Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reservoir Description
Determination of hydrocarbon in place, reserves, and production potential requires
an accurate physical description of the reservoir. The basic elements of such a
description are depicted in Figure 1 .
Figure 1
Areal Extent
The area of the reservoir is needed for calculating the hydrocarbon in place, for
selecting the proper locations of wells, and as input data for reservoir simulation
studies.
Physical Properties of the Productive Formation
Physical properties include formation thickness, porosity, water saturation, and
permeability. These four parameters are needed in practically all aspects of reservoir
However, 3-D seismics and cross-well seismic tomography can provide information
about the portions of the reservoir that lie between wells. 3-D seismics employs
large amounts of closely spaced data and improved migration techniques to provide
volumetric reservoir interpretatios, while cross-well tomography applys highfrequency seismic waves, in which both source and recever are located in existing
wellbores. These tools give the geophysicist an active role to play in modeling the
reservoir.
The mathematical representation of the reservoir can range from a very simple
model, the tank-type (or zero-dimensional) model, to a highly complex set of
equations that require numerical techniques and computers for their solution (the
reservoir simulation approach). In the tank-type approach, the engineer assumes
that the reservoir can be described with average values for properties such as
thickness, porosity, and fluid saturations. While this approach may be satisfactory for
simple problems, it may not be sufficient for other purposes. For instance, the tanktype model or a variation of it is normally used in volumetric estimation of the initial
oil or gas in place. In some reservoirs it may also be satisfactory for material balance
calculations. However, in other reservoirs such a model might be totally
unsatisfactory and the engineer would have to resort to reservoir simulation.
Generally speaking, as the heterogeneity of the reservoir in creases, so too does the
required complexity of the mathematical representation.
Reservoir Simulation
As the complexity of a reservoir increases, the need for a more complex
mathematical representation arises. The engineer must use a reservoir simulator to
predict the performance of the reservoir under various development schemes.
Modern reservoir simulation is based on the tank type model, which forms the basis
of reservoir engineering. However, rather than considering the reservoir as one tank
unit, the simulation divides the reservoir into many tank units that interact with each
other. The number of tank units, or cells, depends on many factors, including the
heterogeneity of the reservoir, the number of wells, and the field development
scheme. Heterogeneous reservoirs require a larger number of cells.
The basic reservoir engineering equations that have been used to describe the
reservoir when represented by one tank unit are used in reservoir simulation. In the
single-cell representation, no oil or gas crosses the boundary of the tank (i.e.,
reservoir). However, in a simulation with many cells, each cell interacts with its
neighbors. Fluids may enter a cell from adjacent cells or may leave a cell and go to
the cells neighbors. This fluid movement is governed by a well established flow
equation, known as Darcys law. Keeping an inventory of the fluids in each cell is a
rigorous bookkeeping operation, well suited to computers. The advent of the modern
computer has increased the reservoir engineers simulation capabilities.
The rock and fluid data required for reservoir studies using the one-tank model
representation are required for each unit cell in a simulation study. The effort
required to prepare such data and input it to the simulator is a significant part of the
cost, which can range from tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on
the size, complexity, and purpose of the model.
Reservoir Boundaries and Heterogeneities
Boundaries
A reservoir may have closed or open boundaries, or both. If the reservoir is completely
bounded by sealing faults or pinchouts, it is closed. Some reservoirs are completely
surrounded by an aquifer, thus their boundaries are open to water movement into the
hydrocarbon zone. Still other reservoirs may be bounded by faults or pinchouts along part
of their boundary and by an aquifer along the remaining part. Most reservoir engineering
calculations require an accurate knowledge of the boundary conditions of the reservoir.
This knowledge may establish the possible existence and extent of an aquifer activity in
the reservoir.
Heterogeneities
All reservoirs are heterogeneous, varying only in their degree of heterogeneity. This
means that the physical properties of the rock change with a change in location. One of
the very important heterogeneities that needs to be considered in reservoir engineering
calculations is stratification. Many reservoirs contain layers (strata) of productive rock that
can be communicating or non communicating. These layers can vary considerably in
permeability and in thickness. A good description of the layers and their respective
properties is critical in planning many EOR operations.
Fault System
Another common heterogeneity in reservoirs is the fault system. Faults can be completely
or partially sealing. Well locations for both production and injection are affected by the
fault pattern and its effect on fluid communication. Faults are normally defined from
geological, geophysical, and production data.
Permeability
Permeability is another directional property. When permeability measurements vary
depending on the direction in which theyre measured, we say that the reservoir is
anisotropic with respect to permeability. Permeability anisotropy is important in
determining well spacing and configuration, as well as in considering the option of
horizontal wells.
Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir pressure is one of the most important parameters of reservoir engineering
calculations. Whether the calculations involve the tank type model or a more
sophisticated reservoir simulator, accurate pressure values are required. However,
there is an important difference between the requirements of the two models. The
unit tank model relies on material balance equation calculations, and requires the
average pressure for the whole reservoir as a function of time or production. In
reservoir simulation studies, however, it is strongly desirable to have available
buildup pressure values for individual wells as a function of time. These values
represent the average pressure for the drainage volumes of the wells, and are
needed for the history-matching phase of the simulation study, which is performed
to validate the accuracy of the model built to represent the reservoir (Matthews et al.
1954). History matching is an essential step in "tuning" a reservoir model before
conducting a predictive study.
Reservoir engineering calculations require a value for the pressure in the reservoir,
away from the wellbore. To obtain this value, the well must be shut in and the
pressure increase with shut-in time must be recorded. We refer to this as a pressure
buildup test (Matthews and Russell 1967). From these data the average pressure
value is calculated.
Another way of obtaining average values is to record the pressure in a well in which
Production has been suspended. if such a well exists, and it is not very close to a
(3)
where:
= average pressure for reservoir
Pi = average pressure for Well i
Vi = the drainage volume of Well i
Thus, if there are three wells with pressures p1, p2, and p3, and drainage volumes V1, V2, and V3,
then Equation 3 becomes:
Matthews et al. (1954) and Matthews and Russell (1967) have shown that the well-drainage
volume Vi is proportional to its flow rate, qi Substituting qi for Vi in Equation 3 gives
(4)
Equation 4 is the more Practical equation because the flow rate is usually available, while it may
be more difficult to estimate the drainage volume.
A very useful plot is that of the average pressure values obtained on several wells
versus the total oil production of an oil reservoir, or total gas production of a gas
reservoir. The pressures are plotted on the Y-axis. If there is continuity in the
reservoir the Pressures from the various wells should plot close to each other. If the
pressures for a well plot are consistently higher or lower than the other values, it
may indicate that the well is not in good communication with the reservoir or that it
is in a separate reservoir. This may point out the need for more wells to effectively
drain the isolated portion of the reservoir. Furthermore, the data from the isolated
well should not be lumped in with the data from other wells in material balance
engineering calculations.
Before comparing the pressure values measured in wells at various depths in a
reservoir (very thick and/or steeply dipping reservoirs), they should be referred to a
datum depth ( Figure 1 ).
Figure 1
Normally the depth of the volumetric midpoint of the reservoir is taken as the datum
depth. This is determined by constructing a plot of depth versus cumulative pore
volume ( Figure 2 ).
Figure 2
The depth corresponding to 50% pore volume is the volumetric midpoint depth. If a
particular pressure value is obtained at a different depth than the datum, it is
adjusted to the datum by
Padj = p + 0.433
Padj = p - 0.433
H
(5)
(6)
where:
p = the pressure at any elevation, psi
= specific gravity of fluid
H = the vertical distance between the point at which the pressure was
measured and the datum depth, ft
Equations 5 and 6 apply when the point at which the Pressure was determined is, respectively,
above and below the datum depth.
When an aquifer is associated with the reservoir, the Pressure behavior as a function
of time at the hydrocarbon-water contact (or as close as possible to it) is needed for
water influx calculations. If this is not available, one usually uses the average
reservoir Pressure and adjusts it to the hydrocarbon-water contact depth.
The average reservoir pressure is needed in many reservoir engineering calculations.
In the case of miscible EOR techniques, for example, the average reservoir pressure
determines whether miscibility will occur when CO2 or other gases are injected. This
in turn affects overall recovery and the economic feasibility of the project.
Reservoir pressure is a topic of significance in reservoir engineering because it is one
of the critical pieces of data required by the reservoir engineer for an effective
analysis of a reservoir. obtaining reliable pressure data should be a primary goal of
any reservoir management program.
Reservoir Temperature
The calculation of primary recovery relies on the reasonable assumption that the
reservoir temperature stays constant. Thus, hydrocarbon recovery during this phase
is considered to be an isothermal process. This is so because as fluids are Produced
any change in temperature due to Production is compensated for by heat from the
cap or base rocks, which are considered to be heat sources of infinite capacity.
The average reservoir temperature is needed for laboratory analyses that are made
at reservoir conditions. Determining fluid properties, such as viscosity, density,
formation volume factor, and gas in solution, requires a value for reservoir
temperature. Reservoir temperature is usually measured at the bottom of the well or
wells in a reservoir using a wireline temperature gauge. If a variation in temperature
is detected across a reservoir after correcting for depth, an average value can be
used for the constant reservoir temperature.
For EOR techniques such as chemical and miscible processes, temperature affects
the phase behavior of injected and produced fluids, and thus the recovery. The
feasibility of these processes must be determined by laboratory tests carried out at
reservoir temperature. In EOR processes that employ heat injection, such as steam
or in-situ combustion, the reservoir temperature is not constant and hydrocarbon
recovery is not an isothermal process. Therefore, in mathematical formulations of
such processes, it is necessary to write an energy balance over the entire reservoir.
From an operations standpoint, reservoir temperatures need to be measured
continuously at monitoring wells. These measurements indicate the heat fronts
pattern of movement. Normally, a uniform movement is desired, but the heat-front
pattern can be altered by changes in injection and/or production schedules.
Design Implications
Special stress checks required during completion; Highstrength tubulars required; Special high-performance
packers/accessories required; Problems with H2S
aggravated by high pressure requiring special tubular steel
High Pressure:
(3000-10,000 psi [20-70 MPa]
Low Pressure :
(< 1000 psi [< 7 MPa]
Deep Wells:
(> 10000 ft [ >3000 m]
Carbonate Reservoirs:
Unconsolidated sandstone:
Water production :
Water injection :
Well location :
Completion
Considerations
Importance
or Need
Completion
Design
Implications
Rates
High
None
Moderate w/chokes
High
Low
Possible
Variable
Critical
Pressures
High
None
Low
Probable
artificial lift
required
Producing Characteristics
Multiple zones
Possible
stack completions
Minimize costs
Moderate
review costs
Access difficulty
High
TFL/new technology
Uptime
High
Rate control
Critical
chokes needed
Rate stability
Critical
Long life
Unlikely
Moderate
Critical
Wellhead damage
Possible
annular SSSV
Monitoring
Test frequency
High
Pressure
measurement
Moderate
Some needed
Log contacts
Critical
Production logs
Some needed
Tubing investigation
High
Artificial Lift
Intermittent
w/maintenance
High
Continuous
Possible
High
Pressure depletion
Possible
Kick-off
Initial completion
Moderate
Routine
operations
High
Depleted
conditions
Possible
High
Critical rate
High
Frequency
High
Gas supply
volume
Moderate
Gas supply
pressure
Design
variable
Repairs
Cement
High
Gravel pack
Critical
SSSV
Probable
Tubulars
Low
New interval
Possible
Uphole
Moderate
Deepen
None
Sidetrack
Possible
Function change
Moderate
Recompletions
Well Kill
Frequency
High or
low
operations procedure
Difficulty
Mod.high
alternate methods
Production Problems
Sand control
Critical
Paraffin
Possible
Emulsions
Possible
chemical injection
capability
Water cut
High
Scale
Possible
TFL access
Corrosion
Moderate
Erosion
Low
Fines
Probable
GP failure
Moderate
To a large extent, reservoir, geological, and economic considerations will dictate the
functional requirements of a completion and the relative significance of major and
minor workovers. These requirements have to be anticipated at an early stage since
the techniques to be employed (wireline, service rig reentry, TFL, coiled tubing, etc.)
are limited by the tubing design and packer/tubing configurations of the completion.
The completion design of a well is also influenced by the well service
requirements.The general term "well servicing" covers a broad range of activities,
which can be broken down into five major functions:
1. routine monitoring (e.g., being able to run production logs, shoot fluid levels, etc.)
2. wellhead and flow line servicing (e.g., designing components for easy
isolation)
3. minor workovers (e.g., through-tubing operations, wireline work, TFL)
4. major workovers (e.g., tubing-pulling operations)
5. emergency situations (e.g., well-killing operations)
While to some extent these apply to all oil and gas developments, their relative importance,
frequency, complexity, and cost are functions of reservoir conditions, governmental regulations,
operating philosophy, and geographic and environmental considerations. For example, it should
be self-evident that the options for reentry of subsea wells in deep water are limited and are going
to be expensive. This is true to a certain extent for any offshore well. The designer must therefore
look carefully at the functions that can be built into the completion and wellhead to minimize well
service requirements.
It is probable that at least three different generic types of systems will be involved in
well servicing: those with functions built into the producing facilities; service units;
and workover rigs.
From a completion design viewpoint, it is also important to appreciate what
capabilities are already inherently available. For example, all wells have the potential
for "bull-heading" kill or treatment fluids through the tubing, although it becomes
more difficult to control the operation and ensure an efficient displacement as the
tubing size and deviation increases. Similarly, with relatively shallow dry gas wells, it
should be possible to estimate the bottomhole pressure fairly accurately from tubing
head pressure measurements, avoiding the need to run bottomhole surveys. Another
built-in function in all offshore wells is the ability to achieve a subsurface shut-off
using the government-regulation-required subsurface safety valve.
As completion designs become more sophisticated, they can provide an increased
number of integrated service functions, up to the ultimate multizone, full TFL
completion with downhole pressure monitoring capability. The economic and
technical justification for this type of completion must be based on a detailed
functional analysis of the reservoir, completion lifetime, and well service economics.
Moreover, increased sophistication also introduces higher risks of completion
problems or subsequent failures, requiring improved quality control and materials
selection.
Figure 1
The engineer is clearly the prime mover in conducting the simulation study, and must be in
control of other study components.
This control involves:
being cognizant of the simulators limitations and the assumptions that go into
its development
being able to adequately describe the reservoir
being fully conversant with the analytical techniques involved in
interpreting the results.
Based on the initial results, it is not uncommon for the simulation engineer to revisit the
appropriateness of the reservoir description through concept refinement.
field development and operation strategies. We are often confronted with questions
such as
The analytical approach, as is the case in classical well test analysis, involves
a great deal of assumptionsin essence, it renders an exact solution to an
approximate problem.
The numerical approach, on the other hand, attempts to solve the
more realistic problem with less stringent assumptionsin other
words, it provides an approximate solution to an exact problem.
From here on, we use the term simulation rather loosely to refer only to the numerical approach.
The domain of interest can form another level of categorization for simulation
approach and model selection. For instance, a study may focus on a single well and
its interaction with the reservoir within its drainage area (i.e., single-well simulation
in radial-cylindrical coordinate system). The other extreme case may be the study of
an entire field (field-scale simulation in rectangular coordinate system) in which the
overall performance analysis of the field is called for. In between these two extremes
comes the case where only a section of the reservoir is targeted (window-study).
Figure 2
Setting objectives
Selecting the model and approach
Gathering, collecting and preparing the input data
Planning the computer runs, in terms of history matching and/or
performance prediction
than the more commonly used "black oil" model. Similarly, if we intend to study a coalbed
methane reservoir, we must use a specialized model that accounts for the desorption process.
One of the most labor-intensive aspects of reservoir simulation study is data
gathering, collection and preparation. Oftentimes, this requires collaboration among
technical personnel with varying levels of expertise. For instance, geological and
geophysical data are extremely crucial and need to be processed in the form that is
useful for reservoir description. Data will be often be sparse or incomplete. In such
situations, statistics or other tools can prove quite helpful. Because of the large
volume of data being processed at this stage, and the likelihood of internal
inconsistencies in the data, the engineer must have strong organizational skills and
sound judgment.
In simulation studies, time (both the engineers and the computers) is of the
essence. A typical simulation study requires a large number of runs, which must be
carefully orchestrated to yield the desired information. As we make each run, we
must carefully analyze the results, and appropriately label them to avoid confusion
and costly duplications. In addition, we must avoid runs that yield no new
information. It is pertinent, therefore, to take into account the inferences from the
previous runs in planning the next suite of runs.
Perhaps the most important step in a simulation study is analyzing and interpreting
the results. It is at this stage that our creative and discerning abilities are put to the
test. As tempting as it may be to do so, we should not view every number that
comes out of the computer as the absolute answer. Instead, we must always be
asking questions such as, "what if? what then? why? so what?" In this way, we bring
into play our experience, common sense, and perhaps sometimes extraneous
knowledge.
A simulation studys ultimate objective is to forecast reservoir performance. If we
have selected the correct model, adequately prepared our data, conducted the
appropriate computer runs, and made good, informed analyses, we should be
confident of our ability to predict performance. Any mistakes we make in the
previous steps will have a cumulative impact on performance prediction.
We must communicate study results in an appropriate manner to other technical
personnel and to management. This should be in the form of a comprehensive
technical report with sufficient details for others to assess the studys quality.
Figure 3
reservoir complexity
fluid type
alcance(scope) of the study
While reservoir complexity and the scope of the study determine the simulators dimensions and
coordinate geometry, the fluid type (together with the processes involved) dictate whether we
should use a black-oil model or a more specialized model. For example, predicting well
performance in a gas condensate reservoir will require a compositional rather than a black oil
simulator. Furthermore, if the reservoir is thin and unlayered, it will be sufficient to use a onedimensional radial flow geometry. Carrying out such a study with a three-dimensional
compositional simulator will require additional computational resources whose added benefit
cannot be justified. In any case, we must exercise our judgement and ingenuity in selecting the
most appropriate simulation approach.
Careful planning of computer runs includes not only determining their order, but also
establishing a systematic labeling procedure for them. This is particularly important
because of the large number of runs usually required and the voluminous amount of
information invariably generated for analysis.
Porosity
Porosity is a measure of a rocks storage capacity. In reservoir simulation, we are
primarily interested in interconnected pore space. From here on, therefore, we shall
understand porosity to mean effective porosity. Effective porosity is a dimensionless
quantity, defined as the ratio of interconnected pore volume to the bulk volume. In
an idealized arrangement of grains of uniform size the maximum porosity value is
47.64% for cubic packing, and the minimum is 25.96% for rhombohedral packing (
Figure 1 ). However, naturally-occurring reservoirs do not conform to these
theoretical limits, due to syn- and post-depositional processes that have taken place
(in addition to non-sphericity of the grains). Their porosity can vary widely.
Figure 1
In the flow equations used in reservoir simulation, porosity appears as one of the
parameters that scales the volume of fluids present in the reservoir at any time.
During production, this volume is depleted, and reservoir pressure drops. The higher
the reservoirs porosity, the less this pressure decline will be over time. The special
case in which porosity does not appear in the flow equation is the single-phase
incompressible flow system. As we will discuss later, in such a flow system, there is
neither accumulation nor depletion, and so porosity vanishes. In the other extreme,
there are reservoirs in which porosity changes with pressure, and so appears in the
equation as a function of pressure rather than as a constant value.
Permeability
Absolute permeability is a measure of a rocks ability to transmit fluid. For a
hydrocarbon reservoir to be commerical, it must not only be porous, but also
permeable. Permeability is analogous to conductivity in heat flow. Since it is a
measure of resistance to flow, a higher permeability reservoir experiences less
pressure drop than a corresponding low permeability reservoir. The dimension of
permeability is length squared [L2], and its practical field unit is darcy or millidarcy.
One darcy is approximately equal to 10-8cm2.
Permeability varies widely in naturally occurring reservoirs, from a fraction of a
millidarcy to several darcies. Similar to porosity, the permeability of a reservoir could
be a function of pressure. Permeability is a key parameter controlling the
propagation of transients created by conditions imposed at the well. It does not
determine ultimate recovery, but rather the rate of this recovery.
Figure 2
to align these axes with the principal flow directions, so that we may eliminate the
six off-diagonal elements of the permeability tensor, and be left with three diagonal
elements in a three-dimensional system (two for a two-dimensional system).
Otherwise, an incorrect representation of the system results, as shown in Figure 3 .
Figure 3
Gas properties
In calculating gas properties such as density, compressibility and formation volume
factor, we often use the real gas law as our basis. For more rigorous calculations, we
might use a modern engineering equation of state such as the Peng-Robinson
equation of state. Invariably, these calculations express density as a function of
pressure and temperature.
The properties of interest in the gas flow equation are density, compressibility factor,
compressibility, formation volume factor and viscosity. Density appears in the gravity
term, and it is often neglected. The compressibility factor introduces an important
non-linearity, in that it appears in the formation volume factor. Gas viscosity is also
strongly dependent on pressure, and needs to be calculated as pressure varies
spatially and temporally. Figure 4 summarizes the equations and correlations
necessary for determining gas properties.
Figure 4
Oil properties
Oil properties that appear in the governing flow equations for the oil phase are
density, compressibility, formation volume factor, viscosity and solubility of gas in
oil. In the absence of gas, these oil properties can be treated as constants, because
the compressibility of gas-free oil is very small. However, the presence of dissolved
gas in oil necessitates the use of appropriate correlations to determine the variation
of these properties with pressure and temperature. A recent review of the available
correlations has been provided by McCain (1991). We can also use modern equations
of state to calculate these properties.
Theoretically, an infinite amount of gas can dissolve in oil, provided that adequate
pressure is available. Accordingly, if pressure is available, it is conceivable that there
will be no free gas (undersaturated reservoirs). If pressure is not sufficient some of
the gas will exist in the free state (saturated reservoirs). A typical simulation
calculation may traverse saturated and undersaturated conditions. Most reservoir
simulators implement variable bubble-point algorithms to handle these situations.
Figure 5 shows the qualitative variation of several of these properties.
Figure 5
Water properties
McCain (1991) provides correlations for estimating such water properties as density,
compressibility, formation volume factor, viscosity and gas solubility. Since gas
solubility in water is very small compared to oil, for most practical cases, we assume
constant values for these properties that come into play in the water flow equation.
Figure 6
therefore, surface energy. A rain drop falling through the atmosphere would do the
same thing, except that an external drag force constrains it from doing so. For this
reason, it has a "tear-drop" shape.
Interfacial tension is the surface energy per unit area of a fluid interface. It has units
of force per length. For any fluid having contact with a solid surface, the contact
between the fluid and the solid has a certain value of interfacial tension associated
with it. What differentiates fluids from one another in terms of relative wettability are
their values of fluid/solid interfacial tension. The lower the solid-fluid interfacial
tension, the lower the surface energy and the higher the tendency for the fluid to
wet that surface.
For two immiscible co-existing fluids in porous media, the one with the lower
interfacial tension is the wetting phase, while the other is the non-wetting phase.
There is a definite relationship between the solid/wetting phase interfacial tension,
the solid/non-wetting phase interfacial tension, and the wetting/non-wetting phase
interfacial tension. The Young-Dupres equation (Equation 2.1) expresses this
relationship.
SN - SW = WN(cos) (2.1)
where
Relative permeability
When two or more immiscible fluids flow simultaneously through a porous medium,
they compete and do not move at equal velocity. This results on the one hand from
interactions between the fluids and the rock, and on the other from interactions
among the fluids themselves. As previously mentioned, this manifests itself in
interfacial tensions.
Interfacial tensions are not transport properties, and so we cannot use them directly
to qualitatively characterize relative motion. We can, however, observe the relative
ease with which each of the two competing fluids go through the porous medium
that is, we can measure the relative permeability.
Although relative permeability is not a fundamental property of fluid dynamics, it is
the accepted quantitative parameter used in reservoir engineering. Relative
permeability appears prominently in the flow equations used in reservoir simulation.
By definition, relative permeability is the ratio of the effective permeability, when
more than one fluid is present, to the absolute permeability. Effective permeability is
the measured permeability of a porous medium to one fluid when another is present.
The effective permeability depends on the relative proportion of the two fluids
present, or fluid saturation. Therefore, relative permeability is also a function of fluid
saturation. Although there are models for predicting relative permeability, they are
all empirically formulated from measured data sets. Figure 7 shows typical relative
permeability curves for an oil-water system.
Figure 7
Figure 7 depicts relative permeability as a function of water saturation for a twophase system. We therefore refer to it as two-phase relative permeability. If a third
phase is present, then each fluid has its own relative permeability, which differs from
the corresponding two-phase relative permeability.
Because it requires a three-dimensional representation, three-phase relative
permeability is often shown on ternary diagrams, with isoperms displayed at various
saturation combinations. Leverett and Lewis (1941) were one of the first to use this
representation. Figure 8 shows a typical relative permeability curve for a three-phase
oil/gas/water system.
Figure 8
Table 1
Capillary pressure
In everyday experience, water levels in two or more connected containers have the
same level if exposed to the same atmosphere. But when it comes to spaces of
capillary size (like those we encounter in porous media), we cannot take this rule so
literally. To illustrate, consider what happens when a glass tube of capillary size is
dipped in a larger container filled with water ( Figure 9 ).
Figure 9
The water in the capillary tube rises above the water level in the container to a
height that depends on the capillary size. Although strictly speaking, the water still
finds its level, it does so in such a way as to maintain an overall minimum surface
energy.
In this situation, the adhesion force allows water to rise up in the capillary tube while
gravity opposes it. The water rises until there is a balance between these two
opposing forces. The differential force between adhesion and gravity is the capillary
force. This force per unit area is the capillary pressure. As we might surmise from
these observations, there is a relationship between capillary pressure, Pc , and the
interfacial tension between the two fluids (in the case of Figure 9 , water and air).
<
(2.2)
where
Pc = capillary pressure
Figure 10
It is interesting to note the hysteresis between the capillary curves for a drainage
process (where wetting phase saturation is decreasing) and an imbibition process
(where wetting phase saturation is increasing).
Microscopic Properties
Reservoir fluid flow is a fundamentally complex process. Fluid movement depends
not only on the fluids themselves, but also on how the fluids interact with the porous
medium, which in effect is a huge capillary network. Then, there is the pore structure
itself to worry about. On a scientific level, understanding these microscopic
properties is a must if we are to capture the essence of the system. However,
engineers thrive on approximation, and reservoir simulation engineers are no
Figure 1
In this case, the streamlines are parallel to the three principal axes (x, y, and z),
which are orthogonal.
Figure 1 also shows the partition of the box into many smaller boxes, which are
rectangular prisms. Each of these rectangular prisms represents a certain portion of
the reservoir, about which we can procure information through simulation studies.
We use this smaller element of dimensions, (x, y, z) as a control volume to set
up and discretize the governing equations.
We should emphasize that a fluid particle entering an elemental volume in one
direction does not necessarily exit in the same direction; by the same token, the fluid
particle leaving the elemental volume in one direction did not necessarily enter it in
the same direction. Formation characteristics, (such as heterogeneity, permeability
contrasts and the force fields imposed by the conditions at the boundaries) dictate
the flow path once the element enters the control volume. This is the essence of flow
multi-dimensionality.
Figure 2 illustrates the concept of one-dimensional flow along the x-direction.
Although it is difficult to find real-world examples of truly one-dimensional flow,
many types of analyses and systems do lend themselves to description as one-
dimensional.
Figure 2
The flow structure shown in Figure 2 precludes flow in any other direction, which
implies there is no property variation along the y and z directions. Therefore, if we
take a section perpendicular to the indicated flow direction, there will not be any
property variation across the plane. Similarly, any cross section taken in the x-z or
x-y planes (parallel to the streamlines) will reveal the uniformity of the flow
structure. More explicitly, the pressure profiles of flow paths will be similar. A long,
skinny reservoir that is confined between two closely spaced, parallel faults fits this
description.
The next level of description used in reservoir simulation is two-dimensional flow.
Many reservoir simulation studies employ two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate
systems. This makes sense when we consider the large lateral extent of most
reservoirs compared with their thicknesses. Figure 3 illustrates a two-dimensional
flow structure along the x and y directions.
Figure 3
This precludes flow in the z-direction. Therefore, any slice taken parallel to the x-y
plane will not show any variation in terms of property and fluid distribution such as
porosity, permeability and saturations. The introduction of the second dimension
allows us to describe a wide variety of problems. We can, for instance, account for
directional permeability variation and lateral well distributions. Moreover, a twodimensional approach allows us to represent a variety of well completion strategies
(e.g., vertical wells, horizontal wells, stimulated wells). Thin, blanket sands that tend
to display large areal coverage are ideally suited for description by a two-dimensional
model.
The best representation of flow is the three-dimensional model, because it allows us
to procure the most information about the reservoir. Unfortunately, it also requires
the largest amount of input information and a higher level of computational power
and overhead. Still, incorporating a third dimension gives us the latitude we need to
include all the property variations in all three spatial directions. This means that if we
take two parallel slices perpendicular to the third dimension, they will exhibit
property and flow differences. Figure 4 illustrates a three-dimensional flow structure.
Figure 4
Figure 5
The three principal flow directions are radial (r), vertical (z) and tangential (). To
visualize this flow structure, imagine a single well located in the center of a circular
reservoir, such that the wellbore and the reservoir boundary are two concentric
circles. If we assume a reservoir of uniform thickness, then the system becomes two
concentric cylinders of the same height. A particle moving in a three-dimensional
radial-cylindrical flow geometry can be illustrated as in Figure 6 .
Figure 6
Figure 7
Studying the problem along one trajectory is sufficient because of symmetry. Any
particle located on any of the trajectories will experience similar forces. By neglecting
the flow in angular (q) and axial (z) directions, we introduce a series of assumptions,
such as no permeability gradation along the q-direction and no gravitational effect
along the z-direction. As we can imagine from looking at Figure 6 , one-dimensional
flow representations in the q- and z-directions have no practical significance in
reservoir studies.
The two-dimensional (r-z) representation is appealing for single-well problems where
gravity and/or layering effects are significant ( Figure 8 ). This r-z plane can be taken
at any q location without changing the problem because of its axi-symmetric nature.
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Note that the streamlines and equipotential contours define the curvilinear elemental
volume. Although curvilinear coordinate systems offer attractive advantages, their
use is limited because of the added mathematical and interpretational complexity
they introduce.
Choosing the appropriate coordinate system and number of dimensions is not only
paramount to a simulation studys success, but also to its relative simplicity. It is
thus essential that we use sound engineering judgment and perform thorough
analyses throughout this process. We must answer questions pertaining to the
reservoirs approximate geometry, possible drive mechanisms, well and completion
configurations, level of detail required, type and amount of data available, and so on.
As far as reservoir simulation is concerned, bigger is not necessarily better. We must
exercise good engineering judgment in establishing the scope of our study. We need
to avoid overkill, but at the same time, understand that under-representing the
needed details is dangerous. Simply put, we must strike a balance.
(3.1)
This law appears in different forms. Table 1 summarizes the forms used in this text, along with
their appropriate units.
Table 1
Velocity is the flow rate divided by the cross-sectional area perpendicular to flow.
Equation 3.1 expresses the direct proportionality between flow rate and potential
gradient, with the proportionality constant reflecting properties of both the flowing
fluid and the porous medium. Note that as written, Equation 3.1 is for reservoir
conditions. To express flow in surface conditions (or standard conditions), we must
incorporate a formation volume factor into the proportionality constant.
The flow potential , defined by M. King Hubert and usually referred to as Huberts
potential, is basically a combination of pressure and gravitational fields, as shown in
Table 2 .
Table 2
(3.1)
where q : volumetric pressure
A : cross-sectional area perpendicular to flow
k : permeability
: viscosity
/ x : potential gradient in the flow direction x
: unit conversion factor
(3.2)
where : Huberts potential
P : pressure
: fluid density
g : local gravitational constant
(3.3)
The negative sign in Equation 3.1 shows that the potential gradient is negative in the flow
direction. In Equation 3.2, the sign convention is such as to give the appropriate addition or
subtraction of gravity from pressure.
In this text, we use the positive downward convention for depth, as shown in Figure
1.
Figure 1
This figure shows a sloping reservoir, where the datum is at sea level (the datum
could be any fixed elevation, although sea level is the most widely accepted
convention).Using the positive downward convention, the depth to point 1 from the
datum is positive; the depth to point 2 is negative. We can calculate the potentials at
points 1 and 2 as:
(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)
we obtain a positive , which reflects the hydrostatic head exerted by the fluid
column of density and height D1 + D2.
It is the gradient of potential, rather than the potential itself, which appears in
Darcys law (Equation 3.1). It is therefore clear that if we take the derivative of
Equation 3.3, we obtain
(3.7)
In resolving Equation 3.7, we assume that density is constant. Furthermore, note
that we can write Equation 3.7 for the other principal flow directions as well, yielding
depth gradients not only along the x-direction but also along the y- and z-directions
(i.e., D/y, D/z). If the depth gradient along any of the flow directions does not exist,
then the potential gradient becomes equal to the pressure gradient. Equation 3.7
then becomes
(3.8)
Figure 2 shows four reservoirs with varying orientations relative to the datum plane.
Figure 2
Part (a) of Figure 2 shows a reservoir where the x-y plan is parallel to the
datum surface. In this case, there is no depth gradient along the x- and ydirections.
In part (b) of Figure 2, the reservoir is tilted so that the x-y plane is
no longer parallel to the datum, but the edges along the y-axis remain
parallel. Thus, depth gradient along the y-direction is still non-existent,
whereas the depth gradient now exists in the x-direction.
The reservoir in part (c) of Figure 2 is similar to the one in part (b),
except now the edges of the reservoir along the x-direction are parallel
to the datum surface, yielding a vanishing depth gradient in the xdirection, but not in the y-direction.
Part (d) of Figure 2 represents the most general case, in which
neither the x- nor the y-direction edges are parallel to the datum
surface. This means that the depth gradient is non-zero in both the xand y-directions.
In all four of these cases, the reservoir configurations are such that the formation thickness is
always measured parallel to the direction that depth is measured. This is why, in each of these
cases, the depth gradient along the z-direction is always unity.
We usually formulate the differential equations governing fluid flow in porous media
based on the continuum assumption, in which we consider a differential element of
the system and take balances over a conserved quantity of interest. When the
quantity is mass, the resulting equation is the mass balance equation or the
continuity equation. Figure 3 shows a representative element (control volume) of the
reservoir in Cartesian coordinates.
Figure 3
Note that while the control volume will differ according to the coordinate system
chosen, the basic strategy is the same .
Conservation of mass
The conservation of mass principle simply says that over a fixed time period,
[Mass in] - [Mass out] = [Net change in mass content]
Applying this principle to the system in Figure 3 , we obtain the continuity equation
shown in Table 3 .
Table 3
(3.12)
we obtain the flow equation for porous media. In a rectangular coordinate system, this equation
becomes ecuacion de calor o de difucion
(3.13)
In a radial co-ordinate system, it takes the form
(3.14)
Equation (3.13) does not take into account the existence of wells and possible
variations in formation thickness along the flow directions. In practice, we must
incorporate both of these factors into the equations. In reservoir simulation, we treat
the well (which could be a producer or injector) as a source or sink within the
system. In this text, we follow the convention of treating injection as positive
(source) and production as negative (sink). Therefore, injection or production wells
are represented in the same fashion in the flow equation, except for the sign. With
this in mind, Equation (3.13) becomes:
(3.15)
In formulating these equations, we have made no assumption about the nature of
the fluid. Of course, this will come into the picture when we take into account that
the reservoir fluid can be treated as incompressible, slightly compressible or
compressible. We shall now specialize the continuity equation for these fluid types.
(3.16)
Equation 3.16 is written for heterogeneous and anisotropic formations. For such a
formation, and without injection or production (q=0), Equation 3.16 simplifies to:
(3.17)
which is the well-known Laplace Equation. The following field units apply to
Equations 3.16 and 3.17:
A [ft2]; k [perms]; [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; qsc [STB/day]; [cp].
(3.18)
For slightly compressible fluids the changes in viscosity and formation volume factor
with pressure are negligible and they can be treated as constants. Furthermore, if we
assume that we are dealing with homogeneous and isotropic porous media with no
well, Equation 3.18 reduces to a simpler form, which is known as the diffusivity
equation.
(3.19)
The group in Equation 3.19 is the hydraulic diffusivity constant for the reservoir fluid
system. Note that the transport phenomenon described by Equation 3.19 is not a
diffusion process, but a laminar flow problem. Equation 3.19 is analogous to the
diffusivity equation in heat and/or mass transfer.
Note also that in Equations 3.18 and 3.19, we assume that the depth gradients are
negligible. Field units for these equations are as follows:
A [ft2]; k [perms]; P [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; qsc [STB/day]; [cp]; c [psi-1];
B [bbl/STB]; [dimensionless]; Vb [ft3]; t [day]; and =5.615
(3.20)
where
(3.21)
Substituting Equation 3.21 into Equation 3.20 will accentuate the inherent nonlinearity of compressible flow.
(3.22)
In Equation 3.22, the sources of non-linearity are the terms P/mZ in the spatial
derivatives and 1/Z in the temporal derivative. Field units for Equations 3.20, 3.21
and 3.22 are as follows:
A [ft2]; k [perms]; P [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; qsc [STB/day]; m [cp]; c [psi-1]; B
[bbl/SCF]; [dimensionless]; Vb [ft3]; t [day]; Z [dimensionless]; T [R]; and
=5.615
It is sometimes expedient to linearize the non-linear equations of compressible fluid
flow in porous media (Equation 3.22). The two common approaches are called the P2
method and the pseudo-pressure method. In the approach we simply recognize that
Pdp = 1/2[d(P2)] and assume that the gZ product at low pressures is constant. The
dependent variable in the resulting equation is now in P2 rather than in P. The
pseudo-pressure approach (real gas potential) uses the transformation
(3.23)
By implementing this transformation, Equation 3.22 is linearized and the dependent variable is
now P. The assumptions made in formulating the approach are not as drastic as we might think
when we observe the plot of gZ versus P ( Figure 4 ).
Figure 4
(3.24)
where gi and Z are calculated at some average pressure P.
P* form:
(3.25)
where gi , Zi and ci are calculated at the initial pressure. Field units for Equations
3.24 and 3.25 are as follows:
A [ft2]; k [perms]; P [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; qsc [SCF/day]; [cp]; c [psi-1];
f [dimensionless]; Vb [ft3]; t [day]; Z [dimensionless]; T [R]; =5.615; P* [psi2/cp]
for each of the phases. Then we use an appropriate form of Darcys law, which
accounts for the presence of multiple-fluid flux terms (left-hand side of the equation)
to characterize the transport part of Equation 3.9. At the same time, we adjust the
phase accumulation term using phase saturations. The number of partial differential
equations depends on how many phases are present. This development is
summarized in Table 1 .
Table 1
(3.29)
Water flow equation (f defined as w):
(3.30)
In Equations 3.29 and 3.30, there are four unknowns: oil-phase pressure, Po , waterphase pressure, Pw , oil-phase saturation, So , and water-phase saturation, Sw. To
solve the system, we need two more equations. These equations, called the auxiliary
equations, are
Capillary pressure relationship: Pcow (Sw) = Po - Pw (3.31)
Saturation relationship: So + Sw = 1 (3.32)
With these last two equations, we now have a well-posed problem (four equations in
four unknowns). Field units for Equations 3.29 through 3.32 are as follows:
A [ft2]; k [perms]; kro krw [fraction]; P [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; o, w [cp]; Bo, Bw
[bbl/STB];
qosc, qwsc [STB/day]; So, Sw [fraction]; [dimensionless]; Vb [ft3];
t [day]; =5.615.
Figure 1 depicts a two-phase (oil-gas) system, considering flow only along the xdirection for illustrative purposes.
Figure 1
Note that while there is only one flow term for the oil phase, the gas phase has two
flow terms, which describe free gas flow and dissolved gas flow. The two gas flow
models must also be taken into account in the source and accumulation components
of the governing flow equation for the gas phase. The final equations for the twophase flow of oil and gas are shown below.
Oil Flow Equation (f defined as o):
(3.33)
Gas Flow Equation (f defined as g)
(3.34)
In the flow terms of Equation 3.34, the second term in each bracket represents the
contribution from the gas dissolved in oil. Similarly, qgsc represents the free gas
produced (injected), while the product Rsoqosc represents the dissolved gas
produced along with oil. Finally, the second term under the temporal derivative
represents the accumulation (depletion) of gas dissolved in oil. Again, the auxiliary
equations necessary to complete this formulation are the capillary pressure and
saturation relationships.
Pcow (Sw) = Po - Pw (3.35)
So + Sw = 1 (3.36)
(3.37)
Water flow equation (fw):
(3.38)
Auxiliary equations:
Pcgw (Sw) = Pg - Pw (3.39)
Sw + Sg = 1 (3.40)
Field units for Equations 3.37 through 3.40 are
A [ft2]; k [perms]; krw, krg [fraction]; P [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; g, w [cp]; Bw [bbl/STB]; Bg
[bbl/SCF]; qw [STB/day]; qg [SCF/day]; Sw, Sg [fraction]; [dimensionless]; Vb [cf]; t [day]; =5.615.
(3.41)
Water flow equation (f defined as w):
(3.42)
Gas flow equation (f defined as g; ignoring the solubility of gas in water):
(3.43)
Auxiliary equations:
Pcow (Sw) = Po - Pw (3.44)
Pcgw (Sg) = Pg - Po (3.45)
So + Sw + Sg = 1 (3.46)
In Equations 3.41 through 3.46, the dependent variables (unknowns) are the phase
pressures (Po , Pw and Pg), and phase saturations (So, Sw and Sg). The parameters
that appear in the coefficients, and which are functions of these unknowns (mo, krw,
etc.), are not treated as the problems principal unknowns, but are specified as part
of the data input. However, their dependence on the principal unknowns introduces
non-linearities of varying degrees. Field units are
A [ft2]; k [perms]; kro, krw, krg [fraction]; P [psi]; x, y, z [ft]; o, w, g, [cp]; Bo, Bw
[bbl/STB]; Bg [bbl/SCF]; qosc, qwsc [STB/day]; qgsc [SCF/day]; So, Sw, Sg [fraction]; Rso [SCF/STB]; f [dimensionless]; Vb
[ft3];
t [day]; =5.615.
pressure of the non-wetting phase and that of the wetting phase. In some cases,
there are incentives for assuming equality between the phase pressures, thus
allowing us to assign a single pressure for all the phases.
The formulation presented in Equations 3.41 through 3.46 allows interphase mass
transfer, so that gas can either come out of or go into solution. However, we assume
bulk transfer such that there is no compositional difference between the dissolved
gas and the free gas. By the same token, the composition of the free gas remains
unaltered. Changes in the oil phase density and viscosity are handled using PVT
data, which take into consideration the amount of gas dissolved in the oil. This
approach is commonly known as black-oil modeling, and it differs significantly from
compositional modeling.
temperature distribution does not come into play. Hence, all the phase behavior and
transport calculations are performed under isothermal conditions.
For an N-component system, we can write N equations of the form of Equation 3.47.
Thus, we will have N equations in (3N+6) unknowns. Table 2 summarizes the
auxiliary equations (2N+6) needed for closure.
Table 2
to say, with the additional equations comes increased computational overhead. The
energy equation usually accounts for heat transfer by heat conduction and
convection as well as heat storage. The energy and molar balance equations are
related by the various coefficients that appear in both of them.
Boundary and Initial Conditions
Mathematically speaking, the differential equations that describe flow in porous
media have an infinite number of solutions, only one of which will describe a
particular problem. We can obtain this solution by imposing additional constraints
known as boundary and initial conditions. In actuality, we impose these conditions as
part of the known data about the system under consideration. For instance, for a
reservoir with strong edge-water drive, we can set the pressure at the boundary to a
constant equaling the initial reservoir pressure, which implies that the reservoir is in
direct communication with an infinitely large aquifer.
The systems physical boundary is divided into two groups: the inner boundary
(usually the location where the well is physically coupled to the reservoir) and the
outer boundary (usually the limits of the reservoir). The conditions that are specified
at these boundaries constitute the boundary conditions. The most often used
boundary conditions can be grouped into two main categories, Dirichlet and
Neumann type. In a Dirichlet type boundary condition, the values of the dependent
variables are specified at the boundaries, whereas it is their gradients that are so
specified in the Neumann type.
Depending on what we know at the wellbore (either flow rate or pressure), we can
specify the Dirichlet-type boundary condition (i.e., pressure) or Neumann-type (i.e.,
flow rate). Similarly, at the outer boundarydepending on the physical
characteristicswe may be able to specify either Neumann or Dirichlet-type
boundary conditions. For instance, if we have a sealed boundary that allows no flow
into or out of the reservoir, we specify the vanishing Neumann-type boundary
condition (i.e., zero pressure gradient across the boundary). On the other hand, a
strong edge water drive enables us to specify the Dirichlet-type boundary condition
(i.e., pressure specification). Numerical handling of the inner and outer boundary
conditions is a crucial component in conducting reservoir studies.
Similar to the boundary conditions, it is necessary to describe the original state of
the system before the process under consideration begins (for instance, before
initiating a production or injection process). The conditions that describe the values
of the dependent variables at the pre-set time (such time is usually set to zero) are
known as the initial conditions for the problem. The existing hydrostatic head
distribution determines the initial saturation and pressure distribution.
With the imposition of the boundary and initial conditions, the formulation of the
problem is now complete and ready for solution. What we have is a well-posed
mathematical problem which guarantees the existence of a unique solution.
Analytical vs. Numerical Solution Methods
There are two techniques for solving mathematical reservoir models: analytical and
numerical. Each of these has certain strengths and limitations.
Figure 1
There are no discrete points at the reservoirs external boundaries. In setting up the
grid system, we must be especially careful in placing the grid with respect to the
wells. First, the well should be located at the center of its host grid block. Second,
each grid block should have no more than one well within the same grid block. In
cases where these conditions are difficult to meet, there are techniques for handling
them. For example, if it is difficult to locate the wells such that they coincide with the
grid center, we can shift them slightly to satisfy this condition. Also, if we cannot
avoid having more than one well in the same grid block, we can mathematically
replace them with one well of equivalent strength.
Figure 2 shows the same multi-well reservoir in which two wells are combined into
one equivalent well (wells W1 and W2) located in the center of a new block.
Figure 2
In doing so, the number of blocks along the x- and y-directions is decreased by one,
which results in an overall decrease of 6 blocks.
Note that in using a finite number of grids to develop a numerical model, the
reservoirs physical boundary cannot always coincide with a grid-imposed boundary.
The finer the grid, the closer the two boundaries will be. It is necessary to
compromise between how much boundary information needs to be captured (via
finite grids) and the amount of computational overhead involved. Obviously, as the
number of grid blocks increases, so do the memory and the CPU time requirements.
Mesh-centered grids
In mesh-centered (or point-distributed) grids, the discrete points are located at the
grid line intersections . In contrast to body-centered grids, there are discrete points
located on the reservoir boundaries ( Figure 3 ).
Figure 3
Table 1
We must always be aware that the quality of output depends on the quality of input.
Each block added to the system demands information in terms of accurate property
representation. A 40-foot blanket sand without significant porosity and permeability
variation, or without property information in the vertical direction, does not require
subdivision into several layers. By a similar token, in terms of areal coverage, it is
unnecessary to divide a reservoir into blocks beyond where information is known, or
where there is significant lateral property variation. In these two examples, the only
consideration on which we must base our selection is mathematical requirements,
which we will discuss later.
A principal goal of reservoir simulation is to define the level of information or detail
desired. We must define a priori what this goal is and what questions we need to
answer at each phase of the study. For instance, if we need to further develop a
certain portion of a producing field, we will need to focus on that area, perhaps by
imposing a larger number of blocks to better represent saturation and pressure
distributions. Similarly, if a production well requires stimulation work that involves
perforating and/or fracturing, then we must focus attention in that section by using
finer grids.
In some reservoir studies, the quality and detail of the information we need may
require us to use much finer grid blocks. A case in point is the simulation of an EOR
process, where we need to track a fluid front in order to better control the outcome.
In instances like steamflooding or miscible flooding, where changes are abrupt and
the interactions between the phases are strong, a fine grid system will help capture
the details of the changes taking place.
Figure 1
In studying this system on a unit basis, we have the option of placing the grid so
that production and injection wells are positioned diagonally with respect to each
other. The second option is to construct the grid on a larger unit, so that the
injection and production wells are on adjacent corners.
Note that although we are solving the same problem, the two different grid
alignments result in two different solutions. The difference becomes more significant
for cases when the mobility ratio is greater than one. It becomes even further
pronounced in the case of unfavorable mobility ratio when finer grid blocks are used.
However, for favorable mobility ratio, refining the grid diminishes the disparities
between solutions.
One plausible solution to this problem is to use a higher order finite-difference
approximation (e.g., a 9-point finite-difference scheme in areal studies) which brings
in the diagonal interaction between the discrete points.
Local grid refinement
We have emphasized that while grid refinement does yield greater accuracy in
numerical reservoir simulation, a studys cost tends to increase in direct proportion
to the number of grid blocks it uses. A good compromiseand a way to avoid placing
blocks where they are not neededis to refine the grids around the locality where we
require more detailed information, and/or where rapid changes occur. This is called
local grid refinement. Figure 2 shows several refinement strategies that we can use
in conducting reservoir simulation studies.
Figure 2
Part (a) of Figure 2 shows a coarse grid composed of 81meshcentered grid points. The shaded area around the well is the section
from which we need detailed information.
We could get this information by performing a global grid refinement
as shown in part (b) of Figure 2, which involves a total of 289 discrete
points. Such refinement over the entire reservoir, however, is
unnecessary.
Part (c) of Figure 2 depicts the conventional approach for resolving
this problem. This approach results in the desired level of refinement
not only around the wellbore, but also outside of the area of interest,
yielding a total of 169 cells.
Part (d) of Figure 2 illustrates the best solution, which limits
refinement to the area of interest. This scheme uses a total of 137 grid
points. We should emphasize that the type of local grid refinement
shown in (d) requires specialized handling of the non-continuous grid
lines at the interface between the refined and the coarse areas.
Figure 3
In this scheme, the level of refinement increases as we move toward the well, where
the most rapid changes take place. A total of four levels of refinement are shown in
conventional local refinement and true local refinement schemes (Parts (a) and (b),
respectively).
The ultimate refinement strategy involves dynamically changing the grid size as
needed. For example, in following a flood front movement, the area being refined
continually changes as the front propagates. In this type of adaptive grid refinement
scheme, we use a certain set of criteria such as pressure and/or saturation gradients
to delineate the region that needs the refinement. We use the same set of criteria to
remove the previously refined region as the front moves away from that region.
Dynamic grid refinement requires a high level of numerical maturity and
sophistication, and so is only available in advanced simulators.
First-order derivative
First-order derivatives appear in the governing equations on the right-hand side in
the form of the time derivative (the accumulation term). In addition, first-order
derivatives appear when the gradient is specified across a given boundary. To
approximate the first-order derivatives, we use truncated Taylor series expansion.
Figure 1 introduces the notation we will use throughout this discussion.
Figure 1
(4.1)
Using the notation of Figure 1 , we can write Equation 4.1 as:
(4.2)
Forward-Difference Approximation:
The forward-difference approximation to the first-order derivative at point uses the
values of the function at points i and i +1. We can obtain this approximation from
Equation 4.2 by truncating all terms after the first-order derivative and rearranging
the equation to solve for (P/x)i. Note that in forward differencing, only the + sign in
Equation 4.2 is relevant. The result is
(4.3)
The second term on the right-hand side of Equation 4.3 denotes the error in the
approximation and is read as "order of ." The magnitude of the error is the same as
the magnitude of . In practice, the error term is dropped in writing the finitedifference analogues. Thus, we write:
(4.4)
which is clearly an approximation. Figure 2 shows the geometrical interpretation of
this approximation.
Figure 2
The exact derivative of P at point is the slope of the tangent AB to the curve at point
O. Equation 4.4 uses the slope of the secant OC to approximate this derivative. As
we can conclude from the figure, the accuracy of this approximation depends on the
shape of the curve, as well as the length of the interval between and . In the limit as
point is moved progressively closer to the secant OC tends to obtain the same shape
as the tangent AB.
In reservoir simulation, we use the forward difference approximation in conjunction
with the temporal derivative. The two neighboring points in this case represent the
old time level and the new time level . When this derivative is written at a point i in
the spatial domain it represents the rate of change of pressure with time at point i.
In other words,
(4.5)
In Equation 4.5, is the unknown that we want to determine, and represents the
known value of pressure at the old time level. Remember, we are using a marching
scheme in time, where we obtain information at the new time level from what is
already known at the old time level.
Backward-Difference Approximation:
With the same strategy, but now using the neighboring point , we can obtain the
backward-difference approximation to the first-order derivative from Equation 4.2
using the (-) sign:
(4.6)
Figure 3 shows the geometrical interpretation of Equation 4.6.
Figure 3
Central-Difference Approximation:
The central-difference approximation to the first-order derivative at
point i uses the two adjacent neighboring points and . We can obtain this
approximation by adding Equations 4.4 and 4.6:
(4.7)
Figure 4 shows the geometrical interpretation of Equation 4.7.
Figure 4
(4.8)
Second-order derivative
The left-hand-side of the flow equation is composed of second-order derivatives
representing the flux terms. To approximate these second-order derivatives, we use
central-difference approximation. This involves writing Equation 4.2 once with the
(+) sign and then with the (-) sign; we then add the two resulting equations
together to yield
(4.9)
Dropping the error term, Equation 4.9 becomes ESTA ES LA APROXIMACION DE LA
ECUACION EN DIFERENCIAS FINITAS
(4.10)
For heterogeneous systems where properties vary spatially, the second-order
(4.11)
Note that in Equation 4.11, the dependent variable P is expressed at the nodal
points, whereas the coefficient a is expressed at the block boundaries between nodes
i and i + 1 and i and i - 1. The subscripts i + 1/2 and i - 1/2 simply indicate that a
needs to be calculated using some averaging technique boundaries between blocks i
and i + 1 and i and i - 1 respectively.
Finite-difference schemes
There are two principal groups of finite-difference schemes: explicit and implicit. We
can illustrate the governing concepts for these schemes using the classical diffusivity
equation as it is written in one dimension:
(4.12)
Equation 4.12 has a second-order spatial derivative and a first-order temporal
derivative (a is assumed constant). Using the finite-difference approximations for
these derivatives we can write the finite difference analogue for Equation 4.12.
Before we do that, however, we must answer one question: at what time level do we
implement the approximation to the spatial derivative? The two most common
approaches are to evaluate them at the old time level (time level n) or the new time
level (time level n+1). These lead, respectively, to explicit and implicit schemes.
Accordingly, the explicit finite-difference analogue to Equation 4.12 is
(4.13)
Since pressures at the old time level are known at all locations, the only unknown in
Equation 4.13 is . In fact, we can rearrange Equation 4.13 to solve for this unknown:
(4.14)
When Equation 4.14 is written for every node, we have one unknown in one equation
for each node. Thus, we can solve explicitly, one unknown at a time, for the
pressures at the new time level.
The implicit finite difference analogue to Equation 4.12 is:
(4.15)
(4.16)
When we write Equation 4.16 for all the nodes where pressure is unknown, we obtain
a system of simultaneous equations. The solution to this system of equations
provides the pressure distribution at the new time level.
With the explicit scheme (Equation 4.14), we only need to solve one equation at a
time for the unknown pressure at a particular node. For the implicit scheme
(Equation 4.16), we must solve all the equations simultaneously. But while the
explicit scheme looks more attractive in terms of its simplicity, it is less often used
because of its restrictive stability constraints.
finite-difference analogue for porous media flow equations. For illustrative purposes
(and for the sake of brevity), we will develop this analogue for a single-phase flow
equation. Let us consider the flow equation for the slightly compressible single-phase
flow problem in three dimensions:
(4.17)
To approximate the second-order derivatives that appear in Equation 4.17, we
invoke Equation 4.11, and obtain
(4.18)
We write Equation 4.18 in the most explicit form simply because it is conducive to
recognizing one of the most important groups in reservoir simulation, the
transmissibility terms. In Equation 4.18, the pressure coefficients on the left-handside are known as the transmissibility. These define the interaction between two
neighboring grid blocks. Figure 5 shows two neighboring blocks (i, j, k and i+1, j, k)
whose properties are different, and the transmissibility term,
Figure 5
at the interface.
calculated
The term Axkx/x is the constant part of the transmissibility group, while the term B
could depend on the pressure. To calculate these two terms at the interface, we
must use averaging procedures. For the constant part of the transmissibility, if we
consider the two blocks as being connected in series, it becomes necessary to use
harmonic averaging, such as
(4.19)
The second term (B) is considered a weak function of pressure; that is, it exhibits
weak non-linearity. We calculate this term at the arithmetic average of pressures at
the two neighboring blocks:
Note that under multiphase flow conditions, a typical transmissibility term will
include relative permeability to the fluid for which the flow equation is being written.
In that case, the transmissibility group between the blocks i, j, k and i+1, j, k is
(4.20)
We calculate all of the terms in this multiphase transmissibility group as singlephase, except for the new term (krf). The relative permeability term is a strong
function of saturation and exhibits a high degree of non-linearity. In expressing this
term at the interface of two neighboring blocks, we need to establish the flow
direction to use the saturation of the upstream block. This procedure is known as
single-point upstream weighting, and can be summarized as
(4.21)
A more accurate representation of the relative permeability at the interface is known
as two-point upstream weighting, and is expressed as
(4.22)
We obtain Equations 4.21 and 4.22 by using a Taylor series expansion to expand the
relative permeability function. While Equation 4.21 yields a first-order approximation.
Equation 4.22 is a second-order approximation, and thus more accurate.
Although we have illustrated the transmissibility groups only for the i+1/2, j, k
interface, similar analyses apply to the other interfaces. In summary, it is imperative
to note that the transmissibility group consists of three components, and that each is
calculated differently.
Figure 6
The boundary conditions imposed on the system (as shown in Figure 6 ) translate to
the following equations:
(4.23)
where NX and NY represent the maximum number of blocks along the x- and ydirections, respectively.
The implementation of Equation 4.23 will result in pressure discontinuity at the
corner points (e.g., P1, 1 = PC and PD, PD PC ). Although at first glance, this may seem
to pose a problem, it does not. Finite difference equations are only written at the
nodes where pressures are not specified. In a conventional 5-point finite-difference
scheme, when the equation is written for node (2,2), we do not write the equation
for node (1,1) or the other corner points. If we use a 9-point finite-difference
scheme, then the corner points come into the picture, and we simply use the
arithmetic average assigned along the two conjoining edges.
Although we use a mesh-centered grid system in this discussion, the implementation
of the Dirichlet-type boundary conditions for a body-centered grid system follows a
similar logic. On the other hand, the implementation of the Neumann-type boundary
conditions for the body-centered and mesh-centered grid systems differ. This is
because different nodes are reflected with respect to the boundary. The reflection
nodes (which are actually outside of the domain of interest) constitute a practical
means of incorporating Neumann-type boundary conditions. In creating a reflection
node, we simply need to treat the boundary as a mirror showing the images of the
actual nodes that are adjacent to the boundary. Furthermore, note that these image
nodes are assigned the same properties as the actual nodes that they reflect. Figure
7 shows a body-centered grid with Neumann-type boundary conditions.
Figure 7
(4.24)
The above Equations 4.24 contain the reflection nodes (imaginary nodes), which we
can calculate as
(4.25)
Figure 8
The important difference is the node being reflected. The implementation of the
finite-difference approximation in this case will be as follows:
(4.26)
Again if we solve for the reflection nodes, we obtain the following sets of equations:
(4.27)
Note that for Neumann-type boundary conditions, pressures are still unknown for the
boundary nodes, and so must be computed. To write the finite-difference equations
for these nodes, we must obtain values of the pressure at the reflection nodes. We
achieve this by using Equations 4.25 and 4.27. Although introducing the reflection
nodes may appear to be adding more unknowns to the problem, each reflection node
brings with it a new equation, through which the boundary condition is incorporated.
Finally, for the special case of no-flow boundary conditions, pressures at the
reflection nodes are equal to those at the corresponding reflected nodes (simply set
the constants C1 through C4 equal to zero in Equations 4.25 and 4.27.
Having dealt with outer boundary conditions, we now focus on the inner boundary
(i.e., the well). Figure 9 shows a typical grid block hosting a vertical well.
Figure 9
We may express the relationship between the block pressure, the sandface pressure
and the flow rate as:
qsc = -PI (Pi,j,k - Psf) (4.28)
where PI is the productivity index, Pi, j, k is the pressure of the block hosting the well
and Psf is the sandface pressure. The sign convention is such that a positive q means
injection and a negative q indicates production.
The PI of a vertical well, as defined by Peaceman (1983), is given in Table 1 .
Table 1
As mentioned earlier, we can specify either the flow rate at the wellbore or the
flowing sandface pressure. For flow rate, we substitute the specified value into
Equation 4.18 (written for the block hosting the wellfor blocks with no wells, we set
flow rates equal to zero). After solving for the pressure distribution, we come back to
Equation 4.28 to solve for sandface pressure. When we specify sandface pressure,
we substitute Equation 4.28 into Equation 4.18, replacing the qi, j, k term. After
solving for the block pressures, we can then use Equation 4.28 to obtain the
resulting flow rate.
There have been a number of formulations proposed for implementing horizontal
wells in reservoir simulation. One simple approach is to use Equation 4.8 with
appropriately defined parameters (e.g., for a horizontal well oriented along the xdirection, we replace all the x-direction related terms in Equation 4.29 with the
corresponding terms in the z-direction and vice-versa; thus, kx becomes kz, x
becomes z, and h becomes x).
With the implementation of the inner and outer boundary conditions, the finitedifference representation is now complete and ready for solution.
(4.33)
Z, B, D, F, H and S are the transmissibility terms representing the interaction of
block i, j, k with the neighboring blocks. E represents the summation of
transmissibilities and the accumulation term coefficient, while Q includes all the
known terms collected on the right-hand side. Figure 10 graphically shows the
interaction of block i, j, k with the surrounding blocks.
Figure 10
The principal advantage of the SIP notation is its inherent flexibility. For instance,
having written it for three-dimensional flow, for one- and two-dimensional flows
some of the SIP coefficients simply drop out. Table 2 summarizes the possible
combinations and their corresponding SIP coefficients. Note also that for the blocks
located at the boundary, we can easily implement a no-flow boundary by setting the
corresponding SIP coefficient equal to zero across that boundary.
Table 2
Special considerations
In writing finite-difference analogues for partial differential equations, we must
always consider a number of important points, which principally pertain to the
accuracy of the resulting solution. The specific points of consideration include
solution stability, consistency and truncation error. Rarely does the user of a
reservoir simulator need to worry about these problems, but one should be aware of
them.
Stability analysis is meant to ensure that the round-off error (which arises over time
due to the computers finite word length as time evolves) does not magnify in such a
way as to obscure the solution. Stability analyses focus on defining the stability
criterion for a given finite-difference scheme. These types of analyses provide results
such as conditional stability and unconditional stability or instability. When we
encounter a conditional stability, the criterion will bring in certain limitations on the
block dimensions and time step sizes. Although an unconditional stability implies no
restriction on the block and time step sizes,we shouldkeep in mind that the physical
meaning of the solution can be lost if we assign unrealistically large block and time
step sizes.
The next important question to answer is whether the proposed scheme is consistent
(i.e., compatible) with the original partial differential equation. In other words, does
the proposed finite-difference analogue collapse to the original partial differential
equation in the limit as the block dimensions and time step size approach zero? The
truncation error is the difference between the original partial differential equation
and its finite-difference analogue. For a compatible scheme, we should expect that
the truncation error will disappear as the block dimensions and the time step size
become infinitesimally small. If this does not happen, we have a consistency
problem. In other words, the proposed scheme produces a solution to a different
problem (partial differential equation).
It is worth noting that in general, schemes used in reservoir simulationat least the
ones discussed in this textmeet stability as well as consistency criteria. If these
schemes are used, the engineer need not worry about these types of problems.
Figure 1
A no-flow boundary condition is imposed on the left end, while a non-zero pressure
gradient is specified on the right. A well with a flow rate qs is located in block #2. We
assume that the flowing fluid is slightly compressible.
Writing Equation 4.33 with the appropriate coefficients, we have
(5.1)
Equation 5.1 represents the characteristic equation for any block in Figure 1 .
Pressure is not known in any of these five blocks, and so we must write Equation 5.1
for each of them (i.e., i = 1,..., 5):
Moving to block #5, the imposed constant pressure gradient implies that
or
and
In implementing the flow rate specified at the well block, we invoke the following
definition of Q2:
Table 2a and Table 2b summarize the remaining coefficients and present them in matrix form.
Table 2a
Table 2b
When we solve this system of equations, we obtain the pressure distribution in the system. We
then calculate the sandface pressure in the wellbore using Equation 4.20. The objective is to
determine if the reservoir under study can support the imposed flow rate at the wellbore. Although
the calculation of sandface pressure, Psf, may appear to be superfluous, it is actually an important
parameter in production planning. For instance, the sandface pressure for the specified flow rate
qs can become too low to support the friction losses in the production tubing and the associated
peripheral wellbore devices; at this point a pump (e.g., downhole or sucker rod) may be needed
to augment the flow energy. In fact, it is not impossible for the calculated sandface pressure to
assume a negative value, which, of course, is unrealistic. In essence, what this tells the engineer
is that the reservoir can no longer support the desired production rate.
Figure 2
The reservoir under consideration has three no-flow boundaries and one constantpressure boundary. A well is located in block (2,2), at which sandface pressure is
specified as Psf. Although there are nine blocks in the system, the constant pressure
specification on the boundary blocks (1,1), (2,1), and (3,1) means that only six
blocks have unknown pressures. Hence, we need to write Equation 4.33 for just
these six blocks:
In implementing the inner boundary condition at the well block (2,2) where sandface pressure is
specified, we need to invoke the proper equation for E and Q.
Table 3a
Table 3a
and Table 3b summarize the resulting coefficient matrix, unknown vector and the
right-hand side vector for the two-dimensional, slightly compressible fluid flow
problem.
Table 3b
Solving the system of equations will yield the pressure distribution in the system.
The final step to calculate of the resulting flow rate (as determined by the computed
pressure distribution surface) using the equation
qsc = -PI (Pi, j, k - Psf)
where PI is the productivity index, Pi, j, k is the pressure of the block hosting the well and Psf is the
sandface pressure. The sign convention is such that a positive q means injection and a negative
q indicates production.
Figure 3
The reservoir is volumetric (completely sealed), and there is a well in the center of
the field, completed through only the top layer (2,2,2). Assume that a constant flow
rate of qs is specified. We start with the flow equation in its finite difference form:
We then write this equation for every block at which the pressure is unknown, i.e.,
In this case, there would be a total of 18 equations. The long-hand notation used
here is only for illustrative purposes; ordinarily these equations are automatically
generated within the computer model. Again, in implementing the no-flow boundary
conditions we should simply observe the following:
Zi, j, k
Bi, 1 , k
D1, j, k
F3, j, k
Hi, 3, k
Si, j, 2
To implement the constant flow rate specification at the well block, we invoke the
appropriate equation:
When we solve the system of equations with the hepta-diagonal coefficient matrix
structure, we obtain the reservoir pressure distribution. We use this pressure
distribution, together with the flow rate specification at the wellbore, in calculating
the flowing sandface pressure at the well.
Figure 4
For the sake of brevity, we will adopt a simple block numbering scheme, as shown in
Figure 4 . The ten equations for this reservoir are as follows (cf. Equation 4.33):
E1 P1 + F1 P2 + H1 P5 = Q1 D2P1 + E2P2 = Q2
E3P3 + F3P4 + H3P6 = Q3
D4P3 + E4P4 + F4P5 + H4P7 = Q4
B5P1 + D5P4 + E5P5 + H5P8 = Q5
B6P3 + E6P6 + F6P7 = Q6
B7P4 + D7P6 + E7P7 + F7P8 + H7P10 = Q7
B7P4 + D7P6 + E7P7 + F7P8 = Q7
D9P8 + E9P9 = Q9
saturation distribution, Sw from the partial differential equation describing the flow of
that phase.
At this stage, we know the Pw and Sw distributions. This enables us to determine the
oil phase pressure distribution using the capillary pressure relationship between the
oil and water phases. Similar to the determination of Sw, after obtaining the Pw
distribution, we explicitly solve the oil-phase partial differential equation for the oilphase saturation, So.
With the values of So and Sw calculated, we can easily determine Sg (Sg = 1 - So Sw). Finally, using the capillary pressure relationship between the oil and gas phases,
we obtain the gas phase pressure (Pg) distribution. This completes one iteration; we
then repeat the whole procedure until we achieve convergence. At the beginning of
each iteration, all the pressure and saturation dependent terms are updated using
the most recent information available. Figure 1 is a flow chart highlighting the major
steps involved in the IMPES method.
Figure 1
In the simultaneous solution (SS) method, we convert the saturation derivatives that
appear on the right-hand-side of the flow equations to pressure derivatives using the
capillary pressure relationships. In this manner, we obtain three partial differential
equations, with the principal unknowns being the phase pressures. In other words, at
each grid node there are three unknowns. This does not pose any problem, however,
because we have three equations to write at each node.
With three equations for each node, the resulting coefficient matrix becomes
significantly larger. For example, for a three-dimensional system with 10x15x3
blocks, the size of the coefficient matrix is 1350x1350. The overall structure of the
coefficient matrix is similar to the corresponding single-phase structures. However,
since more than one partial differential equation is approximated at each block, the
resulting elements of the coefficient matrix are either 2x2 or 3x3 submatrices for
two-phase and three-phase flow problems, respectively. Accordingly, for a twodimensional three-phase flow problem, we often refer to the resulting coefficient
matrix as a tri-tri-pentadiagonal matrix typifying the aforementioned structure. Once
we have constructed the coefficient matrix and obtained the phase pressures, using
the capillary pressure relationship in an inverse manner, we obtain Sw and Sg. The
calculation of So is straightforward when Sw and Sg are available. Figure 2
summarizes the basic steps of the simultaneous solution procedure.
Figure 2
Truncating the above series after the first-order terms, we obtain a system of linear
equations in two unknowns, x and y.
The solution of these two equations for x and y leads to better estimates of the
solution of the original non-linear equations. We repeat this process in an iterative
manner until the improvements in x and y become small enough to satisfy the
pre-set convergence criterion. We can express the iterative process in the matrix
form as follows:
which is followed by:
(5.3)
and the unknown vector,
(5.4)
The right-hand members form the right-hand side vector
(5.5)
We can express the set of equations summarized by Equation 5.2 in matrix notation
as
AX = C (5.6)
In reservoir simulation problems, coefficient matrices are sparsely filled and contain
a main diagonal and a number of additional diagonals. This relates to the way in
which the grid blocks are ordered (i.e., the order in which the finite difference
equations are written), the irregularity of the external boundaries and the number of
dimensions.
Ordering of grid blocks
There is a one-to-one correspondence between the re-ordering of matrix elements
and re-numbering of reservoir grid blocks. Therefore, if we know the coefficient
matrix structure that results from a certain numbering scheme, we can employ the
appropriate direct and/or iterative equation solver.
Standard ordering by rows
Figure 1 shows standard ordering by rows for grid blocks in a 5x2 model, and the
resulting coefficient matrix.
Figure 1
The non-zero elements of the coefficient matrix are indicated by x; positions, while
zero elements are left blank.
The coefficient matrix has a banded structure, and so is called a band matrix; its
non-zero elements lie on parallel diagonals. The band width for the reservoir of
Figure 1 is eleven (there are eleven parallel diagonals between the lowermost and
uppermost diagonals, including the main diagonal). To calculate the band width, we
multiply the maximum number of blocks in the direction they are ordered by two,
and then add one; in this case, (5x2)+1=11.) Note that the upper and lower
diagonals 3 and 4 have zero elements.
Standard ordering by columns
Figure 2 shows the standard ordering by columns of the reservoir from Figure 1 ,
Figure 2
and the resulting coefficient matrix with its non-zero elements. Here, the band width
for the coefficient matrix is five (2x2+1=5). If the solution algorithm operates only
with the elements located between the uppermost and lowermost diagonals, this
ordering scheme will significantly reduce computational requirements.
Checkerboard (Cyclic-2) Ordering
Consider a reservoir model numbered in a checkerboard fashion, as shown in Figure
3.
Figure 3
In ordering the grid blocks, we number the shaded blocks first and then the
unshaded blocks. The resulting coefficient matrix offers the advantage that, during
the forward solution stage of Gaussian elimination (a common method for solving
systems of linear algebraic equations), only a small portion of the matrix needs to be
worked for triangularization
Checkerboard (D-4) Ordering
In checkerboard D-4 ordering, we number grid blocks along alternate diagonals. This
alternate diagonal ordering leads to substantial savings in computational overhead
(CPU time and storage). Figure 4 shows a typical coefficient matrix generated from
D-4 ordering of a 4x5 matrix.
Figure 4
(D-2) Ordering
The D-2 ordering scheme is also known as diagonal ordering. The resulting
coefficient matrix has a relatively small bandwidth ( Figure 5 ).
Figure 5
Table 1 provides a summary of the storage and computational work requirements for
different ordering schemes.
Table 1
A close inspection of Table 1 indicates that the greatest improvement in D-4 ordering
is observed when J=I.
Note: All non-zero elements appearing in the coefficient matrices are single elements
for one-phase problems. However, they represent 2x2 and 3x3 sub-matrices for twophase and three-phase problems, respectively.
Solution methods
One of the more important steps of a numerical simulation study is solving the
systems of equations generated by the finite-difference approximation. Our goal is
always to end up with a system of linear equations, regardless of whether the
original equations are linear or non-linear. Hence we need to linearize the non-linear
equations before proceeding. In the broadest sense, there are two main categories of
solution methods for the resulting system of linear algebraic equations: direct and
iterative.
Direct solution methods
For a direct solution, we assume that the machine performing the computations is
capable of carrying an infinite number of digits (i.e., there is no round-off error). In
this ideal situation, a direct solution method will yield an exact solution after a finite
number of elementary arithmetical operations.
In reality, every computer carries a finite number of digits; round-off errors do
occur, resulting in non-exact solutions. As the number of operations increases, so
does the cumulative round-off error. For very large systems of equations, it is
possible for the round-off errors to grow uncontrollably to the point of generating
unrealistic results and even instability. Still, there are situations in which a direct
solution offers distinct advantages. Furthermore, a well-written direct-solver
subroutine subprogram can be used on a variety of problems. This feature is
particularly attractive, because it lets us test various parts of the code development
without having to worry about the efficacy of the solver.
The Gaussian elimination technique is the fundamental algorithm used by direct
solvers. As shown in Table 2a ,
Table 2a
Table 2b ,
Table 2b
and Table 2c his technique involves a systematic set of elementary row operations
that essentially transform the coefficient matrix into an upper triangular matrix.
Table 2c
This step of the solution process is known as the forward solution. Once we obtain
the upper triangular matrix, the backward solution comes into effect, whereby the
last unknown is directly solved for and the others are obtained by systematic
backward substitution.
Matrices associated with the finite difference methods are often sparse; therefore,
they lend themselves more easily to iterative solutions. Remember that in computer
operations, elementary arithmetic operations involving zeros take the same amount
of time. Hence the sparseness of the matrix does not affect the time involved in
using direct solvers. However, there are direct solution algorithms which take
advantage of the structure of the coefficient matrix involved in finite-difference
techniques. One of the most popular techniques is Thomas Algorithm, which is
designed for tri-diagonal coefficient matrices. With this algorithm, we simply avoid
performing any arithmetic operations on the zero elements of the coefficient matrix,
thereby saving a significant amount of time. Table 3 summarizes this algorithm.
Table 3
Iterative methods offer two important advantages: less storage requirements and
less computational work. The simplest and best-known iterative methods for solving
systems of linear algebraic equations are grouped under the name fixed point
iterative methods.
To illustrate, consider the following system of equations:
a11x1 + a12x2 + ......... +a1nxn = C1
a21x1 + a22x2 + ......... +a2n xn = C1 (5.11)
....................................................
an1x1 + an2x2 + ......... +ann xn = Cn
In the fixed-point iterative techniques, we rearrange the first equation to solve for x1
in terms of the other variables; we similarly rearrange the second equation to solve
for x2, and then the last equation to solve for xn. We begin the iteration process by
making guess-values for all the variables; each variable is then updated according to
a certain procedure which differs from one method to another.
Table 4 summarizes the algorithmic equations for the Point-Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel and
Pointwise Successive Over-Relaxation methods as they apply to the solution of
Equation 5.11.
Table 4
The algorithms in Table 4 are presented in the order of increasing convergence rates.
In other words, the Point-Jacobi method is the slowest, while the Point-Successive
Over-Relaxation method is the fastest. The convergence rates are easy to explain:
since the Point Gauss-Seidel method uses the most current values as soon as they
become available, whereas the Point-Jacobi method relies on the old values until the
current iteration level computations are carried out on all the unknowns. The Point
Successive Over-Relaxation method is essentially based on the Gauss-Seidel
method. If we set the value of opt to one, Equation 5.14 reduces to Equation 5.13.
The basic strategy of Equation 5.14 is to magnify the successive improvements
achieved by each converging Gauss-Seidel iteration through the use of a common
multiplier, opt. We refer to this common multiplier as the optimum acceleration
parameter, whose value is problem-dependent and always lies between 1 and 2.
Figure 6 shows a typical variation of the number of converging iterations with values
of .
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 7 reveals two important characteristics. First the solution always uniformly
approaches the true solution from one side (no oscillations around the true solution).
Secondly, we see that for the same problem Gauss-Seidel converges twice as fast as
the Point-Jacobi method, whereas Point Successive Over-Relaxation converges twice
as fast as the Gauss-Seidel method. One note of caution: if the Jacobi method does
not converge on a given problem, neither will the other two.
We can considerably enhance the efficiency of point-iterative methods by grouping a
number of unknowns together and solving for them simultaneously at a given
iteration level. One easy way of grouping is to group all the points located along the
same line. This approach is called Line Successive Over-Relaxation. Once we solve
the values of the unknowns for the particular line at a given iteration level, we can
immediately apply them when the algorithm is executed on the next line of points.
Once we are on the new line, the points of the next line are still at the old iteration
level.
Sometimes we can group more than one line of points together (even possibly all the
points on a plane of a three-dimensional system) to form a block of points. We then
solve for all the unknowns on these points simultaneously; this strategy is referred
to as Block Successive Over-Relaxation.
The complexity of the problem dictates the methods we should use; as the problem
complexity increases in terms of the number of unknowns and the relationships
among these unknowns, we must use more powerful iterative methods. In this class
of methods one can include alternating direction implicit procedure, strongly implicit
procedure, conjugate gradient method, and nested factorization method.
Comparison of direct and iterative methods
Although the efficacy and the efficiency of direct and iterative methods are problemdependent, there are some general features which distinguish them from one
another. Table 5 summarizes these features.
Table 5
Internal Checks
We must always ensure that the numbers coming out of the computer are
reasonable, realistic and descriptive of the problem at hand. There are three basic
checks we should always perform at the end of each time step computation. These
are the residual check, incremental material balance check and cumulative material
balance check.
In the residual check, we simply substitute the solution back into the original set of
equations and observe the departure from the equation by calculating the difference
between the left-hand side and the right-hand-side of the equations. We do this
check at the grid block level. Any grid blocks exhibiting unexpectedly large residuals
need to be scrutinized and diagnosed for the underlying reasons.
The incremental material balance check simply questions whether or not mass is
being conserved or not during a time step. Before we perform this check, we should
pre-determine the acceptable material imbalance tolerance. Once we obtain the
solution for a given time step, we calculate the reservoirs mass content using the
obtained pressure and saturation values. We then compare this mass content against
the mass content calculated at the end of the previous time step. The difference
between these two should equal the mass produced and/or introduced into the
reservoir. An unacceptable material imbalance may indicate a loose tolerance level
imposed on the solution algorithm. We can correct this problem by tightening the
tolerance used on equation solvers.
The cumulative material balance check is similar to the incremental material balance
check. This time, however, we apply conservation of mass at the end of each time
step against the original mass content of the reservoir at the initial time. This check
informs us as to the extent of the computational errors accumulated so far into the
run. In this way, when we report the results of the simulation study, we will be able
to comment on the level of confidence.
While not all of us will be involved in actually developing simulators, we still must
have a general understanding of what goes into their development. Furthermore, we
must be quick to recognize "red flags" so that we can exercise prudent engineering
judgement. In this way, we will be able to ask the right questions for assessing the
validity of the numbers being generated by the computer.
Table 1
Rock Properties
After procuring the geological information, which basically defines the reservoir
boundaries and structure, we need to obtain information about the reservoirs
internal structure, as typified by its fluid storage capacity, fluid distribution and
ability to transmit these fluids. That is, we need to determine its porosity, fluid
saturation, and permeability, respectively. As far as the reservoir simulation is
concerned, these are the key macroscopic properties that control the flow. The
fundamental microscopic properties that affect fluid transport in porous media, such
as pore size and pore size distribution, pore throats, tortuosity, wetting affinity,
mineralogy, etc., are all embedded in these key macroscopic properties. This is why
these properties, even though they have the controlling effect, are not explicitly
represented in the flow equations. Table 2 provides an overall summary of the rock
properties used in reservoir simulation.
Table 2
Fluid Properties
Understanding reservoir fluid properties is essential to formulating their overall
behavior. Apart from the fact that many of these properties appear in the coefficients
of the governing equations, they are also used to compute reserves in surface units.
Generally, these properties are functions of the basic thermodynamic variables of
temperature, pressure and composition.
There are two broad categories of simulators: black oil simulators and compositional
simulators. While black oil simulators use the local average properties of the fluids
for characterization, compositional models rely on the accurate composition of the
fluids. Similarly, while most simulators assume isothermal reservoir conditions, there
are certain situations (e.g., thermal recovery operations) which necessitate the use
of energy balance equations and consideration of the fluid properties. In a typical
black oil simulator, we express fluid properties as functions of pressure, to different
degrees of nonlinearity. These nonlinearities make the governing equations even
more nonlinear. Depending upon the degree of nonlinearity, we may need to update
these properties at each iteration level in order to preserve the form of the original
partial differential equation. This requires us to update the transmissibility terms at
each iteration level, thus having a tremendous implication on the computational
overhead required--particularly if direct solvers are used. This is because at every
iteration level, a new coefficient matrix is generated as properties are updated.
Therefore, triangularization of the coefficient matrix has to be performed
continuously throughout the iteration process. One strategy for alleviating this
problem is to simply keep the properties fixed for a pre-set number of iterations
before updating them during a time step. A heuristic approach is necessary to assess
that this strategy will not adversely impact the adequacy of the solution. Table 3
summarizes the relevant fluid properties.
Table 3
Figure 1
It is unusual for measured data to lie on a smooth continuous curve; data scattering
is almost always present. We may have to smooth the data using statistical
techniques such as least squares analysis, analysis of variation and regression. All of
these techniques are a part of preparing the acquired raw data for a reservoir
simulation study.
After we have acquired, analyzed and smoothed the data, we must put them into the
form of a simulator input. There are two basic methods of doing this. We can have
data input already expressed in terms of analytical functions, or in tabular form.
In obtaining an analytical equation, two approaches are commonly
taken: approximating functions by least square analysis and
interpolating functions such as cubic splines. These functions are
coded as function subprograms, which have to be called each time the
property value is needed. Since this involves a great deal of data
transfer between the different segments of the code, some measure of
inefficiency in terms of time is expected.
relative permeabilities, we simply need to use the equality of the horizontal flow
calculated between the blocks using the pseudo-relative permeability (computed at
the volume-averaged saturation) and the actual relative permeability (computed at
the actual water saturation in the uninvaded zone). Similarly, the use of appropriate
pseudo capillary pressure functions either partially or totally eliminates the need for
vertical gridding as long as such functions maintain the integrity of the initial fluid
distribution, fluid movement and pressure distribution.
Another concept, which is more widely used in analytical pseudo functions, is that of
vertical equilibrium . Here, we assume that the potential gradient of all the phases in
the vertical direction is zero. As depletion takes place, gravity and capillary forces
attain equilibrium in the vertical direction in every grid block of the reservoir model.
This implies that the differences between the phase pressures are totally balanced by
capillary pressure, thereby fixing the vertical saturation distribution. In effect, this
reduces a three-dimensional problem to a two-dimensional areal problem, and a
two-dimensional cross-sectional problem to a one-dimensional problem. While the
vertical equilibrium pseudo function has some inherent error in describing the
vertical dimension, it is quite adequate for many reservoir problems.
It is imperative to pre-test the applicability of any set of pseudo functions by
comparing results obtained from them with models describing detailed vertical
segmentation using actual data.
While the basic assumption of vertical equilibrium is reasonable for many reservoir
problems, it is not valid in reservoirs with poor vertical communication. In such
cases, the time it takes for any perturbation to dissipate in the vertical direction
compared to a mean residence time for any fluid particle moving in the lateral
direction causes significant vertical potential gradients, thus violating the premise of
vertical equilibrium. One suggested procedure is to assume a set of vertical equilibria
in time; but even this approach breaks down in many cases. The approach for
generating the dynamic pseudo functions follows essentially the same procedure as
in the case of analytical pseudo functions, except that areal weighting is used crosssectionally. This is done by partitioning each block into finer grid blocks. The end
result is that a pseudo function is generated for each vertical column of blocks.
Figure 1
When using a reservoir simulator to study water coning or gas cusping, we must
take extra care to capture the rapid changes that take place within the immediate
vicinity of the wellbore. To enhance the description of these near-wellbore changes,
we resort to single-well modeling most of the time. A radial-cylindrical grid ( Figure 2
), with smaller grid spacing along the radial-direction and dense spacing along the
vertical direction, captures the movement of the saturation front.
Figure 2
Figure 3
In some cases, if simulators can handle locally refined grids, then we can use local
refinement techniques effectively. We can place these locally refined sections around
the wellbore (part b of Figure 3 ), or they can be dynamic such that they move
together with the oil-water contact (part c of Figure 3 ).
Note that not every simulator has these options, and that implementing these
options to existing models can sometimes be extremely demanding.
Other properties, such as the capillary pressure and relative permeability functions,
also differ as we move from one subdomain of flow to the other.
There are two general approaches to simulating dual-porosity systems: dualporosity/single-permeability and dual-porosity/dual-permeability.
Figure 4
However, in simulating the fracture system, we idealize the system as shown in part b of Figure 4
. Usually, a computational block consists of several matrix blocks. For instance, in part b, each
computational block is made up of eight matrix blocks.
Although the matrix blocks in the idealized dual-porosity system (part b of Figure 4 )
are shown as cubes, we could have shown them as spheres, cylinders, or slab
elements. Studies have shown that there is no significant disparity between results
obtained by using any of these geometrical configurations. The main difference
usually results from the handling of the matrix/fracture fluid exchange and the types
of the capillary pressure and relative permeability functions used within the fracture
network.
The main computational challenges arise from the strong inherent nonlinearities in
the energy equations, the discontinuity resulting from phase changes (condensation,
vaporization), and a strong coupling between the fluid movement and the energy
transfer. These peculiar characteristics manifest themselves in numerical problems
such as instability and grid orientation effects.
In-situ combustion uses basically the same principle as steam injection, i.e., using
heat to reduce viscosity of oil. In this case, however, the heat comes from injecting
air into the reservoir and igniting part of the oil to start a combustion front.
The primary consideration in simulating in-situ combustion, apart from all the other
factors mentioned in the discussion of steam flooding, is the combustion reaction
kinetics. The temperature dependence for the kinetics equations is usually described
by Arrhenius type rate expressions. These strongly temperature-dependent functions
introduce a new level of nonlinearity to the energy equations. We must be aware of
possible severe stability problems in in-situ combustion simulators. Excessive
computational time is not at all uncommon, since it is not unusual for a typical in-situ
combustion run to be two orders of magnitude larger than a typical black oil problem
applied to the same reservoir.
In thermal simulators, apart from mass balance checks, we must also ascertain
energy balance as part of the internal checks.
Compositional Simulators
Compositional reservoir simulators account for multiphase flow and interfacial mass
transfer of each component in a hydrocarbon system. This implies that at any given
time, the simulator tracks fluid movement and establishes the state of equilibrium of
the reservoir fluids at the discrete points. At each node, phase pressure, phase
saturation and overall composition are computed as a function of time.
Compositional simulators are particularly useful in describing gas condensate
reservoirs, volatile oil reservoirs, gas cycling processes and in some thermal recovery
processes, in which compositional changes are important.
The distinguishing feature of a compositional simulator is its full coupling of the fluid
phase behavior model with the flow equations and perhaps the energy equation. In
this case, rigorous flash calculations are performed using either tabular equilibrium
ratios or analytical equations of state. All the volumetric and thermal properties are
computed as being composition-dependent.
There are certain limitations inherent in using compositional reservoir simulators.
The two principal ones are the excessive CPU time requirements and the problem of
adequately describing the fluid phase behavior.
Most coalbed simulators use Langmuir sorption isotherms to describe the release of
methane from the adsorbed state. They achieve this by solving a first order kinetic
sorption model. Along these lines, two approaches have been developed: equilibrium
sorption isotherms (pressure dependent) and non-equilibrium sorption isotherms
(pressure and time dependent).
PROBLEMAS
Write the finite difference analog of the following partial differential equations of fluid flow in
porous media:
a.
<
=0
First, substitute for the potential gradients, then approximate. None of the reservoir
properties are constants.
c.
SOLUCION
a. <
represents the flow of a single-phase, incompressible fluid in one-dimensional
rectangular coordinates.
(i) Since kx, Ax, , and B are to be treated as constants,
<
or
<
The finite difference approximation will be
<
or
<
or
<
(ii) If kx and Ax distributions are heterogeneous, we can write the governing partial
differential equations as
<
or
<
The finite difference approximation to the above equation will be
<
or, in more general form,
<
b.
<
Potential gradient is defined as (D positive downward)
<
Similar definitions will hold along the y and z directions. Substituting these
definitions into the given partial differential equation, we obtain
<
we can rearrange the above equation as follows:
<
<
<
c.
<
The above equation represents the single-phase flow of a slightly compressible liquid
in two dimensional rectangular oordinates. The finite-difference representation using
the implicit scheme is
<
OTRO
Consider the mathematical formulation of the two-phase flow of oil and gas. Identify
the unknowns of the problem and give the equations that need to be supplied for the
solution. Assume that sandface pressures are specified at the well locations.
SOL
We can express the two-phase flow of oil and gas using the following equations (for onedimensional flow):
Oil equation:
<
Gas Equation:
<
where
<
Unknowns of the problem are Po, Pg, So and Sg. Therefore, we need two more
equations. These two auxiliary equations are
Saturation relationship:
So+Sg=1.00
Capillary pressure relationship:
Pcgo(So) = Pg-Po
The two remaining unknowns are the flow rates qo and qg. Since sandface pressures
are specified, we can use the well equations to calculate the flow rates for each
phase:
<
OTRO
The following partial differential equation describes a specific fluid flow problem in a
porous medium with kx = 10 md, = 2 cp and Vb = 10,000 ft3. After examining the
given mathematical formulation, describe the flow problem and he porous media in
the fullest extent.
SOL
or
For = 2 cp, k = 10 md, Vb= 10,000 ft3 and B=1, q= 300 STB/D (injection rate
OTRO
You are given the function f(x)=3x2 + 6x + 5.
a. Calculate the value of at x = 1 using forward, backward and central difference
approximations using a grid spacing of X = 1.
Compare your results against the exact value of
b. Calculate the value of
at x = 1.
at x = 1 and comment.
SOL
Given the function f(x)=3x2+ 6x-5, we can calculate the exact value of
=12
at x = 1, with x=1:
at x = 1, with x=1:
at x = 1, with x=1:
at x = 1 as
= 6x+6
b. From part (a), we can see that the central difference approximation gives the
same result as the exact differentiation. This is not surprising, because centraldifference approximation is second-order accurate, and the higher-order derivatives
of the given function (which is a quadratic equation) vanish. That is,
OTRO
Give a complete formulation of two-phase (gas-water) flow applicable to a twodimensional domain with no depth gradients. Assume the solubility of gas in water
and the capillary pressure between the phases to be negligible. Treat the porous
medium as homogeneous, isotropic and incompressible. Reduce the equations to
their simplest forms and identify the principle unknowns and the equations that are
necessary to solve the problem.
SOL
Assumptions specified: Rsw=0
Pcgw=0 (Pg=Pw)
No depth gradient (=P)
2-D flow (x and y directions only)
Homogeneous property distribution
Isotropic property distribution (kx=ky=k)
Water equation:
Gas equation:
In these two equations, there are three principal unknowns: P, Sw and Sg. We
therefore need one more equation to close the system. This last equation will be the
saturation equation, which states that pores are always 100% filled with water and
gas. In other words,
Sw+Sg=1.00
For the flow rates, it will be necessary to use the well equations if sandface pressure
is specified. If one of the rates is specified, then the other flow rate will be treated as
an unknown.
OTRO
a. Describe the fluid flow problem and the porous media to the fullest
extent.
b. What are the principal unknowns of the problem? Also, provide the
necessary auxiliary equations to solve the problem.
SOL.
a. The two equations represent two-phase (oil and water) flow in a one-dimensional porous
medium. Although the reservoir has uniform thickness and width (i.e., Ax is constant), it has
heterogeneous permeability distribution. The reservoir is inclined, and therefore we consider the
depth gradient in the x-direction. The formation porosity is a function of pressure, which is why it
is not carried to the front of the derivative as a multiplier. We ignore the capillary pressure
between the oil and water phases, which is why there is no subscript assigned to P.
b. The problems principal unknowns are P, So and Sw. In addition to the two partial
differential equations given above, we need to use the saturation relationship
So+Sw=1.00
The flow rates will be calculated in conjunction with the well equations.
OTRO
Consider the one-dimensional flow of an incompressible fluid in a homogeneous
reservoir which is inclined with respect to the datum plane as shown in the figure.
Note that flow is taking place in one-dimensional mode parallel to the bedding plane.
(Flow direction is indicated as x-direction.).
Figure 1
a.
Write the partial differential equation which describes the flow problem
outlined above.
SOL.
a. <
Assuming that Ax and kx are constant, and since m and B are constants, we can
simplify this equation as
<
For this problem, dD/dx is constant. Therefore, the equation reduces to
<
<
OTRO
Consider the two-dimensional body-centered grid with the boundary conditions as
indicated in the following figure.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Show all the reflection nodes and their respective equations that you will need to
solve this problem.
SOL.
Figure 1
For reflection nodes: 1x, 3x, 5x, 9x, 2x and 4x (no-flow boundary),
OTRO
Solve <
for the two grids shown using zero boundary conditions. First, use Gauss-Seidel, =
1 . Then repeat with PSOR using = 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0. Plot number of
iterations versus and determine the opt.
Figure 1
Figure 1
SOL.
For configuration a, with an initial guess of 100, we obtain the following results
( =0.1):
Table 1
Table 1
Again, with an initial guess of 100 and convergence criterion of 0.1, we obtain the
following results ( =0.1):
Table 2
Table 2
Note that an exact solution for both of the systems will entail a zero distribution
throughout the systems.
OTRO
Consider the following Dirichlet-type problem given to describe the two-dimensional
flow of a single-phase slightly compressible liquid in an isotropic and homogeneous
porous medium with no depth gradients or wells.
Figure 1
a.
Write the partial differential equation which describes this problem and
simplify it.
b. Write the characteristic finite-difference approximation of part (a)
(Express the pressures at time level .)
c. Identify the unknowns of the problem and generate the system of
equations.
SOL.
a. Assuming no depth gradients, we can express the single-phase, slightly compressible flow
problem in two dimensions as
Since there are no wells, and the reservoir has isotropic and homogeneous property
distribution, we can further simplify the above equation (treating m and B as
constants):
figure 1
At node 1:
At node 2:
OTRO
Find the pressure distribution and flow rate into the well for the following 2dimensional, homogeneous and isotropic system. In solving the system of equations
generated by the finite-difference approximation, use the Gauss-Seidel iterative
procedure, with a pressure tolerance of 1 psia. Calculate the percent error by
checking the material balance.
Figure 1
Figure 1
SOL.
Figure 1
For the homogeneous, isotropic reservoir specified above, we can collapse the
governing partial differential equation to
Since sandface pressure is specified at the well block, flow rate is an unknown.
Therefore, it will be necessary to incorporate the flow rate equation using
Close inspection of the figure reveals that because of the existing symmetry planes,
there are actually four different blocks (numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the above figure)
with unknown pressures. Therefore, we will only need to write four equations at
these four blocks and solve them simultaneously.
Block 1 (well-block) is the only one where q _ 0. Therefore, we need to calculate the
following groups.
Then we can calculate the productivity index (PI) for the well as follows:
Then,
q1=-5.35(P1-600)
Equation for Block 1:
or P1+4P2+2P3=-2000
Equation for Block 3: P4+P2-4P3+1600+2000 = 0
or P2-4P3+P4 = -3600
Equation for Block 4: P3+P1-4P4+P3+1600 = 0
or P1+2P3-4P4=-1600
We can write these four equations for the Gauss-Seidel procedure as follows:
The following table summarizes the progression of the Gauss-Seidel iterations with a
convergence criterion of =1:
k
P1
P2
P3
P4
1000
1000
1000
1000
909
1227
1497
1356
1134
1512
1617
1492
1296
1633
1681
1565
1371
1683
1712
1599
1403
1707
1727
1614
1418
1718
1733
1621
1425
1723
1736
1629
1428
1725
1737
1626
1430
1726
1738
1627
10
1430
1727
1739
1627
(initial guess)
As we can see from the above iterations, convergence has been obtained after 10
iterations within a tolerance of 1 psi. The flow rate into the well, then, is
q1=-5.35 [1430-600] = -4441 STB/D ("-" sign indicates production).
Material Balance Check:
Since this is a steady-state flow problem, the volume of fluid entering the well block
has to be equal to the volume leaving the block through the wellbore.
Volume entering well block:
OTRO
Consider the single-phase, incompressible fluid flow problem taking place in a onedimensional homogeneous porous medium composed of four uniform blocks as
shown below.
a. Write the partial differential equation which governs the flow
problem described above and put it into its simplest form.
b. Give a finite-difference approximation of the partial differential
equation of part (a) and put it into a characteristic form.
c. Generate the system of equations that need to be solved to
determine the pressure distribution in the system. Assume that g/gc.
Do not solve the equations.
d. Can you offer an educated guess for the expected flow rate from the
well located in block 1? What is your guess?
Figure 1
SOL.
a. Starting with the single-phase, incompressible fluid flow equation in one dimensional
rectangular coordinates, we have
<
For a homogeneous reservoir, we can further simplify this relationship:
<
Assuming g/gc=1,
<
b.
<
For Block 1, we implement the no-flow boundary condition
Similarly, for Block 4,
<
For the well block (Block 1), we need to use the flow rate equation:
<
At this stage, we are ready to write the finite-difference equations for each block.
Block 1:
<
Since P0=P1 (from the given boundary condition), we can further simplify the above
equation to
-3.296P1 + P2 = -2886.10
Block 2:
<
which simplifies to P1-2P2+P3 = 58.33
Block 3:
<
which simplifies to P2-2P3+P4 = 7.77
Block 4:
<
which simplifies to P3-P4 = -177.22
Now we can solve the above four equations in four unknowns simultaneously. In the
matrix form, we have
<
The solution vector will be P1=1279.27; P2=1330.39; P3=1439.84; and P4=1577.06
psi.
d. Since this is a steady-state flow problem, the volume entering from the right end
of the reservoir should be equal to the flow rate from the well.
Volume entering:
<
Well production:
(-5.176)(1279.27)+6418.44 = -203.06
which checks with the entering volume to within 0.1%.
OTRO
Consider the single-phase, incompressible fluid flow problem shown in the following
figure. The reservoir is homogeneous and there are no depth gradients. The outer
boundaries of the blocks are completely sealed. A strong bottom drive keeps blocks 1
and 4 at a constant pressure of 3000 psia and block 3 at a constant pressure of 2000
psia. Sandface pressure of the well in block 5 is controlled by the hydrostatic head of
the fluid column in the well, i.e., wellhead pressure is atmospheric pressure.
Figure 1
a.
SOL
The governing equation is
which simplifies to
P2
P5
2500
2500
2500
2401.08
2487.23
2457.12
2485.71
2456.52
2485.53
2456.51
2485.51
2456.51
% error = 0.05
OTRO
Consider the incompressible fluid flow through the two-dimensional porous media as
shown below. The reservoir has homogeneous and isotropic property distribution
with no-flow boundaries Both of the wells are stimulated, and they have a skin factor
of -2. The shaded blocks are maintained at 3000 psia via strong bottom water
encroachment.
Figure 1
a.
Write the partial differential equation which describes the problem and
identify the unknown blocks and unknowns of the problem.
b. Write the finite difference equations for blocks 4, 6, 7, and 12 using
the numerical values of the coefficients
SOL
. The governing equation is
<
For the homogeneous, anisotropic reservoir described in this problem, we can write
the above equation as
<
Unknown pressures: P3, P4, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12
Other unknowns: Flow rate from well in Block #4; sandface pressure at the well in
Block #6.
b. First, we write the characteristic form of the finite-difference equation:
<
We can manipulate this equation as follows:
<
<
For blocks with no wells, we will have
<
For the block with the injection well, q = 600 STB/D (Block 6):
0.2P6+0.3P6-P6+0.3P7+0.2P10=-30
For the block with the production well, we need to calculate re 4 and k4 in the flow
rate equation (psf=1000 psia; Block #4).
<
Then
<
Upon substitution into equation for Block 4, we obtain
<
For Block 7,
0.2P3 + 0.3P6 - P7+0.3 P8 + 0.2P11=0
For Block 12,
0.2P8 + 0.3P11- 0.7P12= -600
OTRO
Consider the flow of a single-phase incompressible fluid in a reservoir which is
represented by the body-centered grid as shown below.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Solve for the pressure distribution in the reservoir using LSOR procedure with opt =
1.00
SOL
We need to solve the line equations separately and continue with the iterations until
we attain convergence. In this problem, Line 1 has one equation. For Line 2, we need
to solve 3 equations simultaneously. For Line 3, there is again only one equation to
be solved separately.
OTRO
Consider the steady-state flow of a single-phase incompressible liquid as shown in
the following figure. The permeability and thickness maps are provided. There are
two wells in the system producing at the indicated rates. Calculate the value of the
pressure gradient along the unknown boundary indicated in the figure.
Figure 1
Figure 1
SOL;
At j=4, p/y= 0.3 indicates influx. The total influx from j=4 blocks will be
Wells 1 and 2 are producing -1000 STB/D. Therefore, across the lower boundary,
there must be and influx of (-1000+676.2=-323.8 STB/D). Thus,
OTRO
Aki me quede
Consider the unsteady-state flow of a slightly compressible fluid in the twodimensional system shown below. Pressure throughout the reservoir is given as 3600
psia before the well is put on production. Assuming that the pressure-dependent fluid
properties are constant within the pressure range of the reservoir, solve for the
production rate at the end of 30 and 60 days using the backward difference
approximation to the governing partial differential equation. NOTE: All external
boundaries in this reservoir are no-flow boundaries.
Figure 1
Figure 1
SOL
Therefore,
Now we can write the finite-difference approximations for the five blocks using a
time step size of 30 days.
For Block 1,
P1+P1 -4P1 +P2+P1 +0=0.064P1 -(0.064)(3600)
or
-1.064P1+P2=-228.81
For Block 2,
or
P1 - 4.095P2 + P3 + P4= -1679.841
For Block 3,
P5+P2-4P3+P3+P3+0 = 0.064P3-228.81
or P2-2.064P3+P5 = -228.81
For Block 4,
P4 +P4 -4P4 +P5 +P2 + 0 = 0.064P4 -228.81
or P2-2.064P4+P5 = -228.81
For Block 5,
P5 +P4 -4P5 +P5 +P3 + 0 = 0.064P5 -228.81
or P3 +P4-2.064P5 = -228.81
At the end of the 30 days, we need to solve the above five equations in five
unknowns to find the pressure distribution in the system. The solution of this system
of equations generates
P1=1994.25 psia; P2=1893.07 psia; P3=2039.01 psia; P4=2039.01 psia; P5=2086.65
psia.
Note that as expected, P3 = P4 because of the existing symmetry.
The flow rate from the well at t=30 days will be
q2 = (-0.61)(1893.07)+858.7 = -296.07 STB/D (production)
For the second time step at t=60 days, we generate the following equations:
For Block 1,
-1.064P4+P2=(-0.064)(1994.25)
or
-1.064P4+P2=-127.63
For Block 2,
or P1-4.095P2+P3+P4=-1572.19
For Block 3,
P2+-2.064P3+P5 = (-0.064)(2039.01)
or P2-2.064P3+P5 = -130.49
For Block 4,
P2 -2.064P4 +P5 = (-0.064)(2039.01)
or P2-2.064P4+P5 = -130.49
For Block 5,
P3 +P4 -2.064P5 = (-0.064)(2086.65)
or P3 +P4-2.064P5 = --133.55
When we solve the above five equations in five unknowns simultaneously, we will
find the pressure distribution at t=60 days. The solution vector for this time step is
P1 = 1569.09 psia; P2 = 1541.88 psia; P3 = 1586.36 psia; P4 = 1586.36 psia; P5 =
1601.87 psia.
Again, the symmetry between Blocks 3 and 4 are preserved. The flow rate from the
well at t=60 days will be
q2 =(-0.61)(1541.88)+858.7= -81.85 STB/D (production)
As shown by the results of these two time-step calculations, the production rate from
the well at 30 days declined by 214.2 STB/D by the end of 60 days. This number is
reasonable, because the well is being produced at a constant sandface pressure of
1400 psia.
OTRO
Consider the one-dimensional reservoir with no depth gradients as shown in the following
Figure 1. Assume the existence of single-phase, slightly compressible fluid flow dynamics. From
seismic studies, it is concluded that the west boundary of the reservoir is completely sealed.
However, there is a disagreement on the nature of the east boundary. Using the pressure and
production data provided, answer the following. Note that pressure values reported are measured
downhole at the sandface, and flow rates are surface flow rates.
Figure 1
a.
b.
SOL
a. The governing partial differential equation for this problem is
or
and
therefore,
At t = 30 days:
We can use the well flow equation to find P1 at t = 30 days.
Solving for P1 gives P1 = 3257.63 psia at t = 30 days. Also, P2 at 30 days is given as P2 = 3320.14
psia.
Now, we can write the finite-difference equation for Block 2 at t = 30 days.
or substituting for P1n+1 and P2n+1, we can solve for P3n+1 at t=30 days.
3257.63-(2.0478)(3320.14)+P3n+1= -(0.0478)(4000)
P3 = 3350.15 psia
Therefore, at t = 30 days, block pressures are determined by
P1 = 3257.63 psia; P2 = 3320.14 psia; P3 = 3350.15 psia.
Assume that _P/_x = C1 along the east boundary:
Figure 1
Figure 1
Now we can write the characteristic finite-difference equation at t =30 days for Block 3:
or
C1=-2.6310-4
Since C1 =0, we conclude that the east boundary is also a no-flow boundary.
At t =60 days:
The finite-difference approximation needs to be written for each block at t =60 days. Since we
have already determined the nature of the east boundary, there should be no difficulty in writing
these equations as follows:
i =1:
or
i =2:
or
i =3:
or
The solution of the above three equations in three unknowns gives the pressure distribution in the
reservoir at t =60 days as
P1 = 1764.33 psia
P2 = 1790.95 psia
P3 = 1862.08 psia
Clearly, P3 at t = 60 days is less than 2000 psia (i.e., 50% of the original formation pressure).
Therefore, according to the managers criterion, the third well should not be drilled.
OTRO
Consider the flow of a compressible fluid in the one-dimensional heterogeneous
porous medium shown in the following figure. Pressure at every point in the system
is given as 3600 psia before the well is opened to production. Calculate the pressure
distribution at the end of the 20th day of production. Also, calculate the wells
production rate. Use backward-difference scheme with a pressure convergence
tolerance of 10 psia. Use a time step size of 20 days.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Repeat the solution using an available simulator for the following combinations of
time step sizes and pressure convergence tolerance:
a. t = 20 days; = 0.001 psi
b. t = 20 days; = 1 psi
c. t = 1day; = 0.001 psi
d. t = 1day; =1 psi
e. t = 1day; = 10 psi
SOL
Results are summarized in the following table:
Table 1
ESTIMACION
Figure 1
The performance method includes material balance analysis and performance/decline curve
analysis.
Analogy/Statistical Methods
Analogy/statistical methods typically are used for undrilled prospects, and to
supplement volumetric methods in a field or reservoirs early stages of development
and production. In addition, the method may be used to estimate reserves for
undrilled tracts in a partially developed field or reservoir.
The methodology is based on the assumption that the analogous field, reservoir, or
well is comparable to the subject field, reservoir, or well, regarding those aspects
that control ultimate recovery of oil or gas. The weakness of the method is that this
assumptions validity cannot be determined until the subject field or reservoir has
been on sustained production.
Volumetric Methods
Volumetric methods are used when subsurface geologic data are sufficient for
structural and isopachous mapping of the objective field or reservoir. One of the
objectives of this mapping is to estimate oil and gas initially in place. The fraction of
oil and gas initially in place that is commercially recoverable may be estimated using
a combination of analogy and analytical methods. In a relatively uncomplicated
geologic setting, it may be possible to make a reasonably accurate estimate of oil
and gas initially in place with relatively sparse subsurface control. In contrast, in a
complex geologic settin (e.g., one characterized by extensive faulting and/or
complex stratigraphy) it may not be possible to make accurate maps until the field is
almost completely developed.
Performance Methods
Performance methods may be used after a field, reservoir, or well has been on
sustained production long enough to develop a trend of pressure and/or production
data that can be analyzed mathematically. The analysis may involve material balance
calculations or it may involve curve fitting trends of oil and/or gas production,
pressure, water/gas ratio (WGR), water/oil ratio (WOR), gas/oil ratio (GOR), or
combinations of these performance indicators. The curve fitting procedure is based
on the assumption that those factors that control the fitted trend will continue in the
future.
Material Balance Methods
Material balance methods may be used to estimate reserves when there are
sufficient reservoir pressure and production data to perform reliable calculations of
hydrocarbons initially in place and to determine the probable reservoir drive
mechanism. For reliable material balance calculations, the reservoir should have
reached semisteady state conditions, i.e., pressure transients should have affected
the entire initial hydrocarbon accumulation. Depending on reservoir fluid and rock
properties and on the reservoir drive mechanism, this could require cumulative
production of as much as 5 to 10% of the hydrocarbons initially in place.
Reliable application of this method requires accurate historical production data for all
fluids (oil, gas, and water), accurate historical bottomhole pressure data, and
pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) data representative of initial reservoir
conditions. If computer simulation is being considered, historical bottomhole
pressure data may be required for each well in the reservoir, depending on the
degree of reservoir complexity and the purpose of the simulation study.
For volumetric gas reservoirs, a graphical form of the material balance equation may
be used to estimate gas initially in place and reserves. For dissolved gas-drive oil
reservoirs, the material balance equation may be used to estimate oil and gas
initially in place and the probable drive mechanism. To estimate reserves, the
material balance equation usually is combined with gas/oil relative permeability data
in one of the prediction methods, either Tamer (1944) or Muskat (1945). In partial
water drive reservoirs, it may be preferable to use a computer simulation model.
In high-permeability reservoirs, where reservoir pressure does not exhibit large areal
variations, "zero-dimensional" or "tank" model material balance calculations usually
are acceptable. In low-permeability reservoirs, where reservoir pressure may exhibit
large areal variations, or in geologically complex reservoirs, it may be necessary to
use a multidimensional reservoir simulation model.
Performance/Decline Curve Analysis
The term "decline curve analysis" refers to the analysis of declining trends of the
production of oil or gas the principal products of oil wells or gas wells, respectively
versus time or versus cumulative production to estimate reserves. Depending on
the reservoir drive mechanism and operating practices, however, it may be possible
to estimate reserves before there is a decline in the production rate of the principal
product. This procedure is called "performance trend analysis." For example, in a
bottom-water drive oil reservoir, wells generally begin producing water early in life.
Depending on pump capacity, oil production from these wells usually can be
maintained at more or less constant rates for a period of time. Frequently, a semilog
plot of the fraction of oil in the total liquid production versus cumulative oil for
individual wells is linear. Extrapolation of the fraction of oil in total liquid to an
economic limit may be used to estimate reserves for these wells.
Combination Methods
Usually, more than one method is used to estimate reserves. Typically, in the early
stages of development and production of a field or reservoir, reserves are estimated
using a combination of analogy and volumetric methods. In some areas, it may be
feasible to utilize seismic data to help determine reservoir or field size before there
are sufficient well data to prepare reliable geologic maps. As development continues,
and the early wells begin to develop pressure/production trends, reserves for those
wells may be estimated using performance/decline curve analysis. Reserves for
undrilled tracts in a developing area may be estimated by analogy with older wells in
the same, or similar, reservoirs in the field.
Analogy and volumetric methods for estimating reserves are static methods and may
yield results significantly different from performance methods, which are dynamic
methods.
Field case histories have attested to many situations where well and reservoir
performance differed significantly from that estimated prior to initiating production.
See, for example, Buchanan and Hoogteyling (1979), Cronquist (1984), Hazeu et al.
(1988), Markum et al. (1978), and Van Rijswijk et al. (1981).
In the North Sea Thistle Field, for example, Nadir and Hay (1978) reported that the
first seven development wells encountered reservoir conditions in excellent
agreement with conditions predicted by the operators predevelopment reservoir
model. This model had been developed from seismic mapping, geologic modeling,
and five widely spaced appraisal wells. Subsequent to initiating production, however,
wellhead pressures of wells in the crestal area of the field declined faster than had
been anticipated, and "it became obvious that ... production rate ... would be
significantly below expectation" (Nadir 1980).
Periodic monitoring of well and reservoir performance throughout reservoir life and
reconciliation of differences between static and dynamic reserve estimates are
essential elements of good reservoir management.
Oil Reservoirs
For an oil reservoir, or for the oil column of an oil reservoir with a gas cap, we may
calculate the oil initially in place as follows:
where:
N = 7758o(l - Swo)Aoho/Boi
(3.1)
where:
Gsi = NRsi
(3.2)
Gsi = solution gas initially in place (SCF) Rsi = initial solution gas/oil ratio (SCF/STB)
For most practical applications, solution gas initially in place usually is rounded to the
nearest thousand standard cubic feet (MSCF).
Gas Reservoirs
For a nonassociated gas reservoir, or for a gas cap, free gas initially in place may be
calculated as follows:
where:
(3.3)
For most practical applications, free gas initially in place usually is rounded to the nearest million
standard cubic feet (MMSCF).
Porosity and water saturation should be volume weighted averages in the gas cap or
gas reservoir.
Condensate, or distillate, in the vapor phase at initial reservoir conditions may be
calculated as follows:
where:
Ci = GFiCvi
(3.4)
Sources of Data
Equations 3.1 through 3.4 require three types of information: petrophysical data,
fluid data and volumetric data. Sources of these data are noted briefly below.
Petrophysical Data
The petrophysical data needed for Equations 3.1 and 3.3 include average water
saturation (Sw) and porosity (). Water saturation may be estimated from log
analysis, capillary pressure data, or analysis of cores taken using oil-base mud. Log
analysis methodology is discussed in several publications, for example, Asquith
(1982), Dewan (1983), Dresser Atlas (1982), Ellis (1987), Hilchie (1982), Jorden and
Campbell (1986), Schlumberger (1987), Timur (1987), and Tixier (1987).
Measurement and interpretation of capillary pressure data are discussed by Amyx,
Bass, and Whiting (1960) and Keelan (1977), among others. Porosity may be
determined from core and/or log analysis. Core analysis procedures are discussed by
Muskat (1949), Keelan (1977), and others.
In situations where data are not available, reference may be made to tabulations of
reservoir data published by the Society of Petroleum Engineers (Jenkins 1987).
Fluid Data
The fluid data needed for Equations 3.1 through 3.4 include initial formation volume
factor (Boi or Bgi), and initial solution gas/oil ratio (Rsi) or initial condensate/gas ratio
(Cvi). (The latter two parameters are called GOR and CGR, respectively, in
subsequent discussion.) These data may be obtained from laboratory analysis of fluid
samples representative of the reservoir being studied.
Caution should be exercised in sampling reservoirs with fluids near critical conditions,
because cases have been reported where fluid composition varied from
undersaturated oil near the base of the accumulation to gas condensate at the top
(Neveux et al. 1988)
If laboratory PVT data are not available, parameters needed for Equations 3.1
through 3.4 may be estimated from empirical correlations that have been published
by Standing (1952), Arps (1962), Glas (1980), Vasquez and Beggs (1980), and AlMarhoun (1988). Standing (1962), Beggs (1987), and Sutton and Farshad (1990)
have commented on the reliability of various PVT correlations; these sources may be
useful in deciding which correlation to use.
Volumetric Data
The volumetric data needed for Equations 3.1 and 3.3 include reservoir area and net
pay. Early in the development of a field or reservoir, before there are enough
subsurface geologic data for mapping, reserves usually are estimated on a per-well
basis. Reservoir area in Equation 3.1 or 3.3 becomes drainage area for the well or
wells in question. Drainage area usually is estimated by analogy with wells with
similar rock-fluid properties and producing with the same reservoir mechanism.
Pressure transient tests, in the form of reservoir limit tests, can also be useful in
determining the drainage area. Drainage volume usually is calculated as estimated
drainage area times the true vertical net pay logged in the well or some fraction of
the net pay, depending on circumstances.
As development proceeds, and sufficient subsurface geologic data become available,
structure and isopachous maps should be made.
Analysis of Data
Raw data from field and laboratory sources should be analyzed carefully and crosschecked for reasonableness and consistency before being used for engineering
calculations. Muskat (1949), Amyx, Bass, and Whiting (1960), and Havlena (1966
and 1968) provide comprehensive discussions of data analysis for reservoir
engineering.
Statistical Analysis
Law (1944) and Bulnes (1946) were among the earliest investigators to note that
porosity and permeability of reservoir rocks tend to display certain statistical
distributions. For example, porosity in both sandstones and carbonates tends to
exhibit a normal, or Gaussian, distribution. Permeability tends to exhibit a log-normal
distribution i.e., the logarithm of the permeabilities tends to be normally
distributed. In rocks with a progressively lower porosity, the variance exhibited by
the permeability tends to be progressively larger.
Determination of the statistical distribution of porosity and permeability is key to the
characterization of the reservoir in question and to the proper treatment of other
reservoir properties with which porosity and permeability may be correlated.
Adjustment/Correlation of Data
Petrophysical and fluid data from all sources should be compared and cross-checked
for consistency. Several aspects of this process for porosity, water saturation, PVT,
and well-test data are discussed in the following paragraphs. Complete discussions
have been provided by Amyx, Bass, and Whiting (1960), Havlena (1966), Keelan
(1977) , and Muskat (1949)
Porosity
Depending on lithology, wellbore conditions, and logging device, porosities indicated
by wireline logs may or may not agree with those determined from core analysis.
The problem is especially severe in loosely consolidated sands, shaly sands, and
fractured, vugular carbonates. Core recovery frequently is incomplete, and
correlation of core porosity with log response may be poor. Core depths, which are
determined from drillpipe measurements, seldom agree with wireline log depths, and
appropriate adjustments must be made before direct comparison is possible. A coregamma log usually facilitates correlation between core depths and log depths.
Accepted procedure is to correct core depths to wireline log depths and attempt to
correlate log response with core porosity at the log-adjusted depth. Frequently, this
results in a poor correlation, especially in laminated sandstones and very
heterogeneous carbonates. One procedure that may improve the correlation is to
develop a running average of core porosity over several feet, double weighting the
central values. An averaging process may come closer to the averaging process
inherent in most porosity logging tools, which integrate formation response over
several feet. The procedure used to develop a running average of core data should
be compatible with the logging tool zone of investigation. Reference to logging
company technical brochures is recommended.
An alternate procedure to improve the correlation between log response and core
porosity has been discussed by Havlena (1966). This procedure is called a forced fit,
and treats core porosity and log response as two sets of spatially random variables,
not necessarily dependent on log or core depth. For each well, core porosity and log
porosity are ordered separately in ascending order, regardless of the core or log
depth. The sets of values in ascending order are plotted, and a least-squares fit
is used to determine the relation between log and core porosity.
Usually, porosity from full-diameter cores is considered the standard against which
log response is calibrated. In highly fractured or vugular carbonates, however,
neither core nor log data may provide representative porosity data. In addition, core
analysis of loose, unconsolidated sands may result in abnormally high porosity
values, even though the cores are taken with a rubber sleeve and compacted before
the analysis (Elkins 1972). Mattax et al. (1975) have discussed methods for core
analyses of friable and unconsolidated sands; however, caution should be exercised
in utilizing any core data from such sediments.
Water Saturation
For reservoir zones at irreducible water saturation i.e., where Sw = Swi, for the
same rock texture there should be a reasonable correlation between logdetermined water saturation and (a) permeability, (b) porosity, or (c) square root of
[permeability divided by porosity]. Frequently, this type of correlation may help
identify different depositional units within a reservoir (Sneider et al. 1977), which is
important because such units may have a significant influence on well and reservoir
performance.
Well Test and PVT Data
If recombination samples have been taken for PVT analysis, the initial GORs
determined from well tests those at initial reservoir pressure usually are in
reasonable agreement with those determined from laboratory flash liberation tests
(the so-called separator tests). If there is reasonable agreement, the laboratory
formation volume factor at initial reservoir pressure (Boi), and the corresponding
GOR (Rsi), should be adjusted to compensate for separator conditions in the field,
before being used in Equations 3.1 and 3.2. The procedure for making these
adjustments has been discussed by Amyx, Bass, and Whiting (1960) and by Moses
(1986). Comparable procedures should be followed for gas reservoirs.
Pressure
Accurate determination of initial reservoir pressure is critical if material balance
methods are to be used to estimate oil or free gas initially in place. In addition, for
an oil reservoir, comparison of initial pressure with bubble-point pressure can
provide useful information regarding whether an initial gas cap is a reasonable
possibility. Accurate determination of initial reservoir pressure is especially important
in geopressured gas reservoirs.
Initial reservoir pressure should be checked against local pressure gradient
information. Subnormal initial pressure might be indicative of partial drainage from
other wells or reservoirs producing from the same formation and may establish a
need for early pressure maintenance.
Reliable application of the material balance method mandates historical bottomhole
pressure data in addition to accurate initial pressure.
The methodology of measuring and interpreting bottomhole pressure data has been
discussed by Plisga (1987); detailed discussion of these procedures is beyond the
scope of this work.
Temperature
Accurate determination of reservoir temperature is important if laboratory PVT data
are to be measured under reservoir conditions. In addition, accurate reservoir
temperature is necessary for calculations of the performance of gas reservoirs. It is
good practice to determine the initial temperature-depth profile in each producing
well in a field using a continuous recording thermometer of the type described by
Plisga (1987)
Caution should be exercised in using bottomhole temperatures observed during
openhole logging, because these temperatures will have been reduced to belownormal formation temperature by circulation of the drilling fluid.
Regional Correlations
In the early stages of development and production of a field or reservoir, measured
bottom-hole pressure and temperature data may be too sparse to provide a reliable
estimate of initial conditions. In this case, regional correlations may be helpful. Listed
below are correlations for initial reservoir pressure and formation temperature for
several regions in North America (Scientific Software 1975; Hitchon 1984).
Reservoir temperature and initial pressure estimated using these correlations should
be considered preliminary and not a substitute for actual measurements.
Initial Reservoir Pressure
The following correlations have been developed for initial pressure in oil and gas
reservoirs in North America:
Louisiana Gulf Coast
(hydropressure zone) pi = 0.465Dss
Texas Gulf Coast
(hydropressure zone) pi = 0.45Dss
(3.5a)
(3.5b)
(3.5c)
(3.5d)
(3.5e)
(3.5f)
(3.5h)
(3.5g)
(3.5i)
(3.5j)
(3.5k)
(3.51)
(3.5m)
where:
pi = initial pressure (psi)
D = depth (ft)
Dss = depth subsea (ft)
Note: The hydropressure zone is that portion of the geologic column in which
initial reservoir fluid pressure is hydrostatic i.e., the initial pressure can be
attributed to the weight of the overlying static column of formation water in the
zone of saturation (Gary et al. 1972).
Formation Temperature
The following correlations have been
developed for oil and gas reservoirs in North America:
Louisiana Gulf Coast (hydropressure zone) Tf = 74 + 0.0125Dss
(3.6a)
(3.6c)
(3.6d)
Alberta Tf = 35 + 0.0201D
(3.6e)
Alberta Bashaw carbonate complex Tf = 32 + 0.0187D
Alberta Rimbey-Meadowbrook carbonate complex Tf = 49 + 0.0167D
Alberta Windfall-Swan Hills carbonate complex Tf = 32 + 0.0193D
(3.6f)
(3.6g)
(3.6h)
Nichols (1947) has published an iso-temperature gradient map of the TexasLouisiana Gulf Coast region.
In general, formation temperature in the hydropressure zone may be estimated from
thermal gradient maps published by the USGS and the AAPG (1976), using the
equation:
where:
Tf = Tsa + gG D
(3.7)
developed, core, log, and well-test information should be integrated into the
mapping process to delineate gas-oil, gas-water, or oilwater contacts on each
reservoir, as applicable. For sandstone reservoirs, gross and net sand isopach maps
should be made for each productive horizon. Fluid-fluid contacts should be
transferred to the net sand isopach for each reservoir and net hydrocarbon isopachs
should be prepared. Amyx, Bass, and Whiting (1960) have provided an extensive
discussion on volumetric mapping. Bank-head (1962) has provided additional
discussion on volumetric mapping of oil and gas reservoirs.
Depending on the purpose for mapping, or on the anticipated reservoir drive
mechanism, different oil-water contacts may be defined. There are several
possibilities, including
the 50% water level defined as the depth below which the
reservoir will produce in excess of 50% water which may be
delineated by testing, capillary pressure, and water-oil relative
permeability data
the 100% water level (analogous to the 50 water level)
the free water level (the datum of zero capillary pressure) below
which there frequently are no "shows" in the cores
In hydrodynamic traps, the oil-water contact may be tilted, as discussed by Hubbert
(1953). In low-porosity heterogeneous rocks, the 50% and 100% water levels may
not be planar, but are controlled by the local capillary properties of the reservoir
rock-fluid system. In a typical reservoir, however, the free water level should be
planar (Knutsen, 1954).
Determining Net Pay
Determination of net pay is one of the most important steps in volumetric mapping
to determine oil and gas initially in place. In the following discussion, the term "net
pay" refers to "true vertical net pay1, i.e., logged net pay thickness corrected for
borehole inclination.
Snyder (1971) observed that net pay in a given reservoir may be determined for one
of several different purposes. The procedure to determine net pay and the results
may be different for each purpose. For example:
When a well log is being evaluated to select an interval for
completion, net pay generally includes only those intervals judged
likely to contribute to well inflow at commercial rates.
When a reservoir is being evaluated to determine total hydrocarbons
in place for example, to corroborate material balance calculations
net pay usually includes all hydrocarbon-bearing intervals likely to
contribute to the energy balance; net pay determined for this purpose
usually is greater than that determined for the first purpose.
(porosity)
(net pay)
(hydrocarbon saturation)
Planimetered volume is hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV). Amyx, Bass, and Whiting
(1960) have provided a discussion of various methods to determine the volume from
isopachous maps.
Reservoir Limits
Reservoir limits include fluid contacts (i.e., gas-oil, oil-water, gas-water, faults,
porosity or permeability pinchouts and unconformities and other truncations (e.g.,
diapiric salt or shale). In many cases, especially early in the drilling and production
stages of reservoir life, it is difficult to determine these limits within acceptable
confidence levels. In structurally controlled reservoirs, for example, wells may not
have penetrated an oil-water contact, and the subsurface information may be limited
to lowest known oil (LKO) and highest known water (HKW). In this case, only that
volume down to the LKO may be classified as "proved" (SPE 1987). Depending on
the horizontal distance between LKO and HKW, up to half the volume between LKO
and HKW might be classified as "probable." Typically, areas involving more than two
anticipated development locations beyond LKO would be classified as "possible."
There is, however, no consensus on this matter. Some engineers might assign
probable reserves downdip from an LKO a vertical distance equivalent to two gross
pay thicknesses, and classify as possible the remaining volume to HKW. Analogous
treatment would be afforded situations where only lowest known gas (LKG) and HKW
had been defined.
Situations also may occur in which wells have not penetrated the gas-oil contact, and
subsurface information is limited to highest known oil (HKO) and LKG. In this case,
the volume up to HKO may be classified as proved oil, and the volume down to LKG
may be classified as proved gas. There is no consensus on the fluid type assigned to
the interval between LKG and HKO. Assuming continuity of reservoir facies,
depending on the volumes involved, some engineers might assign half the volume to
gas and half to oil. Others might assign the entire volume to gas.
In stratigraphically controlled reservoirs, the porosity or permeability limit may be
only approximately delineated by dry holes around the periphery of the
accumulation. The undrilled area between commercial wells and dry holes will define
a "band of uncertainty" around the accumulation which may be one or more locations
wide. Undeveloped reserves proved, probable, or possible might be assigned to
locations in this area, depending on the following:
the quality of reservoir rock observed in the commercial wells around
the periphery
the depositional environment of the reservoir rock
the distance to the nearest dry hole
the apparent rate of thinning of reservoir rock
the minimum thickness of reservoir rock needed to support a
commercial well.
where:
(3.8)
(3.9)
<
(3.10)
where:
m = matrix porosity (fraction)
f = fracture porosity (fraction)
cpm = matrix pore compressibility (1/psi)
cpf = fracture pore compressibility (1/psi)
Swm = matrix water saturation (fraction)
Figure 1
Figure 2
Using a calculation procedure similar to that used by Arps and Roberts (1955), Wahl,
Mullins, and Elfrink (1958) developed a set of nine nomographs to estimate recovery
efficiency of oil attributable to solution gas drive. They used kg/ko relations calculated
from empirical correlations of sandstone relative permeability data. The nine
nomographs cover combinations of three different kg/ko curves and three different
residual oil viscosities which range from 0.5 to 10 centipoise. The results were
presented as graphical functions of bubble-point pressure (pb) formation volume
factor (Bob), and solution gas/oil ratio (Rsb). The assumptions in this work are the
same as those in the Arps and Roberts (1955) work, except for the following:
(3.13)
where:
[ERo]sg = recovery efficiency of oil attributable to solution gas drive (fraction)
= porosity (fraction)
Sw = water saturation (fraction)
Bob = formation volume factor at the bubble-point (RB/ STB)
k = arithmetic average absolute permeability (darcies)
ob = oil viscosity at the bubble-point (cp)
pb = bubble-point pressure (psi)
pa = abandonment pressure (psi)
The regression coefficient is 0.932. The standard error of the estimate is 22% i.e.,
there is a 68% probability the correct value is within 22% of the estimated value.
The data for this equation came from 67 sandstone reservoirs and 13 carbonate
reservoirs. The range of rock and fluid properties for the 80 reservoirs is as follows:
Sandstones
Carbonates
min
max
min
max
k (darcies)
0.006
0.940
0.001
0.252
(fraction)
0.115
0.299
0.042
0.200
Sw (fraction)
0.150
0.500
0.163
0.350
API
20
49
0.032
50
Rsb
(SCF/STB)
60
1680
302
1867
pb (psig)
639
4403
1280
3578
[ERo]sg (fr)
0.095
0.460
0.155
0.207
This work was updated in 1984, and the section titled API 1984 Study should be
reviewed before using Equation 3.13.
Solution Gas
There is little historical data available on the recovery efficiency of solution gas from
solution gas drive oil reservoirs. In part, this is due to the historically low economic
value of this product compared to crude oil. Also, with the increasing application of
pressure maintenance techniques, fewer oil reservoirs are produced to depletion by
solution gas drive. Nevertheless, prudent asset management mandates a reasonable
estimate of these reserves. This is especially so when an evaluation is required to
compare economics of operation by solution gas drive versus operation under
waterflood.
In an oil reservoir produced at pressures below the bubblepoint pressure so that
solution gas is evolved in the reservoir and becomes mobile the producing GOR
will be determined by the /ko characteristics of the reservoir, the degree of gravity
segregation, and position of impermeable streaks relative to well completion
intervals. In the absence of significant gravity segregation, about 75% of the gas
initially in solution can reasonably be expected to be produced if the reservoir is
produced to an abandonment pressure approaching atmospheric.
Roberts and Ellis (1962), using calculational procedures similar to those used by Arps
and Roberts (1955), developed a set of correlations of gas/oil ratio history versus
bottomhole pressure and cumulative oil recovery. Figure 3 is an example of one of
these graphs.
Figure 3
These correlations are subject to the same limitations discussed previously. They can
be used to make a reasonable initial volumetric estimate of solution gas recovery,
pending development of individual well or reservoir performance or history matching
by computer simulation.
Pressure Depletion Initial Gas Cap
As observed by Muskat (1945, 1949), the recovery efficiency of oil by pressure
depletion of an oil reservoir with an initial gas cap will be governed mainly by the
size of the initial gas cap and the degree of gravity segregation. There are no simple
analytical equations or correlations available to estimate oil recovery efficiency in this
type of reservoir. However, industry publications of case histories of the performance
of gas cap oil reservoirs provide some guidance.
No Gravity Segregation
The case of no gravity segregation-the least favorable case was studied
analytically by Muskat (1945) for an oil reservoir with a bubble-point solution GOR of
534 Scf/STB and a bubble-point oil viscosity of about 1 cp. Tabulated below is
calculated oil recovery efficiency down to a reservoir abandonment pressure of 100
psi for various initial gas cap sizes, where gas cap size (m) is expressed as the ratio
of initial gas cap volume to initial oil column volume:
Oil Recovery
Efficiency(%
STBIP)
0.0
21.2
0.2
25.3
0.4
28.1
0.7
30.1
1.0
33.1
Gravity Segregation
In actuality, there is always some degree of gravity segregation of free gas and oil
during production from a gas cap oil reservoir. The relative importance of gravity
segregation may be expressed by a gravity number (NG) of the form (Smith 1953):
NG = ko (sina)/o
where notation is consistent with SPE (1987) standard and units are:
ko = effective oil permeability (millidarcies)
o = oil viscosity (centipoises)
= difference in specific gravity between reservoir oil and gas (gms/cc)
a = dip angle (degrees)
For guidance in making a preliminary estimate of recovery efficiency of oil, Table 1
compiled from published studies of actual reservoirs may be useful.
Table 1
Note that gas was injected into some of these reservoirs; the term "minj" indicates
the volume injected as a multiple of initial gas cap volume. In the presence of gravity
segregation, gas cap injection has the same effect -as a large initial gas cap. In an
oil reservoir with a gravity number greater than about 10, effective gravity
segregation is a reasonable expectation (Smith 1953).
Richardson (1989) observed that, in the absence fo an active aquifer, a gas cap of at
least 0.6 times the oil-zone volume is necessary for a major part of the reservoir to
produce by gas cap expansion drive. Richardson and Blackwell (1971) have
published guidelines for simple computational procedures to estimate reserves from
oil reservoirs subject to gas cap encroachment.
Water Drive
Water drive may vary from complete to partial. If the volume of water encroaching
into the initial hydrocarbon bearing pore space completely replaces the reservoir
voidage of oil and gas or maintains reservoir pressure above the bubble-point over
reservoir life (pa > ps) water drive is considered "complete." If the volume of
water is insufficient to maintain reservoir pressure above the bubble-point and
reservoir pressure continues to decline over life (pa < ps) water drive is considered
"partial."
Richardson (1989) observed that an aquifer pore volume of at least 100 times the
initial hydrocarbon pore volume is required for a strong water drive.
API Correlation The API (1967) published the results of a regression analysis of the
oil recovery efficiency from 70 water drive reservoirs in the USA, as follows:
where:
(3.14)
min
max
k (darcies)
0.011
4.0
(fr)
0.111
0.350
Sw (fr)
0.052
0.470
API
15
50
oi (cp)
0.2
500
[ERo]wd (fr)
0.278
0.867
The validity of this correlation is discussed later in this section under the subtitle API
1984 Study.
Bottomwater Drive. There is no indication in the API (1967) work as to how many of
the reservoirs produced with bottomwater drive and how many produced with edge
water drive. The nature of the water encroachment is an important factor in
estimating reserves, and several studies of bottomwater drive reservoirs are
discussed in the following paragraphs. Note that the API results are for recovery
efficiency from the entire reservoir. In bottomwater drive reservoirs, recovery
efficiency from individual wells may vary substantially, depending on well spacing
and the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability, among other factors.
Figure 4
Figure 5 ,
Figure 5
Figure 7
Figure 6
where:
aD = (a/h)(kv/kh)1/2
where "b" was defined as the vertical distance the completion interval extends into
the initial oil zone.
Mobility ratio was defined consistent with the current SPE (1987) definition, i.e., the
mobility of water at residual oil saturation divided by the mobility of oil at initial oil
saturation.
From Figure 4 , which was calculated for aD = 6, it may be observed that, at this
spacing, the parameter having the greatest influence on volumetric sweep efficiency
is mobility ratio.
Figure 4
The above results were calculated assuming negligible gravity effects. Regarding this
assumption, the authors observed that "gravity forces can affect the performance,
but in most cases any significant improvement ... will be realizable only at very low
rates of oil production."
The Henley et al. (1961) scaled model study included water/oil mobility ratios in the
range 10 to 0.1, which covers oils in the medium to high API gravity range
(approximately 20 to 40 API, respectively). Again, their Figure 2, 4, and 5 are
reproduced in Figure 5 , Figure 6 , and Figure 7 , respectively. The parameter "R3",
was defined as the gravity to viscous force ratio:
R3 = kg A/q o
The Henley et al. (1961) results are in reasonable agreement with those reported by
Hutchinson and Kemp (1956) for the case where R3 = 0. However, the Henley et al.
(1961) results for R3 > 0 indicate progressively larger volumetric sweep efficiencies
for larger values of R3. Thus, these authors observed that "gravity effects must be
considered in estimating 6i1 recovery because they can be a major influence on
performance."
Ciucci et al. (1966) reported on a model study of bottomwater drive using a
dimensionless well spacing (aD) of 1.6 and a mobility ratio of 200. This mobility ratio
would be applicable to about 15 API crude. The model parameters in their study
were defined in the same manner as in the Henley et al. (1961) study. However,
direct comparison of these results with those of earlier studies is not possible, as the
range of parameters used by Ciucci et al. (1966) does not -overlap that used by
Henley et al. (1961). The results of the latter authors, however, are qualitatively
consistent with those of the earlier authors. Of particular significance is the
observation by Ciucci et al.(1966) that "the sweep efficiency increases remarkably as
the flow rate is lowered," which corroborates the work of Henley et al. (1961).
All of the published studies cover models with the ratio of horizontal to vertical
permeability constant throughout the model, with the tacit assumption that the
permeability level also is constant. In actuality, this type of permeability distribution
is rare. Fluvial point bars typically have lower average permeabilities toward the top;
in contrast, offshore barrier bars and beach sands typically have higher average
permeabilities toward the top (Sneider et al. 1978). All other factors being the same,
it can be expected that wells with higher average permeabilities toward the top of
the oil column will exhibit higher ultimate oil recovery efficiencies due to
bottomwater drive than wells with lower average permeabilities toward the top.
Viscous Oils
From examination of the viscosity range included in the API (1967) correlation for
water drive recovery efficiency Equation 3.14, it may be noted that viscous oils are
included. Additional insight into estimating oil reserves in water-drive heavy-oil
reservoirs is provided by Van Meurs and van der Poel (1958). Based on model
experiments, they developed an equation of the form:
Npu = Swi + B[M - fwa2(M - l)]/[M - fwa(M - 1)]2
(3.15)
where:
Npu = ultimate recovery (pore volumes)
Swi = irreducible water saturation (fr)
B = 1 - Sor - Swi
fwa = economic limit water cut (fr)
M = oil/water viscosity ratio (not SPE "M")
This work is applicable to reasonably homogeneous, edgewaterdrive reservoirs, where the
displacement is not gravity stable, but is dominated by "viscous fingering."
In addition, Timmerman (1982) has published graphs that may be used to make
preliminary estimates of the recovery efficiency from viscous oil reservoirs producing
by edgewater drive. These graphs are based on experiments with scaled models and
cover oil/water mobility ratios (Mwo) from 1 to approximately 500.
API 1984 Study
As noted previously, in an update to the 1967 work the API (1984) studied an
expanded data base which included 376 solution gas drive and 244 natural water
drive oil reservoirs in 6 states in the United States. In reviewing the 1967 work, the
API (1984) observed that the reservoir data sets were weighted in accordance with
the quality of the data. A reservoir considered to have good data was counted three
times; one with poor data, one time. When in the course of the 1984 review the
reservoirs were not weighted for data quality, the statistical reliability of the
correlations decreased significantly. Regarding the 1984 study, it was concluded that
"no statistically valid correlation has been found between oil recovery and definable
reservoir parameters." The API cautioned "against continued use of the (1967)
correlations ... to predict recovery or recovery efficiency for any one reservoir."
Regarding the above "caution," in the writers experience the API (1967) correlations
both Equations 3.13 and 3.14 provide estimates which, in many cases, are in
reasonable agreement with observed recovery efficiency. Because these equations
are empirical correlations of large amounts of data, it should not be expected that
they will provide acceptable estimates in every case. If usage is tempered with good
judgment and results are cross-checked with other data, there is no reason to reject
the 1967 API work.
In further discussion of the 1984 work, it was noted that "calculated average
recoveries in a single geologic trend
where:
(3.16)
API: 45 to 65
p: 4,000 to 12,000 psi
Rt: 2,500 to 60,000 Scf/STB
Tf: 160 to 290 F
Calculated gas recovery efficiency (to an abandonment pressure of 500 psi) ranged from 88 to
97%, with an average of 92.6%. In reservoirs with initial pressures in the range indicated, 500 psi
abandonment pressure may be too optimistic. Accordingly, it is suggested that, for an initial
volumetric estimate, gas recovery efficiency be estimated at 85%, unless there are factors that
would warrant a different recovery efficiency. After such a reservoir has been producing for a time
sufficient to establish stabilized well performance curves, well deliverability at the economic limit
may be used as a basis to estimate bottomhole pressure at abandonment. Volumetric
where:
[ERg]pd = 1 - paZi/piZa
(3.17)
Because reservoir temperature in these reservoirs is greater than the cricondentherm, there is no retrograde loss of condensate as
reservoir pressure decreases. Thus, the recovery efficiency of condensate should, in theory, be the same as the recovery efficiency
of gas. This is indicated with the notation.
[ERc]pd = [Erg]pd
In actuality, however, as flowing wellhead pressure declines, some types of lease separation equipment for example
low-temperature separators become less effective. Under these conditions, unless the lease separation equipment is
modified, the producing condensate/gas ratio (CGR) may decrease gradually over life. (While the natural gas liquids not
recovered on the lease might be recovered by a gas plant, consideration should be given to possible different ownership
between lease and plant in assigning reserves.)
Lamont (1963), in a study of 37 pressure depletion gas reservoirs on the U.S. Gulf Coast, reported volume-weighted average
recovery efficiency of gas to be 84.1%. (Reservoir average was 82.9%.) These reservoirs generally are moderately consolidated
sand, with permeabilities of several hundred millidarcies. Although not reported, well spacing probably was about 160 acres.
Lamont's study is consistent with results published by Stoian and Telford (1966). In their study of 158 pressure-depleted, or nearly
pressure-depleted, gas reservoirs in Canada, average recovery efficiency of gas was estimated to be about 85%.
Hale (1981), Harlan (1966), and Stewart (1970), in separate papers on gas wells in low-permeability reservoirs in central United
States, reported data that indicate significantly lower recovery efficiency of gas as the transmissibility (kgh) decreases below about
100 millidarcy-feet. Recovery efficiencies calculated from data in these papers are plotted on
Figure 1 .
Figure 1
Water Influx
The recovery efficiency of gas from a gas reservoir subject to partial water drive can
be expressed analytically with an equation of the form (Agarwal et al. 1965;
Cronquist 1980):
where:
(3.18)
(3. 18a)
where Sgr is the residual gas saturation in the flooded portion of- reservoir; in the absence of
laboratory kw/kg data, it may be estimated as (Katz et al. 1966):
Sgr = 0.62 - 1.34
(3. 18b)
In the development of Equation 3.18, it is assumed that gas is trapped in the flooded portion of
the reservoir and is abandoned at the same average pressure as the gas in the unflooded
portion of the reservoir at abandonment (pa). Depending on reservoir dynamics, gas in the
downdip areas of the reservoir may be flooded out at pressures higher or lower than reservoir
abandonment pressure. See, for example, Cronquist (1980). In low permeability reservoirs, where
this may not be a reasonable assumption, it may be desirable to use a gas reservoir simulator to
estimate reserves.
Gas recovery from partial water drive gas reservoirs is rate sensitive (Agarwal et al.
1965; Cronquist 1980). Agarwal et al. (1965) advocated that these reservoirs be
produced at high rates to maximize gas recovery. However, depending on the ratio
of viscous to gravity forces and the degree and nature of permeability heterogeneity,
high production rates may cause irregular water encroachment, which could result in
less ultimate recovery than if the reservoir were produced at a lower rate (Cronquist
1980).
From examination of Equation 3.18, it may be noted that the term [1 - RpZ] is the
portion of the recovery efficiency attributable to pressure depletion. (It is equal to
the term [ERg]pd, previously defined.) The term [RpZEVED] is the portion of the
recovery efficiency attributable to water influx. If there is complete pressure
maintenance by the aquifer such that pa = pi the term [1 - RpZ] becomes zero,
and the recovery efficiency is the product of the volumetric sweep (EV) and
microscopic displacement (ED) efficiencies.
The most difficult parameter to estimate in Equation 3.18 is EV. Even with
considerable experience in a given area, in the absence of well performance data for
the reservoir in question, it is unlikely an accurate estimate can be made of the
ultimate volumetric sweep efficiency. In moderate- to high-permeability sand
reservoirs, typical of those encountered in clastic Tertiary basins, an initial volumetric
Reservoir Heterogeneity
Reservoir heterogeneity refers to the nonuniform spatial distribution of a reservoirs
physical and chemical properties. During the last 20 years or so, there has been
increasing recognition that reservoir heterogeneity has a major influence on the
recovery of oil and gas from subsurface reservoirs. Several developments have
contributed to a growing knowledge of reservoir heterogeneity:
increasing scrutiny and infill drilling of major waterfloods in the United States,
especially of the carbonate waterfloods in the Permian Basin of West Texas-New
Mexico
Heterogeneities range from microscopic to megascopic scale and may be either favorable or
unfavorable to recovery processes. Two examples of favorable heterogeneities are thin, lowpermeability layers and natural fractures. Shale stringers or thin, low-permeability layers near the
bottom of a hydrocarbon column underlain by water may retard bottomwater coning (Wellings
1975). Shale stringers or low-permeability layers near a gas-oil contact may retard gas coning.
Richardson et al. (1978) discuss other examples and provide guidelines for calculating the effect
of discontinuous shales on oil recovery. Natural fractures may be either favorable or unfavorable,
depending on reservoir drive mechanism. Without natural fractures, many low permeability oil and
gas reservoirs would be noncommercial; examples include the Spraberry (a siltstone) and the
Austin Chalk trends in Texas. Natural fractures, however, cause major problems in waterflooding;
the same natural fractures that enhanced primary recovery from the Spraberry trend were
detrimental to waterflooding this reservoir.
Sandstone Reservoirs
Heterogeneities of concern in sandstone reservoirs include the following:
Different depositional units in the same reservoir (Sneider et al. 1977). Both
irreducible water and residual hydrocarbon saturations are strongly influenced by
rock texture, which is controlled by depositional environment. Finegrained
sediments, usually characteristic of low-energy depositional environments, tend
to have high irreducible water and high residual hydrocarbon saturations; coarsegrained sediments,characteristic of high-energy environments, tend to have low
irredicible water saturation and low residual hydrocarbon saturation. In addition,
fine-grained sediments tend to have lower permeability than coarse-grained
sediments. In water-drive reservoirs, high-permeability zones tend to be swept by
water before low-permeability zones; in solution gas drive reservoirs, highpermeability zones tend to pressure deplete before low-permeability zones.
Lateral discontinuities and multiple reservoirs in apparently "blanket" sands
(Knutsen et al.,1971; Seal and Gilreath,1975; Hartman and Paynter,1979;
McCubbin,1982; Weimer et al.,1982). Typically, a deltaic environment includes
many sub-environments. Although sands deposited in these subenvironments
often are interconnected, in many cases they are separated by thin, impermeable
shale breaks that are not always detectable by wireline logs. If these separate
sand bodies are not included in well-completion intervals, significant volumes of
oil and gas may be left undrained.
Carbonate Reservoirs
In addition to problems similar to those discussed for sandstone reservoirs,
heterogeneities of concern in carbonate reservoirs include the following:
Lateral discontinuities in pay zones (Ghauri et al. 1974; Stiles 1976). The shelf
carbonates of the U.S. Permian Basin typically contain numerous thin pay zones
over a gross interval of several hundred feet; many of these pay zones are not
laterally continuous between 40-acre spaced wells. Recovery efficiency from this
type of rock sequence has been shown to be dependent on well spacing (Driscoll
1974; Barber et al. 1983; Barbe and Schnobelen 1987; Wu et al. 1988; Godec
and Tyler 1989). Recovery efficiency in shelf carbonates in other areas of the
world may exhibit similar spacing dependency.
Very erratic, frequently vugular, porosity (Jardine et al. 1977,
Horsfield 1958). The original depositional fabric of most carbonates is
quite heterogeneous because of the wide variety of material
comprising these sediments. In addition, carbonates are highly
susceptible to postdepositional diagenesis, which often leads to more
complex pore networks (Jardine et al. 1977). Highly vugular sections
frequently are difficult to core to evaluate with logs.
This section is not intended to be a complete treatment of difficulties in exploitation and reserve
estimation caused by reservoir heterogeneities. The subject warrants an entire monograph. The
reader is referred to specific field case histories for example, McCaleb and Willingham (1967),
Wayhan and McCaleb (1969), and Lelek (1983) and to the bibliography provided by Le Blanc
(1977), for more comprehensive discussions. Reserves Estimation: Material
Balance Methods
Expanded Material Balance Equation
Principles
The so-called Schilthuis (1936) material balance equation is one of the fundamental
relations in reservoir engineering. In "expanded" form, which includes water influx, it
may be stated:
Production of
oil and gas
Expansion of oil
and gas initially in
place
Water influx
Assuming an initial gas cap and at this time ignoring compressibility of pore
volume and interstitial water, the equation may be written:
(1)
where the left-side terms account for the reservoir volume of oil, gas, and water
production, and the right side terms account for the expansion of the oil and free gas
initially in place, plus the water influx. (All notation in this section is SPE standard.)
Equation 1 is consistent with the formulation of Schilthuis, who ignored
compressibility. However, compressibility effects should be considered for material
balance calculations involving oil reservoirs above the bubble-point. Depending on
the magnitude of rock-fluid compressibility compared to overall system
compressibility, it may be desirable to include rock-fluid compressibility for oil
material balance calculations below the bubble-point.
In Equation 1, it is assumed that the reservoir can be treated as a "tank," with
spatial variations in PVT properties and reservoir pressure being averaged.
There are three unknowns in Equation 1:
Limitations
Limitations to reliable application of the material balance equation are both
theoretical and practical.
Theoretical limitations are imposed by assumptions necessary for a tractable
methodology, which are
The assumption that oil and free gas in the reservoir are in thermodynamic
equilibrium. Wieland and Kennedy (1957) report about 20 psi supersaturation in
experiments conducted using East Texas and Slaughter field cores.
The assumption that the PVT data, obtained from differential
liberation, replicates the liberation process in the field. As discussed by
Dodson (1953) and others, both flash and differential liberation of gas
may occur at various times and places between the reservoir and the
stock tank, with the differences in PVT properties between the two
processes increasing with more volatile oils.
The assumption that free gas in the reservoir has the same
composition as free gas on the surface, differing only in volume, as
expressed by the gas formation volume factor. With progressively
more volatile oils, free gas in the reservoir contains progressively more
liquids in the vapor phase that are recovered as stock tank liquids but
are not accounted for by the differential liberation process.
Practical limitations are imposed by data requirements and reservoir conditions. Data required for
reliable application of the material balance equation include PVT analyses of representative fluid
samples, accurate static bottomhole pressure history of key wells in the reservoir and accurate
monthly production data for oil, gas, and water. The accuracy requirements usually exceed the
routine needs for many field operations.
Reservoir conditions that may limit the reliability of a material balance estimate
include:
Strong water drive and/or a large gas cap which maintain reservoir pressure at
nearly initial pressure. Under these conditions the material balance equation
generally does not yield stable solutions, because the small pressure drops in the
reservoir are frequently of the same magnitude as the errors in the
measurements.
(4.1)
Define FpR as the reservoir volume of oil, gas, and water production:
FpR = Np[Bt + Bg(Rp - Rsi)] + WpBw
(4.2)
Define Eo as the expansion of a unit volume of the oil (and initially dissolved gas) initially in
place:
Eo = (Bt - Bti)
(4.3)
Define Eg as the expansion of the initial gas cap:
Eg = (Bg - Bgi)
(4.4)
Substituting these new terms, Equation 4.1 becomes:
FpR = N[Eo + mBtiEg/Bgi] + We
(4.5)
Depending on whether there is an initial gas cap or water drive, or both, this equation may be
used in various forms to determine the amount of oil and gas initially in place and the probable
reservoir drive mechanism. To estimate reserves, one of the predictive forms of the material
balance equation must be used. In this section, we consider six cases:
Oil Reservoirs: No Initial Gas Cap, No Water Influx
Figure 1
As noted by Havlena and Odeh (1963), "the origin is a must point; thus, one has a fixed point to
guide the straight line plot." The first few points may be erratic and may be ignored in constructing
the straight line. As indicated by Equation 4.6, the slope of the line is "N" i.e., STB oil initially in
place (STBOIP).
Oil Reservoirs: Initial Gas cap of Unknown Size, No Water Influx
If there was an initial gas cap or water influx, or both, a plot of FpR versus Eo will
curve upward. If the reservoir oil is saturated at initial reservoir pressure, even
though free gas may not have been encountered in drilling, an initial gas cap might
reasonably be suspected. If there is no water influx, Equation 4.5 becomes
(4.7)
FpR = N[Eo + mBtiEg/Bgi]
and a plot of FpR versus [Eo + mBtiEg/Bgi] for the correct assumed "m" value is a straight line
passing through the origin. As indicated by Equation 4.7, the slope is "N," STBOIP. As shown by
Figure 2 , if the assumed value for "m" is too small, the plot curves upward; if it is too large,
downward.
Figure 2
If there is significant water influx, the plot curves upward, regardless of the "m" value used.
From examination of Equation 4.7, it may be noted that, if there is no water influx, a
plot of FpR/Eo versus Eg/Eo should be linear with the slope equal to mBti/Bgi which
equals G and a y intercept equal to N. Havlena and Odeh (1963) observed that
the former plot is more powerful, as it must pass through the origin, but that both
plots should be used in every case.
Oil Reservoirs: Water Influx, No Initial Gas Cap
If the oil initially in place is undersaturated, but there is reason to suspect water
influx, WpBw is retained in Equation 4.2, and Equation 4.5 can be rearranged and
written as follows:
FpR/Eo = N + C[pQ(_tD)]/Eo
(4.8)
where the water influx term, We, has been written in terms of the water influx constant, C, and
the van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) solution to the diffusivity equation for unsteady-state
dimensionless water influx Q(tD). Use of the Hurst-van Everdingen formulation is not mandatory,
and other methods to compute We may be used. (See, for example, Fetkovich 1971.) As shown
by Figure 3 , a plot of FpR/Eo versus pQ(tD)/Eo should be a straight line for the correct
assumed water influx parameters (tD and re/ri).
Figure 3
N is the y-intercept, and C is the slope. If the water influx term is too small, the plot usually curves
upward; if it is too large, downward. (See, however, Havlena and Odeh 1964.)
Stewart (1980) discussed an application of this methodology to the Piper Field (North
Sea). Reportedly, he was able to obtain an acceptable straight line fit after only six
months of production history; the material balance estimate 1.4 billion STB was
within 10% of the volumetric estimate.
In the presence of uncertainties in reservoir pressure, the Havlena-Odeh (1963)
methodology may not be sensitive enough to define a linear trend from which oil
initially in place can be determined. In this event, the method proposed by McEwen
(1962) may work better.
Oil Reservoirs: Water Influx, Initial Gas Cap
If there is both an aquifer and a gas cap, Equation 4.5 may be written as
<
(4.9)
If the gas cap and the aquifer have been characterized correctly (correct "m," tD,
and re/ri), then a plot of the left-side term in Equation 4.9 versus the second rightside term should be linear, with the y-intercept being N (STBOIP) and the slope
being C (the water influx constant).
Nonassociated Gas Reservoirs: Water Influx
For a nonassociated gas reservoir (or one with a negligibly small oil rim), FpR (from
Equation 4.2) may be redefined as
FpR = GpBg + WpBw
(4.10)
(4.11)
As shown by Figure 4 ,
Figure 4
if the aquifer is characterized correctly (correct tD and re/ri), a plot of F/Eg versus
[pQ(tD)]/Eg should be a straight line with the y-intercept equal to G, gas initially
in place, and slope equal to C.
Nonassociated Gas Reservoirs: No Water Influx
In this case a plot of GpBg versus Eg should be a straight line through thze origin with
slope equal to G. Usually, however, it is easier to use another form of the material
balance equation.
(4.1)
Define FpR as the reservoir volume of oil, gas, and water production:
FpR = Np[Bt + Bg(Rp - Rsi)] + WpBw
(4.2)
Define Eo as the expansion of a unit volume of the oil (and initially dissolved gas) initially in
place:
Eo = (Bt - Bti)
(4.3)
Define Eg as the expansion of the initial gas cap:
Eg = (Bg - Bgi)
(4.4)
Substituting these new terms, Equation 4.1 becomes:
FpR = N[Eo + mBtiEg/Bgi] + We
(4.5)
Depending on whether there is an initial gas cap or water drive, or both, this equation may be
used in various forms to determine the amount of oil and gas initially in place and the probable
reservoir drive mechanism. To estimate reserves, one of the predictive forms of the material
balance equation must be used. In this section, we consider six cases:
Oil Reservoirs: No Initial Gas Cap, No Water Influx
If there is no initial gas cap and no water influx, WpBw is dropped from Equation 4.2,
and, after dropping We, Equation 4.5 reduces to
(4.6)
FpR = NEo
A plot of FpR versus Eo should be a straight line passing through the origin, as shown by Figure 1 .
Figure 1
As noted by Havlena and Odeh (1963), "the origin is a must point; thus, one has a fixed point to
guide the straight line plot." The first few points may be erratic and may be ignored in constructing
the straight line. As indicated by Equation 4.6, the slope of the line is "N" i.e., STB oil initially in
place (STBOIP).
Oil Reservoirs: Initial Gas cap of Unknown Size, No Water Influx
If there was an initial gas cap or water influx, or both, a plot of FpR versus Eo will
curve upward. If the reservoir oil is saturated at initial reservoir pressure, even
though free gas may not have been encountered in drilling, an initial gas cap might
reasonably be suspected. If there is no water influx, Equation 4.5 becomes
(4.7)
FpR = N[Eo + mBtiEg/Bgi]
and a plot of FpR versus [Eo + mBtiEg/Bgi] for the correct assumed "m" value is a straight line
passing through the origin. As indicated by Equation 4.7, the slope is "N," STBOIP. As shown by
Figure 2 , if the assumed value for "m" is too small, the plot curves upward; if it is too large,
downward.
Figure 2
If there is significant water influx, the plot curves upward, regardless of the "m" value used.
From examination of Equation 4.7, it may be noted that, if there is no water influx, a
plot of FpR/Eo versus Eg/Eo should be linear with the slope equal to mBti/Bgi which
equals G and a y intercept equal to N. Havlena and Odeh (1963) observed that
the former plot is more powerful, as it must pass through the origin, but that both
plots should be used in every case.
Oil Reservoirs: Water Influx, No Initial Gas Cap
If the oil initially in place is undersaturated, but there is reason to suspect water
influx, WpBw is retained in Equation 4.2, and Equation 4.5 can be rearranged and
written as follows:
(4.8)
FpR/Eo = N + C[pQ(_tD)]/Eo
where the water influx term, We, has been written in terms of the water influx constant, C, and
the van Everdingen and Hurst (1949) solution to the diffusivity equation for unsteady-state
dimensionless water influx Q(tD). Use of the Hurst-van Everdingen formulation is not mandatory,
and other methods to compute We may be used. (See, for example, Fetkovich 1971.) As shown
by Figure 3 , a plot of FpR/Eo versus pQ(tD)/Eo should be a straight line for the correct
Figure 3
N is the y-intercept, and C is the slope. If the water influx term is too small, the plot usually curves
upward; if it is too large, downward. (See, however, Havlena and Odeh 1964.)
Stewart (1980) discussed an application of this methodology to the Piper Field (North
Sea). Reportedly, he was able to obtain an acceptable straight line fit after only six
months of production history; the material balance estimate 1.4 billion STB was
within 10% of the volumetric estimate.
In the presence of uncertainties in reservoir pressure, the Havlena-Odeh (1963)
methodology may not be sensitive enough to define a linear trend from which oil
initially in place can be determined. In this event, the method proposed by McEwen
(1962) may work better.
Oil Reservoirs: Water Influx, Initial Gas Cap
If there is both an aquifer and a gas cap, Equation 4.5 may be written as
<
(4.9)
If the gas cap and the aquifer have been characterized correctly (correct "m," tD,
and re/ri), then a plot of the left-side term in Equation 4.9 versus the second rightside term should be linear, with the y-intercept being N (STBOIP) and the slope
being C (the water influx constant).
Nonassociated Gas Reservoirs: Water Influx
For a nonassociated gas reservoir (or one with a negligibly small oil rim), FpR (from
Equation 4.2) may be redefined as
FpR = GpBg + WpBw
(4.10)
(4.11)
Figure 4
if the aquifer is characterized correctly (correct tD and re/ri), a plot of F/Eg versus
[pQ(tD)]/Eg should be a straight line with the y-intercept equal to G, gas initially
in place, and slope equal to C.
Nonassociated Gas Reservoirs: No Water Influx
In this case a plot of GpBg versus Eg should be a straight line through thze origin with
slope equal to G. Usually, however, it is easier to use another form of the material
balance equation.
Tarners Method
Tarners method (1944) involves a series of stepwise calculations to estimate future
gas and oil production from a dissolved gas drive oil reservoir (no gas cap no
water influx). Each stepwise calculation involves a trial and error solution of the
instantaneous producing gas/oil ratio (GOR) equation and the material balance
equation. The material balance equation for a depletion drive oil reservoir with no
initial gas cap is
(4.12)
<
(4.13)
Bti = Boi
Gp = NpRp
(4.14)
(4.15)
<
(4.16)
Tracy (1955) developed the following equations, which are functions of pressure:
<
(4.17)
<
(4.18)
+ Gp g = 1
(4.19)
Nuskats Method
The following development of Muskats method is taken from Craft and Hawkins
(1959). Stock tank barrels of oil remaining in the reservoir at any pressure are
<
(4.25)
where Vp is reservoir pore volume in barrels. Differentiating with respect to pressure, Equation
4.25 becomes
(4.26)
<
Gas remaining in the reservoir, both free and dissolved, is
Gr = Vp [RsSo/Bo + (1 - So - Sw)/Bg]
(4.27)
Differentiating with respect to pressure, Equation 4.27 becomes
<
(4.28)
(4.29)
R = Gp/Np - <
Substituting Equation 4.26 and 4.28, Equation 4.29 becomes
<
(4.30)
<
+ Rs
(4.31)
<
(4.32)
To simplify handling Equation 4.32, the terms that are functions of pressure are
grouped and defined as follows:
<
(4.33)
<
(4.34)
(4.35)
<
Equation 4.32 may be written in incremental form, using the groups defined above:
<
(4.36)
Reservoir Simulation
There are several scenarios that preclude reliable use of a tank model, or zerodimensional material balance, to estimate oil and gas initially in place. Provided
necessary and sufficient data are available, multidimensional reservoir simulation
would be preferable for the following situations:
A really extensive reservoirs with low values of, or large areal variance in, kh/m.
These conditions often lead to large areal variations in bottomhole pressure that
are difficult to "average" for use in a tank model.
A really extensive reservoirs at different stages of development
and/or production where there are large areal variations in reservoir
pressure that may range from initial pressure to below the bubblepoint pressure. These conditions are impossible to handle with a tank
model.
In addition, reservoir simulation has become an almost indispensable aid for the development
planning of major oil and gas fields. As discussed by Kingston and Niko (1975), extensive
reservoir simulation studies were used to assist in the selection of the operating scheme for the
Brent Field (North Sea). Similar applications have been reported for other North Sea fields by
McMichael (1978) for the Statfjord Field, by Hillier et al. (1978) for the Forties Field, by Valenti
and Buckles (1986) for the Fulmar Field, and by Till et al. (1986) for the Heidrun Field.
Uncertainties
All methods to estimate reserves are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty, with
the nature and degree of uncertainty depending on, among other factors, the
method.
Material balance methods including multidimensional reservoir simulation utilize
reservoir engineering equations to calculate future production (reserves). The
reliability of material balance calculations depends on the accuracy with which the
mathematical model and the available data simulate the reservoir under study.
The reservoir "parameter" usually subject to the largest uncertainty and usually
having the most influence on recovery efficiency (aside from economics) is reservoir
heterogeneity. Reservoir drive mechanism also is important, but by the time there
are sufficient performance data for a material balance estimate of oil and gas initially
in place, the drive mechanism usually has been identified with a reasonable degree
of certainty.
Reservoir heterogeneity is manifested in material balance predictions in several
ways:
<
(4.39)
<
which is in the form:
y = b - mx
(4.40)
(4.41)
Thus, for a volumetric gas reservoir, a plot of p/Z versus Gp will be linear with the y intercept (at
Gp = 0) equal to pi/zi and the x-intercept (at p/z = 0) equal to G, as shown by Figure 1 .
Figure 1
The term Gp is the "gas equivalent" of produced gas, condensate, and water of
vaporization. Both Craft and Hawkins (1959) and Smith (1962) have provided tables
to estimate the gas equivalent of condensate for a range of condensate gravities. A
stock tank barrel of 45 API condensate, for example, is "equivalent" to
approximately 680 standard cubic feet of gas: 65 API, approximately 900 standard
cubic feet. From these data, it is apparent that, for rich gas condensates, failure to
include the gas equivalent of produced condensate in the term could result in
significant errors in estimates of gas reserves.
The vapor equivalent of fresh water is approximately 7390 standard cubic feet per
barrel (Craft and Hawkins 1959). Water of vaporization, however, generally is only a
few barrels per million cubic feet of gas. Thus, ignoring this correction would result in
a negligible error.
Moderate to High Permeability Reservoirs
Low-Permeability Reservoirs
In low-permeability gas reservoirs developed on wide spacing, where there usually is
no apparent pressure communication between wells, it is advisable to maintain a p/Z
versus Gp plot for each well. It is good practice to use the back pressure test curve
for each well to estimate the abandonment bottomhole pressure at the economic
limit flow rate.
Estimates of gas initially in place (GIP) for each well not reserves should be
made using volumetric methods, assuming a drainage area equal to the well spacing.
These estimates should be compared with estimates of GIP made by extrapolating
the p/Z versus Gp plot to zero pressure. In many cases it may be observed that the
volumetric estimate of GIP is substantially larger than the p/Z versus G estimate. In
such cases, in-fill drilling may be warranted to increase recovery efficiency. If infill
drilling can be justified, some portion of the difference between GIP estimated
volumetrically and that estimated from the p/Z versus Gp plot might be considered
undeveloped reserves, pending successful infill drilling.
In many cases, the transmissibility of the reservoir may be too low to determine
bottomhole pressure after a reasonable shut-in period, in which case reliable p/Z
versus Gp plots cannot be made.
The period before there is a decline in production of the principal product oil
in oil wells or gas in gas wells. There are trends in "performance indicators" such
as gas/oil ratio, water/oil ratio, etc., that may be extrapolated to economic limit
conditions.
The period during which the production of the principal product
develops a decline trend that can be extrapolated to the economic limit
production rate. There are, however, several cautions regarding this
methodology.
production from such a well, gradual wellbore plugging or pump wear should be
suspected.
In a gas reservoir producing by pressure depletion, for example, it would be
reasonable to expect a trend of declining shut-in tubing pressures versus time or
versus cumulative gas. If the wells are being produced at approximately constant
rates, it also would be reasonable to expect a trend of declining flowing tubing
pressures versus time or versus cumulative gas. If the wells were being produced
against a constant back pressure, imposed by sales line or compressor intake
pressure, then it would be reasonable to expect a trend of declining production rates
versus time or versus cumulative gas. In contrast, if reservoir pressure is being
maintained by strong water drive, declining trends in wellhead pressure or
production rate might be indicative of wellbore plugging or buildup of liquids in the
wellbore.
Lease Curves versus Individual Well Curves
Frequently, production data on individual wells are not available, and reserve
estimates must be made using production data from leases that contain more than
one well. On multiwell leases, there may be several different reservoirs being
produced; some may be gas, others may be oil. Each reservoir may have a different
drive mechanism and each may be at a different stage of depletion. Remedial
operations, drilling new wells, and modifications to production equipment may
influence the production history.
Before attempting to estimate reserves from production trends on large, multiwell
leases, the engineer should become familiar with past, current, and anticipated
future operations. Routine lease operations that affect well performance may be
reported only informally, if at all. Frequently, pumpers or lease fore-men maintain
records of well tests, pressures, and equipment changes that are not generally
available elsewhere. Depending on circumstances, the engineer responsible for
reserve estimates should consider an onsite visit with field personnel to determine
the nature of field operations and the possible influence of those operations on
production rate.
Brons (1963) has shown that, on multiwell leases the decline characteristics of the
high rate wells dominate the aggregate lease decline. For example, on leases where
the high rate wells are declining more rapidly than the low rate wells which is the
usual case in an aggregate of depletion-drive reservoirs extrapolation of the
aggregate lease trend might lead to a pessimistic estimate of reserves. Conversely,
on leases where the high-rate wells are declining less rapidly than the low-rate wells
(which might be observed if there were water-drive reservoirs), extrapolation of the
aggregate lease trend might lead to an optimistic estimate of reserves. It may be
necessary to use well-test data to construct individual well decline curves to help
interpret aggregate lease production trends where there are large variations in rate
between wells on the lease.
On leases where development drilling is ongoing, a meaningful trend may be
observed from a plot of barrels of oil (or cubic feet of gas) per month per producing
well.
Curtailed Wells or Leases
Production of oil or gas from leases or wells may be curtailed for several reasons,
including pipeline limitations, limited market, or inability to handle all produced
water. Thus, before attempting to analyze production trends, the engineer should
determine whether the lease or well in question has been curtailed.
Economic Limit
The term economic limit may refer to a single well or to a production facility
involving many wells with processing equipment that must be operated as a unit.
Examples of the latter include offshore production platforms and fluid injection
projects.
The economic limit generally is defined as the production rate at which the total net
revenue attributable to production from the well or facility equals the "out-of-pocket"
cost to operate the well or facility. (State and Federal income tax and corporate
overhead generally are excluded in determining these costs.) Net revenue is gross
revenue less production taxes, ad valorem taxes, royalties, and transportation and
treating expense, if any. Out-of-pocket costs are costs that would be saved if the
well or facility is shut-in, such as power and materials. Out-of-pocket costs would
include labor only if that cost would be saved by shutting in the well or facility.
Performance Estimates Compared to Volumetric Estimates
For each well or reservoir, ultimate recovery estimated using volumetric methods
should be compared to ultimate recovery estimated using performance methods. If
there is a significant difference between the two estimates, assuming each method
was applied correctly, the following possibilities should be considered:
Oil Reservoirs
Typical performance indicators for solution gas drive and water drive (or waterflood)
oil reservoirs are discussed below.
Solution Gas Drive
In a solution gas drive reservoir, provided gravity segregation is not significant, the
logarithm of cumulative gas production from the reservoir often becomes an
approximately linear function of cumulative reservoir oil production (Np) as the
reservoir enters an advanced stage of depletion. In a fully developed reservoir, the
solution gas initially in place may be estimated with reasonable confidence by
volumetric methods. Extrapolation of the trend of the logarithm of cumulative gas
production (Gp) to the logarithm of solution gas initially in place (Gsi) should provide
Figure 1
Figure 2
Brons (1963), however, has noted that in many cases the apparently linear trend of
fo versus Np turns down as fo approaches small values. The downturn reportedly
occurs at smaller values of fo for heavy (viscous) oils than for light oils ( Figure 3 ).
Figure 3
Figure 4
The rate of decline of fo after the stabilization period may be greater or less than the
rate of decline before the stabilization period, as discussed below. After the zone
below the shale break has watered out ( Figure 5 ),
Figure 5
the decline in fo usually stabilizes until the water encroaches around the end of the
shale break (period "b-c" in Figure 4 ). During period "b-c" the fractional flow of oil
(fo) should be approximately:
<
(5.1)
where:
ko/o = mobility of oil in the upper zone
h1 = net thickness of upper zone
kw /w = mobility of water in the lower zone
h2 = net thickness of the lower zone
If h1 > h2, the rate of decline in fo after the stabilization period usually is less than the rate of decline before the
stabilization period, and vice versa.
Figure 6
This behavior is typical for oil wells in water drive reservoirs being produced by gas
lift. If the oil production rate is not approximately constant, which may be the case if
wells are being produced with rod pumps, the logarithm of total liquid production
rate will tend to increase linearly versus cumulative oil. Oil reserves may be
estimated by extrapolating the total liquid production rate to the maximum two
phase flow capacity of the tubing (or to pump capacity). Generally, once this
capacity has been reached, the oil production rate decreases at a rate commensurate
with the rate of increase in total liquid production.
Plots like Figures 2 and 6 should be prepared for oil wells producing significant water.
Estimates of reserves using each of the two plots may differ slightly.
Other Methods
Subject to the simplifying assumption that the log of (krw/kro) is a linear function of
Sw, Ershagi (1984) proposed that, for water drive or waterflood wells, a plot of
(-){ln[(l/fw - 1)] - 1/fw} versus {fractional oil recovery}
should be linear. In subsequent discussions (Startzman and Wu 1984), it was
observed that this procedure should be compared with the "conventional" plot of log
(WOR) versus Np, which should yield better results at low water cuts than the
Ershagi and Abdassah (1984) method. In continuing discussion of the ErshagiAbdassah paper, Liu (1989) proposed plotting:
{ln(Np/Wp) - Np/Wp} versus Np
From these papers, it seems apparent that developing the "correct" performance plot to estimate
reserves in water drive or waterflood reservoirs is highly empirical. Accordingly, different
types of plots should be considered, with the "best" plot being determined by regression analysis.
It should be kept in mind, however, that the "best" plot at low water cuts might not be the "best"
plot at high water cuts. Timmerman (1982) has provided additional discussion of the analysis of
performance trends in waterflood reservoirs.
Gas Reservoirs
Performance indicators are discussed briefly for pressure depletion reservoirs and for
water drive reservoirs.
Pressure Depletion
In nonretrograde gas reservoirs with moderate to high permeability, periodic shut-in
tubing pressure (SITP) data on individual wells can be used to estimate shut-in
bottomhole pressure which can be used to develop p/Z versus Gp plots to estimate
reserves. In cases where it is not practical to obtain periodic SITP data, consideration
might be given to using a procedure proposed by Lewis (1985), which involves using
adjusted performance data from individual well back-pressure curves.
Over life, a plot of SITP versus Gp is slightly concave up. However, late in life, the
trend is approximately linear. Under constant terminal rate conditions a plot of
flowing tubing pressure (FTP) should be approximately parallel to the SITP plot. After
it is adjusted downward to approximate the economic limit flow rate, the FTP plot
may be extrapolated to sales line or compressor intake pressure to estimate
reserves. If back pressure test data representative of well performance approaching
economic limit conditions are available, these data also may be used to estimate
reserves.
Water Drive
In gas reservoirs subject to water influx, after water breakthrough in individual wells
the logarithm of the producing water/gas ratio (WGR) usually is a linear function of
cumulative gas from the well. Typically in such wells, the abandonment point is
governed by the two-phase flow characteristics of the tubing string, and wells usually
become incapable of flow before they reach the economic limit gas flow rate. In this
case, reserves may be estimated by extrapolating the trend of flowing tubing
pressure versus cumulative gas to the sales line pressure.
In some areas, however, flow from such wells may be maintained with multistage
compression. The abandonment point usually is the economic limit flow rate, which is
a function of among other factors the costs of compressor operation and
handling produced water. In this case, each well may have a different abandonment
WGR ( Figure 7 ).
Figure 7
Reserves for each well may be determined by extrapolating a plot of q versus WGR
for the well to the economic limit WGR for the facility, with the WGR for the facility
generally having a trend ( Figure 7 ). (A similar procedure to determine the
economic limit may be appropriate for water drive oil wells.)
Production Decline Equations
Background
Lewis and Beal (1918) and Cutler (1924) were among the earliest to publish on the
analysis of production decline curves in oil wells. As noted by Arps (1945), three
types of decline curves are commonly used: hyperbolic, harmonic, and exponential.
The harmonic and exponential curves are special cases of the hyperbolic curve.
With certain exceptions, as discussed by Lefkovits and Matthews (1958), Fetkovich
(1980), Gentry and McCray (1978), Cummings and Gentry (1986), and others,
decline curves are empirical fits to observed trends of production. Unless the
observed trends are related to reservoir mechanics, extrapolation of these trends to
estimate reserves may lead to significant error.
Hyperbolic Declines
In the following sections, the development follows Arps (1945); the notation,
however, has been modified to reflect SPE (1987) standard.
Mathematics
Arps (1945) proposed a hyperbolic equation of the form:
<
(5.2)
where a is the nominal (or instantaneous) decline rate and is defined as the negative slope of the
natural logarithm of the production rate versus time, or:
a = (-) d(ln q)/dt
(5.3)
and where C is a constant which is defined under initial conditions as:
C = ai/qib
(5.4)
The term b is called the hyperbolic decline exponent. This notation is not consistent with SPE
(1987) "standard," which defines h as the hyperbolic decline exponent. Note that b = 1/h. This
notation is, however, consistent with the original usage by Arps (1945) and with recent usage by
Gentry and McCray (1978), and others. Note that b is equivalent to n, which was used in the
Petroleum Production Handbook (SPE 1962).
After integration, Equation 5.2 becomes:
q = qi(l + bait)-1/b (5.5)
which is the rate-time equation for hyperbolic declines. After a second integration with respect to
time, Equation 5.5 becomes:
Q = qib[qi(1-b) - q(1-b)]/ai[1 - b]
(5.6)
which is the rate-cumulative equation for hyperbolic declines; Q is a general term to denote
cumulative production, which may be either Np or Gp.
Equation 5.5 may be solved to determine the time for the production rate to decline
from q1 to the economic limit rate qe1:
<
(5.7)
Applications
Lefkovits and Matthews (1958) observed that, in theory, in a homogeneous oil
reservoir producing by gravity drainage, wells with a gas cap should exhibit a
hyperbolic decline with b = 0.5; wells without a gas cap should exhibit an
exponential decline (b = 0). In investigations of actual reservoirs producing by
gravity drainage they observed wells exhibited hyperbolic declines with b ranging
from less than 0.1 to 2.5.
Russell et al. (1966) observed that, in theory, gas wells producing early in life under
constant terminal pressure conditions and cylindrical flow should exhibit
hyperbolic production declines with b equal to approximately 0.5.
Stewart (1970) observed that, during the semisteady state period, gas wells
completed in the very heterogenous, low permeability approximately 0.5
millidarcy Cretaceous sandstones in the Green River basin of the western United
States exhibited hyperbolic declines with widely varying exponents.
In his original paper, Arps (1945) observed that "most decline curves seem to be
characterized by b values between 0 and 1, with the majority between 0 and 0.4."
Since that time, however, b values greater than 1.0 have been reported in many
reservoirs. These are reservoirs with low permeability, or low-permeability reservoirs
that are naturally or hydraulically fractured (Bailey 1982; Long and Davis
1988). In addition, Gentry and Mccray (1978) have demonstrated mathematically
that b should be expected to be larger than 1 in very heterogeneous reservoirs.
Fetkovich (1980) observed that "rate data existing only in the transient period ...
would require values of b much greater than 1 to fit the data."
Exponential Declines
Because of relative ease of use, extrapolation of the exponential, or constant
percentage, decline curve is the most widely used technique to estimate reserves
using the performance method. As noted in the applications section, however, this
technique may lead to significant underestimating of reserves if applied using data
measured during transient flow conditions in fractured or low-Permeability
reservoirs. Examples include the Cotton Valley Formation in East Texas and the
Green River Formation in the Piceance Basin of Colorado.
Mathematics
The exponential decline curve is a special case of the hyperbolic decline curve, where
b = 0. In this case, Equation 5.2 becomes:
dq/dt
<
(5.8)
after integration, this becomes:
q = qie-at
(5.9)
which is the rate-time equation for exponential declines. After a second integration, Equation 5.9
becomes:
<
(5.10)
which is the rate-cumulative equation for exponential declines.
Equation 5.9 may be solved to determine the time for the production rate to decline
from q1 to the economic limit rate qel:
tel = ln(ql/qel)/a (5.11)
Arps (1945) noted that the nominal dedline rate a is often confused with the effective decline rate
D, which he defined as
<
For exponential declines, a = (-)ln(l - D).
Applications
Transient flow in fractured or very heterogeneous, stratified reservoirs usually is
characterized initially by a relatively steep decline in production rate versus time.
These early decline trends may appear to be exponential; extrapolation of these
trends to estimate reserves may result in significant underestimates.
Later in life, however, production trends from such wells may exhibit decreasing
decline rates, becoming exponential with relatively low a values compared to initial a
values. Brons (1963) and Stewart (1970), for example, have observed that the gas
flow rate from gas wells producing late in life at constant terminal pressure
conditions generally exhibits an exponential decline. Also, oil wells producing at
constant pressure by fluid expansion above the bubble-point pressure tend to exhibit
an exponential decline (Brons 1963). Below the bubble-point, however, such wells
tend to exhibit hyperbolic declines.
Blasingame and Lee (1986) have presented a method, based on exponential
declines, to determine well drainage area and shape factor for homogeneous and
naturally or hydraulically fractured reservoirs that are producing with constant
bottom-hole pressure.
Harmonic Declines
The harmonic decline is a special case of the hyperbolic decline where the decline
rate is proportional to the production rate (b = 1).
Mathematics
When b = 1, Equation 5.2 becomes:
<
(5.12)
in which the decline rate is proportional to the production rate. The term C is defined
under initial conditions as:
C = ai/qi
(5.13)
<
(5.14)
which is the rate-time equation for harmonic declines. After a second integration, Equation 5.14
becomes
Q = qiln(qi/q)/ai
(5.15)
(5.16)
Applications
It has been observed that, after breakthrough of water in wells producing from water
drive oil reservoirs, the logarithm of fovs Np for individual wells tends to be
approximately linearwith limitations as discussed. From examination of Equation
5.15, it may be observed that Figure 2 represents a harmonic decline.
Methodology
To estimate reserves, given a declining trend in gas or oil production rate, the
following general procedure is recommended:
1. Examine the historical data, rejecting apparently "anomalous" values, e.g.,
production data during extended periods when wells were off production for
mechanical reasons, seasonal market curtailment, etc.
2. "Fit" the remaining data with the rate-time equation that results in
the minimum standard deviation. Use caution with hyperbolic or
harmonic fits, because the calculated decline rate may become
unrealistically low and result in projection of reserves that exceeds a
reasonable volumetric estimate. It is good practice to set a minimum
decline rate, consistent with experience in the area, and project
production using an exponential curve after this minimum decline rate
has been reached.* *Fetkovich (1980) has defined "decline curve
dimensionless time" as tD = ait, and demonstrated that "any data
existing before a tD of 0.3 will appear to be an exponential decline
regardless of the true value of b and, thus, plot as a straight line on
semilog paper. A statistical or leastsquares approach could calculate
any value of b between 0 and 1."
3. Estimate the economic limit producing rate, qel, for the well or
facility being evaluated.
4. Calculate reserves to be produced as the production rate trend
declines from q1, the rate at the effective date of the evaluation, to
qel, the economic limit.
For additional details, please refer to Thompson and Wright (1984)
In many areas, special methods have been developed to estimate reserves from
analysis of production trends using plots other than rate-versus-time. For example,
Gurley (1963) discussed a method to analyze Clinton Sand gas wells (Ohio) by
plotting "percent of best month" capacity versus time. Stricht and Gordon (1983)
developed special procedures to analyze the performance of fractured, low
permeability gas wells in the Piceance Basin (United States). In cases of extended or
periodic shut-in, it may be preferable to analyze the trend of rate versus cumulative,
rather than rate versus time.
Type Curve Analysis
With few exceptions, which were noted previously, decline curve analysis has been
considered to be an empirical fit to observed data. In 1973, however, Fetkovich
(1980) demonstrated that decline curves can be related to reservoir properties and
drive mechanism.
Fetkovich (1980) developed a methodology, called advanced decline curve analysis,
which is similar to type curve analysis used to analyze bottomhole pressure transient
data. The method involves plotting production rate versus time on log-log tracing
paper with the same scales as Fetkovichs type curves, then overlaying this plot to
determine the best fit to one of the type curves.
Examples of the application of this method have been discussed by Fetkovich et al.
(1985, 1987). Mannon and Porter (1989), in discussing application of a computer
program to implement Fetkovichs method, noted that the ability to discern transient
and depletion conditions is one of the strengths of this approach.
Using a technique similar to that of Fetkovich (1980), Da Prat et al. (1981),
presented type curves that may be used to analyze production trends from wells in
dual porosity (naturally fractured) reservoirs for both finite and infinite systems.
Their analysis was based on the Warren and Root (1963) model for fractured
reservoirs. They observed that "he initial decline in production rate often is not
representative of the final state of depletion ... type curve matching based only on
the initial decline can lead to erroneous values for ... (the drainage volume) ... if the
system is considered homogeneous." In addition, they noted that both dimensionless
production (qD) and dimensionless time (tD) are controlled by the dimensionless
fracture storage (w) and by the ratio of matrix to fracture permeability (1); thus, a
different type curve would be required for different values of these parameters.
Accordingly, they recommended that w and 1 be estimated using transient pressure
analysis so that the correct type curve (qD versus tD) could be used to estimate
reserves.
Geopressured Reservoirs
Partial Water Drive (Rate Sensitive) Gas Reservoirs
Thin Oil Columns (Between Gas and Water)
Tight Gas Reservoirs
Background
Discovered world resources of heavy and extra heavy crude oil are estimated to be
approximately 4600 billion barrels, two thirds of which are in Canada and Venezuela
(Briggs et al. 1988). Bitumen and tar sands are excluded from this estimate.
Published data on recovery efficiency from this resource by primary drive
mechanisms are sparse. Estimated primary recovery efficiency from the Lloydminster
area of western Canada-where stock tank gravities range from 13 to 17 API
ranges from 3 to 8% (Adams 1982). Estimated primary recovery efficiency from the
Orinoco area of Venezuela where stock tank gravities range from 8 to 13 API
ranges from 8 to 12* (Martinez 1987)
Additional recovery attributable to waterflooding in the Lloydminster area typically
does not exceed 1 to 2* (Adams 1982). Comparable data are not available on the
Orinoco area. Thermal recovery methods generally steam flooding are required
to develop significant reserves from this resource.
For 12 mature steam flood projects, Matthews (1984) noted estimated recovery
efficiencies were in the range from 39 to 68* of oil initially in place. These projects
ranged in depth from 535 to 2600 feet and had reservoir oil viscosities ranging from
85 to 6400 centipoise. Well spacing for these projects generally is on the order of
one to two acres per well, substantially less than what might be considered "normal"
spacing. Projects were in California, The Netherlands, and Venezuela.
Meyer and Mitchell (1987) estimated worldwide ultimate recovery from heavy and
extra heavy crude oils to be approximately 476 billion barrels, which is 10* of the
Briggs et al. (1988) estimate of the discovered resource initially in place. Fiorillo
(1987) estimated ultimate recovery from the Orinico oil belt to be approximately 245
billion barrels, which is approximately 20* of the oil initially in place.
Estimating Reserves
Difficulties in estimating reserves from these resources may be attributed to (a)
problems in characterizing the accumulations, (b) uncertainties in quantifying the
response to steam injection, and (c) generally marginal economics.
Problems in characterizing these accumulations include the following:
Because of the small density contrast between the reservoir oil and
the interstitial water, significant fractions of these accumulations may
be in oil-water transition zones.
Uncertainties in quantifying the response to steam injection are caused by the following:
Within a single reservoir, the viscosity of the oil usually exhibits substantial
spatial variation.
Fractured/Vugular Reservoirs
Background
Fractured reservoirs have been observed in most producing provinces of the world,
in both sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. Reiss (1980) and others have identified
two broad categories of fractured reservoirs: (a) those with a porous matrix and (b)
those with a nonporous matrix. In the former category, which is the most common,
most of the hydrocarbons are stored in the matrix porosity; the fractures serve as
the principal flow conduits. Examples include many of the Iranian fields, Ekofisk
(North Sea), and Spraberry (United States). In the latter, less-common category are
reservoirs in fractured metamorphic rocks, fractured shales, and fractured cherts.
Examples include the Edison field (California), the Big Sandy gas field (Kentucky),
and the Santa Maria basin fields (California).
When they occur in carbonates, fractures tend to facilitate extensive leaching, which
may result in the development of vugular, sometimes karstic, porosity. Examples
include the Albion-Scipio trend (Michigan) and the Rospo Mare field (offshore Italy).
Reservoir Engineering Aspects
This type of accumulation poses formidable difficulties in estimating reserves. These
difficulties are attributable to the extreme heterogeneity of the reservoir rock, which
causes substantial uncertainties in estimates of hydrocarbons initially in place and
Geopressured Reservoirs
Geologic Overview
The term geopressure, first used by Charles Stuart of the Shell Oil Company, refers
to reservoir fluid pressure that exceeds hydrostatic pressure and may approach
overburden pressure. Hydrostatic pressure depends on the local fluid gradient and
varies from 0.4 to 0.5 psi per foot of depth. Overburden pressure usually is
estimated to be about 1.0 psi per foot of depth.
Abnormally high reservoir pressures have been attributed to several causes,
including tectonic stress (Berry 1973), under-compaction (Dickinson 1953),
geochemical and/or diagenetic processes (Parker 1972), and PVT effects in sealed,
subsiding gas reservoirs (Stuart and Kozik 1977).
Geopressures in sand-shale sequences in Tertiary basins e.g., the U.S. Gulf Coast
generally are attributed to undercompaction of thick sequences of marine shales.
Geopressured reservoirs in this type of depositional sequence tend to be geologically
complex and exhibit producing mechanisms that are not well understood. Both of
these factors may cause considerable uncertainty in reserve estimates. Geologic
complexity may cause uncertainty in estimates based on volumetric mapping. Poorly
understood producing mechanisms may cause uncertainty in estimates based on
pressure-production performance.
Geopressured reservoirs in Tertiary sand-shale sequences frequently are associated
with substantial faulting and complex stratigraphy, which may make correlation,
structural interpretation, and volumetric mapping subject to considerable
uncertainty.
The resistivity of interstitial water in geopressured sections may approach that of
fresh water, which may suppress the spontaneous potential (SP) log. Under these
conditions it may be difficult to estimate net pay unless a gamma-ray log also has
been run. In addition, the relatively fresh waters frequently encountered in
geopressured sections complicate interpretation of resistivity logs, especially in
shaley sands.
Reservoir Overview
There may be a substantial difference between the volumetric estimate and the
material balance estimate of oil and gas initially in place in a given reservoir. Given
the geologic complexity of the geopressure environment, such differences are quite
likely. In view of the high costs usually associated with drilling, completing, and
operating geopressured reservoirs, it is especially important to reconcile such
differences to ensure cost-effective exploitation of this resource.
Frequently, wells completed in geopressured reservoirs produce substantial amounts
of water, even though the wells may be considerable distances from any obvious
water source. If mechanical problems can be ruled out, the water may be
attributable to expulsion of water from shale* zones interbedded with the productive
sands.
Geopressured Gas Reservoirs
If gas production is attributed to gas expansion only, a plot of p/Z versus Gp will be a
straight line. Because geologists considered them to be "closed" accumulations,
during the early years of exploitation it was assumed that geopressured gas
reservoirs would exhibit linear plots of p/Z versus Gp. While this was observed to be
true in many cases see, for example, Wallace (1969) and Prasad and Rogers
(l987) it soon became apparent it is not universally true.
*The American Geological Institute (ed. Gary et al. 1972) defines shale as an
"indurated (hardened) ... sedimentary rock formed by the consolidation ... of clay."
Because geopressures in Tertiary basins generally are attributed to
undercompaction, the term "proto-shale" might be more appropriate.
It has been observed that p/Z versus Gp plots for many geopressured reservoirs
initially appear to be linear but exhibit downward curvature as reservoir pressure
approaches hydrostatic pressure. Extrapolation of the initial part of the plot may
result in an estimate of gas initially in place approximately twice that estimated using
volumetric methods. The anomalously low initial slope of the p/Z versus Gp plot has
been attributed to several factors, including pore volume compression (Hammerlindl
1971), connate water expansion, and partial water drive. The downward curvature of
the p/Z versus Gp plot has been attributed to other factors, including depletion of a
limited "shale water" aquifer (Duggan 1972) and rock collapse (Harville and Hawkins
1969). Bruns et al. (1965) have demonstrated that downward curving plots of p/Z
versus Gp can be generated by partial water drive gas reservoirs, with the actual
shape of the plot depending on the size and the permeability of the aquifer.
Production mechanisms in geopressured gas reservoirs may vary from strong water
drive to pressure depletion. In general, the producing mechanisms in geopressured
gas reservoirs may include
gas expansion
compressibility of the reservoir pore volume
expansion of the interstitial water
water influx due to water expansion from a contiguous aquifer
water influx due to dewatering of interbedded "shale."
Any one, or all, of these mechanisms may be active in a given geopressured gas reservoir.
There is disagreement regarding the relative importance of these mechanisms,
especially compressibility of reservoir pore volume (Bernard 1987) and water influx
from interbedded shale* (Wallace 1969, Bourgoyne et al. 1972, Duggan 1972,
Chierici et al. 1978). As a result, several different empirical methods have been
developed to adjust the p/Z versus Gp plot. As there is no generally accepted
methodology, a brief discussion of work to date follows.
*Fertl and Timko (1972) reported a case of an "overpressured section in the
Louisiana Gulf Coast area" where a replacement well was drilled approximately
50 feet away from a well that had produced for about 22 years. The log in the
new well measured increased resistivity in the shale section immediately above
and below the producing sand, which was attributed to "decrease in shale
porosity because some shale water ... moved into adjacent ... sands."
Both Hammerlindl (1971) and Ramagost and Farshad (1981) developed methods to account for
pore volume compressibility and expansion of interstitial water. Ramagost and Farshad (1981)
proposed the following equation to adjust the p/Z versus Gp plot:
p/Z[l -p(cwSw + cp)/(l - Sw)] = pi/zi - Gppi/GZi
(6.1)
This equation differs from Equation 4.40 by inclusion of a "p/Z adjustment factor," which is the
left-side term in brackets.
Hammerlindl proposed adjusting the "apparent gas in place" (AGIP) estimated by
extrapolation of the initial part of the p/Z versus Gp plot by multiplying AGIP by
the ratio: [gas compressibility]/[effective compressibility].
Both methods, however, assume that pore volume compressibility remains constant
over the life of the reservoir being evaluated. In addition, there is no provision in
these methods to account for possible water encroachment.
The assumption of constant pore volume compressibility is contrary to work by Fatt
(1958), Van der Knaap (1959), Dobrynin (1962), and others, who reported that pore
volume compressibility is an inverse function of net overburden pressure. Net
overburden pressure has been defined as: ([external pressure] -[0.85 < internal
fluid pressure]) (Fatt 1958). If reservoir fluid pressure is reduced by production, net
overburden pressure will increase. Thus, if reservoir fluid pressure decreases over
reservoir life, pore volume compressibility will decrease, not remain constant.
Bernard (1987) noted several discrepancies in publications discussing drive
mechanisms in apparently volumetric, geopressured reservoirs. He proposed use of a
catch-all approximation term, C, to account for the effects of rock and water
compressibility, a small steady-state acting aquifer, and shale water influx.
Incorporating Bernards proposed C in Equation 4.40 would yield:
p/z[l - Cp] = pi/zi + Gppi/GZi
(6.2)
Using performance data from volumetric, geopressured gas reservoirs in the U.S. Gulf Coast in
which gas initially in place (GIP) is "known," Bernard (1987) calculated the C factor for each of 13
different reservoirs. Reportedly, C ranged from 1.5 to 46.5 microsip and did not correlate with
either depth or initial pressure gradient. The C factor was used to calculate a correction to the
initial slope of the p/Z versus Gp plot so extrapolation of the early part of the plot would intersect
the "known" GIP on the x-axis. Bernards (1987) correction factor ranged from about 0.96 to
about 0.45. The factor appeared to correlate reasonably well with the inverse of "apparent gas
initially in place," which was determined by extrapolation of the early part of the p/Z versus Gp plot
for each reservoir examined. The correlation, however, is based on only 13 geopressured gas
reservoirs in the U.S. Gulf Coast and may not be valid generally.
In addition to gas expansion, it seems apparent that pore volume compressibility,
expansion of interstitial water, and water influx also may be significant drive
mechanisms in geopressured gas reservoirs. A general methodology to analyze these
reservoirs has yet to be published. The following methodology is Proposed, which
parallels the methodology of Havlena and Odeh (1963). Considering the factors
discussed above, Equation 4.1 may be written for a gas reservoir as:
GpBg + WpBw = G(Bg - Bgi) + GBgip(cp + cwSw)/(l - Sw) + We
define:
FpR = GpBg + WpBw (6.4)
Eg = Bg - Bgi (6.5)
Substituting Equation 6.4 and 6.5 in Equation 6.3 leads to:
FpR = GEg + GBgi_p(cp + cwSw)/(l - Sw) + We
= G[Eg + Bgi_p(cp + cwSw)/(l - Sw)] + We (6.6)
Dividing by the gas expansion and rock-fluid compression term in square brackets:
(6.3)
<
(6.7)
If the water influx term and the rock-fluid expansion-compression terms are
"correct," a plot of the left-side term versus the second right-side term of Equation
6.7 would be a straight line, with the y-intercept equal to G, the gas initially in place.
The water influx term is usually the most difficult term to evaluate, as water influx in
a given reservoir may be attributable to expansion from a contiguous aquifer,
dewatering of interbedded shales, or both. Conditions favoring shale water influx
include high initial pore pressure gradient, considerable interbedding of shale with
the gas-bearing sandstone, and a small contiguous aquifer. Opposite conditions
would favor aquifer influx. Depending on the size and shape of the contiguous
aquifer, We may be calculated using a limited linear aquifer model or a limited
cylindrical aquifer model. If shale dewatering is suspected, a limited linear aquifer
model may be used.
Geopressured gas reservoirs may exhibit retrograde behavior. When reservoir
pressure decreases below the dewpoint pressure, liquids condense in the reservoir
pore space. This results in a change in the PVT properties of the reservoir
hydrocarbon fluid from a single-phase to a two-phase system.
If a p/Z versus Gp plot is used to estimate gas reserves from retrograde gas
condensate reservoirs, the two-phase Z factor should be used for reservoir pressures
below the dewpoint pressure. If expanded material balance calculations are made,
the two-phase Bg should be used below the dewpoint pressure.
In addition, condensation of liquids in the reservoir pore space may cause
development of a severe "skin," which may lead to a rapid decline in well
productivity.* In such cases, it may be extremely difficult to estimate average
reservoir abandonment pressure and reserves may have to be determined by
extrapolation of trends of declining well productivity to the economic limit.
Geopressured Oil Reservoirs
Oil reservoirs are encountered less frequently than gas reservoirs in the
geopressured section and rarely are discussed in the literature. Comments similar to
those for geopressured gas reservoirs are made
*If reservoir pressure decreases significantly during production, the reservoir rock
may be compressed due to the increase in net overburden pressure, as discussed
previously. Compression of the reservoir rock may cause a substantial decrease in
permeability, which also may be manifested by a severe "skin."
regarding drive mechanism in geopressured oil reservoirs.
The expanded material balance may be written:
(6.8)
Most geopressured oil accumulations are undersaturated, thus, the term for gas cap expansion is
excluded from Equation 6.8. As done previously, define the following:
FpR = Np[Bt + Bg(Rp - Rsi)] + WpBw
(6.9)
Eo = Bt - Bti (6.10)
Equation 6.8 may be restated as:
FpR = N[Eo + Btip(cp + cwSw)/(l - Sw)) + We
(6.11)
<
(6.12)
If the water influx term and the rock-fluid expansion compression terms are
"correct," a plot of the left-side term versus the second right-side term of Equation
6.12 would be a straight line, with the y-intercept equal to N i.e., stock tank
barrels of oil initially in place. Comments regarding the water influx term for
geopressured gas reservoirs are appropriate for geopressured oil reservoirs.
Pore Volume Compressibility
There have been several studies published on the influence of reservoir pressure on
pore volume compressibility, for example, Geertsma (1957), Fatt (1958), Van der
Knaap (1959), and Dobrynin (1962). It generally has been recognized that the pore
volume compressibility of friable and unconsolidated sandstones is dependent on the
stress conditions in the reservoir, with the compressibility increasing as the stress
decreases. However, it is apparent that sandstone texture also is a controlling factor,
and its influence has not been established in work published to date. Newman
(1973), for example, observed that "pore volume compressibilities far a given
porosity can vary widely according to rock type ... the data are too widely scattered
for correlations to be reliable." Thus, the correlation between compressibility and
porosity published by Hall (1953) may not, in general, be valid, and should be used
with caution.
Hammerlindl (1971) published a correlation that showed that pore volume
compressibility in geopressured reservoirs increases with reservoir depth and with
increases in initial pressure gradient. In geopressured sections where the initial
pressure gradient increases with depth, the net overburden pressure decreases as
depth increases. Thus, Hammerlindls general relation is consistent with earlier
published data that indicate compressibility increases as net overburden pressure
decreases.
(6.13)
For poorly sorted sandstones, the relation between pore volume compressibility and
net overburden pressure (pon) for Fatts (1958) data would be approximately:
cp = 100 - 10 ln(pon)
where cp units are microsip.
(6.14)
Van der Knaap (1962) reported pore volume compressibility data for a variety of
porous media and observed an approximately linear log-log relation between pore
volume compressibility and net overburden pressure. Compressibilities reported by
Van der Knaap (1962), however, appear to be substantially less than those reported
by Fatt (1958) over a comparable range of net overburden pressure.
Data reported by Dobrynin (1962) appear to be consistent with those reported by
Fatt (1958). Dobrynin (1962) reported that, "between a certain minimum (net
overburden) pressure and a certain maximum (net overburden) pressure, the
relation between pore (volume) compressibility and logarithm of pressure can be
approximated by a straight line"; or:
where:
cp = cpxln(px/p)/ln(px/pn)
(6.15)
Rock texture
cpx (microsip)*
50
10
The recovery efficiency of gas from partial water drive gas reservoirs may be
estimated with Equation 3.18:
(3.18)
[ERg]wd = [1 - RpZ] + [RpZEV]
where EV is the volumetric sweep efficiency and RpZ is the ratio of abandonment to initial p/Z.
From examination of Equation 3.18 it is apparent that these two terms are of comparable
significance in the determination of gas recovery efficiency from partial water drive reservoirs.
Since the Agarwal and Ramey publication, it has become increasingly apparent that
seemingly minor variations in permeability can have a major influence on volumetric
sweep efficiency in reservoirs subject to water influx (Hartmann and Paynter 1979;
Cronquist 1984). Thus, theoretical calculations for recovery efficiency of gas of the
type used by Agarwal et al. should be used with extreme caution to establish
production policy or to estimate gas reserves from this type of reservoir.
Thin Oil Columns (Between Gas and Water)
Oil columns less than about 20 feet in gross thickness generally are considered
"thin." When such an accumulation is over-lain by a significant gas cap and underlain
by an active aquifer, estimating recovery efficiency of oil using volumetric methods
can be subject to substantial uncertainty.
Typically, wells completed in this type of oil accumulation are subject to coning of the
overlying gas, the underlying water, or both. This usually results in rapidly increasing
GOR or WOR and relatively short economic life. Several correlations have been
developed to estimate "critical rates" to produce these wells, below which in
theory coning should not occur. See, for example, Muskat and Wyckoff (1935),
Chaney et al. (1956), Chierici et al. (1964), Bournazel and Jeanson (1971),
Richardson and Blackwell (1971), Kuo and DesBrisay (1983), Kuo (1989), and
Hyland et al. (1989).
From a critical review of this literature which spans an interval of over 50 years
it is apparent the industry has yet to develop a general treatment of coning that
includes the influence of aquifer influx and other relevant parameters. Some authors,
for example, have investigated the problem of coning in the presence of an inactive
aquifer, analogous to the classic coning problem first discussed by Muskat and
Wyckoff (1935). Others, however, have investigated the problem in the presence of
an active aquifer. It seems apparent that, in the presence of an active aquifer, the
critical rate to avoid water coning would be less that the critical rate in the presence
of an inactive aquifer, other factors being the same.
In addition to aquifer strength, another critical parameter needed to apply these
correlations is the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability over each wells
drainage area. In theory, this parameter can be determined by vertical interference
testing or vertical pulse testing, as discussed by Earlougher (1977). However, the
test procedure involves two sets of perforations separated by a packer, an expense
many operators might be reluctant to incur. Another possible approach is reservoir
simulation of wells exhibiting coning to establish the ratio of horizontal to vertical
permeability that results in an acceptable match to observed behavior. However,
depending on the depositional environment of the reservoir rock and the degree of
lateral heterogeneity, it is unlikely that results from one such test would be
applicable to all wells in the reservoir. As a practical matter, it might be easier to test
wells at gradually increasing rates to determine a maximum rate at which each well
can be produced without coning.
In the presence of a strong aquifer and a gas cap, the combination of water
encroachment and gas cap coning may result in displacement of part of the oil
column into the gas cap, resulting in usually irrecoverable losses of oil. Depending on
the size of the initial gas cap and the degree to which gas cap voidage occurs,
significant volumes of oil may be lost. In many cases, this loss may be avoided by
injection of the produced free gas into the gas cap, thereby maintaining its size
constant.
Assuming acceptable operating practices, recovery efficiency of oil from this type of
reservoir depends on
water-sensitive clays.
These attributes make it very difficult to determine porosity and interstitial water saturation by
conventional log and core analysis (Brown et al. 1981; Kukal et al. 1983; Spencer 1983;
Witherbee et al. 1983). These problems, plus the high degree of lateral discontinuity, lead to
substantial uncertainties in volumetric estimates of gas initially in place. In many cases, it is not
possible to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial intervals from log analysis alone.
Drillstem tests rarely provide any useful information, as formations often are damaged during
drilling, and massive hydraulic fracturing (MHF) usually is required to obtain commercial flow
rates. However, despite over 35 years of experience with fracturing technology, the industry is
unable to design a treatment and predict the results with a high degree of confidence (Kazemi
1982; Veatch 1983)
It generally is recognized that, over life, the gas production rate from wells
completed in these reservoirs typically exhibits a hyperbolic decline (Stewart 1970;
Brown et al. 1981). B values generally are greater than 1. Hale (1981) has
demonstrated that elliptical flow equations provide a good approximation to well
behavior in these reservoirs.
RESERVOIR CLASSIFICATION
Various classification criteria have been proposed for defining fractured reservoirs.
For example, Nelson (1985) modifying the classification scheme of Stearns and
Friedman (1972), groups naturally fractured reservoirs into four categories, based on
fracture mechanisms or origins:
Figure 1
Stearns (1968) describes fractures associated with folding based on the fracture
direction. These include fractures parallel to dip, perpendicular to dip, perpendicular
or parallel to bedding and at angles to bedding. Because faults are caused by
shearing, most fault-related fractures are zero-shear fractures.
From the standpoint of productivity, Nelson (1985) divides naturally fractured
reservoirs into four general types:
Type 1
In these reservoirs, fractures account for the bulk of porosity and permeability.
Examples include the Ellenburger Fields in Texas (Bulnes and Fitting, 1945), La PazMara in Venezuela (Smith, 1956) and Amal in Libya. These reservoirs contain high
fracture density, may exhibit sharp production decline (in the case of pressure
depletion reservoirs) and can develop early water or gas coning.
Type 2
These reservoirs consist of systems in which the fractures provide the essential
reservoir conductivity. Among these types of reservoirs, Nelson lists Agha Jari and
Haft Kel in Iran and the Rangely Field in Colorado. For these reservoirs, the nature of
interporosity flow must be identified for infill drilling or implementation of improved
recovery processes.
Type 3
These reservoirs have both adequate permeability to flow and fractures that enhance
overall permeability. Examples include Gachsaran in Iran, Lacg in France and Kirkuk
in Iraq. Most times, the evidence of fractures is not clear in the early life of the field.
Furthermore, unusual responses during pressure support by gas or water injections
can be observed because of permeability trends.
Type 4
In these reservoirs, fractures serve as the cause of anisotropy without providing any
noticeable contribution to porosity and permeability.
The above categories are important because early recognition of fracture types and
fracture control during productivity can help in planning well locations, establishing a
maximum efficient rate of production and selecting an appropriate, improved oil
recovery process.
incorporating these changes requires sequence modeling that matches the entire
geologic history of the sedimentation, alteration and compaction of the reservoir
rock. Much progress has been made in this regard for sandstones with conventional
pore structures. But there is certainly room for more efforts to develop geologic
modeling of fractured reservoirs.
In the absence of such models, the industry has used some simple conceptual
equivalents to handle routine interpretation of well tests and to conduct performance
predictions. In the following sections, we review these approaches, while calling
attention to the fact that the models in use are transitional and can be substantially
improved with more data and more analytical reasoning.
Naturally fractured reservoirs are among the best examples of extremely
heterogeneous systems. It is unrealistic to assume we can get a deterministic image
of a naturally fractured reservoir from a limited number of sampling sites. Yet to
assess the hydrocarbon in place and its relative distribution in fractures and matrix,
we need to either represent this complex system with a series of stochastic images,
or (being even more pragmatic) apply an extremely simplistic deterministic image for
rough estimation purposes.
Four categories of fractures have been observed in field studies:
Ordered models include those which follow Euclidean geometry, such as the
dual porosity, dual permeability, triple porosity and multi-permeability models
Another approach to defining fractured rocks consist of defining an equivalent
porous media from discrete fracture models. Non-Euclidean models have also
been recognized and are a subject of active research.
EUCLIDEAN MODELS
Because near-wellbore measurements are inherently limited in their investigative
capabilities. producing bulk images of a reservoir requires tools with deeper
investigative ranges. In 1963.y Warren and Root presented a technique for analyzing
pressure buildup data from naturally fractured reservoirs. The response of the "sugar
cube" model that they developed to represent dual porosity did fit actual pressure
buildup tests. This model indicated that if we can assume such a simple
representation based on interpreting various segments of a pressure vs. time plot,
we can estimate the interporosity coefficient and the fracture storativity ratio. In
fact, the industry has used this model and other similar representations to) describe
and manage reservoirs. Figure 1 shows several idealized Euclidean models proposed
in the literature for modeling of fractured reservoirs.
Figure 1
These models are expressed in terms of fracture density (AfD) and direction of flow.
Figure 2
(3.1)
(3.2)
DaPrat et al. (1984) reported on the application of Warren and Roots dual porosity
model to well tests in Venezuela and obtained values in the range of 0.1-0.5 and
values from 10-6 to 10-7. Aguilera (1985) presented a summary of values
obtained by various authors.
The gradient flow model was originally proposed by Kazemi (1969) for a "layer cake"
representation of fractured reservoirs. Later, researchers (e.g., DeSwaan (1976),
Chen et al. (1984) and Streltsova (1983)) developed the concept for other flow
geometries.
In the gradient flow model, a pressure gradient develops in matrix blocks, and the
pressure within the matrix becomes space-dependent. This conceptual model is
designed to represent reservoirs with equivalent large matrix blocks. Figure 3 shows
the pressure distribution in matrix blocks under gradient flow conditions.
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5 shows an example of an observed pressure response that, in fact, fits the
description of the theoretical model of a triple porosity reservoir.
Figure 5
Figure 6
NON-EUCLIDEAN MODELS
Euclidean models have proven useful tools for interpreting well tests and historymatching fractured reservoirs. When it comes to using them for reservoir modeling,
however, they have an obvious drawback: their significant dissimilarity to observed
patterns of naturally occurring fractures. To overcome the inevitable frustrations of
Figure 7
Figure 8
Sammis et al. (1992) made similar observations of observed fracture patterns on the
outcrops around the Geysers geothermal field in northern California. Figure 9 shows
the fractal nature of fracture patterns as examined on different scales.
Figure 9
(3.3)
where N represents the number of occupied cells and r is the corresponding scale.
Figure 10 shows the box counting procedure and the plotting method to obtain the
fractal dimension.
Figure 10
FRACTURE PATTERNS
Using numerical studies of fracture systems, Long and Witherspoon (1985) studied
two-dimensional fracture networks, assuming constant apertures and lengths. Their
study showed that for small values of fracture length and large fracture densities,
permeability can be zero. To develop hydraulic conductivity, fracture length must
increase while there is a decrease in fracture density.
In a subsequent study, Long and Shimo (1985), using the cubic law for a fixed
network of fractures, verified the coefficient of variation of hydraulic aperture and
the correlation between fracture length and aperture. The results indicated that
hydraulic conductivity decreased with an increase in the coefficient of variation of
aperture. This reaction was attributed to the flow restrictions in the large conductors
by the smaller fractures. They also predicted an opposite effect for correlation
between length and aperture. In brief, using a methodology similar to the one
described and given a statistical parameter set, one can generate a statistical
framework for fracture patterns. The measured permeabilities can be conditioned by
fracture frequencies observed at control points and other available data. Figure 11
Figure 11
E = [ln(ho) - ln(hc)]
(3.4)
Random changes in the elements are made, and the E of the new configuration is
changed with the previous estimate. The new configuration is maintained and
subjected to further modification as long as the E is on a declining trend.
The IFS system originally proposed by Barnsley (1988) has been used by Acuna and
Yortsos (1991) and Long et al. (1991) to generate fracture patterns. For an initial set
of points and a set of iterative functions, a fractal-like object is generated. This is
referred to as an attractor. These iterated functions can be deterministic or
stochastic. Figure 12 shows attractors generated by Long using several functions.
Figure 12
Figure 13 shows the development of fracture patterns after 0, 110 and 140
iterations.
Figure 13
Figure 14 shows well test data compared to model predictions. Further research is
needed to extend the process to three-dimensional systems.
Figure 14
Gale et al. (1991) presented results of fracture studies on the Monterey formation,
based on outcrop data. They noted that the trace length for each set of fractures, as
well as spacing values, follow a log-normal distribution. They used these fracture
statistics to generate stochastic images of the fracture network in two and three
dimensions. Figure 15 shows examples of histograms obtained on fracture trace
length and fracture spacing.
Figure 15
With these data, a fracture network code is employed to generate 2-D and 3-D
stochastic images of the fracture network.
In brief, Gale et als. procedure consists of generating a number of random points
within the 2-D or 3-D space. At each point, a line length, characterized by statistical
parameters of orientation and length, is assigned. The process continues until a
prescribed fracture density is generated. After eliminating all intersections that
cannot assist the flow, fracture elements between any two nodes are assigned an
aperture either a fixed or a random value from log-normal distribution. Figure 16 is
an example of a 3-D pattern generated using fracture statistics as described here.
Figure 16
Work presented by Chang and Yortsos (1990) and Acuna and Yortsos (1991) predicts
the pressure transient response of fractal networks. Additionally, Acuna et al. (1992)
demonstrates that the pressure transient tests from actual wells in the Geysers field
can be explained with the predictions made for fractal patterns. They show that
when pressure transient test data for a naturally fractured reservoir resemble the
expected pattern for a well with a hydraulic fracture, these data may also indicate a
fractal network of fractures. Figure 17 shows an example of pressure transient data
from a naturally fractured reservoir exhibiting linear flow.
Figure 17
(3.5)
For blocks with dimensions of a, b and c, we may compute the effective block
dimension d as shown below:
n=3: d=(3abc)/(ab+bc+ac)
n=2: d=(2ab)/(a+b)
n=1: d=a
(3.6)
(3.7)
(3.8)
System
1-D
2-D
3-D
Coats (1989)
8
24
24
The shape factor a defines the matrix block surface area per unit volume. Kazemi et
al. (1976) proposed the following expression for :
(3.9)
(Lx2, Ly2 and Lz2 correspond to a, b and c in Equation 3.6.)
The above parameters help significantly during the history matching of reservoir
simulation studies that employ simple sugar-cube conceptual models. In reality,
block sizes and shapes need not be the same. The effective matrix block size is only
meaningful in reservoirs that are not intensely fractured. For fractured reservoirs
with sparse fractures, several approaches may be employed to estimate effective
block size.
Downhole data from fracture identification jogs, fluid entry surveys and drilling logs
of intervals causing lost circulation can generate alternative measures of fracture
spacing and matrix block sizes. This information, when confirmed by incorporating
outcrop maps, can aid in characterizing block size distribution.
PHYSICAL MODELING
From the standpoint of fluid mechanics, fracture studies are a matter of describing
flow through irregularly sized and spaced 3-D channels. Understanding multiphase
flow in fractures and the interaction between matrix and fractures for various
recovery processes is essential to accurately predicting reservoir behavior.
Researchers have reported a limited number of physical models describing single and
multiphase flow through fracture systems. These studies, which have generally been
conducted on a single block basis, have addressed flow modeling, effective transport
parameter determination and small scale micromodels.
Fourar et al. (1992) studied the nature of two-phase flow in fractures and concluded
that several flow structures (such as bubble flow, complex films and drop flow) exist
that make the process similar to two-phase flow in pipes.
Some issues of concern in physical modeling are:
Depending on the experiments purpose, fractures may be natural or manmade. In general, there
are two reasons for making physical measurements: (1) to determine fracture and or matrix
petrophysical properties, and/or (2) to measure interporosity flow.
In conducting core-level flow experiments, synthetic fractures have been cut to
model the transport in the composite fracture/matrix system. Using cores with
natural fractures introduces another level of complexity, in that the geometry of
fracture channels needs to be characterized. Various laboratory and analytical
techniques have been proposed to study the geometry of rough fracture surfaces.
Several mechanisms contribute to the productivity of oil from matrix blocks:
Figure 18
(3.10)
Mattax and Kyte showed that Equation 3.10 applies where horizontal imbibition is the
recovery process. But when effects of gravity are important, the following equation
must also be satisfied:
(3.11)
From these relationships, Parsons and Chaney (1966) showed that the rate of interface rise with
time (I= dz/dt) can be related between the model and the prototype:
(3.12)
Babadagli and Ershaghi (1992) showed that the capillary imbibition process under
fracture flow is a strong function of flow rate in fractures, matrix capillary pressure
and matrix permeability. They derived an effective relative permeability curve for the
composite fracture-matrix system and indicated its dependence on flow rate.
The question of proper scaling still requires much additional work. Kyte (1970)
suggested the use of a centrifuge test to scale the effect of both gravity and
capillarity. Also, Labastie (1990) examined the issue of capillary continuity between
matrix blocks. From experiments, he concludes that, in general, capillary continuity
exists between matrix blocks in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Gas-liquid transmissibility in fractured reservoirs has not been fully studied on
physical models. Firoozabadi and Markeset(1992) presented experimental data on
gas-liquid flow in fractured systems and on the nature of capillary continuity. They
concluded that fracture transmissivity is insensitive to the contact area between the
matrix blocks but is a strong function of fracture aperture. Horie et al. (1990)
reported strong capillary continuity across horizontal fractures for a stack of matrix
blocks. Thompson and Mungan(1969) conducted a series of gravity drainage
experiments on Berea cores containing synthetic fractures and concluded that the
displacement rate, matrix permeability and subvertical fractures affect the oil
recovery. Additional experimental modeling of re-infiltration and capillary contact has
been reported.
Regarding the physical modeling of fractured reservoirs containing heavy oil, both
combustion and steam experiments have been reported:
observations indicated low matrix oil recovery when either hot water
or steam are injected into the fractures.