1 ResSimCh4

Gridding And Well Modelling
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. GRIDDING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Accuracy of Simulations and Numerical
Dispersion
2.3. Grid Orientation Effects
2.4 Local Grid Refinement (LGR)
TGrids
or (So ) i +1/ 2
(So ) iand
2.5 Distorted
1 / 2 Cornero Point
Geometry
2.6 Issues in Choosing a Reservoir Simulation
Grid
2.7 Streamline Simulationp

p
Pi Pi 1
Q p = kA. .
= kA. .
Bp x
Bp x i 1 + x i
3. THE CALCULATION OF BLOCK TO BLOCK

FLOWS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATORS
3.1. Introduction
to Averaging of Block to
kA
Block Flows
3.2. Averaging of the Two-Phase Mobility
Term, p
4. WELLS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
4.1. Basic Idea
Bp of a Well Model
4.2. Well Models for Single and Two-Phase
Flow
4.3 Well Modelling
in a Multi-Layer System
x
4.4. Modelling Horizontal Wells
4.5 Hierarchies of Wells and Well Controls
x i 1 + x i
2
5. CLOSING REMARKS - GRIDDING AND

WELL MODELLING
k rp
p
GRIDDING AND WELL MODELLING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION

Brief Description of Chapter 4
This module deals with the related issues of grid selection and well modelling
in reservoir simulation.
Gridding: Examples of various grid geometries are presented including 1D linear,
2D areal, 2D cross-sectional , 2D radial (r/z) and 3D Cartesian cases. Selection
of grid geometry, how fine a grid to take and potential problems are discussed. A
non-mathematical introduction to the concepts of numerical dispersion and grid
orientation is given along with some examples of the consequences of these effects.
More sophisticated gridding such as PEBI grids, distorted grids and local grid
refinement (LGR) are illustrated with examples. A brief discussion of streamline
simulation is given. Treatment of the block to block flows in reservoir simulation
is presented and it shown how the various inter-block quantities such as the
permeability and relative permeabilities are averaged.
Well Modelling: All interactions between the surface facilities and the reservoir
takes place through the injector and producer wells. It is therefore very important
to model wells accurately in the reservoir simulation model. The central issue with
a well model in a simulator is that it must represent a near singular line source within
(usually) a very large grid block. The basic ideas of well modelling are explained and
how simple well controls are applied is introduced. Modelling of horizontal wells
and the control of well hierarchies are also briefly discussed.
GRIDDING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
2.1 Introduction
By this point in the course, you will be familiar with the idea of gridding since it
has been discussed in Chapter 1 both in general terms and with reference to the SPE
examples (Cases 1 - 3; Section 1.3). You will also have seen how to set up a 3D grid
in the Chapter 3. Basically, the gridding process is simply chopping the reservoir
into a (large) number of smaller spatial blocks which then comprise the units on
which the numerical block to block flow calculation is performed. More formally,
this process of dividing up the reservoir into such blocks is known as spatial
discretisation. Recall that we also divide up time into discrete steps (denoted t)
and this related process is known as temporal discretisation. The numerical details
of how the discretisation process is carried out using finite difference approximation
of the governing flow equations is presented in Chapter 6. However, we would point
out that the grid used for a given application is a user choice - it is certainly not a
reservoir given - although, as we will see, there are some practical guidelines that
help us to make sensible choices in grid definition.
In a Cartesian grid, which to date has been the mot common type of grid used, we
denote the block size as x, y and z and these may or may not be equal. This grid
can also be in one dimension (1D), two dimensions (2D) or three dimensions (3D).
Some typical examples of 1D, 2D and 3D Cartesian grids are shown in Figure 1.
This is the most straightforward type of grid to set up and typical application of such
grids are as follows:
2
- 1D linear grids may be used for 1D Buckley-Leverett type water displacement

calculations (x-direction) or for single column vertical displacements (z-direction)
such as gravity stable gas displacement of oil (Figures 1(a) and 1(b));
- 2D Cartesian grids: 2D cross-sectional (x/z) grids may be used to; (a)
study vertical sweep efficiency in a heterogeneous layered system; (b) calculate
water/oil displacements in a geostatistically generated cross-section; (c) generate
pseudo-relative permeabilites (can be used to collapse a 3D calculation down to
a 2D system); (d) to study the mechanism of a gas displacement process - e.g. to
determine the importance of gravity etc. (Figure 1(e));
2D areal (x/y) grids may be used to; (a) calculate areal sweep efficiencies in a
waterflood or a gas flood; (b) to examine the stability of a near-miscible gas injection
within a heterogeneous reservoir layer; (c) examine the benefits of infill drilling in
an areal pattern flood etc. (Figures 1(c) and 1(d));
- 3D (x/y/z) Cartesian grids are used to model a very wide range of field wide reservoir
production processes and would be the default type of calculation for a typical full
field simulation of waterflooding, gas flooding, etc. (Figure 1(f)).
Cartesian grids are clearly quite versatile but they are not appropriate for all flow
geometries that can occur in a reservoir. For example, close to the wellbore (of a
vertical well), the flows are more radial in their geometry. For such systems, an r/z
- geometry may be more appropriate as shown in Figure 2. An r/z grid is frequently
used when modelling coning either of water or gas into a producer. The pressure
gradients near the well are very steep and, indeed, we know from the discussion in
Section 2.3.5 that the pressure varies as ln(r/rw). For this reason, in coning studies,
a logarithmically spaced grid is often used for the grid block size, r; a logarithmic
grid divides up the grid such that (ri/ ri-1) is constant where ri = (ri- ri-1) as shown
in Figure 2. For example, if we take rw = 0.5 ft and the first grid block size is, r1 =
1ft, then this sets (ri/ ri-1) = 3 since r0 = rw = 0.5ft and r1 = 1.5ft.; hence r2 = 3x1.5ft.
= 4.5ft. and r2 = 3ft., r3 = 13.5ft and r3 = 9ft., and so on.
Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University
(a) 1D horizontal grid
(c) 2D Areal grid - top view showing

injectors ( ) and producers ( )
(b) 1D vertical grid

1D vertical displacement
e.g. 1D vertical gravity
drainage calculations
W2
(d) 2D vertical grid
W3
W1
y
z
x
x
y
Perspective view of
a 2D areal (x/y)
reservoir simulation
grid: W = well
Just 1 x z - block in 2D areal grid
(e) 2D (x/z) cross-sectional model showing a waterflood
4Water Injector
Producer

z
(f) a 3D Cartesian grid with variable vertical grid (z varies from layer to layer)
Water Injector
Producer
Figure 1
Examples of 1D, 2D and 3D
Cartesian grids
y
z
x
top view
ri
rw
z
h
r
Figure 2
r/z grid geometry - more
appropriate for modelling

flows in the near well
region even in a
heterogeneous layered
system as shown.
Notation:
r
r
z
z
h
rw
ri
ri-1
= radial distance from well

= radial grid size (can vary r1, r2, ...)
= vertical coordinate
= vertical grid size (can vary z1, z2, ...)
= height of formation
= wellbore radius
2.2 Accuracy of Simulations and Numerical Dispersion
The issue of numerical dispersion was touched upon briefly in Chapter 1 in connection
with Case 1 (SPE10022). Here we expand on the concept in a non-mathematical
manner. Numerical dispersion is essentially an error due to the fact that we use a
grid block approximation for solving the flow equations. A more mathematical
description of numerical dispersion is presented in Chapter 6 Section 8 but here we
focus on explaining physically how it arises and what its consequences are. We
also discuss how to reduce this source of error in our simulations or to make it a
minor effect. The balance, as we will see, is between accuracy (usually by taking
more grid blocks) and computational cost. Ideally, we would like to capture all the
main reservoir processes (e.g. frontal displacement, crossflow, gravity segregation
etc..) and accurately forecast recovery to some acceptable percentage error, for the
minimum number of grid blocks.
A simple schematic of the way that the numerical dispersion error arises is shown
step by step in Figure 3. This figure illustrates a simple linear waterflood and we
imagine that each of the sub-figures shown from (a) to (e) represents a time step, t,
of the water injection process. Block i = 1 contains the injector well which is injecting
water at a constant volumetric rate of Qw, and block i = 5 contains the producer. The
system is initially at water saturation, and this water is immobile i.e. the relative
permeability of water is zero, krw(Swc) = 0. Each block has constant pore volume, Vp
= x.A. where is the porosity. In Figure 3(a), we see that after time, t = t, some
quantity of fluid has been injected into block i = 1; the volume of water injected is
Qw. t and this would cause a water saturation change in grid block i = 1, Sw1 = (Qw.
t)/Vp i.e. the new water saturation in this block is now, Swc+ (Qw. t)/Vp. Over the
first time step, no fluid flowed from block to block since the relative permeability of
all blocks was zero (krw(Swc) = 0). However, the relative permeability in block i = 1
is now krw(Sw1) > 0. The second time period of water injection is shown in Figure
3(b). Another increment of water, Qw. t, is injected into block i = 1 causing a further
increase in water saturation Sw1. However, over the second time period, krw(Sw1) > 0
and therefore water can flow from block i = 1 to i = 2, increasing the water saturation
such that Sw2 > Swc making the relative permeability in this block, krw(Sw2) > 0. In
the third time step, shown in Figure 3 (c), the same sequence occurs except that fluid
can now from block 1 2 and also 2 3, where for the same reasons as explained,
krw(Sw3) > 0. In the fourth and fifth time steps (Figures 3(d) and 3(e)), flow can
now go from block 3 4 and from 4 5 where, since krw(Sw5) > 0, then it can be
produced from this block, although the relative permeability in block 5 will be very
small. Hence, after only five time steps to time , t = 5t, the water has reached the
producer in block 5 from whence it can be produced (although not a very high rate
because the relative permeability is very small) and this is clearly an unsatisfactory
situation. If we had taken 10 grid blocks, then clearly a similar argument would
apply and water would be produced after 10 time steps - with an even lower relative
permeability in block i = 10 - and this is more satisfactory. Indeed, this underlies
why we take more grid blocks. This simple illustration explains in a quite physical
way the basic idea of numerical dispersion.
1.0
Relative Permeability to Water
krw
Swc = 20%
20
Water
Injection
Qw
Sor = 30%
40
60
Sw %
80
100
Oil
Production
Mixing due to numerical dispersion

& relative permeability effects
Time Step
(a)
Sw1
i=1
Figure 3
Effect of grid on water
breakthrough time - numerical dispersion.
i=2
i=3
Sw = Swc
i=4
1
t = t
i=5
(b)
2
t = 2.t
(c)
3
t = 3.t
(d)
4
t = 4.t
(e)
5
t = 5.t
The frontal spreading effect of numerical dispersion can be seen when we try to simulate
the actual saturation profile, Sw(x,t), in a 1D waterflood. Under certain conditions,
this may have an analytical solution, e.g. the well known Buckley-Leverett solution
described in Chapter 2, Section 4.2. This often has a shock front solution for the
advancing water saturation profile, Sw(x,t) as shown in Figure 4. Clearly, this sharp
front may be lost in a grid calculation since, at time t, the front will have a definite
position, x(t). However, in a grid system with block size x, any saturation front
can only be located within x as shown in Figure 4. If we take more grid blocks
(x decreases), then we will locate the front more accurately. Indeed, taking more
and more blocks we will gradually get closer to the analytical (correct) solution.
Hence, one method of reducing numerical dispersion is to increase the number of
grid blocks. An alternative is to use a numerical method which has inherently less
dispersion in it but we will not pursue this here. Another approach is to use pseudo
functions to control numerical dispersion - as we briefly introduced in Chapter 1
- and this is discussed further below.
1.0
Numerical Grid block size = x
time = t1
Water saturation = Sw
Front moving in this direction

with velocity Vw
Analytical
solution
Sw
xf(t1)
Figure 4
The frontal spreading of
a Buckley-Leverett shock
front when calculated using
a 1D grid block model
2.3 Grid Orientation Effects
Another numerical problem arising in 2D and 3D grids is the grid orientation effect.
This is illustrated in Figure 5 where the distance between wells I - P1 and I - P2 are
the same. However I - P1 are joined by a row of cells oriented to the flow as shown.
The flow between I - P2 is rather more tortuous as also shown in Figure 5. The Grid
Orientation effect arises when we have fluid flow both oriented with the principal
grid direction and diagonally across this grid. Numerical results are different for
each of the fluid paths through the grid structure. This problem arises mainly due
to the use of 5-point difference schemes (in 2D) in the Spatial Discretisation. It
may be alleviated by using more sophisticated numerical schemes such as 9-point
schemes (in 2D).
P1
I
I = Injector
P = Producer
P2
Flow arrows show

the fluid paths in
oriented grid and
diagonal flow
leading to grid
orientation errors
The effects on the breakthrough time and in recoveries of these two flow orientations
are shown in Figure 6. The I-P1 orientation tends to lead to somewhat earlier
breakthrough and a less optimistic recovery that the I-P2 orientation. The reasons
for this are intuitively fairly obvious.
Figure 5
Flow between an injector
(I) and 2 producers (P1
and P2) where the injectorproducer separations
are identical but flow is
either oriented with the
grid or diagonally across
it illustrating the grid
orientation effect.
diagonal flow result
Figure 6
Oil recoveries for true,
aligned and diagonal flows
in 2D grid
"true"
recovery
Oil
recovery
Time
grid
aligned
result
The grid orientation error can be emphasised for certain types of displacement. For
example, in gas injection, gas viscosity is much less than the oil viscosity (g << o)
leading to viscous fingering instability. This is exaggerated when flow is along the
grid as in the I-P1 orientations.
Again, as for numerical dispersion, some grid refinement can help to reduce the grid
orientation effect. Alternative numerical schemes can also be devised to reduce this
source of error. In particular, in a 2D grid the flows are usually worked out using the
neighbouring grid blocks shown in Figure 7. The 5-point numerical scheme uses the
neighbours shown in Figure 7(a). If information from the blocks in Figure 7(b) are
used, the 9-point scheme that emerges helps greatly to reduce the grid orientation
error. We will not go into further technical details here.
(a)
(b)
Figure 7
5 - point and 9 - point
schemes for discretising the
grid - the latter helps to
reduce grid orientation
effects
2.4 Local Grid Refinement (LGR)
In a reservoir, the changes in pressure, saturations and flows tend to be quite different
in different parts of the system. For example, close to a well which is changing
production rate every day or so, there will be large pressure and saturation changes.
On the contrary, on a flank of the field in connection to, but remote from, the active
wells, the pressure may be quite slowly changing and the saturations may hardly be
changing at all. To represent regions with rapidly changing waterfronts will require a
finer grid than will be required for relatively stagnant regions of the system. Thus, a
single uniform grid with fixed x, y and z will often not be suitable to represent all
regions of an active reservoir. Instead, the application of some local grid refinement
(LGR) may be much more appropriate.
LGR options are supported by most major simulation models and the simplest
version is shown in Figure 8 (indeed, this simpler version is sometimes not
referred to as LGR). True LGR is shown in Figure 9 where the refined
grid is clearly seen.
Figure 8
A simple version of local
grid refinement where the
grid is finer in the (central)
area of interest in the
reservoir
Figure 9
True local grid refinement (LGR) where the
refined grid is embedded in
the coarser grid.
In addition to conventional LGR (Figure 9), we can also define Hybrid Grid LGR
as shown in Figure 10. Hybrid Grids are mixed geometry combinations of grids
which are used to improve the modelling of flows in different regions. The
most common use of hybrid grids are Cartesian/Radial combinations where
the radial grid is used near a well. Hybrid Grid LGR can be used in a similar
way to other LGR scheme.
Schematic of Local Grid Refinement (LGR)
injector
producer
Coarse grid
in aquifer
Hybrid Grid
2.5 Distorted Grids and Corner Point Geometry
In recent years, many studies have used grids that have tried to distort either to
reservoir geometry or to the particular flow field and an examples of a distorted
grid is shown in Figure 11.
10
Figure 10
A simple example of LGR
and Hybrid Grid structure
Figure 11
An example of a distorted
grid
An interesting class of non-Cartesian grids are PEBI grids; PEBI = Perpendicular

Bisector. In the PEBI grid the chosen grid points are blocked off into volumes as
shown by the PEBI geometrical construction. PEBI grids have been developed very
extensively by Aziz and co-workers at Stanford University and by Heinemann in
Austria (Heinemann, et al 1991; Palagi and Aziz, 1994).
An example of a study using PEBI grids is shown in Figure 12 where the particularly
flexible form of this grid is used to model faults in this particular case.
PEBI grids can be orientated

to follow major reservoir
faults
This example from:
R.E Phelps, T. Pham and A.M. Shahri,

Rigorous Inclusion of Faults and Fractures
in 3D Simulation, SPE59417, 2000 SPE
Asia Pacific Conference, Yokohama, Japan,
25-26 April 2000
Figure 12
An example of a study using
a PEBI grid
Another way of building distorted grids where the individual blocks retain some
broad relationship with an underlying Cartesian form is using corner point geometry
(Ponting, 1992). This is shown in Figure 13. This scheme is implemented in the
reservoir simulator Eclipse (GeoQuest, Schlumberger) where it has been applied
quite widely. In corner point geometry it appears rather tedious to build up a grid by
specifying all 8 corners of every block (although some are shared with neighbours).
However, if this approach is used, the engineer would virtually always have access to
grid building software although building complex grids can be time consuming. The
11
engineer may be reluctant to use corner point geometry if there is a high likelihood
that the reservoir model will change radically. In future, this may be overcome by
auto-generating the corner point mesh directly from the geo-model (although some
upscaling may also be necessary in this process).
At present, corner point geometry is probably more common in fairly fixed base case
reservoir models that the engineer has fairly high confidence in. The model shown
in Figure 14 is constructed using corner point geometry since it has a major fault in
it between the aquifer and the main reservoir.
Corner Point Geometry
Coordinates of
vertices ( )
specified.
Block centres ( )
Highly distorted
grid blocks
Block <-> Block

Transmissibility
Figure 13
Corner point geometry
Figure 14
Complex reservoir model
constructed using corner
point geometry
2.6 Issues in Choosing a Reservoir Simulation Grid
The main issues in choosing a grid for a given reservoir simulation calculation are
as follows:
(i) Grid Dimension: Refers to whether we should use a 1D, 2D or 3D grid
structure;
12
(ii) Grid Geometry/Structure: The next issue is whether we should use a simple
Cartesian grid (x, y, z) or some other grid structure such as r/z. This choice also
includes where local grid refinement, a distorted grid or corner point geometry is
appropriate;
(iii) Grid Fineness/Coarseness: How many grid blocks do we need to use? This
asks whether a few hundred or thousand is adequate or whether we need 10s or
100s of thousands for an adequate simulation calculation.
We remind the student of the advice in Chapter 1. This was to carry out the reservoir
simulation calculation keeping firmly in mind the question which had to be answered
or the decision which had to be taken. Therefore, the issues of grid dimension, type
and fineness are directly related to the appropriate question/decision. However,
as we will see, there are several technical considerations that can guide us in these
choices.
Essentially, all 3 choices (grid dimension, type and fineness) depend strongly on
the problem we are trying to solve. Consider the issues of grid dimension and type
together. A 2D x/z cross-sectional model (with dip if necessary) may be used to study
the effects of vertical heterogeneity - layering for example - on the sweep efficiency
or water breakthrough time. For a near-well coning study, an r/z grid is probably
more appropriate since it more closely resembles the geometry of the near well
radial flow. 2D x/z grids are also used to generate pseudo relative permeabilities for
possible use in 2D areal models. For full field simulations, 3D grids are generally
used which in most models are still probably Cartesian with varying grid spacing in
all three dimensions. In recent years, other types of grid such as distorted or corner
point grids are being applied - especially if a geocellular model has been generated
as part of the reservoir description process. Such guides are also applied in some
studies to model major faults in reservoirs. Flow through major faults can lead to
communication between non neighbour blocks and this can be modelled in some
simulators by defining non-neighbour grid block connections as shown schematically
in Figure 15.
Fault
L1
L2
L2
L3
L1
L4
Figure 15
Grid system at a fault which
may have non-neighbour
connections
L3
L4
The issue of grid fineness/coarseness, or how many grid blocks to use in a given
simulation, can sometimes be quite subtle as we will show below. However, in
13
many practical calculations, some reasonable and practical number of grid block is
chosen by the engineer. Then, this can be checked by refining the grid and seeing if
the answers are close enough to the coarser calculation. If, as we carry out this grid
refinement, the answer - e.g. recovery profiles and water etc. - no longer changes, the
calculation is said to be converged and is probably quite reliable. By reliable,
we mean that the grid errors are probably a small contribution of to the overall
uncertainties of the whole calculation. If the grid is far from being converged, then
comparisons between different sensitivity calculations may be masked by numerical
errors. These various points are illustrated by the two examples below.
The two examples used to show the importance of the number of grid blocks are:
(i) Example 1: the effect of vertical grid fineness (i.e. NZ blocks) on a miscible
water-alternating-gas (MWAG) process.
(ii) Example 2: resolving the vertical equilibrium (VE) limit of a gas
displacement calculation.
Example 1: Figures 16(a) and 16(b) shows the recovery results (at a given time) for
both a waterflood and an MWAG flood in the same system each as a function of 1/NZ.
The difference between the two calculations is the incremental oil recovered by the
MWAG process. The economics of performing MWAG depends on how large this
difference is. The purpose of plotting this vs. (1/NZ) is that we can extrapolate this
to zero i.e., effectively to NZ . Taking the results at NZ = 2 (1/NZ = 0.5) shows
an incremental recovery of (72% - 36%) = 36% of STOIIP which is a huge increase
and would make such a project very attractive. However, as we refine the vertical
grid, the waterflood recovery increases while the MWAG recovery decreases, i.e. the
calculations move closer together and the incremental oil is greatly reduced. Indeed,
as we extrapolate to (1/NZ) = 0, we see that the incremental oil is only (47.5% - 47%)
= 0.5% which is well within the error band of the calculation. So, rather than having
a very attractive project, we appear to have a completely marginal or non-existent
improved oil recovery scheme. Certainly, performing just one coarse grid calculation
and taking the results at face value would be very misleading in this case.
Example 2: The vertical equilibrium (VE) condition in a gas flood is where the gas if
fully segregated by gravity from the oil. This limit has a simple analytical form (not
discussed here) which can be written down without doing a grid block calculation.
However, we can test the numerical simulation by seeing how many blocks (NZ
again) we need to correctly reproduce the VE limit. The answer is rather surprising
as shown by the results in Figure 17. These results show that 200 layers are needed
to fully resolve the gas tongue at the top of the reservoir. Clearly, if we just guessed
that 5 vertical blocks would be enough and did not check, then our calculation would
be significantly in error.
The two examples above illustrate how the number of blocks chosen for a simulation
can strongly affect the results. It shows the need to check that a calculation has
converged or that changing the number of grid blocks does not significantly change
the answers.
14
Figure 16: (a) Extrapolation of Predicted Waterflood Recovery Efficiency for 2D

Stratified Model C Sand Base Case
100
Process ==> Waterflooding
90
Vertical Grid Refinement

NX
Recovery Efficiency,
Recovery
%ooIPEfficiency, %ooIP
80
70
100
(a) a waterflood and (b) a

MWAG displacement in a
2D cross-sectional model

As vertical gridNX
is refined 1 --> 0
NZ
50
80
40
70
30
60
Extrapolated RE = 27.6%
20
50
Oil
NZ
1
2
3
Gas
Water
Oil
Homogeneous Model, kv/kh = 0.1

Stratified Model, 1.2 HCPVI,
0.02
NZkv/kh = Gas
Homogeneous
1 Model, kv/kh = 0.01
As vertical grid is refined
NZ
--> 0
10
40
0
30
0.00 0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20 0.25 0.30

1
Homogeneous
= 0.1 0.55
0.35 0.40 Model,
0.45kv/kh
0.50
Stratified Model, 1.2 HCPVI, kv/kh = 0.02
0.60
/nz grid blocksHomogeneous Model, kv/kh = 0.01
Extrapolated RE = 27.6%
20
10
100
NX
0
(b) Extrapolation
of Predicted
MWAG Recovery Efficiency for 2D
1
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
Water
90
2
1
Model C Sand
Base Case
/nz grid blocks
3
Oil
80
Recovery Efficiency,
Recovery
%ooIPEfficiency, %ooIP
Figure 16
The effect of vertical grid
refinement on recovery in
Process ==> Waterflooding
60
90
Water
1
2
3
70
100
60
90
50
80
40
70
30
60
20
50
NZ
As vertical grid isNX
refined 1 --> 0
NZ
1
2
3
As vertical
is refined
Extrapolated
REgrid
= 35.3%
1 -->
NZ
Gas
Water
Oil
Homogeneous
Model, kv/kh = 0.1
NZ
Gas
Model, side solver
Variable Width Homogeneous
0Stratified Model, 25% slug, 1.2 HCPVI, kv/kh = 0.02
Process ==> Wiscible Water - Alternating - Gas (MWAG)
10
40
0 Extrapolated RE = 35.3%
30
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
20
Stratified
0.20

Variable Width Homogeneous Model, side solver
Stratified Model, 25% slug, 1.2 HCPVI, kv/kh = 0.02
Homogeneous
kv/kh 0.45
= 0.01 0.50 0.55 0.60
0.25 0.30 0.35Model,
0.40
grid blocks
Process ==> Wiscible/nzWater
- Alternating - Gas (MWAG)
10
0
0.00 0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20 0.25 0.30

1
0.35
0.40
0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
/nz grid blocks
15
Recovery factor
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 x
Gravity Dominated
x x
x
x
x
0.2
0.4
2.7 Streamline Simulation
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x x
Oil
VE Limit
x x
Gas
fine grid : 5 layers

coarse grid
PVI
0.6
0.8
The problem of numerical dispersion was discussed above. One approach to have
a more accurate transport calculation is to use streamlines. We will describe this
qualitatively in a non-mathematical manner with reference to Figure 18 from the work
of Gautier et al (1999). The basic procedure in streamline simulation for a given
permeability field (Figure 18(a)) is to calculate the pressure distribution by solving
a conventional pressure equation (see Chapter 5 and 6). From this the iso-potentials
(pressure contours) can be calculated as shown in Figure 18(b); the gradient of the
pressures locally perpendicular to the iso-potentials are the streamlines as shown in
Figure 18(c). These streamlines are essentially the paths of the injected fluid from
the injectors (sources) to the producers (sinks). Since the velocity along these paths
is known (from Darcys Law using the calculated P), we can work out how far the
saturation front moves along the streamline, l = v.t, where v is the (local) velocity
at that point on the streamline. Since v is known quite accurately, the advance of the
front along the streamline can be calculated accurately without the problem of block
to block numerical dispersion. After we propagate the front along the streamlines, the
saturations will change over the reservoir domain. These saturation changes are then
projected back onto the Cartesian grid as shown in Figure 18(d), hence changing fluid
mobilities. These updated mobilities can be used to recalculate the pressures which,
in turn, can be used to update the streamline pattern. This process can be continued
throughout the calculation. However, the calculation of the pressure equation is what
takes most computational time in most reservoir simulation.
16
Figure 17
Resolving the gas tongue
in the Vertical Equilibrium
(VE) limit in a gas - oil
displacement by increasing
the number of vertical grid
blocks (from Darman et al,
1999)
Outline of Streamline Method

Prod
a) Permeability map with an
injector and a producer wells
Inj
b) Solve the pressure field

c)
Compute the velocity field

and trace streamlines
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
d) Move saturation along

streamlines and compute the
values of the saturation on
the grid.
Figure 18
Schematic of streamline
simulation from the work of
Gautier et al (1999)
From Gautier et al (1999)

2D Areal Displacements with Streamlines
I1
Pair Injector / Producer
P1
Figure 19
An example of a streamline
calculation in a five-spot
pattern
IW flows faster in a
direct line between the
wells and slower in
the corners
Arrival of different
streamlines at producer
at the same time.
Injected water concentration
An example of a streamline calculation in a five-spot pattern is shown in Figure

19. In streamline simulation, it may be possible to recalculate the pressures after
many transport (saturation update) time steps. This relies on the assumption that the
streamlines do not vary too rapidly as the flood progresses. This is a good assumption
for many applications. Clearly, if the wells change very significantly, or we switch
off some wells and add new ones, it will almost certainly be necessary to recalculate
the pattern of streamlines in the reservoir domain.
Streamline simulation has gained some popularity in recent years since 3D streamline
codes have been developed e.g. by (Blunt and coworkers at Imperial College in
London) and are available commercially.
Streamline simulation is fastest compared with conventional simulation for viscous
dominated flow where the assumption of slowly changing streamlines is probably
best. For flow where gravity effects are very prominent, there tends to be side flow
between streamlines and hence it is necessary to recalculate the pressure field quite
often. This slows the streamline simulation down quite significantly in many cases
although it can sometimes remain competitive with conventional simulation. At the
present time, streamline simulation has a place in our simulation toolbox but it
17
is not suitable for all types of reservoir calculation. It is strictly for incompressible
flow and compressibility effects can cause some errors. Also, streamline codes tend
not to be as developed in terms of bells and whistles as conventional simulators
e.g. complex well models, difficult PVT oil behaviour etc.
THE CALCULATION OF BLOCK TO BLOCK FLOWS IN

RESERVOIR SIMULATORS
3.1 Introduction to Averaging of Block to Block Flows
In reservoir simulation, block to block flow terms arise between blocks which we
often denoted by mobility terms such as T (So ) i 1/ 2 or o (So ) i +1/ 2 etc, where
the (i+1/2) and (i-1/2) denote the block boundary as the location where that term is
evaluated. However, we do not specify properties directly on the boundaries only
within the grid blocks themselves e.g. the saturations (Sw and So), the permeability,
porosity, relative permeability etc. A typical block-to-block

shown
in
Figure
p flow
P
P
P is
= kA. p .
i
i 1
kAalso
. shown:
.
p =
20 where the appropriate terms in DarcysQLaw
are
Bp x
Bp x i 1 + x i
Applying
Darcys
law to the inter block flow shown in Figure 20 and using the
T (So ) i 1 / 2 or o (So ) i +1 / 2
notation in that figure, we obtain:
( (S ))
kA
or ( o (So ))i +1(/ S

( T 2 o ))i 1/ 2 or ( o (So ))i +1/ 2
( T (So ))i 1/ 2 or ( o (So ))i +1/ 2
i 1 / 2
p P
p Pi Pi 1
Q p = kA. . ( =(S kA
)) .1p/ B2 por .(o(Sxoi )1)i++1/2 x i
Bp x T o i
p Pi Pi 1
p P
.
P
P
Q p2 = kA
p
p
.
kA
.
.
=
B (1)
PB. .x i 1 p+=xkA
.P P .
x . Q p p= . kA
Q pp = kA
p B
= pkA
.x . i i Bp i 1 x
x
x
+
Bp
B2p i 1 i
Bp x
where thekA
overbar denotes an average of that
pquantity.
P The issue
phere
is: Pwhich
2
i
i 1
Q pmain
= kA
. questions
.
=are:
kA. .
average should we take? The two
specific
B x
Bp x i 1 + x i
x p
kA
kA
2
What is the correct average for the permeability-area
?
( T (So ))i 1/ 2 orproduct,
( o (So ))kA
p
i +1 / 2
x i 1 + xi ?
What is the correct average for
p
= mobility,
kAthe phase
Further issues involve (i) whether we should average the

terms
k
and
p separate
P
P
rp
p
i
i 1
Q p = kA. Bp . = kA. .
p - within the phase mobility, p ; and (ii)

use for
k rp which average
Bp B
Bp wexshould
p x i 1 + x i
B
x
p
although the formation volume factor does not usually vary very rapidly from block
2
p
2
Bp
to block.
x
Bp
x
x i 1 + x i
x
3.2 Averaging
of the k-A Product, kA
=
We first examine 2the kA averaging by considering what
this
be for singlex i should
1 + x i
x + x i
x
=
phase flow. Consider the volumetric flow, Q, of a single phase and the related
x i i 1
x i pressure
1 + =
2
=
drops as shown
2
p
k rp in Figure 21:
2
x i 1 + x i
p
k rp
=
k rp
2 Bp
k
rp
p
p
p
k rp
x
p
18
x i 1 + x i
2
Gridding And Well

( T (SModelling
o ))i 1 / 2 or ( o (So ))i +1 / 2
( (S ))
T
x i-1
Permeability = ki-1
Qp
Figure 20
Block to block flow in a simulator
Notation:
Qp
i 1 / 2
or ( o (So ))i +1/ 2
Q p = kA. p . = kA. p
Bp x
Bp
x i
Pi Pi
Permeability =k P
Q p = kA. pi . = kA. p .
Bp x
Bp x i 1 +
2
kA
kA
Area, A i-1
Area, A i
p
Bp
= volumetric flow of phase p (p = o, w, g)
Bp
xi-1, xi
= sizes of the (i-1) and i blocks (may not be equal)
= distance between grid block centres =
Ai-1, Ai
= areas of the (i-1) and i blocks

x (may
+ xnot be equal)
i 1
x i 1 + x i
2
k rp
2
= permeabilites of the (i-1) and i blocks (usually not equal)
p
k
= mobility of phase p = rp
p
ki-1, ki
p
krp
= relative permeability of phase p
= pressure drop between grid block centres
p, Bp
= viscosity and formation volume factors of phase p
Ai
Ai-1
Pi-1
Pi
ki-1
ki
xi-1
xi
Pi-1
Figure 21
Single-phase flow between
blocks to determine the
correct kA average to use in
flow simulation.
Pressure
P
Pf = face pressure
between blocks
Pf
Pi
We now consider flows from Block (i-1) to the interface of the two blocks, where
we denote the interface pressure as Pf (see Figure 21).
19
k .A
P P
x i 1
.
k
A
P
P
Q = i 1 i 1. f
1x
i 1
Q=
. x i 1i
x i 1 2
2
k .A 1 Pf 2Pi 1
2
from which
difference (Pf - Pi-1):
Q =wecani 1findi the
. pressure
x i 1
k .A
P P 1 x 1
Q = ( Pi 1 Pi 1 .) f= 2ixQ
.x i 1i 11 1
x.
i .
1
iQ
1x
k.A )i 1
((PPf (PPPif1f)) P==i 1i)1 =Q
i 1 2 2 1
) i 1
Q.2 2 ( k.A )(k(.A
f
i 1
2 ( k.A )ii 11
x
1
(Pf Pi 1 ) = Q. i 1
2 Pf ( k.A )i 1
k.Ai .A iP Pi
k
P
i
i
i
= i Pi .Pf. x fi 1 1
In block (i):
QkkQ
=i ..A
A
. P P . xi x i
=
P
P
i
(Q
)
Q f= i 1 i=. ixQi f
x i
22 ( k.A )i 1
2
k .A i Pi 2 Pf
Q =wecani find
. the2 pressure difference (P - P ):
from which
x i
i
f
k i .A i Pi 2 Pf
Q = ( P P. ) = xQ.xi1xi 1 1
xi. Qxi . 1
((PPi (PPPfi))i ==Pf )f =Q
k.)A)i
i 2 2 (k(.A
.
i
i
f
2 22 (( kk..A
A ))i
x i 1 i
(Pi Pf ) = Q.
2 Q
(k .A
)xix i 1 xx i
xtoeliminate
Adding equations( P3i and
5 above
i gives that:
xP+ term
x .1 i 1the
=.
(PPPii (PPPPifi)1)=P==i P1i)1Q)=Q
. i 2.xii 11 ( k+.A )+x ii f ( k.A)
Q
.
2
k
k
A
i
1
) +)i k1 .A ( .A)i i
( i i 1 )
2 .2 ( k .(Ak .)(A
2 ( k.A )ii 11 i (( k.A ))ii
x
Q x
(Pi Pi 1 ) = . i 1 + i
2 ( k.A )
( k.A)
Q x i1 x i
i 1
(Pi Pi1Q1 )= =1 1. 2 . 2 2 + . iP P
. 22xi (1k.A )i.1
(P.PAi(i1))i Pi 1i)1 ) Darcy Law:
xi i(k.single-phase
Q = Q1=to.the
x i 1 form
ofx.((iP
which rearranges
the
+
Q = . xfollowing
P
x
+x i ( k.Ai ) Pi 1 )
.+)A )
k+
x ii(11k(.A
i
1 i ( k.A )i i
1 ( k.A )i 1 2 i(k1 .A
)
Q = . ( k.A )i 1 ( k.A )ii .( Pi Pi 1 )
x i 1 + x i
1
2
Q = . ( k.A )i 1 ( k.A )i .( Pi Pi 1 )
x i 1 + x i
( k.A )i 1 ( k.A )i
1 i 1i 1Pf
f Pi 1i 1
k i 1i.A
In block (i-1): QkQ
1 .A
i 1 Pf . P.i 1
=i =
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
But, taking kA as the correct average, then, by definition, the single-phase Darcy
Law is of the form:
kA ( P Pi 1 )
Q= . i
x
( xPi 1 +Pi
kA
1 )i
Q= . i
xi 12+ xi
2
(8)
Comparing identical terms in equations 7 and 8 above gives that:
kA
xi kA
1 + xi
xi 12+ xi
2
2
=
xi 1 2+ xi
=
xi)i11 (k. A
xi)i
(k. A
+
( k . A) i 1 ( k . A) i
which easily rearranges to:

20
xi 1 + xi
kA =
xix1i 1 +

xixi
+
kA =
xi)i11 (k. A
xi)i
(k. A
+
(9)
kA ( Pi Pi 1 )
.
xi 1 + xi
2 ( T (So ))i 1/ 2 or ( o (So ))i +1/ 2
x i1 + xi
kA = x x
i 1
i
+
kA
2 p P
p Pi Pi 1
(k.A=)
(k.A)
xpi =1 ikA. xBi . x = kA. B . (10)

xi 1 +xi i1 Q
p x i 1 + x i
+ p
2
( k . A) i 1 ( k . A) i
Q=
Note: This is an important result and in particular, we observe the following:
(i) The appropriate

average kA is not the arithmetic average, it is the harmonic
average weighted
bythe
x grid
+ xblocksizes.
i 1
i
kA =
xi 1
xi
average+gives
more weighting to the lower permeability
much
(ii) This harmonic
(k. A)i 1 (kp. A)i
value. If the grid sizes are equal, this reduced to the exact harmonic average,
kH, of the permeabilities as follows:
( (S ))
Bp
1
1 1
1
=
+
2 ki 1 ki
kH
x
i 1 / 2
or ( o (So ))i +1/ 2
(11)
3.9P
This can be seen for the following example: k1 = 200 mD, k2 = 2 mD kH =
krp
Q p = kA. p . = k
mD. We would
expect the flowsxto be+much
x
x i more strongly affected by the
p =
Blower
p
i 1
p if one of the
= permeabilities
permeability since,
were zero, then the flow would be
T (So ) i 1/ 2 or o (So ) i +1/ 2
2
zero, no matter how large the other permeability
was.
+B
i 1
i
i
kBrpp =overi 1into the
andcarry
(iii) Theabove
arguments
averaging of kA for multi-phase
p =
2
2
flow.
p
p P
p
Pi P
Q p = kA. .
= kA. .
xp
Bp
Bp x i 1 +
EXERCISE 1.
1. For the two grid blocks below, calculate
kA (in mD.ft.2)
Bp
15 ft.
20 ft.
( (S ))
T
( (S ))
T
i 1 / 2
i 1 / 2
or ( o (So )
or ( o (So ))i
x i 1 + x i p P
Q p2= kA. .
k1
or
S
(
)
( T (SoB))pi 1/ 100
(
)
o
o
Bp x
2
i +1 / 2
ft.
p P
120 ft.
Q
kA
=
.
k
p
B . x =
rp
x
p
p
pthe
answer
pcalculated
Pi Pi 1
(i) For k1 = 200 mD and k1 = 185 mD. Compare
P with kA
Q p = kA. .
= kA. .
as the arithmetic average.
xi B1 p+ xi x
Bp x i 1 + x i
=
2 answer with kA
2
(ii) For k = 200 mD and k = 5 mD. Compare the
calculated
15 ft.
25 ft.
as the arithmetic average.
2. If k1 k2, and A1 A2, show that

average.
k2
k rp
kA is approximately
equal to the
pBarithmetic
p
p
p
Bpx
21

Q = . i i 1
x
x
( T (So ))i 1/ 2 or ( o (So ))i +1/ 2
i
i
kA
2
= 2
x
x
xi 1 + xi
p P
p Pi Pi 1
(
T (Soi )1)i 1+/ 2 or (i o(So ))i +1/ 2
Q p = kA. .
= kA. .
2
( k . A) i 1 ( k . A) i
Bp x
Bp x i 1 + x i
p
p Pi
P 2
Q
kA
=
.
.
kA
.
=
B x
B . x
kA
2
i
p
=
p
p Pi Pi 1
xi 1
xi 1 + xi
p xi P
+p=xi kA .+ . = kA. .
xi 1Q
kA
B
( k . A)
(k. A) x
kA =2
Bp x i 1 + x i
xi 1 xii 1 p i
+
2
( k . A) i 1 ( k . A) i
kA
3.3 Averaging of the Two-Phase

Mobility
Term,
p
To recap, the single-phase

xi 1kA
+ term
xi is taken as a weighted harmonic average and this
x1 of what
1 =the
1 xaverages
leaves us kA
with
to take for the two-phase flow term, p .
1issue
=
i 1 +
i the
+
In fact, it kis convenient

to
separate
relative
permeabilityBpterm from the viscosity
2(k. kAi)1 ki(k. A)
H
i 1 as follows:
i
and consider these separately
p
Bp
x
k
1p = = rp 1 1 +Bp1
(12) x
kH p2 ki 1 ki
x i 1 + x i
=
2 than the phase
We do this since the relativepermeability
of phase p is far more variable
x
without
Bi 1 + B
i 1 + i further discussion,
i will simply note that the viscosity and
x i 1 + x i
viscosity. Ifp fact,
we
= krp
and Bp =
=
2
2
formationvolume
factors
are very accurately
calculated as the arithmetic averages,
p =
2
k rp
p
x i 1 +
x i and i are:
blocks
i.e. the averages between
grid
(i-1)
=
p
2
k rp
i 1 + i
Bi 1 + Bi
p =
and Bp =
p
k rp
2
2
(13)
p
Therefore the situation is summarised in Figure 22:
Qp
Qp = - kA.
Harmonic average
krp
p.Bp
Which
average??
Arithmetic averages
We consider which relative permeability average to take by considering the physical

situation of two-phase oil/water flow from block i (i+1) as shown in Figure 23.
Consider the situation in Figure 23 where:
Block i is at Sw = (1-Sor) i.e. only water can flow; krw > 0 and kro = 0;
Block (i+1) is at Sw = Swc i.e. only oil can flow; krw = 0 and kro > 0.
22
Figure 22
Which average should be
taken for the relative
permeability of phase p in
the averaging of block to
block flows?
Sor
1 - Sor
Figure 23:
Flow of water from
block i (i+1) and the
corresponding relative
permeability values for
water and oil.
Sw
krw > 0
krw = 0
kro = 0
kro > 0
Swc
Block i
Block i + 1
Physically, it is clear in Figure 23 that water can flow from i (i+1) but oil cannot.
Therefore, for flow in this direction, the average water relative permeability must
be non-zero but the average oil relative permeability must be zero. Let us consider
the different averages that are possible in turn:
Harmonic Average: First consider if the harmonic average can be used since this
was appropriate for the single-phase permeability averaging.
Harmonic average of water relative permeabilities = Harm. Av. {krw i >0; krw i+1 = 0}
=0
Likewise, for oil, Harm. Av. {kro i = 0; kro i+1 > 0} = 0
Therefore, it cannot be the harmonic average which is correct for the relative
permeability.
Arithmetic Average: Now consider if the arithmetic average can be used since this
is a natural thing to try and it is certainly the simplest.
Arithmetic average of water relative permeabilities
(k
> 0) + ( krw i +1 = 0)
rw i
= ( krw i > 0) + ( krw i +1 = 0) > 0
2
> 0
So, the arithmetic average could be physically correct for the water phase since
it gives the average krw > 0 .
krw > 0
But, for oil the oil phase, we find that : Arith. Av. {kro i = 0; kro i+1 > 0} > 0 and this
is physically incorrect, since oil cannot flow from i (i+1).
Therefore, it cannot be the arithmetic average which is correct for the relative
permeability.
What average does this leave?
Upstream Value: In fact, it turns out that the physically correct value of the relative
permeability is simply the upstream value. This can be seen to be consistent with
the physical situation since:
23
Flowing from i (i+1), the average water relative permeabilities = Upstream

{krw i} > 0, as required.
Likewise, flowing from i (i+1), the average oil relative permeabilities = Upstream
{kro i } = 0, as required.
Now reversing the flows from (i+1) i, we find that only oil should flow and this
is again consistent since:
Flowing from (i+1) i, the average water relative permeabilities = Upstream {krw
} = 0, as required since water cannot flow in this direction.
i+1
Likewise, flowing from (i+1) i, the average oil relative permeabilities = Upstream
{kro i+1} > 0, as required since only oil can flow in this direction.
The situation is summarised in Figure 24.
Qp
Qp = - kA.
krp
p.Bp
Harmonic average
P
x
Upstream
value of krp
Arithmetic averages
WELLS IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION
4.1 Basic Idea of a Well Model
The only way fluids can be produced from or injected into a reservoir is through the
wells and we must therefore include them in our reservoir simulation model. As you
may know, the area of Well Technology is vast and in addition to the long wellbore
between the surface and the wellbore, there are many other technical features of well
that can have a major impact on the flows into and out of the reservoir. For example,
there will be safety valves at the surface and many different types of completion in
the well construction itself. Here, we will simplify things as much as possible in
order to extract the central functions of the well that we will have to model in the
simulator. A schematic of the total well is shown in Figure 25 where the details of
the near well formation are shown inset. The near wellbore flows are thought to be
radial in an ideal vertical well and this will have some relevance in modelling the
near-well pressure behaviour, this was discussed in Chapter 2 and will be elaborated
upon below. In addition to these near-well pressure drops, there are several other
identifiable pressure drops between the fluids in the reservoir and the surface oil
storage facilities and we will have to model at least some of these. Indeed, it is this
topside pressure behaviour that links or couples the surface with the pressure
24
Figure 24
The correct inter-block
averages for all terms in
the two-phase block-toblock flows in a reservoir
simulator.
and flows that we are trying to model in the reservoir using reservoir simulation. The
main decision is to determine how much of the formation to surface well assembly
we will actually have to model. The main pressure drops are shown in Figure 26
(based on Figure 25 of whole well + Ps) and are associated with:
(i) Formation wellbore flow, Pfw: where fluids flow from a drainage radius,
re, at pressure, Pe, to the wellbore. Figure 26 shows the near-well pressure profile,
in the near-sandface region with bottom hole flowing well pressure (BHFP), Pwf.
Thus the formation wellbore pressure drop, Pfw , is:
Pf w = ( Pe Pwf )
(14)
(ii) The Ppressure

drop, Pwell, that may occur along the completed region of the
wf = Patm + Pf s
wellbore from the bottom of the well (or the toe of a horizontal well) to the
wellbore just at the top of the completed interval. In very long wells, this pressure
drop along
wellbore
to friction may be quite significant although there will
.( Pe Pdue
Q o the
= PI
wf )
be cases where it can be ignored;
Q o max .
Well head
= PI.Pe
P( r ) =
Surface facilities
(separator etc...)
r
Q
ln
2 ( k.h ) rw
Well tubulars
P( re ) = ( Pe Pwf ) =
r
Q
ln e
2 ( k.h ) rw
2 ( k .h )
.( Pe Pwf )
re
. ln
rw
Reservoir showing
To storage /
export
Well
Q=
Figure 25
Schematic of the fluid flows
into a well in a grid
block model of the reservoir
through to their storage or
export from the field.
two geological layers
PI =
2( k.h )
r
.ln e
rw
Fluid flow from

reservoir layers
to wellbore
Well completed
in reservoir
25
Pwh -> export
Surface facilities
(separator etc...)
Well head
To storage / export
Well tubulars
Near wellbore formation

to wellbore Pf -> w
Well
Pe
Pr -> s
pressure drop
from reservoir
top to surface
Pf -> w
Pwf
rw
re
Fluid flow from

reservoir layers
to wellbore
Reservoir showing
two geological layers
Well completed
in reservoir
Pwell
pressure drop along the well
within reservoir section
(iii) Reservoir surface pressure drop, Prs : the pressure drop from the well at
the top of the completed formation just above the reservoir to the wellhead which is
at pressure, Pwh . This P is quite significant and, locally in any sector of the well,
there will be a local pressure drop vs. flow rate/fluid composition relationship. This
may be calculated from models (often correlations) of multi-phase flow in pipes.
As the fluids move up the wellbore, the pressure drops in oil/water production and
free gas may also appear; thus, we can have three phase flow in the well tubular to
the surface and we may have to incorporate this flow rate/pressure drop behaviour
in our modelling.
(iv) There will frequently be further pressure drops as the fluids flow from the
wellhead through the surface facilities such as the separators, various chokes, etc.
We will not consider this in detail here although it can be an important consideration
in some field cases e.g. if the well is feeding into a network gathering system which
other wells are also feeding into. This could be a complex surface gathering system
network or a multiple-well manifold of a subsea production system.
In this section, we will mainly focus on the formation to wellbore pressure drops. Thus,
our main task is to either calculate or set the well flowing pressure (Pwf) although we
will return briefly to the issue of calculating the pressure drops between the reservoir
and the surface in the discussion below.
To set the scene in modelling wells in a simulator, we will first consider a very
simple model well producing only oil into the wellbore. How do we decide what
26
Figure 26
Schematic of the fluid flows
from the well through to
storage or export showing
the associated pressure
drops that occur in the
system.
the volumetric flow rate, Qo, of this well is? Indeed, do we decide or is it set for us
by the reservoir and well properties? We will start with the simplest case where we
basically take what we can get by drawing the wellhead pressure, Pwh, down as
low as possible. Suppose that we simple open it up such that the oil pressure drops
essentially to atmospheric. There is then the additional reservoir to surface pressure
drop, Prs
, to consider.
Thus,
P
= (P P
) the well flowing pressure, Pwf, would be given by:
f w
wf
Pwf = Patm + Pf s
(15)
So, what happens

if this value of Pwf > Pe (the reservoir pressure), then no
Q o = PI.?( PClearly,
e Pwf )
oil can be produced. However, if Pwf < Pe, then some oil will flow into the well and
we can now calculate how much. As we will see, this will depend on the physical
propertiesQof the system
such as the permeability of the rock, the viscosity of the oil,
o max . = PI.Pe
the precise geometry of the well etc. However, in our simple conceptual well, we will
Pf w = ( Pe Pwf )
take all of these
quantities as givens for the moment. Suppose the well does flow
at a volumetric flow rate,
pressure, Pe, and well flowing pressure,
Q Qo, forr reservoir

P(then
ln
r ) = define a productivity
Pwf . We can
index,
PI, of the well as follows:
P = P + P
wf
2 ( k.hf
) s rw
atm
Q o = PI.( Pe Pwf )
P( re ) = ( Pe Pwf ) =
r
Q
ln e
2 ( k.h ) rw
(16)
where possible
= PI.of
Q o max . units
Pe PI could be bbl/day/psi, for example, the above equation
basically states how much oil is produced per psi of drawdown. This simple
equation takes us
2 back
( k.h )to our original question on what/who decides on Qo?. In
Q
=
.( Pe Pwf )clear; i.e. some things are givens - e.g. PI and
our simple case, the answer
is now
r
Pf w = ( PrQ
ee Pwf )
P(oil
ln - and some we can set within limits - e.g. Pwf by
r) .=producing
ln system
Pe in a virgin
2rpressure.
rw
( k.h ) However,
w
setting the wellhead
you may be able to set a flowrate, Qo, by
installing Pa downhole
pump (an ESP - electrical submersible pump). In that case,
wf = Patm + Pf s
you would set Qo and then calculate Pwf where we are still considering the reservoir
2
k.h ) But clearly
Q we cannot
r
pressure (P
a (given.
PI
Pe)=
ln e set Qo to any arbitrarily large
ras
(
e ) = ( Pe Pwf ) =
P ) value
value since
lowest
2 ( kof
.h )Pwf =rw0 (a vacuum), which would then set
.( Perepossible
Q othe
= PI
wf
.ln
given
a maximum value of Q
by:
r o
w
k.h.P)e
=(PI
Q o max2.
(17)
Q=
.( Pe Pwf )
re
. ln
So, in summary, we
set either a pressure or a flowrate but (a) not both and
rcan
w
r
Q
limits.
(b) in either
case,
within
P( r ) =
ln
2 ( k.h ) rw
But, cant we affect
2( kthe
.h )well PI or the reservoir pressure, Pe? We can actually affect
PI
=
the PI of a well by stimulating
it possibly by locally hydraulically fracturing the
r
.lnit eto increase the
r permeability
well or by acidising
of the near well region.
Qeffective
rew Pwf )(or
Pwe
= (Pincrease
= more commonly
ln e maintain) the reservoir pressure
( re )can
In addition,
2 ( k.h ) rw
(which relates to the reservoir energy) to some extent by injecting a fluid - usually
water or gas in another injector well. However, the basic well controls are either
setting pressure2or
k.h ) rate and this must be kept in mind when we model wells in
(flow
Q
=
(Pe Pwf )on these ideas in the following section where we
reservoir simulation. We.elaborate
re
introduce the central
. ln idea
of a well model.
rw
PI =
2( k.h )
27
Pf w = ( Pe Pwf )
Pf w = ( Pe Pwf )
Pwf = Patm + Pf s
4.2 Well Models for Single and Two-Phase Flow
Pwf = Patm
+ awell
Pf smodel can be developed, firstly in our simple conceptual
We now consider
how
.
Q
=
PI
P
(
wf ) Figure 27 shows the local pressure profiles in a simple
o
e
reservoir producing onlyPoil.
homogeneous well system in single phase flow (see Chapter 2, section 3.5). The
Q o = PI.( Pe to
Pwf )
pressure profile
= PI.Pe the wellbore, assuming radial flow, was derived in Chapter
Q o max . close
2 and is given by (section 3.5):
Q o max . = PI.Pe
r
Q
P( r ) =
ln
2 ( k.h ) rw
r
(18)
Q
P( r ) =
ln
2 ( k.h ) rw
Taking theP
pressure
at radius r as being
pressure, Pe, then gives:
Q the reservoir
r
f w = ( Pe Pwf ) e
P( re ) = ( Pe Pwf ) =
ln e
Pf w = ( Pe Pwf ) 2 ( k.h ) rw
Q
r
wfP(=re )P=
ln e
P
+e PPf wfs ) =
atm( P
2 ( k.h ) rw
(19)
k
h
2
.
(
)
Pwf== Patm + P.(f Ps P )
Q
e
wf
.(Pere Pwf )
Q o =PI
.
ln
2 (k.rh )
Q. P P
Q=
(a)
(b)
Q o = PI.(Perw P(wf e) wf )
Grid block
e
Well at BHFP
.
ln
Pe
.Pe
Q o max . = PI
pressure
Pwf
rw
2( k.h )
Q
PIo max
= . = PI.Pe
P
P
re
P
wf
2
.ln Q) - Pwf r
P=
= (k=.rhwP(r)
( r )P(r)
h
ln
PI
2r( k.h ) rw
Pwf P( r )=
.ln Qe ln r
y
x
2r(wk.h ) rw
rw
r
re
r
Q
P( re ) = ( Pe Pwf ) =
ln e
(assume x = y)
2 ( k.h ) rw
Q
r
which caneasily
arranged
to obtain: ln e
P( re ) =be( P

e Pwf ) =
2 ( k.h ) rw
2 ( k .h )
Q=
.( Pe Pwf )
re
2 ( k .h )
Q = . ln r .( Pe Pwf )
rw
(20)
. ln e
rw
and hence from equation 16 above, we can identify the productivity index
2( k.h )
= as:
(PI) of thePIwell

2( k.rhe )
PI = .ln r
rw
.ln e
rw
(21)
This now demonstrates exactly how the quantities k, h, , rw and re affect the well
productivity. All of these factors behave as we might expect them to physically e.g.
as k, PI; as , PI etc.
28
Figure 27
Schematic showing (a)
the near well pressure
profiles that occur in a
radial system and (b)
corresponding quantities in
a Cartesian grid block
Now consider how this relates to the pressures in the simulation block shown in Figures
27 and 28. In a grid block, the pressure is thought of as being constant throughout the
block although we know that it should be varying continuously across the block; we
will refer to this as the average block pressure, P . The size of the grid block in our
example is (x, y) and, for simplicity, we will assume that, x = y. Looking at
the expression for PI in equation 21 and the quantities we have in the grid block, it is
easy to make direct relations for some of them - obviously k, and h and also possibly
rw and Pwf , although these latter two do not seem to appear in the grid model. The
drainage radius, re, and the reservoir pressure, Pe, which appear in the radial model
do not appear in the grid model - instead, the block size (x, y) and average block
pressure ( P ) appear. This immediately suggests the following 2 questions:
1. what is the relation between re , and the block size (x, y)?
2. what is the relation between Pe and the average grid block pressure, P ?
Well at BHFP
= Pwf
Grid block
pressure
Figure 28
Schematic indicating how
the near well pressures
relate to the corresponding
quantities in a Cartesian
grid block
re
Pwf
re
=>
e =
h
y
Pe
How do we choose
re such that
Pe =P ??
Pwf
Relation
re <-> x, y ??
rw
re
(assume x = y)
re
Figure 29
The relation between re and
the block dimensions, x
and y.
rw
re is where P(re) =P
and re = re (x, y) but
what is the formula ?
The issue is defined quite clearly in Figure 28. From this figure, we would like to
choose re such that Pe coincides with the average grid block pressure, P . The latter
quantity ( P ) is calculated in the simulation itself. In fact, we need to know how to
calculate re from the quantities x and y as indicated in Figure 29 where we show
the re as function of x and y, i.e. re(x, y).
If we know the formula for re(x, y), then we can calculate the PI (equation 21) and
use this in the simulation to couple the quantities Qo (oil flow rate) and P (average
grid block pressure); i.e.
29
P
Q o = PI.( P Pwf )
(22)
Here, we can set either Qo or Pwf and then calculate the other one from P (and the
Pwfsimple but ingenious way in a classic paper
r 2 achieved
( k.h ) Pin( ra)very
known PIP).This
ln was
=
.
by Donald Peaceman
(1978),
another
rw
Q pioneer of numerical reservoir simulation.

Peaceman did this by carrying out a 2D numerical solution of the pressure equation
on a Cartesian
for a quarter five-spot configuration as shown in Figure 30.
Pwf
Q o =(x,
PI.y)Pgrid
0.2 19,
x we know that:
But, fromreequation
r 2 ( k.h ) ( P( r ) Pwf )
ln
= x 2 +
. y2
re r 0.14
Q
.( P Pwf )
Q o =w PI
)(
) (
(23)
Hence, if Q
we plot the
pressure at grid =blocks
from the well block vs. the well
PI w . away
P Pwf
w
re o =r PI
0.2o . Px Pwf ; P( Q
)
r
block spacing on a logarithmic

in Figure 31, then we can extrapolate
2 ( k.h ) scale as shown
wf
ln equivalent
=
. where = P in terms of the well block dimension
back to findthe
radius
P
rw
Q
e
(x). It turns out2 that
kh.the
k 2 (simple
S ) 2 relation is (where x = y):
P
re =0.14 xro + oy
PI
o
r
re 0.
x e
2 o.ln
r
Q oo = PI.o(.P( PPPwfwwf) ); Q w = PI w .( P Pwf )
(24)
Therefore, we have a very2simple2way of calculating the PI or well connection factor

re 0.14
x + y
as it is sometimes
2called
kh.k of Sa well in a simulation grid block.
( )
rw
w
PIw r=2 kh
2 .k( kro.(hS)o )( P( r ) Pwf )
r .
ln
PIPeaceman
o = = .ln
The simple
a well in a radial environment (the five-spot
rw PI
Q =toPI
=
.(wPformula
Pre e); applies
Pwf )a common 2D Cartesian grid)

Q
Q
o is as
o close
wf
w
w .( P
configuration
as
we
can
get
to
radial
using
r
o .ln w
rwsome
and for x = y. In fact,

modification to the simple formula is required for
wells in corner
or set close to a boundary and these are shown in Figure
re 0.locations
2 x
2
khbut
.k rothe
So well
(
) is isolated (radial flow), then:
32. Also,PI
if x
y,
=
o
2kh.k (S )
PI w = .ln rwre w
o
re 0.14
x2rwr+ey 2
w .ln

rw
(25)
Q o = PI2
.kh
(P.k P(S); ) Q w = PI w .(P Pwf )
PI w = o 11 rwwf w
10 re
w .ln
9
w )
2 kh.8k ro (rS
o
7
PI o =
6 r
o .ln5 e
4 rw
PI w =
3
2
2kh.10k rw Sw
-1 r
( )
w .ln-1e 0 1
rw
30
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 30
The 2D areal grid used to
compare pressures with
the expected radial profiles
(from Peaceman, 1978)
0.6
On Edge: i = 0 or j = 0
On Diagonal: i = j
ij0
0.5
pij - po
q / kh
0.4
0.3
(1.1)
(1.0)
0.2
Figure 31
Log plot of the pressures
from the 2D areal grid used
to find re (from Peaceman,
1978)
(2.2)
(2.1)
(2.0)
0.1
0
0.1
r Ao / x From areal average pressure
ro / x
0.2
0.4
0.6
5 6
31
Factor in terms of (re / x)

(re / x) = 0.2
(Peaceman's equation)
(re / x) = 0.196
implies no flow boundary
(re / x) = 0.433
(re / x) = 0.193
(re / x) = 0.72
For anisotropic
permeabilities
kx ky
re = 0.28
ky
kx
1/2
.x2 +
kx
ky
1/2
.y2
1/2
ky 1/4
k 1/4
+ x
kx
ky
We may find that, in a given simulation of a field case, that we input all the known
or estimated data but the well in our simulation does not perform like the real case.
It may produce more (PI higher) or it may produce less (lower PI) than expected.
The former case may be due to the well being stimulated and the second case may
be due to well damage. Within limits, we may adjust the calculated well PI in the
simulation model in order to reproduce the observed field behaviour. However,
we should think carefully before making such changes since the simulated well
productivity may be wrong because some (or several) other aspects of the reservoir
simulator input data are wrong.
It is now relatively straightforward to extend our discussion on PI and simple well
models in a homogeneous single layer system to the flow of two phases - say, oil
32
Figure 32
Well factors for wells in
various positions relative
to the boundaries; after
Kuniansky and Hillstad
(1980)
and water - as shown in Figure 33. Since two phase are being produced, then the
saturations of both oil and water (So and Sw) must be at values where their relative
permeabilities are > 0 (i.e. = > So > Sor ; Sw > Swc).
Well radius = rw
Qw
Qo
Q
P o = PI.( P Pwf )
Q o = Saturation
PI.( P Pwf )
Sw and So
. P2
.h ) ( P( r ) Pwf )
(Pkwf
Q o =r PI
h ) .
ln =(
rw 2 (k.h ) ( P( r )Q Pwf )
ln =
.
x Q
rrw
2 ( k.h ) ( P( r ) Pwf )
ln
.
re 0 .=
2 x
Q
rw
(assume
x = y)
re 0.2 x
Figure 33
Near well two-phase flows
in a Cartesian grid block
From therreradial
two phase
Law, the volumetric production rates of oil
x 2 + Darcy
0.14
y2
e 0.2 x
and water are given by: 2
2
re 0.14 x + y
where
and
2
Q
o .( P
wf
re o= 0PI
xP
+ ); y 2 Q w = PI w .( P Pwf )
.14
Q o = PI o .( P Pwf ); Q w = PI w .( P Pwf )
2 kh.k (S )
Q
PIoo == PI o .( P roPwf o); Q w = PI w .( P Pwf )
2 kh.k r(eS )
PI o = o .lnro o
r
2
kh
.kror(weSo )
.ln
o
PI o =
rw
r
.ln.k e(S
okh
2
rwrw w )
PI w =
2kh.k r(eS )
PI w = w .lnrw w
r
2
.krwr(weSw )
.ln
kh
w
PI w =
rw
r
w .ln e
rw
(26)
(27)
(28)
where, again, re is calculated using Peacemans formula. In the above equation, we

have not incorporated the separate phase pressure, Po and Pw, in the well block but
these may be used in a given calculation.
4.3 Well Modelling in a Multi-Layer System
The most common case which is modelled is where we have multi-phase (e.g. two
phase oil/water) flow in a layered system where the layers are of different permeability.
This situation is shown for a simple four layer system in Figure 34.
Clearly, there are additional issues in this system since all four layers may be
producing both oil and water and the proportions of each phase may be changing
as the saturations (and hence relative permeabilities) change. In addition, there is
33
also a gravitational potential in each layer which we may have to take into account.
Using the notation in Figure 34, we note that the oil flows in layer k (k = 1, 2, 3, in
this example) are:
Q ok = PI ok ( Pk Pwfk ) =
2 ( khk ro (So ))k
(Pk Pwfk )
rek
o .ln
2 ( khk
))
ro (rS
w o k
(29)
(Pk Pwfk )
rek
o .ln
and a similar expression
applies for
water.
3
3
rw The total oil and water flows in
the well are:
Q T = (Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk Pwfk )
k =1
3
k =1
3
1
k =1
Q Tk =k(=Q
ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk Pwf )
(
( )
)
(30)
where we have taken the mean block pressure and also the well flowing pressure in
Q Tk = (Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk ) Pk Pwf
layer k asQbeing
the same for both oil
water phases. Again, in the layered case,
Pwf
and
i ,khk
j, k ro (So )
o i , j, k = PI o i , j, k . P i , j, k 2
k
we can specify
the flowing bottom
hole
and then we can
Q ok = the
PI oktotal
Pk flow
Pwfkor =
Pk pressure
Pwfk
rek
calculate the other one using the above
relations.
(In
fact,
we
can
also specify
.ln
=
.
P
Q
PI
i , j, k Pwf i ,oj, k
,
,
,
,
o
i
j
k
o
i
j
k
the flow of either B
phase
rw find the flow of the other and the
o Q o - oil or water - and then
Q wflowing
+ Q w For example, suppose
inj =
bottom hole
pressure).
we specify the total flow, QT.
Bw
We need to decide how this total flow is made up - i.e. what are the separate Qo and Qw
3 Bo Q o
(QT = Qo +QQ
) and
this
is3allocated from each of the layers in the system.
= how
+QQflow
ww
inj
w =
=
+
Pwfkwell flowing pressure,
Q
Q
PI wkis) P
(oBQwoko the assumption
(PIthat
T
wk )
ok +there
For simplicity,
weBmake
a ksingle
k
=
1
k
=
1
w=injP> = P
w). Hence, for each layer, k :
Pwf (i.e. PQ
=+PQ
wf1
wf2 B wf3
wf4
(
(
Bo Q o
Q) w= ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk Pwf )
Q Tk
w inj=>(Q ok + Q+
Bw wk
(31)
Everything is known in the above equation which allows us to determine the

PI o i , jfrom
j, k P
, k . P i ,each
, k =fluids
wf i , j, k and we can calculate the corresponding
o i , jall
allocationQof
layer
bottom hole flowing pressure, Pwf.
Bo Q o we could specify the well flowing pressure, P , and then

In a very Q
similar= manner,
+ Qw
wf
w inj
Bw flows, Qok and Qwk etc. in each layer.
calculate the individual
Q w inj >
34
Bo Q o
+ Qw
Bw
Well
completion
(a)
Layer
1
2
3
4
(b)
QT = Qo + Qw
Qo1
Qw1 k1, h1, P1, Sw1
Qo2
k ,h ,P ,S
Qw2 2 2 2 w2
Figure 34
Well modelling of twophase flow in a multilayered system
Qo3
Qw3 k3, h3, P3, Sw3
2 ( khk ro (So ))k
r
o .ln ek
4.4 Modelling Horizontal Wells rw
(P
Qo4
Qw4 k4, h4, P4, Sw4
Pwfk )
Figure 35 shows the trajectory of a horizontal well in a reservoir simulation

model. This is less well represented by the purely radial r/z model grid discussed
3
3
in Section 2.1 above in the context of a vertical well. Hence, it is less likely that
Q T = (Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk ) Pk Pwfk
the well connection
factors calculated
as shown in previous sections will apply for
k =1
k =1
a horizontal well. This is broadly true although the basic principle is very similar.
That is, each well sector intersects a grid block (i,j,k) even although the well may
be Q
going
through this block in say the x(i) direction and the flows between the well
Tk = (Q ok + Q wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk ) Pk Pwf
sector and the grid are given by an expression of the form:
Q o i , j, k = PI o i , j, k . P i , j, k Pwf i , j, k
(32)
where the actual

of the productivity index expression, PIoi,j,k , may be rather more
Bo Qform
o
Q
=
+
Q
complex
may intersect the block in a more complex way and (b)
w inj since (a) the well
w
Bwof the block is rather different when a horizontal well intersects it in
the aspect ratio
that the x-direction well is very close to the z-boundaries since z is often smaller
than x or y.
B Q
Q w inj >
Bw
+ Qw
35
Figure 35
Cartesian grid cut from a
3D reservoir model showing
two horizontal wells going
through the system; two
vertical wells also shown.
4.5 Hierarchies of Wells and Well Controls
Simple well control can be understood in terms of the well models discussed above.
For a single well, we can essentially set the well flowing pressure and then calculate
the flows or vice versa but not both and with certain constraints (see above).
Alternatively, we may set the wellhead pressure and then calculate the Pwf from the calculated or input - well formation to surface pressure drops etc. We now consider
controls on pairs, then groups and then clusters of groups of wells in a field - indeed,
we can even couple together the wells from several reservoirs and set more global
controls and this will be described briefly.
For a simple injector/producer well pair, for example in a 2D x/z cross-section,
we can apply a range of well controls. Suppose this is a simple waterflood in an
oil/water system. One of the most common controls is to fix the water injection
rate at the injector but with (upper) limits on the well flowing pressure. The
corresponding producer is then controlled by setting the bottom hole flowing
pressure and then allowing the calculation of the oil and water phase flows (Qo
and Qw). The volumetric production will be approximately balanced with the total
production volume being of the order of the injected water volume - but not quite
the same. Do you know why this is? Clearly the formation volume factors (Bo
and Bw) will affect the exact production volumes; when we are injecting water and
producing 100% oil, the reservoir volume of injected water per day is Qw.Bw and
this will displace (virtually) the same reservoir volume of oil. The volume of oil
produced per day is Qo stb which is actually Qo.Bo reservoir bbls, equating these
reservoir volumes shows that if we inject water at a rate of Qw (stb/day), we
produce oil at a rate of Qw.Bw/Bo stb/day. Since Bo > Bw, then the volumetric
production rate of oil (in stb/day) is lower than the injected water injection rate (in
stb/day). This must be taken into account in considering well control by voidage
replacement as discussed below.
If we wish to set injected Qw to precisely voidage replace whatever is produced, then
36
2 ( khk ro (So ))k

r
o .ln ek
rw
(P
Pwfk )

3
k =1
k =1
(
)
Pwf if the production rate of oil

PI wknoting
) Pk that
we can doQso
to (aQgood
approximation
Tk =
ok + Q
wk ) = ( PI ok + by
and water in our simulation is currently, Qo and Qw. What volume of injected water
2 khk ro (So ) k
must Q
we inject
to exactly replace the reservoir
volume
these two phases? This is
Pk Pof
ok = PI ok Pk Pwfk =
wfk
r
now quiteQstraightforward
since
and,
from
the
above
discussion,
it is evident that the
=
.
P
P
PI
i , j, k
o i , j, k
wf i , j, kek
o i , j, k
o .ln
quantity of water that must be injected,Qrw inj (in stb/day) is given by:
B Q
Q w3inj = o o + Q w 3
B
Q T = (Q ok + wQ wk ) = ( PI ok + PI wk )( Pk Pwfk )
k =1
(33)
k =1
Hence, we would gradually adjust the volume of water injected in the simulation
Bo Q o
Q w inj
+ Q wjust produced (at the last time step say) to the above
model based
on>what
we have
B
=
+
Q
Q
Q
Pk Pwf the most common option would
(
)
(PI ok + PI
w
quantityTkin orderokto voidage
Atwk
the) producer,
wk = replace.
be to constrain by bottom hole flowing pressure as described above.
P i ,less
Pwf i , j, k to constrain all wells by volumetric injection/
PI o i , j, k .but
Note Q
that
j, k common
o i , it
j, kis=possible
production rate. We can see why if we consider an incompressible fluid where it
is clearly impossible for the injection and production rates to be different since the
B go
Q to + or - , depending on whether we over- or under-injected,
pressure would
Q w inj = o o + Q w
respectively. Although
it is possible to specify different volumetric flow rates at
Bw
injector and producer for a compressible fluid, this can only be done within very tight
limits and the pressures tend to go to unrealistic limits e.g. if we over-inject
Bo Q o
Q
>
+ Q w ), the pressure tends to rise to unphysically high levels
w
inj
(i.e.
Bw
well above fracture pressure of the reservoir rock.
4.5 CLOSING REMARKS - GRIDDING AND WELL MODELLING

In this section, the student has been presented with a largely non-mathematical
description of gridding and well modelling in reservoir simulation. A more
mathematical treatment of these issues will be given as we develop the flow equations
and consider their numerical solution in Chapter 5 and 6, respectively.
37

1 ResSimCh4

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

1 ResSimCh4

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Gridding And Well Modelling

2.7 Streamline Simulationp

3. THE CALCULATION OF BLOCK TO BLOCK

5. CLOSING REMARKS - GRIDDING AND

GRIDDING AND WELL MODELLING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION

GRIDDING IN RESERVOIR SIMULATION

Gridding And Well Modelling

- 1D linear grids may be used for 1D Buckley-Leverett type water displacement

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

(a) 1D horizontal grid

(c) 2D Areal grid - top view showing

(b) 1D vertical grid

(d) 2D vertical grid

Just 1 x z - block in 2D areal grid

(e) 2D (x/z) cross-sectional model showing a waterflood

Gridding And Well Modelling

appropriate for modelling

= radial distance from well

2.2 Accuracy of Simulations and Numerical Dispersion

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Gridding And Well Modelling

Relative Permeability to Water

Mixing due to numerical dispersion

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Front moving in this direction

a 1D grid block model

2.3 Grid Orientation Effects

Flow arrows show

Gridding And Well Modelling

diagonal flow result

2.4 Local Grid Refinement (LGR)

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

2.5 Distorted Grids and Corner Point Geometry

Gridding And Well Modelling

An interesting class of non-Cartesian grids are PEBI grids; PEBI = Perpendicular

PEBI grids can be orientated

R.E Phelps, T. Pham and A.M. Shahri,

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Block <-> Block

2.6 Issues in Choosing a Reservoir Simulation Grid

Gridding And Well Modelling

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

Gridding And Well Modelling

Figure 16: (a) Extrapolation of Predicted Waterflood Recovery Efficiency for 2D

Process ==> Waterflooding

Vertical Grid Refinement

(a) a waterflood and (b) a

Vertical Grid Refinement

Homogeneous Model, kv/kh = 0.1

As vertical grid is refined

0.20 0.25 0.30

/nz grid blocksHomogeneous Model, kv/kh = 0.01

Process ==> Waterflooding

Process ==> Wiscible Water - Alternating - Gas (MWAG)

Homogeneous Model, kv/kh = 0.1

0.20 0.25 0.30

0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60

/nz grid blocks

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University

2.7 Streamline Simulation

fine grid : 5 layers

Gridding And Well Modelling

Outline of Streamline Method