Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
69 views3 pages

Example #13-Simulated Solution Gas Drive 2 (Example12.csv) : Using The Numerical Model

This document describes a simulated reservoir model with the following parameters: a high permeability oil reservoir undergoing constant rate production under initially undersaturated conditions. It provides reservoir and fluid properties, and asks questions about boundary dominated flow, type curve matching, determining original oil in place, and comparing results between analytical and numerical modeling approaches. The numerical model is calibrated using provided PVT and relative permeability data to history match production data and interpret permeability, skin, and original oil in place. The examples illustrate differences between analytical and numerical methods in accounting for changing fluid properties over time.

Uploaded by

wizerth apk
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
69 views3 pages

Example #13-Simulated Solution Gas Drive 2 (Example12.csv) : Using The Numerical Model

This document describes a simulated reservoir model with the following parameters: a high permeability oil reservoir undergoing constant rate production under initially undersaturated conditions. It provides reservoir and fluid properties, and asks questions about boundary dominated flow, type curve matching, determining original oil in place, and comparing results between analytical and numerical modeling approaches. The numerical model is calibrated using provided PVT and relative permeability data to history match production data and interpret permeability, skin, and original oil in place. The examples illustrate differences between analytical and numerical methods in accounting for changing fluid properties over time.

Uploaded by

wizerth apk
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Example #13- Simulated Solution Gas Drive 2 (example12.

csv)

Description:

- High permeability oil reservoir


- Constant rate production
- Initially undersaturated conditions

Reservoir / Wellbore Parameters:

Pi = 5,000 psia (bottomhole)


T = 200 deg F
G = 0.65
CO2, N2 = 0,0

API = 40 deg
Rsi = 533 scf/bbl
Pbp = 2,500 psia

h = 10 ft
Porosity = 10 %
Swc = 25 %

PVT data included in “pvt.csv”


Relative permeability data included in “relperm.csv”
This data should be imported using the advanced properties page.

Questions:

- Does the well exhibit boundary dominated flow?


- As with the previous example, you will notice that the data match is not
optimal on the type curves.
- Is the transition through the bubble point clear on the type curve match?
- Do the type curves yield any additional useful information (ie, is it possible
to determine OOIP with any reliability?) How is this example different from
example 12?

Using the Numerical Model

- Import the PVT data using the import utility on the advanced properties page
- Import the relative permeability data (as above). Use the input data to
calibrate the default relative permeability correlation (Generalized Corey).
Use the following inputs:
-

- Attempt to history match on oil production, using the Numerical Model. Use
the gas rates as an additional matching constraint. What is the OOIP,
permeability and skin?

Comparison between Analytical and Numerical Results

- Are the interpreted OOIPs consistent? Why or why not? How is this case
different from example 12?
- Are the interpreted permeabilities and skins consistent? Why or why not?
(Hint: relative permeabilities come into play here)

Discussion:

Examples 12 and 13 illustrate the differences between analytical and numerical


methods, when dealing with an oil reservoir. The differences arise primarily
because the analytical methods are solved assuming fixed oil properties with
time/pressure and location, while the numerical methods allow the oil properties
to change spacially and with time. The primary properties of concern are FVF
(formation volume factor), viscosity and compressibility.

Fluid mobility considerations


In both examples, the interpreted permeabilities are slightly different between the
analytical and numerical models. The explanation for this is simple: The
numerical model uses the absolute permeability as its fixed input, while the
analytical models always report the effective permeability to oil. In addition, the
analytical models assume a fixed oil viscosity through time, while the numerical
models do not. This explains why the FMB plot for example 13 does not produce
a pure straight-line response during the undersaturated oil production period.
Instead, there is a slight upward concavity, resulting from the slight reduction in
oil viscosity as the pressure drops.

You might also like