Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Two-phase flow with phase transitions in porous media: instability of

stationary solutions and a semi-stationary model

S. Oladyshkin & M. Panfilov


Laboratoire Environnement, Gomcanique & Ouvrages ENSG INPL, France

ABSTRACT: For two-phase multicomponent flow with mass exchanges between phases, the limit behaviour
at large times is shown to depend on the relative phase mobility. For a gas-liquid system where the relative phase
mobility is contrast. Due to a contrast mobility of gas and liquid the steady-state flow is shown to be unstable
when accompanied with phase transitions. We derive the limit compositional model of contrast flow which
possesses a class of semi-stationary solutions with a stabilized pressure and chemical concentrations but with a
non-stationary liquid saturaton, which is shown to be correct. The model is studied numerically and compared
to the full compositional model.

1 COMPOSITIONAL MODEL OF of momentum balance for each phase (Sedov, 1976),


GAS-CONDENSATE FLOW IN (Coats 1980), (Aziz and Settari, 1979) in domain
POROUS MEDIA = Rw < R < R

1.1 Conservation equations


Let us consider a mixture consisting of N chemi-
cal components able to form two various thermo-
dynamic phases separated by an interface from one
another. We shall select a primary phase (gas), ini-
tially existing in the system, and a secondary phase
(condensate) appearing after a system perturbation (a
pressure decrease).The precipitation of liquid from gas where subscript k refers to kth chemical component,
is considered as the main direction of phase transitions. indexes g and l to gas and liquid; is the porosity;
No chemical reactions are observed, but each com- is the phase density; cgk or clk is the mass concentra-
ponent may be dissolved in both phases. At various tion of k-th component in gas or liquid; s is the liquid
thermodynamic conditions, the dissolution degree is volume saturation; kis the relative permeability; is
variable, that determines a permanent mass exchange the phase viscosity; K is the absolute permeability; P
in components between two phases. is the pressure; V is the Darcy velocity, Rw is the well
According to the phenomenological approach in radius, R is the radius of the well influence. The com-
two-phase flow description (Sedov, 1976), we assume ponents are assumed to be arranged in ascending order
that both phases and porous medium represent three of the molecular weight, such that component 1 is the
interpenetrating continuums. Physically this means lightest, whilst N is the heaviest.
that we examine a fine dispersed system, whose proper The momentum balance equations are written in the
scale of heterogeneity is much smaller than the scale form of the Darcy law for each phase, thus we neglect
of examination. In particular, this means that the inter- the momentum exchange at phase transitions.
face between phases is dissipated in space, for example The surface tension is very low for gas-condensate
as a system of small meniscus in pores. The hypothe- systems, as the gas and the liquid phase com-
sis about fine dispersivity enable us to believe that the positions are familiar and a gas-condensate mix-
system is always in local equilibrium state. We shall ture is near-critical (Panfilova and Panfilov, 2004):
consider underground strata characterized usually by 104 103 N /m. A pore radius is r 106 m,
isothermal conditions. then we obtain for the capillary pressure:
The system of equations describing the dynamics
of such mixtures represents N equations of mass bal-
ance for each chemical component and two equations

529
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
So, the capillary pressure which is the difference bet- 1.3 Boundary and initial conditions
ween phase pressures may be neglected: For a radial flow towards a well, we assume the fol-
lowing general initial and boundary conditions:

The relative permeabilities structure may be arbitrary,


in particular they may be examined as functions of
velocity as in (Henderson et al 1995), but not only of
saturation.
The phase viscosity is a given function of pres-
sure and phase composition. The absolute permeabil-
ity Kand porosity are given functions of space
coordinates and pressure.
System of N + 2 equations (1) is written with
respect to pressure P, saturation s, velocities Vl and Vg , where G is the total mass flow rate [kg/s], H is the
and N 2 independent concentrations which will be reservoir thickness.
denoted as (K) and called the concentration basis. At the initial state the saturation distribution and
Other concentrations and phase densities are deter- pressure are assumed to be uniform in space. The
mined from additional thermo-dynamic relationships. boundary of the well influence zone is by definition a
For gas-condensate systems, it is more convenient to surface across which the normal flow is zero, which is
select the N 2 lightest components as the basic: formulated in condition (4b). Condition (4c) says that
the total mass flow rate G at the wellbore is given.

2 SEMI-STATIONARY MODELS
1.2 Thermodynamic closure relationships In this section we suggest a new model of gas-
The closure relationships for system (1) describes condensate flow which results from the full compo-
the locally equilibrium thermodynamic behavior. They sitional model as an asymptotic limit when the phase
consist of N equilibrium equations in terms of chem- properties (viscosities and compressibilities) become
ical potentials (3a) for each chemical component, two contrasting.
equations of phase state (3b) and two normalizing Before to develop new model version, the com-
equations for concentrations (3c): positional model (1) should be transformed to an
asymmetrical form in which each equation has a strict
physical meaning: one equation describes gas flow,
the second describes liquid flow, while the remain-
ing N 2 equations will describe the transport of
basic chemical components. This form will be called
canonical.

2.1 Component neutrality functions


(k) (k)
Let us introduce new functions g and l called the
where ik
is the chemical potential of kth component component neutralities and defined as:
in ith phase. Functions (3a) are given.
As system (3a) (3c) does not contain the satu-
ration s, the phase densities and concentrations are
independent of s.
System (3a) (3c) includes (N + 4) equations Each this function has a clear physical meaning: it
with respect to (2N + 3) variables: P, g , l , describes how much he concentration variation within
(k)
(q) (q) a fixed phase (dcg ) is higher/lower than the concentra-
{cg }Nq=1 {cl }Nq=1 . The difference called the thermo- (k) (k) (k)
dynamic variance is vT = (2N + 3) (N + 4) = N 1. tion variation between two phases (c = cl cg ).
So the phase densities and other concentrations which In particular, the system of derivatives:
do not enter in the basis (2) depend on P and N 2
basic concentrations (K) , which constitutes the Gibbs
rule of phase.

530
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
describes the relative concentration variations pro- 2.3 Semi-stationary model
duced by pressure P or basic concentrations (K) . For a gas-liquid mixture (at rather low liquid satura-
These functions are really associated with that tions) the following conditions are always satisfied
property which is named component neutrality. A
component is called neutral with respect to both phases 1) the liquid mobility is much mower than that of gas:
if this component has no preferences to be dissolved 0 < << 1.
in a phase. Otherwise, the components are active, as
for instance the lightest components which are prefer- For gas-condensate mixtures, 0.01 0.05.
ably dissolved in gas, or the highest components which 2) the liquid compressibility is very low so all the
prefer liquid. dimensionless isothermal compressibility coeffi-
cient of liquid is small:

2.2 Dimensionless canonical form


Let L, t , P, 0g , 0l , g0 and l0 be the character-
istic values of the length, time, pressure, viscosities
For liquids like oils, the compressibility coeffi-
and densities. Then system (1) takes the following
cient (1/l0 )l /P is of order 104 bar. Then the
dimensionless canonical form
dimensionless compressibility coefficient (multi-
plied by P 100 bar) is 0.01.
Depending on the choice of the characteristic time
t , system (7) may be sufficiently simplified. If the
time t is of the same order as the perturbation prop-
agation time t then parameter 1 and the model
can not be more simplified. So system (7) with 1
describes short-term processes, when the stabilization
of pressure field is not reached.
If the characteristic time t is large, of the order of
the reservoir depletion, then: 0 < << 1.
For such a kind of processes system (7) becomes:

where the operations div and grad are performed in


dimensionless space coordinates, other definitions are
the following:
This limit equations are valid for > . Within the
narrow time boundary layer (0 < < ) around the per-
turbation instant ( = 0), the time derivatives cannot
be removed even despite of a small factor behind
them, because such a procedure would change the
differential equation type.
So model (8) describes a process after pressure
stabilization.
In the second equation describing the saturation,
Parameter t is the time of propagation of the pertur- the left-hand side and the first term in the right-hand
bation caused by a variation of pressure P. In other side are of the same order . Although the last
words, t is the time of stabilization of the pressure term is formally greater (1/), the time derivatives
field after perturbation. and the divergence operator cannot be removed as
Parameter is then the ratio of perturbation propa- such an operation will changes entirely the equation
gation time to the process time t . type. Thus, the saturation field remains always non-
Parameter is the ratio of the liquid mobility to the stationary even at large times. Due to this fact, this
gas mobility. model is called semi-stationary.

531
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
The basic conclusion of this analysis consists in that is significantly simpler that the full compositional
the pressure and concentrations stabilize after a short model, moreover the governing equations are practi-
time period of order , whereas the saturation field cally identical. Indeed, we illustrate this by presenting
does not tend to any stationary limit. below the near-critical model.
We will use the monovariant model in a general
form:
3 INSTABILITY OF STATIONARY
GAS-CONDENSATE FLOW

Stationary models are frequently used as an approx-


imation to real flow processes available during short
time periods. This is possible to do only if the sta-
tionary solutions to the flow equations exist and have
a physical meaning. For two-phase flows with masse
exchange in porous media, the existence of station-
ary solutions is proved in work (Whitson et al 2003),
(Dinariev, 1996). These solutions are frequently used
in practice to describe the functioning of gas-oil or
gas-condensate wells. However, we will show that
For the near-well zone only, it may be accepted that: i)
in many cases stationary solutions have no physical
the ratio = (g l )/(l g ) is small; ii) the saturation
meaning, or describe inadequate physical processes.
is not too high, therefore the relative gas permeabil-
Instead of the stationary solutions we suggest the semi-
ity is close to 1; iii) the terms describing a quasi-static
stationary flow models. In the literature, the analysis
condensation are negligible in this zone with respect to
of stability yields very different results for the sta-
the convective mass exchange term, iv) the compress-
tionary compositional flow. In numerical simulations
ibility of both the phases may be neglected with respect
(Mitlin, 1990) a chaotic oscillatory flow in the vicinity
to the effect of phase composition variation. Then the
of a gas-condensate well was clearly observed. Trying
following equation may be obtained from (8):
to explain these oscillations with a physical (but not
numerical) instability, the author analyzed the stabil-
ity of an immobile state of a compositional system.
The system was shown to be ustable if d/dP < 0,
where is the total mixture density, P is the pressure.
Unfortunately, this inequality corresponds to a classic
thermodynamic instability which means the physical
impossibility of such a state and the appearance of a
new thermodynamic phase. Thus, the result obtained is This equation is dimensionless, with r = R/L,
trivial. Another result was obtained in (Dinariev, 1996) R the radial coordinate with dimension and L
for a radial compositional multicomponent flow. The the proper linear size of the domain; = t/t ;
stationary solutions were shown to be stable for a par- t = L2 < > og /(<K>P o ); (x) = (x)/<>;
ticular case when: i) all the mixture components have f (x) = K(x)/<K>; = <G>og /(2HKgo P o ); =
an equivalent influence on phase state, and ii) no the (g l )/(l g ); = go /lo ; q = G/<G>, G is the
mobility threshold for the liquid phase exists. N
mean value of the flow rate; cN = clN cgN ; cgp =
N
cg /p.
3.1 Monovariant compositional model
The second term in equation (9) meaning the con-
To analyze flow stability, the full compositional model vective transport of saturation is negative, as the flow is
represents a highly complicated object, saturated how- oriented to the negative direction of axis r. The source
ever by a number of secondary physical phenomena term in the right-hand part is caused by the convective
which influence very weakly flow behaviour. To ana- mass exchange phenomenon. Parameter o2 character-
lyze stability we will use a particular case of the izes the intensity of condensation (the condensation
compositional flow model which is valid for a ther- velocity with respect to pressure variations). For a
modynamically monovariant system. This is observed condensation (liquid mass growth), parameter o2 is
in three cases: i) the mixture is binary (N = 2); ii) positive, whereas it is negative for evaporation.
the mixture is multicomponent but the flow is semi- Parameter characterizes the perturbation inten-
stationary; iii) the system is multicomponent but sity. Perturbation is treated as small, therefore << 1.
located in the vicinity of the critical point; as shown in For the oil/gas/water extraction by wells is already
(Panfilova and Panfilov, 2004), the near-critical flow characterized by a small magnitude of , such that
is monovariant. In all these cases, the flow model 104 102 .

532
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
3.2 Perturbation description where
Let us assume that the medium is homogeneous and
dos not perturb the flow, so the permeability and
porosity are constant, then: (r) = 1 and f (r) = 1. The
perturbation will be transferred through the flow rate
at the well:
To simplify the analysis we assume that the flow rate
was constant before the perturbation: q0 = 1.
Equation (14) should be completed with an initial
Herein and further, index 0 corresponds to the sta- condition:
tionary state, while index 1 corresponds to the per-
turbation. If the flow rate is constant, then q0 = 1, and
then q = 1 + q1 . We shall consider a non-permanent
perturbation, i.e. a splash similar to the delta-function
3.3 Properties of the stationary solution
in time. As the delta-function may be expanded into
series of the exponential functions, it is then possible Let us note some basic properties of the stationary sat-
to introduce perturbation in the form eikt with (1/k) uration following from (13). First of all, let us note that
a small time. So, we shall do the stability analysis in for constant coefficients the solution is logarithmic:
terms of short-wave perturbations.
Let us assume, by virtue of the equilibrium hypothe-
sis, that the exchange between phases is a rather quick.
But in reality such process take a some short time. We
suppose that this process more slow than the perturba-
tion. Then the concentration behave as not perturbed, where is the domain boundary, s0 is the saturation
during the short times about (1/k). On the other hand, at the domain boundary. Note also that function kl (s)
we assume that the pressure is established very quickly is monotonously increasing.
after the perturbation, so the characteristic time of Parameter o1 is always positive, while o20 can
the pressure stabilization (t ) is less than (1/k). From change the sigh. If the stationary state corresponds
the unicity of the stationary solution it follows that the to a domination of condensation prior to evaporation,
pressure will be stabilized onto the same value which then o20 > 0 and then stationary saturation s0 () is a
was maintained before the perturbation. Hence, the decreasing function which grows in direction to the
pressure field can be considered as stationary. well: s0 < 0. If in contrast, a region exists (normally
Thus, the perturbation will concern only the sat- in the vicinity of well) when evaporation dominates,
uration. We will search then saturation as a sum of then o20 < 0, so s0 > 0 and the saturation decreases in
the non-perturbed stationary part (s0 ) and a perturbed the direction to the well.
part (s1 ):
3.4 Qualitative analysis of perturbation
evolution scenarios
The perturbed equation (14) has a clear physical mean-
For saturation we have equation (9) which may be ing, which helps to understand the probable ways of
reformulated using new variable r 2 : perturbation evolution.

Term ()s1 determines the saturation convection
along the streamlines without any saturation growth
or decrease. Indeed, the solution to the corresponding
truncated two-terms model:
Substituting (11), we obtain the following equation for
the stationary flow:


is a travelling wave s() with = d/() which
is displaced in space without any deforming of its
form.
and for the saturation perturbation: Term ()s1 causes an exponential growth/decrease
of the perturbed saturation, i.e. s1 exp(()). As
() = o1 s0 kls0

, with o1 > 0, kls0 > 0, then the sign of
() is determined by the sign of s0 . As mentioned, if

533
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
the stationary state corresponds to a domination of The analytical solution to this equation may be
condensation prior to evaporation, then the station- obtained using the method of characteristics. Equa-
ary saturation grows in direction to the well: s0 < 0. tion (18) may be rewritten along the characteristic lines
Otherwise, a region may exist in which s0 > 0. = c in the form:
Thus, for a pure condensation in the overall reser-
voir, either an exponential decrease of perturbation
is observed if () < 0, or an exponential growth of
perturbation occurs in a region of evaporation (where
() > 0). The second process is evidently unstable.
The last term ()q1 in (14) determines a linear Therefore, satisfying the initial condition we obtained
growth/decrease of the perturbation. Indeed, for a the exact solution:
truncated two-term equation following from (14):

the perturbation s1 = ()q1 , which is an unlimited


It is seen that any perturbation q1 leads to an unlim-
growth with time. Let us remind that () = o20 /, and
ited growth of the saturation s1 with time, if only the
hence the saturation growth becomes more significant
product is not an oscillating function with a zero
near the well. This perturbation growth may be elim-
average. Function is always monotonic. Function
inated only if the right-hand side of equation (14) is
is monotonic if condensation dominates prior to evap-
zero, i.e. () = 0 or exactly o20 = 0, then dcg0
N
/dp = 0.
oration. If condensation is alternated with evaporation
This means that the masse exchange between phases then becomes an oscillating function but its aver-
is nil. age is non-zero in general case. So in all the probable
Thus, our qualitative analysis shows that the sta- situations the perturbed saturation growth infinitely
tionary solution is expected to be unstable in all the without stabilization.
cases except a case when the masse exchange between An only exclusion concerns a particular case when
phases in nil in the overall reservoir. () 0 in the overall reservoir. Then function zis
zero everywhere, which means that the saturation field
3.5 Formal stability analysis becomes unperturbed. This case corresponds to a zero
mass exchange between phases and can be observed
The qualitative analysis based on physical considera-
in reality at some particular instants of the process
tions will be completed with the formal mathematical
evolution.
stability analysis of the equation (14).
At the same time, our own experience in modelling
Let us note the following properties of the coeffi-
various gas-liquid fields proves that the stationary
cients:
solutions are very frequently inadequate, especially in
predicting the saturation behaviour. Moreover, mul-
tiple numerical simulations we have performed with
a compositional model have never shown that the
Then equation (14) takes the following equivalent solutions tend to a stationary limit.
form: Thus, instead of the stationary solutions we suggest
two families of semi-stationary solutions and show
their correctness by using asymptotic analysis and
numerical modelling.
Let z = ()s1 , then the perturbation problem
becomes:
4 CONCLUSIONS

Let us examine the behaviour of a gas-condensate


reservoir after an initial perturbation. Our analysis
reveals that:
Let us introduce the new variable = d/d() (we
believe that () = 0). Then equation (17) may be 1) The pressure reaches a stationary behavior after
written as: a short period , as in single-phase case. So
independently of the presence of the second phase
and mass exchanges, the pressure remains a quasi-
stationary function, rapidly stabilizing in time.

534
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
2) The saturation does not reach any stationary limit and it does not represent a physically significant
at any time and remains always non-stationary. This object.
is also due to the contrast phase properties, i.e. to The research is financed by the Schlumberger
the fact that . If the phase mobilities were Abingdon Technology Center.
identical, then 1 and the time derivatives in
(8) would disappear. This would mean that the
saturation would reach a stationary limit. REFERENCES
The physical explanation of this effect is the fol-
lowing. The liquid variation in time at a local fixed Aziz, K., and Settari, A. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation.
point is caused by two basic processes: A) the phase Applied Science Publishers, London, 1979.
transition leading to a saturation growth, and B) Coats, K. H. An Equation of State Compositional Model.
the liquid flow leading to a saturation reduction SPE J., Oct.: 363376, 1980.
at the given point. A low relative liquid mobility Dinariev O. Yu. About stability of stationary gas-condensate
means that the factor A is dominating, thus the filtrational flow of mixture. Prikl. Mat. Mekh., V. 60 ,
liquid growth in a continuous way. The situation 768777, 1996.
remains the same if the direction of phase transi- Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D., and Peden, J. M.
The Effect of Velocity and Interfacial Tension on the
tion is inverse. Indeed, when the system has passed Relative Permeability of Gas Condensate Fluids in the
across the maximum of condensation, both factors, Wellbore Region. In 8th European IOR Symposium, May
A and B, lead to a saturation decrease, then the 1517, 1995, Vienna.
saturation remains highly non-stationary. Mitlin V.S. Two-phase multicomponent filtration: instabil-
If however the liquid mobility is comparable with ities, autowaves and retrograde phenomena. J. of Fluid
that of gas, then factor B becomes more significant Mech., V. 220, 369395, 1990.
and can equilibrate factor A. In this case the satu- Panfilova I., and Panfilov M. Near-critical gas-liquid flow
ration may become a stationary function during a in porous media: monovariant model, analytical solutions
finite time period. and convective mass exchange effects. Transport in Porous
Media, Volume 56, Issue 1, Jul: 6185, 2004.
3) The short explanation of the pressure stationarity Sedov, L. I. Continuum Mechanics. Nauka, Moscow, 1976
and the non-stationarity of the saturation is the fol- (in Russian).
lowing. The pressure tends to a stationary limit. On Whitson C. H., Fevang O. and Svareid A. Gas condensate
the other hand, the stationary saturation solutions to relative permeability for well calculations. Transport in
problem describes a particular instant of the process Porous Media, Special Issue, August: 279311, 2003.

535
Copyright 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen