Applied Reservoir Simulation

Course

Data Preparation

Reservoir Simulation Application Training Course

and (Eclipse) Workshop
SIS Training and Development,
Denver and Houston

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 1

 Outline
• Data Preparation
– Introduction
– Porosity
– Permeability, Relative
Permeability, Capillary Pressure
– Hysteresis
– Fluid Properties – PVT

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 2

 Introduction
• The initial and often the most time
consuming phase of a simulation study, is the
acquisition and interpretation of descriptive
data for the reservoir and reducing this data
to a format acceptable to the simulation
program.

• The purpose of this chapter is to review key

points in this process.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 3

 Introduction
• Sources of Data

Geophysical Data
Geological Log Data
Well Log Data
Core Analysis Data
Pressure Transient Data
Fluid Property Data
Production Information
Pressure Information

• Even the highest quality data has to be reviewed somewhat

skeptically

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 4

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 5
 Data Preparation
Data Requirement at Each System Node:

1. Permeability
2. Porosity
3. Thickness
4. Elevation
5. Initial Saturation for Each Phase
6. Initial Pressure
7. Fluid Properties (oil, water, gas) B, µ , Rs, Rv
8. Rock Properties Kr versus S, Pcow, Pc, Cf
9. Grid Dimensions

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 6

 Data Preparation

OTHER DATA:

1. Well producing interval and productivity

2. Pressure loss in tubing and flow lines
3. Aquifer Description
4. Historical Oil, Water, and Gas production
5. Observed pressure versus time

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 7

 Data Preparation - 1
Data Collection and Analysis may represent 50% of work.

SOURCES OF DATA

1. Geophysical Data - Structure / faults / form / thickness - get

help

2. Geologic Logs - Lithology / heterogeneity / shows / etc.

3. Well Logs - Net Thick / φ / Sw / fluid contacts

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 8

 Data Preparation - 2

4. Core Analysis - φ / Kh / Kv / Sresid

5. Pressure Transient Tests - Keff. h / skin / boundaries/ P*

6. Special Core Analysis

• Cf hydrostatic / triaxial / etc. usually strong f (φ)
• Kr - f (wetability, rate)
• P capillary - drainage, imbibition

7. Production Logs - TDT / spinner and grad.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 9

 Data Preparation - 3
8. PVT tests

• well preparation / sampling

• for gas - Z factors, composition
for gas cond. / volatile oil CVD / CCE
• for black-oil - flash / differential liberation / Separator
Tests / µ
• model data corrected for Separator
Conditions

9. Production Data - by phase / by well / by time

10. Operational Conditions - well histories / compositions /

facility conditions

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 10

 Next Section-
Outline of Discussion
• Porosity
• Rock Compressibility
• Permeability
• Rock Fluid Interaction
– Drainage
– Imbibition
– J-function
– Hysteresis
– Fluid Properties

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 11

 Dynamic Model
• Forces make fluids move in the porous media
– Gravity Forces
• from density differences in presence of
gravity
– Viscous Forces
• from pressure difference as inject or
produce
– Capillary Forces
• from surface tension between fluid phases
in presence of rock
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 12
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 13
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 14
 Crossplot of Log and Core
Porosity

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 15

 Cross Plots

((a) Core Porosity Permeability Cross-plots (b) Core Porosity Log Porosity Cross-plots

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 16

 Real Field Data – 4 Figures

• Means Field, San Andreas dolomite –

core porosity vs. core permeability
• Bradford sandstone – core porosity
vs. core permeability
• Brent Field - core porosity vs. core
permeability
• JAY-Little Escambia Creek Field,
Florida –kh (well test) vs. kh (core)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 17

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 18
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 19
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 20
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 21
 Compressibility

Defn: the change ∆V per unit volume V for an applied pressure ∆P

1 ∆V
C=−
V ∆P

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 22

 Compressibility

• Property of a certain rock volume

– bulk volume VB
– pore volume Vp
– fluid volume Vf

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 23

 Compressibility

• Change in volume due to variation in

effective net pressure
• Change in either
– overburden stress σ (while pore
pressure P remains constant)
– change in pore pressure P (while
overburden pressure σ remains
constant - “usual case”

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 24

 Conventional Reservoir
Compressibility

Bulk, rock, and pore

VB = V r + V p

V p = VB x Φ

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 25

 Conventional Reservoir
Compressibility
Bulk compressibility CB = 1/VB ·(dVB/dP)σ=constant

Matrix compressibility Cr = 1/Vr ·(dVr/dP)σ=constant

Pore compressibility Cp = 1/Vp ·(dVp/dP)σ=constant

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 26

 Rock Compressibility

ACTUALLY PORE VOLUME COMPRESSIBILITY

φ ∆V p ∆φ
Vp φ
cf = − =
net overburden ∆p ∆p

"ROCK" Keyword - Single Cf for all pressures

"ROCKTAB" - Multipliers to φ as function of pressure. Can also
include TM multipliers
"ROCKTABH" - Can make multipliers irreversible (Compaction
Hysteresis)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 27

 Experimental Data - Relationship Between
Pore Compressibility and Porosity

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 28

 Experimental Data - Relationship Between
Rock Compressibility and Porosity

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 29

Review of
Compressibility
of gas, fluids,
and rock vs.
Pressure

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 30

 Rock Compressibility and Pore
Volume

Porosity of rock is dependent on pressure due to rock

compressibility Cr.
Cr is assumed constant (unless compaction occurs)

φ =φ [1+ cr ( p − p )]
o o

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 31

 Rock Compressibility and Pore
Volume

ECLIPSE Version

 o o 1 o 2
φ =φ 1+ cr ( p − p ) + ⋅ cr ( p − p ) 
2
{ }
 

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 32

 Sensitivity to Compressibility in
Single Porosity
• Single porosity reservoir – 1
production well
• Run with 3 values of rock
compressibility
– Normal = 0.40x10-5 1/psi
– High = 0.40x10-4 1/psi Factor of 10 is a large
– Low = 0.40x10-6 1/psi change

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 33

 Calculated Pore Volume

Porosity when Rock Compressibility = 0.4E-5, 0.4E-4

and 0.4E-6
0.31
0.3
Poro Volume

Cr = 0.000004
0.29
Cr = 0.00004
0.28
Cr = 0.0000004
0.27
0.26
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure (Psia)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 34

 Field Pressure

High compressibility

Normal
compressibility

Low compressibility

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 35

 Oil Production Rate

High compressibility

Normal
compressibility

Low compressibility

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 36

 Permeability

ko = k . kr

Effective Absolute Relative

Permeability
Permeability Permeability
Geoscience Dynamic - Flow
Component Component

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 37

 Relative Permeability and
Capillary Pressure

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 38

 Fluid Flow in Porous Media
Surface Tension

The interaction of
the fluid phases
with the rock
influence the flow
of fluid through
the rock Interference result from
2 phase flow

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 39

Result of Fluid Phase Interference

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 40

Water Wet Microscopic Displacement
Mechanism – Trapping of Residual Oil

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 41

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 42
 Rock Fluid Interaction Factors
• Wettability characteristics – water wet, oil wet,
intermediate wet
• Hysteresis or Drainage process (saturations
increasing or decreasing) definitions coming next
• Capillary pressure
• Imbibition and Drainage relative permeability
curves
• Temperature, overburden pressure, interfacial
tension, viscosity, initial wetting phase
saturation, an immobile third phase and rate of
displacement through the core

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 43

 Wettability / Wetability

• Defn: Tendency of one fluid to

spread on or adhere to a solid
surface in the presence of other
immiscible fluids
• Rocks can be
– water-wet
– intermediate wet
– oil wet

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 44

 Wettability

• Water-wet - water occupies the small

pores and contacts the majority of
the rock surface
• Oil-wet - oil occupies the small
pores---etc.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 45

 Wettability Identification

• If water saturation corresponding to

Kro=Krw is greater than .50 --- water
wet
• If water saturation corresponding to
Kro=Krw is equal to or near .50 ---
intermediate wet
• If water saturation corresponding to
Kro=Krw is less than .50 --- oil wet

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 46

 Krow= Krw is greater than .50 :
Water Wet

Krow D
Krw I

Krow I

Krw D

Drainage

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 47

 Krow= Krw is less than .50:
Oil Wet

Krow Krw

Drainage

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 48

 Definitions for Drainage and
Imbibition

DRAINAGE - The process where the

wetting phase (water) saturation is
decreasing.

IMBIBITION: The process where the

wetting phase (water) saturation is
increasing.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 49

Water-Wet: Two and Three Phase Water and
Oil Relative Permeability

Krow D
Krw I

Krow I

Krw D

March 06 50
Measured Drainage and Imbibition
Curves

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 51

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 52
 Water Wet – Gas and Oil (in Gas)
Relative Permeabilities

Krog Imbibition

Krg Drainage
Krg Imbibition

Krog Drainage

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 53

 Normalized Relative Permeability
Curves
Lets us see
the true
difference
between rock
types

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 54

 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY
Rock-Indexing / Rock Types

1
Normalized curve + end
points (End Point
Scaling)

0 Rock types are

assigned to proper
grid blocks

Swirr 1-Sor
Sw
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 55
 Eclipse Table and End Point
Scaling Keywords
SWFN Krw versus Sw

SGFN Krg versus Sg

SOF3 Krow and Krog versus So

SWL Smallest Connate

SWOR Immobile Relative

Permeability
SWU Highest Water Saturation

(see manual for many more keywords)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 56
 Saturation Endpoints Definitions
• Endpoint values definitions:

Swirr - irreducible water saturation – from capillary

pressure

Sgc - critical gas saturation from gas-oil relative

permeability tests

Sorg - residual oil (liquid) saturation to gas displacement

is also obtained from gas-oil relative permeability
tests

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 57

 Saturation Endpoints Definitions

Sorw - residual oil saturation to water displacement,

imbibition capillary pressure tests, occasionally
from routine core analysis residual oil values

For additional definitions see publications on relative

permeability or ECLIPSE Technical Description

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 58

 Initial Saturation – Table End
Points

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 59

 Ternary diagram showing mobile
fluid end-points

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 60

 3 Phase Relative Permeabilities

• Standard tables give Krow and Krog

• When a grid block has three phases
present need to calculate Kro in the
presence of gas and water.
• Three models are available in E100:
– Stone I
– Stone II
– Eclipse default (Cheshire) – equation for
this option on next slide.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 61

 3-Phase Relative Permeability
In the Eclipse default model, fractions Swco 1-So-Swco So

of mobile gas and water are:

Sg
Hg =
S g + S w − S wco
Sw − Swco
Hw = GAS
Sg + Sw − Swco
For the three-phase oil rel. perm. use a
simple mixing rule: OIL

k ro = krog H g + k row H w
STONE1 and STONE2 are also
available. Use keywords STONE1 and
STONE2 respectively. WATER

1-So

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 62

 ECLIPSE Default Model

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 63

 3D-Visualisation of
3-Phase Relative Permeabilities

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 64

 Surface Tension

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 65

 Surface Tension Units

N/m SI Units
lb/ft British Units
dyne/cm CGS Units
J/m2
Erg/cm2

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 66

 Surface Tension and Interfacial
Tension
• Surface Tension – between a liquid
and its vapor
• σ, units of dynes per cm – measure
of surface energy (ergs/cm2) per unit
area.
• Typical values
• Air-water = 72 dynes/cm at 25o C
• Air-benzene = 29 dynes/cm at 20o C
• Air-n-hexane = 18 dynes/cm at 20o C
• Air-mercury = 465 dynes/cm at 20o C

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 67

 Surface Tension and Interfacial
Tension
• Interfacial tension – between 2
liquids
• Typical values:
• benzene-water = 35 dynes/cm at 20o C
• hexane-water = 51 dynes/cm at 20o C
• Water-mercury = 375 dynes/cm at 20o C

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 68

 Surface Tension and Pc

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 69

 Example – Oil/Water Interface
Height in Large Capillary Tube
Pc = hg ( ρ w − ρ oil )
2σ ⋅ cosθ
Pc =
Using the second
equation
r
Given σ = 35 dynes/cm, Cosθ = 1, r = 1 cm
Pc = (2x35x1)/1 = 70 dynes/cm2
1 dyne/cm2 = 1.45x10-5 lbs/in2 = 1/69,000 psi

Pc = 0.001 psi OR Pc = 0.001/r

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 70

 Example – Oil/Water Interface
Height in Large Capillary Tube
Pc = hg ( ρ w − ρ oil ) Using the first
equation

h( ρ w − ρ oil )
Pc = pounds / inch 2
144
Density of oil = 54.7 lbs/ft3 (30o API oil)
Density of brine = 69.1 lbs/ft3 (Sp. Gr. = 1.110)

 69.1 − 54.7  h
Pc =   ⋅h thus Pc =
 144  10
or
h = 10 ⋅ Pc

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 71

 Example – Oil/Water Interface
Height in Large Capillary Tube
Now if we pick
values of r we can
calculate the Pc from
Pc = 0.001/r psi
And then calculate
the capillary rise h
from

h = 10 ⋅ Pc
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 72
 Example – Oil/Water Interface
Height in Capillary Tubes

r (cm) Pc (psi) h (ft) of salt water

1 0.001 0.01
1.E-01 0.01 0.1
1.E-02 0.1 1
1.E-03 1 10 Probable
range of
1.E-04 10 100 pore sizes in
consolidated
1.E-05 100 1000 sandstone

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 73

 Another Example Calculation
What is the pressure difference between oil
and water (σ = 30 dynes/cm) in a capillary of 1
micron (10-4 cm) for a contact angle of 30o?

o
(2)(30)(cos 30 )
Pc = −4
dynes / cm 2

10
(2)(30)(0.866)
Pc = −4
= 5.2 x10 dynes / cm
5 2

10

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 74

 Example Calculation Continued

Since: 1 dynes/cm
2
= 1.45 x 10 lb/sq. in. -5

Pc = 5.2 x1.45 = 7.54 lb/sq. in.

In a water wet capillary of 1 micron

radius, the oil phase (side of the
interface) will be at a higher
pressure by 7.54 Psia

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 75

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 76
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 77
 Summary of Capillary Forces

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 78

 Wettability of the Oil/Water/Rock
System – Contact Angle

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 79

 Contact Angles

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 80

Water-Oil
Relative
Permeabilities at
Various Contact
Angles

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 81

 Water Wet Rock: Pc

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 82

 Intermediate Wet Rock: Pc

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 83

 Oil Wet Rock: Pc

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 84

 Effect of Wettability of Capillary
Pressure

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 85

 Water-Wet: Two and Three Phase
Water Capillary Pressure

Pcow D

Pcow I

March 06 86
 Height versus Saturation
Relationship

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 87

 Water Wet – Gas Oil Capillary
Pressure

Pcog Drainage

Pcog Imbibition

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 88

CAPILLARY PRESSURE
Leverett J Function

As long as porous rocks have similar pore geometry, following

relationship applies as a correlating group for all measurements
of capillary pressure using different fluid systems

Leverett-J Function Height Above OWC

Pc(Sw) k
J(Sw) =
σ Cos θ φ 0 . 001507 ∆ ρ h k
where J =
σ cos θ φ
σ = int erfacial tension
θ = contact angle

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 89

 Capillary Pressure - J Function
P c ( S w ) K 1/ 2
J( S w ) = ( )
σ co s θ φ
J (Sw) = J Function (function of Sw)

Pc (Sw) = Capillary Pressure (function of Sw)

σ = interfacial tension

Θ = contact angle

K = sample permeability

φ = sample porosity

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 90

 Leverett J Function in Eclipse

• Keyword JFUNC
• Activates the Leverett J-function
option which scales the water-oil
and/or gas-oil capillary pressure
function according to the grid block
porosity and permeability

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 91

 Leverett J Function in Eclipse
1/ 2
 Poro 
Pc = Pc ( S ) ⋅ ST ⋅   ⋅ U const
 Perm 
where
Pc ( S ) = capillary pressure from the input table
ST = surface tension (dynes/cm)
Poro = cell porosity
Perm = cell permeability
U const = constant depending on units system

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 92

 Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 93

 Hysteresis - Definition
When the curve used to determine the
rock properties is a function of the
history of the rock and a function of
the direction of the change in the
saturation, this process is called
Hysteresis.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 94

Let’s Briefly Look at the Theory of
Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 95

 Basic theory starts with a SPE
paper from Carlon Land, from
Laramie Wyoming in 1968
SPE 1942

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 96

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 97
 Land’s Work

• Land described the trapped non-

wetting saturation as a function of
• Maximum non-wetting phase
saturation reached in the rock, for a
given (non-wetting) phase

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 98

 Sketch of Non-wetting Phase
Relative Permeability
Krn = Non-wetting phase relative permeability
krn

Shy Give the bounding

drainage and
imbibition curves
envelope AND the maximum
non-wetting
scanning-curve saturation Shy then
Land’s theory
calculates the trapped
I non-wetting phase
D saturation Snt

Sncrd Snt Sncri Sn

Snmx

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 99

 Land’s Equations

S hy − S ncrd
S nt = S ncrd +
1 + C ( S hy − S ncrd )

1 1
C= −
S ncri − S ncrd S nmx − S ncrd
C is the Land trapping parameter – computed from the
bounding drainage and imbibition curves (end points)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 100

 Nomenclature

Sw = Wetting phase saturation

Sn = Non-wetting phase saturation
Snt = Trapped non-wetting phase saturation
Sncrd = Critical non-wetting phase saturation on the bounding drainage curve
Sncri = Critical non-wetting phase saturation on the bounding imbibition curve
Shy = Maximum non-wetting phase saturation reached during the run, for a
given phase and a given gridblock
Snmx = Maximum non-wetting phase saturation of the tables

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 101

 Let’s look at our example case
Using the Kro drainage and imbibition curves you have seen previously

1
Non-wetting Phase Relative

0.9
Kro drainage
0.8
0.7 Kro imbibition
Permeability

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Non-w etting Phase Saturation

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 102

Data and calculations for our case
Sncrd = 0
Sncri = 0.45
Shy = 0.6 (we put any value in here)
Snmx = 0.8
C = 0.972 (we get this from the equation)
Snt = 0.3789 (calculated from the previous
equation and the values above)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 103

 Results

• Given the end point values we can

calculate C and Shy
• But not the curve connecting Snt and
Shy – called Scanning Curves
• Calculation to connect these points
are provided by Killough and Carlson

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 104

 The Trapped Non-wetting Phase
Saturation and a Scanning Curve

1
Relative Permeability

Kro drainage
Non-wetting Phase

0.8 Kro imbibition

0.6 Scanning Curve
0.4
0.2
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Non-w etting Phase Saturation

This Scanning curve is arbitrarily created by Chuck

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 105

 Key References

Stone, H.L.:
”Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability and Residual Oil Data”,
J.Can. Petrol. Techno. (1973) 12(4), 53-61
Baker, L.E.:
"Three-Phase Relative Permeability Correlations.", paper SPE/DOE 17369, 1988.
Land. C.S.:
"Calculation of Imbibition relative Permeability for Two- and Three-Phase Flow
from Rock Properties", SPE1942, 1968.
Killough, J.E:
"Reservoir Simulation with History-Dependent Saturation Functions", SPE5106,
1976.
Carlson, F.M:
"Simulation of Relative Permeability Hysteresis to the Non-wetting Phase",
SPE10157, 1988.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 106

 Capillary Pressure Hysteresis
Characteristics

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 107

 Pc with Hysteresis and Scanning
Loops

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 108

 Hysteresis Effects
• Normally, the drainage curve is input for use in initializing
the model with the correct amount of hydrocarbons-in-
place

• Most simulators allow you to input both drainage and

imbibition curves. The scanning curves that go between
these curves are calculated by one of several models.

• Killough's Hysteresis model and Carlson’s Hysteresis

Model allows both capillary pressures and relative
permeabilities to range between imbibition and drainage
curves via intermediate "scanning" curves

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 109

 Summary of Options

EHYSTR (2) Water-Wet

=0 Carlson Hysteresis: non-wetting phase(s) – drainage
(SATNUM): wetting phase
=1 Carlson Hysteresis: non-wetting phase(s) – imbibition
(IMBNUM): wetting phase
=2 Killough Hysteresis: non-wetting phase(s) - drainage
(SATNUM): : wetting phase
=3 Killough Hysteresis: non-wetting phase(s) – imbibition
(IMBNUM): wetting
=4 Killough Hysteresis: all phases

March 06 110
 Two Phase Water Wet: Kro Scanning Curves

D
I

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 111

 Water Wet: Water Relative
Permeability Scanning Curves

Krw I

Krw D

March 06 112
Three Phase Water Wet: Krog and Krow Scanning Curves

I I

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 113

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 114
 Drainage, Imbibition and
Hysteresis in a Linear Reservoir

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 115

 Linear Reservoir for Demo
Calculations
• Length = 2600 feet
• Width = 1500 feet
• Depth = 32 feet
• Porosity = 18%
• Permeability = 500 mD

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 116

 Grid and Initial Conditions

• 13 blocks in x-direction – 200 feet

long
• 1 grid block in y and z directions
• STOIIP = 2.57 MM Stb
• Pi = 4500 Psia

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 117

 Linear Reservoir – Water
Saturation

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 118

 Initial Properties

• Connate water = 20% and oil, no gas

initially
• Three phase system: w, o, g
• Constant Rs and Rv – PVDO and
PVDG used
• Drainage and Imbibition curves are
available – not always used – shown
next.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 119

 Water-Wet: Water and Oil Relative
Permeability

Krow D
Krw I

Krow I

Krw D

March 06 120
 Water-Wet: Oil-Water Capillary
Pressure

Pcow D

Pcow I

March 06 121
 Wells – for Water Flood, Time

• Water injector – RHS

– Water inj rate = 8000 Stb/day
– BHP = 4700 Psia
• Producer – LHS
– BHP = 2500 Psia
• Simulation run 600 days

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 122

 Comparison of Use of Drainage
and Imbibition Curves
• Water injection (in a water wet rock)
is an imbibition process
• Some times only Drainage curves are
available from the labs
• Question:
– What difference does it make using
either the drainage or imbibition curves
for the water flood???

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 123

 Water-Cut Comparison

Imbibition Curve Result

Drainage Curve Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 124

 Oil Production Rate Comparison

Drainage Curve Result

Imbibition Curve Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 125

 Cumulative Oil Produced
Comparison
Drainage Curve Result

Imbibition Curve Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 126

 Observations

• There is a substantial difference in

the all the results.
• Using the drainage curve for this
process is not correct.
• Imbibition curves must be measured
and used for this process.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 127

 Simulation of WAG Process

• WAG (Water Alternating Gas)

injection process are becoming more
popular since the oil recovery is
usually better than water flood alone
or gas injection alone.
• What are the advantages of a WAG
injection?

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 128

 Start of WAG Projects

Cumulative no of WAG projects since 1957 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1954 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004
year

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 129

 Simulation of WAG Process

• Questions:
– What is the effect of using Hysteresis
model or not?
– What is the effect of using Carlson or
Killough Hysteresis model?
– What is the effect of 3 phase models –
Eclipse Default (Cheshire) or Stone?

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 130

 WAG Injection Process - Wells

• 5 WAG Cycles are simulated – WAG

injector RHS replaced the water
injector from previous simulations
– First: Water injection for 60 days – 8000
Stb/day, BHP = 4700 Psia
– Second: Gas injection for 60 days –
8000 Mscf/day, BHP = 4700 Psia

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 131

 Test of Hysteresis or
NO Hysteresis
• No Hysteresis run used drainage
curves
• Hysteresis run (uses both drainage
and imbibition curves – gas-oil
curves follow) uses Carlson
Hysteresis model for relative
permeabilities

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 132

 Water Wet – Gas and Oil (in Gas)
Relative Permeabilities

Krog Imbibition

Krg Drainage
Krg Imbibition

Krog Drainage

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 133

 Water Wet – Gas Oil Capillary
Pressure

Pcog Drainage

Pcog Imbibition

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 134

 Water-Cut Comparison

No Hysteresis Result
Hysteresis Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 135

 Oil Production Rate Comparison

No Hysteresis Result

Hysteresis Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 136

 Cumulative Oil Produced
Comparison
No Hysteresis Result

Hysteresis Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 137

 Field Water Injection Rate
Comparison
No Hysteresis Result

Hysteresis Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 138

 Field Gas Injection Rate
Comparison
No Hysteresis Result

Hysteresis Result

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 139

 Effect of Hysteresis Model

• 5 choices for the hysteresis model

exist (see next slide)
• To observe the effect on WAG
injection
– Run simulation with Carlson hysteresis
drainage for water phase ( = 0)
– Run simulation with Killough hysteresis
on all phases ( = 4)
– Compare

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 140

 Summary of Options

EHYSTR (2) Water-Wet

=0 Carlson Hysteresis: non-wetting - drainage: wetting phase

=1 Carlson Hysteresis: non-wetting - imbibition: wetting phase
=2 Killough Hysteresis: non-wetting - drainage: wetting phase
=3 Killough Hysteresis: non-wetting - imbibition: wetting
=4 Killough Hysteresis: both

March 06 141
 Water Cut Comparison

Killough Hysteresis

Carlson Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 142

 Oil Production Rate Comparison

Killough Hysteresis

Carlson Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 143

 Cumulative Oil Produced
Comparison

Killough Hysteresis

Carlson Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 144

 Water Injection Rate Comparison

Killough Hysteresis

Carlson Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 145

 Gas Injection Rate Comparison

Killough Hysteresis

Carlson Hysteresis

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 146

Discussion on Hysteresis Models

• If we were to compare the results

from all 5 choices – we would find 4
different results.
• Which model should you use?
• Need to run long core experiments with
WAG
• Have measured drainage and imbibition
curves
• Simulate the experiments with Eclipse
testing the 5 models to match the results

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 147

 Effect of Three Phase Model

• When three mobile phases (oil,

water, and gas) exist in a volume of
rock – the relative permeability of the
oil phase must be calculated by one
of several “approximate” theories.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 148

 Effect of Three Phase Model

• In Eclipse there are 3 choices:

– Eclipse Default (Cheshire Model)
– Stone 1
– Stone 2

Models described in detail in ECLIPSE Technical Description

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 149

 Eclipse Default

S g k rog + (S w − S wco )k row

k ro =
S g + S w − S wco

Note: Swco is connate water saturation

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 150

 Simulate the WAG Injection with
Different Three Phase Models
• Simulate the WAG injection with
Hysteresis Model (Killough
hysteresis on all 3 phases)
• One simulation with Eclipse Default
Model
• One simulation with Stone 1
• Compare results

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 151

 Water Cut Comparison

Eclipse Default Model

Stone 1 Model

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 152

 Oil Production Rate Comparison

Eclipse Default Model

Stone 1 Model

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 153

 Cumulative Oil Produced
Comparison

Eclipse Default Model

Stone 1 Model

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 154

 Water Injection Rate Comparison

Stone 1 Model

Eclipse Default Model

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 155

 Gas Injection Rate Comparison

Stone 1 Model

Eclipse Default Model

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 156

 Fluid Properties - PVT

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 157

 Fluid Properties - PVT

Dynamic Model needs

fluid properties for
viscous and gravity PVT Laboratories
forces:
run experiments
viscosity
to determine
density
properties
solubility
(gas in oil - oil in gas)

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 158

 PVTi Program

PVTi Program
Laboratory
Results Characterize Fluid
C1,C2-6,C7-10,C11-18,C19-21,C21+

Match Lab Data

by regressing on
component
properties
Tc, Pc ...

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 159

 PVTi Program

Laboratory Direct Input E100

Results
ECLIPSE
Input E100
E300
E500

Output of PVTi
PVTi Input to E100,
E300, E500

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 160

 Review of Black Oil Assumptions
• Three components: oil, water and gas

• Water must be immiscible with oil

• Gas is soluble in the oil phase as a single component

• Oil, when brought to surface, should not have any

dissolved gas in it (Stock Tank oil).

• Isothermal system

• Compositional effects can be ignored.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 161

Purpose of the SOLUTION Section

Water

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 162

 Black Oil - Oil Formation Volume Factor

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 163

 VARIABLE BUBBLE POINT
PROBLEM
Some reservoirs have bubble points or dew points that
vary with depth or time – the reasons may be:

•Temperature variation

•Depletion : Pressure drop below bubble point and the

segregation of gas

•Compositional gradation: Segregation during migration due

to earth’s gravity field

• Gas injection: Results in in-situ compositional alterations

due to viscous and gravity forces.
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 164
 Phase Diagram - Compositional

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 165

T a b le T R C -3 : C la s s ific a tio n of P e tro le u m
flu id s b a s e d o n c o m p o s itio n s

C om p B la c k O il V o la tile G as D ry G as.
N am e O il C onden.
C 1 4 3 .8 3 6 4 .3 6 8 7 .0 7 9 5 .8 5
C 2 2 .7 5 7 .5 2 4 .3 9 2 .6 7
C 3 1 .9 3 4 .7 4 2 .2 9 0 .3 4
C 4 1 .6 4 .1 2 1 .7 4 0 .5 2
C 5 1 .1 5 2 .9 7 0 .8 3 0 .0 8
C 6 1 .5 9 1 .3 8 0 .6 0 .1 2
C 7+ 4 2 .1 5 1 4 .9 1 3 .8 0 .4 2
100 100 100 100
C 7+ M w t 225 181 112 157
G O R 625 2 ,0 0 0 1 8 ,2 0 0 1 0 5 ,0 0 0
A PI 3 4 .3 5 0 .1 6 0 .8 5 4 .7
L iq u id G re e n is h M e d iu m L ig h t W a te r
C o lo u r B la c k O ra n g e S tra w W h ite

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 166

 Black Oil

Pressure

Temperature

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 167

 Volatile Oil

Pressure

Temperature

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 168

 Retrograde Gas

Pressure

Temperature

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 169

 Wet Gas

Pressure

Temperature

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 170

Dry Gas

Pressure

Temperature

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 171

 OIL GAS

Heavy Oil Black Oil Volatile Critical Critical Gas Wet Dry
Oil Oil Gas Condens. Gas Gas
Cricondenbar Critical Point
B
Bubble
Point Dew Point
Loci Loci
Pressure

Retrograde
Region
Cricondenterm

A Two Phase Region

C
Temperature

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 172

 Definitions
mass
Oil Density: ρ o =
volume

It is also expressed as relative to water = Specific Gravity

( )
ρ o 60 o F
; ρ w (60 o F ) = 62.336
lb
ρ w (60 o F )
S .G. =
cft

API gravity. It is defined as

141.5
o
API = − 131.5
S .G.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 173

 Specific Gravity of a Gas

Ratio of the density of the gas to the density of dry air

at same temperature and pressure

ρg ρa = 0.076362 lbm/ft3
γg =
ρ air ρa =1.2232 kgm/m3

pM g
RT Mg Mg
γg = = =
pM air M air 29
RT

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 174

 Classification of Oil

API<20 S.G.>0.93 Heavy Oil

20<API<35 0.93>S.G.>0.88 Medium Oil
35<API<50 0.88>S.G.>0.825 Light Oil
API>50 0.825>S.G. Condensate
Fluids

• Relationship between oil density at surface and oil

density at reservoir conditions

1  Rs 
ρ o (T , P ) = ρ
 o ( sc ) + ρ gas ( sc )  ;
Bo  5.6145 

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 175

 Reservoir pressure distribution

GAS GAS

OIL OIL

WATER
WATER

G as 0 .0 4 -0 .1 0 p s i/ft
O il 0 .2 3 -0 .3 3 p s i/ft
W a te r 0 .4 3 -0 .5 0 p s i/ft

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 176

 Composition with Depth

• At GOC, dew point

gas equilibrium
with bubble point
oil; fluids of
different
composition.

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 177

 Variation of Pressure with Depth
from PVTi

Pressures in gas
Dew point
pressures

GOC

Pressures in
oil

Bubble point
pressures

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 178

 Surface Separation
Stock
Tank Gas

Gas Gas Gas

Well
Stream T2, P2
T3, P3
Oil
T1, P1 Oil Oil

Stock
Tank Oil
March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 179
 Historical
Publications on
Rock Properties
and Rock and
Fluid Interactions

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 180

 Historical
Publications on
Rock Properties
and Rock and
Fluid Interactions

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 181

 Historical
Publications on
Rock Properties
and Rock and
Fluid Interactions

March 06 Applied Reservoir Simulation Day 2 182