Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Reservoir simulation combines physics, mathematics, reservoir en­
gineering, and computer programming to develop a tool for predict­
ing hydrocarbon-reservoir performance under various operating
conditions. This book is limited to the basics of this subject and is
aimed at developing understanding of and insight into the mechan­
ics of this powerful tool. Chap. I presents a review of the prediction
techniques available to petroleum engineers, with an emphasis on
practical limitations. To develop appreciation for the role of reser­
voir simulation in optimizing the development and production of
hydrocarbon resources, the chapter also presents an overview of res­
ervoir simulation and its applications in hydrocarbon recovery.
1.2 The Need for Reservoir Simulation
The need for reservoir simulation stems from the requirement for
petroleum engineers to obtain accurate performance predictions for
a hydrocarbon reservoir under different operating conditions. This
need arises from the fact that in a hydrocarbon-recovery project
(which may involve a capital investment of hundreds of millions of
dollars), the risk associated with the selected development plan
must be assessed and minimized. Factors contributing to this risk in­
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.
clude the complexity of the reservoir because of heterogeneous and
anisotropic rock properties; regional variations of fluid properties
and relative permeability characteristics; the complexity of the hy­
drocarbon-recovery mechanisms; and the applicability of other pre­
dictive methods with limitations that may make them inappropriate.
The first three factors are beyond the engineer's control; they are
taken into consideration in reservoir simulation through the general­
ity of input data built into reservoir-simulation models and the avail­
ability of simulators for various enhanced-oil-recovery techniques.
The fourth factor can be controlled through proper use of sound en­
gineering practices and judicious use of reservoir simulation.
1.3 Traditional Modeling Approaches
Traditional methods of forecasting reservoir performance generally
can be divided into three categories: analogical methods, exper­
imental methods, and mathematical methods. Analogical methods
use properties of mature reservoirs that are either geographically or
petrophysically similar to the target reservoir to attempt to predict
reservoir performance of a target zone or reservoir. Experimental
methods measure physical properties (such as rates, pressures, or
saturations) in laboratory models and scale these results to the entire
hydrocarbon accumulation. Finally, mathematical methods use
Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
INTRODUCTION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
equations to predict reservoir performance. The remaining sections
of this chapter provide more detailed discussions of these methods.
1.3.1 Analogical Methods. Before drilling, when limited or no data
are available, the only method reservoir engineers can use to per­
form economic analysis is that of analogy. In this method, reservoirs
in the same geologic basin or province or reservoirs with similar pe­
trophysical properties are used to predict the performance of the tar­
get reservoir. This method can be used to estimate recovery factors,
initial production rates, decline rates, well spacing, and recovery
mechanisms. The analogical method can yield reliable results when
two similar reservoirs are compared and similar development strate­
gies are used. The method suffers, however, if different develop­
ment strategies are considered. In addition, "what-if' sensitivities
cannot be investigated.
One form of analogy, the staged field trial, provides the most reli­
able predictions for secondary- and tertiary-recovery operations. In
this method, representative well patterns in a field that is a candidate
for secondary or tertiary recovery are converted to the new process
and the production performance is monitored. The results of the
field trial, which may take I or 2 years to obtain, are applied to the
remaining well patterns, and field performance can be predicted.
Managements are generally confident with decisions made on the
basis of results of a staged field test.
1.3.2 Experimental Methods. Experimental methods, both analog
and physical, play a key role in understanding petroleum reservoirs.
While analog models are seldom used today, physical models in the
form of corefloods, sandpacks, and slim tubes are run often.
Analog Models. Analog models are rarely used in modem reser­
voir studies, but two points about them are worthy of discussion.
Firs� from a historical point of view, analog models were important
in early studies, particularly in incorporating sweep efficiencies into
waterflood calculations. Second, the difference between resistance­
capacitance (RC) networks and potentiometric models illustrates
the difference between discrete and continuous models .
Analog models u s e similarities between the phenomenon of fluid
flow through porous media and other physical phenomena (such as
those Table 1.1 shows) to simulate reservoir performance. Analog
models based on the governing equations listed in the table are built
to represent the reservoir, and the appropriate quantities (those rep­
resenting pressure and flow rate) are measured. These quantities can
be translated through the governing equations into their porous-me­
dium analogs. Three analog methods-RC networks, potentiomet­
ric models, and the Hele-Shaw1 models-are discussed next.
 TABLE 1 .1 -PHVSICAL PHENOMENA ANALOGOUS TO FLUID FLOW THROUGH POROUS MEDIA
Fluid Flow Through Fluid Flow Through Electricity Flow Through
Phenomenon Porous Media Parallel Plates Circuitry Heat Flow by Conduction
Governing equation Darcy's law' Hagen-Poiseuille law Ohm's law, Fourier's law,
f3ck A tip w2A tip 1= (1/R)tiE Q=
KAtiT
q=- f.1- tiL q = 12acf.1 tiL tiL
Properties Volumetric rate, q Volumetric rate, q Current, I Heat flow rate, Q
Transmissibility, Hydraulic conductance, Electrical conductance, Thermal conductance,
f3ckA w2A KA
1/R
f.1tiL 12acf.1tiL tiL

Fluid mobility, Hydraulic conductivity, Electrical conductivity," Thermal conductivity,

f3ck � 1/r K
Ii 12acf.1

Pressure, p Pressure, p Voltage, E Temperatu re, T

·Horizontal flow.
•• fliL
R =
A

r,
I, 'I
t
e,
.��
I' r, 'I e,

GC?
Fig. 1 .1 -Electric-circuit analog for a simple hydrocarbon reser·
voir/aquifer system.3 (C1 through C s=capacitors; R =resistor;
A =ampmeter; and V=voltmeter.)
e.
-
e,
p
RC networks use the analogy between fluid flow through porous W, W,
media and electrical flow to model reservoir performance. Bruce2 in­ M
troduced this method to the petroleum industry to simulate the un­
steady-state performance of undersaturated oil reservoirs under wa­ K
terdrive. Fig 1.1 shows the RC network for this problem. In these
-! 1111 ,+
J l.r--x..-.
models, capacitance is used to model fluid storage at a point in space, Rheostat
B
while resistance is used to model the transmissibilities between
points. Capacitor discharge represents the unsteady-state behavior of Fig. 1.2-Electrical circuit for determining the potential distribu­
the reservoir in accordance with the properties listed in Table 1.1. As tions i n 20 flow systems. 4 (B=battery; r1 and r2=resistors;
a final note on RC networks, although these circuits simulate un­ G =galvanometer; e1 through e4= potential drops; M =poten­
steady-state behavior (and, therefore, may represent reservoirs under­ tiometer; w1 and w2=electrodes representing the injectors and
producers ; P=exploring electrode; and K=key.)
going primary depletion), they are discrete models. That is, the capac­
itors represent the storage at discrete points in the reservoir.
A continuous form of the electrical analog is the potentiometer. Physical Models. As opposed to analog models, physical models
A potentiometer is a scaled model of a reservoir or well pattern are used to make direct measurements of flow properties in porous
constructed with a continuous electrical conducting material. Volt­ media. Two types of physical models are in use in the petroleum in­
ages are applied at well sites and voltage measurements can be made dustry. The first does not account for the flow geometry occurring in
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.

at any point within the model . This is in contrast to the RC circuit,
where measurements can be made at only discrete points in the res­
ervoir. A second difference between RC networks and potentiome­
ters is that potentiometers can simulate only steady-state flow. Most
early studies on sweep efficiencies of waterflood patterns were con­
ducted on models like that depicted in Fig. 1.2.
In general, electrical analog models must be custom built for indi­
vidual reservoirs, making them very difficult to adapt to other reser­
voirs. The discrete RC-network models also suffer from inadvertent
malfunction of electrical components (capacitors, meters, resistors)
and the huge space they usually occupy (several rooms). Aside from
these deficiencies, these analogs are limited to modeling single­
phase flow in porous media or, at best, two-phase flow with a unit
mobility ratio.
The Hele-Shaw I model is an analog model that allows for nonunit
mobility ratios. Hele-Shaw models use the analogy between fluid
flow through porous media and fluid flow between parallel plates to
simulate the behavior of regular pattern elements in secondary- and
tertiary-recovery operations. These models are constructed with two
transparent plates spaced at a uniform distance from each other. The
gap between the plates is filled with the fluid to be displaced, while
the displacing fluid is introduced at the injection wellsites. The sweep
efficiencies of the reservoir patterns are then determined visually.
the reservoir. Coreflood experiments fall into this category. These ex­
periments, generally run on linear cores, are probably the most com­
mon physical models used in the oil industry today. They are run on
virtually every oil and gas field to determine reservoir properties,
such as porosity and permeability, and to establish mechanisms of oil
recovery. One detrimental feature of these models is that the experi­
ments are conducted at a scale that is not representative of actual res­
ervoir scale. Consequently, the results of these experiments must be
scaled up to more representative scales. Other physical models that
fall into this category include slim tubes and sandpacks.
The second type of physical model uses geometrical-, mechanical-,
and thermal-similarity concepts. That is, the areal geometry, thick­
ness, porosity, and permeability of the model and the fluid properties
are scaled so that the shape and dimensions of the model (as well as
the ratios of active forces in the model) are the same as those in the
reservoir. The performance of this type of scaled model reflects that
of the reservoir. One example is Sobocinski and Cornelius's 5 single­
well coning model (Fig. 1.3). This type of model can determine criti­
cal coning rates, water-breakthrough times, and post-breakthrough
water cuts. Note, however, that, in reservoir-engineering problems, it
is generally impossible to scale all physical characteristics of the res­
ervoir, so the use of truly scaled models is very limited. Adequately

Ertekin, Turgay, et 2al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
BASIC APPLIED RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.

SAND·PACKED PLEXIGLAS MODEL
"-------1--
BRINE
TOP THREE YALYU ALONG WI!LUORf opeN,
AU. 01lllftl CLOIIO
OIL·SUPPLY LINE
STAnc WATERIOIL CONTACT
WATER·SUPPL.Y LINE
Material-Balance Equations. The classic material-balance equa­
tion, or tank model, is a mathematical representation of reservoir or
drainage volume. This model's basic principle is the conservation of
mass: that the amount of material (gas, oil, or water) remaining in the
reservoir after a production interval is equal to the amount of material
originally in the reservoir minus the amount of material removed
from the reservoir (because of production), plus the amount of materi­
al added to the reservoir (because of injection and encroachment).
The material-balance method is simply an inventory of all fluids en­
tering, leaving, and remaining in the reservoir. The literature has pres­
ented many fonns of the material-balance equation, all of which can
be derived from a single, generalized fonn.
Table 1.2 shows common forms of the generalized material-bal­
ance equation, illustrating that the material-balance equation con­
tains much of the physics (in the form of drive mechanisms) that
governs production from petroleum reservoirs. The reliability of

material-balance analysis, however, depends on the accuracy of

Fig. 1 .3-A laboratory water-coning model.s
scaled models, in which only the most important characteristics are
considered in the scaling process, are used instead.
1.3.3 Mathematical Methods. Mathematical models are probably
the methods used most commonly by modem petroleum engineers.
These models include material-balance, decline-curve, statistical,
and analytical (well-test) methods. Hand calculations or graphical
procedures are generally sufficient when these methods are used;
however, with the proliferation of personal computers, many soft­
ware packages that perform these tasks are available. The following
sections focus on the theoretical bases and practical limitations of
each of these methods, and Chap. 11 demonstrates the relationship
between these models and numerical reservoir simulation.
available data and the degree to which the underlying assumptions
are met. The material-balance equation does not take into consider­
ation spatial variations of rock and fluid properties, hydrodynamics
of fluid flow in the porous media, fluid segregation, geometrical
configuration of the reservoir, location of wells, or rate of produc­
tion of various fluids. It also assumes that the pressure/volume/tem­
perature (PVT) data used in the material-balance equation are ob­
tained with the same gas-liberation process (flash vs. differential)
that is active in the reservoir. The material-balance equation is also
sensitive to inaccuracies in measured reservoir pressure; the model
breaks down when no appreciable decline occurs in reservoir pres­
sure, as in pressure-maintenance operations.
Decline-Curve Analysis. One of three mathematical fonns--ex­
ponential, hyperbolic, and harmonic decline 7,8-<:an often describe
the rate of oil-production decline. The general form of the decline­
curve equation is

TABLE 1 .2-MATERIAL-BALANCE EQUATIONS FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATIONS. 6

Reservoir Type Material-Balance Equation Unknowns
Oil reservoi r with gas cap

Active waterdrive

No active waterdrive (We = 0) ,

N m
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.

I nitially undersaturated oil reservoir (m=O); active waterdrive

Above bubblepoint
[J
N 1 t1PRCO) - e;o�p t 1 - Sw;)
+
W
]
N = ""- --,-
- --------
;-- ­

t1P� CO + cR - Sw,{co - Cw) 1

Below bubblepoint NM B/ + BJ Rp - Rs;)j- (We - W )
N = --''----'- ""'''"
-
-;::;-
p
-'---­
B/- Bo;

[ ]
Initially undersaturated oil reservoir (m= 0); no active waterdrive (We = 0)
Wp ( N
Above bubblepoint
( + t1PRCO) + Bo
Np 1
;
1 - Sw;)
N = =-- --,---- ----''-- -...,.­

t1P� CO + CR - Sw,{co - Cw) 1

N
Below bubblepoint N� Bt + BJ Rp - Rs;) ] + Wp
N= ---''-- - �
-=--;:;-- -
B t - Bo;

Gas reservoir; active waterdrive GpBg - (We - Wp )

;
G = --'----=-;:-'--;:;--"'-'­
Bg - Bg;

Gas reservoir; no active waterdrive ( We = 0) GpBg + Wp G

G = _-;:..:e., _,..-,-
Bg - Bg;

Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992. 3
INTRODUCTION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
 TABLE 1 .3-FORMS OF DECLINE-CURVE EQUATION.7,8

Decline Type Exponential Decline Hyperbolic Decline Harmonic Decline

Basic characteristic Decline constant, b= 0 Decline proportional to a fractional power Decline proportional to production
(b) of the production rate, 0 < b< 1 rate, b= 1

dq/dt
o = J<,qo = -- q- 0= Kqb = - -­
dq/dt
q o = Kq1 = _ dq/dt
q
for initial conditions, for initial conditions,
o
K = -.!.
K=O K = -.!. o
qb '
q;
I q I q
I q
f f f fq
dq OJ dq
b+1

f f
Ddt = q /j dt= - Oj dq
° °
qj
qj qj dt = -
q2
qj ° qj
-Ot = 10ge� bO.t
__
, = -b_ q:-b
q; = q-Cf;
Ojt 1 1
,
q ,
qb
Rate/time relationship
q = qje-D1 q = qj(1 +bO;t) /
-(1 b)
q = qj(1 + Ojt) -1
I I I I I I

f{ (1/b)
f f ( r 1dt
Np =
f qdt =
f qje-Dtdt Np =
f qdt =
f q, 1 + boj dt Np = qdt = qj 1 + O;t

[ ]
° 0 ° ° ° 0

qj -q e-D1 ,
Np = 0 N, = (b_q; ID; (1 +bD;t) ; - 1 '

Substitute from rate/time

Substitute from rate/time equation, Substitute from rate/time equation,

(1 +bO;t) = (%),
equation, b q
qje-D1 = q, (1 + Ojt) = q'
j

to find to find to find

Rate-cumulative qj -q q?
relationship
Np -
-
0
Np = (1 1-b_ q 1-b)
- b)Oj(qj

D =Kq b = - (dq/d t)/q , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 1. 1)
where b = 0 for exponential decline, 0 < b < 1 for hyperbolic de­
cline, b= 1 for harmonic decline, and K= DJqf.
In decline-curve analysis, historical production data are matched to
the appropriate rate/time equation resulting from Eq. 1.1 (see Table
1.3). Once a decline model has been selected, historical data are
matched by selecting decline parameters, D; and b, that minimize the
error (usually the least-squares error) between the data and the rate/
time equation. Extrapolating the historical data into the future by use
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.
under waterdrive conditions. Table 1.4 lists several examples of em­
pirical correlations based on statistical analysis.
For an empirical correlation to be used with confidence, reservoir
properties must be within the limits of the regression database used
to develop such a correlation. Statistical correlations may give a rea­
sonably accurate estimate for a reservoir as a whole, but the same
correlations may produce unrealistic estimates when applied to a
particular lease or portion of a reservoir because of fluid migration
within the reservoir. Forecasting errors with these techniques can
often be as high as 20 to 50%. In addition, these correlations can be

of the matched equation allows predictions to be made. Other com­
mon extrapolation techniques that do not fit Eq. 1.1 include the loga­
rithm of water/oil ratio vs. cumulative oil production and x plots. 9
The principal assumption of any extrapolation technique is that
all processes occurring in the past will continue in the future. There­
fore, it is a very powerful technique for reservoir-performance pre­
diction when operational practices are not expected to change in the
future. If operational practices will change, decline-curve analysis
cannot be used. Consequently, decline-curve analysis cannot be
used for "what-if' analyses.
Statistical Approach. The statistical approach uses empirical cor­
relations that are statistically derived by use of the past performance
of numerous reservoirs to predict the future performance of others.
This approach, therefore, can be considered a formal extension of the
analogical method (Sec. 1. 3. 1). A correlation is derived with data
from mature reservoirs located in the same region (e.g., Texas or
California), with the same lithology (e.g., sandstone or carbonate),
and operating under the same driving mechanism (e.g., waterdrive or
solution-gas drive). For example, Guthrie and Greenberger lO pres­
ented an oil-recovery-factor correlation as a function of permeability,
porosity, formation thickness, oil viscosity, and initial water satura­
tion for sandstone reservoirs that were producing (wholly or partially)
used only to estimate the ultimate recovery and not to develop a rate/
time relationship.
Analytical Methods. Analytical methods are based on the exact
solutions of theoretically derived models. Pressure-transient analysis
and Buckley-Leverett analysis I 6 are examples of analytical models.
The derivation of these models preserves the physical description of
the processes occurring in the reservoir but often results in very com­
plex equations that, in general, cannot be solved with current mathe­
matical procedures. To solve these equations analytically, simplifying
assumptions must be applied to reduce the complexity of the model.
Consequently, analytical methods represent exact solutions to simpli­
fied problems. The simplifying assumptions used in pressure-tran­
sient analysis include horizontal reservoir, uniform thickness, single­
phase flow, small pressure gradients, and laminar flow conditions,
while the simplifying assumptions used in Buckley-Leverett analysis
include incompressible linear flow, negligible capillary and gravity
effects, and voidage-balanced production.
Although these assumptions must be applied for mathematical
solutions, the physics of the problem is preserved, so analytical
methods are often used to determine how various parameters affect
reservoir performance. Furthermore, these methods provide much
of the important data required by simulation studies.

Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
4 BASIC APPLIED RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
 TABLE 1 .4-STATISTICAL RELATIONSHIPS IN HYDROCARBON R ECOVERY

[ ]
Empirical Relationship Comments
1 1611 N; to Ro
( SW;) ' (;-;-)0.09 79(Sw;)0.3 722(-PPb)0.1 741 Solution-gas-drive reservoi rs; 1 1 convert

[ ( BObSW;) ] .
• _
rp 1 - k
Np - 3244 by dividing by the oil-in-place term,
B � �� a
[ ]
7758 rp 1 -
0.1611
( SW;) (...ls....)0.09 79 (Sw;)0. 3 722(PPb)0.1 741
100

[ ]
rp 1 -
or Ro = 41.815 II All equations are valid for production below
B � �� a the bubblepoint pressure.
1.0422 N; to Ro by

[ ( Bo;SW;) ] .
N'p = 4259
( SW;) (k!Jw;)0.077(SW r01 903(PPb)-02. 159
rp 1 -
Waterdrive reservoirs; 1 1 convert
dividing by the oil-in-place term,
Bo; 1101 I a
[ ]
7758 rp 1 -
100
0.0422
or R = 54.898
( ; Sw;) ( )0.077(Swr01 903(�:) -0.2159
rp 1
�;;
All equations are valid for production from
o
[ ]
0; initial conditions.

1 . 312 N; to Ro

[ ( BObSW;) ] .
Np•
= 3244
( Sw;) (...ls....)0.0816(SWI.)0. 46 3(PPb)0.2 4 9
rp 1 -
/J
Solution-gas-drive reservoirs; 1 2 convert
by dividing by the oil-in-place term,
B � �� a
[ ( BObSW;) ]0. 312 ( 110b)0.0816(Sw;)0. 46 3(PPab)02. 4 9
7758 rp 1 -

100

rp 1 -
or R = 41.815
k All equations are valid for production below
o the bubblepoint pressu re.

Ro = 11.4 +27.2 log 1 0(1000k) +25.6 Sw;-13.610g 1 0{fto) -153.8 rp -0.035h Waterdrive and sandstone reservoi rs. 10

N� = - 0.061743 +
1
�.55 + 0.00012184T + 0.0010114(OAPI)
pI
Gas-condensate reservoi rs; 1 3 units of
STB/RB hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV).
N;
are

and Gp= - 2229.4 + 148.43 ( 1��)02. + 124';30 + 21.831(OAPI)

All equations are valid for production to an
abandonment pressure of 500 psia.

+ 0.26356 Ps
EABT = 0 54602036 +
0.03170817 0.30222997 Waterflood areal sweep efficiency at
- 0 . 00509693M
eM
.
+
M breakthrough for a five-spot pattern.
Waterflood areal sweep efficiency after
breakthrough for a five-spot pattern. 1 4

Eco
2
= 0.33 - 0.035 Nc - 4.5 x 10-511 + 1.6 x 1O-4pt CO 2 flood efficiency of C0 2 cyclic­

+ 1.3 X 10 -9 � + 4.3 x 10-2k - 0.013So; - 0.69Vco

2
stimulation process. 15

1.4 Reservoi r-Si mulation Approach properties, fluid properties, and relative permeability characteris­
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.

The use of reservoir simulation as a predictive tool is becoming stan­
dard in the petroleum industry. Its widespread acceptance can be at­
tributed to advances in computing facilities (particularly the speed
of computation and the increase in computer memory/storage); ad­
vances in numerical techniques for solving partial-differential equa­
tions (PDE's); the generality built into reservoir simulators, which
makes them useful in modeling field cases; advances in reservoir­
characterization techniques; and the development of increasingly
complicated oil-recovery techniques that would otherwise be im­
possible to analyze. A set of algebraic mathematical equations de­
veloped from a set of PDE's with appropriate initial and boundary
conditions approximates reservoir behavior in the reservoir-simula­
tion approach. These equations incorporate the most important
physical processes taking place in the reservoir system, including,
among other things, the flow of fluids partitioned into as many as
three phases (oil, water, and gas), and mass transfer between the var­
ious phases. The effects of viscous, capillary, and gravity forces on
fluid flow are taken into consideration by use of a generalized form
of Darcy's law. The advantages of this approach lie in the fact that
the least number of simplifying assumptions is used for reservoir
heterogeneity, mass transfer between phases, and the forces/mecha­
nisms responsible for flow. In addition, spatial variations of rock
tics can be represented accurately in a reservoir simulator.
1.4.1 Numerical Models. Numerical models use high-speed com­
puters to solve the mathematical equations describing the physical
behavior of the processes in a reservoir to obtain a numerical solu­
tion to the reservoir behavior of the field. Fig. 1.4 depicts the major
steps involved in development of a reservoir simulator. In this fig­
ure, the formulation process outlines the basic assumptions inherent
to the simulator, states these assumptions in precise mathematical
terms, and applies them to a control volume in a heterogeneous res­
ervoir. The result of the formulation process is a set of coupled, non­
linear PDE's that describes fluid flow through porous media.
The equations derived during the formulation process, if solved
analytically (exactly), would give the pressure, saturation, and pro­
duction rates as continuous functions of time and location. Because
of the nonlinear nature of the equations, analytical techniques can­
not be used and solutions must be obtained with numerical (approxi­
mate) methods. In contrast to analytical solutions, numerical solu­
tions give the values of pressure and saturation only at discrete
points in the reservoir. Discretization is the process of converting the
PDE's into algebraic equations. In general, analytical methods pro­
vide exact solutions to simplified problems, while numerical meth- .
ods yield approximate solutions to exact problems.

Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
5
INTRODUCTION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
 VALIDATION AND
(CHAPS. 2 THROUGH 4) (CHAPS. 5 AND 9) (CHAPS. 6 AND 9) 9)
FORMULATION DISCRETIZATION WELL REPRESENTATION SOLUTION
(CHAPS. 7 AND
APPLICATION
(CHAP. 10)

PRESSURE, NUMERICAL
NONLINEAR ALGEBRAIC LINEAR ALGEBRAIC SATURATION RESERVOIR·
NONLINEAR POE'S
EQUATIONS EQUATIONS DISTRIBUTIONS, SIMULATION
AND WELL RATES PROCESS

MULTIPHASE
(CHAPS. 8 AND 9)
LINEARIZATION

(CHAPS. 2 AND 9)
FORMULATION

Fig. 1.4-Major steps used to develop reservoir simulators. (Redrawn from Ref. 17.)

Several numerical methods can be used to discretize the fluid­
flow equations; however, the most common approach in the oil in­
dustry is the finite-difference method. The discretization process re­
sults in a system of nonlinear algebraic equations. These equations
cannot, in general, be solved with algebraic techniques and must be
linearized (put in the form of linear equations) before solutions can
be obtained. Once the simulator equations have been linearized, one
of several linear-equation-solving techniques can be used to solve
them. These techniques fall into two categories: direct methods and
iterative methods. In direct methods, an exact solution is obtained
(subject to machine round-off error) after a fixed number of mathe­
matical operations. The direct methods discussed in this book are all
forms of Gaussian elimination. In iterative methods an initial esti­
mate of the solution is improved successively until it is reasonably
close to the exact solution. The number of mathematical operations
required to reach this approximate solution is not fixed but depends
on the initial estimate, the definition of what is reasonably close (tol­
erance), and the properties of the system of equations. The iterative­
solution methods discussed in this book include Jacoby 's method.
the Gauss-Seidel method, successive-over-relaxation methods, the
alternating-direction implicit procedure, the strongly implicit pro­
cedure, and the conjugate gradient method.
1.4.2 Reservoir-Simulator C lassification. Reservoir simulators
can be classified in several ways. The most common criteria for
classifying reservoir simulators are the type of reservoir and reser­
voir fluids to be simulated and the recovery processes occurring in
the subject reservoir. Reservoir simulators can also be classified ac­
cording to the coordinate system used in the model, the number of
dimensions in space, and the number of phases.
Classifications based on reservoir and fluid type may include gas-,
black-oil-, and compositional-reservoir simulators. Classifications
based on recovery processes include simulators categorized into con­
ventional-recovery, chemical-flood, thermal-recovery, and miscible­
displacement simulators. In this book, conventional-recovery simula­
tors and black-oil simulators are synonomous. Fig. 1.5 shows
groupings of specific recovery methods under any of these categories.
Reservoir simulators based on reservoir and fluid descriptions
fall into two categories: black-oil and compositional simulators.
Black·oil simulators are used in situations where recovery pro­
cesses are insensitive to compositional changes in the reservoir
t1uids. In black-oil simulators, mass transfer is assumed to be strictly
pressure dependent. In these simulators, the fluid properties Bo, Bg,
and Rs govern PVT behavior.
Compositional simulators are used when recovery processes are
sensitive to compositional changes. These situations include prima-

HYDROCARBON-RECOVERY
METHODS

I
PRIMARY
RECOVERY I I I I
Solution-Gas Gas-Cap
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.

Gravity Rock Waterdrive

Drive Expansion
Drain a ge Expansion

SECONDARY
RECOVER Y I I
Waterflooding Pressure
Maintenance

TERTIARY
RECOVERY I I J
Che m ical Thermal Mi sc ible
• Polymer Flooding • Steam InJecllon • Vaporlzing·Gas Drive
• Surfactant Flooding • Hot-Water Injection • Enrlched·Gas Drive
• Rever.e Welling Agent • In-Situ Combustion • Alcohol Flooding
• Carbonated Waterfl ood • W e l l bore Healing • C02 Flooding
• Miscible Hydrocarbon
Flooding

Fig. 1.5-Hydrocarbon-recovery methods.

6
Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
BASIC APPLIED RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.

Perforation
Fig. 1 .6-Metamorphosis of flow geometries.
ry depletion of volatile-oil and gas-condensate reservoirs, as well as
pressure-maintenance operations in these reservoirs. Also, multi­
ple-contact-miscible processes are generally modeled with com­
positional simulators. In compositional simulators, a cubic equa­
tion of state governs the PVT behavior.
When classifying reservoir simulators by recovery processes, pri­
mary-oil-recovery mechanisms, such as solution-gas drive, gas-cap
expansion, gravity drainage, and waterdrive, can all be modeled
with a conventional or black-oil simulator. In addition, secondary­
recovery mechanisms, such as water or gas injection (where mass­
transfer effects are negligible), can also be modeled with a black-oil
simulator. Chemical-flooding processes, such as polymer or surfac­
tant floods, require a chemical-flooding simulator. These simulators
differ from black-oil simulators in that additional conservation
equations are used to track the individual chemical species used in
the flood. Thermal-recovery processes, such as steamfloods and in­
situ-combustion processes, require thermal-recovery simulators for
reservoir forecasts. These simulators use an energy-balance equa­
tion in addition to the mass-balance equations. Generally, thermal­
recovery simulators use a compositional approach. A recent devel­
opment in reservoir simulation has been the multipurpose reservoir
simulator. These simulators generally are developed with the most
flexible assumptions and algorithms, so they are capable of model­
ing all the recovery mechanisms discussed earlier.
Reservoir simulators and their applications can also be classified
by their geometry and dimensionality. For example, three-dimen­
sional (3D) simulation models in rectangular coordinates (x,y, z) can
be used for full-field applications. Also, two-dimensional (20)
models in rectangular coordinates can be used for areal (x,y) ap­
plications or for cross-sectional (x, z) applications. Two-dimension­
al models in cylindrical coordinates (r, z) can be used for single-well
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.
Fig. 1 .7-Th ree-d imensional g r i d b l ock arrangement for a n
anti c l i ne.
Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992. 7
INTRODUCTION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
coning applications. Finally, one-dimensional models can be used
for applications involving laboratory corefloods.
Although the geometry and dimensionality of simulation models
and their traditional applications are listed earlier, no single flow ge­
ometry can adequately describe fluid flow in a hydrocarbon reser­
voir. Fig. 1.6 shows the changes in flow geometry as oil is produced.
Away from the well, fluid flow is nearly linear and rectangular flow
is prevalent. As fluids move near a wellbore, the flow geometry dis­
torts to cylindrical flow, so cylindrical coordinates are appropriate.
Finally, as the fluids move near individual perforations, spherical
flow dominates and spherical coordinates are appropriate. There­
fore, whenever a single coordinate system is used, the results will
always be approximate.
The use of geometry and dimensionality to classify simulators is
not as common as it once was. This is because as the power of com­
puters increased in the late 1 960's and early 1 970's, most numerical­
simulation programs added the capability for 3D problems. Today,
all commercial simulators have this capability.
1.4.3 Reservoir-Simulation Application. Reservoir simulation is
generally performed in several steps.
I. Set the study objectives. The first step of any successful simu­
lation study is to set clear, achievable objectives. These objectives
must be compatible with available data and production history. Ob­
jectives are used to set goals, define basic strategy, identify available
resources, and determine what is to be learned from the study.
2. Acquire and validate all reservoir data. Once the study objec­
tives have been defined, reservoir and production data are gathered.
Only the data required to meet the objectives of the study should be
incorporated into the simulation model. Incorporating additional de­
tail that does not add to understanding the objectives leads to overkill.
3. Construct the reservoir model. After the data have been gath­
ered and validated, the simulation model is built. In this step the res­
ervoir is divided into gridblocks, as in Figs. 1.7 and 1.8. Formation
properties, such as porosity, directional permeabilities, and net-pay
thickness, are assigned to these grid cells. The different grid cells
can have different reservoir properties; however, reservoir proper­
ties are assumed to be homogeneous within a grid cell. Because dif-
Fig. 1 .8-Three-dimensional gridblock arrangement for a blan­
ket sand with varying thickness.

RESERVOIR-PERFORMANCE
ANALYSIS
� PRODUCTION
I RESERVOIR
I MODELING
I PRODUCTION PROFILES I EXPERIMENTAL
I I
DETERMINE RESERVOIR
MECHANISMS
......
�
I
ESTIMATE RECOVERABLE
R ESE RVES
I PREDICT RATE OF RECOVERY
Fig. 1 .9-lnteraction of methods used to predict reservoir performance.
ferent cells can have different properties, areal and vertical trends
in data can be incorporated into the model. At this stage of the study,
all data must be properly scaled for the simulation grid.
4. History match the reservoir model. Once the simulation model
has been built it must be tuned, or history matched, with available
production data because much of the data in a typical simulation
model is not known for certain but is the result of engineers' and
geologists' interpretations. Although these interpretations are gen­
erally the best representation of available data, they are still subjec­
tive and may require modifications.
5 . Run prediction cases. The final step in the simulation process
is the prediction phase, in which various production schemes are
evaluated and sensitivity analyses of various production and reser­
voir parameters are performed.
The main objective of any simulation study is to gain knowledge
of the subject reservoir. In most simulation studies, most of the
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.
knowledge is gained during the data-gathering, history-matching,
and prediction phases. During the data-gathering and history-match­
ing phases, all relevant reservoir data are collected, validated, and
synthesized into a coherent field model. This process will inevitably
yield information about the reservoir that was unknown before the
study. During the prediction phase, questions concerning the subject
reservoir can be addressed and most of the study objectives are met.
1.5 Concluding Remarks
Although reservoir simulation is the most comprehensive method
of forecasting reservoir performance, it does not replace the classic
reservoir-engineering approach. In fact, a properly conducted simu­
lation study will always use results from several classic methods to
obtain input to the simulator. Fig. 1.9 summarizes the intricate inter­
action of various methods used to predict reservoir performance.
For example, during the reservoir-characterization phase of a simu­
lation study, pressure-buildup analysis is the preferred method of
obtaining formation permeabilities; and during the history-match­
ing phase, material-balance methods can be used to obtain informa­
tion about water encroachment and aquifer size.
After reviewing the study objectives, it may even be determined
that a simulation study is not warranted because of time. cost. man-
Ertekin, Turgay, et 8al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
DATABASE
I ...
�
,' ROCK DATA
FLUID DATA
HISTO RY
t----
�
SC ALED
MODELS
ANALOG
MATERIAL
--
B ALANCE
DECLINE
MATHEMATICAL CURVES
MODELS
DETERMINE STATISTICAL
PRODUCTION
SCHEMES
ANALYTICAL
�
APPLY
EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF
OPTIMIZATION .... SECONDARY- AND TERTIARY-
TECHNIQUES
RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
�
power, or machine constraints. The simplest and least-expensive
method for meeting the study objectives should always be used. The
detailed data required by the reservoir simulator are often unavail­
able or are uneconomical to obtain. Finally, analog, experimental,
and analytical methods are the only methods available to validate a
numerical simulator. Without these, we could not confidently use
the results generated by a simulation study.
1.6 Chapter Project
Using computer modeling to simulate hydrocarbon-reservoir behav­
ior is an arduous task. This book introduces a variety of topics, includ­
ing techniques for developing reservoir simulators and procedures for
conducting reservoir-simulation studies. Through the book, it will be­
come evident that simulator-development engineers and reservoir en­
gineers conducting modeling studies should possess diverse engi­
neering experience with an understanding of transport phenomena,
fluid-flow dynamics in porous media, physics, and advanced mathe­
matics. Furthermore, engineers must be conversant with computers.
To facilitate understanding of presented topics, key chapters will
conclude with "Chapter Project" sections that present a large-scale
field example. Depending on chapter contents, new data and rele­
vant analyses will be provided, and the project in each chapter will
highlight the principles discussed. In this way, a field example will
be constructed throughout the book. The goal of this large-scale ex­
ample is two-fold. First, it will provide a platform from which some
of the more salient topics can be reiterated and reinforced. Second,
as the results of the analyses (with some intermediate observations)
are presented, important information that can be used for bench­
marking is provided. In this way, it will be possible for development
engineers to test their software using the data presented in this proj­
ect to check the validity of their simulators.
Fig. 1.10 presents the isopach and structural maps for the project
field, which will be referred to as the A-I reservoir. This reservoir
is not a completely hypothetical field. The isopach and the structural
maps in Fig. 1.10 are for the Plum Bush Creek field, located in
Washington County, Colorado. Some reservoir and fluid data are al­
tered to make the example more compatible with the contents of this
book. The isopach and structural maps of the Plum Bush Creek field
BASIC APPLIED RESERVOIR SIMULATION
 B-1 B-2

/
!
-9,280

B-3 B-4

LEGEND
Structural Contours • Well Location
A-I RESERVOIR
_

- Isopach Contours
Scale. ft
STRUCTURE AND ISOPACH MAPS
01 i
500 :
1,000 2,000

Fig. 1.1O-Structural and isopach maps of the A-1 reservoir.

are obtained from Ref. 18. The information on the A-I reservoir that Analyzing the results
is available at this stage describes it as a gently west-dipping sand­ Reporting
stone reservoir of Cretaceous age. The reservoir rock is a channel Predicting performance
sand and the trapping mechanism for the field is a permeability
pinchout updip on a slight structural nose. 1.5 The equation q = 2nfichkt;.pl/llogArelrw) represents the steady­
state radial flow of a fluid in a cylindrical porous medium. What are the
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.

Exercises analog representations describing the heat and current flows in similar
1. 1 What are the different ways a reservoir can be modeled? cylindrical systems? Identify the analogous terms and/or groups.

1.2 What are the differences between a mathematical, a numerical, 1.6 Comment about the accuracy of the statement 'The material­
and a computer model? balance equation is considered to be a zero-dimensional model be­
. cause time dependency is not incorporated into it."
1.3 Match the following.
Physical model Simulator Nomenclature
Conceptual model Partial-differential equations
A= cross-sectional area normal to flow, L2 , ft2 [m2]
Geological model Material-balance equations
b= constant in decline-curve equation
Mathematical model Laboratory sandpacks
Computer model Potentiometric model Bg = gas formation volume factor (FVF), O1L3 , RElsef
Analog model Depositional model [m3/std m3 ]
Bgi = gas FVF at initial conditions, L3/L3 , RB/scf
Numerical model Empirical-correlation equations
Statistical model Finite-difference equations [m3 /std m 3 ]
Bo = oil FVF, L 3/1) , RB/STB [m3/std m 3 ]
1.4 Put the following in sequential order to summarize the basic Bob = oil FVF at bubblepoint conditions, L 3/L3 ,
steps of a simulation study. RB/STB [m3/std m 3]
Preparing the data Boi = oil FVF at initial conditions, L3/L3 , RB/STB
Constructing the geological model [m3/std m 3 ]
Defining the study objectives Br = total (two-phase) FVF, O1L3, RBISTB [m3/std m3]
History matching Co = oil compressibility, Lt2/m, psi - I [kPa -I]
Ertekin, Turgay, et al. Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.9
INTRODUCTION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.
 reservoir rock compressibility, Lt2/m, psi - I Wp = cumulative volume of produced water, 0, RB [m3 ]
[kPa - l ] x = distance in the x direction in the Cartesian

cw = water compressibility, Lt2/m, psi - I [kPa - I ] coordinate system, L, ft [m]

D= decline-rate constant, day - I y= distance in the y direction in the Cartesian
D; = initial decline rate, day - 1 coordinate system, L, ft [m]
e - Dt = exponential decline coefficient, dimensionless z = distance in the z direction in the Cartesian
E= voltage, V coordinate system, L, ft [m]
EA = areal sweep efficiency after waterflood ac = volume conversion factor whose numerical
breakthrough, dimensionless value is given in Table 2. 1
areal sweep efficiency at waterflood
breakthrough, dimensionless
Pc = transmissibility conversion factor whose
numerical value is given in Table 2. 1
Eco = efficiency of C02 cyclic-stimulation process
2 D.. = difference operator
D..E = voltage difference, V '" = viscosity, mILt, cp [Pa ' s]
G = original gas in place, 0, scf [std m 3 ] "'0 = oil vi scosity, mILt, cp [Pa ' s]
Gp = cumulative gas production, L 3 , scf [std m 3 ] "'ob = oil viscosity at bubblepoint pressure, mILt, cp
G; = cumulative gas production per unit HCPV, [Pa ' s]
L31L3 , scfIRB HCPV [std m 3/m3 HCPV] "'oi = oil viscosity at initial pressure, mILt, cp [Pa ' s]
h = thickness (general and individual bed), L, ft [m] "'wi = initial water viscosity, mILt, cp [Pa ' s]
I = electrical current, q/t, A If> = porosity, fraction
k= permeability, L2 , darcy [u m2 ]
K= constant in generalized decline curve References
D..L = segment length, L, ft [m]
I . Hele-Shaw, H . S . : "Experiments on the Nature of the Surface Resistance
m= gas-cap/oil-zone ratio, fraction
Nc = capillary number, dimensionless
in Pipes and on Ships," Trans. , Inst. of Naval Architects ( 1 897) 39, 1 45 .

initial oil in place, 0, STB [std m 3 ]

2 . Bruce. W.A.:"An Electrical Device for Analyzing Oil-Reservoir Be­
N= havior," Trans . • AIME ( 1 943) 157, 1 1 2.
Np = cumulative oil production, L3 , STB [sid m3] 3 . Craft. B.e. and Hawkins. M.E: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineer­
N; = cumulative oil production per unit volume of ing. Prentice-Hall Inc . , Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey ( 1 959) 236.
reservoir, L 31L3 , STB/acre-ft [std m 3/(ha ' m)] 4. Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids, McGraw-Hili Book Co.
p= pressure, mlLt2 , psia [kPa] Inc . , New York City ( 1 937) (reprinted by IntI. Human Resources Devel­
Pa = abandonment pressure, mlLt2 , psia [kPa] opment Corp. in 1 9 82) 575.
Pb = bubblepoint pressure, mlLt 2 , psia [kPa] 5 . Sobocinski, D.P. and Cornelius, A J . : "A Correlation for Predicting Wa­
Ps = saturation pressure, mlLt2 , psia [kPa] ter Coning Time," JPT (May 1 965) 594; Trans. , AIME, 234.

Pt = tubinghead pressure, mlLt2 , psia [kPa] 6. Garb, EA.: "Oil and Gas Reserves Classification, Estimation, and Eval­

D..p = pressure difference, mlLt2 , psi [kPa]
D..PR = change in reservoir pressure, mlLt2 , psi [kPa]
q= production rate or flow rate, O ft, BID [m3/d]
q= production rate or flow rate in hyperbolic decline
relationship in Table 1 .3, L3/t, BID [m3/d]
%; = initial oil production rate, L3/t, STBID [std m 3/d]
qi = initial production rate or flow rate in hyperbolic
decline relationship in Table 1 .3, L 3ft,
BID [m3/d]
qO = initial production rate, Oft, BID [m3/d]
Q= rate of heat transfer, rnIt3T, Btulhr [kW]
r= distance in the radial d i rec ti on i n c yli ndri c al
coordinate system, L, ft [m]
r= electrical resistivity in Table 1 . I , mL4/tq 2 , Q . m
re = radius of external boundary, L, ft [m]
Copyright © 2000. Society of Petroleum Engineers. All rights reserved.
uation," JPT (March 1985) 373.
7 . Arps, J.J. : "Analysis of Dec1ine Curves," Trans., AIME ( 1 945) 160, 228.
8 . Arps, J.J. and Smith, A.E. : "Practical Use of Bottom-hole Pressure
Build-up Curves," Drill. & Prod. Prac. ( 1 949) 1 55 .
9. Ershaghi, l. and Omoregie, 0.: " A Method for Extrapolation o f C u t vs.
Recovery Curves," JPT (February 1 978) 203 .
10. Guthrie, R.K. and Greenberger, M . K . : ''The Use of Multiple Correla­
tion Analyses for Interpreting Petroleum-Engineering Data," Drill. &
Prod. Prac. ( 1 955) 1 35 .
I I . Arps, J.J. e t al. : "Statistical Analysis o f Crude O i l Recovery and Recov­
ery Efficiency," Bulletin, D 1 4, American Petroleum Inst., Washington,
D.C. (October 1 967).
12. "Statistical Analysis of Crude Oil Recovery and Recovery Efficien­
cy,"American Petroleum Inst., Dallas (April 1 984).
13. Jacoby, R.H., Koeller, R.C., and Berry, V.J. Jr.: "Effect of Composition
and Temperature on Phase Behavior and Depletion Performance of Rich

Gas-Condensate Systems," JPT (July 1 959) 58; Trans., AIME, 2 16.

rw = well radius, L, ft [m]
electrical resistance, mL3/tq2 , Q 1 4. Craig, EE Jr., Geffen, T.M . , and Morse, R.A.: "Oil Recovery Perfor­
R=
mance of Pattern Gas or Water Injection Operations from Model Tests,"
Ro = oil-recovery factor, %
JPT (January 1 955) 7 ; Trans., AIME, 204.
Rp = cumulative produced gas/oil ratio, L 3/L3 ,
1 5 . Patton, J.T. , Coats, K.H., and Spence, K . : "Carbon Dioxide Well Stimu­
scf/STB [std m3/std m3 ]
lation: Part I -A Parametric Study," JPT (August 1 982) 1 798.
Rp i = producing gas/oil ratio at initial conditions,
1 6. Buckley, S . E. and Leverett, M . e . : "Mechanism of FIuid Displacement
L31L3 , scf/STB [std m3/std m 3 ] in Sands," Trans., AIME ( 1 942) 1 46, 1 07 .
Rs = solution-gas/oil ratio, L3 /L3 , scf/STB 1 7. Odeh, A . S . : "An Overview o f Mathematical Modeling o f the Behavior
[std m 3/std m 3 ] of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs," Soc. ofIndustrial and Applied Mathemat­
Rs i = in iti al soluti on-gas/oil ratio, 01L3 , scf/STB ics Review (July 1 982) 24, No. 3 , 263 .
[std m3/std m 3 ] 1 8. Oil and Gas Fields of ColoradolNebraska & Adjacent Areas, M.e.
So i = initial oil saturation, fraction Crouch III (ed.), Rocky Mountain Assn. of Geologists. Denver, Colora­
Sw i = initial water saturation, fraction do ( 1 982) 2, 390.
t= time, t, days
T= absolute temperature, T, OR [K] 51 Metric Conversion Factors
D.. T = temperature difference, T, OR [K] acre x 4.046 873 E - OI = ha
VC0 = volume of C02 injected per cycle per foot of
2 bbl x 1 .589 873 E - Ol = m3
sand, O/(cycIe-L) , MMscf/cycIe-ft [std m3/(cycIe.m)]
ft X 3 .048 * E - Ol =m
w= width, L, ft [m]
ft2 x 9.290 304* E - 02 = m2
w,, = cumulative volume of water influx, L3 , RB [m3 ]
cumulative volume of water injected, L3 , RB [m3 ] ft3 x 2.83 1 685 E - 02 = m3
"1 =
psi x 6. 894 757 E + OO = kPa
"1BT = volume of water injected at breakthrough,
0, RB [m3 ] ·Conversion factor is exact.

Ertekin, Turgay, et al.

1 0Basic Applied Reservoir Simulation, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umr-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3404992.
BASIC APPLIED RESERVOIR SIMULATION
Created from umr-ebooks on 2018-01-28 12:01:41.