Ecrin v4.30 Update Notes

Ecrin v4.30 - Doc v4.30.01 KAPPA 1988-2013 Ecrin v4.
30 Update Notes- 1/30

Ecrin v4.30 Update Notes

Ecrin v4.30 is expected to be the last major Ecrin release under Generation 4, before the
replacement of Ecrin by KAPPA Workstation. Ecrin v4.30 is above all a technical release, with
major modeling additions such as the wiggly well in all Ecrin numerical modules. This version
also incorporates the necessary links to the Generation 5 products recently released, KAPPA
Server (replacement for Diamant Master) and KAPPA VIZ (3D collaborative environment)

The Figure above describes the communication between Ecrin and the KAPPA Server thanks to
the new KAPPA Client. Note that the Diamant module of Ecrin remains available in v4.30.

These notes will provide the Ecrin v4.20 user with an exhaustive list of the
additions/modifications in v4.30, and a quick reference to use them. The content found herein
is also present in the on-line help. New Guided Sessions can be followed that cover some of
the major additions.

The first section of these notes describes Analysis/Models additions benefiting to Saphir,
Topaze, and Rubis. It is followed by sections on the modules themselves. Finally a last section
covers some Generic additions.

Ecrin v4.30 - Doc v4.30.01 KAPPA 1988-2013 Ecrin v4.30 Update Notes- 2/30

1. Analysis / Models

Wiggly well (Saphir Topaze Rubis)
This is actually the main addition in Ecrin v4.30: the ability to grid and model not only slanted
wells, but wells with any arbitrary geometry. In Saphir, Topaze and Rubis, this enables us to:
- Model slanted wells, let them be fully penetrating, partially penetrating the formation,
or with multiple perforations - all this in single layer or multi-layer reservoirs
- Model true horizontal wells, i.e., wells not being constrained by the reservoir
stratigraphy a well may now intersect several layers
- Model arbitrary trajectories, i.e. wiggly wells

For achieving the desired goal, we had to abandon the comfort of stratigraphic gridding, in
which a well module is nicely embedded in a given layer. This modification, combined with the
constraint of precise simulations at all time scales (from pressure transient analysis to history
matching) using a reasonable amount of grid cells, encouraged us to investigate a few
options, the first two attempts being schematically represented below:

Octrees: successive Cartesian grid
refinement. Very fast grid generation,
but too many cells on large slants
Tetrahedra: using a third party library. Would
work for all well shapes, but slow gridding
process, ending up many cells, and too many
of them with a very bad shape ratio.

Note that the two first attempts cited above did give correct simulations, in spite of the
(quickly mentioned) issues they were bringing along. We finally could square the circle with a
Voronoi solution, combined with the use of generalized transmissibility corrections (more on
this below):

3D Voronoi

This method, developed internally, consists in carefully defining a set of points around the
wellbore. A purely 3D Voronoi grid is then generated using this set of points. Sub-grids are
next generated for each layer with additional constraints on the horizons. The background grid
is then merged with all the sub-grids to generate a final 3D grid that respects the horizons.

This strategy has the advantage of being fast and results in a grid with a relatively limited
number of cells; it is however not conformal to a pure 3D Voronoi grid anymore and therefore
requires proper transmissibility corrections.

We will come back to the generalized transmissibility corrections in a few pages, but let us
insist at this stage that combining those corrections with this new gridding strategy enables us
to account for x-y-z anisotropy in a seamless manner.

How to create a slanted / wiggly well in Saphir Topaze

In the 2DMap well dialog, you may either set
the well as slanted by checking the
corresponding box, or set the well as wiggly:

In the first case (slanted checkbox), the well will be turned into a fully penetrating slant being
controlled by a unique additional parameter: the well deviation (note that the well can be
turned into a limited entry by checking the corresponding box in the interface). The gridding
and simulation will be conducted as usual, but the (projected) well trajectory will not be
visible in the 2DMap (except for its influence on the resulting grid, of course):

Slanted well in Saphir Topaze: the well is fully penetrating by default (right);
the well trajectory is not visible in the 2D plot (left).

You may remember that this first interface (slanted checkbox) already existed in Ecrin v4.20,
but the well was then gridded vertically and a geometrical skin (computed analytically) was
added to the simulation. This approximation has been completely replaced by the new gridding
scheme.


When the well is defined as wiggly, the different checkboxes are replaced by an Edit button
leading to a Rubis like cross-section view of the well and of its perforations:

The well trajectory may be edited by adding / moving / deleting nodes with the mouse in the
geometry view. Double-clicking on the trajectory leads to the following edition dialog:

In the above, the reference point is the (0,0) coordinates of the 2DMap for the X and Y axes,
whereas the reference depth (z=0) is the reservoir top.

The Load option allows importing a complete well trajectory from an ASCII file; in order to
keep the Voronoi grid within a reasonable size the loaded trajectory is limited to 100 points,
keeping in mind that more complex trajectories may be reduced with the Simplify option, as
shown below:

In this example, the initial trajectory of 654
points is reduced to 15 control nodes, in both
horizontal (left) and vertical (right) directions:


In turn, the perforations may be added / deleted / modified in an edition display la Rubis
note the table brought up (right) when the user double clicks on any perforation:

One important side consequence of this ability to load complex geometries is that, in some
situations, the trajectory displayed in the 2DMap may not go through the well icon ( )
anymore, as displayed in the small example below:

Note also that you can edit and move the well nodes directly in the 2DMap view keeping in
mind that the nodes being displaced will keep the same depth after a displacement in the
2DMap.

How to create a wiggly well in Rubis

There is no distinction between the simple slanted well and the complex wiggly well in Rubis:
all wells are defined as wiggly. Creating a wiggly well is possible in the 2DMap, through
the icon. The editing of the trajectory and perforations is similar to what is available in
Saphir / Topaze.

Here again, you may remember that a Deviated well checkbox was available in Rubis v4.20 in
the vertical well geometry dialog: in this situation Rubis was gridding the well vertically and
adding a geometrical skin (computed analytically) at run time. This option is rendered obsolete
by the new gridding capabilities and has been removed.


Some simulation examples

This first set of simulations shows a comparison in Saphir between the analytical slanted well
solution (test designs = markers in the plots below) and its numerical counterpart (displayed
as lines) for a range of deviations:

Fully penetrating slanted well,
10 deviation, no vertical
anisotropy.

3224 grid cells, 0.5%
maximum deviation between
analytical and numerical.

anisotropy.

maximum deviation.

anisotropy.

maximum deviation.

anisotropy.

maximum deviation.


85 deviation, k
z
/k
r
=0.05.

maximum deviation.

The second example we will show is a Rubis diphasic (oil and gas) example with a true
horizontal well intersecting three layers, among which the thinner middle layer has a higher
permeability; in this example a gas cap lies just above the perforated intervals:

Wiggly well in Rubis: initial geometry definition (left), and corresponding 3D grid (right)

This particular case can be gridded with slightly less than 6,000 cells in Rubis, and simulated in
a few minutes. Not surprisingly, the simulation shows gas coning taking place through the
middle (more permeable) layer:

Initial saturation field:

Final saturation field (after 180 days of
production):


Oil and gas production logs note the gas
breakthrough towards the end of the middle
perforation:

New (Faster!) time stepping for numerical models (Topaze Rubis)
In Ecrin v4.30, many changes have progressively been made in the numerical system and in
the non-linear loop, in order to stabilize and speed-up simulations. Among the main changes,
we may cite:
(a) Numerical precision has been modified to better handle absent phases (e.g., water
defined in the PVT but S
w
=0). This improves convergence and speeds-up simulations
with absent phases.
(b) System variables - unknowns - have been reorganized. This improves each linear
system resolution in a multiphase context.
(c) In Rubis, the default value of the time step growth ratio has been increased to 2 -
similarly to Topaze - in order to decrease the number of iterations per constraint step.
(d) For a well constraint in steps, constraint values may now be relaxed when time steps
drop below the input minimum value. This intends to reduce the number of restarts at
very small time steps for problematic cases.
(e) Several internal thresholds regarding time step growth or restarts have been modified,
further reducing the overall number of iterations per simulation.
(f) In the past, well constraint gauges in points were always implicitly treated as gauges
in steps in the numerical model. This has been modified and the eventual in points
nature of a gauge is now systematically honored, with very important consequences in
terms of time stepping, as detailed below.
(g) An option was introduced to force the numerical simulation stepping to follow the gauge
stepping. In this case, the time step growth ratio setting is completely ignored, and
only the minimum number of time steps is performed.

Among these modifications, points (f) and (g) have the most important consequences and will
be detailed in this section.

Let us consider a simple history with 3 constraint steps (either pressure or rate).


In order to honor the in steps nature of the constraint, time stepping in the numerical kernel
is handled as follows:
- At the beginning of each new constraint step, the time step is reduced to a small value
(dt new in the figure below). This value is referred to as the minimum time step in
the interface of Ecrin.
- After each converged simulation step, the duration of the next time step is increased,
following the input time step growth ratio. Note that this growth is limited by the
maximum allowed variations of pressure and saturations in the reservoir during a time
step.
- The end of the current constraint step is strictly honored.

As a consequence, the simulation typically follows the path below:

Note that for each constraint step, many actual simulation steps may be required.

Let us now consider a more complex history, where the well constraint is a pressure gauge in
points. This gauge contains 172 points (with, in average, one point every 180hr):


In Ecrin v4.20 any such constraint gauge in points would actually be internally treated as a
gauge in steps, each step being centered on the corresponding original point. Hence, the
actual simulated history would be:

Since this history in steps is simulated using the algorithm described above, many numerical
time steps are required per constrain data. For this particular example, we ended up with 1709
numerical time steps, for a total simulation time of 16 seconds.

In Ecrin v4.30, we implemented a new time stepping algorithm, in order to honor the in
points nature of the constraint gauges. In order to illustrate the new approach, let us consider
a simple history with 13 constraint points (either pressure or rate):

The new algorithm proceeds as follows:
- Only the first time step of the simulation is set to dt new (input minimum time step).
- The time step growth is driven by the input time step growth ratio.
- This growth is limited by gauge points (that are actually simulated).

- This growth is also limited by the maximum allowed variations of pressure and
saturations in the reservoir during a time step.
- Constraint values are linearly interpolated between two gauge points.

As a consequence, the simulation typically follows the path below:

We see that this algorithm requires much less time steps than the former by steps approach,
since we do not come back to the smallest time step duration after each constraint gauge
point.

Using this approach on the previous example (with the 172 points pressure gauge), we end up
now with only 310 numerical time steps using Ecrin v4.30, for a simulation time of 8 seconds.
This corresponds to an x2 acceleration compared to Ecrin v4.20. CPU improvements by a
factor of 5 can easily be observed for larger gauges.

Further CPU reduction can even be achieved, by using the new option follow gauge in the run
settings:

Topaze settings Rubis settings

When this option is checked, the time step growth ratio is simply ignored and the simulator
tries to go through gauge points only (provided numerical convergence is achieved). This
further reduces the total number of simulated time steps when the gauge sampling is irregular.


Finally, let us mention that in Rubis, this option can also be activated for all gauges. In this
case, target gauges in steps will automatically be converted in points, and simulated using the
faster approach previously described.

Parallel initialization (Saphir Topaze Rubis)
In order to speed up gridding and initialization, several computationally intensive functions
have been parallelized in the kernels. The number of processors available for distribution is
automatically detected. Parallelized steps currently include:

- Construction of the 3D vertices from the 2D grid (during 3D Grid construction). In
particular, this includes interpolation and discretization of horizons for complex
multilayer geometries in Rubis.
- Initialization and construction of the 3D well sub-grids (during 3D Grid construction).
Here, the parallel distribution is based on the number of wells, but also on the number
of fractures when multiple fractures horizontal wells are used.
- Derivation of the connections and transmissibilities (during model initialization phase).
- Numerical integrations for the generalized transmissibility corrections (see next section).

In addition to these initialization functions, it is worth mentioning that during non-linear
numerical iterations, calls to the PVT flash calculations have also been parallelized when the
simulation context is compositional isothermal (more on this below).

As an illustration of all this, the small sketch below indicates on a few examples the speedup
(as a ratio, with Ecrin v4.20 as reference) that a user may now expect during the gridding and
initialization steps this speedup naturally depends on the number of available CPU cores:

Generalized transmissibility corrections (Saphir Topaze Rubis)

This option is actually fulfilling two roles in Ecrin v4.30:

(a) Its use in the slanted / wiggly well gridding scheme could allow us to obtain accurate
models while keeping the number of cells (relatively) low.

(b) In the particular case of fractures flowing in shales (let them be connected to a vertical well
or to a multi-fractured horizontal well), the high transient pressure gradient in the immediate
vicinity of the fracture(s) would drive our existing gridding algorithm to its limits. In essence,
linear numerical simulations would show irreducible discrepancies with the corresponding
analytical models. Those discrepancies are not huge by any means (< 3% in the most extreme
situations), but they do exist.

The introduction of generalized transmissibility corrections addresses those two issues. This
computation is described at length in a paper we recently posted on KAPPA website [*], but we
will attempt to summarize it in a few sentences:

Let us consider two adjacent cells in a homogeneous reservoir:


The flux between the two cells is classically written as a function of the pressure drop through
the use of a constant transmissibility T
ij
:

( )
j i ij ij
P P T Q =
1

Where P
i
and P
j
are the two average pressures in each cell. When the pressure field between
the two cells is assumed to be linear, the problem can be solved relatively easily to obtain an
expression of the transmissibility in terms of the reservoir permeability, the distance between
the cell centers L
ij
, and the surface F
ij
.

The problem is that this linearity assumption is proven wrong in the extreme cases mentioned
above (very complex gridding scheme and/or extreme permeability situations). Then, we have
no other means but to rely on some external ways to calculate the overall pressure field, in
order to integrate it in space and obtain the desired T
ij
value:

}}} }}}
}}

V
=
Cj
j
Ci
i
Fij
ij
Pdv v Pdv v
S d P
k T
/ 1 / 1

We found that using an analytical pseudo-steady state solution based on Greens function
representation is, indeed, providing good calculation results. Here is for instance the analytical
potential field calculated around a limited entry slanted well which can be used as a base for
the computation of generalized transmissibilities in that case:

Of course, all this comes with a price: a CPU overhead which, even though it does not
significantly impacts the overall simulation time, is noticeable enough not to use it
systematically read: even in (most) situations where it does not bring any additional added
value.

In Ecrin v4.30, the generalized transmissibility corrections are systematically used whenever a
slanted / wiggly well is simulated. They are also available as an option as soon as a fractured
well (or multi-fractured horizontal well) is being simulated.


You may access this option at several locations depending on the module:

In the numerical settings (Settings button in
the standard numerical dialog, or Run
Settings button in NL dialog) in Saphir and
Topaze:

In the Numerical Settings page of the
Simulation Run Settings dialog in Rubis:

[*] Transmissibility Corrections and Grid Control for Shale Gas Numerical Simulation, Vincent
Artus & Dorian Fructus.


Compositional isothermal (Saphir Topaze Rubis)
As you may know, a compositional thermal model has been available in Rubis since the Ecrin
v4.20 release. In addition to this full model, the fluid properties may now be defined as
compositional isothermal by checking the EOS (Peng-Robinson) option in the PVT definition
interface:

This option is naturally available in Rubis, but also in NL analyses of Saphir and Topaze.

When the EOS option is selected, clicking on the icon gives access to the fluid composition
and properties, as illustrated in the following screenshots:

Allowing the compositional model to be constrained to isothermal has enabled us to parallelize
the most CPU intensive part of the simulation the flash calculations, ending up with
compositional models significantly faster than in the complete EOS thermal case.

When the PVT is compositional, the initial conditions may be expressed in several ways: the
input of the fluid initial saturations, the fluid bubble point or dew point pressure, or the direct
initial composition of the mixture. All combinations are possible in Ecrin:


Note that when the composition input is selected, the fluid initial composition is set to be the
fluid composition defined in the PVT. When the input is set to saturation or saturation
pressure, the sample fluid composition defined in the PVT dialog is modified in order to meet
the desired condition. Note that this modification might not always be possible: if, for instance,
the input saturation pressure is outside the convergence pressure envelope of the set of
components, we have no other choice but to display an error message stating that the desired
equilibrium condition could not be met.

Explicit import / export of KEG files (Saphir Topaze Rubis)
The KEG format stands for KAPPA Export Grid. It is an internal format containing the current
2DMap geometry (including well trajectories and faults/fractures paths), the Voronoi grid and
eventual result fields in an XML + binary transcription. KEG files may be imported in Rubis (as
an alternative to GRDECL in the Init from Geomodeler option), in K-Viz, or in third party
products. Any numerical model simulated in Saphir and Topaze can be exported as a KEG in
the Export dialog; any model (simulated or not) built in Rubis may be exported as a KEG in the
similar Rubis Export option.

Analysis dropdown menu (Saphir Topaze)
A Saphir or Topaze document containing a large number of analyses (>10) induces a large
number of tabs (one for each analysis), and switching analysis becomes difficult. To solve this
practical issue, the Ecrin v4.30 analysis toolbar now contains a dropdown menu enabling the
user to perform this operation more easily:

(Note that this addition was not required for Rubis, as switching from one run to the other was
already performed via a dropdown menu).

Miscellaneous
- Leaky fault analytical solution (Saphir Topaze): the leakage value can now be greater
than 1.


2. Saphir

Minifrac analysis for Gas
The minifrac analysis is now opened for gas tests, following the publication SPE100578 [*]. To
be more precise, the minifrac option is available for gas if the two following conditions are
met: (a) the reference extracted flow period is a fall-off; (b) the previous period is a water
injection period. If those two conditions are met, the analysis can be conducted as for the oil
case.

[*] SPE100578: Application of a New Fracture-Injection/Falloff Model Accounting for
Propagating, Dilated, and Closing Hydraulic Fractures, D.P. Craig, Halliburton, and T.A.
Blasingame, Texas A&M U.

Oval probe for formation test analysis
In the Tool infos dialog of the Formation Test analysis, it is possible to define the active probe
as an oval probe. In that case the usual probe radius Rp describes the probe width; it is
completed by the probe height named Hp:

The rest of the analysis can be conducted as for the radial probe case, with the noticeable
exception that the multi-layer model option is disabled when an oval probe is used.

This new probe geometry is naturally also available for the test design option as an
illustration you will find below the comparison of a series of test designs conducted on an oval
probes with a range of probe heights varying from 1 inch (in which case the probe is radial) to
10 inches; the left-hand side plot shows the active probe response, whereas the right-hand
side plot shows the simulated pressure response 10 ft away from the active probe:


Use equivalent total bottomhole rate to simulate linear gas+water problems
In Ecrin v4.20, it is possible to define a gas interpretation containing both gas and water
productions, but the linear models (let them be analytical or numerical) are then disabled
clicking on Generate triggers the following message:

In other words, only diphasic nonlinear numerical models can be simulated in such a situation.

This limitation is bypassed in Ecrin v4.30: linear models may be simulated in gas+water
situations now that an equivalent total bottomhole rate is used as production history. This
modeling is naturally an approximation and cannot replace the full diphasic nonlinear model,
but simplifies the analysis workflow by inserting a first diagnostic step using simplified (and
faster) models.

Larger pressure gauge dropdown menu in the analysis toolbar
The size of the pressure gauge dropdown menu has been increased in size, in order to present
greater visibility when large gauge names are used:

Ecrin v4.20:

Ecrin v4.30:

Modifications in the Create rates from slug pressures option
The Create rates from slug pressures option in the Saphir Edit Rates tab now offers the
following options:
- A total cumulative production may be manually entered to constrain the rates
reconstructed over the calculation interval.
- A Positive rates only flag is available; when checked the calculation will ensure that
only positive rates are obtained, by setting zero rates during the injection intervals and
by modifying the total rate history accordingly.
- Fluid density and tubing I.D. are now stored in the document (and not reset to default
between two consecutive calls as before).

Miscellaneous
- Perrine: initialize kro to 1 and krw to 0 when there is no water production
- Perrine option is renamed Linear Multiphase Well Testing
- Radius of investigation and tested volumes are not output anymore when no model is
present.

3. Topaze

Time dependent well intake
This option has been implemented to primarily address the needs of production analysis in
unconventional reservoirs, where time dependent completion is systematic.

In Ecrin v4.30, a new Time dependent checkbox is available in the well intake dialog:

When this option is checked, and when no prior well intake exists, the user is prompted to
define the first well intake step, with the very same options and possible input choices. When
this definition is completed (or when a prior well intake already exists), the following display
shows up:

As can be seen above, the previously defined well intake is split into two (identical) steps
which may be edited with the button; the start time of the second well intake step is
defaulted to one month after the document reference date, and may naturally be modified as
needed. Note that more than two well intake steps may be defined, and that deleting all well
intakes (but one) gets you back to a unique well intake definition applied to the whole data
duration (and to the usual interface).

The example below illustrates a typical result obtained when this option is used in this case,
a well intake correction named Casing has been applied until the beginning of May, 2009,
then followed by another well intake step named Tubing. The plot superposes the uncorrected
surface pressure gauge (in green) to the Casing and Tubing corrections applied over the
whole time interval (orange and purple curves); finally the time dependent well intake
correction using both models is displayed in black:

A few precisions to finish this quick description:

- As this option is not available in Saphir or Rubis, only the first well intake step will be
copied by the drag & drop of a Topaze document or well intake to those modules.
- For the time being, the rate forecast option is limited to the input of sandface pressures
when a time dependent well completion has been defined.

Maximum rate for analytical and linear numerical models
In Ecrin v4.20 it was already possible to define a maximum flowing bottomhole rate in the q(p)
simulations by setting its value in the 2DMap well dialog, as illustrated below:

This value was then only taken into account in NL numerical models. What is new is that in
Ecrin v4.30 this maximum rate is honored in all situations: all numerical models - including the
linear ones, and all analytical models in which case a full mixed p(q) + q(p) superposition is
performed in the model (we do not just truncate the simulated rates, in other words).

Linear flow plot for oil
The linear flow plot is now available when the analysis reference phase is oil it used to be
restricted to gas in Topaze v4.20. Note as well the addition of the line slope in the results. This
extension was mostly made for the analysis of shale oil production data.

Arps power law loss ratio (Ilk) for oil
For the very same reason (shale oil), the power law loss ratio option of the Arps plot (added
for gas interpretations in Topaze 4.20) has been extended to oil cases. As a side effect, this
option has been renamed from Use tight gas/shale gas decline (Ilk) to Power law loss ratio
(Ilk) in the plot right-hand side menu.

Allow the control of reference rate in loglog and Blasingame plots
A reference rate has always been used in Topaze in order to obtain loglog and Blasingame
plots with a pressure scale (instead of p/q) on the Y scale. As you may know, this reference
rate was a constant hidden value fixed at 0.001 m
3
/sec (or 543.44 STB/D). This value can now
be accessed and modified through the option Reference Rate in the loglog and Blasingame
plots menus:

Productivity index plot
As a special client request, a Productivity Index plot was added to Topaze it displays the
following quantity:

Where q(t) is the imposed or simulated well rate (imposed in case of p(q) model, simulated
otherwise), p
wf
(t) the imposed or simulated bottomhole pressure, and p
average
(t) the simulated
reservoir average pressure. This result is available in all Topaze analyses, as soon as a model
with a simulated p
average
is available.

In theory, PI should converge towards a constant when the reservoir undergoes pseudo-steady
state flow. The objective of the additional plot is to check that it is the case, and therefore to
detect potential deviations caused by the model. This is limited to a very specific situation of
long time declines inverted from Laplace space.

Display model as points in the loglog and Blasingame plots
As a (small) side effect of the current KURC developments, we introduced (in the plot toolbar
and the plot menu) the possibility to use points rather than lines for the model display in the
loglog and Blasingame plots with the only intent to reduce the background noise caused by
the material balance time see next.


Convert step rates to points in extraction dialog
The possibility to temporarily convert the rate gauges loaded as steps to point gauges has
been introduced in the extraction dialog, as can be seen below:

Conversely, this option allows treating as steps a rate gauge loaded as points in Topaze (by
unchecking the corresponding flag in the extraction dialog). Its whole point is to check and
remove potential early-time discrepancies induced by an over-sampling of the rate gauge
when defined as steps or as points, which may induce distortion on the semilog derivative in
some specific situations.


4. Rubis

Gauge control switch
When the user defines a target supported by a rate or pressure gauge, it is now possible to
determine the time at which the target will be active, hence allowing the switch from one
gauge to the other during a simulation as shown by the example below:

In the above, time input has to be greater than or equal to the gauge starting date.

Copy-paste of well controls
The Controls dialog contains an option allowing the copy of controls from one well to the other
all gauges used as targets also being copied. The option to copy all controls (and the controls
only) is also available upon the copy-paste of a well in the Rubis browser:

Voidage replacement controls
Two new controls called Voidage (W) and Voidage (G) are available for injectors:

In each case, the control is such that Rubis will inject the required amount of gas or water to
keep the well bottomhole pressure constant. Below an example in which a gas injector greatly
increases its injection rate after 4000 hrs just when a nearby producer is set active (note the
little kink on the producer downhole rate: the production decreases until it feels the injector
interferences):


Gas injector with voidage replacement control

Nearby producer

New controls for network option: pressure targets at groups, conditional constraints
Simulation controls can be input at the level of (surface) groups linking several wells in the
Network option released since Ecrin v4.20. What is new is that it is possible now to input a
(surface) pressure target in addition to the different rate targets. Conditional constraints have
also been made available:

Aquifer water volume included in initialization results

When a numerical aquifer is connected to the
contour, the different volumes of fluid initially
present in the aquifer are provided in results
at the end of the initialization phase:

Note that if the initial state is such that the aquifer extends above the water level,
hydrocarbons eventually trapped in the aquifer will also be provided.


Dataset edition: allow point selection in plot
In the Dataset edition dialog the user may select points in the right-hand side mini-2DMap in
order to highlight them in the left-hand side table the selected points are displayed in white:

Selecting the points in the table will symmetrically highlight them in the 2DMap.

Gas condensate initial state: define under-saturated gas caps
Even though this new option is also available when the PVT is defined as saturated oil, its main
interest lies in the condensate gas case You may (or may not) know that the main limitation
of gas condensate simulations in Rubis was related to the initial state definition. Because of the
input parameters (gas-oil contact plus, eventually, a set of dew-point pressures at a given
depth), Rubis v4.20 would always initialize the reservoir on the dew-point locus, with always
the same characteristics: (a) an oil phase with a constant composition (and a constant bubble
point pressure) below the GOC, (b) a gas phase with a dew point pressure equal to the gas
pressure above the GOC. Put it another way: the gas-cap would always be saturated, and the
Rubis simulation could only start from the points A or C in the diagram below:

This limitation is overcome in Rubis v4.30 now that we have the possibility to directly input a
dew-point pressure at the reservoir reference depth, as illustrated below:

In the example shown above, the reservoir initial pressure is 1000 psia greater than the dew
point pressure; in other words, we are 1000 psia above point A in the P-T diagram displayed in
the previous page. And the reservoir pressure can be lowered by this 1000 psia amount before
the first drop of oil appears.

In fact the ability to define the initial state without the direct input of a gas-oil contact is also
available for the saturated oil case (where the GOC input may be replaced by a bubble point
pressure or a composition) and for compositional models (where the GOC may be replaced by
a bubble point pressure, a composition or a dew point pressure). This alternate initialization
procedure brings more degrees of freedom, as illustrated in the small examples below (note
that those examples apply to compositional, condensate and saturated oil PVT definitions):

Initial state definition with a GOC and an initial
pressure (P
i
) at the reference depth

In that case the saturation pressure is constant below
the GOC, and follows the oil initial pressure above it;
hence the gas cap is always saturated.


Initial state definition with an initial pressure (P
i
) at the
reference depth, and the input of a bubble point
pressure (P
bi
)

It is implicitly assumed that the reference depth lies in
the oil zone. The whole saturation pressure profile is
shifted so that it is in agreement with the P
bi
input; the
GOC contact (if it exists in the reservoir) is the point
where P
bi
meets the initial oil pressure profile.

Initial state definition with an initial pressure (P
i
) at the
reference depth, and the input of a dew point pressure
(P
di
)

It is implicitly assumed that the reference depth lies in
the gas zone. Hence the saturation pressure is now
equivalent to a dew point pressure; it remains constant
with depth until it intersects the initial gas pressure
profile. The zone above this intersection point
corresponds to the saturated gas zone.

Multiple vertical fractures in multilayer reservoirs
When the reservoir geometry contains more than one layer, the presence or absence of the
fracture may be defined layer by layer for a (vertical) fractured well, hence allowing Rubis to
simulate a vertical well intersecting several vertical fractures.

To do so, a fractured well must be created
first, and the user must edit the cross-section
view of the well geometry dialog, as shown
opposite:


Once the fracture has been selected in the
view ( + click on fracture), a double-click
on the fracture plane brings up the following
dialog:

Checking the Multiple fracture box in this
dialog allows specifying whether the fracture
is absent or present in each intersecting layer:

Note that in that case the fracture must fully
be present or absent in each layer, as
opposed to a limited entry fracture when the
multiple fractures option is not checked. You
will therefore typically end-up with the type of
display shown opposite:

It is worth mentioning that the fracture length remains constant (throughout all layers) in
this geometry, and that the fracture hydraulic properties (e.g., finite conductivity, etc) are
also uniquely defined.

Miscellaneous
- Output fields: Psat (saturation pressure) is now available as an output for saturated oil
and gas condensate cases.
- Target selection for injectors: the oil phase (saturated oil, dead oil, or condensate
problems) cannot be injected anymore. Hence the choice of the phase being injected is
limited to gas and water.


5. Generic

Maximum RAM extended to 4 GB
Even though this modification is also available in Ecrin v4.20 (.07), it is worth recalling that
the maximum RAM that may be allocated to Ecrin v4.30 has now been extended from 2 GB to
4 GB. This is available on 64bit OS.

OpenServer: add comments and flag valid analyses in the XML output
Since Ecrin v4.20, the main results stored in a Saphir / Topaze / Rubis document are
concatenated at the end of the binary file in a specific ASCII format (XML). As a consequence
those results are freely accessible if one opens a saved Ecrin document with, for instance, a
text processor see next Figure. This XML block is also used in the OpenServer interface of
the KAPPA Server v5.0. In Ecrin v4.30, comments added to the Ecrin document are inserted,
as well as the valid flag which may be assigned to any Saphir / Topaze analysis, or to any
Rubis run:

Modified oil compressibility calculation for saturated oil
The oil compressibility calculation for saturated oil now sticks to Martins equation [*], and is
defined as follows:

[*] Petroleum Reservoir Fluid Property Correlations, William D. McCain, Jr., John S.Spivey,
Christopher P.Lenn, p.66 (PennWell editions).

[End of Document]

Ecrin v4.30 Update Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecrin v4.30 Update Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecrin v4.30 - Doc v4.30.01 KAPPA 1988-2013 Ecrin v4.

30 Update Notes- 1/30

You might also like