Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Technical Reference
2001, 2002 Landmark Graphics Corporation
This publication has been provided pursuant to an agreement containing restrictions on its use. The publication is also
protected by Federal copyright law. No part of this publication may be copied or distributed, transmitted, transcribed,
stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any human or computer language, in any form or by any means,
electronic, magnetic, manual, or otherwise, or disclosed to third parties without the express written permission of:
Trademark Notice
Landmark, the Landmark logo, 3D Drill View, 3D Drill View KM, 3DVIEW, Active Field Surveillance, Active
Reservoir Surveillance, ARIES, Automate, BLITZ, BLITZPAK, CasingSeat, COMPASS, Contouring Assistant,
DataStar, DBPlot, Decision Suite, Decisionarium, DecisionDesktop, DecisionSpace, DepthTeam, DepthTeam
Explorer, DepthTeam Express, DepthTeam Extreme, DepthTeam Interpreter, DESKTOP-PVT, DESKTOP-VIP,
DEX, DFW, DIMS, Discovery, Drillability Suite, DrillModel, DrillVision, DSS, Dynamic Surveillance System,
EarthCube, EdgeCa$h, eLandmark, EPM, e-workspace, FastTrack, FZAP!, GeoDataLoad, GeoGraphix, GeoGraphix
Exploration System, GeoLink, GES, GESXplorer, GMAplus, GrandBasin, GRIDGENR, I2 Enterprise, iDims,
IsoMap, LandScape, LeaseMap, LMK Resources, LogEdit, LogM, LogPrep, Make Great Decisions, MathPack,
Model Builder, MyLandmark, MyWorkspace, OpenBooks, OpenExplorer, OpenJournal, OpenSGM, OpenTutor,
OpenVision, OpenWorks, OpenWorks Well File, PAL, Parallel-VIP, PetroBank, PetroWorks, PlotView, Point
Gridding Plus, Pointing Dispatcher, PostStack, PostStack ESP, PRIZM, PROFILE, ProMAX, ProMAX 2D, ProMAX
3D, ProMAX 3DPSDM, ProMAX MVA, ProMAX VSP, pStaX, QUICKDIF, RAVE, Real Freedom, Reservoir
Framework Builder, RESev, ResMap, RMS, SafeStart, SCAN, SeisCube, SeisMap, SeisModel, SeisSpace,
SeisVision, SeisWell, SeisWorks, SeisXchange, SigmaView, SpecDecomp, StrataMap, Stratamodel, StratAmp,
StrataSim, StratWorks, StressCheck, STRUCT, SynTool, SystemStart, T2B, TDQ, TERAS, Total Drilling
Performance, TOW/cs, TOW/cs The Oilfield Workstation, Trend Form Gridding, Turbo Synthetics, VIP, VIP-COMP,
VIP-CORE, VIP-DUAL, VIP-ENCORE, VIP-EXECUTIVE, VIP-Local Grid Refinement, VIP-POLYMER, VIPTHERM, WavX, Web OpenWorks, Well Editor, Wellbase, Wellbore Planner, WELLCAT, WELLPLAN,
WellXchange, wOW, Xsection, ZAP!, Z-MAP Plus are trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks of
Landmark Graphics Corporation.
All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Note
The information contained in this document is subject to change without notice and should not be construed as a
commitment by Landmark Graphics Corporation. Landmark Graphics Corporation assumes no responsibility for any
error that may appear in this manual. Some states or jurisdictions do not allow disclaimer of expressed or implied
warranties in certain transactions; therefore, this statement may not apply to you.
Table of Contents
Preface
Aquifer Modeling
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Analytic Model The Carter-Tracy Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.3 Analytical Model-The Fetkovich Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1.4 Numerical Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Chapter 2
2-10
2-10
2-12
2-12
2-14
2-14
2-14
2-16
2-16
Chapter 3
R2003.4 - Landmark
iii
4-29
4-30
4-32
4-34
4-46
4-46
4-47
4-51
4-52
4-52
4-53
4-54
End-Point Scaling
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-61
5.2 Normalized Saturation End Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Two-Point Scaling Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Three-Point Scaling Option (Default Option) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Comparisons of Two- and Three-Point Scaling Options . . . . . . .
5.2.4 End-Point Consistency Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
5-62
5-63
5-64
5-65
5-67
Landmark - R2003.4
5-68
5-68
5-68
5-69
Equilibration
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-73
6.2 Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-74
6.3 Saturation Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1 GBC Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.2 INTSAT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.3 VAITS Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6-77
6-77
6-77
6-79
Faults
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-85
7.2 Assumptions and Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-87
7.3 Input Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
7.4 Method of Specifying Arbitrary Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-90
7.5 Fault Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-92
7.6 Noncontiguous Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-93
7.6.1 Connectivity Search Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-93
7.7 Input Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-96
7.8 Conductive (Leaky) Fault Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-98
7.8.1 Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-98
7.8.2 Input Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-101
Chapter 8
Gas-Water, Water-Oil,
and Black-Oil Options
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-103
8.2 Simplified Gas-Water Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-103
8.2.1 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-104
R2003.4 - Landmark
Governing Equations
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-107
9.2 IMPES Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.1 Hydrocarbon Species Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.2 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.3 Water Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.4 Fugacity Equality Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.5 Overall Component Mole Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.6 Mole Fraction Constraint Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.7 Saturation Constraint Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2.8 Reduction of Simultaneous Equations and Selection of
Primary Unknowns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9-107
9-107
9-108
9-108
9-108
9-108
9-109
9-109
9-109
Grid Coarsening
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-113
10.2 Coarse Block Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-113
Chapter 11
vi
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter 12
Hysteresis
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-145
13.2 Relative Permeability Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-146
13.2.1 Description of the Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-147
13.2.2 Input Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-150
13.3 Capillary Pressure Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-151
13.3.1 Input Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-156
Chapter 14
IMPES Stability
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-157
14.2 Three-Phase Immiscible Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2.1 Differential Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2.2 IMPES Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2.3 Total Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2.4 Difference Equations in Terms of Fractional Mobility . . . . . .
14.2.5 Stability Analysis for Two-Phase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2.6 Stability Analysis for Three-Phase Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14-157
14-157
14-158
14-158
14-159
14-159
14-162
14-166
14-166
14-167
14-170
14-171
14-176
Chapter 15
R2003.4 - Landmark
vii
15-186
15-186
15-187
15-188
15-196
15-196
15-196
15-197
15-198
15-206
15-206
15-208
15-211
15-214
15-216
15-219
15-222
15-225
Chapter 16
Miscible Options
16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-227
16.2 Governing Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-228
16.3 Effective Relative Permeabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-229
16.4 Miscible-Immiscible Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-231
16.5 Effective Viscosities, Densities, And Capillary Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . 16-233
16.6 PVT and VLE Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-235
16.6.1 Three-Component Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-235
16.6.2 Four-Component Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-235
viii
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter 17
Numerical Solution
18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-245
18.2 Discretization of the Mass Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-245
18.2.1 Overall Hydrocarbon Mass Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-247
18.2.2 Water Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-248
18.3 Linearization of the Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-250
18.4 Solution of Non-Linear Systems of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-253
18.5 Solution of Linear System of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.5.1 Gauss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.5.2 BLITZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.5.3 EXCEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18-256
18-256
18-256
18-259
Chapter 19
Parallel Computing
20.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-277
20.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-277
R2003.4 - Landmark
ix
20.2.1
20.2.2
20.2.3
20.2.4
20.2.5
20.2.6
20.2.7
20.2.8
20-278
20-278
20-280
20-282
20-283
20-288
20-289
20-293
21-313
21-314
21-315
21-315
Chapter 22
22-319
22-320
22-322
22-323
22-324
22-324
22-325
PVT Representation
23.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-329
23.2 Rock Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-329
23.3 Water Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-329
23.4 Hydrocarbon Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-330
x
Landmark - R2003.4
23.4.1
23.4.2
23.4.3
23.4.4
Compositional Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Black Oil Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gas Condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miscible Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23-330
23-338
23-343
23-343
23-344
23-344
23-344
23-347
23-352
23-353
23-360
23-362
Chapter 24
Saturation Function
25.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-371
25.2 Water Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-372
25.3 Gas Saturation Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-374
25.4 Three-Phase Oil Relative Permeability Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.4.1 Stones Model I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.4.2 Stones Model II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.4.3 Saturation Weighted Interpolation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25.4.4 Guidelines for Selecting the Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25-375
25-375
25-376
25-376
25-377
Separators
26.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-387
R2003.4 - Landmark
xi
Simulator Performance
27.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-395
xii
27-395
27-396
27-396
27-397
27-397
27-398
27-399
27-399
27-400
27-400
27-400
27-400
27-401
27-401
27-403
27-404
27-405
27-406
27-406
27-407
27-407
27-408
27-409
27-411
27-411
27-413
27-413
Landmark - R2003.4
29-428
29-428
29-429
29-434
29-438
29-438
29-443
29-444
29-445
29-435
29-436
29-446
Chapter 30
R2003.4 - Landmark
xiii
Chapter 31
31-455
31-455
31-456
31-457
31-459
Chapter 32
32-466
32-467
32-467
32-470
Transmissibility Calculations
33.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-479
33.2 Cartesian Coordinate System Transmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33.2.1 Standard Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33.2.2 Fault Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33.2.3 Nine Point Transmissibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33-479
33-479
33-481
33-482
xiv
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter 34
Unit Conventions
34.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-491
34.2 Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-493
Chapter 35
Vertical Equilibrium
36.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-511
36.2 VE Option in Rectangular or Radial Grid Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36.2.1 Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36.2.2 Two-Phase Gas-Oil Pseudo Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36.2.3 Two-Phase Water-Oil Pseudo Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36.2.4 VE Directional Relative Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36-511
36-511
36-515
36-516
36-517
36-518
36-518
36-519
36-522
36-524
36-524
Chapter 37
xv
39-541
39-541
39-542
39-543
39-547
39-547
39-547
39-549
39-549
39-550
39-551
39-552
39-553
39-553
39-554
39-554
39-554
39-555
39-555
39-556
39-556
39-557
39-557
39-557
39-558
39-561
xvi
39-565
39-565
39-566
39-567
39-567
Landmark - R2003.4
39-568
39-568
39-568
39-568
39-568
39-569
39-570
39-570
39-571
39-571
39-571
39-575
39-577
39-577
39-578
39-578
39-578
39-578
39-579
39-581
39-581
39-581
39-582
39-582
39-582
39.14 Gas-Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39.14.1 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Optimal
Table Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39.14.2 Automatic Allocation of Gas-Lift Gas - Performance
Curve Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39.14.3 Well Status of Wells on Gas-Lift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39-584
39-584
39-585
39-589
39-591
39-591
39-591
39-592
39-592
39-593
39-593
39-593
39-594
R2003.4 - Landmark
xvii
39-597
39-597
39-598
39-601
39-604
39-609
39-610
Appendix A
Well Models
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-611
A.2 Definition of Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-612
A.2.1 Alternative Definition of Well Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-612
A.2.2 Comparison with Productivity Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
A.3 One-Dimensional Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
A.3.1 Linear Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
A.3.2 Radial Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-614
A.4 Two-Dimensional Areal Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.1 Well in Center of Square Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.2 General Definition of rb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.3 An Approximate Derivation of rb for Square Well Block . . . .
A.4.4 Well in Center of Rectangular Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.5 Well in Center of Block in Anisotropic Rectangular Grid . . . .
A.4.6 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Isolated Well Block . . . . . .
A.4.7 Multiple Wells in Same Isolated Well Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.8 Two Wells With Same Rate in Adjacent Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.9 Single Well in Edge Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.10 Single Well Exactly on Edge of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.11 Single Well Exactly at Corner of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.4.12 Single Well Arbitrarily Located in Corner Block . . . . . . . . . .
A-616
A-616
A-618
A-618
A-620
A-621
A-623
A-624
A-626
A-627
A-628
A-629
A-630
A-631
A-631
A-632
A-633
A-635
xviii
Landmark - R2003.4
Corner-Point Geometry
B.1 Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-645
B.1.1 Two-Dimensional Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-645
B.1.2 Three-Dimensional Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-647
B.2 Volumetric Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-649
B.3 Integration by Gaussian Quadrature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-652
B.4 Transmissibility Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.4.1 Calculation of Transmissibility in 2D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.4.2 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D (HARINT) . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.4.3 Calculation of Transmissibility in 3D by the
NEWTRAN Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.4.4 Calculation of Full Transmissibility Between Gridblocks . . . . .
B.4.5 Choice Between HARINT and NEWTRAN Options . . . . . . . . .
B-653
B-653
B-660
B-665
B-666
B-667
Appendix C
References
Subject Index
R2003.4 - Landmark
xix
xx
Landmark - R2003.4
List of Figures
About This Manual
Chapter 1
Aquifer Modeling
Figure 1-1: Aquifer Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Figure 1-2: Natural Extension of Reservoir Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Figure 1-3: Aquifer with Arbitrary Connected Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
Chapter 2
R2003.4 - Landmark
xxi
End-Point Scaling
Chapter 6
Equilibration
Figure 6-1: Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-74
Figure 6-2: Multiple Water-Oil Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-75
Figure 6-3: Block Representation in the INTSAT Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-78
Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-80
xxii
Landmark - R2003.4
Faults
Figure 7-1: Part of a Structure Map of a Petroleum Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-85
Figure 7-2: Different Ways of Modeling Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-86
Figure 7-3: Fault Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-87
Figure 7-4: Input Structure of Typical Fault Data Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
Figure 7-5: Specifying a Single Fault Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-90
Figure 7-6: Arbitrary Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-91
Figure 7-7: Transmissibility for Standard Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-92
Figure 7-8: Example of Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-96
Chapter 8
Gas-Water, Water-Oil,
and Black-Oil Options
Chapter 9
Governing Equations
Chapter 10
Grid Coarsening
Chapter 11
xxiii
Hysteresis
Figure 13-1: Nonwetting Phase Relative Permeability Curves
for Hysteresis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-146
Figure 13-2: User-Defined Nonwetting Phase ImbibitionDrainage Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-149
Figure 13-3: Water-Oil Capillary Pressure Bounding and
Scanning Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-151
Figure 13-4: Water Saturation Reversal During Secondary Drainage . . . . . 13-152
Figure 13-5: Water Saturation Reversal During a Primary Drainage . . . . . . 13-153
Figure 13-6: Second Water Saturation Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-155
Chapter 14
IMPES Stability
Chapter 15
xxiv
Landmark - R2003.4
Miscible Options
Figure 16-1: Damping Function for Miscible-Immiscible Switch . . . . . . . . . 16-231
Chapter 17
Numerical Solution
Chapter 19
Parallel Computing
Figure 20-1: Communication Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-279
Figure 20-2: LGR Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-280
Figure 20-3: Example Grid For Automatic Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-281
Figure 20-4: Automatically Decomposed Grid Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . 20-282
Figure 20-5: Strip Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-284
Figure 20-6: LGR Multilevel Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-285
Figure 20-7: Strip Decomposition Linear Solver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-286
Figure 20-8: Composite Grid Linear Solver Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-286
Figure 20-9: Effect of Decomposition on Strip and Composite
Grid Linear Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-287
Figure 20-10: Grid and Structure for Small Homogeneous
Example Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-290
Figure 20-11: Grid and Structure for 3D Salt Dome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R2003.4 - Landmark
xxv
xxvi
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter 21
PVT Representation
Figure 23-1: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results Fifth SPE Comparative Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-362
Figure 23-2: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results Cupiagua Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-363
Figure 23-3: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results Cusiana Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-364
Figure 23-4: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results PBU History Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-365
Figure 23-5: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results Ursa Full Field Reservoir Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-366
Figure 23-6: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results D13 PBU Pattern Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-367
Figure 23-7: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results EWE PBU Pattern Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-368
Chapter 24
Saturation Function
Figure 25-1: Typical Saturation and Relative Permeability Path
of a Gridblock Subject to Gas Injection followed
by Water Injection and Pressure Blowdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-384
Chapter 26
Separators
Figure 26-1: Sample Separator Battery Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-388
Chapter 27
Simulator Performance
Figure 27-1: Convergence Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27-398
R2003.4 - Landmark
xxvii
Chapter 28
Transmissibility Calculations
Figure 33-1: Bedding Plane Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-480
Figure 33-2: Shared Thickness Calculation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-482
Figure 33-3: Nine-Point Transmissibilities Deriavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-483
Chapter 34
Unit Conventions
Chapter 35
Vertical Equilibrium
Figure 36-1: Block Span THVE Versus Block Thickness TH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-512
xxviii
Landmark - R2003.4
Figure 36-2: Block Angles Produced by the Old Dip Angle Method . . . . . . 36-513
Figure 36-3: Block Angles Produced by the New Dip Angle Method . . . . . 36-514
Figure 36-4: Gridblock Saturation Distributions in the
VEWO, VEGO Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-520
Figure 36-5: The VE Initialization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36-521
Chapter 37
Well Models
Figure A-1: Fine Grid Around A Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-611
Figure A-2: One-Dimensional, Linear, Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-613
Figure A-3: One-Dimensional, Radial, Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-615
Figure A-4: Well in Square Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-616
Figure A-5: Numerical Solutions for Pressure Plotted vs Radius . . . . . . . . . A-617
Figure A-6: Well in Edge Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-627
Figure A-7: Well on Edge of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-628
Figure A-8: Well at Corner of Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-629
Figure A-9: Well in Corner Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-630
Figure A-10: Radial Flow With Zone of Altered Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . A-631
R2003.4 - Landmark
xxix
Figure A-11: Pseudo Skin Factor, after Brons and Marting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-633
Figure A-12: Examples of Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-634
Figure A-13: Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-635
Figure A-14: Partial Well Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-636
Figure A-15: Typical Plot of g/g vs Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-641
Figure A-16: Effect of e and z/z on rbe for Centered Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-643
Appendix B
Corner-Point Geometry
Figure B-1: Mapping of Quadrilateral to Unit Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-645
Figure B-2: The Eight Corners of a Gridblock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-647
Figure B-3: Elemental Tube for Determining Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-649
Figure B-4: Elemental Tube for Determining DX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-650
Figure B-5: Orthogonal Gridblocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-653
Figure B-6: Nonorthogonal Gridblocks with Parallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-654
Figure B-7: Gridblockwith Non-Parallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-655
Figure B-8: Slice Parametrized by u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-656
Figure B-9: Collection of Tubes and Slices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-656
Figure B-10: Tube, Slice, and Chunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-657
Figure B-11: Gridblockwith Nonparallel Sides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-658
Figure B-12: Lines a and b Defining Plane Tangent to Slice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-663
Figure B-13: Projections of Right Face onto the Three Coordinate Planes . . B-665
Figure B-14: Fault Block Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-667
Figure B-15: Radial problem, with = 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-668
Figure B-16: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for
Angular Transmissibility Between Blocks 1 and 2 . . . . . . . . . . . B-670
Figure B-17: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for
Angular Transmissibility Between Blocks 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . B-671
Figure B-18: Comparison of HARINT and NEWTRAN for
Radial Tranmissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-672
Appendix C
References
Subject Index
xxx
Landmark - R2003.4
Preface
Audience
This manual is intended to be used by reservoir simulation engineers who
require a more detailed discussion of the features of VIP-EXECUTIVE
than provided in the Keyword Reference and Getting Started manuals.
Organization
The information in this manual is arranged in a logical manner for maximum ease of use. The main technical topics have their own chapter which
are arranged in alphabetical order. The following chapters are included:
R2003.4 - Landmark
xxxi
Organization
xxxii
Aquifer Modeling.
End-Point Scaling.
Equilibration.
Faults.
Governing Equations.
Grid Goarsening
Hysteresis.
IMPES Stability.
Miscible Options.
Numerical Solution.
Parallel Computing
PVT Representation.
Saturation Function.
Separators.
Simulator Performance
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations.
Unit Conventions.
Vertical Equilibrium.
Appendix C - References.
Related Documentation
Related Documentation
The following manuals provide more information related to the material
in this manual. For more information, please consult the appropriate manual listed below.
R2003.4 - Landmark
xxxiii
Related Documentation
xxxiv
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
1
Aquifer Modeling
1.1 Introduction
When modeling aquifers, VIP-EXECUTIVE always treats outer
boundaries of a reservoir model as sealing barriers to flow. The influx/
efflux of fluids from outside the grid is treated by source/sink terms.
There are two methods available in VIP-EXECUTIVE to model aquifer
influx/efflux resulting from changes in reservoir conditions. The first
method is based on an analytic solution of an idealized aquifer response
model. The second approach is to extend a grid system to cover the
aquifer with the reservoir. In the latter case, interaction between the
reservoir and the aquifer automatically is taken into account. Each of these
methods has positive and negative aspects. The analytical method is easy
to use. It is computationally efficient and does not require a significant
amount of additional computer memory. However, the analytic model
may be too restrictive because of assumptions and simplifications. The
second method may require significantly more memory and
computations.
R2003.4 - Landmark
1-1
ra
Aquifer
A
Reservoir
re
The water influx from the aquifer into the reservoir is the response to
pressure changes at this boundary. Water flow in the aquifer is described
by Equation 1-1 with the initial and boundary conditions:
w c t p
1 p
-------------- ------ = --- ----- r -----k t
r r r
p
t=0
r = re
p
-----r
(1-1)
= pi
(1-2)
= pe ( t )
(1-3)
= 0
(1-4)
r = ra
dp e ( t d1 )
W ( t ) = B -------------------- Q ( t d t d1 )dt d1
dt d1
(1-5)
1-2
Landmark - R2003.4
where
t
t d = ---t0
(1-6)
w ct re
t 0 = ----------------------k
2
B = r e h c t
(1-7)
(1-8)
In Equation 1-5, W(t) is the cumulative water influx from the aquifer and
Q(td) is the standard function derived by Van Everdingen and Hurst,
which gives the cumulative influx in the case of the unit pressure change
at the boundary r = re. Parameter t0, which is given by Equation 1-7, is the
aquifer time constant. It is used to define the dimensionless time td
according to Equation 1-6. Parameter B, as defined by Equation 1-8, is the
aquifer capacity parameter. Equation 1-8 contains two constants: h is the
aquifer thickness and is the angle (in radians) subtended by the aquifer
(Figure 1-1).
Carter and Tracy2 derived an approximation of the solution (Equation 15). This approximate solution of the problem (Equations 1-1 through 1-4)
is given by:
B [ p i p ( t + t ) ] W ( t )P' d ( t d + t d )
W ( t + t ) = W ( t ) + --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t d (1-9)
P d ( t d + t d ) t d P' d ( t d + t d )
Here, t is the timestep, td is the dimensionless timestep, and Pd(td) is a
function derived by Van Everdingen and Hurst. Pd(td) is the dimensionless
pressure solution of the problem (Equations 1-1 through 1-4) for the case
when the condition at the boundary r = re is specified as the unit flow rate,
instead of the condition (Equation 1-3).
The Carter and Tracy solution does not require integration and therefore is
more efficient. In the VIP-EXECUTIVE implementation of the Carter and
Tracy solution, the user may provide the dimensionless pressure function
Pd(td) in a tabular form through input data. One can find tabulated
pressure functions Pd(td) for finite aquifers in the published literature.1,3
The dimensionless pressure function for infinite radial aquifer1 is given in
Table 1-1. This is the default table that will be used if the user does not
provide an input table.
R2003.4 - Landmark
1-3
1-4
tD
pD
tD
pD
.01
0.112
10
1.651
.05
0.229
15
1.829
.1
0.315
20
1.960
.15
0.376
25
2.067
.2
0.424
30
2.147
.25
0.469
40
2.282
.3
0.503
50
2.388
.4
0.564
60
2.476
.5
0.616
70
2.550
.6
0.659
80
2.615
.7
0.702
90
2.672
.8
0.735
100
2.723
.9
0.772
150
2.921
1.0
0.802
200
3.064
1.5
0.927
250
3.173
2.0
1.020
300
3.262
2.5
1.101
400
3.406
3.0
1.169
500
3.516
4.0
1.275
600
3.608
5.0
1.362
700
3.684
6.0
1.436
800
3.750
7.0
1.500
900
3.809
8.0
1.556
1000
3.860
9.0
1.604
Landmark - R2003.4
dW e
----------- = J ( p a p )
dt
(1-10)
is used where,
W e = ct W i ( pi pa )
(1-11)
in which,
W
p a = p i 1 --------e-
W ei
(1-12)
where
W ei = c t W i p i
(1-13)
dW e
We
----------- = J p i 1 --------- p
dt
W ei
(1-14)
R2003.4 - Landmark
1-5
W ( t + t ) = W ( t )e
Jp
--------i- t
W ei
Jp i
--------- t
W
p
+ W ei 1 ---- 1 e ei
p i
(1-15)
or
Jp i
--------- t
W
p
W ( t ) = 1 ---- W ei W ( t ) 1 e ei
pi
(1-16)
1-6
Landmark - R2003.4
Numerical Aquifer
Aquifer
Reservoir
Aquifer
Reservoir
R2003.4 - Landmark
1-7
Numerical Aquifer
1-8
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
2
Boundary Flux Option
00000
2.1 Introduction
With VIP-EXECUTIVE, users can define rectangular regions of the
reservoir grid for which boundary flux calculations will be performed in
the simulation module. The program may be run in output mode so that
the calculated boundary flux is reported in the output listing and recorded
in a disk file. Subsequently, the program may be run in input mode where
the boundary flux file from an output mode run is used as input data to
the program. In input mode, the boundary flux data are used in the same
manner as sink or source information. That is, the equivalent of a
production/injection well is defined internal to the program for each
boundary block.
The combination of these two modes allows great flexibility in developing
a reservoir study. An initial program run in output mode for a large,
coarsely gridded reservoir can provide boundary flux information for a
subset of the reservoir that is to be studied in greater detail. The
subsequent run of the finely gridded portion of the reservoir uses the
boundary flux information to include the effects of gridblocks in the
reservoir that are outside the area of detailed interest. The program also
may be used effectively in output mode to determine the direction and
type of fluid flow across any gridblock boundary in the reservoir.
Figure 2-1 is a schematic representation of a coarse and fine model. The
figure shows a 681 coarse grid with an imbedded 1091 fine grid
model. Note that the fine gridblocks are not allowed to overlap more than
one coarse block.
R2003.4 - Landmark
2-9
2
1 2 3
6 7 8
10
1
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Fine Grid
6
Coarse Grid
Figure 2-1: Schematic Representation of Boundary Flux Feature
To make coarse and fine grid runs using the boundary flux option, set the
program dimensions properly in VIP-CORE. For the coarse model, set the
required dimension to the number of coarse blocks. If you use the
boundary flux option to write flux information for more than one
rectangular region in a single run, define the number of flux regions and
the total number of coarse blocks. For the fine model, define both the fine
and coarse block numbers correctly. The dimensions of the boundary flux
model can be calculated using the following equations:
2-10
Landmark - R2003.4
NCBLKS
NFBLKS
where
Number of coarse block faces =
and
NXC
NYC
NZC
NXF
NYF
NZF
NXF = 10
NYF = 9
NZF = 1
R2003.4 - Landmark
2-11
grid model touches the i = 1 boundary of the coarse model, the equations
become:
Number of coarse block faces =
2 NXC + NYC
2 NXF + NYF
+ Number of coarse blocks
containing fine blocks.
NFXREG
1
NCBLKS
12
.
.
.
FLUX 1
OUTPUT
COMFLUX
VEDIST
2 5 3 5 1 1
2-12
Landmark - R2003.4
DIM
NFXREG
1
.
.
.
FLUX 1
INPUT
MOBWT
ADJUST FINE
COARSE
NX
NY
NZ
6
8
1
l1
l2
J1
2
5
3
NOVEAD
O
2
5
3
VEAREA
G
2
4
4
2
2
5
VEONLY
W
3
5
5
SEGAREA
O
3
5
5
FINE
I1
1
4
I2
3
5
J1
1
3
J2
2
5
K1
1
K2
1
R2003.4 - Landmark
NCBLKS
20
NFBLKS
60
J2
5
K1
1
K2
1
4
5
1
1
1
1
6
8
6
9
9
10
00
2-13
Special Features
Efflux partitioning
The mobility weighting option has been modified so that it is used only
for efflux terms.
In these methods, the model assumes that the proportions of oil, gas, and
water present in the coarse grid cell are maintained in each fine grid cell.
Each phase is proportionately allocated to each fine gridblock. While these
methods may be adequate for water-oil problems, neither of these
2-14
Landmark - R2003.4
Special Features
R2003.4 - Landmark
2-15
Special Features
2-16
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
3
Corner-Point Geometry Option
The VIP-EXECUTIVE corner-point geometry option is a powerful tool for
the construction of three-dimensional, finite-difference grids. It provides
the capability to independently specify the coordinates of eight corners of
every gridblock. This feature is useful for representing irregular reservoir
boundaries, faults, and pinchouts. It provides a tool for local grid
refinement and a flexible representation of flow geometry.
In general, the resulting finite-difference grid is irregular. For this reason,
additional efforts are spent in calculating block volumes, thickness, center
depths, and inter-block transmissibilities. In addition, grids are not
orthogonal, which creates problems. Non-orthogonal grids introduce
additional mixed derivative terms. VIP-EXECUTIVE, and indeed all
reservoir simulators, neglect discretization of these terms. For this reason,
finite-difference solutions may not converge to the solution of the flow
equations upon refinement of the grid. To overcome this problem, you
should construct the grid as close to orthogonal as possible.
R2003.4 - Landmark
X-, Y-, and Z-coordinates of corner points in all layers are specified
using the array input XCORN, YCORN, and ZCORN.
Users can specify the corner points along depth lines. These lines may
have an arbitrary orientation. Include the keyword LINE in the
CORNER card to invoke the LINE option. Specify each depth line by
two triplets of X-,Y-, and Z-coordinates. Define X-, Y-, and Zcoordinates of two points in depth lines using the XCORN, YCORN,
and ZLNCOR array input with the LNVAL option (or with the
3-17
Fault Specification
3-18
Landmark - R2003.4
Vb =
dV
(3-1)
When the VAITS keyword is specified, the block is divided into several
sub-layers and the block bulk volume is estimated as
N
Vb =
ARE Ai Di
(3-2)
i=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
3-19
1
D c = ------ z dV
Vb
(3-3)
1
TH = ------ DZ dV
Vb
(3-4)
3-20
Landmark - R2003.4
C DARCY TMLT X i
T ij = -----------------------------------------------------right
left
Ai
Aj
------------------------ + --------------------right
left
A ij T X i
A ij T X j
(3-5)
Ai right
I
Aij
Aj left
J
where
Aij
right
Ai
, Aj
right
TX i
R2003.4 - Landmark
left
, TX j
areas of the right face of the ith block and the left
face of the jth block (see Figure 3-1)
right and left transmissibilities of Blocks I and J in
the X-direction, which are defined in VIPEXECUTIVE as follows:
3-21
right
TX i
PERM X i RNT G i
PERM X j RNT G j
left
= ----------------------------------------------, TX j = -----------------------------------------------ds
ds
u
1
ci
----------d
d
- d
---------------------------------- d
--------------------------------
A ( ) cos ( )
A ( ) cos ( )
u ci
(3-6)
uci
A()
s()
()
3-22
Landmark - R2003.4
C DARCY TMLT X i
T ij = -----------------------------------------------1
1
--------- + ---------T Xi T X j
(3-7)
where
CDARCY
TMLTXi
TXi =
A x DI x + A y DI y + A z DI z
PERM X i RNT G i ----------------------------------------------------------2
2
2
DI x + DI y + DI z
RNTGi
net-to-gross ratio, which appears in the X- and Ytransmissibility, but not in the Z-transmissibility
PERMXi
Ax, Ay, Az
(3-8)
R2003.4 - Landmark
3-23
3-24
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
4
Dual Porosity Models
4.1 Introduction
Naturally fractured rocks often are observed near faults and folds. The
fracture channels are highly permeable compared to the rock matrix itself;
they make the reservoir productive even though the matrix has poor
permeability. Oil in rock matrix is drawn into the fracture by imbibition,
gravity drainage, diffusion, or expansion, then is carried away in the
fracture network to production wells.
One approach to modeling fractured rocks is to approximate the fractured
rock with a single porosity representation by giving it an effective
permeability. This approach is simplistic and tends to give the wrong
recovery rate. Another approach is to model each fracture by assigning
gridblocks to the respective fracture channels. However, this approach is
limited in scope because of the large number of fractures normally found
in reservoirs. Another approach, which VIP-EXECUTIVE takes, is to
model the processes by using two continua representing the rock matrix
and fractures. This two-continua system is called the dual porosity model
and is illustrated in Figure 4-1.
Dual porosity
representation
Fractured
rock
Matrix
Km
Fracture
Kf
Single porosity
representation
Keffective
These continua are superposed, and the model assumes the two continua
exchange fluids. In this approach, two finite-difference grid systems
represent both continua. Consequently, users must supply the fracture
properties (fracture porosity, etc.), flow exchange terms, and pseudocapillary pressures, as well as data for the rock matrix.
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-25
k r
q m f , a = T mf ----------------- [ P f P m ( D f D m ) ]
B m
(4-1)
(4-2)
fracture
k my k fy
k mz k fz
1 k mx k fx
k mf = --- --------------------- + --------------------- + -------------------3 k mx + k fx k my + k fy k mz + k fz
(4-3)
1
k mf = --- ( k mx + k my + k mz )
3
(4-4)
1
1
1
= 4 -----+
-----+
------
l 2mx l 2my l 2mz
(4-5)
k mx k my k mz
k mf = 8 ------- + -------- + -------- ( 1 f )
l 2mx l 2my l mz
4-26
(4-6)
Landmark - R2003.4
q do = S mo k do mo ( x f x m )
*
(4-7)
q dg = S mg k dg mg ( y f y m )
(4-8)
iv y i
*
x fi = ----------- iL
(4-9)
f
iv x i
*
y fi = ----------- iL
(4-10)
where Smo and Smg are matrix oil and gas saturations; mo and mg are oil
and gas densities in a matrix; xm and ym are molar fractions of oil and
gas, and iL and iv the liquid and vapor phase fugacities. Tdo and Tdg are
mass transfer coefficients of oil and gas defined by:
k do = D o d XYZ
(4-11)
k dg = D g d XYZ
(4-12)
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-27
VIP input for Do, Dg, and d are TDIFFO, TDIFFG, and SIGMAD
respectively.
Coats2 has shown that the approximate diffusion time for the
concentration to decay 90% of its initial value is:
0.85 or l 2
t = ------------------ ---
D 2
(4-13)
where or, l and D are a tortuosity, length of a matrix cube, and diffusion
coefficient respectively. For example, consider a gas-gas high pressure
(4500 psi) diffusion with tortuosity of 3.5, l =1, and D=0.001 cm2/sec.
Then, t =8 days. If this is an insignificant time compared to the production
period, then the diffusion effect may be ignored in the model. Thus, the
above equation can be used to decide if a model should include the
diffusion effects.
From Equation 4-7 and Equation 4-8, we observe that the diffusion flux
would be significant if the compositions in a fracture and a matrix are
markedly different. Such is the case when an injection gas composition
differs greatly from that of the resident gas.
4-28
Landmark - R2003.4
Water flood
Diffusion
Gas-cap expansion
Gravity drainage
gas
oil
Matrix block
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-29
4-30
Landmark - R2003.4
Z/2
lz
owc
h
Z/2
Z
lz
P c = ( w o ) ------- h ------2
Z
(4-14)
where h is the height of the water-oil contact (Figure 4-3) and o and w are
gradients of oil and water, respectively. When defined this way for the
matrix, the matrix capillary pressure will cover the same range of values
that is covered by the vertical equilibrium capillary pressure used in the
fractures. However, the corresponding values of saturation will be quite
different from the fracture values.
Step 4. Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for many different water-oil contact levels,
evenly spaced over the height of the gridblock. By doing so, the capillary
pressure is tabulated as a function of the average water saturation. This
table has the property that is equivalent to the one determined by rigorous
integration of the rock capillary pressure curve subjected to the boundary
condition. This table is used for the simulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-31
gm
q g = --------- ( P o + P cgo )
Bg
(4-15)
om
q o = --------- P o
Bo
(4-16)
where
= 0.001127 k mf X YZ
4-32
(4-17)
kmf
effective permeability
shape factor
X, Y, Z
gridblock dimensions
Bo , Bg
Po
gm
om
Landmark - R2003.4
k rocwm
om = -------------- om
(4-18)
krocwm
om
z
k rgf
S gm
gf
S* S
(4-19)
ge gf
1 f
z = 0.001127k zm ------------- X YZ
l 2z
(4-20)
where
kzm
fracture porosity
lz
krgf
gf
Pce
Sgm
Sgf
Sge
1
S ge = -------------------l z r
l z r
S g ( P c )dP c
(4-21)
The terms, , Pce and Sge in Equation 4-19 are functions of pressure. The
pressure dependence of Pce and Sge is modeled through the dependence of
gas-oil interfacial tension on pressure. The gas-oil capillary pressure is
assumed to be a linear function of gas-oil interfacial tension as follows:
P cgo ( p ) = P cgo ( P o ) r ( p )
R2003.4 - Landmark
(4-22)
4-33
The function
( p)
r ( p ) = ------------- ( Po )
(4-23)
4-34
Landmark - R2003.4
Rock
Continuum
Fluid
Exchange
Fracture
Continuum
Dual Permeability Option
Wells that are specified will perforate both rock and fracture continua and
therefore, there will be two sets of permeability thicknesses in the dual
permeability option as illustrated in Figure 4-5. In highly fractured
reservoirs, the flow out of fractures dominates production. In such cases,
ignore the flow from matrices; this can be achieved by setting FM = 0 in
the FPERF data.
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses the input FM as follows:
(K*H)effective = FM*(Km*Hm) +(1-FM)*(Kf*Mf).
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-35
Well
Km*Hm
Matrix
Fracture
Kf*Hf
4-36
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-37
Unfractured region
Unfractured region
fault
Fractured region
Flow medium
Matrix
medium
In order to make this more understandable, let the grid system through
which fluids flow be called a flow medium, and let the medium which
supplies fluids be called a matrix medium as shown in Figure 4-6. Grid
blocks in the matrix medium do not communicate with each other in the
method under consideration here (an assumption of the dual porosity
with a single permeability).
Only grid blocks of the flow medium communicate each other. The
model in this example runs four times faster than the dual porosity/dual
permeability model.
4-38
Landmark - R2003.4
Sgf = 1.0
Figure 4-7: Gas/Oil Drainage Recovery for a 10x10x10 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats Figure 15)
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-39
krog/3
Figure 4-8: Gas/Oil Drainage Recovery for a 10x10x10 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats Figure 16)
Figure 4-9: Gas/Oil Drainage Recovery for a 1x1x1 ft. Matrix Block
(Coats Figure 17)
4-40
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-41
4-42
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-43
4-44
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-45
DY
Vrock
DX
Vf
V
Vt
DX
f Vf / Vt
Vm,pore
DX
m in VIP
= Vpore in matrix/ Vt
m in lab = V m, pore V m
(4-24)
m in VIP = V m, pore V t
4-46
(4-25)
Landmark - R2003.4
where Vt is the bulk or grid block volume. By using the above equations
we can derive the matrix porosity input data for VIP as
m in VIP = V m, pore V t
= m in lab * V m V t
= m in lab * ( V t V f ) V t
(4-26)
= m in lab * ( 1 f )
Therefore, matrix porosities from lab tests must be modified according to
Equation 4-26 for VIP input data, POR. The fracture porosity in VIP is
PORF which is defined by Vf/Vt.
A fracture porosity varies depending on the origin and size, but
Teodorovich has proposed a rough guideline6:
f < 0.1*total porosity (f+ m in VIP)
f <0.04*total porosity (f+ m in VIP)
Typically, long fractures that span many layers have a porosity ranging
from 0.01 to 0.5%, and networked small fractures within a layer have 0.01
~ 2%.
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-47
since cores are too small to contain fractures with a typical fracture
spacing.
Fractured core
Impermeable
jacket
Flow direction
a
AL
b
K f = K ff ---
e
(4-27)
b
K f = f -----12
4-48
(4-28)
Landmark - R2003.4
K f ( md ) = A B C D
(4-29)
where A, B, C and D are functions of rock type, porosity, pore size and
pore shape respectively, and they are defined in the following:
Description
Value of A
Pore space
with conveying canals
2
4
8
16
32
II
Pore space
with or without pore
structure
8
16-32
32-64
III
Intergranular pores
6
12
24
IV
Pore space
with various
shape
10
20
30
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-49
Very porous
Porous
Moderate porosity
Pores abundant
Pores present
Some pores present
> 25
15 - 25
10 - 15
5 - 10
2-5
<2
Value of B
20 - 30
17
10
2- 5
0.5 - 1.0
0
Large vuggs
Medium to large
Medium
Fine to medium
Very fine to fine
Very fine
Pinpoint to very fine
Mostly pinpoint
>2
0.50 - 2.00
0.25 - 1.00
0.10 - 0.50
0.05 - 0.25
0.01 - 0.10
< 0.10 and in part < 0.01
< 0.03 and in part < 0.01
Value of C
16
4
2
1
0.5
0.25
0.125
0.0625
Value of D
1.0
2.0
4.0
4-50
Landmark - R2003.4
1
C r = ------------V pore
V pore
----------------- dv
p
(4-30)
1
------------V pore
matrix
V pore
1
---------------- dv + ------------- fracture
pore p
V pore
V pore
----------------- dv C m + C f
pore p
(4-31)
Fracture pore
Matrix pore
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-51
LZ
LZ
LX LY
Figure 4-23: Matrix Block Representation
Real rocks do not have such a simple fracture morphology. However, this
idealization gives a theoretical estimate of shape factors, or
transmissibilities. The dimensions of an equivalent block are specified in
VIP by arrays LX, LY and LZ as shown in Figure 4-23.
These are used to compute the transmissibilities from Equations 4-2 to 4-5.
X, Y, and Z are dimensions of a finite difference grid block; kmx, kfx,
etc. are the matrix and fracture permeabilities of an element in the xdirection in Figure 4-23. The input LX, LY and LZ correspond to lx, ly and
lz in the above equation.
Optionally the shape factor, , may be directly specified in stead of lx, ly
and lz. and the corresponding VIP input keyword is SIGMA.
Furthermore, Tmf may also be specified directly using VIP keyword TEX.
Both SIGMA and TEX are array input data.
4-52
Landmark - R2003.4
kro
kro
krw
krw
Sw
Sw
The fracture saturation tables in VIP are specified by headings SWTF and
SGTF.
Permeability
Operational
range
Confining pressure
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-53
Well
Km*Hm
matrix
fracture
Kf*Hf
4-54
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
4-55
.8
1.
.00
2.
C ---------------------------------------------------------------C FRACTURE WATER-OIL
C ---------------------------------------------------------------SWTF 1
SW
KRW
KROW PCWO
.0
0.
1.
0.
.50
.50
.50
0.
.999 .999 0.001 0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
C ---------------------------------------------------------------C FRACTURE GAS-OIL
C ---------------------------------------------------------------SGTF 1
SG
KRG
KROG PCGO
.0
.0
1.
.0
.1
.1
.9
.0
.2
.2
.8
.0
.3
.3
.7
.0
.4
.4
.6
.0
.5
.5
.5
.0
.7
.7
.3
.0
.999 .999 .0
.0
1.
1.
0.
.0
BETAG 1.14
SIGT
P
SIGR
14.7
100.0
1688.7 66.6667
2044.7 52.2222
2544.7 36.6607
3005.7 24.4444
3567.7 14.2222
4124.7
8.0
4558.7
4.9333
4949.7
2.8333
5269.7
1.7222
5559.7
1.0
7014.7
0.5556
C P
SIGR
DGOG
C 14.7
100.0
.7795
C 1688.7 66.6667 .5934
C 2044.7 52.2222 .5666
C 2544.7 36.6607 .5299
C 3005.7 24.4444 .4972
C 3567.7 14.2222 .4597
C 4124.7
8.0
.4247
C 4558.7
4.9333 .3986
C 4949.7
2.8333 .3760
C 5269.7
1.7222 .3570
C 5559.7
1.0
.3411
C 7014.7
0.5556 .2676
BOTAB 1
DOB
WTRO
0.81918 200.
PSAT
RS
BO
BG
GR
VO
VG
7014.7 2259
2.1978 .600 .762 .109
.0330
5559.7 1530
1.8540 .696 .762 .210
.0274
5269.7 1413
1.7953 .720 .762 .229
.0265
4-56
Landmark - R2003.4
4949.7 1285
1.7315 .751 .762
4558.7 1143
1.6630 .795 .762
4124.7 1000
1.5938 .855 .762
3567.7 832
1.5141 .959 .762
3005.7 679
1.4425 1.11 .762
2544.7 564
1.3891 1.30 .762
2044.7 447
1.3359 1.62 .762
1688.7 367
1.3001 1.98 .762
14.7 0
1.050 225. .762
PSAT 5559.7
DP
BOFAC
VOFAC
1000 .9935275 1.081905
C
ARRAYS
DX CON
200.
DY CON
1000.
DZ CON
50.
LX ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
LY ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
LZ ZVAR
25. 25. 5. 10. 10.
MDEPTH LAYER
10*10000.
POR CON
.29
PORF CON
.01
KX CON
1.
KY MULT
1. KX
KZ MULT
1. KX
KXFEFF ZVAR
10.
10.
90.
20.
20.
KYFEFF MULT
1. KXFEFF
KZFEFF MULT
1. KXFEFF
ISAT CON
1
IREGION CON
1
C
SW CON
0.2
SG CON
0.0
FVEWO CON
0.0
FVEWOF CON
1.0
FVEGO CON
0.0
R2003.4 - Landmark
.248
.278
.310
.351
.397
.436
.487
.529
3.93
.0255
.0244
.0230
.0213
.0197
.0184
.0171
.0162
.0105
4-57
FVEGOF CON
1.0
ISATEM CON
1
ISATEF CON
1
OVER TZF
1 10 1 1 1 5 *.1
C
END
RUN
DIM
C
IMPLICIT
C
RESTART 0 3
PLOT FORM
START
OUTPUT P SO SG
PRINT WELLS TIME
PRINT REGIONS ARRAYS TIME
WPLOT TIME 3
C ABORT 1. 1.
BLITZ
C TOLR .001 .01 RELTOL
C
WELL N NAME
I J IGC
0 PROD45 10 1 1
0 INJ123 1 1 1
FPERF
WELL
L
WIL
INJ123 1
1.613294
X
2
1.613294
X
3
1.755122
PROD45 4
1.690117
X
5
1.690117
INJ
G FSTD INJ123
PROD O STD
PROD45
QMAX INJ123
.9
QMAX PROD45
1000.
ECOLIM O PROD45
QMIN 1
100.
DPBHMX PROD45
102.
ITNLIM 1 10 500 .1 .1 .1
DT -1. 1. 91. 500. .1 .1
DATE 30 6 1992
DATE 31 12 1992
DATE 30 6 1993
DATE 31 12 1993
DATE 30 6 1994
DATE 31 12 1994
DATE 30 6 1995
4-58
.1
Landmark - R2003.4
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
STOP
END
R2003.4 - Landmark
31
30
31
30
31
30
31
30
31
30
31
30
31
12
6
12
6
12
6
12
6
12
6
12
6
12
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
4-59
4-60
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
5
End-Point Scaling
5.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE allows the user to model spatial differences in relative
permeability and capillary pressure end points with a single set of generic
relative permeability and capillary pressure curves. Both the saturation
and relative permeability end points for any gridblock can be different
from those of the generic rock type to which the gridblock is assigned.
The relative permeabilities and capillary pressures at a given saturation
are determined from the generic curves based on the assumption that the
normalized relative permeability and capillary pressure curves of the
generic rock type and the gridblock are identical.
The calculation of the relative permeabilities is divided into two steps:
saturation end-point scaling, then end-point relative permeability scaling.
Two- and three-point saturation scaling options are available in VIPEXECUTIVE.
R2003.4 - Landmark
5-61
5-62
Landmark - R2003.4
( S SL )( SR SL )
S = -----------------------------------------+ SL
( SR SL )
(5-1)
Pcgo
R2003.4 - Landmark
krw
krg
krow
krog
5-63
Pcgo
5-64
krw
krg
krow
krog
Landmark - R2003.4
Example:
C----------------------------------------------------------C SATURATION DEPENDENT TABLES
C----------------------------------------------------------SWT 1
SW
KRW
KROW
PCWO
0.2
0.0
0.6
10.
0.3
0.0
0.45
8.
0.7
0.4
0.0
3.
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.
SWT 2
....
....
....
ARRAY
C-----------------------------------------------------------C SATURATION END POINTS
C-----------------------------------------------------------SWL CON
0.05
SWR CON
0.15
SWRO CON
0.85
SWU CON
1.0
The specified rock table shows that connate water saturation, SWL, is 0.2.
The residual water saturation, SWR, is 0.3. Water saturation at residual
oil, SWRO, is 0.7. Maximum water saturation, SWU, is 0.9. The specified
grid end points are SWL = 0.05, SWR = 0.15, SWRO = 0.85, and SWU = 1.0.
The water-oil capillary pressure curves for the rock and gridblock with the
two- and three-point options are compared below. The capillary pressures
at SWL and SWU are honored for the two-point option and those at SWL,
SWR, SWRO, and SWU are honored for the three-point option. Rock
saturations 0.3 and 0.7 are equivalent to grid saturations 0.1857 and 0.7286,
respectively, for the two-point option.
R2003.4 - Landmark
5-65
The water relative permeability curves for the rock and gridblock with the
two- and three-point options are compared below. The water relative
permeabilities at SWR and SWU are honored for two-point scaling, while
those at SWR, SWRO, and SWU are honored for three-point scaling. The
rock saturation 0.7 (SWRO) is equivalent to the gridblock saturation
0.7167 for two-point scaling and 0.85 (SWRO) for three-point scaling. The
relative permeability at SWRO = 0.85 is 0.6823 for two-point scaling, and
0.4 for three-point scaling.
5-66
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Maximum gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the connate
water saturation.
The connate gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the maximum
water saturation.
The water/gas saturations at residual oil should not exceed the water/
gas maximum saturations.
5-67
KROLW
(5-2)
and
KROLW
(5-3)
KROLW is the oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation for
the generic rock curve, and KROLG is the oil relative permeability at the
connate gas saturation for the generic rock curve. krow and krog are the
rock oil relative permeabilities at the saturations calculated from the
saturation end-point scaling.
KRWRO
k rw = k rw ----------------------KRWRO
5-68
if S w SWRO
(5-4)
Landmark - R2003.4
k rw
( KRWU k rw )
= KRWU ----------------------------------------------------- ( KRWU KRWRO )
( KRWU KRWRO )
if S w > SWRO
(5-5)
and
KRGRO
k rg = k rg ----------------------KRGRO
if S g SGRO
(5-6)
k rg
( KRGU k rg )
= KRGU --------------------------------------------------- ( KRGU KRGRO )
( KRGU KRGRO )
if
S g > SGRO
(5-7)
KRWRO and KRGRO are the water and gas relative permeabilities at the
residual oil saturation for the generic rock curves. KRWU and KRGU are
the water and gas relative permeabilities at the maximum saturations,
respectively. krw and krg are the water and gas relative permeabilities at
the saturations calculated from the end-point scaling.
Example:
C-----------------------------------------------------------C END-POINT RELATIVE PERMEABILITIES
C-----------------------------------------------------------KROLW CON
0.8
KRWRO CON
0.25
The comparisons of the rock and grid-point relative permeability curves
with end-point relative permeability scaling are shown in the following
figures.
R2003.4 - Landmark
5-69
KROLW
KROLW
5-70
Landmark - R2003.4
X-
Y+
Y-
Z+
Z-
Example:
SWL X+ ZVAR
0.2 0.1 0.25 0.15
SWR X+ ZVAR
0.25 0.2 0.35 0.2
SWRO X+ ZVAR
0.6 0.7 0.65 0.75
SWU X+ ZVAR
0.9 0.95 0.98 1.0
R2003.4 - Landmark
5-71
K
--
00
00
Pc wo ( Sw )
Pc = -----------------------Kx
-----
00
5-72
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
6
Equilibration
6.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE offers four reservoir initialization options:
R2003.4 - Landmark
Vertical equilibrium.
6-73
Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
DEPTH
GAS
GAS-OIL
TRANSITION ZONE
GAS-OIL CONTACT
(GOC)
OIL
WATER-OIL
TRANSITION ZONE
WATER-OIL CONTACT
(WOC)
WATER
SATURATION
Figure 6-1: Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
The fluid contacts, datum liquid phase pressure and depth, and capillary
pressures at the contacts are entered in the equilibrium constant table:
IEQUIL PINIT DEPTH PCWOC WOC
PCGOC GOC
iequil pinit depth pcwoc woc
pcgoc goc
(one data card for each equilibrium region)
6-74
PSAT
psat
Landmark - R2003.4
Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
Definitions:
iequil
region number
pinit
depth
pcwoc
woc
pcgoc
goc
psat
saturation pressure
The label IEQUIL refers to the region of the field to which the initialization
applies. VIP-EXECUTIVE permits a variable number of contacts within a
field; this is illustrated in Figure 6-2:
R2003.4 - Landmark
6-75
Gravity-Capillary Equilibrium
dP o
--------- = o ( P o, PSAT ieq )g
dD
(6-1)
(6-2)
dP
---------w- = w ( P o )g
dD
(6-3)
(6-4)
dP g
--------- = g ( P o, PSAT ieq )g
dD
(6-5)
(6-6)
For reservoirs which have an initial oil column, the datum depth, DEPTH,
must satisfy
(6-7)
When the reservoir has a primary gas cap and an oil column,
DEPTH = GOC
(6-8)
6-76
Landmark - R2003.4
Saturation Initialization
S = Pc ( Pc )
(6-9)
Sw =
Sg =
S wc
S wmax
DEPTH WOC
S gc
S gmax
DEPTH WOC
(6-10)
(6-11)
S wb
1
= ---------------------------------------DMIN DMAX
DMAX
P c ( D )dD
(6-12)
DMIN
R2003.4 - Landmark
6-77
Saturation Initialization
S wb
1
= ---------------------------------------DMIN DMAX
DMAX
S w ( D )dD
(6-13)
DMIN
DMIN
DTOP
MDEPTH
DMAX
DBOT
A very accurate numerical integration technique is used in VIPEXECUTIVE to estimate the one-dimensional integrals in the above
expressions (Equation 6-12). The number of integration points and their
positions are defined internally to satisfy a hard-coded approximation
error tolerance. This method is more accurate than the GBC option.
However, it has one disadvantage. The initial saturation distribution vs
depth is averaged over block thickness (see Figure 6-3). However, for
greater accuracy, it should be averaged over block volume.
Therefore, the INTSAT method may not represent gridblock geometry
accurately. For example, the calculated average saturations for the two
blocks shown in Figure 6-3 would be the same. This method is accurate
only for non-dipping rectangular grid systems.
An accurate treatment of the gridblock geometry is implemented in the
VAITS option described below. This method reduces the errors described
above for the INTSAT option.
6-78
Landmark - R2003.4
Saturation Initialization
saturations and bulk volumes. Average block saturations (Sbw, Sbg) and
bulk volume (Vb) are defined as
1
= -----Vb
S bw
S bg
1
= -----Vb
DMAX
P cw ( D ) AREA ( D )dD
(6-14)
DMIN
DMAX
P cg ( D ) AREA ( D )dD
(6-15)
DMIN
DMAX
Vb =
AREA ( D )dD
(6-16)
DMIN
S bw
1
= ------
Vb
P cw ( D ) AREA ( D )dD
(6-17)
i = 0 Di
Similar expressions are used for the average gas saturation and block
bulk volume.
2. Simpsons quadrature formula is used to estimate numerically the
integrals in each sublayer.
3. The sublayers are not equally spaced; therefore, they may have
different thickness. The number of sublayers N and their thickness are
internally calculated to ensure that relative approximation errors are
less than tolerances, which are specified on the VAITS card.
R2003.4 - Landmark
6-79
Saturation Initialization
Y
X
DMIN
D1
D2
D3
.
.
.
AREA(D)
Dn-1
DMAX
D
Figure 6-4: The VAITS Initialization
6-80
Landmark - R2003.4
In Figure 6-5, SW(Di) refers to saturation at the gridblock center and SWi
refers to the block average saturation for block i. The capillary pressure
adjustment is given by
PCADJWi = POi - PWi - PCWO(SWi).
A new capillary pressure function that ensures equilibrium for saturation
SWi is defined by
PCWO(SWi) = PCWO(SWi) + PCADJWi.
A similar treatment is applied to the gas-oil capillary pressure.
R2003.4 - Landmark
6-81
Supercritical Initialization
6-82
Landmark - R2003.4
Supercritical Initialization
R2003.4 - Landmark
6-83
Supercritical Initialization
6-84
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
7
Faults
7.1 Introduction
Figure 7-1 shows a structural map in a portion of a petroleum reservoir.
The contour discontinuities indicate faults. A fault is one of the structures
that traps hydrocarbons; it may influence fluid flow significantly.
Therefore, reservoir models frequently include the faults. The fault
handling option in VIP-EXECUTIVE allows simple ways of realizing such
noncontiguous layer connections resulting from the faults.
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-85
Introduction
Two-Layer Model
Without
Using
Fault
Option
Using
Fault Option
Consider the two-layer model on the left in Figure 7-2. Without the fault,
option one must use five layers to model the displacement due to the fault.
However, the fault option allows users to create the grid system shown in
the lower right where the grids may not be contiguous. VIP-EXECUTIVE
determines the connections among blocks across the fault plane based on
user input, then computes the transmissibilities. Solvers take into account
the flows associated with the fault connections. In this manual,
assumptions, guidelines, and the method of computing the
transmissibilities are presented.
7-86
Landmark - R2003.4
4
5
6
x(i)
1
2
FY
3
FX
4
y(j)
R2003.4 - Landmark
The fault plane is located vertically at the grid boundary; the throw (or
shift) is constant in the Z-direction. In other words, throws between
(3,3,k) and (4,3,k) are the same for all k in the fault plane FX.
Fault throws may vary areally. For example, the throws of fault FY at i
= 4, 5, 6 may be different.
When the fault option is used without corner-point geometry, VIPEXECUTIVE assumes that the layer is horizontal at the fault plane; i.e.,
DX = DXB and DY = DYB. Thus, to avoid confusion, use the LAYER
7-87
7-88
Landmark - R2003.4
Input Structure
3 -4
20.00
*1.5
FY 3
4 -6
*1.0
Fault FY has three throws listed, i.e., 21 ft (m), 22 ft (m), and 23 ft (m) for
the three-grid-long fault, while the first input line has only a single throw,
20 ft (m). If only a single shift is specified, then the shift is constant along
the fault.
There are variations of the input formats depending on the options, but
the most frequently used format has the structure shown in Figure 7-4:
FX
3 -4
20.00
*1.5
Transmissibility Multiplier
Throw
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-89
FLTXC
i
kr kl
tx
Transmissibility
i
kr
i-1
kl
FLTXC should be replaced with FLTYC for Y-direction faults, FLTRC for
R-direction faults in radial coordinate systems, or FLTTC for thetadirection faults in radial coordinate systems. To specify the fault
connection similarly for fracture porosity, the corresponding headings are
FLTXCF, FLTYCF, FLTRCF, or FLTTCF. For example, the connection
between (3,4,2) and (4,4,1) in Figure 8-5 can be expressed as:
FLTXC 4 4
7-90
1 2 192.23,
Landmark - R2003.4
FTRANS
i1 j1 k1 i2 j2 k2 trans
Transmissibility
Coordinates of the Second Grid
Coordinates of the First Grid
Heading
(i1,j1,k1)
(i2,j2,k2)
trans
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-91
Fault Transmissibility
Right
DZ
DZ
DZ
DX
DX
7-92
Landmark - R2003.4
Noncontiguous Layers
VIP-CORE has 2 options: (a) the method that uses depth information to
calculate layer connectivity, and (b) the method that assumes the layers
are contiguous. Method (a) is the default. Method (b) would be used if
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-93
Noncontiguous Layers
2
2
1
2
-25
-25
NODEPTH
NODEPTH
The input for the model is listed in the figure, and the resulting output by
the method (a) is:
7-94
GRID
BLOCK
(I, J, K)
CONNECTS TO
GRIDBLOCK
(I, J, K)
SHARED
THICKNESS
FT
TRANSMISSIBILITY
RB-CP/PSIA-DAY
123
111
5.000
.5635E+00
123
112
5.000
.5635E+00
124
112
5.000
.5635E+00
125
113
5.000
.5635E+00
125
114
5.000
.5635E+00
126
114
5.000
.5635E+00
127
115
5.000
.5635E+00
127
116
5.000
.5635E+00
223
211
5.000
.5635E+00
10
223
212
5.000
.5635E+00
11
224
212
5.000
.5635E+00
12
225
213
5.000
.5635E+00
Landmark - R2003.4
Noncontiguous Layers
GRID
BLOCK
(I, J, K)
CONNECTS TO
GRIDBLOCK
(I, J, K)
SHARED
THICKNESS
FT
TRANSMISSIBILITY
RB-CP/PSIA-DAY
13
225
214
5.000
.5635E+00
14
226
214
5.000
.5635E+00
15
227
215
5.000
.5635E+00
16
227
216
5.000
.5635E+00
If method (b) is used there would be 18 connections, and they are probably
incorrect.
If the top layers of the neighbor and fault columns are not horizontal, but
have the same depths, the above scheme still computes the connections
based on the shift amount as shown in the next figure.
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-95
Input Example
10
11
1
#1
#2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
#3
10
11
y
Figure 7-8: Example of Faults
7-96
Landmark - R2003.4
Input Example
Examples:
FAULTS
C fault #1
FY 2 3 -4 220.5
FX 5 2 -2 200.1
FY 3 5 -6 190.2 180.1
FX 7 3 -4 80.0 10.0 *0.8
C fault #2
FX 10 2 -6 30.5
C fault #3
FY 10 5 -9 -59.8
C override two connection of fault #2
FLTXC
10 2 1 3 121.55
10 3 1 4 22.9
C Connect aquifer to (10,1,1)
FTRANS
10 1 1 1 8 1 211.9
10 1 2 1 8 2 331.2
10 1 3 1 8 3 249.1
10 1 4 1 8 4 10.2
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-97
Qk
= 0,
(7-1)
k=1
where
Q k T Ik kt ( P k P f fk )
(7-2)
is the total volumetric flow rate for faulted gridblock k, TIk is the
transmissibility between faulted gridblock k and the fault which is simply
the I-direction half-transmissibility of the faulted gridblock, and kt is the
total mobility of gridblock k;
k rw k rg k ro
- + ------- + ------- .
kt ------ w g o k
(7-3)
T Ik k rwk
+
q wk = ------------------B w ( P k P f fk ),
wk
7-98
(7-4)
Landmark - R2003.4
k rok
k rgk
+
q ik = T Ik --------- o x i + --------- g y i ( P k P f fk ),
ok
gk
i = 1, N c .
(7-5)
q wk
qw
= T Ik kt ------+- ( P k P f fk ),
Q
(7-6)
q ik
qi
= T Ik kt ------+- ( P k P f fk ),
Q
i = 1, N c ,
(7-7)
where
+
q w q wk ,
+
(7-8)
k
+
q i q ik ,
+
(7-9)
and
+
Q Qk .
+
(7-10)
Summations in Equations 7-8 through 7-10 are taken over all gridblocks
with positive total volumetric rates (i.e., Qk > 0.). It can be shown that
Equations 7-4 to 7-10 satisfy the material balance automatically.
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-99
Q wk = min ( Q w, avl , Q k ),
q wk
(7-11)
+
- qw
Q wk ------+- ,
Qw
(7-12)
Q ok = min ( Q o, avl , Q k Q wk ),
qok xik
(7-13)
i = 1, N c ,
k
q iok = Q ok ---------------------,
+
Qo
qgk yik
(7-14)
k
q igk = ( Q k Q wk Q ok ) ---------------------,
+
Qg
i = 1, N c ,
(7-15)
+
Qm
T Ik mk ( Pk P f fk ) ,
m = o, g, w,
(7-16)
m = o, g.
(7-17)
k rmk
+
q mk = T Ik ---------- m ( P k P f fk ),
mk
-
Equation 7-2, and Q m, avl is the available volumetric outflow rate for
phase m (m = w, o, g) that has yet to be distributed to inflow gridblocks.
For each conductive fault, the inflow gridblocks are sorted based on the
descending order in depth. Starting from the inflow gridblock that has the
highest depth, Equations 7-1 and 7-5 are then used to calculate the
individual phase rates gridblock-by-gridblock. It can be readily shown
that this model also guarantees that the material balance for each
component is automatically satisfied.
7-100
Landmark - R2003.4
It should be noted that the segregated flow option presented here neglects
any mass transfer effects inside the fault. As in the fully-mixed option, the
fault pressure is calculated by Equation 7-1, and the phase and/or
component rates for outflow gridblocks are calculated from Equations 7-4
and 7-5. For the inflow gridblocks, the phase and/or component rates are
calculated from Equations 7-12, 7-14, and 7-15.
implicitly calculating these terms, a maximum of n f 4 additional nonneighboring pressure derivative terms will be added.
The gravity term in the fault plane, fk, is evaluated using a simple
mobility weighted averaging method. Results of two test runs using this
method and a more complex volume averaging method for a conductive
fault problem indicate that the model performance is insensitive to the
gravity term.
R2003.4 - Landmark
7-101
7-102
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
8
Gas-Water, Water-Oil,
and Black-Oil Options
8.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE has the ability to simulate two-phase gas-water or
water-oil systems using simplified gas-water and water-oil options. When
these special options are used, only one hydrocarbon equation is solved in
the IMPLICIT formulation; thus speeding up the simulation. The
coefficient generation is unaffected. These options also enable reduced
data input for saturation and PVT tables, since only oil phase (for wateroil) or gas phase (for gas-water) properties are required.
The simulator also has the ability to simulate a true non-volatile black-oil
system where the K-value of the oil component is near zero.
R2003.4 - Landmark
8-103
The BGTAB table is used instead of the BOTAB table to specify the
PVT properties.
The SGT and SWT tables originally used to specify the relative
permeability and capillary pressure curves for the gas/oil and water/
oil systems are combined into the SGT table. The new SGT table is
used to specify gas and water relative permeability and gas/water
capillary pressure curves. The SWT table should not be specified if the
simplified gas/water option is chosen.
8-104
For end-point scaling, only gas saturation related end points are
necessary. These are SGL, SGU, SGR, and SGRW.
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
The BOTAB card used to specify the PVT properties but gas
parameters are omitted.
8-105
8-106
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
9
Governing Equations
9.1 Introduction
For a general compositional model of Nc hydrocarbon components and
water, the basic differential equations are the species mass balance
equations of the first Nc - 1 hydrocarbon components, the overall
hydrocarbon mass balance equation, and the water mass balance
equation. In VIP-EXECUTIVE, water is treated as an inert phase and the
formulation of the hydrocarbon mass balance equations follows that of
Young and Stephenson.5 The black oil option is treated as a special case of
the general compositional model.
(9-1)
R2003.4 - Landmark
9-107
IMPES Formulation
(9-2)
w Bw M w g
( B w S w )
kk rw
------------------------ = ----------- B w P o P cw ------------------------------------- D + q w
5.6146 144g c
t
w
(9-3)
production rate, and water influx rate, and w is water density at the
standard conditions (in lb-mol/STB). Equation 9-3 is in units of STB/bblday.
f oi ( P o, x i, , x N c ) = f gi ( P o, y i, , y N c )
(9-4)
The fugacities of component i in phase j (j = o, g), foi, and fgi are calculated
from an equation of state that is discussed next. For the black oil option,
the phase equilibrium is described by equilibrium K-values (Ki):
yi
K i ( P o ) = ----,
xi
i = 1, 2
(9-5)
z i = ( 1 L )y i + Lx i,
9-108
i = 1, ... , N c
(9-6)
Landmark - R2003.4
IMPES Formulation
Here, L is the mole fraction of oil phase in the total hydrocarbon mixture
(i.e., one mole of hydrocarbon mixture separates into L moles of oil phase
and 1 - L moles of gas phase).
xi
= 1
(9-7)
= 1
(9-8)
i=1
Nc
zi
i=1
Note that Equations 9-6, 9-7, and 9-8 suggest that the summation of the
mole fractions of all hydrocarbon components in the gas phase also equals
one.
L
1 L
1 F -------------- + ----- S w = 0
g
o
(9-9)
The product of the first term inside the parentheses and F represents gas
phase saturation, while the product of the second term inside the
parentheses and F is oil phase saturation.
z i Lx i
y i = -----------------,
1L
i = 1, ... , N c
(9-10)
Nc 1
xN c = 1
xi
(9-11)
i=1
and
R2003.4 - Landmark
9-109
IMPES Formulation
Nc 1
zN c = 1
zi
(9-12)
i=1
Equations 9-10, 9-11, and 9-12 are then substituted into Equations 9-1, 9-2,
and 9-3, 9-4 (or 9-5), and 9-9 to form 2Nc + 2 independent equations with
the same number of unknowns: xi (i = 1 to Nc - 1), L, zi (i = 1 to Nc - 1), F, Sw,
and Po.
Note that the above choice of primary unknowns results in the L-x
iteration. In the VIP-EXECUTIVE simulator, these primary unknowns are
chosen for a gridblock whenever the mole fraction of the liquid phase in
the gridblock, L, is less than 0.5. Otherwise, the first Nc primary unknowns
(xi and L) are replaced by yi (i = 1, Nc - 1) and V (which equals 1 - L) to
avoid ill-conditioning in the resulting Jacobian matrix. Numerically, this
can be accomplished easily by swapping xi and yi, as well as L and V in
Equations 9-6, 9-7, 9-10, and 9-11. This alternate set of primary unknowns
results in the so-called V-y iteration.
9-110
Landmark - R2003.4
Fz i = ( S o o x i + S g g y i ),
F = ( S o o + S g g )
i = 1, ... , N c 1
(9-13)
(9-14)
The water mass balance equation and fugacity equality equations are the
same as Equations 9-3 and 9-4 or 9-5, and zi in Equation 9-8 is replaced by
yi. With this formulation, Equation 9-6 is not needed. Finally, the
saturation constraint equation, Equation 9-9, is replaced by
1 - So - Sg - Sw = 0
(9-15)
Unknowns xNc, yNc, and So are eliminated using the two mole fraction
constraint equations and the saturation constraint equation. The
remaining primary unknowns for the simultaneous (Nc) fugacity
equations and (Nc + 1) hydrocarbon and water mass balance equations are
xi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), yi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), Sg, Sw, and P. Before each Newton
iteration is performed, the fugacity equality equations are used to
eliminate unknowns xi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1) and y1, or yi (i = 1, ..., Nc-1) and x1.
The choice of the unknowns to be eliminated depends on the relative
amounts of oil and gas phases within each gridblock. Unknowns xi and y1
are eliminated if o So < g Sg. Otherwise, yi and x1 are eliminated. See
Chapter 18 for a discussion of the numerical solution of the differential
equations and of the iteration procedures.
R2003.4 - Landmark
9-111
9-112
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
10
Grid Coarsening
10.1 Introduction
The Grid Coarsening option is a feature which enables the user to combine
adjacent grid blocks into coarser grid blocks, thereby reducing the number
of blocks used for simulation and reduce run time.
Grid coarsening data is entered with the COARSEN keyword. Detailed
information on the COARSEN Keyword can be found in the VIP-CORE
Reference Manual.
( A i PV i )
i
A = -------------------------------PV i
( DX i BV i )
i
DX = nx -----------------------------------BV i
( DY i BV i )
i
DY = ny -----------------------------------BV i
R2003.4 - Landmark
10-113
( DZ i BV i )
i
DZ = nz -----------------------------------BV i
( HNET i BV i )
i
HNET = nz -------------------------------------------BV i
PV
DZ
POR = -------- ---------------BV HNET
When table indices ISAT,ISATI,ICMT,OILTRF ,GASTRF are different
for fine blocks within a coarse block, a WARNING message is printed on
the standard output file, and they are assigned to the indices of the fine
blocks that represent the largest pore volume within the coarse block.
Indices IEQUIL,IREGION,IPVT are not allowed to vary for fine blocks
within a coarse block. If they do, an ERROR message is printed on the
standard output file and the run will not initialize.
The half transmissibilities of the coarse block are calculated from those
of the constituent fine blocks using the tubes in series method.
TX
= TX =
--------------------------------------------1
1
j, k ------------- + ------------
+
-
TX
TX
2
TY
= TY =
= TZ =
2
j
---------------------------------------------1
1
i, j -------------- + ----------- +
-
TZ
TZ
2
10-114
---------------------------------------------1
1
i, k ------------- + ------------
+
-
TY
TY
j
TZ
Landmark - R2003.4
The fine block transmissibility values will include changes applied with
the TOVER cards, but will not include changes applied with the OVER,
VOVER cards. Transmissibility values at coarse block boundaries may be
modified through the non-standard transmissibility multipliers.
Average coarse block permeabilities KX, KY and KZ that are used for
calculating well, influx and polymer properties, and for other uses by
VIP-EXEC are calculated from the average coarse block properties as
follows:
TX
DX
KX = ------------------------ -------2 HNET DY
-
TY
DY
KY = ------------------------ -------2 HNET DX
-
TZ
DZ
KZ = ---------------- -------2 DX DY
The face areas of the coarse block are calculated from the sum of the
face areas of the fine blocks that make a coarse block face.
R2003.4 - Landmark
10-115
10-116
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
11
Horizontal and Inclined Well Model
11.1 Introduction
VIP can model horizontal or inclined wells which intersect the grid mesh
at oblique angles areally or in cross section.
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-117
Introduction
11-118
Landmark - R2003.4
pk
pf
ph
V1
Flow Direction
Figure 11-2: A Well Segment
P loss = P f + P k + P h
(11-1)
where
2
1 fLv
p f = --------- --------------144 2g c D
(11-2)
1 1
2
p k = --------- --- ( v )
144 2
(11-3)
1
P h = --------- g c Z
144
(11-4)
vD
R e = ----------
R2003.4 - Landmark
(11-5)
11-119
where is the viscosity of fluid in lb-s/ft2. The friction factor for a singlephase flow, i.e., in gas or water injectors, is computed by using a pipe flow
equation for a single phase. For flow with Re < 2000, it is expressed by:
64
f = -----Re
(11-6)
1
6.9 e
------- = 1.8 log ------- + ------------
R e 3.7D
f
( 10 9 )
(11-7)
where e is the absolute roughness of the wellbore in feet and can represent
the effect of turbulence created by inflow through perforations. Flow is in
the critical zone from Re = 2000 to 4000. In this zone, the weighted average
friction factor from Equations 11-6 and 11-7 is used.
In general, producing wells have multiphase flow, but Equations 11-6 and
11-7 also may be used where a uniform mixture and no slipping among
phases are assumed. Beattie and Whalley7 examined experimental data of
multiphase flow friction loss and concluded that Equation 11-7 gave better
matches in all of the ranges of Reynolds number by defining the effective
density and viscosity as
S
S
1 = ----g- + -----Lg L
(11-8)
= L ( 1 ) ( 1 + 2.5 ) + g
(11-9)
where
L Sg
= ----------------------------L Sg + g S L
(11-10)
VIP-EXECUTIVE uses Equation 11-7 with Equations 11-8, 11-9, and 11-10
for producers as a default, while injectors use Equations 11-6 and 11-7.
VIP-EXECUTIVE has another option in computing the friction factor for
producers; i.e., the Beggs and Brill correlation.8 This correlation includes
the effect of flow-type changes because of the slope of the pipe. These are
changes such as stratified flow, slug flow, misty flow, etc., as shown in
Figure 11-3. The Beggs and Brill correlation applies only to producers.
It can be activated by a card BEGGS ON s, where s is the value of liquid
surface tension. A description of this correlation is available in Reference 8
in Appendix D. The above pipe flow equations do not account for the
turbulence caused by flow through perforations. Therefore, pipe
11-120
Landmark - R2003.4
roughness may need to be adjusted to get a proper friction loss if field data
or sound experimental data are available.
SEGREGATED FLOW
(Stratified or Wavy)
INTERMITTENT FLOW
(Plug or Slug)
DISTRIBUTED FLOW
(Bubble or Mist)
Figure 11-3: Pipe Flow Types
The kinetic energy loss, Pk, is due to the velocity change along the well.
The flow velocity changes because of pipe diameter changes and influx
through perforations. The flux through perforations is assumed to enter a
pipe with zero longitudinal velocity, then be pushed to the pipe flow
velocity in a pipe segment. However, in most cases the kinetic energy loss
is much smaller than the friction pressure loss in well pipe flow.
On the other hand, pressure loss due to gravity can be significant if a well
is inclined. Therefore, the perforation depth should be computed
accurately and specified in VIP-EXECUTIVE input data.
The total pressure loss in a pipe segment is computed using Equations 112, 11-3, and 11-4 for each perforation segment, then is added to the well
pressure in cases of producers.
P w ( i ) = P w ( i 1 ) + P loss ( i )
(11-11)
where Pw(i) is the well pressure of the ith perforation of a well. For
injectors, pressure loss is subtracted from well pressure.
VIP-EXECUTIVE treats these pressure loss terms explicitly, and the
wellbore fluid gradient is computed using material balance equations.
Furthermore, the gradients computation is done only at the first inner
iteration. (Refer to Section 39.6 for information on wellbore gradient
calculations.)
Total well production can be computed from Equation 11-12 for an oil
producer, for example:
L
k ro, i
Q o = 0.001127 W I i K i H i ------------------- [ P grid, i P w, i ]
B o, i o, i
(11-12)
i=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-121
11-122
Landmark - R2003.4
ke = (k xk ykz)
1
--3
(11-13)
Lp =
L x + L y + Lz
(11-14)
k
L x = l ----e- sin cos
kx
(11-15)
k
L y = l ----e- sin sin
ky
(11-16)
k
L z = l ----e cos
kz
(11-17)
where l is the physical well perforation length, is the angle of the well
segment with respect to vertical direction, and is the angle with respect
to the x-axis as shown in Figure 11-4.
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-123
Lx
Ly
Lz
z
Figure 11-4: Inclined Well Segment
2
WI = ------------------------rb
ln ----- + s
r w
(11-18)
where rb is the equivalent radius, rw is the well radius, and s is the skin
factor. In computing rb, an analogy to Peacemans equation9 for a vertical
well is adopted. However, the equivalent radius and well radius are
obtained in the transformed plane similarly to the permeability-thickness.
Peacemans equivalent radius for a well parallel to the y-axis is expressed
as
12
R by
12
( k z k x ) x + ( k x k z ) z
= 0.14 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
14
+ (k x kz) ]
0.5 [ ( k z k x )
(11-19)
where notation Rby indicates a well parallel to the y-axis. The numerator
can be simplified using properties in the transformed isotropic medium.
Transferring the denominator of Equation 11-19 to Rwy , the following can
be concluded.
k ey
k ey
2
2
R ey = 0.14 ------- x + ------- z
kx
kz
11-124
(11-20)
Landmark - R2003.4
where:
k ey = ( k x k z )
1
--2
(11-21)
k ex
k ex
2
2
R ex = 0.14 ------- y + ------- z
ky
kz
where,
k ex = ( k y k z )
1
--2
k ez
k ez
2
2
R ez = 0.14 ------- x + ------- y
kx
ky
where,
k ez = ( k x k y )
1
--2
(11-22)
(11-23)
(11-24)
(11-25)
For an arbitrarily inclined well, i.e., for any (,) in Figure 11-4, VIPEXECUTIVE approximates the equivalent radius as follows.
R be =
r ex + r ey + r ez
(11-26)
where
rex = Rex sin cos
rey = Rey sin sin
rez = Rez cos
(11-27)
Note that Equation 11-26 yields Equations 11-20, 11-22, and 11-24 as
special cases and any equivalent radii in Equation 11-26 stay in an
ellipsoid created by them.
The wellbore radius in the transformed plane is expressed in a similar
manner. For example, a horizontal well that is parallel to the y-axis is
approximated by
Rw
R wy = ------ ( k ey k x + k ey k z )
2
(11-28)
where Rw is the true pipe radius and Rw(key/kx)0.5 and Rw(key/kz)0.5 are the
well radii in major and minor axes. Similarly,
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-125
Rw
R wx = ------ ( k ex k y + k ex k z )
2
Rw
R wz = ------ ( k ez k x + k ez k y )
2
(11-29)
R we =
r wx + r wy + r wz
(11-30)
where
rwx = Rwx sin cos
rwy = Rwy sin sin
rwz = Rwz cos
(11-31)
R be
R b = --------- R w
R we
(11-32)
y
Rwy
x
Rwx
Rwz
z
Figure 11-5: Ellipsoid
11-126
Landmark - R2003.4
Required Input
FPERF
WELL L
IW
JW
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
LENGTH
118
120
50
45
90
70
150
100
100
PWDEP
DIAM
4450
4490
4560
4577
4600
4635
4635
4635
4635
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
ROUGH ANGLV
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
10
10
12
45
45
90
90
90
90
ANGLA
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-127
Required Input
11-128
PWDEP
DIAM
ROUGH
ANGLV
ANGLA
Landmark - R2003.4
The perforations must be ordered on the FPERF card starting with the
perforation closest to the well head and ending with the farthest
perforation.
R2003.4 - Landmark
When there are other vertical wells, users should repeat the FPERF
card as shown in Figure 11-9.
In general, the friction and kinetic pressure losses are small, but the
hydrostatic pressure loss can be significant in an inclined well. If the
well block depth changes significantly, users should input accurate
11-129
11-130
Landmark - R2003.4
FPERF !
vertical well
WELL
L
IW
1
2
4
X
3
4
JW
1
1
FPERF
WELL L
IW
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
3
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IW
JW
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.128
0.119
0.671
0.510
0.412
0.266
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
FPERF
WELL L
3
1
3
X
2
3
X
3
3
X
4
3
4
5
1
X
5
2
BEGGS ON 0.0012
118
120
50
45
90
70
150
100
100
4450
4490
4560
4577
4600
4635
4635
4635
4635
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
LENGTH PWDEP
200
200
200
100
100
100
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
5000
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
DIAM
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
5
7
10
20
90
90
90
90
90
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
40.
5
5
2
3
4
2
5
6
10
45
45
45
45
45
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-131
If you want to disregard the friction and kinetic pressure losses from
the computation,add the keyword:
NOFRICTION
11-132
Do not use DTOP or DBOT, the top and bottom perforation depths,
since they are meaningless in horizontal/inclined wells.
Friction loss is computed only for the perforated intervals that appear
in the FPERF card. Therefore any pressure loss between the wellhead
and the first perforation must be modeled using hydraulic tables.
Landmark - R2003.4
Examples
11.6 Examples
Consider an inclined well that is perforated in two layers which are
separated by a layer of grid blocks as shown in Figure 11-10. The portion
of the well which is not perforated still has the friction of gravity pressure
loss. Therefore users are required to provide input for the entire portion of
the well and set STAT to OFF as shown in Figure 11-10.
FPERF
WELL L
IW
JW
1
X
X
X
X
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
STAT
ON
OFF
OFF
OFF
ON
LENGTH
50
25
60
52
70
DIAM
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
ROUGH ANGLV
1.E-4
1.E-4
1.E-4
1.E-4
1.E-4
35
50
70
85
60
ANGLA
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Figure 11-10: Well With Noncontiguous Perforations and Sample VIP Input
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-133
Examples
The inclined wells are assumed to be straight in this example and both
ends of the wells are also assumed to be located at the center of the grids.
The well section lengths are computed based on these assumptions. The
portion of the reservoir that has a well is shown in Figure 11-12 with the
section length in each grid. Since both wells run in parallel, only one cross
section is shown.
11-134
Landmark - R2003.4
Block index
j(y)
k(z)
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
17
Examples
Well length
L(ft)
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
25.02
50.03
50.03
16.66
33.81
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
Block index
j(y)
k(z)
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
24
25
26
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
Well length
L(ft)
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
33.81
16.67
50.03
50.03
25.02
FPERF
WELL
C
7
7
7
7
C
7
7
7
7
7
7
C
7
7
7
7
7
R2003.4 - Landmark
IW JW
L
15
15
15
15
LENGTH
FT
25.02
50.03
50.03
16.66
DIAM
FT
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
ROUGH
FT
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
ANGLV
DEG
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
ANGLA
DEG
90.
90.
90.
90.
14
14
14
14
9
10
11
12
14
14
14
14
14
14
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
33.81
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90
90.
90.
90.
90.
14
14
14
14
14
18
19
20
21
22
17
17
17
17
17
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
11-135
Examples
7
C
7
7
7
7
C
9
9
9
9
C
9
9
9
9
9
9
C
9
9
9
9
9
9
C
9
9
9
9
11-136
14
23
17
33.81
0.25
1.E-5
87.9786
90.
14
14
14
14
23
24
25
26
18
18
18
18
16.66
50.03
50.03
25.02
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90.
90.
90.
28
28
28
28
9
10
11
12
15
15
15
15
25.02
50.03
50.03
6.66
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90.
90.
90.
28
28
28
28
28
28
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
33.81
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
28
28
28
28
28
28
18
19
20
21
22
23
17
17
17
17
17
17
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
50.03
33.81
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
90.
28
28
28
28
23
24
25
26
18
18
18
18
16.66
50.03
50.03
25.02
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
1.E-5
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
87.9786
90.
90.
90.
90.
Landmark - R2003.4
Available Output
R2003.4 - Landmark
11-137
Available Output
11-138
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
12
Hydraulically Fractured Well Option
12.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides special features for the simulation of the
detailed performance of a single hydraulically fractured well. The fracture
is assumed to be a vertical fracture, and the simulation involves modelling
only one-fourth of the fracture and one-fourth of the drainage area of the
well, as shown in Figure 12-1. Flow within the packed fracture is
controlled by two major components: fracture closure and non-Darcy flow.
The type and concentration of proppant may be varied for each fracture
gridblock.
R2003.4 - Landmark
12-139
Modelling Considerations
12-140
Landmark - R2003.4
Modelling Considerations
R2003.4 - Landmark
12-141
Fracture Closure
12-142
Landmark - R2003.4
Non-Darcy Flow
------- = ------ +
L
kD
(12-1)
If the constant or the velocity approaches zero, then the second term
goes to zero and the remaining expression is equal to Darcys law. Cornell
and Katz72 reformulated the above equation as follows:
2
P
------- = ------ +
kD
L
(12-2)
where the constant is replaced by the product of the fluid density and
the turbulence factor, which is a function of the porous media. This can
be rewritten as follows:
k D
P
------- = ------ 1 + ---------------kD
L
(12-3)
kD
P
= ----------------------------------- ------k D L
1 + ---------------
(12-4)
kD
P
= ------ F ND ------
L
where FND is a non-Darcy factor defined as:
1
F ND = -------------------------k D
1 + ---------------
(12-5)
1
F ND = ------------------------------------------------------------- 9 k D
1 + 5.6555 10 ----------------
(12-6)
R2003.4 - Landmark
12-143
Iterative Procedure
b
= -----akD
(12-7)
8-12
1.24
3.32
10-20
1.34
2.63
20-40
1.54
2.65
40-60
1.60
1.10
12-144
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
13
Hysteresis
13.1 Introduction
The hysteresis options allow the use of relative permeabilities and
capillary pressures that are a function of both phase saturation and the
history of the phase saturation. The option is useful for the rigorous
simulation of fluid flow in reservoirs where the saturation of a fluid phase
within a gridblock does not change monotonically.
Gas-phase relative permeability hysteresis is limited to the gas-phase
relative permeability function (krg). Oil-phase relative permeability
hysteresis is limited to the oil relative permeability function in a water-oil
system (krow). Four options are available to specify gas and oil phase
hysteresis: Carlsons method,11 linear interpolation, scaling of the
drainage function, and user-entered imbibition-drainage functions.
The capillary pressure hysteresis option follows the model proposed by
Killough,12 allowing an additional level of scanning curves as each
saturation reversal occurs in the reservoir model. The user must enter both
bounding drainage and imbibition capillary pressure curves, along with a
secondary drainage capillary pressure curve.
Water-oil and gas-oil capillary pressure hysteresis may be specified
independently and do not depend on selection of the relative permeability
hysteresis option.
R2003.4 - Landmark
13-145
krn
D
krn
ID
krn
kID
rn
Snr
XSNR
Snhmx
Sntr
Snu
Sn
Figure 13-1: Nonwetting Phase Relative Permeability Curves for Hysteresis
13-146
Landmark - R2003.4
Carlsons Method
Carlsons method allows all intermediate imbibition-drainage curves to be
parallel to the bounding imbibition-drainage curve.
The historical maximum nonwetting saturation, Snhmx, is tracked for each
gridblock. If the nonwetting phase saturation equals or exceeds Snhmx, the
drainage curve applies and no special hysteresis calculation is needed. On
the other hand, intermediate drainage-imbibition curves are employed if
the nonwetting saturation in a gridblock falls below Snhmx. The trapped
nonwetting phase saturation for each gridblock is calculated from Snhmx
by using Lands formula.13 There are two options; one using the original
Land formula and one using a modified formula.
Using the original Lands formula:
S nhmx
XSNR = -------------------------1 + CS nhmx
(13-1)
S nu S ntr
C = ---------------------S nu S ntr
(13-2)
S nhmx S nr
XSNR = S nr + --------------------------------------------1 + C ( S nhmx S nr )
(13-3)
S nu S ntr
C = ----------------------------------------------------( S nu S nr ) ( S ntr S nr )
(13-4)
Snu is the maximum possible nonwetting saturation for the gridblock. For
oil relative permeability hysteresis, Snu = 1 - connate water saturation. Snr
is the critical nonwetting phase saturation for the drainage curve.
Carlsons approach assumes that the imbibition-drainage relative
permeability is equal to the primary drainage non-wetting phase relative
permeability evaluated at the free nonwetting phase saturation:
R2003.4 - Landmark
13-147
ID
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S npd )
(13-5)
4X sn
2
S npd = S nr + 0.5 X sn + X sn + ----------C
(13-6)
and
X sn S n XSNR
(13-7)
Linear Interpolation
An alternate method is included to linearize the imbibition-drainage
relative permeability curve between krnD(Snhmx) and krnID(XSNR) = 0.
Instead of using Equations 13-5, 13-6, and 13-7, krnID is calculated as
follows:
D
ID
k rn ( S n )
( S n XSNR )k rn ( S nhmx )
= --------------------------------------------------------( S nhmx XSNR )
(13-8)
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S n )
(13-9)
where
S n XSNR
*
S n = S nr + ----------------------------------- ( S nhmx S nr )
S nhmx XSNR
13-148
(13-10)
Landmark - R2003.4
krn
D
krn
ID
krn
Sn
kID
rn
Snr
XSNR
Snhmx
l
Sntr
SnID
Snu
Sn
S n = S n S nhmx
(13-11)
where
ID
ID
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S nhmx )
(13-12)
The value of SnID is determined by reverse table look-up from the userspecified bounding imbibition-drainage curve. SnID is the saturation
where the bounding imbibition-drainage curve has relative permeability
equal to the drainage relative permeability at the reversal saturation,
Snhmx. Therefore, the relative permeability for any saturation on the
scanning curve can be found from the bounding curve by:
ID
ID
k rn ( S n ) = k rn ( S n + S n )
R2003.4 - Landmark
(13-13)
13-149
Utility Data
Tabular Data
The RPHYSO and RPHYSG data cards define the specific method of
hysteresis to be used for the oil or gas phase, respectively. If either card is
entered without a method specified, the default method is LINEAR. If
either the RPHYSO or RPHYSG data card is entered, then the user must
also supply additional saturation function data, depending upon which
method is being used. For user-specified imbibition curves, the ISAT
array continues to refer to the drainage saturation functions. An
additional required array, ISATI, refers to the saturation functions to be
used for the imbibition functions. Otherwise, for either CARLSON,
LINEAR, or DRAINAGE, the SGTR keyword for gas phase hysteresis
and the SOTR keyword for oil phase hysteresis must be included in the
drainage table referred to by ISAT.
13-150
Landmark - R2003.4
Scanning Curves
Pc
a
b
Snc
Swl
Sw
R2003.4 - Landmark
13-151
before the nonwetting phase saturation reaches the end point, Snc, then the
capillary pressure follows a curve of type(e) as shown in Figure 13-4. The
behavior described here is valid only when the system previously
experienced a complete drainage displacement. In such a case, all
subsequent drainage cycles follow the secondary drainage curve, type(c),
as shown in Figures 13-3 and 13-4.
Killough provides the following equations for scanning capillary pressure
curves as shown in Figure 13-4.
Pc
b
d
B
Snc
SwA
Swl
SwB
Swmax
Sw
Figure 13-4: Water Saturation Reversal During Secondary Drainage
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) Pc ( Sw ) ]
(13-14)
where
1
1
-------------------------- --A
Sw Sw +
F ( S w ) = -----------------------------------------1
1
------------------------------- --max
A
S +
S
w
13-152
(13-15)
Landmark - R2003.4
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) + F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) Pc ( Sw ) ]
(13-16)
where
1
1
-------------------------- --B
Sw Sw +
F ( S w ) = -------------------------------------1
1
---------------------------- --B
S S +
w
(13-17)
wl
S nc
Pc
a
b
Snc
Snc*
1- SnA
Swl
1-Snc 1-Snc*
Sw
R2003.4 - Landmark
13-153
*
S nc
Sn
= --------------------------------------------------A
1
1
1 + ------- ---------------- S n
S nc 1 S wl
(13-18)
The equations given above for curves (d) and (e) are used for this case too;
however, the bounding curves are normalized so that they cover the
interval (Swl, 1-Snc*) rather than (Swl , 1-Snc).
Another situation occurs if a scanning imbibition process that begins at S wA
(Figure 11-6) experiences a second reversal. In such a situation, a new
drainage scanning curve (f) is created that intersects the first scanning
curve at reversal saturation S *w and reaches the bounding drainage curve
at starting point S wA . The new imbibition-to-drainage scanning curve at the
second reversal saturation, S *w , has the equation:
*
Pc ( Sw ) = Pc ( Sw ) + F ( Sw ) [ Pc ( Sw ) Pc ( Sw ) ]
(13-19)
where
1
1
-------------------------- --c
*
Sw Sw +
* *
F ( S w ) = ------------------------------------1
1
-------------------------- --c
A
S S +
w
13-154
(13-20)
Landmark - R2003.4
Pc
f
c
Snc
Swl
SwA
Sw*
Swc
Sw
Figure 13-6: Second Water Saturation Reversal
R2003.4 - Landmark
13-155
Utility Data
Tabular Data
13-156
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
14
IMPES Stability
14.1 Introduction
When the IMPES option is chosen, the size of the timestep is limited by
stability considerations. In this chapter, we derive the maximum stable
timestep, first for the cases of two- and three-phase immiscible flow, and
then for the case of two-phase compositional flow.
In order to perform a stability analysis, various simplifying assumptions
must be made. Experience has shown that the stability limits so derived
are still useful, even when the simplifying assumptions do not hold.
The methodology for analyzing stability of the nonlinear partial difference
equations here is that used by Peaceman61.
kk ro o
( o S o )
---------------------= ---------------- P o + q o
o
t
(14-1)
kk rg g
( g S g )
---------------------= ---------------- P g + q g
g
t
(14-2)
kk rw B w
( B w S w )
------------------------ = ------------------ P w + q w
w
t
(14-3)
k ro
M o = ------ ,
o
R2003.4 - Landmark
k rg
M g = ------ ,
g
k rw
M w = ------w
(14-4)
14-157
( S o )
P
---------------- =
kM o ------
x
t
x
(14-5)
( S g )
P
---------------- =
kM g ------
x
t
x
(14-6)
( S w )
P
----------------- =
kM w ------
x
t
x
(14-7)
(14-8)
PV j ( SG nj + 1 SG nj )
------------------------------------------------- = T X j 1 2 MG nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MG nj ( P j P j + 1 )
t
(14-9)
PV j ( SW nj + 1 SW nj )
---------------------------------------------------- = T X j 1 2 MW nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MW nj ( P j P j + 1 ) (14-10)
t
The subscript j is the block index, while the superscript refers to the
timestep. The acronym IMPES means implicit pressure and explicit
saturation. That means that the mobilities are evaluated from saturations
at the old timestep level, and the saturations at the new time level,
n + 1, can then be calculated explicitly.
T X j 1 2 MT nj 1 ( P j 1 P j ) T X j + 1 2 MT nj ( P j P j + 1 ) = 0 (14-11)
where MT is the total mobility defined by
MT nj = MO nj + MG nj + MW nj
From Equation 14-11 it follows that VT, defined by
VT = T X j + 1 2 MT nj ( P j P j + 1 )
14-158
(14-12)
Landmark - R2003.4
FG nj
MG nj
= ------------n
MT j
FW nj
MW nj
= ------------MT nj
(14-13)
PV j ( SW nj + 1 SW nj )
--------------------------------------------------- = VT ( FW nj 1 FW nj )
t
(14-14)
PV j ( SG nj + 1 SG nj )
------------------------------------------------- = VT ( FG nj 1 FG nj )
t
(14-15)
PV
-------- [ SW nj + 1 SW nj ] = VT [ f w ( SW nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj ) ]
t
(14-16)
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-159
PV
-------- [ ( SW nj + 1 + EW nj + 1 ) ( SW nj + EW nj ) ] = VT [ f w ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 ) f w ( SW nj + EW nj ) ] (14-17)
t
For the purpose of stability analysis, errors are assumed sufficiently small
that higher powers of EW can be ignored. Then Equation 14-18 can be
written
PV
-------- ( EW nj + 1 EW nj ) = VT ( f ' w, j 1 EW nj 1 f ' w, j EW nj )
t
(14-19)
where
fw
f ' w, j = --------- ( SW nj )
S w
At this point, we need another assumption in order to proceed, that f ' w is
locally constant, i.e., that it doesnt change much from block to block.
Then
EW nj + 1 EW nj = ( EW nj 1 EW nj )
(14-20)
where
V T f ' w t
= ------------------------PV
(14-21)
n
EW j
A p exp ( i p x j )
(14-22)
p=1
14-160
Landmark - R2003.4
(14-23)
A np + 1
------------ 1 = [ exp ( i p x) 1 ]
A np
or
A np + 1
------------= 1 + [ cos ( p x ) i sin ( p x ) 1 ]
A np
The square of the modulus of the amplification factor is then
A np + 1
------------A np
A np + 1
------------A np
= { 1 + [ cos ( p x ) 1 ] } 2 + 2 sin 2 ( p x )
or
= 1 + 2 [ 1 cos ( p x ) ] ( 1 )
V T f ' w t
---------------------------- 1
PV
(14-24)
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-161
(14-25)
PV
-------- [ SG nj + 1 SG nj ] = VT [ f g ( SW nj 1 , SG nj 1 ) f g ( SW nj , SG nj ) ]
t
(14-26)
f w ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 , SG nj 1 + EG nj 1 )
(14-27)
f w ( SW nj + EW nj , SG nj + EG nj ) ]
PV
-------- [ ( SG nj + 1 + EG nj + 1 ) ( SG nj + EG nj ) ] = VT
t
f g ( SW nj 1 + EW nj 1 , SG nj 1 + EG nj 1 )
(14-28)
f g ( SW nj + EW nj , SG nj + EG nj ) ]
Note that a truncated Taylor series for a function of two variables yields
fw
f ' ww = --------S w
fw
f ' wg = --------S g
f
f ' gw = --------gS w
f
f ' ww = --------gS g
Thus, if we subtract Equation 14-25 from Equation 14-27, and Equation 1426 from Equation 14-28, and substitute Equations 14-29 and 14-30, we get
the simultaneous error equations
14-162
PV
-------- ( EW nj + 1 EW nj ) = VT ( f ' ww, j 1 EW nj 1 + f ' wg, j 1 EG nj 1 f ' ww, j EW nj f ' wg EG nj )
t
(14-31)
PV
-------- ( EG nj + 1 EG nj ) = VT ( f ' gw, j 1 EW nj 1 + f ' gg, j 1 EG nj 1 f ' gw, j EW nj f ' gg EG nj )
t
(14-32)
Landmark - R2003.4
Again, we assume that the f ' are locally constant so that they dont change
much from block to block. Also, we expand the errors in the Fourier series
NX
EW nj =
A np exp (i p x j )
(14-33)
p=1
NX
B np exp (i p x j )
EG nj =
(14-34)
p=1
Substitution of Equations 14-33 and 14-34 into Equations 14-31 and 14-32
gives, for each component, after division by exp (i p x j ) ,
PV n + 1
-------- ( A p A np ) = VT ( f ' ww A np + f ' wg B np ) [ exp ( i p x) 1 ]
t
PV n + 1
-------- ( B p B np ) = VT ( f ' gw A np + f ' gg B np ) [ exp ( i p x) 1 ]
t
This may be expressed as a matrix-vector equation as
(14-35)
where
v np =
V T t
= -----------------PV
A np
B np
f ' ww f ' wg
F' =
f ' gw f ' gg
For stability, we need to show that v np + 1 is, in some sense, not larger than
v np . We choose as the measure of a vector the 2-norm, also called the
Eucledian norm, defined by
v np
( A np ) 2 + (B np ) 2
Since the norm of a product is less than or equal to the product of the
norms, then from Equation 14-35,
v np + 1
v np
v np
(14-36)
The 2-norm of the matrix F' is its maximum absolute eigenvalue, which is
defined below.
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-163
v np + 1 2
A p = ------------------v np 2
and try to show that it is less than one, in magnitude, for all components p.
From Equation 14-36,
1)
F'
10
or
V T t
------------------ F'
PV
(14-37)
Eigenvalues of F'
As stated above, the 2-norm of a matrix is the maximum absolute value of
its eigenvalues. The eigenvalues of F' are the values of that satisfy
det
f ' ww
f ' wg
f ' gw
f ' gg
= 0
(14-38)
(14-39)
The eigenvalues of F' are the roots of Equation 14-39, and the maximum
absolute value of those roots is the 2-norm of that matrix.
The values of the f ' are obtained from the derivatives of mobility (see
Equation 14-4), which are substituted into the following.
14-164
Landmark - R2003.4
f ' ww
f ' wg
f ' gw
f ' gg
M w
M t
M t ----------- M w ---------S w
S w
= -------------------------------------------M t2
M w
M t
M t ----------- M w ---------S g
S g
= -------------------------------------------2
Mt
M g
M t
M t ----------- M g ---------S w
S w
= -----------------------------------------M t2
M g
M t
M t ----------- M g ---------S g
S g
= -----------------------------------------2
Mt
where
Mt = Mw + Mo + Mg
and
M
M w M o M g
----------t- = ----------+ ----------- + ----------S ph S ph S ph S ph
ph = w or g
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-165
( H z c )
--------------------- =
t
x
kk ro o x c kk rg g y c P
--------------------+ --------------------- ------ + q c
o
g x
(14-40)
where H is the total hydrocarbon moles per unit pore volume, xc is mole
fraction of component c in the liquid (oil) phase, yc is mole fraction in the
vapor (gas) phase, and zc is overall mole fraction. (Note that we use H
instead of the F in Equation 8-1 to avoid confusion with fractional
mobilities used below.
Equilibrium Constraint
Phase equilibrium may be expressed in terms of equilibrium constants:
y
K c = ----cxc
(14-41)
( yc xc )
= 0
(14-42)
c=1
Saturation Constraint
From Equation 8-9, we have
H ( 1 L ) HL
---------------------- + -------- = 1
g
o
(14-43)
14-166
Landmark - R2003.4
H (1 L)
S g = ---------------------g
HL
S o = -------o
(14-44)
( H )
---------------- =
t
x
ro o kk rg g P
kk
--------------- + ---------------- ------ + q c
o
g x
c
(14-45)
kk ro
o = ---------o
kk rg
g = ---------g
f o = ----ot
t = o + g
f g = ----gt
P
v o = o -----x
P
v g = g -----x
P
v t = t -----x
( H )
---------------- = [ ( o f o + g f g )v t ] + q c
x
t
c
(14-46)
PV j
---------- ( H nj + 1 H nj ) = o ( VT j 1 2 FO nj 1 VT j + 1 2 FO nj )
t
+
g ( VT j 1 2 FG nj 1
(14-47)
VT j + 1 2 FG nj )
The difference analogues of the constraint equations 14-42 and 14-43 are
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-167
NC
( Y cn, j X cn, j )
= 0
(14-48)
c=1
H nj ( 1 L nj ) H nj L nj
--------------------------- + ------------- = 1
o
g
(14-49)
(14-50)
g ( V T j + 1 2 + EV T j + 1 2 ) ( FG nj + EFG nj )
But, by neglecting higher powers of the error terms, we have the following
truncated Taylor series:
fo
fg
f ' o, j = --------- ( SG nj ) = f ' g, j = --------- ( SG nj )
S g
S g
Similarly,
14-168
Landmark - R2003.4
PV j
---------- ( EH nj + 1 EH nj ) = ( g o ) ( V T j 1 2 f ' g, j 1 ESG nj 1 V T j + 1 2 f ' g, j ESG nj ) (14-52)
t
Saturation Constraint Error Equation
Consider now the saturation constraint equation 14-49. Perturb it, to yield
( H nj + EH nj ) ( 1 L nj EL nj ) ( H nj + EH nj ) ( L nj + EL nj )
------------------------------------------------------------------- + ---------------------------------------------------------- = 1
g
o
(14-53)
Subtract Equation 14-49 from Equation 14-53, and ignore higher powers of
the errors, to yield the saturation constraint error equation:
EH nj ( 1 L nj ) H nj EL nj H nj EL nj + L nj EH nj
-------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------ = 0
g
o
or
o ( 1 L nj ) + g L nj
EH nj
EL nj = -------------------------------------------( o g )H nj
(14-54)
SG nj
H nj ( 1 L nj )
= --------------------------g
(14-55)
( H nj + EH nj ) ( 1 L nj EL nj )
SG nj + ESG nj = -----------------------------------------------------------------g
(14-56)
ESG nj
( 1 L nj )EH nj H nj EL nj
= -------------------------------------------------------g
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-169
o ( 1 L nj ) + g L nj EH nj
----------ESG nj = ( 1 L nj ) -------------------------------------------g
( o g )
or
EH nj = ( g o )ESG nj
(14-57)
PV j
---------- ( ESG nj + 1 ESG nj ) = V T j 1 2 f ' g, j 1 ESG nj 1 V T j + 1 2 f ' g, j ESG nj (14-58)
t
This is similar to Equation 14-19 in Section 14.2.5. As we did there, we
linearize Equation 14-58 by assuming that V T f ' g is locally constant.
Then Equation 14-58 may be written
PV j
---------- ( ESG nj + 1 ESG nj ) = V T f ' g ( ESG nj 1 ESG nj )
t
(14-59)
ESG nj =
NX
A np exp (i p x j )
(14-60)
p=1
A np + 1
-----------A np
2 V T f ' g t
V T f ' g t
= 1 + ------------------------------- [ 1 cos ( p x ) ] ------------------------ 1 (14-61)
PV
PV
V T f ' g t
------------------------- 1
PV
(14-62)
For simplicity, the water equation was omitted from the preceding
analysis. It seems reasonable that if it had been included, then the threephase Buckley-Leverett throughput condition of Equation 14-37 would be
the appropriate condition for stability.
14-170
Landmark - R2003.4
EH nj = ( g o )
NX
A np exp (i p x j )
p=1
If we assume that
NX
B np exp (i p x j )
EH nj =
p=1
B np = ( g o ) A np
and
p = p
so the amplification factor for EH must also satisfy
Bn + 1 = An + 1 1
----------------------Bn
An
(14-63)
o ( 1 L nj ) + g L nj NX
EL nj = ------------------------------------------- A np exp (i p x j )
H nj
p=1
Again, we assume a locally constant coefficient; that is, we assume that
the term multiplying the summation does not change much from block to
block or from one time level to the next time level. If we assume that
EL nj =
NX
C np exp (i p x j )
(14-64)
p=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-171
o ( 1 L ) + g L
C np = --------------------------------------- A np
H
(14-65)
p = p
(14-66)
and
C n + 1 = An + 1 1
----------------------Cn
An
(14-67)
= 0
(14-68)
c=1
( EY cn, j E X cn, j )
= 0
c=1
Y cn, j = K c X cn, j
EY cn, j = K c E X cn, j
so
NC
( K c 1 )E X cn, j
= 0
(14-69)
c=1
14-172
Landmark - R2003.4
Since
z c = Lx c + ( 1 L ) y c = Lx c + ( 1 L )K c x c
Then
Z cn, j
X cn, j = -------------------------------------L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c
(14-70)
Z cn, j + EZ cn, j
X cn, j + E X cn, j = ----------------------------------------------------------------------L nj + EL nj + ( 1 L nj EL nj )K c
(14-71)
E X cn, j
c=1
NC ( K c 1 ) 2 Z cn, j
K NC 1
Kc 1
n
n
-------------------------------------
------------------------------------------EZ
=
EL
(14-74)
c, j
j ---------------------------------------------2
n
n
L nj + ( 1 L nj )K c L nj + ( 1 L nj )K NC
c = 1 [ L j + ( 1 L j )K c ]
If we again consider the coefficients of the errors constant for the purpose
of the stability analysis, then we can write Equation 14-74 in the form
R2003.4 - Landmark
14-173
NC 1
G c EZ cn, j = EL nj
c=1
(14-75)
where
Kc 1
K NC 1
-------------------------------- ------------------------------------L + ( 1 L )K c L + ( 1 L )K NC
G c = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------NC
( K c 1 ) 2 Z
---------------------------------------
2
c = 1 [ L + ( 1 L )K c ]
If we assume
EZ cn, j =
NX
(14-76)
p=1
c, p = p = p
and
NC 1
G c D cn, p = C np
(14-77)
c=1
G c D cn, +p 1 = C np + 1
(14-78)
c=1
G c D cn, +p 2 = C np + 2
(14-79)
c=1
on up to the n + NC - 1 timestep:
14-174
Landmark - R2003.4
NC 1
G c D cn, +p NC 1 = C np + NC 1
(14-80)
c=1
Let
C np + 1
C np + 2
p = ------------=
------------=
C np
C np + 1
(14-81)
D cn, +p 1
D cn, +p 2
=
------------- =
c, p = ------------D cn, p
D cn, +p 1
(14-82)
and
c, p = G c D cn, p
(14-83)
c, p = C np
(14-84)
c=1
NC 1
c, p cr, p = C np rp
r = 1, 2, , NC 1
(14-85)
c=1
Note that the superscript n refers to timestep level, while the superscript r
is an exponent. Equations 14-84 and 14-85 can be rearranged to
NC 1
c, p ( cr, p rp ) = 0
r = 1, 2, , NC 1
(14-86)
c=1
c, p = p
It can be shown63 (albeit, with some difficulty) that this is a multiple root,
and that Equation 14-86 is equivalent to
( c, p p )
R2003.4 - Landmark
NC 1
= 0
14-175
D cn, +p 1
------------- = c, p 1
D cn, p
(14-87)
Thus, we have shown that the errors in Zc do not grow if Equation 14-62 is
satisfied. Thus, if Equation 14-62 is satisfied, the system of difference
equations 14-47, 14-48, and 14-49 is stable.
14-176
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
15
Local Grid Refinement1
15.1 Introduction
The Local Grid Refinement (LGR) option is a special feature which enables
the user to improve the resolution and detail in a particular area of a
reservoir study, without increasing the resolution everywhere. The LGR
option minimizes the number of gridblocks, and therefore the CPU time
required by allowing the grid to be selectively refined in areas where more
grid definition is required. It has applications in the modeling of:
Horizontal wells
Delineation of faults
This chapter explains some of the general concepts with regard to LGR,
along with technical details on different LGR techniques and examples of
how to set up LGR models.
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-177
Major Features
Grid refinements (and base grid) can use either the IMPES or fully
implicit formulation.
15-178
Landmark - R2003.4
Black Oil
Compositional EOS
Dual Porosity/Permeability
Polymer
Crossflow
Hydrocarbon/Water Tracking
Injection Regions
Except as noted below, datasets that were valid with previous versions of
VIP-EXECUTIVE should still be accepted as is. The following features,
available in previous versions, are no longer available either with LGR or
single grid systems:
The implicit well option, previously available with IMPES, was removed
because it can be duplicated with the LGR option by declaring the well as
being contained in a line of one-for-one refined gridblocks, designated as
an implicit grid (see example in Section 15.10.2).
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-179
Types of Refinements
Grid name
15-180
Landmark - R2003.4
Types of Refinements
R2003.4 - Landmark
Grid name
Portion of coarse grid to be refined (if more than one coarse gridblock
along the well, the same radial refinement is implemented through
each gridblock).
15-181
Types of Refinements
12
11 10 7 4 5
8
2
1
5
15-182
Landmark - R2003.4
Types of Refinements
2
1
A1
R2003.4 - Landmark
A2
15-183
Types of Refinements
CS
A1
A2
( A 2 A 1 ) CS
1
---------------------------T = ---------------------------------2
CS
CS
2
ln ------------------
A 1 CS
The gridblock transmissibilities in the (j) direction are calculated from a
harmonic average of the elemental skeleton block values. The gridblock
transmissibilities in the r(i) and z(k) directions are calculated by summing
the elemental skeleton block values.
1
32
31
10
30
11
29
12
28
13
27
14
26
15
25
16
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
skeleton blocks
gridblocks
15-184
Landmark - R2003.4
Types of Refinements
1
T - = -------------------------------------------1
1
- + ---------
t------
t
jj+
j = 1, 4
1
T + = -------------------------------------------1
1
- + ---------
------t j- t j+
j = 5, 8
Tr
T rz
t jr
t jz
j = 1, 8
j = 1, 8
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-185
Application of LGR
15.5.1 GRIDGENR
The GRIDGENR program is a graphical interface used to design the grid
structure for a reservoir simulation model and calculate the initial
properties to be assigned to each gridblock, such as depth, thickness,
porosity, etc. GRIDGENR provides three basic alternatives for defining the
grid structure. These are (1) interactively draw the reservoir grid, (2)
digitize the grid from various sources, or (3) import data that can be used
to specify the grid structure. Following any of these three options, the
drawing features can be used to define local grid refinements, with the
resulting shape and size of the refinements shown on the surface of the
grid (see illustration below).
15-186
Landmark - R2003.4
Application of LGR
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-187
Application of LGR
The keyword parameters below are used to describe this structure for a
VIP-CORE initialization (i.e., for calculating the initial model state).
NX NY NZ NCOMP
5 5 1 2
LGR BASEGRID
CARTREF REF1
2 4 2 4 1 1
2 3 2
2 2 2
1
OMIT 4 4 4 4 1 1
RADZREF RAD
3 3 1 1
3 4 .25
1
2*0.5
2*0.5
ENDREF
ENDREF
ENDLGR
Landmark - R2003.4
Application of LGR
keywords to define the radial refinement need to be added to the VIPCORE input file, and the rock properties of the parent gridblocks will be
propagated down to the refined gridblocks.
Conversely, for a detailed study of infill drilling in a particular area, it
would most likely be better to use GRIDGENR to define the LGR area, in
order to get a better definition of the variation of rock properties within
the entire refined area.
For the situation where the initialization data has already been prepared
and it is not feasible or desirable to go back to GRIDGENR (i.e., a reservoir
model that has already been history matched), the grid refinements can be
specified manually through the keyword parameters. The properties from
the coarse grid would be propagated down to any refinements, and a few
additional history match runs may be required to fine tune the match
based on a better definition of fluid fingering and/or coning. See Section
15.8.2 for the rules and explanations of the propagation process.
Once the grid definition and properties are defined appropriately in the
VIP-CORE data deck, the initialization process is not significantly
different from normal.
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-189
Level 4
Grid
Level 2
Grid
Level 1
Grid
p
Level 2
Grid
Level 4
Grid
Level 3
Grid
Figure 15-8: Levels of Refinement
A coarse grid (or level 1 or root grid) is imposed on the region of interest.
This is further refined in areas where greater resolution is required (a
refinement of a level N grid is called a level N+1 grid). The number of
15-190
Landmark - R2003.4
Grid lines for refined cells terminate only on coarse cell boundaries.
Valid:
Invalid:
Refinements must fill at least an entire coarse cell and the refined grid
lines must be continuous across the entire coarse cell.
Incompatible Refinement:
Refinements that span more than one coarse cell must have refined grid
lines that conform across the coarse cells.
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-191
Illegal Refinement
Figure 15-11: Nesting of Refinements
15-192
Landmark - R2003.4
All grids of the same level must be independent, i.e., not touching.
Legal Refinement
Illegal Refinements
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-193
Landmark - R2003.4
that had been refined in the parent grid, such that precise material balance
is maintained. For each parent gridblock, the total moles of each
component and the total water volume is computed from the sum of its
refined gridblocks, respectively. An iterative procedure is then employed
to compute the new values for the unknowns which will exactly preserve
the material balance of each of the components and water.
When a grid is activated after having been inactive for one or more
timesteps, the unknowns of the parent gridblocks are propagated directly
to the refined gridblocks, again preserving material balance, but with the
possible instability resulting from each of the fine gridblocks having the
same pressures, saturations, compositions, etc. as their parent gridblock.
Considerable care should be taken to ensure that the area around the
refinement is approaching steady-state conditions before deactivating or
activating the refinement, in order to reduce or eliminate the need for any
timestep cuts. The activation/deactivation procedure is performed after
all input for the time interval has been read.
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-195
Input Data
RMIN
The RMIN keyword allows the user to specify, for radial refinements, the
minimum outer radius allowed for the innermost ring of blocks. This is
applied globally to all radial refinements, but can be set on a grid-by-grid
basis within the LGR data.
15-196
Landmark - R2003.4
Input Data
Example:
00
ARRAYS
POR CON
0.3
.
.
.
ARRAYS CHILD1
POR NONE
VMOD
2 4 2 3 1 1 EQ
0.25 0.26 2*0.27 0.29 0.3
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-197
Input Data
Timestep Controls
For multi-grid systems which may involve mixed levels of implicitness, it
may be necessary to have separate sets of maximum change parameters
for both the iteration and the timestep. To accomplish this, two new
optional keywords have been implemented: DTMPL and ITNMPL. When
a DT keyword is read, the maximum change parameters for both the
IMPES grids and the IMPLICIT grids are set to the values specified on the
DT card. Also when an ITNLIM keyword is read, the maximum change
parameters for both the IMPES grids and the IMPLICIT grids are set to the
values specified on the ITNLIM card. If different values are desired for the
IMPLICIT grids, the DTMPL and ITNMPL keywords must be used to
specify the maximum change parameters for the IMPLICIT grids only.
Well Data
For multi-grid systems, it may be necessary to specify in which grid(s) that
the well resides, in addition to the standard IW and JW well location. If no
additional data is entered, the well is assumed to be in the ROOT grid, and
the IW and JW are relative to that grid. However, if the well perforations
are in one or more of the grid refinements, then the grid name must be
specified on either the WELL card or the FPERF card. If the well
perforations are all within the same grid, then the grid may be specified on
15-198
Landmark - R2003.4
Input Data
the WELL card. If the well perforations are in two or more grids, then the
grid must be specified for each of the perforations, along with the proper
IW and JW relative to the grid.
If the well is in a radial grid and (IW, JW) have not been specified in the
FPERF data or in any previous WELL name and location data, then
perforations will be automatically generated in IW=1, for
JW=1,2,...,NTHETA for the radial grid.
Other Data
FTRANS, OVER, and VOVER may be specified on a grid-by-grid basis.
For more detailed information regarding LGR-related data, see the VIPCORE Reference Manual and the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-199
LGR Benchmarks
15-200
Landmark - R2003.4
LGR Benchmarks
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-201
LGR Benchmarks
The cases and results are summarized in Table 15-1. Case 1 was run with
both IMPES and implicit. Both Case 2 and Case 3 were run with IMPES in
the coarse and level 2 refined grids, and implicit around the wells. The
results show that Case 2 ran more than 4 times faster than implicit Case 1.
Case 3 was almost three times faster than implicit Case 1 even though the
resolution around the wells in Case 3 was much better.
15-202
Landmark - R2003.4
LGR Benchmarks
NX
NY
Refinements
NZ
1
2
62
19
45
14
2
2
19
14
NX
36
3
36
4
10@
10@
Case Formulation
Solver
Precond.
Method
NY
26
3
26
4
Gridblocks
NZ
2 (Cart.)
2 (Cart.)
2 (Cart.)
2 (Rad.)
Total
Active
5580
5558
2584
1967
2724
2107
IMPES
BLITZ
NF
2905
3338 12013
456
3111
Implicit
BLITZ
NF
87
235
1674
551
743
Mixed
CBLITZ
SEQ
87
274
1143
61
179
Mixed
CBLITZ
SEQ
94
368
1473
112
260
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-203
LGR Benchmarks
The results of production plots show almost identical results in the three
cases for most of the wells, but increased gas and water coning for some of
the wells in case 3 as shown in Figures 15-16 and 15-17.
15-204
Landmark - R2003.4
LGR Benchmarks
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-205
Examples
15.10 Examples
The following examples, in increasing complexity, illustrate the additional
data needed to set up models using local grid refinement. The basic
assumption is that the user is creating the data; GRIDGENR/ARRAY is
not needed to create the locally refined grid(s). The figures accompanying
the examples depict only a portion of the grid; e.g. the area around well
G3.
Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
BLITZ
C
C
DT1 DTmin DTmax
DP
DT
-1.
1.
100. 500.
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .01 .10 .14
WELL
FPERF
WELL
1
X
2
X
3
X
X
.
.
.
N
1
2
3
15-206
NAME
G3
H2
A1
IW
18
20
14
DS
.15
DV DZ
.9 .9
JW
3
13
16
L
1
2
2
3
7
8
9
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Examples
15-207
Examples
15-208
TRES
127.
TS
60
PS
15
Landmark - R2003.4
Examples
Simulator:
IMPLICIT
! Default Formulation
RESTART
IMPGRID
! Formulation by Grid
ROOT
IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C
DT1 DTmin DTmax
DP
DS DV DZ
DT
-1.
1.
100. 200. .05 .9 .9
! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL
500. .15 .9 .9
! for IMPLICIT
Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL
.10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL
FPERF
WELL
1
X
2
X
3
X
X
.
.
.
N
1
2
3
R2003.4 - Landmark
NAME
G3
H2
A1
IW
1
1
14
JW
1
1
16
GRID
G3
H2
ROOT
L
1
2
2
3
7
8
9
15-209
Examples
15-210
Landmark - R2003.4
Examples
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-211
Examples
Simulator:
IMPES
! Default Formulation
RESTART
IMPGRID ! Formulation by Grid
G3
IMPLICIT
H2
IMPLICIT
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C
DT1 DTmin DTmax
DP
DS DV DZ
DT
-1.
1.
100. 200. .05 .9 .9
! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL
500. .15 .9 .9
! for IMPLICIT
Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL
.10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL
FPERF
WELL
1
X
X
X
X
X
.
.
.
N
1
2
3
15-212
NAME
G3
H2
A1
IW
5
1
14
JW
5
1
16
GRID
G3
H2
ROOT
! Center of Grid G3
L
1
2
3
4
5
6
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Examples
15-213
Examples
Simulator:
DIM
NPRFMX
NPRFTOT
24
100
IMPLICIT
! Default Formulation
RESTART
IMPGRID ! Formulation by Grid
ROOT
IMPES
! Over-ride IMPLICIT for ROOT grid
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
DT1 DTmin DTmax
DP
DS DV DZ
DT
-1.
1.
100. 200. .05 .9 .9
! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL
500. .15 .9 .9
! for IMPLICIT Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL
.10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL N NAME IW JW GRID
1
G3
X
X G3
2
H2
X
X H2
3
A1
14 16 ROOT
FPERF
WELL
L
1
1
! For wells in Radial LGRs
X
2
! if no IW or JW values given,
X
3
! then all theta in the first annulus are
X
4
! perforated.
X
5
!
X
6
!
.
.
.
15-214
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Examples
15-215
Examples
15-216
Landmark - R2003.4
Examples
Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
IMPGRID ! Formulation by Grid
ROOT
IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C
DT1 DTmin DTmax
DP
DS DV DZ
DT
-1.
1.
100. 200. .05 .9 .9
! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL
500. .15 .9 .9
! for IMPLICIT Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL
.10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL
FPERF
WELL
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
.
.
N
1
2
3
R2003.4 - Landmark
NAME
G3
H2
A1
GRID
ROOT
ROOT
ROOT
G3
G3
G3
G3
IW
X
1
14
IW
18
18
18
X
X
X
X
JW
X
1
16
JW
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
GRID
ROOT
H2
ROOT
L
1
2
3
13
14
15
16
15-217
Examples
15-218
Landmark - R2003.4
Examples
R2003.4 - Landmark
CR
30.0E-6
TRES
127.
TS
60
PS
15
15-219
Examples
Simulator:
IMPLICIT
RESTART
IMPGRID ! Formulation by Grid
ROOT
IMPES
ENDIMPGRID
START
CBLITZ
C
C
DT1 DTmin DTmax
DP
DS DV DZ
DT
-1.
1.
100. 200. .05 .9 .9
! for IMPES Grids
DTMPL
500. .15 .9 .9
! for IMPLICIT Grids
C
ITNLIM 1 10 .03 .10 .04 ! for IMPES Grids
ITNMPL
.10 .10 .10 ! For IMPLICIT Grids
WELL
.
.
.
FPERF
WELL
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
.
.
N
1
15-220
NAME
G3
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IW
X
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
JW
X
GRID
G3
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Examples
15-221
Examples
15-222
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Examples
15-223
Examples
15-224
Landmark - R2003.4
Examples
R2003.4 - Landmark
15-225
Examples
15-226
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
16
Miscible Options
16.1 Introduction
The VIP-EXECUTIVE miscible option can be used in a three- or fourcomponent mode. The three-component mode, which consists of reservoir
oil, injected solvent, and water, is an extended version of the ToddLongstaff15 model. The four-component mode consists of a heavy-oil
component, a light-oil component (solution gas), injected solvent, and
water. The option has been a widely adopted alternative to fully
compositional models for the simulation of miscible or near miscible
processes. It introduces a mixing parameter to account for viscous
fingering and incomplete mixing in numerical gridblocks.
The miscible option accounts for the transformation between miscible and
immiscible conditions. The development and loss of miscibility are
controlled by a miscibility pressure that can be treated as a constant or as
composition-dependent. A damping function also is introduced for a
smooth transition between miscible and immiscible conditions.
R2003.4 - Landmark
16-227
Governing Equations
kk roe o
oe g
( Fz i )
------------------- = ------------ ------- x i P o ------------------------------------- D
oe M o
5.6146 144g c
t
(16-1)
kk rge g
ge g
+ ------------ ------- y i P o + P cgoe ------------------------------------- D + q o x i + q q y i
ge M g
5.6146 144g c
Here, is porosity, F is total hydrocarbon molar density, zi is overall mole
fraction of component i, k is absolute permeability, krge and kroe are
effective relative permeabilities to gas and oil, g and o are gas and oil
mass densities, Mj (j = g, o) is molecular weight of phase j, je is effective
mass density, D is vertical depth, Po is pressure, je is effective viscosity,
and qj is source term. Note that effective densities are used only in the
gravity contribution to the flow potential terms. For simplicity, the phase
equilibrium between the oil and the gas phases is represented by pressuredependent K-value tables:
yi = K i ( P ) xi
(16-2)
16-228
Landmark - R2003.4
S o S orm S twb
k roe = k rh -------------------------------------+ ( 1 )k ro
1 S w S twb
(16-3)
Sg
- + ( 1 )k rg
k rge = k rh -----------------------------1 S w S twb
(16-4)
S orw
S twb = ----------------------k row
1 + ---------k rw
(16-5)
Parameter Sorw is the residual oil saturation in the water-oil system, and
is a parameter that controls the severity of water blocking. A small value
of (e.g., = 1) represents a strong water blocking behavior. The first
terms in Equations 16-3 and 16-4 represent the relative permeabilities to
the oil and gas phases when the hydrocarbons are miscible, while the
second terms represent the respective relative permeabilities when the
hydrocarbons are immiscible.
Two options are available for representation of the relative permeability to
miscible hydrocarbons, krh. The first option, which is the default option in
VIP-EXECUTIVE, assumes that krh is independent of the composition of
the miscible hydrocarbons. Consequently, the input relative permeability
to oil in the water-oil system (krow) is used:
k rh = k row
(16-6)
Sg
f o 1 -----------------------------1 S w S twb
R2003.4 - Landmark
(16-7)
16-229
(16-8)
Here, Sorw and Sgr denote the residual oil saturation in the water-oil
system and the residual gas saturation, respectively. Next, the normalized
hydrocarbon saturation for the krh curve is defined as
1 S w S hr
*
S h = -----------------------------1 S wc S hr
(16-9)
k rh = f o k row ( S we ) + ( 1 f o )k rg ( S ge )
(16-10)
where the effective water and gas saturations, Swe and Sge, are
*
S we S wc + ( 1 S h ) ( 1 S wc S orw )
*
S ge S gr + S h ( 1 S wc S gr )
(16-11)
(16-12)
The above interpolation scheme provides a smooth transition for krh from
the krow curve to the krg curve as the hydrocarbon mixture moves from
pure oil to pure solvent during miscible displacement. Note that
Equations 16-7 to 16-12 are purely empirical. They imply that the relative
permeability to a fluid phase is strongly composition-dependent. The
validity of this scheme has yet to be determined.
The relative permeabilities krow and krg in Equation 16-10 ignore relative
permeability hysteresis; i.e., the drainage krg and imbibition krow curves are
used for the calculation. Relative permeability hysteresis, if invoked by the
user, is applied only to the immiscible portion; i.e., the second terms on the
right sides of Equations 16-3 and 16-4 of the effective relative permeability
calculations.
The interpolation scheme described above by Equations 16-7 to 16-12 is
invoked by a CDPKRH keyword in the last (seventh) entry of the MIS
card. Without this keyword, krh defaults to krow; i.e., Equation 16-6.
16-230
Landmark - R2003.4
Miscible-Immiscible Transition
1.0
Sg Y3 ssmin
Sg Y3 < ssmin
0.0
pmis1
pmis2
PRESSURE
R2003.4 - Landmark
16-231
Miscible-Immiscible Transition
gas molar fraction in the gas pseudo-phase. In the former case, the
miscibility pressure is represented as a function of the total molar fractions
of the gas (z1) and the solvent (z3). In the latter case, the miscibility
pressure is assumed to be a function of the gas molar fraction in the gassolvent mixture (y1). This is especially useful for simulation of the loss of
miscibility that is caused by gas injection following solvent injection. For
the three-component miscible model, miscibility pressure is a function of
the solvent total molar fraction. To invoke the miscibility-pressure table
option, the user must enter the miscibility pressure function in a tabular
form. Damping function is also available with this option. Here, the
damping function is represented only by the solid line in Figure 16-1, and
parameter pmis2 (which is a variable in this option) in Figure 16-1 is the
miscibility pressure calculated from the user-input table. In addition to the
miscibility pressure table, the user must enter the size of the transition
zone (i. e., the value of pmis2 - pmis1).
16-232
Landmark - R2003.4
(16-13)
1
m
(16-14)
oe = o
ge = g
1
------
m
14
= (1
* 1
S o ) -----
g
14
* 1
S o -----
o
14
(16-15)
(16-16)
S o
S o
oe = o ----- + g 1 ----- + ( 1 ) o
S n oe
S n oe
(16-17)
S o
S o
ge = o ----- + g 1 ----- + ( 1 ) g
S n ge
S n ge
(16-18)
where
14
14
M ( o ge )
S o
----- = ----------------------------------------------14
S n ge
M 1
14
14
M ( o oe )
S o
----- = ----------------------------------------------14
S n oe
M 1
R2003.4 - Landmark
(16-19)
(16-20)
16-233
and
M = ----o-
(16-21)
Note that Equations 16-19 and 16-20 are indeterminate when the mobility
ratio (M) is equal to one. For this case, the following alternate mixing
model is used:
oe = [ ( 1 ) o + m ] + ( 1 ) o
(16-22)
ge = [ ( 1 ) g + m ] + ( 1 ) g
(16-23)
where
S o
S g
m = o ----- + g -----
S n
S n
(16-24)
P cgoe = ( 1 )P cgo
16-234
(16-25)
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
16-235
dissolved solvent can be explained. For this option, the user must enter
the solvent K-value [K3(P)], the compressibility factor of solvent in the oil
phase [Zso(P)], the viscosity of solvent in the oil phase [so(P)] as a
function of pressure, and the two properties [Bs(P) or Zs(P), and s(P)]
specified in the first option. The oil and gas phase viscosities, o and g in
Equations 16-13 and 16-14, then are calculated as:
*
o = [ o ( P, x 1 ) ]
g = [ g ( P ) ]
*
( 1 x3 )
( 1 y3 )
[ so ( P ) ]
[ s ( P ) ]
y3
x3
(16-26)
(16-27)
where
x1
*
x 1 ------------1 x3
(16-28)
The oil and gas phase compressibility factors, Zo and Zg, are calculated by
Z o = Z o ( P,x 1 ) ( 1 x 3 ) + Z so ( P ) x 3
(16-29)
Z g = Z g ( P,x 1 ) ( 1 y 3 ) + Z s ( P ) y 3
(16-30)
Note that when the first option is invoked, the mole fraction of the solvent
in the oil phase, x3, in Equations 16-26, 16-28, and 16-29 is zero.
16-236
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
17
Non-Darcy Gas Flow
17.1 Introduction
Two features modelling non-Darcy gas flow near well are included in the
well model:
For the first option (pressure-dependent gas density and viscosity), the
Russell Goodrich17 and pseudo-pressure18 equations are implemented.
For the second option (rate-dependent skin factor), the user can specify a
rate-dependent skin factor for each well or for each perforation. If the ratedependent skin factor for a well is specified, then the user can choose
either the invert thickness, invert permeability-thickness, or constant
option to allocate the rate-dependent skin to its perforations. The
pressure-dependent gas property option and rate-dependent skin option
can be invoked separately.
R2003.4 - Landmark
17-237
g
-----dp
g
gl
Pl
------- = -------------------------------------------------------- gl
P bh + ( D l D ref ) P l
(17-1)
where:
gl
gas density
gl
gas viscosity
Pl
gridblock pressure
Pbh
pressure gradient
Dl
subsea depth
Dref
datum depth,
17-238
Landmark - R2003.4
17.2.2 Recommendations
The Russell Goodrich method and the pseudo-pressure method usually
give the same results except in the region where the density-to-viscosity
ratio is not a linear function of pressure and the pressure difference
between the gridblock and bottom-hole pressures is large. In low- and
high-pressure regions, the density-to-viscosity curve is usually a straight
line. Both methods yield the same results in those regions. In the middle
transition region, the results could be different. However, if the pressure
difference between the gridblock pressure and bottom-hole pressure is
small, then both methods give approximately the same answers.
The pseudo-pressure method is recommended for use for calculation of
gas density and viscosity. Test runs showed that the CPU times for both
methods are about the same.
R2003.4 - Landmark
17-239
k rgl
2
Q gl = ------------------------------------------------- k l h l --------------- [ P l P bh ( D l D ref ) ]
r bl
gl B gl
ln ------- + S l + D sl Q gl
r wl
(17-2)
where
Qgl
Pl
gridblock pressure
Pbh
pressure gradient
Dl
Dref
datum depth
krgl
gl
gas viscosity
klhl
rbl
rwl
wellbore radius
Sl
skin factor
Dsl
Bgl
k rgl
2
*
Q gl = ----------------------- k l h l --------------- [ P l P bh ( D l D ref )
r bl
gl B gl
ln ------- + S l
r wl
(17-3)
17-240
Landmark - R2003.4
Q gl = f l Q gl
(17-4)
where
r bl
r wl
f l = -----------------------------------------------------r bl
*
ln ------- + S l + f l D sl Q gl
r wl
ln ------- + S l
(17-5)
a + a + 4a
f l = -----------------------------------2
(17-6)
where
r bl
r wl
a = ----------------------*
D sl Q gl
ln ------- + S l
(17-7)
constant option
R2003.4 - Landmark
17-241
nperf
Ds
hi
i=1
D sl = ---------------------------hl
(17-8)
where
Ds
Dsl
hl
perforation thickness
Constant Option
If the user does not want to scale the rate-dependent skin factor for each
perforation, then the constant option can be chosen. The program assigns
each perforation the same rate-dependant skin factor as the input data
D sl = D s
(17-9)
Ds
k i hi
i=1
D sl = -------------------------------k l hl
(17-10)
17-242
When the rate-dependent skin factor option is specified, the well index
cannot be zero. Well index set to zero is a special case in VIPEXECUTIVE that means the well index is adjusted to honor both the
Landmark - R2003.4
rate and bottom-hole pressure constraints. In such a case, the ratedependent skin factor does not have any meaning. Thus, an error
message prints in the output and the simulation run terminates.
R2003.4 - Landmark
If the perforation skin factors are calculated from the input well skin
factor, each time new perforation information is specified in the FPERF
card, the program recalculates the skin factor for each perforation.
17-243
17-244
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
18
Numerical Solution
18.1 Introduction
VIP contains options for both the fully implicit and IMPES formulation.
For the same timestep size, the IMPES method is much faster than the
fully implicit method. The IMPES method solves the component
conservation equations explicitly; the timestep size is therefore
constrained by the stability limit. The fully implicit method is
unconditionally stable and allows large timesteps to be taken. For
problems with small gridblocks, such as coning problems, the fully
implicit method is overall much faster. The procedure of numerical
solutions for the IMPES method is discussed in the following sections.
VM
n+1
n
------- [ ( Fz i )
( Fz i ) ] +
t
Kn
[ T oik
n+1
n+1
P ok + T gik P gk ]
k=1
Kf
n+1
n+1
[ T oik f P ok f + T gik f P gk f ]
kf = 1
Kw
[ T oik w P ok w + T gik w P gk w ] = 0,
i = 1, ..., N c 1
(18-1)
kw = 1
where Vm is the gridblock volume and superscripts n and n+1 denote the
timestep level. The second, third, and fourth terms in Equation 18-1
represent the regular (non-fault) inter-grid flow term (Kn being the total
number of regular neighbors), the inter-grid flow term for fault
connections (Kf being the total number of neighbors through fault
connection), and the injection/production term (Kw being the total
number of wells existed in the gridblock), respectively. Equation 18-1 is in
units of lb-mol/day. For gridblock M, the inter-grid transmissibility terms
are:
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-245
n+1
T oik 0.5 [ TM ( M , I )
n+1
+ TM ( MM , I )
n+1
K ro o x i
]T k ------------------o
n
up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2
n+1
T gik 0.5 [ TM ( M , I )
n+1
+ TM ( MM , I )
(18-2)
n+1
K rg g y i
]T k ------------------g
n
up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2
(18-3)
n
P ok = P o ( M )
n+1
P o ( MM )
n+1
0.5 [ ( o M o ) M + ( o M o ) MM ] g
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( D M D MM )
5.16146 144g c
k = k or kf
(18-4)
n
P gk = P o ( M )
n+1
P o ( MM )
n
+ [ P cg ( M ) P cg ( MM ) ] ,
n+1
0.5 [ ( g M g ) M + ( g M g ) MM ] g
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( D M D MM )
5.16146 144g c
(18-5)
k = k or k f
K ro o x i
T k w oi WI K h ------------------o
K rg g y i
T k w gi WI K h ------------------g
k w
(18-6)
k w
(18-7)
P k w j P o ( M ) P W ( D M D ref ),
18-246
j = o, g
(18-8)
Landmark - R2003.4
g ( M1 )M g g
= ---------------------------------5.6146 144g c
(18-9)
K rw w K ro o K rg g n
--------------Kh
- + ------------- w - + ------------o
g
k
k=1
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kp
n
K rw K ro K rg
- + -------- + ------- Kh -------w
o
g k
(18-10)
k=1
where
jM jg
j = -----------------------------------,
5.6146 144g c
j = o, g
(18-11)
w Bw M w g
= ---------------------------------5.6146 144g c
(18-12)
In Equation 18-10, the summations are taken over all (Kp) perforated
layers. Variables j in Equations 18-11 and 18-12 are in units of psi/ft.
VM
n+1
n
------- [ ( F )
( F ) ] +
t
Kn
[ T ok
n+1
n+1
P ok + T gk P gk ]
k=1
Kf
n+1
n+1
[ T ok f P ok f + T gk f P gk f ]
kf = 1
Kw
[ T ok w P ok w + T gk w P gk w ] = 0
(18-13)
kw = 1
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-247
where Tmko, Tmkg (k = k of kf ), Tko, and Tk are summations of Equations 182, 18-3, 18-6, and 18-7, respectively, over all hydrocarbon components.
VM
n+1
n
------- [ ( B w S w )
( B w S w ) ] +
t
Kn
Kf
n+1
[ T wk P wk ]
k=1
n+1
[ T wk f P wk f ]
kf = 1
Kw
n+1
[ T wk w P wk w ] Q Na
= 0
(18-14)
kw = 1
where
n+1
T wk .5 [ TM ( M , I )
n+1
+ TM ( MM , I )
n+1
K rw B w
]T k ---------------w
n
up
k = k or kf ; I = 1 or 2
K rw B w
T wk w WI K h ---------------w
(18-15)
k w
(18-16)
P wk = P o ( M )
n+1
P o ( MM )
n+1
w M w g
n
----------------------------------- [ B w ( MN ) ] ( D M D MM )
5.6146 144g c
[ P cw ( M ) P cw ( MM ) ] , k = k or k f ; MN = Max ( M , MM )
(18-17)
where
P k w j P o ( M ) P W ( D M D ref )
(18-18)
18-248
Landmark - R2003.4
w M w B w ( M1 )g
= --------------------------------------5.6146 144g c
(18-19)
Q Na
n+1
n+1
= { A Na + B Na [ P o ( M ) P o ( M )
n+1
Bw n
] } ------
w
(18-20)
Here, QNa denotes the amount (in STB/day) of water influx into the
gridblock. ANa and BNa are parameters defined in the Carter-Tracy
Method.
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-249
g p1
x1
g p2
x 2
g p3
Bf1
B1
B f 2 B2
B
T 1 G1
z 1
T 2 G2
z 2
RM 1
RM 2
RM 3
RM 4
= RM 5
RM 6
S W
RM 7
P o
RM 8
H D W P W
RW
T f Gf
Bs T w Gw
C x1 C x2 C L C z1 C z2 C f C s C p
(18-21)
The first Nc equations are the fugacity equality equations followed by (Nc
+ 1) mass conservation equations. The penultimate equation is the
saturation constraint equation, while the last equation is the implicit
bottom-hole pressure constraint equation.
Each element of the Jacobian matrix is an NB x NB diagonal submatrix,
where NB is the number of gridblocks, except for Ti (i = 1, ..., Nc-1), Tf, Tw,
G, H, and Dw . Here, Ti, Tf, and Tw are NB x NB tridiagonal,
pentadiagonal, and seven-diagonal submatrices for one-, two-, and threedimensional problems, respectively. For problems with nonstandard
connections, the T matrices are general sparse matrices. The G matrices are
NB x NIMPWL sparse matrices arising from the bottom-hole pressure
derivatives in the conservation equations, where NIMPWL is the number
of wells with implicit bottom-hole pressure calculation. H is an NIMPWL
x NB sparse matrix consisting of the gridblock pressure derivatives in the
well equations, and Dw is an NIMPWL x NIMPWL diagonal matrix
consisting of the bottom-hole pressure derivatives in the well equations.
The submatrices in Equation 18-21 are given by:
18-250
R Mi ( x i oi y i gi ) i = 1, ...,N c
(18-22)
R Mi
g xim ----------- m = 1, ...,N c 1
x m
(18-23)
R Mi
g Li ----------L
(18-24)
Landmark - R2003.4
R Mi
g zim ----------z m
(18-25)
R Mi
g Pi ----------P O
(18-26)
(18-27)
(18-28)
R M N c + i
B i --------------------- i = 1, ...,N c 1
F
(18-29)
R M N c + i
T i --------------------- i = 1, ...,N c 1
P o
(18-30)
R M N c + i
G i --------------------- i = 1, ...,N c 1
P W
(18-31)
(18-32)
R M ( 2N )
B ---------------------cF
(18-33)
R M ( 2N )
T f ---------------------cP o
(18-34)
R M ( 2N )
G f ---------------------cP W
(18-35)
R2003.4 - Landmark
(18-36)
R M ( 2N c + 1 )
B s ---------------------------F
(18-37)
R M ( 2N c + 1 )
T w ---------------------------P o
(18-38)
18-251
R M ( 2N c + 1 )
G w ---------------------------P W
(18-39)
RT
R M ( 2N c + 2 ) 1 F [ ( 1 L )Z g + LZ o ] ---------- S w
Po
(18-40)
R M ( 2N c + 2 ) R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C xm ---------------------------- ----------------------------x m
x Nc
(18-41)
m = 1, ..., N c 1
R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C L ---------------------------L
R M ( 2N c + 2 ) R M ( 2N c + 2 )
- ----------------------------C zm ---------------------------z m
z Nc
18-252
(18-42)
m = 1, ..., N c 1
(18-43)
R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C f ---------------------------F
(18-44)
C s 1
(18-45)
R M ( 2N c + 2 )
C p ---------------------------P o
(18-46)
R W
H ----------P o
(18-47)
R W
D W ----------P W
(18-48)
Landmark - R2003.4
g L2 g z21 g z22
I g z31 g z32
Bf1
x 1
R M1
g p2
x 2
R M2
R M3
z 1
R M4
g p3
B1
T 1 G1
B f 2 B2
T 2 G2
*
T f Gf
I
g p1
T w Gw
*
C p GT
z 2
F
S w
P o
H D W P W
*
*
*
= R*
M5
(18-49)
R M6
*
R M7
*
R M8
RW
AX =
C p GT
H DW
P o
P W
R M8
= b
(18-50)
RW
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-253
Landmark - R2003.4
F ip F iip + C pd C in
Err = ---------------------------------------------------C pd + C in
(18-51)
where Fip, Fiip, Cpd, and Cin (in STB for water or lb-mole for total
hydrocarbon) are fluid in place, initial fluid in place, cumulative
production, and cumulative injection of water or total hydrocarbon,
respectively.
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-255
18.5.1 Gauss
This is a direct solver that uses Gaussian elimination with the gridblocks
ordered by D4 ordering (alternate diagonal). It can solve a system of
equations arising from the 5-point (2-D) and 7-point (3-D) finite-difference
approximations. The implicit well constraint equations, fully implicit, and
IMPES formulations can all be handled by GAUSS. However, it is not
applicable to problems with faults.
18.5.2 BLITZ
BLITZ is based on the preconditioned, generalized minimal residual
method (GMRES).49 It can handle the following problems:
There are many parameters that the user can adjust to improve the
convergence rate of the solver. Some of the more important parameters are
described below.
18-256
Landmark - R2003.4
Preconditioning/Ranking
5-pt.
9-pt.
fault
crossflow
power
vector
storage
D4 Gauss
yes
no
no
no
Reduced system/MNF3
yes
no
no
no
Reduced system/MILU(0)
yes
no
no
no
Line Gauss-Seidel
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
MVP1
yes
no
yes
no
MVP2
yes
no
yes
no
5-pt.
Preconditioning/Ranking
9-pt.
fault
crossflow
power
vector
storage
no
no
no
Reduced system/ILU(0)
yes
no
no
no
Line Gauss-Seidel
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Diagonal Scaling
yes
yes
yes
yes
MVP1
yes
no
yes
no
MVP2
yes
no
yes
no
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-257
Parameter
JCOR -
No constraints
JOPT -
Automatic
xyz
yxz
xzy
zxy
yzx
zyx
JCPR -
18-258
Landmark - R2003.4
18.5.3 EXCEL
EXCEL also is based on preconditioned ORTHOMIN. The preconditioners
are based on incomplete LU factorization with natural ordering and any
level of infills may be specified. EXCEL can handle both IMPES and fully
implicit formulations. In addition, it can handle problems with arbitrary
nonstandard connections that are not logically vertical. The data structure
of EXCEL is based on sparse matrix storage; therefore, it is not very
efficient on a vector computer. For some problems, it is an order of
magnitude slower than BLITZ. The parameters for controlling the EXCEL
solver are described in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual, Chapter 7.
R2003.4 - Landmark
18-259
18-260
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
19
Optimal Material Balance Option
00000
19.1 Introduction
The Optimal Material Balance Option is the combination of three special
features implemented in the IMPES version of VIP-EXECUTIVE to
improve computational efficiency through code restructuring. These
features are
Results of test runs indicate that when using the Optimal Material Balance
Option, VIP-EXECUTIVE runs 3.4 to 4.7 times faster (with approximately
the same number of timesteps) than the standard iterated IMPES
formulation for the SPE 5th Comparative Solution Problems24 (Scenarios 1
to 3). Similar speedups also are obtained for pattern or partial-field-type
systems with a limited number of wells and no iterative well management
calculations. For full-field black-oil and compositional models with
extensive well management calculations, CPU time improvements of 43 to
55% were observed.
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-261
19-262
Landmark - R2003.4
VM n + 1 n + 1
n
--------- [
F
( F ) ] +
t
Kn
Kv
(19-1)
kv = 1
VM n + 1 n + 1 n + 1
n
-------- [
B w S w ( B w S w ) ] +
t
Kn
k=1
Kw
[ T Mkw P kw ] +
[ T kkw P kww ] = 0
(19-2)
kw = 1
Here, VM is the gridblock volume, superscripts n+1 and n denote new and
old timestep levels, and the second and third terms in both equations are
the inter-grid (including faults) flow and source terms, respectively. Using
the IMPES formulation, the flow coefficients (TMkj and Tkwj, j = o, g, w) are
evaluated explicitly.
After solving the simultaneous pressure and well constraint equations, the
new pressure of each gridblock and the new wellbore pressures are
determined. Since the porosity and water formation volume factor are
only a function of gridblock pressure, n+1 and Bwn+1 can be updated
readily from the new pressures. Unknowns Fn+1 and Swn+1 then can be
calculated directly from Equations 19-1 and 19-2. With this new
procedure, the total hydrocarbon and water material balances are satisfied
exactly.
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, implementation of this procedure alone does not
always guarantee a good material balance for gridblocks containing wells.
A potential problem results from the procedures used in updating the new
well rates during each Newton iteration. As mentioned, the reservoir mass
balance and well constraint equations are fully coupled; the changes in
reservoir and wellbore pressures over one iteration are calculated
simultaneously by a linear solver from which the new reservoir and
wellbore pressures are determined. The primary unknowns, Sw , F, and zi,
are then updated using the new reservoir and wellbore pressures. At the
end of each iteration, the new well rates in each perforation are not
directly calculated from the new wellbore pressure determined by the
linear solver. Instead, the wellbore pressure and well rate for each
perforation are updated to satisfy the following well constraint equation
exactly:
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-263
Kp
q = WI I o BSEP Kh
l=1
j=0
K rj j
------------- [ P l P w ( D l D ref ) ]
j
Kp
K rw w
+ WI I w Kh ---------------- [ P l P w ( D l D ref ) ]
w
(19-3)
l=1
Here, q is the user-specified well rate; Wl is well index; Io and Iw are either
0 or 1, depending on well specifications; Pl and PW are gridblock and
wellbore pressures at the reference depth; is the wellbore pressure
gradient; and Dl and Dref are gridblock and reference depths, respectively.
The variable BSEP is 1.0, except for surface production rate specifications
where BSEP is the ratio of the specified surface rate (in STB/day or
MSCF/day) to the total hydrocarbon molar rate (in lb-mol/day).
Using the IMPES formulation, the mobility terms in Equation 19-3 are
treated explicitly. The equation is linear with respect to both Pl and PW if
BSEP is equal to one. Under this condition, the new wellbore pressure
calculated from the linear solver and from the solution of the well
constraint equation will be identical, provided there is no change in the
injecting or producing perforations over the iteration because of crossflow.
In this case, the material balance will be satisfied exactly. This situation
applies to all injection and production wells with reservoir rate
specifications.
For production wells with an oil or gas surface rate specification, the
variable BSEP is a function of the total hydrocarbon composition that
depends on both the gridblock and bottom-hole pressures. In this case,
Equation 19-3 is no longer linear. The new wellbore pressure, which is
calculated from the linear solver (used to update zi, F, and Sw) and the well
constraint equation (used to update well rates and calculate the material
balance), are not identical. Thus, the material balance will not be satisfied
exactly for gridblocks containing producing perforations. Another
potential problem with the VIP-EXECUTIVE IMPES well formulation is
that when Equation 19-3 is linearized, the derivatives of BSEP with respect
to Pl and PW are neglected, resulting in a non-rigorous coupling of the
reservoir and well constraint equations. This also affects the material
balance for hydrocarbons and, possibly, the number of Newton iterations
required for convergence.
To eliminate the above problems, two modifications to the solution of well
constraint equations were made. First, the initial guesses for the new
wellbore pressures in Equation 19-3 were modified. After saturation
constraint Equation 9-9 is satisfied, a new bottom-hole pressure is
calculated from solutions of the linear solver:
19-264
Landmark - R2003.4
m+1
PW
= P W + P w
(19-4)
K rg g
K ro o
Q i WI Kh -------------- x i + --------------y i [ P l P W ( D l D ref ) ]
g
o
l=1
(19-5)
Kp
K ro o K rg g
Q t WI Kh ------------- + -------------- [ P l P W ( D l D ref ) ]
g
o
l=1
(19-6)
Qi
Z i -----Qt
(19-7)
BSEP Q t q = 0
(19-8)
[ H l Pl ] + Dw Pw
= Rw
(19-9)
l=1
where
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-265
K ro o K rg g
H l = WI BSEP Kh l ------------- + --------------
g l
o
Nc
K rg g
BSEP K ro o
i = 1
and
Kp
Dw = H l
(19-11)
l=1
19-266
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-267
19-268
Landmark - R2003.4
|XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX|OOOOO|
|XXXXXOXOOXOXOXX|OOOOO|
|XXXXXXXXXX|OOOOOOOOOO|
X = Two-phase grids
O = Single-phase grids
A
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-269
19-270
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-271
19-272
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-273
19-274
Landmark - R2003.4
Input Requirements
R2003.4 - Landmark
19-275
Input Requirements
19-276
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
20
Parallel Computing
00000
20.1 Summary
The following section discusses the details of the implementation of
PARALLEL-VIP. The primary development goals of this feature were to
allow the faster simulation of existing models and/or the simulation of
larger models ranging to millions of grid blocks. Parallelization is
achieved through the use of local grid refinement to subdivide a model
into different domains for each of the parallel CPUs. Test problems
described below for the simulator range from large IMPES, black-oil cases
with severe faulting to a fully-implicit seven-component compositional
simulation. Model sizes range to more than one million finite difference
cells for both black-oil and compositional cases. The following section
describes the implementation of message passing interface - a standard for
parallelization which has been implemented on almost all parallel
computer hardware as well as clusters of workstations. Results are shown
for the IBM SP2, the Silicon Graphics Origin 2000 and Power Challenge,
and a cluster of IBM workstations. Excellent parallel efficiencies were
observed for all cases.
20.2 Introduction
The attraction of parallel computing to achieve high computing
efficiencies has existed for decades. What was generally lacking was the
ability to easily port software to the parallel environment. Because of the
diverse nature of reservoir simulation, simple parallelization schemes
have not been viable for a usable, general-purpose, approach to reservoir
modeling. Profiles of computing work load for a typical model often
show tens, if not hundreds, of subroutines which are involved in a
substantial portion of the calculations. Because of this, major
reprogramming of reservoir simulation models is required to achieve high
parallel efficiencies. Several papers in the literature74-79 discuss techniques
which have been used to bring about efficient parallel reservoir
simulations. The unique feature of the simulator of this work is its
reliance on local grid refinement for parallelization. With local grid
refinement the same simulation program can be used to perform
simulations either serially on a single processor or in parallel on multiple
processors simply through data manipulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-277
Introduction
The following section discusses the use of local grid refinement for
parallelization. Basically, each grid is assigned to a processor. Examples
are given in which variation of the processor assignment and the grid
refinement can dramatically effect parallel performance. Different
preconditioners for the parallel linear equation solvers are also tested.
Finally, a load-balancing example utilizes the flexibility of local grid
refinement and processor assignment to achieve improved parallel
efficiency.
20-278
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
linear equation solver discussed below at least two grids per processor are
required for greatest efficiency.
To communicate data between connecting grids a buffering scheme is
used as shown in Figure 20-1. For each grid to grid connection two buffers
are allocated to send or receive data. If the two grids for a given
connection lie on different processors (i.e., Processors A and B in
Figure 20-1), data required for intergrid flow calculations are first packed
into the send buffer on Processor A and then sent as a single message to
the corresponding receive buffer on Processor B. If the two connecting
grids lie on the same processor, the send and receive buffers are given the
same address and no message passing is required. The process is reversed
for the calculations required on Processor A, that is, Processor B
simultaneously packs and sends its data to Processor A in the same
fashion. After the required data is received by each processor, all flow
calculations are performed on each processor simultaneously.
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-279
Introduction
For parallel domain decomposition the base grid may be totally refined
into subgrids so that all gridblocks in the base grid become inactive. Each
grid is assigned to a processor so that only a portion of the model resides
on a given processor. In this manner the simulator memory requirements
become scaleable. That is, as the number of processors is increased, the
grid assigned to a given processor becomes smaller. Alternatively, only a
portion of the base or root grid may be refined; the remaining unrefined
cells in the root grid are then assigned to a processor.
For example, consider the simple case shown in Figure 20-2 in which the
base grid consists of four blocks. Each of these blocks is then refined to the
level desired for a given simulation. Grid 1 corresponds to the refinement
of the upper left block in the base grid and is assigned to processor A.
Similarly, each refinement of the base grid is assigned to a different (or the
same) processor. At the end of the decomposition the complete base grid
is refined and all refined blocks have been assigned to a processor.
Multiple levels of grid refinements can be accommodated as well. If
further refinement of a cell is required to a radial or Cartesian grid, the
further refinement is assigned to a processor in the same manner as the
level 1 refinements.
20-280
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-281
Introduction
20-282
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-283
Introduction
A1
A2
A3
L =
A4
Q1 R2
B1
Q2 R3
Q3 R4
B2
B3
20-284
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figures 20-7 and 20-8 show results for the composite grid and a solution
method based on a linear (or strip) decomposition method for a 95x95x35
(315,875 cells) hypothetical IMPES case. The efficiency of the solvers was
compared to both a serial version of the same technique and to the
proprietary serial solver of the original reservoir simulator used in this
work. The serial solver utilized a single-grid, nested factorization
preconditioning. As shown in Figure 20-7, performance of the strip
decomposition solver is superlinear for almost all cases ranging from 3-16
processors. Compared to the serial solver, superlinear performance is also
observed. Superlinear performance was also observed for the composite
grid solver compared to the serial version of the same algorithm (See
Figure 20-8). Compared to the serial solver, the composite grid
technique achieved about 75% of ideal speedup, i. e., a factor of twelve on
sixteen processors. The speed advantage for the strip method results from
the two-way ordering discussed above. Other studies have shown similar
superlinear speedups on up to 71 processors and 4 million cells for the
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-285
Introduction
20-286
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-287
Introduction
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-289
Introduction
Figure 20-10: Grid and Structure for Small Homogeneous Example Problem
20-290
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figure 20-11: Grid and Structure for 3D Salt Dome Heterogeneous Model
Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model. The third test problem upon which
the examples were based also utilized input from seismic, geological, and
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-291
Introduction
geostatistical data. The model was developed by first utilizing a twodimensional geostatistical mapping package for defining heterogeneities
in forty geological horizons. An initial grid of 2.4 million cells formed the
description. Although it would be desirable to simulate this entire
dataset, upscaling and layer combining were used to reduce the eventual
model to a 64x25x12 - 19200 cells. These cells were then refined by two in
each dimension to increase the overall problem size to 128x50x24 or
153,600 cells (a moderately large model - at least by todays standards).
In addition to the heterogeneities in permeabilities and porosities
provided through geostatistics, the model contained three large scissors
faults with some sloping character as shown in Figure 20-12. Eighty-eight
wells were spaced throughout the structure as shown in the figure with an
equal number of injectors and producers. Completions were in all
twenty-four layers for all wells for a total of 2112 completions. Because of
the heterogeneities, the use of completions in all layers of the model tests
the implicit well bottomhole pressure option for rate specified wells - an
integral part of the linear equation solver.
Figure 20-12: Grid and Structure for Sloping Fault Heterogeneous Model
20-292
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
20.2.8 Results
The following figures show first the results for the total model speedup
compared to the serial case. Next is the speedup of the parallel solver
compared to the serial solver. Finally, the last bar in each series of the
graphs represents the ideal situation, a speedup of n on n processors. The
serial model used for comparison was the current release version of the
base serial VIP simulator. The linear solver used was the best available for
the particular situation, generally nested factorization for a single grid.
All comparisons were based on elapsed times, and not CPU times, to
account for any overhead due to message passing.
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-293
Introduction
Homogeneous Black-Oil
Simulations for the homogeneous black-oil case were run on three parallel
platforms: the Cray T3D, the SGI Power Challenge, and the IBM SP2.
Results for the Cray T3D are shown in Figure 20-14 for the cases of 4 to 32
processors. The speedups used for these comparisons were based on the
original serial model using an unrefined grid. That is, a regular 95x27x3
grid with the same properties and well data was used for the comparison.
These speedups then represent actual improvement in performance over
current serial simulator capabilities. As shown in Figure 20-14 simulator
performance for the T3D was superlinear for four and eight processors.
As the number of processors increased to 16 and 32, the speedups showed
some degradation due to an increase by a factor of three in the number of
linear equation solution iterations. These encouraging results were not
duplicated on the SGI computer as shown in Figure 20-15. Above four
processors there appears to be a significant falloff in performance. Some
of this can be attributed to linear solver degradation similar to the T3D
results; however, the decline in performance for the case of 16 processors
indicated that a significant bottleneck existed due to limited bandwidth to
memory. This lack of performance of the Power Challenge is well known.
Fortunately, based on results presented later in this study, the SGI Origin
2000 appears to have overcome this difficulty. Results in Figure 20-16 for
the SP2 show good speedups with a factor of twelve for the 16 processor
case. Considering that the individual node on the SP2 is substantially
faster than that of the T3D, these results again indicate excellent
performance even for a small problem.
20-294
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-295
Introduction
Figure 20-17: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES Black-Oil Model
20-296
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figure 20-18: Results for Origin 2000 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 IMPES BlackOil Model
The final example for the 105x105x15 3D Salt Dome model used the FullyImplicit formulation. As shown in Figure 20-19 speedups were excellent
on the SP2 exceeding ideal for all cases up through 25 processors. For the
implicit case on 25 processors, performance was about 30 microseconds
per block step for the SP2.
Figure 20-19: Results for SP2 3D Salt Dome 105x105x15 Implicit Black-Oil
Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-297
Introduction
Figure 20-20: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 IMPES Black-Oil Model
20-298
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figure 20-21: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit Black-Oil Model
Figure 20-22: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 128x50x24 Implicit BlackOil Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-299
Introduction
Figure 20-23: Results for Origin 2000 Sloping Fault 127x50x24 Implicit BlackOil Model - Cache Effect
20-300
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figure 20-24: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES Black-Oil
Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-301
Introduction
Figure20-25:ResultsforSP23DSaltDome105x105x15IMPESCompositionalModel
In implicit mode the compositional results are even more dramatic with
superlinear speedups for all cases except 32 processors as shown in
Figure 20-26. The load-imbalance due to static decomposition of the grid
again affects the performance of the 32 processor case.
20-302
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figure 20-27: Results for SP2 Large 3D Salt Dome 245x280x15 IMPES
Compositional Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-303
Introduction
Figure 20-28: Results for SP2 Sloping Fault 27x50x24 IMPES Compositional
Model
20-304
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
Figure 20-29: Grid and Structure for Composition Static Load Balancing
Example
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-305
Conclusions
20.3 Conclusions
This work has presented a general-purpose parallel reservoir simulator
which utilizes local grid refinement as a natural and flexible framework.
The parallel model is based on the use of the portable MPI
communications package. The message-passing scheme in the model
utilizes send-receive buffers and asynchronous communication for
minimization of overhead. Two parallel linear equation solvers were
developed using strip and composite grid decompositions. Standalone
results for the solvers showed excellent parallel speedups on an idealized
basis and compared to an efficient serial solver for greater than four
million nodes and up to seventy-one processors. The use of local grid
refinement allows for a variety of preconditioners to be utilized in the
parallel linear equation solution. Results for the overall simulator were
good to excellent for a variety of realistic simulations based on
geophysical and geological data. A variety of test problems were
simulated in parallel ranging from black-oil to large compositional cases
20-306
Landmark - R2003.4
Future Work
with more than one million cells using both IMPES and fully-implicit
formulations. A static load balancing scheme for a compositional
simulation was demonstrated. Finally, prototype simulations for clusters
of workstations produced excellent results for a limited number of nodes.
R2003.4 - Landmark
20-307
Future Work
20-308
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
21
Phase Equilibrium Calculations
00000
21.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE is based on an assumption of local phase equilibrium. It
is a two-hydrocarbon phase simulator and allows no more than two
hydrocarbon phases to be present in a gridblock. Phase equilibrium
between oil and gas is described by the following system of equations:
x i oi = y i gi ,
i = 1, 2, , n c
z i = Lx i + ( 1 L )y i ,
i = 1, 2, , n c
(21-1)
(21-2)
nc
xi
= 1
(21-3)
= 1
(21-4)
i=1
nc
yi
i=1
Here, oi, gi are fugacity coefficients of oil and gas, respectively. The
fugacity coefficients are functions of pressure, temperature, and
composition of the corresponding phase. For an expression of the fugacity
coefficients, refer to Chapter 23, PVT Representation.
For a given composition of a hydrocarbon mixture in a gridblock, zi,
pressure, p, and temperature, T, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 determine
the compositions of oil and gas, xi, yi, and liquid fraction, L. By default,
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved with other governing equations of
the simulator in one iterative loop, the outer iterations. On each outer
iteration, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are linearized together with the rest
of the governing equations according to the Newton-Raphson method.
(This procedure is described in Chapter 18, Numerical Solution.) A user can
override this default and exclude Equations 21-1 through 21-4 from the
outer iteration loop. Then, Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved
separately on each outer iteration after the primary unknowns have been
updated. Although it is not normally recommended to override the
default, the user may specify the SS parameter on the KMAX card in the
recurrent data set should a more robust method be required. It is always
R2003.4 - Landmark
21-309
Introduction
more efficient to solve Equations 21-1 through 21-4 in one iteration loop
with the other simulator equations.
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 become a part of the simulator governing
equations only if the hydrocarbon mixture in a gridblock splits into two
phases. If the mixture exists as one phase, there are no phase equilibrium
constraints for this block, and Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are not part of
the governing equations. Therefore, it is important to know whether the
mixture in a gridblock is a one- or two-phase system. Determination of the
number of phases in a block must be performed on each outer iteration
because it affects the governing equations and the form of the Jacobian
matrix.
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are a set of nonlinear algebraic equations. For
some hydrocarbon mixtures, especially near the mixture critical point, the
radius of convergence of the Newton-Raphson iterative procedure for
Equations 21-1 through 21-4 may be small. In that case, for the iterative
procedure to converge, one must provide an initial guess, which should be
close to the solution. This may not be feasible, and the simulator will have
a problem with convergence in the outer iteration loop. In this case, even
when Equations 21-1 through 21-4 are solved with the other governing
equations in one iteration loop, convergence of the outer iterations may be
improved if at the end of an outer iteration after block pressure p and
block mixture composition zi are updated the system of Equations 21-1
through 21-4 is solved separately and the new oil and gas compositions, xi,
yi, and the liquid fraction, L, are determined.
Thus, in the solution algorithm implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE, each
outer iteration involves a step of so-called phase equilibrium calculations.
These calculations are performed at the end of every outer iteration after
the primary unknowns have been updated. These calculations determine
the number of hydrocarbon phases present in each gridblock of a model
and, if necessary, perform phase equilibrium calculations for two-phase
blocks.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two options. The first option can be used for
simple compositional problems that do not develop conditions close to the
mixture critical point. The second option, the Gibbs option, is designed for
more difficult problems with near-critical point phase behavior. This is
recommended for miscible displacement problems. The second option is
based on a combination of a phase stability test and Gibbs energy
minimization. The Gibbs option is computationally intensive.
Benchmarking shows that for simple compositional problems when both
options perform well, the second option results in a penalty of about 30%
in CPU time as compared to the first option. For miscible displacement
problems, however, the Gibbs option is more robust and could be faster if
it reduces the number of iterations.
21-310
Landmark - R2003.4
Despite the fact that the accelerated successive substitution method is the
default, we recommend use of the Newton-Raphson method because it is
faster.
z i oi ( p, z ) = y i gi ( p, y ),
i = 1, 2, , n c
(21-5)
nc
yi
= 1
(21-6)
i=1
for the gas composition yi, i = 1, ... , nc, and the bubble pressure, p. A
similar system of equations is solved in the dew-point routine:
z i gi ( p, z ) = x i oi ( p, x ),
R2003.4 - Landmark
i = 1, 2, , n
(21-7)
21-311
nc
xi
= 1
(21-8)
i=1
21-312
Landmark - R2003.4
Gibbs Option
G1 =
N i i ( p, T , z )
(21-9)
i=1
i = RT ln ( z i i ) + ( P, T )
(21-10)
G2 =
nc
nc
i=1
i=1
N oi oi ( p, T , x ) + N gi gi ( p, T , y )
(21-11)
That distribution of molecules between oil and gas phases which results in
the lowest value of the Gibbs energy (G2) gives the equilibrium state of the
two-phase system. To find the equilibrium state, the program minimizes
the expression (Equation 21-11) with respect to Noi and Ngi. However, to
do that it must know that the mixture exists as a two-phase system.
R2003.4 - Landmark
21-313
Gibbs Option
G 2 G 1 + N x i [ i ( P, T , x ) i ( P, T , z ) ]
(21-12)
i=1
F( x) =
xi [ i ( P, T , x ) i ( P, T , z ) ]
(21-13)
i=1
21-314
Landmark - R2003.4
Gibbs Option
The algorithm for Gibbs energy minimization implemented in VIPEXECUTIVE is designed to identify these situations and applies special
techniques to resolve these numerical problems.
( xi yi )xi
i=1
M = ----------------------------------n
(21-14)
xi
i=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
21-315
Gibbs Option
M < t skip
(21-15)
then the block is considered near-critical and is sent through the phase
equilibrium calculations. If not, the calculations for this block are
bypassed. The value of tskip for the test is defined by the user on the GIBBS
card. The larger the value of tskip that is specified by the user, the more
two-phase blocks are sent through phase equilibrium calculations.
For blocks flagged as single-phase, VIP-EXECUTIVE avoids the stability
test if the physical conditions in a block change so that the appearance of a
second phase in the block is unlikely. For example, VIP-EXECUTIVE does
not perform the stability test if the mixture composition in a block changes
insignificantly (the change in all mole fractions is <10-6) and if block
pressure increases during the last outer iteration.
Also, if the mixture in a single-phase block is far from the mixture twophase region, then the block most likely remains single phase even if block
pressure decreases slightly or if the mixture composition changes even
more than is allowed in the previous check. To identify these blocks, the
simulator relies on the values of tolerances provided by the user on the
GIBBS card in the recurrent data set.
21-316
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
22
Polymer Modeling Option1
22.1 Introduction
The Polymer option extends VIP-EXECUTIVE to simulate the injection of
polymer thickened aqueous solutions into reservoirs. VIP-POLYMER
models all the important physical properties attributed to the flow of
polymer solutions through porous media. A list of the physical properties
included in the model follows:
Cation exchange between the clay (rock) and the aqueous phase.
R2003.4 - Landmark
22-317
Description of Option
22-318
Landmark - R2003.4
( C p ) + ------ ( C pw U w ) = ------pp
t
Vb
(22-1)
U w = k rw ( P w w D )
(22-2)
C p = C pw S w + C p
(22-3)
( C e ) + ( C ew U w ) = -----et
Vb
(22-4)
C e = C ew S w + C e
(22-5)
subscript e stands for either the divalent cations or the monovalent anions
where
C p
=
Total
electrolyte
concentration
Ce
(mobile
stationary).
quantity
--------------------------------- ( meq ml )
pore volume
Cpw
Cew
quantity
------------------------------------------------------------ ( meq ml )
Vol. of aqueous phase
=
Concentration of adsorbed polymer.
Cp
6
mass of polymer adsorbed 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( ppm )
pore volume density of polymer sol.
=
Concentration of electrolyte associated with the
Ce
clays.
R2003.4 - Landmark
22-319
quantity
--------------------------------- ( meq ml )
pore volume
Qp
Qe
Vb
Uw
rw
Pw
Gradient operator
Porosity
o
p = + ----------------------------------- P 1
1 + --------- 1 2
(22-6)
where:
22-320
Landmark - R2003.4
1 2
Is a parameter.
5 c U w
= ------------------------kk rw S w
(22-7)
where:
Uw
1 + 3n n 1
where n is the power law index. c
------------------
4n
is bounded between 0.779 and 1 as n varies between
1 and 0.
p
o = w 1 + ( A p1 C pw + A p2 C pw + A p3 C pw )C SEP
(22-8)
where:
R2003.4 - Landmark
Ap1
Ap2
Ap3
Sp
CSEP
22-321
C SEP
++
C + pC
= ---------------------------Sw
(22-9)
where:
C+
C++
p in
interpolation of C p vs. Cpw tables at various salinities. The units for C
the input table are lb/ac-ft of bulk reservoir volume. Unit conversion to
ppm (pore volume basis) is done internally by the model using the
following:
C p ( lb ac ft )st
C p ( ppm ) = -------------------------------------------- res 2.7194
(22-10)
(22-11)
a p = a p1 + a p2 C SEP
(22-12)
where:
22-322
lb ac ft
Parameter -------------------------
ap1
ap2
Parameter --------------------------------------
bp
Parameter (1/ppm)
ppm
lb ac f t
ppm meq ml
Landmark - R2003.4
( R kmax 1 )b rk C pw
R k = 1 + --------------------------------------------1 + b rk C pw
13
R kmax
C rk [ ]
= 1 ----------------------------------------12
12
(k)
( S w )
(22-13)
(22-14)
where:
brk
Parameter (ppm-1).
Crk
[]
[] =
lim
C pw 0
o w
---------------- w C pw
(22-15)
p
[ ] = A p1 C SEP
(22-16)
( o C pw )
[ ] = -------------------------------- C pw = 0
w
R2003.4 - Landmark
(22-17)
22-323
+
+ 2
(C )
C Qv ( C )
------------- = ------ ------------++
++
S
w
C
C
(22-18)
where
C+, C++=
C+, C++=
Qv
++
++
C +C
C +C
22-324
= C
= Qv
(22-19)
(22-20)
Landmark - R2003.4
qw
5 c
= --------------------------- -----K k rw S w A
(22-21)
M
p = w + --------------------xS
1 + ---
A
(22-22)
where:
qw
5 c
S = --------------------------- ---------K k rw S w 1 2
(22-23)
x = p 1
M = o w
Darcys law in radial geometry can be written as:
K k rw A dp
q w = ----------------- -----
dr
(22-24)
qw
M
dp = ------------------------- w + -----------------------------x- dr
2rhK k rw
S
1 + ------------
2hr
qw
M
p = ------------------------- u w ln ( r ) + ----- ln
2rhK k rw
x
(22-25)
S
x
---------- + r
2h
(22-26)
Define:
R2003.4 - Landmark
Pw
Pe
qw
re
P e P w = ----------------------- ln -----
2hK k rw r w
(22-27)
Pe pw
S
x
---------- + r e
re
qw
2h
M
= ----------------------- w ln ----- + ----- ln ----------------------------x
r w x
2hK k rw
S
x
---------- + r w
2h
(22-28)
For these two fluids to give the same pressure drop, Pe - Pw , then
x
S
x
---------- + r e
2h
ln ----------------------------x
S
x
---------- + r w
2h
M
= w + ----- ----------------------------------------re
x
ln -----
r w
(22-29)
Thus all well bore calculations for a non-Newtonian viscosity fluid can be
made equivalent to a Newtonian fluid by use of an equivalent viscosity
as defined by Equation 22-29.
22-326
Landmark - R2003.4
Sw ( if cpw cpgel )
Sgel = ---------------------------------------------------------0.0 ( if ( cpw < cpgel ) )
where
cpw
cpgel
The gel phase has the same compressibility as the aqueous phase. The
water relative permeability is calculated as follows:
R2003.4 - Landmark
22-327
22-328
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
23
PVT Representation
23.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the behavior of the fluid-rock system when pressure and
temperature are varied is discussed. Attention is mainly focused on the
behavior of the hydrocarbon properties in both the compositional
formulation and black oil formulation. Reference is made to the miscible
formulation.
= M V o [ 1 + C r ( P o P ref ) ]
(23-1)
B w = B wo [ 1 + C w ( P o P ref ) ]
(23-2)
where Bwo is the reciprocal formation volume factor of water (in STB/RB)
at reference pressure Pref, and Cw is water phase compressibility.
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-329
Hydrocarbon Properties
Z j + ( E f 1 B 1 ) Z j + ( A E f 2 B + E f 3 B )Z j [ AB + E f 4 B ( B + 1 ) ] = 0
(23-3)
where
Po
Z j = ----------- j RT
(23-4)
is the compressibility factor for the RK, ZJRK, SRK, and unshifted PR
equations, and
N
c
Po 1
Z j = ---------- ----- + x i b i s i
RT j i = 1
(23-5)
c
Po
A = -----------2 2
R T i=1
Po
B = ------RT
Nc
[ xi xk ( 1 d ik )
ai ak ]
(23-6)
k=1
Nc
xi bi
(23-7)
i=1
2 2
R T ci
a i = ai i -------------P ci
23-330
(23-8)
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
RT ci
b i = bi ----------P ci
(23-9)
f ji
ji = ---------xi Po
(23-10)
bi Po
BRT
Z j + E m2 B A
Z j + E m1 B E f 5 B
c
2P o
bi Po
x
---------------(
(
1
d
)
a
a
)
----------k
ik
i k
2 2
BRT
AR T k = 1
(23-11)
The universal constants Ef1 to Ef5, Em1, Em2, and the default values of ai
and bi are summarized in the following:
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-331
Hydrocarbon Properties
Em2
ai
bi
Ef1
Ef2
Ef3
Ef4
Ef5
Em1
PR
-3
-1
2 2
1 + 2 1 2 0.457235529
0.077796074
SRK
-1
-1
0.427480200
0.086640350
RK
-1
-1
0.427480200
0.086640350
ZJRK
-1
-1
0.427480200
0.086640350
i = [ 1 + i ( 1 T ri ) ]
(23-12)
(23-13)
or
(23-14)
(23-15)
i =
T ci
------T
(23-16)
Soave-Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
The parameter i is defined in Equation 23-12 (the same as PR) and i is
calculated by
23-332
(23-17)
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
Zudkevitch-Joffee-Redlich-Kwong Equation-of-State
i = 1
(23-18)
The ai and bi in the table above are initial guesses. The actual values of
ai and bi for a given component i at a given temperature T below critical
are determined so that component vapor pressure and saturated liquid
density at T are exactly matched.
M j P cj
j = 0.18383 ---------------
T cj
U3
4
4
+ r ( 0.040758 + 0.0093324 r ) ] } ) 10 ] + ----------------------------N
c
( xi
Mi)
i=1
(23-19)
where
r = j V cj
(23-20)
Nc
Aj =
xi Ai ,
A = M , P c, T c, V c
(23-21)
i=1
10.736 Z ci T ci
V ci = --------------------------------5.6146 P ci
Nc
U 3 = 0.18383 x i
i=1
(23-22)
3 4 0.16667
M i P ci
M i ---------------
T ci
U 5i
(23-23)
and
4 0.94
U 5i = 3.4 10 T ri
if T ri < 1.5
(23-24)
or
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-333
Hydrocarbon Properties
0.625
if T ri 1.5
(23-25)
42.5
0.0002279
11770
600.3
16.49
1614
0.05552
-0.36409
-0.38517
-0.8
-0.62763
23-334
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
T co
( p, T ) = ---------
T cm
16
P cm
---------
P co
23
MW m
--------------
MW o
12
m
P P co o T T co o
------- o ----------------------, -----------------------
T cm m
o
P cm m
(23-26)
where Tcm is the mixture critical temperature and Pcm is the mixture
critical pressure. The subscripts o and m refer to the reference substance
and mixture, respectively. They are calculated from the mixing rules:
T cm
13 3
T ci
T cj
12
-----x
x
+
( 1 X ij ) ( T ci T cj )
-------
i j
P cj
P ci
i=1 j=1
= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (23-27)
13
13 3
n
n
T ci
T cj
xi x j ------- + -------
P ci
P cj
i=1 j=1
n
P cm
13
13
13 3
T ci
T cj
12
8 x i x j -------
+ -------
( T ci T cj )
P ci
P cj
i=1 j=1
= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
13 3 2
n
n
T ci
T cj
+ -------
x i x j -------
i = 1 j = 1
P ci
P cj
(23-28)
The coefficients Xij are introduced in Equation 23-27 to account for the
binary component interaction.
Here, MWm is the mixture molecular weight and is calculated by the
following equation:
4
2.303
MW m = 1.304 10 ( MW w
2.303
MW n
(23-29)
where MW w and MW n are the weighted average and the molar average
molecular weights:
n
xi MW i
=1
MW w = i--------------------------n
(23-30)
xi MW i
1=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-335
Hydrocarbon Properties
MW n =
xi MW i
(23-31)
i=1
m = 1 + 7.378 10 r
3 1.847
o = 1 + 7.378 10 r
0.5173
MW m
(23-32)
0.5173
MW o
(23-33)
The symbol r denotes the reduced density for the reference component:
P P co T T co
o ----------------, ----------------
P cm
T cm
r = ---------------------------------------------- co
(23-34)
( o, T ) = o ( T ) + 1 ( T ) o + F 1 ( o, T ) + F 2 ( o, T )
(23-35)
where
o ( T ) = b1 T
+ b7 T + b8 T
1
43
+ b2 T
+ b9 T
2 3
+ b3 T
1 3
+ b4 + b5 T
13
53
+ b6 T
23
(23-36)
and
b1 =
b2 =
b3 =
b4 =
b5 =
b6 =
b7 =
b8 =
b9 =
-0.2090975x105
2.647269x105
-1.472818x105
4.716740x104
-9.491872x103
1.219979x103
-9.627993x10
4.274152
-8.14153x10-2
T 2
1 ( T ) = 1.6969859 0.13337235 1.4 log e ---------
168
23-336
(23-37)
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
j
( o, T ) = exp j 1 + ----4
j3
j 6 j 7
0.1
0.5
+
+
---+ ----
exp o j 2 ---------
j
o
5
32
T T
j1 =
j2 =
j3 =
j4 =
j5 =
j6 =
j7 =
1.0
(23-38)
1.035060586x10
1.7571599671x10
3.0193918656x103
1.8873011594x102
4.2903609488x10-2
1.4529023444x102
6.1276818706x103
k
( o, T ) = exp k 1 + ----4-
T
k3
k6 k7
0.1
0.5
exp o k 2 ---------+
j
+
----- + -----2-
o
5
32
T T
T
k1 =
k2 =
k3 =
k4 =
k5 =
k6 =
k7 =
1.0
(23-39)
9.74602
18.0834
4126.66
44.6055
0.976544
81.8134
15649.9
o co
= ------------------ co
(23-40)
R2003.4 - Landmark
1 + HTAN
F 1 = -------------------------2
(23-41)
1 HTAN
F 2 = ------------------------2
(23-42)
23-337
Hydrocarbon Properties
exp ( T ) exp ( T )
HTAN = ----------------------------------------------------exp ( T ) + exp ( T )
T = T T F
(23-43)
(23-44)
Gas Properties
The gas phase viscosity and compressibility factor are assumed to be a
function of pressure only (no compositional dependency). An equal-space
viscosity versus pressure table is constructed from the input viscosity
versus saturation pressure table. A Zg versus pressure table is likewise
constructed. If Bg instead of Zg is entered as a function of pressure, then
the following equation is used to convert Bg to Zg:
23-338
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
0.0056146 B g P o T s
Z g = ------------------------------------------------Ps T
(23-45)
Ps
29.
G g = --------------------------------------- --------5.6146 62.428 RT s
R2003.4 - Landmark
Np 1
( R s ( i ) R s ( i + 1 ) )G r ( i + 1 )
(23-46)
i = Ns
23-339
Hydrocarbon Properties
or = os B os G g
(23-47)
Ps
1
G m = ------------------------------------------ --------- [ R s ( N s ) R s ( N p ) ]
5.6146 652.428 RT s
(23-48)
B os os
z o = --------------------M wos
(23-49)
or
M wor = ----------------zo Gm
Stock Tank Oil Molecular Weight
Following a similar procedure, the density and molecular weight of the
stock tank oil can be derived from os and Mwos if the Rs, Bo (RB/STB of
stock tank oil), and Gr were known from the separator flash test. This is
the case when the SEPTEST card is entered in the VIP-EXECUTIVE input
deck.
VIP-EXECUTIVE provides two additional separator options that warrant
special attention since they may create an overly defined fluid system. The
first option is use of the BOSEP card. This option requires that the user
enter the API or density of the stock tank oil. Since the same quantity also
can be derived from os and Mwos, we have an overly defined fluid system.
In this case, VIP-EXECUTIVE honors the stock tank oil density entered by
the user and disregards the Gr in deriving all the relevant stock tank oil
properties.
The second option is the use of the SEPARATOR card, where K-values for
the separator are entered. The stock tank oil molecular weight can be
defined from the separator K-values. However, the user may enter the
stock tank oil molecular weight (MWL) which, if entered, produces an
overly defined fluid system. In this case, VIP-EXECUTIVE honors the
user-entered MWL and disregards the molecular weight derived from the
separator K-values in deriving the stock tank oil compressibility (ZLSEP).
23-340
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
M wg ( I ) = 29 G r ( I )
(23-50)
The gas component mole fraction in the liberated gas phase is then
M 2 M wg ( I )
y 1 ( I ) = ------------------------------M2 M1
(23-51)
Based on 1 cc of residual oil, the amounts of the overall gas liberated from
stage I to the standard conditions in gm is
Ps
29.
G g ( I ) = --------------------------------------- --------5.6146 62.428 RT s
Np 1
( R s ( i ) R s ( i + 1 ) )G r ( i + 1 )
i=1
(23-52)
which is similar to Equation 23-46. Thus, the density of the oil at stage I is
or + G g ( I )
o ( I ) = --------------------------Bo ( I )
(23-53)
Since the amounts of total gas liberated from stage I to the standard
conditions are given by
Ps
1
G m ( I ) = --------------------------------------- --------- [ R s ( I ) R s ( N p ) ]
5.6146 62.428 RT s
(23-54)
o ( I ) Bo ( I )
M wo ( I ) = --------------------------------------------- or M wor + G m ( I )
(23-55)
M 2 M wo ( I )
x 1 ( I ) = ------------------------------M2 M1
(23-56)
The equilibrium K-values of the gas component and the oil component at
stage I are calculated according to
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-341
Hydrocarbon Properties
y1 ( I )
K 1 ( I ) = -----------x1 ( I )
(23-57)
and
1 y1 ( I )
K 2 ( I ) = --------------------1 x1 ( I )
(23-58)
P ( I ) M wo ( I )
Z o ( I ) = -----------------------------------------------------------------------5.6146 62.428 o ( I ) RT
(23-59)
Z o
------
P o
Bo ( Po )
-------------------------=
s
s
Bo ( Po )
Z o
-----s-
P o
(23-60)
where the superscripts denote saturated conditions. Note that the right
side of Equation 23-60 represents the input ratios of formation volume
factors. This equation suggests that the same ratios can be used directly if
the undersaturated Zo/Po table is constructed. The independent variables
in the two-dimensional table are x1 and Po. For a given x1, the saturation
pressure is given by the x1-pressure relationship established earlier in this
section. For any Po which is greater than the saturation pressure, the right
side of Equation 23-60 is determined from the input undersaturated table
s
23-342
Landmark - R2003.4
Hydrocarbon Properties
Finally, the K-values are used to establish the following fugactiy equality
equations:
oi = K i ( P o ), i = 1, 2
(23-61)
gi = 1, i = 1, 2
(23-62)
After the k-values have been calculated for each of the data entries in the
differential liberation data, an equal-spaced table is constructed through a
linear interpolation process involving ln(KijPi) versus ln(Pi).
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-343
separators, and
23-344
Landmark - R2003.4
Phase-Equilibrium Calculations
The phase-equilibrium procedure is applied in VIP for the determination
of
assuming that
pressure,
temperature, and
are known.
The phase-equilibrium procedure is applied for the PVT calculations in
General Description
The equation of state interpolation procedure determines
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-345
pressure,
temperature, and
fluid compositions.
The equation of state is applied for the generation of these tables in VIPCORE. The user should define pressure, temperature, composition entries
of the EOS interpolation tables. The recovery and compressibility factors
are calculated for all combinations of pressure, temperature, and
composition entries.
The generated lookup tables are used instead of EOS for the phaseequilibrium calculation in VIP-CORE and VIP-EXECUTIVE. A
multidimensional interpolation is applied for the determination of the
recovery and compressibility factors between the table entries.
The EOS interpolation procedure can be used for the phase-equilibrium
calculations in reservoir grid blocks, separators, well tubing strings and
surface pipeline network system, or any combination.
The EOS interpolation procedure consists of the following parts:
application of the EOS interpolation tables in VIP-CORE and VIPEXECUTIVE for the phase-equilibrium calculations.
23-346
Landmark - R2003.4
user input,
Composition entries (Z1, Z2,..., Znz) of the EOS interpolation tables can be
input after the CMP card, where Zj=(z1j,z2j,...zncj), j= 1, 2,...,nz are the
composition vectors; zij is the molar fraction of the i-th component in the jth composition vector; nz is the number of the composition entries; nc is
the number of the hydrocarbon components.
Initial compositions of the reservoir fluids defined after the OILMF,
GASMF, or COMPOSITION cards are automatically included in a list of
the composition entries.
Simulations of PVT tests (differential expansion, swelling, and/or
multiple contact tests) can be applied in VIP-CORE for the automatic
generation of the composition entries ( See Automatic Generation of
Composition Entries on page 349.). The fluid compositions calculated in
different stages of simulated PVT tests are automatically included in a list
of the composition entries.
The user can divide the composition entries into different paths. The
simulator interpolates the recovery and compressibility factors between
paths. The paths can be defined in the CMP, SWELLTEST, DIFEXPTEST,
and MULCONTEST cards.
Compositional entries are defined separately for each equilibrium region.
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-347
23-348
Landmark - R2003.4
swelling,
differential expansion,
PVT tests can be applied in VIP-CORE for the automatic generation of the
composition entries of the EOS interpolation tables.
The PVT test simulations can be invoked using the SWELLTEST,
DIFEXPTEST, and/or MULCONTEST cards.
Swelling Test
For the simulation of a swelling PVT test, the user must specify
Z j = ( 1 f j ) X + f j Y , j = 1, 2, , nf .
(23-63)
These compositions are included in the list of the composition entries and
are output to a file (Fortran Unit 77).
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-349
23-350
Landmark - R2003.4
Z j = (1 f ) X j + f Y j,
(23-64)
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-351
jk
jk
K i = y i x i , i = 1, 2, , nc,
jk
(23-65)
jk
jkm
jkm
ri
L
xi
-, i = 1, 2, , nc
= --------------------------J
zi
(23-66)
liquid phase; x i
jkm
phase.
The recovery factors r
jkm
52
of state with the temperature Tk, composition Zj, and pressure Pm which
is below the saturation pressure PSATjk. Therefore, two hydrocarbon
phases exist at these conditions.
The derivatives of the recovery factors with respect to pressure are also
calculated, because the cubic spline interpolation is applied.
23-352
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-353
(23-67)
If temperature T is not larger than the first temperature entry, only the first
temperature entry is used in the interpolation procedure. If the
temperature T is not smaller than the last temperature entry, only the last
temperature entry is used in the interpolation procedure. In these cases,
the simulator issues a warning message or stops the run if it is requested
by the user. Otherwise, two closest temperature entries Tk and Tk+1 are
selected as
T k T < T k + 1.
(23-68)
D ( Z j, Z ) =
( zi zi )
j
ci .
(23-69)
i=1
23-354
Landmark - R2003.4
( ci zi ) .
F(Z ) =
(23-70)
i=1
(23-71)
F ( Z j ) F ( Z ) < F ( Z j + 1 ).
(23-72)
jk
jk
Pm P < Pm + 1 .
R2003.4 - Landmark
(23-73)
23-355
23-356
Landmark - R2003.4
( P m , T k, Z j ).
Cubic Spline Interpolation in Pressure
The following interpolation procedure is repeated for each combination of
selected temperature and composition entries (Tj, Zk):
1. If the current pressure P is larger than the saturation pressure PSATjk,
the recovery factor is defined as:
1, ifPSAT jk is a bubblepoint
jk
ri =
0, ifPSAT jk is a dewpoint.
(23-74)
r i = a0 + a1 P + a2 P + a3 P ,
(23-75)
jkm
ri = ri
(23-76)
Interpolation in composition:
jk
j + 1, k
b j ri + (1 b j) ri
ri =
(23-77)
jk
ri
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-357
D ( Z j + 1, Z )
b j = --------------------------------------------------------.
D ( Z j + 1, Z ) + D ( Z , Z J )
(23-78)
F (Z j + 1) F (Z )
b j = ------------------------------------------.
F (Z j + 1) F (Z j)
(23-79)
Interpolation in temperature.
Finally, the recovery factor is determined as follows:
k+1
dk ri + (1 dk ) ri
ri =
(23-80)
k
ri
Tk + 1 T
d k = ------------------------- .
Tk + 1 Tk
(23-81)
23-358
Landmark - R2003.4
nc
F p( Z ) =
( c pi zi ) .
(23-82)
i=1
The coefficients c p1, c p2, , c pnc can be input by the user on the
COEFFICIENT PATH card.
The recovery and compressibility factors are calculated using the
linear interpolation between selected paths.
L =
r i zi .
(23-83)
i=1
r i zi
x i = --------------, i = 1, 2, , nc.
L
(23-84)
( 1 r i ) zi
y i = ---------------------------, i = 1, 2, , nc.
1L
(23-85)
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-359
xi =
z i, ifonlyliquidphaseispresent
z i K i, ifonlyvaporphaseispresent
,i = 1, 2, , nc.
(23-86)
yi =
K i z i, ifonlyliquidphaseispresent
z i, ifonlyvaporphaseispresent
,i = 1, 2, , nc.
(23-87)
Determination of Densities
Molar densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon phases are calculated
using the compressibility factors and the equation of state as follows:
P
n = ---------------------------, n = l, v,
R T a zn
(23-88)
where l, v are the molar densities of the liquid and vapor hydrocarbon
phases; z l, z
are the liquid and vapor compressibility factors; R is the
universal constant; T a is the absolute temperature.
23.5.6 Example: Input of the EOS Interpolation Option in the Fifth SPE
Comparative Solution Model
As an example, input cards required for the application of the EOS
interpolation option in the Fifth SPE Comparative Model (scenario two)24
are described in this section. Simulation results of the EOS interpolation
and EOS model are compared.
A reservoir model with 7 x 7 x 3 = 147 grid blocks, six hydrocarbon
components, one production and one injection wells is considered.
Primary depletion for two years and subsequent WAG injection for eight
years are simulated24.
The following cards need to be added to a VIP-CORE input deck in the
TABLES section to apply the EOS interpolation option (comment lines are
started with C):
C
C The EOSINT card must be included to invoke the EOS interpolation option
C
EOSINT
C
C Temperature entry of the EOS interpolation table.
C
23-360
Landmark - R2003.4
TEMPERATURE 160
C
C Maximum and minimum pressure entries.
C The simulator internally selects pressure entries for each composition entries.
C
PMAX 4600
PMIN 940
C
C Path function coefficients.
C
COEFFICIENT PATH
0 10 0 0 0 0
C
C Composition entries of the EOS interpolation table is divided into three paths:
C Path 1 - reservoir oil;
C Path 2 - mixture of 50% of the reservoir oil and 50% of the injected gas,
C Path 3 - mixture of 5% of the reservoir oil and 95% of the injected gas.
C
C Composition entries in each path are automatically generated by means of
C simulations of the differential expansion PVT tests.
C
C Composition entries in Path 1.
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 1
C Number of stages. Pressure in each stage is calculated automatically.
NPRES 20
C Composition of the reservoir oil.
COMP .50 .03 .07 .20 .15 .05
C Number of gas fractions in the swelling test.
NGASFR 5
C
C Composition entries in Path 2.
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 2
NPRES 20
C Composition of mixture: 50% of the reservoir oil and 50% of the injected gas
COMP .6350000 .1150000 .0500000 .1000000 .0750000 .0250000
NGASFR 5
C
C Composition entries in Path 3.
C
DIFEXPTEST 1 BOTH 3
NPRES 20
C Composition of the mixture: 5% of the reservoir oil and 95% of the injected gas
COMP .7565000 .1915000 .0320000 .0100000 .0075000 .0025000
NGASFR 5
C
C The simulation of the swelling test can be used to define compositions
C in the above COMP cards of the differential expansion tests.
C
C SWELLTEST 1
C Composition of the reservoir oil.
C OILCM .50 .03 .07 .20 .15 .05
C Composition of the injected gas.
C GASCM .77 .20 .03 0 0 0
C Gas fractions.
C GASFRAC 0.50 0.95
Simulation results of the EOS interpolation and EOS models in the Fifth
SPE Comparative Project are presented in Figure 23-1. Oil, water, gas
production profiles, gas-oil ratio, and average reservoir pressure are
compared. This comparison demonstrates that the results of the EOS
interpolation model match those of the fully compositional simulation.
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-361
Besides, the new option reduces the CPU time in 30%. Significantly larger
reductions of the CPU time have been achieved in full field reservoir
simulations and pattern models with large numbers of grid cells and
hydrocarbon components.
23.5.7 Conclusions
Figure 23-1: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Fifth SPE
Comparative Reservoir Model
23-362
Landmark - R2003.4
Figure 23-2: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cupiagua Full
Field Reservoir Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-363
Figure 23-3: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Cusiana Full
Field Reservoir Model
23-364
Landmark - R2003.4
Figure 23-4: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - PBU History
Full Field Reservoir Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-365
Figure 23-5: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - Ursa Full Field
Reservoir Model
23-366
Landmark - R2003.4
Figure 23-6: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - D13 PBU Pattern
Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
23-367
Figure 23-7: Comparison of EOS and EOSINT Model Results - EWE PBU
Pattern Model
23-368
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
24
Relative Permeability and Capillary
Pressure Adjustments Near the
Critical Point
00000
24.1 Introduction
In a miscible displacement simulation, some gridblocks of a model may go
through a compositional path that leads to the critical point of the
hydrocarbon mixture. In a gridblock near the critical point, when a
hydrocarbon mixture splits into two phases, the compositions of the
phases are similar. For this reason, interfacial tension and capillary
pressure between the phases become small and approach zero, the oil and
gas residual saturations decrease, and the gas and oil relative permeability
curves approach straight lines near the critical point.
VIP-EXECUTIVE has a special option that automatically adjusts relative
permeabilities and gas-oil capillary pressure in near-critical blocks. The
adjustment correlates these rock properties to gas-oil interfacial tension as
follows:
S o S org f ( )
r
k ro = f ( )k ro + [ 1 f ( ) ]k m ( S w ) --------------------------------------------1 S w S org f ( )
(24-1)
S g S gc f ( )
r
k rg = f ( )k rg + [ 1 f ( ) ]k m ( S w ) -----------------------------------------1 S w S gc f ( )
(24-2)
r
P cgo = P cgo -------- ref
(24-3)
where kro, krg, Pcgo are the adjusted relative permeabilities to oil, gas, and
r
R2003.4 - Landmark
24-369
Introduction
capillary pressure rock curve P cgo has been measured, and f() is a
function of the interfacial tension defined as:
e
f ( ) = ----*- .
(24-4)
Here, * is the threshold interfacial tension below which the above relative
permeability adjustment is used. For interfacial tensions greater than the
threshold value, f() is assigned a value of one. Exponent e is a positive
number generally in the range from 0.1 to 0.25.
The relative permeability to miscible hydrocarbon fluid, km(Sw), is defined
as the following arithmetical average:
1 r
r
k m ( S w ) = --- [ k ro ( S 0 =1 S w, S g =0 ) + k rg ( S g =1 S w, S o =0 ) ]
2
(24-5)
The gas-oil interfacial tension depends on the oil and gas compositions
and is calculated from the correlation:
14
i=n c
Pchi ( o xi g yi )
(24-6)
i=1
24-370
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
25
Saturation Function
25.1 Introduction
Here, SWT and SGT define saturation-dependent relative permeabilities
and capillary pressures:
SWT
SGT
The SWT and SGT tables must follow the equilibrium data. All SWT tables
must precede SGT tables.
The gas and water relative permeabilities (for both two and three phases)
are directly interpolated from the tables. The two-phase oil relative
permeabilities are also from the tables. The three-phase oil relative
permeabilities are computed from the two sets of two-phase values
according to Stones Model I, Stones Model II, and the Saturation
Weighted Interpolation Model.
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-371
Example:
SWT
SW
1
KRW
KROW
PCWO
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.06
0.1
0.15
0.19
0.35
1.0
0.9
0.65
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.005
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.
0.0
The title card SW, KRW, KROW, PCWO must appear in the order shown.
25-372
SW
KRW
KROW
PCWO
Landmark - R2003.4
Swr
Swro
Swu
The above example shows that connate water saturation (Swl) is 0.2,
residual water saturation (Swr) is 0.3, water saturation at residual oil (Swro)
is 0.8, and maximum water saturation (Swu) is 1.0.
For equilibrium initialization, water saturation above the water-oil
transition zone is the connate water saturation and that below the
transition zone is maximum water saturation.
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-373
Example:
SGT
SG
0.0
0.1
0.16
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
1
KRG
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.07
0.12
0.23
0.3
KROG
0.9
0.7
0.55
0.45
0.1
0.05
0.0
0.0
PCGO
0.0
0.0
The title card SG, KRG, KROG, PCGO must appear in the order shown.
SG
KRG
KROG
PCGO
Sgr
Sgro
Sgu
The above example shows that the connate gas saturation (Sgl) is 0, the
residual gas saturation (Sgr) is 0.16, the gas saturation at residual oil (Sgro)
is 0.7, and the maximum gas saturation (Sgu) is 0.8.
25-374
Landmark - R2003.4
k ro
k rog k row
So
= -------------------- --------------------------------------k rocw ( 1 S * ) ( 1 S * )
w
where
S o S or
*
S o -----------------------------1 S or S wl
Sg
*
S g -----------------------------1 S or S wl
S w S wl
*
S w -----------------------------1 S or S wl
S orw S org
S or S orw -------------------------------- S g
1 S org S wl
Here, krocw is the relative permeability to oil at connate water (Swl), krow is
the relative permeability to oil in the two-phase water-oil system (without
gas present), krog is the relative permeability to oil in a gas-oil system with
connate water, and Sorj is the residual oil saturation in the water-oil (j = w)
or gas-oil (j = g) system.
An extension of the Sorm term is available:
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-375
Sg A
Sg A
2
2
3
S or = S org ---------- + S orw 1 --------- ( S gro S g S g ) + ( S gro S g S g )
S gro
S gro
where S gro = 1 S wl S org .
This collapses to the first definition of Sor when A=1, = = 0. The values
A, , are input on the STONE1 card.
k row
k rog
k ro = k rocw -----------+ k rw -----------+ k rg k rg k rw
k rocw
k rocw
Sg
F g = ------------------------------S g + S w S wl
25-376
Landmark - R2003.4
The relative permeability to oil in the gas zone is krog (evaluated at Sg = 1 So - Swl), while the relative permeability to oil in the water zone is krow
(evaluated at Sw = 1 - So). The average relative permeability to oil in the
gridblock, kro, is the volume average of the oil relative permeabilities in the
two zones:
*
k ro
S g k rog ( S g ) + ( S w S wl )k row ( S w )
= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------S g + S w S wl
where Sg* is gas saturation in the gas zone and Sw* is water saturation in
the water zone:
*
S g S g + S w S wl
*
Sw Sg + Sw
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-377
(from Sorg to Sorw at the water-oil two-phase limit if Sorg < Sorw, or from
Sorw to Sorg at the gas-oil two-phase limit if Sorw < Sorg). The impact of
this behavior in the low oil isoperm region on simulation results
should be investigated first for any simulation study if the Saturation
Weighted Interpolation Model is to be employed.
25-378
Landmark - R2003.4
S gu 1 S wl
2. Connate gas saturation should not exceed 1.0 minus the maximum
water saturation:
S gl 1 S wu
3. The oil relative permeability at the connate water saturation and
connate gas saturation must be the same.
4. At the connate water/gas saturations, the water/gas relative
permeabilities must be 0.0.
5. At the maximum water/gas saturations, the oil relative permeability
must be zero.
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-379
Example:
ISAT CON
1
ISAT X+ CON
2
ISAT X- CON
2
ISAT Y+ CON
3
ISAT Y- CON
3
ISAT Z+ CON
4
ISAT Z- CON
5
In the above data, well relative permeability calculations use saturation
Table 1 and interblock flow calculations in the X- direction use saturation
Table 2, in the Y- direction use saturation Table 3, in the Z+ direction use
Table 4, and in the Z- direction use Table 5.
The following guidelines for use of the directional relative permeability
option should be helpful:
25-380
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
The program computes separate mobility arrays for each phase only
for each flow direction with data that are directionally dependent.
Because of this, large amounts of storage are required as the number of
mobility arrays increases. The user should avoid entering default
values for arrays for a flow direction that otherwise would not need a
separate mobility array.
25-381
25.7.1 Implementation
The gas remobilization option can be invoked by the user any time during
the simulation (usually after the waterflood of a gas reservoir or a gas cap
region and at the onset of the pressure blowdown period). When this
option is invoked, all reservoir gridblocks are internally divided into two
types. Type 1 gridblocks are those previously invaded by water and which
have reached the trapped gas saturation. The remobilization of gas in
these gridblocks is considered to be controlled by gas expansion and
hence is subject to the gas remobilization calculation. Gridblocks not
considered as Type 1 are classified as Type 2 and their relative
permeabilities to gas will be calculated using the standard gas hysteresis
options. The secondary drainage curve for Type 1 gridblocks is assumed
to be reversible, i.e., the subsequent secondary imbibition curve retraces
the secondary drainage curve. The gas remobilization option is available
only if the gas relative permeability hysteresis option is also invoked.
Numerically, the Type 1 gridblocks are those that satisfy all of the
following conditions at the time the gas remobilization option is turned
on:
1. The water saturation must be greater than the historical minimum
water saturation (Swmin) plus a user-controlled incremental saturation
(grmdsw), i.e., Sw > Swmin + grmdsw. The default value for grmdsw is
0.02.
2. The gas saturation must be less than or equal to the trapped gas
saturation (Sgtr) corresponding to the gridblock historical maximum
gas saturation (Sgmax), i.e., Sg Sgtr(Sgmax).
3. The gridblock historical maximum gas saturation must be greater than
its critical gas saturation, i.e., Sgmax > Sgc.
The threshold gas saturation at which the trapped gas becomes mobile,
Sgrm, and the secondary drainage relative permeability to gas at the
maximum gas saturation, Krgmax, are assumed to be functions of the
25-382
Landmark - R2003.4
K rgmax, m
o
K rg ( S g ) = ----------------------K rg2d, r ( S g )
K rgmax, r
(25-1)
where
( S gma, r S grm, r )
o
S g = S grm, r + ( S g S grm, m ) -------------------------------------------( S gma, m S grm, m )
(25-2)
( 1 + C 2 )S g13
K rg ( S g ) = K rgmax, m ---------------------------C3
1 + C 2 S g1
(25-3)
where
S g S grm, m
S g1 --------------------------------------S gma, m S grm, m
(25-4)
The gas remobilization option is compatible with the standard VIPEXECUTIVE relative permeability treatment (i.e., input SWT and SGT
tables). Gas relative permeability hysteresis must also be invoked by
entering an SGTR card following each SGT card. The option is compatible
with all existing formulations/options except for the dual porosity option.
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-383
The option was tested using a small test model in which a primary
depletion process was followed by water injection into the gas cap area
and pressure blowdown.
25-384
Landmark - R2003.4
C
GASRM 1
SGTR SGRM
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.17
0.23
0.24
0.30
0.33
0.40
0.4
0.48
0.5
0.6
GASRMT
SG
KRG
0.21
0.0
0.30
0.02
0.43
0.10
0.55
0.20
0.66
0.33
0.77
0.5
0.985 0.65
C
GASRM 2
SGTR SGRM
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.17
0.23
0.25
0.31
0.33
0.40
0.4
0.48
0.5
0.6
GASRMT
SG
KRG
0.21
0.0
0.30
0.02
0.43
0.10
0.55
0.20
0.66
0.33
0.78
0.51
0.9
0.65
KRGMAX
0.9
0.85
0.81
0.75
0.7
0.6
0.5
KRGMAX
0.9
0.85
0.81
0.74
0.7
0.6
0.5
R2003.4 - Landmark
25-385
25-386
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
26
Separators
26.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE is a compositional simulator. The governing equations
of the simulator are molar conservation equations; they describe
movement of hydrocarbon fluids in terms of moles at reservoir conditions.
However, well production rates are customarily reported in volumetric
units at standard conditions. In a compositional simulator, conversion of
well rates from reservoir conditions to volumetric units at standard
conditions requires a separator model. The separator model describes
separation of reservoir fluids in surface facilities. Besides calculating well
production rates at standard conditions, the separator model also
calculates in-place volumes of reservoir oil and gas at standard conditions.
These calculations are performed when a region report is requested.
R2003.4 - Landmark
26-387
Stage
1
Stage
2
Stage
3
Stage
Ns
Liquid
Stream
Oil Sales Line
26-388
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
26-389
Q ni =
( F mn Q mi + F mn Q mi ), i = 1, 2, , n c n = 2, 3, , n s (26-1)
m=1
Here, Flmn and Fvmn are fractions of the liquid and vapor streams that are
sent to stage n from stage m. These fractions are defined by a user on the
SEPARATOR card. The sum of the vapor and liquid streams in moles for
component i, Qvmi, Qlmi, respectively, which leaves stage m, is equal to the
feed stream to this stage:
v
Q mi = Q mi + Q mi, i = 1, 2, , n c,
n = 1, 2, , n s
(26-2)
Moles that are sent to the oil and gas sales lines, Qo and Qg, are equal to the
sum of all streams sent to these lines from all the separator stages:
nc
Qo =
ns
i = 1n = 1
nc
l
l
F no Q ni,
Qg =
ns
F ng Qni
v
(26-3)
i = 1n = 1
Here, Flno and Fvng are fractions of the liquid and vapor streams, which are
sent to the sales lines. They are defined by a user on the SEPARATOR card.
26-390
Landmark - R2003.4
Ts
V os = 1.9122 Z os ----- Q o
Ps
(26-4)
Ts
V gs = 0.010736 ----- Q g
Ps
(26-5)
Here, Zos, Ts, and Ps are the liquid compressibility factor, temperature, and
pressure at the stock tank conditions.
R2003.4 - Landmark
26-391
Solution Algorithm
26-392
Landmark - R2003.4
Gas Plant
The user can control the tolerance of the composition changes with the
BHPITN card. If this tolerance is set to zero, the K-values are recalculated
in each outer iteration of each timestep.
R2003.4 - Landmark
26-393
Gas Plant
26-394
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
27
Simulator Performance
27.1 Introduction
In the simulator, we advance the solution in time while honoring the
timing of changes to data input and obtaining output at selected points.
As long as the correct answer is produced, the scheme employed should
minimize work performed (as measured by the CPU time consumed).
There are tradeoffs between speed and solution quality and, while the
default settings will give good performance for most problems, it may be
necessary for the user to adjust them in some cases. Three levels of control
exist; timestep control, non-linear iteration parameters and iterative solver
parameters (if appropriate). The monitoring and adjustment of
performance at each of these levels is described in this chapter.
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-395
Timestep Control
27-396
Landmark - R2003.4
Timestep Control
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-397
feature could significantly reduce the CPU time. It is only used for
compositional problems.
PJACO indicates that a partial Jacobian update of the fugacity equations
will be performed, in conjunction with the OPTMBL option. Jacobian
coefficients are not recalculated for gridblocks that satisfy a preset
convergence criteria. For certain compositional problems, this feature
could result in up to a 20% reduction in CPU time. It is only used for
compositional problems.
TOLD
TOLR
2
Iterations
Maximum Pressure
Change
Maximum Residual
27-398
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-399
then
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-401
**************************************************************************************
*
*
*
VIP-EXEC
TIMESTEP
SUMMARY
*
*
*
* OFFSHORE EUROPE DEMONSTRATION MODEL
*
* FINE GRID MODEL
*
*
*
*
VIP-EXEC *
**************************************************************************************
TIMESTEP
DAILY
PRODUCTION
------------ -------------------------------------OIL
GAS
WATER
GOR WATER
SCF/ CUT
NO.
DAYS
MSTB/D
MMSCF/D
STB/D
STB FRAC.
---- ------- -------- -------- -------- ----- ----1 1.0000 1.90000 3.07223
0. 1616
0.
2 6.0000 1.90000 3.07223
.01834 1616
0.
3 31.000 1.90000 3.07223
.02910 1616
0.
4 91.000 1.90000 3.07223
.04225 1616
0.
5 181.00 1.90000 3.07223
.05870 1616
0.
6 183.64
57.00
92.17 1.72174 1616
0.
7 186.26
57.00
92.17 8.66352 1616
0.
8 189.09
57.00
92.17
11.49 1616
0.
9 192.25
57.00
92.17
13.53 1616
0.
10 196.01
57.00
92.17
15.18 1616
0.
11 200.76
57.00
92.17
16.64 1616
0.
12 204.91
57.00
92.17
18.04 1616
0.
13 209.38
57.00
92.17
19.03 1616
0.
14 214.42
57.00
92.17
19.93 1616
0.
15 218.70
57.00
92.17
20.79 1616
0.
16 222.57
57.00
92.17
21.45 1616
0.
17 226.21
57.00
92.17
21.99 1616
0.
18 229.71
57.00
92.17
22.45 1616
0.
19 233.18
57.00
92.17
22.87 1616
0.
20 236.62
57.00
92.17
23.26 1616
0.
21 240.59
57.00
92.17
23.62 1616
0.
22 250.41
57.00
92.17
24.02 1616
0.
23 262.40
57.00
92.17
24.89 1616
0.
24 273.00
57.00
92.17
25.84 1616
0.
25 278.00
90.25
145.93
36.97 1616
0.
26 288.93
90.25
145.93
42.23 1616
0.
27 298.70
90.25
145.93
46.30 1616 .001
28 308.64
90.25
145.93
48.83 1616 .001
29 319.21
90.25
145.93
50.91 1616 .001
30 322.60
90.25
145.93
52.85 1616 .001
31 325.94
90.25
145.93
53.45 1616 .001
32 329.94
90.25
145.93
54.02 1616 .001
33 335.16
90.25
145.93
54.66 1616 .001
34 342.64
90.25
145.92
55.46 1616 .001
35 353.17
90.25
145.91
56.53 1616 .001
36 359.67
90.25
145.87
58.00 1616 .001
37 365.00
90.25
145.84
58.90 1615 .001
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
DAILY INJECTION
CUM. INJECTION
-------------------------- ----------------- ----------------OIL
GAS
WATER
GAS
WATER
GAS
WATER
MMSTB
-------.00190
.01140
.05890
.17290
.34390
.49455
.64389
.80489
.98514
1.19958
1.47030
1.70684
1.96147
2.24880
2.49288
2.71363
2.92099
3.12063
3.31801
3.51452
3.74070
4.30000
4.98378
5.58790
6.03915
7.02549
7.90770
8.80466
9.75869
10.06444
10.36567
10.72643
11.19801
11.87320
12.82288
13.41029
13.89090
AVG
PRES
TIME ITN
STEP --CUTS
BSCF
MSTB
MMSCF/D
STB/D
BSCF
MSTB
PSIA
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------ ---- --.00307
0.
0.
0.
0.
0. 5308.
0
2
.01843
.00009
0.
0.
0.
0. 5307.
0
2
.09524
.00082
0.
0.
0.
0. 5306.
0
3
.27957
.00335
0.
0.
0.
0. 5303.
0
3
.55607
.00864
0.
0.
0.
0. 5299.
0
3
.79967
.01319
55.30
31500.
.14615 83.25250 5295.
1
5
1.04114
.03589
55.30
31500.
.29104
165.78 5292.
0
3
1.30147
.06835
55.30
31500.
.44724
254.76 5289.
0
3
1.59294
.11114
55.30
31500.
.62212
354.37 5286.
0
3
1.93967
.16825
55.30
31500.
.83016
472.87 5284.
0
2
2.37742
.24730
55.30
31500. 1.09280
622.48 5281.
0
3
2.75990
.32215
55.30
31500. 1.32229
753.20 5278.
0
3
3.17163
.40716
55.30
31500. 1.56933
893.92 5275.
0
3
3.63622
.50761
55.30
31500. 1.84809 1052.71 5273.
0
3
4.03090
.59665
55.30
31500. 2.08490 1187.60 5271.
0
3
4.38784
.67971
55.30
31500. 2.29906 1309.59 5269.
0
3
4.72314
.75969
55.30
31500. 2.50024 1424.18 5267.
0
3
5.04595
.83833
55.30
31500. 2.69392 1534.51 5265.
0
3
5.36510
.91753
55.30
31500. 2.88542 1643.59 5263.
0
2
5.68285
.99771
55.30
31500. 3.07607 1752.19 5262.
0
2
6.04858 1.09146
55.30
31500. 3.29550 1877.18 5260.
0
3
6.95295 1.32716
55.30
31500. 3.83813 2186.27 5255.
0
3
8.05859 1.62570
55.30
31500. 4.50151 2564.14 5250.
0
3
9.03543 1.89953
55.30
31500. 5.08762 2898.00 5245.
0
3
9.76509 2.08436
87.56
58500. 5.52541 3190.50 5239.
0
4
11.35996 2.54586
87.56
58500. 6.48233 3829.84 5230.
0
4
12.78647 2.99848
87.56
58500. 7.33824 4401.69 5222.
0
6
14.23681 3.48377
87.56
58500. 8.20844 4983.10 5215.
0
2
15.77945 4.02190
87.56
58500. 9.13403 5601.50 5209.
0
3
16.27383 4.20094
87.56
58500. 9.43066 5799.69 5206.
1
2
16.76092 4.37936
87.56
58500. 9.72291 5994.95 5204.
0
2
17.34426 4.59529
87.56
58500. 10.07291 6228.79 5202.
0
2
18.10677 4.88092
87.56
58500. 10.53042 6534.47 5198.
0
2
19.19845 5.29583
87.55
58500. 11.18543 6972.13 5194.
0
2
20.73384 5.89063
87.55
58500. 12.10666 7587.71 5188.
0
2
21.68328 6.26813
87.52
58500. 12.67632 7968.47 5184.
0
2
22.45990 6.58177
87.50
58500. 13.14230 8280.00 5181.
0
3
27-402
Landmark - R2003.4
TOTAL GRIDS
:
TOTAL GRIDBLOCKS :
ACTIVE GRIDBLOCKS :
SIMULATOR
VERSION
INITIALIZATION LAST UPDATE
LAST CHANGE SET NAME
REVISION NUMBER
SIMULATION
LAST UPDATE
LAST CHANGE SET NAME
REVISION NUMBER
FORMULATION
EQUATION SOLUTION METHOD
VIP-ENCORE
v32r0
95/02/17
base_cse
0
95/02/17
bpfix01
0
IMPES
BLITZ
NX:
32
1
6048
4924
NY:
27
COMPONENTS
:
GRID CONNECTIONS :
FAULT CONNECTIONS :
NZ:
2
0
1076
WELLS
:
PERFORATIONS :
30
78
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS
---------------------CURRENT RUN
----------365.000
37
114
503
2
0
.0002968
.0002416
CUMULATIVE
---------365.000
37
114
503
2
0
.0002968
.0002416
INPUT PROCESSING
SIMULATION
PVT PROPERTIES
ROCK PROPERTIES
WELL MANAGEMENT
EQUATION SETUP
LINEAR SOLVER
VARIABLE UPDATE
OUTPUT PROCESSING
OVERHEAD
TOTAL
R2003.4 - Landmark
CURRENT RUN
CPU TIME
% OF TOTAL
-------------------0: 0: 2.78
5.14
CUMULATIVE
CPU TIME
% OF TOTAL
-------------------0: 0: 2.78
5.14
0: 0: 1.91
0: 0: 3.03
0: 0: 0.42
0: 0:22.37
0: 0:11.57
0: 0: 7.75
0: 0: 3.94
0: 0: 0.30
----------0: 0:54.07
0: 0: 1.91
0: 0: 3.03
0: 0: 0.42
0: 0:22.37
0: 0:11.57
0: 0: 7.75
0: 0: 3.94
0: 0: 0.30
----------0: 0:54.07
3.53
5.60
.78
41.37
21.40
14.33
7.29
.55
---------100.00
3.53
5.60
.78
41.37
21.40
14.33
7.29
.55
---------100.00
27-403
RWMAX
(I,J,K)
1846.
( 30 20
2
1423.
( 30 20
3
999.4
( 30 20
4
575.9
( 30 20
5
152.5
( 30 20
6
.6186
( 14 17
*** TIMESTEP CUT
CURRENT SIZE =
*** TIMESTEP CUT
CURRENT SIZE =
RHCMAX
(I,J,K)
DPMAX
(I,J,K)
DSWMAX
(I,J,K)
DVMAX
(I,J,K)
DZMAX
(I,J,K)
.1819E+05
13.25
.2008E-01
.2181
.5224E-01
7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
.1402E+05
10.19
.1547E-01
.1681
.4026E-01
7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
9850.
7.165
.1086E-01
.1180
.2828E-01
7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
5677.
4.135
.6260E-02
.6801E-01
.1629E-01
7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
1503.
1.099
.1656E-02
.1800E-01
.4313E-02
7) ( 25 7 3) ( 32 27 5) ( 15 19 3) ( 27 11 2) ( 27 11 2)
1.655
.0000E+00
.0000E+00
.0000E+00
.0000E+00
3) ( 29 19 7) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1) ( 1 1 1)
DUE TO CONVERGENCE FAILURE:
11.6728
DTMIN =
1.00000
CUT FACTOR =
2.00000
DUE TO EXCEEDING MAXIMUM CHANGES:
5.83639
DVMAX =
.111261
( 27, 11, 2) CUT FACTOR =
RWSUM
RHCSUM
INNER
ITN
DAMPING
FACTOR
.5845E+05
-.2783E+06
.22929
(DV)
.4505E+05
-.2145E+06
.29750
(DV)
.3164E+05
-.1507E+06
.42368
(DV)
.1824E+05
-.8683E+05
.73519
(DV)
4830.
-.2299E+05
1.00000
.2104E-01
-.5707E-01
1.00000
2.22522
27-404
RWMAX
(I,J,K)
1337.
( 12 18
1636.
( 6 9
-28.38
( 6 12
RHCMAX
(I,J,K)
.3001E+05
2) ( 25 7 3)
-81.93
2) ( 15 19 2)
-1.419
2) ( 29 23 2)
DPMAX
(I,J,K)
DSWMAX
(I,J,K)
-7.843
.1787E-01
( 1 1 7) ( 11 16 3)
1.124
.1089E-02
( 26 7 7) ( 6 9 2)
-.6427E-01
.7079E-04
( 29 9 3) ( 6 11 2)
DVMAX
(I,J,K)
.3638E-01
( 24 8 2)
-.8657E-03
( 26 7 7)
.7424E-04
( 28 9 3)
DZMAX
(I,J,K)
RWSUM
.8650E-02
.3147E+05
( 24 8 2)
-.1636E-03
1.636
( 26 7 7)
.1718E-04 -.2209E-03
( 28 9 3)
RHCSUM
INNER
ITN
DAMPING
FACTOR
-.1758E+06
1.00000
-4.118
1.00000
1.00000
.2807E-02
Landmark - R2003.4
3.8536E+01
2.9722E-01
5.7713E-02
B
2-NORM(REL)= 6.5890E-02
2-NORM(REL)= 5.0819E-03
2-NORM(REL)= 9.8679E-04
C
CITNS= 4
CITNS= 4
CITNS= 3
POOR CONVERGENCE
A. Large number of BLITZ iterations
B. Slow reduction in 2-norm of the residual from its initial value
C. Large (Max) number of constraint iterations
A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
R2003.4 - Landmark
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
2-NORM(ABS)=
3.4026E+01
3.3998E+01
2.7182E+01
1.8116E+01
1.0029E+01
3.8303E+00
9.7611E-01
7.9748E-01
7.4734E-01
2.0066E-01
2.0064E-01
2.0064E-01
2.0064E-01
2.0066E-01
2.0064E-01
1.9753E-01
1.9747E-01
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
2-NORM(REL)=
B
9.10673-01
6.0993E-01
7.2751E-01
4.8486E-01
2.6843E-01
1.0251E-01
2.6125E-02
2.1344E-02
2.0002E-02
5.3704E-03
5.3700E-03
5.3700E-03
5.3700E-03
5.3699E-03
5.3699E-03
5.2867E-03
5.2850E-03
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
CITNS=
C
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
27-405
Run Optimization
27-406
Landmark - R2003.4
Run Optimization
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-407
Run Optimization
(k)
(k)
(k 1)
= min max, max [ , (
) ]
(27-1)
where:
(k)
(k)
(k)
(k 1) (k 1)
F
F +J
= -----------------------------------------------------------------------(k 1)
F
(27-2)
The default mode for all solvers, i.e., when no solver card is specified,
is to run with the same fixed linear tolerance for all Newton
iterations. The adjustable tolerance algorithm must be explicitly
requested by specifying either the ADJTOL option or any number of
the four controlling parameter options described above.
27-408
Landmark - R2003.4
Run Optimization
Some behavior can be attributed to the type of model being run, but more
commonly we must use the information provided by the simulation
program to locate the cause.
The first step in analyzing your run performance is to obtain an iteration
summary, using PRINT ITER 1.
Get a feel for your run - examine the run statistics (timesteps, iteration,
unaccepted timesteps, convergence failures), check material balance on
the timestep summary line, and look at layer allocation in your wells.
Find out what your timesteps are being limited by. It will either be a
timestep size limitation or a maximum change value. Can this constraint
be relaxed?
If the same block (or blocks) are flagged repeatedly in iteration and/or
error messages, check these blocks for small PV, very high transmissibility
or the like.
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-409
Run Optimization
27-410
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-411
For an Equation of State compositional model one can also say that the
CPU time is roughly proportional to the number of components to the 3/2
power.
27-412
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-413
27-414
Landmark - R2003.4
NPRFTOT
250
BLITZ
Second, if the initialization data for the model has already been prepared
and run through VIP-CORE, but the production strategy has not yet been
determined, the simulator will pick up the restart file from VIP-CORE and
use any dimensions specified (or defaulted), such as the number of wells
and perforations, to estimate the storage required.
Example:
STORAGE
DIM
NWMAX
NPRFMX
50
5
IMPES
RESTART
0
BLITZ
NORTH
15
STOP
END
NPRFTOT
250
BLITZ
Note that when using the STORAGE option in either case, the BLITZ
keyword needs to be the last keyword specified on the DIM card.
R2003.4 - Landmark
27-415
27-416
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
28
Single-Well Gridded Wellbore Simulation
28.1 Introduction
This option was designed primarily to simulate single-well commingled
production performance from multiple reservoirs with hundreds of feet of
separation between them. The wellbore is modelled as the innermost ring
of gridblocks, which allows for counter-current phase wellbore flow and
wellbore storage. Collins, et al92 presented a technique for modelling of
horizontal wells wherein the wellbore was treated as a second porosity in
the dual-porosity approach. The well "permeability" and "relative
permeabilities" were adjusted to yield the pressure drop and phase slip
predicted from multiphase flow correlations. This option makes use of
parts of their technique; however, instead of using the dual porosity to
model the wellbore, the innermost ring of the radial grid system is used to
model the vertical wellbore. The equations for wellbore flow are
transformed into a form similar to Darcy's flow, and then applied to the
vertical flow within the first ring of the grid system (wellbore).
Six two-phase flow correlations are available in the current simulator for
vertical or inclined pipe flow, including Hagedorn and Brown, Dunns and
Ross, Beggs and Brill, Aziz and Govier, Orkiszewski, and Griffith, Lau,
Hon, and Pearson. In these correlations, flow conditions are divided into
patterns or flow regimes. Using the user-specified flow correlation and the
computed flow regime at each interval, the simulator transforms the
wellbore flow equations into Darcy-type vertical flow coefficients for each
interval at the start of each time step.
R2003.4 - Landmark
28-417
P loss = P f + P h + P k
(28-1)
where
2
28-418
fLv
p f = ------------------2g c D
(28-2)
P h = g c Z
(28-3)
Landmark - R2003.4
1
2
p k = --- ( v )
2
(28-4)
where f is the Moody friction factor, is the total fluid mass density, D is
the wellbore diameter, v is fluid velocity, gc is gravity acceleration, Z is
mid-perforation depth difference, L is mid-perforation length difference,
and
j = o, g, w
j Sj
(28-5)
P loss
fLv
= ------------------- g c Z
2g c D
(28-6)
L f v
P
(28-7)
k
q
v = --- = ----- ------- Z
A
(28-8)
vD
R e = ----------
(28-9)
j = o, g, w
jS j
(28-10)
For laminar flow (Re < 2000), the friction factor is expressed by:
64
f = -----Re
(28-11)
Substituting Equation 28-11 and Equation 28-9 into Equation 28-7 gives
L 64 v
(28-12)
R2003.4 - Landmark
28-419
2g c D
k = ----------------------L
64 -------
Z
(28-13)
(28-14)
2g D --2c
k = --------------------------
dp
f -------
L
(28-15)
--2D
9
k = 1.314376 10 --------------------------
dP
f -------
L
(28-16)
k k rj
v j = ---------------- -------
Z
(28-17)
where
k rj = S j, j = o, g, w
(28-18)
A different representation for liquid holdup is used here than was used in
Collins, et. al.92 The following form is assumed for kro and krw:
k ro = S o
k rw = S w
where
28-420
Landmark - R2003.4
g
----- 1
l
(28-19)
Since the pressure drop calculated from the two-phase flow correlations
included the effects of liquid holdup, the "effective" permeability must
also be adjusted as
k
k = ---------------------------------------( Sg + ( 1 Sg ) )
(28-20)
n+1
( 1 Sg ) n
= ------------------- , with
hl
= 1.0
(28-21)
1
--4
( ) ( L g )
v c = 1.85 -----------------------------------1
( g )
(28-22)
--2
R2003.4 - Landmark
vc v
ml = m + ( l m ) -------------------------------------------------
v c + ( rdamp 1 ) v
(28-23)
vc v
mg = m + ( g m ) -------------------------------------------------
v c + ( rdamp 1 ) v
(28-24)
28-421
28-422
Landmark - R2003.4
rdamp
HAGEDO
DUNROS
BEGGS
AZIZ
ORKISZ
Orkiszewski
GRIFFI
All vertical flow transport parameters for the first column of gridblocks
(wellbore) are calculated dynamically for each time step, with special
treatment for the phase mobilities. These changes are as follows :
R2003.4 - Landmark
Phase mobilities for flow in the wellbore are based on the mixture
viscosity, instead of the phase viscosity.
28-423
If the gas flow velocity is greater than the minimum gas lift velocity,
the gravity gradients in the wellbore are based on the mixture density,
instead of the individual phase densities. If the gas flow velocity is less
than the minimum gas lift velocity, the damped phase gradients are
used instead of the individual phase gradients.
The pressure drop in the wellbore can be described as the sum of the
pressure drops due to friction, gravity, and kinetic energy. The kinetic
energy pressure loss is usually quite small and is neglected. At the
start of each time step, the gas and liquid superficial velocities are
calculated based on the converged conditions at the end of the
previous timestep. From this, the Reynolds number and friction factor
are calculated for each segment from the specified correlation, after
which the average mixture velocity and then the equivalent Darcy
velocity are calculated. The effective wellbore vertical permeability
(Kwe) is then calculated, and held constant over the timestep.
28-424
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
29
Surface Pipeline Network Options1
29.1 Introduction
The implementation of a surface pipeline network option in VIPEXECUTIVE is described in this chapter (also see Reference 69). Major
features of this option and areas of its applications are summarized below:
The capabilities have been implemented for modeling the fluid flow in
well tubing. Hydraulic tables, analytical correlations, look-up tables
for pressure gradient definition, or any combinations of these tools can
be used to determine pressure drop from the wellbore to wellhead.
This part of the option can be used independently from the surface
pipeline network model.
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-425
Introduction
29.1.1 Background
The new option is designed for accurate modeling of interactions between
reservoir, production wells, and surface pipeline network system. It
calculates bottomhole pressure and rates of production wells from the
simultaneous simulation of the multiphase fluid flow in the reservoir, well
tubing, and surface pipeline network system. Any changes in a gathering
network will affect individual rates of production wells. Therefore, the
production rate of any well can be accurately defined only from an
intersection of an inflow performance curve (which is determined by the
reservoir model) and an outflow performance curve (which is defined by
the surface pipeline network model). These intersections are determined
in the new option.
The surface pipeline network option determines variable tubinghead
pressures in production wells, analyzing well inflow performance, flow of
multi-phase fluids in tubing, throughput capacity and maximum
deliverability of the gathering system.
Production limits and targets in nodes of the gathering system may be
specified. For example, the user can specify the minimum pressure and/or
maximum rates in any node (such as gathering center, flow station, etc.) of
the surface pipeline network system and then, the simulator automatically
determines rates of all production wells connected to the node according
to pipeline pressure loss relationships.
The new option also models physical processes in different elements of the
gathering system using hydraulic models of a multiphase fluid flow in
surface network devices (such as pipelines, valves, etc.).
New capabilities are implemented for modeling the fluid flow in well
tubing. Besides hydraulic tables (which are currently available in VIPEXECUTIVE), analytical correlations, look-up tables for pressure gradient
definition, or any combination of these tools can be used to determine
pressure drop from the wellbore to the wellhead. This part of the new
option can be used independently from the more general surface pipeline
network modeling.
29-426
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
29.1.2 Applications
The new surface pipeline network option has a wide range of applications
in oil and gas field models. Several important applications are listed
below:
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-427
29-428
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
(29-1)
29-429
dp
g
v dv f v
------ ( L ) = ----- sin ------ ------ ---------------dL
gc
g c dL 2g c d
(29-2)
where:
L
dp
------ ( L )
dL
dp
g
----= ----- sin
dL elev
gc
dp
v dv
----= -------- ----- dL acc
g c dL
29-430
gravitational constant
gc
fluid density
fluid velocity
dv
-----dL
Landmark - R2003.4
dp
f v
----= --------------- dL frict
2g c d
Flow
dL
P(L)
dP
P ( L dL ) P ( L ) ------- dL
dL
Solution Algorithm
A second order Runge-Kutta procedure with an automatic selection of
integration intervals is applied for the numerical solution of the nonlinear
ordinary differential equation (Equation 29-2) with the boundary
condition equation (Equation 29-1). This procedure is summarized as
follows:
1. Start with known pressure p(L) = pout at the pipe outlet L = LENGTH.
2. Determine a number of hydrocarbon phases, their compositions, and
compressibility factors using phase-equilibrium computations. A
different phase-equilibrium procedure52 is applied in compositional
models. Standard VIP-EXECUTIVE techniques (see Chapter 23),
which are currently used in VIP-EXECUTIVE for the reservoir flash
calculations, are used in black-oil models.
3. Define densities and volumetric rates of the oil, gas, and water phases
at the current pressure, p(L), from the equation-of-state (see Chapter
23).
4. Determine viscosities of the oil, gas, and water phases using LohrenzBray-Clark28 or Pedersen37 correlations. The techniques are similar to
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-431
dp
dL
friction factor f,
density ,
viscosity,
velocity v
29-432
Landmark - R2003.4
Orkiszewski,
dp
------ ( L )L PRESIN ,
dL
L L 0
dP
p ( L 0.5 ) = p ( L ) 0.5 ------- ( L )L
dL
dp
dP
p ( L 1 ) = p ( L ) ------- ( L 0.5 )L
dL
5. Set the current pipe location L to L1 and repeat Steps 2 - 12 if the
current location is not smaller than zero.
As shown above, the phase-equilibrium and pressure gradient
computations are repeated twice for each integration interval of the pipe.
If the number of the integration intervals is large, these computations
require a significant amount of CPU time (especially in compositional
models).
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-433
Solution Algorithm
The solution procedure for determining the pressure drop in a flow
device, described by a hydraulic table, is as follows:
1. Specify values of pressure and temperature at the outlet of the flow
device.
29-434
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-435
Alternatively, oil or gas rate (QO or QG) may be used instead of the liquid
rate, and gas-liquid or oil-gas ratios (GLR or OGR) may be used instead of
the gas-oil ratio, and water-gas ratio (WGR) may be used instead of the
water cut.
The pressure gradient at the current pipe location L is calculated as a
difference of the pressures at the end and the beginning of a pipe interval
divided by the interval length:
dp
THP BHP
------ ( L ) = -----------------------------dL
dzw
valve control,
The model predicts subcritical pressure drop across the valve using the
following equation50,51:
Q tot Q tot
p out p in = CVX ( X ) ----------------------
(29-3)
where:
29-436
pout
pin
Qtot
Landmark - R2003.4
CVX(X)
Solution Algorithm
The solution procedure for determining the pressure drop in a valve is as
follows:
1. Specify values for pressure and temperature at the outlet of the valve.
2. Determine the number of the hydrocarbon phases, their compositions,
and compressibility factors using the phase-equilibrium
computations.
3. Determine mass rates and densities of oil, gas, and water phases from
the equation-of-state.
4. Calculate mass rate and density of the fluid mixture.
5. Determine a valve coefficient as described in the previous section.
6. Determine pressure at the inlet of the valve from Equation 29-3.
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-437
Wellbore Model
A standard VIP-EXECUTIVE wellbore model described in Chapter 38 is
applied in the surface pipeline network option for the determination of
the well inflow performance. This model simulates molar rates of
hydrocarbon components and water rate at the stock tank conditions of
each production well as functions of the following variables:
29-438
bottomhole pressure,
Landmark - R2003.4
i = 1,2,...,nc,
w = 1,2,...,nwmax.
(29-4)
QWw = QWw(PBHw),
where:
QCwi
QWw
PBHw
nc
nwmax
Each link has only one inlet and one outlet. A link can be constructed
from several flow device models sequentially connected with each other.
For example, the link shown in Figure 29-2 consists of the four following
flow device models: tubing, valve, pipe, and hydraulic table (BHPTAB).
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-439
Tubing
Model
Valve
Model
Pipe
Model
BHPTAB
Link
Outlet
Link
Inlet
Figure 29-2: An Example of a Link
A node is the junction of several links. Each node can have any number of
input links but only one output link. The production wells can be
connected to any node.
An example of a surface pipeline network is shown below in Figure 29-3.
In this example, a gathering system of seven production wells is
simulated. Five nodes are present in the system. Links are used for the
simulation of the flow in well tubing and in connections between nodes.
For example, the multi-phase fluid flow from a wellbore to a wellhead of
Well 5 is simulated by Link 3. Link 5 represents the flow between the
wellhead of Well 5 and Node 4. The flow between Node 4 and Node 5 is
simulated by Link 6.
Node 5
Link 6
Node 4
Link 5
Node 3
Node 2
Node 1
Wellhead
Wellhead
Link 3
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Mass conservation and pressure equations describe the fluid flow in the
surface pipeline network system. These equations are described below.
The mass conservation equations for the hydrocarbon components and water
phase are formulated for each node of the surface pipeline network
system.
29-440
Landmark - R2003.4
QC ni =
j Nn
QC ji +
w Wn
QC wi,
i = 1, 2, , nc,
n = 1, 2, , nnodes (29-5)
where:
QCni
QCwi
Nn
Wn
nc
nnodes
QW n =
j Nn
QW j +
w Wn
QW w,
n = 1, 2, , nnodes
(29-6)
where:
QWn
QWw
The pressure equations are formulated for each link. They determine the
pressure at the inlet of the link as a function of the pressure at the outlet of
the link, molar rates of hydrocarbon components and water rate in the
link.
For a link connecting the j-th and n-th nodes, the pressure equation can be
formulated as follows:
P j = F jn ( P n, QC j, QW j )
R2003.4 - Landmark
(29-7)
29-441
where:
Pj
Pn
PBH w = F w ( TH P w, QC w, QW w )
(29-8)
T HP w = F wn ( P n, QC w, QW w )
(29-9)
where:
PBHw
THPw
The models of the flow devices from which the link is constructed are used
for the derivations of the pressure Equations 29-7, 29-8, and 29-9. These
models are described in Section 2.
29-442
Landmark - R2003.4
P n PMI N n,
n = 1, 2, , nnodes
(29-10)
Rate Constraints:
Q pn QMAX pn ,
p = o, g, w, l,
n = 1, 2, , nnodes
(29-11)
where:
PMINn
Qon, Qgn, Qwn, Qln oil, gas, water, and liquid volumetric rates at the nth node
QMAXon, QMAXgn, QMAXwn, QMAXln
The user assigns each node of the surface pipeline network system to a
separator battery. The volumetric rates of oil, gas, and water at any node
are calculated by flashing the feedstream through the separator battery
attached to the node.
In addition to Constraints Equations 29-10 and 29-11, the surface pipeline
network model honors all well constraints (on bottomhole pressure,
tubinghead pressure, maximum rate, water limit, gas limit, economic
limit, etc.) and well management constraints that are available in VIPEXECUTIVE Version 2.4.
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-443
bottomhole pressure,
tubinghead pressure,
oil, water, and gas production rates at the stock tank conditions
pressure distribution,
subject to pressure and rate constraints (Equation 29-10) and (Equation 2911).
The procedure developed for the solution of this problem is described in
the next section.
29-444
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-445
Q np = QMAX np,
n N Q NL
(29-12)
where NQNL is the subset of nodes from the NL-th level. Rate
constraints (Equation 29-11) with some index p are violated at these
nodes.
An effective procedure has been developed for the solution of a system
of nonlinear Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and 29-12. This procedure is
based on the convergent structure of the surface pipeline network
system without loops.
7. If pressure constraints (Equation 29-10) are not honored at some nodes
of the NL-th level, calculate bottomhole pressures of the production
wells and pressures at the nodes from the solution of Equations 29-4
through 29-9 and the following constraints:
P n = PMAX n,
n N P NL
(29-13)
where NPNL is the subset of nodes from the NL-th level. Pressure
constraints (Equation 29-10) are violated at these nodes.
A similar procedure as in Step 6 is applied for the solution of a system
of nonlinear Equations 29-4 through 29-9 and 29-13.
8. Reduce the node level NL by one and repeat Steps 3-7 if NL is not
smaller than one.
29-446
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
29-447
29-448
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
30
Total Compressibility Checks
30.1 Introduction
VIP-CORE performs several checks on black-oil input data. Each BOTAB
table is checked after it is read. Compositional input data are not checked.
Validation of the BOTAB data is divided into three parts:
1. Reasonableness of saturated data.
2. Positive hydrocarbon compressibility of saturated oil.
3. Reasonableness of undersaturated oil data.
An example of a typical BOTAB table follows.
Saturated
oil data
Under-saturated
oil data
R2003.4 - Landmark
BOTAB
API
27.5
PSAT
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
14.65
PSAT
DP
100.
200.
300.
.
.
.
1
WTRO
200.
RS
BO
ZG
930 1.48 .88
720 1.37 .85
541 1.30 .80
378 1.24 .81
212 1.17 .86
0 1.05 .96
3000.
BOFAC VOFAC
.990
1.01
.980
1.02
.970
1.03
.
.
.
.
.
.
GR
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
VO
VG
.72 .028
.90 .025
1.07 .022
1.32 .018
1.81 .014
3.34 .012
4000.
BOFAC VOFAC
.995
1.02
.994
1.04
.993
1.06
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30-449
Reasonableness Check
30-450
Landmark - R2003.4
( B g R s B o ) > 0
(30-1)
(30-2)
R2003.4 - Landmark
30-451
o ( P sat + DP )
VOFAC ( DP ) = ----------------------------------- o ( P sat )
(30-3)
30-452
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
31
Tracking Calculations In VIP-EXECUTIVE
31.1 Introduction
There are several possible methods to perform fluid tracking in
compositional simulation. The method that is implemented in VIPEXECUTIVE is designed to track so-called equity fluids. Equity fluid is a
legal concept associated with ownership. The fluid tracking algorithm in
VIP-EXECUTIVE is, therefore, designed to determine oil, gas, and
condensate reserves of a reservoir if the reservoir is owned by several
companies.
An equity fluid usually is defined according to original location within a
reservoir. These may be gas-cap gas, oil-zone oil, relict oil (liquid
hydrocarbon phase that originally exists in a gas cap), etc. One may have
to track injected fluids or retrograde condensate. Tracking of the
retrograde is different from tracking other fluids. Initially, the retrograde
fluid is not present in a reservoir. It is formed from the gas cap gas via
condensation in the reservoir as a result of reservoir pressure decline.
However, the retrograde cannot be viewed as the renamed liquid phase of
the gas cap gas. If the retrograde is revaporized, it does not convert back to
gas-cap gas, but remains as retrograde.
Reservoir fluids undergo significant compositional transformation during
the productive life of a reservoir. These transformations include such
phenomena as retrograde condensation of the gas-cap gas in the reservoir,
evolution of solution gas from oil-zone oil, mixing of different reservoir
fluids in the reservoir and in separator facilities, revaporization of
retrograde condensate and vaporization of reservoir oil caused by lean gas
injection. In addition, fluids move within the reservoir; gas cap expands
into the oil zone and in turn is displaced by injected lean gas. All this tends
to mix fluids. Therefore, the purpose of fluid tracking is to keep account of
different equity fluids despite all compositional interaction and mixing in
the reservoir and separator facilities.
R2003.4 - Landmark
31-453
Tracking Philosophy
31-454
Landmark - R2003.4
Tracking in a Reservoir
n fl
xi =
T
x ij,
yi =
yij
T
(31-1)
j=1
j=1
Let uo be molar flux; i.e., uo is equal to the number of oil moles that flows
through a unit area per unit time. Each of these moles contains xi moles of
component i. Therefore, the oil molar flux of component i, uoi, is defined as
uoi = uo xi. Similar considerations can be applied to define molar fluxes of
tracked substances. The oil molar flux of component i of fluid j, uoij, is
defined as uoij = uo xijT, and the gas molar flux of component i of fluid j,
ugij, is defined as ugij = ug yijT. It is easy to show that the following is valid:
n fl
n fl
o
ui
j=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
o
u ij,
g
ui
uij
g
(31-2)
j=1
31-455
Tracking in a Reservoir
o
g
----- { F [ V y i + ( 1 V )x i ] } + ( u x i ) + ( u y i )
t
p
I I
I I
qo xi qg yi + qo xi + qg yi = 0
(31-3)
p
I I
o
----- [ F ( 1 V )x i ] + ( u x i ) q o x i + q o x i = T i
t
(31-4)
g
p
I I
----- [ FV y i ] + ( u y i ) q g x i + q g y i = T i
t
(31-5)
T
o T
p T
I TI
----- [ F ( 1 V )x ij ] + ( u x ij ) q o x ij + q o x ij = T ij
t
(31-6)
T
p T
I TI
g T
----- [ FV y ij ] + ( u x ij ) q g y ij + q g y ij = T ij
t
(31-7)
Here, xijTI and yijTI are values similar to xijT and yijT, but are for the
injected streams. Composition and makeup of injected fluids in terms of
tracked substances are assumed to be known. Tij is a mass transfer term
for tracked fluid j, and defines the number of moles of component i of
tracked fluid j that condenses from gas into oil in a unit volume per unit
time.
Equations 31-6 and 31-7 must be consistent with the mass transfer
Equations 31-4 and 31-5, which are used in the simulator. This means that
the equations that result from summation of Equations 31-6 and 31-7 over
31-456
Landmark - R2003.4
Tracking in a Reservoir
all tracked fluids must be identical to Equations 31-4 and 31-5. By using
these relationships, it can be verified that this is satisfied if
n fl
T ij
= Ti
(31-8)
j=1
Equation 31-8 is the only condition imposed on mass transfer terms Tij.
This condition does not uniquely define the mass transfer terms. Some
additional assumptions must be made to define Tij and close Equations 316 and 31-7.
T ij
y ij
= T i ----yi
for condensation.
(31-9)
T ij
x ij
= T i ----xi
for vaporization.
(31-10)
R2003.4 - Landmark
31-457
Tracking in a Reservoir
Note that there is no unique way to define mass transfer terms, Tij.
Equations 31-9 and 31-10 provide one of many possible assumptions. For
example, the following definition of the mass transfer terms also satisfies
the consistency condition:
g T
T ij
w j y ij
= T i ----------------------,
n
fl
if T i > 0
(31-11)
if T i < 0
(31-12)
g T
w k y ik
k=1
o T
T ij
w j x ij
= T i ----------------------,
n
fl
wk xik
o T
k=1
Here, wjo and wjg are weighting factors that must be provided by the user.
For equal weighting factors, this definition of the mass transfer terms is
reduced to the previous one. Therefore, Equations 31-11 and 31-12 may be
viewed as a generalization of Equations 31-9 and 31-10. By assigning
unequal weighting factors, we have preferential evaporation or
condensation of certain fluids relative to other fluids.
One may question the consistency of allowing preferential vaporization or
condensation of certain tracked fluids with the assumptions
o
o T
u ij = u x ij,
g T
u ij = u y ij
for the tracked fluid molar flow rates used in Equations 31-6 and 31-7.
Those expressions may be interpreted as an assumption of the uniform
distribution of equity fluids within the oil and gas phases. And if that is
the case, then the preferential vaporization or condensation contradicts
this uniform distribution of the tracked fluids. In this regard, note that
Equations 31-6 and 31-7 and expressions 31-11 and 31-12 are used on the
scale of gridblocks that is many orders of magnitude larger than the pore
scale. The processes of mass transfer between the phases and of fluid flow
actually occur on the pore scale. What looks like uniform tracked fluid
distribution within the phases on the macroscopic scale of gridblocks may
not be true on the subgrid scale of individual pores. Therefore, the
possibility of preferential vaporization or condensation of tracked fluids
and Equations 31-6 and 31-7 are not necessarily inconsistent.
The definition Equations 31-11 and 31-12 of the mass transfer terms
actually are implemented in the tracking algorithm of the VIPEXECUTIVE simulator. This definition provides an option to account for
possible preferential evaporation or condensation of some equity fluids.
However, it is the users responsibility to justify any specific set of
weighting factors used in a simulation.
31-458
Landmark - R2003.4
Tracking in a Reservoir
R2003.4 - Landmark
31-459
Tracking in a Reservoir
31-460
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
32
Tracer Analysis Option1
32.1 Summary
This is a description of an option which has been developed to improve
and expand the simulation capabilities in the analysis and interpretation
of tracer tests and in the design and performance analysis of waterflood
and gas injection projects. The option is built around the particle tracking
method which allows accurate simulation of tracer flow associated with
convection and physical dispersion. The method is nearly numerical
dispersion free and allows accurate simulation of tracer flow in field scale
simulation. The algorithm, implemented in VIP-EXECUTIVE, allows
simulation of tracer flow within the framework of three-dimensional,
multi-phase, non steady state reservoir simulation. In addition to accurate
simulation of tracer flow the software allows:
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-461
Background
32.2 Background
Waterflooding is the most widely used method of secondary oil
production. A waterflood project usually involves a number of water
injectors and producers arranged in some pattern. Optimal recovery of oil
in such an operation requires coordinated operation of water injectors and
producers. This insures that oil is displaced by water uniformly
throughout the reservoir and there is no early water breakthrough in some
wells while large portions of the reservoir are not swept by water. Such
operation of a waterflood project requires an extensive reservoir
surveillance program as well as some specialized reservoir simulation
tools which help reservoir engineers understand the performance of the
waterflood.
Design of a waterflood project requires detailed knowledge of the
reservoir (reservoir geometry, distribution of oil within the reservoir, rock
properties, major reservoir heterogeneities, faults) and the capability to
predict the project performance under different operational scenarios. This
is usually done on the basis of simplified reservoir models which assume
that well patterns are balanced and that it is possible to reduce the
problem to the analysis of oil displacement within an element of
symmetry (for example, a five-spot pattern). A reservoir is often
considered as two-dimensional or as a combination of several
homogeneous layers. Displacement of oil by water is often approximated
as a unit mobility ratio displacement. The fluid flow is viewed in terms of
stream lines and stream tubes and effectiveness of oil displacement is
characterized in terms of areal sweep.
Surprisingly, the state of the art reservoir simulation technology is very
rarely used in this area of reservoir engineering. There are no real technical
reasons for this. With existing commercial reservoir simulators and with
the hardware capabilities available, it is possible to accurately simulate oil
displacement by water and predict performance of a waterflood project by
taking into account actual reservoir geometry, fluid and rock properties
and large scale heterogeneities as well as actual operational conditions.
Reservoir simulation performed with a commercial reservoir simulator on
a fine enough grid system provides more accurate results than the
estimates made by using simplified models. Displacement of oil by water
may be adequately simulated in most cases on a grid with ten blocks
between wells and such models will be able to represent the most
important large scale heterogeneities. There is, however, a process often
associated with waterflood surveillance programs which commercial
reservoir simulators are not able to simulate adequately. This process is a
tracer test.
32-462
Landmark - R2003.4
Tracer Tests
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-463
S p p c
---------------------- + ( q p p c ) = ( Dc ) + R p p c
t
(32-1)
32-464
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-465
Implementation in VIP
32-466
Landmark - R2003.4
Implementation in VIP
v
4
w
3
5
6
8
7
In corner-point option, each cell is defined by the coordinates of its eight
corners
r ( x, y, z ) i (i =1,...,8)
and can be mapped to a unit cube by the following equation
r = r 1 + ur 21 + vr 41 + wr 51 + uv ( r 32 r 41 ) + vw ( r 84 r 51 ) + uw ( r 62 r 51 )
+ uvw [ ( r 21 r 34 ) ( r 65 r 78 ) ]
where
r ij = r i r j
and u, v, and w are coordinates in unit cube space
V p = V x n x + V y n y + V z n z.
Velocity quantities are linear interpolations of phase velocities across the
cell face
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-467
Implementation in VIP
V x = ( 1 u )v x- + uv x+
V y = ( 1 v )v y- + vv y+
V z = ( 1 w )v z- + wv z+
and velocity directions are results of bilinear interpolations
4
n xi w xi , n y
nx =
i=1
n yi w yi , and nz
i=1
nzi wzi
i=1
n x1
n x2
n x3
n x4
= n 21
= n 65
= n 78
= n 34
n y1
n y2
,
n y3
n y4
= n 41
= n 85
= n 76
= n 32
n z1
n z2
, and
n z3
n z4
= n 51
= n 84
= n 73
= n 62
w x1
w x2
w x3
w x4
= (1 v)(1 w)
= ( 1 v )w
= vw
= v(1 w)
w y1
w y2
,
w y3
w y4
= (1 u)(1 w)
= ( 1 u )w
= uw
= u(1 w)
w z1
w z2
, and
w z3
w z4
= (1 u)(1 v)
= ( 1 u )v
= uv
= u(1 v)
2
xr = xw Rr 1 + k
y = y R k 1 + k2
w
r
r
where
32-468
Landmark - R2003.4
Implementation in VIP
k = ( y p yw ) ( x p xw )
is the slope and R r is the reference radius.
The velocities contributed from cell faces at the reference points V b are
calculated in the same way as for particles in non-well cells with the r
components V br and theta components V b .
The velocities contributed from the wells are
2
V wr
q log ( 1 + 2qt H r )
= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .
2
2
2H ( r + 2qt H r r )
where q is the flow rate, is angle open to the well, r is the particle
distance to the well center, H is the cell average height, and t is the
timestep size for particle movement.
A radial distance r c is defined as
r c = q ( H V br )
to measure the relative impact from the well and from cell boundaries.
When particles move close to well, well impact becomes significant while
boundary effect is diminishing, the radial velocities are calculated by
V V br R r
V r = wV b R r + ( 1 w )V wr
V wr
r rc > 1
r r c ( , 1 ]
r rc
where
w = (r rc ) (1 )
is a weighting factor and is a constant of 0.2.
The theta components of the velocities are linearly distributed along the r
direction and zero when particles are in the vicinity of the wells.
R2003.4 - Landmark
V (r rc ) ( R rc ) r rc >
= b
0
r rc
32-469
Implementation in VIP
Particle reflections
Particles reflect while they hit the non-flow cell faces. The transformation
function from physical space to unit cube space can be written in general
as
r = x ( u, v, w )i + y ( u, v, w ) j + z ( u, v, w )k
where i , j , and k are the unit vectors of x, y, and z coordinates in physical
space. Each cell face can be expressed as
r x - = x ( 0, v, w )i + y ( 0, v, w ) j + z ( 0, v, w )k , r x + = x ( 1, v, w )i + y ( 1, v, w ) j + z ( 1, v, w )k
r y- = x ( u, 0, w )i + y ( u, 0, w ) j + z ( u, 0, w )k , r y+ = x ( u, 1, w )i + y ( u, 1, w ) j + z ( u, 1, w )k
r z- = x ( u, v, 0 )i + y ( u, v, 0 ) j + z ( u, v, 0 )k , r z+ = x ( u, v, 1 )i + y ( u, v, 1 ) j + z ( u, v, 1 )k .
The unit normal vector for each face are then calculated by
r x - r x n x - = --------- ---------
w
v
r x - r x r x + r x +
--------- --------- , n x + = --------- ----------
w
v
v
w
r x + r x +
---------- ---------- ,
v
w
r y- r yn y- = --------- ---------
u
w
r y- r yr y+ r y+
--------- --------- , n y+ = -------- ---------
u
w
w
u
r y+ r y+
--------- --------- ,
w
u
r z- r zn z- = -------- --------
v
u
r z- r zr + r +
-------- -------- , n z+ = --------z- --------z-
v
u
u
v
r + r +
--------z- --------z- .
u
v
v' = v 2 ( n v )n
for a particle that has a velocity v and hits a point where the face normal is
n.
r = r 0 + tv
where v is the particle velocity, t is the current timestep, and r 0 is the
particle start point. This calculated position is accepted as the particle new
location if r and r 0 are in the same cells.
32-470
Landmark - R2003.4
Implementation in VIP
If the particle moves outside the current cell, a set of nonlinear equations is
solved for u, v, w , and t 0 for each face
x ( u, v, w )i + y ( u, v, w ) j + z ( u, v, w )k vt 0 = r 0
The solution is unique and under the constraints
-
x : u = 0, v [ 0, 1 ], w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
+
x : u = 1, v [ 0, 1 ], w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
-
y : u [ 0, 1 ], v = 0, w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
+
y : u [ 0, 1 ], v = 1, w [ 0, 1 ], t 0 > 0 ,
-
z : u [ 0, 1 ], v [ 0, 1 ], w = 0, t 0 > 0 ,
+
z : u [ 0, 1 ], v [ 0, 1 ], w = 1, t 0 > 0 .
The results tell the location on cell face that particle has crossed or
reflected, travel time for particle reaching the face, and the new cell that
particle will move into. The tracking calculation continues based on the
new cell and the remaining time left from the current timestep.
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-471
32-472
Landmark - R2003.4
for two slugs of tracer represented by 10,000 and 500 particles. The level of
noise is much higher for 500 particles.
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-473
Particle-Tracking Method
Grid 40x40
Grid 10x10
Breakthrough Time,
PV Injected
0.7178
0.7213
07249
Breakthrough Sweep,
Fraction
0.7178
0.7200
0.7404
32-474
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-475
The slugs are represented by 500, 1,000, and 2,000 particles. Figure 32-5
shows that an increase in the number of particles reduces the level of noise
in tracer production, especially in the tail part of the curve.
32-476
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
32-477
32-478
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
33
Transmissibility Calculations
33.1 Introduction
Several methods of calculating transmissibilities are used in VIPEXECUTIVE. The method is chosen based on the grid system defined by
the user. This section describes the techniques used to calculate the interblock transmissibilities when the grid system is either Cartesian or radial.
Corner-point geometry transmissibility calculations are described in
Chapter 3 and Appendix B in this manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark
33-479
Note that all of the above equations use bedding plane lengths; namely,
DXB, DYB, DZB, and DZBN. If the input data were not entered in bedding
plane lengths, then the bedding plane lengths are calculated from the
horizontal and vertical lengths (see Figure 33-1).
DXB
DZB
DZ
DX
Figure 33-1: Bedding Plane Lengths
DXB
DX / COS(x),
DYB
DY / COS(y),
DZB
DZ COS(x) COS(y),
DZBN
where:
x = TAN-1( .5 ( DXi + DXi+1 ) / ( DEPTHi - DEPTHi+1) ), and
y = TAN-1( .5 ( DYj + DYj+1 ) / ( DEPTHj - DEPTHj+1) ).
33-480
Landmark - R2003.4
2 H shared C Darcy T M i, j, k
T y = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DY B i, j 1, k
DY B i, j, k
1
2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------K Y i, j, k DXB i, j, k NT G i, j, k K Y i 1, j, k DXB i, j 1, k NTG i, j 1, k
1
R2003.4 - Landmark
33-481
4-ft
Fault
Shift
2
4
Block
Pairs
1 and 4
2 and 5
3 and 6
Block
Pairs
2 and 4
3 and 4
3 and 5
3 and 6
Average
Thickness,
ft
3
3
5
Shared
Thickness,
ft
2
1
3
1
33-482
Landmark - R2003.4
x
y
3
For each four quarter block system in the x-y plane in the reservoir, the
transmissibilities T12, T13, T34, T24, T14, and T23 are calculated. The
diagonal transmissibilities T14 and T23 are the full values between the
respective gridblocks. The total axial direction transmissibilities are given
by the sum of the values for neighboring four quarter-block systems. For
example, the total x-direction transmissibility between blocks 1 and 2
(denoted Tx2 in the simulator) is given by the sum of the values
represented by the two arrows in Figure 33-3. If blocks 1 and 2 are on the
reservoir boundary, then the transmissibility represented by the lower
arrow is equal to one half of the conventional value computed as in
Section 33.2.1. The transmissibilities for each four quarter block system are
given by
t 16 t 26
t 36 + t 46
T 12 = 12 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 16 t 36
t 26 + t 46
T 13 = 13 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 36 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 36 t 46
t 16 + t 26
T 34 = 34 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 36 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 26 t 46
t 16 + t 36
T 24 = 24 w ------------------- ---------------------------------------------
t 26 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
t 16 t 46
T 14 = w ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
R2003.4 - Landmark
33-483
t 26 t 36
T 23 = w ---------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
where:
w = MIN ( 4 3, w 1, w 2, w 3, w 4 )
2
--- 12
3
w 1 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------t 36 + t 46
t
t
16 26
------------------ --------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 26 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
2
--- 13
3
w 2 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------t 26 + t 46
t
t
16 36
------------------ --------------------------------------------
t 16 + t 36 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
2
--- 34
3
w 3 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------t
t 16 + t 26
t
36 46
------------------ --------------------------------------------
t 36 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
2
--- 24
3
w 4 = -------------------------------------------------------------------------------t 26 t 46
t 16 + t 36
------------------ --------------------------------------------
t 26 + t 46 t 16 + t 26 + t 36 + t 46
T 18 T 28
12 = ---------------------T 18 + T 28
T 37 T 47
34 = ---------------------T 37 + T 47
T 15 T 35
13 = ---------------------T 15 + T 35
T 29 T 49
24 = ---------------------T 29 + T 49
y 1
T 18 = k 1x --------- z 1
x 1
33-484
Landmark - R2003.4
y 2
T 28 = k 2x --------- z 2
x 2
y 3
T 37 = k 3x --------- z 3
x 3
y 4
T 47 = k 4x --------- z 4
x 4
x 1
T 15 = k 1y --------- z 1
y 1
x 3
T 35 = k 3y --------- z 3
y 3
x 2
T 29 = k 2y --------- z 2
y 2
x 4
T 49 = k 4y --------- z 4
y 4
x 1 y 1
-
t 16 = k xy1 ----------------------- x 21 + y 21
x 2 y 2
-
t 26 = k xy2 ----------------------- x 22 + y 22
x 3 y 3
-
t 36 = k xy3 ----------------------- x 23 + y 23
x 4 y 4
-
t 46 = k xy4 ----------------------- x 24 + y 24
( x i + y i )k xi k yi
k xyi = ---------------------------------------------- z 1
k xi y i + k yi x i
R2003.4 - Landmark
33-485
If input data contain gridblock face permeabilities KRF, KTF, and KZF,
then the above equations are modified to:
KRF i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T r = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LOG ( R i 1, j, k RM i 1, j, k ) LOG ( RM i, j, k R i 1, j, k )
--------------------------------------------------------------------- + -------------------------------------------------------------DT H i 1, j, k DZ N i 1, j, k
DT H i, j, k DZ N i, j, k
2.0 KT F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T th = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------RM i, j 1, k DT H i, j 1, k RM i, j, k DT H i, j, k
--------------------------------------------------------------- + ------------------------------------------------DR i, j 1, k DZ N i, j 1, k DR i, j, k DZ N i, j, k
KZ F i, j, k C Darcy T M i, j, k
T z = ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DZ i, j, k 1
DZ i, j, k
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ + --------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2
2
2
DT H i, j, k 1 ( R i, j, k 1 R i 1, j, k 1 ) DT H i, j, k ( R i, j, k R i 1, j, k )
33-486
Landmark - R2003.4
Nomenclature
33.4 Nomenclature
R2003.4 - Landmark
CDarcy
Darcys constant:
1.127 x 10-3 in field units
8.52605 x 10-5 in metric units, where pressure is in
kPa
8.36106143 x 10-3 in metric units, where pressure is
in kg/cm2.
DEPTH
DR
DTHETA
DX
DXB
DY
DYB
DZ
DZB
DZN
DZBN
33-487
Nomenclature
Hshared
KR
KRF
KTHETA
KTF
KX
KXF
KY
KYF
KZ
KZF
LOG
MDEPTH
NTG
RM
Ri Ri 1
RM i = ----------------------------- Ri
LOG -----------
R i 1
Tr
33-488
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
Nomenclature
Tth
Tx
Ty
Tz
TM
transmissibility multiplier.
33-489
Nomenclature
33-490
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
34
Unit Conventions
34.1 Introduction
Three unit conventions are available in VIP-EXECUTIVE. The default unit
system is FIELD (also known as customary, or English units). The others
are METRIC and LAB, which can be selected by placing a METRIC or LAB
card in the UTILITY section of the VIP-CORE input file. The METRIC
option also can specify pressure as kPa (default), kg/cm2, or bar units.
All references to kPa in the METRIC column of the table below can be
replaced by kg/cm2 or bar depending on the pressure option selected.
Data Type
R2003.4 - Landmark
Field
Metric
Lab
Angle
degrees
degrees
degrees
Area
acres
m2
cm2
Compressibility
1/psi
1/kPa
1/psi
Density (water)
gm/cc
gm/cc
gm/cc
Density (oil)
gm/cc or
degree API
gm/cc or
degree API
gm/cc or
degree API
Formation volume
factor (oil)
rb/STB
m3/STM3
cc/stcc
Formation volume
factor (gas)
rb/MSCF
or Z-factor
m3/SM3
or Z-factor
cc/scc or
z-factor
Gas gravity
relative to air at
std. cond.
relative to air at
std. cond.
relative to air
at std. cond.
Gas-liquid ratio
SCF/STB
SM3/STM3
scc/stcc
Length
feet
meters
cm
Moles
lb-moles
lb-moles
gm-moles
Permeability
md
md
md
Pressure
psia
kPa
psia
Rates
1/day
1/day
1/day
34-491
Introduction
Data Type
34-492
Field
Metric
Lab
Saturation
fraction
fraction
fraction
Standard pressure
(default)
14.65 psia
101.325 kPa or
1.03353 kg/cm2
14.65 psia
60 F
15 C
15 C
SCF/STB
SM3/STM3
scc/stcc
Temperature
degrees F
degrees C
degrees C
Time
days
days
hours
Transmissibility
rb-cp/day/psi
m3-cp/day/kPa
cc-cp/day/
psi
Viscosity
cp
cp
cp
STB
STM3
stcc
Volume (reservoir)
rb
m3
cc
MSCF
SM3
scc
Water-cut
fraction
fraction
fraction
Landmark - R2003.4
Conversion Factors
1 ft
= 0.3048 m
Pressure
1 psi
Area
1 acre
= 43,560 ft2
Volume
1 bbl
1 MSCF
Mass
1 lb (equivalent)= 0.4536 kg
Density
1 gm/cc
= 62.43 lb/ft3 (equivalent)
gm/cc
= 141.5/(131.5 + API)
Molecular weight of dry air = 28.97 lb/mole
Density of dry air (at 60F,14.65 psia)
= 0.07610 lb/ft3
= 1.21897x10-3 gm/cc
Temperature
C = (F - 32.)/1.8
0K = -459.67F = -273.15C
Transmissibility
= 4,046.9 m2
The following equations can be used to convert gas deviation factors (Z) to
gas formation volume factors.
R2003.4 - Landmark
(34-1)
(34-2)
34-493
Conversion Factors
34-494
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
35
Velocity Dependent Relative Permeabilties
35.1 Introduction
The VIP reservoir simulator can simultaneously model two effects of
velocity on fluid mobility:
1. The improvement in the mobility of both the oil and gas phases as
capillary number increases, due to what is known as the coupling
effect. Capillary number increases with increasing velocity and
decreasing interfacial tension. It is believed that the coupled flow of
gas and condensate causes the improvement in relative permeability
at high velocities.
2. The reduction in the mobility of the gas phase due to the Forchheimer
effect as velocity increases.
The formulation of the velocity dependent models have been developed in
the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Heriot-Watt University
under the directorship of Professor A. Danesh and Professor D. H. Tehrani
in a research project sponsored by the UK Department of Trade and
Industry and 11 oil and gas companies.
By default, the velocity dependency is not activated. Velocity dependency
is activated through the use of the VELCTY keyword in the initialization
data section of a VIP-CORE input file. Either capillary number
dependency or Forchheimer flow can be modeled acting alone or in
conjunction.
When activated, the velocity dependency can be used to modify mobilities
around production wells. The velocity dependency can also be applied to
inter-block flow calculations. It can also be applied to both production
wells and inter-block flow.
Default parameters are built in that determine the magnitude of the
capillary number and non-Darcy flow effects. However, the user may
selectively alter some or all of these parameters.
R2003.4 - Landmark
35-495
g V g
N c = -----------
(35-1)
where:
qg
V g = -------------------------------- g A ( 1 S w )
(35-2)
The magnitude of the capillary number affects the oil and gas relative
permeabilities as follows:
S o S oc f 2o ( N c )
k ro = f 1o ( N c )k rob + ( 1 f 1o ( N c ) )k rm ( S w ) ------------------------------------------------- (35-3)
1 S w S oc f 2o ( N c )
S g S gr f 2g ( N c )
k rg = f 1g ( N c )k rgb + ( 1 f 1g ( N c ) )k rm ( S w ) ------------------------------------------------1 S w S gr f 2g ( N c )
(35-4)
where:
1
k rm ( S w ) = --- [ k ro ( S o = 1 S w ,S g = 0 ) + k rg ( S g = 1 S w ,S o = 0 ) ] (35-5)
2
N cbo no
f 1o ( N c ) = -----------
Nc
35-496
(35-6)
N cbg ng
f 1g ( N c ) = -----------
Nc
(35-7)
N cbo
f 2o ( N c ) = 1 exp m o -----------
Nc
(35-8)
Landmark - R2003.4
N cbg
f 2g ( N c ) = 1 exp m g -----------
Nc
(35-9)
g qg
5
N c = 1.9807 10 ------------------------------------ g A ( 1 S w )
(35-10)
where:
q g, ij
krg,ij
Area in ft2
Sw
R2003.4 - Landmark
gas viscosity in cp
in lbmoles/day
k rg, ij
g, j + g, i
g T ij ------------ p j p i + P c, j P c, i ------------------------ ( d j d i )
g, ij
2
35-497
dyne sec cm
5.6146 f t
day
cp 0.01 ------------------------------------------- bbl day ------------------------ -------------------------------bbl
cp
3600 24sec
5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30.48cm ft = 1.9807 10
2
f t dyne cm
The oil and gas relative permeabilities are modified using the above
correlations based on these values of capillary number, which is assumed
to be constant during the timestep.
Relative permeabilities are only modified if the threshold values of
capillary number are exceeded. The program allows the user to input the
threshold values of capillary number for the oil phase, Ncbo, and the gas
phase, Ncbg. Alternatively, the user can specify a superficial gas velocity
that is used in estimating the threshold capillary number. The threshold
value is calculated using the lowest initially calculated value of gas
viscosity, and the highest initially calculated value of IFT. If no threshold
value of gas velocity is input, a default value of 10 ft/day is used.
Default values of parameters are assumed, unless the user re-defines
them.
By default, no and ng will be set to 0.35 for sandstones and 1.16 for
carbonates.
By default, mg will be set to 35 for sandstones and 4 for carbonates. By,
default, mo will be set to 0 for both sandstones and carbonates, which
corresponds to an Sorg of 0.
Sandstone is the default rock type.
Relative permeability adjustment at production wells will be discussed
later.
35-498
Landmark - R2003.4
g qg
d g
---------- = ---------- --------- kk rg g A
dx
(35-11)
g
g, ij = ----------------- q g, ij
T k rg g ij
(35-12)
g qg qg 2
d g
---------- = ---------------- ----- + ----- -----
kk rg g A g A
dx
(35-13)
g
g
kk rg q g
k
2
g, ij = ----------------- q g, ij + C ------------- q g, ij = ----------------- q g, ij 1 + C ------------------ T k rg g ij
T k rg g ij
g TA ij
g A
(35-14)
ij
FT k rg g
q g, ij = --------------------- g, ij
g ij
(35-15)
where:
1
F = ---------------------------------kk rg q g
1 + C ------------------g A
(35-16)
1
1
F = ---------------------------------------------------- = ----------------2
1 + BF
kk rg g FT g
1 + C -------------------------------------2
g A
(35-17)
where:
R2003.4 - Landmark
35-499
k rg g T g
B = C ------------------------------2
g A
(35-18)
BF + F 1 = 0
(35-19)
1 + 1 + 4B
F = ---------------------------------2B
(35-20)
and:
B can be split into a constant part and a part that changes with each
timestep. The coefficient can also be split into a constant part and a nonconstant part. is defined as:
= 0 k 1 2 k rg3 S g 4
(35-21)
B = B const B var
(35-22)
where:
1 + 1 2
B const
T
0 k
= C -------------------------------A
(35-23)
35-500
Landmark - R2003.4
kk rg g q g
C -------------------------g A
(35-24)
12
md,
ft-1
lb/bbl,
qg
bbl/day
cp
ft2
9.86923 10 cm
1day
ft
1
- f t lb bbl bbl day --------------------------------md ------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------2
2
3600 24 sec
md
16
( 30.48 ) cm
C = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ = 1.829744 10
4
6.719689 10 lb ft sec
2
c p ------------------------------------------------------------------- f t
cp
B var
k rg 3 S g 4 5 g g
= -------------------------------------------------2
g
(35-25)
R2003.4 - Landmark
35-501
kk ro A o
kk rg A g dP
q i = x i -------------------- + y i -------------------- ------o
g dr
(35-26)
k ro o
k rg g
2kh
q i = -------------------- x i ------------- + y i ------------- ( p b p wf )
ln r e r w
o
g
(35-27)
where pb is the well block pressure and pwf is the well flowing pressure,
both at the beginning of the timestep.
However, if we assume that compositions, relative permeabilities,
compositions, and densities are functions of pressure, then
2kh
q i = -----------------------ln ( r e r w )
pb
p wf
k rg g
ro o
x k------------ dp
+
y
i ----------- i o
(35-28)
k ro o k rg g
k ro o
k rg g
z i ------------- + ------------- = x i ------------- + y i ------------ o
g
o
g
(35-29)
2kh
q i = ------------------------z i
ln ( r e r w )
35-502
pb
p wf
k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- dp
o
g
(35-30)
Landmark - R2003.4
F CB 2kh k ro o
k rg g
q i = ------------------------ x i ------------- + y i ------------- ( p b p wf )
ln ( r e r w )
o
g
(35-31)
k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- d p
o
g
p wf
= ----------------------------------------------------------------k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- ( p b p wf )
o
g
F CB
(35-32)
k ro o
k rg g
w i = x i ------------- + y i ------------o
g
(35-33)
and
wi
z i = ------------n
c
wj
(35-34)
i1
ODell and Miller (1967) introduced the concept that the gas volume
fraction calculated from the flash calculation is equivalent to the flowing
gas volume fraction, Vrg:
qg
k rg g
- = ---------------------------------------V rg = ---------------qg + qo
k rg g + k ro o
R2003.4 - Landmark
(35-35)
35-503
Rearranging:
V rg g
V rg g
k rg
------- = ----------------- ----- = -------- ----1 V rg o
V ro o
k ro
(35-36)
g
dp
------ = ----------------------------- q g
2rkhk rg g
dr
(35-37)
C g
g
2
dp
- qg
------ = ----------------------------- q g + ------------------------2
2rkhk rg g
dr
( 2rh )
(35-38)
k rg dp
q g = 2khr g g ------- ----- g dr
(35-39)
where:
1
g = -----------------------------------------kk rg g u g
1 + C g ---------------------g
(35-40)
k ro o k rg g g
2kh
q i = ------------------------z i ------------ + ------------------- d p
ln ( r e r w )
o
g
(35-41)
pw
35-504
Landmark - R2003.4
qg
u g = -------------------2r e h g
The initial capillary number corresponding to a pressure of p = p b is
calculated by using these values of velocities.
3. For the range of pressures from pb to p1 = phdp or p1 = pwf, the following
equation is integrated by the trapezoidal rule.
pb
m1 ( p ) =
p1
g g
----------- d p
g
2khk rg g g
r
ln ----1 = -------------------- ----------- d p
qg
g
r2
p2
qg
u g = -------------------2r 2 h g
R2003.4 - Landmark
35-505
m2 ( p ) =
p2
k ro o k rg g g
------------ + ------------------- d p
o
g
a. At each pressure for which the integrand is calculated, the density and
viscosity are calculated from the pressure and composition.
b. The relative permeability is calculated iteratively so that it fulfills the
relationship
V rg g o
V rg g
k rg
------- = ----------------- ----------- = -------- ----------1 V rg o g
V ro o g
k ro
c. The values of g and o are recalculated. For the first pass, the
values of ug and uo from the previous evaluation point are used.
d. For pressures less than pb, a steady state solution is assumed and a
new radius, r2, is calculated from
p1
k ro o k rg g g
r
2kh
ln ----1 = ---------------------- ------------ + ------------------- d p
( qo + qg )
r2
o
g
p2
qg
u g = -------------------2r 2 h g
The velocity, u0, is recalculated using the new radius
qo
u o = -------------------2r 2 h o
f.
35-506
Landmark - R2003.4
Nomenclature
m3 ( p ) =
p wf
g g
----------- d p
g
k rg ( S w )m 1 ( p ) + m 2 ( p ) + k rg ( S w )m 3 ( p )
F CB = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------k ro o k rg g
------------- + ------------- ( p b p wf )
o
g
8. The multiplication factor is used to multiply both oil and gas
mobilities, and derivatives of gas and oil mobilities.
The
multiplication factor is assumed constant for the time step.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area, ft2
C = constant for unit conversion,
d = depth, ft,
F = non-Darcy flow mobility modification factor, dimensionless,
f 1g ( N c ) = capillary number dependent weighting factor between miscible and immiscible
gas relative permeability curves, dimensionless,
f 1o ( N c ) =capillary number dependent reduction factor between miscible and immiscible
condensate relative permeability curves, dimensionless,
f 2g ( N c ) = capillary number dependent factor affecting residual gas saturation, dimensionless
f 2o ( N c ) = capillary number dependent factor affecting critical condensate saturation,
dimensionless,
h = thickness, feet,
k = permeability,md,
k rg = gas phase relative permeability, fraction,
k rgb = gas phase relative permeability unaffected by capillary number, fraction,
k rm = miscible relative permeability, fraction,
k ro = condensate phase relative permeability, fraction,
k rob = condensate phase relative permeability unaffected by capillary number, fraction,
R2003.4 - Landmark
35-507
Nomenclature
35-508
Landmark - R2003.4
Nomenclature
Greek
= non-Darcy flow coefficient, 1/ft
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 = parameters of the non-Darcy flow coefficient,
g = non-Darcy mobility multiplication factor for radial systems,
g = gas phase gradient, psia/ft,
g = gas phase potential, psia,
= porosity, fraction
g = gas phase viscosity, centipose,
o = condensate phase viscosity, centipose,
g = gas phase molar density, lbmoles/ft3
o = condensate phase molar density, lbmoles/ft3
= gas/oil interfacial tension, dynes/cm,
Subscripts
g = gas phase,
i = component number,
o = condensate phase,
w = water phase, or well
R2003.4 - Landmark
35-509
Nomenclature
35-510
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
36
Vertical Equilibrium
36.1 Introduction
Two separate vertical equilibrium (VE) options are available in VIPEXECUTIVE. These are:
36.2.1 Initialization
At the beginning of each simulation run, the fluid levels are initialized
from the user input gas-oil and water-oil contact depths. Above the gasoil contact, the water saturation is equal to the connate water saturation
(SWL) and the gas saturation takes the maximum values (SGU), which is
the highest gas saturation entry in the gas saturation table. In the oil zone,
the gas and water saturations have the connate values (SGL and SWL).
Below the water-oil contact, the water saturation takes the maximum
R2003.4 - Landmark
36-511
values (SWU) and the gas saturation has the connate value. Two VE
variables for each gridblock also are initialized: the water level (Hw)
defined as the water zone thickness divided by gridblock thickness, and
the gas level (Hg) defined as the gas zone thickness divided by gridblock
thickness (z). Finally, the average water and gas saturations in each
gridblock are calculated.
The thickness array TH for rectangular geometries, is the bedding plane
thickness, see Figure 36-1. During initialization, the thickness array is used
to calculate the average grid block properties about grid block centers.
Blocks that are split by phase boundaries are particularly sensitive to the
actual values of block thickness. Simulations with vertical equilibrium use
the thickness array to calculate the pseudo capillary pressures. Grid blocks
with a large dip angle represent a larger vertical span of reservoir than
that implied by the bedding plane thickness, see Figure 36-1. For this
reason, THVE, is used by default in calculations of average grid block
properties and vertical equilibrium pseudo capillary pressures in VIPCORE version 2.4R. In previous versions of VIP-CORE the bedding plane
thickness TH was used.
The key word THCNTR in VIP-CORE allows the use of TH in place of
THVE thus allowing reproduction of old results.
TH
THVE
36-512
Landmark - R2003.4
Figure 36-2: Block Angles Produced by the Old Dip Angle Method
The new method of calculating dip angles for block (i,j) uses the slope
between blocks (i-1,j) and (i+1,j) in the x-direction, and the slope between
blocks (i,j-1) and (i,j+1) in the y-direction. Figure 36-3 shows the new
representation of the same cross-section modeled in Figure 36-2. Notice
the improved representation of the reservoir structure.
R2003.4 - Landmark
36-513
Figure 36-3: Block Angles Produced by the New Dip Angle Method
36-514
Landmark - R2003.4
Gas Level
Gas Saturation
0.0
SGU
KRGU
SGRO
KRGRO
SGTR
KROGR
SGL
KRORG
Hgmin
Hg
Hgmax
1.0
For a given average gas saturation, Sg, the new gas level is calculated by
S g H gmin ( SGU SGRO ) H gmax ( SGTR SGL ) SGL
H g = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SGRO SGTR
(36-1)
(36-2)
(36-3)
Note that these pseudo-relative permeabilities are valid only for flow in
areal directions. Thus, the VE option should be used exclusively in one- or
two-dimensional areal systems, unless the directional relative
permeability option, DRELPM, is also used.
The gas-oil pseudo-capillary pressure is determined from the projected
difference between the gas and oil pressures at the gridblock midpoint. If
the pressure at gas level (Hg) is P* (i.e., zero capillary pressure), then the
projected gas and oil phase pressures at the grid midpoint are:
R2003.4 - Landmark
36-515
gMg g
P g = P* ------------------------------------- ( H g 0.5 )z
5.6146 144g c
(36-4)
o Mo g
P o = P* ------------------------------------- ( H g 0.5 )z
5.6146 144g c
(36-5)
(36-6)
When the gas level is monotonically decreasing (or increasing), the current
gas level, Hg, is the same as Hgmin (or Hgmax). Under this condition, the
symbols Hgmin (or Hgmax) in Equations 36-1, 36-2, and 36-3 should be
replaced by Hg.
Water Level
1.0
Hwmax
Hw
Hwmin
SWL
KRORW
SWR
KROWR
1-SOTR
KRWRO
SWU
KRWU
0.0
36-516
Landmark - R2003.4
For a given average water saturation, Sw, the new water level is calculated
by
S w H wmin ( SWU SWRO ) H wmax ( SWR SWL ) SWL
H w = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (36-7)
SWRO SWL
The pseudo-relative permeability to water, krw , and the pseudo-relative
permeability to oil in the water-oil system, krow , are
k rw = KRWU H wmin + KRWRO ( H w H wmin )
(36-8)
(36-9)
Following the same procedure described in the gas-oil system, the wateroil pseudo-capillary pressure, Pcw , is
o
( o M o w B w M w )g
P cw = ----------------------------------------------------- ( H w 0.5 ) z
5.6146 144 g c
(36-10)
When the water level monotonically decreases, the current water level,
Hw , is the same as Hwmin. Under this condition, symbols Hwmin in
Equations 36-7 to 36-8 should be replaced by Hw .
R2003.4 - Landmark
36-517
36-518
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
36-519
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGU
GOCh
Gas
GOC
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGRO
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGTR
GOCl
Sw = SWL, Sg = SGL
WOCh
Oil
WOC
Sw = SWR, Sg = SGL
Sw = 1 - SOTR, Sg = SGL
WOCl
Water
Sw = SWU, Sg = SGL
36-520
Landmark - R2003.4
The fractional volumes of the gas, oil, and water regions (FVg, FVo,FVw)
are calculated as FVp = Vp / Vb, p = g, o, w; where Vg, Vo, Vw are volumes of
the gas, oil, and water regions and Vb is a gridblock bulk volume. An
accurate numerical technique is used in VIP-CORE to calculate volumes
Vg, Vo, Vw , and Vb. These volumes are defined with an approximation
tolerance, as specified by the user on the VAITS card.
o
The initial average block saturations S wb and S gb are calculated using the
saturation distributions in the block (Figure 36-5):
o
(36-11)
(36-12)
where SWL, SGL are connate water and gas saturations, SWU is water
saturation at connate oil saturation in an oil-water system, and SGU is gas
saturation at connate oil saturation in an oil-gas system.
Each block is divided into N sublayers (Figure 36-5). The number of
sublayers is specified by the user on the VEWO or VEGO card. The
accuracy of the calculations and the CPU memory requirements are
increased by increasing the number of sub-layers. The default number of
sub-layers is equal to ten.
Vb
Vg
Vj
GOCh = GOC
Aj1
Vo
Vw
A1
WOCl = WOC
For each sublayer, the fractional volume FVj and the fractional areas FAji
for each gridblock face are calculated from:
Vj
FV j = ------- ,
Vb
R2003.4 - Landmark
j = 1, 2, ...,N
(36-13)
36-521
A ji
FA ji = -------- ,
Ai
j = 1, 2, ...,N,
i = 1, 2, ..., 6
(36-14)
where Vj is the volume of the jth sublayer (j = 1,2,...,N), Aji is the area of
the intersection of the jth sub-layer and the ith gridblock face, and Ai is
the area of the ith face (i = 1,2,...,6).
Assume that the block gas and water saturations ( S gb, S wb ) are known
from the outer iteration of timestep t. The following operations are
executed for calculation of the current positions of gas-oil and water-oil
contacts (GOC, WOC), gas and water saturations in each sublayer (Sgj,
Swj), VE pseudo-relative permeabilities, VE pseudo-capillary pressure,
mixed relative permeabilities, and mixed capillary pressure.
Water saturations in the sub-layers depend on the current position of the
oil-water contact (Figure 25-1). Therefore, the current position of the
water-oil contact (WOC) is calculated from a condition in which the
t
Swj ( WOC ) FV j
= S wb
(36-15)
j=1
where Swj is a function of the location of the WOC. If the WOC falls inside
a sub-layer, the sub-layer is further divided in order to accurately calculate
Swj.
Similarly, the current position of gas-oil contact GOC is calculated from a
t
S gj ( GOC ) FV j
= S gb
(36-16)
j=1
The lowest and highest contacts are recalculated. The water and gas
saturations in each sub-layer are defined as shown in Figure 25-1.
The relative permeabilities for an intersection of each block face with each
sub-layer are calculated by:
36-522
K wij = K wi ( S wj ),
j = 1, 2, ...,N, i = 1, 2, ...,6
(36-17)
K gij = K gi ( S gj ),
j = 1, 2, ...,N,
(36-18)
i = 1, 2, ...,6
Landmark - R2003.4
where Kwi, Kgi are values of rock water and gas relative permeabilities for
the ith face.
The VE pseudo-relative permeabilities are defined for each gridblock face
ve
K pi
j=N
K pi ( Spj ) FAij ,
p = w, g, i = 1, 2, ...,6
(36-19)
j=1
P cw = g ( w o ) ( WOC D center )
(36-20)
ve
P cg = g ( o g ) ( GOC D center )
(36-21)
where g, o, and w are densities of the gas, oil, and water phases, and
D center is the depth of the block center.
Rock relative permeabilities and rock capillary pressures are determined
from user input tables:
rock
= K pi ( S pb ), p = w, g, i = 1, 2, ...,6
rock
= P cp ( S pb ), p = w, g
K pi
P cp
(36-22)
(36-23)
= FVEWO K wi + ( 1 FVEWO )K wi ,
mixed
= FVEGO K wi + ( 1 FVEGO )K gi ,
mixed
= FVEWO P cw + ( 1 FVEWO )P cw ,
mixed
= FVEGO P cg + ( 1 FVEGO )P cg
K wi
K gi
P cw
P cg
R2003.4 - Landmark
ve
ve
ve
ve
rock
rock
rock
rock
i = 1, 2, ...,6
i = 1, 2, ..., 6
(36-24)
(36-25)
(36-26)
(36-27)
36-523
Assume that average block gas and water saturations ( S gb, S wb ) and
t
average block pressures in the oil, gas, and water phases ( P ob, P gb, P wb )
are known from the outer iteration of timestep t. The following operations
are executed to calculate oil, gas, and water pressures (Poj, Pgj, Pwj), gas
and water saturations (Sgj,Swj) in each sub-layer (j = 1,2,...,N), and the VE
pseudo-relative permeabilities and mixed relative permeabilities for each
face of the block.
Water pressures Pwj, oil pressures Poj, and water saturations Swj in each
sub-layer are calculated from the solution of the capillary-gravity
equilibrium equations:
dP o
--------- = o ( P o )g
dD
36-524
(36-28)
Landmark - R2003.4
dP w
---------- = w ( P w )g
dD
(36-29)
P o P w = P cw ( S w )
(36-30)
P w ( D center ) = P wb
(36-31)
The oil pressure at some depth, Do, should be equal to the average
t
block oil pressure, P ob :
t
P o ( D o ) = P ob
(36-32)
Swj FV j
= S wb
(36-33)
j=1
Gas pressure (Pgj) and saturation (Sgj) in each sub-layer (j = 1,2,...,N) are
calculated from solution of the capillary-gravity equilibrium equations:
dP g
--------- = g ( P g )g
dD
(36-34)
P g P o = P cg ( S g )
(36-35)
P g ( D g ) = P gb
(36-36)
R2003.4 - Landmark
j=N
S gj FV j
= S gb
(36-37)
j=1
After calculating the water and gas saturations in different sub-layers, the
relative permeabilities are calculated using the same procedure as in the
VEWO (VEGO) option.
36-526
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
37
Water Tracking Option
37.1 Introduction
VIP-EXECUTIVE can track flow, accumulation, and production of up to
six different water types. Note that the actual reservoir performance is
completely unaffected by this option. The water movement is exactly the
same; only the splitting and tracking of the water phase into different
water types is performed. Water types may be specified for the in situ
water, for each water injection well, and for each numerical aquifer. The
major assumption is that the water properties (density, viscosity) are
independent of the water type.
This option is implemented with the IMPES formulation only. Separate
volumetric balance equations are solved at the end of each time step. For
each grid block in the grid system, Equation 37-1 is solved for the new
water saturation for each water type j.
n
[ ( T w F T w j ) ( Po
n+1
P cwo w D ) ] Q w ( F T w j ) + Q w j
n+1
S w j n
V S w j
(37-1)
where
FTwj
Swj
and
FT w
Sw
= Sw
= 1.0
(37-2)
(37-3)
The fractional flow terms for the water types can be adjusted by two userspecified parameters, if performance other than complete mixing of the
water types is desired. The single parameter, ftwmix, determines the
relative amount of mixing with the connate water. A value of 1.0 (default)
R2003.4 - Landmark
37-527
Introduction
specifies complete mixing with the connate water, while a value of 0.0
specifies complete bypass of the connate water. Any value between these
two specifies partial mixing between the connate water and all of the other
water types.
First, Equation 37-4 is used to calculate the normalized fractional
saturations for each water type.
Sw j
dSw j
S wn = ( 1 ftwmix ) ----------------------- + ftwmix ---------
Sw
j
Sw Sw R
(37-4)
where
dSw j = Sw j Sw R
for j = in situ
= Sw j
for j in situ
(37-5)
and
Sw
nj
= 1.0
(37-6)
where Swnj is the normalized saturation of mobile water type j. Thus, the
Swnj are the fractions of the mobile water phase for each of the water types.
The grid array parameter, tkexp, determines preferential flow between the
in situ water and all of the other water types. These grid-block values are
used as exponents in the fractional flow (Equations 37-7, 37-8, and 37-9),
such that a value of 1.0 (default) yields no preference between the in situ
water and all of the other water types. As shown in Figure 37-1, a value
less than 1.0 gives a higher preference to flow to the extraneous water
types (i.e., all water types except in situ), while a value greater than 1.0
gives a higher preference to flow to the in situ water.
The fractional flow terms are split between the mobile in situ water and
the mobile extraneous water types using Equations 37-7 and 37-8.
tkexp
(37-7)
= fractional flow for all water types except the in situ water
37-528
(37-8)
Landmark - R2003.4
Introduction
1.0
tkexp < 1
tkexp = 1
FWEXT
tkexp > 1
0.0
Sw ninsitu
1.0
The fractional flow terms for each of the extraneous water types then are
calculated using Equation 37-9, based on the relative amount of mobile
fluid for each type.
Sw n j
- FW EXT , j in situ
F Tw j = --------------------------- 1 Sw nin situ
R2003.4 - Landmark
(37-9)
37-529
Introduction
37-530
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
38
Well Inflow Performance
38.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines the relationships that VIP-EXECUTIVE uses to
describe well inflow performance. The Inflow Performance Relationship
(IPR) describes reservoir performance and is the relationship between the
reservoir pressure at the wellbore and the surface flow rate. IPR takes into
account pressure losses that are attributable to both the formation
(reservoir) and completion resistances at the wellbore, which are included
in the total drawdown. The natural flowing point occurs at the point of
intersection between the IPR and the Tubing Performance Curve (TPC),
also known as the lift curve or outflow curve. At this point, reservoir
pressure at the wellbore becomes equal to the bottom-hole flowing
pressure required by the producing string so that the well naturally flows
to the surface. This is illustrated in Figure 38-1.
Figure 38-1: Inflow and Outflow Curve for a Production Well Showing
Intersection Point
R2003.4 - Landmark
38-531
q lj
kr j
j
= W I l k h ------------- l [ P l P bh l ( D l D ref ) ]
l l
, l = 1, 2 ...,NPER, j = o, g
(38-1)
where
38-532
Pl
Pbh
WIl
klhl
krj
Dl
Dref
datum depth
NPER
Landmark - R2003.4
o,g
k rw w
(38-2)
where
o
After summing Equations 38-1 or 38-2 through all open perforations, the
oil mole rate Qo, gas mole rate Qq, and water rate in standard conditions
Qsw can be written:
NPER
Qj =
NPER
q lj =
l=1
l=1
NPER
Q sw =
l=1
k rj j
W I l k l h l ------------ l [ UW 4 l P bh ] , j = o, g (38-3)
j
NPER
q lw =
l=1
k rw w
W I l k l h l -------------- l [ UW 4 l P bh ]
w
(38-4)
where
UW4l = Pl - l (Dl - Dref), pressure in a gridblock containing the lth
perforation, recalculated at datum depth.
The mole rates of the fluid components can be expressed in the following
form:
NPER
Qi =
( q ol xw il + q gl yw il )
l=1
NPER
l=1
R2003.4 - Landmark
k rg g
k ro o
W I l k l h l l ------------- xw il + ------------- yw il ( UW 4 l P bh ), i = 1, 2, , N c
g
o
(38-5)
38-533
Well Index
Options 1, 2, and 3 are mutually exclusive and result in setting the same
WI value for each perforation. In the fourth option, the well index is
allowed to vary for each perforation. The values of well index for each
perforation (WIL) can be entered or computed internally using the data
specified on the FPERF card.
If the RFLOW card is used, as in the second option, the well index is
calculated in VIP-EXECUTIVE as:
2
WI = ---------------------------------r
b
ln ----- + skin
r w
(38-6)
where
rb
rW
wellbore radius
skin
Here, rb is defined as the distance from the well at which the local pressure
is equal to the pressure of the block. Note that rb may be calculated by
applying Peacemans34 formula, a general expression that is given below
for wells located in the center of rectangular gridblocks.9
38-534
Landmark - R2003.4
Well Index
12
12
kx
k y
2
2
---x + ----- y
k x
k y
- p
r b = 0.28 -----------------------------------------------------------------k y 1 4 k x 1 4
---+ ---- k x
k y
(38-7)
where
kx
ky
2 12
r b = 0.14 ( x + y )
(38-8)
qo
PI = -------------------P d P bh
(38-9)
where
Pd = pressure at the drainage radius.
Equation 38-9 also is used for the injectivity index when the injection rates
are treated as negative. Well index WI for an oil producer can be converted
from PI by the following expression:
( PI ) ( gf )
WI = ---------------------------------------------- k h k ro
0.001127 -----------------
o Bo
R2003.4 - Landmark
(38-10)
38-535
Well Index
where
gf = dimensionless geometry factor that converts the productivity/
injectivity index from a drainage radius basis to a gridblock basis
and may be defined by:
rd
r w
gf = ---------------rb
ln -----
r w
ln -----
(38-11)
38-536
Landmark - R2003.4
Q s = BSEP
W I l FMOB l ( UW 4 l P bh )
l=1
NPER
+ w
W I l FMOB lw ( UW 4 l P bh )
(38-12)
l=1
where
BSEP
o Q so + g Q sg
BSEP = ---------------------------------Qo + Qg
(38-13)
Qso, Qsg
Qs
o, g, and w
k rj j
k rw w
MOB lj = k l h l -----------, j = o, g, MOB lw = k l h l --------------, l = 1, 2, , NPER
j
w
(38-14)
The right side of Equation 38-12 is a non-linear function of the bottomhole pressure, because the separator coefficient BSEP depends on fluid
compositions zil, i = 1,2,...,NC, which are functions of the bottom-hole
pressure. The separator coefficient, BSEP, can be found from solution of
the surface separator equations26. BSEP does not depend on bottom-hole
pressure when there is only one perforation in the production well. Hence,
there is no need for iterations in this case.
R2003.4 - Landmark
38-537
sw
, and gas-oil ratio
standard conditions Qso , water cut WCUT = ---------
Q sg
GOR = -------Q so
(38-15)
For three-phase producers, functions HTbh are defined in VIPEXECUTIVE in a tabular form as hydraulics tables. The physical
significance of ALQ entries is defined by the user and they have no fixed
units. By specifying ALQ, the user can model gas lift, pumping, or
compression power and ALQ values can be assigned to any production
well yielding an additional level of interpolation between the appropriate
BHPTAB table entries.
The average pressure and temperature method as described by Beggs35
is used to define functions HTbh for gas producers. The independent
variables used in the option for the two- or three-phase gas producers in
the BHPTAB are tubinghead pressure Pth, gas phase rate Qg, oil-gas ratio
OGR, and water-gas ratio WGR. These parameters can be used with ALQ
for further interpolation of the BHPTAB. A newly implemented algorithm
in VIP-EXECUTIVE based on the Beggs method35 allows the user to
specify the wellbore hydraulics tables for injectors. In the new feature, the
BHITAB tables are used to relate bottom-hole injection pressure as a
function of injection rate and tubinghead pressure. Each table can be
defined independently and more than one well can refer to the same
BHITAB table. This option is selected for each well by specifying the
BHITAB table number on the ITUBE card.
The wellbore flow model and surface separator model26 define the oil, gas,
and water rates of a three-phase producer in standard conditions as
functions of the bottom-hole pressure:
Q so = Q so ( P bh )
38-538
(38-16)
Landmark - R2003.4
Q sw ( P bh )
- = WCUT ( P bh )
WCUT = ---------------------Q so ( P bh )
(38-17)
Q sg ( P bh )
- = GOR ( P bh )
GOR = --------------------Q so ( P bh )
(38-18)
The oil and gas production rates in reservoir conditions can be defined
from the wellbore flow (Equation 38-3). The oil and gas production rates
in standard conditions can be found using the multistage separator
model.26 The water rate in standard conditions can be calculated from
Equation 38-4.
If the tubinghead pressure, Pth is specified by the user, then the problem
consists of determining the bottom-hole pressure, Pbh, which honors both
the outflow (Equation 38-15) and the inflow (Equations 38-16, 38-17, and
38-18).
The required bottom-hole pressure is determined by the pressure at the
intersection of the outflow curve and the inflow curve. The natural flow
rate is the rate corresponding to the bottom-hole pressure (Figure 38-1).
For any oil production rate Qso in standard conditions, the corresponding
bottom-hole pressure on the inflow curve can be calculated from solution
of the wellbore flash problem26 with the specified surface rate. The gas
and water production rates in surface conditions also are obtained from
solution of this problem. The bottom-hole pressure on the outflow curve is
determined using the well hydraulics model, Equation 38-15.
R2003.4 - Landmark
38-539
38-540
Landmark - R2003.4
Chapter
39
Well Management Features
39.1 Introduction
This chapter describes in detail the technical details of the VIPEXECUTIVE well management features.
R2003.4 - Landmark
Well Data
39-542
Landmark - R2003.4
Well Data
Note that if no injectivity index is defined by a WI, PI, or RFLOW card, the
injectivity automatically is adjusted to cause the well to flow at the rate
specified on the QMAX card (i.e., the well defaults to rate constraint).
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-543
39-544
The user can specify the layers that are open to flow. In addition, the
user can specify permeability (K), thickness (H), or permeabilitythickness product (KH) for each perforation. The permeabilitythickness product for the perforation depends on the data specified.
The following options are available:
Landmark - R2003.4
The user can specify the top and bottom depth of each perforation. The
model then automatically determines the layers that are open to flow.
In this case, perforation thickness H is determined from the top and
bottom depth of each layer. Within the simulator a perforation will be
defined for each layer open to flow.
The user can specify a unit number for each perforation. All
perforations within a well with the same unit number are considered
to represent a single completion. Perforation production constraints
and all workover options affecting perforations then are applied to
completion, or perforation unit, rather than to individual
perforations. Production rates in the perforation units are obtained by
summing the rates of the individual perforations. Perforation unit
numbers may be specified for injection wells, but are not used.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-545
If end-point saturations and the ISAT value for the perforation are not
specified, then the end-point saturations for the gridblock are used.
The end-point saturations for each gridblock are initialized to the table
values for the gridblock. However, the user can specify (overread)
end-point saturations for each gridblock.
If the ISAT value for the perforation is specified, but the end-point
saturations are not specified, then end points from the ISAT table are
used.
If specified, the end-point saturations for the perforation are used and
the table values (from ISAT or gridblock table) are not used.
39-546
Landmark - R2003.4
Production Wells
Total production rate for all fluids (at reservoir conditions or in moles)
Bottom-hole pressure
Tubinghead pressure
Maximum drawdown.
The production rate for the well is specified by the QMAX card. The well
produces at this rate unless it causes a violation of one of the other
constraints defined by the user. In this event, the constraint is observed,
which causes a rate reduction.
The user can define a maximum water cut, water rate, or liquid-gas
ratio for a production well (WLIMIT card). If the user-specified
maximum for a well is exceeded, one of the following actions takes
place:
R2003.4 - Landmark
The perforation with the highest water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) is
plugged. A different limiting water cut (or liquid-gas ratio) value
can be specified for the last open perforation. Once a perforation
has been plugged, it never produces again, unless the well is
reperforated by an FPERF card.
39-547
Production Wells
39-548
The water production rate is not allowed to exceed the userspecified maximum. This may cause a reduction in the specified
production rate (on QMAX card).
The user can define a maximum gas rate or gas-liquid ratio (GOR) for
a production well (GLIMIT card). If the user-specified maximum for a
well is exceeded, one of the following actions takes place:
The user can specify a maximum water cut and GOR applicable to
each perforation in a well. When the water cut and/or GOR for any
perforation in a well exceeds this maximum, then the perforation is
shut in. The test to determine whether a violation has occurred is
performed only if the time interval between tests is specified using the
TSTPRF card. Therefore, it is possible that the perforation value may
exceed the maximum between test intervals. In addition, note that
flashes to surface conditions are required for each perforation during
these tests. This could cause a significant increase in computer time if
frequently performed (especially in compositional simulations). Once
a perforation has been shut in, it never produces again, unless the well
is reperforated using an FPERF card.
The user can specify a minimum rate for each production well (QMIN
card). The phase to which this minimum rate applies is specified by
the ECOLIM card. When the well rate falls below the minimum, the
well is shut in. The well can be tested periodically to determine
whether the rate is above minimum, if the appropriate data on the
TEST card are specified.
Landmark - R2003.4
Production Wells
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-549
Production Wells
39-550
QMAX
GORP
PLIM
TARG
GMAX
WMAX
DPMX
STTO
NPRF
WMGT
OTAR
GTAR
WTAR
SI P
SI M
Landmark - R2003.4
Production Wells
SI Q
SI T
SI L
SI G
SI W
SI O
SI R
GINJ
WINJ
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-551
Production Wells
39-552
Landmark - R2003.4
Injection Wells
Bottom-hole pressure
Tubinghead pressure
Maximum buildup.
The injection rate for the well is specified by the QMAX card. The well
injects at this rate unless it causes a violation of one of the other
constraints defined by the user. In this event, the constraint is observed,
which causes a rate reduction.
Injection wells also can be used to reinject the produced fluids. If used for
reinjection, the injectors could:
When either the FRES or FSTD reinjection option is used, values on the
QMAX card for the corresponding injectors are fractions of total reservoir
volume production rate and the fraction of the total surface production
rate, respectively.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-553
Injection Wells
The outer iteration number after which water injection rates are not
recomputed can be specified using the ITNSTQ card.
The user can specify the method used to compute the mobility for
water injection wells. End-point mobilities are used by default, but it is
possible to use total gridblock mobilities (WINJMOB card).
The water density and viscosity values used in the THP calculation
can be specified using the WTRTHP card. The default is to use the
values specified in the initialization data.
39-554
The outer iteration number after which gas injection rates are not
recomputed can be specified using the ITNSTQ card.
The user can specify the method used to compute the mobility for gas
injection wells. End-point mobilities are used by default, but it is
possible to use total gridblock mobilities (GINJMOB card).
Landmark - R2003.4
Injection Wells
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-555
Injection Wells
PLIM
GTAR
WTAR
DPMX
UNFM
STTO
NPRF
PROP
PATN
SI P
SI M
SI Q
SI T
PROD
39-556
Landmark - R2003.4
g
l=1
= ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NPER
5.6146*144g c
MOB lo MOB lg MOB lw
+ ----------------- + ----------------- ----------------o
g
w
(39-1)
l=1
where
R2003.4 - Landmark
Mo, Mg
Bw
gravitational acceleration
gc
MOBlj
39-557
Mathematical Formulation
The wellbore pressure gradient opposite any perforated interval j is
computed as the volumetric average of the densities of the individual
phases. The densities are measured within the reservoir layer containing
the perforated interval. The weight factors used to compute the average
gradient are the volume fractions of each of the three phases within the
wellbore and opposite the perforated interval:
n
j = E wj wj + E oj oj + E gj gj
(39-2)
q Tj + 1 2 q Tj 1 2 = WI ( kh ) j Tj ( p j p wj )
(39-3)
E wj + 1 2 q Tj + 1 2 E wj 1 2 q Tj 1 2 = WI ( kh ) j wj ( p j p wj )
(39-4)
E gj + 1 2 q Tj + 1 2 E gj 1 2 q Tj 1 2 = WI ( kh ) j gj ( p j p wj )
(39-5)
No-slip means that all phases travel at the same velocity. The volume
fractions of water and gas that apply at the interface between the wellbore
grid cells are evaluated at the upstream cell. Similarly, mobilities (Tj , wj ,
39-558
Landmark - R2003.4
k rw k ro k rg
Tj = ------- + ------- + ------ w o g j
(39-6)
k rw
wj = --------
w j
(39-7)
k rg
gj = -------
g j
(39-8)
wj = E wj Tj
(39-9)
gj = E gj Tj
(39-10)
The wellbore pressure, pwj, is computed from the pressure in the adjacent
wellbore grid cell:
(39-11)
(39-12)
If the datum is contained within wellbore grid cell j, then j = jD, and pwj
is related to the wellbore pressure at datum by the following expression:
o
pw jD = pw + jD ( D jD D )
(39-13)
If the datum lies above the top perforated interval, then the top perforated
interval is treated as the datum-containing perforated interval and
Equation 39-13 applies. Similarly, if the datum lies below the bottom
perforated interval, then the bottom perforation is treated as the datumcontaining perforation and Equation 39-13 applies.
One of the wellbore grid cells is designated as the one from which fluid is
withdrawn to the surface in the case of a producer, or the point at which
fluid first reaches a perforated interval in the case of an injector. This
might correspond to the bottom of the tubing string in a well that
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-559
Q = ( a + b E g + c E w )q T
(39-14)
where Q is the maximum flow rate allowed in whatever units are used to
constrain the well, and qT is the volumetric flow rate at wellbore
conditions.
Once the pressure of each wellbore grid cell has been determined, the
difference in wellbore pressure between each wellbore cell and the
wellbore datum is computed and saved for the remainder of the timestep
for use in allocating layer production and injection rates.
o
DPW B j = p wj p w
(39-15)
Calculation Procedure
Equations 39-2 through 39-14 define the relationship between wellbore
pressures and reservoir pressure and saturation distributions. All of these
equations are linear, except for Equations 39-3, 39-4, and 39-5. The system
of equations is solved by two different procedures.
Initially, the system of equations is linearized by iteration lagging the
volume fractions in Equation 39-2. This allows computation of the
pressure profile with Equations 39-11 and 39-12, followed by sequential
solution of Equations 39-3, 39-4, and 39-5. This sequence of calculations is
repeated one time, using the new estimates of Ew and Eg in Equation 39-2.
Further iteration has been found by extensive testing to be less efficient
than proceeding to the second method.
In the second method, the full system of equations is solved
simultaneously using the Newton-Raphson iteration. This involves
solving four equations simultaneously for each wellbore grid cell. These
are Equations 39-3, 39-4, 39-5, and either 39-11 or 39-12, as appropriate.
Convergence normally is rapid. In the rare event of convergence failure,
the results of the first method are accepted. Timestep cutting is not
performed to force convergence of this iteration.
39-560
Landmark - R2003.4
39.6.4 Nomenclature
Eg
Eo
Ew
kh
kr
relative permeability.
pw
WI
well index.
Do
fluid mobility.
viscosity, in cp.
With subscripts:
R2003.4 - Landmark
gas.
oil.
total.
water or well.
39-561
Wellbore Crossflow
39.7.1 Theory
Consider a production well producing at a rate of q RB/D, with layer
productivity indices Jk, layer mobilities k (total), and layer pressures at
datum, Pk. The total layer flow rates are given by:
q k = J k k ( P k P bh )
(39-16)
where Pbh is the flowing bottom-hole pressure at datum. The total well
rate is:
q =
qk
(39-17)
J k k Pk q
k
P bh = -------------------------------J
k k
(39-18)
If Pbh > Pk, then layer k is backflowing. The individual phase layer rates are
given by:
q mk = J k mk ( P k P bh ), m = o, w, g
(39-19)
where
mk
wellblock
if P k > P bh
= mk
wellblock S wellbore if P k < P bh
mk
mk
(39-20)
where Smkwellbore are the layer phase saturations in the wellbore. These
wellbore saturations and wellbore phase compositions could be obtained
by solving material balances and equilibrium constraints on a gridded
wellbore, but the equations are highly nonlinear due to rapidly changing
39-562
Landmark - R2003.4
Wellbore Crossflow
*
J ( P P * ) if P k > P bh
k
k
k
bh
=
*
0
if P k < P bh
(39-21)
*
P bh
( J k k Pk ) q
= ------------------------------------+
J k k
(39-22)
q = q k q k
(39-23)
q k
qk qk
= 0
(39-24)
and that:
q k = J k k ( P k P bh )
(39-25)
where
*
P k = MIN ( P k, P bh )
(39-26)
J k k P kP bh = ---------------------- J k k
(39-27)
J k k J j j ( P k P j )q k = -------------------------------------------------- J i i
(39-28)
The interlayer rate from layer k to layer j then may be written as:
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-563
Wellbore Crossflow
q kj = kj k ( P k P j )
(39-29)
where
J k J j
kj = ----------------j
J i i
(39-30)
mk
q mkj = --------- q kj
k
(39-31)
39-564
Landmark - R2003.4
FIELD
AREA 1
FS 1
AREA 2
FS 3
FS 2
GC 1
GC 2
GC 3
GC 4
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
GC 5
GC 6
GC 7
Wells
Wells
Wells
R2003.4 - Landmark
Scale Scale the rates of all wells to exactly meet the target.
GOR sort Reduce the production rate of the highest GOR wells to
user-specified minimum rate until the target is met.
Gas rate sort Reduce the production rate of the highest gas rate
wells to user-specified minimum rate until the target is met.
39-565
Water rate sort Reduce the production rate of the highest water rate
wells to user-specified minimum rate until the target is met.
39-566
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-567
39-568
Landmark - R2003.4
4. Sales gas.
Shrinkage gas is the gas lost because of the change of temperature and
pressure in the separator. It is not controllable once the temperature and
pressure are fixed; therefore, it is assigned the first priority. Fuel gas is
required for field operations and is assigned to the second priority.
If the produced gas is less than the specified shrinkage gas, then the
shrinkage gas volume is set to the produced gas volume. The produced
gas is the produced formation gas plus the gas-lift gas (at previous
timestep) if the gas-lift gas is included in the gas handling loop. The gas
left after shrinkage (produced formation + gas-lift at previous timestep +
makeup + makeup gas-lift - shrinkage) then is computed and compared to
the specified fuel gas. If it is smaller than the specified fuel gas, the
makeup fuel gas (fuel gas - gas left) is added. The gas-lift gas, sales gas,
and gas available for reinjection are set to zero. Otherwise, the fuel gas is
subtracted from the gas left and is compared to gas-lift gas. If it is smaller
than the gas-lift gas, the gas-lift gas is reduced to the gas available. The
sales gas and gas available for injection are set to zero. Similar procedures
are repeated for calculation of sales gas. The remaining gas volume after
sales gas is the gas available for reinjection.
Optionally, the user may specify the composition of the gas available for
reinjection through the YREINJ card. The composition can either be set to
the produced gas composition or a user-specified mole fraction for each
component. The composition input on a YREINJ card applies only to the
well management entity designated on the card. It does not apply to any
lower levels.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-569
The FIELD option checks the specified injection target for each
gathering center, flow station, and area, but checks the effective target
at the field level. The effective target is defined as the minimum of the
specified target and the calculated gas available for reinjection.
The ALL option checks the effective target for each level of well
management.
39-570
The definition of the QMAX cards is the maximum gas injection rate,
even though the well type is FSTD or FRES.
Landmark - R2003.4
39.10.2 Description
In the surface facility at a certain field, the gas from the separators is sent
to the Central Gas Facility (CGF) where the field fuel gas is first extracted
from the inlet stream and the remaining gas is processed in the CGF to
remove natural gas liquids (NGL), liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and
miscible injectants (MI). The sales gas is removed from the outlet lean gas
stream and is passed through a Gas Conditioning Plant to remove CO2.
The CO2 stream is then recombined with the excess lean gas to produce a
new lean gas injectant, or is vented, or is directly injected into userspecified injectors. The methodology implemented here represents a
simplified approach to this complex process. It was determined that in
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-571
order to effectively simulate the CGF and the gas conditioning plant, CO2
should be treated as a separate component in the equation of state
representation. Also, the removal of NGL, LPG, and MI from the separator
gas is handled through a simple table lookup.
The major gas sales option is implemented as a part of the gas handling
loop computation in which the separator gas for each member of a well
management level (gathering center, flow station, area, or field) is
processed to determine the reinjection lean gas rates and compositions.
The entire process is schematically shown in Figure 39-2 and described in
detail in the following sections.
Figure 39-2: Schematic Diagram of a Gas Handling Loop with the Major Gas
Sales Option
39-572
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-573
Fuel Gas #2
The major gas sales option allows some fuel gas (Fuel Gas #2) to be
removed from the outlet gas stream of the MI plant. If this outlet gas
stream is larger than Fuel Gas #2, the remaining lean gas amount (Lean
Gas1, see Box 5) is calculated and the available makeup gas is unchanged
(i.e., AVLMKP1 = AVLMKP2). Otherwise, Lean Gas1 is set to zero and a
portion of the available makeup gas (AVLMKP1) is used for fuel. In this
case, a new available makeup gas rate (AVLMKP2) is calculated.
Landmark - R2003.4
39.10.3 Implementation
The major gas sales option calculation may be declared for any members
of a well management level using a PLANT card. Without the PLANT
card, the standard VIP gas handling loop calculation will be performed.
The major gas sales option may be invoked for some well management
levels and not invoked for other levels. The detailed description for the
PLANT card is given in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
The major gas sales option involves four main items: an NGL plant, an
LPG plant, an MI plant, and gas conditioning. The user has the control of
invoking any or all of the four main items. The NGL plant calculation can
be invoked by an NGLPLANT card followed by an NGL plant table.
Similarly, the LPG plant calculation is invoked by an LPGPLANT card
followed by an LPG plant table and the MI plant calculation is invoked by
an MIPLANT card followed by an MI plant table. The gas conditioning
calculation can be declared by a GASCOND card which also contains a
user-specified component number. This component (e.g., CO2) will be
excluded from the input and the output fuel gas rates. It will also be
removed in the gas conditioning plant during the sales gas calculation and
handled according to the data on the GASCOND card, if the gas
conditioning plant calculation is specified by the user through keyword
PLANT on the GASSLS (sales gas) card. In addition, up to two fuel gas
streams may be removed during the gas handling calculation: one from
the produced separator gas stream and the other from the outlet gas
stream of the MI plant. This enhancement requires modification of the
GASFUL (fuel gas) card. The detailed descriptions for all of the new and
modified data are given in the VIP-EXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
As in the standard gas handling loop calculation, the reinjected lean gas
composition calculated for a member of a well management level will be
used for FSTD reinjection wells attached to the member. However, if an
injection composition for any well is entered through a YREINJ card, the
composition specified on the YREINJ card will be used as the injection
composition. For an MI injector, the user may specify the well
management level for which the calculated MI composition is to be based
by entering keyword GATHER, FLOSTA, AREA, or FIELD on the INJ
card. In this case, a YINJ card for the MI injector must not be entered.
Otherwise, the composition specified on the YINJ card will be used and
the calculated MI composition will be ignored. As mentioned, a QMAX
card for all MI injectors must be entered to specify the MI injection rate for
each well. The MI rates calculated from the gas handling loop are not
used. This modification to the INJ card is also described in the VIPEXECUTIVE Reference Manual.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-575
The format for the Field Gas Handling Summary output (which will be
printed if keyword FIELD is entered on a PRINT card) is unchanged. If
two fuel gas streams are specified, the fuel gas shown in the summary will
be the sum of the two rates. Also, the reported fuel gas rate excludes the
component identified on the GASCOND card.
The NGL plant, LPG plant, and MI plant feed, liquid, and vapor rates and
compositions are reported as a subset of the separator report (invoked by
keyword SEP on the PRINT card). In addition, the calculated reinjected
lean gas composition is shown in the last column of the MI plant report.
Notice that this information is printed only for the members of the well
management levels where the calculated MI compositions are to be used
as the injection compositions of the MI injectors.
It should be noted that the feed composition for the NGL plant may be
different from the stock tank vapor composition shown in the separator
battery report. This is the case for multiple producer cases with nonuniform production compositions because the feed composition for the
NGL plant is based on the sum of individual producers stock tank gas
rates, whereas the stock tank vapor composition in the separator report is
determined by flashing the total molar production rates (i.e., sum of all
well molar rates) for the separator battery. These two compositions will be
identical only if all producers have the same overall production
compositions.
The major gas sales option is allowed only for compositional models and
is available for both IMPES and implicit modes.
39-576
Landmark - R2003.4
Injection Regions
Enable both gas and water injection with net voidage control.
R2003.4 - Landmark
An injector that does not physically exist within a region can still be
assigned to it.
For the FRES injector, the qmax value on the QMAX card is the
maximum injection rate at reservoir conditions.
For the FRES gas injector, the injection gas composition used is the
same as that used in the gas reinjection option at the specified well
management level.
39-577
Injection Regions
P ref P avg
PTERM = ----------------------------
P ref P targ
exp
(39-32)
where Pref, Ptarg, and exp are user-specified reference pressure, target
pressure, and exponent, respectively. The reference pressure, Pref, must be
greater than the target pressure, Ptarg, and the average pressure, Pavg. The
average pressure can be either the pore volume weighted average or the
hydrocarbon pore volume weighted average pressure.
39-578
Landmark - R2003.4
Injection Regions
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-579
Injection Prioritization
39-580
Landmark - R2003.4
The user must determine the fractional value injected at each injection
well.
If both water and gas injection are taking place at a well management
level, net voidage injection may be more applicable. Net voidage is
defined as the difference between the total reservoir production rate and
the total reservoir injection rate for the phase not under net voidage
control. For example, if a fixed quantity of water is being injected, the gas
injection required to maintain voidage balance is the difference between
total production and water injection.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-581
the well injectivities. If both water and gas are injected at the same well
management level, then the net voidage option is better for balancing
fluid injection.
39-582
Only one phase (water or gas) can be in net voidage control, not both.
An error message is printed and the simulation run stops if both
phases are under net voidage control.
When using the INJTAR cards, do not mix injection targets at reservoir
conditions with those at surface conditions for different well
management levels.
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
The injection target for the upper well levels is allocated to the lower
levels. If the user specifies the injection targets for several levels, then
they must be specified at the same conditions (reservoir or surface).
The RSTD and FSTD options in the INJTAR cards are for surface
conditions. The RRES, FRES, and FRESN options are for reservoir
conditions.
The units for guide rate are the same as those for injection target.
For the default well guide rate, well injectivity at surface conditions is
used if the well defined in the INJ card is at surface conditions. If the
well is defined at reservoir conditions, the well injectivity at reservoir
conditions is used. The GURT option in the INJGR card has the same
units as the injection target. For the VOID and VOIN options, the
calculated total and net voidage are used directly in allocation of
injection targets.
39-583
Gas-Lift
39.14 Gas-Lift
In VIP-EXECUTIVE, gas-lift is used with the tubinghead pressure (THP)
option for three-phase producers. The gas-lift gas allocated to a well is
added to that wells produced gas to derive the effective gas-liquid or gasoil ratio for the well. This ratio, along with the wells liquid or oil rate,
water cut, and THP constraint, is used to look up the flowing bottom-hole
pressure in the wellbore hydraulics table (BHPTAB data). Gas-lift is
otherwise transparent to the user; i.e., the gas-lift rate is not included in
daily gas production. The gas-lift option can be utilized only for wells for
which THP data have been entered.
A wells gas-lift gas rate can be entered with one of two options on the
QLIFT card. A positive gas-lift gas rate causes a constant allocation of that
rate to the well. A negative value (any negative value is sufficient) causes
invocation of an automatic allocation procedure for the well. In predictive
well management, all wells in a gathering center with gas-lift are
automatically eligible for gas-lift. Here, a negative value of gas-lift gas rate
has no significance. To prevent a well from becoming eligible for gas-lift, a
zero gas-lift gas rate must be specified.
Note that the gas-lift gas rate is calculated only during the first iteration of
each timestep. This calculated rate then is used for subsequent iterations.
39-584
Landmark - R2003.4
Gas-Lift
Q o = A + B [ ln ( GL ) ] + C [ ln ( GL ) ]
The procedure starts by fitting a curve through the first 3 operating points.
(Special cases of less than 3 operating points will be described later). If the
efficiency at the third operating point is higher than the desired efficiency
and if there are additional operating points at higher gaslift gas rates, the
curve fit will be repeated for points 2, 3, and 4, and the efficiency
calculated at point 4 and tested against the desired efficiency. This process
will be repeated (points 3, 4, 5; then 4, 5, 6; etc.) until an efficiency less than
the desired efficiency is found or until there are no additional operating
points. At this time the equation can be solved for the gaslift gas rate
which yields the desired efficiency. If necessary, this curve will be
extrapolated outside the range of the last set of points used.
Three special cases that are accounted for are as follows:
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-585
Gas-Lift
1. If a well can make its QMAX at one of the gaslift gas rates, that point
and all higher lift rate points are discarded. If the desired lift efficiency
exists within any of the remaining points, the required lift rate is
calculated. Otherwise, its lift rate is set to the lowest lift rate point at
which it could make QMAX.
Figure 39-3: Intersection of the Inflow Performance Curve (-PI) and the Lift
Curves for the Various Gaslift Gas Rates.
39-586
Landmark - R2003.4
Gas-Lift
Q o = A + B ln ( GL )
If the desired efficiency exists between these two points, the required
lift gas rate is calculated. However, this curve will not be extrapolated.
If the desired efficiency is at a lift rate less than the lower operating
point, the lift rate at the lower operating point will be used. Also, if the
desired efficiency is at a lift rate higher than the higher operating
point, the lift rate at the higher operating point will be used.
3. If only one operating point is found, the "total" efficiency at the point
(total oil rate divided by the lift gas rate) is compared to the desired
efficiency. If the total efficiency is greater, the lift gas rate at that point
is used of the next timestep. If the total efficiency is less, then the lift
gas rate is set to zero.
This process is repeated for each well, resulting in the total lift gas which is
required in order that each well will operate at the desired efficiency. If
this total lift gas requirement is less than the maximum available, these
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-587
Gas-Lift
gaslift gas rates will be used for the next timestep. However, if the
required gas exceeds what is available, then there are several options as to
how to reduce the required gas to less than or equal to what is available.
There are two basic paths for reducing the total gaslift gas volume
requirements. These paths are; 1) efficiency scaling, and 2) the combined
sequence of "hit-list" - uniform scale-back and shut-in of low "total"
efficiency wells.
1. Efficiency scaling (keyword EFFSCL). Using the previously computed
operating points and curve-fits for the wells, a new, higher efficiency
can be iterated for such that all capable wells are operating at the new
efficiency and the total lift gas requirement is less than or equal to the
lift gas available.
2. User-specified "Hit-List"
The user can specify an ordered list of wells which will have their lift
gas turned off, one by one, until either the gas availability is reached or
the list of wells is exhausted. When a well has its lift gas turned off, the
model will decide whether the well can flow or not (based on the
solution GOR and the lift curve data).
3. Uniform Scale-Back
After exhausting the hit list wells, if there is still a gas shortage then all
of the wells will have their lift gas scaled back by whatever percentage
it takes to reach the gas availability (subject to a user-input maximum
allowable scaleback). The model also honors an additional set of userinput minimum and maximum allowable GLRs for the scaleback step.
4. Shut-in Low "Total" Efficiency Wells
If too large a scaleback is required (i.e., the required scaleback
calculated in Step 3 exceeds the user-input maximum allowable
scaleback), the model will only scale by the user-input value and then
start shutting in wells after that. The wells will be shut in on the basis
of total oil rate divided by total lift gas rate (the "old" method).
Additional information is packed into the Production Well Summary for
wells that are using the PFMCRV option for automatic gaslift gas rate
allocation. Since the print line is completely full, the single column
between CUM LIFT GAS and LIFT STATUS is used for an additional
status code. (The lift status will be PFMCRV). The codes are as follows:
39-588
Landmark - R2003.4
Gas-Lift
(blank)
Wells for which at least two potential operating points were found an for
which a non-zero gaslift gas rate was determined, a second line is printed
containing the incremental gaslift efficiency for the well.
GLRTAB
*GLE
*DEC
The gas-lift rate is used by the program only to determine the flowing
bottom-hole pressure that corresponds to the user-specified tubinghead
pressure limit. Gas-lift is otherwise transparent to the user; that is, the gaslift rate is not included in daily gas production. Gas-lift can be used only
on wells for which a THP card is entered.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-589
Water Pumps
39-590
Landmark - R2003.4
separator
battery
gas
oil
oil
stabilizer
H/C/well stream
oil
oil rate
stock
tank
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-591
39-592
Landmark - R2003.4
Automatic Workovers
All field workovers that are meaningful in the simulator are identified
and performed.
R2003.4 - Landmark
Only one oil perf, gas perf, or water perf can be performed.
39-593
Automatic Workovers
Enough time has elapsed since the last workover was performed on
the well.
39-594
Landmark - R2003.4
Automatic Workovers
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-595
Automatic Workovers
more than one list.) The top well in the appropriate list then is selected. If a
rig is available, all workover types for which the well is a candidate are
performed. All workovers are assumed to be successful unless a usersupplied failure rate is in effect. In this case, every nth workover fails. The
rig is still considered unavailable for the designated period of time, but the
well remains a candidate. The failure also does not count against the
relative number of workovers to perform.
39-596
Landmark - R2003.4
Always produce from a certain area of the field or from a specified set
of wells.
Produce from the lowest to the highest gas-oil ratio (GOR) well in the
gas cap.
Produce from the lowest to the highest water-cut well in the area near
the oil-water contact.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-597
39-598
Landmark - R2003.4
How does artificial lift impact facility size at various well management
levels?
Some of the commonly used artificial lift methods in the field are gaslift,
sucker rod pumps and downhole submersible pumps. VIP-EXECUTIVE
can simulate only gaslift at present. In the NEW option, gaslift may be
available at one or more pressure systems in a gathering center and it is
not necessary that gaslift be available at all gathering centers. The MGOR
option restricts gaslift to the low pressure system only. Wells on gaslift are
automatically connected to the low pressure system.
In the first case, the model requires a set of rules to determine which wells
could be shut-in. Benefit functions are a convenient way to determine the
order in which wells could be shut-in. Similarly, benefit functions can be
used to determine the order in which wells are first opened to flow.
A benefit function is an equation with the following characteristics:
The user will have the option of choosing one of the following equations
to calculate the benefit function:
BF = PM P A ( Q o + A ) ( GOR + C ) ( WCUT + E )
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-599
( GLGOR + G )
where:
PM
PA
Qo
Qg
Qw
Qglg
GOR
WCUT
GLGOR
A, B, C, D,
E, F, G, H,
I, and J
( Q g + Q glg ) ( Q g + Q glg )
i
i1
TIGOR i = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Qo Qo
i
(39-33)
i1
where:
39-600
Q gi
Q glgi
Q oi
Landmark - R2003.4
Qgi 1
Q glgi 1
Qoi 1
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-601
the inability to produce at the minimum level of the next higher "bin"
and
The following rules are used to determine the hydraulic category of each
well:
The category for a well can be fixed by the user, but the well
production rate must be above the minimum rate.
39-602
Landmark - R2003.4
If its water-cut, gas-cut ratio and gas-liquid ratio are below the
user-specified values for this pass. These cutoff values are optional.
2. The benefit function for each eligible well is then calculated. The user
can specify a different benefit function for each pass.
3. The well list is sorted on the basis of the benefit function.
4. Wells are brought on production until the well list is exhausted or any
appropriate target is met at the specified well management level. If a
target is met, one of the three available options specified by the user is
used to reduce the rate to be equal to the target. The three options are:
Scale back all rates by the same factor to exactly meet the target.
Shut-in wells (and scale the last well) to exactly meet the target.
Use an averaging technique such that the rates of the highest rate
wells are reset to an average rate to meet the target.
In the "shut-in" and "average" options, the well is not truly shut-in (such as
shut-in due to minimum rate, maximum GOR constraints). It will be
eligible for assignment in all subsequent passes and timesteps.
At the end of this step, either the production targets at the specified well
management levels are exactly met or all eligible wells are assigned. Since
targets are not checked at any higher well management level, one or more
of them may have been violated. In addition, it is possible that some
targets at the lower levels are not met and eligible wells have not been
assigned.
R2003.4 - Landmark
The pressure system entity (or the entire well management level) to be
checked.
Phase to be checked.
39-604
Landmark - R2003.4
User-specified value, or
R2003.4 - Landmark
Define the TIGOR value at the first point as the GOR of the first point
on the well performance curve.
Do not allow the TIGOR values to decrease. That is, the following
equation is enforced for each point j on the curve after the first:
TIGORj = max (TIGORj, TIGORj-1) .
Well Assignment
The well assignment process may be generally described as follows:
1. Start at a user-specified initial value of field total incremental gas-oil
ratio (FIGOR).
2. Determine the flow rates for each well at the current FIGOR value.
3. Decrease appropriate well flow rates to satisfy any production or
gaslift targets that may have been violated by increasing FIGOR to its
current value.
4. Determine if any excess capacity remains and if there exist any wells
whose rates can be increased.
5. If so, increase the current FIGOR value by the user-specified increment
and return to Step 2.
6. Determine if any well management level minimum rate constraints are
violated.
7. If so, perform appropriate well shut-ins and return to Step 1.
8. When the flow rate calculations are completed compute the marginal
gas-oil ratio (MGOR) for each entity in each well management level.
39-606
Landmark - R2003.4
d. A gaslift gas target applicable to this well has been reached and the
well has already reached its maximum non-lifted rate.
2. Determine the point in the TIGOR versus QO curve in which the
current FIGOR value lies.
a. If the gaslift gas rate cannot be increased and the current FIGOR
value lies in the gaslift region of the curve, set the point to the
maximum non-lifted point.
b. If the low pressure system rate cannot be increased and the current
FIGOR value lies in the LP system region of the curve, set the point
to the maximum high pressure system point.
3. If appropriate, compute the gaslift gas rates corresponding to the point
on the TIGOR versus QO curve.
4. Compute the oil, gas and water rates corresponding to the point on the
TIGOR versus QO curve.
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-607
The final FIGOR value becomes the current FIGOR for subsequent
targeting checks.
TIGOR value at the HP THP limit point (TIGOR*) is larger than the
current value of FIGOR.
39-608
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
39-609
2. The rates for cut-back wells are fixed at the temporary QMAX for the
remaining iterations of the PWM timestep. However, the rates for
bottomhole pressure constrained wells can float due to pressure
changes during subsequent iterations.
(39-34)
(39-35)
In case of a violation, the user has one of the following three options:
Note that the default option is not to perform rate comparisons during the
non-PWM timesteps. Invoking the rate comparison enables the users to
closely monitor run performance and avoid PWM calculations at every
timestep.
39-610
Landmark - R2003.4
Appendix
A
Well Models
A.1 Introduction
In reservoir simulation, the important boundary conditions that drive the
flow occur at the wells. In the exact solution of the differential equations,
each well would be represented by an interior circular boundary of radius
rw. One of two types of boundary conditions could be specified for each
well, namely the flowing well pressure, pwf, or the flow rate, q. It would
not be possible, of course, to specify both.
To represent such interior boundary conditions at the well radius by
conventional finite-difference methods would require a very fine grid
definition in the neighborhood of the well, as exemplified in Figure A-1.
rw
While such a fine grid might be suitable for single-well models, it is not
practical for 2D areal or 3D models. Instead, each well is embedded in a
block whose horizontal dimensions are much larger than the diameter of
the well. As a result, the pressure calculated for a block containing a well
is greatly different from the flowing well pressure, pwf. To account for this
difference, a well index, WI, must be used. Most of this chapter is devoted
to the subject of how to calculate WI for various 2D and 3D geometries.
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-611
q o = 0.001127 WI
k l hl
l
k ro o
------------- ( p b p wf ) l
o l
(A-1)
where
qo
pbl
gridblock pressure
kl hl
kro
p wf = p bh + ( D D ref )
(A-2)
Equation A-1 can be used two ways. The rate qo can be set in the finitedifference equation for the block. After the simulator calculates the block
pressure, pbl, Equation A-1 can be used to calculate pwf and then Equation
o
o
A-2 used to calculate the bottomhole pressure, p bh
. Alternatively, p bh
can
be set and then pwf calculated. Equation A-1 can be combined with the
finite-difference equation by eliminating qo. Then, after the simulator
calculates the block pressure, the flow rate can be obtained.
k ro o
q ol = 0.001127 W I l ------------- ( p b p wf ) l
o l
A-612
(A-3)
Landmark - R2003.4
One-Dimensional Flow
This WI has units of md-ft. It may be different for each vertical block.
q o = PI [ p e p wf ]
(A-4)
or
q o = PI [ p av p wf ]
(A-5)
where pe is pressure at the exterior of the wells drainage area, and pav is
the average pressure within the drainage area. Thus, the PI is determined
not only by the geometry, but also by the reservoir permeability, the
relative permeability, and the fluid viscosity. Well index, as defined by
Equation A-1, has the advantage of being dependent only on the
geometry.
z
y
x
2
Figure A-2: One-Dimensional, Linear, Model
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-613
One-Dimensional Flow
The first, and simplest, example of the calculation of WI is onedimensional, linear (i.e., rectilinear) flow, where the grid is as shown in
Figure A-2. The boundary condition, pwf, is to be imposed at the left end of
the model, which is at a distance x/2 from the nearest node (also called
the pressure center), located at x1. Assuming single-phase flow (and
ignoring the dimensional constant 0.0001127), from Darcys law we have
kyz
q = ---------------------- ( p 1 p wf )
( x 2 )
(A-6)
q ( x 2 )
( p 1 p wf ) = ------------------------kyz
(A-7)
The single-phase analogy of Equation A-1, which defines the well index, is
kz
q = WI ------------- ( p 1 p wf )
(A-8)
y
WI = -----------------( x 2 )
(A-9)
A-614
Landmark - R2003.4
One-Dimensional Flow
k z
q = ------------------------------ ( p 1 p wf )
ln ( r 1 r w )
(A-10)
WI = ------------------------ln ( r 1 r w )
(A-11)
Note: In VIP, if one has a radial grid and uses an RFLOW card, rw and rb
can be entered, where rb is set equal to r1. But VIP computes
2
WI = ------------------------ln ( r b r w )
(A-12)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-615
q
r
p = p wf + -------------------- ln ----2kz r w
(A-13)
As discussed above, we dont expect p0,0 to be equal to pwf, but how well
do the pressures at the other nodes satisfy Equation A-13? If we plot the
difference between pi,j and p0,0 vs the log of the radial distance from node
(i,j) to node (0,0), then a straight line with the expected slope of q/2kz
is obtained34. By plotting the dimensionless pressure drop:
(pij - p0,0)/(q/kz)
against the log of the dimensionless radius ( r x ) = i 2 + j 2 , the straight
line has a slope of 1/(2), as shown in Figure A-5. The pressure at node
(1,0) is slightly off from the straight line, but all the other pressures lie
extremely well on the line. This figure may be considered to be a universal
plot, applicable to any square grid with a single well located far from any
boundaries.
A-616
Landmark - R2003.4
r ij
q
p ij = p 0, 0 + --------------------- ln -------------2kZ 0.2x
(A-14)
Comparison with Equation A-13 shows that the well block looks like a
well with a wellbore radius of 0.2x. We call this radius the equivalent
radius of the well block, rb.
To obtain the well index, we proceed as follows. From Equation A-13 we
can write:
r ij
q
p ij = p wf + -------------------- ln ----2kz r w
(A-15)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-617
2kz
q = ---------------------------------------- ( p 0, 0 p wf )
ln ( 0.2x r w )
(A-16)
2
WI = ---------------------------------ln ( 0.2x r w )
(A-17)
rb
q
p b p wf = -------------------- ln ----2kz r w
(A-18)
We shall take this as a general definition of rb, for any geometry of the well
block.
Similarly, Equation A-17 can be written:
2
WI = ------------------------ln ( r b r w )
(A-19)
We express the well index in this form, since rb in many cases is easy to
compute. Note that Equation A-19 does not take skin into account. We
shall show how to incorporate skin in Section A.5.
kz y
------------- ------ ( p i + 1, j 2 p ij + p i 1, j )
x
kz x
+ ------------- ------ ( p i, j + 1 2 p ij + p i, j 1 ) q ij = 0
y
(A-20)
For the case shown in Figure A-4, the pressures are symmetric about (0,0),
so that p0,1 = p-1,0 = p0,-1 = p1,0. Also x = y. Then:
A-618
Landmark - R2003.4
q
4 ( p 1, 0 p 0, 0 ) ------------- = 0
kz
(A-21)
Assuming that p1,0 satisfies the radial flow Equation A-13 exactly gives:
q
x
p 1, 0 = p wf + -------------------- ln -----2kz r w
(A-22)
since r1,0 = x. From the definition for rb, Equation A-18 yields:
rb
q
p 0, 0 = p wf + -------------------- ln ----2kz r w
(A-23)
x
q
p 1, 0 p 0, 0 = -------------------- ln -----2kz r b
and combining with Equation A-21, yields
x
rb
ln ------ = --or
r
2
-----b- = e
= 0.208
x
(A-24)
We shall show later that an exact value for rb for a well far from the
boundaries or from any other well (i.e., an isolated well) in a uniform
square grid is 0.1985 x. Thus, a good rule of thumb to use for a square
well block is rb = 0.2 x.
The approximate method described in this section can be extended to
nonsquare grids, where x y . It gives adequate results when the
aspect ratio y/x lies between 0.5 and 2.0. Outside that range, it gives
poor results39, because it is based on the assumption that the pressures in
all the blocks adjacent to the well block satisfy the radial flow equation
exactly, and that assumption breaks down badly for long skinny
gridblocks.
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-619
= y/x
rb/x
rb/y
r b x + y
1/16
0.1406
2.2502
0.140365
1/8
0.1415
1.1317
0.140365
1/4
0.1447
0.5787
0.140365
1/2
0.1569
0.3139
0.140365
0.1985
0.1985
0.140365
0.3139
0.1569
0.140365
0.5787
0.1447
0.140365
1.1317
0.1415
0.140365
16
2.2502
0.1406
0.140365
Neither rb/x nor rb/y are particularly constant with , but it can be seen
that rb/x converges to a limit for small y, and rb/y converges to the
same limit for small x. This leads to the possibility that a better quantity
to divide rb by is the length of the diagonal of each gridblock, because:
rb
---------------------------2
2
x + y
looks like rb/x as y goes to zero, and looks like rb/y as x goes to zero.
As can be seen from the last column of this table, that ratio is very constant
with . So now we have the more general rule of thumb, that:
2
r b = 0.14 x + y
(A-25)
A-620
Landmark - R2003.4
lim
NX
NY
rb
e
---------------------------- = ------4
2
2
x + y
(A-26)
1
That gives, for the ratio of Equation A-26, the value 0.1403649.
Note that, for a square grid with x = y, rb/x is 2 times this constant, or
0.198506, so that gives us the complete mathematical derivation of the first
rule of thumb, that rb = 0.2x for a square grid.
k x z y
--------------- ------ ( p i + 1, j 2 p ij + p i 1, j )
x
k y z x
+ --------------- ------ ( p i, j + 1 2 p ij + p i, j 1 ) q ij = 0
y
(A-27)
k e z y e
--------------- --------- ( p i + 1, j 2 p ij + p i 1, j )
x e
k e z x e
+ --------------- --------- ( p i, j + 1 2 p ij + p i, j 1 ) q ij = 0
y e
(A-28)
where
ke = (k xk y)
12
(A-29)
x e = ( k y k x )
14
(A-30)
y e = ( k x k y )
14
(A-31)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-621
r be = 0.14 x e + y e
(A-32)
or
r be = 0.14 ( k y k x )
12
x + ( k x k y )
12
(A-33)
In this case rbe is the radius of the (almost) circular isobar in the
transformed problem (i.e., in the xe-ye plane) that has the same pressure as
the well block.
However, in the transformed problem, the well bore is elliptical, not
circular. It is shown in Reference 9 that the pressure solution to the exact
differential problem in the xe-ye plane essentially satisfies the equation:
re
q
p p wf = ---------------------- ln ------2k e z r we
(A-34)
where
re =
xe + ye
(A-35)
and
1
14
14
r we = --- r w [ ( k y k x )
+ (kx ky) ]
2
(A-36)
r be
q
p b p wf = ---------------------- ln ------2k e z r we
(A-37)
rb
q
p b p wf = ---------------------- ln ----2k e z r w
(A-38)
r b = r be ( r w r we )
(A-39)
Combining Equations A-39, A-33 and A-36 then yields the final result for
rb, that is:
A-622
Landmark - R2003.4
12
12
( k y k x ) x + ( k x k y ) y
r b = 0.28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
14
(ky kx)
+ (kx ky)
(A-40)
r be
r b = ----------------------------------------------------------------------14
14
0.5 [ ( k y k x )
+ (kx ky) ]
(A-41)
r be = 0.14 x e + y e
(A-42)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-623
In Reference 39, it is shown that if two wells with the same rate are placed
in the same well block (which is otherwise isolated from any other well
block), then:
2
r be
( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e )
= ----------------------------------------------r eAB
(A-43)
where reAB is the distance in the xe-ye plane between the two wells. In
terms of the actual coordinates of the two wells, this distance is given by:
r eAB =
(ky kx)
12
( x A xB ) + ( k x k y )
12
( y A yB )
(A-44)
Note that rbe is independent of the actual location of the two wells; the
only thing that matters is the scaled distance between them (provided they
are isolated from other wells).
q
( r be ) AA
q A + qB
[ 0.14 x e + y e ]
= --------------------------------------------------------qB
( r eAB )
(A-45)
Note that qA and qB do not have to be absolute rates; relative rates will do.
Also note that if qA qB, then the two wells will have different values of
rbe.
A-624
Landmark - R2003.4
Similarly, it can be shown for three wells with the same rate (A, B, and C),
that the following equation applies:
2
( r be ) A
2 32
( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e )
= ------------------------------------------------------r eAB r eAC
(A-46)
Note that when there are two wells and they have the same rate, they have
the same rbe. But when there are three wells, even with equal rates, in
general they do not have the same rbe (unless reAB = reBC = reAC).
( r be ) AA
( r eAk )
qk
= [ 0.14 x e + y e ]
qt
(A-47)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-625
In Reference 40, it is shown that if two wells with the same rate are placed
in adjacent blocks in the same row, as in the above figure, then:
x e 1 y e
2
2
2
r be r eAB = ( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e ) exp 2 --------- tan ---------
x e
y e
(A-48)
On the other hand, if the two adjacent blocks are in the same column, then
x and y should be interchanged, to give:
y e 1 x e
2
2
2
r be r eAB = ( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e ) exp 2 --------- tan ---------
y e
x e
Note again the isolation requirement: the pair of wells should be
sufficiently far from any other wells or from the grid boundaries. Also
note again that the scaled distance between the two wells is the important
quantity, rather than the actual location of the two wells.
c
If r be
is the value of rbe when the two wells are at the centers of their
respective blocks, and r ceAB is the distance between the block centers (in the
xe-ye plane), then, if the wells are not centered, we can write:
c
r be = r be ( r eAB r eAB )
(A-49)
A-626
Landmark - R2003.4
2
2
r b x = ( 0.14 ) ( 2x ) exp ---
2
or
r b = 0.190x
This is not far from the rule of thumb of 0.2 x for a single isolated well in
a square grid. If the two wells are at the centers of two blocks that are not
adjacent, then this rule of thumb is even better. If the wells are not at the
centers of two blocks that are not adjacent, then Equation A-49 can be used
to find the correct rb. But we still require that the pair of wells be isolated
from other wells or from the grid boundary.
r eAB = 2 ( k y k x )
14
r eAB = 2 ( k x k y )
14
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-627
Again we note that if the medium is isotropic, the grid is square, and the
well is at the center of the edge block, then:
r b = 0.190x
We have already looked at cases of a single well near the edge of the grid.
It is perhaps less likely that the well will be exactly on the edge of the grid,
as shown in Figure A-7. Equation A-48 is not applicable here. Instead, as
Reference 40 shows, the applicable equation is:
x e
1 y e
2
2
r be = 0.14 x e + y e exp --------- tan ---------
x e
y e
(A-50)
Note that rbe is independent of the vertical location of the well on the edge.
If the well is exactly on the top or bottom edge of the grid, then xe and ye
should be interchanged, to give:
y e
1 x e
2
2
r be = 0.14 x e + y e exp --------- tan ---------
y e
x e
A.4.10.1 Well Exactly on Edge of Isotropic, Square Grid
If the medium is isotropic, and the grid is square, then:
A-628
Landmark - R2003.4
Figure A-8 shows the situation where a well is located exactly at the
corner of the grid. This is an important case, as it occurs frequently in fivespot calculations. In Reference 40, it is shown that:
2
r be = 0.14 x e + y e exp ( E )
(A-51)
where
x y
y 1
1 y e
E = --- --------e- + --- 1 + ---------e --------e- tan ---------
y e x e
x e
4 x e 2
(A-52)
Since Equations A-51 and A-52 are rather unwieldy, it may be preferable
to use an empirical equation that fits them quite well:
r be =
2
2
0.2520
x e + y e 0.3816 + -----------------------------------------------------------0.9401
y e 0.9401
x e
-------
+ -------- y e
x e
(A-53)
1
r b = 0.14 2 x exp --- + --- = 0.72x
4 2
This value of rb, combined with Equation A-19, should be used for the well
index in five-spot calculations, if kx = ky and x = y.
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-629
r be
2 2
( 0.14 ) ( x e + y e ) exp ( 4 E )
= ----------------------------------------------------------------------r eAB r eAC r eAD
(A-54)
( 0.14 ) ( 2x ) exp ( + 2 )
r b = --------------------------------------------------------------x ( 2x )x
or
r b = 0.188x
This is not far from the rule of thumb of 0.2 x. But it does require that the
well be exactly at the center of the corner block, which is not too likely.
A-630
Landmark - R2003.4
2
WI = ------------------------ln ( r b r w )
This equation was derived without considering the effect of skin. In this
section, we show how skin may be taken into account.
Figure A-10 depicts radial flow from an outer radius, rd, into the wellbore,
which has radius rw . Let the pressure at rd be pd. The reservoir has
permeability k, but an inner zone of radius ra has an altered
permeability, ka. Assuming steady state:
ra
q
p a p wf = ---------------------- ln ----2k a z r w
rd
q
p d p a = -------------------- ln ----2kz r a
Adding and rearranging the above equations yields the following
equation:
r
q
p d p wf = -------------------- ln ----d- + s a
2kz r w
R2003.4 - Landmark
(A-55)
A-631
where
k ka ra
s a = -------------- ln ----ka
rw
In this context, skin may be interpreted as causing additional pressure
drop due to decreased permeability in the altered zone. However, it may
be either positive or negative, depending on whether ka is less than or
greater than k. The skin due to altered permeability is also referred to as
mechanical skin.
rd
q
p d p b = -------------------- ln ----2kz r b
(A-56)
But the equation for the well model in terms of the well index, WI, is:
kz
q = WI ------------- ( p b p wf )
(A-57)
rd
q
q
p d p wf = -------------------- ln ----- + ------------------------2kz r b kz ( WI )
and comparison with Equation A1-55 yields:
rd
rb
2
WI
rd
rw
2
WI = ---------------------rb
ln ----- + s a
rw
A-632
(A-58)
Landmark - R2003.4
The first method uses the graph of Figure A-11, due to Brons and
Marting41, which shows sr as a function of two parameters, hp/ht and hte/
rw , where hp is the length of the interval open to flow, ht is the total
thickness of the producing zone, h te = h t k H k V , and kH/kV is the ratio of
horizontal to vertical permeability. Figure A-12 shows three ways in which
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-633
The second method for calculating sr , due to Odeh42, allows for a single
open interval anywhere in the producing zone. It is an empirical equation
derived from some numerical studies:
0.825
h
s r = 1.35 -----t 1
{ ln ( h te + 7 ) [ 0.49 + 0.1 ln ( h te ) ] ln ( r wc ) 1.95 }
h p
(A-59)
where
h te = h t k H k V
r wc = r w e
0.2126 ( 2.753 + z m h t )
and zm is the distance from the top of the sand to the middle of the open
interval. (See Figure A-13.)
The two methods are obviously not the same. However, where they can be
compared (e.g., for zm = hp/2), they give comparable values for sr .
A-634
Landmark - R2003.4
zm
hp
ht
s a = s t s or
(A-60)
Secondly, there is what we might call local restricted entry due to partial
completion of the well within a layer of thickness zl. The skin due to this
local restricted entry must be added to the mechanical skin. Thus, layer by
layer, we have:
2
W I l = ---------------------------------rb
ln ----- + s a + s lr
rw
(A-61)
For example, consider the 3D situation shown in Figure A-14. The well
completely penetrates the top two layers and partially penetrates the third
layer. The overall skin, st, is determined from a well test. The skin due to
overall restricted entry is determined from hp1 and ht1 and subtracted from
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-635
st to get sa. Because total penetration through each of the top two layers is
assumed, slr = 0 there. In the third layer, slr is determined from ht2, hp2, and
zm2, and added to sa, as in Equation A-61.
A-636
Landmark - R2003.4
In the PI option, the productivity index is used by VIP to calculate the well
index when the well is first put on production or injection. For an oil
producer, for example:
PI GF
WI = ----------------------------------------------------------------0.001127 [ kh o k ro o ] l
(A-62)
(A-63)
0.00708 [ kh ] eff
q
q
PI = -------------------- or ----------------------- = ---------------------------------------------p av p wf
p e p wf
ln ( r e r w ) + s t t
R2003.4 - Landmark
(A-64)
A-637
where
st
pe
pav
[...]eff
effective value
Page43
A.
Steady-state
pe
118 (Eq.4.29)
B.
Steady-state
pav
1/2
145 (Table)
C.
Pseudosteady-state
pe
1/2
D.
Pseudosteady-state
pav
3/4
2
WI = -----------------------------------ln ( r b r w ) + s a
(A-65)
2 ( 0.001127 ) [ kh o k ro o ] l
l
PI = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------[ ln ( r b r w ) + s a ]GF
(A-66)
[ kho k ro o ]l [ ln ( r b r w ) + st t ]
l
GF = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[ kh ] eff [ ln ( r b r w ) + s a ]
If we assume:
[ kh ] eff =
[ kho k ro o ]l
l
A-638
Landmark - R2003.4
then:
ln ( r e r w ) + s t t
GF = -----------------------------------------ln ( r b r w ) + s a
(A-67)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-639
qg g
r
p = p wf + -------------------------- ln ----2kk rg h g r w
Differentiation yields
qg g
dp = --------------------------d ( ln r )
2kk rg h g
Recognizing that g and g are functions of pressure, we rearrange this:
qg
g
-------------------d ( ln r ) = -----dp
2kk rg h
g
and integrate, to get:
r
qg
------------------- ln ----b- =
2kk rg h r w
pb
-----dp
g
p wf
2k l k rgl h l
q gl = ------------------------- ( g g ) l ( p b p wf ) l
ln ( r b r w )
(A-68)
where
( pb )l
g
-----dp
g
( p wf ) l
( g g ) l = --------------------------( p b p wf ) l
A-640
(A-69)
Landmark - R2003.4
VIP provides three options on the WNDGDV card. In the STD option (or if
no WNDGDV card is used), no attempt is made to adjust the gas
properties in the well model of Equation A-68, and (g/g)l is evaluated at
(pb)l. In the PP option, the integration indicated by Equation A-69 is
carried out, using the trapezoidal rule. PP stands for pseudo pressure,
referring to the definition of pseudo pressure m(p) given by Al-Hussainy,
Ramey and Crawford44:
p
m( p) = 2
p ref
g
-----dp
g
2k l k rgl h l
q gl = --------------------------------------------------------------------- ( g g ) l ( p b p wf ) l
ln ( r b r w ) + s a + s rl + D q gl
(A-70)
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-641
Horizontal Well
g
2
p
------ = ---------- v r + g v r
kk rg
r
(A-71)
q
2rh l gl
gl
-.
where vr is the fluid velocity ---------------------
In Equation A-71, the first term on the right-hand side is the Darcy or
viscous component, while the second term is the non-Darcy or inertial
component. is the coefficient of inertial resistance, and has dimension
(length)-1.
The constant D is calculated from by:
15
D = 2.223 10
kk rg g
------------------------2
hl r w ( g )w
2.73 10
= -----------------------kk rg
where k is in md.
12
( k z k x ) x + ( k x k z ) z
r b = 0.28 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
14
(kz k x )
+ (k x kz)
(A-72)
The assumption that the well is not near any grid boundary may be hard
to satisfy in the simulation of a horizontal well. The question arises: how
far does the well have to be from the top or bottom boundary in order to
use Equation A-72?
Reference 45 shows that Equation A-72 is satisfied to within 10 percent if:
zw
x k 1 2
------ -----z
0.9 -----z k x
z
A-642
(A-73)
Landmark - R2003.4
Horizontal Well
where zw is the distance from the well to the nearer of the top or bottom
boundary. Since kz is usually much smaller than kx, this inequality should
be easy to satisfy, if x is not too much bigger than z.
However, if the inequality of Equation A-73 is not satisfied, it is necessary
to use the much more complicated general formula for rb that was derived
by Babu et al46, and which is repeated in Reference 45. Figure A-16
displays the result of using this formula for the special case where the well
is centered in a reservoir that is infinitely wide. As a first approximation,
this figure can be used even when the well is not centered and the
reservoir is of finite width, provided zw is interpreted as the distance from
the well to the nearer of the top or bottom boundary.
R2003.4 - Landmark
A-643
Inclined Well
2
2
2
2
2
y
x
x
z
z
y
k ex --------- + -------- sin cos + k ey --------- + -------- sin sin + k ez --------- + --------- cos
ky
kz
kx
kz
kx
ky
r b = 0.28 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2
2
1 2 2
1 2 2
1 2
1
1
1
k ex --------- + --------- sin cos + k ey --------- + --------- sin sin + k ez --------- + --------- cos
kz
kz
ky
ky
kx
kx
(A-74)
where:
k ex = ( k y k z )
k ey = ( k x k z )
k ez = ( k x k y )
1
--2
(A-75)
1
--2
(A-76)
1
--2
(A-77)
For a vertical well, = 0 and Equation A-74 reduces to Equation A-40. For
a horizontal well parallel to the y-axis, = 90 and Equation A-74 reduces
to Equation A-72.
A-644
Landmark - R2003.4
Appendix
B
Corner-Point Geometry
B.1 Mapping of Gridblock to Unit Cube
When the user chooses the corner-point geometry option, the location of
the eight corner points of each gridblock is quite arbitrary. In order to
calculate bulk volumes, block centers, and transmissibilities, VIP maps
each gridblock into a unit cube. That mapping is described here.
Let
x = x 1 + ( x 2 x 1 )u + ( x 4 x 1 )v + ( x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 )uv
(B-1)
y = y 1 + ( y 2 y 1 )u + ( y 4 y 1 )v + ( y 1 + y 3 y 2 y 4 )uv
(B-2)
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-645
where J(u,v) is the so-called Jacobian of the mapping of the unit square
back onto the quadrilateral. It may be considered to be a scaling, or
stretching, factor of the mapping. It is given by the determinant of a
certain matrix of partial derivatives, as follows:
( x, y )
( u, v )
J ( u, v ) = ---------------- =
x
-----u
y
-----u
x
-----v
y
----v
(B-3)
x
------ = ( x 2 x 1 ) + ( x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 )v
u
x
------ = ( x 4 x 1 ) + ( x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4 )u
v
y
------ = ( y 2 y 1 ) + ( y 1 + y 3 y 2 y 4 )v
u
y
----- = ( y 4 y 1 ) + ( y 1 + y 3 y 2 y 4 )u
v
Thus, the area of the quadrilateral may be obtained by integrating the
Jacobian over the unit square:
1
A =
J ( u, v )du dv
(B-4)
u=0 v=0
1
x c = --A
x ( u, v ) J ( u, v )du dv
(B-5)
y ( u, v ) J ( u, v )du dv
(B-6)
u=0 v=0
1
y c = --A
u=0 v=0
B-646
Landmark - R2003.4
x = p 1, x u + p 2, x v + p 3, x w + p 4, x uv + p 5, x vw + p 6, x uw + p 7, x uvw + p 8, x
(B-7)
y = p 1, y u + p 2, y v + p 3, y w + p 4, y uv + p 5, y vw + p 6, y uw + p 7, y uvw + p 8, y
(B-8)
z = p 1, z u + p 2, z v + p 3, z w + p 4, z uv + p 5, z vw + p 6, z uw + p 7, z uvw + p 8, z
(B-9)
where
p 1, x = x 2 x 1
p 2, x = x 4 x 1
p 3, x = x 5 x 1
p 4, x = x 1 + x 3 x 2 x 4
p 5, x = x 1 + x 8 x 4 x 5
p 6, x = x 1 + x 6 x 2 x 5
p 7, x = x 2 + x 4 + x 5 + x 7 x 1 x 3 x 6 x 8
p 8, x = x 1
This works similarly for p1,y , ..., p8,y in terms of the ys, and p1,z , ..., p8,z in
terms of the zs. It can be seen that u = 0 corresponds to face 1-4-8-5, u = 1
to face 2-3-7-6, v = 0 to face 1-2-6-5, v = 1 to face 4-3-7-8, etc.
The differential volume dx dy dz in real space is given by:
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-647
dx dy dz = J(u,v,w) du dv dw
where the Jacobian J(u,v,w) is given by
( x, y, z )
( u, v, w )
J ( u, v, w ) = ----------------------- =
x
-----u
y
-----u
z
-----u
x
-----v
y
----v
z
----v
x
------w
y
------w
z
------w
(B-10)
x
------ = p 1, x + p 4, x v + p 6, x w + p 7, x vw
u
(B-11)
x
------ = p 2, x + p 4, x u + p 5, x w + p 7, x uw
v
(B-12)
x
------- = p 3, x + p 5, x v + p 6, x u + p 7, x uv
w
(B-13)
B-648
Landmark - R2003.4
Volumetric Calculations
V =
J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-14)
1
x c = ---V
x ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-15)
y ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-16)
z ( u, v, w ) J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-17)
1
y c = ---V
u=0 v=0 w=0
1
z c = ---V
u=0 v=0 w=0
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-649
Volumetric Calculations
J ( u, v, w )dw du dv
w=0
1
DZ = ---V
[ z ( u, v, 1 ) z ( u, v, 0 ) ]
u=0 v=0
J ( u, v, w )dw du dv
w=0
1
DZ = ---V
[ z ( u, v, 1 ) z ( u, v, 0 ) ] J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-18)
B-650
Landmark - R2003.4
Volumetric Calculations
Now we consider how we might obtain the average distance from the left
face to the right face of the block. In Figure B-4, consider the element tube
bounded by v, v+dv, w, and w+dw. The length of that tube from the left face
to the right face is
2
{ [ x ( 1, v, w ) x ( 0, v, w ) ] + [ y ( 1, v, w ) y ( 0, v, w ) ] + [ z ( 1, v, w ) z ( 0, v, 2 ) ] }
(B-19)
2
12
2
2
+ [ y ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) y ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ] + [ z ( u 2, v 2, w 2 ) z ( u 1, v 1, w 1 ) ]
Then the expression in Equation B-19 for the length of the tube can be
written
D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]
Thus the volume averaged distance from the left face to the right face is
1
DX = ---V
D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]
v=0 w=0
J ( u, v, w )dw dudv
w=0
1
DX = ---V
D [ ( 1, v, w ), ( 0, v, w ) ]J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-20)
D [ ( u, 1, w ), ( u, 0, w ) ]J ( u, v, w )du dv dw
(B-21)
Similarly,
1
DX = ---V
u=0 v=0 w=0
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-651
f ( x )dx
wk
f ( xk )
(B-22)
k=1
x=0
for properly chosen values of wk and xk. The wk are weights and the xk are
Gauss points, or quadrature points, at which the function f(x) is evaluated.
For N=1, 2, or 3, the weights and Gauss points are given by:
1
x 1 = --2
N = 1: w 1 = 1
1
N = 2: w 1 = w 2 = --2
1
1
1
1
x 1 = --- 1 ------- , x 2 = --- 1 + -------
2
2
3
3
5
4
N = 3: w 1 = w 3 = ------, w 2 = --18
9
1
1
3
1
3
x 1 = --- 1 --- , x 2 = ---, x 3 = --- 1 + ---
2
2
5
2
5
Ni
u=0 v=0 w=0
f ( u, v, w )du dv dw
Nj
Nk
wi w j wk
f ( u i, v j, w k )
(B-23)
where Ni, Nj, and Nk are, respectively, the number of quadrature points in
the x-, y-, and z-directions. These numbers are entered on the CORNER
card as iquads, jquads, and kquads.
It turns out that the integrands within all the triple integrals of the
preceding section for volumetric calculations are composite polynomials
of low enough degree that iquads = jquads = kquads = 2 provides exact
integration. This is true no matter how arbitrarily the corner points are
located.
Of course, if the gridblocks are simple rectangular parallelepipeds, iquads
= jquads = kquads = 1 would be sufficient, but then there would be little
point in using the corner-point option.
B-652
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
Consider the two rectangular blocks in Figure B-5, where the points A and
B are the centroids of their respective blocks. Each block has its own
permeability, kA or kB. As this may be considered to be flow through two
resistances in series, the transmissibility from A to B is given by:
1
T AB = -------------------1
1
------- + -----TA TB
(B-24)
where
T A = k A z W L A
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-653
Transmissibility Calculations
and
T B = k B z W L B
In this simple 2D case, z, which is perpendicular to the plane of Figure B5, is considered constant. Note that TA may be considered to be the halfblock transmissibility from the point A to the right face of block A.
LAB
In Figure B-6, we consider the somewhat more general case where the
gridblocks are not orthogonal, but the layer boundaries are parallel.
Equation B-24 still holds, with TA again being given by:
T A = k A z W L A
We note that LA is now specifically the distance from the centroid A to the
point C, where C is the center of the interface between blocks A and B. If
LAB is the length of that interface, and if is the angle between the
interface and the parallel sides, then clearly:
W = L AB sin
Alternatively, let n be the unit vector normal to the interface at point C,
and let be the angle between line AC and the normal n. As and are
complementary angles, then:
W = L AB cos
and
T A = k A z L AB cos L A
B-654
(B-25)
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
We shall see that it will be also useful to express this as the following
resistance from the point A to the right face:
LA
1
------- = ------------------------------------TA
k A z L AB cos
(B-26)
x 5 ( u ) = x 1 + u ( x 2 x 1 ),
y5 ( u ) = y1 + u ( y2 y1 )
and let point 6 be a similar point moving along the lower edge, such that:
x 6 ( u ) = x 3 + u ( x 4 x 3 ),
R2003.4 - Landmark
y6 ( u ) = y3 + u ( y4 y3 )
B-655
Transmissibility Calculations
Then the line L56(u), connecting points 5 and 6, is a moving line that slices
the block as shown in Figure B-8.
B-656
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
s
--------------------------------------------------k A z L cos ( u, v )
where s is the distance along the tube lying within the slice, L is the
distance along the slice within the chunk, n(u,v) is the normal to the slice,
and (u,v) is the angle between the tube and that normal. But the area of
the chunk is given by A = z L, so the resistance of the typical chunk can
be expressed somewhat more succinctly as:
s
------------------------------------------k A A cos ( u, v )
In the limit, then, the resistance of the tube from the slice going through
the centroid to the right face is given by the integral:
u=1
1
------- =
TA
R2003.4 - Landmark
u=u c
ds
------ ( u, v )
du
------------------------------------------- du
k A A cos ( u, v )
B-657
Transmissibility Calculations
Finally, the transmissibility of all the tubes in parallel is given, in the limit,
by:
1
TA =
v=0
1
--------------------------------------------------------------- dv
ds
u=1
------ ( u, v )
du
------------------------------------------du
dA
u = u c k A ------- cos ( u, v )
dv
(B-27)
Consider the gridblock with nonparallel sides that is shown in Figure B11. We wish to calculate the half-block transmissibility between the
centroid and the right face of that block. Again, point A is the centroid;
point C is the center of the right face. The right face is the interface
between block A and block B (which is not shown). Let AC be the vector
from A to C. Let CD be a vector normal to the right edge, whose length is
equal to the length of the right edge, that is:
B-658
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
CD = L AB
Again, let be the angle between AC and CD .
Now, while Equation B-25 was derived for a gridblock with parallel sides,
as in Figure B-6, it can also be applied to this more general situation. Thus
we can write
L A L AB cos
L AB cos
T A = k A z ----------------------- = k A z ----------------------------2
LA
(L )
A
AC CD cos
T A = k A z -----------------------------------2
AC
Now, the scalar (also known as inner or dot) product of two vectors a and
b having angle between them can be expressed in the following two
ways:
a b = a b cos
a b = axbx + ayby
where ax and ay are the x- and y-components of the vector a, and bx and by
are the x- and y-components of the vector b, respectively. Thus we see that
the half-block transmissibility can also be expressed as:
( xC x A ) ( xC xD ) + ( yC y A ) ( yC yD )
T A = k A z --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2
( xC x A ) + ( yC y A )
But, since vectors EF and CD are perpendicular,
( xC xD ) = ( yE yF ) = L x
( yC yD ) = ( xF xE ) = L y
Then
L x ( xC x A ) + L y ( yC y A )
T A = k A z --------------------------------------------------------------2
2
( xC x A ) + ( yC y A )
(B-28)
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-659
Transmissibility Calculations
TA =
v=0
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- dv dw
ds
u=1
------ ( u, v, w )
w=0
du
- du
------------------------------------------------------dA
u = u c k A --------------- cos ( u, v, w )
dv dw
(B-29)
0v1 ,
0w1
defines a slice of the gridblock (in real space) that corresponds to the slice
shown in Figure B-8. In general, the slice will not be a planar surface but,
rather, a bilinear surface.
dA = D ( u, v, w )dv dw
(B-30)
where
D ( u, v, w ) =
B-660
J xy + J yz + J zx
(B-31)
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
with
J xy =
x
-----v
x
------w
y
----v ;
y
------w
J yz =
y
----v
y
------w
z
----v ;
z
------w
J zx =
z
----v
z
------w
x
-----v
x
------w
(B-32)
The partial derivatives are obtained from Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9 by:
x
------ = p 2, x + p 4, x u + p 5, x w + p 7, x uw
v
x
------- = p 3, x + p 5, x v + p 6, x u + p 7, x uv
w
Similarly for y /v, z / v, and so forth.
x c = x ( u c, v c, w c )
y c = y ( u c, v c, w c )
z c = z ( u c, v c, w c )
where x(u,v,w), y(u,v,w), and z(u,v,w) are the polynomials defined in
Equations B-7, B-8, and B-9.
ds
------ ( u, v, w ) =
du
dy
dz
dx
-------- + -------- + --------
du
du
du
(B-33)
The partial derivatives in Equation B-33 are given above in Equation B-11.
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-661
Transmissibility Calculations
p x n x + p y n y + pz nz
cos = --------------------------------------------p n
or
p x n x + p y n y + pz nz
cos = ------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2
2
2
2
2
( p x + p y + pz ) ( n x + n y + nz )
(B-34)
x
y
z
p x = ------ ; p y = ------ ; p z = -----u
u
u
The normal to the slice is obtained by first finding the equation for the
plane in real space tangent to the slice where the tube intersects it. To get
this equation, we find two lines (or vectors) in the slice through the point
u, v, w (in the unit cube) that correspond to the intersection point x, y, z (in
real space). See Figure B-12.
B-662
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
u=constant
Let line a be at constant u and v; let line b be at constant u and w. Then the
components of a and b are:
x
a x = ------- ;
w
y
a y = ------- ;
w
z
a z = ------w
x
b x = ------ ;
v
y
b y = ----- ;
v
z
b z = ----v
The equation of a plane through the arbitrary point x1, y1, z1, parallel to a
and b is48:
x x1
y y1
z z1
ax
ay
az
bx
by
bz
= 0
Ax + By + Cz = D
then A is the cofactor of (x-x1), B is the cofactor of (y-y1), and C is the
cofactor of (z-z1). Thus:
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-663
Transmissibility Calculations
A =
y z z y
= ------- ----- ------- ----w v w v
a y az
b y bz
z x x z
= ------- ------ ------- ----w v w v
a x az
B =
b x bz
C =
x y y x
= ------- ----- ------- -----w v w v
ax ay
bx by
Note that A, B, and C are equal, respectively, to -Jyz, -Jzx, and -Jxy of
Equation B-32. But the quantities A, B, and C are also equal to the
components of the normal:
nx = A ;
ny = B ;
nz = C
TA =
v=0 w=0
1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------dv dw
ds
u=1
------ ( u, v, w )
du
- du
----------------------------------------------------------------k A D ( u, v, w ) cos ( u, v, w )
(B-35)
u = uc
TA =
v=0 w=0
1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------dv dw
ds
u = uc
------ ( u, v, w )
du
- du
k----------------------------------------------------------------D
(
u
,
v, w ) cos ( u, v, w )
A
(B-36)
u=0
B-664
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
A x ( xC x A ) + A y ( yC y A ) + Az ( zC z A )
T A = k A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
2
2
( xC x A ) + ( yC y A ) + ( zC z A )
(B-37)
Figure B-13: Projections of Right Face onto the Three Coordinate Planes
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-665
Transmissibility Calculations
1
T X AB = -------------------1
1
------- + -----TA TB
(B-38)
B-666
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
Faulted Case
In the case of the FAULT option, the adjacent blocks may share only part
of the common face, as illustrated in Figure B-14. In this figure, AA is the
total area of the right face of block A, and is used in the calculation of TA.
Similarly, AB is the total area of the left face of block B, and is used in the
calculation of TB. The area of their mutual intersection is AAB. Then
Equation B-38 is modified as follows:
A AB
T X AB = -------------------A A AB
------- + -----TA TB
(B-39)
x ij = i cos [ ( j 1 ) ]
y ij = 3 + i sin [ ( j 1 ) ]
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-667
Transmissibility Calculations
Figure B-15 shows this model for the particular case of = 45.
It can be shown that if the grid were truly radial, rather than
approximated by this corner-point geometry, then the angular
transmissibility between Blocks 1 and 3 in Figure B-15 would be:
z ln ( 2 1 )
T 1 3 = ---------------------------
while that between Blocks 2 and 4 would be:
z ln ( 3 2 )
T 2 4 = ---------------------------
In addition, the radial transmissibility, between Blocks 1 and 2, as well as
between Blocks 3 and 4, would be:
B-668
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
z
z
TR = -------------------------------------------------------------- = -----------------------33 23
23 13
19 5
ln ----------------- ln ----------------ln ------------73
33 22
22 12
NOTE:
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-669
Transmissibility Calculations
B-670
Landmark - R2003.4
Transmissibility Calculations
R2003.4 - Landmark
B-671
Transmissibility Calculations
B-672
Landmark - R2003.4
Appendix
C
References
1. Van Everdingen, A. F. and Hurst, W., The Application of the Laplace
Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs, Trans. AIME, 186,
305.
2. Carter, R. D. and Tracy, G. W., An Improved Method for Calculating
Water Influx, Trans. AIME, 219, 415-417.
3. Frick, T. C. and Taylor, R. W.: Petroleum Production Handbook. Vol. 2,
Chap. 35, Society of Petroleum Engineering (AIME), 1962.
4. VIP-EXECUTIVE Version 2.4R VIP-CORE Reference Manual, Chapter 6
5. Young, L. C. and Stephenson, R. E., A Generalized Compositional
Approach for Reservoir Simulation, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Oct. 1983, 727742.
6. Coats, K.H., An Equation of State Compositional Model, SPE 8284
presented at the 54th Annual Fall Technical Conference of the SPE of
AIME, Las Vegas, NV, Sep. 1979; also Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Oct. 1980, 363376.
7. Beattie, D.R.H. and Whalley, P.B., A Simple Two-Phase Frictional
Pressure Drop Calculation Method, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 8, 1, 83-87,
1982.
8. Beggs,J.P. and Brill, J.P., A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined
Pipes, J. Pet. Tech., 25, 607-617, May 1973.
9. Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
Reservoir Simulation with Non Square Grid Blocks and Anisotropic
Permeability, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., June 1983, 531-543.
10. Muskat, M., The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1937.
11. Carlson, F. E., Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis to the
Nonwetting Phase, SPE Paper 10157 presented at the SPE-AIME 56th
Ann. Fall Mtg., San Antonio, TX, Oct.1981.
12. Killough, J. E., Reservoir Simulation with History-Dependent
Saturation Functions, SPE Paper 5106 presented at the SPE-AIME
49th Ann. Fall Mtg., Houston, TX, Oct. 1974; also Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Feb.
1976, 37-48.
R2003.4 - Landmark
C-673
13. Land, C. S., Calculation of Imbibition Relative Permeability for Twoand Three-Phase Flow From Rock Properties, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., Trans.
AIME, 243,149-156, June 1968.
14. Aziz, A. and Settari, A., Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier
Applied Science Publishers (1979).
15. Todd, M. R. and Longstaff, W. J., The Development, Testing, and
Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood
Performance, J. Pet. Tech., 874, July 1972.
16. Chase, C. A., Jr., and Todd, M. R., Numerical Simulation of CO2
Flood Performance, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., 597, Dec. 1984.
17. Russell, D.G., Goodrich, J.H., Perry, G.E., and Bruskotter, J.F.,
Methods of Predicting Gas Well Performance, J. Pet. Tech., 99-108,
Jan. 1966.
18. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H.J., Jr., Application of Real Gas Flow
Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability Forecasting, J. Pet. Tech.,
624-636, May 1966.
19. Conte, S.D. and Boor, C., Elementary Numerical Analysis: An Algorithmic
Approach, Second Edition, 315-318, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York
City (1972).
20. Swift, G.W. and Kiel, O.G., The Prediction of Gas Well Performance
Including the Effect of Non-Darcy Flow, J. Pet. Tech., 791-798, July
1962.
21. Katz, D.L., et al., Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, p. 50, McGrawHill Book Co., New York City (1959).
22. Wallis, J.R., Kendall, R.P., and Little, T.E., Constrained Residual
Acceleration of Conjugate Residual Methods, SPE Paper 13536
presented at the Eighth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
Dallas, TX (1985).
23. Wallis, J.R., Incomplete Gaussian Elimination as a Reconditioning for
Generalized Conjugate Gradient Acceleration, SPE Paper 12265
presented at the Seventh SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation,
San Francisco, CA (1983).
24. Killough, J. E. and Kossack, C. A., Fifth Comparative Solution Project:
Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators, Paper SPE 16000 presented
at the Ninth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio,
TX, Feb. 1-4, 1987.
25. Young, L. C., Full-Field Compositional Modeling on Vector
Processors, SPE Res. Eng. (Feb. 1991), pp. 107-114.
C-674
Landmark - R2003.4
26. Litvak, M., New Procedure for Wellbore Flash Calculations, SPE
Paper 21216 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, Anaheim, CA, Feb. 1991.
27. More, J.J. and Sorensen, D.C., On the Use of Directions of Negative
Curvature in a Modified Newton Method, Mathematical Programming,
16, pp. 1-20 (1979).
28. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G., and Clark, C.R., Calculating Viscosities of
Reservoir Fluids from their Compositions, J. Pet. Tech., pp. 1171-1176
(Oct. 1964).
29. Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, A., and Christensen, P.L., Viscosity of
Crude Oils, Chem. Eng. Sci., 39, pp. 1011-1016 (1984).
30. Hanley, H.J.M., McCarty, R.D., and Haynes, W.M., Cryogenics, 15, p.
413 (1975).
31. Baker, L.E., Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations, paper
SPE/DOE 17369 presented at the 1988 SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 17-20.
32. Fayers, F.J. and Matthews, J.D., Evaluation of Normalized Stones
Methods for Estimating Three-Phase Relative Permeabilities, Soc. Pet.
Eng. J., pp. 225- 232 (Apr. 1984)
33. Coats, K.H and Modine, A.D., A Consistent Method for Calculating
Transmissibilities in Nine-Point Difference Equations, paper SPE
12248 presented at the 1983 Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San
Francisco, CA, Nov. 15-18, 1983.
34. Peaceman, D.W., Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
Reservoir Simulation, Soc. Pet. Engr. J., pp. 183-194 (June 1978).
35. Beggs, H.D., Gas Production Operations, OGCI Publications (1984).
36. Modine, A.D., Coats, K.H., and Wells, M.W., A Superposition Method
for Representing Wellbore Crossflow in Reservoir Simulation, SPE
paper 20746 presented at the 65th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, LA,
Sep. 23-26, 1990.
37. Pedersen, K.S. and Fredenslund, A., An Improved Corresponding
States Model for the Prediction of Oil and Gas Viscosities and Thermal
Conductivities, Chem. Eng. Sci., 42, pp. 182-187 (1987).
38. Nghiem, L., Collins, D.A., and Sharma, R., Seventh SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Modelling of Horizontal Wells in Reservoir
Simulation, Paper SPE 21221 presented at the 11th SPE Symposium
on Reservoir Simulation held in Anaheim, CA, Feb. 17-20, 1991.
R2003.4 - Landmark
C-675
C-676
Landmark - R2003.4
R2003.4 - Landmark
C-677
65. Meter, D.M. and Bird, R.B.: Tube Flow of Non-Newtonian Polymer
Solutions: Part I Laminar Flow and Rheological Models, AICHE
Journal, Vol. 10, No. 6, Nov. 1964, p. 1143-1150.
66. Hong, C.: Development of a 2-D Micellar/Polymer Simulator, PhD.
Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, 1982.
67. Hirasaki, G.J.: Ion Exchange with Clays in the Presence of
Surfactant, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., April 1982, p. 181-192.
68. Wallis, J.R. and Nolen, J.S.: Efficient Iterative Linear Solution of
Locally Refined Grids using Algebraic Multilevel Approximate
Factorizations, SPE 25239, presented at the 12th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, New Orleans, February 1993.
69. Litvak, M.L. and Darlow, B.L.: Surface Network and Well Tubinghead
Pressure Constraints in Compositional Simulator, SPE 29125,
presented at the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San
Antonio, Texas, February 1995.
70. Cooke, C.E., Jr.: Conductivity of Fracture Proppants in Multiple
Layers, J.Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1973) 1101-1107; Trans., AIME, 255.
71. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A.,
Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.: Handbook of Naturaal Gas Engineering,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York (1959).
72. Cornell, D. and Katz, D.L.: Flow of Gases Through Porous Media,
Ind. Eng. Chem. (1953) 45, 2145.
73. Coats, K.H., Thomas, L.K., and Pierson, R.G., "Compositional and
Black Oil Reservoir Simulation," SPE 29111, paper presented at the
13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held at San Antonio,
TX, Feb. 12-15, 1996.
74. Killough, John E., Foster, John A., Nolen, James S., Wallis, John R., and
Xiao, Jason, A General-Purpose Parallel Reservoir Simulator,
presented at the 5th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil
Recovery, Leoben, Austria, 3-6 Sept., 1996.
75. van Daalen, D. T., Hoogerbrugge, P. J., Meijerink, J. A., and Zeestraten,
P. J. A., "The Parallelization of BOSIM, Shell's Black/ Volatile Oil
Reservoir Simulator", Proceedings of the First IMA/SPE European
Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Oxford University Press,
1990.
76. Wheeler, J. A., and Smith, R. A., "Reservoir Simulation on a
Hypercube", SPE 19804 presented at the 64th SPE Annual Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, October, 1989.
C-678
Landmark - R2003.4
87. Fetkovitch, M.J., A Simplified Approach to Water Influx CalculationsFinite Aquifer Systems, J.Pet. Tech., July,1971, 814-828
R2003.4 - Landmark
C-679
C-680
Landmark - R2003.4
000000Subject Index
A
aquifer modeling 1-1
arbitrary connections 7-90
Aziz and Settari 13-153
B
black-oil option 8-106
BLITZ 18-256
bottom-hole pressure calculation 38-537
boundary flux 2-9
efflux partitioning 2-16
flux model setup 2-10
flux output mode 2-16
flux rates 2-14
program dimensions 2-10
special features 2-14
bulk volume 3-19
C
capillary pressure 5-61
adjustment 6-81
adjustment near critical 24-369
hysteresis 13-151
saturation function 25-371
Carlsons method 13-147
Carter-Tracy aquifer 1-2
cartesian refinement 15-180
cation exchange 22-324
Chase and Todd 16-233
Coats method 4-32
compositional flow 14-166
compositional model 23-330
R2003.4 - Landmark
D
directional relative permeability 5-71, 25-380,
36-517
dual permeability versus single permeability 435
dual porosity 4-25
benchmarks 4-39
Coats method 4-32
dual permeability 4-35
effective fracture permeability 4-47
fracture porosity 4-46
imbibition and gravity drainage 4-29
input data 4-46, 4-55
matrix-fracture diffusion 4-27
matrix-fracture flow exchange 4-26
matrix-fracture transmissibility 4-52
partially fractured reservoir 4-37
pore compressibilities 4-51
pressure dependence 4-53
pseudo capillary pressures 4-30
relative permeabilities 4-52
well permeability-thickness 4-54
Index-681
Index
E
efflux partitioning 2-16
end-point scaling 5-61, 8-104
consistency checks 5-67
directional relative permeability 5-71
hysteresis 13-148
J-function 5-72
permeability scaling option 5-69
relative permeabilities 5-68
saturation end points 5-62
scaling for oil 5-68
scaling for water and gas 5-68
three-point scaling 5-64
two-point scaling 5-63
equation of state interpolation option 23-344
equilibration 6-73
capillary pressure adjustment 6-81
gravity-capillary 6-74
gridblock center option 6-77
integrated saturation option 6-77
saturation initialization 6-77
supercritical initialization 6-82
volume-averaged integration 6-79
F
fault modeling 3-18
fault transmissibility 7-92
faults 3-18, 7-85
arbitrary connections 7-90
corner-point geometry B-645
guidelines 7-87
input example 7-96
input structure 7-89
leaky option 7-98
noncontiguous layers 7-93
transmissibility 7-92
transmissibility calculation 33-481
flux modeling 2-9
flux output mode 2-16
formulation
governing equation 9-107
IMPES stability 14-157
Index-682
G
gas condensates 23-343
gas plant 26-393
gas reinjection and gas handling 39-568
gas remobilization option 25-382
gas saturation tables 25-374
gas-water option 8-103
GBC option 6-77
general injection region 39-580
Gibbs energy minimization 21-315
Gibbs option 21-313
governing equations 9-107
fully implicit formulation 9-111
IMPES Formulation 9-107
miscible option 16-228
relaxed volume balance option 9-111
grid coarsening 10-113
coarse block properties 10-113
H
horizontal and inclined wells 11-117
conventions 11-129
examples 11-133
permeability-thickness and well index 11123
pressure loss 11-119
required input 11-127
hydraulically fractured wells 12-139
fracture closure 12-142
non-Darcy flow 12-143
Landmark - R2003.4
Index
J
J-function 5-72
L
I
imbibition and gravity drainage 4-29
immiscible flow 14-157
IMPES 9-107
governing equations 9-107
IMPES stability 14-157
numerical solution 18-245
optimal material balance 19-261
IMPES Formulation
fugacity equality 9-108
hydrocarbon species mass balance 9-107
mole fraction constraint 9-109
overall component mole fraction 9-108
overall hydrocarbon mass balance 9-108
reduction of simultaneous equations 9-109
saturation constraint 9-109
selection of primary unknowns 9-109
water mass balance 9-108
IMPES option
compositional flow 14-166
fractional mobility 14-159
immiscible flow 14-157
IMPES difference 14-158
optimal material balance option 19-261
stability analysis 14-159
total throughput 14-158
IMPLICIT
governing equations 9-111
relaxed volume balance option 9-111
inclined wells 11-117
initial conditions 6-82
injection region 39-577
interfacial tension 24-369
INTSAT option 6-77
R2003.4 - Landmark
M
major gas sales option 39-571
minimum lift velocity 28-421
miscible and immiscible conditions 16-231
miscible compositional option 16-227
miscible option 16-227
effective capillary pressures 16-233
effective relative permeabilities 16-229
effective viscosities 16-233
governing equations 16-228
mass densities 16-233
miscible-immiscible transition 16-231
phase equilibrium calculations 21-309
pvt and vle calculations 16-235
relative permeability 24-369
N
net voidage 39-578
Newton-Raphson method 18-250
NEWTRAN method 3-23
nine point transmissibilities 33-482
non-contiguous layers 7-93
non-Darcy flow 12-143, 17-237
Index-683
Index
O
optimal material balance option 19-261
partial Jacobian update 19-270
reordering gridblocks 19-268
saturation pressure and flash vectorization
19-273
single-phase stability test 19-272
update unknown 19-262
optimization 27-406
P
parallel computing 20-277
partial Jacobian update 19-270
phase equilibrium 21-309
Gibbs options 21-313
PVT representation 23-339
phase stability test 21-314
polymer inaccessible pore volume 22-324
polymer modeling 22-317
description 22-318
gel treatment 22-327
material conservation equations 22-319
PVT representation 23-329
black oil model 23-338
compositional model 23-330
EOS interpolation 23-344
gas condensates 23-343
gas properties treatment 23-343
Index-684
R
radial refinement 15-181
rate-dependent skin factor 17-240
rectangular or radial grid systems 36-511
relative permeabilities 5-61
adjustment near critical 24-369
saturation function 25-371
relative permeability hysteresis 13-146
S
saturation end points 5-62
saturation function 25-371
consistency checks 25-379
directional relative permeability 25-380
gas remobilizaton 25-382
gas saturation tables 25-374
hysteresis 13-145
oil relative permeability models 25-375
two-phase options 8-103
vertical equilibrium 36-511
water saturation tables 25-372
saturation initialization 6-77
saturation weighted interpolation 25-376
separators 26-387
battery configuration 26-388
gas plant 26-393
mass balance 26-390
phase equilibrium conditions 26-391
PVT representation 23-344
simulator performance 27-395
IMPES stability constraints 14-157
LGR options 15-198
memory requirements 27-411
Landmark - R2003.4
monitoring 27-401
non-linear iteration control 27-398
optimal material balance 27-397
optimization 27-406
run durations 27-411
timestep control 27-395
single-well gridded wellbore 28-417
data structure for the simulation module 28423
data structure for VIP-CORE 28-422
liquid slippage 28-420
minimum lift velocity 28-421
vertical flow coefficients 28-418
solution
numerical solution 18-245
optimal material balance 19-261
simulator performance 27-395
stability analysis
other dependent variables 14-171
three-phase flow 14-162
total flow equation 14-170
two-phase flow 14-159
Stones Model 25-375
supercritical initialization 6-82
Surface Facility Model 39-591
surface pipeline network option 29-425
hydraulic models 29-428
hydraulic tables 29-434
model description 29-438
multiphase fluid flow 29-446
solution algorithm 29-445
Index
U
units 34-491
V
T
three-phase relative permeability models 25375
timesteps
convergence tolerance 27-399
iteration control 27-398
primary control 27-395
total compressibility checks 30-449
reasonableness check 30-450
saturated oil compressibility 30-451
undersaturated oil compressibility check
30-452
R2003.4 - Landmark
Index-685
Index
W
water saturation tables 25-372
water tracking 37-527
water-oil option 8-105
well inflow performance 38-531
bottom-hole pressure calculation 38-537
inflow and outflow curves 38-538
tubing performance curve 38-540
well index 38-534
wellbore flow model 38-532
well management features 39-541
automatic workover 39-593
gas reinjection 39-568
gas-lift 39-584
injection 39-553
injection prioritization 39-580
injection region 39-577
major gas sales option 39-571
management levels 39-565
predictive well management 39-597
production well 39-547
status report 39-556
surface facility model 39-591
voidage replacement option 39-581
water pumps 39-590
well completion data 39-544
well data 39-541
wellbore crossflow 39-562
wellbore gradient calculations 39-557
well model A-611
horizontal well A-642
inclined well A-644
incorporating skin A-631
non-darcy gas flow A-640
one-dimensional flow A-613
productivity index A-613, A-637
two-dimensional areal flow A-616
well index A-612, A-637
wells
Index-686
Landmark - R2003.4