VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference

VIP-EXECUTIVE®
Technical Reference
© 2008 Landmark Graphics Corporation
R5000.0.1
© 2008 Landmark Graphics Corporation
All Rights Reserved Worldwide
This publication has been provided pursuant to an agreement containing restrictions on its use. The publication is also
protected by Federal copyright law. No part of this publication may be copied or distributed, transmitted, transcribed,
stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any human or computer language, in any form or by any means,
electronic, magnetic, manual, or otherwise, or disclosed to third parties without the express written permission of:
Landmark Graphics Corporation

2107 CityWest Blvd, Building 2, Houston, Texas 77042-3051, USA
P.O. Box 42806, Houston, Texas 77242, USA
Phone:713-839-2000, FAX: 713-839-2015
Internet: www.halliburton.com/landmark
Trademarks
3D Drill View, 3D Drill View KM, 3DFS, 3D Surveillance, 3DView, Active Field Surveillance, Active Reservoir Surveillance, ADC,
Advanced Data Transfer, ARIES, ARIES DecisionSuite, AssetConnect, Asset Decision Solutions, Asset Development Center,
AssetDirector, Asset Journal, AssetLink, AssetLink Advisor, AssetLink Director, AssetLink Observer, AssetObserver, AssetObserver
Advisor, Asset Performance, AssetPlanner, AssetSolver, AssetSolver Online, AssetView, BLITZPAK, CasingLife, CasingSeat,
COMPASS, Corporate Data Archiver, Corporate Data Store, Data Analyzer, DataManager, DataStar, DBPlot, Decision Management
System, DecisionSpace, DecisionsSpace 3D Drill View KM, DecisionSpace AssetLink, DecisionSpace AssetPlanner, DecisionSpace
AssetSolver, DecisionSpace AssetView 2D, DecisionSpace AssetView 3D, DecisionSpace Atomic Meshing, DecisionSpace Decision
Management Systems(DMS), DecisionSpace for Production, DecisionSpace Infrastructure, DecisionSpace Nexus, DecisionSpace
PowerModel, DecisionSpace PrecisionTarget, DecisionSpace Reservoir, DecisionSpace TracPlanner, DecisionSpace Well Seismic
Fusion, DecisionSpace WellSolver, DecisionSuite, DepthTeam, Depth Team, DepthTeam Explorer, Depth Team Explorer, DepthTeam
Express, Depth Team Express, DepthTeam Extreme, Depth Team Extreme, DepthTeam Interpreter, Depth Team Interpreter, Desktop
Navigator, DESKTOP-PVT, DESKTOP-VIP, DEX, DIMS, Discovery, Discovery Asset, Discovery FrameBuilder, DMS, Drillability Suite,
Drilling Desktop, DrillModel, Drill-to-the-Earth Model, Drillworks, Drillworks ConnectML, DSS, Dynamic Reservoir Management,
Dynamic Surveillance System, EarthCube, EDM, EDT, eLandmark, Engineer’s Data Model, Engineer's Desktop, Engineer’s Link,
ESP, Event Similarity Prediction, ezFault, ezModel, ezSurface, ezTracker, FastTrack, FG+, FieldPlan, Field Scenario Planner, FZAP!,
GeoAtlas, GeoDataLoad, GeoGraphix, GeoGraphix Exploration System, GeoLink, GeoProbe GF DataServer, GES, GES97,
GESXplorer, GMAplus, GMI Imager, GRIDGENR, Handheld Field Operator, HHFO, I2 Enterprise, iDIMS, IsoMap, iWellFile, i Wellfile,
KnowledgeSource, Landmark, Landmark Decision Center, Landmark & Design, Landmark Logo and Design, Landscape, Lattix,
LeaseMap, LMK Resources, LogEdit, LogM, LogPrep, Make Great Decisions, MathPack, MIMIC, MIMIC+, Model Builder,
MyLandmark, Nexus, Object MP, OpenBooks, OpenJournal, OpenSGM, OpenVision, OpenWells, OpenWire, OpenWorks,
OpenWorks Development Kit, OpenWorks Well File, OpenWorks Production, PAL, Parallel-VIP, PetroBank, PetroBank Explorer,
PetroBank Master Data Store, PetroWorks, PetroWorks Asset, PetroWorks Pro, PetroWorks ULTRA, PlotView, Point Gridding Plus,
Pointing Dispatcher, PostStack, PostStack ESP, PostStack Family, PowerCalculator, PowerExplorer, PowerExplorer Connect,
PowerGrid, PowerHub, Power Interpretation, PowerJournal, PowerModel, PowerView, PrecisionTarget, Presgraf, Pressworks,
PRIZM, Production Asset Manager, Production, PROFILE, Project Administrator, ProMAGIC, ProMAGIC Connect, ProMAGIC
Server, ProMAX, ProMAX 2D, ProMAX 3D, ProMAX 3DPSDM, ProMAX 4D, ProMAX Family, ProMAX MVA, ProMAX VSP, pSTAx,
Query Builder, Quick, Quick+, QUICKDIF, QuickWell, QuickWell+, QUIKRAY, QUIKSHOT, QUIKVSP, RAVE, RAYMAP, RAYMAP+,
Real Freedom, Real Time Asset Management Center, Real Time Decision Center, Real Time Operations Center, Real Time
Production Surveillance, Real Time Surveillance, Real-Time View, Reference Data Manager, Reservoir Framework Builder, RESev,
ResMap, RightTime, RTOC, SCAN, SeisCube, SeisMap, SeisModel, SeisSpace, SeisVision, SeisWell, SeisWorks, SeisWorks 2D,
SeisWorks 3D, SeisWorks PowerCalculator, SeisWorks PowerJournal, SeisWorks PowerSection, SeisWorks PowerView,
SeisXchange, Semblance Computation and Analysis, Sierra Family, SigmaView, SimConnect, SimConvert, SimDataStudio,
SimResults, SimResults+, SimResults+3D, SIVA+, SLAM, smartSECTION, Spatializer, SpecDecomp, StrataAmp, StrataMap,
StrataModel, StrataSim, StrataWorks, StratWorks, StratWorks 3D, StreamCalc, StressCheck, STRUCT, Structure Cube, Surf &
Connect, SynTool, SystemStart, SystemStart for Clients, SystemStart for Servers, System Start for Servers, SystemStart for Storage,
Tanks & Tubes, TDQ, Team Workspace, TERAS, The Engineer’s Desktop, Total Drilling Performance, TOW/cs, TOW/cs Revenue
Interface, TracPlanner, TracPlanner Xpress, Trend Form Gridding, Turbo Synthetics, VESPA, VESPA+, VIP, VIP-COMP, VIP-CORE,
VIPDataStudio, VIP-DUAL, VIP-ENCORE, VIP-EXECUTIVE, VIP-Local Grid Refinement, VIP-THERM, WavX, Web Editor, Wellbase,
Wellbore Planner, Wellbore Planner Connect, WELLCAT, Well Cost, WELLPLAN, Well Seismic Fusion, WellSolver, WellXchange,
WOW, Xsection, You're in Control. Experience the difference, ZAP!, and Z-MAP Plus are trademarks, registered trademarks or
service marks of Landmark Graphics Corporation.
All other trademarks, service marks and product or service names are the trademarks or names of their respective owners.
Note
The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice and should not be construed as a commitment by Landmark
Graphics Corporation. Landmark Graphics Corporation assumes no responsibility for any error that may appear in this manual. Some states
or jurisdictions do not allow disclaimer of expressed or implied warranties in certain transactions; therefore, this statement may not apply to you.
Landmark acknowledges that certain third party code has been bundled with, or embedded in, Landmark’s
software. The licensors of this third party code, and the terms and conditions of their respective licenses,
may be found at the following location:
..\Nexus-VIP5000.0.1\help\com\lgc\dspx\Third_Party.pdf
❖
Table of Contents
List of Figures
About This Manual
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii
Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxiii
Related Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxv
Chapter 1
Aquifer Modeling
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-37
1.2 Analytic Model — The Carter-Tracy Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-38
1.3 Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-41
1.4 Numerical Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-43
Chapter 2
Boundary Flux Option
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45
2.2 Flux Model Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
2.2.1 Determining Program Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
2.2.2 Coarse Model Run (Flux OUTPUT Mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
2.2.3 Fine Model Run (Flux INPUT Mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
2.3 Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
2.3.1 Flux Rates Based on Cumulative Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
2.3.2 Vertical Distribution of Influx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
2.3.3 Efflux Partitioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
2.3.4 Output Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
Chapter 3
Corner-Point Geometry Option
3.1 Corner-Point Position Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53
R5000.0.1 v
VIP-EXECUTIVE® Technical Reference Guide Landmark
3.2 Fault Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54

3.3 Block Bulk Volume Computations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55
3.4 Calculations of Block Center and Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-56
3.5 Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57
3.5.1 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57
3.5.2 NEWTRAN Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59
Chapter 4
Dual Porosity Models
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61
4.2 Matrix-Fracture Flow Exchange Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-62
4.3 Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-63
4.4 Treatment of Imbibition and Gravity Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-65
4.4.1 Pseudo Capillary-Pressure Treatment of Exchange Between Matrix and
Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-66
4.4.2 Coats’ Method for Treatment of Gas-Oil Exchange Between Matrix and
Fractures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-68
4.4.3 The Case of lz Greater than ΔZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-70
4.5 Dual Permeability Versus Single Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71
4.6 Partially Fractured Reservoirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-73
4.7 Dual Porosity Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-75
4.8 Simulator Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-82
4.8.1 Fracture Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-82
4.8.2 Effective Fracture Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-83
4.8.3 Pore Compressibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-87
4.8.4 Matrix Block Size and Matrix-Fracture Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-88
4.8.5 Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-88
4.8.6 Pressure Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-89
4.8.7 Well Permeability-Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-90
4.9 Example of Dual Porosity Model Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-91
Chapter 5
End-Point Scaling
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-97
5.2 Normalized Saturation End Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-98
5.2.1 Two-Point Scaling Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-99
5.2.2 Three-Point Scaling Option (Default Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-100
5.2.3 Comparisons of Two- and Three-Point Scaling Options . . . . . . . . . . . 5-101
5.2.4 End-Point Consistency Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-103
vi R5000.0.1
Landmark VIP-EXECUTIVE® Technical Reference Guide
5.3 Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-104

5.3.1 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Oil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-104
5.3.2 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Water and Gas . . . . . . . . 5-104
5.3.3 Using End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-105
5.4 Directional Relative Permeability with End-Point Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-107
5.5 Leverett J-Function (JFUNC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-108
Chapter 6
Equilibration
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-109
6.2 Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-110
6.3 Saturation Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-113
6.3.1 GBC Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-113
6.3.2 INTSAT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-113
6.3.3 VAITS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-114
6.4 Capillary Pressure Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-117
6.5 Supercritical Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-118
Chapter 7
Faults
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-121
7.2 Assumptions and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-123
7.3 Input Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-125
7.4 Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-126
7.5 Fault Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-128
7.6 Noncontiguous Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-129
7.6.1 Connectivity Search Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-129
7.7 Input Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-132
7.8 Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-134
7.8.1 Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-134
7.8.2 Input Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-137
Chapter 8
Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-139
8.2 Simplified Gas-Water Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-139
8.2.1 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-140
8.2.2 Special Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-140
R5000.0.1 vii
8.3 Simplified Water-Oil Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-141

8.4 Simplified Black-Oil Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-142
Chapter 9
Governing Equations
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-143
9.2 IMPES Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-143
9.2.1 Hydrocarbon Species Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-143
9.2.2 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-144
9.2.3 Water Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-144
9.2.4 Fugacity Equality Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-144
9.2.5 Overall Component Mole Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-144
9.2.6 Mole Fraction Constraint Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-145
9.2.7 Saturation Constraint Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-145
9.2.8 Reduction of Simultaneous Equations and Selection of Primary Unknowns .
9-145
9.3 Fully Implicit Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-147
9.3.1 Relaxed Volume Balance Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-147
Chapter 10
Grid Coarsening
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-149
10.2 Coarse Block Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-149
Chapter 11
Horizontal and Inclined Well Model
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-153
11.2 Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-155
11.3 Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well Index . . . . . . . 11-158
11.4 Required Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-162
11.5 Conventions That Users Must Follow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-164
11.6 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-168
11.7 Available Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-172
Chapter 12
Hydraulically Fractured Well Option
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-173
viii R5000.0.1
12.2 Modelling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-174

12.3 Fracture Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-175
12.4 Non-Darcy Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-176
12.5 Iterative Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-177
12.6 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-177
Chapter 13
Hysteresis
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-179
13.2 Relative Permeability Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-180
13.2.1 Description of the Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-181
13.2.2 Input Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-184
13.3 Capillary Pressure Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-185
Chapter 14
IMPES Stability
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-191
14.2 Three-Phase Immiscible Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-191
14.2.1 Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-191
14.2.2 IMPES Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-192
14.2.3 Total Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-192
14.2.4 Difference Equations in Terms of Fractional Mobility . . . . . . . . . . 14-193
14.2.5 Stability Analysis for Two-Phase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-193
14.2.6 Stability Analysis for Three-Phase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-195
14.3 Two-Phase Compositional Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-200
14.3.1 Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-200
14.3.2 Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-201
14.3.3 Stability Analysis of Total Flow Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-204
14.3.4 Stability Analysis for Other Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-204
14.3.5 Final Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-210
Chapter 15
Local Grid Refinement
15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-211
15.2 Major Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-212
15.3 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Features Available with LGR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-213
15.4 Types of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-214
15.4.1 Cartesian Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-214
R5000.0.1 ix
15.4.2 Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-215

15.5 Application of LGR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-220
15.5.1 GRIDGENR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-220
15.5.2 Keyword Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-221
15.5.3 Propagation of Reservoir Properties to Refined Gridblocks . . . . . . 15-222
15.6 Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-224
15.7 LGR Features in the Simulation Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-228
15.7.1 DEACTIVATION and ACTIVATION of Grid Refinements . . . . . 15-228
15.7.2 CBLITZ Solver Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-229
15.8 Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-230
15.8.1 VIP-CORE Initialization Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-230
15.8.2 VIP-CORE Array Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-230
15.8.3 Other VIP-CORE Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-231
15.8.4 Simulator Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-231
15.9 LGR Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-234
15.10 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-240
15.10.1 Base Case - No LGR/Implicit Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-240
15.10.2 Implicit Cells Around Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-243
15.10.3 Cartesian Refinement Around Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-246
15.10.4 Radial Refinement Around Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-249
15.10.5 Multi-grid Well Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-252
15.10.6 Horizontal Well Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-255
15.10.7 Non-Uniform Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-258
15.10.8 Nested Grids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-261
Chapter 16
Miscible Options
16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-263
16.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-264
16.3 Effective Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-265
16.4 Miscible-Immiscible Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-267
16.5 Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-269
16.6 PVT and VLE Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-271
16.6.1 Three-Component Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-271
16.6.2 Four-Component Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-271
Chapter 17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-273
17.2 Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-274
x R5000.0.1
17.2.1 Input Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-275

17.2.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-275
17.3 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-276
17.3.1 Allocation of Rate-Dependent Skin Factors to Each Perforation . . . 17-277
Chapter 18
Numerical Solution
18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-281
18.2 Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-281
18.2.1 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-283
18.2.2 Water Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-284
18.3 Linearization of the Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-286
18.4 Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-289
18.5 Solution of Linear System of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-292
18.5.1 Gauss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-292
18.5.2 BLITZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-292
18.5.3 EXCEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-295
Chapter 19
Optimal Material Balance Option
19.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-297
19.2 Unknown Update and Convergence Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-298
19.3 Reordering Gridblocks Based On Fluid Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-304
19.4 Partial Jacobian Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-306
19.5 Criteria For Single-phase Stability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-308
19.6 Vectorization of Saturation Pressure Calculation and Flash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-309
19.7 Input Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-311
Chapter 20
Parallel Computing
20.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-313
20.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-313
20.2.1 Local Grid Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-314
20.2.2 Parallelization Via Local Grid Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-314
20.2.3 Automatic Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-316
20.2.4 Well Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-318
20.2.5 The Parallel Linear Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-319
20.2.6 Parallel Computers Used for Verification of PARALLEL-VIP . . . . 20-324
R5000.0.1 xi
20.2.7 Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-325

20.2.8 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-329
20.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-342
20.4 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-343
Chapter 21
Phase Equilibrium Calculations
21.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-345
21.2 The Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-347
21.2.1 Determining Number of Phases in a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-347
21.3 Gibbs Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-349
21.3.1 Phase Stability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-350
21.3.2 Gibbs Energy Minimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21-351
21.3.3 Implementation of the Gibbs Option in VIP-EXECUTIVE . . . . . . . 21-351
Chapter 22
Polymer Modeling Option
22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-353
22.2 Description of Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-354
22.3 Material Conservation Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-355
22.3.1 Polymer Solution Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-356
22.3.2 Polymer Adsorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-358
22.3.3 Permeability Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-359
22.3.4 Polymer Inaccessible Pore Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-360
22.3.5 Cation Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-360
22.3.6 Effective Polymer Viscosity Used in the Well Calculations . . . . . . 22-361
22.4 Instantaneous Gel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-363
Chapter 23
PVT Representation
23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-365
23.2 Rock Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-365
23.3 Water Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-365
23.4 Hydrocarbon Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-366
23.4.1 Compositional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-366
23.4.2 Black Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-375
23.4.3 Gas Condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-380
23.4.4 Miscible Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-380
23.5 Equation of State Interpolation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-381
xii R5000.0.1
23.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-381

23.5.2 General Description of EOS Interpolation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-381
23.5.3 Definition of Temperature, Composition, and Pressure Entries of EOS
Interpolation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-383
23.5.4 Construction of EOS Interpolation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-388
23.5.5 Phase-Equilibrium Calculations in EOS Interpolation Option . . . . . 23-390
23.5.6 Example: Input of the EOS Interpolation Option in the Fifth SPE
Comparative Solution Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-397
23.5.7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-398
Chapter 24
Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the
Critical Point
24.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24-407
Chapter 25
Saturation Function
25.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-409
25.2 Water Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-410
25.3 Gas Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-412
25.4 Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-413
25.4.1 Stone’s Model I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-413
25.4.2 Stone’s Model II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-414
25.4.3 Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-414
25.4.4 Guidelines for Selecting the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-415
25.5 Consistency Checks For Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-417
25.6 Directional Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-418
25.7 Gas Remobilization Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-420
25.7.1 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-420
Chapter 26
Separators
26.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-425
26.2 Separator Battery Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-426
26.3 Definition of Separator Batteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-427
26.4 Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-428
26.5 Phase Equilibrium Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-429
26.5.1 Compositional Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-429
R5000.0.1 xiii
26.5.2 Black-Oil Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-430

26.6 Solution Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-430
26.7 Simplified Separator Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-430
26.8 Gas Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-431
Chapter 27
Simulator Performance
27.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-433
27.2 Timestep Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-433
27.2.1 Primary Timestep Controls (DT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-434
27.2.2 Control Convergence Failures And Timestep Cuts (TCUT) . . . . . . 27-434
27.2.3 IMPES Stability Controls (IMPSTAB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-435
27.2.4 Optimal Material Balance Option (OPTMBL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-435
27.3 Non-Linear Iteration Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-436
27.3.1 Outer Iteration Controls (ITNLIM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-436
27.3.2 Convergence Tolerance (TOLD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-437
27.3.3 Convergence Tolerance (TOLR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-438
27.3.4 Maximum Allowable Material Balance Error (ABORT) . . . . . . . . . 27-438
27.3.5 Minimum BHP Damping Factor (CBHPMN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-438
27.3.6 Gas Percolation Control (GASPERC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-438
27.4 Simulator Performance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-439
27.4.1 Timestep Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-439
27.4.2 Simulation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-441
27.4.3 Non-Linear Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-442
27.4.4 Linear Iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-443
27.5 Run Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-445
27.5.1 Timestep and Iteration Control Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-445
27.5.2 Selection of Formulation and Solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-446
27.5.3 Auto-adjustable Linear Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-446
27.5.4 Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-447
27.5.5 Analyzing a Run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-448
27.6 Estimating Run Durations and Memory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-450
27.6.1 Simulator Run Durations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-450
27.6.2 Performance of the Simulator on Various CPUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-452
27.6.3 Memory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-452
27.6.4 Using the Simulator to Determine Memory Requirements (STORAGE) . .
27-454
Chapter 28
Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation
28.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28-455
xiv R5000.0.1
28.2 Calculation of Vertical Flow Coefficients from the Wellbore Flow Equations 28-456
28.3 Modifications for Liquid Slippage or Holdup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-458
28.4 Application of Minimum Lift Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-459
28.5 Data Structure and Definition Changes for VIP-CORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-460
28.6 Data Structure and Definition Changes for the Simulation Module . . . . . . . . 28-461
Chapter 29
Surface Pipeline Network Options
29.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-463
29.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-464
29.1.2 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-465
29.2 Hydraulic Models of Flow Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-466
29.2.1 General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-466
29.2.2 Flow Modeling in Horizontal, Vertical, or Inclined Pipes . . . . . . . . 29-467
29.2.3 Application of Hydraulic Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-472
29.2.4 Application of Look-Up Tables for Pressure Gradient Determination In
Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-473
29.2.5 Valve Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-474
29.3 Surface Pipeline Network Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-475
29.3.1 Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-475
29.3.2 Pressure and Rate Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-481
29.3.3 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-482
29.3.4 Solution Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-483
29.3.5 Simultaneous Modeling of Multiphase Fluid Flow in Reservoir and Surface
Pipeline Network System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-484
Chapter 30
Total Compressibility Checks
30.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-487
30.2 Reasonableness Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-488
30.3 Saturated Oil Compressibility Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-489
30.4 Undersaturated Oil Compressibility Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30-490
Chapter 31
Tracking Calculations In VIP-EXECUTIVE
31.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-491
31.2 Tracking Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-492
31.3 Tracking in a Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-493
31.3.1 Variables to Describe Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-493
R5000.0.1 xv
31.3.2 Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-494

31.3.3 Mass Transfer Split Between Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-495
31.3.4 Solution of Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . 31-496
Chapter 32
Tracer Analysis Option
32.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-499
32.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-500
32.3 Tracer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-500
32.4 Simulation of Tracer Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-502
32.4.1 Particle Tracking Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-503
32.5 Implementation in VIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-504
32.5.1 Particle Unit Cube Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-505
32.5.2 Particle Velocity Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-505
32.5.3 Particle Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-508
32.6 Validation of Tracer Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-510
32.6.1 One-Dimensional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-510
32.6.2 Two-Dimensional Areal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-512
32.7 Interpretation of Tracer Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-516
Chapter 33
Transmissibility Calculations
33.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-517
33.2 Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-517
33.2.1 Standard Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-517
33.2.2 Fault Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-519
33.2.3 Nine Point Transmissibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-520
33.3 Radial System Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-524
33.3.1 Standard Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-524
33.3.2 Fault Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-525
33.4 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-525
Chapter 34
Unit Conventions
34.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-529
34.2 Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-531
xvi R5000.0.1
Chapter 35
Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilties
35.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-533
35.2 Capillary Number Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-534
35.3 Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-537
35.4 Velocity Effects around the Production Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-540
8. Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35-545
Chapter 36
Vertical Equilibrium
36.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-549
36.2 VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-549
36.2.1 Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-549
36.2.2 Two-Phase Gas-Oil Pseudo Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-553
36.2.3 Two-Phase Water-Oil Pseudo Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-554
36.2.4 VE Directional Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-555
36.3 VE Option in Corner-Point Grid System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-556
36.3.1 Features of the Corner Point VE Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-556
36.3.2 Enhanced VE Procedure with Segregated Fluids (VEWO,VEGO) . 36-557
36.3.3 The VE (VEWO, VEGO) Simulation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-560
36.3.4 The Capillary-Gravity Equilibrium Option (VEITS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-561
36.3.5 The VEITS Simulation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-562
Chapter 37
Water Tracking Option
37.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-565
Chapter 38
Well Inflow Performance
38.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-569
38.2 Wellbore Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-570
38.3 Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-572
38.4 Bottom-Hole Pressure Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-575
38.5 Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-576
38.6 Tubing Performance Curve Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-578
R5000.0.1 xvii
Chapter 39
Well Management Features
39.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-579
39.2 Well Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-579
39.2.1 Minimum Data Requirements for Production Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-579
39.2.2 Minimum Data Requirements for Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-580
39.2.3 Vertical and Deviated Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-581
39.3 Well Completion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-582
39.3.1 FPERF Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-582
39.4 Production Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-585
39.4.1 Type of Producers and Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-585
39.4.2 Production Well Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-585
39.4.3 ONTIME Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-587
39.4.4 Pressure Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-587
39.4.5 Well Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-588
39.4.6 Testing Shutin Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-589
39.4.7 Special Features for Gas Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-590
39.5 Injection Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-591
39.5.1 Type of Injectors and Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-591
39.5.2 Injection Well Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-592
39.5.3 Water Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-592
39.5.4 Gas Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-592
39.5.5 WAG Injectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-593
39.5.6 ONTIME Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-593
39.5.7 Well Status Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-594
39.5.8 Testing Shutin Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-594
39.6 Wellbore Gradient Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-595
39.6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-595
39.6.2 Mobility Weighted Averaging Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-595
39.6.3 Volume Balancing Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-596
39.6.4 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-599
39.7 Wellbore Crossflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-600
39.7.1 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-600
39.7.2 Crossflow Implementation in BLITZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-602
39.8 Well Management Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-603
39.8.1 Production Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-603
39.8.2 Minimum Production Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-604
39.8.3 Injection Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-605
39.8.4 Minimum Injection Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-605
39.9 Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-606
39.9.1 Shrinkage, Fuel, and Sales Gas Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-606
39.9.2 Makeup Gas Specification and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-606
xviii R5000.0.1
39.9.3 Makeup Gas-Lift Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-606

39.9.4 Gas Available for Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-606
39.9.5 Composition of the Gas Available for Reinjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-607
39.9.6 Effective Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-608
39.9.7 Uniform Reinjection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-608
39.10 Major Gas Sales Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-609
39.10.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-609
39.10.2 Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-609
39.10.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-613
39.11 Injection Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-615
39.11.1 Injectors in Injection Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-615
39.11.2 Producers in Injection Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-616
39.11.3 Voidage Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-616
39.11.4 Pressure Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-616
39.11.5 Distribution of Total Reservoir Injection Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-616
39.11.6 Target Injection Rates and Additional Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-617
39.12 Injection Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-618
39.12.1 Prioritization of Gas Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-618
39.13 Special Voidage Balance Injection Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-619
39.13.1 Net Voidage Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-619
39.13.2 Injection Targets and Guide Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-619
39.13.3 Calculation of Maximum Well Injection Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-620
39.13.4 Calculation of Voidage and Net Voidage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-620
39.13.5 Using Net Voidage Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-620
39.14 Gas-Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-622
39.14.1 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Optimal Table Method . . 39-622
39.14.2 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Performance Curve Method . 39-
623
39.14.3 Well Status of Wells on Gas-Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-627
39.15 Water Pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-628
39.16 Surface Facility Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-629
39.16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-629
39.16.2 Oil Stabilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-629
39.16.3 Gas Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-630
39.16.4 Reported Volumes and Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-630
39.17 Automatic Workovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-631
39.17.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-631
39.17.2 Types of Workovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-631
39.17.3 Automatic Workover Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-632
39.17.4 Frequency of Workover Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-634
39.17.5 Data Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-634
39.18 Predictive Well Management (PWM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-635
R5000.0.1 xix
39.18.1 What is Predictive Well Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-635

39.18.2 Basic Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-636
39.18.3 Algorithm for NEW Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-639
39.18.4 Algorithm for MGOR Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-642
39.18.5 Frequency of PWM Calculations (Both NEW and MGOR) . . . . . 39-647
39.18.6 Data Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-648
Appendix A
Well Models
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-649
A.2 Definition of Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-650
A.2.1 Alternative Definition of Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-650
A.2.2 Comparison with Productivity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-651
A.3 One-Dimensional Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-651
A.3.1 Linear Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-651
A.3.2 Radial Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-652
A.4 Two-Dimensional Areal Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-654
A.4.1 Well in Center of Square Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-654
A.4.2 General Definition of rb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-656
A.4.3 An Approximate Derivation of rb for Square Well Block . . . . . . . . . A-656
A.4.4 Well in Center of Rectangular Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-658
A.4.5 Well in Center of Block in Anisotropic Rectangular Grid . . . . . . . . A-659
A.4.6 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Isolated Well Block . . . . . . . . . . A-661
A.4.7 Multiple Wells in Same Isolated Well Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-662
A.4.8 Two Wells With Same Rate in Adjacent Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-664
A.4.9 Single Well in Edge Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-665
A.4.10 Single Well Exactly on Edge of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-666
A.4.11 Single Well Exactly at Corner of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-667
A.4.12 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Corner Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-668
A.5 Incorporating Skin into Well Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-669
A.5.1 Derivation of Skin Due to Altered Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-669
A.5.2 Including Mechanical Skin In Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-670
A.5.3 Skin Due to Restricted Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-671
A.5.4 Effects of Restricted Entry on Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-673
A.6 Well Index from Productivity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-675
A.7 Non-Darcy Gas Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-678
A.7.1 Effect of Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties on Well Model . . . . . . A-678
A.7.2 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor in Well Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-679
A.8 Horizontal Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-680
A.9 Inclined Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-682
xx R5000.0.1
Appendix B
Corner-Point Geometry
B.1 Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-683
B.1.1 Two-Dimensional Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-683
B.1.2 Three-Dimensional Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-685
B.2 Volumetric Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-687
B.3 Integration by Gaussian Quadrature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-690
B.4 Transmissibility Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-691
B.4.1 Calculation of Transmissibility in 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-691
B.4.2 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D (HARINT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-698
B.4.3 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D by the NEWTRAN Option . . . B-702
B.4.4 Calculation of Full Transmissibility Between Gridblocks . . . . . . . . . . B-703
B.4.5 Choice Between HARINT and NEWTRAN Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-705
Appendix C
References
Subject Index
R5000.0.1 xxi
xxii R5000.0.1
❖
00000 List of Figures
List of Figures
About This Manual
Chapter 1
Aquifer Modeling
Figure 1-1: Aquifer Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-38
Figure 1-2: Natural Extension of Reservoir Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-43
Figure 1-3: Aquifer with Arbitrary Connected Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-43
Chapter 2
Boundary Flux Option
Figure 2-1: Schematic Representation of Boundary Flux Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
Chapter 3
Figure 3-1: Fault Block Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57
Figure 3-2: Rectangle Used In Computing A(λ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-58
Chapter 4
Figure 4-1: Idealization of Naturally Fractured Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-61
Figure 4-2: Fluid Exchange Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-65
Figure 4-3: Matrix Blocks and Fractures in a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-67
Figure 4-4: Two Dual Porosity Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-71
Figure 4-5: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-72
Figure 4-6: Representation of a Partially Fractured Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-74
Figure 4-7: Gas/Oil Drainage Recovery for a 10x10x10 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats’ Figure 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-75
(Coats’ Figure 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-76
R5000.0.1 xxiii
(Coats’ Figure 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-76
Figure 4-10: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 4 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats’ Figure 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-77
Figure 4-11: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 1 ft Matrix Block
(Coats’ Figure 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-77
Figure 4-12: Sixth SPE Comparative Solution Project
Single Block - Zero PCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-78
Depletion - Zero PCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-78
Reinjection - Zero PCF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-80
Figure 4-19: Fracture and Matrix Continuum Porosities in VIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-82
Figure 4-20: Kelton’s Permeameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-84
Figure 4-21: Simplified Layered Fracture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-84
Figure 4-22: Pore Compressibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-87
Figure 4-23: Matrix Block Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-88
Figure 4-24: Fracture Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-89
Figure 4-25: Permeability Dependence on Confining Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-89
Figure 4-26: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-90
Chapter 5
End-Point Scaling
Chapter 6
Equilibration
Figure 6-1: Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-110
Figure 6-2: Multiple Water-Oil Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-111
Figure 6-3: Block Representation in the INTSAT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-114
xxiv R5000.0.1
Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-116

Figure 6-5: Capillary Pressure Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-117
Chapter 7
Faults
Figure 7-1: Part of a Structure Map of a Petroleum Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-121
Figure 7-2: Different Ways of Modeling Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-122
Figure 7-3: Fault Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-123
Figure 7-4: Input Structure of Typical Fault Data Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-125
Figure 7-5: Specifying a Single Fault Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-126
Figure 7-6: Arbitrary Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-127
Figure 7-7: Transmissibility for Standard Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-128
Figure 7-8: Example of Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-132
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Governing Equations
Chapter 10
Grid Coarsening
Chapter 11
Figure 11-1: Vertical and Horizontal Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-153
Figure 11-2: A Well Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-155
Figure 11-3: Inclined Well Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-159
Figure 11-4: Ellipsoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-161
Figure 11-5: A Production Well Example Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-162
Figure 11-6: Inclined Well Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-164
Figure 11-7: ANGLV, q, in various situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-165
Figure 11-8: Example of Multiple Well Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-166
Figure 11-9: Well With Noncontiguous Perforations and Sample VIP Input . . . . 11-168
Figure 11-10: Areal and Cross Sections of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-169
Figure 11-11: Block Number and Well Section Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-170
R5000.0.1 xxv
Chapter 12
Figure 12-1: Areal View of Vertically Fractured Well Centered in a Rectangular Drainage
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-173
Figure 12-2: Areal Finite-difference Grid of One Quadrant of the Drainage Area. 12-174
Figure 12-3: Vertical Cross-section of the Hydraulic Fracture (at Y=1). . . . . . . . . 12-174
Chapter 13
Hysteresis
Figure 13-1: Nonwetting Phase Relative Permeability Curves for Hysteresis . . . . 13-180
Figure 13-2: User-Defined Nonwetting Phase Imbibition-Drainage Curve . . . . . . 13-183
Figure 13-3: Water-Oil Capillary Pressure Bounding and Scanning Curves . . . . . 13-185
Figure 13-4: Water Saturation Reversal During Secondary Drainage . . . . . . . . . . 13-186
Figure 13-5: Water Saturation Reversal During a Primary Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . 13-187
Figure 13-6: Second Water Saturation Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-189
Chapter 14
IMPES Stability
Chapter 15
Local Grid Refinement
Figure 15-1: Example of Cartesian Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-214
Figure 15-2: Example of Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-215
Figure 15-3: Radial Grids - RADZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-216
Figure 15-4: Radial Grids - RADX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-216
Figure 15-5: Radial Grids - RADY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-217
Figure 15-6: Typical GRIDGENR Display with Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . 15-220
Figure 15-7: Cartesian Refinement with Imbedded Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . 15-221
Figure 15-8: Levels of Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-224
Figure 15-9: Termination of Grid Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-225
Figure 15-10: Grid Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-225
Figure 15-11: Nesting of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-226
Figure 15-12: Isolation of Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-227
Figure 15-13: Case 1 - No Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-234
Figure 15-14: Case 2 - 3x3 Cartesian Refinements Around Each Well . . . . . . . . . 15-235
xxvi R5000.0.1
Figure 15-15: Case 3 - 4x4 Radial Refinements Around Each Well . . . . . . . . . . . 15-236
Figure 15-16: Comparison of Gas-Oil Ratio Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-238
Figure 15-17: Comparison of Water-cut Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-239
Chapter 16
Miscible Options
Figure 16-1: Damping Function for Miscible-Immiscible Switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-267
Chapter 17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
Chapter 18
Numerical Solution
Chapter 19
Figure 19-1: GridblockReordering Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-305
Chapter 20
Parallel Computing
Figure 20-1: Communication Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-315
Figure 20-2: LGR Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-316
Figure 20-3: Example Grid For Automatic Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-317
Figure 20-4: Automatically Decomposed Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-318
Figure 20-5: Strip Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-320
Figure 20-6: LGR Multilevel Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-321
Figure 20-7: Strip Decomposition Linear Solver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-322
Figure 20-8: Composite Grid Linear Solver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-322
Figure 20-9: Effect of Decomposition on Strip and Composite Grid Linear Solvers . 20-
323
Figure 20-10: Grid and Structure for Small Homogeneous Example Problem . . . 20-326
Figure 20-11: Grid and Structure for 3D Salt Dome . . . . . Heterogeneous Model 20-328
Figure 20-12: Grid and Structure for Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model . . . . . . 20-328
Figure 20-13: Grid and Structure for Compositional Load-Balancing Example . . 20-329
Figure 20-14: Performance of T3D on Small Homogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . 20-331
Figure 20-15: Performance of SGI Power Challenge on Small Homogeneous Model
20-332
R5000.0.1 xxvii
Figure 20-16: Performance of SP2 on Small Homogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . 20-332

Figure 20-17: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-Oil Model . 20-
333
Figure 20-18: Results for Origin 2000 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-Oil Mod-
el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-333
Figure 20-19: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Implicit Black-Oil Model 20-
334
Figure 20-20: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 IMPES Black-Oil Model . . 20-
335
Figure 20-21: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil Model . . 20-
335
Figure 20-22: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil Model
20-336
Figure 20-23: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 127x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil Model
- Cache Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-336
Figure 20-24: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES Black-Oil Model
20-337
Figure 20-25: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Compositional Model
20-338
Figure 20-26: Results for 3D Salt Dome 05x105x15 Implicit Compositional Model . 20-
338
Figure 20-27: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES Compositional
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-339
Figure 20-28: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 27x50x24 IMPES Compositional Model . .
20-340
Figure 20-29: Grid and Structure for Composition Static Load Balancing Example . 20-
341
Figure 20-30: Performance of Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Model on Workstation Cluster .
20-342
Chapter 21
Chapter 22
Polymer Modeling Option
Chapter 23
PVT Representation
Figure 23-1: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Fifth SPE Comparative
xxviii R5000.0.1
Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-399

Figure 23-2: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cupiagua Full Field Res-
ervoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-400
Figure 23-3: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cusiana Full Field Reser-
voir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-401
Figure 23-4: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - PBU History Full Field
Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-402
Figure 23-5: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Ursa Full Field Reservoir
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-403
Figure 23-6: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - D13 PBU Pattern Model
23-404
Figure 23-7: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - EWE PBU Pattern Model
23-405
Chapter 24
Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the
Critical Point
Chapter 25
Saturation Function
Figure 25-1: Typical Saturation and Relative Permeability Path of a Gridblock Subject to
Gas Injection followed by Water Injection and Pressure Blowdown . . . . . . . . . . . 25-422
Chapter 26
Separators
Figure 26-1: Sample Separator Battery Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-426
Chapter 27
Figure 27-1: Convergence Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-436
Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Surface Pipeline Network Options
Figure 29-1: Pressure Gradient in Pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-469
Figure 29-2: An Example of a Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-477
Figure 29-3: An Example of a Surface Pipeline Network System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29-478
R5000.0.1 xxix
Chapter 30
Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Tracer Analysis Option
Figure 32-1: Comparison With Analytical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-511
Figure 32-2: Effect of the Number of Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-511
Figure 32-3: Zero Dispersion Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-512
Figure 32-4: Effect of the Grid System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-513
Figure 32-5: Effect of the Number of Particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-514
Figure 32-6: Effect of Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32-515
Chapter 33
Figure 33-1: Bedding Plane Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-518
Figure 33-2: Shared Thickness Calculation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-520
Figure 33-3: Nine-Point Transmissibilities Deriavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-521
Chapter 34
Unit Conventions
Chapter 35
Chapter 36
Figure 36-1: Block Span THVE Versus Block Thickness TH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-550
Figure 36-2: Block Angles Produced by the Old Dip Angle Method . . . . . . . . . . 36-551
Figure 36-3: Block Angles Produced by the New Dip Angle Method . . . . . . . . . . 36-552
Figure 36-4: Gridblock Saturation Distributions in the VEWO, VEGO Option . . 36-558
Figure 36-5: The VE Initialization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-559
Chapter 37
Figure 37-1: Variation of Fractional Flow of Extraneous Water Types
xxx R5000.0.1
with Exponent tkexp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-567
Chapter 38
Figure 38-1: Inflow and Outflow Curve for a Production Well Showing Intersection Point
38-569
Chapter 39
Figure 39-1: Schematic Representation of Well Management Levels . . . . . . . . . . 39-603
Figure 39-2: Schematic Diagram of a Gas Handling Loop with the Major Gas Sales Option
39-610
Figure 39-3: Intersection of the Inflow Performance Curve (-PI) and the Lift Curves for the
Various Gaslift Gas Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-624
Figure 39-4: Calculated Gaslift Performance Curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-625
Appendix A
Well Models
Figure A-1: Fine Grid Around A Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-649
Figure A-2: One-Dimensional, Linear, Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-651
Figure A-3: One-Dimensional, Radial, Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-653
Figure A-4: Well in Square Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-654
Figure A-5: Numerical Solutions for Pressure Plotted vs Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-655
Figure A-6: Well in Edge Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-665
Figure A-7: Well on Edge of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-666
Figure A-8: Well at Corner of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-667
Figure A-9: Well in Corner Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-668
Figure A-10: Radial Flow With Zone of Altered Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-669
Figure A-11: Pseudo Skin Factor, after Brons and Marting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-671
Figure A-12: Examples of Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-672
Figure A-13: Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-673
Figure A-14: Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-674
Figure A-15: Typical Plot of ρg/μg vs Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-679
Figure A-16: Effect of αe and z/Δz on rbe for Centered Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-681
R5000.0.1 xxxi
Appendix B
Figure B-1: Mapping of Quadrilateral to Unit Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-683
Figure B-2: The Eight Corners of a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-685
Figure B-3: Elemental Tube for Determining Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-687
Figure B-4: Elemental Tube for Determining DX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-688
Figure B-5: Orthogonal Gridblocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-691
Figure B-6: Nonorthogonal Gridblocks with Parallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-692
Figure B-7: Gridblockwith Non-Parallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-693
Figure B-8: Slice Parametrized by u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-694
Figure B-9: Collection of Tubes and Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-694
Figure B-10: Tube, Slice, and Chunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-695
Figure B-11: Gridblockwith Nonparallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-696
Figure B-12: Lines a and b Defining Plane Tangent to Slice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-700
Figure B-13: Projections of Right Face onto the Three Coordinate Planes . . . . . . . B-703
Figure B-14: Fault Block Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-704
Figure B-15: Radial problem, with Δθ = 45° . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-705
Figure B-16: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Angular Transmissibility Be-
tween Blocks 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-707
Figure B-17: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Angular Transmissibility Be-
tween Blocks 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-708
Figure B-18: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Radial Tranmissibility . . . B-
709
Appendix C
References
Subject Index
xxxii R5000.0.1
Preface
About This Manual
Purpose
This document provides detailed technical and application information on the
VIP-EXECUTIVE® simulation software package; i.e., the initialization module
VIP-CORE® and the simulation modules VIP-ENCORE®, VIP-COMP®, VIP-
DUAL®, and VIP-POLYMER™. It is written for VIP-EXECUTIVE® users who
wish to know more about the underlying calculations performed by the simulator
and want to understand better how data are being processed.
The Technical Reference provides detailed information on the formulation, gov-

erning equations, implementation, and proper use of all major features and options
in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The Technical Reference is complemented by the VIP-
CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manuals, which contain full descriptions
of the input keywords for the VIP-EXECUTIVE features and options.
The VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference is updated regularly to reflect changes

in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
This information is confidential, describing proprietary features of the VIP-

EXECUTIVE software. Accordingly, each copy of this manual is numbered and
distributed directly to a specific individual. That individual must neither lend nor
give this document to another individual under any circumstances. When the doc-
ument is no longer needed by the individual, the document must be returned to
Landmark. In addition, this document should be stored in a secured location
within the work environment.
Audience
This manual is intended to be used by reservoir simulation engineers who require
a more detailed discussion of the features of VIP-EXECUTIVE than provided in
the Keyword Reference and Getting Started manuals.
Organization
The information in this manual is arranged in a logical manner for maximum ease
of use. The main technical topics have their own chapter which are arranged in
alphabetical order. The following chapters are included:
■ Aquifer Modeling.
R5000.0.1 xxxiii
■ Boundary Flux Option.
■ Corner-Point Geometry Option.
■ Dual Porosity Models.
■ End-Point Scaling.
■ Equilibration.
■ Faults.
■ Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options
■ Governing Equations.
■ Grid Goarsening
■ Horizontal and Inclined Well Model.
■ Hydraulically Fractured Well Option
■ Hysteresis.
■ IMPES Stability.
■ Local Grid Refinement.
■ Miscible Options.
■ Non-Darcy Gas Flow.
■ Numerical Solution.
■ Optimal Material Balance Option.
■ Parallel Computing
■ Phase Equilibrium Calculation.
■ Polymer Modeling Option.
■ PVT Representation.
■ Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the

Critical Point.
■ Saturation Function.
■ Separators.
■ Simulator Performance
■ Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation
xxxiv R5000.0.1
■ Surface Pipeline Network Options.
■ Total Compressibility Checks.
■ Tracking Calculations in VIP-EXECUTIVE
■ Tracer Analysis Option.
■ Transmissibility Calculations.
■ Unit Conventions.
■ Velocity Dependent Relative Permeabilities
■ Vertical Equilibrium.
■ Water Tracking Option.
■ Well Inflow Performance.
■ Well Management Features.
■ Appendix A - Well Models.
■ Appendix B - Corner-Point Geometry
■ Appendix C - References.
Related Documentation
The following manuals provide more information related to the material in this
manual. For more information, please consult the appropriate manual listed below.
■ VIP-CORE Reference Manual. Keyword reference manual for VIP-CORE.
■ VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual. Keyword reference manual for VIP-

EXECUTIVE.
R5000.0.1 xxxv
xxxvi R5000.0.1
Chapter
1
Aquifer Modeling
1.1 Introduction
When modeling aquifers, VIP-EXECUTIVE always treats outer boundaries of a
reservoir model as sealing barriers to flow. The influx/efflux of fluids from
outside the grid is treated by source/sink terms.
There are two methods available in VIP-EXECUTIVE to model aquifer influx/

efflux resulting from changes in reservoir conditions. The first method is based on
an analytic solution of an idealized aquifer response model. The second approach
is to extend a grid system to cover the aquifer with the reservoir. In the latter case,
interaction between the reservoir and the aquifer automatically is taken into
account. Each of these methods has positive and negative aspects. The analytical
method is easy to use. It is computationally efficient and does not require a
significant amount of additional computer memory. However, the analytic model
may be too restrictive because of assumptions and simplifications. The second
method may require significantly more memory and computations.
R5000.0.1 Aquifer Modeling 1-37

1.2 Analytic Model — The Carter-Tracy Aquifer

The Carter-Tracy aquifer analytic model assumes a radial aquifer geometry as
shown in Figure 1-1. The aquifer and the reservoir communicate through the
boundary AB.
ra
A Aquifer
re
Reservoir
θ B
Figure 1-1: Aquifer Geometry
The water influx from the aquifer into the reservoir is the response to pressure
changes at this boundary. Water flow in the aquifer is described by Equation 1-1
with the initial and boundary conditions:
φμ w c t ∂p ∂- ∂p
-------------- ------ = 1--- ---- r ------ (1-1)
k ∂t r ∂r ∂r
p t=0 = pi (1-2)
p r = re
= pe ( t ) (1-3)
∂p
------ = 0 (1-4)
∂r r = ra
Here, φ is aquifer porosity, μw is water viscosity, ct is aquifer total compressibility,

and k is aquifer permeability.
Van Everdingen and Hurst1 derived the following superposition form of the
solution of the above problem:
td
dp e ( t d1 )
W ( t ) = – B ∫ -------------------- Q ( t d – t d1 )dt d1 (1-5)
dt d1
0
1-38 Aquifer Modeling R5000.0.1

where
t d = ---t- (1-6)
t0
2
φ μw ct re
t 0 = ----------------------
- (1-7)
k
2
B = r e hφ c t θ (1-8)
In Equation 1-5, W(t) is the cumulative water influx from the aquifer and Q(td) is
the standard function derived by Van Everdingen and Hurst, which gives the
cumulative influx in the case of the unit pressure change at the boundary r = re.
Parameter t0, which is given by Equation 1-7, is the aquifer time constant. It is
used to define the dimensionless time td according to Equation 1-6. Parameter B,
as defined by Equation 1-8, is the aquifer capacity parameter. Equation 1-8
contains two constants: h is the aquifer thickness and θ is the angle (in radians)
subtended by the aquifer (Figure 1-1).
Carter and Tracy2 derived an approximation of the solution (Equation 1-5). This
approximate solution of the problem (Equations 1-1 through 1-4) is given by:
B [ p i – p ( t + Δt ) ] – W ( t )P' d ( t d + Δt d )
W ( t + Δt ) = W ( t ) + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Δt d (1-9)
P d ( t d + Δt d ) – t d P' d ( t d + Δt d )
Here, Δt is the timestep, Δtd is the dimensionless timestep, and Pd(td) is a function
derived by Van Everdingen and Hurst. Pd(td) is the dimensionless pressure
solution of the problem (Equations 1-1 through 1-4) for the case when the
condition at the boundary r = re is specified as the unit flow rate, instead of the
condition (Equation 1-3).
The Carter and Tracy solution does not require integration and therefore is more
efficient. In the VIP-EXECUTIVE implementation of the Carter and Tracy
solution, the user may provide the dimensionless pressure function Pd(td) in a
tabular form through input data. One can find tabulated pressure functions Pd(td)
for finite aquifers in the published literature.1,3 The dimensionless pressure
function for infinite radial aquifer1 is given in Table 1-1. This is the default table
that will be used if the user does not provide an input table.

Table 1-1: Dimensionless Pressure Function for Infinite Radial Aquifer1

tD pD tD pD
.01 0.112 10 1.651
.05 0.229 15 1.829
.1 0.315 20 1.960
.15 0.376 25 2.067
.2 0.424 30 2.147
.25 0.469 40 2.282
.3 0.503 50 2.388
.4 0.564 60 2.476
.5 0.616 70 2.550
.6 0.659 80 2.615
.7 0.702 90 2.672
.8 0.735 100 2.723
.9 0.772 150 2.921
1.0 0.802 200 3.064
1.5 0.927 250 3.173
2.0 1.020 300 3.262
2.5 1.101 400 3.406
3.0 1.169 500 3.516
4.0 1.275 600 3.608
5.0 1.362 700 3.684
6.0 1.436 800 3.750
7.0 1.500 900 3.809
8.0 1.556 1000 3.860
9.0 1.604

1.3 Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer

The Fetkovich aquifer model (Reference 87) is a more direct computional method
of perfoming water influx calculations. In this approach the flow of aquifer water
into a hydrocarbon reservoir is modeled in precisely the same way as the flow of
oil from a reservoir into a well. An inflow equition of the form
dW e
---------- = J ( p a – p ) (1-10)
dt
is used where,
J = aquifer productivity index,
p = pressure at the oil or gas water contact,
p a = average pressure in the aquifer.
The water influx is evaluated using the simple aquifer material balance
We = ct Wi ( pi – pa ) (1-11)
in which,
p i = the initial pressure in the aquifer and reservoir,
c t = the total compressibility,
W i = initial aquifer water in place.
This balance can be alternatively expressed as
W
p a = p i ⎛ 1 – -------e-⎞ (1-12)
⎝ W ⎠ ei
where
W ei = c t W i p i (1-13)
is defined as the initial amount of encroachable water and represents the

maixmum possible expansion of the aquifer. Substituting the average aquifer
pressure expression into the inflow equition results
dW W
---------e- = J p i ⎛ 1 – -------e-⎞ – p (1-14)
dt ⎝ W ei⎠
Integrating the equation for the time interval ( t, t + Δt ) yields the following

expression for the cumulative water influx
Jp Jp
– --------i Δt – --------i Δt
p-⎞ ⎛ 1 – e W ei ⎞
+ W ei ⎛ 1 – ---
W ei
W ( t + Δt ) = W ( t )e ⎜ ⎟ (1-15)
⎝ p i⎠ ⎝ ⎠
or
Jp i
– -------- Δt
p-⎞ W – W ( t ) ⎛ 1 – e Wei ⎞
W ( Δt ) = ⎛ 1 – --- ⎜ ⎟ (1-16)
⎝ p i⎠ ei ⎝ ⎠
where p is the p average over the time interval.

1.4 Numerical Aquifer

In the numerical aquifer treatment, the grid system is extended to cover the
aquifer with the reservoir. This can be done in several ways. One way is to extend
the reservoir grid system as shown in Figure 1-2 to cover both the reservoir and
aquifer.
Aquifer
Reservoir
Figure 1-2: Natural Extension of Reservoir Grid
A model with the naturally extended grid system may require a significant number
of additional gridblocks in the model. This significantly increases memory and
CPU requirements. On the other hand, this grid system results in a matrix with an
orderly banded structure, which is an efficient solution to the problem.
Another method is to represent the aquifer by several blocks with large pore
volumes which are connected to reservoir blocks around the edges of the grid as
shown in Figure 1-3. This is done by defining nonstandard connections between
gridblocks. However, VIP-EXECUTIVE does not provide a specific input
structure that is convenient for this purpose. Therefore, it currently is a tedious
manual task to describe all connections required for complete description of the
aquifer.
Aquifer
Reservoir
Figure 1-3: Aquifer with Arbitrary Connected Blocks

The aquifer model that uses nonstandard connections results in a matrix with
many off-band terms. It is more computer intensive to solve such a matrix as
compared to the case of an orderly banded matrix.

Chapter
2
00000 Boundary Flux Option
2.1 Introduction
With VIP-EXECUTIVE, users can define rectangular regions of the reservoir grid
for which boundary flux calculations will be performed in the simulation module.
The program may be run in output mode so that the calculated boundary flux is
reported in the output listing and recorded in a disk file. Subsequently, the
program may be run in input mode where the boundary flux file from an output
mode run is used as input data to the program. In input mode, the boundary flux
data are used in the same manner as sink or source information. That is, the
equivalent of a production/injection well is defined internal to the program for
each boundary block.
The combination of these two modes allows great flexibility in developing a

reservoir study. An initial program run in output mode for a large, coarsely
gridded reservoir can provide boundary flux information for a subset of the
reservoir that is to be studied in greater detail. The subsequent run of the finely
gridded portion of the reservoir uses the boundary flux information to include the
effects of gridblocks in the reservoir that are outside the area of detailed interest.
The program also may be used effectively in output mode to determine the
direction and type of fluid flow across any gridblock boundary in the reservoir.
Figure 2-1 is a schematic representation of a coarse and fine model. The figure
shows a 6×8×1 coarse grid with an imbedded 10×9×1 fine grid model. Note that
the fine gridblocks are not allowed to overlap more than one coarse block.
R5000.0.1 Boundary Flux Option 2-45

2.2 Flux Model Setup
2.2.1 Determining Program Dimensions
1 2 3 4 5 6
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
3
2
3
4 4
5
6
7
5 8
9
Fine Grid
6
Coarse Grid
Figure 2-1: Schematic Representation of Boundary Flux Feature
To make coarse and fine grid runs using the boundary flux option, set the program
dimensions properly in VIP-CORE. For the coarse model, set the required
dimension to the number of coarse blocks. If you use the boundary flux option to
write flux information for more than one rectangular region in a single run, define
the number of flux regions and the total number of coarse blocks. For the fine
model, define both the fine and coarse block numbers correctly. The dimensions
of the boundary flux model can be calculated using the following equations:
2-46 Boundary Flux Option R5000.0.1

The following parameters should be used on the DIM card in VIP-CORE to

specify the dimensions of the boundary flux model:
NFXREG Number of distinct flux regions.
NCBLKS Total number of coarse gridblock faces for all flux

regions.
NFBLKS Total number of fine gridblock faces for all flux regions.
where
Number of coarse block faces = 2 × NXC × NZC + 2 × NYC × NZC

+ 2 × NXC × NYC
Number of fine block faces = 2 × NXF × NZF + 2 × NYF × NZF

2 × NXF × NYF
+ Number of coarse blocks containing
fine blocks
and
NXC number of coarse blocks in x-direction
NYC number of coarse blocks in y-direction
NZC number of coarse blocks in z-direction
NXF number of fine blocks in x-direction
NYF number of fine blocks in y-direction
NZF number of fine blocks in z-direction.
In the example given in Figure 2-1,
NXC = 4 NXF = 10
NYC = 3 NYF = 9
NZC = 1 NZF = 1
Number of coarse blocks = 12

Number of coarse block faces = 2 × NXC + 2 × NYC = 14
Number of fine block faces = 2 × NXF + 2 × NYF
+ Number of coarse blocks = 50.
The equations for the number of block faces given above assume that the coarse
grid model has NX, NY, NZ > 2 and that the fine grid model does not touch any of
the 6 outer boundaries of the coarse model. The equations change in the obvious
manner if any of these assumptions is false. For example, if the coarse and fine

grid models are areal (NZ = 1) and the fine grid model touches the i = 1 boundary
of the coarse model, the equations become:
Number of coarse block faces = 2 × NXC + NYC
Number of fine block faces = 2 × NXF + NYF

+ Number of coarse blocks
containing fine blocks.
2.2.2 Coarse Model Run (Flux OUTPUT Mode)

Initialize the coarse model with the boundary flux options (for output mode) as
described in the Reference Manual. Run the coarse model with the desired value
for the WFLUX card to write the flux file (to unit 16). Define each flux region as
a separate region (or x-region). This enables the comparison of influx and in-
place volumes with the future fine grid model runs using this flux information.
For the coarse grid in Figure 2-1 the flux keywords you need are:
DIM NFXREG NCBLKS

1 12
.
.
.
FLUX 1
OUTPUT
COMFLUX
VEDIST
2 5 3 5 1 1
2.2.3 Fine Model Run (Flux INPUT Mode)

Initialize the fine model with the boundary flux options (for input mode) as
described in the Reference Manual. Compare the initial volumes and pressure
with appropriate values in the region summaries from the coarse model. The
reservoir description for the fine model may need to be tuned to resolve
differences. Make a base case run using the flux information. Assign the flux file
to unit 16 in the flux input mode.
After completion of the base case run, compare region summaries with those from
the coarse model. Compare the production, injection, pressure, and boundary flux
information. The fine model may need further tuning to resolve any differences.
This ensures that the fine grid model has been properly set up and can be used for
further history matching or sensitivity analysis. For the example shown in
Figure 2-1 the fine grid model keywords required are:

DIM NFXREG NCBLKS NFBLKS

1 20 60
.
.
.
FLUX 1
INPUT
MOBWT
ADJUST FINE
COARSE
NX NY NZ
6 8 1
l1 l2 J1 J2 K1 K2
2 5 3 5 1 1
NOVEAD O
2 5 3 5 1 1
VEAREA G
2 4 4 4 1 1
2 2 5 5 1 1
VEONLY W
3 5 5 5 1 1
SEGAREA O
3 5 5 5 1 1
FINE
I1 1 4 6 9
I2 3 5 8 10
J1 1 3 6
J2 2 5 9
K1 1
K2 1 00

2.3 Special Features

The following special features have been implemented in the boundary flux
feature in VIP-EXECUTIVE. These features make the boundary flux option more
flexible and applicable for fine grid model studies that use flux data from coarse-
grid full-field models.
■ Flux rates based on cumulative fluxes
■ Vertical distribution of influx
■ Efflux partitioning
■ Additional output options.
The mobility weighting option has been modified so that it is used only for efflux
terms.
2.3.1 Flux Rates Based on Cumulative Fluxes

The flux rates in the input mode are determined by linear interpolation between
records in the flux file immediately before and after the current time. Therefore,
the input flux rates depend on the frequency with which fluxes are written
originally. Extremely large data files are created if flux rates are written at every
timestep. In addition, instantaneous rates are significantly influenced by changes
in operating conditions such as the opening or closing of a well near the boundary.
A better treatment is to base flux rates on the cumulative volumes between

reporting times. This eliminates the potential errors resulting from rate
fluctuations. The cumulative values are updated at every timestep in the coarse
grid model, but the frequency of writing these cumulative fluxes to the flux file is
determined by the user. The flux rates are calculated using linear interpolation as
before.
2.3.2 Vertical Distribution of Influx

There are numerous ways to determine the allocation of flux from one coarse
gridblock to the corresponding fine gridblocks. Two of the methods available to
calculate fine gridblock flux in VIP-EXECUTIVE:
■ Weighting proportional to cross-sectional area and permeability
■ Weighting proportional to phase mobility, cross-sectional area, and

permeability
In these methods, the model assumes that the proportions of oil, gas, and water
present in the coarse grid cell are maintained in each fine grid cell. Each phase is
proportionately allocated to each fine gridblock. While these methods may be

adequate for water-oil problems, neither of these methods is good for handling
segregation of fluid phases in the vertical direction. Consequently, they may not
be realistic for gas-oil problems.
Other methods subsequently implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE enable users to

distribute influx from a coarse gridblock into corresponding fine gridblocks.
Information about fluid contact heights is written to the flux file in the output
mode. If the vertical equilibrium (VE) option is not being used, it is assumed that
there is instantaneous equilibrium at the end of the timestep and fluids are
completely segregated only for the purpose of calculating the fluid contact
heights. The contact height information then is used in the input mode to
determine the fraction of the total flux of each phase to be allocated to each of the
corresponding fine gridblocks. The following options are, therefore, available for
allocation of influx:
1. If the VEONLY or VEAREA options are selected, all gas influx is allocated to
fine gridblocks above the gas-oil contact; similarly, all water influx is
allocated to fine gridblocks below the oil-water contact. Oil influx is
distributed between the gas-oil contact and the water-oil contact. In the
VEONLY option, the flux allocation is based on the fluid contact height only.
In the VEAREA option, flux is allocated in proportion to the product of
contact height and cross-sectional area.
2. If the SEGAREA option is used for the oil or water phase, the influx for that
phase is distributed below the gas-oil contact. The influx allocation is based
on the product of contact height and cross-sectional area.
3. The NOVEAD keyword turns off the allocation of influx on the basis of
vertical segregation for the coarse gridblocks and the phase under
consideration.
The user may choose which technique (segregated or dispersed) to use in the
model for each coarse gridblock by phase. Therefore, it is possible to use the
dispersed option for water-oil blocks and the segregated option for gas-oil blocks
in the model.
The mobility weighting option is not applicable for the distribution of influx in the
fine grid model. If the VE options are not used, influx is allocated on the basis of
the product of cross-sectional area and permeability for each fine gridblock.

2.3.3 Efflux Partitioning

If VIP-EXECUTIVE tried to remove the specified number of moles of oil, gas,
and water from the boundary grid cells of the fine grid model, a problem could
arise when the efflux volumes required by the coarse grid model are not consistent
with the volumes available in the fine grid model because of better reservoir
description and/or less dispersion in the fine grid. This results in a material
balance error and ultimately may cause pressures at the boundary to deviate
between the coarse and fine grid models.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, an attempt is made to correct the problem if the efflux

volume for a phase is greater than the mobile volume in a fine gridblock. The
hydrocarbon molar rates (moles/day) are converted into reservoir rates (rbbl/day)
for oil and gas. The program removes the reservoir volume for each phase. If the
efflux volume is greater than the mobile volume, the difference between the two is
determined. This deficiency is made up by removing an equivalent reservoir
volume of another phase. That reservoir volume is added to the total flux for that
phase for the appropriate coarse gridblock. This calculation is repeated for all fine
gridblock faces corresponding to each coarse gridblock face. The order for
changing phase allocation follows:
1. Gas phase deficiency: convert to oil phase.
2. Oil phase deficiency: convert to water phase.
This technique ensures that the pressure boundary condition is satisfied.
2.3.4 Output Options

In the flux output mode, The user can print the flux rate and cumulative flux for
each block (defined as a part of the flux output data) in each direction using the
FLUX parameter on the PRINT card. The user can control the frequency of output
using TIME, TNEXT, or freq parameters on the PRINT card.
In the flux input mode, the user can print the flux rate and cumulative flux for
each boundary block in the fine grid model using the FLUX parameter on the
PRINT card. The user can control the frequency of output using TIME, TNEXT,
or freq parameters on the PRINT card.

Chapter
3
The VIP-EXECUTIVE corner-point geometry option is a powerful tool for the

construction of three-dimensional, finite-difference grids. It provides the
capability to independently specify the coordinates of eight corners of every
gridblock. This feature is useful for representing irregular reservoir boundaries,
faults, and pinchouts. It provides a tool for local grid refinement and a flexible
representation of flow geometry.
In general, the resulting finite-difference grid is irregular. For this reason,

additional efforts are spent in calculating block volumes, thickness, center depths,
and inter-block transmissibilities. In addition, grids are not orthogonal, which
creates problems. Non-orthogonal grids introduce additional mixed derivative
terms. VIP-EXECUTIVE, and indeed all reservoir simulators, neglect
discretization of these terms. For this reason, finite-difference solutions may not
converge to the solution of the flow equations upon refinement of the grid. To
overcome this problem, you should construct the grid as close to orthogonal as
possible.
3.1 Corner-Point Position Specification

Positions of corner points can be specified in three ways:
■ X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates of corner points in all layers are specified using the
array input XCORN, YCORN, and ZCORN.
■ X- and Y-coordinates of corner points in all layers are specified using the
array input XCORN and YCORN. Z-coordinates of the gridblocks in the first
layer should be defined by the ZCORN array input with the LAYER or DIP
option. Layer thickness should be specified using the DZCORN, DZBCOR,
or DZVCOR array input. If the DZBCOR or DZVCOR array input is used,
then X- and Y-coordinates are adjusted so that the line from a corner point in
one layer to the corresponding point in the next layer is perpendicular to the
bedding plane. The DZCORN array input is similar to DZVCORN, but the X-
and Y-coordinates are not adjusted.
■ Users can specify the corner points along depth lines. These lines may have an
arbitrary orientation. Include the keyword LINE in the CORNER card to
invoke the LINE option. Specify each depth line by two triplets of X-,Y-, and
Z-coordinates. Define X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates of two points in depth lines
using the XCORN, YCORN, and ZLNCOR array input with the LNVAL
R5000.0.1 Corner-Point Geometry Option 3-53

option (or with the LNXVAR, LNYVAR, LNZVAR options). Define Z-

coordinates of all corner points by means of the ZCORN array input.
The program automatically checks to ensure that the projections of each block
face on the coordinate planes are convex quadrilaterals.
3.2 Fault Specification

The fault modeling option can be invoked by the FAULTS card. Faults are
specified and their depths defined at the top corners of each gridblock, by using
the following array input: ZCORNW (northwest), ZCORNE (northeast), and
ZCORSW (southwest). The depths of southeast top corners are specified by the
ZCORN array input. To model non-permeable shale layers, depths are defined at
the bottom of each gridblock, by using the following array input: ZBOTNW
(northwest), ZBOTNE (northeast), ZBOTSW (southwest) and ZBOT (southeast).
When corner points at the bottom of a gridblock do not coincide with corner
points at the top of the block below it, the transmissibility between these two
blocks is set to zero. For vertical faults specifications, use the FXCORN and
FYCORN cards.
If any of the following cards or arrays are included in initialization data, the
program identifies positions of faults and pinchouts and calculates resulting
transmissibilities: FAULTS, PINCHOUT, ZCORNW, ZCORNE, ZCORSW,
ZBOTNW, ZBOTNE, ZBOTSW, and ZBOT. A pinchout is defined as a block
with a thickness less than the tolerance specified in the PINCHOUT card. The
pore volume of this block is set to zero. A connection is created between two
blocks with non-zero pore volumes - one above the pinchout and one below. The
fault and pinchout connections are called non-standard connections.
Users can change internally-calculated transmissibilities only for standard

connections between blocks with the OVER and VOVER cards. Change the
transmissibilities of non-standard connections (and/or standard connections) using
the MULT card. Use the FTRAN card to specify transmissibility for non-standard
connections.
3-54 Corner-Point Geometry Option R5000.0.1

3.3 Block Bulk Volume Computations

The bulk volume of a block Vb is defined as follows:
Vb = ∫ dV (3-1)
V
One of two numerical integration techniques, briefly described below can be

chosen for calculating gridblock bulk volume:
■ Each gridblock is mapped into a unit cube using a local coordinate

transformation function. A quadrature formula with one, two, or three
quadrature points is used to approximate the three-dimensional integral in the
unit cube. The CORNER card is used to specify the numbers of the quadrature
points. This is the default method of calculating bulk volume.
■ When the VAITS keyword is specified, the block is divided into several sub-
layers and the block bulk volume is estimated as
N
Vb = ∑ AREAi ΔDi (3-2)

i=1
where N is a number of the sub-layers, AREAi is the area of a cross section of

the i’th sub-layer, and ΔDi is the thickness of the i’th sub-layer. The number of
the sub-layers and their thicknesses are defined internally to ensure that a
relative approximation error is less than some tolerance specified by the user
in the VAITS card. This method is more accurate because an advanced
integration technique is used for bulk volume computations.

3.4 Calculations of Block Center and Thickness

VIP-EXECUTIVE makes the assumption that the block center depth (Dc) and
thickness (TH) are defined as follows:
1
D c = ------ ∫ z dV (3-3)
Vb
V
1
TH = ------ ∫ DZ dV (3-4)
Vb
V
where z is the Z-coordinate and DZ is a block thickness transformed to the unit

cube. Three-dimensional integrals over a block volume V in the above
expressions are numerically estimated in VIP-EXECUTIVE using local gridblock
mapping in the unit cube and a quadrature formula with one, two, or three
quadrature points.
Appendix B (Section B-2) gives a more complete description of volumetric

calculations.

3.5 Inter-Block Transmissibility Calculations

Two methods of calculating inter-block transmissibilities are available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE - the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE option, which uses “harmonic
integration,” and the NEWTRAN option. More complete details of both options
are given in Appendix B.
3.5.1 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option

The following expression is used for calculations of inter-block transmissibilities
in the X-direction in the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE option (see Figure 3-1):
C DARCY × TMLTX i
T ij = ---------------------------------------------------
- (3-5)
right left
Ai Aj
------------------------ + -------------------- -
right left
A ij TX i A ij TX j
Ai right
I Aij
Aj left
J
Figure 3-1: Fault Block Connection
where
Aij area of mutual intersection of Blocks I and J

right left
Ai , Aj areas of the right face of the i’th block and the left face of
the j’th block (see Figure 3-1)
right left
TX i , TX j right and left transmissibilities of Blocks I and J in the X-
direction, which are defined in VIP-EXECUTIVE as
follows:

right PERMXi × RNTG i left PERMX j × RNTG j

TX i -, TX j = ---------------------------------------------
= --------------------------------------------- - (3-6)
1 ds u ci ds
------ ------
dλ dλ
∫ ---------------------------------
A ( λ ) cos ψ ( λ )
- dλ ∫ ---------------------------------- dλ
A ( λ ) cos ψ ( λ )
u ci 0
uci X-direction coordinate of mapping of the i’th block

center into a unit cube
λ a variable representing the fractional distance from the

left face to the right face. It takes on values from the
interval [0,1]
A(λ) area of a rectangular (possibly nonplanar) quadrilateral

with corner points PN 1 ( λ ) , PN 2 ( λ ) , PN 3 ( λ ) and
PN 4 ( λ ) which are defined as follows (see Figure 3-2):
s(λ) distance along path from the center of the block to the
right or left face
ψ(λ) angle between the path of s(λ) and the normal to the
quadrilateral of A(λ)
Figure 3-2: Rectangle Used In Computing A(λ)
The same technique is used to calculate inter-block transmissibilities of faulted

and standard gridblock connections.
More complete details of both the standard and NEWTRAN options for corner-
point geometry are provided in Appendix B.

3.5.2 NEWTRAN Option

The NEWTRAN method, which is similar to the corresponding ECLIPSE
technique, has been incorporated in VIP-EXECUTIVE as an option to improve
the compatibility of both simulators. This option can be invoked using the
NEWTRAN keyword in the CORNER card. The following expression is used to
calculate the inter-block transmissibility in this option:
C DARCY × TMLTX i
T ij = ----------------------------------------------
- (3-7)
1 1
-------- + --------
TX i TX j
where
CDARCY Darcy‘s constant in the appropriate units (0.008527 in

metric units and 0.001127 in field units)
TMLTXi transmissibility multiplier in the X-direction for the i’th

block
A x DI x + A y DI y + A z DI z
TXi = PERMX i RNTG i --------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2
- (3-8)
DI x + DI y + DI z
RNTGi net-to-gross ratio, which appears in the X- and Y-

transmissibility, but not in the Z-transmissibility
PERMXi permeability in the X-direction in the i’th block
Ax, Ay, Az X-, Y-, and Z-projections of a mutual intersection of

Blocks i and j; i.e., projection on the y-z, x-z, and x-y
planes, respectively.
DIx, DIy, DIz X-, Y-, and Z-components of the distance between the
center of the i’th gridblock and the center of relevant face
of Block i.
The expressions for transmissibilities in the Y- and Z-directions are similar, but
the net-to-gross ratio is not included in the expression for the Z-transmissibility.


Chapter
4
4.1 Introduction
Naturally fractured rocks often are observed near faults and folds. The fracture
channels are highly permeable compared to the rock matrix itself; they make the
reservoir productive even though the matrix has poor permeability. Oil in rock
matrix is drawn into the fracture by imbibition, gravity drainage, diffusion, or
expansion, then is carried away in the fracture network to production wells.
One approach to modeling fractured rocks is to approximate the fractured rock

with a single porosity representation by giving it an effective permeability. This
approach is simplistic and tends to give the wrong recovery rate. Another
approach is to model each fracture by assigning gridblocks to the respective
fracture channels. However, this approach is limited in scope because of the large
number of fractures normally found in reservoirs. Another approach, which VIP-
EXECUTIVE takes, is to model the processes by using two continua representing
the rock matrix and fractures. This two-continua system is called the dual porosity
model and is illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Matrix Fracture
Dual porosity
representation Km
⊕ Kf
Fractured Single porosity

rock representation
Keffective
Figure 4-1: Idealization of Naturally Fractured Reservoir
These continua are superposed, and the model assumes the two continua exchange
fluids. In this approach, two finite-difference grid systems represent both
continua. Consequently, users must supply the fracture properties (fracture
porosity, etc.), flow exchange terms, and pseudo-capillary pressures, as well as
data for the rock matrix.
R5000.0.1 Dual Porosity Models 4-61

4.2 Matrix-Fracture Flow Exchange Term

The flow equations for oil, gas, and water are introduced to both the rock matrix
and fracture continua; each equation has an exchange term between matrix and
fracture. The flux exchange (qmf) between the matrix and fracture is assumed to
follow Darcy’s law as
k rα
q mf, a = T mf ----------------- [ P fα – P mα – γ α ( D f – D m ) ] (4-1)
μ α B mα
where subscript α indicates the phases (liquid, vapor, and water); subscripts f and
m indicate the fracture and rock matrix, respectively; krα, μα, and Bmα are the
relative permeability, viscosity, and formation volume factor for each phase α; P
is pressure; D is depth; and Tmf is matrix-fracture transmissibility. The matrix-
fracture transmissibility is defined by
T mf = 0.001127k mf σΔXΔYΔZ ⋅ ( net ⁄ gross ) fracture (4-2)
where ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ are the finite-difference gridblock dimensions, and
effective permeability kmf is defined by
1 k mx k fx k my k fy k mz k fz ⎞
k mf = --- ⎛ --------------------
- + --------------------
- + -------------------
- (4-3)
3 k mx + k fx k my + k fy k mz + k fz⎠
⎝
where km represents the permeabilities of matrix in the x, y, and z directions and kf

represents the fracture permeabilities. When the fracture permeability is much
larger than the matrix, kmf reduces to
1
k mf = --- ( k mx + k my + k mz ) (4-4)
3
which is an arithmetic average of matrix permeabilities.
Shape factor σ is expressed as

⎛1 1-⎞
1 - + ------
σ = 4 ⎜ ------
- + ------ ⎟ (4-5)
⎝ l 2mx l 2my l 2mz⎠
where lm represents the rock matrix dimensions in the x, y, and z directions.
Coats53 defines k mf σ as
⎛ k mx k my k mz⎞ (4-6)
k mf σ = 8 ⎜ -------
- + -------- + --------⎟ ( 1 – φ f )
⎝ l 2mx l 2my l mz ⎠
4-62 Dual Porosity Models R5000.0.1

The user may specify the following:
■ The matrix dimensions, matrix, and fracture permeabilities (LX, KX,

KXFEFF, etc.)
■ The σ and matrix and fracture permeabilities (SIGMA, KX, KXFEFF, etc.)
■ The matrix-fracture transmissibility (TEX)
4.3 Matrix-Fracture Diffusion Term

Oil and gas component diffusions between matrices and fractures take place
because of the concentration gradients, and the diffusive fluxes (qdo, qdg) are
expressed in VIP as functions of saturations (S), densities (ρ), mass transfer
coefficients (k) and mole fractions (x, y) for each component.
*
q do = S mo k do ρ mo ( x f – x m ) (4-7)
*
q dg = S mg k dg ρ mg ( y f – y m ) (4-8)
* ψ iv y i
x fi = ------------ (4-9)
ψ iL f
* ψ iv x i
y fi = ------------ (4-10)
ψ iL f
where Smo and Smg are matrix oil and gas saturations; ρmo and ρmg are oil and
gas densities in a matrix; xm and ym are molar fractions of oil and gas, and ψiL
and ψiv the liquid and vapor phase fugacities. Tdo and Tdg are mass transfer
coefficients of oil and gas defined by:
k do = D o σ d ΔXΔYΔZ (4-11)
k dg = D g σ d ΔXΔYΔZ (4-12)
where Do and Dg are diffusion coefficients; σd is a diffusion shape factor which

may be different from the shape factor σ defined previously.

VIP input for Do, Dg, and σd are TDIFFO, TDIFFG, and SIGMAD respectively.
Coats2 has shown that the approximate diffusion time for the concentration to
decay 90% of its initial value is:
0.85τ or l 2
t = ----------------- ⎛ ---⎞ (4-13)
D ⎝ 2⎠
where τor, l and D are a tortuosity, length of a matrix cube, and diffusion
coefficient respectively. For example, consider a gas-gas high pressure (4500 psi)
diffusion with tortuosity of 3.5, l =1’, and D=0.001 cm2/sec. Then, t =8 days. If
this is an insignificant time compared to the production period, then the diffusion
effect may be ignored in the model. Thus, the above equation can be used to
decide if a model should include the diffusion effects.
From Equation 4-7 and Equation 4-8, we observe that the diffusion flux would be
significant if the compositions in a fracture and a matrix are markedly different.
Such is the case when an injection gas composition differs greatly from that of the
resident gas.

4.4 Treatment of Imbibition and Gravity Drainage

Figure 4-2 illustrates production mechanisms in fractured reservoirs: gravity
drainage, imbibition, fluid expansion and diffusion where the arrows indicate the
directions of fluid movements.
Fracture Matrix block

Gravity drainage
gas
oil
Gas-cap expansion
Matrix fluid expansion
gas
oil
Oil imbibition
gas
oil
Diffusion
gas
oil
Water imbibition (water wet)

Water flood
Water
oil
Figure 4-2: Fluid Exchange Mechanisms
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses pseudo capillary pressures to estimate the drainage and

imbibition characteristics; the diffusion effects are computed using saturations,
molar fractions, and mass transfer coefficients; the amount of fluid exchanges due
to the expansion depends on the pressure and compressibilities of fluids. In the
following, detailed processes of estimating these effects are described.

4.4.1 Pseudo Capillary-Pressure Treatment of Exchange Between Matrix and

Fractures
The pseudo capillary pressures are computed in VIP-EXECUTIVE automatically
to include the effects of the gravity drainage and imbibition. A utility keyword
PSEUDO in the VIP-EXECUTIVE input file is used to activate the option
For imbibition and gravity drainage, the calculation assumes an equilibrium

distribution of saturations in each of the matrix blocks and then calculates for each
gridblock a table of average gridblock saturation versus pseudo capillary pressure
at the block center by varying the fluid contact between the top and bottom of the
gridblock. A smooth curve of pseudo capillary pressure is produced by integrating
the saturations over a number of columns of matrix blocks displayed relative to
each other. VIP-CORE initially and internally computes the pseudo-capillary
pressures as follows:
Step 1. Create a user-specified number of columns of matrices stacked

vertically in a gridblock. Shift the starting point of each column so that the
gridblock has matrix interfaces with nearly uniform distribution (see Figure 4-3).
Each matrix has the dimensions of lx, ly, and lz as shown before.
Step 2. Set the location of the water-oil contact within the fracture system,
beginning at the top of the gridblock. Numerically integrate the equilibrium
distribution of water saturation in all matrices using the specified water-oil contact
as a boundary condition. The average water saturation of the matrices is the
resulting integral divided by the number of matrices. The average water saturation
strongly depends on the height of a matrix since the water column in the matrix is

snapped off at each matrix block interface. The imbibition capillary pressure
curve should be used for integration.
ΔX
ΔZ/2
lz
owc
ΔZ/2
Figure 4-3: Matrix Blocks and Fractures in a Gridblock
Step 3. Calculate a capillary pressure corresponding to the average matrix

water saturation by
⎛ ⎞ lz
P c = ( γ w – γ o ) ⎜ ΔZ
------- – h⎟ ------- (4-14)
⎝2 ⎠ ΔZ
where h is the height of the water-oil contact (Figure 4-3) and γo and γw are
gradients of oil and water, respectively. When defined this way for the matrix, the
matrix capillary pressure will cover the same range of values that is covered by
the vertical equilibrium capillary pressure used in the fractures. However, the
corresponding values of saturation will be quite different from the fracture values.
Step 4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for many different water-oil contact levels, evenly
spaced over the height of the gridblock. By doing so, the capillary pressure is
tabulated as a function of the average water saturation. This table has the property
that is equivalent to the one determined by rigorous integration of the rock
capillary pressure curve subjected to the boundary condition. This table is used for
the simulation.

Step 5. A similar procedure is used to generate the pseudo gas-oil capillary

pressures, if selected (see next section). In this case the drainage curve should be
used for integration.
4.4.2 Coats’ Method for Treatment of Gas-Oil Exchange Between Matrix and
Fractures
Coats’ method53 for describing the gas-oil exchange between matrix and fracture
is implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE. This method is available in addition to the
pseudo-capillary pressure model for gas-oil gravity drainage used in previous
versions of VIP-EXECUTIVE and described for in the section above. The Coats
method is the default method for gas-oil gravity drainage. The pseudo-capillary
pressure method is selected using the NOCOATS parameter on the PSEUDO
card.
The matrix-fracture phase flux exchange in surface volume units is given by:
λ gm
q g = τ --------- ( ΔP o + P cgo ) (4-15)
Bg
λ om
q o = τ --------- ΔP o (4-16)
Bo
where
τ matrix-fracture transmissibility defined by:
τ = 0.001127 k mf σ ΔXΔYΔZ (4-17)
kmf effective permeability
σ shape factor
ΔX, ΔY, ΔZ gridblock dimensions
Bo , Bg oil and gas formation volume factors
ΔPo oil phase pressure difference between matrix and fracture
λgm gas phase mobility in the matrix
λom oil phase mobility in the matrix defined by:

k rocwm (4-18)
λ om = ---------------
-
μ om
krocwm oil relative permeability at connate water in the matrix
μom oil viscosity in the matrix.
τz k rgf ⎛ S gm ⎞
P cgo = ---- β g μ gf ⎛ -------
- + λ om⎞ ( l z Δγ – P ce ) ⎜ --------------
- – 1⎟ (4-19)
τ ⎝μ ⎠ ⎝ S* S ⎠
gf ge gf
Equation 4-19 above is Coats’ equation (43) with Sgf = Krgf.
⎛ 1 – φ f⎞
τ z = 0.001127k zm ⎜ ------------
-⎟ ΔXΔYΔZ (4-20)
⎝ l 2z ⎠
where
kzm matrix permeability in the z-direction
φf fracture porosity
lz matrix block height
βg parameter that controls the exchange transients
krgf gas relative permeability of the fracture
μgf viscosity of the fracture gas
Δγ γo - γg, gas-oil density difference
Pce threshold gas-oil capillary pressure
Sgm matrix gas saturation
Sgf fracture gas saturation
Sge integrated average gas saturation at equilibrium, (Coats’

equation (28)):
1 l z Δγ ⁄ σ r
S ge = --------------------
l z Δγ ⁄ σ r ∫o S g ( P c )dP c (4-21)
The terms, Δγ, Pce and Sge in Equation 4-19 are functions of pressure. The
pressure dependence of Pce and Sge is modeled through the dependence of gas-oil
interfacial tension on pressure. The gas-oil capillary pressure is assumed to be a
linear function of gas-oil interfacial tension as follows:
P cgo ( p ) = P cgo ( P o )σ r ( p ) (4-22)

The function
σ(p)
σ r ( p ) = -------------- (4-23)
σ ( Po )
is supplied to VIP-EXECUTIVE by the SIGT table as described in Section 4-12

of the VIP-CORE Reference Manual.
VIP-CORE uses the SIGT table to construct tables for each gridblock. These
tables consist of three columns. The first column contains pressures read from the
SIGT tables, the second column contains Sge values at the corresponding pressure
computed using Equation 4-21, and the third column contains the quantity lzΔγ -
Pce. These tables are output to file with extension .pseudo and also to the restart
file. VIP-EXECUTIVE interpolates these tables to determine Pcgo from
Equation 4-19 and then computes the flux terms from Equation 4-15 and 4-16.
4.4.3 The Case of lz Greater than ΔZ

The pseudo capillary pressure and Coats’ method matrix-fracture exchange do not
apply to blocks with lz greater than ΔZ. The matrix-fracture exchange for these
blocks is calculated using the input capillary pressures with no vertical
equilibrium in either matrix or fracture. Unless TEX or SIGMA are supplied, the
exchange transmissibility is calculated using lx, ly, and lz. In this case lz = ΔZ for
the calculation of exchange transmissibility. The user is reminded that when lz is
greater than ΔZ, matrix to matrix flow may be significant and that the use of the
dual permeability model should be considered.

4.5 Dual Permeability Versus Single Permeability

The two continua representing rock and fracture have flow fields in them, so
generally, permeability must be assigned to both continua. However, if the rock
matrices do not exchange fluids directly with other rock matrices (i.e., matrices
exchange fluids with fractures only), the flow field in the rock continuum can be
ignored. Thus the dual porosity option can be used in two ways: with or without
communication among rock matrices. The model without the direct flow
exchange among matrices is often called the dual porosity option with single
permeability, while the case with direct flow exchange between rock matrices is
referred to as the dual porosity option with dual permeabilities. The single
permeability option requires less computation memory and less CPU time to run
than the dual permeabilities option.
The dual porosity option is activated using DUAL in one of the utility inputs. If it
is followed by POR, then the program uses the dual porosity option with single
permeability. Without the POR card, the program uses dual permeability.
Figure 4-4 shows the schematics of these two options. The single permeability
option on the right does not have the flow exchanges among rock matrices, but the
flow exchanges between fracture and matrix take place.
Rock
Continuum
Fluid
Exchange
Fracture
Continuum
Dual Permeability Option Single Permeability Option
Figure 4-4: Two Dual Porosity Options
Wells that are specified will perforate both rock and fracture continua and
therefore, there will be two sets of permeability thicknesses in the dual
permeability option as illustrated in Figure 4-5. In highly fractured reservoirs, the
flow out of fractures dominates production. In such cases, ignore the flow from
matrices; this can be achieved by setting FM = 0 in the FPERF data.
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses the input FM as follows:
(K*H)effective = FM*(Km*Hm) +(1-FM)*(Kf*Mf).

If, however, the single permeability option is used, wells commmunicate only
with the fractures and FM is automatically set equal to zero.
Km*Hm
❍
Matrix
❍ ⇐
Well ❍
❍
⇐ Kf*Hf
Fracture
Figure 4-5: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture

4.6 Partially Fractured Reservoirs

The dual porosity option in VIP-EXECUTIVE applies to an entire reservoir, so
reservoirs that are fractured in some regions but not in others potentially present a
problem to the simulator.
Any type of fractured reservoir can be solved using the dual porosity/dual
permeability option because there are two distinct flow paths - one in the fracture
and one in the matrix. So if the fractures are absent in an area the flow occurs
entirely in the matrix. However, this option can be expensive to run. The more
efficient dual porosity/single permeability option only allows flow from gridblock
to gridblock through the fractures. Fluids in the matrix can only exchange with
fluids in the fracture of a common gridblock. With this option, regions of a
partially fractured reservoir that are not fractured (regions with zero fracture
porosity) end up disconnected from the flow network.
However, using the SWAPMF keyword, partially fractured reservoirs as shown in

Figure 4-6 can be solved efficiently without having to use the dual porosity/dual
permeability model. Matrix to matrix flow is modeled in unfractured regions and
fracture to fracture flow modeled along with matrix-fracture exchange in the
fractured regions. The simulator handles this automatically by copying the matrix
properties of unfractured regions into the fracture storage locations. The result is
an efficient single permeability model.

Unfractured region Unfractured region
fault Fractured region
Flow medium
Matrix
medium
Gridblock for continuous rock

Non-communicating gridblocks for matrix
Gridblocks for fracture
Figure 4-6: Representation of a Partially Fractured Reservoir
In order to make this more understandable, let the grid system through which
fluids flow be called a “flow medium”, and let the medium which supplies fluids
be called a “matrix medium” as shown in Figure 4-6. Grid blocks in the “matrix
medium” do not communicate with each other in the method under consideration
here (an assumption of the dual porosity with a single permeability).
Only grid blocks of the “flow medium” communicate each other. The model in
this example runs four times faster than the dual porosity/dual permeability
model.

4.7 Dual Porosity Benchmarks

Results from single block gas-oil drainage cases presented by Coats53 were used
to check the implementation of the method in VIP-EXECUTIVE. Figures 4-5 to
4-9 show results from the pseudo capillary pressure method (VIP 22R), the Coats
method (VIP 23D) and those presented by Coats (SPM, DPMT, DPM). These
figures show that VIP-EXECUTIVE is able to reproduce Coats’ results which
agree accurately with the results for fine grid simulations.
Results from VIP-EXECUTIVE were also compared with those presented in the
Sixth SPE Comparative Solution Project54. Shown on Figure 4-10 are results for
the single block gas-oil drainage problem of SPE 6. These results demonstrate that
the dual porosity model of VIP-EXECUTIVE matches gas-oil drainage from a
single block as accurately as a fine grid model. Results for the depletion and gas
injection problems of SPE 6 are presented on Figures 4-11 to 4-16. Since no
analytical results are available for these cases nothing can be said about the
accuracy of the results. The different results reported by VIP-EXECUTIVE
(exec22r, exec23d) are due to the use of the different gas-oil matrix fracture
exchange models available in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
Sgf = 1.0
(Coats’ Figure 15)

krog/3

Figure 4-10: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 4 ft. Matrix Block

Figure 4-11: Gas/Oil Gravity Drainage for a 1 ft Matrix Block



Single Block - Zero PCF

Depletion - Zero PCF





Reinjection - Zero PCF




4.8 Simulator Input Data

A user must decide first if the system can be represented by the dual porosity/
single permeability or dual porosity/dual permeability model by considering how
fluids flow in the reservoir under consideration: the keywords in VIP are DUAL
POR or DUAL PERM (utility cards) respectively. The latter is, in general, much
more expensive in CPU time. Other simulator input are the fracture porosity,
effective fracture permeabilities, compressibilities, matrix sizes, diffusion
coefficients, relative permeabilities, and pressure dependence of properties. They
are discussed in the following sections.
4.8.1 Fracture Porosity

Porosities can be estimated by various methods such as the core analysis, logging,
geological origin, and tri-axial core testing. The lab-measured rock porosity is
slightly different from the matrix porosity input to VIP under the dual porosity
option, so a caution is advised.
Consider a bulk volume of a fractured medium as shown in Figure 4-19. The dual
porosity option in VIP replaces the bulk volume with two continua: matrix and
fracture. Porosities associated with these continua are defined so that the
porosities times a grid block volume give the respective pore-volumes for matrix
and fracture systems.
DY
= = +
Vrock
DX DX DX
Vf V φm in VIP
Vt φf ≡ Vf / Vt
Vm,pore = Vpore in matrix/ Vt
Figure 4-19: Fracture and Matrix Continuum Porosities in VIP
In Figure 4-19, matrix volume Vm contains matrix pore-volume Vm,pore.

Therefore, the lab test porosity determined from the matrix is defined as usual by
φ m in lab = V m, pore ⁄ V m (4-24)
VIP’s matrix continuum porosity is defined by
φ m in VIP = V m, pore ⁄ V t (4-25)

where Vt is the bulk or grid block volume. By using the above equations we can
derive the matrix porosity input data for VIP as
φ m in VIP = V m, pore ⁄ V t
= φ m in lab * V m ⁄ V t
(4-26)
= φ m in lab * ( V t – V f ) ⁄ V t
= φ m in lab * ( 1 – φ f )
Therefore, matrix porosities from lab tests must be modified according to

Equation 4-26 for VIP input data, POR. The fracture porosity in VIP is PORF
which is defined by Vf/Vt.
A fracture porosity varies depending on the origin and size, but Teodorovich has
proposed a rough guideline6:
φf < 0.1*total porosity (φf+ φm in VIP) if total porosity < 10%

φf <0.04*total porosity (φf+ φm in VIP) if total porosity > 10%
Typically, long fractures that span many layers have a porosity ranging from 0.01
to 0.5%, and networked small fractures within a layer have 0.01 ~ 2%.
4.8.2 Effective Fracture Permeability

The correct estimate of fracture permeabilities is much more important than that
of porosity, because fracture permeabilities significantly influence the flow
characteristics and thus, the production capability, although the fracture porosity
is usually much smaller than the matrix porosity.
As mentioned in the previous section, the permeability tensor may be determined

by using the statistical analysis or network modeling, and the permeability must
have the scale-independence and the symmetric tensor.

The effective permeability can be directly determined by core tests, but it is likely
to be limited to finding a single fracture channel permeability, Kff, since cores are
too small to contain fractures with a typical fracture spacing.
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Fractured core
Impermeable
jacket
Figure 4-20: Kelton’s Permeameter
One can derive an equivalent permeability using a mechanistic model: for

example, a multi-fracture layered model as shown in Figure 4-21.
e h
Flow direction
b
e .... fracture spacing
b .... fracture width
a a ... width of sample
AL AL ... length of sample
Figure 4-21: Simplified Layered Fracture Model
If this structure is repeated in an entire reservoir, it is a representative elementary

volume which has a symmetric permeability tensor.
Suppose a single fracture channel has permeability Kff, then the equivalent
continuum permeability, Kf, of this model can be expressed by7:
b
K f = K ff ⎛ ---⎞ (4-27)
⎝ e⎠
The equivalent (or effective) permeability can be expressed as a function of the

fracture porosity by:
2
b
K f = φ f ------ (4-28)
12

Another alternative for estimating the fracture permeability is an empirical

method, i.e., by observations of micro-sections: fracture morphology such as rock
type, shape of fracture, porosity and pore shape1,6. One of the empirical methods
computes the fracture permeability by1,6:
K f ( md ) = A × B × C × D (4-29)
where A, B, C and D are functions of rock type, porosity, pore size and pore shape
respectively, and they are defined in the following:
Table 4-1: Rock Types1,6 - A
Pore Space
Description Value of A Characteristics for sub types
Type
I Pore space 2 Very narrow conveying canals (Ave. d ≈ 0.01 mm)

with convey- 4 Rare wider canals (Avg. d = 0.02 mm)
ing canals 8 Few wider canals
16 Wider canals (Ave. d > 0.04 mm)
32 Many wider canals
II Pore space 8 Poor porosity, same grain size

with or with- 16-32 Good porosity, different pore sizes
out pore struc- 32-64 Good porosity, vuggy and irregular pores
ture
III Intergranular 6 Very poor porosity in cannals

pores 12 Poor porosity in cannals
24 Finely porous cannals
IV Pore space 10 Connected pores between rhombohedral grains

with various 20 Connected pores between angular grains
shape 30 Connected pores between rounded grains
where d is the diameter.

Table 4-2: Porosity1,6 - B
Effective porosity
Description range of porosity (%) Value of B
Very porous > 25 20 - 30

Porous 15 - 25 17
Moderate porosity 10 - 15 10
Pores abundant 5 - 10 2- 5
Pores present 2-5 0.5 - 1.0
Some pores present <2 0
Table 4-3: Pore Size - C
Description Maximum pore size (mm) Value of C
Large vuggs >2 16

Medium to large 0.50 - 2.00 4
Medium 0.25 - 1.00 2
Fine to medium 0.10 - 0.50 1
Very fine to fine 0.05 - 0.25 0.5
Very fine 0.01 - 0.10 0.25
Pinpoint to very fine < 0.10 and in part < 0.01 0.125
Mostly pinpoint < 0.03 and in part < 0.01 0.0625
Table 4-4: Pore Shape - D
Description Value of D
Nearly isometric 1.0

Elongated 2.0
Very elongated or banded pores with emanating
conveying canals 4.0
VIP keywords for effective fracture permeabilities are KXFEFF, KYFEFF, and
KZFEFF. If corresponding transmissibilities are known, then one may use TXF,
TRF, TYF and TZF.

4.8.3 Pore Compressibilities

VIP uses the pore compressibility (Cr) defined by
1 ∂V pore
C r = ------------
V pore ∫ ---------------
∂p
- dv (4-30)
where the integration is performed over the pore volume enclosed by a control
volume subjected to a constant confining pressure. In case of a fractured rock,
there are two types of pore volumes: fracture pore and matrix pore, and they
would have different pore compressibilities as illustrated in Figure 4-22:
1 ∂V pore 1 ∂V pore
------------
V pore ∫matrix pore ∂p
---------------
- dv +
V pore ∫fracture pore ∂p
------------ ---------------- dv ≡ C m + C f
(4-31)
Fracture pore
→ ←
Matrix pore
Figure 4-22: Pore Compressibilities
where Cm and Cf represent the matrix pore and fracture pore compressibilities
respectively. Jones8 gave an example of carbonate rock compressibilities:
Cm = 2x10-6 /psi
Cf = 72x10-6 /psi.
VIP input for Cm and Cf are CR and CRF arrays respectively. There is another
input, Cr , in the DWB card, and this is overridden by the above array input. This
Cr in the DWB card can be used without the presence of CR and CRF arrays only
if the compressibilities of fracture and matrix pores are identical.

4.8.4 Matrix Block Size and Matrix-Fracture Transmissibility

A matrix size and its shape vary considerably depending on rocks, and it is
difficult to characterize them. Therefore, a mechanistic model is introduced to
determine a phenomenological property, the matrix-fracture transmissibility,
between the matrix and fracture continua. The mechanistic model consists of
blocks as shown in Figure 4-23, and the blocks are assumed to have the same
dimension, and act identically.
Real configuration Equivalent block representation
≅
LZ LZ
LX LY
Figure 4-23: Matrix Block Representation
Real rocks do not have such a simple fracture morphology. However, this
idealization gives a theoretical estimate of shape factors, or transmissibilities. The
dimensions of an equivalent block are specified in VIP by arrays LX, LY and LZ
as shown in Figure 4-23.
These are used to compute the transmissibilities from Equations 4-2 to 4-5.
ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ are dimensions of a finite difference grid block; kmx, kfx, etc. are
the matrix and fracture permeabilities of an element in the x-direction in Figure 4-
23. The input LX, LY and LZ correspond to lx, ly and lz in the above equation.
Optionally the shape factor, σ, may be directly specified in stead of lx, ly and lz.
and the corresponding VIP input keyword is SIGMA. Furthermore, Tmf may also
be specified directly using VIP keyword TEX. Both SIGMA and TEX are array
input data.
4.8.5 Relative Permeabilities

The surface tension between phases affects relative permeabilities in a fracture
network less than that of a matrix since a typical fracture width is much larger
than a pore throat. Consequently, they are often assumed as a straight line as
shown by the left figure in Figure 4-24. However, it is not always the case: for
example, consider a vuggy fracture rock. At a slow rate where the capillary
pressure becomes significant, water clings to the fracture wall until the water
saturation reaches a higher saturation. This is illustrated by the right figure in

Figure 4-24. Thus, the fracture relative permeabilities are significantly rate-
dependent, so that experiment should be performed with a representative flow rate
during the production.
kro kro
krw krw
Sw Sw
Figure 4-24: Fracture Relative Permeabilities
The fracture saturation tables in VIP are specified by headings SWTF and SGTF.
4.8.6 Pressure Dependence

A fracture width, porosity and permeability are strongly affected by the confining
pressure as shown in Figure 4-25 since the fracture compressibility is much larger.
Operational
range
Permeability
Confining pressure
Figure 4-25: Permeability Dependence on Confining Pressure
If the operational pressure varies significantly during the life of a reservoir, the
simulation model must reflect the pressure dependence appropriately. If the
pressure dependence is significant, it can be modeled by using the compaction
option in VIP: a table of multiplication factors to porosity and permeabilities. The
table heading is ICMT, and ICMTF array is the corresponding pointer. In using
the compaction option a utility card, COMPACT, must be included.

4.8.7 Well Permeability-Thickness

Wells specified by users will perforate both rock and fracture continua and
therefore, there will be two sets of the permeability thickness in the dual porosity/
dual permeability option as illustrated in Figure 4-26. In highly fractured
reservoirs the flow out of fractures dominates the production. In such case we can
ignore the flow from matrices, and this can be achieved by setting FM to zero on
the FPERF card.
Km*Hm
❍ matrix
❍ ⇐
Well ❍
❍
⇐ Kf*Hf
fracture
Figure 4-26: Well Perforations to Rock and Fracture
In dual porosity single permeability model wells can only communicate with the
fractures and FM is automatically set to zero.

4.9 Example of Dual Porosity Model Input

INIT
TITLE1
(SPE 18741) SIXTH SPE COMPARATIVE SOLUTION PROJECT:
TITLE2
CROSS-SECTION STUDY ---- ZERO FRACTURE Pcgo
TITLE3
(SPE6_GI_1) WESTERN ATLAS SOFTWARE: MAR,1992
C
DATE 31 12 1991
DUAL POR
PSEUDO COATS 10 PRINT 10
CROSS
VEGO
VEWO
C
PRINT ALL
C PRINT TABLES SIGT
C
NX NY NZ NCOMP
10 1 5 2
C
DWB BWI VW CW CR TRES TS PS
1.0412 1.07 .35 3.5E-6 3.5E-6 266 60 14.7
C
TABLES
C
IEQUIL PINIT DEPTH PCWOC WOC PCGOC GOC PSAT
1 6014.7 10000. 0. 11000. 0. 0.0 5559.7
C
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C MATRIX WATER-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SWT 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
.2 0. 1.000 1.0
.25 0.005 0.860 0.5
.30 0.010 0.723 0.3
.35 0.020 0.600 0.15
.40 0.030 0.492 0.0
.45 0.045 0.392 -0.2
.50 0.060 0.304 -1.2
.60 0.110 0.154 -4.0
.70 0.180 0.042 -10.0
.75 0.230 0. -40.0
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C MATRIX GAS-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SGT 1
SG KRG KROG PCGO
0. 0. 1. .075
.1 .015 .70 .085
.2 .050 .45 .095
.3 .103 .25 .115
.4 .190 .11 .145
.5 .310 .028 .255
.55 .420 .0000 .386

.8 1. .00 2.
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C FRACTURE WATER-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SWTF 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
.0 0. 1. 0.
.50 .50 .50 0.
.999 .999 0.001 0.
1. 1. 0. 0.
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
C FRACTURE GAS-OIL
C ----------------------------------------------------------------
SGTF 1
SG KRG KROG PCGO
.0 .0 1. .0
.1 .1 .9 .0
.2 .2 .8 .0
.3 .3 .7 .0
.4 .4 .6 .0
.5 .5 .5 .0
.7 .7 .3 .0
.999 .999 .0 .0
1. 1. 0. .0
BETAG 1.14
SIGT
P SIGR
14.7 100.0
1688.7 66.6667
2044.7 52.2222
2544.7 36.6607
3005.7 24.4444
3567.7 14.2222
4124.7 8.0
4558.7 4.9333
4949.7 2.8333
5269.7 1.7222
5559.7 1.0
7014.7 0.5556
C P SIGR DGOG
C 14.7 100.0 .7795
C 1688.7 66.6667 .5934
C 2044.7 52.2222 .5666
C 2544.7 36.6607 .5299
C 3005.7 24.4444 .4972
C 3567.7 14.2222 .4597
C 4124.7 8.0 .4247
C 4558.7 4.9333 .3986
C 4949.7 2.8333 .3760
C 5269.7 1.7222 .3570
C 5559.7 1.0 .3411
C 7014.7 0.5556 .2676
BOTAB 1
DOB WTRO
0.81918 200.
PSAT RS BO BG GR VO VG
7014.7 2259 2.1978 .600 .762 .109 .0330
5559.7 1530 1.8540 .696 .762 .210 .0274
5269.7 1413 1.7953 .720 .762 .229 .0265

4949.7 1285 1.7315 .751 .762 .248 .0255

4558.7 1143 1.6630 .795 .762 .278 .0244
4124.7 1000 1.5938 .855 .762 .310 .0230
3567.7 832 1.5141 .959 .762 .351 .0213
3005.7 679 1.4425 1.11 .762 .397 .0197
2544.7 564 1.3891 1.30 .762 .436 .0184
2044.7 447 1.3359 1.62 .762 .487 .0171
1688.7 367 1.3001 1.98 .762 .529 .0162
14.7 0 1.050 225. .762 3.93 .0105
PSAT 5559.7
DP BOFAC VOFAC
1000 .9935275 1.081905
C
ARRAYS
DX CON
200.
DY CON
1000.
DZ CON
50.
LX ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
LY ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
LZ ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
MDEPTH LAYER
10*10000.
POR CON
.29
PORF CON
.01
KX CON
1.
KY MULT
1. KX
KZ MULT
1. KX
KXFEFF ZVAR
10. 10. 90. 20. 20.
KYFEFF MULT
1. KXFEFF
KZFEFF MULT
1. KXFEFF
ISAT CON
1
IREGION CON
1
C
SW CON
0.2
SG CON
0.0
FVEWO CON
0.0
FVEWOF CON
1.0
FVEGO CON
0.0

FVEGOF CON
1.0
ISATEM CON
1
ISATEF CON
1
OVER TZF
1 10 1 1 1 5 *.1
C
END
RUN
DIM NWMAX NGCMAX NPRFTO NPRFMX NBATMX NSTGMX NFSMAX
2 1 10 10 1 1 1
C
IMPLICIT
C
RESTART 0 3
PLOT FORM
START
OUTPUT P SO SG
PRINT WELLS TIME
PRINT REGIONS ARRAYS TIME
WPLOT TIME 3
C ABORT 1. 1.
BLITZ
C TOLR .001 .01 RELTOL
C
WELL N NAME I J IGC
0 PROD45 10 1 1
0 INJ123 1 1 1
FPERF
WELL L WIL
INJ123 1 1.613294
X 2 1.613294
X 3 1.755122
PROD45 4 1.690117
X 5 1.690117
INJ G FSTD INJ123
PROD O STD PROD45
QMAX INJ123
.9
QMAX PROD45
1000.
ECOLIM O PROD45
QMIN 1
100.
DPBHMX PROD45
102.
ITNLIM 1 10 500 .1 .1 .1
DT -1. 1. 91. 500. .1 .1 .1
DATE 30 6 1992
DATE 31 12 1992
DATE 30 6 1993
DATE 31 12 1993
DATE 30 6 1994
DATE 31 12 1994
DATE 30 6 1995

DATE 31 12 1995
DATE 30 6 1996
DATE 31 12 1996
DATE 30 6 1997
DATE 31 12 1997
DATE 30 6 1998
DATE 31 12 1998
DATE 30 6 1999
DATE 31 12 1999
DATE 30 6 2000
DATE 31 12 2000
DATE 30 6 2001
DATE 31 12 2001
STOP
END


Chapter
5
End-Point Scaling
5.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to model spatial differences in relative
permeability and capillary pressure end points with a single set of generic relative
permeability and capillary pressure curves. Both the saturation and relative
permeability end points for any gridblock can be different from those of the
generic rock type to which the gridblock is assigned.
The relative permeabilities and capillary pressures at a given saturation are

determined from the generic curves based on the assumption that the normalized
relative permeability and capillary pressure curves of the generic rock type and
the gridblock are identical.
The calculation of the relative permeabilities is divided into two steps: saturation
end-point scaling, then end-point relative permeability scaling. Two- and three-
point saturation scaling options are available in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
R5000.0.1 End-Point Scaling 5-97

5.2 Normalized Saturation End Points

Eight saturation end points can be defined for each gridblock, grouped by water-
oil and gas-oil normalized functions. They are:
■ Water-Oil Normalized Functions
1. SWL - Connate water saturation (the smallest water saturation entry in a

water saturation table).
2. SWR - Residual water saturation (the highest water saturation for which
the water is immobile).
3. SWRO - Water saturation at residual oil (one minus residual oil saturation
where the residual oil saturation is the highest oil saturation for which the oil
is immobile in the water-oil system).
4. SWU - Maximum water saturation (the highest water saturation entry in a

water saturation table).
■ Gas-Oil Normalized Functions
5. SGL - Connate gas saturation (the smallest gas saturation entry in a gas
saturation table).
6. SGR - Residual gas saturation (the highest gas saturation for which the gas
is immobile).
7. SGRO - Gas saturation at residual oil (one minus the residual oil saturation
minus the connate water saturation where the residual oil saturation is the
highest oil saturation for which the oil is immobile in the gas-oil-connate
water system).
8. SGU - Maximum gas saturation (the highest gas saturation entry in a gas
saturation table).
If any of the saturation end points are not specified, rock data will be used for that
gridblock. Both connate and residual water saturations are set to the specified
value if the following exceptions exist: if the connate and residual water
saturations are the same in the rock table and if you specify either the connate or
residual water saturation (but not both) for the gridblock.
Linear transformation is used to correlate gridblock saturation to the equivalent

saturation in the generic rock table. This equivalent saturation is then used to
compute relative permeability or capillary pressure. For example, if the saturation
end points for the gridblock are SL and SR and for the rock are SL′ and SR′, then the
equivalent rock saturation, S′, corresponding to the gridblock saturation, S, is
calculated as:
5-98 End-Point Scaling R5000.0.1

′ ′
( S – SL ) ( SR – SL ) ′
S′ = -----------------------------------------
- + SL (5-1)
( SR – SL )
S′ is then used in the table look-up for the relative permeability or capillary
pressure.
Two- and three-point scaling options are available to calculate relative

permeability and capillary pressure. The default option is the three-point scaling
option. It uses three-point scaling for relative permeabilities and four-point
scaling for capillary pressures.
5.2.1 Two-Point Scaling Option

The keyword END2P is used to invoke the two-point scaling option. It uses two-
point scaling for both capillary pressures and relative permeabilities.
Two-Point Scaling of Capillary Pressure Functions
Two-point scaling uses the connate and maximum saturations as two saturation
end points in the calculation of capillary pressures:
Pcwo SWL and SWU
Pcgo SGL and SGU
Two-Point Scaling of Relative Permeability Functions
Two-point scaling uses the residual and maximum saturations as two saturation
end points in the calculation of relative permeabilities:
krw SWR and SWU
krg SGR and SGU
krow SWL and SWRO
krog SGL and SGRO

5.2.2 Three-Point Scaling Option (Default Option)

The three-point scaling option uses four-point scaling for capillary pressures and
three-point scaling for the relative permeabilities. When the three-point option is
used, the saturation end points divide saturation into different regions. The end
points used depend on the region to which the grid-point saturation belongs.
Four-Point Scaling of Capillary Pressure Functions
Four-point scaling uses connate saturation, residual saturation, water/gas

saturation at residual oil, and maximum saturation as four saturation end points to
calculate capillary pressure. The following end points are used in the water-oil
and gas-oil capillary pressure calculation:
Pcwo SWL, SWR, SWRO, and SWU
Pcgo SGL, SGR, SGRO, and SGU
Three-Point Scaling of Relative Permeability Functions
In addition to honoring the end points used in the two-point scaling option, the
three-point scaling algorithm honors the relative permeability of the mobile phase
at the residual saturation of the other phase. The following end points are used in
the relative permeability calculation:
krw SWR, SWRO, and SWU
krg SGR, SGRO, and SGU
krow SWL, SWR, and SWRO
krog SGL, SGR, and SGRO

5.2.3 Comparisons of Two- and Three-Point Scaling Options

The following example is used to compare the two- and three-point options for
both capillary pressure and relative permeability curves:
Example:
C-----------------------------------------------------------
C SATURATION DEPENDENT TABLES
C-----------------------------------------------------------
SWT 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
0.2 0.0 0.6 10.
0.3 0.0 0.45 8.
0.7 0.4 0.0 3.
0.9 1.0 0.0 0.
SWT 2
....
....
....
ARRAY
C------------------------------------------------------------
C SATURATION END POINTS
C------------------------------------------------------------
SWL CON
0.05
SWR CON
0.15
SWRO CON
0.85
SWU CON
1.0
The specified rock table shows that connate water saturation, SWL′, is 0.2. The
residual water saturation, SWR′, is 0.3. Water saturation at residual oil, SWRO′,
is 0.7. Maximum water saturation, SWU′, is 0.9. The specified grid end points
are SWL = 0.05, SWR = 0.15, SWRO = 0.85, and SWU = 1.0.
The water-oil capillary pressure curves for the rock and gridblock with the two-
and three-point options are compared below. The capillary pressures at SWL and
SWU are honored for the two-point option and those at SWL, SWR, SWRO, and
SWU are honored for the three-point option. Rock saturations 0.3 and 0.7 are
equivalent to grid saturations 0.1857 and 0.7286, respectively, for the two-point
option.

The water relative permeability curves for the rock and gridblock with the two-
and three-point options are compared below. The water relative permeabilities at
SWR and SWU are honored for two-point scaling, while those at SWR, SWRO,
and SWU are honored for three-point scaling. The rock saturation 0.7 (SWRO′) is
equivalent to the gridblock saturation 0.7167 for two-point scaling and 0.85
(SWRO) for three-point scaling. The relative permeability at SWRO = 0.85 is
0.6823 for two-point scaling, and 0.4 for three-point scaling.

5.2.4 End-Point Consistency Checks

The following end-point consistency requirements are checked for each
gridblock:
■ Maximum gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the connate water
saturation.
■ The connate gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the maximum water
saturation.
■ The connate gas/water saturations should not exceed the residual gas/water
saturations.
■ The water/gas saturations at residual oil should not exceed the water/gas
maximum saturations.

5.3 Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability

VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to specify the rock end-point relative
permeabilities for each gridblock. For a given gridblock saturation, VIP-
EXECUTIVE calculates a transformed saturation for use in the rock table.
Three end-point relative permeabilities can be defined for each gridblock:
1. KROLW - The oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation and
minimum gas saturation.
2. KRWRO - The water relative permeability at the residual oil saturation.

This input option is available for the three-point option only.
3. KRGRO - The gas relative permeability at the residual oil saturation. This
input option is available for the three-point option only.
Note that for the two-point option, the relative permeabilities at SWRO, and
SGRO are not honored and KRWRO and KRGRO are neglected.
5.3.1 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Oil

The two-phase oil relative permeabilities for a gridblock, krow and krog, are
calculated from the rock curves and the gridblock to rock end-point relative
permeability ratios according to the following equations:
′ KROLW
k row = k row × ----------------------- (5-2)
KROLW′
and
′ KROLW
k rog = k rog × ---------------------- (5-3)
KROLG′
KROLW’ is the oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation for the
generic rock curve, and KROLG’ is the oil relative permeability at the connate gas
saturation for the generic rock curve. krow′ and krog′ are the rock oil relative
permeabilities at the saturations calculated from the saturation end-point scaling.
5.3.2 End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling for Water and Gas

The water and gas relative permeabilities are computed according to the following
equations:
′ KRWRO ′
k rw = k rw × ----------------------- if S w ≤ SWRO’ (5-4)
KRWRO′

′
( KRWU – k rw )
k rw = KRWU – ---------------------------------------------------- × ( KRWU – KRWRO )
( KRWU – KRWRO′ )
′
if S w > SWRO’ (5-5)
and
′ KRGRO- ′
if S g ≤ SGRO’
k rg = k rg – ---------------------- (5-6)
KRGRO′
′
( KRGU – k rg )
k rg = KRGU – --------------------------------------------------- × ( KRGU – KRGRO )
( KRGU – KRGRO′ )
′
if S g > SGRO’ (5-7)
KRWRO’ and KRGRO’ are the water and gas relative permeabilities at the
residual oil saturation for the generic rock curves. KRWU and KRGU are the
water and gas relative permeabilities at the maximum saturations, respectively.
krw’ and krg′ are the water and gas relative permeabilities at the saturations
calculated from the end-point scaling.
5.3.3 Using End-Point Relative Permeability Scaling Option

Keywords KROLW, KRWRO, and KRGRO are used to specify end-point relative
permeabilities. The previous example shows that KROLW’= 0.6 and KRWRO’=
0.4 for the rock table. The following input data specify the grid end-point relative
permeabilities: KROLW = 0.8 and KRWRO = 0.25.
Example:
C------------------------------------------------------------
C END-POINT RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES
C------------------------------------------------------------
KROLW CON
0.8
KRWRO CON
0.25
The comparisons of the rock and grid-point relative permeability curves with end-
point relative permeability scaling are shown in the following figures.

KROLW’
KROLW

5.4 Directional Relative Permeability with End-Point Scaling

End-point scaling can be used with the directional relative permeability option.
Keywords SWL, SWR, SWRO, SWU, SGL, SGR, SGRO, SGU, KROLW,
KRWRO, and KRGRO can be specified with the following directional options:
X+ Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I+1,J,k)
X- Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I-1,J,k)
Y+ Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J+1,k)
Y- Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J-1,k)
Z+ Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J,k+1)
Z- Flow from gridblock (i,j,k) to (I,J,k-1)
A Flow for all four areal directions
V Flow for both vertical directions.
Example:
SWL X+ ZVAR
0.2 0.1 0.25 0.15
SWR X+ ZVAR
0.25 0.2 0.35 0.2
SWRO X+ ZVAR
0.6 0.7 0.65 0.75
SWU X+ ZVAR
0.9 0.95 0.98 1.0

5.5 Leverett J-Function (JFUNC)

The JFUNC card invokes the option to use the Leverett J-function for the
calculation of capillary pressures. The J-function is input in place of capillary
pressure in the SWT table as a function of water saturation. For each gridblock,
the program calculates the square root of permeability divided by porosity, in
order to scale the J-function to a unique capillary pressure curve. The J-function is
defined as follows:
Pc K
J ( Sw ) = ------------------- ---
σ cos θ c φ
00
The capillary pressure table input should be
Pc wo ( Sw ) = J ( Sw ) σ cos θ c 00
such that the program can calculate capillary pressure as
Pc wo ( Sw )
Pc = ------------------------
- 00
Kx
------
φ
where Kx is the x-direction permeability and φ the porosity.

Chapter
6
Equilibration
6.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE offers four reservoir initialization options:
■ Automatic determination of reservoir pressures and saturations at gravity-

capillary equilibrium.
■ Gravity-capillary equilibrium for user-specified saturations.
■ Non-equilibrium initialization to user-specified saturations, compositions, and

pressures.
■ Vertical equilibrium.
R5000.0.1 Equilibration 6-109

6.2 Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium

When three fluid phases are present, the equilibrium distribution of gas, oil, and
water is illustrated in Figure 6-1:
DEPTH
GAS
GAS-OIL
GAS-OIL CONTACT TRANSITION ZONE
(GOC)
OIL
WATER-OIL
TRANSITION ZONE
WATER-OIL CONTACT
(WOC)
WATER
SATURATION
Figure 6-1: Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
The fluid contacts, datum liquid phase pressure and depth, and capillary pressures
at the contacts are entered in the equilibrium constant table:
IEQUIL PINIT DEPTH PCWOC WOC PCGOC GOC PSAT

iequil pinit depth pcwoc woc pcgoc goc psat
(one data card for each equilibrium region)
6-110 Equilibration R5000.0.1

Definitions:
iequil region number
pinit datum liquid phase pressure
depth reservoir datum depth
pcwoc capillary pressure at WOC
woc water-oil contact depth
pcgoc capillary pressure at GOC
goc gas-oil contact depth
psat saturation pressure
The label IEQUIL refers to the region of the field to which the initialization
applies. VIP-EXECUTIVE permits a variable number of contacts within a field;
this is illustrated in Figure 6-2:
Figure 6-2: Multiple Water-Oil Contacts
To define an equilibrium region with constant composition, the OILMF and

GASMF cards must be used. To specify the composition as a function of depth,
the COMPOSITION table input should be used instead of the OILMF and
GASMF data. The program assumes that compositions entered for depths above
the gas-oil contact are gas phase compositions. Compositions entered for depths
at or below the gas-oil contacts are assumed to be oil phase compositions.
For each IEQUIL region, the automatic initialization of reservoir phase pressures,
saturations, and compositions proceeds as follows:
1. Calculates a table of all phase pressures vs depth.
2. Assigns average phase pressures to each gridblock.

3. Calculates capillary pressure vs depth.
4. Performs an inverse table lookup on capillary pressures to determine gas and

water saturations for each gridblock.
5. Processes saturation and composition overreads, if any.
6. Calculates capillary pressure adjustments if the INTSAT option or saturation

pressure overread is used and if the NONEQ card is not included in the
initialization data set.
The phase pressure vs depth tables are generated by the following relationships:
dP
--------o- = ρ o ( P o, PSAT ieq )g (6-1)
dD
P o ( DEPTH ieq ) = PINIT ieq (6-2)
dP
---------w- = ρ w ( P o )g (6-3)
dD
P w ( WOC ieq ) = P o ( WOC ieq ) – PCWOC ieq (6-4)
dP
--------g- = ρ g ( P o, PSAT ieq )g (6-5)
dD
P g ( GOC ieq ) = P o ( GOC ieq ) + PCGOC ieq (6-6)
For reservoirs which have an initial oil column, the datum depth, DEPTH, must
satisfy
WOC ≥ DEPTH ≥ GOC (6-7)
When the reservoir has a primary gas cap and an oil column,
DEPTH = GOC (6-8)
For gas/gas condensate reseroirs with no initial oil column (GOC = WOC), the
datum depth, DEPTH, may be at any depth at or above the contact.
When the reservoir does not have a gas cap, GOC may be assigned a depth above
the top of the reservoir. In any case, the saturation pressure entered in the
equilibrium constants table is the saturation pressure at DEPTH.

6.3 Saturation Initialization

Three options are available to calculate the initial distribution of fluid saturations:
■ GBC (gridblock center)
■ INTSAT (integrated saturation)
■ VAITS (volume-averaged integrated saturation)
6.3.1 GBC Option

The GBC (gridblock center) option is the default. This method assigns a
saturation for each gridblock according to the capillary pressure at the gridblock
center. It is valid for models with thin gridblocks in the transition zone. The
calculation proceeds as follows:
1. Calculates average phase pressures Po, Pg, and Pw for each block.
2. Calculates Pcwo = Po - Pw and Pcgo = Pg - Po.
3. Performs inverse table lookup to obtain saturation
–1
S = Pc ( Pc ) (6-9)
For tables with Pc = 0, the saturations are given by
S wc DEPTH < WOC

Sw = (6-10)
S wmax DEPTH ≥ WOC
S gc DEPTH > WOC

Sg = (6-11)
S gmax DEPTH ≤ WOC
6.3.2 INTSAT Option

The INTSAT (integrated saturation) method is based on integration of the inverse
capillary pressure function versus depth for each block.
DMAX
1 –1
S wb = ----------------------------------------
DMIN – DMAX ∫ P c ( D )dD (6-12)
DMIN

When Pc = 0, the following equation is used:
DMAX
1
S wb = ----------------------------------------
DMIN – DMAX ∫ S w ( D )dD (6-13)
DMIN
where SW(D) is given by Equation 6-10.
DMIN
DTOP
MDEPTH
DMAX DBOT
Figure 6-3: Block Representation in the INTSAT Option
A very accurate numerical integration technique is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to

estimate the one-dimensional integrals in the above expressions (Equation 6-12).
The number of integration points and their positions are defined internally to
satisfy a hard-coded approximation error tolerance. This method is more accurate
than the GBC option. However, it has one disadvantage. The initial saturation
distribution vs depth is averaged over block thickness (see Figure 6-3). However,
for greater accuracy, it should be averaged over block volume.
Therefore, the INTSAT method may not represent gridblock geometry accurately.
For example, the calculated average saturations for the two blocks shown in
Figure 6-3 would be the same. This method is accurate only for non-dipping
rectangular grid systems.
An accurate treatment of the gridblock geometry is implemented in the VAITS

option described below. This method reduces the errors described above for the
INTSAT option.
6.3.3 VAITS Option

A volume-averaged integrated saturation procedure (VAITS) computes the initial
saturation distributions in models with non-standard block geometry. This is the

most accurate method for calculating gridblock saturations and bulk volumes.
Average block saturations (Sbw, Sbg) and bulk volume (Vb) are defined as
DMAX
1 –1
S bw = ------
Vb ∫ P cw ( D )AREA ( D )dD (6-14)
DMIN
DMAX
1 –1
S bg = ------
Vb ∫ P cg ( D )AREA ( D )dD (6-15)
DMIN
DMAX
Vb = ∫ AREA ( D )dD (6-16)

DMIN
where AREA(D) is the cross-sectional area of the gridblock when intersected by a

horizontal plane at depth D (see Figure 6-4). The following procedure is used to
numerically estimate the one-dimensional integrals in the above expressions:
1. The depth interval [DMIN,DMAX] is divided into N subintervals (sublayers):

[DMIN,D1], [D1,D2], . . . , [DN-1,DMAX]. The average water saturation is
calculated as:
i=N D i + 1
1 –1
S bw = ------ ∑ ∫ P cw ( D )AREA ( D )dD (6-17)
Vb
i = 0 Di
Similar expressions are used for the average gas saturation and block bulk
volume.
2. Simpson’s quadrature formula is used to estimate numerically the integrals in

each sublayer.
3. The sublayers are not equally spaced; therefore, they may have different
thickness. The number of sublayers N and their thickness are internally
calculated to ensure that relative approximation errors are less than tolerances,
which are specified on the VAITS card.

DMIN
D1
D2
D3
.
.
AREA(D)
.
Dn-1
DMAX
D
Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization
The VAITS Option offers the following advantages:
■ Accurate modeling of the gridblock geometry and capillary-gravity

equilibrium conditions.
■ Application of an advanced numerical integration technique. The number of

integration points (sub-layers) and their positions are defined internally. More
sub-layers are used in large blocks than in small blocks. The number of sub-
layers is increased in blocks with non-standard geometry in comparison with
rectangular blocks. Sublayer thickness is decreased in areas with significant
saturation changes; e.g., near oil-water and gas-oil contacts.
■ Accurate calculation of block bulk volumes, saturations, and volumes of the

fluids-in-place with user-specified approximation error tolerances.

6.4 Capillary Pressure Adjustment

The user-specified saturations and saturations calculated by the INTSAT option
are not necessarily at equilibrium, that is, not necessarily equal to the gridblock
center value. It is usually necessary to adjust Pc , especially near contacts, to
maintain equilibrium. VIP-CORE offers two options:
1. NONEQ = .True. (non-equilibrium conditions). No capillary pressure

adjustment is calculated.
2. NONEQ = .False. Program adjusts capillary pressures to maintain equilibrium

for the user-specified saturations or saturations calculated by the INTSAT
option (Default option).
This is illustrated for Pcwo in Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-5: Capillary Pressure Adjustment
In Figure 6-5, SW(Di) refers to saturation at the gridblock center and SWi refers to
the block average saturation for block i. The capillary pressure adjustment is
given by
PCADJWi = POi - PWi - PCWO(SWi).
A new capillary pressure function that ensures equilibrium for saturation SWi is
defined by
PCWO(SWi) = PCWO(SWi) + PCADJWi.
A similar treatment is applied to the gas-oil capillary pressure.

6.5 Supercritical Initialization

Deeper drilling and the production of light hydrocarbons at high temperature
increases the occurrence of gas condensate and volatile oil systems that exist
together at initial conditions. These systems do not have a two-phase region. This
is because the original compositions are always at temperatures and pressures that
do not cross the equilibrium two-phase envelope. In the top part of the reservoir,
the compositions are such that the fluid is classified as a gas condensate. The
heavy component composition increases as a function of depth so that the fluid
would be classified as a volatile oil at the bottom of the reservoir. At some depth
in the reservoir, the fluid would change classification from gas to oil, but there is
no classical gas-oil contact (i.e., no two-phase region). Instead, there is a depth at
which the the local critical temperature is equal to the reservoir temperature. The
fluid density increases with depth, but does not show the usual density difference
associated with phase change.
The card used to trigger the supercritical initialization is the CRINIT card in the
Utility Data section of VIP-CORE. The initial pressure, PINIT, should be entered
at DEPTH, which should be the same as the input gas-oil contact depth, GOC. The
GOC depth specification can affect the speed and stability of supercritical
initialization since dew-point calculations are performed first for gridblock depths
above DEPTH and bubble-point calculations are tried first for gridblock depths
below DEPTH. The program checks on the heavy component k-value and
switches to the appropriate routine if necessary; however, this takes time. The
density of the original compositions is then used to initialize the function of
pressure versus depth from PINIT at DEPTH input on the IEQUIL card. The
composition at each depth is interpolated from those given on the
COMPOSITION cards and the equilibrium composition is computed in the
bubble- and dew-point routines.
For each equilibrium region, the program uses the input gas-oil contact depth
(GOC in IEQUIL card) as the estimated depth of the change from gas to oil and
will perform bubble- and dew-point calculations using the input composition as a
function of depth. The fluids are sorted using the computed equilibrium
compositions of the heaviest component to determine whether the reservoir fluid
is oil or gas. The criterion that the heavy component must have a k-value less than
one is used to determine whether the results of the bubble- or dew-point
calculation should be used at that depth in the reservoir. The point at which the
switch occurs is the true gas-oil contact for the super-critical fluid. The input
PINIT value from the IEQUIL card is used to compute the original pressure
surface from DEPTH and the computed oil and gas densities. At all times, bubble-
or dew-point routines are used to compute the equilibrium phase compositions
and the original saturation pressure values as a function of depth. A switch occurs
from bubble- to dew-point fluids based on the heavy component k-value.

The bubble- and dew-point routines include a successive substitution process

which is used before the Newton-Raphson procedure. The Newton-Raphson
iteration process is unstable when the original guess is not in the radius of
convergence. A degenerate solution can be found (the values of liquid mole
fraction and vapor phase mole fraction equal for all components). Using
successive substitution avoids degenerate solutions and usually gives an estimate
that is in the radius of convergence for Newton-Raphson.
The successive substitution process starts with an estimate of the equilibrium

phase composition. Using that composition and an assumed saturation pressure,
the k-values are computed from the fugacity of each component. The sum of the
equilibrium phase mole fractions must be one. The actual sum is used to
normalize the equilibrium phase mole fractions to one. These iterations are
performed until the saturation pressure converges. The new estimates are used to
perform Newton-Raphson iterations to final convergence.


Chapter
7
Faults
7.1 Introduction
Figure 7-1 shows a structural map in a portion of a petroleum reservoir. The
contour discontinuities indicate faults. A fault is one of the structures that traps
hydrocarbons; it may influence fluid flow significantly. Therefore, reservoir
models frequently include the faults. The fault handling option in VIP-
EXECUTIVE allows simple ways of realizing such noncontiguous layer
connections resulting from the faults.
Figure 7-1: Part of a Structure Map of a Petroleum Reservoir
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-121

Simple faults can be modeled without using VIP-EXECUTIVE’s fault option, but
such a model requires more gridblocks. Figure 7-2 illustrates a model with and
without the fault option.
Without
Using
Two-Layer Model Fault
Option
➡
Using
Fault Option
Figure 7-2: Different Ways of Modeling Faults
Consider the two-layer model on the left in Figure 7-2. Without the fault, option
one must use five layers to model the displacement due to the fault. However, the
fault option allows users to create the grid system shown in the lower right where
the grids may not be contiguous. VIP-EXECUTIVE determines the connections
among blocks across the fault plane based on user input, then computes the
transmissibilities. Solvers take into account the flows associated with the fault
connections. In this manual, assumptions, guidelines, and the method of
computing the transmissibilities are presented.
7-122 Faults R5000.0.1

7.2 Assumptions and Guidelines

To assist a visualization of assumptions, consider a simple model shown in
Figure 7-3. There are two faults in the figure, denoted by FX and FY. Fault FX is
an X-plane fault since the fault surface lies in the plane perpendicular to the X-
axis. Fault FY is a Y-plane fault. The assumptions and guidelines described here
focus on the standard fault models. Some of the limitations in the standard fault
model can be overcome by using the nonstandard (i.e., corner-point geometry)
option; they are explained when appropriate. The corner-point geometry option is
described in Chapter 3.
1 2 3 4
5
6 x(i)
1
FY
3
FX
y(j)
Figure 7-3: Fault Model
■ The fault plane is located vertically at the grid boundary; the throw (or shift)
is constant in the Z-direction. In other words, throws between (3,3,k) and
(4,3,k) are the same for all k in the fault plane FX.
■ Fault throws may vary areally. For example, the throws of fault FY at i = 4, 5,
6 may be different.
■ When the fault option is used without corner-point geometry, VIP-

EXECUTIVE assumes that the layer is horizontal at the fault plane; i.e., DX =
DXB and DY = DYB. Thus, to avoid confusion, use the LAYER option as
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-123

much as possible to specify depth. If the layers are no longer horizontal, for
example, because of significant layer-thickness changes, then use the corner-
point geometry option.
■ VIP-EXECUTIVE handles only logically vertical faults: a fault plane cuts

through all the layers “smoothly” without having a stair-step-like surface.
More precisely, a fault plane can be defined uniquely by areal coordinates (i
and j) only. When a fault has a sloping logically vertical plane, the standard
fault model does not describe the geometry accurately, so the corner-point
geometry option should be used. Note that the corner-point geometry option
does not require the constant throw assumption and generates the fault
connections automatically when the FAULT utility card is present.
■ The depths of gridblocks should be consistent to the fault throws (i.e., fshift in
Section 2.5 in the VIP-CORE Reference Manual) specified in user input.
■ The fault throws have positive or negative signs depending on the relative
depths of grids across fault. If one walks in an increasing X-direction and
encounters a drop-off, the drop-off, or throw, is positive since the drop is in the
positive Z-direction. If one encounters a wall of rock, it has a negative throw.
7-124 Faults R5000.0.1

7.3 Input Structure

The standard input for the fault option requires the fault location, the throws, and
the multiplier for the transmissibilities. The fault plane is specified by the location
of the plane and the extent of the plane. For example, fault FX is located at i = 4
and the extent is from j = 3 to j = 4. Fault FY is located at y = 3 and the extent is
from i = 4 to i = 6:
FX 4 3 -4 20.00 *1.5
FY 3 4 -6 21.00 22.00 23.00 *1.0
Fault FY has three throws listed, i.e., 21 ft (m), 22 ft (m), and 23 ft (m) for the
three-grid-long fault, while the first input line has only a single throw, 20 ft (m). If
only a single shift is specified, then the shift is constant along the fault.
There are variations of the input formats depending on the options, but the most
frequently used format has the structure shown in Figure 7-4:
FX 4 3 -4 20.00 *1.5
Transmissibility Multiplier
Throw
Areal Extent of Fault Plane (range of j location)
Fault Plane Location (i location)
Heading for Fault Input
Figure 7-4: Input Structure of Typical Fault Data Input
FX should be replaced with FY, FR, or FTHETA, depending on the direction,

coordinate system, and corner- or no-corner-point geometry. Options FXCORN
and FYCORN are similar, but throws and multipliers are given in separate lines.
The transmissibility multiplier is introduced to modify the transmissibility
computed by VIP-EXECUTIVE and can be used for the history match, for
instance. Detailed requirements for the input are listed in the VIP-CORE
Reference Manual.4
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-125

7.4 Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections

As described in the previous section, the input data specifies the plane location,
fault length, and throw. VIP-CORE then determines the connections and
corresponding transmissibilities automatically. These connections are applied to
both the first (usually matrix) and second porosity medium (fracture) if the dual
porosity model is in effect.
Another set of input formats can be used for arbitrary gridblock connections.
However, users must explicitly specify the gridblocks that are connected as well
as the transmissibilities. As a result, this input method can become tedious.
Furthermore, the connections for matrix and fractures are specified separately in
the dual porosity model.
In describing the arbitrary connections, there are two kinds of input formats. The
first method assumes that the connections are between two neighboring columns
and that each line of input specifies a single connection as shown in Figure 7-5.
Users must specify the connecting gridblocks and transmissibility for each
connection.
FLTXC
i j kr kl tx
Transmissibility
Vertical Location of Grids
Areal Location of Faults x
i
Heading for Fault Input
kr
i-1
z kl
Figure 7-5: Specifying a Single Fault Connection
FLTXC should be replaced with FLTYC for Y-direction faults, FLTRC for R-
direction faults in radial coordinate systems, or FLTTC for theta-direction faults in
radial coordinate systems. To specify the fault connection similarly for fracture
porosity, the corresponding headings are FLTXCF, FLTYCF, FLTRCF, or
7-126 Faults R5000.0.1

FLTTCF. For example, the connection between (3,4,2) and (4,4,1) in Figure 8-5
can be expressed as:
FLTXC 4 4 1 2 192.23,
where 192.23 is a transmissibility value. This type of input method is useful to

override the transmissibilities computed by FX and other input described in the
previous section.
The second type of fault input data for arbitrary connections also is used for the
same purpose, but can be used to connect any gridblocks within the model; i.e.,
the gridblocks need not be neighbors. One of the applications is to use ordinarily
inactive grids as an aquifer. This input format requires the block coordinates and
transmissibility shown in Figure 7-6.
FTRANS
i1 j1 k1 i2 j2 k2 trans
Transmissibility
Coordinates of the Second Grid
Coordinates of the First Grid
Heading
(i1,j1,k1) (i2,j2,k2)
trans
Figure 7-6: Arbitrary Connection
For the fracture porosity, the heading is FTRANSF. FTRANS or FTRANSF may
be used to override fault transmissibilities, but can do so only for faults. To
override transmissibilities of the regular connections, use OVER or VOVER
option. An example of FTRANS usage is shown later.
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-127

7.5 Fault Transmissibility

The transmissibility of the fault connection uses the area shared by the two
gridblocks as shown in Figure 7-7. The corner-point and non-corner-point
geometry options compute the fault transmissibility differently. In the standard (or
non-corner-point geometry), the X-direction transmissibility in the Cartesian
coordinate system, for instance, is computed as using the area shared by the
connecting blocks (see Figure 7-7). Equations for the transmissibilities are in
Chapter 33.
Left Right
DZ
DZ
DZ
DX DX
Figure 7-7: Transmissibility for Standard Connection
In Figure 7-7, DZ is the shared thickness, DZ is the layer thickness. The

calculation of fault transmissibility for corner point geometry is discussed in
Chapter 3.
7-128 Faults R5000.0.1

7.6 Noncontiguous Layers

When there are gaps between layers (as described by DEPTH or MDEPTH and
DZ arrays), VIP-CORE’s fault connections can account for the gaps.
VIP-CORE uses a fault shift input and layer thicknesses to determine the
connectivities, which could result in wrong connectivities if there are gaps
between layers. In the figure below a two layer model, (a), has a gap between
layers and a fault shift. If depth information is ignored, the layers are assumed to
be contiguous, resulting in connectivities as shown in model (b).
7.6.1 Connectivity Search Scheme

The connectivity search scheme accounts for the gaps between layers: tops and
bottoms of layers are computed by
top(k) = mdepth(k) - dz(k)/2

bottom(k) = mdepth(k) + dz/2
The layer tops and bottoms of the neighbor column are displaced by the shift
amount.
VIP-CORE has 2 options: (a) the method that uses depth information to calculate
layer connectivity, and (b) the method that assumes the layers are contiguous.
Method (a) is the default. Method (b) would be used if answers from a previous
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-129

run must be replicated. Method (b) can be activated by adding a keyword

NODEPTH at the end of FX, FR, FY or FTHETA. For example:
FX 2 1 2 -25 NODEPTH
FX 2 2 -25 NODEPTH
Without the keyword NODEPTH, method (a) is used.
An example of the default method is given below:
The input for the model is listed in the figure, and the resulting output by the
method (a) is:
GRID CONNECTS TO SHARED

TRANSMISSIBILITY
BLOCK GRIDBLOCK THICKNESS
RB-CP/PSIA-DAY
(I, J, K) (I, J, K) FT
1 123 111 5.000 .5635E+00
2 123 112 5.000 .5635E+00
3 124 112 5.000 .5635E+00
4 125 113 5.000 .5635E+00
5 125 114 5.000 .5635E+00
6 126 114 5.000 .5635E+00
7 127 115 5.000 .5635E+00
8 127 116 5.000 .5635E+00
9 223 211 5.000 .5635E+00
10 223 212 5.000 .5635E+00
11 224 212 5.000 .5635E+00
12 225 213 5.000 .5635E+00
7-130 Faults R5000.0.1

GRID CONNECTS TO SHARED

TRANSMISSIBILITY
BLOCK GRIDBLOCK THICKNESS
RB-CP/PSIA-DAY
(I, J, K) (I, J, K) FT
13 225 214 5.000 .5635E+00
14 226 214 5.000 .5635E+00
15 227 215 5.000 .5635E+00
16 227 216 5.000 .5635E+00
If method (b) is used there would be 18 connections, and they are probably
incorrect.
If the top layers of the neighbor and fault columns are not horizontal, but have the
same depths, the above scheme still computes the connections based on the shift
amount as shown in the next figure.
Fault and neighbor top

layers have the same depth,
but the fault shift is non-
zero. Even in this case
formulation (a) handles the
connections correctly.
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-131

7.7 Input Example

Consider a model of 11 x 11 x 5 grids in Figure 7-8. Active gridblocks are shown
in the gray area. The real faults are indicated by solid lines and the model faults
are shown by the dashed lines as approximation since the fault must be defined at
grid faces. The following input specifies the location of faults and multipliers
using the FX and FY options. In addition, consider an aquifer shown in Figure 7-8
by the hatched area that is connected to a grid (10,1,1). This is accomplished using
the FTRANS option.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 x
2 #1
3 #2
6
7
8
9 #3
10
11
y
Figure 7-8: Example of Faults
7-132 Faults R5000.0.1

Examples:
FAULTS
C fault #1
FY 2 3 -4 220.5
FX 5 2 -2 200.1
FY 3 5 -6 190.2 180.1
FX 7 3 -4 80.0 10.0 *0.8
C fault #2
FX 10 2 -6 30.5
C fault #3
FY 10 5 -9 -59.8
C override two connection of fault #2
FLTXC
10 2 1 3 121.55
10 3 1 4 22.9
C Connect aquifer to (10,1,1)
FTRANS
10 1 1 1 8 1 211.9
10 1 2 1 8 2 331.2
10 1 3 1 8 3 249.1
10 1 4 1 8 4 10.2
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-133

7.8 Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options

In VIP, a fault may be defined as conductive in which the fault plane is assumed to
have an infinite conductivity and negligible storage. With these assumptions, fluid
flows among faulted gridblocks may be approximated by explicitly including the
faults in a simulation model. The flow among faulted gridblocks is calculated
through the addition of a constraint (mass balance) equation and additional
information (assumption) on the fluid distribution inside the faults.
The options are currently implemented for single-grid models only and are not
compatible with the dual porosity option, the tracer option, and the implicit
version of VIP.
7.8.1 Model Development

For an infinitely conductive fault in the I-direction, the pressure in the fault can be
calculated from the constraint that the sum of the total flow rate across the fault
plane is zero;
nf
∑ Qk = 0, (7-1)
k=1
where
Q k ≡ T Ik λ kt ( P k – P f – α fk ) (7-2)
is the total volumetric flow rate for faulted gridblock k, TIk is the transmissibility
between faulted gridblock k and the fault which is simply the I-direction half-
transmissibility of the faulted gridblock, and λkt is the total mobility of gridblock
k;
k rw k rg k ro⎞
λ kt ≡ ⎛ ------- + ------- + ------- . (7-3)
⎝μ μg μo ⎠ k
w
Here krj and μj are relative permeability and viscosity of phase j. Parameters Pk,
Pf, and αfk are pressure in gridblock k, fault pressure at a reference depth, and the
gravity term in the fault (relative to the reference depth), respectively.
For outflow gridblocks in which the pressure difference term in Equation 7-2 is
positive, the water surface rates and the hydrocarbon component molar rates can
be readily calculated:
+ T Ik k rwk
q wk = ----------------- B w ( P k – P f – α fk ), (7-4)
μ wk
7-134 Faults R5000.0.1

k rok k rgk
q ik = T Ik ⎛ --------- ρ o x i + --------- ρ g y i⎞ ( P k – P f – α fk ),
+
i = 1, N c . (7-5)
⎝ μ ok μ gk ⎠
Here Bw is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water, ρo and ρg are molar
densities of oil and gas phases, xi is the molar fraction of component i in the oil
phase, yi is the molar fraction of component i in the gas phase, and Nc is the total
number of hydrocarbon components.
For inflow gridblocks, the calculation of individual phase and component rates
requires detailed saturation distribution in the fault. This can be rigorously
obtained only through simulation with fault blocks explicitly represented in the
model. Otherwise, approximations based on assumptions of fluid distributions in
the fault will be needed. Two user-controlled options are currently available: a
fully-mixed option and a fully- segregated option.
7.8.1.1 Fully-Mixed Option
In the fully-mixed option, the inflow gridblock’s phase rates are calculated using
the assumption of a fully-mixed wellbore, i.e., all inflow gridblocks have the same
inflow stream which has the composition of the combined outflow streams. With
this assumption, the water surface rates and the hydrocarbon component molar
rates for the inflow gridblocks are
+
- qw
q wk = T Ik λ kt ------+- ( P k – P f – α fk ), (7-6)
Q
+
- qi
q ik = T Ik λ kt ------+- ( P k – P f – α fk ), i = 1, N c , (7-7)
Q
where
+
+ +
qw ≡ ∑ q wk , (7-8)
+k
+ +
q i ≡ ∑ q ik , (7-9)
k
and
+
+ +
Q ≡ ∑ Qk . (7-10)
k
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-135

Summations in Equations 7-8 through 7-10 are taken over all gridblocks with
positive total volumetric rates (i.e., Qk > 0.). It can be shown that Equations 7-4 to
7-10 satisfy the material balance automatically.
7.8.1.2 Fully-Segregated Option
The second option assumes fully segregated flow in the fault, i.e., the water
produced from all outflow gridblocks will preferentially flow into the bottom
inflow gridblocks and the gas produced from all outflow gridblocks will
preferentially flow into the top inflow gridblocks. Numerically, the segregated
flow option can be represented by the following equations:
- + -
Q wk = min ( Q w, avl , Q k ), (7-11)
+
- - qw
q wk = Q wk ------+- , (7-12)
Qw
- + - -
Q ok = min ( Q o, avl , Q k – Q wk ), (7-13)
+
∑ qok xik
- k -
q iok = Q ok --------------------
+
-, i = 1, N c , (7-14)
Qo
+
∑ qgk yik
- - k - -
q igk = ( Q k – Q wk – Q ok ) --------------------
+
-, i = 1, N c , (7-15)
Qg
- -
where q wk is the water surface inflow rate for gridblock k, q imk (m = o, g) is the
component molar inflow rate for gridblock k, and
+
+
Qm = ∑ TIk λmk ( Pk – Pf – αfk ) , m = o, g, w, (7-16)
k
+ k rmk
q mk = T Ik ---------- ρ m ( P k – P f – α fk ), m = o, g. (7-17)
μ mk
-
Symbol Q k is the total volumetric flow rate for inflow gridblock k in Equation 7-
+
2, and Q m, avl is the available volumetric outflow rate for phase m (m = w, o, g)
that has yet to be distributed to inflow gridblocks. For each conductive fault, the
inflow gridblocks are sorted based on the descending order in depth. Starting from
7-136 Faults R5000.0.1

the inflow gridblock that has the highest depth, Equations 7-1 and 7-5 are then
used to calculate the individual phase rates gridblock-by-gridblock. It can be
readily shown that this model also guarantees that the material balance for each
component is automatically satisfied.
It should be noted that the segregated flow option presented here neglects any
mass transfer effects inside the fault. As in the fully-mixed option, the fault
pressure is calculated by Equation 7-1, and the phase and/or component rates for
outflow gridblocks are calculated from Equations 7-4 and 7-5. For the inflow
gridblocks, the phase and/or component rates are calculated from Equations 7-12,
7-14, and 7-15.
7.8.1.3 Model Implementation
The options implemented in VIP allow the user to specify any input faults as
being conductive. For each conductive fault, an additional constraint equation
(similar to an implicit well constraint equation), Equation 7-1, is added to the
simulator and fully coupled with the reservoir equations to calculate the fault
pressure. For outflow faulted gridblocks (positive Qk), Equations 7-4 and 7-5 are
added to the water and hydrocarbon mass balance equations and their derivatives
with respect to the gridblock pressure and the fault pressure are added to the
corresponding Jacobian terms.
For inflow faulted gridblocks, the situation is more complex because Equations 7-
9 and 7-10 (applicable to the fully-mixed option), or Equations 7-15, 7-17, and 18
(applicable to the fully-segregated option) for each inflow gridblock depend not
only on the gridblock and fault pressures, but also pressures of all outflow
gridblocks. The conductive fault options implemented here have a user-controlled
feature to either lagging the calculations of Equations 7-8 to 7-10 (for fully-mixed
option), and Equations 7-8, 7-16, 7-17 (for fully-segregated option) for inflow
gridblocks by one iteration or fully implicitly evaluating these terms. By
2
implicitly calculating these terms, a maximum of n f ⁄ 4 additional non-
neighboring pressure derivative terms will be added.
The gravity term in the fault plane, αfk, is evaluated using a simple mobility
weighted averaging method. Results of two test runs using this method and a more
complex volume averaging method for a conductive fault problem indicate that
the model performance is insensitive to the gravity term.
7.8.2 Input Requirement

The conductive (leaky) fault options require the addition of two parameters on the
DIM card and a new data card in the Standard Fault Data section of the VIP
initialization module (VIP-CORE), and two optional data cards in the utility data
of the VIP simulation module (VIP-EXECUTIVE).
R5000.0.1 Faults 7-137

7-138 Faults R5000.0.1

Chapter
8
8.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE has the ability to simulate two-phase gas-water or water-oil
systems using simplified gas-water and water-oil options. When these special
options are used, only one hydrocarbon equation is solved in the IMPLICIT
formulation; thus speeding up the simulation. The coefficient generation is
unaffected. These options also enable reduced data input for saturation and PVT
tables, since only oil phase (for water-oil) or gas phase (for gas-water) properties
are required.
The simulator also has the ability to simulate a true non-volatile black-oil system
where the K-value of the oil component is near zero.
8.2 Simplified Gas-Water Option

The simplified gas-water option relaxes the input requirements for the oil property
data for a gas-water system. When the simplified gas-water option is selected, the
oil property data (relative permeability curves and PVT tables) are generated in
VIP-CORE automatically.
This option has the following special features:
1. Modified input formats and defaults for oil property data,
2. Printout of the pressure divided by the gas compressibility factor (P/Zg) in the
gas property tables,
3. Ability of equilibrium initialization for a non-flat gas-water capillary pressure

curve for the gas/water system, and
4. Ensures that the oil relative permeability is zero.
5. Simplified end-point specifications.
R5000.0.1 Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options 8-139

8.2.1 Data Requirements

The GASWATER keyword is used to invoke the simplified gas-water option. The
special input data for a two-phase gas-water model is as follows:
■ The BGTAB table is used instead of the BOTAB table to specify the PVT
properties.
■ The SGT and SWT tables originally used to specify the relative permeability
and capillary pressure curves for the gas/oil and water/oil systems are
combined into the SGT table. The new SGT table is used to specify gas and
water relative permeability and gas/water capillary pressure curves. The SWT
table should not be specified if the simplified gas/water option is chosen.
■ The IEQUIL card is changed to specify the depth of the gas/water contact and
gas/water capillary pressure at the contact instead of the depths of the gas/oil
and water /oil contacts and the gas/oil and water/oil capillary pressures at the
contacts as the original program. The program sets the depths of the gas/oil
and water/oil contacts to the depth of the gas/water contact.
8.2.2 Special Features

The following special features are available when gas-water option is used:
■ The value of pressure divided by gas compressibility factor is added to the

printout of the gas property tables when the PVT or RPVT option is selected
in the PRINT TABLES card.
■ Equilibrium initialization is allowed for a specified non-flat capillary pressure

curve for the gas/water system. The water and gas densities are used with the
specified capillary pressure curves for the equilibrium initialization.
■ For end-point scaling, only gas saturation related end points are necessary.
These are SGL, SGU, SGR, and SGRW.
8-140 Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options R5000.0.1

8.3 Simplified Water-Oil Option

The simplified water-oil option relaxes the input requirements for the gas property
data for a water-oil system. When the simplified water-oil option is selected, the
gas property data (relative permeability curves and PVT tables) which are
required internally by the simulation modules, are generated in VIP-CORE
automatically.

The WATEROIL card is used to invoke the simplified water-oil option. The
special input data for two-phase water-oil model is as follows:
■ The BOTAB card used to specify the PVT properties but gas parameters are
omitted.
■ Gas saturation table data (SGT card) is not required.
■ The IEQUIL card is changed to specify the depth of the water/oil contact and
water/oil capillary pressure at the contact. The gas-oil contact and capillary
pressure at gas-oil contact are not required.
R5000.0.1 Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options 8-141

8.4 Simplified Black-Oil Option

In the previous versions of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the black-oil model is treated as a
two-component compositional model in which the K-values of the heavy
component are non-zero even if a non-volatile oil system is specified through the
input of a constant gas gravity (GR, relative to air) in the BOTAB tables. The non-
zero K-values result from arbitrarily adding 2.0 to the maximum residual oil
molecular weight (maximum of all input WTRO values) to form the heavy
component molecular weight and subtracting 1.0 from the minimum gas
molecular weight (29. x minimum of all input GR values) to form the light
component molecular weight. The resulting K-values for the heavy component in
general range from
10-3 to 10-2 in non-volatile oil systems. Numerically, this treatment will result in
residual (or relict) oil in reservoir (or gas cap) being completely vaporized during
the gas injection or cycling. The only remedy to prevent the residual oil from
vaporization is to specify an injected gas composition that is identical to the in-
situ gas composition.
The black-oil option now implemented aims at eliminating the oil vaporization
problem stated above. This option is a simplistic approach to the true conventional
black-oil model where the oil component is non-volatile. An exact black-oil
approach would be to set the heavy component K-values to zero (i.e., the heavy
component molecular weight equals the input residual oil molecular weight,
WTRO). This exact approach requires further modifications to VIP-CORE and
the simulation modules because of zero K-values. The option actually
implemented calculates the heavy component molecular weight by adding 2 x 10-
8
(as opposed to 2.0 without this option) to WTRO and calculates the light
component molecular weight by subtracting 10-8 (as opposed to 1.0 without this
option) from the constant gas molecular weight (29. x GR). The resulting heavy
component K-values are in the order of 10-10. This will eliminate any significant
vaporization of the oil component.

The black-oil option is invoked by a BLACKOIL card in the Initialization Data
Section of VIP-CORE. Other input requirements are:
■ All input GR values in the BOTAB table must be the same.
■ If multiple PVT tables are specified, the WTRO (molecular weight of residual
oil) values in all BOTAB tables must be the same, and the GR values in all
BOTAB tables must also be the same.
■ Default separators must be used and no additional separator data may be

specified.
8-142 Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options R5000.0.1

Chapter
9
Governing Equations
9.1 Introduction
For a general compositional model of Nc hydrocarbon components and water, the
basic differential equations are the species mass balance equations of the first Nc -
1 hydrocarbon components, the overall hydrocarbon mass balance equation, and
the water mass balance equation. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, water is treated as an inert
phase and the formulation of the hydrocarbon mass balance equations follows that
of Young and Stephenson.5 The black oil option is treated as a special case of the
general compositional model.
9.2 IMPES Formulation
9.2.1 Hydrocarbon Species Mass Balance Equations
∂ ( φFz i ) k k ro ρo Mo g
------------------- = ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------ ρ o x i⎞ ∇ ⎛ P o – ------------------------------------- D⎞
∂t ⎝ μo ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠
k k rg ρg Mg g
+ ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------ ρ g y i⎞ ∇ ⎛ P o + P cg – ------------------------------------
- D⎞ + q o x i + q g y i
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠
i = 1, ..., Nc - 1 (9-1)
where φ is porosity, F is total hydrocarbon moles per pore volume, zi is overall

mole fraction of component i, k is absolute permeability, krj is relative
permeability to phase j (j = o, g), ρj is hydrocarbon phase molar density (in lb-
mol/bbl), xi is mole fraction of component i in the oil phase, yi is mole fraction of
component i in the gas phase, Mj is molecular weight of phase j, D is vertical
depth, Po is oil phase pressure, Pcg is gas-oil capillary pressure, μj is viscosity of
phase j, and qj is source term. Equation 9-1 has units of lb-mol/bbl-day.
R5000.0.1 Governing Equations 9-143

9.2.2 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation
∂--------------
( φF )- k k ro ρo Mo g
= ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------ ρ o⎞ ∇ ⎛ P o – ------------------------------------- D⎞
∂t ⎝ μo ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠
k k rg ρg Mg g
+ ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------ ρ g⎞ ∇ ⎛ P o + P cg – ------------------------------------- D⎞ + q o + q g (9-2)
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠
9.2.3 Water Mass Balance Equations
o
∂ ( φB w S w ) ⎧ ⎛ kk rw ⎞ ⎛ ρw Bw Mw g ⎞ ⎫
- = ∇ ⋅ ⎨ ⎜ ---------- B w⎟ ∇ ⎜ P o – P cw – ------------------------------------- D⎟ ⎬ + q w
------------------------
∂t ⎩ ⎝ μw ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠ ⎭
(9-3)
Here, Bw is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water (in STB/RB), Sw is

water saturation, Pcw is water-oil capillary pressure, Mw is water molecular
weight, qw is the source term including injection rate, production rate, and water
o
influx rate, and ρ w is water density at the standard conditions (in lb-mol/STB).
Equation 9-3 is in units of STB/bbl-day.
9.2.4 Fugacity Equality Equations

In the compositional model, phase equilibria between oil and gas phases are
expressed in terms of the equality of fugacities:
f oi ( P o, x i, …, x Nc ) = f gi ( P o, y i, …, y Nc ) (9-4)
The fugacities of component i in phase j (j = o, g), foi, and fgi are calculated from
an equation of state that is discussed next. For the black oil option, the phase
equilibrium is described by equilibrium K-values (Ki):
yi
K i ( P o ) = ----, i = 1, 2 (9-5)
xi
9.2.5 Overall Component Mole Fraction

The overall component mole fraction is defined as
z i = ( 1 – L )y i + Lx i, i = 1, ... , N c (9-6)
9-144 Governing Equations R5000.0.1

Here, L is the mole fraction of oil phase in the total hydrocarbon mixture (i.e., one
mole of hydrocarbon mixture separates into L moles of oil phase and 1 - L moles
of gas phase).
9.2.6 Mole Fraction Constraint Equations

The two independent mole fraction constraints are:
Nc
∑ xi = 1 (9-7)
i=1
Nc
∑ zi = 1 (9-8)
i=1
Note that Equations 9-6, 9-7, and 9-8 suggest that the summation of the mole
fractions of all hydrocarbon components in the gas phase also equals one.
9.2.7 Saturation Constraint Equation

The saturation constraint can be expressed as
⎛1 – L L ⎞
1 – F ⎜ -------------- + -----⎟ – S w = 0 (9-9)
⎝ ρg ρ o⎠
The product of the first term inside the parentheses and F represents gas phase
saturation, while the product of the second term inside the parentheses and F is oil
phase saturation.
9.2.8 Reduction of Simultaneous Equations and Selection of Primary Unknowns

Equations 9-1, 9-2, and 9-3, Equation 9-4 (or 9-5), and Equations 9-6 through 9-9
represent 3Nc + 4 independent equations with 3Nc + 4 unknowns: xi, yi, zi, L, F,
Sw, and Po. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, Equations 9-6, 9-7, and 9-8 are used to
eliminate unknowns yi, x N , and z N :
c c
z i – Lx i
y i = -----------------, i = 1, ... , N c (9-10)
1–L
Nc – 1
xNc = 1 – ∑ xi (9-11)
i=1
and

Nc – 1
zNc = 1 – ∑ zi (9-12)
i=1
Equations 9-10, 9-11, and 9-12 are then substituted into Equations 9-1, 9-2, and 9-
3, 9-4 (or 9-5), and 9-9 to form 2Nc + 2 independent equations with the same
number of unknowns: xi (i = 1 to Nc - 1), L, zi (i = 1 to Nc - 1), F, Sw, and Po.
Note that the above choice of primary unknowns results in the L-x iteration. In the
VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator, these primary unknowns are chosen for a gridblock
whenever the mole fraction of the liquid phase in the gridblock, L, is less than 0.5.
Otherwise, the first Nc primary unknowns (xi and L) are replaced by yi (i = 1, Nc -
1) and V (which equals 1 - L) to avoid ill-conditioning in the resulting Jacobian
matrix. Numerically, this can be accomplished easily by swapping xi and yi, as
well as L and V in Equations 9-6, 9-7, 9-10, and 9-11. This alternate set of
primary unknowns results in the so-called V-y iteration.

9.3 Fully Implicit Formulation

The fully implicit formulation is based on Reference 6 found in Appendix C. The
governing hydrocarbon mass balance equations are similar to Equations 9-1 and
9-2, except that the total hydrocarbon molar densities (F) and the overall
hydrocarbon component molar fractions (zi) on the left side of the equations are
replaced by the hydrocarbon phase molar densities (ρo and ρg), phase saturations
(So and Sg), and phase mole fractions (xi and yi):
φFz i = φ ( S o ρ o x i + S g ρ g y i ), i = 1, ... , N c – 1 (9-13)
φF = φ ( S o ρ o + S g ρ g ) (9-14)
The water mass balance equation and fugacity equality equations are the same as
Equations 9-3 and 9-4 or 9-5, and zi in Equation 9-8 is replaced by yi. With this
formulation, Equation 9-6 is not needed. Finally, the saturation constraint
equation, Equation 9-9, is replaced by
1 - S o - Sg - S w = 0 (9-15)
Unknowns xNc, yNc, and So are eliminated using the two mole fraction constraint
equations and the saturation constraint equation. The remaining primary
unknowns for the simultaneous (Nc) fugacity equations and (Nc + 1) hydrocarbon
and water mass balance equations are xi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), yi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), Sg, Sw,
and P. Before each Newton iteration is performed, the fugacity equality equations
are used to eliminate unknowns xi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1) and y1, or yi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1) and
x1. The choice of the unknowns to be eliminated depends on the relative amounts
of oil and gas phases within each gridblock. Unknowns xi and y1 are eliminated if
ρo So < ρg Sg. Otherwise, yi and x1 are eliminated. See Chapter 18 for a discussion
of the numerical solution of the differential equations and of the iteration
procedures.
9.3.1 Relaxed Volume Balance Option

In the standard version of the fully implicit formulation, the unknowns are
updated using the conventional Newton back substitution procedure, and the
saturation constraint, Equation 9-9, is satisfied in every iteration. As a result of
the updating procedure, the material balances for hydrocarbons and water are not
satisfied exactly during each iteration, and several iterations may be needed to
reduce the residuals to an acceptable level.

The relaxed volume balance concept proposed by Coats, et al. [Reference 73], on
the contrary, always keeps material balances exactly while the saturation
constraint is not satisfied. In effect, this concept amounts to iterating out
saturation constraint error (or volume balance error) rather than mass balances.
Coats, et al.'s results show that iterations and CPU time are significantly less as
compared with the standard version of the fully implicit formulation.
Since the saturation constraint is not satisfied for the relaxed volume balance
option, the saturation error, 1-(Sw+So+Sg), must be taken into account when the
unknown variable So is eliminated during setting up the Jacobian. This modified
Jacobian and residuals are then solved by the linear solver. To keep the material
balances exactly, the unknown updating procedure is modified. The solution
vector for the primary unknowns from the solver is used to calculate interblock
flow terms and well rates using the linearized equations. The mass of each
component in the grid block is then calculated as the mass at the previous time
step plus the net interblock flow minus the production. The composition and
density of each phase and pore volume are then calculated using the updated
pressure. Water saturation is then calculated as the mass of water present divided
by water density and pore volume. For a three-phase grid block, the total
hydrocarbon moles are flashed to obtain oil and gas compositions, moles and
densities. The oil and gas saturations are calculated as their phase moles divided
by density and pore volume. The three saturations do not add to one and thus there
is a saturation constraint error. However, the material balance is exact for all
components.
For the relaxed volume balance option, convergence of the Newton iteration is
controlled by either the errors in saturation constraint (TOLSCN) and well rate
calculation (TOLWCN ), or the maximum change of primary unknows over one
iteration (TOLD). The TOLD criteria for convergence are the same as the
standard version of the fully implicit formulation. The TOLSCN criterion is used
to check the maximum saturation error of all grid blocks. The saturation error is
computed as 1-(Sw+So+Sg). To ensure a good material balance, the well rate
calculated from the well model must agree with the updated well rate using the
solution from linear solver. To converge, the ratio of the difference between these
two rates to the sum of the two rates must be less than TOLWCN.

Chapter
10
Grid Coarsening
10.1 Introduction
The Grid Coarsening option is a feature which enables the user to combine
adjacent grid blocks into coarser grid blocks, thereby reducing the number of
blocks used for simulation and reduce run time.
Grid coarsening data is entered with the COARSEN keyword. Detailed

information on the COARSEN Keyword can be found in the VIP-CORE
Reference Manual.
10.2 Coarse Block Properties

The properties of coarse blocks are calculated from the properties of the
constituent fine blocks using a pore volume weighed average:
∑ ( A i ⋅ PV i )
i
A = -------------------------------
-
∑ PV i
i
The following properties are exceptions:
For DX,DY,DZ,HNET a bulk volume weighted average is used, and the result
multiplied by the number of fine blocks in the appropriate direction.
∑ ( DX i ⋅ BV i )
i
DX = nx ⋅ ------------------------------------
-
∑
BV i
i
∑ ( DY i ⋅ BV i )
i
DY = ny ⋅ ------------------------------------
-
∑
BV i
i
R5000.0.1 Grid Coarsening 10-149

∑ ( DZ i ⋅ BV i )
i
DZ = nz ⋅ ------------------------------------
-
∑ BV i
i
∑ ( HNET i ⋅ BV i )
i
HNET = nz ⋅ --------------------------------------------
-
∑
BV i
i
Porosity is calculated from PV,BV,DZ and HNET as follows:
PV DZ
POR = ------- ⋅ ----------------
BV HNET
When table indices ISAT,ISATI,ICMT,OILTRF ,GASTRF, IEQUIL,

IREGION, IPVT, IPVTW, ITRAN, IWIRC are different for fine blocks within a
coarse block, a WARNING message is printed on the standard output file, and
they are assigned to the indices of the fine blocks whose sum represents the largest
pore volume within the coarse block.
The half transmissibilities of the coarse block are calculated from those of the
constituent fine blocks using the tubes in parallel method.
+ - 2
TX = TX = ∑ -------------------------------------------
⎛ 1 1 ⎞
-
j, k
∑ ⎜⎝ -----------
TX
+
- + -----------⎟
TX ⎠
-
i i i
+ - 2
TY = TY = ∑
-------------------------------------------
⎛ 1 1 ⎞
i, k
∑
⎜ ------------ + ----------⎟
⎝ + -⎠
j TY j TY j
+ - 2
TZ = TZ = ∑
---------------------------------------------
⎛ 1 1 ⎞
i, j
∑
⎜ ------------- + -----------⎟
⎝ TZ + TZ k⎠
-
k k
The fine block transmissibility values will include changes applied with the
TOVER cards, but will not include changes applied with the OVER, VOVER
cards. Transmissibility values at coarse block boundaries may be modified
through the non-standard transmissibility multipliers.
10-150 Grid Coarsening R5000.0.1

Average coarse block permeabilities KX, KY and KZ that are used for
calculating well, influx and polymer properties, and for other uses by VIP-EXEC
are calculated from the average coarse block properties as follows:
-
TX DX
KX = ----------------------- ⋅ --------
2 ⋅ HNET DY
-
TY DY
KY = ----------------------- ⋅ --------
2 ⋅ HNET DX
-
TZ DZ
KZ = --------------- ⋅ --------
2 ⋅ DX DY
The face areas of the coarse block are calculated from the sum of the face
areas of the fine blocks that make a coarse block face.
R5000.0.1 Grid Coarsening 10-151

10-152 Grid Coarsening R5000.0.1

Chapter
11
11.1 Introduction
VIP can model horizontal or inclined wells which intersect the grid mesh at
oblique angles areally or in cross section.
Figure 11-1: Vertical and Horizontal Wells
This chapter provides input examples and suggestions in using the horizontal or
inclined well option and a technical description of how VIP handles them.
A horizontal or inclined well has a larger contact area with the reservoir than a
vertical well, as illustrated in Figure 11-1. Therefore, production or injection rate
per unit well length is less than that of a vertical well for the same specified total
rate. This implies the following immediate advantages in practice:
■ It can facilitate higher total flow rates with smaller draw-down.
■ It can reduce coning or cusping growth because of the lower fluid velocity in
the reservoir.
■ It can reduce sand control problems.
Other consequences of a large contact area with the reservoir are:
R5000.0.1 Horizontal and Inclined Well Model 11-153

■ It has a greater possibility of intersecting with more vertical fractures.
■ It can improve the efficiency of a steam-assisted gravity drainage.
■ Sweep efficiency may improve.
Added benefits of horizontal wells are:
■ More reservoir characterization data can be collected.
■ They allow drilling into many parts of a reservoir from an off-shore platform.
■ They can have longer projected economic life.
Because of these potential advantages, horizontal and inclined wells have been
drilled around the world for many different types of reservoirs: Bakken Shale
(thin reservoir), Austin Chalk, Bakken Shale (naturally fractured reservoir),
Prudhoe Bay, Bima Field, Helder Field (formation with cusping and coning),
Zuidwald Field (gas reservoirs), Cold Lake, and Mid-Continental (EOR
application). However, not all reservoirs show improved performances with
horizontal wells.
11-154 Horizontal and Inclined Well Model R5000.0.1

11.2 Modeling Considerations - Pressure Loss

Horizontal or inclined wells are, in general, much longer than vertical wells;
therefore, the pressure loss in a pipe can play a more significant role. Pressure loss
ΔPloss, is caused by the friction force, kinetic energy change, and hydrostatic
gradients, as illustrated in Figure 11-2.
V2
Δ pk
Δpf
Δph
V1
Flow Direction
Figure 11-2: A Well Segment
ΔP loss = ΔP f + ΔP k + ΔP h (11-1)
where
2
1 fLρv
Δp f = --------- -------------- (11-2)
144 2g c D
1 1 2
Δp k = --------- --- ρΔ ( v ) (11-3)
144 2
1
ΔP h = --------- ρg c ΔZ (11-4)
144
where f is the Moody friction factor, ρ is fluid mass density in lb/ft3, v is fluid
velocity in ft/s, gc is gravity acceleration in ft/s2; ΔZ is perforation depth
difference in ft, and L is well perforation length in ft.
The Fanning friction factor depends on Reynold’s number, Re:
R e = vρD
----------- (11-5)
μ

where μ is the viscosity of fluid in lb-s/ft2. The friction factor for a single-phase
flow, i.e., in gas or water injectors, is computed by using a pipe flow equation for
a single phase. For flow with Re < 2000, it is expressed by:
f = 64
------ (11-6)
Re
Beyond Re = 4000, Haaland’s correlation is used:
( 10 ⁄ 9 )
1 6.9 ⎛ e ⎞
----- = – 1.8 log ------- + ⎜ ------------⎟ (11-7)
f R e ⎝ 3.7D⎠
where e is the absolute roughness of the wellbore in feet and can represent the
effect of turbulence created by inflow through perforations. Flow is in the critical
zone from Re = 2000 to 4000. In this zone, the weighted average friction factor
from Equations 11-6 and 11-7 is used.
In general, producing wells have multiphase flow, but Equations 11-6 and 11-7
also may be used where a uniform mixture and no slipping among phases are
assumed. Beattie and Whalley7 examined experimental data of multiphase flow
friction loss and concluded that Equation 11-7 gave better matches in all of the
ranges of Reynold’s number by defining the effective density ρ and viscosity μ as
S S
1 ⁄ ρ = ----g- + -----L- (11-8)
ρg ρL
μ = μ L ( 1 – β ) ( 1 + 2.5β ) + μ g β (11-9)
where
ρL Sg
β = -----------------------------
- (11-10)
ρL Sg + ρg SL
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses Equation 11-7 with Equations 11-8, 11-9, and 11-10 for
producers as a default, while injectors use Equations 11-6 and 11-7.
VIP-EXECUTIVE has another option in computing the friction factor for

producers; i.e., the Beggs and Brill correlation.8 This correlation includes the
effect of flow-type changes because of the slope of the pipe. These are changes
such as stratified flow, slug flow, misty flow, etc. The Beggs and Brill correlation
applies only to producers.
It can be activated by a card “BEGGS ON s”, where s is the value of liquid

surface tension. A description of this correlation is available in Reference 8 in
Appendix D. The above pipe flow equations do not account for the turbulence
caused by flow through perforations. Therefore, pipe roughness may need to be

adjusted to get a proper friction loss if field data or sound experimental data are
available.
The kinetic energy loss, ΔPk, is due to the velocity change along the well. The
flow velocity changes because of pipe diameter changes and influx through
perforations. The flux through perforations is assumed to enter a pipe with zero
longitudinal velocity, then be pushed to the pipe flow velocity in a pipe segment.
However, in most cases the kinetic energy loss is much smaller than the friction
pressure loss in well pipe flow.
On the other hand, pressure loss due to gravity can be significant if a well is
inclined. Therefore, the perforation depth should be computed accurately and
specified in VIP-EXECUTIVE input data.
The total pressure loss in a pipe segment is computed using Equations 11-2, 11-3,
and 11-4 for each perforation segment, then is added to the well pressure in cases
of producers.
P w ( i ) = P w ( i – 1 ) + ΔP loss ( i ) (11-11)
where Pw(i) is the well pressure of the i’th perforation of a well. For injectors,
pressure loss is subtracted from well pressure.
VIP-EXECUTIVE treats these pressure loss terms explicitly, and the wellbore
fluid gradient is computed using material balance equations. Furthermore, the
gradients computation is done only at the first inner iteration. (Refer to Section
39.6 for information on wellbore gradient calculations.)
Total well production can be computed from Equation 11-12 for an oil producer,
for example:
L
k ro, i
Q o = 0.001127 ∑ WI i K i H i ------------------- [ P grid, i – P w, i ] (11-12)
B o, i μ o, i
i=1
where the summation is performed over perforations and subscript i indicates the
perforation number. Here, WI is the well index; KH is the permeability-thickness
of the gridblock; kro and μo are oil relative permeability and viscosity,
respectively; Bo is the oil formation volume factor; and Pgrid is gridblock
pressure. In the next section, we discuss how VIP-EXECUTIVE computes
permeability-thickness KH and well index WI for horizontal or inclined wells.

11.3 Modeling Considerations - Permeability-Thickness and Well

Index
The permeability-thickness for an inclined well is computed by transforming an
original anisotropic diffusion equation into an equivalent isotropic equation. The
equivalent isotropic equation is not discussed here, however, details are available
in Muskat.10 The equivalent isotropic permeability ke is defined by
1---
3
ke = ( kx ky kz ) (11-13)
where kx, ky, and kz are rock permeabilities in x, y, and z directions, respectively.
VIP-EXECUTIVE extends the theory to computation of a perforation length
inclined arbitrarily in space. Projected perforation lengths Lx, Ly, and Lz onto each
coordinate axis are transformed, then perforation length Lp in the transformed
plane is represented by the following:
2 2 2
Lp = Lx + Ly + Lz (11-14)
where Lx, Ly , and Lz are x, y, and z components, respectively. These, in turn, are
transformed into the isotropic medium:
k
L x = l ----e sin θ cos ω (11-15)
kx
k
L y = l ----e sin θ sin ω (11-16)
ky
k
L z = l ----e cos θ (11-17)
kz
where l is the physical well perforation length, θ is the angle of the well segment
with respect to vertical direction, and ω is the angle with respect to the x-axis as
shown in Figure 11-3.

Lx
Ly ω
Lz
x
θ
l
Figure 11-3: Inclined Well Segment
Thus, the permeability-thickness for a well segment is expressed by keLp using

Equations 11-13 and 11-14. Note that keLp = l(kxkz)0.5 if a well is parallel to the y-
axis.
Well index WI is defined by
2π -
WI = ------------------------ (11-18)
rb
ln ⎛ -----⎞ + s
⎝ r w⎠
where rb is the equivalent radius, rw is the well radius, and s is the skin factor. In
computing rb, an analogy to Peaceman’s equation9 for a vertical well is adopted.
However, the equivalent radius and well radius are obtained in the transformed
plane similarly to the permeability-thickness. Peaceman’s equivalent radius for a
well parallel to the y-axis is expressed as
1⁄2 2 1⁄2 2
( k z ⁄ k x ) Δx + ( k x ⁄ k z ) Δz
R by = 0.14 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1⁄4 1⁄4
- (11-19)
0.5 [ ( k z ⁄ k x ) + ( kx ⁄ kz ) ]
where notation Rby indicates a well parallel to the y-axis. The numerator can be
simplified using properties in the transformed isotropic medium. Transferring the
denominator of Equation 11-19 to Rwy , the following can be concluded.
k ey k ey
R ey = 0.14 ⎛⎝ -------⎞⎠ Δx + ⎛⎝ -------⎞⎠ Δz
2 2
(11-20)
kx kz
1---
where: 2 (11-21)
k ey = ( k x k z )

where (key/kx)0.5 Δx and (key/kz)0.5 Δz are gridblock lengths in the transformed

plane and the equivalent isotropic permeabilities are equal (kx’ = kz’= key). If a
well is parallel to x, or z direction, the same principle can be applied to get the
following:
k ex k ex
R ex = 0.14 ⎛ -------⎞ Δy + ⎛ -------⎞ Δz
2 2
(11-22)
⎝ ky ⎠ ⎝ kz ⎠
1---
where, 2 (11-23)
k ex = ( k y k z )
k ez k ez
R ez = 0.14 ⎛ ------⎞ Δx + ⎛ ------⎞ Δy
2 2
(11-24)
⎝ kx ⎠ ⎝ ky ⎠
1---
where, 2 (11-25)
k ez = ( k x k y )
For an arbitrarily inclined well, i.e., for any (θ,ω) in Figure 11-3, VIP-
EXECUTIVE approximates the equivalent radius as follows.
2 2 2
R be = r ex + r ey + r ez (11-26)
where
rex = Rex sin θ cos ω

rey = Rey sin θ sin ω
rez = Rez cos θ (11-27)
Note that Equation 11-26 yields Equations 11-20, 11-22, and 11-24 as special
cases and any equivalent radii in Equation 11-26 stay in an ellipsoid created by
them.
The wellbore radius in the transformed plane is expressed in a similar manner. For
example, a horizontal well that is parallel to the y-axis is approximated by
Rw
R wy = ------ ( k ey ⁄ k x + k ey ⁄ k z ) (11-28)
2
where Rw is the true pipe radius and Rw(key/kx)0.5 and Rw(key/kz)0.5 are the well
radii in major and minor axes. Similarly,
Rw
R wx = ------ ( k ex ⁄ k y + k ex ⁄ k z ) (11-29)
2
Rw
R wz = ------ ( k ez ⁄ k x + k ez ⁄ k y )
2

For arbitrary values of (θ,ω), the transformed well bore radius is approximated by
2 2 2
R we = r wx + r wy + r wz (11-30)
where
rwx = Rwx sin θ cos ω

rwy = Rwy sin θ sin ω
rwz = Rwz cos θ (11-31)
Combining Equations 11-23 and 11-27 we obtain the generalized Peaceman’s

equivalent block radius for an inclined well from
R be
R b = --------- R w (11-32)
R we
The permeability-thickness and the well index computed using Equations 11-13
through 11-32 are implemented in VIP; but users can override them if correct
values are known. Radius Rwe also forms an ellipsoid for arbitrary angles (θ,ω), as
shown in Figure 11-4..
y’
Rwy
x’
Rwx
Rwz
z’
Figure 11-4: Ellipsoid
The equivalent radius as computed above may not always be accurate because of
the assumptions on which Peaceman’s equation is based. Therefore, calibrate the
perforation WI’s in proportion to the computed values in such a way that WI from
a well test or production data is honored.

11.4 Required Input

Figure 11-5 shows an example of a well in a cross-sectional model and the
corresponding input data. This well is a producer, and the well bends from nearly
vertical to horizontal position. Required input to compute the friction, kinetic and
gravity pressure losses are the geometry of the well (LENGTH, DIAM or RADW,
PWDEP, ANGLV, ANGLA), and pipe roughness (ROUGH) under the FPERF
card.
FPERF
WELL L IW JW LENGTH PWDEP DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
2 1 3 1 118 4450 0.25 0.00001 10 0.

X 2 3 1 120 4490 0.25 0.00001 10 0.
X 3 3 1 50 4560 0.25 0.00001 12 0.
X 4 3 1 45 4577 0.15 0.00001 45 0.
X 4 4 1 90 4600 0.15 0.00001 45 0.
X 4 5 1 70 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
X 4 6 1 150 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
X 4 7 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
X 4 8 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 0.
Figure 11-5: A Production Well Example Input
Definitions of the keywords are as follows:
LENGTH Length of well segment in a segment in a well grid block

in ft.

PWDEP Depth at the center of the well segment in ft. This is an

optional input. If it is not entered, depth will be computed
using LENGTH and ANGLV.
DIAM Well diameter of the segment in ft. Alternatively radius

RADW may be used.
ROUGH Absolute roughness of the well pipe in ft.
ANGLV Angle of the well with respect to the vertical direction in

degrees (θ in Figure 11-3).
ANGLA Angle of the well in areal plane with respect to the x-axis
in degrees (ω in Figure 11-3).

11.5 Conventions That Users Must Follow

There are important conventions that users must follow:
■ The perforations must be ordered on the FPERF card starting with the
perforation closest to the well head and ending with the farthest perforation.
■ ANGLV(θ) and ANGLA(ω) are illustrated in Figure 11-6 where a segment of

a well in a grid block is shown.
Figure 11-6: Inclined Well Segment
Furthermore ANGLV values must follow the convention shown in Figure 11-
7. This is necessary for proper computation of friction coefficients by Beggs
and Brill. The angle is measured by drawing an arc from the “tail” of the
segment to the +z axis as shown in Figure 11-7.
■ Horizontal or inclined wells require at least LENGTH, DIAM (or RADW),

ROUGH, ANGLV and ANGLA under the FPERF card. Otherwise VIP will
abort the simulation.
■ When there are other vertical wells, users should repeat the FPERF card as
■ In general, the friction and kinetic pressure losses are small, but the
hydrostatic pressure loss can be significant in an inclined well. If the well
block depth changes significantly, users should input accurate values of pipe
segment depths in PWDEP rather than letting the simulator compute them.
VIP computes, as a default, the pipe segment depth using LENGTH and

ANGLV starting from the grid block center of the first perforated grid block
in FPERF card. If the first perforated well segment does not start at the center,
VIP would be using depths of well segments.
Figure 11-7: ANGLV, θ, in various situations

FPERF ! vertical well

WELL L IW JW
1 2 4 1
X 3 4 1
FPERF
WELL L IW JW LENGTH PWDEP DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA SKIN
2 1 3 1 118 4450 0.25 0.00001 5 40. 5

X 2 3 1 120 4490 0.25 0.00001 7 40. 5
X 3 3 1 50 4560 0.25 0.00001 10 40. 2
X 4 3 1 45 4577 0.15 0.00001 20 40. 3
X 4 4 1 90 4600 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 4
X 4 5 1 70 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 2
X 4 6 1 150 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 5
X 4 7 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 6
X 4 8 1 100 4635 0.15 0.00001 90 40. 10
FPERF
WELL L IW JW K LENGTH PWDEP DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
3 1 3 1 0.128 200 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0

X 2 3 1 0.119 200 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
X 3 3 1 0.671 200 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
X 4 3 1 0.510 100 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
4 5 1 1 0.412 100 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
X 5 2 1 0.266 100 5000 0.15 0.00001 45 0
BEGGS ON 0.0012
Figure 11-8: Example of Multiple Well Input
■ Friction pressure loss is computed by two methods. Injectors use the

Haaland’s correlation. Producers use the same Haaland’s correlation as a
default, but can be computed using the Beggs and Brill correlation. An
example of required input for this correlation is shown in Figure 11-8 and
uses the format:
BEGGS ON σ
where σ is the value of liquid surface tension in dyne/cm. The Beggs and Brill
method takes into account various flow regimes depending on the angle
(ANGLV) and it is often considered more accurate than other correlations for
multiphase flow in an inclined pipe. However, be aware that all correlations
have a range of applicable conditions which are only rough estimates.
The Beggs and Brill correlation can be turned off by deleting the keywords or
using the keyword entry:
BEGGS OFF σ
where σ is the value of liquid surface tension in dyne/cm.

■ If you want to disregard the friction and kinetic pressure losses from the
computation,add the keyword:
NOFRICTION
■ Do not use DTOP or DBOT, the top and bottom perforation depths, since they
are meaningless in horizontal/inclined wells.
■ Do not use the RFLOW card since horizontal/inclined wells require

perforation-dependent values.
■ Friction loss is computed only for the perforated intervals that appear in the
FPERF card. Therefore any pressure loss between the wellhead and the first
perforation must be modeled using hydraulic tables.
■ The well index and permeability-thickness for an inclined well are computed
by transforming an original anisotropic diffusion equation into an equivalent
isotropic equation as discussed in Section 11.5. If users know these values
through field data such as well tests or other production data, it is suggested
you distribute the field values in proportion to the simulator-computed KH or
WI. In the case of vertical wells, the areal permeabilities KX and KY are
multiplied by DZNET/DZ. It is less clear what should be done for inclined or
horizontal wells, but the same multiplication is performed on KX and KY.

11.6 Examples
Consider an inclined well that is perforated in two layers which are separated by a
layer of grid blocks as shown in Figure 11-9. The portion of the well which is not
perforated still has the friction of gravity pressure loss. Therefore users are
required to provide input for the entire portion of the well and set STAT to OFF as
FPERF
WELL L IW JW STAT LENGTH DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
1 1 1 1 ON 50 0.25 1.E-4 35 0.
X 2 1 1 OFF 25 0.25 1.E-4 50 0.
X 2 2 1 OFF 60 0.25 1.E-4 70 0.
X 3 3 1 OFF 52 0.25 1.E-4 85 0.
X 3 4 1 ON 70 0.25 1.E-4 60 0.
Figure 11-9: Well With Noncontiguous Perforations and Sample VIP Input
Consider another example consisting of 35x33x18 grids. The reservoir is dipping

in the x direction by 2 degrees. There are two wells inclined in the y direction, and
they penetrate layers 15, 16, 17, and 18. The dipping angles of the two wells are
approximately 2.02 degrees. Plane and cross-sectional views of this reservoir are

Figure 11-10: Areal and Cross Sections of the Model
The inclined wells are assumed to be straight in this example and both ends of the
wells are also assumed to be located at the center of the grids. The well section
lengths are computed based on these assumptions. The portion of the reservoir
that has a well is shown in Figure 11-11 with the section length in each grid. Since
both wells run in parallel, only one cross section is shown.

Block index Well length Block index Well length

j(y) k(z) L(ft) j(y) k(z) L(ft)
9 15 25.02 18 17 50.03
10 15 50.03 19 17 50.03
11 15 50.03 20 17 50.03
12 15 16.66 21 17 50.03
12 16 33.81 22 17 50.03
13 16 50.03 23 17 33.81
14 16 50.03 23 18 16.67
15 16 50.03 24 18 50.03
16 16 50.03 25 18 50.03
17 16 50.03 26 18 25.02
Figure 11-11: Block Number and Well Section Length
FPERF
WELL IW JW L LENGTH DIAM ROUGH ANGLV ANGLA
C FT FT FT DEG DEG
7 14 9 15 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 10 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 11 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 12 15 16.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
7 14 12 16 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 13 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90
7 14 14 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 15 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 16 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 17 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
7 14 18 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 19 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 20 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 21 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 22 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.

7 14 23 17 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.

C
7 14 23 18 16.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 24 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 25 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
7 14 26 18 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 9 15 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 10 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 11 15 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 12 15 6.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 12 16 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 13 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 14 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 15 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 16 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 17 16 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 18 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 19 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 20 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 21 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 22 17 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 23 17 33.81 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
C
9 28 23 18 16.66 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 24 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 25 18 50.03 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.
9 28 26 18 25.02 0.25 1.E-5 87.9786 90.

11.7 Available Output

The first output related to this option is an echo report containing the FPERF input
data with the computed well indices and perforation depths. Also available is the
well layer summary that lists production rate in each layer, well grid block
pressures, and perforation pressures. This is activated by the keyword:
PRINT WLLYR
This is useful as it indicates how much production each well segment produces.
The PLOT files also have arrays for this option:
PLOS friction and kinematic pressure loss in each

perforation segment
PWDP perforation depths (PWDEP)
PLEN perforation segment length (LENGTH)
PANV angle with respect to the vertical axis (=ANFLV)
PANA angle with respect to the x-axis (+ANGLA)
All these arrays have dimensions of (number of well) * (number of perforations).

Chapter
12
12.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides special features for the simulation of the detailed
performance of a single hydraulically fractured well. The fracture is assumed to
be a vertical fracture, and the simulation involves modelling only one-fourth of
the fracture and one-fourth of the drainage area of the well, as shown in Figure 12-
1. Flow within the packed fracture is controlled by two major components:
fracture closure and non-Darcy flow. The type and concentration of proppant may
be varied for each fracture gridblock.
Figure 12-1: Areal View of Vertically Fractured Well Centered in a Rectangular

Drainage Area
R5000.0.1 12-173
12.2 Modelling Considerations

By symmetry, only one fourth of the drainage area of the well is modelled.
Figure 12-2 shows the areal plane of the finite difference grid used in simulating
the one-fourth symmetric element. The fracture is modelled as the first X-Z cross-
section of the grid at Y = 1, as shown in Figure 11-3. Normally a finer grid
definition is used near the fracture in the Y-direction and near the well in the X-
direction for better flow regime description.
Figure 12-2: Areal Finite-difference Grid of One Quadrant of the Drainage Area.
Figure 12-3: Vertical Cross-section of the Hydraulic Fracture (at Y=1).
12-174 R5000.0.1
12.3 Fracture Closure

The effects of fracture closure can be simulated with the compaction table options
described in Section 4.1 of the VIP-CORE Reference Manual. Several tables can
be used to account for variations due to proppant type and concentration. Each
fracture gridblock may have its own table, if necessary. The half-fracture widths
and permeabilities are assumed to be input consistent with the pressure in the
compaction table at which the pore volume and transmissibility multipliers are
equal to 1. For example, if the table describes the variation from the treating
pressure, then the input values for half-fracture width and permeability at the
gridblock should also be at the treating pressure.
Cooke70 presented experimental results on the effects of closure stress, fluids, and
temperature on the permeability of several different proppants. The following
example is Cooke’s figure 3 for 10-20 mesh sand.
R5000.0.1 12-175
12.4 Non-Darcy Flow

The generalized equation for flow through a porous media can be represented by
the following equation suggested by Forchheimer71.
ΔP μν 2
------- = ------ + αν (12-1)
ΔL kD
If the constant α or the velocity ν approaches zero, then the second term goes to
zero and the remaining expression is equal to Darcy’s law. Cornell and Katz72
reformulated the above equation as follows:
ΔP
------- = μν
2
------ + βρν (12-2)
ΔL kD
where the constant α is replaced by the product of the fluid density and the β
turbulence factor, which is a function of the porous media. This can be rewritten
as follows:
ΔP μν βρνk D⎞
------- = ------ ⋅ ⎛⎝ 1 + ---------------- (12-3)
ΔL kD μ ⎠
Rearranging the terms to a more familiar flow equation form yields
kD ΔP
ν = ----------------------------------- ⋅ -------
βρνk D⎞ ΔL
μ ⎛ 1 + ----------------
⎝ μ ⎠ (12-4)
kD ΔP
= ------ ⋅ F ND ⋅ -------
μ ΔL
where FND is a non-Darcy factor defined as:
1
F ND = -------------------------
-
βρνk D (12-5)
1 + ----------------
μ
Expressed in normal U.S. oilfield units,
1
F ND = ------------------------------------------------------------- (12-6)
– 9 βρνk D
1 + 5.6555 ×10 ⋅ ----------------
μ
Based on his experimental results, Cooke70 proposed the following equation:
12-176 R5000.0.1
b-
β = ----- (12-7)
a
kD
where kD is the effective permeability at a particular level of stress and a and b are
constants which are a function of the proppant type. These are shown graphically
in Cooke’s figure 13 and in tabular form in his table 2, which is shown in
Table 12-1 below.
Table 12-1: Constants for Turbulence Factor Calculations (β = b/ka)
Sand Size a b
8-12 1.24 3.32
10-20 1.34 2.63
20-40 1.54 2.65
40-60 1.60 1.10
12.5 Iterative Procedure

Since the non-Darcy factor, FND, for each fracture gridblock interface is also a
function of flow velocity, it must be iteratively computed at each outer iteration of
each timestep. The following procedure is used:
1. Calculate the flow velocities using the last iterate values, including the effects
of fracture closure stress.
2. Recalculate the FND’s using the new velocities.
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for each flow face along the fracture until a minimum
relative FND change is achieved.
12.6 Other Considerations

The non-Darcy flow option in the well calculations should be used in order to get
the correct pressure drop from the first fracture block into the wellbore.
The initial timesteps will most likely take a few more outer iterations to achieve
convergence, due to the possibly large changes in the initial flow velocities. The
initial timestep size should be quite small, similar to that which would be used for
a single-well radial grid simulation.
R5000.0.1 12-177
12-178 R5000.0.1
Chapter
13
Hysteresis
13.1 Introduction
The hysteresis options allow the use of relative permeabilities and capillary
pressures that are a function of both phase saturation and the history of the phase
saturation. The option is useful for the rigorous simulation of fluid flow in
reservoirs where the saturation of a fluid phase within a gridblock does not change
monotonically.
Gas-phase relative permeability hysteresis is limited to the gas-phase relative

permeability function (krg). Oil-phase relative permeability hysteresis is limited to
the oil relative permeability function in a water-oil system (krow). Four options are
available to specify gas and oil phase hysteresis: Carlson’s method,11 linear
interpolation, scaling of the drainage function, and user-entered imbibition-
drainage functions.
The capillary pressure hysteresis option follows the model proposed by

Killough,12 allowing an additional level of scanning curves as each saturation
reversal occurs in the reservoir model. The user must enter both bounding
drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves, along with a secondary
drainage capillary pressure curve.
Water-oil and gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis may be specified independently

and do not depend on selection of the relative permeability hysteresis option.
R5000.0.1 Hysteresis 13-179

13.2 Relative Permeability Hysteresis

Relative permeability hysteresis is the effect caused by a situation in which the
nonwetting phase fluid saturation increases, followed by an increase in the
wetting phase fluid saturation. In such a situation in modelling reservoir fluid
flow, the imbibition-drainage relative permeability is a function of the historical
maximum nonwetting phase saturation.
Figure 13-1 is a set of drainage and imbibition-drainage curves, where krnD is the
user-specified drainage curve, krnID is the bounding imbibition-drainage curve,
and krnID’ is a generated intermediate imbibition-drainage curve. The end points
of the bounding imbibition-drainage curve are Snu and Sntr.
As nonwetting phase saturation increases initially, the drainage relative

permeability curve, krnD, is used. If nonwetting phase saturation monotonically
increases, the drainage curve is followed to the end point at Snu. If nonwetting
phase saturation then decreases, the bounding imbibition-drainage curve, krnID, is
used for gas relative permeability. However, if while following the drainage
curve, gas saturation decreases before Snu is reached, then an intermediate
imbibition-drainage curve, krnID’, is followed.
krn
D
krn
ID
krn
kID ’
rn
Snr XSNR Snhmx Sntr Snu
Sn
Figure 13-1: Nonwetting Phase Relative Permeability Curves for Hysteresis
The end points of a typical intermediate imbibition-drainage curve are the

historical maximum nonwetting phase saturation, Snhmx, and the corresponding
trapped nonwetting phase saturation, XSNR.
13-180 Hysteresis R5000.0.1

13.2.1 Description of the Options

Four options are available to specify gas and oil phase hysteresis: Carlson’s
method,11 linear interpolation, scaling of the drainage function, and user-entered
imbibition functions.
Carlson’s Method
Carlson’s method allows all intermediate imbibition-drainage curves to be parallel

to the bounding imbibition-drainage curve.
The historical maximum nonwetting saturation, Snhmx, is tracked for each

gridblock. If the nonwetting phase saturation equals or exceeds Snhmx, the
drainage curve applies and no special hysteresis calculation is needed. On the
other hand, intermediate drainage-imbibition curves are employed if the
nonwetting saturation in a gridblock falls below Snhmx. The trapped nonwetting
phase saturation for each gridblock is calculated from Snhmx by using Land’s
formula.13 There are two options; one using the original Land formula and one
using a modified formula.
Using the original Land’s formula:
S nhmx
XSNR = --------------------------
- (13-1)
1 + CS nhmx
where Land’s constant, C, is given by
S nu – S ntr
C = ----------------------
- (13-2)
S nu S ntr
Using the modified Land’s formula:
S nhmx – S nr
XSNR = S nr + --------------------------------------------- (13-3)
1 + C ( S nhmx – S nr )
where Land’s constant, C, is given by:
S nu – S ntr
C = -----------------------------------------------------
- (13-4)
( S nu – S nr ) ( S ntr – S nr )
Snu is the maximum possible nonwetting saturation for the gridblock. For oil
relative permeability hysteresis, Snu = 1 - connate water saturation. Snr is the
critical nonwetting phase saturation for the drainage curve.

Carlson’s approach assumes that the imbibition-drainage relative permeability is

equal to the primary drainage non-wetting phase relative permeability evaluated at
the free nonwetting phase saturation:
ID′ D
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S npd ) (13-5)
where the free non-wetting phase saturation is defined as
2 4X sn
S npd = S nr + 0.5 X sn + X sn + ----------
- (13-6)
C
and
X sn ≡ S n – XSNR (13-7)
Carlson’s method may result in large derivatives of relative permeability with

respect to saturation change near end-point krn(XSNR) = 0. These derivatives may
cause convergence problems when using the implicit formulation.
Linear Interpolation
An alternate method is included to linearize the imbibition-drainage relative

permeability curve between krnD(Snhmx) and krnID’(XSNR) = 0. Instead of using
Equations 13-5, 13-6, and 13-7, krnID’ is calculated as follows:
D
ID′ ( S n – XSNR )k rn ( S nhmx )
k rn ( S n ) = ---------------------------------------------------------
- (13-8)
( S nhmx – XSNR )
Scaling of Drainage Curve
An additional option is included to allow the imbibition-drainage curve to be

determined by the shape of the drainage curve. The drainage curve can be scaled
appropriately from the range (Snr , Snhmx) to the range (XSNR, Snhmx) as follows:
ID′ D *
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S n ) (13-9)
where
* S n – XSNR
S n = S nr + ----------------------------------- ( S nhmx – S nr ) (13-10)
S nhmx – XSNR

User-Entered Bounding Imbibition-Drainage Curve
An additional option is included to allow the user to directly enter the bounding
imbibition-drainage curve, krnID, along with the bounding drainage curve, krnD.
krn
D
krn
ID
krn
ΔSn
kID ’
rn l
Snr XSNR Snhmx Sntr SnID Snu
Sn
Figure 13-2: User-Defined Nonwetting Phase Imbibition-Drainage Curve
Following Carlson, the intermediate imbibition-drainage curve, krnID′,

corresponding to Snhmx should be parallel to the bounding imbibition-drainage
curve. Given this reversal saturation, the distance between the curves can be
expressed as:
ID
ΔS n = S n – S nhmx (13-11)
where
ID ID D
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S nhmx ) (13-12)
The value of SnID is determined by reverse table look-up from the user-specified
bounding imbibition-drainage curve. SnID is the saturation where the bounding
imbibition-drainage curve has relative permeability equal to the drainage relative
permeability at the reversal saturation, Snhmx. Therefore, the relative permeability
for any saturation on the scanning curve can be found from the bounding curve
by:
ID′ ID
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S n + ΔS n ) (13-13)

13.2.2 Input Data Requirements

The following input data may be used for the oil and gas phase relative
permeability hysteresis option in VIP-CORE:
Utility Data
■ RPHYSO Card — oil phase relative permeability hysteresis method option
■ RPHYSG Card — gas phase relative permeability hysteresis method option
Tabular Data
■ SWT Card (modified)
■ SGT Card (modified)
Grid Array Data
■ ISAT Card — modified the definition of ISAT
■ ISATI Card — saturation tables for hysteresis option only
The RPHYSO and RPHYSG data cards define the specific method of hysteresis to
be used for the oil or gas phase, respectively. If either card is entered without a
method specified, the default method is “LINEAR.” If either the RPHYSO or
RPHYSG data card is entered, then the user must also supply additional saturation
function data, depending upon which method is being used. For user-specified
imbibition curves, the ISAT array continues to refer to the drainage saturation
functions. An additional required array, ISATI, refers to the saturation functions to
be used for the imbibition functions. Otherwise, for either “CARLSON”,
“LINEAR”, or DRAINAGE”, the SGTR keyword for gas phase hysteresis and the
SOTR keyword for oil phase hysteresis must be included in the drainage table
referred to by ISAT.

13.3 Capillary Pressure Hysteresis

The capillary pressure hysteresis of a water-oil system is shown in Figure 13-3
with the following three bounding curves:
■ the primary drainage curve
■ the pendular imbibition curve
■ the secondary drainage curve.
These three curves are obtained when displacement is carried out completely to
connate saturation during either the drainage or imbibition process.
Killough12 provides a method of interpolation between the secondary bounding

drainage curve, c, and the bounding imbibition curve, b, using scanning curves.
The end points of the scanning curves are the phase saturation at the point of
reversal and the appropriate residual saturation. Figure 13-3 also illustrates
intermediate scanning curves corresponding to saturation reversal during a
secondary drainage process.
Pc Scanning Curves
b c
Snc
Swl Sw
Figure 13-3: Water-Oil Capillary Pressure Bounding and Scanning Curves
If the drainage process is reversed before the wetting phase saturation reaches the
end point, Swl, the capillary pressure follows a curve of type(d) as shown in
Figure 13-4. Similarly, if the imbibition process is reversed before the nonwetting

phase saturation reaches the end point, Snc, then the capillary pressure follows a
curve of type(e) as shown in Figure 13-4. The behavior described here is valid
only when the system previously experienced a complete drainage displacement.
In such a case, all subsequent drainage cycles follow the secondary drainage
curve, type(c), as shown in Figures 13-3 and 13-4.
Killough provides the following equations for scanning capillary pressure curves
as shown in Figure 13-4.
Pc A
•
e
b c
d
•
B
Snc
Swl SwA SwB Swmax

Sw
Figure 13-4: Water Saturation Reversal During Secondary Drainage
For curve type(d):
d c c b
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) – F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) – Pc ( Sw ) ] (13-14)
where
1 - – 1---
--------------------------
Sw – Sw + ε ε
A
F ( S w ) = -----------------------------------------
- (13-15)
1 1
-------------------------------- – ---
–S +ε ε
max A
S w w
Similarly, for curve type(e):

e b c b
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) + F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) – Pc ( Sw ) ] (13-16)
where
1 - – 1---
--------------------------
Sw – Sw + ε ε
B
F ( S w ) = -------------------------------------
- (13-17)
1
----------------------------- – ---1
S –S +ε ε
B
w wl
In the above equations, ε is a parameter affecting the shape of the scanning curves,
with a recommended value between 0.05 and 0.1.
The problem of saturation reversal during the primary drainage process requires a
different treatment. In this case, rather than follow a scanning curve back to the
residual nonwetting phase saturation, Snc, a new value of residual nonwetting
phase saturation, S*nc , is determined. The value of S*nc depends on the maximum
nonwetting phase saturation, SAn . Figure 13-5 demonstrates this process, as
described by Aziz and Settari.14
Pc A
Snc
Snc*
Swl 1- SnA 1-Snc 1-Snc*

Sw
Figure 13-5: Water Saturation Reversal During a Primary Drainage
The value of S*nc is given by the following equation:

A
* Sn
S nc = ---------------------------------------------------
- (13-18)
1 1 A
1 + ------- – ---------------- S n
S nc 1 – S wl
The equations given above for curves (d) and (e) are used for this case too;
however, the bounding curves are normalized so that they cover the interval (Swl,
1-Snc*) rather than (Swl , 1-Snc).
Another situation occurs if a scanning imbibition process that begins at SAw (Figure
11-6) experiences a second reversal. In such a situation, a new drainage scanning
curve (f) is created that intersects the first scanning curve at reversal saturation S*w
and reaches the bounding drainage curve at starting point SAw . The new imbibition-
to-drainage scanning curve at the second reversal saturation, S *w , has the equation:
* b * * * c * b *
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) + F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) – Pc ( Sw ) ] (13-19)
where
1
--------------------------- – 1---
Sw – Sw + ε ε
c *
* *
F ( S w ) = ------------------------------------ (13-20)
1
--------------------------- – 1---
S –S +ε ε
c A
w w

Pc A
•
d f
b c
•
•
C
Snc
Swl SwA Sw* Swc

Sw
Figure 13-6: Second Water Saturation Reversal
Quantity Scw is the unknown and can be determined by setting the equations for the
two scanning curves, Equations 13-14 and 13-19, equal to one another at reversal
point S*w .
Once S cw is known, Equation 13-19 is used to calculate the capillary pressure at

any saturation value along the new scanning curve, as long as water saturation
continues to decrease. A similar technique is used to determine capillary pressure
when the original capillary pressure lies on the bounding imbibition curve. This
procedure is followed to generate the scanning curves corresponding to
subsequent saturation reversals.
Analysis of the gas-oil system is analogous to the water-oil system and is not
presented here.


The following additional input data are required for the capillary pressure
hysteresis option in VIP-CORE:
Utility Data
■ PCHYSW Card — water-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option
■ PCHYSG Card — gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option
Tabular Data
■ SWT Card (modified to include water-oil capillary pressure for a secondary

drainage process).
■ SGT Card (modified to include gas-oil capillary pressure for a secondary

drainage process)
Grid Array Data
■ ISAT Card — modified the definition of ISAT
■ ISATI Card — saturation tables for hysteresis option only.
The capillary pressure hysteresis option requires additional data only in VIP-
CORE. The user must enter the PCHYSW data card to activate the water-oil
capillary pressure hysteresis option. The PCHYSG data card is entered to activate
the gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis option. These two data cards contain
control parameters for the scanning curve shape parameter, the maximum allowed
level of scanning curves, the tolerance for defining saturation reversals, the
maximum or minimum saturation value for which hysteresis will be allowed, and
the selection of initializing on imbibition curves.
If either the PCHYSW or the PCHYSG data card is entered, the user must also
supply additional saturation function data. The ISAT array continues to refer to
the drainage saturation functions. The table indicated by ISAT must be modified
to include the secondary capillary pressure drainage curve, curve (c) in Figure 13-
3, in addition to the primary drainage curve. An additional required array, ISATI,
refers to the saturation functions for use for imbibition.

Chapter
14
IMPES Stability
14.1 Introduction
When the IMPES option is chosen, the size of the timestep is limited by stability
considerations. In this chapter, we derive the maximum stable timestep, first for
the cases of two- and three-phase immiscible flow, and then for the case of two-
phase compositional flow.
In order to perform a stability analysis, various simplifying assumptions must be

made. Experience has shown that the stability limits so derived are still useful,
even when the simplifying assumptions do not hold.
The methodology for analyzing stability of the nonlinear partial difference

equations here is that used by Peaceman61.
14.2 Three-Phase Immiscible Flow
14.2.1 Differential Equations

For immiscible flow, if we ignore gravity, Equations 8-1 and 8-3 become
∂( φρ o S o ) kk ro ρ o
---------------------- = ∇ ⋅ ⎛⎝ ----------------⎞⎠ ∇P o + q o (14-1)
∂t μo
∂( φρ g S g ) kk rg ρ g
---------------------- = ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ----------------⎞ ∇P g + q g (14-2)
∂t ⎝ μg ⎠
∂( φB w S w ) kk rw B w
------------------------ = ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------------⎞ ∇P w + q w (14-3)
∂t ⎝ μw ⎠
Assume one-dimensional flow and focus on a region not containing any wells.
Also, assume constant density and zero capillary pressure. Define the phase
mobilities as
k ro k rg k rw
M o = ------
- , M g = ------
- , M w = ------- (14-4)
μo μg μw
R5000.0.1 IMPES Stability 14-191

Then Equations 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3 become
∂( φS o ) ∂⎛ ∂P
---------------- = kM o ------⎞⎠ (14-5)
∂t ∂x ⎝ ∂x
∂( φS g ) ∂P
---------------- = ∂ ⎛ kM g ------⎞ (14-6)
∂t ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠
∂( φS w ) ∂P
----------------- = ∂ ⎛ kM w ------⎞ (14-7)
∂t ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠
14.2.2 IMPES Difference Equations

Assume flow from left to right. Then the IMPES difference analogues of
Equations , 14-6, and 14-7 with upstream weighting of mobilities are
PVj ( SO jn + 1 – SO jn )
------------------------------------------------ = TX j – 1 ⁄ 2 MO jn– 1 ( P j – 1 – P j ) – TX j + 1 ⁄ 2 MO jn ( P j – P j + 1 ) (14-8)
Δt
PVj ( SG jn + 1 – SG jn )
------------------------------------------------ = TX j – 1 ⁄ 2 MG jn– 1 ( P j – 1 – P j ) – TX j + 1 ⁄ 2 MG jn ( P j – P j + 1 ) (14-9)
Δt
PVj ( SW jn + 1 – SW jn )
-------------------------------------------------- = TX j – 1 ⁄ 2 MW jn– 1 ( P j – 1 – P j ) – TX j + 1 ⁄ 2 MW jn ( P j – P j + 1 ) (14-10)
Δt
The subscript j is the block index, while the superscript refers to the timestep. The
acronym IMPES means implicit pressure and explicit saturation. That means that
the mobilities are evaluated from saturations at the “old” timestep level, and the
saturations at the “new” time level, n + 1, can then be calculated explicitly.
14.2.3 Total Throughput

Upon adding the three equations, 14-8, 14-9, and 14-10, and noting that SO + SG
+ SW = 1, we obtain
TX j – 1 ⁄ 2 MT jn– 1 ( P j – 1 – P j ) – TX j + 1 ⁄ 2 MT jn ( P j – P j + 1 ) = 0 (14-11)
where MT is the “total mobility” defined by
MT jn = MO jn + MG jn + MW jn
From Equation 14-11 it follows that VT, defined by
VT = TX j + 1 ⁄ 2 MT jn ( P j – P j + 1 ) (14-12)
14-192 IMPES Stability R5000.0.1

is a constant independent of j (a consequence of the assumption of 1D flow). This

VT is the total volumetric flow through every block.
14.2.4 Difference Equations in Terms of Fractional Mobility

Define fractional mobilities by
MG n MW n
FG jn = -----------j- , FW jn = ------------j- (14-13)
MT jn MT jn
Then Equations 14-10 and 14-9 become
PV j ( SW jn + 1 – SW jn )
------------------------------------------------- = VT ( FW jn– 1 – FW jn ) (14-14)
Δt
PV j ( SG jn + 1 – SG jn )
------------------------------------------------ = VT ( FG jn– 1 – FG jn ) (14-15)
Δt
Equation 14-8 is omitted, since it is not independent of the other two.
14.2.5 Stability Analysis for Two-Phase Flow

Before analyzing the stability of the two simultaneous equations 14-14 and 14-15
that describe three-phase flow, let us consider the stability of the difference
equation for two phase flow, which is easier to analyze. In that case, only the
single difference equation, Equation 14-14, needs to be solved by the simulator
(assuming water is one of the two mobile phases).
There are various definitions for the stability of a difference equation. Angel and
Bellman62 give the following useful definition: “We will take stability to mean
that the effect of an error made in one stage of the computation is not propagated
into larger errors in later stages of computation. In other words, local errors are
not magnified by further computation.”
To be more precise, let EW jn be the error in SW jn . Thus, if we perturb the

saturations at the old time level by errors EW jn , then application of the difference
equation causes the saturations at the new time level to be perturbed by EW jn + 1 .
Recognizing that FW is a function of saturation, fw(Sw), Equation 14-14 can be
written for the unperturbed saturations as
PV
------- [ SW jn + 1 – SW jn ] = VT [ f w ( SW jn– 1 ) – f w ( SW jn ) ] (14-16)
Δt
But this equation is also satisfied by the perturbed saturations:

PV
------- [ ( SW jn + 1 + EW jn + 1 ) – ( SW jn + EW jn ) ] = VT [ f w ( SW jn– 1 + EW jn– 1 ) – f w ( SW jn + EW jn ) ] (14-17)
Δt
Subtraction of Equation 14-16 from Equation 14-17 yields the error equation
PV
------- ( EW jn + 1 – EW jn ) = VT [ f w ( SW jn– 1 + EW jn– 1 ) – f w ( SW jn– 1 ) – f w ( SW jn + EW jn ) + f w ( SW jn ) ] (14-18)
Δt
But, by Taylor’s theorem,
∂f w EW 2- ∂---------
2f
w
f w ( SW + EW ) = f w ( SW ) + EW --------
- ( SW ) + ---------- - ( SW ) + …
∂S w 2! ∂S w 2
For the purpose of stability analysis, errors are assumed sufficiently small that
higher powers of EW can be ignored. Then Equation 14-18 can be written
PV
------- ( EW jn + 1 – EW jn ) = VT ( f' w, j – 1 EW jn– 1 – f' w, j EW jn ) (14-19)
Δt
where
∂f w
f' w, j = --------- ( SW jn )
∂S w
At this point, we need another assumption in order to proceed, that f' w is “locally”
constant, i.e., that it doesn’t change much from block to block. Then
EW jn + 1 – EW jn = λ ( EW jn– 1 – EW jn ) (14-20)
where
VT ⋅ f' w Δt
λ = ----------------------- (14-21)
PV
In this manner, we have “linearized” the error equation.
A von Neumann stability analysis consists of expanding the error in a Fourier

series,
NX
n n
EW j = ∑ Ap exp ( iαp xj ) (14-22)
p=1
where p is a component index, A pn is component magnitude, αp is component

frequency, and i is – 1 . Error growth of each component is given by the
magnitude of the ratio of A pn + 1 to A pn ; this ratio is called an amplification factor.

The modulus of the amplification factors of all the components must be less than
or equal to one for stability.
Substitution of Equation 14-22 into Equation 14-20 gives, for each component,
( A pn + 1 – A pn ) exp (iα p x j ) = λ A pn [ exp (iα p x j – 1 ) – exp (iα p x j ) ] (14-23)
Note that xj - 1 = xj - Δx. Then division of Equation 14-23 by A pn exp (iα p x j )

yields
A pn + 1
------------- – 1 = λ [ exp ( – iα p Δx) – 1 ]
A pn
or
A pn + 1
------------- = 1 + λ [ cos ( α p Δx ) – i sin ( α p Δx ) – 1 ]
A pn
The square of the modulus of the amplification factor is then
A pn + 1 2
------------- = { 1 + λ [ cos ( α p Δx ) – 1 ] } 2 + λ 2 sin 2 ( α p Δx )
A pn
or
A pn + 1 2
------------- = 1 + 2λ [ 1 – cos ( α p Δx ) ] ( λ – 1 )
A pn
Since [ 1 – cos ( α p Δx ) ] ≥ 0 , for the modulus of the amplification factor to be

less than or equal to one for all components p, it is necessary that λ - 1 ≤ 0, or
VT ⋅ f' w Δt
-≤1
------------------------ (14-24)
PV
Equation 14-24 is known as the Buckley-Leverett throughput condition for two-

phase flow.
14.2.6 Stability Analysis for Three-Phase Flow

A similar approach can be used to analyze the stability of the two simultaneous
difference equations for three-phase flow, Equations 14-14 and 14-15. Let EW jn

be the error in SW jn and EG jn be the error in SG jn . Both FW and FG are functions

of both saturations. Equations 14-14 and 14-15 can be written for the unperturbed
saturations as
PV
------- [ SW jn + 1 – SW jn ] = VT [ f w ( SW jn– 1 , SG jn– 1 ) – f w ( SW jn, SG jn ) ] (14-25)
Δt
PV
------- [ SG jn + 1 – SG jn ] = VT [ f g ( SW jn– 1 , SG jn– 1 ) – f g ( SW jn, SG jn ) ] (14-26)
Δt
But these equations are also satisfied by the perturbed saturations:
PV
------- [ ( SW jn + 1 + EW jn + 1 ) – ( SW jn + EW jn ) ] = VT
Δt
[ fw ( SWjn– 1 + EWjn– 1 , SGjn– 1 + EGjn– 1 )
(14-27)
– f w ( SW jn + EW jn, SG jn + EG jn ) ]
PV
------- [ ( SG jn + 1 + EG jn + 1 ) – ( SG jn + EG jn ) ] = VT
Δt
[ fg ( SWjn– 1 + EWjn– 1 , SGjn– 1 + EGjn– 1 )
(14-28)
– f g ( SW jn + EW jn, SG jn + EG jn ) ]
Note that a truncated Taylor series for a function of two variables yields
f w ( SW + EW, SG + EG ) = f w ( SW, SG ) + f' ww EW + f' wg EG (14-29)
f g ( SW + EW, SG + EG ) = f g ( SW, SG ) + f' gw EW + f' gg EG (14-30)
where
∂f w ∂f w
f' ww = --------
- f' wg = --------
∂S w ∂S g
∂f ∂f
f' gw = --------g- f' ww = --------g
∂S w ∂S g
Thus, if we subtract Equation 14-25 from Equation 14-27, and Equation 14-26
from Equation 14-28, and substitute Equations 14-29 and 14-30, we get the
simultaneous error equations
PV
------- ( EW jn + 1 – EWjn ) = VT ( f' ww, j – 1 EW jn– 1 + f' wg, j – 1 EG jn– 1 – f' ww, j EWjn – f' wg EG jn ) (14-31)
Δt
PV
------- ( EG jn + 1 – EG jn ) = VT ( f' gw, j – 1 EW jn– 1 + f' gg, j – 1 EG jn– 1 – f' gw, j EW jn – f' gg EG jn ) (14-32)
Δt
Again, we assume that the f' are locally constant so that they don’t change much
from block to block. Also, we expand the errors in the Fourier series

NX
EW jn = ∑ Apn exp (iαp xj ) (14-33)
p=1
NX
EG jn = ∑ Bpn exp (iαp xj ) (14-34)
p=1
Substitution of Equations 14-33 and 14-34 into Equations 14-31 and 14-32 gives,
for each component, after division by exp (iα p x j ) ,
PV
------- ( A pn + 1 – A pn ) = VT ( f' ww A pn + f' wg B pn ) [ exp ( – iα p Δx) – 1 ]
Δt
PV
------- ( B pn + 1 – B pn ) = VT ( f' gw A pn + f' gg B pn ) [ exp ( – iα p Δx) – 1 ]
Δt
This may be expressed as a matrix-vector equation as
v pn + 1 – v pn = β [ exp ( – iαΔx) – 1 ]F'v pn (14-35)
where
A pn ⋅ Δt- f' ww f' wg

v pn = β = VT
---------------- F' =
B pn PV f' gw f' gg
For stability, we need to show that v pn + 1 is, in some sense, not larger than v pn . We
choose as the measure of a vector the 2-norm, also called the Eucledian norm,
defined by
v pn 2 = (A pn ) 2 + (B pn ) 2
Since the norm of a product is less than or equal to the product of the norms, then
from Equation 14-35,
v pn + 1 2 – v pn 2 ≤ β [ exp ( – iαΔx) – 1 ] F' 2 ⋅ v pn 2 (14-36)
The 2-norm of the matrix F' is its maximum absolute eigenvalue, which is
defined below.
Now, we define an amplification factor as

v pn + 1 2
A p = -------------------
v pn 2
and try to show that it is less than one, in magnitude, for all components p.
From Equation 14-36,
A p – 1 ≤ β F' 2 [ cos ( α p Δx ) – i sin ( α p Δx ) – 1 ]
or
A p2 ≤ 1 + 2β F' 2 [ 1 – cos ( α p Δx ) ] ( β F' 2 – 1)
Thus, for stability, it is sufficient that

β F' 2 –1≤0
or
VT ⋅ Δt-
---------------- F' 2 ≤1 (14-37)
PV
This is the Buckley-Leverett throughput condition for three-phase flow.
It remains now to evaluate the norm of F' .
Eigenvalues of F'
As stated above, the 2-norm of a matrix is the maximum absolute value of its
eigenvalues. The eigenvalues of F' are the values of λ that satisfy
f' ww – λ f' wg
det = 0 (14-38)
f' gw f' gg – λ
which is equivalent to the quadratic equation
λ 2 – ( f' ww + f' gg )λ + ( f' ww f' gg – f' wg f' gw ) = 0 (14-39)
The eigenvalues of F' are the roots of Equation 14-39, and the maximum absolute
value of those roots is the 2-norm of that matrix.
The values of the f' are obtained from the derivatives of mobility (see Equation
14-4), which are substituted into the following.

∂M w ∂M t
M t ----------- – M w ---------
∂S w ∂S w
f' ww = ------------------------------------------
-
M t2
∂M w ∂M t
M t ----------- – M w ---------
∂S g ∂S g
f' wg = ------------------------------------------
-
M t2
∂M g ∂M t
M t ---------- – M g ---------
∂S w ∂S w
f' gw = ----------------------------------------
-
M t2
∂M g ∂M t
M t ---------- – M g ---------
∂S g ∂S g
f' gg = ----------------------------------------
-
M t2
where
Mt = Mw + Mo + Mg
and
∂M ∂M ∂M ∂M
-----------t = ----------w- + ----------o- + ----------g- , ph = w or g
∂S ph ∂S ph ∂S ph ∂S ph
Two-Phase Flow in a Three-Phase Simulator
It can be shown that the three-phase Buckley-Leverett throughput condition

(Equation 14-37) reduces to the two-phase condition (Equation 14-24) when one
of the three phases is immobile. Thus, it is not necessary to treat two-phase flow
as a special case.

14.3 Two-Phase Compositional Flow
14.3.1 Differential Equations
Flow of Each Component, c = 1,2,...,NC
If we ignore gravity and capillary pressure, Equation 8-1 becomes, for one-
dimensional flow,
∂ ( φHz c ) ∂ kk ro ρ o x c kk rg ρ g y c⎞ ∂P
⎛ --------------------
-------------------- = -⎠ ------ + q c
∂t ∂x ⎝ μ - + --------------------
μ ∂x
(14-40)
o g
where H is the total hydrocarbon moles per unit pore volume, xc is mole fraction
of component c in the liquid (oil) phase, yc is mole fraction in the vapor (gas)
phase, and zc is overall mole fraction. (Note that we use H instead of the F in
Equation 8-1 to avoid confusion with fractional mobilities used below.
Equilibrium Constraint
Phase equilibrium may be expressed in terms of equilibrium constants:
y
K c = ----c (14-41)
xc
For the purpose of stability analysis, we assume the equilibrium constants to be

constant. As the mole fractions in each phase must sum to one, we can express the
equilibrium constraint as follows:
NC
∑ ( yc – xc ) = 0 (14-42)
c=1
Saturation Constraint
From Equation 8-9, we have
H ( 1 – L ) + -------
HL- = 1
--------------------- (14-43)
ρg ρo
where L is the volumetric fraction of the hydrocarbon which is liquid (oil). Note
that
(1 – L)
Sg = H
--------------------- , S o = HL
-------- (14-44)
ρg ρo

Total Flow Equation
Upon summing Equation 14-40 over all c, noting that

Σ x c = Σ y c = Σ z c = 1 , we have
∂ ( φH ) ∂ ⎛ kk ro ρ o kk rg ρ g⎞ ∂P
--------------- = - ------ + ∑ q c
⎝ μ - + ---------------
--------------- (14-45)
∂t ∂x o μ ⎠ ∂xg c
Restatement of Total Flow Equation
Let
kk ro kk rg
λ o = ---------- λ g = ---------- λt = λo + λg
μo μg
λ λ
f o = ----o- f g = ----g-
λt λt
∂P ∂P ∂P
v o = – λ o ------ v g = – λ g ------ v t = – λ t ------
∂x ∂x ∂x
Then Equation 14-45 can be written
( φH ) = – ∂ [ ( ρ f + ρ f )v ] + q
∂---------------
∂t ∂x o o g g t ∑c c (14-46)
14.3.2 Difference Equations

Assume constant densities. Then the IMPES difference analogue of Equation 14-
46 (for interior regions where there are no wells) is
PV j
--------- ( H jn + 1 – H jn ) = ρ o ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 FO jn– 1 – VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 FO jn )
Δt (14-47)
+ ρ g ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 FG jn– 1 – VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 FG jn )
The difference analogues of the constraint equations 14-42 and 14-43 are
NC
∑ ( Ycn, j – Xcn, j ) = 0 (14-48)
c=1

H jn ( 1 – L jn ) H jn L jn
--------------------------- + ------------- = 1 (14-49)
ρg ρo
Perturbed Difference Equations
Equations 14-47, 14-48, and 14-49 must also be satisfied by perturbed values of
the basic dependent variables, P, H, L, and z1, z2, ..., zNC-1, as well as by perturbed
values of any derived dependent variables, such as So = HL/ρo. Let EH be the
perturbation in H, EFO be the perturbation in FO, etc. Then the perturbation of
difference equation 14-47 is
PVj
--------- ( H jn + 1 + EH jn + 1 – H jn – EH jn ) = ρ o ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 + EVT j – 1 ⁄ 2 ) ( FO jn– 1 + EFO jn– 1 )
Δt
– ρ o ( VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 + EVT j + 1 ⁄ 2 ) ( FO jn + EFO jn ) + ρ g ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 + EVT j – 1 ⁄ 2 ) ( FG jn– 1 + EFG jn– 1 )
(14-50)
– ρ g ( VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 + EVT j + 1 ⁄ 2 ) ( FG jn + EFG jn )
Note that VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 = ( λ t ) j + 1 ⁄ 2 ( P jn + 1 – P jn++11 ) . Since P is computed

implicitly, and since λt has less of a variation than FO or FG, it seems reasonable
to ignore the error (perturbation) in VT. Then, subtracting Equation 14-47 from
Equation 14-50 yields the “total flow error equation”:
PV
---------j ( EH jn + 1 – EH jn ) = ρ o ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 EFO jn– 1 – VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 EFO jn ) + ρ g ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 EFG jn– 1 – VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 EFG jn ) (14-51)
Δt
But, by neglecting higher powers of the error terms, we have the following
truncated Taylor series:
EFO jn = f o ( SG jn + ESG jn ) – f o ( SG jn ) = f' o, j ESG jn
where
∂f o ∂f g
f' o, j = -------- ( SG jn ) = – f' g, j = – -------- ( SG jn )
∂S g ∂S g
Similarly,
EFG jn = f' g, j ESG jn
Then, the total flow error equation 14-51 may be written
PV j
--------- ( EH jn + 1 – EH jn ) = ( ρ g – ρ o ) ( VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 f' g, j – 1 ESG jn– 1 – VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 f' g, j ESG jn ) (14-52)
Δt

Saturation Constraint Error Equation
Consider now the saturation constraint equation 14-49. Perturb it, to yield
( H jn + EH jn ) ( 1 – L jn – EL jn ) ( H jn + EH jn ) ( L jn + EL jn )
----------------------------------------------------------------- + --------------------------------------------------------- = 1 (14-53)
ρg ρo
Subtract Equation 14-49 from Equation 14-53, and ignore higher powers of the
errors, to yield the saturation constraint error equation:
EH jn ( 1 – L jn ) – H jn EL jn H jn EL jn + L jn EH jn
------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------- = 0
ρg ρo
or
ρ o ( 1 – L jn ) + ρ g L jn
EL jn - EH jn
= ------------------------------------------- (14-54)
( ρ o – ρ g )H jn
Next, consider the difference analogue of Equation 14-44:
H jn ( 1 – L jn )
SG jn = --------------------------
- (14-55)
ρg
Perturbing Equation 14-55 yields
( H jn + EH jn ) ( 1 – L jn – EL jn )
SG jn + ESG jn = ----------------------------------------------------------------- (14-56)
ρg
Subtracting Equation 14-55 from Equation 14-56, ignoring higher powers of the
error terms, yields
( 1 – L jn )EH jn – H jn EL jn
ESG jn = ------------------------------------------------------
-
ρg
Substitution of Equation 14-54 then gives
ρ o ( 1 – L jn ) + ρ g L jn EH jn
ESG jn = ( 1 – L jn ) – -------------------------------------------
- -----------
( ρo – ρg ) ρg
or

EH jn = ( ρ g – ρ o )ESG jn (14-57)
14.3.3 Stability Analysis of Total Flow Equation

Finally, substitution of Equation 14-57 into Equation 14-52 yields
PV j
--------- ( ESG jn + 1 – ESG jn ) = VT j – 1 ⁄ 2 f' g, j – 1 ESG jn– 1 – VT j + 1 ⁄ 2 f' g, j ESG jn (14-58)
Δt
This is similar to Equation 14-19 in Section 14.2.5. As we did there, we linearize

Equation 14-58 by assuming that VT ⋅ f' g is locally constant. Then Equation 14-
58 may be written
PV j
--------- ( ESG jn + 1 – ESG jn ) = VT ⋅ f' g ( ESG jn– 1 – ESG jn ) (14-59)
Δt
As we did in Section 14.2.5, we expand the error in a Fourier series:
NX
ESG jn = ∑ Apn exp (iαp xj ) (14-60)
p=1
and obtain a similar result for the amplification factor:
A pn + 1 2 2 VT ⋅ f' g Δt VT ⋅ f' g Δt ⎞
------------- = 1 + ---------------------------- [ 1 – cos ( α p Δx ) ] ⎛⎝ ----------------------
- – 1⎠ (14-61)
A pn PV PV
leading to the same Buckley-Leverett throughput condition for stability, that
VT ⋅ f' g Δt
----------------------- ≤ 1 (14-62)
PV
For simplicity, the water equation was omitted from the preceding analysis. It
seems reasonable that if it had been included, then the three-phase Buckley-
Leverett throughput condition of Equation 14-37 would be the appropriate
condition for stability.
14.3.4 Stability Analysis for Other Dependent Variables

However, we need to see if the error in H, L, and Zc can increase if Equation 14-62
is satisfied. From Equations 14-57 and 14-60, we have

NX
EH jn = ( ρ g – ρ o ) ∑ Apn exp (iαp xj )
p=1
If we assume that
NX
EH jn = ∑ Bpn exp (iβp xj )
p=1
it must follow, for each component, that
B pn = ( ρ g – ρ o )A pn
and
βp = αp
so the amplification factor for EH must also satisfy
B n+1 n+1
------------- = A
------------- ≤ 1 (14-63)
Bn An
when Equation 14-62 is satisfied.
From Equations 14-54, 14-57, and 14-60, we have
ρ o ( 1 – L jn ) + ρ g L jn NX
EL jn = -------------------------------------------
H jn
- ∑ Apn exp (iαp xj )
p=1
Again, we assume a “locally constant” coefficient; that is, we assume that the term
multiplying the summation does not change much from block to block or from
one time level to the next time level. If we assume that
NX
EL jn = ∑ Cpn exp (iγp xj ) (14-64)
p=1
it must follow, for each component, that
ρo ( 1 – L ) + ρg L
C pn = --------------------------------------- A pn (14-65)
H

and
γp = αp (14-66)
so the amplification factor for EL must also satisfy
C n+1 n+1
------------- = A
------------- ≤ 1 (14-67)
Cn An
when Equation 14-62 is satisfied.
Stability Analysis of Equilibrium Constraint Equation
The situation for the error growth of the Zc is considerably more complicated.
Consider the equilibrium constraint equation 14-48. Its perturbed form is
NC
∑ ( Ycn, j + EYcn, j – Xcn, j – EXcn, j ) = 0 (14-68)
c=1
Subtraction of Equation 14-48 from Equation 14-68 yields the equilibrium

constraint error equation
NC
∑ ( EYcn, j – EXcn, j ) = 0
c=1
But, by Equation 14-41,
Y cn, j = K c X cn, j
EY cn, j = K c EX cn, j
so
NC
∑ ( Kc – 1 )EXcn, j = 0 (14-69)
c=1

Since
z c = Lx c + ( 1 – L ) y c = Lx c + ( 1 – L )K c x c
Then
Z cn, j
X cn, j = --------------------------------------
- (14-70)
L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K c
The perturbed form of Equation 14-70 is
Z cn, j + EZ cn, j
X cn, j + EX cn, j = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (14-71)
L jn + EL jn + ( 1 – L jn – EL jn )K c
Subtracting Equation 14-70 from Equation 14-71 yields
[ L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K c ] [ Z cn, j + EZ cn, j ] – [ L jn + EL jn + ( 1 – L jn – EL jn )K c ]Z cn, j

EX cn, j = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (14-72)
[ L jn + EL jn + ( 1 – L jn – EL jn )K c ] [ L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K c ]
Ignoring higher powers of the errors yields
[ L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K c ]EZ cn, j + ( K c – 1 )Z cn, j EL jn

EX cn, j = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[ L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K c ] 2
Substitution into Equation 14-69 then yields
NC Kc – 1 NC – ( K – 1 ) 2 Z n
c, j
∑ [ L n + ( 1 – L n )K ] c, j j ∑ ---------------------------------------------
n = EL n c
------------------------------------------- EZ - (14-73)
c=1 j j c c=1
[ L n
j + ( 1 – L n
j )K c ] 2
We now have an error equation involving only errors in Zc and L.]
Since the Zc sum to one, the EZc sum to zero, so they are not all independent. Thus
Equation 14-73 should be written
NC – 1 Kc – 1 K NC – 1 NC – ( K – 1 ) 2 Z n
c, j
∑ - EZ cn, j = EL jn ∑ ---------------------------------------------
c
--------------------------------------
- – ------------------------------------------ - (14-74)
c=1
L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K c L jn + ( 1 – L jn )K NC c=1
[ L n + ( 1 – L n )K ] 2
j j c
If we again consider the coefficients of the errors constant for the purpose of the
stability analysis, then we can write Equation 14-74 in the form

NC – 1
∑ G c EZ cn, j = EL jn (14-75)
c=1
where
Kc – 1 K NC – 1
--------------------------------- – ------------------------------------ -
L + ( 1 – L )K c L + ( 1 – L )K NC
G c = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC –( Kc – 1 ) 2 Z
∑ [ L + ( 1 – L )K ] 2
----------------------------------------
c=1 c
If we assume
NX
EZ cn, j = ∑ Dcn, p exp (iδc, p xj ) (14-76)
p=1
it must follow from Equations 14-64, 14-66, and 14-75 that
δ c, p = γ p = α p
and
NC – 1
∑ G c D cn, p = C pn (14-77)
c=1
But Equation 14-77 holds also for the next timestep,
NC – 1
∑ G c D cn, +p 1 = C pn + 1 (14-78)
c=1
and for the succeeding timestep,
NC – 1
∑ G c D cn, +p 2 = C pn + 2 (14-79)
c=1
on up to the n + NC - 1 timestep:

NC – 1
∑ G c D cn, +p NC – 1 = C pn + NC – 1 (14-80)
c=1
Let
C pn + 1 C pn + 2
χ p = ------------- = ------------- = … (14-81)
C pn C pn + 1
D cn, +p 1 D cn, +p 2
η c, p = ------------- - = …
- = ------------- (14-82)
D cn, p D cn, +p 1
and
Γ c, p = G c D cn, p (14-83)
Then Equations 14-77 through 14-80 become
NC – 1
∑ Γ c, p = C pn (14-84)
c=1
NC – 1
∑ Γ c, p η cr, p = C pn χ pr , r = 1, 2, …, NC – 1 (14-85)
c=1
Note that the superscript n refers to timestep level, while the superscript r is an
exponent. Equations 14-84 and 14-85 can be rearranged to
NC – 1
∑ Γ c, p ( η cr, p – χ pr ) = 0 , r = 1, 2, …, NC – 1 (14-86)
c=1
Equation 14-86 is a set of simultaneous polynomials. Obviously one solution is
η c, p = χ p
It can be shown63 (albeit, with some difficulty) that this is a multiple root, and that
Equation 14-86 is equivalent to
NC – 1
( η c, p – χ p ) = 0

Since, by Equations 14-67 and 14-81, χ p ≤ 1 , then it follows that the

amplification factor for Zc must satisfy
D cn, +p 1
-------------- = η c, p ≤ 1 (14-87)
D cn, p
Thus, we have shown that the errors in Zc do not grow if Equation 14-62 is
satisfied. Thus, if Equation 14-62 is satisfied, the system of difference equations
14-47, 14-48, and 14-49 is stable.
14.3.5 Final Note

Interestingly enough, the stability analysis did not involve the difference analogue
of the component flow equations (Equation 14-40), even though that difference
equation plays a major role in the actual simulator solution. This is indeed
fortunate, since including it would probably have rendered a stability analysis
well-nigh impossible. But apparently only the total hydrocarbon flow equation
plus the saturation and equilibrium constraint equations are sufficient for
demonstrating stability.
As pointed out repeatedly, the analysis presented here involves many assumptions
that are not strictly satisfied. It can be shown64 that if capillary pressure is taken
into account, the stable timestep is reduced somewhat; some 1D experiments
show a reduction of only a few percent. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
user monitor the solution carefully when the IMPES option is chosen.
To provide a margin of safety, the parameter STSLIM on the IMPSTAB card can
be set to something less than 1.0. That parameter is the largest fraction of the
maximum stable timestep (as computed by Equation 14-37) at which the
simulator is permitted to run.
Another parameter, STSTAR on the IMPSTAB card, is the fraction of the

maximum stable timestep used as a target for setting the timestep size. Its default
is 0.9; it should be set to the desired fraction times STSLIM.

Chapter
15
Local Grid Refinement1
15.1 Introduction
The Local Grid Refinement (LGR) option is a special feature which enables the
user to improve the resolution and detail in a particular area of a reservoir study,
without increasing the resolution everywhere. The LGR option minimizes the
number of gridblocks, and therefore the CPU time required by allowing the grid to
be selectively refined in areas where more grid definition is required. It has
applications in the modeling of:
■ Coning effects in fieldwide models
■ Horizontal wells
■ Interference between multiple reservoirs in a common basin
■ Unconfined pattern elements
■ Delineation of faults
This chapter explains some of the general concepts with regard to LGR, along
with technical details on different LGR techniques and examples of how to set up
LGR models.
1. Available as a separately licensed option.
R5000.0.1 Local Grid Refinement 15-211

15.2 Major Features

The major features of the LGR option include:
■ Unlimited number of Cartesian refinements, including unlimited levels of

refinements within refinements.
■ Radial refinements in the X, Y, or Z direction; i.e., vertical or horizontal.
■ Grid refinements (and base grid) can use either the IMPES or fully implicit
formulation.
■ Mixed IMPES and fully implicit grids
■ Grid refinements can be activated or deactivated at any time.
■ Central to the LGR option is a new linear solver, CBLITZ68, that enables the
efficient linear solution of the composite grid system. This implementation
allows composite grids, whether IMPES, implicit or mixed IMPES/implicit
grids, to be solved in one, two, three or four (dual permeability) dimensions.
15-212 Local Grid Refinement R5000.0.1

15.3 Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Features Available with LGR

The LGR option can be used in conjunction with most of the standard features of
VIP-EXECUTIVE, including:
■ Black Oil
■ Compositional EOS
■ Dual Porosity/Permeability
■ Polymer
■ CO2 Solubility in Aqueous Phase
■ IMPES Grids or Implicit Grids
■ Two-Point Upstream Weighting
■ Crossflow
■ Hydrocarbon/Water Tracking
■ Predictive Well Management
■ Numerical Aquifers (Connected to the Coarse Grid, Only)
■ Injection Regions
The following feature is available with single grid systems only:
■ Boundary Flux Option
Except as noted below, datasets that were valid with previous versions of VIP-
EXECUTIVE should still be accepted as is. The following features, available in
previous versions, are no longer available either with LGR or single grid systems:
■ Implicit Well Option (IMPWEL)
The implicit well option, previously available with IMPES, was removed because
it can be duplicated with the LGR option by declaring the well as being contained
in a line of one-for-one refined gridblocks, designated as an implicit grid (see
example in Section 15.10.2).

15.4 Types of Refinements

The LGR feature provides two distinct types of local grid refinement, as described
below:
15.4.1 Cartesian Refinement

A Cartesian grid refinement consists of any rectangular area comprising one or
more gridblocks that have been refined into a finer grid structure. Any gridblocks
within the rectangular area may subsequently be omitted from the refinement.
The following illustration shows a refined area REF2 within a refined area
REF1,within a coarse base grid.
Figure 15-1: Example of Cartesian Refinement
When creating a Cartesian refinement, the following properties must be defined:
■ Grid name
■ Range of coarse gridblocks to be refined.
■ Number of x,y,z fine grid divisions per parent grid division.
Optionally, the range of gridblocks to be included or omitted within the specified

area may also be defined.

15.4.2 Radial Refinement

A radial refinement is a series of fine gridblocks drawn radially around a well.
The radial refinement occurs only within the line of gridblocks in which the well
resides. The following illustration shows a radial refinement at a well. A radial
refinement may occur within an area that already has Cartesian refinements
applied to it.
Figure 15-2: Example of Radial Refinement
Radial refinements are normally oriented in the Z direction for vertical or near-
vertical wells, but may also be oriented in the X or Y direction for horizontal
wells. The Z-axis for the radial refinement is always oriented along the wellbore.
When creating a radial refinement, the following properties must be defined:
■ Grid name
■ Portion of coarse grid to be refined (if more than one coarse gridblock along
the well, the same radial refinement is implemented through each gridblock).
■ Number of refined gridblocks in the radial (r) and angular (theta) directions.
■ Number of gridblocks to be refined in the Z or X or Y direction.
■ Inner radius (wellbore) for refined area.
■ Intersections of the well at the boundaries of the coarse gridblocks.
■ Optionally, the outer radius of the first annulus may be specified.

Radial Grid Numbering Convention
Figure 15-3 shows the gridblock numbering convention for a radial refinement in
the z-direction.
z(k)
x(i)
y(j)
3
2
1
12 11 10 7 4 5 6
8
9
Figure 15-3: Radial Grids - RADZ
the x-direction. Note that the z-direction of the radial grid is along the x-direction
of its parent grid.
x(i)
y(j)
z(k)
2
1
8 7 3 4
5
6
Figure 15-4: Radial Grids - RADX

the y-direction. Note that the z-direction of the radial grid is along the y-direction
of its parent grid.
y(j)
x(i)
z(k)
2
1
8 7 3 4
5
6
Figure 15-5: Radial Grids - RADY
Transmissibility Calculations of Radial Grids
Transmissiblities of radial grids are calculated by first constructing a fine skeleton

grid using 32 spokes. The six half transmissibilities of each skeleton block are
then calculated using either the HARINT or modified NEWTRAN methods. The
modified NEWTRAN method takes into account a varying cross sectional area
along the flow direction.
S
•
C •
A1 A2

In the above sketch:
C is the volumetric centroid
S is a point on the block face
CS is a vector representing an average path between planes

through C and S.
A1 is the vector area of the plane through C
A2 is the vector area of the plane through S
The half transmissibility between C and S is given by:
( A 2 – A 1 ) ⋅ CS 1
T = ----------------------------------
2
- ---------------------------
-
CS ⎛ A 2 ⋅ CS ⎞
ln ⎜ ------------------⎟
⎝ A 1 ⋅ CS⎠
The gridblock transmissibilities in the θ(j) direction are calculated from a
harmonic average of the elemental skeleton block values. The gridblock
transmissibilities in the r(i) and z(k) directions are calculated by summing the
elemental skeleton block values.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
32 9
31 10
30 11
29 12
28 13
27 14
26 15
25 16
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17
skeleton blocks
gridblocks

The following expressions are for the shaded block above.
1
T θ- = -----------------------------------------
-
1 - + -------
⎛ ------ 1 -⎞
∑ ⎝ tjθ- tjθ+⎠
j=1 4
1
T θ+ = -----------------------------------------
-
1 - + -------
⎛ ------ 1 -⎞
∑ ⎝ tjθ- tjθ+⎠
j=5 8
Tr ± = ∑ t jr ±
j = 1, 8
T rz ± = ∑ t jz ±
j 1 8
t = skeleton block transmissiblity
T = gridblock transmissiblity

15.5 Application of LGR

LGR can be implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE reservoir simulation models
through two separate mechanisms, which are designed for the two general
situations which may be encountered when applying LGR to a model. These are
described below.
■ New Models. When building a new simulation model from scratch, in most
cases it will be easier to use GRIDGENR to specify the grid structure and all
local grid refinements. The necessary keyword parameters and data will be
produced in files ready to be included in the VIP-CORE data set.
■ Existing Models. To apply refinements “after the fact” to an existing model,

GRIDGENR can be used only if the original model was constructed using
GRIDGENR and the .gtf or .gdb files have been retained. Otherwise, the
keyword parameters must be manually added to the VIP-CORE data set to
specify the refinements.
15.5.1 GRIDGENR
The GRIDGENR program is a graphical interface used to design the grid structure
for a reservoir simulation model and calculate the initial properties to be assigned
to each gridblock, such as depth, thickness, porosity, etc. GRIDGENR provides
three basic alternatives for defining the grid structure. These are (1) interactively
draw the reservoir grid, (2) digitize the grid from various sources, or (3) import
data that can be used to specify the grid structure. Following any of these three
options, the drawing features can be used to define local grid refinements, with
the resulting shape and size of the refinements shown on the surface of the grid
(see illustration below).
Figure 15-6: Typical GRIDGENR Display with Radial Refinement

The Array Calculate and Output steps in GRIDGENR produce the appropriate
keyword parameters for input to the VIP-CORE initialization, as explained below.
Using GRIDGENR alone does not provide access to all the refinement features
available with the keyword parameters. However, it does provide access to a large
majority of them. For more information about the grid refinement features in
GRIDGENR, see the GRIDGENR User’s Guide.
15.5.2 Keyword Parameters

All local grid refinements are defined through a nested set of keyword parameters
and data, describing the type, characteristics, and location of the refinement
relative to its parent grid. The nesting of the data sets defines the levels of
refinements within refinements. This represents the minimum amount of data
required for the LGR option. For example, the following diagram shows the
conceptual drawing of a Cartesian refinement imposed on a coarse grid, with a
radial refinement super-imposed on the Cartesian refinement.
Figure 15-7: Cartesian Refinement with Imbedded Radial Refinement

The keyword parameters below are used to describe this structure for a VIP-
CORE initialization (i.e., for calculating the initial model state).
NX NY NZ NCOMP
5 5 1 2
LGR BASEGRID
CARTREF REF1
2 4 2 4 1 1
2 3 2
2 2 2
1
OMIT 4 4 4 4 1 1
RADZREF RAD
3 3 1 1
3 4 .25
1
2*0.5
2*0.5
ENDREF
ENDREF
ENDLGR
In this sequence of keywords and parameters, each keyword pertains to a specific

group of parameters, which are entered to the side or below the keyword. For
instance, the NX/NY/NZ keywords are used to describe the number of gridblocks
in the coarse grid area. The CARTREF and RADZREF keywords and following
data specify the names and corresponding structure of the Cartesian and radial
refinement grids, including the i,j,k range of the refinements, the frequency of
refinements in the refined area, and any parts of the refined area to be omitted.
For more information about LGR keyword parameters, refer to the VIP-CORE
Reference Manual.
15.5.3 Propagation of Reservoir Properties to Refined Gridblocks

When GRIDGENR is used to define and calculate the LGR structure, each coarse
and refined gridblock will have a unique set of properties calculated for it which
depends on its relative position in the model structure. The Array Calculate
module in GRIDGENR is the mechanism that provides the calculation of unique
gridblock properties throughout the coarse and refined areas.
If VIP-CORE keywords are used to apply LGR, the user has the option to specify
all of the properties for the coarse and refined gridblocks or only to specify
properties for the coarse gridblocks. Where properties are specified only for the
coarse gridblocks, the simulator will calculate unique depths for each refined
gridblock, based on variations in reservoir dip and model layer thickness, but it
will not calculate unique initial rock properties for each refined gridblock. Instead,
each refined gridblock will have the same properties as its parent coarse
gridblock. This is not always a disadvantage, as explained in the following
discussion.

For a quick investigation of detailed flow behavior around a well, it may not be
necessary to use GRIDGENR to define the slight variation in rock properties for
the radial refinement around the well. In this case, only the keywords to define the
radial refinement need to be added to the VIP-CORE input file, and the rock
properties of the parent gridblocks will be propagated down to the refined
gridblocks.
Conversely, for a detailed study of infill drilling in a particular area, it would most
likely be better to use GRIDGENR to define the LGR area, in order to get a better
definition of the variation of rock properties within the entire refined area.
For the situation where the initialization data has already been prepared and it is
not feasible or desirable to go back to GRIDGENR (i.e., a reservoir model that has
already been history matched), the grid refinements can be specified manually
through the keyword parameters. The properties from the coarse grid would be
propagated down to any refinements, and a few additional history match runs may
be required to fine tune the match based on a better definition of fluid fingering
and/or coning. See Section 15.8.2 for the rules and explanations of the
propagation process.
Once the grid definition and properties are defined appropriately in the VIP-
CORE data deck, the initialization process is not significantly different from
normal.

15.6 Rules for Constructing a Composite Grid

There are some rules and restrictions associated with the construction of a locally
refined grid system in order to ensure that the linear system associated with the
composite grid is well conditioned.
A refined grid system is constructed as follows:

Level 3
Grid
Level 4
Grid
Level 2
Grid Level 1
Grid
Level 2
Grid
Level 4
Grid
Level 3
Grid
Figure 15-8: Levels of Refinement
A coarse grid (or level 1 or root grid) is imposed on the region of interest. This is
further refined in areas where greater resolution is required (a refinement of a
level N grid is called a level N+1 grid). The number of levels of refinement is

arbitrary. Cartesian refinements may be further refined but radial refinements may
not.
The restrictions on allowable refinements are as follows:
■ Grid lines for refined cells terminate only on coarse cell boundaries.
Valid: Invalid:
Figure 15-9: Termination of Grid Lines
Refinements must fill at least an entire coarse cell and the refined grid lines must
be continuous across the entire coarse cell.
■ Refinement must conform across coarse cell boundaries.
Compatible Refinement:
Incompatible Refinement:
Figure 15-10: Grid Conformance
Refinements that span more than one coarse cell must have refined grid lines that
conform across the coarse cells.

■ Grid neighbors of a level N grid must be either of level N-1 or N+1.
Legal Refinement
Illegal Refinement
Figure 15-11: Nesting of Refinements
Refinements must be completely contained within a grid of the previous level. A

grid cannot touch a grid whose level is not consecutive with its own level.

■ All grids of the same level must be independent, i.e., not touching.
Legal Refinement
Illegal Refinements
Figure 15-12: Isolation of Refinements
Independent refinements of the same level must be isolated from each other.

15.7 LGR Features in the Simulation Module

After the initialization process has been completed for the reservoir model, there
are a number of additional options available in the simulator. Each grid can be
specified to utilize either the IMPES or fully IMPLICIT formulation. The
standard formulation specification options will set all of the grids to use either one
or the other, and then the formulation can be re-specified for individual grids.
Much of the trade-off in formulation methods is between the timestep stability of
the calculations and the relative speed of the calculations per timestep. Depending
on the number of components, IMPES may be up to 10 times faster than
IMPLICIT per timestep, but depending on the gridblock sizes and relative
throughput, the IMPLICIT formulation may enable several orders of magnitude
larger timesteps, yielding a considerable savings in total computer time required.
While it is generally time-prohibitive to use an IMPLICIT formulation over an

entire model, it might be feasible to use this method for the refined areas only. For
example, for a full field reservoir model with a Cartesian-refined area for detailed
infill performance analysis and radial refinements at the wells within the refined
area, the IMPES formulation could be used for the base grid, and the IMPLICIT
formulation could be used on the refined areas.
Separate sets of iteration parameters, convergence parameters, and time stepping

constraints can be specified for the IMPES and fully IMPLICIT formulations,
with performance being controlled by the most restrictive of the two sets.
In the specifications of well and/or perforation locations, it may be necessary to

specify the grid in which it resides. All well i,j,k references are relative to a
particular grid.
15.7.1 DEACTIVATION and ACTIVATION of Grid Refinements

At initial conditions, all grid refinements are assumed to be active. However, any
refinement may be deactivated and/or reactivated at any time during the simulator
run. This feature may be used to achieve significant CPU time savings by
activating refined grids only during the simulation time at which there is
significant activity occurring within the grid. If a grid refinement is deactivated,
then all sub-refinements [children] of the grid are also deactivated. When a grid
refinement is activated, then all grid refinements which contain it [parents] are
also activated.
Only the pore volumes and transmissibilities at initial conditions are preserved
and reinstated as necessary, as grid refinements are deactivated and reactivated.
When a grid refinement that has been active for one or more timesteps is
deactivated, new values for the unknowns (pressure, composition, saturations,
etc.) are calculated for each of the gridblocks that had been refined in the parent
grid, such that precise material balance is maintained. For each parent gridblock,
the total moles of each component and the total water volume is computed from
the sum of its refined gridblocks, respectively. An iterative procedure is then
employed to compute the new values for the unknowns which will exactly
preserve the material balance of each of the components and water.

When a grid is activated after having been inactive for one or more timesteps, the
unknowns of the parent gridblocks are propagated directly to the refined
gridblocks, again preserving material balance, but with the possible instability
resulting from each of the fine gridblocks having the same pressures, saturations,
compositions, etc. as their parent gridblock. Considerable care should be taken to
ensure that the area around the refinement is approaching steady-state conditions
before deactivating or activating the refinement, in order to reduce or eliminate
the need for any timestep cuts. The activation/deactivation procedure is performed
after all input for the time interval has been read.
15.7.2 CBLITZ Solver Options

CBLITZ employs the sequential preconditioning method described by Wallis68 to
solve the composite grid linear system. This method is attractive, since it uses a
standard subgrid approximate factorization in constructing the composite grid
preconditioning. The solution step incorporates approximate solutions performed
on a grid-by-grid basis, which has advantages for efficiency and parallelization. In
particular, multiple subgrid iterations can be performed which can be beneficial in
reducing the CPU time to obtain a solution. This can be set for all grid systems
using the NITG parameter on the CBLITZ keyword or on a grid-by-grid basis
using NITG on the CBLGRID keyword. NITG is defaulted to 1 for all grid
systems. Convergence tolerance and equation ordering can also be changed on a
grid-by-grid basis using the CBLGRID keyword.
CBLITZ has a robust treatment of 3D radial grids, always allowing for complete
circular flow. CBLITZ allows grids to be active or inactive, and can handle
wellbore crossflow and faults within a grid or between grids.
More information on CBLITZ solver controls can be found in the VIP-

EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.

15.8 Input Data
15.8.1 VIP-CORE Initialization Data
LGR ... ENDLGR
The LGR keyword generally indicates that the grid is to be refined. This line is
followed by the data defining the refinements. Once all the refinements have been
defined, a line with the keyword ENDLGR ends the grid refinement data mode.
The entering of the LGR keyword has several other effects, even for a single-grid
model in which the LGR line is immediately followed by the ENDLGR line:
1. It causes the ROOT grid (or single grid) that is defined with DX, DY, DZ or
DR, DTHETA, DZ arrays to be converted to corner-point grids internally for
the calculation of pore volumes and transmissibilities.
2. It causes the default map type to be the new map file (Fortran Unit 27).
RMIN
The RMIN keyword allows the user to specify, for radial refinements, the
minimum outer radius allowed for the innermost ring of blocks. This is applied
globally to all radial refinements, but can be set on a grid-by-grid basis within the
LGR data.
RIGHTHANDED, HARTRAN, BLOCKTR, PINCHGRID, TOLPV
See VIP-CORE Reference Manual.
15.8.2 VIP-CORE Array Data
Cascading of Array Data
Array data is introduced grid-by-grid. All array data must be grouped together by
grid and grid order is important. The following are rules and explanations of the
cascading process:
1. Array data for the ROOT grid is required.
2. Array data should be input for a parent grid before inputing the data for a
child.
3. When array data is read in, it is immediately propagated to its lower level
grids.
4. Transmissibility modifier arrays (e.g., TMX, TMZ) are only propagated to

equivalent gridblock faces.

5. Permeability arrays at gridblock faces are not allowed with the LGR option.
6. Any array data for a child grid can be input separately to replace any cascaded
values.
7. Except for the endpoint scaling arrays, an array must be input for the ROOT
grid before it can be input for a lower level grid.
8. At any level, including ROOT, any endpoint data not entered is set to that of
the appropriate rock type.
New Array Input Option “NONE”
Array data of children grids (that has been assigned through propagation) can be
modified using the MOD or VMOD options. The NONE option for a child array
indicates that no data will be input and any MOD or VMOD options will apply to
the inherited data. The modified data is then propagated to the grid’s children. 00
Example: 00
ARRAYS
POR CON
0.3
.
.
.
ARRAYS CHILD1
POR NONE
VMOD
2 4 2 3 1 1 EQ
0.25 0.26 2*0.27 0.29 0.3
Corner-Point Data “CORP”
The CORP array consists of eight (x, y, z) coordinate values for each gridblock.
15.8.3 Other VIP-CORE Data

The following data may be specified on a grid-by-grid basis: FTRANS, OVER,
VOVER. These data are not cascaded to lower level grids.
15.8.4 Simulator Input Data
Formulation Options
In a multi-grid run all grids may use the IMPES formulation, all grids may use the
implicit formulation, or some grids may use IMPES and the remaining grids may
use implicit. By default all grids are assigned the formulation specified in, or

implied by, the Utility Data. The IMPGRID ... ENDIMPGRID data is used to set
the formulation for individual grids. If entered, this data must immediately follow
the RESTART card and precede any TITLE cards.
Timestep Controls
For multi-grid systems which may involve mixed levels of implicitness, it may be
necessary to have separate sets of maximum change parameters for both the
iteration and the timestep. To accomplish this, two new optional keywords have
been implemented: DTMPL and ITNMPL. When a DT keyword is read, the
maximum change parameters for both the IMPES grids and the IMPLICIT grids
are set to the values specified on the DT card. Also when an ITNLIM keyword is
read, the maximum change parameters for both the IMPES grids and the
IMPLICIT grids are set to the values specified on the ITNLIM card. If different
values are desired for the IMPLICIT grids, the DTMPL and ITNMPL keywords
must be used to specify the maximum change parameters for the IMPLICIT grids
only.
Matrix Solution Option “CBLITZ”
The new matrix solver CBLITZ is an iterative solver, using the Preconditioned
Generalized Minimum Residual (GMRES) method. It must be used for all multi-
grid systems and for three-dimensional radial single-grid systems using the
FLOW360 option. CBLITZ, as well as BLITZ, EXCEL, or GAUSS, may also be
used for other single-grid systems.
The block of data CBLGRID ... ENDCBLGRID may be used to specify some of
the CBLITZ parameters on a grid-by-grid basis. If entered, this data must
immediately follow the CBLITZ data.
Well Data
For multi-grid systems, it may be necessary to specify in which grid(s) that the
well resides, in addition to the standard IW and JW well location. If no additional
data is entered, the well is assumed to be in the ROOT grid, and the IW and JW
are relative to that grid. However, if the well perforations are in one or more of the
grid refinements, then the grid name must be specified on either the WELL card
or the FPERF card. If the well perforations are all within the same grid, then the
grid may be specified on the WELL card. If the well perforations are in two or
more grids, then the grid must be specified for each of the perforations, along with
the proper IW and JW relative to the grid.
If the well is in a radial grid and (IW, JW) have not been specified in the FPERF
data or in any previous WELL name and location data, then perforations will be
automatically generated in IW=1, for JW=1,2,...,NTHETA for the radial grid.
Other Data
FTRANS, OVER, and VOVER may be specified on a grid-by-grid basis.

For more detailed information regarding LGR-related data, see the VIP-CORE
Reference Manual and the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.

15.9 LGR Benchmarks

The following three comparison cases illustrate the application of LGR and the
potential benefit that can be derived from using LGR.
A reservoir study was conducted without grid refinement (Figure 15-13), with two
levels of refinement with a Cartesian 3x3 grid around the wells (Figure 15-14) and
with two levels of refinements and 4x4 radial (Figure 15-15) refinements around
each well. The grid without local refinements (Case 1) was carefully constructed
so that the level of resolution around the wells is the same as in Case 2 with
Cartesian refinements around the well.
Figure 15-13: Case 1 - No Refinements

Figure 15-14: Case 2 - 3x3 Cartesian Refinements Around Each Well

Figure 15-15: Case 3 - 4x4 Radial Refinements Around Each Well
The cases and results are summarized in Table 15-1. Case 1 was run with both
IMPES and implicit. Both Case 2 and Case 3 were run with IMPES in the coarse
and level 2 refined grids, and implicit around the wells. The results show that Case
2 ran more than 4 times faster than implicit Case 1. Case 3 was almost three times
faster than implicit Case 1 even though the resolution around the wells in Case 3
was much better.

Table 15-1: Summary of Results - Shorthorn Reservoir: History & Prediction

Base Grid Refinements Gridblocks
Case NX NY NZ NX NY NZ Total Active
1 62 45 2 5580 5558
2 19 14 2 36 26 2 (Cart.)
10@ 3 3 2 (Cart.) 2584 1967
3 19 14 2 36 26 2 (Cart.)
10@ 4 4 2 (Rad.) 2724 2107
Precond. Time Outer Inner T.S. CPU Seconds*

Case Formulation Solver
Method Steps Itns Itns Cuts Solver Total
1 IMPES BLITZ NF 2905 3338 12013 0 456 3111
1 Implicit BLITZ NF 87 235 1674 0 551 743
2 Mixed CBLITZ SEQ 87 274 1143 0 61 179
3 Mixed CBLITZ SEQ 94 368 1473 7 112 260
6515 days total; maximum 93 day timesteps

* IBM RS/6000-580

The results of production plots show almost identical results in the three cases for
most of the wells, but increased gas and water coning for some of the wells in case
3 as shown in Figures 15-16 and 15-17.
Figure 15-16: Comparison of Gas-Oil Ratio Performance

Figure 15-17: Comparison of Water-cut Performance

15.10 Examples
The following examples, in increasing complexity, illustrate the additional data
needed to set up models using local grid refinement. The basic assumption is that
the user is creating the data; GRIDGENR/ARRAY is not needed to create the
locally refined grid(s). The figures accompanying the examples depict only a
portion of the grid; e.g. the area around well G3.
15.10.1 Base Case - No LGR/Implicit Formulation

VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ! No LGRs defined
ENDLGR ! But uses new Transmissibility calculations
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.

Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
BLITZ
C
C DT1 DTmin DTmax DP DS DV DZ
DT -1. 1. 100. 500. .15 .9 .9
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .01 .10 .14
WELL N NAME IW JW
1 G3 18 3
2 H2 20 13
3 A1 14 16
FPERF
WELL L
1 1
X 2
2 2
X 3
3 7
X 8
X 9
.
.
.


15.10.2 Implicit Cells Around Wells

The gridblocks containing the wells are not refined but are set up as a grid to allow
the use of the implicit formulation.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
CARTREF G3 ! Separate Grid for G3
18 18 3 3 1 2
1
1
2*1
ENDREF
CARTREF H2 ! Separate Grid for H2
20 20 13 13 2 3
1
1
2*1
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.

Simulator:
IMPLICIT ! Default Formulation

RESTART
IMPGRID ! Formulation by Grid
ROOT IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
DT -1. 1. 100. 200. .05 .9 .9 ! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL 500. .15 .9 .9 ! for IMPLICIT
Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL .10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL N NAME IW JW GRID

1 G3 1 1 G3
2 H2 1 1 H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL L
1 1
X 2
2 2
X 3
3 7
X 8
X 9
.
.
.


15.10.3 Cartesian Refinement Around Wells

The gridblocks around the wells are refined 3x3x3. Note that since well G3 is
entirely contained within grid G3, no grid information is needed in the FPERF
data. Also note that the well now has 6 layers.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
CARTREF G3 ! Cartesian refinement around Well G3
17 19 2 4 1 4
3*3
3*3
4*3
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.

Simulator:
IMPES ! Default Formulation

RESTART
G3 IMPLICIT
H2 IMPLICIT
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
DTMPL 500. .15 .9 .9 ! for IMPLICIT
Grids
C

1 G3 5 5 G3 ! Center of Grid G3
2 H2 1 1 H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL L
1 1
X 2
X 3
X 4
X 5
X 6
.
.
.


15.10.4 Radial Refinement Around Wells

The well column is given a radial refinement. Note that since no IW/JW values
were given for well G3, then perforations will be automatically generated for all
values of theta in the first annulus. The users must insure that NPRFMX and
NPRFTOT on the DIM card are large enough to account for the generated
perforations.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
RADZREF G3 ! Radial refinement around Well G3
18 3 1 4 ! IW JW K1 K2
5 4 .6 RMIN 20. ! Nrad NTheta Rinner R1
4*3 ! Z splits
5*.5 ! X locations of center (relative to DX)
5*.5 ! Y locations of center (relative to DY)
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.

Simulator:
DIM NPRFMX NPRFTOT

24 100
IMPLICIT ! Default Formulation
RESTART
ROOT IMPES ! Over-ride IMPLICIT for ROOT grid
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
DTMPL 500. .15 .9 .9 ! for IMPLICIT Grids
C
1 G3 X X G3
2 H2 X X H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL L
1 1 ! For wells in Radial LGRs
X 2 ! if no IW or JW values given,
X 3 ! then all theta in the first annulus are
X 4 ! perforated.
X 5 !
X 6 !
.
.
.


15.10.5 Multi-grid Well Refinement

The first perforations in well G3 are in the ROOT grid while the remaining
perforations are in the radial grid refinement G3. Since IW/JW were specified, the
perforations in each theta block must be explicitly defined.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
RADZREF G3 ! Radial refinement around Well G3
18 3 4 9 ! IW JW K1 K2
6*3 ! Z splits
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.

Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
ROOT IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C

1 G3 X X ROOT
2 H2 1 1 H2
3 A1 14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL GRID IW JW L
1 ROOT 18 3 1 ! Gas Cap Perfs
X ROOT 18 3 2 !
X ROOT 18 3 3 !
X G3 X X 13 !
X G3 X X 14
X G3 X X 15
X G3 X X 16
.
.
.


15.10.6 Horizontal Well Refinement

Note that in a horizontal radial refinement, the IW and JW refer to the radial and
theta direction blocks, respectively. The L on the FPERF refers to the “z”
direction relative to the grid, which is the x or y direction relative to the parent
grid.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
RADXREF G3 ! Refinement for Horizontal Well G3
17 19 4 6 ! i1 i2 JW KW
2 3 4 ! X splits
4*.5 ! Z locations of center (relative to DZ)
ENDREF
CARTREF
. . . etc
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.

Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
ROOT IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C

1 G3 X X G3
.
.
.
FPERF
WELL L
1 2 ! For wells in radial LGRs
X 3 ! if no IW or JW values given,
X 4 ! then all theta in the first annulus are perforated.
X 5 !
X 6 ! For horizontal wells, the FPERF parameter L
X 7 ! refers to the “Z” direction in the LGR grid,
X 8 ! which is the “X” or “Y” direction in the parent.
.
.
.


15.10.7 Non-Uniform Refinement

This example illustrates how to cause the refinement within a coarse block to be
non-uniform. Initially the LGR/ENDLGR data causes a uniform refinement, as
illustrated in the first set of figures. The refinement is made non-uniform by
specifying the DX, DY, and/or DZ arrays for the grid. These values are relative
values; that is, the specific value does not matter. The relative values for the block
within a coarse block are used to divide the coarse block. The non-uniform data is
illustrated in the second set of figures.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
27 28 9 2
C
LGR ROOT
CARTREF G3 ! Cartesian refinement around Well G3
17 19 2 4 2 4
2 3 2 ! I splits
2 3 2 ! J splits
1 2 3 ! K splits
ENDREF
CARTREF
... etc.
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.
ARRAYS
.
.
.
ARRAYS G3
DX XVAR
.5 .5 .4 .2 .4 .5 .5 ! I = 17, 18, 19
DY YVAR
.5 .5 .4 .2 .4 .5 .5 ! J = 2, 3, 4
DZ ZVAR
1. .5 .5 .5 .3 .2 ! K = 2, 3, 4
.
.
.



15.10.8 Nested Grids

This example shows the format of the data for a nested grid situation. Note the
positioning of the ENDREF keywords.
VIP-CORE:
.
.
.
C GRID DIMENSIONS
NX NY NZ NCOMP
5 1 1 2
C
LGR ROOT ! The Whole World
CARTREF Area1
1 1 1 1 1 1
25 ! I splits
25 ! J splits
9 ! K splits
RADZREF G3 ! Radial refinement round Well G3 in Area1
18 3 4 9 ! IW JW K1 K2 in Area1 indices
6*3 ! Z splits
ENDREF
ENDREF
CARTREF Area2
5 5 1 1 1 1
35 ! I splits
25 ! J splits
12 ! K splits
ENDREF
ENDLGR
C
1.00 1.005 0.9 2.8E-6 30.0E-6 127. 60 15
C
.
.
.


Chapter
16
Miscible Options
16.1 Introduction
The VIP-EXECUTIVE miscible option can be used in a three- or four-component
mode. The three-component mode, which consists of reservoir oil, injected
solvent, and water, is an extended version of the Todd-Longstaff15 model. The
four-component mode consists of a heavy-oil component, a light-oil component
(solution gas), injected solvent, and water. The option has been a widely adopted
alternative to fully compositional models for the simulation of miscible or near
miscible processes. It introduces a mixing parameter to account for viscous
fingering and incomplete mixing in numerical gridblocks.
The miscible option accounts for the transformation between miscible and
immiscible conditions. The development and loss of miscibility are controlled by
a miscibility pressure that can be treated as a constant or as composition-
dependent. A damping function also is introduced for a smooth transition between
miscible and immiscible conditions.
R5000.0.1 Miscible Options 16-263

16.2 Governing Equations

For a three-component system, the black-oil version of VIP-EXECUTIVE was
adapted in which the injected solvent is the first hydrocarbon component and the
reservoir oil is the second (heavy) hydrocarbon component. For a four-component
system, the solution gas and stock tank oil are identified as the first and second
hydrocarbon components, respectively, and a third hydrocarbon component
(solvent) was added to the black-oil version of VIP-EXECUTIVE. The mass
balance equations for the hydrocarbon components are the same as in the original
VIP-EXECUTIVE, except that effective relative permeabilities, gas-oil capillary
pressure, viscosities, and densities (in the gravity terms) are used. Using the VIP-
EXECUTIVE formulation, the mass balance equations for the hydrocarbon
components are
∂ ( φFz i ) kk roe ρ o ρ oe g
------------------- = ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------ ------- x i⎞ ∇ ⎛ P o – ------------------------------------- D⎞ (16-1)
∂t ⎝ μ oe M o ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠
kk rge ρ g ρ ge g
+ ∇ ⋅ ⎛ ------------ ------- y i⎞ ∇ ⎛ P o + P cgoe – ------------------------------------- D⎞ + q o x i + q q y i
⎝ μ ge M g ⎠ ⎝ 5.6146 × 144g c ⎠
Here, φ is porosity, F is total hydrocarbon molar density, zi is overall mole fraction

of component i, k is absolute permeability, krge and kroe are effective relative
permeabilities to gas and oil, ρg and ρo are gas and oil mass densities, Mj (j = g, o)
is molecular weight of phase j, ρje is effective mass density, D is vertical depth, Po
is pressure, μje is effective viscosity, and qj is source term. Note that effective
densities are used only in the gravity contribution to the flow potential terms. For
simplicity, the phase equilibrium between the oil and the gas phases is represented
by pressure-dependent K-value tables:
yi = Ki ( P ) ⋅ xi (16-2)
where Ki denotes the equilibrium K-values.
16-264 Miscible Options R5000.0.1

16.3 Effective Relative Permeabilities

The effective relative permeabilities are expressed as
S o – S orm – S twb
k roe = αk rh -------------------------------------
- + ( 1 – α )k ro (16-3)
1 – S w – S twb
Sg
- + ( 1 – α )k rg
k rge = αk rh ------------------------------ (16-4)
1 – S w – S twb
where α is a parameter describing the transition between miscible and immiscible

(discussed below), krh denotes the relative permeability to miscible hydrocarbons,
Sorm is the residual oil saturation to miscible flood (a constant), and Stwb is the
water-blocking saturation that represents the amount of oil inaccessible to the
solvent as a function of water saturation. This can be seen in the following:
S orw
S twb = ----------------------
- (16-5)
k row
1 + β ----------
k rw
Parameter Sorw is the residual oil saturation in the water-oil system, and β is a
parameter that controls the severity of water blocking. A small value of β (e.g., β
= 1) represents a strong water blocking behavior. The first terms in Equations 16-
3 and 16-4 represent the relative permeabilities to the oil and gas phases when the
hydrocarbons are miscible, while the second terms represent the respective
relative permeabilities when the hydrocarbons are immiscible.
Two options are available for representation of the relative permeability to

miscible hydrocarbons, krh. The first option, which is the default option in VIP-
EXECUTIVE, assumes that krh is independent of the composition of the miscible
hydrocarbons. Consequently, the input relative permeability to oil in the water-oil
system (krow) is used:
k rh = k row (16-6)
For cases in which the relative permeability to solvent is significantly different

from that to oil, another option is needed that considers this difference and
provides a numerically consistent interpolation scheme for the expression of krh.
In this other interpolation scheme, the volume fraction of the unblocked oil in the
oil-gas mixture is first defined as
Sg
f o ≡ 1 – ------------------------------
- (16-7)
1 – S w – S twb

The residual hydrocarbon saturation, Shr , then is linearly interpolated as
S hr = f o S orw + ( 1 – f o ) ( S gr + S orm + S twb ) (16-8)
Here, Sorw and Sgr denote the residual oil saturation in the water-oil system and
the residual gas saturation, respectively. Next, the normalized hydrocarbon
saturation for the krh curve is defined as
* 1 – S w – S hr
S h = ------------------------------
- (16-9)
1 – S wc – S hr
where Swc is the irreducible water saturation. Finally, the relative permeability to
miscible hydrocarbon is interpolated as
k rh = f o k row ( S we ) + ( 1 – f o )k rg ( S ge ) (16-10)
where the effective water and gas saturations, Swe and Sge, are
*
S we ≡ S wc + ( 1 – S h ) ( 1 – S wc – S orw ) (16-11)
*
S ge ≡ S gr + S h ( 1 – S wc – S gr ) (16-12)
The above interpolation scheme provides a smooth transition for krh from the krow
curve to the krg curve as the hydrocarbon mixture moves from pure oil to pure
solvent during miscible displacement. Note that Equations 16-7 to 16-12 are
purely empirical. They imply that the relative permeability to a fluid phase is
strongly composition-dependent. The validity of this scheme has yet to be
determined.
The relative permeabilities krow and krg in Equation 16-10 ignore relative
permeability hysteresis; i.e., the drainage krg and imbibition krow curves are used
for the calculation. Relative permeability hysteresis, if invoked by the user, is
applied only to the immiscible portion; i.e., the second terms on the right sides of
Equations 16-3 and 16-4 of the effective relative permeability calculations.
The interpolation scheme described above by Equations 16-7 to 16-12 is invoked

by a CDPKRH keyword in the last (seventh) entry of the MIS card. Without this
keyword, krh defaults to krow; i.e., Equation 16-6.

16.4 Miscible-Immiscible Transition

Two options for modeling the transition between miscible and immiscible
conditions are available. The first option assumes that the miscibility pressure is a
constant. The hydrocarbons in a gridblock are assumed to be miscible if the
gridblock pressure is above the miscibility pressure and if solvent concentration is
above a threshold value. Parameter α in Equations 16-3 and 16-4 is a damping
function that provides a smooth transition between miscible and immiscible
conditions. If the hydrocarbons are completely miscible (the gridblock pressure is
above a user-input upper-bound miscibility pressure), α is assigned a value of one.
On the other hand, α has a value of zero if the fluid system is immiscible
(gridblock pressure is below a user-input lower-bound miscibility pressure).
Between the lower- and upper-bound miscibility pressures, the value of α
increases linearly from zero to one as shown in Figure 16-1. In addition, to
account for the loss of miscibility when the solvent concentration drops below a
critical value, parameter α is assigned a value of zero (immiscible condition)
whenever the solvent pseudo-saturation falls below a user-specified critical value
(a value of 0.01 was suggested by Todd and Longstaff15).
1.0
α
Sg Y3 ≥ ssminŠ
Sg Y3 < ssminŠ
0.0
pmis1 pmis2
PRESSURE
Figure 16-1: Damping Function for Miscible-Immiscible Switch
The second option employs a composition-dependent miscibility pressure

function. For the four-component miscible model, the miscibility pressure may be
specified as a function of the total hydrocarbon composition or the gas molar

fraction in the gas pseudo-phase. In the former case, the miscibility pressure is
represented as a function of the total molar fractions of the gas (z1) and the solvent
(z3). In the latter case, the miscibility pressure is assumed to be a function of the
gas molar fraction in the gas-solvent mixture (y1). This is especially useful for
simulation of the loss of miscibility that is caused by gas injection following
solvent injection. For the three-component miscible model, miscibility pressure is
a function of the solvent total molar fraction. To invoke the miscibility-pressure
table option, the user must enter the miscibility pressure function in a tabular
form. Damping function α is also available with this option. Here, the damping
function is represented only by the solid line in Figure 16-1, and parameter pmis2
(which is a variable in this option) in Figure 16-1 is the miscibility pressure
calculated from the user-input table. In addition to the miscibility pressure table,
the user must enter the size of the transition zone (i. e., the value of pmis2 -
pmis1).

16.5 Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures

The effective viscosities are described as
1 – αωμ αωμ
μ oe = μ o μm (16-13)
1 – αωμ αωμ
μ ge = μ g μm (16-14)
where the mixture viscosity, μm, is calculated from the 1/4-power mixing rule,
1⁄4 1⁄4 1⁄4

⎛1 ⎞ * ⎛1 ⎞ *⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ ------⎟ = (1 – S o ) ⎜ -----⎟ + S o ⎜ -----⎟ (16-15)
⎝ μ m⎠ ⎝ μ g⎠ ⎝ μ o⎠
The normalized mobile oil saturation, So*, is defined as
* S o – S twb – S orm
S o ≡ -------------------------------------- (16-16)
1 – S w – S twb
The mixing parameter, ωμ, is used to control the degree of fluid mixing. A value
of zero corresponds to the case of a negligible dispersion rate (piston-like
displacement). On the other hand, a value of one corresponds to complete mixing.
Chase and Todd16 suggest that the effective mass densities used in the gravity
terms be approximated by
⎧ ⎛ S o⎞ ⎛ S o⎞ ⎫
ρ oe = α ⎨ ρ o ⎜ -----⎟ + ρ g 1 – ⎜ -----⎟ ⎬ + ( 1 – α )ρ o (16-17)
⎩ ⎝ S n⎠ oe ⎝ S n⎠ oe ⎭
⎧ ⎛ S o⎞ ⎛ S o⎞ ⎫
ρ ge = α ⎨ ρ o ⎜ -----⎟ + ρ g 1 – ⎜ -----⎟ ⎬ + ( 1 – α ) ρ g (16-18)
⎩ ⎝ S n⎠ ge ⎝ S n⎠ ge ⎭
where
1⁄4 1⁄4
⎛ S o⎞ M – ( μ o ⁄ μ ge )
⎜ -----⎟ = -----------------------------------------------
1⁄4
(16-19)
⎝ S n⎠ ge M –1
1⁄4 1⁄4
⎛ S o⎞ M – ( μ o ⁄ μ oe )
⎜ -----⎟ = -----------------------------------------------
1⁄4
(16-20)
⎝ S n⎠ oe M –1
and

μ
M = ----o- (16-21)
μg
Note that Equations 16-19 and 16-20 are indeterminate when the mobility ratio
(M) is equal to one. For this case, the following alternate mixing model is used:
ρ oe = α [ ( 1 – ω ρ ) ρ o + ω ρ ρ m ] + ( 1 – α ) ρ o (16-22)
ρ ge = α [ ( 1 – ω ρ ) ρ g + ω ρ ρ m ] + ( 1 – α ) ρ g (16-23)
where
⎛ S o⎞ ⎛ S g⎞
ρ m = ρ o ⎜ -----⎟ + ρ g ⎜ -----⎟ (16-24)
⎝ S n⎠ ⎝ S n⎠
In VIP-EXECUTIVE’s miscible model, two options were implemented to

calculate effective mass densities. The first option uses Equations 16-17 through
16-24, while the second option uses Equations 16-22, 16-23, and 16-24,
regardless of the mobility ratio. Both options allow the user to input different
values for ωμ and ωρ.
The viscosity mixing parameter, ωμ, and the density mixing parameter, ωρ, are
generally treated as constants throughout the entire reservoir. The recent advance
in simulation technology suggests that characterization of the mixing parameters
for each model region or gridblock may become possible. To broaden the
capability of the miscible option, a new feature to specify either one or both
mixing parameters for each model gridblock has been added to the simulator. This
feature is invoked by entering array data for the mixing parameters in the
ARRAYS section of the VIP-EXECUTIVE initialization module. The keywords
(array names) for the viscosity and density mixing parameters are OMGV and
OMGD, respectively.
Finally, the effective capillary pressure in the gas-oil system is
P cgoe = ( 1 – α )P cgo (16-25)

16.6 PVT and VLE Calculations
16.6.1 Three-Component Option

The three-component miscible option was implemented as a subset of the VIP-
EXECUTIVE black oil model. All PVT input formats are identical to those of the
black oil model. Numerically, it is possible to simulate a miscible flood by
specifying a typical black-oil Rs (solution gas-oil ratio) table or by specifying a
zero Rs value for all saturation pressures. The latter case is consistent with Todd
and Longstaff’s original model. The former case is applicable to the general
miscible option that allows a transition between miscible and immiscible
conditions. The input of non-zero Rs values allows the solubility of the solvent in
oil to be included in immiscible regions.
The structure of VIP-EXECUTIVE code requires non-zero Rs values. As a result,

small Rs values (e.g., 0.00001) should be specified in the saturation table if the
user assumes first contact miscibility. Also, without any free gas in the oil phase,
the oil formation volume factor (Bo) and the oil viscosity in the input saturation
pressure table should be those of the dead oil. For this reason, the consistency
check for the input saturation pressure table (keyword “BOTAB”) is bypassed
when the miscible option is invoked. Furthermore, the two-dimensional (pressure-
and x1-dependent) oil phase viscosity and density tables constructed internally in
VIP-CORE are converted to one-dimensional pressure-dependent tables to
coincide with the physical system being simulated.
16.6.2 Four-Component Option

The PVT and VLE data input for the light oil (solution gas) component and the
heavy oil component is identical to the black oil model input format. VIP-
EXECUTIVE internally converts the formation volume factor tables into
compressibility factor [(Zg(P) and Zo*(P, x1*)] tables. Similarly, viscosity tables
[μg(P) and μo*(P, x1*)] and K-value tables [K1(P) and K2(P)] are constructed. For
the solvent, two property input options are available. In the first option, the
pseudo solvent-phase is treated numerically as insoluble in the pseudo-oil phase.
This corresponds to a K3 value of infinity. This option is equivalent to most four-
component options in the industry. This option requires the user to input either the
formation volume factor [Bs(P)] or the solvent compressibility factor [Zs(P)] and
the solvent viscosity [μs(P)] as a function of pressure in the solvent property input
table. In the second option, the solvent is treated numerically as partially soluble
in the pseudo-oil phase. Inclusion of the solvent solubility in oil is particularly
useful in situations where the reservoir pressure drops below the miscibility
pressure. Under this condition, the effects of oil swelling and viscosity reduction
of the oil phase by the dissolved solvent can be explained. For this option, the user

must enter the solvent K-value [K3(P)], the compressibility factor of solvent in the
oil phase [Zso(P)], the viscosity of solvent in the oil phase [μso(P)] as a function of
pressure, and the two properties [Bs(P) or Zs(P), and μs(P)] specified in the first
option. The oil and gas phase viscosities, μo and μg in Equations 16-13 and 16-14,
then are calculated as:
* * ( 1 – x3 ) x3
μ o = [ μ o ( P, x 1 ) ] ⋅ [ μ so ( P ) ] (16-26)
( 1 – y3 ) y3
*
μg = [ μg ( P ) ] ⋅ [ μs ( P ) ] (16-27)
where
* x1
x 1 ≡ ------------- (16-28)
1 – x3
The oil and gas phase compressibility factors, Zo and Zg, are calculated by
* *
Z o = Z o ( P,x 1 ) ( 1 – x 3 ) + Z so ( P ) x 3 (16-29)
* *
Z g = Z g ( P,x 1 ) ( 1 – y 3 ) + Z s ( P ) y 3 (16-30)
Note that when the first option is invoked, the mole fraction of the solvent in the
oil phase, x3, in Equations 16-26, 16-28, and 16-29 is zero.

Chapter
17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
17.1 Introduction
Two features modelling non-Darcy gas flow near well are included in the well
model:
■ Gas density and viscosity dependence on both wellbore pressure and

gridblock pressure.
■ Well skin dependence on flow rate.
For the first option (pressure-dependent gas density and viscosity), the Russell
Goodrich17 and pseudo-pressure18 equations are implemented. For the second
option (rate-dependent skin factor), the user can specify a rate-dependent skin
factor for each well or for each perforation. If the rate-dependent skin factor for a
well is specified, then the user can choose either the invert thickness, invert
permeability-thickness, or constant option to allocate the rate-dependent skin to
its perforations. The pressure-dependent gas property option and rate-dependent
skin option can be invoked separately.
R5000.0.1 Non-Darcy Gas Flow 17-273

17.2 Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties

The user can choose either the Russell Goodrich equation or pseudo-pressure
equation to model gas properties in the well model. Both methods account for the
variation of gas viscosity and density over the pressure difference between the
gridblock and wellbore pressures. The Russell Goodrich method uses an average
of the gridblock pressure and the wellbore pressure adjusted to the gridblock
depth, 0.5[Pl + Pbh + γ(Dl - Dref)], to calculate the density and viscosity of the
injection and production gas. The pseudo-pressure method uses an integrated
average between these two pressures.
P bh + γ ( D l – D ref )
ρ
∫ -----g dp
μg
ρ gl Pl
------- = ------------------------------------------------------- (17-1)
μ gl P bh + γ ( D l – D ref ) – P l
where:
ρgl gas density
μgl gas viscosity
Pl gridblock pressure
Pbh flowing bottom-hole pressure at datum depth, Dref
γ pressure gradient
Dl subsea depth
Dref datum depth,
and subscript l represents the l’th perforation.
Without the non-Darcy gas flow option, gridblock pressure is used to calculate
wellbore viscosity and density. The bottom-hole pressure is not included in the
calculation.
The pseudo-pressure method requires an integration between the gridblock and

wellbore pressures. The trapezoidal rule with Romberg’s extrapolation method19
is used for integration. This integration method allows a user to specify a
maximum relative error for integration. For a black oil model, density and
viscosity is a function of pressure only. Integration of the density-to-viscosity ratio
is calculated for each saturation pressure in the reconstructed PVT tables.
However, for a compositional model, viscosity and density are also functions of
compositions. The integration is needed each time the well density-to-viscosity
ratio is calculated.
17-274 Non-Darcy Gas Flow R5000.0.1

17.2.1 Input Requirements

The keyword WNDGDV is used to select the pressure-dependent gas density and
viscosity for the well model. The RG option invokes the Russell Goodrich
method, the PP option is for the pseudo pressure method, and the STD option is
for the standard method (i.e., gridblock pressure is used to calculate wellbore
viscosity and density). When the pseudo-pressure method is selected, the user can
specify the maximum relative error and the maximum number of intervals to be
used in the integration. The default maximum relative error is 0.001, and the
default maximum number of intervals used in the trapezoidal rule is 64.
17.2.2 Recommendations
The Russell Goodrich method and the pseudo-pressure method usually give the
same results except in the region where the density-to-viscosity ratio is not a
linear function of pressure and the pressure difference between the gridblock and
bottom-hole pressures is large. In low- and high-pressure regions, the density-to-
viscosity curve is usually a straight line. Both methods yield the same results in
those regions. In the middle transition region, the results could be different.
However, if the pressure difference between the gridblock pressure and bottom-
hole pressure is small, then both methods give approximately the same answers.
The pseudo-pressure method is recommended for use for calculation of gas

density and viscosity. Test runs showed that the CPU times for both methods are
about the same.

17.3 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor In The Well Model

The following well model is used to calculate the flow rate for each perforation:
2π ⎧ k rgl ⎫
Q gl = ------------------------------------------------- ⎨ k l h l --------------- [ P l – P bh – γ ( D l – D ref ) ] ⎬
r bl μ gl B gl
ln ------- + S l + D sl Q gl ⎩ ⎭
r wl
(17-2)
where
Qgl gas surface rate
Pl gridblock pressure
γ pressure gradient
Dl subsea depth of the l’th perforation
Dref datum depth
krgl relative permeability for the gas phase
μgl gas viscosity
klhl product of permeability and thickness
rbl equivalent radius of the well block
rwl wellbore radius
Sl skin factor
Dsl rate-dependent skin factor
Bgl formation volume factor
Without rate-dependent skin, the flow rate, Qgl*, is expressed as:
* 2π ⎧ k rgl ⎫
Q gl = ----------------------- ⎨ k l h l --------------- [ P l – P bh – γ ( D l – D ref ) ] ⎬ (17-3)
r bl μ gl B gl
ln ------- + S l ⎩ ⎭
r wl
The flow rate with rate-dependent skin is expressed as a fraction of the flow rate
without rate-dependent skin as shown in the following equation:

*
Q gl = f l Q gl (17-4)
where
r bl
ln ------- + S l
r wl
f l = ---------------------------------------------------
- (17-5)
r bl *
ln ------- + S l + f l D sl Q gl
r wl
Therefore, fl is a function of Qgl*:
2
f l = –-----------------------------------
a + a + 4a-
(17-6)
2
where
r bl
ln ------- + S l
r wl
a = ----------------------
- (17-7)
*
D sl Q gl
17.3.1 Allocation of Rate-Dependent Skin Factors to Each Perforation

The well model employs rate-dependent skin factors for each perforation. The
user is allowed to specify the rate-dependent skin factor for each perforation or for
a well. When the rate-dependent skin factor for a well, Ds, is specified, three
options are available to allocate the well skin factor to its perforations:
■ inverse thickness option
■ constant option
■ inverse thickness-permeability option.
The inverse thickness option is recommended and is the default option.
Inverse Thickness Option
The inverse thickness option is based on theory20 and laboratory observations.21

The following equation is used to calculate the skin factor for each perforation:
npe f
Ds × ∑ hi
i=1 -
D sl = --------------------------- (17-8)
hl

where
Ds rate-dependent skin factor for a well
Dsl rate-dependent skin factor of l’th perforation
hl perforation thickness
Constant Option
If the user does not want to scale the rate-dependent skin factor for each
perforation, then the constant option can be chosen. The program assigns each
perforation the same rate-dependant skin factor as the input data
D sl = D s (17-9)
Inverse Thickness-Permeability Option
The basic assumption for inverse thickness-permeability option is that each

perforation initially has the same non-Darcy skin as the well. It also assumes that
the flow rate is proportional to permeability times thickness.
nperf
Ds × ∑ ki hi
i=1
D sl = -------------------------------
- (17-10)
kl hl

The user can specify a rate-dependent skin factor for a well using a WDNDG card
or for each perforation using an FPERF card. Three options can be chosen in the
WDNDG card to allocate the well skin factor to each perforation. They are
inverse thickness, constant, and inverse permeability-thickness options as
represented by the keywords INVK, CON, and INVKH, respectively. The WDL
option in the FPERF card is used to specify the rate-dependent skin for each
perforation.
To use this option, the user needs to pay attention to the following two conditions:
■ When the rate-dependent skin factor option is specified, the well index cannot
be zero. Well index set to zero is a special case in VIP-EXECUTIVE that
means the well index is adjusted to honor both the rate and bottom-hole
pressure constraints. In such a case, the rate-dependent skin factor does not
have any meaning. Thus, an error message prints in the output and the
simulation run terminates.

■ If the perforation skin factors are calculated from the input well skin factor,
each time new perforation information is specified in the FPERF card, the
program recalculates the skin factor for each perforation.


Chapter
18
Numerical Solution
18.1 Introduction
VIP contains options for both the fully implicit and IMPES formulation. For the
same timestep size, the IMPES method is much faster than the fully implicit
method. The IMPES method solves the component conservation equations
explicitly; the timestep size is therefore constrained by the stability limit. The
fully implicit method is unconditionally stable and allows large timesteps to be
taken. For problems with small gridblocks, such as coning problems, the fully
implicit method is overall much faster. The procedure of numerical solutions for
the IMPES method is discussed in the following sections.
18.2 Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations

Equation 9-1 is discretized to form
Kn
VM
------- [ ( φFz i ) n + 1 – ( φFz i ) n ] + n+1
∑ [ Toik
n+1
ΔP ok + T gik ΔP gk ]
Δt
k=1
Kf
n+1 n+1
+ ∑ [ T oik f ΔP okf + T gik f ΔP gkf ]
kf = 1
Kw
+ ∑ [ T oikw ΔP okw + T gik w ΔP gkw ] = 0, i = 1, ..., N c – 1 (18-1)

kw = 1
where Vm is the gridblock volume and superscripts n and n+1 denote the timestep
level. The second, third, and fourth terms in Equation 18-1 represent the regular
(non-fault) inter-grid flow term (Kn being the total number of regular neighbors),
the inter-grid flow term for fault connections (Kf being the total number of
neighbors through fault connection), and the injection/production term (Kw being
the total number of wells existed in the gridblock), respectively. Equation 18-1 is
in units of lb-mol/day. For gridblock M, the inter-grid transmissibility terms are:
R5000.0.1 Numerical Solution 18-281

n+1 n+1 n+1 K ro ρ o x i n

T oik ≡ 0.5 [ TM ( M, I ) + TM ( MM, I ) ]T k -------------------
μo up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2 (18-2)
n+1 n+1 n+1 K rg ρ g y i n

T gik ≡ 0.5 [ TM ( M, I ) + TM ( MM, I ) ]T k -------------------
μg up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2 (18-3)
n
n+1 n+1
0.5 [ ( ρ o M o ) M + ( ρ o M o ) MM ] g
ΔP ok = P o ( M ) – P o ( MM ) – -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( D M – D MM )
5.16146 ⋅ 144g c
k = k or kf (18-4)
n
n+1 n+1 0.5 [ ( ρ g M g ) M + ( ρ g M g ) MM ] g
ΔP gk = P o ( M ) – P o ( MM ) – -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( D M – D MM )
5.16146 ⋅ 144g c
n
+ [ P cg ( M ) – P cg ( MM ) ] , k = k or k f (18-5)
Here, MM denotes the number representing the neighboring gridblocks and Tk (k

= k or kf) is the inter-grid transmissibility for regular or fault connections.
TM(M,I) is the transmissibility multiplier, which is pressure dependent, in the
compaction option for gridblock M in the horizontal (I = 1) or the vertical (I = 2)
direction. The arithmetical average is used for the inter-grid transmissibility
multiplier, which is updated in every iteration based on the new gridblock
pressure (reversible option) or the minimum historical gridblock pressure
(irreversible option). When the compaction option is invoked, the user must enter
the areal and vertical transmissibility multipliers as a function of pressure. The
phase mobility terms are evaluated explicitly and are based on upstream
weighting. Explicit, arithmetical average densities also are used for the gravity
force calculation.
The injection and production rates are modeled by
n
⎧ K ro ρ o x i ⎫
T k w oi ≡ ⎨ WI K h ------------------- ⎬ (18-6)
⎩ μo ⎭kw
n
⎧ K rg ρ g y i ⎫
T k w gi ≡ ⎨ WI K h ------------------- ⎬ (18-7)
⎩ μg ⎭kw
ΔP kw j ≡ P o ( M ) – P W – γ ( D M – D ref ), j = o, g (18-8)
18-282 Numerical Solution R5000.0.1

Here, WIk is the well index, h is gridblock thickness, Pw is bottom-hole pressure at

reference depth, Dref, and γ is the wellbore pressure gradient. For gas injectors, the
wellbore pressure gradients are calculated based on properties of the gridblock
containing the top perforation (gridblock M1):
ρ g ( M1 )M g g
γ = ----------------------------------
- (18-9)
5.6146 ⋅ 144g c
For producers, the wellbore pressure gradient is estimated as

Kp
K rw γ w K ro γ o K rg γ g⎞ n
⎛ --------------
∑ ⎝ μw - + ------------
Kh
μo
- + -------------⎠
μg
k
γ = k-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=1
Kp
- (18-10)
⎛K rw K ro K rg⎞
n
∑ ⎝ μw μo μg ⎠ k
Kh --------
- + -------
- + --------
k 1
where
ρj Mj g
γ j = -----------------------------------, j = o, g (18-11)
5.6146 ⋅ 144g c
o
ρw Bw Mw g
γw = ----------------------------------
- (18-12)
5.6146 ⋅ 144g c
In Equation 18-10, the summations are taken over all (Kp) perforated layers.
Variables γj in Equations 18-11 and 18-12 are in units of psi/ft.
18.2.1 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation

Equation 9-2 is discretized to form
Kn
VM
------- [ ( φF ) n + 1 – ( φF ) n ] + ∑ [ Tok
n+1 n+1
ΔP ok + T gk ΔP gk ]
Δt
k=1
Kf
n+1 n+1
+ ∑ [ T okf ΔP okf + T gkf ΔP gkf ]
kf = 1
Kw
+ ∑ [ T okw ΔP okw + T gkw ΔP gkw ] = 0 (18-13)

kw = 1

where Tmko, Tmkg (k = k of kf ), Tko, and Tk are summations of Equations 18-2, 18-
3, 18-6, and 18-7, respectively, over all hydrocarbon components.
18.2.2 Water Balance Equation

The water balance equation, Equation 9-3, is discretized to form
Kn Kf
VM
------- [ ( φB w S w ) n + 1 – ( φB w S w ) n ] + ∑
n+1
[ T wk ΔP wk ] + ∑
n+1
[ T wk f ΔP wkf ]
Δt
k=1 kf = 1
Kw
n+1
+ ∑ [ T wkw ΔP wkw ] – Q Na = 0 (18-14)
kw = 1
where
n+1 n+1 n+1 K rw B w n

T wk ≡ .5 [ TM ( M, I ) + TM ( MM, I ) ]T k ----------------
μw up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2 (18-15)
n
⎧ K rw B w ⎫
T wkw ≡ ⎨ WI K h ---------------- ⎬ (18-16)
⎩ μw ⎭kw
o
n+1 n+1 ρw Mw g n
ΔP wk = P o ( M ) – P o ( MM ) – ----------------------------------- [ B w ( MN ) ] ( D M – D MM )
5.6146 ⋅ 144g c
n
– [ P cw ( M ) – P cw ( MM ) ] , k = k or k f ; MN = Max ( M, MM ) (18-17)
where
ΔP kw j ≡ P o ( M ) – P W – γ ( D M – D ref ) (18-18)
Equation 18-14 is in units of STB/day. As shown in Equation 18-17, the inter-grid

gravity term is calculated based on the reciprocal water formation volume factor,
Bw, of the gridblock with higher grid number. This is in contrast with the
arithmetical average used for the hydrocarbon equations. For producers, the
wellbore pressure gradient is calculated by Equation 18-10. For water injectors, it
is calculated on the basis of the properties of the gridblock containing the first
perforation of the well (gridblock M1):

o
ρ w M w B w ( M1 )g
γw = --------------------------------------
- (18-19)
5.6146 ⋅ 144g c
The water influx is calculated by the Carter-Tracy Method 2:
Bw n
] } ⎛ ------⎞
n+1 n+1 n+1 n n+1
Q Na = { A Na + B Na [ P o ( M ) – P o ( M ) (18-20)
⎝ μ w⎠
Here, QNa denotes the amount (in STB/day) of water influx into the gridblock.
ANa and BNa are parameters defined in the Carter-Tracy Method.

18.3 Linearization of the Equations

By application of the Newton-Raphson method, the (2Nc + 2) equations are
linearized in terms of changes in the (2Nc + 2) primary unknowns: xi (i = 1, ..., Nc
- 1), L, zi (i = 1, ..., Nc - 1), F, Sw, and Po. The resulting system of equations for Nc
= 3 is given by:
g x11 g x12 g L1 g z11 g z12 g p1 Δ x1 R M1

g x21 g x22 g L2 g z21 g z22 g p2 Δx 2 R M2
g x31 g x32 g L3 g z31 g z32 g p3 ΔL R M3
B f1 B1 T1 G1 Δz 1 R M4
Δz 2
B f2 B 2 T2 G2 = R M5 (18-21)
B Tf Gf ΔF R M6
B s T w G w ΔS W R M7
C x1 C x2 C L C z1 C z2 C f C s C p ΔP o R M8
H D W ΔP W RW
The first Nc equations are the fugacity equality equations followed by (Nc + 1)
mass conservation equations. The penultimate equation is the saturation constraint
equation, while the last equation is the implicit bottom-hole pressure constraint
equation.
Each element of the Jacobian matrix is an NB x NB diagonal submatrix, where

NB is the number of gridblocks, except for Ti (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), Tf, Tw, G, H, and
Dw . Here, Ti, Tf, and Tw are NB x NB tridiagonal, pentadiagonal, and seven-
diagonal submatrices for one-, two-, and three-dimensional problems,
respectively. For problems with nonstandard connections, the T matrices are
general sparse matrices. The G matrices are NB x NIMPWL sparse matrices
arising from the bottom-hole pressure derivatives in the conservation equations,
where NIMPWL is the number of wells with implicit bottom-hole pressure
calculation. H is an NIMPWL x NB sparse matrix consisting of the gridblock
pressure derivatives in the well equations, and Dw is an NIMPWL x NIMPWL
diagonal matrix consisting of the bottom-hole pressure derivatives in the well
equations.
The submatrices in Equation 18-21 are given by:
R Mi ≡ ( x i Φ oi – y i Φ gi ) i = 1, ...,N c (18-22)
∂R Mi
g xim ≡ – -----------
- m = 1, ...,N c – 1 (18-23)
∂x m

∂R Mi
g Li ≡ – -----------
- (18-24)
∂L
∂R Mi
g zim ≡ – -----------
- (18-25)
∂z m
∂R Mi
g Pi ≡ – -----------
- (18-26)
∂P O
R M ( Nc + i ) ≡ – [ left side of Equation 18 – 1 ] (18-27)
∂R M ( Nc + i )
B fi ≡ – ------------------------
- (18-28)
∂z i
∂R MNc + i
- i = 1, ...,N c – 1
B i ≡ – -------------------- (18-29)
∂F
∂R MNc + i
T i ≡ – --------------------
- i = 1, ...,N c – 1 (18-30)
∂P o
∂R MNc + i
G i ≡ – --------------------
- i = 1, ...,N c – 1 (18-31)
∂P W
R M ( 2Nc ) ≡ – [ left side of Equation 18-13 ] (18-32)
∂R M ( 2Nc )
B ≡ – --------------------- (18-33)
∂F
∂R M ( 2Nc )
T f ≡ – --------------------- (18-34)
∂P o
∂R M ( 2Nc )
G f ≡ – --------------------- (18-35)
∂P W
R M ( 2Nc + 1 ) ≡ – [ left side of Equation ( 18 – 14 ) ] (18-36)
∂R M ( 2Nc + 1 )
B s ≡ – ---------------------------- (18-37)
∂F

∂R M ( 2Nc + 1 )
T w ≡ – ---------------------------- (18-38)
∂P o
∂R M ( 2Nc + 1 )
G w ≡ – ---------------------------- (18-39)
∂P W
⎧ RT ⎫
R M ( 2Nc + 2 ) ≡ – ⎨ 1 – F [ ( 1 – L )Z g + LZ o ] --------- – S w ⎬ (18-40)
⎩ Po ⎭
∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 ) ∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 )
C xm ≡ – ---------------------------- – ---------------------------- m = 1, ..., N c – 1 (18-41)
∂x m ∂x Nc
∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 )
C L ≡ – ---------------------------- (18-42)
∂L
∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 ) ∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 )
C zm ≡ – ---------------------------- – ---------------------------- m = 1, ..., N c – 1 (18-43)
∂z m ∂z Nc
∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 )
C f ≡ – ---------------------------- (18-44)
∂F
Cs ≡ –1 (18-45)
∂R M ( 2Nc + 2 )
C p ≡ – ---------------------------- (18-46)
∂P o
∂R W
H ≡ ---------- (18-47)
∂P o
∂R W
D W ≡ ---------- (18-48)
∂P W

18.4 Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations

The solution of the simultaneous equations over one timestep for the IMPES
formulation is outlined below. The procedure for the implicit formulation is
similiar.
1. For gridblocks adjacent to aquifers, parameters ANa and BNa are calculated. In
addition, explicit properties such as inter-grid mobilities, inter-grid gravity
gradients, capillary pressures, and well-block mobilities are calculated.
2. The Jacobian coefficient matrix in Equation 18-21 is calculated.
3. The first (2Nc + 2) x NB equations of Equation 18-21 are reduced to upper

triangular form in a forward elimination step. The resulting matrix is given by
*
* * *
I g x12 g L1 g z11 g z12
* *
g p1 R M1
Δx 1
*
I
*
g L2
*
g z21
*
g z22
*
g p2 Δx 2 R M2
*
*
I g z31 g z32
* *
g p3 ΔL R M3
Δz 1 *
B f1 B1 T1 G1 R M4
B f2 B 2 T2 G2 Δz 2 = R* (18-49)
M5
* * ΔF
I Tf Gf *
R M6
* * ΔS w
I Tw Gw *
R M7
* * ΔP o
Cp GT *
R M8
H D W ΔP W RW
The ΔPo and ΔPW equations in Equation 18-49 can be written as
* * ΔP o *
Cp GT R M8
AX = = = b (18-50)
H D W ΔP W RW
4. Residuals in the hydrocarbon balance and the water balance equations (RM6
and RM7 in Equation 18-21) are compared with the material balance error
tolerances (TOLHC in lb-mole/day for hydrocarbons and TOLRW in STB/
day for water). If the residuals do not exceed TOLHC and TOLRW, then the
Newton iteration is assumed to have converged. In this case, the computation
jumps to Step 15. If the maximum number of iterations have been performed,
the computation jumps to Step 13.

5. Equation 18-50 is solved by a linear equation solver. After the pressure

solution is obtained, direct back substitution is performed to determine the
new F and Sw using the Jacobian matrix given by Equation 18-49. The total
mole fractions of components i, zi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), are not calculated from the
direct back substitution. They are calculated to satisfy the hydrocarbon
species material balance exactly. This is accomplished by solving for F n+1 in
Equation 18-1. This procedure guarantees zero material balance error for
components 1 to Nc-1 if no implicit wells are involved. After Δzi are
determined, back substitution is performed to obtain ΔL and Δxi (i=1, ..., Nc-
1).
6. For the first iteration, the IMPES stability is tested. If the ratio of the total
phase outflow to the current phase amount in any gridblock for any phase,
FACIMP, exceeds a pre-specified limit (STSLIM; default value 1.0), the
timestep size factor is set equal to the user-specified IMPES stability target
throughput (STSTAR; default value 0.9) divided by FACIMP and the timestep
is repeated by moving to Step 14.
7. The maximum changes in Po, Sw , L, and zi over the iteration are calculated. If
none of the maximum changes exceeds the user-supplied maximum allowable
change (DPLIM, DSWLIM, DVLIM, and DZLIM), then the weighting factor
U1 is assigned a value of one. Otherwise, U1 is set equal to the minimum
value among the ratios of the maximum allowable change for each unknown
to its predicted maximum change over the iteration.
8. If none of the maximum changes over the iteration exceeds the user-specified
convergence tolerance (TOLP, TOLS, TOLV, and TOLZ), then the Newton
iteration is considered to have converged.
9. All primary unknowns are updated. The new values (at iteration level m+1)
are set equal to the most recent values (level m) plus U1 multiplied by the
calculated changes over the iteration. If either the new L or V in any two-
phase gridblock becomes negative, the variable is assigned a new value of
zero and the gridblock is redesignated as a single-phase block.
10. If the Newton iteration has converged and residuals need to be recomputed for
iteration summary output, the computation is returned to Step 2. If the Newton
iterations have converged and residuals are not needed, the computation
jumps to Step 15.
11. If the black oil option is used, simple analytical expressions are used to detect
the appearance of the second phase and the phase compositions. For the
compositional model, saturation pressures for those single-phase gridblocks
showing a noticeable change in the total mole fraction of any component over
the timestep (i.e., |Δzi| greater than 10-6 for any component i) are calculated to
detect the appearance of the second hydrocarbon phase. If the calculated
saturation pressure is larger than the gridblock pressure, the second phase is
assumed to have formed during the iteration and a flash calculation is
performed to determine xi, yi, and L. However, if the saturation pressure
calculation in the previous or current Newton iteration fails to converge, the

flash calculation also is performed to detect the appearance of the second

hydrocarbon phase. For fluids that have shown some difficulty in phase
behavior convergence (e.g., near the critical point), the user may elect to
provide a more robust flash treatment, where flash calculations are performed
for all known two-phase gridblocks to precondition the mass balance
calculation. This flash calculation is performed in this step, and the predicted
xi, yi, and L are updated. This option can be invoked by entering a positive
number for the variable KMAX2 in the input KMAX card. This option also
can be combined with the option of bypassing the first Nc equations (the
fugacity equality equations) in the Newton method by entering the keyword
SS in the KMAX card.
12. A new iteration is performed by returning to Step 2.
13. If the Newton iteration failed to converge, the timestep size is cut by one-half
(smaller factors for subsequent failures) and the timestep is repeated by
returning to Step 1.
14. If the IMPES stability check failed, then the new timestep size is set equal to
the old timestep size multiplied by the timestep size factor determined in Step
6 and the timestep is repeated by returning to Step 1.
15. If the Newton iteration converged, the maximum changes in Po, Sw , Sg, zi,
and V and their ratios to the maximum allowable change over a timestep
(DPMAX, DSMAX, DZMAX, DVMAX) are calculated. If any of the ratios
exceeds the value MAXOVR (default 1.5), the new timestep size is set equal
to the old timestep size divided by the maximum ratio, and the timestep is
repeated by returning to Step 1.
16. The converged solution is accepted. The material balance errors for the total
hydrocarbon and water over the timestep are calculated. A new timestep size
is selected, and a new timestep is started by returning to Step 1. The material
balance error for water or total hydrocarbon is defined as
F ip – F iip + C pd – C in
Err = ---------------------------------------------------
- (18-51)
C pd + C in
where Fip, Fiip, Cpd, and Cin (in STB for water or lb-mole for total
hydrocarbon) are fluid in place, initial fluid in place, cumulative production,
and cumulative injection of water or total hydrocarbon, respectively.

18.5 Solution of Linear System of Equations

Equation 18-50 is solved by a linear equation solver. The solvers available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE are GAUSS, BLITZ,22 and EXCEL.23 Except for GAUSS, which
is a direct solver, the solvers are semi-iterative solvers based on variants of the
preconditioned, generalized conjugate residual method (PGCR). The
preconditioning step utilizes incomplete Gaussian elimination to form an
approximate factorization of the Jacobian matrix. In terms of execution speed and
storage, GAUSS is not competitive in comparison to the PGCR-based solvers,
except for relatively small 2-D problems.
18.5.1 Gauss
This is a direct solver that uses Gaussian elimination with the gridblocks ordered
by D4 ordering (alternate diagonal). It can solve a system of equations arising
from the 5-point (2-D) and 7-point (3-D) finite-difference approximations. The
implicit well constraint equations, fully implicit, and IMPES formulations can all
be handled by GAUSS. However, it is not applicable to problems with faults.
18.5.2 BLITZ
BLITZ is based on the preconditioned, generalized minimal residual method
(GMRES).49 It can handle the following problems:
■ Single or multiple unknowns per gridblock (IMPES or fully implicit

formulation).
■ Five- and nine-point finite-difference equations.
■ Implicit well constraint equations.
■ Non-neighbor connections resulting from logically vertical faults.
■ Dual permeability and porosity formulations.
There are many parameters that the user can adjust to improve the convergence
rate of the solver. Some of the more important parameters are described below.

Appropriate Problem Type Preconditioning/Ranking
Parameter 5-pt. 9-pt. fault crossflow power vector storage
JLU1 - Preconditioning option for IMPES

or Constrained Pressure Residual
(CPR) method
-1 D4 Gauss yes no no no 1 9 9
0 Reduced system/MNF3 yes no no no 9 1 1
1 Reduced system/MILU(0) yes no no no 2 5 2
2 Line Gauss-Seidel yes yes yes no 8 4 5
3 Modified nested factorization 1, yes yes yes yes 3 8 6
MNF1 (nested factorization at the
2-D level)
4 Modified nested factorization 2, yes yes yes yes 7 7 7

MNF2 (MILU(0) at the 2-D level)
5 Modified nested factorization 3, yes yes no yes 6 6 8
MNF3 (RB/MILU(0) at the 2-D
level)
6 MVP1 yes no yes no 4 2 3
Appropriate Problem Type Preconditioning/Ranking
Parameter 5-pt. 9-pt. fault crossflow power vector storage
JLUN - Preconditioning option for fully

implicit formulation
0 Reduced system/diagonal scaling yes no no no 6 2 1
1 Reduced system/ILU(0) yes no no no 1 5 7
2 Line Gauss-Seidel yes yes yes no 5 6 3
3 Modified Nested Factorization 1 yes yes yes yes 2 7 4
4 Diagonal Scaling yes yes yes yes 7 1 2
Parameter

JCOR - Constraint option associated with the pressure solution (applicable to

JLU1=0 or 1)
0 No constraints
1 Use line residual constraints
JOPT - Grid ordering option for the preconditioner
0 Automatic
1 xyz
2 yxz
3 xzy
4 zxy
5 yzx
6 zyx
JCPR - Constrained pressure residual method option (fully implicit formulation
only)
0 No pressure predictor step
1 Use pressure predictor step
In the preceding tables, the preconditionings are ranked in decreasing order of

power, vectorization, and storage requirements (e.g., the most powerful
preconditioning for the fully implicit formulation is REDUCED SYSTEM/
ILU(0)). The more powerful the preconditioning the fewer iterations are required
for convergence. The power rankings are to be taken as ‘rule of thumb’
observations only. Also the implicit MVP preconditioning options are currently
not implemented to be used in conjunction with the CPR method. However, the
pressure MVP preconditionings (JLU1 = 6 or JLU1 = 7) may be used with the
CPR method for other implicit preconditionings.
RS/MILU(0) is the default preconditioner for problems with no fault connections.

Typically, it is the fastest option for such systems. Nested factorization (MNF1) is
the default preconditioner for systems with logically vertical faults. Since the
convergence rate of nested factorization is sensitive to grid ordering, the JOPT
parameter must be chosen carefully. For MNF1, the best convergence rate is
obtained by ordering the direction with the largest transmissibility first. This is
usually the z-direction for typical reservoir models. For MNF2 and MNF3, the
condition is more relaxed. It is sufficient to have the direction with the largest
transmissibility ordered among the first two directions of grid ordering. The
direction with the largest dimension usually is chosen as the first direction to
improve vectorization.

18.5.3 EXCEL
EXCEL also is based on preconditioned ORTHOMIN. The preconditioners are
based on incomplete LU factorization with natural ordering and any level of infills
may be specified. EXCEL can handle both IMPES and fully implicit
formulations. In addition, it can handle problems with arbitrary nonstandard
connections that are not logically vertical. The data structure of EXCEL is based
on sparse matrix storage; therefore, it is not very efficient on a vector computer.
For some problems, it is an order of magnitude slower than BLITZ. The
parameters for controlling the EXCEL solver are described in the VIP-
EXECUTIVE Reference Manual, Chapter 7.


Chapter
19
00000
19.1 Introduction
The Optimal Material Balance Option is the combination of three special features
implemented in the IMPES version of VIP-EXECUTIVE to improve
computational efficiency through code restructuring. These features are
■ A new procedure for convergence control and updating unknowns,
■ Partial Jacobian update,
■ Criteria for single-phase stability test.
The first feature is applicable to both the equation-of-state compositional and

black-oil models of VIP-EXECUTIVE, while the other two features are
applicable to the equation-of-state compositional model only.
Two techniques originally developed for the Optimal Material Balance Option are
now available also with the Standard Iterated IMPES formulation:
■ Reordering of gridblocks based on fluid types,
■ Vectorization of saturation pressure and flash calculations.
Results of test runs indicate that when using the Optimal Material Balance Option,
VIP-EXECUTIVE runs 3.4 to 4.7 times faster (with approximately the same
number of timesteps) than the standard iterated IMPES formulation for the SPE
5th Comparative Solution Problems24 (Scenarios 1 to 3). Similar speedups also
are obtained for pattern or partial-field-type systems with a limited number of
wells and no iterative well management calculations. For full-field black-oil and
compositional models with extensive well management calculations, CPU time
improvements of 43 to 55% were observed.
R5000.0.1 Optimal Material Balance Option 19-297

19.2 Unknown Update and Convergence Control

In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the finite-difference representation
of the total hydrocarbon mass balance equation and the water mass balance
equation, Equations 9-2 and 9-3, are nonlinear because of the terms φ F and φ Bw
Sw; unknowns F and Sw are updated using the conventional Newton back
substitution procedure. Consequently, the material balances for hydrocarbons and
water are not satisfied identically during each Newton step and several iterations
may be required before the residuals reduce to an acceptable level. This procedure
is different from that of Young and Stephenson5 and Young25 in which unknowns
F and Sw were updated to satisfy the material balances exactly. For the
hydrocarbon species mass balance equations, Equation 9-1, the VIP-
EXECUTIVE procedure to update unknowns zi, is similar to that of References 5
and 25, where the original finite-difference equation without linearization (rather
than the direct back substitution) is applied to ensure a good material balance.
Because of the difference in the unknown update procedure described above, the
convergence criteria in VIP-EXECUTIVE are also different from those in
References 5 and 25. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, the Newton iteration is considered
converged if the residuals in Equations 9-2 and 9-3 or the changes in all primary
unknowns during a Newton iteration drop below the user-specified tolerances. On
the other hand, with preservation of the material balance for each component, the
simulators presented in References 5 and 25 determine the convergence of the
Newton iteration through the residual in saturation constraint Equation 9-9. With
this procedure, most timesteps converge after only one outer (Newton) iteration,
as compared with the two or more iterations required for VIP-EXECUTIVE.
To reduce the number of Newton iterations in VIP-EXECUTIVE, several

modifications were made. First, the unknown updating procedure for Equations 9-
2 and 9-3 was modified to satisfy the material balance identically. Second, the
convergence criterion used in Reference 25 (the maximum allowable residual in
the saturation constraint equation) was adopted. Finally, the bottom-hole pressure
and well rate calculation procedures in VIP-EXECUTIVE were modified to
ensure a good material balance.
As discussed earlier, with the general formulation in VIP-EXECUTIVE, the

finite-difference representations of Equations 9-2 and 9-3 are nonlinear.
Consequently, using the conventional back substitution procedure for unknowns F
and Sw , the Newton method requires several iterations before the hydrocarbon
and water residuals reduce to an acceptable level. To satisfy the material balance
exactly during each iteration, unknowns F and Sw must be updated directly from
the non-linearized finite-difference representations of Equations 9-2 and 9-3:
19-298 Optimal Material Balance Option R5000.0.1

Kn
VM n + 1 n + 1 n
------- [ φ
Δt
F – ( φF ) ] + ∑ [ TMko ΔPko + TMkg ΔPkg ]
k=1
Kv
+ ∑ [ T kwo ΔP kwo + T kwg ΔP kwg ] = 0 (19-1)

kv = 1
Kn Kw
VM n + 1 n + 1 n + 1 n
-------- [ φ
Δt
B w S w – ( φB w S w ) ] + ∑ [ TMkw ΔPkw ] + ∑ [ T kkw ΔP kww ] = 0 (19-2)
k=1 kw = 1
Here, VM is the gridblock volume, superscripts n+1 and n denote new and old
timestep levels, and the second and third terms in both equations are the inter-grid
(including faults) flow and source terms, respectively. Using the IMPES
formulation, the flow coefficients (TMkj and Tkwj, j = o, g, w) are evaluated
explicitly.
After solving the simultaneous pressure and well constraint equations, the new
pressure of each gridblock and the new wellbore pressures are determined. Since
the porosity and water formation volume factor are only a function of gridblock
pressure, φn+1 and Bwn+1 can be updated readily from the new pressures.
Unknowns Fn+1 and Swn+1 then can be calculated directly from Equations 19-1
and 19-2. With this new procedure, the total hydrocarbon and water material
balances are satisfied exactly.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, implementation of this procedure alone does not always

guarantee a good material balance for gridblocks containing wells. A potential
problem results from the procedures used in updating the new well rates during
each Newton iteration. As mentioned, the reservoir mass balance and well
constraint equations are fully coupled; the changes in reservoir and wellbore
pressures over one iteration are calculated simultaneously by a linear solver from
which the new reservoir and wellbore pressures are determined. The primary
unknowns, Sw , F, and zi, are then updated using the new reservoir and wellbore
pressures. At the end of each iteration, the new well rates in each perforation are
not directly calculated from the new wellbore pressure determined by the linear
solver. Instead, the wellbore pressure and well rate for each perforation are
updated to satisfy the following well constraint equation exactly:

Kp g
K rj ρ j
q = WI I o BSEP ∑ Kh ∑ -----------
- [ P l – P w – γ ( D l – D ref ) ]
μj
l=1 j=0
Kp
K rw ρ w
+ WI I w ∑ Kh ---------------- [ P l – P w – γ ( D l – D ref ) ] (19-3)
μw
l=1
Here, q is the user-specified well rate; Wl is well index; Io and Iw are either 0 or 1,
depending on well specifications; Pl and PW are gridblock and wellbore pressures
at the reference depth; γ is the wellbore pressure gradient; and Dl and Dref are
gridblock and reference depths, respectively. The variable BSEP is 1.0, except for
surface production rate specifications where BSEP is the ratio of the specified
surface rate (in STB/day or MSCF/day) to the total hydrocarbon molar rate (in lb-
mol/day).
Using the IMPES formulation, the mobility terms in Equation 19-3 are treated
explicitly. The equation is linear with respect to both Pl and PW if BSEP is equal
to one. Under this condition, the new wellbore pressure calculated from the linear
solver and from the solution of the well constraint equation will be identical,
provided there is no change in the injecting or producing perforations over the
iteration because of crossflow. In this case, the material balance will be satisfied
exactly. This situation applies to all injection and production wells with reservoir
rate specifications.
For production wells with an oil or gas surface rate specification, the variable
BSEP is a function of the total hydrocarbon composition that depends on both the
gridblock and bottom-hole pressures. In this case, Equation 19-3 is no longer
linear. The new wellbore pressure, which is calculated from the linear solver
(used to update zi, F, and Sw) and the well constraint equation (used to update well
rates and calculate the material balance), are not identical. Thus, the material
balance will not be satisfied exactly for gridblocks containing producing
perforations. Another potential problem with the VIP-EXECUTIVE IMPES well
formulation is that when Equation 19-3 is linearized, the derivatives of BSEP with
respect to Pl and PW are neglected, resulting in a non-rigorous coupling of the
reservoir and well constraint equations. This also affects the material balance for
hydrocarbons and, possibly, the number of Newton iterations required for
convergence.
To eliminate the above problems, two modifications to the solution of well

constraint equations were made. First, the initial guesses for the new wellbore
pressures in Equation 19-3 were modified. After saturation constraint Equation 9-
9 is satisfied, a new bottom-hole pressure is calculated from solutions of the linear
solver:

m+1 m
PW = PW + Δ Pw (19-4)
where ΔPw is the change in bottom-hole pressure calculated from the solver. The
new bottom-hole pressure then is used to calculate the reservoir rates and the new
BSEP from which the total well reservoir rate is converted to the surface rate.
This surface rate is then compared with the user-specified rate, q. If the difference
between the two rates is within the convergence tolerance (0.01% of the specified
rate), then no further iterations for PW and BSEP will be performed, and the
timestep is considered converged. Here, the material balance is satisfied exactly
because the same bottom-hole pressure, Equation 19-4, is used for zi, F, Sw, and
the production rate calculations. Second, well constraint Equation 19-3 is
rigorously linearized. Without this rigorous treatment, the Newton iteration will
not converge within one iteration for most problems. The total hydrocarbon molar
production rate for component i, Qi, and the total hydrocarbon molar production
rate, Qt, are defined as
Kp
⎛ K ro ρ o K rg ρ g ⎞
Q i ≡ WI ∑ Kh ⎜ -------------- x i + -------------- y i⎟ [ P l – P W – γ ( D l – D ref ) ] (19-5)
⎝ μo μg ⎠
l=1
Kp
⎛ K ro ρ o K rg ρ g⎞
Q t ≡ WI ∑ Kh ⎜ -------------
- + --------------⎟ [ P l – P W – γ ( D l – D ref ) ] (19-6)
⎝ μo μg ⎠
l=1
The produced total hydrocarbon molar fraction for component i, Zi, is
Qi
Z i ≡ ----- (19-7)
Qt
For the hydrocarbons, the well constraint equation is
BSEP Q t – q = 0 (19-8)
This equation then is linearized to form

Kp
∑ [ Hl ΔPl ] + Dw ΔPw = Rw (19-9)

l=1
where

⎛ K ro ρ o K rg ρ g⎞
H l = WI BSEP Kh l ⎜ -------------
- + --------------⎟
⎝ μo μg ⎠ l
Nc
⎧ ∂BSEP K ro ρ o K rg ρ g ⎫
+ WI Kh l ∑ ⎨ ------------------ -------------- ( x i – Z i ) + -------------- ( y i – Z i ) ⎬ (19-10)
⎩ ∂Z i μo μg ⎭
i=1
and
Kp
Dw = – ∑ Hl (19-11)
l=1
In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the second term on the right side of
Equation 19-10 is neglected. In the current implementation of the optimal
material balance option, both terms on the right side of Equation 19-10 are used to
build the Jacobian coefficients Hl and Dw. Note that the partial derivatives of
BSEP with respect to Zi are provided by a new wellbore flash routine.26
Using the above procedure, the Newton iteration of the simultaneous reservoir
and well constraint equations usually converges in one iteration because BSEP
varies only slightly from one iteration to another. The well rate calculation will
not converge if the BSEP value changes significantly over one iteration, or if the
active injecting/producing perforations change over one iteration because of cross
flow. Under the latter condition, the functional form of the well constraint
equation is changed between two Newton iterations and an additional iteration
must be performed.
Finally, the convergence criterion proposed in Reference 25 is adopted, which

compares the residual of saturation constraint Equation 9-9 with a preset tolerance
(0.005). Modifications to the Newton iteration procedure are outlined as follows:
1. If the optimal material balance option is invoked, the unknown update

procedure for F and Sw and the rigorous linearization of well constraint
Equation 19-3 are employed throughout the simulation.
2. After each Newton iteration, the new phase saturations are calculated and the
residuals of the saturation constraint equation are then compared with the
maximum tolerance. If the convergence criterion is not satisfied, another
Newton iteration must be performed, and the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE
procedure for calculating the new well rates and bottom-hole pressure is
followed. Otherwise, Equation 19-4 is used first in the well routines to check
for convergence of the well constraint equations for producers. If the well
constraint equations fail to converge, the standard procedure in the wellbore
flash routine (WFLSHP) is adopted to determine the new wellbore pressure

and new well rates. If the well constraint equation is converged, no further
iterations for PW and BSEP are performed.
3. After the new well rates and bottom-hole pressure are determined, the total
hydrocarbon and water material balances for gridblocks containing wells are
calculated to check for convergence of the well rate calculation. To ensure a
good material balance, these well rates must agree with the rates obtained
from the linear solver and used for calculation of zi, F, and Sw. The material
balance is considered converged when the ratio of the difference between the
new well rate (as obtained from the linear solver) and the new well rate (as
calculated from the well constraint equation) to the sum of the two rates is less
than TOLWCN (default 10-5). Otherwise, a new iteration will be performed.
4. In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, convergence of the Newton

iteration is controlled by the maximum residuals of hydrocarbons and water
(TOLR) or the maximum change of primary unknowns over one iteration
(TOLD). In the optimal material balance option implemented here,
convergence is controlled by either of the residuals described in Steps 2 and 3,
or the TOLD constraint. The TOLD constraint was necessary for Newton
iterations dominated by iterative well management procedures in which the
convergence criterion described in Step 3 might be too restrictive.
The unknown update and convergence control procedure generally reduces the
average number of Newton iterations per timestep. For problems in which the
iterative well management calculations do not apply and the active producing/
injecting perforations do not change between two iterations, the Newton iterations
normally converge after only one iteration, as compared with the three or four
iterations required for the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE procedure. This
improvement could account for a more than 50% reduction in CPU time. For
simulation models that involve intensive well management calculations (e.g., full-
field simulation models), a significant reduction in the average number of
iterations per timestep also is possible, although the new procedure normally
requires more than one iteration per timestep for these problems.

19.3 Reordering Gridblocks Based On Fluid Type

In a compositional simulator such as VIP-EXECUTIVE, a majority of the CPU
time often is spent on the phase behavior and fluid property calculations; i.e.,
compressibility factor, Jacobian generation for fugacity equality equations, and
stability test and flash calculations. The gridblock reordering scheme
implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE primarily is designed to improve this part of
the simulation by regrouping gridblocks that perform the same computations
together for an efficient vectorization in vector machines. The following fluid
types are defined:
■ Two-phase gridblocks using a partial Jacobian update
■ Two-phase gridblocks using a full Jacobian update
■ One-phase gridblocks requiring stability test and flash
■ One-phase gridblocks without stability test
■ Gridblocks with no hydrocarbons
The terms one-phase and two-phase refer to the number of hydrocarbon phases.
Water is treated as an independent phase with no interactions (except for the flow
calculation) with the hydrocarbons. In the fluid-type reordering scheme, all Type
1 gridblocks are grouped together, followed by all Type 2 gridblocks, and so on.
For simplicity, most major arrays are stored permanently in the original, natural
order, and one additional NB (the total number of gridblocks) array is created to
relate fluid-type order to natural order. Rearrangement of the fluid-type order is
performed whenever any part of the simulation causes a fluid-type change for any
number of gridblocks. The rearrangement can be accomplished efficiently by
swapping a small number of array elements at a few gridblocks. This scheme is
illustrated by considering the simple case in Figure 19-1. In Figure 19-1A, 15
two-phase gridblocks (N2PHS = 15) and 5 single-phase gridblocks are at the
beginning of a Newton iteration. After the iteration, five of the two-phase
gridblocks become single phase (Figure 19-1B). Thus, the number of two-phase
gridblocks, N2PHS, reduces to 10. Rearrangement of the grid order can be done
easily by moving only those gridblocks that changed from two to single phase
and originally were located to the left side of new pointer N2PHS (10). In this
case, reordering is required only for three (Grid Numbers 6, 8, and 9 in Figure 19-
1B) of the five blocks switching from two to single phase. These three gridblocks
will be swapped with the three two-phase gridblocks that are to the right side of
new pointer N2PHS (Figure 19-1B). The gridblocks to be swapped are identified
by the arrow signs between Figures 19-1B and 19-1C; the new grid-type order is
shown in Figure 19-1C. After the gridblocks to be swapped are identified,
rearrangement of fluid properties for subsequent phase behavior calculations can

be accomplished efficiently in vector mode. This reordering procedure is adopted

throughout the simulator for all reordering operations.
A |XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|OOOOO|
B |XXXXXOXOOXOXOXX|OOOOO|
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
C |XXXXXXXXXX|OOOOOOOOOO|
X = Two-phase grids
O = Single-phase grids
A Initial reordered gridblock distribution
B Distribution after unknown updating
C Distribution after grid reordering.
Figure 19-1: GridblockReordering Procedure
The major advantages of using fluid-type ordering are a more efficient

vectorization and elimination of redundant computations. Results for several test
problems indicated that this procedure reduces the coefficient generation portion
of the computation time by at least 50%, producing a total speedup of up to 25%.

19.4 Partial Jacobian Update

In the partial Jacobian implementation, the following are recalculated and
factored: only the Jacobian coefficients of the fugacity equality equations (partial
derivatives of the equations with respect to the primary unknowns) for the two-
phase gridblocks that do not satisfy certain preset criteria. The residuals of the
fugacity equations and the full Jacobian coefficients (and residuals) for the mass
balance and saturation constraint equations still need to be calculated. For any
given gridblock, recalculation of the Jacobian for the fugacity equations may be
skipped for several timesteps, as long as the preset criteria are satisfied. This
approach significantly reduces computation time.5
Theoretically, the partial Jacobian approach is applicable to situations in which a

gridblock has experienced little or no changes in pressure and phase compositions
or the fugacity constraint equations are almost linear; i.e., the Jacobian
coefficients are nearly constant. The most straightforward criterion to determine
whether a two-phase gridblock can bypass this part of the calculation is to
compare the pressure and phase compositions (xi and yi) with values used in the
previous full Jacobian calculation step. This procedure was implemented and
tested in VIP-EXECUTIVE. It was found that although this criterion is in general
acceptable, tolerances for the pressure and composition changes are problem-
dependent and cannot be predetermined. From further analysis of the results for
several test problems, it was found that whenever a full Jacobian update is
performed, the residuals in the fugacity equations are small (normally <10-6). For
subsequent iterations or timesteps in which the Jacobians are not recalculated, the
residuals increase gradually until the next full Jacobian calculation is needed. This
phenomenon suggests that the residuals in the fugacity equations can be used as
criterion for the partial Jacobian update. This residual criterion was found to be
less case-dependent than the tolerance (in pressure and phase compositions)
criterion described above. In this implementation, the Jacobian recalculation will
not be performed if the maximum residual in the fugacity equations is <10-5.
Before calling the coefficient generation routine (ACCR), all two-phase

gridblocks are assigned to Type 1 or Type 2 according to the above residual
criterion, and a grid reordering operation is performed to group Types 1 and 2
gridblocks. This procedure requires separation of the residual calculation from the
Jacobian coefficient (partial derivatives) calculation because the residual
calculation must be done before grouping Type 1 and Type 2 gridblocks, while the
Jacobian coefficients are recalculated and factored for only Type 2 gridblocks
after the Type 1 and Type 2 gridblocks are determined.
In the coefficient generation routine, calculations for the Type 1 and Type 2
gridblocks are done separately. For the Type 2 (full Jacobian) gridblocks, the
normal full Jacobian calculation is performed. In addition, the lower triangular
portion of the Jacobian must be stored for subsequent timestep use (or iteration)

because the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE stores only the factored and
normalized upper triangular portion of the Jacobian (Array C). The lower
triangular portion is needed to factor the residual arrays during the subsequent
partial Jacobian calculations. This procedure requires an extra storage of
Nc(Nc+1)NB/2 words. For the Type 1 (partial Jacobian) gridblocks, no derivative
calculations (for Array C) are performed for the fugacity equations. The lower
triangular portion of the Jacobian that is stored in the most recent full Jacobian
calculation is used to factor the residual array, Array C, which was stored
previously, is used to eliminate unknowns xi and L (or yi and V) in the saturation
constraint equation.
The benefit achievable through the partial Jacobian update is case-dependent.

CPU time reduces as the number of two-phase gridblocks and components
increases. This feature reduces the coefficient generation portion of the CPU time
by 20 to 50%, yielding a total savings of 10 to 20%. This option appears to work
well for immiscible displacement processes and for reservoirs with a large portion
of two-phase gridblocks. For difficult miscible problems, the application of this
option may slightly increase the number of iterations and/or timesteps, thereby
reducing the efficiency improvement.

19.5 Criteria For Single-phase Stability Test

A procedure that selects for the stability test only the single-phase gridblocks
containing well perforations or having two-phase neighboring gridblocks is
implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE as a user option. The main argument for this
procedure is that most phase changes are initiated from these single-phase
gridblocks and, by eliminating the rest of the single-phase gridblocks from the
stability test, the computational efficiency can be improved greatly with no
degradation to the simulation results. Our test results generally indicate that this
option has no detrimental effects on the accuracy of the simulation, while
computational efficiency may be improved dramatically. However, it could delay
the phase change for some gridblocks by a few timesteps for situations in which a
large number of single-phase gridblocks flashes into two phases at the same time.
With this option, this simultaneous phase change could be spread into several
timesteps. Fortunately, this problem normally has no significant effect on the
overall simulation results.
This option applies only to those systems without fault connections, since the
selection procedure is based solely on regular connections. Note that this option
should be applied only to those cases in which the phase change is initiated from
gridblocks containing well perforations. One illustration of this limitation is a
simulation model that invokes the boundary flux option in which an influx of gas
phase or depletion caused by an outflux of fluids could result in a single oil-phase
boundary gridblock to flash into two phases first. This possibility is not
accounted for in the current implementation. For this reason, this option should
not be used with the boundary flux option.
This procedure reduces the number of gridblocks that need the stability test by up
to a factor of 4 for the problems tested. This translates into a four-fold reduction in
the stability test and flash calculation portion of the CPU time.

19.6 Vectorization of Saturation Pressure Calculation and Flash

In the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE, the stability of a hydrocarbon-phase
is determined by calculating its saturation pressure. The phase is stable if the
gridblock pressure is greater than its saturation pressure. Otherwise, the phase is
unstable and a subsequent flash calculation is called to determine the phase split.
A single-phase gridblock may bypass the saturation pressure calculation and
perform the flash calculation directly if the preceding saturation pressure
calculation failed to converge. This series of computations is performed for only a
portion of the single-phase gridblocks; different steps may be taken for different
gridblocks. Furthermore, individual saturation pressure and flash calculations
involve iterative procedures in which different gridblocks converge after different
numbers of iterations. This complicated procedure makes vectorization of the
computation impractical for a simulator solely using a natural ordering scheme.
For that reason, the standard version of VIP-EXECUTIVE does not vectorize
these calculations; i.e., the computations are performed gridblock by gridblock.
With the grid reordering procedure in place, efficient vectorizations of the above
calculations become practical. In the current vectorization effort, only the
standard VIP-EXECUTIVE saturation pressure and flash calculation routines are
vectorized. To simplify the procedure and ensure a high efficiency, the bubble-
point pressure calculation (BUBPT) and dew-point pressure calculation (DEWPT)
routines are combined first to a saturation pressure calculation routine. This can
be done easily without any loss of the vectorization efficiency because the two
routines perform identical calculations (except for the selection of the correct real
root for the compressibility factor of the second phase after the solution of the
cubic equation). By combining the two routines and vectorizing the resulting
saturation pressure routine, the vector length will be equal to the total number of
single-phase gridblocks requiring either the bubble- or dew-point pressure
calculation. The combined saturation pressure calculation routine (SATPRS) is
called up to two times. In the first call, the saturation pressures are calculated for
all single-phase gridblocks that require such calculations. In the second call,
saturation pressures are calculated for only those single-phase gridblocks that fail
the first saturation pressure calculation. This is done by switching from the
bubble-point calculation to the dew-point calculation, and vice-versa. Note that
without the combined saturation pressure routine, the vectorized BUBPT and
DEWPT routines would have to be called twice each.
Before calling each saturation pressure calculation, a grid reordering procedure is

performed to group together all gridblocks that require the saturation pressure
calculation. After the saturation pressure calculations are completed, the single-
phase gridblocks identified as unstable or which fail the saturation pressure
calculation will require a flash calculation using one of the two solution methods
(routines FLASH or FLSHSS) that are available in the standard version of VIP-
EXECUTIVE. These two flash calculation routines are also vectorized, and a grid
reordering is performed before calling these routines. In practical reservoir

simulation problems, vector lengths in the flash calculation often are short
because few gridblocks change phases during a given timestep. In this situation,
the vectorized flash routines (FLASHV or FLSHSV) may not be as efficient as the
original routines (FLASH or FLSHSS) because the original flash routines have a
large number of vectorized loops with a small vector length of Nc. To ensure that
no efficiency is lost, a vectorized flash routine is called only if the number of
gridblocks requiring the flash calculation is greater than Nc/2. Results of several
test runs indicate that the vectorized flash routines are slower than the original
routines if their vector length is shorter than Nc/2.
The vectorized saturation pressure (SATPRS) and flash calculation routines

(FLASHV and FLSHSV) involve iterative procedures using a successive
substitution and/or the Newton-Raphson method. These procedures further
complicate vectorization implementation because different gridblocks may
converge after different numbers of iterations. To remove converged gridblocks
from subsequent iterations, a grid reordering operation is performed after the end
of each iteration to group all non-converged gridblocks together. By doing so,
vector length can vary from iteration to iteration, and the high vector efficiency is
maintained.
For a typical miscible displacement process with a large number of gridblocks

(more than several hundreds), an average of 3.7-fold reduction in CPU time has
been observed when vectorized saturation pressure and flash calculation routines
are used. This could represent a total CPU time reduction of up to 40%.

19.7 Input Requirements

Grid reordering based on fluid type and vectorization of stability test and flash
replace the original VIP-EXECUTIVE code as part of the standard VIP-
EXECUTIVE implementation. The new, unknown update procedure, the partial
Jacobian update, and the new procedure to select single-phase grids for stability
test are implemented as user-controlled options with the keywords OPTMBL,
PJACO, and STBCHK, respectively. The PJACO and STBCHK options, which
apply only to the compositional module, are invoked only when the OPTMBL
option is invoked. The detailed input requirement is available in the VIP-


Chapter
20
Parallel Computing
00000
20.1 Summary
The following section discusses the details of the implementation of PARALLEL-
VIP. The primary development goals of this feature were to allow the faster
simulation of existing models and/or the simulation of larger models ranging to
millions of grid blocks. Parallelization is achieved through the use of local grid
refinement to subdivide a model into different domains for each of the parallel
CPU’s. Test problems described below for the simulator range from large IMPES,
black-oil cases with severe faulting to a fully-implicit seven-component
compositional simulation. Model sizes range to more than one million finite
difference cells for both black-oil and compositional cases. The following section
describes the implementation of message passing interface - a standard for
parallelization which has been implemented on almost all parallel computer
hardware as well as clusters of workstations. Results are shown for the IBM SP2,
the Silicon Graphics Origin 2000 and Power Challenge, and a cluster of IBM
workstations. Excellent parallel efficiencies were observed for all cases.
20.2 Introduction
The attraction of parallel computing to achieve high computing efficiencies has
existed for decades. What was generally lacking was the ability to easily port
software to the parallel environment. Because of the diverse nature of reservoir
simulation, simple parallelization schemes have not been viable for a usable,
general-purpose, approach to reservoir modeling. Profiles of computing work
load for a typical model often show tens, if not hundreds, of subroutines which are
involved in a substantial portion of the calculations. Because of this, major
reprogramming of reservoir simulation models is required to achieve high parallel
efficiencies. Several papers in the literature74-79 discuss techniques which have
been used to bring about efficient parallel reservoir simulations. The unique
feature of the simulator of this work is its reliance on local grid refinement for
parallelization. With local grid refinement the same simulation program can be
used to perform simulations either serially on a single processor or in parallel on
multiple processors simply through data manipulation.
The following section discusses the use of local grid refinement for
parallelization. Basically, each grid is assigned to a processor. Examples are
R5000.0.1 Parallel Computing 20-313

given in which variation of the processor assignment and the grid refinement can
dramatically effect parallel performance. Different preconditioners for the
parallel linear equation solvers are also tested. Finally, a load-balancing example
utilizes the flexibility of local grid refinement and processor assignment to
achieve improved parallel efficiency.
20.2.1 Local Grid Refinement

The vehicle for implementation of parallelism in VIP was the existing code for
simulation on locally refined grids. The methodology for local grid refinement
became the basis for domain decomposition, both for models built with locally
refined grids and for single grid models. Further details can be found in
Reference 74.
For grid to grid connections between two cells, contributions to the residuals and
to the Jacobian terms arising from intercellular flow are computed separately for
each cell. This results in a minor inefficiency since certain terms are computed
twice. However, as demonstrated later in the examples, the resultant overhead
does not appear to be significant when the number of boundary cells is small
relative to the total number of cells in a given grid.
When flow is computed between a cell in any given grid (i.e., Grid 1) and a cell in
a neighboring grid (i.e., Grid 2), the data for Grid 2 is referenced to a buffer in
which all pertinent quantities have been placed. The use of the buffer instead of
the actual grid allows parallel message-passing to be easily implemented as
described below. In addition, since data in the buffer is more compact than grid
data, fewer cache misses and greater computational efficiency may result even in
serial calculations.
20.2.2 Parallelization Via Local Grid Refinement

Parallelization requires that all grids be subdivided in some fashion among all of
the processors, a technique known as domain decomposition. To achieve a given
decomposition the grid is refined using the local grid refinement capability of the
original serial model as described above. For problems which originally had a
single grid, virtual refinements are used to subdivide the grid using a one to one
correlation between the original grid and the “refined” grids. For problems
originally involving locally refined grids each grid may be further decomposed
using virtual refinement to achieve better load balance among the processors. For
load balancing, it is better, within reason, to create more grids than processors so
that many grids can be given to a single processor. As the available number of
processors changes due to system loading or job priorities, the availability of more
grids than processors allows a simulation to be performed on as many or as few
processors as required. For the red-black linear equation solver discussed below
at least two grids per processor are required for greatest efficiency.
20-314 Parallel Computing R5000.0.1

To communicate data between connecting grids a buffering scheme is used as

shown in Figure 20-1. For each grid to grid connection two buffers are allocated
to send or receive data. If the two grids for a given connection lie on different
processors (i.e., Processors A and B in Figure 20-1), data required for intergrid
flow calculations are first packed into the send buffer on Processor A and then
sent as a single message to the corresponding receive buffer on Processor B. If the
two connecting grids lie on the same processor, the send and receive buffers are
given the same address and no message passing is required. The process is
reversed for the calculations required on Processor A, that is, Processor B
simultaneously packs and sends its data to Processor A in the same fashion. After
the required data is received by each processor, all flow calculations are
performed on each processor simultaneously.
Figure 20-1: Communication Scheme
To reduce overhead of message passing asynchronous communications are

utilized. Before all intragrid calculations are performed, each processor packs and
sends all information required for intergrid calculations. Then as intragrid flow
calculations are being performed, interprocessor communication is carried out
simultaneously for all grids and all processors. Since the number of grid to grid
connections is small relative the number of intragrid connections, all overhead for
message passing is almost completely eliminated. The examples below
demonstrate the validity of this conclusion.
For parallel domain decomposition the base grid may be totally refined into
subgrids so that all gridblocks in the base grid become inactive. Each grid is

assigned to a processor so that only a portion of the model resides on a given

processor. In this manner the simulator memory requirements become scaleable.
That is, as the number of processors is increased, the grid assigned to a given
processor becomes smaller. Alternatively, only a portion of the base or root grid
may be refined; the remaining unrefined cells in the root grid are then assigned to
a processor.
For example, consider the simple case shown in Figure 20-2 in which the base
grid consists of four blocks. Each of these blocks is then refined to the level
desired for a given simulation. Grid 1 corresponds to the refinement of the upper
left block in the base grid and is assigned to processor A. Similarly, each
refinement of the base grid is assigned to a different (or the same) processor. At
the end of the decomposition the complete base grid is refined and all refined
blocks have been assigned to a processor. Multiple levels of grid refinements can
be accommodated as well. If further refinement of a cell is required to a radial or
Cartesian grid, the further refinement is assigned to a processor in the same
manner as the level 1 refinements.
Figure 20-2: LGR Grid Decomposition
20.2.3 Automatic Grid Decomposition

Decomposition of model grids for parallelization may often present a formidable
task for the user. This is especially the case for situations in which the original
grid for the serial runs was based on a complex refinement. What is required is a
simple, yet efficient, manner in which to decompose grids. Figure 20-3 shows an
example of a typical grid in which local grid refinement has been used to refine
the root grid on the lower right and lower left into two additional grids arbitrarily
named SQUARE and TALL. The problem then is to decompose these refined
grids SQUARE and TALL to achieve load balance for a nine processor parallel

simulation. The decomposition shown in Figure 20-4 represents the solution to

this problem. The lower left grid is subdivided into six grids and the lower right
grid is refined into two grids. The decomposition requires only four lines of input
and six pieces of information which describe the number of grids in each
direction, aerially or vertically, into which the grid is to be divided:
DECOMPOSE
SQUARE 3 2 1
TALL 1 2 1
ENDDECOMPOSE
Figure 20-3: Example Grid For Automatic Grid

Figure 20-4: Automatically Decomposed Grid Decomposition
The simulator initialization routine then performs the decomposition

automatically. Input data can alternatively be supplied to augment the automatic
grid decomposition such that better load balance is achieved as more information
on parallel performance becomes available.
20.2.4 Well Management

The existence of horizontal wells in most modern simulations requires that no
restriction be placed on the placement of wells relative to grid and/or processor
boundaries.
Since highly deviated and horizontal wells are so prevalent in modern oil field
operations, it would be excessively restrictive to require that each individual well
be contained entirely within a single parallel computing domain. Therefore, it
must be assumed that messages will have to be passed between domains in order
to gather all of the information necessary to allocate production and injection rates
amoung multiple perforated intervals. Furthermore, use of production or injection
constraints that involve groups of wells will, in general, lead to interdomain
coupling of well rates.
Allocation of well flow rates requires such grid cell dependent data as pressures,
saturations, and fluid composition. (This list is not all inclusive.) The base
simulator was originally developed for high efficiency on vector processing
computers. In order to allow unit strides in addressing data in the well
management code, all grid cell dependent data required for well calculations has

always been moved into arrays dimensioned by the total number of perforated
intervals at the beginning of each timestep or each nonlinear iteration, as
appropriate. Thus, the well management code has never addressed data stored by
grid cells.
At the beginning of each nonlinear iteration of a parallel simulation, each

processor fills it’s perforation arrays to the extent possible with the grid cell data
contained in its local memory. This data is then compressed into a send buffer and
broadcast to all other processors in a single send per receiving processor. Upon
receipt, the data is moved from the receive buffer to the perforation arrays by the
receiving processor.
Upon conclusion of these operations each processor contains an identical copy of

the fully loaded perforation arrays. This allows all of the wells subject to a group
rate constraint to be allocated on the same processor, greatly simplifying the
parallelization process. Shifting wells from one processor to another in order to
achieve dynamic load balance also becomes easier when the data is available
everywhere.
At the time of this writing no parallelization of the well management code has
been attempted, so all processors simultaneously compute rates for all wells. The
run time reported reflect this sequential step in the simulation process.
Parallelization using the data flow described above is still possible; however,
additional efficiency can be achieved by replacing the broadcast operations with
more selective (but more complex) message passing.
Other techniques relying on scattering well information among all processors and
gathering resulting rates could lead to high overhead and thus negate any
improved parallel performance at least for simulations involving historical
production. On the other hand, tubing hydraulics calculations for predictive well
management may be computationally intensive enough to support gather/scatter
type operations. This latter technique will be investigated in the future.
20.2.5 The Parallel Linear Equation

The composite grid solver CBLITZ forms the basis for the linear equation solvers
for the parallel reservoir simulator. The parallelization of the solver is based on
domain decomposition strategies using nested factorization rowsum constraints.
The parallel solver provides capabilities for complexities such as faults, implicit
bottomhole pressures, and horizontal wells.
Parallel CBLITZ involves domain decomposition and is based on the work of

Wallis and Nolen68,81. The decomposition involves large domains and boundary
planes which divide the grid along a single direction as shown in Figure 20-5.
The approximate LU factorization approach used for preconditioning involves an
L factor as follows:

A1
A2
A3
L = A4
Q1 R2 B1
Q2 R3 B2
Q3 R4 B3
Figure 20-5: Strip Decomposition
The diagonals of the B submatrices are modified from the original coefficients to
maintain rowsum constraints. This approximate factorization leads to
independent solutions on each processor for the large Ai domains and the
boundary plane matrices, Bi. The back substitution portion of the preconditioning
simply involves the updating of residuals from boundary solutions, and a second
solve on the large Ai domains.
The linear solver is based on a composite grid solution technique developed by

Wallis and Nolen68. Reference 82 provides detail of a similar parallel solver
developed independently, but almost simultaneously, by Burrows, Ponting, and
Wood. As described above, each grid is assigned to a processor. These may be
the same or different processors. If all active grids lie on the same level, the
composite grid solver performs all preconditioning solutions independently, i. e.,
block Jacobi. If grids are assigned to different levels, each grid of the same level
is solved simultaneously with communication being performed after the entire
solution of all grids on a level is completed. Factorization is performed so that
rowsum constraints are also imposed. Figure 20-6 shows an example of a

possible decomposition which can be solved with the composite grid technique
(See Reference 83 for additional details.) First, the larger domains of level 3 are
solved. Information from these solutions is then communicated across boundaries
where necessary. Next the equations are solved for level 2, and finally, level 1 is
solved. Each of the lower level solutions involve the use of rowsum constraints.
Back substitutions are then performed in the reverse order. The flexibility of this
solver allows the easy implementation of block red-black algorithms, or as a
special case, the linear decomposition of the strip decomposition solver described
above.
Figure 20-6: LGR Multilevel Decomposition
Figures 20-7 and 20-8 show results for the composite grid and a solution method
based on a linear (or strip) decomposition method for a 95x95x35 (315,875 cells)
hypothetical IMPES case. The efficiency of the solvers was compared to both a
serial version of the same technique and to the proprietary “serial solver” of the
original reservoir simulator used in this work. The serial solver utilized a single-
grid, nested factorization preconditioning. As shown in Figure 20-7, performance
of the strip decomposition solver is superlinear for almost all cases ranging from
3-16 processors. Compared to the serial solver, superlinear performance is also
observed. Superlinear performance was also observed for the composite grid
solver compared to the serial version of the same algorithm (See Figure 20-8).
Compared to the “serial solver”, the composite grid technique achieved about
75% of ideal speedup, i. e., a factor of twelve on sixteen processors. The speed
advantage for the strip method results from the two-way ordering discussed
above. Other studies have shown similar superlinear speedups on up to 71

processors and 4 million cells for the strip decomposition technique.
Figure 20-7: Strip Decomposition Linear Solver Results
Figure 20-8: Composite Grid Linear Solver Results
A comparison of various solver options was generated using a prototype

simulation model. The model, based on SPE Comparative Solution Number 1,
originally contained 27,075 cells in a 95x95x3 grid. To test solver performance,

the original grid was decomposed into both one-dimensional strips as well as 2-
dimensional “checker-board” grids. The number of grids was varied from 4 to 64
with the number of processors varying from 4 to 32. For the initial tests, the strip
parallel solver was applied to the one-dimensional decompositions. For the one-
dimensional, 4 processor case, each grid contained 24 yz-planes except the last
which had only 23 yz-planes. As the number of domains was increased, the
number of planes per domain diminished from 12/11 xy-planes for the 8 domain
case continuing to 3/2 yz-planes per domain for the 32 domain case. For the
composite-grid solver, the “checker-board” decomposition consisted of 2-
dimensional areal decompositions varying from 4 by 2 domains for the 4
processor case up to 8 by 8 domains for the 32 processor case. The number of
areal cells in each grid varied from about 24 by 48 cells for 8 domains down to 12
by 12 for the 64 domain case. The number of cells was variable since the
95x95x3 grid did not divide evenly. Since a red-black scheme is used for the
composite solver, the number of domains must be twice the number of processors.
Figure 20-9 shows a comparison of results for the strip and composite grid cases
for 4 through 32 processors. Two conclusions can be drawn from this test case.
First, the strip decomposition solver shows a significant degradation as the
number of domains/processors is increased. The number of iterations per Newton
iteration jumps from about 4 to 6.7 in going from four processors to thirty-two for
a seventy percent decrease in efficiency. The other conclusion is that the
composite grid solver, at least for this example, showed little variation in the
number of iterations over the range of processors. Maximum variation was from
4.5 to almost 5 iterations per Newton iteration or about 10%.
Figure 20-9: Effect of Decomposition on Strip and Composite Grid Linear Solvers

Several other orderings/preconditioners were also tried for the composite-grid

solver. The first ordering attempted to reproduce the strip solver results using a
one-dimensional decomposition and the composite-grid solver. For example, to
reproduce the 4 processor case a one-dimensional decomposition into seven grids
was performed. All of the odd grids contained 23 yz-planes with the even grids
containing only a single yz-plane. With a red-black ordering, the composite-grid
solver should obtain nearly the same results as the strip solver. For the 4-
processor, 7-domain, case the total number of iterations for the simulation was
actually 15% less for the composite-grid solver (222 versus 255 for the strip
solver). These results seem reasonable when one considers that the composite-
grid solver is performing two full solutions on the large domains as opposed to a
single solution for the parallel strip solver.
As a final variation on the preconditioning/ordering with the composite-grid

solver, the decomposition shown in Figure 20-6 was applied to the 95x95x3
simulation example. Unfortunately, for the four processor, nine domain, case the
total number of iterations was approximately the same as the original 8 domain, 4
processor, red-black decomposition. The actual number of total iterations for the
9 domain case was 313 compared to 297 for the red-black case.
Because the flexibility of the composite grid solution technique, it was chose for
use in PARALLEL-VIP for all applications.
20.2.6 Parallel Computers Used for Verification of PARALLEL-VIP

Studies were conducted on the IBM SP2 and the Silicon Graphics (SGI) Origin
2000. Previous results on the Cray T3D and Silicon Graphics Power Challenge
have also been used to a limited extent as disussed below. Details on the latter
two machines can be found in Reference 74.
The IBM SP2 is a parallel computer built with the MIMD (multiple instruction,
multiple data) architecture and distributed memory. The number of processors for
the SP2 can range to 512. For the SP2 with “Thin-3” nodes used in this study,
memory can be expanded up to 1024 Mbytes. The SGI Origin 2000 machine is a
shared-memory device with maximum memory of 256 billion bytes and up to 128
processors. Peak single-processor performance for the two machines is in the
range of 400 double precision MFLOPS (Million Floating point Operations Per
Second). Actual performance varies considerably for the individual processors.
Typically for reservoir simulation, the SP2 processor delivers about 40-80
MFLOPS compared to about 20-60 MFLOPS for the SGI Origin 2000. That is,
for the problems tested the SP2 was an average of about 1.5 times faster. These
results are preliminary for the Origin 2000; further optimization should improve
performance.
The primary consideration for performance is strongly tied to memory access and
cache misses. Because of communication bandwidth, access to memory may be

relatively slow for all processors relative to peak performance, the ability of the
compiler/system to anticipate memory references and provide data to the cache
can uniquely determine processor performance, regardless of the raw speed of the
processor itself. That is, the data must be available for the processor to use. Since
the SP2 has a delivered performance of about 1.5 times that of the SGI Origin
2000, the overhead of message-passing also becomes dramatically more
important on the IBM machine.
Message-passing Interface (MPI) was utilized for parallelization on both

machines. Although the SGI computer is shared memory, message-passing is
provided which takes advantage of the shared-memory hardware. Due the wide
availability and portability of MPI, the parallel reservoir simulator relies solely on
MPI for all message-passing. Previous results for the Cray T3D and SGI Power
Challenge were produced using PVM.
There are generally three forms of message passing for a distributed memory
system: synchronous, asynchronous, and global operations. Synchronous
message passing requires that all messages be completed before computations can
proceed. Asynchronous, on the other hand, allows some overlap of processing
and communications. Global message passing operations distribute data from
single processors to one processor or visa versa. Often some form of arithmetic
function such as summation is performed as part of the global concatenation
operation. These functions are particularly useful for evaluation of reduction
functions such as dot products or for distribution of data from a single node to all
nodes in the parallel partition. Often the global communications have been
optimized for a particular architecture and are much more efficient than a simple
set of send-receive operations for achieving the same results. Because of the
greater raw processor speed and lower communications performance, efficiency
of message-passing is of great importance on the SP2 to achieve good parallel
performance. This implies that utilization of asynchronous message-passing must
be emphasized to overlap compute work with communication overhead.
Asynchronous communications were utilized wherever feasible in the reservoir
simulator. For example, in the coefficient setup portion of the model, intragrid
calculations were overlapped with communications of quantities required to
compute residuals and Jacobian terms for intergrid flow. Synchronous and global
operations were also used for this study in cases where efficiency was not a major
concern because of the length and number of messages involved.
20.2.7 Test Cases

Several test cases are presented in the following sections. These demonstrate the
application of the parallel simulator in a combination of black-oil and
compositional studies utilizing both the IMPES and fully-implicit model
formulations. Model sizes range to more than a million cells. Two of the cases
emphasize real-world heterogeneities including faults. The composite grid solver
was used in all cases, except for the small black-oil, because of its greater

flexibility for domain decomposition. In some cases for small numbers of

processors, as discussed above, it may have been more efficient to use the strip
decomposition solver.
Small, Homogeneous, Black-Oil
The first test problem is based on the data from the SPE First Comparative
solution problem. Instead of the original dimensions; however, the problem size
was increased to 95x27x3 - 7695 cells. Fourteen wells were used instead of two.
Figure 20-10 depicts the structure of the model and the well locations. This
problem was used to test the simulator for three parallel machines used in this
study (T3D, SP2, and SGI Power Challenge). The model was decomposed along
the x-direction.
Figure 20-10: Grid and Structure for Small Homogeneous Example Problem
The flexibility of local grid refinement allowed decomposition of Test Problem 1

into 4-32 domains with relative ease. First, 4, 8, 16, or 32 large domains were
defined with given physical gridblock sizes for grid level 0. These domains were
then refined in all directions. Refinements in the y- and z-directions were held
constant at 27 fold and 3 fold respectively for all cases. For four domains, each
large block in grid level 0 was refined by a factor of 24 with the last block having
a factor of 23. For 8, 16, and 32 domains the refinements were 12, 6 and 3,
respectively. Factors of 11, 5, and 2 were used for the last domain in these cases,
respectively. In this fashion, a decomposition was achieved which provided an

almost perfectly load-balanced case for the strip decomposition parallel solver,
i.e., one boundary yz-plane existed between equal large domains.
Three-Dimensional Salt Dome
The second test problem was based on real data from a reservoir associated with a
salt dome. Three-dimensional seismic data were used to condition a geostatictical
model to generate porosity fields. These data were then placed in a geological
model to generate descriptions which were consistent with known geological
horizons and fault data. Finally, permeability fields were generated as functions
of the porosity data yielding variations of several orders of magnitude throughout
the model. A reservoir model was generated with dimensions of 35x35x15 for the
base grid. Two refined cases were then generated from these data resulting in
models of 105x105x15 (3x3 areal refinement) and 245x280x15 (7x8 areal
refinement) for 165,375 and 1,029,000 cells respectively. Black-oil,
compositional, IMPES, and fully-implicit cases were tested in parallel.
Two decompositions were used which resulted in areal decompositions of 7x7

grids (49 total grids) and 8x8 grids (64 total grids). Since the original grid divided
evenly into the 7x7 decomposition (i.e. 5 cells by 5 cells aerially from the original
unrefined grid), it was anticipated that load balance and hence parallel
performance would be better for the 7x7 case. Figure 20-11 shows the model
decomposed for the 7x7 grid case. As shown in the figure, 30 wells were located
near the crest of the structure and 8 wells provided peripheral water injection.
Since many of these wells cut across grid and processor boundaries, the model
provided a test case for the well parallelization discussed above.

Figure 20-11: Grid and Structure for 3D Salt Dome Heterogeneous Model
Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model. The third test problem upon which the
examples were based also utilized input from seismic, geological, and
geostatistical data. The model was developed by first utilizing a two-dimensional
geostatistical mapping package for defining heterogeneities in forty geological
horizons. An initial grid of 2.4 million cells formed the description. Although it
would be desirable to simulate this entire dataset, upscaling and layer combining
were used to reduce the eventual model to a 64x25x12 - 19200 cells. These cells
were then refined by two in each dimension to increase the overall problem size to
128x50x24 or 153,600 cells (a moderately large model - at least by today’s
standards).
In addition to the heterogeneities in permeabilities and porosities provided

through geostatistics, the model contained three large “scissors” faults with some
sloping character as shown in Figure 20-12. Eighty-eight wells were spaced
throughout the structure as shown in the figure with an equal number of injectors
and producers. Completions were in all twenty-four layers for all wells for a total
of 2112 completions. Because of the heterogeneities, the use of completions in all
layers of the model tests the implicit well bottomhole pressure option for rate
specified wells - an integral part of the linear equation solver.
Figure 20-12: Grid and Structure for Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model

Typical PVT and relative permeability data, black-oil and compositional, for a
middle eastern reservoir were chosen for this problem as well as the Salt Dome
Example.
Real Compositional Example
The compositional simulation previously presented by Killough, et al.77,_was used

to examine the problem of load balancing for a simulation of a real gas condensate
field example. The original model was 22x29x5 or 3192 cells and 6 components.
Sixteen wells were placed throughout the structure as shown in Figure 20-13. All
wells were completed in all layers of the model. Since the largest dimension was
in the y-direction, decomposition was performed linearly in y. That is, four
domains were created as shown with initially 8, 7, 7, and 7 xz-planes each,
respectively. Modifications were performed to this decomposition to achieve load
balance.
Figure 20-13: Grid and Structure for Compositional Load-Balancing Example
20.2.8 Results
The following figures show first the results for the total model speedup compared
to the serial case. Next is the speedup of the parallel solver compared to the serial
solver. Finally, the last bar in each series of the graphs represents the ideal
situation, a speedup of n on n processors. The serial model used for comparison

was the current release version of the base serial VIP simulator. The linear solver
used was the best available for the particular situation, generally nested
factorization for a single grid. All comparisons were based on elapsed times, and
not CPU times, to account for any overhead due to message passing.
Homogeneous Black-Oil
Simulations for the homogeneous black-oil case were run on three parallel
platforms: the Cray T3D, the SGI Power Challenge, and the IBM SP2. Results for
the Cray T3D are shown in Figure 20-14 for the cases of 4 to 32 processors. The
speedups used for these comparisons were based on the original serial model
using an unrefined grid. That is, a regular 95x27x3 grid with the same properties
and well data was used for the comparison. These speedups then represent actual
improvement in performance over current serial simulator capabilities. As shown
in Figure 20-14 simulator performance for the T3D was superlinear for four and
eight processors. As the number of processors increased to 16 and 32, the
speedups showed some degradation due to an increase by a factor of three in the
number of linear equation solution iterations. These encouraging results were not
duplicated on the SGI computer as shown in Figure 20-15. Above four processors
there appears to be a significant falloff in performance. Some of this can be
attributed to linear solver degradation similar to the T3D results; however, the
decline in performance for the case of 16 processors indicated that a significant
bottleneck existed due to limited bandwidth to memory. This lack of performance
of the Power Challenge is well known. Fortunately, based on results presented
later in this study, the SGI Origin 2000 appears to have overcome this difficulty.
Results in Figure 20-16 for the SP2 show good speedups with a factor of twelve
for the 16 processor case. Considering that the individual node on the SP2 is
substantially faster than that of the T3D, these results again indicate excellent

performance even for a small problem.
Figure 20-14: Performance of T3D on Small Homogeneous Model

Figure 20-15: Performance of SGI Power Challenge on Small Homogeneous Model
Figure 20-16: Performance of SP2 on Small Homogeneous Model
3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Model
The 3D Salt Dome case represents a much more realistic example than the
homogeneous black-oil model. Two test cases were performed with this model
which demonstrated parallel performance for both IMPES and Fully-Implicit
model formulations. Figure 20-17 presents results for the IMPES simulations of a
twenty year case for the IBM SP2. Parallel speeds were superlinear for many of
the cases shown up to 13 processors. The best IMPES result shown in the figure
is a factor of 21 on 25 processors or about 84% parallel efficiency. This represents
about 2.5 microseconds per block step for the total simulation. The imbalance of
the static decomposition for the cases of 8,16, and 32 processors make these
results somewhat less than ideal as anticipated. Figure 20-18 presents the IMPES
results for the SGI Origin 2000 computer for 5-25 processors. Excellent results
were obtained up through 13 processors. The falloff at 25 processors for the
Origin 2000 results is not due to message-passing overhead but a unique feature of
the machine architecture. In an attempt to understand these results, two test cases
using four processors were performed on an eight processor Origin 2000. In the
first case each of the parallel tasks was assigned to a different node board so that
one processor of the two on each node remained idle. In the second case
processor affinity was made such that all four processors on two node boards were
allocated to the simulation. The difference in CPU times was about 30% between
the two cases. Elapsed times were virtually identical to CPU times for both cases.
These results indicate that at least for these cases the bandwidth to memory can
become saturated when more that one task is assigned to a given node board. For
all subsequent cases, similar results are observed as the number of processors

exceeds one-half of the total number of processors available (The total available
for this study was 32 processors.)
Figure 20-17: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-Oil Model
Figure 20-18: Results for Origin 2000 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-Oil
Model
The final example for the 105x105x15 3D Salt Dome model used the Fully-
Implicit formulation. As shown in Figure 20-19 speedups were excellent on the
SP2 exceeding ideal for all cases up through 25 processors. For the implicit case

on 25 processors, performance was about 30 microseconds per block step for the
SP2.
Figure 20-19: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Implicit Black-Oil Model
Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Model
Results for the Sloping Fault 128x50x24 model were also obtained for both
IMPES and Fully-Implicit simulations. Figure 20-20 shows results for the IBM
SP2 for the IMPES case. Performance was excellent on 5 and 10 processors with
some degradation for the 16 and 20 processor cases. The best result was a factor
of 15 on 20 processors for a 75% parallel efficiency. The increase to 32
processors shows a significant reduction in performance primarily due to
message-passing overhead for the solver as indicated on the right of the figure.
Results for the Fully-Implicit cases were substantially better as shown in
Figure 20-21. Superlinear speedups were observed for all cases up to 32
processors with overall speedups approaching 70 on 32 processors. This
somewhat anomalous behavior was also observed on the Origin 2000 as shown in
Figure 20-22. Here the speedups were near 40 on 20 processors. This extreme
parallel performance appeared to be due to poor performance of the serial
simulator as opposed to high parallel efficiency. The poor serial performance was
related to the fact that the first dimension in the problem was a power of two.
References to memory which stride by a power of two can cause significant cache
thrashing. In natural ordering the first dimension, a power of two, is often
referenced as an offset to a given cell. This results in significant performance
degradation for both computers which were investigated. To alleviate the problem
a slightly modified simulation was performed with dimensions of 127x50x24. As
shown in Figure 20-22, the serial performance relative to the parallel performance

improved substantially so that for 20 processors the speedup was about a factor of
18 - a much more realistic figure. Speedups for the Origin 2000 on 32 processors
show the degradation in performance due to memory bandwidth as discussed
above.
Figure 20-20: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 IMPES Black-Oil Model
Figure 20-21: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil Model

Figure 20-22: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil
Model
Figure 20-23: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 127x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil
Model - Cache Effect

3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 Model
The overall dimensions of the previous 3D Salt Dome model were increased by
about a factor of 5 to 245x280x15 or 1,02,900 cells. Figure 20-24 presents results
for 5, 10, and 25 processors. As expected, the larger model size improves parallel
performance such that a factor of 23 on 25 processors was observed. This
corresponded to about 3 microseconds per block step for the IBM SP2.
Figure 20-24: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES Black-Oil
Model
3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Compositional
Simulations of the 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 model using a seven component

characterization are shown in Figure 20-25. A factor of about 23 on 25 processors
was also observed for this case. Since the linear equation solver does not
dominate the CPU time of the model, the parallel results indicate the efficiency of
the equation setup portion of the model. Since these simulations were performed
in history-match mode without gas injection, flash calculations were not a
significant factor. Problems associated with load-balancing and flash calculations
are discussed in a later example.

Figure 20-25: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Compositional
Model
In implicit mode the compositional results are even more dramatic with
superlinear speedups for all cases except 32 processors as shown in Figure 20-26.
The load-imbalance due to static decomposition of the grid again affects the
performance of the 32 processor case.
Figure 20-26: Results for 3D Salt Dome 05x105x15 Implicit Compositional Model

3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 Compositional
The compositional case discussed in the previous section was increased in size to
1,02,900 cells. Since the serial simulation could not be performed an estimated
speedup of 4 on 4 processors was used as a conservative estimate upon which to
compare the other results. The actual speedups will likely far exceed this estimate
since the smaller compositional case showed a speedup of 5.5 on 4 processors.
Nonetheless, as shown in Figure 20-27 results were again excellent with estimated
speedups of 23 on 25 processors.
Figure 20-27: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES
Compositional Model
Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Compositional
The sloping fault model was also run in compositional mode. Speedups for the
IMPES case were much better than the corresponding black-oil IMPES model
since the solver did not dominate the performance. As shown in Figure 20-28
speedups were better than ideal for all cases up through 32 processors with a
factor of 35 on 32 processors. Clearly, the effect of cache thrashing is also
observed in this case but to a lesser extent than in the fully-implicit IMPES
example discussed earlier.

Figure 20-28: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 27x50x24 IMPES Compositional Model
Compositional Static Load Balancing
The realistic compositional case has been shown in previous studies77 to exhibit
significant load imbalance for the PVT calculations. The original grid was
subdivided in the y-direction into four domains with similar numbers of xz-
planes: 8,7,7,7. This resulted in a 200% variation in elapsed times for the PVT
calculations between processors 1-3, and 4. Overall elapsed times varied by a
factor of at least two. (See Figure 20-29 - TOTAL1.) With the linear
decomposition used for this problem static load balancing can be easily
accomplished. Three load balancing steps were taken in which the number of
planes respectively for CPUs 1-4 were changed to 7,7,7,8 (TOTAL2); to 7,7,5,10
(TOTAL3) ; and finally to 7,7,6,9 (TOTAL4). This balancing resulted in a
reduction in the elapsed times for the PVT calculations from 91 to 71 seconds or
about 22%. Overall elapsed times decreased by only about 18% since other
calculations in the simulation were now unequal among processors. Speedups
were improved from 2.91 for the original case to 3.44 for the final balanced
simulation.

Figure 20-29: Grid and Structure for Composition Static Load Balancing Example
This example demonstrates that linear decomposition can lead to a straight-

forward approach to static load balancing. For other cases it is likely that dynamic
techniques may be required. In particular, both receiver initiated techniques and
Dantzig’s transportation model approach appear to offer promise in the area of
dynamically partitioning the load among processors84,85.
Performance on Workstation Clusters
The IBM SP2 used for most of the results provided a unique feature to test
performance of the model on a cluster of workstations. Simply by changing a
UNIX environmental variable, the communications of the SP2 are transformed
from the highspeed switch to ethernet speed. This results in an increase in latency
to about 250 microseconds and a decrease in bandwidth to about 1 million bytes
per second. These are comparable to an idealized cluster of workstations
communicating over ethernet.
Figure 20-30 shows results for the Sloping Fault example. (SP2-IP refers to
“internet protocol” or ethernet mode while SP2-US refers to “user space” or
highspeed switch mode on the SP2.) For four processors, the results are excellent
with speedups approaching ideal. As the number of processors are increased to
eight and eleven, the performance degrades significantly probably due to
saturation of the network and the significant latency with increased numbers of
messages. Performance for these latter cases was actually worse than that for four
processors. As shown in Figure 20-30, message-passing overhead significantly
affects solver performance for greater than four processors.

These encouraging results will be further investigated on larger numbers of

processors and different models. Preliminary results for compositional
simulations show even better performance than observed above since message
passing overhead for the linear solver is small compared to computation times for
this situation.
Figure 20-30: Performance of Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Model on Workstation

Cluster
20.3 Conclusions
This work has presented a general-purpose parallel reservoir simulator which
utilizes local grid refinement as a natural and flexible framework. The parallel
model is based on the use of the portable MPI communications package. The
message-passing scheme in the model utilizes send-receive buffers and
asynchronous communication for minimization of overhead. Two parallel linear
equation solvers were developed using strip and composite grid decompositions.
Standalone results for the solvers showed excellent parallel speedups on an
idealized basis and compared to an efficient serial solver for greater than four
million nodes and up to seventy-one processors. The use of local grid refinement
allows for a variety of preconditioners to be utilized in the parallel linear equation
solution. Results for the overall simulator were good to excellent for a variety of
realistic simulations based on geophysical and geological data. A variety of test
problems were simulated in parallel ranging from black-oil to large compositional
cases with more than one million cells using both IMPES and fully-implicit
formulations. A static load balancing scheme for a compositional simulation was

demonstrated. Finally, prototype simulations for clusters of workstations

produced excellent results for a limited number of nodes.
20.4 Future Work

The results of this study along with numerous other simulations involving real
data form the basis for future work on the parallel model. In general parallel
results have been excellent. However, it is clear that a continued effort to improve
the parallel linear equation solvers is required, especially for the fully-implicit
formulations, since parallel computing times are dominated by the linear
solutions. A promising technique utilizing a three-dimensional coarse grid
predictor solution shows promise in this area. (See Reference 86.) The ultimate
goal of the project, to directly simulate geological grids with tens of millions of
cells, will soon be achieved through further improvements in memory scalability.
Further work is required to include tubing hydraulics, surface facilities, and
pipeline networks into the overall parallelization. Finally, static and dynamic load
balancing for not only the phase behavior, but also well and local grid refinement
calculations remains an issue to be addressed. The load-balancing techniques
addressed in References 84 and 85 will be further investigated.


Chapter
21
00000
21.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE is based on an assumption of local phase equilibrium. It is a
two-hydrocarbon phase simulator and allows no more than two hydrocarbon
phases to be present in a gridblock. Phase equilibrium between oil and gas is
described by the following system of equations:
x i φ oi = y i φ gi , i = 1, 2, …, n c (21-1)
z i = Lx i + ( 1 – L )y i , i = 1, 2, …, n c (21-2)
nc
∑ xi = 1 (21-3)
i=1
nc
∑ yi = 1 (21-4)
i=1
Here, φoi, φgi are fugacity coefficients of oil and gas, respectively. The fugacity
coefficients are functions of pressure, temperature, and composition of the
corresponding phase. For an expression of the fugacity coefficients, refer to
Chapter 23, PVT Representation.
For a given composition of a hydrocarbon mixture in a gridblock, zi, pressure, p,

and temperature, T, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 determine the compositions of
oil and gas, xi, yi, and liquid fraction, L. By default, Equations 21-1 through 21-4
are solved with other governing equations of the simulator in one iterative loop,
the outer iterations. On each outer iteration, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are
linearized together with the rest of the governing equations according to the
Newton-Raphson method. (This procedure is described in Chapter 18, Numerical
Solution.) A user can override this default and exclude Equations 21-1 through
21-4 from the outer iteration loop. Then, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved
separately on each outer iteration after the primary unknowns have been updated.
Although it is not normally recommended to override the default, the user may
specify the SS parameter on the KMAX card in the recurrent data set should a
R5000.0.1 Phase Equilibrium Calculations 21-345

more robust method be required. It is always more efficient to solve Equations 21-
1 through 21-4 in one iteration loop with the other simulator equations.
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 become a part of the simulator governing equations
only if the hydrocarbon mixture in a gridblock splits into two phases. If the
mixture exists as one phase, there are no phase equilibrium constraints for this
block, and Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are not part of the governing equations.
Therefore, it is important to know whether the mixture in a gridblock is a one- or
two-phase system. Determination of the number of phases in a block must be
performed on each outer iteration because it affects the governing equations and
the form of the Jacobian matrix.
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are a set of nonlinear algebraic equations. For some
hydrocarbon mixtures, especially near the mixture critical point, the radius of
convergence of the Newton-Raphson iterative procedure for Equations 21-1
through 21-4 may be small. In that case, for the iterative procedure to converge,
one must provide an initial guess, which should be close to the solution. This may
not be feasible, and the simulator will have a problem with convergence in the
outer iteration loop. In this case, even when Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are
solved with the other governing equations in one iteration loop, convergence of
the outer iterations may be improved if at the end of an outer iteration — after
block pressure p and block mixture composition zi are updated — the system of
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 is solved separately and the new oil and gas
compositions, xi, yi, and the liquid fraction, L, are determined.
Thus, in the solution algorithm implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE, each outer

iteration involves a step of so-called phase equilibrium calculations. These
calculations are performed at the end of every outer iteration after the primary
unknowns have been updated. These calculations determine the number of
hydrocarbon phases present in each gridblock of a model and, if necessary,
perform phase equilibrium calculations for two-phase blocks.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two options. The first option can be used for simple
compositional problems that do not develop conditions close to the mixture
critical point. The second option, the Gibbs option, is designed for more difficult
problems with near-critical point phase behavior. This is recommended for
miscible displacement problems. The second option is based on a combination of
a phase stability test and Gibbs energy minimization. The Gibbs option is
computationally intensive. Benchmarking shows that for simple compositional
problems when both options perform well, the second option results in a penalty
of about 30% in CPU time as compared to the first option. For miscible
displacement problems, however, the Gibbs option is more robust and could be
faster if it reduces the number of iterations.
21-346 Phase Equilibrium Calculations R5000.0.1

21.2 The Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE Option

The standard VIP-EXECUTIVE option is based on the conventional formulation
of phase equilibrium given by Equations 21-1 through 21-4. For every gridblock
of a model, at the end of an outer iteration after an update of primary unknowns,
VIP-EXECUTIVE determines whether a block is flagged as a single-phase block.
If it is, then the simulator performs the calculations described below. By default,
VIP-EXECUTIVE does not perform flash calculations for two-phase blocks.
Flash calculations are performed for two-phase blocks if the user has specified a
non-zero value of KMAX2 on the KMAX card.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two ways to solve Equations 21-1 through 21-4 (flash
calculations). The two methods are:
■ Accelerated successive substitution (default)
■ Newton-Raphson with successive substitution preconditioning
Despite the fact that the accelerated successive substitution method is the default,
we recommend use of the Newton-Raphson method because it is faster.
21.2.1 Determining Number of Phases in a Gridblock

For a gridblock that has been flagged as single phase, VIP-EXECUTIVE
performs a saturation pressure test to determine whether the block may have
become two-phase. For this test, the saturation pressure of the block hydrocarbon
mixture Psat is calculated, then block pressure P is compared with Psat. If P is less
than Psat, the mixture is assumed to be a two-phase fluid. Here, a flash routine is
called to determine the compositions of oil and gas phases and the liquid fraction,
L, in the block.
Saturation pressure is calculated by calling a bubble-point pressure routine if the

fluid in the single-phase block is recognized as oil. Otherwise, a dew-point routine
is called. The bubble-point routine solves the following system of equations:
z i φ oi ( p, z ) = y i φ gi ( p, y ), i = 1, 2, …, n c (21-5)
nc
∑ yi = 1 (21-6)
i=1
for the gas composition yi, i = 1, ... , nc, and the bubble pressure, p. A similar
system of equations is solved in the dew-point routine:
z i φ gi ( p, z ) = x i φ oi ( p, x ), i = 1, 2, …, n (21-7)

nc
∑ xi = 1 (21-8)
i=1
Each of these problems is solved iteratively by the Newton-Raphson method.
In some situations, a bubble- or dew-point routine may not converge to solution.

In this case, if VIP-EXECUTIVE fails in the bubble-point calculations, it makes
another attempt to calculate the saturation pressure by calling the dew-point
routine. In the opposite case, if VIP-EXECUTIVE fails in the dew-point routine,
it calls the bubble-point routine. If the simulator fails in both of these routines, it
calls the flash routine for this block. If the flash routine also fails, the VIP-
EXECUTIVE then assumes that the mixture in the block is single-phase fluid and
that it is gas. This sequence of failures happens most often near the critical point
of the mixture. As a consequence of these failures, VIP-EXECUTIVE may
assume a result that is not the true solution of the phase equilibrium problem. This
contributes random errors into the reservoir simulation, which may significantly
degrade overall performance of the simulator. Convergence problems in phase
equilibrium calculations in a small number of gridblocks may force the simulator
to perform additional outer iterations or even cut timesteps. In such cases, use the
Gibbs option of the simulator for phase equilibrium calculations.

21.3 Gibbs Option

The Gibbs option of VIP-EXECUTIVE is based on a more general approach to
phase equilibrium than the formulation given by Equations 21-1 through 21-4.
The state of equilibrium of a multicomponent system that is constrained by
constant temperature, pressure, and total number of moles of components is
characterized by a minimum of the system’s Gibbs energy. Since the phase
equilibrium condition in a gridblock at the end of an outer iteration is investigated
at specified pressure, temperature, and global composition, minimization of the
Gibbs energy can be used to determine the phase equilibrium. The formulation of
the phase equilibrium problem given by Equations 21-1 through 21-4 also is
derived from the principle of the Gibbs energy minimum. Equations 21-1 through
21-4 represent the necessary condition for minimum Gibbs energy.
The Gibbs energy of a homogeneous (single-phase) multicomponent mixture of

composition z is given by:
nc
G1 = ∑ Ni μi ( p, T, z ) (21-9)
i=1
where Ni and μi are the number of moles and chemical potential of component i in
the mixture, respectively. The chemical potential and fugacity coefficient are
related as follows:
μ i = RT ln ( z i φ i ) + λ ( P, T ) (21-10)
where λ(P,T) is some function of pressure and temperature.
Similarly, the Gibbs energy of a two-phase system is given by the expression

nc nc
G2 = ∑ Noi μoi ( p, T, x ) + ∑ Ngi μgi ( p, T, y ) (21-11)

i=1 i=1
That distribution of molecules between oil and gas phases which results in the
lowest value of the Gibbs energy (G2) gives the equilibrium state of the two-phase
system. To find the equilibrium state, the program minimizes the expression
(Equation 21-11) with respect to Noi and Ngi. However, to do that it must know
that the mixture exists as a two-phase system.

21.3.1 Phase Stability Test

A multicomponent system splits into two phases because the value of Gibbs
energy in the two-phase state is smaller than the Gibbs energy of the single-phase
state. The Gibbs energy of the single-phase state is given by Equation 21-9. If
splitting off some small amount of material from a single-phase system to form
another phase results in a decrease of the system Gibbs energy, that means the
single-phase state is unstable and that the mixture exists as a two-phase system.
The Gibbs energy of the system formed by splitting off some small amount of
material from the original single-phase system to form the second phase can be
approximated as follows:
nc
G 2 ≈ G 1 + N ε ∑ x i [ μ i ( P, T, x ) – μ i ( P, T, z ) ] (21-12)
i=1
Here, Nε is the number of moles and x is the composition vector of the split-off
phase, while z is the composition vector of the original mixture.
If the function
nc
F(x) = ∑ xi [ μi ( P, T, x ) – μi ( P, T, z ) ] (21-13)
i=1
is positive for any composition vector x, then according to Equation 21-12, the
original mixture is stable and exists as a single-phase fluid. However, if there is a
composition vector x, for which F < 0 , then the original phase is unstable, and a
second phase is formed. Hence, the problem of phase stability also is formulated
as a minimization problem for the function defined by Equation 21-13. This
function is called the phase stability function.
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses More and Sorensen’s27 highly robust minimization

algorithm for minimization of F(x). This algorithm guarantees convergence to a
local minimum of the stability function. In addition, the minimization strategy
implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE uses multiple initial points for the
minimization procedure to ensure that the solution converges to a non-trivial
solution. This makes it highly probable that the local minimum is, in effect, the
global minimum of the stability function.

21.3.2 Gibbs Energy Minimization

Gibbs energy minimization is performed only after it has been determined that a
hydrocarbon mixture exists as a two-phase system. In this case, the phase stability
test described above provides an initial guess for the composition of the second
phase, which ensures reduction of the Gibbs energy in comparison to the Gibbs
energy of the single-phase state. More and Sorensen’s minimization algorithm,
which is also used for Gibbs energy minimization, reduces the value of Gibbs
energy with every step of the minimization process. This guarantees that the
process will never converge back to the single-phase state.
Minimization of Gibbs energy may become a numerically difficult problem if the

Hessian matrix (the matrix of second derivatives of the Gibbs energy function
with respect to component moles in a phase) becomes nearly singular. The
Hessian matrix becomes nearly singular or ill-conditioned in the following
physical situations:
■ The mixture is near a critical, bubble, or dew point.
■ The mixture has trace components.
■ The mixture has nondistributing components.
The algorithm for Gibbs energy minimization implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE

is designed to identify these situations and applies special techniques to resolve
these numerical problems.
21.3.3 Implementation of the Gibbs Option in VIP-EXECUTIVE

Phase equilibrium calculations can consume a significant fraction (around 50% or
more) of the total CPU time spent on a simulation. Therefore, we want to avoid
phase equilibrium calculations when those calculations are not necessary. For
example, it is not necessary to perform the calculations for a majority of the two-
phase blocks. However, phase equilibrium calculations for two-phase near-critical
blocks are beneficial because they improve the convergence of the outer
iterations. The two-phase near-critical blocks have compositions of oil and gas
phases that are close to each other. To sort out these blocks, VIP-EXECUTIVE
uses the following norm as a measure of proximity to the critical point:
nc
∑ ( xi – yi )xi
i=1
M = -----------------------------------
- (21-14)
n c
2
∑ xi
1
If the value of M satisfies

M < t skip (21-15)
then the block is considered near-critical and is sent through the phase equilibrium
calculations. If not, the calculations for this block are bypassed. The value of tskip
for the test is defined by the user on the GIBBS card. The larger the value of tskip
that is specified by the user, the more two-phase blocks are sent through phase
equilibrium calculations.
For blocks flagged as single-phase, VIP-EXECUTIVE avoids the stability test if

the physical conditions in a block change so that the appearance of a second phase
in the block is unlikely. For example, VIP-EXECUTIVE does not perform the
stability test if the mixture composition in a block changes insignificantly (the
change in all mole fractions is <10-6) and if block pressure increases during the
last outer iteration.
Also, if the mixture in a single-phase block is far from the mixture two-phase
region, then the block most likely remains single phase even if block pressure
decreases slightly or if the mixture composition changes even more than is
allowed in the previous check. To identify these blocks, the simulator relies on the
values of tolerances provided by the user on the GIBBS card in the recurrent data
set.

Chapter
22
Polymer Modeling Option1
22.1 Introduction
The Polymer option extends VIP-EXECUTIVE to simulate the injection of
polymer thickened aqueous solutions into reservoirs. VIP-POLYMER™ models
all the important physical properties attributed to the flow of polymer solutions
through porous media. A list of the physical properties included in the model
follows:
■ Non-Newtonian aqueous phase viscosity which varies with polymer

concentration and salinity.
■ Polymer adsorption which varies with polymer concentration and salinity.
■ Permeability reduction to the aqueous phase which varies with permeability,

porosity, salinity, and polymer concentration.
■ Polymer inaccessible pore volume phenomenon.
■ Cation exchange between the clay (rock) and the aqueous phase.
■ Non-Newtonian flow effects for the well calculations.
R5000.0.1 Polymer Modeling Option 22-353

22.2 Description of Option

The polymer option models the transport of polymer and electrolytes through
porous media. The electrolytes are categorized by three components; a
monovalent cation, a divalent cation and a monovalent anion. Hence the polymer
and electrolytes are represented by four components which are present in the
aqueous phase and adsorbed on the rock and occupies no volume. The model
solves the material conservation equations for the polymer, the divalent cation and
the monovalent anion, while the monovalent cation is calculated from
electrostatic equilibrium.
22-354 Polymer Modeling Option R5000.0.1

22.3 Material Conservation Equations

The transport of polymer and electrolytes is considered to be dominated by
viscous and gravity forces. Dispersion (diffusion) effects are not considered.
The conservation equation representing polymer transport is:
∂ ϕ Q
( ϕC̃ p ) + ------ ∇ ( C pw U w ) = ------p (22-1)
∂t ϕp Vb
U w = kλ rw ( ∇P w – γ w ∇D ) (22-2)
C̃ p = C pw S w + Ĉ p (22-3)
The conservation equations representing electrolyte transport are:
∂ Q
( ϕC̃ e ) + ∇ ( C ew U w ) = ------e (22-4)
∂t Vb
C̃ e = C ew S w + Ĉ e (22-5)
subscript e stands for either the divalent cations or the monovalent anions where
C̃ p = Total polymer concentration (mobile + stationary).

6
total mass of polymer × 10 - ( ppm )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pore volume × density of polymer sol.
C̃ e = Total electrolyte concentration (mobile + stationary).
quantity -
-------------------------------- ( meq ⁄ ml )
pore volume
Cpw = Polymer concentration in the aqueous phase.
6
mass of polymer in phase phase × 10 - ( ppm )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. of aqueous phase × dens. of polymer sol.
Cew = Electrolyte concentration in the aqueous phase.
quantity - ( meq ⁄ ml )
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vol. of aqueous phase
Ĉ p = Concentration of adsorbed polymer.
6
mass of polymer adsorbed × 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ppm )
pore volume × density of polymer sol.
Ĉ e = Concentration of electrolyte associated with the clays.
quantity -
-------------------------------- ( meq ⁄ ml )
pore volume
Qp = Qw Cpw (ppm bbl/D)

Qe = Qw Cew (meq/ml bbl/D)
Vb = Bulk volume (bbl).
Uw = Aqueous phase flux.
λrw = Relative mobility of aqueous phase = krw/μw(cp-1).
Pw = Aqueous phase pressure (psi).
D = Elevation with respect to some datum (ft).
γw = Aqueous phase density (psi/ft).
∇ = Gradient operator
ϕ = Porosity
ϕp = Effective porosity to polymer.
22.3.1 Polymer Solution Viscosity

The Non-Newtonian (shear-rate dependent) aqueous phase viscosity is modeled
by Meter’s65 equation:
μo – μ∞
μ p = μ ∞ + ------------------------------------
· Pα – 1- (22-6)
γ
1 + ⎛⎝ ---------
· -
⎞
γ 1 ⁄ 2⎠
where:
·
μo Is the viscosity at zero shear rate ( γ = 0 ) and is a
function of polymer concentration and solution salinity
μo = μo(Cpw, CSEP).
·
μ∞ Is the viscosity at infinite shear rate ( γ → ∞ ) and is
approximated by μ∞ = μw.
μw Is the viscosity of the aqueous phase with no polymer.

·
γ Is an equivalent shear rate for multiphase flow in porous
media.
·
γ1 ⁄ 2 Is the shear rate at which the viscosity attains a value
halfway between that at zero shear rate and that of water.
Pα Is a parameter.
·
The equivalent shear rate, γ , is approximated by Hong66 as follows:

·
· 5γ c U w
γ = ------------------------
- (22-7)
kk rw ϕS w
where:
·
γ = Shear rate (sec-1)
Uw = Darcy velocity (ft/day)
k = Absolute permeability in the direction of flow (Darcy).
n -
-----------
· ⎛ 1 + 3n ⎞ –1
n
·
γc = ⎜ ------------------⎟ where n is the power law index. γ c is
⎝ 4n ⎠
bounded between 0.779 and 1 as n varies between 1 and
0.
The polymer viscosity at zero shear rate, μo, is a function of polymer and
electrolyte concentrations. VIP-POLYMER has two options for calculating μo.
One option involves interpolation of μo vs. Cpw tables at various salinities. The
other option uses the following function:
2 3 S
μ o = μ w 1 + ( A p1 C pw + A p2 C pw + A p3 C pw )C SEP
p
(22-8)
where:
Ap1 = Parameter (ppm-1) (meq/ml)-Sp
Sp = Constant and is approximated by the slope of μo vs. CSEP

on a log-log plot.
CSEP = Effective salinity for polymer properties and is defined

as:
+ ++
C + βp C
C SEP = ---------------------------
- (22-9)
Sw
where:
C+ = Free monovalent ion concentration (meq/ml of P.V.).
C++ = Free divalention concentration (meq/ml of P.V.).

βp = Parameter for effective divalent salinity (dimensionless)
At low salinities, polymer viscosity is considered independent of salinity. An

input value, CSE1, indicates the salinity cut off.
22.3.2 Polymer Adsorption

Polymer adsorption, Ĉ p , is modeled as instantaneous, irreversible, and as a
function of polymer and electrolyte concentrations in the aqueous phase. VIP-
POLYMER has two options for calculating Ĉ p . One option involves interpolation
of Ĉ p vs. Cpw tables at various salinities. The units for Ĉ p in the input table are
lb/ac-ft of bulk reservoir volume. Unit conversion to ppm (pore volume basis) is
done internally by the model using the following:
Ĉ p ( lb ⁄ ac – ft )ρst
Ĉ p ( ppm ) = -------------------------------------------- (22-10)
ϕρ res 2.7194
The other option for calculating Ĉ p uses the following functions:
a p – C pw
Ĉ p = ------------------------ (22-11)
1 + b p C pw
a p = a p1 + a p2 C SEP (22-12)
where:
⎛ lb ⁄ ac – ft⎞
ap1 = Parameter ⎜ ------------------------⎟
⎝ ppm ⎠
⎛ lb ⁄ ac – ft ⎞
ap2 = Parameter ⎜ --------------------------------------⎟
⎝ ppm – meq ⁄ ml⎠
bp = Parameter (1/ppm)

22.3.3 Permeability Reduction

Permeability reduction factor, Rk, is defined as:
Effective permeability to brine

R k = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Effective permeability to polymer solution
Permeability reduction is modeled as a function of polymer and electrolyte
concentrations, permeability and porosity. Rk is applied only to the aqueous phase
and considered irreversible.
VIP-POLYMER has two options for calculating Rk. One option uses the following
functions:
( R kmax – 1 )b rk C pw
R k = 1 + --------------------------------------------
- (22-13)
1 + b rk C pw
1⁄3 –4
C rk [ μ ]
R kmax = 1 – -----------------------------------------
- (22-14)
1⁄2 1⁄2
(k) ⁄ ( ϕS w )
where:
brk = Parameter (ppm-1).
Crk = Parameter (darcy1/2 ppm1/3).
k = Absolute permeability ( k x × k y ) (darcy).
[μ] = Intrinsic viscosity of the polymer solution (ppm-1).
The intrinsic viscosity, [μ], is defined by:
[μ] =
lim ⎛μ o – μ w⎞
-----------------
- (22-15)
C pw → 0 ⎝ μ w C pw ⎠
The method used by VIP-POLYMER to calculate [μ] depends on the option used
for calculating μo. If μo is calculated using Equation 22-8, then
S
[ μ ] = A p1 C SEP
p
(22-16)
If μo is calculated from table interpolations, then [μ] is approximated numerically

from the slope of μo vs. Cpw at Cpw = 0.
( Δμ o ⁄ ΔC pw )
[ μ ] = -------------------------------
- C pw = 0 (22-17)
μw

The second option for calculating Rk uses a combination of table interpolations

and Equations 22-13 to 22-17. The method first interpolates for Rk between values
of Cpw for each salinity table. Equations 22-13 to 22-17 are then used to include
the permeability and porosity dependence, followed by interpolation between
salinity values.
22.3.4 Polymer Inaccessible Pore Volume

The polymer inaccessible pore volume phenomenon is modeled by multiplying
the flux term in the polymer conservation equation (Equation 22-1) by the ratio
ϕ ⁄ ϕ p . This has the effect of speeding up the polymer accordingly. ϕ p is the
effective porosity to polymer often considered less than the true porosity, ϕ, due to
the experimental phenomenon where polymer molecules are observed to flow
faster than the solvent.
In the model, the increased polymer velocity results in a diluted polymer

concentration relative to the total pore volume. For this reason the polymer
concentration used to calculate the polymer dependent properties is multiplied by
ϕ ⁄ ϕp .
22.3.5 Cation Exchange

The exchange of the monovalent and divalent cations with the clays is assumed to
result entirely from electrostatic association.67 The equilibrium relationship is
+ 2 + 2
(C ) C Qv ( C )
-------------- = β ------ -------------
- (22-18)
++ S w C ++
C
where
C+, C++ = Free monovalent and divalent ion concentrations (meq/

ml of P.V.).
C+, C++ = Concentrations of monovalent and divalent ions

associated with the clays (meq/ml of P.V.).
Qv = Cation exchange capacity of clays (meq/ml of P.V.).
βc = Cation exchange constant (meq/ml)-1.
In addition we have the electroneutrality conditions:
+ ++ -
C +C = C (22-19)
+ ++
C +C = Qv (22-20)
where C- = free anion concentration (meq/ml of P.V.).

22.3.6 Effective Polymer Viscosity Used in the Well Calculations

The equivalent shear rate for flow in porous media, Equation 22-7, can be written
as:
· qw
· 5γ c
γ = --------------------------- ------ (22-21)
Kk rw ϕS w A
substituting the above equation in Equation 22-6 we can write:
M
μ p = μ w + -------------------- (22-22)
S x
1 + ⎛⎝ ---⎞⎠
A
where:
· qw
5γ c
S = --------------------------- ---------
· - (22-23)
Kk rw ϕS w γ 1 ⁄ 2
x = pα – 1
M = μo – μw
Darcy’s law in radial geometry can be written as:
Kk rw A dp
q w = ---------------- ------ (22-24)
μ dr
Substituting for μ in Equation 22-24 from Equation 22-22 we can write:
qw M
dp = – ------------------------- μ w + -----------------------------
- dr (22-25)
2πrhKk rw x
⎛ S ⎞
1 + ⎜ ------------⎟
⎝ 2πhr⎠
x
qw M ⎛S ⎞ x
p = – ------------------------- u w ln ( r ) + ----- ln ⎜ ----------⎟ + r (22-26)
2πrhKk rw x ⎝ 2πh⎠
Define:
Pw = Pressure at rw where rw is well radius.
Pe = Pressure at re where re is some radius > rw .
For a fluid with Newtonian viscosity μ , we can write:

–qw μ re
P e – P w = ---------------------- ln ⎛⎝ -----⎞⎠ (22-27)
2πhKk rw r w
For a fluid with non-Newtonian viscosity, we can write:
x
⎛S ⎞ x
⎜ ----------⎟ + r e
–qw re M ⎝ 2πh⎠
Pe – pw = ---------------------- μ w ln ⎛ -----⎞ + ----- ln ----------------------------- (22-28)
2πhKk rw ⎝ r w⎠ x x
⎛S ⎞ x
⎜ ----------⎟ + r w
⎝ 2πh⎠
For these two fluids to give the same pressure drop, Pe - Pw , then
x
⎛S ⎞ x
⎜ ----------⎟ + r e
⎝ 2πh ⎠
ln -----------------------------
x
⎛S ⎞ x
⎜ ----------⎟ + r w
M ⎝ 2πh ⎠
μ = μ w + ----- ---------------------------------------- (22-29)
x re
ln ⎛ -----⎞
⎝ r w⎠
Thus all well bore calculations for a non-Newtonian viscosity fluid can be made
equivalent to a Newtonian fluid by use of an equivalent viscosity μ as defined by
Equation 22-29.

22.4 Instantaneous Gel Model

The idea behind a gel treatment is to inject a special polymer solution into a well
producing at high water cuts. The polymer then reacts with accompanying
chemical agents and forms a gel, plugging the water conducting channels. The
well should then have a lower water cut when put back on production. The
polymer injection duration is relatively short (few days).
The instantaneous gel model uses the polymer model to inject and place the
polymer in the formation. The GEL keyword at the desired date in the recurrent
data will compute a gel saturation assuming an instantaneous reaction as follows:
Sw ( if cpw ≥ cpgel ) -
Sgel = --------------------------------------------------------
0.0 ( if ( cpw < cpgel ) )
where
cpw is the aqueous phase polymer concentration
cpgel is the user specified concentration cutoff.
The gel phase has the same compressibility as the aqueous phase. The water
relative permeability is calculated as follows:
Krw ( Sw ) = Krw ( Sw + Sgel ) – Krw ( Sgel )
The instantaneous gel model is very general and independent of the polymer
gelation mechanism.


Chapter
23
PVT Representation
23.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the behavior of the fluid-rock system when pressure and
temperature are varied is discussed. Attention is mainly focused on the behavior
of the hydrocarbon properties in both the compositional formulation and black oil
formulation. Reference is made to the miscible formulation.
23.2 Rock Porosity

Rock porosity is calculated by the following equation:
φ = M V φ o [ 1 + C r ( P o – P ref ) ] (23-1)
where Cr is rock compressibility, Pref is reference pressure, and φo is porosity at

the reference pressure. If the compaction option is invoked, MV is the pore volume
multiplier that is a function of gridblock pressure (reversible option) or the
historical minimum gridblock pressure (irreversible option; default). If the
compaction option is invoked, the user must enter MV at different pressure levels.
MV equals one if the compaction option is not used.
23.3 Water Properties

Water viscosity is assumed to be a constant (user input). The reciprocal formation
volume factor of water, Bw, is defined as
B w = B wo [ 1 + C w ( P o – P ref ) ] (23-2)
where Bwo is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water (in STB/RB) at
reference pressure Pref, and Cw is water phase compressibility.
R5000.0.1 PVT Representation 23-365

23.4 Hydrocarbon Properties

The VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator can be operated as a general compositional
model, a conventional black oil model, or a Todd-Longstaff miscible model. In the
following sections, the hydrocarbon properties of the three models are discussed
separately.
23.4.1 Compositional Model
Density and Fugacity
For the general compositional model, an equation of state is used to determine the
oil densities and fugacities. The user may select one of four equations-of-state:
Peng-Robinson (PR), Redlich-Kwong (RK), Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK), or
Zudkevitch-Joffe-Redlich-Kwong (ZJRK).
All four equations of state obtain molar densities by solving the following cubic
equation:
3 2 2 2
Z j + ( E f1 B – 1 ) Z j + ( A – E f2 B + E f3 B )Z j – [ AB + E f4 B ( B + 1 ) ] = 0
(23-3)
where
Po
Z j = -----------
- (23-4)
ρ j RT
is the compressibility factor for the RK, ZJRK, SRK, and “unshifted” PR
equations, and
Nc
⎛ P o ⎞ ⎛⎜ 1 ⎞
Z j = ⎜ ---------⎟ ---- + ∑ x i b i s i⎟ (23-5)
⎝ RT ⎠ ⎜⎝ ρ j ⎟
⎠
i=1
is the “shifted” compressibility factor for the PR equation. Additionally,

Nc Nc
Po
2 2∑ ∑ [ xi xk ( 1 – dik )
A = -----------
- ai ak ] (23-6)
R T
i=1 k=1
Nc
Po
B = -------
RT ∑ xi bi (23-7)
i=1
2 2
R T ci
a i = Ω ai α i ------------- (23-8)
P ci
23-366 PVT Representation R5000.0.1

RT ci
b i = Ω bi ----------- (23-9)
P ci
Here, R is the gas constant; si is the volume shifting parameter of component i;

and Tci and Pci are the critical temperature and critical pressure of component i,
respectively. Parameters Ωai and Ωbi are treated as universal constants in the
original equations-of-state. However, as an additional flexibility for fitting data,
VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to enter different values for each component.
The symbol dik denotes the binary interaction coefficients between components i
and k. Definitions for those parameters not mentioned here are given later in this
section.
The cubic equation (Equation 23-3) may yield three real roots. The largest root is
always taken as the compressibility factor for the gas phase, while the smallest
positive root is the compressibility factor for the oil phase. The molar densities of
the hydrocarbon phases, ρj, then are calculated from Equation 23-4 or
Equation 23-5.
The fugacity coefficient of component i in phase j, φji, is defined as
f ji
φ ji = ---------
- (23-10)
xi Po
where fji is fugacity of component i in phase j. This represents the tendency of the
component to escape from the phase. In an ideal solution it is equal to the vapor
pressure.
With this definition, the fugacity coefficient can be calculated by
i o bP j Z +E B A
m2
ln φ ji = – ln ( Z j – B ) + ----------- ( Z j – 1 ) + ln ------------------------ -----------
BRT Z j + E m1 B E f5 B
Nc
2P o bi Po
× ---------------
AR T
2 2
- ∑ ( x k ( 1 – d ik ) a i a k ) – ----------
BRT
- (23-11)
k=1
The universal constants Ef1 to Ef5, Em1, Em2, and the default values of Ωai and Ωbi
are summarized in the following:

Ef1 Ef2 Ef3 Ef4 Ef5 Em1 Em2 Ωai Ωbi
PR 1 2 -3 -1 2 2 1 + 2 1 – 2 0.457235529 0.077796074
SRK 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0.427480200 0.086640350
RK 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0.427480200 0.086640350
ZJRK 0 1 -1 0 -1 0 1 0.427480200 0.086640350
In the following, the definitions of αi in Equation 23-8 are presented separately

for individual equations-of-state.
Peng-Robinson Equation-of-State
2
α i = [ 1 + χ i ( 1 – T ri ) ] (23-12)
where, for the default option (PR),
χ i = ω i ( – 0.26992ω i + 1.54226 ) + 0.37464, if ω i ≤ 0.49 (23-13)
or
χ i = 0.379642 + ω i [ 1.48503 + ω i ( – 0.164423 + 0.016666ω i ) ]
if ω i > 0.49 (23-14)
and for the original Peng-Robinson (PRORIG)
χ i = ω i ( – 0.26992ω i + 1.54226 ) + 0.37464, for all ω i (23-15)
The symbol ωi is the user-input acentric factor of component i, and Tri is the
reduced temperature (T/Tci) of component i.
Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
T ci
αi = ------- (23-16)
T
Soave-Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
The parameter αi is defined in Equation 23-12 (the same as PR) and χi is

calculated by
χ i = ω i ( – 0.176ω i + 1.574 ) + 0.48 (23-17)

Zudkevitch-Joffee-Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
αi = 1 (23-18)
The Ωai and Ωbi in the table above are initial guesses. The actual values of Ωai and
Ωbi for a given component i at a given temperature T below critical are determined
so that component vapor pressure and saturated liquid density at T are exactly
matched.
Hydrocarbon Phase Viscosities
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark Correlation
The viscosities of the oil and gas phases are calculated using the Lohrenz-Bray-
Clark (LBC) correlation.28
3 4 0.16667
⎛ M j P cj⎞
μ j = 0.18383 ⎜ ---------------⎟ [ ( 0.1023 + ρ r {0.023364 + ρ r [ 0.058533
⎝ T cj ⎠
4 –4 U3
+ ρ r ( – 0.040758 + 0.0093324ρ r ) ] } ) – 10 ] + ----------------------------
N
-
c
∑ ( xi Mi )
1 (23-19)
where
ρ r = ρ j V cj (23-20)
Nc
Aj = ∑ xi Ai , A = M, P c, T c, V c (23-21)
i=1
10.736 Z ci T ci
V ci = --------------------------------
- (23-22)
5.6146 P ci
Nc 3 4 0.16667
⎛ M i P ci⎞
U 3 = 0.18383 ∑ x i M i ⎜ ---------------⎟ U 5i (23-23)
⎝ T ci ⎠
i=1
and
– 4 0.94
U 5i = 3.4 × 10 T ri if T ri < 1.5 (23-24)

or
–4 0.625
U 5i = 1.778 × 10 ( 4.58T ri – 1.67 ) if T ri ≥ 1.5 (23-25)
The symbol Mi denotes the molecular weight of component i. In Equations 23-19

through 23-25, ρj, Vci, Pci, Tci, and μj are in units of lbmol/bbl, bbls/lbmol, psi, °R,
and cp, respectively.
Pedersen Correlation
The Pedersen correlation29,37 is useful for heavy oils where the LBC correlation
fails to give a proper viscosity prediction for some cases.
To invoke the Pedersen viscosity option, enter keyword VISPE between the PVT
data and the surface separation data input. You may specify binary interacting
coefficients Xij in Equation 23-27 to calculate the mixture critical temperature and
k1 to k7 in Equation 23-39 to calculate the viscosity of the reference component
(methane).
In the input data, VISK (kj) and VISKJ (Xij) cards are optional. Default values are
used if they are not entered. The default values are zero for all of the interacting
coefficients Xij and are given after Equation 23-39 for coefficients kj. Only those
data overwriting the default values need to be entered. Sample input data are
shown below:
Sample:
VISPE
VISK
1 42.5
2 0.0002279
3 11770
4 600.3
5 16.49
6 1614
7 0.05552
VISKJ
3 5 -0.36409
3 6 -0.38517
3 7 -0.8
3 8 -0.62763
ENDVIS
The Pedersen correction is based on the corresponding states principle. A group of

substances obeys the corresponding states principle if these substances have the
same reduced viscosity at the same reduced density and reduced temperature. In

such a case, only comprehensive viscosity data for one component (the reference
component) in the group are needed. Other data can be calculated from the
reduced viscosity. The Pedersen correlation uses methane as a reference
substance.

The viscosity of a hydrocarbon phase is calculated as
1⁄6 2⁄3 1⁄2

⎛ T co ⎞ ⎛ P cm⎞ ⎛ MW m⎞ αm ⎛ P ⋅ P co α o T ⋅ T co α o⎞
μ ( p, T ) = ⎜ ---------⎟ ⎜ ---------⎟ ⎜ -------------⎟ ------- ⋅ μ o ⎜ ----------------------
-, ----------------------⎟
⎝ T cm⎠ ⎝ P co ⎠ ⎝ MW o ⎠ αo ⎝ P cm α m T cm α m ⎠
(23-26)
where Tcm is the mixture critical temperature and Pcm is the mixture critical
pressure. The subscripts o and m refer to the reference substance and mixture,
respectively. They are calculated from the mixing rules:
n n 1⁄3 1⁄3 3
⎛ T ci⎞ ⎛ T cj⎞ 1⁄2
∑ ∑ x i x j ⎜ ------
⎝ P ci⎠
- ⎟ + ⎜ -------⎟
⎝ P cj⎠
( 1 – X ij ) ( T ci T cj )
T cm = i-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=1 j=1
n n
- (23-27)
1⁄3 1⁄3 3
⎛ T ci⎞ ⎛ T cj⎞
∑ ∑ x i x j ⎜ ------
⎝ P ci⎠
- ⎟ + ⎜ -------⎟
⎝ P cj⎠
i=1 j=1
n n 1⁄3 1⁄3 3
⎛ T ci⎞ ⎛ T cj⎞ 1⁄2
8 ∑ ∑ x i x j ⎜ -------⎟ + ⎜ -------⎟ ( T ci T cj )
⎝ P ci⎠ ⎝ P cj⎠
P cm i=1 j=1
= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (23-28)
2
⎛ n n
⎛ T ⎞
1⁄3
⎛ T ⎞
1 ⁄ 3 3⎞
⎜ ci cj ⎟
⎜ ∑ ∑ x i x j ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠
------- + ⎜ -------⎟
⎝ P cj⎠ ⎟
⎝i = 1 j = 1 P ci ⎠
The coefficients Xij are introduced in Equation 23-27 to account for the binary
component interaction.
Here, MWm is the mixture molecular weight and is calculated by the following
equation:
–4 2.303 2.303
MW m = 1.304 × 10 ( MW w – MW n ) (23-29)
where MWw and MW n are the weighted average and the molar average molecular
weights:
n
2
∑ xi MWi
MW w = i--------------------------
=1
n
(23-30)
∑ xi MWi

MW n = ∑ xi MWi (23-31)
i=1
Parameters αm and αo in Equation 23-26 account for the density and molecular
weight effects:
– 3 1.847 0.5173
α m = 1 + 7.378 × 10 ρ r MW m (23-32)
– 3 1.847 0.5173
α o = 1 + 7.378 × 10 ρ r MW o (23-33)
The symbol ρr denotes the reduced density for the reference component:
⎛ P ⋅ P co T ⋅ T co⎞
ρ o ⎜ ----------------, ---------------⎟
⎝ P cm T cm ⎠
ρ r = ----------------------------------------------
- (23-34)
ρ co
The density of the reference component (methane) ρo is calculated from the three-
parameter Peng-Robinson equation of state.
The viscosity of the reference component is based on the model of Hanley et al.30
μ ( ρ o, T ) = η o ( T ) + η 1 ( T )ρ o + F 1 Δη′ ( ρ o, T ) + F 2 Δη″ ( ρ o, T ) (23-35)
where
–1 –2 ⁄ 3 –1 ⁄ 3 1⁄3 2⁄3
ηo ( T ) = b1 T + b2 T + b3 T + b4 + b5 T + b6 T
4⁄3 5⁄3
+ b7 T + b8 T + b9 T (23-36)
and
b1 = -0.2090975x105
b2 = 2.647269x105
b3 = -1.472818x105
b4 = 4.716740x104
b5 = -9.491872x103
b6 = 1.219979x103
b7 = -9.627993x10
b8 = 4.274152
b9 = -8.14153x10-2
T 2
η 1 ( T ) = 1.6969859 – 0.13337235 ⎛ 1.4 – log e ---------⎞ (23-37)
⎝ 168⎠

j
Δη′ ( ρ o, T ) = exp ⎛ – j 1 + ---4-⎞
⎝ T⎠
⎧ ⎫
⎪ 0.1 ⎛ j3 ⎞ 0.5 ⎛ j j ⎞ ⎪
-⎟ + θρ o ⎜ j 5 + ---6- + ---7-⎟
× ⎨ exp ρ o ⎜ j 2 – ---------- – 1.0 ⎬ (23-38)
3⁄2 T T⎠
⎪ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎝ ⎪
⎩ ⎭
j1 = 1.035060586x10
j2 = 1.7571599671x10
j3 = 3.0193918656x103
j4 = 1.8873011594x102
j5 = 4.2903609488x10-2
j6 = 1.4529023444x102
j7 = 6.1276818706x103
k
Δη″ ( ρ o, T ) = exp ⎛ – k 1 + ----4-⎞
⎝ T⎠
⎧ 0.1 ⎛ k3 ⎞ 0.5 ⎛ k k ⎞ ⎫
-⎟ + θρ o ⎜ j 5 + ----6- + -----7 ⎟
× ⎨ exp ρ o ⎜ k 2 – ---------- – 1.0 ⎬ (23-39)
3⁄2 T T 2⎠
⎩ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎝ ⎭
k1 = 9.74602
k2 = 18.0834
k3 = 4126.66
k4 = 44.6055
k5 = 0.976544
k6 = 81.8134
k7 = 15649.9
ρ o – ρ co
θ = ------------------- (23-40)
ρ co
Coefficients j1 to j7 in Equation 23-38 are obtained from a least-squares fit to the

methane viscosity data at temperatures above the freezing temperature of methane
(set Δη”= 0), while k1 to k7 in Equation 23-39 are determined from temperature
below the freezing point (set Δη’= 0). To ensure continuity between viscosities
above and below the freezing point, two weighting factors F1 and F2 were
introduced:
F 1 = 1-------------------------
+ HTAN (23-41)
2
F 2 = 1------------------------
– HTAN-
(23-42)
2

exp ( ΔT ) – exp ( – ΔT )
HTAN = ---------------------------------------------------- (23-43)
exp ( ΔT ) + exp ( – ΔT )
ΔT = T – T F (23-44)
where TF is the freezing point of methane. The units in Equations 23-35 through
23-43 are gm/cc for density, °K for temperature, and micropoise for viscosity.
23.4.2 Black Oil Model

In the black oil model, all hydrocarbon fluid properties are entered in tabular
forms. The user must provide the differential liberation data. These include the
solution gas-oil ratio (Rs, in SCF/STB of residual oil), the formation volume
factor (Bo, in RB/STB of residual oil), gas compressibility factor (Zg), gas
formation volume factor (Bg, in RB/MSCF), gas density relative to air at standard
conditions (Gr), and oil and gas viscosities (μo and μg) as functions of the
saturation pressure. (Note that both the solution gas-oil ratio and the oil formation
volume factor are based on the standard state of the residual oil, rather than on the
stock tank oil.) In this form, the formation volume factor is more frequently
referred to as the relative oil volume in typical laboratory reports. Such form
allows the user to enter the laboratory data directly, without first converting them
to stock tank oil conditions. The values of Bo and μo at pressures above the
saturation pressure also are required for undersaturated conditions.
Since the simulator uses a compositional formulation internally, these black oil
data are converted into compositional parameters (e.g., fugacity coefficients, Zo,
and μo are as functions of pressure and gas component mole fraction in the oil
phase). The compositional parameters then are reconstructed into equal-spaced
tables. For pressures beyond the range of the tabular data, VIP-EXECUTIVE uses
constant slope extrapolation to derive values at those conditions. The conversion
procedure is described in the following sections.
Gas Properties
The gas phase viscosity and compressibility factor are assumed to be a function of
pressure only (no compositional dependency). An equal-space viscosity versus
pressure table is constructed from the input viscosity versus saturation pressure
table. A Zg versus pressure table is likewise constructed. If Bg instead of Zg is
entered as a function of pressure, then the following equation is used to convert Bg
to Zg:
0.0056146 B g P o T s
Z g = ------------------------------------------------
- (23-45)
Ps T

In deriving this equation, gas compressibility at the surface temperature (Ts) and
surface pressure (Ps) is assumed to be one.
Phase Equilibrium and Oil Properties
VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to input more than one set of PVT data for
different equilibrium regions. These data are converted to equal-space tables of K-
values (needed for fugacity equality equations), Zo, and μo.
Data conversion requires oil and gas component molecular weights, which are set
internally by the simulator. To ensure non-zero component K-values, the
simulator assumes that the oil component molecular weight, M2, equals the
maximum among all residual oil and stock tank oil molecular weights plus two
(2.0). Additionally, the gas component molecular weight, M1, is assumed to equal
the minimum among all gas phase molecular weights (29Gr) minus one (1.0).
Consequently, the gas phase has at least a trace of the oil component at any
pressure level (including the surface pressure) and vice versa.
VIP-EXECUTIVE also provides options for multiple API fluid regions and gas
solubilities. These options are not documented here.
Residual Oil Molecular Weight
The residual oil molecular weight is either directly entered by the user or derived
by the simulator. Normally the user is required to enter either the density and
molecular weight of residual oil (ρor , Mwor) or those of bubble-point oil (ρos,
Mwos) following the BOTAB card. These properties can be derived from each
other based on the differential liberation data. The procedure to derive ρor and
Mwor from ρos and Mwos is explained below.
The differential liberation data are entered in monotonically decreasing pressure

steps. The last pressure must be the surface pressure; i.e., P(i) > P(i+1) and P(Np)
= Ps, where Np is the entry number of the last stage. Based on 1 cc of the residual
oil (equivalent to Bos cc or ρos x Bos gm of residual oil plus gas at the bubble-point
condition or bubble-point oil), the overall gas liberated in gm for the differential
liberation is
Np – 1
29. Ps
G g = --------------------------------------- ---------
5.6146 × 62.428 RT s ∑ ( R s ( i ) – R s ( i + 1 ) )G r ( i + 1 ) (23-46)
i = Ns

Thus, the density of the residual oil is given by
ρ or = ρ os × B os – G g (23-47)
where ρor and ρos are given in gm/cc, Ns is the entry number of the saturation
pressure of the bubble-point oil, and Bos is the Bo (RB/STB of residual oil) for the
bubble-point oil. Again, based on 1 cc of the residual oil, the overall gas liberated
in gmole at the end of the differential liberation for the bubble-point oil is
1 Ps
G m = ------------------------------------------ --------- [ R s ( N s ) – R s ( N p ) ] (23-48)
5.6146 × 652.428 RT s
The amounts of bubble-point oil in gmole given 1 cc of residual oil is
B os × ρ os
z o = ---------------------
- (23-49)
M wos
The molecular weight of the residual oil then is
ρ or
M wor = -----------------
-
zo – Gm
Stock Tank Oil Molecular Weight
Following a similar procedure, the density and molecular weight of the stock tank
oil can be derived from ρos and Mwos if the Rs, Bo (RB/STB of stock tank oil), and
Gr were known from the separator flash test. This is the case when the SEPTEST
card is entered in the VIP-EXECUTIVE input deck.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two additional separator options that warrant special

attention since they may create an overly defined fluid system. The first option is
use of the BOSEP card. This option requires that the user enter the API or density
of the stock tank oil. Since the same quantity also can be derived from ρos and
Mwos, we have an overly defined fluid system. In this case, VIP-EXECUTIVE
honors the stock tank oil density entered by the user and disregards the Gr in
deriving all the relevant stock tank oil properties.
The second option is the use of the SEPARATOR card, where K-values for the
separator are entered. The stock tank oil molecular weight can be defined from the
separator K-values. However, the user may enter the stock tank oil molecular
weight (MWL) which, if entered, produces an overly defined fluid system. In this
case, VIP-EXECUTIVE honors the user-entered MWL and disregards the
molecular weight derived from the separator K-values in deriving the stock tank
oil compressibility (ZLSEP).

K-Value and Oil Compressibility
The K-value and oil compressibility tables can be derived from the user-entered
differential liberation data. First, the molecular weight of the liberated gas, Mwg,
at each liberation stage (pressure entry No. I-1 to I) is
M wg ( I ) = 29 ⋅ G r ( I ) (23-50)
The gas component mole fraction in the liberated gas phase is then
M 2 – M wg ( I )
y 1 ( I ) = ------------------------------
- (23-51)
M2 – M1
Based on 1 cc of residual oil, the amounts of the overall gas liberated from stage I
to the standard conditions in gm is
Np – 1
29. Ps
G g ( I ) = --------------------------------------- ---------
5.6146 × 62.428 RT s ∑ ( R s ( i ) – R s ( i + 1 ) )G r ( i + 1 )
i=1
(23-52)
which is similar to Equation 23-46. Thus, the density of the oil at stage I is
ρ or + G g ( I )
ρ o ( I ) = ---------------------------
- (23-53)
Bo ( I )
Since the amounts of total gas liberated from stage I to the standard conditions are
given by
1 Ps
G m ( I ) = --------------------------------------- --------- [ R s ( I ) – R s ( N p ) ] (23-54)
5.6146 × 62.428 RT s
the molecular weight of the oil at stage I can be calculated as
ρo ( I ) × Bo ( I )
M wo ( I ) = --------------------------------------------- (23-55)
ρ or ⁄ M wor + G m ( I )
The gas component mole fraction in the oil at stage I is
M 2 – M wo ( I )
x 1 ( I ) = ------------------------------
- (23-56)
M2 – M1
The equilibrium K-values of the gas component and the oil component at stage I
are calculated according to

y1 ( I )
K 1 ( I ) = -----------
- (23-57)
x1 ( I )
and
1 – y1 ( I )
K 2 ( I ) = --------------------
- (23-58)
1 – x1 ( I )
respectively. Oil compressibility then is calculated according to
P ( I ) × M wo ( I )
Z o ( I ) = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (23-59)
5.6146 × 62.428 × ρ o ( I ) × RT
The above procedure establishes K-values as a function of pressure, and Zo as a

function of x1 (or the saturation pressure). The relationship between x1 and
saturation pressure, which is needed in constructing the full Zo(Po, x1) and μo(Po,
x1) tables for undersaturated conditions, also is established.
For the undersaturated oil phase, the user must enter ratios of the oil formation
volume factor at pressures above the saturation pressure to the oil formation
volume factor at the saturation pressure. Ratios of oil viscosity at pressures above
the saturation pressure to viscosity at the saturation pressure also are required. To
convert the undersaturated Bo values to undersaturated Zo values, the following
relationship is recognized from Equation 23-59:
⎛ Z o⎞
⎜ ------⎟
⎝ P o⎠ Bo ( Po )
----------- = ----------------
- (23-60)
s s
⎛ Z o⎞ Bo ( Po )
⎜ -----s-⎟
⎝ P o⎠
where the superscripts denote saturated conditions. Note that the right side of
Equation 23-60 represents the input ratios of formation volume factors. This
equation suggests that the same ratios can be used directly if the undersaturated
Zo/Po table is constructed. The independent variables in the two-dimensional table
are x1 and Po. For a given x1, the saturation pressure is given by the x1-pressure
relationship established earlier in this section. For any Po which is greater than the
saturation pressure, the right side of Equation 23-60 is determined from the input
undersaturated table through interpolation. The resulting value is then multiplied
s s
by Z o ⁄ P o to yield Zo/Po for x1 and Po. The two-dimensional oil viscosity table
μo(x1, Po) is constructed likewise.

Finally, the K-values are used to establish the following fugactiy equality
equations:
φ oi = K i ( P o ), i = 1, 2 (23-61)
φ gi = 1, i = 1, 2 (23-62)
After the k-values have been calculated for each of the data entries in the
differential liberation data, an equal-spaced table is constructed through a linear
interpolation process involving ln(KijPi) versus ln(Pi).
23.4.3 Gas Condensates

An expanded gas properties treatment is available for gas condensate fluid
systems, allowing a compositional dependency as well as pressure dependency for
undersaturated gas viscosity and compressibility factor. The new table is
analogous to the undersaturated oil phase table. For each saturation (dewpoint)
pressure, a set of data may be introduced, defining the ratios of gas formation
volume factor at pressures above the saturation pressure to the gas formation
volume factor at the saturation pressure. Ratios of the gas viscosity at pressures
above the saturation pressure to gas viscosity at the saturation pressure are also
required.
23.4.4 Miscible Model

This miscible model is treated internally as a four-component compositional
model by VIP-EXECUTIVE. These four components are solvent, gas, oil and
water. The data requirement and conversion procedure to compositional
formulation for the gas and oil components are identical to the black oil model
described above. For the solvent, two property input options are available. In the
first option, the solvent component is treated numerically as insoluble in the oil
phase. This corresponds to an infinite solvent K-value. This option requires that
the user enter the formation volume factor or solvent compressibility and solvent
viscosity as a function of pressure. The conversion procedure of the solvent table
into compositional formulation is the same as that for the gas component.
In the second option, the solvent is treated numerically as partially soluble in the
oil phase. The user must enter the solvent K-value, the compressibility factor of
the solvent in the oil phase, the viscosity of solvent in the oil phase as a function
of pressure, and the two properties specified in the first option. The oil phase and
gas properties are then calculated through mixing rules discussed in Chapter 16.

23.5 Equation of State Interpolation Option
23.5.1 Introduction
The equation of state interpolation option is developed in VIP for a reduction of
CPU time required for compositional reservoir simulations. The new option
reduces the CPU time by factors of 1.7-8 and it matches results of fully
compositional simulations in tested compositional models. The effectiveness of
the new option has been confirmed in the Fifth SPE Comparative Model and
several full field compositional models.
In the equation of state interpolation option, recovery factors of hydrocarbon

components, liquid and vapor compressibility factors are determined as tabular
functions of pressure, temperature, and fluid compositions. The equation of state
(EOS) is applied for the automatic generation of these functions in an
initialization step of a reservoir simulation (in VIP-CORE). They are stored in a
restart file. Then, the tabular functions of the recovery and compressibility factors
are used for phase-equilibrium calculations in different time steps of the reservoir
simulation (in VIP-EXECUTIVE) instead of the equation of state. These
functions are applied for the determination of compositions and densities of liquid
and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
The EOS interpolation option can be used for the phase-equilibrium calculations
in
■ reservoir grid blocks,
■ separators, and
■ well tubing strings (surface pipeline network system).
It also can be applied in any combination of these three parts of the reservoir
simulation. For example, it can be used for the phase equilibrium calculations
only in separators and well tubing strings.
The new EOSINT option significantly reduces the CPU time required for the
phase-equilibrium calculations and linearization of the equation of state. It is
implemented only in the IMPES finite-difference formulation.
23.5.2 General Description of EOS Interpolation Option

The EOS interpolation option is designed for the reduction of the CPU time
required for the phase-equilibrium calculations which are briefly described below.
Phase-Equilibrium Calculations
The phase-equilibrium procedure is applied in VIP for the determination of

■ number of existing hydrocarbon phases,
■ their compositions, and
■ densities of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
assuming that
■ pressure,
■ temperature, and
■ total fluid composition
are known.
The phase-equilibrium procedure is applied for the PVT calculations in
■ reservoir grid cells,
■ different stages of separator batteries,
■ well tubing strings, and
■ surface pipeline network system.
The VIP compositional phase-equilibrium procedure is based on the solution of

the equation of state (EOS) or Gibbs free energy minimization. It is described in
Chapter 21 of this manual and in an SPE paper52.
The nonlinear phase-equilibrium equations are solved in VIP simultaneously with

reservoir flow equations using the Newton-Raphson procedure. The linearization
of the phase-equilibrium equations is required in the Newton-Raphson procedure.
The linearization and solution of the phase-equilibrium equations consume a

significant portion of the CPU time required for a reservoir simulation. The
reduction of that time is the primary objective of the EOS interpolation procedure.
General Description
The equation of state interpolation procedure determines
■ saturation pressure (bubble point or dew point pressure),
■ K-values at the saturation pressure,
■ recovery factors of hydrocarbon components, and
■ compressibility factors of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases
as tabular functions (EOS interpolation tables) of

■ pressure,
■ temperature, and
■ fluid compositions.
The equation of state is applied for the generation of these tables in VIP-CORE.
The user should define pressure, temperature, composition entries of the EOS
interpolation tables. The recovery and compressibility factors are calculated for
all combinations of pressure, temperature, and composition entries.
The generated lookup tables are used instead of EOS for the phase-equilibrium
calculation in VIP-CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE. A multidimensional
interpolation is applied for the determination of the recovery and compressibility
factors between the table entries.
The EOS interpolation procedure can be used for the phase-equilibrium

calculations in reservoir grid blocks, separators, well tubing strings and surface
pipeline network system, or any combination.
The EOS interpolation procedure consists of the following parts:
■ definition of pressure, temperature, and composition entries of the EOS

interpolation tables using input data,
■ generation of the EOS interpolation tables in VIP-CORE using the equation

of state,
■ application of the EOS interpolation tables in VIP-CORE and VIP-

EXECUTIVE for the phase-equilibrium calculations.
Details of these parts are described in the following sections.
Construction of VIP-CORE Compositional Model
Parameters of the equation of state must be formulated because the EOS is applied
for the generation of the EOS interpolation tables.
The EOSINT card should be included in VIP-CORE input deck to invoke the EOS
interpolation option. The NORESERVOIR, NOSEPARATOR, or/and
NONETWORK keywords can be input on the EOSINT card to exclude the
application of the EOS interpolation procedure for reservoir grid cells, separators,
or/and surface pipeline network system, respectively.
23.5.3 Definition of Temperature, Composition, and Pressure Entries of EOS

Interpolation Tables
Input of Temperature Entries
Temperature entries (T1, T2, ..., Tnt) in the EOS interpolation tables can be input
on the TEMPERATURE card, where nt is the number of the temperature entries.
A temperature range in the EOS interpolation tables must include values of

temperature in reservoir grid blocks, well tubing strings, and the surface pipeline
network system. If this condition is violated, the simulator outputs a warning
message or stops the run (if it is requested by the user using the STOP keyword on
the EOSINT card).
Definition of Composition Entries
Composition entries of the EOS interpolation tables are defined from three
sources:
■ user input,
■ initial fluid composition in a reservoir, and
■ simulations of PVT tests.
Composition entries (Z1, Z2,..., Znz) of the EOS interpolation tables can be input
after the CMP card, where Zj=(z1j,z2j,...zncj), j= 1, 2,...,nz are the composition
vectors; zij is the molar fraction of the i-th component in the j-th composition
vector; nz is the number of the composition entries; nc is the number of the
hydrocarbon components.
Initial compositions of the reservoir fluids defined after the OILMF, GASMF, or
COMPOSITION cards are automatically included in a list of the composition
entries.
Simulations of PVT tests (differential expansion, swelling, and/or multiple

contact tests) can be applied in VIP-CORE for the automatic generation of the
composition entries ( See “Automatic Generation of Composition Entries” on
page 386.). The fluid compositions calculated in different stages of simulated
PVT tests are automatically included in a list of the composition entries.
The user can divide the composition entries into different paths. The simulator
interpolates the recovery and compressibility factors between paths. The paths can
be defined in the CMP, SWELLTEST, DIFEXPTEST, and MULCONTEST cards.
Compositional entries are defined separately for each equilibrium region.

Input of Minimum and Maximum Pressure Values
Minimum and maximum values of pressure in the EOS interpolation tables

(PMIN and PMAX) can be input after the PMIN and PMAX keywords,
respectively.
A pressure range in the EOS interpolation tables must include calculated values of
pressure in reservoir grid blocks, well tubing strings, and the surface pipeline
network system. If this condition is violated, the simulator outputs a warning
message or stops the run (if it is requested by the user using the STOP keyword on
the EOSINT card).
Definition of Pressure Entries
The simulator internally determines pressure entries of the EOS interpolation

tables. The pressure entries are calculated for each combination of temperature
and composition entries (Tk, Zj), k = 1, 2,..., nt, j = 1,2,...,nz. The following
procedure is applied:
1. A saturation pressure PSATjk is determined.
2. A pressure increment in the undersaturated region with one hydrocarbon

liquid or vapor phase is selected as follows:
The pressure interval from the saturation pressure PSATjk to the maximum
pressure PMAX is divided into NPMAX-1 equal subintervals. End points of
these subintervals are considered as the pressure entries of the EOS
interpolation tables.
The number of the pressure entries NPMAX can be defined by the user in the
DIM card.
3. A much smaller pressure increment is used in the saturated region near the
saturation pressure than the pressure increment in a saturated region far below
the saturation pressure. The pressure increments in these two saturated
regions with liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases are selected as follows:
The pressure interval from the minimum pressure PMIN to PSATjk is divided
into two intervals. The length of the first interval (near the saturation pressure)
is selected as 0.02 * (PMIN - PSATjk). Both intervals are divided into
NPMAX / 2 subintervals. End points of these subintervals are considered as
the pressure entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
Therefore, the simulator determines the 2 * NPMAX pressure entries for each
combination of the temperature and composition entries. Different sets of the
pressure entries are selected for the different composition and temperature entries.

Automatic Generation of Composition Entries
Simulations of
■ swelling,
■ differential expansion,
■ forward multiple contact, and/or
■ backward multiple contact
PVT tests can be applied in VIP-CORE for the automatic generation of the
composition entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
The PVT test simulations can be invoked using the SWELLTEST, DIFEXPTEST,
and/or MULCONTEST cards.
Swelling Test
For the simulation of a swelling PVT test, the user must specify
■ oil composition X on the OILCM card,
■ gas composition Y on the GASCM card, and
■ gas fractions f 1, f 2, …, f nf on the GASFRAC card.
The number of gas fractions ns can be specified on the NGASFR card. In this
case, the nf gas fractions are automatically calculated by dividing the interval 0 to
1 into (nf+1) equal subintervals.
The ns composition entries are calculated as
Z j = ( 1 – f j ) × X + f j × Y, j = 1, 2, …, nf. (23-63)
These compositions are included in the list of the composition entries and are
output to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
Differential Expansion Test
For the simulation of a differential expansion test, the user must specify
■ fluid composition on the COMP card,
■ temperature on the TEMP card,
■ pressure values P 1 > P 2 > … > P np on different stages of the differential

expansion test on the PRES card.

The number of stages np in the differential expansion test can be specified on the
NPRES card. In this case, the np pressure values in these stages are automatically
calculated by dividing the interval from PMIN to PSAT into np equal subintervals,
where PSAT is the saturation pressure (bubble point or dew point pressure),
calculated by the simulator for the specified composition and temperature.
In each stage of the differential expansion test, the following procedure is

executed:
1. Determine fluid composition.
In the first stage, the composition is defined on the COMP card. In subsequent
stages, the fluid composition is set to the liquid phase composition in the
previous stage if the OIL or BOTH keyword is included on the DIFEXPTEST
card. The fluid composition is set to the vapor phase composition in the
previous stage if the GAS keyword is included on the DIFEXPTEST card.
2. Calculate the saturation pressure.
3. Go to the next stage if the stage pressure is not smaller than the saturation
pressure.
4. Determine compositions of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
5. Include the fluid composition in the stage in a list of the composition entries
of the EOS interpolation tables (if the stage number is larger than two).
6. Output the fluid composition to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
7. Calculate densities and viscosities of oil and gas and output them to a file
(Fortran Unit 77) .
8. Go to the next stage.
The simulations of the differential expansion test can be repeated several times for
different temperature values specified on the TEMP card.
Forward and Backward Multiple Contact Tests
For the simulation of multiple contact tests, the user must specify
■ oil composition on the OILCM card,
■ injected gas composition on the GASCM card,
■ gas fraction on the GASFRAC card,
■ temperature on the TEMP card,
■ number of stages (flash calculations) on the NFLASH card,

■ pressure on the PRES card.
Simulations of the forward, backward, or both multiple contact tests can be

requested by including the FORWARD, BACKWARD, or BOTH keyword on the
MULCONTEST card.
In each stage of the multiple contact test, the following procedure is executed:
1. Determine the fluid composition as
Zj = ( 1 – f ) × Xj + f × Yj , (23-64)
where f is the specified gas fraction and j is the stage number.
In the first stage, the liquid and vapor phase compositions X1 and Y1 are
defined on the OILCM and GASCM cards. In subsequent stages of the
backward multiple contact test, the liquid phase composition Xj is set to the
liquid phase composition in the previous stage and the vapor phase
composition Yj is not changed. In subsequent stages of the forward multiple
contact test, the vapor phase composition Yj is set to the vapor phase
composition in the previous stage and the liquid phase composition Xj is not
changed.
2. Calculate the saturation pressure.
3. Stop the test simulation if the specified pressure is not smaller than the
saturation pressure.
4. Determine compositions of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases.
5. Include the fluid composition in the stage in a list of the composition entries
of the EOS interpolation tables.
6. Output the fluid composition to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
7. Calculate densities and viscosities of oil and gas and output them to a file
(Fortran Unit 77) .
8. Go to the next stage.
The simulations of the multiple contact test can be repeated several times for
different pressure, gas fraction, and temperature values specified on the PRES,
GASFRAC, and TEMP cards.
23.5.4 Construction of EOS Interpolation Tables

The following procedure is executed in VIP-CORE for the generation of the EOS
interpolation tables:

Determination of Saturation Pressure and K-values
The simulator calculates and stores saturation pressure values PSATjk (bubble
point or dew point pressure) for each combination of temperature and composition
entries (Tk, Zj), k = 1, 2,..., nt, j = 1,2,...,nz. The equation of state is applied for the
saturation pressure determination52.
At the same time, the simulator determines and stores the K-values at the pressure
equal to the saturation pressure:
jk jk jk
K i = y i ⁄ x i , i = 1, 2, …, nc, (23-65)
jk jk
where x i , y i are molar fractions of the i-th hydrocarbon component in liquid
and vapor phases at the temperature Tk, composition Zj, and pressure PSATjk.
Determination of Recovery Factors and their Derivatives
The simulator calculates and stores the recovery factors

jkm jkm
jkm L × xi
ri = --------------------------
J
, i = 1, 2, …, nc (23-66)
zi
and their derivatives with respect to pressure for all combinations of temperature,
composition, and pressure entries which are below the saturation pressure. In
jkm jkm
Equation 23-66, L is the molar fraction of the liquid phase; x i is the molar
fraction of the i-th component in the liquid phase.
jkm
The recovery factors r are determined from the solution of the equation of
state52with the temperature Tk, composition Zj, and pressure Pm which is below
the saturation pressure PSATjk. Therefore, two hydrocarbon phases exist at these
conditions.
The derivatives of the recovery factors with respect to pressure are also
calculated, because the cubic spline interpolation is applied.
Determination of Compressibility Factors and their Derivatives
The simulator calculates and stores the liquid and vapor compressibility factors
and their derivatives with respect to pressure for all combinations of temperature,
composition, and pressure entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
The liquid and vapor compressibility factors are determined as maximum and
minimum roots of the third order equation of state52.

The derivatives of the compressibility factors with respect to pressure are also
calculated, because the cubic spline interpolation is applied.
Determination of Recovery and Compressibility Factors in Separator Batter-

ies
The simulator calculates and stores recovery factors and liquid compressibility
factors for all stages of separator batteries. The equation of state is applied. The
calculations are repeated for all composition entries of the EOS interpolation
tables. Values of pressure and temperature specified by the user for different
stages of separator batteries are used in the calculations.
23.5.5 Phase-Equilibrium Calculations in EOS Interpolation Option

As described in Section 23.5.2, the phase equilibrium calculations are applied for
the determination of the number of existing hydrocarbon phases, their
composition, and densities assuming that current pressure P, temperature T, and
total fluid composition Z = (z1, z2,...,znc) are known.
The phase equilibrium procedure in the EOS interpolation option consists of the
following steps:
1. selection of the closest temperature, composition, and pressure entries of the

EOS interpolation table;
2. definition of the saturation pressure (bubble-point or dew-point pressure) as a

maximum saturation pressure in all selected entries;
3. determination of the number of existing hydrocarbon phases from the

comparison of the current pressure and the saturation pressure;
4. definition of the recovery and compressibility factors using a spline

multidimensional interpolation between values of these parameters in the
closest entries of the EOS interpolation table;
5. calculation of the liquid and vapor phase compositions using the recovery
factors;
6. calculation of densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases using the
compressibility factors.
These steps are described below.
Entry Point Selection
Selection of Closest Temperature Entries of EOS Interpolation Table

All temperature entries of the EOS interpolation table are sorted in increasing
order.
T 1 < T 2 < … < T nt . (23-67)
If temperature T is not larger than the first temperature entry, only the first
temperature entry is used in the interpolation procedure. If the temperature T is
not smaller than the last temperature entry, only the last temperature entry is used
in the interpolation procedure. In these cases, the simulator issues a warning
message or stops the run if it is requested by the user. Otherwise, two closest
temperature entries Tk and Tk+1 are selected as
Tk ≤ T < Tk + 1 . (23-68)
Selection of Closest Composition Entries of EOS Interpolation Table
Two procedures are implemented for the selection of the closest composition
entries and multidimensional interpolation between the selected entries:
■ Interpolation procedure based on a distance.
This method is applied if the MDI keyword is included on the EOSINT card.
The distance between two composition vectors Zk and Z is determined as
nc
j 2
D ( Z j, Z ) = ∑ ( zi – zi ) × ci . (23-69)
i=1
The non-negative coefficients c 1, c 2, …, c nc can be input by the user on the
COEFFICIENT card. As default, they are set to one.
Two composition entries Z j and Z j + 1 with the smallest distance from the
composition vector Z are selected.
■ Interpolation procedure based on an interpolation function.
The interpolation function is defined as

nc
F(Z) = ∑ ( ci × zi ) . (23-70)
i=1
The coefficients c 1, c 2, …, c nc can be input by the user on the COEFFICIENT
card. As default, they are set to molecular weights of hydrocarbon components;
therefore, the molecular weight of the fluid is used as the interpolation function.

All compositional entries of the EOS interpolation table are sorted in increasing
order of the interpolation function.
F ( Z 1 ) < F ( Z 2 ) < … < F ( Z nz ). (23-71)
If the value of the interpolation function in the current composition F ( Z ) is not

larger than the value of the interpolation function in the first composition entry,
only the first composition entry is used in the interpolation procedure. If the value
of the interpolation function F ( Z ) is not smaller than the value of the
interpolation function in the last composition entry, only the last composition
entry is used in the interpolation procedure. Otherwise, two closest composition
entries Zj and Zj+1 are selected as
F ( Z j ) ≤ F ( Z ) < F ( Z j + 1 ). (23-72)
Selection of Closest Pressure Entries of EOS Interpolation Table
One or two pressure entries are selected for each combination of the selected
temperature and composition entries.
If pressure P is not larger than the minimum pressure PMIN, only the first
pressure entry is used in the interpolation procedure. If pressure P is not smaller
than the maximum pressure PMAX, only the last pressure entry is used in the
interpolation procedure. In these cases, the simulator issues a warning message or
stops the run if it is requested by the user. Otherwise, two closest pressure entries
jk jk
P m and P m + 1 are selected as
jk jk
Pm ≤ P < Pm + 1 . (23-73)
Determination of Saturation Pressure and Number of Existing Hydrocarbon

Phases
As described in “Definition of Temperature, Composition, and Pressure Entries of

EOS Interpolation Tables”, the simulator calculates and stores the saturation
pressure (bubble point or dew point pressure) for each combination of temperature
and pressure entries of the EOS interpolation table. In accordance with the
definition, only liquid phase is present if pressure is higher than the bubble point
pressure and only vapor phase is present if pressure is higher than the dew point
pressure.
If all saturation pressures in the selected temperature and composition entries are
the bubble point pressures, the bubble point pressure at current temperature T and
composition Z is approximately defined as the maximum value of these saturation

pressures. In this case, two hydrocarbon phases are present if pressure P is less
than the bubble point pressure. Otherwise, only liquid phase is present.
If all saturation pressures in the selected temperature and composition entries are
the dew point pressures, the dew point pressure at temperature T and composition
Z is approximately defined as the maximum value of these saturation pressures. In
this case, two hydrocarbon phases are present if pressure P is less than the dew
point pressure. Otherwise, only vapor phase is present.
If one saturation pressure in the selected temperature and composition entries is a

bubble point pressure and another saturation pressure is a dew point pressure, it is
assumed that two hydrocarbon phases are present at the current conditions. These
conditions are near a critical point.
Determination of Recovery Factors
The recovery factors R = ( r 1, r 2, …, r nc ) are calculated in the EOS

interpolation option using the following three steps:
■ cubic spline interpolation in pressure,
■ linear spline interpolation in composition, and
■ linear spline interpolation in temperature.
The cubic spline interpolation in pressure is applied to assure the continuity of

derivatives of the interpolated functions with respect to pressure.
Consider, for example, this interpolation procedure for the recovery factor ri of the
i-th hydrocarbon component. A similar procedure is applied for the other recovery
factors.
The objective of the interpolation procedure is the determination of the recovery

factor at current pressure P, temperature T, and composition Z from the known
jk
values of the recovery factor at the selected entries ( P m , T k, Z j ).
Cubic Spline Interpolation in Pressure
The following interpolation procedure is repeated for each combination of

selected temperature and composition entries (Tj, Zk):
1. If the current pressure P is larger than the saturation pressure PSATjk, the
recovery factor is defined as:
jk 1, ifPSAT jk is a bubblepoint
ri = ⎛ ⎞ (23-74)
⎝ 0, ifPSAT jk is a dewpoint. ⎠

2. If the current pressure is smaller than the saturation pressure PSATjk and two
pressure entries are selected, the recovery factor is calculated as:
jk 2 3
ri = a0 + a1 × P + a2 × P + a3 × P , (23-75)
where the four coefficients ( a 0, a 1, a 3, a 4 ) are determined from the

conditions that the values of the recovery factor and its derivatives with
jk
respect to pressure are known at the two selected pressure entries P m and
jk
P m + 1 (see See “Determination of Recovery Factors and their Derivatives”
on page 389.).
If only one pressure entry is selected the recovery factor is set to known value
of the recovery factor in this pressure entry
jk jkm
ri = ri . (23-76)
Linear Spline Interpolation in Composition and Temperature
The following linear interpolation procedure is used for the interpolation between
the selected composition and temperature entries:
■ Interpolation in composition:
jk j + 1, k
bj × ri + ( 1 – bj ) × ri
k
ri = if two composition entries are selected (23-77)
jk
ri
if one composition entry is selected.
If the interpolation procedure is based on the distance (see “Selection of Closest

Composition Entries of EOS Interpolation Table”), the coefficient bj is calculated
as:
D ( Z j + 1, Z )
b j = ------------------------------------------------------
-. (23-78)
D ( Z j + 1, Z ) + D ( Z, Z J )
If the interpolation procedure is based on the value of the interpolation function

(see “Selection of Closest Composition Entries of EOS Interpolation Table”), the
coefficient bj is calculated as:
F ( Zj + 1 ) – F ( Z )
b j = ---------------------------------------- . (23-79)
F ( Zj + 1 ) – F ( Zj )
■ Interpolation in temperature.
Finally, the recovery factor is determined as follows:

k k+1
dk × ri + ( 1 – dk ) × ri
ri = if two temperature entries are selected (23-80)

k
ri
if one temperature entry is selected.
The coefficient dk is calculated as
Tk + 1 – T
d k = ------------------------ . (23-81)
Tk + 1 – Tk
Determination of Compressibility Factors
The compressibility factors of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases at current

pressure, temperature, and composition are calculated from the known values of
the compressibility factors at the selected entries using the multidimensional
interpolation (see “Determination of Recovery Factors”).
■ Note 1: Compositional entries of the EOS interpolation table can be divided

into paths. A path number is assigned to each composition entry on the CMP,
SWELLTEST, DIFEXPTEST, or/and MULCONTEST cards.
In this case, the described interpolation procedure is repeated one or two times
for closest paths. These paths are selected based on values of the following
path function:
nc
Fp ( Z ) = ∑ ( cpi × zi ) . (23-82)
i=1
The coefficients c p1, c p2, …, c pnc can be input by the user on the
COEFFICIENT PATH card.
The recovery and compressibility factors are calculated using the linear
interpolation between selected paths.
Determination of Liquid and Vapor Phase Compositions in Two-Phase

Region
Compositions of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases in the saturated region
are determined using recovery factors. (In the saturated region, the current
pressure is lower than the saturation pressure.) The following procedure is
applied:
■ Define a molar fraction of the liquid phase (see Equation 23-66) as follows:

nc
L = ∑ ri × zi . (23-83)
i=1
■ Calculate molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the liquid phase as
follows:
ri × zi
x i = -------------, i = 1, 2, …, nc. (23-84)
L
■ Determine molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the vapor phase as

follows:
( 1 – ri ) × zi
y i = ---------------------------, i = 1, 2, …, nc. (23-85)
1–L
Determination of Phase Composition in One-Phase Region
Composition of the existing hydrocarbon phase in the undersaturated region is the

same as the total fluid composition. The composition of the second “pseudo”
phase is determined using K-values at the saturation pressure. The following
procedure is applied:
■ Define K-values at the saturation pressure using the linear spline interpolation
in composition and temperature (see “Determination of Saturation Pressure
and K-values” and “Linear Spline Interpolation in Composition and
Temperature”).
■ Calculate molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the liquid phase as

follows:
z i, ifonlyliquidphaseispresent
xi = ,i = 1, 2, …, nc. (23-86)
z i ⁄ K i, ifonlyvaporphaseispresent
■ Determine molar fractions of hydrocarbon components in the vapor phase as

follows:
K i × z i, ifonlyliquidphaseispresent
yi = ,i = 1, 2, …, nc. (23-87)
z i, ifonlyvaporphaseispresent
Determination of Densities
Molar densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases are calculated using
the compressibility factors and the equation of state as follows:
P
ρ n = -------------------------- , n = l, v, (23-88)
R × Ta × zn

where ρ l, ρ v are the molar densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases;
z l, z are the liquid and vapor compressibility factors; R is the universal
constant; T a is the absolute temperature.
23.5.6 Example: Input of the EOS Interpolation Option in the Fifth SPE
Comparative Solution Model
As an example, input cards required for the application of the EOS interpolation
option in the Fifth SPE Comparative Model (scenario two)24 are described in this
section. Simulation results of the EOS interpolation and EOS model are
compared.
A reservoir model with 7 x 7 x 3 = 147 grid blocks, six hydrocarbon components,

one production and one injection wells is considered. Primary depletion for two
years and subsequent WAG injection for eight years are simulated24.
The following cards need to be added to a VIP-CORE input deck in the TABLES
section to apply the EOS interpolation option (comment lines are started with C):
C
C The EOSINT card must be included to invoke the EOS interpolation option
C
EOSINT
C
C Temperature entry of the EOS interpolation table.
C
TEMPERATURE 160
C
C Maximum and minimum pressure entries.
C The simulator internally selects pressure entries for each composition entries.
C
PMAX 4600
PMIN 940
C
C Path function coefficients.
C
COEFFICIENT PATH
0 10 0 0 0 0
C
C Composition entries of the EOS interpolation table is divided into three paths:
C Path 1 - reservoir oil;
C Path 2 - mixture of 50% of the reservoir oil and 50% of the injected gas,
C Path 3 - mixture of 5% of the reservoir oil and 95% of the injected gas.
C
C Composition entries in each path are automatically generated by means of
C simulations of the differential expansion PVT tests.
C
C Composition entries in Path 1.
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 1
C Number of stages. Pressure in each stage is calculated automatically.
NPRES 20

C Composition of the reservoir oil.

COMP .50 .03 .07 .20 .15 .05
C Number of gas fractions in the swelling test.
NGASFR 5
C
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 2
NPRES 20
C Composition of mixture: 50% of the reservoir oil and 50% of the injected gas
COMP .6350000 .1150000 .0500000 .1000000 .0750000 .0250000
NGASFR 5
C
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 3
NPRES 20
C Composition of the mixture: 5% of the reservoir oil and 95% of the injected gas
COMP .7565000 .1915000 .0320000 .0100000 .0075000 .0025000
NGASFR 5
C
C The simulation of the swelling test can be used to define compositions
C in the above COMP cards of the differential expansion tests.
C
C SWELLTEST 1
C Composition of the reservoir oil.
C OILCM .50 .03 .07 .20 .15 .05
C Composition of the injected gas.
C GASCM .77 .20 .03 0 0 0
C Gas fractions.
C GASFRAC 0.50 0.95
Simulation results of the EOS interpolation and EOS models in the Fifth SPE
Comparative Project are presented in Figure 23-1. Oil, water, gas production
profiles, gas-oil ratio, and average reservoir pressure are compared. This
comparison demonstrates that the results of the EOS interpolation model match
those of the fully compositional simulation. Besides, the new option reduces the
CPU time in 30%. Significantly larger reductions of the CPU time have been
achieved in full field reservoir simulations and pattern models with large numbers
of grid cells and hydrocarbon components.
23.5.7 Conclusions
■ A new equation of state interpolation option is developed in VIP for the CPU
time reduction in compositional models
■ Speed up by 1.7 - 8 times is achieved in tested models.
■ Simulation results of the new option match those of compositional

simulations.

Figure 23-1: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Fifth SPE
Comparative Reservoir Model

Figure 23-2: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cupiagua Full Field
Reservoir Model

Figure 23-3: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cusiana Full Field
Reservoir Model

Figure 23-4: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - PBU History Full
Field Reservoir Model

Figure 23-5: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Ursa Full Field
Reservoir Model

Figure 23-6: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - D13 PBU Pattern
Model

Figure 23-7: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - EWE PBU Pattern
Model


Chapter
24
00000 Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure
Adjustments Near the
Critical Point
24.1 Introduction
In a miscible displacement simulation, some gridblocks of a model may go
through a compositional path that leads to the critical point of the hydrocarbon
mixture. In a gridblock near the critical point, when a hydrocarbon mixture splits
into two phases, the compositions of the phases are similar. For this reason,
interfacial tension and capillary pressure between the phases become small and
approach zero, the oil and gas residual saturations decrease, and the gas and oil
relative permeability curves approach straight lines near the critical point.
VIP-EXECUTIVE has a special option that automatically adjusts relative

permeabilities and gas-oil capillary pressure in near-critical blocks. The
adjustment correlates these rock properties to gas-oil interfacial tension as
follows:
r S o – S org f ( γ )
k ro = f ( γ )k ro + [ 1 – f ( γ ) ]k m ( S w ) ------------------------------------------ (24-1)
1 – S w – S org f ( γ )
r S g – S gc f ( γ )
k rg = f ( γ )k rg + [ 1 – f ( γ ) ]k m ( S w ) ---------------------------------------- (24-2)
1 – S w – S gc f ( γ )
r γ
P cgo = P cgo -------- (24-3)
γ ref
where kro, krg, Pcgo are the adjusted relative permeabilities to oil, gas, and gas-oil
r r r
capillary pressure, respectively; k ro , k rg , P cgo are the nonadjusted respective
values as calculated by VIP-EXECUTIVE from the rock curves; and km(Sw) is the
relative permeability to miscible hydrocarbon fluid near the critical point. This
value is a function of water saturation only. Also, Sorg is the residual oil saturation
to gas, γ is the gas-oil interfacial tension, γref is the reference interfacial tension of
R5000.0.1 Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the Critical Point 24-407
r
the gas-oil system on which the capillary pressure rock curve P cgo has been
measured, and f(γ) is a function of the interfacial tension defined as:
e
⎛γ ⎞
f ( γ ) = ⎜ ----*⎟ . (24-4)
⎝γ ⎠
Here, γ* is the threshold interfacial tension below which the above relative
permeability adjustment is used. For interfacial tensions greater than the threshold
value, f(γ) is assigned a value of one. Exponent e is a positive number generally in
the range from 0.1 to 0.25.
The relative permeability to miscible hydrocarbon fluid, km(Sw), is defined as the

following arithmetical average:
1 r r
k m ( S w ) = --- [ k ro ( S 0 =1 – S w, S g =0 ) + k rg ( S g =1 – S w, S o =0 ) ] (24-5)
2
The gas-oil interfacial tension depends on the oil and gas compositions and is
calculated from the correlation:
i=n c
1⁄4
γ = ∑ Pchi ( ρo xi – ρg yi ) (24-6)
i=1
where Pchi is the parachor of component i, and ρo, ρg are molar densities in gram-
moles per cubic centimeter.
24-408 Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the Critical Point R5000.0.1
Chapter
25
Saturation Function
25.1 Introduction
Here, SWT and SGT define saturation-dependent relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures:
SWT The relative permeability of water, the relative

permeability of oil in the presence of water, and the
water-oil capillary pressure (Pcw) are expressed as
functions of the water-phase saturation using SWT
tables.
SGT The relative permeabilities of gas, the relative

permeability of oil in the presence of gas and connate
water, and the gas-oil capillary pressure (Pcg) are
functions of gas-phase saturation using the SGT tables.
The SWT and SGT tables must follow the equilibrium data. All SWT tables must
precede SGT tables.
The gas and water relative permeabilities (for both two and three phases) are
directly interpolated from the tables. The two-phase oil relative permeabilities are
also from the tables. The three-phase oil relative permeabilities are computed
from the two sets of two-phase values according to Stone’s Model I, Stone’s
Model II, and the Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model.
R5000.0.1 Saturation Function 25-409

25.2 Water Saturation Tables

The water saturation tables define the rock properties that depend on water
saturation: relative permeability of water, relative permeability of oil in the
presence of water, and water-oil capillary pressure.
Example:
SWT 1
SW KRW KROW PCWO
0.2 0.0 0.9 10.

0.3 0.0 0.65
0.4 0.02 0.4
0.5 0.06 0.2
0.6 0.1 0.01
0.7 0.15 0.005
0.8 0.19 0.0
0.9 0.35 0.0
1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
The title card SW, KRW, KROW, PCWO must appear in the order shown.
SW Water saturation. Values must increase consecutively.
KRW Water relative permeability. Values must increase with an

increasing water saturation.
KROW Oil relative permeability in a water-oil system. Values

must decrease with an increasing water saturation.
PCWO Water-oil capillary pressure. Values must decrease with

an increasing water saturation unless all values are equal;
PCWO = Po - Pw . If only the capillary pressures at the
first and last saturations are read and if the capillary
pressure entries between these two values are left blank,
then the program linearly interpolates between these two
values to complete the table entries.
25-410 Saturation Function R5000.0.1

Four saturation values in the table are of special interest:
Swl Connate water saturation. This is the first water

saturation in the table.
Swr Residual water saturation. This is the largest water

saturation where the water is immobile; usually, Swl =
Swr.
Swro Water saturation at residual oil. This is the smallest water

saturation where the oil is immobile.
Swu Maximum water saturation. This is the last water

saturation in the table; usually, Swu = 1.0.
The above example shows that connate water saturation (Swl) is 0.2, residual
water saturation (Swr) is 0.3, water saturation at residual oil (Swro) is 0.8, and
maximum water saturation (Swu) is 1.0.
For equilibrium initialization, water saturation above the water-oil transition zone
is the connate water saturation and that below the transition zone is maximum
water saturation.

25.3 Gas Saturation Tables

Gas saturation tables define the rock properties that depend on gas saturation:
relative permeability of gas, relative permeability of oil in the presence of gas and
connate water, and gas-oil capillary pressure.
Example:
SGT 1
SG KRG KROG PCGO
0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0
0.1 0.0 0.7
0.16 0.0 0.55
0.2 0.02 0.45
0.4 0.07 0.1
0.5 0.12 0.05
0.7 0.23 0.0
0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
The title card SG, KRG, KROG, PCGO must appear in the order shown.
SG Gas saturation. Values must increase consecutively.
KRG Gas relative permeability. Values must increase with an

increasing gas saturation.
KROG Oil relative permeability in a gas-oil-connate water

system. Values must decrease with an increasing gas
saturation.
PCGO Gas-oil capillary pressure. Values must increase with an

increasing gas saturation unless all values are equal;
PCGO = Pg - Po.
Four saturation values in the table are of special interest:
Sgl Connate gas saturation. This is the first gas saturation in

the table; usually, Sgl = 0.
Sgr Residual gas saturation. This is the largest gas saturation

where the gas is immobile.
Sgro Gas saturation at residual oil. This is the smallest gas

saturation where the oil is immobile.
Sgu Maximum gas saturation. This is the last gas saturation in

the table; usually, Sgu= 1 - Swl.

The above example shows that the connate gas saturation (Sgl) is 0, the residual
gas saturation (Sgr) is 0.16, the gas saturation at residual oil (Sgro) is 0.7, and the
maximum gas saturation (Sgu) is 0.8.
For equilibrium initialization, the gas saturation above the gas-oil transition zone
is the maximum gas saturation and that below the transition zone is the connate
gas saturation.
25.4 Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models

When describing three-phase flow through porous media, the relative
permeability to the intermediate-wetting phase (generally assumed to be the oil
phase) normally is calculated from two sets of two-phase relative permeability
data (krow and krog). Stone’s Model I, Stone’s Model II, and the Saturation
Weighted Interpolation Model are available in VIP-EXECUTIVE to predict three-
phase oil relative permeabilities.
25.4.1 Stone’s Model I

Stone’s Model I is invoked by entering the keyword “STONE1” in the VIP-
EXECUTIVE initialization input data set.
*
k rog k row So
k ro = -------------------- ---------------------------------------
k rocw ( 1 – S * ) ( 1 – S * )
w g
where
* S o – S or
S o ≡ ------------------------------
1 – S or – S wl
* Sg
S g ≡ ------------------------------
1 – S or – S wl
* S w – S wl
S w ≡ ------------------------------
1 – S or – S wl
⎛ S orw – S org ⎞
S or ≡ S orw – ⎜ --------------------------------⎟ S g
⎝ 1 – S org – S wl⎠
Here, krocw is the relative permeability to oil at connate water (Swl), krow is the
relative permeability to oil in the two-phase water-oil system (without gas
present), krog is the relative permeability to oil in a gas-oil system with connate

water, and Sorj is the residual oil saturation in the water-oil (j = w) or gas-oil (j =
g) system.
An extension of the Sorm term is available:
Sg A Sg ⎞ A
S or = S org ⎛ ----------⎞ + S orw ⎛⎝ 1 – ---------
2 2 3
-⎠ – ε ( S gro S g – S g ) + ν ( S gro S g – S g )
⎝ S gro⎠ S gro
where S gro = 1 – S wl – S org .
This collapses to the first definition of Sor when A=1, ε = ν = 0. The values A, ε,
ν are input on the STONE1 card.
25.4.2 Stone’s Model II

Stone’s Model II is invoked by entering the keyword “STONE2” in the VIP-
EXECUTIVE initialization input data set. This is the default option.
k row k rog
k ro = k rocw ⎛ -----------
- + k rw⎞ ⎛ -----------
- + k rg⎞ – k rg – k rw
⎝k ⎠ ⎝k ⎠
rocw rocw
25.4.3 Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model

The Saturation Weighted Interpolation three-phase model is invoked by entering
the keyword “KROINT” in the VIP-EXECUTIVE initialization input data set.
It assumes that the oil phase is uniformly distributed in the gridblock, while the
gas and water phases are completely segregated. Water saturation in the gas zone
is assumed to be connate water saturation (Swl), while gas saturation in the water
zone is zero. For average oil, gas, and water saturations of So, Sg, and Sw , the full
breakdown of the saturation distribution is as follows.
In the gas zone, which occupies a fraction, Fg, of the pore volume:
Oil saturation = So
Gas saturation = Sg + Sw - Swl
Water saturation = Swl.
In the water zone, which occupies a fraction, 1 - Fg, of the pore volume:
Oil saturation = So
Gas saturation = 0
Water saturation = Sg + Sw.

The material balance requires that the fraction of the pore volume occupied by the
gas zone, Fg, be
Sg
F g = -------------------------------
S g + S w – S wl
The relative permeability to oil in the gas zone is krog (evaluated at Sg = 1 - So -

Swl), while the relative permeability to oil in the water zone is krow (evaluated at
Sw = 1 - So). The average relative permeability to oil in the gridblock, kro, is the
volume average of the oil relative permeabilities in the two zones:
* *
S g k rog ( S g ) + ( S w – S wl )k row ( S w )
k ro = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
S g + S w – S wl
where Sg* is gas saturation in the gas zone and Sw* is water saturation in the water
zone:
*
S g ≡ S g + S w – S wl
*
Sw ≡ Sg + Sw
25.4.4 Guidelines for Selecting the Models

The optimal choice of a three-phase relative permeability model for any
simulation study depends on the reservoir system. If laboratory three-phase
relative permeability data are available, the best three-phase model can readily be
determined by comparing the isoperms predicted by all three models in VIP-
EXECUTIVE with the data. Otherwise, a good engineering judgment may be
made by comparing the isoperms predicted by all three models.
■ Stone’s Model II generally is regarded as too pessimistic at low oil

saturations. It predicts much lower oil relative permeabilities and much higher
residual oil saturations than the other models. However, use of this model
should not be ruled out completely because the model has been shown to be
superior to other models in one of eight systems tested by Baker.31
■ Stone’s Model I as modified by Fayers and Matthews32 predicts much more

favorable oil permeabilities with isoperms concave toward the 100% oil
saturation apex and has been suggested to predict a value of Kro that is too
high at low oil saturations for some systems.
■ Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model31 may predict oil permeabilities that

are between those predicted by Stone’s Model I and Model II. The model
gives apparently erroneous results in the region of low oil isoperms if the krog
and krow curves are dissimilar. The relative permeability to oil in the three-

phase region is dominated by the two-phase curve with higher relative

permeability to oil. The predicted residual oil saturation (corresponding to
zero oil isoperm) equals the minimum of Sorg and Sorw everywhere, except for
one two-phase limit at which a step jump in the residual oil saturation occurs
(from Sorg to Sorw at the water-oil two-phase limit if Sorg < Sorw, or from Sorw
to Sorg at the gas-oil two-phase limit if Sorw < Sorg). The impact of this
behavior in the low oil isoperm region on simulation results should be
investigated first for any simulation study if the Saturation Weighted
Interpolation Model is to be employed.

25.5 Consistency Checks For Saturation Tables

The following consistency checks are performed in the saturation tables:
1. Maximum gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the connate water
saturation:
S gu ≤ 1 – S wl
2. Connate gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the maximum water
saturation:
S gl ≤ 1 – S wu
3. The oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation and connate gas
saturation must be the same.
4. At the connate water/gas saturations, the water/gas relative permeabilities

must be 0.0.
5. At the maximum water/gas saturations, the oil relative permeability must be

zero.

25.6 Directional Relative Permeability

The directional relative permeability option in VIP-EXECUTIVE allows each
gridblock to have different relative permeability values in each flow direction,
rather than simply one computation per gridblock. For vertical equilibrium
problems (when VE option is invoked), the program internally generates the
relative permeability functions. Use of the directional relative permeability option
results in a different set of functions generated for the areal and vertical directions.
For non-VE (vertical equilibrium) problems, the user may assign multiple
saturation function tables to each gridblock.

The directional relative permeability option requires additional data only in VIP-
CORE. For a non-VE case, the user may enter a set of ISAT array data, with
direction specified, for each of the six flow directions (X+, X-, Y+, Y-, Z+, Z-). In
the VE case, the DRELPM data card is required to invoke the directional relative
permeability option in the absence of any other directionally dependent data.
Example:
ISAT CON
1
ISAT X+ CON
2
ISAT X- CON
2
ISAT Y+ CON
3
ISAT Y- CON
3
ISAT Z+ CON
4
ISAT Z- CON
5
In the above data, well relative permeability calculations use saturation Table 1
and interblock flow calculations in the X- direction use saturation Table 2, in the
Y- direction use saturation Table 3, in the Z+ direction use Table 4, and in the Z-
direction use Table 5.
The following guidelines for use of the directional relative permeability option
should be helpful:
■ Different saturation function table assignments may be made for each flow
direction for both the VE and non-VE options. Even though the program

internally generates the VE curves, the user-specified end points from tables,
or arrays, are honored.
■ Separate saturation function end-point arrays may be input for each flow
direction. The rules for entering directionally dependent end-point arrays
follow the standard rules. For example, if the SWRO array is entered for the
X+ direction, the SWR array for the X+ direction also must be entered.
■ The program computes separate mobility arrays for each phase only for each
flow direction with data that are directionally dependent. Because of this,
large amounts of storage are required as the number of mobility arrays
increases. The user should avoid entering default values for arrays for a flow
direction that otherwise would not need a separate mobility array.
■ Well mobilities are not directionally dependent. The ISAT array, without
direction specification, controls assignment of the saturation function table for
well calculations. Other end-point arrays, without direction specification, also
are used in the well mobility calculations.
■ The gas hysteresis option is not directionally dependent. A single value of

trapped gas and trapped hydrocarbon is maintained for each gridblock. This
value is based on data entered for SGTR in the table assigned with the ISAT
array, without directional dependence.
■ Capillary pressure is considered a gridblock property that is not directionally

dependent. The value of capillary pressure is determined from the saturation
function table assigned by the ISAT array, without directional dependence.

25.7 Gas Remobilization Option

The gas remobilization option addresses the remobilization of trapped gas during
pressure blowdown. The remobilization of gas occurs when trapped gas expands
and regains mobility as a result of the depressurization. Experimental evidence
indicates that unlike a displacement process where the scanning relative
permeability curves are reversible, the secondary drainage curve does not retrace
the imbibition curve if the increase in gas saturation is caused by gas expansion.
Moreover, the trapped gas does not become mobile until its saturation reaches a
threshold value which can be as much as 14 saturation units above the original
trapped gas saturation.
25.7.1 Implementation
The gas remobilization option can be invoked by the user any time during the
simulation (usually after the waterflood of a gas reservoir or a gas cap region and
at the onset of the pressure blowdown period). When this option is invoked, all
reservoir gridblocks are internally divided into two types. Type 1 gridblocks are
those previously invaded by water and which have reached the trapped gas
saturation. The remobilization of gas in these gridblocks is considered to be
controlled by gas expansion and hence is subject to the gas remobilization
calculation. Gridblocks not considered as Type 1 are classified as Type 2 and their
relative permeabilities to gas will be calculated using the standard gas hysteresis
options. The secondary drainage curve for Type 1 gridblocks is assumed to be
reversible, i.e., the subsequent secondary imbibition curve retraces the secondary
drainage curve. The gas remobilization option is available only if the gas relative
permeability hysteresis option is also invoked.
Numerically, the Type 1 gridblocks are those that satisfy all of the following
conditions at the time the gas remobilization option is turned on:
1. The water saturation must be greater than the historical minimum water
saturation (Swmin) plus a user-controlled incremental saturation (grmdsw), i.e.,
Sw > Swmin + grmdsw. The default value for grmdsw is 0.02.
2. The gas saturation must be less than or equal to the trapped gas saturation
(Sgtr) corresponding to the gridblock historical maximum gas saturation
(Sgmax), i.e., Sg ≤ Sgtr(Sgmax).
3. The gridblock historical maximum gas saturation must be greater than its
critical gas saturation, i.e., Sgmax > Sgc.
The threshold gas saturation at which the trapped gas becomes mobile, Sgrm, and
the secondary drainage relative permeability to gas at the maximum gas
saturation, Krgmax, are assumed to be functions of the trapped gas saturation.
These functions are rock-type-dependent and must be specified by the user in a
tabular form.

The secondary drainage relative permeability curve for each rock type must be
supplied by the user using a tabular format (i.e., Krg2d,r(Sg)) or a prescribed
analytic function. If the tabular format is chosen, the saturation endpoints are
identified as Sgrm,r and Sgma,r and their corresponding relative permeability
endpoints are 0.0 and Krgmax,r . Here subscript r denotes the rock type value. For
consistency, it is stipulated that Sgma,r be the same as the maximum gas saturation
specified in the gas saturation table (SGT). During the pressure blowdown period,
the gridblock trapped gas saturation, Sgtr,m, is first used to determine the gridblock
Sgrm and Krgmax (identified as Sgrm,m and Krgmax,m, respectively) values using the
user-input Sgrm(Sgtr) and Krgmax(Sgtr) table, where subscripts m denote the
gridblock variables. The gridblock secondary drainage relative permeability is
then determined using the standard two-point endpoint scaling method:
K rgmax, m o
K rg ( S g ) = ---------------------- K rg2d, r ( S g ) (25-1)
K rgmax, r
where
o ( S gma, r – S grm, r )
S g = S grm, r + ( S g – S grm, m ) -------------------------------------------- (25-2)
( S gma, m – S grm, m )
Here variable Sgma,m is the input gridblock maximum gas saturation.
If the analytic function approach is chosen, the secondary drainage relative

permeability is directly calculated by
C
( 1 + C 2 )S g13
K rg ( S g ) = K rgmax, m ----------------------------
C3
- (25-3)
1 + C 2 S g1
where
S g – S grm, m
S g1 ≡ --------------------------------------- (25-4)
S gma, m – S grm, m
The gas remobilization option is compatible with the standard VIP-EXECUTIVE

relative permeability treatment (i.e., input SWT and SGT tables). Gas relative
permeability hysteresis must also be invoked by entering an SGTR card following
each SGT card. The option is compatible with all existing formulations/options
except for the dual porosity option.
Printout of the input and reconstructed gas remobilization tables may be requested
through the SGT and RSGT keywords in the PRINT TABLES card in VIP-CORE.
Finally, at the time the gas remobilization option is invoked, the number of Type 1

gridblocks (i.e., gridblocks subject to gas remobilization calculation) will be

printed. Figure 25-1 shows the typical gas saturation and relative permeability
path of a Type 1 gridblock.
Figure 25-1: Typical Saturation and Relative Permeability Path of a Gridblock

Subject to Gas Injection followed by Water Injection and Pressure Blowdown
The option was tested using a small test model in which a primary depletion
process was followed by water injection into the gas cap area and pressure
blowdown.

The gas remobilization option requires the input of an Sgrm(Sgtr) and Krgmax(Sgtr)
table and a secondary drainage curve using a tabular input format or a prescribed
analytic function in VIP-CORE. In the simulation module, a GASRMON card
may be specified following any TIME/DATE card to invoke the gas
remobilization option. See the VIP-CORE Reference Manual and the VIP-
EXECUTIVE Reference Manual for detailed descriptions of the new input data.
Example Data - VIP-CORE:
C
C Gas Remobilization Option Input
C
GASRM 1
SGTR SGRM KRGMAX

0.05 0.10 0.9

0.10 0.15 0.85
0.17 0.23 0.81
0.24 0.30 0.75
0.33 0.40 0.7
0.4 0.48 0.6
0.5 0.6 0.5
GASRMT
SG KRG
0.21 0.0
0.30 0.02
0.43 0.10
0.55 0.20
0.66 0.33
0.77 0.5
0.985 0.65
C
GASRM 2
SGTR SGRM KRGMAX
0.05 0.10 0.9
0.10 0.15 0.85
0.17 0.23 0.81
0.25 0.31 0.74
0.33 0.40 0.7
0.4 0.48 0.6
0.5 0.6 0.5
GASRMT
SG KRG
0.21 0.0
0.30 0.02
0.43 0.10
0.55 0.20
0.66 0.33
0.78 0.51
0.9 0.65
Example Data - VIP-EXECUTIVE:
TIME 3650.
C
C Turn on Gas Remobilization Option
C
GASRMON 0.05


Chapter
26
Separators
26.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE is a compositional simulator. The governing equations of the
simulator are molar conservation equations; they describe movement of
hydrocarbon fluids in terms of moles at reservoir conditions. However, well
production rates are customarily reported in volumetric units at standard
conditions. In a compositional simulator, conversion of well rates from reservoir
conditions to volumetric units at standard conditions requires a separator model.
The separator model describes separation of reservoir fluids in surface facilities.
Besides calculating well production rates at standard conditions, the separator
model also calculates in-place volumes of reservoir oil and gas at standard
conditions. These calculations are performed when a region report is requested.
R5000.0.1 Separators 26-425

26.2 Separator Battery Configuration

VIP-EXECUTIVE allows a rather simple configuration of a separator battery
consisting of several separator stages connected in sequence. A sample
configuration is shown in Figure 26-1. Each stage has one feed stream and two
output streams, one vapor and one liquid. Specified fractions of the vapor and
liquid streams from a separator stage are sent to the battery gas and oil sales lines.
The remaining fractions of the vapor and liquid streams are sent to downstream
separator stages. In addition, a fraction of the stage vapor stream can be sent to a
vent. Note that the vent fraction is included in the well gas production rate, but is
not included in the gas production rates for the upper levels of the well
management structure.
Gas Sales Line
Vapor
Stream
Feed
Stage Stage Stage Stage
1 2 3 Ns
Liquid
Stream
Oil Sales Line
Figure 26-1: Sample Separator Battery Configuration
The VIP-EXECUTIVE configuration of a separator battery does not allow

recycling of streams.
26-426 Separators R5000.0.1

26.3 Definition of Separator Batteries

VIP-EXECUTIVE allows two types of separators: default and user-defined.
A default separator is created automatically in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The default

separator has a single stage at standard temperature and pressure. All the vapor
from the stage is sent to the gas sales line and all the oil is sent to the oil sales line.
In addition to a default separator, VIP-EXECUTIVE allows several user-defined

separators. In a user-defined separator, the number of separator stages, the
operating pressure and temperature of each stage, and the destinations and
fractions of the oil and vapor streams from the stage, which are sent to the sales
lines and separator stages downstream, are defined by the user. This is done by the
SEPARATOR card. Separator batteries can be defined in VIP-CORE and/or VIP-
EXECUTIVE. In addition to the batteries defined in VIP-CORE, new batteries
can be defined or redefined in VIP-EXECUTIVE. To obtain the stock tank liquid
volume, the last stage of the separator battery must operate at stock tank
conditions.
The assignment of a well to a separator battery is done in VIP-EXECUTIVE with

the WELL card. The assignment of an output region to a separator battery is done
in VIP-CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE by the REGSEP card. Definition of
multiple PVT property tables, or multiple separators, requires specification of a
REGSEP card.

26.4 Mass Balance Equations

The feed stream (moles of hydrocarbon component i) to the first separator stage
(Q1i) is known and is equal to the battery feed. Here, the first subscript is used as
the notation for the stage number, while the second subscript is used for the
hydrocarbon component number. The feed stream to stage n is the sum of the
vapor and liquid streams sent to this stage from all preceding stages:
n–1
l l v v
Q ni = ∑ ( F mn Q mi + F mn Q mi ), i = 1, 2, …, n c n = 2, 3, …, n s (26-1)
m=1
Here, Flmn and Fvmn are fractions of the liquid and vapor streams that are sent to
stage n from stage m. These fractions are defined by a user on the SEPARATOR
card. The sum of the vapor and liquid streams in moles for component i, Qvmi,
Qlmi, respectively, which leaves stage m, is equal to the feed stream to this stage:
v l
Q mi = Q mi + Q mi, i = 1, 2, …, n c, n = 1, 2, …, n s (26-2)
Moles that are sent to the oil and gas sales lines, Qo and Qg, are equal to the sum
of all streams sent to these lines from all the separator stages:
nc ns nc ns
l l v v
Qo = ∑ ∑ Fno Qni, Qg = ∑ ∑ Fng Qni (26-3)
i = 1n = 1 i = 1n = 1
Here, Flno and Fvng are fractions of the liquid and vapor streams, which are sent to
the sales lines. They are defined by a user on the SEPARATOR card.

26.5 Phase Equilibrium Conditions

Each separator stage is maintained at a specified pressure and temperature and is
assumed to achieve an instantaneous phase equilibrium. For each separator stage,
feed stream Qni is flashed at the stage pressure and temperature to calculate the
vapor and liquid streams.
The volume rates of oil and gas, Vos and Vgs, at stock tank conditions which leave
the separator battery are calculated as follows:
Ts
V os = 1.9122 Z os ----- Q o (26-4)
Ps
Ts
V gs = 0.010736 ----- Q g (26-5)
Ps
Here, Zos, Ts, and Ps are the liquid compressibility factor, temperature, and
pressure at the stock tank conditions.
26.5.1 Compositional Formulation

The equation-of-state that is used for phase equilibrium calculations in the
reservoir can be used for flash calculations in separators. This is the default.
However, the OMEGA and OMEGB factors, the binary interaction coefficients
and the volume shift factors used for phase equilibrium calculations at reservoir
conditions may not be adequate to describe fluid behavior at the conditions in the
separators. VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to modify these parameters for each
user-defined separator battery. This is done with the SEPARATOR card.
In addition, VIP-EXECUTIVE permits an equation-of-state different from the one

used for the reservoir to be used in separator calculations. For example, the SRK
equation-of-state can be used in separators, while the PR equation-of-state is used
in the reservoir. In this case, the user must define the choice of separator equation-
of-state on the EOSSEP card in VIP-CORE. Again, the equation-of-state
parameters can be adjusted individually for any of the user-defined separator
batteries with the SEPARATOR card.
The Standing-Katz density correlation can be used to calculate oil volumetric rate
at standard conditions instead of Equation 26-4.

26.5.2 Black-Oil Formulation

In the black-oil formulation, flash calculations at each stage of separation are
performed with predefined equilibrium K-values. There are several options to
define these K-values, as well as the compressibility factor of the residual oil at
standard conditions. These data are derived by the simulator from PVT property
data provided for phase equilibrium calculations at reservoir conditions, or they
are derived from the explicitly defined separator data.
In the first case, the simulator generates a set of K-values for each of the PVT
tables defined in a reservoir model. Each of the sets of K-values with the default
separator configuration defines a default separator battery.
In the second case, a user defines separator configuration as well as K-values with
the SEPARATOR card. The SEPTEST option provides the most accurate method
for defining a separator. Here the input is the actual data from the separator test;
the simulator calculates the corresponding K-values.
26.6 Solution Algorithm

The iterative procedure that is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to define the number of
hydrocarbon phases, the simultaneous solution of the mass balance Equations 26-
1, 26-2, and 26-3, and the phase equilibrium equations, is described in Reference
26. The user can control the convergence tolerance of this procedure using the
FLASH card.
26.7 Simplified Separator Calculations

The simplified separator calculations can be used in compositional models to
reduce CPU time.
The K-values for each stage of the separator battery are functions of the fluid
composition in the input stream of the separator. If fluid composition is not
significantly changed, the K-values do not need to be recalculated. This approach
has been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
The separator flash procedure is applied in each outer iteration of a timestep for
each well. In the first outer iteration, the K-values are calculated for each stage of
the separator battery for each well. The fluid composition, K-values, and liquid
compressibility factor are saved. If the maximum change in the composition in the
next outer iteration is less than the specified tolerance, then the K-values and
liquid compressibility factor are not updated.
The user can control the tolerance of the composition changes with the BHPITN
card. If this tolerance is set to zero, the K-values are recalculated in each outer
iteration of each timestep.

26.8 Gas Plant

Another method of defining surface separators for well streams is designed to
simulate the presence of a gas plant at the surface. This method can be used
whenever the standard option of using a set of surface flashes at a fixed
temperature and pressure is not satisfactory. This method uses liquid molar
recovery fractions for each component, input as a function of a key component
plus composition in the well stream. The key component plus composition is
defined as the sum of the over-all mole fractions for the key component plus
higher numbered components in the production stream. The interpolated values of
the liquid recovery fractions multiplied by the overall composition for each
component are used to obtain the produced liquid composition. EOS parameters
are then used to compute liquid densities. Liquid density plus surface total molar
production rate for the liquid provides the standard surface rate. Gas composition
and, thus, the densities are determined by the difference of the overall
composition and liquid composition. Again, the total molar production rate of gas
and the density provide the standard surface production rate.


Chapter
27
27.1 Introduction
In the simulator, we advance the solution in time while honoring the timing of
changes to data input and obtaining output at selected points. As long as the
correct answer is produced, the scheme employed should minimize work
performed (as measured by the CPU time consumed). There are tradeoffs between
speed and solution quality and, while the default settings will give good
performance for most problems, it may be necessary for the user to adjust them in
some cases. Three levels of control exist; timestep control, non-linear iteration
parameters and iterative solver parameters (if appropriate). The monitoring and
adjustment of performance at each of these levels is described in this chapter.
27.2 Timestep Control

The simulator moves the reservoir model through a succession of time points. The
interval of time between points is called the ‘timestep’. Within each timestep, the
simulator performs ‘outer iterations’, that is, Newton iterations resolve the non-
linearities in the pressure and saturation dependent properties in determining the
change in pressures and saturations which occur over the timestep. For each outer
iteration, an approximate linear system of equations constructed, which can be
solved by either direct or iterative matrix solvers. Due to their high efficiency,
iterative solvers are used almost exclusively. The iterations within the iterative
solution of the linearized system of equations are commonly referred to as “inner
iterations”.
The simulator can select its own timesteps. They are constrained only by the
maximum changes in reservoir variables specified on the DT card, or by gridblock
throughput limitations when the IMPES formulation is used (see IMPSTAB card).
Timestep size is altered automatically to hit exactly the times or dates on TIME or
DATE cards. Under automatic timestep control, maximum pressure, saturations,
vapor fraction, and total composition changes may be exceeded slightly to save
the work required to repeat the timestep.
Timesteps are controlled by three VIP cards; DT, TCUT, and IMPSTAB, which
are described in detail in the user manual and are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
R5000.0.1 Simulator Performance 27-433

27.2.1 Primary Timestep Controls (DT)

The DT card sets up primary controls for timestep size limits, maximum changes
in solution variables and flags which control which variables will be used to set
timestep size. The maximum timestep size is calculated by linear interpolation, or
extrapolation, so that none of the maximum changes will be exceeded, based on
the changes and size of the last timestep. The timestep can increase by a
maximum factor of five from one timestep to another.
Timestep size is altered automatically to coincide exactly to the times or dates

specified on TIME and DATE cards, even when fixed timesteps are used.
Under automatic timestep control, the maximum pressure, saturation, [vapor

fraction or gas saturation] and composition changes specified on the DT card are
sometimes exceeded by a small amount to save the work required to repeat the
timestep. If they are exceeded by a large amount (MAXOVR card), the timestep
will be repeated. The maximum number of timestep cuts is three by default, but it
may be respecified using the TCUT card.
Each of the solution variables (pressure, water saturation, [vapor fraction or gas
saturation] and mole fraction) can be used to control timestep size and/or limit
maximum change - the option are; BOTH, DTONLY, MAXONLY and NONE.
The default is BOTH for the IMPES formulation and DTONLY for the fully
implicit formulation.
27.2.2 Control Convergence Failures And Timestep Cuts (TCUT)

The TCUT card is used to control simulator treatment of convergence failure and
timestep cuts. It sets the maximum number of timestep cuts which can be taken
and has a default value of three. In general, the final timestep cut in a sequence
results in the minimum timestep size possible (DTMIN) being set. A convergence
failure on this “last” timestep causes an attempt to save the run by using one tenth
of this size (0.1*DTMIN). If the timestep is still not acceptable, the run is
terminated and a restart record is written at the end of the last successful timestep.
Two distinct conditions can trigger a timestep cut; convergence failure of the non-
linear iterations and violation of a maximum allowable change (see above). After
each convergence failure the timestep size is cut by a factor of two and the
timestep is retried. A maximum change violation causes a new timestep size to be
calculated by interpolation, subject to the most restrictive of the variables flagged
for timestep control.
The keyword OFF causes the simulator to ignore convergence failures in

determining the acceptability of a timestep. The result of the timestep will be
accepted (subject to the tolerances on the DT card) without regard to the
inadequate closure of the material balance equation. This will frequently lead to
poor material balances in the model.
27-434 Simulator Performance R5000.0.1

If it was not already printed, an iteration summary will be printed by default for a
timestep that has a convergence failure unless the CNVFLOFF keyword is
specified on the OUTPUT card.
27.2.3 IMPES Stability Controls (IMPSTAB)

The IMPSTAB card is used to control simulator treatment of IMPES stability
restrictions. By default, the simulator calculates the theoretical maximum timestep
size for which IMPES is stable (based on a Buckley-Leverett-type analysis of
volumetric and molar throughput and the possible composition changes for each
phase in each gridblock) and forces the timestep to be no longer than this value.
Inactive blocks are ignored.
When controlled by the user, the timestep size will be set equal to a target factor
times the maximum stable IMPES timestep, provided that this timestep would
satisfy the constraints imposed by the DT and TCUT cards and not exceed the
IMPSTAB card limit.
27.2.4 Optimal Material Balance Option (OPTMBL)

The optimal material balance option is the combination of special features
implemented in the IMPES version of VIP-EXECUTIVE to improve the
computational efficiency through code restructuring. These features are new
unknown update and convergence control procedure, reordering of gridblocks
based on fluid type, partial Jacobian update and criteria for single-phase stability
test. The first feature is applicable to both the equation-of-state compositional and
black-oil models of VIP-EXECUTIVE, while the other features are applicable to
the equation-of-state compositional model only.
This option is derived from an updating procedure for solution unknowns that
satisfies the material balance for hydrocarbons and water during each outer
iteration. Also, the convergence of the outer iteration is controlled by the residual
in the saturation constraint equation. The convergence tolerance may be specified
through the TOLSCN card. The use of this option will reduce the number of outer
iterations and hence the CPU time. This option is only applicable to the IMPES
formulation. OPTMBL only functions for the run in which it is specified, i.e., it is
not passed on restarts and must be reentered. For example:
OPTMBL STBCHK PJACO
STBCHK and PJACO are optional keywords that control stability tests and partial
Jacobian updates. STBCHK indicates that an OPTMBL stability test will only be
performed for single-phase gridblocks either with two-phase neighbors or that
contain wells. Otherwise, a stability test is performed for all single-phase
gridblocks. For certain compositional problems, this feature could significantly
reduce the CPU time. It is only used for compositional problems.
PJACO indicates that a partial Jacobian update of the fugacity equations will be
performed, in conjunction with the OPTMBL option. Jacobian coefficients are not
recalculated for gridblocks that satisfy a preset convergence criteria. For certain

compositional problems, this feature could result in up to a 20% reduction in CPU

time. It is only used for compositional problems.
27.3 Non-Linear Iteration Control

The number of outer iteration (Newton steps) performed during a timestep is
governed by the ITNLIM, TOLD, and TOLR cards. The ITNLIM card establishes
the criteria for convergence of a ‘fully converged’ timestep. Should any of these
tolerances be exceeded the simulator will truncate the change, setting it equal to
the value specified on the ITNLIM card, and perform another outer iteration. For
this reason, an excessively small value for any of the iteration limits can slow or
even prevent convergence.
Failure to converge the outer iterations of a timestep within the maximum number
of outer iterations will normally cause the timestep to be repeated. Convergence of
the outer iteration over a timestep is achieved when none of the changes in
solution variables which occurred during the previous iteration are larger in
absolute value than the corresponding tolerances established on the TOLD card.
Additional tests for convergence of residuals are defined by the TOLR cards.
When the material balance error for each phase in each gridblock is less than the
tolerances specified on the TOLR card, the conservation equations are assumed to
have been solved and the timestep is concluded. The TOLD tests are independent
of the TOLR tests. Either set of convergence tests can signal the end of the
timestep even if the other has not yet been satisfied.
In the following example, the TOLD is satisfied after two iterations, whereas the
TOLR would be satisfied after three. The net result is that the convergence criteria
would be satisfied after two iterations.
Maximum Pressure
Maximum Residual
TOLD
TOLR
Change
0 1 2 3
Iterations
Figure 27-1: Convergence Criteria
27.3.1 Outer Iteration Controls (ITNLIM)

Each Newton (outer or non-liner) iteration consists of linearizing the flow
equations, solving the resulting coefficient matrix for changes in solution
variables and updating the problem. The solution variables are pressure, water
saturation, vapor fraction or gas saturation (depending on whether a block is
undersaturated or saturated) and component mole fractions. The solution vector
will normally be applied in full at the end of each iteration, but relaxation of the

solution (where only a portion of the vector is applied) will be invoked if an

iteration maximum change value is exceeded or if an endpoint (saturation table or
BHP limit) is violated. In these cases, only a fraction of the calculated changes are
applied. In general, the full solution vector should be applied in IMPES cases,
while relaxation may be necessary in IMPLICIT cases, because of the magnitude
of the changes for very large timesteps. In the latter case, iteration maximum
change parameters should be set to 40% of the corresponding timestep (DT)
values.
For most problems, timesteps should converge in less than seven iterations, which
is the preferred upper limit. Individual limits can be turned off by setting them to
0.99, but this should only be done in extreme cases - material balances may be
adversely affected. In any event, active iteration maximum change values should
always be less than or equal to their timestep counterparts.
27.3.2 Convergence Tolerance (TOLD)

Convergence is achieved when none of the pressure, saturation [water and vapor
fraction or gas saturation] or composition changes occurring over the previous
iteration are larger in absolute value than the corresponding tolerances.
The TOLD tests are independent of the TOLR tests (discussed below). If either set
of convergence tests is satisfied, no further outer iterations are performed and the
timestep is concluded.
A negative value for a tolerance causes that variable to be ignored in the

convergence check.
A zero value for any of the tolerances forces non-convergence based on maximum
changes.

27.3.3 Convergence Tolerance (TOLR)

When the residual error in each material balance equation in each gridblock
satisfies the appropriate tolerance, the equations are assumed to have been solved
and the timestep is concluded.
The TOLR tests are independent of the TOLD tests. If either set of convergence
test is satisfied, no further outer iterations are performed and the timestep is
concluded.
The recommended setup for TOLR is:
TOLR .0005 .0005 RELTOL
i.e. when the solution residuals have been reduced by four orders of magnitude,
the timestep is assumed to have converged, regardless of absolute values.
27.3.4 Maximum Allowable Material Balance Error (ABORT)

The ABORT card defines the maximum allowable hydrocarbon and water
material balance errors. When one of these is reached, the program automatically
terminates. This automatic termination control is activated only by data entry.
27.3.5 Minimum BHP Damping Factor (CBHPMN)

If a well becomes constrained by BHP during an iteration, the solution will be
relaxed by a factor which will just place the well at the limit. This can be overly
restrictive in some situations, and provision is made to input a minimum damping
factor for use in these cases. This condition will be reported on the iteration
summary, where a (BHP) will be shown for the cutback factor variable. As a
general rule, a value of one should be used for IMPES cases.
27.3.6 Gas Percolation Control (GASPERC)

GASPERC is an option to control the vertical migration of evolved or injected gas
in cases where the vertical flux would result in more gas leaving a block than
existed at the start of a timestep. Hence:
if (upward gas flux) x (timestep size) > (moles of gas in block)
then (upward gas flux) = (mole of gas in block) / (timestep size)
The adjustment is made to the gas transmissibilities. This option, or a variant, is

required when running problems with high gas mobilities in IMPES mode,
because the stability of the IMPES formulation is theoretically limited by
throughput during a timestep. Answers should be relatively insensitive to this
option, except that runs will be more stable.

27.4 Simulator Performance Monitoring

The simulator provides several tools for monitoring simulator performance. The
first level consists of the Timestep Summary lines and the Simulation Statistics
report, which are output in all runs and are not under user control. The second
level is an optional Non-linear Iteration report, which the user can output for
selected timesteps. The third and final level is a Linear Iteration report, which is
available when using an iterative solver (e.g. BLITZ) and can only be output on
timesteps for which the Non-linear Iteration report has also been activated.
A brief discussion of run optimization is included at the end of this section and
provides the checklist for possible problem areas.
27.4.1 Timestep Summary

After completion of each timestep, a line is written to the output file containing
the following information; timestep number, time, phase rates, field average
pressure, material balances, maximum changes, number of cuts and number of
iterations. This same information will be printed at the end of the run output, when
TSSUM is specified on the OUTPUT card. Timestep lines are selected for this
report with the frequency specified by the TSSUM entry on the PRINT card. An
example of a timestep summary shown below.

**************************************************************************************
* *
* VIP-EXEC TIMESTEP SUMMARY *
* *
* OFFSHORE EUROPE DEMONSTRATION MODEL *
* FINE GRID MODEL *
* *
* VIP-EXEC *
**************************************************************************************
TIMESTEP DAILY PRODUCTION CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION DAILY INJECTION CUM. INJECTION AVG TIME ITN
------------ -------------------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- PRES STEP ---
OIL GAS WATER GOR WATER OIL GAS WATER GAS WATER GAS WATER CUTS
SCF/ CUT
NO. DAYS MSTB/D MMSCF/D STB/D STB FRAC. MMSTB BSCF MSTB MMSCF/D STB/D BSCF MSTB PSIA
---- ------- -------- -------- -------- ----- ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------ ---- ---
1 1.0000 1.90000 3.07223 0. 1616 0. .00190 .00307 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 5308. 0 2
2 6.0000 1.90000 3.07223 .01834 1616 0. .01140 .01843 .00009 0. 0. 0. 0. 5307. 0 2
3 31.000 1.90000 3.07223 .02910 1616 0. .05890 .09524 .00082 0. 0. 0. 0. 5306. 0 3
4 91.000 1.90000 3.07223 .04225 1616 0. .17290 .27957 .00335 0. 0. 0. 0. 5303. 0 3
5 181.00 1.90000 3.07223 .05870 1616 0. .34390 .55607 .00864 0. 0. 0. 0. 5299. 0 3
6 183.64 57.00 92.17 1.72174 1616 0. .49455 .79967 .01319 55.30 31500. .14615 83.25250 5295. 1 5
7 186.26 57.00 92.17 8.66352 1616 0. .64389 1.04114 .03589 55.30 31500. .29104 165.78 5292. 0 3
8 189.09 57.00 92.17 11.49 1616 0. .80489 1.30147 .06835 55.30 31500. .44724 254.76 5289. 0 3
9 192.25 57.00 92.17 13.53 1616 0. .98514 1.59294 .11114 55.30 31500. .62212 354.37 5286. 0 3
10 196.01 57.00 92.17 15.18 1616 0. 1.19958 1.93967 .16825 55.30 31500. .83016 472.87 5284. 0 2
11 200.76 57.00 92.17 16.64 1616 0. 1.47030 2.37742 .24730 55.30 31500. 1.09280 622.48 5281. 0 3
12 204.91 57.00 92.17 18.04 1616 0. 1.70684 2.75990 .32215 55.30 31500. 1.32229 753.20 5278. 0 3
13 209.38 57.00 92.17 19.03 1616 0. 1.96147 3.17163 .40716 55.30 31500. 1.56933 893.92 5275. 0 3
14 214.42 57.00 92.17 19.93 1616 0. 2.24880 3.63622 .50761 55.30 31500. 1.84809 1052.71 5273. 0 3
15 218.70 57.00 92.17 20.79 1616 0. 2.49288 4.03090 .59665 55.30 31500. 2.08490 1187.60 5271. 0 3
16 222.57 57.00 92.17 21.45 1616 0. 2.71363 4.38784 .67971 55.30 31500. 2.29906 1309.59 5269. 0 3
17 226.21 57.00 92.17 21.99 1616 0. 2.92099 4.72314 .75969 55.30 31500. 2.50024 1424.18 5267. 0 3
18 229.71 57.00 92.17 22.45 1616 0. 3.12063 5.04595 .83833 55.30 31500. 2.69392 1534.51 5265. 0 3
19 233.18 57.00 92.17 22.87 1616 0. 3.31801 5.36510 .91753 55.30 31500. 2.88542 1643.59 5263. 0 2
20 236.62 57.00 92.17 23.26 1616 0. 3.51452 5.68285 .99771 55.30 31500. 3.07607 1752.19 5262. 0 2
21 240.59 57.00 92.17 23.62 1616 0. 3.74070 6.04858 1.09146 55.30 31500. 3.29550 1877.18 5260. 0 3
22 250.41 57.00 92.17 24.02 1616 0. 4.30000 6.95295 1.32716 55.30 31500. 3.83813 2186.27 5255. 0 3
23 262.40 57.00 92.17 24.89 1616 0. 4.98378 8.05859 1.62570 55.30 31500. 4.50151 2564.14 5250. 0 3
24 273.00 57.00 92.17 25.84 1616 0. 5.58790 9.03543 1.89953 55.30 31500. 5.08762 2898.00 5245. 0 3
25 278.00 90.25 145.93 36.97 1616 0. 6.03915 9.76509 2.08436 87.56 58500. 5.52541 3190.50 5239. 0 4
26 288.93 90.25 145.93 42.23 1616 0. 7.02549 11.35996 2.54586 87.56 58500. 6.48233 3829.84 5230. 0 4
27 298.70 90.25 145.93 46.30 1616 .001 7.90770 12.78647 2.99848 87.56 58500. 7.33824 4401.69 5222. 0 6
28 308.64 90.25 145.93 48.83 1616 .001 8.80466 14.23681 3.48377 87.56 58500. 8.20844 4983.10 5215. 0 2
29 319.21 90.25 145.93 50.91 1616 .001 9.75869 15.77945 4.02190 87.56 58500. 9.13403 5601.50 5209. 0 3
30 322.60 90.25 145.93 52.85 1616 .001 10.06444 16.27383 4.20094 87.56 58500. 9.43066 5799.69 5206. 1 2
31 325.94 90.25 145.93 53.45 1616 .001 10.36567 16.76092 4.37936 87.56 58500. 9.72291 5994.95 5204. 0 2
32 329.94 90.25 145.93 54.02 1616 .001 10.72643 17.34426 4.59529 87.56 58500. 10.07291 6228.79 5202. 0 2
33 335.16 90.25 145.93 54.66 1616 .001 11.19801 18.10677 4.88092 87.56 58500. 10.53042 6534.47 5198. 0 2
34 342.64 90.25 145.92 55.46 1616 .001 11.87320 19.19845 5.29583 87.55 58500. 11.18543 6972.13 5194. 0 2
35 353.17 90.25 145.91 56.53 1616 .001 12.82288 20.73384 5.89063 87.55 58500. 12.10666 7587.71 5188. 0 2
36 359.67 90.25 145.87 58.00 1616 .001 13.41029 21.68328 6.26813 87.52 58500. 12.67632 7968.47 5184. 0 2
37 365.00 90.25 145.84 58.90 1615 .001 13.89090 22.45990 6.58177 87.50 58500. 13.14230 8280.00 5181. 0 3
Also, if TSSUM is specified on the OUTPUT card, a timestep size summary

report is printed at the end of the run. This contains information about the timestep
taken, including the reason for the size selected.

27.4.2 Simulation Statistics

A summary of the run statistics is printed at the end of the output file and lists the
main characteristics of the model (formulation, solver, grid size, components,
wells, fault connections and coning zones), along with a timestep/iteration report
and CPU usage by program section. An example is shown below.
**************************************************************************************
* *
* SIMULATION STATISTICS *
* *
* OFFSHORE EUROPE DEMONSTRATION MODEL *
* FINE GRID MODEL *
* *
* VIP-EXEC *
**************************************************************************************
SIMULATOR VIP-ENCORE
VERSION v32r0
INITIALIZATION LAST UPDATE 95/02/17
LAST CHANGE SET NAME base_cse
REVISION NUMBER 0
SIMULATION LAST UPDATE 95/02/17
LAST CHANGE SET NAME bpfix01
REVISION NUMBER 0
FORMULATION IMPES
EQUATION SOLUTION METHOD BLITZ
NX: 32 NY: 27 NZ: 7
TOTAL GRIDS : 1 COMPONENTS : 2

TOTAL GRIDBLOCKS : 6048 GRID CONNECTIONS : 0 WELLS : 30
ACTIVE GRIDBLOCKS : 4924 FAULT CONNECTIONS : 1076 PERFORATIONS : 78
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS
----------------------
CURRENT RUN CUMULATIVE
----------- ----------
TIME SIMULATED (DAYS) 365.000 365.000
NUMBER OF SUCCESSFUL TIMESTEPS 37 37
NUMBER OF OUTER ITERATIONS 114 114
NUMBER OF INNER ITERATIONS 503 503
NUMBER OF UNACCEPTED TIMESTEPS 2 2
NUMBER OF CONVERGENCE FAILURES 0 0
CPU SECONDS / ACTIVE GRIDBLOCK TIMESTEP .0002968 .0002968
CPU SECONDS / TOTAL GRIDBLOCK TIMESTEP .0002416 .0002416
CPU TIME SUMMARY BY PROGRAM SECTION

-----------------------------------
CURRENT RUN CUMULATIVE

CPU TIME % OF TOTAL CPU TIME % OF TOTAL
----------- ---------- ----------- ----------
INPUT PROCESSING 0: 0: 2.78 5.14 0: 0: 2.78 5.14
SIMULATION
PVT PROPERTIES 0: 0: 1.91 3.53 0: 0: 1.91 3.53
ROCK PROPERTIES 0: 0: 3.03 5.60 0: 0: 3.03 5.60
WELL MANAGEMENT 0: 0: 0.42 .78 0: 0: 0.42 .78
EQUATION SETUP 0: 0:22.37 41.37 0: 0:22.37 41.37
LINEAR SOLVER 0: 0:11.57 21.40 0: 0:11.57 21.40
VARIABLE UPDATE 0: 0: 7.75 14.33 0: 0: 7.75 14.33
OUTPUT PROCESSING 0: 0: 3.94 7.29 0: 0: 3.94 7.29
OVERHEAD 0: 0: 0.30 .55 0: 0: 0.30 .55
----------- ---------- ----------- ----------
TOTAL 0: 0:54.07 100.00 0: 0:54.07 100.00

27.4.3 Non-Linear Iterations

The ITER option on the simulation PRINT card causes a non-linear iteration
summary to be output for the specified timesteps. It contains information on all of
the solution variables (water residual, hydrocarbon residual, pressure, saturation,
vapor fraction and mole fraction changes), linear iterations and the solution
relaxation factor (and variable). The gridblocks experiencing these maximum
changes are also reported.
The following iteration summary shows slow convergence for a run with an
iterative solver. The linear convergence is good, as evidenced by the small number
of inner iterations, but the timestep does not converge in the permitted five outer
(non-linear) iterations. The timestep size is cut by a factor of two and it is
repeated. Cuts can also occur for a converged timestep, if a timestep maximum
change value is exceeded by more than the allowed limit. A new timestep size is
calculated by linear interpolation, to honor the most restrictive change limit which
has been violated. Following the first convergence after a timestep cut, the new
timestep is limited to an increase of no more than 25%.
********************************************************************************************************************************
* DETAILED ITERATION SUMMARY, TIMESTEP 31 SIZE 11.7 FROM 320.909 DAYS REASON: MAX VAPOR/SG CHANGE *
********************************************************************************************************************************
OUTER RWMAX RHCMAX DPMAX DSWMAX DVMAX DZMAX RWSUM RHCSUM INNER DAMPING
ITN (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) ITN FACTOR
1 1846. .1819E+05 13.25 .2008E-01 .2181 .5224E-01 .5845E+05 -.2783E+06 5 .22929 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
2 1423. .1402E+05 10.19 .1547E-01 .1681 .4026E-01 .4505E+05 -.2145E+06 5 .29750 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
3 999.4 9850. 7.165 .1086E-01 .1180 .2828E-01 .3164E+05 -.1507E+06 5 .42368 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
4 575.9 5677. 4.135 .6260E-02 .6801E-01 .1629E-01 .1824E+05 -.8683E+05 5 .73519 (DV)
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
5 152.5 1503. 1.099 .1656E-02 .1800E-01 .4313E-02 4830. -.2299E+05 5 1.00000
( 30 20 7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
6 .6186 1.655 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 .0000E+00 .2104E-01 -.5707E-01 0 1.00000
( 14 17 3) ( 29 19 7) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1)
*** TIMESTEP CUT DUE TO CONVERGENCE FAILURE:
CURRENT SIZE = 11.6728 DTMIN = 1.00000 CUT FACTOR = 2.00000
*** TIMESTEP CUT DUE TO EXCEEDING MAXIMUM CHANGES:
CURRENT SIZE = 5.83639 DVMAX = .111261 ( 27, 11, 2) CUT FACTOR = 2.22522
The following good iteration summary shows rapid convergence. The next
timestep size will be calculated from the current timestep changes by linear
interpolation, or extrapolation, to honor the most restrictive change limit which
has been imposed, subject to a maximum increase of a factor of 5.
********************************************************************************************************************************
* DETAILED ITERATION SUMMARY, TIMESTEP 24 SIZE 10.6 FROM 262.401 DAYS REASON: TIME/DATE CARD *
********************************************************************************************************************************
OUTER RWMAX RHCMAX DPMAX DSWMAX DVMAX DZMAX RWSUM RHCSUM INNER DAMPING
ITN (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) (I,J,K) ITN FACTOR
1 1337. .3001E+05 -7.843 .1787E-01 .3638E-01 .8650E-02 .3147E+05 -.1758E+06 4 1.00000

( 12 18 2) ( 25 7 3) ( 1 1 7) ( 11 16 3) ( 24 8 2) ( 24 8 2)
2 1636. -81.93 1.124 .1089E-02 -.8657E-03 -.1636E-03 1.636 -4.118 4 1.00000
( 6 9 2) ( 15 19 2) ( 26 7 7) ( 6 9 2) ( 26 7 7) ( 26 7 7)
3 -28.38 -1.419 -.6427E-01 .7079E-04 .7424E-04 .1718E-04 -.2209E-03 .2807E-02 6 1.00000
( 6 12 2) ( 29 23 2) ( 29 9 3) ( 6 11 2) ( 28 9 3) ( 28 9 3)

27.4.4 Linear Iterations

When using an iterative solver, internal iterations are performed to solve the
linearized set of equations, hence the term linear iterations. A linear iteration
summary can be printed for timesteps where both the linear (e.g. BLITZ card) and
non-linear (PRINT card) iteration summaries are requested. The BLITZ solver,
which is recommended for all problems, will generally perform well with default
settings. However, linear convergence failure, or slow convergence, can be caused
by data which invalidate the automatically selected solver parameters - for
example, very difficult problems may require a more robust (and more cpu, and
memory intensive) preconditioning treatment than the default. The linear iteration
summary can illustrate a problem, but will rarely suggest a solution. One
exception is the effect on convergence of exceeding the number of orthogonal
vectors which are stored. In some difficult problems, this “truncation” can prevent
the solution from converging.

Examples of good and bad linear iteration summaries follow.
BLITZ ITERATION SUMMARIES
GOOD CONVERGENCE
A. Small number of BLITZ iterations
B. Rapid reduction in 2-norm of residual from initial value
C. Small number of constraint iterations
A B C
1 2-NORM(ABS)= 3.8536E+01 2-NORM(REL)= 6.5890E-02 CITNS= 4
2 2-NORM(ABS)= 2.9722E-01 2-NORM(REL)= 5.0819E-03 CITNS= 4
POOR CONVERGENCE
A. Large number of BLITZ iterations
B. Slow reduction in 2-norm of the residual from its initial value
C. Large (Max) number of constraint iterations
A B C
1 2-NORM(ABS)= 3.4026E+01 2-NORM(REL)= 9.10673-01 CITNS= 10

27.5 Run Optimization

Optimization of program performance is not an exact science, since every
problem is different. The information which follows is designed to provide
guidelines to resolve the more obvious problems which can occur in a run.
Although the section is mainly for IMPES runs, many of the notes may be applied
to IMPLICIT cases. Generally, IMPES is more susceptible to errors and
anomalies in data than is IMPLICIT, and will require more “tuning” to achieve
maximum computational efficiency. However, the work per timestep is far less
with IMPES, although timestep size may be limited. In a run where timestep size
is limited by data, such as in a history match with monthly production rate
changes, IMPES is likely to be much more efficient than IMPLICIT.
27.5.1 Timestep and Iteration Control Parameters

You should not use the same control parameters from one model to the next. This
can set you off on the wrong path and may make it impossible to optimize your
runs. Instead, start off with the default settings where possible. The most powerful
tool you have in run optimization is case sensitivity analysis - comparison of
several short runs made from a suitable restart with different control parameters.
Suggested timestep and iteration control parameters for IMPES and IMPLICIT
runs are as follows:
C IMPES
DT -.1 .01 30 500 .05 .05 .05
ITNLIM 1 6 500 .05 .05 .05
C IMPLICIT
DT -1 .1 92 500 .1 .1 .1
ITNLIM 1 6 500 .1 .1 .1
Notice that the timestep size for IMPLICIT (.1 to 92 days) is much larger than for
IMPES (.01 to 30 days) and that both sets have the same change values specified
for timesteps and iterations.

27.5.2 Selection of Formulation and Solver

Generally, the IMPLICIT formulation should be used on radial problems and the
IMPES formulation with all cartesian grids. This usually minimizes CPU time and
memory requirements. IMPLICIT can be used for cartesian cases if:
■ The problem cannot be made to converge using IMPES
■ Memory requirements are not excessive, or
■ Large enough timesteps can be taken with IMPLICIT to reduce the CPU time
required for a run. A rule of thumb is that if it is possible to average timesteps
three times that of IMPES, then IMPLICIT may be a good option.
Bear in mind that numerical dispersion will be higher for IMPLICIT.
The choice of solver hinges on two items, speed and memory. Very small
problems, i.e. less than 100 gridblocks, may run faster with direct solution
(GAUSS with D4 ordering) than with an iterative scheme (BLITZ). In general all
problems should always be run using BLITZ. The EXCEL solver should only be
used on problems where BLITZ has trouble converging, perhaps because of an
excessive number of arbitrary non-neighbor grid block connections. The point at
which one solver will be preferred over the other depends on the problem and
formulation selected, and will be different for speed and storage requirements.
Make short runs with the various combinations to determine which is best for your
problem.
27.5.3 Auto-adjustable Linear Tolerance

An algorithm for automatic linear tolerance selection has been implemented for
all options of the BLITZ® family of solvers, which is designed to prevent
oversolving in the initial steps of the Newton iteration. The user can request the
automatic linear tolerance selection by adding the ADJTOL keyword in the solver
card. This keyword, if specified by itself, selects default parameters for the
adjustable tolerance algorithm. Alternatively, the user may specify any number
among four parameters for this option, i.e., the coarsest tolerance TOLMX, the
starting tolerance to be used in the first Newton step of each time step TOLST, the
smallest value to which the solver tolerance may be reduced in any of the Newton
steps TOLMN, and the tolerance reduction parameter TOLEX.

The tolerance selection is done according to the following criterion.
(k) ⎧ (k) (k – 1) ξ ⎫
ρ = min ⎨ ρ max, max [ γ , ( ρ ) ]⎬ (27-1)
⎩ ⎭
where:
(k) (k) (k – 1) (k – 1)
γ
(k) F – F +J δ
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------
(27-2)
-
(k – 1)
F
The internally computed parameter γ(k) represents a measure of how closely the
linearization approximates the nonlinear function, in each Newton iteration.
Two of the above keywords are used to modify the parameters in equation (1).
TOLMN specifies the value of ρmin, and TOLEX specifies the value of the
exponent ξ.
The values of the controlling parameters of the adjustable tolerance algorithm can
be defaulted by specifying the ADJTOL to the solver card. The default values are
TOLMNdefault= RTOL so that, e.g., if RTOL if defaulted too, then TOLMN
defaults to 5.E-03; TOLMXdefault= 0.5; TOLSTdefault= max(TOLMX,5*RTOL)
and TOLEXdefault= 3.0.
This method is adapted from published work on inexact Newton methods for
constrained optimization problems(94). Our choice of TOLEX=3.0 differs from
the preferred value in optimization problems and was found by empirical tuning
of a test set of simulation models.
NOTE: The default mode for all solvers, i.e., when no solver card is specified, is to
run with the same fixed linear tolerance for all Newton iterations. The
adjustable tolerance algorithm must be explicitly requested by specifying
either the ADJTOL option or any number of the four controlling parameter
options described above.
27.5.4 Getting Started

We are assuming that some evidence exists to indicate a problem with run
performance, and not simply a case uses too much CPU time. A bad run will
exhibit one or more of the following conditions; small timestep size, convergence
failures and/or exceeding maximum changes (timestep cuts), material balance
errors, and spikes or oscillations in well performance.
Some behavior can be attributed to the type of model being run, but more
commonly we must use the information provided by the simulation program to
locate the cause.

The first step in analyzing your run performance is to obtain an iteration summary,
using PRINT ITER 1.
Get a feel for your run - examine the run statistics (timesteps, iteration,
unaccepted timesteps, convergence failures), check material balance on the
timestep summary line, and look at layer allocation in your wells.
Find out what your timesteps are being limited by. It will either be a timestep size
limitation or a maximum change value. Can this constraint be relaxed?
If the same block (or blocks) are flagged repeatedly in iteration and/or error
messages, check these blocks for small PV, very high transmissibility or the like.
27.5.5 Analyzing a Run

The following structured list is designed to lead you through the process of
analyzing a run. It should provide enough information to identify the most
common run problems which are encountered with VIP-EXECUTIVE. If the
answer to the next question in the list is “no”, proceed to the next item at the same
level of indentation. An asterisk (*) indicates that a particular option is only
available in IMPES mode.
When constructing a new model, you should perform an equilibration run (with
all well rates zero) for thirty days from time zero and check run performance.
Subsequently, examine the run performance at intervals throughout the history
match and/or prediction runs - changing controls and fluid flow conditions can
induce problems which are not evident initially. You will start out by looking at
the run statistics, which will often indicate whether there is a problem to begin
with. These indications can be such things as; too many non-linear iterations/
timestep, consumption of an excessive amount of cpu time and a high incidence of
unaccepted timesteps due to cuts and convergence failures.
Check List
timestep problems
size limited on good run

* flux limited
turn IMPSTAB OFF
size or maximum change limiting
increase size or change value
material balance okay (< 1.E-4)
try turning off offending limits
material balance bad
non-linear convergence failure
check solver performance
slack iteration tolerances (TOLD an TOLR)
tighten
maximum changes exceeded
large DPMAX in well block

check for perforation turning on or off

check for well turning on or off
* large DSMAX for gas - possible gas percolation
try GASPERC ON
make sure ITNLIM change limits off or ≤ DT values
try smaller timesteps
convergence failures or large numbers of non-linear iterations
examine non-linear iteration summary
reduce timestep size
non-linear iteration problems

convergence behavior bad
general - is there a pattern to the maximum changes
check data for gridblocks identified
oscillation - large DPMAX
check for small gridblock PV
oscillation - well block, check allocation
oscillation - large DVMAX in compositional run
check for near critical behavior
turn off DSMAX and DVMAX
oscillation - large DZMAX in compositional run
tighten tolerances (FLASH and KMAX)
freeze - DPMAX and DVMAX limit
check for table limit, e.g. PVT, BHPTAB
slow - converging, but tolerances exceeded
tolerances too tight
increase number of iterations allowed
table data turning points or inflections
damping factor < 1 (IMPES must not damp)
* variable BHP - use CBHPMN 1
variable KR - saturation table endpoints
ITNLIM maximum changes set too small
remove asymptotic regions of capillary pressure
curves
* if all else fails - run IMPLICIT
maximum changes too large
check gridblock data
if it is a well block
check layer allocation
check drawdown is at least 2 psi
reduce timestep size
linear iterations limiting
check solver parameters (try defaults)
examine linear iteration summary
linear iteration (BLITZ) problems

almost converged
relax solver tolerance (s) (RTOL and/or PTOL)
set NORTH = NIT
constraint iterations limiting

use more robust preconditioner

rate of convergence slow
2-D cross section with barrier to vertical flow
use z-direction line corrections
(JOPT1 or JOPTN = 1 or 2)
27.6 Estimating Run Durations and Memory Requirements

For many projects, the time required to make a simulation run and the associated
costs are very important. Thus, in this section, guidelines for estimating run time
and memory requirements will be discussed. Please keep in mind that the numbers
presented in this section are only rough estimates. Due to the number and
complexity of the options in VIP, it is very difficult to provide general guidelines.
It is easy to understand the increase in CPU time with an increase in the number of
spatial dimensions (1D, 2D, or 3D), total grid blocks, or number of wells. But it is
difficult to estimate absolute CPU time when there are so many other factors to
consider, such as solution technique (IMPLICIT or IMPES), solver selection
(GAUSS, EXCEL, BLITZ), and special features (e.g., predictive well
management, fluid tracking, dual porosity). Although, estimates will be provided
for CPU times, wall clock times will not be discussed. The wall clock time
associated with a particular simulation is highly dependent upon the configuration
of the computer and the workload which exists on the computer when the job is
executing. Since it is impossible to predict the workload which will exist when
your job is submitted, we will not provide estimates for these numbers.
27.6.1 Simulator Run Durations

What one can generally say is that run times are roughly proportional to number
of gridblocks and number of timesteps. As well one can say that for the same
number of gridblock and timesteps, the IMPLICIT formulation will take roughly
three times as long as the IMPES formulation. If the average timestep one can
take using the IMPLICIT formulation is over three times that of the IMPES
formulation then the IMPLICIT formulation will generally solve the problem
faster.

For an Equation of State compositional model one can also say that the CPU time
is roughly proportional to the number of components to the 3/2 power.

27.6.2 Performance of the Simulator on Various CPUs

The performance of the simulator scales fairly well with reported double precision
floating point LINPACK or SPECMARK ratings. However, due to the highly
vectorized nature of the simulator, sometimes this scaling is not exact. The
following performance figures are estimated from our experience with VIP and
data provided by the hardware manufacturers.
27.6.3 Memory Requirements

The simulator is dynamically dimensioned and every model will have its own
unique storage requirements based on its dimensions and choice of features. The
actual memory requirements are difficult to generalize due to the number of
options available. Memory requirements can be best separated into two parts:
program space and data space. The program space is fixed and is approximately 4
megabytes. The data space is generally proportional to the number of gridblocks
plus number of wells plus number of perforations. For the IMPLICIT formultion,
the data space required is approximately twice as much per gridblock as in the
IMPES formulation.

For compositional problems utilizing the IMPES formulation, the data space
required increases roughly linearly with the number of components. For the
IMPLICIT formulation, the data space required increases with the square of the
number of components.

27.6.4 Using the Simulator to Determine Memory Requirements (STORAGE)

The simulator writes the storage requirements for a particular model to the Print
File (<casename>r.out file) when the model is executed. However, what if you
need to know an estimate of the storage requirements for a model which is still in
the design phase? You can not execute the model to determine the memory
requirements because the model does not yet exist. However, there is a
STORAGE keyword in the simulator specifically for this purpose. The
STORAGE option may be used in either of two ways.
First, the user may specify relevent information about his model and run the
simulator to obtain an estimate of the storage required.
The following example data requests the storage for a 3-dimensional, black-oil,
faulted problem using the BLITZ solver in the IMPES formulation.
STORAGE NOCORERST
DIM NWMAX NPRFMX NPRFTOT BLITZ
50 5 250
IMPES
RESTART 0
NX NY NZ NC
44 80 23 2
FAULT 3000
BLITZ NORTH
15
STOP
END
Second, if the initialization data for the model has already been prepared and run
through VIP-CORE, but the production strategy has not yet been determined, the
simulator will pick up the restart file from VIP-CORE and use any dimensions
specified (or defaulted), such as the number of wells and perforations, to estimate
the storage required.
Example:
STORAGE
DIM NWMAX NPRFMX NPRFTOT BLITZ
50 5 250
IMPES
RESTART 0
BLITZ NORTH
15
STOP
END
Note that when using the STORAGE option in either case, the BLITZ keyword
needs to be the last keyword specified on the DIM card.

Chapter
28
28.1 Introduction
This option was designed primarily to simulate single-well commingled
production performance from multiple reservoirs with hundreds of feet of
separation between them. The wellbore is modelled as the innermost ring of
gridblocks, which allows for counter-current phase wellbore flow and wellbore
storage. Collins, et al92 presented a technique for modelling of horizontal wells
wherein the wellbore was treated as a second porosity in the dual-porosity
approach. The well "permeability" and "relative permeabilities" were adjusted to
yield the pressure drop and phase slip predicted from multiphase flow
correlations. This option makes use of parts of their technique; however, instead
of using the dual porosity to model the wellbore, the innermost ring of the radial
grid system is used to model the vertical wellbore. The equations for wellbore
flow are transformed into a form similar to Darcy's flow, and then applied to the
vertical flow within the first ring of the grid system (wellbore).
Six two-phase flow correlations are available in the current simulator for vertical
or inclined pipe flow, including Hagedorn and Brown, Dunns and Ross, Beggs
and Brill, Aziz and Govier, Orkiszewski, and Griffith, Lau, Hon, and Pearson. In
these correlations, flow conditions are divided into patterns or flow regimes.
Using the user-specified flow correlation and the computed flow regime at each
interval, the simulator transforms the wellbore flow equations into Darcy-type
vertical flow coefficients for each interval at the start of each time step.
R5000.0.1 Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation 28-455

28.2 Calculation of Vertical Flow Coefficients from the Wellbore

Flow Equations
The pressure loss, ΔPloss, in the wellbore can be shown as the sum of the pressure
drops due to friction, gravity, and kinetic energy change.
ΔP loss = ΔP f + ΔP h + P k (28-1)
where
2
fΔLρv
Δp f = – ------------------ (28-2)
2g c D
ΔP h = – ρ g c ΔZ (28-3)
28-456 Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation R5000.0.1

1 2
Δp k = – --- ρΔ ( v ) (28-4)
2
where f is the Moody friction factor, ρ is the total fluid mass density, D is the
wellbore diameter, v is fluid velocity, gc is gravity acceleration, ΔZ is mid-
perforation depth difference, ΔL is mid-perforation length difference, and
ρ = ∑ ρj ⋅ Sj (28-5)
j = o, g, w
The kinetic energy effect is usually considered to be negligible for wellbore flow
conditions, and will therefore be neglected here. The resulting pressure drop for
wellbore pipe flow is then:
2
fΔLρv
ΔP loss = – ------------------ – ρg c ΔZ (28-6)
2g c D
Rearranging and dividing by ΔZ yields
2
ΔP ΔL fρv
------- + ρg c = ΔΦ
-------- = – ------- ⋅ ------------- (28-7)
ΔZ ΔZ ΔZ 2g c D
For Darcy flow in a porous media, we have

– k ΔΦ
v = --q- = ----- ⋅ -------- (28-8)
A μ ΔZ
The Moody friction factor depends on Reynold’s number, Re:
R e = vρD
----------- (28-9)
μ
where μ is the average viscosity of the fluid expressed as
μ = ∑ μj Sj (28-10)
j = o, g, w
For laminar flow (Re < 2000), the friction factor is expressed by:
f = 64
------ (28-11)
Re
Substituting Equation 28-11 and Equation 28-9 into Equation 28-7 gives
ΔΦ – ΔL 64μ ⋅ v
-------- = ---------- ⋅ ----------------2 (28-12)
ΔZ ΔZ 2g D
c
Substituting this into the Darcy type equation yields

2
2g c D
k = ----------------------
- (28-13)
ΔL
64 ⋅ ⎛ -------⎞
⎝ ΔZ⎠
Evaluating this in standard oilfield units results in
12 ΔZ 2
k = 2.94165 ×10 ⋅ ------- ⋅ D (28-14)
ΔL
where k is permeability in millidarcies, ΔZ, ΔL, and D are in feet, and v is velocity
in ft/day.
For turbulant flow, the friction factor, pressure drop, and also liquid holdup factor
are calculated via one of the six two-phase flow correlations. Following these
calculations, the equivalent Darcy permeability can be calculated as
1---
⎛ 2g D ⎞ 2
k = μ ⋅ ⎜ ------------------------⎟
c
(28-15)
⎜ dp ⎟
⎝ f ⋅ ρ ⋅ ------- ⎠
ΔL
Evaluating this in standard oilfield units results in

1
⎛ ⎞ --2-
D
k = 1.314376 ×10 ⋅ μ ⋅ ⎜ ------------------------⎟
9
(28-16)
⎜ dP ⎟
⎝ f ⋅ ρ ⋅ ------- ⎠
ΔL
28.3 Modifications for Liquid Slippage or Holdup
Following the development of Collins, et. al92, the individual phase velocities
without liquid slippage or holdup are
– k ⋅ k rj ΔΦ
v j = ---------------- ⋅ -------- (28-17)
μ ΔZ
where
k rj = S j, j = o, g, w (28-18)
A different representation for liquid holdup is used here than was used in Collins,
et. al.92 The following form is assumed for kro and krw:
k ro = α ⋅ S o
k rw = α ⋅ S w
where

μg
----- ≤ α ≤ 1 (28-19)
μl
Since the pressure drop calculated from the two-phase flow correlations included
the effects of liquid holdup, the "effective" permeability must also be adjusted as
k
k = ---------------------------------------
- (28-20)
( Sg + α ( 1 – Sg ) )
Following an analogous derivation as in Collins, et al92, a time-dependent

variation for α can be derived as
n+1 ( 1 – Sg ) n 1
α = ------------------- ⋅ α , with α = 1.0 (28-21)
hl
where n denotes the timestep level.
28.4 Application of Minimum Lift Velocity

Turner, et al2 proposed the following equation to calculate the minimum gas flow
velocity necessary to remove liquid drops:
1--- 1---
4 4
( σ ) ( ρL – ρg )
v c = 1.85 ⋅ ------------------------------------
1
(28-22)
---
2
( ρg )
when σ is the interfacial tension in dynes/cm, ρL is the liquid phase density in
lbs/cu. ft, ρg is the gas phase density in lbs/cu. ft, and vc is the minimum gas flow
velocity in ft/sec. A different constant was derived than was presented in Turner,
et al2’s equation 6, based on their earlier equations. An optional scale factor may
be specified to further adjust the calculated critical lift velocity.
For flow velocities less than the critical lift velocity, simple equations are used to
enable a smooth migration from the mixture density gradient to the respective
phase density gradients, in order to allow counter-current flow in the wellbore.
The migration equations are
vc – v
ρ ml = ρ m + ( ρ l – ρ m ) ⋅ ⎛ -------------------------------------------------⎞ (28-23)
⎝ v c + ( rdamp – 1 ) ⋅ v⎠
vc – v
ρ mg = ρ m + ( ρ g – ρ m ) ⋅ ⎛ -------------------------------------------------⎞ (28-24)
⎝ v c + ( rdamp – 1 ) ⋅ v⎠

where v is the calculated flow velocity, ρm is the mixture density gradient, ρl is the
liquid density gradient, ρg is the gas density gradient, rdamp is a user-supplied
damping factor, and ρml and ρmg are the migration liquid and vapor phase
gradients to be used in the respective phase potential calculations.
28.5 Data Structure and Definition Changes for VIP-CORE

A new key word, WBSIM, has been added to the VIP-CORE data to define this as
a special initialization for gridded wellbore simulation. The first column of
gridblocks is initialized to a porosity of 1.0 and the connate water saturation is set
to 0.0, and it is sealed off from the reservoir. All other input data for this first
column (wellbore) except for depth and gross thickness will not be used. One
exception to this is that if a zero vertical permeability is specified for any
gridblock in the first column, the wellbore will be sealed at that point.
The RI input variable, which is normally the wellbore radius, should be set to 0.0
for the case of simulating the wellbore as the first column of gridblocks. If the first
column of gridblocks is to be used for the annulus, then RI should be the outside
diameter of the tubing, and the first radius should be the inside diameter of the
casing.
The first radius specified will be the radius of the wellbore, followed by the
normal progression of radii to define the areal extent of the drainage area for the
well.
The non-productive zones between producing horizons must be defined as several

additional layers with zero porosities in order to define a continuous wellbore. At
least one additional layer abover the top producing horizon should be specified in
order to generate a velocity calculation including the flow from the top horizon. It
is recommended at this time to grid the wellbore all the way to the surface [define
additional zero porosity layers all the way up to the surface] in order to avoid
problems encountered with the use of BHPTAB tables when the required
bottomhole pressure increases as rate declines. [The normal concept of finding the
intersection of the inflow performance curve and the interpolated BHPTAB curve
is no longer valid, since the inflow performance curve starts at BHP rather than
gridblock reservoir pressure.]
A separate equilibrium region should be defined for the wellbore [first column of
gridblocks] using the PVT data from the initially producing horizon with the
highest common datum pressure, but lowering the water level to below the
deepest productive horizon. This ensures that the wellbore is in pressure
equilibrium with and contains the fluid from the initial producing horizon.

28.6 Data Structure and Definition Changes for the Simulation

Module
Horizontal flow into the wellbore is calculated through normal Darcy radial flow
equations, with the addition of an optional skin factor to adjust the transmissivity
from gridblock 2 to gridblock 1. A new keyword, COMPERF, is used to define
the "perforations", which will then actually replace the reservoir transport terms
for flow between gridblock 2 (reservoir) and gridblock 1 (wellbore) for the
specified layers. The initial setup is to have no perforations at time zero.
Perforations can be changed at any time in the simulator through the use of this
new keyword input. It is important to note that each set of COMPERF data are
modifications to the perforations, and are not complete replacements. They may
be entered any number of times throughout the simulator time.
correl Name of the two-phase wellbore flow correlation to be

used. This must always be specified. The options are;
NOSLIP No phase slippage considered.
HAGEDO Hagedorn and Brown
DUNROS Dunns and Ross
BEGGS Beggs and Brill
AZIZ Aziz, Govier, Fogarasi
ORKISZ Orkiszewski
GRIFFI Griffith, Lau, Hon, Pearson
rdamp Optional damping factor for phase migration at velocities

below the minimum lift velocity. Default is 1.0. At
upward flow velocities less than the minimum lift
velocity, the mixture density gradient is replaced by the
following damped liquid and vapor phase gradients in the
respective phase potentials.
All vertical flow transport parameters for the first column of gridblocks (wellbore)
are calculated dynamically for each time step, with special treatment for the phase
mobilities. These changes are as follows :
■ Phase mobilities for flow in the wellbore are based on the mixture viscosity,
instead of the phase viscosity.
■ If the gas flow velocity is greater than the minimum gas lift velocity, the
gravity gradients in the wellbore are based on the mixture density, instead of
the individual phase densities. If the gas flow velocity is less than the
minimum gas lift velocity, the damped phase gradients are used instead of the
individual phase gradients.

■ The pressure drop in the wellbore can be described as the sum of the pressure
drops due to friction, gravity, and kinetic energy. The kinetic energy pressure
loss is usually quite small and is neglected. At the start of each time step, the
gas and liquid superficial velocities are calculated based on the converged
conditions at the end of the previous timestep. From this, the Reynold’s
number and friction factor are calculated for each segment from the specified
correlation, after which the average mixture velocity and then the equivalent
Darcy velocity are calculated. The effective wellbore vertical permeability
(Kwe) is then calculated, and held constant over the timestep.
■ Phase "relative permeabilities" in the wellbore are set equal to the phase
saturations, with the exception that krl = α * Sl, where α is the liquid holdup
factor less than or equal to 1.0, which allows the gas phase to flow at an equal
or greater velocity than the liquid phase. The liquid holdup is obtained from
the available correlations.
Actual well production is from a standard well with a single specified perforation,
normally at (1,1,1), using the derived phase mobilities for the wellbore segment.
The production from each reservoir is determined by the implicit solution of the
Darcy flow from the reservoir into the wellbore.
Three additional output reports may be printed when using the WBSIM option.
These are all printed at the same frequency as the PRINT WELLS report. These
include; [1] an output table at the start of the timestep containing the effective
wellbore permeability for the step, Moody friction factor, mixture density, delta-P
friction, phase velocities, critical velocities [minimum gas flow velocities to lift
insitu liquids], Reynold’s numbers, and alpha and beta parameters for all of the
wellbore segments, [2] an output table at the end of the timestep for the wellbore
perforations, showing the production/injection rates and gas-oil ratios and
watercuts, production and injection cumulatives, and reservoir and wellbore
pressures, and [3] an output table presenting a profile of all of the wellbore
segments, containing the insitu saturations, average densities and viscosities,
alpha and beta flow parameters, effective wellbore permeabilities, and wellbore
pressures.

Chapter
29
Surface Pipeline Network Options1
29.1 Introduction
The implementation of a surface pipeline network option in VIP-EXECUTIVE
is described in this chapter (also see Reference 69). Major features of this option
and areas of its applications are summarized below:
■ This option is designed for accurate modeling of interactions between

reservoir, production wells, and surface pipeline network system. It extends
the well management features discussed in Chapter 39 by including the
modeling of pressure drop in areas other than the wellbore.
■ Bottomhole pressures and rates of production wells are determined from the
simultaneous simulation of the multi-phase fluid flow in reservoir, well
tubing, and surface pipeline network system.
■ Variable tubinghead pressures in the wells are calculated, analyzing well

inflow performance, flow of multiphase fluids in tubing, throughput capacity
and maximum deliverability of the gathering system.
■ Production limits and targets at nodes of the gathering system may be

simulated.
■ Models of a multiphase fluid flow in surface network devices (pipelines,

valves, etc.) are included for simulating physical processes in different
elements of the surface pipeline network system.
■ The capabilities have been implemented for modeling the fluid flow in well
tubing. Hydraulic tables, analytical correlations, look-up tables for pressure
gradient definition, or any combinations of these tools can be used to
determine pressure drop from the wellbore to wellhead. This part of the option
can be used independently from the surface pipeline network model.
■ The surface pipeline network model can have a general “tree-like” structure
with any number of node levels but no loops. The structure of the surface
pipeline network system can be dynamically changed at any time during the
simulation.
■ Compositional or black-oil steady-state models of fluid flows in the surface

pipeline network system are implemented.
R5000.0.1 Surface Pipeline Network Options 29-463

■ The number of the hydrocarbon phases and their compositions are determined
internally using phase-equilibrium computations. A procedure has been
developed for the phase-equilibrium computations in compositional models.
This procedure is robust even near the critical point and is computationally
efficient. These features are especially important for the phase-equilibrium
computations with wide ranges of pressure and temperature values in the well
tubing models.
29.1.1 Background
The new option is designed for accurate modeling of interactions between
reservoir, production wells, and surface pipeline network system. It calculates
bottomhole pressure and rates of production wells from the simultaneous
simulation of the multiphase fluid flow in the reservoir, well tubing, and surface
pipeline network system. Any changes in a gathering network will affect
individual rates of production wells. Therefore, the production rate of any well
can be accurately defined only from an intersection of an inflow performance
curve (which is determined by the reservoir model) and an outflow performance
curve (which is defined by the surface pipeline network model). These
intersections are determined in the new option.
The surface pipeline network option determines variable tubinghead pressures in

production wells, analyzing well inflow performance, flow of multi-phase fluids
in tubing, throughput capacity and maximum deliverability of the gathering
system.
Production limits and targets in nodes of the gathering system may be specified.
For example, the user can specify the minimum pressure and/or maximum rates in
any node (such as gathering center, flow station, etc.) of the surface pipeline
network system and then, the simulator automatically determines rates of all
production wells connected to the node according to pipeline pressure loss
relationships.
The new option also models physical processes in different elements of the
gathering system using hydraulic models of a multiphase fluid flow in surface
network devices (such as pipelines, valves, etc.).
New capabilities are implemented for modeling the fluid flow in well tubing.
Besides hydraulic tables (which are currently available in VIP-EXECUTIVE),
analytical correlations, look-up tables for pressure gradient definition, or any
combination of these tools can be used to determine pressure drop from the
wellbore to the wellhead. This part of the new option can be used independently
from the more general surface pipeline network modeling.
In addition, enhanced capabilities for gas-lift modeling have been implemented.

The user may specify:
29-464 Surface Pipeline Network Options R5000.0.1

■ vertical depth from a wellhead to the lift gas injection valve,
■ composition of the lift gas,
■ percent of the lift gas which dissolves in the well fluid.
The surface pipeline network model can have a general “tree-like” structure with
any number of node levels. However, loops can not be included in the model. The
structure of the surface pipeline network system may be dynamically changed at
any time during the simulation.
The following steady-state models of the multi-phase fluid flow in the surface
pipeline network system are implemented:
■ single-phase (gas or liquid) model;
■ two-phase (oil-water or gas-water) black-oil or compositional model;
■ three-phase black-oil or compositional model.
The number of the hydrocarbon phases and their compositions are determined
internally using phase-equilibrium computations. A new procedure is developed
for the phase-equilibrium computations in compositional models. The procedure
is robust even near critical point and computationally efficient. These features are
especially important for the phase-equilibrium computations with wide ranges of
pressure and temperature values in well tubing models.
29.1.2 Applications
The new surface pipeline network option has a wide range of applications in oil
and gas field models. Several important applications are listed below:
■ Determination of Well Production Rates from Reservoir and Surface Pipeline

Network Conditions;
■ Calculation of Variable Tubinghead Pressure in Production Wells;
■ Determination of Pressure Profiles in Well Tubings and Surface Network

Pipelines;
■ Studying Flow/Pressure Responses in Transmission and Gathering Systems;
■ Production Predictions by Taking into Account Constraints and Targets of a

Gathering System;
■ Evaluation of Facility Modifications and Expansions. The surface network

option simultaneously models physical processes in the reservoir, wellbores,
and surface network facilities. For this reason, it can be used for predictions of
well production rates after the facility modifications and expansions;

■ Estimation of Benefits of Workover, Artificial Lift, and Additional Drilling

Operations. A sophisticated workover option is available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE. In the surface network option, the benefits of workover,
artificial lift, and drilling operations can be estimated by taking into account
the surface facility limitations.
29.2 Hydraulic Models of Flow Devices
29.2.1 General Description

Hydraulic models of a multi-phase fluid flow in different surface network devices
(tubings, pipelines, separators, valves, etc.) are basic elements of the surface
pipeline network system. They are “building blocks” from which the surface
pipeline network system is constructed.
The hydraulic model of the flow device determines relationships between a

pressure at an inlet of the device, a pressure at its outlet, and flow rates of multi-
phase fluids in the device. It is assumed that each device has one inlet and one
outlet.
Molar rates of hydrocarbon components are assumed to be known in the models

of the flow devices. However, volumetric rates and PVT properties of
hydrocarbon phases are required for the determination of a pressure drop in the
flow device. For this reason, phase-equilibrium computations are applied for the
calculations of the number of the hydrocarbon phases, their compositions,
volumetric rates, and PVT properties.
The following models are included in the current release of the surface pipeline
network option:
1. Hydraulic Models of the Fluid Flow in Horizontal, Vertical or Inclined

Pipes. Main analytical models50,51 that are widely used in the petroleum
industry for the simulation of the multi-phase fluid flow in well tubing and
pipelines have been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
2. Hydraulic Tables For Pressure Drop Determination in Flow Devices. The

hydraulic table defines a pressure at the inlet of any surface network device
(or at the wellbore of a production well) as a tabular function of a pressure at
its outlet (or at a wellhead) and flow rates. A similar option is applied in VIP-
EXECUTIVE (see Chapter 38) for modeling of the multi-phase fluid flow in
well tubing (casing).
3. Look-up Tables For Pressure Gradient Determination in Pipes. The look-

up table determines a pressure gradient (pressure drop per foot of a pipe
length) in well tubing or pipelines.
4. Valve Model

Significantly less CPU time is required if the hydraulic tables are applied instead
of the analytical models. However, the applications of the hydraulic tables have
the following disadvantages:
1. A preprocessor package is required for the generation of the hydraulic tables.
2. A hydraulic table should be generated for each surface network device and
each production well. Therefore, a lot of CPU memory must be allocated for
the storage of the large number of five-dimensional hydraulic tables.
3. In compositional models, the pressure drop in any surface network device

depends on the fluid composition (mole fractions of hydrocarbon
components). This dependency is ignored in the hydraulic table. Therefore,
the hydraulic table is accurate only in black oil models.
4. A linear interpolation technique is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE in table look-

ups, which can lead to significant interpolation errors.
The analytical correlations which have been implemented accurately simulate

compositional dependency and significantly reduce the amount of the CPU
memory required for the simulation.
The models of the flow devices implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE are described

below.
29.2.2 Flow Modeling in Horizontal, Vertical, or Inclined Pipes
Model Description
The pipe models predict a pressure distribution along a pipe. Analytical

correlations are applied for the prediction of pressure gradient, liquid holdup, and
flow patterns in pipes. The flow may be vertical, inclined, or horizontal and a
temperature distribution along the pipe may be specified.
These pipe hydraulic models determine the pressure distribution (p(L)) along the
pipe assuming that the following parameters are known:
■ pressure pout at the pipe outlet L = LENGTH (where LENGTH is the total
pipe length)
p(LENGTH) = pout , (29-1)
■ molar rates of hydrocarbon components,
■ water rate at the stock tank conditions,
■ temperature profile along the pipe,

■ temperature gradient profile along the pipe,
■ inclination angle profile along the pipe, and
■ pipe parameters such as diameter, thickness, length, roughness, Young’s

modulus, etc..
In steady-state conditions, the following energy conservation equation51 is

applied in the models for the determination of the pressure gradient at different
pipe locations:
dp- g- ρv dv- f ρ v 2
----- ( L ) = – ρ sin θ –
---- -----
- ----- – -------------- (29-2)
dL gc g c dL 2g c d
where:
L variable pipe length from the inlet to the current

location;
dp-
----- (L) total pressure gradient at the current pipe
dL location;
dp-⎞
⎛ ----- g
= ----- ρ sin θ component of the pressure gradient due to a
⎝ dL⎠ elev gc potential energy or elevation change,
g gravitational constant
gc unit conversion factor
ρ fluid density
θ inclination angle of the pipe which can

change along the pipe (see Figure 29-1).
dp-⎞
⎛ ----- ρ v dv
= – -------- ------ component of the pressure gradient due to kinetic
⎝ dL⎠ acc g c dL energy change or convective acceleration,
v fluid velocity
dv-
----- fluid velocity gradient.
dL
2
dp-⎞
⎛ ----- fρv
⎝ dL⎠ frict = – -------------
2g c d
- component of the pressure gradient due to
friction losses,
f Moody friction factor
d pipe diameter (see Figure 29-1).

d Flow P(L)
dL
dP
P ( L – dL ) ≈ P ( L ) – ------- dL
dL
Figure 29-1: Pressure Gradient in Pipes
Solution Algorithm
A second order Runge-Kutta procedure with an automatic selection of integration

intervals is applied for the numerical solution of the nonlinear ordinary
differential equation (Equation 29-2) with the boundary condition equation
(Equation 29-1). This procedure is summarized as follows:
1. Start with known pressure p(L) = pout at the pipe outlet L = LENGTH.
2. Determine a number of hydrocarbon phases, their compositions, and

compressibility factors using phase-equilibrium computations. A different
phase-equilibrium procedure52 is applied in compositional models. Standard
VIP-EXECUTIVE techniques (see Chapter 23), which are currently used in
VIP-EXECUTIVE for the reservoir flash calculations, are used in black-oil
models.
3. Define densities and volumetric rates of the oil, gas, and water phases at the
current pressure, p(L), from the equation-of-state (see Chapter 23).
4. Determine viscosities of the oil, gas, and water phases using Lohrenz-Bray-
Clark28 or Pedersen37 correlations. The techniques are similar to those
applied in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the viscosity definitions at reservoir
conditions (see Chapter 23).
5. Calculate gas-oil and gas-water surface tensions. Techniques described in

Reference 51 have been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the surface
tension determination.
6. Determine velocities of the oil, gas, and water phases as respective volumetric
rates divided by a cross-sectional area of a pipe.

dp
7. Calculate a pressure gradient, ------ ( L ) , at the current pipe location, L , from
dL
Equation 29-2. The major problem in this part of the calculation is the
determination of the following properties of the fluid mixture which consists
of the oil, gas, and water:
❑ friction factor f,
❑ density ρ,
❑ viscosity,
❑ velocity v
These parameters are included in the right-hand side of Equation 29-2. The
following correlations are implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the
determination of the specified properties of the fluid mixture:
Horizontal or Inclined Pipe Correlations:
❑ without slip effect,
❑ Dukler II with Flanigan correction for elevation,
❑ Dukler II with Eaton holdup and Flanigan correction for elevation,
❑ Beggs and Brill,
❑ Mukherjee and Brill,
Vertical or Inclined Pipe Correlations:
❑ without slip effect,
❑ Hagedorn and Brown,
❑ Duns and Ross,
❑ Beggs and Brill,
❑ Aziz and Govier,
❑ Orkiszewski,
❑ Griffith, Lau, Hon, and Pearson,
In these correlations, flow conditions are divided into patterns or flow

regimes. Separate correlations are applied for the determination of the mixture
properties in each flow regime. Full descriptions of these correlations and
recommendations for their applications are provided, for example, in
References 50 and 51.

1. Select an integration interval to assure that the pressure drop in this interval
is not larger than the user specified value PRESIN and that L1 = L - ΔL is not
smaller than zero:
dp-
----- ( L )ΔL ≤ PRESIN, L – ΔL ≥ 0
dL
2. Calculate pressure, p(L0.5), at the middle of the interval ΔL as
dP
p ( L 0.5 ) = p ( L ) – 0.5 ------- ( L )ΔL where L0.5 = L - 0.5 ΔL.
dL
dp
3. Repeat Steps 2 - 7 to calculate pressure gradient ------ ( L 0.5 ) at the location
L0.5. dL
4. Calculate pressure, p(L1), at the location L1 as

dP
p ( L 1 ) = p ( L ) – ------- ( L 0.5 )ΔL
dL
5. Set the current pipe location L to L1 and repeat Steps 2 - 12 if the current
location is not smaller than zero.
As shown above, the phase-equilibrium and pressure gradient computations are

repeated twice for each integration interval of the pipe. If the number of the
integration intervals is large, these computations require a significant amount of
CPU time (especially in compositional models).

29.2.3 Application of Hydraulic Tables
Model Description
Hydraulic tables (BHPTAB or BHITAB) are used in VIP-EXECUTIVE Version

2.4 for modeling the fluid flow in well tubing (casing). These techniques have
been extended for modeling the fluid flow in flow devices of the surface pipeline
network system. VIP-EXECUTIVE Version 2.4 input format of the hydraulic
tables (BHPTAB or BHITAB) has not been changed. For this reason, existing
keywords are used below.
The hydraulic model described by the hydraulic table determines pressure at the
inlet of the flow device assuming that the following parameters are known:
■ pressure at the outlet of the flow device,
■ pressure and temperature used for the determination of volumetric rates in the
hydraulic table,
■ artificial lift quantity.
The five-dimensional hydraulic table (BHPTAB) defines pressure at the inlet of

the flow device (BHP) as a tabular function of pressure at the outlet of this device
(THP), liquid rate (QLIQ), gas-oil ratio (GOR), water cut (WCUT), and artificial
lift quantity value (ALQ). Alternatively, oil or gas rate (QO or QG) may be used
instead of the liquid rate, and gas-liquid or oil-gas ratios (GLR or OGR) may be
used instead of the gas-oil ratio, and water-gas ratio (WGR) may be used instead
of the water cut. The artificial lift quantity is an optional additional input
dimension in the table which may be, for example, pipe inclination angle, gas-lift
rate, pump efficiency or power, etc. A well variable, ALQ, may then be input to
use in the bottomhole pressure table lookup.
The two-dimensional hydraulic table (BHITAB) defines pressure at the inlet of

the flow device (BHP) as a tabular function of pressure at the outlet of this device
(THP) and liquid or gas rate (QI).
Solution Algorithm
The solution procedure for determining the pressure drop in a flow device,
described by a hydraulic table, is as follows:
1. Specify values of pressure and temperature at the outlet of the flow device.

2. Determine the number of the hydrocarbon phases, their compositions, and

compressibility factors using the phase-equilibrium computations. A new
phase-equilibrium procedure52 is applied in compositional models. Standard
techniques, which are currently used in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the reservoir
flash calculations (refer to Chapter 23, PVT Representation), are used in
black-oil models.
3. Define volumetric rates of oil, gas, and water phases from the equation-of-
state (refer to Chapter 23, PVT Representation).
4. Calculate gas-oil ratio and water cut. (Note: this step is required only if the
five-dimensional table is used.)
5. Determine pressure at the inlet of the flow device from the hydraulic table.
The phase-equilibrium computations and table look-up are done only once in this
procedure. Therefore, the hydraulic table option requires significantly less CPU
time than the analytical models described in Section 29.2.1.
29.2.4 Application of Look-Up Tables for Pressure Gradient Determination In

Pipes
This option is designed to:
■ reduce the CPU time required by the analytical models in determining the
pressure distribution in pipes,
■ reduce the number of the five-dimensional hydraulic tables required for a

reservoir simulation, and
■ simulate dependency of the pressure drop in pipes on the fluid composition.
The procedure for the determination of the pressure distribution in a pipe is

similar to the procedure described in See “Solution Algorithm” on page 469..
However, the pressure gradient at different pipe locations (see Step 7 in See
“Solution Algorithm” on page 469.) is defined using a five-dimensional hydraulic
table (BHPTAB) instead of an analytical correlation. The application of the table
look-up instead of the analytical correlation significantly reduces the CPU time.
Furthermore, one table can be used for different pipes, if they have the same
diameter, thickness, and roughness coefficient. Therefore, the number of the
hydraulic tables and the CPU memory could be significantly reduced.
In this case, the hydraulic table (BHPTAB) defines pressure (BHP) at the
beginning of a pipe interval with the specified length (dzw) as a tabular function
of pressure (THP) at the end of this interval, liquid rate (QLIQ), gas-oil ratio
(GOR), water cut (WCUT), and inclination angle (ALQ). Alternatively, oil or gas
rate (QO or QG) may be used instead of the liquid rate, and gas-liquid or oil-gas

ratios (GLR or OGR) may be used instead of the gas-oil ratio, and water-gas ratio
(WGR) may be used instead of the water cut.
The pressure gradient at the current pipe location L is calculated as a difference of

the pressures at the end and the beginning of a pipe interval divided by the
interval length:
dp-
( L ) = THP
----- – BHP-
-----------------------------
dL dzw
29.2.5 Valve Model
Model Description
The valve model determines pressure at the inlet of a valve assuming that the
following parameters are known:
■ pressure at the outlet of the valve,
■ temperature at the outlet of the valve,
■ valve control,
■ valve coefficient profile.
The model predicts subcritical pressure drop across the valve using the following
equation50,51:
Q tot Q tot
p out – p in = – CVX ( X ) ---------------------- (29-3)
ρ
where:
pout pressure at the outlet of the valve in psi,
pin pressure at the inlet of the valve in psi,
Qtot total mass rate of the fluid in lb. per sec., which is
calculated as a sum of the mass rates of the oil, gas, and
water phases,
ρ density of the mixture in lb. per cu.ft.
CVX(X) valve coefficient which depends on a valve setting X.

The determination of the valve coefficients for different
types of valves is described in References 50 and 51. The

user must input the valve coefficients in VIP-

EXECUTIVE using a valve coefficient profile.
A pressure control valve or a flow control valve is simulated as follows:
The pressure control valve model automatically selects the valve coefficient CVX
from a specified range. This coefficient minimizes the absolute value of the
difference between valve upstream pressure and target pressure. The valve
coefficient range is defined by the valve coefficient profile and valve status. If the
valve status is “OPEN”, the whole range of the valve coefficient profile is used in
the calculations. Otherwise, if the valve status is “CLOSE”, the valve coefficient
range only consists of the last entry in the valve coefficient profile.
In the rate control valve model, the valve coefficient is defined as one of the end
points of the valve coefficient profile. If the valve status is “OPEN”, the valve
coefficient is determined as the first entry in the valve coefficient profile.
Otherwise, if the valve status is “CLOSE”, the valve coefficient is selected as the
last entry in the valve coefficient profile.
The oil, gas, or liquid mass rate can be used (instead of the total mass rate) for the
definition of the pressure drop in a valve.
Solution Algorithm
The solution procedure for determining the pressure drop in a valve is as follows:
1. Specify values for pressure and temperature at the outlet of the valve.
2. Determine the number of the hydrocarbon phases, their compositions, and

compressibility factors using the phase-equilibrium computations.
3. Determine mass rates and densities of oil, gas, and water phases from the
equation-of-state.
4. Calculate mass rate and density of the fluid mixture.
5. Determine a valve coefficient as described in the previous section.
6. Determine pressure at the inlet of the valve from Equation 29-3.
29.3 Surface Pipeline Network Model
29.3.1 Model Description

The surface pipeline network model determines bottomhole pressure and rates of
production wells from the simultaneous simulation of the multi-phase fluid flow
in the reservoir, well tubing, and surface pipeline network system. Therefore, the
model includes the following three major elements:

■ Wellbore Model, which describes the multi-phase fluid flow from a reservoir
to wellbores of production wells;
■ Well Tubing Model, which simulates the flow of multi-phase fluids from
wellbores to wellheads;
■ Surface Facility Model, which describes the multi-phase fluid flow in a

surface pipeline network system.
The wellbore model defines an inflow performance curve of each production well.
The well tubing and surface facility models determine an outflow performance
curve of a well. The bottomhole pressure and rates of each production well are
calculated as an intersection of the inflow and outflow performance curves.
The wellbore, well tubing, and surface facility models are considered below.
Wellbore Model
A standard VIP-EXECUTIVE wellbore model described in Chapter 38 is applied

in the surface pipeline network option for the determination of the well inflow
performance. This model simulates molar rates of hydrocarbon components and
water rate at the stock tank conditions of each production well as functions of the
following variables:
■ bottomhole pressure,
■ reservoir pressures in gridblocks in which a well is perforated,
■ oil, gas, and water mobilities of each well perforation,
■ oil, gas, and water densities and viscosities,
■ compositions of liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases in well perforations,
■ pressure gradient between well perforations.
In the surface pipeline network option, the conditions that exist in reservoir blocks
at the beginning of a timestep are used for the determination of the well inflow
performance. Therefore, the molar rates of the hydrocarbon components and the
water rate at the stock tank conditions of each production well are considered as
functions of the bottomhole pressure only:
QCwi = QCwi(PBHw), i = 1,2,...,nc, w = 1,2,...,nwmax. (29-4)
QWw = QWw(PBHw),

where:
QCwi molar rate of the i-th hydrocarbon component in the w-th

well
QWw water rate of the w-th well at stock tank conditions
PBHw bottomhole pressure of the w-th well
nc number of the hydrocarbon components
nwmax number of wells connected to the surface pipeline

system.
Well Tubing and Surface Facility Models
Models of flow devices, links, and nodes are used for the simulation of the multi-
phase fluid flow in production well tubing and surface pipeline network system.
The models of the flow devices are described in Section 29.2.
A link simulates the multi-phase fluid flow in
■ well tubing and casing,
■ connections between wellheads and nodes of the surface pipeline network

system, and
■ connections between nodes.
Each link has only one inlet and one outlet. A link can be constructed from
several flow device models sequentially connected with each other. For example,
the link shown in Figure 29-2 consists of the four following flow device models:
tubing, valve, pipe, and hydraulic table (BHPTAB).
Tubing Valve Pipe

Model Model Model BHPTAB
Link Link
Inlet Outlet
Figure 29-2: An Example of a Link
A node is the junction of several links. Each node can have any number of input
links but only one output link. The production wells can be connected to any node.
An example of a surface pipeline network is shown below in Figure 29-3. In this

example, a gathering system of seven production wells is simulated. Five nodes
are present in the system. Links are used for the simulation of the flow in well

tubing and in connections between nodes. For example, the multi-phase fluid flow
from a wellbore to a wellhead of Well 5 is simulated by Link 3. Link 5 represents
the flow between the wellhead of Well 5 and Node 4. The flow between Node 4
and Node 5 is simulated by Link 6.
Link 6 Node 5
Node 4
Link 5
Node 2 Node 3
Node 1
Wellhead Wellhead
Link 3
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Well 7
Figure 29-3: An Example of a Surface Pipeline Network System
Mass conservation and pressure equations describe the fluid flow in the surface
pipeline network system. These equations are described below.
The mass conservation equations for the hydrocarbon components and water
phase are formulated for each node of the surface pipeline network system.
The mass conservation equation for a hydrocarbon component states that the
molar rate of this component in an output link of a node is equal to the sum of
molar rates of the component in the input links of the node:
QC ni = ∑ QC ji + ∑ QC wi, i = 1, 2, …, nc, n = 1, 2, …, nnodes (29-5)

j ⊂ Nn w ⊂ Wn

where:
QCni molar rate of the i-th hydrocarbon component in the

output link of the n-th node
QCwi molar rate of the i-th hydrocarbon component in the w-th

well (see Equation 29-4)
Nn set of nodes connected to the n-th node
Wn set of production wells connected to the n-th node
nc number of the hydrocarbon components
nnodes number of nodes in the surface pipeline network system.
The mass conservation equations of the water phase can be formulated as follows:
QW n = ∑ QW j + ∑ QW w, n = 1, 2, …, nnodes (29-6)
j ⊂ Nn w ⊂ Wn
where:
QWn water rate at stock tank conditions in the output link of

the n-th node
QWw water rate at stock tank conditions in the w-th well (see
Equation 29-4).
The pressure equations are formulated for each link. They determine the
pressure at the inlet of the link as a function of the pressure at the outlet of the
link, molar rates of hydrocarbon components and water rate in the link.
For a link connecting the j-th and n-th nodes, the pressure equation can be
formulated as follows:
P j = F jn ( P n, QC j, QW j ) (29-7)
where:
Pj pressure at the j-th node (actually, Pj is the pressure at

the inlet of the link )
Pn pressure at the n-th node (or the pressure at the outlet of

this link)
QC j = ( QC j1, QC j2, …, QC jnc ) vector of the molar rates of the

hydrocarbon components in the
link.

For a link connecting a wellbore and a wellhead of a production well, the pressure
equation is as follows:
PBH w = F w ( THP w, QC w, QW w ) (29-8)
For a link connecting a wellhead of a production well and a node, the pressure
equation is as follows:
THP w = F wn ( P n, QC w, QW w ) (29-9)
where:
PBHw bottomhole pressure of the w-th well
THPw tubinghead pressure of the w-th well
QC w = ( QC w1, QC w2, …, QC wnc ) vector of the molar rates of the

hydrocarbon components in the
well.
The models of the flow devices from which the link is constructed are used for the
derivations of the pressure Equations 29-7, 29-8, and 29-9. These models are
described in Section 2.

29.3.2 Pressure and Rate Constraints

An important feature of the surface pipeline network option is modeling pressure
and rate constraints at different nodes of the surface pipeline network system.
Users can specify a minimum pressure as well as maximum oil, gas, water, and/or
liquid rates in any node of the gathering system. These constraints can be
formulated as follows:
Pressure Constraints:
P n ≥ PMIN n, n = 1, 2, …, nnodes (29-10)
Rate Constraints:
Q pn ≤ QMAX pn , p = o, g, w, l, n = 1, 2, …, nnodes (29-11)
where:
PMINn minimum pressure (specified by the user) at the n-th node
Qon, Qgn, Qwn, Qln oil, gas, water, and liquid volumetric rates at the n-th node
QMAXon, QMAXgn, QMAXwn, QMAXln maximum oil, gas, water, and

liquid rates (specified by the
user) at the n-th node.
The user assigns each node of the surface pipeline network system to a separator
battery. The volumetric rates of oil, gas, and water at any node are calculated by
flashing the feedstream through the separator battery attached to the node.
In addition to Constraints Equations 29-10 and 29-11, the surface pipeline

network model honors all well constraints (on bottomhole pressure, tubinghead
pressure, maximum rate, water limit, gas limit, economic limit, etc.) and well
management constraints that are available in VIP-EXECUTIVE Version 2.4.

29.3.3 Problem Statement

The surface pipeline network model determines
■ bottomhole pressure,
■ pressure distribution in well tubing,
■ tubinghead pressure,
■ molar rates of the hydrocarbon components, and
■ oil, water, and gas production rates at the stock tank conditions
in all production wells connected to the surface pipeline network system.
In addition, the model calculates:
■ pressure distribution,
■ molar rates of the hydrocarbon components, and
■ oil, gas, and water volumetric rates
in all links and nodes of the surface pipeline network system.
These variables are determined from the simultaneous solution of
■ wellbore flow Equations 29-4,
■ mass conservation Equations 29-5, 29-6 at all nodes, and
■ pressure Equations 29-7, 29-8, 29-9 at all links
subject to pressure and rate constraints (Equation 29-10) and (Equation 29-11).
The procedure developed for the solution of this problem is described in the next
section.

29.3.4 Solution Algorithm

All nodes of the surface pipeline network system are internally divided into levels.
A node belongs to the first level if it has input links only with production wells. A
node belongs to the NL-th level (NL > 1), if it has input links with nodes of the
lower level or with production wells. For example, the surface pipeline network
system represented in Figure 29-3 has three node levels. Nodes 1, 2, and 3 belong
to the first level, Node 4 belongs to the second level, and Node 5 belongs to the
third level.
At the first stage, the procedure honors pressure and rate constraints Equations 29-
10 and 29-11 at nodes of the highest level of the surface pipeline network system.
The pressure and rate constraints Equations 29-10 and 29-11 at nodes of the lower
levels are disregarded at this stage. Then, the node level is reduced by one and the
procedure is repeated.
The following steps are executed in the surface pipeline network option for the
determination of the bottomhole pressure and rates of the production wells as well
as the pressure distribution in the surface pipeline network system:
1. Set node level (NL) to the highest node level in the surface pipeline network
system.
2. Calculate initial estimates of bottomhole pressure and rates of the production

wells from well constraints (on bottomhole pressure, tubinghead pressure,
maximum rate, water limit, gas limit, economic limit, etc.) and well
management constraints specified by the user. The standard VIP-
EXECUTIVE techniques described in Chapter 38 are applied in this step. The
calculated bottomhole pressure of each production well is considered as the
limiting bottomhole pressure in the following surface pipeline network
calculations.
3. Determine molar rates of the hydrocarbon components and water rate at the
stock tank conditions of each production well from the wellbore flow
(Equation 29-4).
4. Calculate molar rates of the hydrocarbon components and water rates at the
stock tank conditions from the material balance Equations 29-6 and 29-7 at
nodes of all levels smaller than or equal to NL.
5. Determine volumetric rates of the oil, gas, and water phases at all nodes of the
NL-th level using flash calculations in separator batteries attached to the
nodes.
6. If rate constraints (Equation 29-11) are not honored at some nodes of the NL-
th level, calculate bottomhole pressures of the production wells and pressures
at the nodes from the solution of Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and the
following constraints:

Q np = QMAX np, n ⊂ NQ NL (29-12)
where NQNL is the subset of nodes from the NL-th level. Rate constraints
(Equation 29-11) with some index p are violated at these nodes.
An effective procedure has been developed for the solution of a system of

nonlinear Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and 29-12. This procedure is based on
the convergent structure of the surface pipeline network system without loops.
7. If pressure constraints (Equation 29-10) are not honored at some nodes of the
NL-th level, calculate bottomhole pressures of the production wells and
pressures at the nodes from the solution of Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and
the following constraints:
P n = PMAXn, n ⊂ NP NL (29-13)
where NPNL is the subset of nodes from the NL-th level. Pressure constraints
(Equation 29-10) are violated at these nodes.
A similar procedure as in Step 6 is applied for the solution of a system of

nonlinear Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and 29-13.
8. Reduce the node level NL by one and repeat Steps 3-7 if NL is not smaller
than one.
29.3.5 Simultaneous Modeling of Multiphase Fluid Flow in Reservoir and

Surface Pipeline Network System
When invoked, the surface pipeline network option operates as an integral part of
the compositional reservoir simulator. It determines rates of production wells
from well constraints and surface pipeline network constraints. These rates are
used as boundary conditions for the production wells in the solution of the
reservoir flow equations.
Assume that pressure, saturations, and hydrocarbon phase compositions have

already been calculated in all gridblocks of a reservoir model at some timestep.
Then, the following procedure is applied in the next timestep:
1. Calculate mobilities, densities, viscosities, hydrocarbon phase compositions,

and pressure gradient in all perforations of production wells.
2. Determine rates of production wells connected to the surface pipeline network

system as described in the previous section.
3. Apply these rates as the well maximum production rates in the other outer
iterations of the timestep.

The frequency of the surface pipeline network calculations can be controlled. The
user can specify a time increment between two sequential recalculations of the
production rates that use the surface pipeline network calculations. However, the
production rates are redefined after each TIME or DATE card.


Chapter
30
30.1 Introduction
VIP-CORE performs several checks on black-oil input data. Each BOTAB table is
checked after it is read. Compositional input data are not checked. Validation of
the BOTAB data is divided into three parts:
1. Reasonableness of saturated data.
2. Positive hydrocarbon compressibility of saturated oil.
3. Reasonableness of undersaturated oil data.
An example of a typical BOTAB table follows.
BOTAB 1
API WTRO
27.5 200.
PSAT RS BO ZG GR VO VG
5000 930 1.48 .88 .80 .72 .028
Saturated 4000 720 1.37 .85 .80 .90 .025
oil data 3000 541 1.30 .80 .80 1.07 .022
2000 378 1.24 .81 .80 1.32 .018
1000 212 1.17 .86 .80 1.81 .014
14.65 0 1.05 .96 .80 3.34 .012
PSAT 3000. 4000. . .
DP BOFAC VOFAC BOFAC VOFAC . .
Under-saturated 100. .990 1.01 .995 1.02 . .
oil data 200. .980 1.02 .994 1.04 . .
300. .970 1.03 .993 1.06 . .
. . . . . . .
R5000.0.1 Total Compressibility Checks 30-487

30.2 Reasonableness Check

The reasonableness check ensures that the saturated oil and gas data are entered in
the correct order. Although not required to ensure positive hydrocarbon
compressibility, oil and gas viscosities are checked for reasonableness.
Specifically, the following conditions are checked when a BOTAB is read:
1. The BOTAB table entries must be entered with decreasing pressure. That is,
the first entry is at the maximum pressure in the table and the last entry is at
“standard” pressure.
2. Solution gas-oil ratio must decrease with decreasing pressure.
3. The oil formation volume factor must decrease with decreasing pressure.
4. Oil viscosity must increase with decreasing pressure.
5. Gas viscosity must decrease with decreasing pressure.
6. Bg is checked to ensure that it increases with decreasing pressure. However, if

a gas deviation factor (Z) is entered instead of Bg, then this check is not made.
30-488 Total Compressibility Checks R5000.0.1

30.3 Saturated Oil Compressibility Check

Under pressure depletion, a saturated oil shrinks as gas is liberated. The volume of
the liberated gas must be greater than the reduction of the volume of the saturated
oil. Specifically, the following inequality (in appropriate units) must be satisfied:
( B g ΔR s – ΔB o ) > 0 (30-1)
where ΔRs and ΔBo are the differences between two consecutive entries in the
BOTAB table. Bg is evaluated at the lower pressure of the two and is multiplied by
0.001 to yield compatible units. If the user entered a gas deviation factor (Z)
instead of Bg, then (for field units) the Z-factors are converted to Bg using the
following equation:
1000 × Z × P std × T res

B g ( RB ⁄ mscf ) = ----------------------------------------------------
- (30-2)
5.6146 × P res × T std
This check is suppressed if the user includes a NOCHK card in the UTILITY
section of the input file. This is not a good idea because the simulator may have
trouble running with data that failed the check which implies that the total
hydocarbon system expands with increasing pressure.
R5000.0.1 Total Compressibility Checks 30-489

30.4 Undersaturated Oil Compressibility Check

Undersaturated oil data for each BOTAB table are entered after the saturated oil
data. For various values of saturation pressure (PSAT), arrays of BOFAC and
VOFAC are entered as a function of DP (excess pressure above saturation
pressure), BOFAC and VOFAC are defined as follows:
B o ( P sat + DP ) μ o ( P sat + DP )
BOFAC ( DP ) = -----------------------------------
- VOFAC ( DP ) = -----------------------------------
- (30-3)
B o ( P sat ) μ o ( P sat )
The following conditions are checked on the undersaturated oil data:
1. All PSAT values must be greater than standard pressure and increasing.
2. All DP values must be greater than zero and increasing.
3. For each PSAT value, BOFAC values must be less than one and must decrease
with increasing DP.
4. For each PSAT value, VOFAC values must be greater than one and must
increase with increasing DP.
30-490 Total Compressibility Checks R5000.0.1

Chapter
31
31.1 Introduction
There are several possible methods to perform fluid tracking in compositional
simulation. The method that is implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE is designed to
track so-called equity fluids. Equity fluid is a legal concept associated with
ownership. The fluid tracking algorithm in VIP-EXECUTIVE is, therefore,
designed to determine oil, gas, and condensate reserves of a reservoir if the
reservoir is owned by several companies.
An equity fluid usually is defined according to original location within a reservoir.

These may be gas-cap gas, oil-zone oil, relict oil (liquid hydrocarbon phase that
originally exists in a gas cap), etc. One may have to track injected fluids or
retrograde condensate. Tracking of the retrograde is different from tracking other
fluids. Initially, the retrograde fluid is not present in a reservoir. It is formed from
the gas cap gas via condensation in the reservoir as a result of reservoir pressure
decline. However, the retrograde cannot be viewed as the renamed liquid phase of
the gas cap gas. If the retrograde is revaporized, it does not convert back to gas-
cap gas, but remains as retrograde.
Reservoir fluids undergo significant compositional transformation during the

productive life of a reservoir. These transformations include such phenomena as
retrograde condensation of the gas-cap gas in the reservoir, evolution of solution
gas from oil-zone oil, mixing of different reservoir fluids in the reservoir and in
separator facilities, revaporization of retrograde condensate and vaporization of
reservoir oil caused by lean gas injection. In addition, fluids move within the
reservoir; gas cap expands into the oil zone and in turn is displaced by injected
lean gas. All this tends to mix fluids. Therefore, the purpose of fluid tracking is to
keep account of different equity fluids despite all compositional interaction and
mixing in the reservoir and separator facilities.
R5000.0.1 Tracking Calculations In VIP-EXECUTIVE 31-491

31.2 Tracking Philosophy

Consider for instance a gas cap of a reservoir before any production from the
field. The reservoir probably is in equilibrium and there is no macroscopic flow in
the system. The user assumes that there is some small saturation of oil in the gas
cap. This oil, called relict oil, is at or below the residual oil saturation and is not
mobile. The requirement is to track oil and gas in the gas cap as two separate
fluids: "relict oil" and "gas cap gas". Note that in reality both the oil and the gas
consist of the same types of hydrocarbon components and represent two
equilibrium phases of the same fluid. The requirement to distinguish (to track) the
oil and the gas as two “different” fluids is dictated only by equity ownership
considerations.
The equilibrium state of a gas cap, before start of production, presents a good test
example of a system to help identify a set of requirements for a tracking algorithm
that is consistent with equity ownership considerations. Note the following
requirements:
1. For compositional simulation, equity fluids should be tracked on an individual

hydrocarbon component basis.
2. At any time and at any location in the reservoir, an equity (tracked) fluid may
be present in one of the two phases (oil, gas) or in both of them.
3. The sum of moles of all tracked fluids should equal total moles as calculated
by the simulator for each of the gas and oil phases. This should be satisfied
locally in any point of the reservoir and for each hydrocarbon component.
4. For macroscopic flow of oil or gas in a reservoir, an equity fluid is transported

with the phase in which the fluid is present.
5. Transfer of moles of an equity fluid from one phase to another occurs only in
the case of a non-zero net mass transfer of moles between phases.
6. Molar material balance should be enforced for each component of every

tracked fluid.
These six requirements are the basis for formulation of the tracking algorithm.
The first three of these assumptions clarify how an equity fluid is characterized
within the tracking procedure. The equity fluid is described by the number of
moles of each hydrocarbon component associated with this fluid in both the oil
and gas phases at any location in a reservoir.
Assumption 3 requires that oil and gas phases be comprised of all tracked fluids.
In other words, a list of tracked fluids must be complete to include all
hydrocarbon material in a reservoir.
Assumptions 4 and 5 describe a movement of equity fluids within a reservoir and

between phases. An equity fluid moves across a reservoir with the phase in which
31-492 Tracking Calculations In VIP-EXECUTIVE R5000.0.1

it is present. An equity fluid also may move from one phase to another. By
definition (Assumption 5) such transfer occurs only in the case of a non-zero net
mass transfer of hydrocarbon components between phases.
31.3 Tracking in a Reservoir

Tracking of equity fluids is essentially a material balance problem. In discussing
the algorithm for tracking of equity fluids in a reservoir, we first define variables
for characterizing equity fluids, then formulate material balance equations for
these fluids.
31.3.1 Variables to Describe Equity Fluids

In general, several equity fluids may be present in oil and gas phases. To describe
these fluids, the variables are defined as follows: xijT is the number of moles of
component i of equity fluid j per one mole of oil, and yijT is the number of moles
of component i of fluid j per one mole of gas. Fluid number j may be any number
from 1 to nf l.
Do not confuse these variables with the mole fractions of component i of fluid j.
These are not mole fractions. For a given fluid j, the sum of xijT over all
components i is not equal to one. It is equal to the total moles of fluid j in one
mole of oil.
Using these variables, requirement 3 from Section 31.2 may be written as follows:
n fl n fl
T T
xi = ∑ x ij, yi = ∑ yij (31-1)
j=1 j=1
Let uo be molar flux; i.e., uo is equal to the number of oil moles that flows through
a unit area per unit time. Each of these moles contains xi moles of component i.
Therefore, the oil molar flux of component i, uoi, is defined as uoi = uo xi. Similar
considerations can be applied to define molar fluxes of tracked substances. The oil
molar flux of component i of fluid j, uoij, is defined as uoij = uo xijT, and the gas
molar flux of component i of fluid j, ugij, is defined as ugij = ug yijT. It is easy to
show that the following is valid:
n fl n fl
o o g g
ui = ∑ u ij, ui = ∑ uij (31-2)
j=1 j=1

31.3.2 Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids

In formulating material balance equations for equity (tracked) fluids, it is
important that these equations be consistent with the material balance equations
used in the compositional simulator itself. The VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator uses
the following form of the material balance equation for hydrocarbon component i:
∂ o g
---- { φF [ Vy i + ( 1 – V )x i ] } + ∇ ⋅ ( u x i ) + ∇ ⋅ ( u y i )
∂t
p p I I I I
–qo xi – qg yi + qo xi + qg yi = 0 (31-3)
This equation can be written as two equations:
∂
---- [ φF ( 1 – V )x i ] + ∇ ⋅ ( u o x i ) – q po x i + q Io x Ii = T i (31-4)
∂t
∂ g p I I
---- [ φFVy i ] + ∇ ⋅ ( u y i ) – q g x i + q g y i = – T i (31-5)
∂t
The first of these equations describes material balance of component i in the oil
phase, while the second describes the gas phase. Here, Ti is the mass transfer term.
It is defined by Equations 31-4 and 31-5. Ti has the physical meaning of the
number of moles of component i that are condensed from gas into oil in a unit
volume per unit time.
Material balance equations for equity fluids are written in the form similar to
Equations 31-4 and 31-5:
∂ T o T p T I TI
---- [ φF ( 1 – V )x ij ] + ∇ ⋅ ( u x ij ) – q o x ij + q o x ij = T ij (31-6)
∂t
∂ T g T p T I TI
---- [ φFVy ij ] + ∇ ⋅ ( u x ij ) – q g y ij + q g y ij = – T ij (31-7)
∂t
Here, xijTI and yijTI are values similar to xijT and yijT, but are for the injected
streams. Composition and makeup of injected fluids in terms of tracked
substances are assumed to be known. Tij is a mass transfer term for tracked fluid j,
and defines the number of moles of component i of tracked fluid j that condenses
from gas into oil in a unit volume per unit time.
Equations 31-6 and 31-7 must be consistent with the mass transfer Equations 31-4
and 31-5, which are used in the simulator. This means that the equations that result
from summation of Equations 31-6 and 31-7 over all tracked fluids must be

identical to Equations 31-4 and 31-5. By using these relationships, it can be

verified that this is satisfied if
n fl
∑ Tij = Ti (31-8)
j=1
Equation 31-8 is the only condition imposed on mass transfer terms Tij. This
condition does not uniquely define the mass transfer terms. Some additional
assumptions must be made to define Tij and close Equations 31-6 and 31-7.
31.3.3 Mass Transfer Split Between Equity Fluids

Assume that in a process of mass transfer between gas and oil, some number of
moles of the component i condenses from vapor into oil. This is characterized by
the mass transfer term Ti, where Ti is equal to the net number of moles of
component i that move from gas into oil in a unit volume per unit time. For
condensation, Ti is positive, while for vaporization, Ti is negative.
Both oil and gas consist of several tracked substances. For condensation, Ti moles
of component i move from the gas into the oil. When deciding what part of these
moles comes from fluid j, one may look at the relative presence of fluid j in the
gas phase. One mole of gas has yi moles of component i and yijT moles of
component i are associated with fluid j. The relative amount of fluid j moles of
component i in the gas then is given by the ratio yijT/yi. It is reasonable to assume
the following expression for the mass transfer term of component i of fluid j:
T
y ij
T ij = T i ----- for condensation. (31-9)
yi
In the opposite case of vaporization of component i (Tij is negative), the number of

vaporized moles of component i that come from tracked substance j should be
decided based on the relative amount of tracked substance j in the oil phase. Here,
T
x ij
T ij = T i ----- for vaporization. (31-10)
xi
This definition of the mass transfer term is based on the assumption of equal
opportunity for tracked substances to participate in a mass transfer process. It
satisfies the consistency condition of Equation 31-8.
Note that there is no unique way to define mass transfer terms, Tij. Equations 31-9
and 31-10 provide one of many possible assumptions. For example, the following
definition of the mass transfer terms also satisfies the consistency condition:

g T
w j y ij
-,
T ij = T i ----------------------
n
if T i > 0 (31-11)
fl
g T
∑ wk yik
k 1
o T
w j x ij
-,
T ij = T i ----------------------
n
if T i < 0 (31-12)
fl
o T
∑ wk xik
k 1
Here, wjo and wjg are weighting factors that must be provided by the user. For
equal weighting factors, this definition of the mass transfer terms is reduced to the
previous one. Therefore, Equations 31-11 and 31-12 may be viewed as a
generalization of Equations 31-9 and 31-10. By assigning unequal weighting
factors, we have preferential evaporation or condensation of certain fluids relative
to other fluids.
One may question the consistency of allowing preferential vaporization or

condensation of certain tracked fluids with the assumptions
o o T g g T
u ij = u x ij, u ij = u y ij
for the tracked fluid molar flow rates used in Equations 31-6 and 31-7. Those
expressions may be interpreted as an assumption of the uniform distribution of
equity fluids within the oil and gas phases. And if that is the case, then the
preferential vaporization or condensation contradicts this uniform distribution of
the tracked fluids. In this regard, note that Equations 31-6 and 31-7 and
expressions 31-11 and 31-12 are used on the scale of gridblocks that is many
orders of magnitude larger than the pore scale. The processes of mass transfer
between the phases and of fluid flow actually occur on the pore scale. What looks
like uniform tracked fluid distribution within the phases on the macroscopic scale
of gridblocks may not be true on the subgrid scale of individual pores. Therefore,
the possibility of preferential vaporization or condensation of tracked fluids and
Equations 31-6 and 31-7 are not necessarily inconsistent.
The definition Equations 31-11 and 31-12 of the mass transfer terms actually are
implemented in the tracking algorithm of the VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator. This
definition provides an option to account for possible preferential evaporation or
condensation of some equity fluids. However, it is the user’s responsibility to
justify any specific set of weighting factors used in a simulation.
31.3.4 Solution of Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids

Equations 31-6 and 31-7 along with the definition of the mass transfer terms given
by Equations 31-11 and 31-12 constitute a set of governing equations for tracking

calculations within a reservoir. Tracking Equations 31-6 and 31-7 are not stand-
alone equations. They are coupled with the simulator equations through the mass
transfer term Ti. Whether the tracking equations are solved or not has no effect on
the simulator equations. The opposite, however, is not true. To solve the tracking
equations one needs a mass transfer term Ti , which comes from the solution of the
simulator Equations 31-4 and 31-5.
Incorporation of tracking equations into a system of simulator equations can be

done relatively easy in the case of IMPES formulation. Therefore, the fluid
tracking algorithm has been implemented only in the IMPES version of VIP-
EXECUTIVE. In this implementation, tracking Equations 31-6 and 31-7 are
solved explicitly. This explicit solution method, as well as the IMPES simulator
itself, places restrictions on timestep size. Violation of this restriction causes
numerical instability and error growth. Therefore, it is important to avoid
violation of the timestep size restriction during the simulation run by restricting
the size of DTMAX or through use of the IMPES stability option (IMPSTAB). If
the tracking algorithm detects an instability, the timestep is repeated with a
smaller timestep size.


Chapter
32
Tracer Analysis Option1
32.1 Summary
This is a description of an option which has been developed to improve and
expand the simulation capabilities in the analysis and interpretation of tracer tests
and in the design and performance analysis of waterflood and gas injection
projects. The option is built around the particle tracking method which allows
accurate simulation of tracer flow associated with convection and physical
dispersion. The method is nearly numerical dispersion free and allows accurate
simulation of tracer flow in field scale simulation. The algorithm, implemented in
VIP-EXECUTIVE, allows simulation of tracer flow within the framework of
three-dimensional, multi-phase, non steady state reservoir simulation. In addition
to accurate simulation of tracer flow the software allows:
■ Tracking of water fronts in waterflood operations.
■ Construction of three-dimensional flow trajectories and streamlines of

velocity field.
■ Calculation of the areal sweep.
■ Visualization and animation of tracer flow.
R5000.0.1 Tracer Analysis Option 32-499

32.2 Background
Waterflooding is the most widely used method of secondary oil production. A
waterflood project usually involves a number of water injectors and producers
arranged in some pattern. Optimal recovery of oil in such an operation requires
coordinated operation of water injectors and producers. This insures that oil is
displaced by water uniformly throughout the reservoir and there is no early water
breakthrough in some wells while large portions of the reservoir are not swept by
water. Such operation of a waterflood project requires an extensive reservoir
surveillance program as well as some specialized reservoir simulation tools which
help reservoir engineers understand the performance of the waterflood.
Design of a waterflood project requires detailed knowledge of the reservoir

(reservoir geometry, distribution of oil within the reservoir, rock properties, major
reservoir heterogeneities, faults) and the capability to predict the project
performance under different operational scenarios. This is usually done on the
basis of simplified reservoir models which assume that well patterns are balanced
and that it is possible to reduce the problem to the analysis of oil displacement
within an element of symmetry (for example, a five-spot pattern). A reservoir is
often considered as two-dimensional or as a combination of several homogeneous
layers. Displacement of oil by water is often approximated as a unit mobility ratio
displacement. The fluid flow is viewed in terms of stream lines and stream tubes
and effectiveness of oil displacement is characterized in terms of areal sweep.
Surprisingly, the state of the art reservoir simulation technology is very rarely
used in this area of reservoir engineering. There are no real technical reasons for
this. With existing commercial reservoir simulators and with the hardware
capabilities available, it is possible to accurately simulate oil displacement by
water and predict performance of a waterflood project by taking into account
actual reservoir geometry, fluid and rock properties and large scale heterogeneities
as well as actual operational conditions. Reservoir simulation performed with a
commercial reservoir simulator on a fine enough grid system provides more
accurate results than the estimates made by using simplified models.
Displacement of oil by water may be adequately simulated in most cases on a grid
with ten blocks between wells and such models will be able to represent the most
important large scale heterogeneities. There is, however, a process often
associated with waterflood surveillance programs which commercial reservoir
simulators are not able to simulate adequately. This process is a tracer test.
32.3 Tracer Tests

Historically, tracer tests have been used as a tool for qualitative evaluation of flow
patterns in reservoirs (well to well communication, detection of high permeability
streaks, drift flow, faults, and so on). In this capacity, tracer tests play an important
role in reservoir surveillance and reservoir management activities. However,
tracer tests (in combination with well logging, seismic tests, pressure transient
tests) have a potential for providing quantitative information on reservoir
32-500 Tracer Analysis Option R5000.0.1

stratification and heterogeneity, information which is very important in the design

and operation of IOR projects. In the future, tracer tests will have an important
place among the tools for integrated reservoir characterization.
In a field tracer test, a small slug of tracer dissolved in water or gas is injected into
a reservoir. It is followed by water or gas, respectively. Production of tracer is
monitored in surrounding production wells.
Tracer concentration in the produced water or gas as a function of time is recorded

for all monitored wells. The set of these curves constitutes the tracer response
data. These data reflect movement of tracer between the injector and the
surrounding producers during the test. The tracer movement is related to the
injected phase flow, and the phase flow itself depends on reservoir properties
(distribution of porosity, permeability, reservoir stratification, faults, shales) as
well as on reservoir geometry and boundary conditions. Tracer tests results are
therefore related in some complicated way to reservoir properties, and we need
some special tools and techniques in order to derive the reservoir properties from
tracer response data. Derivation of reservoir properties from the tracer response
data is an inverse problem similar to a problem of history matching of a reservoir
model. In the history matching problem, we adjust reservoir properties and
relative permeability data to reproduce observed reservoir performance. With the
tracer test, we have additional observed data that the reservoir model has to
reproduce. In order to do this, the reservoir model must have a capability to
simulate tracer movement in the reservoir.

32.4 Simulation of Tracer Flow

Tracer transport in a reservoir is associated with two physical mechanisms:
convective transport with the specified phase and dispersion. It is described by the
following equation
∂φS p ρ p c
--------------------- + ∇ ( q p ρ p c ) = ∇ ( D∇c ) + R p ρ p c (32-1)
∂t
where c is the tracer concentration in the specified phase, D is the dispersion

coefficient, f is porosity, Sp is phase saturation, ρp is phase density, qp is the vector
of the phase flux, and Rp is the phase production/injection rate. This equation
requires knowledge of the phase flux, qp , and has to be solved simultaneously
with the reservoir simulator governing equations which describe the flow of oil,
gas and water in a reservoir. The governing equations in a reservoir simulator are
usually solved by a finite difference method. In this method the governing
equations are approximated in a finite difference grid by a system of algebraic
equations. The finite difference grid is selected to resolve all important features of
the solution.
However, the same solution method can not be used for the tracer flow equation.
A slug of tracer may have a scale of a few feet (if not inches). If we solve the
tracer transport equation by a finite difference method, we have to use a grid with
grid blocks which are small compared to the scale of the tracer slug. It is not
feasible to use finite difference grids with foot-size grid blocks or even less for
field scale applications. Using a grid system with larger grid blocks will result in
large truncation errors associated with the finite difference approximation of the
tracer transport equation. This will manifest itself in a numerical phenomenon
called numerical dispersion.
Commercial reservoir simulators which claim to have the capability to simulate

tracer flow in a reservoir, often use a first order or a second order finite difference
techniques to solve the tracer transport equations. These, however, suffer from
excessive numerical dispersion and are unable to resolve the subgrid scale
phenomenon. For the same reason, the water tracking option in VIP-
EXECUTIVE can not be used for tracer flow simulation.
The tracer option presented here is based on a different method of solving the
tracer transport equation. This is not a finite difference type method. We simulate
tracer flow by a method of particles. Particle methods are best suited for purely
convective problems. These methods have been used to solve convective
problems in fluid mechanics, kinetic theory, and plasma physics. It has been
demonstrated that the particle methods can produce accurate solutions with a very
small amount of numerical dispersion. This approach was later extended to
problems with dispersion. For example, it was used to solve the Navier-Stokes
equations at high Reynolds number.88 This problem combines both convection
and dispersion. Recently, a particle method has been used in oil industry for

simulation of viscous fingering.89 We use a similar approach to simulate tracer

flow. We call this method the particle tracking method. This method, however,
should not be confused with the particle in cell method.90
32.4.1 Particle Tracking Method

The particle tracking method is a grid free Lagrangian type method. Instead of
discretizing space as it is done in finite difference or finite element methods, in the
particle tracking method we discretize the slug of tracer itself. We describe the
slug of tracer not in terms of a distribution of tracer concentration but as a cloud of
particles. Each particle is defined by its x, y, z coordinates in some system of
coordinates. The particles’ coordinates are recalculated periodically to reflect
movement of tracer according to convective and dispersive mechanisms, the same
mechanisms which are incorporated in the tracer transport equation. Collectively,
this movement of individual particles represents flow of the tracer.

32.5 Implementation in VIP

The algorithm for simulation of tracer flow by the particle tracking method has
been implemented in the reservoir simulator VIP-EXECUTIVE as an additional
simulator option. The tracer option is available both in the IMPES and in the
IMPLICIT versions of the simulator. The user activates the tracer option through
input data. The tracer option allows simulation of several slugs of the same tracer,
or of different tracers at the same time. The time for tracer injection, the tracer, the
injection well, and the number of particles for representation of the tracer slug are
defined by the user through input data. Simulation of tracer flow can be performed
in a purely convective mode or with dispersion. Dispersion may be defined as
isotropic or non-isotropic. Values of dispersivity coefficients have to be provided
by the user.
During simulation, results from the tracer option of VIP are written into a separate
output file. The frequency and amount of information sent to this file are
controlled by the user. The simulator writes two types of records: map records and
tracer production records. A map record contains information on the locations of
individual tracer particles at specific moments in time. This information can be
used for displaying the distribution of the tracer within the reservoir. A production
record contains information on tracer production rates for individual wells. The
simulator reports production rates for a well and for individual perforations of the
well as a function of time.
This option has a wider area of application. For example, in addition to its main
application, accurate simulation of tracer flow, it can be used to track water fronts
in waterflood operations. To do this we place particles at a water front when a well
starts water injection and move the particles with the velocity of the front
movement. The water front moves according to the Buckley-Leverett theory. This
front tracking capability is also implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE. Tracking of
water front allows one to calculate areal sweep.

32.5.1 Particle Unit Cube Mapping
1
u
v
4 2
w
3
5
6
8
In corner-point option, each cell is defined by the coordinates of its eight corners
r ( x, y, z ) i (i =1,...,8)
and can be mapped to a unit cube by the following equation
r = r 1 + ur 21 + vr 41 + wr 51 + uv ( r 32 – r 41 ) + vw ( r 84 – r 51 ) + uw ( r 62 – r 51 )
+ uvw [ ( r 21 – r 34 ) – ( r 65 – r 78 ) ]
where
r ij = r i – r j
and u, v, and w are coordinates in unit cube space
32.5.2 Particle Velocity Calculations
Particles in non-well cells
In non-well cells, particle movement calculations are based on fluids flow from
each cell face
Vp = Vx nx + Vy ny + Vz nz .
Velocity quantities are linear interpolations of phase velocities across the cell face

V x = ( 1 – u )v x- + uv x+
V y = ( 1 – v )v y- + vv y+
V z = ( 1 – w )v z- + wv z+
and velocity directions are results of bilinear interpolations

4 4 4
nx = ∑ nxi wxi , ny = ∑ nyi wyi , and nz = ∑ nzi wzi

i=1 i=1 i=1
where cell edge directions
⎧ n x1 = n 21 ⎧ n y1 = n 41 ⎧ n z1 = n 51
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ n x2 = n 65 ⎪ n y2 = n 85 ⎪ n z2 = n 84
⎨ , ⎨ , and ⎨
⎪ n x3 = n 78 ⎪ n y3 = n 76 ⎪ n z3 = n 73
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ n x4 = n 34 ⎩ n y4 = n 32 ⎩ n z4 = n 62
are weighted by particle relative locations in unit cube
⎧ w x1 = (1 – v)(1 – w) ⎧ w y1 = (1 – u)(1 – w) ⎧ w z1 = (1 – u)(1 – v)

⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ w x2 = ( 1 – v )w ⎪ w y2 = ( 1 – u )w ⎪ w z2 = ( 1 – u )v
⎨ , ⎨ , and ⎨ .
⎪ w x3 = vw ⎪ w y3 = uw ⎪ w z3 = uv
⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎩ w x4 = v(1 – w) ⎩ w y4 = u(1 – w) ⎩ w z4 = u(1 – v)
Particles in well cells
In well cells, particle movements are decided by fluids flow from both wells and
cell faces. For each cell, a reference circle is first defined, which is the largest
circle without crossing cell boundaries or corner nodes on the plane perpendicular
to the well perforation. The radius and the location of this circle is then used as a
reference to calculate the particle radial velocities.
For a cell with a vertical well at ( x w, y w ) and a particle at ( x p, y p ) , we first

find its reference point ( x r, y r ) from
⎧ 2
⎪ xr = xw ±Rr ⁄ 1 + k
⎨
⎪ y = y ±R k ⁄ 1 + k2
⎩ r w r
where
k = ( yp – yw ) ⁄ ( xp – xw )

is the slope and R r is the reference radius.
The velocities contributed from cell faces at the reference points V b are
calculated in the same way as for particles in non-well cells with the r components
V br and theta components V bθ .
The velocities contributed from the wells are
2
q log ( 1 + 2qΔt ⁄ αHr )
V wr = ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .
2 2
2αH ( r + 2qΔt ⁄ αHr – r )
where q is the flow rate, α is angle open to the well, r is the particle distance to the
well center, H is the cell average height, and Δt is the timestep size for particle
movement.
A radial distance r c is defined as
r c = q ⁄ ( αHV br )
to measure the relative impact from the well and from cell boundaries.
When particles move close to well, well impact becomes significant while
boundary effect is diminishing, the radial velocities are calculated by
⎧
⎪ VV br R ⁄ r r ⁄ rc > 1
⎪
V r = ⎨ wV b R ⁄ r + ( 1 – w )V wr r ⁄ r c ∈ ( τ, 1 ]
⎪
⎪ V wr r ⁄ rc ≤ τ
⎩
where
w = ( r ⁄ rc – τ ) ⁄ ( 1 – τ )
is a weighting factor and τ is a constant of 0.2.
The theta components of the velocities are linearly distributed along the r
direction and zero when particles are in the vicinity of the wells.
⎧
⎪ V ( r ⁄ rc – τ ) ⁄ ( R ⁄ r c – τ ) r ⁄ r c > τ
V θ = ⎨ bθ
⎪ 0 r ⁄ rc ≤ τ
⎩
Particle reflections
Particles reflect while they hit the non-flow cell faces. The transformation
function from physical space to unit cube space can be written in general as
r = x ( u, v, w )i + y ( u, v, w )j + z ( u, v, w )k

where i , j , and k are the unit vectors of x, y, and z coordinates in physical space.
Each cell face can be expressed as
r x- = x ( 0, v, w )i + y ( 0, v, w )j + z ( 0, v, w )k , r x + = x ( 1, v, w )i + y ( 1, v, w )j + z ( 1, v, w )k
r y- = x ( u, 0, w )i + y ( u, 0, w )j + z ( u, 0, w )k , r y+ = x ( u, 1, w )i + y ( u, 1, w )j + z ( u, 1, w )k
r z- = x ( u, v, 0 )i + y ( u, v, 0 )j + z ( u, v, 0 )k , r z+ = x ( u, v, 1 )i + y ( u, v, 1 )j + z ( u, v, 1 )k .
The unit normal vector for each face are then calculated by
∂r x- ∂r x- ∂r x - ∂r x- ∂r x+ ∂r x+ ∂r x+ ∂r x +
n x- = --------- × --------- ⁄ --------- × --------- , n x+ = --------
- × --------- ⁄ --------- × --------- ,
∂w ∂v ∂w ∂v ∂v ∂w ∂v ∂w
∂r y- ∂r y- ∂r y - ∂r y- ∂r y+ ∂r y+ ∂r y+ ∂r y +
n y- = --------- × --------- ⁄ --------- × --------- , n y+ = --------
- × --------- ⁄ --------- × --------- ,
∂u ∂w ∂u ∂w ∂w ∂u ∂w ∂u
∂r z- ∂r z- ∂r z- ∂r z- ∂r z+ ∂r z+ ∂r z+ ∂r z+
n z- = -------- × -------- ⁄ -------- × -------- , n z+ = --------
- × --------- ⁄ --------- × --------- .
∂v ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂v
The reflection velocity v' is calculated by
v' = v – 2 ( n ⋅ v )n
for a particle that has a velocity v and hits a point where the face normal is n .
32.5.3 Particle Tracking

At the start of each timestep, a particle location is first calculated by
r = r 0 + Δtv
where v is the particle velocity, Δt is the current timestep, and r 0 is the particle
start point. This calculated position is accepted as the particle new location if r
and r 0 are in the same cells.
If the particle moves outside the current cell, a set of nonlinear equations is solved
for u, v, w , and Δt 0 for each face
x ( u, v, w )i + y ( u, v, w )j + z ( u, v, w )k – vΔt 0 = r 0
The solution is unique and under the constraints

-
x : u = 0, v ∈ [ 0, 1 ], w ∈ [ 0, 1 ], Δt 0 > 0 ,
+
x : u = 1, v ∈ [ 0, 1 ], w ∈ [ 0, 1 ], Δt 0 > 0 ,
-
y : u ∈ [ 0, 1 ], v = 0, w ∈ [ 0, 1 ], Δt 0 > 0 ,
+
y : u ∈ [ 0, 1 ], v = 1, w ∈ [ 0, 1 ], Δt 0 > 0 ,
-
z : u ∈ [ 0, 1 ], v ∈ [ 0, 1 ], w = 0, Δt 0 > 0 ,
+
z : u ∈ [ 0, 1 ], v ∈ [ 0, 1 ], w = 1, Δt 0 > 0 .
The results tell the location on cell face that particle has crossed or reflected,
travel time for particle reaching the face, and the new cell that particle will move
into. The tracking calculation continues based on the new cell and the remaining
time left from the current timestep.

32.6 Validation of Tracer Option

The tracer option has been validated on several models which have exact
analytical solutions. These are one-dimensional and two-dimensional models with
single-phase, steady-state flow and simple geometries.
32.6.1 One-Dimensional Model

In a one-dimensional model in the limit of instantaneous injection, the tracer is
represented as a sharp spike of concentration. In the case of zero dispersion the
spike does not change its shape while it moves through the model. In arrival at the
producer, the tracer is produced instantaneously. When we simulate this process
by the particle method, all tracer particles are introduced at the same time and at
the same location near the injector. As a result, they move through the model as
one entity and are all produced at the same time. The particle method completely
reproduces the exact solution in this case.
In the case of a non-zero dispersion, the original tracer spike disperses in space
while it moves through the model. This causes the tracer to be produced over
some period of time. Figure 32-1 shows a comparison of the tracer production rate
as calculated by the particle method using 10,000 particles with the analytical
solution which exists in this case. The particle solution reproduces the analytical
result reasonably well. Oscillations, which are present in the particle solution, are
the result of a discrete representation of the tracer slug by particles. An increase of
the number of particles reduces the level of noise in the tracer production curve.
This is illustrated by Figure 32-2 which shows the tracer response for two slugs of

tracer represented by 10,000 and 500 particles. The level of noise is much higher
for 500 particles.
Figure 32-1: Comparison With Analytical Solution
Figure 32-2: Effect of the Number of Particles

32.6.2 Two-Dimensional Areal Model

Another model which has an analytical solution is a steady-state, single-phase
flow in a 5-spot pattern. For a zero dispersion case, the distribution of tracer
particles in a quarter of the 5-spot pattern at different moments of time is shown in
Figure 32-3. The tracer slug is represented by 2,000 particles, and the fluid flow is
simulated on a 10 x 10 grid system. The figure illustrates some small grid
orientation effects which are visible in the distribution of particles, especially at an
early time. Table 32-1 compares the breakthrough time and the breakthrough
sweep calculated by the particle method with that given by an analytical
solution.91 The table also shows sensitivity to grid system. An increase in the
number of grid blocks from the 10 x 10 to 40 x 40 grid system improves the
accuracy of simulation. However, for the 10 x 10 grid system the results are
already reasonably accurate.
Table 32-1: Two Dimensional, Single Phase, 5-Spot Model. Comparison With
Analytical Solution
Analytical Particle-Tracking Method

Solution Grid 40x40 Grid 10x10
Breakthrough Time, 0.7178 0.7213 07249

PV Injected
Breakthrough Sweep, 0.7178 0.7200 0.7404
Fraction
Figure 32-3: Zero Dispersion Case

The tracer production rate as a function of time for a 5-spot pattern is shown in
Figure 32-4. The tracer production curve has a characteristic shape of a sharp
spike followed by a long tail. This shape is the result of the 5-spot geometry.
Figure 32-4 also illustrates the effect of grid system on tracer production. It shows
that refinement of the grid slightly affects the breakthrough time.
Figure 32-4: Effect of the Grid System
Figure 32-5 shows the effect of the number of particles representing a tracer slug
on tracer production. The figure gives the tracer production curves from three
slugs of tracers which are injected with an interval of 30 days. The tracers arrive at
a producer with the same interval of 30 days. The slugs are represented by 500,

1,000, and 2,000 particles. Figure 32-5 shows that an increase in the number of
particles reduces the level of noise in tracer production, especially in the tail part
of the curve.
Figure 32-5: Effect of the Number of Particles

A tracer production curve for the same model with dispersion (dispersivity is 0.5
ft.) is given in Figure 32-6. Physical dispersion causes earlier tracer breakthrough.
Instead of the sharp spike of Figure 32-4 the tracer production curve in Figure 32-
6 shows a significantly lower and wider peak.
Figure 32-6: Effect of Dispersion

32.7 Interpretation of Tracer Tests

Tracer test data reflect properties of porous medium through which the tracer
moves during the test. The general assumption is that tracer tests are sensitive to
reservoir heterogeneities. The purpose of a tracer test interpretation exercise is to
decipher the rock properties from tracer tests. Brigham and Abbaszadeh-
Dehghani5,6 developed a method which allows interpretation of the tracer tests in
terms of a ‘layer-cake’ model. In this model a porous medium is assumed to
consist of many distinct noncommunicating layers. Tracer production in such a
model is a superposition of responses from individual layers. The amount of tracer
injected into each layer depends on the kh and the tracer velocity depends on the k/
φ of that layer. Assuming the permeabilities of individual layers, it is possible to
construct a theoretical tracer production curve for the model. By adjusting
permeabilities and thicknesses of the layers, one can match the theoretical tracer
production with field tracer production data.
The above method of tracer test interpretation is based on the assumption of

noncommunicating layers. This assumption is not generally valid. Layers do
communicate and the tracer can move from one layer to another. An interpretation
based on a model which ignores this fact may lead to wrong conclusions. Another
problem with this approach is that the interpretation may be non-unique. Tracer
tests alone cannot provide unique reservoir description. It is important that
information provided by geology, geophysics, coring, well logging and well
testing be incorporated into a unified picture of a reservoir - the reservoir model.
The ultimate test of the reservoir model is to reproduce observed reservoir
performance. This includes the historically observed evolution of pressure, oil
production rates, gas-oil ratio, water cut, and tracer test data. In other words, the
interpretation of field tracer tests should be part of the reservoir model calibration
which is usually called history matching.

Chapter
33
33.1 Introduction
Several methods of calculating transmissibilities are used in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
The method is chosen based on the grid system defined by the user. This section
describes the techniques used to calculate the inter-block transmissibilities when
the grid system is either Cartesian or radial. Corner-point geometry
transmissibility calculations are described in Chapter 3 and Appendix B in this
manual.
33.2 Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility

Inter-block transmissibility is calculated first between adjacent cells with the
assumption that no faults exist. These connections are referred to as standard
connections and are described in the next section. Fault data are read using the FX
and FY cards that define the fault throws between the (i,j) column and the (i-1,j)
and (i,j-1) columns, respectively. The fault transmissibilities are computed as
described in Section 33.2.2.
33.2.1 Standard Connections

A standard connection connects the arbitrary cell (i,j,k) and one of the following:
(i-1,j,k), (i,j-1,k), or (i,j,k-1). The transmissibilities for these connections are
calculated by the following equations:
2.0 × C Darcy × TMi, j, k

T x = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DXB i – 1, j, k DXBi, j, k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
KX i – 1, j, k × DYB i – 1, j, k × DZBN i – 1, j, k KX i, j, k × DYB i, j, k × DZBN i, j, k
2.0 × C Darcy × TMi, j, k

T y = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DYB i, j – 1, k DYB i, j, k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
KY i, j – 1, k × DXBi, j – 1, k × DZBN i, j – 1, k KY i, j, k × DXB i, j, k × DZBN i, j, k
2.0 × C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T z = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DZB ij, k – 1 DZB i, j, k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -
KZ i, j, k – 1 × DXB i, j, k – 1 × DYBi, j, k – 1 KZ i, j, k × DXB i, j, k × DYB i, j, k
R5000.0.1 Transmissibility Calculations 33-517

See Section 33.4 for the nomenclature.
If the permeability input data are specified by gridblock-face permeabilities KXF,

KYF, and KZF, instead of cell center permeabilities KX, KY, and KZ, then the
above equations are replaced by the following equations:
2.0 × KXF i, j, k × C Darcy × TM i, j, k

T x = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DXB i – 1, j, k DXBi, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------- + -----------------------------------------------------
DYB i – 1, j, k × DZBN i – 1, j, k DYB i, j, k × DZBN i, j, k
2.0 × KYF i, j, k × C Darcy × TM i, j, k

T y = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DYB i, j – 1, k DYB i, j, k
-------------------------------------------------------------------
- + ----------------------------------------------------- -
DXB i, j – 1, k × DZBN i, j – 1, k DXB i, j, k × DZBN i, j, k
2.0 × KZF i, j, k × C Darcy × TM i, j, k

T z = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DZB ij, k – 1 DZBi, j, k
--------------------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------
DXB i, j, k – 1 × DYB i, j, k – 1 DXB i, j, k × DYB i, j, k
Note that all of the above equations use bedding plane lengths; namely, DXB,
DYB, DZB, and DZBN. If the input data were not entered in bedding plane
lengths, then the bedding plane lengths are calculated from the horizontal and
vertical lengths (see Figure 33-1).
DXB
DZB
DZ θx
DX
Figure 33-1: Bedding Plane Lengths
DXB DX / COS(θx),
DYB DY / COS(θy),
DZB DZ × COS(θx) × COS(θy),
DZBN DZN × COS(θx) × COS(θy),
33-518 Transmissibility Calculations R5000.0.1

where:
θx = TAN-1( .5 × ( DXi + DXi+1 ) / ( DEPTHi - DEPTHi+1) ), and

θy = TAN-1( .5 × ( DYj + DYj+1 ) / ( DEPTHj - DEPTHj+1) ).
If cell center depths, MDEPTH, are entered instead of gridblock top depths,
DEPTH, then the MDEPTH values are used in the above calculations.
33.2.2 Fault Connections

The FX and FY cards are used to define fault locations in the X- and Y-direction,
respectively. The FX option defines a fault between the (i,j) and (i-1,j) columns
and the FY cards define faults between the (i,j) and (i,j-1) columns. Each FX and
FY card contains I- and J-indices of a fault, the value of the fault displacement,
and, optionally, a transmissibility multiplier (TM). The following method
describes how to calculate fault transmissibilities from column (i,j) to the (i-1,j)
and (i,j-1) columns.
The simulator removes the existing standard connections that apply across the
fault.
An average gross thickness for each layer is calculated for the two columns
separated by the fault. Thus, it is assumed that DZ is constant at the gridblock
face.
The shared gross thickness is calculated for each pair of cells connected across the
fault. This is based on the average gross thickness calculated in Step 2 above and
the fault throw (or shift) entered on the FX or FY card. Figure 33-3 describes this
process.
The X- or Y-transmissibility then is calculated:
2 × H shared × C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T x = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DXBi, j, k DXB i – 1, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
- + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
-
KX i, j, k × DYB i, j, k × NTG i, j, k KX i – 1, j, k × DYBi – 1, j, k × NTG i – 1, j, k
1 1 1 2 2 2
2 × H shared × C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T y = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DYB i, j, k DYB i, j – 1, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2
KY i, j, k × DXB i, j, k × NTG i, j, k KY i – 1, j, k × DXB i, j – 1, k × NTG i, j – 1, k

1 1 1 2 2 2
The fault option does not allow permeabilities to be specified at the gridblock
faces; i.e., KXF, KYF, and KZF. A general description of faults, including input
requirements, is found in Chapter 7.

Average
4-ft Block Thickness,
1 Pairs ft
Fault
1 and 4 3
2
2 and 5 3
4
Shared
3 5
Block Thickness,
Pairs ft
6 2 and 4 2
3 and 4 1
3 and 5 3
Figure 33-2: Shared Thickness Calculation Example
33.2.3 Nine Point Transmissibilities
Nine point transmissibilities are calculated by the method of Coats and Modine33.
The method rigorously accounts for non-heterogeneity and non-uniform grids and
insures that all computed transmissibilities are non-negative. The method is
applied in the x-y plane only. The option is invoked by the NINEPT card in the
VIP-CORE utility data, and may be used only for non-corner point cartesian grids.
Nine point differencing is not used across faults. Fault connection
transmissibilities are calculated as described in Section 33.2.2.
A detailed derivation of the equations presented in this section is given in the

reference. The equations are derived for the four quarter block system shown
inside the dashed lines in Figure 33-3. The numbering system shown is used to
simplify notation. Points 1, 2, 3, and 4 are centers of the four gridblocks.

3 7 4
5 6 9
8
1 2
Figure 33-3: Nine-Point Transmissibilities Deriavation
For each four quarter block system in the x-y plane in the reservoir, the
transmissibilities T12, T13, T34, T24, T14, and T23 are calculated. The diagonal
transmissibilities T14 and T23 are the full values between the respective
gridblocks. The total axial direction transmissibilities are given by the sum of the
values for neighboring four quarter-block systems. For example, the total x-
direction transmissibility between blocks 1 and 2 (denoted Tx2 in the simulator) is
given by the sum of the values represented by the two arrows in Figure 33-3. If
blocks 1 and 2 are on the reservoir boundary, then the transmissibility represented
by the lower arrow is equal to one half of the conventional value computed as in
Section 33.2.1. The transmissibilities for each four quarter block system are given
by
t 16 ⋅ t 26 t 36 + t 46
T 12 = τ 12 – w ⋅ ⎛ -------------------⎞ ⋅ ⎛ --------------------------------------------⎞
⎝ t 16 + t 26⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
t 16 ⋅ t 36 t 26 + t 46
T 13 = τ 13 – w ⋅ ⎛⎝ -------------------⎞⎠ ⋅ ⎛⎝ --------------------------------------------⎞⎠
t 16 + t 36 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 36 ⋅ t 46 t 16 + t 26
T 34 = τ 34 – w ⋅ ⎛ -------------------⎞ ⋅ ⎛ --------------------------------------------⎞
⎝ t 36 + t 46⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
t 26 ⋅ t 46 t 16 + t 36
T 24 = τ 24 – w ⋅ ⎛ -------------------⎞ ⋅ ⎛ --------------------------------------------⎞
⎝ t 26 + t 46⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
t 16 ⋅ t 46
T 14 = w ⋅ ⎛ --------------------------------------------⎞
⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠

t 26 ⋅ t 36
T 23 = w ⋅ ⎛ --------------------------------------------⎞
⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
where:
w = MIN ( 4 ⁄ 3, w 1, w 2, w 3, w 4 )
2---
⋅ τ 12
3
w 1 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t 16 ⋅ t 26 ⎞ ⎛
⎛ ------------------ t 36 + t 46
- ⋅ ------------------------------------------- -⎞
⎝ t 16 + t 26⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
2---
⋅ τ 13
3
w 2 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t 16 ⋅ t 36 ⎞ ⎛
⎛ ------------------ t 26 + t 46
- ⋅ ------------------------------------------- -⎞
⎝ t 16 + t 36⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
2---
⋅ τ 34
3
w 3 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t 36 ⋅ t 46 ⎞ ⎛
⎛ ------------------ t 16 + t 26
- ⋅ ------------------------------------------- -⎞
⎝ t 36 + t 46⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
2---
⋅ τ 24
3
w 4 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t 26 ⋅ t 46 ⎞ ⎛
⎛ ------------------ t 16 + t 36
- ⋅ ------------------------------------------- -⎞
⎝ t 26 + t 46⎠ ⎝ t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46⎠
T 18 ⋅ T 28
τ 12 = ---------------------
-
T 18 + T 28
T 37 ⋅ T 47
τ 34 = ---------------------
-
T 37 + T 47
T 15 ⋅ T 35
τ 13 = ---------------------
-
T 15 + T 35
T 29 ⋅ T 49
τ 24 = ---------------------
-
T 29 + T 49
Δy 1
T 18 = k 1x --------- Δz 1
Δx 1

Δy 2
T 28 = k 2x --------- Δz 2
Δx 2
Δy 3
T 37 = k 3x --------- Δz 3
Δx 3
Δy 4
T 47 = k 4x --------- Δz 4
Δx 4
Δx 1
T 15 = k 1y --------- Δz 1
Δy 1
Δx 3
T 35 = k 3y --------- Δz 3
Δy 3
Δx 2
T 29 = k 2y --------- Δz 2
Δy 2
Δx 4
T 49 = k 4y --------- Δz 4
Δy 4
⎛ Δx 1 ⋅ Δy 1 ⎞
t 16 = k xy1 ⎜ -----------------------
-⎟
⎝ Δx 21 + Δy 21⎠
⎛ Δx 2 ⋅ Δy 2 ⎞
t 26 = k xy2 ⎜ -----------------------
-⎟
⎝ Δx 22 + Δy 22⎠
⎛ Δx 3 ⋅ Δy 3 ⎞
t 36 = k xy3 ⎜ -----------------------
-⎟
⎝ Δx 23 + Δy 23⎠
⎛ Δx 4 ⋅ Δy 4 ⎞
t 46 = k xy4 ⎜ -----------------------
-⎟
⎝ Δx 24 + Δy 24⎠
( Δx i + Δy i )k xi ⋅ k yi
k xyi = --------------------------------------------- Δz 1
k xi ⋅ Δy i + k yi ⋅ Δx i

33.3 Radial System Transmissibility

As in the Cartesian system, inter-block transmissibility for a radial system first is
calculated between adjacent cells with the assumption that no faults exist. These
standard connections are described in Section 33.3.1. Note that in a radial system,
indices i, j, and k refer to the radial (R), azimuthal (theta), and vertical (Z)
directions, respectively. Fault data are read using the FR and FTHETA cards,
which define the fault throws and transmissibility multipliers in the R- and theta-
directions. Connections that cross the faults are computed as described in Section
33.3.2.
33.3.1 Standard Connections

In the absence of faults, inter-block transmissibilities in a radial system from
gridblock (i,j,k) to gridblocks (i-1,j,k), (i,j-1,k), and (i,j,k-1) are calculated by the
following equations:
C Darcy × TMi, j, k
T r = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOG ( R i – 1, j, k ⁄ RM i – 1, j, k ) LOG ( RM i, j, k ⁄ R i – 1, j, k )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
KR i – 1, j, k × DTH i – 1, j, k × DZBN i – 1, j, k KR i, j, k × DTH i, j, k × DZBN i, j, k
2.0 × C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T th = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RM i, j – 1, k × DTH i, j – 1, k RM i, j, k × DTH i, j, k
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
KTH i, j – 1, k × DR i, j – 1, k × DZBN i, j – 1, k KTH i, j, k × DR i, j, k × DZBN i, j, k
C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T z = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DZB i, j, k – 1 DZB i, j, k
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
2 2 2 2
KZ i, j, k – 1 × DTH i, j, k – 1 × ( R i, j, k – 1 – R i – 1, j, k – 1 ) KZ i, j, k × DTH i, j, k × ( R i, j, k – R i – 1, j, k )
If input data contain gridblock face permeabilities KRF, KTF, and KZF, then the
above equations are modified to:
KRF i, j, k × C Darcy × TMi, j, k

T r = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
LOG ( Ri – 1, j, k ⁄ RM i – 1, j, k ) LOG ( RM i, j, k ⁄ R i – 1, j, k )
------------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------------------
DTH i – 1, j, k × DZN i – 1, j, k DTH i, j, k × DZN i, j, k
2.0 × KTF i, j, k × C Darcy × TM i, j, k

T th = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
RM i, j – 1, k × DTH i, j – 1, k RM i, j, k × DTH i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------
- + -----------------------------------------------
DR i, j – 1, k × DZN i, j – 1, k DR i, j, k × DZN i, j, k
KZF i, j, k × C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T z = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
DZ i, j, k – 1 DZ i, j, k
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2 2
DTH i, j, k – 1 × ( R i, j, k – 1 – R i – 1, j, k – 1 ) DTH i, j, k × ( R i, j, k – R i – 1, j, k )
No dip adjustments are allowed to the inter-block transmissibilities in a radial

system.

33.3.2 Fault Connections

The FR and FTHETA cards are used to specify fault locations within a radial grid
system. The FR and FTHETA cards are similar to the FX and FY cards in a
Cartesian coordinate system. The R- or theta-transmissibilities from column (i,j)
to the (i-1,j) and (i,j-1) columns are calculated by the following equations:
H shared × C Darcy × TM i, j, k
T r = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOG ( RM i, j, k ⁄ R i – 1, j, k ) LOG ( R i – 1, j, k ⁄ RMi – 1, j, k )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
KR i, j, k × DTH i, j, k × NTG i, j, k KR i – 1, j, k × DTH i – 1, j, k × NTG i – 1, j, k
2.0 × H shared × C Darcy × TM i, j, k

T th = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RMi, j, k ⁄ DTH i, j, k RM i, j – 1, k × DTH i, j – 1, k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
KTH i, j, k × DR i, j, k × NTG i, j, k KTH i, j – 1, k × DR i, j – 1, k × NTG i, j – 1, k
33.4 Nomenclature
CDarcy Darcy’s constant:
1.127 x 10-3 in field units
8.52605 x 10-5 in metric units, where pressure is in kPa
8.36106143 x 10-3 in metric units, where pressure is in
kg/cm2.
DEPTH depth of gridblock top, in feet (m).
DR incremental radial length measured horizontally, in feet

(m).
DTHETA incremental angular distance measured horizontally, in

radians.
DX X-direction horizontal length, in feet (m).
DXB X-direction bedding plane length, in feet (m).
DY Y-direction horizontal length, in feet (m).
DYB Y-direction bedding plane length, in feet (m).
DZ Z-direction vertical gross thickness, in feet (m).
DZB Z-direction bedding plane gross thickness, in feet (m).
DZN Z-direction vertical net thickness, in feet (m).
DZBN Z-direction bedding plane net thickness, in feet (m).
Hshared shared thickness between adjoining cells connected

through a fault, in feet (m).

i X- and R-direction array index.
j Y- and theta-direction array index.
k Z- direction array index.
KR R-direction absolute permeability, md.
KRF R-direction absolute permeability measured at the grid

face, md.
KTHETA theta-direction absolute permeability, md.
KTF theta-direction absolute permeability measured at the

grid face, md.
KX X-direction absolute permeability, md.
KXF X-direction absolute permeability measured at the grid

face, md.
KY Y-direction absolute permeability, md.
KYF Y-direction absolute permeability measured at the grid

face, md.
KZ Z-direction absolute permeability, md.
KZF Z-direction absolute permeability measured at the grid

face, md.
LOG natural logarithm function.
MDEPTH depth of gridblock center, in feet (m).
NTG net-to-gross thickness ratio, fraction.
R radius to outer edge of gridblock, measured horizontally,

in feet (m).
RM gridblock mean radial center, in feet (m).
Ri – Ri – 1
RM i = -----------------------------
-
⎛ Ri ⎞
LOG ⎜ -----------⎟
⎝ R i – 1⎠
Tr radial transmissibility in the i-1 direction, in RB-cp/day/

psi [m3-cp/day/kPa].
Tth azimuthal transmissibility in the j-1 direction, in RB-cp/

day/psi [m3-cp/day/kPa].

Tx X-directional transmissibility in the i-1 direction, in RB-

cp/day/psi [m3-cp/day/kPa].
Ty Y-directional transmissibility in the j-1 direction, in RB-

Tz Z-directional transmissibility in the k-1 direction, in RB-

TM transmissibility multiplier.


Chapter
34
Unit Conventions
34.1 Introduction
Three unit conventions are available in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The default unit
system is FIELD (also known as customary, or English units). The others are
METRIC and LAB, which can be selected by placing a METRIC or LAB card in
the UTILITY section of the VIP-CORE input file. The METRIC option also can
specify pressure as kPa (default), kg/cm2, or bar units. All references to kPa in
the METRIC column of the table below can be replaced by kg/cm2 or bar
depending on the pressure option selected.
Data Type Field Metric Lab
Angle degrees degrees degrees
Area acres m2 cm2
Compressibility 1/psi 1/kPa 1/psi
Density (water) gm/cc gm/cc gm/cc
Density (oil) gm/cc or gm/cc or gm/cc or

degree API degree API degree API
Formation volume fac- rb/STB m3/STM3 cc/stcc

tor (oil)
Formation volume fac- rb/MSCF m3/SM3 cc/scc or

tor (gas) or Z-factor or Z-factor z-factor
Gas gravity relative to air at std. relative to air at relative to air at

cond. std. cond. std. cond.
Gas-liquid ratio SCF/STB SM3/STM3 scc/stcc
Length feet meters cm
Moles lb-moles lb-moles gm-moles
Permeability md md md
Pressure psia kPa psia
R5000.0.1 Unit Conventions 34-529

Data Type Field Metric Lab
Rates 1/day 1/day 1/day
Saturation fraction fraction fraction
Standard pressure 14.65 psia 101.325 kPa or 14.65 psia

(default) 1.03353 kg/cm2
Standard temperature 60° F 15° C 15° C

(default)
Solution gas-oil ratio SCF/STB SM3/STM3 scc/stcc
Temperature degrees F degrees C degrees C
Time days days hours
Transmissibility rb-cp/day/psi m3-cp/day/kPa cc-cp/day/psi
Viscosity cp cp cp
Volume (surface liquid) STB STM3 stcc
Volume (reservoir) rb m3 cc
Volume (surface gas) MSCF SM3 scc
Water-cut fraction fraction fraction
34-530 Unit Conventions R5000.0.1

34.2 Conversion Factors

Length 1 ft = 0.3048 m
Pressure 1 psi = 6.89476 kPa = 0.07030814 kg/cm2

= 0.06804 atm = 0.06894153 bar
Area 1 acre = 43,560 ft2 = 4,046.9 m2
Volume 1 bbl = 0.1589873 m3 = 5.6146 ft3

1 MSCF = 28.31685 m3
Mass 1 lb (equivalent)= 0.4536 kg
Density 1 gm/cc = 62.43 lb/ft3 (equivalent)

gm/cc = 141.5/(131.5 + °API)
Molecular weight of dry air = 28.97 lb/mole
Density of dry air (at 60°F,14.65 psia)
= 0.07610 lb/ft3
= 1.21897x10-3 gm/cc
Temperature °C = (°F - 32.)/1.8

0°K = -459.67°F = -273.15°C
Transmissibility 1 cp-STB/day / psi = 0.0230592 cp-STM3/day / kPa

= 2.261298 cp-STM3/day / kg/cm2
The following equations can be used to convert gas deviation factors (Z) to gas
formation volume factors.
1000 × Z res × T res × P std

B g ( rb ⁄ MSCF ) = ----------------------------------------------------------
-
5.6146 × T std × P res (34-1)
3 3 Z res × T res × P std

B g ( m ⁄ STM ) = ----------------------------------------
- (34-2)
T std × P res
R5000.0.1 Unit Conventions 34-531

34-532 Unit Conventions R5000.0.1

Chapter
35
35.1 Introduction
The VIP reservoir simulator can simultaneously model two effects of velocity on
fluid mobility:
1. The improvement in the mobility of both the oil and gas phases as capillary
number increases, due to what is known as the coupling effect. Capillary
number increases with increasing velocity and decreasing interfacial tension.
It is believed that the coupled flow of gas and condensate causes the
improvement in relative permeability at high velocities.
2. The reduction in the mobility of the gas phase due to the Forchheimer effect
as velocity increases.
The formulation of the velocity dependent models have been developed in the
Department of Petroleum Engineering at Heriot-Watt University under the
directorship of Professor A. Danesh and Professor D. H. Tehrani in a research
project sponsored by the UK Department of Trade and Industry and 11 oil and gas
companies.
By default, the velocity dependency is not activated. Velocity dependency is

activated through the use of the VELCTY keyword in the initialization data
section of a VIP-CORE input file. Either capillary number dependency or
Forchheimer flow can be modeled acting alone or in conjunction.
When activated, the velocity dependency can be used to modify mobilities around
production wells. The velocity dependency can also be applied to inter-block
flow calculations. It can also be applied to both production wells and inter-block
flow.
Default parameters are built in that determine the magnitude of the capillary
number and non-Darcy flow effects. However, the user may selectively alter
some or all of these parameters.
R5000.0.1 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilties 35-533

35.2 Capillary Number Calculations

The capillary number is a dimensionless number that reflects the ratio of viscous
to capillary forces in a pore system.
Capillary number is defined as:
μg Vg
N c = -----------
- (35-1)
σ
where:
qg
V g = --------------------------------
- (35-2)
ρ g Aφ ( 1 – S w )
The magnitude of the capillary number affects the oil and gas relative
permeabilities as follows:
S o – S oc f 2o ( N c )
k ro = f 1o ( N c )k rob + ( 1 – f 1o ( N c ) )k rm ( S w ) ----------------------------------------------- (35-3)
1 – S w – S oc f 2o ( N c )
S g – S gr f 2g ( N c )
k rg = f 1g ( N c )k rgb + ( 1 – f 1g ( N c ) )k rm ( S w ) -----------------------------------------------
1 – S w – S gr f 2g ( N c ) (35-4)
where:
1
k rm ( S w ) = --- [ k ro ( S o = 1 – S w ,S g = 0 ) + k rg ( S g = 1 – S w ,S o = 0 ) ] (35-5)
2
N cbo n o (35-6)
f 1o ( N c ) = ⎛ -----------⎞
⎝ Nc ⎠
N cbg ng
f 1g ( N c ) = ⎛⎝ -----------⎞⎠ (35-7)
Nc
N cbo
f 2o ( N c ) = 1 – exp ⎛ – m o -----------⎞ (35-8)
⎝ Nc ⎠
35-534 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilties R5000.0.1

N cbg
f 2g ( N c ) = 1 – exp ⎛⎝ – m g -----------⎞⎠ (35-9)
Nc
For interblock flow, the capillary number in each direction is calculated at the
beginning of each timestep. The capillary number will be calculated at each
block interface from:
–5 μg qg
N c = 1.9807 × 10 ------------------------------------- (35-10)
ρ g σAφ ( 1 – S w )
where:
μg = gas viscosity in cp
q g, ij = k rg, ij γ g, j + γ g, i in lbmoles/day
ρ g T ij ------------ ⎛ p j – p i + P c, j – P c, i – ----------------------- ( d j – d i )⎞
μ g, ij ⎝ 2 ⎠
ρg = Molar density, lbmoles/bbl
krg,ij = Upstream relative permeability at the end of previous timestep (unless it is time 0)
σ = Average interfacial tension in dynes/cm
A = Area in ft2
φ = Average porosity, fraction
Sw = Average water saturation, fraction

The conversion factor is calculated from the following units:
2 3
dyne – sec ⁄ cm 5.6146ft day
cp × 0.01 ------------------------------------------- × bbl ⁄ day ----------------------- × --------------------------------
cp bbl 3600 × 24sec- –5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
× 30.48cm ⁄ ft = 1.9807 × 10
ft × dyne ⁄ cm
The oil and gas relative permeabilities are modified using the above correlations
based on these values of capillary number, which is assumed to be constant during
the timestep.
Relative permeabilities are only modified if the threshold values of capillary

number are exceeded. The program allows the user to input the threshold values
of capillary number for the oil phase, Ncbo, and the gas phase, Ncbg.
Alternatively, the user can specify a superficial gas velocity that is used in
estimating the threshold capillary number. The threshold value is calculated using
the lowest initially calculated value of gas viscosity, and the highest initially
calculated value of IFT. If no threshold value of gas velocity is input, a default
value of 10 ft/day is used.
Default values of parameters are assumed, unless the user re-defines them.
By default, no and ng will be set to 0.35 for sandstones and 1.16 for carbonates.
By default, mg will be set to 35 for sandstones and 4 for carbonates. By, default,
mo will be set to 0 for both sandstones and carbonates, which corresponds to an
Sorg of 0.
Sandstone is the default rock type.
Relative permeability adjustment at production wells will be discussed later.

35.3 Forchheimer (Non-Darcy) Flow

Flow due to the standard Darcy Law is calculated by:
dΦ g μg qg
---------- = ⎛ ----------⎞ --------- (35-11)
dx ⎝ kk rg⎠ ρ g A
This is discretised to:
μg
ΔΦ g, ij = ⎛ ----------------⎞ q g, ij (35-12)
⎝ Tk rg ρ g⎠ ij
Darcy's law is modified by Forchheimer to account for additional pressure drops

due to inertial flow:
dΦ g μg qg β qg 2
---------- = ---------------- ----- + ----- ⎛⎝ -----⎞⎠ (35-13)
dx kk rg ρ g A ρ g A
This can be discretised as:
μg kβ μg kk rg βq g
ΔΦ g, ij = ⎛ ----------------⎞ q g, ij + C ⎛ -------------⎞ q g, ij = ⎛ ----------------⎞ q g, ij 1 + C -------------------
2
⎝ Tk rg ρ g⎠ ij ⎝ ρ g TA⎠ ⎝ Tk rg ρ g⎠ ij (35-14)
ij μg A ij
where C is a constant for unit conversion, and T is the transmissibility.
Thus, the modified flow equation can be written as:
FTk rg ρ g
q g, ij = ⎛ ---------------------⎞ ΔΦ g, ij
⎝ μ g ⎠ ij (35-15)
where:
1
F = --------------------------------
-
kk rg βq g (35-16)
1 + C -------------------
μg A
Substituting the definition of qg,

1 1 -
F = ----------------------------------------------------
- = ----------------
2
kk rg βρ g FTΔΦ g 1 + BF
1 + C --------------------------------------
2
- (35-17)
μg A

where:
2
k rg βρ g TΔΦ g
B = C -------------------------------
2
-
(35-18)
μg A
If B is evaluated using values of variables at the beginning of the timestep, F can

be solved as:
2 (35-19)
BF + F – 1 = 0
and:
F = –---------------------------------
1 + 1 + 4B- (35-20)
2B
B can be split into a constant part and a part that changes with each timestep. The
coefficient β can also be split into a constant part and a non-constant part. β is
defined as:
β β β β – β5 σ
β = β 0 k 1 φ 2 k rg3 S g 4 (35-21)
where k is in units of m2, σ is in units of mN/m, and β has units of ft-1.
By default, β0 = 0.001524, β1 = -0.5, β2 = -5.5, β3 = -0.5, β4 = -2.99, and β5 =

4.422.
The values of β, β1, β2, β3, β4, and β5 can be reset with the NDARCY keyword.
Thus,
(35-22)
B = B const × B var
where:
1+β β
β0 k φ 2T
1
B const = C ------------------------------
- (35-23)
A

The constant C needs to be set so that the following term is dimensionless:
kk rg βρ g q g
C ------------------------- (35-24)
μg A
Given the following units:
k md,
βg ft-1
ρg lb/bbl,
qg bbl/day
μg cp
A ft2
– 12 2 2
9.86923 × 10 cm ft –1 1day
md × ------------------------------------------------- × ------------------------------ - × ft × lb ⁄ bbl × bbl ⁄ day × ---------------------------------
md ( 30.48 ) cm
2 2 3600 × 24 sec – 16
- = 1.829744 × 10
C = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
–4
6.719689 × 10 lb ⁄ ft – sec 2
cp × ------------------------------------------------------------------ × ft
cp
The variable part of B is defined as:
2+β β –β σ
k rg 3 S g 4 5 ρ g ΔΦ g
B var = ---------------------------------------------------
2 (35-25)
μg
For interblock flow, the constant part of B is evaluated at the beginning of the
simulation, while the variable part is recalculated at the beginning of every
timestep. Then F is evaluated, and kept constant during the entire timestep.
The calculation of Forchheimer effects at production wells is discussed below.

35.4 Velocity Effects around the Production Well

VIP provides special treatment of velocity terms around production wells. It
performs velocity calculations in conjunction with condensate banking, which
accounts for production impairment caused by liquid dropout in the wellbore.
The condensate banking calculation (Fevang and Whitson 1995) is a multiphase
generalization of the pseudo-pressure originated concept.
Consider the differential form of the radial well flow equation for each component
i:
kk ro Aρ o kk rg Aρ g dP
q i = x i -------------------- + y i -------------------- ------- (35-26)
μo μ g dr
Normally, the relative permeabilities, densities, and viscosities are considered

constants for the grid block containing the well completion, so that the above
equation can be integrated to yield:
2πkh k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
q i = ------------------- x i ------------- + y i ------------- ( p b – p wf )
ln r e ⁄ r w μo μg (35-27)
where pb is the well block pressure and pwf is the well flowing pressure, both at
the beginning of the timestep.
However, if we assume that compositions, relative permeabilities, compositions,

and densities are functions of pressure, then
pb
2πkh ro ρ o
⎛ x k------------ k rg ρ g
q i = ------------------------ ∫ - dp⎞
- + y i ------------
ln ( r e ⁄ r w ) ⎝ i μo μg ⎠ (35-28)
p wf
If there is no accumulation of components in the completion cell,
k ro ρ o k rg ρ g k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
z i ⎛ ------------- + ------------- ⎞ = x i ------------- + y i ------------- (35-29)
⎝ μo μg ⎠ μo μg
and Equation 35-28 can be written as:

pb
2πkh k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
q i = ------------------------ z i
ln ( r e ⁄ r w ) ∫ ⎛⎝ ------------- + ------------- dp⎞
μo μg ⎠ (35-30)
p wf

In VIP, to apply the effect of this integral expression, Equation 35-30 is multiplied
by a factor, FCB so that:
F CB 2πkh k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
q i = ------------------------ x i ------------- + y i ------------- ( p b – p wf ) (35-31)
ln ( r e ⁄ r w ) μo μg
By combining Equation 35-29, Equation 35-30, and Equation 35-31, the

multiplication factor is:
pb
k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
∫ ------------- + ------------- dp
μo μg
p wf
F CB = ---------------------------------------------------------------
k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
------------- + ------------- ( p b – p wf ) (35-32)
μo μg
Two bits of information are required to determine Equation 35-32. The first is the
overall composition, since densities and viscosities are compositionally dependent
as well as pressure dependent. We must also assume that the composition in the
completion block is constant. The second thing is how relative permeabilities
depend on pressure.
The compositions are determined from the produced well stream composition:
k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
w i = x i ------------- + y i -------------
μo μg (35-33)
and
wi
z i = -------------
n
-
c
∑ wj (35-34)
i 1
O’Dell and Miller (1967) introduced the concept that the gas volume fraction
calculated from the flash calculation is equivalent to the flowing gas volume
fraction, Vrg:
qg k rg ⁄ μ g
V rg = ----------------
- = ---------------------------------------
- (35-35)
qg + qo k rg ⁄ μ g + k ro ⁄ μ o

Rearranging:
k rg V rg μ g V rg μ g (35-36)
------- = ----------------- ----- = -------- -----
k ro 1 – V rg μ o V ro μ o
To determine the actual relative permeabilities, Equation 35-36 is solved

iteratively for gas saturation by Newton’s method.
To handle velocity dependency, two features are added: (1) the gas and oil relative
permeabilities are calculated with capillary number dependency (2) a
Forchheimer multiplication factor is applied to the gas relative permeability.
Consider Darcy’s law in radial form for the gas phase:
dp μg
------ = ----------------------------- q g (35-37)
dr 2πrkhk rg ρ g
The Forchheimer equation adds an additional term to this equation so that:
dp μg Cβ g
- q 2g
------ = ----------------------------- q g + -------------------------
dr 2πrkhk rg ρ g ( 2πrh ) ρ
2 (35-38)
g
βg is known as the coefficient of inertial resistance. C is a constant used for units

conversions.
Without assumptions of constant properties,
k rg dp
q g = 2πkhrρ g δ g ------- ------ (35-39)
μ g dr
where:
1
δ g = -----------------------------------------
-
kk rg ρ g u g
1 + Cβ g ---------------------- (35-40)
μg
The integral form of the well equation is modified so that

pb
2πkh k ro ρ o k rg ρ g δ g
q i = ------------------------ z i ∫ ------------
- + ------------------- dp
ln ( r e ⁄ r w ) μo μg (35-41)
pw
For each grid block with a production well completion in which condensate

banking is active, the following calculations are performed at the beginning of a

timestep:
1. The overall flowing composition is estimated by Equation 35-33 and

Equation 35-34.
2. The dewpoint, phdp, of this composition at the grid block temperature is

calculated. If the flowing bottomhole pressure is greater than the dewpoint,
the block contains only single phase gas. If a dewpoint is found, a second
lower pressure dewpoint, pldp, is also searched for. The initial gas velocity
corresponding to a pressure of is calculated by:
qg
u g = --------------------
-
2πr e hρ g
The initial capillary number corresponding to a pressure of p = p b is

calculated by using these values of velocities.
3. For the range of pressures from pb to p1 = phdp or p1 = pwf, the following

equation is integrated by the trapezoidal rule.
pb
ρg δg
m1 ( p ) = ∫ ----------- dp
μg
p1
a. At each pressure for which the integrand is calculated, the density and
viscosity are calculated from the pressure and composition.
b. The value of δg is calculated. For the first pass, the value of ug from the
previous evaluation point is used.
c. For pressures less than pb, a steady state solution is assumed and a new
radius, r2, is calculated from:
p1
r 2πkhk rg ρ g δ g
ln ----1 = -------------------- ∫ ----------- dp
r2 qg μg
p2
where p2 is the current evaluation pressure, and p1 is the pressure at the

last evaluation point.
d. The velocity, μg, is recalculated using the new radius:
qg
u g = --------------------
-
2πr 2 hρ g

e. Steps b, c, and d are repeated until the successive velocities are within a
certain tolerance.
4. If a two phase region exists, for the range of pressures from phdp to p2 = pldp
or p2 = pwf, the following equation is integrated by the trapezoidal rule.
p h dp
k ro ρ o k rg ρ g δ g
m2 ( p ) = ∫ ------------- + ------------------- dp
μo μg
p2
a. At each pressure for which the integrand is calculated, the density and
viscosity are calculated from the pressure and composition.
b. The relative permeability is calculated iteratively so that it fulfills the

relationship
k rg V rg μ g V rg μ g δ o
------- = ----------------- ----------- = -------- -----------
k ro 1 – V rg μ o δ g V ro μ o δ g
c. The values of δg and δo are recalculated. For the first pass, the values of
ug and uo from the previous evaluation point are used.
d. For pressures less than pb, a steady state solution is assumed and a new
radius, r2, is calculated from
p1
r 2πkh k ro ρ o k rg ρ g δ g
ln ----1 = ---------------------- ∫ ------------
- + ------------------- dp
r2 ( qo + qg ) μo μg
p2
where p2 is the current evaluation pressure, and p1 is the pressure at the

last evaluation point.
e. The velocity, ug, is recalculated using the new radius
qg
u g = --------------------
-
2πr 2 hρ g
The velocity, u0, is recalculated using the new radius
qo
u o = --------------------
-
2πr 2 hρ o
f. The capillary numbers are recalculated.
g. Steps b through f are repeated until the successive velocities are within a
certain tolerance.

6. If a lower dewpoint pressure region exists, for the range of pressures from pldp
to pwf, the following equation is integrated by the trapezoidal rule.
p l dp
ρg δg
m3 ( p ) = ∫ ----------- dp
μg
p wf
7. A multiplication factor is calculated as follows:
k rg ( S w )m 1 ( p ) + m 2 ( p ) + k rg ( S w )m 3 ( p )
F CB = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
k ro ρ o k rg ρ g
------------- + ------------- ( p b – p wf )
μo μg
8. The multiplication factor is used to multiply both oil and gas mobilities, and
derivatives of gas and oil mobilities. The multiplication factor is assumed
constant for the time step.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area, ft2
C = constant for unit conversion,
d = depth, ft,
F = non-Darcy flow mobility modification factor, dimensionless,
f 1g ( N c ) = capillary number dependent weighting factor between miscible and immiscible
gas relative permeability curves, dimensionless,
f 1o ( N c ) =capillary number dependent reduction factor between miscible and immiscible
condensate relative permeability curves, dimensionless,
f 2g ( N c ) = capillary number dependent factor affecting residual gas saturation, dimensionless
f 2o ( N c ) = capillary number dependent factor affecting critical condensate saturation,
dimensionless,
h = thickness, feet,
k = permeability,md,
k rg = gas phase relative permeability, fraction,
k rgb = gas phase relative permeability unaffected by capillary number, fraction,
k rm = miscible relative permeability, fraction,
k ro = condensate phase relative permeability, fraction,
k rob = condensate phase relative permeability unaffected by capillary number, fraction,
N c = capillary number, dimensionless,
N cbg = threshold capillary number for condensate relative permeability, dimensionless,

N cbo = threshold capillary number for oil relative permeability, dimensionless,

m g = parameter affecting gas phase residual saturation, dimensionless,
m o = parameter affecting condensate phase residual saturation, dimensionless,
m ( p ) = integral of mobility with respect to pressure,
n g = exponent of gas phase capillary number ratio, dimensionless
n o = exponent of condensate phase capillary number ratio, dimensionless
p = pressure, psia,
p b = gridblock pressure, psia,
p wf = wellbore flowing pressure, psia,
P c = gas/condensate capillary pressure, psia,
q g = gas phase molar flow rate, lbmoles/day,
q o = condensate phase molar flow rate, lbmoles/day
q i = molar flow rate of component i, lbmoles/day
r = radial distance, feet,
r e = external drainage radius, feet,
r w = wellbore radius, feet,
S g = gas phase saturation, fraction,
S gr = resdiual gas phase saturation, fraction,
S o = condensate phase saturation, fraction,
S oc = critical condensate phase saturation, fraction,
S w = water phase saturation, fraction,
T = transmissibility
V g = gas phase velocity, ft/day,
V rg = flowing gas volume fraction,
x = distance, feet,
w i = produced well stream component mole fraction, ,
x i = condensate phase component mole fraction,
y i = gas phase component mole fraction,
z i = overall component mole fraction,
Greek
β = non-Darcy flow coefficient, 1/ft
β 0, β 1, β 2, β 3, β 4, β 5 = parameters of the non-Darcy flow coefficient,

δ g = non-Darcy mobility multiplication factor for radial systems,

γ g = gas phase gradient, psia/ft,
Φ g = gas phase potential, psia,
φ = porosity, fraction
μ g = gas phase viscosity, centipose,
μ o = condensate phase viscosity, centipose,
ρ g = gas phase molar density, lbmoles/ft3
ρ o = condensate phase molar density, lbmoles/ft3
σ = gas/oil interfacial tension, dynes/cm,
Subscripts
g = gas phase,
i = component number,
o = condensate phase,
w = water phase, or well


Chapter
36
36.1 Introduction
Two separate vertical equilibrium (VE) options are available in VIP-
EXECUTIVE. These are:
■ VE option in rectangular or radial grid systems.
■ VE option in corner-point grid system.
36.2 VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems

Segregated flow is assumed in the VIP-EXECUTIVE VE option, applied with
rectangular or radial grid systems. This option can be used for any grid system in
which the assumption of vertical equilibrium is justified. In segregated flow, the
relative permeability functions depend only on the end points of the rock curves
and the initial fluid distribution. At each timestep, pseudo-relative permeabilities
and pseudo-capillary pressures are calculated from the history of movement in the
fluid level (i.e., the gas-oil and water-oil contacts).
At a new timestep, new fluid levels are calculated from fluid saturations. The
VIP-EXECUTIVE VE option accounts for saturation hysteresis during fluid level
movement. As a result, the model tracks the historical minimum water levels
(Hwmin) and the historical maximum and minimum gas levels (Hgmax and Hgmin).
These fluid levels and current fluid levels determine the saturation distribution in
each gridblock from which two-phase pseudo-functions are calculated. The oil
phase relative permeability then is calculated from the two-phase pseudo-relative
permeabilities using Stone’s Model I or Model II.
36.2.1 Initialization
At the beginning of each simulation run, the fluid levels are initialized from the
user input gas-oil and water-oil contact depths. Above the gas-oil contact, the
water saturation is equal to the connate water saturation (SWL) and the gas
saturation takes the maximum values (SGU), which is the highest gas saturation
entry in the gas saturation table. In the oil zone, the gas and water saturations
have the connate values (SGL and SWL). Below the water-oil contact, the water
saturation takes the maximum values (SWU) and the gas saturation has the
R5000.0.1 Vertical Equilibrium 36-549

connate value. Two VE variables for each gridblock also are initialized: the water
level (Hw) defined as the water zone thickness divided by gridblock thickness, and
the gas level (Hg) defined as the gas zone thickness divided by gridblock thickness
(Δz). Finally, the average water and gas saturations in each gridblock are
calculated.
The thickness array TH for rectangular geometries, is the bedding plane thickness,
see Figure 36-1. During initialization, the thickness array is used to calculate the
average grid block properties about grid block centers. Blocks that are split by
phase boundaries are particularly sensitive to the actual values of block thickness.
Simulations with vertical equilibrium use the thickness array to calculate the
pseudo capillary pressures. Grid blocks with a large dip angle represent a larger
vertical span of reservoir than that implied by the bedding plane thickness, see
Figure 36-1. For this reason, THVE, is used by default in calculations of average
grid block properties and vertical equilibrium pseudo capillary pressures in VIP-
CORE version 2.4R. In previous versions of VIP-CORE the bedding plane
thickness TH was used.
The key word THCNTR in VIP-CORE allows the use of TH in place of THVE
thus allowing reproduction of old results.
TH
THVE
Figure 36-1: Block Span THVE Versus Block Thickness TH
Additionally, the method of calculating dip angles in VIP-CORE 2.4R has been
changed.
The old method of calculating dip angles for block (i,j) used the slope between
blocks (i-1,j) and (i,j) in the x-direction, and the slope between blocks (i, j-1) and
(i,j) in the y-direction. Figure 36-2 shows a cross section of the resulting grid
block geometry generated by the old method. Notice the poor representation of
36-550 Vertical Equilibrium R5000.0.1

the structure in those regions with changes in the sign of the dip angle.
Figure 36-2: Block Angles Produced by the Old Dip Angle Method
The new method of calculating dip angles for block (i,j) uses the slope between
blocks (i-1,j) and (i+1,j) in the x-direction, and the slope between blocks (i,j-1)
and (i,j+1) in the y-direction. Figure 36-3 shows the new representation of the
same cross-section modeled in Figure 36-2. Notice the improved representation of
the reservoir structure.

Figure 36-3: Block Angles Produced by the New Dip Angle Method

36.2.2 Two-Phase Gas-Oil Pseudo Functions

Three gas levels (Hg, Hgmin, and Hgmax) are used to track the history of the gas-oil
contact movement. The gas zone between gas levels Hgmin and Hg previously was
an oil zone. Consequently, gas saturation in this new gas zone is equal to gas
saturation at a residual oil (SGRO). Conversely, the oil zone between gas levels
Hg and Hgmax previously was a gas zone. This new oil zone has a trapped gas
saturation (from the primary imbibition process) of SGTR. For a gas-oil two-
phase system with a connate water saturation of SWL, the gas and oil saturations
and their corresponding relative permeabilities in each zone are shown in the
following table:
Gas Level Gas Saturation Gas Rel. Perm. Oil Rel. Perm.
0.0
SGU KRGU 0
Hgmin
Hg SGRO KRGRO 0
SGTR 0 KROGR
Hgmax
1.0 SGL 0 KRORG
For a given average gas saturation, Sg, the new gas level is calculated by
S g – H gmin ( SGU – SGRO ) – H gmax ( SGTR – SGL ) – SGL

H g = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (36-1)
SGRO – SGTR
The volume-averaged relative permeabilities then are calculated to yield the

pseudo-relative permeability to gas, krg, and the pseudo-relative permeability to
oil in the gas-oil system, krog:
k rg = KRGRO ( H g – H gmin ) + KRGU H gmin (36-2)
K rog = KROGR ( H gmax – H g ) + KRORG ( 1 – H gmax ) (36-3)
Note that these pseudo-relative permeabilities are valid only for flow in areal
directions. Thus, the VE option should be used exclusively in one- or two-
dimensional areal systems, unless the directional relative permeability option,
DRELPM, is also used.
The gas-oil pseudo-capillary pressure is determined from the projected difference

between the gas and oil pressures at the gridblock midpoint. If the pressure at gas

level (Hg) is P* (i.e., zero capillary pressure), then the projected gas and oil phase
pressures at the grid midpoint are:
ρg Mg g
P g = P* – ------------------------------------- ( H g – 0.5 )Δz (36-4)
5.6146 × 144g c
ρo Mo g
P o = P* – ------------------------------------- ( H g – 0.5 )Δz (36-5)
5.6146 × 144g c
Thus, the pseudo-capillary pressure, Pcg, is
( ρ o M o – ρ g M g )g
P cg = P g – P o = ------------------------------------------ ( H g – 0.5 )Δz (36-6)
5.6146 × 144g c
When the gas level is monotonically decreasing (or increasing), the current gas
level, Hg, is the same as Hgmin (or Hgmax). Under this condition, the symbols
Hgmin (or Hgmax) in Equations 36-1, 36-2, and 36-3 should be replaced by Hg.
36.2.3 Two-Phase Water-Oil Pseudo Functions

Procedures for calculation of the water-oil pseudo-functions are the same as those
of the gas-oil pseudo-functions. Oil saturation in the water zone between water
levels Hwmin and Hw is equal to trapped oil saturation SOTR. The oil zone
between water level Hw and the historical maximum water level (Hwmax) has an
irreducible water saturation of SWR. For a water-oil two-phase system, the water
and oil saturations and their corresponding relative permeabilities in each zone are
given in the following table:
Water Level Water Saturation Water Rel. Perm. Oil Rel. Perm.
1.0
SWL 0 KRORW
Hwmax
SWR 0 KROWR
Hw
1-SOTR KRWRO 0
Hwmin
SWU KRWU 0
0.0

For a given average water saturation, Sw, the new water level is calculated by
S w – H wmin ( SWU – SWRO ) – H wmax ( SWR – SWL ) – SWL

H w = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (36-7)
SWRO – SWL
The pseudo-relative permeability to water, krw , and the pseudo-relative

permeability to oil in the water-oil system, krow , are
k rw = KRWU H wmin + KRWRO ( H w – H wmin ) (36-8)
k row = KRORW ( 1 – H w ) + KROWR ( H wmax – H w ) (36-9)
Following the same procedure described in the gas-oil system, the water-oil
pseudo-capillary pressure, Pcw , is
o
( ρ o M o – ρ w B w M w )g
P cw = --------------------------------------------------- ( H w – 0.5 ) Δz (36-10)
5.6146 × 144 g c
When the water level monotonically decreases, the current water level, Hw , is the
same as Hwmin. Under this condition, symbols Hwmin in Equations 36-7 to 36-8
should be replaced by Hw .
36.2.4 VE Directional Relative Permeability

The usage of Vertical Equilibrium concepts can be extended to vertical cross-
sections and three-dimensional grid systems if the directional relative
permeability option is also used. This feature enables separate relative
permeabilities to be computed with regard to vertical flow up or down. For each
gridblock, three sets of relative permeabilities are computed, based on the
calculated fluid levels and segregated fluid saturations. The previously described
procedures are used for the pseudo-relative permeabilities in the areal directions.
A user-specified fraction of the gridblock is considered when computing the
effective saturations for flow in the vertical directions. The saturations in the top
fraction of the gridblock will be used in calculating the pseudo relative
permeabilties for flow upwards, and the saturations in the bottom fraction of the
gridblock will be used in calculating the pseudo relative permeabilities for flow
downwards.

36.3 VE Option in Corner-Point Grid System

The VE option described in the previous section is applicable only for reservoir
models with rectangular gridblock geometry. It is incompatible with the corner-
point geometry definition of dipping and sloping grid cells. This option is
based on the assumption of complete fluid segregation in a gridblock. That
implies that capillary pressure effects are disregarded and that there is no
transition zone between fluid phases.
Two new VE options have been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE: an enhanced

vertical equilibrium option with complete fluid segregation (VEWO,VEGO) and
a gravity-capillary equilibrium option (VEITS). The new VE options include
accurate treatment of the gridblock geometry and the ability to calculate different
pseudo-relative permeabilities in six flow directions. The first option is based on
the complete fluid segregation assumption. The second option does not use this
assumption; it accurately treats capillary pressure effects in both the initial and
dynamic parts of simulations.
36.3.1 Features of the Corner Point VE Options

The VE option is designed to calculate pressure and saturation distributions versus
depth in each gridblock from vertical equilibrium conditions during the initial and
dynamic parts of a simulation. The saturation distributions are used to calculate
pseudo-relative permeabilities and capillary pressure. This option can be applied
in three-dimensional reservoir models in which vertical equilibrium assumptions
are justified.
The following two VE options have been implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE to

accurately model gridblock geometries in multilayer systems and treat capillary
pressure effects:
■ Enhanced Vertical Equilibrium Option with Completely Segregated Fluids

(VEWO, VEGO).
■ Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium Option (VEITS).
The following VE assumption is used in both VE options:
■ Vertical equilibrium is established in each gridblock in a short time as

compared to horizontal flows. This implies that the flow rates of oil, gas, and
water phases in the vertical direction are assumed to be equal to zero within
each gridblock.

The following additional assumption is used in the VEWO (VEGO) option:
■ Fluids within a cell are completely segregated. This implies that capillary
pressure effects are disregarded and there are no transition zones between
reservoir fluid phases.
The new VIP-EXECUTIVE VE options have the following features.
1. Accurate treatment of the block geometry.
2. Calculation of the VE pseudo-directional relative permeabilities for six

gridblock faces.
3. Numerical dispersion control.
4. Accurate treatment of capillary pressure under initial conditions to produce

correct volumes for initial fluid in place (VEITS option only).
5. Accurate treatment of capillary pressure effects in the initial state and

dynamic parts of the calculations. It accurately defines the position of the oil-
water contact and the oil-water transition zone when varying ratios of
capillary, viscous, and gravity forces are present at different times during
simulation (VEITS option only).
6. Calculation of VE pseudo-capillary pressure (VEWO (VEGO)) option only.
7. Mixed rock and the VE pseudo-relative permeabilities and capillary pressure

can be used with weighting coefficients, as defined by the FVEWO, FVEGO
arrays. In calculating the mixed relative permeabilities, the end-point scaling
option can be applied to the rock part of the relative permeabilities.
8. The VEWO (VEGO) and VEITS options are completely vectorized. The
VEITS option is slower than the VEWO (VEGO) option.
36.3.2 Enhanced VE Procedure with Segregated Fluids (VEWO,VEGO)

The keyword VEWO (and/or VEGO) should be included in the initialization data
set to invoke this option. The water (and/or gas) VE pseudo-relative
permeabilities and capillary pressures are calculated, if the keyword VEWO (and/
or VEGO) is used. The mixed VE and rock relative permeabilities and capillary
pressures are used if the array FVEWO (and/or FVEGO) is applied.
At each timestep, pseudo-relative permeabilities for six gridblock faces are

calculated from a history of the movement of the gas-oil and water-oil contacts.
The saturation distribution in a three-phase gridblock (shown in Figure 25-1) is
based on the above-stated VE assumptions. Seven depth intervals are divided by
the highest oil-gas contact (GOCh), current gas-oil contact (GOC), lowest gas-oil
contact (GOCl), highest water-oil contact (WOCh), current water-oil contact
(WOC), and lowest water-oil contact (WOCl). Water saturation above the highest

oil-water contact takes a connate value (SWL). Gas saturation below the lowest
gas-oil contact has a connate value (SGL). Gas saturation above the highest gas-
oil contact is equal to gas saturation at connate oil (SGU). Gas has displaced oil in
the region below the highest gas-oil contact and above the current gas-oil contact.
Consequently, gas saturation is equal to gas saturation at residual oil (SGRO) in
this region. Oil has displaced gas in the region below the current gas-oil contact
and above the lowest gas-oil contact. Therefore, gas saturation takes a trapped
value (SGTR) from the primary imbibition process in this region. Oil has
displaced water in the region below the highest water-oil contact and above the
current water-oil contact. Consequently, water saturation has residual value
(SWR) in this region. Water has displaced oil in the region below the current
water-oil contact and above the lowest water-oil contact. Therefore, oil saturation
is equal to trapped oil saturation (SOTR) in this region. Water saturation below
the lowest water-oil contact is equal to water saturation at connate oil (SWU).
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGU
GOCh
Gas Sw = SWL, Sg = SGRO
GOC
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGTR
GOCl
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGL
WOCh
Oil Sw = SWR, Sg = SGL
WOC
WOCl Sw = 1 - SOTR, Sg = SGL
Water Sw = SWU, Sg = SGL
Figure 36-4: Gridblock Saturation Distributions in the VEWO, VEGO Option
The procedures described below are used in the initialization module (VIP-
CORE) and the simulation module (VIP-EXECUTIVE) to compute saturation
distributions, directional relative permeabilities, and capillary pressures in each
gridblock.
The VE (VEWO, VEGO) Initialization Procedure
The three depth regions (gas, oil, and water) can exist at the initial moment of time
in a gridblock (Figure 25-2). The oil-water and gas-oil contacts WOC, GOC are
set to the initial values, as specified by the user on the IEQUIL card. The highest
and lowest contacts are selected as:
GOCl = GOCh = GOC, WOCl = WOCh = WOC.
The fractional volumes of the gas, oil, and water regions (FVg, FVo,FVw) are
calculated as FVp = Vp / Vb, p = g, o, w; where Vg, Vo, Vw are volumes of the gas,
oil, and water regions and Vb is a gridblock bulk volume. An accurate numerical

technique is used in VIP-CORE to calculate volumes Vg, Vo, Vw , and Vb. These
volumes are defined with an approximation tolerance, as specified by the user on
the VAITS card.
o o
The initial average block saturations S wb and S gb are calculated using the
saturation distributions in the block (Figure 36-5):
o
S wb = SWL*FV g + SWL*FV o + SWU*FV w (36-11)
o
S gb = SGU*FV g + SGL*FV o + SGL*FV w (36-12)
where SWL, SGL are connate water and gas saturations, SWU is water saturation
at connate oil saturation in an oil-water system, and SGU is gas saturation at
connate oil saturation in an oil-gas system.
Each block is divided into N sublayers (Figure 36-5). The number of sublayers is
specified by the user on the VEWO or VEGO card. The accuracy of the
calculations and the CPU memory requirements are increased by increasing the
number of sub-layers. The default number of sub-layers is equal to ten.
Vg
Vb Vj GOCh = GOC
Aj1
Vo A1
WOCl = WOC
Vw
Figure 36-5: The VE Initialization Procedure
For each sublayer, the fractional volume FVj and the fractional areas FAji for each
gridblock face are calculated from:
Vj
FV j = ------ , j = 1, 2, ...,N (36-13)
Vb
A ji
FA ji = ------ , j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ..., 6 (36-14)
Ai

where Vj is the volume of the j’th sublayer (j = 1,2,...,N), Aji is the area of the
intersection of the j’th sub-layer and the i’th gridblock face, and Ai is the area of
the i’th face (i = 1,2,...,6).
36.3.3 The VE (VEWO, VEGO) Simulation Procedure

t t
Assume that the block gas and water saturations ( S gb, S wb ) are known from the
outer iteration of timestep t. The following operations are executed for
calculation of the current positions of gas-oil and water-oil contacts (GOC,
WOC), gas and water saturations in each sublayer (Sgj, Swj), VE pseudo-relative
permeabilities, VE pseudo-capillary pressure, mixed relative permeabilities, and
mixed capillary pressure.
Water saturations in the sub-layers depend on the current position of the oil-water
contact (Figure 25-1). Therefore, the current position of the water-oil contact
(WOC) is calculated from a condition in which the average block water saturation
t
should be equal to S wb :
j=N
t
∑ Swj ( WOC ) × FVj = S wb (36-15)
j=1
where Swj is a function of the location of the WOC. If the WOC falls inside a sub-
layer, the sub-layer is further divided in order to accurately calculate Swj.
Similarly, the current position of gas-oil contact GOC is calculated from a

t
condition in which average block gas saturation should be equal to S gb :
j=N
t
∑ Sgj ( GOC ) × FVj = S gb
(36-16)
j=1
The lowest and highest contacts are recalculated. The water and gas saturations in
each sub-layer are defined as shown in Figure 25-1.
The relative permeabilities for an intersection of each block face with each sub-
layer are calculated by:
K wij = K wi ( S wj ), j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-17)
K gij = K gi ( S gj ), j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-18)
where Kwi, Kgi are values of rock water and gas relative permeabilities for the i’th
face.

The VE pseudo-relative permeabilities are defined for each gridblock face

j=N
ve
K pi = ∑ Kpi ( Spj ) × FAij , p = w, g, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-19)
j=1
The VE pseudo-capillary pressures are calculated as follows:
ve
P cw = g ( ρ w – ρ o ) ( WOC – D center ) (36-20)
ve
P cg = g ( ρ o – ρ g ) ( GOC – D center ) (36-21)
where ρ g, ρ o, and ρ w are densities of the gas, oil, and water phases, and D center
is the depth of the block center.
Rock relative permeabilities and rock capillary pressures are determined from
user input tables:
rock t
K pi = K pi ( S pb ), p = w, g, i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-22)
rock t
P cp = P cp ( S pb ), p = w, g (36-23)
The directional relative permeabilities or end-point scaling option can be applied

for these calculations.
The mixed relative permeabilities for each gridblock face and the mixed capillary
pressure are calculated as follows. Parameters FVEWO and FVEGO are specified
by the user for each gridblock using the FVEWO and FVEGO arrays. If the
VEWO (or VEGO) option is not used, only rock water (or gas) relative
permeabilities are applied in a simulation.
mixed ve rock
K wi = FVEWO K wi + ( 1 – FVEWO )K wi , i = 1, 2, ...,6 (36-24)
mixed ve rock
K gi = FVEGO K wi + ( 1 – FVEGO )K gi , i = 1, 2, ..., 6 (36-25)
mixed ve rock
P cw = FVEWO P cw + ( 1 – FVEWO )P cw , (36-26)
mixed ve rock
P cg = FVEGO P cg + ( 1 – FVEGO )P cg (36-27)
36.3.4 The Capillary-Gravity Equilibrium Option (VEITS)

This option is based on the assumption that phase hydrostatic potentials are
independent of depth within a cell. The assumption of complete segregation of

reservoir fluids is not used. This implies that oil-water and gas-oil transition
zones exist. The distributions of the pressure and saturations versus depth in each
cell are calculated from the capillary-gravity equilibrium conditions.
The keyword VEITS should be included in an initialization data set to invoke this
option. The capillary pressure curves should not be flat to use the VEITS option.
The program internally checks the capillary pressure curves. If they are flat, then
the VEWO, VEGO option is used instead of the VEITS option.
The procedures described below are applied in the initialization (VIP-CORE) and
simulation (VIP-EXECUTIVE) modules to calculate pressure and saturation
distributions, directional relative permeabilities, and capillary pressures in each
gridblock.
The VEITS Initialization Procedure (VIP-CORE)
The block is divided into N sub-layers, where N is specified by the user on the
VEITS card. For each sub-layer, fractional volumes FVj and fractional areas FAji
(for each block face) are calculated and stored. The initial pressures and
saturations in each sub-layer are calculated using the capillary gravity
initialization procedure (VAITS).
36.3.5 The VEITS Simulation Procedure

t t
Assume that average block gas and water saturations ( S gb, S wb ) and average
t t t
block pressures in the oil, gas, and water phases ( P ob, P gb, P wb ) are known from
the outer iteration of timestep t. The following operations are executed to
calculate oil, gas, and water pressures (Poj, Pgj, Pwj), gas and water saturations
(Sgj,Swj) in each sub-layer (j = 1,2,...,N), and the VE pseudo-relative
permeabilities and mixed relative permeabilities for each face of the block.
Water pressures Pwj, oil pressures Poj, and water saturations Swj in each sub-layer
are calculated from the solution of the capillary-gravity equilibrium equations:
dP
--------o- = ρ o ( P o )g (36-28)
dD
dP w
---------- = ρ w ( P w )g (36-29)
dD
P o – P w = P cw ( S w ) (36-30)
with the following conditions:

■ Water pressure at a block center should be equal to the average block water
t
pressure, P wb :
t
P w ( D center ) = P wb (36-31)
■ The oil pressure at some depth, Do, should be equal to the average block oil
t
pressure, P ob :
t
P o ( D o ) = P ob (36-32)
Depth Do is considered an additional variable, which is recalculated in each

outer iteration.
■ The volume-averaged water saturation should be equal to the average block

t
saturation, S wb :
j=N
t
∑ Swj FVj = S wb (36-33)
j=1
Gas pressure (Pgj) and saturation (Sgj) in each sub-layer (j = 1,2,...,N) are
calculated from solution of the capillary-gravity equilibrium equations:
dP
--------g- = ρ g ( P g )g (36-34)
dD
P g – P o = P cg ( S g ) (36-35)
with the following conditions:
■ Gas pressure at some depth Dg should be equal to the average block gas
t
pressure, P gb :
t
P g ( D g ) = P gb (36-36)
Depth Dg is considered an additional variable, which is recalculated in each

outer iteration.
■ The volume-averaged gas saturation should be equal to average block

t
saturation, S gb :
j=N
t
∑ Sgj FVj = S gb (36-37)
j=1

After calculating the water and gas saturations in different sub-layers, the relative
permeabilities are calculated using the same procedure as in the VEWO (VEGO)
option.

Chapter
37
37.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE can track flow, accumulation, and production of up to six
different water types. Note that the actual reservoir performance is completely
unaffected by this option. The water movement is exactly the same; only the
splitting and tracking of the water phase into different water types is performed.
Water types may be specified for the in situ water, for each water injection well,
and for each numerical aquifer. The major assumption is that the water properties
(density, viscosity) are independent of the water type.
This option is implemented with the IMPES formulation only. Separate

volumetric balance equations are solved at the end of each time step. For each
grid block in the grid system, Equation 37-1 is solved for the new water saturation
for each water type j.
n n+1 n n P n I
Δ [ ( T w F Twj ) ( Δ P o – ΔP cwo – γ w ΔD ) ] – Q w ( F Twj ) + Q wj
V φS w φS w n
n+1
= ----- ⎛ ----------j⎞ – ⎛ ----------j⎞ (37-1)
Δt ⎝ B w ⎠ ⎝ Bw ⎠
where
FTwj fractional flow term for water type j
Swj fractional water saturation for water type j
and
∑ FTw j
= 1.0 for each grid block (37-2)
j
∑ Sw j
= Sw for each grid block (37-3)
j
The fractional flow terms for the water types can be adjusted by two user-
specified parameters, if performance other than complete mixing of the water
types is desired. The single parameter, ftwmix, determines the relative amount of
R5000.0.1 Water Tracking Option 37-565

mixing with the connate water. A value of 1.0 (default) specifies complete mixing
with the connate water, while a value of 0.0 specifies complete bypass of the
connate water. Any value between these two specifies partial mixing between the
connate water and all of the other water types.
First, Equation 37-4 is used to calculate the normalized fractional saturations for
each water type.
⎛ dSw j ⎞ Sw j
S wn = ( 1 – ftwmix ) × ⎜ -----------------------⎟ + ftwmix × ⎛⎝ --------⎞⎠ (37-4)
j ⎝ Sw – Sw R⎠ Sw
where
dSw j = Sw j – Sw R for j = in situ (37-5)
= Sw j for j ≠ in situ
and
∑ Sw nj
= 1.0 (37-6)
where Swnj is the normalized saturation of mobile water type j. Thus, the Swnj are
the fractions of the mobile water phase for each of the water types.
The grid array parameter, tkexp, determines preferential flow between the in situ
water and all of the other water types. These grid-block values are used as
exponents in the fractional flow (Equations 37-7, 37-8, and 37-9), such that a
value of 1.0 (default) yields no preference between the in situ water and all of the
other water types. As shown in Figure 37-1, a value less than 1.0 gives a higher
preference to flow to the extraneous water types (i.e., all water types except in
situ), while a value greater than 1.0 gives a higher preference to flow to the in situ
water.
The fractional flow terms are split between the mobile in situ water and the mobile
extraneous water types using Equations 37-7 and 37-8.
tkexp
FW EXT = ( 1 – S wnin – situ ) (37-7)
= fractional flow for all water types except the in situ water
F Twin – situ = ( 1 – FW EXT ) (37-8)
37-566 Water Tracking Option R5000.0.1

1.0
tkexp < 1
tkexp = 1
FWEXT
tkexp > 1
0.0 Sw ninsitu 1.0
Figure 37-1: Variation of Fractional Flow of Extraneous Water Types

with Exponent tkexp
The fractional flow terms for each of the extraneous water types then are
calculated using Equation 37-9, based on the relative amount of mobile fluid for
each type.
⎛ Sw n j ⎞ (37-9)
-⎟ × FW EXT, j ≠ in situ
F Twj = ⎜ ----------------------------
⎝ 1 – Sw nin – situ⎠
R5000.0.1 Water Tracking Option 37-567

37-568 Water Tracking Option R5000.0.1

Chapter
38
38.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the relationships that VIP-EXECUTIVE uses to describe
well inflow performance. The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) describes
reservoir performance and is the relationship between the reservoir pressure at the
wellbore and the surface flow rate. IPR takes into account pressure losses that are
attributable to both the formation (reservoir) and completion resistances at the
wellbore, which are included in the total drawdown. The natural flowing point
occurs at the point of intersection between the IPR and the Tubing Performance
Curve (TPC), also known as the lift curve or outflow curve. At this point,
reservoir pressure at the wellbore becomes equal to the bottom-hole flowing
pressure required by the producing string so that the well naturally flows to the
surface. This is illustrated in Figure 38-1.
Figure 38-1: Inflow and Outflow Curve for a Production Well Showing Intersection
Point
R5000.0.1 Well Inflow Performance 38-569

38.2 Wellbore Flow Model

The wellbore flow model is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to calculate the molar
production rates of different fluid phases from each production well with a
specified bottomhole pressure. Slightly different expressions are used to calcualte
molal production rates for oil, gas, and the water phases. The expressions follow.
Oil mole rate qlo and gas mole rate qlg in the l’th perforation are calculated in VIP-
EXECUTIVE using the following expression:
⎧ ⎫
⎪ kr ρj ⎪
q lj = WI l ⎨ k h ------------
l l
j
δ l [ P l – P bh – γ l ( D l – D ref ) ] ⎬, l = 1, 2 ...,NPER, j = o, g (38-1)
⎪ μj ⎪
⎩ ⎭
where
Pl gridblock pressure of the cell containing the l’th

perforation
WIl well index in the l’th perforation, which is defined in

Section 38.3
klhl a product of permeability and gridblock thickness in the

l’th perforation
krj relative permeability for the oil phase (j=o), gas phase
(j=g), or water phase (j=w), which depends on the
gridblock saturations
μj viscosity of phase j (j=o, g, w) at pressure pl.
δl a back flow indicator that indicates whether back flow is

taking place in the model and is equal to 1 when Pl - Pbh
- γl (Dl - Dref ) ≥ 0 and is set to 0 for all other conditions,
if the cross flow model is not active. (See Section 39.7
for more details of the crossflow model).
ρj mole density of the phase j (j = o,g) at pressure pl
γl pressure gradient in the l’th perforation (see Section 39.6)
Dl depth of the l’th perforation
Dref datum depth
NPER the number of perforations
o,g oil or gas phase.
38-570 Well Inflow Performance R5000.0.1

Water rate qlw in standard conditions in the l’th perforation is simulated as

follows:
o
⎧ k rw ρ w ⎫
q lj = WI l ⎨ k l h l -------------- δ l [ P l – P bh – γ l ( D l – D ref ) ] ⎬, l = 1, 2, …, NPER
⎩ μw ⎭
(38-2)
where
o
ρw water density at standard conditions.
After summing Equations 38-1 or 38-2 through all open perforations, the oil mole
rate Qo, gas mole rate Qq, and water rate in standard conditions Qsw can be
written:
NPER NPER
⎧ k rj ρ j ⎫
Qj = ∑ q lj = ∑ ⎨ WI l k l h l ------------ δ l [ UW4 l – P bh ] ⎬, j = o, g (38-3)
⎩ μj ⎭
l=1 l=1
NPER NPER o
⎧ k rw ρ w ⎫
Q sw = ∑ q lw = ∑ ⎨ WI l k l h l -------------- δ l [ UW4 l – P bh ] ⎬
⎩ μw ⎭
(38-4)
l=1 l=1
where
UW4l = Pl - γl (Dl - Dref), pressure in a gridblock containing the l’th perforation,

recalculated at datum depth.
The mole rates of the fluid components can be expressed in the following form:
NPER
Qi = ∑ ( q ol xw il + q gl yw il )
l=1
NPER
⎛ k ro ρ o k rg ρ g ⎞
= ∑ WI l k l h l δ l ⎜ ------------- xw il + ------------- yw il⎟ ( UW4 l – P bh ), i = 1, 2, …, N c
⎝ μo μg ⎠
l=1
(38-5)

38.3 Well Index

Well index, or WI, as used in the wellbore flow model in VIP-EXECUTIVE, is
discussed in detail in Appendix A. It can be defined for the entire well using the
WI, RFLOW, or PI card, or for each perforation using the FPERF card. It can be
defined using any of the following options:
■ Direct specification of well index in WI card.
■ Specification of an equivalent radius of the well gridblock (rb), wellbore

radius (rw), and skin factor (skin) in the RFLOW card.
■ Specification of productivity index (PI) in the PI card.
■ Specification of well index or equivalent radius for each perforation using

FPERF card.
Options 1, 2, and 3 are mutually exclusive and result in setting the same WI value
for each perforation. In the fourth option, the well index is allowed to vary for
each perforation. The values of well index for each perforation (WIL) can be
entered or computed internally using the data specified on the FPERF card.
If the RFLOW card is used, as in the second option, the well index is calculated in
VIP-EXECUTIVE as:
2π
WI = --------------------------------
- (38-6)
⎛ rb⎞
ln ----- + skin
⎝ r w⎠
where
rb equivalent radius of the gridblock containing the well
rW wellbore radius
skin total skin factor including the skin from the partial
penetration effect.
Here, rb is defined as the distance from the well at which the local pressure is
equal to the pressure of the block. Note that rb may be calculated by applying
Peaceman’s34 formula, a general expression that is given below for wells located
in the center of rectangular gridblocks.9
1⁄2 1⁄2
⎛ k----y⎞ Δx 2 + ⎛ k----x⎞ Δy 2
⎝ k x⎠ ⎝ k y⎠
r b = 0.28 -----------------------------------------------------------------
- p (38-7)
k y⎞ 1 ⁄ 4 ⎛ k x⎞ 1 ⁄ 4
⎛ ---- + ----
⎝ k x⎠ ⎝ k y⎠

where
kx permeability of the gridblock in the x-direction
ky permeability of the gridblock in y-direction
Δx dimension of the gridblock in x-direction
Δy dimension of the gridblock in y-direction.
For isotropic properties, the above equation transforms to the following simple
form:
2 2 1⁄2
r b = 0.14 ( Δx + Δy ) (38-8)
If rb is set to zero on the RFLOW card rb defaults to the value given by

Equation 38-8.
The well index in Equation 38-6 also can be calculated in VIP-EXECUTIVE from
the productivity/injectivity index. A steady-state productivity index is defined as
the production rate of a chosen phase divided by the pressure drawdown incurred
during production of the fluid into the wellbore. Drawdown is the difference
between reservoir pressure at the drainage radius and the bottom-hole flowing
pressure of the well. Therefore, the productivity index is defined as:
qo
PI = -------------------- (38-9)
P d – P bh
where
Pd = pressure at the drainage radius.
Equation 38-9 also is used for the injectivity index when the injection rates are
treated as negative. Well index WI for an oil producer can be converted from PI by
the following expression:
( PI ) ( gf )
WI = ----------------------------------------------
- (38-10)
⎧ k h k ro ⎫
0.001127 ⎨ ----------------- ⎬
⎩ μo Bo ⎭
where
gf = dimensionless geometry factor that converts the productivity/injectivity

index from a drainage radius basis to a gridblock basis and may be
defined by:

rd
ln ⎛ -----⎞
⎝ r w⎠
gf = ---------------
- (38-11)
r
ln ⎛ -----⎞
b
⎝ r w⎠
Note that Equation 38-11 is not always applicable. See Appendex A, Section A.6.
Several new optional variables are included in the FPERF card that allow the well
index to vary with each perforation and allow optional calculation of the reduced
entry skin factor. The reduced entry skin factor is added to the optionally specified
skin (damage) factor to determine the total skin factor used to calculate the well
index for each perforation. When using the FPERF card, VIP-EXECUTIVE will
calculate a default rb value for each layer if the RADB keyword is not specified.
The default rb value is calculated from Equation 38-7.

38.4 Bottom-Hole Pressure Calculation

The following equation is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the bottom-hole pressure
calculation when production rate is specified, in contrast to Section 38.2 which
calculates the rate given a bottom-hole pressure.
NPER
Q s = BSEP ∑ WI l FMOB l ( UW4 l – P bh )

l=1
NPER
+ δw ∑ WI l FMOB lw ( UW4 l – P bh ) (38-12)

l=1
where
BSEP the separator coefficient, defined as a ratio of the

hydrocarbon rate in standard conditions to the
corresponding mole rate and given by
δ o Q so + δ g Q sg
BSEP = ----------------------------------
- (38-13)
Qo + Qg
Qso, Qsg oil and gas production rates in standard conditions
Qs production rate in standard conditions as specified by the

user in the QMAX card
δo, δg, and δw parameters for each phase, oil, gas, and water, (equal to 1
if the rate for that phase is specified and equal to 0 in all
other cases)
FMOBl = MOBlo + MOBlg mobility of the hydrocarbon phase in the l’th

perforation where mobility of each phase is
defined by
o
k rj ρ j k rw ρ w
MOB lj = k l h l -----------, j = o, g, MOB lw = k l h l --------------, l = 1, 2, …, NPER
μj μw
(38-14)
The right side of Equation 38-12 is a non-linear function of the bottom-hole

pressure, because the separator coefficient BSEP depends on fluid compositions
zil, i = 1,2,...,NC, which are functions of the bottom-hole pressure. The separator
coefficient, BSEP, can be found from solution of the surface separator
equations26. BSEP does not depend on bottom-hole pressure when there is only
one perforation in the production well. Hence, there is no need for iterations in
this case.

38.5 Use of Inflow and Outflow Curves

The following example demonstrates the use of inflow and outflow curves in VIP-
EXECUTIVE to determine the natural flowing point of the well. The tubinghead
or wellhead flowing conditions are specified. The well hydraulics model, the
wellbore flow model, and the surface separator model are applied in VIP-
EXECUTIVE to calculate bottom-hole pressure, if the wellhead pressure is
specified by the user.
The well hydraulics model is used in VIP-EXECUTIVE to define the bottom-hole

pressure Pbh of the production well as a function of the specified tubinghead
pressure, Pth , oil flow rate (or liquid flow rate) in standard conditions Qso , water
Qsw Q sg
cut WCUT = --------- , and gas-oil ratio GOR = --------
- (or gas-liquid ratio), and artificial
Q so Q so
lift quantity ALQ:
P bh = HT bh ( P th, Q so, WCUT, GOR, ALQ ) (38-15)
For three-phase producers, functions HTbh are defined in VIP-EXECUTIVE in a

tabular form as hydraulics tables. The physical significance of ALQ entries is
defined by the user and they have no fixed units. By specifying ALQ, the user can
model gas lift, pumping, or compression power and ALQ values can be assigned
to any production well yielding an additional level of interpolation between the
appropriate BHPTAB table entries.
The “average pressure and temperature method” as described by Beggs35 is used

to define functions HTbh for gas producers. The independent variables used in the
option for the two- or three-phase gas producers in the BHPTAB are tubinghead
pressure Pth, gas phase rate Qg, oil-gas ratio OGR, and water-gas ratio WGR.
These parameters can be used with ALQ for further interpolation of the BHPTAB.
A newly implemented algorithm in VIP-EXECUTIVE based on the Beggs
method35 allows the user to specify the wellbore hydraulics tables for injectors. In
the new feature, the BHITAB tables are used to relate bottom-hole injection
pressure as a function of injection rate and tubinghead pressure. Each table can be
defined independently and more than one well can refer to the same BHITAB
table. This option is selected for each well by specifying the BHITAB table
number on the ITUBE card.
The wellbore flow model and surface separator model26 define the oil, gas, and
water rates of a three-phase producer in standard conditions as functions of the
bottom-hole pressure:
Q so = Q so ( P bh ) (38-16)

Q sw ( P bh )
- = WCUT ( P bh )
WCUT = ---------------------- (38-17)
Q so ( P bh )
Q sg ( P bh )
- = GOR ( P bh )
GOR = --------------------- (38-18)
Q so ( P bh )
The oil and gas production rates in reservoir conditions can be defined from the
wellbore flow (Equation 38-3). The oil and gas production rates in standard
conditions can be found using the multistage separator model.26 The water rate in
standard conditions can be calculated from Equation 38-4.
If the tubinghead pressure, Pth is specified by the user, then the problem consists
of determining the bottom-hole pressure, Pbh, which honors both the outflow
(Equation 38-15) and the inflow (Equations 38-16, 38-17, and 38-18).
The required bottom-hole pressure is determined by the pressure at the

intersection of the outflow curve and the inflow curve. The natural flow rate is the
rate corresponding to the bottom-hole pressure (Figure 38-1). For any oil
production rate Qso in standard conditions, the corresponding bottom-hole
pressure on the inflow curve can be calculated from solution of the wellbore flash
problem26 with the specified surface rate. The gas and water production rates in
surface conditions also are obtained from solution of this problem. The bottom-
hole pressure on the outflow curve is determined using the well hydraulics model,
Equation 38-15.

38.6 Tubing Performance Curve Calculation

Remember that the point of intersection between the inflow curve and the outflow
curve, also known as the lift curve or Tubing Performance Curve (TPC),
determines the natural flowing point of the producing well. TPC defines bottom-
hole pressure, BHP, as a function of the geometry of the producing string, flow
conditions (e.g., GOR or GLR, water cut, liquid flow rates), and tubing head
conditions (i.e., THP). Multiple sets of TPC may need to be input that depend on
well geometry. TPC is input to VIP-EXECUTIVE with the BHPTAB card, which
relates tubinghead to bottom-hole pressures under the various flow conditions
used to generate TPC.
A number of multiphase flow programs is available to generate lift curves for

VIP-EXECUTIVE. These programs offer various industry-standard empirical
correlations for vertical and horizontal flow to predict pressure losses in the flow
strings.

Chapter
39
39.1 Introduction
This chapter describes in detail the technical details of the VIP-EXECUTIVE well
management features.
39.2 Well Data

The well data include all the data that describe wells, such as the definition of all
well and well management parameters. The maximum number of wells permitted
in a model run is set by variable NWMAX on the DIM card. The default value of
NWMAX is 10. The minimum required data for production and injection wells
follows.
39.2.1 Minimum Data Requirements for Production Well

The data requirement for a producer depends on the type of constraint specified
for the well:
■ Rate constraint only:
❑ Well data, such as name, location, and gathering center (WELL card)
❑ Well type, such as oil, gas, or water (PROD card)
❑ Perforation data, such as number and location (FPERF card)
❑ Maximum flow rate (QMAX card).
■ Bottom-hole pressure constraint:
❑ Maximum flow rate (QMAX card)
❑ Productivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
R5000.0.1 39-579
❑ Bottom-hole pressure (BHP) and datum depth data (BHP card).
■ Tubinghead pressure constraint:
❑ Perforation data such as number and location (FPERF card)
❑ Productivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
❑ Tubinghead pressure (THP card)
❑ Tabular data relating THP to BHP (ITUBE and BHPTAB cards).
Note that if no productivity index is defined by a WI, PI, or RFLOW card, well
productivity automatically is adjusted to cause the well to flow at the rate
specified on the QMAX card (i.e., the well defaults to rate constraint).
39.2.2 Minimum Data Requirements for Injection Wells

The data requirement for an injector depends on the type of constraint specified
for the well:
■ Rate constraint only:
❑ Well type, such as gas or water (INJ card)
❑ Maximum flow rate (QMAX card).
■ Bottom-hole pressure constraint:
❑ Injectivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
❑ Bottom-hole pressure (BHP) and datum depth data (BHP card).
■ Tubinghead pressure constraint:
39-580 R5000.0.1
❑ Injectivity index data (PI or WI or RFLOW card)
❑ Tubinghead pressure (THP card)
❑ Tubing data required to calculate BHP from THP (TUBE and DIAM
cards).
Note that if no injectivity index is defined by a WI, PI, or RFLOW card, the
injectivity automatically is adjusted to cause the well to flow at the rate specified
on the QMAX card (i.e., the well defaults to rate constraint).
39.2.3 Vertical and Deviated Wells

Wells may be vertical or deviated in VIP-EXECUTIVE. A well is referred to as
“vertical” if all of its perforations have the same areal coordinates; if not, it is
“deviated.” The deviated well option can be used to model any non-vertical well,
including horizontal wells. More than one well may coexist in a given gridblock.
R5000.0.1 39-581
39.3 Well Completion Data

A well can be completed in multiple layers of the reservoir. Each completion
between the reservoir and wellbore is defined as a perforation. A well can have
any number of perforations. The following restrictions apply to perforation data:
■ The maximum number of perforations per well cannot exceed NPRFMX,

specified on the DIM card. The default value for NPRFMX is 5.
■ The total number of perforations for all wells cannot exceed NPRFTOT, as
specified on the DIM card. The default value for NPRFTOT is 25.
39.3.1 FPERF Card

Completion data for each well are specified using the FPERF card. Completion
data in VIP-EXECUTIVE have the following characteristics.
Basic Perforation Data
There are many ways to specify perforation data. Some of the commonly used
formats and their implications follow:
■ The user can specify the layers that are open to flow. In addition, the user can
specify permeability (K), thickness (H), or permeability-thickness product
(KH) for each perforation. The permeability-thickness product for the
perforation depends on the data specified. The following options are
available:
❑ If none of K, H or KH is specified, then the KH used in the model is the

product of block net thickness and permeability.
❑ If both K and H are specified, the KH used in the model is the product of
the user-specified K and the user-specified H.
❑ If K is specified and H is not specified, then the KH used in the model is

the product of block net thickness and user-specified K.
❑ If H is specified and K is not specified, then the KH used in the model is

the product of average block permeability, block net-to-gross ratio, and
the user-specified H. The average block permeability is the square root of
the product of Kx and Ky (Kr and Kθ) in an areal model or the appropriate
permeability in a cross-section model.
❑ If specified, the KH product is used without modification.
■ The user can specify the top and bottom depth of each perforation. The model
then automatically determines the layers that are open to flow. In this case,
perforation thickness H is determined from the top and bottom depth of each
layer. Within the simulator a perforation will be defined for each layer open to
flow.
39-582 R5000.0.1
■ The user can specify a unit number for each perforation. All perforations
within a well with the same unit number are considered to represent a single
completion. Perforation production constraints and all workover options
affecting perforations then are applied to completion, or “perforation unit,”
rather than to individual perforations. Production rates in the perforation units
are obtained by summing the rates of the individual perforations. Perforation
unit numbers may be specified for injection wells, but are not used.
Perforation Data for Vertical Equilibrium (VE) Option
The following special features are available for perforation data with the VE
option:
■ The position of the top (HTOP) and bottom (HBOT) of each perforation in a
gridblock can be specified. Therefore, a well may have more than one
perforation in a given reservoir layer when the VE option is being used.
■ The weighting factors used to interpolate between rock and VE relative

permeabilities for gas-oil (FVEG) and water-oil (FVEW) systems can be
specified for each perforation. The default is to use the gridblock value.
End-Point Modifications for Perforations
By default, the relative permeabilities for a gridblock containing a well

perforation are calculated using the saturation table assigned to the gridblock.
However, the saturation table number can be changed by specifying an ISAT
value for each perforation.
In addition, the saturation tables can be scaled to different end-point values. The
following end-point saturations can be specified for each perforation:
■ Connate water saturation (Swl)
■ Critical water saturation (Swmn)
■ Water saturation at residual oil to water (Swro)
■ Maximum water saturation (Swmx)
■ Connate gas saturation (Sgl)
■ Critical gas saturation (Sgmn)
■ Gas saturation at residual oil to gas (Sgro)
■ Maximum gas saturation (Sgmx).
The end-point saturation value used for the perforation calculation depends on
data specified by the user. The following options are available:
R5000.0.1 39-583
■ If end-point saturations and the ISAT value for the perforation are not
specified, then the end-point saturations for the gridblock are used. The end-
point saturations for each gridblock are initialized to the table values for the
gridblock. However, the user can specify (overread) end-point saturations for
each gridblock.
■ If the ISAT value for the perforation is specified, but the end-point saturations
are not specified, then end points from the ISAT table are used.
■ If specified, the end-point saturations for the perforation are used and the table
values (from ISAT or gridblock table) are not used.
■ To specify the end-point saturations for perforation Swmn, Swro, Sgmn, and Sgro
must be specified together. Swl, Swmx, Sgl, and Sgmx are optional. The default
values are Swl = Swmn, Sgl = 0, and Sgmx = 1-Swl.
Refer to Chapter 5 for information on the different scaling methods.
39-584 R5000.0.1
39.4 Production Wells
39.4.1 Type of Producers and Controls

In VIP-EXECUTIVE, a well must be identified as a producer or an injector. The
PROD card is used to define the type of production well and the units being used
for the flow rate. A production well can operate at a target value of any of the
following:
■ Oil production rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
■ Gas production rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
■ Water production rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
■ Liquid production rate (oil and water at reservoir or standard conditions)
■ Total production rate for all fluids (at reservoir conditions or in moles)
■ Production rates for oil, gas, and water at surface conditions
■ Bottom-hole pressure
■ Tubinghead pressure
■ Maximum drawdown.
The production rate for the well is specified by the QMAX card. The well
produces at this rate unless it causes a violation of one of the other constraints
defined by the user. In this event, the constraint is observed, which causes a rate
reduction.
39.4.2 Production Well Constraints

The user can specify a number of constraints for production wells. These
constraints can be visualized as the economic limits for operating a well. If one or
more of these constraints is violated, the engineer can select from the following
options:
■ The user can define a maximum water cut, water rate, or liquid-gas ratio for a
production well (WLIMIT card). If the user-specified maximum for a well is
exceeded, one of the following actions takes place:
❑ The perforation with the highest water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) is plugged.
A different limiting water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) value can be specified
for the last open perforation. Once a perforation has been plugged, it
never produces again, unless the well is reperforated by an FPERF card.
R5000.0.1 39-585
❑ The well is shut in. It then can be tested periodically according to the data
on the TEST card. If water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) is found to be less than
the maximum during the test, then the well is returned to production.
❑ The water production rate is not allowed to exceed the user-specified

maximum. This may cause a reduction in the specified production rate
(on QMAX card).
■ The user can define a maximum gas rate or gas-liquid ratio (GOR) for a
production well (GLIMIT card). If the user-specified maximum for a well is
exceeded, one of the following actions takes place:
❑ The perforation with the highest GOR is plugged. A different limiting

GOR value can be specified for the last open perforation. Once a
perforation has been plugged, it never produces again, unless the well is
reperforated using an FPERF card.
❑ The well is shut in. It then can be tested periodically according to the data
on the TEST card. If the GOR is found to be less than the maximum
during the test, then the well is returned to production.
❑ The gas production rate is not allowed to exceed the user-specified

maximum. This may cause a reduction in the specified production rate
(on QMAX card).
■ The user can specify a maximum water cut and GOR applicable to each
perforation in a well. When the water cut and/or GOR for any perforation in a
well exceeds this maximum, then the perforation is shut in. The test to
determine whether a violation has occurred is performed only if the time
interval between tests is specified using the TSTPRF card. Therefore, it is
possible that the perforation value may exceed the maximum between test
intervals. In addition, note that flashes to surface conditions are required for
each perforation during these tests. This could cause a significant increase in
computer time if frequently performed (especially in compositional
simulations). Once a perforation has been shut in, it never produces again,
unless the well is reperforated using an FPERF card.
■ The user can specify a minimum rate for each production well (QMIN card).
The phase to which this minimum rate applies is specified by the ECOLIM
card. When the well rate falls below the minimum, the well is shut in. The
well can be tested periodically to determine whether the rate is above
minimum, if the appropriate data on the TEST card are specified.
39-586 R5000.0.1
39.4.3 ONTIME Factors

The ONTIME card is used to specify the fraction of time that a well actually
produces. The fraction is applied to the well rate after the rate has been
determined by QMAX or pressure constraints and after the well minimum rate
(QMIN), water cut (WLIMIT), and GOR (GLIMIT) checks.
39.4.4 Pressure Constraints

VIP-EXECUTIVE calculates a flowing bottom-hole pressure consistent with the
well index and well rate. This bottom-hole pressure is checked against any user-
defined pressure constraints. If the flow rate is in violation of a pressure
constraint, it is altered accordingly and a new corresponding well rate is
calculated. This bottom-hole pressure then is used to allocate production/injection
to individual layers.
Bottom-hole pressure constraints are defined by BHP cards. Alternatively,

tubinghead pressure constraints can be imposed to control well flow. These are
established by entering both THP cards and BHPTAB data. Hydraulics tables
(BHPTAB data) are used for three-phase producers to relate tubinghead pressure
to bottom-hole pressure, flow rate, water cut, and gas-liquid ratio. VIP-
EXECUTIVE searches for the largest intersection of the inflow and outflow
performance curves. The bottom-hole pressure corresponding to this intersection
is used to calculate well phase rates.
Tubinghead pressure constraints also can be imposed on gas producers and on gas
and water injectors. For these cases, the algorithm is based on the “average
pressure and temperature method” as described by Beggs.35
The ITNTHP card can be used to set the number of outer iterations for each
timestep during which the tubinghead pressure algorithm is performed. During the
rest of the timestep, the well is treated as a bottom-hole pressure-constrained well,
with BHP equalling the calculated value from the tubinghead pressure algorithm.
The default for ITNTHP is 2.
Bottom-hole pressure also can be constrained by the DPBHMX card, which

defines a maximum drawdown (for producers) or buildup (for injectors) in each
well. This option is applicable whether a well is on a BHP or THP constraint. If
necessary, the bottom-hole pressure of the well is reset so that the drawdown, or
buildup, does not exceed DPBHMX. A new corresponding well rate then is
calculated. To help alleviate convergence problems, after ITNSTP iterations
(producers) or ITNSTQ iterations (injectors) the bottom-hole pressure of
DPBHMX constrained wells is fixed for the remainder of the timestep.
Pressure constraints and the productivity index are described in detail in Chapter
38.
R5000.0.1 39-587
39.4.5 Well Status Report

The production and injection well report can be printed in VIP-EXECUTIVE
using the WELLS parameter on the PRINT card. In addition, the layer summary
can be printed using the WLLYR parameter on the PRINT card. It is possible that
the well rate (at surface conditions) in the layer summary is not identical to that
from the well report. This is because the surface rate in the well summary is
determined by summing up the molar rate for all layers and flashing it to the
surface conditions. The surface rate in the perforation summary is obtained by
flashing each individual layer molar rate to surface conditions.
The status of the well is indicated by a four-character word in the well report. The
possible production well status messages and their meanings follow:
QMAX well is producing at the maximum specified rate.
GORP well is producing at the maximum rate calculated by the

GOR penalty option.
PLIM well is pressure limited (BHP or THP).
TARG well is constrained by a target.
GMAX well is constrained by the LIMIT option on the GLIMIT

card.
WMAX well is constrained by the LIMIT option on the WLIMIT

card.
DPMX well is limited by the DPBHMX constraint.
STTO all perforations are defined with status OFF.
NPRF no perforations are defined for this well.
WMGT well has no production due to the predictive well

management (PWM) algorithm.
OTAR well is constrained by an oil target (PWM).
GTAR well is constrained by a gas target (PWM).
WTAR well is constrained by a water target (PWM).
SI P well is shut in due to inability to flow at pressure

constraint.
SI M well is shut in due to no mobility of producing phase.
SI Q well is shut in due to minimum rate constraint violation.
39-588 R5000.0.1
SI T well is shut in due to failure in THP algorithm

calculations.
SI L well is shut in due to excessive liquid-gas ratio for gas

producer on THP.
SI G well is shut in due to GLIMIT or PRFWRK constraint

violation.
SI W well is shut in due to WLIMIT or PRFWRK constraint

violation.
SI O well is shut in due to gas-lift performance curve

problems.
SI R well is shut in by the recompletion unit option.
GINJ well currently is a gas injector.
WINJ well currently is a water injector.
39.4.6 Testing Shutin Wells

All wells that were automatically shut in (pressure limit violation, lack of
mobility, rate limit violation) are tested periodically to determine whether they can
be returned to production/injection. The TEST card is used to specify the time
interval between tests for each type of shutin well. A zero value for a time
increment causes testing every timestep.
Two methods are available to determine the time at which wells are tested.
1. All wells of the appropriate shut-in type tested at the same time (default).
2. Each well is tested at the time interval after it was shut-in. This is invoked by
specifying a negative value on the TEST card.
For the first method, well tests are scheduled for the time at which the TEST card
is read, plus the appropriate increment. Until the simulation reaches that time,
shutin wells remain shut in. Timesteps are not adjusted to hit the test time exactly.
Once the wells are tested, new tests are scheduled for a time that is the appropriate
increment farther into the simulation.
For the second method, each shut-in well is tested after the appropriate time
interval (absolute value) has elapsed since it was shut-in. Timesteps are not
adjusted to hit any test time exactly. If a well does not return to production/
injection when tested, it will be retested at a time that is the appropriate increment
further into the simulation.
R5000.0.1 39-589
39.4.7 Special Features for Gas Producers

The algorithm implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE for handling tubinghead
pressure constraints for gas producers is based on the “average pressure and
temperature method.” (Note that the algorithm for tubinghead pressure constraints
for gas and water injectors also is based on this method.) Generally speaking, the
rate and corresponding bottom-hole pressure of a constrained well occurs at the
intersection of the inflow and outflow performance curves for the well. The
following procedure is used to calculate the flowing bottom-hole pressure for the
outflow performance curve:
1. The wellbore is divided into equal-length intervals (default is 5).
2. Starting at the wellhead, the bottom-hole pressure of the first interval is

calculated using the input tubinghead pressure constraint and other properties.
3. The bottom-hole pressure of the first interval is used as the tubinghead

pressure of the second interval to calculate the bottom-hole pressure of the
second interval.
4. This process is continued until the bottom-hole pressure of the last interval is
calculated; this is the flowing bottom-hole pressure of the well for the outflow
curve.
39-590 R5000.0.1
39.5 Injection Wells

Injection rates can be fixed by the user or internally calculated by the model.
Many options are available to determine injection rates and targets.
A special option is available for net voidage injection where the volume of the
second injected phase is determined to maintain voidage balance (or a fraction of
voidage balance) at the user-specified well management entity. This feature is
described in Section 39.13.
In addition, an option is available to maintain pressure (or voidage) in any

rectangular three-dimensional area (or areas) of the model. This feature is called
“injection regions” and is described in Section 39.11.
39.5.1 Type of Injectors and Controls

The INJ card is used to define the type of injection well and the units being used
for the injection rate. An injector can operate at a target value of any of the
following:
■ Water injection rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
■ Gas injection rate (at reservoir or standard conditions)
■ Bottom-hole pressure
■ Tubinghead pressure
■ Maximum buildup.
The injection rate for the well is specified by the QMAX card. The well injects at
this rate unless it causes a violation of one of the other constraints defined by the
user. In this event, the constraint is observed, which causes a rate reduction.
Injection wells also can be used to reinject the produced fluids. If used for
reinjection, the injectors could:
■ Reinject a fraction of the total surface production rate of the injected phase
within a specified level of well management hierarchy (called FSTD
reinjection), or
■ Reinject a fraction of the total fluid withdrawal (at reservoir conditions)

within a specified level of well management hierarchy (called FRES
reinjection).
When either the FRES or FSTD reinjection option is used, values on the QMAX
card for the corresponding injectors are fractions of total reservoir volume
production rate and the fraction of the total surface production rate, respectively.
R5000.0.1 39-591
39.5.2 Injection Well Constraints

The user can specify a minimum rate for each injection well (QMIN card). When
the well injection rate falls below the minimum, the well is shut in. The well can
be tested periodically to determine whether the rate is above minimum, if the
appropriate data on the TEST card is specified.
The BHP for injectors on THP control is calculated by using either the “average
temperature and pressure” method or by using hydraulics tables (BHITAB data).
39.5.3 Water Injectors

Several special features are available for water injectors. These are summarized as
follows:
■ The outer iteration number after which water injection rates are not
recomputed can be specified using the ITNSTQ card.
■ The user can specify the method used to compute the mobility for water
injection wells. End-point mobilities are used by default, but it is possible to
use total gridblock mobilities (WINJMOB card).
■ The water density and viscosity values used in the THP calculation can be
specified using the WTRTHP card. The default is to use the values specified
in the initialization data.
39.5.4 Gas Injectors

Some of the special characteristics of gas injectors are listed below:
■ The outer iteration number after which gas injection rates are not recomputed
can be specified using the ITNSTQ card.
■ The user can specify the method used to compute the mobility for gas
injection wells. End-point mobilities are used by default, but it is possible to
use total gridblock mobilities (GINJMOB card).
■ The composition of injected gas for gas injectors must be specified using the
YINJ card with the STD or RES option.
■ The RECFAC card can be used to specify the fraction of each component in
the gas stream that can be recovered as liquid at the gas plant for use with gas
injectors on the FSTD reinjection option.
39-592 R5000.0.1
39.5.5 WAG Injectors

The WAG injection-by-volume option enables the automatic switching between
water and gas injection based on user-specified cumulative water and gas
injection volumes.
The WAG card is used to specify which wells are WAG injectors. Three items
must be input on this card: cumulative water injection volume per cycle,
cumulative gas injection volume per cycle, and the total number of WAG cycles to
be performed. Two other items may also be input: whether WAG cycling starts
with gas or water injection (default is water injection), and what happens to the
well when WAG cycling ends (water injector, gas injector, shut-in).
The QMAXWG card is used to specify the maximum water and gas rates for each
WAG well. The BHPWAG card may be used to specify a different value of
bottomhole pressure limit for water injection versus gas injection.
In most fine-grid simulation models, it is necessary to limit the size of the first
timestep following each changeover to avoid potential convergence failures. This
can be controlled by entering a DTWAG card which contains two values:
maximum size of the first timestep following the changeover from gas injection to
water injection and the maximum size of the first timestep following the
changeover from water injection to gas injection.
The changeover will automatically take place whenever the cumulative injection
volume exceeds the user-specified injection volume. At the changeover, the size
of the previous step is not reduced and the step is not repeated so as to exactly
match the prescribed injection volume. Instead, the excess injection volume will
be subtracted from the prescribed injection volume for the next cycle to
compensate for the over-injection. This is done to avoid excessive timestep cuts in
models with a large number of WAG wells.
39.5.6 ONTIME Factors

The ONTIME factors for injectors are applied in a manner similar to the
producers. The ONTIME card is used to specify the fraction of the time that a well
actually is injecting. The fraction is applied to the well rate after the rate has been
determined by QMAX or pressure constraints and after the well minimum rate
(QMIN) check. ONTIME factors do not apply to injection wells using either the
FSTD or FRES reinjection options.
R5000.0.1 39-593
39.5.7 Well Status Report

The following list shows various possible injection well status messages and their
meaning:
QMAX well is injecting at the maximum specified rate.
PLIM well is pressure limited (BHP or THP).
GTAR well is scaled back due to a gas target.
WTAR well is scaled back due to a water target.
DPMX well is limited by the DPBHMX constraint.
UNFM well is cut back “uniformly” due to a target.
STTO all perforations are defined with status OFF.
NPRF no perforations are defined for this well.
PROP well is cut back using the PROPTN option within the
injection region option.
PATN well is constrained by the pattern balance option.
SI P well is shut in due to inability to flow at pressure

constraint.
SI M well is shut in due to no mobility of injection phase.
SI Q well is shut in due to minimum rate constraint violation.
SI T well is shut in due to non-convergence in THP algorithm

calculations.
PROD well is currently a producer.
39.5.8 Testing Shutin Wells

Testing of shutin injectors is similar to that of producers. See Section 39.4.6 for
details.
39-594 R5000.0.1
39.6 Wellbore Gradient Calculations
39.6.1 Introduction
By default, the pressure gradient in the wellbore due to the effect of gravity is
treated as a constant with respect to depth for each well. If the MBAWG = OFF
option is invoked or if crossflow (XFON) is specified for one or more wells, then
the simulator computes variations in wellbore gravity gradient as fluids enter or
leave the wellbore at each perforated interval for all wells. In this case, the
wellbore gradient is calculated on the first iteration of each timestep, but is held
constant for the remainder of the timestep to avoid slowing the convergence rate
of the outer iterations. In the event that a well is shut in, plugged, or reperforated
during a timestep, the gradient calculation is repeated to reflect the change in
conditions. Two methods for calculating wellbore gradient are described below.
39.6.2 Mobility Weighted Averaging Method
This section discusses the method to calculate an average pressure gradient γl used
in all the different perforations l = 1,2,...,NPER of a production well. The average
pressure gradient γ1 = γ2 = ... = γNPER = γ , is applied in VIP-EXECUTIVE in the
wellbore flow Equations 38-1 through 38-5. It is calculated in the following form:
∑ [ MOB lo M o + MOB lg M g + MOB lw M w ]

g l=1
γ = ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPER
- (39-1)
5.6146*144g c
MOB lo MOB lg MOB lw
∑ ---------------- ρo
- + ----------------- + ------------------
ρg ρw
l 1
where
Mo, Mg molecular weights of the oil and gas phases
Bw formation volume factor of the water phase
g gravitational acceleration
gc conversion constant, which is equal to 32.2 lbm/lbf ft/s2
MOBlj mobility of the j’th phase (j = o,g,w)
ρj density of the j’th phase (j = o,g,w).
R5000.0.1 39-595
39.6.3 Volume Balancing Method

Note that the calculations described below for variable pressure gradient assume
that the perforated intervals in each well are ordered from the top to the bottom of
the wellbore. Erroneous results are obtained if this condition is not satisfied.
Mathematical Formulation
The wellbore pressure gradient opposite any perforated interval “j” is computed as
the volumetric average of the densities of the individual phases. The densities are
measured within the reservoir layer containing the perforated interval. The weight
factors used to compute the average gradient are the volume fractions of each of
the three phases within the wellbore and opposite the perforated interval:
n n n
γ j = E wj γ wj + E oj γ oj + E gj γ gj (39-2)
It would be more correct to compute the densities of the three phases at wellbore
conditions instead of using densities computed within the reservoir, but this would
introduce troublesome nonlinearities into Equation 39-2, since the densities of oil
and gas depend on both pressure and composition. For the gradient calculation,
the densities of the reservoir fluids are evaluated at the old time level, so they can
be treated as known quantities.
To compute the volume fractions of the wellbore fluids, we divide the wellbore
into grid cells, one cell opposite each perforated interval. A total volume balance
for wellbore grid cell “j” can be written as follows:
q Tj + 1 ⁄ 2 – q Tj – 1 ⁄ 2 = WI ( kh ) j λ Tj ( p j – p wj ) (39-3)
Equation 39-3 is equivalent to a total molar balance, if there is no interphase mass

transfer and if the phase densities are assumed to be constant in the wellbore.
Assuming that “no-slip” conditions exist in the wellbore, the volume fractions of
water and gas are related to the total volumetric flow as follows:
E wj + 1 ⁄ 2 q Tj + 1 ⁄ 2 – E wj – 1 ⁄ 2 q Tj – 1 ⁄ 2 = WI ( kh ) j λ wj ( p j – p wj ) (39-4)
E gj + 1 ⁄ 2 q Tj + 1 ⁄ 2 – E gj – 1 ⁄ 2 q Tj – 1 ⁄ 2 = WI ( kh ) j λ gj ( p j – p wj ) (39-5)
No-slip means that all phases travel at the same velocity. The volume fractions of
water and gas that apply at the interface between the wellbore grid cells are
evaluated at the upstream cell. Similarly, mobilities (λTj , λwj , and λgj ) are
evaluated in the reservoir or the wellbore, depending on whether production or
injection is occurring in the perforated interval.
If the perforated interval is producing, then the mobilities are defined as follows:
39-596 R5000.0.1
k rw k ro k rg⎞
λ Tj = ⎛⎝ ------- + ------- + ------- (39-6)
μw μo μg ⎠ j
k rw
λ wj = ⎛⎝ -------⎞⎠ (39-7)
μw j
k rg
λ gj = ⎛ -------⎞ (39-8)
⎝ μg ⎠ j
If the perforated interval is injecting, then total mobility (λTj) is still defined by
Equation 39-6, but the mobilities of water and gas are defined as:
λ wj = E wj λ Tj (39-9)
λ gj = E gj λ Tj (39-10)
The wellbore pressure, pwj, is computed from the pressure in the adjacent
wellbore grid cell:
p wj = p wj – 1 + 0.5 ( γ j – 1 + γ j ) ( D j – D j – 1 ), for j > j D (39-11)
p wj = p wj + 1 – 0.5 ( γ j + 1 + γ j ) ( D j + 1 – D j ), for j < j D (39-12)
If the datum is contained within wellbore grid cell “j,” then j = jD, and pwj is
related to the wellbore pressure at datum by the following expression:
o o
p wjD = p w + γ j D ( D j D – D ) (39-13)
If the datum lies above the top perforated interval, then the top perforated interval
is treated as the datum-containing perforated interval and Equation 39-13 applies.
Similarly, if the datum lies below the bottom perforated interval, then the bottom
perforation is treated as the datum-containing perforation and Equation 39-13
applies.
One of the wellbore grid cells is designated as the one from which fluid is
withdrawn to the surface in the case of a producer, or the point at which fluid first
reaches a perforated interval in the case of an injector. This might correspond to
the bottom of the tubing string in a well that produces through tubing. Although
the algorithm allows this cell to be anywhere in the well, the current
implementation assumes that the cell is the top-most perforated interval. The
volumetric rate of fluid withdrawal, or injection, may be written as the following
expression:
R5000.0.1 39-597
Q = ( a + b E g + c E w )q T (39-14)
where Q is the maximum flow rate allowed in whatever units are used to constrain
the well, and qT is the volumetric flow rate at wellbore conditions.
Once the pressure of each wellbore grid cell has been determined, the difference
in wellbore pressure between each wellbore cell and the wellbore datum is
computed and saved for the remainder of the timestep for use in allocating layer
production and injection rates.
o
DPWB j = p wj – p w (39-15)
Calculation Procedure
Equations 39-2 through 39-14 define the relationship between wellbore pressures
and reservoir pressure and saturation distributions. All of these equations are
linear, except for Equations 39-3, 39-4, and 39-5. The system of equations is
solved by two different procedures.
Initially, the system of equations is linearized by iteration lagging the volume

fractions in Equation 39-2. This allows computation of the pressure profile with
Equations 39-11 and 39-12, followed by sequential solution of Equations 39-3,
39-4, and 39-5. This sequence of calculations is repeated one time, using the new
estimates of Ew and Eg in Equation 39-2. Further iteration has been found by
extensive testing to be less efficient than proceeding to the second method.
In the second method, the full system of equations is solved simultaneously using
the Newton-Raphson iteration. This involves solving four equations
simultaneously for each wellbore grid cell. These are Equations 39-3, 39-4, 39-5,
and either 39-11 or 39-12, as appropriate. Convergence normally is rapid. In the
rare event of convergence failure, the results of the first method are accepted.
Timestep cutting is not performed to force convergence of this iteration.
39-598 R5000.0.1
39.6.4 Nomenclature
Eg volume fraction of the gas phase in the wellbore.
Eo volume fraction of the oil phase in the wellbore.
Ew volume fraction of the water phase in the wellbore.
kh permeability thickness of a perforated interval, in md-

feet.
kr relative permeability.
p pressure in the reservoir, in psia.
pw pressure in the wellbore, in psia.
q volumetric flow rate, in bbl/day.
WI well index.
D subsea depth, in feet.
Do datum depth, in feet.
Q maximum rate specified for a well, various units.
γ gravity pressure gradient, in psi/foot.
λ fluid mobility.
μ viscosity, in cp.
With subscripts:
g gas.
j perforated interval index.
o oil.
T total.
w water or well.
R5000.0.1 39-599
39.7 Wellbore Crossflow

When the wellbore crossflow option is invoked by the XFON card, wellbore
crossflow is modeled based on the method of Coats, Modine, and Wells.36 This
method is based on the superposition of interlayer "crossflow" flow terms that
sum to zero and the “no crossflow” flow terms that are obtained in the
conventional manner by shutting in the backflowing layers.
39.7.1 Theory
Consider a production well producing at a rate of q RB/D, with layer productivity
indices Jk, layer mobilities λk (total), and layer pressures at datum, Pk. The total
layer flow rates are given by:
q k = J k λ k ( P k – P bh ) (39-16)
where Pbh is the flowing bottom-hole pressure at datum. The total well rate is:
q = ∑ qk (39-17)
k
Solving Equations 39-16 and 39-17 for Pbh gives:
∑ Jk λk Pk – q
k
P bh = --------------------------------
- (39-18)
∑ Jk λk
k
If Pbh > Pk, then layer k is backflowing. The individual phase layer rates are given
by:
q mk = J k λ̂ mk ( P k – P bh ), m = o, w, g (39-19)
where
⎧ wellblock
⎪ λ if P k > P bh
λ̂ mk = ⎨ mk (39-20)
⎪ λ wellblock S wellbore if P k < P bh
⎩ mk mk
where Smkwellbore are the layer phase saturations in the wellbore. These wellbore
saturations and wellbore phase compositions could be obtained by solving
material balances and equilibrium constraints on a gridded wellbore, but the
equations are highly nonlinear due to rapidly changing conditions in the wellbore
and would require very small timesteps to converge.
39-600 R5000.0.1
Using the superposition method, we first allocate production without crossflow:
⎧ *
⎪ * if P k > P bh
= ⎨ J k λ k ( P k – P bh )
*
qk (39-21)
⎪ 0 *
if P k < P bh
⎩
+
* Σ ( Jk λk Pk ) – q
P bh = ------------------------------------
- (39-22)
+
Σ Jk λk
where Σ+ denotes summation over inflowing layers. Incremental layer rates are
defined as:
*
q̂ = q k – q k (39-23)
It can be shown that:

*
∑ q̂k = ∑ qk – ∑ qk = 0 (39-24)
k k k
and that:
q̂ k = J k λ k ( P̂ k – P bh ) (39-25)
where
*
P̂ k = MIN ( P k, P bh ) (39-26)
From Equations 39-24, 39-25, and 39-26, we obtain:
∑ Jk λk P̂k
P bh = ------------------------ (39-27)
∑ Jk λk
Substituting this into Equation 39-25 gives:
∑ Jk λk Jj λj ( P̂k – P̂j )
q̂ k = ------------------------------------------------- (39-28)
∑ Ji λi
j
The interlayer rate from layer k to layer j then may be written as:
q̂ kj = τ kj λ k ( P̂ k – P j ) (39-29)
where
R5000.0.1 39-601
Jk Jj λ
τ kj = ---------------j- (39-30)
∑ Ji λi
j
The incremental interlayer rates by phase are given by:
λ mk
q̂ mkj = --------- q̂ kj (39-31)
λk
In the simulator, the transmissibilities given by Equation 39-30 are treated

explicitly. The mobility terms appearing in Equations 39-29 and 39-31 are treated
implicitly (in the Implicit formulation). Each interlayer flow term in Equation 39-
29 is represented by a fault connection.
39.7.2 Crossflow Implementation in BLITZ

The only BLITZ preconditioning option that can be invoked with crossflow is
Modified Nested Factorization (Option 1). This is in part due to the fact that
crossflow coupling terms are treated as time-dependent nonvertical fault
connections.
Modified Nested Factorization forces the row-sums of the pressure coefficients of

the preconditioning and the coefficient matrix to be equal. The current BLITZ
crossflow implementation constructs a modified coefficient matrix that is then
approximately factored. This preconditioning matrix is the same as the original
coefficient matrix except that each off-diagonal crossflow pressure coefficient is
added to its row’s main diagonal pressure coefficient, thereby preserving row-
sums of pressure coefficients. All crossflow terms in the preconditioning matrix
then are set to zero. This matrix is approximately factored using Modified Nested
Factorization.
39-602 R5000.0.1
39.8 Well Management Levels

In VIP-EXECUTIVE, the fluid production (or injection) may be constrained at
five levels: the individual well level, the gathering center level, the flow station
level, the area level, and the field level. Multiple constraints may be imposed at
each level. Reporting of production/injection results and various production/
injection constraints may be given at the gathering center, flow station, area, and/
or field levels. Only one field exists in the model. All areas are attached to the
field. The GATHER, AREA, and FLOSTA cards are used to set up hierarchy
among the levels. Figure 39-1 is a schematic representation of various well
management levels in VIP-EXECUTIVE.
Parameters on the PRINT card control the output at well management levels. The
FIELD parameter can be used to print production and injection summaries at all
well management levels.
FIELD
AREA 1 AREA 2
FS 3
FS 1 FS 2
GC 5 GC 6 GC 7
GC 1 GC 2 GC 3 GC 4
Wells Wells Wells
Wells Wells Wells Wells
Figure 39-1: Schematic Representation of Well Management Levels
39.8.1 Production Targets

Maximum production rates can be specified at one or more well management
levels for one or more phases. If the production at any well management level
entity exceeds the user-specified target, several options are available to reduce the
rate to meet the target. These options are:
■ Scale — Scale the rates of all wells to exactly meet the target.
■ Average — Reset the rates of appropriate wells to an average rate.
■ GOR sort — Reduce the production rate of the highest GOR wells to user-
specified minimum rate until the target is met.
■ Water-cut sort — Reduce the production rate of the highest water-cut wells to
user-specified minimum rate until the target is met.
■ Gas rate sort — Reduce the production rate of the highest gas rate wells to
R5000.0.1 39-603
■ Water rate sort — Reduce the production rate of the highest water rate wells to
■ Average GOR — Reduce the production rate of wells whose GOR exceeds a
"target" GOR (only applicable for gas targets).
For the targeting options involving sorting to produce an ordered list of wells
(GOR, WCUT, etc), a frequency can be specified to control how often the lists are
recomputed (PTGFRQ card).
By default, the rates for the perforations for each well are recalculated based on
the reduced rate of the targetted phase. The user can specify the LSCALE ON
option so that the cut-back factor calculated for the targetted phase is applied to all
other phases for each well. Also, the perforation rates are cut back by the same
factor.
In addition, the user can specify the order in which phase targets should be
checked. The order in which the phase targets are checked can influence the final
distribution of producing wells.
The minimum rate used in these algorithms can be specified separately (using the
TRGQMN card) from the minimum economic rate for the well (specified using
the ECOLIM and QMIN cards).
A tolerance can be specified for each phase using the TRGTOL card. For any
remedial action to take place, the target must be exceeded by a fraction greater
than the tolerance (default value is 0.05 for all phases at all well management
levels).
A special feature called predictive well management can be used in the prediction
phase of a study to determine individual well rates and well assignment. This
feature is described in detail in Section 39.18.
39.8.2 Minimum Production Rates

Minimum production rates can be specified at one or more well management
levels for one or more phases. When the production rate for the specified phase at
the specified well management entity falls below the minimum, that member is
“shut in.” The user can specify whether all wells or all producers should be shut
in. If a minimum rate criteria at the field level is violated, a restart record is
written and the run is terminated. This restart record contains the data from the
beginning of this timestep. Note that when starting from such a restart record, the
specified minima still would be in effect, causing the field to shut in immediately.
Hence, either the minima should be decreased or more wells should be brought on
line to continue the run.
39-604 R5000.0.1
39.8.3 Injection Targets

Maximum water and gas injection rates can be specified at one or more well
management levels. If the injection rate at any well management level entity
exceeds the user-specified target, then all wells are cut back by the same factor,
unless gas reinjection is being done using the UNIFORM option (refer to Section
39.9.7). The maximum rate criteria are satisfied first at the gathering center level,
then the flow station level, then the area level, and finally at the field level.
39.8.4 Minimum Injection Rates

Minimum injection rates can be specified at one or more well management levels
using the INJMIN card. When this value is reached in a member of one of these
levels, that member is shut in. The user can specify whether all injectors or all
wells attached to that member of the well management hierarchy should be shut
in.
R5000.0.1 39-605
39.9 Gas Reinjection and Gas Handling Features

The shrinkage, fuel, sales, makeup gas, and makeup gas-lift gas can be specified
as a fixed gas rate plus a fraction of produced gas rate. If the produced gas rate is
less than the fuel gas requirements, then the makeup fuel gas rate is automatically
calculated in the program. The amount can be found in the printout of the field gas
handling summary.
39.9.1 Shrinkage, Fuel, and Sales Gas Specification

The shrinkage, fuel, and sales gas rates can be specified as a fixed gas rate plus a
fraction of produced gas rate at any well management level. Rates specified at the
lower well management levels are added to those specified at the higher levels to
determine gas consumption rates.
Additionally, the sales gas rate can be specified as a fraction of the oil surface
production rate.
39.9.2 Makeup Gas Specification and Composition

Makeup gas for gas injection can be specified as a fixed rate plus a fraction of the
produced gas rate at any well management level. Two options exist for specifying
the makeup gas composition for use with gas injectors on the FSTD reinjection
option using the YINJMK card: the mole fraction of each component and the
same composition as the produced gas.
39.9.3 Makeup Gas-Lift Gas

The user can only specify makeup gas-lift gas when gas-lift is included in the gas
handling loop. The makeup gas-lift gas is designed to simulate the situation in
which produced gas is insufficient for gas-lift requirements, which increase with
time.
39.9.4 Gas Available for Injection

The gas available for reinjection at each level of well management is calculated as
the produced formation gas plus the gas-lift gas (from the previous timestep),
makeup gas and makeup gas-lift gas, minus the shrinkage gas, fuel gas, gas-lift
gas (at current timestep), and sales gas. If gas-lift gas is not part of the gas
handling loop (closed loop), then the gas-lift gas and makeup gas-lift gas are not
included in the calculation.
The priorities for gas consumption follow:
1. Shrinkage gas
39-606 R5000.0.1
2. Fuel gas
3. Gas-lift gas
4. Sales gas.
Shrinkage gas is the gas lost because of the change of temperature and pressure in
the separator. It is not controllable once the temperature and pressure are fixed;
therefore, it is assigned the first priority. Fuel gas is required for field operations
and is assigned to the second priority.
If the produced gas is less than the specified shrinkage gas, then the shrinkage gas
volume is set to the produced gas volume. The produced gas is the produced
formation gas plus the gas-lift gas (at previous timestep) if the gas-lift gas is
included in the gas handling loop. The gas left after shrinkage (produced
formation + gas-lift at previous timestep + makeup + makeup gas-lift - shrinkage)
then is computed and compared to the specified fuel gas. If it is smaller than the
specified fuel gas, the makeup fuel gas (fuel gas - gas left) is added. The gas-lift
gas, sales gas, and gas available for reinjection are set to zero. Otherwise, the fuel
gas is subtracted from the gas left and is compared to gas-lift gas. If it is smaller
than the gas-lift gas, the gas-lift gas is reduced to the gas available. The sales gas
and gas available for injection are set to zero. Similar procedures are repeated for
calculation of sales gas. The remaining gas volume after sales gas is the gas
available for reinjection.
39.9.5 Composition of the Gas Available for Reinjection

If the calculated gas available for reinjection is smaller than the specified makeup
gas, all the gas available for reinjection is assumed to be the makeup gas. Then the
composition of the gas available for injection is the same as that of the makeup
gas. If gas available is more than the specified makeup gas, the gas available for
injection is the specified makeup gas plus the produced gas (the volume of gas
available for injection minus the volume of the specified makeup gas). A
volumetric weighted average then is used to calculate composition:
For each component,
( available – makeup ) × ( produced composition ) + ( makeup ) × ( makeup composition )-

Composition = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total available
Optionally, the user may specify the composition of the gas available for
reinjection through the YREINJ card. The composition can either be set to the
produced gas composition or a user-specified mole fraction for each component.
The composition input on a YREINJ card applies only to the well management
entity designated on the card. It does not apply to any lower levels.
R5000.0.1 39-607
39.9.6 Effective Target

The user has three options for checking the injection target specified in the ITARG
card and the calculated gas available for reinjection using the ETRGOP card:
■ The “NONE” option neglects the calculated gas available for reinjection and
checks the specified target for each level of well management.
■ The “FIELD” option checks the specified injection target for each gathering
center, flow station, and area, but checks the effective target at the field level.
The effective target is defined as the minimum of the specified target and the
calculated gas available for reinjection.
■ The “ALL” option checks the effective target for each level of well
management.
39.9.7 Uniform Reinjection

When gas reinjection is done with the UNIFORM option on the GINJOP card,
maximum rates are specified for the wells. If any gas injection target is violated,
the rates are decreased by resetting the gas injection rates of appropriate wells to
an average rate. That is, if a well’s rate is designated as WIGi, then the reset rate
will be:
WIGi* = min (WIGi, AVG),
where AVG has been computed to satisfy:
Gas Target = Σ WIGi*.
When using the UNIFORM option, note that
■ Gas injection wells must be specified as either FSTD or FRES (INJ card),
then assigned to the appropriate level of well management.
■ The definition of the QMAX cards is the maximum gas injection rate, even
though the well type is FSTD or FRES.
39-608 R5000.0.1
39.10 Major Gas Sales Option
39.10.1 Summary
The major gas sales option modifies the current gas handling loop computation
and processes the gas from the separators through an NGL plant to remove natural
gas liquids, an LPG plant to remove liquified petroleum gas, and an MI plant to
remove miscible injectants. In the NGL, LPG, and MI plants, the liquid recovery
factor for each component is specified as a function of a key component mole
fraction or the mole fraction of a key component plus fraction. Also, the fuel gas
rates specified by the user may exclude any component that has no BTU content
(e.g., CO2). For each gas handling loop calculation, up to two fuel gas streams can
be removed: one from the produced stock tank gas stream and the other from the
outlet gas stream of the MI plant. A portion of the outlet gas stream from the MI
plant may then be directed to a gas conditioning plant to remove the CO2
component; the outlet gas stream from the gas conditioning plant is the sales gas.
The remaining gas from the MI plant is then recombined with the available
makeup gas (if any) to form the reinjected lean gas. The CO2 component removed
from the gas conditioning plant may be either merged with the reinjected lean gas,
vented, or directly injected into a number of user-specified gas injectors. The
reinjected lean gas is distributed among the lean gas injectors specified as FSTD
gas injectors. Finally, the composition of the miscible injectant is used as the
injection composition for MI injectors (STD or RES gas injectors without
injection compositions specified). The major gas sales option may be selectively
invoked for any member of any well management level.
In addition, up to four maximum gas or liquid stream rates may be specified by

the user: the maximum feed rate to the NGL plant, the maximum feed rate to the
LPG plant, the maximum NGL rate, and the maximum LPG rate. These
constraints are needed to account for potential capacity limitations to the NGL
and/or the LPG plants.
39.10.2 Description
In the surface facility at a certain field, the gas from the separators is sent to the
Central Gas Facility (CGF) where the field fuel gas is first extracted from the inlet
stream and the remaining gas is processed in the CGF to remove natural gas
liquids (NGL), liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and miscible injectants (MI). The
sales gas is removed from the outlet lean gas stream and is passed through a Gas
Conditioning Plant to remove CO2. The CO2 stream is then recombined with the
excess lean gas to produce a new lean gas injectant, or is vented, or is directly
injected into user-specified injectors. The methodology implemented here
represents a simplified approach to this complex process. It was determined that
in order to effectively simulate the CGF and the gas conditioning plant, CO2
R5000.0.1 39-609
should be treated as a separate component in the equation of state representation.

Also, the removal of NGL, LPG, and MI from the separator gas is handled through
a simple table lookup.
The major gas sales option is implemented as a part of the gas handling loop
computation in which the separator gas for each member of a well management
level (gathering center, flow station, area, or field) is processed to determine the
reinjection lean gas rates and compositions. The entire process is schematically
shown in Figure 39-2 and described in detail in the following sections.
Figure 39-2: Schematic Diagram of a Gas Handling Loop with the Major Gas Sales
Option
39-610 R5000.0.1
Gas Available for NGL Plant
For each member of a well management level (e.g., Gather Center 1), the
component rates of the separator gas for all wells attached to the level are first
summed up to form the total component rates from which the total gas surface rate
and its composition for the member of the well management level are calculated
(see Box 1 in Figure 39-2). If the gas-lift gas is part of the gas handling loop, the
gas-lift gas rate from the previous timestep (GLGSV) is merged with the produced
gas stream (Box 2). Next, the shrinkage gas rate (GASSKG) is extracted from the
resulting gas stream (Box 3) with the constraint that the shrinkage gas rate should
not be greater than the available produced gas rate. In Box 4, the makeup gas-lift
gas rate (GASGLM), if specified, is added to the remaining gas stream, and the
user-specified first fuel gas (GASFUL) is removed. If the fuel gas rate is less than
the available gas, the current step’s gas lift gas (GASGLG) is removed from the
remaining gas stream and the resulting gas stream will be the gas available for the
NGL plant. In this case, the user-specified makeup gas (GASMKP) is not used in
this step and is the same as the available makeup gas (AVLMKP1) exiting from
Box 4. On the other hand, if the fuel gas rate is larger than the available gas, a
portion of the makeup gas will be used for fuel. In this case, the available gas for
the NGL plant is zero and the gas-lift gas for the current timestep is removed from
the remaining makeup gas to form the available makeup gas (AVLMKP1).
However, if the makeup gas (GASMKP) is not sufficient to satisfy the fuel gas
requirement, an extra makeup gas rate (GSMPFL) is calculated and the gas-lift
gas rate for the current timestep (GASGLG) and the amount of gas available for
the NGL plant are set to zero.
NGL Plant, LPG Plant, and MI Plant
For a member of a well management level, if the major gas sales calculation is
specified by the user and the available gas for the NGL plant is greater than zero,
the gas stream will be processed first in an NGL plant to remove the natural gas
liquid. The composition of the inlet gas stream, y1(i), is the same as the produced
separator gas composition. For the NGL plant, the liquid recovery factor for each
component is tabulated as a function of either a key component mole fraction or
the mole fraction of a key component plus fraction. The mole fraction of a key
component plus fraction is defined as the sum of the mole fractions for the key
component plus higher numbered components in the inlet stream. The rates and
the compositions of the NGL and the outlet gas stream are then calculated.
The outlet gas stream from the NGL plant is then sent through an LPG plant in
which the LPG and the outlet gas stream’s composition and rates are calculated.
The outlet gas stream from this plant is then sent through an MI plant in which the
MI and the outlet gas stream’s composition and rates are calculated. The LPG and
MI plants are modeled the same way as the NGL plant with component liquid
R5000.0.1 39-611
recovery factors expressed as a function of a key component or a key component

plus fraction mole fraction.
The user may specify the capacity of the NGL plant and/or the LPG plant by
entering the maximum feed rate and/or the maximum liquid rate (in surface gas
units) of each plant. If these constraints are in effect, a portion (Stream G1 in
Figure 39-2) of the inlet gas stream will bypass the NGL plant. The rate of stream
G1 is determined by satisfying both the maximum NGL rate (Stream QNGLOT in
Figure 39-2) and the maximum NGL feed rate (Stream QNGLIN) constraints.
Similarly, Stream G2 bypasses the LPG plant and the G2 rate is determined by
honoring both the maximum LPG rate (Stream QLPGOT) and the maximum LPG
feed rate (Stream QLPGIN) constraints. The G1 and G2 streams are then
combined with the outlet gas stream of the MI plant for further processing (see
Figure 39-2).
Fuel Gas #2
The major gas sales option allows some fuel gas (Fuel Gas #2) to be removed
from the outlet gas stream of the MI plant. If this outlet gas stream is larger than
Fuel Gas #2, the remaining lean gas amount (Lean Gas1, see Box 5) is calculated
and the available makeup gas is unchanged (i.e., AVLMKP1 = AVLMKP2).
Otherwise, Lean Gas1 is set to zero and a portion of the available makeup gas
(AVLMKP1) is used for fuel. In this case, a new available makeup gas rate
(AVLMKP2) is calculated.
Sales Gas and Gas Conditioning Plant
In Box 6 of Figure 39-2, a sales gas stream is removed from the Lean Gas1, and
from the AVLMKP2 if the Lean Gas1 rate (excluding the CO2 content, if
applicable) is less than the specified sales gas rate (GASSLS). If a gas
conditioning plant is present, this sales gas stream is processed in the gas
conditioning plant to remove the CO2 component. The CO2 stream is then either
vented, distributed to a number of user-specified gas injectors, or combined with
the remaining lean gas and the available makeup gas (i.e., Lean Gas2 and
AVLMKP3 from Box 6) to form the reinjected lean gas stream (see Box 7).
Lean Gas and MI Injectors
The reinjected lean gas rate and its composition (yreinj(i)) determined from any
member of a well management level is applied to all lean gas injectors (with an
FSTD specification) attached to the member of the well management level.
Similarly, for MI injectors (with an STD or RES specification and no injection
compositions specified) attached to the member of the well management level, the
39-612 R5000.0.1
MI composition determined from the MI plant calculation (xmi(i)) will be used as

the injection composition. The MI rate from the MI plant, however, is not used to
determine the injection rates of the MI injectors. The MI injection rates must be
specified by the user through a QMAX card.
39.10.3 Implementation
The major gas sales option calculation may be declared for any members of a well
management level using a PLANT card. Without the PLANT card, the standard
VIP gas handling loop calculation will be performed. The major gas sales option
may be invoked for some well management levels and not invoked for other
levels. The detailed description for the PLANT card is given in the VIP-
The major gas sales option involves four main items: an NGL plant, an LPG plant,
an MI plant, and gas conditioning. The user has the control of invoking any or all
of the four main items. The NGL plant calculation can be invoked by an
NGLPLANT card followed by an NGL plant table. Similarly, the LPG plant
calculation is invoked by an LPGPLANT card followed by an LPG plant table and
the MI plant calculation is invoked by an MIPLANT card followed by an MI plant
table. The gas conditioning calculation can be declared by a GASCOND card
which also contains a user-specified component number. This component (e.g.,
CO2) will be excluded from the input and the output fuel gas rates. It will also be
removed in the gas conditioning plant during the sales gas calculation and handled
according to the data on the GASCOND card, if the gas conditioning plant
calculation is specified by the user through keyword PLANT on the GASSLS
(sales gas) card. In addition, up to two fuel gas streams may be removed during
the gas handling calculation: one from the produced separator gas stream and the
other from the outlet gas stream of the MI plant. This enhancement requires
modification of the GASFUL (fuel gas) card. The detailed descriptions for all of
the new and modified data are given in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
As in the standard gas handling loop calculation, the reinjected lean gas
composition calculated for a member of a well management level will be used for
FSTD reinjection wells attached to the member. However, if an injection
composition for any well is entered through a YREINJ card, the composition
specified on the YREINJ card will be used as the injection composition. For an
MI injector, the user may specify the well management level for which the
calculated MI composition is to be based by entering keyword GATHER,
FLOSTA, AREA, or FIELD on the INJ card. In this case, a YINJ card for the MI
injector must not be entered. Otherwise, the composition specified on the YINJ
card will be used and the calculated MI composition will be ignored. As
mentioned, a QMAX card for all MI injectors must be entered to specify the MI
injection rate for each well. The MI rates calculated from the gas handling loop
R5000.0.1 39-613
are not used. This modification to the INJ card is also described in the VIP-
The format for the Field Gas Handling Summary output (which will be printed if
keyword FIELD is entered on a PRINT card) is unchanged. If two fuel gas
streams are specified, the fuel gas shown in the summary will be the sum of the
two rates. Also, the reported fuel gas rate excludes the component identified on
the GASCOND card.
The NGL plant, LPG plant, and MI plant feed, liquid, and vapor rates and
compositions are reported as a subset of the separator report (invoked by keyword
SEP on the PRINT card). In addition, the calculated reinjected lean gas
composition is shown in the last column of the MI plant report. Notice that this
information is printed only for the members of the well management levels where
the calculated MI compositions are to be used as the injection compositions of the
MI injectors.
It should be noted that the feed composition for the NGL plant may be different
from the stock tank vapor composition shown in the separator battery report. This
is the case for multiple producer cases with non-uniform production compositions
because the feed composition for the NGL plant is based on the sum of individual
producer’s stock tank gas rates, whereas the stock tank vapor composition in the
separator report is determined by flashing the total molar production rates (i.e.,
sum of all well molar rates) for the separator battery. These two compositions will
be identical only if all producers have the same overall production compositions.
The major gas sales option is allowed only for compositional models and is
available for both IMPES and implicit modes.
39-614 R5000.0.1
39.11 Injection Regions

An injection region is any three-dimensional volume in the model. The maximum
number of non-overlapping injection regions is set by the NIRMX parameter on
the DIM card. Some of the special features of injection regions are:
■ Allow pressure maintenance in each injection region.
■ Enable both gas and water injection with net voidage control.
■ Enable gas project prioritization.
39.11.1 Injectors in Injection Regions

Some of the requirements for injectors in the injection regions are:
■ An injector can be assigned to one region only. If an injector is completed in

more than one region, it must be separated into several injectors.
■ If the user assigns gridblocks to injection regions, but does not explicitly
assign injection wells to injection regions, the program assigns the injection
region for each injector according to the location of the top perforation. If any
injection wells are explicitly assigned to injection regions, then all injection
wells should be.
■ An injector that does not physically exist within a region can still be assigned
to it.
■ Injectors in an injection region may inject water or gas. They can be specified
as an STD, FSTD, RES, or FRES well using the INJ card.
■ An injection well under net voidage control must be specified as an FRES

well. When it is not under voidage control, it may be specified as an STD,
FSTD, or RES injector. An exception to this rule is the forced gas injection
scheme. Forced gas injectors are identified by FRES, but are not voidage
wells.
■ For the FRES injector, the qmax value on the QMAX card is the maximum
injection rate at reservoir conditions.
■ For the FRES gas injector, the injection gas composition used is the same as
that used in the gas reinjection option at the specified well management level.
R5000.0.1 39-615
39.11.2 Producers in Injection Regions

A producer may be completed in more than one region. The program
automatically matches the completion zones for a producer to the corresponding
regions. A producer needs to physically exist in the injection region.
39.11.3 Voidage Replacement

It is possible to do “net voidage” injection in injection regions. Net voidage is
defined as total reservoir production rate minus total reservoir injection rate that is
not under voidage control. The total reservoir injection rate not under voidage
control is the total injection rate at reservoir conditions for all the STD, FSTD, and
RES gas and water injection wells. Two options, ALL and LIQUID on the
IRDIST card, may be used to determine the reservoir production rate.
39.11.4 Pressure Maintenance

It is possible to specify a target pressure for each injection region. The model
attempts to maintain the average region pressure at or near the target, subject to
any injection targets/constraints.
A pressure term, PTERM, defined in the following equation, is used for pressure
maintenance.
exp
⎛ P ref – P avg ⎞
PTERM = ⎜ ---------------------------⎟ (39-32)
⎝ P ref – P targ⎠
where Pref, Ptarg, and exp are user-specified reference pressure, target pressure,
and exponent, respectively. The reference pressure, Pref, must be greater than the
target pressure, Ptarg, and the average pressure, Pavg. The average pressure can be
either the pore volume weighted average or the hydrocarbon pore volume
weighted average pressure.
39.11.5 Distribution of Total Reservoir Injection Rate

The total reservoir injection rate in the region is the product of the user-specified
net voidage factor, the net voidage, and PTERM. Therefore, no injection is done if
the net voidage term is zero or negative. If the average pressure is smaller than the
target pressure, PTERM is greater than one. In such a case, more fluid is injected
with pressure maintenance control than without pressure maintenance control,
causing the pressure to approach the target pressure.
Two options, PROPTN and UNIFORM, are available for distribution of the total
reservoir injection rate to the voidage controlled wells. In the UNIFORM option
(which is the default option), the injection fluid is distributed equally to the
39-616 R5000.0.1
voidage controlled wells that are not constrained by injectivity. For wells
constrained by injectivity, the maximum well injectivities are honored. The
remaining rate then is distributed equally to the rest of the wells. For the PROPTN
option, the injection fluid is distributed proportionally to each net voidage
controlled well according to injectivity. Injectivity is subjected to the maximum
injection rate and pressure constraints.
39.11.6 Target Injection Rates and Additional Source

The injection targets for the field and each injection region may be specified on
the ITARG card. When the injection region option is used, VIP-EXECUTIVE
ignores the ITARG values for the well management levels (gathering center, flow
station, and area).
Source water to the field may be specified using the IRSRCW card. The
maximum water injection to the field is the minimum of the field injection target
and the sum of the field production and specified water source. The procedure to
determine the gas available for injection to the field is discussed in Section 39.9.4.
The maximum gas injection to the field is the minimum of the specified field
injection target and the field available gas. The maximum injection to a region is
the minimum of the injection target for the region and the sum of the well
injectivities. The injection target for each region can be specified as a percent of
the total field target.
The injection region targets are checked first, followed by the field target. If the
total injection rate exceeds the maximum injection, all injection rates in the region
or in the field are decreased proportionally. However, if the calculated well rate is
smaller than the specified well minimum, then the minimum rate is honored. The
remaining well rates are decreased proportionally according to the remaining
target.
A special option, REDIST, is available in the general injection region. When this
option is selected, the extra injection fluid for a region will be redistributed to
other regions if the available amount cannot be fully injected into that injection
region. The injection fluid available for each region is calculated as the maximum
injection rate for the field multiplied by the percentage specified on the IRPCTA
card. The actual fluid injected into the region can be equal to or smaller than the
available amount. The cut back is due to voidage replacement, pressure
maintenance, maximum injection rate for wells in the region, or regional injection
target limitations. In the REDIST option, the difference between the available
amount and the actual amount will be redistributed to the other regions. The
amount distributed into each region is proportional to its injectivity.
R5000.0.1 39-617
39.12 Injection Prioritization

The prioritization of gas injectors is implemented in the “general injection region”
option (Section 39.11). The user can specify any number of gas injection projects
along with their respective priorities in each injection region or at field level. Gas
is injected according to specified priorities. Water can be injected according to
voidage control specified using the general injection region option.
39.12.1 Prioritization of Gas Injection

Gas injection can be prioritized so that gas requirements for a high priority project
(such as miscible injection) are satisfied before allocation of injection gas to a low
priority project (such as immiscible injection).
The total injection rate for the wells in priority 1 projects is calculated first. This
rate is then compared to the field effective target that was calculated earlier
(Section 39.9.6). If it is larger than the effective target, the injection rate for
priority 1 wells is cut back proportionally and no further calculation is done for
the lower priority wells. Otherwise, the effective target is reduced by the total rate
allocated to priority 1 wells. If the new effective target is not zero, then the
process is repeated for the next lower priority.
To properly simulate gas storage, it is suggested that gas storage be assigned as

the lowest priority project. Large QMAX values should be assigned to the gas
storage wells. Therefore, all the gas left can be injected to the storage wells.
The user cannot specify FRES gas injection wells in the prioritization option. In
the “general injection region” option, the FRES well type is defined as a net
voidage injector. To add the capability of injecting gas according to specified
priorities and injecting water according to net voidage, water injection is
calculated after gas injection when the prioritization option is chosen.
The UNIFORM gas injection option is not available when the general injection
region option is used. This restriction also applies to the prioritization option.
39-618 R5000.0.1
39.13 Special Voidage Balance Injection Options
39.13.1 Net Voidage Injection

The voidage replacement option controls the amount of produced fluid replaced
by injected fluid. The standard VIP-EXECUTIVE voidage replacement option
allows the user to specify the well injection rate as a fraction of the production rate
from any well management level. The well injection rate can be either a fraction
of the phase production rate at surface conditions (FSTD) or a fraction of the total
fluid production rate at reservoir conditions (FRES). Some of the shortcomings of
this option are:
■ The user must determine the fractional value injected at each injection well.
■ Voidage replacement is based on total voidage; therefore it is not possible to

do voidage balance injection if more than one phase is being injected at a well
management level.
If both water and gas injection are taking place at a well management level, net
voidage injection may be more applicable. Net voidage is defined as the
difference between the total reservoir production rate and the total reservoir
injection rate for the phase not under net voidage control. For example, if a fixed
quantity of water is being injected, the gas injection required to maintain voidage
balance is the difference between total production and water injection.
39.13.2 Injection Targets and Guide Rates

Injection targets can be specified for different well management levels (INJTAR
card). The model calculates the injection rates for the injectors under voidage or
net voidage control. The injection target for the higher well management level is
allocated to the lower level according to its guide rate (INJGR card). The fraction
of the lower level injection rate to the upper level injection rate is the guide rate
for that lower well management level divided by the total guide rate under the
higher well management level. The input injection rate can be either a reservoir
rate, a surface rate, a fraction of surface phase production rate, a fraction of
voidage, or a fraction of net voidage. The guide rate can be either a rate, voidage,
or net voidage. If the well guide rate is not specified, the well injectivity is used;
however, it is constrained by the maximum well rate, bottom-hole pressure, and
tubinghead pressure.
The user can specify the injection target for an area as a fraction of its voidage.
The program calculates the area injection rate from area voidage and input
fraction. The calculated area injection rate can be allocated to each flow station
and the fluids from the flow station can be allocated to the gathering center
according to the respective voidage. The injection rate at the gathering center then
can be allocated to the injectors according to the well injectivities. If both water
R5000.0.1 39-619
and gas are injected at the same well management level, then the net voidage
option is better for balancing fluid injection.
39.13.3 Calculation of Maximum Well Injection Rates

The well injection target is calculated from the upper (FIELD) to the lower
(AREA) well management levels. First, the injection target at the highest level is
distributed to the lower level groups under it. When the injection target specified
at the lower level is more than at the higher level, the injection rates for the lower
levels are cut back proportionally if injection targets are specified. If the injection
targets are not specified, the targets are set to zero. When the total injection target
at the lower level is less than the injection target at the upper level, the difference
between these two will be distributed to the lower level groups where targets are
not specified. The distribution is proportional to its guide rate. If the guide rate for
a lower level group is not specified, then the total guide rates and the total
injection targets under that level will be used. If the well guide rate is not
specified, the well injectivity will be used; however, it will be constrained by the
input maximum injection rate, bottom-hole pressure, and tubinghead pressure.
39.13.4 Calculation of Voidage and Net Voidage

The injection rate or guide rate is based on the total or net voidage for voidage
replacement. The program only allows for one phase (water or gas) under net
voidage control. The rates and pressures for the producers are calculated first,
followed by the injectors. The water or gas injection rates are calculated,
depending on which injection phase is not under net voidage control. If the net
voidage option is used for the gas injectors, then the program calculates the water
injection rates before the gas injection rates. The difference in total production
rate and total water injection rate is the net voidage for that well management
level. If the water injectors are under net voidage control, then the program
calculates the rates for gas injectors before the rates for water injectors.
39.13.5 Using Net Voidage Injection

When the net voidage replacement option is used, several criteria should be
followed:
■ Only one phase (water or gas) can be in net voidage control, not both. An
error message is printed and the simulation run stops if both phases are under
net voidage control.
■ When using the INJTAR cards, do not mix injection targets at reservoir
conditions with those at surface conditions for different well management
levels.
39-620 R5000.0.1
■ The injection target for the upper well levels is allocated to the lower levels. If
the user specifies the injection targets for several levels, then they must be
specified at the same conditions (reservoir or surface).
■ The RSTD and FSTD options in the INJTAR cards are for surface conditions.
The RRES, FRES, and FRESN options are for reservoir conditions.
■ For different injection fluids, the user is allowed to use different conditions in
the INJTAR card. For example, the gas injection targets can be specified at
surface conditions and the water injection targets can be specified at reservoir
conditions.
■ The units for guide rate are the same as those for injection target.
■ For the default well guide rate, well injectivity at surface conditions is used if
the well defined in the INJ card is at surface conditions. If the well is defined
at reservoir conditions, the well injectivity at reservoir conditions is used. The
GURT option in the INJGR card has the same units as the injection target. For
the VOID and VOIN options, the calculated total and net voidage are used
directly in allocation of injection targets.
R5000.0.1 39-621
39.14 Gas-Lift
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, gas-lift is used with the tubinghead pressure (THP) option
for three-phase producers. The gas-lift gas allocated to a well is added to that
well’s produced gas to derive the effective gas-liquid or gas-oil ratio for the well.
This ratio, along with the well’s liquid or oil rate, water cut, and THP constraint, is
used to look up the flowing bottom-hole pressure in the wellbore hydraulics table
(BHPTAB data). Gas-lift is otherwise transparent to the user; i.e., the gas-lift rate
is not included in daily gas production. The gas-lift option can be utilized only for
wells for which THP data have been entered.
A well’s gas-lift gas rate can be entered with one of two options on the QLIFT
card. A positive gas-lift gas rate causes a constant allocation of that rate to the
well. A negative value (any negative value is sufficient) causes invocation of an
automatic allocation procedure for the well. In predictive well management, all
wells in a gathering center with gas-lift are automatically eligible for gas-lift.
Here, a negative value of gas-lift gas rate has no significance. To prevent a well
from becoming eligible for gas-lift, a zero gas-lift gas rate must be specified.
Note that the gas-lift gas rate is calculated only during the first iteration of each
timestep. This calculated rate then is used for subsequent iterations.
39.14.1 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Optimal Table Method

The automatic allocation option and related data are entered with the QLIFTA
card. There are two basic allocation options with several variations of each one.
The first is referred to as OPTTAB, or optimal table. The user provides the
simulator with a table of gas-liquid or gas-oil ratio as a function of water cut,
liquid, or oil rate, and possibly pressure (GLRTAB card). A table lookup, based on
the well’s inflow performance characteristics, is performed to obtain the well’s
gas-liquid or gas-oil ratio. This ratio then is used in the table lookup for the
flowing bottom-hole pressure.
Variations on the OPTTAB option relate to handling of the gas-lift gas shortage.
The user specifies on the QLIFTA card the amount of gas-lift gas available for
automatic allocation. If the amount allocated for all the wells on gas-lift exceeds
the available gas, some mechanism must be employed to cut back the gas-lift gas
rates. If no special option is specified, the program simply stops allocating gas-lift
gas to subsequent wells. The TABGLE option indicates that gas-lift is to be
removed from wells based on gas-lift efficiency (oil rate/lift rate). The TABWC
option indicates that gas-lift is to be removed from wells based on water cut. The
TABSCL option indicates that gas-lift is to be scaled back from all wells.
39-622 R5000.0.1
39.14.2 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Performance Curve Method

The second basic allocation option is referred to as PFMCRV, or performance
curve. The gas-liquid/gas-oil ratio table is not entered with this option. Instead, an
internal table is generated and user-supplied data (PFMCRV card) determine the
point at which the gas-lift gas rate is found. Options also are available to handle
over-allocation of gas-lift gas.
The PFMCRV option enables the user to calculate gaslift gas rates based on the
lift efficiencies of the wells, where lift efficiency is defined as the incremental oil
produced per increment of gaslift gas. Usage of this option requires that the
BHPTAB wellbore hydraulics tables have been input with sufficient range to
cover all of the oil, water, and total gas (produced reservoir gas plus gaslift gas)
rates that may be encountered with the gaslift calculations. A word of caution
should be noted here that the wellbore hydraulics algorithm will extrapolate
outside of the table range, if necessary.
In order to evaluate lift efficiency, a set of operating points are first calculated for
the well. These operating points are for gaslift gas rates approximately log-
linearly spaced between .2 MMSCF/D and 15.0 MMSCF/D, possibly adjusted by
the maximum GOR/GLR value in the specified BHPTAB table. A maximum of 9
operating points will be attempted. These operating points are the intersections
between the PI line (oil rate versus bottomhole pressure) and the lift curves (oil
rate versus bottomhole pressure for the various gaslift gas rates). See Figures 39-3
and 39-4.
These operating points define the performance curve for the well, for this point in
time, and the derivative of the curve is the lift efficiency. In order to facilitate the
interpolation between points and the evaluation of the derivative there, a
logarithmic function is fit through a subset of the pointcs. The function is:
2
Q o = A + B × [ ln ( GL ) ] + C × [ ln ( GL ) ]
The procedure starts by fitting a curve through the first 3 operating points.
(Special cases of less than 3 operating points will be described later). If the
efficiency at the third operating point is higher than the desired efficiency and if
there are additional operating points at higher gaslift gas rates, the curve fit will be
repeated for points 2, 3, and 4, and the efficiency calculated at point 4 and tested
against the desired efficiency. This process will be repeated (points 3, 4, 5; then 4,
5, 6; etc.) until an efficiency less than the desired efficiency is found or until there
are no additional operating points. At this time the equation can be solved for the
gaslift gas rate which yields the desired efficiency. If necessary, this curve will be
extrapolated outside the range of the last set of points used.
Three special cases that are accounted for are as follows:
R5000.0.1 39-623
1. If a well can make its QMAX at one of the gaslift gas rates, that point and all
higher lift rate points are discarded. If the desired lift efficiency exists within
any of the remaining points, the required lift rate is calculated. Otherwise, its
lift rate is set to the lowest lift rate point at which it could make QMAX.
Figure 39-3: Intersection of the Inflow Performance Curve (-PI) and the Lift Curves
for the Various Gaslift Gas Rates.
39-624 R5000.0.1
Figure 39-4: Calculated Gaslift Performance Curve.
2. If only two operating points are found, the following logarithmic function is
fit through them:
Q o = A + B × ln ( GL )
If the desired efficiency exists between these two points, the required lift gas
rate is calculated. However, this curve will not be extrapolated. If the desired
efficiency is at a lift rate less than the lower operating point, the lift rate at the
lower operating point will be used. Also, if the desired efficiency is at a lift
rate higher than the higher operating point, the lift rate at the higher operating
point will be used.
3. If only one operating point is found, the "total" efficiency at the point (total oil
rate divided by the lift gas rate) is compared to the desired efficiency. If the
total efficiency is greater, the lift gas rate at that point is used of the next
timestep. If the total efficiency is less, then the lift gas rate is set to zero.
This process is repeated for each well, resulting in the total lift gas which is
required in order that each well will operate at the desired efficiency. If this total
lift gas requirement is less than the maximum available, these gaslift gas rates will
be used for the next timestep. However, if the required gas exceeds what is
R5000.0.1 39-625
available, then there are several options as to how to reduce the required gas to
less than or equal to what is available.
There are two basic paths for reducing the total gaslift gas volume requirements.
These paths are; 1) efficiency scaling, and 2) the combined sequence of "hit-list" -
uniform scale-back and shut-in of low "total" efficiency wells.
1. Efficiency scaling (keyword EFFSCL). Using the previously computed

operating points and curve-fits for the wells, a new, higher efficiency can be
iterated for such that all capable wells are operating at the new efficiency and
the total lift gas requirement is less than or equal to the lift gas available.
2. User-specified "Hit-List"
The user can specify an ordered list of wells which will have their lift gas
turned off, one by one, until either the gas availability is reached or the list of
wells is exhausted. When a well has its lift gas turned off, the model will
decide whether the well can flow or not (based on the solution GOR and the
lift curve data).
3. Uniform Scale-Back
After exhausting the hit list wells, if there is still a gas shortage then all of the
wells will have their lift gas scaled back by whatever percentage it takes to
reach the gas availability (subject to a user-input maximum allowable
scaleback). The model also honors an additional set of user-input minimum
and maximum allowable GLR’s for the scaleback step.
4. Shut-in Low "Total" Efficiency Wells
If too large a scaleback is required (i.e., the required scaleback calculated in

Step 3 exceeds the user-input maximum allowable scaleback), the model will
only scale by the user-input value and then start shutting in wells after that.
The wells will be shut in on the basis of total oil rate divided by total lift gas
rate (the "old" method).
Additional information is packed into the Production Well Summary for wells that
are using the PFMCRV option for automatic gaslift gas rate allocation. Since the
print line is completely full, the single column between CUM LIFT GAS and
LIFT STATUS is used for an additional status code. (The lift status will be
PFMCRV). The codes are as follows:
0 - no potential operating points were found.
1 - only one potential operating point was found.
2 - only two potential operating points were found.
E - three or more points were found, but it was necessary to

extrapolate outside their range for the required lift
efficiency.
39-626 R5000.0.1
(blank) - three or more points were found, and the required

efficiency was found within their range.
Wells for which at least two potential operating points were found an for which a
non-zero gaslift gas rate was determined, a second line is printed containing the
incremental gaslift efficiency for the well.
39.14.3 Well Status of Wells on Gas-Lift

If a well is on gas-lift, one of the following indicators appears in the LIFT
STATUS column of the production well summary:
SPEC specified, a positive qlift value has been supplied.
GLRTAB optimal GLR table used to allocate lift gas rate; a

negative qlift value has been supplied.
*GLE gas-lift removed from the well due to violation of

minimum gas-lift efficiency constraint. The rate
originally is calculated using optimal GLR table.
*DEC gas-lift decreased from the well because of not enough

available gas-lift gas. The rate originally was calculated
using the optimal GLR table.
The gas-lift rate is used by the program only to determine the flowing bottom-hole
pressure that corresponds to the user-specified tubinghead pressure limit. Gas-lift
is otherwise transparent to the user; that is, the gas- lift rate is not included in daily
gas production. Gas-lift can be used only on wells for which a THP card is
entered.
R5000.0.1 39-627
39.15 Water Pumps

Groups of water injectors commonly are controlled by the same pump system,
especially in offshore situations, in which a large number of injectors often are
driven from one pump system on an offshore platform. The discharge pressures of
these pump systems vary (usually decreasing) with flow rate delivered. Therefore,
it is inappropriate to assume that water injectors coupled to such a pump system
operate at a constant tubinghead pressure independent of the total flow rate
delivered by the pump system.
Water injectors connected to a common injection pump system can be modeled

accurately in VIP-EXECUTIVE by using the water injector pump system option.
Injectors connected to a common pump system must be defined within the same
gathering center. This gathering center then is assigned to a table of pump
discharge pressure (THP) versus flow rate using the IPUMP card. Finally, pump
characteristics may be defined using the PMPTAB card. The user may define
multiple pump tables and assign more than one gathering center to the same pump
table in much the same way the bottom-hole pressure tables are used.
The maximum number of pump flow rates and pump discharge pressure values is
specified using the NPMPV parameter on the DIM card. In addition, the
maximum number of pump tables is specified using the NPMPMX parameter on
the DIM card.
39-628 R5000.0.1
39.16 Surface Facility Model
39.16.1 Introduction
The Surface Facility Model (TSFM) extends the calculation of hydrocarbon
recovery volumes beyond the standard multi-stage surface separator conditions.
The liquid from the last stage of the separator is further processed through an oil
stabilizer, and any additional liberated gas from the stabilizer is added to the gas
from the surface separators for input into a gas processing plant. Recovery factors
are input for each component in order to calculate liquid recovery volumes, and
subsequently the dry gas volume out of the plant.
gas
gas rate
gas
plant
gas
separator
battery gas
oil
oil
stabilizer
H/C/well stream
oil
stock
oil rate tank
39.16.2 Oil Stabilizer

Hydrocarbon liquid recovery factors are input for each component for the oil
stabilizer calculations. The liberated gas from the stabilizer is added to the gas
input stream to the gas plant. A new liquid Z-factor is computed for the stabilized
liquid, and the resulting well oil rate is then calculated. Optionally, the liquids
recovered from the gas plant can be added to the oil rate from the stabilizer,
resulting in a total composite liquid rate for the well.
R5000.0.1 39-629
39.16.3 Gas Plant

Another set of liquid recovery factors are input for each component for the gas
plant calculations, along with the molar densities for each component. The molar
densities are used to calculate the recovered liquid volume of each component.
These recovered liquid volumes are reported in the TSFM Surface Facility Model
Report, along with the various stream rates, cumulatives, and compositions.
Output for this report is controlled by the PRINT WELLS card.
39.16.4 Reported Volumes and Ratios

The well gas rate is defined as the total gas inlet to the gas plant. The default well
oil rate is defined as the oil volume from the oil stabilizer. Optionally, the oil rate
can be redefined as the sum of the oil from the stabilizer plus the recovered liquids
from the gas plant, resulting in the composite liquid volume. All well and group
constraints apply at these points. Gas rate targeting can optionally be based on
either the inlet gas rate to the plant (default) or the outlet dry gas rate from the
plant.
39-630 R5000.0.1
39.17 Automatic Workovers
39.17.1 Objectives
The automatic workover feature in VIP-EXECUTIVE has the following
objectives:
■ All field workovers that are meaningful in the simulator are identified and
performed.
■ The scheduling of workovers reflects prioritization and facility availability

similar to those in the field.
■ All appropriate work in a well is done at the same time.
39.17.2 Types of Workovers

Implementation of this feature accommodates the following types of workovers:
■ Oil perf — opening of perforation(s) to increase oil production.
■ Gas perf — opening of perforation(s) to increase gas production.
■ Water perf — opening of perforation(s) to increase water production.
■ Gas shutoff — closing of perforation(s) to decrease gas production.
■ Water shutoff — closing of perforation(s) to decrease water production.
All workover types will be performed on a well subject to the following

restrictions:
■ Only one oil perf, gas perf, or water perf can be performed.
■ Gas perf and gas shutoff cannot be performed simultaneously.
■ Water perf and water shutoff cannot be performed simultaneously.
R5000.0.1 39-631
39.17.3 Automatic Workover Algorithm
Workover Rigs
Workovers are performed by rigs. Rigs may be assigned to any member in a well
management level: gathering center (GC), flow station (FS), area, or field. A rig
may be used at any gathering center within that well management member. For
example, a rig assigned to the field may perform a workover at any gathering
center, while a rig assigned to a gathering center may perform workovers in that
gathering center only.
Defining rigs involves specifying the number of available rigs, the time required
to complete a workover, and the time required to move a rig from one gathering
center to another (when necessary). Additional input allows any number of rigs to
be removed from a member in a well management level or for a new set of rigs to
totally replace a previously specified set.
At a time when workovers are to be performed, the availability of a rig depends on

when the rig completed its most recent workover, the time required to complete a
workover, and, possibly, the time required to move the rig to another gathering
center. The rig must be able to complete the workover before the current time to
be selected to do the workover. That is, the following condition must be satisfied:
CURTIM ≥ AVLTIM + WRKTIM ( + MVTIM ),
where CURTIM is current time, AVLTIM is time at which the rig is available,
WRKTIM is time required to complete a workover, and MVTIM is time needed to
move a rig, if necessary. The only exception to this rule is that a rig is immediately
available to perform its first workover.
Wells for Workovers
Only wells defined as producers are considered for automatic workovers. The
initial criteria for a well to be eligible for any workover are that:
■ A rig is available at the well’s gathering center, flow station, area, or field.
■ Enough time has elapsed since the last workover was performed on the well.
This elapsed time between workovers is user-specified data.
A well is eligible for a perforation-opening workover if it has at least one

openable perforation. A perforation is considered openable if it currently is
inactive (status OFF on the FPERF card or previously closed off) and if it satisfies
limits discussed in the next section.
A well is eligible for a perforation-shutoff workover if it has at least one shutable

perforation. A perforation is considered shutable if it currently is active (status
39-632 R5000.0.1
ON) and satisfies limits discussed in the next section. Additionally, the user may
specify a gas-oil ratio minimum (water-cut minimum) that the well must satisfy to
be eligible for a gas-shutoff workover (water-shutoff workover).
Note that a shut-in well is eligible for opening and shutoff workovers. The well
must have produced at some point before being shut in.
The concept of having all perforation operations occur during the workover
process requires certain data restrictions to the existing well and perforation limit
options. The PRFLIM option of checking individual perforations for GOR and
water cut is not allowed. The PLUG option within the GLIMIT and WLIMIT data
is not allowed, since PLUG closes the worst-offending perforations. The only
GLIMIT/WLIMIT options allowed are SHUTIN and LIMIT.
Doing the Workover
The number of workovers performed during a timestep depends on rig and well
availability. As long as a candidate well exists and a rig is available to the
gathering center to which the well belongs, the workover will be performed. The
type of workover performed is a direct function of user input: user-supplied data
define the relative number of each type of workover to perform. For example, let
values A, B, and C define the number of openings, gas shutoffs, and water
shutoffs, respectively.
Example: A=5 , B=2 , C=3
The first 5 openings will be performed, then 2 gas shutoffs, then 3 water shutoffs,
then 5 openings, etc.
The first 4 gas shutoffs will be performed, then 1 water shutoff, then 4 gas
shutoffs, etc.
Only gas shutoffs are performed.
The count for each workover type is not reset each time workovers are performed.
From the first example, if only three opening workovers are to be performed
during the first set of workovers, then the next time workovers are performed, two
opening workovers will be performed, followed by two gas shutoffs.
The choice of wells on which the workovers are performed is based on the benefit
functions. Each of the three lists of candidate wells is sorted based on the
appropriate benefit function values. (Note that a well may be in more than one
list.) The top well in the appropriate list then is selected. If a rig is available, all
workover types for which the well is a candidate are performed. All workovers are
R5000.0.1 39-633
assumed to be successful unless a user-supplied failure rate is in effect. In this

case, every n’th workover fails. The rig is still considered unavailable for the
designated period of time, but the well remains a candidate. The failure also does
not count against the relative number of workovers to perform.
39.17.4 Frequency of Workover Calculations

When the workover feature is used with the PWM option, workovers are
performed at the beginning of each timestep in which the PWM calculation of
rates will be done. In addition, the user may request that workovers be performed
more frequently. At the end of this non-PWM timestep, rates will be checked
against user-specified tolerances to determine whether the timestep should be
repeated with PWM.
When the PWM option is not in use, workovers will be performed at user-
specified intervals.
39.17.5 Data Modifications

Special data input is required to use the automatic workover feature. Users should
consult the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual for details.
39-634 R5000.0.1
39.18 Predictive Well Management (PWM)

During the prediction phase of a simulation study, the reservoir engineer generally
does not have the individual well rates and the related production and
development plans for the field. However, the engineer may have an estimate of
the total field production rate for one or more phases (oil and gas). In addition, the
facility size and capacity constraints for some of the facilities (such as the water
treatment plant) may be known. The engineer may not be able to specify
individual well production (or injection) rates, but may want to specify certain
guidelines to determine the production profile for the future. These guidelines
may be:
■ Always produce from a certain area of the field or from a specified set of
wells.
■ Produce from the lowest to the highest gas-oil ratio (GOR) well in the gas cap.
■ Produce from the lowest to the highest water-cut well in the area near the oil-
water contact.
The PWM modules in VIP-EXECUTIVE use the following information to

determine production rates for individual wells in the field for the prediction
period:
■ The fluid rate targets/constraints at various levels of well management

(gathering center, flow station, area, field).
■ The THP constraint for wells.
■ The availability of artificial lift methods, such as pumps and gas-lift.
■ The governing conditions for the prediction phase of the simulation study,
such as minimum well rate, maximum GOR, etc.
There are two PWM options in VIP-EXECUTIVE: NEW and MGOR.
39.18.1 What is Predictive Well Management?

During the prediction phase of a simulation study, individual well production rates
generally are unknown. In such a case, the engineer has the following options:
■ Specify future production rate for each well in the field, or
■ Allow the simulator to calculate well production rates on the basis of well and
facility data.
In general, it is difficult to determine future well production rates from the

historical data. PWM is a method for determining the THP and production rates
R5000.0.1 39-635
for a group of wells under certain objectives/constraints specified by the user.

Some examples of these objectives could be:
■ Maximize oil production
■ Maximize (or minimize) gas production
■ Minimize water production and water-cut
■ Maximize (or minimize) the number of producers.
The PWM algorithm allows the engineer to simulate a variety of development

strategies, then compare them.
39.18.2 Basic Definitions
Pressure Systems
Well production rates are generally unknown for the production phase of a
simulation study. However, the probable range of tubinghead pressures for a well
can usually be estimated. A "pressure system" corresponds to the tubinghead
pressure for a well. In the NEW option, the user can specify any number of
pressure systems for each well. In the MGOR option, only two pressure systems
exist: the low pressure system (default name is SYS1) and the high pressure
system (default name is SYS2). The program determines to which pressure
system each well flows and at what rates.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE each well is connected to a gathering center in the well

management hierarchy. The pressure systems are therefore defined at the
gathering center level. Each gathering center may have one or more of the
pressure systems. Targets can be specified for each phase (oil, gas and water) at
each well management level (gathering center, flow station, area and field), as
well as for each pressure system.
Artificial Lift Methods
In many fields, artificial lift techniques are used to enable low productivity wells
to flow. During the history match period the engineer has a priori knowledge of
wells on artificial lift. During the prediction phase of a study, however, the
following questions must be answered:
■ Should this well be produced using artificial lift?
■ If so, what type of lift should be used?
■ Which pressure system should be used for connecting artificial lift?
39-636 R5000.0.1
■ What is the best distribution of wells to utilize available resources (such as

gaslift)?
■ How does artificial lift impact facility size at various well management
levels?
Some of the commonly used artificial lift methods in the field are gaslift, sucker
rod pumps and downhole submersible pumps. VIP-EXECUTIVE can simulate
only gaslift at present. In the NEW option, gaslift may be available at one or more
pressure systems in a gathering center and it is not necessary that gaslift be
available at all gathering centers. The MGOR option restricts gaslift to the low
pressure system only. Wells on gaslift are automatically connected to the low
pressure system.
Benefit Functions (NEW Option)
When the total production rate at any well management level exceeds the user-
specified target, there are two options available to reduce the production rate:
■ Shut some of the wells to meet the target, or
■ Cut production from some or all wells to meet the target.
In the first case, the model requires a set of rules to determine which wells could
be shut-in. Benefit functions are a convenient way to determine the order in which
wells could be shut-in. Similarly, benefit functions can be used to determine the
order in which wells are first opened to flow.
A benefit function is an equation with the following characteristics:
■ It is used for creating a sorted list of wells,
■ It is based on some combination of well parameters such as phase rates, GOR

and water cut,
■ It can be used to exclude (or include) wells with specific characteristics such
as:
❑ Wells in a specific area of the field (such as the gas cap),
❑ Wells with high GOR or high water-cut.
The user will have the option of choosing one of the following equations to
calculate the benefit function:
BF = PM × PA × ( A × Q o + B × GOR + C × WCUT + D × GLGOR ) ,
BF = PM × PA × ( A + B × Q g + C × Q o + D × Q w + E × Q glg )
⁄ ( F + G × Q g + H × Q o + I × Q w + J × Q glg ) , or
R5000.0.1 39-637
B D F
BF = PM × PA × ( Q o + A ) × ( GOR + C ) × ( WCUT + E )
H
× ( GLGOR + G )
where:
PM Producing mechanism weighting factor for the well,
PA Producing area weighting factor for the well,
Qo Oil production rate for the well, STB/D (STCM/D),
Qg Gas production rate for the well, MSCF/D (SCM/D),
Qw Water production rate for the well, STB/D (STCM/D),
Qglg Gaslift gas production rate for the well, MSCF/D (SCM/
D),
GOR Gas-oil ratio for the well, SCF/STB (SCM/STCM),
WCUT Water cut for the well, fraction,
GLGOR Gaslift gas-oil ratio for the well, SCF/STB (SCM/

STCM),
A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H,
I, and J User defined coefficients.
Total Incremental Gas-Oil Ratio (MGOR Option)
The total incremental gas-oil ratio (TIGOR) for a well at point i on its generated
production curve is defined as:
( Q g + Q glg ) – ( Q g + Q glg )
i i–1
TIGOR i = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (39-33)
Qo – Qo
i i–1
where:
Q gi Formation gas produced at point i,
Q glgi Gaslift gas used at point i,
39-638 R5000.0.1
Q oi Oil produced at point i,
Q gi – 1 Formation gas produced at point i-1,
Q glgi – 1 gaslift gas used at point i-1,
Q oi – 1 oil produced at point i-1.
Marginal Gas-Oil Ratio (MGOR Option)
The marginal gas-oil ratio (MGOR) is the TIGOR value above which no
production is added. The MGOR is computed for each entity in each well
management level (gathering center, flow station, area and field). In addition,
values are computed for the high pressure system, the low pressure system (all
wells) and the low pressure system (gaslifted wells only).
39.18.3 Algorithm for NEW Option

The following is the stepwise description of the NEW option.
Step 0 - Determination of Flow Capacity
The production rate of a well depends on its THP. The possible flow rates for a
well depend on the number of THPs (or pressure systems) to which it can flow. In
addition, a well may be able to use artificial lift methods. Therefore, a well may
have more than one set of possible flow rates under appropriate conditions. The
first step in the NEW option consists of determining all such possible flow rates
for a well.
The user-specified data are used to determine the eligible THP values and
artificial lift methods for each well. The inflow performance curve for the well is
determined using the perforation data. The outflow performance is determined
using the user-supplied tabular data relating bottomhole pressure (BHP) and THP.
The flow rate at a given set of conditions is determined from the intersection of
inflow and outflow performance curves. This calculation is repeated for each
eligible pressure system and artificial lift method for the well.
Step 1 - Hydraulic Categorization
At the end of the above step, a well could flow to more than one pressure system
and may have rates using one or more lift methods. A set of rules is used to select
the most appropriate pressure system for each well. This process is termed
"hydraulic categorization". The categories represent "bins" into which wells
would be sorted based on
R5000.0.1 39-639
■ a well’s ability to produce at the minimum level of the "bin",
■ the inability to produce at the minimum level of the next higher "bin" and
■ the available of necessary facilities such as artificial lift.
The following rules are used to determine the hydraulic category of each well:
■ The category depends on the ability of a well to flow above a certain (user-
specified) minimum rate. This minimum rate could be either oil rate or gas
rate.
■ The category is equal to the highest pressure system to which a well (without
lift) can flow above the minimum rate.
■ If a well cannot be categorized without lift, it is assigned to category

"mustlift".
■ The category for a well can be fixed by the user, but the well production rate
must be above the minimum rate.
It is expected that an artificial lift method would increase the production rate for a
well (at a fixed THP). Therefore, a well is considered ineligible for artificial lift if
the incremental oil production rate "(lifted - non-lifted)/non-lifted" is less than a
user-specified threshold. The default value of this threshold is five percent.
At the end of this step, each well is assigned a category number. It should be noted
that a well can flow into any pressure system at or below its category, i.e., a well
categorized to flow to a high pressure system is still eligible to flow to a low
pressure system. The actual pressure system to which a well would flow is
determined in the next step.
Step 2 - Well Assignment
In this step, wells are assigned to a specific pressure system and lift method (if
eligible). The well assignment is based on the category of the well and the user-
specified data. Multiple passes can be made in this step to selectively assign wells
to a specific pressure system at a specific well management level. The following
data must be specified by the user for each pass:
■ Benefit function type and the appropriate coefficients.
■ Pressure system to be filled.
■ Eligible well categories.
■ Highest well management level to check targets.
During each pass, the following sequence of events takes place:
39-640 R5000.0.1
1. A list of eligible wells is made. A well is eligible for assignment if
❑ It is currently not assigned,
❑ It is in an eligible category for this pass, and
❑ If its water-cut, gas-cut ratio and gas-liquid ratio are below the user-
specified values for this pass. These cutoff values are optional.
2. The benefit function for each eligible well is then calculated. The user can
specify a different benefit function for each pass.
3. The well list is sorted on the basis of the benefit function.
4. Wells are brought on production until the well list is exhausted or any
appropriate target is met at the specified well management level. If a target is
met, one of the three available options specified by the user is used to reduce
the rate to be equal to the target. The three options are:
❑ Scale back all rates by the same factor to exactly meet the target.
❑ Shut-in wells (and scale the last well) to exactly meet the target.
❑ Use an averaging technique such that the rates of the highest rate wells are
reset to an average rate to meet the target.
In the "shut-in" and "average" options, the well is not truly shut-in (such as shut-in
due to minimum rate, maximum GOR constraints). It will be eligible for
assignment in all subsequent passes and timesteps.
At the end of this step, either the production targets at the specified well
management levels are exactly met or all eligible wells are assigned. Since targets
are not checked at any higher well management level, one or more of them may
have been violated. In addition, it is possible that some targets at the lower levels
are not met and eligible wells have not been assigned.
Step 3 - Shut-in/Scale-back of Wells
This step is used to reduce production at those well management levels where the
targets have been violated. Multiple passes can be made during this step to select a
specific phase at a desired well management level. The user must specify the
following data for each pass:
■ Benefit function type and the appropriate coefficients.
■ Shut-in or scale-back option.
■ The pressure system entity (or the entire well management level) to be
checked.
■ Well management level.
R5000.0.1 39-641
■ Phase to be checked.
During each pass, the following sequence of events takes place:
1. It is determined if the target has been exceeded for the specified phase for
each member at the specified well management level.
2. If the shut-in option is used, wells are shut-in in the benefit function order
until the rate is equal to the target.
3. If the scale-back option is used, all eligible wells are scaled back
proportionally to meet the target.
The target must be exceeded by a fraction greater than the tolerance (default value
is 0.05 for all phases at all well management levels) for any remedial action to
take place.
At the end of this step, all user specified targets are compared with the actual
production rates. If any target is being violated, a warning message is printed. The
user can specify the action if such an event occurs. The possible choices are to
stop the run (after writing a restart) or continue the run after printing the warning
message.
39.18.4 Algorithm for MGOR Option

The production rate of a well depends on its limiting tubinghead pressure (THP),
as well as whether any artificial lift methods are available. In the MGOR option
two THP limits may be assigned to each well: a low pressure (LP) limit and a high
pressure (HP) limit. A well is considered to be flowing to the LP pressure system
if its rate was determined using the LP THP limit. Similarly, a well flows to the
HP pressure system if its rate was determined using the HP THP limit. Gaslift is
the only artificial lift method available in this option. Wells on gaslift flow to the
LP pressure system only; gaslift is not available in the HP pressure system.
The inflow performance curve for each well is determined using the perforation
data. The outflow performance is determined using the user-supplied tabular data
relating bottomhole pressure (BHP) and THP. The flow rate at a given set of
conditions is calculated from the intersection of the inflow and outflow
performance curves.
Generation of Well Performance Curve Points
For each production well:
1. Calculate the flow rates at its HP THP limit if the well is eligible to flow to the
HP pressure system. Calculate the flow rates at four additional points (20%,
40%, 60%, and 80% of HP THP limit oil rate). If the gas-oil ratio (GOR) of
the 20% point is within ten percent of the GOR of the HP THP limit point
39-642 R5000.0.1
(i.e., the well is not rate sensitive), discard these points: they are not needed in
the subsequent calculations. The well is considered incapable of flowing to
the HP system if its water-cut at the HP THP limit exceeds the user-specified
water-cut limit.
2. Calculate the flow rates at its LP THP limit if the well is eligible to flow to the
LP pressure system. If the well is rate sensitive (rate sensitive in the HP
pressure system or the GOR at the LP THP limit point is not within ten
percent of the GOR at the HP THP limit point), calculate the flow rates at four
additional points between the oil rates corresponding to the HP THP limit and
the LP THP limit. The well is considered incapable of flowing to the LP
system if its water-cut at the LP THP limit exceeds the user-specified water-
cut limit.
3. If the well is eligible for gaslift, calculate the flow rates at its LP THP limit
with gaslift. The amount of gaslift gas injected is computed using the
performance curve algorithm with the lift efficiency being either user-
supplied or table-derived. If the fixed gaslift gas rate option is used, no other
point is generated. The well is either on gaslift at this corresponding rate or
not on gaslift. If the variable gaslift gas rate option is used four additional
points are generated. These points correspond to successively smaller
amounts of gaslift gas.
Note that a well will be placed on gaslift only if its lifted oil rate satisfies the
user-specified minimum incremental benefit due to gaslift and the water-cut
does not exceed the user-specified water-cut limit. If these requirements are
not satisfied, the offending point will not be included in the well performance
curve.
4. The lift efficiency used in the gaslift gas calculations under the performance
curve option is determined in one of two ways:
❑ User-specified value, or
❑ User-specified table of water-cut versus efficiency. The water-cut for the

well is the value determined at the LP THP limit point.
Generation of the TIGOR Versus QO Curve for Each Well
As defined previously, the total incremental gas-oil ratio (TIGOR) is the slope of
each segment of total gas rate (QG + QGLG) versus oil rate (QO) from the well
performance curve. The MGOR option utilizes the TIGOR versus QO curve for
each well to determine the well’s rates at increasing values of TIGOR. The
TIGOR versus QO curve is generated as follows:
■ Define the TIGOR value at the first point as the GOR of the first point on the
well performance curve.
R5000.0.1 39-643
■ Compute the TIGOR value at each subsequent point as the slope of (QG +
QGLG) versus QO between this point and the previous point on the well
performance curve.
■ Do not allow the TIGOR values to decrease. That is, the following equation is
enforced for each point j on the curve after the first:
TIGORj = max (TIGORj, TIGORj-1) .
Well Assignment
The well assignment process may be generally described as follows:
1. Start at a user-specified initial value of field total incremental gas-oil ratio

(FIGOR).
2. Determine the flow rates for each well at the current FIGOR value.
3. Decrease appropriate well flow rates to satisfy any production or gaslift

targets that may have been violated by increasing FIGOR to its current value.
4. Determine if any excess capacity remains and if there exist any wells whose
rates can be increased.
5. If so, increase the current FIGOR value by the user-specified increment and
return to Step 2.
6. Determine if any well management level minimum rate constraints are

violated.
7. If so, perform appropriate well shut-ins and return to Step 1.
8. When the flow rate calculations are completed compute the marginal gas-oil
ratio (MGOR) for each entity in each well management level.
Determination of Flow Rates as the Current FIGOR Value
In general, wells will flow at the oil, gas and water rates corresponding to the
current value of FIGOR. Complications arise, though, in getting to this point or in
discovering that the well cannot flow at this FIGOR value. The following steps
are used in attempting to flow a well at FIGOR:
1. The rates may not be increased from the rates at the previous value of FIGOR
if any of these conditions hold:
a. The well has already reached its maximum rate.
b. The current value of FIGOR is less than the TIGOR value of the first
point in this well’s TIGOR versus QO curve.
39-644 R5000.0.1
c. A low pressure system target applicable to this well has been reached and
the well has already reached its maximum high pressure system rate.
d. A gaslift gas target applicable to this well has been reached and the well
has already reached its maximum non-lifted rate.
2. Determine the point in the TIGOR versus QO curve in which the current
FIGOR value lies.
a. If the gaslift gas rate cannot be increased and the current FIGOR value
lies in the gaslift region of the curve, set the point to the maximum non-
lifted point.
b. If the low pressure system rate cannot be increased and the current
FIGOR value lies in the LP system region of the curve, set the point to the
maximum high pressure system point.
3. If appropriate, compute the gaslift gas rates corresponding to the point on the
TIGOR versus QO curve.
4. Compute the oil, gas and water rates corresponding to the point on the TIGOR
versus QO curve.
Decreasing of Flow Rates Due to Targeting
Once the well flow rates have been computed for the current FIGOR value, the
user-specified targets must be checked. Any gathering center targets are checked
first, then any flow station targets, then any area targets and then any field targets.
For each entity in each well management level, the various targets are checked
and satisfied in the following order:
1. Gaslift gas: If the gaslift gas rate violates the available gas decrease the
current FIGOR value by ten percent (10%) of the difference between the
current and the previous FIGOR values. Continue this process until the
violation is eliminated. A well’s production rates will not be decreased below
those corresponding to its maximum non-lifted point.
2. Low pressure system: If any of the low pressure system targets are still
violated by more than the user specified tolerance:
a. Set FIGH = current FIGOR value, and

FIGL = previous FIGOR value
b. Compute a new current FIGOR value to be the midpoint between FIGH

and FIGL.
c. For those wells pointing to the low pressure system, compute the rates
based on the new FIGOR value. A well’s production rates will not be
decreased below those corresponding to its maximum high pressure
system point.
R5000.0.1 39-645
d. If any low pressure system target remains violated by more than the
tolerance, reset FIGH to this FIGOR and return to Step b.
e. Once the targets are satisfied, check that the cuts were not too deep. That
is, at least one of the violating rates should be between the target rate and
the target tolerance rate. If not, increase the current FIGOR to accomplish
this; i.e., reset FIGL to the current FIGOR and return to Step b. Note that
by increasing FIGOR a target can again be violated. Thus FIGOR can be
decreased, increased, decreased, etc., to satisfy the targeting criteria.
f. The final FIGOR value becomes the current FIGOR for subsequent
targeting checks.
3. High pressure system with no excess capacity in the low pressure system: If
any of the high pressure system targets are still violated by more than the user-
specified tolerance but no wells can be moved to the low pressure system
because it is already full, perform the same algorithm as in Step 2. Obviously
in this case the wells under consideration are the ones pointing to the high
pressure system.
4. Total: If any of the total targets (the entity as a whole) are still violated by
more than the user-specified tolerance, perform the same algorithm as in Step
2 on wells pointing to either pressure system.
5. High pressure system with capacity in the low pressure system: If any of the
high pressure system targets are still violated by more than the user-specified
tolerance and there is excess capacity in the low pressure system, try moving
wells from the high pressure system to the low pressure system in the
following manner:
a. Wells eligible to be switched to the low pressure system must satisfy the
criteria:
❑ Currently assigned to the high pressure system
❑ Can flow to the low pressure system
❑ TIGOR value at the HP THP limit point (TIGOR*) is larger than the
current value of FIGOR.
b. Sort the eligible wells by increasing value of TIGOR*.
c. Starting at the beginning of the list, reassign wells to the low pressure
system until the high pressure system targets are no longer violated. Do
not switch a well if its rates would cause a low pressure system target to
be violated by more than the tolerance.
d. If any high pressure system target remains violated (due to low pressure
system violations and/or not enough eligible wells), undo the switches
performed in this step. Go back to Step 3 to perform the other algorithm
for high pressure system violations.
39-646 R5000.0.1
Calculation of the Marginal Gas-Oil Ratio
As defined previously, the marginal gas-oil ratio (MGOR) is the TIGOR value
above which no production is added. The MGOR is computed for each entity in
each well management level. In addition, values are computed for the high
pressure system; the low pressure system (all wells); and the low pressure system
(gaslifted welsl only). Each of these values is computed as the maximum TIGOR
value over the set of appropriate wells. An MGOR report is available to view
these results.
39.18.5 Frequency of PWM Calculations (Both NEW and MGOR)

The PWM calculations undoubtedly will increase the execution time for the well
management component of the program. This results from the multiple sets of
flow rates that need to be calculated each time PWM calculations are performed.
To control run time without sacrificing the integrity of the results, the user can
control the frequency of the PWM calculations.
Once one of the PWM options is initiated, PWM calculations are performed
automatically at every DATE/TIME card. The user can also control the frequency
of additional PWM calculations in any of three ways:
■ Every n’th timestep.
■ After every n days.
■ After every n months (to the beginning of the nearest month).
Timesteps with PWM Calculations
During the timesteps when PWM calculations are performed, the user can control
the number of outer iterations with PWM calculations. The keyword controlling
this number is WMITN and the number of iterations generally is set to 1. (During
history matching the value of WMITN is zero, causing no PWM calculations to be
performed.) After the first WMITN iterations of the timestep, the following
procedure is used:
1. The well rates are saved (after iteration number WMITN) for wells cut back
to meet well management targets. These rates are considered to be the
maximum flow rates (QMAX) for the wells. In addition, those wells that are
not cut back due to targets are considered to be bottomhole pressure
constrained at the flowing bottomhole pressure calculated in iteration number
WMITN.
2. The rates for cut-back wells are fixed at the temporary QMAX for the
remaining iterations of the PWM timestep. However, the rates for bottomhole
pressure constrained wells can float due to pressure changes during
subsequent iterations.
R5000.0.1 39-647
Timesteps without PWM Calculations
During the timesteps when PWM calculations are not performed, well rates are
determined using the same procedure as that used after WMITN iterations in
timesteps with PWM calculations. However, rates calculated using this procedure
may deviate significantly from the user-specified targets. To prevent the total rates
from deviating substantially from the specified targets, the user can specify
tolerances for production targets at any level(s) of the well management hierarchy.
Two types of rate comparisons are done:
■ Comparison of rates from the non-PWM timesteps to the PWM timesteps. In

this case, a violation occurs if:
RATE ( PWM ) – RATE ( NON – PWM )-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > tolerance 1 (39-34)
RATE ( PWM )
■ Comparison of rates from non-PWM timesteps to the user-specified targets. In

this case, a violation occurs if:
RATE ( NON – PWM ) – TARGET

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > tolerance 2 (39-35)
TARGET
In case of a violation, the user has one of the following three options:
■ Write a restart and stop the run.
■ Print a warning message and continue the run.
■ Repeat the timestep and perform PWM calculations.
Note that the default option is not to perform rate comparisons during the non-
PWM timesteps. Invoking the rate comparison enables the users to closely
monitor run performance and avoid PWM calculations at every timestep.
39.18.6 Data Required

Special data input is required to use this feature. Users should consult the
predictive well management section in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual
for details.
39-648 R5000.0.1
Appendix
A
Well Models
A.1 Introduction
In reservoir simulation, the important boundary conditions that drive the flow
occur at the wells. In the exact solution of the differential equations, each well
would be represented by an interior circular boundary of radius rw. One of two
types of boundary conditions could be specified for each well, namely the flowing
well pressure, pwf, or the flow rate, q. It would not be possible, of course, to
specify both.
To represent such interior boundary conditions at the well radius by conventional

finite-difference methods would require a very fine grid definition in the
neighborhood of the well, as exemplified in Figure A-1.
rw
Figure A-1: Fine Grid Around A Well
While such a fine grid might be suitable for single-well models, it is not practical
for 2D areal or 3D models. Instead, each well is embedded in a block whose
horizontal dimensions are much larger than the diameter of the well. As a result,
the pressure calculated for a block containing a well is greatly different from the
flowing well pressure, pwf. To account for this difference, a well index, WI, must
be used. Most of this chapter is devoted to the subject of how to calculate WI for
various 2D and 3D geometries.
R5000.0.1 Well Models A-649

A.2 Definition of Well Index

The well index may be defined by its use in the following oil production equation:
k ro ρ o
q o = 0.001127 WI ∑ kl hl ------------- ( p b – p wf ) l
μo l
(A-1)
l
where
qo oil mole rate
pbl gridblock pressure
∑ summation over blocks open to flow to the well
kl hl product of permeability and gridblock thickness
kro relative permeability to oil phase
ρo mole density of oil phase
μo viscosity of oil phase
A similar equation holds for each component. Note that WI is dimensionless, and
is the same for the entire well.
The flowing well pressure is related to the bottomhole pressure at the datum
depth, Dref, by
o
p wf = p bh + γ ( D – D ref ) (A-2)
Equation A-1 can be used two ways. The rate qo can be set in the finite-difference
equation for the block. After the simulator calculates the block pressure, pbl,
Equation A-1 can be used to calculate pwf and then Equation A-2 used to calculate
the bottomhole pressure, p obh . Alternatively, pobh can be set and then pwf calculated.
Equation A-1 can be combined with the finite-difference equation by eliminating
qo. Then, after the simulator calculates the block pressure, the flow rate can be
obtained.
A.2.1 Alternative Definition of Well Index

Other definitions of the well index may be found in the literature. For example,
the Seventh SPE Comparative Solution Project38 defines it by the production
equation
k ro ρ o
q ol = 0.001127 WI l ------------- ( p b – p wf ) l (A-3)
μo l
A-650 Well Models R5000.0.1

This WI has units of md-ft. It may be different for each vertical block.
A.2.2 Comparison with Productivity Index

The quantity WI is closely associated with well productivity index, PI. The latter
is defined either by
q o = PI [ p e – p wf ] (A-4)
or
q o = PI [ p av – p wf ] (A-5)
where pe is pressure at the exterior of the well’s drainage area, and pav is the
average pressure within the drainage area. Thus, the PI is determined not only by
the geometry, but also by the reservoir permeability, the relative permeability, and
the fluid viscosity. Well index, as defined by Equation A-1, has the advantage of
being dependent only on the geometry.
A.3 One-Dimensional Flow
A.3.1 Linear Case
Δx
1 5 Δz
Δy
Δx
2
Figure A-2: One-Dimensional, Linear, Model

The first, and simplest, example of the calculation of WI is one-dimensional,

linear (i.e., rectilinear) flow, where the grid is as shown in Figure A-2. The
boundary condition, pwf, is to be imposed at the left end of the model, which is at
a distance Δx/2 from the nearest node (also called the “pressure center”), located
at x1. Assuming single-phase flow (and ignoring the dimensional constant
0.0001127), from Darcy’s law we have
kρΔyΔz
q = ---------------------- ( p 1 – p wf ) (A-6)
μ ( Δx ⁄ 2 )
so the “correction” that adjusts p1 to the correct value at the boundary is
( Δx ⁄ 2 -)
( p 1 – p wf ) = qμ
------------------------ (A-7)
kρΔyΔz
The single-phase analogy of Equation A-1, which defines the well index, is
kρΔz
q = WI ------------- ( p 1 – p wf ) (A-8)
μ
Comparison of Equations A-6 and A-8 yields
Δy -
WI = ----------------- (A-9)
( Δx ⁄ 2 )
Note again that this WI is dimensionless.
A.3.2 Radial Case

Figure A1-3 shows a radial counterpart to the linear model just discussed. The
first block has boundaries at r1/2 and r3/2. The node of this block is at r1.
The inner radius of the first block, r1/2, may be the same as the wellbore radius, rw
. However, in some cases that may not be convenient, and r1/2 may be
considerably larger, as shown in the figure. In any case, the pressure calculated for
the first block will not coincide with pwf, and it will be necessary to make a
correction for it, through the well index.

Figure A-3: One-Dimensional, Radial, Model
The radial equivalent of Darcy’s law for single-phase flow is
kρ Δθ Δz
q = ----------------------------- ( p 1 – p wf ) (A-10)
μ ln ( r 1 ⁄ r w )
Comparison with Equation A1-8 yields
Δθ -
WI = ----------------------- (A-11)
ln ( r 1 ⁄ r w )
Note: In VIP, if one has a radial grid and uses an RFLOW card, rw and rb can be
entered, where rb is set equal to r1. But VIP computes
2π -
WI = ----------------------- (A-12)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w )
which is not appropriate if Δθ is not equal to 2π (360 degrees). However, if Δθ is

not equal to 2π the correct WI can be calculated by using the FPERF card instead
of the RFLOW card to calculate the WI for each perforation.

A.4 Two-Dimensional Areal Flow
A.4.1 Well in Center of Square Gridblock
Figure A-4: Well in Square Grid
The simplest two-dimensional situation is shown in Figure A-4, which depicts an

areal model with uniform square gridblocks, and with one well at the center of one
of the blocks, arbitrarily designated by (i,j) = (0,0). To determine the well index
for the well, one may carry out a simple finite-difference calculation for a
situation where the exact solution satisfies the steady-state single-phase radial
flow equation:
qμ r
p = p wf + -------------------- ln ----- (A-13)
2πkρΔz r w
As discussed above, we don’t expect p0,0 to be equal to pwf, but how well do the
pressures at the other nodes satisfy Equation A-13? If we plot the difference
between pi,j and p0,0 vs the log of the radial distance from node (i,j) to node (0,0),
then a straight line with the expected slope of qμ/2πkρΔz is obtained34. By
plotting the dimensionless pressure drop:
(pij - p0,0)/(qμ/kρΔz)
against the log of the dimensionless radius ( r ⁄ Δx ) = i2 + j2 , the straight line has a
slope of 1/(2π), as shown in Figure A-5. The pressure at node (1,0) is slightly off
from the straight line, but all the other pressures lie extremely well on the line.
This figure may be considered to be a universal plot, applicable to any square grid
with a single well located far from any boundaries.

The extrapolation of the straight line to the horizontal axis is extremely

significant. This is the point where the exact radial solution is equal to the
wellblock pressure, p0,0, and occurs when the radius equals 0.2Δx. Thus the
straight line of Figure A-5 has the equation:
qμ r ij
p ij = p 0, 0 + --------------------- ln -------------- (A-14)
2πkρΔZ 0.2Δx
Figure A-5: Numerical Solutions for Pressure Plotted vs Radius
Comparison with Equation A-13 shows that the well block looks like a well with a
wellbore radius of 0.2Δx. We call this radius the equivalent radius of the well
block, rb.
To obtain the well index, we proceed as follows. From Equation A-13 we can
write:
qμ r ij
p ij = p wf + -------------------- ln ----- (A-15)
2πkρΔz r w
Subtracting Equation A-15 from Equation A-14, and rearranging, yields:

2πkρΔz
q = --------------------------------------- ( p 0, 0 – p wf ) (A-16)
μ ln ( 0.2Δx ⁄ r w )
Comparison of Equation A-16 (in which the wellblock pressure is p0,0) with
Equation A-8 (in which the wellblock pressure is p1) gives:
2π
WI = --------------------------------- (A-17)
ln ( 0.2Δx ⁄ r w )
A.4.2 General Definition of rb

The following values applly for the square grid of the preceding section:
0.2Δx = rb, and p0,0 = pb (the wellblock pressure)
Therefore, Equation A-16 can be written:
qμ rb
p b – p wf = -------------------- ln ----- (A-18)
2πkρΔz r w
We shall take this as a general definition of rb, for any geometry of the well block.
Similarly, Equation A-17 can be written:
2π
WI = -----------------------
- (A-19)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w )
We express the well index in this form, since rb in many cases is easy to compute.
Note that Equation A-19 does not take skin into account. We shall show how to
incorporate skin in Section A.5.
A.4.3 An Approximate Derivation of rb for Square Well Block

One can take advantage of the fact that the pressure at (i,j) = (1,0) almost satisfies
the radial flow equation, to derive an approximate formula for rb. The difference
equation satisfied by the gridblock pressures (for steady state) is:
------------- Δy
kρΔz ------ ( p – 2p ij + p i – 1, j )
μ Δx i + 1, j
kρΔz Δx
+ ------------- ------ ( p i, j + 1 – 2p ij + p i, j – 1 ) – q ij = 0 (A-20)
μ Δy
For the case shown in Figure A-4, the pressures are symmetric about (0,0), so that
p0,1 = p-1,0 = p0,-1 = p1,0. Also Δx = Δy. Then:

qμ - = 0
4 ( p 1, 0 – p 0, 0 ) – ------------ (A-21)
kρΔz
Assuming that p1,0 satisfies the radial flow Equation A-13 exactly gives:
qμ Δx
p 1, 0 = p wf + -------------------- ln ------ (A-22)
2πkρΔz r w
since r1,0 = Δx. From the definition for rb, Equation A-18 yields:
qμ rb
p 0, 0 = p wf + -------------------- ln ----- (A-23)
2πkρΔz r w
Subtracting Equation A-23 from Equation A-22 yields:
qμ Δx
p 1, 0 – p 0, 0 = -------------------- ln ------
2πkρΔz r b
and combining with Equation A-21, yields
Δx 2
ln ------ = ---
rb π
or
r –π ⁄ 2
-----b- = e = 0.208 (A-24)
Δx
We shall show later that an exact value for rb for a well far from the boundaries or
from any other well (i.e., an “isolated” well) in a uniform square grid is 0.1985 Δx.
Thus, a good rule of thumb to use for a square well block is rb = 0.2 Δx.
The approximate method described in this section can be extended to nonsquare

grids, where Δx ≠ Δy¼. It gives adequate results when the aspect ratio Δy/Δx lies
between 0.5 and 2.0. Outside that range, it gives poor results39, because it is based
on the assumption that the pressures in all the blocks adjacent to the well block
satisfy the radial flow equation exactly, and that assumption breaks down badly
for long skinny gridblocks.

A.4.4 Well in Center of Rectangular Gridblock

Numerical experiments similar to that described in Section A.4.1 for a square grid
can also be carried out for uniform rectangular grids, where Δy is not equal to Δx.
When the gridblocks are not square, then rb is no longer a simple function of Δx
but depends also on the grid aspect ratio, α = Δy/Δx. In the following table are
values of rb/Δx and rb/Δy for a single well at the center of a large rectangular grid
for various aspect ratios9.
Table A-1:
2 2
α = Δy/Δx rb/Δx rb/Δy r b ⁄ Δx + Δy
1/16 0.1406 2.2502 0.140365
1/8 0.1415 1.1317 0.140365
1/4 0.1447 0.5787 0.140365
1/2 0.1569 0.3139 0.140365
1 0.1985 0.1985 0.140365
2 0.3139 0.1569 0.140365
4 0.5787 0.1447 0.140365
8 1.1317 0.1415 0.140365
16 2.2502 0.1406 0.140365
Neither rb/Δx nor rb/Δy are particularly constant with α, but it can be seen that rb/
Δx converges to a limit for small Δy, and rb/Δy converges to the same limit for
small Δx. This leads to the possibility that a better quantity to divide rb by is the
length of the diagonal of each gridblock, because:
rb
----------------------------
2 2
Δx + Δy
looks like rb/Δx as Δy goes to zero, and looks like rb/Δy as Δx goes to zero. As can
be seen from the last column of this table, that ratio is very constant with α. So
now we have the more general rule of thumb, that:
2 2
r b = 0.14 Δx + Δy (A-25)

In fact, Equation A-25 can be derived mathematically. It is shown in Reference 9

that:
rb –γ
lim ---------------------------- = e------- (A-26)
⎛ NX → ∞⎞ 2 2 4
⎝ NY → ∞⎠ Δx + Δy
where γ is Euler’s constant, one definition of which is the limit of the difference
between the finite harmonic series and the natural log, i.e.,
⎛ n ⎞
γ = lim ⎜⎜ ∑ 1--- – ln n⎟⎟ = 0.5772157...
n→∞ k
⎝ 1 ⎠
That gives, for the ratio of Equation A-26, the value 0.1403649.
Note that, for a square grid with Δx = Δy, rb/Δx is 2 times this constant, or
0.198506, so that gives us the complete mathematical derivation of the first rule of
thumb, that rb = 0.2Δx for a square grid.
A.4.5 Well in Center of Block in Anisotropic Rectangular Grid
In an anisotropic medium, where kx ≠ ky , the finite-difference equation satisfied

by the gridblock pressures is:
k x ρΔz Δy
--------------- ------ ( p i + 1, j – 2p ij + p i – 1, j )
μ Δx
k y ρΔz Δx
+ --------------- ------ ( p i, j + 1 – 2p ij + p i, j – 1 ) – q ij = 0 (A-27)
μ Δy
There is an equivalent isotropic problem that is satisfied by the same gridblock

pressures, namely:
k e ρΔz Δy e
--------------- -------- ( p i + 1, j – 2p ij + p i – 1, j )
μ Δx e
k e ρΔz Δx e
+ --------------- -------- ( p i, j + 1 – 2p ij + p i, j – 1 ) – q ij = 0 (A-28)
μ Δy e
where
1⁄2
ke = ( kx ky ) (A-29)
1⁄4
Δx e = ( k y ⁄ k x ) Δx (A-30)

1⁄4
Δy e = ( k x ⁄ k y ) Δy (A-31)
Corresponding to Equation A-25, we have:
2 2
r be = 0.14 Δx e + Δy e (A-32)
or
1⁄2 2 1⁄2 2
r be = 0.14 ( k y ⁄ k x ) Δx + ( k x ⁄ k y ) Δy (A-33)
In this case rbe is the radius of the (almost) circular isobar in the transformed
problem (i.e., in the xe-ye plane) that has the same pressure as the well block.
However, in the transformed problem, the well bore is elliptical, not circular. It is
shown in Reference 9 that the pressure solution to the exact differential problem
in the xe-ye plane essentially satisfies the equation:
qμ re
p – p wf = ---------------------- ln ------- (A-34)
2πk e ρΔz r we
where
2 2
re = xe + ye (A-35)
and
1 1⁄4 1⁄4
r we = --- r w [ ( k y ⁄ k x ) + ( kx ⁄ ky ) ] (A-36)
2
We see that Equation A-36 is a correction to the wellbore radius that accounts for
the fact that the well bore is elliptical in the xe-ye plane.
Now, from Equation A-34, we can write:
qμ r be
p b – p wf = ---------------------- ln ------- (A-37)
2πk e ρΔz r we
Corresponding to Equation A-18, which defines rb, we have:
qμ rb
p b – p wf = ---------------------- ln ----- (A-38)
2πk e ρΔz r w
Comparing Equations A-38 and A-37 yields:

r b = r be ( r w ⁄ r we ) (A-39)
Combining Equations A-39, A-33 and A-36 then yields the final result for rb, that
is:
1⁄2 2 1⁄2 2
( k y ⁄ k x ) Δx + ( k x ⁄ k y ) Δy
r b = 0.28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1⁄4 1⁄4
- (A-40)
( ky ⁄ kx ) + ( kx ⁄ ky )
which can be used in Equation A-19 for the well index.
A.4.5.1 General Extension of Isotropic Results to Anisotropic Grids
In the following sections, we shall be presenting formulas for equivalent

wellblock radius for various well geometries. These will be derived for isotropic
grids, presenting rbe in terms of Δxe and Δye, which may be obtained from
Equations A-30 and A-31. To obtain rb, this rbe can be substituted into:
r be
r b = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (A-41)
1⁄4 1⁄4
0.5 [ ( k y ⁄ k x ) + ( kx ⁄ ky ) ]
This equation is obtained by combining Equations A-36 and A-39.
A.4.6 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Isolated Well Block

By an isolated well block, we mean one that is not near another well block nor
near the boundary of the grid. A conservative requirement for an isolated well is
that it be no closer than 10Δx or 10Δy from any other well and no closer than 5Δx
or 5Δy from any grid boundary.
In Reference 39, it is shown that rbe is independent of the location of the well
within such an isolated well block, as in the above figure. Then Equation A-32
still holds:
2 2
r be = 0.14 Δx e + Δy e (A-42)

This result, i.e., independence of position, is somewhat surprising, but it does

depend on the assumption that the well block is isolated.
A.4.7 Multiple Wells in Same Isolated Well Block
A.4.7.1 Two Wells with Same Rate
In Reference 39, it is shown that if two wells with the same rate are placed in the
same well block (which is otherwise isolated from any other well block), then:
2 2 2
( 0.14 ) ( Δx e + Δy e )
r be = ----------------------------------------------
- (A-43)
r eAB
where reAB is the distance in the xe-ye plane between the two wells. In terms of the
actual coordinates of the two wells, this distance is given by:
1⁄2 2 1⁄2 2
r eAB = ( ky ⁄ kx ) ( xA – xB ) + ( kx ⁄ ky ) ( yA – yB ) (A-44)
Note that rbe is independent of the actual location of the two wells; the only thing
that matters is the scaled distance between them (provided they are isolated from
other wells).
A.4.7.2 Two Wells with Different Rates
If the two wells in the same block have different rates, qA and qB, then Equation
A-43 must be modified as follows:
qA + qB
2 2
q [ 0.14 Δx e + Δy e ]
( r be ) AA = ---------------------------------------------------------
- (A-45)
q
( r eAB ) B
Note that qA and qB do not have to be absolute rates; relative rates will do. Also
note that if qA ≠ qB, then the two wells will have different values of rbe.

A.4.7.3 Three Wells with Same Rate
Similarly, it can be shown for three wells with the same rate (A, B, and C), that the
following equation applies:
3 2 2 3⁄2
( 0.14 ) ( Δx e + Δy e )
( r be ) A = ------------------------------------------------------
- (A-46)
r eAB r eAC
Note that when there are two wells and they have the same rate, they have the
same rbe. But when there are three wells, even with equal rates, in general they do
not have the same rbe (unless reAB = reBC = reAC).
A.4.7.4 Multiple Wells with Different Rates
The above results can be generalized to take into account any number of wells, A,
B, C, D, ... through the following equation:
q qk qt
2 2
( r be ) AA ∏ ( reAk ) = [ 0.14 Δx e + Δy e ] (A-47)
k
where k = B, C, D, ..., ∏ is the product over all k, and qt = qA + ∑ qk .

k k

A.4.8 Two Wells With Same Rate in Adjacent Blocks
In Reference 40, it is shown that if two wells with the same rate are placed in
adjacent blocks in the same row, as in the above figure, then:
Δx e – 1 Δy e
r be r eAB = ( 0.14 ) ( Δx e + Δy e ) exp 2 -------- tan ⎛ --------⎞
2 2 2
(A-48)
Δy e ⎝ Δx e⎠
On the other hand, if the two adjacent blocks are in the same column, then Δx and
Δy should be interchanged, to give:
Δy e – 1 Δx e
r be r eAB = ( 0.14 ) ( Δx e + Δy e ) exp 2 -------- tan ⎛ --------⎞
2 2 2
Δx e ⎝ Δy e⎠
Note again the isolation requirement: the pair of wells should be sufficiently far
from any other wells or from the grid boundaries. Also note again that the scaled
distance between the two wells is the important quantity, rather than the actual
location of the two wells.
If r cbe is the value of rbe when the two wells are at the centers of their respective
blocks, and r ceAB is the distance between the block centers (in the xe-ye plane),
then, if the wells are not centered, we can write:
c c
r be = r be ( r eAB ⁄ r eAB ) (A-49)
Note that r ceAB is equal to either Δxe or Δye.
A.4.8.1 Wells at Centers of Adjacent Blocks in Isotropic Square Grid
If the medium is isotropic, the gridblocks are square and the wells are at the
centers of two adjacent blocks, then Equation A1-48 reduces to:

π
r b Δx = ( 0.14 ) ( 2Δx ) exp ⎛⎝ ---⎞⎠
2 2
2
or
r b = 0.190Δx
This is not far from the rule of thumb of 0.2 Δx for a single isolated well in a
square grid. If the two wells are at the centers of two blocks that are not adjacent,
then this rule of thumb is even better. If the wells are not at the centers of two
blocks that are not adjacent, then Equation A-49 can be used to find the correct rb.
But we still require that the pair of wells be isolated from other wells or from the
grid boundary.
A.4.9 Single Well in Edge Block

In Figure A-6, we show a single well in a block at the left edge of the grid.
Because of the reflection boundary condition, the well and its block have images.
Thus, this situation is equivalent to two wells in adjacent blocks, and Equation A-
48 is applicable, provided we take:
1⁄4
r eAB = 2 ( k y ⁄ k x ) d
Figure A-6: Well in Edge Block
Note that rb will be independent of the vertical location of the well.
If the edge block is at the top or bottom boundary, then we should take:
1⁄4
r eAB = 2 ( k x ⁄ k y ) d

where d is the vertical distance to the boundary.
Again we note that if the medium is isotropic, the grid is square, and the well is at
the center of the edge block, then:
r b = 0.190Δx
A.4.10 Single Well Exactly on Edge of Grid
Figure A-7: Well on Edge of Grid
We have already looked at cases of a single well near the edge of the grid. It is
perhaps less likely that the well will be exactly on the edge of the grid, as shown
in Figure A-7. Equation A-48 is not applicable here. Instead, as Reference 40
shows, the applicable equation is:
Δx e – 1 Δy e
r be = 0.14 Δx e + Δy e exp -------- tan ⎛ --------⎞
2 2
(A-50)
Δy e ⎝ Δx e⎠
Note that rbe is independent of the vertical location of the well on the edge. If the
well is exactly on the top or bottom edge of the grid, then Δxe and Δye should be
interchanged, to give:
Δy e – 1 Δx e
r be = 0.14 Δx e + Δy e exp -------- tan ⎛ --------⎞
2 2
Δx e ⎝ Δy e⎠
A.4.10.1 Well Exactly on Edge of Isotropic, Square Grid
If the medium is isotropic, and the grid is square, then:
π
r b = 0.14 2 Δx exp ⎛⎝ ---⎞⎠ = 0.43Δx
4

This is quite different from the value of 0.2 Δx that one might expect.
A.4.11 Single Well Exactly at Corner of Grid
Figure A-8: Well at Corner of Grid
Figure A-8 shows the situation where a well is located exactly at the corner of the
grid. This is an important case, as it occurs frequently in five-spot calculations. In
Reference 40, it is shown that:
2 2
r be = 0.14 Δx e + Δy e exp ( E ) (A-51)
where
π Δy 1 Δx Δy – 1 Δy e
E = --- --------e + --- 1 + ⎛ --------e – --------e⎞ tan ⎛ --------⎞ (A-52)
4 Δx e 2 ⎝ Δy Δx ⎠ ⎝ Δx e⎠
e e
Since Equations A-51 and A-52 are rather unwieldy, it may be preferable to use an
empirical equation that fits them quite well:
2 2 0.2520
r be = Δx e + Δy e 0.3816 + ------------------------------------------------------------ (A-53)
Δx
⎛ --------e⎞
0.9401
⎛ Δy
0.9401
+ --------e⎞
⎝ Δy e⎠ ⎝ Δx e⎠
A.4.11.1 Well Exactly at Corner of Isotropic, Square Grid
For the special case of isotropic medium and square grid, then Equations A-51
and A-52 become:
r b = 0.14 2 Δx exp ⎛ π
--- + 1---⎞ = 0.72Δx
⎝ 4 2⎠

This value of rb, combined with Equation A-19, should be used for the well index
in five-spot calculations, if kx = ky and Δx = Δy.
A.4.12 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Corner Block
Figure A-9: Well in Corner Block
Figure A-9 shows a single well A located somewhere in the interior of a corner
block. This situation is perhaps not too likely, but is included here for
completeness. Images of the well and the corner block are shown. In Reference 40
it is derived that:
4 2 2 2
( 0.14 ) ( Δx e + Δy e ) exp ( 4 E )
r be = ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (A-54)
r eAB r eAC r eAD
where E is given by Equation A-52.
A.4.12.1 Well at Center of Corner Block in Isotropic, Square Grid
For the special case where kx = ky , Δx = Δy, and the well is at the center of the
corner block, then Equation A-54 reduces to
4 2
r b = (-------------------------------------------------------------
0.14 ) ( 2Δx ) exp ( π + 2 )-
Δx ( 2Δx )Δx
or
r b = 0.188Δx
This is not far from the rule of thumb of 0.2 Δx. But it does require that the well be
exactly at the center of the corner block, which is not too likely.

A.5 Incorporating Skin into Well Model

Equation A-19 presented the well index in terms of rb and rw as shown below:
2π
WI = ------------------------
ln ( r b ⁄ r w )
This equation was derived without considering the effect of skin. In this section,
we show how skin may be taken into account.
A.5.1 Derivation of Skin Due to Altered Permeability
Figure A-10: Radial Flow With Zone of Altered Permeability
Figure A-10 depicts radial flow from an outer radius, rd, into the wellbore, which
has radius rw . Let the pressure at rd be pd. The reservoir has permeability k, but an
inner zone of radius ra has an “altered” permeability, ka. Assuming steady state:
qμ ra
p a – p wf = ---------------------- ln -----
2πk a ρΔz r w
qμ rd
p d – p a = -------------------- ln ----
2πkρΔz r a
Adding and rearranging the above equations yields the following equation:
qμ r
p d – p wf = -------------------- ⎛ ln ----d- + s a⎞ (A-55)
2πkρΔz ⎝ r w ⎠
where

k – ka ra
s a = ------------- ln -----
ka rw
In this context, skin may be interpreted as causing additional pressure drop due to
decreased permeability in the altered zone. However, it may be either positive or
negative, depending on whether ka is less than or greater than k. The skin due to
altered permeability is also referred to as “mechanical” skin.
A.5.2 Including Mechanical Skin In Well Index

Now suppose we consider solving the same steady-state radial problem with a
simulator on a uniform square grid, with Δx being much smaller than rd. As
mentioned above, the well block with pressure pb acts like a well with radius rb.
This results in:
qμ rd
p d – p b = -------------------- ln ---- (A-56)
2πkρΔz r b
But the equation for the well model in terms of the well index, WI, is:
kρΔz
q = WI ------------- ( p b – p wf ) (A-57)
μ
Combining Equations A1-56 and A1-57 gives:
qμ rd qμ
p d – p wf = -------------------- ln ---- + -------------------------
2πkρΔz r b kρΔz ( WI )
and comparison with Equation A1-55 yields:
rd 2π rd
ln ---- + ------- = ln ----- + s a
rb WI rw
or
2π -
WI = --------------------- (A-58)
rb
ln ----- + s a
rw

A.5.3 Skin Due to Restricted Entry

So far, we have assumed that the well fully penetrates the reservoir. When the well
is not fully penetrating, there can be an additional pressure drop caused by
restricted entry. This additional pressure drop can be interpreted in terms of an
extra skin term, sr (also called pseudo skin). Before considering how this skin
should be included in the well index, let us discuss two methods for calculating sr.
.
Figure A-11: Pseudo Skin Factor, after Brons and Marting
The first method uses the graph of Figure A-11, due to Brons and Marting41,
which shows sr as a function of two parameters, hp/ht and hte/rw , where hp is the
length of the interval open to flow, ht is the total thickness of the producing zone,
h te = h t k H ⁄ k V , and kH/kV is the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability.

Figure A-12 shows three ways in which hp and ht can be interpreted. The first is
simple partial penetration; the second is a centered open interval; the third is with
multiple entries. In the latter two cases, hp and ht apply to a symmetry element.
Figure A-12: Examples of Partial Well Completion
The second method for calculating sr , due to Odeh42, allows for a single open
interval anywhere in the producing zone. It is an empirical equation derived from
some numerical studies:
h 0.825
s r = 1.35 ⎛ ⎛ -----t – 1⎞ { ln ( h te + 7 ) – [ 0.49 + 0.1 ln ( h te ) ] ln ( r wc ) – 1.95 }⎞ (A-59)
⎝⎝h ⎠ ⎠
p
where
h te = h t k H ⁄ k V
0.2126 ( 2.753 + z m ⁄ h t )
r wc = r w e
and zm is the distance from the top of the sand to the middle of the open interval.
(See Figure A-13.)
The two methods are obviously not the same. However, where they can be
compared (e.g., for zm = hp/2), they give comparable values for sr .

zm
hp
ht
Figure A-13: Partial Well Completion
A.5.4 Effects of Restricted Entry on Well Index

We need to distinguish two different effects of restricted entry on the well index.
First, there is the “overall” restricted entry that is included in the total skin, st,
determined in a well test. The skin due to this overall restricted entry, sor , must be
subtracted from the total skin to get the mechanical skin:
s a = s t – s or (A-60)
Secondly, there is what we might call “local” restricted entry due to partial
completion of the well within a layer of thickness Δzl. The skin due to this local
restricted entry must be added to the mechanical skin. Thus, layer by layer, we
have:
2π
WI l = ---------------------------------
- (A-61)
rb
ln ----- + s a + s lr
rw
For example, consider the 3D situation shown in Figure A-14. The well
completely penetrates the top two layers and partially penetrates the third layer.
The overall skin, st, is determined from a well test. The skin due to overall
restricted entry is determined from hp1 and ht1 and subtracted from st to get sa.

Because total penetration through each of the top two layers is assumed, slr = 0
there. In the third layer, slr is determined from ht2, hp2, and zm2, and added to sa, as
in Equation A-61.
Figure A-14: Partial Well Completion

A.6 Well Index from Productivity Index

There are three main options for the well index in VIP. These are the WI card, the
RFLOW card (where the user enters rw , rb , and skin), and the PI card (where the
user enters PI and a “geometric factor,” GF). Note that all of these three options
produce a single WI for the entire well. In addition, on the FPERF card, for each
layer the user may enter WIl, or have WIl computed from rb, rw , sa by Equation A-
61 (with slr calculated by Equation A-59).
NOTE: On the FPERF card, the variable DHTOP is the distance between
the top of the block and the top of the perforated interval. Thus the
interval calculation for zm is DHTOP + hp/2. Also note that hp is
called H, and ht is called HTOT.
In the PI option, the productivity index is used by VIP to calculate the well index
when the well is first put on production or injection. For an oil producer, for
example:
PI ⋅ GF
WI = ----------------------------------------------------------------- (A-62)
0.001127 ∑ [ khρ o k ro ⁄ μ o ] l
l
GF is a geometric factor that converts the PI from a drainage radius basis to a
gridblock basis. The VIP manual suggests that:
ln ( r e ⁄ r w )
GF = -----------------------
- (A-63)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w )
where re is the drainage radius. However, normally, the situation is sufficiently

complicated that Equation A-63 should not be used without modification.
In general, PI is defined by:
q q 0.00708 [ khρ ⁄ μ ] eff

PI = ------------------ or --------------------- = ----------------------------------------------
- (A-64)
p e – p wf p av – p wf ln ( r e ⁄ r w ) + s t – t
where
st = total skin factor
pe = pressure at drainage radius, re
pav = average pressure within drainage area
[...]eff = effective value
t = 0, 1/2, or 3/4, depending on how PI was measured

There are four possibilities, which are discussed by Dake43:
Use t Page43
A. Steady-state pe 0 118 (Eq.4.29)
B. Steady-state pav 1/2 145 (Table)
C. Pseudosteady-state pe 1/2 142 (Eq. 6.8)
D. Pseudosteady-state pav 3/4 144 (Eq. 6.12)
Case C is not a likely possibility, but is included for completeness.
Now, we want
2π
WI = ----------------------------------
- (A-65)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w ) + s a
Equating A-62 and A-65 yields:
2π ( 0.001127 ) ∑ [ khρ o k ro ⁄ μ o ] l
l
PI = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (A-66)
[ ln ( r b ⁄ r w ) + s a ]GF
Equating A-66 and A-64, and solving for GF gives:
∑ [ khρo kro ⁄ μo ]l [ ln ( rb ⁄ rw ) + st – t ]
l
GF = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[ khρ ⁄ μ ] eff [ ln ( r b ⁄ r w ) + s a ]
If we assume:
[ khρ ⁄ μ ] eff = ∑ [ khρo kro ⁄ μo ]l

l

then:
ln ( r e ⁄ r w ) + s t – t
GF = ----------------------------------------- (A-67)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w ) + s a
Thus, Equation A-63 is appropriate only if the PI is based on steady-state and pe -

pwf (Case A), and if the well is fully penetrating so that st = sa. Otherwise, the
more complex Equation A-67 should be used.

A.7 Non-Darcy Gas Flow
A.7.1 Effect of Pressure-Dependent Gas Properties on Well Model

Up to now, the well model has assumed constant fluid properties in the radial zone
from rb to rw . This assumption is generally not valid in the case of a gas well.
Here we show how the well model needs to be modified to take into account the
variation of gas properties with pressure over the range of pressure from pb to pwf.
Skin is ignored for the moment to simplify the presentation.
Assuming steady state, we have from Equation A-13:
qg μg r
p = p wf + -------------------------- ln -----
2πkk rg hρ g r w
Differentiation yields
qg μg
dp = -------------------------- d ( ln r )
2πkk rg hρ g
Recognizing that ρg and μg are functions of pressure, we rearrange this:
qg ρ
- d ( ln r ) = -----g dp
-------------------
2πkk rg h μg
and integrate, to get:

pb
qg r ρ
- ln ----b- =
------------------- ∫ -----g dp
2πkk rg h r w μg
p wf
So, for each layer, we can write:

2πk l k rgl h l
q gl = ------------------------- ( ρ g ⁄ μ g ) l ( p b – p wf ) l (A-68)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w )
where
( pb )l
ρ
∫-----g dp
μg
( p wf ) l
( ρ g ⁄ μ g ) l = ------------------------- (A-69)
( p b – p wf ) l

VIP provides three options on the WNDGDV card. In the STD option (or if no
WNDGDV card is used), no attempt is made to adjust the gas properties in the
well model of Equation A-68, and (ρg/μg)l is evaluated at (pb)l. In the PP option,
the integration indicated by Equation A-69 is carried out, using the trapezoidal
rule. PP stands for pseudo pressure, referring to the definition of pseudo pressure
m(p) given by Al-Hussainy, Ramey and Crawford44:
p
ρ
m(p) = 2 ∫ -----g dp
μg
p ref
Finally, the RG option invokes the Russell-Goodrich17 method, which also adjusts
the gas properties in the well model but avoids the integration, by evaluating (ρg/
μg)l at the average of (pb)l and (pwf)l . This option assumes that ρg/μg is a linear
function of pressure. A typical plot of ρg/μg versus p is shown in Figure A-15, and
it can be seen that in both low- and high-pressure regions, the curve is a straight
line. Both PP and RG yield the same results in both regions. In the middle
transition region, however, the RG method will be incorrect, unless the difference
between the gridblock and wellbore pressures is small. The PP method is always
the most accurate, but does involve some modest amount of additional computing
time.
Figure A-15: Typical Plot of ρg/μg vs Pressure
A.7.2 Rate-Dependent Skin Factor in Well Model

Taking skin into account, Equation A-68 becomes:
2πk l k rgl h l
q gl = -------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ρ g ⁄ μ g ) l ( p b – p wf ) l (A-70)
ln ( r b ⁄ r w ) + s a + s rl + D q gl
The term D qgl is a rate-dependent skin that accounts for the quadratic term in
Forchheimer’s equation, which is:

∂p μg 2
------ = ---------- v r + βρ g v r (A-71)
∂r kk rg
gl q
where vr is the fluid velocity ---------------------
-.
2πrh l ρ gl
In Equation A-71, the first term on the right-hand side is the Darcy or viscous
component, while the second term is the non-Darcy or inertial component. β is the
coefficient of inertial resistance, and has dimension (length)-1.
The constant D is calculated from β by:
– 15 kk rg γ g β
D = 2.223 ×10 ------------------------
2
-
hl rw ( μg )w
where (μg)w is evaluated at pwf, and γg is gas gravity at standard conditions,

relative to air. The quantity β is determined from core samples, and has units of ft-
1
. A correlation presented by Dake43 is:
10
×10 -
β = 2.73
-----------------------
kk rg
where k is in md.
A.8 Horizontal Well

Equation A-40, which shows rb as a function of Δx, Δy, kx, and ky, was derived for
an isolated vertical well. For a horizontal well, it appears to be sufficient to
replace Δy by Δz and ky by kz, to yield:
1⁄2 2 1⁄2 2
( k z ⁄ k x ) Δx + ( k x ⁄ k z ) Δz
r b = 0.28 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1⁄4 1⁄4
- (A-72)
( kz ⁄ kx ) + ( kx ⁄ kz )
The assumption that the well is not near any grid boundary may be hard to satisfy
in the simulation of a horizontal well. The question arises: how far does the well
have to be from the top or bottom boundary in order to use Equation A-72?
Reference 45 shows that Equation A-72 is satisfied to within 10 percent if:
Δx k 1⁄2 zw
------ ⎛ ----z⎞ ≤ 0.9 ------ (A-73)
Δz ⎝ k x⎠ Δz

where zw is the distance from the well to the nearer of the top or bottom boundary.
Since kz is usually much smaller than kx, this inequality should be easy to satisfy,
if Δx is not too much bigger than Δz.
However, if the inequality of Equation A-73 is not satisfied, it is necessary to use

the much more complicated general formula for rb that was derived by Babu et
al46, and which is repeated in Reference 45. Figure A-16 displays the result of
using this formula for the special case where the well is centered in a reservoir that
is infinitely wide. As a first approximation, this figure can be used even when the
well is not centered and the reservoir is of finite width, provided zw is interpreted
as the distance from the well to the nearer of the top or bottom boundary.
Figure A-16: Effect of αe and z/Δz on rbe for Centered Well

A.9 Inclined Well

Suppose we have an inclined well, at angle θ with respect to the vertical, and at
angle ω with respect to the x-axis. Let the length of the perforation be lp. And
suppose we have three-dimensional anisotropy, with permeability components kx,
ky , and kz. Then the effective permeability-thickness of the formation penetrated
by the perforation is:
2 2 2 2 2
l p ( k y k z ) sin θ cos ω + ( k x k z ) sin θ sin ω + ( k x k y ) cos θ
It can be shown (see Chapter 11) that:
2 2 2 2 2 2
Δy Δz 2 2 Δx Δz 2 2 Δx Δy 2
k ex --------- + -------- sin θ cos ω + k ey --------- + -------- sin θ sin ω + k ez --------- + --------- cos θ
ky kz kx kz kx ky
r b = 0.28 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2
1 - + -------- 1 2 2 1 - + -------- 1 2 2 1 - + -------- 1 - cos 2θ
k ex -------- sin θ cos ω + k ey -------- sin θ sin ω + k ez --------
ky kz kx kz kx ky
(A-74)
where:
1---
(A-75)
2
k ex = ( k y k z )
1---
2 (A-76)
k ey = ( k x k z )
1---
2 (A-77)
k ez = ( k x k y )
For a vertical well, θ = 0 and Equation A-74 reduces to Equation A-40. For a
horizontal well parallel to the y-axis, ω = 90° and Equation A-74 reduces to
Equation A-72.

Appendix
B
B.1 Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube

When the user chooses the corner-point geometry option, the location of the eight
corner points of each gridblock is quite arbitrary. In order to calculate bulk
volumes, block centers, and transmissibilities, VIP maps each gridblock into a
unit cube. That mapping is described here.
B.1.1 Two-Dimensional Mapping

To introduce the mapping, let us first consider the simpler two-dimensional
problem of mapping an arbitrary quadrilateral in the x-y plane into a unit square in
the u-v plane, as shown in Figure B-1.
Figure B-1: Mapping of Quadrilateral to Unit Square
Let
x = x 1 + ( x 2 – x 1 )u + ( x 4 – x 1 )v + ( x 1 + x 3 – x 2 – x 4 )uv (B-1)
y = y 1 + ( y 2 – y 1 )u + ( y 4 – y 1 )v + ( y 1 + y 3 – y 2 – y 4 )uv (B-2)
It is easy to see that u = 0 corresponds to side 1-4, u = 1 to side 2-3, v = 0 to side 1-

2, and v = 1 to side 4-3.
The differential area dx dy is given by:
dx dy = J(u,v)du dv
R5000.0.1 Corner-Point Geometry B-683

where J(u,v) is the so-called Jacobian of the mapping of the unit square back onto
the quadrilateral. It may be considered to be a scaling, or stretching, factor of the
mapping. It is given by the determinant of a certain matrix of partial derivatives,
as follows:
∂x- ∂x
----- -----
∂ ( x, y ) ∂u ∂v
J ( u, v ) = ---------------- = (B-3)
∂ ( u, v ) ∂y- ∂y
----- -----
∂u ∂v
where, from Equations B-1 and B-2,
∂x- = ( x – x ) + ( x + x – x – x )v
----- 2 1 1 3 2 4
∂u
∂x
----- = ( x 4 – x 1 ) + ( x 1 + x 3 – x 2 – x 4 )u
∂v
∂y- = ( y – y ) + ( y + y – y – y )v
----- 2 1 1 3 2 4
∂u
∂y
----- = ( y 4 – y 1 ) + ( y 1 + y 3 – y 2 – y 4 )u
∂v
Thus, the area of the quadrilateral may be obtained by integrating the Jacobian
over the unit square:
1 1
A = ∫ ∫ J ( u, v )du dv (B-4)
u=0 v=0
The centroid, or center of gravity, may be obtained by the integrals:

1 1
1
x c = ---
A ∫ ∫ x ( u, v ) J ( u, v )du dv (B-5)
u=0 v=0
1 1
1
y c = ---
A ∫ ∫ y ( u, v ) J ( u, v )du dv (B-6)
u=0 v=0
where x(u,v), and y(u,v), correspond, respectively, to Equations B-1 and

B-2.
B-684 Corner-Point Geometry R5000.0.1

B.1.2 Three-Dimensional Mapping
Figure B-2: The Eight Corners of a Gridblock
In VIP’s corner-point option, each gridblock is a solid defined by the location of

its eight corners, as shown in Figure B-2. Analogously to Equations B-1 and B-2,
the block can be mapped to a unit cube by the following equations:
x = p 1, x u + p 2, x v + p 3, x w + p 4, x uv + p 5, x vw + p 6, x uw + p 7, x uvw + p 8, x
(B-7)
y = p 1, y u + p 2, y v + p 3, y w + p 4, y uv + p 5, y vw + p 6, y uw + p 7, y uvw + p 8, y
(B-8)
z = p 1, z u + p 2, z v + p 3, z w + p 4, z uv + p 5, z vw + p 6, z uw + p 7, z uvw + p 8, z
(B-9)
where
p 1, x = x 2 – x 1 p 2, x = x 4 – x 1 p 3, x = x 5 – x 1
p 4, x = x 1 + x 3 – x 2 – x 4 p 5, x = x 1 + x 8 – x 4 – x 5 p 6, x = x 1 + x 6 – x 2 – x 5
p 7, x = x 2 + x 4 + x 5 + x 7 – x 1 – x 3 – x 6 – x 8 p 8, x = x 1
This works similarly for p1,y , ..., p8,y in terms of the y‘s, and p1,z , ..., p8,z in terms
of the z‘s. It can be seen that u = 0 corresponds to face 1-4-8-5, u = 1 to face 2-3-
7-6, v = 0 to face 1-2-6-5, v = 1 to face 4-3-7-8, etc.

The differential volume dx dy dz in “real” space is given by:
dx dy dz = J(u,v,w) du dv dw
where the Jacobian J(u,v,w) is given by
∂x-
----- ∂x
----- ∂x-
------
∂u ∂v ∂w
∂ ( x, y, z ) ∂y- ∂y ∂y-
J ( u, v, w ) = ----------------------- = ----- ----- ------ (B-10)
∂ ( u, v, w ) ∂u ∂v ∂w
∂z- ∂z ∂z-
----- ----- ------
∂u ∂v ∂w
The partial derivatives are given by:
∂x
------ = p 1, x + p 4, x v + p 6, x w + p 7, x vw (B-11)
∂u
∂x
----- = p 2, x + p 4, x u + p 5, x w + p 7, x uw (B-12)
∂v
∂x- = p + p v + p u + p uv
------ 3, x 5, x 6, x 7, x (B-13)
∂w
Similarly for ∂y/∂u, ∂z/∂u, and so forth.

B.2 Volumetric Calculations

The bulk volume of the gridblock is obtained by integrating the Jacobian of
Equation B-10 over the unit cube:
1 1 1
V = ∫ ∫ ∫ J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-14)
u=0 v=0 w=0
The centroid, or block center, is obtained by:

1 1 1
1
x c = ---
V ∫ ∫ ∫ x ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-15)
u=0 v=0 w=0
1 1 1
1
y c = ---
V ∫ ∫ ∫ y ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-16)
u=0 v=0 w=0
1 1 1
1
z c = ---
V ∫ ∫ ∫ z ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-17)
u=0 v=0 w=0
Finally, let us consider how we might obtain the “average” thickness of the block
in the vertical direction.
Figure B-3: Elemental Tube for Determining Thickness
In Figure B-3, consider the elemental tube (shown by dashed lines) bounded by u,
u+du, v, and v+dv. The thickness of the tube, i.e., its vertical extent, is z(u,v,1) -
z(u,v,0).

The volume of the tube is:

1
∫ J ( u, v, w )dw du dv
w=0
Thus the volume-averaged thickness of the entire block is

1 1 1
1
DZ = ---
V ∫ ∫ [ z ( u, v, 1 ) – z ( u, v, 0 ) ] ∫ J ( u, v, w )dw du dv
u=0 v=0 w=0
which may be rearranged to the final form:

1 1 1
1
DZ = ---
V ∫ ∫ ∫ [ z ( u, v, 1 ) – z ( u, v, 0 ) ] J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
u=0 v=0 w=0
(B-18)
Figure B-4: Elemental Tube for Determining DX

Now we consider how we might obtain the average distance from the left face to
the right face of the block. In Figure B-4, consider the element tube bounded by v,
v+dv, w, and w+dw. The length of that tube from the left face to the right face is
2 2 2
{ [ x ( 1, v, w ) – x ( 0, v, w ) ] + [ y ( 1, v, w ) – y ( 0, v, w ) ] + [ z ( 1, v, w ) – z ( 0, v, 2 ) ] } (B-19)
Define the distance between two points by

2
D [ ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ), ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ] = { [ x ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) – x ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ]
1⁄2
2 2⎫
+ [ y ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) – y ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ] + [ z ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) – z ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ] ⎬
⎭
Then the expression in Equation B-19 for the length of the tube can be written
D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]
Thus the volume averaged distance from the left face to the right face is
1 1 1
1
DX = ---
V ∫ ∫ D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ] ∫ J ( u, v, w )dw dudv
v=0 w=0 w=0
which may be rearranged to the final form

1 1 1
1
DX = ---
V ∫ ∫ ∫ D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-20)
u=0 v=0 w=0
Similarly,
1 1 1
1
DX = ---
V ∫ ∫ ∫ D [ ( u, 1, w ), ( u, 0, w ) ]J ( u, v, w )du dv dw (B-21)
u=0 v=0 w=0

B.3 Integration by Gaussian Quadrature

A single integral may be evaluated quite accurately by the N-point summation:
1 N
∫ f ( x )dx ≈ ∑ wk f ( xk ) (B-22)
x=0 k=1
for properly chosen values of wk and xk. The wk are weights and the xk are Gauss
points, or quadrature points, at which the function f(x) is evaluated. For N=1, 2, or
3, the weights and Gauss points are given by:
N = 1: w 1 = 1 x 1 = 1---
2
1 1-⎞ , x = 1--- ⎛ 1 + ------

N = 2: w 1 = w 2 = 1--- 1-⎞
x 1 = --- ⎛ 1 – ------
2 2⎝ 3⎠
2 2⎝ 3⎠
5 1 1
N = 3: w 1 = w 3 = ------, w 2 = 4--- x 1 = --- ⎛ 1 – 3--- ⎞ , x 2 = 1---, x 3 = --- ⎛ 1 + 3--- ⎞
18 9 2⎝ 5 ⎠ 2 2⎝ 5 ⎠
If f(x) is a polynomial of degree d, then Gaussian quadrature is exact if d ≤ 2N-1.

Thus 2-point quadrature is exact for a cubic, and 3-point quadrature is exact for a
fifth-degree polynomial.
The triple integrals of the previous section may be approximated by the triple
summations:
1 1 1 Ni Nj Nk
∫ ∫ ∫ f ( u, v, w )du dv dw ≈ ∑ ∑ ∑ wi wj wk f ( u i, v j, w k ) (B-23)
u=0 v=0 w=0 i=1 j=1 k=1
where Ni, Nj, and Nk are, respectively, the number of quadrature points in the x-, y-
, and z-directions. These numbers are entered on the CORNER card as iquads,
jquads, and kquads.
It turns out that the integrands within all the triple integrals of the preceding
section for volumetric calculations are composite polynomials of low enough
degree that iquads = jquads = kquads = 2 provides exact integration. This is true
no matter how arbitrarily the corner points are located.
Of course, if the gridblocks are simple rectangular parallelepipeds, iquads =

jquads = kquads = 1 would be sufficient, but then there would be little point in
using the corner-point option.

However, the story is different for evaluating transmissibilities. We shall see later
that if the harmonic integration option is chosen, the integrands are no longer
polynomials. In that case, the user should specify iquads = jquads = kquads = 3 to
get the most accurate integration.
B.4 Transmissibility Calculations

For corner-point geometry, VIP provides two options for calculating the
transmissibilities between adjacent gridblocks: the standard VIP option that uses
“harmonic integration” (HARINT), and the NEWTRAN option, which is similar
to the corresponding ECLIPSE technique. Both of these are described below, first
for the simpler 2-D case and then for the full 3-D case.
B.4.1 Calculation of Transmissibility in 2D
Simplest Case: Orthogonal Grid
Figure B-5: Orthogonal Gridblocks
Consider the two rectangular blocks in Figure B-5, where the points A and B are
the centroids of their respective blocks. Each block has its own permeability, kA or
kB. As this may be considered to be flow through two resistances in series, the
transmissibility from A to B is given by:
1 -
T AB = ------------------ (B-24)
1- + -----
----- 1-
TA TB
where
T A = k A Δz W ⁄ L A

and
T B = k B Δz W ⁄ L B
In this simple 2D case, Δz, which is perpendicular to the plane of Figure B-5, is
considered constant. Note that TA may be considered to be the “half-block
transmissibility” from the point A to the right face of block A.
Non-Orthogonal Grid with Parallel Sides
LAB
Figure B-6: Nonorthogonal Gridblocks with Parallel Sides
In Figure B-6, we consider the somewhat more general case where the gridblocks
are not orthogonal, but the layer boundaries are parallel. Equation B-24 still holds,
with TA again being given by:
T A = k A Δz W ⁄ L A
We note that LA is now specifically the distance from the centroid A to the point
C, where C is the center of the interface between blocks A and B. If LAB is the
length of that interface, and if γ is the angle between the interface and the parallel
sides, then clearly:
W = L AB sin γ
Alternatively, let n be the unit vector normal to the interface at point C, and let ψ
be the angle between line AC and the normal n. As γ and ψ are complementary
angles, then:
W = L AB cos ψ
and

T A = k A Δz L AB cos ψ ⁄ L A (B-25)
We shall see that it will be also useful to express this as the following resistance
from the point A to the right face:
LA
1- = ------------------------------------
----- - (B-26)
TA k A Δz L AB cos ψ
Non-Orthogonal Grid with Non-Parallel Sides
Figure B-7: Gridblockwith Non-Parallel Sides
In Figure B-7, we show the more general case of a single gridblock in which none
of the sides are parallel. Point A is still the centroid, and again we wish to
calculate the half-block transmissibility from point A to the right face. For this
purpose, recognize that, in mapping the gridblock to a unit square, the variable u
represents a fractional distance from the left face to the right face. Let point 5 be a
point moving along the upper edge, such that
x 5 ( u ) = x 1 + u ( x 2 – x 1 ), y 5 ( u ) = y1 + u ( y2 – y 1 )
and let point 6 be a similar point moving along the lower edge, such that:
x 6 ( u ) = x 3 + u ( x 4 – x 3 ), y 6 ( u ) = y3 + u ( y4 – y 3 )

Then the line L56(u), connecting points 5 and 6, is a moving line that slices the
block as shown in Figure B-8.
Figure B-8: Slice Parametrized by u
In particular, u = 0 corresponds to the left edge, u = 1 corresponds to the right

edge, and uc is the value of u corresponding to the line L56 that passes through the
centroid. (Note that uc is not necessarily equal to 0.5!)
We may conceptualize the half-block transmissibility from the slice going through
the centroid to the right face as being the sum of transmissibilities of a collection
of tubes formed by lines of constant v, as shown in Figure B-9.
Figure B-9: Collection of Tubes and Slices

In Figure B-9, we also show a sequence of slices formed by lines of constant u.

Let us call the intersection of a tube and a slice a chunk. A typical chunk is shown
in Figure B-10.
Figure B-10: Tube, Slice, and Chunk
By analogy with Equation B-26, the resistance of that typical chunk is given by:
Δs
--------------------------------------------------
-
k A Δz ΔL cos ψ ( u, v )
where Δs is the distance along the tube lying within the slice, ΔL is the distance
along the slice within the chunk, n(u,v) is the normal to the slice, and ψ(u,v) is the
angle between the tube and that normal. But the area of the chunk is given by ΔA
= Δz ΔL, so the resistance of the typical chunk can be expressed somewhat more
succinctly as:
Δs
------------------------------------------
k A ΔA cos ψ ( u, v )
In the limit, then, the resistance of the tube from the slice going through the
centroid to the right face is given by the integral:
ds-
u=1 ----- ( u, v )
1- = du
-----
TA ∫ ------------------------------------------
k A ΔA cos ψ ( u, v )
du
u=u c

Because of the appearance of the area ΔA in the denominator, this integral is

1
referred to as a “harmonic integral”, by analogy to the harmonic series ∑ --n- , where
the term n appears in the denominator.
Finally, the transmissibility of all the tubes in parallel is given, in the limit, by:
1
1
TA = ∫ --------------------------------------------------------------
u=1 ds
- dv (B-27)
v=0
------ ( u, v )
du
∫ dA -----------------------------------------
- du
u = u c k A dv cos ψ ( u, v )
-------
Alternate Approach for Gridblock with Non-Parallel Sides
Figure B-11: Gridblockwith Nonparallel Sides
Consider the gridblock with nonparallel sides that is shown in Figure B-11. We
wish to calculate the half-block transmissibility between the centroid and the right
face of that block. Again, point A is the centroid; point C is the center of the right
face. The right face is the interface between block A and block B (which is not
shown). Let AC be the vector from A to C. Let CD be a vector normal to the right
edge, whose length is equal to the length of the right edge, that is:
CD = L AB

Again, let ψ be the angle between AC and CD .
Now, while Equation B-25 was derived for a gridblock with parallel sides, as in
Figure B-6, it can also be applied to this more general situation. Thus we can write
L AB cos ψ L A L AB cos ψ
T A = k A Δz ---------------------- = k A Δz ----------------------------
-
LA (L )
2
A
where L A = AC . Then we can write the half-block transmissibility as:
AC CD cos ψ
T A = k A Δz -----------------------------------
2
-
AC
Now, the scalar (also known as inner or dot) product of two vectors a and b
having angle ψ between them can be expressed in the following two ways:
a ⋅ b = a b cos ψ
a ⋅ b = ax bx + ay by
where ax and ay are the x- and y-components of the vector a, and bx and by are the
x- and y-components of the vector b, respectively. Thus we see that the half-block
transmissibility can also be expressed as:
( xC – xA ) ( xC – xD ) + ( yC – yA ) ( yC – yD )
T A = k A Δz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2
-
( xC – xA ) + ( yC – yA )
But, since vectors EF and CD are perpendicular,
( xC – xD ) = ( yE – yF ) = Lx
( yC – yD ) = ( xF – xE ) = Ly
Then
Lx ( xC – xA ) + Ly ( yC – yA )
T A = k A Δz --------------------------------------------------------------
2 2
- (B-28)
( xC – xA ) + ( yC – yA )
This is the 2-D version of NEWTRAN.
The quantity Lx is to be interpreted as the x-projection of the interface between

blocks A and B on the y-axis. The quantity Ly can be interpreted as the y-
projection of that interface on the x-axis. It is important that the correct signs of Lx
and Ly be used. Thus, in Figure B-11, Lx is positive while Ly is negative.

B.4.2 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D (HARINT)

Equation B-27, which was derived as the 2D version of HARINT, may be
extended to the general 3D case, where the eight corners of the gridblock are
completely arbitrary. However, considerable care must be taken in interpreting
and calculating the various terms in it. In doing so, we will be making use of the
mapping of the gridblock into the unit cube, as described in Section B.1.2.
That extended equation is, then:

1 1
1
TA = ∫ ∫----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ds-
dv dw (B-29)
v=0 w=0
u=1 ----- ( u, v, w )
du
∫ -------------------------------------------------------
dA
- du
u = u c k A dv dw cos ψ ( u, v, w )
---------------
Tubes and Slices in 3D
In Figure B-2 on page B-685, let Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9 be the functions
that map the coordinates of real space (x,y,z) into the coordinates of the unit cube
(u,v,w). Tubes are formed by surfaces of constant v intersecting surfaces of
constant w. On the other hand, any surface of constant u over the range
0≤v≤1 , 0≤w≤1
defines a slice of the gridblock (in real space) that corresponds to the slice shown
in Figure B-8. In general, the slice will not be a planar surface but, rather, a
bilinear surface.
Differential Area of the Slice
The differential area of this nonplanar slice is computed by47:
dA = D ( u, v, w )dv dw (B-30)
where
2 2 2
D ( u, v , w ) = J xy + J yz + J zx (B-31)
with
∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂x
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
J xy = ∂v ∂v ; J yz = ∂v ∂v ; J zx = ∂v ∂v (B-32)
∂x- ∂y- ∂y- ∂z- ∂z- ∂x-
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w

The partial derivatives are obtained from Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9 by:
∂x
----- = p 2, x + p 4, x u + p 5, x w + p 7, x uw
∂v
∂x- = p + p v + p u + p uv
------ 3, x 5, x 6, x 7, x
∂w
Similarly for ∂¹y / ∂v, ∂z / ∂v, and so forth.
Location of Centroid, in Real Space, and in the Unit Cube
The coordinates of the centroid in real space, xc , yc , zc , are found by application

of Equations B-15, B-16, and B-17. Finding the coordinates of that centroid in the
unit cube, uc, vc, wc, involves inverting the mapping functions in Equations B-7,
B-8, and B-9. This nontrivial task is accomplished by a Newtonian iteration,
which converges very rapidly. Prior to the first iteration, the first guess is uc = vc =
wc = 0.5. After convergence, the following is satisfied:
x c = x ( u c, v c, w c )
y c = y ( u c, v c, w c )
z c = z ( u c, v c, w c )
where x(u,v,w), y(u,v,w), and z(u,v,w) are the polynomials defined in Equations B-
7, B-8, and B-9.
Evaluation of Arc Length Derivative,
Along each tube of constant v and w, the derivative of arc length is given by:
2 2 2
ds- ⎛ dx ⎞ ⎛ dy ⎞ ⎛ dz ⎞
----- ( u, v, w ) = ⎜ --------⎟ + ⎜ --------⎟ + ⎜ --------⎟ (B-33)
du ⎝ du ⎠ ⎝ du ⎠ ⎝ du ⎠
The partial derivatives in Equation B-33 are given above in Equation B-11.
Evaluation of cos ψ (u,v,w)
The only quantity in the integrand of Equation B-29 now left to be evaluated is the
cosine of ψ, the angle between the tube and the normal to the slice. Let p be a
vector along the tube, and n be a vector normal to the slice. Then, from the two
ways of expressing the scalar (or dot) product of the two vectors in 3D:
p ⋅ n = p n cos ψ

p ⋅ n = px nx + py ny + pz nz
we have
px nx + py ny + pz nz
cos ψ = -------------------------------------------
-
p n
or
px nx + py ny + pz nz
cos ψ = -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- (B-34)
2 2 2 2 2 2
( px + py + pz ) ( nx + ny + nz )
The components of p are clearly equal to the derivatives of x, y, and z with respect
to u. That is:
∂x- ; p = -----
∂y- ; p = -----
∂z-
p x = ----- y z
∂u ∂u ∂u
The normal to the slice is obtained by first finding the equation for the plane in
real space tangent to the slice where the tube intersects it. To get this equation, we
find two lines (or vectors) in the slice through the point u, v, w (in the unit cube)
that correspond to the intersection point x, y, z (in real space). See Figure B-12.
u=constant
Figure B-12: Lines a and b Defining Plane Tangent to Slice
Let line a be at constant u and v; let line b be at constant u and w. Then the
components of a and b are:
∂x ∂y ∂z-
a x = ------- ; a y = ------- ; a z = ------
∂w ∂w ∂w

∂x ∂y ∂z
b x = ----- ; b y = ----- ; b z = -----
∂v ∂v ∂v
The equation of a plane through the arbitrary point x1, y1, z1, parallel to a and b
is48:
x – x1 y – y1 z – z1
ax ay az = 0
bx by bz
If the equation for that plane is expressed as:
Ax + By + Cz = D
then A is the cofactor of (x-x1), B is the cofactor of (y-y1), and C is the cofactor of
(z-z1). Thus:
ay az ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂y
A = = ------- ----- – ------- -----
by bz ∂w ∂v ∂w ∂v
ax az ∂z ∂x ∂x ∂z
B = – = ------- ----- – ------- -----
bx bz ∂w ∂v ∂w ∂v
ax ay ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂x
C = = ------- ----- – ------- -----
bx by ∂w ∂v ∂w ∂v
Note that A, B, and C are equal, respectively, to -Jyz, -Jzx, and -Jxy of Equation B-
32. But the quantities A, B, and C are also equal to the components of the normal:
nx = A ; ny = B ; nz = C
Now we have all the quantities necessary to compute cos ψ (u,v,w) by

Equation B-34. We also have all the quantities necessary to compute the integrals
of Equation B-29:
1 1
1
TA = ∫ ∫ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u=1 ds-
- dv dw (B-35)
v=0 w=0
----- ( u, v, w )
du
∫ kA D ( u, v, w ) cos ψ ( u, v, w -) du
----------------------------------------------------------------
u = uc

Half-Block Transmissibility to Other Faces
All the above discussion of HARINT has dealt with the calculation of half-block
transmissibility from the slice through the centroid to the right face. To get the
half-block transmissibility from the slice through the centroid to the left face, it
suffices to change the limits of integration In Equation B-35 as follows:
1 1
1
TA = ∫ ∫ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ dv dw
u = uc ds
(B-36)
v=0 w=0
------ ( u, v, w )
du
∫ ----------------------------------------------------------------
k A D ( u, v, w ) cos ψ ( u, v, w )
- du
u=0
To get half-block transmissibilities from the slice through the centroid to the front
and back faces, it suffices to rotate the gridblock about the z-axis, and use the
program that calculates the integrals of Equations B-35 and B-36. Finally, to get
half-block transmissibilities from the slice through the centroid to the top and
bottom faces, it suffices to rotate the gridblock about the y-axis, and again use that
same program.
B.4.3 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D by the NEWTRAN Option

Equation B-19 for the half-block transmissibility is easily generalized to the 3D
case as follows:
Ax ( xC – xA ) + Ay ( yC – yA ) + Az ( zC – zA )
T A = k A -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 2 2
(B-37)
( xC – xA ) + ( yC – yA ) + ( zC – zA )
Point A is again the centroid of the gridblock, while point C is to be interpreted

now as the center of the right face. The four corners of the right face are projected
onto each of the three coordinate planes, as shown in Figure B-13. Ax is the area of
the projection onto the y-z plane, Ay is the area of the projection onto the x-z plane,
while Az is the area of the projection onto the x-y plane. It is even more important
in this 3-D case that considerable care be taken to get the correct sign of these area
terms.

Figure B-13: Projections of Right Face onto the Three Coordinate Planes
Half-Block Transmissibility to All Six Faces
While Equation B-37 was described as the equation for the half-block
transmissibility from the centroid to the right face, actually it applies to all six
faces. Point C is now interpreted as the center of the relevant face, while Ax, Ay ,
and Az are the areas of the projections of that face. The sign of TA may turn out to
be negative, so its absolute value is used.
B.4.4 Calculation of Full Transmissibility Between Gridblocks
Unfaulted Case
As pointed out in the previous sections, the half-block transmissibility from the
centroid to all six faces is computed for each gridblock. These must be combined
to yield the full transmissibility between adjacent gridblocks. For example, if
gridblock B is to the right of gridblock A, then the transmissibility between their
centroids is:

1 -
TX AB = ------------------ (B-38)
1- + ----- 1-
-----
TA TB
where TA is the half-block transmissibility from the centroid of block A to the

right face of block A, and TB is the half-block transmissibility from the centroid of
block B to the left face of block B. Equation B-38 is, of course, the same as
Equation B-24. Similar combinations are made to calculate TY between two
adjacent blocks in the same y-row, and to calculate TZ between two adjacent
blocks in the same vertical column.
Faulted Case
Figure B-14: Fault Block Connection
In the case of the FAULT option, the adjacent blocks may share only part of the
common face, as illustrated in Figure B-14. In this figure, AA is the total area of
the right face of block A, and is used in the calculation of TA. Similarly, AB is the
total area of the left face of block B, and is used in the calculation of TB. The area
of their mutual intersection is AAB. Then Equation B-38 is modified as follows:
A AB
TX AB = -------------------
- (B-39)
AA AB
------ + ------
TA TB

B.4.5 Choice Between HARINT and NEWTRAN Options

The following 2D radial problem provides a test for comparing the accuracy of the
above two options for transmissibility. It involves a four-block (2 x 2) model in
which the corner points are given by
x ij = i cos [ ( j – 1 )Δθ ]
y ij = 3 + i sin [ ( j – 1 )Δθ ]
Figure B-15 shows this model for the particular case of Δθ = 45°.
Figure B-15: Radial problem, with Δθ = 45°
It can be shown that if the grid were truly radial, rather than approximated by this
corner-point geometry, then the angular transmissibility between Blocks 1 and 3
in Figure B-15 would be:
Δz ln ( 2 ⁄ 1 )-
Tθ 1 – 3 = ---------------------------
Δθ

while that between Blocks 2 and 4 would be:
Δz ln ( 3 ⁄ 2 )-
Tθ 2 – 4 = ---------------------------
Δθ
In addition, the radial transmissibility, between Blocks 1 and 2, as well as between

Blocks 3 and 4, would be:
Δθ Δz Δθ Δz
TR = ------------------------------------------------------------
- = ----------------------
-
3 – 23
3---------------- 2 3 – 13
- – ln ----------------- 19 ⁄ 5
ln ln -------------
33 – 22 22 – 12 7⁄3
NOTE: Δθ in these equations is in radians.
These equations should hold in the limit as Δθ is reduced to zero.
Results for the two options are shown in Figures B-16, B-17, and B-18. In
Figure B-16, the angular transmissibility between Blocks 1 and 3, multiplied by
Δθ/Δz, is plotted against Δθ,and we see that HARINT converges to the correct
value for small Δθ, and is only a few percent low for Δθ as large as 20-30 degrees.
NEWTRAN is considerably poorer, and converges to an incorrect value. Similar
results are shown in Figure B-17 for the angular transmissibility between Blocks 3
and 4.
In Figure B-18, the radial transmissibility, divided by Δθ x Δz, is plotted against

Δθ, and here we see that HARINT gives the correct answer for all Δθ, while
NEWTRAN does not.
It may be concluded that HARINT is clearly superior to NEWTRAN and is

therefore the option of choice. NEWTRAN is offered only as an alternative
option, to provide compatibility with the corresponding technique in the
ECLIPSE simulator. When that compatibility is not required, HARINT is the
recommended, and hence the default, option.

Figure B-16: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Angular Transmissibility

Between Blocks 1 and 2

Figure B-17: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Angular Transmissibility

Between Blocks 3 and 4

Figure B-18: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for Radial Tranmissibility


Appendix
C
References
1. Van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W., “The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,” Trans. AIME, 186, 305.
2. Carter, R. D. and Tracy, G. W., “An Improved Method for Calculating Water
Influx,” Trans. AIME, 219, 415-417.
3. Frick, T. C. and Taylor, R. W.: Petroleum Production Handbook. Vol. 2,

Chap. 35, Society of Petroleum Engineering (AIME), 1962.
4. VIP-EXECUTIVE Version 2.4R VIP-CORE Reference Manual, Chapter 6
5. Young, L. C. and Stephenson, R. E., “A Generalized Compositional Approach

for Reservoir Simulation,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Oct. 1983, 727-742.
6. Coats, K.H., “An Equation of State Compositional Model,” SPE 8284

presented at the 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference of the SPE of AIME,
Las Vegas, NV, Sep. 1979; also Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Oct. 1980, 363-376.
7. Beattie, D.R.H. and Whalley, P.B., “A Simple Two-Phase Frictional Pressure

Drop Calculation Method,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 8, 1, 83-87, 1982.
8. Beggs,J.P. and Brill, J.P., “A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,” J.

Pet. Tech., 25, 607-617, May 1973.
9. Peaceman, D.W., “Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation with Non Square Grid Blocks and Anisotropic
Permeability,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., June 1983, 531-543.
10. Muskat, M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1937.
11. Carlson, F. E., “Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis to the

Nonwetting Phase,” SPE Paper 10157 presented at the SPE-AIME 56th Ann.
Fall Mtg., San Antonio, TX, Oct.1981.
12. Killough, J. E., “Reservoir Simulation with History-Dependent Saturation

Functions,” SPE Paper 5106 presented at the SPE-AIME 49th Ann. Fall Mtg.,
Houston, TX, Oct. 1974; also Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Feb. 1976, 37-48.
13. Land, C. S., “Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Two- and
Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Trans. AIME,
243,149-156, June 1968.
R5000.0.1 References C-711

14. Aziz, A. and Settari, A., Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers (1979).
15. Todd, M. R. and Longstaff, W. J., “The Development, Testing, and

Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood
Performance,” J. Pet. Tech., 874, July 1972.
16. Chase, C. A., Jr., and Todd, M. R., “Numerical Simulation of CO2 Flood
Performance,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 597, Dec. 1984.
17. Russell, D.G., Goodrich, J.H., Perry, G.E., and Bruskotter, J.F., “Methods of
Predicting Gas Well Performance,” J. Pet. Tech., 99-108, Jan. 1966.
18. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr., “Application of Real Gas Flow Theory
to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting,” J. Pet. Tech., 624-636, May
1966.
19. Conte, S.D. and Boor, C., Elementary Numerical Analysis: An Algorithmic
Approach, Second Edition, 315-318, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York City
(1972).
20. Swift, G.W. and Kiel, O.G., “The Prediction of Gas Well Performance
Including the Effect of Non-Darcy Flow,” J. Pet. Tech., 791-798, July 1962.
21. Katz, D.L., et al., Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, p. 50, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York City (1959).
22. Wallis, J.R., Kendall, R.P., and Little, T.E., “Constrained Residual
Acceleration of Conjugate Residual Methods,” SPE Paper 13536 presented at
the Eighth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Dallas, TX (1985).
23. Wallis, J.R., “Incomplete Gaussian Elimination as a Reconditioning for

Generalized Conjugate Gradient Acceleration,” SPE Paper 12265 presented at
the Seventh SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation, San Francisco, CA
(1983).
24. Killough, J. E. and Kossack, C. A., ‘‘Fifth Comparative Solution Project:

Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators,” Paper SPE 16000 presented at the
Ninth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, TX, Feb. 1-4,
1987.
25. Young, L. C., “Full-Field Compositional Modeling on Vector Processors,”

SPE Res. Eng. (Feb. 1991), pp. 107-114.
26. Litvak, M., “New Procedure for Wellbore Flash Calculations,” SPE Paper
21216 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Anaheim, CA, Feb. 1991.
27. More, J.J. and Sorensen, D.C., “On the Use of Directions of Negative
Curvature in a Modified Newton Method,” Mathematical Programming, 16,
pp. 1-20 (1979).
C-712 References R5000.0.1

28. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G., and Clark, C.R., “Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir
Fluids from their Compositions,” J. Pet. Tech., pp. 1171-1176 (Oct. 1964).
29. Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, A., and Christensen, P.L., “Viscosity of Crude
Oils,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 39, pp. 1011-1016 (1984).
30. Hanley, H.J.M., McCarty, R.D., and Haynes, W.M., Cryogenics, 15, p. 413
(1975).
31. Baker, L.E., “Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations,” paper SPE/

DOE 17369 presented at the 1988 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 17-20.
32. Fayers, F.J. and Matthews, J.D., “Evaluation of Normalized Stone’s Methods
for Estimating Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities,” Soc. Pet. Eng. J., pp.
225- 232 (Apr. 1984)
33. Coats, K.H and Modine, A.D., “A Consistent Method for Calculating
Transmissibilities in Nine-Point Difference Equations,” paper SPE 12248
presented at the 1983 Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Francisco, CA,
Nov. 15-18, 1983.
34. Peaceman, D.W., “Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation,” Soc. Pet. Engr. J., pp. 183-194 (June 1978).
35. Beggs, H.D., “Gas Production Operations,” OGCI Publications (1984).
36. Modine, A.D., Coats, K.H., and Wells, M.W., “A Superposition Method for
Representing Wellbore Crossflow in Reservoir Simulation,” SPE paper 20746
presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA, Sep. 23-26, 1990.
37. Pedersen, K.S. and Fredenslund, A., “An Improved Corresponding States
Model for the Prediction of Oil and Gas Viscosities and Thermal
Conductivities,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 42, pp. 182-187 (1987).
38. Nghiem, L., Collins, D.A., and Sharma, R., “Seventh SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Modelling of Horizontal Wells in Reservoir Simulation,”
Paper SPE 21221 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation held in Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20, 1991.
39. Peaceman, D.W.: “Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation: Part 3 - Off-Center and Multiple Wells Within a
Wellblock,” SPE Res. Eng., pp. 227-232 (May 1990).
40. Peaceman, D.W.: “Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation-Part 3: Some Additional Well Geometries,” Paper SPE
16976 presented at the SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, TX, Sept. 27-30,
1987.
41. Brons, F. and Marting, V.E., “The Effect of Restricted Fluid Entry on Well
Productivity,” J. Petr. Tech., pp. 172-174 (Feb. 1961); Trans. AIME, vol. 222

42. Odeh, A.S., “An Equation for Calculating Skin Factor Due to Restricted
Entry,” J. Petr. Tech., pp. 964-965 (June 1980).
43. Dake, L.P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1978).
44. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., Jr., and Crawford, P.B., “The Flow of Real
Gases Through Porous Media” J. Petr. Tech., pp. 624-636 (May 1966); Trans.
AIME, vol. 237.
45. Peaceman, D.W., “Representation of a Horizontal Well in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation,” Paper SPE 21217 presented at the 11th SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held in Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20, 1991;
also SPE Adv. Tech. Ser. 1, 7-16 (1993).
46. Babu, D.K., Odeh, A.S., Al-Khalifa, A.J., and McCann, R.C., “The Relation
Between Wellblock and Wellbore Pressures in Numerical Simulation of
Horizontal Wells,” SPE Res. Eng., pp. 324-328 (Aug. 1991).
47. Franklin, P., A Treatise on Advanced Calculus, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1940, Page 375, Equation 110.
48. Recktorys, K., Survey of Applicable Mathematics, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge,

Mass., 1969, Page 240, Theorem 11.
49. Saad, Y. and Schultz, M., “GMRES: A Generalized Minimal Residual

Algorithm for Solving Non-Symmetric Linear Systems.” SIAM J. Sci. Stat.
Comput., 7(3):856-869, July 1986.
50. Beggs, H.D., Production Optimization Using NODAL Analysis, OGCI

Publications, 1991.
51. Brill, J.P. and Beggs, H.D., Two-Phase Flow in Pipes, University of Tulsa,
Sixth Edition, January, 1991.
52. Litvak, M.L., “New Procedure for the Phase-Equilibrium Computations in the
Computational Reservoir Simulator,” SPE Paper 25252, Twelfth SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 28 -
March 3, 1993.
53. K. H. Coats, “Implicit Compositional Simulation of Single-Porosity and

Dual-Porosity Reservoirs”: SPE 18427, Presented at the SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation in Houston, Texas, Feb. 1989.
54. Firoozabaid, A. and Thomas, L.K.: “Sixth SPE Comparative Solution Project:
A Comparison of Dual-Porosity Simulators”, Paper SPE 18741 presented at
the 1989 Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Houston, Texas, Feb. 6-8.
55. Chorin, A.J.: “Numerical Study of Slightly Viscous Flow,” Fluid Mech.
(1973), v. 57 part 4 785-796.

56. Araktingi, U.G., Orr, F.M. Jr.: “Viscous Fingering Gravity Segregation, and
Reservoir Heterogeneity in Miscible Dieplacement in Vertical Cross
Sections,” SPE 20176 Presented at the Seventh Symposium in Enhanced Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 22-25, 1990.
57. Garder, A.O. Jr., Peaceman, D.W., Pozzi, A.L.: “Numerical Calculation of
Multidimensional Miscible Displacement by the Method of Characteristics,
“SPEJ (March 1964) 26-36.
58. Morel-Seytoux, H.J.: “Analytical-Numerical Method in Waterflooding

Predictions,” SPEJ (September 1965) 247-258.
59. Abbaszadeh-Dehghani, M., Brigham, W.E.: “Analysis of Well-to-Well Tracer

Flow to Determine Reservoir Layering,” J. Pet Tech (October 1984) 36 No. 4
1753-1762.
60. Brigham, W.E., Abbaszaheh-Dehghani, M.: “Tracer Testing for Reservoir

Description,” SPE 14102, Presented at the 1986 International Meeting of
Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17-20.
61. Peaceman, D.W.: “A Nonlinear Stability Analysis for Difference Equations

Using Semi-Implicit Mobility,” SPE Journal (Feb. 1977), pp. 79-91.
62. Angel, E. and Bellman, R.: Dynamic Programming and Partial Differential
Equations, Academic Press, New York (1972), p. 44.
63. Peaceman, D.W.: “Final Progress Report on IMPES Stability,” Memo to J.S.
Nolen and Associates, Aug. 17, 1988.
64. Peaceman, D.W.: “Incorporate Effect of Explicit Capillary Pressure into

Buckley-Leverett Criterion for Stable Time Step of IMPES,” Memo to J.S.
Nolen and Associates, 1987.
65. Meter, D.M. and Bird, R.B.: “Tube Flow of Non-Newtonian Polymer
Solutions: Part I Laminar Flow and Rheological Models,” AICHE Journal,
Vol. 10, No. 6, Nov. 1964, p. 1143-1150.
66. Hong, C.: “Development of a 2-D Micellar/Polymer Simulator,” PhD.

Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1982.
67. Hirasaki, G.J.: “Ion Exchange with Clays in the Presence of Surfactant,” Soc.
Pet. Eng. J., April 1982, p. 181-192.
68. Wallis, J.R. and Nolen, J.S.: “Efficient Iterative Linear Solution of Locally
Refined Grids using Algebraic Multilevel Approximate Factorizations”, SPE
25239, presented at the 12th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New
Orleans, February 1993.
69. Litvak, M.L. and Darlow, B.L.: “Surface Network and Well Tubinghead
Pressure Constraints in Compositional Simulator”, SPE 29125, presented at
the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas,
February 1995.

70. Cooke, C.E., Jr.: “Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple Layers,”

J.Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1973) 1101-1107; Trans., AIME, 255.
71. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A., Elenbaas,
J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.: Handbook of Naturaal Gas Engineering, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1959).
72. Cornell, D. and Katz, D.L.: “Flow of Gases Through Porous Media,” Ind.
Eng. Chem. (1953) 45, 2145.
73. Coats, K.H., Thomas, L.K., and Pierson, R.G., "Compositional and Black Oil
Reservoir Simulation," SPE 29111, paper presented at the 13th SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held at San Antonio, TX, Feb. 12-15,
1996.
74. Killough, John E., Foster, John A., Nolen, James S., Wallis, John R., and
Xiao, Jason, “A General-Purpose Parallel Reservoir Simulator”, presented at
the 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben,
Austria, 3-6 Sept., 1996.
75. van Daalen, D. T., Hoogerbrugge, P. J., Meijerink, J. A., and Zeestraten, P. J.
A., "The Parallelization of BOSIM, Shell's Black/ Volatile Oil Reservoir
Simulator", Proceedings of the First IMA/SPE European Conference on the
Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Oxford University Press, 1990.
76. Wheeler, J. A., and Smith, R. A., "Reservoir Simulation on a Hypercube",

SPE 19804 presented at the 64th SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, October, 1989.
77. Killough, J. E., and Bhogeswara Rao, "Simulation of Compositional

Reservoir Phenomena on a Distributed Memory Parallel Computer", Journal
of Petroleum Technology, November, 1991.
78. Rutledge, J.M., Jones, D. R., Chen, W. H., Chung, E. Y.,"The Use of a
Massively Parallel SIMD Computer for Reservoir Simulation", SPE 21213
presented at the eleventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Anaheim, 1991.
79. Gautam S. Shiralkar, R. Volz, R. Stephenson, M. Valle, and K. Hird, “Parallel

Computing Alters Approaches, Raises Integration Challenges in Reservoir
Modeling”, Oil and Gas Journal, May 20, 1996, 48-56.
80. Nolen, J. S., and Stanat, P. L., "Reservoir Simulation on Vector Processing
Computers", SPE 9644 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical
Conference, Manama, Bahrain, March, 1981.
81. Wallis, J. R., Foster, J. A., and Kendall, R.P., “A New Parallel Iterative Linear
Solution Method for Large-Scale Reservoir Simulation”, SPE 21209
presented at the Eleventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Anaheim, California, February 17-20, 1991.

82. Burrows, Richard, Ponting, Dave, and Wood, Lindsay, “Parallel Simulation
with Nested Factorisation”, presented at the 5th European Conference on the
Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Austria, 3-6 Sept., 1996.
83. Killough, J. E., and Wheeler, M. F., "Parallel Iterative Linear Equation
Solvers: An Investigation of Domain Decomposition Algorithms for
Reservoir Simulation", SPE 16021 presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas, Feb. 1-4, 1987.
84. Jobalia, Mihir, “A Receiver-Initiated Load Balancing Technique for Reservoir

Simulation”, Master’s Degree Thesis presented to the Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Houston, December, 1994, John E.
Killough, advisor.
85. Song, T., “A Load-Balancing Technique for Reservoir Simulation Based on

Dantzig’s Transportation Model”, Master’s Degree Thesis presented to the
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Houston, December,
1996, John E. Killough, advisor.
86. Kohav, Gil, and Killough, John E., “An Asynchronous Parallel Linear
Equation Solution Technique”, SPE 29142 presented at the Thirteenth SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, 12-15 February, 1995.
87. Fetkovitch, M.J., “A Simplified Approach to Water Influx

Calculations-Finite Aquifer Systems”, J.Pet. Tech., July,1971, 814-828
88. Levitan, M.M., Li, K. - M.G.: “Tracer Flow Simulation and Interpretation of
Tracer Tests,” JETEC Paper. (1991).
89. Levitan, M.M.: “Application of VIP Tracer Option for Interpretation of

Endicott Tracer Test,” Report HO92.0045 (April 1992).
90. Abbaszadeh-Dehghani, M., Brigham W.E.: “Analysis of Unit Mobility Ratio

Well-to-Well Tracer Flow to Determine Reservoir Heterogeneity, SUPRI TR-
36, US Department of Energy (February 1983).
91. Konikow, L.F., Bredehoeft, J.D.: “Computer Model of Two-Dimensional

Solute Transport and Dispersion in Ground Water,” Techniques of Water-
Resources Investigations of the United States Geological Survey. (1978),
Book 7, Chap. C2.
92. Collins, D., Nghiem, L., Sharma, R. Li, Yau-kun, and Jha, Kamal: “Field-
scale Simulation of Horizontal Wells,” The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, January 1992, Volume 31, No. 1.
93. Killough J.E.: “Fifth Comparative Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood

Simulators,” presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation
held in San Antonio, TX, February 1-4, 1987.
94. Eisenstat, S. and Walker, H: “Chooasing the Forcing Terms in an Inexact

Newton Method, SIAM J. Sci. Comp.”, 17 (1996), pp. 16 - 32.


❖
000000Subject Index block center 3-56

bulk volume 3-55
fault modeling 3-54
A gaussian quadrature B-690
aquifer modeling 1-37 inter-block transmissibilities 3-57
arbitrary connections 7-126 positions 3-53
Aziz and Settari 13-187 thickness 3-56
B transmissibility calculations 3-57, B-691
black-oil option 8-142 volumetric calculations B-687
BLITZ 18-292 D
bottom-hole pressure calculation 38-575 directional relative permeability 5-107, 25-418,
boundary flux 2-45 36-555
efflux partitioning 2-52 dual permeability versus single permeability 4-
flux model setup 2-46 71
flux output mode 2-52 dual porosity 4-61
flux rates 2-50 benchmarks 4-75
program dimensions 2-46 Coats’ method 4-68
special features 2-50 dual permeability 4-71
bulk volume 3-55 effective fracture permeability 4-83
fracture porosity 4-82
C imbibition and gravity drainage 4-65
capillary pressure 5-97 input data 4-82, 4-91
adjustment 6-117 matrix-fracture diffusion 4-63
adjustment near critical 24-407 matrix-fracture flow exchange 4-62
hysteresis 13-185 matrix-fracture transmissibility 4-88
saturation function 25-409 partially fractured reservoir 4-73
Carlson’s method 13-181 pore compressibilities 4-87
Carter-Tracy aquifer 1-38 pressure dependence 4-89
cartesian refinement 15-214 pseudo capillary pressures 4-66
cation exchange 22-360 relative permeabilities 4-88
Chase and Todd 16-269 well permeability-thickness 4-90
Coats’ method 4-68 E
compositional flow 14-200 efflux partitioning 2-52
compositional model 23-366 end-point scaling 5-97, 8-140
compressibility checks 30-487 consistency checks 5-103
conductive fault options 7-134 directional relative permeability 5-107
conversion factors 34-531 hysteresis 13-182
corner-point geometry 3-53, 3-57, B-683 J-function 5-108
R5000.0.1 Index-719
permeability scaling option 5-105 G

relative permeabilities 5-104 gas condensates 23-380
saturation end points 5-98 gas plant 26-431
scaling for oil 5-104 gas reinjection and gas handling 39-606
scaling for water and gas 5-104 gas remobilization option 25-420
three-point scaling 5-100 gas saturation tables 25-412
two-point scaling 5-99 gas-water option 8-139
equation of state interpolation option 23-381 GBC option 6-113
equilibration 6-109 general injection region 39-618
capillary pressure adjustment 6-117 Gibbs energy minimization 21-351
gravity-capillary 6-110 Gibbs option 21-349
gridblock center option 6-113 governing equations 9-143
integrated saturation option 6-113 fully implicit formulation 9-147
saturation initialization 6-113 IMPES Formulation 9-143
supercritical initialization 6-118 miscible option 16-264
volume-averaged integration 6-114 relaxed volume balance option 9-147
F grid coarsening 10-149
fault modeling 3-54 coarse block properties 10-149
fault transmissibility 7-128 H
faults 3-54, 7-121 horizontal and inclined wells 11-153
arbitrary connections 7-126 conventions 11-164
corner-point geometry B-683 examples 11-168
guidelines 7-123 permeability-thickness and well index 11-
input example 7-132 158
input structure 7-125 pressure loss 11-155
leaky option 7-134 required input 11-162
noncontiguous layers 7-129 hydraulically fractured wells 12-173
transmissibility 7-128 fracture closure 12-175
transmissibility calculation 33-519 non-Darcy flow 12-176
flux modeling 2-45 hydrocarbon tracking 31-491
flux output mode 2-52 hysteresis 13-179
formulation capillary pressure 13-185
governing equation 9-143 input data 13-184
IMPES stability 14-191 relative permeability 13-180
numerical solution 18-281 I
optimal material balance 19-297 imbibition and gravity drainage 4-65
phase equilibrium calculation 21-347 immiscible flow 14-191
fracture IMPES 9-143
drainage and imbibition characteristics 4- governing equations 9-143
65 IMPES stability 14-191
permeability 4-83 numerical solution 18-281
porosity 4-82 optimal material balance 19-297
transmissibility 4-88 IMPES Formulation
fractured reservoirs 4-61 fugacity equality 9-144
fully implicit formuation 9-147 hydrocarbon species mass balance 9-143
mole fraction constraint 9-145
Index-720 R5000.0.1
overall component mole fraction 9-144 miscible-immiscible transition 16-267

overall hydrocarbon mass balance 9-144 phase equilibrium calculations 21-345
reduction of simultaneous equations 9-145 pvt and vle calculations 16-271
saturation constraint 9-145 relative permeability 24-407
selection of primary unknowns 9-145 N
water mass balance 9-144 net voidage 39-616
IMPES option Newton-Raphson method 18-286
compositional flow 14-200 NEWTRAN method 3-59
fractional mobility 14-193 nine point transmissibilities 33-520
immiscible flow 14-191 non-contiguous layers 7-129
IMPES difference 14-192 non-Darcy flow 12-176, 17-273
optimal material balance option 19-297 well models A-678
stability analysis 14-193 non-Darcy gas flow
total throughput 14-192 pressure-dependent gas properties 17-274
IMPLICIT rate-dependent skin factor 17-276
governing equations 9-147 numerical aquifer 1-43
relaxed volume balance option 9-147 numerical solution 18-281
inclined wells 11-153 discretization of mass balance equations
initial conditions 6-118 18-281
injection region 39-615 discretization of water balance equation 18-
interfacial tension 24-407 284
INTSAT option 6-113 linear solvers 18-292
J linearization 18-286
J-function 5-108 non-linear systems 18-289
L O
Leverett J-function 5-108 optimal material balance option 19-297
linear solvers 18-292 partial Jacobian update 19-306
local grid refinement 15-211 reordering gridblocks 19-304
application within GRIDGENR 15-220 saturation pressure and flash vectorization
benchmarks 15-234 19-309
constructing a composite grid 15-224 single-phase stability test 19-308
examples 15-240 update unknown 19-298
features in simulation module 15-228 optimization 27-445
input data 15-230 P
types of refinement 15-214 parallel computing 20-313
M partial Jacobian update 19-306
major gas sales option 39-609 phase equilibrium 21-345
minimum lift velocity 28-459 Gibbs options 21-349
miscible and immiscible conditions 16-267 PVT representation 23-376
miscible compositional option 16-263 phase stability test 21-350
miscible option 16-263 polymer inaccessible pore volume 22-360
effective capillary pressures 16-269 polymer modeling 22-353
effective relative permeabilities 16-265 description 22-354
effective viscosities 16-269 gel treatment 22-363
governing equations 16-264 material conservation equations 22-355
mass densities 16-269 PVT representation 23-365
R5000.0.1 Index-721
black oil model 23-375 non-linear iteration control 27-436

compositional model 23-366 optimal material balance 27-435
EOS interpolation 23-381 optimization 27-445
gas condensates 23-380 run durations 27-450
gas properties treatment 23-380 timestep control 27-433
gas-water, water-oil and black-oil 8-139 single-well gridded wellbore 28-455
hydrocarbon properties 23-366 data structure for the simulation module 28-
miscible model 23-380 461
miscible options 16-271 data structure for VIP-CORE 28-460
phase equilibrium calculation 21-345 liquid slippage 28-458
rock porosity 23-365 minimum lift velocity 28-459
separators 26-427 vertical flow coefficients 28-456
water properties 23-365 solution
R numerical solution 18-281
radial refinement 15-215 optimal material balance 19-297
rate-dependent skin factor 17-276 simulator performance 27-433
rectangular or radial grid systems 36-549 stability analysis
relative permeabilities 5-97 other dependent variables 14-204
adjustment near critical 24-407 three-phase flow 14-195
saturation function 25-409 total flow equation 14-204
relative permeability hysteresis 13-180 two-phase flow 14-193
S Stone’s Model 25-413
saturation end points 5-98 supercritical initialization 6-118
saturation function 25-409 Surface Facility Model 39-629
consistency checks 25-417 surface pipeline network option 29-463
directional relative permeability 25-418 hydraulic models 29-466
gas remobilizaton 25-420 hydraulic tables 29-472
gas saturation tables 25-412 model description 29-475
hysteresis 13-179 multiphase fluid flow 29-484
oil relative permeability models 25-413 solution algorithm 29-483
two-phase options 8-139 T
vertical equilibrium 36-549 three-phase relative permeability models 25-
water saturation tables 25-410 413
saturation initialization 6-113 timesteps
saturation weighted interpolation 25-414 convergence tolerance 27-437
separators 26-425 iteration control 27-436
battery configuration 26-426 primary control 27-433
gas plant 26-431 total compressibility checks 30-487
mass balance 26-428 reasonableness check 30-488
phase equilibrium conditions 26-429 saturated oil compressibility 30-489
PVT representation 23-381 undersaturated oil compressibility check
simulator performance 27-433 30-490
IMPES stability constraints 14-191 tracer analysis 32-499
LGR options 15-231 implementation 32-504
memory requirements 27-450 particle tracking method 32-503
monitoring 27-439 test interpretation 32-516
Index-722 R5000.0.1
tracer flow 32-502 inflow and outflow curves 38-576

tracer tests 32-500 tubing performance curve 38-578
validation 32-510 well index 38-572
tracking calculations 31-491 wellbore flow model 38-570
philosophy 31-492 well management features 39-579
tracking in a reservoir 31-493 automatic workover 39-631
transmissibility calculations 33-517 gas reinjection 39-606
cartesian coordinate system 33-517 gas-lift 39-622
corner-point geometry B-691 injection 39-591
dual porosity 4-62 injection prioritization 39-618
fault 7-128, 33-519, 33-525 injection region 39-615
nine point transmissibilities 33-520 major gas sales option 39-609
nomenclature 33-525 management levels 39-603
radial system 33-524 predictive well management 39-635
tubing performance curve 38-578 production well 39-585
two-phase modeling 8-139 status report 39-594
two-point scaling option 5-99 surface facility model 39-629
types of refinement voidage replacement option 39-619
cartesian refinement 15-214 water pumps 39-628
radial refinement 15-215 well completion data 39-582
U well data 39-579
units 34-529 wellbore crossflow 39-600
V wellbore gradient calculations 39-595
VAITS option 6-114 well model A-649
VEITS simulation procedure 36-562 horizontal well A-680
vertical equilibrium 36-549 inclined well A-682
corner-point grid system 36-556 incorporating skin A-669
directional relative permeability 36-555 non-darcy gas flow A-678
psuedo functions 36-553 one-dimensional flow A-651
rectangular or radial grid systems 36-549 productivity index A-651, A-675
saturation function 25-418 two-dimensional areal flow A-654
well management features 39-583 well index A-650, A-675
vertical flow coefficients 28-456 wells
VIP-DUAL horizontal and inclined wells 11-153
example model input 4-91 hydraulically fractured 12-173
VIP-EXEC LGR 15-233, 15-243
estimated run times 27-450 non-Darcy gas flow 17-273
viscosity single-well gridded wellbore 28-455
hydrocarbon compositional 23-369 surface pipeline network 29-476
voidage replacement 39-619 well infow performance 38-569
W well management features 39-579
water saturation tables 25-410 well models A-649
water tracking 37-565
water-oil option 8-141
well inflow performance 38-569
bottom-hole pressure calculation 38-575
R5000.0.1 Index-723

VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIP-EXECUTIVE®

Landmark Graphics Corporation

3.2 Fault Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54

5.3 Normalized End-Point Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-104

8.3 Simplified Water-Oil Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-141

12.2 Modelling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-174

15.4.2 Radial Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-215

17.2.1 Input Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-275

20.2.7 Test Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-325

23.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-381

26.5.2 Black-Oil Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-430

31.3.2 Material Balance Equations for Equity Fluids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-494

39.9.3 Makeup Gas-Lift Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-606

39.18.1 What is Predictive Well Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39-635

00000 List of Figures

Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-116

Figure 20-16: Performance of SP2 on Small Homogeneous Model . . . . . . . . . . . 20-332

Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-399

with Exponent tkexp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37-567

About This Manual

The Technical Reference provides detailed information on the formulation, gov-

The VIP-EXECUTIVE Technical Reference is updated regularly to reflect changes

This information is confidential, describing proprietary features of the VIP-

■ Boundary Flux Option.

■ Corner-Point Geometry Option.

■ Dual Porosity Models.

■ Gas-Water, Water-Oil, and Black-Oil Options

■ Horizontal and Inclined Well Model.

■ Hydraulically Fractured Well Option

■ Local Grid Refinement.

■ Non-Darcy Gas Flow.

■ Optimal Material Balance Option.

■ Phase Equilibrium Calculation.

■ Polymer Modeling Option.

■ Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Adjustments Near the

■ Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation

■ Surface Pipeline Network Options.

■ Total Compressibility Checks.

■ Tracking Calculations in VIP-EXECUTIVE

■ Tracer Analysis Option.

■ Velocity Dependent Relative Permeabilities

■ Water Tracking Option.

■ Well Inflow Performance.

■ Well Management Features.

■ Appendix A - Well Models.

■ Appendix B - Corner-Point Geometry

■ VIP-CORE Reference Manual. Keyword reference manual for VIP-CORE.

■ VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual. Keyword reference manual for VIP-

There are two methods available in VIP-EXECUTIVE to model aquifer influx/

R5000.0.1 Aquifer Modeling 1-37

1.2 Analytic Model — The Carter-Tracy Aquifer

Figure 1-1: Aquifer Geometry

Here, φ is aquifer porosity, μw is water viscosity, ct is aquifer total compressibility,

1-38 Aquifer Modeling R5000.0.1

R5000.0.1 Aquifer Modeling 1-39

Table 1-1: Dimensionless Pressure Function for Infinite Radial Aquifer1

1-40 Aquifer Modeling R5000.0.1

1.3 Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer

J = aquifer productivity index,

p = pressure at the oil or gas water contact,

p a = average pressure in the aquifer.

p i = the initial pressure in the aquifer and reservoir,

c t = the total compressibility,

W i = initial aquifer water in place.