Simulation Throughout

the Life of a Reservoir

Gordon Adamson Simulation is one of the most powerful tools for guiding reservoir
Reservoir Management Ltd.
Aberdeen, Scotland management decisions. From planning early production wells and

designing surface facilities to diagnosing problems with enhanced

Martin Crick
Texaco Ltd.
London, England
Brian Gane
British Petroleum
Aberdeen, Scotland
Omer Gurpinar
Denver, Colorado, USA
Jim Hardiman
Henley on Thames, England
Dave Ponting
Abingdon, England
For help in preparation of this article, thanks to Bob
Archer, Chip Corbett, Ivor Ellul, Roger Goodan and Jim
Honefenger, GeoQuest, Houston, Texas, USA; Randy
Archibald, GeoQuest Reservoir Technologies, Henley on
Thames, England; Ian Beck, GeoQuest Reservoir Tech-
nologies, Abingdon, England; George Besserer,
PanCanadian Petroleum Limited, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada; Kunal Dutta-Roy, Simulation Sciences Inc.,
Brea, California, USA; and Sharon Wells, GeoQuest
Reservoir Technologies, Denver, Colorado.
ECLIPSE, FloGrid, GRID, Open-ECLIPSE, PVT and
RTView are marks of Schlumberger. NETOPT and
PIPEPHASE are marks of Simulation Sciences Inc.
1. Peaceman DW: “A Personal Retrospection of Reser-
voir Simulation,” Proceedings of the First and Second
International Forum on Reservoir Simulation, Alpbach,
Austria, September 12-16, 1988 and September 4-8,
1989.
2. Wycoff RD, Botset HG and Muskat M: “The Mechan-
ics of Porous Flow Applied to Water-flooding Prob-
lems,” Transactions of the AIME 103 (1933): 219-249.
Muskat M and Wyckoff RD: “An Approximate Theory
of Water-Coning in Oil Production,” Transactions of
the AIME 114 (1935): 144-163.
3. Darcy’s law states that fluid flow velocity is propor-
tional to pressure gradient and permeability, and
inversely proportional to viscosity.
4. Coats KH: “Use and Misuse of Reservoir Simulation
Models,” SPE Reprint Series No. 11 Numerical Simu-
lation. Dallas, Texas, USA: Society of Petroleum Engi-
neers (1973): 183-190.
recovery techniques, reservoir simulators allow engineers to
predict and visualize fluid flow more efficiently than ever before.
Reservoir simulators were first built as diag-
nostic tools for understanding reservoirs that
surprised engineers or misbehaved after
years of production. The earliest simulators
were physical models, such as sandboxes
with clear glass sides for viewing fluid flow,
and analog devices that modeled fluid flow
with electrical current flow.1 These models,
first documented in the 1930s, were con-
structed by researchers hoping to under-
stand water coning and breakthrough in
homogeneous reservoirs that were undergo-
ing waterflood.2
Some things haven’t changed since the
1930s. Today’s reservoir simulators generally
solve the same equations studied 60 years
ago—material balance and Darcy’s law.3
But other aspects of simulation have
changed dramatically. With the advent of
digital computers in the 1960s, reservoir
modeling advanced from tanks filled with
sand or electrolytes to numerical simulators.
In numerical simulators, the reservoir is rep-
resented by a series of interconnected
blocks, and the flow between blocks is
solved numerically. In the early days, com-
puters were small and had little memory,
limiting the number of blocks that could be
used. This required simplification of the
reservoir model and allowed simulation to
proceed with a relatively small amount of
input data.
As computer power increased, engineers
created bigger, more geologically realistic
models requiring much greater data input.
This demand has been met by the creation
of increasingly complex and efficient simu-
lation programs coupled with user-friendly
data preparation and result-analysis pack-
ages. Today, desktop computers may have
5000 times the memory and run about 200
times faster than early supercomputers.
However, the most significant gain has not
been in absolute speed, but speed at a mod-
erate price. Computational efficiency has
reached a stage that allows powerful simula-
tors to be run frequently.
Numerical simulation has become a reser-
voir management tool for all stages in the life
of the reservoir. No longer just for comparing
performance of reservoirs under different
production schemes or trouble-shooting
when recovery methods come under
scrutiny, simulations are also run when plan-
ning field development or designing mea-
surement campaigns. In the last 10 years,
with the development of computer-aided
geological and geostatistical modeling, reser-
voir simulators now help to test the validity
of the reservoir models themselves. And sim-
ulation results are increasingly used to guide
decisions on investing in the construction or
overhaul of expensive surface facilities.
Motivation for Simulation
A numerical simulator containing the right
information and in the hands of a skilled
engineer can imitate the behavior of a reser-
voir. A simulator can predict production
under current operating conditions, or the
reaction of the reservoir to changes in con-
ditions, such as increasing production rate;
production from more or different wells;
response to injection of water, steam, acid

16 Oilfield Review
 Core plugs Whole cores Well logs Well testing or foam; the effect of subsidence; and pro-
duction from horizontal wells of different
lengths and orientations.
Reservoir simulation can be performed by
oil company reservoir engineers or by engi-
neering consultant contractors. Some con-
tractors specialize in engineering consulting,
Borehole geophysics Outcrop studies 3D Seismic data while others offer a full range of oilfield ser-
vices. In either case, the simulator is a tool
that allows the engineer to answer questions
and offer recommendations for improving
operating practice.
To make simulation worthwhile, there must
be a well-posed question of economic
importance: Where should wells be located
to maximize incremental recovery per dollar
of additional investment? How many wells
Large-scale structure Geological expertise are required to produce enough gas to meet
a contractual deliverability schedule? Should
oil be recovered by natural depletion or
water injection? What is the optimum length
of a horizontal well? Is carbon dioxide [CO2]
injection feasible? Should we keep this reser-
voir alive? As observed by K.H. Coats while
at the University of Texas at Austin, USA,
“The complexity of the questions being
Small-scale structure 1st generation geomodel asked, and the amount and reliability of the
data available, must determine the sophisti-
cation of the system to be used.”4 In all
cases, a simulation study should result in
recommendations for intervention. This may
include a new strategy for data acquisition,
or an infill drilling plan with the number,
location and direction of wells and a com-
pletion strategy for each well.

How a Simulator Works

Simulation model Static reservoir model The function of reservoir simulation is to
Up-gridding

Production
Calibration

help engineers understand the production-

pressure behavior of a reservoir and conse-
quently predict production rates as a func-
tion of time. The future production
schedule, when expressed in terms of rev-
enues and compared with costs and invest-
ments, helps managers determine both eco-
nomically recoverable reserves and the limit
Surface network

of profitable production.
Execution model
Risk analysis

Once the goal of simulation is determined,

the next step is to describe the reservoir in
terms of the volume of oil or gas in place,
input

the amount that is recoverable and the rate

at which it will be recovered. To estimate
recoverable reserves, a model of the reser-
voir framework, including faults and layers
and their associated properties, must be
constructed. This so-called static model is
created through the combined efforts of
■ Creating models for input to reservoir simulators. The first-generation geomodel is cre- geologists, geophysicists, petrophysicists and
ated through the combined efforts of geologists, geophysicists, petrophysicists and reservoir engineers (left ). Much of the multi-
reservoir engineers. Reservoir properties are then upscaled to produce the static reser-
voir model. Optimizing the grid and calibrating with dynamic data yield the simulation
billion-dollar business of oilfield services is
model. Finally, input from surface facilities analysis and risk calculations results in an centered on obtaining information that
execution model that can guide reservoir management decisions.

Summer 1996 17
eventually feeds reservoir simulators, lead- Block-Centered Geometry
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
ing to better reservoir development and 5800 ■ Block-centered
management decisions.5 and corner-point
The simulator itself computes fluid flow geometries. Block-
6200
throughout the reservoir. The principles centered geometry
underlying simulation are simple. First, the features flat-
topped rectangular
fundamental fluid-flow equations are 6600
blocks that match
expressed in partial differential form for the mathematical
each fluid phase present. These partial dif- 7000
models behind the
ferential equations are obtained from the simulator. Corner-
point geometry
conventional equations describing reservoir modifies the recti-
7400
fluid behavior, such as the continuity equa- linear grid so that
tion, the equation of flow and the equation it conforms to
of state. The continuity equation expresses important reservoir
the conservation of mass. For most reser- boundaries. Three-
dimensional grids
voirs, the equation of flow is Darcy’s law. are constructed
For high rates of flow, such as in gas reser- Corner-Point Geometry from a 2D grid by
voirs, Darcy’s law equations are modified to 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
laying it on the top
include turbulence terms. The equation of 5800 surface of the
reservoir and pro-
state describes the pressure-volume or pres- jecting the grid
sure-density relationship of the various flu- 6200 vertically or along
ids present. For each phase, the three equa- fault planes onto
tions are then combined into a single partial lower layers.
6600
differential equation. Next, these partial dif-
ferential equations are written in finite-dif-
ference form, in which the reservoir volume 7000

is treated as a numbered collection of

blocks and the reservoir production period 7400
is divided into a number of time steps.
Mathematically speaking, the problem is
discretized in both space and time.
Examples of simulators that solve this
problem under a variety of conditions are
found in the ECLIPSE family of simulators.
These simulators fall into two main cate-
gories. In the first category are three-phase
black-oil simulators, for reservoirs compris- Local Grid Refinement
ing water, gas and oil. The gas may move ■ Local grid refine-
into or out of solution with the oil. The sec- ment (LGR). Local
ond category contains compositional and grid refinement
allows engineers to
thermal simulators, for reservoirs requiring describe selected
more detailed description of fluid composi- regions of the reser-
tion. A compositional description could voir in extra detail.
encompass the amounts and properties of Radial refined grids
hexanes, pentanes, butanes, benzenes, are often used
around wellbores to
asphaltenes and other hydrocarbon compo- examine coning or
nents, and might be used when the fluid other phenomena
composition changes during the life of the resulting from rapid
reservoir. A thermal simulator would be variation in proper-
ties away from the
advised if changes in temperature—either well. Refined grids
with location or with time—modified the are also one way to
fluid composition of the reservoir. Such a treat property varia-
description could come into play in the case tions near faults.
of steam injection, or water injection into a
deep, hot reservoir.

18 Oilfield Review
 These and all other commercial reservoir
simulators envision a reservoir divided into
a number of individual blocks, called grid
blocks. Each block corresponds to a volume
in the reservoir, and must contain rock and
fluid properties representative of the reser-
voir at that location. The simulator models
the flow of mobile fluid through the walls of
the blocks by solving the fluid-flow equa-
tions at each block face. Parameters
required for the solution include permeabil-
ity, layer thickness, porosity, fluid content,
elevation and pressure. The fluids are
assigned a viscosity, compressibility, solu-
tion gas/oil ratio and density. The rock is
assigned a value for compressibility, capil-
lary pressure and a relative permeability
relationship.
Creating the grid and assigning properties
to each grid block are time-consuming tasks.
The framework of the reservoir, including its
structure and depth, its layer boundaries and
fault positions and throws, is obtained from
seismic and well log data. The well-bred grid
respects the framework geometry as much as
possible. Traditionally, reservoir simulation
grid blocks are rectilinear with flat, horizon-
tal tops in an arrangement called block-cen-
tered geometry (previous page, top). This
configuration ensures that the grids remain
orthogonal and exactly match the mathemat-
ical models used in the simulators.
However, this approach does not easily
represent structural and stratigraphic com-
plexities such as nonvertical faults, pin-
chouts or erosional surfaces using purely
rectangular blocks. The 1983 introduction
of corner-point geometry in the ECLIPSE
simulator overcame these problems. In a
corner-point grid, the corners need not be
orthogonal. In modeling a faulted reservoir,
for example, engineers have the flexibility to
choose between an orthogonal areal grid
with the fault positions projected onto the
grid or a flexible grid to exactly honor the
positions of important faults. Three-dimen-
sional (3D) grids are constructed from an
areal, or 2D, grid by laying it on the top sur-
face of the reservoir and projecting it verti-
cally or along fault planes onto lower layers.
Engineers’ requirements for more detail in
the model, particularly to examine coning
and near-wellbore effects, has led to the
concept of local grid refinement (LGR) (pre-
vious page, bottom ). This allows parts of the
model to be represented by a large number
of small grid blocks or by implanting radial
Summer 1996
grids around wells in a larger Cartesian
grid. 6 Locally refined grids also capture
extra detail in other areas where reservoir
properties vary rapidly with distance, such
as near faults. And LGR, combined with grid
coarsening outside the region of interest,
allows engineers to retain fine-scale prop-
erty variation without surpassing computer
space limitations. The interactive GRID pro-
gram was designed to help construct the
complex reservoir grid efficiently (see
“Developments in Gridding,” page 21 ).
Once the grid has been constructed, the
next step is to assign rock and fluid proper-
ties from the reservoir framework model to
each grid block. Populating the grid with
properties is another time-consuming and
difficult task. Each grid block, typically a
few hundred square meters areally by tens
of meters thick, has to be assigned a single
value for each of the reservoir properties,
including fluid viscosity, relative permeabil-
ity, saturation, pressure, permeability, poros-
ity and net-to-gross ratio. 7 Log measure-
ments made in wells yield high-density
data, typically every 6 in. [15 cm], but pro-
vide little information between wells. Data
from cores may provide high-density
“ground truth,” but these represent perhaps
one part in 5 billion of the volume of the
reservoir. Surface seismic reflections cover
the reservoir volume and more, but do not
translate directly into the desired rock and
fluid properties. How are these disparate
data sets merged?
Two processes are required: extrapolating
the well data into the interwell reservoir vol-
ume, then upscaling the fine-scale data to
the scale of a simulation grid block. Tradi-
tionally log or core data were upscaled, or
averaged, over lithological units at the wells.
Then these data were interpolated and
extrapolated through the reservoir and maps
produced for each layer—formerly a hand-
drafting exercise by geologists. The maps
would be passed to the reservoir engineer
who would then generate grids, run prelimi-
nary simulations on a series of grid sizes,
and attempt further upscaling based on the
reservoir flow characteristics.
In recent years, the process has been
reversed. The current trend is to use com-
puter programs to build 3D geological mod-
els bounded by seismic data, and to popu-
late the models using geostatistical or
deterministic methods to distribute log and
core data.8
Scaling core and log properties up to grid-
block scales is still a challenging task. Some
properties, such as porosity, are considered
simple to upscale, following an arithmetic
averaging law. Others, such as permeability,
are more difficult to average. And relative
permeabilities—different permeabilities for
different fluid phases—remain the most dif-
ficult problem in upscaling. There is no uni-
versally accepted method for upscaling, and
it is an area of active research.9
After the model has been finalized, the
simulator requires boundary conditions to
establish the initial conditions for fluid
behavior at the beginning of the simulation.
Then, for a given time later, known as the
time step, the simulator calculates new pres-
sures and saturation distributions that indi-
cate the flow rates for each of the mobile
phases. This process is repeated for a num-
ber of time steps, and in this manner both
flow rates and pressure histories are calcu-
lated for each point—especially the points
corresponding to wells—in the system.
But even with the best possible model,
uncertainty remains. One of the biggest jobs
5. For specific examples: Bunn G, Cao Minh C, Roesten-
burg J and Wittman M: “Indonesia’s Jene Field: A
Reservoir Simulation Case Study,” Oilfield Review 1,
no. 2 (July 1989): 4-14.
Briggs P, Corrigan T, Fetkovich M, Gouilloud M, Lo
Tien-when, Paulsson B, Saleri N, Warrender J and
Weber K: “Trends in Reservoir Management,”Oilfield
Review 4, no. 1 (January 1992): 8-24.
Corbett P, Corvi P, Ehlig-Economides C, Guérillot D,
Haldorsen H, Heffer K, Hewitt T, King P, Le Nir I,
Lewis J, Montadert L, Pickup G, Ravenne C, Ringrose
P, Ronen S, Schultz P, Tyson S and Verly G: “Reservoir
Characterization Using Expert Knowledge, Data and
Statistics,”Oilfield Review 4, no. 1 (January 1992):
25-39.
Al-Rabah AK, Bansal PP, Breitenback EA, Hallenbeck
LD, Meehan DN, Saleri NG and Wittman M: “Explor-
ing the Role of Reservoir Simulation,” Oilfield Review
2, no. 2 (April 1990): 18-30.
6. For more on local grid refinement: Heinemann ZE
and von Hantelmann G: “Using Local Grid Refine-
ment in a Multiple-Application Reservoir Simulator,”
paper SPE 12255, presented at the Reservoir Simula-
tion Symposium, San Francisco, California, USA,
November 15-18, 1983.
Forsyth PA and Sammon PH: “Local Mesh Refinement
and Modelling for Faults and Pinchouts,” paper SPE
13524, presented at the Reservoir Simulation Sympo-
sium, Dallas, Texas, USA, February 10-13, 1985.
7. Net-to-gross ratio, sometimes called just net to gross
(NTG), is the ratio of the thickness of pay to the total
thickness of the reservoir interval.
8. For examples of the technique: Schultz PS, Ronen S,
Hattori M, Mantran P and Corbett C: “Seismic-Guided
Estimation of Log Properties,” The Leading Edge 13,
no. 7 (July 1994): 770-776.
Caamano E, Corbett C, Dickerman K, Douglas D, Gir
R, Martono D, Mathieu G, Nicholson B, Novias K,
Padmono J, Schultz P, Suroso S, Thornton M and Yan
Z: “Integrated Reservoir Interpretation,” Oilfield
Review 6, no. 3 (July 1994): 50-64.
9. Thibeau S, Barker JW and Souillard P: “Dynamical
Upscaling Techniques Applied to Compositional
Flows,” paper SPE 29128, presented at the 13th SPE
Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, February 12-15, 1995.
19

RTView 96A
6250.13
Pressure, psi
■ Visualizing the reservoir model in 3D. Visualization is a reliable means of checking
reservoir models before input to a simulator. Inconsistencies in model parameters
may be flagged and corrected. After simulation, results may also be viewed, allowing
faster evaluation of comparative simulation runs and providing insight into recovery
behavior. In this example reservoir pressure is color-coded to show regions of high
and low pressure.
of a simulator is to evaluate the implications
of uncertainty in the static reservoir model.
Sometimes uncertainty or error is intro-
duced through low data quality. Another
source of error arises because laboratory,
logging and geophysical experiments may
not directly measure the property of interest,
or at the right scale, and so some other
property is measured and transformed in
some way that adds uncertainty. There is
also uncertainty in how a property varies
between measurement points. Many reser-
voir descriptions rely on core sample mea-
surements for rock and fluid property infor-
mation. This information is uncertainly
extended through the reservoir volume, usu-
ally in some geostatistical or deterministic
fashion, guided by seismically derived sur-
faces or other geological constraints.
One way to reduce uncertainty is to spot
inconsistencies in the properties of the reser-
voir model before simulation. Three-dimen-
sional visualization software, such as the
RTView application, helps engineers be
more efficient in finding inconsistencies by
allowing them to view the reservoir model in
3D. Results of simulation runs may also be
viewed, allowing faster evaluation of simula-
tion runs and providing immediate insight
into recovery behavior and physical pro-
cesses occurring in the reservoir (above ).
20
8674.00
A simulation run itself can also help
reduce uncertainty. Outside the oil industry,
simulators are used to determine the reac-
tion of a known environment to externally
applied perturbations. An example is a flight
simulator that tests varying visibility condi-
tions. Although a reservoir environment is
largely unknown, simulators can help
improve the description. In a process known
as history matching, reservoir production is
simulated based on the existing, though
uncertain, reservoir description. That
description is adjusted iteratively until the
simulator is able to reproduce the observed
pressures and multiphase flow resulting
from applied perturbations—that is, the
known production and injection. If the pro-
duction history can be matched, the engi-
neer has greater confidence that the reser-
voir description will be a useful, predictive
tool. The history-matching process is time-
consuming and requires considerable skill
and insight, but is a necessary prerequisite
to the successful prediction of continued
reservoir performance.
These new techniques and programs for
loading data, computing simulations and
viewing results are allowing engineers to use
simulators to guide reservoir management
decisions throughout the life of many fields.
The following case studies highlight some of
the uses of simulators in four different stages
of reservoir maturity.
Preproduction Planning
An example of early use of simulation
comes from the Texaco Erskine Project in
the North Sea Central Graben region
(below ). The Erskine field comprises four
high-pressure, high-temperature (HPHT)
condensate reservoirs, and will be the first
HPHT field in the North Sea to come on
line when production commences in 1997.
Production will be from an unmanned
platform, with a multiphase pipeline to the
Amoco Lomond Platform for separation.
Gas will be exported via the Central Area
Transmission System (CATS) pipeline, and
liquids via the Forties pipeline. Initial pro-
duction with be from three wells, with three
more to be added. The production mecha-
nism will be natural depletion, with no gas
recycling. Other operators in the region who
have similar reservoirs to develop are
watching how Texaco handles the hostile,
overpressured field.
Simulation was selected as a way to
predict production of gas for drawing up
deliverability contracts—contracts promis-
ing delivery of designated volumes of gas at
a specified time. The main challenge in sim-
ulating these reservoirs is accounting for
both the permeability reduction due to rock
compaction and the productivity loss due to
condensate banking—explained below—in
the near-wellbore region of the formation
when the reservoir pressure falls below the
dewpoint pressure.10
Forties e Forties
pipelin Everest
Lomond
Aberdeen
Erskine
e
elin
pip
TS
CA
N
UK
■ Texaco Erskine Project in the North Sea
Central Graben region. The high-tempera-
ture, high-pressure condensate field is
due to go on production in 1997.
Oilfield Review
 Because of overpressure conditions in the
reservoir, the rock is expected to compact
with depressurization. This means the rock
is expected to decrease its porosity and
effective permeability as production pro-
gresses. To quantify these effects, laboratory
experiments were conducted on rock sam-
ples. The experiments showed that at the
assumed well abandonment pressure of
4000 psi, permeability would be reduced by
about 33% from the initial value, while
porosity would be negligibly reduced.
Modeling flow in condensate reservoirs
requires additional considerations. As pres-
sure drops around the well, condensation,
or dropout, occurs and liquid forms. The liq-
uid saturation increases—in what is called
condensate banking—until it is great
enough to overcome capillary trapping
forces and the liquid becomes mobile. But
until the liquid becomes mobile, the pres-
ence of immobile liquid reduces the relative
permeability to gas, resulting in a loss in
productivity. The rapid change in fluid satu-
ration away from the well requires a fine
grid to accurately model reservoir proper-
ties. The ECLIPSE compositional simulator
modeled the regions around the wells with
a refined radial grid, and the remainder with
a Cartesian grid.
In addition, condensate yields vary
between the four different reservoirs, so
each reservoir fluid was represented by its
own equation of state. The local grid refine-
ment and multiple equation of state capabil-
ities were added to the ECLIPSE simulator
for this project, and now form part of the
commercial package.
The simulation was used to conduct
uncertainty analysis for risk management.
To maximize revenues, the tactic is to maxi-
mize gas rates without being penalized for
coming up short. To understand the risks
behind promising a given gas rate, it is
desirable to understand the sensitivity of the
simulation results to each important input
parameter. In this case, repeated simula-
tions indicated that the parameters with the
10. Crick M: “Compositional Simulation for HPHT Gas
Condensate Reservoirs: Follow-up,” presented at the
Second ECLIPSE International Forum, Houston,
Texas, USA, April 15-19, 1996.
Hsu HH, Ponting DK and Wood L: “Field-Wide
Compositional Simulation for HPHT Gas Conden-
sate Reservoirs Using an Adaptive Implicit Method,”
paper SPE 29948, presented at the International
Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China,
November 14-17, 1995.
Summer 1996
Developments in Gridding
Since the first grids were built, the variety, range Perpendicular Bisector (PEBI) Grid
and resolution of oilfield measurements have
increased, and computer power and efficiency
have grown. To take advantage of these develop-
ments, reservoir engineers require better and
more comprehensive simulation software tools.
Modern 3D seismic acquisition, processing and
interpretation techniques have resulted in more
reliable and higher-resolution definition of faults
and erosional surfaces. The engineer wants to
represent the full complexity of nonvertical faults,
curving or listric faults, and faults that intersect or
truncate against one another. Another develop-
ment that requires more complex models is the
increasing use of high-angle and horizontal wells
and multilateral wells. These requirements
41 Water saturation % 100
■ A perpendicular bisector (PEBI) grid showing local
stretch the traditional gridding programs based on
grid refinement around wells. Grid blocks may have
corner-point geometry—such as the GeoQuest a variety of shapes and can fit any reservoir geome-
GRID program—to the limit. try. The smoother grid-block shape also gives a
more accurate simulation solution because there is
This has led to the development of new gridding less chance of choosing the wrong grid orientation.
software techniques such as the FloGrid utility,
which will produce grids that conform to the reser- voir models than exist in analytical models.
voir framework as defined by fault surfaces and Unstructured PEBI grids are of great benefit in
lithological boundaries. Unstructured perpendicu- these situations, allowing the radial components of
lar bisector (PEBI) and tetrahedral grid systems flow into the wellbore to be combined with linear
are being developed and included in gridding and or planar features such as the trajectory of a hori-
simulation programs (above right). “Blocks” in a zontal well or a fault plane. Simulations run with
PEBI grid may have a variety of shapes, and they PEBI grids tend to take longer than those run on
may be arranged to fit any reservoir geometry. structured grids, but the ability to capture the
The smoother gridblock shape gives a more accu- structural complexity of the reservoir’s flow units
rate simulation solution because there is less outweighs the need for speed. A compromise can
chance of choosing the wrong grid orientation— be reached by building a structured grid in the geo-
a potential problem with traditional grids. A PEBI logically simple parts of the reservoir, and splicing
grid also allows flow in more directions from a in an unstructured grid when geologic complexity
given grid block, important in the modeling of hor- requires more flexibly shaped grid blocks.
izontal wells, gas injection schemes or the inter-
action of wells in an interference test. These grids
are also being used as a basis for a new genera-
tion of upscaling techniques.
A further gridding development is the linking of
well test analysis with simulator programs to give
the engineer a greater range of numerical reser-
21
 Percentage Changes in Reserves most influence on the results included gas
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 in place, permeability and compaction
(left ).
Gas in place Deliverability and cumulative production
distributions were calculated from the sensi-
Permeability tivity results using the parametric method
developed for oilfield applications by P.J.
Smith and coworkers at British Petroleum.11
Pentland
continuity A normalized average profile was combined
with these distributions in a Monte Carlo
Compaction simulator to give a probabalistic production
profile (below ).
Critical The results of the risk analysis showed the
condensate effects of different production scenarios on
saturation
the level of confidence in ability to deliver
Trapped gas various possible contracted rates of gas over
saturation
the initial plateau period. ( next page,
Well skin bottom ). The required 90% confidence
factor level for a three-year plateau period was
achieved by modifying the production rate
Fault in the first year, adding a contingency well
transmissibility
in the third year, and commingling produc-
tion in one well between the main Erskine
■ Sensitivity of Erskine simulation results to input parameters. Repeated reservoir and the smaller but higher-perme-
simulations indicate parameters that have the most influence on simula- ability Kimmeridge reservoir.
tion results. Quantifying the uncertainty in the most sensitive parameters
is an important step toward quantifying project risk. Additional simula- As a result, Texaco has modified produc-
tions were run with the high, low and middle values of each parameter, tion plans, which now call for a lower pro-
forming input sensitivities for the risk analysis shown below. duction rate in the first year than in subse-

Initial
Deliverability Distribution

Parametric
Method

Probabilistic Production Profile

Sensitivities Normalized Average Profile
Deliverability
Deliverability

Predicted
production
Monte Carlo
Analysis

Cumulative Production

Reserves Distribution

Parametric
Method

■Schematic of deliverability and cumulative production computed for best- and worst-case scenarios. The sensitivity profiles (left)
represent curves for best and worst cases, such as the lowest and highest permeability, lowest and highest compaction and all other
parameters mentioned above. Not all curves were plotted because of space constraints. All the sensitivities were combined through
a parametric method modified for oilfield application. (From Smith et al, reference 11.) A normalized average profile (center) was
combined with initial deliverability and reserves distributions in a Monte Carlo method to give a probabilistic—90% confidence—pro-
duction profile (right). The upper curve is the deliverability and the lower curve is predicted production. The cyclic nature of the pro-
duction curve reflects the alternation between summer and winter demand for gas.

22 Oilfield Review
quent years. Risk analysis suggested an
additional well in the third year, so platform Bravo
construction has allowed a slot for a contin-
gency well. In addition, production from the
Erskine and Kimmeridge reservoirs will also
be commingled. Alpha
Charlie
Echo
Infill Drilling
Infill drilling is an expensive stage in the life Delta
of a reservoir. Simulation, in conjunction
with other tools, can help guide the place- Forties field
ment of wells and minimize their number.
British Petroleum has harnessed simulation
along with new reservoir description to opti- Brae ■ The Forties field in
mize infill drilling in the Forties field in the Piper the North Sea, oper-
Claymore
ated by BP with five
North Sea (right ).
Beatrice Britannia platforms and 103
The Forties field was discovered in 1970, wells.
Buchan
and produced its first oil in 1975 (middle ). Forties
Current production is from five platforms, Montrose Lomond
with 78 producers and 25 peripheral injec- Aberdeen Erskine
tors. Estimated recovery of the 4.2 billion
Fulmar
stock tank barrels (STB) of original oil in
place (OOIP) is 60%, or 90% of the mov-
able oil.
N
The field is characterized by high perme-
ability, high net-to-gross (NTG) pay thick-
ness and a strong aquifer. A few years ago UK
the Forties was considered to be essentially
a homogeneous reservoir. But early water
breakthrough and water fingering indicated 600

a greater level of heterogeneity than 500

Production, 103 B/D

expected, and suggested the need for more Current

wells to be drilled to reach bypassed zones. 400 production
To understand the potential of infill drilling
300
in the field, a simulation study was con-
ducted, including careful reinterpretation of 200 Oil production Water production
existing 3D seismic data and a new reser-
100
11. Smith PJ, Hendry DJ and Crowther AR: “The Quan-
tification and Management of Uncertainty in 0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004
Reserves,” paper SPE 26056, presented at the SPE
Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, Year
USA, May 26-28, 1993. ■ Production in the Forties field since 1975.

Confidence levels, % Normalized reserves ■ Results of risk

Yearly rate, Number Commingling Tubing analysis ranking
MMscf/D of wells size, in. Year Confidence level, % some of the simu-
lated production
1 2 3 4 90 50 10 scenarios. The
90/90/90 3 None 4.5 75 75 75 40 0.707 0.898 1.139 required 90%
confidence level
80/90/90 3 None 4.5 85 75 75 40 0.699 0.889 1.119 (bottom line) was
90/90/90 3 Erskine and 4.5 85 85 75 45 0.738 0.937 1.176 achieved by reduc-
Kimmeridge in E1 ing the production
80/90/90 3 Erskine and 4.5 90 90 80 55 0.738 0.932 1.170
rate in the first year,
Kimmeridge in E1
adding a well in
the third year and
90/90/90 3 Erskine and 4.5 70 70 65 30 0.682 0.858 1.082 commingling pro-
Pentland in E1 duction from the
90/90/90 4 None 4.5 95 95 65 30 0.704 0.892 1.119 Kimmeridge and
Erskine reservoirs.
90/90/90 3 None 5.5 95 95 70 30 0.685 0.863 1.091
80/90/90 3 Erskine and 4.5 90 90 95 85 0.789 1.000 1.264
Extra well Kimmeridge in E1
in year 3

Summer 1996 23
voir characterization to describe the hetero- Prediction Actual
geneities encountered in the turbidite sand-
stone reservoir. FA31ST FA31ST
Simulation with a coarse full-field model
allowed identification of regions that might
benefit from infill wells, but the results were
not refined enough for detailed well place-
ment. Once a region was identified as con-
taining possible infill well locations, other
aspects were considered, such as: water cut
and production of surrounding wells; inter-
ference tests confirming continuity or lack
thereof with other layers; and reinterpreta-
tion of 3D seismic data for channel identifi-
cation—prospective locations tend to be
along submarine channel margins, where Shale Water Oil
there is lower vertical permeability and so
less efficient sweep. ■ Fluid and formation distributions predicted (left) and encountered (right) at the Forties
Alpha 31 sidetrack (FA31ST) location. The predicted distribution closely resembled the
Having passed these tests, the area was layering encountered, and predicted oil production matched the current rate.
tapped for a new simulation study with local
grid refinement spotlighting the volume of 300-m Grid
interest (below right ). The refined grid block ■ Steps in the simu-
size was about 50 by 50 m [164 ft by 164 ft] lation study of the
in area by 8 m [26 ft] in depth. Reservoir Forties Alpha plat-
properties were distributed in the LGR grid form area. Simula-
tion with a coarse
based on a geostatistical model. Then the full-field model
flow in the LGR grid was simulated with the (top) identified
ECLIPSE black-oil simulator and checked regions that would
against the production history from wells in benefit from infill
the grid. The property distribution was wells. Once a
region was identi-
modified and simulation rerun. This process fied as a possible
was repeated until a history match was infill well location,
obtained, with only six iterations required. the location was
The final simulation based on the refined selected for a new
simulation study
grid predicted a fluid distribution at the For- with local grid
ties Alpha 31 sidetrack (FA31ST) location 50-m Grid refinement (middle)
(above right ). The predicted fluid distribu- spotlighting the
tion closely resembled that encountered and volume of interest.
the predicted oil production matched the Reservoir proper-
ties were dis-
current rate. However, the predicted net-to- tributed in the LGR
gross rock volume of the upper zone was grid based on a
optimistic relative to measured values. geostatistical
Lessons learned from this work have been model (bottom) of
the turbidite sand-
fed back into subsequent studies with, for stones.
example, seismic attributes helping to char-
acterize the NTG variation in the reservoir.
Simulation played a similar role in assessing
the potential for infill drilling around the
other platforms.

Geostatistical
Model

24 Oilfield Review
Planning Enhanced Oil Recovery Weyburn Unit
In an example of simulation later in reser- R.14 R.13 R.12W2
voir life, PanCanadian Petroleum Limited is
relying on simulation to examine the feasi- T.7
bility of CO2 injection in Unit 1 in the Wey-
burn field of Saskatchewan, Canada
(right ).12 This field was discovered in 1955
and put on waterflood in 1964. By 1994,
recovery had reached 314 million STB, or
28% of the unit’s original oil in place. Ulti- T.6
mate waterflood recovery is expected to be
348 million STB, or 31%, leaving a large
target for enhanced recovery methods. An
opportunity to take advantage of one
method, gravity segregation via CO2 injec-
tion, is presented by the division of the T.5
reservoir into swept and unswept layers.
Carbon dioxide injected into the lower,
more permeable formation has the potential
Saskatchewan
to contact large amounts of unswept oil in
the tight upper formation since CO2 is 30%
less dense than the reservoir fluids at the Saskatoon
expected operating pressures (below right ).
Yorkton
Evaluating the feasibility of CO2 injection
proceeded in stages. First, using the Geo-
Swift Regina
Quest fluid PVT simulation software, a nine-
Current Moose Jaw
component equation of state was developed
that reproduced the behavior of the oil-CO2
Canada
system. The equation of state also had to
United Sta
predict the development of dynamic misci- tes
bility in flow simulations while still repre-
senting the physical properties of the oil-
CO2 mixtures. The equation was validated ■ Weyburn field of southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada. Discov-
by comparison of simulated and laboratory ered in 1955, the Weyburn field has produced 314 million STB, or
28% of the unit’s original oil in place.
floods on cores.
Second, general performance parameters
were established for the formations to be Producer CO2 Injection
swept. These included CO 2 slug size, a
water-alternating-gas injection strategy, CO2
start-up pressure and post-CO2 blow-down
Density Porosity
pressure. 13 Then various orientations of
injectors, producers and horizontal wells Gamma Ray Neutron Porosity
were tested with the ECLIPSE compositional API %
0 150 45 -15

12. Burkett D, Besserer G and Gurpinar O: “Design of

Weyburn CO2 Injection Project,” presented at the
Marly
Unswept Zone
Second ECLIPSE International Forum, Houston,
Texas, USA, April 15-19, 1996.
13. Blow-down pressure is the average field pressure
maintained after CO2 injection is stopped. Usually
this is lower than during CO2 injection to maximize Vuggy
oil recovery due to expansion of CO2.
Swept
5m

Zone

■ Division of the reservoir into swept and unswept layers, opening

the opportunity for gravity segregation of injected CO2. Carbon
dioxide (blue arrows) injected into the lower, more permeable for-
mation will rise to displace the oil (green arrows) remaining in the
tight, unswept upper formation.

Summer 1996 25
■ Reservoir link with surface facility. Integrating surface network simulators with reservoir simulators will allow production managers
to optimize flow and fine-tune field planning.

■ A Weyburn simulator (left ).14 Each original nine-spot

Weyburn Unit inverted nine-spot pattern was found to require two symmetri-
pattern showing
cally positioned horizontal wells in the
vertical and
60-acre horizontal infill upper zone to take advantage of the CO2
vertical infill
well locations segregation process. Results of the paramet-
ax
km

and directions of ric pattern studies, using a 30% pore vol-

maximum and ume CO2 slug, indicated ultimate recovery
minimum perme-
abilities (kmax , without any new horizontal wells to be an
kmin ). Various estimated 37% of OOIP. By adding two
Original orientations of horizontal wells in each injection pattern,
80-acre infill injectors, produc- simulation predicted incremental recovery
ers and horizontal
of 7.2%.
wells were tested
40-acre with the ECLIPSE
vertical infill compositional On the Surface
simulator to Once hydrocarbons have made it up the
km

determine optimal
in

wellbore, most reservoir engineers consider

Horizontal orientations and
spacings. their job done. But tracking fluid movement
sidetrack
through a complex surface network with
chokes, valves, pumps, pipelines, separators
and compressors remains a daunting task.
Optimizing flow through the surface net-
work allows production managers to mini-
mize capital investment in surface facilities
and fine-tune field planning.
Reservoir simulators are not designed to
solve for fluid flow all the way through the
surface-gathering facility, but they can be
integrated with network simulators built for
this purpose. An example of such a network
simulator is the Simulation Sciences
PIPEPHASE system. The PIPEPHASE simula-

26 Oilfield Review
tor, based on a pressure-balance technique
developed originally at Chevron in the
1980s, has been adapted to handle large,
field-wide, multiphase flow networks,
including wells, flowlines and associated
surface facilities. Through a joint project
between GeoQuest Reservoir Technologies
and Simulation Sciences, the PIPEPHASE
simulator and the NETOPT production opti-
mizer are being integrated with the Open-
ECLIPSE system to provide a way to simulate
fluid flow seamlessly from reservoir through
surface network (previous page, top).15 Inte-
gration is achieved through an iterative algo-
rithm that minimizes the differences
between the well flow rates calculated by
the two simulators from a given set of flow-
ing well pressures.
The recent focus on integrated reservoir
management teams is a major step in the
direction of integrated reservoir and surface
network simulation. But the emphasis has
been on integration at the upstream end.
The next step is to focus at the production
and surface facilities end.
Traditionally, the integrated study has been
approached along two independent paths.
For a project involving pressure mainte-
nance through water injection, for example,
the impact on the reservoir has been studied
in isolation. The reservoir simulation is car-
ried out with a simplified well model:
hydraulic behavior of injection or produc-
tion wells is approximated through flow
tables derived from single-well analysis. A
second study is typically performed by the
facilities engineering group to evaluate the
impact of the injection water requirements
on the surface facilities. The reservoir
behavior at the well is incorporated through
an injectivity index relating injection rate to
pressure drop at the formation.
A limitation of this divided approach is
that it ignores the true interaction between
the elements of the surface network, the
production and injection wells, and the
reservoir. The results of a truly integrated
study could be quite different.
The iterative approach to integrating the
PIPEPHASE and ECLIPSE systems, while rig-
orous, may be limited by convergence
issues in more complex applications. The
truly integrated solution, with the surface
and reservoir equations solved simultane-
ously, is expected to require a large effort,
since significant restructuring will be
needed in both simulators. One promising
approach is to initially develop a simple sin-
gle-phase application for a gas field. The
experiences developed in this effort could
then be extended to address the larger prob-
lem of multiphase fluids.
Summer 1996
Simulation Speedup with Parallel Processors
2500
2000
Run time, sec
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 4 8 16
Number of processors
■ Speeding up simulation with
parallel processors. For a typical
simulation, the 16-processor run
is more than 10 times faster than
a single-processor run.
The Next Step
The future of reservoir simulators may paral-
lel developments in other oilfield technolo-
gies that provide a view of fluid and rock
behavior in the subsurface. For example, the
seismic industry, operating on a similar
physical scale and on equally staggering
amounts of data, has turned to massively
parallel processors (MPPs) for data process-
ing and to high-performance graphics work-
stations for visualization of the results.
Simulation computer codes are being pre-
pared for implementation on MPPs, but the
switch cannot be made quickly. A simulator
typically solves the fluid-flow equations one
grid block at a time. The solution does not
necessarily benefit by processing several
steps in parallel.
For a typical simulation, doubling the
number of processors cuts simulation time
almost in half, and increasing to 16 proces-
sors reduces the time to one-tenth (above ).
Departure from ideal speed gains—16 times
faster for 16 processors—is due to three fac-
tors. First, the parallel linear equation solu-
tion method is less efficient than the non-
parallel solution. Second, it takes time to
assemble and transfer data between pro-
cesses. And third, load balancing between
processors is uneven: some parts of the
reservoir are easier to solve than others, but
the simulation must wait for the slowest.
Also, the high cost of MPPs targets them for
sharing within departments or companies,
so one user is less likely to get sole access.
Early tests on parallelized versions of the
ECLIPSE simulator indicate that gains in
speed depend on the complexity of the
reservoir model. A North Sea case with two-
phase flow of oil and water in a relatively
simple reservoir with 50,000 grid blocks
exhibited a four-fold speed up using eight
processors, and even greater gains for bigger
models. But three-phase flow simulation in
a 1.2-million block model filled randomly
with geostatistically derived data with highly
variable permeability showed less dramatic
improvement.
One application of simulators that will
undoubtedly benefit from implementation
on MPPs is that of testing multiple scenar-
ios. Simulation results are most valuable in a
comparative sense. Comparisons can be
made of the production behavior of different
reservoir models to gain understanding of
sensitivity to input parameters. Or different
production scenarios may be tested on a
single reservoir model. Running such simu-
lations simultaneously will save time and
allow comparisons to be made efficiently.
In the family of tools designed to help oil
companies make effective use of expensive,
hard-won data, simulation plays a key role
in making sense of data acquired through
different physical experiments, at different
times, at different spatial scales. Simulation
is one of the few tools available for under-
standing the changes a reservoir experiences
throughout its life. Used together with other
measurements, simulation reinforces con-
clusions based on other methods and leads
to a higher degree of confidence in our
understanding of the reservoir. —LS
14. Mullane TJ, Churcher PL, Tottrup P and Edmunds
AC: “Actual Versus Predicted Horizontal Well
Performance, Weyburn Unit, S.E. Saskatchewan,”
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 35, no. 3
(March 1996): 24-30.
15. Dutta-Roy K: “Surface Facility Link: Production Plan-
ning with Open-ECLIPSE and PIPEPHASE,” pre-
sented at the Second ECLIPSE International Forum,
Houston, Texas, USA, April 15-19, 1996.
27