Oghena Andrew Dissertation

QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION By Andrew Oghena, B.E, M.S.
A DISSERTATION IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PETROLEUM ENGINEERING Approved Lloyd R. Heinze Chairperson of the Committee
Shameem Siddiqui Malgorzata Ziaja

Accepted John Borrelli Dean of the Graduate School May, 2007
Copyright 2006, Andrew Oghena
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For this research, numerical simulation was utilized to build black oil and compositional reservoir simulation models. The modeled reservoirs were used to quantify uncertainty associated with reservoir performance by utilizing Black Oil Conditioning technique. This method is performed after history matching. It involves perturbing the history matched model to generate few realizations and simultaneously modeling each realization using both black oil and composition simulation and, thereafter, condition the black oil output with the compositional simulation results. This approach allows the use of few simulation models to quantify simulated reservoir performance uncertainty. The main source of uncertainty focused within this research is the uncertainty associated with reservoir description. The reservoir description parameter of interest is permeability. Ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability distribution of the history matched black oil model was perturbed slightly to generate the few realizations. It is well known, that black oil simulation model is limited in terms of its capacity to provide detailed compositional information and, therefore, exhibit less fluid behavior capacity. As a result, to more accurately account for the influence of reservoir description and fluid behavior on simulated reservoir performance, this research provides a method of conditioning black oil results by compositional simulation output and also proposes two algorithms for estimating confidence interval during uncertainty assessment. The assumption behind this technique is that all reservoirs have some element of compositionality in their reservoir fluid. In conclusion, this research also recommend sufficient history period whereby observed field historical data can be utilized for acceptable reservoir history matching.
Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was conducted at Texas Tech University under the supervision of Dr. Akanni Lawal and Dr. Lloyd Heinze. I like to express many thanks to Dr. Heinze for his technical advice and direction in pursuing this study. In particular, I am grateful for his patience during several lengthy deliberations to attend to the demands of this project despite his tight schedule. I am also indebted to Dr. Lawal for initiating this research and for his reservoir fluid phase behavior contribution. My gratitude also goes to the other members of my committee, Dr. Shameem Siddiqui and Dr. Malgorzata Ziaja and to Ms. Joan Blackmon for editing this dissertation report. I highly appreciate the moral support from my parents, Ms. Unwana Ebiwok, my entire family members, and the financial support from the Petroleum Engineering Department. Above all, I give special gratitude to Almighty God for giving me the opportunity to undertake this study.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES NOMENCLATURE CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS 1.1 Statement of Research Project 1.2 Fundamentals of Reservoir Performance Simulation 1.3 Sources of Uncertainties in Reservoir Performance Simulation 1.3.1 Geological Uncertainty 1.3.2 Upscaling Uncertainty 1.3.3 Model Uncertainty 1.3.3.1 Truncation, Stability and Round-off errors 1.3.4 Reservoir Description Uncertainty 1.4 Black Oil and Compositional Simulations 1.4.1 Black Oil Simulation 1.4.2 Compositional Simulation 1.5 Problem Definition 1.6 The economic significance of uncertainty quantification METHODS FOR UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION 2.1 Literature Review 2.2 Definition of Simulation Input Parameter Associated Uncertainty 2.3 Model Parameterization 2.3.1 Grid Blocks 2.3.2 Regions 2.3.3 Pilot Points 2.4 Objective Function 2.4.1 Least Square 2.4.2 Likelihood Function 2.4.3 Posterior Distribution 2.5 Model Optimization Process 2.5.1 Gradient Optimization 2.5.2 Non-Gradient Technique 2.5.3 Root Mean Square Match Analysis 2.6 Uncertainty Quantification Algorithms 2.6.1 Linear Uncertainty Analysis 2.6.2 Probability Uncertainty Quantification 2.6.2.1 Input Parameter Probability Distribution Function 2.6.2.2 Output Parameter Probability Distribution Function 2.6.3 Quantification of Uncertainty Using Bayesian Approach 2.7 Uncertainty Forecasting ii v vi vii ix
1 4 6 6 8 12 17 18 19 21 23 28 30 32 37 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 45 46 46 48 48 49 52 56 56 58
II
iii
III.
RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION 3.1 Reservoir Heterogeneity 3.1.1 Heterogeneity Scale Effect 3.1.2 Heterogeneity Measurement 3.2 Reservoir Simulator 3.3 Reservoir Model Description 3.4 First Case Simulation: Natural Depletion Model 3.5 Second Case Simulation: Water-Alternate-Gas Model RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 4.1 History Matching and Optimization 4.2 Research Methodology 4.3 Observed History Data Duration 4.3.1 Well Testing Interpretation 4.4 Ultimate Recovery Uncertainty: Natural Depletion 4.4.1 Positive and Negative Confidence Interval Algorithms 4.5 Ultimate Recovery Uncertainty: Water-Alternate-Gas 4.6 Justification of the applied Uncertainty Quantification Method 4.7 Relating Research Findings to Existing Literature CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Conclusions 5.2 Recommendations
61 61 63 66 71 73 79 83 83 86 93 95 97 102 104 105 108 109
IV.
V.
REFERENCES APPENDICES A. B. C. D. E. RESERVOIR FLUID PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES SIMULATION MODEL DATA FILE DATA FOR OBSERVED HISTORY DURATION PLOTS OF BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION GENERATED DATA DATA FOR OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK OIL WITH COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION
iv
ABSTRACT This research presents a method to quantify uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction after history match by conditioning black oil with compositional simulation. Two test cases were investigated. In the first test case, a black oil history matched model of a natural depleted volatile oil reservoir was used to predict reservoir performance. The same reservoir was simulated with compositional model and the model used to forecast reservoir performance. The difference between black oil and compositional models predicted cumulative oil production were evaluated using an objective function algorithm. To minimize the objective function, the black oil and compositional simulation reservoir descriptions were equally perturbed to generate few multiple realizations. These new realizations were used to predict oil recovery and their forecast optimized. Non-linear analysis of the optimization results was used to quantify the range of uncertainty associated with the predicted cumulative oil production. Similarly, a second test case was studied whereby, the same volatile reservoir was produced under water-alternate-gas injection scheme. As in the first test case, it is shown how optimization followed by nonlinear analysis of both the black oil and compositional simulation predictions can be used to assess uncertainty in reservoir performance forecast. It is well known that the disadvantage of the black oil is its inability to simulate comprehensive reservoir fluid compositional data. To eliminate this limitation in reservoir performance prediction, this research presents a technique that is based on conditioning black oil output with compositional simulation in order to better account for fluid phase behavior and reservoir description influence on reservoir performance.
Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007 Quantification of Uncertainties Associated with Reservoir Performance Simulation
LIST OF TABLES 1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 2 Parameters Equation of State Critical Compressibility Factor Three types of distribution: Normal, Lognormal and Exponential Influence of Heterogeneity Scale Equations Solved by a Reservoir Simulator Common Data Required for Reservoir Simulation Common Reservoir Simulator Grid Dimensions Reservoir Layer Data Reservoir Model Data Data for Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Compositional Fluid Description Peng-Robinson Fluid Characterization Injection Gas Composition Base Case Reservoir Description and Simulation Output 1% Reservoir Description Perturbation 30% Reservoir Description Perturbation 90% Reservoir Description Perturbation Transient Pressure Interpretation Conditioning of Black Oil Simulator with Compositional Perturbed KV/KH and Corresponding Simulator Cumulative Oil Production Black Oil Conditioning 27 53 62 68 69 70 74 75 76 77 77 80 87 87 88 88 93 95 97 106
vi
LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 Uncertainty Sources 1.2 Individual Uncertainties and Composite Uncertainty 1.3 History Matching Flow Chart 1.4 Upscaling Process 1.5 Finite Difference 1.6 3-Dimensional Discretized Model 1.7 Explicit Approximation 1.8 Implicit Formulation 1.9 Black Oil and Composition Simulation Processes 2.1 Root Mean Square Match Analysis 2.2 Cumulative Distribution Function 2.3 Cumulative Distribution Function Statistical Properties 2.4 Normal Probability Distribution 2.5 Discrete Histogram plot used to generate probability distribution function 2.6 Continuous probability distribution function 2.7 Relationship between input parameters and model result uncertainty 3.1 Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient Method 3.2 Grid Block 3.3 Reservoir Model Schematic 3.4 Reservoir Model Cross-section Schematic 3.5 Second Case Reservoir Model Schematic 2 3 5 11 13 14 15 15 22 47 51 51 53 55 55 56 65 69 74 80 81
vii
3.6 Oil saturation at time zero 3.7 Oil Saturation after 12 Years 4.1 Black Oil Conditioning Flow Chart 4.2 Two Months Observed History Data Matching 4.3 Six Months Observed History Data Matching 4.4 Twelve Months Observed History Data Matching 4.5 Eighteen Months Observed History Data Matching 4.6 Twenty Four Months History Data Matching 4.7 Forty Eight Months History Data Matching 4.8 Reservoir Performance Prediction 1 4.9 Reservoir Performance Prediction 2 4.10 Observed History Data Log-Log Plot 4.11 History Matched Model Log-Log Plot 4.12 Black Oil Simulator Forecast after Conditioning 4.13 Positive Confidence Interval Algorithm 4.14 Negative Confidence Interval Algorithm 4.15 Cumulative Oil Production Uncertainty Quantification 4.16 Water-cut Uncertainty Quantification 4.17 Uncertainty Forecast for WAG Scheme 4.18 Conventional Linear Analysis of Uncertainty
81 82 85 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 94 94 96 98 98 100 101 103 107
viii
NOMENCLATURE Symbol a A b B c C D f
k
Definition Attraction Term of EOS Dimensionless attraction term Van der Waals co-volume Dimensionless van der Waals co-volume Compressibility Carbon component Dimensional Fugacity Permeability Number of variables Liquid mole fraction Fugacity coefficient Pressure Flow rate Universal Gas Constant Time Absolute Temperature Vapour mole fraction x-direction y-direction z-direction Gas deviation/compressibility Factor Adaptive Implicit Bottom hole pressure Cumulative distribution function Gas-oil-ratio Fully implicit
n L m P
Q
R t T V
x
y z Z AIM BHP cdf GOR IMPLICIT
ix
IMPES pdf RDM RMS WCT Bo BO Cp COP FPR FGOR FWCT HC MCMC MSCF mD PDE PVT STB TOP WAG Rs Sw SoS V xi yi N EoS
Implicit Pressure Explicit Saturation Probability distribution function Reservoir description model Root mean square Water-Cut Oil formation volume factor Black Oil Covariance matrix Cumulative oil production Field pressure Field gas-oil-ratio Field water-cut Hydrocarbon Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo Thousand standard cubic feet Milli Darcy Partial Differential Equation Pressure-Volume-Temperature Stock tank barrel Total oil production Water-Alternate-Gas Solution-gas-oil ratio Water Saturation Sum of square Molar volume Oil mole fraction Gas mole fraction Number of components Equation of State
Subscript i, j 1, 2 c l v m w Component Identification Component Index Critical Property Liquid Phase Vapor Phase Mixture van der Waals Representation
Greek Letter ij ij LLS EOS Parameter Binary Interaction Parameter of LLS EOS Parameter Binary Interaction Parameter Viscosity Porosity Density Acentric Factor van der Waals Constant Parameter Dimensionless EoS Parameter, Variance
xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS
1.1 Statement of Research Project The objective of this study is to quantify the uncertainties associated with reservoir performance simulation. The term reservoir performance is defined as; oil and gas production rates, gas-oil ratio, water-oil ratio, and cumulative oil production. This research is focused on quantifying uncertainty associated with future cumulative oil production prediction from black oil reservoir simulation model. To achieve this research objective, black oil and compositional simulation models were constructed for the same volatile oil reservoir and these model reservoir descriptions were perturbed to generate few multiple realizations. The dynamic outputs of these new realizations were matched to determine a range of possible outcomes. The range between the smallest and largest cumulative oil production values quantify the uncertainty associated with the reservoir simulation performance prediction. Perturbation process is employed to generate multiple realizations. The parameter adjustment process is performed on a single simulation model obtained after history matching. In reservoir simulation studies where more than one model matched observed history data, the aforementioned approach was carried out using more than one of the matched models. In conclusion, the problem statement to be answered is; how to develop a method that can account for uncertainty resulting from both internal and external factors (figure
-1-
1.1) which translate into composite uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction?
Uncertainty Sources in Reservoir Performance Prediction
External Factors
Internal Factors
Field Management Strategy
Surface Facilities
Flow Boundary Condition (Geology parameter)
Mathematic Model
Reservoir Characterization
Data Quality
Upscaling Technique
Figure 1.1: Uncertainty Sources
The uncertainties associated with individual reservoir characteristics such as: hydrocarbon originally in place, aquifer size, sand continuity, shale continuity, permeability, upscaling, mathematical model, and external factors (e.g. pump lifetime), all add up to give a resultant total uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction27,
28, 31, 48, 59, 76, 123, 144
. This is simply put as the uncertainty in reservoir input
parameters lead to uncertainty in reservoir performance forecast (figure 1.2).
-2-
Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Performance Simulation
Individual input Parameters Uncertainties
Sum
Simulation result: Production Variables & Reserves Uncertainties (Composite Uncertainty)
Figure 1.2: Individual uncertainties and Composite uncertainty
During reservoir description process, reservoir engineers assign values to reservoir model parameters using incomplete data such as data which was measured from a small portion of the reservoir to describe the entire reservoir26, 39, 47, 48, 68, 76, 83, 84, 94, 110,
120,155, 167.
The incomplete data limit reservoir simulation model capacity to mimic actual
reservoir accurately leading to error in the model output. Therefore, to address this problem, reservoir engineers carry out uncertainty evaluation during reservoir simulation study in order to quantify the reservoir simulation model in ability to mimic the actual reservoir (mismatch). Quantification of reservoir simulation mismatch enables the assessment of the uncertainty associated with the reservoir model performance prediction. Management decision on field development is taken only when the associated uncertainties with both the individual reservoir model parameter and the simulation
-3-
production forecast is well understood and quantified. If not a decision to obtain additional reservoir data measurement is taken so as to better understand the reservoir.
1.2 Fundamentals of Reservoir Performance Simulation The goal of reservoir performance simulation is to build a reservoir model that is capable of predicting the actual reservoir performance (water cut, reservoir pressure, and gas-oil-ratio, etc.) for different production scenarios by minimizing associated uncertainties/errors in reservoir simulation. Minimization of the simulator errors is achieved by performing reservoir history matching. History match process involves comparing the simulator dynamic output with observed field production data8, 10, 20, 22, 32,
109, 121, 132, 133, 142,151, 166
. When an acceptable match is obtained, the simulator is then used
to predict the reservoir future production performance. The petroleum industry conventional approach to minimize the difference between observed history data and simulation model result is to vary the model input parameters until a match with the history data is achieved. This optimization process is conducted using least square objective function algorithm. On the other hand, a more recent approach involves constructing multiple reservoir simulation models and conduct history matching of simulated and observed data. When a match is obtained, the matched model(s) is used to forecast future reservoir performance and to quantify associated uncertainty (figure 1.3). The major problem with this multiple realization technique is an increase in the computation cost. While this technique was developed to minimize the non-uniqueness of traditional history matching since a match with a single simulation
-4-
model may have resulted from compensation errors of the various interacting parameters/factors89, 144. The fact is that more than one model can reproduce the real reservoir observed history data.
Parameterization and Prior pdf definition
Observed history data measurement
Reservoir model
History data
Reservoir model simulation
Objective function
YES Mismatch
NO History matched model
Reservoir prediction
Uncertainty forecast
Figure 1.3: History Matching Flow Chart
-5-
1.3 Sources of Uncertainties in Reservoir Simulation For all data that are used in reservoir modeling there exists a certain degree of uncertainty associated with each of the data. Figure 1.1 gives several sources of uncertainties associated with reservoir performance simulation. A brief explanation of some of these sources of uncertainties is discussed to highlight this research significance.
1.3.1 Geological Uncertainty Uncertainties arising from geological data include errors in geological structure exact locations, reservoir and aquifer sizes, reservoir continuity, fault position, petrofacies determination, and insufficient knowledge of the depositional environment. A number of techniques are available for the quantification of uncertainties. One of the widely used techniques is to quantify the uncertainty in geological model with a geostatistical tool. Geostatistics involve synthesizing geological data using statistical properties such as a variogram9, 20, 22, 47, 48, 68, 83, 90, 94, 97, 110, 121, 132, 138, 154 . This process enables the geologists to generate multiple realizations of the geological models (Stochastic) which allows quantification and minimization of uncertainties associated with geological information. The problem with geostatical modeling is that it is computationally difficult to condition the model with dynamic data. Also, it is difficult to utilize traditional history match process to condition the geostatistical models7, 9. Recently, a number of new methods have been developed to condition geostatitical models to dynamic data.
-6-
Examples of these techniques are Simulated Annealing method59, 108, 109, 138. and Genetic algorithm59, 108, 109, 138. These two methods are limited in practical application for large fields modeling because of computational costs that result from numerous grid cells. The aforementioned two stochastic techniques which are used to condition geostatistical model using dynamic data involve the construction of multiple realizations of the geological model. These independent but equi-probable realization models are judged as a good model or not by using criteria such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation to either accept or reject a realization model. This process is also heavily computational. The generation of different realizations results in discontinuity which can thwart the effective conditioning of the initial model with dynamic data9. Another method used to condition the geostatical model to production data is the pilot point technique22, 59. The pilot point method is carried out by selecting certain points in the reservoir and perturbing their values. The change resulting from the perturbation is propagated by Kriging to the remaining parts of the reservoir. This method provides an approximate solution to the history match inverse problem. Gradual deformation is another technique that could be applied to reduce geological model uncertainty133. The use of gradual deformation in geostatistical modeling is an effective inversion algorithm that constrains the initial model to dynamic data through the generation of gradual match improvement at the same time it honors the statistical characterizations. In this method a new single realization is generated by linear combination of two initial models. This is a continuous way to minimize the initial model
-7-
uncertainty instead of generating independent models as in the case of stochastic methods. The limitation of the gradual deformation method is that each new model is controlled by a set of deterministic parameters. This limits the accuracy of gradual deformation technique because a good history match of the geological model with observed history data may result from compensating the errors associated with the model input data because the observed data can be matched with more than one set of model input data (inverse problem). Furthermore, in mature fields, geological modeling the integration of well test pressure data, production data and geological description can decrease uncertainty in the geological model9, 84, 155.
1.3.2 Upscaling Uncertainty After seismic survey, the geologist builds the small-scale geologic model (static model). As a result of the fine scale level it is computationally expensive to investigate reservoir flow behavior using the geologic model. Consequently, the geological model is upscaled into a coarse scale model generally called a reservoir simulation model by reservoir engineers in order to evaluate the reservoir flow behavior. During upscaling reservoir properties (permeability, porosity and relative permeability) are upscaled so as to reduce the number of grid blocks composing the simulation modell6, 11, 14, 19, 35, 36, 44, 54,
71, 81, 82, 116, 122, 135, 156, 159, 162, 168
-8-
Upscaling could be defined as the process of representing small-scale features in a reservoir simulation model. Upscaling is the process that explains how reservoir properties at different scales are integrated into a model so that the simulation model mimics the real reservoir behavior. Nearly all petroleum reservoirs are heterogeneous at all scales ranging from microscopic to gigascopic, and they are mostly anisotropic with spatial variation of rock and fluid properties. These variations in rock-fluid parameters control reservoir fluid flow and reservoir performance. To predict a reservoir performance having well spacing of 1km, reservoir thickness of 100m and smallest heterogeneity scale of 1mm and to describe the reservoir heterogeneity down to 1mm in a 3-D model it requires 1017 grid points cells to represent all the reservoir properties. This number of grid cells is quite high for current computer capacity to handle and human mind to comprehend or interpret. In the petroleum industry two types of reservoir models are constructed: fine grid and coarse grid models. The fine grid model is employed to geologically characterize a reservoir although in most modeling the model areal resolution is still coarse due to computational costs for the finer grids. On the other hand, the coarse grid model is used to evaluate reservoir performance prediction. At the moment, due to computer limitation most fine grid models are constructed to contain between 107-108 grid cells while coarse grids are in the range of 105-106 grid cells. It is obvious that both the fine and coarse grid models differ in their level of resolution and a means of transforming the fine grid to coarse grid model is needed. Furthermore, to investigate the uncertainty associated with reservoir performance
-9-
forecast, the uncertainty in each reservoir parameters needs to be evaluated. Evaluating uncertainty of fine grid model individual reservoir parameters involves thousands of fine grid simulation runs and these high-quantity runs are limited by current available computer capability and high computational costs. As a result, upscaled/coarse grid model of the fine-scale model is required. Therefore, the upscaling technique is needed to transform the fine grid into coarse grid model (see figure 1.4). A number of upscaling techniques are available in the industry. The different approaches can be classified according to two broad methods54: (1) the type of parameter to be upscaled, and (2) the method of computing the parameter. These methods have various degrees of limitations in the ability to translate a fine-scale model into a coarse-scale model. Irrespective of the particular upscaling technique employed to generate the coarse model, utmost care should be taken to ensure that the upscaled model input parameter(s) is equivalent to the fine scale model parameter. For example, accurate upscaling of residual oil saturation and initial water saturation are vital because these two parameters determine the amount of oil that can be recovered from the reservoir. Some parameters such as porosity and saturation are accurately upscaled using simple volume averaging techniques. While absolute and relative permeability have varied upscaling algorithms. As a result, significant amount of uncertainties exist when permeabilities are upscaled from fine scale into coarse grid.
- 10 -
Recognizing the fact that upscaling uncertainty exists, there is a need for proper quantification of upscaling uncertainty, which is important for better reservoir performance prediction.
Reduce Grid number
Upscale Reservoir Properties Fine Scale Coarse Scale
Figure 1.4: Upscaling Process The following is a general gridding guidelines and gridding rules of thumb Choose the minimum number of grid blocks to solve the problem Pore volume considerations With the exception of aquifers, no single grid block should have more than 20% of the total pore volume of the system. Pressure drop considerations No more than 10 to 20% of the total pressure drop in the simulation grid should be between two adjacent grid blocks. Relative grid block sizes Grid block dimensions should not change by more than a factor of 3 between blocks. - For example, the size of a grid block should not be larger than three times, or smaller than one third the size of its neighbors.
Upscaling of fine scale model into a coarse scale model is conducted in both black oil and compositional simulation. Detailed literature on upscaling of black oil model can be found in reference 54. While less work has been done on upscaling of compositional
- 11 -
simulation, most of the work done so far on compositional upscaling14, 41, 51, 71, 92, 101, 122,
126,147, 162
has been the adjustment of K-value flash calculation in order to account for
using coarse grid to represent fine scale. This K-value adjustment resulted in Alpha factor method which serves as modifiers. The modifiers are introduced into numerical simulation flow equation to relate fluid composition flowing out of the grid to the fluid composition within the grid.
1.3.3 Model Uncertainty The mathematical model used in numerical reservoir simulation is derived by integration of three fundamental equations which are, conservation of mass, Darcys equation and equation of state4, 13, 30, 46, 98, 112. The resulting mathematical model for threedimensional, single-phase flow equation is:
ck p ck p ck p + + + Q = ( ) 1 x x y y z z t
p ( x, y, z ,0) = pi .
p (0, y, z, t ) = 0, x p (x,0, z, t ) = 0, y p (x, y,0, t ) = 0, y p (L x , y , z , t ) = 0 x p (x, L y , z, t ) = 0 y p ( x, y , L z , t ) = 0 y
Equation 1 is solved analytically for p( x,y,z,t).
- 12 -
This mathematical model, equation 1, is a non-linear partial differential equation (PDE) which can not be easily solved analytically. As a result, the PDE is converted to a numerical model using Taylor series approximation57. The numerical model is derived by replacing the partial derivatives in the PDE with finite differences (Equation 2) evaluated at specific values of x, y, z, and t as outlined below also see depicted in fig 1.5
p x p t
=
x = xi
p i +1 pi x p n +1 p n t
----------------------------------------- 2
=
t =t n
Figure 1.5: Finite Difference With this approximation the differential equation is transformed into an algebraic equation that can be easily solved using matrix. The resulting finite difference formulation is given in equation 3 and the numerical model can be represented in three directions as shown in figure 1.6.
- 13 -
Api 1, j ,k + Epi , j i ,k + Gpi , j ,k 1 + Bpi , j ,k + Cpi +1, j ,k + Fpi , j +1,k + Hpi , j ,k +1 = D ----------3
Figure 1.6: 3-Dimensional Discretized Model The resulting numerical equation includes pressure terms evaluated at two different points in time. These times are the initial time, t = t0 and at a selected future time called time step, t = t1. Knowing the pressure at the initial time, we have to solve the numerical equation for pressure at the given time step. At subsequent time steps, pressure will be calculated at multiple points in a three dimensional model. In the process of deriving the numerical model by approximating the PDE, a number of ways can be used to form the finite-differences112. If the space derivative is transformed by central differences and time derivative by forward difference, we have explicit approximation of the PDE (see figure 1.7).
- 14 -
Figure 1.7: Explicit Approximation On the other hand, if the space derivative is transformed by central difference and a backward difference for the time derivative, implicit approximation is obtained (figure 1.8).
Figure 1.8: Implicit Formulation
- 15 -
The resulting numerical equation coefficient is solved using n n matrix. For one dimensional, single phase numerical model, a tridiagonal matrix is formed. In a four-cell system, the matrix is depicted as in equation 4:
B C P D A B C P D = ---------------------------------------------------- 4 A B C P D A B P D
This matrix representation consists of three non-zero diagonals and is easily solved. The computation time needed to obtain pressure solution (pn+1) for the implicit approximation is more than that for the explicit method. The problem complexity increases with increased number of dimensions and for multiple phases present. For two phases, the fluid flow equation applies to each flowing phase individually such that at each time step there are two unknowns to be solved, po ,and Sw in each grid block equations 5 & 6.
Oil:
ckk ro o p o + Qo = ( o (1 S w )) ------------------------ 5 x o x t ckk rw w ( p o p c ) + Qw = ( w S w ) ------------------- 6 x w x t
Water:
- 16 -
1.3.3.1 Truncation, Stability and Round-off Errors in Numerical Model There are three errors which are consequences of PDE discretization. These errors are truncation, round-off, and stability errors57, 112. The truncation error results from the substitution of the partial derivatives in the differential equation with approximate finite differences. When solving the numerical model, if numerical solution convergences then the numerical solution will approach the exact solution as the change in space, x, and change in time, t, approaches zero12, 38, 72, 73, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118. As a result, it is an approximate solution which does not mimic the actual reservoir exactly. Round-off error, on the other hand, is a result of using a computer to solve the numerical model because the computer can not represent real numbers accurately. Stability error consists of the approximation method used in transforming the PDE into a numerical model and the PDE itself. Instability in numerical solution can be defined as a feedback process whereby one error leads to another error (truncation or round-off errors, respectively). As the error increases, the rate of error growth increases so that the error growth gets so large that the solution is lost. Stable numerical solution = Error growth rate is constant Unstable numerical solution = Error growth rate is exponential Apart from the algorithms used to generate the numerical model, model uncertainties can also arise from the type of reservoir simulator used. The simulator used can either be mass balance or streamline, finite difference or finite element. The inherent uncertainty results from the inadequacy to completely translate the continuous mass balance and flow equations into discrete approximates and the use of a computer to solve
- 17 -
the equation. As a result, the numerical model that is used in reservoir simulation contains uncertainty which need to be quantified.
1.3.4 Reservoir Description Uncertainty Reservoir characterization process involves the determination of reservoir rock and fluid properties that will accurately represent the actual reservoir. It is likely that area of reservoir simulation with greatest uncertainty because the actual reservoir description can not be achieved even at the end of the field life. This research is aimed at minimizing the uncertainty associated with reservoir description during reservoir simulation. Reservoir properties used in characterizing a reservoir are oil rock and fluid properties26, 39, 47, 68, 83, 94, 110, 120, 167. The reservoir rock parameters are porosity and permeability. These rock properties are obtained by several methods such as core and well log analysis. Apart from instrumental and measurement errors associated with the rock parameters derived from the aforementioned methods, the vital source of error is that these measurements represent a very small area of the reservoir compared with the entire reservoir to describe in reservoir simulation model. Using the parameter obtained from a relatively small portion of the reservoir to describe the whole reservoir will result in high uncertainty because we are not certain of the individual parameter continuity (or remaining constant) from point of measurement to other reservoir locations. For example the continuity of permeability from the measurement point A to the point B in the reservoir.
- 18 -
One way of reducing the discussed uncertainty is to generate a representative statistical distribution function from the range of measured rock data and function is used to populate the entire reservoir grid cells. The statistical distribution function for permeability is derived based on the understanding of natural distribution and the trend exhibited by the measured permeability data. The common statistical distribution trend exhibited by permeability is a log-normal function33, 49, 69. The statistical algorithm used to generate the reservoir description model is an approximation. Therefore, the generated reservoir description is an approximation of the real reservoir. The algorithm used to generate the reservoir description model is conditioned to production data so as to obtain a match and the calibrated model is used to predict reservoir performance8, 154, 155.
1.4 Black Oil and Compositional Simulation The selection of an appropriate reservoir simulation model to be used during any given reservoir simulation will depend on the reservoir at hand and the available data12, 41,
38, 78, 105, 106, 157, 162
. This is because the simulation model will only be useful if it is capable
of simulating the actual reservoir and the fluid phases38, 41, 78, 105. Two commonly used finite difference simulations for modeling hydrocarbon reservoir processes are black oil and compositional simulations41. The main dissimilarity between black oil and compositional simulation is the data included in the fluid properties section. In black oil simulation, the fluid property section is defined by the PVT table which includes formation volume factors and solution gas-oil
- 19 -
ratio versus pressure101. On the other hand, for compositional simulation in addition to what is contained in black oil model, the compositional PVT table includes composition (oil and gas mole fractions, xi and yi) as single-valued versus pressure obtained from equation of state flash calculation51, 58, 92, 126. The compositional model better accounts for fluid phase behavior when compared to black oil model, particularly in volatile oil and miscible gas injection modeling18, 41, 42, 65, 79, 101, 147,153, 162. It is well known that the black oil PVT table can be converted to compositional PVT table18, 65, 79, 87. Also, it is understood that the fundamental reservoir simulation mass balance equation is applied to both black oil and compositional simulation. But the formulation code for solving the numerical model continuity/mass balance equation is different in some simulators65, 78, 106, 140, 150, 153. For the simulator used in this research, ECLIPSE, the formulation coded for black oil is fully Implicit (IMPLICIT) and Adaptive Implicit (AIM) for compositional simulation. The formulation mode is the solution procedure used to solve reservoir simulation mass balance equation. There are three types of solution procedures, IMPLICIT, IMPES (Implicit Pressure Explicit Saturation) and AIM13, 30, 98, 112. The IMPLICIT option is totally stable, generally allowing for large timesteps and used for difficult (high throughput ratio) reservoir problems such as water coning. It is robust and efficient for black oil reservoir runs while its efficiency is limited by numerous components when used for compositional runs. IMPES is potentially unstable, faster than IMPLICIT and less sustainable to dispersion problems, it is commonly used for easy problems (cells where the solution is changing slightly) and small timesteps simulation studies such as
- 20 -
history matching. AIM formulation mode is between the fully Implicit and the IMPES solution methods and it has the advantages of both the IMPLICIT and IMPES and neglect their disadvantages. The AIM formulation permits grid cells in difficult regions to be solved with the IMPLICIT method, while cells in the easy regions are solved by the IMPES method. With ECLIPSE compositional simulator AIM is the default mode. Consequently, the reservoir problem investigated in this research is how to simultaneously use both black oil and compositional simulation to better improve reservoir description and fluid phase behavior so that the simulated model will be able to mimic the actual reservoir response and thereby better quantify the uncertainty associated with reservoir model performance prediction.
1.4.1 Black Oil Simulation When the hydrocarbon fluid phases are distinct such that there is negligible mass transfer between the liquid and gaseous phases a black oil simulation is applied to simulate the reservoir process. With black oil simulation there is no need to separate the hydrocarbon fluid into individual components for reservoir characterization. The fluids in black oil runs are oil, water and gas. In black oil modeling, reservoir fluid Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) properties are generated as a function of saturation pressure. This is because the black oil model is used for reservoir simulation under the assumption that reservoir fluid properties are strong functions of pressure. Therefore PVT pressure cell experiment and PVT correlations are commonly used to obtain reservoir fluid PVT properties. In pressure cell
- 21 -
experiments, PVT properties are derived using either Constant volume depletion (CVD) or constant composition expansion (CCE) PVT experiments. Black oil model quality can be improved by using finer pressure intervals during a PVT experiment. On the other hand, PVT correlations are derived and used in a given oil province with similar oil characteristics. In a given reservoir simulation and for every timestep the outlined stages in figure 1.9 occur depending on whether the black oil or the compositional simulation is in use.
Black Oil Simulation (BOS)
Compositional Simulation (CS)
Flow equation solution for each cell subject to material balance.
Flow equation solution for each cell subject to material balance
PVT data lookup from supplied tables
Iterative solution of cubic equation of state for each component in each cell
Iterative flash of component mixture to equilibrium conditions for each cell
BOS fluids: oil, gas, and water
CS. fluids: HC components and water
Figure 1.9: Black Oil vs. Compositional Simulation Processes
- 22 -
1.4.2 Compositional Simulation (CS) Where significant mass transfer exists between hydrocarbon liquid and gas phases the appropriate way of modeling the reservoir process is to use a compositional simulator38, 41, 98, 101, 153, 162. Compositional model is generally used during reservoir simulation when the oil formation volume factor is greater than two101, 153. In a compositional model we utilize more than two hydrocarbon components. The fluids in CS runs are the hydrocarbon components (C1, C2, Cn) and brine water. It is used for volatile oil reservoir, gas condensate reservoir, gas injection, solution-gas, and gas-cap drive reservoir simulation studies. It is vital to use a compositional model when the reservoir pressure decline is significant and fluid properties vary from one location in the reservoir to another location. Reservoir processes with compositional effect are commonly encountered in volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs and gas injection recovery mechanisms (enhanced oil recovery)92, 141, 152, 153. In CS, the hydrocarbon fluids are described using hydrocarbon components. The number of components for flash calculation varies from four to ten depending on the simulation process objective and end use of the hydrocarbon fluid. In CS, reservoir fluid properties are function of pressure and composition; as a result a continuous equation or function is required to describe the fluid. A cubic Equation of State, EoS, preferably four parameters EoS, is used to characterize the hydrocarbon fluids. The EoS generates the phase fugacities and Z-factors which are used to determine inter-phase equilibrium and fluid densities. Some of the cubic equations of state available in the literature are:
- 23 -
Original EoS Van dal Waal Two Parameters EoS: Peng-Robinson Redlich-Kwong, Soave-Redlich-Kwong Zudkevitch-Joffe-Redlich-Kwong Three Parameters EoS: Clausius Schmidt-Wenzel Four Parameters EoS: Lawal-Lake-Silberberg Himpan-Danes-Gaena LLS PR RK SRK ZJ VDW
Each of these respective cubic EoS can be written in the generalized form such as equation 7:
Z 3 + E 2 Z 2 + E1 Z + E 0 = 0 7 With E 2 = (m1 + m 2 1)B 1
E1 = A (m1 + m 2 m1m 2 )B 2 (m1 + m 2 )B E 0 = AB + m1 m2 B 2 (B + 1)
- 24 -
The difference in the aforementioned EoS is the m1 and m2 fugacity coefficients. The fugacity coefficients are obtained by equation 8:
Z + m2 B Bi ln + (Z 1) Z + m1 B B 8 A 2 i Bi (m1 m2 )B A B
ln ( f i / ( px i )) = ln (Z B ) +
Where i = Aij x j
j
A = x j x k A jk
j =1 k =1 n
B = xjBj A jk = (1 jk )(A j Ak ) Where

j =1 1/ 2
jk
is the binary interaction coefficient between hydrocarbon components and between hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon components. Equations 7 and 8 are the mixing rules used in all the available EoS while their difference is the manner in which EoS A and B parameters are calculated. The A and B parameters are given by equation 9 and 10 below:
A j = a (T , j ) B j = b (T , j ) where a (T , j ) and b (T , j ) are functions of the reduced temperature, T and acentric factor, w Prj Trj2 Prj Trj 9 10
- 25 -
For example using PR EoS51, 58 we have equation 11.

1/ 2 a (T , j ) = ao 1 + 0.37464 + 1.54226 w j 0.26992 w 2 j 1 Trj
b (T , j ) = b0
[ (
)(
)] ---------11
2
In each gridblock phase-equilibrium calculation is performed at the end of each timestep. The cubic equation is solved to determine the Z-factor and fugacity. Three density solutions are obtained with the smallest root for liquid and largest root for gas phase. The fugacities in the liquid and gas phases must be equal (see equation 12) in order to obtain a system in thermodynamic equilibrium which is vital for the CS process.
f iL = f iV f i = f i (T , p, xi )
------------------------------------------------------------12
Selected EoS is used to obtain liquid and vapor phases fugacities. And the process of obtaining liquid and vapor fugacities is commonly referred to as flash vaporization calculation51, 92, 126, 153. During the simulation process, equilibrium constants simply referred to as Kvalues (Equation 13) for each component is calculated at each timestep to define the inter-phase equilibria. Each component mole fractions (compositions) in the liquid and gaseous phases are defined by the equations 14 and 15.
- 26 -
Ki = xi = yi =
yi 13 xi
zi 14 1 + (K i 1)V K i zi 15 1 + (K i 1)V
The summation of K-ratio and calculated liquid and vapor density is used by the simulation to calculate condensate/liquid droplet in condensate reservoir simulation as depicted in equation 16.
lL Droplet = K i + (1 K i ) l V 16
The advantage of the four-parameter EoS over the two-parameter EoS is that the two-parameter EoS do not predict liquid properties such as density very well. For example, the critical compressibility predicted by the following EoS two-parameter EoS are given in table 1.1 whereas for hydrocarbons Zc is less than 0.29 Table 1.1: Two-Parameters EoS Critical Compressibility Factor EoS Peng-Robinson Redlich-Kwong Van der Waals Zc 0.307 0.333 0.375
However, the two-parameter EoS can be tuned as proposed by Peneloux et. al. to improve the hydrocarbon liquid property predicted. This tuning is achieved by a process referred to as the volume shift.
- 27 -
1.5 Problem Definition It is a known fact that reservoir performance prediction obtained from reservoir simulation models can not be exact. This is generally accepted industry-wide and reported by numerous authors3, 15, 21, 27, 28, 59, 63, 75, 77, 85, 89, 93, 125, 134, 144, 103 . There is and there will be always an associated uncertainty with future production forecast. On the encouraging side, active research is on-going to address the issue of uncertainty quantification. When the future production performance of a reservoir is to be forecasted, reservoir model of the real reservoir is built and the model is conditioned with observed data. Once a match is achieved, the model is used to predict future reservoir performance. The problem with this single-model conventional history-matching is that more than one combination of the input parameters can match the historical data. This means that history matching is a non-unique problem28, 59, 89, 144. As a result, the future prediction obtained with a single matched model contains significant uncertainty, which need, to be quantified. From the aforementioned, it is obvious that to reduce the uncertainty associated with future reservoir performance prediction, more than one model should be constructed to match with observed history data before carrying out reservoir performance prediction and quantification of associated uncertainty. All the constructed reservoir models are history matched such that every model that matches the history data is subsequently used for reservoir performance prediction and uncertainty quantification. The use of multiple
- 28 -
models is limited by computational cost and hence based on current computational ability. It is not economical for large reservoir simulation. Various schools of thought exist over the best way to quantify uncertainties associated with reservoir performance prediction59, 89, 93, 144. Some believe that generating a single reservoir description model that is a condition with production data is sufficient to quantify the uncertainty associated with simulated reservoir performance while others argue that the most feasible and practical method is to quantify uncertainty to generate multiple realizations of the reservoir and condition the models with available data as a better approach to quantify the uncertainty in the simulated reservoir performance. The first approach is referred to as the deterministic technique while the latter is called the stochastic reservoir modeling. In this research, Black Oil Conditioning (BOC) technique is proposed that is capable of better quantifying uncertainty in reservoir performance simulation. This method is performed after history matching and it involves simultaneously modeling the same reservoir using both black oil and composition simulation and, thereafter, condition the black oil output with the compositional simulation result. The main source of uncertainty focused on in this research is the uncertainty associated with reservoir description. The reservoir description parameter of interest is the permeability. The ratio of vertical to horizontal permeability distribution of both the black oil and composition simulation was equally perturbed slightly to generate multiple reservoir realizations. Thereafter, the simulated black oil and compositional model results are minimized using an objective function algorithm.
- 29 -
The rationale behind the BOC method comes from the fact that the black oil model is limited in terms of its capacity to provide detailed compositional information and thus has less ability to describe fluid behavior. Therefore, to better account for the influence of reservoir description and fluid behavior on reservoir performance this research provides a method of conditioning the black oil results by the compositional simulation output. The assumption behind this technique is that all reservoirs have some element of compositionality in their reservoir fluid. It is worth stressing that the ability of compositional simulation to describe reservoir fluid in greater detail than black oil model is because in a black oil simulator, the PVT properties are function of pressure only and they are derived at given pressure intervals. On the other hand, in compositional simulation reservoir fluid properties (density, viscosity, etc) are function of pressure and composition. As a result, a continuous equation is used to model the fluid behavior. Consequently, black oil model output is not equal to compositional simulation results.
1.6 Economic Significant of Reservoir Uncertainty Quantification During the life of a reservoir, the pre-reservoir and post-reservoir performance evaluations are generally not equal. This is due to inadequate quantification of uncertainties associated with the reservoir model input parameters and the resulting composite uncertainty associated with the pre-reservoir performance prediction. The decision to develop a reservoir is based on the prediction of production performance following history-matching process. Likewise, in some instances the
- 30 -
decision to obtain additional reservoir measurement data is taken when the uncertainty of the forecast is great. This necessity is the reason for accurate quantification of uncertainty associated with reservoir performance forecast so that projected recovery will be accurately estimated for economic decisions. These vital reasons underlined the economic importance of increasing interest to properly quantify the uncertainties associated with reservoir performance simulation.
- 31 -
CHAPTER II METHODS FOR UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION
2.1 Literature Review Reservoir engineers believe in the existence of uncertainty associated with reservoir simulation prediction following history matching. However, the techniques for uncertainty quantification have been an area of active debate and increasing research activities. It has led to a number of studies focusing on statistical and non-statistical uncertainty quantification methods. The uncertainties in reservoir performance simulation can be divided into two: (1) the uncertainty associated with the model individual input parameters, and (2) the composite/total uncertainty associated with the reservoir simulation output such as cumulative oil production. The composite uncertainty is a consequence of the uncertainty associated with the input parameters and the numerical model. A number of methods have been reported for quantifying uncertainty associated with input parameters as well as the resulting total uncertainty in the reservoir simulation output3, 15, 21, 27, 28, 31, 39, 59, 60, 61, 63, 77, 85, 89, 93, 97, 100, 103, 107, 125, 134, 144, 148. The standard principle common to all the techniques is to reduce uncertainty in the input parameter by conditioning the model with observed history data (i.e. field measured oil, gas and water production rates, gas-oil-ratio and reservoir pressure). This principle is a sound approach because the historical data are direct responses of the actual reservoir that responds according to the actual parameters. It is these actual reservoir parameters that history matching tries to estimate.
- 32 -
The process of constraining reservoir model with historical data is referred to as history matching8, 10, 15, 20, 22, 24,25,
146, 151, 160, 164, 165, 166, 168 27, 32, 34, 37, 62, 67, 86, 89, 96, 108, 109, 121, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 142, 144,
. History matching involves the determination of a set of reservoir
parameters that will make the model output as close as possible to the observed history data. There are two areas of interest in history matching. Firstly, the different approaches for constructing reservoir models for history matching and secondly the varied methods for generating an appropriate misfit algorithm to calculate the difference between the model data and the historical data. The first report on history matching was by Kruger in 1961142. Kruger acknowledges the need for simulation calculated pressure to be equivalent to the actual field pressure and introduced an approximate adjustment factor for each grid. This idea was modified by Jacquard142 with an electric analyzer that was used to model analog reservoirs. He reported an agreement between electric resistance-capacity network and a reservoir model. With this method it is theoretically feasible to determine spatial variation of reservoir properties. Jacquard and Jain142 reported an approach based on steepest descent method with a two-dimensional model and successfully applied to theoretical reservoirs. They142 suggested that dividing reservoirs into zones and having a longer period of historical data would yield better agreement during history matching. Dupuy142 extended the work of Jacquard and Jain using theoretical reservoir. From his investigation, he reported that in reservoir history matching, whereby, one has the knowledge that parameter perturbation was not possible, using the least-square error criteria is not enough standard for misfit matching. He suggested the use of some fudge
- 33 -
factor in addition with the least-square error criterion. Jahns142 used the principle of Jacquard and Jacquard and Jain to determine the effect of perturbation in one zone on all the other remaining zones and used convolution techniques to estimate the total individual zones effects as well as generating the values of the reservoir parameters that is used in subsequent simulation run. He concluded that using regression analysis will improve the misfit matching. He also noted that both storage factor (ch) and transmissibility (kh/) need adjustment during history matching. Coats et al. 39 based their work on the aforementioned techniques. They suggested a random selection of the reservoir parameters values for simulation runs and application of regression analysis on the simulation results. Coat et al. 39 bounded the resulting regression analysis solution using linear programming. This procedure yielded good results in some cases where in some cases it gives extreme values such as negative storativity and transmissibility. Slater and Durrer142, and Thomas et al. 151 based their work using the same principles (Gauss-Newton and Gradient methods) to propose a balanced error-weighted approach that systematically minimizes the misfit between simulation data and actual field data in order to achieve a reasonable history match. The aforementioned pioneer investigators acknowledged the fact that building reservoir model to match historical data will be achieved by parameter modifications. Also, these earlier investigators made use of non-linear regression methods that are based on determination of sensitivity coefficients which are the partial derivatives of reservoir dynamic variables such as reservoir pressure as function of reservoir parameters such as permeability. The parameter is perturbed at each simulation run in order to evaluate the
- 34 -
sensitivity of the reservoir variable to the parameter that was perturbed. At each time a reservoir parameter (typically permeability and porosity) is perturbed the full simulation run is performed. This approach is time intensive and limits the regression method efficiency. In the petroleum industry literature two different methods have been recognized to generate reservoir models for uncertainty quantification. These approaches are deterministic15, 24, 34, 89, 121, 142, 151, and stochastic48, 68, 78, 86, 89, 94, 133, 142, 144 methods. Stochastic techniques involves the generation of multiple reservoir model realizations that will be conditioned by historical data. The advantage of this approach is that it aimed at minimizing the non-uniqueness of history matching121, 144. By non-unique it implies that during history matching more than one combination of model input parameters can match the history data. The disadvantage of building multiple realizations for uncertainty quantification is that each simulation run can be very expensive especially for modeling large reservoirs. Therefore, stochastic application is limited by computational cost, although, it is viewed by many as the most feasible way to quantify uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction59, 63, 89, 92, 99, 100, 121, 144. The use of streamline simulation could help to reduce the problem of computational time144. Streamline simulation application is not applicable to all reservoirs, especially for reservoirs that are highly heterogeneous. On the other hand, the deterministic approach involves the use of a single reservoir model for uncertainty quantification. This approach is fast and easy to use but it is a less accurate method of quantifying uncertainty89. The following uncertainty
- 35 -
quantification methods59: Linear Uncertainty Analysis, Perturbation Methods, and the Scenario Test Method, are faster and easier to use. These methods quantify the reservoir uncertainty associated with the performance prediction by using a single reservoir description model (RDM). The deterministic approach of using one RDM to quantify uncertainty underestimates the associated uncertainty because it does not recognize the fact that other RDMs could honor the available data since when one model matches the observed data, it may have resulted from a compensating error103, 144. This is why more than one RDM should be used in the quantification of uncertainty since it is well known that the process of history matching is non-unique144. The Bayesian technique has been widely used to assess uncertainty in reservoir parameter15, 37, 59, 61, 62, 102, 132,161, 167, 168. Bayesian method provides a link between a prior distribution function and posterior probability distribution function through a likelihood function assuming a continuous probability distribution. A prior distribution function assesses the uncertainty in a simulator input parameter while the posterior probability distribution function can be used to quantify the uncertainty associated with individual input parameter as well as the reservoir model output variable after the model as been conditioned with observed history data. The use of percentiles of the posterior probability distribution function (P10, P50, P90 or lower case, most likely, upper case) 31 to evaluate uncertainty is limited due to computation time involved during the history match. Also the method of deriving the models is heuristic such that there is no assurance that the models are equivalent to the probability distribution function.
- 36 -
During uncertainty quantification, a sensitivity study is used to determine the input parameter contributing the highest influence on the composite uncertainty89, 142, 151. This is carried out by calculating the rate of change of the model output variable to a given input parameter. The input parameter with highest gradient is considered to have the greatest impact on the reservoir simulation model output. This process is referred to as gradient technique10, 22, 24, 25, 89.
2.2 Definition of Simulation Input Parameter Associated Uncertainty A reservoir simulation input parameter is the parameter that is entered into a numerical simulation model so that the model will mimic the actual reservoir behavior. This input parameter is not usually known with 100% certainty, therefore, it contains some degree of associated uncertainty. The degree of uncertainty associated with the input parameter need to be quantified so that the uncertainty associated with the simulation result can also be determined. One method that is frequently used to quantify uncertainty in reservoir parameter is probability distribution function33, 37, 49, 59, 61. Probability distribution describes the chance of obtaining a parameter value. In reality, the distribution itself may never be known. In practice an experimental probability distribution is determined, thereafter, we look for a theoretical distribution that would have produced such a sampling distribution curve fitting. For a continuous distribution a probability density f(x) is assigned to each x such that the probability of a value lying between x + dx is given by f(x)dx. Therefore the probability of x lying in between y and z is given by equation 17:
- 37 -
Pr obabilty ( y x z ) = f ( x )dx 17
y
Cumulative probability is when the probability of x is equal to or smaller than a given value x0 as given by equation 18:
Pr obabilty ( x x0 ) =
x0
f (x )dx 18
After the uncertainty associated with each individual input parameter is determined by probability density function, they are treated individually (converted into a cumulative probability distribution) and transformed into a composite uncertainty (cumulative probability distribution) associated with the simulation model result Markov Chain Morte Carlo method. The limitation of any uncertainty quantification method is how the uncertainty associated with the input parameter is determined. This effect is higher with external factors where the practical experience of the engineer is vital in the definition of feasible parameter range. One other area of concern is the interaction between the individual input parameters. The dependence between the model parameter needs to be determined and quantified. In some cases the relationship between these parameters are nonlinear which complicate the use of sensitivity analysis to quantify the influence of individual parameter uncertainty on the composite output uncertainty27. To reduce parameter
- 38 -
interaction effect non-interaction and linear relationship can be assumed with certain interval that can give reasonable degree of accuracy. Some of the model input parameters are obtained by experimental measurement (direct method) while majority of the input data are derived from indirect measurement such as established correlations27 due to high cost of the direct methods. For the parameters obtained from linear correlations, their standard deviation from the actual value can be determined using linear regression analysis that will permit uncertainty quantification with coefficient of variation. If the input parameter was measured by experimental procedures, the coefficient of variation can be reduced by repeated measurements (stochastic approach) using the same core. Repeated measurements with the same core can be used to reduce the uncertainties in some parameters such as porosity, capillary pressure and absolute permeability while it is not possible for relative permeability core measurement due to hysteresis and the possibility of a change in wetting conditions27. Uncertainties associated with relative permeability measurements can be quantified by assessing the random errors in oil and water rates and differential pressure. The uncertainty is highest at the end point for water relative permeability. The uncertainties associated with PVT parameters such as formation volume factor, viscosity, solution gas-oil ratio, and fluid density can be reduced by using an appropriate PVT cell experimentation procedure and a robust cubic equation of state for density and fugacity calculations.
- 39 -
2.3 Model Parameterization During reservoir simulation process the reservoir model is constructed such that it is conditioned to all available data. The conditioning is achieved by using the model parameters such as porosity and permeability. The spatial distribution of porosity and permeability can be parameterized using a number of methods59. These methods include the use of grid blocks, regions and pilot points.
2.3.1 GRID BLOCKS Grid blocks are the building blocks of a reservoir model. They can be depicted in one, two and three dimensions. And they can be in radial, rectangular, and unstructured shapes grid blocks. These grid blocks are assigned with property values. In general reservoir grid block values are referred to as parameters. Usually, porosity and directional permeability are assigned to each active grid block of a reservoir model. The advantage of grid block parameterization approach is that the model is free of predetermined knowledge of the reservoir geology. While the drawback is that each grid block is defined by more than one parameter resulting in numerous parameters to be handled and, secondly, there is discontinuity in the reservoir parameters from one grid block to the next block.
- 40 -
2.3.2 Regions One common method for reducing the number of parameters is by utilizing homogeneous regions. Region zonation involves the assumption that a given zone of the reservoir has uniform parameter that is different to the other zone. In most cases regions can be described as layers. While in some cases layers are divided into genetic units that represent regions. Under this approach the reservoir is divided into smaller zones in which the parameters are assumed to have uniform values37, 137.The primary advantage of the regions approach is the use of fewer parameters to model the reservoir. On the other hand, the assumption of homogeneous zone results in a boundary between two zones which is characterized with abrupt changes from one zone to the next. Further, the predetermined notion of the homogenous nature of each region may be wrong.
2.3.3 Pilot Points Pilot point method involves the use of prefixed point or master point to construct smooth variation in porosity and permeability fields throughout the reservoir. This approach enables continuous variation in heterogeneous reservoirs parameters from one point to another. These pilot points are few numbers of defined points. The pilot point approach relies on geostatistical techniques to define the spatial variation in reservoir parameters starting from the predefined points.
- 41 -
2.4 Objective Function During reservoir history match the reservoir model is conditioned to the observed history data34, 37, 59, 86, 89, 151, 166. In order to measure the extent of the conditioning, a mismatch between the reservoir model output and the history data is quantified. The mismatch quantification is referred to as objective function. Three types of objective function algorithms are commonly used to measure mismatch between simulated reservoir response and observed history data. These algorithms are; Least Square, Likelihood Function, and Posterior Distribution.
2.4.1 Least Square The mismatch between reservoir simulated data and observed history data can be quantified by using sum of squares algorithm. This is achieved by calculating the difference for each data (e.g. BHP, WCT, GOR) at each time step and squaring the obtained value before summing them up. A simplified sum of square algorithm, SoS, is given by equation 19:
i i Z = ( f sim f obs ) 2 19 i =1
Where
i = Reservoir simulated data f sim i f obs = Observed history data Z = Measurement of the mismatch (SoS)
Robust SoS algorithms are shown in equation 20 and 21:
- 42 -
i i f obs 1 n f sim Z = wi n i =1 i
20
21
2
ij f ij f obs 1 n 1 n Z = wij sim n i n j ij
Where n = Number of measurement taken for each variable = Reservoir model plus measurement error w = Weighting factor For the robust SoS algorithm the total number of measurements taken is included because it is common to have more measured data of one variable such as BHP compare to another variable. To eliminate the effect of having one variable measured data higher than the other the algorithm is divided by the number of measurements taken. Also, the measurements plus the modeling error, w, is used to normalize the SoS. This is a fudge factor accounting for unbiasedness in measurement such that when it is taken as one it means that the reservoir simulated data is within the error limit of the historical data.
2.4.2 Likelihood Function The likelihood function is a measure of how well the simulated data match the observed history data. If it is assumed that the model plus measurement errors are independently Gaussian distributed, Bayesian likelihood function can be expressed as given by equation 22. When the likelihood function is high it means that the model simulated data match the observed history data.
- 43 -
d isim d iobs f (o / p ) = ce i i Where
1 2
--------------------------------------------22
c = Normalization constant p = Parameter
2.4.3 Posterior Distribution It is a known fact that history matching is a non-unique process144. As a result, single solutions such as using least square method and likelihood function will likely result in inaccurate mismatch estimation. This is due to the fact that during reservoir history matching, some parameters (e.g. unswept zones permeability) may be insensitive to the mismatch quantification process, whereas, it is sensitive to the forecasted result. To reduce this effect, Bayesian posterior probability distribution function is employed by linking the a prior distribution to the posterior distribution through a likelihood function. Bayesian posterior distribution is general represented by equation 23: (p|o) = cf(o|p)f(p)--------------------------------------------------- 23 Where f(p|o) = Bayesian posterior probability distribution f(p) = Bayesian a priori probability distribution f(o|p) = Likelihood function
To apply equation 23, let assume that the reservoir parameter a prior distribution is Gaussian. Also, if the uncertainty associated with observed data is Gaussian, then the Bayesian posterior probability distribution is given by equation 24:
- 44 -
d sim d obs i i f ( p / o ) = ce i i
1 2
2 1 ------------24 + ( p v p )C p ( ) p v p
Where C p = Covariance matrix v p = Parameter expectation vector
2.5 Model Optimization Process In reservoir simulation, the model output for example, well pressure is modified so that the difference between the model result and the actual field data is minimize. The minimization process is referred to as optimization process and a number of optimization techniques have been used to achieve the minimization process. One of these techniques is to manually adjust the model input parameters to achieve a reduction of the mismatch. A better approach is the use of optimization algorithms which is made possible as a result of the objective function algorithms. Optimization of the objective function is performed by using either gradient method or non-gradient techniques.
2.5.1 Gradient Optimization Gradient optimization has been widely used to optimize objective functions. Different gradient optimization techniques exist. They include the Steepest descent, Conjugate gradient, Gauss-Newton, and Dog-leg techniques. Each of these algorithms can be employed to optimize the objective function. The gradient method involves calculation of the objective function gradient (i.e. gradient of the solution e.g., well pressure) with respect to model input parameter10, 24, 25, 32, 89. The limitation of the
- 45 -
gradient optimization technique is the possibility of having been trapped in local minima. The gradient method is a non-linear optimization algorithm that relies on a single model for perturbation. It is fast and easy method but of less accuracy.
2.5.2 Non-Gradient Technique In order to overcome the problem of having been trapped in local minima, global or non-gradient optimization techniques have been introduced to minimize the objective function. Examples of the non-gradient techniques are, simulated annealing and genetic algorithms. These non-gradient methods do not calculate the gradient of the objective function47, 48, 59, 68, 89, 108, 138. Simulated annealing method optimizes the objective function by construction large number of model realizations for the optimization process. Meanwhile, for the genetic algorithm approach, a number of realizations (child realizations obtained from parent realizations) are generated such that genetic techniques are used to determine the best matched model which are usually more than one. Nongradient methods are computational expensive and of less application in large fields simulations.
2.5.3 Root Mean Square Match Analysis Root mean square analysis is used to assess error size after an initial guess is used and at subsequent iterations. In most reservoir simulation optimization process, a threshold value that is less than two (see fig. 2.1) is an indication of acceptable match between the simulation output and the actual field data. The threshold value is obtained
- 46 -
from root means square, RMS, match analysis. RMS provides an average value of the difference between simulated and observed history data, it is an overall measurement of a history match. It is defined by equation 25:
RMS =
2 OF 25 N
Where N = Total number of observation
OF = Objective Function RMS sensitivity can be defined by calculating the partial derivatives of the RMS with respect to individual input parameter. The sensitivity will explain how the RMS will vary with respect to the perturb parameter and therefore it can be used to determined the most sensitive parameter during the history matching.
F o r e c a s t i n g
6 forecas
t
Worst
5 4 3 2
Best match
No simple relationshi p
r m 1 s 0 0. 0
Forecasting with calibrated models carries inherent uncertainty! This needs to be quantified.
0. 2
0. 4
0. 0. 1. 6 8 0 History Matching, rms
1. 2
1. 4
Figure 2.1: Root Mean Square Match Analysis according to Bos, 2002
- 47 -
2.6 Uncertainty Quantification Algorithms Some of the commonly used uncertainty quantification algorithms in the petroleum industry are linear uncertainty analysis, probability techniques and Bayesian methods, and Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo technique.
2.6.1 Linear Uncertainty Analysis Uncertainty associated with reservoir parameters that can be quantified using interval mathematics or linear uncertainty analysis include measurement errors and any parameter that can be generated with more than one technique89. Linear uncertainty analysis is often used when it is difficult to assign a probability value for the uncertainty associated with the input or output parameter. With linear uncertainty analysis, uncertainty associated with an input parameter is estimated by determining the input parameter range which, in turn, is used to determine the confidence interval of the model output parameter. In this analysis each parameter has an upper and lower limit interval that is used to quantify uncertainty. For example, when porosity values lie between 15% and 35% then the range of possible porosity value is 25 10% . In another example, let the most likely value of parameter y be y0 this will translate to a most likely value x0 for x if we assumed that model error is negligible. In addition, let the confidence interval on parameter y be y0 y , applying linear uncertainty analysis the corresponding confidence interval x on x is given by equation 26:
- 48 -
x = f ( x)y 26 where f ( x) is the derivative of the output with respect to the input parameter value.
The application of interval mathematics is limited to uncertainty quantification where probability method can not be applied. The disadvantage of the interval mathematics is that the associated total uncertainties are described by one interval.
2.6.2 Probability Uncertainty Quantification In the petroleum industry probability techniques have widely used to quantify uncertainty especially if probability distribution of the uncertain parameter is known. Probability can be defined simply as the likelihood of an event to occur. In a sample of a large number the probability of having an event is the ratio of the number of times the event will occur to the total number of samples. This principle is employed in uncertainty analysis. For uncertainty quantification, uncertainty associated with a parameter is quantified using the probability assigned to the parameter. For example, let the probability that the porosity of a reservoir is 25% be P, it means that in a large number of core sample analysis, the number of times a porosity value of 25% is obtained with respect to the total samples is equal to the fraction P. Using probability to quantify uncertainty in reservoir simulation involve two stages. The first stage is to describe the uncertainty associated with the model input
- 49 -
parameter with probability distribution. The second stage is to estimate the uncertainty associated with the model output parameter and with probability distribution. Probability distribution is generated based on the assumption that a variable is considered to occur over a certain range. The values of the variable are represented by frequency of occurrence. A frequency distribution (histogram) derived from N total samples is transformed into a probability distribution by dividing each frequency with N, thereafter, a theoretical probability distribution function that can be used to represent the distribution is plotted using histogram. For a discrete variable, v, (i.e. v only assume integer values), a probability of p(v) is associated to each value of v such that the summation of all probabilities will equal one. If the distribution is continuous, each v will have a probability density f(v) so that the probability of finding a value that lie between x and x + dx is f(v)dv. There are two types of commonly used distribution functions49, 59, 90: cumulative distribution function, CDF, and probability distribution function, PDF. See equations 27 and 28, and figures 2.2 and 2.3 for examples of CDF and PDF, respectively. CDF = P(v v0 ) =
v0
f (v)dv --------------------------- 27
Equation 27 is a CDF that represents the probability of v v0

PDF = P( x v y ) = f (v)dv ----------------------- 28
x y
Equation 28 is an example of a PDF representing the probability of v lying between x and y.
- 50 -
F(v)
1
0 F(v) = probability of V v
Figure 2.2: Cumulative Distribution Function Some common statistical properties of a CDF are: Median = F(0.5) Upper Quartile = F(0.75) Interquartile range = F(0.5) F(0.75)
F(x) 1.0 0.75
0.50
0.25
0.0 X Median
Figure 2.3: Cumulative Distribution Function Statistical Properties
- 51 -
2.6.2.1 First stage: input parameter probability distribution function The first step is performed by using statistical methods to determine probability distribution of the input parameter. One of the many statistical methods involves the use of histogram plot to determine the probability distribution. There are five commonly used models of distributions which are mostly used to represent frequency distribution depicted by histogram plot. These models are: Uniform, Normal, Lognormal, Gamma, and Exponential distributions (see table 2.1). With the aid of statistical technique, such as a histogram (figures 2.5 and 2.6), the probability distribution is then used to generate a probability density function, PDF. The PDF is a useful quantification tool employed by reservoir engineers to quantify uncertainty associated with reservoir simulation input parameter. Normal distribution should occur when the parameter value is due to the summation of more than one independent cause and the representative curve is symmetrical about the mean value (figure 2.4). Its equation is a function of mean and variance. On the other hand, most reservoir parameters do not follow normal distribution patterns. Rather, their logarithm is normally distributed. Table 2.1 depicts the three common probability distribution functions and their statistical properties.
- 52 -
Figure 2.4: Normal Probability Distribution Table 2.1: Three types of distribution: Normal, Lognormal and exponential Normal Probability ( x )2 1 exp density 2 2 2 2 function f(x) mean = Statistical properties Variance = 2 Lognormal (log x )2 1 exp 2 2 x 2
2/2 mean = exp ( + )
Exponential
exp x
2 2 Variance = exp 1 exp (2 + )
mean =
var iance = 1
This method of uncertainty quantification deals with the uncertainty associated with individual parameters of the probability distributions instead of the distribution. The method work best when the uncertain parameters are assumed independent. The mean and variance of the individual parameters are calculated. The weighted average values of
- 53 -
all possibilities in the parameter probability distribution give rise to the mean. While the variance represents the weighted average of the squares of differences from the mean. The mean and variance can be calculated by using three values of a given parameter as follows: 1. When there is a ten percent chance of occurrence of a smaller value of the parameter to exist Lower Case value 2. The Most-Likely value 3. When there is a ten percent chance of occurrence of a higher value to exist Upper Case value When the mean and variance of the data of interest is calculated, for example, reservoir oil production performance, an estimation of upside potential (10%), 50%, and downside risk (90%) is determined.
- 54 -
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 1 10 2 10 Gamma Ray Reading, API Units
1 2 2
2 10
3 10
Figure 2.5: Discrete Histogram plot used to generate PDF
f(x)
0
Figure 2.6: Continuous PDF, F(x) = df/dx
- 55 -
2.6.2.2 Second stage: output parameter probability distribution function During reservoir simulation runs the numerical model calculates an output result based on the input parameters. As a result, uncertainty is propagated through the model calculation process. The uncertainty associated with the simulation output parameter can be characterized or represented using probability distribution function that depends on the input parameters probability distribution function, see figure 2.7.
Plus Input parameter 1 uncertainty distribution
equal Input parameter 2 Model Output uncertainty distribution uncertainty Dis.
Figure 2.7: Relationship between input parameters & model result uncertainty
2.6.3 Quantification of Uncertainty using Bayesian Approach Bayes theorem provides a statistical means to obtain posterior probability density function (PDF) from a priori PDF and a likelihood function15, 37, 59, 61, 62, 132. The a priori PDF quantify uncertainty associated with model input parameter, while the likelihood function accounts for the probability that the observed production data would be obtained irrespective of reservoir description model. On the other hand, the posterior PDF quantify uncertainty in the parameter when model result has been matched with production data. Bayesian algorithm for quantifying parameter uncertainty can be represented by equation 29;
- 56 -
f(p|o) = cf(o|p)f(p)--------------------------------------------------- 29 Where f(p|o) = Bayesian posterior probability distribution f(p) = Bayesian a priori probability distribution f(o|p) = Likelihood function The major difficulty of achieving a good history match model is the problem of non-uniqueness. The main cause of this problem is the inability to properly estimate the actual reservoir spatial varying parameters such as porosity and permeability which is what history matching is trying to achieve. One way of reducing the non-uniqueness is by constraining the parameter space into smaller units in order to obtain a priori statistical information about the uncertain parameter. These smaller zones are assumed to be homogeneous, hence, the parameter space can be reduced into a fewer dimensional space. In Bayesian uncertainty quantification technique the a priori statistical information of the unknown reservoir parameter is included in the objective function. The statistical information such as variance is applied to check that the estimation does not deviate from the parameter assumed mean value. Therefore, this statistical term, variance, acts to constrain the parameter space to a small extent that is centered on the parameter a priori estimation. The a priori information of the unknown reservoir parameter is obtained from a given location in the reservoir as a point measurement. This point measurement can be derived from well testing interpretation, core analysis, or log evaluation.
- 57 -
2.7 Uncertainty Forecasting After achieving a reservoir model that matched the observed history data by minimizing the objective function. The matched model is used to forecast future reservoir performance prediction such as cumulative oil production. The next step is to forecast the uncertainty associated with the predicted future reservoir performance. In most cases, the technique used to obtain the matched model is employed to quantify the uncertainty associated with the future performance prediction. For example, when the objective function (least square, likelihood function or posterior) is used to obtain a matched model which is subsequently used for future production prediction then the uncertainty associated with the prediction can be quantified by perturbing the objective function around the optimal model. Some of commonly used methods are linearization of the posterior, genetic algorithm, gradient optimization, and scenario test method. The scenario approach involved using a single matched model to estimate high and low predictions around the optimal model. This process involved locally characterizing the objective function about the optimal model. Also, if more than one matched model was obtained during the optimization process it follows that multiple uncertainties will be quantified. Gradient optimization approach involves slight perturbation of the objective function so as to quantify range of associated uncertainty. On the other hand, the genetic algorithm involves generating child realizations from parent realizations and using genetic principles to select more than one best fit model to forecast associated uncertainty.
- 58 -
The disadvantage of quantifying reservoir prediction associated uncertainty by locally characterizing the objective function about the optimal reservoir model is that it undermines the fact that other possible models can exist. Consequently, this method can lead to underestimation of the actual uncertainty range. One method of preventing this problem is the use of Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) technique to assess uncertainties associated with reservoir performance prediction. The Monte-Carlo technique is carried out by generating new reservoir model from prior model and estimating the likelihood of the new model. The calculated likelihood is then used as a weight-factor for subsequent models. The disadvantage of MCMC technique is it may involve generating a large number of reservoir models before obtaining an acceptable likelihood value. This is time demanding and computational cost. Another method, although equally computational expensive, is the use of geostatistical technique to generate multiple initial reservoir realizations that are condition with history data. After history matching the range of uncertainty is determined by using all the matched models to forecast future reservoir performance. This research is aimed at forecasting uncertainty associated with predicted reservoir future performance following history matching by constraining black oil simulation model with compositional model. It is carried out by performing the usual history matching procedure of objective function optimization to obtain a history match model with a black oil simulator. Thereafter, the matched model is run simultaneously using both black oil and compositional simulators. The output of the two simulation models are optimized using a least square objective function algorithm. The mismatch
- 59 -
between black oil and compositional simulation results is minimized by manually adjusting their reservoir parameters equally. This process of minimizing the misfit is employed to determine minimum and maximum deviations between the two models, which is then used to account for the range of uncertainty that is associated with the reservoir performance prediction.
- 60 -
CHAPTER III RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION
3.1 Reservoir Heterogeneity A vital factor that influence oil and gas reservoir performance is reservoir heterogeneity. Reservoir heterogeneity occurs at various scales and these scales range from micros to giga.
3.1.1 Heterogeneity Scale Effect The giga and mega scales are the largest heterogeneity scales. Reservoir structures exhibiting this scale size are large sealing faults that control both vertical and horizontal sweep efficiency, resulting in compartmentalization (flow unit) of reservoirs. After the mega scale, the next largest scale of heterogeneity is the macro scale. This scale characterizes the permeability zonation within a genetic unit. The macro scale heterogeneity influences reservoir sweep efficiency as well as reservoir continuity. It extends laterally over several feet. Heterogeneity at this scale is likely to have a large effect on reservoir pressure behavior in the near-well zone. On the other hand, micro scale, which follows the mega scale on heterogeneity scale sizes, involves variation between different pore sizes. Reservoir features that exhibit this scale size have a large impact on residual oil saturation. It can be inferred from the aforementioned different scales of reservoir heterogeneity that productivity index may be largely dependent on the prevailing reservoir heterogeneity. Table 3.1, shown below, outlines the different types of reservoir
- 61 -
heterogeneity and their effect on reservoir continuity, reservoir sweep efficiency and oil recovery. Table 3.1: Influence of Heterogeneity Scale Reservoir Heterogeneity Type Sealing fault Semi-sealing fault Non-sealing fault Genetic unit boundaries Permeability zonation in genetic units Shale in genetic units Cross-bedding Pore types Texture types Open fractures Tight fractures M: moderate effect S: strong effect ROS: residual oil saturation Source: Weber et al., SPE paper 19582 S M S S S S S M M S M M S Reservoir Continuity S M M S Heterogeneity Influence Sweep Efficiency Horizontal S S S S M S S S S M Vertical ROS in swept zones
- 62 -
3.1.2 Heterogeneity Measurement According to Lake and Jensen, 1989, reservoir heterogeneity can be defined as Heterogeneity is the quality of the medium which causes the flood front, the boundary between the displacing and displaced fluids, to spread as the displacement proceeds. For a homogeneous medium, rate of spreading is zero. As the degree of heterogeneity increases, the amount of spreading increases. In addition, Lake and Jensen, classified reservoir heterogeneity measurements into three types: 1. Static Measurement using Correlation (a). This involves measurement of reservoir heterogeneity in which reservoir rock samples are taken as independent data belonging to a given population and the spatial relationship between the samples is neglected. The methods that utilizes this approach are: a. Dykstra-Parsons coefficient b. Lorenz coefficient c. Coefficient of variation 2. Static Measurement using Correlation (b). This category is similar to the first except that determination of heterogeneity is a function of measured rock samples and qualitative evaluation of spatial correlation. The correlation between one well to another enables the estimation of the interwell zone reservoir properties. Examples of methods belonging to this category are: a. Capillary pressure curve b. Polasek and Hutchinsons heterogeneity factor
- 63 -
3. Dynamic Measurement of Heterogeneity. The dynamic method involves estimation of reservoir heterogeneity from the flow of fluid. This implies that the well has to be producing before this measurement can be obtained. Some of the methods that utilizes the dynamic approach are: a. Dispersivities (Autocorrelation) b. Channeling factor (e.g. Koval) The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient method is widely used to assess reservoir heterogeneity. Dykstra and Parsons, 1950, calculated the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient by using minipermeameter measurements. The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient is an indicator of permeability variations. It involves measurement of permeability at half-foot intervals of core samples to calculate permeability and assigned probability values to the permeability data before ranking the permeability in decreasing magnitude. Thereafter, a log-normal plot of the permeability and assigned probability is made. The plot best fit straight line is used to estimate 84th percentile permeability, K0.84 and the median permeability, K0.50. The Dykstra-Parsons coefficient method is depicted in figure 3.1 and is calculated with equation:
C DP = K 0.50 K 0.84 K 0.50
---------------------------------------------- 30
- 64 -
Figure 3.1: Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient Method
In this study, reservoir permeability is taken as the most vital reservoir property that control flow of fluid and reservoir heterogeneity is assessed by considering permeability distribution because permeability variation is a good indicator of reservoir heterogeneity. As a result, during the reservoir simulation process a base case reservoir simulation model is perturbed by modifying the model permeability to generate multiple realizations. These multiple realizations reservoir performance predictions depict the influence of permeability variation or reservoir heterogeneity on oil and gas recovery. The advantage of proper estimation of reservoir heterogeneity (permeability) is that realistic measurement of heterogeneity reduces history matching time during reservoir simulation.
- 65 -
3.2 Reservoir Simulator A reservoir simulator is a mathematical model of a system that is simply an equation which relates the behavior of the system, expressed in terms of observable variables, to some parameters which describe the system. These equations are frequently described as physical laws. Examples of mathematical models applied to petroleum reservoirs are material balance equation and decline curve analysis. These models are very useful in conducting analytical reservoir performance evaluation but because of the simplifying assumptions, they are of less use for detailed reservoir description purposes. As a result, a more detailed mathematical model is constructed by subdividing the reservoir into small volume elements, referred to as grid, and applying the laws of mass conservation and fluid flow to each grid. By letting the elements tend to zero volume, the equations for movement of fluid in a porous medium can be constructed. The resulting equations are non linear differential equations which are almost always too difficult to solve analytically. As a result, approximations are made in order to solve the equations at discrete points in space and time and it is this discretization which leads to the requirement to solve large linear matrix systems. The discretized partial differential equation is referred to as numerical model, which is easier to solve. A simulator or numerical model can be described as a series of numerical operations whose results represent the reservoir behavior. A simulator can be referred to as a tool for integrating all of the factors that influence reservoir production and it is
- 66 -
basically solutions to conservation equations that represent physical laws. According to Lake, 1989, the equations that comprise a simulator can be divided into 2 groups: 1. Conservation of a. Mass b. Energy 2. Empirical laws a. Darcy b. Capillary pressure c. Phase behavior d. Fick e. Reaction rates Table 3.2 depicts the equations solved by a typical simulator and table 3.3 and 3.4 show some common data and grid dimensions required for reservoir simulation study, respectively, while figure 3.2 shows a schematic of simulation grid block. It is not technically possible to have a single simulator that can represent all possible cases of flow. As a result, Lake, 1989, classified simulators as follows: 1. Dimensionality (1-D, 2-D and 3-D) 2. Numerical algorithm a. Finite difference b. IMPES c. Implicit d. Direct solvers
- 67 -
3. Vectorization 4. Physical properties a. Single-phase (gas or oil) b. Black oil c. Compositional d. Thermal
Table 3.2: Equations Solved by a Reservoir Simulator, Lake 1989
- 68 -
Table 3.3: Common Data Required for Reservoir Simulation

Property Permeability Porosity Structure, Thickness Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Saturations Sources Pressure Transient Testing, Core Analyses, Correlations Core Analyses, Well Log Data Geologic Maps, Core Analyses, Well Log Data
Laboratory Core Flow Tests Well Log Data, Core Analyses, Pressure Cores, Log-InjectLog, Single-Well Tracer Tests Laboratory Analyses of Reservoir Fluid Samples, Correlations
PVT Data (Formation Volume Factors, Gas Solubility, Viscosity, Density)
Grid block I
Ou
Out z Ou y x
In
Figure 3.2: Grid Block
In
Conservation law is applied on the grid block as follows: 1. Rate in Rate Out = Rate of Accumulation 2. For each reservoir fluid component (oil, gas and water) 3. In each grid block
- 69 -
Table 3.4: Common Reservoir Simulator Grid Dimensions
- 70 -
3.3 Reservoir Model Description The first step in reservoir simulation study is to construct the best possible reservoir description using all available geologic and engineering data. An accurate reservoir description is essential to the success of the reservoir simulation study. The degree of detail or complexity of the reservoir description is a function of the problem under investigation. Nevertheless, good understanding of the reservoir controls on production performance is required regardless of the complexity of the simulation method adopted. A reservoir description model is used to quantify uncertainty associated with predicted production variables. The uncertainty assessment accuracy is dependent on reservoir model validity27, 93. As a result, the model should capture the key uncertainties associated with the reservoir description model so that acceptable uncertainties in the production variables can be quantified. Once the reservoir description model has been constructed the remaining task is primarily to solve a set of differential equations with respect to saturation and pressure in time and space to calculate reservoir performance. In this study, reservoir performance simulation of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) fifth comparative solution project is investigated79 by using a petroleum industry standard reservoir simulator ECLIPSE. The original SPE project involved simulating a synthetic volatile oil reservoir with black oil and compositional simulators with different simulator providers. However, this research is focused on using the ECLIPSE compositional simulator to condition the black oil model so as to quantify the range of uncertainty associated with the black oil model performance prediction.
- 71 -
The fifth comparative solution reservoir description model is a synthetic reservoir consisting of three-dimensional, three-phase flow in heterogeneous, single-porosity reservoir. Capillary forces, gravity, and viscosity are defined by Darcys law in terms of relative permeability. And flow is considered isothermal. The black oil model PVT table consists of gas-oil capillary pressure versus gas saturation. While solution gas oil ratio, Rs, oil formation volume factor, Bo, and oil viscosity are defined as a function of oil pressure (see Appendix A and B for further details). On the other hand, the compositional model uses a two-parameter Peng Robinson six-components EoS to characterize hydrocarbon fluid and utilizes equation of state fugacity derived K-values (Appendix A and B). The K-values were generated internally by the ECLIPSE 300 simulator as the original reservoir fluid expands during natural depletion and WAG injection scenario, respectively. In both black oil and compositional simulators (i.e. ECLIPSE 00 and ECLIPSE300) IMPLICIT formulation code is applied.
- 72 -
3.4 First Case Reservoir Simulation The first test case model objective is to simulate a volatile oil reservoir with black oil model and, thereafter, condition the model results with compositional simulation output so as to quantify the uncertainty associated with the reservoir predicted production performance. The synthetic reservoir consisting of three layers was modeled with 773 Cartesian grids (figure 3.3). Numerical dispersion problems resulting from the coarseness of the grid is ignored. A single production well that produced at a maximum oil rate of 12000 STB/D is located in grid block i=7, j=7 and k=3. The well shut-in criteria were minimum BHP of 1000 psi and a limiting WOR and GOR of 5 STB/STB and 10 MSCF/STB, respectively. The simulation model input data are given in tables 3.5 3.7 and it was run for ten years without pressure support. Similarly, a compositional model of the same volatile oil reservoir description model was constructed in which hydrocarbon fluids were describe with six components Peng-Robinson characterization, Table 3.8 and 3.9 gives the detailed equation of state parameters used for the compositional simulation model. The percentage of each six components composing the reservoir oil is given in Table 3.8. From Table 3.8 it is obvious that the reservoir oil is very light. Appendix B outlines the ECLIPSE input data file for both black oil and compositional simulation models.
- 73 -
Production Well
Figure 3.3: Reservoir model schematic
Table 3.5: Reservoir Layer Data Layer Thickness Porosity (feet) 1 2 3 20.0 30.0 50.0 (fraction) 0.3 0.3 0.3 Horizontal Perm. (mD) 500.0 50.0 25.0 Vertical Perm. (mD) 50.0 50.0 25.0
Layer Initial So 1 2 3 0.8 0.8 0.8
Initial Sw 0.2 0.2 0.2
Initial Poil (psia) 3984.3 3990.3 4000.0
Elevation (feet) 8335 8360 8400
- 74 -
Table 3.6: Reservoir Model Data Grid Dimension Water Density Oil Density Gas Density Water Compressibility Rock Compressibility Water Formation Volume Factor Water Viscosity Reservoir Temperature Separator Conditions (Flash Temperature and Pressure) Reservoir Oil Saturation Pressure Oil Formation Volume Factor (above bubble point pressure) Reference Depth Initial Pressure at Reference Depth Initial Water Saturation Initial Oil Saturation Areal Grid Block Dimensions Reservoir Dip Saturation Wellbore Radius Well KH Well Location; Grid Cell Center 0.25 ft 10000.0 md/ft Production well: I = 7, J = 7 (Completed in Layer 3) WAG Injection well: I = 1, J=1 (Completed in Layer 1) 8400.0 ft 4000.0 psia 0.20 0.80 500 ft x 500 ft 0 Areally:7 x 7 in 3 layers 62.4 lb/cuft 38.53 lb/cuft 68.64 lb/cuft 3.3 x 10-6 psi-1 5.0 x 10-6 psi-1 1.00 RB/STB 0.70 cp 160 oF 60 oF 14.7 psia 2302.3 psia -21.85 x 10-6 RB/STB/PSI
Trapped Gas, Corresponding to Initial Gas 20%
- 75 -
Table 3.7: Data for Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure Sw 0.2000 0.2899 0.3778 0.4667 0.5556 0.6444 0.7000 0.7333 0.8222 0.9111 1.000 Liq. Sat. 0.2000 0.2889 0.3500 0.3778 0.4667 0.5556 0.6444 0.7333 0.8222 0.9111 0.9500 1.000 Pcow 45.0 19.03 10.07 4.90 1.80 0.50 0.05 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pcgo 30.000 8.000 4.000 3.000 0.800 0.030 0.001 0.001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Krw 0.0 0.0022 0.0180 0.0607 0.1438 0.2809 0.4089 0.4855 0.7709 1.0000 1.0000 Krlig 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0110 0.0370 0.0878 0.1715 0.2963 0.4705 0.7023 0.8800 1.0000 Krow 1.0000 0.6769 0.4153 0.2178 0.0835 0.0123 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Krg 1.0000 0.5600 0.3900 0.3500 0.2000 0.1000 0.0500 0.0300 0.0100 0.0010 0.0 0.0
Residual oil to gas flood = 0.15
- 76 -
Critical gas saturation = 0.05 Table 3.8: Compositional Fluid Description Reservoir Fluid Composition (Mole Fraction) C1 C3 C6 C10 C15 C20 0.50 0.03 0.07 0.20 0.15 0.05
Table 3.9: Peng-Robinson Fluid Characterization Component PC (psia) C1 C3 C6 C10 C15 C20 667.8 616.3 436.9 304.0 200.0 162.0 TC (OR) 343.0 666.7 913.4 1111.8 1270.0 1380.0 MW 16.040 44.100 86.180 142.290 206.000 282.000 Accentric Factor 0.0130 0.1524 0.3007 0.4885 0.6500 0.8500 Critical Z 0.290 0.277 0.264 0.257 0.245 0.235
All components have equal omega A & B

O A = 0.4572355 O B = 0.0777961
Peng-Robinson parameters A and B, for each component are given by equation 31 and 32, respectively:
- 77 -
2 T K T T 1 + 1 / 31 C T C P T B = O 32 B PC TC
P A= PC
O A
)]
Where k = 0.37464 + 1.54226w 0.26992w 2 ,.........w 0.49 k = 0.379642 + 1.48503w 0.164423w 2 + 0.01666w 3 ,.....w 0.49
With the exception of the component below all binary interaction coefficients are zero.
Interaction between C1 and C15 = 0.05 C1 and C20 = 0.05 C3 and C15 = 0.005 C3 and C20 = 0.005 Peng-Robinson EoS was used to determine fluid densities at separator conditions.
- 78 -
3.5 Second Case Reservoir Simulation The synthetic black oil reservoir of section 3.4 was modified by adding one WAG injection well that is located at grid block i=1, j=1 and k=1 see Figure 3.4 and 3.5. The reservoir is produced under natural drive mechanism at 12000 STB/D for two years which allows the average reservoir pressure to decline rapidly below the initial saturation pressure. The reservoir oil initial saturation pressure is 2300 psia. The WAG injection scheme starts after two years of natural production raising the reservoir average pressure from the natural depletion state to minimum miscibility pressure condition. The reservoir oil minimum miscibility pressure is in the range of 3000 to 3200 psia. WAG injection was one year cycle of alternating water injection followed by an enriched methane solvent at maximum injection BHP of 10,000 psia, water rate of 12,000 STB/D and gas rate of 12,000 MSCF/D. Table 3.10 depicts the injectant solvent composition. The synthetic reservoir was simulated with a black oil simulator (ECLIPSE100) and was run for 12 years. Figures 3.6 and 3.7 depict the reservoir oil saturation at the beginning and end of the simulation period. As in Section 3.4, the black oil model result was condition with compositional simulation model of the same reservoir description to determine uncertainty in reservoir performance prediction.
- 79 -
Table 3.10: Injection Gas Composition Injection Gas/Solvent Composition (Mole Fraction) C1 C3 C6 C10 C15 C20 0.77 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
WAG injection Layer 1 Layer 2 0.3 H Kx
Oil production Ky
Kz
20 500 500 50 50 50
0.3 30 50
Layer 3
0.3 50 200 200 25
Figure 3.4: Reservoir Model Cross-section Schematic
- 80 -
Injection Well
Production Well
Figure 3.5: Second Case Reservoir Model Schematic
Figure 3.6: Oil Saturation at Time Zero
- 81 -
Figure 3.7: Oil Saturation after 12 Years
- 82 -
CHAPTER IV RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
4.1 History Matching and Optimization In history matching, simulated model output is conditioned to observe history data by modifying the model parameter so that the simulated data matches the history data. In this research, the reservoir model that was described in Chapter 3 is taken as the history matched model. Consequently, Chapter three models for the two scenarios considered are assumed as the single best model that can reproduce the actual reservoir observed history data. Then, the next step is to use the matched model for future production forecast. And, after making the prediction, assessment of uncertainty associated with the forecast is performed (see figure 4.1).
4.2 Research Methodology This research proposes a method to quantify uncertainty associated with reservoir performance simulation by performing the following steps: 1. Obtain a history match black oil model. 2. Construct a compositional simulation model of the matched model. 3. Perturb slightly the black oil and compositional reservoir description parameters that control the reservoir output (e.g. permeability). 4. Minimize the difference between the two models output by using a statistical sum of square objective function algorithm. The optimization process is used to determine lowest and highest deviations of the two models output.
- 83 -
5. The lowest and highest deviations quantify the range of uncertainty associated with predicted reservoir future performance. In case of multiple history match models steps 1 through 5 are performed on each model or a selection of three of the matched models. For this study reservoir performance simulation of SPE fifth comparative solution project is evaluated79. In this SPE project a volatile oil reservoir was simulated with both black oil and compositional simulators. This research is focused on taking the SPE synthetic reservoir project a step ahead by conditioning the black oil model results with compositional simulation model output in order to assess uncertainty in the reservoir performance simulation. In addition, IMPLICIT formulation code was used in both black oil and compositional cases (although IMPES and AID formulations are commonly applied in compositional model). This approach is to reduce the difference between the two models to mainly how the fluid phase behavior is treated.
- 84 -
History Matched Model
Black Oil Simulator
Compositional Simulator
Black Oil Output
Compositional Output
Objective Function Optimization
Uncertainty Quantification
Figure 4.1: Black Oil Conditioning Flow Chart
- 85 -
4.3 Observed History Data Duration The volatile reservoir described in Section 3.4 was used to investigate the duration of observed history data that is sufficient for a good history match. It should be noted that duration of observed history will vary from one reservoir to another. The variation is a function of reservoir rock and fluid properties, reservoir drive mechanism, type of production scheme and number and location of wells in the reservoir. In this investigation, a single producing well located at one corner of the reservoir, which is perforated in one layer out of three layers that are hydrodynamically connected, is study. The reservoir is a multiphase flow in heterogeneous single-porosity medium. This investigation was performed by simulating the base case reservoir (which is assumed as the real reservoir) for 2, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 48 months (see Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 and Appendix C). Thereafter, the reservoir description (permeability) was varied from 1%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 75% and 90% of the initial value and run for the same number of months as in the base case model. The simulated data, BHP, GOR, WCT, and TOP of both the base case and perturb models were matched as depicted in Figures 4.2 thru 4.9. From Figures 4.2 to 4.9, it is concluded that for the reservoir under investigation, observed historical data of 18 months are sufficient for a good history match if the model is 75% and above close to the actual reservoir. (If the model is between 50 70% of the actual reservoir more than 18 months data is required) This means that a good reservoir simulation model of the real reservoir will be obtained after 18 months of producing the actual reservoir (i.e. having 18 months plus of observed historical data for history
- 86 -
matching). Consequently, future reservoir predictions that will be obtained from calibrated history matched simulation model are reliable for field development. Table 4.1: Base Case Reservoir Description and Simulation Output
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 Base Case 6 Months FGOR FPR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.527151 0.512511 Permx Layer1 Layer2 Layer3 500 50 200 (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.034 3838.561 3635.205 3274.432 2902.931 2529.859 2286.751 2240.178 Permy 500 50 200 FWCT
0 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.35E-06 1.52E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.51E-05 4.02E-05 PermZ 50 50 25
Table 4.2: 1% Reservoir Description Perturbation

TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 Layer1 Layer2 Layer3 FGOR 1% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3992.667 3989.562 3980.926 3965.781 3940.67 3916.537 3893.097 3870.162 3847.622 Permy 5 0.5 2 FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 Permx 5 0.5 2
0 1.61E-06 4.67E-06 8.98E-06 1.27E-05 1.55E-05 1.71E-05 1.82E-05 1.89E-05 1.95E-05 PermZ 0.5 0.5 0.05
- 87 -

TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 FGOR 30% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.825 3946.014 3838.521 3635.045 3273.753 2902.881 2577.909 2366.895 2273.761 Permy 150 15 60 FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.52391 0.51046 0.520919 Permx
0 4.55E-06 8.36E-06 1.19E-05 1.55E-05 2.08E-05 2.58E-05 3.73E-05 4.65E-05 5.14E-05 PermZ 15 15 7.5
Layer1 Layer2 Layer3
150 15 60

TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 FGOR 90% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.025 3838.552 3635.196 3274.408 2902.921 2529.849 2287.649 2240.616 Permy 450 45 180 FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.523139 0.509729 Permx
0 2.44E-06 4.01E-06 6.16E-06 9.67E-06 1.55E-05 2.10E-05 2.62E-05 3.60E-05 4.15E-05 PermZ 45 45 22.5
Layer1 Layer2 Layer3
450 45 180
- 88 -
WATER-CUT MATCHING AFTER 2 MONTHS

0.00003
0.000025
0.00002 WATER-CUT BASE CASE 1% 10% 0.000015 20% 30% 75% 90%
0.00001
0.000005
0 0 1 4 TIME, Days 13 30 60
Figure 4.2: Two Months Observed History Data Matching

SIX MONTHS WATER-CUT MATCH
0.00006
0.00005
0.00004 WATER-CUT BASE CASE 1% 0.00003 10% 20% 30% 75% 90% 0.00002
0.00001
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 TIME, DAYS 120 140 160 180 200
Figure 4.3: Six Months Observed History Data Matching
- 89 -
12 MONTHS WATER-CUT MATCH

0.00008
0.00007
0.00006
0.00005 WATER-CUT
BASE CASE 1% 10%
0.00004
20% 30% 75%
0.00003
90%
0.00002
0.00001
0 0 50 100 150 200 TIME, DAYS 250 300 350 400
Figure 4.4: Twelve Months Observed History Data Matching

0.00012
0.0001
0.00008 WATER-CUT
0.00006
BASE CASE 1% 75% 90%
0.00004
0.00002
0 0 100 200 300 TIME, DAYS 400 500 600
Figure 4.5: Eighteen Months Observed History Data Matching
- 90 -
24 MONTHS DATA WATER-CUT MATCH

0.00016
0.00014
0.00012
0.0001 WATER-CUT BASE CASE 1% 0.00008 75% 90%
0.00006
0.00004
0.00002
0 0 100 200 300 400 TIME, DAYS 500 600 700 800
Figure 4.6: Twenty Four Months History Data Matching

0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
WATER-CUT
0.0002 BASE CASE 90% 75% 0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0 0 200 400 600 800 TIME, DAYS 1000 1200 1400 1600
Figure 4.7: Forty Eight Months History Data Matching
- 91 -
10 YEARS PREDICTION WITH 18 MONTHS 75% MATCHED MODEL

12000000
10000000
CUM. OIL PRODUCTION, STB
8000000
6000000
OBSERVED OPT SIMULATED OPT
4000000
2000000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 4.8: Reservoir Performance Prediction 1

10 YEARS PREDICTION WITH 24 MONTHS 75% HISTORY MATCHED MODEL
12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA
4000000
2000000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
Figure 4.9: Reservoir Performance Prediction 2
- 92 -
4.3.1 Well Testing Interpretation Once a history matched model is achieved such as the reservoir simulated model that matched twenty four months observed history data, the next step is to validate the history matched model using transient pressure analysis. A log-log derivative plot analysis of pressure changes with respect to superposition time is a proven standard technique for reservoir behavior interpretation. As a result, log-log derivative analysis using Eclipse WellTest interpretation software was used to analysis section 4.1.1 observed history pressure data and the matched simulation model generated pressure data. The interpretation of each transient pressure response gave reservoir parameters depicted in table 4.5. Table 4.5: Transient Pressure Interpretation
Reservoir Parameter Initial Pressure Skin Factor Permeability History Data 3981.82 -7.1034 10.0579 Simulated Data 3981.82 -7.1033 10.0579 Difference 0.0001 -
From Table 4.5, a validation conclusion is made that the simulation model used to match twenty four months observed history data is an acceptable representative model of the real reservoir. See Figures 4.10 and 4.11 for the log-log pressure match of observed history data and simulated pressure response, respectively.
- 93 -
Figure 4.10: Observed History Data Log-Log Plot
Figure 4.11: History Matched Model Log-Log Plot
- 94 -
4.4 Ultimate Recovery Uncertainty: Natural Depletion Steps one through step five described in Section 4.2 were used on the black oil and compositional simulation models of Section 3.4 to forecast the range of uncertainty associated with the synthetic reservoir ultimate recovery. The permeability KV/KH ratio of the reservoir third layer was perturbed manually (up to 100 percent of initial value) in both black oil and compositional simulators as given in Table 4.6. The perturbed models were used to forecast ten years production. The difference between black oil generated cumulative oil production and that of compositional simulator were optimized using sum of square objective functions given by equation 33. After the optimizations process the lowest and highest objective function values were selected to define the range of uncertainty associated with the reservoir performance prediction see Figure 4.12 and data in Appendix E. O.F . = (Com. BO ) 33
2
Table 4.6: Conditioning of Black Oil Simulator with Compositional

Optimized COP 3.56373E+12 2.20751E+12 2.28327E+12 2.37008E+12 2.34844E+12 3.60626E+12 2.52426E+12 2.55908E+12 2.67512E+12 3.3686E+12 3.03698E+12 Confidence Interval 100%
HM: history match COP: cumulative Oil production.
KV/KH 0.25 0.225 0.2 0.175 0.15 0.125 0.1 0.075 0.05 0.025 0.005
HM
-100%
- 95 -
100% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL: CONDITIONING

11500000 11000000 10500000 C U M . O IL P R O D ., S T B 10000000 9500000 9000000 8500000 8000000 7500000 7000000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.12: Black Oil Simulator Forecast after Conditioning
HM KV/KH - 9/40 KV/KH - 1/40
- 96 -
4.4.1 Positive and Negative Confidence Interval Algorithms The assumed history matched black oil model KV/KH permeability ratios of the third layer were perturbed until a ratio of 1 was obtained. For each perturbation ratio, the model was used to forecast future oil recovery and the difference in cumulative oil production between the model and the history matched model were calculated (Table 4.7). Thereafter, plots of the difference in cumulative oil production vs. KV/KH ratio were made. The plots were used to derive positive and negative algorithms that could be used to estimate corresponding cumulative oil production for the reservoir at any given KV/KH perturbation ratio. Figures 4.13 and 4.14 depict these algorithms.
Table 4.7: Perturbed kv/kh and Corresponding Simulator COP

KV 1 5 10 15 20 25 50 100 150 175 200 KV -24 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 25 75 125 150 175 COP 11471837 10827802 10591709 10498428 10452052 10733397 10670168 10560330 10456699 10433452 10496487 COP -738440 -94405 141688 234969 281345 0 63229 173067 276698 299945 236910 KV/KH 0.005 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 HM: 125 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.875 1
HM:
COP: Cumulative Oil Production
- 97 -
POSITIVE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

Change in Cum. Oil Prod. STB 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 KV/KH 0.8 1 1.2 y = -2E+06x3 + 3E+06x2 - 825189x + 128930 R2 = 0.9963
Figure 4.13: Positive Confidence Interval Algorithm

NEGATIVE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
400000 Change in Cum. Oil Prod., STB 200000 0 0 -200000 -400000 -600000 -800000 KV/KH y = 3E+09x 3 - 7E+08x 2 + 5E+07x - 955130 R2 = 0.9968 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Figure 4.14: Negative Confidence Interval Algorithm
- 98 -
In all the previous perturbation, the KV/KH adjustment was carried out using the third layer. Perturbation was performed only on the third layer after cross-section examination of the reservoir which revealed that the layer will have significant influence on recovery. To validate this point, KV/KH of the reservoir first and second layers were perturbed in addition to the third layer and each new realization was used to make prediction. The total oil recovery and field water cut data (Figures 4.15 and 4.16, Appendix C) were plotted to define the range of associated uncertainty. From Figure 4.15, the range of associated uncertainty with ten years cumulative oil production is from 10.1 MMSTB to 10.75 MMSTB and this is equivalent to only when third layer KV/KH was perturbed.
- 99 -
BLACK OIL SIMULATION: CUM. OIL PROD. UNCERTAINTY RANGE

11 10.75 10.5 10.25 10 9.75 9.5 9.25 9 8.75 8.5 8.25 8 7.75 7.5 7.25 7 6.75 6.5 6.25 6 5.75 5.5 5.25 5 4.75 4.5 4.25 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0
M illions
BASE CASE 3RD LY - 1/4 1ST LY -1/5 3RD LY - 1/2 3RD LY - 1, 1ST LY - 1/2 3RD LY - 1 1ST LY -1, 3RD LY - 1/2 3RD LY -1, 1ST LY -1
C UM M . O IL P R O D ., S TB
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.15: Cumulative Oil Production Uncertainty Quantification
- 100 -
BLACK OIL SIMULATION: WCT UNCERTAINTY RANGE

4.00E-04
3.50E-04
3.00E-04 BASE CASE 2.50E-04 W C T , S TB /S TB 3RD LY - 1/4 1ST LY - 1/5 3RD LY -1/2 3RD LY - 1, 1ST LY - 1/2 3RD LY -1 1ST LY -1, 3RD LY -1/2 1.50E-04 3RD LY -1, 1ST LY -1 3RD LY - 3/4
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
5.00E-05
0.00E+00
24 3 39 6 54 6 69 9 85 10 0 0 11 3 5 13 4 0 14 7 60 16 1 17 1 6 19 4 1 20 5 68 22 2 23 1 7 25 1 24 26 7 28 5 2 29 8 7 31 9 32 32 8 34 5 3 35 6 89 1 90
TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.16: Water-Cut Uncertainty Quantification
- 101 -
4.5 Ultimate Recovery Uncertainty: Water-Alternate-Gas The synthetic reservoir producing under WAG scheme of Section 3.5 was allowed to run for thirteen years. And steps 1 to 5 of Section 4.2 were applied to investigate the ultimate oil recovery uncertainty. Three new realizations were generated (Appendix C) which were used to forecast the range of uncertainty associated with the reservoir performance prediction. These new realizations that quantify the uncertainty range are high, low and most likely case models as given in Figure 3.17 and Appendix C. From Figure 4.17 the range of uncertainty associated with predicted total oil recovery is between 24.65 and 24.68 MMSTB and the three cases recovery are: High Case: 24,681,318 STB Most Likely 24,663,478 STB Low Case: 24,655,026 STB
102
UNCERTAINTY FORECAST
25 24.5 24 23.5 23 22.5 22 21.5 21 20.5 20 19.5 19 18.5 18 17.5 17 16.5 16 15.5 15 14.5 14 13.5 13 12.5 12 11.5 11 10.5 10 9.5 9 8.5 8 1 913 1153 1430 1547 1777 1804 1879 2200 2345 2594 2920 3033 3312 3603 3735 4033 4252 4444 TIME, DAYS
T O T A L O I L P R O D ., S T B
M i ll i o n s
UPSIDE CASE DOWNSIDE MOST LIKELY
Figure 4.17: Uncertainty Forecast for WAG Scheme
103
4.6 Justification of the Applied Uncertainty quantification method It is a known fact that black oil is limited by its inability to generate comprehensive compositional data. Also, it is well understood that black oil PVT table consisting of Bo, Rs versus pressure can be used to simulate equivalent compositional model values of mole fractions x and y (fluid composition) and saturated oil and gas phase molar densities versus pressure. In addition, simulation mass balance equation is the same for both black oil and compositional models the only difference between these models is compositional derived equation of state PVT, which is more detailed than black oil PVT, which is simpler. Furthermore, in black oil simulation, a simple check of the total mole fraction is used to determine phase appearance or disappearance while for compositional simulation Newton-Raphson flash calculation is performed to determine liquid and vapor (L and V) mole fractions. Therefore, it can simply be said that compositional simulation is more detailed and more precise than black oil model when describing reservoir fluid phase behavior. Consequently, compositional simulation model result can be used to condition black oil model output and the conditioning transformed into quantification of uncertainty in reservoir performance prediction. This technique of black oil conditioning is proposed in this research.
104
4.7 Relating Research Approach to Conventional Method ECLIPSE simulator SIMOPT package is widely used in the industry to quantify uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction. This package was used to investigate Section 3.4 synthetic reservoir model uncertainty range. The simulation optimization process was carried out by using only the single assumed history matched black oil model of Section 3.4 Thereafter, the model permeability distribution was perturbed slightly so as to quantify uncertainty associated with the reservoir performance prediction. Furthermore, linear uncertainty quantification method proposed by Lepine et al.89 was also used to assess the reservoir uncertainty by considering 100% confidence interval. The resulting uncertainty quantification is given in Table 20 and Figure 4.18. In the conventional method, KV/KH value corresponding to 100% confidence interval is used only in the black oil model to forecast production and assessment of uncertainty associated with the prediction. While the black oil conditioning technique proposed in this research, objective function (Equation 33) optimization of few multiple realizations between 100% were used to select the models with minimum and maximum objective function values. Thereafter, the selected two models were used to forecast oil recovery as well as to assess uncertainty associated with the reservoir performance prediction. See Table 4.8 for the objective function optimization results.
105
Table 4.8: Black Oil Conditioning

Optimized COP 3.56373E+12 2.20751E+12 2.28327E+12 2.37008E+12 2.34844E+12 3.60626E+12 2.52426E+12 2.55908E+12 2.67512E+12 3.3686E+12 3.03698E+12 Confidence Interval 100% Conditioning
KV/KH 0.25 0.225 0.2 0.175 0.15 0.125 0.1 0.075 0.05 0.025 0.005
HM
Conditioning -100%
Comparison of Figure 4.18 obtained by conventional uncertainty quantification method with Figure 4.12 derived from black oil conditioning method proposed in this study revealed that the proposed technique for assessing uncertainty gives better quantification of uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction.
106
100% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL: CONVENTIONAL

11500000 11000000 10500000 C U M . O IL P R O D ., S T B 10000000 9500000 9000000 8500000 8000000 7500000 7000000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.18: Conventional Linear Analysis of Uncertainty
HM KV/KH - 1/4 KV/KH - 1/200
2500
3000
3500
4000
107
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions The results of this research have shown that uncertainties associated with reservoir performance simulation are better quantified when reservoir description and reservoir fluid phase behavior are adequately represented. The following conclusions are made:
9 Black oil conditioning technique can be utilized to quantify uncertainty associated
with simulated reservoir performance by generating few reservoir realizations from a history matched model. This is a cost effective approach to assess reservoir performance uncertainty.
9 Two analytical equations are presented for calculating negative and positive
confidence intervals, which can be used to assess oil recovery with varying reservoir permeability. These equations are functions of reservoir heterogeneity.
9 18 months history period is sufficient for observed historical data to be utilized
for acceptable history matching if the simulated model is able to mimic the actual reservoir up to 75% and above.
9 24 months plus history period is sufficient for acceptable history match if the
simulated reservoir model mimic the real reservoir less than 75%. It should be noted that the results presented in this research are quite exact (close to ideal conditions). This is due to the fact all the analysis was carried out utilizing synthetic reservoir models.
108
5.2
Recommendations
This study is not exhaustive. There are areas requiring further investigation. These are detailed as follows:
9 In this research, synthetic reservoir model was used as the assumed history
matched model and for the assessment of uncertainty associated with reservoir performance prediction. It is suggested that a real reservoir should be used to perform both the history matching and quantification of uncertainty associated with the reservoir performance prediction.
9 Peng-Robinson cubic equation of state was used in the compositional
simulator. Peng-Robinson fails to properly account for hydrocarbon liquid behavior. As a result, a robust cubic equation of state such as Lawal-LakeSilberberg four parameter equation of state should be investigated.
9 Additional computational cost resulting from simultaneously using
compositional and black oil simulator in the prediction stage after history matching was not taken into consideration. This should be considered in order to account for the cost implication of black oil conditioning technique when compared to conventional uncertainty quantification methods.
109
REFERENCES
1.
Aarnes, J.E., Kippe, V. and Lie, K., Mixed Multiscale Finite Elements and Streamline Methods for Reservoir Simulation of Large Geomodels, Advances in Water Resources, Oct. 2004. Abou-Kassem, J.H. and Aziz, K., Sensitivity of Steamflood Model Results to Grid and Timestep Sizes, Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Feb. 1984. Abrahamsen, P., Egeland, T., Lia, O. and Omre, H., An Integrated Approach to Prediction of Hydrocarbon In Place and Recoverable Reserves with Uncertainty Measures, paper SPE 24276, presented at SPE European Petroleum Computer Conference (May, 1992). Ahmed, T. and Mckinney, D.P.: Advanced Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, New York (2005). Aitchison, J. and Brown, J.A.C.: The Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge at the University Press, Cambridge (1969). Ajose, D. and Mohanty, K.K., Compositional Upscaling in Heterogeneous Reservoirs: Effect of Gravity, Capillary Pressure, and Dispersion, paper SPE 84363, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct., 2003. Alhuthali, A.H., Oyerinde, D. and Datta-Gupta, A., Optimal Waterflood Management Using Rate Control, SPE 102478, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2006). Al-Shamma, B.R. and Teigland, R., History Matching of The Valhall Field Using a Global Optimization Method and Uncertainty Assessment, SPE 100946, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2006). Anderson, T.W.: An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (1958). Anterion, F., Eymard, R. and Karcher, B., Use of Parameter Gradient for Reservoir History Matching, paper SPE 18433, presented at the SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb., 1989).
2.
3.
4 5 6
9 10
110
11
Ates, H., Bahar, A., El-Abd, S., Charfeddine, M., Kelkar, M. and DattaGupta, A., Ranking and Upscaling of Geostatistical Reservoir Models by Use of Streamline Simulation: A field Case Study, paper SPE 81497, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, Feb., 2005. Aziz, K., Reservoir Simulation Grids: Opportunities and Problems, paper SPE 25233, presented at SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans, March, 1993. Aziz K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Blitzprint Ltd, Calgary (2002). Ballin, P.R., Clifford, P.J. and Christie, M.A., Cupiagua: A Complex FullField Fractured Reservoir Study Using Compositional Upscaling, paper SPE 66376, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, Feb., 2001. Barker, J.W., Cuypers, M. and Holden, L., Quantifying Uncertainty in Production Forecasts: Another Look at the PUNQ-S3 Problem, SPE 74707, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Dec., 2001). Barker, J.W. and Dupouy, P., An Analysis of Dynamic Pseudo Relative Permeability Methods, paper presented at the 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Austria, Sept. 1996. Barker, J.W. and Fayers, F.J., Transport Coefficients for Compositional Simulation with Coarse Grids in Heterogeneous Media, paper SPE 22591, Advanced Technology Series 1994. Barker, J.W. and Leibovici, C.F., Delumping Compositional Reservoir Simulation Results: Theory and Applications, paper SPE 51896, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston (Feb., 1999). Barker, J.W. and Thibeau, S., A Critical Review of the Use of Pseudorelative Permeabilities for Upscaling, paper SPE 35491, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May, 1997. Bennett, F. and Graf, T., Use of Geostatistical Modeling and Automatic History Matching to Estimate Production Forecast Uncertainty A Case Study, paper SPE 74389, presented at SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition (Feb., 2002).
12
13 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
111
21
Berteig, V., Halvorsen, K.B. and Omre, H., Prediction of Hydrocarbon Pore Volume with Uncertainties, paper SPE 18325, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1988). Bissel, R.C., Combining Geostatistical Modeling with Gradient Information for History Matching: The Pilot Point Method, SPE 38730, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1997). Bissell, R.C., Dubrule, O., Lamy, P., Swaby, P. and Lepine, O., Combining Geostatistical Modeling with Gradient Information for History Matching: The Pilot Point Method, paper SPE 38730, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct.1997). Bissell, R., Killough, J.E. and Sharma, Y., Reservoir History Matching using the Method of Gradients on a Workstation, paper SPE 24265, presented at SPE European Petroleum Computer Conference (May, 1992). Bissell, R.C., Sharma, Y. and Killough, J.E., History Matching using the method of Gradients: Two Case Studies, SPE 28590, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1994). Bonet-Cunha, L., Oliver, D.S., Redner, R.A. and Reynolds, A.C., A Hybrid Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method for Generating Permeability Fields Conditioned to Multiwell Pressure Data and Prior Information, paper SPE 36566, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1996). Bu, T. and Damsieth, E., Errors and Uncertainties in Reservoir Performance Predictions, SPE 30604, SPE Formation Evaluation (Sept., 1996). Bustamante, D.S., Keller, D.R. and Monson, G.D., Understanding Reservoir Performance and Uncertainty using a Multiple History Matching Process, paper SPE 95401, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 2005).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
112
29
Camy, J.P. and Emanuel, A.S., Effect of Grid Size in the Compositional Simulation of CO2 Injection, paper SPE 6894, presented at SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct., 1977. Carlson, M.R.: Practical Reservoir Simulation, PennWell Corporation, Oklahoma (2003). Carreras, P.E., Johnson, S.G. and Turner, S.E., Tahiti: Assessment of Uncertainty in a Deepwater Reservoir Using Design of Experiments, SPE 102988, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2006). Carter, R.D., Kemp, L.F., Pierce, A.C. and Williams, D.L., Performance Matching with Constraints, paper SPE 4260, presented at SPE-AIME third Symposium on Numerical Simulation of Reservoir Performance (Jan. 1973). Casella, G. and Berger, R.L.: Statistical Inference, Wadsworth & Brook/Cole Advanced Books & Software, California (1990). Chen, W.H., Gavalas, G.K., Seinfeld, J.H. and Wasserman, M.L., A New Algorithm for Automatic History Matching, paper SPE 4545, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (Dec., 1974). Christie, M.A., Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 37324, Distinguished Author Series and Journal of Petroleum Technology, (Nov. 1996). Christie, M.A. and Blunt, M.J., Tenth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques, paper SPE 72469, presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2001). Chung, C.B. and Costas, K., Incorporation of A Priori Information in Reservoir History Matching by Regularization, paper SPE 21615, SPE Journal (1990). Coats, K.H., Use and Misuse of Reservoir Simulation Models, SPE 2367, SPE Gas Technology and Peripheral Waterflooding Symposium (Nov., 1968).
30 31
32
33 34
35
36
37
38
113
39
Coats, K.H., Dempsey, J.R. and Henderson, J.H., A New Technique for Determining Reservoir Description from Field Performance Data, paper SPE 2344, presented Annual Fall Meeting (Sept., 1968). Coats, K.H., Nielsen, R.L., Terhune, M.H. and Weber, A.G., SPE 1961, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (Dec., 1967). Coats, K.H., Thomas, L.K. and Pierson, R.G., Compositional and Black Oil Reservoir Simulation, SPE 2911, Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb., 1995). Coats, K.H., Nielsen, R.L., Terhune, M.H. and Weber, A.G., Simulation of Three-Dimensional, Two-Phase Flow in Oil and Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 1961 (December 1967). Cockcroft, P., A Prescriptive View of Risk, 2004-5 SPE Distinguished lecture. Coll, C., Muggeridge, A.H. and Jing, X.D., Regional Upscaling: A New Method to Upscale Waterflooding in Heterogeneous Reservoirs for a Range of Capillary and Gravity Effects, paper SPE 74139, SPE Journal (Sept. 2001). Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Clffs, NJ (1959). Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1978). Damsleth, E. and Holden, L., Mixed Reservoir Characterization Methods, SPE 27969, University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium (August, 1994). Damsleth, E., Tjolsen, C.B., More, H. and Haldorsen, H.H., A Two-Stage Stochastic Model Applied to a North Sea Reservoir, paper SPE 20605, Journal of petroleum technology (April, 1992). David, M., Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Netherlands (1982).
40
41
42
43 44
45 46 47
48
49
114
50
Ding, Y. and Jeannin, L., New Numerical Schemes for Near-Well Modeling Using Flexible Grids, paper SPE 87679, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2001). Dohrn, R., Kunstler, W. and Prausnitz, J.M., Correlation of High-Pressure Phase Equilibria in the Retrograde Region with Three Common Equations of State, Volume 69, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering (Oct., 1991). Doyen, P.M., Psaila, D.E. and Strandenes, S., Bayesian Sequential Indicator Simulation of Channel Sands from 3-D Seismic Data in the Oseberg Field, Norwegian North Sea, paper SPE 28382, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1994). Durlofsky, L., Use of Higher Moments for the Description of Upscaled, Process Independent Relative Permeabilities, paper SPE 37987, presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas (June 1997). Durlofsky, L.J., Upscaling of Geocellular Models for Reservoir Simulation: A Review of Recent Progress, paper presented at 7th International Forum on Reservoir Simulation, Germany (June 2003). Efendiev, Y. and Durlofsky, L.J., Accurate Subgrid Models for TwoPhase Flow in Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 88363, SPE Journal (June 2004). Ehlig-Economides, C.A., Joseph, J.A., Ambrose, R.W. and Norwood, C., A Modern Approach to Reservoir Testing, Journal of Petroleum Technology (December 1990). Eriksson, K., Estep, D., Hansbo, P. and Johnson, C., Computational Differential Equations, Cambridge University Press, Sweden (1996). Firoozabadi, A., Hekim, Y. and Katz, D.L., Reservoir Depletion Calculations for Gas Condensates Using Extended Analyses in the PengRobinson Equation of State, Volume 56, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering (Oct., 1978).
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
115
59
Floris, F.J.T., Bush, M.D., Cuypers, M., Roggero, F. and Syversveen, AR., Comparison of Production Forecast Uncertainty Quantification Methods An Integrated Study, PUNQ project Galli, A., Armstrong, M., Portella, R.C.M., Gomes de Souza, O., Yokota, H.K., Stochastic-Aided Design and Bayesian Updating: New Tools to use Expert Knowledge in Quantitative Models That Incorporate Uncertainty, SPE 90414, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (2004). Gao, G., Zafari, M. and Reynolds, A.C., Quantifying Uncertainty for the PUNQ-S3 Problem in a Bayesian Setting with RML EnKF, SPE 93324, SPE Reservoir Simulation and Symposium (2005). Gavalas, G.R., Shah, P.C. and Seinfeld, J.H., Reservoir History Matching by Bayesian Estimation, SPE 5740, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Dec., 1976). Glimm, J., Hou, S., Lee, Y., Sharp, D. and Ye, K, Prediction of Oil Production with Confidence Intervals, paper SPE 66350, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2001). Ginting, V., Ewing, R., Efendiev, Y. and Lazarov, R., Upscaled Modeling in Multiphase Flow Applications (July 2003). Ghorayeb, K. and Holmes, J., Black Oil Delumping, SPE 96571, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 2005). Gringarten, A.C., Computer-Aided Well Test Analysis, paper SPE 14099, presented at SPE international meeting on petroleum engineering, China (March, 1986). Gu, Y. and Oliver, D.S., History Matching of the PUNQ-S3 Reservoir Model Using the Ensemble Kalman Filter, paper SPE 89942, presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept. 2004).
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
116
68
Haldorsen, H.H. and Damsieth, E., Stochastic Modeling, SPE 20321, Journal of Petroleum Technology (April, 1990). Harbaugh, J.W., Doveton, J.H. and Davis, J.C., Probability Methods in Oil Exploration, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York (1977). Heinemann, Z.E., Brand, C.W., Munka, M. and Chen, Y.M., Modeling Reservoir Geometry with Irregular Grids, paper SPE 18412, SPE Reservoir Engineering (May, 1991). Hui, M., Zhou, D., Wen, X. and Durlofsky, L.J., Development and Application of a New Technique for Upscaling Miscible Processes, paper SPE 89435, presented at SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa (April 2004). Hurst, W., The Solution of Nonlinear Equations, SPE 3676, SPE-AIME Anadarko Basin Section Meeting (Sept., 1971). Hurst, W., Clark, J.D. and Brauer, E.B., The Skin Effect in Producing Wells, SPE 1854, Annual Fall Meeting (Oct., 1967). Jacks, H.H., Smith, O.J.E. and Mattax, C.C., The Modeling of a ThreeDimensional Reservoir with a Two-Dimensional Reservoir SimulatorThe use of Dynamic Pseudo Functions, paper SPE 4071, presented at the SPE-AIME Annual Fall Meeting, San Antonio (Oct. 1972). Jonkman, R.M., Bos, C.F.M., Breunese, J.N., Morgan, D.T.K., Spencer, J.A. and Sondena, E., Best Practices and Methods in Hydrocarbon Resource Estimation, Production and Emissions Forecasting, Uncertainty Evaluation and Decision Making, paper SPE 65144, presented at SPE European Petroleum Conference (Oct., 2000). Journel, A.G. and Alabert, F.G., New Method for Reservoir Mapping, SPE 18324, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Feb., 1990).
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
117
77
Kalogerakis, N., An Efficient Procedure for the Quantification of Risk in Forecasting Reservoir Performance, SPE 27569, European Petroleum Computer Conference (March, 1994). Killough, J.E., Ninth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A Reexamination of Black-Oil Simulation, paper SPE 29110, presented at SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb., 1995). Killough, J.E. and Kossack, C.A., Fifth Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators, SPE 16000, Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb. 1987). King, M.J., Burn, P.W., Muralidharan, V., Alvarado, F., Ma, X. and DattaGupta, A., Optimal Coarsening of 3D Reservoir Models for Flow Simulation, paper SPE 95759, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas (Oct. 2005). King, M.J., MacDonald, D.G., Todd, S.P. and Leung, H., Application of Novel Upscaling Approaches to the Magnus and Andrew Reservoirs, paper SPE 50643, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague (Oct. 1998). Lambers, J. and Gerritsen, M., An Integration of Multilevel Local-Global Upscaling with Grid Adaptivity, paper SPE 97250, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas (Oct. 2005). Lamy, P., Swaby, P.A., Rowbotham, P.S., Dubrule, O. and Haas, A., From Seismic to Reservoir Properties with Geostatistical Inversion, SPE 57476, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (1998). Landa, J.L. and Horne, R.N., A Procedure to Integrate Well Test Data, Reservoir Performance History and 4-D Seismic Information into a Reservoir Description, SPE 38653, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (1997). Lechner, J.P. and Zangl, G., Treating Uncertainty in Reservoir Performance Prediction with Neural Networks, SPE 94357, SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference (June, 2005).
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
118
86
Lee, T., Kravaris, C. and Seinfeld, J.H., History Matching by Spline Approximation and Regularization in Single-Phase Areal Reservoirs, paper SPE 13931, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Sept., 1986). Leibovici, C.L., Barker, J.W. and Wache, A Method for Delumping the Results of a Compositional Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 49068, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1998). Lemouzy, P.M., Romeu, R.K. and Morelon, I.F., A New Scaling-Up Method to Compute Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for Simulation of Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 26660, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston (Oct. 1993). Lepine, O.J., Bissell, R.C., Aanonsen, S.I., Pallister, I.C. and Barker, J.W., Uncertainty Analysis in Predictive Reservoir Simulation Using Gradient Information, SPE 57594, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Sept., 1999). Lerche, I., Geological Risk and Uncertainty in Oil Exploration, Academic Press, California (1997). Lerdahl, T.R., Rustad, A.B., Theting, T.G., Stensen, J.A., ren, P.E., Bakke, S., Boassen, T. and Palatnik, B., paper SPE 94191, presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Spain (June 2005).
87
88
89
90
91
92
Li, Y. and Johns, R.T., Rapid Flash Calculations for Compositional Modeling, SPE 95732, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 2005). Liu, N., Betancourt, S. and Oliver, D.S., Assessment of Uncertainty Assessment Methods, paper SPE 71624, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 2001). Lucia, F.J. and Fogg, E.G., Geologic/Stochastic Mapping of Heterogeneity in a Carbonate Reservoir, SPE 19597, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Oct., 1990). Mahani, H. and Muggeridge, A.H., Improved Coarse Grid Generation Using Vorticity, paper SPE 94319, presented at SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference, Spain (June 2005).
93
94
95
119
96
Makhlouf, E.M., Chen, W.H., Wasserman, M.L. and Seinfeld, J.H., A General History Matching Algorithm for Three-Phase, ThreeDimensional Petroleum Reservoirs, paper SPE 20383, SPE Advanced Technology Series. Massonnat, G.J., Can We Sample the Complete Geological Uncertainty Space in Reservoir-Modeling Uncertainty Estimates? SPE59801, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March, 2000). Mattax, C.C. and Dalton, R.L.: Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph 13, Richardson (1990). Millar, D., New Workflows Reduce Forecast Cycle Time, Refine Uncertainty, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July, 2006). Mohaghegh, S.D., Quantifying Uncertainties Associated with Reservoir Simulation Studies Using Surrogate Reservoir Models, SPE 102492, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2006). Moses, P.L., Engineering Applications of Phase Behavior of Crude Oil and Condensate Systems, paper SPE 19893, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1986). Newendorp, D.P. and Campbell, J.M., Bayesian Analysis: A Method for Updating Risk Estimates, SPE 3463, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Feb., 1972). Nicotra, G., Godi, A., Cominelli, A. and Christie, M., Production Data and Uncertainty Quantification: A real Case Study, SPE 93280, Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2005). Nobles, M.A.: Using Computer to Solve Reservoir Engineering Problems, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1984). Odeh, A.S., Reservoir SimulationWhat is it? SPE 2790, Journal of Petroleum Technology.
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
120
106
Odeh, A.S., Comparison of Solutions to a Three-Dimensional Black-Oil Reservoir Simulation Problem, paper SPE 9741, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Jan., 1981). Okano, H., Pickup, G.E., Christie, M.A., Subbey, S. and Monfared, H., Quantification of Uncertainty in Relative Permeability for Coarse-Scale Reservoir Simulation, SPE 94140, SPE Europe/EAGE Annual Conference (June, 2005). Ouenes, A., Bhagavan, S., Bunge, P.H. and Travis, B.J., Application of Simulated Annealing and other Global Optimization methods to Reservoir Description: Myths and Realities, paper SPE 28415, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1994). Ouenes, A., Brefort, B., Meunier, G. And Dupere, S., A New Algorithm for Automatic History Matching: Application of Simulated Annealing Method. Painter, S., Paterson, L. and Boult, P., Improved Technique for Stochastic Interpolation of Reservoir Properties, SPE 30599, Journal of Petroleum Technology (March, 1997). Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressure in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, SPE 6893, Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1977). Peaceman, D.W.: Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1977). Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic Permeability, SPE 10528, Journal of Petroleum Technology (June, 1983) Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation: Part 3 Off-Center and Multiple Wells within a Wellblock, SPE 16976, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1987).
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
121
115
Peaceman, D.W., A New Method for Representing Multiple Wells with Arbitrary Rates in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, SPE 29120, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Nov., 1995). Peaceman, D.W., Effective Transmissibilities of a Gridblock by Upscaling - Comparison of a Direct Methods with Renormalization, paper SPE 36722, SPE Journal (Sept., 1997). Peaceman, D.W., A New Method for Calculating Well Indexes for Multiple Wellblocks with Arbitrary Rates in Numerical Reservoir Simulation, SPE 79687, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2003). Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H., Numerical Calculation of Multidimensional Miscible Displacement, SPE 471, Annual Fall Meeting (Oct., 1960). Pedrosa, O.A. and Aziz, K., Use of a Hybrid Grid in Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 13507, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Nov., 1986). Phan, V. and Horne, R.N., Determining Depth-Dependent Reservoir Properties using Integrated Data Analysis, paper SPE 56423, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1999). Portella, R.C.M. and Prais F., Use of Automatic History Matching and Geostatistical Simulation to improve Production Forecast, paper SPE 53976, presented at SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference (April, 1999). Pedersen, C. and Thibeau, S., Smrbukk Field: Fluid Modeling and Upscaling Issues to Simulate the Gas Cycling Process in Lower Tilje Formation, paper 83959, presented at Offshore Europe 2003, Aberdeen (Sept. 2003).
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Philippe, L., Swaby, P.A., Rowbotham, P.S., Dubrule, O. and Haas, A., From Seismic to Reservoir Properties with Geostatistical Inversion, SPE 57476, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering (Aug., 1999).
122
124
Quandalle, P., Eighth SPE Comparative Solution Project: Gridding Techniques in Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 25263, presented at SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans (March 1993). Qvreberg, O., Damsleth, E. and Haldorsen, Putting Error Bars on Reservoir Engineering Forecasts, paper SPE 20512, Journal of petroleum technology (June, 1992). Rachford, H.H. and Rice, J.D., Procedure for use of Electronic Digital Computers in Calculating Flash Vaporization Hydrocarbon Equilibrium, Volume 195, Petroleum Transactions, AIME (Sept. 1952). Ramey, H.J., Practical Use of Modern Well Test Analysis, paper SPE 5878, presented at 46th Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME (April, 1976). Ramey, H.J., Pressure Transient Testing, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July 1982). Ren, W., Mclennan, J.A., Cunha, L.B. and Deutsch, C.V., An Exact Downscaling Methodology in Presence of Heterogeneity: Application to the Athabasca Oil Sands, paper SPE 97874, presented at SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary (Nov. 2005). Renard, Ph. And Marsily, G., Calculating Equivalent Permeability: A Review, Advances in Water Resources, Vol. 20, Nos 5-6, pp253-278, (1997). Romero, C.E., Carter, J.N., Zimmerman, R.W. and Gringarten, A.C., Improved Reservoir Characterization through Evolutionary Computation, paper SPE 62942, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 2000). Roggero, F., Direct Selection of Stochastic Model Realizations Constrained to Historical Data, SPE 38731, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1997). Roggero, F. and Hu, L.Y., Gradual Deformation of Continuous Geostatistical Models for History Matching, paper SPE 49004, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1998).
125
126
127
128 129
130
131
132
133
123
134
Rotondi, M., Nicotra, G., Godi, A., Contento, F.M., Blunt, M.J. and Christie, M.A., Hydrocarbon Production Forecast and Uncertainty Quantification: A Field Application, SPE 102135, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2006). Sablok, R. and Aziz, K., Upscaling and Discretization Errors in Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 93372, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston (Feb. 2005). Saleri, N.O., Reservoir Performance Forecasting: Accelerated by Parallel Planning, SPE 25151, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July, 1993). Schulze-Riegert, R.W., Axmann, J.K., Haase, O., Rian, D.T. and You, Y.L., Optimization Methods for History Matching of Complex Reservoirs, paper SPE 66393, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2001). Sen, M.K., Datta-Gupta, A., Stoffa, P.L., Lake, L.W. and Pope, G.A., Stochastic Reservoir Modeling using Simulated Annealing and Genetic Algorithms, paper SPE 24754, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1994). Seto, C.J., Jessen, K. and Orr, F.M., Compositional Streamline Simulation of Field Scale Condensate Vaporization by Gas Injection, paper SPE 79690, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston (Feb. 2003). Sharpe, H.N. and Anderson, D.A., Orthogonal Adaptive Grid Generation with Fixed Internal Boundaries for Oil Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 21235, SPE Advanced Technology Series. Shi, C., Horne, R.N. and Li, K., Optimizing the Productivity of Gas/Condensate Wells, SPE 103255, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2006). Slater, G.E. and Durrer, E.J., Adjustment of Reservoir Simulation Models to Match Field Performance, SPE 2983, Annual Fall Meeting (Oct., 1970). Stern D., Practical Aspects of Scaleup of Simulation Models, paper SPE 89032, Distinguished Author Series (Sept. 2005).
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
124
144
Subbey, S., Christie, M. and Sambridge, M., A Strategy for Rapid Quantification of Uncertainty in Reservoir Performance Prediction, paper SPE 79678, presented at SPE reservoir simulation symposium (Feb., 2003). Suzuki, K and Hewett, T.A., Sequential Scale-Up of Relative Permeabilities, paper SPE 59450, presented at SPE Asia Pacific Conference, Japan (April 2000). Tan, T.B. and Kalogerakis, N., A Fully Implicit Three-Dimensional Three-Phase Simulator with Automatic History-Matching Capability, SPE 21205, SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb., 1991). Tang, D.E. and Zick, A.A., A New Limited Compositional Reservoir Simulator, SPE 25255, Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb., 1993). Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N. and King, P.R., Errors in History Matching, SPE 86883, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Sept., 2004). Thibeau, S., Smorbukk field: Impact of Small Scale Heterogeneity on Gas Cycling Performance, paper SPE 75229, presented at SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium (April, 2002). Thiele, M.R., Batycky, R.P. and Blunt, M.J., A Streamline-Based 3D Field-Scale Compositional Reservoir Simulator, SPE 38889, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1997). Thomas, L.K, Hellums, L.J. and Reheis, G.M., A Nonlinear Automatic History Matching Technique for Reservoir Simulation Models, paper SPE 3475, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (Dec., 1972). Todd, M.R., ODell, P.M., and Hirasaki, G.J., Methods for Increased Accuracy in Numerical Reservoir Simulators, SPE 3516, Annual Fall Meeting (Oct., 1971).
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
125
153
Todd, M.R. and Longstaff, W.J., The Development, Testing and Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance, paper SPE 3484, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July, 1972). Tran, T.T., Wen, X. and Behrens, R.A., Efficient Conditioning of 3D Fine-Scale Reservoir Model to Multiphase Production Data Using Streamline-Based Coarse-Scale Inversion and Geostatistical Downscaling, paper SPE 74708, SPE Journal (Dec. 2001). Vega, L., Rojas, D. and Datta-Gupta, A., Scalability of the Deterministic and Bayesian Approaches to Production Data Integration into FieldScale Reservoir Models, paper SPE 79666, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Feb., 2003). Wang, K., Sepehrnoori, K. and Killough, J.E., Ultrafine-Scale Validation of Upscaling Techniques, paper SPE 95774, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas (Oct. 2005). Watts, J.W., Reservoir Simulation: Past, Present, and Future, SPE 38441, SPE Reservoir Symposium (June, 1997). Weisenborn, A.J., and Schulte, A.M., Compositional Integrated SubSurface-Surface Modeling, paper SPE 65158, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference (Oct., 2000). Wen, X.-H., Durlofsky, L.J. and Chen, Y., Efficient Three-Dimensional Implementation of Local-Global Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 92965, presented SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston (Feb. 2005). Williams, M.A., Keating, J.F. and Barghouty, M.F., The Stratigraphic Method: A Structured Approach to History-Matching Complex Simulation Models, paper SPE 38014, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (June, 1997). Wills, H.A., Graves, R.M. and Miskimins, J., Dont Be Fooled by Bayes, paper SPE 90717, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 2004).
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
126
162
Young, L.C. and Hemanth-Kumar, K., Compositional Reservoir Simulation on Microcomputers, SPE Petroleum Computer Conference (June, 1989). Wu, X.H. and Parashkevov, R.R., Effect of Grid Deviation on Flow Solutions, paper SPE 92868, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium (Jan., 2005). Wu, Z., Reynolds, A.C. and Oliver, D.S., Conditioning Geostatistical Models to Two-Phase Production Data, paper SPE 49003, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (1998). Xue, G. and Datta-Gupta, A., Structure Preserving Inversion: An Efficient Approach to Conditioning Stochastic Reservoir Models to Dynamic Data, SPE 38727, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 1997). Yang, P.H. and Watson, A.T., Automatic History Matching with VariableMetric Methods, paper SPE 16977, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Sept., 1987). Yang. P.H. and Watson, A.T., A Bayesian Methodology for Estimating Relative Permeability Curve, SPE 18531, Journal of Petroleum Technology (1991). Zhang, P., Pickup, G.E. and Christie, M.A., A New Upscaling Approach for Highly Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 93339, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston (Feb. 2005). Zhang, F., Skjervhelm, J.A., Reynolds, A.C. and Oliver, D.S., Automatic History Matching in a Bayesian Framework, Example Applications, paper SPE 84461, presented at Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct., 2003).
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
127
APPENDIX A RESERVOIR PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE (PVT) PROPERTIES

Constant Composition Expansion Derived Pressure-Volume Relations @ 160oF
Pressure, psia 4800.0 4500.0 4000.0 3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2302.0 2000.0 1800.0 1500.0 1200.0 1000.0 500.0 14.7 14.7 @ 60oF
Relative Volume 0.9613 0.9649 0.9715 0.9788 0.9869 0.9960 1.0000 1.0668 1.1262 1.2508 1.4473 1.6509 2.9317 164.088 77.5103
Liquid Saturation 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0.9077 0.8428 0.7375 0.6203 0.5344 0.2883 0.0000 0.0100
128
Differential Vaporization of Oil @ 160oF A. Oil relative volume = oil barrels at specified pressure and temperature per residual oil barrel at 60oF B. Gas formation volume factor = gas surface volume at 14.7 psia and 60oF per one reservoir barrel of gas at given pressure and temperature C. Solution gas/oil ratio = volume in gas in SCF at given pressure and temperature per barrel at 14.7 psia and 60oF
Pressure, psia 4800.0 4500.0 4000.0 3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2302.3 2000.0 1800.0 1500.0 1200.0 1000.0 500.0 14.7 14.7
Oil Relative Volume 1.2506 1.2554 1.2639 1.2734 1.2839 1.2958 1.3010 1.2600 1.2350 1.1997 1.1677 1.1478 1.1017 1.0348 1.0000
Gas Density, G/CC 0.1115 0.1115 0.1115 0.1115 0.1115 0.1115 0.1115 0.0955 0.0851 0.0698 0.0549 0.0452 0.0222 0.0011 0.0011
Oil Density, G/CC 0.5628 0.5607 0.5569 0.5527 0.5482 0.5432 0.541 0.549 0.5541 0.5617 0.569 0.5738 0.5853 0.5966 0.6174
Oil Viscosity, CP 0.272 0.265 0.253 0.240 0.227 0.214 0.208 0.224 0.234 0.249 0.264 0.274 0.295 0.310 0.414
Gas Viscosity, CP 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0159 0.0153 0.0145 0.0138 0.0134 0.0127 0.0107 0.0107
GOR 572.8 572.8 572.8 572.8 572.8 572.8 572.8 479.0 421.5 341.4 267.7 222.6 117.6 0 0
Comp. Factor, Z 0.8663 0.8663 0.8663 0.8663 0.8663 0.8663 0.8663 0.8712 0.8764 0.8872 0.9016 0.9131 0.9490 0.9947 0.9947
GOR: Solution Gas-Oil Ratio
129
Constant Composition Expansion: Solvent Gas Pressure-Volume Relations @ 160oF A. Relative volume = volume per volume of the original charge @ 4800 psia and 160oF B. Gas formation volume factor = volume of gas at 14.7 psia and 60oF relative to 1 reservoir barrel of gas at specified pressure and temp. C. Volatile oil in solvent gas = oil in stock tank barrels per MSCF of gas at 160oF
Pressure, psia 4800.0 4500.0 4000.0 3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2302.3 2000.0 1800.0 1500.0 1200.0 1000.0 500.0 14.7 14.7 @ 60oF
Gas Relative Volume 1.0000 1.0343 1.1053 1.2021 1.3420 1.5612 1.6850 1.9412 2.1756 2.6812 3.4969 4.3477 9.6364 363.9816 304.5530
Gas Formation Volume Factor 1.7191 1.6620 1.5551 1.4298 1.2809 1.1007 1.0201 0.8853 0.7901 0.6413 0.4913 0.3951 0.1785 0.00448 0.00600
Gas Density, G/CC 0.3072 0.2970 0.2779 0.2555 0.2289 0.1967 0.1823 0.1582 0.1412 0.1146 0.0878 0.0706 0.0319 0.0008 0.0010
Gas Molecular Weight 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76 23.76
Gas Viscosity, CP 0.038 0.037 0.034 0.031 0.027 0.023 0.022 0.019 0.018 0.016 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.010
Comp. Factor, Z 0.8943 0.8672 0.8238 0.7839 0.7501 0.7272 0.7228 0.7233 0.7296 0.7493 0.7818 0.8100 0.8977 0.9969 0.9945
Volatile Oil in Solvent Gas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
130
PVT table for 4 component solvent Repressurization data

Gas Formation Volume Factor, RB/MCF 211.416 5.9242 2.8506 2.3441 1.8457 1.5202 1.3602 1.1751 1.1025 0.9852 0.9116 0.8621 0.8224 0.8032
Pressure, psia 14.7 500.0 1000.0 1200.0 1500.0 1800.0 2000.0 2302.3 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 4800.0
Oil Relative Volume, RB/STB 1.0348 1.1017 1.1478 1.1677 1.1997 1.2350 1.2600 1.3010 1.3278 1.3956 1.4634 1.5312 1.5991 1.6398
Solution Gas, MCF/STB 0.0000 0.1176 0.2226 0.2677 0.3414 0.4215 0.4790 0.5728 0.6341 0.7893 0.9444 1.0995 1.2547 1.3478
Oil Viscosity, CP 0.3100 0.2950 0.2740 0.2640 0.2490 0.2340 0.2240 0.2080 0.2000 0.1870 0.1750 0.1670 0.1590 0.1550
Gas Viscosity, CP 0.0107 0.0127 0.0134 0.0138 0.0145 0.0153 0.0159 0.0170 0.0177 0.0195 0.0214 0.0232 0.0250 0.0261
Solvent Viscosity, CP 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.019 0.0 0.023 0.027 0.031 0.034 0.037 0.038
131
APPENDIX B SIMULATION MODEL DATA FILE

The ECLIPSE input data file outlined below for both black oil and compositional model are the initial models which were assumed as the history matched model.
BLACK OIL MODEL INPUT FILE
-- "Fifth Comparative Solution Project: -- Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators" -- J.E. Killough, C.A. Kossack -- The 5th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, -- San Antonio, TX, February 1-4, 1987 -- Case 1B: -- 1. 4-component, solvent model -- 2. Production for 2 years: -- (1). Oil rate = 12000 STB/D, -- (2). Min production BHP = 1000 PSIA -- 3. WAG injection starts at the end of year 2 with 1-year cycle: -- (1). Gas rate = 12000 MSCF/D -- (2). Water rate = 12000 STB/D -- (3). Max injection BHP = 10000 PSIA NOECHO RUNSPEC ------------------------------------------------------------------TITLE Fifth Comparative Solution Project - Case 1B DIMENS -- NX NY NZ 7 7 3 / OIL WATER
132
GAS DISGAS FIELD SOLVENT MISCIBLE 1 20 NONE / TABDIMS 1 1 40 40 / EQLDIMS 1 20 / WELLDIMS 3 3 1 3 / START 1 JAN 1987 / NSTACK 50 / TRACERS -- NOTRAC NWTRAC NGTRAC NETRAC DIFF 0 0 1 0 DIFF / UNIFOUT UNIFIN GRID INIT -------------------------------------------------------------------
GRIDFILE 0 1 / DXV 7*500 / DYV 7*500 /
133
DZ 49*20 49*30 49*50 / TOPS 49*8325 / PORO 147*0.3 / PERMX 49*500 49*50 49*200 / PERMY 49*500 49*50 49*200 / PERMZ 49*50 49*50 49*25 / RPTGRID / PROPS ------------------------------------------------------------------STONE SWFN -- SW KRW PCOW 0.2 0 45.0 0.2899 0.0022 19.03 0.3778 0.0180 10.07 0.4667 0.0607 4.90 0.5556 0.1438 1.8 0.6444 0.2809 0.5 0.7000 0.4089 0.05 0.7333 0.4855 0.01 0.8222 0.7709 0.0 0.9111 1.0000 0.0 1.00 1.0000 0.0 / SGFN -- SG KRG PCOG 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.05 0.000 0.0
134
0.0889 0.001 0.0 0.1778 0.010 0.0 0.2667 0.030 0.001 0.3556 0.05 0.001 0.4444 0.10 0.03 0.5333 0.20 0.8 0.6222 0.35 3.0 0.65 0.39 4.0 0.7111 0.56 8.0 0.80 1.0 30.0 / SOF3 -- SO KROW KROG 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0889 0.0 0.0 0.1500 0.0 0.0 0.1778 0.0 0.0110 0.2667 0.0 0.0370 0.3 0.0 0.0560 0.3556 0.0123 0.0878 0.4444 0.0835 0.1715 0.5333 0.2178 0.2963 0.6222 0.4153 0.4705 0.7111 0.6769 0.7023 0.80 1.0 1.0 / SOF2 -- SO KROW 0.00 0.0 0.0889 0.0 0.1500 0.0 0.1778 0.0 0.2667 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3556 0.0123 0.4444 0.0835 0.5333 0.2178 0.6222 0.4153 0.7111 0.6769 0.80 1.0 /
135
-- Gas/solvent saturation functions SSFN -KRG* KRS* 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 / PVTW -- PREF BW CW VISW CVISW 4000 1.0 3.3D-6 0.7 0 / ROCK -- PREF CR 4000 5.0D-6 / DENSITY -- OIL WATER GAS 38.53 62.40 0.06864 / SDENSITY -- SOLVENT 0.06243 / -- Todd-Longstaff mixing parameter TLMIXPAR 0.7 / -- Miscibility function table MISC 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.0 / -- Miscible residual oil saturation tables --SORWMIS -- 0.0 0.05 -- 1.0 0.05 / -- Reservoir dry gas PVT data PVDG -- PG BG VISG 14.7 211.4160 0.0107 500.0 5.9242 0.0127
136
1000.0 1200.0 1500.0 1800.0 2000.0 2302.3 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 4800.0 /
2.8506 2.3441 1.8457 1.5202 1.3602 1.1751 1.1025 0.9652 0.9116 0.8621 0.8224 0.8032
0.0134 0.0138 0.0145 0.0153 0.0159 0.0170 0.0177 0.0195 0.0214 0.0232 0.0250 0.0261
-- Solvent PVT data PVDS -- PS BS VISS 14.7 223.2140 0.011 500.0 5.6022 0.012 1000.0 2.5310 0.013 1200.0 2.0354 0.014 1500.0 1.5593 0.016 1800.0 1.2657 0.018 2000.0 1.1296 0.019 2302.3 0.9803 0.022 2500.0 0.9085 0.023 3000.0 0.7807 0.027 3500.0 0.6994 0.031 4000.0 0.6430 0.034 4500.0 0.6017 0.037 4800.0 0.5817 0.038 / -- Reservoir live oil PVT data PVTO -- RS PO BO VISO 0.0000 14.7 1.0348 0.310 / 0.1176 500.0 1.1017 0.295 / 0.2226 1000.0 1.1478 0.274 / 0.2677 1200.0 1.1677 0.264 / 0.3414 1500.0 1.1997 0.249 / 0.4215 1800.0 1.2350 0.234 / 0.4790 2000.0 1.2600 0.224 / 0.5728 2302.3 1.3010 0.208
137
3302.3 1.2792 0.235 4302.3 1.2573 0.260 / 0.6341 2500.0 1.3278 0.200 0.7893 3000.0 1.3956 0.187 0.9444 3500.0 1.4634 0.175 1.0995 4000.0 1.5312 0.167 1.2547 4500.0 1.5991 0.159 1.3478 4800.0 1.6398 0.155 5500.0 1.6245 0.168 / /
/ / / / /
-- Define tracer associated with reservoir gas TRACER -- NAME PHASE TG GAS / / RPTPROPS / SOLUTION ------------------------------------------------------------------EQUIL -- DATUM DATUM OWC OWC GOC GOC RSVD RVVD SOLN INIT -- DEPTH PRESS DEPTH PCOW DEPTH PCOG TABLE TABLE METH METH 8400 4000 9000 0 7000 0 1 1* 0 / RSVD -- DEPTH RS 8200 0.5728 8500 0.5728 / -- Tracer associated with free gas TBLKFTG 147*0 / -- Tracer associated with dissolved gas TBLKSTG 147*1 / RPTSOL RESTART=2 /
138
SUMMARY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Field vectors FOPR FOPT FWPR FWPT FNPR FNPT FGPR FGPT FWIR FWIT FNIR FNIT FTPRTG FTPTTG FGOR FWCT FPR -- Well vectors WBHP PROD INJW INJG / WWIR INJW / WNIR INJG / WWIT INJW / WNIT INJG / -- Simulator performance vectors
139
PERFORMANCE SEPARATE SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------RPTRST BASIC=2 / DRSDT 0 / TUNING 2* 2*0.001 / / 2* 50 1* 2*16 / WELSPECS -- WELL GRUP LOCATION BHP PI 3* XFLOW -- NAME NAME I J DEPTH DEFN PROD G 7 7 8400 OIL 3* NO / / COMPDAT -- WELL -LOCATION- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL -- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM PROD 7 7 3 3 OPEN 1* 1* 0.5 / / WCONPROD -- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP -- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE PROD OPEN ORAT 12000 1* 1* 1* 1* 1000 / / WECON -- GRUP MIN MIN MAX MAX MAX WORK END -- NAME ORAT GRAT WCT GOR WGR OVER RUN? PROD 1* 1* 0.8333 10.0 1* WELL YES / / -- Production for 2 years TSTEP 2*365 /
140
-- Start WAG cycles --------------------------------------------------------- Define WAG injection wells WELSPECS -- WELL GRUP LOCATION BHP PI 3* XFLOW -- NAME NAME I J DEPTH DEFN INJG G 1 1 8335 GAS 3* NO / INJW G 1 1 8335 WAT 3* NO / / -- Complete WAG injection wells COMPDAT -- WELL -LOCATION- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL -- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM INJG 1 1 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.5 / INJW 1 1 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.5 / / -- Define constraints for WAG injection wells WCONINJE -- WELL INJ OPEN/ CNTL SURF RESV BHP -- NAME TYPE SHUT MODE RATE RATE LIM INJW WAT OPEN RATE 12000 1* 10000 / INJG GAS OPEN RATE 12000 1* 10000 / / -- Set solvent faction for gas injector WSOLVENT -- WELL SOLVENT -- NAME CONC INJG 1.0 / / -- Set WAG cycle periods to 1 year WCYCLE -- WELL ON OFF STARTUP MAX CNTL -- NAME TIME TIME TIME TSTEP TSTEP? INJW 365 365 1* 10 YES / INJG 365 365 1* 10 YES / / -- Start with the water injector open and the gas injector shut. WELOPEN
141
INJW OPEN / INJG SHUT / / -- Advance to the start of the first gas injection period and -- open the gas injector. It will start cycling. TSTEP 365 / WELOPEN INJG OPEN / / -- Advance to 20 years TSTEP 17*365 / END -------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION INPUT FILE
-- "Fifth Comparative Solution Project: -- Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators" -- J.E. Killough, C.A. Kossack -- The 5th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, -- San Antonio, TX, February 1-4, 1987 -- Case 1A: -- 1. 6-component, full compositional model -- 2. Production for 2 years: -- (1). Oil rate = 12000 STB/D, -- (2). Min production BHP = 1000 PSIA -- 3. WAG injection starts at the end of year 2 with 1-year cycle: -- (1). Gas rate = 12000 MSCF/D -- (2). Water rate = 12000 STB/D -- (3). Max injection BHP = 10000 PSIA NOECHO RUNSPEC -------------------------------------------------------------------
142
TITLE Fifth Comparative Solution Project - Case 1A DIMENS -- NX NY NZ 7 7 3 / FIELD OIL WATER GAS COMPS 6/ IMPLICIT TABDIMS 1 1 40 40 / EQLDIMS 1 20 / WELLDIMS 3 3 1 3 / START 1 JAN 1987 / UNIFOUT UNIFIN GRID INIT GRIDFILE 0 1 / DXV 7*500 / DYV -------------------------------------------------------------------
143
7*500 / DZV 20 30 50 / TOPS 49*8325 / PORO 147*0.3 / PERMX 49*500 49*50 49*200 / PERMY 49*500 49*50 49*200 / PERMZ 49*50 49*50 49*25 / RPTGRID / PROPS ------------------------------------------------------------------NCOMPS 6/ -- Peng-Robinson EOS EOS PR / -- Peng-Robinson correction PRCORR -- Reservoir temperature RTEMP 160 / -- Standard temperature and pressure in Deg F and PSIA STCOND 60 14.7 / -- Component names
144
CNAMES C1 C3 C6 C10 C15 C20 / -- Critical temperatures Deg R TCRIT 343.0 665.7 913.4 1111.8 1270.0 1380.0 / -- Critical pressures PSIA PCRIT 667.8 616.3 436.9 304.0 200.0 162.0 / -- Critical Z-factors ZCRIT 0.290 0.277 0.264 0.257 0.245 0.235 / -- Molecular Weights MW 16.04 44.10 86.18 149.29 206.00 282.00 / -- Acentric factors ACF 0.013 0.1524 0.3007 0.4885 0.6500 0.8500 / -- Binary Interaction Coefficients BIC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.0 / STONE SWFN -- SW KRW PCOW 0.2 0 45.0 0.2899 0.0022 19.03 0.3778 0.0180 10.07 0.4667 0.0607 4.90 0.5556 0.1438 1.8 0.6444 0.2809 0.5 0.7000 0.4089 0.05 0.7333 0.4855 0.01 0.8222 0.7709 0.0
145
0.9111 1.0000 0.0 1.00 1.0000 0.0 / SGFN -- SG KRG PCOG 0.00 0.000 0.0 0.05 0.000 0.0 0.0889 0.001 0.0 0.1778 0.010 0.0 0.2667 0.030 0.001 0.3556 0.05 0.001 0.4444 0.10 0.03 0.5333 0.20 0.8 0.6222 0.35 3.0 0.65 0.39 4.0 0.7111 0.56 8.0 0.80 1.0 30.0 / SOF3 -- SO KROW KROG 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0889 0.0 0.0 0.1500 0.0 0.0 0.1778 0.0 0.0110 0.2667 0.0 0.0370 0.3 0.0 0.0560 0.3556 0.0123 0.0878 0.4444 0.0835 0.1715 0.5333 0.2178 0.2963 0.6222 0.4153 0.4705 0.7111 0.6769 0.7023 0.80 1.0 1.0 / -- Total composition vs. depth ZMFVD -- DEPTH C1 C3 C6 C10 C15 C20 1000.0 0.5 0.03 0.07 0.2 0.15 0.05 10000.0 0.5 0.03 0.07 0.2 0.15 0.05 / -- Surface densities: only the water value is used
146
DENSITY 1* 62.4 1* / ROCK -- PREF CR 4000 5.0E-6 / PVTW -- PREF BW CW VISW CVISW 4000 1.0 3.3E-6 0.70 0.0 / RPTPROPS / SOLUTION ------------------------------------------------------------------EQUIL -- DATUM DATUM OWC OWC GOC GOC RSVD RVVD SOLN INIT -- DEPTH PRESS DEPTH PCOW DEPTH PCOG TABLE TABLE METH METH 8400 4000 9000 0 7000 0 1* 1* 0 1 / RPTRST BASIC=2 SOIL SGAS SWAT VOIL VGAS PCOG PCOW PSAT / RPTSOL / SUMMARY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Field vectors FOPR FOPT FWPR FWPT FGPR FGPT FWIR FWIT
147
FGIR FGIT FGOR FWCT FPR -- Well vectors WBHP P IWAG / WWIR IWAG / WGIR IWAG / -- Simulator performance vectors PERFORMANCE RUNSUM SCHEDULE ------------------------------------------------------------------RPTRST BASIC=2 SOIL SGAS SWAT VOIL VGAS PCOG PCOW PSAT / -- Controls for AIM AIMCON 6* -1 / RPTPRINT 0101110100/ -- 1-stage separator conditions SEPCOND -- SEP GRUP STAGE TEMP PRESS -- NAME NAME # SEP G 1 60 14.7 / / -- Define production well WELSPECS
148
-- WELL GRUP LOCATION BHP PI -- NAME NAME I J DEPTH DEFN P G 7 7 8400 OIL / / -- Complete production well COMPDAT -- WELL -LOCATION- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL -- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM P 7 7 3 3 OPEN 1* 1* 0.5 / / -- Associate separator with wells WSEPCOND -- WELL SEP -- NAME NAME P SEP / / -- Define production constraints WCONPROD -- WELL OPEN/ CNTL OIL WATER GAS LIQU RES BHP -- NAME SHUT MODE RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE P OPEN ORAT 12000 1* 1* 1* 1* 1000 / / -- Economic limits: max WOR=5 (WCT=0.8333) and GOR=10 WECON -- GRUP MIN MIN MAX MAX MAX WORK END -- NAME ORAT GRAT WCT GOR WGR OVER RUN? P 1* 1* 0.8333 10 1* WELL Y / / -- Production for 2 years TSTEP 2*365 / -- Start WAG cycles --------------------------------------------------------- Define WAG injection well WELSPECS -- WELL GRUP LOCATION BHP PI -- NAME NAME I J DEPTH DEFN IWAG G 1 1 8335 GAS /
149
/ -- Complete WAG injection well COMPDAT -- WELL -LOCATION- OPEN/ SAT CONN WELL -- NAME I J K1 K2 SHUT TAB FACT DIAM IWAG 1 1 1 1 OPEN 1* 1* 0.5 / / -- Define injection gas (solvent) stream WELLSTRE -- STREAM ---------- FRACTION ------------ NAME C1 C3 C6 C10 C15 C20 SOLVENT 0.77 0.20 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 / / -- Define gas (solvent) injection target WCONINJE -- WELL INJ OPEN/ CNTL SURF RESV BHP -- NAME TYPE SHUT MODE RATE RATE LIM IWAG GAS OPEN RATE 12000 1* 10000 / / -- Define injected gas (solvent) type WINJGAS -- WELL FLUID STREAM -- NAME TYPE NAME IWAG STREAM SOLVENT / / -- Define water injection target WELTARG -- WELL CNTL CNTL -- NAME MODE VALUE IWAG WRAT 12000 / / -- Define WAG well injection scenarios WELLWAG -- WELL WAG FIRST INJ 2ND INJ -- NAME TYPE FLUID PERIOD FLUID PERIOD IWAG T W 365 G 365 / /
150
-- Advance to 20 years TSTEP 18*365 / END
151
APPENDIX C DATA FOR OBSERVED HISTORY DURATION
SIX MONTHS HISTORY PERIOD SIMULATION
Base Case 6 Months TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.527151 0.512511 Perm x 500 50 200 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.034 3838.561 3635.205 3274.432 2902.931 2529.859 2286.751 2240.178 Perm y 500 50 200 FWCT
0 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.35E-06 1.52E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.51E-05 4.02E-05 Perm z 50 50 25
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3
152
1% PERMEABILTY VARIATION FWCT TIME FGOR FPR (DAYS) (MSCF/STB) (PSIA) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 Perm x 5 0.5 2 3993.75 3992.667 3989.562 3980.926 3965.781 3940.67 3916.537 3893.097 3870.162 3847.622 Perm y 5 0.5 2 0 1.61E-06 4.67E-06 8.98E-06 1.27E-05 1.55E-05 1.71E-05 1.82E-05 1.89E-05 1.95E-05 Perm z 0.5 0.5 0.05
153
10% PERMEABILITY VARIATION TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.569315 0.554003 Perm x 50 5 20 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3983.67 3956.762 3884.277 3758.267 3552.992 3360.842 3179.709 3010.405 2863.75 Perm y 50 5 20 FWCT
0 6.23E-06 1.23E-05 1.71E-05 2.00E-05 2.24E-05 2.42E-05 2.58E-05 2.75E-05 3.00E-05 Perm z 5 5 2.5
154
0 5.51E-06 1.07E-05 1.54E-05 1.94E-05 2.45E-05 2.86E-05 3.40E-05 4.06E-05 4.65E-05 Perm z 10 10 5
155
0 4.55E-06 8.36E-06 1.19E-05 1.55E-05 2.08E-05 2.58E-05 3.73E-05 4.65E-05 5.14E-05 Perm z 15 15 7.5
156
75% PERMEABILITY VARIATION TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.516892 0.504346 Perm x 375 37.5 150 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.824 3946.024 3838.55 3635.193 3274.37 2902.92 2529.847 2289.838 2241.437 Perm y 375 37.5 150 FWCT
0 2.73E-06 4.54E-06 6.79E-06 1.03E-05 1.60E-05 2.15E-05 2.67E-05 3.76E-05 4.42E-05 Perm z 37.5 37.5 18.75
157
0 2.44E-06 4.01E-06 6.16E-06 9.67E-06 1.55E-05 2.10E-05 2.62E-05 3.60E-05 4.15E-05 Perm z 45 45 22.5
158
12 MONTHS HISTORY PERIOD SIMULATION
Base Case 12 Months TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.527151 0.512511 0.503134 0.49678 0.497577 0.500208 0.507403 0.521464 Perm x 500 50 200 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.034 3838.561 3635.205 3274.432 2902.931 2529.859 2286.751 2240.178 2197.59 2157.168 2118.387 2081.004 2044.646 2008.809 Perm y 500 50 200 FWCT
0 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.35E-06 1.52E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.51E-05 4.02E-05 4.47E-05 4.87E-05 5.19E-05 5.53E-05 5.94E-05 6.44E-05 Perm z 50 50 25
159
1% TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 Perm x 5 0.5 2 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3992.667 3989.562 3980.926 3965.781 3940.67 3916.537 3893.097 3870.162 3847.622 3825.404 3803.458 3781.727 3760.198 3738.862 3717.704 Perm y 5 0.5 2 FWCT
0 1.61E-06 4.67E-06 8.98E-06 1.27E-05 1.55E-05 1.71E-05 1.82E-05 1.89E-05 1.95E-05 2.00E-05 2.04E-05 2.07E-05 2.10E-05 2.13E-05 2.15E-05 Perm z 0.5 0.5 0.05
160
10% TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.569315 0.554003 0.539348 0.52601 0.519964 0.515686 0.512769 0.519712 Perm x 50 5 20 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3983.67 3956.762 3884.277 3758.267 3552.992 3360.842 3179.709 3010.405 2863.75 2735.072 2621.798 2522.127 2440.792 2373.479 2322.975 Perm y 50 5 20 FWCT
0 6.23E-06 1.23E-05 1.71E-05 2.00E-05 2.24E-05 2.42E-05 2.58E-05 2.75E-05 3.00E-05 3.29E-05 3.61E-05 3.97E-05 4.29E-05 4.60E-05 4.84E-05 Perm z 5 5 2.5
161
0 5.51E-06 1.07E-05 1.54E-05 1.94E-05 2.45E-05 2.86E-05 3.40E-05 4.06E-05 4.65E-05 5.03E-05 5.28E-05 5.45E-05 5.58E-05 5.69E-05 5.79E-05 Perm z 10 10 5
162
163
75% TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.516892 0.504346 0.501011 0.505036 0.508089 0.513796 0.52436 0.537602 Perm x 375 37.5 150 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.824 3946.024 3838.55 3635.193 3274.37 2902.92 2529.847 2289.838 2241.437 2198.997 2158.233 2119.061 2081.11 2044.014 2008.33 Perm y 375 37.5 150 FWCT
0 2.73E-06 4.54E-06 6.79E-06 1.03E-05 1.60E-05 2.15E-05 2.67E-05 3.76E-05 4.42E-05 4.92E-05 5.32E-05 5.72E-05 6.15E-05 6.66E-05 7.17E-05 Perm z 37.5 37.5 18.75
164
165

Base Case 18 Months FGOR FPR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.527151 0.512511 0.503134 0.49678 0.497577 0.500208 0.507403 0.521464 0.542494 0.573459 0.613992 0.65278 0.699453 0.752294 (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.034 3838.561 3635.205 3274.432 2902.931 2529.859 2286.751 2240.178 2197.59 2157.168 2118.387 2081.004 2044.646 2008.809 1972.788 1935.676 1898.323 1863.844 1831.338 1800.404
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540
FWCT
0 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.35E-06 1.52E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.51E-05 4.02E-05 4.47E-05 4.87E-05 5.19E-05 5.53E-05 5.94E-05 6.44E-05 7.06E-05 7.85E-05 8.80E-05 9.32E-05 9.78E-05 0.000103
166
1% TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3992.667 3989.562 3980.926 3965.781 3940.67 3916.537 3893.097 3870.162 3847.622 3825.404 3803.458 3781.727 3760.198 3738.862 3717.704 3696.712 3675.878 3655.194 3634.655 3614.246 3593.975 FWCT
0 1.61E-06 4.67E-06 8.98E-06 1.27E-05 1.55E-05 1.71E-05 1.82E-05 1.89E-05 1.95E-05 2.00E-05 2.04E-05 2.07E-05 2.10E-05 2.13E-05 2.15E-05 2.17E-05 2.20E-05 2.22E-05 2.24E-05 2.26E-05 2.27E-05
167
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540
FGOR
75% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.824 3946.024 3838.55 3635.193 3274.37 2902.92 2529.847 2289.838 2241.437 2198.997 2158.233 2119.061 2081.11 2044.014 2008.33 1975.515 1944.467 1915.301 1888.213 1862.69 1838.208
FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.516892 0.504346 0.501011 0.505036 0.508089 0.513796 0.52436 0.537602 0.547054 0.561646 0.580482 0.603495 0.635291 0.676047
0.00E+00 2.73E-06 4.54E-06 6.79E-06 1.03E-05 1.60E-05 2.15E-05 2.67E-05 3.76E-05 4.42E-05 4.92E-05 5.32E-05 5.72E-05 6.15E-05 6.66E-05 7.17E-05 7.51E-05 7.88E-05 8.29E-05 8.73E-05 9.17E-05 9.54E-05
168
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540
FGOR
90% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.025 3838.552 3635.196 3274.408 2902.921 2529.849 2287.649 2240.616 2198.168 2157.619 2118.703 2081.102 2044.483 2008.354 1972.143 1935.317 1901.543 1870.326 1840.711 1812.442
FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.523139 0.509729 0.500368 0.49943 0.501218 0.505299 0.513904 0.528194 0.549253 0.578708 0.601094 0.632212 0.677521 0.725026
0 2.44E-06 4.01E-06 6.16E-06 9.67E-06 1.55E-05 2.10E-05 2.62E-05 3.60E-05 4.15E-05 4.64E-05 5.02E-05 5.36E-05 5.74E-05 6.18E-05 6.71E-05 7.36E-05 8.12E-05 8.64E-05 9.15E-05 9.57E-05 0.0001
169

Base Case 24 Months FGOR FPR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.527151 0.512511 0.503134 0.49678 0.497577 0.500208 0.507403 0.521464 0.542494 0.573459 0.613992 0.65278 0.699453 0.752294 0.809489 0.86998 0.955911 1.052185 1.158652 1.272151 (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.034 3838.561 3635.205 3274.432 2902.931 2529.859 2286.751 2240.178 2197.59 2157.168 2118.387 2081.004 2044.646 2008.809 1972.788 1935.676 1898.323 1863.844 1831.338 1800.404 1770.578 1741.353 1713.052 1685.696 1659.097 1633.254
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720
FWCT
0 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.35E-06 1.52E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.51E-05 4.02E-05 4.47E-05 4.87E-05 5.19E-05 5.53E-05 5.94E-05 6.44E-05 7.06E-05 7.85E-05 8.80E-05 9.32E-05 9.78E-05 0.000103 0.000108 0.000114 0.000121 0.000129 0.000137 0.000146
170
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720
FGOR
1% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3992.667 3989.562 3980.926 3965.781 3940.67 3916.537 3893.097 3870.162 3847.622 3825.404 3803.458 3781.727 3760.198 3738.862 3717.704 3696.712 3675.878 3655.194 3634.655 3614.246 3593.975 3573.839 3553.835 3533.944 3514.18 3494.544 3475.035
FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728
0 1.61E-06 4.67E-06 8.98E-06 1.27E-05 1.55E-05 1.71E-05 1.82E-05 1.89E-05 1.95E-05 2.00E-05 2.04E-05 2.07E-05 2.10E-05 2.13E-05 2.15E-05 2.17E-05 2.20E-05 2.22E-05 2.24E-05 2.26E-05 2.27E-05 2.29E-05 2.31E-05 2.33E-05 2.34E-05 2.36E-05 2.38E-05
171
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720
FGOR
75% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.824 3946.024 3838.55 3635.193 3274.37 2902.92 2529.847 2289.838 2241.437 2198.997 2158.233 2119.061 2081.11 2044.014 2008.33 1975.515 1944.467 1915.301 1888.213 1862.69 1838.208 1814.641 1791.826 1769.518 1747.493 1725.97 1705.046
FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.516892 0.504346 0.501011 0.505036 0.508089 0.513796 0.52436 0.537602 0.547054 0.561646 0.580482 0.603495 0.635291 0.676047 0.717177 0.760561 0.805666 0.852345 0.911639 0.980449
0 2.73E-06 4.54E-06 6.79E-06 1.03E-05 1.60E-05 2.15E-05 2.67E-05 3.76E-05 4.42E-05 4.92E-05 5.32E-05 5.72E-05 6.15E-05 6.66E-05 7.17E-05 7.51E-05 7.88E-05 8.29E-05 8.73E-05 9.17E-05 9.54E-05 9.91E-05 0.000103 0.000107 0.000111 0.000116 0.000122
172
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720
FGOR
90% FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.025 3838.552 3635.196 3274.408 2902.921 2529.849 2287.649 2240.616 2198.168 2157.619 2118.703 2081.102 2044.483 2008.354 1972.143 1935.317 1901.543 1870.326 1840.711 1812.442 1785.233 1758.625 1732.56 1707.341 1682.823 1658.905
FWCT
(MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.523139 0.509729 0.500368 0.49943 0.501218 0.505299 0.513904 0.528194 0.549253 0.578708 0.601094 0.632212 0.677521 0.725026 0.776274 0.830215 0.891767 0.971848 1.061685 1.159643
0 2.44E-06 4.01E-06 6.16E-06 9.67E-06 1.55E-05 2.10E-05 2.62E-05 3.60E-05 4.15E-05 4.64E-05 5.02E-05 5.36E-05 5.74E-05 6.18E-05 6.71E-05 7.36E-05 8.12E-05 8.64E-05 9.15E-05 9.57E-05 0.0001 0.000105 0.00011 0.000115 0.000122 0.000129 0.000137
173
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720 750 780 810 840 870 900 930 960 990
BASE CASE 48 MONTHS FGOR FOPT FPR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.527151 0.512511 0.503134 0.49678 0.497577 0.500208 0.507403 0.521464 0.542494 0.573459 0.613992 0.65278 0.699453 0.752294 0.809489 0.86998 0.955911 1.052185 1.158652 1.272151 1.409122 1.552855 1.709555 1.870063 2.025405 2.182132 2.336698 2.480039 2.611721 (STB) 0 12000 48000 156000 360000 720000 1080000 1440000 1800000 2160000 2520000 2880000 3240000 3600000 3960000 4320000 4680000 5040000 5397939 5725190 6028294 6309348 6569979 6811580 7033723 7237839 7425737 7598492 7756160 7900667 8033581 8155667 8267844 8370816 8465260 8552065 8632169 (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.034 3838.561 3635.205 3274.432 2902.931 2529.859 2286.751 2240.178 2197.59 2157.168 2118.387 2081.004 2044.646 2008.809 1972.788 1935.676 1898.323 1863.844 1831.338 1800.404 1770.578 1741.353 1713.052 1685.696 1659.097 1633.254 1608.069 1583.45 1559.202 1535.438 1512.25 1489.531 1466.915 1445.03 1424.056
FWCT
0 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.35E-06 1.52E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.51E-05 4.02E-05 4.47E-05 4.87E-05 5.19E-05 5.53E-05 5.94E-05 6.44E-05 7.06E-05 7.85E-05 8.80E-05 9.32E-05 9.78E-05 0.000103 0.000108 0.000114 0.000121 0.000129 0.000137 0.000146 0.000157 0.000167 0.000178 0.000189 0.000201 0.000212 0.000225 0.000236 0.000248
174
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720 750 780 810 840 870 900 930 960 990 1020 1050
FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.516892 0.504346 0.501011 0.505036 0.508089 0.513796 0.52436 0.537602 0.547054 0.561646 0.580482 0.603495 0.635291 0.676047 0.717177 0.760561 0.805666 0.852345 0.911639 0.980449 1.055887 1.137442 1.223556 1.315051 1.425184 1.534848 1.652501 1.77508 1.89721 2.015661 2.132898
75% FOPT (STB) 0 12000 48000 156000 360000 720000 1080000 1440000 1800000 2160000 2520000 2880000 3240000 3600000 3960000 4311689 4637873 4941943 5225343 5489564 5736646 5969369 6188958 6396205 6591848 6776521 6950159 7112907 7265631 7409039 7543607 7669682 7787125 7897082 8000286 8097076 8187826 8272940 8352765
FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.824 3946.024 3838.55 3635.193 3274.37 2902.92 2529.847 2289.838 2241.437 2198.997 2158.233 2119.061 2081.11 2044.014 2008.33 1975.515 1944.467 1915.301 1888.213 1862.69 1838.208 1814.641 1791.826 1769.518 1747.493 1725.97 1705.046 1684.6 1664.566 1644.942 1625.727 1606.856 1588.296 1569.945 1551.814 1533.977 1516.464 1499.251
FWCT
0 2.73E-06 4.54E-06 6.79E-06 1.03E-05 1.60E-05 2.15E-05 2.67E-05 3.76E-05 4.42E-05 4.92E-05 5.32E-05 5.72E-05 6.15E-05 6.66E-05 7.17E-05 7.51E-05 7.88E-05 8.29E-05 8.73E-05 9.17E-05 9.54E-05 9.91E-05 0.000103 0.000107 0.000111 0.000116 0.000122 0.000128 0.000134 0.000141 0.000148 0.000157 0.000165 0.000173 0.000181 0.00019 0.000198 0.000207
175
TIME (DAYS) 0 1 4 13 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720 750 780 810 840 870 900 930 960 990 1020 1050
FGOR (MSCF/STB) 0 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.523139 0.509729 0.500368 0.49943 0.501218 0.505299 0.513904 0.528194 0.549253 0.578708 0.601094 0.632212 0.677521 0.725026 0.776274 0.830215 0.891767 0.971848 1.061685 1.159643 1.262953 1.384624 1.513797 1.653069 1.798974 1.942987 2.080459 2.224727 2.363855 2.49303 2.612129
90% FOPT (STB) 0 12000 48000 156000 360000 720000 1080000 1440000 1800000 2160000 2520000 2880000 3240000 3600000 3960000 4320000 4680000 5035902 5361485 5661975 5942008 6203454 6447573 6675513 6887893 7084609 7266901 7435969 7592636 7736993 7870175 7993651 8108008 8213904 8312047 8402833 8486791 8564601 8636968
FPR (PSIA) 3993.75 3981.823 3946.025 3838.552 3635.196 3274.408 2902.921 2529.849 2287.649 2240.616 2198.168 2157.619 2118.703 2081.102 2044.483 2008.354 1972.143 1935.317 1901.543 1870.326 1840.711 1812.442 1785.233 1758.625 1732.56 1707.341 1682.823 1658.905 1635.592 1612.814 1590.526 1568.552 1546.913 1525.717 1504.997 1484.544 1464.181 1444.492 1425.541
FWCT
0 2.44E-06 4.01E-06 6.16E-06 9.67E-06 1.55E-05 2.10E-05 2.62E-05 3.60E-05 4.15E-05 4.64E-05 5.02E-05 5.36E-05 5.74E-05 6.18E-05 6.71E-05 7.36E-05 8.12E-05 8.64E-05 9.15E-05 9.57E-05 0.0001 0.000105 0.00011 0.000115 0.000122 0.000129 0.000137 0.000145 0.000154 0.000164 0.000174 0.000184 0.000194 0.000204 0.000215 0.000226 0.000236 0.000247
176
MATCHED MODEL PREDICTION

75% - 12 MONTHS FPR FWCT 9E-08 2.03E-13 9.025E-05 6.4E-13 0.000121 9.03E-13 0.00012996 9.02E-13 0.00374544 6.4E-13 0.00013689 4.9E-13 0.00013689 4.9E-13 9.52586496 6.25E-12 1.58533281 1.6E-11 1.97824225 2.03E-11 1.13465104 2.03E-11 0.45441081 2.81E-11 0.01127844 3.84E-11 0.39891856 5.18E-11 0.22877089 5.33E-11 15.32183028 2.39E-10 90% - 12 MONTHS FPR FWCT 0 0 2.56E-14 0 7.225E-05 7.29E-14 0 8.281E-05 1.024E-13 0 8.464E-05 1.024E-13 0 0.0005476 9E-14 0 1E-04 4E-14 0 0.0001 4E-14 1.60888E-05 0.8055063 8.1E-13 7.74041E-06 0.191844 1.69E-12 7.64982E-06 0.3341996 2.89E-12 7.02356E-06 0.2035814 2.25E-12 1.32565E-05 0.100109 2.89E-12 2.59172E-05 0.0095844 4.41E-12 4.22609E-05 0.0264713 5.76E-12 4.52988E-05 0.206843 7.29E-12 1.8791263 2.84633E-11
FGOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000105 6.67E-05 4.51E-06 6.82E-05 0.000111 0.000185 0.000288 0.00026 0.001088
FGOR
0.000165236
177
FGOR
90% - 18 MONTHS FPR FWCT 0 0 2.56E-14 0 7.225E-05 7.29E-14 0 8.281E-05 1.024E-13 0 8.464E-05 1.024E-13 0 0.0005476 9E-14 0 1E-04 4E-14 0 0.0001 4E-14 1.60888E-05 0.8055063 8.1E-13 7.74041E-06 0.191844 1.69E-12 7.64982E-06 0.3341996 2.89E-12 7.02356E-06 0.2035814 2.25E-12 1.32565E-05 0.100109 2.89E-12 2.59172E-05 0.0095844 4.41E-12 4.22609E-05 0.0264713 5.76E-12 4.52988E-05 0.206843 7.29E-12 4.56815E-05 0.4165412 9E-12 2.75541E-05 0.1282356 7.29E-12 0.00016636 10.365824 2.56E-12 0.000423082 42.022806 2.89E-12 0.000481 87.845631 4.41E-12 7.0756E0.00074355 144.90863 12 6.16889E11
FGOR
75% - 18 MONTHS FPR FWCT 0 9E-08 2.025E-13 0 9.025E-05 6.4E-13 0 0.000121 9.025E-13 0 0.00012996 9.025E-13 0 0.00374544 6.4E-13 0 0.00013689 4.9E-13 0 0.00013689 4.9E-13 0.000105239 9.52586496 6.25E-12 6.66692E-05 1.58533281 1.6E-11 4.50687E-06 1.97824225 2.025E-11 6.81589E-05 1.13465104 2.025E-11 0.000110503 0.45441081 2.809E-11 0.000184654 0.01127844 3.844E-11 0.000287543 0.39891856 5.184E-11 0.000260434 0.22877089 5.329E-11 2.07935E-05 7.43707441 2.025E-11 0.000139539 77.28519744 9E-14 0.001122934 288.2321108 2.601E-11 0.002429093 593.892026 3.481E-11 0.004116726 982.9604448 3.721E-11 0.005813646 1429.157538 5.42138E-11
0.002052464
287.56679
0.014730441
3394.286221
4.11261E-10
178
75% - 24 MONTHS FGOR FPR FWCT 0 9E-08 1.9807E-13 0 9.025E-05 6.41234E-13 0 0.000121 9.05355E-13 0 0.00012996 8.794E-13 0 0.00374544 6.87108E-13 0 0.00013689 5.30953E-13 0 0.00013689 4.07216E-13 0.000105239 9.52586496 6.45189E-12 6.66692E-05 1.58533281 1.6322E-11 4.50687E-06 1.97824225 2.05262E-11 6.81589E-05 1.13465104 2.00594E-11 0.000110503 0.45441081 2.749E-11 0.000184654 0.01127844 3.85549E-11 0.000287543 0.39891856 5.10853E-11 0.000260434 0.22877089 5.24272E-11 2.07935E-05 7.43707441 2.02474E-11 0.000139539 77.28519744 1.2673E-13 0.001122934 288.2321108 2.62678E-11 0.002429093 593.892026 3.523E-11 0.004116726 982.9604448 3.78341E-11 0.005813646 1429.157538 5.47357E-11 0.008521446 1941.600845 7.96633E-11 0.011972384 2547.594392 1.12283E-10 0.022573527 3188.420449 1.86583E-10 0.039935766 3818.84449 2.98167E-10 0.06101563 0.085089998 0.243839192 4471.931256 5154.148698 24516.82635 4.301E-10 5.8648E-10 2.10488E-09
90% - 24 MONTHS FGOR FPR 0 0 0 7.225E-05 0 8.281E-05 0 8.464E-05 0 0.00054756 0 1E-04 0 0.0001 1.60888E-05 0.80550625 7.74041E-06 0.191844 7.64982E-06 0.33419961 7.02356E-06 0.20358144 1.32565E-05 0.10010896 2.59172E-05 0.00958441 4.22609E-05 0.02647129 4.52988E-05 0.20684304 4.56815E-05 0.41654116 2.75541E-05 0.12823561 0.00016636 10.36582416 0.000423082 42.02280625 0.000481 87.84563076 0.00074355 144.9086288 0.001103203 214.7895425 0.001581194 298.3323473 0.004114469 380.5932774 0.006454051 468.501696 0.009402541 0.012658028 0.03736595 562.9325664 657.9994523 2870.715675
FWCT 2.431E-14 7.413E-14 1.027E-13 9.875E-14 7.689E-14 5.899E-14 4.471E-14 7.494E-13 1.712E-12 2.843E-12 1.984E-12 2.788E-12 4.119E-12 5.691E-12 6.882E-12 8.516E-12 7.749E-12 2.584E-12 3.149E-12 4.49E-12 7.077E-12 1.060E-11 1.540E-11 3.138E-11 4.673E-11 6.55936E11 8.972E-11 3.202E-10
179
48 MONTHS MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS PREDICTION TIME FGOR FOPT FWCT (MCF/ (DAYS) STB) (STB) 0 0 0 0 1 0.57 12000 2.44E-06 4 0.57 48000 4.01E-06 13 0.57 156000 6.16E-06 40 0.57 480000 1.17E-05 121 0.57 1452000 2.64E-05 365 0.51 4380000 6.69E-05 524.84 0.68 5866501 9.65E-05 730 1.02 7102293 0.00013 912.5 1.59 7821784 0.00017 1095 2.26 8300417 0.00023 1277.5 2.75 8634867 0.00027 1460 2.91 8887812 0.0003 1825 2.73 9254713 0.00032 2190 2.39 9495055 0.00031 2555 2.04 9677956 0.00029 2920 1.69 9823144 0.00027 3285 1.35 9942660 0.00025 3650 1.05 1E+07 0.00023
OBSERVED 10 YEARS HISTORY TIME FGOR FOPT FWCT (MCF/ (DAYS) STB) (STB) 0 0 0 0 1 0.57 12000 2.28E-06 4 0.57 48000 3.74E-06 13 0.57 156000 5.84E-06 40 0.57 480000 1.14E-05 121 0.57 1452000 2.62E-05 365 0.52 4380000 6.50E-05 521.77 0.70 5952404 9.89E-05 730 1.12 7229839 0.00014 912.5 1.79 7935202 0.00019 1095 2.45 8393343 0.00025 1277.5 2.82 8715890 0.00029 1460 2.87 8961569 0.00031 1825 2.59 9295078 0.00031 2190 2.24 9534457 0.0003 2555 1.86 9715776 0.00029 2920 1.48 9859771 0.00026 3285 1.14 9978785 0.00024 3650 0.84 1E+07 0.00021
180
APPENDIX D PLOTS OF BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION GENERATED DATA
181
COMPARISON OF BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION OIL PRODUCTION

12000000
10000000
8000000 Oil Produtcion, stb
6000000
COM - Oil prod. BO - Oil prod.
4000000
2000000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, days 2500 3000 3500 4000
A COMPARISON OF BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION GOR

3.5
2.5 GOR, MSCF/STB 2 COM - GOR BO - GOR 1.5
0.5
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, days 2500 3000 3500 4000
182
BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION COMPARISON - FPR

4500
4000
3500
3000 Field Pressure, psia
2500 COM - FPR BO - FPR 2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, days 2500 3000 3500 4000
BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION COMPARISON - OPR

14000
12000
10000 Oil Prod. Rate, STB/ day
8000 COM - OPR BO - OPR 6000
4000
2000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, days 2500 3000 3500 4000
183
BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION COMPARISON - WPR

1.8
1.6
1.4 Water Prod. Rate, STB/day 1.2
1 COM - WPR BO - WPR 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, days 2500 3000 3500 4000
WATER-CUT MATCHING AFTER 2 MONTHS

0.00003
0.000025
0.00002 BASE CASE WATER-CUT 1% 10% 0.000015 20% 30% 75% 90% 0.00001
0.000005
0 0 1 4 TIME, Days 13 30 60
184
PRESSURE MATCH
4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA BASE CASE 1% 10% 20% 30% 75% 90% 1500
2500
2000
1000
500
0 0 10 20 30 TIME, DAYS 40 50 60 70
10 YEARS PREDICTION WITH 2 MONTHS HISTORY DATA
3.5
2.5
GOR, SCF/STB
2 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA 1.5
0.5
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
185

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA 2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000

0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
WATER-CUT
0.0002 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA 0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
186
24 MONTHS GOR MATCH

1.4
1.2
GOR, SCF/STB
0.8
BASE CASE 1% 75%
0.6
90%
0.4
0.2
0 0 100 200 300 400 TIME, DAYS 500 600 700 800
24 MONTHS DATA PRESSURE MATCH

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500
BASE CASE 1% 75%
2000
90%
1500
1000
500
0 0 100 200 300 400 TIME, DAYS 500 600 700 800
187
24 MONTHS DATA WATER-CUT MATCH

0.00016
0.00014
0.00012
0.0001 WATER-CUT BASE CASE 1% 0.00008 75% 90%
0.00006
0.00004
0.00002
0 0 100 200 300 400 TIME, DAYS 500 600 700 800

3.5
2.5
GOR, SCF/STB
2 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA 1.5
0.5
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
188

12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA
4000000
2000000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA 2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
189
48 MONTHS GOR MATCH

3.5
2.5
GOR, SCF/STB
2 BASE CASE 75% 90% 1.5
0.5
0 0 200 400 600 800 TIME, DAYS 1000 1200 1400 1600

0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
WATER-CUT
0.0002 OBSERVED DATA SIMULATED DATA 0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
190
48 MONTHS CUM. OIL PROD. MATCH

10000000
9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000 BASE CASE 90% 75% 4000000
5000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0 0 200 400 600 800 TIME, DAYS 1000 1200 1400 1600
48 MONTHS PRESSURE MATCH

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500
BASE CASE 75% 90%
2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 200 400 600 800 TIME, DAYS 1000 1200 1400 1600
191
SIX MONTHS GOR MATCH

0.7
0.6
0.5 BASE CASE 1% 10% 20% 0.3 30% 75% 90% 0.2
GOR, SCF/STB
0.4
0.1
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 TIME, DAYS 120 140 160 180 200

0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
WATER-CUT
0.0002 BASE CASE 90% 75% 0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0 0 200 400 600 800 TIME, DAYS 1000 1200 1400 1600
192
SIX MONTHS PRESSURE MATCH

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA BASE CASE 1% 2500 10% 20% 30% 75% 90% 1500
2000
1000
500
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 TIME, DAYS 120 140 160 180 200
SIX MONTHS WATER-CUT MATCH

0.00006
0.00005
0.00004 WATER-CUT BASE CASE 1% 0.00003 10% 20% 30% 75% 90% 0.00002
0.00001
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 TIME, DAYS 120 140 160 180 200
193
12 MONTHS GOR MATCH

0.7
0.6
0.5 BASE CASE 1% 10% 30% 0.3 20% 75% 90% 0.2
GOR, SCF/STB
0.4
0.1
0 0 50 100 150 200 TIME, DAYS 250 300 350 400

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA BASE CASE 1% 2500 10% 20% 30% 75% 90% 1500
2000
1000
500
0 0 50 100 150 200 TIME, DAYS 250 300 350 400
194
18 MONTHS GOR MATCH

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 GOR, SCF/STB BASE CASE 0.4 1% 75% 90% 0.3
0.2
0.1
0 0 100 200 300 TIME, DAYS 400 500 600

0.00008
0.00007
0.00006
0.00005 WATER-CUT
BASE CASE 1% 10% 20% 30% 75%
0.00004
0.00003
90%
0.00002
0.00001
0 0 50 100 150 200 TIME, DAYS 250 300 350 400
195

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500
BASE CASE 1% 75%
2000
90%
1500
1000
500
0 0 100 200 300 TIME, DAYS 400 500 600

0.00012
0.0001
0.00008 WATER-CUT
BASE CASE 0.00006 1% 75% 90%
0.00004
0.00002
0 0 100 200 300 TIME, DAYS 400 500 600
196
75% MATCH MODEL GOR PREDICTION

3.5
2.5
GOR, SCF/STB
2 OBSERVED GOR SIMULATED GOR 1.5
0.5
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
75% MATCHED MODEL CUM. OIL PROD. PREDICTION

12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
197
75% MATCHED MODEL PRESSURE PREDICTION

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500 OBSERVED PRESSURE SIMULATED PRESSURE 2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
75% MATCHED MODEL WATER-CUT PREDICTION

0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
WATER-CUT
0.0002 OBSERVED FWCT SIMULATED FWCT 0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
198
50% MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS GOR PREDICTION

3.5
2.5
GOR, SCF/STB
2 OBSERVED GOR SIMULATED GOR 1.5
0.5
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
50% MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS CUM. OIL PROD. PREDICTION

12000000
10000000
8000000
6000000
4000000
2000000
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
199
50% MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS PRESSURE PREDICTION

4500
4000
3500
3000 PRESSURE, PSIA
2500 OBSERVED PRESSURE SIMULATED PRESSURE 2000
1500
1000
500
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
50% MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS WATER-CUT PREDICTION

0.00035
0.0003
0.00025
WATER-CUT
0.0002 OBSERVED WATER-CUT SIMULATED WATER-CUT 0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 TIME, DAYS 2500 3000 3500 4000
200
APPENDIX E OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK OIL WITH COMPOSITION

History matched model optimization
BLACK OIL TIME FGOR (MSCF/ STB) 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.556 0.501 0.500 0.493 0.498 0.485 0.482 0.487 0.497 0.518 0.538 0.567 0.607 0.654 0.700 0.756 0.815 0.877 0.989 1.104 1.232 1.372 1.509 FOPT FWCT FGOR (MSCF/ STB) 2.18E-06 3.31E-06 6.22E-06 9.58E-06 1.51E-05 2.05E-05 2.51E-05 3.78E-05 3.88E-05 4.26E-05 4.65E-05 4.86E-05 5.12E-05 5.46E-05 5.89E-05 6.46E-05 7.05E-05 7.78E-05 8.70E-05 9.15E-05 9.61E-05 0.0001 0.00011 0.00011 0.00012 0.00013 0.00014 0.00015 0.00016 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5264 0.5123 0.5026 0.4966 0.4975 0.5009 0.5089 0.5246 0.5477 0.5781 0.6188 0.6608 0.7096 0.7632 0.8231 0.8909 0.9782 1.0819 1.1915 1.3122 1.4599 1.5973 COMPOSITIONAL FOPT FWCT OPTIMI ZATION 2.28E-06 3.74E-06 5.84E-06 9.56E-06 1.50E-05 2.08E-05 2.60E-05 3.53E-05 4.04E-05 4.50E-05 4.90E-05 5.22E-05 5.58E-05 6.00E-05 6.54E-05 7.20E-05 7.96E-05 8.90E-05 9.40E-05 9.88E-05 0.0001 0.00011 0.00012 0.00012 0.00013 0.00014 0.00015 0.00016 0.00017 0 1.4E+08 5.7E+08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 625944 1.3E+09 3.7E+09 6.1E+09 1.0E+10 1.4E+10 1.9E+10 2.4E+10 2.8E+10 3.3E+10 3.6E+10 4.0E+10
(days) 1 3 15 31 59 90 120 151 181 212 243 273 304 334 365 396 424 455 485 516 546 577 608 638 669 699 730 761 789
(STB) 12000 36000 180000 372000 708000 1080000 1440000 1812000 2172000 2544000 2916000 3276000 3648000 4008000 4380000 4752000 5088000 5460000 5812363 6145273 6443400 6728185 6991648 7227884 7449742 7646486 7831889 8000091 8140210
(STB) 12000 48000 156000 372000 708000 1080000 1440000 1812000 2172000 2544000 2916000 3276000 3648000 4008000 4380000 4752000 5088000 5452088 5775205 6083869 6360856 6625599 6869974 7087364 7293336 7476696 7650216 7807899 7939549
201
820 850 881 911 942 973 1003 1034 1064 1095 1126 1154 1185 1215 1246 1276 1307 1338 1368 1399 1429 1460 1491 1519 1550 1580 1611 1641 1672 1703 1733 1764 1794 1825 1856 1884 1915 1945 1976 2006 2037 2068
1.700 1.862 2.021 2.190 2.351 2.500 2.627 2.741 2.832 2.904 2.957 2.992 3.016 3.018 3.013 3.001 2.982 2.957 2.930 2.898 2.865 2.830 2.794 2.761 2.723 2.686 2.648 2.611 2.573 2.537 2.501 2.464 2.429 2.392 2.354 2.320 2.281 2.243 2.203 2.164 2.123 2.082
8280622 8405024 8522470 8626256 8724112 8813764 8893849 8970367 9039271 9105694 9167901 9221008 9276423 9327314 9377228 9423251 9468566 9511813 9551873 9591489 9628268 9664710 9699681 9730134 9762541 9792744 9822783 9850811 9878714 9905606 9930731 9955782 9979205 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07
0.00017 0.00018 0.0002 0.00021 0.00022 0.00023 0.00024 0.00026 0.00026 0.00027 0.00028 0.00029 0.00029 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.00029 0.00029
1.7611 1.9201 2.0768 2.2358 2.3917 2.5352 2.6612 2.7739 2.8658 2.9413 2.9986 3.0379 3.0693 3.0881 3.0943 3.0911 3.0802 3.0639 3.0427 3.0151 2.9854 2.9522 2.9172 2.8839 2.8463 2.8083 2.7682 2.7287 2.6876 2.6466 2.607 2.5665 2.5281 2.4887 2.4494 2.4141 2.3748 2.3366 2.2967 2.2578 2.2173 2.1765
8073172 8191968 8304521 8404433 8498897 8585603 8663162 8737345 8804204 8868679 8929100 8980702 9034556 9083914 9132283 9176857 9220740 9262621 9301420 9339805 9375459 9410807 9444729 9474251 9505631 9534849 9563885 9590965 9617918 9643896 9668169 9692370 9715004 9737593 9759421 9778543 9799021 9818224 9837443 9855486 9873567 9891113
0.00018 0.00019 0.0002 0.00022 0.00023 0.00024 0.00025 0.00026 0.00027 0.00028 0.00029 0.00029 0.0003 0.0003 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003
4.3E+10 4.5E+10 4.7E+10 4.9E+10 5.0E+10 5.2E+10 5.3E+10 5.4E+10 5.5E+10 5.6E+10 5.7E+10 5.7E+10 5.8E+10 5.9E+10 6.0E+10 6.0E+10 6.1E+10 6.2E+10 6.2E+10 6.3E+10 6.3E+10 6.4E+10 6.5E+10 6.5E+10 6.6E+10 6.6E+10 6.7E+10 6.7E+10 6.8E+10 6.8E+10 6.8E+10 6.9E+10 6.9E+10 7.0E+10 7.0E+10 7.1E+10 7.1E+10 7.2E+10 7.2E+10 7.3E+10 7.3E+10 7.3E+10
202
2098 2129 2159 2190 2221 2249 2280 2310 2341 2371 2402 2433 2463 2494 2524 2555 2586 2614 2645 2675 2706 2736 2767 2798 2828 2859 2889 2920 2951 2979 3010 3040 3071 3101 3132 3163 3193 3224 3254 3285 3316 3344
2.042 2.000 1.959 1.917 1.874 1.836 1.794 1.753 1.712 1.672 1.631 1.590 1.551 1.512 1.473 1.435 1.396 1.396 1.325 1.325 1.289 1.253 1.218 1.183 1.148 1.115 1.082 1.049 1.013 0.979 0.950 0.919 0.889 0.860 0.833 0.806 0.779 0.754 0.729 0.705 0.682 0.658
0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019 0.00018
2.1369 2.0958 2.056 2.0148 1.9737 1.9366 1.8955 1.8558 1.8148 1.7754 1.7349 1.6946 1.656 1.6163 1.5782 1.5393 1.5006 1.4663 1.4287 1.3928 1.3562 1.3212 1.2855 1.2504 1.2168 1.1827 1.15 1.1169 1.082 1.0501 1.0162 0.9847 0.9534 0.924 0.8948 0.8666 0.8402 0.8137 0.7887 0.7636 0.7391 0.7175
9907616 9924183 9939783 9955461 9970720 9984173 9998684 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07
0.0003 0.0003 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019
203
3375 3405 3436 3466 3497 3528 3558 3589 3619
0.638 0.616 0.595 0.574 0.554 0.533 0.514 0.495 0.476
1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07
0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017 0.00016
0.6943 0.6724 0.6503 0.6294 0.6083 0.5877 0.5682 0.5485 0.5298
1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07
0.00019 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017
9.1E+10 9.1E+10 9.2E+10 9.2E+10 9.3E+10 9.3E+10 9.3E+10 9.4E+10 9.4E+10 3.6E+12
204
Model with Minimum Sum of Square Optimization

BLACK OIL TIME FGOR (MSCF/ STB) 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5268 0.512 0.5018 0.493 0.4925 0.4957 0.5063 0.5249 0.5502 0.5835 0.6277 0.6734 0.7267 0.7847 0.8487 0.9277 1.0195 1.1286 1.2437 1.3784 1.5273 1.6738 1.8432 2.004 2.1662 2.3273 2.4832 FOPT FWCT FGOR (MSCF/ STB) 2.25E-06 3.71E-06 5.82E-06 9.54E-06 1.50E-05 2.08E-05 2.61E-05 3.53E-05 4.03E-05 4.47E-05 4.89E-05 5.20E-05 5.56E-05 6.02E-05 6.61E-05 7.31E-05 8.13E-05 9.13E-05 9.63E-05 0.0001 0.00011 0.00011 0.00012 0.00013 0.00014 0.00015 0.00016 0.00017 0.00018 0.00019 0.0002 0.00022 0.00023 0.00024 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.501 0.4998 0.4896 0.479 0.4751 0.4689 0.4815 0.5016 0.5226 0.5427 0.5811 0.634 0.6929 0.7575 0.8227 0.8891 0.9711 1.042 1.1842 1.3262 1.505 1.6926 1.851 1.9896 2.123 2.2859 2.4351 COMPOSITIONAL FOPT FWCT OPTIMIZA TION 2.15E-06 3.28E-06 6.20E-06 9.57E-06 1.51E-05 2.05E-05 2.52E-05 3.77E-05 3.86E-05 4.19E-05 4.53E-05 4.82E-05 5.06E-05 5.47E-05 5.99E-05 6.60E-05 7.22E-05 8.08E-05 9.02E-05 9.56E-05 0.000102 0.000108 0.000114 0.000121 0.000128 0.000139 0.00015 0.000163 0.000176 0.000188 0.000199 0.00021 0.000223 0.000236 0 1.40E+08 5.80E+08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.80E+07 1.20E+09 3.00E+09 4.80E+09 6.80E+09 9.10E+09 1.10E+10 1.40E+10 1.70E+10 2.00E+10 2.20E+10 2.30E+10 2.40E+10 2.50E+10 2.60E+10 2.60E+10 2.70E+10
(days) 1 4 13 31 59 90 120 151 181 212 243 273 304 334 365 396 424 455 485 516 546 577 608 638 669 699 730 761 789 820 850 881 911 942
(STB) 12000 48000 156000 372000 708000 1080000 1440000 1812000 2172000 2544000 2916000 3276000 3648000 4008000 4380000 4752000 5088000 5450626 5773233 6080598 6355700 6618018 6859092 7073357 7276312 7456546 7626154 7780729 7909759 8040423 8156403 8266042 8363207 8455022
(STB) 12000 36000 180000 372000 708000 1080000 1440000 1812000 2172000 2544000 2916000 3276000 3648000 4008000 4380000 4752000 5088000 5460000 5808086 6134943 6425013 6700446 6954282 7179874 7396197 7588170 7767642 7929155 8061434 8194654 8313125 8425876 8525794 8620321
205
973 1003 1034 1064 1095 1126 1154 1185 1215 1246 1276 1307 1338 1368 1399 1429 1460 1491 1519 1550 1580 1611 1641 1672 1703 1733 1764 1794 1825 1856 1884 1915 1945 1976 2006 2037 2068 2098 2129 2159 2190 2221
2.6261 2.7449 2.8438 2.9196 2.9794 3.0229 3.0507 3.0681 3.0723 3.066 3.0524 3.0327 3.0078 2.979 2.9459 2.912 2.8761 2.8389 2.8042 2.7652 2.7269 2.6878 2.6509 2.6137 2.578 2.5439 2.5085 2.4738 2.4373 2.4002 2.3661 2.3277 2.29 2.2505 2.212 2.172 2.1319 2.0929 2.0524 2.0129 1.9719 1.9307
8539358 8614897 8687348 8752862 8816230 8875761 8926709 8980022 9029021 9077156 9121605 9165441 9207350 9246233 9284747 9320554 9356070 9390170 9419854 9451421 9480822 9510040 9537277 9564367 9590449 9614791 9639033 9661686 9684278 9706100 9725211 9745678 9764869 9784078 9802112 9820187 9837728 9854226 9870791 9886390 9902073 9917339
0.00026 0.00027 0.00028 0.00029 0.0003 0.0003 0.00031 0.00031 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00033 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.00031 0.0003
2.581 2.6941 2.7877 2.8598 2.9145 2.9515 2.9722 2.9764 2.9678 2.9518 2.9306 2.9038 2.8728 2.8401 2.8047 2.7697 2.7331 2.696 2.6627 2.6256 2.593 2.5593 2.5285 2.4967 2.4645 2.4328 2.3991 2.3656 2.3299 2.2933 2.2596 2.2221 2.1851 2.146 2.1075 2.0668 2.0257 1.9853 1.9431 1.902 1.8595 1.817
8707107 8784907 8859502 8926958 8992209 9053524 9106024 9161035 9211672 9261453 9307435 9352786 9396137 9436344 9476146 9513124 9549788 9584996 9615665 9648309 9678707 9708913 9737059 9765045 9791990 9817142 9842201 9865627 9889004 9911598 9931397 9952612 9972516 9992450 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07
0.000249 0.00026 0.00027 0.000279 0.000287 0.000294 0.000299 0.000304 0.000307 0.00031 0.000313 0.000315 0.000316 0.000318 0.000319 0.000319 0.00032 0.00032 0.00032 0.000321 0.000321 0.000321 0.000321 0.000322 0.000322 0.000321 0.000321 0.000321 0.00032 0.000319 0.000318 0.000317 0.000316 0.000314 0.000313 0.000311 0.000309 0.000307 0.000305 0.000302 0.0003 0.000298
206
2249 2280 2310 2341 2371 2402 2433 2463 2494 2524 2555 2586 2614 2645 2675 2706 2736 2767 2798 2828 2859 2889 2920 2951 2979 3010 3040 3071 3101 3132 3163 3193 3224 3254 3285 3316 3344 3375 3405 3436 3466 3497
1.8935 1.8521 1.8122 1.771 1.7315 1.6909 1.6505 1.6117 1.5721 1.5345 1.4961 1.4582 1.4243 1.3872 1.3518 1.3157 1.2813 1.2461 1.2115 1.1785 1.1449 1.1129 1.0773 1.0424 1.012 0.98 0.9501 0.9204 0.8926 0.8648 0.8379 0.8126 0.7873 0.7634 0.7393 0.7157 0.695 0.6726 0.6514 0.63 0.6097 0.5892
9930802 9945330 9959049 9972881 9985957 9999152 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07
0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00029 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00026 0.00026 0.00026 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.00021 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.00019 0.00019 0.00019
1.7787 1.7365 1.6959 1.6544 1.6146 1.574 1.534 1.4956 1.4565 1.4192 1.381 1.3434 1.3432 1.2733 1.2732 1.2383 1.2029 1.1691 1.1346 1.1008 1.0688 1.033 0.9996 0.9667 0.9352 0.9079 0.8786 0.8512 0.8238 0.798 0.7721 0.7469 0.7231 0.6991 0.6764 0.6535 0.6312 0.6114 0.59 0.5697 0.5492 0.5299
0.000295 0.000293 0.00029 0.000287 0.000285 0.000282 0.000279 0.000277 0.000274 0.000271 0.000268 0.000266 0.000266 0.00026 0.00026 0.000258 0.000255 0.000252 0.000249 0.000247 0.000244 0.00024 0.000237 0.000233 0.00023 0.000227 0.000224 0.000221 0.000218 0.000215 0.000212 0.000209 0.000206 0.000204 0.000201 0.000198 0.000196 0.000194 0.000191 0.000189 0.000186 0.000184
207
3528 3558 3589 3619 3650
0.5692 0.5502 0.531 0.5128 0.4944
1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07
0.00019 0.00019 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018
0.5103 0.4912 0.4731 0.4548 0.4376
1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07 1.10E+07
0.000182 0.000179 0.000177 0.000175 0.000173
6.10E+10 6.10E+10 6.10E+10 6.20E+10 6.20E+10 2.20E+12
208
Model with Maximum Sum of Square Optimization

BLACK OIL TIME FGOR (MSCF/ STB) 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5728 0.5232 0.5129 0.5058 0.5058 0.5009 0.5015 0.5109 0.5255 0.5438 0.5682 0.5983 0.6242 0.6609 0.6994 0.7432 0.7892 0.836 0.8922 0.9563 1.0236 1.1068 1.1879 1.2907 1.3999 1.5063 1.61 1.7206 1.8393 FOPT FWCT FGOR (MSCF/ STB) 2.48E-06 3.95E-06 6.04E-06 9.73E-06 1.52E-05 2.09E-05 2.60E-05 3.63E-05 4.19E-05 4.69E-05 5.01E-05 5.27E-05 5.60E-05 6.03E-05 6.54E-05 7.13E-05 7.80E-05 8.56E-05 9.02E-05 9.39E-05 9.76E-05 0.000102 0.000106 0.00011 0.000115 0.000121 0.000126 0.000133 0.000139 0.000147 0.000156 0.000163 0.000171 0.000178 0.000187 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5563 0.5012 0.5009 0.4974 0.4911 0.4868 0.4831 0.4875 0.503 0.5198 0.5342 0.5582 0.587 0.6182 0.6506 0.6887 0.7313 0.7757 0.8249 0.8861 0.9555 1.0271 1.1231 1.2207 1.3472 1.4476 1.5657 1.6889 1.804 COMPOSITIONAL FOPT FWCT OPTIMIZA TION 2.36E-06 3.50E-06 6.41E-06 9.74E-06 1.52E-05 2.05E-05 2.51E-05 3.87E-05 4.01E-05 4.38E-05 4.65E-05 4.91E-05 5.18E-05 5.49E-05 5.94E-05 6.46E-05 6.98E-05 7.71E-05 8.40E-05 8.79E-05 9.11E-05 9.48E-05 9.88E-05 0.000103 0.000107 0.000113 0.000118 0.000124 0.000131 0.000139 0.000148 0.000155 0.000163 0.000172 0.00018 0 1.4E+08 5.8E+08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3E+08 1.5E+09 3.7E+09 6.5E+09 9.9E+09 1.37E+10 1.76E+10 2.19E+10 2.62E+10 3.05E+10 3.47E+10 3.81E+10 4.17E+10 4.45E+10 4.75E+10 4.97E+10 5.16E+10 5.34E+10
(days) 1 4 13 31 59 90 120 151 181 212 243 273 304 334 365 396 424 455 485 516 546 577 608 638 669 699 730 761 789 820 850 881 911 942 973
(STB) 12000 48000 156000 372000 708000 1080000 1440000 1812000 2172000 2544000 2916000 3276000 3648000 4008000 4380000 4752000 5088000 5448720 5769722 6078324 6357205 6625791 6876338 7103068 7321312 7518011 7706895 7882230 8030416 8182401 8318581 8449589 8567907 8681853 8787926
(STB) 12000 36000 180000 372000 708000 1080000 1440000 1812000 2172000 2544000 2916000 3276000 3648000 4008000 4380000 4752000 5088000 5460000 5808029 6139204 6437874 6725339 6993283 7235674 7469275 7679892 7881569 8068628 8225692 8386590 8529615 8667431 8790760 8909032 9018984
209
1003 1034 1064 1095 1126 1154 1185 1215 1246 1276 1307 1338 1368 1399 1429 1460 1491 1519 1550 1580 1611 1641 1672 1703 1733 1764 1794 1825 1856 1884 1915 1945 1976 2006 2037 2068 2098 2129 2159 2190 2221 2249
1.966 2.0934 2.2071 2.3123 2.4063 2.4823 2.5559 2.6178 2.6728 2.7184 2.7585 2.7913 2.8174 2.8393 2.8568 2.8687 2.876 2.8792 2.8792 2.8757 2.8681 2.8574 2.843 2.8252 2.8051 2.7819 2.7574 2.7302 2.7015 2.6744 2.6432 2.612 2.5788 2.5459 2.5112 2.4757 2.4408 2.4042 2.3682 2.3306 2.2925 2.2578
8883365 8974773 9057108 9136331 9210326 9273298 9338774 9398537 9456781 9510121 9562263 9611664 9657090 9701674 9742772 9783210 9821759 9855133 9890419 9923096 9955374 9985286 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07
0.000196 0.000205 0.000213 0.000222 0.000229 0.000236 0.000243 0.000248 0.000254 0.000259 0.000264 0.000268 0.000272 0.000275 0.000278 0.000281 0.000284 0.000286 0.000288 0.000289 0.000291 0.000292 0.000292 0.000293 0.000293 0.000293 0.000293 0.000292 0.000292 0.000291 0.00029 0.000289 0.000287 0.000286 0.000285 0.000283 0.000281 0.00028 0.000278 0.000276 0.000274 0.000272
1.9596 2.0898 2.204 2.3093 2.4022 2.4766 2.5433 2.5999 2.649 2.6886 2.7204 2.747 2.7685 2.7888 2.8018 2.8102 2.814 2.8143 2.8107 2.8039 2.7926 2.7781 2.76 2.739 2.7164 2.691 2.6646 2.6358 2.6057 2.5773 2.5451 2.5127 2.4782 2.4439 2.4082 2.3715 2.3352 2.2973 2.2599 2.2211 2.1819 2.1455
9117121 9210896 9295243 9376304 9451949 9516318 9583241 9644285 9703730 9758133 9811290 9861613 9907842 9953155 9994877 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07
0.00019 0.000199 0.000208 0.000216 0.000224 0.00023 0.000237 0.000242 0.000248 0.000252 0.000257 0.000261 0.000264 0.000268 0.000271 0.000273 0.000276 0.000278 0.000279 0.000281 0.000282 0.000283 0.000283 0.000283 0.000283 0.000283 0.000282 0.000282 0.000281 0.00028 0.000279 0.000278 0.000277 0.000275 0.000274 0.000272 0.00027 0.000268 0.000266 0.000264 0.000262 0.00026
210
2280 2310 2341 2371 2402 2433 2463 2494 2524 2555 2586 2614 2645 2675 2706 2736 2767 2798 2828 2859 2889 2920 2951 2979 3010 3040 3071 3101 3132 3163 3193 3224 3254 3285 3316 3344 3375 3405 3436 3466 3497 3528
2.2192 2.1816 2.1426 2.1048 2.0656 2.0264 1.9886 1.9496 1.9122 1.8738 1.8357 1.8015 1.764 1.728 1.6911 1.6557 1.6194 1.5836 1.5492 1.5139 1.4801 1.4456 1.4117 1.3816 1.3486 1.3172 1.2851 1.2543 1.223 1.192 1.1624 1.1321 1.1032 1.0711 1.0389 1.0108 0.9807 0.9524 0.9241 0.8974 0.8705 0.8443
1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07
0.00027 0.000267 0.000265 0.000263 0.00026 0.000258 0.000256 0.000253 0.000251 0.000248 0.000246 0.000243 0.000241 0.000239 0.000236 0.000234 0.000231 0.000229 0.000226 0.000224 0.000221 0.000219 0.000216 0.000214 0.000212 0.00021 0.000207 0.000205 0.000203 0.0002 0.000198 0.000196 0.000194 0.000191 0.000188 0.000185 0.000182 0.00018 0.000177 0.000175 0.000172 0.00017
2.1055 2.0667 2.0267 1.9881 1.9484 1.9091 1.8712 1.8324 1.7952 1.7572 1.7194 1.6856 1.6485 1.6128 1.5763 1.5413 1.5055 1.47 1.4698 1.4359 1.4014 1.3685 1.3349 1.3018 1.2722 1.2398 1.2088 1.1772 1.1469 1.116 1.0856 1.0564 1.0236 0.9924 0.9613 0.9312 0.9048 0.8765 0.8498 0.823 0.7977 0.7722
0.000258 0.000255 0.000253 0.000251 0.000248 0.000246 0.000243 0.000241 0.000239 0.000236 0.000234 0.000231 0.000229 0.000227 0.000224 0.000222 0.000219 0.000217 0.000217 0.000214 0.000212 0.00021 0.000207 0.000205 0.000203 0.0002 0.000198 0.000196 0.000194 0.000191 0.000189 0.000187 0.000184 0.000181 0.000178 0.000175 0.000173 0.00017 0.000168 0.000165 0.000163 0.00016
211
3558 3589 3619 3650
0.8196 0.7946 0.771 0.7472
1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07
0.000167 0.000165 0.000163 0.00016
0.7474 0.7239 0.7002 0.6778
1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07 1.1E+07
0.000158 0.000156 0.000153 0.000151
8.33E+10 8.36E+10 8.39E+10 8.42E+10 3.37E+12
212

Oghena Andrew Dissertation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Oghena Andrew Dissertation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION By Andrew Oghena, B.E, M.S.

Shameem Siddiqui Malgorzata Ziaja

Copyright 2006, Andrew Oghena

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

61 61 63 66 71 73 79 83 83 86 93 95 97 102 104 105 108 109

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

81 82 85 89 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 94 94 96 98 98 100 101 103 107

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

Uncertainty Sources in Reservoir Performance Prediction

Field Management Strategy

Flow Boundary Condition (Geology parameter)

Figure 1.1: Uncertainty Sources

. This is simply put as the uncertainty in reservoir input

parameters lead to uncertainty in reservoir performance forecast (figure 1.2).

Uncertainty Quantification in Reservoir Performance Simulation

Individual input Parameters Uncertainties

Simulation result: Production Variables & Reserves Uncertainties (Composite Uncertainty)

Figure 1.2: Individual uncertainties and Composite uncertainty

. When an acceptable match is obtained, the simulator is then used

Parameterization and Prior pdf definition

Observed history data measurement

Reservoir model simulation

NO History matched model

Figure 1.3: History Matching Flow Chart

Reduce Grid number

Upscale Reservoir Properties Fine Scale Coarse Scale

Equation 1 is solved analytically for p( x,y,z,t).

Figure 1.8: Implicit Formulation

ckk ro o p o + Qo = ( o (1 S w )) ------------------------ 5 x o x t ckk rw w ( p o p c ) + Qw = ( w S w ) ------------------- 6 x w x t

. This is because the simulation model will only be useful if it is capable

Black Oil Simulation (BOS)

Compositional Simulation (CS)

Flow equation solution for each cell subject to material balance.

Flow equation solution for each cell subject to material balance

PVT data lookup from supplied tables

Iterative flash of component mixture to equilibrium conditions for each cell

BOS fluids: oil, gas, and water

CS. fluids: HC components and water

Figure 1.9: Black Oil vs. Compositional Simulation Processes

Z 3 + E 2 Z 2 + E1 Z + E 0 = 0 7 With E 2 = (m1 + m 2 1)B 1

E1 = A (m1 + m 2 m1m 2 )B 2 (m1 + m 2 )B E 0 = AB + m1 m2 B 2 (B + 1)

B = xjBj A jk = (1 jk )(A j Ak ) Where

For example using PR EoS51, 58 we have equation 11.

CHAPTER II METHODS FOR UNCERTAINTY QUANTIFICATION

. History matching involves the determination of a set of reservoir

Robust SoS algorithms are shown in equation 20 and 21:

ij f ij f obs 1 n 1 n Z = wij sim n i n j ij

d isim d iobs f (o / p ) = ce i i Where

c = Normalization constant p = Parameter

Where C p = Covariance matrix v p = Parameter expectation vector

Where N = Total number of observation

0. 0. 1. 6 8 0 History Matching, rms

Equation 27 is a CDF that represents the probability of v v0

Equation 28 is an example of a PDF representing the probability of v lying between x and y.

Figure 2.3: Cumulative Distribution Function Statistical Properties

2 2 Variance = exp 1 exp (2 + )

Figure 2.5: Discrete Histogram plot used to generate PDF

Plus Input parameter 1 uncertainty distribution

equal Input parameter 2 Model Output uncertainty distribution uncertainty Dis.

CHAPTER III RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION

Figure 3.1: Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient Method