2006 11 08 SPE DL Upscaling

SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES
is funded principally
through a grant of the
SPE FOUNDATION
The Society gratefully acknowledges
those companies that support the program
by allowing their professionals
to participate as Lecturers.
And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,

and Petroleum Engineers (AIME) for their contribution to the program.
Acknowledgements
• SPE International for the opportunity to participate in the
2006-07 Distinguished Lecturer Program
• BP America, Inc. for permission, and the Professional
Recognition Program which has provided the time and
resources to prepare and present this material
• Colleagues whose work is represented
• Mr. Escalante, the Shekou Section, and other local SPE
chapters worldwide for their efforts in hosting these
presentations
2 of 51
Upgridding and Upscaling:
Current Trends and Future Directions
Dr. Michael J. King
Senior Advisor, Reservoir Modelling and Simulation
BP America, Inc.
SPE 2006-07 Distinguished Lecturer
Outline
• Introduction: Change of Scale & Upscaling
• Case Study: Magnus LKCF
– Validation and Analysis: What Went Wrong?
• Improved Upscaling: Understanding Permeability
– Boundary Conditions and Permeability Upscaling
– Transmissibility: Yes, Permeability: No
– Maintain the Well Injectivity & Productivity
• Magnus LKCF & Andrew Reservoir Case Studies
• Summary: What To Avoid & What Works Well?
• Future Trends:
– A Priori Error Analyses & Designer Grids
• Summary: Best Practice in Upscaling
4 of 51
Introduction: What is Upscaling?
What is Upscaling?
• Assign “effective” properties to coarse scale
cells from properties on fine scale grid
• Capture flow features of fine scale model
DW GOM Image from

Mike Christie
Why Upscale?
• Reduce CPU time for uncertainty analysis and
risk assessment
• Make fine-scale simulation practical
─ geological models: ~10 -100 million cells
Resolution?
5 of 51
Why Upscale?: CPU Time Reduction
Waterflood Field Example
CPU Ratio (Coarse Scale / Fine Scale)
Waterflood CPU Time

1.00
0.90
Uniform Layer
CPU Factor (ratio to Fine Scale Model)
0.80
Coarsening
0.70
0.60
Optimal Layer
Uniform Layering Coarsen
0.50 Optimum Layering Coarsen

MCoarsen
0.40 Coarsening
0.30
0.20 Flexible 3D
0.10
Coarsening
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Active Cell Ratio (Coarse Scale / Fine Scale)

Active Cell Ratio (Coarse Scale / Fine Scale)
SPE 95759, King et.al.
6 of 51
Upgridding and Upscaling: Context
• 3D Detailed Geologic Static Model
– Structure from well picks &/or
seismic horizons
– Properties from well logs &/or seismic
attributes &/or field performance data
– Geologic description from facies,
analogues and field data
• Upscaled flow simulation model
– Performance prediction in the
absence of dynamic data
Upgridding & Upscaling in the
– Starting point for a history match
overall 3D Modelling Workflow
when dynamic data is available
(After Roxar RMS) • When done well, upscaling will
preserve the most important flow
characteristics of a geologic model
7 of 51
Why Upscale?: Length & Area
Lateral resolution
of geologic and
simulation grids
are set by well
spacing
30 mile length of
ACG reservoirs
with the London
M25 loop used to
set the scale
Simulation Grid Cells: 200m x 200m or 100m x 100m

Geologic Grid Cells: 100m x 100m or 50m x8 of50m
51
Kanaalkop: Tanqua Karoo basin, South Africa
Deepwater channel w/splay at top of photo
~250ft, which is about the size of a single cell

in the areal direction of many simulation grids
~10ft exposure
~15ft windmill
9 of 51
10ft thick exposure of channel…
With 5 Components of a Bouma sequence
~10ft
10 of 51
Why Upscale?: Thickness
Upscaling is dominated by
loss of vertical resolution
Geologic grid will typically have

1 ft or 50 cm vertical resolution
Simulation grid may include only
a single layer per geologic unit
600 ft section of the Polaris

reservoir, with the 190 ft BP
Anchorage office for scale
11 of 51
Reservoir Zones, Well Logs & Outcrop
No Vertical Exaggeration
12 of 51
13 of 51
14 of 51
15 meters Geologist at Outcrop
30 geologic model layers

1-5 simulation model layers
15 of 51
Outline
• Future Trends:
16 of 51
Do We Have an Economic LKCF
Waterflood Development?
M1 2 :A5 M1 6 :A4 M5 :C4 1 2 A- 9
-2 7 0 0
LKCF
Limit MSM -2 8 0 0
MSM C-G B Shale
Limit -2 9 0 0
LKCF -3 0 0 0
UKCF
-3 1 0 0
-3 2 0 0
-3 3 0 0
Heather / Brent
MSM A -3 4 0 0
OWC -3 5 0 0
-3 6 0 0
-3 7 0 0
1 km
Yellow = Channel
Red = Margins
Blue = Non-pay
64x64x450 = 1,843,200 cells

50mx50mx0.5m resolution 17 of 51
Magnus LKCF
Waterflood Development Study
18 of 51
Cell Permeability Upscaling:
Laboratory and Reservoir Model
• A laboratory coreflood
Darcy’s Law:
Q K P

A  L
• In three dimensions, we have three 3 4

numerical corefloods
– Coreflood follows the coarse cell shapes
– No flow side boundary conditions are
1 2
the most common (others are possible)
k*
19 of 51
Streamlines in the Upscaled LKCF Model
How Well Did 2x2x6 Upscaling Work?
Fine Scale Time of Flight • 3D Streamlines, Time of Flight
& Pressures calculated in the
fine scale geologic model
– 2xInjectors & 2xProducers at a
typical waterflood well spacing
– Fence diagram traced within
the 3D geologic model
Coarse Scale Time of Flight
– Pressure constrained wells used
to validate permeability
• Time of Flight & Pressures after
conventional 2x2x6 upscaling:
Coarse
Pressure – Loss of 95% of effective
permeability
– Loss of internal reservoir
heterogeneity
20 of 51
Cell Permeability Upscaling
What Went Wrong?
• Sealed Side coreflood boundary conditions systematically
expand barriers and reduce the continuity of pay
• Example 12x12=>4x4 (3x3 Upscaling):
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 0 600 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 600 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 300 0 200 500
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 300 300 0 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
KX Permeability
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
• Continuous channel replaced by marginal sands

• Highly productive well replaced by poor producer
21 of 51
Streamline Flow Visualization
• Each cell in isolation 12x12 => 3x3
• No cross-flow 4x4 Upscaling
• Equilibrium at cell faces Example
• Preserves & expands barriers
KX Cell Permeability KY Cell Permeability
22 of 51
Errors & More Subtle Errors…
• Sealed Side Boundary Conditions do not adequately
represent fluid flow in the fine scale model
– Reservoir quality is not preserved
– This is the most significant error
However, there are more subtle errors…

• Needless loss of spatial resolution
– Transmissibility Upscaling
• Well Productivity (or Injectivity) is not preserved
– Well PI Upscaling
23 of 51
Outline
• Future Trends:
24 of 51
Boundary Conditions and
Upscaled Permeability - 1/2
• Upscale a
simple sand /
shale reservoir One Cell
• Sealed side
BC’s expand
barriers
• Open linear
pressure BC’s
allow barriers
to leak
• “Pizza box”
(Wide BC’s)
allow global
flow tortuosity
25 of 51
Upscaled Permeability – 2/2
Question: Which permeability is right?
Answer:
• Wide “Pizza Box” (or tortuous) boundary conditions provide the
best representation of fluid flow capacity, but…
• Sealed side boundary conditions preserve barriers.
– Barriers are often very important for modelling gas displacement,
especially for vertical permeability
– They are also important in preserving channel margins
• Both answers are useful
– Use your judgement as engineers
• What is most important in your reservoir processes?
– Use both choices of boundary conditions as a sensitivity
• Mix and match horizontal and vertical treatments?
26 of 51
Transmissibility Upscaling – 1/3
Preserves Spatial Resolution
• Transmissibility can be calculated by direct upscaling
instead of from the harmonic average of cell permeabilities
2  KX DX i  KX DX i 1 i i 1
TX i 1 2  Ai 1 2
KX DX i  KX DX i 1
2  KX i 1 2
TX i 1 2  Ai 1 2
DX i  DX i 1 i 1 2
• “Link Permeability” is upscaled from cell center to cell
center and has double the lateral resolution compared to
cell permeability upscaling
KX ( Plus )i  KX i 1 2  KX ( Minus )i 1
• Harmonic average of a zero cell permeability is always zero

27 of 51
KX Streamline Flow Comparisons
KX KX
Sealed Wide
Cell Shifted
KXY
KX
Wide
Sealed
No
Shifted
Shift
28 of 51
Captures fine scale juxtaposition
50 MD 0 MD 0 MD 38 MD 0 MD 50 MD
29 of 51
Well Productivity Upscaling
Used to Preserve Reservoir Quality
• Simulator well productivity calculated
from sealed side coreflood permeability?
– Does not describe radial flow and
logarithmic pressure drop near a well
• Instead, use three (hypothetical)
X, Y, and Z wells for each coarse cell
WI Z 
2  
KX  KY H Z
 ln r0 rw 
WI X 
2  
KY  KZ H X
 ln r0 rw 
WI Y 
2  
KX  KZ H Y
 ln r0 rw 
30 of 51
Improved Upscaling:
Well Index + Transmissibility
• Lack of pay continuity resolved through Well Index Upscaling
– Preserves injectivity and productivity of horizontal and vertical wells
– But, expands channels and removes barriers
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 400 600 0 0 400 600 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0

0 200 600 200 0 200 600 200
0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600

300 67 467 533 300 67 467 533
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 200 600 300 300 200 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
KX Permeability
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
• Contrast and barriers reintroduced through Transmissibility Upscaling

– Repeat in all three directions for 2x2x2=8-fold factor of improved flow
resolution compared to cell permeabilities
31 of 51
Coreflood Cell Permeability OR
Well Index + Transmissibility Upscaling
• Coreflood Cell Permeability Upscaling
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 0 600 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 600 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 300 0 200 500
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 300 300 0 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
• Well Index + Transmissibility Upscaling KX Permeability

0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 400 600 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 200 600 200

0 0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0
300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 300 67 467 533
300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600 300 300 200 600
300 300 300 300 300 300 0 0 600 600 600 600
32 of 51
Outline
• Future Trends:
33 of 51
LKCF Upscaling Validation
Well Index + Transmissibility
Fine Scale Time of Flight • 3D Streamlines & Time of Flight
• Comparison of:
– Fine Scale Model
– Coreflood Cell Perm Upscaling
– WI + Transmissibility Upscaling
Coarse Scale Time of Flight Coarse Scale Time of Flight
Coarse Coarse
Pressure Pressure
34 of 51
Transmissibility Multipliers:
Double the Spatial Resolution
• A transmissibility multiplier can represent a barrier
without using a cell
• In contrast, zero vertical permeability prevents flow

both up AND down and impacts flow in three layers
35 of 51
Andrew Reservoir:
Validation & Impact of Thin Barriers
Well Index +
Transmissibility
upscaling tracks
fine scale
prediction &
early field
performance
36 of 51
Outline
• Summary: What to Avoid & What Works Well?
• Future Trends:
37 of 51
Summary:
What to Avoid…
• Flow based ‘coreflood’ upscaling for cell permeabilities
– Sealed side boundary conditions will not preserve flow
tortuosity & will under-estimate reservoir quality
– Open linear pressure boundary conditions will not
preserve reservoir barriers
• A single upscaling calculation cannot be used to preserve:
– Reservoir quality
– Reservoir barriers
– Tortuosity of reservoir fluid flow around barriers
• Unfortunately, using coreflood permeability upscaling is

the most common practice in the industry…
38 of 51
Summary:
What Works Well…
• Preserve connectivity and flow within the reservoir
using flow based transmissibility upscaling
– Select boundary conditions to either preserve flow tortuosity
or flow barriers
• Preserve reservoir quality and flow between reservoir
and wells using algebraic well index upscaling
– This combination of techniques has worked well within BP &
similarly elsewhere in the industry
• Streamline calculations provide detailed validation
based on pressures, sweep, and time of flight
– Validation after upscaling is always necessary
39 of 51
Outline
– Transmissibility Yes, Permeability No
• Summary: What To Avoid & What Works Best?
• Future Trends:
40 of 51
Future Trends:
A Priori Error Analyses & Designer Grids
• Wouldn’t it be nice to know if an upscaling
calculation would be a good approximation before
you performed the upscaling calculation?
• Sources of Upscaling Error

Assumption Source of Error
(Missing Physics)
 Pressure equilibrium within  Disconnected pay within the coarse cell
the coarse cell will not be in equilibrium
 Fluid velocity is parallel to  Flow may depend upon the transverse
the pressure drop pressure drop on the coarse grid
 Single velocity within a  Distribution of multiphase frontal
coarse cell velocities replaced by a single value
41 of 51
Error from Layer Coarsening:
Flood Front Progression
• Error in the velocity distribution is introduced while upscaling
Medium
Fast
Slow
• Different fluid velocities are replaced by a single value
   K X   is the frontal speed in each layer
F  SW*Kx/Phi
• F’(S)
– This is the property whose heterogeneity we will analyze
– Analysis applies to the net sands
• Vertical equilibrium within each coarse cell
42 of 51
Designer Grids within the Flow Simulator
Static Boundary Conditions
• Source of A Priori Error: Multiphase frontal
velocities are replaced by a single value
– Design simulation layering from 3D geologic model to
minimize variationTight
in local multiphase frontal velocities
Gas - Layer Coarsening and Heterogeneity
100 20
90 18
336, 86%
Optimal Layering
Error
249, 80%
80 Li & Beckner % Heterogeneity 16
% Heterogeneity ; B-Variation
%-Heterogeneity
70 14
Regression - Error
% Heterogeneity: Uniform Coarsen
Regression
Diagonal Guide
%-Heterogeneity
60 Solution Total RMS Regression 12

Solution Weighted RMS Regression
50 Total RMS Regression 10
Weighted RMS Regression
40 8
RM S RMS
30 Uniform Coarsening: Not Efficient 6
20 4
10 2
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Model Layers
Number of Coarse Layers 43 of 51
Upscale During Initialization (Static)
Tight Gas Layer Coarsening
Fine Scale Model 22x23x1715 (Geological Scenario 5)
30
Regular-Coarsen
NextVar-OneStep
Optimal
Li and Beckner
25 NextVar-Sequential
Optimal-12L
Optimal
Layering
Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
20 Li-Ave-12L
Cum. Gas Prod. (BCF)
MCOARSE
15
Fine Scale
10 MCOARSE
Uniform
Uniform
5
Coarsening
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
• General trend shows that uniform coarsening does not perform well
• “Optimal” (293 layers) is the best layering scheme
• Flexible 3D grid (MCOARSE) provides even better results
44 of 51
Layer Coarsening:
Waterflood Example
Fine Scale Optimal

124 Layers 22 Layers
7 Layers 22 Uniform Layers

Too Coarse Too Coarse 45 of 51
Waterflood Field Example:
Oil Recovery and Watercut
• Optimal Simulation Model has 22 layers
– 7 layers and 22 uniform layers are each too coarse
Waterflood Oil Recovery Waterflood Oil Recovery
Oil Production
30% 30%
25% 25%
Oil Production
20% 20%
RECOVERY (%)
RECOVERY (%)
FineScale
FineScale
Coarsen_54
15% Coarsen_54 15%
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
10% Coarsen_19 10%
Coarsen_07
Coarsen_07
7 Layers 7 Layers
Time PVINJ
5% 5%
0% 0%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
WaterTime
Cut Pressure HCPV @ Datum
PVINJ
Water
100% 1980
90% 1960
Cut
80% 1940
Average
1920
70%
FineScale
1900 FineScale
60% Coarsen_54
Reservoir
Coarsen_22
Pressure
Coarsen_22 1880
Coarsen_22U Coarsen_22U
7 Layers
50%
Coarsen_31 1860
Coarsen_19
Pressure
40%
Coarsen_07 1840
30%
1820
Time
20%
Time
1800
22 Uniform Layers
10% 1780
0% 1760
0 2000 4000 6000
Time
8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 46 of 51
8000 10000 12000
Time
• Source of A Priori Error: Pressure equilibrium in the
coarse cell is not present on the fine grid
– Design 3D simulation grid to prevent different sands from merging
47 of 51
30
Regular-Coarsen
Li and Beckner NextVar-OneStep
Optimal-12L
Optimal Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
20 Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
15
Fine Scale
Flexible
10 MCOARSE Uniform
5 Coarsening
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
48 of 51
Outline
– Transmissibility Yes, Permeability No
• Summary: What To Avoid & What Works Best?
• Future Trends:
49 of 51
Summary: Best Practice in Upscaling
• Check transport properties in initial geologic model
– By Facies: NTG, Porosity, Horizontal Permeability, Kv/Kh ratio
• When upscaling permeability
– Preserve reservoir quality
– Preserve reservoir barriers
– Preserve flow around reservoir barriers
• Streamline-based flow validation after upscaling
– Iteration: Is there a need to change resolution?
– Future trends: A Priori Error analysis & “Designer Grids”
50 of 51
Summary: A Personal Literature Review
• John Barker • Chris Farmer • Don Peaceman
• Karam Burns • Kirk Hird • Jens Rolfsnes
• Dominic Camilleri • Lars Holden • Kefei Wang
• Tianhong Chen • Peter King • Chris White
• Mike Christie • Dave MacDonald • John K Williams
• Lou Durlofsky • Colin McGill • Mike Zerzan
• Individuals whose work and questions have shaped my

understanding of permeability & upscaling
51 of 51
Backup
52 of 51
Upscaling within the Flow Simulator
Dynamic Boundary Conditions
• Source of A Priori Error: Fluid flow may depend upon the
transverse pressure drop on the coarse grid
– Utilize actual well positions, flow rates and an iterative global solution on
the coarse simulation grid to provide local pressure boundary conditions
for the upscaling calculation, including the transverse pressure drop
Cell Permeability Transmissibility + Well PI Global Flow Rates
• 100x100x50 => 20x20x10 upscaling for a variogram-based fine scale model

• Material provided by Lou Durlofsky (Stanford) & Yuguang Chen (Chevron)
53 of 51
Future Trends:
• Calculate your errors before upscaling
• Designer simulation grids that minimize these errors
– Best coarse layering
– Best unstructured 3D grids
• Upscaling in the Simulator (Static)
– Transmissibility is calculated from the fine model by upscaling
– Done at model initialization
• Upscaling in the Simulator (Dynamic)
– Utilize well locations and well rates on the coarse grid to
define the fine scale boundary conditions
– Iterative calculation per time step
54 of 51
A Priori Error:
Lack of Pressure Equilibrium
Assumption Source of Error

(Missing Physics)
 Pressure equilibrium within  Disconnected pay within the coarse cell
the coarse cell will not be in equilibrium
 Fluid velocity is parallel to  Flow may depend upon the transverse
the pressure drop pressure drop on the coarse grid
 Single velocity within a  Distribution of multiphase frontal
coarse cell velocities replaced by a single value
55 of 51
• Source of A Priori Error: Multiphase frontal
velocities are replaced by a single value
– Design simulation layering from 3D geologic model to
minimize variationTight
in local multiphase frontal velocities
Gas - Layer Coarsening and Heterogeneity
100 20
90 18
336, 86%
Optimal Layering
Error
249, 80%
%-Heterogeneity
70 14
Regression - Error
Regression
Diagonal Guide
%-Heterogeneity

40 8
RM S RMS
30 Uniform Coarsening: Not Efficient 6
20 4
10 2
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Model Layers
Number of Coarse Layers 56 of 51
30
Regular-Coarsen
Optimal-12L
Optimal Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
20 Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
15
Fine Scale
10 MCOARSE Uniform
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model Layers
57 of 51
Future Trends:
Upscale in the Simulator (Static)
• 3x3x3 ‘coarsen’ used to reduce run-time
• Resolution re-introduced to preserve
Fault block boundaries
Resolution near wells
Fluid contacts
Heterogeneity via statistical measures
• More accurate flow simulation than
with uniform coarsening
Workflow Implications
• Single ‘Shared Earth Model’
used for both static and
dynamic calculations
• Negligible time spent building coarse grid
• Extremely flexible grid design
• Simulation speed improvement
comparable to model rebuild
58 of 51
Complex Flow in a Vertical Cross-Section
In many ways, the unconfined boundary conditions are more

typical of flow in the full three dimensional model. For example,
look at the flow patterns calculated by Christie and Clifford (SPE
37986) as part of their work on Compositional Upscaling.
The detailed velocity field shows significant local variation, and

only rarely aligns with the coarse grid block boundaries.
59 of 51
Transmissibility Upscaling
KX Streamline Flow Comparisons
KX
KX
Open
Sealed
Wide
Cell
Shifted
KXY
Open KX
Wide Sealed
No Shifted
Shift
60 of 51
KY Upscaling Comparisons
Streamline Flow Visualization
KY
KY
Open
Sealed
Wide
Cell
Shifted
KYX
Open KY
Wide Sealed
No Shifted
Shift
61 of 51
2-point Geostat Model, 100100  10x10
x = 1.0 Observations
y = 0.1 • Trans upscaling is better than k*
logk = 1.735
• T* (open) > T* (restricted)
dx = 10.0 ft
dy = 10.0 ft
• Linear pressure B.C. not good
• Line/ point average good
t t
rP re , pn restricted rP re , pn restricted
a l a l
Lin e a rP re , vl Lin e a rP re , vl
Lin e a rP re , open Lin e a rP re , open
Lin e Lin e
C, p
t pt
i c B l n d i c B C, ln
io d , io
Pe r o dicB C , vl
,
Pe r o dicB C , vl
i C i C
Pe r io dicB Pe r io dicB
T* Pe r
re, n
pt Pe r pt
n t P t Pre, n
sta re, l n
sta re, l
Co n sta ntP re, vl Co n sta ntP re, vl
Co n sta ntP Co n sta ntP
Co n re Co n re
i n e a rP C i n e a rP
L dicB L C
io e i o dicBre
Pe r ta ntPr r
Pe ta ntP
K* Co n s
-15% -10% -5% 0% Co n
s
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
Error to Fine-Scale Model Flow Rate, QX = 47.8 Error to Fine-Scale Model Flow Rate, Qy = 7.02
62 of 51
Layer Coarsening:
Waterflood Example
Fine Scale Optimal

124 Layers 22 Layers
7 Layers 22 Uniform Layers

Too Coarse Too Coarse 63 of 51
Waterflood Field Example:
Oil Recovery and Watercut
• Optimal Simulation Model has 22 layers
– 7 layers and 22 uniform layers are each too coarse
Waterflood Oil Recovery Waterflood Oil Recovery
Oil Production
30% 30%
25% 25%
Oil Production
20% 20%
RECOVERY (%)
RECOVERY (%)
FineScale
FineScale
Coarsen_54
15% Coarsen_54 15%
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_22
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_31
Coarsen_19
10% Coarsen_19 10%
Coarsen_07
Coarsen_07
7 Layers 7 Layers
Time PVINJ
5% 5%
0% 0%
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
WaterTime
Cut Pressure HCPV @ Datum
PVINJ
Water
100% 1980
90% 1960
Cut
80% 1940
Average
1920
70%
FineScale
1900 FineScale
60% Coarsen_54
Reservoir
Coarsen_22
Pressure
Coarsen_22 1880
Coarsen_22U Coarsen_22U
7 Layers
50%
Coarsen_31 1860
Coarsen_19
Pressure
40%
Coarsen_07 1840
30%
1820
Time
20%
Time
1800
22 Uniform Layers
10% 1780
0% 1760
0 2000 4000 6000
Time
8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 64 of 51
8000 10000 12000
Time
Tight Gas Example: Cum. Recovery
Coarsening Results
30
Regular-Coarsen
Optimal
Gas (at 2013)

Layering
Optimal-12L
Optimal Optimal
Li-Map-12L
Li-Ave-MaxL
20 Li-Ave-12L
MCOARSE
15
Fine Scale
Cumulative
10 MCOARSE Uniform
Fine Grid Result

5
Flexible Coarsening
Uniform Coarsening:
Too Low Tz
0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
Model
Number
Too Layers
ofHigh
Coarse Layers
Sweep
Model Layers
65 of 51
Backup
66 of 51
Permeability Upscaling
• Coarse grid superimposed on
fine grid and fine cell
3 4
properties 
 
• Darcy’s Law: u  k  p
1 2
• Volume Average 

u   1 k *  p
k* of Darcy’s Law:
• Volume average of Darcy’s Law defines the effective

permeability tensor for each coarse cell
• Flow calculation region can be >> than averaging region
• Results depend upon the choice of boundary conditions
67 of 51
Upscaled Permeability - 2/3
0
• Vertical permeability, with a
4x4 coarse grid overlay 150
• Kz varies from 0 to 150 mD

• Open boundaries over-
estimate flow capacity
-2 0
0 4
Log10 of ratio of Sealed to Log10 of ratio of Open to

“Pizza Box” Kz “Pizza Box” Kz
Calculations Courtesy of VoluMetrix FasTracker 68 of 51
What Works Well?
• Preserve flow from cell to cell within the reservoir
– Upscale from coarse cell center to coarse cell center
– Replaces harmonic average of permeability with link permeability
• Captures fine scale juxtaposition of properties within the
reservoir
<p>1 q
<p>2
T Effective

q

 qf <p>1 T*
q
<p>2
p p 1 p 2
69 of 51
Preserves Spatial Resolution
• Transmissibility can be calculated by direct upscaling
instead of from the harmonic average of cell permeabilities
2  KX DX i  KX DX i 1
TX i 1 2  Ai 1 2
2  KX i 1 2
TX i 1 2  Ai 1 2
DX i  DX i 1
• “Link Permeability” is upscaled from cell center to cell center
and has double the lateral resolution compared to cell
permeability upscaling
• Harmonic average of a zero cell permeability is always zero
70 of 51
Transmissibility Multipliers:
Double the Spatial Resolution
• A transmissibility multiplier can represent a barrier
without using a cell
• In contrast, zero vertical permeability prevents flow

both up AND down
71 of 51
Permeability Upscaling
Determines Cell Properties
50 MD 50 MD 50 MD 50 MD 50 MD
72 of 51
Captures fine scale juxtaposition
50 MD 0 MD 0 MD 38 MD 0 MD 50 MD
73 of 51
Permeability Upscaling does not
preserve fine scale connectivity
• 1x5 Upscaling Example
– Arithmetic average for horizontal permeability
– Harmonic average for vertical permeability
KX KX TX KZ KZ
100 0.01 0.019998 100 0.01
100 0.01 0.019998 100 0.01
1 1 1 1 1
0.01 100 0.019998 0.01 100
0.01 1 0.019802 0.01 1
Average: 0.215959
Arithmetic Average Harmonic Average
40.204 20.404 27.06977 0.024873 0.024751
• Horizontal flow over-represented: too much sweep

– Arithmetic average of the transmissibility is preferred
• Vertical permeability reduced by lower perms
– Harmonic average preserves local barriers
74 of 51
More Subtle Errors…
• Simulator well productivity • Transmissibility could have been
calculated from sealed side calculated by direct upscaling
coreflood permeability instead of from the harmonic
– Does not describe radial flow average of cell permeabilities
and logarithmic pressure
2  KX DX i  KX DX i 1
drop near a well TX  Ai 1 2
i 1 2
WI Z 
2  
KX  KY H Z
2  KX i 1 2
 ln r0 rw  TX i 1 2  Ai 1 2
DX i  DX i 1
WI X 
2  
KY  KZ H X – “Link Permeability” doubles the
 ln r0 rw  lateral resolution of the calculation
– Harmonic average of a zero cell
WI Y 
2  
KX  KZ H Y permeability is always zero
 ln r0 rw 
75 of 51
What Works Well?
Well Index Upscaling
• Preserve flow between wells and the reservoir
– Three hypothetical directional wells (X, Y & Z) for each coarse cell
– Algebraic upscaling preserves reservoir quality & continuity of pay
 KX  KY  NTG  DZ  DX  DY ijk

 
ijk
Effective
KX  KY 
ijk
 NTG  DX  DY  DZ 
ijk
ijk
• Use well index upscaling to define cell permeability in the simulator

– Ensures that fluids correctly enter and leave the reservoir
76 of 51
Backup
77 of 51
Upscaling Overview:
In Review
• Understand, Validate • Dynamic Properties:
and/or Challenge the Permeability, Well Indices,
Reservoir Model and Transmissibility
• Gridding • Upscaling: Quality Control
• Grid Alignment • Multiphase Flow &
• Static Properties Pseudoization
• Iteration & Learning
78 of 51
Future Trends:
Upgridding and Upscaling
• Design of the simulation
grid at run-time
– Fine scale model initialized in
the simulator
– Resolution chosen as
required by calculation
– Error estimates used to
design grid
• Regular grid Bypass simulation gridding and
property upscaling external to the
– Layer grouping flow simulator
• Unstructured grid
– Designed composite corner
point grids in 3D
79 of 51
How to Combine Well Index &
• Well Index upscaling defines cell permeability
– Algebraic average (close to arithmetic average)
• Adjust transmissibility at cell faces according to flow-
based upscaling calculations
2KX DX i  2KX DX i 1
TX i 1 2  TMX i 1 2  Ai 1 2
2KX DX i  2KX DX i1
Face Property Cell Properties
• Retain two flow calculations as sensitivities

– “Pizza Box” boundary conditions will preserve tortuosity
– Sealed side barriers will preserve local barriers
80 of 51
Backup
81 of 51
Magnus LKCF
Waterflood Development Study
82 of 51
83 of 51
LKCF Upscaling Streamline Validation Comparions of Geological and Upscaled Model Performance Using TOF
Geological model has 1.78 million cells with 400,000 active cells. 1 Injector and 3 producers
30.0%
CPU time scale =1 x1.8 x2.4 x3.7 x6.8 x15.6
25.0%
42285 active cells 152734 active cells
20.0%
Error compared to geological model
15.0%
Error on injection rate

10.0% Error on connected volume
5.0%
0.0%
2x2x6 2x2x4 2x2x2 1x1x6 1x1x4 1x1x2
-5.0%
-10.0%
Upscale ( NX * NY * NZ)
84 of 51
Backup
85 of 51
Arithmetic Average
• Think of all of the reservoir re-stacked and placed
immediately adjacent to a well.
– All the rock feels the same pressure gradient
K1
P
Q   K j Aj 
L
KN
P
86 of 51
Harmonic Average
• Think of all of the reservoir sliced and stacked into one
amazingly long core.
– All the flow must run through each piece of rock.
 L j  Q
P    
 j K  A
 j 
K1 KN
P
87 of 51
Upscaling Exercise: Flow Pictures
• Geometric Average: Permeability follows a log normal distribution.
In others words, the logarithm of permeability follows a Gaussian
F distribution, and the average of the data provides an unbiased
r estimate of the mean.
e Mode,
q Median
u & Mean
e
n Perm Log Perm
c• Important Exceptions:
y – What if we lose all of our unconsolidated core samples?
– What if we never make permeability measurements of our muds?
88 of 51
Arithmetic-Harmonic
• Harmonic followed by Arithmetic: Turn off all cross-flow
between layers. Now you have the sum of many core
floods!
P
89 of 51
Harmonic-Arithmetic
• Arithmetic followed by Harmonic: Think of perfect vertical
pressure equilibrium. This generates mixing at each
column of the model, and a single average core flood
P1 PN
90 of 51
Coarsen in 3D:
Preserve Pay/Non-Pay in Each Column
Active cell ratio
48,790/153,151used
for equivalent # layers
Tight gas recovery is

dominated by the fine scale
pay continuity
91 of 51
Tight Gas Field Example
Layer Coarsening Analysis
• 1715 Geologic Layers Coarsened to 1 Simulation Layer
Tight Gas - Layer Coarsening and Heterogeneity
100
Li & Beckner: Too Aggressive 20
90 18
336, 86%
Optimal Layering
Error
249, 80%
%-Heterogeneity
70 14
Regression - Error
Regression
Diagonal Guide
%-Heterogeneity

40 8
RMS RMS
30
Uniform Coarsening: Not Efficient 6
20 4
10 2
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Number of Coarse Layers

Model Layers
92 of 51
Effective Vertical Permeability
Impact of Boundary Conditions
• Upscale shales
on a sand
background One Cell
• Sealed sides
capture local
flow barriers
• Linear pressure
allows barriers
to leak
• “Pizza box”
allows global
flow tortuosity
93 of 51
Summary:
What to Avoid
• Flow based upscaling for cell permeabilities
– Sealed side boundary conditions used for flow based
upscaling of permeability
– Using the same upscaled flow based permeability to
calculate both well indices and intercell transmissibility
– Linear pressure (open) boundary conditions used for
flow based upscaling of permeability
• Unfortunately, these steps describe the most common

upscaling approaches in the industry…
94 of 51
Summary:
What Works Well
• Use different upscaling techniques to extract different
flow characteristics from the fine scale geologic model
– Well Index Upscaling preserves continuity of pay and provides
a measure of the reservoir quality
– Transmissibility Upscaling provides higher spatial resolution
• Different boundary conditions preserve either flow tortuosity or
flow barriers
– This combination of techniques has worked well within BP &
elsewhere in the industry
• Streamline calculations provide detailed validation
based on pressures, sweep, and time of flight
– Validation after upscaling is always necessary
95 of 51

2006 11 08 SPE DL Upscaling

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

2006 11 08 SPE DL Upscaling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE DISTINGUISHED LECTURER SERIES

And special thanks to The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical,

DW GOM Image from

Waterflood CPU Time

0.50 Optimum Layering Coarsen

Active Cell Ratio (Coarse Scale / Fine Scale)

SPE 95759, King et.al.

Simulation Grid Cells: 200m x 200m or 100m x 100m

~250ft, which is about the size of a single cell

Geologic grid will typically have

600 ft section of the Polaris

30 geologic model layers

64x64x450 = 1,843,200 cells

• In three dimensions, we have three 3 4

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 0 600 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 600 0

300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0

• Continuous channel replaced by marginal sands

KX Cell Permeability KY Cell Permeability

However, there are more subtle errors…

• Harmonic average of a zero cell permeability is always zero

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0

300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0

300 300 300 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600

• Contrast and barriers reintroduced through Transmissibility Upscaling

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 0 600 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 600 0

300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0

• Well Index + Transmissibility Upscaling KX Permeability

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 0 400 600 0

0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0 0 0 200 600 200

300 300 300 0 0 0 600 600 600 600 600 0

Coarse Scale Time of Flight Coarse Scale Time of Flight

• In contrast, zero vertical permeability prevents flow

• Unfortunately, using coreflood permeability upscaling is

• Sources of Upscaling Error

60 Solution Total RMS Regression 12

Fine Scale Optimal

7 Layers 22 Uniform Layers

• Individuals whose work and questions have shaped my

Cell Permeability Transmissibility + Well PI Global Flow Rates

• 100x100x50 => 20x20x10 upscaling for a variogram-based fine scale model

Assumption Source of Error

60 Solution Total RMS Regression 12

In many ways, the unconfined boundary conditions are more

The detailed velocity field shows significant local variation, and

Fine Scale Optimal

7 Layers 22 Uniform Layers

Li and Beckner NextVar-OneStep

Fine Grid Result

• Volume average of Darcy’s Law defines the effective

• Kz varies from 0 to 150 mD

Log10 of ratio of Sealed to Log10 of ratio of Open to

• In contrast, zero vertical permeability prevents flow

• Horizontal flow over-represented: too much sweep

 KX  KY  NTG  DZ  DX  DY ijk

• Use well index upscaling to define cell permeability in the simulator

• Retain two flow calculations as sensitivities