REPORTS OF GROUP PROJECTS ON

APPLIED RESERVOIR SIMULATION

BY

JOHN IDOKO JOB

Student ID: 40462
Msc. Student, Petroleum Engineering Department, AUST Abuja

Submitted to:

Prof. David O. Ogbe

Head of Petroleum Engineering Department, AUST Abuja
Email: dogbe@aust.edu.ng
Phone: +2348058643856, +2348033792781

June, 2017.
Contents
WORKSHOP NO. 1: RUNNING ECLIPSE COMMERCIAL SIMULATOR ....................................................................................... 2
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Case 1; Predictive Runs Without the Effect of Gas Resolution on the Oil ...................................................................... 2
Case 2; Investigating the Effect of Gas Resolution on the Oil ......................................................................................... 2
RESULTS PRESENTATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................... 3
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTION APPROACH .................................................................................................... 4
WORKSHOP NO. 2: PLACING WELLS IN THE SIMULATOR ....................................................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
RESULTS PRESENTATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................... 6
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS APPROACH .................................................................................................. 6
WORKSHOP NO. 3: GRIDDING ................................................................................................................................................ 7
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
PART I .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
PART 2 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7
PART 1 RESULTS PRESENTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 7
PART 2 RESULTS PRESENTATION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................... 8
MAJOR OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 9
WORKSHOP NO. 4: IMPES VS. IMPLICIT FORMULATIONS .................................................................................................... 10
METHODOLOGY (BRIEF) .................................................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS PRESENTATION ................................................................................................................................................... 10
RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 10
WORKSHOP NO. 5: MODELING AQUIFERS............................................................................................................................ 11
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
RESULTS PRESENTATION ................................................................................................................................................... 11
RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................... 11
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

1
 WORKSHOP NO. 1: RUNNING ECLIPSE COMMERCIAL SIMULATOR
METHODOLOGY
A 10 × 10 × 3 grid system, black oil model was used to simulate two cases of gas injection with an injector
located in Block 1,1 and completed at cell 1,1,1; and an oil producer passing through block 10,10 and
completed at cell 10,10.3.

Case 1; Predictive Runs Without the Effect of Gas Resolution on the Oil
The keyword ‘DRSDT’, was equated to zero in the SCHEDULE section of the input file. This implies that there
is no gas resolution in the oil. Results from the runs are given in Figure 1 and Table 1 below.

Case 2; Investigating the Effect of Gas Resolution on the Oil

The keyword ‘DRSDT’, was nullified (commented out) in the SCHEDULE section of the input file. This allows
for gas resolution in the oil. Results from the runs are given in Figure 2 below and Table 1 below.

Problem 3: Comparison of the results of Case 1 and Case 2.

Figures 3 to 6 compares the performance of the reservoir, under production, when there is gas resolution in the
oil (Case 1) and when there is no gas resolution in the oil (Case 2).

RESULTS PRESENTATION

Figure 1: Results of predictive runs without the Figure 2: Results of predictive runs with consideration
effect gas resolution in oil (CASE 1) for the effect of gas resolution in oil (CASE 2)

2
Figure 3: Comparison of Field Oil Production Rates Figure 4: Comparison of Produced GORs for
for Case 1(GREEN) and Case 2 (BLUE). Case 1(GREEN) and Case 2 (RED)
 Figure 5: Comparison of Injector Well BHPs for Figure 6: Comparison of Producer Well BHPs for
Case 1(RED) and Case 2 (GREEN) Case 1(RED) and Case 2 (GREEN)

TABLE 1; ANNUAL PRESSURES OF THE BLOCKS WHERE THE PRODUCER AND INJECTOR ARE LOCATED
CASE 1 (No Gas Resolution in the oil) CASE 2 (Considering Gas Resolution in the oil)
Pressure at Pressure at Pressure at Pressure at
Time (Year) PRODUCER INJECTOR PRODUCER INJECTOR
BLOCK (psia) BLOCK (psia) BLOCK (psia) BLOCK (psia)
0 4800 4783.1021 4800 4783.1021
1 4562.8037 6336.7627 4435.1 6237.38
2 5476.1211 6835.8672 5155.49 6749.4
3 4494.4424 6470.3086 5922.63 7293.81
4 4056.1846 5718.5371 5168.27 7229.25
5 3870.52 5102.793 4290.81 6004.47
6 3614.6599 4889.6079 3900.44 5279.47
7 3516.5417 4708.8442 3663.84 4842.43
8 3359.7646 4429.5708 3504.8 4555.51
9 3299.9624 4325.6465 3392.14 4347.06
10 3257.5439 4172.5049 3306.78 4177.07
Abandonment 3225.7126 4172.5049 3306.78 4177.07

RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS

With the Eclipse keyword, DRSDT, equated to zero as in case 1, no gas liberation from the oil is taking place.
Whereas in case 2, when it is commented out, gas is allowed to liberate out of the oil phase so that the reservoir
fluid in this case is more volatile with varying dissolved gas-oil ratios and free gas concentrations. This difference
in the amount of gas in the system is responsible for the trends in the production rates (FOPR), Bottom hole
pressures (BHP) and produced gas oil ratios (Rp) as discussed below.

Figures 1 and 2 confirms that production trends in both cases are similar, with both displaying constant FOPR of
2MSTB/D for the first 2.3years and constant Rp for the first 2 years and well BHPs assuming the same shapes.

3
However, the presence of more gas in the Case 2 creates additional reservoir energy resulting in a longer plateau
production rate as shown in Figures 3 and higher production rate profile during the decline stage. As expected,
higher gas in volume in the system causes an increase in the bottom hole pressure profiles for both the injector
and producer for the second case than the first.

A closer observation of Figures 5 and 6 reveals that the BHP profiles of the injector well is significantly higher
than that of the producer well. Ranging from 7200psi at inception to an average of 4500psi for the injector well
and 2400psi to 1000psi for the producer well. This is also analogous to the pressure behaviour of the injector and
producer well blocks (BPR) presented in Table 1 above; as it can be observed, pressure values are higher in the
injector well block than they are in the producer well block for both cases.

These higher pressures in the trajectory of the injector well than those of the producer well is understandable and
attributable to the setting of a high surface injection pressure. Of course, for gas to flow into the reservoir, the
injection pressure must be set higher than the reservoir pressure as fluid flow in the direction of less pressure
differential. Also, for the reservoir pressure must be higher than the BHP of the producer, for fluid to flow into
the wellbore. Therefore, the pressure declines from the wellhead of the injector to the well head of the producer.

In conclusion, resolution of gas in the oil decreases the rate of decline in the oil production rate, reduces the gas
production with respect to oil (Rp) and reduces the rate of decline in the production and
injection wells bottom hole pressures.

Numerical dispersion effects are found in the GOR and FOPR estimates as a result of the coarse grid dimensions
used.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTION APPROACH

• Unfamiliarity with the software keywords created time wastage in modification of the input file. The
ECLIPSE manual, internet searches and literatures helped us through.
• Incorrect placement of parameters at the appropriate locations and wrong ECLIPSE keywords usage
resulted in several error messages during the simulation runs. This was corrected by following the error
prompts to relocate the parameters and with the help from our resourceful instructor

4
 WORKSHOP NO. 2: PLACING WELLS IN THE SIMULATOR
METHODOLOGY
Prediction runs were made for three cases: (1) Two Vertical Wells: One Injector and One Producer; (2) Add a
new vertical producer to the system and (3) Replace the second producer with a 2000-ft long horizontal well
from centre of block 9,9,21; on a modified version of the same input data of Workshop 1 (SPE_1_ODEH
IMPES), no gas – resolution option. The modifications include refining the original 10 × 10 × 3 grid to a 20 ×
20 × 30 grid system with the first 10 new vertical grid layers having the same properties as the original first layer
and the injection well, still in block (1,1), now perforated in layers (1-10); The production well is also now in
block (20,20), but is now perforated in layers (21-30).

RESULTS PRESENTATION
Figures 7 through 9 show comparisons of oil rates, Produced Gas-Oil-Ratios and Well BHPs for the three cases described
above while Figures 10 and 11 compares oil production rates and the GORs with those of the old grid system.

Figure 7: Comparison of Field Oil Production rates Figure 8: Comparison of Produced GORs for
for Case 1(GREEN), Case 2 (BLUE) and Case 3 (PURPLE). Case 1(RED), Case 2 (GREEN) and Case 3 (BLUE).

Figure 9: Comparison of BHPs for the injector: Case 1(GREEN), Case 2 (RED)
and Case 3 (BLUE); and producer: Case 1(YELLOW), Case 2 (LIGHT BLUE) and Case 3 (PURPLE).

5
 Figure 10: Comparison of Produced GOR of the Figure 11: Comparison of Field Oil Production of the
old grid (PURPLE) and the three cases of the new old grid (PURPLE) and the three cases of the new
grid: Case 1(RED), Case 2 (GREEN) and Case 3 (BLUE). grid: Case 1(GREEN), Case 2 (BLUE) and Case 3 (RED).

RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS

Figures 7 and 8 displays the FOPR and GOR for the three scenarios described above. It reveals that on the
average, the use of two vertical wells produced the least production rates while the use of a horizontal well
produced the highest average oil production rate over the simulation run time.

Figures 10 and 11 compares the performances of the different grid systems. Figure 11 shows that the oil
production rates are higher in the new, 20 X 20 X 30 grid for the three cases (GREEN, BLUE and RED) than the
old, 10 X 10 X 3 grid system (PURPLE). As expected, an increase in oil flow rate indicates a reduction in the
produced GOR as shown in Figure 10. This is because of the reduction in the relative permeability to gas as oil
relative permeability rises with higher oil flow rates. This is why the GOR curve of the old grid system (Purple,
Figure 10) is higher than those of the new grid system.

The GOR curve of the old grid (Figure 10, purple) shows numerical dispersion effects after the 3rd year. Also, its FOPR
curve shows the effect of numerical dispersion after the 3rd year of production. These were, however, not present in the
curves for the new 20 X 20 X 20 grid for any of the cases or parameters.

In conclusion, the effect of Numerical dispersion was reduced by the use of more refined grid system. Also, field
productivity is usually increased by the use of horizontal wells were there is good vertical connectivity and in oil rim
reservoirs.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND SOLUTIONS APPROACH

• When drilling more producers (vertical and horizontal), it was observed that the producers were connected
together as one producer. We were able to resolve this by giving both producers distinctly different names
and effecting the appropriate number of wells per group and total number of wells

6
 • The sizes of each layer in the z direction, ∆z, had to be adjusted alongside that of ∆x and ∆y, to maintain
the thickness of the reservoir.

WORKSHOP NO. 3: GRIDDING

METHODOLOGY
PART I
• A five-spot water flood situation was considered and modification of the grid density
performed to run the simulations for four different grid refinements.
• The permeability values of the edge blocks were cut in half to account for the outside portion of
the model which does not exist. Also, the porosity of the edge blocks also cut in half
to maintain the total pore volume of the model.
• The following grid refinements were used; 5X5X6, 8X8X6, 10X10X6, 20X20X6.
• Plot of the Cumulative oil produced, production rates, Cumulative water injected and Water cut were
made as a function of time and presented below.

PART 2
The simulations described in Part I was repeated with sizes of the edge blocks fixed at 40m X 40m for all four
grid refinements. For the 4th case, the 18X18X6 model was run. Results are presented below.

PART 1 RESULTS PRESENTATION

Figure 12 through 14 shows the results obtained for the four grid refinements mentioned above.

Figure 12: Well oil production rates versus time Figure 13: Cumulative oil production versus time

Figure 14: Well water cut versus time

PART 2 RESULTS PRESENTATION

Figure 15: Well oil production rates versus time (Pt 2) Figure 16: Cumulative oil production versus time (Pt 2)

Figure 17: Well water cut versus time (Pt 2)

RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS

Figure 12 shows that increasing the grid refinement increases the plateau production period or time to
commencement of decline. The 10 X 10 X 6 grid system has the longest plateau production period of 3 years.

In Figure 13, Cumulative oil production was constant from year 0 to 2 for all grid sizes. From year 2 to 4, the
20X20X6 grid showed the highest cumulative oil production and can thus be concluded that cumulative oil
production increases with increasing the grid refinement size. But a change in the production profile causing the
5x5x6 grid to have the highest and 20X20X6 the lowest could be as a result of a sealing fault being encountered.
Year 7 and above showed the 20X20X6 having the highest and 5X5X6 having the lowest cumulative production.

Figure 14 reveals that increasing the grid refinement delays water

breakthrough time. This means that the larger the grid size, the longer it takes for water to
breakthrough.

8
MAJOR OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
From Figures 4.2 and 4.6 (the plot of cumulative oil production for Part 1 and Part 2), the cumulative oil
production for both the 20X20X6 and the 18X18X6 grid models was approximately 4.7MMSTB. Similarly, well
water cuts for the 20X20X6 and the 18X18X6 grid models are approximately 0.68STB/D (Figures 14 and 17).

In conclusion, from the figures 12 to 17, the 20X20X6 and the 18X18X6 grid models show similar behaviour.
Hence, 20X20X6 is the optimum number of grid blocks since the solutions are not changing.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO RUN THE 20X20X6 case here. Why?

There was no need to run the 20X20X6 case because the 18X18X6 model showed similar behaviour to it. Both
have a breakthrough time of approximately 6 years. Hence, running the 20X20X6 model would result in waste
of computation time and resources.

9
 WORKSHOP NO. 4: IMPES VS. IMPLICIT FORMULATIONS
METHODOLOGY (BRIEF)
The SUMMARY sections of the given input data files were modified to provide estimations of Cumulative oil recovery,
cumulative water injected, Gas-oil ratios, Water cut and Wells Block Pressures for both the Fully IMPLICIT and
IMPES formulations.

RESULTS PRESENTATION
Figures 18 &19 below compares the results from the Full IMPLICIT formulation and the IMPES formulation.

Figure 18: Plots of production parameters for both the FULL
IMPLICIT formulation: Cum. Production (Blue), Cum. Water
injected (Purple), GOR (Yellow), Block Pressure (Light Blue);
and the IMPES formulation: Cum. Production (Green),
Cum. Water injected (Black, Dotted), GOR (Purple, Dotted),
Block Pressure (Red)
Figure 19: Plots of Well Block Pressures for both the
FULL IMPLICIT formulation: Injector (RED), Producer
(Green); and the IMPES formulation: Injector (BLUE),
Producer (PURPLE)

RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS

From the graphs, FULLY IMPLICIT formulation can be said to be more stable than IMPES formulations.

The plot for the cumulative water injected shows that the amount of water injected increases with time and the
gas oil ratios were constant on the zero line. There’s no GOR because there was no gas production.

Considering the Cumulative Oil production graph, the two formulations were the same at the early stages, but
the IMPES formulation at the latter stage was a little higher than that of the FULLY IMPLICIT formulation.

Again, considering the water cut graph, the IMPES had a late breakthrough time with some curvy nature at the
end while the FULLY IMPICIT had an early breakthrough. This can be an indication of high numerical
dispersion due to approximation.
In conclusion, Observation from the plots above indicates that FULLY IMPLICIT is more stable than IMPES
Simulator.

10
 WORKSHOP NO. 5: MODELING AQUIFERS
METHODOLOGY
The given data set, describing four aquifer model types: Carter-Tracy aquifer, Constant-Flux aquifer, Fetkovich
aquifer and Numerical aquifer were run to provide estimates of field pressures with time.

RESULTS PRESENTATION
Figure 20 Compares the pressure behaviours of the four aquifer models mentioned above.

Figure 20 Pressure behaviours of different aquifer models: Base case, no aquifer (RED); Fetkovich aquifer model
(LIGHT BLUE); Constant flux aquifer (GREEN), Carter Tracy aquifer (PURPLE) and Numerical aquifer
model (PINK).

RESULTS ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS

The numerical and Carter Tracy models are observed to have close matches, giving very close pressure
predictions.
It can be inferred that the Numerical and Carter Tracy aquifer models are more optimistic models to use than
the Constant Flux and Fetkovish models respectively while bearing in mind that the Fetkovich model is best

11
suited for smaller aquifers that may approach a pseudo-steady-state condition quickly and the Carter Tracy
model is an approximation of the fully transient model.

REFERENCES
• Øystein Pettersen (2006) Basics of Reservoir Simulation with the Eclipse Reservoir Simulator, Lecture
Notes, Dept. of Mathematics, Univ. of Bergen, 2006.
• Schlumberger ECLIPSE dynamic simulator inbuilt manual.
• J. H. Abou -Kaseem, et al (2006); Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Elsevier, United States of America.

12