Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Rome, Italy, 9–12 June 2008.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
To obtain accurate descriptions of fluid flow in the reservoir, it is necessary to include detailed geological information on the
scale of geocellular models. However, computation resources are often overwhelmed by the vast amount of information that
geocellular models contain.
The multiscale approach presented in this paper is designed to include the detailed geological information into the flow
calculations while making computations less expensive. The distinguishing characteristic of this paper lies on the procedure
used to carry out the computations. The procedure splits the computation into pressure solution on a coarser grid and the
saturations and compostions calculations on a very fine scale. This is based the physical and theoretical evidence that
pressure effects travel at much higher velocities than saturation and composition fronts – thus, different scales on
computation. Splitting up the computations through appropriate physical rules, the multiscale approach divides the
computation of pressure propagation and convective processes like the saturation and composition fronts. The pressure
propagation is diffusive in nature, while the saturation and composition computation being transport processes are convective
in nature. These characteristics allow the computation of the solution at different scale levels. The multiscale approach of this
paper is a sequential formulation based on a volume balance model using partial molar volumes. It starts with a
compositional pressure equation based on the overall components balance. Once the pressure solution is obtained, the total
phase and component velocities are calculated on a fine scale to track the saturation and composition fronts.
The multiscale method begins with the use of coarse grid blocks, which contain numerous finer grid blocks (the
geocellular scale). Flux calculations based on the total face velocities at the boundaries of the coarse grid blocks are used to
set up the fine grid calculations for both the pressure and saturations within each coarse grid block for accurate tracking of the
displacement fronts. The finer scale solution is subsequently employed to improve the accuracy of the coarse grid block
boundary conditions. The scheme is intended to capture the fine scale physics of gravity, capillarity, and phase behavior
interactions as well as the global effect of rock heterogeneity (the dual-porosity effects), pore structure, stratigraphy, and
reservoir architecture.
Introduction
The current practice to evaluate reservoir performance is using reservoir simulation. There is an increasing need for adequate
reservoir descriptions in order to obtain reliable estimations of reservoir performance. In fact, when dealing with highly
heterogeneous formations, it is crucial to conform and include all available reservoir data coming from different sources. As
reservoir characterization techniques improve, vast amounts of information are generated to form reservoir models. Typical
reservoir models at geocellular scale may contain 107 – 108 cells. By contrast, reservoir flow simulations are typically run on
upscaled versions of the reservoir models with less of 106 cells (Christie 1996); these limitations considerably depend on the
kind of simulation being performed (dead oil, black oil, compositional) and the available computing resources (Durlofsky,
2005).
Flow models in reservoir simulation consist of coupled, nonlinear partial differential equations. These equations describe
multicomponent, multiphase flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs. The coupled differential equations are discretized, leading to a
sparse coefficient matrix that is usually solved using optimized sparse linear solvers. As the discretization of the reservoir
model increases, classical reservoir flow models become often extremely slow and impractical. In order to overcome this
issue, more efficient numerical schemes have been devised and are a subject of vigorous research (e.g. domain decomposition
methods and multilevel/multiscale methods).
2 SPE 113651
In multiscale methods, the use of local rules on the finest levels resolves the solution at detailed scales, but always
recognizing that these local rules have broader implications at coarser levels. Using repetitive feedback between levels is
essential to improve the final solution since the calculation on one scale impacts the calculation on the others. In the
multiscale method proposed, the saturation and composition fronts are calculated at the finest scale, while the pressure
propagation is calculated at the coarser scale.
Compositional Model
Compositional models are required when it is necessary to describe reservoir fluid phase behavior in a unified manner.
Through compositional modeling behavior of condensates, volatile oils, and gas injection processes can be studied. In this
chapter a review of compositional modeling is presented. Additionally the compositional model based on the volume balance
technique is discussed (Acs et al., 1982; Watts, 1986; Wong et al, 1990).
Compositional Modeling
The molar continuity equations are written for nc hydrocarbon components and one water component. Three phases are
considered, a hydrocarbon gas phase, a hydrocarbon liquid phase and a water phase. The molar continuity equation for each
component is given by
∂ ⎡
uc =
∂t ⎣
( )
φ ξ g S g + ξ o S o + ξ w S w zc ⎤
⎦
(1)
where
( )
uc = ∇ ⋅ ycξ g λg k ∇Φ g + xcξo λo k ∇Φ o + wcξ w λw k ∇Φ w + qc (2)
and
In this work, it is assumed that the water component exists solely in the water phase; while the hydrocarbon components
exist in the hydrocarbon gas phase and hydrocarbon liquid phase only. This can also be expressed as
r
x = ( x1 , x2 ,..., xnc , 0 ) ,
T
(4)
r
y = ( y1 , y2 ,..., ync , 0 ) ,
T
(5)
and
r
w = ( 0, 0,..., 0,1) .
T
(6)
The sum of the mole fractions in each phase satisfies the following relations.
nc
∑y
c =1
c = 1, (7)
nc
∑x
c =1
c =1, (8)
nc
∑w
c =1
c = wnc +1 = 1 , (9)
nc
∑z
c =1
c = 1. (10)
The equilibrium constraints are expressed through equality between the fugacities of each component in the hydrocarbon
liquid phase and hydrocarbon gas phase,
f c ,o = f c , g . (11)
S g + So + S w = 1 . (12)
nc +1 ⎡ 1 ∂φ 1 ∂v ⎤ ∂p
∑v u tc c =φ ⎢
⎢ φ ∂p
−
v ∂p
t ⎥
zc ⎥
∂t
. (13)
c =1 ⎣ t ⎦
In Eq. 13, vtc is the partial molar volume of the multiphase system with respect to component c, ( −1/ vt )( ∂vt / ∂p ) is
zc
the isothermal fluid compressibility, and um is the net molar flux of component c per block volume. Eq. 13 can be solved for
pressure when all other terms are used at the previous time step condition.
The discreatized form of the compositional pressure equation is
⎡ ⎤
1 ⎢⎛⎜ n ⎞
nc +1 n
∂V
∑( ) ( )
⎟ pin +1 − pin − (Vt − V p ) ⎥ .
n
vtcU cn +1 = V p cφ − t (14)
i ∆t ⎢ ⎜ ∂p ⎟ i ⎥
c =1 ⎣⎝ Nc ⎠i ⎦
The term (Vt − V p )i in Eq. 14 serves as a correction term, Watts (Watts, 1986) refers to it as the volumetric error. It
n
merely reflects the fact that the pressures obtained at the previous time level may have not been exactly correct.
1 ∂N c
uc = . (15)
Vt ∂t
Using the amount of mass at the new pressure level, a flash calculation provides the saturations and the phase
compositions at the new time level.
nc +1 ⎡ 1 ∂φ 1 ∂v ⎤ ∂p ∂S p
∑ v pc uc = φ ⎢ S p
⎢ φ ∂p
−
v ∂p
p
⎥
⎥ ∂t
+φ
∂t
. (16)
c =1 ⎣ t zc ⎦
In Eq. 16, v pc is the partial molar volume of phase p with respect to component c and ( −1/ vt ) ( ∂v p / ∂p ) z is the
c
isothermal phase compressibility. Analogous to the IMPES implementation, the sequential approach starts with the implicit
solution of the pressure distribution. Using the pressure distribution at the new time level and the saturations at the previous
time level, interblock total velocities are computed using Eq. 17.
nc +1 ⎡ 1 ∂φ 1 ∂v ⎤ ∂S
∑ v pc uc = φ ⎢ S p −
p
⎥ ∂p + φ p . (17)
⎢ φ ∂p v ∂p ⎥ ∂t ∂t
c =1 ⎣ t zc ⎦
The calculation of individual phase velocities follows; these can be obtained with the following equations.
{ ⎣ ( ⎦ ) ( )
u g = f g ut − ⎡ λw γ w − λg + λo γ o − γ g ⎤ k ∇D + λw k ∇pcwof − ( λw + λo ) k ∇pcog , } (18)
{ ( )
uo = f o ut − ⎡λw ( γ w − γ o ) + λg γ g − γ o ⎤ k ∇D − λw k ∇pcwo + λg k ∇pcog ,
⎣ ⎦ } (19)
and,
{
uw = f w vt − ⎡⎣ λo ( γ o − γ w ) + λg ( γ g − γ w ) ⎤⎦ k ∇D + ( λo + λgf ) k ∇pcwo + λg k ∇pcog . } (20)
Additionally, the phase velocities can be related to the net molar flux of component c using the following equation.
(
uc = ∇ ⋅ ycξ g u g + xcξ o uo + wcξ wuw + qc . ) (21)
Finally, Eq. 21 is substituted in the compositional saturation equation, Eq. 17, and solved for saturations at the new time
level. It is important to note that using the sequential method would allow to solve for saturations implicitly and obtain
additional stability if needed.
Once the new saturations have been obtained, new time level phase velocities are computed and finally substituted in the
following equation to compute the change in the number of moles in a specific block during a time step.
1 ∂N c
(
∇ ⋅ ycξ g vg + xcξo vo + wcξ w vw + qc = ) Vt ∂t
. (22)
Using the amount of mass at the new pressure level, a flash calculation provides the saturations and the phase
compositions at the new time level.
nc +1 nc +1 ⎡ 1 ∂φ 1 ∂v ⎤ ∂p f
∑ (v u ) + ∑ ( vtcτ tc ) f / m = φ ⎢ −
⎢⎣ φ ∂p vt ∂p
t
⎥ (23)
⎦ f ∂t
tc c f
c =1 c =1 zc ⎥
and
nc +1 ⎡ 1 ∂φ 1 ∂v ⎤ ∂p
∑ (v τ ) tc tc f /m
=φ ⎢ −
⎢⎣ φ ∂p vt ∂p
t
⎥
⎥ ∂t
m
. (24)
c =1 zc ⎦ m
SPE 113651 5
where,
( uc ) f (
= ∇ ⋅ ycξ g λg k ∇Φ g ) f + ∇ ⋅ ( xcξo λo k∇Φo ) f + ∇ ⋅ ( wcξ wλw k∇Φ w ) f + ( qc ) f , (25)
⎢
(
⎡ pof − pom ) ⎤
⎥ ⎡ ∂pgm ∂S gm ⎤
τ g ≡ σ km λgf / m ⎢ σ ⎥ = φm ⎢ S gm cg + cφ ( )m + ⎥, (27)
⎢−
⎣ σ
z
(
γ g hgf − hgm + pcgof − pcgom) ( ) ⎥
⎦
⎣ ∂t ∂t ⎦
⎪
(
⎧ pof − pom ) ⎫
⎪ ⎡ ∂p ∂S ⎤
τ o ≡ σ km λof / m ⎨ σ ⎬ = φm ⎢ Som ( co + cφ )m + om ⎥ ,
om
(28)
⎪+ z
γ o ⎡( hwf − hwm ) − ( hgf − hgm ) ⎤ ⎪ ⎣ ∂t ∂t ⎦
⎩ σ ⎣ ⎦⎭
and
(
⎡ pof − pom ) ⎤
⎢
τ w ≡ σ km λwf / m ⎢ σ
⎥ ⎡
⎥ = φm ⎢ S wm cw + cφ ( )m ∂p∂wm ∂S ⎤
+ wm ⎥ . (29)
⎢+
⎣ σ
z
(
γ w hwf − hwm − pcwof − pcwom ) ( ) ⎥
⎦
⎣ t ∂t ⎦
Multiscale Implementation
The multiscale implementation of the volume balance formulation is described in this section. We start by defining the
basic multiscale concepts and then build towards the details of flow calculations.
Fig. 1: Diagram showing a coarse grid block and its corresponding fine grid blocks.
6 SPE 113651
The coarser grid level is defined using the premise that pressure propagation, which is diffusive in nature, occurs a lot
faster when compared to the transport processes. Using this attribute, it is possible then to calculate the pressure solution at
the center of the coarse grids using upscaled properties.
The finer grid level is defined by the same principle. Saturation/composition fronts are slow in nature and it is of interest
to describe them in a finer scale using most of the underlying geological information as possible. By the nature of the
formulation, it is necessary to define the velocity at the finer scale in order to compute the saturation/compositions fronts.
Most of this section will dwell on the interactions and definitions of the quantities computed at the coarser and finer
levels.
nbf
(N ) = ∑( N )
c
c
i
c
f
i
. (30)
i =1
Once the number of moles is been determined, the mixture is flashed to obtain the mole fractions of component c in the
liquid and gas phases and the saturations of each phase at the coarse grid level. Subsequently, the saturations of each phase
are used to compute saturation functions at the coarse grid blocks.
With all the coarse grid properties defined, it is possible to obtain the solution of the pressure field at the coarse grid level
using Eq. 14.
Nomenclature
c Compressibility [psi-1]
D Depth [ft]
k Absolute permeability [md]
nc Pseudo components considered in the hydrocarbon description [ ]
np Number of phases [ ]
Np Number of moles of hydrocarbon phase p [lb-mole]
Nc,p Moles of component c in phase p[lb-mole]
Nt Total Moles [lb-mole]
p Pressure [psi]
SPE 113651 7
Greek
φ Porosity [ ]
Φ Potential [psi]
γ Fluid gradient [psi/ft]
µ Viscosity [cp]
λ Fluid relative mobility [cp-1]
π Pi value
ρ Density [lb/ft3]
σ Shape Factor [1/ft2]
ξ Molar density [lbmole/ft3]
∇ Gradient operator
∇⋅ Divergence operator
Subscripts
B Bottom
c cth component
f Fracture
g Gas phase
i x-direction index for the fine grid
I x-direction index for the coarse grid
j y-direction index for the fine grid
J y-direction index for the coarse grid
k z-direction index for the fine grid
K z-direction index for the coarse grid
m matrix
o Oil phase
p Phase or Pore
r Rock
t Total (oil + gas + water)
T Top
w Water phase
x x-direction
y y-direction
z z-direction
φ Porosity
Superscripts
c Coarse level
f Fine level
(l) Current iteration level
( l + 1 ) New iteration level
n Current time step
n + 1 New time step
8 SPE 113651
Acknowledgments
We would like to aknowledge the continuing support by Marathon Oil Company to conduct this research.
References
Acs, G., Doleschall, S., and Farkas, E.: “General Purpose Compositional Model,” SPEJ (Aug. 1985) 543-553.
Christie, M.A.: “Upscaling for Reservoir Simulation,” SPE JPT (Nov. 1996) 1004–1010.
Durlofsky, L. J.: “Upscaling and Gridding of Fine Scale Geological Models for Flow Simulation,” 8th International Forum on Reservoir
Simulation, Iles Borromees, Stresa, Italy, June 20-24, 2005.
Heinemann, Z.E. and M.G. Mittermeir: “Rigorous Derivation of the Kazemi-Gilman-Elsharkawy Generalized Dual-Porosity Shape
Factor,” paper B044, presented at the 10th European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
Sept. 4 – 7, 2006.
Kazemi, H., Gilman, J.R.: “Multiphase Flow in Fractured Petroleum Reservoirs,” in: Bear J., Tsang C.F., de Marsily G., editors. Flow and
Contaminant Transport in Fractured Rock, Academic Press, San Diego, (1993) 267-323.
Kazemi, H., Gilman, J.R.: “Improved Calculations for Viscous and Gravity Displacement in Matrix Blocks in Dual-Porosity Simulation,”
JPT (Jan. 1988) 60-70.
Kazemi, H., Merrill, L. S. Jr., Porterfield, K. L., Zeman, P. R.: “Numerical Simulation of Water-Oil Flow in Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs”, SPEJ (Dec. 1976) 317-326.
Ramirez, B., Kazemi, H., Al-Kobaisi M., Ozkan, E., and Atan, S.: “A Critical Review for Proper Use of Water-Oil-Gas Transfer Functions
in Dual-Porosity Naturally Fractured Reservoirs – Part I,” SPE 109821, 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held
in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 2007.
Watts, J. W.: “A Compositional Formulation of the Pressure and Saturation Equations,” SPE Res. Eng. Jour., May 1986, 243-252.
Whitson C. and Brule M.: Phase Behavior, SPE Monograph Volume 20, Henry L Doherty Series, Richardson, Texas (2000).
Wong, T. W., Firoozabadi, A., and Khalid Aziz: “Relationship of the Volume-Balance Methods of Compositional Simulation to the
Newton-Raphson Method,” SPE Res. Engr. Jour., Aug. 1990, 415-422.
∂
τ g ≡ ρ gmσ km λgf / m ⎡⎣Φ gf − Φ gm ⎤⎦ =
∂t
(
φρ g S g )m , (1)
∂
τ o ≡ ρomσ km λof / m ⎡⎣Φ of − Φ om ⎤⎦ = (φρo So )m , (2)
∂t
and,
∂
τ w ≡ ρ wmσ km λwf / m ⎡⎣Φ wf − Φ wm ⎤⎦ = (φρ w Sw )m . (3)
∂t
To define the potential difference between the matrix and the fracture for each phase, the following ideal segregation of
fluids is assumed.
SPE 113651 9
DT
Gm Gm
hgm
Gf hgf
Om
hom Om Of hof
Wf Wm hwf
Wm
hwf
DB
(
Φ wf = pwf − γ w DB − hwf , ) (4)
(
Φ gf = pgf − γ g DT + hgf , ) (6)
(
Φ gm = pgm − γ g DT + hgm . ) (7)
( ) (
Φ of = pof − γ o ⎡ DB − hwf + DT + hgf ⎤ ,
⎣ ⎦ ) (8)
⎣ ⎦(
Φ om = pom − γ o ⎡( DB − hwm ) + DT + hgm ⎤ . ) (9)
Using Eq. 35 through Eq. 38, the average potential difference between the fracture and the matrix are defined as,
( )
Φ gf − Φ gm = pgf − pgm − γ g hgf − hgm , ( ) (10)
( ) (
Φ of − Φ om = pof − pom + γ o ⎡ hwf − hwm − hgf − hgm ⎤ ,
⎣ ⎦ ) ( ) (11)
( )
Φ wf − Φ wm = pwf − pwm + γ w hwf − hwm . ( ) (12)
Substituting back the flow potential difference definitions into the transfer function equations and introducing a correction
for the gravity term, we obtain
⎡ σz ⎤ ∂
τ g ≡ ρ gmσ km λgf / m ⎢( pgf − pgm ) − γ g ( hgf − hgm ) ⎥ = (φρ g S g ) , (13)
⎣ σ ⎦ ∂t m
10 SPE 113651
(⎧ pof − pom
⎪
) ⎫
⎪ ∂
τ o ≡ ρomσ km λof / m ⎨ σ ⎬ = (φρo So )m , (14)
⎪+
⎩ σ
z
(
⎣ ) (
γ o hwf − hwm − hgf − hgm ⎪ ∂t
⎡ ⎤
⎦⎭ )
⎡ σz ⎤ ∂
τ w ≡ ρ wmσ km λwf / m ⎢( pwf − pwm ) + γ w ( hwf − hwm ) ⎥ = (φρ w S w ) m . (15)
⎣ σ ⎦ ∂t