Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
CONTENTS
1
APPENDIX A - References
APPENDIX B - Some Overview Articles on
Reservoir Simulation
1. Reservoir Simulation: is it worth the effort?
SPE Review, London Section monthly panel
discussion November 1990.
2. The Future of Reservoir Simulation - C.
Galas, J. Canadian Petroleum Technology, 36,
January 1997.
3. What you should know about evaluating
simulation results - M. Carlson; J. Canadian
Petroleum Technology, Part I - pp. 21-25,
36, No. 5, May 1997; Part II - pp. 52-57, 36,
No. 7, August 1997.
dN = .N
dt
(1)
where is a constant. We now want to solve this model by answering the question:
what is N as a function of time, t, which we denote by N(t), if we start with a bacterial
colony of size No. It is easy to show that, N(t) is given by:
N( t ) = N o .e . t
(2)
which is the well-known law of exponential growth. We can quickly check that
this analytical solution to our model (equation 1), is at least consistent by setting t
= 0 and noting that N = No, as required. Thus, equation 1 is our first example of a
simulation model which describes the process - bacterial growth in this case - and
equation 2 is its analytical solution. But looking further into this model, it seems
to predict that as t gets bigger, then the number N - the number of bacteria in the
colony - gets hugely bigger and, indeed, as t , the number N also . Is this
realistic ? Do colonies of bacteria get infinite in size ? Clearly, our model is not an
exact replica of a real bacterial colony since, as they grow in size, they start to use
up all the food and die off. This means that our model may need further terms to
describe the observed behaviour of a real bacterial colony. However, if we are just
interested in the early time growth of a small colony, our model may be adequate
for our purpose; that is, it may be fit-for-purpose. The real issue here is a balance
between the simplicity of our model and the use we want to make of it. This is an
important lesson for what is to come in this course and throughout your activities
trying to model real petroleum reservoirs.
In contrast to the above simple model for the growth of a bacterial colony, some
models are much more difficult to solve. In some cases, we may be able to write
down the equations for our model, but it may be impossible to solve these analytically
due to the complexity of the equations. Instead, it may be possible to approximate
these complicated equations by an equivalent numerical model. This model would
commonly involve carrying out a very large number of (locally quite simple) numerical
calculations. The task of carrying out large numbers of very repetitive calculations is
ideally suited to the capabilities of a digital computer which can do this very quickly.
As an example of a numerical model, we will return to the simple model for colony
growth in equation (1). Now, we have already shown that we have a perfectly simple
analytical solution for this model (equation 2). However, we are going to forget
this for a moment and try to solve equation 1 using a numerical method. To do this
we break the time, t, into discrete timesteps which we denote by t. So, if we have
the number of bacteria in the colony at t = 0, i.e. No, then we want to calculate the
number at time t later, then we use the new value and try to find the number at
time t later and so on. In order to do this systematically, we need an algorithm (a
mathematical name for a recipe) which is easy to develop once we have defined the
following notation:
Notation:
Clearly, it is the Nn+1 that we are trying to find. Going back to the main equation that
defines this model (equation 1), we approximate this as follows:
(N
n +1
N n ) / t .N n
(3)
where we use the symbol, "", to indicate that equation 3 is only exactly true as t
0. Equation 3 is now our (approximate) numerical model which can be rearranged
as follows to find Nn+1 (which is the unknown that we are after):
N n +1 = (1 + .t ).N n
(4)
where we have gone to the exact equality symbol, =, in equation 4 since, we are
accepting the fact that the model is not exact but we are using it anyway. This
is our numerical algorithm (or recipe) that is now very amenable to solution
using a simple calculator. More formally, the algorithm for the model would be
carried out as shown in Figure 1.
Set,
t=0
Print n, t and N (N n)
Set
N n+1 = (1 + .t). N n
Set
No
Figure 1
Example of an algorithm to
solve the simple numerical
simulation model in the
text
N n = N n+1
n = n+1
t = t + t
Time to stop ?
e.g. is t > tmax or n > nmax
Yes
End
The above example, although very simple, explains quite well several aspects of
what a simulation model is. This model is simple enough to be solved analytically.
However, it can also be formulated as an approximate numerical model which is
organised into a numerical algorithm (or recipe) which can be followed repetitively.
A simple calculator is sufficient to solve this model but, in more complex systems,
a digital computer would generally be used.
Throughout this course we will use Field Units and/or SI Units, as appropriate.
Although the industry recommendation is to convert to SI Units, this makes
discussion of the field examples and cases too unnatural.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
EXERCISE 1.
Return to the simple model described by equation 1. Take as input data, that we
start off with 25 bacteria in the colony. Take the value = 1.74 and take time
steps t = 0.05 in the numerical model.
(i) Using the scale on the graph below, plot the analytical solution for the
number of bacteria N(t) as a function of time between t = 0 and t = 2 (in
arbitrary time units).
(ii) Plot as points on this same plot, the numerical solution at times t = 0, 0.5, 1.0,
1.5 and 2.0. What do you notice about these ?
(iii)Using a spreadsheet, repeat the numerical calculation with a t = 0.001
and plot the same 5 points as before. What do you notice about these?
1000
N(t)
500
2
Time
(i)
(ii)
Choice and Controls: Firstly, there are the things that we have some
control over. For example:
(ii) Reservoir Givens: Secondly, there are the givens such as the (usually very
uncertain) geology that is down there in the reservoir. There may or may not
be an active aquifer which is contributing to the reservoir drive mechanism.
We can do things to know more about the reservoir/aquifer system by carrying
out seismic surveys, drilling appraisal wells and then - running wireline
logs, gathering and performing measurements on core, performing and
analysing pressure buildup or drawdown tests, etc.
(iii) Reservoir Performance Results: Thirdly, there is the observation of the
results i.e the reservoir performance. This includes well production rates
of oil, water and gas, the field average pressure, the individual well pressures
and well productivities etc.
Figure 2
Conceptual depositional
model for the Linnhe and
Beryl formations from the
middle Jurassic period (UK
sector of the North Sea).
(G. Robertson in Cores
from the Northwest
European Hydrocarbon
Provence, C D Oakman,
J H Martin and P W M
Corbett, Geological Society,
London. 1997).
Slab 1
Top
15855 ft
Slab 2
Top
15852 ft
Slab 3
Top
14591 ft
Slab 4
Top
14361 ft
Slab 5
Top
14358 ft
Medium-grained
Carbonated cemented
sandstone
( =14%, ka = 2mD)
- some thin clay and
carbonate rich lamination
Medium-grained
ripple-laminated and
bioturbated carbonate
cemented sandstone
( =10%, ka = 1mD)
1m
Figure 3
Cores from the midJurassic Beryl formation
from UK sector of the North
Sea. is porosity and ka
is the air permeability. (G.
Robertson in Cores from
the Northwest European
Hydrocarbon Provence, C D
Oakman, J H Martin and
P W M Corbett, Geological
Society, London. 1997).
Medium to coarse-grained
cross-stratified
sandstone
( =21%, ka =1440mD)
- in fining-up units
Coarse-grained
carbonaceous sandstone
( =20%, ka =2940mD)
- in cross-stratified,
fining-up units
15858 ft
Base
15855 ft
Base
14594 ft
Base
14364 ft
Base
14361 ft
Base
Producer
Water Injector
Figure 4
A schematic diagram of a
waterflood simulation in a
3D layered model with an
8x8x5 grid. The information
which is input for a single
grid block is shown.
Contrast this simple model
with the detail in a
geological model (Figure 2)
and in the actual cores
themselves (Figure 3).
y
x
Inp
, ut:
c
kx, rock,
n
S ky, k et to
w,
gro
P i krw(z,
ss
c (S
S
w),
w)
kr
w (S
w ),
2.2 What Are We Trying To Do and How Complex Must Our Model Be?
Therefore, at its most complex, our task will be to incorporate all of the above
features (i) - (iii) above in a complete model of the reservoir performance. But
we should now stop at this point and ask ourselves why we are doing the particular
study of a given reservoir? In other words, the level of modelling that we will carry
out is directly related to the issue or question that we are trying to address. Some
engineers prefer to put this as follows:
What is the minimum level of modelling - or which tool can I use - that
allows me to adequately make that decision?
This matter is put well by Keith Coats - one of the pioneers of numerical reservoir
simulation - who said:
The tools of reservoir simulation range from the intuition and judgement of the
engineer to complex mathematical models requiring use of digital computers. The
question is not whether to simulate but rather which tool or method to use.
(Coats, 1969).
Therefore, we may choose a very simple model of the reservoir or one that is quite
complex depending on the question we are asking or the decision which we have to
make. Without giving technical details of what we mean by simple and complex,
in this context, we illustrate the general idea in Figure 5 which shows three models
of the same reservoir. The first (Figure 5a), shows the reservoir as a tank model
where we are just concerned with the gross fluid flows into and out of the system.
In Chapter 2, we will identify models such as those in Figure 5a as essentially
material balance models. The details of such models will be discussed in much
more detail later but they certainly have their uses. The particular advantage of
material balance models is that they are very simple. They can address questions
relating to average field pressure for given quantities of oil/water/gas production
and water influx from given initial quantities and initial pressure (within certain
assumptions). However, because the material balance model is essentially a tank
model, it cannot address questions about why the pressures in two sectors of the
reservoir are different (since a single average pressure in the system is a core
assumption). The sector model in Figure 5b is somewhat more complex in that it
recognises different regions of the reservoir. This model could address the question
of different regional pressures. However, even this model may be inadequate if
the question is quite detailed such as: in my mature field with a number of active
injector/producer wells where should I locate an infill well and should it be vertical,
slanted or horizontal ? For such complicated questions, the model in Figure 5c
would be more appropriate since it is more detailed and it contains more spatial
information. This schematic sequence of models illustrates that there is no one
right model for a reservoir. The simplicity/complexity of the model should relate
to the simplicity/complexity of the question. But there is another important factor:
data. It is clear that to build models of the types shown in Figure 5, we require
increasing amounts of data as we go from Figure 5a5b5c. It is also evident
that we should think carefully before building a very detailed model of the type
10
shown in Figure 5c, if we have almost no data. There are some circumstances where
we might build quite a complicated model with little data to test out hypotheses but
we will not elaborate on this issue at this point. In most cases, we should qualify
our previous sentence as follows:
The simplicity/complexity of the model should relate to the simplicity/complexity
of the question, and be consistent with the amount of reliable data which
we have.
(a) "Tank" Model of the Reservoir
Average Pressure
Average Saturations
Wells Offtake
=
=
P
So , Sw and Sg
Aquifer
Oil Leg
Aquifer
Figure 5
Schematic illustrations of
reservoir models of
increasing complexity.
Each of these may be
suitable for certain types of
calculation (see text).
Injector
Producer
200ft
2000ft
We are now aware that various levels of reservoir model may be used and that the
reservoir engineer must choose the appropriate one for the task at hand. We will
assume at this point that building a numerical reservoir simulation model is the
correct approach for what we are trying to achieve. If this is so, we now address the
issue: What do we model in reservoir simulation and why do we model it ? There
are, as we have said, a range of questions which we might answer, only some of
which require a full numerical simulation model to be constructed. However, we will
approach the previous question by first saying what a numerical reservoir simulation
model is and what sorts of things it can (and cannot) do.
11
Definition:
A numerical reservoir simulation model is a grid block model of a
petroleum reservoir where each of the blocks represents a local part of the reservoir.
Within a grid block the properties are uniform (porosity, permeability, relative
permeability etc.) although they may change with time as the reservoir process
progresses. Blocks are generally connected to neighbouring blocks are fluid may
flow in a block-to-block manner. The model incorporates data on the reservoir
fluids (PVT) and the reservoir description (porosities , permeabilities etc.) and their
distribution in space. Sub-models within the simulator represent and model the
injection/producer wells.
An example of numerical reservoir simulation gridded model is shown in Figure 6,
where some of the features in the above definition are evident. We now list (in
outline) what needs to be done in principle to run the model and then the things
which a simulator calculate (if it has the correct data).
To run a reservoir simulation model, you must:
(a)
Gather and input the fluid and rock (reservoir description) data as outlined above;
(b) Choose certain numerical features of the grid (number of grid blocks,
time step sizes etc);
(c) Set up the correct field well controls (injection rates, bottom hole pressure
constraints etc.); it is these which drive the model;
(d) Choose which output (from a vast range of possibilities) you would like
to have printed to file which you can then plot later or - in some cases while the simulation is still running.
The output can include the following (non-exhaustive) list of quantities:
The total field cumulative oil, water and gas production profiles with time
The total field daily (weekly, monthly, annual) production rates of each
phase: oil, water and gas
The individual well pressures (bottom hole or, through lift curves, wellhead)
over time
The individual cumulative and daily flowrates of oil, water and gas
with time
Either full field or individual well watercuts, GORs, O/W ratios with time
The spatial distribution of oil, water and gas saturations throughout the
reservoir as functions of time i.e. So(x,y,z;t), Sw(x,y,z;t) and Sg(x,y,z;t)
12
Figure 6
An example of a 3D
numerical reservoir
simulation model. The
distorted 3D grid covers
the crestal reservoir and a
large part of the aquifer
which is shown dipping
down towards the reader.
Oil is shown in red and
water is blue and a vertical
projection of a cross-section
at the crest of the reservoir
is shown on the x/z and
y/z planes on the sides of
the perspective box. Two
injectors can be seen in the
aquifer as well as a crestal
horizontal well. Two faults
can be seen at the front
of the reservoir before the
structure dips down into the
aquifer. The model contains
25,743 grid blocks.
Some of the above quantities are shown in simulator output in Figure 7. Note that a
vast quantity of output can be output and plotted up and the post-processing facilities
in a reservoir simulator suite of software are very important. There is no point is
doing a massively complex calculation on a large reservoir system with millions of
grid blocks if the output is so huge and complex that it overwhelms the reservoir
engineers ability to analyse and make sense of the output.
600
500
Observed Oil
400
Modelled Oil
300
200
Observed Water
Modelled Water
100
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Year of Production
(a) Full field history match of cumulative oil and water production
ge Pressure (psia)
700
3500
3000
13
Observed Data
Cumulative Pro
Modelled Oil
300
200
Observed Water
Modelled Water
100
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
Year of Production
(a) Full field history match of cumulative oil and water production
3500
3000
2500
Observed Data
Modelled Data
2000
1500
10
15
20
25
30
35
Year of Production
Figure 7b
Datum
Observed
Modelled
Depth (ft.)
-100
-200
-300
1000
1500
1000
2500
3000
Figure 7c
A Lower Cretaceous
Carbonate Reservoir in the
Arabian Peninsula
Drilled
New Location
Injector Location
1 Mile
14
Convert to Injector
Figure 7d
How some of this output might be used is illustrated schematically in Figure 8. This
is an imaginary case where the reservoir study is to consider the best of two options
in Field A; either, to upgrade peripheral water injection wells and add a new injector
or to drill two infill wells in the main body of Field A. Clearly, it is much cheaper
to model these two cases than to actually do either one of them. The important
quantities are the oil recovery profiles for each case compared with the scenario
where we simple proceed with the current reservoir development strategy. Of
course, we do not know whether the forward predictions which we are taking as
what would happen anyway, are actually correct. Likewise, we may be unsure of
how accurate our forward predictions are for each of the two scenarios A and B.
In fact, an important aspect of reservoir simulation is to asses each of the various
uncertainties which are associated with our model and, indeed, to asses what these
uncertainties are. This would ideally lead to range of profiles for any forward
modelling but we will deal with this in detail later. We discuss the handling of
uncertainties in rather more detail in Section 3.8.
Figure 8
Schematic example of how
reservoir simulation might
be used in a study. Show
recovery for two options
- upgrade peripheral
injection wells and add new
injector vs. drill four infill
wells.
Injector
Producer
A
C
B
(a) Field A showing injector and producer well locations; lithology is given
from wells A, B, C and D
Sand 1
Sand 2
Sand 3
Sand 4
C
D
Figure 8 (b)
(b) Schematic section showing the lithology across the field through 4 wells
A, B, C and D
15
A
A
B
Figure 8 (c)
A
A
B
NZ = 8
D
D
NZ = 8
16
Figure 8 (d)
Periferal Injectors
A
C
Periferal Injectors
B
Periferal Injectors
A
C
Figure 8 (e)
Infill Wells
Infill Wells
Option 4
Option 3
Option 4
Continue as at present (do nothing) Option 1
Option 3
Option 2
Cumulative
Oil Oil
Cumulative
Cumulative Oil
Time
Continue as at present (do nothing) Option 1
Option 2
Continue as at present (do nothing) Option 1
Time
Figure 8 (f)
Option 2
Time
2
3
NPV NPV
or IRR
or IRR
(f)
3
1
1
4
4
Option
Option
Figure 8 (g)
Option
17
Now consider what we are actually trying to do in a typical full field reservoir
simulation study. There is a short answer to this is often said in one form or
another: it is that the central objective of reservoir simulation is to produce future
predictions (the output quantities listed above) that will allow us to optimise
reservoir performance. At the grander scale, what is meant by optimise reservoir
performance is to develop the reservoir in the manner that brings the maximum
economic benefit to the company. Reservoir simulation may be used in many smaller
ways to decide on various technical matters although even these - for example the
issue illustrated in Figure 8 - are usually reduced to economic calculations and
decisions in the final analysis as indicated in Figure 8(g).
At this point, we have now considered what a numerical reservoir simulation model
is and we have touched on some of the sorts of things that can be calculated.
Rather than go on with a discussion of the various technical aspects of reservoir
simulation one by one, we will simply proceed to three field applications of
reservoir simulation. These studies will raise virtually all of the technical terms
and concepts and many of the issues that will be studied in more detail later in this
course. The important terms and concepts will be italicised and will appear in the
Glossary at the end of this chapter.
Reservoir simulation may be applied either at the appraisal stage of a field
development or at any stage in the early, middle or late field lifetime. There are clearly
differences in what we might want to get out of a study carried out at the appraisal
stage of a reservoir and a study carried out on a mature field.
Appraisal stage: at this stage, reservoir simulation will be a tool that can be used to
design the overall field development plan in terms of the following issues:
The nature of the reservoir recovery plan e.g. natural depletion, waterflooding,
gas injection etc.
The nature of the facility required to develop the field (e.g. a platform,
a tied back subsea development or a Floating Production System for
an offshore fileld).
The sequencing of the well drilling program and the topside facilites.
It is during the initial appraisal stage that many of the biggest - i.e. most expensive investment decisions are made e.g. the type of platform and facilities etc. Therefore,
it is the most helpful time to have accurate forward predictions of the reservoir
18
performance. But, it is at this time when we have the least amount of data and,
of course, very little or no field performance history (there may be some extended
production well tests). Therefore, it seem that reservoir simulation has a built-in
weakness in its usefulness; just when it can be at its most useful during appraisal is
precisely when it has the least data to work on and hence it will usually make the
poorest forward predictions. So, is reservoir simulation a like a bad friend who lets
us down just when we need them most? Perhaps. However, even during appraisal,
reservoir simulation can take us forward with the best current view of the reservoir
that we have at that time, although this view may be highly uncertain. As we
have already noted, if major features of the reservoir model (e.g. the stock tank oil
initially in place, STOIIP) are uncertain, then the forward predictions will be
very inaccurate. In such cases, we may still be able to build a range of possible
reservoir models, or reservoir scenarios, that incorporate the major uncertainties in
terms of reservoir size (STOIIP), main fault blocks, strength of aquifer, reservoir
connectivity, etc. By running forward predictions on this range of cases, we can
generate a spread of predicted future field performance cases as shown schematically
in Figure 9. How to estimate which of these predictions is the most likely and
what the magnitude of the true uncertainties are is very difficult and will be
discussed later in the course.
"Optimistic" Case
Figure 9
Spread of future predicted
field performances from a
range of scenarios of the
reservoir at appraisal.
2005
"Pessimistic" Case
Most Probable Case
2010
2015
Time (Year)
Mature field development: we define this stage of field development for our
purposes as when the field is in mid-life; i.e. it has been in production for
some time (2 - 20+ years) but there is still a reasonably long lifespan ahead for
the field, say 3 - 10+years. At this stage, reservoir simulation is a tool for reservoir
management which allows the reservoir engineer to plan and evaluate future
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
19
development options for the reservoir. This is a process that can be done on a
continually updated basis. The main difference between this stage and appraisal
is that the engineer now has some field production history, such as pressures,
cumulative oil, watercuts and GORs (both field-wide and for individual wells), in
addition to having some idea of which wells are in communication and possibly
some production logs. The initial reservoir simulation model for the field has
probably been found to be wrong, in that it fails in some aspects of its predictions
of reservoir performance e.g. it failed to predict water breakthough in our waterflood
(usually, although not always, injected water arrives at oil producers before it
is expected). By the way, in the original model does turn out to be wrong,
this does not invalidate doing reservoir simulation in the first place. (Why
do you think this is so?)
At this development stage, typical reservoir simulation activities are as follows:
Carrying out a history match of the (now available) field production history
in order to obtain a better tuned reservoir model to use for future field
performance prediction
Using the history match to re-visit the field development strategy in terms of
changing the development plan e.g. infill drilling, adding extra injection water
capability, changing to gas injection or some other IOR scheme etc.
There are many reported studies in the SPE literature where the simulation model is
re-built in early-/mid-life of the reservoir and different future development options
are assessed (e.g. see SPE10022 attached to this chapter).
Late field development: we define this stage of field development as the closing
few years of field production before abandonment. A question arises here as to
whether the field is of sufficient economic importance to merit a simulation study
at this stage. A company may make the call that it is simply not worth studying any
further since the payback would be too low. However there are two reasons why
we may want to launch a simulation study late in a fields lifetime. Firstly, we may
think that, although it is in far decline, we can develop a new development strategy
20
that will give the field a new lease of life and keep it going economically for a
few more years. For example, we may apply a novel cheap drilling technology, or
a program of successful well stimulation (to remove a production impairment such
as mineral scale) or we may wish to try an economic Improved Oil Recovery (IOR)
technique. Secondly, the cost of field abandonment may be so high - e.g. we
may have to remove an offshore structure - that almost anything we do to extend
field life and avoid this expense will be economic. This may justify a late life
simulation study. However, there are no general rules here since it depends on
the local technical and economic factors which course of action a company will
follow. In some countries there may be legislation (or regulations) that require
that an oil company produces reservoir simulation calcualtions as part of their
on going reservoir management.
Three field cases are now presented. We reproduce the full SPE papers describing
each of these reported cases. In the text of each of these papers there are margin
numbers which refer to the Study Notes following the paper. We use these to explain
the concepts of reservoir simulation as they arise naturally in the description of a field
application. In fact, you may very well understand many of the term immediately
from the context of their description in the SPE paper.
The three field examples are as follows:
Case 1: The Role of Numerical Simulation in Reservoir Management of a West
Texas Carbonate Reservoir, SPE10022, presented at the International Petroleum
Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the SPE, Beijing, China, 18 - 26 March
1982, by K J Harpole and C L Hearn.
Case 2: Anguille Marine, a Deepsea-Fan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From
Geology Toward History Matching Through Stochastic Modelling, SPE25006,
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference (Europec92), Cannes,
France, 16-18 November 1992, by C.S. Giudicelli, G.J. Massonat and F.G.
Alabert (Elf Aquitaine)
Case 3: The Ubit Field Rejuvenation: A Case History of Reservoir Management of a
Giant Oilfield Offshore Nigeria, SPE49165, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 27-30 September 1998, by C.A.
Clayton et al (Mobil and Department of Petroleum Resources, Nigeria)
These cases were chosen for the following main reasons:
They are all good technical studies that illustrate typical uses of reservoir
simulation as a tool in reservoir management (we have deliberately taken all
cases at the middle and the mature stages of field development since much
more data is available at that time);
They introduce virtually all of the main ideas and concepts of reservoir
simulation in the context of a worked field application. As these concepts
and specialised terms arise, they are explained briefly in the study notes
although more detailed discussion will appear later in the course. Compact
21
definitions of the various terms are given in the Glossary at the end
of this module;
By choosing an example from the early 1980s, the early/mid 1990s and the
late 1990s, we can illustrate some of the advances in applied reservoir
simulation that have taken place over that period (this is due to the availability
of greater computer processing power and also the adoption of new ideas in
areas such as geostatistics and reservoir description).
How you should read the next part of the module is as follows:
Read right through the SPE paper and just pay particular attention when there
is a Study Note number in the margin;
Go back through the paper but stop at each of the Study Notes and read
through the actual point being made in that note.
As noted above, all the main concepts that are introduced can also be found
in the Glossary which should be used for quick reference throughout the
course or until you are quite familiar with the various terms and concepts in
reservoir simulation.
See SPE 10022 paper in Appendix
Case 1:
The Role of Numerical Simulation in Reservoir Management of a West
Texas Carbonate Reservoir, SPE10022, presented at the International Petroleum
Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the SPE, Beijing, China, 18 - 26 March
1982. by K J Harpole and C L Hearn.
22
23
measured. This is probably too little data but reflects the reality in many practical
reservoir studies that often the engineer does not have important information; however,
we just have to get on with it.
16. In this study the reservoir simulator which they used was a commercial Black
Oil Model (3D, 3 phase - oil/water/gas). Modelling carried out on the main dome
portion of the reservoir. This is done quite often in order to simplify the model
and to focus on the region of the field of interest (and importance in terms of oil
production). A no flow boundary is assumed in the model on saddle with the
east dome (justified by different pressure history). Again, this is supported by
field evidence but it may also be a simplifying judgement to avoid unnecessary
complication in the model.
17a. The grid structure used in the simulations is shown in Fig 8. The particular grid
that is chosen is very important in reservoir simulation. An areal grid of 288 blocks
( 16 x 18 blocks) - about 10 acre each is taken along with six layers in the vertical
direction; i.e. a total of 1728 blocks. This would be a very small model by todays
standards and could easily be run on a PC - this was not the case in late 1970s.
17b. They refer to changing
order to reduce flows.
18. The following three concepts are closely related (see Pseudo-isation and
Upscaling in the Glossary):
18a. Grid size sensitivity: Refers to the introduction of errors due to the coarsness
of the grid known as numerical dispersion.
18b. The very important concept of pseudo--relative permeability is introduced here
(Kyte and Berry, 1975). Pseudos are introduced in order to control numerical
dispersion and account for layering. In essence, the use of pseudos can be seen as
a fix up for using a coarse grid structure.
18c. Corresponding coarse and fine grid reservoir models are shown in Fig. 9.
They note that the fine grid model uses rock relative permeabilities while the coarse
grid model uses pseudo relative permeabilities.
19. History Matching: The basic idea of history matching is that the model input
is adjusted to match the field pressures and production history. This procedure is
intended as being a way of systematically adjusting the model to agree with field
observations. Hopefully we can change the correct variables in the model to get
a match e.g. we may examine the sensitivity to changes in vertical flow barriers in
order to find which level of vertical flow agrees best with the field (indeed, this is
done in this study). See History Matching in the Glossary.
20a. Early mechanism identified as solution gas drive and assistance from expansion.
Some initial discussion of field experience and numerical simulation conclusions is
presented and developed in these points.
20b. They note some problems with data from early field life. (i) Complicated by
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
25
free gas production; (ii) channelling due to poor well completions; (ii) no accurate
records on gas production for the first 6 years.
20c. The actual field history match indicates that approx. 8 - 10 BCF of gas must
have been produced over this early period in order to match the field pressures.
This is a use of a material balance approach in order to find the actual early STOIIP
(STOIIP = Stock Tank Oil Initially In Place).
21a. They present a description of some adjustments to the history match - but overall
it is very good (which they attribute to extensive core data).
21b. Some highlighting of problems with earlier water injection .
21c. The actual history match of reservoir pressure and production is shown
in Fig. 10. This is a good history match but think of which field observable gas production, water production or average field pressure - is the easiest/most
difficult to match.
22. A good description of their study of the sensitivity to vertical communication
is given at this point. This is examined by adjusting the vertical transmissibilities.
They look at the following cases: (i) no barriers; (ii) moderate barrier; (iii)
strong barriers and (iv) no-flow barriers. Most of the sensitivties are for the
moderate and strong barrier cases.
23a. Results showed that => strong barrier case is best but some problem high
GOR wells are encountered randomly spaced through the field. They diagnosed
and simulated this as behind the pipe gas flow in these wells to explain the
anomalies in the field observations. This is quite a common explanation that
appears in many places.
23b. Layer differential pressures up to 200 - 250 psi can only be reproduced for
the strong barrier case. In simulation terms, this is probably the strongest evidence
that this is the best case match.
24. The strong barrier case was chosen as the base case and this was used for
the predictive runs. The base case predictions refer to the cases which essentially
continue the current operations and these are shown in Fig. 11.
25. The strategies looked at for the future sensitivities are listed as follows: (i)
change rate of water injection; (ii) management of gas cap voidage i.e. increase of
gas and blowdown at different times; (iii) infill drilling.
26a. Outlines the problems/issues for various strategies as follows: (i) shows vertical
communication is very importance - it has a major impact on predicted reservoir
performance; (ii) shows that can avoid high future P between gas cap and oil
zone by high water injection or early blowdown; (iii) shows better development
strategy is to keep low P e.g. increase gas injection or infill drill. Finally, shows
infill drilling is the most attractive option and the forward prediction for this case is
shown in Figure 12.
26
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
27
relate the performance back to this. The geological model is also an early practical
example of using a voxel representation of the system - approx. 128,000 voxels
were used in the model. They noted that the original (sedimentological) models
gave over optimistic connectivity. An acceptable match to observed field pressures
by including some level of smaller scale faulting.
SPE25059: Development Planning in a Complex Reservoir: Magnus Field UKCS
Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation (LKCF), A.J. Leonard, A.E. Duncan, D.A.
Johnson and R.B. Murray (BP Exploration Operating Co.)
Summary: This simulation study was carried out on the geologically complex,
low net to gross LKCF (rather than on higher net to gross Magnus sands studied
previously). The objective was to formulate a development plan for the LKCF which
would accelerate production from these sands. Stochastic modelling techniques
were integrated into more conventional deterministic models and various options
were screened for inherent uncertainty and risks. The study concluded that a phased
water injection scheme was the best way forward with the phasing being used to
manage and offset the considerable geological risks. Ranges of expected recovery
were generated and an incremental recovery of 60 MMstb was predicted increasing
the total reserve of the LKCF by a factor of x2.4. This study also demonstrated
the importance of inter-disciplinary team work to overcome the previously
inhibiting high risks involved.
The proceedings of Europec92 also included the following paper:
SPE25006: Anguille Marine, a Deepsea-Fan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From
geology Toward History Matching Through Stochastic Modelling, C.S. Giudicelli,
G.J. Massonat and F.G. Alabert (Elf Aquitaine)
This paper is such a good example of contemporary studies at that time, that
this is chosen as our Case 2 example and is presented in some detail in the
next section.
Case 2:
Anguille Marine, a Deepsea-Fan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From
geology Toward History Matching Through Stochastic Modelling, SPE25006,
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference (Europec92), Cannes, France,
16-18 November 1992, by C.S. Giudicelli, G.J. Massonat and F.G. Alabert (Elf
Aquitaine)
See SPE 25006 paper in Appendix
29
30
31
Geostatistical indicator simulation is a good tool for modelling this multiscale heterogeneity - trends can also be included
32
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 27-30 September 1998,
by C.A. Clayton et al (Mobil and Department of Petroleum Resources, Nigeria)
See SPE 49165 paper in Appendix
Notes:
1. New data and techniques: The study is a very good example of the close
integration of (especially) 3D seismic data used in several ways, computer
mapping and reconstruction of the slump blocks, advanced reservoir simulation
procedures, visualisation etc.
2. Recommendations: These have been quite clearly established and stated. The
study shows that the key strategies are
33
deformation.
Sandbody geometries.
From the above field examples (Cases 1 -3), there is clearly a progression in the
34
1000000
Gridblocks
1000
Mflops/s
Figure 10
(a) CPU performance
(Mflops/s) vs. time and (b)
maximum practical model
size vs. time; Mflop/s =
mega-flops per second =
million floating point
operations per second; from
J.W. Watts, Reservoir
Simulation: Past, Present
and Future, SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium,
Dallas, TX, 5-7 June 1997.
100
10
100000
1000
0.1
1970
10000
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
100
1960
2000
Year
(a) State of art CPU performance
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
(b) Maximum practical simulation model size
(b) Part of the increase in computing power referred to above is the growth of
parallel processing in reservoir simulation. The central idea here is to distribute
the simulation calculation around a number of processors ( or nodes) which
perform different parts of the computational problem simultaneously. A bank of
such processors is shown in Figure 11 (from the work of Dogru, SPE57907, 2000).
The general impact of parallel simulation is shown according to Dogru (2000) in
Figure 12. If the problem gets linearly faster with the number of parallel processors,
then it is said to be scalable and the closeness to an ideal line is a measure of
how well the process parallelises (reaches the ideal scaling line); an example is
shown in Figure 13. Finally, the type of fine scale calculation that can now be
performed using megacell simulation is shown in Figure 14 where it is shown that
there is a lengthscale of remaining oil that is missed in the coarser (but still quite
fine) simulation. A table of what types of calculation can be performed and some
timings for these is also included (although these numbers will probably be out of
date very quickly!). For further details, see Megacell Reservoir Simulation - A.H.
Dogru - SPE Distinguished Author Series, SPE57907, 2000 and the references
therein.
35
Figure 11
A cluster of parallel
processors; from Megacell
Reservoir Simulation A.H. Dogru - SPE
Distinguished Author
Series, SPE57907, 2000.
1.2
1
Parallel Simulators
0.8
0.6
0.6
Conventional Simulators
0.2
0
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1997
1998
Speedup
16
12
12
16
Number of Nodes
36
Cluster
SP2
Ideal
Figure 12
The impact of parallel
reservoir simulation; from
Megacell Reservoir
Simulation - A.H. Dogru
- SPE Distinguished Author
Series, SPE57907, 2000.
0.6
Conventional Simulators
0.2
0
1988
1990
Introduction
and Case Studies
1994 1996 1997 1998
1992
Speedup
16
12
Figure 13
A cluster of parallel
processors; from Megacell
Reservoir Simulation A.H. Dogru - SPE
12
16
Number of Nodes
Cluster
Figure 14
The type of reservoir
simulation that becomes
more possible with parallel
processing. Comparison
with fine grid and megacell
simulation which identifies
the scale of remaining oil
in a reservoir displacement
process; from Megacell
Reservoir Simulation A.H. Dogru - SPE
Distinguished Author
Series, SPE57907, 2000.
SP2
Ideal
Reservoir
Model Size
(Millions of Gridblocks)
History
Length (Years)
CPU Hours
On 64 Nodes On 128 Nodes
Carbonate
1.12
27
1.7
Sandstone
1.3
49
4.5
2.5
Carbonate
(With gas cap)
3.9
10
2.0
Carbonate
2.5
25
4.0
37
(e) Linked to this increased power, is the ability to handle huge geocellular models
and somewhat smaller but still very large reservoir simulation models.
Geostatistics: there have been significant advances in the application of geostatistical
techniques in reservoir modelling. Such approaches were quite well known in the
mining, mineral processing and prospecting industries but only in the last 10 to
15 years have they been specifically adapted for application in petroleum reservoir
modelling. Introductory texts are now available such as:
Both pixed-based point geostatistical techniques and object based modelling have
been developed and applied in various reservoirs.
Upscaling: There have been a number of advances in approaches to upscaling
(or pseudo-isation) from fine geocellular model the reservoir simulation
model. This still an area of active research and the debate is still in progress
on the question:
The basic idea of upscaling has been introduced in the SPE examples. Upscaling is
dealt with in much more detail in Chapter 7.
Organisational changes in the oil industry: A number of major organisational
changes have occurred in the oil industry since the 1970s as follows:
(a) Many companies have taken a more integrated geophysics/geology/engineering
view of reservoir development and many studies have made a central virtue of this
by organising reservoir studies within more multi-disciplinary asset teams (e.g.
SPE25006 clearly shows a strong integration of geology and engineering);
(b) There have been significant organisational changes in the structure of the
industry given the sucessive rounds of downsizing and outsourcing that have
occurred. For example, see the short article by Galas, The future of Reservoir
Simulation, JCPT, p.23, Vol. 36 (1), January 1997, which is reproduced in Appendix
B. This article has an interesting slant from the point of view of the smaller consultant
and it makes a number of interesting observations;
(c) There have been a number of major mergers and take-overs recently which
have formed some very large companies e.g. BP (BP - Amoco - ARCO), ExxonMobil, Total-Fina-Elf. Likewise, a number of very low cost operations have
grown up which may specialise in the successful (i.e. profitable) exploitation of
mature assets e.g. Talisman, Kerr-McGee etc. How these changes will affect the
future of reservoir simulation remains to be seen.
38
(d) In the late 1970s and before, almost every major and medium sized oil company
had a research centre where programmes of applied R&D were carried out by
oil company personnel. The view was essentially that this in-house technology
development would give the company a competitive and commercial edge in reservoir
exploration and development. Most companies have greatly reduced the amount of
in-house R that takes place and have focused much more heavily on shorter term
asset related D. Many companies do support research in universities and other
independent outside organisations - they also ally themselves with service companies
in order to have their R&D needs met in certain areas. Again, the situation is in
flux and the longer term effects of this change is yet to be seen.
(e) More specific to reservoir simulation is the fact that, in the 1970s, most
companies would have had their own numerical reservoir simulator which was
built (programmed up) and maintained in-house. To this day, a few companies still
do. However, most oil companies use specialised software service companies to
supply their reservoir simulation (and visualisation, gridding etc.) software. Again,
the relative merits and demerits of this will emerge in the coming years.
Detailed technical advances: In addition to the changes discussed above, many
advances have been made over the past 50 years on how we perform the simulations
i.e. on the formulation and numerical methods etc. Our practical capabilities have
also expanded greatly as discussed above. Table 1 presents a list of capabilities and
major technical advances in reservoir simulation over the last 50 years; this table
was adapted from two tables in J.W. Watts Reservoir Simulation: Past, Present
and Future, SPE38441, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, TX, 5-7
June 1997. This article is well worth reading. Most of the technical details in the
advances listed in Table 1 are beyond the scope of this course and the introductory
student does not need to have any in-depth knowledge on these.
39
Decade
Capabilities
Technical Advances
References
1950s
Two dimensions
Two incompressible phases
Simple Geometry
1960s
Three dimensions
Three phases
Black-oil fluid model
Multiple wells
Realistic geometry
Well coning
Sheldon et al (1960)
Stone and Garder (1961)
Lantz (1971)
Stone (1968)
Compositional
Miscible
Chemical
Thermal
1970s
Todd et al (1972)
Price and Coats (1974)
Spillette et al (1973)
Kyte and Berry (1975)
Thomas et al (1976)
Meijerink and Van der Vorst
(1977)
Vinsome (1976)
Peaceman (1978)
Yanosik and McCracken (1979)
1980s
Code vectorization
Nested factorization
Volume balance formulation
Young-Stephenson formulation
Adaptive implicit method
Constrained residuals
Local grid refinement
Cornerpoint geometry
Geostatistics
Domain decomposition
1990s
Code parallelization
Upscaling
Voronoi grid
Heinemann et al (1991)
Palagi and Aziz (1994)
Table 1
Capabilities and major
technical advances in
reservoir simulation over
the last 50 years (adapted
from two tables in J.W.
Watts Reservoir
Simulation: Past, Present
and Future, SPE38441,
SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Dallas, TX, 5-7
June 1997; (all references
are given in Appendix A)
2000
2005
2010
Time (Year)
40
Figure 15
A single forward prediction
of the oil recovery
production profile for a
given reservoir.
Clearly, we cannot trust this single curve since there is a considerable amount of
uncertainty associated with it for various easily appreciated reasons. The main
contributors to this uncertainty are to do with lack of knowledge about the input data
although the modelling process itself is not error free. A list of possible sources of
error is as follows:
Lack of knowledge or wide inaccuracies in the size of the reservoir; its areal
extent, thickness and net-to-gross ratios
Lack of knowledge about the reservoir architecture i.e. its geological structure
in terms of sandbodies, shales, faults, etc.
Uncertainties in the actual numerical values of the porosities () and
permeabilities (k) in the inter-well regions (which make up the vast majority
of the reservoir volume)
Inaccuracy in the fluid properties such as viscosity of the oil (o), formation volume
factors (Bo, Bw, Bg), phase behaviour etc., or doubts about the representativityof
these properties
Lack of data - or very uncertain data- on the multiphase fluid/rock properties,
particularly relative permeability and capillary pressure, and on knowledge as to
how these curves vary from rock type within the reservoir volume away from the
wells
Because the representational reservoir simulations model is poor, e.g. the numerical
errors due to the coarse grid block model may significantly affect the answer in
either an optimistic or pessimistic manner.
The above list of uncertainties for a given reservoir, especially at the appraisal stage,
is really quite realistic and is by no means complete. As we have noted elsewhere,
it is at the appraisal stage when, although the future reservoir performance is at its
most uncertain, we must make the biggest decisions about the development and
hence speed most of our investment money.
At a first glance, the task of doing something useful with reservoir simulation may
seem quite hopeless in the face of such a long list of uncertainties. No matter
how bleak things look, the only two options are to give up or do something,
and reservoir engineers never give up. We must produce an answer - even if it
is an educated guess (or even just a guess) - and some estimate of the sort of
error sound that we might expect.
Before considering what we can do in practice, let us first consider what the
answer might look like for the case above in Figure 15. Figure 16 gives some
idea of what is required:
41
2000
2005
2010
Time (Year)
Figure 16
Outcome of reservoir
simulation calculations
showing a range of
recoveries for various
reservoir development
scenarios.
The results in Figure 16 can be understood qualitatively without worrying about how
we actually obtain them right now. Our single curve in Figure 15 may becomes a
most probable (or base case) future oil recovery forecast. The closer set of outer
curves is the range of future outcomes that can be expected with a 50% probability.
That is, there is a probability, p = 0.5, that the true curve lives within this envelope
of curves shown in Figure 16. Such results allow economic forecasts to be made with
the appropriate weights being given to the likelihood of that particular outcome. A
company can then estimate its risk when it is considering various field development
options.
In fact, here we will just discuss doing some simple sensitivities to various factors in
the simulation model. We can think of a given calculation as a scenario. Therefore,
we can set up various scenarios based on our beliefs about the various input values
in our model and we simply compare the recovery curves for each of the cases. For
example, suppose we have a layered reservoir as shown in Figure 17 which we think
has a field-wide high permeability streak set in background of 100 mD rock.
INJECTOR
PRODUCER
1000ft
1000ft
klow = 100mD
100ft
= 0.18
High Permeability Streak,
khigh, hi
Zhi
42
Figure 17
This shows a layered
reservoir where we have
some uncertainties in the
various parameters such as
the permeability (khi ), the
thickness (Zhi ) and the
porosity (hi ) in the high
permeability layer.
Low Value
Mean Value
High Value
Permeability, khi
400 mD
800 mD
1600 mD
Thickness, Zhi
Porosity, hi
20 ft
0.18
30 ft
0.22
40 ft
0.26
Even with just the three uncertainties in this single model, we can see that there are
3x3x3 = 27 possible scenarios or combinations of input data for which we could
run a reservoir simulation model. Alternatively, we could conclude that some input
combinations are unlikely (e.g. lower permeability with higher value of porosity)
and we could reduce the number. We could simply keep the mean value of two of
the factors while varying only the third factor, leading to 7 scenarios to simulate.
Taking this view, we can take some measure of the oil recovery e.g. cumulative oil
produced (predicted) at year 2010. The notional results are given in Table 2
Changed Input
Value
Oil Initially in
Cumulative
% Change in
Change in Recovery
Place (OIIP)
(res. bbl)
Recovery at
Year 2010 (stb)
Base Case
khi = 400 mD
khi = 1600 mD
Table 2
Results of sensitivity
simulations described in the
text.
Zhi = 20 ft
Zhi = 40 ft
hi = 0.18
hi = 0.25
Note: The OIIP will vary somewhat from case to case since the thickness of the high
permeability layer and its porosity both change.
In Table 2, we have noted the % change in the varied parameters relative to its base
case value. Not that different physical quantities such as k and , vary by different
percentages for realistic min./max. values. A useful way to plot the variation in recovery
is against this % change in input value since all three factors can be represented on the
same scale in a so-called spider diagram. Such a plot is shown in Figure 18.
Porosity
Permeability
Figure 18
Spider diagram showing
the sensitivity of the
cumulative oil to various
uncertainties in the
reservoir model parameters
(khi; Zhi; hi) in Figure 17.
X
X
Layer Thickness
% Change in Parameter
43
This type of spider plot is very useful since it displays the effect of the different
uncertainties on the outcome. It clearly highlights which is the most important input
quantity (of those considered) and has the most impact on the result. Thus, if we
were going to spend time and effort on reducing the uncertainty in our predictions,
then this tells us which quantity to focus on first. Indeed it ranks the effects of the
various uncertainties.
There are more sophisticated ways to deal with uncertainty in reservoir performance
but these are beyond the scope of the current course. The basic ideas presented above
give you enough to go on with in this course.
44
Figure 19
The sequence of saturation
distributions as the flood
front moves through the
reservoir. From Res_
Sim_D1.ppt Down arrow
injector, up arrow producer.
45
Different types of simulator are available to model these different type of reservoir
recovery process. Throughout the chapters of this course we will focus on the simplest of these (which is quite complex enough!) known as the "Black Oil Model".
However, for completeness, we will also list the others and present a table comparing
experience of these various models.
The Black Oil Model: This model was used in the three SPE studies above and is
the most commonly used formulation of the reservoir simulation equations which is
used for single, two and three phase reservoir processes. It treats the three phases
- oil, gas and water - as if they were mass components where only the gas is allowed
to dissolve in the oil and water. This gas solubility is described in oil and water by
the gas solubility factors (or solution gas-oil ratios), Rso and Rsw, respectively; typical field units of Rso and Rsw are SCF/STB. These quantities are pressure dependent
and this is incorporated into the black oil model.
A simple schematic of a grid block in a black oil simulator is presented in Figure
20 showing the amounts of mass of oil, water and gas present. Note that, because
the gas is present in the oil and water there are extra terms in the expression for the
mass of gas. These mathematical expressions for the mass of the various phases are
important when we come to deriving the flow equations (Chapter 5).
Reservoir processes that can be modelled using the black oil model include:
46
Figure 20
Schematic of a grid block
in a black oil simulator
showing the amounts of
mass of oil, water and gas
present. Note that, because
the gas is present in the oil
and water there are extra
terms for the mass of gas;
pore volume = Vp = block
vol. x ; osc, wsc. and gsc
are densities at standard
conditions (60F and 14.7
psi); Bo, Bw and Bg are the
formation volume factors;
Rso and Rsw are the gas
solubilities (or solution gas/
oil ratios).
Mass oil =
Vp.osc
Bo
So;
Vp.wsc
Mass water =
Mass gas =
Bw
Sw
Vp.gsc
(Sg + So.Rso + Sw.Rsw)
Bg
Rock
Gas, Sg
Oil + Gas, So
Water + Gas, Sw
free gas
gas in oil
gas in water
Gas injection with oil mobilisation by first contact or developed (multicontact) miscibility (e.g. in CO2 flooding).
47
ROCK
Phase Labels:
j = 1 = Gas
j = 2 = Oil
j = 3 = Water
GAS
Sg
OIL + GAS
So
WATER + GAS
Sw
Component concentrations
in each phase:
Gas:
Oil:
Sj.Cij
j=1
The Chemical Flood Model: This model has been developed primarily to model
polymer and surfactant (or combined) displacement processes. Polymer flooding
can be considered mainly as extended waterflooding with some additional effects in
the aqueous phase which must be modelling e.g. polymer component transport, the
viscosification of the aqueous phase, polymer adsorption, permeability reduction
etc. Surfactant, flooding however, involves strong phase behaviour effects where
third phases may appear which contain oil/water/surfactant emulsions. Specialised
phase packages have been developed to model such processes. For economic reasons,
activity on field polymer flooding has continued at a fairly low level world wide and
surfactant flooding has virtually ceased in recent years. However, if economic factors
were favourable (a very high oil price), then interest in these processes may revive.
Extended chemical flood models are also used to model foam flooding.
Examples of reservoir processes that can be modelled using a chemical flood model
include:
Low-tension polymer flooding (LTPF) where a more viscous polymer containing injected solution also contains some surfactant to reduce IFT; the combined
effect of the lower IFT and viscous drive fluid improves the sweep and also helps
to mobilise some of the residual oil;
48
Figure 21
The view of a phases
and components taken
in compositional
simulation. Cij - is the mass
concentration of component
i in phase j (j = gas, oil or
water) - dimensions of mass/
unit volume of phase; pore
volume = Vp = block vol. x
Steam soaks where steam in injected into the formation, the well is shut in
for a time to allow heat dissipation into the oil and then the well is back produced
to obtain the mobilised oil (because of lower viscosity). This is known as a Huff
n Puff process.
Steam drive where the steam in injected continuously into the formation
from an injector to the producer. Again, the objective is to lower oil viscosity
but the penetration of the heat front is deeper into the reservoir.
49
Coupled Hydraulic, Thermal Fracturing and Fluid Flow Models: These simulators are still essentially at the research stage although there have been published
examples of specific field applications. The main function of these is to model the
mechanical stresses and resulting deformations and the effects of these on fluid
flow. This is beyond the scope of this course although, in the future, these will be
important in many systems.
We now consider what field experience exists in the oil industry with the various
models from the black oil model through to more complex fracture models and in
situ combustion models etc. The vast majority of simulation studies that get carried
out involve the black oil model. However, there are pockets of expertise with the
various other types of simulation model, depending on the asset base of the particular
oil company or regional expertise within regional consultancy groups. For example,
there is (or until recently, was) a concentration of expertise in both California and
parts of Canada on steam flooding since this process is applied in these regions; in the
Middle East (and within the companies that operate there) there is great competence
in the dual-porosity simulation of fractured carbonate reservoirs.
Degree of Difficulty
Relative Computing
Costs
Amount of Industrial
Experience
Example References2
Simulator Type
Processes Modelled
Primary depletion
Waterflooding
Immiscible gas
injection
Imbibition
Routine
Cheap = 1
Huge
But there are still
challenges with
upscaling of large
models
>90% of cases
Compositional
Model
Gas injection
Gas recycling
CO2 injection
WAG
Difficult
Specialisd
Expensive
(x3 - x20)
Moderate
High in certain
companies
Coats, (1980a),
Acs et al (1985),
Nolen (1973),
Watts (1986),
Young and Stephenson
(1983).
Compositional
Model- Near Crit.
Difficult
Very expensive
(x5 - x30)
Low to moderate
Chemical Model
- Polymer
Polymer flooding
Near-well water
shut-off
Moderate
(x2 - x5)
Moderate to large
Bondor et al (1972),
Vela et al (1976),
Sorbie (1991)
Chemical Model
- Surfactant
Micellar flooding
Low tension polymer
flooding
Difficult
Specialisd
Expensive
(x5 - x20)
Low
Mainly research type
pilot floods
Thermal Model
- Steam
Steam soak
(Huff n Puff)
Steam flooding
Expensive
(x3 - x10)
Moderate
High in limited
geographical areas
In situ combustion
processes
Very difficult
Very specialised
Expensive
(x10 - x40)
Very low
Crookston et al (1979),
Youngren (1980),
Coats (1980b)
as above
50
Table 3
This is an adapted version
of a table in Chapter 11 of
Mattax and Dalton (1990).
This gives some idea of
the problems and issues
encountered in applying
these various advanced
simulation models relative
to applying a black oil
simulator. The view about
the difficulties and
computer time consuming
these are is somewhat
subjective.
Appendix A. Here, we briefly review some good texts which cover Reservoir
Simulation from various viewpoints. The authors have learned something from each
of these and we would recommend anyone who wishes to specialise in Reservoir
Simulation to consult these.
Archer, J S and Wall, C: Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice, Graham
and Trotman Inc., London, 1986.
This book is not a specialised reservoir simulation text. However, it offers a good
overview of petroleum engineering and it contexts reservoir simulation very well
within the overall picture of reservoir development. This book is also one of the
earliest proponents of the importance of integrating the reservoir geology within the
simulation model.
Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers, Amsterdam, 1979.
This is a classic text on the discretisation and numerical solution of the reservoir
simulation flow equations. It is quite mathematical with a focus on the actual difference equations that arise from the flow equations and how to solve these.
Crichlow, H B: Modern Reservoir Engineering: A Simulation Approach, PrenticeHall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
This book gives a fairly good introduction to reservoir simulation from the viewpoint
of it being a central part of current reservoir engineering.
Dake, L P: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Developments in Petroleum Science 36, Elsevier, 1994.
Again, this book is not about reservoir simulation but it makes a number of interesting
and controversial observations on reservoir simulation (not all of which the authors
agree with!). An interesting lengthy quote from this book on the relationship between
material balance and reservoir simulation is reproduced in Chapter 2.
Fanchi, J R: Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 1997.
This recent book provides a good elementary text on reservoir simulation. It is a
based around the BOAST4D black oil simulation model which is supplied on disk and
can be run on your PC. The software makes this a very attractive way to familiarise
yourself with reservoir simulation if you dont have ready access to a simulator.
Mattax, C C and Dalton, R L: Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph, Vol. 13, 1990.
This is an excellent SPE monograph which covers virtually every aspect of traditional reservoir simulation. It is has been put together by a team of Exxon reservoir
engineers between them have vast experience of all areas of reservoir simulation.
Peaceman, D W: Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulation, Developments
in Petroleum Science No. 6, Elsevier, 1977.
This book presents an excellent treatment of the mathematical and numerical aspects
of reservoir simulation. It discusses the discretisation of the flow equations and the
subsequent numerical methods of solution in great detail.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
51
SPE Reprint No. 11, Numerical Simulation I (1973) and SPE Reprint No. 20, Numerical Simulation II (19**).
These two collections present some of the classic SPE papers on reservoir simulation. All aspects of reservoir simulation are covered including numerical methods,
solution of linear equations, the modelling of wells and field applications. Most of
this material is too advanced or detailed for a newcomer to this field but the volumes
contain excellent reference material. They are also relatively cheap!
Thomas, G W: Principles of Hydrocarbon Reservoir Simulation, IHRDC, Boston,
1982. This short volume is written - according to Thomas - from a developers
viewpoint; i.e. someone who is involved with writing and supplying the simulators
themselves. The treatment is quite mathematical with quite a lot of coverage of
numerical methods. The treatment of some areas is rather brief; for example, there
are only 7 pages on wells.
APPENDIX A:
REFERENCES
NOTE: SPEJ = Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal - there was an early version of this and it stopped for a while. Currently, there are SPE Journals in various
subjects but reservoir simulation R&D appears in SPE (Reservoir Engineering and
Evaluation).
Acs, G., Doleschall, S. and Farkas, E., General Purpose Compositional Model,
SPEJ, pp. 543 - 553, August 1985.
Allen, M.B., Behie, G.A. and Trangenstein, J.A.: Multiphase Flow in Porous Media:
Mechanics, Mathematics and Numerics, Lecture Notes in Engineering No. 34,
Springer-Verlag, 1988.
Amyx, J W, Bass, D M and Whiting, R L: Petroleum Reservoir Engineering, McGrawHill, 1960.
Appleyard, J.R. and Cheshire, I.M.: Nested Factorization, paper SPE 12264 presented at the Seventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Francisco, CA,
November 16-18, 1983.
Archer, J S and Wall, C: Petroleum Engineering: Principles and Practice, Graham
and Trotman Inc., London, 1986.
Aronofsky, J.S. and Jenkins, R.: A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady Radial Gas
Flow, Trans., AIME 201 (1954) 149-154
Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier Applied Science
Publishers, Amsterdam, 1979.
Bondor, P.L., Hirasaki, G.J and Tham, M.J., Mathematical Simulation of Polymer
Flooding in Complex Reservoirs, SPEJ, pp. 369-382, October 1972.
52
Clayton, C.A., et al, The Ubit Field Rejuvenation: A Case History of Reservoir
Management of a Giant Oilfield Offshore Nigeria, SPE49165, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA, 27-30 September
1998.
Coats, K.H., .......... 1969 - tools of res sim
Coats, K.H., A Highly Implicit Steamflood Model, SPEJ, pp. 369-383, October
1978.
Coats, K.H., An Equation of State Compositional Model, SPEJ, pp. 363-376,
October 1980a; Trans. AIME, 269.
Coats, K.H., In-Situ Combustion Model, SPEJ, pp. 533-554, December 1980b;
Trans. AIME 269.
Coats, K.H., Dempsey, J.R., and Henderson, J.H.: The Use of Vertical Equilibrium
in Two-Dimensional Simulation of Three-Dimensional Reservoir Performance, Soc.
Pet. Eng. J. 11 (March 1971) 63-71; Trans., AIME 251
Craft, B C, Hawkins, M F and Terry, R E: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,
Prentice Hall, NJ, 1991.
Craig, F F: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Waterflooding, SPE monograph,
Dallas, TX, 1979.
Crichlow, H B: Modern Reservoir Engineering: A Simulation Approach, PrenticeHall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
Crookston, R.B., Culham, W.E. and Chen, W.H., A Numerical Simulation Model for
Thermal Recovery Processes, SPEJ, pp. 35-57, February 1979; Trans. AIME 267.
Dake, L P: The Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Developments in Petroleum
Science 8, Elsevier, 1978.
Dake, L P: The Practice of Reservoir Engineering, Developments in Petroleum Science 36, Elsevier, 1994.
Fanchi, J R: Principles of Applied Reservoir Simulation, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX, 1997.
Fantoft, S., Reservoir Management of the Oseberg Field After Four Years, SPE25008,
proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, France, 16-18
November 1992.
Giudicelli, C.S., Massonat, G.J. and Alabert, F.G., Anguille Marine, a DeepseFan Reservoir Offshore Gabon: From Geology Toward History Matching Through
Stochastic Modelling, SPE25006, proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Cannes, France, 16-18 November 1992.
53
Harpole, K.J. and Hearn, C.L., The Role of Numerical Simulation in Reservoir
Management of a West Texas Carbonate Reservoir, SPE10022, presented at the
International Petroleum Exhibition and Technical Symposium of the SPE, Beijing,
China, 18 - 26 March 1982.
Heinemann, Z.E., Brand, C.W., Munka, M., and Chen, Y.M.: Modeling Reservoir
Geometry with Irregular Grids, SPERE 6 (1991) 225-232.
Hove, K., Olsen, G., Nilsson, S., Tonnesen, M. and Hatloy, A., From Stochastic
Geological Description to Production Forecasting in Heterogeneous Layered Systems, SPE24890, the proceedings of the SPE 67th Annual Technical Conference,
Washington, DC, 4-7 October 1992.
Katz, D.L., Methods of Estimating Oil and Gas Reserves, Trans. AIME, Vol. 118,
p.18, 1936 (classic early ref. on Material Balance)
Kyte, J.R. and Berry, D.W.: New Pseudo Functions to Control Numerical Dispersion, Soc .Pet. Eng. J. 15 (August 1975) 269-276.
Lantz, R.B.: Quantitative Evaluation of Numerical Diffusion (Truncation Error),
Soc .Pet. Eng. J. 11 (September 1971) 315-320; Trans., AIME 251.
Leonard, A.J., Duncan, A.E., Johnson, D.A. and Murray, R.B., SPE25059: Development Planning in a Complex Reservoir: Magnus Field UKCS Lower Kimmeridge
Clay Formation (LKCF), SPE25059, proceedings of the SPE European Petroleum
Conference, Cannes, France, 16-18 November 1992.
Mathews, C.W., Steamflooding, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 465-471, March 1983; Trans.
AIME 275.
MacDonald, R.C. and Coats, K.H.: Methods for Numerical Simulation of Water and
Gas Coning, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 10 (December 1970) 425-436; Trans., AIME 249.
Mattax, C C and Dalton, R L: Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph, Vol. 13,
1990.
Meijerink, J.A. and Van der Vorst, H.A.: An Iterative Solution Method for Linear
Systems of Which the Coefficient Matrix is a Symmetric M-Matrix, Mathematics
of Computation 31 (January 1977) 148.
Nolen, J.S., Numerical Simulation of Compositional Phenomena in Petroleum Reservoirs, SPE4274, proceedings of the SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation of
Reservoir Performance, Houston, TX, 11-12 January 1973.
Palagi, C.L. and Aziz, K.: Use of Voronoi Grid in Reservoir Simulation, SPE
Advanced Technology Series 2 (April 1994) 69-77.
Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir
Simulation, Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 18 (June 1978) 183-194; Trans., AIME 253.
Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H.: The Numerical Solution of Parabolic and
54
55
56
Wallis, J.R., Kendall, R.P., and Little, T.E.: Constrained Residual Acceleration of
Conjugate Residual Methods, SPE 13536 presented at the Eighth SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium, Dallas, Texas, February 10-13, 1985.
Watts, J.W.: An Iterative Matrix Solution Method Suitable for Anisotropic Problems,
Soc Pet. Eng .J. 11 (March 1971) 47-51; Trans., AIME 251.
Watts, J.W., A Compositional Formulation of the Pressure and Saturation Equations, SPE (Reservoir Engineering), pp. 243 - 252, March 1986.
Watts, J.W., Reservoir Simulation: Past, Present and Future, SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, TX, 5-7 June 1997.
Yanosik, J.L. and McCracken, T.A.: A Nine-Point Finite Difference Reservoir
Simulator for Realistic Prediction of Unfavorable Mobility Ratio Displacements,
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 19 (August 1979) 253-262; Trans., AIME 267.
Young, L.C. and Stephenson, R.E., A Generalised Compositional Approach for
Reservoir Simulation, SPEJ, pp. 727-742, October 1983; Trans. AIME 275.
Youngren, G.K., Development and Application of an In-Situ Combustion Reservoir
Simulator, SPEJ, pp. 39-51, February 1980; Trans. AIME 269.
57
This very interesting pair of articles gives a very good broad brush commentary
on a range of technical issues in reservoir simulation e.g. gridding, handling wells,
pseudo-relative permeability, error analysis and consistency checking. The views
are clearly those of someone who has been deeply involved in applied reservoir
simulation. They are well presented and quite individual although again there are
issues that would provoke disagreement. Read this and decide for yourself what you
accept and what you dont.
58
59