Oghena Andrew Dissertation PDF

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
ii
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
NOMENCLATURE
ix
CHAPTER
I.
II
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
1
4
6
6
8
12
17
18
19
21
23
28
30
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
32
37
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
44
45
45
46
46
48
48
49
52
56
56
58
iii
III.
IV.
V.

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
61
61
63
66
71
73
79
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
83
83
86
93
95
97
102
104
105
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations
108
109
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
A.
RESERVOIR FLUID PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES
B.
SIMULATION MODEL DATA FILE
C.
DATA FOR OBSERVED HISTORY DURATION
D.
PLOTS OF BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION GENERATED

DATA
E.
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.

Quantification of Uncertainties Associated with Reservoir Performance Simulation
LIST OF TABLES
1.1
2 Parameters Equation of State Critical Compressibility Factor
27
2.1
Three types of distribution: Normal, Lognormal and Exponential
53
3.1
Influence of Heterogeneity Scale
62
3.2
Equations Solved by a Reservoir Simulator
68
3.3
Common Data Required for Reservoir Simulation
69
3.4
Common Reservoir Simulator Grid Dimensions
70
3.5
Reservoir Layer Data
74
3.6
Reservoir Model Data
75
3.7
Data for Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure
76
3.8
Compositional Fluid Description
77
3.9
Peng-Robinson Fluid Characterization
77
3.10
Injection Gas Composition
80
4.1
Base Case Reservoir Description and Simulation Output
87
4.2
1% Reservoir Description Perturbation
87
4.3
88
4.4
88
4.5
Transient Pressure Interpretation
93
4.6
Conditioning of Black Oil Simulator with Compositional
95
4.7
Perturbed KV/KH and Corresponding Simulator Cumulative Oil

Production
Black Oil Conditioning
97
4.8
vi
106

LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Uncertainty Sources
1.2 Individual Uncertainties and Composite Uncertainty
1.3 History Matching Flow Chart
1.4 Upscaling Process
11
1.5 Finite Difference
13
1.6 3-Dimensional Discretized Model
14
1.7 Explicit Approximation
15
1.8 Implicit Formulation
15
1.9 Black Oil and Composition Simulation Processes
22
2.1 Root Mean Square Match Analysis
47
2.2 Cumulative Distribution Function
51
2.3 Cumulative Distribution Function Statistical Properties
51
2.4 Normal Probability Distribution
53
2.5 Discrete Histogram plot used to generate probability distribution function
55
2.6 Continuous probability distribution function
55
2.7 Relationship between input parameters and model result uncertainty
56
3.1 Dykstra-Parsons Coefficient Method
65
3.2 Grid Block
69
3.3 Reservoir Model Schematic
74
3.4 Reservoir Model Cross-section Schematic
80
3.5 Second Case Reservoir Model Schematic
81
vii

3.6 Oil saturation at time zero
81
3.7 Oil Saturation after 12 Years
82
4.1 Black Oil Conditioning Flow Chart
85
4.2 Two Months Observed History Data Matching
89
4.3 Six Months Observed History Data Matching
89
4.4 Twelve Months Observed History Data Matching
90
4.5 Eighteen Months Observed History Data Matching
90
4.6 Twenty Four Months History Data Matching
91
4.7 Forty Eight Months History Data Matching
91
4.8 Reservoir Performance Prediction 1
92
4.9 Reservoir Performance Prediction 2
92
4.10 Observed History Data Log-Log Plot
94
4.11 History Matched Model Log-Log Plot
94
4.12 Black Oil Simulator Forecast after Conditioning
96
4.13 Positive Confidence Interval Algorithm
98
4.14 Negative Confidence Interval Algorithm
98
4.15 Cumulative Oil Production Uncertainty Quantification
100
4.16 Water-cut Uncertainty Quantification
101
4.17 Uncertainty Forecast for WAG Scheme
103
4.18 Conventional Linear Analysis of Uncertainty
107
viii

NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
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
AIM
Adaptive Implicit
BHP
Bottom hole pressure
cdf
Cumulative distribution function
GOR
Gas-oil-ratio
IMPLICIT
Fully implicit
ix

IMPES
Implicit Pressure Explicit Saturation
pdf
Probability distribution function
RDM
Reservoir description model
RMS
Root mean square
WCT
Water-Cut
Bo
Oil formation volume factor
BO
Black Oil
Cp
Covariance matrix
COP
Cumulative oil production
FPR
Field pressure
FGOR
Field gas-oil-ratio
FWCT
Field water-cut
HC
Hydrocarbon
MCMC
Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo
MSCF
Thousand standard cubic feet
mD
Milli Darcy
PDE
Partial Differential Equation
PVT
Pressure-Volume-Temperature
STB
Stock tank barrel
TOP
Total oil production
WAG
Water-Alternate-Gas
Rs
Solution-gas-oil ratio
Sw
Water Saturation
SoS
Sum of square
Molar volume
xi
Oil mole fraction
yi
Gas mole fraction
Number of components
EoS
Equation of State

Subscript
i, j
Component Identification
1, 2
Component Index
Critical Property
Liquid Phase
Vapor Phase
Mixture
van der Waals Representation
Greek Letter
LLS EOS Parameter
ij
Binary Interaction Parameter of
LLS EOS Parameter
ij
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
Field Management
Strategy
Internal Factors
Flow Boundary
Condition
(Geology
parameter)
Surface Facilities
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
Figure 1.3: History Matching Flow Chart
-5-
Uncertainty forecast

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
Coarse Scale
Fine 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
p i +1 pi
x
p n +1 p n
t
x = xi
t =t n
----------------------------------------- 2
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
Water:
ckk rw w ( p o p c )
+ Qw = ( w S w ) ------------------- 6
x w
x
t
- 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
VDW
Two Parameters EoS:

Peng-Robinson
PR
Redlich-Kwong,
RK
Soave-Redlich-Kwong
SRK
Zudkevitch-Joffe-Redlich-Kwong
ZJ
Three Parameters EoS:

Clausius
Schmidt-Wenzel
Four Parameters EoS:
Lawal-Lake-Silberberg
LLS
Himpan-Danes-Gaena
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
+ (Z 1)
ln
Z + m1 B B
8
ln ( f i / ( px i )) = ln (Z B ) +
A
2 i Bi
(m1 m2 )B A B
Where
i = Aij x j
j
A = x j x k A jk
j =1 k =1
n
B = xjBj
j =1
A jk = (1 jk )(A j Ak )
1/ 2
Where
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 )
Prj
Trj2
Prj
Trj
9
10
where
a (T , j )
and
b (T , j )
are functions of the reduced temperature, T and acentric factor, w
- 25 -

For example using PR EoS51, 58 we have equation 11.
[ (
)(
a (T , j ) = ao 1 + 0.37464 + 1.54226 w j 0.26992 w 2j 1 Trj1 / 2

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 =
yi
13
xi
xi =
zi
14
1 + (K i 1)V
yi =
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.
l
Droplet = K i + (1 K i ) L
lV
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
ij
f ij f obs
1 n 1 n
Z = wij sim
n i n j
ij
21
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
f ( p / o ) = ce i
i
i
1
2
+ ( p v p )C p1 ( p v p ) ------------24
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
Worst
6 forecas
t
No simple
relationshi
p
5
4
Best
match
3
2
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

y
PDF = P( x v y ) = f (v)dv ----------------------- 28

x
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 ( + )
2
2
Variance = exp 1 exp (2 + )
Exponential
exp x
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
1
5 10
1 10
2 10
Gamma Ray Reading, API Units
2 10
3 10
Figure 2.5: Discrete Histogram plot used to generate PDF
f(x)
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
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 Influence
Heterogeneity
Reservoir
Type
Continuity
Sweep Efficiency
Horizontal
Vertical
ROS in
swept zones
Sealing fault
Semi-sealing fault
Non-sealing fault
Genetic unit
Shale in genetic
units
boundaries
Permeability
zonation in
genetic units
Cross-bedding
Pore types
Texture types
Open fractures
Tight fractures
S
S
M: moderate effect
S: strong effect
ROS: residual oil saturation
Source: Weber et al., SPE paper 19582
- 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
Sources
Permeability
Pressure Transient Testing, Core Analyses, Correlations
Porosity
Core Analyses, Well Log Data
Structure, Thickness
Geologic Maps, Core Analyses, Well Log Data
Relative Permeability and

Capillary Pressure
Laboratory Core Flow Tests
Saturations
Well Log Data, Core Analyses, Pressure Cores, Log-InjectLog, Single-Well Tracer Tests
PVT Data
(Formation Volume Factors,
Gas Solubility, Viscosity, Density)
Laboratory Analyses of Reservoir Fluid

Samples, Correlations
Grid
block
Ou
Out
z
Ou
In
In
Figure 3.2: Grid Block

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 -
y
x

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
Horizontal
Vertical Perm.
(feet)
(fraction)
Perm. (mD)
(mD)
20.0
0.3
500.0
50.0
30.0
0.3
50.0
50.0
50.0
0.3
25.0
25.0
Initial
Initial
Elevation
So
Sw
Poil (psia)
(feet)
0.8
0.2
3984.3
8335
0.8
0.2
3990.3
8360
0.8
0.2
4000.0
8400
Layer Initial
- 74 -

Table 3.6: Reservoir Model Data

Grid Dimension
Areally:7 x 7 in 3 layers
Water Density
62.4 lb/cuft
Oil Density
38.53 lb/cuft
Gas Density
68.64 lb/cuft
Water Compressibility
3.3 x 10-6 psi-1
Rock Compressibility
5.0 x 10-6 psi-1
Water Formation Volume Factor
1.00 RB/STB
Water Viscosity
0.70 cp
Reservoir Temperature
160 oF
Separator Conditions (Flash Temperature
60 oF
and Pressure)
14.7 psia
Reservoir Oil Saturation Pressure
2302.3 psia
Oil Formation Volume Factor (above
-21.85 x 10-6 RB/STB/PSI
bubble point pressure)

Reference Depth
8400.0 ft
Initial Pressure at Reference Depth
4000.0 psia
Initial Water Saturation
0.20
Initial Oil Saturation
0.80
Areal Grid Block Dimensions
500 ft x 500 ft
Reservoir Dip
Trapped Gas, Corresponding to Initial Gas 20%

Saturation
Wellbore Radius
0.25 ft
Well KH
10000.0 md/ft
Well Location; Grid Cell Center
Production well: I = 7, J = 7
(Completed in Layer 3)
WAG Injection well: I = 1,
J=1 (Completed in Layer 1)
- 75 -

Table 3.7: Data for Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure

Sw
Pcow
Krw
Krow
0.2000
45.0
0.0
1.0000
0.2899
19.03
0.0022
0.6769
0.3778
10.07
0.0180
0.4153
0.4667
4.90
0.0607
0.2178
0.5556
1.80
0.1438
0.0835
0.6444
0.50
0.2809
0.0123
0.7000
0.05
0.4089
0.0
0.7333
0.01
0.4855
0.0
0.8222
0.0
0.7709
0.0
0.9111
0.0
1.0000
0.0
1.000
0.0
1.0000
0.0
Liq. Sat.
Pcgo
Krlig
Krg
0.2000
30.000
0.0
1.0000
0.2889
8.000
0.0
0.5600
0.3500
4.000
0.0
0.3900
0.3778
3.000
0.0110
0.3500
0.4667
0.800
0.0370
0.2000
0.5556
0.030
0.0878
0.1000
0.6444
0.001
0.1715
0.0500
0.7333
0.001
0.2963
0.0300
0.8222
0.0
0.4705
0.0100
0.9111
0.0
0.7023
0.0010
0.9500
0.0
0.8800
0.0
1.000
0.0
1.0000
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
0.50
C3
0.03
C6
0.07
C10
0.20
C15
0.15
C20
0.05
Table 3.9: Peng-Robinson Fluid Characterization

Component PC (psia)
TC (OR)
MW
Accentric
Critical
Factor
C1
667.8
343.0
16.040
0.0130
0.290
C3
616.3
666.7
44.100
0.1524
0.277
C6
436.9
913.4
86.180
0.3007
0.264
C10
304.0
1111.8
142.290
0.4885
0.257
C15
200.0
1270.0
206.000
0.6500
0.245
C20
162.0
1380.0
282.000
0.8500
0.235
All components have equal omega A & B

OA = 0.4572355
OB = 0.0777961
Peng-Robinson parameters A and B, for each component are given by

equation 31 and 32, respectively:
- 77 -

)]
2
T
1 + K 1 T / TC 31
TC
P T
B = OB
32
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
0.77
C3
0.20
C6
0.03
C10
0.00
C15
0.00
C20
0.00
WAG injection
Oil production
Kx
Ky
Kz
20 500 500 50
Layer 1
0.3
Layer 2
0.3 30 50
Layer 3
0.3 50 200 200 25
50
50
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
Compositional Simulator
Black Oil Simulator
Compositional Output
Black Oil 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
FWCT
(MSCF/STB)
0
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.527151
0.512511
(PSIA)
3993.75
3981.823
3946.034
3838.561
3635.205
3274.432
2902.931
2529.859
2286.751
2240.178
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
Permx
Permy
PermZ
Layer1
Layer2
Layer3
500
50
200
500
50
200
50
50
25
Table 4.2: 1% Reservoir Description Perturbation

1%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
(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
Layer1
Layer2
Layer3
(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
- 87 -
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
PermZ
0.5
0.5
0.05


30%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
(MSCF/STB)
0
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.52391
0.51046
0.520919
(PSIA)
3993.75
3981.825
3946.014
3838.521
3635.045
3273.753
2902.881
2577.909
2366.895
2273.761
Permx
Permy
150
15
60
Layer1
Layer2
Layer3
150
15
60
FWCT
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

90%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
(MSCF/STB)
0
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.5728
0.523139
0.509729
(PSIA)
3993.75
3981.823
3946.025
3838.552
3635.196
3274.408
2902.921
2529.849
2287.649
2240.616
Permx
Permy
450
45
180
Layer1
Layer2
Layer3
450
45
180
- 88 -
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
PermZ
45
45
22.5

WATER-CUT MATCHING AFTER 2 MONTHS

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

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

12 MONTHS WATER-CUT MATCH

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

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

24 MONTHS DATA WATER-CUT MATCH

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

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

10 YEARS PREDICTION WITH 18 MONTHS 75% MATCHED MODEL

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

10 YEARS PREDICTION WITH 24 MONTHS 75% HISTORY MATCHED MODEL
12000000
10000000
8000000
OBSERVED DATA
SIMULATED DATA
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.9: Reservoir Performance Prediction 2
- 92 -
3000
3500
4000

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
HM: history match

COP: cumulative
Oil production.
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
- 95 -
KV/KH
0.25
0.225
0.2
0.175
0.15
0.125
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0.005
Confidence
Interval
100%
HM
-100%

100% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL: CONDITIONING

11500000
11000000
C U M . O IL P R O D ., S T B
10500000
10000000
HM
9500000
KV/KH - 9/40
9000000
KV/KH - 1/40
8500000
8000000
7500000
7000000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.12: Black Oil Simulator Forecast after Conditioning
- 96 -
4000

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
KV
HM:
1
5
10
15
20
25
50
100
150
175
200
-24
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
25
75
125
150
175
COP
11471837
10827802
10591709
10498428
10452052
10733397
10670168
10560330
10456699
10433452
10496487
COP: Cumulative Oil Production
- 97 -
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

Change in Cum. Oil Prod. STB
POSITIVE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

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

NEGATIVE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL
Change in Cum. Oil Prod., STB
400000
200000
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
-200000
-400000
-600000
y = 3E+09x 3 - 7E+08x 2 + 5E+07x - 955130

R2 = 0.9968
-800000
KV/KH
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 -

C UM M . O IL P R O D ., S TB
M illions
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
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
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
3RD LY - 1/4
1ST LY - 1/5
3RD LY -1/2
3RD LY - 1, 1ST LY - 1/2
2.00E-04
3RD LY -1
1ST LY -1, 3RD LY -1/2
1.50E-04
3RD LY -1, 1ST LY -1

3RD LY - 3/4
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
W C T , S TB /S TB
2.50E-04
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
T O T A L O I L P R O D ., S T B
M i ll i o n s
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
UPSIDE CASE
DOWNSIDE
MOST LIKELY
1 913 1153 1430 1547 1777 1804 1879 2200 2345 2594 2920 3033 3312 3603 3735 4033 4252 4444
TIME, DAYS
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
KV/KH
0.25
0.225
0.2
0.175
0.15
0.125
0.1
0.075
0.05
0.025
0.005
Confidence
Interval
100%
Conditioning
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
C U M . O IL P R O D ., S T B
10500000
10000000
9500000
HM
9000000
KV/KH - 1/4
8500000
KV/KH - 1/200
8000000
7500000
7000000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME, DAYS
Figure 4.18: Conventional Linear Analysis of Uncertainty
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.
2.
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.
3.
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,
Exhibition (Sept., 2006).
Anderson, T.W.: An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, John

Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (1958).
10
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).
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.
12
Aziz, K., Reservoir Simulation Grids: Opportunities and Problems, paper

SPE 25233, presented at SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, New
Orleans, March, 1993.
13
Aziz K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Blitzprint Ltd,

Calgary (2002).
14
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.
15
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).
16
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.
17
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.
18
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).
19
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.
20
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).
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).
22
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).
23
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).
24
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).
25
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).
26
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).
27
Bu, T. and Damsieth, E., Errors and Uncertainties in Reservoir

Performance Predictions, SPE 30604, SPE Formation Evaluation (Sept.,
1996).
28
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).
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.
30
Carlson, M.R.: Practical Reservoir Simulation, PennWell Corporation,

Oklahoma (2003).
31
Carreras, P.E., Johnson, S.G. and Turner, S.E., Tahiti: Assessment of

Uncertainty in a Deepwater Reservoir Using Design of Experiments,
32
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).
33
Casella, G. and Berger, R.L.: Statistical Inference, Wadsworth &

Brook/Cole Advanced Books & Software, California (1990).
34
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).
35
Christie, M.A., Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 37324,

Distinguished Author Series and Journal of Petroleum Technology,
(Nov. 1996).
36
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).
37
Chung, C.B. and Costas, K., Incorporation of A Priori Information in

Reservoir History Matching by Regularization, paper SPE 21615, SPE
Journal (1990).
38
Coats, K.H., Use and Misuse of Reservoir Simulation Models, SPE 2367,
SPE Gas Technology and Peripheral Waterflooding Symposium (Nov.,
1968).
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).
40
Coats, K.H., Nielsen, R.L., Terhune, M.H. and Weber, A.G., SPE 1961,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal (Dec., 1967).
41
Coats, K.H., Thomas, L.K. and Pierson, R.G., Compositional and Black
Oil Reservoir Simulation, SPE 2911, Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation (Feb., 1995).
42
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).
43
Cockcroft, P., A Prescriptive View of Risk, 2004-5 SPE Distinguished

lecture.
44
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).
45
Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering,

Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Clffs, NJ (1959).
46
Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1978).
47
Damsleth, E. and Holden, L., Mixed Reservoir Characterization Methods,

SPE 27969, University of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering
Symposium (August, 1994).
48
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).
49
David, M., Geostatistical Ore Reserve Estimation, Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company, Netherlands (1982).
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).
51
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).
52
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).
53
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).
54
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).
55
Efendiev, Y. and Durlofsky, L.J., Accurate Subgrid Models for TwoPhase Flow in Heterogeneous Reservoirs, paper SPE 88363, SPE Journal
(June 2004).
56
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).
57
Eriksson, K., Estep, D., Hansbo, P. and Johnson, C., Computational

Differential Equations, Cambridge University Press, Sweden (1996).
58
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).
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
60
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).
61
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).
62
Gavalas, G.R., Shah, P.C. and Seinfeld, J.H., Reservoir History Matching
by Bayesian Estimation, SPE 5740, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(Dec., 1976).
63
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).
64
Ginting, V., Ewing, R., Efendiev, Y. and Lazarov, R., Upscaled Modeling
in Multiphase Flow Applications (July 2003).
65
Ghorayeb, K. and Holmes, J., Black Oil Delumping, SPE 96571,

presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (Oct.,
2005).
66
Gringarten, A.C., Computer-Aided Well Test Analysis, paper SPE 14099,

presented at SPE international meeting on petroleum engineering, China
(March, 1986).
67
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).
116

68
Haldorsen, H.H. and Damsieth, E., Stochastic Modeling, SPE 20321,

Journal of Petroleum Technology (April, 1990).
69
Harbaugh, J.W., Doveton, J.H. and Davis, J.C., Probability Methods in Oil
Exploration, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York (1977).
70
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).
71
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).
72
Hurst, W., The Solution of Nonlinear Equations, SPE 3676, SPE-AIME

Anadarko Basin Section Meeting (Sept., 1971).
73
Hurst, W., Clark, J.D. and Brauer, E.B., The Skin Effect in Producing
Wells, SPE 1854, Annual Fall Meeting (Oct., 1967).
74
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).
75
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).
76
Journel, A.G. and Alabert, F.G., New Method for Reservoir Mapping, SPE
18324, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Feb., 1990).
117

77
Kalogerakis, N., An Efficient Procedure for the Quantification of Risk in

Forecasting Reservoir Performance, SPE 27569, European Petroleum
Computer Conference (March, 1994).
78
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).
79
Killough, J.E. and Kossack, C.A., Fifth Comparative Solution Project:

Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators, SPE 16000, Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation (Feb. 1987).
80
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).
81
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).
82
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).
83
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).
84
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).
85
Lechner, J.P. and Zangl, G., Treating Uncertainty in Reservoir

Performance Prediction with Neural Networks, SPE 94357, SPE
Europec/EAGE Annual Conference (June, 2005).
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).
87
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).
88
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).
89
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).
90
Lerche, I., Geological Risk and Uncertainty in Oil Exploration, Academic

Press, California (1997).
91
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).
92
Li, Y. and Johns, R.T., Rapid Flash Calculations for Compositional

Modeling, SPE 95732, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
(Oct., 2005).
93
Liu, N., Betancourt, S. and Oliver, D.S., Assessment of Uncertainty

Assessment Methods, paper SPE 71624, presented at Annual Technical
94
Lucia, F.J. and Fogg, E.G., Geologic/Stochastic Mapping of Heterogeneity

in a Carbonate Reservoir, SPE 19597, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(Oct., 1990).
95
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).
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.
97
Massonnat, G.J., Can We Sample the Complete Geological Uncertainty

Space in Reservoir-Modeling Uncertainty Estimates? SPE59801, Journal
of Petroleum Technology (March, 2000).
98
Mattax, C.C. and Dalton, R.L.: Reservoir Simulation, SPE Monograph 13,
Richardson (1990).
99
Millar, D., New Workflows Reduce Forecast Cycle Time, Refine

Uncertainty, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July, 2006).
100
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).
101
Moses, P.L., Engineering Applications of Phase Behavior of Crude Oil

and Condensate Systems, paper SPE 19893, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (July 1986).
102
Newendorp, D.P. and Campbell, J.M., Bayesian Analysis: A Method for

Updating Risk Estimates, SPE 3463, Journal of Petroleum Technology
(Feb., 1972).
103
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).
104
Nobles, M.A.: Using Computer to Solve Reservoir Engineering Problems,

Gulf Publishing Company, Houston (1984).
105
Odeh, A.S., Reservoir SimulationWhat is it? SPE 2790, Journal of

Petroleum Technology.
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).
107
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).
108
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).
109
Ouenes, A., Brefort, B., Meunier, G. And Dupere, S., A New Algorithm
for Automatic History Matching: Application of Simulated Annealing
Method.
110
Painter, S., Paterson, L. and Boult, P., Improved Technique for Stochastic
Interpolation of Reservoir Properties, SPE 30599, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (March, 1997).
111
Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressure in Numerical

Reservoir Simulation, SPE 6893, Annual Fall Technical Conference and
112
Peaceman, D.W.: Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulation,

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1977).
113
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)
114
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).
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).
116
Peaceman, D.W., Effective Transmissibilities of a Gridblock by Upscaling

- Comparison of a Direct Methods with Renormalization, paper SPE
36722, SPE Journal (Sept., 1997).
117
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).
118
Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H., Numerical Calculation of

Multidimensional Miscible Displacement, SPE 471, Annual Fall Meeting
(Oct., 1960).
119
Pedrosa, O.A. and Aziz, K., Use of a Hybrid Grid in Reservoir Simulation,
paper SPE 13507, SPE Reservoir Engineering (Nov., 1986).
120
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).
121
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).
122
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).
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).
125
Qvreberg, O., Damsleth, E. and Haldorsen, Putting Error Bars on

Reservoir Engineering Forecasts, paper SPE 20512, Journal of
petroleum technology (June, 1992).
126
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).
127
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).
128
Ramey, H.J., Pressure Transient Testing, Journal of Petroleum

Technology (July 1982).
129
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).
130
Renard, Ph. And Marsily, G., Calculating Equivalent Permeability: A

Review, Advances in Water Resources, Vol. 20, Nos 5-6, pp253-278,
(1997).
131
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
132
Roggero, F., Direct Selection of Stochastic Model Realizations

Constrained to Historical Data, SPE 38731, Annual Technical
133
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).
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).
135
Sablok, R. and Aziz, K., Upscaling and Discretization Errors in Reservoir

Simulation, paper SPE 93372, presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Houston (Feb. 2005).
136
Saleri, N.O., Reservoir Performance Forecasting: Accelerated by Parallel

Planning, SPE 25151, Journal of Petroleum Technology (July, 1993).
137
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).
138
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
139
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).
140
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.
141
Shi, C., Horne, R.N. and Li, K., Optimizing the Productivity of
Gas/Condensate Wells, SPE 103255, presented at SPE Annual Technical
142
Slater, G.E. and Durrer, E.J., Adjustment of Reservoir Simulation Models

to Match Field Performance, SPE 2983, Annual Fall Meeting (Oct.,
1970).
143
Stern D., Practical Aspects of Scaleup of Simulation Models, paper SPE

89032, Distinguished Author Series (Sept. 2005).
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).
145
Suzuki, K and Hewett, T.A., Sequential Scale-Up of Relative

Permeabilities, paper SPE 59450, presented at SPE Asia Pacific
Conference, Japan (April 2000).
146
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).
147
Tang, D.E. and Zick, A.A., A New Limited Compositional Reservoir

Simulator, SPE 25255, Symposium on Reservoir Simulation (Feb.,
1993).
148
Tavassoli, Z., Carter, J.N. and King, P.R., Errors in History Matching,
SPE 86883, Journal of Petroleum Technology (Sept., 2004).
149
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).
150
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).
151
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).
152
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).
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).
154
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).
155
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).
156
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).
157
Watts, J.W., Reservoir Simulation: Past, Present, and Future, SPE 38441,
SPE Reservoir Symposium (June, 1997).
158
Weisenborn, A.J., and Schulte, A.M., Compositional Integrated SubSurface-Surface Modeling, paper SPE 65158, presented at the SPE
European Petroleum Conference (Oct., 2000).
159
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).
160
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).
161
Wills, H.A., Graves, R.M. and Miskimins, J., Dont Be Fooled by Bayes,
126

162
Young, L.C. and Hemanth-Kumar, K., Compositional Reservoir

Simulation on Microcomputers, SPE Petroleum Computer Conference
(June, 1989).
163
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).
164
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).
165
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).
166
Yang, P.H. and Watson, A.T., Automatic History Matching with VariableMetric Methods, paper SPE 16977, presented at Annual Technical
167
Yang. P.H. and Watson, A.T., A Bayesian Methodology for Estimating

Relative Permeability Curve, SPE 18531, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (1991).
168
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).
169
Zhang, F., Skjervhelm, J.A., Reynolds, A.C. and Oliver, D.S., Automatic
History Matching in a Bayesian Framework, Example Applications,
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
GOR: Solution Gas-Oil Ratio
129
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
304.5530
0.00600
0.0010
23.76
0.010
0.9945
0.0
130

PVT table for 4 component solvent Repressurization data
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
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
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
131
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

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
INJG G 1 1 8335 GAS 3* NO /
INJW G
1 1 8335 WAT 3* NO /
/
-- Complete WAG injection wells
COMPDAT
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

P G
7 7 8400 OIL /
/
-- Complete production well
COMPDAT
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
IWAG G
1 1 8335 GAS /
149

/
-- Complete WAG injection well
COMPDAT
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)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.823
2.28E-06
0.5728
3946.034
3.74E-06
13
0.5728
3838.561
5.84E-06
30
0.5728
3635.205
9.35E-06
60
0.5728
3274.432
1.52E-05
90
0.5728
2902.931
2.08E-05
120
0.5728
2529.859
2.60E-05
150
0.527151
2286.751
3.51E-05
180
0.512511
2240.178
4.02E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
500
50
200
Perm y
500
50
200
Perm z
50
50
25
152

1% PERMEABILTY VARIATION
FWCT
TIME
FGOR
FPR
(DAYS) (MSCF/STB) (PSIA)
0
3993.75
0.5728
3992.667
1.61E-06
0.5728
3989.562
4.67E-06
13
0.5728
3980.926
8.98E-06
30
0.5728
3965.781
1.27E-05
60
0.5728
3940.67
1.55E-05
90
0.5728
3916.537
1.71E-05
120
0.5728
3893.097
1.82E-05
150
0.5728
3870.162
1.89E-05
180
0.5728
3847.622
1.95E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
5
0.5
2
Perm y
5
0.5
2
Perm z
0.5
0.5
0.05
153

10% PERMEABILITY VARIATION

TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3983.67
6.23E-06
0.5728
3956.762
1.23E-05
13
0.5728
3884.277
1.71E-05
30
0.5728
3758.267
2.00E-05
60
0.5728
3552.992
2.24E-05
90
0.5728
3360.842
2.42E-05
120
0.5728
3179.709
2.58E-05
150
0.569315
3010.405
2.75E-05
180
0.554003
2863.75
3.00E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
50
5
20
Perm y
50
5
20
Perm z
5
5
2.5
154


TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.815
5.51E-06
0.5728
3945.993
1.07E-05
13
0.5728
3838.374
1.54E-05
30
0.5728
3634.753
1.94E-05
60
0.5728
3273.146
2.45E-05
90
0.563856
2951.856
2.86E-05
120
0.536526
2704.234
3.40E-05
150
0.521017
2509.644
4.06E-05
180
0.515848
2371.951
4.65E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
100
10
40
Perm y
100
10
40
Perm z
10
10
5
155


TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.825
4.55E-06
0.5728
3946.014
8.36E-06
13
0.5728
3838.521
1.19E-05
30
0.5728
3635.045
1.55E-05
60
0.5728
3273.753
2.08E-05
90
0.5728
2902.881
2.58E-05
120
0.52391
2577.909
3.73E-05
150
0.51046
2366.895
4.65E-05
180
0.520919
2273.761
5.14E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
150
15
60
Perm y
150
15
60
Perm z
15
15
7.5
156


TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.824
2.73E-06
0.5728
3946.024
4.54E-06
13
0.5728
3838.55
6.79E-06
30
0.5728
3635.193
1.03E-05
60
0.5728
3274.37
1.60E-05
90
0.5728
2902.92
2.15E-05
120
0.5728
2529.847
2.67E-05
150
0.516892
2289.838
3.76E-05
180
0.504346
2241.437
4.42E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
375
37.5
150
Perm y
375
37.5
150
Perm z
37.5
37.5
18.75
157


TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.823
2.44E-06
0.5728
3946.025
4.01E-06
13
0.5728
3838.552
6.16E-06
30
0.5728
3635.196
9.67E-06
60
0.5728
3274.408
1.55E-05
90
0.5728
2902.921
2.10E-05
120
0.5728
2529.849
2.62E-05
150
0.523139
2287.649
3.60E-05
180
0.509729
2240.616
4.15E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
450
45
180
Perm y
450
45
180
Perm z
45
45
22.5
158

12 MONTHS HISTORY PERIOD SIMULATION
Base Case 12 Months

TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.823
2.28E-06
0.5728
3946.034
3.74E-06
13
0.5728
3838.561
5.84E-06
30
0.5728
3635.205
9.35E-06
60
0.5728
3274.432
1.52E-05
90
0.5728
2902.931
2.08E-05
120
0.5728
2529.859
2.60E-05
150
0.527151
2286.751
3.51E-05
180
0.512511
2240.178
4.02E-05
210
0.503134
2197.59
4.47E-05
240
0.49678
2157.168
4.87E-05
270
0.497577
2118.387
5.19E-05
300
0.500208
2081.004
5.53E-05
330
0.507403
2044.646
5.94E-05
360
0.521464
2008.809
6.44E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
500
50
200
Perm y
500
50
200
Perm z
50
50
25
159

1%
TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3992.667
1.61E-06
0.5728
3989.562
4.67E-06
13
0.5728
3980.926
8.98E-06
30
0.5728
3965.781
1.27E-05
60
0.5728
3940.67
1.55E-05
90
0.5728
3916.537
1.71E-05
120
0.5728
3893.097
1.82E-05
150
0.5728
3870.162
1.89E-05
180
0.5728
3847.622
1.95E-05
210
0.5728
3825.404
2.00E-05
240
0.5728
3803.458
2.04E-05
270
0.5728
3781.727
2.07E-05
300
0.5728
3760.198
2.10E-05
330
0.5728
3738.862
2.13E-05
360
0.5728
3717.704
2.15E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
5
0.5
2
Perm y
5
0.5
2
Perm z
0.5
0.5
0.05
160

10%
TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3983.67
6.23E-06
0.5728
3956.762
1.23E-05
13
0.5728
3884.277
1.71E-05
30
0.5728
3758.267
2.00E-05
60
0.5728
3552.992
2.24E-05
90
0.5728
3360.842
2.42E-05
120
0.5728
3179.709
2.58E-05
150
0.569315
3010.405
2.75E-05
180
0.554003
2863.75
3.00E-05
210
0.539348
2735.072
3.29E-05
240
0.52601
2621.798
3.61E-05
270
0.519964
2522.127
3.97E-05
300
0.515686
2440.792
4.29E-05
330
0.512769
2373.479
4.60E-05
360
0.519712
2322.975
4.84E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
50
5
20
Perm y
50
5
20
Perm z
5
5
2.5
161

20%
TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.815
5.51E-06
0.5728
3945.993
1.07E-05
13
0.5728
3838.374
1.54E-05
30
0.5728
3634.753
1.94E-05
60
0.5728
3273.146
2.45E-05
90
0.563856
2951.856
2.86E-05
120
0.536526
2704.234
3.40E-05
150
0.521017
2509.644
4.06E-05
180
0.515848
2371.951
4.65E-05
210
0.523763
2291.692
5.03E-05
240
0.526275
2263.709
5.28E-05
270
0.526073
2245.489
5.45E-05
300
0.524902
2228.419
5.58E-05
330
0.523292
2212.152
5.69E-05
360
0.521479
2196.605
5.79E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
100
10
40
Perm y
100
10
40
Perm z
10
10
5
162

30%
TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.825
4.55E-06
0.5728
3946.014
8.36E-06
13
0.5728
3838.521
1.19E-05
30
0.5728
3635.045
1.55E-05
60
0.5728
3273.753
2.08E-05
90
0.5728
2902.881
2.58E-05
120
0.52391
2577.909
3.73E-05
150
0.51046
2366.895
4.65E-05
180
0.520919
2273.761
5.14E-05
210
0.523066
2244.897
5.43E-05
240
0.522283
2219.799
5.63E-05
270
0.520327
2196.383
5.78E-05
300
0.518105
2174.385
5.90E-05
330
0.516341
2153.621
6.02E-05
360
0.51521
2133.93
6.14E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
150
15
60
Perm y
150
15
60
Perm z
15
15
7.5
163

75%
TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.824
2.73E-06
0.5728
3946.024
4.54E-06
13
0.5728
3838.55
6.79E-06
30
0.5728
3635.193
1.03E-05
60
0.5728
3274.37
1.60E-05
90
0.5728
2902.92
2.15E-05
120
0.5728
2529.847
2.67E-05
150
0.516892
2289.838
3.76E-05
180
0.504346
2241.437
4.42E-05
210
0.501011
2198.997
4.92E-05
240
0.505036
2158.233
5.32E-05
270
0.508089
2119.061
5.72E-05
300
0.513796
2081.11
6.15E-05
330
0.52436
2044.014
6.66E-05
360
0.537602
2008.33
7.17E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
375
37.5
150
Perm y
375
37.5
150
Perm z
37.5
37.5
18.75
164

90%
TIME
(DAYS)
FGOR
(MSCF/STB)
FPR
(PSIA)
FWCT
3993.75
0.5728
3981.823
2.44E-06
0.5728
3946.025
4.01E-06
13
0.5728
3838.552
6.16E-06
30
0.5728
3635.196
9.67E-06
60
0.5728
3274.408
1.55E-05
90
0.5728
2902.921
2.10E-05
120
0.5728
2529.849
2.62E-05
150
0.523139
2287.649
3.60E-05
180
0.509729
2240.616
4.15E-05
210
0.500368
2198.168
4.64E-05
240
0.49943
2157.619
5.02E-05
270
0.501218
2118.703
5.36E-05
300
0.505299
2081.102
5.74E-05
330
0.513904
2044.483
6.18E-05
360
0.528194
2008.354
6.71E-05
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer 3
Perm x
450
45
180
Perm y
450
45
180
Perm z
45
45
22.5
165

TIME
Base Case 18 Months

FGOR
FPR
FWCT
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
(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
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
(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

1%
TIME
FGOR
FPR
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
(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
(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
167
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

75%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
(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
(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
168
FWCT
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

90%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(DAYS)
0
1
4
13
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
(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
(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
169
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

TIME
Base Case 24 Months

FGOR
FPR
FWCT
(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
(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
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
(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
170

1%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(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
(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
(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
171
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
2.29E-05
2.31E-05
2.33E-05
2.34E-05
2.36E-05
2.38E-05

75%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(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
(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
(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
172
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

90%
FPR
TIME
FGOR
(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
(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
(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
173
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

TIME
BASE CASE 48 MONTHS

FGOR
FOPT
FPR
FWCT
(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
(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
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
(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
174
(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

TIME
FGOR
(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
(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
175
FPR
FWCT
(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
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

TIME
FGOR
(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
(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
176
FPR
FWCT
(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
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

MATCHED MODEL PREDICTION
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
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
FGOR
0.000165236
177
1.8791263
2.84633E-11

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
FGOR
0.002052464
287.56679
6.16889E11
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
FGOR
0.005813646
1429.157538
5.42138E-11
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
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
0.06101563
0.085089998
4471.931256
5154.148698
4.301E-10
5.8648E-10
0.009402541
0.012658028
562.9325664
657.9994523
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
0.243839192
24516.82635
2.10488E-09
0.03736595
2870.715675
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
180
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

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
COM - Oil prod.
6000000
BO - Oil prod.
4000000
2000000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME, days
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
182
2500
3000
3500
4000

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
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME, days
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
183
2500
3000
3500
4000

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
2500
3000
3500
4000
TIME, days
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
13
TIME, Days
184
30
60

PRESSURE MATCH
4500
4000
3500
PRESSURE, PSIA
3000
BASE CASE
1%
2500
10%
20%
30%
75%
2000
90%
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
TIME, DAYS
10 YEARS PREDICTION WITH 2 MONTHS HISTORY DATA
3.5
GOR, SCF/STB
2.5
2
OBSERVED DATA
SIMULATED DATA
1.5
0.5
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
TIME, DAYS
185
3000
3500
4000


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

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

24 MONTHS GOR MATCH

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

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

24 MONTHS DATA WATER-CUT MATCH

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

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


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

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

48 MONTHS GOR MATCH

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

0.00035
0.0003
WATER-CUT
0.00025
0.0002
OBSERVED DATA
SIMULATED DATA
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
TIME, DAYS
190
3000
3500
4000

48 MONTHS CUM. OIL PROD. MATCH

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

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

SIX MONTHS GOR MATCH

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

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

SIX MONTHS PRESSURE MATCH

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

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

12 MONTHS GOR MATCH

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

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

18 MONTHS GOR MATCH

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

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


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

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

75% MATCH MODEL GOR PREDICTION

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

12000000
10000000
8000000
OBSERVED OPT
SIMULATED OPT
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
TIME, DAYS
197
2500
3000
3500
4000

75% MATCHED MODEL PRESSURE PREDICTION

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

0.00035
0.0003
WATER-CUT
0.00025
0.0002
OBSERVED FWCT
SIMULATED FWCT
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
TIME, DAYS
198
3000
3500
4000

50% MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS GOR PREDICTION

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

12000000
10000000
8000000
OBSERVED OPT
SIMULATED OPT
6000000
4000000
2000000
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
TIME, DAYS
199
2500
3000
3500
4000

50% MATCHED MODEL 10 YEARS PRESSURE PREDICTION

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

0.00035
0.0003
WATER-CUT
0.00025
0.0002
OBSERVED WATER-CUT
SIMULATED WATER-CUT
0.00015
0.0001
0.00005
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
TIME, DAYS
200
3000
3500
4000

APPENDIX E
OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK OIL WITH COMPOSITION
History matched model optimization
BLACK OIL
TIME
FGOR
FOPT
(days)
(MSCF/
STB)
(STB)
0.556
COMPOSITIONAL
FWCT
FGOR
FOPT
(MSCF/
STB)
(STB)
12000
2.18E-06
0.5728
12000
FWCT
OPTIMI
ZATION
2.28E-06
0.556
36000
3.31E-06
0.5728
48000
3.74E-06
1.4E+08
15
0.556
180000
6.22E-06
0.5728
156000
5.84E-06
5.7E+08
31
0.556
372000
9.58E-06
0.5728
372000
9.56E-06
59
0.556
708000
1.51E-05
0.5728
708000
1.50E-05
90
0.556
1080000
2.05E-05
0.5728
1080000
2.08E-05
120
0.556
1440000
2.51E-05
0.5728
1440000
2.60E-05
151
0.501
1812000
3.78E-05
0.5264
1812000
3.53E-05
181
0.500
2172000
3.88E-05
0.5123
2172000
4.04E-05
212
0.493
2544000
4.26E-05
0.5026
2544000
4.50E-05
243
0.498
2916000
4.65E-05
0.4966
2916000
4.90E-05
273
0.485
3276000
4.86E-05
0.4975
3276000
5.22E-05
304
0.482
3648000
5.12E-05
0.5009
3648000
5.58E-05
334
0.487
4008000
5.46E-05
0.5089
4008000
6.00E-05
365
0.497
4380000
5.89E-05
0.5246
4380000
6.54E-05
396
0.518
4752000
6.46E-05
0.5477
4752000
7.20E-05
424
0.538
5088000
7.05E-05
0.5781
5088000
7.96E-05
455
0.567
5460000
7.78E-05
0.6188
5452088
8.90E-05
625944
485
0.607
5812363
8.70E-05
0.6608
5775205
9.40E-05
1.3E+09
516
0.654
6145273
9.15E-05
0.7096
6083869
9.88E-05
3.7E+09
546
0.700
6443400
9.61E-05
0.7632
6360856
0.0001
6.1E+09
577
0.756
6728185
0.0001
0.8231
6625599
0.00011
1.0E+10
608
0.815
6991648
0.00011
0.8909
6869974
0.00012
1.4E+10
638
0.877
7227884
0.00011
0.9782
7087364
0.00012
1.9E+10
669
0.989
7449742
0.00012
1.0819
7293336
0.00013
2.4E+10
699
1.104
7646486
0.00013
1.1915
7476696
0.00014
2.8E+10
730
1.232
7831889
0.00014
1.3122
7650216
0.00015
3.3E+10
761
1.372
8000091
0.00015
1.4599
7807899
0.00016
3.6E+10
789
1.509
8140210
0.00016
1.5973
7939549
0.00017
4.0E+10
201

820
1.700
8280622
0.00017
1.7611
8073172
0.00018
4.3E+10
850
1.862
8405024
0.00018
1.9201
8191968
0.00019
4.5E+10
881
2.021
8522470
0.0002
2.0768
8304521
0.0002
4.7E+10
911
2.190
8626256
0.00021
2.2358
8404433
0.00022
4.9E+10
942
2.351
8724112
0.00022
2.3917
8498897
0.00023
5.0E+10
973
2.500
8813764
0.00023
2.5352
8585603
0.00024
5.2E+10
1003
2.627
8893849
0.00024
2.6612
8663162
0.00025
5.3E+10
1034
2.741
8970367
0.00026
2.7739
8737345
0.00026
5.4E+10
1064
2.832
9039271
0.00026
2.8658
8804204
0.00027
5.5E+10
1095
2.904
9105694
0.00027
2.9413
8868679
0.00028
5.6E+10
1126
2.957
9167901
0.00028
2.9986
8929100
0.00029
5.7E+10
1154
2.992
9221008
0.00029
3.0379
8980702
0.00029
5.7E+10
1185
3.016
9276423
0.00029
3.0693
9034556
0.0003
5.8E+10
1215
3.018
9327314
0.0003
3.0881
9083914
0.0003
5.9E+10
1246
3.013
9377228
0.0003
3.0943
9132283
0.00031
6.0E+10
1276
3.001
9423251
0.0003
3.0911
9176857
0.00031
6.0E+10
1307
2.982
9468566
0.0003
3.0802
9220740
0.00031
6.1E+10
1338
2.957
9511813
0.00031
3.0639
9262621
0.00032
6.2E+10
1368
2.930
9551873
0.00031
3.0427
9301420
0.00032
6.2E+10
1399
2.898
9591489
0.00031
3.0151
9339805
0.00032
6.3E+10
1429
2.865
9628268
0.00031
2.9854
9375459
0.00032
6.3E+10
1460
2.830
9664710
0.00031
2.9522
9410807
0.00032
6.4E+10
1491
2.794
9699681
0.00031
2.9172
9444729
0.00032
6.5E+10
1519
2.761
9730134
0.00031
2.8839
9474251
0.00032
6.5E+10
1550
2.723
9762541
0.00031
2.8463
9505631
0.00032
6.6E+10
1580
2.686
9792744
0.00031
2.8083
9534849
0.00032
6.6E+10
1611
2.648
9822783
0.00031
2.7682
9563885
0.00032
6.7E+10
1641
2.611
9850811
0.00031
2.7287
9590965
0.00032
6.7E+10
1672
2.573
9878714
0.00031
2.6876
9617918
0.00032
6.8E+10
1703
2.537
9905606
0.00031
2.6466
9643896
0.00032
6.8E+10
1733
2.501
9930731
0.00031
2.607
9668169
0.00032
6.8E+10
1764
2.464
9955782
0.00031
2.5665
9692370
0.00031
6.9E+10
1794
2.429
9979205
0.00031
2.5281
9715004
0.00031
6.9E+10
1825
2.392
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.4887
9737593
0.00031
7.0E+10
1856
2.354
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.4494
9759421
0.00031
7.0E+10
1884
2.320
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.4141
9778543
0.00031
7.1E+10
1915
2.281
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.3748
9799021
0.00031
7.1E+10
1945
2.243
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.3366
9818224
0.00031
7.2E+10
1976
2.203
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.2967
9837443
0.00031
7.2E+10
2006
2.164
1.00E+07
0.0003
2.2578
9855486
0.0003
7.3E+10
2037
2.123
1.00E+07
0.00029
2.2173
9873567
0.0003
7.3E+10
2068
2.082
1.00E+07
0.00029
2.1765
9891113
0.0003
7.3E+10
202

2098
2.042
1.00E+07
0.00029
2.1369
9907616
0.0003
7.3E+10
2129
2.000
1.00E+07
0.00029
2.0958
9924183
0.0003
7.4E+10
2159
1.959
1.00E+07
0.00029
2.056
9939783
0.00029
7.4E+10
2190
1.917
1.00E+07
0.00028
2.0148
9955461
0.00029
7.5E+10
2221
1.874
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.9737
9970720
0.00029
7.5E+10
2249
1.836
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.9366
9984173
0.00029
7.6E+10
2280
1.794
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.8955
9998684
0.00028
7.6E+10
2310
1.753
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.8558
1.00E+07
0.00028
7.6E+10
2341
1.712
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.8148
1.00E+07
0.00028
7.7E+10
2371
1.672
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.7754
1.00E+07
0.00028
7.7E+10
2402
1.631
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.7349
1.00E+07
0.00027
7.7E+10
2433
1.590
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.6946
1.00E+07
0.00027
7.8E+10
2463
1.551
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.656
1.00E+07
0.00027
7.8E+10
2494
1.512
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.6163
1.00E+07
0.00027
7.8E+10
2524
1.473
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.5782
1.00E+07
0.00026
7.9E+10
2555
1.435
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.5393
1.00E+07
0.00026
7.9E+10
2586
1.396
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.5006
1.00E+07
0.00026
7.9E+10
2614
1.396
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.4663
1.00E+07
0.00026
8.0E+10
2645
1.325
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.4287
1.00E+07
0.00025
8.0E+10
2675
1.325
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.3928
1.00E+07
0.00025
8.1E+10
2706
1.289
1.00E+07
0.00024
1.3562
1.00E+07
0.00025
8.1E+10
2736
1.253
1.00E+07
0.00024
1.3212
1.00E+07
0.00025
8.2E+10
2767
1.218
1.00E+07
0.00024
1.2855
1.00E+07
0.00024
8.2E+10
2798
1.183
1.00E+07
0.00024
1.2504
1.00E+07
0.00024
8.3E+10
2828
1.148
1.00E+07
0.00023
1.2168
1.00E+07
0.00024
8.3E+10
2859
1.115
1.10E+07
0.00023
1.1827
1.00E+07
0.00024
8.3E+10
2889
1.082
1.10E+07
0.00023
1.15
1.00E+07
0.00023
8.4E+10
2920
1.049
1.10E+07
0.00022
1.1169
1.00E+07
0.00023
8.4E+10
2951
1.013
1.10E+07
0.00022
1.082
1.00E+07
0.00023
8.5E+10
2979
0.979
1.10E+07
0.00022
1.0501
1.00E+07
0.00022
8.5E+10
3010
0.950
1.10E+07
0.00021
1.0162
1.00E+07
0.00022
8.6E+10
3040
0.919
1.10E+07
0.00021
0.9847
1.00E+07
0.00022
8.6E+10
3071
0.889
1.10E+07
0.00021
0.9534
1.00E+07
0.00021
8.7E+10
3101
0.860
1.10E+07
0.00021
0.924
1.00E+07
0.00021
8.7E+10
3132
0.833
1.10E+07
0.0002
0.8948
1.00E+07
0.00021
8.8E+10
3163
0.806
1.10E+07
0.0002
0.8666
1.00E+07
0.0002
8.9E+10
3193
0.779
1.10E+07
0.0002
0.8402
1.00E+07
0.0002
8.9E+10
3224
0.754
1.10E+07
0.00019
0.8137
1.00E+07
0.0002
8.9E+10
3254
0.729
1.10E+07
0.00019
0.7887
1.00E+07
0.0002
8.9E+10
3285
0.705
1.10E+07
0.00019
0.7636
1.00E+07
0.00019
8.9E+10
3316
0.682
1.10E+07
0.00019
0.7391
1.00E+07
0.00019
9.0E+10
3344
0.658
1.10E+07
0.00018
0.7175
1.00E+07
0.00019
9.1E+10
203

3375
0.638
1.10E+07
0.00018
0.6943
1.00E+07
0.00019
9.1E+10
3405
0.616
1.10E+07
0.00018
0.6724
1.00E+07
0.00018
9.1E+10
3436
0.595
1.10E+07
0.00018
0.6503
1.00E+07
0.00018
9.2E+10
3466
0.574
1.10E+07
0.00017
0.6294
1.00E+07
0.00018
9.2E+10
3497
0.554
1.10E+07
0.00017
0.6083
1.00E+07
0.00018
9.3E+10
3528
0.533
1.10E+07
0.00017
0.5877
1.00E+07
0.00018
9.3E+10
3558
0.514
1.10E+07
0.00017
0.5682
1.00E+07
0.00017
9.3E+10
3589
0.495
1.10E+07
0.00017
0.5485
1.00E+07
0.00017
9.4E+10
3619
0.476
1.10E+07
0.00016
0.5298
1.00E+07
0.00017
9.4E+10
3.6E+12
204

Model with Minimum Sum of Square Optimization

BLACK OIL
TIME
FGOR
FOPT
(days)
(MSCF/
STB)
(STB)
0.5728
COMPOSITIONAL
FWCT
12000
2.25E-06
FGOR
FOPT
(MSCF/
STB)
(STB)
0.5563
12000
FWCT
OPTIMIZA
TION
2.15E-06
0.5728
48000
3.71E-06
0.5563
36000
3.28E-06
1.40E+08
13
0.5728
156000
5.82E-06
0.5563
180000
6.20E-06
5.80E+08
31
0.5728
372000
9.54E-06
0.5563
372000
9.57E-06
59
0.5728
708000
1.50E-05
0.5563
708000
1.51E-05
90
0.5728
1080000
2.08E-05
0.5563
1080000
2.05E-05
120
0.5728
1440000
2.61E-05
0.5563
1440000
2.52E-05
151
0.5268
1812000
3.53E-05
0.501
1812000
3.77E-05
181
0.512
2172000
4.03E-05
0.4998
2172000
3.86E-05
212
0.5018
2544000
4.47E-05
0.4896
2544000
4.19E-05
243
0.493
2916000
4.89E-05
0.479
2916000
4.53E-05
273
0.4925
3276000
5.20E-05
0.4751
3276000
4.82E-05
304
0.4957
3648000
5.56E-05
0.4689
3648000
5.06E-05
334
0.5063
4008000
6.02E-05
0.4815
4008000
5.47E-05
365
0.5249
4380000
6.61E-05
0.5016
4380000
5.99E-05
396
0.5502
4752000
7.31E-05
0.5226
4752000
6.60E-05
424
0.5835
5088000
8.13E-05
0.5427
5088000
7.22E-05
455
0.6277
5450626
9.13E-05
0.5811
5460000
8.08E-05
8.80E+07
485
0.6734
5773233
9.63E-05
0.634
5808086
9.02E-05
1.20E+09
516
0.7267
6080598
0.0001
0.6929
6134943
9.56E-05
3.00E+09
546
0.7847
6355700
0.00011
0.7575
6425013
0.000102
4.80E+09
577
0.8487
6618018
0.00011
0.8227
6700446
0.000108
6.80E+09
608
0.9277
6859092
0.00012
0.8891
6954282
0.000114
9.10E+09
638
1.0195
7073357
0.00013
0.9711
7179874
0.000121
1.10E+10
669
1.1286
7276312
0.00014
1.042
7396197
0.000128
1.40E+10
699
1.2437
7456546
0.00015
1.1842
7588170
0.000139
1.70E+10
730
1.3784
7626154
0.00016
1.3262
7767642
0.00015
2.00E+10
761
1.5273
7780729
0.00017
1.505
7929155
0.000163
2.20E+10
789
1.6738
7909759
0.00018
1.6926
8061434
0.000176
2.30E+10
820
1.8432
8040423
0.00019
1.851
8194654
0.000188
2.40E+10
850
2.004
8156403
0.0002
1.9896
8313125
0.000199
2.50E+10
881
2.1662
8266042
0.00022
2.123
8425876
0.00021
2.60E+10
911
2.3273
8363207
0.00023
2.2859
8525794
0.000223
2.60E+10
942
2.4832
8455022
0.00024
2.4351
8620321
0.000236
2.70E+10
205

973
2.6261
8539358
0.00026
2.581
8707107
0.000249
2.80E+10
1003
2.7449
8614897
0.00027
2.6941
8784907
0.00026
2.90E+10
1034
2.8438
8687348
0.00028
2.7877
8859502
0.00027
3.00E+10
1064
2.9196
8752862
0.00029
2.8598
8926958
0.000279
3.00E+10
1095
2.9794
8816230
0.0003
2.9145
8992209
0.000287
3.10E+10
1126
3.0229
8875761
0.0003
2.9515
9053524
0.000294
3.20E+10
1154
3.0507
8926709
0.00031
2.9722
9106024
0.000299
3.20E+10
1185
3.0681
8980022
0.00031
2.9764
9161035
0.000304
3.30E+10
1215
3.0723
9029021
0.00032
2.9678
9211672
0.000307
3.30E+10
1246
3.066
9077156
0.00032
2.9518
9261453
0.00031
3.40E+10
1276
3.0524
9121605
0.00032
2.9306
9307435
0.000313
3.50E+10
1307
3.0327
9165441
0.00033
2.9038
9352786
0.000315
3.50E+10
1338
3.0078
9207350
0.00033
2.8728
9396137
0.000316
3.60E+10
1368
2.979
9246233
0.00033
2.8401
9436344
0.000318
3.60E+10
1399
2.9459
9284747
0.00033
2.8047
9476146
0.000319
3.70E+10
1429
2.912
9320554
0.00033
2.7697
9513124
0.000319
3.70E+10
1460
2.8761
9356070
0.00033
2.7331
9549788
0.00032
3.80E+10
1491
2.8389
9390170
0.00033
2.696
9584996
0.00032
3.80E+10
1519
2.8042
9419854
0.00033
2.6627
9615665
0.00032
3.80E+10
1550
2.7652
9451421
0.00033
2.6256
9648309
0.000321
3.90E+10
1580
2.7269
9480822
0.00033
2.593
9678707
0.000321
3.90E+10
1611
2.6878
9510040
0.00033
2.5593
9708913
0.000321
4.00E+10
1641
2.6509
9537277
0.00033
2.5285
9737059
0.000321
4.00E+10
1672
2.6137
9564367
0.00033
2.4967
9765045
0.000322
4.00E+10
1703
2.578
9590449
0.00033
2.4645
9791990
0.000322
4.10E+10
1733
2.5439
9614791
0.00033
2.4328
9817142
0.000321
4.10E+10
1764
2.5085
9639033
0.00033
2.3991
9842201
0.000321
4.10E+10
1794
2.4738
9661686
0.00033
2.3656
9865627
0.000321
4.20E+10
1825
2.4373
9684278
0.00033
2.3299
9889004
0.00032
4.20E+10
1856
2.4002
9706100
0.00033
2.2933
9911598
0.000319
4.20E+10
1884
2.3661
9725211
0.00032
2.2596
9931397
0.000318
4.30E+10
1915
2.3277
9745678
0.00032
2.2221
9952612
0.000317
4.30E+10
1945
2.29
9764869
0.00032
2.1851
9972516
0.000316
4.30E+10
1976
2.2505
9784078
0.00032
2.146
9992450
0.000314
4.30E+10
2006
2.212
9802112
0.00032
2.1075
1.00E+07
0.000313
4.40E+10
2037
2.172
9820187
0.00032
2.0668
1.00E+07
0.000311
4.40E+10
2068
2.1319
9837728
0.00032
2.0257
1.00E+07
0.000309
4.40E+10
2098
2.0929
9854226
0.00031
1.9853
1.00E+07
0.000307
4.50E+10
2129
2.0524
9870791
0.00031
1.9431
1.00E+07
0.000305
4.50E+10
2159
2.0129
9886390
0.00031
1.902
1.00E+07
0.000302
4.50E+10
2190
1.9719
9902073
0.00031
1.8595
1.00E+07
0.0003
4.50E+10
2221
1.9307
9917339
0.0003
1.817
1.00E+07
0.000298
4.60E+10
206

2249
1.8935
9930802
0.0003
1.7787
1.00E+07
0.000295
4.60E+10
2280
1.8521
9945330
0.0003
1.7365
1.00E+07
0.000293
4.60E+10
2310
1.8122
9959049
0.0003
1.6959
1.00E+07
0.00029
4.70E+10
2341
1.771
9972881
0.00029
1.6544
1.00E+07
0.000287
4.70E+10
2371
1.7315
9985957
0.00029
1.6146
1.00E+07
0.000285
4.70E+10
2402
1.6909
9999152
0.00029
1.574
1.00E+07
0.000282
4.80E+10
2433
1.6505
1.00E+07
0.00029
1.534
1.00E+07
0.000279
4.80E+10
2463
1.6117
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.4956
1.00E+07
0.000277
4.80E+10
2494
1.5721
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.4565
1.00E+07
0.000274
4.90E+10
2524
1.5345
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.4192
1.00E+07
0.000271
4.90E+10
2555
1.4961
1.00E+07
0.00028
1.381
1.00E+07
0.000268
4.90E+10
2586
1.4582
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.3434
1.00E+07
0.000266
4.90E+10
2614
1.4243
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.3432
1.00E+07
0.000266
5.00E+10
2645
1.3872
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.2733
1.00E+07
0.00026
5.00E+10
2675
1.3518
1.00E+07
0.00027
1.2732
1.00E+07
0.00026
5.10E+10
2706
1.3157
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.2383
1.00E+07
0.000258
5.10E+10
2736
1.2813
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.2029
1.00E+07
0.000255
5.10E+10
2767
1.2461
1.00E+07
0.00026
1.1691
1.00E+07
0.000252
5.20E+10
2798
1.2115
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.1346
1.00E+07
0.000249
5.20E+10
2828
1.1785
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.1008
1.00E+07
0.000247
5.20E+10
2859
1.1449
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.0688
1.00E+07
0.000244
5.30E+10
2889
1.1129
1.00E+07
0.00025
1.033
1.00E+07
0.00024
5.30E+10
2920
1.0773
1.00E+07
0.00024
0.9996
1.00E+07
0.000237
5.40E+10
2951
1.0424
1.00E+07
0.00024
0.9667
1.00E+07
0.000233
5.40E+10
2979
1.012
1.00E+07
0.00024
0.9352
1.00E+07
0.00023
5.40E+10
3010
0.98
1.00E+07
0.00023
0.9079
1.00E+07
0.000227
5.50E+10
3040
0.9501
1.00E+07
0.00023
0.8786
1.00E+07
0.000224
5.50E+10
3071
0.9204
1.00E+07
0.00023
0.8512
1.00E+07
0.000221
5.60E+10
3101
0.8926
1.00E+07
0.00022
0.8238
1.00E+07
0.000218
5.60E+10
3132
0.8648
1.00E+07
0.00022
0.798
1.00E+07
0.000215
5.60E+10
3163
0.8379
1.00E+07
0.00022
0.7721
1.00E+07
0.000212
5.70E+10
3193
0.8126
1.00E+07
0.00021
0.7469
1.10E+07
0.000209
5.70E+10
3224
0.7873
1.00E+07
0.00021
0.7231
1.10E+07
0.000206
5.70E+10
3254
0.7634
1.00E+07
0.00021
0.6991
1.10E+07
0.000204
5.80E+10
3285
0.7393
1.00E+07
0.00021
0.6764
1.10E+07
0.000201
5.80E+10
3316
0.7157
1.00E+07
0.0002
0.6535
1.10E+07
0.000198
5.80E+10
3344
0.695
1.00E+07
0.0002
0.6312
1.10E+07
0.000196
5.90E+10
3375
0.6726
1.00E+07
0.0002
0.6114
1.10E+07
0.000194
5.90E+10
3405
0.6514
1.00E+07
0.0002
0.59
1.10E+07
0.000191
5.90E+10
3436
0.63
1.00E+07
0.00019
0.5697
1.10E+07
0.000189
6.00E+10
3466
0.6097
1.00E+07
0.00019
0.5492
1.10E+07
0.000186
6.00E+10
3497
0.5892
1.00E+07
0.00019
0.5299
1.10E+07
0.000184
6.00E+10
207

3528
0.5692
1.00E+07
0.00019
0.5103
1.10E+07
0.000182
6.10E+10
3558
0.5502
1.00E+07
0.00019
0.4912
1.10E+07
0.000179
6.10E+10
3589
0.531
1.00E+07
0.00018
0.4731
1.10E+07
0.000177
6.10E+10
3619
0.5128
1.00E+07
0.00018
0.4548
1.10E+07
0.000175
6.20E+10
3650
0.4944
1.00E+07
0.00018
0.4376
1.10E+07
0.000173
6.20E+10
2.20E+12
208

Model with Maximum Sum of Square Optimization

BLACK OIL
TIME
FGOR
FOPT
(days)
(MSCF/
STB)
(STB)
0.5728
12000
COMPOSITIONAL
FWCT
2.48E-06
FGOR
FOPT
(MSCF/
STB)
(STB)
0.5563
12000
FWCT
OPTIMIZA
TION
2.36E-06
0.5728
48000
3.95E-06
0.5563
36000
3.50E-06
1.4E+08
13
0.5728
156000
6.04E-06
0.5563
180000
6.41E-06
5.8E+08
31
0.5728
372000
9.73E-06
0.5563
372000
9.74E-06
59
0.5728
708000
1.52E-05
0.5563
708000
1.52E-05
90
0.5728
1080000
2.09E-05
0.5563
1080000
2.05E-05
120
0.5728
1440000
2.60E-05
0.5563
1440000
2.51E-05
151
0.5232
1812000
3.63E-05
0.5012
1812000
3.87E-05
181
0.5129
2172000
4.19E-05
0.5009
2172000
4.01E-05
212
0.5058
2544000
4.69E-05
0.4974
2544000
4.38E-05
243
0.5058
2916000
5.01E-05
0.4911
2916000
4.65E-05
273
0.5009
3276000
5.27E-05
0.4868
3276000
4.91E-05
304
0.5015
3648000
5.60E-05
0.4831
3648000
5.18E-05
334
0.5109
4008000
6.03E-05
0.4875
4008000
5.49E-05
365
0.5255
4380000
6.54E-05
0.503
4380000
5.94E-05
396
0.5438
4752000
7.13E-05
0.5198
4752000
6.46E-05
424
0.5682
5088000
7.80E-05
0.5342
5088000
6.98E-05
455
0.5983
5448720
8.56E-05
0.5582
5460000
7.71E-05
1.3E+08
485
0.6242
5769722
9.02E-05
0.587
5808029
8.40E-05
1.5E+09
516
0.6609
6078324
9.39E-05
0.6182
6139204
8.79E-05
3.7E+09
546
0.6994
6357205
9.76E-05
0.6506
6437874
9.11E-05
6.5E+09
577
0.7432
6625791
0.000102
0.6887
6725339
9.48E-05
9.9E+09
608
0.7892
6876338
0.000106
0.7313
6993283
9.88E-05
1.37E+10
638
0.836
7103068
0.00011
0.7757
7235674
0.000103
1.76E+10
669
0.8922
7321312
0.000115
0.8249
7469275
0.000107
2.19E+10
699
0.9563
7518011
0.000121
0.8861
7679892
0.000113
2.62E+10
730
1.0236
7706895
0.000126
0.9555
7881569
0.000118
3.05E+10
761
1.1068
7882230
0.000133
1.0271
8068628
0.000124
3.47E+10
789
1.1879
8030416
0.000139
1.1231
8225692
0.000131
3.81E+10
820
1.2907
8182401
0.000147
1.2207
8386590
0.000139
4.17E+10
850
1.3999
8318581
0.000156
1.3472
8529615
0.000148
4.45E+10
881
1.5063
8449589
0.000163
1.4476
8667431
0.000155
4.75E+10
911
1.61
8567907
0.000171
1.5657
8790760
0.000163
4.97E+10
942
1.7206
8681853
0.000178
1.6889
8909032
0.000172
5.16E+10
973
1.8393
8787926
0.000187
1.804
9018984
0.00018
5.34E+10
209

1003
1.966
8883365
0.000196
1.9596
9117121
0.00019
5.46E+10
1034
2.0934
8974773
0.000205
2.0898
9210896
0.000199
5.58E+10
1064
2.2071
9057108
0.000213
2.204
9295243
0.000208
5.67E+10
1095
2.3123
9136331
0.000222
2.3093
9376304
0.000216
5.76E+10
1126
2.4063
9210326
0.000229
2.4022
9451949
0.000224
5.84E+10
1154
2.4823
9273298
0.000236
2.4766
9516318
0.00023
5.91E+10
1185
2.5559
9338774
0.000243
2.5433
9583241
0.000237
5.98E+10
1215
2.6178
9398537
0.000248
2.5999
9644285
0.000242
6.04E+10
1246
2.6728
9456781
0.000254
2.649
9703730
0.000248
6.10E+10
1276
2.7184
9510121
0.000259
2.6886
9758133
0.000252
6.15E+10
1307
2.7585
9562263
0.000264
2.7204
9811290
0.000257
6.20E+10
1338
2.7913
9611664
0.000268
2.747
9861613
0.000261
6.25E+10
1368
2.8174
9657090
0.000272
2.7685
9907842
0.000264
6.29E+10
1399
2.8393
9701674
0.000275
2.7888
9953155
0.000268
6.32E+10
1429
2.8568
9742772
0.000278
2.8018
9994877
0.000271
6.36E+10
1460
2.8687
9783210
0.000281
2.8102
1E+07
0.000273
6.38E+10
1491
2.876
9821759
0.000284
2.814
1E+07
0.000276
6.41E+10
1519
2.8792
9855133
0.000286
2.8143
1E+07
0.000278
6.43E+10
1550
2.8792
9890419
0.000288
2.8107
1E+07
0.000279
6.45E+10
1580
2.8757
9923096
0.000289
2.8039
1E+07
0.000281
6.46E+10
1611
2.8681
9955374
0.000291
2.7926
1E+07
0.000282
6.48E+10
1641
2.8574
9985286
0.000292
2.7781
1E+07
0.000283
6.50E+10
1672
2.843
1E+07
0.000292
2.76
1E+07
0.000283
6.52E+10
1703
2.8252
1E+07
0.000293
2.739
1E+07
0.000283
6.54E+10
1733
2.8051
1E+07
0.000293
2.7164
1E+07
0.000283
6.57E+10
1764
2.7819
1E+07
0.000293
2.691
1E+07
0.000283
6.59E+10
1794
2.7574
1E+07
0.000293
2.6646
1E+07
0.000282
6.61E+10
1825
2.7302
1E+07
0.000292
2.6358
1E+07
0.000282
6.64E+10
1856
2.7015
1E+07
0.000292
2.6057
1E+07
0.000281
6.66E+10
1884
2.6744
1E+07
0.000291
2.5773
1E+07
0.00028
6.69E+10
1915
2.6432
1E+07
0.00029
2.5451
1E+07
0.000279
6.71E+10
1945
2.612
1E+07
0.000289
2.5127
1E+07
0.000278
6.74E+10
1976
2.5788
1E+07
0.000287
2.4782
1.1E+07
0.000277
6.76E+10
2006
2.5459
1E+07
0.000286
2.4439
1.1E+07
0.000275
6.79E+10
2037
2.5112
1E+07
0.000285
2.4082
1.1E+07
0.000274
6.82E+10
2068
2.4757
1E+07
0.000283
2.3715
1.1E+07
0.000272
6.84E+10
2098
2.4408
1E+07
0.000281
2.3352
1.1E+07
0.00027
6.87E+10
2129
2.4042
1E+07
0.00028
2.2973
1.1E+07
0.000268
6.90E+10
2159
2.3682
1E+07
0.000278
2.2599
1.1E+07
0.000266
6.92E+10
2190
2.3306
1E+07
0.000276
2.2211
1.1E+07
0.000264
6.95E+10
2221
2.2925
1E+07
0.000274
2.1819
1.1E+07
0.000262
6.98E+10
2249
2.2578
1E+07
0.000272
2.1455
1.1E+07
0.00026
7.00E+10
210

2280
2.2192
1E+07
0.00027
2.1055
1.1E+07
0.000258
7.03E+10
2310
2.1816
1E+07
0.000267
2.0667
1.1E+07
0.000255
7.06E+10
2341
2.1426
1E+07
0.000265
2.0267
1.1E+07
0.000253
7.09E+10
2371
2.1048
1E+07
0.000263
1.9881
1.1E+07
0.000251
7.12E+10
2402
2.0656
1E+07
0.00026
1.9484
1.1E+07
0.000248
7.14E+10
2433
2.0264
1E+07
0.000258
1.9091
1.1E+07
0.000246
7.17E+10
2463
1.9886
1E+07
0.000256
1.8712
1.1E+07
0.000243
7.20E+10
2494
1.9496
1.1E+07
0.000253
1.8324
1.1E+07
0.000241
7.23E+10
2524
1.9122
1.1E+07
0.000251
1.7952
1.1E+07
0.000239
7.25E+10
2555
1.8738
1.1E+07
0.000248
1.7572
1.1E+07
0.000236
7.28E+10
2586
1.8357
1.1E+07
0.000246
1.7194
1.1E+07
0.000234
7.31E+10
2614
1.8015
1.1E+07
0.000243
1.6856
1.1E+07
0.000231
7.33E+10
2645
1.764
1.1E+07
0.000241
1.6485
1.1E+07
0.000229
7.36E+10
2675
1.728
1.1E+07
0.000239
1.6128
1.1E+07
0.000227
7.39E+10
2706
1.6911
1.1E+07
0.000236
1.5763
1.1E+07
0.000224
7.41E+10
2736
1.6557
1.1E+07
0.000234
1.5413
1.1E+07
0.000222
7.44E+10
2767
1.6194
1.1E+07
0.000231
1.5055
1.1E+07
0.000219
7.46E+10
2798
1.5836
1.1E+07
0.000229
1.47
1.1E+07
0.000217
7.49E+10
2828
1.5492
1.1E+07
0.000226
1.4698
1.1E+07
0.000217
7.53E+10
2859
1.5139
1.1E+07
0.000224
1.4359
1.1E+07
0.000214
7.56E+10
2889
1.4801
1.1E+07
0.000221
1.4014
1.1E+07
0.000212
7.60E+10
2920
1.4456
1.1E+07
0.000219
1.3685
1.1E+07
0.00021
7.64E+10
2951
1.4117
1.1E+07
0.000216
1.3349
1.1E+07
0.000207
7.67E+10
2979
1.3816
1.1E+07
0.000214
1.3018
1.1E+07
0.000205
7.70E+10
3010
1.3486
1.1E+07
0.000212
1.2722
1.1E+07
0.000203
7.74E+10
3040
1.3172
1.1E+07
0.00021
1.2398
1.1E+07
0.0002
7.77E+10
3071
1.2851
1.1E+07
0.000207
1.2088
1.1E+07
0.000198
7.80E+10
3101
1.2543
1.1E+07
0.000205
1.1772
1.1E+07
0.000196
7.84E+10
3132
1.223
1.1E+07
0.000203
1.1469
1.1E+07
0.000194
7.87E+10
3163
1.192
1.1E+07
0.0002
1.116
1.1E+07
0.000191
7.90E+10
3193
1.1624
1.1E+07
0.000198
1.0856
1.1E+07
0.000189
7.93E+10
3224
1.1321
1.1E+07
0.000196
1.0564
1.1E+07
0.000187
7.97E+10
3254
1.1032
1.1E+07
0.000194
1.0236
1.1E+07
0.000184
8.00E+10
3285
1.0711
1.1E+07
0.000191
0.9924
1.1E+07
0.000181
8.03E+10
3316
1.0389
1.1E+07
0.000188
0.9613
1.1E+07
0.000178
8.07E+10
3344
1.0108
1.1E+07
0.000185
0.9312
1.1E+07
0.000175
8.10E+10
3375
0.9807
1.1E+07
0.000182
0.9048
1.1E+07
0.000173
8.13E+10
3405
0.9524
1.1E+07
0.00018
0.8765
1.1E+07
0.00017
8.16E+10
3436
0.9241
1.1E+07
0.000177
0.8498
1.1E+07
0.000168
8.20E+10
3466
0.8974
1.1E+07
0.000175
0.823
1.1E+07
0.000165
8.23E+10
3497
0.8705
1.1E+07
0.000172
0.7977
1.1E+07
0.000163
8.26E+10
3528
0.8443
1.1E+07
0.00017
0.7722
1.1E+07
0.00016
8.29E+10
211

3558
0.8196
1.1E+07
0.000167
0.7474
1.1E+07
0.000158
8.33E+10
3589
0.7946
1.1E+07
0.000165
0.7239
1.1E+07
0.000156
8.36E+10
3619
0.771
1.1E+07
0.000163
0.7002
1.1E+07
0.000153
8.39E+10
3650
0.7472
1.1E+07
0.00016
0.6778
1.1E+07
0.000151
8.42E+10
3.37E+12
212

Oghena Andrew Dissertation PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

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 PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH

RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION

Copyright 2006, Andrew Oghena

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS

METHODS FOR UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE SIMULATION

RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RESERVOIR FLUID PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES

SIMULATION MODEL DATA FILE

DATA FOR OBSERVED HISTORY DURATION

PLOTS OF BLACK OIL AND COMPOSITIONAL SIMULATION GENERATED

DATA FOR OPTIMIZATION OF BLACK OIL WITH COMPOSITIONAL

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

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

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

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

Andrew Oghena, Texas Tech University, May 2007

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