SPE 50643

Application of Novel Upscaling Approaches to the Magnus and Andrew Reservoirs

M.J. King, D.G. MacDonald, S.P. Todd, H. Leung, SPE, BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd.

Copyright 1998, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE European Petroleum Conference held
in The Hague, The Netherlands, 20-22 October 1998.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Cases studies from three North Sea turbidite reservoirs will be
presented, which together demonstrate our current
understanding of permeability and relative permeability
upscaling. The three formations, the Magnus, Magnus Sand
Member (MSM), the Magnus, Lower Kimmeridge Clay
Formation (LKCF), and the Andrew reservoir each provide
distinct challenges for reservoir modelling, either because of
reservoir complexity, the fluids in place, or the phase of field
life. To meet these challenges, several novel upscaling
approaches have been developed. Their use will be explored and
current best practice delineated. This best practice differs
significantly from previous definitions of effective
permeability by placing more emphasis on extracting multiple
properties from the fine scale geologic models. Distinct
upscaling calculations are required to assess (i) the quality of
sands, (ii) the quality of barriers, and (iii) the tortuosity of flow
around these barriers. Similarly, when constructing upscaled
relative permeabilities, the effective curves are distinguished
from the pseudo curves. The former describe the physical
displacement of fluids, while the latter include the additional
numerical dispersion corrections required when implementing
the relative permeability functions within a coarsely gridded full
field simulator.
Introduction
Three dimensional geologic modelling escaped from the
laboratory approximately three years ago, taking with it a variety
of geostatistical and upscaling tools. Along the way, it acquired
3D visualisation and a graphical user interface, making it widely

accessible to asset based non-specialists. A result of this

proliferation has been a change in working practice, where the
same asset-based teams which build the geologic models now
upscale them and use them for well planning and reservoir
simulation purposes. This has highlighted limitations within the
standard approach to upscaling [1, 2] and has accelerated the
development of new upscaling methodologies [3, 4].
Perhaps we should remind ourselves of why we are building
these large geologic models, and why we need to upscale them.
The second question is easier to answer than the first. 1 - 20 1000 million cell local area and full field three dimensional
geologic models are being built, some fairly routinely. Black oil
simulation for routine engineering calculations limits us to a
maximum of about 100,000 active cells. Upscaling is the process
whereby the very detailed geologic model is reduced to the
coarser flow simulation model.
Why do we need such detailed models? Sometimes we dont:
coarse grid mass balance style calculations are often adequate
for many operational decisions. But, when we wish to improve
our mechanistic understanding of the reservoir, or to explore the
dynamic implications of different geologic concepts, then these
detailed models provide insight that otherwise would be difficult
to obtain.
Industry experience in the full life cycle of these upscaled
geologic models is still extremely limited. We are still learning
why and how to build them, what value they provide, and how
to use them in combination with more conventional techniques.
The literature includes references where these models have
worked extremely well [5, 6]. However, there are many other
(unpublished) examples in which the performance prediction
from the upscaled model was significantly different than the
performance of the reservoir and/or to the performance
prediction of sector models drawn from portions of the original
detailed geologic models.
This paper is organised around four case studies, chosen to
demonstrate different combinations of successful and
unsuccessful upscaling calculations. Three of these case studies,
and most of the material within this paper, emphasise
permeability upscaling. Multiphase upscaling (pseudoisation) is

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

included as an alternative approach for the Magnus MSM. The

first three case studies are preceded by a discussion of effective
permeability and followed by a list of elements that define best
practice, as we currently understand it. The multiphase upscaling
example is much more exploratory, and should be considered
work in progress. For convenience all of the formal
derivations are relegated to the Appendices.
Effective Permeability
What is effective permeability? A cynic could describe it in
terms of putting incorrect information into the wrong model, to
get the right answer. The wrong model is that carried in a
typical full field simulator: homogeneous blocks of numerical
rock that extend for perhaps a hundred metres or more laterally,
and which may be tens of metres thick. The incorrect
information is the effective property. But, what the cynic would
emphasise is that we can only define this property based on our
expectation of the right answer.
Consider the simplified sketch of a simple sand/shale
reservoir zone, in Figure 1a, and focus your attention onto the
coarse cell in the centre of the figure. What is the vertical
permeability of the cell? With the standard flow based
computation of effective permeability [1], the upscaling region
is treated as if it were a laboratory coreflood, Figure 1b. The
sides of the system are sealed, a pressure drop is exerted
vertically, and the pressures and flux are determined
numerically. The volumetric flux defines the effective
permeability, according to Darcys Law.

Q
P
= K EFF
A
L

( = 1) .................................................(1)

In this particular case the vertical permeability is zero. It

corresponds to the right answer in which two of the shales
stretch off to infinity. Vertical flow is not possible within the
reservoir.
This is certainly not the only possible right answer.
Another is sketched in Figure 1c, in which the upscaling volume
is embedded within a region of uniform (but unknown)
permeability. It is not necessary to explicitly solve the coupled
equations as one can show that they reduce to a linear pressure
drop on the boundary of the upscaling volume. This effective
medium approach is discussed in [4]. The calculated vertical
permeability is positive. Streamlines can run from bottom to top
of the upscaling volume, spreading beyond the volume to avoid
the shales.
Periodic boundary conditions are used in the volume
averaging literature [7, 8]. Here the upscaling volume is
embedded in multiple replicates of itself, stretching off to
infinity. As in the effective medium approach, the numerical
calculation can be re-stated as a local calculation on the
upscaling volume. In this case the calculated vertical

SPE 50643

permeability would be zero.

Finally, another possible flow picture is sketched in Figure
1d. Following Begg et.al., [9], the computational region is
extended far beyond the upscaling volume. The total vertical
flux is positive, due to tortuous flow paths which stretch the full
width of the shales. The vertical volumetric flux is only summed
within the upscaling volume, although the pressure solution is
determined on the entire computational domain. This is a more
expensive calculation than any of the local calculations
described previously.
Which value of effective permeability should be used?
The answer is that any of these values may be the right one
to use, depending upon the flow pattern which one considers to
be important. Hopefully this will become clear after examining
the three case studies. However, a few additional comments
before examining these examples.
The standard upscaling approach is a local approximation.
Although the upscaling region is physically embedded in a
larger region, upscaling is typically performed without access to
this extended information. Hence, the sand and shale patterns in
Figures 1a-c are identical within the upscaling region. However,
within a local approximation, there are some rigorous results.
The sealed side calculation will always give a lower bound, and
the linear pressure boundary conditions will give an upper
bound (over the natural set of boundary conditions). If the
results of these two local calculations differ significantly, then
the pre-dominate flow direction is to leave the cell. Both
periodic boundary conditions and the use of a wide
computational region will give intermediate values.
If the upper and lower bounds are significantly different, as
they are in this case, then the cynics perspective is correct.
However, if these two values are very close, then you have a
pleasant surprise: a representative effective permeability. This
happens more often for the horizontal permeability than for the
vertical. In this particular case, the upscaled horizontal
permeability is very close to the net-to-gross of the upscaling
volume, times the permeability of the sand, irrespective of the
manner of calculation.
Case Studies: Effective Permeability
Models of three submarine fan turbidite reservoirs will be
examined in this section. Two of these are sector models and
one is a full field model. The fine and coarse three dimensional
grids and model sizes are listed in Table 1. All three models
have been constructed and upscaled using Smedvigs IRAP
Reservoir Modeling System (IRMS version 4.0.7) [10]. The
basic upscaling approaches within IRMS follow the methods of
[1, 8], which will be demonstrated to be inadequate. Instead, we
have needed to make extensive use of the IRMS command
language to extend the upscaling toolkit and to provide the
results described herein.

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

Magnus Reservoir, Magnus Sand Member. The Magnus

MSM is a large Upper Jurassic, sand dominated, turbidite
reservoir deposited above a field wide shale bed, the B shale,
Figure 2 [11]. It was discovered in 1974, commenced production
in August of 1983, and was on plateau until January of 1995.
Decline has been managed since then with an active infill
drilling programme, which has also been extremely instructive
as to the complexity of the reservoir [12].
The MSM has an average net-to-gross of 76% and an
average net porosity of 21%. The reservoir has been depleted
with a edge-drive waterflood, with a plateau production rate of
~140 mbd. There is no gas cap and limited aquifer support. The
oil is undersaturated, with a gravity of 39 degrees API, a
viscosity of 0.48 cp and a GOR of 775 scf/stb. The waterflood is
dynamically stable with a mobility ratio close to unity, and a
frontal mobility ratio of about 0.3.
The continued infill drilling in Magnus has placed increased
emphasis on both the areal and vertical sweep patterns behind
the waterflood flood front. Surveillance has shown that in some
sands 5 - 10 metres of oil are unswept, in immediate proximity
to sands which are being effectively drained. It is for the purpose
of understanding these remaining oil targets that detailed
reservoir modelling has been under-taken, including the three
dimensional cross-sectional model described in [4]. The
geocellular resolution of this model was 0.5m vertically, and
30m x 30m areally. The model covered the four reservoir zones
above the B shale, each of which was eroded by subsequent
reservoir zones. (Of the ~750,000 cells, only ~400,000 were
active.) The model extended 2970m from below the OOWC to
the crest of the field, and had a width of 630m. Details of the
sand and mud facies, and their properties, can be found in that
reference.
The simulation was performed using the streamline based
Frontsim simulator [13] because of its speed and lack of
numerical dispersion. Without upscaling, the convergence of the
simulator was impaired because of the large number of pinchedout cells in the geologic model. Even after resampling,
simulation took several cpu days when in a history match mode,
because of the limited time-step sizes.
To reduce the simulation time to several hours, the decision
was made to upscale the model. Working within IRMS, the
model was first resampled into a shoebox computational
domain of absolutely uniform thickness, which was then
upscaled. Upscaled properties were subsequently transferred
back to a coarse proportional simulation grid. Local flow
directionality and the dip of the geologic layers within each
reservoir zone were preserved in the resampling steps using the
transmissibility construction derived in [4], and the different
tensor representations of permeability within a geologic model
and a flow simulator.

The resampling step took the model from a 99 x 21 x 352 3D

grid with pinch-out, to a 99 x 21 x 375 layer proportional model.
As this computational domain was completely featureless,
porosity was converted to cell pore volumes, and directional
permeabilities to cell transmissibilities. Over-sampling was
utilised to preserve geologic continuity, especially of muds, as
shown in Figure 3. Warren and Price flow based upscaling was
performed using a uniform 3 x 3 x 3 element to provide a
coarse 33 x 7 x 125 layer model. The average cell thickness
was less than 1.5m, and so it was believed that this was still a
high resolution, mechanistic model. Validation of the upscaling
was performed using Time of Flight streamline-based flow
visualisation [14, 4].
Was this a successful upscaling calculation? Based on the
large scale waterflood performance, as validated using Time of
Flight, the answer was yes. However, what about the original
question: definition of the remaining oil targets? Unfortunately,
inspection of the upscaled permeability patterns showed that
lateral dimensions of the muds had increased, sometimes leading
to multiple muds merging, generating significantly larger
trapped oil accumulations in the upscaled model, than in the
original geologic model, Figure 4.
In our experience, this is the single most common error
introduced when using flow based upscaling. Another example
is given in Figure 5, with more emphasis placed on the loss of
sand channel continuity upon upscaling. The sealed sides
systematically bias the permeability of sand and mud mixtures
towards muds. In a high net-to-gross system, we had not
expected this to be a significant effect, and in fact, it does not
have an impact on the gross performance of the waterflood.
However, as our calculations were intended to understand the
detailed habitat of the remaining oil, it was realised that these
upscaled models were inadequate.
Andrew Reservoir. The Andrew reservoir was discovered in
1974, and came on production in June of 1996 [15]. The
reservoir consists of a low relief structure with four way dip
closure, and a relatively thin oil column. The oil is overlain by a
gas cap, and is in contact with extensive water bearing sands,
which may provide an effective aquifer. The oil is contained
within distal Palaeocene turbidite sands, composed mainly of
fine to medium grained, clean to moderately poorly cemented
sandstones. The reservoir has a high net-to-gross (0.8 to 0.99),
medium porosities (16 to 22%), and medium permeabilities. The
oil is saturated with gas, 40 degrees API gravity, with a GOR of
871 scf/bbl.
Detailed three dimensional geologic modelling is being used
on a fieldwide basis as the fundamental static description of the
reservoir. Local area models are extracted, screened and
simulated without upscaling, to understand individual well
performance. The geologic model is also being upscaled to

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

construct the full field simulation model. Variations in geologic

description are being explored as part of the history match
process.
The field is being developed with horizontal wells.
Production will be gas constrained, so it is extremely important
to understand the extent and continuity of shales, as they will be
the major control on the vertical flow of gas within the reservoir.
The Andrew reservoir model was constructed and upscaled
using IRMS [10]. Each zone of the reservoir was upscaled
separately. The upscaling step reduced the model from
approximately 3.8 million cells (140 x 161 x 169) to 74,000 (36
x 44 x 47). After some experimentation it was decided to use
proportional layering for the geologic model as it provided
better behaved upscaled permeabilities. Because of this simple
geologic grid structure, there is no need for a resampling step, as
there was for the Magnus MSM.
In the first attempt, permeability was upscaled using the flow
base full tensor calculation within IRMS, although only the
diagonal terms were retained. Water production is shown for a
validation run on a sector model in Figure 6. The fine scale
model has the slowest increase in watercut, and the upscaled
model has the fastest. Inspection of the three dimensional
saturation profiles indicates that the upscaling process has
smeared out the shales. Although volumetrically insignificant,
the shales are extremely important for understanding the RFT
response from the field, and for predicting horizontal well
performance. Without the shales to act as barriers, water and gas
are free to move vertically throughout the reservoir. The
intermediate curve was obtained after modifying the vertical
transmissibility multipliers by hand to ensure that the largest
(deterministic) shales were correctly modelled as barriers to
flow.
The upscaling calculation was unsuccessful, essentially
because of the difficulty of modelling the shales. On balance,
both deterministic and stochastic shales are important in the
Andrew reservoir, e.g., some shales can be mapped over interwell distances, while others cannot. Nonetheless, most of the
stochastic shales are wider than single columns of the coarse
simulation model, allowing vertical flow in the reservoir, but
requiring that the flow be tortuous.
The upscaling calculation has another feature: volumetrically
insignificant shales which form vertical barriers will be
modelled as cells with zero permeability, PERMZ = 0. This
over-estimates the volume of shale, and also over-estimates its
flow impact, as indicated in Figure 7. In a finite difference
calculation, we can visualise flow as running along pipes from
cell centre to cell centre [16]. With this image in mind, we see
that zero permeability not only prevents flow through a cell, but
it also prevents flow through the half cells on either side. The
spatial resolution can be doubled, and the volumetric impact of
shales removed, if instead shale barriers are modelled as

SPE 50643

transmissibility barriers, MULTZ = 0.

With this construction in mind, a half cell upscaling
approach was developed for the vertical permeabilities:
(1) Upscale using the full tensor permeability algorithm, into a
3D grid identical to the full field model in X and Y, but with
twice as many layers;
(2) Each cell in the FFM now has two corresponding cells on
this grid, and two permeability values. Select the greater of
the two PERMZ values for the FFM;
(3) Upscale using the sealed side flow based algorithm, into a
3D grid shifted up one-half cell from the original grid, and
centred on the faces of the FFM;
(4) Calibrate the vertical inter-cell transmissibility multiplier
from the permeability on the face (from Step 3), and the
harmonic average of vertical transmissibilities from the two
adjacent cells (from Step 2):
2( KZ DZ ) k ( KZ DZ ) k +1
KZ
= MULTZk
......... (2)

DZ k +1/ 2
( KZ DZ ) k + ( KZ DZ ) k +1

The harmonic average is the standard expression for inter-cell

transmissibility [16, 17], here simplified since the crosssectional area is in common throughout the coarse column.
Values of MULTZ typically vary from zero to unity. When
sand is juxtaposed again shale, then MULTZ = 0. In regions of
uniform properties, MULTZ 1 . Otherwise, MULTZ takes on
intermediate values, depending upon the local contrast in
vertical permeabilities.
The results of this extra effort have been quite gratifying. In
Figure 6, the water-cut prediction of the upscaled model now
follows the fine scale prediction extremely closely. In Figure 8,
a cross-section through the FFM is shown, with a clearly
resolved gas under-run indicated. Finally in Figure 9, the actual
gas production of well A04 tracks the most likely prediction.
Magnus Reservoir, Lower Kimmeridge Clay Formation. The
Magnus reservoir consists of two units: the MSM described
earlier, and a lower unit, the mud-dominated Lower Kimmeridge
Clay Formation (LKCF) [18], Figure 2. The LKCF is a
geologically complex generally low net-to-gross reservoir,
consisting mainly of sequences of thinly bedded sandstones and
mudstones inter-bedded on the centimetre to metre scale. The
field average net-to-gross is less than 25%, but it varies from
~65% in the crest of the field, to essentially zero on the margins.
The dominant reservoir facies is structureless, fine to coarse
grained sandstone, with permeabilities up to 800 mD. These
high density turbidites are often deformed by water escape
structures, injected sands, and slumping.
As with the MSM, a three dimensional model was
constructed to explore different geologic concepts of the LKCF,
and to support LKCF development planning. A waterflood pilot
in the southern basin of the LKCF has been successful, but its

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

extension across the field is problematic. Fieldwide RFT

response indicates that pressure communication exists within the
LKCF, and between the LKCF and the MSM. However, it is not
clear what kind of oil recovery efficiencies are likely, nor how
the recovery factor will vary with well spacing.
The LKCF sector model was constructed below the crest of
the MSM, Figure 2, because of the availability of LKCF core
data, and as a compromise between calibration with field
performance of the southern basin waterflood, and prediction of
crestal recoveries. This model covered a significantly greater
gross volume than the MSM model, covering an area of 3.2km x
3.2km, and all six reservoir zones. The geocellular resolution
was 50m x 50m areally, and as before, 0.5m vertically. The
model consisted of approximately 1.7 million cells, of which
about half were active. An upscaled model was required in order
to perform well spacing studies in reasonable amounts of
simulation time.
A typical geocellular model is shown in Figure 10. The
reservoir is mud dominated, and in the model, all sands are in
immediate proximity to the muds. As discussed earlier, such
sand and mud mixtures are expected to upscale to mud,
destroying the reservoir quality. After the success of the half cell
upscaling approach for Andrew, it was both simplified and
extended for the LKCF.
The extension has to do with the complexity of fluid flow
within the LKCF. In Andrew, half cell upscaling was used to
improve the vertical resolution of the coarse model. In the LKCF
it is as important to retain lateral flow: the sketch of Figure 5 is
expected to be typical of the sands within the LKCF. Hence, the
approach was extended to all three directions.
It was also possible to simplify the half cell upscaling
approach described earlier. Steps (1) and (2) together were used
to calculate a cell permeability which was rarely zero, and that
only in regions of uniform thick shales. Step (3) independently
calculated the inter-cell transmissibility with a second upscaling
calculation, which was then encoded as a multiplier with respect
to the cell permeabilities in Step (4). However, as long as the
cell permeabilities did not vanish, then these inter-cell
transmissibilities in no way depended upon the cell
permeabilities. Hence, we may avoid the expense of a flow
based calculation for the cell permeabilities, and instead replace
their determination with a simpler method.
We have chosen to calculate the cell permeabilities using a
well productivity based upscaling approach described in the
Appendix. In other words, we ask that the productivity of a
perforation within each coarse cell of the model, be identical to
the average of the productivities within all of the corresponding
fine cells. As these hypothetical perforations can have three
possible orientations, we obtain three equations for KXEFF,
KYEFF, and KZEFF. This may either be viewed as an artifice to
calculate non-zero permeabilities, or, one may recognise that

permeabilities enter into the calculation of well connection

factors, just as they do the inter-cell transmissibilities [19].
Either equation may be used to calibrate the permeabilities. As
discussed earlier, the simulator has higher spatial resolution if
transmissibilities are modelled as face properties, instead of cell
properties. The advantage of this approach is obvious in Figure
11, where in contrast to Figure 5, the continuity of the sands are
preserved.
So, in summary, the half cell upscaling approach for the
LKCF consists of:
(1) Upscale all three directional cell permeabilities using the
algebraic well productivity algorithm;
(2) Upscale across each face of the coarse 3D grid, using the
sealed side flow based algorithm;
(3) Calibrate the three inter-cell transmissibility multipliers from
the permeability on the face (from Step 2), and the harmonic
average of directional transmissibilities from the two
adjacent cells (from Step 1).
There is one additional implementation detail for the LKCF
which was not required for Andrew. The LKCF model is
constructed of geologic layers which erode at the zone
boundaries. It is important that the spatial correlation of sands
within the geologic model be preserved when IRMS performs
the flow based upscaling calculations, even in the presence of
erosion of these layers. This was ensured by reconstructing the
eroded portions of each zone so that each coarse cell consisted
or apparently non-eroded fine cells. Although each zone was
upscaled separately, this reconstruction accessed fine scale
permeability information from the adjacent zone before
initiating the flow based upscaling calculation.
The results are shown in Figures 12 - 15. In Figure 12, a
three dimensional four well flooding pattern through the 1.7
million cell (64 x 64 x 452) geologic model of Figure 10 is
shown. The Time of Flight flow visualisation shows the flood
progressing from the two downdip injectors to the two updip
producers in a fence diagram. Figure 13 shows the same pattern
after a 2 x 2 x 6 half cell upscaling, which reduced the model to
approximately 70,000 cells (32 x 32 x 72). Both of these
calculations had flow rates specified for the four wells.
Additional validation is obtained in Figure 14, where the
pressure gradients calculated in Figure 12 are applied to the
70,000 cell, half cell upscaled, model. The flooding pattern is
extremely similar. Pressures are presented also, and show that
internal permeability and flow is being preserved. In contrast,
Figure 15 shows a similar flow and pressure visualisation when
conventional sealed side flow based upscaling was used. The
total flow rate is now only 5% of the previous figure. The
pressures indicate that the model has been upscaled into a fairly
uniform, extremely low quality reservoir.

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

Best Practice: Effective Permeability

What have we learned from these three case studies? The most
important lesson is that upscaling is not simply a mathematical
transformation of one three dimensional model into another.
Instead, it is very much as described by the cynic: one must
decide upon the important flow solution, and select numerical
techniques that extract the appropriate effective properties.
This is very different than in the upscaling of porosity or net-togross, in which there is a physically conserved property
(volume) and an obvious manner of calculating its average
(addition). Although the lack of an unique upscaling approach
may be viewed as an issue, it is in fact an opportunity: we select
an upscaling method to extract the information of choice from
the detailed geologic model.
The lack of a unique upscaling approach does not mean that
there are no guidelines that can be developed. Here is a checklist
of six items that have been explored through these examples.
Layering. It is extremely important to preserve the geologic
correlations of the fine scale models while upscaling, especially
in cross-section. In the Magnus MSM, this rule was violated, but
was compensated for by using over-sampling. Andrew explicitly
used proportional layering for the geologic model as this fine
grid nestled simply into the coarse grid. In the Magnus LKCF,
the eroded geologic layers were reconstructed for each of the
active coarse cells before upscaling.
In our experience, if this step is not handled carefully, then
the geologic model may be randomised upon upscaling.
Effective spatial correlation lengths may be limited to fractions
of the coarse cell size. Most importantly, shale continuity may
be compromised, and upscaled Kv/Kh ratios may approach
unity.
Preserve Sand Quality. The most common error in
permeability upscaling is to not distinguish between the different
uses of permeability within a model. In particular, the sealed
side flow based effective permeability calculation of Warren and
Price is used far more frequently than it should be.
Mathematically it provides a lower bound on the effective
permeability. Physically it reduces the permeability of sand and
mud mixtures, thickening shales, and narrowing and
disconnecting sand channels.
Typically, the productivity of a well in the field starts high
and then diminishes. The early production is due to the fluids in
immediate proximity to the well, and the quality of the near-by
sands. Sustained production requires that these fluids be
replenished. The well productivity based upscaling approach
calibrates the cell permeabilities to correctly model the first
flush of production. The inter-cell transmissibility controls the
sustained production.

SPE 50643

Preserve Barriers. An excellent use of the Warren and Price

upscaling approach is to determine the continuity of reservoir
baffles and barriers, especially at the scale of the coarse grid
block. In Andrew, it was important to determine if gas could
cone directly down from the OGOC, or whether the path of the
gas would be far more tortuous and would under-run the shales.
The half cell upscaling approach takes advantage of the
redundancy of permeability and transmissibility multipliers
within the flow simulators, to model both reservoir quality and
barriers simultaneously. Further, modelling barriers as inter-cell
transmissibility modifiers has doubled the effective spatial
resolution of the simulation, compared to grid based
permeabilities. As this benefit is obtained in all three directions,
the improvement in volumetric resolution is a factor of 2**3 = 8.
Preserve Flow Around Barriers. In the Andrew and Magnus
LKCF examples, inter-cell transmissibilities were calibrated
using the Warren and Price algorithm. Is this always the best
approach? In the discussion of [9], vertical permeability is
thought of as a global property, although its value is placed in
individual coarse cells. As the vertical flow of fluid becomes
more tortuous, as in Figure 1d, then the tendency of the sealed
side calculation will be to still under-estimate flow. As the
coarse cell gets thicker compared to the vertical shales and
muds, then the calculated permeability may drop to zero,
completely removing pressure support from a large portion of
the reservoir.
In such a case it is almost certainly preferable to calibrate the
vertical transmissibility using the non-local computational
region of Figure 1d. However, by so doing, we are in the realm
of the cynic, as this contradicts the recommendation to preserve
barriers. Again, decide upon which element of the reservoirs
performance is most important, and then extract the appropriate
upscaled properties.
Validation and Iterations. In our experience, no results from
an upscaling calculation have ever been correct the first time.
Sometimes it is the upscaling calculation itself which has
performed in a manner other than expected. Other times it is the
geologic model. More positively, after performing an upscaling
calculation one is in a position to ascertain the dynamic
consequences of the static model. For example, for the Magnus
LKCF, the forward prediction of the geologic model lead to a reevaluation of the core data, and a decrease in importance of the
injected sands.
Some of the validation is conceptual, as in a review of the
underlying geologic concepts. However, other forms of
validation are purely numerical, as in the comparison of fine and
coarse scale simulation of sector models (Andrew) or in the
Time of Flight flow visualisation (Magnus MSM and LKCF). In
one way or another, distinct forms of validation should be

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

utilised, corresponding to the distinct uses of permeability

already listed.
Still An Approximation! Finally, it should be remembered that
upscaling is still an approximation. There will always be
permeability distributions which are difficult to upscale. As an
example, examine Figure 16, where sands on a mud background
are upscaled onto two coarse cells. Most upscaling approaches
will merge the two disconnected sands upon upscaling. This
problem is most effectively handled by re-gridding the problem.
Options are to shift the coarse grid to prevent merger, or to regrid to a slightly finer coarse mesh, or sometimes to re-grid to a
much coarser mesh in which the sands as recognised as isolated.
This concludes the discussion of single phase upscaling. Of
the cases studied, two have been successful and one has not.
We return to the Magnus MSM example, and consider its
upscaling as a multiphase flow example.
Multiphase Upscaling
All of the single phase upscaling case studies had one important
unspoken assumption: that the upscaled model was to be
mechanistic. In other words, it was important that the detailed
heterogeneity of the geologic model be preserved, so that we
could rely upon the upscaled model to describe the interaction of
the displacement mechanisms with this heterogeneity.
In the Magnus LKCF example, we are very close to violating
this assumption. In the reservoir, and in the reservoir model, few
sands are individually thicker than 2.0m. With the half cell
upscaling, the 3.0m thick cells have an effective vertical
resolution of 1.5m, allowing these sands, and their contrast from
the muds, to be modelled. However, with even a factor of 2
coarser cells, then there would be no expectation of providing a
mechanistic simulation of the LKCF using solely single phase
upscaling techniques.
In such a case, there is little choice but to include finer scale
fluid by-passing and displacement mechanisms within the
upscaled effective relative permeabilities, i.e., to use pseudo
relative permeabilities. There is an extensive literature on
pseudos, which we will not attempt to summarise. However, we
do recommend two recent reviews of dynamic pseudos [20, 21]
and the literature summarised therein.
The method being presented is a hybrid, with elements
selected from different approaches to minimise known artifacts.
It is a total mobility approach, in which the phase mobilities

( )
( S ) = ( S ) + ( S ) , and a fractional water flow,
F ( S ) = ( S ) ( S ) . Effective fractional flows and total

W ( SW ) , O SW , are analysed in terms of a total mobility,

W

mobilities will be determined by analysing a suitably averaged

sequence of saturation profiles obtained by direct simulation.

The effective phase relative permeabilities will be derived

secondarily.
The discussion will also distinguish between the calculation
of effective and pseudo relative permeabilities. The former
describe the physical displacement of fluids, while the latter
include the additional numerical dispersion corrections required
when implementing the relative permeability functions within a
coarsely gridded full field simulator.
We take advantage of the JBN method for interpreting a
laboratory coreflood as it is guaranteed to provide water and oil
relative permeabilities which exactly reproduce the laboratory
experiments [22, 23]. This approach is similar to that of [24].
However, the combination of the treatment of effective total
mobility (as opposed to fractional flow), and numerical
dispersion corrections are new.
Fractional Flow. The derivations follow [22, 23]. The analysis
is based upon the one dimensional Buckley-Leverett equations
for incompressible fluids in a variable cross-section. After
appropriate transformations, the pore volume becomes the
equivalent of spatial position, and the volume of water injected
is the equivalent of time. The JBN approach calculates both the
fractional water flow and the water saturation at the outlet, based
on the average water saturation and its time derivative.
FW ,OUT ( T ) = 1 PV

d SW ( T )

dT
................................... (3)
d
1
SW ,OUT ( T ) =
T SW ( T )
dT 1

A cross-plot of the two provides a single fractional flow curve

that is guaranteed to reproduce the average waterflood
performance, SW ( T ) , within an analytic calculation. Such an
effective fractional flow curve can also be utilised directly within
the Frontsim simulator, as the latter is free from numerical
dispersion.
How may this result be extended to finite difference
calculations? If one integrates the differential equations over the
space of a grid block and the interval of a time step, then one
obtains a finite difference form for the Buckley-Leverett
equations [25, 26]. The average saturation in a grid block is then
exactly determined from the time averaged fluxes which enter
and leave that block. The order of the numerical scheme is then
related to how this time averaged flux function is calculated
from block averaged saturations [27].
Ignoring for the moment the time discretization, then the
equivalent of the JBN analysis is obtained by calculating the
average saturation within the last (outlet) grid block of the
hypothetical homogeneous solution.

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

PVOUT SW

OUT

(T )

T PV ....(4)

= PV SW ( T ) PV PVOUT SW
PV PVOUT

In other words, the average saturation in a volume adjacent to

the system outlet (a pore volume of PVOUT ), can be obtained
from the average saturation in the total system at the same time
and at the later time of ( T PV ) ( PV PVOUT ) .
Two limits are easy to understand: the use of one coarse
simulation cell, PVOUT = PV , and the use of many cells,
PVOUT PV 0 . The first is the standard pseudoisation
approach in which the fractional flow at the outlet of the system
is cross-plotted against the average saturation of the total
system,

SW

OUT

analytic result,

= SW

[28]. The second limit is that of the

SW

SW ,OUT , Eqn (3). Hence Eqn (4)

OUT

provides an interpolant between pseudos for use in fine grid

simulation (analytic result) and in coarse grids. Because of the
intrinsic relationship between Eqns (3) and (4), we will call Eqn
(4) the extended JBN analysis.
The fractional flow function obtained by a cross-plot of
FW ,OUT (T ) and SW OUT ( T ) will include the effects of spatial
truncation, appropriate for a first order finite difference scheme.
This is an exact result for a pseudo fractional flow, in the limit
of very small time steps.
Once a finite time step size is selected, then FW ,OUT (T ) may
be averaged over each time interval, providing a result which is
exact for finite time steps. Unfortunately, the simulation time
step size is rarely known when constructing a pseudo, especially
as it may vary during the course of a simulation run. However,
the impact of numerical scheme and time step size are easy to
understand. For an IMPES scheme, the (time averaged)
fractional flow is represented as a function of the initial
upstream block averaged saturation. For a fully implicit
representation, the fractional flow depends upon the final
upstream block averaged saturation [16].
Consider the sketch of Figure 17. The underlying curve is
the effective fractional flow function: a cross-plot of
instantaneous outlet fractional flow versus the instantaneous
outlet saturation. In both numerical schemes, the block averaged
saturation is at a higher water saturation than the instantaneous
outlet saturation, moving a point on the curve to the right. The
time averaged fractional flow is greater than its initial value, but
less than its final value, either moving a point up or down,
depending upon the numerical scheme. For an IMPES method,
the spatial and temporal truncation errors tend to compensate for
each other. Although individual points will shift, as the local

SPE 50643

CFL number approaches unity, the overall impact of numerical

dispersion may be negligible. (This may explain why the
performance of multiphase renormalisation improves when no
attempt is made to correct for numerical dispersion [29].) For
fully implicit schemes, the two errors augment, driving the
pseudo fractional flow curve down and to the right.
Total Mobility. None of this development has included
discussion of the effective total mobility. It has relied solely
upon knowledge of the water and oil volumes as functions of
time, with no mention of distributed or averaged pressures. As
no total mobility upscaling technique is rigorous [20, 21], the
decision was made to use a simple approach instead: steady state
upscaling [30 - 32]. In particular, if the fine scale (rock) curves
do not vary with facies or poro-fabric, then the upscaled curve is

simply the rock curve, OUT SW ,OUT .

The rock relative permeability curves are typically
determined by a reservoir condition unsteady state experiment,
and are available in tabular form. The only remaining decision is
how to interpolate between these points, especially in the
saturation interval below the Buckley-Leverett shock saturation.
The JBN analysis provides the necessary guidance: for one
dimensional incompressible flow, the pressure gradient is
proportional to the inverse of the total mobility, which is what
we use. Further for saturations below the shock saturation, the

( )

1 SW

curve is evaluated using quadratic interpolation to

insure that these saturations are less mobile than the shock
saturation, as is required physically.
Magnus Reservoir, Magnus Main Sand. We return to the
Magnus MSM example, but now upscale to a coarse grid
comparable to the 1997 Magnus Full Field Model (FFM97). The
average grid block size is less than 100m laterally, but there is
only a single layer for each of the reservoir zones. The only
possibility of accessing mechanistic information is through
multiphase pseudoisation. Although in the reservoir the zones
communicate, the JBN analysis can only be used for one
dimensional floods. Hence, each of the four zones are upscaled
independently. A wall of injectors is placed on the downdip face
of the geologic model, and a wall of producers, updip. The
multiple perforations are pressure controlled, although the total
injection and production rates are fixed to give a Darcy velocity
of 0.3m/day.
As there is a degradation of reservoir quality downdip, the
flood is initiated at the OWC. Because of erosion of one zone by
the next, each reservoir zone may not be continuous, in which
case an attempt was made to include the largest possible volume.
For convenience, the number of grid blocks along the flow
direction was chosen to be a multiple of three. Transversely the
entire width of the model was included in the simulation.

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

Three dimensional saturation distributions are determined as

a function of time using the Frontsim simulator. (All pinchedout cells are now on the boundary of the simulation domain, and
so the convergence difficulties mentioned earlier do not arise.)
These saturation profiles are averaged using the Gridsim postprocessor [13] to obtain a one dimensional saturation profile, at
the resolution of the coarse grid. Pore volumes were upscaled to
the same resolution, providing the necessary spatial coordinates
to apply the extended JBN analysis.
As an example, consider the top reservoir zone of the
Magnus MSM. The simulation was performed on a 39 x 21 x 61
cell 3D grid. Initial time steps were set at 60 days, increasing
gradually to 730 days late in the simulation. Simulation
continued until a water-cut in excess of 98% was achieved.
Using Gridsim, the saturation profiles and pore volumes were
coarsened to a 13 x 1 x 1 domain. As in the above discussion,
we will first determine the effective and then the pseudo
fractional flows, followed by total mobility and pseudo relative
permeabilities.
The extended JBN analysis is based upon the average
saturation. In a traditional laboratory experiment the only
volume over which this average is available is the entire system.
However, the simulator provides an entire three dimensional
saturation profile, and so the average can be selected at will.
With 13 coarse blocks, each of which are comparable in length
to an FFM97 cell, then we can support 13 different
pseudoisation calculations from this one data set. We reference
the analysis to each of the 13 outlet faces by using a saturation
averaged over the entire upstream profile. This manipulation of
the saturation profiles, and the entire pseudoisation calculation,
are performed using Excel Visual Basic.
Two features are apparent within these fractional flow
curves, Figure 18. At low fractional flows, the foot of the curve
continues to steepen as the profile evolves. This is a gravity
slump, the importance of which is increasing as the flood
proceeds. However, at late times, the rate of recovery appears to
be essentially independent of cell, i.e., independent of the
viscous to gravity ratio.
Figure 19 shows the spatial numerical dispersion correction,
with a cross-plot of the outlet block saturation, versus the outlet
saturation. For the first series, there is only one coarse block in
the profile, providing a significant difference between these two
saturations. For the last series (series 13), the differences are
quite small, giving essentially a straight line. Once there are
more than six or seven blocks, the numerical dispersion
corrections are quite small. At late times, the saturation profiles
are more uniform, as the flood approaches the irreducible water
saturation. Then, even for the early series, the numerical
dispersion corrections are small.
Figure 20 shows the pseudo fractional flow curve: a crossplot of outlet fractional flow versus outlet block saturation.

There is far more spread between these curves, than the effective
fractional flows. Apparently, numerical dispersion is more
important than the physical displacement mechanisms. The
impact of gravity is still present, but not as obvious as in the
effective curves.
Figure 21 is a plot of the inverse mobility function,
determined from the rock curves. There is no evidence that the
rock relative permeabilities vary significantly with facies or with
rock fabric for any of the reservoir facies. With a single set of
rock water and oil relative permeability curves, then the steady
state upscaling approach reproduces this curve. The parabolic fit
is used to simplify the evaluation of the inverse mobility,
especially at saturations below the shock saturation.
Figures 22 and 23 show the result of combining the inverse
mobility function with the pseudo fractional flow curves. The
effects of numerical dispersion and of gravity are both evident in
these final curves. At late times, dispersion is less important but
the gravity slump has had more opportunity to evolve. For early
times dispersion is extremely important but the gravity slump
has had little opportunity to act.
The question remains: which of these 13 pairs of pseudo
relative permeability curves should be used in the full field
model? The answer depends upon the injection - production well
spacing. A typical well distance within FFM97 is about 400m,
and so the series 4 set of curves were applied. These pseudos
differed significantly from previous calculations (DykstraParsons, and simulation based) in predicting that when water
first arrived at a producer it would only provide a limited
increase in water-cut, followed by an extended period of
negligible water-cut increase. This is much more typical of the
field response than the predictions based on the previous
pseudos.
Multiphase Discussion
The Magnus MSM pseudoisation has demonstrated the ability to
separately resolve physical mechanisms, e.g., gravity slumping,
and numerical dispersion. The resulting pseudo curves appear
reasonably monotonic and can be used in simulation with little
modification. This approach has extended the classic JBN
analysis to include numerical dispersion corrections in the
fractional flow.
The upscaling of total mobility has been significantly
simplified with the use of steady state upscaling, removing much
of the difficulty in its calculation. In a one dimensional model of
fluid flow, the total mobility decouples from the prediction of
saturation, and so the latter cannot be used to invalidate this
simplification. Numerically calculated pressures may potentially
be used for this purpose, but their averaging from a three
dimensional distributed system to a one dimensional pressure
profile has sufficient ambiguity that again may make validation
(or invalidation) of this simplification difficult.

10

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

One important implementation detail in this approach was

the treatment of total mobility below the Buckley-Leverett shock
saturation. If simple linear interpolation is used, then the total
mobility will be artificially high. This is definitely non-physical,
as the two phase total mobility must decrease as the phases
compete for the pore space. The pseudos calculated in this
manner will be artificially increased in this saturation range,
leading to non-monotonic pseudo relative permeabilities,
potentially with values greater than their endpoint values.
Many questions remain with this approach. We have
separated the reservoir zones into four distinct calculations.
Gravity slumping is permitted within a zone during the
pseudoisation, and between zones when used in the full field
model. Is this a valid separation? What about the requirement
for incompressible flow? It is definitely required to preserve the
scaling behaviour of the Buckley-Leverett solution. Are other
treatments possible when rock or fluid compressibility are not
negligible? Finally, what about the interaction between upscaled
absolute permeability and the pseudoisation? The current
development is suitable for when permeability is smoothly
varying, but is likely to over-emphasise the impact of
heterogeneity otherwise. Extensive use has been made of the
exact nature of the JBN formulation, including the numerical
dispersion corrections. However, the impact of time step size is
difficult to pre-calculate, as time steps in the simulator are often
quite large (fully implicit) and variable in magnitude (IMPES
and fully implicit).
After this work was completed, the authors received a
preprint from Stanford University, which applied similar
numerical dispersion corrections [33]. Their application was to
one dimensional waterflood, which allowed a treatment of total
mobility upscaling identical to that of JBN for laboratory
coreflood. Interestingly, the resulting pseudo curves are much
more prone to non-monotonicity that those obtained in the
present study, although whether this is due to the one
dimensional floods, or to the treatment of total mobility, must be
added to the list of open questions.
Conclusions
1. The upscaling of single phase permeability and
transmissibility has been shown to be a critical step in
extracting maximum value from detailed geologic models.
When done with understanding, permeability upscaling has
been demonstrated in several case studies to provide
excellent reservoir performance prediction.
2. It is recommended that permeability upscaling be performed
for distinct reservoir properties: sand quality, barriers, and
flow around barriers.
3. Half cell upscaling has been developed to simultaneously
extract as much of this information as possible from the
geologic model. It also provides roughly a factor of 8

SPE 50643

improved resolution compared to standard approaches.

4. Layering, validation, iterations, and managing expectations
are as important elements of upscaling as those listed above.
A checklist of six items has been provided to remind the
practitioner of this.
5. A novel approach to multiphase upscaling has also been
developed. This treatment extends the laboratory-scale JBN
approach to include numerical dispersion effects, and
allowed the separate evaluation of physical and numerical
components within the pseudo relative permeabilities.
Nomenclature
= Phase mobility, L3t/m
= Viscosity, m/Lt
A = Area, L2
da = Area element, L2
dq = Flux density, L/t
dv = Volume element, L3
DV = Cell volume, L3
DZ = Cell thickness, L
F = Fractional flow, dimensionless
K, K[X|Y|Z], PERMZ = Permeability, L2
MULT[X|Y|Z] = Transmissibility modifiers, dimensionless
n = Normal vector, L2
P, P = Pressure, Pressure drop, m/Lt2
PV = Pore Volume, L3
Q = Volumetric flux, L3/t
r = Pressure drop vector, L
S = Saturation, dimensionless
T = Volume Injected, L3
TFace = Face Transmissibility, L4t/m
u = Darcy velocity, L/t
x = Position vector, L
Subscripts & Superscripts
, S = Upscaling surfaces
= Upscaling domain
EFF = Effective value
h = Horizontal
i, j, k = Cell indices
O = Oil
OUT = Outlet, Outlet block
v = Vertical
W = Water
Acknowledgements
The material in this paper, and its exposition, were developed in
the course of extensive discussions with many colleagues within
BP, too numerous to list individually. However, special thanks

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

go to the Magnus Subsurface team, especially Ken Wells and

Dave Richards, for providing the foundations for much of this
work, to Alistair Jones for his review of the multiphase
upscaling literature, and to Paul Bowden and Pat Neeve for their
work with the Andrew simulations. External to BP, special
thanks to Lou Durlofsky, Chris Farmer, Tom Hewett, Lindsay
Kaye, Don Peaceman, Jens Rolfness and Jeb Tyrie.
The authors would like to thank the Magnus License partners
and the Andrew License partners for their permission to publish
this paper.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of BP Exploration.
References
1. Warren, J.E. and Price, H.S.: "Flow in Heterogeneous Porous
Media," SPEJ (Sept. 1961).
2. Begg, S.H., Carter R.R. and Dranfield P.: Assigning Effective
Values to Simulator Gridblock Parameters for Heterogeneous
Reservoirs, SPE Reservoir Engineering, 455, (November 1989).
3. King, M.J., King, P.R., McGill, C.A, Williams, J.K.: Effective
Properties for Flow Calculations, Transport in Porous Media, 20,
169, (1995).
4. King, M.J. and Mansfield, M.: Flow Simulation of Geologic
Models, SPE38877, 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, (5-8 October 1997).
5. Shaw, A.L., Cunningham, A.B., Johnson S.R., Pearce, A.J., and
Adamson, G.R.: "Comparison of Stochastic and Deterministic
Geologic Models Used in Reservoir Simulations for the Endicott
Field, Alaska," SPE 26072, Western Regional Meeting,
Anchorage, AK, (26-28 May 1993.)
6. Tyler, K.J., Svanes, T., and Omdal S.: "Faster History Matching
and Uncertainty in Predicted Production Profiles With Stochastic
Modeling," SPE 26420, 68th Annual Technical Meeting and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, (3-6 October 1993).
7. Quintard, M. and Whitaker, S.: Two-Phase Flow in
Heterogeneous Porous Media: The Method of Large-Scale
Averaging, Transport in Porous Media, 3, 357, (1988).
8. Durlofsky, L.J.: "Numerical Calculation of Equivalent Grid Block
Permeability Tensors for Heterogeneous Porous Media, Water
Resources Research 27, 699, (1991).
9. Begg, S.H. and King, P.R.: Modelling the Effects of Shales on
Reservoir Performance: Calculation of Effective Vertical
Permeability, SPE 13529 (1985).
10. IRAP Reservoir Modeling System USER GUIDE, Geomatic a.s,
Oslo, Norway, (Jan 1997).
11. Shepherd, M.: "The Magnus Field, Blocks 211/7a, 12a, UK North
Sea", from I.L. Abbotts, ed., United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields,
25 Years Commemorative Volume, Geological Society Memoir
No. 14, 153 (1991).
12. Day, S., Griffin, T., and Martins, P.: Redevelopment and
Management of the Magnus Field for Post-Plateau Production,
SPE 49130, 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, (2730 September 1998).
13. Frontsim User Manual, Technical Software Consultants a.s, Oslo,
Norway, (1997).

11

14. Datta-Gupta, A., King, M.J.: "A Semianalytical Approach to

Tracer Flow Modeling in Heterogeneous Permeable Media,"
Advances in Water Resources, 18, 9, (1995).
15. Speers, R.: The Andrew Reservoir, BPX MTL Project on the
Appraisal of Turbidite Reservoirs, (1996).
16. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier
(1979).
17. ECLIPSE 100 Technical Reference Manual, GeoQuest, Abingdon,
UK, (1997).
18. Speers, R.: The Magnus LKCF Reservoir, ibid.
19. Peaceman, D.W.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in
Numerical Reservoir Simulation With Nonsquare Grid Blocks and
Anisotropic Permeability," SPEJ 531, (June 1983).
20. Barker, J.W., and Dupouy, P.: An Analysis of Dynamic Pseudo
Relative Permeability Methods, Proceedings of the 5th European
Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Leoben, Austria,
(3-6 Sept. 1996).
21. Barker, J.W., and Thibeau, S.: A Critical Review of the Use of
Pseudorelative Permeabilities for Upscaling, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, 138, (May 1997).
22. Johnson, E.F., Bossler, D.P., and Naumann, V.O.: Calculation of
Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments, Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 61, (Jan. 1959).
23. Jones, S.C., and Roszelle, W.O., Graphical Techniques for
Determining Relative Permeability From Displacement
Experiments, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 807, (May
1978).
24. Muggeridge, A.H.,: Generation of Pseudo Relative Permeabilities
from Detailed Simulation of Flow in Heterogeneous Porous
Media, Proceedings of the 2nd International Reservoir
Characterization Technical Conference, NIPER/DOE, Dallas, TX,
(25-28 June 1989).
25. Wheeler, M.F., and Russel, T.F.: Finite Element d Difference
Methods for Continuous Flows in Porous Media, in Mathematics
of Reservoir Simulation, R.W. Ewing, ed., SIAM Publications,
(1984).
26. Ekrann, S., and Mykkeltveit, J.: "Dynamic Pseudos: How
Accurate Outside Their Parent Case, SPE 29138, 13th SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Antonio, TX, (12-15
February 1995).
27. Shubin, G.R., and Bell, J.B.: Higher Order Godonov Methods for
Reducing Numerical Dispersion in Numerical Simulation, SPE
13514, 8th SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, TX,
(10-13 February 1985).
28. Kyte, J.R., and Berry, D.W.: New Pseudo Functions to Control
Numerical Dispersion, SPEJ, 269, (August 1975).
29. Christie, M.A., Mansfield, M., King, P.R., Barker, J.W., and
Culverwell, I.: A Renormalisation-Based Upscaling Technique
for WAG Floods in Heterogeneous Reservoirs, SPE 29127, 13th
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, San Antonio, TX, (12-15
February 1995).
30. Alabert, F.G., and Corre, B.: Heterogeneity in a Complex
Turbiditic Reservoir: Impact on Field Development, SPE 22902,
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, (1991).
31. Smith, E.H.: The Influence of Small-Scale Heterogeneity on
Average Relative Permeability, in Reservoir Characterisation II,
Acaemic Press, 52, (1991).

12

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

32. Saad, N., Cullick, A.S., and Honarpour, M.M.: Effective Relative
Permeability in Scale-Up and Simulation, SPE 29592, Joint
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting and Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, (20-22 March 1995).
33. Hewett, T.A., Suzuki, K., and Christie, M.A.: Analytical
Calculation of Coarse-Grid Corrections for Use in
Pseudofunctions, Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on
the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, (Sept. 1998).
34. Bear, J.: Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, Dover, New York,
(1988).
35. Kreyszig, E.: Advanced Engineering Mathematics, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, (1993).
36. Pickup G.E., Jensen, J.L., Ringrose, P.S. and Sorbie, K.S.: "A
Method for Calculating Permeability Tensors using Perturbed
Boundary Conditions," Proceedings of the 3rd European
Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Delft, (1992).
37. King, M.J.: "Application and Analysis of a New Method for
Calculating Tensor Permeability" in New Developments in
Improved Oil Recovery, ed. H.J. de Haan, Geological Society
Special Publication 84, Geological Society Publications, Bath,
UK, (1995).
38. Avatsmark, I., Barkve, T. and Mannseth, T.: "Control-Volume
Discretization Methods for 3D Quadrilateral Grids in
Inhomogeneous, Anisotropic Reservoirs," SPE 38000, 14th SPE
Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Dallas, TX, (8-11 June 1997).

Appendix: Upscaling Fundamentals

In the text, three styles of single phase upscaling have been
described without explicitly describing the algorithms. Two of
them (upscaling for permeability, and upscaling for
transmissibility) can be formulated without reference to a
particular fine scale 3D grid. In contrast, upscaling for well
productivity (well connection factors) relies explicitly on the
coordinate system of the fine grid, and is most easily used when
the fine and coarse 3D grids are in alignment.
Upscaling for Permeability. Consider the upscaling of a region
of heterogeneous porous media, Figure A-1. Flow at each
position within the region is described by Darcys Law
u( x ) = K ( x ) P( x )

( = 1) .................................. (A-1)

which we may integrate over the domain, , to define the

effective permeability.

= K P

EFF

...................... (A-2)

This is a similar approach to Bears use of a representative

element volume [34] to define a continuum property. In
distinction, an effective property is only representative if the
scales of heterogeneity are small compared to the extent of the
averaging region. Otherwise the results may depend strongly
upon the size and detailed placement of the averaging region.
The definition of Eqn (A-2) is suitable in either case.
The averaged velocity involves a volume integral over the

SPE 50643

domain, while the averaged pressure gradient may be converted

to a surface integral [35].

u dv K

EFF

n$ P da ........................................... (A-3)

where n$ is the outwardly directed unit normal vector. In

general, the volume averaged Darcy velocity and the volume
averaged pressure gradient need not be aligned, necessitating the
use of a full permeability tensor [8, 36, 37].
The standard upscaling calculation for permeability due to
Warren and Price [1] is a special case of this definition, in which
the numerical calculation is configured to emulate a laboratory
coreflood. In this treatment the domain has a simple rectilinear
shape, with sealed sides and a uniform pressure gradient exerted
along the axis of the system. For incompressible fluids, the
integrals in Eqn (A-3) are simple to evaluate

udv = ( Q A)( L A) x$ ,

and

n$ P da = x$ ( P A) ,

giving an

EFF
effective permeability of K XX
= Q L P , as expected from
Darcys Law.
Upscaling for Transmissibility. The above definition of
effective permeability has attempted to construct an intrinsic
property, i.e., one which does not depend strongly upon the
volume of the upscaling region. Both the velocity and pressure
gradient integrals are performed over the same (fine scale)
domain, while the ratio, the effective permeability, is reasonably
defined as a property on the coarse scale. In contrast,
transmissibility is defined as the volumetric flux per unit
pressure drop across a cross-sectional interfacial area.

QFace = TFace P ......................................................... (A-4)

Transmissibility explicitly depends upon both the specification

of an interfacial area and a distance over which the pressure
drop is exerted. Hence it is important that both this distance and
the interfacial area be defined identically on the fine and the
coarse scales.
A construction with these elements in sketched in Figure A2. Consider first a planar area representing the coarse cell
interface. (For a corner point cell, the planar approximation is
typically taken from the center of the cell face [16], although
generalisations are possible [38].) Define the fine scale interface,
S, from the perpendicular projection of this area onto the
boundary of the upscaling region, . From the divergence
theorem applied to the volume subtended by the cell face and S,
it follows that

(n$

Face

n$ da = nFace .................................................. (A-5)

indicating that the coarse interfacial area may be obtained from

an integral over the fine, so long as the fine area is reduced by

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

its perpendicular projection. The total flux through S may be

calculated in an almost identical fashion,

QFace = n$ Face n$ dq ................................................. (A-6)

S

dq
where now dq = da is the outwardly directed flux density
da
on S.
To complete the construction for transmissibility, it is
necessary to define the pressure drop across the upscaling
region. Figure A-2 includes a reference vector, r , which for the
half cell transmissibility, points from the centre of the coarse cell
to the centre of the interfacial area. With this vector, the pressure
drop may be calculated from the average pressure gradient,
defined as in the construction of effective permeability,

P r P

( r n$) P da dv .

The

resulting

expression for effective transmissibility

(n$
S

Face

n$ dq = TFace r n$ P da

dv ........... (A-7)

only includes terms evaluated on the fine scale.

With all the apparent complexity of this expression, for the
Warren and Price calculation each of the three integrals are
simple

to

evaluate:

( r n$) P da = ( L P A) ,

(n$

Face

n$ dq = Q ,

and

dv = ( L A) .

The resulting

transmissibility is given by TX = Q P , again as expected.

Upscaling for Well Productivity. Following [19], the
productivity of a vertical well is proportional to the horizontal
permeability, times the gross length of the wellbore.

Well Pi ~ KX KY DZ .......................................... (A-8)

Consider the stack of fine cells of Figure 3. We can drop a
vertical well through each of the nine fine columns, and
calculate the total productivity of each. On the possibility that
different columns have different cross-sectional areas, we can
define the average productivity as the areal weighted sums of the
PIs. This in turn defines an average horizontal permeability.
Similarly, consideration of well productivities for horizontal
wells in the i and j directions, provides two other averages.

KX EFF KY EFF DVi , j , k =

i , j ,k

KX EFF KZ EFF DVi , j , k =

i , j ,k

KY EFF KZ EFF DVi , j , k =

i , j ,k

13

KX KY DV

i , j ,k

KX KZ DV

i , j ,k

i , j ,k

i , j ,k

i , j ,k

KY KZ DV

.. (A-9)

i , j ,k

Once these averages have been taken, they can be converted to

three directional permeabilities algebraically. The three
directional permeabilities are defined with respect to the fine
grid. If the coarse grid has a different orientation, then the
elements of the resulting permeability tensor will need to be
evaluated in the coarse coordinate system before use.

14

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

SPE 50643

Figure 1 - (a) A simple sand/shale reservoir zone with three different

calculations for effective vertical permeability (b) With sealed sides,
the vertical permeability vanishes (c) With linear pressure boundary
conditions the vertical permeability is positive (d) With a wide
computational region the vertical permeability is also positive as
flow diverts around the shales.

Figure 4 - Detailed examination of the Magnus MSM permeability

pattern shows that mud dimensions have increased at the expense
of sand channels, leading to an overly optimistic estimate of
remaining oil targets.

Figure 2 - Magnus reservoir stratigraphy showing the MSM and

LKCF sector model locations

Figure 5 - Loss of sand permeability and channel continuity when

upscaling using the standard flow based (sealed sides) upscaling
algorithm. The dot signifies a well, whose performance is
significantly degraded within the upscaled model.

Figure 3 - Resampling of the Magnus MSM geologic model, 99 x 21 x

352 to 99 x 21 x 375, showing the 3 X 3 fine columns which upscale
to one coarse column.

Figure 6 - Contrast of the Andrew reservoir performance prediction

calculated from a fine scale sector model, that model upscaled using
conventional techniques, and after adjusting some of the vertical
transmissibility multipliers by hand. The half cell technique gives
answer indistinguishable from the fine scale prediction.

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

15

upscaling.

Figure 10 - LKCF geocellular model, showing sands (yellow) and

regions of injected sands (red) within a mud background.

Figure 7- Two representations of shale within a flow simulator. In the

first, PERMZ=0, and the effective thickness of the shale is 2*DZ. In
the second, MULTZ=0, and the shale now has no volume but
impacts the flow as if it had the minimum thickness of DZ.

Figure 11 - Well Productivity based permeability upscaling,

preserving the sand channel of Figure 5. Inter-cellular barriers are
now modelled as transmissibility multipliers on the face of the cells.
Colour coding in this figure is only approximate.

Figure 8 - Performance of the Andrew FFM, showing the resolution

of gas under-run, after use of the vertical half cell upscaling
approach.

Figure 9 - Successful prediction of GOR in the Andrew A04 well. The

most likely case corresponds to the simulation of the previous
figure, while the P90 case follows from the use of conventional

Figure 12 - Time of Flight visualisation of the flooding pattern in the

1.7 million cell (64 x 64 x 452) LKCF geologic model, with two
downdip injectors and two updip producers. The flow calculation is
in three dimensions but the results are presented as a fence
diagram.

16

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

SPE 50643

Figure 13 - Time of Flight visualisation of the flooding pattern in the

70,000 cell upscaled LKCF model (32 x 32 x 72), using the half cell
upscaling approach. As in the previous figure, the flood is in three
dimensions.
Figure 15 - Pressure and time of flight information for the 70,000 cell
model upscaled using conventional sealed side flow based
upscaling. This model has only 5% of the effective connectivity of
the model in the previous figure.

Figure 16 - A two cell coarse model whose effective horizontal

permeability is very difficult to represent. Most calculations would
merge the non-communicating sands into one larger sand.

Figure 14 - Additional validation, showing pressures and time of

flight for the 70,000 cell model. In this calculation pressures are
specified at the wells, instead of the fluxes, as in the previous two
figures.

Figure 17 - Pseudoisation of Effective Fractional Flow for IMPES and

Fully Implicit numerical schemes

SPE 50643

APPLICATION OF NOVEL UPSCALING APPROACHES TO THE MAGNUS AND ANDREW RESERVOIRS

17

Figure 18 - Effective Fractional Flows for the 13 coarse cells of the

Magnus MSM simulation

Figure 21 - Rock curve inverse total mobility function, showing the

quadratic fit used, especially below the shock saturation

Figure 19 - The outlet block water saturation plotted against the

outlet water saturation. With few cells the dispersion correction is
important. At late times, saturation profiles are more uniform, and
dispersion corrections are not important.

Figure 22 - Pseudo relative permeability to water

Figure 23 - Pseudo relative permeability to oil

Figure 20 - Pseudo fractional flow curves. Dispersion provides more

of an impact on the different curves than the physical mechanisms

18

M.J. KING, D.G. MACDONALD, S.P. TODD, H. LEUNG

Figure A-1 - Upscaling of effective permeability

Figure A-2 - Upscaling of effective transmissibility

SPE 50643