitative information about the reservoir to be incorporated into the survey. Each element si is defined as: s i = wd where d i oi .4) The normalized parameter ν is defined as: ν= λ−λ σ log 10(λ) − λ = σ Normal distribution Log-normal distribution (A.

Let d = αd where d is a unit vector. such that f (x. w1 ) > f (x.8) where f (x.(A. .9) where w = (w1 .10). w0 + d) is smallest when d = −α 25 . w0 )T d + HOT (A. w). Eq.11) f (x. converges to the minimum of f (x. w) is differentiable. m ≥ n and r(w) = (r1 (w). . w3 . − f (x. . This algorithm provides a solution to non-linear least squares minimization problems. For this reason.2 Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm SimOpt uses the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. w0 ) . w0 )T d is the directional derivative of f (x. w2 ) > f (x. is the direction of steepest descent away from the point w0 . w0 ). w0 + d) = f (x. The direction of d that yields the highest variation in Eq.10) ˆ ˆ provided d is small (derivative is wrt w). . w2 . In terms of the iterative algorithm implemented. which is a combination of the steepestdescent method and Newton’s method. The problem we are interested in solving is: M inimize s. .10) is ˆ d= f (x.A. A. w0 ) un-normalized direction. .(A. w) = 1 2 m 2 rj (w) j=1 (A.t y = f (x. w3 ) > . In nonlinear least-squares minimization. . . x are the variables and w are the parameters we want to vary to minimize the equation.2.1 Steepest descent algorithm The function f can be linearized in the neighbourhood of a point w0 f (x. w0 ) + f (x. w) is of the form: f (x. f (x. . w2 . wn ). and significantly outperforms steepest-descent methods for medium sized problems (of a few hundred parameters). w0 ) in the direction d. . w0 ) (A. Then ˆ ˆ ˆ f (x.8) translates to generating a sequence: w1 . f (x. We need an update method wk+1 = wk + αk that takes us to the minimum. w3 . . . w0 ) f (x. r2 (w). rm (w)) is the residual vector. w) w ∈ Rn (A. .(A. So in Eq. the f (x.

so that 2 rj is small).16) f (x. The Gauss-Newton algorithm incorporates curvature by making use of second derivatives.2. w) = f (x. the Hessian can be approximated by J T J. The optimum step size solves the equation d[f (x. w0 ) + (w − w0 )T 2 f (x. w0 ) (A. A typical example is a long narrow valley.(A. Typically. then be solved from Eq. wk ) (A. the steepest descent algorithm chooses to move away from this point in the direction of steepest descent wk+1 = wk − αk f (x. wk+1 )] d[f (x.2 Gauss-Newton algorithm The simple steepest descent algorithm suffers from convergence problems. This is not achieved with simple steepest descent method.14) If we assume that f is quadratic around the minimum. wk − αk f (x. w0 )]−1 f (x.13) A. Applying the Jacobian and Hessian to Eq.17) Using the approximation that f is quadratic (that is rj is linear. 26 . w0 ) + HOT . where the component of the gradient along the valley base is small and the component along the valley walls is high. This method can only be applied to minimize least-squared problems. (A. since the update is a constant multiplied by the negative gradient. (A. there is more motion in the direction of the walls even though more motion along the valley base is preferred.(A. With the steepest descent method.14) to give w = w0 − [ 2 f (x.18) The rate of convergence of this algorithm is affected by linearity of f around the starting point.9): m f (x. The Gauss-Newton algorithm arises from implementing this approximation. there are methods to approximate αk without solving this equation exactly. w) = j=1 2 rj (w)rj (w) = J T (w)r(w) m 2 j=1 (A. Another issue is that the curvature of f may not be the same in all directions.Given a point wk . Expanding the gradient of f around the point w0 gives f (x.15) which is the Newton algorithm. w) = 0 at the minimum can f (x. so that the Hessian is calculated from the Jacobian. w) = J T (w)J(w) + rj (w)rj (w) (A. wk ))] = =0 dαk dαk However. The update algorithm thus becomes wk+1 = wk − [J T (wk )J(wk )]−1 J T (wk )r(wk ) (A. one would like to take larger steps when the gradient is small and smaller steps when the gradient is large to prevent shooting out of the minimum.12) The step size αk takes us closer to the minimum.

j A= 27 .19) The parameter λ is varied so that away from the minimum where the quadratic assumption is less likely to hold. it is limited by the need for matrix inversion.i A D Cd · Mtx. wk ) (A.A. However for moderately sized problems.1 Transmissibility calculation Block-centered cartesian transmissibilities are used in this work based on cell-centered separations ∆x. E100) Transmissibility multiplier for cell i Interface area between cell i and j Dip correction ∆xi ∆yj ∆zj Rj + ∆xj ∆yi ∆zi Ri ∆xi + ∆xj 1 ∆xi ∆xj + B= 2 κx. This algorithm was modified by Marquardt to become: wk+1 = wk − (H + λdiag(H))−1 f (x. ∆y. wk ) (A.3 Eclipse variables A.001127 (Field. each component of the gradient is scaled according to the curvature when λ is large (that is. A. ∆z and with a dip correction. On the other hand. 0.21) Transmissibility between cell i and j in the positive x direction Darcy’s constant.i Cd Mtx.ij = where Tx.3. Hence there is larger movement in along directions with smaller gradient.i · A · D B (A. it is increased to emphasize the steepest-descent method.i κx. this can be handled by specialized methods.2. The x transmisssibility is defined as: Tx. Although Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm is a heuristic method which works quite well. it takes small values near the minimum so that the quadratic approximation of the Hessian is utilized . and the error valley problem cited earlier is handled.3 Merging the two: Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm The update rule proposed by Levenberg is wk+1 = wk − (H + λI)−1 f (x.20) In this way. when the steepest descent method is emphasized).

22) Al = ∆yl ∆zl Rl DHS D= DHS + DVS ∆xg + ∆xl DHS = 2 DVS = (hg − hl )2 Mtx.l · D (A. DHS+DVS ∆xi + ∆xj DHS = 2 D= where 2 DVS = (hi − hj )2 . The x transmissibility between a local grid l and a global grid g is Cd · Mtx.2 Well equations The flow path between a single reservoir grid block and the well bore is referred to as a connection.i · A B (A. only the following definitions are relevant: 28 .ij = where ∆zj ∆xi ∆yi + ∆zi ∆xj ∆yj ∆zi + ∆zj 1 ∆zi ∆zj B= + 2 κz.3. and DHS .lg = B where B= 1 2Al ∆xg ∆xl + κx.25) Tx. κ =permeability.for R = net to gross ratio.23) (A.j A= Transmissibility calculation for LGRs Here the representative area chosen for the transmissibility between local and global cells is the face of the local grid cells. That is: Tz. h = depth The y transmissibility is given by an analogous expression.g κx.l (A. The net to gross ration R and dip correction D do not appear in the z-transmissibility definition. 2 A.i κz. For the homogeneous case under consideration.l is the x+ face multiplier.24) Cd · Mtz.

j = Twj Mp. 0. water.26) volumetric flow rate of phase p in connection j at stock-tank conditions. The IPR is written in terms of the volumetric production rate of each phase at stock tank conditions: qp. √ κ Effective permeability .001127) is the angle of the segment connecting with the well. Connection transmissibility factor For vertical wells. So the pressure at the connection j (connection pressure) is (Pw + Hwj ) There are other special inflow equations that can be specified using keywords. gas) across a connection j is given by the inflow performance relationship.28) + 29 . κ = κx κy h net thickness of connection ro pressure equivalent radius rw well bore radius S skin factor Peacemann’s definition is used to compute ro for a cartesian grid (the well is assumed to penetrate the entire thickness of the block through the center).2832 (2π ). it is adjusted to 0. For wells located on an edge (or a corner) of a cartesian grid block. Twj Connection transmissibility factor Mp. as the connection is assumed to be in the center of the grid block.j (Pj − Pw − Hwj ) where qp. and negative from well into the formation.j (A. COMPDAT).28 κy κx κy κx 1 2 + (∆y)2 κx κy 1 4 κx κy 1 2 1 2 1 4 (A.25 (WPIMULT. (∆x)2 ro = 0.Inflow performance relationship (E100) The flow rate of a phase p (oil. in radians.j Phase mobility at the connection Pj Nodal pressure of grid block containing the well Pw Bottom hole pressure of well Hwj Well bore pressure head between the connection and the well’s bottom hole pressure reference depth. Twj = where c θ cθκh ln(ro /rw ) + S (A.27) unit conversion factor (Field. In a cartesian grid its value is 6. The flow is taken as positive from the formation into the well.5 or 0.

j = kp. Y = (C − Cv )(P − Pref ). the productivity index will vary with the fluid mobilities at the well. is defined Qp (A.j λp.33) where the sum is over all connections j belonging to a well. But whereas the connection factor remains constant over the lifetime of the well (unless the skin factor changes because of silting or stimulation. The steady-state productivity index is defined as the production rate of a chosen phase divided by the draw down. 30 .j ln(ro /rw ) + S ln(rd /rw ) + S (A.32) should be used instead. Productivity index The productivity index defines the degree of communication between a well and the reservoir. Unlike the connection factor.j where kp.29) Relative permeability of the phase B = phase formation volume factor. the following relationship is derived: J= j Twj Mp. for example).32) J= Pd − Pw Assuming steady radial Darcy flow exists with uniform mobility throughout the region bounded by the drainage radius.j 1 = Bp.31) where X = C(P − Pref ).Phase mobility The mobility of a free phase p at connection j is given by: Mp. The draw down here is the difference between the well’s bottom hole pressure and the pressure in the reservoir at the edge of the well’s zone of influence. C is water compressibility and Cv is water viscosibility.j (A.30) (A.j µp. J.j λp. rd . Thus the productivity index. Note that this expression is only valid for vertical wells.(A. µ=phase viscosity E100 calculates Bw using Bw (P ) = and Bw µw using Bw (P )µw (P ) = Bw (Pref )µw (Pref ) 1+Y + Y2 2 Bw (Pref ) 1+X + X2 2 (A. The extent of the well’s influence is known as the drainage radius. for horizontal wells Eq. it is a quantity that can be obtained directly from field measurements.

k Vo.k + Po. Pressure of surrounding 4 or 8 blocks.j (A. So P wb = F2 P wb.k V F1 No.The drainage radius rd is often known only to a poor degree of accuracy. Pd can be replaced with a weighted average pressure within a 1-block.v The connection factor weighted average is computed as follows: P wb. so that Eq. A. 8 or 9.v where P wb P wb.3. 31 .3 Average well block pressure calculation In Eclipse . 4-block.c P wb.34) j This represents PI of the well within its connecting grid blocks rather than within its drainage region.v F2 Well block average Connection factor weighted average pressure Pore volume weighted average pressure Weight factor between P wb. Po.k Vo. F1 ≥ 0 F1 < 0 connection factor N-point average block pressure Inner block pressure. The default option sets its value for each connection equal to the value of the pressure equivalent radius.33) reduces to J= Twj Mp. o.k . 8. well block average pressures represent the average pressure of the grid blocks containing connections to a given well and (optionally) their adjacent and diagonal neighbours.c + (1 − F2 )P wb.k Pi.k .k Vi.(A. (at connection k) pore volume weight factor / flag 4.k + Vi. 5-block and 9-block region around each connecting grid block.k Po.c = k Tk P k k Tk o.k No.c and P wb.k o.k P k = F1 Pi.k .k + (1 − F1 ) Pk = where Tk Pk Pi. 5. Inner block is ignored for 4. weighted either by the connection transmissibility factors or the grid block pore volumes.

The pore volume weighted average is: P wb. or 9 as described above. 8.v = where N = 4. 5. N j=1 Vj Pj j Vj 32 .

The regression runs were started with initial value of all multipliers set to 1.1: LGR configuration for base case showing the fracture as a high permeability strip in the locally refined cell. Fig. and number of runs set to 30 (unless otherwise stated).2 shows the LGR configuration for the base case. An effort was made in the studies to keep the choice of regions for which transmissibilities were modified as close as possible (in some sense) to that used in the existing work. Where a different cell size was used it will be indicated. with a 33 × 33 refinement for the block containing the fracture. B.1 Base case Figure B. B. 33 . All runs were carried out with on a single phase model comprising of water. Most of the initial runs were carried out on a 21 × 21 grid with cells size of size 550 × 550 × 10 ft. In this chapter the tests that were performed are summarized. target RMS set to 1.B Preliminary investigations in 2D Several possible extensions in 2D to the existing set of multipliers were investigated.

2: X and Y transmissibility regions modified in SimOpt . The fracture was selected to span the entire width of the well block. B. its WBP is not matched. Each coloured cell for the XTrans indicates that the transmissibility of the right face is modified. and a 3 × 3 refinement for the surrounding 8 blocks. and the x. and data for the first 20 days was ignored in the fit as only the steady-state regime is of interest. with total RMS in these cases less than 34 . For instance with a cell size of 550 × 550 ft and a total of 13 × 13 or 17 × 17 cells. ˆ The cell size/number of grid blocks combination used has an effect on whether the multipliers in question reach the maximum set value.1. z permeabilities of both the coarse and LGR models were set to 10 mD.(b) x regions (a) Region definition (c) y regions Figure B. The simulation was run for 120 days. This configuration is taken from previous work. The x multipliers for the block containing the fracture reached the maximum value of 100 defined for the regression.683 and 23.636 respectively (max was 1000). Red triangles indicate wells that were matched. and for the Y Trans that the transmissibility of the lower face is modified. the x multipliers for the fracture region were 10. The regions and wells that were fit to the LGR model using SimOpt are shown in Fig. Only the WBHP for W1 is matched. Some tests were run to investigate this and the observations are summarized below. y.2. The x. Also increasing this set maximum led to a further increase increase in the x multipliers without much improvement in the RMS value at the end of the run (see for instance Table B. z permeabilities of the fracture were set to 1000 mD. y.

Further iterations did not give any significant improvement. It was desired to choose the modification in a manner similar to the base case in Fig.2.25 after 30 runs. For 21 × 21 and 31 × 31 cells. Two cases were investigated: a) the fracture was extended to neighbouring blocks and b) the fracture was kept the same and the grid refined. B. Different choices of transmissibility modification regions were tried on the coarse model. The entire fracture region was modified to 99 × 33 cells. ˆ When the WBP of W1 was included in the match.4(c)–(d) is similar to the previous one except that each cell is treated separately. However the resulting multipliers were strongly correlated.2 in order to facilitate the comparison of the two cases. B.1. which is unacceptable. The base case results were applied to this model by treating it as a model with 3 separate fractures and matching base case multipliers to corresponding faces. B.3. The configurations in Fig.5. B.4(a)-(b) shows some of the grid cells grouped into a single region. The outliers in multiplier values did not only occur in the base case but also in the subsequent tests discussed in this chapter. This setup terminated with an RMS of 27. B. The LGR configuration for this setup is shown in Fig.1 Blocks kept the same and fracture extended Here the fracture was extended by one grid cell to the left and to the right so that it spanned 3 cell blocks. the multipliers reached the set maximum. Also the set of multipliers obtained was different from the original case. the x multipliers for the fracture region did not reach the maximum value. with a significant change in the well connection factor. ˆ The multipliers did not reach the maximum when 24 observation wells were used in the regression match instead of 12. Hence the fracture remained centered on the producing well (W1). ˆ Setting the multipliers to be normally distributed instead of log-normal also prevented the fracture region multipliers from getting to the maximum.4(c)–(h) terminated with low RMS values.4. Some of the configurations that were tested are shown in Fig.) are observation wells. In subsequent tests the methods listed above were applied and the different multipliers that were obtained were compared with the base case multipliers. The product and arithmetic.2 Fracture spans more than one grid block The idea here was to investigate whether/how the existing set of multipliers can be extended to a case where the fracture spans more than one grid block. 35 . B. W3 and W5 (on the left and right of W1 resp. The modification shown in Fig. B. B. The modification in Fig.

4: Some SimOpt modifications tested for Section B. and they yielded high RMS values (greater than 100). In Fig. (a) x regions (b) y regions Figure B.2.Figure B. The resulting multipliers are listed in Table B. with a 9 × 3 refinement defined in the LGR model for each of the 8 composite cells surrounding the fracture block . with a 9 × 9 refinement for each of the 8 composite cells surrounding the fracture block. a 1 × 3 composite region is defined around the fracture. For the last 3 configurations shown the multipliers obtained were compared to the base case multipliers.1 harmonic and geometric average of overlapping regions were tested. if any. but it was unclear what relationship.4(e)–(f).1 36 . Similarly in Fig.3: LGR setup for Section B. exists between the data obtained. a 3 × 3 composite region is defined around the fracture.4(g)–(h). B.2. B.1 .

4–contd.(c) x regions (d) y regions (e) x regions (f ) y regions (g) x regions (h) y regions Figure B.2.1 37 .: Some SimOpt modifications tested for Section B.

2715 0.92222 4.962 1.2784 1.2083 0.Table B.8476 1.8177 0.1: Multipliers from the base case and when composite cells are defined around the fracture Type ConnTrans XTrans XTrans XTrans XTrans XTrans XTrans XTrans XTrans YTrans YTrans YTrans YTrans YTrans YTrans YTrans YTrans Domain W1:11:11:1 Region1 Region2 Region3 Region4 Region5 Region6 Region7 Region8 Region9 Region10 Region11 Region12 Region13 Region14 Region15 Region16 Total RMS : Total Runs: Base Case 5.2784 0.69629 1.3469 0.4506 1.7692 1.3615 14 3×3 15.83473 0.915 1.678 0.86834 1.86841 3.4648 30 1×3 7.010001 36.7693 10.68856 0.2951 0.5385 993.8327 17 38 .0347 1.3668 1.72105 1.92667 0.83473 0.84857 1000 0.0062 1.924 0.01 0.84098 0.83906 0.0029 1.5384 1000 0.84855 1000 0.84768 1.73 0.8373 1.84094 0.85344 0.5255 1.2819 1.8328 1.7753 0.83917 1.73197 2.7752 10.

As a result. Also.5(c) are examples of some more configurations that were tried in an effort to preserve the symmetry of defined regions. x and y multipliers for both the unrefined and refined coarse models were obtained by running regressions in SimOpt (with their corresponding LGR models).5(b)–B. Defining the same regions for the refined model does not lead to individual cells that are centered around the fracture (compare Fig. while the multipliers for the base case are symmetric around the fracture. Producing well in block (32. applying the multipliers from here to the base case led to high RMS values.2 Fracture kept the same and blocks refined Here the fracture and wells were left in their positions and the grids were refined.B. the regions for which transmissibility is modified are centered around the block containing the fracture. These were combined with y multipliers calculated from the arithmetic average of corresponding faces in the refined coarse model. B. Nevertheless.6). Some of the SimOpt configurations that were matched are shown in Fig. The x multipliers (for the refined coarse model) were then upscaled to the unrefined case by calculating the harmonic average for faces between corresponding wells (see Fig. The simulation results show that while a harmonic average relationship exists originally between the unrefined and refined coarse models. It is noted here that SimOpt can only handle a maximum of 50 parameters. In the base case. B.5: SimOpt regions for refined grid. or by defining a 1 × 3 block region in the SimOpt run.5(a) to Fig. the regression terminated with a low RMS . B. B. the multipliers for the blocks in Fig. (a) Figure B. The multipliers from these tests were compared to the base case multipliers. but no obvious relationship was detected. B.2). while staying as close to the base case configuration as possible.32) and fracture from block 31 to 33 39 . Fig. B.2.5. this relationship does not hold after they have been upscaled to the LGR model. hence there is a limit to the number of regions that can be defined for this refined case.5(a) are not. Next a study was carried out where the domain was refined 3 times in the x direction alone.

6: The harmonic average of x multipliers for regions on the right figure were substituted into regions in the left figure 40 .(b) (c) Figure B.32) and fracture from block 31 to 33 Figure B.5–contd.: Producing well in block (32.

Producing wells are W17 and W12 (c) Regions for (b) Figure B. The first test looked at the multipliers obtained when a single fracture was at the center of the domain (position (21. and when it was moved one and two cells to the left. simulation were run for cases where the two fractures were separated by one.B. a 41 × 41 domain of cells of size 552 × 552 × 10 ft were used. three and five cell blocks (see Fig. suggesting that the values stalibilze as the fractures are moved further apart. with the case of one block separation between the fractures having outliers in the x multipliers.7: Two fractures separated by one (a) and three (b) cell blocks 41 .W1. The maximum modifier value was set to 105 .W5. In general there was more variation in the x multipliers compared to the y multipliers. Following this. (a) Fracture separated by W1.21)). The results were fairly identical. Producing wells are W3 and W5 (b) Fracture separated by W3. B. For there tests. Multipliers for a separation of 3 and 5 block were quite close.3 Two separate fractures The investigations here looked at how base case multipliers were modified when two fractures of identical properties placed close together. However comparison of the multipliers for these cases to the base case of a single fracture did not give any conclusive results.7).

and converged to the desired target much faster. 42 . the regressions started with much lower RMS values. Using this method. and assumptions about the multiplier distribution were tested. The variance in the results emphasized the need to better condition the regression runs. Also the multipliers that were obtained matched both the pressure and block flow behaviour in the fracture vicinity much better on the average when compared to the case where the regression began from an initial value of 1.B. different region configurations. and restricting the regression using prior information (prior mean. For the cases discussed above. This was achieved subsequently by calculating initial guesses for the runs using data from the LGR model. Some of these initial tests were repeated with the new set of multipliers obtained. weight and standard deviation) as discussed in Chapter 2.4 Summary The work in this section investigated transmissibility multipliers from a regression fit of a coarse and an LGR model under different conditions. number of observation wells. and are discussed in Chapter 2.

The fracture was defined for the top two layers in the LGR model.1 Problem setup A three layer model was defined with the producing well connection open in the top layer. usually 1. The regions that were modified in SimOpt are shown in Fig.1: Grid configuration for LGR model.C Preliminary investigations in 3D The motivation for this study was to understand how well z multipliers obtained from the regression fit of a 3D model in SimOpt captured expected flow in this direction.3.2–C. C. C. C. A schematic is shown in Fig. 43 .1 and relevant simulation parameters are listed in Table C. (a) Areal view of top layer (b) Grid slice showing high permeability layers and well connections Figure C. These early studies were performed setting the initial values of multipliers to a fixed value.1.

layer 1 (e) y regions. (a) x regions.z. 1 2) 33 × 33 (well block) 9 × 9 (surrounding 8 blocks) 3 × 3 (surrounding 16 blocks) Table C.directions) (x. layer 3 Figure C. layer 3 (d) y regions.1: Simulation setup.Grid dimension Block size Domain permeability (mD) Fracture perm (mD) Fracture location (in LGR) Grid refinement (x.2: SimOpt project: Transmissibility modification regions. y. 1 (z-) 1000 (x-.y) = (21. layer 1 (b) x regions. layer 2 (f ) y regions. z) = (17 17.y) (no refinement in z− direction) (x. 44 . 10 (y-). 21) 552 × 552 × 10 10 (x-). layer 2 (c) x regions. 1 33.y-.

(g) z regions. Figure C. layer 2 Figure C.3: SimOpt Project: Region definitions. 45 .2–contd. layer 1 (h) z regions.: SimOpt project: Transmissibility modification regions.

13787 73.5932 30 Modifier 29.0909 3. it was necessary to determine when the regression should be stopped in order to get the optimum match.363 2.007 0. As several simulations were to be run for different combinations of fracture properties. some of the region multipliers showed a large variation (examples in Table C.572 0.2917 3.9592 26 Modifier 26.8604 28 Modifier 26.3625 3. In the end this problem was solved by calculating initial multiplier values and restricting the regression using prior mean.024356 0.929 0. 34 and 38 regression runs. Further investigations were carried out by refining in the z direction.1132 34 Modifier 39. 30. of runs Domain W1:11:11:1 Region11 Region20 Region35 Region40 Modifier 25.C. it was expected that the z transmissibility multiplier should be higher between the top two fracture blocks compared to the bottom two. C.069 8.25 0.30932 9.5656 38 46 .77327 0.876 0. However these did not give satisfactory results. 28.3988 0.8594 34.010002 0. While there was no big improvement in the final RMS. However a plot of the flow rates in the fracture vicinity showed a significant difference between the LGR and predicted values (see Fig. and starting the regression from different initial fixed values. Moreover given that all the blocks in the original coarse model have the same permeability and the fracture in defined for the top two layers in the LGR model.46905 1.2: Transmissibility multipliers at different number of regression runs Type ConnTrans XTrans YTrans ZTrans ZTrans TRMS No.4296 7. matching initial transient data instead of steady-state latter data.2).2 Discussion Transmissibility multipliers were recorded after 26. For all these cases there was a good match in the measured WBP.3625 3. The results showed that this was not satisfied as the regression progressed (see Region 35 and 40 in Table C.77869 1.44805 1.4). standard deviation and weights. More discussion is presented in Chapter 2.2).1829 1.4079 7. Table C.406 3.

47 . J.4: I.26 runs 38 runs Figure C. K flow rates in fracture vicinity for multipliers recorded after 26 and 38 regression runs.

1.5 33.0221 3.8 24. 26.17).0 17.9).15.26.2769 (*) No improvement with further iterations. Results are summarized in Table C. The tests showed that fewer iterations were needed to converge with pre-calculated multipliers.436 17. The transmissibilities that are modified (in addition to the connection factor) are shown in Fig.17).272 9. ˆ Orientation: 0°.8625 9.6085 12. 2D x/y mults for 2nd layer mults in final result 1.5 17.(xpos.34 18 8.1543 5.(17.8633 5.17).(17.C.26.1535 4.762 9.9).(17. More tests to this effect were performed and are discussed in Chapter 2.2773(∗) 21 1.116 23.3454 14. y multipliers from a 2D model can be used in a 3D model. Also plots of block flow rates in the fracture vicinity showed better overall match when the multipliers were pre-calculated.5° Matched wells and transmissibility regions are the same as listed in Section 2.0 33. Simulation parameters are as listed in Table C.(9.17).17).ypox). A comparison was made between regressions run with pre-calculated multipliers.0 17. 48 .527 28. (17.9911 5. 33.8596 9. The following fracture properties were used: ˆ Length: 17.4747 22 21.248 25.9 3.angle Test 1 Evaluation run using calculated mults 5 iterations from calculated mults and restricting using prior info Substituting equiv. 2.99 18 1. In addition the results in Table C.3575 16 1.8373 6.8418 12. Table C.9).3 Preliminary tests with calculated initial multipliers In these test simulations were run for a three layer model with producing well and fracture defined in the middle layer.8889 3.568 9.5 3. ˆ Center position: (9. and those run setting initial value of all multipliers to 1.6.871 24. 2D x/y mults for 2nd layer mults in final result Test 2 Regression from initial value of 1 Number of iterations Substituting equiv.8616 5.3: RMS obtained for different runs in SimOpt Model: len.4392 18 1.1 suggest that under certain conditions x.26.3.(17.(9.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful